View Full Version : California sues automakers for greenhouse gases
I really just don't know what to say. How can you sue companies for making products that meet the regulations set down by the state? :irked:
California, home to thousands of miles of freeways and limited public transportation, has sued six U.S. and Japanese automakers for their alleged contribution to global warming.
Don't blame the health food--this is for real.
Named as defendants in the federal lawsuit are General Motors (nyse: GM - news - people ); Ford Motor (nyse: F - news - people ); Chrysler, the U.S. division of DaimlerChrysler (nyse: DCX - news - people ); Toyota Motor (nyse: TM - news - people ) North America; Honda Motor (nyse: HMC - news - people ) America; and Nissan Motor (nasdaq: NSANY - news - people ) North America.
http://www.forbes.com/business/2006/09/20/california-autos-warming-biz-man-cx_sr_0920calif.html
Lizzerd
09-20-06, 08:26 PM
Fine with me. Let the tree huggers walk/ride a bicycle to work. That would solve everything.
Frigging idiots...
Andrew Longman
09-20-06, 08:29 PM
I really just don't know what to say. How can you sue companies for making products that meet the regulations set down by the state? :irked:
http://www.forbes.com/business/2006/09/20/california-autos-warming-biz-man-cx_sr_0920calif.html
...Or a product that is used on the freeways you built.
And why just the auto makers? How about the power generators burning all that coal for the electricity to run all those server farms in CA?
How about the auto makers in Asia, Europe and elsewhere they didn't mention that are spewing greenhouse gases? Its not just the cars in CA making CA warmer. While they're at it throw in all those companies in China burning coal.
coolhand
09-20-06, 09:05 PM
This is stupid, do they want the car companies going under? They probably do.
Methanolandbrats
09-20-06, 09:08 PM
The United States would be a lot better off if a big earthquake flattened parts of California and then we gave the rest back to Mexico.
Al Czervik
09-20-06, 10:40 PM
I really just don't know what to say. How can you sue companies for making products that meet the regulations set down by the state? :irked:
http://www.forbes.com/business/2006/09/20/california-autos-warming-biz-man-cx_sr_0920calif.html
Ask the gun manufacturers and cigarette makers.
I'd start a rant against lawyers, but I'd probably get bounced outta here...:flame:
Insomniac
09-20-06, 10:54 PM
Here's an article with some more background.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=aZ4gr6yG.qto
Not sure how Forbes can even say "Never mind that scientists don't agree on whether global warming is occurring, or on what the cause is, if temperatures are indeed rising.". What scientists? How about a name or institution?
In any case, I think it may be retaliation for them taking the state to court. They want stricter laws on emissions, manufacturers don't. So I guess either make them more clean or pay fines?
indyfan31
09-21-06, 12:01 AM
Wonderful, like we really needed another reason to be ridiculed....:shakehead
Lockyer is an idiot.
RacinM3
09-21-06, 12:20 AM
The United States would be a lot better off if a big earthquake flattened parts of California and then we gave the rest back to Mexico.
Ya, I'm sure my 19 month old daughter would really appreciate that moronic statement. :rolleyes:
This is stupid, do they want the car companies going under? They probably do.
No, they apparently want their constituency paying a hell of a lot more for their cars, just like we have for years. Oh and our "special" gas, too.
There are many of us here in California who don't support stupid moves like this.
Here's an article with some more background.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=aZ4gr6yG.qto
Not sure how Forbes can even say "Never mind that scientists don't agree on whether global warming is occurring, or on what the cause is, if temperatures are indeed rising.". What scientists? How about a name or institution?
A list from the wikipedia article on Global warming controversy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_controversy).
* Patrick Michaels from the Department of Environmental Sciences at the University of Virginia
* Robert Balling of Arizona State University
* Sherwood B. Idso of the U.S. Water Conservation Laboratory [22]
* S. Fred Singer, atmospheric physicist and professor emeritus of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia
* Richard Lindzen of Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
* Frederick Seitz (anti-global warming treaties, accepts the temperature rise as real, but not yet properly explained)
* William M. Gray, emeritus professor at Colorado State University and one of the world's leading experts on tropical storms. Claims that there is no link between increasing ocean temperatures and more intense hurricanes in recent decades and dismisses computer climate models. [23].
* Roy Spencer, known for his satellite-based temperature monitoring work
coolhand
09-21-06, 02:08 AM
Anyone remember MTBE? we payed extra for it becuase it made gas "burn cleaner", however it cuased your milage to go down thus you burned more fuel. Then they found out it was toxis and getting into the environment so they finally banned it. :shakehead
chop456
09-21-06, 02:19 AM
Maybe those automakers should stop selling cars in California just to be on the safe side.
coolhand
09-21-06, 03:33 AM
California would turn into cuba where everyone is driving really old cars.
rosawendel
09-21-06, 08:30 AM
maybe it's time for the governor to turn in his hummer....
:shakehead :saywhat:
Might as well throw in the oil cos. to cover all the bases. Cripes, why not sure the drivers, too? :irked: Only in America.... :\
-Kevin
Here's an article with some more background.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=aZ4gr6yG.qto
Not sure how Forbes can even say "Never mind that scientists don't agree on whether global warming is occurring, or on what the cause is, if temperatures are indeed rising.". What scientists? How about a name or institution?
Obviously a list of a scientists would be nice, but the scientific community is not sold or global warming or its causes. Forbes probably figured that goes without saying. :\
Never mind that scientists don't agree on whether global warming is occurring, or on what the cause is, if temperatures are indeed rising.
uhhh, riiight...
looks like state is suing b/c auto co's are suing to overturn new state emissions regs. the state has the right to set its own emissions rules, no?
uhhh, riiight...
Yeah, screw that whole scientific method thing, let's vote on it!
looks like state is suing b/c auto co's are suing to overturn new state emissions regs. the state has the right to set its own emissions rules, no?
The Auto manufacturers are claiming that the California regulation is essentially a fuel economy regulation. Federal law puts fuel economy regulations under federal jurisdiction. Whether there's any validity to that will be for the courts to decide. Certainly California would love to do an end around and regulate fuel economy since they're suing the federal goverment for not increasing fuel economy requirements.
Tifosi24
09-21-06, 12:24 PM
Obviously a list of a scientists would be nice, but the scientific community is not sold or global warming on its causes. Forbes probably figured that goes without saying. :\
The wide consensus is that global warming is real and that humans are having some kind of increasing effect. I don't know the percentages off hand but those who argue against global warming are quite small. Their arguments are valid, but are in many ways a straw man because there is virtually no scientific way to gauge worldwide historic temperatures over thousands of years (apart from polar ice core samples.) I use to be skeptical on the idea of global warming, but the increasing amount of literature coming out on the subject has really started to turn me in the other direction.
On the top of California, the lawsuit will likely be thrown out but it is a way for the state to tell the automakers that they want even cleaner cars. In a perfect world, if California really wanted to get serious about cleaning up their air, they would push for more mass transit and contain urban sprawl, but we don't live in a sustainable growth textbook. The argument that China is doing so much worse to their environment is a non-starter. There is little we can do to China but we can decide to be cleaner if we want to.
Yeah, screw that whole scientific method thing, let's vote on it!
:D
a slight hijack:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060920/sc_nm/environment_warming_dc;_ylt=An.tOn4nFd2Bxbbgln_cL. kDW7oF;_ylu=X3oDMTA2Z2szazkxBHNlYwN0bQ--
LONDON (Reuters) - Greenland's massive ice sheet is melting much quicker than scientists had estimated and the pace has accelerated lately, according to research published on Wednesday.
"It was losing quite a bit of mass before 2004 but there is a very strong acceleration, which means things are changing," said Velicogna
plus last week there was that report on the arctic cap accelerating in its melt.
ice == reflect radiation
land == absorb radiation
methane in ice (Siberia) == can't retain ambient heat
methane in air b/c ice melted == retains ambient heat
what it all means? i dunno, but the data & facts are right there to be seen.
racer2c
09-21-06, 12:59 PM
:D
a slight hijack:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060920/sc_nm/environment_warming_dc;_ylt=An.tOn4nFd2Bxbbgln_cL. kDW7oF;_ylu=X3oDMTA2Z2szazkxBHNlYwN0bQ--
plus last week there was that report on the arctic cap accelerating in its melt.
ice == reflect radiation
land == absorb radiation
methane in ice (Siberia) == can't retain ambient heat
methane in air b/c ice melted == retains ambient heat
what it all means? i dunno, but the data & facts are right there to be seen.
Correlation or causality? The 'facts' state the ice is melting. Ok. The 'facts' state that the temp is trending upward. Ok. Now, where are the 'facts' stating the cause is from man made interference?
Now, I'm just playing devil's advocate and since I'm not a scientist, it would be silly to debate specifics, but I do think the extreme politicizing of the issue is a great hindrance to the research.
It is a 'fact' that the Earth does fluctuate in temperature. Once there was an Ice Age where talking Mammoths befriended other talking creatures.
I was mainly responding to Stu's "but the scientific community is not sold on global warming."
There is warming, as for causes, etc. I certainly don't know. But there certainly is a consensus based on data & trends within relevent scientific circles. To me "but there is a very strong acceleration" is the most telling bit. It stands to reason the acceleration will only continue, no?
I was mainly responding to Stu's "but the scientific community is not sold on global warming."
There is warming, as for causes, etc. I certainly don't know.
Thats not what I said, I said "but the scientific community is not sold or global warming or its causes."
We all agree that no one knows what the causes are, yet California is taking automakers to court because they feel the car companies are at fault.
Thats not what I said, I said "but the scientific community is not sold or global warming or its causes."
We all agree that no one knows what the causes are, yet California is taking automakers to court because they feel the car companies are at fault.
No, they're taking them to court b/c the car companies are suing about the state's new regulations.
Go read Tifosi's post...
oddlycalm
09-21-06, 02:01 PM
What makes this an actual issue at all is that California has a GDP that surpasses all but a handful of countries, let along a couple dozen flyover states combined. Trust me, if Idaho passed strict new emission laws the manufacturers would simply flip them off, then cut them off. Now that I wrote that I'd actually like to see an auto mfg's lockout on a state....
Anyway, if the those in charge didn't want California to have an economy the size of a porn stars wedding tackle (there's a nice image for you), they should have made it into a half dozen smaller states like they did New England, but no, the wankers in congress were too busy taking kickbacks and campaign contributions to pay any attention so they just banged down the gavel and gave California 1000+ miles of prime coastline along with huge sunny interior valleys with water next door. Imagine extending New York's boundaries down past Miami to Key West. :eek:
Rather than debate global warming until the rising steam accelerates the alleged process, we could actually pioneer a solution by deciding what the 10 little states of what used to be California would be called and what the layout would look like....:gomer:
oc
No, they're taking them to court b/c the car companies are suing about the state's new regulations.
Go read Tifosi's post...
I did. :\
Tifosi24
09-21-06, 02:57 PM
Correlation or causality? The 'facts' state the ice is melting. Ok. The 'facts' state that the temp is trending upward. Ok. Now, where are the 'facts' stating the cause is from man made interference?
Now, I'm just playing devil's advocate and since I'm not a scientist, it would be silly to debate specifics, but I do think the extreme politicizing of the issue is a great hindrance to the research.
It is a 'fact' that the Earth does fluctuate in temperature. Once there was an Ice Age where talking Mammoths befriended other talking creatures.
Continued hijacking...
Very insightful comments, and the whole crux of this entire argument is that there is no scientific, or statistical, way to test whether there is correlation or causality, we simply don't have enough observations and background information about the whole world over the past thousands of millienia to get a good estimation. However, either way you look at it would indicate that greenhouse emission are harmful to the environment. Without getting too statistical, the causality would tell us that greenhouse emissions are causing global warming. The correlation is telling us that greenhouse emissions and temperature are going up together, at some related percentage that I am not at all sure of. Either way you look at it, causality or correlation, the final conclusion, at least in my eyes, is that emissions would have some kind of negative impact on temperatures (increasing temperatures.)
I certainly agree that politics is harmful to this entire discussion. Scientists on both sides of the debate spend too much time arguing over whether it exists or not, the literature strongly indicates there is significant temperature increase, so the time comes to brainstorm solutions to the problem. Back on topic, California has made the inference that greenhouse gas emissions are a contributing factor to global warming and they have every right, in my eyes, to regulate their emissions to get to a point they are happy with. California isn't missing the forest for the trees like many people in this debate.
For not being a scientist racer2c, you do a good job of putting facts in quotes, because in science there is never fact or proof, only indications and theory.
because in science there is never fact or proof, only indications and theory.
:saywhat:
cameraman
09-21-06, 03:10 PM
because in science there is never fact or proof, only indications and theory.Water freezes at 0°C hasn't been proven and isn't a fact? Whatever:rolleyes:
Insomniac
09-21-06, 03:19 PM
Thats not what I said, I said "but the scientific community is not sold or global warming or its causes."
We all agree that no one knows what the causes are, yet California is taking automakers to court because they feel the car companies are at fault.
Who is we? I didn't think there was any question that increased CO2 has contributed to the greenhouse effect and cars produce their fair share.
Insomniac
09-21-06, 03:22 PM
Correlation or causality? The 'facts' state the ice is melting. Ok. The 'facts' state that the temp is trending upward. Ok. Now, where are the 'facts' stating the cause is from man made interference?
Now, I'm just playing devil's advocate and since I'm not a scientist, it would be silly to debate specifics, but I do think the extreme politicizing of the issue is a great hindrance to the research.
I don't want to argue who is politicizing it, but it pretty much has to be. The government has been tasked to create standards and laws to protect the environment. Each of us can do our part if we want to, and companies can do what they want above and beyond the laws/regulations. However, most are in the business of making money first, not protecting the environment first.
I think that this whole 'global warming' thing is bogus. Hell, we can't even get an accurate 3 day forcast.
racer2c
09-21-06, 04:10 PM
I think that this whole 'global warming' thing is bogus. Hell, we can't even get an accurate 3 day forcast.
AMEN!:)
Tifosi24
09-21-06, 04:19 PM
Water freezes at 0°C hasn't been proven and isn't a fact? Whatever:rolleyes:
me<----- pwned
I went a little far with my previous statement, I was trying to make the point that a lot of people say something is a "fact" when in actually takes a heck of a lot to call something fact.
racer2c
09-21-06, 04:24 PM
I don't want to argue who is politicizing it, but it pretty much has to be. The government has been tasked to create standards and laws to protect the environment. Each of us can do our part if we want to, and companies can do what they want above and beyond the laws/regulations. However, most are in the business of making money first, not protecting the environment first.
The eco-terrorists are using political correctness as a tactic against the scientific community which has greatly diminished the ability to produce valid consensus. Money? What isn't about money?
On topic, prediction: CA will win because the car companies should have warned the public ala cigarettes companies. Cars in CA will require the display of stickers that say "Use of this vehicle may cause global warming resulting in the extinction of all living things". Of course, you won't be able to sue once it's proven.
:gomer:
According to Hawkings we'll blow ourselves up long before we've burned out our atmosphere.
According to Hawkings we'll blow ourselves up long before we've burned out our atmosphere.
Ank needs to get busy figuring out a way to get us all off this rock. ;)
racer2c
09-21-06, 04:43 PM
Ank needs to get busy figuring out a way to get us all off this rock. ;)
Right. But only the rich will get to go. :(
coolhand
09-21-06, 06:32 PM
Anyone can find an equal amount of links agreeing or disagreeing global warming.
anyone saying that there "is a wide consensus" or whatever lives in an insulated world. It is very debatable.
Anyone can find an equal amount of links agreeing or disagreeing global warming.
anyone saying that there "is a wide consensus" or whatever lives in an insulated world. It is very debatable.
politics don't make science, it's only remains "very debatable" for the politically inclined. at the same time, every odd anomoly in nature is "proof" for other politically inclined folks... funny how this hurricane season wasn't so bad. :gomer:
Ank needs to get busy figuring out a way to get us all off this rock. ;)
I'm afraid that market's already been cornered: 1 (866) DALLARA
Insomniac
09-21-06, 07:28 PM
Anyone can find an equal amount of links agreeing or disagreeing global warming.
anyone saying that there "is a wide consensus" or whatever lives in an insulated world. It is very debatable.
There's a debate over global warming? Maybe the causes, but who thinks the planet isn't getting warmer? What data do they have that it's getting colder or exactly the same?
Tifosi24
09-21-06, 10:22 PM
Anyone can find an equal amount of links agreeing or disagreeing global warming.
anyone saying that there "is a wide consensus" or whatever lives in an insulated world. It is very debatable.
I will stick by my wide consensus statement, because that is what the literature is pointing toward. The world has gotten noticeably warmer over the past decades and all the measurements confirm that. As Insomnaic said you can debate the causes, but the data points toward warming. We aren't even touching the topic of global dimming. And Ank is correct, the debate is largerly in political camps, those with open minds will listen to the literature.
racer2c
09-21-06, 10:30 PM
I will stick by my wide consensus statement, because that is what the literature is pointing toward. The world has gotten noticeably warmer over the past decades and all the measurements confirm that. As Insomnaic said you can debate the causes, but the data points toward warming. We aren't even touching the topic of global dimming. And Ank is correct, the debate is largerly in political camps, those with open minds will listen to the literature.
We are getting dimmer. Fact. ;)
greenie
09-21-06, 10:59 PM
Ya, I'm sure my 19 month old daughter would really appreciate that moronic statement. :rolleyes:
That's a little over reaction. You've got to consider the jealousy factor - California hate rolls around when winter's on the horizon in the Brrrr Belt. :rofl:
I'd be bitter too if I were breaking out the snow tires, snow shovels, etc. while in Cali we're breaking out the snow cones and slip-n-slides. :cool:
That's a little over reaction. You've got to consider the jealousy factor - California hate rolls around when winter's on the horizon in the Brrrr Belt. :rofl:
I'd be bitter too if I were breaking out the snow tires, snow shovels, etc. while in Cali we're breaking out the snow cones and slip-n-slides. :cool:
If we wanted to live in California, we'd live in California. Last I checked they don't require a passport or work visa.
Breaking out snow tires? The pool is still open. This is my favorite time of year.
But thank God for California. It's like America's bug light.
greenie
09-21-06, 11:18 PM
If we wanted to live in California, we'd live in California. Last I checked they don't require a passport or work visa.
Breaking out snow tires? The pool is still open. This is my favorite time of year.
But thank God for California. It's like America's bug light.
Ya'll like to talk about California though.
My next time being in Ohio will be my first, sounds like I'm really missing out. :rofl:
edit - I did have a close call on a stopover in the Cincinnati airport - until I found out that it was in Kentucky I thought I was in paradise. :D
Ya'll like to talk about California though.
We talk about gomers, too. :gomer:
racer2c
09-21-06, 11:26 PM
http://user.bahnhof.se/~bksport/tidningen/1987/9/bilder/arnold_schwarzenegger_2.jpg
B3RACER1a
09-21-06, 11:29 PM
Everyone knows that the climate has changed over time. Ice age....mini ice age back in the 1300-1500's I think...not sure about those years. Anyways, we know the earth does this.
Now are changes that we think we are seeing a natural cycle or something induced by us, or a combo of both?
I dont think anone can say that for fact.
cameraman
09-22-06, 12:29 AM
Anyone can find an equal amount of links agreeing or disagreeing global warming.
anyone saying that there "is a wide consensus" or whatever lives in an insulated world. It is very debatable.
First and most importantly, links ain't science. The vast majority of the science out there supports the idea that increasing atmospheric CO2 will heat this this place up and humans have been pumping CO2 into the atmosphere at ever increasing rates for the last few hundred years. It isn't just the SUVs, it is all the forests being burned, the coal being burned, the vast carbon sink that was the topsoil being "burned" by constant tilling in addition to the oil being burned that is raising the CO2 content of the atmosphere. The only thing 99.9999% of the scientists are debating is how soon and how bad not if it is happening.
cameraman
09-22-06, 12:41 AM
Breaking out snow tires? The pool is still open.
Ummm, it has been snowing here the last few days. Alta has over a foot on the ground. The snow line is down to about 7000' right now.
coolhand
09-22-06, 01:51 AM
politics don't make science, it's only remains "very debatable" for the politically inclined. at the same time, every odd anomoly in nature is "proof" for other politically inclined folks... funny how this hurricane season wasn't so bad. :gomer:
I think it is generally accepted that the debate is not about if it is warming or not but rather whether it is cause by man or a natural cycle. There are scientists on both sides of the issue.
I think it is generally accepted that the debate is not about if it is warming or not but rather whether it is cause by man or a natural cycle. There are scientists on both sides of the issue.
it isn't an either/or issue to begin with. the only either/or crap comes from folks who make this political who 10 years ago said "lies" and now say "natural cycle only" because, well, admitting that humans contribute as well would be communist or something... you know, evil tree-hugger conspiracies...
go research just 3-5 years ago for how many decades the predicted timetable for an opened passage across the north pole was supposed to be, then go read about how it basically happened this year.
coolhand
09-22-06, 03:09 AM
it isn't an either/or issue to begin with. the only either/or crap comes from folks who make this political who 10 years ago said "lies" and now say "natural cycle only" because, well, admitting that humans contribute as well would be communist or something... you know, evil tree-hugger conspiracies...
go research just 3-5 years ago for how many decades the predicted timetable for an opened passage across the north pole was supposed to be, then go read about how it basically happened this year.
The rhetoric on the other side has changed too, first all you used to heare is all our glaciers and ice caps are melting. Now some people have dropped the traditional "Global Warming" for "Global climate change", this is due to the newer theories of the world plunging into an ice age and other strange things. Hell, now some are even saying that is is causing Glaciers to grow. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/tyne/5283278.stm)
The truth is that any evidence of global warming is not evidence of man made carbon driven warming. That is why it is still a hypothesis. There are countless other factors that involved. It will be a long time before we understand "global climate change", but we should accept that a "climate" by definition is somthing that is perpetually changing. You can cite evidence of the past 3-5 years, and you can also look a tree ring patterns and see climate changes. When you consider the scope of the earth and how old it is you will see that the past 150 years is a blip on how much it has changed. It is naive to think that if we park our cars that all the sudden the world would stand still and be perfect. It simply is not just man's affect on the world is my stance on it. In the meantime I better put my shades on :tony:
JLMannin
09-22-06, 07:15 AM
The wide consensus is that global warming is real and that humans are having some kind of increasing effect. I don't know the percentages off hand but those who argue against global warming are quite small. Their arguments are valid, but are in many ways a straw man because there is virtually no scientific way to gauge worldwide historic temperatures over thousands of years (apart from polar ice core samples.) I use to be skeptical on the idea of global warming, but the increasing amount of literature coming out on the subject has really started to turn me in the other direction.
On the top of California, the lawsuit will likely be thrown out but it is a way for the state to tell the automakers that they want even cleaner cars. In a perfect world, if California really wanted to get serious about cleaning up their air, they would push for more mass transit and contain urban sprawl, but we don't live in a sustainable growth textbook. The argument that China is doing so much worse to their environment is a non-starter. There is little we can do to China but we can decide to be cleaner if we want to.
Please answer this question for me: What did modern man do that caused the most recent Ice age to come to an end a few dozen millenia ago? How about any of the previous cycles of warming and cooling over the eons?
Ice ages have been occuring every few hundres thousand years for millions of years - could we still be "warning up" after the end of the last ice age???
Insomniac
09-22-06, 07:20 AM
I agree. We should wait 4 billion years to get the data and then decide what to do. :) We should be 100% certain it's caused by man before we change anything. But will 4 billion years of data be enough? I mean, we'll still be missing the first 4 billiion years, and for all we know, there could've been a heat age. Maybe the cycle is 100 billion years. We should do nothing as long as there is doubt.
JLMannin
09-22-06, 07:22 AM
Continued hijacking...
Very insightful comments, and the whole crux of this entire argument is that there is no scientific, or statistical, way to test whether there is correlation or causality, we simply don't have enough observations and background information about the whole world over the past thousands of millienia to get a good estimation. However, either way you look at it would indicate that greenhouse emission are harmful to the environment. Without getting too statistical, the causality would tell us that greenhouse emissions are causing global warming. The correlation is telling us that greenhouse emissions and temperature are going up together, at some related percentage that I am not at all sure of. Either way you look at it, causality or correlation, the final conclusion, at least in my eyes, is that emissions would have some kind of negative impact on temperatures (increasing temperatures.)
Correlation does not imply causation. There is a very strong correlation between the worldwide population of sand hill cranes and humans. Does that imply that saving the sand hill crane has caused global overpopulation? Does it imply that if we simply control the the sand hill crane population, the science of corelation will kick in and reign in human population growth?
JLMannin
09-22-06, 07:30 AM
I agree. We should wait 4 billion years to get the data and then decide what to do. :) We should be 100% certain it's caused by man before we change anything. But will 4 billion years of data be enough? I mean, we'll still be missing the first 4 billiion years, and for all we know, there could've been a heat age. Maybe the cycle is 100 billion years. We should do nothing as long as there is doubt.
Four billion years is too long - by then the sun will have transformed into a red-giant, vaporizing Mercury, Venus, and Earth.
We are so arrogant to think that we even have the capability to alter a palnetary system that has existed for 4.5 billion years within our lifetimes when we have been here for less than a million years or so.
Our palnet has been hit by comets and asteroids and has gone through magnetic pole reversals that causes the planet to reorient itself several times without killing all life. I think it will survive man just fine.
Our palnet has been hit by comets and asteroids and has gone through magnetic pole reversals that causes the planet to reorient itself several times without killing all life. I think it will survive man just fine.
But will man survive man? That's what we should be caring about.
Insomniac
09-22-06, 01:47 PM
Four billion years is too long - by then the sun will have transformed into a red-giant, vaporizing Mercury, Venus, and Earth.
We are so arrogant to think that we even have the capability to alter a palnetary system that has existed for 4.5 billion years within our lifetimes when we have been here for less than a million years or so.
Our palnet has been hit by comets and asteroids and has gone through magnetic pole reversals that causes the planet to reorient itself several times without killing all life. I think it will survive man just fine.
You have no proof the sun will turn into a red giant. For all we know, stars don't die out, they are in cycles and will come back. :)
I disagree with your contention that we can't manipulate the planet. There are certainly external factors that can alter the planet much more quickly and greatly than humans, but how you can conclude we're making no impact at all, I don't get. There are absoulte examples of us messing up the planet/ecosystem (and fixing it). Like water pollution and air pollution. I certainly don't think the world will end if we heat the planet up more, but things won't change for the better if sea level rises and redoes the world's coast lines. I'm sure we'll survive as animals around us go extinct, but the poaching of elephants and rhino's in Africa aren't mother nature. That does mess with the ecosystem. The planet will survive, but at what cost?
What makes this so maddening to me is there are so many things the government can do now and they just won't. I'd much rather try to take care of earth now and find out later it was just a cycle then find out later it's not a cycle and we've already screwed it up a lot more.
cameraman
09-22-06, 02:12 PM
Please answer this question for me: What did modern man do that caused the most recent Ice age to come to an end a few dozen millenia ago? How about any of the previous cycles of warming and cooling over the eons?
Human activity has drastically changed the CO2 content of the atmosphere over the last century. That level of rapid change will alter global weather patterns. That is not a theory, that is a fact. Exactly how much the weather patterns will change and how that increase in CO2 will interact with the myriad of factors that make up the global climate are the topic of the real scientific debates. For millions of years carbon has been slowly sequestered in the soils and geologic hydrocarbon deposits, humans have spent the last century undoing that and putting the carbon back into the atmosphere. It is having a measurable effect, it can't be undone and the continued movement of CO2 from the ground into the air by humans at an ever increasing rate will change the environment at an equally increasing rate.
racer2c
09-22-06, 02:21 PM
Human activity has drastically changed the CO2 content of the atmosphere over the last century. That level of rapid change will alter global weather patterns. That is not a theory, that is a fact. Exactly how much the weather patterns will change and how that increase in CO2 will interact with the myriad of factors that make up the global climate are the topic of the real scientific debates. For millions of years carbon has been slowly sequestered in the soils and geologic hydrocarbon deposits, humans have spent the last century undoing that and putting the carbon back into the atmosphere. It is having a measurable effect, it can't be undone and the continued movement of CO2 from the ground into the air by humans at an ever increasing rate will change the environment at an equally increasing rate.
You're a cameraman and a scientist specializing in climate forecasts? Cool.
My freshman year professors pounded into my head the necessity of citing sources when pulling crap out of ones ***.
Not that you are.:tony:
You're a cameraman and a scientist specializing in climate forecasts? Cool. I dunno, there's an engineering student who's asked some really :eek: questions in the past, it cuts both ways ;)
besides, it's a message board, talking out of one's ass is a sacred institution. :thumbup:
racer2c
09-22-06, 04:18 PM
I dunno, there's an engineering student who's asked some really :eek: questions in the past, it cuts both ways ;)
besides, it's a message board, talking out of one's ass is a sacred institution. :thumbup:
Don't I know!;)
cameraman
09-22-06, 07:41 PM
You're a cameraman and a scientist specializing in climate forecasts? Cool.
My freshman year professors pounded into my head the necessity of citing sources when pulling crap out of ones ***.
Not that you are.:tony:
Just so you know, biologists use cameras too.
Just so you know, biologists use cameras too.
http://norbizness.com/archives/pwn3d.jpg
racer2c
09-23-06, 08:47 AM
http://norbizness.com/archives/pwn3d.jpg
I'm not a doctor, but I play one on TV. :tony:
cameraman
09-23-06, 07:12 PM
DARPA just gave me the cash for one of these.
http://www.fluorescence-microscopy.com/WebSite/pictures.nsf/(ALLIDs)/356CF82E16E8F830C1256F2500434336/$FILE/fluocombiIII_app_b_gf.jpg
That's my idea of a kick ass camera.:D
DARPA == Satan :saywhat:
:p
Kahauna Dreamer
09-23-06, 10:29 PM
Lots of California "experts" around here...http://img114.imageshack.us/img114/7726/jerkitzb0.gif
cameraman
09-23-06, 11:32 PM
DARPA == Satan :saywhat:
:p
Satan with a budget :D
JLMannin
09-24-06, 11:16 AM
Human activity has drastically changed the CO2 content of the atmosphere over the last century. That level of rapid change will alter global weather patterns. That is not a theory, that is a fact. Exactly how much the weather patterns will change and how that increase in CO2 will interact with the myriad of factors that make up the global climate are the topic of the real scientific debates. For millions of years carbon has been slowly sequestered in the soils and geologic hydrocarbon deposits, humans have spent the last century undoing that and putting the carbon back into the atmosphere. It is having a measurable effect, it can't be undone and the continued movement of CO2 from the ground into the air by humans at an ever increasing rate will change the environment at an equally increasing rate.
OK, I'll ask the same question again - how did the planet warm up from the last ice age without human intervention; and how do we know what we have seen over the last 30 or so years we have had the ability to very accurately measure temperature in places we have never measured it before is not normal?
Insomniac
09-24-06, 05:24 PM
OK, I'll ask the same question again - how did the planet warm up from the last ice age without human intervention; and how do we know what we have seen over the last 30 or so years we have had the ability to very accurately measure temperature in places we have never measured it before is not normal?
I think if you look at what caused the ice age, you will see why the earth warmed up after that.
This is how they get temperature measurements from the past: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_core (It's Wikipedia, so it's not the gospel, but Wikipedia is generally accurate and makes heavy use of citations.)
Satan with a budget :D
touche.
cameraman
09-25-06, 03:09 AM
OK, I'll ask the same question again - how did the planet warm up from the last ice age without human intervention; and how do we know what we have seen over the last 30 or so years we have had the ability to very accurately measure temperature in places we have never measured it before is not normal?
I don't have the time nor the inclination to write the tome it takes to answer that so I'll defer to somebody who gets paid to do it.
Read this. (http://www.globalchange.umich.edu/globalchange1/current/lectures/samson/climate_patterns/)
racer2c
09-25-06, 07:49 AM
I don't have the time nor the inclination to write the tome it takes to answer that so I'll defer to somebody who gets paid to do it.
Read this. (http://www.globalchange.umich.edu/globalchange1/current/lectures/samson/climate_patterns/)
But we look to you, the biologist, in answering all things climate related. It's just not the same coming from someone else.:)
indyfan31
09-25-06, 01:00 PM
Honestly, reading that article just reasserts my belief that we really don't know what's causing global warming.
Clearly the two sets of measurements are correlated, both showing the temperature reduction of the most recent Pleistocene glacial outbreak between 60,000 and 15,000 years ago. The warming trend to the present interglacial period started around 15,000 years ago. The dates for such measurements are obtained using models of ice deposition and flow.
Both methane and carbon dioxide correlate with temperature - i.e., an increase in temperature is associated with an increase in the abundance of both these two gases. It is unclear whether the gas abundance changes are a consequence of the temperature changes or vice versa.
cameraman
09-25-06, 01:04 PM
But we look to you, the biologist, in answering all things climate related. It's just not the same coming from someone else.:) Do you have any clue how many biologists are studying the effects of global warming? It the full time job of a healthy percentage of the biology department here. It is our damn job to know about global warming. In the exact same way that climate scientists need to know biology in order to do their jobs. It is biology that drives the carbon cycle. So why don't you just read the web site and try to learn something.
Do you have any clue how many biologists are studying the effects of global warming? It the full time job of a healthy percentage of the biology department here. It is our damn job to know about global warming. In the exact same way that climate scientists need to know biology in order to do their jobs. It is biology that drives the carbon cycle. So why don't you just read the web site and try to learn something.
he can't, the brain's too calcified at such an advanced age :D
:p
racer2c
09-25-06, 01:20 PM
Do you have any clue how many biologists are studying the effects of global warming? It the full time job of a healthy percentage of the biology department here. It is our damn job to know about global warming. In the exact same way that climate scientists need to know biology in order to do their jobs. It is biology that drives the carbon cycle. So why don't you just read the web site and try to learn something.
WhadIdo?:confused:
On topic, I just pray that California wins its case against the auto manufacturers. That way we can put this 'global warming' issue behind us! Fingers crossed.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.