Polar bear expert barred by global warmists

[ikki]

Creating a universal fear, such as Global Warming™, is the most effective way of keeping the public in order. It creates a severe reliance (or the illusion of) on the established authority and allows the justification of suppression for everyone who steps out of line.

This, in addition to all of the profits to be made from carbon-taxing and other Global Warming™ related endeavours.

Something new was needed after the cold war as constant fear of imminate nuclearwar dissipated along with the 2400 red divisons that were ready to march.. (and have drunk themselves to death by now).

Once more something that was really only relevant to the great powers has come to rot here. Just like multiculture..

[SwordoftheVistula]

Why, those are a lot of wild and sweeping assumptions, without a shred of evidence.

There's some other threads on here full of evidence.

Here's some additional reading:

http://www.usatoday.com/money/autos/...all-cars_N.htm

The Obama administration's sweeping fuel-economy and emissions initiative announced Tuesday reopens a fierce debate over tradeoffs between fuel economy and auto safety.

The government says no tradeoff exists, because nothing in the new rules would force automakers to sell more small cars, which are more dangerous in crashes than larger ones. But some safety experts think otherwise.

"The deadlines are so tight that downsizing will be a tempting compliance strategy" for automakers, says John Graham, the former rulemaking chief in the Office of Management and Budget.

The plan requires automakers to sell cars that average 35.5 miles-per-gallon by 2016, a little more and a lot sooner than current law. It has been heralded as a brilliant solution to the nettlesome mix of problems related to fuel consumption and greenhouse-gas emissions.

The move is also an example of the clout environmentalists have with the Obama administration and comes as automakers' dire financial straits are forcing safety to a back burner. It raises the risk that cash-strapped automakers will take the fastest and cheapest route to building more fuel-efficient vehicles: Make them smaller and lighter. Further, as General Motors and Chrysler rely on federal bailout money for survival, they are ill-positioned — and disinclined — to fight proposals that some say may not be just dangerously costly, but simply dangerous.

The National Academy of Sciences, Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, Congressional Budget Office and National Highway Traffic Safety Administration have separately concluded in multiple studies dating back about 20 years that fuel-economy standards force automakers to build more small cars, which has led to thousands more deaths in crashes annually. Even though the standards were updated in recent years to reduce the incentive for automakers to sell more small cars by allowing different fuel-economy targets for different vehicles, the fastest way to make cars more fuel-efficient is to make them smaller.

Some safety experts worry that the administration's green focus could reverse progress made in reducing the highway death toll. The fatality rate in car crashes reached its lowest ever in 2007 and is projected to drop even lower for 2008 — to 1.28 deaths per 100 million miles traveled.

President Obama this month withdrew the name of his nominee to lead the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, longtime safety advocate Charles "Chuck" Hurley, after an outcry from environmentalists over Hurley's statements linking fuel-economy rules to highway deaths.

The environment vs. safety

Detroit's embrace of SUVs and pickups instead of smaller cars is well-documented.

But while U.S. automakers might not have made many of the most popular small and midsize cars, they did build and sell millions because they needed to keep their car and light-truck fleet fuel-economy averages over the number prescribed by law. The tilt toward smaller vehicles, which were often heavily discounted to sell, boosted the death toll, the studies say.

The Obama administration maintains the new fuel standards can be met without forcing more small cars into the market.

"Because every (size) category has to get more efficient, if the soccer mom wants to buy her minivan, it will be a more fuel-efficient minivan. If someone wants to buy a big SUV, it will be a more fuel-efficient SUV," said Carol Browner, director of the White House Office of Energy and Climate Change.

She said companies can use advanced technologies to improve fuel efficiency without dramatically changing their fleets.

Former NHTSA chief Jeffrey Runge, now an auto-safety and biodefense consultant, applauds the administration's decision to factor safety into its fuel-economy plan but worries automakers will still "do what is cheap and quick because the timelines are very short," and that could lead to more small cars.

Adrian Lund, president of the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, has been one of the most outspoken opponents of the move — by automakers, regulators and consumers — into small cars.

When the rules are finalized, if they "leave the automakers the option of downsizing, clearly we're going to have some safety consequences," Lund says. "Smaller vehicles do not protect their occupants as well as large ones."

A concern for automakers is that if buyers return to their historical preference for bigger vehicles, manufacturers might end up behind the mileage and emissions curve and in danger of missing the mandated goal. That could force car companies to push smaller cars into the market.

"When regulations establish requirements on what people buy, not what we make, if people aren't buying those, we have to offer incentives," says Sue Cischke, Ford Motor's vice president for environment and safety. "We can't force people to buy what they don't want to buy."

Jim Lentz, president of Toyota's U.S. sales unit, says he doesn't think that all drivers will be forced into smaller cars but notes that in order to sell the bigger, thirstier ones, he will have to sell more Priuses or other gas-savers. If the gas-savers don't sell, there is the "possibility" that there could be shortages of larger vehicles, he says.

Light cars could be safe but would cost more

Environmentalists say they are concerned about safety, too, but say automakers don't need to make cars smaller to meet higher fuel-economy or emissions standards; they just need to use lighter-weight materials and better designs. But that requires an investment that many believe is unreasonable in this economy.

"There are composite materials that are both light and strong, but they cost more. There are drivetrains that use less fuel, but they cost more," Runge says. "The Treasury Department is getting a crash course in how difficult it is to make money and comply in a very complex industry."

Some say the issue is not the cost of becoming more environmentally friendly, but the price automakers will pay if they don't.

"The companies and the Obama administration know that the only way they can survive is if they are making more cleaner, high-mileage cars," says David Doniger, climate policy director at the Natural Resources Defense Council.

David McCurdy, CEO of the industry trade group the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, says the industry is already working on "low-carbon fuels, advancements in battery technology and consumer incentives to get more advanced-technology autos on our roads."

"We will need to use every engineer we have and every investment dollar available to make our vision of sustainable mobility a reality," McCurdy says. "And, we are going to need Americans to buy our clean, fuel-efficient autos in large numbers in order to meet this climate-change commitment."

Though it'll be expensive, Ford's Cischke says, a lighter car can be made as safe as a heavier car.

Even before the new regulation, Ford Motor was planning on "taking between 250 and 750 pounds from (each of) our vehicles. That's a huge challenge," she says.

"It's all about managing the energy, protecting the crash cage," she says. "There are ways you can design a vehicle to be very strong, to provide the same crash safety as a heavier one."

Car companies have changed their outlook

The auto industry has only recently muted its longtime criticism of mileage standards.

In comments to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration last June, GM vigorously protested higher fuel-economy standards, saying they would be too costly and would force it to adopt technologies that impair performance and reliability. But in December, when it submitted its restructuring plan to Congress, GM said it erred by not moving more quickly on such vehicles.

"This is an example of how companies, in order to appease (environmental) demands and get federal money, are now apologizing for their past defense of consumer interests," says Sam Kazman, general counsel of the free-market Competitive Enterprise Institute. "Last spring, these new fuel-economy technologies would be bad for consumers; now it says it's sorry for not forcing them on consumers."

Says GM spokesman Kerry Christopher: "It's a new direction that marks a reinvented GM that is building new, cleaner vehicles and advanced technologies."

Either way, the events of the last several months have led to an unprecedented relationship between the federal government in Washington and the U.S. auto industry. On one side of town, auto industry officials traipse into the Treasury Department to ask for billions in aid. On another, government officials hammer out new federal safety and environmental rules that will cost automakers billions.

Many see a disconnect here — a possible conflict of interest, even — and some also believe safety and environmental rulemaking should be put on hold until the economy improves and automakers can stand on their own.


http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/Kyoto_Count_Up.htm

Since coming into effect February 16, 2005, the Kyoto Protocol has cost the world about $700 billion, while the potential temperature saving by the year 2050 so far achieved by Kyoto is 0.006943971 °C
(to get activity on the clock we had to go to billionths part of one degree, which obviously cannot be measured as a global mean) and yes, that really does represent about $100K per billionth of one degree allegedly "saved." Guess that means for the bargain price of just $100 trillion we could theoretically lower global mean temperature by about 1 °C.

So, how do we arrive at these incredible numbers?

Firstly, the now widely acknowledged "saving" (amount of warming avoided) potential for complete implementation of Kyoto is ~0.07 °C by the year 2050. Since skeptics (e.g. Pat Michaels) and advocates (Kevin Trenberth, for example) alike have signed off on the figure we see no need to dispute it (granted, many have pointed out that the potential "saving" is closer to 0.02 °C but who's quibbling - that's way less than error margin for trying to measure global temperature anyway). Further, even though the US and Australia have sense enough to stay clear of energy rationing schemes like this we are prepared to cut The Protocol a great deal of slack and pretend that figure is achievable by the EU and fellow travelers. Thus our potentially "saved" temperature figure is simply 0.07 °C/45 (the amount per year assuming a linear progression) further divided down to an accumulation per second. Granted, this is not likely a very accurate nor realistic representation but hey, we don't even know the absolute mean surface temperature of the planet within ±0.7 °C anyway.

Sept. 23, 2005: The IPCC's Third Assessment Report (TAR) guesstimates were somewhat indigestible (as you can see, eye-popping but just too big to be useful). While it is true that plenty of other such estimates have surfaced and been bandied about there is simply no realistic expectation that any country, or group of countries, would engage in so foolish and costly an enterprise - just never going to happen. So why settle on $150 billion per annum? Simple really, it's just the round-down result of 1.5% GDP growth restraint of committed countries (not the whole EU 15 though, basically just the UK, Denmark, France and Germany along with Canada and Japan) and no allowance for suppression of global trade or collateral damage to developing world economies. So, ringing up significant price tags is not difficult, the hard parts is constraining the proposed cost to the point where countries might plausibly adhere to such a self-destructive path. -- Ed.

For our cost values we basically went with the optimistic guesstimate of $150 billion per annum compliance cost. This figure is divided to an amount per second and accumulated in 0.05 second increments. Granted, we could have used much more aggressive cost estimates but we just can't see the governments of the EU, Japan and maybe Canada being permitted to squander any more funds that could be usefully applied to such frivolous pursuits as domestic health care, third world development aid or even infrastructure repair and replacement.

Update August 22, 2005: Our cost estimate is extremely conservative - see: "Cost of ending global warming 'too high'" - "BRINGING global warming to an end would cost almost half global GDP - €13,000bn - at least, one London analyst has calculated. Charles Dumas of Lombard Street Research says this is many times the cost of dealing with the damaging effects of global warming." (Unison.ie) | EDITOR'S NOTE: Full report available at http://www.lombardstreetresearch.com/Content/Home.asp | Global warming's £10 trillion cost (The Scotsman)

Kyoto would cost a million Euro jobs, 80 billion euros by 2010 (NBR)

The above guesstimates do not include the billions allocated to "global warming" research ($2 billion per annum in the US alone), "alternative" energy research ($3 billion in the US) and subsidy ($? lots, with forced market share), public indoctrination education campaigns, public monies misdirected to NGOs and other pressure groups or the donations frightened out of the public by the various foundations and alleged charities acting against human interest. These additional funds are the gravy train of Big Warming, a multi-billion-dollar industry devoted to generating scary scenarios and pronouncements of impending doom to further their own agendas or simply maintain their grant stream and employment. Curiously, Big Warming presents the absurd idea that warming advocacy is purely altruistic while the paltry few hundred thousands in donations or grants that were (I don't know if they still are) available to help present the counter case somehow invalidates the science or opinion of anyone who dares to disagree - a position actively promoted by the mainstream but actively Left-leaning media. Quite how multi-billions don't influence while a few thousands "obviously corrupt" we have not been able to discern.

Many billions of dollars have already been squandered on this farce and now it really begins.

What a stupid game this is.


http://www.heritage.org/Research/Economy/wm1723.cfm



http://www.heritage.org/Research/Ene...ent/wm2488.cfm

As the debate on climate change legislation moves forward, Members of Congress are diligently carving out exceptions and special benefits for favored groups of voters. Of course, higher energy costs will hurt all of their constituents, but Members are working hard to soften the blow for those whose political support they enjoy or need.

Of singular concern is ensuring that U.S. firms hurt by the higher energy costs that Congress itself mandates will face minimal competition from foreign companies not hamstrung by similar domestic policy constraints. Knowing that the costs associated with cap and trade will send hard-pressed U.S. consumers and producers to lower-priced imports, some legislators seem keen on trade barriers as the easy solution--thereby raising the costs of foreign products and making them less competitive in the U.S. marketplace. For these legislators, the potential risks of global warming trump all other policy concerns, including the long-term prosperity of Americans. From their point of view, if protectionism in U.S. cap and trade becomes the standard for other countries to follow--or ignites a trade war with countries refusing to trade economic growth for curbs on emissions--all the better.

Lower Economic Growth: A Desirable Outcome?

Despite the sentiments of certain Member of Congress, the question remains: Is protectionism via cap and trade truly desirable policy?

For more than six decades, tariffs and non-tariff barriers against international trade have been falling around the world, enabling more and more countries to enter global markets, grow, and prosper. Reversing that progress in an attempt to lower greenhouse gas emissions will lead to a contraction of international trade that will leave everyone worse off.

Such a contraction of world economic activity may well be the key goal of the environmentalist movement, which sometimes measures progress not in terms of economic growth but rather in its absence. Unfortunately, fewer opportunities to trade will result in lower economic growth rates and rising poverty--reversing the development gains seen in even some of the world's poorest countries.

Some U.S. companies will, of course, welcome barriers against trade. Businesses whose profitability will have been destroyed by new climate change regulations will no doubt find it hard to compete against foreign rivals whose governments have opted against environmental policy restraints.

The cost of such barriers, unfortunately, will be borne by America's families and businesses. Trade is a mainstay of the U.S. economy, accounting for about a third of U.S. GDP and underpinning about 40 percent of U.S. jobs. Even in the face of global recession, the U.S. remains the world's top exporter of goods and services--a position that would be lost as key trade partners adopt similar trade restrictions against U.S. made goods.[1]

Managing Trade through Climate Legislation

For the advocates of climate change legislation, trade-related measures are considered the best method to counteract the loss of competitiveness that such environmental regulations would impose on U.S. businesses. Such protectionist measures would then compel other countries to adopt similar climate regimes--or so such advocates hope.

In addition to explicit tariffs or quotas on imports from countries without comparable environmental restrictions, other policy mechanisms designed to compensate partially for the cost of carbon controls on U.S. firms could be enacted, such as free or discounted emissions allowances, tax credits, subsidies, and government loan guarantees.

All of these measures would raise costs for American consumers and further hurt the competitiveness of U.S. exporters who depend, as many do, on imports of raw materials or intermediate goods in manufacturing their finished products.

The idea that punitive trade measures against carbon-intensive products would motivate countries to implement carbon restrictions depends critically on the ability to measure carbon intensity in imports and on the level of trade that would be affected by U.S. policy. Countries may not export enough carbon-intensive products to the U.S. for trade measures to drive nations to adopt carbon restrictions.

More problematic--because production processes, energy sources, and capital stock vary by country, industry, and even by product--is the fact that the information needed to accurately tax imports for carbon content would be very difficult to obtain.[2] The most likely result is the imposition of a more bureaucratically feasible one-size-fits-all approach to pricing carbon-intensive products at the border. Unfortunately, such an approach has the perverse effect of penalizing clean foreign producers (who may have higher costs) at the expense of dirtier ones, reducing the incentive to better internalize the cost of carbon in traded goods.

Moreover, energy standards and regulations may run up against trade rules that dictate that domestic and foreign firms should be treated identically. Such rules may also create technical barriers to trade disallowed under World Trade Organization (WTO) agreements. Punitive trade measures, direct subsidies, tax credits, government loans, and other government support programs could violate WTO rules against subsidies and countervailing duties.[3] Trade measures that treat countries differently undermine the non-discriminatory basis for global trade that has helped promote prosperity around the world.

Increasing Environmental Risk

The gains from trade include economic growth and rising incomes in all countries. For developing countries--those that would likely be hardest hit by trade restrictions in climate legislation--the economic stress will be particularly great. This, perversely, will likely increase the harm done to the environment rather than reduce it.

Historically, as a nation's prosperity increases, the desire--and more importantly, the resources available--to adopt environmental protections become stronger, resulting in policies that accommodate the individual needs of the country. In contrast, economic contraction drives families, business, and governments into survival mode, where the value of human life takes precedence over the luxury of capping emissions. Engaging in freer trade is a fundamental part of a strategy to better promote the evolution of sensible environmental regulations by empowering countries with the economic opportunity to develop and raise living standards.

Climate Legislation Should Not Limit Trade

Trade measures in carbon control legislation may appear necessary for protecting U.S. competitiveness and promoting broader international participation in such schemes. However, such measures will likely only create a more hostile trade environment that costs U.S. firms access to global markets. Even if countries do not follow America's lead on limiting trade in their own climate machinations or file complaints within the WTO or even resort to outright retaliation against America for raising trade barriers, protectionism cannot guarantee a cleaner environment.

One part of the real solution to reconciling international trade and environmental policies--finding a multilateral consensus within the WTO to lowering trade barriers against trade in clean technologies--will be more difficult as climate-related trade disputes rise. Worst of all, the general contraction in trade that protectionism would induce will only make developing countries poorer and less willing and able to address environmental concerns.

Rather than relying on prohibitive trade measures to mitigate the cost of cap and trade on the U.S. economy, policymakers should maintain the integrity and freedom of global markets as a means to transfer clean technologies, keep international investment flowing, and promote economic growth and prosperity the U.S. and around the world.

[TheWingedHussar]

It seems to me that this is the fault of your Auto industry, and not of "global warmists". After all, countries like Germany can manufacture efficient cars whilst maintaining standards of safety, surely the USA can.

And this one article is hardly proof of anything. Articles are ideas and opinions presented forward for thought. Articles can lie and manipulate, because they are words composed by people. Proof exists in numbers and hard data. Rather than simply copying and pasting, why not fetch a graph detailing the percentages of collisions that have occurred involving efficient cars and those that didn't?

[SwordoftheVistula]

It seems to me that this is the fault of your Auto industry, and not of "global warmists". After all, countries like Germany can manufacture efficient cars whilst maintaining standards of safety, surely the USA can. And this one article is hardly proof of anything. Articles are ideas and opinions presented forward for thought. Articles can lie and manipulate, because they are words composed by people. Proof exists in numbers and hard data. Rather than simply copying and pasting, why not fetch a graph detailing the percentages of collisions that have occurred involving efficient cars and those that didn't?

The fuel economy standards in Germany are less strict than those in the US, many cars which are sold in Europe are illegal for sale in the US. The posted studies above showed more fuel efficient vehicles (colloquially known as 'ricers') have a higher fatality rate than less fuel efficient vehicles.

If you were in a traffic collision between a Suzuki Swift (small car) and a Land Rover, which vehicle would you rather be in?

[TheWingedHussar]

The fuel economy standards in Germany are less strict than those in the US, many cars which are sold in Europe are illegal for sale in the US. The posted studies above showed more fuel efficient vehicles (colloquially known as 'ricers') have a higher fatality rate than less fuel efficient vehicles.

If you were in a traffic collision between a Suzuki Swift (small car) and a Land Rover, which vehicle would you rather be in?

It doesn't matter what the standards are, if a Volkswagen (a "people's car") can get around 30mpg, be safe and affordable, then what's to stop America from doing something similar?
And saying there is a higher fatality rate isn't really helpful. A land rover will have a higher fatality rate in a collision than, say, a tank. Such are the problems when you allow people to interpret data for you. All cars have a fatality rate associated with them and I'm sure the difference in fatalities in efficient and non-efficient cars is negligible, otherwise there would be more than one article dissuading people from buying them. (I have noticed that data is yet to be produced).

Obviously I'd rather be in a Land Rover, but then again, what are the chances of me being involved in a crash at all?

[ikki]

1/20 per year or so

[SwordoftheVistula]

It doesn't matter what the standards are, if a Volkswagen (a "people's car") can get around 30mpg, be safe and affordable, then what's to stop America from doing something similar?

Affordable, yes, safe (comparatively, no).

A land rover will have a higher fatality rate in a collision than, say, a tank.

The additional cost to purchase a landrover is acceptable, the additional cost to purchase a tank is not, especially considering as tanks are illegal for common road usage here. A Land Rover is sort of a happy medium between a tank and a ricer, it costs more than a ricer but is safer and more durable, and can drive better in snow and on rough/unpaved/crappy roads.

I'm sure the difference in fatalities in efficient and non-efficient cars is negligible, otherwise there would be more than one article dissuading people from buying them.

There's loads of articles, I just posted one that was from a mainstream news source. Feel free to research yourself which is safer, a Ford Focus or a Dodge Ram.

Obviously I'd rather be in a Land Rover, but then again, what are the chances of me being involved in a crash at all?

That's the way I think. That's not the way mothers with children think. They want Land Rovers, Volvos, and other vehicles which protect their kids better, even if it cost an extra few bucks for gas.

I drive trucks and SUVs, because I live in a place that gets lots of snow and they drive better over both snow & ice and the potholed roads which result from ice. They can also carry around a lot more stuff than cars can: couches, freezers, all sorts of stuff.

[TheWingedHussar]

Volkswagens aren't safe where you are? Does everybody whizz around in Land Rovers? If that's the case, then I think that there lies the problem.
My point was that comparing an efficient car against a non-efficient one is a much less extreme version of comparing a Range Rover and a tank. Everybody driving around in tanks would be just stupid, yet it appears that's what a lot of Americans really want.
The solution to this is easy; gradually remove large cars where they are unnecessary. Then there's no need to compare a Suzuki and a Range Rover, because both cars will have the same safety and maximum kinetic energy.

Fair enough if you need more powerful vehicles for day-to-day transportation where you live, but surely not everybody in America -especially those in congested cities with slow traffic- requires and APC to get to work.

[SwordoftheVistula]

Volkswagens aren't safe where you are? Does everybody whizz around in Land Rovers? If that's the case, then I think that there lies the problem.
My point was that comparing an efficient car against a non-efficient one is a much less extreme version of comparing a Range Rover and a tank. Everybody driving around in tanks would be just stupid, yet it appears that's what a lot of Americans really want.

It's a close enough comparison in costs, that a Land Rover vs a Suzuki Swift is an acceptable additional cost for the additional value of increased safety, better driveability over snow and rough roads, and better transit capacity. If you want to pay $30-$40k for Land Rover, F150, or Dodge Ram vs $10-$12k for a Suzuki Swift, Ford Focus, or Volkswagen (before exchange rates made them more expensive); then that ought to be a choice available for people, and not have large, low gas millage vehicles artificially driven out of range by government imposed 'fuel economy' constraints under the guise of 'global warming'.

[Loki]

I think perhaps you are all feeling just a little bit too anarchistic. Global warming is a reality; nobody can deny that. What is up for debate is the exact cause of global warming.

True! I know the issue is being politicized ad nauseum, but it still is a fact.