f13.net

Greenland ice cap 'doomed to meltdown'  (http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99994864)


now we have 50 years to fix this shit, set your doomsday clocks.

I thought when this happend it was supposed to plunge the Northern Hemisphere and more specifically Europe into a mini Ice Age.  This has to do with the huge drop in salinity of the waters of the Gulf Stream that shut down the convection of warm tropical waters  to Ireland, Scotland, England and most of the rest of the Northern parts of Europe.

Along the same topic here's an interesting take from Forbes.

Sounds like it would make for a good movie...

It already is:
http://www.apple.com/trailers/fox/dayaftertomorrow/

Bruce

That's what I've heard also Nosartur. Our planet's climate is so complicated though that we barely understand many parts of it, so it's really difficult to know what exactly will happen.

Europe losing the gulf stream and experiencing the temperatures we have every year here in Canada probably isn't as the world coastlines being flooded.

The interveiw I remember seeing with the guy that came up with the theory about the Gulf Stream was not talking about Canadian style winters in Europe, which by the way they used to have up until about the 1500-1600's (IIRC), but full glaciation of much of England, Ireland, and Scandanavia.  About the cold winters that Europe used to have during the Dark Ages and up through the Middle Middle Ages it wasn't uncommon for the Thames to completely freeze over.  The ferrymen would then utilize sleighs to cross instead of there boats.

We have much bigger rivers than the Thames freezing over now (the St. Laurent for example). But, considering Britain is on the same latitude as James Bay, it could indeed get pretty damn cold there if they lost the Gulf Stream.

A little melodramatic aren't we?  For every expert that predicts one thing you can find an expert that says the fucking opposite.  And 10 years later they will flip-flop.  The problem is earths weather system is WAY THE FUCK too complicated for anyone on on this earth other than God himself to comprehend at this point.  And NO, computer models are nowhere fucking near accurate.

These fucks can't even say if it will rain or not this weekend, and you believe they know the cumulative effects of every single butterfly effect like storm from now until 1000 years in the future?  Yeah right.  I have some florida swampland to sell as well.

Clean up the environment.  That is good stuff.  But do it for real reasons, not this greenhouse effect, the results of which are way too hard to predict.  You can keep your eco-religion.

Too bad my old HD is dead.  I used to have a nice story cached on there with four different 'experts' saying exactly opposite things.  One even said the greenhouse effect would have longterm POSITIVE climate changes.  Unfortuantely that and the memory of the details are long gone.

Green Peace is a political force now, and little more.  They have their own motives that have drifted away from the environment first.  Meh, that sounds like conspiracy BS.  I would not say that in a second, but people are people, and movements are made of people and people are fucking broken.  BAH.

I prefer to go with the theory that the climate seems to be working OK the way it is, so changing it (or allowing it to be change) would be a bad thing.  That's just me though.

I don't think that this study was done with the Undersea A.C. in mind, if it was they wouldn't have measured the results in ocean levels.  I have seen much on the phenomena of the deep sea currents and it has a lot of merit IMO.  The point of my clock quip was simply to point out that although many would pass off the response to geological changes to the next generation it seems to be a growing opinion that we are closer to said changes then the procrastinators would have you believe.

I am certainly convinced that human activity has contributed to global warming.  However,
[list=1]

• I remain unconvinced that contribution has been overly large compared to other "natural" factors.
• I remain unconvinced that global warming will be as severe as most are predicting, because I think the models are not sufficiently balanced and complex.
• In any case, I remain unconvinced that the negatives of global warming outweigh the POSITIVES of global warming, which are rarely accounted for in studies.
  
• Even if global warming is a net negative after comparing the above, I remain unconvinced that such negatives are severe enough to warrant substantial changes in things like energy production, automobile usage, etc.
[/list:o]
Bruce

Global warming documentary!

See a preview of it here!

Soul... not only has that already been posted in this thread, but it was posted by Bruce. =/

The point is that the Earth is a hideously complex organism that is not fully understood.  Nonetheless, our survival depends on the maintenance of certain parameters within certain ranges.  As science advances, we might reach a point where we are actually able to determine the exact effects of global warming, and come to an intelligent decision as to whether or not it is OK or even needed.  But we're not there yet, and predicating our actions on our current satisfaction with the existing data ("I remain unconvinced") is a mistake.  

Its enough to simply know that there is a threat of serious injury.

But there's always a threat of serious injury.  NOT spewing carbon dioxide into the air might be a threat to the planet... as you point out, we just don't know.

However, I think humanity is a lot tougher than you imply.  I don't think a 10 degree average swing either way is going to kill all of us.

Bruce

But spewing CO2 into the sky is an active step that changes the environment in an unpredictable way.  How is that logically equivalent to, say, "letting the Earth's natural processes determine the appropriate levels of CO2"?  

You're making the logical error of assuming that because we don't know exactly what will happen, then anything is possible.  But the machine seems to have run pretty well for millions of years.  Theres no reason think that we all need to spray paint into the sky right now to save it.  

And something does not need to "kill all of us" in order to reduce quality of life in signifcant ways.  The environment is not a simple lever that can either be set to "Fine" or "Fucked."  A 10-degree shift in either direction could cause massive problems.

Again, our collective ignorance is not a license to do whatever we want.  Conventional wisdom tells you not to fuck with things you don't understand and which seem to be working.  Especially when its been working so well for so long, and when the stakes are so high.

You think I bother reading Bruce's posts?!

How else are you going to know when you can ban him?

I knew to ban him before the forums went live.  He's being given a chance though.  Not sure why.  *shrugs*

I figure when his behavior gets outrageous again, someone will PM me.  Until then, I can blissfully ignore him.  Ahhh.  Bliss.

I would not bet you a dollar that I knew whether the stock market would be up or down 20 days from now.  I would bet both of my testicles that it will be up 20 years from now.  Sometimes, long term trends are much easier to discern than short terms ones.

I missed this gem.  Did you think that this prediction came from your local weatherman?  Did you think that predicting rain in the next X days has something to do with the effect of increased CO2 emissions and deforestation on long-term temperature patterns?  

Do you not believe in the hole in the ozone layer?  Maybe its a GreenPeace conspiracy.  Or do you believe that this hole will have no effect?

Idiot.

Even with all my enviro touchy feely ways, I feel the correct answer is, "We don't know."

Still, if/when NYC is under 8 feet of water, it's a little late to try to avoid that consequence.  Changes in the weather could create problems, such as the US breadbowl drying up.  Or becoming too wet for grain.  We don't know.  And it's uncertain whether what effects humanity on ozone are causing the new trends, or whether the trends were already present, and we are simply "enhancing" them.

At any rate, I'm glad I live about 2000 feet above sea level.  Not likely I'll get flooded.

Worked well for those imaginary past martians.  Letting the earth run it's own course could spell doom to us all.  Changing the course of the earth's climate could spell doom to us all.  I fail to see how one is better or worse than the other.

My comment about weathermen was that weathermen don't actually DO shit.  They just take what the weather modeling programs spit out and report them.  Our weather modeling programs are just above useless.  We have psychics with better track records.

Sure CO2 is going up.  Sure the ozone has holes (I have actually seen some articles questioning this as well, that holes in the ozone are not a rare thing in planetary history and there is no evidence we actually caused them).  What the real effect of this will be 20-100 years from now is just bullshit science though.

Spewing uncontrolled levels of CO2 and other nasties into the atomsphere probably isn't, you know, helping.

But at the same time, haven't there been about a million of these doomsday timelines?

And is it just me, or does every announcement of an 'accurately modeled date' seem to get further and further away?

EDIT: Also, if I were looking for the worlds top experts on anything scientific, I'm not sure the University of Reading would be my first stop.

Actually, the University of Reading is one of the best schools in the UK for environmental sciences.

Just because something is active doesn't mean it must be held to a higher standard.  PASSIVE steps change the environment in unpredictable ways as well.  And "appropriate" should not be misunderstood to the point of demagougery.  Man and other species have always changed their environment... man is just doing so now on a larger scale than before.



No, I'm not making that assumption at all.  I don't think anything is possible.  But I do know what we are doing has a KNOWN benefit, and until you can show the currently UNKNOWN drawbacks outweigh those, and accounting for the known drawbacks and unknown benefits as well, there's no reason to alter one's behaviour.
   
And the fact that the "machine" seems to have run pretty well for millions of years is irrelevant... by that logic, why have man at all?  Earth ran fine without us.



I didn't say it was.  I said we don't know what is happening, we don't know if what might happen is good or bad, and I said even in the worst case(s), we aren't fucked.  So, sure, there might be massive problems.  So what?  Every other man on the planet is a "massive problem" to another man.  We do not live our lives trying to avoid all problems.  We live our lives by doing what is morally right and avoiding what is morally wrong and whatever problems happen because of that, well, you just fucking deal with it.  You examine it, you evaluate it, and maybe you implement voluntary measures to address it... but you don't force a species-wide change based on your early understanding of a complex phenomenon.



Oh yes, that's EXACTLY what it is.  Just as free speech protects the speech we DON'T like, so to does freedom of action protect the actions we DON'T know are morally wrong.  Otherwise, how could anyone ever do anything?  None of us are omniscient.  You!  Mesozoic!  Stop posting now and kill yourself!  Your unknown ignorance doesn't allow you to see that's actually best for the rest of us!



Didn't they make those same arguments against abolition, women's rights, democracy, and virtually every other point of human progress?

This is not meant as a personal attack, but your rhetoric is QUITE similar to those far-left Earth-firsters who think the pre-human order of nature is "right" and thus any deviation from that is "wrong."  I reject this wholly and completely.  Man WILL change his environment, sometimes for the worse, attempting to improve his life.  And sometimes, he'll wind up with something BETTER than what nature gave him... things like internal medicine, electrification, and indoor plumbing.

Bruce

So much stupidity it physically hurts. Ow!

The point is "Something will happen if we mess around with our climate".

For sane persons "I don't know what happens when I muck around with this, and it will likely be irreversible" translates to "I better not muck around with this".

For clinically insane it seems to translate to "Hey, I don't know what happens, so its my god given right to try to see what happens. Maybe it turns out for the better. "

Suffice to say that Bruce and I have different levels of comfort with risk-taking.  I guess Bruce can take comfort in the fact that in 50 years it will really be our childrens' and grndchildrens' problem, and if they buy into the modern conveniences the same way we have, we can blame them too.

It'll be fun!

Something will happen if you breath.  Something will happen if you have sex.  Something will happen if your have children.  Something will happen if you farm.  Something will happen if you get up in the morning.

It's not sane to not do any of those things because SOMETHING will happen.



No, insanity is what you are showing - NOT doing something because of something that MIGHT happen, but you aren't sure what.

Samity is thought and action based on what you DO know, based on what you think WILL happen using evidence and logic and the scientific method.

Bruce

Actually, I plan to be here in 50 years, and in another 50 after that.  So whatever happens, I'll be here, fighting alongside the rest of humanity to better our world within the boundaries of morality and freedom.

Bruce

Please Bruce.  Please go play Russian Roulette with 5 chambers loaded about 300 times in a row.  I'll give you $100k if you survive.  After all, it would be irrational for you not to do it, because you only MIGHT die, but you might not die, in which case you'd have a nice bit of extra cash.  In fact, according to your own definition of insanity, you would be insane not to take me up on that offer.

Bruce, talk about the subject of CO2 emissions.  Your analogies are a slight of hand.

So far you've come to the conclusion that if you breathe something will happen, therefore we can continue to spew CO2 into the sky while deforestation occurs on a global level, thus decreasing the ability of the planet to absorb CO2.   And none of this will have any negative affect on the environment until you are personally convinced of it.

The problem with your attempt at analogy is the lack of application of logic.  Recall that I said we had to make choices based upon what we do know, not what we don't.

Your analogy presumes that global warming is like the bullets in the gun, and that the chances of a bad outcome are quite high, and that the severity of that outcome is quite large (death).  This is simply not supported by the scientific evidence and economic evidence for global warming.  Not only do we not know how many chambers are loaded (that is, the chance of a bad outcome), we also don't know if they are filled with bullets (bad) or whipped cream (yum!).

Bruce

No, I've come to the conclusion that... well, see my previous post, where I outlined all 4 of the points, none of which say the things you said.

Human activity in general MAY be having a negative impact on the enviroment.  We do not know if it is, nor do we know how severe, nor have we calculated whether the benefits outweigh the positives.

When the last ice age was ending, man was still around.  If he had been sufficiently advanced intellectually, do you believe he should have tried to stop the sudden "global warming" trend?  The trend which was a boon for humanity, especially in food production?

What about the Little Ice Age (1715 to 1845)?  Should we have stopped burning coal when things started warming up in the 1800s?  Or should we have burned more coal and oil in the 1700s when it started?  When is the "natural" trend "good" and when is what "humans" do "bad"?  Or is any change to global average temperature by humans in either direction automatically bad?  Can nature itself do no wrong?  What if nature decides to make humanity extinct?

The migration of humans out of Africa surely had a drastic effect on the enviornment and species throughout the world.  Shall we all go back to the jungle where we were born, and stop changing the word around us?

Bruce

You're not really following the argument at all.  You're still using ignorance as a license to alter the environment in unknown ways.    Scientific studies like the one linked above indicate that you are damaging the envionment.  At the very least, you are changing it.  And when someone asks if this alteration is for better or for worse, you say "I don't really understand this environment thing.  It might hurt or help."

Yes.  It IS a license to do anything.

We cant NEVER know EVERYTHING.  It is impossible to live one's life not doing things you don't know the outcome of.  You can only live life doing things based upon what the best available evidence and thinking you have is of the outcome.

It could rain elephants tomorrow.  But given what we know about the universe, that seems pretty slim.  So it makes sense to live your life without that as a concern.  On the other hand, putting a loaded gun to your head and pulling the trigger we know is probably not a good idea.

Global warming is somewhere in the middle, but I'm not convinced the evidence that it's bad and made significantly so by humans is enough to warrant changes in behavior.




There are other studies that say differently, as you well know.

And yes, that's what I say.  The same goes with farming... I don't really know if farming a particular plot of land hurts or helps the environement on a global scale.  But if people want to farm their land, let them.  The benefits we DO know to that outweigh the unknown hurt or help to the environment.  Same goes with spewing out CO2 that affects global warming.

Bruce

By that logic murder is OK until someone conclusively determines the nature of the afterlife.  Even then, it would still be OK until you personally become convinced that the afterlife is not better than life on Earth.  For all you know, you're helping the man you murdered.



Yes.

Cite one, as Koboshi did, and we can discuss its merits.  But the very existance of contrary studies does not prove your case.

Didn't the dust bowl teach us that crappy farming methods fuck things up?  Sadly, the lesson was learned the hard way.  Which is something I'd like to avoid with anything involving climate change.

Ok. Let's say, for the sake of argument, that it is 100% demonstrable that CO2 emissions are causing global warming.

Now what?

How do you convince people to stop buying SUV's?  How are you going to improve diesel emissions? Are you willing to scrap all coal plants and switch to nuclear? No? Then how are we going to produce power? Orbital Mirrors with mega watt microwave beams that can cause massive devastation if they mis-target?

Or even more practical, are you going to buy all of the forest in the Pacific Northwest, the Amazon Basin, and any place else with lots of trees to improve our CO2 sinks? Or how about seeding plankton everywhere?

In short once you've cut CO2 emissions, then what? Because all of that accumulated CO2 is up there still.

Cutting CO2 emissions doesn't magically solve anything unless it is across the board (and that means India, China and other developing nations have to play along - not stick it to the USA al la Kyoto) AND something is done to actively reduce active CO2 within the atmosphere.

And the one thing I haven't seen anyone address is how we do this without going back to living in waddle and daub huts.

'Think Globally. Act Locally' is a great slogan. But other than driving my VLEV rated car, I'm not quite certain what all the doomsayers expect of me. Hell - Id buy a Hydrogen combustion engine powered vehicle the instant one came out, but I don't see any of those either.

Rambling aside, weather is a massively complex System. While I think we can probably influence things, the idea that we can either fix or break it is pretty damned arrogant which is kind of Bruce's point.

At the end of the day, the best solution would be for all of you to put your money where your mouth is. Buy a hybrid. Don't buy a car that gets less than 30MPG city. Oh. You can't afford it? Then why are you driving hypocrite?

No, the available evidence already shows (to me) that murder isn't OK, regardless of the afterlife.



Could be, but you don't KNOW that to be so.  Again, decide on what you know.  My argument isn't that we don't know anything about global warming.  I'm saying what we DO know doesn't show whether it's good or bad, or fully evaluate the consequences in a more broader sense.  (Like, killing a man trying to kill you.)



But I am not here to solve the global warming question in this forum and discuss the merits of individuals studies.  I simply expressed my evaluation of the total information to date, which is, again, all the things I originally summarized... your continued attempt to simplify it constantly mischaracterizes the nuances of what I said in the first place.

Bruce

But if you had applied that logic to farming, we'd never have undergone the Neolithic revolution to get to a place where we could have BETTER farming.  Overall, crappy farming was better than NO farming.  But GOOD farming was better than crappy farming.  But usually you have to go through the crapping something first before you can figure out how to do it better.

Bruce

I am with Daeven on this one.  Bruce is abit out there for me, but I can see where he is coming from.  Bruce, you have to learn to state your case and then shutup though.  If others agree they will say so.  If they don't they will say so.  Nobody will change their minds based on a fucking internet thread on a video game/movie site.  So don't try and convince anyone of anything.  And your attempts to constantly defend yourself (SirBrucing) are exactly why people attack or hate you in the first place.


I can see evidence that the climate is changing.  I see no evidence that anyone actually knows where the fuck it is headed.  New things are learned about the climate fast enough that it still flip flops all the time.

And trying to change how the world works prior to having one global government is just raging against the machine.

If we all did at once magically start reducing the CO2 emmisions, planting trees everywhere, stop deforestation... how far do you go?  How much CO2 do you remove?  How many trees do you plant?  How much plankton do you seed?  Unless we actually KNOW these answers any attempt to 'fix' the problem (that may not even BE a problem) could be causing more harm than the initial CO2 influx.

Maybe one day we will know enough to understand what levels of CO2 we need globally.  How much ozone we need, how to take into effect the wind currents, the water currents, the level of the polar icecaps, etc...  But we don't right now.

We are aware that we could be fucking up right now.  Slow steps are being taken to help out.  New fuels are being researched, government is setting emmisions standards for vehicles, global climate is being researched so we can learn.  We are a long way from clamping our hands over our ears and screaming "I'm not listening".

I think we are in the right place right now for our current knowledge.  And what our current knowledge level is depends on which study you like more than the other or which scientist you like the most.

But if it worries you, you have the power within yourself to do your part.  So start peddling and planting trees.

Does anyone seriously believe that the human race would be seriously endangered by the effects of global warming? Even if the mean sea levels were to rise a significant amount?

This whole brouhaha is about people fearing change.

... and for the eco-freaks that go off on a Gaia tangent about humans "destroying" the Earth; FFS, get some perspective... This rock has been here eons before humanity, and will be here eons after we're long gone. Fear not for the fate of Mother Earth, she will endure.

The timeframe for a change of this magnitude would give time for adaptation. I'm not saying adaptation would be pretty, or cheap, or even without hardship on the part of humans everywhere, but we're not talking about Armageddon by any means.

No, but presumably you are here to back up your position with some sort of data.  The study indicated, broadly, that global warming is a serious problem.  You refuted that by indicating that other studies say otherwise.  Are you now saying that there are no other studies that refute the first?  Or that an eloquent counter-argument exists, but its not your job to state it?

The eloquent counter-argument has already been stated.  As for "studies" to back up the notion that global warming is not as serious a problem as your study says it is, well, you already stipulated to their existance.  So I see no need to dig up some URL just to satisfy someone's need to say, "Oh, THAT study, I don't believe that." and we're right back where we were before, because you're picking and choosing which studies to believe to support your preconceived notions.

Bruce

Hey cool, I did that. Bike in the city, train if going abroad. Getting my electricity from a water plant. Can I get a cookie now?

Just for your information, you can regulate such things with prices. Taxes on fossil fuel, higher car taxes for those cars, a working public transportation system, et cetera. I know you Americans are against that, but it is possible. The point is you don't want to, not that you can't do it! At least be honest to yourself and don't delude yourself you are powerless to do differently.

So the specific study that we're talking about is totally refuted by the general existence of other studies.  Neat trick.  Now theres no way to attack the methodology or constraints of the "other studies."  No way to look and see who is financing these other studies.

Back it up.

Taxes on fossil fuels? Check.
City public transportation systems utilizing both bus and light rail funded through both taxation and public Bonds? Check.


Distance to connect Denver Metro to the nearest Major Metro area (Let's say KC): 600 miles, as compared to Paris to Berlin: 680 miles. Point? Don’t know. Perhaps it is that the US is significantly larger in terms of area than many people seem to realize, and therefore it might cost a bit more than you expect to connect everything in a nice Europass manner?

I’m not against public transport in the least. However, I am against increasing my Federal tax level to fund a high-speed rail line between Pittsburgh and Buffalo, which I will never use. Denver metro will have light rail stretching from Cheyenne, Wyoming to Colorado Springs along the North south axis and between DIA and Vail along its east west axis within 20 years. Looks as though we are creating a solid public transportation infrastructure without beggaring the bank quite nicely all on our lonesome, thank you for your interest though. So I’m not quite certain where you are getting your “don’t want to’” strawman, but hey – whatever works for you.

Funny thing is, public transportation STILL needs some sort of power to operate. So here we are back to reducing CO2 emissions once again.


A valid point. If we *REALLY* wanted to invest in a massive public transportation infrastructure connecting every major point in the US with each other we could do it. Hell, we’ve been to the moon a couple of times. Of course, coming across as a pedantic blowhard talking down to the moronically ignorant and self-deluded 'Merikans significantly enhances your point as well.

...

Except I never said TOTALLY refuted.  In fact, the thrust of my argument is otherwise.



Every study has been flawed in methodoly or constraints... that's part of my whole argument here.  Some say one thing and some say another.  The system is too complex for any of them to fully account for.  And as I specifically pointed out before, many of the studies don't really measure the positive aspects of global warming; only the negatives.

Bruce

Ah, if you commute from one Major city to the other regulary, you sure have a point. I was under the impression the majority of people go abroad on holidays and not on a daily basis.

But thats not the point anyway. Even on a daily basis, mass transportation systems use less fuel per person transported than cars. Even buses or airplanes. As I said you can't force people to do it (here in Europe you can't either, driving by car is still way cheaper than using trains. Don't think otherwise). You just can make it more expensive to sweeten the deal for alternatives.

I take my "don't want to" strawman from the simple fact that the USA wastes energy like there is no tomorrow, as a trend. Not that Europeans are much better, but ranting about European problems I usually reserve to European message boards. For the record I don't think we handle this ideally as well, for whatever that is worth. Maybe I'm a slave of the media age, but everytime I see one of those energy wasting cars, I gotta puke at the inefficiency of those monsters. But then maybe they only exist in movies and the energy efficient cars are the new trend over there. Would be nice, because in a few years it would become a trend here too. And the oil price is much cheaper than over here, making every alternative unreasonably expensive in comparasation. My impression was you pay just the material price of fuel plus something for the oil company, with no strings attached. If that is not true, my apologies.

I don't think Americans to be moronically ignorant and self-deluded as a rule. I only know the worst of them are, and after some postings by Sir Bruce you can't blame me for getting into that mood.

the only practical way to reverse global warming once we loose the ice caps is to put a gigantic shield in space to reduce the amount of sunlight the earth gets. And that, is really fucking expensive.

I am not all that concerned with the global warming, I am concerned with its effect on the ice caps. Do you have idea idea how many billion will be forced to move if the oceans rose 80 meters?

Are we doing enough to cause the ice caps to melt. No. However we are doing enough to cause the world to heat up, which *WILL* trigger a runaway greenhouse effect. How do I know this? Because its happened before. Several times the earth has been a giant ball of ice, and once emissions from volcanos reach a certain limit, you suddenly get this huge runaway effect.

Think of all the frozen tundland. THAT will thaw, and release TONS of greenhouse gasses. Think of all of the methanehydrate that will be released when the ocean temperatures increase.

All we need to do is trigger the chain reaction and there will be no way to stop it. The way to prevent that is nuclear power, along with hydro and wind power. We need to STOP burning coal, and begin phasing out petrochemical cars in favor of hydrogen ones. We also need to stop the deforistation occuring in south america.

In my opinion those in power are too greedy to bother, and that we will cause a runaway greenhouse effect.

Your streets, parking spaces, etc... are also much smaller making a large vehicle a fucking pain in the ass (at least the english cities I have seen).  To my knowledge most europeans drive tiny cars because they are simply more convenient in the european world, not because they are saving the world from mr bad co2.  I remember seeing a LOT more historical areas with tiny fucking cobblestone streets and tiny roundabouts where a larger vehicle would frankly suck.  This could be a mistake on my part from not having seen very much of the place and making an impression based on limited data.

In the US people like to drive SUVs because they are more convenient around town (storage, height for visibility, transporation of family, towing capacity for boats, etc...).  People take the path of least resistance.  I don't think that is an exclusive trend to america.

Nah, SUVs certainly seem to become a trend here as well. Streets are seldom a problem, unless you live in some really old part of a town, and most of the time those parts are pedestrian areas anyway (for tourists and shoppers).

Only the most hardcore environmentalist whacko could read that into what that article said.

Bruce

read what, sir?

That scientists were stirred to ridicule ice age claims?

Bruce

Sir.  The point was that it refutes my fifty years till doomsday article, proving your any article can be refuted by another, but shit, if you can do better... sir.

There's loads of SUVs here in England, often seen blocking up our tiny roads as housewives drive 1 mile through suburban streets to take their kids to school or go shopping.

As for the Gulf Stream stopping, we have complete chaos in any adverse weather conditions (a light rain, 1" of snow, mist, a mild frost etc), an arctic winter would more or less finish off british civilisation.