A&Q about 350Z
Q:
Did you see where Prez. Bush wants the country to reduce CO2 emmissions.
Well if he and Congress and all the other politicians would shut-up -
that would reduce a lot of it.
Ed and Jeanne's
ZXelda 1981 280 ZXT: ZXena 1990 300 ZX
1941 Buick Special Sedanette (Betty)
1956 Dodge Royal (Dorothy)
1971 Buick Riviera (Rita)
1975 Ford F-150 Stepside (Fiona)
1992 Firebird (Frieda)
A:
Actually, some states have sued the EPA to try to get the EPA to establish and enforce carbon dioxide emissions.
_________________
Maybe some day I'll get back to doing some real work on my car.
Darn, I never got the cookie for post #1000.
- A great place to search for answers
A:
We are WAY late on this IMO. Our policy for the past, oh, 15 years or so has effectively been to burn as much fuel and emit as much CO2 as we possibly can. A stupid and dangerous experiment with the environment, and totally unnecessary. We should've been increasing CAFE incrementally every year, particularly for non-work-use trucks and SUVs. CAFE for cars has been the same since 1988!
The end result hasn't been good from an enthusiast's standpoint either. Lax CAFE has directly led to heavier cars:(
A:
Too bad we didn't convert to ethanol earlier. Agreed, this is far too late. By the time we reduce emissions, China and India will far exceed our output.
A:
News flash: The Earth always changes.
News flash: Carbon Dioxide is not the only factor in global temperature or weather.
News flash: Ethanol production has a more negative impact on the environment than using oil or natural gas.
Get real. And the only people that need to shut-up are the goofballs that use scientific half truths to bolster their political ideas and those that believe incorrectly that nature thrives on stability.
A:
A:
I'm not worried about global warming anymore. I was, but I was listening to Rush Limbaugh the other day and he said it was not a problem, so, I am so relieved! Thank goodness.
-----------------------------
81 ZXT 2+2
http://www.strausz.us/zcar/turboswap/
A:
"News flash: The Earth always changes."
News flash: That doesn't mean we shouldn't do what we reasonably can to limit our impact. We've been through this before, and I know you believe your ONE "expert" who says there hasn't been any change in CO2 concentration, but the conventional wisdom in the scientific community is that CO2 levels are up 25%(!) relative to before the industrial revolution.
It doesn't make/hasn't made any sense to continue burning as much as we can for no good reason other than that policy is good for the U.S. automakers and oil industry (in the SHORT term).
"News flash: Carbon Dioxide is not the only factor in global temperature or weather."
Again, this is hardly a valid argument that we should continue to emit as much as we can. It is a factor we do have some limited control over, we should do what we reasonably can to limit/reduce our output.
"News flash: Ethanol production has a more negative impact on the environment than using oil or natural gas."
That wouldnt' surprise me in the least. Which is why the best thing we can do now is just drive smaller, lighter-weight, more efficient vehicles. We don't need any new technology or alternative fuels to reduce consumption/CO2 output tremendously, we just need to quit driving behemoths where smaller more efficient vehicles would suit 95% of us just fine.
"Get real. And the only people that need to shut-up are the goofballs that use scientific half truths to bolster their political ideas and those that believe incorrectly that nature thrives on stability."
I don't have any political agenda, just applying common sense. Progress should mean doing more with LESS. We're not even TRYING.
Obviously there will be long-term changes in the environment whether humans are active or not. But it is still in our best interests for a lot of reasons to limit our energy consumption. Limiting our impact on the environment is just one of these, but still imo a compelling one.
A:
Your right Hybrid,
The world will exist and evolve long after we all die. It doesn't matter what we do to it. All we have was made from the Earth and will the return to the Earth. It just might not return in the same form and therefore make our world unihabital to humans. Sooo, what all the tree huggers should be spouting is save yourselfs not save the Earth. The Earth will be fine.
--------------------------------------
1990 300zx NA
- Custom Exhaust
- JWT Pop Charger
A:
I'm not worried about the EARTH itself per se (obviously whatever happens there is likely to be a big hunk of rock here for a long time), I'm worried about what we're leaving for future generations of animals and plants that live here. I guess I'm just being selfish...
A:
That is exactly what I'm saying and I don't think your being selfish at all. I just wish people fighting for the "Earth" would tell it like it is. Our planet doesn't need "saving" any more than friggin Jupiter does.
We definately need to reduce our emission or we will all be dead sooner rather than later.
--------------------------------------
1990 300zx NA
- Custom Exhaust
- JWT Pop Charger
A:
"I'm worried about what we're leaving for future generations of animals and plants that live here"
That is the OPPOSITE of the way nature works.
Extinction IS the normal path of plants and animals.
The bizarre notion that nature is in some kind of balance and that the Earth never changed until man came and upset the "balance" is just lunacy.
Common sense is the fossil record. Mountains used to be under water, the Earth used to have a Methane rich atmosphere, and species have come and gone ALL without people. Common sense says that man still does not have the power to change natural events.
The "inconvienient truth" is that a .00005% change in the sun's output (like sunspots) will have MORE effect on heating the Earth that every person on Earth driving a car that gets 200+ mpg. Switch to a miniture car and it makes no difference except you delude yourself into thinking that you're making a difference.
A:
Of course the earth will one day be unsuitable for human life, and we'll likely be DONE. And of course if you go back far enough, the envrionment was unsuitable for life. I don't see what that has to do with the idea of limiting our impact to try to prevent drastic changes that might make life more difficult while the human race is still around.
By your reasoning, we may as well destroy as much as we can anyway because in the long run we're doomed. WTF?
Your "common sense" is absolute nonsense. Humans can and do make a difference in the environment. Do other, naturally occuring events beyond our control have a more dramatic impact? Certainly. That does NOT mean it is a good idea for us to continue our mass CO2 emission experiment. We can't control the next Krakatao. We CAN, EASILY, with NO new technology, cut our CO2 emissions tremendously. It only makes sense to limit our impact to some reasonable extent. We're effectively MAXIMIZING our impact. It is just DUMB, for a number of reasons, for us to continue to drive 15mpg behemoths where in 95% of cases a vehicle capable of twice that or three times that efficiency would suffice.
A:
Oh goodie - I've done it again!
An inane joke sparks a hot button debate and everyone gets to vent some well earned self righteous indignation.
Maybe this won't be a boring night after all - just before my four days off.
No denying that the Earth is warming up - I can't help feeling that all the air traffic around the world has speeded up (SOME) of the process by being higher up in the atmoshere.
But just think - a couple of really good volcanic eruptions would quickly reverse the process and Global Cooling will be the "Hot" topic.
Or - wait for the fresh water melt-off to kill the warming ocean currents and then trigger another Ice Age within 10 years of the current stopping.
There's just so much to worry about -
What to choose, What to choose?
Right now my biggest concern is jacking up ZXelda to get a new tire on her and see if I can get her timed right to play in traffic again.
Then there's a Pit Bull hanging around the house.
Oh - and I still have to go to court on the Great Tree Limb Crime I committed - got ticketed $230, 6 days before the heavy trash pick-up day.
I'm sure Hybrid and I can get another discussion going on "irresponsiblity" vs Government harrassment.
This night bodes well and it's only hour one of a twelve hour shift.
Ya'll keep them cards & letters comin' folks!
Ed and Jeanne's
ZXelda 1981 280 ZXT: ZXena 1990 300 ZX
1941 Buick Special Sedanette (Betty)
1956 Dodge Royal (Dorothy)
1971 Buick Riviera (Rita)
1975 Ford F-150 Stepside (Fiona)
1992 Firebird (Frieda)
A:
"No denying that the Earth is warming up"
Well, where did YOU get THAT data?
Temperature readings GLOBALLY have only been done on a GLOBAL scale since the early 80's. As said may times, local surface temperatures do not indicate global atnmospheric trends. My only beef is that real data is sketchy at best and just because one surface themperature reading at IAH is hotter after the new runway was installed does not mean that the sea level has gone up (it hasn't). The only obvious thing about the two scenarios is that warming is much better than global cooling as fas as life is concerned.
I don't have to call the trash in front of your house irresponsible. If you like paying fines and take pride in doing so, then keep up the good work.
Post Edited (Jun 28, 8:58am)
A:
Eh, we have no way of knowing that this global warming or the hole in the ozone layer(if either exist) is not just something that happens natural, I suppose we could be killing our future relatives :D, or we could not, no sense in fighting it now. and if we do have to have smaller emissions just drive 1800 pound 1liter cars :D. but im a firm believer in the earth healing itself.
A:
Both of those meteorological events are cyclical and have been happening for a long time before people even knew that they existed. Once they did discover that that the earth was not always the same temperature and that there are polar distortions of the upper atmosphere, they blamed the U.S. (sorta like people used to blame powerful gods when the weather went wacky). The gods must be appeased so we must sacrifice! It's just modern silliness...
A:
Ahhh...Americans
Leave to you guys to compare yourself to god...
--------------------------------------
1990 300zx NA
- Custom Exhaust
- JWT Pop Charger
A:
And leave it to foreigners to get upset with the U.S. simply because they do not have a basic understanding of English language structure.
I compared modern non-science based environmental movement to ancient people also not understanding weather phenomena. Blaming made-up gods or blaming the U.S. are equally ignorant, show a lack of understanding of what is really going on and they demand that people make sacrifices (sacrifices that that will have no effect on what is actually being observed).
Post Edited (Jun 29, 8:45am)
A:
"Ahhh...Americans" this country was made by foreigners from every where, I find it funny when people talk like that.
and as for global warming and junk, its all about money, same with aids there just trying to get more money some how
A:
Charlie,
I didn't mean to paint everybody with the same brush. Some Americans are very well known for thier "We're better than everyone else" attitude. The big problem is your government gives merit to this reputation almost on a daily basis.
Anyway, I didn't mean to offend, I was just commenting on Hybrid's statement.
--------------------------------------
1990 300zx NA
- Custom Exhaust
- JWT Pop Charger
A:
We do have an impact on the environment.
That that impact over a year is less than that of a major volcanic eruption isn't really relevant. We can't stop volcanic eruptions but we CAN DRASTICALLY reduce our CO2 emissions with zero loss of standard of living (should improve this, actually).
It is just STUPID to continue to consume as much as we can.
Financially, ecologically, and "wohr on tehrrr"-wise.
Stupid.
I propose:
eliminate subsidies/tax breaks for the oil industry, impose TARRIFS on imported oil
Increase CAFE standards (they're the same now as they were in 1988!)
maximum curb weights for cars and non-work-use trucks/SUVs (OK, I have an enthusiast's ulterior motive here!)
increased gas taxes (last resort)
A:
"We do have an impact on the environment"
Yes, and as you say, it's still much less than what natural processes have done.
"It is just STUPID to continue to consume as much as we can"
No, no one consumes as much as they can. No one turns on the water tap and leaves it running and no one turns on their car and never shuts it off, no one goes home and just sets fire to as much gas as they can find. The TRUTH is that the difference in mileage between a nice new SUV and a crappy 1974 Z car is about ZERO (except the Z car is 3 times less efficient on a per-seat mileage rating). Anyone that believes that we burn as much as we are capable of greatly underestimates what we are capable of.
"I propose:..."
Damn socialist. Why do socialists still think that thier ideas are good for the people or the environment? History shows that socialism gives the worst for the people and the worst for the environment. Who in their right mind thinks that a Marxist-Leninist ideals have been good for people or the environment? Less government, less tarrifs, less arbitrary standards are a GOOD THING as far as the standard of living.
A:
If people spent as much time worrying about thier own moral behavior and eternal soul than an ever changing planet Earth,then that would be a much better contribution to society.
And about Al Gore's movie, here are a few FACTS on his lies from REAL scientists and NOT tree hugging climatologsts.
Contact: MARC MORANO (marc_morano@epw.senate.gov) 202-224-5762, MATT DEMPSEY (matthew_dempsey@epw.senate.gov) 202-224-9797
AP INCORRECTLY CLAIMS SCIENTISTS PRAISE GORE’S MOVIE
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
June 27, 2006
The June 27, 2006 Associated Press (AP) article titled “Scientists OK Gore’s Movie for Accuracy” by Seth Borenstein raises some serious questions about AP’s bias and methodology.
AP chose to ignore the scores of scientists who have harshly criticized the science presented in former Vice President Al Gore’s movie “An Inconvenient Truth.”
In the interest of full disclosure, the AP should release the names of the “more than 100 top climate researchers” they attempted to contact to review “An Inconvenient Truth.” AP should also name all 19 scientists who gave Gore “five stars for accuracy.” AP claims 19 scientists viewed Gore’s movie, but it only quotes five of them in its article. AP should also release the names of the so-called scientific “skeptics” they claim to have contacted.
The AP article quotes Robert Correll, the chairman of the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment group. It appears from the article that Correll has a personal relationship with Gore, having viewed the film at a private screening at the invitation of the former Vice President. In addition, Correll’s reported links as an “affiliate” of a Washington, D.C.-based consulting firm that provides “expert testimony” in trials and his reported sponsorship by the left-leaning Packard Foundation, were not disclosed by AP. See http://www.junkscience.com/feb06.htm
The AP also chose to ignore Gore’s reliance on the now-discredited “hockey stick” by Dr. Michael Mann, which claims that temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere remained relatively stable over 900 years, then spiked upward in the 20th century, and that the 1990’s were the warmest decade in at least 1000 years. Last week’s National Academy of Sciences report dispelled Mann’s often cited claims by reaffirming the existence of both the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age. See Senator Inhofe’s statement on the broken “Hockey Stick.” (http://epw.senate.gov/pressitem.cfm?party=rep&id=257697 )
Gore’s claim that global warming is causing the snows of Mt. Kilimanjaro to disappear has also been debunked by scientific reports. For example, a 2004 study in the journal Nature makes clear that Kilimanjaro is experiencing less snowfall because there’s less moisture in the air due to deforestation around Kilimanjaro.
Here is a sampling of the views of some of the scientific critics of Gore:
Professor Bob Carter, of the Marine Geophysical Laboratory at James Cook University in Australia, on Gore’s film:
"Gore's circumstantial arguments are so weak that they are pathetic. It is simply incredible that they, and his film, are commanding public attention."
"The man is an embarrassment to US science and its many fine practitioners, a lot of whom know (but feel unable to state publicly) that his propaganda crusade is mostly based on junk science." – Bob Carter as quoted in the Canadian Free Press, June 12, 2006
Richard S. Lindzen, the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT, wrote:
“A general characteristic of Mr. Gore's approach is to assiduously ignore the fact that the earth and its climate are dynamic; they are always changing even without any external forcing. To treat all change as something to fear is bad enough; to do so in order to exploit that fear is much worse.” - Lindzen wrote in an op-ed in the June 26, 2006 Wall Street Journal
Gore’s film also cites a review of scientific literature by the journal Science which claimed 100% consensus on global warming, but Lindzen pointed out the study was flat out incorrect.
“…A study in the journal Science by the social scientist Nancy Oreskes claimed that a search of the ISI Web of Knowledge Database for the years 1993 to 2003 under the key words "global climate change" produced 928 articles, all of whose abstracts supported what she referred to as the consensus view. A British social scientist, Benny Peiser, checked her procedure and found that only 913 of the 928 articles had abstracts at all, and that only 13 of the remaining 913 explicitly endorsed the so-called consensus view. Several actually opposed it.”- Lindzen wrote in an op-ed in the June 26, 2006 Wall Street Journal.
Roy Spencer, principal research scientist for the University of Alabama in Huntsville, wrote an open letter to Gore criticizing his presentation of climate science in the film:
“…Temperature measurements in the arctic suggest that it was just as warm there in the 1930's...before most greenhouse gas emissions. Don't you ever wonder whether sea ice concentrations back then were low, too?”- Roy Spencer wrote in a May 25, 2006 column.
Former University of Winnipeg climatology professor Dr. Tim Ball reacted to Gore’s claim that there has been a sharp drop-off in the thickness of the Arctic ice cap since 1970.
"The survey that Gore cites was a single transect across one part of the Arctic basin in the month of October during the 1960s when we were in the middle of the cooling period. The 1990 runs were done in the warmer month of September, using a wholly different technology,” –Tim Ball said, according to the Canadian Free Press.
-----------------------------------------
12.804 @ 107.26 mph on crappy street tires with Dual SU Powered 2.9L Stroker!
ZCAR.COM member since Aug 1998
A:
Good post, Norm.
I guess after Gore invented the Internet he went on to a doctorate program in atmospheric science?
I'm with erzelda, the problem would go away if the politicians would shut-up.
Post Edited (Jun 30, 7:59am)
A:
Uh, I'm hardly a socialist. Really more of a libertarian. BUT, there are quantifiable changes to the environment that are the direct result of our burning fuel. We should consider reducing our consumption.
FWIW, I haven't seen algores movie and I don't plan to.
BTW, regarding our consuming "as much as we can":
Main Entry: hy·per·bo·le
Pronunciation: hI-'p&r-b&-(")lE
Function: noun
Etymology: Latin, from Greek hyperbolE excess, hyperbole, hyperbola, from hyperballein to exceed, from hyper- + ballein to throw -- more at devil
: extravagant exaggeration (as "mile-high ice-cream cones")
Obviously we aren't consuming AS MUCH AS WE CAN. We are, however, consuming at least twice as much as we could reasonably and comfortably get by on with no real loss of standard of living.
We aren't all running the taps all the time, but I did walk past at least half a dozen houses the other morning, with sprinklers on full blast, watering a lot more of their driveways and the street than their smallish front yards, on a day in which RAIN was forecast! WTF?
To think the industrialized human race isn't having an impact on the environment is to hold one's head in the sand.
Ignoring problems will NOT make them go away.
A:
Libertarians do NOT want the government to control our lives down to the level of what cars we can buy or what manufaturers can produce! THAT is precisely a Marxist-Leninist philosophy. Damn socialists always hide behind causes when in fact they just want to have control over the masses.
Get real about your politics and get real about the science.
A:
I DON'T want the government in our lives to any extent more than necessary. But I hardly feel like increased CAFE is a real intrusion or imposition on our liberties.
Science?! You don't know what it is! You believe what you want and take anything that agrees with your limited views as gospel and dismiss all else!
As far as gov't intrusion, I'm GENERALLY very much against it.
I'm all for no speed limits
no drinking age
no voting age
public nudity and carousing
cats and dogs living together
etc. etc. etc.
Damn fascists also always hide behind causes when in fact they just want to have control over the masses.
Wake up! Both sides (red and blue teams) want the same thing! Cafe is nothing compared to what those in power (both "sides") really want control over.
True freedom is not the ability to buy a 12mpg Hummer. If they take that freedom from me, I've lost nothing of any real meaning.
I'm against most laws, but some have usefulness. If everyone and every corporation were reasonable, we wouldn't need laws or government at all, and I despise the fact that we DO.
A:
"True freedom is not the ability to buy a 12mpg Hummer."
That is the crux of true freedom. Personal ownership.
Obviously YOU do not care if they take that freedom from someone else.
Socialists never care about taking freedoms from others...
As far science, I question everything using the scientific method. That is the way real science works. People that get defensive when challenged on scientific matters are obviously not following scientific methods and are therefore not to be trusted on them.
A:
Have you ever questioned for a moment that our overconsumption of fossil fuels might NOT be perfectly innocuous to our envrionment?
I totally disagree with your definition of "freedom" as "personal ownership". Many in this country have in fact become SLAVES to their property.
Who was more TRULY free, Jesus Christ or the Roman Empire? Ghandi or the British Empire?
Freedom is more about IDEALS than PROPERTY OWNERSHIP.
In any case, I'd MUCH rather be free to buy an Ariel Atom or a TVR than a silly-assed Hummer! But I certainly don't consider it a fundamental loss of my "freedom" that I'm unable to do so in this country.
A:
LOL, so you're actually trying to force your ideals onto other people? Please don't mix religion with what we are talking about here. Freedom here (BY DEFINITION) is Life, Liberty, and the persuite of Happiness. I don't fault anyone if they want to waste their money on a Hummer or a Z, it's their money. You seem to have a problem with someone wanting to buy a truck over you buying a sports car. You wanting a small peppy sports car over a practical Honda is just as odd as someone wanting an H2 over a practical Honda. Both are selfish vehicles but that's what you want so BUY IT. You don't want Gvmnt to designate that all cars need to seat 5.
No one ever said fossile fuels are innocuous, just that thier effect is not devastating. Past history in atmospherics have PROVEN that. Also since all the cars only contributs a total of 20% of released CO2, then the people changing from the few thousand of Hummers to a Honda will mean NOTHING in real terms anyway.
Post Edited (Jul 2, 11:38am)
A:
Oh, and Dan,
Before you condemn the Americans and the Hummer, why don't you try to convince the "enlighened" Euopeans to stop driving at 125+ burning way too much gas on the Autobahn? That should be an easier sell than getting Americans to give up driving trucks... Right?
Like I said, 80% of the CO2 is not from cars so reducing a fraction of the reamining fraction is not a reasonable way to approach the situation if you truely believe that elevated C02 is causing a problem.
A:
Darn! - I'm sorry I missed all this and you guys had to pick on eachother all night.
I had to baby sit some psych patients and missed the fun.
Well - what did we all learn from this overview?
Global Warming - who knows? - well when it hits 99+ in Houston in the middle of June my part of the globe is too damnation warm!
Marxism - Lenninism?
Personally I liked Paul's contributions and singing more than John's.
Groucho was by far the wittiest, but Harpo was far more articulate than he's given credit for.
Ciao Baby!
Ed and Jeanne's
ZXelda 1981 280 ZXT: ZXena 1990 300 ZX
1941 Buick Special Sedanette (Betty)
1956 Dodge Royal (Dorothy)
1971 Buick Riviera (Rita)
1975 Ford F-150 Stepside (Fiona)
1992 Firebird (Frieda)
A:
Don't Believe the Hype
Al Gore is wrong. There's no "consensus" on global warming.
BY RICHARD S. LINDZEN
Sunday, July 2, 2006 12:01 a.m. EDT
According to Al Gore's new film "An Inconvenient Truth," we're in for "a planetary emergency": melting ice sheets, huge increases in sea levels, more and stronger hurricanes, and invasions of tropical disease, among other cataclysms--unless we change the way we live now.
Bill Clinton has become the latest evangelist for Mr. Gore's gospel, proclaiming that current weather events show that he and Mr. Gore were right about global warming, and we are all suffering the consequences of President Bush's obtuseness on the matter. And why not? Mr. Gore assures us that "the debate in the scientific community is over."
That statement, which Mr. Gore made in an interview with George Stephanopoulos on ABC, ought to have been followed by an asterisk. What exactly is this debate that Mr. Gore is referring to? Is there really a scientific community that is debating all these issues and then somehow agreeing in unison? Far from such a thing being over, it has never been clear to me what this "debate" actually is in the first place.
The media rarely help, of course. When Newsweek featured global warming in a 1988 issue, it was claimed that all scientists agreed. Periodically thereafter it was revealed that although there had been lingering doubts beforehand, now all scientists did indeed agree. Even Mr. Gore qualified his statement on ABC only a few minutes after he made it, clarifying things in an important way. When Mr. Stephanopoulos confronted Mr. Gore with the fact that the best estimates of rising sea levels are far less dire than he suggests in his movie, Mr. Gore defended his claims by noting that scientists "don't have any models that give them a high level of confidence" one way or the other and went on to claim--in his defense--that scientists "don't know. . . . They just don't know."
So, presumably, those scientists do not belong to the "consensus." Yet their research is forced, whether the evidence supports it or not, into Mr. Gore's preferred global-warming template--namely, shrill alarmism. To believe it requires that one ignore the truly inconvenient facts. To take the issue of rising sea levels, these include: that the Arctic was as warm or warmer in 1940; that icebergs have been known since time immemorial; that the evidence so far suggests that the Greenland ice sheet is actually growing on average. A likely result of all this is increased pressure pushing ice off the coastal perimeter of that country, which is depicted so ominously in Mr. Gore's movie. In the absence of factual context, these images are perhaps dire or alarming.
They are less so otherwise. Alpine glaciers have been retreating since the early 19th century, and were advancing for several centuries before that. Since about 1970, many of the glaciers have stopped retreating and some are now advancing again. And, frankly, we don't know why.
The other elements of the global-warming scare scenario are predicated on similar oversights. Malaria, claimed as a byproduct of warming, was once common in Michigan and Siberia and remains common in Siberia--mosquitoes don't require tropical warmth. Hurricanes, too, vary on multidecadal time scales; sea-surface temperature is likely to be an important factor. This temperature, itself, varies on multidecadal time scales. However, questions concerning the origin of the relevant sea-surface temperatures and the nature of trends in hurricane intensity are being hotly argued within the profession.
Even among those arguing, there is general agreement that we can't attribute any particular hurricane to global warming. To be sure, there is one exception, Greg Holland of the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colo., who argues that it must be global warming because he can't think of anything else. While arguments like these, based on lassitude, are becoming rather common in climate assessments, such claims, given the primitive state of weather and climate science, are hardly compelling.
A general characteristic of Mr. Gore's approach is to assiduously ignore the fact that the earth and its climate are dynamic; they are always changing even without any external forcing. To treat all change as something to fear is bad enough; to do so in order to exploit that fear is much worse. Regardless, these items are clearly not issues over which debate is ended--at least not in terms of the actual science.
A clearer claim as to what debate has ended is provided by the environmental journalist Gregg Easterbrook. He concludes that the scientific community now agrees that significant warming is occurring, and that there is clear evidence of human influences on the climate system. This is still a most peculiar claim. At some level, it has never been widely contested. Most of the climate community has agreed since 1988 that global mean temperatures have increased on the order of one degree Fahrenheit over the past century, having risen significantly from about 1919 to 1940, decreased between 1940 and the early '70s, increased again until the '90s, and remaining essentially flat since 1998.
There is also little disagreement that levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere have risen from about 280 parts per million by volume in the 19th century to about 387 ppmv today. Finally, there has been no question whatever that carbon dioxide is an infrared absorber (i.e., a greenhouse gas--albeit a minor one), and its increase should theoretically contribute to warming. Indeed, if all else were kept equal, the increase in carbon dioxide should have led to somewhat more warming than has been observed, assuming that the small observed increase was in fact due to increasing carbon dioxide rather than a natural fluctuation in the climate system. Although no cause for alarm rests on this issue, there has been an intense effort to claim that the theoretically expected contribution from additional carbon dioxide has actually been detected.
Given that we do not understand the natural internal variability of climate change, this task is currently impossible. Nevertheless there has been a persistent effort to suggest otherwise, and with surprising impact. Thus, although the conflicted state of the affair was accurately presented in the 1996 text of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the infamous "summary for policy makers" reported ambiguously that "The balance of evidence suggests a discernible human influence on global climate." This sufficed as the smoking gun for Kyoto.
The next IPCC report again described the problems surrounding what has become known as the attribution issue: that is, to explain what mechanisms are responsible for observed changes in climate. Some deployed the lassitude argument--e.g., we can't think of an alternative--to support human attribution. But the "summary for policy makers" claimed in a manner largely unrelated to the actual text of the report that "In the light of new evidence and taking into account the remaining uncertainties, most of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations."
In a similar vein, the National Academy of Sciences issued a brief (15-page) report responding to questions from the White House. It again enumerated the difficulties with attribution, but again the report was preceded by a front end that ambiguously claimed that "The changes observed over the last several decades are likely mostly due to human activities, but we cannot rule out that some significant part of these changes is also a reflection of natural variability." This was sufficient for CNN's Michelle Mitchell to presciently declare that the report represented a "unanimous decision that global warming is real, is getting worse and is due to man. There is no wiggle room." Well, no.
More recently, a study in the journal Science by the social scientist Nancy Oreskes claimed that a search of the ISI Web of Knowledge Database for the years 1993 to 2003 under the key words "global climate change" produced 928 articles, all of whose abstracts supported what she referred to as the consensus view. A British social scientist, Benny Peiser, checked her procedure and found that only 913 of the 928 articles had abstracts at all, and that only 13 of the remaining 913 explicitly endorsed the so-called consensus view. Several actually opposed it.
Even more recently, the Climate Change Science Program, the Bush administration's coordinating agency for global-warming research, declared it had found "clear evidence of human influences on the climate system." This, for Mr. Easterbrook, meant: "Case closed." What exactly was this evidence? The models imply that greenhouse warming should impact atmospheric temperatures more than surface temperatures, and yet satellite data showed no warming in the atmosphere since 1979. The report showed that selective corrections to the atmospheric data could lead to some warming, thus reducing the conflict between observations and models descriptions of what greenhouse warming should look like. That, to me, means the case is still very much open.
So what, then, is one to make of this alleged debate? I would suggest at least three points.
First, nonscientists generally do not want to bother with understanding the science. Claims of consensus relieve policy types, environmental advocates and politicians of any need to do so. Such claims also serve to intimidate the public and even scientists--especially those outside the area of climate dynamics. Secondly, given that the question of human attribution largely cannot be resolved, its use in promoting visions of disaster constitutes nothing so much as a bait-and-switch scam. That is an inauspicious beginning to what Mr. Gore claims is not a political issue but a "moral" crusade.
Lastly, there is a clear attempt to establish truth not by scientific methods but by perpetual repetition. An earlier attempt at this was accompanied by tragedy. Perhaps Marx was right. This time around we may have farce--if we're lucky.
Mr. Lindzen is the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT.
-----------------------------------------
12.804 @ 107.26 mph on crappy street tires with Dual SU Powered 2.9L Stroker!
ZCAR.COM member since Aug 1998
A:
I love the new websight www.fightglobalwarming.com.
It actually hurts your head when trying to read that site!
Not only is it misguided to "fight" the natural trends of warming (or cooling), it actually is wrong (or at least on a 3rd grade level) when it comes to science. They try to link heat waves, hurricanes, sea levels, and all kinds of natural occurances to whether or not you change your light bulbs or close your window shades. Now THAT is funny stuff, hurricanes are a result of people not carpooling. Give me a break.