Robert Reynolds:
Once you disregard the mass media, there are only two sources remaining: politicians and peer reviewed science. Political views pretty much match the diversity of the media. The only consolidated viewpoint is that of the scientists. You can't decide which to believe?
You've left out one subgroup: The compromised scientists that are lying their asses off or at best are just keeping their mouths shut to stay employed (includes ones that are constantly getting threatened with their jobs if they don't tow the green-party line and that are supervised by liberal academics). You use the word "scientist" as if they are immune from political and financial pressure, and sometimes their own personal lunatic politics (technically that would make them no longer scientists, but you still classify them that way).
Bill Putney (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter 'x')
A lot of crap gets passed off as peer reviewed science. It happens in a great many different fields. Take medicine for instance. Manufacturers are required to do drug trials and then publish the results, and then label the drug accordingly. But none of that has anything to do with reality, which is that 99% of the drugs on the market don't treat the cause of the illness. So you have to ask yourself what good all of that peer reviewed science did anybody. If you don't like that example, think about all of the research grants funded by government to study the effects of pink light in poultry houses or the relative buoyancy of green balloons, or whatever nonsense they come up with next week. Sure, it's science. But what does it really mean?
The funny thing about this discussion is that I'm not a stereotypical "conservative" who wants to say that humans can't possibly affect the environment (as in the George Carlin quote). Obviously that would be ridiculous. Humans are systematically destroying the ecosystem with all kinds of toxic chemicals. Why get excited about CO2? Hydrocarbons are the most politically charged substance on the planet. Can you really take politics out of the science of global warming, especially when there is so much evidence that the climate is on its own highly unpredictable roller coaster anyway? The existence of ulterior political motives is so obvious that it seems ridiculous to disagree.
Robert Reynolds:
I don't know anything about drug trials so I don't know if they are peer reviewed or not but I disagree with your blanket statement that a lot of crap is passed off as peer reviewed science. It's possible that a peer reviewed study can be wrong, no doubt about it. Scientists make their best educated guesses with the data and knowledge available. If that data or knowledge changes in some profound way then science sometimes takes a leap forward. Consider how many times science has had imperfect or even incorrect understanding of physics, chemistry, and biology, yet each new discovery allows us to build on the past, not erase it and start over.
Who cares? They are basically pork projects that are passed year in and year out by both political parties. But occasionally one of them pays off and makes a discovery that is important to that industry or sometimes an unrelated industry. Hell, several studies have been done to figure out that chicken soup makes you feel better when you have a cold. We all knew that as kids. What's really important is now they know why. They weren't learning about chicken soup, they were learning about the human body.
You make a good point but I think the issue is actually becoming less devisive among politicians. It is the ratings seeking media, liberal and conservative alike that are beating the drums hardest and even then it isn't always clearly a left/right issue. I think most people are quite poorly educated on the issue and they don't know who to believe. Most people put more faith in the 'free press' than the press deserves, especially now that it is almost all corporately owned and news is as much manufactured as reported.
Here is something of a misunderstanding. Again, the science isn't saying 'it's our fault'. Obviously the planet is warming with or without us. The question is whether humans are accelerating that warming and 600+ scientists, after seven years of study, have stated there is 90% or better chance that we are. What is at stake is how reliable our predictions of the future environment will be and what planning we need to make and when.
Are you going to believe a majority opinion, with checked and cross checked data; or a minority fringe whose reports cannot pass the peer review process because of the high rate of errors? I mean I suppose it's feasible there is some mass global conspiracy to deceive the public into believing that humans are accelerating global warming but to what end? I'm saving my tinfoil hat for another day.
In the end, hydrocarbon fuels can't last forever. Sooner or later we will have to change. It would better for our country (and the environment) if we started changing now to renewable sources such as biodiesel and spend those billions of dollars we export, here instead. The only businesses who will suffer are those who refuse to change with the times. Who's making buggy whips now?
Biodiesel? I thought you didn't like burning carbon.
Robert Reynolds:
I think you have me confused with someone else. When you burn biodiesel, you are recycling carbon from our environment. When you burn fossil fuels you are releasing carbons that have been absent for millions of years, adding them to the current carbon in the environment and the environment must change to accommdate them.
The diesel engine was designed to burn what we call biodiesel fuel, it was a quirk of history perhaps that we ended up using fossil fuel instead. It would be relatively easy and painless to gradually switch our country to biodiesel which could reduce our petro based diesel consumption by 80%. A combination of incentives could be used to encourage both car companies and individuals to choose diesel engined cars over gasoline. Think of the billions of dollars that could stay in this country instead of being exported to South America or the Middle East. Biodiesel, by significantly reducing our dependence on foreign oil would strengthen national security. The only people who stand to lose out are foreign oil producers. While biodiesel isn't perfect, it is the perfect short/medium term solution to oil based fuels. It isn't just an environment solution, it's an economic and national security solution.
MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.