They seem to be leading the US in terms of common sense.. California's new policy on cars (And their leniency on cannabis use is well documented, too )
It seems a bit strange to me that they'd be taking a strong stance on global warming, despite the fact that Bush's policy of ignoring the Kyoto agreement worked in their favour when they were having power shortages a while back.
Posted by Thoughtchopper (Member # 480) on :
quote: The car industry argues that the standards will impose extra production costs, raise prices for consumers and force people into smaller cars than they would want.
Yep. Because what they don't realize is: I can crush your tiny toyota like a empty beer can with my mighty SUV. Sure, it only gets three miles to the gallon, but I can Off road the Rocky Mountains along with my entire extended family. When I throw down the hammer, shit happens.
Not like your car, which is only good for driving to work, and maybe to 7-11 to pick up a Big Gulp. My SUV can handle the all terrain holocaust that'll surely happen when the democrats return to office. I can go plateau jumping in Monument Valley. All the commercials are true. Women are in awe of my massive gear shift. The rumble of 900 plus horse power makes them cling to me in joy the way cellophane sticks to watermelons.
Everything the Car Industry says is true, by god, and I'll stomp a mudhole in the man who says otherwise. Having a Big, Expensive Vehicle is the American Dream.
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
It explains Jeff, at any rate...
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
In a related story, prices for new-model cars in California are expected to climb 50% by 2009.
Is Global Warming happening? Maybe. If it is, is there anything you can do about it? Probably about as much as you can do about sunshine. Posted by The_Tom (Member # 38) on :
You seem to presuppose that higher car prices are a bad thingtm.
Posted by Snay (Member # 411) on :
Um. It does? Compared to a lot of SUVs, my Wrangler is very tiny.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
Lower-friction tire tread? So, as long as polution decreases, it's A-okay to have cars sliding every which way around the roads every time it rains?
Posted by Cartman (Member # 256) on :
Considering how most SUV's have huge fat tires which each produce more friction than the threads of your average Abrams tank, I don't see a lot of harm in that legislative tidbit.
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
Yes, but do they have contact patches the size of a fat woman's thighs? Can they launch a pound of bacon into the asteroid belt? And so on?
Posted by Red Thoughtcunt (Member # 480) on :
YES! THE JOKE IS GOT!
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
Wow. There's a name change that's likely to get you yelled at...
Except that you apparently changed it back again while I was posting, so now it makes no sense. Nevermind.
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
My curiosity is now piqued.
*Looks at ThoughCriminal's profile*
Hang on, something's not right there...
Posted by Vogon Poet (Member # 393) on :
Leonard Maltin?!
Posted by Cartman (Member # 256) on :
Could be worse.
Posted by Red Ultra Magnus Pym (Member # 239) on :
You are the worst reviewer ever.
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
I dunno. Ebert did draw comparisons between the PPG movie and Sept 11. Maltin hasn't done that. And neither has ThoughtCriminal.
To the best of my knowledge at any rate.
Posted by Red Ultra Psy First of Twochops (Member # 16) on :
quote:Wow. There's a name change that's likely to get you yelled at...
That was NOTHING.
Good grief! My new name sounds like some kind of deranged resident of Cybertron!
Posted by Red Snay (Member # 411) on :
Holy CRAP, that's ROB?!
Posted by Red Ultra Magnus Pym (Member # 239) on :
What's going on?!?
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
Michael Medved is much worse.
Posted by Red Ultra Magnus Pym (Member # 239) on :
There are those among us unpriviledged enough not to recieve his programming. As such, we can't pass comment, certainly.
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
His show, when he had a show (on PBS), was not so bad.
These days he is a religious conservative culture commentator.
Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
I was going to say Medved...but Simon, always ahead of the curve, beat me to it.
Did anyone find else it ironic to find a banner about Christian Persecution on his page?
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
"Wow. There's a name change that's likely to get you yelled at..."
"That was NOTHING."
Erm... He had changed his name to "Red Thoughtcunt". Surely you aren't suggesting that your name is more offensive to certain parties than that is?
Posted by Red Ultra Magnus Pym (Member # 239) on :
Well, it was ginchy.
Posted by Red Ultra Mega Psy Snay God Shinzon (Member # 16) on :
Ech! I didn't know that. I'd just figured he'd added some new nutball prefix.
Posted by Colorless Cartman (Member # 256) on :
Postfix, actually.
Posted by Red Ultra ThoughtPym (Member # 480) on :
What's all this guff about?
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
Technically that's WorldNetDaily's page, on which such a banner ad is slightly less surprising than rocks which cannot scream.
But, Jay, if you want to get into some barely concealed snickering over Medved's seemingly confused position re: Abrahamic religions, I am so up for it. But this is perhaps not the place, which is why I didn't.
Posted by Red Vorlon (Member # 167) on :
quote: Is Global Warming happening? Maybe. If it is, is there anything you can do about it? Probably about as much as you can do about sunshine.
The globe is warming, that can't be denighed, "what's causing it" is the real question. California has some of the worst air in the country, so they are far more strict on cars, and rightly so, since auto exhast is a major sorce of pollution. It's not so much what comes out of the exhast, as it is the number of cars on the road.
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
quote:Originally posted by Red Vorlon: The globe is warming, that can't be denied.
Er, Koshy boy, you have been here before haven't you? If some of them were taken in a time machine, and watched a species of ape like beings as, over time, they gradually evolved into humans, and then presented them with a piece of paper and collector's edition DVD saying "Yes, we evolved from humans: the proof", they'd still deny that there was any proof. And then they'd say "Enterprise-class", and screaming would ensue.
They can deny anythng.
Posted by Red Vorlon (Member # 167) on :
Of coarse you are correct. I tend to stay out of this forum, and forget what it like sometimes.
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
Although (to backtrack) completely, it's not that bad. Or maybe it is. What's worse? People starting really stupid and heated arguments over evolution (here), or people starting really sutpid and heated arguments over anything (TrekBBS), including (but not limited to), the number of torpedo launchers on the Defiant, whether mY C001 sH1p R00000XXXXXzzzz!, and many more.
Posted by Tora Buttercup (Member # 53) on :
Well, I guess Davis is getting my vote come November.
Posted by Tahna Los (Member # 33) on :
quote:Originally posted by First of Two: In a related story, prices for new-model cars in California are expected to climb 50% by 2009.
Is Global Warming happening? Maybe. If it is, is there anything you can do about it? Probably about as much as you can do about sunshine.
Of course, that is a pro-corporate view who says "who gives a shit anyway?". Yes, the science of Global Warming is not an exact science, but doesn't mean that you shouldn't do anything about it.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
Try to keep current, people, please? Do it for the kids...
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
Yes, the science of Global Warming is not an exact science, but doesn't mean that you shouldn't do anything about it.
Yes, but if we don't know whether it's happening, or if it is, what's causing it, then what do you suggest we do?
Posted by Grokca (Member # 722) on :
quote:Yes, but if we don't know whether it's happening, or if it is, what's causing it, then what do you suggest we do?
Well I don't want to get too caught up in this debate cause I don't know for sure if we are causing global warming, but I do know that if I had a water leak in my house and I didn't for sure know the source of that water leak then I would first reduce the flow of water until I found the leak.
Posted by Tahna Los (Member # 33) on :
Exactly. At the rate we're going, by the time we really found out what's going on, there may be too much damage to reverse.
I won't say that reducing gases such as CO2 is a catch all problem, but more research should be done on this subject.
At the same time, however, we should work on reducing gaseous emissions such as CO2, NO2, SO2, and other pollutants. Toronto just went through its roughest summer in years with 2 straight months of smoggy weather. And smog is caused by air pollutants. And it is unhealthy. And it is not just the SUV's causing it, I'm talking about the industrial plants.
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
quote:Yes, the science of Global Warming is not an exact science.
To be accurate, given the current state of climatalogical models (which alternately assume that clouds don't exist, that it never rains, that the globe is featureless, that Earth's albedo is constant, that snow doesn't reflect light, that there aren't 'carbon sinks' in the ocean, that plankton have a constant rate of growth, and that foliage doesn't change with the climate), the 'Science of Global warming' is about as 'exact' as the Science of Phrenology.
quote:And smog is caused by air pollutants
It's also caused by them big-ass forest fires. Smoke and soot and released gases, ya know.
Posted by Tora Buttercup (Member # 53) on :
Forget global warming.
Cars emit pollutants. Enough pollutants can be harmful. California has too many cars. Regulate the cars.
Until you conservatives live in a smoggy, smelly city and LIKE it, don't be telling us to do nothing about it.
Posted by ThoughtPyminal (Member # 480) on :
Why is it always assumed that Global Warming is a bad thing? I hate being cold.
Hell man! Let's open up some resorts!
Posted by Colorful Cartman (Member # 256) on :
Because most people also hate being wet.
Posted by Timo (Member # 245) on :
Greenhouse effect in Finland:
Zero mosquitoes in July. Two mosquitoes in August. Got 'em both, so expecting none in September.
So little rain that our lawn escaped, screaming, to the grass blade heaven, and had to be replaced by readymade rolls of happy green industrial-grade grass. Which promptly migrated wherever the original lawn had gone, leaving a brownish-yellow substitute that fooled nobody.
Crazy birds that have their third or fourth batch of eggs now when they ought to have one per year. Crazy Finns who travel to Prague just to see what the flood looks like. Only serious news in the telly, stuff that has no place in the dog days. People no longer have the energy to get summer-stupid. The sun saps the strength from the village idiots.
Dust everywhere, little tornadoes turning the sky brown, like it is in the early spring when the anti-skid sand of the winter gets airborne. Except that we can only blame ourselves for the spring dust. Summer dust we now blame on Bush and his anti-Kyoto platform.
No stars. In the summer, the sky is always so bright that there's no proper night in June or July, but I want to see my stars in August. The dust in the air just blocks everything out, except for the innocent blue glow of a "clear" sky. The dusk and dawn skies are spectacular, though.
I could take the current settings all right. But when the knob is turned up one more step, we'll get malaria and legionnaire's and short-sleeved or topless tourists. And the mosquitoes will be back.
Timo Saloniemi
Posted by The Talented Mr. Gurgeh (Member # 318) on :
Huh? I stayed in a cabin at a campsite near Pori for midsummer, and the place was infested with mosquitos. Mainly because the Fins we were staying with stayed up all night drinking vodka with the lights on and the doors open. I spent an hour purging my room of mosquitos with extreme prejudice before going to sleep.
But as for global warming, I think most scientists agree it's because of humans.
Fo2: You sure the climate models are that rough? I think a lot of work is being done to refine the model, I recently read they're even working on taking into account bubble formations in breaking waves.
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
Climate models:
quote:
Simulating El Ni�o: How Are the Models Doing? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Reference Latif, M., Sperber, K., Arblaster, J., Braconnot, P., Chen, D., Colman, A., Cubasch, U., Cooper, C., Delecluse, P., DeWitt, D., Fairhead, L., Flato, G., Hogan, T., Ji, M., Kimoto, M., Kitoh, A., Knutson, T., Le Treut, H., Li, T., Manabe, S., Marti, O., Mechoso, C., Meehl, G., Power, S., Roeckner, E., Sirven, J., Terray, L., Vintzileos, A., Voss, R., Wang, B., Washington, W., Yoshikawa, I., Yu, J. and Zebiak, S. 2001. ENSIP: the El Ni�o simulation intercomparison project. Climate Dynamics 18: 255-276.
What was done The authors compared 24 coupled ocean-atmosphere climate models with respect to their ability to correctly simulate the annual mean state, the seasonal cycle, and the interannual variability of sea surface temperatures (SSTs) in the tropical Pacific Ocean.
What was learned In the words of the authors, "almost all models (even those employing flux corrections) still have problems in simulating the SST climatology." They also note that "only a few of the coupled models simulate the El Ni�o/Southern Oscillation (ENSO) in terms of gross equatorial SST anomalies realistically." And they state that "no model has been found that simulates realistically all aspects of the interannual SST variability."
In other words, only a few of the climate simulators even come CLOSE to being able to realistically simulate a single, fairly short-term event, such as El Nino.
As for what "most scientists" believe... do I have to drag out my link again?
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
Global warming is the "evolution" of ecology. I fully expect to see creationists branching out into forcing "steady state" theories of climates on schools, even as the schools themselves sink into the ocean. First is right to say that scientists are far from agreement about why the planet is getting warmer and how far it is going to go, but denying the facts of the matter is extremely similar to claiming that Neanderthals were old people with bone malformations. The planet is getting hotter, and it is almost certainly getting hotter because of the massive amounts of CO2 we're pumping into the atmosphere. To take a wait and see approach to climate change is like not throwing a life preserver to a drowning man because he might learn to tread water before he goes under.
And, as I am sure to be berated by the usual suspects, I should throw in that I don't think Kyoto was a good plan. I do know that it approached 110+ degrees here at 46.3135 N by 120.1537 W. This happens to be Unusual, or at least it would be, if we weren't breaking temperature records every year.
If things cool off in ten years and I'm still burning all the coal I please, then great. I'll be the first to set an oil well on fire and have a party. But the evidence that my (and your) fossil fuel addiction is making the world a more uncomfortable place to live is convincing enough to suggest we do something about emmissions while we're waiting.
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
quote:it is almost certainly getting hotter because of the massive amounts of CO2 we're pumping into the atmosphere.
Actually, boss, this remains one of the biggest points of contention, even among top scientists.
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
More data from James Hansen (NASA scientist and a leading proponent of Global Warming:
quote:The 1997 Kyoto Protocol, which calls for industrialized nations to reduce their CO2 emissions to 95% of 1990 levels by 2012 (Bolin 1998), is itself considered a difficult target to achieve. Yet the climate simulations lead to the conclusion that the Kyoto reductions will have little effect in the 21st century (Wigley 1998), and "thirty Kyotos" may be needed to reduce warming to an acceptable level (Malakoff 1998).
We suggest equal emphasis on an alternative, more optimistic, scenario that emphasizes reduction of non-CO2 GHGs and black carbon during the next 50 years. This scenario derives from our interpretation that observed global warming has been caused mainly by non-CO2 GHGs. Although this interpretation does not alter the desirability of slowing CO2 emissions, it does suggest that it is more practical to slow global warming than is sometimes assumed.
quote:Reduction of methane emissions and soot could yield a major near term success story in the battle against global warming, thus providing time to work on technologies to reduce future carbon dioxide emissions. Currently, technologies are within reach to reduce other global air pollutants, like methane, in ways that are cheaper and faster than reducing CO2.
Posted by ThoughtPyminal (Member # 480) on :
I think it's funny that you have that quote from "A Few Good Men" in your sig, and that you posted all of that, and that Kevin Bacon was incorrect about what he was talking about in the movie, and that I think you're probably wrong about global warming.
Let me ask you something: Why is the idea of Global Warming considered "liberal" anyway? I know Rush is always harping about it being just another example of liberal bullshit, but though it sounds like he has a point when he's actually talking about it, I can never remember his points later.
I don't honestly care about Rush or his rhetoric here. I'm just asking, you know? I mean, it would make sense for conservatives to Support Global Warming as a hypothesis...lets you get a tighter hold on things.
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
At the risk of turning this into a tedious display of partisanship, I'd like to try my hand at a few ideas.
1.) Money. Fossil fuels are big business, one of the biggest, in fact. Now at the risk of stereotyping I'm going to propose that "conservatism" as a political philosophy in the United States is business-oriented, either because conservatives are business owners or because they believe that what is good for business is good for the rest of us. And this is fine. No one wants to lose money. Dealing with the greenhouse effect will almost certainly cost a lot of money.
2.) Global outlook, or lack thereof. Here I can speak only from my personal experience, but it seems to me that another part of "conservativism" is a belief that problems can always be addressed locally, and that those problems which can't aren't really our problems. This is important because global warming is not going to lead to some worldwise apocalypse. It is simply going to make the planet exceedingly uncomfortable. Why should I really care if tens of millions of refugees are created by rising ocean levels? And this is a serious question, I do not mean to cast it in a negative light. I mean, quite frankly, what does it matter to me, here in Washington, if most of Florida goes under? I don't know anyone in Flordia. I don't sell anything which is bought by people in Florida. I don't buy anything from Florida. (These last two statements are, in fact, false, but which of us really know where everything we buy and sell comes from or goes to?)
I think there are other reasons as well, but they are more controversial. I do not think anyone, of any political persuasion, will take issue with conservatives being pro-business and pro...taking care of one's own first.
Posted by The Talented Mr. Gurgeh (Member # 318) on :
This article in New Scientist reports on the economic effect of measures to stop global warming. It suggests that economic growth would easily sustain any costs of cutting down emissions.
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
I'd have to see more numbers before coming to a valid conclusion, but it looks as though this guy suggests that all the costs of his plan will be borne by economic growth.
In effect, he's assuming that consistent 2% world economic growth will take place for the next 100 years. I'm not entirely that confident in the world's economic outlook.
It also seems to assume that the economic growth will only be NEEDED to pay for the plan. I'm not sure that's an accurate assessment, either.
Worse, that "1-8 trillion" dollar estimate. I think we all know how estimates work... or at least, any of us who have been involved with car mechanics, construction, or government contracts know.
For a good understanding of government estimates, one only needs to look at the original budgets for things like Superfund, and even (sadly) the Space Station.
As for what Rush Limbaugh says... I could not care less. I've listened to him for a grand total of 11 times, and that was all the longer it took me to be convinced that I knew more about what he was talking about than he did.
I don't think Global Warming is a "Liberal" idea. I think Global Warming is probably happening.
I think that Greenhouse Warming, and what should be done about it, are another story altogether.
I think that people who call it a "Liberal" idea are people who think that "Liberals" (US version) tend to throw money at a problem without properly analyzing all the ramifications causes, and alternative solutions.
However, those of the opposite viewpoint can often rightfully be accused of foot-dragging.
There are too extremes to this argument.
1. Piffle, nothing's happening, who cares if Siberia warms by a half-degree?
2. YAAH! We're all gonna DIE! We must spend trillions of dollars RIGHT NOW to reduce our air particulates to the levels of the Jurassic Period!
(Incidentally, the Earth was MUCH warmer then.)
Probably, there's a balanced position that can be found.
IMNSHO, it's that of Dr. Hansen.
Throatpymwhatever: What do mean, you think I'm wrong? I merely quoted an acknowledged expert on the subject. Aren't you, in fact, saying "I think that the expert is wrong?" If so, can you back it up?
And incidentally, Kevin Bacon's character was not wrong, in what he said. The facts he referred to were not disputed. They DID give the guy a code red. It DID lead to his death.
The Major was simply, as WE both are, not in complete possession of all the facts. (Although I might argue that my argument possesses more facts.) Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
I don't think global warming is nice enough to contain itself to a single desert. And the whole world warming by half a degree = bad thing.
quote:YAAH! We're all gonna DIE! We must spend trillions of dollars RIGHT NOW to reduce our air particulates to the levels of the Jurassic Period!
(Incidentally, the Earth was MUCH warmer then.)
And incidentally, there was a lot less people then to be affected.
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
Has anybody laid out what a half-degree rise in average temperature would do? Can you link to it?
How much the the Earth's average yearly temperature vary, through the years? How long have we been measuring it?
I know there were a lot less people in Jurassic times. My point (unclear as it was) was that it can be warmer without destroying life in a runaway greenhouse effect. It also suggests that the Earth has at least some ability to regulate its own temperature (CO2 levels were also reportedly 4 times higher than they are today, too.)
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
Incidentally, has anyone ever heard of the Greening Earth Society?
quote:“Best management practices” such as conservation tillage lead to increased quantities of organic carbon in soils. Their widespread practice would allow U.S. crop and grazing lands to store 12 to 14 percent of U.S. carbon emissions every year.
Apparently, Canada and Australia are looking into this, too.
And here's an interesting essay on the global mean temperature.
quote: I know there were a lot less people in Jurassic times. My point (unclear as it was) was that it can be warmer without destroying life in a runaway greenhouse effect
I doubt that the dinosaurs would have much cared if Kent suddenly found itself underwater. Unfortunatly for us and our big non movable cities, it's a bit more of a problem.
The exact figures were on a a bit long Tomorrow's World thing about sea levels rising, and a few other programs. There's a chart they always seem to pull out which states that "if the Earth's average temperature raised by a degree, these parts of the UK would be underwater". Or something. My eyes hurt.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
) ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)