<p>Certainly interesting that while BIG AL is revered around the globe, the buffoon in the White House and leader of the only remaining super power, is hated universally,…except for the 33% religious right wing…</p>
<p>It will be morning in America when January 20, 2009 arrives.</p>
<p>
This doesn’t seem very evident in much of Europe. Mercedes, BMW, Ford, and others over there are still making large vehicles and there are plenty of them on the road there. Sure, they’re cost concious and some will lean towards smaller more efficient vehicles, but the same thing already happens over here at our existing prices. It’ll happen even more once the new diesels (with good mileage figures) arrive with upcoming new models. </p>
<p>On top of all this the impact of vehicles on the ‘Global Warming’ issue is uncertain. The sensationalism of global warming is out of hand and seems to have a lot of people in a panic and others wielding dubious conclusions as political hammers. I can virtually guarantee that the earth has been either in a ‘global warming’ or ‘global cooling’ cycle since the earth formed and who’s to say that the earth is at its absolutely ideal temperature right now (or a couple of hundred years ago). It’ll warm and cool regardless of what man does with his vehicles. Rather than expending effort trying to prove/disprove or debate global warming/cooling since it’ll happen regardless, let’s focus on the tangible impacts of manmade emissions, especially the health aspects of the air we breathe, and the tradeoffs of those detriments versus the benefits transportation and energy provide to the world. Studies of whether a hundred years of ‘carbon-fueled’ vehicle use will raise the temperature of the earth a degree or two are interesting but would have no impact on ‘world peace’.</p>
<p>Unfortunately, too many people don’t understand the truth and the numbers. A large portion of scientists agree that only 0.28% of greenhouse affect is caused by mankind. If you add in water vapor contributed by mankind, the number jumps to 5.53% of greenhouse gases.</p>
<p>The majority of greenhouse gases are caused by water vapor. A stagoring 95%. Now, It doesn’t matter how much money and Al Gores you want to get working on mankind’s contribution towards greenhouse gases; even if you eliminated mankind, you wouldn’t put a dent in the greenhouse gases. But fwiw, here is a starting point for people who want to know more about the “Greenhouse Gas” affect on the planet. It’s a great way to see the actual data from the Department of Energy.</p>
<p><a href=“http://mysite.verizon.net/mhieb/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html[/url]”>http://mysite.verizon.net/mhieb/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html</a></p>
<p>bluebayou, I don’t know if he is or isn’t. Maybe in making more people aware of the problem, indirectly he is? btw, just to clarify, my post (#22) was just what it was, responding purely to the phrase I put in the quote and not to what you said before that :)</p>
<p>Just a quick note: While I don’t really want to get involved in this argument, because I don’t feel confident enough in the arguments to judge whether anthropogenic global warming is an issue, but one thing.</p>
<p>Christcorp, even if the 5% figure is true, that doesn’t necessarily dismiss the argument that we are causing global warming. Nature is replete with examples of systems in delicate equilibrium, where disturbing that equilibrium even slightly can have large and far-reaching results. I don’t know (and neither do you, I suspect) for sure if that’s the case here, as I am not (and you probably aren’t) a climatologist, but it’s just worth noting.</p>
<p>Wow. I am just so amazed at this thread. </p>
<p>No matter what you think about Gore his focus and efforts on the environment have really affected the developed world.</p>
<p>VCs in the valley are now throwing almost as much money at “Green” technology as they did at the Internet 8 years ago.</p>
<p>If technology follows $$$, then we may actually solve the problem of a world that is degrading.</p>
<p>What on earth is there to be cynical and dismissive and sectarian about that?</p>
<p>hmmm, let’s see. Spend millions, billions, or even trillions on an issue that arguably can have little affect on the environment. Raising taxes, depleting our soil going after ethanol which is about as bad as fossil fuels.</p>
<p>Or, spend the same amount of money on quality of life issues; medical; food; housing; prevention of disease; education; exploring alternative renewable energy sources <a href=“Because%20eventually%20we%20will%20run%20out%20of%20fossil%20fuels.%20Which%20would%20eliminate%20the%20majority%20of%20the%20issues%20people%20are%20whining%20about%20with%20greenhouse%20gases,%20but%20arrived%20at%20from%20a%20different%20means”>Solar, wind, hydro, nuclear</a> Hmmmm, hard choice here.</p>
<p>“What on earth is there to be cynical and dismissive and sectarian about that?”</p>
<p>very well said.</p>
<p>During the cold war days there was a perception that Russia will nuke us. We spent BILLIONS of dollars to counter that imaginary threat. Now our entire existence is at stake and ostriches are still burrying their heads in sand.</p>
<p>I can understand why old farts oppose the notion. We don’t have much to lose. We all will be dead in the next 20-30 years. We all would be able to maintain our lifestyles - drive the SUVs and Hummers. I am absolutely baffled when I see young people vehemently opposing the idea of global warming. Damn it you still will live another 50 - 60 years, and this will affect you and your children - whether it is man made or natural.</p>
<p>(Even Fox’s Murdoh is going green)</p>
<p>I think the Nobel prize was very well deserved by Gore. While global climate change might, in fact, be irreversible (oh! but imagine if so many people and oil corporations hadn’t spent the last 20 years denying it and lying about it), Gore has done a service to the world by bringing the conversation to the forefront, in a way that everyone can understand and access. </p>
<p>We may not be able to stop it at this point, but perhaps we have had enough warning to prepare for the effects of it - particularly the effect of millions of people who will become refugees as a result of the fresh water, weather, and farming impacts, many in countries already desperately poor and struggling.</p>
<p>I think it may very well be generational related. During cold war, our parent generation was willing to spend billions to avert the perceived threat of nucular (nuclear) annihilation to protect their kids and grand kids. </p>
<p>The boomer generation also known as ‘Me’ generation is not willing to spend money - they just want to think of themselves.(Baby boomers are commonly thought to be the most self-absorbed generation in American history.)</p>
<p>
Wow - this is such an extreme conclusion that it’s difficult to even respond to. Do you really believe this? If so, I hope you do some of your own research via balanced sources for your own peace of mind if for no other reason.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Hiroshima tells us that it was not an imaginary threat. We (the US) spent billions and we won. The Soviet Union is no more, not through a nuclear exchange but through economic triumph. However, almost 20 years later, are we any safer than we were during cold war detente or have we traded one threat for another? The same holds true of global warming. Are we moving toward a more peaceful world by tackling global warming or are we unintentionally creating circumstances which also threaten life on earth: perhaps a war over resource allocation?</p>
<p>My sticking point is not with Al Gore’s trumpeting of the issue, but with the NPP committee’s awarding of the prize for an effort that is indirectly related to peace at best. The conflict avoidance angle is a nonstarter for me, because the conflicts to be avoided are undefined. They are truly imaginary threats. Peace has to do with human relationships, not trying to avoid the consequences of natural disasters. That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t strive for a better and sustainable environment. But how can we claim success for avoiding a disaster that we could never be sure would happen in the first place?</p>
<p>
If you really believe the Gore-driven hype then the lands of the desperately poor now will likely become the breadbaskets of the near future - only a few years according to Simba’s post.</p>
<p>ucsd<em>ucla</em>dad:</p>
<p>You telling me that you are an immortal?</p>
<p>“I hope you do some of your own research via balanced sources for your own peace of mind if for no other reason.”</p>
<p>I don’t have to. I know for sure that it is not going to affect me. I will be dead after that.</p>
<p>Here is the opinion of a scientist (an atmospheric physicist). It presents another side to some of the “truths” related to Global Warming. </p>
<p><a href=“http://www.ourcivilisation.com/aginatur/swindle.htm[/url]”>http://www.ourcivilisation.com/aginatur/swindle.htm</a></p>
<p>simba:</p>
<p>Sorry - I misread your post. But to expand on it anyway, what drastic effects that might happen 50-60 years from now are you concerned about and why do you think our entire existence is at stake?</p>
<p>“But to expand on it anyway, what drastic effects that might happen 50-60 years from now are you concerned about and why do you think our entire existence is at stake?”</p>
<p>Too lazy to repeat the facts, but do you have a paypal account? I will send you $4, and you can rent ‘An Inconvenient Truth’. You shall find all the answers you are looking for.</p>
<p>Trust alumother when she says,“VCs in the valley are now throwing almost as much money at “Green” technology as they did at the Internet 8 years ago.”</p>
<p>I agree with an earlier post from JHS. Al Gore has really raised a lot of awareness about energy conservation, etc. No one can deny his efforts even during his first term as VP.</p>
<p>Another completely different issue is whether global warming is a “real” crisis. Why won’t he debate those critics who have challenged him to a formal debate? Is it true that most scientists do not support climate “alarmism” ?</p>
<p>“Is it true that most scientists do not support climate “alarmism” ?”</p>
<p>No. Only a small fraction who were funded by XOM and likes of American Enterprise Association do not support.</p>