If someone wants to partially define their position by opposing peak oil theorists on the grounds that they are kooks latching onto the idea of oil as a renewable is definitely not the way to go. You're just rejecting one nutty idea and embracing an equally if not more nutty idea.
I too love big old cars and have a few of them. In itself this would hardly seem a reason to reject climate change or reject the idea of autos as contributing a significant portion to the CO2 problem. That's said I pollute less driving my big old V8 to Florida from Missouri than someone who takes a flight there on a plane seating under 60% of it's capacity. My car does not need 105 AvGas with lead and run with absolutely no pollution control devices. I have installed a MPFI system with Cat back exhaust. On a per gallon basis it pollutes somewhere between a new SUV and new automobile. Anyone who gets on an airplane to do something other than cross an ocean is more likely than not having more pollution dumped into the environment than a person driving a newer car to the same destination. Cars are no more a problem than airplanes or the trucks that inefficiently haul everyones groceries to their destination.
John Thornton
On Sep 6, 2006, at 6:42 AM, Andy F wrote:
> You must have missed his global warming skeptic column a few years
> back. He basically pulled a Crichton, making a show of going around
> interviewing climate scientists and then posing very basic questions
> that he obviously didn't ask the scientists.
Cockburn loves big old cars, so he wants global warming not to be
true. And he also likes to blame pollution on corporations, which
would let the drivers of gas-guzzlers off the hook.
Doug