USA Today reports that a new study by the Center for International Climate and Environmental Research (CICERO) claims that cars, trucks, airplanes, trains and ships generate 15 percent of the manmade CO2 in the Earth's atmosphere. "The scientists reported that within the transport sector, road transportation (cars, buses and trucks) contribute the most greenhouse gases, which includes CO2, ozone, methane, and others." So big ass yachts and U.S. presidential candidates' private jets get a pass, eh? According to the report by CICERO Research Director Jan S. Fuglestved, the remaining 85 percent of atmospheric CO2 comes from industry, buildings and agriculture. Meanwhile, writing for Yahoo! News, one Jack Kelly argues that the mass media "Promotes Global Warming Alarmism." In the piece, Weather Channel founder John Coleman says "Some dastardly scientists with environmental and political motives manipulated long term scientific data to create an illusion of rapid global warming. Their friends in government steered huge research grants their way to keep the movement going… In time, in a decade or two, the outrageous scam will be obvious." So should we even be running this story?
Find Reviews by Make:
Read all comments
Anyone remember that the hole in the ozone was going to lead to our death if we didn’t fix it? What happened with that? Is it still a threat, or has the media gone on to bigger and better (and globally-warmer) things?
Many Americans, in power or otherwise seem pretty willing to comply with (very big) government actions without getting balanced answers. Why are scare tactics working? How come folks are not realizing this? What are we doing about it? The answer may take (more) decades to go mainstream. I do not believe any one is to blame, because we are all human. Although that does not mean we do not still hold people responsible for their actions. Everyone is responsible for their side of the street. Whether one is believing in unbalanced answers or dishing them out. Everyone is on an individual level responsible for taking, or for not taking action. Human's are not perfect, hence we can make all kinds of mistakes. No one is to blame, IMO. Each of us needs to observe and grow from our dysfunctional behavior individually. Its a process, we are works in progress. Its obviously the only way to learn to make better choices. There are no shoulds, no what ifs, no right and wrong ways to be human. There are cause and effects. Consequences and Response-abilities. There is taking action in the direction that works for us, IMO. The direction is that right for everyone individually. Humans have good reasons for doing what they do, even if they are not good (kind,nice,compassionate) things. Its only human.
Anyone remember that the hole in the ozone was going to lead to our death if we didn’t fix it? What happened with that? Is it still a threat, or has the media gone on to bigger and better (and globally-warmer) things?
Information at the link indicates that corrective actions have been helpful. I’m afraid the CO2 problem will be more difficult.
http://www.theozonehole.com/
Hmph. It turns out that “Yahoo! News” is aptly named.
We stopped using CFCs (amidst industry warnings that the free world’s economies would collapse) and the ozone hole started to close.
I like Kelly’s time horizon there. Most climatologists are concrned about the relationship that seems to have been established between CO2 and warming since 1850. Kelly is only willing to discuss the last 10 years. Most AGW “debunking” ignores a lot of facts. The best-known example, “The Great Global Warming Swindle,” distorted key data and was accused of the people they interviewed of misquoting them.
1. Scientists have known – KNOWN – for a century that CO2 traps heat. This is an established, incontrovertible FACT.
2. We know – KNOW – by isotopic analysis, that the increase in atmospheric CO2, since 1850, is due to digging up and burning fossil fuels. This is an established, incontrovertible FACT.
3. We know – KNOW – the mean global temperature has risen in that time. By a significant value. Also a FACT.
Now, from here we do not KNOW, in the sense that we KNOW the Sun will rise in the east (excluding it going nova and other such possibilities), what will happen from here on out. The atmosphere is a complicated thing. The ocean’s involvement isn’t entirely understood. The impact of key currents is under scrutiny. We have some models, made using the best techniques we know, to project what will probably happen. We could be surprised by what happens. However, in light of the established FACTS, to ignore the possibility of trouble, to presume that we can shit where we live without adverse consequences, is foolhardy.
Also, there are always dark implications that researchers are getting rich off the AGW hypothesis. Most of the grant and funding money involved in AGW research has nothing to do with the AGW hypothesis. Most of the money is just to STUDY the atmosphere, which is something that we do, anyway. If you look at papers and grant applications, you’ll find that they are for simply learning more. Interpreting the data happens later. Sometimes, they hypothesis suggests additional data to be gathered but this data could just as easily be used to disprove the hypothesis – except that it tends to support it.
A more sure way to make a quick buck is to write a scientific-sounding article “debunking” AGW for those willing to pay bounties for such articles. The going rate for something that sounds smart (that’s all you need) is $10K. The fossil fuel interests have deep pockets.
“A more sure way to make a quick buck is to write a scientific-sounding article “debunking” AGW for those willing to pay bounties for such articles. The going rate for something that sounds smart (that’s all you need) is $10K. The fossil fuel interests have deep pockets.”
Kixstart, you have any facts to back this up? I have heard the opposite, that if you want your project funded, your school to get a grant, then do something to further the cause of global warming – but make sure your results are what the pro man-made warming side want. I’m still waiting for the report on why Mars is getting warmer. I wonder if the little green men have Hemi’s in the flying saucers.
Well I wish Global warming would bloody well hurry up, it’s freezin’ here in Canada! Seriously though, while I agree that this whole GW panic is contrived by vested interests, having planes, trains and automobiles that go further on a litre of gas and emit less of the bad stuff is no bad thing! That’s why GM’s bragging about the Chevy Revolt is so cynical. It’s not GW that the auto industry has to worry about but rather the cost and availability of dead dino juice!
Windsords: Yep.
Play for Pay
And most of the studies cited in the IPCC report have nothing to say on AGW. Most of the money expended goes into measuring stuff. Read it for yourself. Some goes into modelling. Some goes into salaries of people who do atmospheric physics, anyway. Some goes to grad students. Most of the people involved in the IPCC volunteer their time. A peculiar habit if pecuniary gain is your passion.
A pity you reserve your outrage for the suggestion that fossil fuel industries would pay to obfuscate the situation, rather than expending a little on the unsupported slanders in the Kelly article.
We have changed the concentration of an important greenhouse gas by 25%. That is a FACT. At the rate we are going, this will increase substantially. To presume this will have no impact is foolish.
Some people are honestly searching for answers.
Even if global warming isn’t as big an issue as it has been made out to be (a big if), there are other good reasons to significantly reduce our consumption of fossil fuels.
So is nobody going to focus on the remaining 85%?
Of course we’re going to do something about the other 15% — one reason why building new coal-burning power plants isn’t a good idea.
RF: As you must realize, the number of private jets and yachts is minuscule compared to the number of cars, buses, and trucks.
No. You should not be.
Quasimondo,
Of course we are. But when you watch SUVs and pickups rattle by, empty, on the freeway, day after day after day, they sure start to look like the low-hanging fruit.
One of my colleagues lives 40 miles from the office. He and his wife each own a Pathfinder. Why? If you need a Pathfinder to tow something on weekends, isn’t one enough? Couldn’t you commute in a compact?
There’s a house up the street with 3 shiny full-size pickups in front of it. Why? I’ve never noticed a trailer and they have office jobs. Pickups that clean aren’t work trucks.
I know married people who work in my building and we have flextime but they commute separately in pickups. Why? And they whine about the price of gas. I know they occasionally trailer a boat but they don’t pull two boats to work every day.
Some people seem to think AWD/4WD is “necessary” for the winter weather around here. I own nothing but FWD vehicles and I get out OK in the winter. They’ve never noticed that FWD gets you there? What do they think our parents did in the winter? Nobody on our street had 4WD when I was a kid.
You’re correct, windswords, about pressures to conform to the AGW gospel. I’ve been in the academic world and seen that. There are also incentives to stay within the parameters of accepted thinking. It usually takes years for groupthink to be supplemented by different views.
It’s true that most scientific research isn’t argumentative in itself. But AGW-friendly intermediaries including bureaucrats, politicians, the media, Hollywood celebrities, nonprofits, the UN, and the like have generated most of the excited talk about global warming. None are acting contrary to their self-interests.
As for Kixstart’s “play for pay” citation, it goes to the website of Think Progress, a “project” of the Center for American Progress Action Fund, which is a “partner” and “sister organization” of the Center for American Progress. There’s both a CAPAF and a CAP to take best advantage of the tax laws. Isn’t that something only big business does? They claim to be non-partisan (yes, they actually do claim that!) but the whole bunch is made up of left-wingers and a big donor is George Soros (talk about “play for pay”!). A commenter on TP’s article about the American Enterprise Institute’s offer of $10,000 for independent reviews of the IPCC report gives you an idea of the general orientation: “Why don’t we bomb the AEI instead? They’re more of a threat than Iran!”
The deep pockets are on the side of the opponents of the global warming theory. For example, the former Senator Inhofe, who was one of the most outspoken opponents on Capitol Hill, got most of his campaign contribution money from purveyors of fossil fuels.
It’s hard to miss the evidence for global warming from all over the world if you read the papers–spring coming early, glaciers melting literally all over the world, receding arctic ice cover, etc.
I would love it if it weren’t true. I don’t want to drive no stinkin’ electric, fuel cell, or hybrid. I love the music of internal combustion. Porsche is Mozart, my Honda–mother nature bless it–is Salieri. But I just don’t find the opponents the least bit convincing.
I WILL feel somewhat better about flogging my Honda once my roof is done. The insulation is going from r-all-but-insignificant to r-40. Talk about offsets.
The “groupthink” only goes so far. If the hypothesis is wrong, eventually, someone comes up with data that doesn’t fit.
As to the source, the AEI confirms the offer. What more would you like? Does TP pay a bounty to “interpret” the IPCC report? Or other research?
By the way, all those researchers, etc, they live in industrialized countries. If this is a secret plot to tear down the economies of the first-world countries, what will these people – or their children – do for jobs themselves? Scientists aren’t going to end up at the top of the social heap in depressed economies; politicians and the already wealthy do. So, what’s their motivation in warning of AGW if it isn’t real?
I certainly got a laugh out of:
‘A commenter on TP’s article about the American Enterprise Institute’s offer of $10,000 for independent reviews of the IPCC report gives you an idea of the general orientation: “Why don’t we bomb the AEI instead? They’re more of a threat than Iran!”’
A) Are we going to judge TTAC by its craziest commenter?
B) Who’s to say he’s wrong? The Bush Administration beat the drum for two years about the threat posed by Iraq and damned if they didn’t have any WMD after all. Son of a gun. Now they’re rattling the sabers again and staring at Iran. I suppose if they invade enough countries, they’ll eventually invade one that actually represented some sort of threat.
—
– 25% increase in CO2 since 1850
– Significant warming since 1850
– Isotopic analysis says the CO2 is the result of human activity.
I guess I’d give that some thought. But maybe that’s just me. I’m a Liberal. I’m not afraid to face an unpleasant future and to do something about it today rather than ignore it and take my chances – or my kids’ chances. And I’m not afraid to suggest that we have to work collectively to ensure a secure future.
Sorry Kix,
The measurements of temperature are extremely suspect, and really DO NOT support your conclusion. Also, why pick 1850? Why not 1050? or 50? Last I checked, burning wood created CO2 as well. Could it be the Dark Ages messing up the model? Maybe THAT was caused by buring wood?
Furthermore, I am not buying into isotopic analysis until there is much more data. It sounds kind of fishy at this point. The complete weakness of the scientific community to police itself over the past 40 years has gotten really out of hand. There is more money to be made in supporting climate change than Exxon et. al. will EVER pay out to buy a differing opinion.
The bottom line is that there really are very, very few FACTS out there at all. So when you throw that out like it’s real, you lose before you get started. All I hear is you saying that you are right, and the other side is wrong, and THAT’S A FACT. It’s not convincing.
LC, You never hear isotopic analysis of atmospheric CO2 discussed because there’s nothing to discuss. It’s the same principle as carbon-dating.
It’s cited in the IPCC report. You never see the AEI’s essayists mention it because there’s nothing to argue and even they are smart enough to know that.
You can be as suspicious of it as you like but the only allies you find will have degrees in Creation Science from unacredited schools.
“The complete weakness of the scientific community to police itself…” That just makes me laugh. As opposed to the way the oil companies police themselves? The automakers? The banking industry? The airlines? General contractors?
Get a grip. Science may not be completely transparent but it’s closer to it than most things. Everybody gets access to the same data. People that fudge their data get found out; it can take a while but it happens. Things that don’t fit add up and, eventually, somebody figures it out.
I observe interesting parallels between AGW deniers, evolution deniers and GM Deathwatch deniers.
In all three cases, the overwhelming preponderance of the evidence is that those hypotheses are true.
So, those who don’t wish to believe will seize upon minutia that isn’t 100% consistent with the overall hypothesis and assert “See? It’s not true!”.
Hence, evolution deniers will grab the concept of “irreducible complexity”, GM supporters will shout “The Cadillac CTS is a great car!” and the AGW deniers will grab almost anything (“Water vapor is 85% of GW gases”…True, but irrelevant).
http://scholarsandrogues.wordpress.com/2007/07/23/anti-global-heating-claims-a-reasonably-thorough-debunking/
Kix,
isotopic analysis: I can think of several ways to do this and get the wrong answer, even if the test is 100% reliable. Let’s start with the methodology used in sampling, and let’s follow that up with the inevitable mathematic maneuvering
AEI – these people are perfectly legit. Just because they don’t swallow everything you do does not mean they are not intelligent or honest. I would bet they have printed less intentional lies than the environmentalist scientists have.
Allies – I find that in any given group of intelligent people there are differing, defensible views on almost anything. The difference is that at a college these days, many of them are afraid to speak up.
Scientific Community – First, instead of defending them, you attack others. Why, because you know the problems? Likely you read something from the AEI or similar group that outlines the problems. Personally, I have many, many close friends who agree with me on this, and who ARE part of the scientific and/or academic communities. So, let’s look at these supposed excuses you offer:
Oil companies – efficient organizations full of people who are proud that they provide you with your way of life at a bargain price and who do a great job protecting the environment while moving billions of gallons of product. You should thank them rather than attack their integrity.
Airlines – You are safer on a US carrier than you are in your own home. Imagine that. Now, rethink why you want to question them. Because the lost your luggage?
Banks and general contractors – about on par with the scientists, I will agree with you there. (though the folks that keep the balances seem to do pretty well, it’s the folks that invest/loan the money I have a problem with).
Lastly, did you seriously mean to tell me to get a grip? Your posts are not doing your cause any good at all.
Even if the global warming theory was not largely junk science it would not matter one bit what is done in the USA to further reduce CO2, since China, India, etc. are exponentially increasing emissions. It is really about increasing taxes and socialism as brought to you by the watermelons.(green on the outside, red on the inside)
Kix Start:
You’re probably wasting your time; the left/right battle will obfuscate the facts until it is too late.
What is needed are two consortiums (of conservatives and liberals) that are on both sides of the issue — my guess is that there would be a slight advantage (?) in agreement with AGM, as anyone in good concience and reasonable intelligence would not wish to take a chance with the only planet we have, and leave a dust bowl hell to their grandchildren.
So is nobody going to focus on the remaining 85%?
States in the US are starting to address the energy use and resulting emissions from buildings by (slowly) adopting the somewhat more stringent International Energy Conservation Codes.
Right now, owners are about as likely to build to LEED standards as car owners are to buy a hybrid, but LEED Basic is not that hard to meet and may soon be considered ordinary good practice.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leadership_in_Energy_and_Environmental_Design
Great debate. Quasimondo raises a critical component: What about where the vast majority of greenhouse gases are coming from? The shrill generated from those saying we shouldn’t drive fuel wasters is a bit like the captain of the titanic picking out window coverings. It’s not that they’re not correct – just that there are bigger issue to address first.
Kix: Are you a vegetarian? Do you wear leather shoes? Have you insulated your house properly, bought energy saver appliances, turn off lights in rooms that you or or your family don’t occupy? Do you run errands one at a time or all at once? Do you check tire pressure once/week? Have you lobbied your employer (or building you work in) to shut off all unneeded lights after business hours? Any solar panels on your home?
Your argument is more powerful if you were to apply it to overconsumption in general rather than demonize those that waste resources differently than you decide.
People’s homes and the consumption associated with them (and people) create more waste and CO2 production than do their cars. That’s why Al Gore took it on the chin when people heard about his huge home and the amount of energy required to power it. I wonder how many Suburbans’ worth of fossil fuel that mansion burns through each month.
Want to really cut greenhouse gases? Reduce consumption in general. Stop buying stuff we don’t need. Of course, we’re still challenged by China and India consuming everything we try to save.
It’s mostly a personal decision. Although there are a lot of large institutions out there that are doing something about it.
My alma mater, Emory Univeristy, has done an absolutely wonderful job addressing this issue. Free Marta passes, rideshare programs, park n’ ride lots that are nearby major traffic areas, biodiesel buses for the students, staff and faculty, car-free areas within the main campus, free parking for scooters and bikes, TONS of telecommuting, and annexing some of the operations into less traffic intensive areas of Atlanta. I wouldn’t be surprised at all if C02 emissions that derive from the university have gone down by more than half at this point.
On the dealer side of the car business, many of us actually follow similar behaviors. Transport drivers will often fill up a hauler with vehicles from many different dealers at the sales. A lot of the dealers rideshare as well, and many of the smaller dealers will even use public transit the day afterwards to pick up a vehicle they bought the day before in order to save the $50 to $75.
I’ve also noticed that the number of SUV’s driven by dealers has gone down substantially as well. Those who drive pick-ups these days will usually have a hauler or a dolly attached. Heck, I’ve got a 1994 AWD Safari van that I use for that purpose and though it is quite ugly, it works well and is surprisingly cheap.
Kix: Are you a vegetarian? Do you wear leather shoes? Have you insulated your house properly, bought energy saver appliances, turn off lights in rooms that you or or your family don’t occupy? Do you run errands one at a time or all at once? Do you check tire pressure once/week? Have you lobbied your employer (or building you work in) to shut off all unneeded lights after business hours? Any solar panels on your home?
I’m not a vegetarian, but I eat less than 3 lbs of mammal a year, maybe 5-10 of fowl. My roof is about to get r-40 insulation, I long ago switched to compact fluorescents, I keep my tire pressure way up (around 36-37, although the manuel says 30 or 32).
I agree with 99% of what Kix has said (I probably wouldn’t have mentioned the airlines’ self regulation). As for China and India, the former at least is more worried than we are according to John Holdren, last year’s pres of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, (who was worrying about this issue already in 1974 when I took his class, the year that the big scare in the news media was a new ice age), because its already hurting them badly–expanding dust bowl, for example.
Furthermore, this is something no country can do alone, and it needs to be approached from every possible angle: conservation, renewables, carbon sequestration, etc.
As for Landcrusher’s mention of burning wood 1000 or 500 years ago, first of all, if the wood is allowed to grow back, it’s “carbon neutral,” and second, if it’s not, the impact of a few hundred million people burning a little bit of wood each is tiny compared to the impact of the billion or so first worlders using huge amounts of energy per capita, and large amounts being used by another 1-2 billion. The difference between now and 1000 AD or 1500 AD is in orders of magnitude.
Bluecon: Even if the global warming theory was not largely junk science it would not matter one bit what is done in the USA to further reduce CO2, since China, India, etc. are exponentially increasing emissions. It is really about increasing taxes and socialism as brought to you by the watermelons.(green on the outside, red on the inside)
It’s pretty cool how you use ideology to beat down science, then hedge your bet by saying that even if it is real, it doesn’t matter because it’s all China and India’s fault. You even managed to get some red-baiting in there as well. Anyway you can work some “islamofascism” in there as well?
What is wrong with red baiting? I can’t imagine anyone in their right mind would think communism was a good thing after seeing the results of Stalin, Mao, Castro, etc. I am very anti-communist and not ashamed to admit it.
The interesting part of your reply is there was not one bit of fact provided to dispute my arguments. It is very true that the left wing can destroy the economy with this silliness and since China, India and the rst are increasing their pollution it won’t matter one bit. If the GW CO2 relationship is true(and it is not) then the CO2 has already reached a level where we are doomed and it really doesn’t matter what is done at this point. this GW CO2 thing is the biggest scam in the history of mankind.
I’m a believer in climate change – it’s happening, we’re all part of the cause. It’s disingenuous to think that 6 billion people burning billions of barrels of crude aren’t going to have an effect on an atmosphere that is, at best, a couple of dozen miles thick.
I took oceanography and microclimatology at university in the late 80s/early 90s and there was already significant concern over the arctic ice-caps shrinking rapidly, and other climatological and hydrological data that was revealing some uncomfortable trends. While climate change was an issue, it certainly didn’t have the attention it now so critically deserves – 15 years later.
Where we might still lack understanding on the modeling side is the effect. i.e. Will millions of tons of fresh water entering the the oceans eliminate or redirect critical ocean currents, plunging Europe into an ice age? Will increased cloud cover from evaporation increase albedo, lower incoming solar radiation, and stabilize temperatures? Will increased water vapour from evaporation enhance the greenhouse effect? Will billions of tons of methane free itself from melting Siberian tundra and wipe us all out? Will nothing happen at all?
We might not yet know which way to bet, but we know what’s potentially at stake, right?
And, as a car guy, I’m excited by the potential of the automotive future – maybe it’ll mean smaller, lighter, more engaging cars that are more fun to drive?
I’m just your average classic-car driving, vegetarian, leather shoe wearing (vinyl shoes lead to more pollution, so should I wear hemp, jkross22?), insulated-home owning, walking to work and the grocery store guy, but seems like 15% of man made CO2 is a fairly big piece of the pie. Sure, industry pollutes more, but I don’t own a factory.
One reason to target automotive fuel efficiency is because cleaner cars are a nearly painless change for consumers. It’s harder to be vegetarian, even though it’s healthy, saves money, and saves corn for flex-fuel GM trucks! The payback for improved home efficiency is awfully long without government incentives. If you were buying a new car anyway, buying one that gets 30 mpg instead of 20 mpg is just about effortless. Start there, and buy a few compact flourescent bulbs, and take on the harder changes next year.
Better yet, drive a 20 y.o. 30 mpg car and save the energy and pollution from manufacturing a new one. With the money you save, insulate the house and put in a passive solar water heating system.
I was under the assumption that it was 18%. Hot damn, this is great!!
My silly friend just traded a perfectly good 1996 Accord in for a new Prius because he wanted to save the Earth and let everyone know about it. He was under the assumption that cars were the sole contributor to global warming. I explained to him that while he might fool some people, he should know that it was actually an irresponsible move.
He created demand for a new vehicle that requires gobs of energy to produce (especially the batteries), while tossing aside a paid for vehicle that ran well and was quite efficient already.
After an in-depth discussion about this, he justified his purchase by claiming that he’ll save money at the gas pump. Saving money by spending alot more than you should have……what a concept.
Holzman,
The wood thing was sarcasm. An argument used to question ice age/warming/climate change theories is to ask them to use their theories to explain the dark ages. There was a noted cold period that lead to severe famines. What started or ended it?
When we hear about CO2, we never hear about what percentage of total CO2 is caused by cars, just the man made portion.
There is also a reason for the political posturing that comes out with this topic. The scientists generally propose solutions which are political. They also do this based on evidence which is often speculative or even faith based.
Science does not allow you to tie together a bunch of unrelated crap and point to a conclusion. However, it seems that this is exactly what we now get from them. If there is some genius out there who has accurately been predicting the changes since the seventies, then his number one enemy is not the political right, it’s the other scientists and the political left who are doing everything possible to ensure that nothing of importance will be done about it.