Hot enough for you?

[NYBamaFan]

LOL - So it gets hot for a few days and it must be caused by global warming. Funny, it was 80 degrees and sunny every day last week in Bermuda (just returned). That is decidedly average, perhaps a bit below average, for this time of the year in the Atlantic. Global should mean global, not local...

 

[Ldlane]

I am no scientist, but I am of the opinion that this is just "par for the course" for nature. The earth a heated and cooled by itself over the millions of years that it has been in existance and it will continue with or without us. I think that one day it will get tired of humans just like the Dinosaurs and we will be eliminated. It will then renew itself.

 

[bamabake]

I am no scientist, but I am of the opinion that this is just "par for the course" for nature. The earth a heated and cooled by itself over the millions of years that it has been in existance and it will continue with or without us. I think that one day it will get tired of humans just like the Dinosaurs and we will be eliminated. It will then renew itself.

Well you are mostly right. The earth has heated and cooled itself over thousands of years but the end will be far different than you describe. Although if, in fact, the world was able to be totally destroyed it would not be able to renew " itself" unless God did it.

 

[bobstod]

This debate really disturbs me. Ninety-five percent of the talk on this thread is about whether the vast majority of scientific opinion on global warming is true or false, or about whether global warming is a reality, but is just a natural cycle which humans can do nothing about.

SO WHAT, FOLKS?

The only reason that Al Gore gathers and publicizes evidence of global warming is to motivate people to FORCE their representative government to begin serious efforts to stimulate research and developoment of alternative, clean energy sources.

The argument should be about whether you support such an effort by government and industry. Arguing about whether global warming is man-caused or a natural cycle gets us NOWHERE!!!!

No, we probably cannot reverse global warming. But are we damaging our economy and our planet by our reliance on fossil fuels? Should we be concentrating our total resources on developing an alternative energy source for the future?

Who opposes that, I ask? Who stands to profit as long as we are addicted to foreign oil (a George Bush quote)? I'll tell you, if you are still listening: Saudi Arabia. Exxon. Texaco. Shell. All those oil companies and international cartels to which George Bush and his father belong, and upon which their fortunes depend.

Why does the conservative opinion consist mainly of arguments to the effect that global warming is a hoax, or that it's something we can't do anything about? Because that maintains the status quo. That keeps the money flowing for as long as the oil companies need it do; delaying the day when they will have to turn their attention to some other form of energy. Conservative opinion flows from the White House in today's world. Can there be any doubt that GWB (and those who surround him) are the voice of the right? And that opinion unfailingly supports the oil industry; it gives them tax breaks, it allows them exceptions and dodges to continue polluting, it opens up new areas for exploration and exploitation.

I don't care if they make good profits. I just want them to use some of those profits to get us past the approaching crisis. I refuse to believe there are not better ways to produce the energy we need.

All this debunking of global warming is just a way to avoid the responsibility of developing new energy sources...

 

[bamabake]

This debate really disturbs me. Ninety-five percent of the talk on this thread is about whether the vast majority of scientific opinion on global warming is true or false, or about whether global warming is a reality, but is just a natural cycle which humans can do nothing about.

SO WHAT, FOLKS?

The only reason that Al Gore gathers and publicizes evidence of global warming is to motivate people to FORCE their representative government to begin serious efforts to stimulate research and developoment of alternative, clean energy sources.

The argument should be about whether you support such an effort by government and industry. Arguing about whether global warming is man-caused or a natural cycle gets us NOWHERE!!!!

No, we probably cannot reverse global warming. But are we damaging our economy and our planet by our reliance on fossil fuels? Should we be concentrating our total resources on developing an alternative energy source for the future?

Who opposes that, I ask? Who stands to profit as long as we are addicted to foreign oil (a George Bush quote)? I'll tell you, if you are still listening: Saudi Arabia. Exxon. Texaco. Shell. All those oil companies and international cartels to which George Bush and his father belong, and upon which their fortunes depend.

Why does the conservative opinion consist mainly of arguments to the effect that global warming is a hoax, or that it's something we can't do anything about? Because that maintains the status quo. That keeps the money flowing for as long as the oil companies need it do; delaying the day when they will have to turn their attention to some other form of energy. Conservative opinion flows from the White House in today's world. Can there be any doubt that GWB (and those who surround him) are the voice of the right? And that opinion unfailingly supports the oil industry; it gives them tax breaks, it allows them exceptions and dodges to continue polluting, it opens up new areas for exploration and exploitation.

I don't care if they make good profits. I just want them to use some of those profits to get us past the approaching crisis. I refuse to believe there are not better ways to produce the energy we need.

All this debunking of global warming is just a way to avoid the responsibility of developing new energy sources...

It is simply really. Real conservatives generally dont trust govt and the the left generally loves it. The problem with " global warming" is the political movement associated with it. Kyoto is a prime example. Kyoto is about American tax dollars leaving America and moe govt regulation, that we dont need.
As for whose responsibility it is to develop new energy sources the govt can usually help the most by getting out of the way or setting the tenor of the debate and letting market forces rule. Look, as long as oil is cheaper than other source oil will rule. Are you saying that conservatives preffer drty air and water and soil and rivers et al? If you were more aware you would see that conservatives are usually the best cartakers of the environment. I mean look at groups like Ducks Unlimited. They do more for wetlands and the environment in a day than all of Al Gores stupid speeches or some goofy govt regulation. Change is coming and it would have come without the socialist out there screeming the sky is falling scaring people from using their hairspray or deoderant.

cheers

 

[NYBamaFan]

All this debunking of global warming is just a way to avoid the responsibility of developing new energy sources...

This is bunk. If someone disagrees with you, it is not because they are evil or abdicating their responsibilities. It is possible that they simply see things differently. Read my posts on this issue in the earlier thread and you will see that the scientific community is completely fractured on the possibility that mankind is capable of slowing this global warming trend. The really sad thing is that the left offers horror stories and dire predictions, then demands changes without having performed a single study that shows that the changes that they demand would make the slightest difference.

Tell me to care about this when you have evidence that I can do something about it. Until then, I will focus on things that I have some control over...

 

[bobstod]

Geez, NYBF! How about reading MY post?

SO WHAT if we can't slow global warming? SO WHAT if the whole thing is a vast left-wing conspiracy?

Do we need to be developing new sources of energy? Yes, we do. Oil will eventually run out. If global prices and the law of supply and demand are any indication, it is already running out.

So what should we do? Rant about socialism and liberal stupidity or retreating tax dollars? Ask government to get out of the way, so the oil companies can make even higher profits without their tax breaks and relaxed EPA standards? Government is aiding their shortsightedness!

Raise your hands, all of you who think a national initiative to develop new energy sources is a bad idea!!!!

The forest is there. Maybe you can't see it because of all those trees...

 

[RollTide4Ever]

My grandfather always said " That A/C ruined the South "
I guess he was right , in more than one way ?
It was rather nice over weekend , I guess we are cooling
down again . Can not wait till August when the Earth
really starts to get HOT again around here .
Cause Football Is Back ! RTR !!!!

 

[It's On A Slab]

My grandfather always said " That A/C ruined the South "
I guess he was right , in more than one way ?
It was rather nice over weekend , I guess we are cooling
down again . Can not wait till August when the Earth
really starts to get HOT again around here .
Cause Football Is Back ! RTR !!!!

I'm old enough to remember those Summer road trips when I was little. No A/C...the windows rolled down. Hot wind blowing on everyone for 8-10 hours.

If A/C ruined the South, it deserved to get ruined.

 

[Bodhisattva]

Raise your hands, all of you who think a national initiative to develop new energy sources is a bad idea!!!!

I have my hand raised for the many reasons I've written about before.

What kind of government program would you want to see? If there is anything that can supplant oil, it will be discovered and brought to market most efficiently through private enterprise.

What's the government doing now that "works"? Ethanol has promise, but the government is forcing consumers to subsidize the producers of corn to the tune of $.054/gal. We have tarrifs on sugar, which is much more efficient ethanol-wise, because of political interests in Iowa.

That's why I don't want the government interfering in the market. They screw it up every time. Why do you insist on trusting Big Brother? He rips you off every time.

 

[BamaNation]

I don't care if they make good profits. I just want them to use some of those profits to get us past the approaching crisis. I refuse to believe there are not better ways to produce the energy we need.

All this debunking of global warming is just a way to avoid the responsibility of developing new energy sources...

I agree with the first paragraph but don't understand the 2nd. Why would anyone NOT want to develop new energy sources? The entrepreneur in me says, "Gee whiz, I wish I knew something about electrochemical processes b/c I would try to be the first to market some type of alternative energy that hasn't been done yet." I can't help but think that the smart companies are doing just that.

The problem, at least the way I view it, is what do we do in the meantime while those new technologies are being developed, tested, and perfected? Toyota and Honda have created a hybrid automotive market. Ford is committed to introducing new vehicles with hybrid power. I just saw a documentary from a guy who has taken those engines and converted them to fully electrical engines that must be plugged in to recharge but get 100-150 MPG. Now THAT my friends is real progress for the commuter types.

It will be the innovators who win the ecological and commercial battle by turning environmentally friendly product into a commercial success...which is why I don't understand the second statement.

 

[Queasy1]

The polar ice caps are melting....on Mars. I guess that's our fault too with all the probes we've been sending, eh?

Or could it be that the sun is going through a period where it is warmer too. Think that may effect the temperatures here on Earth a bit?

 

[BamaNation]

Here is my real-world, short-term response that would be enacted tomorrow if I were king for a day:

What if, beginning Jan 1, 2008, the federal governement imposed a $4000 surcharge on all new vehicles sold in the U.S. that did not have an alternative fuel source engine like hybrid or fuel cell technology? Companies that have not been focusing on alternative fuels would ramp up their efforts to do so. Companies that already have projects in house would be encouraged to invest more in those technologies to move forward things like hybrid technology, fuel cell technologies, solar technologies, etc.

This would level the playing field for all manufacturers, give incentive to those manufacturers to begin working on alternative fuel or hybrid engines for all vehicles NOW rather than at some arbitrary point in the future, would help satisfy environmentalists, would create a market-based demand for the products since nobody would want to pay an extra $4k for a car without alternative fuel engine, would put money back in the pockets of consumers in two ways: Lower or at least help stabilize the oil price and significantly reduce the amount of gas needed to go the same distance as before; it may also encourage oil and auto companies to jointly invest in alternative fuel technologies from which both could profit; finally, it would reduce the amount of $$$ put into the pockets of anti-U.S. nations which now control the oil supply and thus relegate them to the sidelines reducing the potential for future "oil supply" wars.

Rather than continuing to focus on a MPG standard, companies would be encouraged to come up with alternatives that make MPG irrelavant.

THOUGHTS?

 

[NYBamaFan]

Geez, NYBF! How about reading MY post?

SO WHAT if we can't slow global warming? SO WHAT if the whole thing is a vast left-wing conspiracy?

Do we need to be developing new sources of energy? Yes, we do. Oil will eventually run out. If global prices and the law of supply and demand are any indication, it is already running out.

So what should we do? Rant about socialism and liberal stupidity or retreating tax dollars? Ask government to get out of the way, so the oil companies can make even higher profits without their tax breaks and relaxed EPA standards? Government is aiding their shortsightedness!

Raise your hands, all of you who think a national initiative to develop new energy sources is a bad idea!!!!

The forest is there. Maybe you can't see it because of all those trees...

If you are not implying that we are causing this then your post is completely irrelevant in this thread. I replied as though that was your premise.

Yes, we need to develop alternate energy sources, but not because of global warming...

 

[Mamacalled]

Nevermind the fact that the earth's temps were two degrees higher during the agriculture revolution.
And Bob, Gore is doing this for nothing more to make money from his movie and political reasons. He is not anymore an honorable man than any other big political person.

 

[bobstod]

NYBF, I'm an agnostic with regard to the effect that human waste products are having on the climate. Many good minds think the effect is great: being an English major, I don't have an informed opinion. I do, however, think that the only reason that global warming is a subject of interest at all is because it forces us to think about alternative energy sources.

Brett, I realize that there are huge profits to be made in the future from alternative energy; but to answer your question (Why would anyone NOT want to develop new energy sources? ), the people best positioned to develop them, the energy companies themselves, employ the finest scientific minds and innovators. I have no doubt that they know how to make more efficient use of energy, and I don't doubt that auto makers know how to make that 100mpg car. But both of them have huge investments in the technology that produces gasoline and heavy, gas-guzzling cars. They want to maintain the status quo until they are ready to profit from the new technology.

Your suggestion about a tax penalty on future gas-guzzlers is an excellent example of how government can influence industry to the benefit of the citizenry. Bodhi thinks I want some kind of government program to solve all our problems; but Bodhi's thoughts are very predictable.

Want to make a bet as to whether your idea sees fruition? I'll lay you odds of ten to one. It can't happen as long as government is in the pocket of industry. In fact, congress has relaxed fuel mileage standards a number of times. Your idea is not new...it's just good.

M/C, I believe that Al Gore is sincere in his passion about the environment. I share your cynicism about elected officials, and I believe that Mr. Gore thinks he can ride his passionate concern for the planet into the White House. But that doesn't mean (to me) that the passion is false, any more than George Bush's committemnt to Christianity is false. Both men sincerely believe that their vision is so important that the country needs them as leaders.

For my part, I would choose the environmentalist over the religionist.

 

[bat123]

"I understand how Gore can grate on one's nerves. bush does me the same way. If bush said the sun rises in the East I'd have to rethink things because his credibility is shot."
This is the most laughable line in this entire thread as if "I created the internet" Algore has any crediblity........

 

[Bamaro]

Here is my real-world, short-term response that would be enacted tomorrow if I were king for a day:

What if, beginning Jan 1, 2008, the federal governement imposed a $4000 surcharge on all new vehicles sold in the U.S. that did not have an alternative fuel source engine like hybrid or fuel cell technology? Companies that have not been focusing on alternative fuels would ramp up their efforts to do so. Companies that already have projects in house would be encouraged to invest more in those technologies to move forward things like hybrid technology, fuel cell technologies, solar technologies, etc.

This would level the playing field for all manufacturers, give incentive to those manufacturers to begin working on alternative fuel or hybrid engines for all vehicles NOW rather than at some arbitrary point in the future, would help satisfy environmentalists, would create a market-based demand for the products since nobody would want to pay an extra $4k for a car without alternative fuel engine, would put money back in the pockets of consumers in two ways: Lower or at least help stabilize the oil price and significantly reduce the amount of gas needed to go the same distance as before; it may also encourage oil and auto companies to jointly invest in alternative fuel technologies from which both could profit; finally, it would reduce the amount of $$$ put into the pockets of anti-U.S. nations which now control the oil supply and thus relegate them to the sidelines reducing the potential for future "oil supply" wars.

Rather than continuing to focus on a MPG standard, companies would be encouraged to come up with alternatives that make MPG irrelavant.

THOUGHTS?

I would prefer the fee-bate system

 

[Braveheart]

I don't know how it is in Alabama lately

but we were on vacation in Hilton Head and passed through almost the entire state of South Carolina. Crops looked fine there, corn a good 5-6 feet high and lush as could be. It doesn't appear to be much of a drought there.

As for snow, here in Virginia, we get a fair amount of the stuff and the winters here are long, cold and hard. I haven't noticed any easing of the cold here.

The temperature rising is a cyclical thing and unless it's over a long period, I'm not terribly worried.

 

[Bama_Dawg]

Here is my real-world, short-term response that would be enacted tomorrow if I were king for a day:

What if, beginning Jan 1, 2008, the federal governement imposed a $4000 surcharge on all new vehicles sold in the U.S. that did not have an alternative fuel source engine like hybrid or fuel cell technology? Companies that have not been focusing on alternative fuels would ramp up their efforts to do so. Companies that already have projects in house would be encouraged to invest more in those technologies to move forward things like hybrid technology, fuel cell technologies, solar technologies, etc.

This would level the playing field for all manufacturers, give incentive to those manufacturers to begin working on alternative fuel or hybrid engines for all vehicles NOW rather than at some arbitrary point in the future, would help satisfy environmentalists, would create a market-based demand for the products since nobody would want to pay an extra $4k for a car without alternative fuel engine, would put money back in the pockets of consumers in two ways: Lower or at least help stabilize the oil price and significantly reduce the amount of gas needed to go the same distance as before; it may also encourage oil and auto companies to jointly invest in alternative fuel technologies from which both could profit; finally, it would reduce the amount of $$$ put into the pockets of anti-U.S. nations which now control the oil supply and thus relegate them to the sidelines reducing the potential for future "oil supply" wars.

Rather than continuing to focus on a MPG standard, companies would be encouraged to come up with alternatives that make MPG irrelavant.

THOUGHTS?

This is a fairly reasonable idea, which may be why no one has responded to it yet. Personally, I'd give the auto companies an additional year or two to come into compliance, but that's a minor quibble.

My biggest concern, however, is this . . . wouldn't someone call your "surcharge" a "tax" and beat you in the Republican primary?