where most of the money has been spent…mainly the oil and coal industry
A little perspective on the “follow the money narrative.” A majority of the the pro-climate change research has been funded by government grants. Government agencies that have their own agendas mostly leaning towards proving climate change exists so that “rich” nations can transfer wealth to developing nations as reparations and preparations.
When I first started trying to understand Global Warming (when it was still called that), the “transfer of wealth argument”, in the form of carbon credits, was the very first solution mentioned. That does absolutely nothing to reduce carbon dioxide emissions, it is a punitive tax incentive.
@mountainbike The computer model predicting temperatures is highly flawed and the inputs have been simplified (manipulated) to show a rapid increase in global temperatures (the hockey stick) since the start of the industrial revolution. It completely ignores the “Ice Age Scare” of the seventies, Middle Ages warming and the “little ice age” of the 1500s and 1600s.
In spite of increases in CO2 in the atmosphere, there has been no corresponding linear increase in global temperatures lately, further bringing in question the validity and accuracy of the model.
Climate change is taking place of course, but no one knows with certainty that a decrease in CO2 will result in an exact corresponding decrease in global temperatures.
Never before has the Secretary General of the United Nations felt so powerful by bringing over 150 countries together and having them sing from the same song sheet. This is very intimidating for the US since it has ruled the roost globally since the end of the cold war.
Whatever the US accepts as its part in reducing CO2 will not likely get passed by congress. If so, it will likely be a watered down version.
There has been a lot of Govt funding in the US…but the US scientists are NOT the only ones doing research and writing papers. They come from all over the world…places like South America where they are seeing huge climate changes…or India…and Asia…and let’s not forget Europe.
The earth has undergone numerous fluctuations in its temperature both huge and small over its 3.5 billion years of existence. Measuring changes is the easy part. The uncertainty is in how much influence we have over it.
I am wholeheartedly in support of all that’s been done to clean up the filth and pollution of the past century. However, that having been accomplished (at least in the U.S.) the “industry” of cleaning up the environment has, I believe, invented “global warming” (formerly “global cooling”) as a wagon to hitch its horse to. Almost all of the current “science” comes from groups/agencies with a vested financial interest in proving global warming to be real… the same ones that swore “global cooling” was real in the '70s.
I’m in favor of keeping our air, rivers, and waters clean. However, I believe that most of the “global warming” science is junk science. And most of the “global warming” afficiados are BS artists. Al Gore being an example.
Before spending a whole bunch of money and effort, one ought really “triage” the problem. The right sort of causes to support are ones where 1) something bad happens if you do nothing, AND 2) something bad is averted if you do something.
GW fails the second part of triage. Slowing down the rate at which we “burn stuff”…SLOWS DOWN the rate of GW. It does NOT avert it–it delays the day of reckoning, somewhat. It’s buying a drunk a (VERY expensive !) bottle, so he can momentarily stave off DTs.
On top of which, our approach is woefully one sided: “supply side” only. As long as we’re free to BUY all the stuff we want, the net effect will be: 1) more stuff made in China, and less in the U.S. 2) a shift of jobs to China 3) A respective decrease, and increase, in CO2 output, in respective nations–as WORLDWIDE CO2 output stays static, or climbs slightly. 4) An ability to (smugly, hypocritically) say “we did OUR part” as things go to hell.
Finally, GW is a classic “Prisoner’s Dilemma” setup. If you know your game theory, you know it’s ultimately…“impossible” is a strong word…damned difficult to get any solution other than the stable equilibrium.
Terraforming is the answer, if indeed there is one.
The earth has undergone numerous fluctuations in its temperature both huge and small over its 3.5 billion years of existence. Measuring changes is the easy part. The uncertainty is in how much influence we have over it.
The amount of data that shows climate change and industrial man is pretty concrete…I guess you can write it off as a coincidence…but that’s a huge coincidence.
What I do believe is that the earth is a chaotic system…and may correct itself. Not sure.
If you really want to “do your part…” ask yourself, “WWAGD?”…and quickly do the exact opposite! Really, I couldn’t match his CO2 output without taking out some hefty loans! (To “tie in” to driving…how far would I have to drive my truck, at 17 MPG, to match the CO2 production of a 3-hour Gulfstream flight?)
Good morning - I know this topic comes up periodically and these issues presented by the climate conference are inextricably linked to larger discussions of global warming/climate change/whatever the preferred term is. However, looks like the thread’s current trajectory is away from car and fuel stuff (for lack of a more artful term). I’m not jumping to close this, but please do try to weave in some auto content. Thanks.
As an activity that, by its very nature, turns HCs into CO2 and H2O–I’d posit that CO2 legislation is “automotive-related.” I get the prickly issue of politics, and have no desire to debate, say, gun control–but this is inside the forum scope. If, in my arguments, I failed to “tie in” to driving–it was because the tie-in is facially obvious.
Also, note that the home page very, VERY frequently broaches this exact subject (from the opposite side, but still…). Heck, one journalist has essentially made it his “shtick!” Certainly sets an “in-bounds” precedent.
When most of my electricity comes from coal I can’t see where it would be “zero emissions”.
Also, I need lots of range and relatively quick charging capability.
I like the simplicity of putting an electric motor in each wheel hub. Year after year it seems that the ICE engine has evolved as far as it can and I’d like to see a system with fewer moving parts.
We should be building more hydro-electric dams, not tearing them out.
Sorry. They’ll have to pry the steering wheel out of my cold dead hands. I have no option. I don’t like horses and live in town.
I will say this though, the whole carbon credit scheme is nutso. Selling credits??? Around here the county commissioners came up with a system to transfer development credits from one 40 acre plot to another. The idea was to restrict rural development. So if you had 40 acres and no house on it, you could transfer the credits to a guy who wanted to build another house on 40 acres. I thought then and I still thought how absolutely nuts this whole system is but it seems to be a popular method these days among bureaucrats.
Who really knows?But autos play a big part in the overall scheme of things,I do know this many species of trees are dying out in my neck of the woods,during my tenure.(getting a lot of nasty insects too)
@KMccune Trees die from lack of water or acid rain, or other insect causes.
CO2 usually makes trees grow better! Cars now have very clean exhausts and sulfer dioxide is minimal.
In my area many trees have died because of the mountain pine beetle, a tiny worm that eats the pine needles.
This post is about CO2 which is the subject of the Paris conference. In the dim past when the dinosaurs roamed, the earth’s atmosphere had nearly twice the CO2 it has today
If the planet warms, some areas may lack sufficient water for some trees to grow…
A king, prince, president, whatever, can gain a great deal of support if he can establish himself as the leader against an enemy and climate change is, for the intellectuals and young Generation Z eco warriors who will be coming of age, the quintessential enemy. Global warming is as close to fighting the War of the Worlds as we can get right now. And while I am somewhat skeptical of the ominous predictions of climatic doom the environment is being damaged by modern civilization and a war against polution won’t require any military conflicts resulting in death and destruction and the budget for the struggle will certainly be less than the cost of even a limited conflict any where on the globe so I vote let’s fight Global Warming and retire half the military. Bring back the WPA and CCC and clean up streams, abandoned slums, abandoned automobile factories (that’s for you Miss Carolyn) and repair vital infrastructure.
Shouting from a soap box is a real pain. Politicians must see a real gold mine in their futures to endure the grind.
How can there be a conversation, when governers such as falker in wi decree,
"Wisconsin Agency Bans Talk of Climate Change"
Add to that elimination of civil service jobs to appointed positions you have cronieism to the nth degree. Sure we do not need to study the effects of high capacity wells, people own lakefront property on grasslands now, now they want to turn wi into the next dumping ground for nuclear waste, why are voters so uninformed, but sure the other side is twitching in their grave if everyone actually voted, like Bachmann said like giving a gun to a robber.
In the interest of keeping the subject matter about cars, I’ll keep my answer to Rod short…
Retiring half the military will not make the terrorists go away. This is not an “either/or” scenario. We MUST fight the terrorists. They’re sworn to kill all of the world’s population that doesn’t convert to their interpretation of the Koran. We MUST NOT weaken our military any more. We MUST invest whatever resources are necessary to keep ISIS contained… and to destroy their ability to wage their war.
“Climate change” we can debate. Especially the impact of CO2 levels. But we must not sacrifice military resources to fight climate change.
Actually having lived through the draft and drawing a number 5 in the first lottery, I’m in favor of bringing it back like in Israel. Every able bodied male and female should serve. Not necessarily shooting people but for the many public services that could be provided by them. Think clinics, social services, meals on wheels, bus drivers, helping people stay in their homes, water sampling, river clean up, etc. I know my military friends are not in favor but I don’t like the idea of a professional military that I consider dangerous-they’re just too gung ho. There’s a NG or Reserve company in nearly every town so there’s no reason they couldn’t handle another platoon or two doing non military services with kids just out of college, law school, or medical school. They often do community service projects anyway.
Whoops, cars. In addition to basic hygiene being taught, they should also be taught how to drive in basic training like we were.
Bing, I have for many many years emphatically agreed with your idea that everyone should serve… except that I believe they should all serve in the traditional capacities…
With the exception of the following. I believe that disabled people should be given the opportunity (not required) to serve in whatever capacities they can. In the modern military there are plenty of opportunities that disabled people could have for a full and proud career, and this would be a fantastic opportunity to relieve them of concerns about medical care and its costs. I’d bet they’d be some of the best military members we’d have, and I’d bet that a great many would love the opportunity. Disabled people I know don’t want a free ride, they want an opportunity, and this would be a great opportunity.
All able-bodied Americans should be required to serve a minimum of two years. I truly believe it would be a much better country.
Well @Bing, should we continue until we find ourselves with the worlds greatest military protecting a grand assortment of cesspools and potholes and collapsing ghettos?
Of course the people on Belle Isle will continue to enjoy the good life come hell or high water.
They can certainly sell off a park if they want and it can be separated from Detroit and established as a separate city, but they can’t establish their own currency-that’s the feds. Likewise the military is a federal expense but most roads are state or local to take care of (except of course the federal roads that funds are sent to the state for). I think we’ve spent Reagan’s peace dividend many times over though already and the last thing we need to show our enemies is how dysfunctional we’ve become.