Good MPG Target for Mass Market (Eco Rant)

[cRiPpLe_rOoStEr]

Originally Posted by Ecky

I risk playing the devil's advocate here because I'm a huge fan of keeping classic cars on the road, despite their higher pollution - I honestly don't care if it's a tiny minority of cars - but the standards for a '66 are probably very low, considering it wasn't until the mid 70's that catalytic converters became (almost) necessary to pass emissions.

The problem with some older cars is that they can't stand to a leaner burn without the risk of melting their pistons due to the absence of oil spraying nozzles, having to rely on a richer air/fuel ratio for cooling. But anyway, an eventual retrofit into an old iron to improve its emissions and fuel-efficiency is still most likely to be less energy-intensive than building a newer econobox which would be supposed to take its entire expected life cycle to overcome this initial disadvantage.

[roflwaffle]

Originally Posted by rmay635703

The greatest threat to humanity is unsustainable population growth.

Reduce population to around 1 billion and most current problems become much more manageable

We can, but people can just use more resources and we're back where we started.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_%3D_PAT#Affluence

The majority of resource consumption and pollution is from 5-15% of the world's population. Population growth could stop tomorrow and we'd still have excessive resource consumption and pollution.

[roflwaffle]

Originally Posted by mcrews

No, it's bogus. it's not a 'little'.
it's a lie.
'mostly true' ?????? wth does that mean!
It's made up.
Has nothing to do with 'relative magnitude' compared to something else.
97 is a specific number. not an estimate or guess.
5 pages (and there are actually more- but I didn't want to 'exagerate' ) debunk the claim.

Mostly true means mostly true. 97+% of all papers published on GW endorse the position that humans contribute to global warming. 97+% of the top 200 climate researchers believe humans contribute to GW as do 97+% of earth scientists who currently publish. All those are factual statements.

At the same time, not all scientific communities have the same level of consensus. the AMS surveyed 1800 meteorologists and found that only 73% believe humans contribute to global warming.

Beyer said "over 97 percent of the scientific community" believe humans are contributing to climate change.

The studies Beyer and others cite do not reflect the scientific community at large. They are surveys that focus on the conclusions of climatologists, earth scientists and meteorologists. The studies found that overwhelming majorities of these experts - sometimes, but not always as high as 97 percent - say humans are contributing to global warming.

Beyer’s statement is credible but needs elaboration. We rate it Mostly True.

A more accurate statement would be to quantify which surveys are being referenced and present all of the survey results. The links in your post aren't working for me, but my guess is that anyone claiming to "debunk" those figures is mostly wrong. They're a little right insofar as not all surveys have 97+%, and those should be included as well. Those surveys don't invalidate the other surveys showing that 97+% of the top 200 climate and earth scientists who publish believe humans contribute to climate change, as do 97+% of all papers published on the subject.

[roflwaffle]

Originally Posted by Hersbird

Fighting and humans have been the norm for eternity. As soon as we see the first humans making crude tools we see those same tools embedded in each other's skulls. Ironically taking an observance in science and assigning it to specific human activity, true or untrue , is going to lead to conflicts.

That's true, but no one expects people to just lie down and die when there isn't enough food and/or water because of drought associated with climate change.

You could say the same thing if we nuked the majority of arable farmland and water resources. It wasn't nuclear weapons that caused conflict, it was the people who started fighting over the few resources left.

If you want to be reductionist, it's not even fighting and humans. It's really physics causing all this, and *that's been the norm for eternity.

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiat...tmospheric_gas

[Fingie]

There's still too much people on this planet IMO.

[redneck]

.

The Georgia Guidestones

The Georgia Guidestones


THE MESSAGE OF THE GEORGIA GUIDESTONES

1. Maintain humanity under 500,000,000 in perpetual balance with nature.

2. Guide reproduction wisely - improving fitness and diversity.

3. Unite humanity with a living new language.

4. Rule passion - faith - tradition - and all things with tempered reason.

5. Protect people and nations with fair laws and just courts.

6. Let all nations rule internally resolving external disputes in a world court.

7. Avoid petty laws and useless officials.

8. Balance personal rights with social duties.

9. Prize truth - beauty - love - seeking harmony with the infinite.

10.Be not a cancer on the earth - Leave room for nature - Leave room for nature.


>

[Hersbird]

Originally Posted by roflwaffle

That's true, but no one expects people to just lie down and die when there isn't enough food and/or water because of drought associated with climate change.

You could say the same thing if we nuked the majority of arable farmland and water resources. It wasn't nuclear weapons that caused conflict, it was the people who started fighting over the few resources left.

If you want to be reductionist, it's not even fighting and humans. It's really physics causing all this, and *that's been the norm for eternity.

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiat...tmospheric_gas

People aren't going to have to lie down and die. IF global warming is happening there will be more food producing areas available then there were before. I guess they might have to lie down and die if they don't adapt and change or just wait for somebody else to come and save them. Those people you don't have to worry about rising up and fighting you for something, they expect somebody else to do that for them as well.

[redpoint5]

Originally Posted by Natalya

But this forum has nothing to do with nukes.

Global warming is an entirely different threat to humanity, and it actually sorta has something to do with ecomodder.com which is that fossil fuel usage on a ludicrous scale can slowly change the composition of our atmosphere and its climate characteristics...

So in this thread, there's no need to talk about nukes or nuclear power plants because they're totally off topic. I don't go to epilepsy forums and tell them, "You know actually epilepsy isn't a big deal, we should focus on early childhood leukemia, that's the REAL problem."

Talk of global warming in this forum is more like going into a general health forum and only wanting to talk about Fatal Familial Insomnia; a disease that affects about 100 people worldwide. It's a very serious disease that is catastrophic for relatively few people. Even though it's serious, talking about it more than other health concerns would be silly.

People misplace their attention and worry on things a. outside their control, and b. on unlikely threats to their wellbeing.

I'm on car forums where people rant about how unsafe it is to buy a car with a reconstructed title because the wheels might fall off and kill you.

I'll point out to them that a reconstructed title isn't going to kill me. Neither will global warming. You know what is going to kill me? Heart disease.

Shouldn't the amount of discussions in the media and online be in proportion to their actual threat to our well-being?

How much of news is devoted to talking about terrorism? How many people do you know killed by terrorism compared to heart disease or cancer?

There will be no tombstones saying "here lies redpoint, succumbed to global warming".

Originally Posted by roflwaffle

Why do you think those things are separate from climate change?

Because all of these problems have existed before the invention of worrying about global climate change.

Sure, global warming might have a slight positive or negative impact on some of these problems, but they won't go away by trying to mess with the outdoor thermostat.

[Hersbird]

Again, too bad there is not a lounge area on this forum to keep these political rants out of the useful space.

[Joggernot]

Try the lounge. The Lounge - Fuel Economy, Hypermiling, EcoModding News and Forum - EcoModder.com