BIG RANT
You know, I am so tired of this "debate" over mans impact on the environment. Disinformation is not good for anyone, and I don't like the idea that Clarkson is willing to support it.
Alright don't get me wrong, I love cars, I love top gear and Clarkson?s presenting skills. One of the most entertaining shows I've seen, but I don't like his crusade against the idea that man is having an impact on the environment.
I work at an earth observatory, everyday I listen to lectures about global warming and mans impact on the environment, which are backed up by models, math, physics and chemistry. It is very hard to argue with natural science. Let me clue everyone in on something about science; at this point no one can say "yes man is having a huge impact on the environment", it goes against the rules. We need to prove completely, or as best as allowed, that this is the case before a statement like that can be made... the same however is true for the opposite. Mans impact on global climate change is being investigated, and all of the evidence that we are seeing, all of the models out there are suggesting man is having a significant impact on the environment.
I've seen downright scary predictions of the sea level rising about 2-3 meters in the next 50 years, possibly 4m. That may sound like nothing but think about all of the costal cities and farmland that will be under. There are also ugly predictions about a global increase in temperature, changes in ocean currents, global dimming, and more. It is important to understand that most of these predictions are based off of the conditions and change occurring now, not what might happen if we contribute more or less CO2 based on economics or new technology. Basically this is stuff that will still occur if we stopped using all CO2 and aerosol production at this moment. And these claims are backed up not only by models created with today?s climate information, but evidence of past events which have triggered global climate change. This stuff is hard to argue against, because it is most likely true.
I hate reading about scientists that are against the idea that man is having an impact on global climate change... because chances are they are corrupt. This may sound like some crazy conspiracy theory, but really I hear about it everyday at work. People are being paid off by oil companies, coal companies... basically industries that survive on these CO2 emissions, to throw the idea out that maybe man isn't having an impact. Sure that statement is safe... it?s possible.... but the thing is it is HIGHLY unlikely that this idea holds any water. There are also those that say we aren't sure if people have an impact on the environment... and this is a true statement, because we can't be completely sure. It is like saying the sun will rise tomorrow... chance is it will, but it is also possible that it won't... however unlikely. This puts the focus down on probability.
People are so deceitful it is amazing; science seems to have politics and money attached to its hips. You need to weigh in motivation when observing new information. Why? Why is someone supporting an idea?
I really wish everyone was able to see these seminars, that the general public was exposed to real information about global warming, because there is a real problem with the way this information is being presented today. I hate the fact that deadbeat hippies and fickle college zombies are the loudest supporters of cutting down on CO2 emissions. These people are for the most part... idiots. They support these ideas because someone told them to, or for other vain reasons, not because they are aware of the real truth. Just because you watched Al Gore predict the end of the world does not make you an expert. And wow! Al Gore, please do something else with your life you aren't helping anyone. I hate the idea that he is labeling himself as a leader on the environ side. How could politics being attached to science be good for anyone?! He is better off keeping his mouth shut, he is not an expert, and he has a bias against him. I am sure there are a large number of people that disagree with whatever facts he spouts, not because they have an argument against it... but because he is Al Gore...
So I'm an idiot ranting about this on a car forum, I've got some good news though. Something I would rather hear Clarkson say. And that is, Cars aren't the biggest problem out there. We could go along happily for a number of years driving with petrol in the tank and the world probably wouldn't get any worse than it is going to get anyway. I say this not because I believe cars have no effect, but because I believe the effect of the auto on the environment is FAR less then other contributors. The big contributions to global climate change come from energy companies, factories, etc. With some coal plant down the road burning through tons of the stuff every minute? the stuff coming out of the back of your tailpipe seems harmless.
So let me be brave and throw down what I think, what we need to do is switch over to nuclear in the short term and then cleaner energies like wind, solar, hydro when we have the infrastructure backing. The government? at least in the USA, needs to stop throwing tons of money at the oil industry and needs to pour that money into cleaner sources.
As for the car, hydrogen cars are a good idea, we do need to move away from CO2 producing energy sources altogether eventually, if only for the reason that the idea of throwing away money away purchasing oil is a wasteful and stupid. So eventually the petrol engine will probably be retired, but I am sure by the time that happens the tech behind whatever new power plant sits in your vehicle will be just as exciting.
The point to all of this without the details is; there are much bigger fish to fry. Please instead of fervently going against the idea that man is having an impact on the planet? just point out that we need to weigh where the problems are coming from a little more wisely.
I love that Brera, can?t wait for 2010 for Alfa to return to the US.