Rockter,
You are quite correct. The greenies are somewhat hypocritical as they drive about in their hybrid SUVs which merely move their mpg up from ridiculous to mildly painful. But they are making an economic/safety cost benefit analysis that they are unwilling to let the rest of the nation make for itself when it comes to their GW policies.
By buying their hybrid SUV they get to claim fuel efficiency while ignoring the fact that they are still using twice whatt they could be using to get the same job done. They could have bought a conventional vehicle that got 40 miles per gallon, but they perceive the size and capability of the SUV to provide more safety, something they are less than willing to grant the rest of us. Jumping all over the ethanol craze is similar short term thinking with unackowledged environmental costs of it's own.
They'd like to make the whole discussion one about science, when in their hearts and minds they really know it's about politics. Claim science, practise politics. Drive an SUV but close the plant that builds them.
__________________
“Scientists are people who build the Brooklyn Bridge and then buy it.” Wm. F. Buckley, Jr.
It is not all about gas mileage, CO2 output is the big factor. Mine is lower than any non-hybrid out there. Living where I do, it is nice having the additional capability my vehicle provides. I do not advocate going back to the stone age.
I also ride my bike to work 2-3 times a week when possible. I live in Minnesota and I don't ride in the winter. Go ahead, criticize that too.
I have had my house inspected to make sure it as energy efficient as possible. I have decreased my electric bill by 10 percent since doing so.
Am I perfect? No. I don't think that makes me a hypocrite. I am trying to modify my lifestyle according to what I believe in. Cut me a little slack. I have not "attacked" anyone on this forum. I am expressing my opinion, one which does affect the way I live.
Sailaway- this is not about politics for me, except that I will vote for people who are providing leadership on this issue. To that end, I will be voting to re-elect our republican Govenor,
majorm,
Do what you think is right. I have zero problem with that action. But when what you think is right, via the voting process, becomes public policy then it's disingenuous to claim it's not about politics.
And I'd probably not ignore the overall mileage, the other emission levels, and the enviro consequences of ethanol production either in my selection of a vehicle. But then that's me, I'm not the one who sides with the group that wants to make vehicle choices a government matter, now am I?
__________________
“Scientists are people who build the Brooklyn Bridge and then buy it.” Wm. F. Buckley, Jr.
Not that I think anyone is really paying attention but;
1. A thickening ice cap is a result of increased precipitation due to warmer temperatures.
2. No scientist writes a grant asking to "go collect ice cores to study global warming". It just doesn't work that way outside of Hollywood. Scientists write grants to collect raw data, which is then published. Other scientists do meta-studies of all the published climate data, and publish those. Those meta studies show distinct warming trends.
3. Anything not from a recognized climate science journal should be ignored by the general public. Peer review is a NECESSARY (but not the only) component to any meaningful scientific discussion.
4. Climate is NOT weather. Weather is a complex and chaotic system, defying prediction attempts. Climate is a time-averaging of weather, and is far simpler and is completely predictable. Climate is NOT chaotic, and this is completely obvious to everyone who has taken an advanced graduate course in multidimentional partial differential equations.
I'd be interested if anyone can find a meta-study from any recognized climate science journal skeptical of anthropogenic global warming. Remember... meta-study. Study of many raw-data studies. Mutually supporting raw data studies. Find me one. From a recognized journal.
And don't just post a link to an abstract of an article you haven't read. I have access to all articles from here. I'm going to look.
You are an absolute genius. Thickening ice-cap in the south is due to warmer temperatures, but the same warmer temperaratures melt ice in the north.
Such is the material from which Global Warmists are made!!! Hey man, you can't lose.
I salute you, I congratulate you.
Elaborate, elaborate, elaborate on the semantics of point 4. Now no generalisations. You have a differential equation or series of them to prove the melt/no melt disparity you espouse. Remember prove is the word.
Better still, just post the link here and I'll read it. Climate is completely predictable??????? Did you get that from your "recognised journal" ???? Roll it out man!!! Roll it out !!!! This gets better by the moment.
What do you drive? Please don't tell me it's an SUV, or some American beast. This sceptic gets 69 miles to the US gallon. You, as a believer, surely must take it all seriously enough to come close to that???
It is proven that the earth goes in 80 year warm and cold cycles. It just so happens that we are currently in a warm one.
Also my mother who is in our towns Rotary Club they had a speaker not to long ago who was a treasure hunter sort. He told them of a story about some WWII plains that got lost and ran out of gas and landed on some sort of ice shelf or something. Just recently they went looking for the planes to bring back stateside and they were nowhere to be found. They then went back with some gear that would alow them to look under the ice and low and behold they found them hundreds of feet UNDER the ice. Doesnt look like this ice has been melting too much aye?
Stu,
I had to read that really slow . . . . . twice. As I am a public school graduate, I'm not sure I get the point - honest - no sarcasm intended. I can't, and don’t deny GW isn't real. I’m just Bob. My question is . . . Are you suggesting that if it is not a meta-study based science it doesn't count? Core samples were analyzed and the results show that Bob caused GW with his Dodge Ram? It reminds me of a line from the Right Stuff when the top engineer said angrily “Our German scientists are better than their German scientists. If you are suggesting that scientists put the data out there and the politicians make the conclusions on who is to blame then I can accept that. I know I’m probably way off base with this reply but I’ve made a goof of myself in several threads so no news there. I did Google around to see if I could find more on your topic but in doing so found an article explaining why my wife and I are so fat . . . Global Warming . . . I knew it!!! It was a meta-study too . . . and now I’m really depressed!
Stu,
I had to read that really slow . . . . . twice. As I am a public school graduate, I'm not sure I get the point - honest - no sarcasm intended. I can't, and don’t deny GW isn't real. I’m just Bob. My question is . . . Are you suggesting that if it is not a meta-study based science it doesn't count? Core samples were analyzed and the results show that Bob caused GW with his Dodge Ram? It reminds me of a line from the Right Stuff when the top engineer said angrily “Our German scientists are better than their German scientists. If you are suggesting that scientists put the data out there and the politicians make the conclusions on who is to blame then I can accept that. I know I’m probably way off base with this reply but I’ve made a goof of myself in several threads so no news there. I did Google around to see if I could find more on your topic but in doing so found an article explaining why my wife and I are so fat . . . Global Warming . . . I knew it!!! It was a meta-study too . . . and now I’m really depressed!
Any raw study of ice cores that mentions a Dodge Ram wouldn't make it through peer review.
Meta-studies are studies of many individual raw studies which piece together a coherent picture. If you find a study which finds fault with a particular ice core raw data study (or whatever), this isn't a meta-study doubting AGW. AGW theory ("theory" used in the scientific sense) is supported by many levels of mutually supporting data and analysis. There are many reviewed meta-studies supporting AGW. I'd like to read one which is skeptical.
I don't care what people drive. I'm not a supporter of energy conservation. I support solving energy problems by getting more energy. In fact, I'd be thrilled if everyone increased their energy consumptions by at least a factor of 10. Then the obvious (and only, really) choice for energy generation would be fission, and this AGW discussion would be moot.
...and an ice cap can thicken (precipitation due to warming) in the center and shrink (melting due to warming) along the edges, simultaneously. See Greenland.
