Global Warming, Certainty and a Political Agenda

Oh boy. What'll they put in the windows of hydrogen cars that "pollute" with water vapor?

According to wikipedia, atmospheric water vapor causes 36% of the greenhouse effect. Carbon dioxide is responsible for 9%.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect#Greenhouse_gases

There is no silver bullet.

Mechanic, I'd love to hear a coherent argument about the policy issues here (CARB etc.). But don't mix in the incoherent and simply wrong. As "starbird" said, the babble that scientists disagree about global warming is just propaganda by a minuscule and shrinking group of scientists and meteorologists who don't understand the science (at best) or at worst are in the pay of oil companies like Exxon. They are the ones who get a disproportionate share of media attention. Media outlets--even liberal ones--have a belief that you have to show two sides of every issue. So they attempt to show two sides of the global warming issue when the science is conclusive. It's entirely analogous to always calling in a flat-earthers when someone talks about the earth being round.

The Mechanic: Amen!

First, water vapor is the biggest contributor to the greenhouse effect. Apparently somebody hasn't made their pareto chart right, since they're tackling number 2 on the list.

Second, mankind's input of carbon into the carbon cycle is almost negligible compared with natural carbon emissions. Is it really a crisis if your health insurance costs go up next year by $2 a month? It's only a crisis if large changes occur.

Third, an increase in carbon dioxide is actually a good thing since it promotes plant growth. What do plants breathe? That's right, CO2. Flora will flourish.

Fourth, the evidence that some scientists cite that global warming is due to human activity is purely circumstantial. If your great uncle lost 15 pounds before passing away, would you then conclude that his passing was due to losing weight, regardless of any other health or environmental conditions? There is more than a shadow of a doubt here, folks. Scientists don't yet have enough knowledge about climatic interactions to know conclusively one way or another. People lambasted Bush for making decisions on "bad science", but this is the exact same thing!

Fifth, even if global warming is taking place, a half a degree per century is hardly noticeable. Has Grandma ever mentioned that the summers are so much hotter now that the world's temperature has increased by 0.5C? Or that sea level is so much higher? Or that her back yard is more of a desert? We're an arrogant species to think we can change the climate with a few bits of legislation and outlawing gasoline engines or, conversely, with coal-burning power plants and Hummers.

Sixth, let's say for the sake of arguement that global warming IS taking place. That's not a bad thing. If you look, historically, life was booming during periods of extended warmth, and mass extinctions were preceded by a DROP in temperature, not a rise. A sustained temperature rise would then increase global productivity, starting with something as simple as increased crop yields. Or would you hippies rather people starve in your legislated ice age?

The Mechanic: I've often wondered the same thing as in your last paragraph. Will this fad go the way of bellbottoms and beanie babies? Really, it wasn't very long ago that the scientific consensus was that we were heading into another ice age...

That is all.

"The only reason they started with cars because people can see it coming out of the exhaust pipe."

No you can't see it.
You see the "Smog Score".
You can't see the "Global Warming Score".

The Smog causing pollutants change the air today.
The global warming gases change the climate in a decade, not today.

I still care more about the smog score, that stuff that really causes allergies/ asthma/ breathing/ health problems.

Screw the CO2. Screw the children the next decade. I want my clean air today. I only look at the Smog Score. The Score that killed diesel engines until this year.

BTW temperatures are hitting record lows this year.
I really don't care about the "Global Warming Score".
I want my tropical weather back. Thanks Prius buyers.

Here's some important and balanced perspective.

"Journalists have warned of climate change for 100 years, but can’t decide weather we face an ice age or warming. "
http://www.businessandmedia.org/specialreports/2006/fireandice/fireandice.asp

I think it would be great if all the car companies got together and agreed to stop selling cars in CA. If they could still stay in business CA would have to wonder what they were thinking.

I agree with the statement in the article about scientists not being able to agree about the entire issue of global warming. There are so many different theories out there its hard to determine who's argument is more legitimate and overall makes more sense. Personally I feel like its a hoax that is sending our nation into an uproar about something that is a natural process of the Earth. Its driving me insane because I feel like the only side of the story thats being exposed is the side that is very pro global warming, hence Al Gore. I feel that if the media, as well as Al Gore did not publicize Global Warming as much then it would not be such a big deal and the world could cross one thing off of their "worry list."

It's really simple. No one is being forced to buy a car with a better score; they're just being given the information. And what if the majority of scientist who do believe in global warming are right? WE'RE SCREWED!!!!

If they're wrong? Well, it's not like there won't be ENOUGH of the gases and all the plants will die. We'll have used less petroleum because that's really the way to emit less gases. And that will likely make us more secure since less of our wealth went to nations than don't like us nearly as much as they like our money.

Oh, and now that you've given out the web address, the whole country can use the system to compare 50-state certified vehicles and those who are in the states that follow Calif. regs can even compare Calif. certified vehicles, so it might make more of an impact than you thought.

THANK YOU starbird.. this is so dumb.. if you do any sort of research you will find that there actually is NO debate. Certain people have injected into the mentality of the uninformed public that there IS a big debate and no one is really sure. They use quotes from people who are not in the field and have no reason to be quoted in the first place.
George Bush's white house itself called the US National Academy of Sciences the gold standard of scientific assessment. This same Academy stated that the government's of the world should act to reduce carbon dioxide and pollutant output. By the way its called global warming because the average temperature of the Earth is rising.. not your backyard last Saturday night.
The point of all this? Understand now: there is no debate, 99% of scientists in respected organizations agree - the climate is changing, and we are not helping. This is another example of the ignorant spreading his so called "truth".

P.S. the only debate is at how fast and how much humans contribute.. not whether we have any affect at all.

http://www.edf.org/page.cfm?tagID=1011 (call it biased.. but just some reading(

I find a few points worth mentioning as well:

1) The very human activity of breathing contributes...a LOT...to CO2 emissions, by elementary school scientific knowledge. Multiply the amount of breaths we take times the amount of people in the world, and you've got a lot of CO2 being emitted, am I right?

2) Didn't this argument all begin when fuel prices rose? Then we started seeing the scary apocalyptic ads of nasty oil refineries, Hummers after they've cold started with white visible exhaust smoke (not a single 80's Toyota spewing out the stuff you can see AND smell), and bam, fuel consumption and emissions are linked together (duh!).

3) ...which led to the argument that American manufacturers are nearly completely devoid of fuel efficient cars (while the Focus and Cobalt were on the top 10 selling vehicles list, as well as the 27-30mpg highway Impala). No, the problem is not that the Americans don't make completely adequate appliances, it's that we can't make them at a profit yet, unlike Toyota and Honda.

4) Now, pandering to this new psyche created by greenies, Pres. Obama is about ready to let California (with the hypocrite, Scwarzenneger himself leading the way) set even stricter, damn near unreasonable emissions restrictions that will further financially cripple already struggling automakers who make competitive vehicles (as far as emissions and efficiency) to the Japanese.

sidebar: Mr. Scwarzenneger IS a hyprocrite because, I remind you, word has it that he takes a private jet from LA to Sacramento every day to carry out his work, he is the owner of multiple Hummers (including, I believe an 8.1L gas powered version made just for him), as well as a brand new Challenger SRT-8, yet he is SO concerned about the environment, isn't he? Where are the people trying to recall HIM?

Thank you, I never saw I would see an article like this come out of a California media source. If anyone really doesn't think that man-made global warming is a political agenda, go ahead and google long term climate ice core. The one thing you can conclude when looking at a long term (meaning hundreds of thousands of years, not just thousands) is that earth's climate oscillates with highs arriving predictably and cooling off unfortunately fast. How can we say that this increase in temperature is man-caused when none of the dozens of previous ones were?

P.S. As far as scientists not agreeing, I couldn't agree more and I double majored in both chemistry and physics.

I guess my question would be "what does it matter?"

If climate change is imminent, what is the point of arguing over it's causes? Of course I want clean air, but CO2 isn't taking that away from me. Go back to concentrating on things like smog and toxic waste. We're losing ground by centering our focus on a rather trivial molecule. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if we were redirecting funding away from other EPA programs that actually do something.

It's so easy to believe in global warming until you start researching and there's so much confronting facts. To me, it's just the regular climate change the planet is going through. Regardless of how fast or not, we were never around all the times it happened before when the planet when from hot to a snow ball and then back again so we can't really see why it happened, only guess. Only thing that sucks about this is the people believe this garbage and then we have to pay stupid taxes or you have these raving lunatics saying how my V6 or V8 car is killing the environment while their hybrid is saving it. The planet throws out enough gases of its own to make cars a small factor. Think of how much gas comes out of a volcano. Planet's climate is going to change regardless of what we do. As soon as the whole CO2 thing goes away, there will be something new. I agree with estreka that we need to focus on smog and toxic waste more.

First off, anyone who uses the term "GLOBAL WARMING" is foolish and should be immediately ejected from the conversation. Its CLIMATE CHANGE, and the effect of humans has not been agreed upon, regardless of what the media, the government OR people on this site say.

That being said, obviously we should be using as little as possible and contributing as little as possible. This isn't to stop an imminent ice age or increase in temperature, its just simple logic.

The message of using less and contributing less is a good thing, but the reason behind the message - media attention, increased taxes, etc - is often a bad one.

Live using less, but do it for the right reasons.

The Mechanic is a moron and his columns will soon drive me to stop reading Edmunds.com

No rational person with a brain who has seen any of the mountains of evidence can reasonably deny that human activity is the primary cause for the climate change we have seen and will continue to see in coming decades.

The Mechanic is an idiot and is part of the problem.

Whew.....I'm glad that the readers and writers of Inside Line have finally figured out the whole global warming thing. Thank God for the internet. We can finally tell all those PhDs to go stuff it! Im pulling the cat converters off my cars today and going to get some Taco Bell so that I can personally create more methane (another one of the fabled greenhouse gases). Bring back leaded fuel!

I enjoy listening to comments concerning the global warming/climate change agenda. The greens use idiot and moron like it is their birth rite to insult people. Currently I am freezing my ass off in Chicago with 38" of snowfall this season. Unless you live in Florida or Arizona and watch the sensational ice pack melting programs on television this dog won't hunt.

Mechanic, you should stick to writing about cars. What, exactly, qualifies you to speculate about the validity of global warming? Or are you one of those types who resents "intellectuals" and thinks he knows everything? Did Ann Coulter make you an expert on the topic?

"there is no debate on whether humans are causing climate change."

There is no debate, because true believers denigrate anyone who dares to question. See aibosi's comments - no rational person can deny.

Run the numbers. They say ice pack increase.

Antarctic Sea Ice for January

This is an increase of 34.8% for ice extent and 22% for ice concentration over 1997. In addition 2009 ice extent was up 23% over 1980 (the first full year of satellite measurements)! This of course continues a long trend.

http://nsidc.org/cgi-bin/bist/bist.pl?no_panel=1&annot=1&legend=1&scale=75&tab_cols=2&tab_rows=2&config=seaice_index&submit=Refresh&mo0=01&hemis0=S&img0=extn&mo1=01&hemis1=S&img1=conc&year0=2009&year1=1980&.cgifields=no_panel

Remember people...what we do today we leave for our children. Think about it everytime you throw a piece of trash on the ground, let oil spill into a drain, remove the pollution controls from your cars. We are custodians of this planet...I love fast cars and bumpy camshafts but I love my kids more and we need to do what we can to keep this place liveable for everyone and everything. Not just CO2 but all sorts of toxic waste and filth. Green isnt a bad word regardless of the fact that there are those who would use it as an insult. Coolest car i've seen in awhile was a 13 sec 1/4, fully electric pick up truck. You could then add that it has lead acid batteries which are bad. Give me a 13 sec car that is hydrogen/electric and im buying it...I even like that FCX clarity. I hope honda mass produces it. We have to minimize our impact on the environment...People go camping with the motto "Leave nothing behind but your footprints".
I have no problem with adapting that to everyday life if possible.

"Did Ann Coulter make you an expert on the topic" ...I hate her ...shes only famous for being a word that I cant type here without getting deleted

The statistic that 99% of all scientists agree that the main cause of climate change is cars is wrong.

What the statement should read is that 99% of all scientists supported by the liberal media agree. There is an equal amount of data to support that the effect from human activity is negligible.

I'm not saying that making cars pollute less is a bad thing, but it seems to have more focus than it deserves. Why isn't California to blame for making an 8 lane wide freeway instead of investing in a quality subway system. Of course the problem is the cars. I supposed if they ban all trucks from there, they would not have the ability for the construction guys to bring their tools to the site to build the thing though.

If they put legislation where it belonged, we could still drive our V8 cars and trucks, while still doing less to the environment. My lawnmower polutes more than my Chevy does. The coal burning powerplant can't be GOOD for the air quality.

The automobile has made alot of progress, leave it alone for a while and go after the real problems. If they put pollution control on lawnmowers, chainsaws, generators, snowblowers and the like, cars could still be cool, and the liberal media should also be satisfied.

Starbird:

Sir, you are absolutely incorrect in stating that there is only a minority of scientists that don't believe the CO2, global warming stuff. You need to understand that the "consensus document" you cite from the UN is NOT put together by scientists and is NOT a scientific document. It is a document constructed by UN bureaucrats with input from sympathetic scientists, who receive their funding from various UN agencies.

A few points to make on the whole global warming panic:

1) It is a huge fundraiser for the environmental movement.
2) Another reader pointed out that supposedly the polar caps were melting at an unprecedented rate. Whoops! The real data (largely unreported because it could slow down the global warming juggernaut)shows that the ice pack has FROZEN AND GROWN at an unprecedented rate this year and is bigger than ever.
3) There were no cars and other high "greenhouse gas" output due to industrial activity during the Medieval Warming Period.
4) The Vikings called Greenland its name for a reason. When they were there, it was grown. Whoops, they all died off when Greenland became covered (and is still covered) by ice.
5) If a "climatologist" can't predict weather more than 48 hours in advance, what makes anyone believe that they can predict temperature 200 years into the future?
6) The correlation of temperature change in the atmosphere with sunspot activity is much higher than the supposed connection between cars spewing CO2 and temperature change.

In short, Global Warming Advocates are really just true believers in any religion. No amount of science is going to make them change their mind.

Global warming IS caused by humans. It's being propagated by all the hot air from the people arguing about it!

I agree that "CO2 Equivalency" would have been appropriate.

I'm an industry slightly peripheral to climate studies, but close enough that I've read the papers and sit firmly in the "it's happening" side. One big thing that stands out to me is that there are no alternative climate models offered by the opposition - their position is that there's a bit of uncertainty, therefore everything we thought we knew is wrong. That's not how science works. The theory that best fits the data is dominant until it's replaced with a better one. It doesn't have to be 100% correct, in fact most of them don't fully explain their domain. If they did, we wouldn't need scientists anymore.

Computer models that predict global warming have been able to reasonably back-predict the climate changes of the last 800,000 years, including the 20th century in some detail. I'd be open to seeing a model that did the same without predicting manmade global warming. Show me.

A lot of people here brought up water vapor. It is indeed the most significant greenhouse gas, accounting for at least 40% of the difference between earth's actual average surface temperature and earth's blackbody temperature (CO2's contribution is around 10%). But its atmospheric concentration is a function of local weather. If you add more to an otherwise unchanged atmosphere, it simply condenses. But if the earth warms, then the equilibrium quantity of water vapor will go up. Global warming caused by small amounts of CO2 will result in higher concentrations of water vapor (a more humid world), which will accelerate global warming. In other words, H2O isn't a cause, but rather a positive feedback loop. And there are others, like a decreased albedo due to melting ice, and methane stored in tundra and clathrates.

It seems that the effect of clouds are the biggest remaining uncertainty in the models - some say they'll act as a regulator on global warming. The models that successfully describe the past show varying results depending on how they model clouds, but they vary from "a bit of warming" to "a lot of warming." I don't see any sign of a fatal flaw in the science.

"Remember people...what we do today we leave for our children. Think about it everytime you throw a piece of trash on the ground, let oil spill into a drain, remove the pollution controls from your cars. We are custodians of this planet.."

I love these comments because they are so ignorant. No doubt this person owns multiple cars, a home, puts out the garbage every every week, buys groceries, etc....Im all for the environment but I don't pretend to be "green". No city/town dwelling human is green. Your mere existence short of living naked in the wild living off the land is completely artificial and pollutes this planet in some way shape or form. Same goes for you Prius greenies and all this global warming bull crap. If you trully want to be green, get rid of you home, cars, etc and go live naked in the wild. Otherwise, quit lecturing because you pollute every bit as much as the next person in one way shape or form. Do people realize that North America was covered in several feet of ice a few thousand years ago? Guess what, it melted due to global warming..I don't think the cavemen were driving any suvs back then. So what caused such global warming? I am so sick of this global warming BS. At best, a political agenda at worst, just a subtle way to remind people that OIL will run out sooner rather than later. Much less urgent under the guise of Global warming vs. OIL is running out, economies will collapse, the greatest depression in the history of man kind is coming.

To all who would question climate change, for god sakes *READ*. Don't *just* read the sound bites posted by the 'liberal media', go to your local university library and start pulling papers and scientific journals written *and* peer reviewed by some of the most accomplished scientists in the field.

What bothers me about people, is not only are you ignorant, it's that you remain that way. Nobody bothers to go through the evidence and form their own opinion anymore. Everyone just sits back and lets journalists spoon feed them.

Are you *seriously* going to take advice on climatology from someone with a degree in frickn ENGLISH?!?

Global warming proven science? BUNK.
In my job I work with statistical process control on a daily basis and I look at a lot of the world through this analytical lens. There is so much variability and noise in the climate data, we haven't a clue if the global temperature is doing anything more than following a natural cycle or even rising. What global warming advocates are doing is abusing and misusing the statistics and data and pushing it on an ignorant public either through incompetence or political malice.

If this were my process and a manager were screaming that my process was out of control I'd laugh in his face. No competent engineer would take action on this data, much less call for massive expenditures and interruptions to the business. That is the equivalent of what the Greens and political class are asking of all of us: massive spending and disruptions to our economy to "correct" the Global Warming trend.

"My lawnmower polutes more than my Chevy does." This is true. Unless you're driving a gas guzzler an enormous amount of miles, the pollution coming from cutting your grass with a gas-powered mower is greater. Why not put pollution controls on "off road" engines and motors as well? Generators, lawnmowers, chainsaws, boat motors, ship engines, racing engines, forklifts

Even if there is isn't any kind of global warming going on, shouldn't we do what we can to get rid of pollution? I live in Los Angeles and quite a few of my friends have asthma, due to the pollution.

What does it matter? Isn't it a good thing to start trying to reduce our output of greenhouse gasses BEFORE it does become a problem and there's no going back? It's a huge undertaking today and it will be an even bigger problem for our children if we don't at least try. It doesn't really matter if Global Warming is real or not, let's try to be proactively responsible for once, huh?

Global Warming is probably B.S. The Earth changes with or without us and adjusts to its own cycles. We humans have little to do with it, but we could stil try to be a little cleaner and nicer to out planet...

But then again... the world is going to end in 2012 anyway so screw it... lol

Funny how all you folks who are just so certain that global warming (sorry, climate change) is occurring get so bent out of shape when somebody dares to present a different viewpoint. If you're so sure, why does it bother you that all us idiots are still skeptical? Resorting to petty name calling kind of undermines your objective, rational, scientific basis for belief, don't you think?

In any case, of course climate change is happening, it happens all the time! Last week where I live the weather started out in the teens during the afternoon, by the end of the week it was in the sixties. I have no doubt that by the end of this week it will be back in the twenties. Climate changes, fact of life. The sun changes it, the earth's rotation changes it, clouds, animals, and yes, humans change it. Every day. It was cold yesterday, it is warm today. Fascinating concept, huh?

Also, I have a very elementary and simple question that I haven't seen any of these "99.99%" of scientists or the government or Al Gore address: If the ice caps are melting so fast, how come the ocean levels don't seem to be rising? Last I checked, rich Obama donors were still living in their Malibu mansions with their private beaches, Florida is still more or less the same shape, and there have been no evacuations from Long Island or any other coastal area due to rising sea levels from this alleged melted ice. How can this be?

Why have the tempatures on other planets changed exactly as ours? Are those tempature changes man-made also? Isn't the most likely explanation the easiest- differences in solar emissions? "Climate change" people make broad generalizations and get angry when less alarmist facts are given. For instance there has been no correlation between CO2 percentages in the atmosphere and tempature. 385 million years ago the CO2 levels were ten-times greater than today and yet those conditions did not cause global warming then either.

: If the ice caps are melting so fast, how come the ocean levels don't seem to be rising?

Already in the water thus the displacement doesnt change. Greenland ice is receding. Antarctic ice is also. Hey I hope it happens just like the movie Day after tomorrow. Global warming followed by rapid global cooling and ice age.

Those who would deny climate change is happening can join the club of holocaust deniers 9/11 conspirators and grassy knoll believers. Keep living the dream...leave a polluted world for your kids and grandkids ...Im sure they 'll love you for it.

The Vikings called Greenland its name for a reason. When they were there, it was grown. Whoops, they all died off when Greenland became covered (and is still covered) by ice.
Greatrx8...dope Leif Ericson called Greenland "Green" inorder to lure future settlers there. I guess you have a degree in Archeology or Anthropology?

The underlying theory behind global warming is pretty well understood; how fast it'll happen is less so. (CO2 does cause global warming, but the interactions between natural systems makes it hard to say what changes will happen on a year-to-year basis.)

The arctic ice caps won't affect sea levels - when ice in a cup full of water melts, the cup doesn't overflow. It's ice on land (on Greenland and Antarctica) that will cause problems. But slowly. They're not melting THAT quickly yet - but quickly enough that the Netherlands and Venice are worried and are working on expensive precautions against rising sea levels. Curiously, in the short term it won't be melting ice, but the simple thermal expansion of water that'll cause a lot of the sea level rise. The theory predicts that the oceans will warm before the atmosphere, and indeed that's happening.

As for the sun, we've had direct solar irradiance data since '78 and reasonable proxy data before that (observed sunspots and geological data). Recent solar activity doesn't account for recent trends. Mars warmed because of a giant sandstorm that decreased the planet's albedo; Neptune and Triton have decades-long seasons and are in summer; Jupiter had a slowdown in heat exchange which warmed its equator and cooled its poles... and above all, earth's stratosphere is cooling, which anthropogenic global warming models predict. If the earth was warming because of increased solar irradiance, the stratosphere would be the first layer to warm.

The sun was responsible for the warming trend in the first half of the 1900s, and its fluctuations also explain climate changes in the last few hundred years. It just hasn't been up to anything interesting lately.

CO2 concentrations and average atmospheric temperature do show a strong correlation. The only strong data we have is from the last 800,000 years and the correlation there is obvious. Periods long before that, like 385 million years ago, are a little tougher to make hypotheses about because the different arrangement of the continents had a huge effect on global climate. It was warmer back then, we know that much. And the leading hypothesis for the mass extinction at the end of the period is that plants first appeared on land, spread across it, and absorbed enough CO2 to cause a cooling event.

But there's more to the theory than finding correlations. It's simply a fact of physics that CO2 absorbs certain wavelengths of infrared light. Water vapor, methane, NOx, ozone (O3)... they all do, and not the same wavelengths as each other. You can take a celestial body like Mars and run the blackbody equation on it - enter its mass, albedo, and the amount of energy it receives from the sun, and you get a theoretical temperature for the planet. You get a number several degrees below its actual temperature. The only factor the equation doesn't handle is atmosphere, and Mars' is mostly CO2 (but very thin). The greenhouse effect is well established, so why is there resistance to the idea that more greenhouse gases gets you more greenhouse effect?

Ha ha 99% of scientists supported by the liberal media.. I guess the science academy's in our country are ALL a liberal conspiracy. The problem is that global warming isn't something you believe in or not.. the average temperature of our Earth is increasing, the concentration of greenhouse gasses is rising, and the amount of unnatural substance in our atmosphere is rising. This is a fact. Yes look at the ice core samples our temperature has gone up and down.. but look here:
http://www.daviesand.com/Choices/Precautionary_Planning/New_Data/
That is a graph that shows very recently.. Co2 levels are higher then they have ever been found to exist on our planet.
Please wake up.. there is nothing to deny.. the amount of evidence is staggering.

Not higher than ever - just higher than at any point in the couple million years.

This is ridiculous. I mean I didn't realize people as ignorant as you still exist. Being in the science community I know first hand that there is no question among 97% of scientist that this global climate change is real. Try reading a real science journal instead of getting your facts from Rush Limbaugh. And note, global warming/climate change does not always equate to the earth getting warmer everywhere- it means climates shift more drastically, colder and warmer, than what would naturally occur. If the earth is getting warmer at the ice caps it's getting colder somewhere else. Wake up and read; you guys are living in the stone age.

It is more than coincidence that planets in our solar system are experiencing climate change like ours. I haven't seen any data on planets cooling. Pluto is warming even though its distance from the sun is increasing. Everbody can agree that our climate is cyclical, the argument is whether it is caused by man or not. A single volcano eruption has unarguably more effect on climate than man-made CO2 emissions. The forest fires in Australia will cause more polution than decades of automobile polution.

Why do you "global-warming-is-a-crock-of-****" people have to whine all the time? Blame our problems on the liberal media, biased UN, Jewish conspiracies, blah blah blah.

Enjoy life, be proactive about the things you believe in, and stop acting like a bunch of losers.

To my last comment, I should add that if you folks want to be proactive about this issue, maybe you should go dig up some scientific journal articles refuting global warming?

Go to PubMed or some other database and do a search. There's tons of articles citing specific evidence of a warming climate. Watch out for the commie intellectuals.

All the name calling seems to be from one side, although some are excluded. I keep hearing that 99% or 97% of scientists agree that climate change is man-made. Where are these statistics coming from? You'd be a fool to not believe in climate change, I just don't think it is caused by man to a significant factor. Jonrob, what part of your science community resorts to name-calling and discussion isn't allowed?

"Co2 levels are higher then they have ever been found to exist on our planet."

It shows CO2 levels to be the highest in the past 420,000 years, which is a drop in the bucket. That article also references a NOAA finding that that the world's oceans have warmed slightly in the past 40 years. That's hardly a millisecond in the grand scheme of things.

Here's a fact: the climate is changing... it always has and always will. Yes, I know it's hard to believe for the "climate change" people ("global warming" is no longer PC due to the massive debate over its existence... "climate change" is the new buzz word), but it changed dramatically over and over and over before the existence of cars, before the existence of G.W. Bush, and before the existence of man.

That chart showed a massive recent increase in CO2, but no corresponding dramatic increase in temperature as was shown over and over for the past 420,000 years. The author guessed that the oceans acted as a heat sink, although that can't be supported by data or historical patterns.

But, whatever. I want to know why California has this need to "save the planet" by steadily increasing its standards. Californians already drive some of the cleanest running cars in the world. How much of an impact is California really going to make in the global atmosphere? Last month, the United States was no longer the world's largest car market. China was. And India is not too far behind. Where is the effort to curb their emissions?

I want to know why the whiny climate change weenies keep focusing on California and the United States in general. The U.S. can go completely emissions-free and guess what? The amount of emissions going into the atmosphere globally will keep increasing and increasing. I will be impressed when the climate change people actually realize that this is a global concern and make some real global effort. Otherwise, I agree with The Mechanic. It's just a political agenda. (And don't even mention the Kyoto Treaty... again another political agenda by punishing just the countries that already have massive emissions standards in place.)

On a side note: I had to replace my washing machine last weekend, and decided to go with a high efficiency front loader. Wow, what a difference. I have already calculated it will save about 11,000 gallons of water annually just in my house, and cut overall electricity use by 30% (washer is 50% more efficient, and super-high-speed extract cuts drying time in half, which is massive on an electric dryer). Imagine how much water and electricity would be saved even just on a state level (California) if everyone upgraded to this type of washer. It would certainly have a much more substantial impact than making my squeaky clean car just that much squeakier. Not just in atmospheric emissions from power plants, but also in the new looming crisis: water. Here in San Diego, we are already in a stage 1 water emergency (voluntary conservation) with every indicator showing we'll elevate to stage 2 (mandatory conservation) by summer (rationing comes after stage 2).

If California were really so obsessed with the environment to save the planet, you would think they would pursue these high efficiency washers especially given the specific problems this state faces (water and electricity). But no... instead of encouraging the purchase of a new $800 washer to really have an environmental impact, they're going to force us to spend 25 times more to buy a car that's just barely cleaner than the ones we're already driving (and in the case of hybrids - California hates diesels and is doing everything they can to ban them - has an outrageous carbon footprint). Save the planet or political agenda?

Volanoes emit about 1% as much CO2 as humans every year, and have a net cooling effect because of the dust and sulfates they emit.

The sun hasn't shown recent warming trends, and the warming on the flew planets that have warmed has been explained in other ways. In Pluto's case, it's thought that its methane surface evaporated while it was closer to the sun, so the little planet(oid) is warming because of the greenhouse effect. In the near future, that greenhouse effect will be more significant than loss of solar energy as it gets farther from the sun.

Forest fires do release a lot of CO2. But annual CO2 emissions due to forest fires is in the millions of tons of CO2, and probably less than the amount that volcanoes emit. In other words, less than 1% of human emissions. Forest fires do have very significant local impacts to weather.

emcsquare, the question is simply whether a human increase in atmospheric CO2 from 280ppm to 400ppm and beyond will have a warming effect. Why wouldn't it? What part of the theory do you disagree with?

The majority of us here are not saying that making greener cars is a bad thing. But there are other things that can be done right now that would have a much bigger affect on the amount of pollution spewed into the air, whether you beleive that it going to change the climate or not. Every left-wing polititian is going for broke trying to stop climate change by killing the auto industry, when making people buy a car with a 6 "global warming" rating instead of a 4 will still have less impact than making big rig trucks reduce emissions by 25%, or put catalytic converters on lawnmowers and stuff like that. Besides, do you know how much pollution is put into the air in the mining and manufacturing of batteries. Plus disposal when they are warn-out. We are just approaching it from the wrong, (liberal media) perspective.

Oh my goodness. Here comes the batteries = evil argument.

Should we bring up the CNW study next?

If anyone was wondering, the Monroney sticker in the article above is for a 2009 Mazda Tribue i Sport (FWD, 2.5L DOHC 4-cyl, 6-spd auto).

As for the scientific journals... I work with them everyday and have done so for years, specifically in the subjects of marine mammals and underwater acoustics. Some are very good and will only publish articles that are scientifically sound and can pass muster within the scientific community. Other so-called scientific journals are more akin to checkstand tabloids, where getting published has more to do with who you know (it really helps to know the peer reviewers, or at least not be on their bad side) and how outlandish your study is (drums up readership). It's hard to believe, but these journals can be like the internet... take what you read with a grain of salt and do your own research to verify what the author(s) claim. (Oh, and if the list of authors is larger than the article, throw that one away immediately.)

Is this a joke?

I agree wholeheartedly that California and CARB have ALWAYS had their own agendas in mind, but that doesn't make global warming fake. Where do you get your sources? Scientists DO NOT disagree on this matter. It's universally understood by scientists that it is happening and it is caused by humans.

I'm as much a 9mpg Lamborghini lover as anyone, and even I can say that anyone who sees this issue as being a hoax must have their own agenda, like wishful thinking.

For all of you that believe in the Global Warming Mumbo Jumbo this might help change your perception of the whole CO2 warming up the planet:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/01/30/co2-temperatures-and-ice-ages/

Scientific arguments aren't settled by polling, they're settled on the basis of the evidence. If one percent of scientists are dismissive of "global warming" -- or three percent or fifty percent or more -- that's still enough to have a scientific debate. Any scientist with solid evidence for his theory is more powerful than all the other scientists nodding in agreement with one another.

Having written that, there's no reason to dismiss global warming out of hand simply because there's a claimed consensus for it. There has been an increase in CO2 concentrations, that increase is evidently anthropogenic, and all things being equal, that should lead to some increase in global temperatures. Of course, however, all things are never equal and there's a lot of squish room to argue about the actual effect of increased CO2 concentrations on the actual Earth's atmosphere.

Predictions about the effect of increased CO2 concentrations range from "eh, manageable" (from say Bjorn Lomborg) to "utterly catastrophic" (Greenpeace for example). The problem is that there's no real way to test anyone's predictions other than waiting to see what happens with the Earth.

Ultimately this all boils down to making tough decisions between competing values. If you really think global warming is such a dire threat that modern industrial society should be dismantled, go ahead and believe it. I'm sure most of your fellow citizens won't opt for abject poverty however. And if you believe that this climate change stuff is just a big fraud, why wouldn't you still opt for greater energy efficiency across the economy? What's the downside?

It's unlikely that there's no global warming effect from increased CO2 concentrations. But, it seems to me, that we can manage this change in climate just as previous generations managed their climate challenges. I'm all for building more nuclear plants, applying solar and wind power where it can be done efficaciously, and encouraging greater fuel economy in vehicles (though I'd prefer fuel taxes over the silly CAFE requirements). If we reduce the amount of CO2 going into the atmosphere, good. But it's unlikely to change any climactic balance significantly -- we will adapt.

As to the State of California's indexes... if there's one group in the world easily ignored, it's the boneheads who run the State of California.

Please tell me, no matter what your views on global warming are, why is it a bad thing to want more efficient cars that put out less gasses? Do you really want to be paying those oil nut-jobs overseas for your gas? Even in things that don't relate to global warming we should be conserving. How many times do you wear your jeans or use a towel before you put it through the wash, how many plastics and papers do you recycle, do you let the water run when you brush your teeth. I mean these are simple things to use as little energy and resources as possible. Why is conserving a bad thing? Why is having your utilities bill be lower a bad thing? Why is getting a tax credit for a "green car" a bad thing? Why is paying less money to the "energy companies" and middle eastern oil men a bad thing?

Even if you don't believe that global warming exists. You could at least be a true conservative and want what is best for america by making it independent of middle eastern oil. And by buying a "green car" you could get a tax credit. By having solar panels installed on your house you could get a tax credit. By having new more insulating windows installed you could get a tax credit. Conservatives are always complaining about taxes. Do something about it. Maybe if you got more tax credits from doing greener things and payed less for your utilities bills you'd have more of that money you so desperately wish to keep.

For one thing, CO2 is not a pollutant. Secondly, there are conflicting theories about CO2 levels driving temperatures vs. temperatures driving CO2 levels (see Rage0329's link). Carlisimo, I really do appreciate your input, and you do seem well versed on the subject matter. When I mentioned volcanoes and regional fires, I wasn't relating them to CO2 emissions, I just wanted it noted that "natural" occurences affect the global climate as least as much as man. As far as other planets heating up in correlation with ours, your explanations are rationalizations to defend the man-made global warming theory. The simpler explanation is that variations in solar emissions is affecting planets equally. Climate changes are cyclical and even if man is causing microscopic changes to the climate, the effects will be equally good and bad for the earth. Net sum zero!

I think everybody should read Michael Crichton's "State of Fear" or watch this lecture of his:
http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=michael%20crichton&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&hl=en&tab=wv#

No scientist or thoughtful minded person has forgotten that we banned R12 refrigerant because it was depleting the ozone layer of the upper atmosphere. Go ask an Australian if the banning of R12 was an important step for humankind. The reason we did that was to stop the depletion of the ozone layer which protects the earth from extreme solar energy. Did you know that Australians #1 cause of death over the last 20 years has been skin cancer? Most of what you say has no ground to stand on.

Another point - In addition to the UN panel on climate change, the U.S. NOAA branch has many respected scientists on that panel and in addition there is significant U.S.-based research available about global warming. It is an extreme minority of scientists who are still "anti-global warming". Do you think there could possibly be something to do this whole climate change discussion if you consider we've been researching it since the 1960s? I remember in junior high school in the 1980s, doing posters and discussions about global warming. Are you aware that many communities in the US are suffering from severe air pollution and that is another reason we are trying to regulate tailpipe emissions you bone head?

Again, I ask, (and I honestly don't know) where is the information about the "extreme minority" of scientists who are anti-global warming? I have seen extremely loaded surveys asking scientists if they think man could affect the climate. Almost everyone would answer that question yes, and thus the survey concluded that scientists agree that man is causing climate change. All points in history are either global warming or cooling. In the 70's global cooling(the coming ice-age) was the cry of the alarmists they had evidence too. I don't doubt there might be warming, but it is no more than is typical for millions of years. They have been researching climate change long before the 60's, and I repeat that CO2 isn't a pollutant! Where is the severe pollution in US communities? I know of Asian and european cities, but US cities are among the cleanest in the world. I am an advocate of keeping the environment clean, and do my part to prevent pollution. Bone head? Name calling is the last refuge of the ignorant, and the calling card of a weak argument.

OK, all arguments aside, what is the current population of the planet? As of March of this year, the estimate is 6.8 billion. Is there anyone who can say that the human population has ever been this high before? Even if you believe that the Earth is going through a normal climate pattern, 6.8 billion people are going to have an impact on the planet. Whether it's the amount of non-renewable resources they consume or the trash they create that can't be recycled, at some point our ecosystem will not support us because there will be too many people and not enough resources. I hope to God the global warming people are completely wrong. It would prove that we have not yet reached the planet's limits for healing itself. However, if they are right, I have a feeling the worst that we can imagine will pale greatly next to the reality.

The last time I checked, science is not driven by consensus. It’s driven by facts, history is littered with examples where the entire scientific community had a consensus that was wrong until a single individual PROOVED otherwise.

Do billions of humans have an effect on the earth? Yes, it’s unavoidable. It doesn’t matter if it’s modern(very clean) internal combustion engines or humans simply eating, drinking, breathing, and living. What’s uncertain is how and to what extent. The only wait to avoid our impact on the planet would be to remove the entire human race from the planet.

With that in mind, I do seriously doubt the credibility of individuals claiming to be able to model and predict the multitude of interconnected systems of natural, solar, biological, and anthropologic forces that may have influence over the global climate. If that was the case, you would think accurately predicting the weather 10 days out or severe storms and their paths would be easy by comparison.

Well now I know that there's at least one other person that gets it. This "global warming" thing is a complete joke. It is true that the climate is getting warmer but there is no way that this could be caused by humans. The earth has natural warming and cooling periods and we happen to be in one of those warming periods. At the end of the last ice age there was some global warming going on but no humans around to cause it...weird. It's time for the tree huggers to shut up and let us drive our cars.

Notice that the right hand of the sticker in the picture reports a smog rating. Smog is unhealthy pollution whose large health and economy slowing costs have been repeatedly measured by boring, conservative economists. Less air pollution means lower health costs, longer life span and healthier workers, all of which increases the economy. CARB has a mandate to lower pollution and improve air quality and human health. Why? First and foremost, because it's good for the economy. Vehicles that pollute less also put out less C02, in a bizarre coincidence (there's zero debate about that). So the most obvious self interested thing to do is to be aware of smog ratings and buy a cost effective vehicle that creates less smog when you buy a vehicle. Why? It saves you money, improves your health, and helps the economy. It's not your fault if it accidentally may save the world, too.

For once, I agree with the Mechanic.

What about ManBearPig?