Archives

One thing the "annointed one" was going to do was fix the nations energy problems. How do you feel about the fact that his only approach so far has been to suggest "cap and trade" which will raise the price of all energy rather than suggesting ways to actually become energy independant?

I suggested to him that he might want to hire a real expert, Wayne Gerdes, and adopt some policies based on the experiences found on this website but, of course, he hasn't.

Is it possible that his approach has more to do with money, politics and power rather than a sincere desire to solve our energy dilemma?

I'm fully prepared for my post to be censored and my membership on this site to be terminated because I have been called out for "trying to politicize" this site previously but I'll run that risk because I believe the subject is so critical to our national security and to our future as a nation.

Energy is NOT a subject that we can play political games with!

How would you suggest dealing with climate change? Do you think we can reduce CO2 emissions without putting any economic incentives in place?

No mention of the increased CAFE standards?

One thing the "annointed one" was going to do was fix the nations energy problems. How do you feel about the fact that his only approach so far has been to suggest "cap and trade" which will raise the price of all energy rather than suggesting ways to actually become energy independant?

..........

Energy is NOT a subject that we can play political games with!


We have more than a century's experience playing political games with the subject, so I'm pretty sure it can and will be done regardless of political leadership.

I assume your sarcasm refers to the president. Perhaps you aren't aware that the constitution gives the power to enact legislation to congress. So unless you are saying that you are disappointed that Obama has not seized dictatorial powers your disappointment appears somewhat misdirected.

You should feel free to thrash Congress regarding these issues, although I suspect that I would disagree with your analysis. For instance, I view energy independence arguments skeptically because in their usual form they advocate "strength through depletion" which is at best short-sighted. I also suspect you under-value the cap and trade approach and misunderstand its likely consequences.

The Congress is slavishly follwing him and doing his bidding so the two are inseperable just like conjoined twins. As for global warming it stopped 11 years ago and was not caused by man. The global warming everyone was so excited about was part of a natural cycle that has been happening for over 4 billion years.

CO2 is a naturally occurring gas that is exhaled by humans and other mammals and is good for plants. We live and plants live - natural symbiotic relationship.

Al Gore stands to make lots and lots of money from this scam - don't believe it!

We can agree that we need fuel alternatives (they recently killed hydrogen and ethanol has all but been killed by the oil lobby) and we can agree that oil is being depleted and that national security is a priority but, manmade global warming, PLEASE! It ain't happening.

Referring to "the annointed one" is not sarcasm. Many Americans actually believe that he is the second coming.

It's really sad to see people spread unfounded denials of climate change like this. The more people deny the science and paint it as a global conspiracy of intellectuals, the harder it's going to be to actually enact effective policy to prevent catastrophic outcomes.

Even if you choose to believe that climate change is not happening or not a threat, for whatever reasons, I'm surprised that you oppose cap and trade if you care about energy independence. Reducing CO2 emissions goes hand in hand with reducing the use of fossil fuels, including the oil that we largely import from unfriendly countries. It's not as if we have an unlimited domestic supply of oil, or any other conventional fuel that would be suitable for cars.

I suspect that the OP is not so concerned about C & P as he is the fact that there is no real plan to reduce consumption to go along with it?

The cafe standards are going to result in less safe automobiles because weight it going to have to be drastically reduced. This can only result in more fatalities.

I find it ludicrous that driver education is not even part of the plan.

Global warming was occurring. It was not manmade. The warmest year on record was 1998. The earth has been cooling since then. The inventor of the hula-hoop (a fad) made millions. The inventor of "manmade global warming" (another fad), Al Gore, stands to make billions.

The earth has been going through natural warming and cooling cycles for it's entire 4.5 billion year history.

Hey Isnt this suppose to go in the political forum? ;)

I don't think jstol is denying climate change, just pointing out that the earths climate history is all about change! I am agnostic about wether man is causing climate change, however it can't hurt to reduce pollution. who likes breathing smog anyhow, yuk!
My libertarian leanings have me hoping we can do it as individuals instead of relying on more government regulation. Things like Hypermiling, carpooling, biking or walking for shorter runs can make a difference if more people would be willing to do it . i guess that is the big if, eh? ;)

Hey Isnt this suppose to go in the political forum?Anything Goes is the closest to a political forum so this thread has been relocated to that location.

Please avoid pejoratives when addressing people, before I snap and refer to member with the same lack of respect....OK to disagree with policies, etc.

Well, Delta Flyer, as I said I was fully ready to have my membership revoked over this post which was actually about ENERGY and CAR SAFETY.

You can snap if you wish. Who are you anyway? It doesn't matter to me if you snap!

I don't allow other people to think for me. When I write a political post I'll let you know that's what it is.

Since you have decided upon this narrow-minded and authoritarian approach to a frank discussion about energy policy I have no choice but to resign from Cleanmpg.com.

I thought the hypermiling movement had some real potential but I see that there is not any real desire here to bring about any change in how America approaches it's energy dilemma.

jstol3,

I was not angry, but pretty annoyed with sticking in a bunch of partisan banter, then getting flak for asking for civility.

If asking for civility is "authoritian" so be it.

I almost changed my screen name because a former member used it in a pejorative way. I always capitalize names because when I did it in a prank memo 20 years ago, I narrowly missed getting fired.

You are the only one mentioning banning - another over-the-top remark.

Don't make things personal, please.

Just a little game of quote and rejoinder:

1. "The inventor of "manmade global warming" (another fad), Al Gore, stands to make billions."

In case you're interested, a brief history of AGW theory here (http://www.newscientist.com/blog/environment/2007/05/climate-myths-special.html).

2. "The warmest year on record was 1998. The earth has been cooling since then."

Yes, 1998 was the warmest year on record. No, the earth hasn't been cooling since then (http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2006/04/warming-stopped-in-1998.php).

3. "Referring to "the annointed one" is not sarcasm. Many Americans actually believe that he is the second coming."

Really? Show me five Americans who believe this.

4. "The Congress is slavishly follwing him and doing his bidding so the two are inseperable just like conjoined twins. "

Slavishly like a fox, I guess (http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/guantanamo-closure-funds-stripped-by-senate-90-6-2009-05-20.html).

For some of you that may think I'm overdoing it when a pejorative is referring to Pres Obama, I did the same thing when some took it a bit far with Pres Bush....had to delete the posts outright, so because I did not delete a post in this thread, does that quality me for being part of a vast-right-wing conspiracy? :D

At other sites, I've seen the equivalent of a Rush Limbaugh vs Michael Moore slugfest on the Jerry Springer Show....everybody gets excited, but does that change minds or help any?

Seems like in your first post you had an attitude with and a pre-planned exit strategy, jstol3.

We are grown boys and girls - we can do better in a thread like this. ;)

...because I did not delete a post in this thread, does that quality me for being part of a vast-right-wing conspiracy? :D

"A dove cannot fly unless its right wing and left wing work together."
- Confucius, quoted while driving around in his new H2. (http://www.cleanmpg.com/forums/showthread.php?t=22499)

On this topic -
I respect all points of view, even those I disagree with. When reading posts containing political beliefs, it is best to consider that it is common for written words to be interpreted in a way that is not the original intent of the author.

What concerns me about the environmentalist movement is that those in front of the camera are too often not practicing what they preach. But even on that topic, there are hundreds of internet-rumor-type threads "exposing" those who endorse a green agenda as being energy hogs when the cameras aren't around. And it's easy to find an equal number of threads to the contrary. Which statements and articles are accurate? We may never know.

For those reading this post, remember that the focus of this community is to share knowledge concerning the reduction of energy usage, and to encourage others to do the same. Previous polling has shown that the membership here covers the entire span of political philosophies, and our common vision of reduced consumption should be a strong tie that keeps us all working together to meet our own goals, for the good of our country and our planet.

Wise words from Confucius. :D :D

For some of you that may think I'm overdoing it when a pejorative is referring to Pres Obama, I did the same thing when some took it a bit far with Pres Bush....had to delete the posts outright, so because I did not delete a post in this thread, does that quality me for being part of a vast-right-wing conspiracy? :D

I see you as part of a vast wingspan conspiracy. :p

What concerns me about the environmentalist movement is that those in front of the camera are too often not practicing what they preach.

I'm curious who, other than Al Gore, you have in mind. (And, fwiw, though I'm not crazy about Gore, I think for the most part he puts in a good-faith effort to practice what he preaches.)

I think I'm not going to worry about global warming.

I will, however, say that while I laud anyone who honestly feels it's important to minimize their emissions, etc., that I do not wish to have it imposed on me, just as I would not impose driving a 14mpg, non-pollution controlled car on anybody else. As always, I feel that individuals have to have a clear basis on which to make the decisions that they feel is right, and not have a top-down system of government - or any other body - decide it for them.

I think the worst thing about this debate are not the fundamental questions of is it happening and why, but rather that the argument is politicized and I don't feel I'm getting anything but the muddiest of pictures from either side. I don't feel like myself or anyone else is able to make an educated decision on this issue one way or the other, and that's the greatest shame of all.

A new "Take Two" thread might go a lot better and be less divisive.

My original post was about energy policy. We need a comprehensive policy to make a lot of pieces fit together. I don't want to see top down policy made either. I would like to see a policy tha is both fair and same. I do not repeat NOT subscribe to the "manmade global warming theory".

I do believe that we need lots of sources for all of our purposes and the cost should not be crippling. Energy should not be a target of higher taxes.

I do not repeat NOT subscribe to the "manmade global warming theory".

Out of curiosity, can you explain what that theory is without referring to anything else first? (Fwiw, I don't think most people can do this, but I've found that a lot of people who reject AGW and a lot of people who accept it can't.)

Out of curiosity, can you explain what that theory is without referring to anything else first? (Fwiw, I don't think most people can do this, but I've found that a lot of people who reject AGW and a lot of people who accept it can't.)


*raises hand* I know it I know it!!

The theory of "manmade global warming is really very simple". Its states that man is creating greenhouse gasses by using fossil fuels which are causing the earth to warm.

What is NOT a theory is that the earth has been going through warming and cooling cycles for 4.5 billion years. The cycle is natural. It is caused by a number of factors: the seasons, the jet stream, ocean currents, sunspot activity. I learned all of that in public school about 50 years ago.

Today, as I understand, NASA made the announcement that the warming which recently occurred is being caused by solar activity and NOT greenhouse gasses.

Does AGW have to be factored into the case for saving energy and getting of of oil?

1973 - Oil embargo followed by recession
1979 - Embargo from Iran - recession
1990 - Oil goes up - recession
2008 - Oil goes to a record high - recessionIs this reason enough?

*raises hand* I know it I know it!!

/calls on jcp

The theory of "manmade global warming is really very simple". Its states that man is creating greenhouse gasses by using fossil fuels which are causing the earth to warm.

What is NOT a theory is that the earth has been going through warming and cooling cycles for 4.5 billion years. The cycle is natural. It is caused by a number of factors: the seasons, the jet stream, ocean currents, sunspot activity. I learned all of that in public school about 50 years ago.

Today, as I understand, NASA made the announcement that the warming which recently occurred is being caused by solar activity and NOT greenhouse gasses.

So does that mean you don't think CO2 is a greenhouse gas? That CO2 is a greenhouse gas is well established physical chemistry that I learned back in public schools about 25 years ago separately from any notion of global warming.

Or are you disputing issues of statistical inference? Classical statistics tend to be problematic when the sample size is one and you don't have much knowledge of the underlying probabilities. That makes it hard to sort out different possible causes of change. If we had a couple hundred earths to observe/experiment with, I bet your/my concerns about inference could be addressed pretty easily.

Unfortunately, the geologic record indicates that in much of the past Earth has been much less well suited for human purposes than it currently is. Regardless of global warming's source (IMHO just an academic issue) if we can do things to keep the climate from getting worse we probably ought to do them.

"Everybody talks about the weather, but nobody does anything about it.":)

Liberal or Conservative, I don't care.

We all need to be the Conservators of this planet for the generations to come.

If we focus on the efficiency of evey aspect of our lives, I doubt the consequences will be global cooling and a new ice age.

The Mayan calendar predicts the end of this planet December 21, 2012.

That's the day before I get my first Social Security check. I bet I am gipped again ;).

regards
gary

The theory of "manmade global warming is really very simple". Its states that man is creating greenhouse gasses by using fossil fuels which are causing the earth to warm.

What is NOT a theory is that the earth has been going through warming and cooling cycles for 4.5 billion years. The cycle is natural. It is caused by a number of factors: the seasons, the jet stream, ocean currents, sunspot activity. I learned all of that in public school about 50 years ago.

Today, as I understand, NASA made the announcement that the warming which recently occurred is being caused by solar activity and NOT greenhouse gasses.

Close, but no cigar. First, what you say is not a theory, that there are natural cycles of change in the climate well beyond man's activity, really is a theory, in the scientific use of the word. (Fwiw, so is gravity.) But what's most important is that AGW fully acknowledges the cycle of natural temperature changes; in fact, they've pinpointed the causes of a number of temperature spikes and dips over time.

Second, AGW makes clear that among the causes of global temperature change are methane, sunspot cycles, water vapor, volcano activity, etc. And there's always carbon dioxide in the atmosphere; historically, before the industrial revolution, the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere ebbed as did the temperature, never rising above approximately 280 parts per million (ppm). Since roughly 1850, the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has gone well above 280 ppm, now at over 380 ppm. That rise in CO2 levels corresponds to the dramatic increase in the burning of fossil fuels as part of human industrial activity (not to mention an increase in methane production--insert fart jokes here).

That rise in CO2 levels also caused the global temperature to rise 0.7C over the past hundred years. To make this as clear as possible: AGW does not theorize that the global temperature will rise every single year and winter will disappear. The theory goes that, over a broad span of time, the global temperature will rise. The global temperature dropped from 1998 to 1999, caused largely by El Nino winds, but the temperature has continued to trend upward.

To end, there's no scientific debate about whether or not AGW exists. Yes, there are websites that claim it's a hoax, there are individual scientists who reject the theory, and the public argument about AGW is largely divided along political lines. However, since 1993 at least, the amount of peer-reviewed scientific articles rejecting AGW has been less than 1%, if there have even been any. (Long story: I can explain in another post if you'd like, but this is getting long as is.) And no, NASA did not announce that warming is caused by solar activity and not greenhouse gases. Scientists have studied the relationship between solar activity and the Earth's temperature for decades; sunspot cycles are roughly eleven years, whereas the pattern of warming has been sustained much longer.

Because it's taken so long for me to write this post, I'm not providing links here. I'll be happy to do so later, but I'm supposed to finish cleaning out the gutters. If I don't do so, my wife might raise the temperature in the house and light me on fire. :)

Got a comment and question:

Mentioned earlier in this thread that every recession in the last 30 years was preceded by a spike in the price of oil. Add to that national security issues of who we get oil from, and what smog does to US cities.

So in regards to Energy Policy, why the obsession with AGW? Climate will largely be a mute issue if the non-controversial issues just mentioned are addressed.

The mention of AGW in a thread and it's like high school boys that saw their first foldout and they are {can't print it}. :rolleyes:

So in regards to Energy Policy, why the obsession with AGW? Climate will largely be a mute issue if the non-controversial issues just mentioned are addressed.

Because it isn't just oil and coal that pumps CO2 in the atmosphere; because the denialism (against all evidence) seems utterly illogical to me; because too much of our country has too little interest in or understanding of science.

Most of all, because people and politicians who resist any kind of environmental regulation create an atmosphere of doubt where there is none. We have senators who don't have any idea where oil comes from, so they don't see any real problem in terms of production or demand.

Btw, DF, I like the new avatar and description of what you're doing. But doesn't that raise your phone bill?

I definitely believe the emissions out the tailpipes and smokestacks are changing our environment, but again the energy solution addresses most of the environmental concerns.

When the denial rises to there will be no Peak Oil, there are some issues

Btw, DF, I like the new avatar and description of what you're doing. But doesn't that raise your phone bill?I have a "bare bones" phone plan.