Hot Arctic

[runawayjim]

You have ruled out Lexus, BMW, Chrysler and Mercedes. What is a good car in your opinion?

toyota for one, probably the most innovative auto-maker at the moment. i am a big subaru fan, no sense in wasting money on audi's quattro when you can get a subie. bmw's aren't bad cars, but they're way overpriced. there is never a reason to spend more than $20-30k on a car (that's the price new, i only buy used).

i drive a small subaru wagon (not a wrx). i need the awd, and it's a stick, so that makes up for the mileage. if toyota made a decent wagon (the matrix is too small for my needs), i'd buy it. my last car was an old (1989) camry wagon, but some dumb teenager rear-ended me on the highway and totalled it.

chryslers are actually known for having serious transmission issues lately... nevermind the fact that they raised the lines and made the side windows practically impossible to see out of. funny... the new mercedes look like chryslers and suffer from the same problem with the shrinking windows.

[damus]

You have ruled out Lexus, BMW, Chrysler and Mercedes. What is a good car in your opinion?

I'd also rule out three out of the four mentioned simply because they're too expensive no matter how much I made. The #1 car that millionaires drive is a ford f series truck. Many wealthy people pay for the car either used or new in full and then keep it for years. Another thing many do to keep from looking like a schmuck is to buy a newer used car, and then trade it in for another newer used car within a few years.

The most respected mid priced brands are what I'd personally buy when I buy a new car. Those being Honda and Toyota. I've got too many family members having troube with different GM cars to buy anything they make at the moment. I'm not a car nut, so I'd be more than happy with a 2004 or newer Accord or Civic (preferably hybrid, but not necessary).

[monsoon]

toyota for one, probably the most innovative auto-maker at the moment.

Curious you say that given that you have dismissed Lexus.

[runawayjim]

Curious you say that given that you have dismissed Lexus.

lexus isn't anything special... they're overpriced toyotas and don't really have much over the standard toyotas to support the high price. while acura really has a lot more to offer than honda and infinity over nissan (although i personally really can't stand nissans, but that's a personal preference thing).

toyota as a company is the most innovative auto-maker... i'd say honda is next.

[peaceloveunderstanding]

i'll never buy a lexus or a bmw... they're a waste of money and not particularly great cars.

I've never had a problem with mine (X5), my brother has one (98 3 series) with 245,000 miles and its still running strong...

As for the SMART, are there any plans to eventually bring the diesal to America? I hate that these fuel efficent cars exist, but really don't because we can't get them.

[monsoon]

It's not clear because they won't be here until the 2008 model year. Mercedes is introducing several new diesel models in the 2007 model year which means it might be possible there will be a diesel Smart. If they do introduce it, it will be easily the most fuel efficient vehicle on the road. IMO, diesels are a much better choice for increasing fuel economy over a hybrid and you can use biodiesel in them as well.

[runawayjim]

It's not clear because they won't be here until the 2008 model year. Mercedes is introducing several new diesel models in the 2007 model year which means it might be possible there will be a diesel Smart. If they do introduce it, it will be easily the most fuel efficient vehicle on the road. IMO, diesels are a much better choice for increasing fuel economy over a hybrid and you can use biodiesel in them as well.

i read they're not immediately gonna bring the diesel version over. but yes, diesel would be ideal... and biodiesel is the one fuel that we should really be working on as an alternative to oil.

[scman473]

As a tiny component of our atmosphere, carbon dioxide helped warm Earth to comfort levels we are all used to. But too much of it does an awful lot of damage. The gas represents just a few hundred parts per million (p.p.m.) in the overall air blanket, but they're powerful parts because they allow sunlight to strem in but prevent much of the heat from radiating back out. During the last ice age, the atmosphere's CO2 concentration was just 180 p.p.m., putting Earth into a deep freeze. After the glaciers retreated but before the dawn of the modern era, the total had risen to a comfortable 280 p.p.m. In just the past century and a half, we have pushed the level of 381 p.p.m., and we're feeling the effects. Of the hottest 20 years on record, 19 occured in the 1980's or later. According to NASA (who my uncle works for) scientists, 2005 was the hottest year on record in more than a century. It's at the North and South poles that those steambath conditions are felt particularly acutely, with glaciers and ice caps crumbling to slush. Once the thaw begins, a number of mechanisms kick in to keep it going. Greenland is a vivid example. Late last year, glaciologist Eric Rignot of the Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, Calif., and Pannir Kanagaratnam, a research assistant professor at the University of Kansas, analyzed data from Canadian and European satellites and found that Greenland ice is not just melting but doing so more than twice as fast, with 53 cu. miles draining away into the sea last year alone, compared with 22 cu. miles in 1996. A cubic mile of water is about five times the amount Los Angeles uses in a year. Dumping that much water into the ocean is a very dangerous thing. Icebergs don't raise sea levels when they melt because they're floating, which means they have displaced all the water they're ever going to. But ice on land, like Greenland's, is a different matter. Pour that into oceans that are already rising (because warm water expands), and you deluge shorelines. By lots of estimates, the entire Greenland ice sheet would be enough to raise global sea levels 23 ft., swallowing up large parts of Coastal Florida and most of Bangladesh. The Antarctic holds enough ice to raise sea levels more than 215 ft. In conclusion, rainforest destruction is causing some global warming, but at least 75 percent of it is being caused from CO2 emissions released into the air by burning fossil fuels at an alarming rate. The United States contributes at least 30 percent of all CO2 emissions in the world. The United States and Australia are the only two industralized nations in the entire world not to sign on to the Kyoto Protocol http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyoto_Protocol. Contact your local Congressmen and/or women and tell them that Global Warming is a problem and it needs to be fixed now. I know i'm going to have people that disagree with me, but that's ok. I saw An Inconvenient Truth earlier today and all I have to say is it will show you worry, it will show you fear, and most of all it will show you truth. You can do things to help. Go here to find out what: http://www.climatecrisis.net/takeaction/ then go here and pledge to see the movie: http://www.climatecrisis.net/seethetruth/, thank you for your time.

P.S. join the virtual tour at: http://www.stopglobalwarming.org/default.asp.

Also if they'll join: http://www.stopglobalwarming.org/sgw_marchers.asp, why won't you.

[runawayjim]

the reason the emissions are causing so many problems is because there isn't enough forest to absorb those emissions. which is why the rain forests are a bigger part of the problem. i shouldn't have to explain 7th grade science... but plants absorb carbon dioxide and use it and release oxygen. they are an essential part of the cycle of things here. with the rain forests being destroyed at an alarming rate, that cycle is being broken down and more CO2 is heading towards the atmosphere rather than being used by the trees.

[damus]

the reason the emissions are causing so many problems is because there isn't enough forest to absorb those emissions. which is why the rain forests are a bigger part of the problem. i shouldn't have to explain 7th grade science... but plants absorb carbon dioxide and use it and release oxygen. they are an essential part of the cycle of things here. with the rain forests being destroyed at an alarming rate, that cycle is being broken down and more CO2 is heading towards the atmosphere rather than being used by the trees.

It's actually noted here that the rain forests grow bigger when there is more carbon in the air. Bigger as in the plants grow bigger, the destruction of the rain forest diminishes its capacity.

[scman473]

Your kidding, right? So, your telling me that if I released CO2 into the atmosphere from here in the United States, the rainforests on the other side of the globe would capture it before it goes into the ozone layer? That's a good one. Who do you think knows more, you or the people at NASA who puts out these studies? Here's more proof from Time Magazine that your wrong: http://edition.cnn.com/2006/US/03/26/coverstory/index.html

Quote from Story: "The mayors of more than 200 cities have signed the U.S. Mayors Climate Protection Agreement, pledging, among other things, that they will meet the Kyoto goal of reducing greenhouse emissions in their own cities to 1990 levels by 2012. Nine northeastern states have established the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative for the purpose of developing a program to cap greenhouse gasses." I applaued these cities and states because they understand it unlike some people in our government. If all of those cities and states believe global warming is happening, why won't you?

[damus]

Your kidding, right? So, your telling me that if I released CO2 into the atmosphere from here in the United States, the rainforests on the other side of the globe would capture it before it goes into the ozone layer? That's a good one. Who do you think knows more, you or the people at NASA who puts out these studies? Here's more proof from Time Magazine that your wrong: http://edition.cnn.com/2006/US/03/26/coverstory/index.html

Quote from Story: "The mayors of more than 200 cities have signed the U.S. Mayors Climate Protection Agreement, pledging, among other things, that they will meet the Kyoto goal of reducing greenhouse emissions in their own cities to 1990 levels by 2012. Nine northeastern states have established the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative for the purpose of developing a program to cap greenhouse gasses." I applaued these cities and states because they understand it unlike some people in our government. If all of those cities and states believe global warming is happening, why won't you?

That article proves nothing. The quote has nothing to do with what you're "disproving". Your personal attacks mean nothing to me. You really should have read what I've said. I never said that I do not believe global warming is happening. The cities and states are run by.... politicians who are looking for votes. They are by no means experts, but I never said I do not believe in global warming.

I am skeptical as to what the cause of it is. I really don't know what's causing it. I think it's foolish to think that man has that much of an effect on the world that all of a sudden our cars are going to be the end of us. Pollution's not good, but it's not the end of the world. My biggest gripe in these types of threads have been the bias against the USA when it comes to the environment. Look over at Canada, whose per capita oil consumption almost equals us. Why doesn't anyone point the finger at them? Look at the developing world in East Asia that obviously has little regard to the environment vs. its economy. There's the rain forests that are being torn down day by day. Please, prove that there is no co-relation between the warming trend in recent years and the destruction of the rain forest. I guess I better not hold my breath, I have not seen the NASA studies yet, either.

You haven't given any data, just took the time to call people idiots for thinking for themselves. There is no consensus. Any reputable scientist (or in Gore's case, Presidential candidate) who says there is a consensus is lying to you. Look at some of the articles posted here. Scientists from Columbia, Harvard, MIT, the Brazillian Government (that's where the Amazon is!), and other institutions disagree with the status quo on global warming.

[intcvlcphlga]

That article proves nothing. The quote has nothing to do with what you're "disproving". Your personal attacks mean nothing to me. You really should have read what I've said. I never said that I do not believe global warming is happening. The cities and states are run by.... politicians who are looking for votes. They are by no means experts, but I never said I do not believe in global warming.

I am skeptical as to what the cause of it is. I really don't know what's causing it. I think it's foolish to think that man has that much of an effect on the world that all of a sudden our cars are going to be the end of us. Pollution's not good, but it's not the end of the world. My biggest gripe in these types of threads have been the bias against the USA when it comes to the environment. Look over at Canada, whose per capita oil consumption almost equals us. Why doesn't anyone point the finger at them? Look at the developing world in East Asia that obviously has little regard to the environment vs. its economy. There's the rain forests that are being torn down day by day. Please, prove that there is no co-relation between the warming trend in recent years and the destruction of the rain forest. I guess I better not hold my breath, I have not seen the NASA studies yet, either.

You haven't given any data, just took the time to call people idiots for thinking for themselves. There is no consensus. Any reputable scientist (or in Gore's case, Presidential candidate) who says there is a consensus is lying to you. Look at some of the articles posted here. Scientists from Columbia, Harvard, MIT, the Brazillian Government (that's where the Amazon is!), and other institutions disagree with the status quo on global warming.

Perhaps you could include the names of the scientists from Columbia and Harvard who don't believe global warming is happening. We already know about MIT's prof - Lindzen, the Cato Institute Fellow.

[runawayjim]

Perhaps you could include the names of the scientists from Columbia and Harvard who don't believe global warming is happening. We already know about MIT's prof - Lindzen, the Cato Institute Fellow.

are you implying that libertarians are anti-environment?

[damus]

Perhaps you could include the names of the scientists from Columbia and Harvard who don't believe global warming is happening. We already know about MIT's prof - Lindzen, the Cato Institute Fellow.

They're in some of the articles that have already been posted in this thread. Anyone who took the time to read (or at least skim) these articles should have noticed.

[monsoon]

are you implying that libertarians are anti-environment?

Admin's note: Comments such as this only serve to send these topics to the trash and don't add anything to the topic.

[runawayjim]

Admin's note: Comments such as this only serve to send these topics to the trash and don't add anything to the topic.

i apologize for that one, i was honestly curious. i've heard comments that conservatives are anti-environment as well... although i will add that teddy roosevelt, perhaps the greatest environmentalist president we've ever had, was a conservative.

and yes, politics come to play in everything related to global warming as it's very much a political issue. a liberal minded scientist will produce a study that favors global warming while a neo-con minded one will produce one against it. a moderate one will produce one that does not ignore anything. i have yet to see a completely balanced study regarding global warming.

[monsoon]

I personally don't believe the vast majority of scientists let their political beliefs (conservative or liberal) affect the outcome of their tests and studies. Run a test and you get an outcome. Unless the results are unethically manulipated, then I don't see how the result can be considered a liberal or conservative one.

Drop an apple from a building to test the theory of gravity and it's going to hit the ground regardless of who does it. Dump billions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere, where it prevents some of the suns energy from escaping back into space, and it is going to heat up. Like the apple the results of this carbon in the atmosphere can be easily observed if one is willing to look at them.

[dimebag1980]

I personally don't believe the vast majority of scientists let their political beliefs (conservative or liberal) affect the outcome of their tests and studies. Run a test and you get an outcome. Unless the results are unethically manulipated, then I don't see how the result can be considered a liberal or conservative one.

I don't know, man... it seems like human nature would naturally leave a margin of error, and scientists are still human.

I will say I prefer to think personal beliefs don't come into play, but I tend to think that they might.

[runawayjim]

I personally don't believe the vast majority of scientists let their political beliefs (conservative or liberal) affect the outcome of their tests and studies. Run a test and you get an outcome. Unless the results are unethically manulipated, then I don't see how the result can be considered a liberal or conservative one.

Drop an apple from a building to test the theory of gravity and it's going to hit the ground regardless of who does it. Dump billions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere, where it prevents some of the suns energy from escaping back into space, and it is going to heat up. Like the apple the results of this carbon in the atmosphere can be easily observed if one is willing to look at them.

hundreds of scientific studies are performed every year that forget certain factors or make assumptions. did you take physics in high school or college? remember assuming that wind resistence was not a factor? things like that... it's not unethical if you forget. if a scientist wants a certain outcome, with the right knowledge he can perform a study on only certain factors and it's perfectly acceptable to ignore other factors. they can choose to only look at computer generated data for the future and not study years of actual data or study years of past data and not use purely scientific means.

vioxx is a good example of this. they didn't see soemthing when they decided it was not harmful. hell, the FDA didn't see the same issues. but it happened. that's a scientific study, not published, but it's still error checked more than twice. and those studies that get published... humans read them and decide they get published. how many people do you think it takes to read a study before it's decided that it'll be published? do you really think a large committee reads it? each journal gets hundreds of submissions all the time. only a handful of people read each one before deciding to publish it.

as for global warming, there's no one single study that determines if it's legit or not. it's the opinion of scientists who read it that determines that, and those opinions are highly motivated by personal beliefs and morals.

carbon in the atmosphere has not been a major issue until the rain forests were highly destroyed... still a human cause, but not linked directly to fossil fuels.

[monsoon]

hundreds of scientific studies are performed every year that forget certain factors or make assumptions. did you take physics in high school or college? remember assuming that wind resistence was not a factor? things like that... it's not unethical if you forget.

Making mistakes in a single experiment is to be expected in high school students, less so with someone having a PHD where presumably they would have much more experience. If you are saying the scientists who are saying there is global warming are doing so because they are making mistakes, then I disagree. There is too much global corroboration of the findings for this to be happening.

BTW, making a mistake in an experiment has nothing to do with being conservative or liberal. Are we done with that discussion now?

[intcvlcphlga]

They're in some of the articles that have already been posted in this thread. Anyone who took the time to read (or at least skim) these articles should have noticed.

I have read most of the articles posted on here and in fact am responsible for posting several of them. The only reason I ask is because I'm the one who posted several articles from a Columbia climate science professor who is widely regarded as the most important authority in the whole debate about global warming. You won't be surprised to learn that he believes that global warming is happening and that human beings are largely responsible. I was just wondering which Columbia professor you're referring to. Also, here's an amusing article from a Harvard professor that really puts its finger on the current ridiculous state of American thought or lack thereof. I'll grant that he's a psychology professor and not directly involved in the climate science debate, but he is qualified to comment on the American state of mind. http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/o...1&cset=true

And, just to play along, here's an article (http://www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/2002/11.14/09-globalwarming.html) about a Harvard environmental studies professor who argues that global warming needs to be taken out of the political debate. Here are some "This is not controversial," he says. "It's not just a gentle warming. And it's caused by us."..."We have raised the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere to a point that is higher than at any time over the past 450,000 years," McElroy says. "Arguably, it's higher than it's been for several million years. Concentrations of CO2 will climb to twice what they currently are by the end of the century. That's a complete change in the atmosphere." Several of you will be pleased to read that he points out some of the inadequacies of the Kyoto Protocol, but he doesn't use that as an excuse to do nothing as has been suggested by multiple posters on this forum.

[runawayjim]

Making mistakes in a single experiment is to be expected in high school students, less so with someone having a PHD where presumably they would have much more experience. If you are saying the scientists who are saying there is global warming are doing so because they are making mistakes, then I disagree. There is too much global corroboration of the findings for this to be happening.

BTW, making a mistake in an experiment has nothing to do with being conservative or liberal. Are we done with that discussion now?

making mistakes happens to people with doctorates all the time... do you really think they do all the work? i can think of one study where a friend of mine was almost published... except they discovered after he had done about 6 months worth of programming that the research assistants before him make a simple mistake... the study was tossed and all that work was for nothing. doctors studied vioxx and doctors reviewed that study and vioxx was put on the market where it then caused heart attacks.

but i wasn't really discussing mistakes. i was talking about only studying certain aspects of the climate and of the change. that's not making a mistake, that's getting the results you expect to get out of a perfectly legit study. it happens and there's not much anyone can do about it because the study was performed flawlessly. if the purpose of it is written in a certain manner, it does not need to include every aspect of everything involved.

[monsoon]

Well that is being unethical. There is no evidence to suggest that our scientific community, or the the scientific communities of the other countries where this has been studed, are unethical. Individuals possibly yes, the community as a whole, no.

[intcvlcphlga]

Just curious, but what is the political agenda of say a climate scientist working for a university? If he or she is not beholden to some corporate association who has a dog in the race, but merely teaches students, writes the occasional textbook, etc then I'm not sure what he/she is going to gain by saying that global warming is real and caused by humans or real but a natural phenomenon. Would Jim Hansen lose his post at Columbia or NASA if he came out against Global Warming? And, why is it that with Hansen it only became political when a Bush administration kid who hadn't even graduated from Texas A&M and had no background in science was instructed to limit Professor Hansen's contact with the media and edit his writing?

And, as far as the Libertarian Party goes, while in some respects, I do hold Libertarian views, the general position of the party is meant to limit oversight on the rights of the individual and the market to do whatever they want. That said, from the Libertarian Party's website (http://www.lp.org/lpnews/article_493.shtml), in their position paper on global warming, they state that: "There is no "official" Libertarian position on the debate over global warming." It goes on to say, "However, most libertarians will view global warming through a libertarian sensibility." Following that reasoning it concludes that "investing in atmospheric research to determine whether a genuine threat exists, and [investing] in reducing emissions only when such investments make economic sense in their own right." Regardless of your position, you cannot argue that their's isn't a political agenda slanted in favor of an unencumbered free market until such time that there is overwhelming evidence of global warming (ie. New Orleans, southern Florida, the NC Outer Banks, etc. submerged). Most of us on here are not scientists. We are not directly involved in the debate. But, those of us arguing on the side of caution are only saying that it is better to plan ahead rather than to wait until it is too late and we're put in a completely defensive position of trying to build dykes around Manhattan island.