-
[QUOTE=lightweight]The auto manufacturers are lobbying heavily against the EU proposal concerning CO2 emission reduction.
Chancellor Angela Merkel said she would "never agree" to any proposal that penalised makers of big cars.
In the light of Ms Merkel's uncompromising stance, an approach which sets a target for the industry as a whole - and spreads the burden across all Europe's manufacturers - will probably be needed.
So a proposed solution would be to measure the 120 g/km for the whole industry not for every manufacturer. This is a big help for companies that manufacture small quantities of big-engined cars. It would be unfair for Maybach, with its 6.0 V12 (they will bore and stroke it to 8 or 9 liters by 2012:D) to try and achieve a 120 g/km, when Fiat has a maximum engine capacity of 2,5 liters and 95% of its cars are less than 2 liters[/QUOTE]
That can be regarded as fair, but I still think Maybach should try its best to reduce the emissions on their cars. then again another option could be to achieve the 120g/km target by Groups of manuafacturers. I mean Daimler-Chrysler as whole has to achieve the target, the Fiat Group (including Alfa Romeo, Lancia, Maserati and Ferrari) has to achieve the target, and so on...
-
[QUOTE=lightweight]
It's better to concentrate on the sources of CO2 emissions that are human related and can be reduced with technological advances[/QUOTE]
Isn't that like trying to demolish a house, but since you don't have many tools, you'll just take out the windows?
[QUOTE]1. Recent scientific reports reach the conclusion that global warming is a human caused phenomenon
[/QUOTE]
Mabye it's because they disregard water vapour?
-
[quote=The_Canuck]Isn't that like trying to demolish a house, but since you don't have many tools, you'll just take out the windows?
Mabye it's because they disregard water vapour?[/quote]
You don't understand anything.
-
I wouldn't say anything, possibly climate change though.
Also Egg Nog, your entire argument so far is that lots of Scientists believe it to be true...
There are also [I]thousands[/I] who don't.
-
[QUOTE=The_Canuck]I wouldn't say anything, possibly climate change though.
Also Egg Nog, your entire argument so far is that lots of Scientists believe it to be true...
There are also [I]thousands[/I] who don't.[/QUOTE]
Come on Canuck! Don't try to prove something that can't be proven. It's good to have an open mind of things and try to judge what is being discussed, but being too open minded can lead to false conclusions:(
-
[QUOTE=lightweight]Come on Canuck! Don't try to prove something that can't be proven. It's good to have an open mind of things and try to judge what is being discussed, but being too open minded can lead to false conclusions:([/QUOTE]
Thats why ill stay neutral I guess...I just think that it should remain a debate.
-
I could sure use some global warming right now. It's like 20 out...
-
[QUOTE=Quiggs]I could sure use some global warming right now. It's like 20 out...[/QUOTE]
Its been around -17 Celcius here for a few days with a good amount of wind making it feel like -30
-
[quote=The_Canuck]Thats why ill stay neutral I guess...I just think that it should remain a debate.[/quote]
The point is, at this point it's stupid to remain neutral. You obviously fail to understand the extent of our current knowledge as well as the numbers of scientists on both sides of the story.
You're not making yourself look any more informed by mentioning that water vapour is a greenhouse gas. Everyone knows this. It's lunacy that you would even suggest that a panel consisting of the best minds in the field could spend over 5 years improving on what we know and still oversee something so ridiculously simple as this.
Your ultimate failure lies in the fact that you don't put any trust in people who know far better than you do. Science is a process that yields the best of what we know at any given time. If you'd actually look around for yourself at what we currently know and realistic numbers of who believes what, maybe you'd understand what I'm saying. The numbers on either side of the debate are nowhere near equal. You really need to understand that on the preventative side, there are no hidden agendas. There are no people who stand to personally gain anything from addressing the issue.
Being neutral is not always a good idea. Maybe for you being impartial is humbling, but it's not smart. The inactive mindset is only going to further the potential damage. Please don't pick and choose what you respond to. Go inform yourself. Read both sides of the debate. Be realistic. Don't rely on hearsay and anecdotal evidence. Get back to us.
-
[QUOTE=Egg Nog]It's lunacy that you would even suggest that a panel consisting of the best minds in the field [/QUOTE]
You must be referring to the people on the UCP thread :D
-
[QUOTE=The_Canuck]Isn't that like trying to demolish a house, but since you don't have many tools, you'll just take out the windows?[/QUOTE]No. Since this is a car forum: It's more like you have a car that is too heavy. You want to reduce its weight yourself. A big portion of the car's weight consists of parts like the engine and chassis, you don't have the tools to remove these "parts" yourself and besides you're not looking for a 100% weight reduction which would leave you with [I]no[/I] car and a bunch of new problems. What you are looking for is a reduction of let's say 15% so isn't it logical to start by taking out the parts that you can, not the biggest parts sine you still want the car to function?
See where I'm going?
-
[QUOTE=Egg Nog]The point is, at this point it's stupid to remain neutral. You obviously fail to understand the extent of our current knowledge as well as the numbers of scientists on both sides of the story.
You're not making yourself look any more informed by mentioning that water vapour is a greenhouse gas. Everyone knows this. It's lunacy that you would even suggest that a panel consisting of the best minds in the field could spend over 5 years improving on what we know and still oversee something so ridiculously simple as this.
Your ultimate failure lies in the fact that you don't put any trust in people who know far better than you do. Science is a process that yields the best of what we know at any given time. If you'd actually look around for yourself at what we currently know and realistic numbers of who believes what, maybe you'd understand what I'm saying. The numbers on either side of the debate are nowhere near equal. You really need to understand that on the preventative side, there are no hidden agendas. There are no people who stand to personally gain anything from addressing the issue.
[/QUOTE]
You know what your probably right and I promise Ill shutup soon :p but seriously, your argument is still; lots of people who are well informed agree, therefore it must be correct.
There [I]are[/I] many people who don't agree aswell and you say that my "ultimate failure" is that I don't trust people with more knowledge? How do I know which side to trust?
You make it sound like there is only one side but remember there are thousands of scientists who disagree, why shouldn't I trust them as much as the ones you have listed?
-
[QUOTE=Pando]No. Since this is a car forum: It's more like you have a car that is too heavy. You want to reduce its weight yourself. A big portion of the car's weight consists of parts like the engine and chassis, you don't have the tools to remove these "parts" yourself and besides you're not looking for a 100% weight reduction which would leave you with [I]no[/I] car and a bunch of new problems. What you are looking for is a reduction of let's say 15% so isn't it logical to start by taking out the parts that you can, not the biggest parts sine you still want the car to function?
See where I'm going?[/QUOTE]
Yes I see you are probably right and my analogy was a bit flawed, however it would be as if saying that you couldn't control the weight of an engine (which you can/lighter materials) so you'll just remove the seats.
-
[quote=The_Canuck]You know what your probably right and I promise Ill shutup soon :p but seriously, your argument is still; lots of people who are well informed agree, therefore it must be correct.
There [I]are[/I] many people who don't agree aswell and you say that my "ultimate failure" is that I don't trust people with more knowledge? How do I know which side to trust?
You make it sound like there is only one side but remember there are thousands of scientists who disagree, why shouldn't I trust them as much as the ones you have listed?[/quote]
Re-read what I said and get back to me. Nobody is saying that it's an absolute. It would be idiotic to think you could even have a 100% confident answer with a problem so complex.
It's extremely evident that you don't understand who these people are. Your only argument is "there are people on both sides of the debate, therefore there is no reasonable conclusion". This is utterly fallacious logic. You don't understand any percentages of who believes what or understand what bias is.
You clearly don't understand the extent of the scientific consensus on climate change. Getting back to the holocaust example; despite extensive proof of its occurrence, there are thousands of people who still deny that it happened. The fact that there are people who go against the best evidence and reasoning doesn't change anything.
My argument was not "lots of people who are well informed agree, therefore it must be correct". It was "the most informed and unbiased people have extensive evidence and agree, therefore it is (as they say) extremely likely". Nobody can be 100% sure; we all understand that. However, the only thing you're proving to anyone by being [i]completely[/i] neutral is that you don't have a very good understanding of the issue.
Do you think maybe you should be a bit less stubborn, or should I start pointing out every logical fallacy you make?
-
[QUOTE=Egg Nog]
Do you think maybe you should be a bit less stubborn, or should I start pointing out every logical fallacy you make?[/QUOTE]
You can if you like, but realize what your saying is that everyone who's against the thesis (climate change is caused by humans) is ignorant or biased. This is what annoys me, Im sorry but why should thousands of scientists automatially be labled biased?
-
[QUOTE=The_Canuck]You can if you like, but realize what your saying is that everyone who's against the thesis (climate change is caused by humans) is ignorant or biased. This is what annoys me, Im sorry but why should thousands of scientists automatially be labled biased?[/QUOTE]
In any case, what's so fundamentally wrong with trying to reduce our input in the problem, therefore reducing the problem itself, that you try to argue endlessly?
-
[QUOTE=Ferrer]In any case, what's so fundamentally wrong with trying to reduce our input in the problem, therefore reducing the problem itself, that you try to argue endlessly?[/QUOTE]
Nothing wrong with fixing it. :)
I just don't agree with whats causing it or possibly even how to fix it. But like someone said earlier in this thread at least do it for better air quality.
-
[quote=The_Canuck]Nothing wrong with fixing it. :)
I just don't agree with whats causing it or possibly even how to fix it. But like someone said earlier in this thread at least do it for better air quality.[/quote]
The amount of CO2 in the air has nothing to do with air quality.
Why should thousands of scientists be labelled biased? Well, maybe because many are biased. Many are on corporate payrolls, but that's a minor issue. I hate getting political and bureaucratic about this type of thing. You know how you make up your mind scientifically? You take a look at all the evidence and make a best guess. If you look up the opposition to climate change (on wikipedia even), you'll see that their points don't say "climate change is not being caused by humans" - they just point out [i]known[/i] limitations of science, such as cloud physics models in computer weather simulations. These don't contradict anything. This is in fact the same reason why nobody claims to be 100% sure about anything.
The fact is that nothing is 100%. One very small side of the debate has possible bias and few things to say, and the other very large side has masses of information and no possible personal agendas. One side is extremely likely to be correct and has greater means of proving it, and the other side attempts to point out possible hinderances without condradicting much. It's up to you who to believe, but don't expect a medal when you're in the middle of an almost entirely explainable issue and the neutral midset could do a lot of damage. Look at who's saying what, and look at the odds.
-
[QUOTE=Egg Nog]The amount of CO2 in the air has nothing to do with air quality.
Why should thousands of scientists be labelled biased? Well, maybe because many are biased. Many are on corporate payrolls, but that's a minor issue. I hate getting political and bureaucratic about this type of thing. You know how you make up your mind scientifically? You take a look at all the evidence and make a best guess. If you look up the opposition to climate change (on wikipedia even), you'll see that their points don't say "climate change is not being caused by humans" - they just point out [i]known[/i] limitations of science, such as cloud physics models in computer weather simulations. These don't contradict anything. This is in fact the same reason why nobody claims to be 100% sure about anything.
The fact is that nothing is 100%. One very small side of the debate has possible bias and few things to say, and the other very large side has masses of information and no possible personal agendas. One side is extremely likely to be correct and has greater means of proving it, and the other side attempts to point out possible hinderances without condradicting much. It's up to you who to believe. Look at who's saying what, and look at the odds.[/QUOTE]
You should look at this it's pretty interesting:
[URL="http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p41.htm"]http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p41.htm [/URL]
[URL="http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm"]http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm [/URL]
-
[quote=The_Canuck]You should look at this it's pretty interesting:
[URL="http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p41.htm"]http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p41.htm [/URL]
[URL="http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm"]http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm [/URL][/quote]
The output of 6 people amongst many other areas :)
It's always worth looking up the "about us" stuff on web sites !!
oh I forgot the "volunteers" as well --- about as reliable scientifically as the local catholic priest :D
-
[quote=The_Canuck]You should look at this it's pretty interesting:
[URL="http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p41.htm"]http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p41.htm [/URL]
[URL="http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm"]http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm [/URL][/quote]
I do realise that there are people on both sides of the story. I've said that all along. Nothing you could show me would condradict the overwhelming consensus of scientists worldwide. It's ridiculous that you would attemp to use this as an argument when you don't take the IPCC seriously.
I'm embarassed that it's taken me this long to realise that you're hardly reading anything I post.
-
[QUOTE=Egg Nog]I do realise that there are people on both sides of the story. I've said that all along. Nothing you could show me would condradict the overwhelming consensus of scientists worldwide. It's ridiculous that you would attemp to use this as an argument when you don't take the IPCC seriously.
I'm embarassed that it's taken me this long to realise that you're hardly reading anything I post.[/QUOTE]
I already told you to disregard anything I say. ;) :D
Lets end this stupid argument anyway, we kinda spammed up this thread(or at least I did).
-
[QUOTE=Matra et Alpine]The output of 6 people amongst many other areas :)
It's always worth looking up the "about us" stuff on web sites !!
oh I forgot the "volunteers" as well --- about as reliable scientifically as the local catholic priest :D[/QUOTE]
Umm the petition is signed by 17,000...but anyway back on track...:)
-
I guess that most of you have read about Richard Branson's competition on extracting C02 from the atmosphere.
Most of the technology focuses on reducing emissions or making them stop altogether through the introduction of fuel cell technology.
This is the first approach on "deleting" the already emitted CO2 from past generations. Even if it doesn't work out it still is a good idea worth researching.
Apart from the marketing hype that is undoubtedly behind Branson's move, I really like the parallelisation with the geographical longitude contest many centuries ago (presented in Branson's press release and also the source below). But geographical longitude was known since the 1400's. That's the reason for which the Spanish were able to go to the US. So, Richie next time use better examples, since no one yet has been able to extract CO2 from the atmosphere
Source:
[url]http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2007/02/09/warmingprize_pla.html?category=earth&guid=20070209093000[/url]
-
Another interesting contribution on the topic is the emission trading scheme.
The story goes like this: Each company has an output of CO2. If this output is above the legal limit, then the company pays a fine. Companies that are below the legal limit can sell their CO2 "allowance" to another "lawbreaker" company. The buying and selling of CO2 follows the laws of the stock market, allowing escalated prices at periods of time and reduced prices at others.
The funds gathered are invested in environmental research
This concept was known for sometime ago, but today I read from the link posted below that the Australian Government has already implemented this.
Can our friends from the outback give us more information?
Source:
[url]http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2007/02/09/greenplanet_pla.html?category=earth&guid=20070209153030[/url]
-
The cynic in me suggests that Branson is doing this to ensure his airline can continue to fly and expand :D
Canuck ? 17,000 ?? Wow that's a lot for a web petition ---- NOT :D
-
[QUOTE=Matra et Alpine]
Canuck ? 17,000 ?? Wow that's a lot for a web petition ---- NOT :D[/QUOTE]
Their all scientists :rolleyes: and I don't think you sign it online thats just a list. :)
-
[quote=The_Canuck]I already told you to disregard anything I say. ;) :D
Lets end this stupid argument anyway, we kinda spammed up this thread(or at least I did).[/quote]
It's not a stupid argument at all. I'm trying to convince you for your sake. If you're inviting people to disregard what you say, you obviously don't have a lot of confidence in what you're saying (for good reason). I am not solving anything to do with climate change by engaging in this debate with you, but hopefully I can get you to understand more of the problem so you can actually be realistic about it.
-
[QUOTE=Egg Nog]It's not a stupid argument at all. I'm trying to convince you for your sake. If you're inviting people to disregard what you say, you obviously don't have a lot of confidence in what you're saying (for good reason). I am not solving anything to do with climate change by engaging in this debate with you, but hopefully I can get you to understand more of the problem so you can actually be realistic about it.[/QUOTE]
I should just come out and say, no matter what is happening, I don't really care. Mabye I would if it wasn't thrown at me everyday but I'm sick of it.
Sorry to you for engaging in a half assed "debate" but w/e hopefully your opinion of me isn't as bad as I assume :D
One more note: why was it called "global warming" for the better part of 2-3 years then suddenly changed to "climate change?" Perhaps ice storms in Texas did it? Doesn't make them look very credible whether their right or wrong does it? :)
-
[quote=The_Canuck]One more note: why was it called "global warming" for the better part of 2-3 years then suddenly changed to "climate change?" Perhaps ice storms in Texas did it? Doesn't make them look very credible whether their right or wrong does it? :)[/quote]
Again, this isn't anyone's fault, it's just your misinterpretation of what happened. Both are correct. Global warming exists because the [i]average overall[/i] temperature of the planet is rising. Climate change is just a better term to use because the term "global warming" is misleading for those who don't understand the issue. I'd guess that "climate change" is being used more frequently now because the issue has become much more mainstream, and thus there are more people at risk to confusion.
My opinion of you is not bad at all. You have the persistance to keep up with the debate, which leads me to believe you at least partially care. Caring is pretty important at this point. If the future brings a lot of awful shit for us to deal with, you're not going to feel very good about being one of those people who didn't care. I'm telling you for everyone's sake. There's no benefit to ignorance; knowledge is understanding.
-
[QUOTE=Egg Nog] is misleading for those who don't understand the issue.[/QUOTE]
Like me :rolleyes: :D
[QUOTE]There's no benefit to ignorance[/QUOTE]
Bliss? :D Well I care...but not enough to worry about it.
Also I'd rather see pollution from factories reduced rather then sueing car companies, Damn you California. :D
-
[quote=The_Canuck]Like me :rolleyes: :D[/quote]
I must admit, I'm always impressed when someone actually has the balls to say this.
-
[QUOTE=Egg Nog]I must admit, I'm always impressed when someone actually has the balls to say this.[/QUOTE]
Keyboard Warrior :p
-
[quote=The_Canuck]Their all scientists :rolleyes: and I don't think you sign it online thats just a list. :)[/quote]
Most of them have degrees.
Course I had two chemists, a physicist and a geologist on my project teams over the years ..... writing software for distributed monitoring systems. Their criteria is iffy :)
Also .... never one to take things at face value dug a little deeper based on the comment above ..... GO look at the breakdown by state and compare the numbers who signed in TEXAS versus other states. Might I suggest the "facts" are typically biased as much in this arena is by lobbyists and "lackeys" :D
Always QUESTION the "facts" - even those that seem to agree with an opinion !!!!
-
[quote=The_Canuck]One more note: why was it called "global warming" for the better part of 2-3 years then suddenly changed to "climate change?" Perhaps ice storms in Texas did it? Doesn't make them look very credible whether their right or wrong does it? :)[/quote]
"dumbing down" :D
Says more about the credibility of the audience and the news delivery companies !!!!!
-
[QUOTE=lightweight;666882]Another interesting contribution on the topic is the emission trading scheme.
The story goes like this: Each company has an output of CO2. If this output is above the legal limit, then the company pays a fine. Companies that are below the legal limit can sell their CO2 "allowance" to another "lawbreaker" company. The buying and selling of CO2 follows the laws of the stock market, allowing escalated prices at periods of time and reduced prices at others.
The funds gathered are invested in environmental research
This concept was known for sometime ago, but today I read from the link posted below that the Australian Government has already implemented this.
Can our friends from the outback give us more information?
Source:
[url]http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2007/02/09/greenplanet_pla.html?category=earth&guid=20070209153030[/url][/QUOTE]
Ever heard of the Kyoto protocol? In my opinion this is just a desperate attempt by Australia to remove focus from their refusal to ratify it and make the world forget they're one of very few democratic nations to do so. Nevertheless a desperate attempt is still an attempt, and a whole lot better than nothing.
-
Burial at sea for CO2 given seal of approval
[url]http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11163-burial-at-sea-for-cosub2sub-given-seal-of-approval.html[/url]
-
In the meantime the EC Commissioner for environment Mr. Dimas (Greek) has already brought forward an easy solution to significantly reduce emissions.
"Introduce a general speed limit on the German motorways"
I am sure this is going to have some repercussions:)