Who Killed the Electric Car?

[Dyngo]

The whole idea of global warming has become too political and hollywood. Too much hysteria and doomsayers. I mean all the numbers are laced with opinion and bias. Heck, how can we even trust the scientists when their grant money is sponsored by either big oil or liberal environmentalists? It's a pity too because this is a major study that requires complete unbiased research without special interest involvement.

Every big issue have to become political, I think. If politicians ignore the issues that concerns people they will probably commit political suicide.
I think you need to find a source that is trustworthy enough. You will probably be forced to read a lot before you will come to a conclusion. A far as I have studied this issue its not a few single scientist that came to the current conclusion about global warming. But when a lot of scientist brought their results of their specific areas and did put a lot of pieces together they got to this conclusion. Not only scientist researching the environment but also, for example, economics. Sure, the environmentalists have always screamed about pollution and stuff, but not with this heavy scientific facts behind them nor the timetable of how fast things are changing.

The "oil companies" know there's plenty of dollars still to pump up so they will do what they can to make us need it, whatever it takes. But still it makes this a little more interesting. If the oil companies sponsors scientists to oppose the agenda, there will be a discussions going on and that's very important. At least for you whom still are unsure what to think.

For me its not very important whatever the sponsor money comes from. However as long as no questions is asked and no public discussions occur, that's when it becomes VERY dangerous, especially when the "no questions asked"-thingy comes from a political agenda.
"Either you're with us, or you're with the terrorists"... sort of..

 

[Thaos Nightwind]

I have trouble accepting computer models as convincing evidence since there hasn't been one, I mean one computer model relating to climate change that has accurately predicted weather patterns in long-term scenarios. Computer models are notoriously unreliable when making these kinds of predictions.

True. I was being facetious of course and *if* the earth is getting warmer its probably a natural cyclical process that occurs. Sometimes i've felt that historically there has never been an age wherein the 'end of the world' psychosis hasn't been mentioned or believed in. Yet it's still here. But the scenario keeps popping up to sway public opinion to garner 'strength in numbers', government grats et all.

The earth naturally goes through periods of warming and cooling and the problem with these computer models seems to be that it gets taken to the nth degree. I don't believe the global warming issue when it gets to the Al Gore level. But then again when you look at China and the fact that no "green" safeguards were in place at the start of thier industrial revolution you can see the results. There are plenty of days when the skies over Hong Kong are a murky yellow from pollution. The country is relatively new at "green" safeguards.

I watched a Discovery documentary once and some place far up in Canada with good crisp clean air and wilderness was bewildered as to the cause of minute traces of pollution. Scientist did air quality testing; figured out what the primary ingrediants were and supposedly traced it all the way back to China. Winds carrying the smog across the entire ocean!! Talk about your second-hand smoke. They're begining to get that whole thing together now.

So it's good but taken too far with end of the world results and I just get a bit bug eyed.

 

[Silverblade]

But when a lot of scientist brought their results of their specific areas and did put a lot of pieces together they got to this conclusion. Not only scientist researching the environment but also, for example, economics. Sure, the environmentalists have always screamed about pollution and stuff, but not with this heavy scientific facts behind them nor the timetable of how fast things are changing.

See, this doesn't solve the problem of bias. There's a movement going on that is pushing the global warming agenda. As a scientist, it would be very difficult to fight against this tide especially since future research/grant money is controlled by these special interest groups.

There are no heavy scientific facts behind the causes of global warming. All they know is the earth is getting warmer. But to say that fossil fuels are the biggest reason behind it, is hysteria. Climate research is extremely limited. There's so much the scientists don't know. Yeah, they're all pretty smart but they are still in the dark. Nuclear physicists are smart but I wouldn't want them to operate on me.

Scientists need to focus and work on establishing knowledge and facts about the earth's atmosphere and climate in general before making assumptions on global warming based on inaccurate computer models. But I don't know if that'll happen because there's so much publicity (and therefore money) in global warming.

They need to come together to find truth, not spin their findings to appease their sponsors. I feel bad for the developing nations right now. If the rich countries push for severe reduction of fossil fuels, it hurts them. The US, Europe and other powerful nations will survive because they are rich enough to find other means of energy. The Third World countries will be crippled because there is no cheap alternative to fuel and ultimately will become more dependent upon the rich nations...like slaves.

 

[HJ-Diviana]

I'm proud of Honda.

They're going to try to get a hydrogen fueled car out on the market Soon. (I don't remember what the news said for a date. Soon is close enough ;P )


By the way, the way you get Hydrogen is extracting it from H2O and after the fuel is used the result is more H2O instead of deadly gases.

Pretty efficient if you ask me, and a source we don't have to be scared of using up. Some places don't have access to much water, but if the majority of countries switched to hydrogen, we'd make a HUGE difference.

 

[HJ-Diviana]

See, this doesn't solve the problem of bias. There's a movement going on that is pushing the global warming agenda. As a scientist, it would be very difficult to fight against this tide especially since future research/grant money is controlled by these special interest groups.

There are no heavy scientific facts behind the causes of global warming. All they know is the earth is getting warmer. But to say that fossil fuels are the biggest reason behind it, is hysteria. Climate research is extremely limited. There's so much the scientists don't know. Yeah, they're all pretty smart but they are still in the dark. Nuclear physicists are smart but I wouldn't want them to operate on me.

Scientists need to focus and work on establishing knowledge and facts about the earth's atmosphere and climate in general before making assumptions on global warming based on inaccurate computer models. But I don't know if that'll happen because there's so much publicity (and therefore money) in global warming.

They need to come together to find truth, not spin their findings to appease their sponsors. I feel bad for the developing nations right now. If the rich countries push for severe reduction of fossil fuels, it hurts them. The US, Europe and other powerful nations will survive because they are rich enough to find other means of energy. The Third World countries will be crippled because there is no cheap alternative to fuel and ultimately will become more dependent upon the rich nations...like slaves.

Here's the thing. Global Warming isn't the only thing we've got a problem with. There is also Global Dimming which is just as threatening, if not worse.

I can't understand how people can not believe in Global Warming. It's just impossible for me to comprehend that. It's kinda the same with refusing to believe in evolution. They're at the point where there is enough evidence that a Jury would Convict, so why are we still debating and not Doing? Why are we leaving our fates to "God" instead of realizing we have to actually take responsibility for OUR actions, and OUR mistakes?

The biggest problem is, we won't be able to reverse it unless -everyone- actually puts in 100%. That's not going to happen.

Our great grandchildren are going to have a very hard time, that's for sure.

Maybe they'll evolve.

 

[Dyngo]

The Third World countries will be crippled because there is no cheap alternative to fuel and ultimately will become more dependent upon the rich nations...like slaves.

That's pretty much how it is now. The thing is, If the, so called, third world is going to develop their economic standard the same way we live (in the rich world) we will pretty fast understand how sick "our" standard is... Because the resources of, pretty much everything wont last to the whole world.
And the climate change is not only about fossil fuel (even though I think its more then you think, as part of the greenhousgases), the use of resources is to be blamed too. For example, the forests around the world... The fastest growing economies in the world today is China and India. If they are supposed to live like we do, we will have problems. So, is it up to us or them to do something about it? In china there is 1.25 billion people, and if they will use as much toilet paper as we(?) use, the same amount of trees we have in Sweden today will last about a year. And if they will use cars the same way we do, what will happen? More Co2 less trees = bad!

So, do I just say that all other countries should stay poor? Not really, what Im saying is that the "rich" countries makes one hell of a bad example of how to live "rich". And the only way we can live like we do, is just because other countries (the majority in fact) don't live like that.

I dont think there's to little research about global warming, sure there could be more, but enough for me to be convinced. And I'm not sure what economic interest that will make money on me wasting less resources and lowering my (so called) Co2 footprint. Global warming or not, lesser exhaust is better for us all anyhow... whatever the oil industry is claiming...

A good economy is fine with me as long as it dont behave like a parasite on PCP *thinks on the guy with no face*

 

[Silverblade]

So, do I just say that all other countries should stay poor? Not really, what Im saying is that the "rich" countries makes one hell of a bad example of how to live "rich". And the only way we can live like we do, is just because other countries (the majority in fact) don't live like that.

My problem with this is, the rich countries are rich now after centuries of abuse. Now they are saying, "Well, we got ours and now we know it's bad for the earth so you need to find a different cleaner more difficult way." That's not right. It's easy to tell others what they should or should not do when your own stomach is full.

Now, I'm not advocating that nations should just continue to spew out pollution with impunity. I'm saying the issue has complexity because we are dealing with people and their standards of life.

 

[Thaos Nightwind]

Now, I'm not advocating that nations should just continue to spew out pollution with impunity. I'm saying the issue has complexity because we are dealing with people and their standards of life.

It's a slow gradual process.

 

[HJ-Pinnelipe]

Well.. the 'average' American supposedly uses 500 gallons of gas per year. So, at $3 bucks a gallon ($1500.00 per year), this baby will pay for itself in 62 years! That's like driving a free car, man! Woo hoo!

I'm 20 and the answer on whether or not I'll be driving in 62 years is questionable. Plus, would the car really last that long? <.<;

As for Global Warming..I do believe it is HAPPENING, however, I also believe the earth is warming more due to a natural cycle. Stopping polluting never hurts anything. We should do that whether Global Warming is happening or not, but I still believe the earth has a cycle it goes through. The entire reasoning for it, I do not know and I can not effectively argue any of my beliefs on the matter. It's just a gut feeling for me but not an important enough subject for me to research. And, no, it's not because I don't love Earth. It's because researching the whys on things does very little to help her. Just use some common sense and keep the world as clean as you possibly can. Spending an hour researching the effects of pollution on the world is all fine and dandy, but that hour in my mind would be better spend going around the city, picking up trash. Besides, the metal bits get a few pennies.

 

[Gate]

On the topic of global warming I really only have one thing to say. Yes, there is still a debate out there, though having personally looked at much of the evidence, I don't know why there is still a debate. However, since many people are still unconvinced, I pose a few simple questions:

What happens if the people who say global warming is human caused and a real concern are right? If we act, then we are ok, if we don't act, then we are screwed.

What happens if the people who say global warming isn't a problem/isn't human caused are right? If we act then we improve our environment and clear up a fair number of human health issues. If we don't act then everything remains as it is.

Do you really want to make that gamble?

 

[Silverblade]

On the topic of global warming I really only have one thing to say. Yes, there is still a debate out there, though having personally looked at much of the evidence, I don't know why there is still a debate. However, since many people are still unconvinced, I pose a few simple questions:

What happens if the people who say global warming is human caused and a real concern are right? If we act, then we are ok, if we don't act, then we are screwed.

What happens if the people who say global warming isn't a problem/isn't human caused are right? If we act then we improve our environment and clear up a fair number of human health issues. If we don't act then everything remains as it is.

Do you really want to make that gamble?

I don't think there really is a debate on whether the earth is warming up or not. The debate is on the question of why.

It's always good to consider the environment and to keep the earth as pristine as possible, again, no argument there. My issue is, at what cost to the poor and to the developing nations? As I said, it's easy to say we need to convert to different more expensive energy sources because they are somewhat cleaner but only because our nation can afford to deal with the costs. Many nations cannot do so and many people in the US can't do it either.

Take the hybrid cars right now. They are roughly $5K more expensive than the same model that uses only gasoline. Not every household can afford that. The argument is, hybrid car costs will drop. I doubt it will drop significantly. All the Leonardo Di Caprios and Al Gores can preach about needing cleaner energy since they can afford to take the extra cost of living. But to the average consumer, it's a difficult choice. So, will there be new taxes to support those who can't afford new forms of energy?

And other nations are an issue too. Developing countries rely on cheap energy and are willing to destroy their precious natural resources for short term gain because they feel they have no choice. Are the rich nations going to force them to use expensive energy? Is the US going to send more aid, and as a result cripple the growth (yes, cripple) of another nation? Will we start creating embargos to nations that don't comply?

It's not just a matter of having a cleaner world. I realize the importance of it but there are real human issues involved which makes this an extremely complex issue.

 

[HJ-Pinnelipe]

Exactly to the one above concerning better fuel sources.. I told my mom that I needed to get a hybrid car someday and she just laughed. Why? When we get "new" cars, they're the cars others are selling in front of their houses. You wont be finding too many newer types out there unless they're being sold for a very high price on someone's lawn. We don't get those cars because we're penny pinchers. We get them because we just can't afford a better option.

 

[Thaos Nightwind]

I don't think there really is a debate on whether the earth is warming up or not. The debate is on the question of why.

It's always good to consider the environment and to keep the earth as pristine as possible, again, no argument there. My issue is, at what cost to the poor and to the developing nations? As I said, it's easy to say we need to convert to different more expensive energy sources because they are somewhat cleaner but only because our nation can afford to deal with the costs. Many nations cannot do so and many people in the US can't do it either.

Take the hybrid cars right now. They are roughly $5K more expensive than the same model that uses only gasoline. Not every household can afford that. The argument is, hybrid car costs will drop. I doubt it will drop significantly. All the Leonardo Di Caprios and Al Gores can preach about needing cleaner energy since they can afford to take the extra cost of living. But to the average consumer, it's a difficult choice. So, will there be new taxes to support those who can't afford new forms of energy?

And other nations are an issue too. Developing countries rely on cheap energy and are willing to destroy their precious natural resources for short term gain because they feel they have no choice. Are the rich nations going to force them to use expensive energy? Is the US going to send more aid, and as a result cripple the growth (yes, cripple) of another nation? Will we start creating embargos to nations that don't comply?

It's not just a matter of having a cleaner world. I realize the importance of it but there are real human issues involved which makes this an extremely complex issue.

I read this like three times and loved every word of it.

 

[Dyngo]

I would like to add that its not about changing the car or not doing anything at all...
There's a lot of stuff to do. All the Al gores out there ain't preaching for you to get a new car, they are preaching for us to think differently. Do we really need to use the car as much? Do we really need to eat that much meat? Do we really need to keep every lamp bulb in the house on?

So if I cant afford the fancy car Navarre showed me (I cant even afford a car at all) I can try to do less driving if possible. Or if I cant afford a low energy light bulb, I can turn off the light instead of letting it burn. I might not need to buy stuff with 3 million layers of plastic before I reach the product and so on...

...I also think they preach for a more ecological economic thinking of all the big business out there, who don't seem to care much...

 

[Gate]

I don't think there really is a debate on whether the earth is warming up or not. The debate is on the question of why.

It's always good to consider the environment and to keep the earth as pristine as possible, again, no argument there. My issue is, at what cost to the poor and to the developing nations? As I said, it's easy to say we need to convert to different more expensive energy sources because they are somewhat cleaner but only because our nation can afford to deal with the costs. Many nations cannot do so and many people in the US can't do it either.

Take the hybrid cars right now. They are roughly $5K more expensive than the same model that uses only gasoline. Not every household can afford that. The argument is, hybrid car costs will drop. I doubt it will drop significantly. All the Leonardo Di Caprios and Al Gores can preach about needing cleaner energy since they can afford to take the extra cost of living. But to the average consumer, it's a difficult choice. So, will there be new taxes to support those who can't afford new forms of energy?

And other nations are an issue too. Developing countries rely on cheap energy and are willing to destroy their precious natural resources for short term gain because they feel they have no choice. Are the rich nations going to force them to use expensive energy? Is the US going to send more aid, and as a result cripple the growth (yes, cripple) of another nation? Will we start creating embargos to nations that don't comply?

It's not just a matter of having a cleaner world. I realize the importance of it but there are real human issues involved which makes this an extremely complex issue.

Taken point by point:

On where global warming comes from.
There exists large quantities of ample evidence indicating that the current warming trend we are seeing is like nothing the world has seen before. The sheer speed of the change is unparalleled according to the various ecological and geological benchmarks we have available to us. I could quote studies, but there are so many of them out there now, if you can't find a reputable one, you aren't looking. A scientist in Hawaii was the first person to really begin mapping out trends during the 1950s. He is an aquaintence of my science advisor from college and I've seen his raw findings as well as the many analyses that have been done. I've also heavily studied both sides of the argument on the way to my Environmental Studies degree. I've read books that speak of both the hoaxes and the realities and one side always fell flat: the side which says it's not human caused. I've seen far too much evidence personally to have doubt in my mind that at least a fair quantity of global warming is human caused.

On the topic of cost.
Pollution is waste and waste is inefficiency. Anyone who thinks that it costs more to avoid many kinds of pollution is mislead. Japan has undergone a very successful industry revolution in cleaning up their factories and what not and they have come out ahead. By polluting less, their money and power are going directly into useable output, not waste. They have all made back the money they spent 'going green' several times over. Effiency really does pay for itself.

On hybrid cars and overall gas effiency.
During the oil criss of the 1970s, automotive manufacturers improved gas effiency by 20-27%. If one looks at the gains in effiency that have been made since then, a very large question mark forms. Where did all the increases in effiency go? The answer is, they ceased to be profitable and in fact, gas effiency dropped again after the crisis ended. The reason for this is partnerships between oil and automotive companies. The argument over "who killed the electric car" fits 100% into this same category.
Hybrid cars are now a trend and are fashionable, but to be honest, even without them we could increase fuel effiency drastically without much cost or effort. Hybrids themselves are still new and, if combined with overall increases in fuel effiency, could yield significant reductions in consumtion without significant price increases.

On other countries. I firmly believe in promoting self-sufficiency in other nations. I don't think eternal aid is a good idea and I agree that it does more harm than good. But what about start-up aid? Provide incentives for nations to come clean with upgrades and (see previous argument), they will actually save money, have less health issues, and ultimately be able to pull their own weight much more effectively.

 

[Thaos Nightwind]

I've read books that speak of both the hoaxes and the realities and one side always fell flat: the side which says it's not human caused. I've seen far too much evidence personally to have doubt in my mind that at least a fair quantity of global warming is human caused.

This is the part of "green" psychology that... just ...

Could you explain why it is that enviromentalism seems to detest the human condition?

When you say that "at least a fair quantity of global warming is human caused" where else is this supposed warming coming from?

How far back does man's recording of the Earth's temperature go that this data is considered accurate?

According to The Leakey Foundation "The dating of the fossils has indicated that anatomically modern humans were walking this earth nearly 195,000 years ago." Now, within a relatively short period of time comparatively, computer models indicate that we are bad for the Earth?

Why isn't the supposed warming part of the Earth's naturally cyclical processes?

What temperature comparison are being used to determine this?

Who's conducting the experiments and how are they being funded? Is it in the best interest of funding to find these results?

Could it be the continual decimation of the rain forest that is causing this?

I have a lot of questions... I think many do. But we keep getting 'Trust us, we're scientist. You're not'. And vague 'The sky is falling' believe us or perish doctrines.

Couple this with "Deep Impact" theories (It could all end any day because of a rogue comet), and the supposed end result of a strictly gravity based universe (collapsing upon itself in The Big Crunch) or expanding forever until dying a cold death and holy smokes!!! It's all depression.

I see these types of dogma coming at my kids everyday through the education system and it has to be rebutted. there ahs to be practical real world living examples of how to have a normal cand and effect life without being pushed over the edge into defeatest catastrophism.

Just curious.

 

[Gate]

Thaos, I just want you to know that I'm not just venting at you. I'm getting a whole lot off of my chest in general, and then I'm shutting up.

There are people who have committed the last 40 years of their life doing research on this subject. They publish in scientific journals which are read by interested people and then only a few soundbites are released to the public. People demand always to "see the evidence" and then complain when it cannot be easily explained to them. It's honestly insulting to me when people use the "I don't buy that shady 'just trust us, we are scientists' argument." How is someone who has earned a doctorate in a subject and spent dozens of years studying and understanding it, supposed to easily and readily explain it to someone who has no special knowledge. Given that it is as complicated as the entire planet on which we live.

Do you trust the architect that designed the house you live in? Do you understand everything that goes into building a skyscraper? Would it make you unwilling to go into a skyscraper if the people who researched the structural integrity of the materials, and the proper designs, and so on might be part of a university research group (aka a shady special interest).

Do you question the weather when it comes on the news? Do you understand all the meteorology and hydrological concepts that go into predicting the weather? Why don't you question it if you don't understand the science behind it?

Science is everywhere. The word of scientists is trusted without question every time we ride in a car, ascend a skyscraper, spray bug killer, eat food, sleep on a bed made of sleep-aiding materials... and yet when they try to warn us of something we don't want to hear... suddenly science isn't trustworthy anymore...
The same scientific method is used... The same correlation tests are used... what is different?

And for the love of god, will someone please point out to me one single organization that has gotten rich off of funding to do research into global warming? Because I have heard that argument far too often: These guys are just making this up to get research funds to get rich.
If you want to talk about economic incentives, look to the other side- the oil companies and their millions of dollars of lobbying capabilities are quite unhappy about the conclusions many environmental scientists have drawn. Oil companies get rich off of not changing their ways. Scientists would find another project if this one wasn't giving them their salary. There is always more in the world to study, and always someone willing to fund research into even the most obscure subjects.

And yes, large views of the universe are generally bleak. It's not scientists' job to make us feel warm and fuzzy. It is their job to understand the part of the world around us that they have chosen as their focus. Wherever that understanding may lead and however unhappy the conclusions may be. When science is warm and fuzzy, it's generally junk science.

 

[Thaos Nightwind]

Thaos, I just want you to know that I'm not just venting at you. I'm getting a whole lot off of my chest in general, and then I'm shutting up.

er... okay. You can vent if you want. Like I said i'm just curious as to where/how this has come about. Please to understand. I'm Joe average. You know, wife, three kids, two cats. I have, and see, a lot of thought 'movements' (isms) coming to us with different notions of 'right' and 'wrong'. They don't get to just walk through the door without some sort of scrutiny. To me scrutiny is a sort of natural form of self preservation. So I ask questions. Especially when an -ism is trying to suggest the way I should live. You can unload bro. I have much respect for ya.

There are people who have committed the last 40 years of their life doing research on this subject. They publish in scientific journals which are read by interested people and then only a few soundbites are released to the public. People demand always to "see the evidence" and then complain when it cannot be easily explained to them. It's honestly insulting to me when people use the "I don't buy that shady 'just trust us, we are scientists' argument." How is someone who has earned a doctorate in a subject and spent dozens of years studying and understanding it, supposed to easily and readily explain it to someone who has no special knowledge. Given that it is as complicated as the entire planet on which we live.

Because as individuals or groups they have, maintain, and retain the right to discern for themselves what or what isn't in their best interest. Don't think that we, if I may be so bold as to speak for a discerning public, don't appreciate or want to believe in the work of science.

But please understand that - that desire or trust does not grant exclusive carte blanche acceptance of publically interpretated data. It was probablly science that warned of the dangers of "blind faith" (especially if we aren't given credit for understanding it's often cryptic world). Why then does it seem to revolt when it sees what may well be it's own reflection?

Do you trust the architect that designed the house you live in? Do you understand everything that goes into building a skyscraper? Would it make you unwilling to go into a skyscraper if the people who researched the structural integrity of the materials, and the proper designs, and so on might be part of a university research group (aka a shady special interest).

Do you question the weather when it comes on the news? Do you understand all the meteorology and hydrological concepts that go into predicting the weather? Why don't you question it if you don't understand the science behind it?

Science is everywhere. The word of scientists is trusted without question every time we ride in a car, ascend a skyscraper, spray bug killer, eat food, sleep on a bed made of sleep-aiding materials... and yet when they try to warn us of something we don't want to hear... suddenly science isn't trustworthy anymore...
The same scientific method is used... The same correlation tests are used... what is different?

I respectfully dissagree. In all of those examples you've sited you a would attest to a state of perfection being attained? No, I think not. Pharmaceutical companies have created some medicines meant to aid and have actually caused more harm than good. The floor of a building has never collapsed due to bad design? There has never been a recall on an automobile? No one fully relies on the evening wheather, you included.

The world of science is not unquestionably trusted. It becomes of value once it's theories have been proven in practical real world conditions. Prior to that said claims reside as 'theories'. I can't use the blinding light of progressive materialism (fancy products) as a reason to grant carte blanche acceptance of everything that comes out of scientific academe.

And for the love of god, will someone please point out to me one single organization that has gotten rich off of funding to do research into global warming? Because I have heard that argument far too often: These guys are just making this up to get research funds to get rich.

"the total amounts (in real dollars) that NASA has been budgeted from 1958 to 2007 amounts to $419.420 billion dollars -- an average of $8.559 billion per year. Measured in real terms (Meaning: if the value of $1.00 in 2007 equaled the value of $1.00 in 1958), the figure is $618.412 billion, or an average of $12.681 billion dollars per year over its' forty-nine year history." - Wiki

We "trust" NASA. Representatives have to justify those allocations yearly to Congress. I'm sure they fight for every dime. But has everything that came out of NASA been a good thing? The blanket 'trust' science sometimes seems to demand can cost lives. Whether with a thing so grand of a scale as NASA or so small as a pill.

If you want to talk about economic incentives, look to the other side- the oil companies and their millions of dollars of lobbying capabilities are quite unhappy about the conclusions many environmental scientists have drawn. Oil companies get rich off of not changing their ways. Scientists would find another project if this one wasn't giving them their salary. There is always more in the world to study, and always someone willing to fund research into even the most obscure subjects.

And yes, large views of the universe are generally bleak. It's not scientists' job to make us feel warm and fuzzy. It is their job to understand the part of the world around us that they have chosen as their focus. Wherever that understanding may lead and however unhappy the conclusions may be. When science is warm and fuzzy, it's generally junk science.

A pratical objective reality will suffice just fine as opposed to warm an fuzzy. But what if those conclusions are incorrect? What if the Universe is and always has been, and always will be? With It's prior state something we are not privy to know?

Science has gone so far as to propose being on the cusp of discovering "A Theory of Everything"? What are we to do with such a theory? What is the problem science has with the free Will of individuals to discern? Do they consider the general public as "someone who has no special knowledge"? Are we then to be unquestionably led hither and yon by those who consider themselves as having same?

I simply, and respectfully, disagree.

 

[Gate]

Not going into detail, just one quick response since I'm tired. Scientists don't hide anything from the public (unless there is something governmentally or militarily classified about it). They don't insist that people follow blindly. All scientific findings are published in journals for peer review. They are available to the general public and the press should they wish to obtain copies. In there, they can see the charts, hypotheses, methods, data, and conclusions for themselves. However, given the sheer quantity of such submissions and the sheer number of journals, it is highly impractical to seek out all data by yourself.

Still, for anyone who wants to look into it, all the info is there for the examining. The news media does a truely horrible job of reporting on science. Especially since it tends to try to show both sides of a story equally... if there are 99 reports that indicate that global warming is human caused and 1 that says there isn't, the media reports that there are "scientists who believe and ones who don't."

I firmly believe that innacurate media reporting of the studies are to blame for much of the current debate. Not long ago, the media was claiming that global warming was a subject of debate among scientists. However, (and this is an honest statistic) there had not been one single study done that said that global warming was not happening.
Fast forward just a couple of years and we have resolved that mythical debate and have moved on to another one. And yes, this one actually has some debate to it, but I don't believe there is as much of one as the media seems to indicate.

And let's face it... global temperatures start to rise as the world industrializes and CO2 emmisions perfectly parallel the rise in temperature? That's either a perfect correlation or one hell of a coincidence. Especially since we are pumping out vast quantities of CO2. Given a geologic scale of history, that is one hell of a coincidence for it to happen exactly at this time in human history (and not say, 100 years ago or a few decades in the future).

 

[Luciro]

Yeah no doubt Gate. It's funny how folks say it's the natural trend but it's been just 70 years since the degrees have raised in what history shows us is generally a few centuries.
It's happening, there's metric tons of carbon creating an effect that's currently happening on planets like Venus.
Not that it all matters anyway, the Earth has horrible PR.