Don't want to sound patronising, but I think you've become slightly confused with the science here. For a start, no-one says that emissions from fossil fuels are destroying the ozone layer. That problem is related to CFCs. The ozone layer has nothing to do with global warming or climate change, either. It simply protects us from harmful ultra-violet radiation. CO2 and CO (carbon monoxide) have an insulating effect. They prevent heat from escaping, leading to (often localised) temperature rises which may in turn cause shifts in weather patterns which will in turn alter climate. True, CO2 is harmless to humans (aside from the possible long term climatic effects). It is totally non-toxic. CO, however, is actively poisonous to us and every other mammal, bird or reptile. It is lethal, and thousands die from carbon monoxide poisoning every year. I am totally in agreement with you concerning the demise of the elctric car in the early 20th century though. As I said earlier, it was down to the oil companies wanting to protect their profits.
lol....if you had seen the documentary your post would have made more sense. Since car manufacturers also making money off oil, oil filters, fuel filters, and the list goes on about how many parts in a vehicle use carbon based products. Why wouldn't the car company CEO's not have personal stocks and ties on the petrol business. It would be stupid if they didn't considering their cars use all these products. It's something called a conflict of financial interest. What stalled them? Watch the documentary. What about the thousands of scientists that have came together all around the world with evidence saying global warming is as much man made as the earth itself. There is an American group of scientists that have been studying the ice caps in the arctic for like 75-100 years, I wish I could remember their group name. They released a major reports with thousands of signatures, with ample evidence, to back up their claim that the ice caps aren't melting, in fact they are getting bigger. During the 1900-1950 the earth raised on average .5 of degree F. Also in that time there was more solar sun storms and increased solar radiation. After 1950, the earth has failed to raise in temps. That's why we aren't using the term "Global Warming" anymore. Now it's "Climate Change". This Global Warming is a religion. People will believe it regardless of the evidence.
Quality post without trying to sound hysterical like the other guy. But there has been no real conclusive evidence that says CO2 or CO is linked to the raising of global temperatures. There is loads of conflicting evidence and after taking in enough of both side I have concluded that it's just political hoax. It's about as credible as the science drug companies and FDA pass. It's just totally biased and one sides, the research that promotes global warming.
lol...are you idiot? We both said why they do. To protect their financial interests. Why wouldn't they do it?
Concerning the oil companies/car companies thing.... yes, what you say is true, but as 100 years ago electric cars were far more efficient than petrol cars the car companies would have no reason to stop making them. You are also right to say that fluctuations in temperature ascertained from ice core samples have in the past been greater than current trends. This does not, however, mean that current trends are not a result of human activity. That is a huge and non sensical logical error. The fact is, we don't know anything for sure. We can make certain educated guesses as to what might be the best course of action to take. However, the 10 hottest years on record have all been in the last 30 years (out of over 300 years of records). Maybe it is a coincidence, but is it worth the risk to take that chance? Nothing is irrefutable, I agree, but if there is strong evidence suggesting that certain human activities are having a potentially catastrophic effect on our planet then surely desisting in said activities would be the sensible thing. We can't prove anything else, thanks to the logical anomaly which renders it impossible to prove a negative (proof requires evidence, non-existance provides no evidence, no evidence is proof of nothing).
What I basically mean is that if there is a chance that we might be damaging the planet, we'd better stop before it turns out that that is exactly what we're doing and it's too late. Also, I'm interested to know what you think: What would be the political motive for hoaxing the climate change issue?
Eletric cars are made out of oil based products too. It is only what is fueling them that will alter. Infact...it probably takes more oil based products to make an eletric car. The CEOs - using your logic - should be falling over themselves to make eletric cars. I'll check out the video...but I have a feeling it is full of holes. I'll give it a chance though. If CEOs have stake in a fuel company. What fuel that is does not matter...does it? To me it is a 111!!!111 woot theory that car companies stopped eletric cars...what has altered as to make them change their minds now? People use both global warming and climate change...dependent on what they are talking about. I'm not convinced by the images of melting ice caps...crashing down left right and centre. But I do think they are melting very slowly. - atleast not reforming as they once were... You can't deny mountain top ice glaciers are vanishing. That is clearly occuring all over the place. Are you sure it is thousands? Some people say that to make it seem there is a balance between theories. When there isn't. Is this all BS then? http://unfccc.int/2860.php
Ok I want to get something straight here, because i think you and I are on the same page, aside from the climate change part....which is ok. Let me say this, I would much rather regulate CO emissions in the name of the polluting the environment and for public safety reasons. That is irrefutable that in all major cities have terrible smog problems and even acid rain. It just makes more sense that would not release carcinogens (cancer causing agents) into the air when a huge part of our population is dying from cancer. All of these things are soo much more relevant than "global warming". I mean at one time the earth was completely covered in glaciers and ice. It nearly made humans go extinct. So the earth has historically been prone to radical temperature changes before the possibility that humans could cause it. There also used to be giant insects and reptilians (dinosaurs) that roamed the earth before we did. My point to all this, the earth goes through radical changes and stages. The earth itself, for all I am concerned, is a living breathing being subject to change like anything else. That said, I think we should protect it and use eco-friendly practices when possible because it's flat out healthier on the people and the environment...it shouldn't have anything to do with climate change.
Yeah. I am more concerned for our environment than the environment. It does matter as a whole though...but yeah...bit selfish, but so what. I still do think if we mess with the environment...we suffer. So it is a win win situation if we start cleaning the place up. The end of the day...I'll happily leave: Is climate change/global warming real...to more educated people... who know what the hell they are talking about.
You are exactly right. It is damaging the planet (temperature aside) and we definitely need too make sure we have a better planet left for future generation than one we were left with. Had you asked me this question 2 or 3 years ago it would have been hard to answer and prove my point. Obama wants to pass a tax (a large one at that) to anyone that essentially leaving a carbon foot print. It's estimated that the average home energy bill will raise between $1000 - $3000 per year. This will go for all electricity, natural gas, gasoline, diesel, or anything that is not "zero" emissions. His own administration said in the bill that there would be negligible amount of reduced carbon emissions as a result of this bill. It would simply be a means of collecting money, IN THE NAME OF CLIMATE CHANGE, to fuel is expensive political agenda and nation deficit. When the economy is suffering as much as it is, and already spending trillions in stimulus money, I can't imagine how would could further tax and patronize the American people with a ridiculous tax that has already been stated to not help with carbon emissions. I bet Al Gore would like this, as his utility bill is $30,000 a month in his huge mansion. You would think if this was so urgent, the protege of global warming wouldn't be leaving just a huge carbon foot print. It all comes down to money and political control. If you can get the people to believe it as a huge relevant issue, you can get a leg up on your opponent. Most people from the right appose global warming as truth, while the left believes it like a religion. If your can get the people to buy into junk science and the notion we are destroying the planet, they will likely side with the people feeding them the nonsense thus giving the Libs and Democrats an edge in getting more votes. It's not a conspiracy theory or anything.
Read my other lengthy post and it addressed what I am saying here in more detail. I would hope they would melt at times. The world use to be covered by glaciers and ice all the time. Now since the temperature is warmer we can sustain a higher quality of life. It's global change in general. The earth's temperature as risen and fallen in much more extremes in the past than we are experiencing now. It's the natural cycles of the planet.
Anthropogenic climate change is 95% BS IMHO, we are technically still in an ice age, and atmospheric CO2 levels are the lowest they have been since tree's evolved. Yes it's going to get hotter, but it has very little to do with us and there is not a great deal we can, or should do about it. I was actually going to comment on soaring eagles suggestion of "solar panels" on the roof, and wanted to illustrate why PV is essentially a bunch of twoddle. In this case because 1 HP of electricity is about 750w, and if you generously suggested you could get 300w of PV cells on the roof of a car, then in full sunlight you would have a 1/2 HP car. From a charging the batteries point of view it wouldn't touch the sides, but then again it oft repeated wisdom that most "solar panels" never recoup the energy used to manufacture them. On a related note Vacuum-solar-hot-water systems are made of win and awesome and I'd recommend them to anyone, far cheaper than a PV system too..
I'm sorry...but I really wish people would not say: Well it was bloody cold or hot a long time ago. It all a natural cycle, man. Whats so special now? It seems to have no baring on what is or isn't occuring now.
Good post pypes. I agree completely. An interesting fact about wind electricity. If the wind blew 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, you would need a wind farm the size of Texas just to power the United States alone.
LOL...why wouldn't it. It went through temperature changes them, why wouldn't it now. You make no sense with this most. Examples, facts? I gave good examples as to why I think that, you just simply disagree. Why wouldn't it be relevant today? You study history and geology to try to predict what's in store in the future.
Here is the link to the video on YouTube, Who Killed the Electric Car? It's 10 parts, kinda long but very informative and interesting. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_FDmmJm9vSA
Today we are involved in a spike. It isn't over hundreds and thousands of years. If there were noticeable changes over a very short period of time, back in history. Fine bring that up. Compare. I know it was once hot and then cold and then hot etc. Big woop. What does it actually tell me about now? I'm not suggesting there has never been changes in our climate. I'm not that bloody daft. You said: radical changes and stages. That was about it.
I referenced where we once were comparing it to now. I am glad the earth is warming. Take a look at the Little Ice Age. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age#Impacts_in_the_Northern_hemisphere This happened within the last 400 years. Very radical lows in temperature than we are experiencing today. This is an example of radical climate change in very recent years, on the time scale of the age of the planet. What caused these temperature changes. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age#Causes Look at the Solar Activity. During the time of the little ice it was in a cycle known as the Maunder Minimum. This coincides with warmer temperatures today. During the 1900-1950's the sun was during a more heavily radiant and volatile period. This is good evidence to me of one reason why we are seeing higher temperatures than we have seen in the past. But higher temperatures compared to when? The 17th and 18th centuries when we were in a cooling? How is what we are experiencing now not a part of natural cycles considering in the past 400 years we were in a global cooling. We warmed out from that without using "fossil fuels".
