Entire Antarctic Shelf splitting away from Continent.

[tufsu1]

My concern about the NYTimes was not their prediction (which is meaningless), but about their blatant bias while reporting on the candidates. The Times, along with MSNBC, have been the reporting arm of the liberal Democrat party.

Incidentally, The Grey Lady has been steadily losing revenue and laying off employees because of it. While it may hold a reputation of high stature in liberal circles, it is slowly dying. Check out how the Times wants a part of the bailout package.

The NY Times is struggling, as is just about every newspaper in the country....it has very little to do with so-called political leanings.

That said, feel free to ignore the New York Times...but what about all the scientists quoted in the article...I assume they also have a liberal agenda?

Maybe you should take note of an earlier post....which said we should be more "green" because its the right thing to do....plain and simple!

[Charleston native]

Such obtuse comments. Gator, if you actually paid attention to my earlier posts, YOU should've specified that the ship pictured was participating in ice core research with an article quote or link. You failed to satisfy your burden of proof, then find liberal cliches and quips to rub my inaccurate assessment in my face, when I really didn't have all the information to begin with. Obama "gets it", because that is what he wants. It allows him access to obtain more power and make government bigger. The point is that if you think man is that culpable when we only spew about 0.05% of the world's carbon, it is vain and ludicrous to think we will make a difference with "what is at stake".

Actually tusfu, many scientists do have a political agenda in the name of government grants. It would not surprise me if these scientists had one. As far as being green, now we are beginning to see the insanity of the green movement in that we're equating being green with being moral. Good f---ing night, that is a religion! Being green is not right if it limits the freedom of people as well as oppresses people and businesses with taxes and standard of living reductions.

[gatorback]

See.  I told you keep typing you'd get one right.   I agree with your statement that I rubbed you the wrong way.  In the future, I'll try harder.  With that said, a couple of points:

1) Obama is trying to bring both sides to the table, a policy the Bush administration opposed.  Obama's decision to let the states decide what pollution standards they have is evident that.  Before, Bush just supported Detroit.  Now, the states have a say.  Don't you agree that's the right thing to do.  I'd think you'd be for less Federal Government. 

2) Don't be so naive.  Man is aptly capable of destroying this planet.  It's greed and ignorance that is doing us all in.

3)  I have no burden of proof.  There's no question in my mind.  They are only in yours.  The burden of proof is on you.

4)  This isn't beauty pageant.  I don't need to act or behave like everybody else. I try to be unpredictable. Fight the machine.

[Charleston native]

Point #3 is basically a "Pot-meet-kettle" moment, so I will ignore that. I will address your first two points:

1. Bush "supporting" Detroit is inaccurate. He initiated incentives for automakers there to create more fuel efficient cars as well as vehicles that supported alternative fuels. He actually bought into the AGW hysteria, as well as Obama. Bush also signed idiotic green bills such as banning incandescent bulbs, all in the name of AGW.

2. Naivete is not my issue, because I understand man can have an impact on local environments, but he cannot destroy the planet. To think so is very vain and foolhardy. I can agree with you on one thing: greed and ignorance is indeed screwing us all. However, you may be surprised to find that it will be the greed and ignorance of the few "elites" who will "help" us by gaining more power.

[gatorback]

The disappearance of 80 % of all glacier ice in Tibet and the Himalayas by 2035 is an impact on the local environment there.  Locally, it's pretty dry there except for the water coming from the glaciers themselves.  These glaciers are like water towers.  With them gone, it's going to be pretty difficult to live in that area.  Sure, we've had climate changes in the past, but we've never had 6.5 billion people.  It doesn't take an Einstein to see that melting will cause a lot of refugees that will tax another system already over burdened, etc., etc., etc.  Nearly 1/2 of the worlds people depends on Himalayan, and Tibet glacier water. The brahmaputra, Yellow, yangtze, just to name a few, all have their source those glaciers.  We're talking about billions of people living downstream from those glaciers.  Therefore, it is extremely important with what happens to those glaciers. Don't you think we should plan now and do what we can to slow this processes--if possible? 

And this is just one problem of global warming.

[tufsu1]

Actually tusfu, many scientists do have a political agenda in the name of government grants. It would not surprise me if these scientists had one. As far as being green, now we are beginning to see the insanity of the green movement in that we're equating being green with being moral. Good f---ing night, that is a religion! Being green is not right if it limits the freedom of people as well as oppresses people and businesses with taxes and standard of living reductions.

And many of the anti-GW scientists are bankrolled by the oil and gas industry....but that hasn't stopped you all from quoting them.

As for the morality of things, I would suggest reviewing the platforms of various religious movements, such as the Roman Catholoic Church...you will find that environmental stewardship is included in most....Judaism puts it in as part of "Tikkun Olam", which means "Repair the World"

[Charleston native]

Again, you among other leftists take my words and twist them to fill your ideological context. I'm all for being a good steward of the world. But, it is sheer vanity to think that we have complete control over it.

Your first statement is liberal propaganda ad nauseum; another tactic by the environmentalists. There are many scientists who are NOT paid by those industries who are anti-AGW. They live in little apartments, are economically strained, and gain NOTHING by opposing the hysteria.

[Ocklawaha]

SteamPunked Argument.

OCKLAWAHA

[gatorback]

Climate change is being caused by human actions. I think the sooner your realize that the better.

Bush rejected Kyoto therefore, allowing Detroit to build 12 MPG SUV and not having to invest in alt. fuels vehicles.  That's supporting Detroit in my book.  Toyota built the Prius and is eating GM's lunch.  Now we fork over billions to Detroit for a bailout?  Again, more proof of support of Detroit.

Quick, where's my ray gun.

[Charleston native]

Climate change is being caused by human actions. I think the sooner your realize that the better.

That's right...embrace the propaganda. Embrace our religion.

I hear the voice of Darth Vader himself: "It is pointless...to resist."

Well, it is pointless to converse with you on this subject anymore. You're wrong about Detroit; plenty of government intervention during Bush has been invested with ethanol-fueled cars (and as we witnessed, it created a HUGE problem with food). You're wrong about the bailout; the reason for it is that it costs almost 3 times as much in wages to make a car with GM than Toyota. You also immediately think that the eeeeevil Booooossshhh should've accepted Kyoto when Clinton didn't either. I'm talking with a cultist. Thanks for the frustration.

[gatorback]

Why don't you post a scan of your Heartland Institute Founding Member Black Card for us all to enjoy.  Funny even ExxonMobile has ended funding to your beloved institute.  That's probably the source of your frustration. How much are they paying you for this crap?

Here's an except from their 2008 conference on Global Warming:

"... human produced green house gases are not responsible for global warming ..."

Right!?!  The burden of proof is on you.  Go.

[Doctor_K]

Climate change is being caused by human actions. I think the sooner your realize that the better.

But not all of it.  That's Charleston Native's point.  Warming and cooling is a natural phenomenon, which gets lost on the Global Warming alarmist crowd more often than not. 

George Carlin once said near the end of his 'Jammin in New York' routine, about different animal species: "over 95% of all animal species who ever walked the Earth *ever* are gone.  Dead.  *We* didn't kill them all."

Same holds true with global warming.  *We* didn't do it all.  Does mankind have an impact?  Most likely.  Are we doing it solely?  Hell no.  There's sulfer and methane and Carbon monoxide and Carbon Dioxide being spewed into the atmosphere daily and by the (literal) ton (or tonne, for that matter) from active volcanoes around the globe.  *We're* not telling them to do it.  *We're* not responsible for it.  Those things pump out more pollutants in one day than anyone can really grasp, who doesn't have expert-level knowledge of the subject.  It's stupid and uninformed to blame humanity solely.  And comical.

Bush rejected Kyoto therefore, allowing Detroit to build 12 MPG SUV and not having to invest in alt. fuels vehicles.  That's supporting Detroit in my book.

Clinton also rejected Kyoto.  And now there are plenty of signatory countries who are reevaluating the Kyoto treaty in the face of the global economic downturn.  No I don't have an article to back it up, but it was big news some weeks ago.  Economics ultimately wins against good intentions.

Further, Bush (and Clinton) not submitting Kyoto for Senate ratification and Detroit (as well as Honda, Toyota, Nissan, and other foreign manufacturers who sell cars in the American market) producing the 12 mpg SUVs are not, in fact, related.  Car companies design, plan, and then sell automobiles based on current and perceived future demand.  Oil was insanely cheap per-barrell in the early 90s, the average consumer demanded something other than a Civic, Sentra, or Escort, and so larger vehicles were planned and built.  And purchased.  In record numbers.

Alternative-fuel vehicles were indeed invested in and researched.  GM's EV-1 was unveiled in the 90s, in the face of cheap oil and big SUV sales.  No one wanted it because a) it looked dumb, b) the technology in the car to be mass-produced was not viewed as cost-effective and thus c) the car would not have been mass-produced profitably. 

Biofuels and the related technology didn't just magically appear when oil hit $100 a barrell.  Something like that had to be in the works for years.  If not by the car manufacturers, than certainly by other industries or industrious entrepreneurial types.  Detroit as a whole didn't want to invest in alternative energy/fuels because there was no market for it.  No market = no reason to build.  No reason to build = no wanting to waste capital/profits on a dead-end segment.

And profits, to some peoples' dismay, are what drive the engines of business and enterprise.  That's the way it's always been.  Deal with it.

Toyota built the Prius and is eating GM's lunch.  Now we fork over billions to Detroit for a bailout?  Again, more proof of support of Detroit.

Not really.  GM and Ford put more of their eggs in the SUV basket than did the Japanese, but sales are down for Toyota and Nissan too.  No one car manufacturing group escaped the sales decline.  It's economics, only global this time and only partially related to big oil and thus GW.

Also, Detroit puts out more vehicles than SUVs.  Oh hey, Toyota's got the Highlander, Tundra, Sequoia (and all the Lexus equivalents).  Nissan the Pathfinder, X-Terra, , Rogue, Armada (and all the Infiniti equivalents).  Honda/Acura has quite a few trucks and SUVs too.

Also, you won't see the new administration *not* support such bailouts.  Obama will ultimately prove as big a 'Detroit supporter' as Bush, and he won't have the perceived 'ties to the industry' as the evil Bush did. 

Let these companies fail.  What's the worst?  They declare bankruptcy?  Hell all the airlines did and most of them are still around.  So what?  Let the dead brush be cleared away.  If the companies were run well and responsibly in the first place, they wouldn't need a bailout.

[BridgeTroll]

Gatorback... Cmon dude...

Bush rejected Kyoto therefore...

Your anger at Bush is once again misplaced.  Bumper stickers lie...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyoto_Protocol#United_States

The United States (U.S.), although a signatory to the Kyoto Protocol, has neither ratified nor withdrawn from the Protocol

The Clinton Administration never submitted the protocol to the Senate for ratification.

President George W. Bush, did not submit the treaty for Senate ratification, not because he did not support the Kyoto principles, but because of the exemption granted to China

Bush said of the treaty:

This is a challenge that requires a 100% effort; ours, and the rest of the world's. The world's second-largest emitter of greenhouse gases is the People's Republic of China. Yet, China was entirely exempted from the requirements of the Kyoto Protocol. India and Germany are among the top emitters. Yet, India was also exempt from Kyoto ... America's unwillingness to embrace a flawed treaty should not be read by our friends and allies as any abdication of responsibility. To the contrary, my administration is committed to a leadership role on the issue of climate change ... Our approach must be consistent with the long-term goal of stabilizing greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere."[73]

As is nearly always the case... GWB gets blamed for something that is not entirely true... 

[gatorback]

For the first time in 2008 Toyota sold more vehicles then GM.  I don't see dolphins changing their diets to cut CO2 emissions.  LOL.

15 years ago Clinton invited Detroit to the White House to give America a new chapter in automotive history.  What ever became of that?  Nothing except a big fat bailout check.  Clinton tried to bargain a solution.  Bush did nothing. Clinton's deal was he would not work at a mandate raising milage efficiency if Detroit develop a more efficient automobile.  What ever happened to that project? Well, it got off to a good start.  Each of the 3 build small diesel hybrid electrics prototypes and said they would have them on the market by 2001.  They never made it to market.  Instead, what did they  build? They built the Ford Excursion V10, GM built the Pontiac GTO, Hummer H2 and H3, and DaimlerCrystler a V8 HEMI Jeep? Give me a break.

[Captain Zissou]

Doctor K is spot on.  Development of hybrid and electric cars goes back much further than people realize.  The Prius wasn't even close to the first.  Problem is back then nobody cared how many miles per gallon a car got, as long as it could carry 4 kids, a yellow lab, soccer equipment, and a 15 gallon cooler.  Demand influences development.  Detroit will only develop as far as they see practical.

'America' claims to want all this change, but seriously, try going without your car for 3 hours.  What's that? You won't do it?  I ride a bike 3 days out of the week about 8 or 9 miles a day.  I'm not an environmentalist, i just hate paying for gas; gas that comes from wherever.

People really don't talk with their wallet in this country, they mutter under their breath with it.  Until true market forces drive the auto companies into the ground, the fat cats are just going to wait for their handout, which they will get eventually.