Bob Lutz calls global warming crock of [bad word]

[trebuchet03]

Originally Posted by LostCause

This might be slightly off topic, but I've always wondered what if global warming is a good thing. It really doesn't look that way, but for a mental exercise, lets say it is. More cropland opens up, rainforests extend their range and increase biodiversity despite loss of cold weather animals, the world is more productive and the quality of living rises for all...would it still be so bad?

The term "Global Warming" is a misnomer. It's not that everywhere will increase in temperature by x degrees. It's global climate destabilization - the trend of which is warmer on a planetary scale (not necessarily local). For example, I have yet to have my Central Florida winter. It will be 55 degrees one day - 85 a day and a half later, then torrential rains (this is the dry season). BUT, remember that local weather is no indication of global trends. But imagine a situation where it's 75 for a week followed by a couple days a freezing followed by more 75 degree weather. This is not ideal for crop growing :/

Originally Posted by LostCause

I suppose the question isn't whether global warming is a crock of ****, but whether the arguments against it are. I for one would be oppossed simply due to the moral aspect of man changing something greater than himself. Apart from the whole oil consumption issue, would SUV's still be villanized if they helped the world? Probably, but then it gets down into a deeper issue. One I feel that is more important. Even if global warming is bogus, the change and attitude it inspires certainly is not. Bob Lutz, you could be right...but you're still a greedy SOB in my book.

- LostCause

Perhaps I can steer you into a better questioning direction... But first - the scientific method does not allow anyone to prove a negative. No one can prove any god doesn't exist. Nor can anyone prove that aliens didn't construct the Pyramids at Giza. America, for some reason (I blame low education), has lost touch with this fundamental science understanding. Why have people not investing in proving GW doesn't exist (I've heard this argument so many times) - because that's not how science works. It's not a conspiracy, it's how the process works.

So the better question - "Can we afford the consequences of either outcome?" Can we afford the environmental and economic costs of doing nothing and GW being correct? Or, can we afford the economic costs of doing something and GW not being correct? You don't have to answer me - just bear in mind that being correct and doing nothing leads to similar economic/social issues of being incorrect and taking action - being correct and doing nothing just has the assisted benefit of one fubar place to live.

The best way to handle those questions is to take a Socratic approach. Ask a question related to each answer before drawing a conclusion. Repeat until exhausted, then formulate an opinion. It helps to write it down so you can review

-----
SUV's in their current form will always be villainized. Safety, consumption of resources etc.

[LostCause]

I'm impressed by your line of thinking, but I was trying to make an argument beyond global warming. Imagine a hypothetical version of today's world. No one has ever heard of global warming, oil isn't going to run out for 1000 years, resources and pollution are being perfectly maintained, but our American lifestyle is exactly the same. In this hypothetical world, we consume without consequence.

Now, I wonder to myself is that so bad? Does that system need to change? The conclusion I keep coming to is always yes. For reasons that science doesn't need to answer, valueing material consumption above all feels morally degrading. Something just feels corrupt about sacrificing your life for a bigger paycheck. It is on those grounds that I wholly support global warming and the change it brings about.

Don't get me wrong, I completely believe in man made global warming and that it has the potential to significantly alter the modern day world. For me, when people make an argument against the existence of global warming I think they are missing the point. Global warming isn't the real issue, it's something much deeper and more fundamental. Even if they accomplish the heroic task of proving the earth is in homeostasis, they still lose.

Oh, and if any of this seems a bit "out there," I'll be the first to admit I'm not very practical.

- LostCause

[Gone4]

Originally Posted by LostCause

I'm impressed by your line of thinking, but I was trying to make an argument beyond global warming. Imagine a hypothetical version of today's world. No one has ever heard of global warming, oil isn't going to run out for 1000 years, resources and pollution are being perfectly maintained, but our American lifestyle is exactly the same. In this hypothetical world, we consume without consequence.

Now, I wonder to myself is that so bad? Does that system need to change? The conclusion I keep coming to is always yes. For reasons that science doesn't need to answer, valueing material consumption above all feels morally degrading. Something just feels corrupt about sacrificing your life for a bigger paycheck. It is on those grounds that I wholly support global warming and the change it brings about.

Don't get me wrong, I completely believe in man made global warming and that it has the potential to significantly alter the modern day world. For me, when people make an argument against the existence of global warming I think they are missing the point. Global warming isn't the real issue, it's something much deeper and more fundamental. Even if they accomplish the heroic task of proving the earth is in homeostasis, they still lose.

Oh, and if any of this seems a bit "out there," I'll be the first to admit I'm not very practical.

- LostCause

If you enjoying reading, and have not read read Walden, by Henry Thoreau, I highly recommend it to you. He was denouncing material possessions and consumption, at a practical level and as a layman, long before global warming was a concern. He has taught me a lot.

[elhigh]

Originally Posted by bennelson

I have no problems with resale value. I don't buy cars with the idea of selling them later. I buy them to drive them.

If you buy a car and drive it forever what's the point of a high resale value?

AMEN! 21 years and going strong. Never thought about selling it! When I'm finally done with it, I think the only people interested are going to be historians.

(100 years from now)
"...and here we have a classic example of old technology, a vehicle fueled by fossil-sourced petroleum. This one even has no fuel injection, the fuel is inducted by an air-entrainment device called a 'carburetor.' Let's see if it starts..."

"Vroom!"

"Yep."

[H4MM3R]

http://link.brightcove.com/services/...ctid1456296973

[Who]

Originally Posted by elhigh

(100 years from now)
"...and here we have a classic example of old technology, a vehicle fueled by fossil-sourced petroleum. This one even has no fuel injection, the fuel is inducted by an air-entrainment device called a 'carburetor.' Let's see if it starts..."

"Vroom!"

"Yep."

And within seconds you're under arrest for an eco-crime...