Hey, we've seen gas prices go down and now they're going up. The seesaw has become exhausting and I welcome the day that some other non-fossil fuel type of engine is the norm. (I was happy to snag one of the last new 3800 V6s in the LaX and hope to drive it for a dozen or so years, knock on wood). I like driving around for the hell of it, especially where it's scenic.

So how long do you think it will take before you wander onto the new car lot and AT LEAST 50% of the cars on sale are NOT powered by a traditional internal combustion engine?

Feel free to comment as well.

Edited February 22, 200917 yr by trinacriabob

A long-ass time. What ever happened to hydrogen?

Never.

The technology is just too efficient, and dependable for us to get rid of. Plus, the ICU is adaptable, so you can burn 'clean' fuels like Hydrogen.

Never.

The technology is just too efficient, and dependable for us to get rid of. Plus, the ICU is adaptable, so you can burn 'clean' fuels like Hydrogen.

I goofed here.

I was considering "hydrogen," or any non fossil fuel, to be NEW TECH.

Um, maybe in ten years there might be 20 percent of the lot....

Everyone who wants the Detroit companies to go away say that plug-ins are what's gonna save us.

However, they won't save us if our electrical infrastructure doesn't get upgraded, and who knows when that's gonna happen...

Everyone who wants the Detroit companies to go away say that plug-ins are what's gonna save us.

However, they won't save us if our electrical infrastructure doesn't get upgraded, and who knows when that's gonna happen...

Infrastructure improvements won't happen all at once, but neither will the onset of plug-in hybrids.

How in the world would someone think the ICE would be half phased out in less than 12 years? That's crazy talk. The poll should have had increments like 0-15 years, 15-30 years, 30+ years.

I clicked "OTHER" since 1912 was not an

option in the poll... before Kettering's

automatic starter was introduced by the

1912 Cadillacs, Steam & Electric

powered cars were more promissing

than gasoline/diesel.

Maybe...

Infrastructure improvements won't happen all at once, but neither will the onset of plug-in hybrids.

How in the world would someone think the ICE would be half phased out in less than 12 years? That's crazy talk. The poll should have had increments like 0-15 years, 15-30 years, 30+ years.

You'd be surprised what enviro-Nazis and Toyota-lovers think should and can happen before the next Presidential elections.

Or maybe you wouldn't be surprised.

Over 12 years. Issues of where the energy would come to are nowhere near resolved. If global warming is proved to be true, it wouldn't be a good idea to burn tons of coal to power millions of electric cars...

Over 12 years. Issues of where the energy would come to are nowhere near resolved. If global warming is proved to be true, it wouldn't be a good idea to burn tons of coal to power millions of electric cars...

1. Global Warming is all B.S.

2. Not all electricity HAs to be produced using coal,

why is this dead horse still being beaten?

1. Global Warming is all B.S.

2. Not all electricity HAs to be produced using coal,

why is this dead horse still being beaten?

1. I don't know, you don't know and sciensts don't know it either. It could be that we're entering an era of more chaotic changes in climate, irrespective of the cause. We shouldn't go back to living in caves (excpet that $300K on Satty's thread) but some degree of caution and study on this issue is not a bad thing...

2. Nuclear? OK, as long as (using a US example) the utilities don't enjoy the same image as, say, Amtrak.... hydroelectric is a good alternative, but there's the issue of infrastructure to transport it from the production locations to consumption locations...

I still think there are issues to be sorted out.

1. I don't know, you don't know and sciensts don't know it either. It could be that we're entering an era of more chaotic changes in climate, irrespective of the cause. We shouldn't go back to living in caves (excpet that $300K on Satty's thread) but some degree of caution and study on this issue is not a bad thing...

2. Nuclear? OK, as long as (using a US example) the utilities don't enjoy the same image as, say, Amtrak.... hydroelectric is a good alternative, but there's the issue of infrastructure to transport it from the production locations to consumption locations...

I still think there are issues to be sorted out.

1. Fine then, clean coal. Everyone likes to be able to breathe. Don't make it about global warming, that's fear mongering of the highest degree. And to add insult to injury, it is now becoming very commercialized which is rather ironic. No, go the clean coal route, or tidal, or solar or wind power as they become economically viable and efficient. And for the love of God, please market them as "BETTER AIR FOR ALL" which is a MEASURABLE goal that is ultimately ATTAINABLE not some hypothesis that no one can prove or disprove.

2. Hydroelectric? Hydro power has already destroyed or damaged so much of the environment, do you want to further destroy it? Plus we have pretty well tapped most of the hydro power potential aside from tidal generators.

With the new Gen V and future Gen VI reactors, we should see far greater efficiency and greater safety standards. Nuclear fuel is plentiful (and if your gonna go and complain about uranium supplies, i have one word - Thorium). Nuclear fusion would be even better... and an old '80s technology seems to have made some promising advancements. Inertial confinement can be maintained for a split second by focusing lasers onto particles, heating them up and confining them just long enough to set off fusion, creating a lot of heat. As laser technology becomes more and more efficient, the greater chance this technology has to become economically viable.

And of course there's a myriad of other nuclear fusion techniques, hopefully one of them take off.

Wow, what a thread.

1. 68, you can't say that global climate change is a myth. You don't know.

2. Even if global climate change is 125% false, we are still running out of oil.

3. It's not the electrical generation capacity that we have to worry about. It's the transmission network that is horribly out of date. We are sitting on an incredibly brittle system that everyone refuses to upgrade.

4. There is no such thing as clean coal. Sure you might be able to burn it cleaner than before, but the process of getting it out of the ground is incredibly environmentally destructive. There's also a lot less coal around than we're being told.

Wyoming's Powder River Basin "is the most prolific coalfield in the United States" and in 2006 provided "over 37 percent of the Nation's total yearly production."The coal reserves estimate for the Gillette coalfield is 10.1 billion short tons of coal (6 percent of the original resource total).

5. Traditional hydro electric is done. You won't see any more Hoover Dams or Tennessee Vally Power Authorities. Tidal and wave generation have potential.

6. Nuclear won't be viable for new construction in the U.S. until we get rid of the Jimmy Carter era regulations regarding the types of reactors we can build.

6. Nuclear won't be viable for new construction in the U.S. until we get rid of the Jimmy Carter era regulations regarding the types of reactors we can build.

There is already a race to see which company can build the first new nuclear reactor under a new consolidated contruction/operating licensing method by the NRC. There are nearly a hundred new reactors being planned (granted, not all of them will come to fruition, but there is a LOT of interest by power companies to get new nuclear plants built.)

Wow, what a thread.

1. 68, you can't say that global climate change is a myth. You don't know.

I'm no LESS qualified than Al Gore is at these things

At least I do not BLATANTLY lie to make a point.

Tidal and wave generation have potential.

As does wind and countless unorthodox methods

that are being worked on... even solar makes

more sense than coal IMHO.

I'm no LESS qualified than Al Gore is at these things

At least I do not BLATANTLY lie to make a point.

Fine. Both of you are unqualified. I don't know what the true answer is, but I choose to err on the side of caution... ya know, just in case the facts that are not in dispute turn out to point to a bigger problem.

The World Bank agrees with climate scientists that the Andean glaciers that are the main source of water for much of Peru will most likely melt away by 2030. This will seriously harm agriculture, energy (hydro) generation, and people.

Warming oceans are driving fishing stocks poleward and by 2050 US fleets will find few cod, herring and prawns. In general, northern fisheries will increase while those in the tropics will suffer major losses.

The Audubon Society reports that more than half of the 305 species of birds in North American have shifted their wintering grounds northward over the last 40 years. During that time the average January temperature in the US has climbed 5ºF.

Energy Secretary Chu sees California's water shortages becoming ever worse, with the Sierra snowpack nearly disappearing over time. This will lead to "no more agriculture in California," and he added, "I don't actually see how they can keep their cities going." In 1997 California's population was 22 million; in 30 years it has grown to 36 million.

I personally don't care if my car is powered by genetically modified hamsters as long as it's cheap to fuel, has great acceleration, is smooth, quiet and causes minimal environmental impact.

Fine. Both of you are unqualified. I don't know what the true answer is, but I choose to err on the side of caution... ya know, just in case the facts that are not in dispute turn out to point to a bigger problem.

Except half of what you posted is not facts, it's taking some data (often an unstated timeframe of data from a specific region) and then pretending that the climate will act in a linear fashion over the next 20, 30, 50 years as predicted by that likely small subset of years worth of data. That's bad science. Predictions ARE NOT FACTS.

I agree with Teh Ricer Civic! that we should be reducing pollution & moving on to alternative fuels for measurable reasons like clean air and reducing our dependency on foreign oil, not on a political agenda being built on the poorly understood platform of global warming / climate change. Science (with careful guards to kick the politicians out of the process) needs to continue to understand climate, monitor it, and try to understand in what ways we do and do not affect it, but it doesn't take a genius to see that we only have a preschool-level understanding of how our world & climate work, and that isn't something worth basing panic and major policy change on.

Edited February 24, 200917 yr by PurdueGuy

The facts of the past are not in question.

We do know for a fact that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas. We know how much of it we are putting into the air each year. We can observe the climate data from the last 100 years, we can observe animal behavior, we can observe plant growth patterns, and we can form a hypothesis.

Basic scientific method.

The facts of the past are not in question.

We do know for a fact that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas. We know how much of it we are putting into the air each year. We can observe the climate data from the last 100 years, we can observe animal behavior, we can observe plant growth patterns, and we can form a hypothesis.

Basic scientific method.

The quality of the data from the past, and just how far back the data needs to go to be relevant IS in question. A good conclusion from bad or inadequate data will still give a bad result.

My only issue with nuclear is that someday people might want to fly planes into nuclear plants instead of skyscrapers...

The world ends in 2012 (according to Mayans) and so will the internal combustion engine.

My only issue with nuclear is that someday people might want to fly planes into nuclear plants instead of skyscrapers...

The nuclear plants have close to 5' thick high strength concrete that will prevent any plane getting inside the core. Nuclear plant is more of a monolithic "heavy" structure unlike skyscrapers which have more degrees of freedoms. Nuclear plant walls have greater covering over the structural steel which will prevent steel's melting, unlike skyscraper's walls which have little or no cover for the structural steel. Banging a high speed plane on the concrete of Nuke reactor will be nothing more than banging a plane on rock.

Moreover, the core has capability of automatically shutting down the system if any external changes are detected by its sensors. In such an event there will not be any chain reaction to cause catastrophe.

The nuclear plants have close to 5' thick high strength concrete that will prevent any plane getting inside the core. Nuclear plant is more of a monolithic "heavy" structure unlike skyscrapers which have more degrees of freedoms. Nuclear plant walls have greater covering over the structural steel which will prevent melting its melting, unlike skyscraper's walls which have little or no cover for the structural steel. Banging a high speed plane on the concrete of Nuke reactor will be nothing more than banging a plane on rock.

Moreover, the core has capability of automatically shutting down the system if any external changes are detected by its sensors. In such an event there will not be any chain reaction to cause catastrophe.

Thx for the explanation! I'm still not so sure about it though...

I agree about Nuclear reactor... it's nothing

like some skyscraper.... if the Twin Towers

are a '84 Plymouth Voyager than a nuclear

power plant cooling tower is a 1944

Panther Tank... and I'm not talking about

the 540 horsepower discrepancy of the

Minivan either.

----

That being said who knows if the towers

REALLY fell due to jet fuel alone.

I personally don't care if my car is powered by genetically modified hamsters as long as it's cheap to fuel, has great acceleration, is smooth, quiet and causes minimal environmental impact.

Well yes of course. IF/when we had a better

way to fuel cars or a better method of

propelling a car down the road with little to

no loss of performance/utility/flexibility we'd

already be there and I'd be cheering on the

effort.

Now as far as MY ideal scenario for mass

PRIVATE transportation the movie Gatica is

a perfect solution.

(BTW, this is slightly off topic but it is a FACT

that any movie who's opening sceene features

sex & the overhead shot of a '71 Riviera's rear

glass is going to be AWESOME!!!)

I'd convert my B-59 to run on Ben Franklin's

discovery in a millisecond if it were practical &

did not cost too much $ both upfront and in

the day-to-day usage.

Nuclear plant is more of a monolithic "heavy" structure unlike skyscrapers which have more degrees of freedoms. Nuclear plant walls have greater covering over the structural steel which will prevent melting its melting, unlike skyscraper's walls which have little or no cover for the structural steel.

Degrees of freedom ... d.f. ... bad memories, a primal scream ...

But I do agree with what you are saying.

Edited February 24, 200917 yr by trinacriabob

Glaciers in Spain's Pyrenees have lost 90% of their ice in the last 100 years. Continuing global warming insures that they will completely disappear in a few decades. Most of Europe's glaciers are shrinking and overall have lost a quarter of their mass in less than 10 years.

but yeah, just a theory......

The nuclear plants have close to 5' thick high strength concrete that will prevent any plane getting inside the core. Nuclear plant is more of a monolithic "heavy" structure unlike skyscrapers which have more degrees of freedoms. Nuclear plant walls have greater covering over the structural steel which will prevent steel's melting, unlike skyscraper's walls which have little or no cover for the structural steel. Banging a high speed plane on the concrete of Nuke reactor will be nothing more than banging a plane on rock.

Moreover, the core has capability of automatically shutting down the system if any external changes are detected by its sensors. In such an event there will not be any chain reaction to cause catastrophe.

At the time it was built, no one thought a plane would take down the trade centers either.

but yeah, just a theory......

Nah... Not a theory. More of a ploy

Edited February 25, 200917 yr by FUTURE_OF_GM

What's your idea of what has caused a glacier to shrink by 90% over 100 years?

I mean seriously... we know for a fact that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas. We know we are dumping a lot of it into the air every year. Don't let your hatred of Gore cloud your ability to reason.

They have done tests to simulate airplanes flying into nuclear plant core buildings, and it barely scratched the concrete. Aluminum isn't particularly strong, especially when it's been made as thin as possible while still being able to function as an airplane. The problem that would come from a terrorist flying a plane into a nuclear plant is if it flew it into an office building or something and killed people, which is just like flying it into any other office building, except the uneducated general public would panic and think the world is going to end, just like when three mile island proved the safety systems work, but everyone paniced and thought it was a huge catastrophy, even though no one was even injured, and it didn't release any notable amount of radiation.

------------

Climate change may be good theory, but do you honestly think we know enough about how the world (nay, the solar system) works to determine if our pollution's contribution to it is more than a pinprick? It may or may not be, but we have such a sub-rudamentary understanding of the system that it's unwise IMO to panic and/or make major policy decisions based on it. It is far more wise to be reducing pollution and dependancy on foreign oil for measurable reasons, and continue to study the environmental systems & gain a better understanding.

Everyone who wants the Detroit companies to go away say that plug-ins are what's gonna save us.

However, they won't save us if our electrical infrastructure doesn't get upgraded, and who knows when that's gonna happen...

True, Politics aside, it is amazing how many Red and Blue States have been very poor at managing their money and need a bail out from the feds. We could truly make a revolutionary change if we spent the 800 Billion on Roads, Power, Parks etc. rather than bail out states or fund more unemployment.

We could get america back to work by spending money on projects that will improve this country over time and state that any company that takes on one of these federally funded projects must supply insurance for all Part time and full time employees. We could wipe out most of the unemployement as these projects would take 2-4 years and by then the rest of the industries should be getting back on their feet!

The facts of the past are not in question.

We do know for a fact that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas. We know how much of it we are putting into the air each year. We can observe the climate data from the last 100 years, we can observe animal behavior, we can observe plant growth patterns, and we can form a hypothesis.

Basic scientific method.

Very True and very fact based as even a standard person of normal intelligence can look at the northern side of Canada and see that they have longer warmer seasons, growing food has become longer, etc. Even Green Land which is mostly covered in snow and ice has gotten longer growing seasons and have started to grow their own Produce that they once exclusivly imported.

Clearly anyone can see that humans have had an affect on this planet and it is changing. Since none of use lived 200 years ago or even 500 years ago, we lack the true long term data to see what kind of cycles this planet goes through, so as Oldsmoboi has pointed out, we take what we do have and Hypothesis.

I have agree that we do not know how bad we humans have affected this planet and climate, but there is NO reason NOT to take measures to improve things and in the short term if it creates jobs for new technology, then better for it.

Hybrid Auto Production is very destructive to the Environment. Look at all the waste produced by battery production and the amount of Green house gas produced during the battery production and it does not off set an efficent running gas econo box. Prius is just a marketing tool as I now see 18 Toyota Prius sitting on the lot here this morning in Kirkland Washington and they had 21 Highlander Hybrids.

Guess that novelty has worn off for those over priced garbage machines. No wonder Toyota mothballed the new production plant, they can barely sell what they have.

A Warming Climate Can Support Glacial Ice

New research indicates glacial ice existed

on earth during intense period of global warming

January 10, 2008

By Annie Reisewitz

New research challenges the generally accepted belief that substantial ice sheets could not have existed on Earth during past super-warm climate events. The study by researchers at Scripps Institution of Oceanography at UC San Diego provides strong evidence that a glacial ice cap, about half the size of the modern day glacial ice sheet, existed 91 million years ago during a period of intense global warming. This study offers valuable insight into current day climate conditions and the environmental mechanisms for global sea level rise.

Sea cliff at Tilleul Beach on the coast of Normandy, France are rich in microfossils and of the same age as the marine chalks used in the study to understand Earth's climate history.

The new study in the Jan. 11 issue of the journal Science titled, “Isotopic Evidence for Glaciation During the Cretaceous Supergreenhouse,” examines geochemical and sea level data retrieved from marine microfossils deposited on the ocean floor 91 million years ago during the Cretaceous Thermal Maximum. This extreme warming event in Earth’s history raised tropical ocean temperatures to 35-37°C (95-98.6°F), about 10°C (18°F) warmer than today, thus creating an intense greenhouse climate.

Using two independent isotopic techniques, researchers at Scripps Oceanography studied the microfossils to gather geochemical data on the growth and eventual melting of large Cretaceous ice sheets. The researchers compared stable isotopes of oxygen molecules (d18O) in bottom-dwelling and near-surface marine microfossils, known as foraminifera, to show that changes in ocean chemistry were consistent with the growth of an ice sheet. The second method in which an ocean surface temperature record was subtracted from the stable isotope record of surface ocean microfossils yielded the same conclusion.

A micrograph of two types of foraminifera, M. sinuosa and W. baltica, and uses to study climate conditions during the Cretaceous Thermal Maximum, 91 million years ago.

These independent methods provided Andre Bornemann, lead author of the study, with strong evidence to conclude that an ice sheet about 50-60 percent the size of the modern Antarctic ice cap existed for about 200,000 years. Bornemann conducted this study as a postdoctoral researcher at Scripps Oceanography and continues this research at Universitat Leipzig in Germany.

“Until now it was generally accepted that there were no large glaciers on the poles prior to the development of the Antarctic ice sheet about 33 million years ago,” said Richard Norris, professor of paleobiology at Scripps Oceanography and co-author of the study. “This study demonstrates that even the super-warm climates of the Cretaceous Thermal Maximum were not warm enough to prevent ice growth.”

Researchers are still unclear as to where such a large mass of ice could have existed in the Cretaceous or how ice growth could have started. The authors suggest that climate cycles may have favored ice growth during a few times in the Cretaceous when natural climate variations produced unusually cool summers. Likewise, high mountains under the modern Antarctic ice cap could have been potential sites for growth of large ice masses during the Cretaceous.

Ice sheets were much less common during the Cretaceous Thermal Maximum than during more recent “icehouse” climates. Paradoxically, past greenhouse climates may have aided ice growth by increasing the amount of moisture in the atmosphere and creating more winter snowfall at high elevations and high latitudes, according to the paper’s authors.

Graph depicts geochemical data collected from microfossils on the growth and eventual melting of ice sheets during the Cretaceous Period.

The results from the study are consistent with other studies from Russia and New Jersey that show sea level fell by about 25-40 m (82-131 ft) at the same time that the ice sheets were growing during the Cretaceous period. Sea level is known to fall as water is removed from the oceans to build continental ice sheets; conversely, sea level rises as ice melts and returns to the sea.

The presence or absence of sea ice has major environmental implications, specifically in terms of sea level rise and global circulation patterns. As humans continue to add large amounts of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases that accelerate the heating of the atmosphere and oceans, research on Earth’s past climate conditions is critical to predict what will happen as Earth’s climate continues to warm.

This research study was supported by the German Research Foundation and the National Science Foundation under the management of the Joint Oceanographic Institutions.

Media Contacts: Annie Reisewitz or Mario Aguilera, 858-534-3624

I have posted a small amount of the data and you can review the full PPT presentation here, very interesting info.

Hawaii Studay on What controls Ice Sheet Growth?

According to the University of Hawaii, here is their overview of:

What Controls Ice Sheet Growth?

Ice sheets exist when

Growth > ablation

Temperatures must be cold

Permit snowfall

Prevent melting

Ice and snow accumulate MAT < 10°C

Accumulation rates 0.5 m y-1

MAT > 10°C rainfall

No accumulation

MAT << 10°C dry cold air

Very low accumulation

Accumulation rates low, ablation rates high

Melting begins at MAT > -10°C (summer T > 0°C)

Ablation rates of 3 m y-1

Ablation accelerates rapidly at higher T

When ablation = growth

Ice sheet is at equilibrium

Equilibrium line =

Boundary between positive ice balance

Net loss of ice mass

Temperature and Ice Mass Balance

Temperature main factor determining ice growth

Net accumulation or

Net ablation

Since ablation rate increases rapidly with increasing temperature

Summer melting controls ice sheet growth

Summer insolation must control ice sheet growth

Milankovitch Theory

Ice sheets grow when summer insolation low

Axial tilt is small

Poles pointed less directly towards the Sun

N. hemisphere summer solstice at aphelion

Ice sheets melt when summer insolation high

Axial tilt is high

N. hemisphere summer solstice at perihelion

Recognized that Earth has greenhouse effect

Assumed that changes in solar radiation dominant variable

Summer insolation strong

More radiation at high latitudes

Warms climate and accelerates ablation

Prevents glaciations or shrinks existing glaciers

Summer insolation weak

Less radiation at high latitudes

Cold climate reduces rate of summer ablation

Ice sheets grow

High summer insolation heats land and results in greater ablation

Dominant cycles at 23,000 and 41,000 years

Low summer insolation cools land and results in diminished ablation

At the time it was built, no one thought a plane would take down the trade centers either.

Yeah but engineers did think of someone bombing the nuclear plants.

At the time it was built, no one thought a plane would take down the trade centers either.

The towers would have likely stood had it not been for the intense fire. There is a reason transcontinental flights were chosen from Boston.

Fuel.

The towers would have likely stood had it not been for the intense fire. There is a reason transcontinental flights were chosen from Boston.

Fuel.

Right. The fact that they were constructed of structural steel as opposed to reinforced concrete could, or may not have, made a difference. With steel buildings, there is a minimal amount of "skin" to protect them, so being subjected to the intense heat would take the steel to the yield point (I forget the technical term). With concrete buildings, depending on how much rebar, the quality/denominations of rebar, how much prestressing/poststressing was done and how much "cover" (concrete encasement of the rebar) is present, the buildings may have fared differently. It's something that would have to be modeled...and we need geeks with a PhD from Stanford, Berkeley or MIT to do that.

Still, I do believe in global warming. The change in the earth's ice masses is nothing to be tampered with.

What's your idea of what has caused a glacier to shrink by 90% over 100 years?

I mean seriously... we know for a fact that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas. We know we are dumping a lot of it into the air every year. Don't let your hatred of Gore cloud your ability to reason.

I don't think anyone is saying that climate change ISN'T taking place, but last time i checked, climates change all the damn time... it just takes a while and it does it regardless of what humans do. Maybe humans push it a tiny bit, or impede it a tiny bit, but nothing that any reasonable person would actually classify as under our control.

I suppose all of our carbon emissions from landing modules and rovers on Mars is responsible for the warming that has taken place there too?

people tend to overlook the fact that historically humanity has done BETTER during times of warmth... now sure some people may lose their coastal houses, but so is nature cruel mother of us all.

Edited February 25, 200917 yr by Teh Ricer Civic!

people tend to overlook the fact that historically humanity has done BETTER during times of warmth... now sure some people may lose their coastal houses, but so is nature cruel mother of us all.

You do point out one of the unintended benefits of global warming.... the most populated places in CA will be under water.

it's a joke people.... laugh.

The towers would have likely stood had it not been for the intense fire. There is a reason transcontinental flights were chosen from Boston.

Fuel.

Add to that that the twin towers were basically giant file cabinets, so there was plenty of paper fuel as well (doesn't burn as hot as the jet fuel, but it still adds to the overall burn.)

Climate change may be good theory, but do you honestly think we know enough about how the world (nay, the solar system) works to determine if our pollution's contribution to it is more than a pinprick? It may or may not be, but we have such a sub-rudamentary understanding of the system that it's unwise IMO to panic and/or make major policy decisions based on it. It is far more wise to be reducing pollution and dependancy on foreign oil for measurable reasons, and continue to study the environmental systems & gain a better understanding.

(a.k.a. we should not be FORCED to live strained lives or feel horrible for what we enjoy in our life over some voodoo that the descendants of people that took WAY to many drugs in the 60's forced onto the world)

It's nothing but a means for the elite to control the masses.

Edited February 26, 200917 yr by FUTURE_OF_GM

Yeah but engineers did think of someone bombing the nuclear plants.

I'm just sayin'..... :shrugs:

It will happen.

You do point out one of the unintended benefits of global warming.... the most populated places in CA will be under water.

Now, now!

Don't talk bad about the fruit loops in Cali... You'll have people threatening your life in here.

But you can talk about us "rednecks" in the south "crooked red state senators" "bible thumping gun lovers" or "ghetto-fab Chrysler owners" all you want.

(I saw it, it's part of the Lounge rules)

t's a joke people.... laugh.

You do point out one of the unintended benefits of global warming.... the most populated places in CA will be under water.

it's a joke people.... laugh.

Hmm eliminate the coastal population centers in California... that would leave California a rather Red state... and dramatically reduce the number of electoral votes it holds.

I say we bring back Global Warming fighting, ozone depleting CFCs.

You do point out one of the unintended benefits of global warming.... the most populated places in CA will be under water.

*snarling right now*

Drew, Florida stands to lose more coastline/beach from global warming than does Cali. There's much more of a "shelf " up to CA's cities from the beach than there is FL. Still, I like the beach and I like both states.

Considering that most of south florida is supposed to be glades right now......

My parents live there. Their boat repair business would be booming.