Toyota and others to be sued [Archive] - Toyota Forums

ShiningArcanine

09-21-2006, 09:29 PM

Yeah, and your Republican governor is the next Lincoln, too. Did he ever finish investigating himself for sexual harassment? :rolleyes:

The California lawsuit is about greenhouse gases, not other pollutants. It will be tossed out by the courts.

The reason people sue each other in this country is that few people or organizations have the decency to admit they are wrong, or to take steps to correct it. I don't think the auto manufacturers need to be held responsible for providing us with cars, but they should get hided for funding so-called "think tanks" that spread misinformation about global warming.

C

That would be disinformation, not misinformation, and there is no reputable climatologist in the world that supports the theory that human beings can affect world temperatures. Things have become so politicized that we are led to believe what a bunch of environmental fanaticists want us to believe, despite what is actually true. Take Al Gore's movie, "An Inconvienent Truth" for example. Al Gore says that it is the truth while actual scientists say otherwise:

http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/06/14/209235

A New York Times article, despite the New York Times political bias, reveals that millions of years ago, Antarctica was tropical.

http://www.nytimes.com/glogin?URI=http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/01/science/earth/01climate.html&OQ=_rQ3D1Q26eiQ3D5065Q26enQ3De3ee5ed70c936bcaQ26ex Q3D1149739200Q26partnerQ3DMYWAYQ26pagewantedQ3Dpri nt&OP=33d2aeb6Q2FQ24haVQ24RQ603xjQ60Q60Q3EQ51Q24Q51ww Q26Q24wQ26Q24wUQ24x3Wa,3aQ24aQ27jQ3EuQ24wU3YWQ2AQ2 7Q3EaQ25uQ3EQ2AY

Al Gore is heralding some research that reveals 800,000 years of carbon dioxide data as verification for his movie, but he ignores the fact that the world is 4.6 billion years old and is constantly changing, and any multi-million year cycles that the earth has would easily contain 800,000 years:

http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/09/05/1849201

We have evidence that the earth's magnetic poles switch positions approximately every 200,000 years. If we did not have that evidence, Mr. Gore would be attributing the decline in earth's magnetic to human activities as well, despite the fact that we have no control over nature. Every time we try to manipulate nature, it backfires (e.g. artifical levees raising rivers, barriers to protect against tsuamis being broken, etcetera). I honestly believe that human activities cannot manipulate the world's carbon dioxide levels measureably, that the polar ice caps will melt regardless of our existence, and any attempt to try to keep them from melting will result in our own destruction.

trxr

09-21-2006, 10:30 PM

Does this lawsuit get the Darwin award?

Z28Wilson

09-22-2006, 10:21 AM

dsmnick

09-22-2006, 11:27 AM

The REAL "inconvenient truth" about Al Gore is his 3 homes that he owns and has to heat and cool all year, not to mention his fleet of cars. He was flying all around the country promoting his bunk...since when did they start building hybrid airplanes? :rolleyes:

Is Al Gore a hypocrite or simply doesn't believe the stuff he says? Probably a little of both. Honestly, most of the "environmentalists" out there are just as bad as the common person they belittle. I love the irony when a celebrity pulls up to the Oscars in a hybrid while at home they probably have exotic supercars, Land Rovers, and Hummers in the garage. Not to mention that their huge homes probably consume about as much energy in a day as six modest homes.

Now, I personally have no problem with people who own or drive those types of vehicles, because it's a free country and you should drive what you want. But if someone like Al Gore is going to chastize me for my driving choices, he damn well better adhere to his own preaching.

celicagyrl

09-22-2006, 12:05 PM

I agree with u all the way SilveradoTacoma

Ummm, wow??? So what was the purpose of California emissions testing? That's like smoking cigarettes your whole life then suing if you get lung cancer (if you started smoking since the labels on the cig. cartons saying it could cause cancer.)

Guess I'm not moving to California anytime soon. I'd probably get shot if I was caught driving my '67 :lol:

Bishop13

09-22-2006, 02:48 PM

I guess Arnold's Hummer is horse drawn.

:lol: The state atty general (Democrat) filed this lawsuit, not the governor. Schwarzenegger probably thinks this is as stupid as the rest of us do.

RAV4EVR

09-22-2006, 03:53 PM

They blame everyone but themselves

That is all of us in North America.... :lol:

I was reading news about this woman finding something bad in her Burger King Salad in Norway???. She was asked if she would SUE and she responded by saying that they didn't do that in their country and it was an American thing..... :lol:

Too bad nobody knows how to make money in the rest of the world... :lol:

totttalled

09-22-2006, 09:35 PM

Yep, Arnold was first in line to buy a Hummer, as soon as it was available for sale to the US public.

And yeah, good point, why just those automakers?? Where's Mazda? Hyundai? Suzuki? Porsche? Kia? VW? Audi? Don't they sell cars too?

Actually, if one were to leave any automaker out of the lawsuit, it should be Toyota and Honda. They've done more to develop hybrid technology than anyone else.

But yeah, probably just a political statement in this election year. The things that these lawyers do in California is sometimes just plain embarrassing.

Makes me want to move, if it weren't for the fact that this state has some spectatular beauty and geographic diversity.

Honestly, the vast majority of people in California live in the Los Angeles/Orange County/San Diego or the San Fransisco Bay Areas. A pretty small area of this 3rd largest state. Most of the state is mostly rural countryside, farmland, forests, mountains, deserts and sparsely populated coastal ranges. I try not to let these freaks spoil my fun, but sometimes it does get embarrassing.

Z28Wilson

09-23-2006, 12:12 AM

Actually, if one were to leave any automaker out of the lawsuit, it should be Toyota and Honda. They've done more to develop hybrid technology than anyone else.

Hybrids emit greenhouse gasses too. That's like saying "leave out the light brands of cigarettes in tobacco lawsuits." And for every one Prius Toyota sells in Cali I'm sure they sell 4 or 5 Tundras, Sequoias, etc.

This is frivelous litigation no matter who is named in the suit.

xpeed

09-23-2006, 03:22 AM

Yeah, I just took a big whiff and it smelled worse than bullshit.:bullshitz

Lasse D

09-23-2006, 09:10 AM

Of all the forums I have visited I wtill have to see a single person speak positively about this lawsuit. If it's a lawsuit from the state, I suppose the people should back it up... or at least one person should.

I was reading news about this woman finding something bad in her Burger King Salad in Norway???. She was asked if she would SUE and she responded by saying that they didn't do that in their country and it was an American thing.....

The sad thing about this is that she probably wasn't joking. I hear quote about this all the time. It is just one among the endless: "I'm glad this isn't America, then I would have been sued!", "I'm glad this isn't America, then I would have been shot!". "Why do you drive in such a polluting monstrosity, do you think you'r in America?", "Only the Americans would have elected him.", "You can copy that DVD, this isn't America!".

Now where's the "I'm sad this isn't America, then I would have been rich!"?

Corona67

09-24-2006, 08:00 PM

That would be disinformation, not misinformation, and there is no reputable climatologist in the world that supports the theory that human beings can affect world temperatures. Things have become so politicized that we are led to believe what a bunch of environmental fanaticists want us to believe, despite what is actually true.

The politicization and disagreement is a result of what industrial fanatics want us to believe, not scientists. The increased melting at the North and South Poles is not an invention of someone's imagination nor is the rise in sea levels due to thermal expansion of seawater. Climate change isn't about whether its raining or snowing in your backyard, but broad global weather trends.

A New York Times article, despite the New York Times political bias, reveals that millions of years ago, Antarctica was tropical.

Most people who know anything about geological history already know this. It's not news. Also, Antartica didn't used to be at the South Pole.
If the climate at the South Pole used to be tropical or even temperate, what was the temperature like around the rest of the planet? The Earth has been much hotter and much cooler than it is now at different periods.

Al Gore is heralding some research that reveals 800,000 years of carbon dioxide data as verification for his movie, but he ignores the fact that the world is 4.6 billion years old and is constantly changing, and any multi-million year cycles that the earth has would easily contain 800,000 years.

It's well-known that the Earth has had a widely varying climate over several billion years. What's appalling to me, reflecting on the opinions of persons like yourself, is that you think we should ignore any possible risk to our environment simply because it might hamper our economy or whatever.
Your implication that we should ignore the considerable body of evidence supporting global warming, merely because the Earth has a varying climate, is infantile and irresponsible.

We have evidence that the earth's magnetic poles switch positions approximately every 200,000 years. If we did not have that evidence, Mr. Gore would be attributing the decline in earth's magnetic to human activities as well, despite the fact that we have no control over nature.

Again, people with your particular limits cannot articulate a good argument, so you instead put ridiculous opinions in other's mouths. Gore has never suggested anything of the like and you look idiotic trying to suggest he did.

It's pretty sad when one can't win even a straw-man argument.

Every time we try to manipulate nature, it backfires (e.g. artifical levees raising rivers, barriers to protect against tsuamis being broken, etcetera). I honestly believe that human activities cannot manipulate the world's carbon dioxide levels measureably, that the polar ice caps will melt regardless of our existence, and any attempt to try to keep them from melting will result in our own destruction.

Well, here I agree with you about our manipulation of nature. It is almost always a disaster.

The main reason is that as a species, we are greedy and short-sighted.

However, your conclusion is at ludicrous odds with your first sentence. If we are incompetent at manipulating nature, then we DO need to stop putting CO2 into the atmosphere. That runs opposite to our greedy nature.

C

Corona67

09-24-2006, 08:05 PM

Probably a little of both. Honestly, most of the "environmentalists" out there are just as bad as the common person they belittle. I love the irony when a celebrity pulls up to the Oscars in a hybrid while at home they probably have exotic supercars, Land Rovers, and Hummers in the garage. Not to mention that their huge homes probably consume about as much energy in a day as six modest homes.

Yeah, shame on environmentalists and celebrities for not inventing an entirely new energy economy!

I mean, what's so hard about that?

It's much more honest to stick one's head in the sand and pretend not to hear any research about climate change....yeah, that's it...

C

hiace24

09-24-2006, 11:08 PM

91MR2quickNA

09-24-2006, 11:52 PM

Many points in their complaint are valid and can be heard in a court of law. The reason for this lawsuit is California is paying more and more of taxpayers' money to combat, research, and prevent further damage done to California by global warming.

It's an interesting argument, especially when you hold many large corporations' products accountable for damages. If it goes to trial, the defendants will most likely use California's transportation infrastucture accountable for the large quantities of CO2 emissions. The defense will counter with something along the lines of if their (the 6 named defendants) products didn't produce greenhouse gases, damage to the CA ecosystem and people would not have occured.

The purpose of CA emissions testing is to reduce harmful pollutants, like oxides of nitrogen, and carbon monoxide. Carbon dioxide is measured, but does not impact vehicle smog reports. The haze most of you see is not CO2, but rather CO, NOx, and diesel particulate emissions, among other things.

Read the complaint in its entirety: People of California v GM, Toyota, Ford, Honda, Chrysler, and Nissan (http://ag.ca.gov/newsalerts/cms06/06-082_0a.pdf)

It's in plain English, so it's an easy read. Line 24 of page 9 is interesting.

As a person of California, I'm rather neutral on this legislation.

Z28Wilson

09-25-2006, 09:16 AM

It's well-known that the Earth has had a widely varying climate over several billion years.

Thanks for proving our point. If the Earth has followed a pattern of heating and cooling several times, billions of years before industrialization, (aww hell, billions of years before we even existed), then how can you so swiftly and certainly blame the human race and industry for another warming cycle???? :whatthe:

I have yet to see any cold hard evidence that human-induced global warming is a fact. I've seen charts and graphs that show that the Earth's average temperature has raised one degree over the last 100 years or so, and that CO2 levels have risen in the last 1,000 years or so. The question is, who put these charts together? What are their agendas or biases? Legit questions.

The earth is billions of years old. The problem with the global warming argument is that it looks at a largely insignificant, minute slice of the entire history of our planet to show that "the sky is falling". This is voodoo science at worst, unsound at best.

Yeah, shame on environmentalists and celebrities for not inventing an entirely new energy economy!

I think you missed the point. Personally, I refuse to be lectured to (or in some cases scolded/talked down to) by people who use 4 times as much energy as I do per year to live in their mansions in the Hollywood hills. :rolleyes:

Corona67

09-25-2006, 11:07 PM

Thanks for proving our point. If the Earth has followed a pattern of heating and cooling several times, billions of years before industrialization, (aww hell, billions of years before we even existed), then how can you so swiftly and certainly blame the human race and industry for another warming cycle???? :whatthe:

I have yet to see any cold hard evidence that human-induced global warming is a fact. I've seen charts and graphs that show that the Earth's average temperature has raised one degree over the last 100 years or so, and that CO2 levels have risen in the last 1,000 years or so. The question is, who put these charts together? What are their agendas or biases? Legit questions.

The earth is billions of years old. The problem with the global warming argument is that it looks at a largely insignificant, minute slice of the entire history of our planet to show that "the sky is falling". This is voodoo science at worst, unsound at best.

This is the pretty typical response I've heard from people who haven't actually followed research, but gotten their opinions instead from talk radio.

1) So, to summarize; if the earth has natural warming and cooling trends, then it's perfectly fine for humans to add to or amplify the problem. That is an immature and irresponsible attitude, and it is common in the United States today.

2) You, like most of the U.S. population, don't understand science. There is no such thing as a "cold, hard fact" in science. There have been careful observations of current trends and historical records including the ice caps in Antartica, just to name a couple. As long as you're using Google to find anti-global warming drivel, why don't you do a search to find some actual research done by non-fossil-fuel sponsored teams?

3) Noone in science has said the "sky is falling", or even implied it. The earth can go on long after we're gone, and there will always be life on it, short of some kind of cosmic disaster. The problem is, we are already seeing effects of climate change, as in my aforementioned thermal expansion of seawater. Most of the human population lives and works within a few miles of the ocean. Your attitude trivializes the risk to the livelihood of hundreds of millions of people.
Scientists are suggesting that we might not want to create some kind of one-way atmospheric study with the only planet we know to be inhabitable to humans. Seems like common sense to me.

Personally, I refuse to be lectured to (or in some cases scolded/talked down to) by people who use 4 times as much energy as I do per year to live in their mansions in the Hollywood hills.

That's a fair criticism. I agree that certain groups and individuals have a very self-righteous attitude towards environmental issues. However, who is left to do advocacy? The government? Private fossil-fuels industries? I see a lot of noise from those two camps, but much less refutation of data and even less action. Celebrities and environmental groups have chosen to not sit idly while major climate change may be in process. It's called leadership, and you won't ever get that from the government or big business.

I don't know if you can prove that these people use 4 times the energy you use...do you have some data, or are you just guessing? Sounds like more talk-radio hoo-ha.

It's always easier to shoot the messenger, which has ever been the case with environmentalists. Some here might remember the vicious attacks against those speaking out about chloroflurocarbons damaging the ozone layer a decade ago. The environmentalists were proven right, and apologies from the industry-financed attackers are still grossly overdue. I see a direct comparison with global-warming critics.

Scientists don't have a financial stake in the result of their data; their profession is in the proper gathering, analyzing and reporting of that data. I trust the findings of an independent university scientist over an industry hack any day of the week.

C

Z28Wilson

09-26-2006, 12:26 PM

This is the pretty typical response I've heard from people who haven't actually followed research, but gotten their opinions instead from talk radio.

Again, I have seen the charts and the graphs to support the theory. Again, they mostly seem to examine and analyze data in the past 1,000 years or so. That is just a mere kernel of the total lifespan of this planet to this point.

1) So, to summarize; if the earth has natural warming and cooling trends, then it's perfectly fine for humans to add to or amplify the problem. That is an immature and irresponsible attitude, and it is common in the United States today.

You will kindly notice that I never implied that humans have not caused a variety of environmental problems. We have. However, I do feel that the effects of humans on the environment are largely overblown, especially when you consider how much cleaner cars are today than they have ever been (getting back on-point, another reason why this lawsuit is 40 years too late, if you're to make the argument that it is indeed with merit at all). One rather large asteroid hitting our planet would cause a larger catastrophy than probably 100,000 years of us driving our cars as they are currently engineered. Personally, I think we should be just as concerned about that threat as anything else.

You, like most of the U.S. population, don't understand science. There is no such thing as a "cold, hard fact" in science.

There's cold, hard fact in many areas of science. If we didn't understand how anything worked and speculated on everything, we'd never be able to build a bridge, or a skyscraper, or anything else. I don't think YOU understand that there are personal and political forces that come into play even in something that is supposed to be pure and without bias like the scientific community.

Celebrities and environmental groups have chosen to not sit idly while major climate change may be in process. It's called leadership

No, it's called "do as I say and not as I do." REAL leadership includes sacrifice...so how many of these Hollywood types are moving out of their palaces and into modest homes? How many have completely and honestly stopped driving the status symbols and have bought hybrid-only vehicles?

Campaigning for a cause is good. But I wouldn't call what many of these goody-goodies are doing "leadership".

I don't know if you can prove that these people use 4 times the energy you use...do you have some data, or are you just guessing? Sounds like more talk-radio hoo-ha.

I don't need research when I can use common sense. Did these celebrities discover the end-all, be-all of furnaces which use no natural gas in the winter to heat, or electricity in the summer to cool a 10 bedroom, 15,000 square foot residence? I'm sure they have the best of what's on the market in terms of efficiency, but please....

Scientists don't have a financial stake in the result of their data; their profession is in the proper gathering, analyzing and reporting of that data. I trust the findings of an independent university scientist over an industry hack any day of the week.

While I would agree with you about independent scientists vs. hired industry researchers, do not think for a moment that they would not let any personal opinion or political affiliation affect their work. There is no profession on planet Earth that is 100% clean and devoid of any personal bias or outside influence. Universities get large donations from private philanthropists and alumni. Those donations ultimately get funneled down to fund the scientists' research. You can guess where I'm going with this....

Lasse D

09-26-2006, 01:30 PM

I think many of you are talking too much about Global Warming which, to my understanding, isn't the main point of the lawsuit. It is mainly about the effects that you can observe now with changes in small forests and other parts of Nature. Here in Europe we have a lot of plans for keeping and recreating local nature, but I'm pretty sure there are both plans and restrictions for manufacturers in the US as well.

The problem as I see it is an incompetent state which tries to push the responsibility onto others. Why doesn't it just make further restrictions or bind the manufacturers to contracts where they must be active in environmental projects? It is never good publicity when the car makers refuse to help the environment.

And isn't lawsuit the worst kind of incestive you can give?

(By the way. Making cheap shots like "you don't understand science" and such isn't helping anyone. I'm talking about more than one person here.)

sambojoho

09-26-2006, 11:42 PM

Yeah, let's get rid of all CO2 sources, because they damage the environment!!!

Oh wait, that would include you and I, since we are all sources of destructive greenhouse gases...

This is stupid. There is no problem. Liberal enviro-whackos annoy me.

Did you know that water vapor is the gas that contributes the most to greenhouse effect? Let's stop boiling water, or sue stove manufacturers.

hiace24

09-27-2006, 12:36 AM

surely this problem would end when fossil fuels run out? isn't that soon?

Corona67

09-27-2006, 12:37 AM

(By the way. Making cheap shots like "you don't understand science" and such isn't helping anyone. I'm talking about more than one person here.)

I have a degree in biology and have done a fair amount of scientific research over the years. Trust me, there is no such thing as a "fact" in science. Suggesting there is demonstrates a fundamental lack of understanding of how the scientific method works.

C

Corona67

09-27-2006, 12:43 AM

This is stupid. There is no problem. Liberal enviro-whackos annoy me.

What about conservative industry-whackos? Do they annoy you with their continuing defacement of real knowledge and real learning? Seems like the consequences of following them is potentially much higher than if we follow the environmentalists...

Did you know that water vapor is the gas that contributes the most to greenhouse effect? Let's stop boiling water, or sue stove manufacturers.

True, water vapor is a greenhouse gas, but it is primarily concentrated in the lower atmosphere and does not remain in the atmosphere nearly as long as CO2.

I don't recall that anyone said human beings need to stop living. I've noticed the inability to find a sensible middle ground is always the trait of extremists.

C

Corona67

09-27-2006, 01:01 AM

There's cold, hard fact in many areas of science. If we didn't understand how anything worked and speculated on everything, we'd never be able to build a bridge, or a skyscraper, or anything else. I don't think YOU understand that there are personal and political forces that come into play even in something that is supposed to be pure and without bias like the scientific community.

There simply is no such thing as a "fact" in science. That is about as Freshman Science 101 as you can get. There are Hypotheses, Theories, Rules and Laws, but no facts. Suggesting something is a fact implies it is immutable. There is no area of science where this is true.

Scientific knowledge allows the application of its technology in the form of engineering, but there is a huge difference between engineering and science.

Personal and political forces have, unfortunately, a large role in science. However, over time, the balance has always been in favor of the true science. The deniers and the wacko fringe, whether among scientists or science hacks, have always been cast aside as knowledge increases.

While I would agree with you about independent scientists vs. hired industry researchers, do not think for a moment that they would not let any personal opinion or political affiliation affect their work. There is no profession on planet Earth that is 100% clean and devoid of any personal bias or outside influence. Universities get large donations from private philanthropists and alumni. Those donations ultimately get funneled down to fund the scientists' research. You can guess where I'm going with this....

I agree that science is not untainted by corruption or money. However, to imply a scientist could be swayed by a "generous donation" like some sleazy politician is simply not true. Once a professional scientist starts down that path, forever will it dominate his destiny (OK, sorry-I put a little Star Wars in there). Professional credibility is ALL a scientist owns.

Consider the Korean genetics scientist who was found to have faked his cloning data. The man simply will never be taken credibly by his community again. Too bad, really...I can't imagine how he thought he would ever get away with it.

C

sambojoho

09-27-2006, 04:59 AM

Dude, just quit driving your car and move to Montana. OK, so you've got a degree in biology, I have three (Chemistry, Chemical Engineering, and Finance). Bottom line is that yes, there is evidence that the CO2 is increasing. And yes, there is evidence that the earth is in a warming cycle. And of course you are correct that people produce CO2. But the whole problem with the argument is connecting all those dots and saying that the activities of people over the last 100 years or so is gong to cause permanent damage to life as we know it.

The great thing about the country you live in is freedom. So feel free to stop driving your car. I, for one, will exercise my freedom to burn fossil fuels to my heart's content...

Z28Wilson

09-27-2006, 07:57 AM

There are Hypotheses, Theories, Rules and Laws, but no facts. Suggesting something is a fact implies it is immutable. There is no area of science where this is true.

You're really just arguing semantics at this point. Is the "fact" that if I let go of a ball off the roof of a building the ball will fall, a scientific "rule" or "law" about gravity or a "fact"? The scientific community might not call these things "facts" but laws for any reasonable layperson are about as close.

BTW, my degree is in Computer Science. :)

However, to imply a scientist could be swayed by a "generous donation" like some sleazy politician is simply not true.

I didn't mean to imply that a researcher would take evidence and cover it up, or take findings and ignore them or manipulate their data. Research is largely the gathering of data. How one interprets that data is open for much debate, and is where bias and influence can come into play. This is why I question the 1,000 year slice of our atmosphere's history telling us anything useful about a planet that is billions of years old. Yes, the data shows a warming trend but in what context? And compared to what? What was the trend in 1,000,000 B.C.? These are certainly legitimate questions.

RAV4EVR

10-02-2006, 04:52 PM

MrJones

10-02-2006, 05:02 PM

someone in the california government hasnt been laid recently.. talk about pent up sexual tension focused into screwing over auto companies

Corona67

10-04-2006, 01:44 AM

You're really just arguing semantics at this point. Is the "fact" that if I let go of a ball off the roof of a building the ball will fall, a scientific "rule" or "law" about gravity or a "fact"? The scientific community might not call these things "facts" but laws for any reasonable layperson are about as close.

BTW, my degree is in Computer Science. :)

It's not semantics; it's correct terminology. Science doesn't work the way most people think, and the best way to correct this is by extreme public humiliation-sorry; strike that; how about gentle nudges in the right direction? :D

I'm not trying to be snotty about it, but it seems to me that people's understanding of science parallels religion. They are not and cannot be the same. The reason we call it the "Law" of gravity is because to the best of our observations, gravity works the same everywhere else in the universe in exactly the same manner it does here on Earth. However, we have not been able to measure gravity elsewhere, or even to determine if ours is the only universe in existence. To go beyond calling gravity a "Law" is to make gross assumptions. That is not appropriate in science.

I didn't mean to imply that a researcher would take evidence and cover it up, or take findings and ignore them or manipulate their data. Research is largely the gathering of data. How one interprets that data is open for much debate, and is where bias and influence can come into play.

Well, this is exactly what I've been saying: Interpretation of data is as or more important as the method of its collection. There is no doubt in my mind that data has been manipulated for political and monetary reasons. We are seeing that right now with the global-warming issue. And notice I put "manipulated"; not "forged". You can take legitimate data and make it look like something it is not. That method worked for the tobacco industry for about 50 years, after all.

This is why I question the 1,000 year slice of our atmosphere's history telling us anything useful about a planet that is billions of years old. Yes, the data shows a warming trend but in what context? And compared to what? What was the trend in 1,000,000 B.C.? These are certainly legitimate questions.

I understand that we have ice core samples from the South Pole dating back 100,000 years. They have used these (which contain atmospheric gases trapped from the respective period) and matched them with tree trunk core samples to establish whether higher greenhouse gases affect the growth of the trees. The Joshua trees in California, for example, live several thousand years. Once you establish a baseline re. the trees vs. gas concentrations, you can look farther back among the ice core data and make educated guesses about what the climate was like many millenia ago.

Another method has been ocean sediment samples, which go back many millions of years. The ratio of certain plankton is directly indicative of ocean temperatures; some plankton are in warm water; others are in cold water. While these don't directly measure the gases present at the time, they do indicate climatic conditions.

You don't need to go back billions of years to get an appropriate picture of Earth's climate history, and whether we are manipulating it. I would guess that the most important question for us has been climate history since the first ice ages, which is pretty recent in geologic terms. I think that has the most bearing on our current concerns since it is kind of the most recent long-term mega-trend in the climate.

C

Corona67

10-04-2006, 01:49 AM

The great thing about the country you live in is freedom. So feel free to stop driving your car. I, for one, will exercise my freedom to burn fossil fuels to my heart's content...

We also had the freedom to own slaves at one point in this country. Do you think anyone admires us for that?
C

Corona67

10-04-2006, 02:01 AM

CORONA67............... :thumbup: :thumbup:

Keep on educating people on simple logical things about this planet......

Let me ask you a question.... Do you think the Discovery Channel or the National Geographic channel can help a little? A simple google search? Library?

Cheers!

Discovery is good for a general overview of things, but obviously geared toward a general audience.

If you really want to make yourself feel stupid, read Nature magazine at your local library. (I feel pretty dumb reading it, as I don't understand quite a bit in some of the studies.) They publish recent peer-reviewed studies on all disciplines of science. They are also online, though I haven't looked at the site.

Hey I am an Electrical Engineer and I barely know how to spell Biology. Environment is a real concern here and like YOU said, the melting of ice on the poles is not somebody's imagination.... :lol:
The Atlantic belt is a real concern here in the REAL world.

Well, as an EE you should be better at reading the math in Nature than me! :)

This place is funny as hell... :lol:

A big barrel of monkeys!! :D

C