In the Rush to Help - Global Warming

[Daddy B]

"..if you got in an aeroplane and the pilot said you've got an 80% chance of landing this plane safely, I doubt if you'd get in the plane."

[melliedee]

Gore accepting the Nobel this morning:

"When we unite for a moral purpose that is manifestly good and true, the spiritual energy unleashed can transform us. The generation that defeated fascism throughout the world in the 1940s found, in rising to meet their awesome challenge, that they had gained the moral authority and long-term vision to launch the Marshall Plan, the United Nations, and a new level of global cooperation and foresight that unified Europe and facilitated the emergence of democracy and prosperity in Germany, Japan, Italy and much of the world. One of their visionary leaders said, 'It is time we steered by the stars and not by the lights of every passing ship.'


Excerpts from Al Gore's Nobel Prize speech - International Herald Tribune

[Jacko]

Originally Posted by melliedee

Gore accepting the Nobel this morning:

"When we unite for a moral purpose that is manifestly good and true, the spiritual energy unleashed can transform us. The generation that defeated fascism throughout the world in the 1940s found, in rising to meet their awesome challenge, that they had gained the moral authority and long-term vision to launch the Marshall Plan, the United Nations, and a new level of global cooperation and foresight that unified Europe and facilitated the emergence of democracy and prosperity in Germany, Japan, Italy and much of the world. One of their visionary leaders said, 'It is time we steered by the stars and not by the lights of every passing ship.'


Excerpts from Al Gore's Nobel Prize speech - International Herald Tribune

....and more...

However, despite a growing number of honorable exceptions, too many of the world's leaders are still best described in the words Winston Churchill applied to those who ignored Adolf Hitler's threat: "They go on in strange paradox, decided only to be undecided, resolved to be irresolute, adamant for drift, solid for fluidity, all powerful to be impotent.
..........................
The great Norwegian playwright, Henrik Ibsen, wrote, "One of these days, the younger generation will come knocking at my door."
The future is knocking at our door right now. Make no mistake, the next generation will ask us one of two questions. Either they will ask: "What were you thinking; why didn't you act?"

Or they will ask instead: "How did you find the moral courage to rise and successfully resolve a crisis that so many said was impossible to solve?"

We have everything we need to get started, save perhaps political will, but political will is a renewable resource. So let us renew it, and say together: "We have a purpose. We are many. For this purpose we will rise, and we will act."

[Jacko]

Prius vs. Hummer- A Nickel for your thoughts....

Some wonderful urban legends have sprung up about the Prius and its battery, the most colorful being this claim about the hybrid being less ecofriendly than a Hummer. Some of the more thrilling chapters originated in one study done by a marketing company that was not peer-reviewed but, unfortunately, was widely quoted in the media. Writer George Will, who is syndicated in 450 papers, penned an April column on the topic, headlined "Use a Hummer to Crush a Prius." The story was also pumped into the Internet-disinformation pipeline by gleeful bullies for whom size is apparently quite important, and before long the Prius had morphed into a sort of traveling toxic-waste dump trailing clouds of diabolical fossil-fuel exhaust.


More

[kirbyfan]

ANOTHER hole in the theory...

For as much as some of you cannot believe why some of us wont join this movement, I cannot see how you can buy into it so easily. I find it interesting that the majority of supporters on this board seem to be "non religious" types, yet this whole global warming theory requires a pretty large leap of faith to believe...interesting contrast. Anyway heres the link to the story: consensus flawed

Part of the scientific consensus on global warming may be flawed, a new study asserts.

The researchers compared predictions of 22 widely used climate "models" — elaborate schematics that try to forecast how the global weather system will behave — with actual readings gathered by surface stations, weather balloons and orbiting satellites over the past three decades.

The study, published online this week in the International Journal of Climatology, found that while most of the models predicted that the middle and upper parts of the troposphere —1 to 6 miles above the Earth's surface — would have warmed drastically over the past 30 years, actual observations showed only a little warming, especially over tropical regions.

"Can the models accurately explain the climate from the recent past? It seems that the answer is no," said lead study author David H. Douglass, a physicist specializing in climate at the University of Rochester.

[Jacko]

Originally Posted by kirbyfan

ANOTHER hole in the theory...

For as much as some of you cannot believe why some of us wont join this movement, I cannot see how you can buy into it so easily. I find it interesting that the majority of supporters on this board seem to be "non religious" types, yet this whole global warming theory requires a pretty large leap of faith to believe...interesting contrast. Anyway heres the link to the story: consensus flawed

I have no doubt that "parts may be flawed"...as we have said before, we are not talking about absolute truth here with this developing and complex science, but rather dealing with a "preponderance of evidence"...we should indeed continue to challenge the preponderance while taking appropriate steps that acknowledge that preponderance of evidence, especially if the steps recommended have other benefits such as reducing dependence on foreign oil, developing cleaner energy to reduce pollution etc. It's really a pretty rational and easy conclusion to reach.

Here are further statements from the associated article in the Sciencedaily.com on the study that, more convincingly than FOX, provides BOTH sides of the story.....

The findings of this study contrast strongly with those of a recent study that used 19 of the same climate models and similar climate datasets. That study concluded that any difference between model forecasts and atmospheric climate data is probably due to errors in the data.

"The question was, what would the models 'forecast' for upper air climate change over the past 25 years and how would that forecast compare to reality?" said Christy. "To answer that we needed climate model results that matched the actual surface temperature changes during that same time. If the models got the surface trend right but the tropospheric trend wrong, then we could pinpoint a potential problem in the models.

"As it turned out, the average of all of the climate models forecasts came out almost like the actual surface trend in the tropics. That meant we could do a very robust test of their reproduction of the lower atmosphere.

"Instead of averaging the model forecasts to get a result whose surface trends match reality, the earlier study looked at the widely scattered range of results from all of the model runs combined. Many of the models had surface trends that were quite different from the actual trend," Christy said. "Nonetheless, that study concluded that since both the surface and upper atmosphere trends were somewhere in that broad range of model results, any disagreement between the climate data and the models was probably due to faulty data.

"We think our experiment is more robust and provides more meaningful results."

[kirbyfan]

Preponderance of FAULTY evidence....what good does TONS of evidence, as you claim, do us if none of it is reliable???

[Jacko]

Originally Posted by kirbyfan

Preponderance of FAULTY evidence....what good does TONS of evidence, as you claim, do us if none of it is reliable???

Using your argument, your evidence could be faulty as well, yes?

As I pointed out (did you read my link?)..most think the evidence is reliable.

So, who you going to believe given that both side "might" be faulty? I suggest it wise to believe the PREPONDERANCE of evidence from the best and majority of scientists...especially if the "fix" makes sense from so many other points of view....time to get your head out of that sand, kirby....its really not that hard to figure out.

[kirbyfan]

Originally Posted by Jacko

Using your argument, your evidence could be faulty as well, yes?

As I pointed out (did you read my link?)..most think the evidence is reliable.

So, who you going to believe given that both side "might" be faulty? I suggest it wise to believe the PREPONDERANCE of evidence from the best and majority of scientists...especially if the "fix" makes sense from so many other points of view....

I think PDS has explained his point of view on this well enough and I wholeheartedly agree with him. I am all for cleaner air, ect...

We might even agree on many things Jacko about being more "green" but then you have to go throw out a statement like this:
[quote] time to get your head out of that sand, kirby....its really not that hard to figure out./QUOTE]
Seems like a pretty condescending remark to me...you can do better.

[Jacko]

Originally Posted by kirbyfan

I think PDS has explained his point of view on this well enough and I wholeheartedly agree with him. I am all for cleaner air, ect...
We might even agree on many things Jacko about being more "green" but then you have to go throw out a statement like this:

Seems like a pretty condescending remark to me...you can do better.

And I think I have been very clear about my position in the past as well.....So if you are for cleaner air....what do you propose we do better in order to make the air (etc.) cleaner? (I am betting when you answer that, you will be FINALLY focusing on the positive in this debate!)

And regarding your "poor me" comment and all the grief you feel I am giving you.......Consider you saying above that you just cannot see how I can buy into all this "so easily"??? I am shocked!!!! Do you think its easy being me???

Poor kirby, all innocent and getting beat up unfairly....

You just need a little thicker skin I guess, buddy!

[kirbyfan]

Originally Posted by Jacko

And I think I have been very clear about my position in the past as well.....So if you are for cleaner air....what do you propose we do better in order to make the air (etc.) cleaner? (I am betting when you answer that, you will be FINALLY focusing on the positive in this debate!)

And regarding your "poor me" comment and all the grief you feel I am giving you.......Consider you saying above that you just cannot see how I can buy into all this "so easily"??? I am shocked!!!! Do you think its easy being me???

Poor kirby, all innocent and getting beat up unfairly....

You just need a little thicker skin I guess, buddy!

At least you called me buddy!

[Jacko]

From a recent letter to members of Environmental Defense from it's president, Fred Krupp....

A federal judge in California today rebuked the auto industry's attempt to block California and 16 other states from setting tough new limits on global warming pollution from automobiles, calling these efforts "the very definition of folly."

Environmental Defense was a defendant-intervener in the case. We worked closely with California state officials and several other environmental groups, including the Sierra Club, Natural Resources Defense Council, Blue Water Network, Global Exchange, and Rainforest Action Network.

In the ruling, Federal District Court Judge Anthony Ishii rejected the auto industry's claim that federal fuel economy standards preempted the authority of California and other states to limit global warming pollution from automobiles.

This ruling comes three months to the day after a similar ruling by a federal judge in Vermont, and just eight months after the historic Supreme Court decision in early April that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has an obligation to regulate carbon dioxide under the Clean Air Act.

KEY FACTS ON CLEAN CARS

1. Cars and light trucks are one of America’s largest sources of global warming pollution, and by far the fastest growing. Cars and light trucks account for 16% of U.S. global warming pollution. This pollution soared by 25% between 1990 and 2005.

2. Seventeen states led by both Republicans and Democrats are advancing clean car programs that would lower global warming pollution using available technology, save American families money at the pump, and strengthen energy security: Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, Massachusetts, Maryland, Maine, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Utah, Vermont and Washington.

3. These 17 states reflect some 139 million people, nearly half the U.S. population.

4. Politically, these 17 states encompass 202 Congressional districts with 73 Republican and 129 Democratic representatives, 10 House Committee Chairmen, and 11 Senate Committee Chairmen.

5. The Clean Cars program would reduce global warming pollution an estimated 110 million metric tons annually by 2020. The program is implemented through a flexible fleetwide average that will cut global warming pollution about 30% in its second phase.

[Rissask]

5. The Clean Cars program would reduce global warming pollution an estimated 110 million metric tons annually by 2020. The program is implemented through a flexible fleetwide average that will cut global warming pollution about 30% in its second phase.

Is that assuming the number of vehicles worldwide is going stay the same as it is today?
Does it take into account the growing number of cars on the road all over the world....which is growing by leaps and bounds as heavily populated countries are becoming more industrialized (China and India)? There is something like 30,000 new cars a month on the road in Beijing alone I read somewhere.

Unfortuanately, globally and per country....with a population that is growing, we aren't going to go anywhere but up and up and up as far as emissions goes.

[STOGEY]

Originally Posted by Jacko

And I think I have been very clear about my position in the past as well.....So if you are for cleaner air....what do you propose we do better in order to make the air (etc.) cleaner? (I am betting when you answer that, you will be FINALLY focusing on the positive in this debate!)

And regarding your "poor me" comment and all the grief you feel I am giving you.......Consider you saying above that you just cannot see how I can buy into all this "so easily"??? I am shocked!!!! Do you think its easy being me???

Poor kirby, all innocent and getting beat up unfairly....

You just need a little thicker skin I guess, buddy!

Do you actually know anyone who claims that they do no want clean air? Isn't that similar to the argument when raising taxes that someone brings up hey we're donig this for the children? If you are not for the raising of taxes then you are against helping the children.

[Jacko]

Originally Posted by Rissask

Is that assuming the number of vehicles worldwide is going stay the same as it is today?
Does it take into account the growing number of cars on the road all over the world....which is growing by leaps and bounds as heavily populated countries are becoming more industrialized (China and India)? There is something like 30,000 new cars a month on the road in Beijing alone I read somewhere.

Unfortuanately, globally and per country....with a population that is growing, we aren't going to go anywhere but up and up and up as far as emissions goes.

Is that first question a rhetorical question or do you really not understand what it means?

In that last statement, are you representing somehow that we should not support doing SOMETHING that moves us in a positive response direction just because you believe it may not be enough? Or are you supportive of starting to do something as soon as wisely possible and hoping that we will continue to find ways to do more and that perhaps you are wrong that no matter what we do it will never being enough?

Or are you just being argumentative for the sake of being a pessimistic defeatist?

You seem to continue to repeat the problem over and over again while pointing out the hopeless desperation of any efforts, in your opinion, of our ability to solve it......I prefer to spend more of my time trying to be part of the solution....I could be wrong about your intent..perhaps you might clarify that for me?

Just sitting hear thinking how happy I am viewing the world with my apparently rosier than yours glasses. Lighten up Riss....we can make it through these problems you continue to raise...we just need to get started more quickly and strengthen our focus and efforts...and if we can't ultimately solve it....well at least we tried harder than we would have by taking a defeatist, we -might -as -well- criticize -any -positive -effort because -its -not -going -to- be- enough-type attitude.