"Miles Per Gallon
In case you haven't noticed (and nobody has) gas is really cheap again."

So, by his remark "and nobody has" is this wack job insinuating that automakers need to relax plans for high mileage, high efficiency cars..because, like, "gas is really cheap again"?

And what happens when prices raise again? Should the automakers THEN start rushing plans for high mileage, high efficiency cars? How can these idiots claim to know anything about the auto industry and then give advise which guarantees a repeat of biggest mistakes the big 3 has done for past decade? Mistakes that have almost wiped them out.

And was that one sentence really worth making a whole post on ABG?

And

↓↑report

Here's my list:

- Rush Limbaugh listeners.
- People who don't read Scientific American.
- People, still not aware of the Explosive growth of human population, in the last 200 years.
- People not aware of the Global Extinction of Species.
- People who hold on to Oil and Coal stocks instead of investing in the future.
- People who make lists.

↓↑report

Sorry to see you overrate yourself..but at least your honest, I'll give you that.

↓↑report

Global Warming overrated? You must be doing crack while watching Faux News right?

The majority of the world's scientists agree that there is strong evidence that Global Warming is happening, is man made, and will cause great natural and economic problems. Now if you prefer the version edited by lawyers (with good friends in the oil, coal industries) then go ahead, maybe it makes you feel better.

↓↑report

@Max

You are 100% correct..I should have been more clear...replace "Global Warming" with "Man Made Global Warming"

There..thanks for pointing that out.

Oh..and find me a GW study that is 100% unbiased with no monetary ties or political agenda..you cant...and that goes for and against the topic.

↓↑report

It is not the consensus of the world's scientists that say man made global warming is a fact. There are roughly 6,000 scientists (most of whom receive their funding through grants from politicians who are MMGW proponents) while there are over 31,000 scientists (over 9,000 of which are PhD's) who state otherwise. Furthermore, a growing number of scientists who had previously supported the MMGW cause are now saying that conclusions may have been drawn too quickly.

The problem with the MMGW theory is that one has to refute everything we know to be true about the history of the earth's climate. One has to deny that the climate has ever changed. To believe in MMGW, one would have to believe it was always 72 degrees and sunny; there were never summers that were hotter than others; there were never winters colder than others; there weren't ice ages, cooling ages or warming ages; the sea levels never rose or decreased; there were never floods or draughts; the ice caps have been in the same formations since day one, never changing their size. Unfortuantely, we know that all of these things did happen, well before American soccer moms fired up their Suburbans.

As far as species becoming extinct, as some point out. Would someone please show me one period in the history of the earth that species weren't becoming extinct due to one reason or another. It amazes me how 'scientists' can claim that an Australian opossum is becoming extinct because the average temperature in its' region has increased by 1.5 degrees. This opossum can survive 20 - 40 degree temperature changes from day to night, yet can't survive a 1.5 degree change in the average temperature. Meanwhile, other scientists are reporting that they have found over 500 new species of animals. Everything is being killed off by MMGW, yet new species are being discovered! Amazing!

If those who support MMGW actually knew the history of the earth's climate, reviewed the information being dispersed to support it, used a little common sense and applied a logic based litmus test to what they were being told, they would realize that it is complete and utter BS. BS being used for political purposes. We must give up our freedoms and property and money (through taxation) to support a socialist agenda for power and control.

Of course, when confronted with facts that refute the 'evidence' presented about MMGW, its supporters don't respond withh facts- only rhetoric. 'The arguments over', 'it's a consensus of the world's scientists', and other responses are prevalent, but never a response that allows for debate on the issue, as they know if people were to actually examine what they are saying, they would see just how full of crap the MMGW theory is.

↓↑report

@Holden Miecranc

1) CO2 is a greenhouse gas - It's really not very difficult to demonstrate something like this - CO2 absorbs photons in the infra-red spectrum, nitrogen does not - we've been able to observe this for the better part of the last century, at least...

2) Human infrastructure produces CO2. The chemical reactions that go on when you combust fossil fuels are quite well understood - they pretty much all end with C02 as the primary products

3) CO2 concentrations have risen dramatically since the beginning of the industrial revolution, and quite significantly since the rise of the automobile and 20th century industry / population expansion. I trust the ice core samples enough to take scientists' word on this one, but we've been able to sample the atmosphere directly for at least a few decades, so this is pretty much a proven fact.

Anyway, to conclude - yes, Earth undergoes temperature cycles. We may be undergoing a warming period right now - that doesn't negate the fact that we're dumping large quantities of greenhouse gases into the environment resulting in increased atmospheric concentrations. There may be natural factors at work here, but it's undeniable that there are also human factors at work. None of your rhetoric (you haven't actually provided any facts besides rough estimates of numbers of 'scientists' who think what you think) actually demonstrates that there is no man made global warming, you simply suggest that some people believe that there is also natural global warming, which I am not denying.

Finally, I think that the whole species becoming extinct thing isn't as direct as you suggest. No, species will not become extinct due to an average temperature increase of 1.5 degrees. Species become extinct primarily when they lose their habitat. It is documented that the Earth's deserts are growing - lost habitat. It is documented that the polar ice caps, and polar and non-polar glacial formations, are melting, resulting in the loss of both the arctic habitat and eventual coastal habitat. This is what may eventually lead to the extinction of species. However, it's also important to realize that Earth's climate is a non-linear system with predicted hysteresis - once we pass a certain point, a run-away effect is triggered. While this has never happened naturally, the little extra bump from man made greenhouse gases may well be enough to push the system past the point of non-return (or very difficult return).

Also - how can you conclude that species aren't going extinct because we're discovering new species? Those two things have nothing to do with each other.

↓↑report

I'll tell you something that's not overrated. Spending as little on gas as I can at whatever price it sells for so I can use my money for stuff that's more important to me.

↓↑report

@ nataku83,
97% of CO2 emissions are from large bodies of water, so unless we find a way to control oceans, seas and lakes, we're not going to do a whole lot about limiting CO2 emissions. Man accounts for roughly 1% of our greenhouse gas emissions.

Furthermore, seeing as 99% of our climatic issues correlate to solar activity, I think we're going to have a hard time controlling that, too. Unfortuantely, most of the bunk 'post-industrial revolution' storylines don't include the direct correlation between solar activity and the earth's climate. The current NOAA temperature change data is a prime example.

As far as the Australian opossum becoming extinct, the exact reason cited by Australian pro-MMGW scientists for this extinction was the increase of average temperature of 1.5 degrees. In citing the more than 500 new species discovered in 2008, I was not stating that species can't becoming extinct because others are being discovered, but rather pointing out that a) nature is constantly in flux, species have become extinct throughout the earth's history, even before man came along b) attention is only paid to the dire distress of animals becoming extinct, not the discovery of new species and c) if there earth was in such terrible shape, new species probably wouldn't be developing.

In regard to the scientists I cited, all 31,072 of them, you can read their information at www.petitionproject.com for more details.

↓↑report

@Holden Miecranc

Great, informative, fact based and logical statements..much better than I could have said my self..sadly most who are in support MMGW will never get it because they revert to emotional based rationalization to support their views...I would be surprised to see any response to your post..simply because there is no rational/logical argument to the facts presented.

↓↑report

Holden Miecranc

I've heard the statement "9x% of CO2 comes from the oceans" before. It IS true that a huge amount of CO2 is released from the surface of the oceans (so the statement is technically true), however, an even greater amount of CO2 is absorbed by the oceans. In net terms, the ocean is the largest CO2 sink on the planet, larger even than terrestrial plants.

Please go back to the site where you read that statistic, and figure out why they did not tell you the whole truth.

The negative consequence of the CO2 absorption is that the surface waters of the ocean are becoming more acidic (or less basic if you will). This has disastrous consequences for anything with an exoskeleton, since calcium carbonate will be harder to form, and more likely to dissolve in a more acidic environment. You may have heard of the worldwide coral bleaching that has been going on.

About the sun: Solar forcing is increasing. All the climate models include that. It does have an effect on the earth's temperature. All the models show that effect. What the models also show, is that the effect of solar forcing alone is not enough to explain the rate of change of temperature that is being observed. Saying that the existence of solar forcing disproves AGW theory is like saying "This car's not faster because of a bigger engine, it's faster because its more aerodynamic." Both factors can (and indeed do) have an effect.

It may be worth also pointing out the difference between the discovery of new species and the development of new species. They are not the same thing. Unfortunately it is not possible to tell which of these have happened.

↓↑report

Holden Miecranc:

"Of course, when confronted with facts that refute the 'evidence' presented about MMGW, its supporters don't respond with facts- only rhetoric. 'The arguments over', 'it's a consensus of the world's scientists', and other responses are prevalent, but never a response that allows for debate on the issue, as they know if people were to actually examine what they are saying, they would see just how full of crap the MMGW theory is."

What possible facts can you purport to present that can refute evidence. Evidence cannot be refuted (unless measurement or recording errors are involved) it can only be explained by competing theories. All anti-AGW folks can hope for is to have a theory that explains the evidence (the data) better than AGW. So far I have not heard any.

How would you go about testing such a theory? It is a daunting challenge. I would suggest that the best approach would be to make a computer model of the earth, include things like variation in solar forcing, atmospheric reflectivity and absorption, atmospheric and oceanic circulation models, biological response, volcanic eruptions etc., and see how close to the historical data you can get. Once you have such a model giving pretty good results, subtract out the effects on atmospheric composition that man's hydrocarbon combustion has had and run the model forward in time. If model runs including and excluding anthropogenic forcing differ, then you have the best evidence of AGW.

I tend to believe the climate modelers.

↓↑report

Holden Miecranc:

"The problem with the MMGW theory is that one has to refute everything we know to be true about the history of the earth's climate. One has to deny that the climate has ever changed."

That statement is absolutely NOT the case. That's like saying to prove the existence of magnetism you have to disprove the existence of gravity. Are you setting up a straw man intentionally or have you misunderstood the argument all along?

AGW theory does not state the THE ONLY driver of global climate change is man's activity. It states that man's activity is having an effect on the global climate.

↓↑report

What about OPEC? 71% of world oil reserves are in the Middle East and North Africa, and by 2020, 83% will be.

The Saudis have the world's cheapest production expenses, about $1.50 a barrel if you include exploration costs.

And yet, led by the Saudis, OPEC has deliberately kept production far below market demand in order to drive up the costs.

Conservatives who blame environmentalists and environmentalists who blame US oil companies are both completely missing the point, and meanwhile the petro-tyrannies continue to loot the productive and humane sectors of the world to fund incredible luxury, brutal repression, and insane extremism.

↓↑report