I own a Prius and think it's a great car. Toyota, however, has
recently attached itself to a lawsuit through the Alliance of
Automobile Manufacturers to block a law meant to reduce global warming
emissions. Neither Honda nor Nissan have attached themselves to the
lawsuit, so not all car companies are suing. This action does not
reflect the values of a company that markets itself as one that cares
about the environment.

If you're so inclined, you can email to the automakers
http://www.ucsusa.org/general/specia...fm?pageID=1534

or better yet email Toyota directly at toyota_cares@toyota.com.

 

Hi Llin123:

___You have to realize Toyota sells a ton of SUV’s in the California’s and some are some of the worst polluters on the planet. They simply have to join the suit …

___What really ticks me off and the automakers will easily blow holes in any California CO2 emissions limitation is that 1. The highway speed limits are 65 - 75 throughout much of the state, and 2. California does not enforce the speed limits anyway. I would love to see the court room when the Auto manufacturers bring up study after study showing #’s of CO2 emissions/mile (gallons of fuel consumed/mile x 19.x + 9 #’s/gallon for upstream refining) posted against speed limits. Next slide will show a particular stretch of highway in and around San Francisco, L.A., Sacramento, and out in the desert. Once the actual speeds are revealed, the auto manufacturers will breath a sigh of relief because although CARB means well, the state government will not do its part to reduce said emissions through lowered speed limits and enforcement of said limits.

___Good Luck

___Wayne R. Gerdes
___Hunt Club Farms Landscaping Ltd.
___Waynegerdes@earthlink.net

 

Please don't get me wrong, I'm all for breathing clean air.

From the article:
"(ignores) available sound scientific data on global warming."
But man causing global warming has not been proved, it is only a theory and there are alot of evidence contrary.

There are some political groups fueling this issue that have nothing to do with global warming, but rather to cause trouble for free enterprise or other political parties. Things like the Kyoto Treaty which leaves major polluters like China off the hook, and would cost the U.S. billiions & billions of $$$ for an unconfirmed science theory.

For example, here are some quotes from your website links:

Home page:
http://www.ucsusa.org/index.cfm
"the Bush administration's continued abuse"
and
http://www.ucsaction.org/action/disp...asp?item=22412
"the current administration"
and
http://www.ucsusa.org/news/commentary.cfm?newsID=326
"President Bush's Nuclear Policy: Illogical, Ineffective, and Dangerous"
and
http://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_release.cfm?newsID=434
"Science in Bush's Second Term"

You see, it is all Bush's fault this is happening. Other administrations always blindly voted for green issues, no matter what it may cost free enterprise or the validity of the science, and other administrations have always handled nuclear issues in a way everyone agreed with. Right?

I read over several articles and kept seeing "a vast majority of people believe", which means nothing in light of scientific data.
I'm sure we can all agree that good science isn't made for Hollywood movies.

Many European and other countries would love to see the U.S. stumble into the Kyoto Treaty, never mind the trillions of $$$ we already spent to reduce pollution.

 

Thanks for your feedback. It is easy to find documents that support the idea that global warming is caused by human activities, as well as documents that dismiss the idea as unproven. Given that both sides usually do have agendas and plenty to gain by either supporting or attempting debunking the claims, it is difficult to discern which position is actually closer to the truth. For these reasons, I think that it is important to try to assess whether there is a scientific consensus. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is composed of thousands of climate experts and scientists from over 100 countries and has concluded that human activities do indeed contribute to global warming and that global warming is real. The conclusions of this panel seem to me to be strong evidence that there is scientific consensus. Although there are legitimate arguments over to what degree greenhouse gases contribute to global warming, the argument is over how much they contribute, and not whether they contribute or whether global warming is real. Of course one can find strong objections amongst those who dislike the conclusion, but I feel that a worldwide panel of the world's best climate scientists have to be taken seriously. Those who disagree are far outnumbered.

By the way, if you google older documents by UCS, you'll find criticism of the Clinton administration in addition to criticism of the Bush administration. Although UCS does have a pro-environment agenda, it is not necessarily a partisan agenda.

As far as Kyoto goes, there are legitimate discussions about the fairness of the treaty. I think that if European Union can accept the current terms of the agreement that developing countries are exempt and at the same time reduce its emissions by 5% without drastically harming their economy, we can do the same. Kyoto called for a 7% reduction for the US, but because we have so much clout, we could have also demanded 5% instead of simply withdrawing. I don't see why we wouldn't be able to afford a 5% decrease if the EU could. As far as exempting the developing countries, I can't say that I can assess the fairness of that part since complex economic factors come into play. But if the EU can afford to cut greenhouse gases by 5%, I don't see why the richest country on the planet couldn't do the same. After all, we have 4% of the world's population and emit 25% of all greenhouse gases. We should at least be able to match the EU, if not exceed the EU given our economic status in the world.

Any further discussion and comments would be greatly appreciated. Thanks.

 

I think most people & scientists agree that global warming is real, but there are just as many scientists who say that the earth is in a natural occuring cycle.

With so much evidence on both sides, I can't say for sure either way.
But there is so much political baggage with this that the whole thing makes me wonder, and side with the natural cycle.

I admit the links I provided are not the theme of the website, but I did look at some of the scientists listed there- and some have connections to NPR. I wonder what other organizations or bias they might have.

Did you know that some environmental groups were even linking the latest massive disaster in the East with global warming?
I've heard it hinted that the U.S. is partly at fault for this for not signing the treaty.
I can't support an ideology that could cost the U.S. Billions, if not Trillions of dollars for an unproven theory, while at the same time we continue to recieve clouds of pollution from all the way across the pond from places like China, who is almost exempt.

We already spend trillions of dollars each year in keeping our coal-fired and nuclear plants, industry and automobiles reasonably clean.
Who's to know how much more would be imposed on us?

 

Hi All:

___The following pics were taken from ~ the exact spot although over 60 years apart … Notice a slight difference?

Melting Alaska makes the front page

Muir and Riggs Glacier, 1941



Muir and Riggs Glacier, 2004



___This is what scares me and I don’t know if it is GHG’s, population based GHG emissions, or a natural cycle but a glacier does not retreat like this in just 60 years due to natural causes imho?

___Good Luck to us all …

___Wayne R. Gerdes
___Hunt Club Farms Landscaping Ltd.
___Waynegerdes@earthlink.net

 

I'm not sure if natural cycles would cause that.

I'm only guessing but it appears that one is taken in the summer and one in the winter and I suppose it can add to the impact.

We have no way of knowing if the glacier on the other side had now risen as result of the glacier flow?

 

Hi Hot_Georgia_2004:

___From my reads, all Alaskan glaciers are in decline similar if not more so then the one shown 2050 is the prediction for open seas in the Arctic Circle during the summer so the Panama Canal won’t have the traffic it has seen over the past 100 years + … That should tell us something as well?

___Good Luck

___Wayne R. Gerdes
___Hunt Club Farms Landscaping Ltd.
___Waynegerdes@earthlink.net

 

I would like to note that there are not anywhere near as many scientists that think that the earth is in a natural cycle of warming. 2,500 of the world's best climate scientists come together every three years and review some 20,000 articles published in peer-reviewed journals and concluded in 2001 and more recently in 2004 that global warming is real, the earth is not in a warming cycle, and that human activities contribute. Those who dissent are in a small minority and outside of the scientific consensus. All of the evidence is in favor of real global warming caused largely by human activities. It is hard to say that these 2,500 scientists all have a political agenda. As far as the environmentalists who make claims that are untrue, they are not climatologists and should be excluded from the debate about scientific matters such as the impact of the current warming on natural disasters. People who are not scientists and who have an agenda and who make far-fetched statements should not be lumped together with the thousands of climatologists who have come to their conclusions based on scientific evidence.

As far as China goes, they have almost 4.5 times the number of people in the US and we still emit about 1.5 times as much CO2 as they do. Our 4% of the population of the planet emits about 25% of the world's greenhouse gases. China is a big polluter, though and the problem needs to be addressed. But given the large amount of greenhouse gases that we emit and the large body of evidence that harm will be done to our planet, we should do something about it. The limits set by the California law is based on existing technology already in cars today. Many of the additional costs would pay for themselves in fuel savings over a few years.

 

The top photo looks PhotoShopped to me. The frozen area in the B&W has a strange repeating pattern to it that shouldn't occure in nature. Plus the texture of "glacier" appears too contrived, again as if it was duplicated or generated in a graphic arts program. I see repeating patterns and lines that just don't make sense and do not look natural.