Automotive Bailout vs. the morons in Washington

[nightflier]

Maybe my own LA, as well Houston, Dallas and other Western sprawling cities are also in need of some serious reduction. I'm not saying that there will be a big government program to do this, it's just that the economy will do it on it's own. The invisible hand, if you will. And some futurists have actually suggested that this will happen and that large sprawling metropolises will develop dead-zones and eventually divide into smaller sub-cities as populations seek to live closer together out of need.

As far as buses, if other countries can make them fuel efficient, then there's no reason to think we can't either. It's a matter of willpower and the inevitability of the economy. While I'm sure that electric buses aren't complete carbon-footprint solutions, the fact that they take many people more where they need to go, makes them far more efficient than the same number of individual automobiles. That's just simple math.

Regarding the Prius, it has some production issues, but absolutely nothing compared to an Escalade or even a Mustang. You're throwing the baby out with the bath water. Just because there are some issues with it, doesn't mean it should be completely abandoned. That's the kind of paralysis I was talking about. It saps the will out of our desire to change for the better. The Prius is leagues better than any non-hybrid. That's just fact. Ideally, Toyota should be using the technology to make public transportation, but I doubt that will happen any time soon. Actually, I'm pretty sure they are in other countries like Japan, right?

In any case, we don't need to stop Toyota from making Priuses, or to stop Ford and GM from making equally competitive hybrids, just because there are issues. What we need to do is perfect the technology. The US has the capacity, the educational foundation (at least partly), and the manpower to make better hybrids. Let's learn from the mistakes of Toyota and make a better one. We've turned our economy around before, so there's no reason to think we can't do it again.

[nightflier]

You really need to expand your reading. There are many scientists who disagree and question the evidence put forth in the movie.

Name a few. No actually, just name one.

Also, the rest of world does need to step up and take their share of the blame. China is probably one of the worst polliters in our world's lifetime.

So you did not see the movie, then? China's footprint is something like 1/2 to 1/3 of ours. I suggest you get in your gas-guzzler, run down to Blockbuster, and check out this movie. It will open your eyes.

Anyone? You and the people who have authored the articles you are reading are not "everyone." Many common people and scientist do support such a position.

Again, go see the movie. They're pretty clear about who all these "scientists" are. Actually there aren't any. Funny how that works, no?

Go see the movie, already. It won't kill you. If I can listen to Rush Limbaugh without puking, I'm sure you could sit through 2 hours of some reality.

[ForeverAutumn]

Name a few. No actually, just name one.

Read this.

And before you knock this off as being from guy who just wrote books, check out his autobiography and the rest of his essays and speeches.

Crichton graduated summa cum laude from Harvard College, received his MD from Harvard Medical School, and was a postdoctoral fellow at the Salk Institute for Biological Studies, researching public policy with Jacob Bronowski. He taught courses in anthropology at Cambridge University and writing at MIT. Crichton's 2004 bestseller, State of Fear, acknowledged the world was growing warmer, but challenged extreme anthropogenic warming scenarios. He predicted future warming at 0.8 degrees C. (His conclusions have been widely misstated.)

[ForeverAutumn]

FA,

The movie isn't considered hogwash by most folks around the globe.

So what? Most people think that Britney Spears' music is good too. That doesn't make it true.

[nightflier]

FA, Crichton is widely discredited, especially internationally, and is not even respected in the academic community. He also isn't knowledgeable or educated in key issues dealing with climate change and cannot back his findings up with scientific research. But we can debate that ad infinitum, list links of things that might support one postition of the other, and we'll never be done.

So leave that out of this. Let's just take the his prediction of "future warming at 0.8 degrees C." Well do you realize what that would do to the environment? And let's not forget that the last time this was heralded, was in 2006. Between 2006 and 2008, the temperature has increased another .3 degrees alone. This shows a dramatic exponential growth in the last two years. This is an aggregated figure based on surface temperature that takes the small variations into account.

And as for the movie, it has solid scientific backing and is respected by most scientific authorities. Whether these scientists are 60% or 99% is completely inconsequential, they are the vast majority and this has nothing to do with how many people listen to Britney Spears? That's the kind of redirection I expect to hear from Anne Coulter.

So how much climate change do you need to see around you before it starts to hit home? You can't tell me that things in Canada are the same now as they were 10, 20, 30 years ago. Can you honestly claim that average temperatures in Canada aren't up just a smidgen since you were a child?

[JSE]

Name a few. No actually, just name one.

Here are a few form about a 10 second search on Google. They are many things that are disputed with the movie. The cause of recent temp increases, the severity, how long with it continue, has it stopped, etc. etc.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...global_warming

So you did not see the movie, then? China's footprint is something like 1/2 to 1/3 of ours. I suggest you get in your gas-guzzler, run down to Blockbuster, and check out this movie. It will open your eyes.

Yes, I have seen the movie. Again, don't I take the movie as fact but merely an opinion. China has a long way to go in terms of pollution control. China's ecomony has grown ten fold over the last few years, I'm guessing their "footprint" has as well.

Again, go see the movie. They're pretty clear about who all these "scientists" are. Actually there aren't any. Funny how that works, no?

Again, saw it. I'm sure the scientist mentioned in the movie would have no reason to discredit opposing views would they? Multiple side to every story.

Go see the movie, already. It won't kill you. If I can listen to Rush Limbaugh without puking, I'm sure you could sit through 2 hours of some reality.

Since I have seen the movie why don't you do me a favor and read some opposing views about Global Warming. It won't kill, you. You might even learn something. Try forming opinions on your own and don't just soak up what it spoonfed to you. Try thinking on your own.

The Inconvenient Halftruth has done some great things for our country and the world. It has opened people eyes up to the health of our environment. It also kindof lumped our environment's health and global warming into the same basket. I think there is more to it. Our environmental health and global warming are two different things. They are related yet very different issues. I think we can probably all agree we need to get off oil, clean up our environment and makes changes to limited our impact on our planet. I doubt many would disagree with that. However, many still disagree with what has caused global warming and whether is has any significant effect on our environment. Is global waming something that was caused by humans or is it just part of the earth natural cycle? I think that is still up for debate. I for one am not ready to to say it's purely caused by humans. I know you Nightflier have already made your mind up based on a movie but many others have taken to time to look a little deeper.

Anyway, I don't want to get into a long argument about this. You have your opinions and I have mine. For pretty much every scientist you can show me that thinks global warming is man made, I can show you a scientist who differs. I guess we will have to wait and see.

And for the record, I bet I'm a bigger environmentalists than you think. You would be suprised. I have volunteered a lot of my time locally and even some around the country helping where I can. Just because I have issues with the Global Warming frenzy, it does not mean I am not very concerned about the health of our planet. Again, two different things.

[topspeed]

- Why can't our car manufacturers gradually change from making SUVs and sports cars to making more buses, trains, and trams as well as energy efficient vehicles?

They can. GRADUALLY. The Fusion Hybrid sports the highest mpg of any midsize sedan in NA, but that's just one car. You can't legislate innovation. It takes 4 to 5 years to engineer one new car. One. And yet Washington believes we can makeover an entire industry to average 35mpg in the equivalent of 2 model cycles. That won't just require money, it will require an act of God.

- If a bicycle is out of the question, how about a motorized low-carbon-footprint bike, maybe even an electric one you can charge at work? It's only 12 miles. Then there's Segways, some even come with a cover for the rain. Maybe Ford and GM should make these too?

Have you ever been to Tucson? Have you priced a Segway? Dude, you live in Newport! How many of your cronies commute to LA, Long Beach, or Riverside? Now imagine doing that on a bicycle with the lunatic drivers of SoCal. The average lifespan of a motorcyclist in SoCal is 18 months. Lord knows what it wouldl be for a bicyclist. Unlike Europe or Japan, our country and cities are spread out over quite a bit more surface area.

- With more demand for public transportation, more bicycles, scooters, buses, trains, and trams will appear. The reason we don't have it now is because we've allowed the demand to diminish.

See above.

- Maybe once we take a seat next to the people who clean our homes and tend to our yards, we'll gain some respect for their choices or lack thereof.

Are you saying people that drive cars instead of take public transportation are elitists? Seriously?

But the one thing we can't do is allow our current depression about our economy and our industry to paralyze us and keep us from doing anything. Just because these changes seem so great doesn't mean we shouldn't start making them a little at a time. Unfortunately, the American auto industry will suffer major changes very fast, no matter what we do. It's already happening and will continue to happen until supply once again is in line with demand.

Agreed. From a purely idealogical point of view, there isn't a person on the planet that doesn't want more efficient, economical, and ecological transportation. Do you really think the car manufacturers intentionally produce cars that produce excessive carbon emissions or get poor mileage?

The reality is that the Big 3, along with everyone else, is facing the worst economic environment since the Depression. BMW has stated they have at most 2 years of working capital and then they are done. You can't blame the previous administration for BMW's, Mercedes', Nissan's, or anybody else's problems. To state domestic manufacturer's have intentionally ignored innovation is patently unfair. In the last decade alone we've seen hybrid and fuel cell cars (well, sorta) released on public roads and in 2011 Chevy will introduce the first mass production plug-in hybrid in the Volt. Unlike Honda or Toyota's hybrids which use an electric motor to assists a gas engine, the Volt is an electric car that uses a gas engine to charge the battery for longer range. It's a different philosophy altogether and America is building it first. Not Japan. Not Europe.

We've just been ignoring these facts so much that the rest of the world has passed us by. That doesn't mean we can't catch up, but we better start doing it right away. The head-in-the-sand mentality we witnessed in the last 8 years just won't save us. We have to start somewhere. And since this is an audio forum, maybe the one place we can all start is by choosing a less expensive amp the next time around, or barring that, postponing that "next time" a little while. Every little bit counts if enough people participate.

Hey, just dig out your HCA2 (among the other 36 amps you have lying around) and you can rest easy knowing it wastes considerably less energy than a Class A or A/B amp.

[Feanor]

...
Agreed. From a purely idealogical point of view, there isn't a person on the planet that doesn't want more efficient, economical, and ecological transportation. Do you really think the car manufacturers intentionally produce cars that produce excessive carbon emissions or get poor mileage?
...

This is exactly what I have said. First minivans, then SUVs and pickup trucks, all gas guzzlers. Without them the NA makers would have tanked long since. Sure, in times of cheap gas these are what the public wanted, more fool them. And the automakers went for the quick buck even though it was evident that cheap gas wouln't last forever; nor did they plan for that inevidability except too little too late.

And let me ask. How come gas was so cheap in NA? In Europe for example gas has always been heavily taxed. This is the main reason that cars are smaller and more efficient there, not the narrow streets. And why they have far, far better public transit. Gee gosh, I wonder who lobbied for cheap gas, not just the oil industry.

Come to think of it, maybe the biggest problem with capitialism is that self-interest in anything but the shortest term doesn't actually work reliably. The fast buck trumps the ten-year strategy every time. Greenspan recently admitted that he was mistake in his believe the self-interest was sufficient to control the financial industry.

...
Hey, just dig out your HCA2 (among the other 36 amps you have lying around) and you can rest easy knowing it wastes considerably less energy than a Class A or A/B amp.

Good call.

[Rich-n-Texas]

Agreed. From a purely idealogical point of view, there isn't a person on the planet that doesn't want more efficient, economical, and ecological transportation. Do you really think the car manufacturers intentionally produce cars that produce excessive carbon emissions or get poor mileage?

Well yeah, I want a more efficient, economical and ecologically sound 350 RWHP all aluminium ('cept for the guts) V8 in my next Pontiac. However, that doesn't mean I agree with... whatsisname? Bore? (BTW, he invented the internet ya know)

[Feanor]

FA, Crichton is widely discredited, especially internationally, and is not even respected in the academic community. He also isn't knowledgeable or educated in key issues dealing with climate change and cannot back his findings up with scientific research. But we can debate that ad infinitum, list links of things that might support one postition of the other, and we'll never be done.
...

So how much climate change do you need to see around you before it starts to hit home? You can't tell me that things in Canada are the same now as they were 10, 20, 30 years ago. Can you honestly claim that average temperatures in Canada aren't up just a smidgen since you were a child?

Despite seemingly good credentials, Michael Criction, is quitely regarded as an a$$hole by climatologists, (though they are too polite to so name him publically).

The most sensible thing I've heard him say is that climate change is happening and the some portion of the resources targeted a preventing change would be better spend adapting to the change.

Climatic changes are very noticable, especially in northern Canada and the Canadian Arctic.

[ForeverAutumn]

FA, Crichton is widely discredited, especially internationally, and is not even respected in the academic community. He also isn't knowledgeable or educated in key issues dealing with climate change and cannot back his findings up with scientific research. But we can debate that ad infinitum, list links of things that might support one postition of the other, and we'll never be done.

So leave that out of this. Let's just take the his prediction of "future warming at 0.8 degrees C." Well do you realize what that would do to the environment? And let's not forget that the last time this was heralded, was in 2006. Between 2006 and 2008, the temperature has increased another .3 degrees alone. This shows a dramatic exponential growth in the last two years. This is an aggregated figure based on surface temperature that takes the small variations into account.

And as for the movie, it has solid scientific backing and is respected by most scientific authorities. Whether these scientists are 60% or 99% is completely inconsequential, they are the vast majority and this has nothing to do with how many people listen to Britney Spears? That's the kind of redirection I expect to hear from Anne Coulter.

So how much climate change do you need to see around you before it starts to hit home? You can't tell me that things in Canada are the same now as they were 10, 20, 30 years ago. Can you honestly claim that average temperatures in Canada aren't up just a smidgen since you were a child?

Fair enough. I admitted from the start that I am uneducated on this topic. Crichton's speech is a "case for skeptism", not a case to prove right or wrong. My favourite part of the speech isn't the science or the technical aspects which were, for the most part, over my head. It was the logic and the conclusion that I agree with.

I've also heard people dismiss Al Gore's conclusions as well. So who's right? We'll probably never know in our lifetime.

As for the Britney Spears comment, it wasn't meant to be a redirection. I was simply trying to point out that majority doesn't always rule. Lots of people like and believe Micheal Moore's movies too. Which I think are biased and full of rubbish.

And, for what it's worth, the last two years' winters here have set records for snow fall and cold temperatures...but that's just the small picture, I know.

[Auricauricle]

FA: I agree with your description of the Crichton piece, which can be read more as a treatise on "skepticism" than on Global Warming. One thing that years of statistics courses and literature review reading has taught me is that while science has made great strides in developing machinery, the fundamental measures of data (statistics) have pretty much remained the same. Statistics is the language of science, and it deals with probability and certainty, just our best educated hunches. I think it is laudable that we realise that we are fallible, but sometimes we forget that even our most accurate instruments are capable only as far as the designers make them. The science of global warming may or may not be exact or certain; worst case scenarios and the data that is used to refute them are all based on this imperfect certainty. All of this makes everybody right and everybody wrong. Most important, for scientists and everyone else to remember is to never take anything, no matter how plausible or politically correct, without a good dose of skepticism.

[Rich-n-Texas]

FA: I agree with your description of the Crichton piece, which can be read more as a treatise on "skepticism" than on Global Warming. One thing that years of statistics courses and literature review reading has taught me is that while science has made great strides in developing machinery, the fundamental measures of data (statistics) have pretty much remained the same. Statistics is the language of science, and it deals with probability and certainty, just our best educated hunches. I think it is laudable that we realise that we are fallible, but sometimes we forget that even our most accurate instruments are capable only as far as the designers make them. The science of global warming may or may not be exact or certain; worst case scenarios and the data that is used to refute them are all based on this imperfect certainty. All of this makes everybody right and everybody wrong. Most important, for scientists and everyone else to remember is to never take anything, no matter how plausible or politically correct, without a good dose of skepticism.

Well put The Dude.

However, one on here's mind will be changed, just like with politics.

[JSE]

FA: I agree with your description of the Crichton piece, which can be read more as a treatise on "skepticism" than on Global Warming. One thing that years of statistics courses and literature review reading has taught me is that while science has made great strides in developing machinery, the fundamental measures of data (statistics) have pretty much remained the same. Statistics is the language of science, and it deals with probability and certainty, just our best educated hunches. I think it is laudable that we realise that we are fallible, but sometimes we forget that even our most accurate instruments are capable only as far as the designers make them. The science of global warming may or may not be exact or certain; worst case scenarios and the data that is used to refute them are all based on this imperfect certainty. All of this makes everybody right and everybody wrong. Most important, for scientists and everyone else to remember is to never take anything, no matter how plausible or politically correct, without a good dose of skepticism.

Like Money Bags said, well put, Dude!

I could not and have not been able to say it any better.

[ForeverAutumn]

Sorry, I'm just rereading this and want to make a couple more comments. I am, by nature, a skeptic and I question everything and accept almost nothing at face value just because someone says it is so. I want it proven to me.

Let's just take the his prediction of "future warming at 0.8 degrees C." Well do you realize what that would do to the environment?

Prediction. Exactly. And if the prediction is wrong and we've wasted billions of dollars on this and ignored larger more pressing issues, then what?

And let's not forget that the last time this was heralded, was in 2006. Between 2006 and 2008, the temperature has increased another .3 degrees alone. This shows a dramatic exponential growth in the last two years. This is an aggregated figure based on surface temperature that takes the small variations into account.

It was -14 Celcius yesterday. It is +4 today. That's a swing of 18 degrees in one day and you want me to be concerned about .3 degrees over two years? Not that this isn't concerning if exponentially multiplied, but two years is really not a substantial enough sample to convince me that this is a real scientific pattern. What will your argument be if the temperature drops .3 degrees in the next two years?

I'm not saying that we shouldn't be concerned about this and that we shouldn't be doing what we can to make the world a healthier place to live in. I'm just suggesting that it's not the world's biggest problem right now and until scientists can agree, I think that the world's resources are better applied elsewhere. My own personal opinion, of course.

[Rich-n-Texas]

The world needs to focus its resources on ME, and MY needs!

[Auricauricle]

Bloody narcissist!

[Feanor]

...
The science of global warming may or may not be exact or certain; worst case scenarios and the data that is used to refute them are all based on this imperfect certainty. All of this makes everybody right and everybody wrong. Most important, for scientists and everyone else to remember is to never take anything, no matter how plausible or politically correct, without a good dose of skepticism.

The naysayers could turn out to totally right about global warming, or global warming and its consequences could turn out to be worse than even the most dire predictions.

But take a lesson from game theory:

• What if we try to slow down non-existent global warming? We p!ss away a few hundreds of billions of $$ and end up with nothing to show except less polution, decades more of oil & natural gas, and maybe, e.g., get better public transit.
• What if we ignore actual global warming? We temporarily save a few hundred billion dollars, but then have to, (among other things), relocated the extimated 600 million people who now live in costal regions that will be flooded.

It would be foolhardy to take no action 'till global warming is proven. Of course, whenever there is big change, somebody's ox gets gored, (no pun intended). And ox owners will tend to resist change that's why their called "conservatives".

[kexodusc]

The naysayers could turn out to totally right about global warming, or global warming and its consequences could turn out to be worse than even the most dire predictions.

But take a lesson from game theory:

• What if we try to slow down non-existent global warming? We p!ss away a few hundreds of billions of $$ and end up with nothing to show except less polution, decades more of oil & natural gas, and maybe, e.g., get better public transit.
• What if we ignore actual global warming? We temporarily save a few hundred billion dollars, but then have to, (among other things), relocated the extimated 600 million people who now live in costal regions that will be flooded.

It would be foolhardy to take no action 'till global warming is proven. Of course, whenever there is big change, somebody's ox gets gored, (no pun intended). And ox owners will tend to resist change that's why their called "conservatives".

I just wrote a rather long-winded post that said the exact same thing, in way more words.

Well done.

From a risk management perspective, working now to prevent global warming is the only logical conclusion. Even if it turns out to be a myth. It's because we don't know, and because there's reasonable evidence and cause to worry, that we should commit some resources now, not 100% of efforts, but something meaningul to try and keep on top of things.

The consequence of error is catastrophe.

I'd rather give posterity the benefit of hindsight to ignore the global warming myth, than to burden them with floods and fires, and droughts and dirty air, and all the bad stuff global warming is predicting.

For me the question is do I take responsibility and accept a tolerable, affordable, small share of the cost now, or do I ignore it for whatever reason and place all the risk on future generations to benefit me today?

But I'm only 1 vote.

[Auricauricle]

Sounds a bit like Blaise Pascal's Wager concerning the belief in God: You're left with two choices, believing in God or not and, consequently four possible outcomes. If you choose to believe and God exists, you've probably made a good decision. If God does not exist, what does it matter? If you choose not to believe and God exists, then you might be screwed. If God does not exist, again, what does it matter? Parallel that to taking up matters if Global Warming is an actuality or not. Seems the prudent thing would be to do something about it....Either way, seems that taking better care of the planet is not a bad idea, no matter how you look at it.

[JSE]

The naysayers could turn out to totally right about global warming, or global warming and its consequences could turn out to be worse than even the most dire predictions.

But take a lesson from game theory:

• What if we try to slow down non-existent global warming? We p!ss away a few hundreds of billions of $$ and end up with nothing to show except less polution, decades more of oil & natural gas, and maybe, e.g., get better public transit.
• What if we ignore actual global warming? We temporarily save a few hundred billion dollars, but then have to, (among other things), relocated the extimated 600 million people who now live in costal regions that will be flooded.

It would be foolhardy to take no action 'till global warming is proven. Of course, whenever there is big change, somebody's ox gets gored, (no pun intended). And ox owners will tend to resist change that's why their called "conservatives".

Well said but,

Like I said in previous post, Global Warming and our world's environmental health are two different things. They "may" be related but they are two completely different issues.

I love the fact the world (well some of the world) now has a sense of urgency about our environment and I love the fact people are more concerned than ever. I hope it continues. We clearly need to make some drastic changes before it's too late.

However, I do have a problem with the insistence that "Global Warming" is something that is here to stay and that it's caused by mankind. Like it or not, there is increasing evidence it may not be on both accounts. We just don't know.

I don't think Gore or the scientist promoting GW thought the "theory" (yes, nightflier it's only a theory) would catch on and become the huge issue it is today in our world. I think they have no choice now but to uphold their beliefs. Some however, have changed their minds and have spoken out about the effects, extent and causes of GW. Of course they have been attacked relentlessly. Wonder why?

[Auricauricle]

I think things like GW come and go like the wind....Call 'em paradigm shifts or how about paradigm streams of consciousness....What is hot and bothersome today will matter not a whit tomorrow.

[JSE]

For me the question is do I take responsibility and accept a tolerable, affordable, small share of the cost now, or do I ignore it for whatever reason and place all the risk on future generations to benefit me today?

But I'm only 1 vote.

My thoughts exactly. I think we all need to take responsibility to do what's best for the health of our planet. But let's not get carried away with spending billions and trillions on solutions to problems that may or may not exists. Spend the money and time wisely on things that will have a direct positive impact. Fuel efficiency, cleaner fuels, less polution, etc are all things we can do now.

But again, doing the above things are independent on whether GW is real or not.

[Auricauricle]

Ah, huh...Whether they may or may not exist, that is a question....But what is possible and what is probable, that's another....Whatchougonnado?

[nightflier]

A few of points that have been brought up:

- An Inconvenient Truth addresses many of these questions head on. Of primary importance is the idea that there is some kind of balance between the naysayers and the supporters. This is not at all the case, and the movie explains this quite well - that is the "Inconvenient Truth."

- I did a little research and Canada is indeed seeing a small temperature drop that's been going on for a couple of years now. That said, it has also seen a severe reduction of the permanent ice it once had, as much as 30%, and this has been going on for about 50 years now. This will have tremendous ramifications for access to fresh water for Canadians and is having a considerable effect on Canadian wildlife and plant life.

- Since warming at the poles is even more acute than at the equator (as much as 3-4 times as acute), the reduction of the ice shelves there is more severe. From the Times: "Whilst snow-covered ice reflects more than 80% of the sun's heat, the darker ocean absorbs up to 95% of solar radiation. Once sea ice begins to melt, the process becomes self-reinforcing. More ocean surface is revealed, absorbing solar heat, raising temperatures and making it unlikelier that ice will re-form next winter. The disappearance of 720,000 square kilometres of supposedly permanent ice in a single year testifies to the rapidity of planetary change." (The article was referring to 2006.)

- .8 degrees + a shift of another .3 degrees = +1 degree of average temperature increase. When this last happened, thousands of years ago, most of the area that is now the Midwest was desert. Imagine a 1930's style dust bowl that covers an area from Mexico to Nebraska (maybe even parts of Canada). And this is just what will happen here in the US, nothing compared to what would happen in India and China (where many of our vital goods come from).

- And where is that water then? In the ocean, where water levels will rise, thus affecting coastlines.

- While this water will dilute the salt water of the ocean, this effect will be minor. More importantly, the ocean is still salt water. This will affect whole ecosystems both on the coast and in the water.

- The problem with climate change is that it builds on itself and grows exponentially. Seemingly unrelated factors come into play that exacerbate the problem and make it grow even faster. The idea that we can just study the effects of, let's say, mercury pollution, without any regard of what else mercury affects or what else affects it, isn't even scientific.

Here's a sensible 2-page article that explains these topics and their relationships quite well: http://www.cutcarbonnow.com/Images/C...done%20for.pdf

Now I'm an optimist. I think if we let ourselves be overwhelmed by the enormity of the problem before us, we risk doing nothing. That is the greatest danger. Likewise, if we don't tackle the American car culture at the same time that we rejoin Kyoto, reduce unnecessary warfare, curb industrial pollution, repair endangered ecosystems, plant a tree, and participate in as many initiatives as possible, then we won't be doing enough. One point Gore makes very well in the movie is that a combination of initiatives is the only sensible approach to reversing the growth in these trends.

But the one thing we can't do is assume that there is nothing going on - most of the people who say this are either scared or have an interest in convincing others of this falsehood. There aren't any credible scientists who claim that global warming is not influenced by human activity. The ones that do are either paid to say so or not qualified to make the claim. The rest of the folks who claim so aren't even scientists. There is something very alarming going on all around us and by some stroke of luck many of us here in the US feel it less than the rest of the world. But it's starting to hit home, yes, even in Canada.

But if you haven't seen the movie, then there really is little to talk about. It is that important. I avoided the movie for years because I disliked Gore that much. I listened to the right-wing nonsense that discredited the movie before it was even released. That was a big mistake. Yes Gore just as boring as before; yes, it's full of political innuendos; and yes it's extremely simplistic from a scientific standpoint. But the message and the evidence behind it is quite astounding.

So if you haven't seen the movie, then you can't discredit it wholesale. Go see it, take from it what you will, and then come back and tell us what you think. Many of the arguments above are addressed in the movie, including the naysayers, the smaller opposite temperature fluctuations, the automobile industry, the carbon footprint of the US compared to China, the meaning of a 1 degree temperature increase, the need for a comprehensive approach, the human psychology about it, and a whole lot more. Yes, it has a lot of info, so rent it & watch it. Then trash it if you still want to, but I doubt you will.