This is a B.S. isssue.Right PALLO.

Global warming came during early summer, and then was gone for the latter half. Lake Michigan water was almost too cold to swim (I can't remember it ever being like that.)

Global warming has been gone for about a month - but today it's back; and I suspect it will be gone by tomorrow.

I prefer we not discuss it because it always seeems to get cold when we do; tomorrow will prove me correct.

Seems like I read somewhere that mankind will destroy itself by fire. Those words are written in a very old book of morals and prophecies. Most people refer to it simply as - The Good Book. Upon first reading that line I found it utterly impossible to believe. It now seems there is truth to it. We will never give up the machinery that make our economies what they are - not even in the face of forecast self extinction. It doesn't matter. If the 5 Billion years that earth has existed were translated to a 24 hour clock - our species has only been around for the last 2 seconds before midnight. Another race of some form will arise and come to self awareness and the story will repeat, if that is meant to be.

The Wingnut party just laughs at the global warming issue.

What more would you expect from the party that is in the back pocket of big oil companies.

Does wanting to keep the Earth safe from catastrophic destruction count as a value? Or are the only real "family values" that which elevate the fetus and the brain-dead above the living?

Republican timeline of Life:

No sex education should be taught in schools or in overseas family planning facilities, its abstinence or nothing.

If an unwanted pregnancy is to occur (whether through consensual sex, rape or incest) the child simply must be brought to term.

Once the Child enters the world, he/she is immediately on their own as the support programs are decried by the GOP as scary big government.

No value is placed on securing clean water and air for this Child, reasonably priced health care, job training, a strong public school education...

The bombing of children in far off lands is not taken into consideration.

If the Child commits a crime, it would be perfectly acceptable and perhaps preferable to execute it.

If the Child lives to old age and becomes completely incapacitated with no signs of life for a decade or longer, they simply must be kept alive even in spite of their own express wishes because the GOP is "honoring the sanctity of life."

How can any Wingnut be completely opposed to abortion under any circumstances and still support the death penalty? Why does keeping the earth safe for future generations not get included in the "honoring of life?"

Such garbage.

A half-vast idea that will take more thought:

If we were serious about reducing greenhouse gas emissions, we'd change the basis of Federal taxation from income to energy use.

Automobiles would be taxed on the basis of cradle-to-grave energy consumption. A Toyota Prius would be taxed at a higher rate than a Chevy Tahoe; all those batteries, and all that copper in the electric motor, require a lot of energy to manufacture, and just as important, to recycle at the end of vehicle life.

Gasoline of course would have much higher tax than now. You'd see lots fewer people driving around in solitary splendor in Ford Excursions, Nissan Armadas, etc.

Electricity, natural gas, ditto.

Perhaps the basis of taxation should be on fossil energy use. Even the so-called "renewable" fuels such as ethanol would not escape, because of the fuel needed to run farm machinery, transport the grain to the plants where it will be fermented, truck the ethanol to where it will be mixed with gasoline (it doesn't go through pipelines), and so on. There are reputable sources who say that ethanol as fuel takes more energy than it provides, and is mainly a boondoggle for agribusiness interests. But I digress.

Donning my flame-proof suit . . . .

As I noted above, more thought needed.

The Bush admin doesn't think global warming is real. It's part of the Liberal War on Christmas.

Our conservative overlords file global warming with evolution, Terri Schiavo, flag burning, gay marriage, and other important culture war vote getting issues.

Soon to be added to the "you're not a Christian" list;

Astro-physics (universe > 6k years old)
Gravity (denies divine influence over planets. Newton bad)
Biology (see evolution)
Geology (ground > 6k years old)
Medical Science (depends on evolution)

I think we have had enough of these retrogrades. Toss em on election day.

Global Environmental Change is inevitable, cannot be predicted, and no living human being has any idea of what we are on the cusp of experiencing here on Planet Earth. We live on a tiny planet in a tiny solar system illuminated by a tiny star in a galaxy containing trillions of stars and planets in a universe that contains trillions of similar galaxies, stars, and planets, among other things. Every human being on this planet has an electro magnetic shield (AURA) that protects them from harmful external elements, harmful external energies, and acts as personal force-field allowing you live in good health until it becomes degraded, pierced, or fails then your physical body DIES. On a larger scale our special, beautiful, and living planet Earth has an electro magnetic shield (AURA) called the (ATMOSPHERE) that protects the entire planetary ecosystem from harmful external elements, harmful external energies, and acts as a planetary force-field for all of life to exist in good health until it becomes degraded, pierced, or fails then everything on PLANET EARTH DIES. Citizens of Planet Earth you are Citizens of a much larger Universe. Your planetary electro magnetic force-field (AURA)(ATMOSPHERE)(has not only been degraded, it is now also pierced (allowing in harmful external elements, harmful external energies, among other things that should not be allowed to penetrate into Planet Earth). If the pierced hole in the EARTH'S (AURA) (ATMOSPHERE) is not patched and repaired then it will FAIL and everything on PLANET EARTH DIES. It really is that simple. THERE IS NO MORE IMPORTANT ISSUE FACING ALL OF HUMANITY THAN WHAT I HAVE EXPLAINED TO YOU. I can assure you George Bush Jr., Richard Cheney, Dennis Hastert, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfawitz, and Michael Hayden do not understand THE "REAL THREAT" TO THE "REAL WORLD" nor will they do anything about it. They will continue on their criminal path of malfeasance, decpetion, trickery, sleight of hand, murder, conspiracy to defraud Congress, The United States of America and its citizens, and the Whole World while pocketing trillions of your dollars. If you think ignorance is bliss and want to continue living in George Bush's criminal fantasy world then vote 100% REPUBLICAN. If you want to FIRE & REPLACE George Bush, Richard Cheney, Dennis Hastert, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfawitz, and Michael Hayden with citizens who know & will deal with what "THE REAL THREAT TO ALL OF HUMANITY" & "THE REAL WORLD" is then vote 100% DEMOCRATIC. IT REALLY IS THAT SIMPLE!! The threat from a degraded & pierced (AURA) (ATMOSHPERE)is THE OVERIDING UNIVERSAL "CLEAR & PRESENT DANGER" What good are the REPUBLICANS doing by exterminating SPIRITUAL ISLAMIC MUSLIMS when all life on PLANET EARTH may be on the cusp of experiencing extermination by total (ATMOSPHERIC) (AURA) failure. My fellow Americans, you have one chance on November 7, 2006 to stop the madness taking place in the NEO-CON REPUBLICAN controlled White House, Senate, and Congress. If you love life & love planet Earth vote 100% Democratic to start diverting those trillions toward patching our planet's degraded & pierced AURA ATMOSPHERE.

Earth to humans,

Want to stop global warming? STOP BREEDING yourselves into the destruction of me and the extinction of you. What selfish, stupid species would think themselves so superior, but wantonly destroy everything around them?

Before you start flapping your jaws in denial of what is going on around you, I demand that you pick up a book or DVD of "An Inconvenient Truth"

Wake up and smell the greenhouse gases.

All you enemies of Big Guvmint, take note: some things can only be done on the federal level. Say, defending the borders. Or, say, stopping the destruction of Earth as we know it.

The Ford Model T averaged about 25 miles per gallon. Today's spiffy computerized internal cumbustion engine averages about 28 miles per gallon. Yippee -- three whole miles in 80 years!

The fact is that without federal rules auto manufacturers have zero incentive to design and build more efficient cars. With gas kept at artificially low prices, consumers have no incentive to buy efficient cars. With no user-friendly public transportation system, people will continue to need cars to accomplish the activities of daily living.

The clean-up can only be directed from above. The alternative is to wait for "the market" (which is oh-so-wise about everything -- just look at the popularity of reality TV!) to dictate the needed changes. By then it's too late.

Blair is a lame-duck PM and has been made a fool because of his role as America's pet poodle. But on this he's right.

Global Warming is a good way for people to start worshiping mother nature instead of that pesky god. We can also blame large corporations for global warming and show how evil they are along with capitalism in general. Finally we can blame SUV driving Yuppies for killing our troops in Iraq, and destroying the ozone layer.

It will FINALLY clear the way for people to start accepting Socialism in the USA as the only way to stop the greedy corporate racist yuppies who destroy our sacred earth.

Yeah Global Warming!

George Walker Bush doesn't seem to have any friends any where any more. Tsk-tsk. Even Tony Blair is shunning him now. It's about time people woke up and realized that after a Texan has the crap beat out of him, all that's left is a hat, boots and a belt. In Bush's case there's also a small metal symbol of the American flag that he has abused so corruptly. Just 8 more days America and we can start to restore you to your former glory. 8 more days to the decision that Jan 1st President Bush will be held to account for his war in Iraq.

Liz,

The Ford Model T averaged about 25 mpg???

I'd like to hear OHCD's British viewpoint on this issue brought up by Saint Tony Blair.

Are you out there???

Elizabeth Bennet,The Ford Model T had 20 horse power and averaged "13" m.p.h.....Yippee
Auto manufacturers have no incentive to build more fuel efficent cars??? Ever hear of a "gas guzzler tax" or Toyota,Honda,Nissan???
Gas kept at artifically low prices??? What to you drive...a Schwinn.
No user friendly public transportation system???Ever hear of trains and buses that stop,pick you up and take you where you want to go???
The market,reality T.V.????
Are you in the same mental ward as John E ?????
Paulo

Yippee, now a whole other country will get to engage in the madcap fun that is igoring Al Gore. Good job, UK!

The hot air (carbon dioxide) exhaled by the brainwashed masses at republican party mutual admiration talk fests is a major factor in contributing to global warming. And I hear Bob Woodward is writing another book on the invasion of Iraq entitled "A convenient untruth"

"Our conservative overlords file global warming with evolution, Terri Schiavo, flag burning, gay marriage, and other important culture war vote getting issues."

"Soon to be added to the 'you're not a Christian' list;

"Astro-physics (universe > 6k years old)
Gravity (denies divine influence over planets. Newton bad)
Biology (see evolution)
Geology (ground > 6k years old)
Medical Science (depends on evolution)"

Posted by: C.Morris | Oct 30, 2006 5:20:54 PM

C.Morris, I KNOW you're a lot smarter than this really dumb post makes you seem.

There's nothing "Conservative" about that list of cultural non issues. Just ask William Buckley or George Will or William Saffire if they think that "evolution is just a theory" or how old the Universe is. Or ask Andrew Sullivan about Gay rights.

The people that you (and I) want to toss out are radical revolutionaries, not Conservatives, and I think if I pressed the point you would admit that.

Socialist Man,

Why, you sound like some kind of brownshirt.

Does anybody really know what time it is?

Does anybody really care?

NO.

Boy, Paulo has the 'angry man' thing going this AM.

I, on the other hand, just feel great today! The coffee turned out real well, and strong too. (Don't let Rick the Inquisitor Santorum know how good the caffeine high is. He will propose a Const. Amend. to outlaw it.)

Anything I can find on the old T says 25 MPG.

The last long trip I took in my 99 'T'(aurus) was a very good 28.3 MPG.

So, Lizzy's figures are not off the charts. But my trip would have taken days in the T times, instead of 8 hours.

Juanito,

Your party, which is undeniably the conservative party in America, supports all of these issues:

"Our conservative overlords file global warming with evolution, Terri Schiavo, flag burning, gay marriage, and other important culture war vote getting issues."

Your attempt to split hairs about what makes a conservative is a red herring. Whether Safire, Will, or any other individual disagrees with these sentiments, they nonetheless are the prop which holds up the GOP.

Unfortunately, the radical revolutionaries are in power in the guise of conservatives, and the country seems to be buying it out of fear or cowardice or whatever. That is why it is necessary Nov. 7 to vote in the liberal opposition and begin to reestablish the sane center.

"The people that you (and I) want to toss out are radical revolutionaries, not Conservatives, and I think if I pressed the point you would admit that.

Posted by: Juanito | Oct 31, 2006 7:00:08 AM"

Good response!

This is what we libs want to provoke; a strong, coherent response from thinking conservatives against the far RR wing.

Lumping them all together is a tactic to split conservatives off from the RR.

PS to Chicago; The time is way too late.

C.Morris, YES! Let's get back to normal.

Bryan, first of all you don't know what my party is -- it dosen't even have a name yet. Secondly my point is not a red herring at all: Conservative principles are what they are, and they fly in the face of denying evolution and enforcing religious doctrines on the general public. Thirdly, the radicals are on the ropes and looking like they're going to be knocked out, so there goes the "the prop which holds up the GOP" -- soon you'll have to find something else to complain about.

13 mph for a Model T sounds hard to believe, but I admit that I wouldn't know. In any case Ms Bennet's larger points are on the mark. Cars are grossly inefficient (and they don't have to be), Public Transit Transportation is grossly inadequate, America wastes petroleum and global warming is approaching the point of no return.

What mental ward have you escaped from, Paulo????

Yo John E.

Yes around, but eyeball deep in work, so hence the recent silence.

Global warming is big deal in the UK - not least because we're a small island and a rise in sea level would result in wet feet.

There seems to be more or less complete agreement that the tax burden here should - and will - shift to a so-called green tax - ie polluter pays, and gas prices, air travel and the like will get more expensive.

But this has got to be a no-brainer - couple Global Warming with the growing evidence of an oil peak, and if we don't start to husband resources, we will be in the cart. Not sure if this can be done by producing +300 bhp V8 gasoline-powered cars.

Once again, a serious issue has been hi-jacked by a partisan political system - sad, but rather funny in terms of the British response.

Blair - we must do something about this.

Opposition parties - yes, we must.

Agreement in British politics. A first, and rather unwelcome for TB.

Welcome back, OHCD. Wondered where you wandered?
I think Tony may be starting to look at his 'legacy' and want's to be remembered for something other than supporting GWB.

By the way; I don't agree with the assessment of Britain as America's poodle. I regard Britain as the Bulldog. They have always been fighters for causes just or not, like us, actually.

***

Re. the 'ethanol problem'. I think ethanol is a trap, also.

If we seriously tried to grow enough corn, green tea, whatever, to make enough ethanol to power this monster, how much farmland would have to be given over to the endeavor?

We are already trending toward being a net importer of.....food!

How rapidly would growing all this 'fuel' push us even more towards dependence on imported food?? Do we really want to go there?

JohnE and Paulo -- Oh, ye of little faith!

Wednesday, June 4, 2003
Sierra Club ads may dim Ford party
Environmentalists press automaker to boost fuel economy
By Mark Truby / The Detroit News

DEARBORN -- The Washington, D.C.-based Sierra Club is the latest environmental group to use Ford Motor Co.'s high-profile centennial party next week to pressure the automaker to boost the fuel economy of its cars and trucks…
…After depicting technological advances in other industries, the ad says that Ford's Model T, which went 25 miles on a gallon of gasoline, was more fuel efficient than the current Ford Explorer sport-utility vehicle -- which manages just 16 miles per gallon.

From cars.com:

When adjusted to year 2000 dollars, gasoline has never been more expensive than it was in 1918, when the American Petroleum Institute first started tracking gas prices; it cost the equivalent of $2.82 per gallon. In 1998, the price of gasoline hit an all-time low of 73 cents per gallon (adjusted to year 2000 dollars). The cost of gasoline can be broken down into three main components: price of crude oil, cost of refining and marketing, and taxes. Of the three, the price of crude oil has the highest impact on the price of gasoline and is the primary reason for large fluctuations in prices. While taxes have remained relatively constant for the past quarter century, the cost of refining and marketing has actually dropped when measured in inflation-adjusted dollars...

The point in the paragraph immediately preceding is that taxes have not risen significantly on gas. That means that we'll "enjoy" cheap gas for as long as the oil companies can pump it out. Please, what is their incentive to get us to use LESS? Oh, because they're nice guys. Silly me, I forgot about that.

Bryan -- "Unfortunately, the radical revolutionaries are in power in the guise of conservatives, and the country seems to be buying it out of fear or cowardice or whatever. That is why it is necessary Nov. 7 to vote in the liberal opposition and begin to reestablish the sane center."

I'm sorry, but isn't that what Juanito was just saying? That the nutty radicals control the Republican party? I guess the difference between you is that Juanito sees the true conservatives taking control again from the fringe. One can hope.

A more significant difference between you is that you seem to perceive Democrats as liberal. Sorry -- they're conservative, too. They're all about conserving (hence the origin of the word) the overall status quo. And before you jump down my throat, I don't mean the status quo of Bush and a Republican Congress. I mean the status quo of keeping our overall economic and political system in place.

A "liberal", by definition, is one who wants radical change. What is the last radical change introduced by the Democrats? I'm hard pressed to think of one since Medicare...

Liz,

I wasn't knocking you.

I was just suprised to hear that about the Model T cars.

JohnE -- no knock taken. I only looked up news reports because I didn't believe it either.

I was shocked when I first saw that. I think we all just assume that mileage MUST have gotten better. But really, when you think of it, it's the same basic engine design that was used 100+ years ago. All that's changed is the fancy stuff we attach to the engine, so why should we assume that it's gotten any more efficient? I don't know, but we do.

"A more significant difference between you is that you seem to perceive Democrats as liberal. Sorry -- they're conservative, too. They're all about conserving (hence the origin of the word) the overall status quo. And before you jump down my throat, I don't mean the status quo of Bush and a Republican Congress. I mean the status quo of keeping our overall economic and political system in place.

A "liberal", by definition, is one who wants radical change. What is the last radical change introduced by the Democrats? I'm hard pressed to think of one since Medicare...

Posted by: Elizabeth Bennet | Oct 31, 2006 11:36:15 AM"

Ms. Liz,

I am in general agreement with this statement.

I always thought to biggest lie told about Bill Clinton by his political enemies was, 'Clinton is a Liberal.'

He was by nearly all measures, a fiscal, business, free trade, free market conservative who happened to be a Democrat.

Now, where he varied left a little was, a woman's right to an abortion, slightly better on the enviro, created the Escalante Natl. Monument, and in fact, helped save the National Park System from Gingrich's Contract on America.

Among things he accomplished for the monied classes, for which he receives no thanks;
1. Repealed Depression era banking laws and regs
2. Signed NAFTA
3. 'Reformed' the telecommunication industry (Lead to huge media consolidation)
4. Gave up very quickly, and suspiciously, the fight for socialized med.
5. Called for school uniforms
6. Signed the Protection of Marriage Act.

A lot more.

I consider myself to the left of the Clintons, for sure, but I will not vote left fringe. We'll just get more Bush.

The mileage that the Model T got was the result of it being a light car (1500 pounds maximum) powered by an engine of modest output (20-22 horsepower). Its top speed was less than 40 MPH, which was a result of the low power and the barn-door aerodynamics.

Even so, 25 MPG seems like a stretch for a low-compression (4.5:1, reduced to 3.8:1 for 1916) side-valve engine. According to Ford, the EPA mileage for a Model T is 13 MPG city, 21 MPG highway, about the same as a Ford Explorer, which weighs three times as much. A Canadian Model T club claims 12-14 MPG, probably in their own driving. The 21 MPG EPA highway mileage is also suspect, because the Model T won't go as fast as is required for much of the highway cycle.

So really, lots of progress has been made. We now have powerful, civilized, enclosed cars with climate control and sound systems that will get as good mileage as a rudimentary, engine-between-the-shafts-where-a-horse-used-to-be vehicle made over three quarters of a century ago. And if you don't believe that, I'm sure that you could find a T to try out as a daily driver. Henry made over 15 million of them and there are still lots around.

Right you are, CMorris. And I don't mean "Right", but "right", if you follow me. But Clinton ran ""Left" in '92, wouldn't you agree? A big disappointment in my world.

But then, disappointment is everywhere. I only clicked over here to begin with because there's so much shrieking going on about Kerry. Good god -- could we give it a rest already? Was there half of this nattering going on about torture stories? I wasn't here, but somehow I doubt it.

Lord, how I hate this time of the election cycle...

But could I recruit you for my new party?

Ms. Liz,

My god, I couldn't believe how fast the count was going up on the Kerry blogs. They are white hot.

I'm staying away too.

Dave Brann,

Dave Brann, thank you for the Model-T numbers. Progress has been made, you're right, but we have the technical knowledge to make vehicles MUCH more efficient than they are now. The market incentive just hasn't been there, nor sufficient awareness of the enviromental problems. That's too bad.

Ms Bennet, I still dispute calling Clinton a Leftist.

Juanito-Bandito -- I don't know if my last post went through. Essentially I said that Clinton was not a leftist, but in '92 he fooled many of us into thinking he was.

Isn't it nice when we can both be right?

Ms Bennet,

I did not catch your "Clinton was NOT a Leftist" post. I thought it was odd that you might say that he was.

Since we usually are both right, I don't get excited about it anymore.

You're right, Juanito, the technology does exist. The question is, though, how many cars with the required technology would we buy? A high-mileage car that no one buys saves no gas.

A few years ago, each of the domestic Big Three built a prototype in response to a government challenge to build a car that got 80 miles to the gallon. (This was the "Supercar" program that Sam Roe has written about several times in the Trib.) These were family sedans that got mileage in the high 60's and low 70's, and had Diesel hybrid engines. The program was cancelled when it became obvious that even in production quantities, the cars would be so expensive that no rational consumer would buy one, so that they would at best find only a niche market.

Even the hybrids that are all the rage now are a questionable economic proposition. When you run the numbers, it turns out that it would take a long time, if ever, to pay off in gas savings the increased cost of the car over a comparable model with a conventional powertrain. There are three types of people who drive hybrids: those who want to make a statement (think Leonardo DiCaprio showing up at the Oscars in a Prius), those who want to help the environment (and my hat is off to them, though even that benefit is questionable when you consider all of the embodied energy (the energy needed to manufacture it) in a hybrid and the energy needed to reclaim its materials at the end of its life), and those who haven't done the math and think they're saving money.

I generally believe in the ability of the market overall to make rational economic choices. (Notice I said "the market overall," not each individual.) If the technology were available to make, say, a Ford Explorer that got 50 MPG economically, it would be a tremendous advantage to a manufacturer to develop and market it, and no oil company that wanted to hide it (a conspiracy theory in which I do not believe) would be able to keep it off the market.

Dave Brann,

Good post with much to chew on. This particularly piqued my interest:
"...[the environmental] benefit is questionable when you consider all of the embodied energy (the energy needed to manufacture it) in a hybrid and the energy needed to reclaim its materials at the end of its life..."

We're facing a crisis with no easy answers in sight. Ethanol (when you consider it's production from planting the seeds to filling your gas tank) is inefficient and dirty, and I've heard the same about hydrogen.

Juanito, I share your misgivings about hydrogen.

Hydrogen isn't a fuel, it's an energy storage device. It's the most common element in the universe, but it's a marryin' kind of molecule (I didn't coin that, but I think it's such a clever turn of phrase that I use it whenever the occasion arises) and on Earth it's almost always tied up with something else, either carbon or oxygen. To separate it takes energy, a portion of which you will then reclaim when the hydrogen is used as fuel.

The first and second laws of thermodynamics must be observed. The first law says that there can be no miracle method that will yield more energy in hydrogen than is put into the process of separating it from its compounds. The second law says that you can't even get out of the process as much energy as you put into it. The only strength here is that energy sources that would not normally be appropriate for transportation use can be used to create an energy carrier that then can be used as a transportation fuel.

The problems with hydrogen as fuel are typically couched by politicians and the media as ones of storage and distribution. Those are engineering problems, and can be solved. The real core problem is, where are we going to get the hydrogen? There, you're up against Mother Nature.

Whatever replaces petroleum as our prime transpotation fuel, it will be more expensive, and not as good. That is, after all, the reason we use petroleum; it provides a high return on the exploration and production investment, and its energy density makes it an excellent fuel for transportation. A higher cost of fuel will make more attractive some of those technologies that are available to improve gas mileage, but now are prohibitively expensive.