Welcome to America where you can sue anyone for anything and as long as you have good attorney, you just might win regarless of how obvious it is that your case is BS.
as far as global warming goes, do people realize that the climate changes in cycles?
Yes, many scientist have realized this.
Those cycles are influenced by factors such as co2 levels in the atmosphere.
Current co2 levels are exagerated by human invovlement, this is a proven fact by the Keeling Curve.
Current co2 levels are the highest in 600,000 years, this is a proven fact by ice core samples.
Those levels have not fully affected current climates, (ever hear of tempurate time lag, 8th grade earth science?) A rise in the temperature artic waters by 1.5* in one decade is NOT part of a normal climate cycle.
you did? so you read this
“similar to one a New York court dismissed.”
Yes CO2 does increase teperatures, not going to argure that because it is true.
What i will argue is how it out of control.
If you look at a graph of the Co2 levels for teh past 10 years you will see there is a huge increase trend. If you zoom out and look at the past 100 years you will notice the trend isnt as bad. Zoom out to 1000 years, etc. etc. and you will see that current trends are within the normal cycle of the planet.
We are still coming out of an ice age. The planet is going to get warmer and the glaciers are going to melt reguardless. Its part of the normal cycle of the planet. Contrary to what some people think, there isnt always suppose to be frozen poles.
The earth has been hot enough where the artic was as hot and humid as Miami. So to think warmer temps are going to destroy the world is retarded.
Current levels are the highest on 600,000. Ummmm, ya…it’s called a cycle, the levels go up and down. Its going to happen reguardless.
Oh and to all the people freaking about Co2 levels. Go read some articles about how much Co2 is stored in the currently thawing permafrost around the world.
Read the whole thing, but this is a real good part with a real good source…
… Now for an inconvenient truth about CO2 sources — nature generates about 30 times as much of it as does man. Yet the warming worriers are unconcerned about nature’s outpouring. They — and Al Gore — are alarmed only about anthropogenic CO2, that 3.2 percent caused by humans.
They like to point fingers at the U.S., which generated about 23 percent of the world’s anthropogenic CO2 in 2003, the latest figures from the Energy Information Administration. But this finger-pointing ignores yet another inconvenient truth about CO2. In fact, it’s a minor contributor to the greenhouse effect when water vapor is taken into consideration. All the greenhouse gases together, including CO2 and methane, produce less than two percent of the greenhouse effect, according to Richard S. Lindzen of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Lindzen, by the way, is described by one source as “the most renowned climatologist in all the world.”
When water vapor is put in that perspective, then anthropogenic CO2 produces less than 0.1 of one percent of the greenhouse effect.
…
Actually we’re 2000 years overdue for the beginning of the next ice age. On average, there are 15,000 year warm periods in between 100,000 year ice ages. This is due primarily to eccentricities in the Earth’s orbit. It has been 17,000 years since the last one ended. But yeah, I’m not worried about 10 year or 100 year deviations from 1000+ year averages.
Especially since the way I see it we’re at the beginning of an energy revolution anyhow, and the beginning of the end of fossil fuels. As evidence: After being pretty steady for decades, the price of gas has tripled in the last couple of years. I don’t see it coming back down. Thus, renewable energy resources are getting more and more attention. Basically, I’m thinking we’ll run out of fossil fuels before we cook ourselves.
Back on topic: This bullshit lawsuit makes me angry, which is a symptom of depression. This can lead to things like high blood pressure, psychiatrist visits, medication, etc. I am going to sue the people behind the lawsuit for the medical bills and pain and suffering they have caused me. Oughta be worth at least a mil or two…
1-800-JOES-DAD :lol:
Fuckin librals, what else can i say. Lets blame everyone but ourselves. Those dipshits that filed the suit drive a car, mow thier lawn with a lawn mower and use the electricity that comes from a coal burning electric plant. But still have the fuckin nerve to sue those that have given them the things they like. The most discusting part of this is that our state is about 1/2in behind california. If california farts, NY gets to smell it first.
ROFL. Wow…California just the hit rock bottom. they were previously close…but not fell face first. This has to be the most humerous bs lawsuit attempt for capital gein.
yup, read the whole thing written by an ex-racer and jounalist.
… Now for an inconvenient truth about CO2 sources — nature generates about 30 times as much of it as does man. Yet the warming worriers are unconcerned about nature’s outpouring. They — and Al Gore — are alarmed only about anthropogenic CO2, that 3.2 percent caused by humans.
That is true, only 3.2% of the total amount of co2 that goes in the atmosphere is produce by humans.
About half that is obsorbed naturally by the earth.
The Keeling curve rises about only ~.4% each year (since 1958). This is directly cause per net accumulation of co2 gasses not naturally being absorbed.
So take that $10,000 that you wanted to invest and put it in a savings acount that removes the yearly net profit (notice I am not compounding interest). After 48 years @ only .4% it is only $1920. Since that is an ingsignifigant amount by your standards please send that $1920 this way.
I am just going by the truely measurable regions of the curve and not even the predicted 200~250 years of the Industrial Revolution.
http://members.aol.com/trajcom/private/carbon3.htm
When water vapor is put in that perspective, then anthropogenic CO2 produces less than 0.1 of one percent of the greenhouse effect.
Ice core samples dating back 400,000 years show no relation between water vapor and warm periods. In fact, water vapors from some warm periods appear to be frozen in the ice samples.
The arguments about global warming aside - the big question is: what if Lockyer wins? At that point, the automakers would be found at-fault (and unless they successfully appeal) would be forced to make changes or withdraw from the California market.
Now, given that all IC engines make some form of CO2, then the only viable sellable option for California is an electric car (in which the CO2 is displaced to the utilities, instead).
Otherwise, all the changes will need to be absorbed by the rest of us car-buying public - increasing costs for us all. And of course, we don’t know where it will end - nickel prices have already multiplied to compensate for higher demand with hybrids, even though they are only ~1-2% of the market.
My other question is how - if they win - would they assess the penalties. Would they hit GM/Ford more because they sell more in the US, or the imports more, who sell more in California? Or, would they just annualize over worldwide production - since this is a global issue? (Maybe it’s a good time for Toyota to take #1 from GM… lol)
You are one load that should have been swallowed. Once again, take apart how I spell something and not what was said. This is why I love you Joe…you have created the standard at which to base other assholes upon.
