Car Forums  

Go Back   Car Forums > General Discussions > General Chat
FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 08-06-2007, 03:54 PM   #1
Cliffy
CF Loafer
 
Cliffy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: NE Hampshire, England, UK
Posts: 8,441
The future of cars...

When I was a young child (not actually that long ago!) I was forever being told that early in the new millenium cars would be hovering about rather than driving, and it seems that everybody thought that the world would be so different by this time. Well, it's been 7.5-yrs since the year 2000 and not alot seems to have changed. Our cars are still using roads (thank God!), and the world is still very much intact....with the exception of Global Warming and the odd war here and there. So, are we all in agreement that the car as we know it will still be around in the next fifty or so years to come? I sure hope so, because when I retire I want to buy a new car....that still has wheels, uses a road, and has a petrol or diesel engine (The latter's not that important as I understand that something has to be done for the environment, lol). Also, what were your thoughts as a child, regarding how things would be today?
__________________


Please click here for the rules prior to posting, and here to introduce yourself!

Artwork courtesy of Gregg, aka Voda48
Cliffy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-06-2007, 04:30 PM   #2
nighthawk
Part Time Active User
 
nighthawk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: -
Posts: 1,651
im pretty much looking at the situation the same way you are

if I cant find a good gas powered car in about 40 years or so ill dig one up and rebuild it

I think global warming is a load of crap anyway
__________________

"There is a big difference between being fast and powerful and just being loud and annoying."
nighthawk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-06-2007, 06:54 PM   #3
Nissan_Altima
Biggest anti-post whore
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Posts: 760
I'm not sure of your definition of a child, but since I am currently 18, my thoughts as a child are kind of unimportant.

Personally, I currently believe that cars are headed towards a (unfortunately) major change. Gas prices have spiked within the last decade and new cars are becoming to emerge. The hybrid engine, although still very impractical, is one example. I think within the next decade, gas/petrol powered engines will become useless.

While I can see cars hovering and flying eventually, I think it is still a thing of the future for at least another 30 years.
Nissan_Altima is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-06-2007, 11:10 PM   #4
Cliffy
CF Loafer
 
Cliffy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: NE Hampshire, England, UK
Posts: 8,441
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nissan_Altima
I'm not sure of your definition of a child, but since I am currently 18, my thoughts as a child are kind of unimportant.
Well I was born in 1982 so the definition of childhood in this subject is really from about 1987 to very early 90's (when people were really scared of things like the new millenium, lol)
__________________


Please click here for the rules prior to posting, and here to introduce yourself!

Artwork courtesy of Gregg, aka Voda48
Cliffy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-07-2007, 01:00 AM   #5
dodgerforlife
Resident CF Farmer
 
dodgerforlife's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Farm in Saskatchewan...
Posts: 2,202
Hate to burst anyones bubble who thinks hybrids are so damned great for the environment, newer studies show they're often worse off in the end...

Here's one such article debunking them.

Which cars are the greenest? You'd be surprised
NEIL REYNOLDS

July 27, 2007

OTTAWA -- Could it really be so - that GM's Hummer is more than 40 per cent greener than Toyota's Prius? That Ford's F-Series pickup is greener? That GM's Silverado pickup is greener? That Dodge's Ram pickup is greener? That Cadillac's DTS, a full-sized luxury sedan with a V8 engine, is greener? Could it be, in fact, that seven different luxury-class automobiles are all greener - and that three of them are Cadillac models?

Well, indeed, it really could be. And, if so, Finance Minister Jim Flaherty's new-car incentive program is a huge environmental mistake.

Oregon-based CNW Marketing Research Inc. has conducted the world's most comprehensive analysis of the "life cycle" energy requirements of more than 100 makes and models of cars and trucks. Given the thousands of parts and processes in the manufacturing and operation of cars, it was a complex task and took the company two years to complete. Volvo once tried to do it - and gave up in frustration (though it does publish "life cycle" analysis for its own makes).

CNW identified 4,000 "data points" for each car, ranging from the energy consumed in research and development to energy consumed in junkyard disposal. It calculated the electrical energy needed to produce each pound of parts. It calculated greenhouse gas emissions. It calculated mileage, too - adjusting for the differences between rush-hour Tokyo and rural America.

The company describes this exercise as "dust to dust" analysis. CNW has now published its second annual report, a 400-page production.

To keep it relatively free of technical jargon, the company expresses energy requirement as the dollar cost of energy for every mile across a vehicle's anticipated years of use - "U.S. dollars per lifetime mile." Thus it reports the lifetime energy requirement of a Hummer as $1.90 a mile; the lifetime energy requirement of a Prius as $2.86 a mile.

It reports by model name and by category. For 22 models of economy cars, the average lifetime energy cost is $0.85. For six models of pickup trucks, it's $2.58. For 14 models of smaller-sized sports utility vehicles, it's $2.07; for nine models of larger-sized SUVs, it's $3.98. For 10 models of gas-electric hybrids, it's $3.65.

Compare the SUVs against the hybrids and you get a sweep in favour of conventional technology. The best-rated smaller SUVs are more than twice as eco-friendly as the hybrids: Dodge's Durango, $1.57; Ford's Explorer, $1.61; Chevrolet's TrailBlazer, $1.61; Jeep's Grand Cherokee, $1.80.

More remarkably, one of the larger SUVs, Ford's Expedition, beats the hybrids with an eco-cost of $3.54.

CNW found wide differences, however, within classes of vehicles. For 18 models of luxury cars, the average energy cost is $4.45. Yet the best of these luxury cars are superior, in lifetime energy use, to hybrids.

The luxury cars that rival hybrids: Lincoln's Town Car, $2.66; Acura's RL, $2.80; Cadillac's CTS, $3.19; BMW's 5 Series, $3.19; Mercedes-Benz's E-Class, $3.48; Toyota Land Cruiser 80 series, $3.49; Cadillac's STS (Seville), $3.56; Cadillac's DTS (DeVille), $3.65.

CNW's assessment of the hybrids has irritated some of the car companies.

Toyota says that CNW credited Prius with only half its 200,000 lifetime miles. CNW says that Prius owners drive less than 7,500 miles a year - meaning that these cars will be scrapped long before they use their expected lifetime mileage (in 26 years). CNW says that hybrids fare poorly because of increased complexity. Honda's conventional Accord gets rated at $2.18; its Accord Hybrid gets rated at $3.29 - an environmental cost 50 per cent higher.

Take the batteries, for example. Toyota buys 1,000 tonnes of nickel a year from Ontario (mined and smelted in Sudbury). This nickel gets shipped to Wales for refining, then to China, for further processing, and then to Toyota's battery plant in Tokyo - a 10,000-mile trip, mostly by petrol-gulping container ships and diesel-powered locomotives.

Toyota, however, still has some of the greenest vehicles on earth. The Scion has the lowest energy cost of all at 48 cents a mile. The Corolla, at 72 cents, and the Echo (Yaris), at 77 cents, are also in the best-on-earth class. Low-energy competitors include Dodge's Neon (64 cents) and Saturn's Ion (67 cents). Cars with the highest energy requirement include the Rolls Royce ($10.97) and the equally elegant German-made Maybach ($15.83).

In his March budget, Mr. Flaherty made fuel efficiency - gas mileage alone - the sole basis for the environmental rating of new cars. He will reward high-mileage cars (with rebates from $1,000 to $2,000) and punish low-mileage cars (with surcharges from $1,000 to $4,000). The program could well be a phenomenal waste of energy. Junk it, Mr. Flaherty. It's not fit for the road.
dodgerforlife is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-07-2007, 04:28 PM   #6
Enthusiast
VTEC LOL
 
Enthusiast's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 1,106
When I was little I just wanted fast cars of my own.

Oh and Global Warming is a load of shit. Nothing but a political agenda
__________________
Enthusiast is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-07-2007, 09:17 PM   #7
bebopin64
CF Enthusiast
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 124
saying its nothing but a political agenda is such an ignorant thing to say. its basically proven beyond a doubt. and with that article, hybrid cars are still new technology so it does take a lot of energy to research and develop them along with manufacture them but once the technology is not so new those "energy costs" will go down.
bebopin64 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-07-2007, 11:10 PM   #8
Cliffy
CF Loafer
 
Cliffy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: NE Hampshire, England, UK
Posts: 8,441
Quote:
Originally Posted by bebopin64
saying its nothing but a political agenda is such an ignorant thing to say. its basically proven beyond a doubt. and with that article, hybrid cars are still new technology so it does take a lot of energy to research and develop them along with manufacture them but once the technology is not so new those "energy costs" will go down.
I tend to agree with that. Although I'd rather not believe it, it's a very real state of affairs that will continue to affect us all....I think, lol.
__________________


Please click here for the rules prior to posting, and here to introduce yourself!

Artwork courtesy of Gregg, aka Voda48
Cliffy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-08-2007, 09:15 AM   #9
bebopin64
CF Enthusiast
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 124
ya its gonna be a bigger problem than a majority of ppl think. so much money going into making people not believe that a lot of people dont believe (hmmm..?? concidence?). oh well...nothing i can do
bebopin64 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-12-2007, 09:49 AM   #10
magnum69
CF Newbie
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 8
It means that people need to take care of their environment seeking ways on how to prevent more damage and cure that global warming thing. and cars are major culprit so manufacturers should work on it including oil dealers.
__________________
Signature removed. Please read the rules!
magnum69 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-12-2007, 11:06 AM   #11
dodgerforlife
Resident CF Farmer
 
dodgerforlife's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Farm in Saskatchewan...
Posts: 2,202
Quote:
Originally Posted by magnum69
It means that people need to take care of their environment seeking ways on how to prevent more damage and cure that global warming thing. and cars are major culprit so manufacturers should work on it including oil dealers.


Did you read the article I posted? Cars are just one of the factors in emissions. Think about the large number of ships in the ocean, the amount of planes in the air, the number of trains on tracks, hell even cows and their methane production. Cars are being targeted unfairly, and the government is just passing the buck.
dodgerforlife is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-12-2007, 02:28 PM   #12
What
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Costa Nocha
Posts: 652
Quote:
Originally Posted by dodgerforlife
Did you read the article I posted? Cars are just one of the factors in emissions. Think about the large number of ships in the ocean, the amount of planes in the air, the number of trains on tracks, hell even cows and their methane production. Cars are being targeted unfairly, and the government is just passing the buck.

Planes, trains,and ships used for pleasure are a minority. They aren't replaced often and putting regulations on them, thus forcing an upgrade, would drive transportation prices through the f'n roof and compromise our safety.

And cows? Come on...I guess the government should regulate lightning too because that pollutes the Earth more than all of them.

And your article "debunking" hybrids is trash. I could find 5 articles debunking your article. You've got to be media smart dude. Your article doesn't debunk anything...all it's saying is that this stuff "could" be true. Go count the "coulds". I can explain processes of a manufacturing plant that this article didn't take into account. I'm certain Toyota isn't as inefficient as this article lets on, but I'm not blind to the energy used to produce a product. However, the "energy measurement" process explained in your article doesn't appear to be equipped to correctly measure energy usage of hybrid car production nor does it appear to estimate future usage since hybrid car production is in its infancy and no where near max efficiency. If I were you, I'd research on my own instead of relying on media outlets.

Last edited by What : 08-12-2007 at 02:40 PM.
What is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-12-2007, 02:52 PM   #13
Enthusiast
VTEC LOL
 
Enthusiast's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 1,106
Quote:
Originally Posted by bebopin64
saying its nothing but a political agenda is such an ignorant thing to say. its basically proven beyond a doubt. and with that article, hybrid cars are still new technology so it does take a lot of energy to research and develop them along with manufacture them but once the technology is not so new those "energy costs" will go down.

I sent this to a proffesor who used to preach global warming, sure did shut him up

Fanatics, Heretics and the Truth about Global Warming
May 24, 2006
By Tom DeWeese
"Oceans lash our coasts. Deserts Burn. The sky provides no shelter. Turmoil of Biblical proportions threatens not just our weather but life itself. Global Warming is upon us."
Those words aren’t from the preview trailer of the silly, overblown, over dramatic film, "Day After Tomorrow" that invaded movie theaters a few years ago. And they aren’t just carefully selected "scare" words developed from a sweep through a thesaurus. These are the opening words to yet another hysterical diatribe passing as news these days on the subject of Global Warming. This particularly silly one greeted readers of a recent issue of Playboy Magazine. The article was, of course, accompanied by the obligatory pictures of smokes stacks belching over a city and the melting of ice burgs.
You hear it everywhere. Global Warming is a fact. It is here. It is now unstoppable. The Polar Ice Cap is melting. Polar Bears are endangered. Greenland is actually turning green! Hurricanes are blowing with more force. Tornadoes are growing in numbers. Water levels are increasing, threatening to flood New York City. Human existence is threatened. And, of course, the deserts are starting to burn. We are assured that scientists are in near total agreement with the assessment.
The media is in a frenzy, rushing to report the latest news release from special interest groups with the latest report or prediction. Al Gore is rushing his hi tech docudrama to the theaters to whip up more frenzy. Corporations are being forced to turn "green" to show their "corporate social responsibility" in the wake of the coming disaster.
Global Warming has become a euphemism for a political agenda. There is Socialism, Capitalism and Global Warmingism. It has become a religion run by fanatics reminiscent of the leaders of the darkest days of the Inquisition that nearly destroyed civil society only a few hundred years ago. We are not to question the great god of Global Warming. Those who do are separated from civil society and labeled as heretics.
So how can anyone question the decrees handed down from the Ivory Towers to the unwashed masses? Answer: every religion has its heretics.
The simple truth is there is no scientific consensus on Global Warming. In fact, as the media frenzy screams global warming, there are a growing number of scientists who are expressing their doubts.
In 1992, just prior to the UN’s Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro, 425 scientists and other intellectual leaders signed The Heidelberg Appeal, a quiet call for reason in dealing with the climate change issue. Neither a statement or corporate interests, nor a denial of environmental problems, the Heidelberg Appeal expresses a conviction that modern society is the best equipped in human history to solve the world’s ills, provided that they do not sacrifice science, intellectual honesty and common sense to political opportunism and irrational fears. Today, the Heidelberg Appeal has been signed by more than 4,000 scientists and leaders from 100 countries, including more than 70 Nobel Prize winners.
Also in 1992, another statement from some 47 atmospheric scientists was issued saying "such policies (greenhouse global warming theories) derive from highly uncertain scientific theories. The statement cited a survey of atmospheric scientists, conducted in the summer of 1991, "confirms that there is no consensus about the cause of the slight warming observed during the past century." The statement went on to say, "We are disturbed that activists, anxious to stop energy and economic growth, are pushing ahead with drastic policies without taking notice of recent changes in the underlying science."

In 1995, over 85 scientists and climate experts from research labs and universities worldwide, signed the Leipzig Declaration in answer to the International Symposium on the Greenhouse Controversy, held in Leipzig, Germany that year. In part, the Declaration says; "In a world in which poverty is the greatest social pollutant, any restriction on energy use that inhibits economic growth should be viewed with caution. For these reasons, we consider ‘carbon taxes’ and other drastic control policies – lacking credible support from the underlying science – to be ill-advised, premature, wrought with economic danger, and likely to be counterproductive."
In 1997, a Gallop Poll of eminent North American climatologists shows that 83% did not support the claims of the green house theory of Global Warming.
In 1998, The Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine (OISM) issued a petition for signature by atmospheric scientists saying there is no scientific evidence indicating that greenhouse gases cause global warming. That petition was signed by more than 17,000 scientists and leaders involved in the issue.
Global Warming scaremongers have tried to discredit these statements from the opposition, saying either they are too old to be counted in today’s debate or that they weren’t signed by real scientists. Neither is true. One only has to look at the signers on the documents and statements to know who and what they are. The relevance of the documents can be answered in two ways. First, most of the signers of these documents from the 1990’s hold the same positions today. Second, as is the fallacy in the Global Warming debate, such drastic climate changes, as described in the scaremongers diatribes, would not come about overnight. Though the proponents would have you believe otherwise, 15 years is but a microsecond in the study of the earth’s activities.
However, there is great question about the validity of the documents promoted by the Global Warming crowd. There is strong, documented evidence to show they care little about sound science and facts and much more about their political agenda.
For example, in May of 1996, unannounced and possibly unauthorized changes to the United Nation’s report on climate change touched off a firestorm of controversy within the scientific community. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the science group that advises the United Nations on the global warming issue, presented a draft of its report in December 1995, and it was approved by the delegations. However, when the printed report appeared in May 1996, it was discovered that substantial changes and deletions had been made to the body of the report to make it conform to the Policymakers Summery. Specifically, two key paragraphs written by the scientists were deleted. They said:
"None of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed climate changes to increases in greenhouse gases."
"No study to date had positively attributed all or part of the climate change to …man-made causes."
That was not the last time data has been manipulated by the IPCC to fit its political agenda. In 2005, a federal hurricane research scientist named Chris Landsea resigned from the UN-sponsored IPCC climate assessment team because his group’s leader had politicized the process. Landsea said in his resignation letter, "It is beyond me why my colleagues would utilize the media to push an unsupported agenda that recent hurricane activity had been due to global warming." He went onto say, "I personally cannot in good faith contribute to a process that I view as being both motivated by pre-conceived agendas and being scientifically unsound."
__________________
Enthusiast is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-12-2007, 02:53 PM   #14
Enthusiast
VTEC LOL
 
Enthusiast's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 1,106
"continued"

In 2006, the voices of reason are speaking out louder than ever. Professor Bob Carter, a geologist at James Cook University, Queensland, Australia, says the global warming theory is neither environmental or scientific, but rather, "a self-created political fiasco." Carter explains that "Climate changes occur naturally all the time, partly in predicable cycles and partly in unpredictable cycles."
Meanwhile, more than 60 leading international climate change experts have gone on record to urge Canada’s new Prime Minster to carefully review global warming policies, warning that ‘"Climate change is real’ is a meaningless phrase used repeatedly by activists to convince the public that a climate catastrophe is looming and humanity is the cause."
In April, 2006, using temperature readings from the past 100 years, 1,000 computer simulations and the evidence left in ancient tree rings, Duke University scientists announced that "the magnitude of future global warming will likely fall well short of current highest predictions." The study was supported by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the Department of Energy and the National Science Foundation. Gabriele Hegerl of Duke’s Nicholas Schools of the Environment and Earth Sciences said her study discounts dire predictions of skyrocketing temperatures.
In 2004 the Heartland Institute published a report by Dr. Richard Lindzen, the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Sciences of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT). Dr. Lindzen reported that global warming is unlikely to be a dangerous future problem, with or without the implementation of such programs as the Kyoto Protocol. Lindzen, a member of the IPCC and one of the world’s leading climatologists, said that alarmist media claims to the contrary are fueled more by politics than by science.
Said Dr. Lindzen, "With respect to science, consensus is often simply a sop to scientific illiteracy. After all, if what you are told is alleged to be supported by all scientists, then why do you have to bother to understand it? You can simply go back to treating it as a matter of religious belief, and you never have to defend this belief except to claim that you are supported by all scientists except for a handful of corrupted heretics."
So why, if scientists are researching the issue and if there is no consensus that global warming is a reality, is this voice not being heard? Why is a near panic building in the news media, on Capitol Hill and in research labs across the nation and in the international community?
Answer: fear and money.
Simply put, scientists know where the grants will come from to pay their salaries. Dr. Patrick Michaels, a leading opponent to the global warming scaremongers, calls it the federal/science paradigm. He describes it this way: Tax $ = Grants = Positive Feedback Loop to Get more Grants.
Says Dr. Michaels, "What worker bee scientist is going to write a proposal saying that global warming is exaggerated and he doesn’t need the money? Certainly no one wanting advancement in the agency! There is no alternative to this process when paradigms compete with each other for finite funding." The only ones who can openly oppose the party line of the day are those who don’t need the grants or who have some other source of funding. There aren’t many.
The money is in global warming because it’s being pushed by a political agenda that wants power. Power in Washington. Power on the international stage. Power over economic development. Power over international monetary decisions. Power over energy. In short, power over the motor of the world. It’s driven by literally thousands of large and small non-governmental organizations (NGOs) sanctioned by the United Nations, and implemented by a horde of bureaucrats, university academics and an ignorant but pliable news media.
Case in point. The American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) used to publish the journal Science. Since 2000, it has published roughly 75 commentaries which have supported the idea that global warming is a serious problem requiring massive solutions. Now, the AAAS acts as a massive lobbying operation pushing this agenda. Taxpayers have now provided $20 billion into the scientific community for global warming work.
Moreover, Science and its British counterpart Nature won’t publish articles to the contrary of the agenda. If a scientist wants the prestige of being published, then he must carry the global warming banner.
According to Dr. Michaels, this is how it works: "They take a little truth and distort it or study it into a lot of revenue for them. Them = Academia + Environmental non governmental organizations + private scientific fields + Government + all the associated public and private organizations supporting this shell."
Concludes Dr. Michaels in his landmark book, Meltdown, "This junk science works for the fish movement, smart growth, sustaining development, rapid transit, wet lands, critical areas, water rights, property rights, fossil fuels, logging, justifying huge government and environmental land wildlife corridor buy ups with public money, changing regulatory laws, changing high court opinions, escalating enforcement codes, on and on." It’s all thrown into the offering plate as the taxpayer sits in the pew of the Church of Global Warming.
Federal spending on climate research has ballooned since the early 1990’s from a few hundred million dollars to $1.7 billion today. As Dr. Michaels points out, scientists who don’t toe the party line don’t share in that bounty.
Blasphemy or not, here’s the truth about Global Warming.
As reported by Dr. Lindzen, "The global mean temperature is never constant, and it has no choice but to increase or decrease – both of which it does on all known time scales. That this quantity has increased about 0.6 degrees C (or about 1 degree F) over the past century is likely. A relevant question is whether this is anything to worry about."
Professor Bob Carter says the pubic has been brainwashed by politicians and bureaucrats into believing world industrialization has created "climate change" that will lead to widespread disaster. However, he shows that a period of similar warming occurred between 1918 and 1940 before industrialization really began, followed by a cooling between 1940 and 1965, a period during which human-caused emissions were accelerating.
In fact, looking deeper into history reveals that global warming and cooling are simply a regular occurrence. According to Robert Essenhigh, Professor of energy conservation at Ohio State University, the ice sheets at the poles have been melting since the early 1900’s and the Earth’s warming had begun about the middle 1600s.
That warming trend followed a 300 – 400 year cooling period, commonly known as the Little Ice Age, which came after the much hotter Medieval Warm Period, running roughly A.D.900 to 1300. During that period, the Vikings had two settlements on the west coast of Greenland. The settlements vanished with the onset of the Little Ice Age. This is the same area global warming scare mongers are panicked over because some grass is now growing there. In fact, history shows such growth is nothing new.
We are told, however that man-made carbon dioxide is the source of the global warming problem. As Professor Essenhigh asks, "what has carbon dioxide to do with this"?
He explains, "the two principled thermal-absorbing and thermal-emitting compounds in the atmosphere are water and carbon dioxide. However – and this point is continually missed – the ratio of water to carbon dioxide is something like 30-to-1 as an average value. At the top it is something like 100-to-1. This means that the carbon dioxide is simply ‘noise’ in the water concentration, and anything carbon dioxide could do, water has already done." "So," he asks, "if the carbon dioxide is increasing, is it the carbon dioxide driving the temperature or is the rising temperature driving up the carbon dioxide"? In other words, the carbon dioxide issue is irrelevant to the debate over global warming.
But what about all of those storms? We can see the weather changing before our eyes, we’re told. We are experiencing death, destruction, plagues, extinction, biblical catastrophes at alarming rates. Any fool can see… Those reports simply show how effective the propaganda machine has been.
The truth about the hurricanes is that during the past 35 years, the average number of "significant" tropical cyclones in the southern regions, including the Pacific Ocean and the Southern Indian Ocean, is about 28.5 storms per year. The breakdown by decade is: 1970s – 32.9; 1980s- 27.8; 1990s – 29.1; and the 2000s, so far – 25.0 It is interesting to note that so far in the 2000s the numbers are actually below average. Even if one calculates just the last ten years it only amounts to 28.5 – well within the average.
The fact is, researchers are now looking into Hurricane Katrina to determine its true strength. It is currently listed as a category 4 storm. But will probably be downgraded to a category 3. It is important to remember that the disaster of New Orleans was a result of bad government not taking care of the levies. There was relatively little actual hurricane damage.
Ice is melting on the edge of the caps because it always melts in the
__________________
Enthusiast is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-12-2007, 02:54 PM   #15
Enthusiast
VTEC LOL
 
Enthusiast's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 1,106
"continued"

summer. But research shows that the core of the ice is actually thicker than ever. And the burning deserts? Well, that’s what deserts do, isn’t it?
It’s easy to distort the facts when you start from the premise that global warming is a fact and then one must only gather details to support the premise. It’s easy to find film footage of natural occurrences like melting ice and beached whales and then put your own caption on it -- especially when you are armed with millions of dollars in grant money and an impressive title to go with it. A published report in a prestigious magazine accompanied by a news story in a major news paper will lead to speeches in front of a gathering of ones peers and on to a book deal. It’s good to go along to get along.
So look out this summer. The Global Warming machine will be in full charge mode as Al Gore invades theaters with his new documentary entitled "An Inconvenient Truth." The primal panic will reach a deafening scream, sure to drown out the voice of reason and truth. The one that says there is no global warming!

---------------------------------------

A little research showed that methane is actually the most prominent "green house gas" in the atmosphere, registering in at 17-20%

Some other things
-The whole in the Ozone layer wasnt discovered until the 1970s by NASA and it is unknown as of now wether it is actually getting bigger or if it is a natural occurence.
-according to Bio 1 and Chem 2 professors termites and cockroaches give off more "enviromentally unfriendly gasses every year than human beings have in the past 100.
-"The volcatic eruptions and ash being spewed into the atmosphere on a DAILY basis, causes more polution daily, then the entire population of the earth has since the Industrial Revolution.
-"The global mean temp has only raised .6* C since the beginning of the industrial revolution.

This was touched on, but the Earth has a documneted histroy of warming and cooling. We are coming OUT of an Ice age. Common sense tells us this means it is going to warm regardless of how many environmental restrictions we make."
- A Gentleman with a BS in Enviromental Management


Just thought Id share that with you
__________________
Enthusiast is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Forum Jump



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:13 AM.

Powered by vBulletin Version 3.5.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2002 - 2011 Car Forums. All rights reserved.