More evidence why global warming hysteria is BS

[mustang84]

Some bits:

The Stern report last week predicted dire economic and social effects of unchecked global warming. In what many will see as a highly controversial polemic, Christopher Monckton disputes the 'facts' of this impending apocalypse and accuses the UN and its scientists of distorting the truth

Last week, Gordon Brown and his chief economist both said global warming was the worst "market failure" ever. That loaded soundbite suggests that the "climate-change" scare is less about saving the planet than, in Jacques Chirac's chilling phrase, "creating world government". This week and next, I'll reveal how politicians, scientists and bureaucrats contrived a threat of Biblical floods, droughts, plagues, and extinctions worthier of St John the Divine than of science.

So to the scare. First, the UN implies that carbon dioxide ended the last four ice ages. It displays two 450,000-year graphs: a sawtooth curve of temperature and a sawtooth of airborne CO2 that's scaled to look similar. Usually, similar curves are superimposed for comparison. The UN didn't do that. If it had, the truth would have shown: the changes in temperature preceded the changes in CO2 levels.

Next, the UN abolished the medieval warm period (the global warming at the end of the First Millennium AD). In 1995, David Deming, a geoscientist at the University of Oklahoma, had written an article reconstructing 150 years of North American temperatures from borehole data. He later wrote: "With the publication of the article in Science, I gained significant credibility in the community of scientists working on climate change. They thought I was one of them, someone who would pervert science in the service of social and political causes. One of them let his guard down. A major person working in the area of climate change and global warming sent me an astonishing email that said: 'We have to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period.' "

So they did. The UN's second assessment report, in 1996, showed a 1,000-year graph demonstrating that temperature in the Middle Ages was warmer than today. But the 2001 report contained a new graph showing no medieval warm period. It wrongly concluded that the 20th century was the warmest for 1,000 years. The graph looked like an ice hockey-stick. The wrongly flat AD1000-AD1900 temperature line was the shaft: the uptick from 1900 to 2000 was the blade. Here's how they did it:

• They gave one technique for reconstructing pre-thermometer temperature 390 times more weight than any other (but didn't say so).

• The technique they overweighted was one which the UN's 1996 report had said was unsafe: measurement of tree-rings from bristlecone pines. Tree-rings are wider in warmer years, but pine-rings are also wider when there's more carbon dioxide in the air: it's plant food. This carbon dioxide fertilisation distorts the calculations.

• They said they had included 24 data sets going back to 1400. Without saying so, they left out the set showing the medieval warm period, tucking it into a folder marked "Censored Data".

• They used a computer model to draw the graph from the data, but scientists later found that the model almost always drew hockey-sticks even if they fed in random, electronic "red noise".

Lots more technical info at the link:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml...lit/nwarm05.xml

PDF of the graph analysis:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/graphics/2...MFSFF4AVCBQ0IV0

[Intrepidation]

You cannot deny that CO2 emissions are contributing to greenhouse gases, and the results of which are increased temperature due to heat not being able to escape. Look no further than Venus to see the Greenhouse Effect.

[mustang84]

You cannot deny that CO2 emissions are contributing to greenhouse gases, and the results of which are increased temperature due to heat not being able to escape. Look no further than Venus to see the Greenhouse Effect.

I don't doubt that or deny that the earth is warming, but I don't understand why science is being skewed to suit political and social agendas...what is the ulterior motive? That's why I added the "hysteria" to the title. I find it disturbing that the UN is cherry-picking what it wants to display and portraying it as undisputed scientific fact. And the guy revealing these findings isn't just some hack...he was the UK's climate adviser under Margaret Thatcher.

[enzl]

I don't doubt that or deny that the earth is warming, but I don't understand why science is being skewed to suit political and social agendas...what is the ulterior motive? That's why I added the "hysteria" to the title. I find it disturbing that the UN is cherry-picking what it wants to display and portraying it as undisputed scientific fact. And the guy revealing these findings isn't just some hack...he was the UK's climate adviser under Margaret Thatcher.

....With his own agenda/book/image to burnish and publicize.

I'm fairly certain the science is there, even if the presentation of that science is exaggerated to make a point. Almost every government on the planet, most experts and that little outfit known as the Nobel Prize guys all pretty much agree.

Maybe people are 'hysterical' about it because it's potentially that serious an issue?

[Drew Dowdell]

So one source is wrong at the U.N..... oh pinch me Virginia! It cannot be!

There is plenty of other evidence available.

REGARDLESS.... there is no reason to accept excess pollution and excess waste of fuel. If we were all driving Chevy Volt variants and all had wind/solar/hydro powered homes and suddenly the earth decides it's going to go into a cooling spell, you won't see calls for people to remove their catalytic converters to try and warm the place up a bit. Pollution is bad by definition and we should make every attempt possible to reduce it.

[balthazar]

As soon as you exaggerate science, you invalidate yourself as a scientist. The very nature of a 'scientist' is to find the truth and relay the facts- how am I supposed to take the issue seriously when that's not entirely what's happening? Those that twist the issue due to lobbying, political pressure, personal agendas or whatever undermine their own cause.

[Camino LS6]

As soon as you exaggerate science, you invalidate yourself as a scientist. The very nature of a 'scientist' is to find the truth and relay the facts- how am I supposed to take the issue seriously when that's not entirely what's happening? Those that twist the issue due to lobbying, political pressure, personal agendas or whatever undermine their own cause.

I completely agree.

[mustang84]

As soon as you exaggerate science, you invalidate yourself as a scientist. The very nature of a 'scientist' is to find the truth and relay the facts- how am I supposed to take the issue seriously when that's not entirely what's happening? Those that twist the issue due to lobbying, political pressure, personal agendas or whatever undermine their own cause.

+1

[RichW5]

As soon as you exaggerate science, you invalidate yourself as a scientist. The very nature of a 'scientist' is to find the truth and relay the facts- how am I supposed to take the issue seriously when that's not entirely what's happening? Those that twist the issue due to lobbying, political pressure, personal agendas or whatever undermine their own cause.

+2

It is a scientific fact that the earth goes through cycles of heating and cooling. Most of those cycles have occurred before human habitation, or while humans were just a small dot on the planet.

I personally believe that we need to take better care of the earth and reduce our pollution footprint, but "Global Warming" is political not scientific. It's being used by those seeking a world government, bigger governments and/or their own 15 minutes of fame. It's being used by those seeking government grants and and those seeking trophies (Noble Prizes) while leaving huge carbon footprints in their own wake.

There are many untruths in the movie "Inconvenient Truth". It's just inconvenient for the "Global Warming" hustlers to find them.

[Sixty8panther]

You cannot deny that CO2 emissions are contributing to greenhouse gases, and the results of which are increased temperature due to heat not being able to escape. Look no further than Venus to see the Greenhouse Effect.

DF:

Brotha you need to re-read M84's first post.

The scientists are MAKING UP & WILLFULLY TAMPERING with data!

How can you trust ANYTHING you read knowing that?

Let's think for a second... remember that period of time in the late

19th century known as the INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION? Ever see a

painting of London, England from that era? Even towns here in our

own state of Massachusetts like Lawrence, Lowell, Worcester,

Haverhill, Framingham, Gardner, Fitchburg, and the list goes on &

on... every one of thise cities spewing millions of tons of CO2

from the factories. Look around right in YOUR backyard, only a

few of those smokestacks remain in Lawrence but in their hey-day

they spewed out nast, black soot day and night....

WHERE'S the spike on the charts from that?

I have been saying this all along. Time to go throw some super

unleaded, lead substitute and a half-pint of Marvells' Mystery Oil

in the B-59 and go contributre to the stifling of an ice age.

[the_yellow_dart]

Look around right in YOUR backyard, only a

few of those smokestacks remain in Lawrence but in their hey-day

they spewed out nast, black soot day and night....

WHERE'S the spike on the charts from that?

The spike is possibly what's happening now... the earth has a lot of 'thermal inertia' - that is, there is a lot of 'stuff', mostly water, on the earth to heat up before the air is going to get hotter. Plus it takes a while for the pollution to find its way to the atmosphere, a while for the atmosphere to be affected, a while for the sun's rays to start warming...

Asking why the industrial revolution didn't cause a heat spike is a bit like cranking the heat in your house and asking immediately, "Why is it still cold in here?".

I'm not saying that we are or aren't having an effect on the earth. I'm just saying that if we are, the effect will not be immediate.

Edited November 30, 2007 by the_yellow_dart

[Sixty8panther]

YD:

Dude, but what about { cue James Earl Jones voice-over } GLOBAL DARKENING!?!?!?!

Balthazar said it all.

Science has been whored out by the politicians just like our economy.

[K.C.]

YD:

Dude, but what about { cue James Earl Jones voice-over } GLOBAL DARKENING!?!?!?!

Balthazar said it all.

Science has been whored out by the politicians just like our economy.

[the_yellow_dart]

YD:

Dude, but what about { cue James Earl Jones voice-over } GLOBAL DARKENING!?!?!?!

Balthazar said it all.

Science has been whored out by the politicians just like our economy.

...but you do get my point, right?

[Sixty8panther]

Yes... it's YET another theory.

I personally do not believe that it takes over a century for THAT much thermal energy to materialize.

But then again I'm not an expert... if I was I'd skew the evidence to prove what I want.

[Drew Dowdell]

So, let me get this straight. If global warming isn't true... then it's ok to pollute without regard for air quality?

[Drew Dowdell]

Yes... it's YET another theory.

I personally do not believe that it takes over a century for THAT much thermal energy to materialize.

But then again I'm not an expert... if I was I'd skew the evidence to prove what I want.

There you have it folks, the Global Warming debate has been settled by a 27 year old Car Salesman/Accountant from Massachusetts.

[pow]

There you have it folks, the Global Warming debate has been settled by a 27 year old Car Salesman/Accountant from Massachusetts.

Thank you.

[RJB]

Global Warming + China = BIG PROBLEMS!!

[Sixty8panther]

Oldsmoboi:

I never said I had all the solutions but my point is NO ONE does.

But it seems you're fine with this kind of deception on the part of people who call themselves "scientists"

You guys need to open your eyes. It's all about $$$.

Just like the war, the fuel crisis of 1974, the obsolecense/existance of the EPA...

[Drew Dowdell]

Oldsmoboi:

I never said I had all the solutions but my point is NO ONE does.

But it seems you're fine with this kind of deception on the part of people who call themselves "scientists"

You guys need to open your eyes. It's all about $$$.

Just like the war, the fuel crisis of 1974, the obsolecense/existance of the EPA...

Quite honestly I don't care if we are warming or cooling or staying the same. I think we should make every effort to restrict the amount of pollution we create.

Hypothetical - If we were entering a period of cooling, would you advocate for people to remove the catalytic converters from their PZLEV Focuses?

[Sixty8panther]

Hypothetical - If we were entering a period of cooling, would you advocate for people to remove the catalytic converters from their PZLEV Focuses?

That's a loaded question... perhaps. It's more practical than buying a Prius or

someone telling me to reduce my CO2 emissions by trading in my gas guzzler

for an economy car. It's a free country, if I want to drive a damn Hummer H1

and I can afford the gas it's MY right. This is NOT Communist Russia, yet.

Am I a proponent of recycling, energy saving bulbs, alternative fuels etc.? YES.

Edited November 30, 2007 by Sixty8panther

[Drew Dowdell]

That's a loaded question... perhaps. It's more practical than buying a Prius or

someone telling me to reduce my CO2 emissions by trading in my gas guzzler

for an economy car. It's a free country, if I want to drive a damn Hummer H1

and I can afford the gas it's MY right. This is NOT Communist Russia, yet.

Am I a proponent of recycling, energy saving bulbs, alternative fuels etc.? YES.

I"m all for you buying whatever car you want, but you should pay closer to the actual cost of the damage you do. I think that people should be discouraged financially from buying fuel inefficient vehicles. You want a Rolls Royce Phantom? Fine, but you need to pay a yearly pollution/gas guzzler tax that will go to more/better public transportation and tax credits for ZEV, PZEV, and alternative fuel vehicles. Additionally, rather than miles per gallon, vehicles should be rated by pollutants per 100 miles. This will instantly change the focus from fuel efficiency to vehicle cleanliness. My Avalanche might get worse fuel mileage than your Datsun, but I can guar-enn-tee that the Avalanche is a cleaner burning vehicle.

Buy whatever you want, just be prepared to pay for it.

[PurdueGuy]

Look no further than Venus to see the Greenhouse Effect.

...because we have a full understanding of the workings of Venus.

[Drew Dowdell]

...because we have a full understanding of the workings of Venus.

Most men don't. Then there are those who are Mars experts.

Edited November 30, 2007 by Oldsmoboi

[BatmanGTO]

Most men don't. Then there are those who are Mars experts.

[pow]

I"m all for you buying whatever car you want, but you should pay closer to the actual cost of the damage you do. I think that people should be discouraged financially from buying fuel inefficient vehicles. You want a Rolls Royce Phantom? Fine, but you need to pay a yearly pollution/gas guzzler tax that will go to more/better public transportation and tax credits for ZEV, PZEV, and alternative fuel vehicles. Additionally, rather than miles per gallon, vehicles should be rated by pollutants per 100 miles. This will instantly change the focus from fuel efficiency to vehicle cleanliness. My Avalanche might get worse fuel mileage than your Datsun, but I can guar-enn-tee that the Avalanche is a cleaner burning vehicle.

Buy whatever you want, just be prepared to pay for it.

Completely agree. If you choose to pollute, at least you should be held accountable for it.

I was talking to a friend about buying imported foods the other day. He argued that poor countries growing food for export (yet relying on food aid, as opposed to being self-sufficient) and excessive food miles were some of the consequences. While I agreed that, ideally, seasonal and local-grown foods are best, as a consumer I occasionally want to indulge in, say, some EVOO imported from Greece. I should have the choice to buy from where I please, as long as I pay the true cost of my actions (carbon tax).

If anyone wants to do something that reduces GHG emissions yet doesn't require you to accelerate more slowly or enjoy less headroom, buy local.

[FUTURE_OF_GM]

+2

It is a scientific fact that the earth goes through cycles of heating and cooling. Most of those cycles have occurred before human habitation, or while humans were just a small dot on the planet.

I personally believe that we need to take better care of the earth and reduce our pollution footprint, but "Global Warming" is political not scientific. It's being used by those seeking a world government, bigger governments and/or their own 15 minutes of fame. It's being used by those seeking government grants and and those seeking trophies (Noble Prizes) while leaving huge carbon footprints in their own wake.

There are many untruths in the movie "Inconvenient Truth". It's just inconvenient for the "Global Warming" hustlers to find them.

+1... err 3

I agree that we should address pollution, but enough is enough with the politics. That's how EVERYTHING gets ruined. I think the politicians should keep their asses out of it and I think the scientists should be very revealing about their funding/agendas and ideology.

BTW, does anyone find it scary that this series of events is lining up with what many bible people describe as the end of days. (Where a global government will be forced upon us and the anti-christ will rise through the ranks to eventually control us all through barcodes, a.k.a. technology that deals with how much money we are 'allowed' to make and how well we are 'allowed' to live)

Just a thought....

But this whole mess is forming a 'global government' of sorts and that really scares me. Because where there is government, there WILL BE regulation, and it's no longer run-of-the-mill law with all of the envirofreaks pushing the movement. They want legislation designed to regulate how we live our lives to a large degree.

Edited November 30, 2007 by FUTURE_OF_GM

[regfootball]

i sent mustangs article to a fellow arhcitect coworker today (tree hugger) and she didn't speak to me for the rest of the day. no comments to reading the article of anything. usually i can get a pleasant debate out of her on something environment related.

the political influence is so strong now towards this topic that if you disagree with it or present some counterpoints to it the huggers get all in a huff. yet, most of these folks can never cite the definitive scientific research on the spot to support their fervor. this is why the politicizing of it is so successful. tell a bunch of folks looking for a cause to align themselves with something that sounds dire and fightable and you get lots of bandwagoners.

Edited December 1, 2007 by regfootball

[ocnblu]

...and now we have an energy bill that includes raising CAFE standards to 35 mpg combined for cars AND trucks by 2020. Madness.

[Oracle of Delphi]

Just have my Mother-In-Law kiss the North pole. It will freeze rock solid in a matter of seconds! And the Polar Bears will once again have a home!

[Sixty8panther]

...and now we have an energy bill that includes raising CAFE standards to 35 mpg combined for cars AND trucks by 2020. Madness.

It's not the factories, the coal burning smokestacks, the 747 that

burns of a billion gallons of 115 octane a year, it is the CARS,

they're the DEVIL, evil I tell you, those sin-promotin' contraptions

must be stopped, but if we can't kill them altogether we can at

least put the screws to 'em... 35mpg including trucks means

they will be dealt such a blow that people will rather WALK than

be outpaced by an '72 Vega with one fouled sparkplug.

Politicians always THINK they can play scientist.

[mustang84]

i sent mustangs article to a fellow arhcitect coworker today (tree hugger) and she didn't speak to me for the rest of the day. no comments to reading the article of anything. usually i can get a pleasant debate out of her on something environment related.

the political influence is so strong now towards this topic that if you disagree with it or present some counterpoints to it the huggers get all in a huff. yet, most of these folks can never cite the definitive scientific research on the spot to support their fervor. this is why the politicizing of it is so successful. tell a bunch of folks looking for a cause to align themselves with something that sounds dire and fightable and you get lots of bandwagoners.

Ha...reminds me of how I dropped my environmental studies class earlier this year because I had too many credits and the instructor's teaching style was too aloof for me (she had no focus whatsoever). People in that class that are kinda fanatical about the subject of global warming and used to talk to me don't ever since I dropped it. Not much of a loss since I tend to chill will the "regular" studio crowd.

[mustang84]

It's not the factories, the coal burning smokestacks, the 747 that

burns of a billion gallons of 115 octane a year, it is the CARS,

they're the DEVIL, evil I tell you, those sin-promotin' contraptions

must be stopped, but if we can't kill them altogether we can at

least put the screws to 'em... 35mpg including trucks means

they will be dealt such a blow that people will rather WALK than

be outpaced by an '72 Vega with one fouled sparkplug.

Politicians always THINK they can play scientist.

There was an article a while back that only .2% of the CO2 released into the atmosphere worldwide comes from cars and trucks (article from The Car Connection). So let me get this straight...we are spending all this energy to regulate something that contributes a fraction of less than 1% of the "pollutants" in the air.

Personally, the first place I would be looking is China and all the coal-fired plants and factories that cause smog alerts 8 out of every 10 days. Living in Shanghai is the equivalent of smoking two packs of cigarrettes a day.

Edited December 1, 2007 by mustang84

[regfootball]

what i have encountered is the first thing that gets brought up by the global warming bunch is cars are the enemy, and quicky morphs into a 'we need to get rid of all cars, live like sardines in urban centers, all use mass transit'.

Somehow we go from global warming to outright statements telling people how we should live.

So, many of these huggers want you all to ride the bus, and want your freedom of movement restricted. Not only that, they want your lifestyle restricted and your space restricted.

Those types of positions are not only restricting your freedom, they also lack common sense, and in the extreme version of utopia they create, would also never happen socially.

their first assumption is that we can all coexist as sardines living in multistory boxes in urban settings, sharing property and amenities.

then they assume all our transport by walking and things like rail and buses and trains will be adequate to support our fast paced and geogrpahically expansive lifestyle. they think we will be adquately served buying all our food and sheets of plywood from little organic farmer's markets and that there should be no need for plywood to begin with. they think you can get your kid or family of 5 to the emergency room and pharmacy at 3 AM by walking in 10 below weather.

then they mistakenly assume that all income classes will gladly sign up to buy property in mixed income communal settings. Yeah, like anyone is going to invest big bucks buying a piece of property that lacksthe spoils, and is in proximity to anyone who is not of their ilk.

Love the idealism, but you'd be pressed to find many examples where that sort of engineered social agenda has panned out. Face it people, and i'll use tame terminolgy here, 'the man' wants his secluded house in a gated neighborhood with lots of room and exclusivity. It's no statement on what's right or wrong. It's just simply how the system works. No one would invest money into property if those safeguards were not in place to protect their investments.

NIMBY's...ever heard of that?

A lof of the hard core envinrmental urbanist types are those that would not mind that sort of 'refined tribal' type living environment....i.e. little apartments and condos and shared amenities, that seldom see long term maintenance or care or pride of ownership and responsibility. they want the tight little urban settings where everyone is out and about and not much green space, just lots of lack of privacy and lots of hustle and bustle. little art galleries, coffee shops, etc. and not every body gets into that sort of lifestyle.

The folks that hunt, farm, ride snowmobiles and ATV's, HAVE CARS, have livestock and or horses, etc. just don't care for that.

Edited December 1, 2007 by regfootball

[CARBIZ]

As one of 34 million Canadians, I laugh at the puny efforts Canada makes on the world stage at leading the green front. Although as individuals we should all do our part not to waste energy, NOTHING that Canada does will even be a blip on the chart as long as China and India keep leaping at 100 million babies a year.

[FUTURE_OF_GM]

There was an article a while back that only .2% of the CO2 released into the atmosphere worldwide comes from cars and trucks (article from The Car Connection). So let me get this straight...we are spending all this energy to regulate something that contributes a fraction of less than 1% of the "pollutants" in the air.

Personally, the first place I would be looking is China and all the coal-fired plants and factories that cause smog alerts 8 out of every 10 days. Living in Shanghai is the equivalent of smoking two packs of cigarrettes a day.

But see, that's the problem... All of the bleeding heart policy makers can't police and control China. The U.S. with it's whipped and ignorant, self-loathing population is a much easier target. As usual, WE will be the one's who make compromises for the good of the rest of the world. Same $h!, different day.

My beef is; why do these people who need a hobby instead of taking up the latest 'cause' always tend to gravitate toward Detroit or the automobile in general? Is it the freedom which an automobile gives that they don't like? Is it the tight-knit, rather discriminating culture that they hate? I mean, they've only tried to kill the concept of the car 3 times now and they've only been trying to kill Detroit for 30-40 years now.

I really hope we can avoid major changes, but I fear our fun as car 'enthusiasts' is about over. Especially if this social movement continues to pick up steam. THE GOOD NEWS: Social Movements tend to only last about 5 years and this one seems to already be losing popularity. THE BAD NEWS: The fallout from it will affect us for years via regualtions and such.

[CARBIZ]

But see, that's the problem... All of the bleeding heart policy makers can't police and control China. The U.S. with it's whipped and ignorant, self-loathing population is a much easier target. As usual, WE will be the one's who make compromises for the good of the rest of the world. Same $h!, different day.

My beef is; why do these people who need a hobby instead of taking up the latest 'cause' always tend to gravitate toward Detroit or the automobile in general? Is it the freedom which an automobile gives that they don't like? Is it the tight-knit, rather discriminating culture that they hate? I mean, they've only tried to kill the concept of the car 3 times now and they've only been trying to kill Detroit for 30-40 years now.

I really hope we can avoid major changes, but I fear our fun as car 'enthusiasts' is about over. Especially if this social movement continues to pick up steam. THE GOOD NEWS: Social Movements tend to only last about 5 years and this one seems to already be losing popularity. THE BAD NEWS: The fallout from it will affect us for years via regualtions and such.

I'm half with you; however, I would submit that somewhere between the hysteria of what some countries like Germany and Holland are doing, and the apparent disregard we North Americans have for our wholesale consumption of energy and resources, lies a compromise that future generations can live with.

[Robert Hall]

+1... err 3

I agree that we should address pollution, but enough is enough with the politics. That's how EVERYTHING gets ruined. I think the politicians should keep their asses out of it and I think the scientists should be very revealing about their funding/agendas and ideology.

BTW, does anyone find it scary that this series of events is lining up with what many bible people describe as the end of days.

Yeah, but the religious loonies are full of sh*t...I couldn't believe anything they say or believe...none of it based in fact.

[Camino LS6]

what i have encountered is the first thing that gets brought up by the global warming bunch is cars are the enemy, and quicky morphs into a 'we need to get rid of all cars, live like sardines in urban centers, all use mass transit'.

Somehow we go from global warming to outright statements telling people how we should live.

So, many of these huggers want you all to ride the bus, and want your freedom of movement restricted. Not only that, they want your lifestyle restricted and your space restricted.

Those types of positions are not only restricting your freedom, they also lack common sense, and in the extreme version of utopia they create, would also never happen socially.

their first assumption is that we can all coexist as sardines living in multistory boxes in urban settings, sharing property and amenities.

then they assume all our transport by walking and things like rail and buses and trains will be adequate to support our fast paced and geogrpahically expansive lifestyle. they think we will be adquately served buying all our food and sheets of plywood from little organic farmer's markets and that there should be no need for plywood to begin with. they think you can get your kid or family of 5 to the emergency room and pharmacy at 3 AM by walking in 10 below weather.

then they mistakenly assume that all income classes will gladly sign up to buy property in mixed income communal settings. Yeah, like anyone is going to invest big bucks buying a piece of property that lacksthe spoils, and is in proximity to anyone who is not of their ilk.

Love the idealism, but you'd be pressed to find many examples where that sort of engineered social agenda has panned out. Face it people, and i'll use tame terminolgy here, 'the man' wants his secluded house in a gated neighborhood with lots of room and exclusivity. It's no statement on what's right or wrong. It's just simply how the system works. No one would invest money into property if those safeguards were not in place to protect their investments.

NIMBY's...ever heard of that?

A lof of the hard core envinrmental urbanist types are those that would not mind that sort of 'refined tribal' type living environment....i.e. little apartments and condos and shared amenities, that seldom see long term maintenance or care or pride of ownership and responsibility. they want the tight little urban settings where everyone is out and about and not much green space, just lots of lack of privacy and lots of hustle and bustle. little art galleries, coffee shops, etc. and not every body gets into that sort of lifestyle.

The folks that hunt, farm, ride snowmobiles and ATV's, HAVE CARS, have livestock and or horses, etc. just don't care for that.

I guess those folks never got the news that communism has failed.

It ran counter to human nature and thus was unsustainable - that lesson should have already been learned.

I will take up arms before I live that way.

[mustang84]

what i have encountered is the first thing that gets brought up by the global warming bunch is cars are the enemy, and quicky morphs into a 'we need to get rid of all cars, live like sardines in urban centers, all use mass transit'.

Somehow we go from global warming to outright statements telling people how we should live.

So, many of these huggers want you all to ride the bus, and want your freedom of movement restricted. Not only that, they want your lifestyle restricted and your space restricted.

Those types of positions are not only restricting your freedom, they also lack common sense, and in the extreme version of utopia they create, would also never happen socially.

their first assumption is that we can all coexist as sardines living in multistory boxes in urban settings, sharing property and amenities.

then they assume all our transport by walking and things like rail and buses and trains will be adequate to support our fast paced and geogrpahically expansive lifestyle. they think we will be adquately served buying all our food and sheets of plywood from little organic farmer's markets and that there should be no need for plywood to begin with. they think you can get your kid or family of 5 to the emergency room and pharmacy at 3 AM by walking in 10 below weather.

then they mistakenly assume that all income classes will gladly sign up to buy property in mixed income communal settings. Yeah, like anyone is going to invest big bucks buying a piece of property that lacksthe spoils, and is in proximity to anyone who is not of their ilk.

Love the idealism, but you'd be pressed to find many examples where that sort of engineered social agenda has panned out. Face it people, and i'll use tame terminolgy here, 'the man' wants his secluded house in a gated neighborhood with lots of room and exclusivity. It's no statement on what's right or wrong. It's just simply how the system works. No one would invest money into property if those safeguards were not in place to protect their investments.

NIMBY's...ever heard of that?

A lof of the hard core envinrmental urbanist types are those that would not mind that sort of 'refined tribal' type living environment....i.e. little apartments and condos and shared amenities, that seldom see long term maintenance or care or pride of ownership and responsibility. they want the tight little urban settings where everyone is out and about and not much green space, just lots of lack of privacy and lots of hustle and bustle. little art galleries, coffee shops, etc. and not every body gets into that sort of lifestyle.

The folks that hunt, farm, ride snowmobiles and ATV's, HAVE CARS, have livestock and or horses, etc. just don't care for that.

That's what bugs me about "idealism" and "utopia"...it simply will never happen. I visit a skyscraper board often where you get a lot of the anti-car, pro-urban attitude. What they don't understand is that this "urban utopia" will never, ever happen. Never in the history of the world have these utopias succeeded; the idea of everybody living the same is always tainted by corruption of a few at the top. Look at what happened with the Soviets. They had good intentions of this utopic society of government housing and economic equality, but with the lack of competition and disparity there was no innovation, and quickly the living conditions in the USSR deteriorated and stagnated compared to the rest of the world that continued to advance and invent and innovate.

As $h!ty as it is to say it, the world progresses because of disparity and strife. We only look for solutions when we feel threatened. The people who have little see the people who have a lot, and if they truly want that, they will work to get it. That's what this country was founded on...people that had nothing and did great things because they had the determination and drive to change it.

All I see with this anti-car, anti-corporation, anti-technology attitude is failure of people to learn from history.

[Camino LS6]

It blows my mind that these people look to urban environments for solutions. It is such environments that produce so much strife in the first place. It is simple really, too many people, too close together always fosters crime and depersonalization. Even the gated communities in upscale neighborhoods suffer from this herd mentality with restrictive rules via homeowner associations.

I can't stand that kind of crap. I'm going to live my life as I choose.

[Drew Dowdell]

There is a middle ground. I don't understand why all the hystaria over the extremes when just being smart about some things can make huge differences.

IF you work in a major urban area....... don't buy a house 45 minutes away by freeway. Find something closer to work or at least a way to use public transit to get to work. Don't tell me you can't do it. Every major city I have visited in the US had some type of service for the outlying areas.

IF you do change jobs and now have to use a car to get to work and it's a long distance drive. The NEXT time you buy a vehicle, DON'T buy the Suburban or Tahoe. Use some brains and buy something efficient. Yes we know you need to tow your 22' bowrider out to the lake 3 times a year. Avis rents SUVs that can tow it. The money you'll save in gas by not driving a Tahoe 360 days a year would be more than enough to cover the rental charges for the other 5 days. Hell buy a used Fleetwood.. it still gets better mileage than a Tahoe and can tow 7,000lbs.

YES we know you feel safer in an SUV, BUT if you did research you'd find that you are actually safer in most sedans. The Taurus is one of the safest family cars out there, has AWD optional, has "Command" seating and gets class leading fuel efficiency. If you have to be a Euro-snob, get a Saab 9-3 it even comes in a wagon.

IF you have more than 3 kids, buy a midsized crossover and the jumbo pack of condoms.... better yet, get snipped.

Sure there are exceptions to any of these situations. Yes there are people that hunt/offroad/get 14 feet of snow/do construction..... those people are the exceptions. As a society we need to get smarter about things.

How can we possibly think that buying a McMansion on an interest only loan with no money down 1.5 hours from work and driving in a Suburban is sustainable? Yet that is exactly what so many people do.

Edited December 1, 2007 by Oldsmoboi

[Camino LS6]

I'm very happy being an exception. :AH-HA_wink:

[Drew Dowdell]

I'm very happy being an exception. :AH-HA_wink:

How far do you commute to work?

[Camino LS6]

How far do you commute to work?

I don't commute in the general sense of the word. I go where the job of the day happens to be. My Silverado works for a living, and until recently, I drove something else for errands or fun. I'm one of those folks who must have a heavy-duty truck to make a living. It is my most critical tool.

[CaddyXLR-V]

There is a middle ground. I don't understand why all the hystaria over the extremes when just being smart about some things can make huge differences.

IF you work in a major urban area....... don't buy a house 45 minutes away by freeway. Find something closer to work or at least a way to use public transit to get to work. Don't tell me you can't do it. Every major city I have visited in the US had some type of service for the outlying areas.

IF you do change jobs and now have to use a car to get to work and it's a long distance drive. The NEXT time you buy a vehicle, DON'T buy the Suburban or Tahoe. Use some brains and buy something efficient. Yes we know you need to tow your 22' bowrider out to the lake 3 times a year. Avis rents SUVs that can tow it. The money you'll save in gas by not driving a Tahoe 360 days a year would be more than enough to cover the rental charges for the other 5 days. Hell buy a used Fleetwood.. it still gets better mileage than a Tahoe and can tow 7,000lbs.

YES we know you feel safer in an SUV, BUT if you did research you'd find that you are actually safer in most sedans. The Taurus is one of the safest family cars out there, has AWD optional, has "Command" seating and gets class leading fuel efficiency. If you have to be a Euro-snob, get a Saab 9-3 it even comes in a wagon.

IF you have more than 3 kids, buy a midsized crossover and the jumbo pack of condoms.... better yet, get snipped.

Sure there are exceptions to any of these situations. Yes there are people that hunt/offroad/get 14 feet of snow/do construction..... those people are the exceptions. As a society we need to get smarter about things.

How can we possibly think that buying a McMansion on an interest only loan with no money down 1.5 hours from work and driving in a Suburban is sustainable? Yet that is exactly what so many people do.

I live 35 miles from my work. Houses where I live are under $200k. Houses close to downtown Phoenix are over $300k. There is no mass transit system that goes to my city. I'm not going to drive a Yaris because someone tells me I should.

[Satty]

I live about 20 stop-and-go (or 35 highway) miles from work. The Fusion does fine, a smaller car would be better for economy, a bigger car would be better suited for my weekend needs. Thats why I want a couple of older, cheapie cars. Have two purpose vehicles instead of one that doesn't do anything particularly well.

[Drew Dowdell]

I live 35 miles from my work. Houses where I live are under $200k. Houses close to downtown Phoenix are over $300k. There is no mass transit system that goes to my city. I'm not going to drive a Yaris because someone tells me I should.

Then drive to a park-n-ride and take rail the rest of the way in. You'd probably save on parking too.

And even if you do have to drive all the way in, there are plenty of attractive sedans that get 30mpg plus on the highway.

Edited December 1, 2007 by Oldsmoboi

[CaddyXLR-V]

Then drive to a park-n-ride and take rail the rest of the way in. You'd probably save on parking too.

And even if you do have to drive all the way in, there are plenty of attractive sedans that get 30mpg plus on the highway.

Well, I don't really like sedans and I don't like FWD. Even if I get a CTS, I won't get 30mpg. Even a 325Ci won't get me 30mpg.