California sues carmakers over global warming

[Bartman10]

Only in America.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/0,2106,3804381a12,00.html

[merv]

After seeing the movie "who killed the electric car?" this is a case of the State fighting back. Cool I reckon because big business in USA is screwing the planet for the rest of us and we can't wait until it is too late.

[gamgee]

why don't they sue the bastard oil co's after all it's their product which is causing the global warming...
hypocritical I know, seeing as it depends on how much I (and you) use as to all the emissions, but hey it's america it's someone elses fault I'm fat, bald, smoke, and am addicted to mcdonalds, (i'm none of those) no farken self responsibility, they all drive round in there ford F50's wondering why the ozone layer is taking a pounding

[SPman]

...they all drive round in there ford F50's wondering why the ozone layer is taking a pounding
If only..........

[Pwalo]

Well the only people I can see making any money out of this will be the respective sides lawyers.

It will be interesting to see the actual science that the State's lawyers/experts will be advancing to prove their case.

[Nutter34]

If I were a car maufacturer, I'd pull all the dealers out of there... Imagine the chaos if they had to get vehicles in from other states....

Just another tosser trying to figure out how to get rich quick.... and of course the lawyers will jump on it, coz it's money for them...

[Fub@r]

Americans can be complete morons with their litigation. This case will drag on for the next decade, California will spend huge amounts of money in legal costs and will get no result.

All the motor companies need to argue is of the total number of vehicles on the road what percentage are state owned for state services? I would expect 10% at least. Then also I have seen a report that if the US goverment and state governements were to swap their fleets over to electric or alternate power sources would actually reduce the cost of these vehicles to the general public making it a viable alternative, but they wont.

This is no better than sueing the Gun Manufacturers for murders using their weapons, they only make them.

[R6_kid]

From craccum magazine -

"The Amazon forrest is being cut down a lot faster than expected, with most of increased speed being from illegal operations. But dont worry, it wont be so funny when you can't breath"

[merv]

Have any of you seen the movie "An Inconvenient Truth" http://www.climatecrisis.net/ it goes a bit hand in hand with the electric car movie?

Also I saw in the paper the other day that the Antartic Ice is melting even in the winter these days - we could be in deep schtuck pretty quickly.

[KLOWN]

also many scientits believe global warming is a load of shit, the earth goes through these changes naturally and is in a cycle, from ice age to warm then back to ice age and the "global warming" is the earth in its natural cycle.

[Fub@r]

You also never hear much in the years when the Ice cap has increased or ozone hole reduced. It only makes the news when the ice is melting and ozone hole has gotten bigger (even though it reduced the year before)

One you don't hear much about is if the Earth's polarity was to change again..........that would really cause instant chaos and take the planet back to the stoneage instantly. The poles have flipped 3 times in the past so nothing to say it wont happen again

[merv]

There is a fundamental problem though and that is the earth has never had so many damn people living on it - over 6.5 bil now - less trees than it ever had etc. Wars and famine don't kill us like they used to. This is not a normal cycle any more.

[Drunken Monkey]

Have any of you seen the movie "An Inconvenient Truth" http://www.climatecrisis.net/ it goes a bit hand in hand with the electric car movie?

Yes, I'd rank them equally on the scale of "utter garbage".

Try something a little less driven by money and media hype:
http://www.junkscience.com/


Also I saw in the paper the other day that the Antartic Ice is melting even in the winter these days - we could be in deep schtuck pretty quickly.

Indeed, the sky is falling. Did you know that frozen poles have only been a passing feature of the Earth over the last 4,600,000,000 years?


One you don't hear much about is if the Earth's polarity was to change again..........that would really cause instant chaos and take the planet back to the stoneage instantly. The poles have flipped 3 times in the past so nothing to say it wont happen again

That's because "instant chaos" and "back to the stoneage instantly" are on the same level of crap as "the sea will engulf us all in 60 years because of global warming". It's utter trite. True, there would be some negative effects, but they are more along the lines of communication and electrical problems during periods of enhanced solar activity (not just all the time) and an (estimated only) 30 fold increase in UV related skin cancers.

How long before this gets joined with the 2 Global Warming threads and gets relegated to P.D. ?


From craccum magazine -

Obviously a reliable source of scientifically founded truths. Do they still print the "ninth legion" on the back page?

[Pwalo]

Try something a little less driven by money and media hype:
http://www.junkscience.com/


Yes a good website. You could also try http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/

This site is concerned more about the misuse of statistics, but it does have some articles on the rather dubious claims made abot global warming.

And yet I see that there was some concerned being raised by a group of scientists that sunspot activity seems to be slowing and we may in fact be heading for a cooling period.

To get back to the question in hand, namely pollution caused by CO2 emissions there are a number of arcticles on the Junk Science website which point out the problems concerned with claiming that this is the major cause of global warming.

I'm sorry but I do get a little jaded with Mr Gore's little tirades.

[Fub@r]

That's because "instant chaos" and "back to the stoneage instantly" are on the same level of crap as "the sea will engulf us all in 60 years because of global warming". It's utter trite. True, there would be some negative effects, but they are more along the lines of communication and electrical problems during periods of enhanced solar activity (not just all the time) and an (estimated only) 30 fold increase in UV related skin cancers.


A reversal in the earths polarity can't be compared with the effects of sunspot activity. Sunspot activity results in various types interuptions but over the short term, polar reversal would result in total shutdown of anything electrical. The western world would be the hardest hit, old joe average suburban wouldn't know how to fend for himself or cook without power :cool:

[Drunken Monkey]

A reversal in the earths polarity can't be compared with the effects of sunspot activity. Sunspot activity results in various types interuptions but over the short term, polar reversal would result in total shutdown of anything electrical. The western world would be the hardest hit, old joe average suburban wouldn't know how to fend for himself or cook without power :cool:

Poles did not reverse 'instantly'. Volcanic rock records show that these pole flips happened over periods of hundreds to thousands of years. During this interim, the magnetic field is weakend, and has, on some occasions, disappeared completely. Solar radiation increases go hand in hand with sunspot activity. It is the magnetic field which protects the Earth from a significant amount of solar radiation. If the poles were reversed, intermediate steps and other factors aside, it would in fact NOT effect electricity supplies as the grid and supply would still be protected by a magnetic field, just one in the opposite orientation.

Please also note there have been more than a measly 3 reversals in Earth's history. No offense, but your knowledge on this subject appears to be scatty. This article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geomagnetic_reversal should help you with some holes in your knowledge.

[Fub@r]

Point taken. I was remembering a doco I had seen many years ago. The way in which it was described was that these "just happened" implying over a very short time frame and would have a devastating effect on the western world in particular. But reading that wiki they are saying wont happen for another 2000 years and gradually happens. Spose its still theoritical untill modern man lives through it

[SPman]

also many scientits believe global warming is a load of shit, the earth goes through these changes naturally and is in a cycle, from ice age to warm then back to ice age and the "global warming" is the earth in its natural cycle.Quite true - and even "mini' fluctuations.
But this "global warming" has been very quickly accelerated by prodigous emissions of gas and crap from human sources over the last 100 years -
and most people who actually look closely at all of whats happening tend to agree that we have triggered or accelerated this cycle.

[Milky]

Indeed, the sky is falling. Did you know that frozen poles have only been a passing feature of the Earth over the last 4,600,000,000 years?

Ie it has fuck all relevance, as I don't remember humans being alive before then. What matters is how the world changes from the past few thousand years, and how we change along with it.


Spose its still theoritical untill modern man lives through it

Respect.

[Drunken Monkey]

Ie it has fuck all relevance,

Pffft, balls to you Milky - it's completely relevant. You could bring car exhaust emissions to a complete net 0 right now and still not stop the Earth's natural cycle, be it warm up or cool down. Sueing the big 6 car manufacturers is a farce; nothing but a money and vote spinner.

[Drunken Monkey]

Quite true - and even "mini' fluctuations.
But this "global warming" has been very quickly accelerated by prodigous emissions of gas and crap from human sources over the last 100 years -


Well that's what we're tyring to say here. Read the recent junk science article on average temperature rises in the USA. Simply put, if global warming is responsible for the recent (last few years) rise in average temperatures, then why wasn't it blamed for the spike in the 1930's? If it was indeed responsible for the spike in the 1930's, then how do you explain the 30 year cooling after the 1930's which is in direct opposite correlation to the increase in industrialisation?


and most people who actually look closely at all of whats happening tend to agree that we have triggered or accelerated this cycle.

This was discussed in the other G.W. thread; it's not 'most', just the 'most vocal'. Situation normal doesn't sell news time.

Can we have these threads merged before people get sick of repeating themselves?

[Milky]

Pffft, balls to you Milky - it's completely relevant. You could bring car exhaust emissions to a complete net 0 right now and still not stop the Earth's natural cycle, be it warm up or cool down. Sueing the big 6 car manufacturers is a farce; nothing but a money and vote spinner.

Maybe I was a little short. I intended to convey the idea that as we have not lived through those periods before, we cannot say that we are able to live in the way we have grown used to, or even live through them at all.

What the reason is for the change is moot - I think most accept that there is a change - the point is how do we mitigate the effects of the change. I accept that the co2/no2 etc levels are historically high given what we can gather from ice samples. Cutting greenhouse emissions down to zero worldwide might well not stop the 'natural' cycle now, given melting permafrost etc etc.

I totally agree with you on the last point though. It has shades of big tobacco etc - We won't accept responsibility for taking up smoking/driving SUVs, so we will blame the producers.

[Fub@r]

it's not 'most', just the 'most vocal'.


And if your "most vocal" on the politically incorrect view ie: Global Warming is a crock you end up like David Bellamy out of work and rejected!

So:
pro-global warming = keep your job

anti-global warming = no job and no funding for research in future

Not exactly ideal for a fair debate

[The_Dover]

fuck it, i'll be dead before we're flooded or baked.

[Drunken Monkey]

Maybe I was a little short. I intended to convey the idea that as we have not lived through those periods before, we cannot say that we are able to live in the way we have grown used to, or even live through them at all.

Sounds fair. I want to point out that cutting emissions isn't necessarily a bad thing though, there are certainly micro-climate changes which will benefit from reduced emissions, e.g. less city smog, and other follow on benefits. I just wish people would stop buying into this "man is the cause of G.W." hype.

[Ixion]

,,

What the reason is for the change is moot - I think most accept that there is a change - the point is how do we mitigate the effects of the change. I accept that the co2/no2 etc levels are historically high given what we can gather from ice samples. Cutting greenhouse emissions down to zero worldwide might well not stop the 'natural' cycle now, given melting permafrost etc etc.
,,.


So. Why want to stop the change.

What's wrong with a warmer world. Good case that the world is undesireably cold at present. Far more of the Earth is underinhabited/underutilised at present becasue it is too cold or too dry, than because it is too warm/wet.

So sea levels rise a bit. Who cares, it's slow plenty of time to adapt and move . Warmer, wetter world, all good by me, bring it on.

[Michaelt]

So. Why want to stop the change.

What's wrong with a warmer world. Good case that the world is undesireably cold at present. Far more of the Earth is underinhabited/underutilised at present becasue it is too cold or too dry, than because it is too warm/wet.

So sea levels rise a bit. Who cares, it's slow plenty of time to adapt and move . Warmer, wetter world, all good by me, bring it on.

By no means do I believe in the artificially-induced global warming crap, but I can't agree with what you're saying here.

If the icecaps rise, the atmosphere and land won't become much more humid, whereas the amount of useable land will decrease due to rising sea levels, forcing us into those underinhabited/underutilised areas, which won't be much better than they are now, and certainly nowhere near as habitable as the lands we'll lose.

Also, I like a cold, dry climate, I'm looking into summer research scholarships to antarctica even.

Michael

[Big Dave]

It's the depletion of the Ozone that was ever my concern.
I have aleady lost a chunk of nose to skin cancer from it.
But I've read here that there is nothing to worry about so it's all good. Tui anyone?

[Drunken Monkey]

It's the depletion of the Ozone that was ever my concern.
I have aleady lost a chunk of nose to skin cancer from it.
But I've read here that there is nothing to worry about so it's all good. Tui anyone?

Don't confuse issues.

[Big Dave]

Don't confuse issues.

Polution fucking the planet is the (my) issue - you guys are debating which things are a consequence.

[zadok]

Global Warming - I'm not convinced. Just a load of hot air:motu:
Sueing over this issue is rediculous IMO.
I read a Michael Crichton book (fiction), State of Fear, which was about global warming and litigation. Very thougth provoking.

[terbang]

Its a murky sort of a debate really. Purist Greenies, and a lot of them 'scientists', are blaming our lifestyle for the global warming effect. Large corporations, who employ some 'scientists' are renowned for saying that there is no problem and its a natural occurrance. Then we have Branson, Slick Willy (Clinton) and others, who I suspect would be fairly well informed, taking the issue seriously and chucking a fair amount of time and money to prevent (lifestyle) global warming. Or is it just another investment for them? The truth is still to be revealed I suspect, though is ignoring the problem worth the risk?
Oh well I'm just off to work to burn several tons of Kerosene into the atmosphere..!