Go Back   iRV2 Forums > iRV2.com COMMUNITY FORUMS > Just Conversation
Click Here to Login
Join iRV2 Today

Mission Statement: Supporting thoughtful exchange of knowledge, values and experience among RV enthusiasts.
  This discussion is proudly sponsored by:
Please support our sponsors and let them know you heard about their products on iRV2
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 03-24-2007, 05:51 PM   #29
Senior Member
apackof2's Avatar
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Central Michigan
Posts: 462
In spite of the hype, it is not obvious that greenhouse emissions are the cause of global warming. For this reason, another group of evangelicals--researchers, professors, pastors, leaders--has banded together in the Interfaith Stewardship Alliance (ISA). The ISA seeks to find an effective and sensible response to the possibility of climate change, using established norms of science and economics.

The simple fact, as ISA notes in its statement, "Dominion, Stewardship, Conservation," is that among the scientific community, the opinion is varied as to how much the global climate is changing and what effect mankind has had on that change. As ISA points out, the jury is out as to how much is truly understood about global climate change. Although Gore's movie paints a black-and-white picture, this issue plays out in living color.

While some studies demonstrate anthropogenic climate shifts, others attribute the changes to varied solar output, or "precipitation microphysics." One study in the journal Chemical Innovation called into question the very causal relationship between CO2 output and global warming, arguing that the data show elevated CO2 levels follow warming and do not cause it.

But the scholars at ISA go one better than that. They say, "Let's assume that the climate is changing and that we might be a cause of it. What does a changing climate mean?"

Indeterminate Data

Some on the left say that climate change means stronger hurricanes. As ISA notes, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the leader on these issues, is not one of them. NOAA scientists are unwilling to link hurricanes and global warming.

Others say that climate change means starvation in the developing world. This is counter-intuitive, for longer warm seasons and higher CO2 levels should spur agricultural output. (Historically, global cooling has been the harbinger of starvation, such as during the Great Famine of 1315.)

Perhaps the change will result in a sea-level rise. It is a possibility, but current scientific knowledge makes it very difficult to tell just how much it will rise, how fast it will rise, and for how much of the rise we would be responsible. Acting on such indeterminate data smacks of folly. We are left with a probable global climate trend, for which humans may or may not be an efficient cause, and which is unlikely to have any major adverse effects.

ECI's response to such nebulous facts is drastic action: reduction of CO2 emissions, largely by treaty and government regulation. This solution ignores the inconvenient fact that fossil-fuel emissions are necessary byproducts of industry, manufacturing and economic growth.

Traditional efforts to curb greenhouse emissions come with titanic price tags. The Kyoto Accords would have consumed 2.25% of global GDP, with negligible effect on global warming.
Even more "efficient" systems--such as "cap-and-trade" programs--would stifle economic development, here and abroad, by obstructing free markets with government regulation.

Good Business and Good Science

If the effects of global warming are real and, in the future, humans face hotter summers and higher sea levels, the solution is not restricting energy access and limiting economic growth. That is quite unlikely to solve the problem. It is certain to lead to economic recession in developed countries, invariably keeping undeveloped countries in poverty as their growth is dependent on the strength of developed nations.

The endorsers of ISA provide an alternative: While global climate change might be real, its consequences are, with the help of the scientific community, manageable. We should respond to any challenges global warming presents by promoting economic development based on market principles. It's not just good business, it's good science.

Free markets give us the resources to provide real solutions to problems that arise. Knee-jerk regulation forces a non-solution to a possible problem and makes the world poorer in the process. And if the true goal here is to help the poor, we should be sure that the policy attacks real problems without hurting the people it's supposed to help.

Bill Saunders is the Human Rights Counsel for Family Research Council. This op-ed originally appeared in Human Events on November 07, 2006

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Vegascpl:
Like all of you I'm well aware of all the scientific studies that turned out not to be so true particularly when it comes to food. Remember when butter was bad and margarine was good?

In my opinion Global Warming is a little different. The difference is that we are not talking about the potential of an individual getting fatter. If the projections are true the world is heading for a train wreck.

Within the past month all of the major news networks including Fox carried news stories about global warming and the fact that there was a 90% chance that it was caused by human pollution. Here is a National Geographic story to refresh your memory http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...l-warming.html

Here is a link to a CBS news story about the Bush administration censoring scientists over Global Warming. This is definitely a Red vs Blue issue. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/...n1415985.shtml

There is a cost to Global Warming. Nothing comes for free. However, what is the cost of hurricanes that are much stronger as a result of global warming. Global warming accentuates weather patterns. Have you seen any strange weather lately? The biggest obstacle to doing something about global warming is the oil and auto companies. They control our government through political contributions. The cars we drive get basically the same milage they did 20 years ago. Why can't we do much better?

Yes we need to reduce our use of energy. Is that really such a big deal? Especially when the consequences of not doing so might well be catastrophic? It's all about Money!


2005 Dutch Star 40' 4 slide
2005 BMW K1200LT motorcycle on lift
2006 Ford Escape Hybrid </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Joan & Emme
"Apackof2 for the Road"
Pure Michigan
apackof2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Join the #1 RV Forum Today - It's Totally Free!

iRV2.com RV Community - Are you about to start a new improvement on your RV or need some help with some maintenance? Do you need advice on what products to buy? Or maybe you can give others some advice? No matter where you fit in you'll find that iRV2 is a great community to join. Best of all it's totally FREE!

You are currently viewing our boards as a guest so you have limited access to our community. Please take the time to register and you will gain a lot of great new features including; the ability to participate in discussions, network with other RV owners, see fewer ads, upload photographs, create an RV blog, send private messages and so much, much more!

Old 03-24-2007, 06:45 PM   #30
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 260
If you really want to do something about global warming, just send me a big check, and I will send you some carbon credit's. that way You can be carbon neutral like Al Gore. And please conserve all the gas and fuel you can, It save's more for me. Anyone that belives in that (BULL) Should walk and carry a pack on their back!!!!!

H.B. & Deb. Molly(spoiled Shih Tzu) , 06 Pace Arrow ,36D full slide , electric jacks , 04 Jeep Liberty, Blue Ox Aventa II , 97 Harley Heritage.
Blaster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-25-2007, 01:27 PM   #31
ronharp's Avatar
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Apache Junction, AZ USA
Posts: 98
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">- my car (also my toad) has a 1.5 liter gas engine, weighs about 2,300 lbs., gets 33 to 35 mpg. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Big LOL. My wife has a Caddy. Big, fast STS. Labeled "a sophisticated race car" when new several years ago. It has a 300 HP Northstar V8. 0 to 60 in 5.6 seconds "supposedly" when new. She gets 24/26 around town and approximately 32 mpg on the hwy. Has gotten as much as 35 mpg on the hwy when the conditions are right.
I know this because I've heard it at least 1 Zillion times as she gets a lot better mpg than I do. Soooo, I want kudos for buying that for her 13 years ago. lol
Anyone in the last 40/50 years that has worn a badge for any length of time and worked much traffic can tell you the downside to the tin cans that get high mpg. The downside can easily be/and often is fatal.
Ron, Linda & Charlie Dog

2004 Mt Aire 4301
ronharp is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-25-2007, 02:09 PM   #32
Senior Member
SeeTheUSA's Avatar
Winnebago Owners Club
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Texas
Posts: 1,575
I once knew a guy with one of those Caddy's ---- got to where he had to start taking gas out of the tank rather than putting gas in!
Warren and Debbie, Deep in The Heart of Texas, 2018 Winnebago View 24D
2014 Tiffin Breeze 32BR, 2012 Winnebago Navion 24G, 2006 Winnebago View 23H
SeeTheUSA is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-26-2007, 05:57 AM   #33
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 161
I understand now why Global Warming is now known as simply Climate Change. For some of you at least it's not what it is that is a problem it's what it's called or who the messenger happens to be (Gore).

I guess I'd like to say we should all keep an open mind and not hate someone just because they are from another political party. However, when it comes to practice what you preach, I wouldn't be doing so well. I think Bush has been a complete disaster, and I doubt that I'll be changing my mind anytime soon!


2005 Dutch Star 40' 4 slide
2005 BMW K1200LT motorcycle on lift
2006 Ford Escape Hybrid
Vegascpl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-26-2007, 08:17 AM   #34
Senior Member
Lynnvt's Avatar
Nor'easters Club
Appalachian Campers
Coastal Campers
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Florida USA
Posts: 1,337
It's unfortunate that we begin discussing such hot topic issues on irv2. Neither side is going to convince the other. In the meantime we often lose our common interest, rving.
Lynnvt & George (DH), Sam the traveling pooch
2014 Primetime Crusader 32' fifth wheel
Lynnvt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-27-2007, 05:47 AM   #35
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 161
What's unfortunate is that we don't feel comfortable discussing these very important issues that are critical to our future. We've got to stop fighting and start finding common ground or this country will continue it's downward slide.


2005 Dutch Star 40' 4 slide
2005 BMW K1200LT motorcycle on lift
2006 Ford Escape Hybrid
Vegascpl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-27-2007, 05:56 AM   #36
Senior Member
paz's Avatar
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Full-timers - Home is where we park it.
Posts: 4,716
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Vegascpl:
What's unfortunate is that we don't feel comfortable discussing these very important issues that are critical to our future. We've got to stop fighting and start finding common ground or this country will continue it's downward slide. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

...or START the downward slide, depending on your point of view.
2015 DRV Tradition 375KPS
2015 Chevy Duramax 3500HD LTZ Dually
Full-timers...Home is where we park it.
Check out our blog: Living Our Dream
paz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-27-2007, 06:47 AM   #37
Senior Member
SeeTheUSA's Avatar
Winnebago Owners Club
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Texas
Posts: 1,575
Funny how some people seem to feel taking a very vocal political stance is better than just taking real and meaningful personal action towards improving something.

From my point of view - hot air, whether from politicians or those pushing them, adds to the overall global temperature.

Okay - now let's all go RVing !!!
Warren and Debbie, Deep in The Heart of Texas, 2018 Winnebago View 24D
2014 Tiffin Breeze 32BR, 2012 Winnebago Navion 24G, 2006 Winnebago View 23H
SeeTheUSA is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-29-2007, 06:23 AM   #38
Senior Member
Jayco Owners Club
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 1,939
More global warming stuff:

2016 Jayco White Hawk 27dsrl
2015 Chevrolet Silverado 2500 diesel 4x4
DonavonP is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-31-2007, 12:53 PM   #39
Senior Member
mamaloya's Avatar
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Ft. Bragg, NC
Posts: 498
Check out this link that compares George Bush's house to Gore's.


mamaloya is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-02-2007, 02:22 PM   #40
Senior Member
Dalsn1's Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 133
High Court Rebukes Bush on Car Pollution

Email this Story

Apr 2, 5:18 PM (ET)


(AP) A car gives off exhaust in Montpelier, Vt., Monday, March 2, 2007. Vermont is a big winner in two...
Full Image

WASHINGTON (AP) - The Supreme Court rebuked the Bush administration Monday for its inaction on global warming in a decision that could lead to more fuel-efficient cars as early as next year.

The court, in a 5-4 ruling in its first case on climate change, declared that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are air pollutants under the Clean Air Act.

The Environmental Protection Agency has the authority to regulate those emissions from new cars and trucks under the landmark environment law, and the "laundry list" of reasons it has given for declining to do so are insufficient, the court said.

"A reduction in domestic emissions would slow the pace of global emissions increases, no matter what happens elsewhere," Justice John Paul Stevens said in the majority opinion. "EPA has offered no reasoned explanation for its refusal to decide whether greenhouse gases cause or contribute to climate change."

The politics of global warming have changed dramatically since the court agreed last year to hear its first case on the subject, with many Republicans as well as Democrats now pressing for action. However, the administration has argued for a voluntary approach rather than new regulation.

The reasoning in the court's ruling also appears to apply to EPA's decision not to impose controls on global warming pollution from power plants, a decision that has been challenged separately in court, several environmental lawyers said.

In the short term, the decision boosts California's and 10 other states' prospects for gaining EPA approval of their own program to limit tailpipe emissions, beginning with the 2009 model year. Those cars begin appearing in showrooms next year. Emission limits would become stricter each year until 2016.

Automobile makers have said stricter emission limits would be accomplished by increasing fuel-economy standards.

Reacting to the court ruling, the automakers called for an economy-wide approach to global warming, cautioning that no single industry could bear the burden alone.

Monday's ruling also improved the odds that Congress would take action on comprehensive legislation to reduce global warming, said business groups, environmental advocates and lawmakers. Several measures already have been introduced.

Sen. Jeff Bingaman, D-N.M., chairman of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee urged President Bush "to work with Congress to enact a mandatory cap-and-trade proposal and other programs to reduce our nation's greenhouse gas emissions."

EPA spokeswoman Jennifer Wood said the agency is studying the court's ruling.

In the meantime, she defended EPA's voluntary partnerships to reduce emissions. "These national and international voluntary programs are helping achieve reductions now while saving millions of dollars, as well as providing clean, affordable energy," Wood said.

Ann R. Klee, who was general counsel at the EPA from 2004 through mid-2006, said the Bush administration's "options are now considerably more limited." She said EPA could still decide not to regulate carbon dioxide, but only if it also concluded that such emissions do not contribute to climate change or endanger public health and welfare.

That's an argument that could be difficult to make given the widespread view among climate scientists that carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuels is the principal heat-trapping "greenhouse" gas that, if not contained, will lead to significant warming of the Earth, rising sea levels and other marked ecological changes.

Carbon dioxide is produced when fossil fuels such as oil and natural gas are burned. One way to reduce those emissions is to have more fuel-efficient cars.

In handing an almost-total victory to Massachusetts, 11 other states, three cities and 13 environmental groups that sued the EPA, the court adopted many of their concerns and their belief that taking even limited action concerning new American cars and trucks is better than doing nothing.

The court's four conservative justices - Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Samuel Alito, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas - dissented.

"In many ways, the debate has moved beyond this," said Chris Miller, director of the global warming campaign for Greenpeace, one of the environmental groups that sued the EPA. "All the front-runners in the 2008 presidential campaign, both Democrats and Republicans, even the business community, are much further along on this than the Bush administration is."

Democrats took control of Congress last November. The world's leading climate scientists reported in February that global warming is "very likely" to be caused by man and is so severe that it will continue for centuries. Former Vice President Al Gore's movie, "An Inconvenient Truth" - making the case for quick action on climate change - won an Oscar. Business leaders are saying they are increasingly open to congressional action to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases, of which carbon dioxide is the largest.

The court had three questions before it.

_Do states have the right to sue the EPA to challenge its decision?

_Does the Clean Air Act give EPA the authority to regulate tailpipe emissions of greenhouse gases?

_Does EPA have the discretion not to regulate those emissions?

The court said yes to the first two questions. On the third, it ordered EPA to re-evaluate its contention it has the discretion not to regulate tailpipe emissions. The court said the agency has so far provided a "laundry list" of reasons that include foreign policy considerations.

The majority said the agency must tie its rationale more closely to the Clean Air Act.

In his dissent, Roberts focused on the issue of standing, whether a party has the right to file a lawsuit.

The court should simply recognize that dealing with the complaints spelled out by the state of Massachusetts is the function of Congress and the chief executive, not the federal courts, Roberts said.

He said his position "involves no judgment on whether global warming exists, what causes it, or the extent of the problem."

Justice Antonin Scalia, in a separate dissent, said the court should not substitute its judgment in place of the EPA's, "no matter how important the underlying policy issues at stake."

Whatever else comes of the decision, "this administration's legal strategy for doing nothing has been repudiated," said David Doniger, counsel for the Natural Resources Defense Council, an environmental group involved in the case.

Other states that have adopted California's standards on emissions of greenhouse gases are: Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington.

2006 Windsor PRT
Dalsn1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-05-2007, 04:46 PM   #41
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Birmingham, Al
Posts: 262
The Story of Two Houses

Look over the descriptions of the following two houses and see if you can
tell which belongs to an environmentalist:

HOUSE # 1:

A 20-room mansion (not including 8 bathrooms) heated by natural gas. Add on
a pool (and a pool house) and a separate guest house all heated by gas. In
ONE MONTH ALONE this mansion consumes more energy than the average American
household in an ENTIRE YEAR. The average bill for electricity and natural
gas runs over $2,400.00 per month. In natural gas alone (which last time we
checked was a fossil fuel), this property consumes more than 20 times the
average for an American home. This house is not in a northern or Midwestern
"snow belt," either. It's in the South.

HOUSE # 2:

Designed by an architecture professor at a leading national university, this
house incorporates every "green" feature current home construction can
provide. The house contains only 4,000 square feet (4 bedrooms) and is
nestled on
arid high prairie in the American southwest. A central closet in the house
holds geothermal heat pumps drawing ground water through pipes sunk 300 feet
into the ground. The water (usually 67 degrees F.) heats the house in winter
and cools it in summer. The system uses no fossil fuels such as oil or
natural gas, and it consumes 25% of the electricity required for a
conventional heating/cooling system. Rainwater from the roof is collected
and funneled into a 25,000 gallon underground cistern. Wastewater from

sinks and toilets goes into underground purifying tanks and then into the

The collected water then irrigates the land surrounding the house.

Flowers and shrubs native to the area blend the property into the
surrounding rural landscape.

HOUSE # 1 (20 room energy guzzling mansion) is outside of Nashville,
Tennessee. It is the abode of that renowned environmentalist (and

Al Gore.

HOUSE # 2 (model eco-friendly house) is on a ranch near Crawford, Texas.
Also known as "the Texas White House," it is the private residence of the
President of the United States, George W. Bush.

So whose house is gentler on the environment? Yet another story you WON'T
hear on CNN, CBS, ABC, NBC, MSNBC or read about in the New York Times or the
Washington Post.

Indeed, for Mr. Gore, it's truly "an inconvenient truth."

Here is the Urban Legends url if you want to verify this:

Jayco1 is offline   Reply With Quote

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Warming the Cummins RonNBama Monaco Owner's Forum 4 11-22-2008 11:27 AM
Global Warming?? brad03ca Canada Region 1 12-02-2007 11:12 AM
TOP GLOBAL MOBILE BRIDGE MB8000 3G EVDO ROUTER dsdplandside Technology: Internet, TV, Satellite, Cell Phones, etc. 5 09-30-2007 05:13 AM
Global Terrorism Map in REAL TIME! Mutha Just Conversation 2 07-14-2007 01:51 PM

» Featured Campgrounds

Reviews provided by

Copyright 2002- Social Knowledge, LLC All Rights Reserved.

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 01:42 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.