Al Gore to speak in Chicago April 1.

stillhere219 wrote:

I'm noticing "green" products have now become a marketing tool. Manfactorers can make a slight improvement on their product to make it more environment friendly and stamping it "green" when the product still has harmful effects. I'm getting the feeling that many consumers don't have a real good grasp on what this term means, or the impact that it has. But this is a definite improvment over the crap that has been allowed to be dumped into our waterways and atmosphere for decades.

It's funny that the "tree huggers" from years back who were being ridiculed were right along.

Some tree huggers may be right, but some are still wrong

You have the ones who say that the steel mills and gasoline motors shouldbhe outlawed, while others say stricter controls are needed

Keep in mind, the ones who want to ban the burning of fossil fuels neglect to mention how much cleaner Mexico City's air is now. They enacted real strict pollution controls, and even though they have millions of vehicles running, their actions cleaned up the air and itsnot as bad as it used to be.

Same with LA. Controls do work, so to say that people need to get off of fossil fuels is wrong.

Sure we need to get off of them eventually, but its not for the pollution and global warming, its because they are a limited resource that is running out

Heretic wrote:

mike3775 wrote:

Still waiting for you to logically explain why scientists who say Global Warming is true, are legitimate scientists, while the scientists who dispute them, are on the fringe and not legitimate as well.

I never said that. I said legitimate scientists are the ones doing legitimate science; i.e. doing actual research and publishing the results for peer review in reputable scientific journals of the field in question where scientists in the related field can openly evaluate their work. It's the lack of representation in peer review that makes a theory a fringe theory. And again, your scientists aren't doing peer reviewed research. They've willfully resigned themselves to the kiddie pool, the endless and exhaustive sea of op-eds, books, talk shows, bogus documentaries, which are conveniently devoid of any and all fact checking and deliberately target an ill equipped and all too prone to juvenile conspiracy theories public. This shouldn't be news to you. It's the trademark of pseudoscience and standard operating procedure for decades for every creationist, flat earther, geocentrist, HIV/AIDs denialist, and one everyone should remember... the tobacco industry.

And I do find it interesting that someone alleging massive international conspiracy involving the American government as well as the entire peer review process is complaining about logic...

mike3775 wrote:

Does that mean anyone who disagree's with your scientists views are also crackpots and on the fringe?

Depends. If they've never researched the topic and are merely regurgitating the mental diarrhea found in most skeptic op-eds, then no... they're simply uninformed. But if they have researched the topic, form the basic educational material on the subject provided by our government and various universities to the litany of the peer reviewed articles and reports themselves, and still maintain it's a massive conspiracy headed by Al Gore (of all people) in spite of all the evidence to the contrary, if they blindly parrot such arguments after they've been repeatedly demonstrated to be false... then yes. Crackpot sounds reasonable. Denialist and crank are probably better.

No its not. A quick google search founf several thousand hits on scientists who refute papers from some of those scientists you listed earlier in this thread.

And a lot of them also have the same facts as those scientists but come to a different conclusion based on the results.

Yet you insist they are not doing research, well they are, you and Al gore just refuse to say they aere, and instead insist that they are on the fringe or crackpots

Again, if Al Gore really wanted to prove his case, he would debate the people who disagree with him, but he doesn't want to, because he would rather have only one side of the coin represented

Remember how many scientists refuted most of his movie? Oh yeah thats right, they do not count since they are on the fringe and are crack pots

Do you know that the emission levels of the countries that signed the Kyoto Protocals have not dropped? Instead of actually making the cuts, they are simply trading carbon credits with countries who are less industrialized, that way the more industrialized countries do not have to make cuts. Yeah, thats a good way to curb pollution, lets not make any cuts but instead say we are green by buying carbon credits. So nothing has changed, Europe is still polluting at the same levels, except they are lower now because they have credits to use instead

I haven't seen any "cost" efficient alternatives coming from those who propose to do away with fossil fuels

Generally all you hear is "we need altenatives" which translates to costing me money taxes etc... or jobs lost.

Can you produce alternate means of energy? then do so and compete.

Those with the proclivity to spout the alternative fuel mantra have billions at their disposal so get on with it and provide us the alternative in a competitive fashion and you will, over time recup the investment costs.

mike3775 wrote:

No its not. A quick google search founf several thousand hits on scientists who refute papers from some of those scientists you listed earlier in this thread.

Names? Links? Citations? Preferably the impact factors of the journals they published in...? You can't allege massive international conspiracy without providing the slightest bit of evidence. And "finding it on google" probably isn't what you want when attempting to second guess the National Academies.

mike3775 wrote:

And a lot of them also have the same facts as those scientists but come to a different conclusion based on the results.

Of course they have the same facts. They're looking at the same planet (hopefully). It's their conclusions that are wildly off the mark.

mike3775 wrote:

Yet you insist they are not doing research, well they are, you and Al gore just refuse to say they aere, and instead insist that they are on the fringe or crackpots

Provide me with some actual peer reviewed publications and we can discuss them.

mike3775 wrote:

Again, if Al Gore really wanted to prove his case, he would debate the people who disagree with him, but he doesn't want to, because he would rather have only one side of the coin represented

I doubt it. Those who distrust the reports issued by NASA, NOAA, the Pentagon, etc. enough to want to see Al Gore in a debate aren't exactly going to be swayed by even more evidence from such organizations.

mike3775 wrote:

Remember how many scientists refuted most of his movie? Oh yeah thats right, they do not count since they are on the fringe and are crack pots

Pretty much.

mike3775 wrote:

Do you know that the emission levels of the countries that signed the Kyoto Protocals have not dropped? Instead of actually making the cuts, they are simply trading carbon credits with countries who are less industrialized, that way the more industrialized countries do not have to make cuts. Yeah, thats a good way to curb pollution, lets not make any cuts but instead say we are green by buying carbon credits. So nothing has changed, Europe is still polluting at the same levels, except they are lower now because they have credits to use instead

Don't care. The existence of AGW isn't dependent on its proposed solution.

tater wrote:

I haven't seen any "cost" efficient alternatives coming from those who propose to do away with fossil fuels

There aren't any.

tater wrote:

I haven't seen any "cost" efficient alternatives coming from those who propose to do away with fossil fuels

Generally all you hear is "we need altenatives" which translates to costing me money taxes etc... or jobs lost.

Can you produce alternate means of energy? then do so and compete.

Those with the proclivity to spout the alternative fuel mantra have billions at their disposal so get on with it and provide us the alternative in a competitive fashion and you will, over time recup the investment costs.

A perfect example would be California trucking companies having to leave much of their fleet idle thanks a lot to the new even stricter state pollution standards and no money to retrofit or buy new compliant vehicles and the consumer will be paying for it in transportation costs for goods at a time when costs are already rising too fast and jobs are harder to come by.

Good example. While the California trucks are idle trucks come up from Mexico with no emissions compliance requirement at all and pollute the air, hauling freight at reduced rates that US companies can't compete with.

And you wonder why companies keep moving off shore?

Mirage wrote:

tater wrote:

I haven't seen any "cost" efficient alternatives coming from those who propose to do away with fossil fuels

Generally all you hear is "we need altenatives" which translates to costing me money taxes etc... or jobs lost.

Can you produce alternate means of energy? then do so and compete.

Those with the proclivity to spout the alternative fuel mantra have billions at their disposal so get on with it and provide us the alternative in a competitive fashion and you will, over time recup the investment costs.

A perfect example would be California trucking companies having to leave much of their fleet idle thanks a lot to the new even stricter state pollution standards and no money to retrofit or buy new compliant vehicles and the consumer will be paying for it in transportation costs for goods at a time when costs are already rising too fast and jobs are harder to come by.

It might be a "perfect" example if there was any truth in your post. As the post stands, it is the kind of ed/op piece that is written to try to distort the truth about clean air standards.
In 2007, California once again set the benchmark by adopting new rules on heavy duty truck emissions that will have lower emissions. Since the rule only applies to new truck sales, no trucks have been idled as you claim. Since the typical OTR truck engine needs to be rebuilt every three years, California further said all
trucks registered in California must comply with the regulations by 2010. To help trucking companies with the transition, the state has allocated 1 Billion dollars to assist trucking companies in retrofitting their fleets. This is a win-win situation. The residents of California breathe cleaner air and demand for new trucks and cleaner burning diesel engines is boosted, creating jobs. I don't see the downside here unless you are unwilling to assign an economic cost to the health related problems like asthma which are aggravated by air pollution.

Ask a California truck driver who has to bear the cost of compliance. Ask the California taxpayers who have to pay the $1 billion. They will explain the downside.

Robin Banks wrote:

Ask a California truck driver who has to bear the cost of compliance. Ask the California taxpayers who have to pay the $1 billion. They will explain the downside.

Have you ever been to Los Angeles? The air there is incredibly foul. There are many days where it is afternoon before the sun burns off enough haze so you can see blue skies. The voters in California decided over twenty years ago to start electing people who would enact policies to clean up that beautiful state. Even their Republican Governor, Arnold Schartznager understands the importance of having clean air and water. The cost of investing in cleaner burning trucks is far lower than the cost to treat the chronic symptoms of breathing polluted air.

sparks wrote:

Robin Banks wrote:

Ask a California truck driver who has to bear the cost of compliance. Ask the California taxpayers who have to pay the $1 billion. They will explain the downside.

Have you ever been to Los Angeles? The air there is incredibly foul. There are many days where it is afternoon before the sun burns off enough haze so you can see blue skies. The voters in California decided over twenty years ago to start electing people who would enact policies to clean up that beautiful state. Even their Republican Governor, Arnold Schartznager understands the importance of having clean air and water. The cost of investing in cleaner burning trucks is far lower than the cost to treat the chronic symptoms of breathing polluted air.

Then keep keep trucks that aren't from California, which are the majority, out of the state and give the locals a chance to compete. Close off the borders to non-compliant vehicles. And yes, I have been to Los Angeles.