Living Car Free - The debate's over: Globe is warming

According to this article (http://www.usatoday.com/weather/climate/2005-06-12-global-warming-cover_x.htm) in USA Today. Even General Electric is now convinced!

Not exactly directly about being car-free, but I figured it was related enough that people here would be interested. (I should also disclose that I am not car-free, so I hope that's not a criteria for posting! :) However, as a family we are preparing to go from being a two-car to a one-car family, so we're moving in the right direction!)

....as a family we are preparing to go from being a two-car to a one-car family, so we're moving in the right direction!)

Wife and I have just begun analyzing the pros and cons of going to one car.

We went from a two car family to a one car family a couple of years ago. After totalling a minvan we never replaced it, and the only car we have now is a Honda Civic Hybrid. My wife drives the car, I use a bike. During the summer my wife and kids takes off for two months, leaving me here alone, and during that time I am totally car-free.

I'd like to go completely car-free, but I know my wife would never allow it. It wouldn't be possible where we live right now, where there is no public transportation, traffic is too heavy and distances too great for my wife and kids to get around (kids are 4 and almost 6).

I find car-free living to be easy when single. During my single years in Oslo, Norway, I was completely car-free, relying on public transportation (subway) to get around. Even with a family it would be easy in a place like that. However, here (middle of Suburbia), it would be very, very difficult with a family.

Not car-free, but have been one-car, two-job family for many years.

Bicycling, walking, using mass-transit and hitching a ride with my wife in the one car has worked well. The one thing I love about riding my bike for transportation is that the more I do it, the more independent I feel. I might not be totally car-free, but I am not car-bound either. If I had to go without a car, I'd already be prepared.

My wife took the car on a two-week trip without me this month. I adjusted--no car.

:)

According to this article (http://www.usatoday.com/weather/climate/2005-06-12-global-warming-cover_x.htm) in USA Today. Even General Electric is now convinced!

Not exactly directly about being car-free, but I figured it was related enough that people here would be interested. (I should also disclose that I am not car-free, so I hope that's not a criteria for posting! :) However, as a family we are preparing to go from being a two-car to a one-car family, so we're moving in the right direction!)

I will follow anything that USA Today has to say as strictly, unadulterated fact, and if my hero, large corporate America concurs, it is final - the globe is truly warming. As an aside, GE is probably about to release mini globe coolers!

I will follow anything that USA Today has to say as strictly, unadulterated fact, and if my hero, large corporate America concurs, it is final - the globe is truly warming. As an aside, GE is probably about to release mini globe coolers!
I don't doubt GE has products in line. In fact, I'm sure ExxonMobil does, too. The oil industry might be denying the evidence publicly, but like cigarette companies who denied the cancer/smoking link and the addictive nature of nicotine for decades, they are probably privately preparing for the impacts on their industry. They are simply holding out for profit as long as they can.

I will follow anything that USA Today has to say as strictly, unadulterated fact, and if my hero, large corporate America concurs, it is final - the globe is truly warming. As an aside, GE is probably about to release mini globe coolers!
I share your opinion. My point is simply that climate change belief seems to be getting more mainstream all the time - it's not just for environmentalist wackos anymore! :) And I think that's very good news.

That said, it is kind of an over-the-top headline, but hey, I didn't write it!

I don't doubt GE has products in line. In fact, I'm sure ExxonMobil does, too.

I read a bit on a blog called "Treehugger" about some comments made by Exxon President Lee Raymond in yesterday's Wall Street Journal. My WSJ subscription has expired, so I cannot verify, but according to Treehugger, Raymond not only denied that global warming exists, but also criticized other oil companies for wasting money on alternative energy source research.

The link to the blog entry is http://www.treehugger.com/files/2005/06/exxon_on_global.php

Doing a google news search on Exxon President Lee Raymond yields a wealth of info.

The new tack for the conservatives is that "the globe is warming, but it's not humans' fault".

That's why they call it "climate change." Climate change doesn't have the decades of "this is a bad thing caused by humans and we need to stop causing it" connotations that global warming does.

Doing a google news search on Exxon President Lee Raymond yields a wealth of info.

Lee Raymond has announced his intention to retire as Exxon CEO at the end of this year. Rex W. Tillerson is expected to replace him. Although Tillerson seems to be less gruff and abrasive than Raymond, Tillerson appears to me to be just another "business as usual" executive.

On March 4, 2005 Tillerson remarked in a speech:

All in all, we believe global economic growth will continue at just under 3 percent per year, or roughly the same pace as the past 20 years. We expect global demand for all forms of energy to grow at about 1.7 per year on average, rising more than 50 percent from about 220 million oil-equivalent barrels per day currently to 335 million oil-equivalent barrels daily by 2030. That is a huge amount of energy beyond what we use today. To put that in perspective, such an increase in oil-equivalent demand would be about ten times the current output of Saudi Arabia.

So we need to find nine new Saudi Arabias in the next 25 years? How many new Saudi Arabias have we found in the past 25 years? Will Exxon find a new Saudi Arabia every three years, or will nine of them be found all at once?

Yeah, we'll burn all the oil we can pump, but some people suspect we might be finding and burning quite a bit less oil than Exxon is counting on.

Yeah, Lee Raymond is a bad guy, imho. From the old school of use it as fast as you can and disregard the natural environment as much as legally possible. Uh, kind of like a certain administration in Washington. No thinking or concern for future generations. I refuse to buy Exxon fuel or mutual funds with significant holdings of their stock. Although, there are those who now advocate stock purchases of some of these big multi-nationals in order to force board changes and greener decision-making.

Contrast him with Lord John Browne, CEO of BP Amoco, who has written an open letter to industry on the dangers of global warming, invested in solar and wind technologies, and committed BP to significant reductions in CO2 emissions of their own operations.

Yeah, we'll burn all the oil we can pump, but some people suspect we might be finding and burning quite a bit less oil than Exxon is counting on. Um, yes, considering that even the Saudi fields are running into trouble (declining production) and they won't acknowledge the problem. But there is a good book on the subject - Twilight in the Desert - Simmons, which details a lot of the issues.

I've run into this alot, particularly since hurricane katrina, and I'm still searching for reasonable subjective info from either party.

In know its been in vogue since the early 80's to promote the whole global warming theory, but can someone send me some definitave data showing the world has become steadily, signifigantly warmer over a reasonable period of time?

and what ever happened to the "global cooling" theories in the 60's and 70's? according to the same groups that are preaching global warming, we were headed for another ice age....

no flames please, just subjective data.

I did a google search under "global temperature change data". (quotation marks were not in the search.) I read through most of the first page that came up and it seems pretty well-done.

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/
Note that you can click on the graph at the upper right of that page to enlarge it.

See also:
http://www.met-office.gov.uk/research/hadleycentre/obsdata/globaltemperature.html
(graph from that page: http://www.met-office.gov.uk/research/hadleycentre/CR_data/Monthly/HadCRUG.gif )

and for a USA perspective:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/anomalies/anomalies.html

Keep in mind, although Global warming is evident, the source of Global warming still has not been proven. Many educated people do believe that human activity has increased global warming, but many educated people believe that we are simply in the midst of another naturally-occuring upward temperature cycle, and that human activity has a negligeble effect on global tempurature. There is not enough scientific evidence right now to support one side or the other. Either way, we're certainly running out of gas!

Regardless, I applaud whoever is living car-free. I wish I could, but there's just no way.

I did a google search under "global temperature change data". (quotation marks were not in the search.) I read through most of the first page that came up and it seems pretty well-done.


not bad, but like most of the data I've seen, its just a tiny slice of time. 100 years is an eyeblink, geologicly speaking. I think its representative of a warming cycle, but not a trend. Its like measuring just the last climb on your weekly ride: sure, its up but that does not mean you didn't just experience a long downhill. ;)

I also take exception to studies of the last 100 years due to the changes in our monitoring methods. Long term geologic studies of climactic change employ the same methods over the course of the study. Collecting existing data by various methods over a 100 year span and trying to put them all together is a fallible process. The first link you gave me illustrates this with a disclaimer:
Annual values are approximately accurate to +/- 0.05°C (two standard errors) for the period since 1951. They are about four times as uncertain during the 1850s, with the accuracy improving gradually between 1860 and 1950 except for temporary deteriorations during data-sparse, wartime intervals. Estimating accuracy is a far from a trivial task as the individual grid-boxes are not independent of each other and the accuracy of each grid-box time series varies through time (although the variance adjustment has reduced this influence to a large extent).
Note the two periods of time that have the biggest difference in temperature are also the ones with the largest variance in collection means and methods.

I'm not saying that proves it wrong (like I said, not bad) but you have to look at the earths timeline as a whole.

Keep the data coming, I'd like to keep reading both sides of this as long as the sources are scientific and substantial in nature. No political stuff supporting either side please :)

I know I'm often too lefty for my own good but like so many things I think it's important to look at this from a different perspective. We know - as fact - that all of these pollutants cause health problems for people. We seem to know that these pollutants (I'm sure I'm spelling that wrong) are also causing global warming. The global warming, whether from pollution or from natural processes, is causing a shift in severe weather. This makes living in areas which we have "re-engineered" nature in order to inhabit them become much more risky (ie NOLA). Common sense then would suggest that we stop pretending that we control the environment. I can't see how striving to lower pollution is a bad thing? Even in terms of the economy, more jobs are created by employing people to either physically clean up pollutants or for people to design processes which remove pollutants.

Ok, that was pretty rambly. Basically, if pollution is causing public health issues then why isn't that enough reason to reduce pollution.

BTW- I believe that we are negatively impacting the environment and at the very least speeding up global warming.

Andrew

stumpjumper says:

not bad, but like most of the data I've seen, its just a tiny slice of time. 100 years is an eyeblink, geologicly speaking.

I posted the info with full awareness that it's impossible to tell from those data whether global warming is human-caused or how long it's likely to continue.

I didn't realize that you were mainly interested in times before humans were taking down useful records of the temperature.

Conclusions based solely on the data I referenced in post 15 are, by necessity, quite uncertain. I think the same will be true of conclusions based on the geological record.

For a paper that's very technical:
ftp://holocene.evsc.virginia.edu/pub/mann/mbh98.pdf

A graph on page 3 in this paper shows the trend of the last 1000 years' temperature, as best these scientists can figure it out
ftp://holocene.evsc.virginia.edu/pub/mann/MBH1999.pdf
essentially, what you will see there is:
1)world temperatures 1000 years ago were about 0.75 celsius degrees cooler than at present, and cooling
2)world average temperatures followed a cooling trend that brought them to about 1.0 degrees cooler than at present by the 1910s or so
3)from the 1910s on, temperatures rose rapidly, relatively speaking.
4)in order to see longer-term trends in world average temperatures, one needs to think in terms of the world average over a period of 20-30 years. A 1-year or 8-year average is rarely a good indicator of what the 30-year average is. But if this graph is any indication, an average taken over 30 years is usually an indicator of what the average is over the 100 or 200 years surrounding that time.
5)ignoring the first 400 years of time graphed there (which the authors say is too uncertain to permit 'decisive conclusions') there's still a very obvious trend of: fairly consistent "cold" for 500 years, then a sudden upswing in temperature in the past century.

To turn my 5 above conclusions into anything useful is not easy. If I didn't believe we humans were responsible for that upswing (I do) I'd argue:
1) we have no record showing us whether temperature changes like that are a normal, natural thing.
2) a 1-degree change is not enough to indicate that anything significant is happening, even if it occurred over only 100 years.

the following link is from a geology prof who believes that we are not responsible for climate change.
http://www.techcentralstation.com/010405M.html
at the bottom of this page, he gives us a graph which puts the variation of earth's average temperatures at 8 celsius degrees below present temp to 4 degrees above present temp, graphed out over the past 400,000 years.

I know I'm often too lefty for my own good but like so many things I think it's important to look at this from a different perspective. We know - as fact - that all of these pollutants cause health problems for people. We seem to know that these pollutants (I'm sure I'm spelling that wrong) are also causing global warming. The global warming, whether from pollution or from natural processes, is causing a shift in severe weather. This makes living in areas which we have "re-engineered" nature in order to inhabit them become much more risky (ie NOLA). Common sense then would suggest that we stop pretending that we control the environment. I can't see how striving to lower pollution is a bad thing? Even in terms of the economy, more jobs are created by employing people to either physically clean up pollutants or for people to design processes which remove pollutants.

Ok, that was pretty rambly. Basically, if pollution is causing public health issues then why isn't that enough reason to reduce pollution.

BTW- I believe that we are negatively impacting the environment and at the very least speeding up global warming.

Andrew

I'm more of a right wing/libertarian, but I'd agree that apart from speculative conclusions regarding anthropogenic causes of global warming and all the political and social claptrap that goes along with it, just reducing pollution and dependence on oil for health and economic reasons is justification in and of itself-- no need to mix it up with global warming (which has become stupidly politicized such that anything that science actually has to say about it is ignored in favor of ideology).

Heck, I don't see how there can still be a debate about whether the planet is warming or not. Does melting ice-pack and glaciers mean anything? I have been to Alaska and the Banff-Jasper area 4 times in the past 25 years. The glaciers are obviously shrinking, as in - last visit the glacier was HERE, now it is OVER THERE. Sometimes, WAY over there, like a mile away.... as in the case of the Columbia Icefields near Jasper. Same thing in Alaska. Visual evidence such as photographs of 50-100 years ago vs. now suggest that there is rapid change all over the planet.

Combine this startling visual confirmation with the scientific data on ocean temperatures, declining coral reefs, desertification, and it seems obvious the planet is warming pretty quick. The only possible debate might be about which actions are to be taken, and I don't think we should debate that for very long either. We know that some behaviors make it worse and we ought to start limiting them (de-forestation, burning fossil fuels, etc). The longer we wait the more drastic the remedies will have to be.

That's why they call it "climate change." Climate change doesn't have the decades of "this is a bad thing caused by humans and we need to stop causing it" connotations that global warming does.
I haven't gotten that it's the conservatives who started this term; I've been using it more myself too. The reason I've changed is that it confirms that something is happening without necessarily predicting what the outcome will be, which I think is more scientifically honest. After all, as my conservative co-worker is so fond of pointing out, in the 1970's they thought it was going the other way, towards another ice age! That doesn't mean, as he seems to think it does, that we don't know enough to make it worthwhile changing anything at all, but it does make me feel that we have to be careful about thinking we can predict exactly what's going to happen.

On the other hand, ice is melting around the world, and many weather reports on hurricanes are making a point these days about the increased temperature of the Gulf of Mexico and its effect of strengthening tropical storms, so maybe "global warming" is still an accurate term, so far.

I haven't gotten that it's the conservatives who started this term; I've been using it more myself too. The reason I've changed is that it confirms that something is happening without necessarily predicting what the outcome will be, which I think is more scientifically honest. After all, as my conservative co-worker is so fond of pointing out, in the 1970's they thought it was going the other way, towards another ice age! That doesn't mean, as he seems to think it does, that we don't know enough to make it worthwhile changing anything at all, but it does make me feel that we have to be careful about thinking we can predict exactly what's going to happen.

Well, that's exactly what they want you to think. Where do you think "Clear Skies Initiative" and other misleading program names come from? Republicans were advised in a memo by Republican pollster Frank Luntz in 2002 that "Climate Change" was a less controversial term to use. The following info is from Outside Magazine, May 2005, but readily available from multiple sources with a Google search:

A longtime public-opinion specialist who helped frame the GOP's "Contract with America" in 1994, Luntz doesn't make policy, but he's a master at packaging it. The 43-year-old founder of the Virginia-based Luntz Research Companies was the author of "Straight Talk," a confidential memo—leaked to the media in 2003—that coached Bush administration officials and GOP supporters on marketing a wide range of policies. "The environment is probably the single issue on which Republicans in general—and President Bush in particular—are most vulnerable," Luntz warned. "Any discussion . . . has to be grounded in an effort to reassure a skeptical public that you care about the environment for its own sake—that your intentions are strictly honorable."

To that end, Luntz suggested new White House phrasing on subjects like global warming (though "the scientific debate is closing against us," he wrote, minds could be eased by making "the lack of scientific certainty a primary issue"). He also laid out specific language designed to soothe voters. Some of it, such as the phrase "Safer, cleaner, and healthier," soon showed up verbatim in speeches by GOP policymakers.

"Climate change is less frightening than 'global warming,'" Luntz wrote in "Straight Talk." "Global warming has catastrophic connotations attached to it, climate change suggests a more controllable and less emotional challenge."

And more recently, in February, Luntz released a 160-page strategy memo, titled "The New American Lexicon," to help the GOP open up ANWR for oil drilling, emerge victorious in the 2006 midterm elections, and pursue other key goals. "Never say: 'drilling for oil,'" the document advises. "Instead say: 'exploring for energy.' . . . When you talk about energy," it adds, "use words like 'responsible' and 'balanced,' and always address your concern for the environment."

It's like 90 degrees in an attic rental in Palo Alto today. I tell you my globes are warming for sure.

Sooooo ... if the globe is warming .... explain the fact that we've had two cold, wet, miserable summers in a row up here in Canada. Last year Manitoba set records in January, May, June, July, and August for coldest months on record. And then also a seasonal record for coldest May, June, July, and August combined.

It has already snowed twice here in Alberta in the last 3 weeks, and one snowfall dropped 1.5 feet of snow ... not just a light skiff. Now they are predicting snow for some parts of Alberta overnight.

Where is this warmth you speak of?

Sooooo ... if the globe is warming .... explain the fact that we've had two cold, wet, miserable summers in a row up here in Canada. Last year Manitoba set records in January, May, June, July, and August for coldest months on record. And then also a seasonal record for coldest May, June, July, and August combined.

You probably already know this, but it's a terrible fallacy to assume that because one place is cooling down, the earth must not be getting warmer.
(and regions of the globe that are the size of Manitoba* do go through cooling processes that last decades at least, even at times in which the globe is warming.)

*and other sizes, too!

Wife and I have just begun analyzing the pros and cons of going to one car.

I've been married 13 years and have three school aged children. Still we manage with only one car. Also, having one car means that you can afford a much nicer car than if you had to pay for two. Last year we bought a 2005 Honda Odyssey Touring. Great van! Gas economy is not bad either.

Heck, I don't see how there can still be a debate about whether the planet is warming or not. Does melting ice-pack and glaciers mean anything? I have been to Alaska and the Banff-Jasper area 4 times in the past 25 years. The glaciers are obviously shrinking, as in - last visit the glacier was HERE, now it is OVER THERE. Sometimes, WAY over there, like a mile away.... as in the case of the Columbia Icefields near Jasper. Same thing in Alaska. Visual evidence such as photographs of 50-100 years ago vs. now suggest that there is rapid change all over the planet.

Combine this startling visual confirmation with the scientific data on ocean temperatures, declining coral reefs, desertification, and it seems obvious the planet is warming pretty quick. The only possible debate might be about which actions are to be taken, and I don't think we should debate that for very long either. We know that some behaviors make it worse and we ought to start limiting them (de-forestation, burning fossil fuels, etc). The longer we wait the more drastic the remedies will have to be.

I don't know. Somehow in the back of my mind I can't help wondering if global warming might not be a good thing. A lower utility bill in the winter doesn't break a lot of hearts in my neighborhood. Some say hurricanes will increase in frequency and duration. We get the impression of greater disaster. But I think we get more disaster statistically because of greater population sizes in suseptible areas. For example a tornado in 1920. What's the odds of it hitting Dorothy's farm house? In 2005 what's the odds of the same tornado being able to miss an urban or suburban area? The glaciers melting? I believe it. But hey! If it gets warmer then people will consume less fossil juice and produce less CO2. See, it is one of them self regulating feedback loop type arrangements.

Last year we bought a 2005 Honda Odyssey Touring. Great van!


Poor bastard. ;)

Sooooo ... if the globe is warming .... explain the fact that we've had two cold, wet, miserable summers in a row up here in Canada. Last year Manitoba set records in January, May, June, July, and August for coldest months on record. And then also a seasonal record for coldest May, June, July, and August combined.

It has already snowed twice here in Alberta in the last 3 weeks, and one snowfall dropped 1.5 feet of snow ... not just a light skiff. Now they are predicting snow for some parts of Alberta overnight.

Where is this warmth you speak of?
Hi Machka,
Global warming just means that the overall temperature of the planet, mainly average ocean and air temps, are rising, not that every place goes up, in fact some will be cooler in some seasons as a result. Overall, nine of the ten hottest years on record have been since 1995, but there are wide variations. Most scientists agree that some areas will be drier, others wetter, and there will be more variation from year to year. Here in the US northwest it likely that the trend will be for more rain, less snow, leading to flooding problems in spring as it runs off, and drought later in the summer, due to less snowpack. Our rainstorms may also become more tropical in nature, due to warmer ocean temps.

One reason this is so difficult to believe for many people, is that it is so inconsistent on a regional basis - that is why you have to look at global averages. Climate is very complex and interrelated - for example, it is suspected that if enough cold, fresh water coming from the melting polar ice caps and glaciers of Greenland flows into the northern Atlantic, it will shut down the Gulf Stream, which keeps Europe and northeastern North America warm. Remember they are actually at very high latitude - the Gulf Stream is what keeps Europe temperate. That could lead to a period like the "little ice age" of a few centuries ago that disrupted worldwide weather patterns leading to extremely harsh winters, droughts and crop failures. Let's hope it doesn't happen..

So, what will happen where you are willl depend on many of those more regional factors.

I don't know. Somehow in the back of my mind I can't help wondering if global warming might not be a good thing. A lower utility bill in the winter doesn't break a lot of hearts in my neighborhood. Some say hurricanes will increase in frequency and duration. We get the impression of greater disaster. But I think we get more disaster statistically because of greater population sizes in suseptible areas. For example a tornado in 1920. What's the odds of it hitting Dorothy's farm house? In 2005 what's the odds of the same tornado being able to miss an urban or suburban area? The glaciers melting? I believe it. But hey! If it gets warmer then people will consume less fossil juice and produce less CO2. See, it is one of them self regulating feedback loop type arrangements.
Yeah, my friends in Minnesota have been loving the warmer winters that have been occuring in general over the past several years, but as always, one man's gain is another's loss. People in the southwest have been roasting more in the summer, droughts are becoming more commonplace, and disease vectors are beginning to move out of the tropics to other regions. Some say crop yields worldwide will drop, due to less water, more droughts, and increased loss of arable land to desertification, but I am sure that some areas will benefit. Generally, these things always hit the poor countries and people the worst - those least able to compensate through technology.

...snip...

So, what will happen where you are willl depend on many of those more regional factors.


Another factor to consider is that if this mini ice-age were to happen to northern regions, many trees would die, which means less capabilities for the earth to purify CO2. It will also mean less rain in some areas since trees are responsible for pumping a lot of water back into the air (creating rains farther downstream).

It might also make a lot of fresh/safe water sources freeze up, making the upcomming water shortage harsher.

There is aslo the fact that seasonal changes that are happening at the moment are creating gaps in the time which different species live their cycles. If, for example, a species of birds comes around 3 weak earlier than a certain kind of insect/plant/whatever they feed on, they might starve and endanger their species, which in turn would endanger their predators. The ecosystem is very dependant on variety. Crossing a certain treshold might be very critical for all of us.

I'm skeptical of the information from both sides of this issue. Global warming is a scientific theory. The debate is not over and likely will never be because science is not infallible. You just can't control for every other factor. The converted global warming zealots resemble a religious cult blindly adhering to anything that supports their view and tossing aside anything that does not. The "scientists" who persistly claim that global warming is a fact make their livings doing so. They are often funded by organizations that don't like capitalism and that makes their "results" suspect. Also, how would you feel if you were a scientist who spent his/her life trying to prove a theory that ends up being disproven. I would be pretty upset and embarrased. The earth does go through cycles of climate change. In fact, it was hotter in the middle ages than it is now. 30 years ago, scientists were predicting a world wide ice age. Now we're all going to melt. On the other side, again, follow the money. Studies that are funded by the people economically affected by findings are at best subjective. Scientists bring their biases with them and pure science is an ideal, not a reality.

What we do know is that dirty air causes health problems. That can be reasonably proven controlling other factors. That should be reason enough to want to use cleaner (and fewer) fuels. Maybe if we focus on that, change will be more attainable. It's an easier concept than some esoteric theory about carbon dioxide and the o-zone and 1/2 degree temperature fluctuations over decades.

Unfortunately, oil companies and auto makers have worked against improvements. I have no doubt that cars should have efficient engines getting 80 miles/gallon that rarely need maintenance. If your car didn't break down though, you wouldn't buy new ones as often. It's called built in obsolesence. My neighbors have a refrigerator that's over 50 years old and still humming. Who today thinks their refrigerator will last for 50 years? They don't make anything like they used to.

Anyway, I do what one man can do. We have been a one-car family for the past 7 years. My stay at home wife walks the kids to school and we put about 6,000 miles on our car per year (includes long trips to visit relatives). I bike or walk to work. It works for us and I don't have to feel guilty regardless of the effects of pollution.

I'm skeptical of the information from both sides of this issue. Global warming is a scientific theory. The debate is not over and likely will never be because science is not infallible. You just can't control for every other factor. The converted global warming zealots resemble a religious cult blindly adhering to anything that supports their view and tossing aside anything that does not. The "scientists" who persistly claim that global warming is a fact make their livings doing so. They are often funded by organizations that don't like capitalism and that makes their "results" suspect.

Uh-huh, like those flaky guys at the National Academy of Sciences. Why don't you check out their most recent 15 books on the subject?

http://books.nap.edu/collections/global_warming/index.html

BTW, the debate on whether the planet is warming is over. It is. It has, measurably. There are however, plenty of other debates as to cause, effect, likely outcomes, possible mitigation and solutions, etc.

The debates over?

Thank god. I am tired of hearing about it.

Uh-huh, like those flaky guys at the National Academy of Sciences. Why don't you check out their most recent 15 books on the subject?

http://books.nap.edu/collections/global_warming/index.html

BTW, the debate on whether the planet is warming is over. It is. It has, measurably. There are however, plenty of other debates as to cause, effect, likely outcomes, possible mitigation and solutions, etc.

Why don't YOU check out those books. I'm going riding ;) Anyway, you make my point exactly. Is the earth warming? Yes. Would it be if all humans were dead? Don't know. I'm all for cleaning up the air I breathe, but it's nonsense to only advocate that for the sake of global warming when it may not even be a primary cause. We need to keep open minds about causes-effects-solutions. That includes the possibility that atmospheric conditions beyond our control are properly cycling (no pun intended) :) through phases.

Global warming probably started when the polar ice cap melted and receded thousands of years ago. Civilization's time here on earth is but a tick in global time scale, in which changing events unfold over centuries. It's natural to think we have something to do with the current direction of things. Still, we shouldn't be contantly belching bad things into the air, but it's a by-products of all the conveniences everyone takes as commonplace. It needs to be contained and reduced.

If it gets warmer then people will consume less fossil juice and produce less CO2. See, it is one of them self regulating feedback loop type arrangements.

This summer, I was one of those people who answers the phone when you call the electric company for a power outage or other reason. I had to look at thousands of people's electric bills. You can tell who uses their A/C and who doesn't, because the difference in what you pay is usually upwards of $1000 per summer.

Believe me when I say, there's nothing like a 100-degree day to foul up all the gigantic fuses and transformers the electric company's got, because everybody's air conditioning is running so high (and at the same time the power plant is burning ton upon ton of coal.) Air conditioners tend to contribute to C02 production just as much as gas heat does.

I am a two car family but ... those two cars are in the garage 5 days per week.
I got me a new cyclocomputer 2 months ago. I put 720 miles on it. Dang! Only 360 miles per month. I need to get out more.

I don't know. Somehow in the back of my mind I can't help wondering if global warming might not be a good thing. A lower utility bill in the winter doesn't break a lot of hearts in my neighborhood. Some say hurricanes will increase in frequency and duration. We get the impression of greater disaster. But I think we get more disaster statistically because of greater population sizes in suseptible areas. For example a tornado in 1920. What's the odds of it hitting Dorothy's farm house? In 2005 what's the odds of the same tornado being able to miss an urban or suburban area? The glaciers melting? I believe it. But hey! If it gets warmer then people will consume less fossil juice and produce less CO2. See, it is one of them self regulating feedback loop type arrangements.

I'm sure people in New Mexico won't be using their air conditioners any more often in the summer as temperatures rise, either, so those winter-time fuel savings really ARE a savings, right? ;)

I'm sure people in New Mexico won't be using their air conditioners any more often in the summer as temperatures rise, either, so those winter-time fuel savings really ARE a savings, right? ;)

My summer utilities are 1/3 or less the winter bill. Air conditioning is nothing like the expense of heating.
(and yes, it is a dry heat.)

I believe the sun is causing global warming. I've heard that the planet Mars is getting warmer also. I think mankind might play a small part in our planet warming but not the root cause of it.

There is no doubt that the globe is warming. Otherwise, the Aleutian Islands probably would be part of the continent and not islands. In other words, the world has been warming for a long time.

What I am not convinced of yet is that this warming is owing to the burning of fossil fuels. "Burning" happens naturally all day, every day since the beginning of time. Those things that can oxidize do oxidize and this reaction is essentially "burning", though perhaps not necessarily with a fire catalyst.

So looking at the big picture, man does not create any elements. He might facilitate certain reactions by causing elements to "burn" before their natural time, but man causes few reactions that would not happen otherwise in nature given time. I suppose that some of the nuclear reactions would not occur on earth in nature, but compared with the radiation and heat provided eternally by the sun, even man-made nuclear reactions are minor.

So, is the world warming? Yes, that is known. Is the cause natural or manmade? That is a different question. I would like to believe that it is man-made because if it is, then man has the capacity to stop or slow the process. If it is natural, then we will have to adapt - perhaps by growing gills.

What I am not convinced of yet is that this warming is owing to the burning of fossil fuels. "Burning" happens naturally all day, every day since the beginning of time. Those things that can oxidize do oxidize and this reaction is essentially "burning", though perhaps not necessarily with a fire catalyst.

How can something on that scale NOT have an effect, would be the bigger question for me. We are burning 84 MILLION barrels per day of a carbon-based fuel (not including all the coal burned in power plants) and it has to go somewhere. You are correct - oxidation occurs constantly - a tree rots or a log is burned, etc. The carbon cycle is basically a closed-loop system, but it depends on a balance of carbon coming in and out of storage. What we have done is taken millions and millions of years of STORED carbon from dead animals and plants, and suddenly put it into our atmosphere. I guess I am most amazed that doing this day in and day out for a hundred years didn't create a problem way before now.

How can something on that scale NOT have an effect, would be the bigger question for me. We are burning 84 MILLION barrels per day of a carbon-based fuel (not including all the coal burned in power plants) and it has to go somewhere. You are correct - oxidation occurs constantly - a tree rots or a log is burned, etc. The carbon cycle is basically a closed-loop system, but it depends on a balance of carbon coming in and out of storage. What we have done is taken millions and millions of years of STORED carbon from dead animals and plants, and suddenly put it into our atmosphere. I guess I am most amazed that doing this day in and day out for a hundred years didn't create a problem way before now.

Hmm, just playing with thoughts right now, but..

IF there had not been an ice age, then today's oil and coal would never have been generated. The ancient forests would have decayed right on the earth's surface and oxydized continually over the millions of years.

THUS, if it is the burning of these ancient forests (now in the form of oil, gas, and coal) that is causing global warming, we might hypothesize that without the ice age to convert the ancient forests to stored oil and coal, the world would have heated up millions of years ago and gradually become a dead planet due to the natural decay of plant life over time.

That would mean that life on earth was actually SAVED by the ice age.

Now, if that logic is flawed, it would mean that life would exist even if the ancient forests were left to grow and decay in the atmosphere rather than be buried which halted the burning/oxydation process for millions of years. Thus, we have to assume that the burning of those forests now in the form of oil and coal would not have such catastrophic results as many are predicting.

Hmm... could this be?