General Cycling Discussion - Climate change. Will a personal car be outlawed? When?

Seventy per sent of the CNN poll participants think that the global warming is the reason of the catastrophic floods in Europe.

The best bicycle trail in the world - the beautiful Danube Cycle Path is damaged by floods (I hope only damaged, but I fear the worst).

Since the car is the major contributor of the environmental damage, will people ever try to do something about it? Will they try to limit the weight of a car or will they outlaw it for most uses?

I know that in Greece some steps taken in this direction. On the even days only the cars with the number, which ends on an even figure, could drive. On an odd day of the month - cars with the last odd number. I would say - too little too late.

What would be done? If anything. What is the guess? Or will it continue with the same tempo and billions new cars will be just joining the frenzy?

I think that in the US, it will largely be a matter of "You'll take my car when you pry the steering wheel from my cold, dead fingers." But I have the feeling that the time isn't distant when the smoggiest cities will bar their streets to car traffic: and that, inside the city, people will be required to use public transit, walk or bike. Or possibly at least scooters or electric carts.

At the moment it isn't a serious consideration, because nobody has done it yet. But as soon as one city gives it a successful try, I bet we will see many more considering it.

Seventy per sent of the CNN poll participants think that the global warming is the reason of the catastrophic floods in Europe.

CNN poll participants said it, so it must be! Conversely, I'll bet that same 70% think bicycling is a menace and a hazard. Personally, I think a bunch of rain caused the flooding.


Since the car is the major contributor of the environmental damage

Is it? Worse than say... industry?

Motorized vehicles are going nowhere, at least in the U.S. Our infrastructure is based on the use of motorized vehicles. Also,we're a nation predominately composed of convenience-oriented fat asses who wheeze on their walk to the TV to change the station. We need cars, man!

Originally posted by Bikes-N-Drums

Also,we're a nation predominately composed of convenience-oriented fat asses who wheeze on their walk to the TV to change the station. We need cars, man!

Sadly enough, we use the remote control, so we don't have to walk to the TV to change the station. :rolleyes:

actually, the cattle industry is arguably the number one cause of global warming, due to cattle's wastes and the deforestation and resources needed to keep the industry going.

on a side note, has anyone given thought to what electric cars will do to bicycling? If I am riding here in the city, and I can't hear a car coming up beside me, that's dangerous. And since electric cars will be very quiet or completely silent, it puts us in more hazard, i think.

-brent

Originally posted by Bikes-N-Drums

Personally, I think a bunch of rain caused the flooding.

This is one of the single most intelligent things I have
read here on BF. Seriously, no sh*t.
lets see the asian brown cloud is causing LOWER temps
(what happened to global warming?) which is causing
drought.
The hole in the ozone layer is causing Global warming
which is causing EL NINO which causes droughts and floods.
I'm sorry, I agree to some extent we are messing things
up here, but I think when it comes to weather phenomenom,
we don't have a clue, but hey its a nice theory.

Marty

To go and try and change the way that we live by limiting how much we can drive is going to do nothing. Why don't we go with some thing like make cars that have fuel cells cheaper or make the min MPG 30- 40 on all cars and make sure that from a point on that the cars we do drive are bettter. When i was looking for a car this past weekend(just tuned 16 :) , I saw that the only car that i would really like to drive is the new honda's they have cars that have a MPG of 35 - 50. Then i got thinking. what do i even need a car for. So on the way out, i looked at the what the average mpg was on the other cars, it was in the low 20's!!!!!

sure cars do not play as big of a roll as the south american forests being cut down but it is the best way to change with out really having to change any thing of our daily lives.

Look, Don't get me wronge. As an american i see that we are not very open to change. That is why i say this. For all i care we should all use the bus if we need to and then have a bike high way, and lain that is filled with the trash for the cars, just liek we bikers have it.

I think that the real problem is that no one wants to give any thing up to help out a "time" that they will not ever live in. I tryed to tell one of my teachers one this and you know what he told me. . . "thats nice if we all live in a nice flowery county with nonsubstanderd people while they sat and drink herbal tea."

For any thing to happen you will first have to change the mind of the normal person. We bikers are a bunch of special people that care. Most of us here are smarter than the average. (soryr if i come of ranting) Just my $0.02

Jared

Well we have the technology for hydrogen powered cars. Fuel would be cheaper than ever, more efficient and cleaner. Its just the oil companies don't won't this so they hold back these things or else they would be out of business. Their usual reply to this subject is that "We can not properly house hydrogen in a car", which is BS since we can send a shuttle to space sitting on top of a literal hydrogen bomb. I would like to see this used in the future but....ya know.

I'm old enough to remember the Ice Age scares of the 70s. And that was only less than 30 years ago.

How could Global Warming, which became the scare du jour beginning in the early 80s, supersede the Ice Age so quickly?

Probably because 70% of respondents will believe anything the papers say.

Originally posted by kewlrunningz
Well we have the technology for hydrogen powered cars. Fuel would be cheaper than ever, more efficient and cleaner. ...

Do you have any idea what the cost would be to develop the infrastructure for safe, efficient delivery of hydrogen gas?

It's not enough -- not nearly enough -- for there to be only the means to consume it (the engine).

And why on earth would oil companies "go out of business" when presented with an option to delivery a fuel, as they do now, but only of a different sort?

Originally posted by Andy Dreisch
And why on earth would oil companies "go out of business" when presented with an option to delivery a fuel, as they do now, but only of a different sort?

Because their entire committed capital is sunk into equipment, training, buildings, and research into the mining, production, and refinement of oil. Sure, they could switch over to hydrogen. Just like tobacco farmers could switch to farming paw paws. But the expense of the conversion would damage the companies' assets considerably...plus, they would face new competition as other companies tried to get in on the ground floor of hydrogen production.

BTW, just for the record, I don't know that I believe that a practical hydrogen-powered car is in actual existence, outside of conspiracy theorist websites.

Originally posted by Inkwolf
Because their entire committed capital is sunk into equipment, training, buildings, and research into the mining, production, and refinement of oil. Sure, they could switch over to hydrogen. Just like tobacco farmers could switch to farming paw paws. But the expense of the conversion would damage the companies' assets considerably...plus, they would face new competition as other companies tried to get in on the ground floor of hydrogen production.
Except for the "paw paws" thing, I agree. They'd (the oil companies) would either change or die. The implicit assumption in the original post was that oil companies would somehow block the introduction of H-gas by some evil means. This is preposterous in my view. (As for "paw paws": there is a closer alignment between the storage, distribution, delivery, and sale of H-gas and fossil fuels than there is between tobacco and "paw paws", wouldn't you agree?)

Finally, I agree wholeheartedly with you on the current status of an H-gas automobile.

For those looking for more than 30 mpg and don't want a hybrid the Volkswagon TDI (turbo diesel) gets 50 mpg. I have two friends that have them (one Jetta and one Golf) and they are both getting 50+ on the highway. The motors are plenty zippy and you can actually fit 4 adults in them with their stuff...

Originally posted by Andy Dreisch

As for "paw paws": there is a closer alignment between the storage, distribution, delivery, and sale of H-gas and fossil fuels than there is between tobacco and "paw paws", wouldn't you agree?

To be honest, I wouldn't know. I've been a northerner all my life and have never seen an actual paw paw. :D

Originally posted by Inkwolf
To be honest, I wouldn't know. I've been a northerner all my life and have never seen an actual paw paw. :D
Funny, yes. :D I wondered what a paw paw was, too !! Maybe it's a throwback to Bonanza (You know, Hoss and "Gee, Paw.")

It's a kind of fruit they grow in the south. (The closest I've gotten is a song we used to sing when I was a kid about "pickin' up paw paws, put 'em in my pocket'")

I once read an article in a gardening magazine suggesting that the tobacco growers could switch to growing paw paws...most of the country don't know what they are at the moment, but hey--20 years ago, who had ever heard of kiwi fruit?

Paw Paw is an overgrown Papaya.
same basic fruit only alot bigger.
real popular in South Africa,
Personally I think they stink (literally), I
mean they really HONK.

Marty

Originally posted by Redhed
Sadly enough, we use the remote control, so we don't have to walk to the TV to change the station. :rolleyes:
Sometimes, though, even my finger gets tired.

I would like to weigh in on this climate change issue.

It's a fact that the ice caps are melting at an accelerated rate. Ocean levels have risen steadily. El Nino (caused by a massive area of warmer water in the Pacific Ocean) is beginning to occur more frequently than ever before in recorded history.

While I can't prove any of this is due to carbon dioxide emissions,
I wouldn't laugh it off too quickly.

After 9-11, airline service dropped off suddenly. Everyone remembers that. During that period of decreased airline flights,
temperatures were more severe: colder at night and warmer in the day. Why? It is postulated that jet trails cause an increase in cirrus cloud formation, which in turn is responsible for moderating temperatures to be less cold at night and less hot during the day. The difference is estimated at just a few degrees farenheit, but definitely occurring at the same time as the decreased plane flights.

We have the power to alter the weather. We don't know what this will mean.

Remember the historical lesson of the Dust Bowl. Cyclical drought, combined with improper soil conservation techniques, produced dust storms during the 1930's that were unparalleled.
Some storms blanketed cities as far east as New York City.

The lesson is that we sometimes act for short-term gains without fully understanding the possible adverse effects.

http://www.ptsi.net/user/museum/dustbowl.html

http://lcweb2.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/fsaall:@FILREQ(@field(SUBJ+@band(Dust+storms--Oklahoma+))+@FIELD(COLLID+fsa))

http://www.drought.unl.edu/whatis/dustbowl.htm#intro

LBM, metereoligists have troubles predicting weather 4 days out. For every cause of presumed warming/cooling, you can find a countervailing influence if you worry hard enough. Where exactly were temperatures colder/warmer, and assuming there is a real trend and not a statistical blip, can this be treated in isolation: can we point to the lack of contrails and claim a correlation? Given a data series that's exactly how old? A few months?

How has cooling entered the picture, as in your example? This is a recent phonomenon. Could it possibly be that the global warming business needs new ammunition given the relative lack of warmness of late?

Wasn't it less than 20 years between gloomy predictions of an impending Ice Age and the beginnings of the new worry: global warming? Are we changing back to an impending Ice Age any time soon? My bet is: yes!!!

Yes, humans can affect their environment. But people have been wrong time and time again about the End of the Earth.

I don't think personal cars will ever be outlawed but I do think it is possible to control their use. Their use can be controlled through the use of tolls, the use of selective number plates e.g Mexico City (two colours of number plates, one for even days and on for odd days of the month) also Athens I think uses a similar policy (but people get around this by having two sets of plates). I know for a fact that in Singapore the government tries to limit the usage of cars through a number of ways. They try to provide at least one alternative means of public transport; be that public buses, mass rapid transport system and a light rail system. The government also attempts to control or reduce the amount of traffic that clogs the CBD (central business district) by using an electronic road pricing system, (this system electronically deducts a fee for entering a restricted area). The government also implements a fee called the COE (certificate of entitlement) this fee raises the price of your cars by about 30,000 Singapore dollars thus cars normally cost around 100,000 Singapore dollars, also the COE is only valid for a period of 5 or 6 years. When this period is over, people are encouraged to purchase a new vehicle or pay 5,000 Singapore a year to keep their car on the road. These measures manage to keep traffic down to a reasonable level compared with other cities in the world of similar size.

I think that cars/trucks/motorbikes are such an integral and essential part of our lives; it would be impossible to remove them. To put it in the terms of economics they have gone from a luxury good to an essential good. Cars that produce less emissions and that have more miles to the gallon are the answer to our problems. We won't get ride of cars but we can reduce the amount emissions they produce.

My second point is that cars are not the main source green house gases. Methane is the biggest greenhouse gas; methane is produced by cows, the paddy fields that feed Asia, rubbish dumps, sewerage facilities and grain farms. Anything that involves organic waste produces methane even humans directly contribute to the green house affect every time we fart. The pollution situation is not as simple as the media portrays it to be. Their are a number of interlinking factors that need to be tackled to reduce pollution. Carbon dioxide emissions and methane emissions need to be reduced that is the simple fact. The only way this can be done is by reducing "global" emission’s, so this includes the good old US of A. Well I better shut up before I start getting all emotional about "Kyoto"

Just my final point, the oil companies would not go out of business if people stopped by gasoline for their cars. Crude oil is refined into over 300 parts or something. All plastics are made up of components from crude oil, ExxonMobil has had record profits for the last two years, this isn't because people have been consuming more gasoline or petrol it is because they have been selling more of the other components of crude oil, for example tar and propane. The money is made from other oil products and chemicals derived from crude oil.

Well I hope people didn't mind my little rant, i was just trying to clear a few issues up.:D

A very informative post. Thanks.

CHEERS.

Mark

The total power of all the car engines exceed times the total power of all the electro generators on the global scale. So the car is the major source of environmental damage.

The radical solutions usually do not work. I would suggest a more practical way.

There is no need to antagonize with the oil companies. More than that the cost of gasoline should be times higher than now. Additional environmental taxes should be levied on every gallon of gas sold.

When I was in the USA this June I noticed that petrol is dirt cheap. Like 2 bucks per gallon. The same price is here in Ukraine, though average income is much lower here than in the USA.

In Europe it is 4 bucks per gallon. But the reasonable price should be no less than 10 per gallon. On this tax new bicycle trails could be build, new research in cycling technologies could be conducted, bikes for elderly people arranged, etc.

Originally posted by Alexey
The total power of all the car engines exceed times the total power of all the electro generators on the global scale.
I agree with this but not with this

So the car is the major source of environmental damage
I don't agree with this because even though the amount of emmisions are huge from both car engines and from electron generators the fact of the matter is that we produce more methane than both of those combind. I am going to try to dig up some figures on this, but just think about this example. In China thier are approx. 1,300 million people. If only say 1/3 of those own a car and you generate power for all the people right. That produces X emissions. But in order to feed these people china produces rice which is the staple food, Thus china must produce at least engough rice to feed thier own population (at least 650million kg a day if the average person eats .5kg of rice a day), and they also export a lot of rice, so already china produces more methane than CO2 and then if you take into account the amount of rubbish that these people generate thats thats aleast another 650 million kg of waste. And then thier is the livestock that produces methane and then their is the 1,300 million people farting each day. Just have a little think about that one. I hope that is easy to understand.
Stew:D

Not to mention the other 5,200,000,000 other people on the planet. That's a lot of farts.
:roflmao:

CHEERS.

Mark

6 billion people farting doesn't even COMPARE to a single volcanic eruption :D

My pennyworth follows. A while back, the deputy prime minister here in the UK (John Prescott) made a big fuss about making London a better place and he encouraged everyone to use public transport. He was filmed by a news crew getting on a train in London, with the usual politicians smile. That was Prescott, doing his bit for public transport. Until...he was caught on camera getting off the train two stops later, to get into one of his two gas-guzzling Jaguars that somehow was strategically located at a station he had no connection with whatever. Needess to say, he continued the rest of his journey by car. Plonker!

One sad thing-- a couple of elections ago in Wisconsin (I don't remember the details) one of the candidates was in favor of researching the use of methane in place of propane and other fuels.

The other candidate made fun of him and did a lot of joking about his wanting to waste government money 'researching cow farts.'

So, naturally, the methane guy (instead of explaining) backed off from the methane issue as quickly as possible in fear of looking silly, still lost the election, all 'cow fart research' has probably been dropped, and other local candidates will be afraid to support research on the viable use of methane, out of fear that the other little politicians on the playground will laugh at them.....

Don't know why the fuss....good ol' Toby Roth lived down the 'Bee poop' issue.

Originally posted by Inkwolf


BTW, just for the record, I don't know that I believe that a practical hydrogen-powered car is in actual existence, outside of conspiracy theorist websites.

http://www.ford.com/en/ourCompany/designAndTechnology/environmentalResearch/fuelCellTechnology.htm

check out the Ford site I saw this in a magazine recently.

We have the power to alter the weather. We don't know what this will mean.

There is a scientist who states that if we put up 50,000 very large mylar-type reflectors in space, it will cut down the amount of sunlight reaching earth to stops global warming.

LBM,

I'm not really making fun of the C02 issue,
just the hysteria that I encounter. I have to agree
with Andy that its pretty funny that we were in an
impending Ice Age then Global warming.
As I stated before (not sure which thread) I'm not
totally convinced that the climatic changes we are
witnessing aren't part of a normal cycle of changes.
Yeah we do impact, your example of the Dustbowl is
spot on.
I'm more concerned with deforestation (particularly
the amazon basin), and the asian brown cloud.
The state of the oceans (particularly reef structures)
are a good indicator of health, and some of them aren't all that
healthy. A few years ago there were major die offs of
coral (coral bleaching) on a global scale. Lots of predictions
of doom and gloom, much to everyones surprize the coral
reefs have bounced back at a much quicker rate than anyone
suspected they would (support of my cyclical weather theory?).
Banning automobiles, while a worthwile proposition, in and
of itself isn't nearly enough. I think we need to take a close
look at industrial outputs, and not just in the US.
just my $.02 worth,
Marty

OK, Global Warming is/was one of my topics of interest for my graduate work...

without regaurd to cause, Global Warming IS happening - for the last 150 years, glaciers have been retreating, the average global temperature has been increasing AND these are speeding up with the last 10, 20 and 50 years the greatest. 9 or the 10 warmest years of the 1900s were in the 1990's...

so, then there's the quesion of cause: yes, the earth goes through "natural" high and low points (like previous ice ages), but there is much evidence to support that the activities of man are greatly overshadowing the natural cycle ---> most research points to a great likelihood that Global Warming is cause by activities of man

but we don't know for sure. the problem is we won't know for sure until it is too late. so everything is based on assessing potential, cost and risk... a father doesn't know whether he will die or not, but life insurance for the kids is purchased b/c there is a RISK - you have to weigh the estimated risk against the up-front cost and the most-likely outcome and worst-case outcome...

yes, climate is an incredibly complex thing with so many factors. scientists are working on computer modelling and it is getting MUCH better -- i.e. El Nino predictions and predictions about warm or dry seasons are now pretty good -- for example, 2002 was predicted to be slightly warmer than the warmest year on record (1998 or 1999, can't remember).

and yes, many people say, "so what if it's a little warmer and the poles melt a little and the glaciers recede and the sea level rises...", well most likely thóse will not be the largest factors, but the contributing factors to other changes in a very complex system --- an increase in temperature means an increase in energy which is generally leads to a more dynamic system (e.g. does the weather vary more in polar regions or in temperate and equatorial regions) -- this means a greater likelihood of "extreme" weather meaning hurricanes, storms, floods, droughts, etc... a further danger is that currently "stable" systems like say the jet stream could change to another state, bringing new and unknown weather patterns...

actions that we might take today -- like say, Kyoto Protocal -- will not really have any impact until 20-30 years from now.

so why is it so wrong and "un-American" to question our uncontrolled use of resources like automobiles when there is a great chance that we might be severely altering the climate for years to come? is it not wise to consider very small changes that we can make (like say increasing the fuel economy of automobiles for which we HAVE the technology) that might make it so later we or our children don't have to make HUGE changes...maybe it's a hoax and it'll turn out to be nothing... but what [i]we are currently doing is like taking your life savings and going to Las Vegas and winning and winning. then someone asks if maybe you should put a little aside since you already have won so much so that IF you maybe lose then you'll have something left over. No, you don't KNOW that you will lose, and if you win you will earn more if you don't put some aside... but why take the risk? of course once you decide to put some aside the question is "how much?" and this can be very difficult.[/]

yes, there are many man-made contributing factors to global warming, but personal auto use is 1) one of the largest 2) one of the areas with the greatest potential to decrease w/o drastically changing our "way of life" -- i.e. getting ride of power plants would be difficult and most (except for coal plants supported by Bush administration) are already much cleaner than they were in past years, 3) INCREASING faster than any other contributing factor b/c 1st world countries like the US are increasing their usage AND less developed countries like Thailand and China are increasing their car usage.

furthermore, the leading economic powers of the world, most notably the US, set the example and stage for what other grwoing countries will do. if the US, the richest country, can't afford to take a few minor steps, then how can any of the less successful countries? a small change in the US, say even increasing average fuel economy by 10mpg which would be easy to accomplish w/o great sacrafice in $$$, convenience or safety for the American people, would make an incredible difference in the world arena in the next 50 years...

no, cars probably aren't going away tomorrow and nobody's going to outlaw them (and cars are pretty neat and have some great uses), but it doesn't have to be all-or-nothing. would it really "damage" the US if new cars at least got better gas mileage than those sold 10 years ago? the U.S. average has INCREASED every year the last 10 years, despite increases in technology and safety that could be used to create cheaper, safer, more fuel economic cars - instead we simply have larger, more powerful cars than 10 years ago...

we as a planet need to at least CONSIDER what is and is not worth doing b/c of the very real possibility that Global Warming is "real" -- and the U.S. should be playing a leadership role, but... it is cost-benefit risk-management... the U.S. is currently choosing "ZERO cost, MAXIMUM RISK" w/o considering if there is a "very low cost, much lower risk" choice available.

Where to begin.........Global warming is b.s. Weather is cyclical. We couldn't change the weather if we wanted to. The levels in the oceans are not rising. Does your glass of sweet tea runneth over when the ice melts? What caused the last ice age to decline? A rain forest is a jungle. The car is not the most damaging thing to the enviroment(Al Gore?) Kyoto was an attempt to steal from the U.S. citizens their hard earned money and give it to corrupt regimes and governments to enrich themselves. I shall stop for now!

Originally posted by nathank
OK, Global Warming is/was one of my topics of interest for my graduate work...

without regaurd to cause, Global Warming IS happening - for the last 150 years, glaciers have been retreating...
Global warmists must first answer this question before stipulating warming as fact:

Why were similar pronouncements regarding an impending Ice Age in the 70s apparently so wrong?

(Be careful ... your answer can be used against you!!!)

Too difficult to outlaw personal cars I feel. People need them for excursions, do business, whatever. I think that if it is going to be outlawed, we won't be around to see it. There's still enough fossil fuel that can support the cars and I don't see cars being scarce unless fossil fuel has depleted. Also, they will be electric cars and other form of cars still.

originally posted by Andy Dreisch
Global warmists must first answer this question before stipulating warming as fact:

Why were similar pronouncements regarding an impending Ice Age in the 70s apparently so wrong?

actually, i don't think it is prerequisite to answer said question before tackling global warming... it would be helpful to our predictive capability, yes...

personally, i don't know too much about the Ice Age predictions of the 70s (it's a little before my time). but i think people were probably examining certain factors and researchers have now realized that there are many other factors and/or the time scale must be much larger - if you look at too short a time period the results for long-term prediction can be meaningless.

any prediction is only that: a best guess using available information. as we as a culture gain more and more experience with complex prediction like climate, our predictions should get better and better. and any prediction should be accompanied by an assessment of it's assumptions and possible weaknesses - i.e. to fully evaluate it's worth.

in the case of Global Warming there are 2 main questions:
1) is the earth warming long-term and if so why? (natural vs. human causes)
2) irregardless of the above, are human activities altering this process and if so, is this OK? is this necessary and/or avoidable? what are the potential consequences of any human contribution?

Global warming is a politically motivated non-issue based on data collected by junk science. I think it should be filed away in the same file that 'LSD mutates your genes' resides.
Pollution, however, is real - and the industrial bastards who are guilty of it should be dipped head-first into a pool of raw sewage and nuclear waste.

Originally posted by Andy Dreisch
(Be careful ... your answer can be used against you!!!)
Anyone who takes the time to read can learn the numerous examples of man's foolish mismanagement of his own resources, resulting in radioactive fallout, destroyed habitats, poisoned landscapes, irretrievably lost wildlife species, "pest" animals running amok for lack of natural predators, flooding, dust storms, dead lakes...

Does anyone remember Chernobyl? Love Canal? Been to Mexico City in the last 20 years?

Our natural resouces are not disposable. Many that are lost will never be retrieved. How long will it take a scientist to genetically recreate the passenger pigeon? To unpave an urban landscape?

I prefer preventive medicine.

Originally posted by Duffy
Where to begin.........Global warming is b.s. Weather is cyclical. We couldn't change the weather if we wanted to. The levels in the oceans are not rising. Does your glass of sweet tea runneth over when the ice melts? What caused the last ice age to decline? A rain forest is a jungle. The car is not the most damaging thing to the enviroment(Al Gore?) Kyoto was an attempt to steal from the U.S. citizens their hard earned money and give it to corrupt regimes and governments to enrich themselves. I shall stop for now!

Hear, hear. Someone that makes sense. Please add more as I'm at work and don't have time to shed some light to the global warming BS.

:thumbup:

Originally posted by Duffy
We couldn't change the weather if we wanted to. The levels in the oceans are not rising. Does your glass of sweet tea runneth over when the ice melts?
Voodoo logic.

For all those who pose arguments on this topic, I can say confidently that so far, those arguing against the possibility of global warming have presented the least evidence to support their claims.

We're talking evidence, such as scientific studies, not armchair logic.

Wow! Who'da thunk that this here forum was infested with such uneducated cyclists. Global warming is very real and though year after year it doesn't seem like things are changing, they are. Seems like those who don't believe in global warming should go back to school and attend some environmental classes. Might learn a thing or two.

Global warming is beside the point. Even without a single scientific study, satellite photo, or pronouncement from a PhD, an ordinary person can figure out that millions of folks pumping tons of poison into the air, year after year after year has got to have a down side.

I would favor banning cars in downtown areas of large cities, just because they are ugly, they stink and we have better ways of getting around (trolleys, on foot, cycling, etc).

regards
Dan

Originally posted by LittleBigMan
... I can say confidently that so far, those arguing against the possibility of global warming have presented the least evidence to support their claims.

We're talking evidence, such as scientific studies...
The same scientific evidence that spawned the scare of the 70s -- the impending Ice Age?

How did that evidence differ from today's evidence?

The same "scientific evidence" conjured up by grant-absorbing researchers (follow the money my friend)? The same evidence that, when refuted or or otherwise found to be deficient, scarcely manages a single sentence on page C5, near the comics, while the original "evidence", since refuted, was originally published on the covers of Time and Newsweek?

Scientific evidence? Puuuuuuullllleeeeeaaaaasssseeeeee

Bull--global warming is caused by chain lube and rubber dust from worn Panaracers and brake pads. Ride a bike for your country, Americans, not the planet. Keep money away from Arab terrorists and Texas oil fascists.

The earth was generally warmer 500 to 1000 years ago.
One of the two coldest periods, known as the Little Ice Age, occurred 300 years ago. Atmospheric temperatures have been rising from that low for the past 300 years, but remain below the 3,000-year average. Even if earth's temperature has increased slightly (.3 to .6 since 1850), the increase is well within the natural range of known temperature variation over the last several thousand years years.

:beer:

Originally posted by neguypdx
Wow! Who'da thunk that this here forum was infested with such uneducated cyclists.
Personally I resent that remark, we may differ in opinion
but I don't think that gives me the right to call you or
anyone else uneducated.
So, how do you explain the "Asian Brown Cloud" a really nasty
2 mile thick miasma of hydrocarbon waste and other airborne
particulate matter that is causing a drop in temperature
underneath it which is then causing a drop in evaporation
precipitating (no pun intended here) a drought?

Marty

There is quite a bit of evidence debunking the global warming theory.
The most offensive notion of this theory is the unwritten assumption that the earth is unable to handle human presence on earth and therefore, we must do something to save it. Phooey.
First and foremost, although the experiment works in an actual enclosed plastic dome, the earth's atmosphere is a dynamic ether and the same principles do not apply.
Tracing the source of so-called greenhouse gases, we find that around 95% of these gases originate from volcanic activity and other natural sources and therefore, less than 5% could be attributable to human sources.
Furthermore, there is much more evidence suggesting that the earth is cooling and has been consistently for billions of years, with a more rapid decrease in temperature following the formation of the Himayas. We're taking notes on 150 years of climatic records and making assumptions and demanding action based on this data. This is akin to making a stock purchase decision by monitoring it's activity for one second out of the day.
I could go on but don't have the time at the moment. There is plenty of information available on both sides of the issue and I would encourage people to find out for themselves. Remeber, this is still a theory and in no way a scientifically proven fact.

Originally posted by Stor Mand
The earth was generally warmer 500 to 1000 years ago.
One of the two coldest periods, known as the Little Ice Age, occurred 300 years ago. Atmospheric temperatures have been rising from that low for the past 300 years, but remain below the 3,000-year average. Even if earth's temperature has increased slightly (.3 to .6 since 1850), the increase is well within the natural range of known temperature variation over the last several thousand years years.
Stor Mand, I would rather be right than just believe that I am. Could you provide some references for these figures, perhaps (if possible) something on the net? I would be interested in reading them, not to seek how I might argue against them, but to learn all I can.

Still, I would wonder why scientists would not already be aware of the normal cyclic historic variations in weather patterns and account for them in their figures. My father is a scientist (microbiologist) who knows well the competitive nature of publishing scientific papers. For a scientist to publish a paper on the alleged effects of global warming, which later turned out to be poorly done science, would place that scientist's career in jeapordy somewhat. The science needs to hold water under intense scrutiny
by his/her professional peers.

On a practical note, it would be good if we had stricter emissions controls on 2-cycle engines. Lawnmowers and snowblowers, for instance. Maybe a little catalytic converter on there would be a good idea.