<p>yes, it does when followed. If half the road persists in ignoring it, that will result in more accidents. That’s the fault of the lawbreakers, not the law.</p>
<p>I don’t know what vehicle you drive, but every one I have ever driven gets better mileage at medium speeds. The highway we frequently drive these days has a 55 stretch; during that part, we can see our mpg go up.</p>
<p>Better mileage means less use of gas means lower emissions and less oil dependency.</p>
<p>Driving at 55 mph does consume about 20% less fuel for mile traveled than driving at 70 mph - that’s documented, and unavoidable. The problem is that Interstates are designed for 70 mph, and people are unconsciously driven to drive at the speed the roads are designed for. Trying to make them go slower by putting up speed limit signs and ticketing the “speeders” doesn’t work. People will still unconsciously want to drive 70. It’s an interesting phenomenon. It is possible to lower traffic speeds through physical modifications to the road; in fact, it is a more reliable way to govern speed than posting signs and ticketing. My personal preference would not be to travel long distances on Interstate highways at 55 mph.</p>
<p>And Barrons - still pulling random and meaningless statistics out of your… hat … again, I see. Always fun to see you opine sagely about what scientists do and don’t know, from your comfortable position of complete ignorance of their work.</p>
<p>Even most climate scientists will admit how limited their overall understanding is.</p>
<p>[ZENIT</a> - Global Warming Natural, Says Expert](<a href=“http://www.zenit.org/article-19481?l=english]ZENIT”>http://www.zenit.org/article-19481?l=english)</p>
<p>A random physicist doens’t get what thousands of climate change experts are doing.</p>
<p>Stop the presses.</p>
<p>I’ve haven’t heard any expert say that other forces don’t also and haven’t also affected the climate; but I am more concerned, as they also seem to be, about the very sudden and unprecedented atmospheric changes which are anthropogenic and piled onto natural conditions in a decidedly unnatural way, causing a swifter and, yes, unpredictable future unstability.</p>
<p>As I noted before,
Hence, Barrons offers us Antonio Zichichi, a retired professor of advanced physics at the University of Bologna - with no training or research performed in the area of climate change. The prevalence of older gentlemen enjoying a day in the sun to the applause of the denier claque has been noted by others, of course: [Inhofes</a> List of Global Warming Deniers Includes 49 Who Are Retired - thedailygreen.com](<a href=“http://www.thedailygreen.com/environmental-news/latest/inhofe-global-warming-deniers-retired-46011008]Inhofes”>http://www.thedailygreen.com/environmental-news/latest/inhofe-global-warming-deniers-retired-46011008)<br>
This guy, at 78, is practically a spring chicken by Barron’s usual standards. The last “I just don’t get it” retiree Barrons propped up here was well into his 80’s.</p>
<p>“enjoying a day in the sun”</p>
<p>clever.</p>
<p>He still probably knows his math better than lots of the younger profs. That was his point.</p>
<p>His point was a lot of unsubstantiated claims. And the idea that a worldwide, multiply peer reviewed, exhaustedly analyzed piece of scholarship is math challenged because “younger profs” worked on it is preposterous without more than freewheeling assertions. If it were so obvious, it would have been discredited. you must really be into conspiracy theories in a big way to buy this huge cover-up.</p>
<p>No, only this one.</p>
<p>Um, leda–go back and read Kluge’s posts. He is absolutely convinced of the reality of anthropogenic climate change. that’s been his point this whole thread. Earlier, he had said that no one on CC is a climate change expert, and Hubris had disagreed. That was the context of the question you quote.</p>
<p>Yeah - these threads can be confusing when posts are removed. A poster named “Hubris” parachuted in (0 threads, 0 posts) and posted something which I took to be pro-denier (though mostly anti-Kluge) taking exception to my observation that there really is no controversy about AGW among practicing scientists, that the “debate” is basically fueled by people with no actual understanding of climate science claiming to be reasoned “skeptics” when in fact their “skepticism” is simply ignorance which has been capitalized on by the disingenuous and opportunists. All of Hubris’ posts have since disappeared. </p>
<p>For what it’s worth, my opinion about anthropomorphic climate change is pretty much the same as my opinion of plate tectonics, nuclear fission, and other subjects as to which I have a reasonably well informed lay understanding, but by no means “scientific” understanding: if there’s a clear consensus among the actual, qualified scientists about how it works, I’m inclined to assume they’re right, and act accordingly, in the absence of compelling countervailing reasons to do so. And one or two fringe scientists, a retired geezer getting a little PR love by making a “bold, contrarian” statement (without doing any of the heavy lifting involved in real research) or plausible sounding pop-science level critiques do not qualify as “compelling countervailing reasons” for ignoring climate change in my opinion.</p>
<p>The fact that climate change denial is clearly an ideologically-fueled philosophy makes me even more cautious about checking the data the deniers posit. And that double-checking has produced smoking gun evidence that the deniers have fudged facts to the point of out-and-out lying over and over. What does that tell you?</p>
<p><a href=“Edit:%20Whoops%20-%20now%20Leda’s%20post%20is%20gone.%20%20Pretty%20soon%20I’ll%20be%20talking%20to%20myself%20here…”>I</a>*</p>
<p>And pro climate change is not ideologically fueled?? Every Green from Gore to Carter rushed to it as did all the anti-growth, anti-car, anti-capitalism types around the world. They have control of the research funding so you only hear one side.</p>
<p>No, Barrons. The recognition of anthropomorphic climate change is not ideologically based. It is science based. Even Shell Oil, Chevron, etc. are dealing with it. The only reason you think it is ideologically-based is because the ideologues you support have been squawking that the science must be wrong because it conflicts with their paranoid political/economic view of the world. They have claimed that climate change is just a liberal scam because they didn’t have any reality based arguments to make. The pathetic claim that no one is doing the research that would prove climate change science wrong because those darn liberals have a choke hold on all of the research funding is just … sad. Do you have any idea how much money Exxon/Mobil spends on research every year? And how hard that one corporation tried to find a flaw in the climate change science data, theories and predictions? If there was any research that could be done to debunk climate change science it has been tried, and failed. Whining that the truth is being suppressed by the liberals is just pathetic. Seriously. Pathetic as in “The Government created AIDS” As in “Space aliens are among us but the truth is being kept from us.” As in “The world is flat.” That kind of pathetic.</p>
<p>Reality isn’t ideological. Climate change is reality. The fact that your ideologues are wrong doesn’t make the truth ideological.</p>
<p>(Note: Even Exxon Mobil has given it up at this point, though they are doing great work in the “Drag you feet” area. It’s over, Barrons. Only the tinfoil hat brigade are marching with you now.)</p>
<p>Here is an interesting article concerning climate change:</p>
<p>[How</a> cleaning up America dried up the Amazon - earth - 07 May 2008 - New Scientist Environment](<a href=“http://environment.newscientist.com/article/dn13851-how-cleaning-up-america-dried-up-the-amazon.html?DCMP=ILC-hmts&nsref=news2_head_dn13851]How”>http://environment.newscientist.com/article/dn13851-how-cleaning-up-america-dried-up-the-amazon.html?DCMP=ILC-hmts&nsref=news2_head_dn13851)</p>
<p>Interesting indeed, Zoos. The thing is, back in the day when we didn’t recognize a lot of the consequences of our actions (which was within my lifetime) it was easy to just go merrily along, grabbing what we could from the earth and enjoying the prosperity that came from strip mining resources - whether the resource be topsoil, fish, clean air or water, or whatever - and toujours gai! </p>
<p>Then those nasty eco-terrorists and scientists came along and it’s all “Dude - your factory effluent is poisoning the river and making people sick downstream!” Followed by “Awe, geez, do I hafta clean it up? It’ll cost so much!” Followed by “You’ll be putting people out of work if you make us do that!” Which is eventually followed by the realization that the cost of cleaning up is part of the cost of doing whatever it is that you’re doing. Which is such a drag. And they keep finding messes we didn’t even realize we were making, like greenhouse gases. And that’s the driving reason behind pro-business types like Barrons accusing ecologically oriented people of being, well, generally bad people. Because cleaning up after yourself is such a drag, and you just don’t want to do it. Trust me, father of 3 here: I get it.</p>
<p>But eventually kids and societies have to grow up. And we have to try to consider the consequences of our actions (cleaning up after) even if it’s *such a drag. * Life was so much more fun back when we just didn’t know or care, and could blithely ignore the mess we were making. To be young again!</p>
<p>“And that’s the driving reason behind pro-business types like Barrons accusing ecologically oriented people of being, well, generally bad people.”</p>
<p>Well, Kluge, the eco terrorists you referenced ARE generally bad people.</p>
<p>Well, true, the actual “eco-terrorists” are - but there’s really not very many of them, and they usually aren’t interested in boring stuff like emissions; mostly they go for the sexier stuff like cutting down trees.</p>
<p>My son has been working on this topic for his IB History all year. Has probably read 1000 plus pages and had to report on ALL sides of the issue. Some of the things he(and I) learned, in no particular order;</p>
<p>Its called climate change, not global warming, because some places will get warmer, some colder.</p>
<p>If you chart the average mean temp of the earth starting from the last 1000 years, you notice a spike that corresponds with the beginning of the industrial revolution. This is when combustion engines were invented and CO2 was added to the atmospere. Ever increasing amounts of CO2 have increased the rate of warming.</p>
<p>There are exagerations and silly statements on both sides of the issue. One of each: Twenty feet of sea level change in 50 years. God would not have created a world that cannot heal itself.</p>
<p>The number of scientists, religious figures, business people, politicians, military people, that do believe it is happening is increasing.</p>
<p>The effects will be gradual and are already occurring. Tropical diseases appearing in temperate climates. Floods in some places, droughts in others. Bird migratory patterns changing. Growing seasons for crops changing. Even purchases of clothing is changing. </p>
<p>Yes it will be expensive to do something about it, But it will be even more so to wait. Katrina is a good example. It would have cost less to keep up with the levy repairs than it will to repair all that has been lost to the flood.</p>
<p>The psychology of dealing with it is fascinating. People cling strongly to their beliefs. No one wants to deal with a change that means they have been living wrong and have to do things differently. It is human nature.</p>
<p>Time will truly tell.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I would say, though, that there is definitely a certain kind of person who quickly embraces this sort of information, and clutches it to their breast in a paroxysm of enthusiasm. Given the amount of time this has been coming, and the nearly-impossible solution, having ten or twenty years of thoughtful discussion might be more useful than the superficial solutions, public hand-wringing, and breathless media stories. If I hear one more story saying, “This storm, another sign of global warming” I might get so upset I forget to recycle my Rice-A-Roni container. </p>
<p>So while I agree there is more to anthropogenic climate change than just an “I hate technology” “greenie” reaction, there also isn’t much question that this phenomenon does exist.</p>
<p>By the way, “anthropomorphic” means “ascribing human form or attributes to a being or thing not human” while “anthropogenic” means “caused by humans.”</p>
<p>“having ten or twenty years of thoughtful discussion might be more useful than the superficial solutions, public hand-wringing, and breathless media stories.”</p>
<p>And that is the crux of the problem. The kluges and Gores of the world are out to snuff out any thoughtful discussion or scientific research by calling anyone who disagrees with their views “flat earthers”. </p>
<p>Weren’t the original “flat earthers” the ones who wanted to squelch scientific thought in favor of embracing the conventional wisdom of the day? So, who are the real contemporary flat earthers? Those who try to inhibit additional research into climate change because it is “settled” or those who realize that there is so much more understanding that is required?</p>