Nascar just switched from leaded gasoline to unleaded gasoline. It would be a big change for NASCAR to switch. They would have to reconfigure the engines on all of the cars. Drivers had trouble this past weekend with the switch of leaded to unleaded gasoline. I think the change would need to come with time but not this quick because the ethanol has not proved itself yet. Also ethanol is coming from corn, if we start to use ethanol in our daily lives and there becomes a shortage of ethanol, that means there is a shortage of corn, and many third countries relay on corn. If we use all the corn these third world countries may become upset with us over the long term

I agree with Joe on the introduction but would like to set the record straight on the corn supply issue. Ethanol production actually will increase the food supply for hungy people. Didion Milling in Cambria, Wisconsin is making food for famine relief and plan to make more when the plant is completed. From the supply side, Monsanto is forecasting significant yield increases and by 2012 US farmers expect to be producing enough corn to produce an additional 8 billion gallons of ethanol than could currently be produced if we used all the corn for ethanol. Another factor many forget is that 1/3 of all the corn used remains after the process and is a higher protein product than what orginally went in. NASCAR doesn't have to worry about creating food shortages because US farmers will raise to the occasion. I know a lot of corn farmers who are NASCAR fans!!!!!!!!

It would be sad to see NASCAR, or any other major racing series, switch to an "environmentally friendly" fuel. It would show that they completely crumbled to a political will based upon the poor and false information being spread by those who would make the change. Besides, I sincerely doubt that anyone who buys into global warming would ever consider watching a race. I can just see it now, Leo and AlGore sitting on the roof of a PRIUS, with a confederate flag on the antenna, with no shirts on, yelling for Jr. to 'bump draft' Gordon outta the way.

And, Oh yeah, Gore would put more CO2 in the air flying to a race than everyone in the race. Thank goodness he can buy his moral salvation in credits.

Joe is completely right, using a bunch of corn is bad in a lot of ways. Besides, as I recall, it takes more energy to make a gallon of ethanol than you get out of it by burning it. Ethanol may help but the process needs to be refined.

I agree Joe, but don't you see that this change to ethanol would save the earth? If we could only get other sports like say soccer to cut the amount of on field playing time by half. How many people play soccer in this great big world? Too many! When they run, they need more oxygen. When they exhale they are releasing more CO2. This excessive emission is killing our children and the polar bears! If we cut playing time in half, then we can reduce carbon emissions by half, saving the earth! Joy! Kumbaya my lord, kumbaya....

Rich,

I hope you were just joking by your comment, if you were not that is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard.

Rich:

Ha Ha Ha

Good one. And well to the point. Somebody call Leo and Al quick so they can get to work on curtailing the dreaded soccer game. It's really all starting to come together now as to why we have a "problem".

I salute NASCAR for being a pioneer in inspiring change, as opposed to people such as Rich and Darren, who are only interested in the status quo.

Don't know about Rich but I am not simply for the status quo as much as I am certain that making changes due to political will is not generally a good idea. Especially if the will is based upon heavily postulated and poorly evidenced theories. I still have yet to hear science from the AGW supporters.

Please recall that if the world had bent to the "obvious" will of the "enlightened experts", both polar caps would probably still be painted black, CO2 generators would have been a part of our past history, (those were deemed viable solutions for the global cooling problem), we would all have advanced skin cancer (OZONE hole), oil would have become an historic commodity roughly 8 years ago, the world population would have leveled off at about 3 billion since the planet could no longer support anyone else, SARS and WEST NILE VIRUS would be infecting millions and millions of people right now, the stock market would be below 9,000, and mach flight would still be a dream.

Change is fine as long as there is a sound cause for the change. So far, AGW seems to be in the same mold as the rest these issues. Except for the fact that certain individuals are blaming the rest of society for the problem.

As far as I know, the cost of changing a car over to be able to run E-85 is actually quite low, something like $200 or so, so to add this into the NASCAR cars is nothing compared to a car costing over $150,000. I think the problem NASCAR teams are saying about is the loss of power, since the race cars use a high octane gas. Ethanol can't produce as much power as the high octane gas now used, that is the major stumbling block. Really, the race cars are not the problem here, the problem is all the cars going to the race on race days, sitting in hours of traffic. I am to blame, but something needs to be done with these problems. Getting to Dover, DE for a NASCAR race can take hours in traffic, and Pocono, PA is about the same as Dover. And who wants to go 5 miles in 2 hours anyhow? I'd rather take a bus or a train like AMTRAK offers for the Dover, DE, race instead of the time and aggravation of sitting in traffic for hours.

Joe, I was kidding. Thanks Darren. I was simply trying to show how absurd this is all becoming. It will get worse. The cult want to force people to change their lifestyles, let's start with them. They need to stop being so hypocritical. They need to start doing THEIR part, change THEIR lifestyles, spend THEIR money, this is THEIR "Theory".

Mark, are you driving a Prius or electric hybrid yet? Are you using ethanol yet? Have you changed all of the light bulbs in your house yet? Have you adjusted the setting on your home heating unit yet? Did you install solar panels on your roof yet? Are you buying at least 10 percent of your energy from green sources yet? Did you install a low flow shower head yet? Did you buy an energy saving washing machine or refrigerator yet? Are you doing more walking and biking to go to where you need to go yet? Did you plant 6 trees yet? Have you done all of these things yet? If so, then great, get a patch to put on your shoulder to show everybody that you care more than the rest of us. If not, then pipe down with your pie hole, hypocrite.

If all of you in the cult practice what you preach, changed your lifestyles, spent your money, then surely we would see a noticeable difference, right? Not. Insignificant.

Mark, why don't you come shovel my driveway for me, it's snowing and cold up here just north of Boston, again! Dang that global warming! After 150 years of evil, earth destroying industrialization, how is it possible that we are still this friggin cold?! How? One reason is that the earth has it's own air/climate conditioning system. More to follow on this.

I've done much more than you have, Rich. And I'm happy to know that most people don't have the myopic view of the world that you do.

Do you understand the concepts of statistics, Rich? Have you taken a statistics course? If so, you should know about averages and trends. Averaged global temperatures are comprised of tens of thousands of data points over many years. The trend of these averages has been increasing. Your comment about "It's cold outside today, therefore there is no global warming" shows that you don't understand this. This is why we gather huge amounts of data in order to analyze things, because singular events do not prove or disprove anything.

You want it both ways, Rich. On one hand, you say 150 years of data is just a blip on the radar screen and it's not enough data to prove anything. On the other hand, you say that it's cold and snowing outside, and subsequently imply that global warming must not be occuring because *gasp* it's snowing outside. Ahh yes, 150 years of data isn't enough data to prove something, yet a snowstorm is enough to disprove global warming. Ignorance truly is bliss.

By the way, it's 65 degrees here today, and your snow has turned to rain. Using your logic, that's all the evidence I need to prove that global warming exists.

-Mark

Ok Rich thanks for clearing that up, but I do see your point. Here is a question that just popped into my head. Al Gore is out publicly saying GW is happening, and he wanted to be President of the United States, so if he wanted to be the leader of the free world, why doesn't he become the leader in Green Technology? He heats his home at over 20 times(over the course of a year) what a normal family would, but he says that he uses environmetally friendly sources for energy. What about the "environmetally friendly" private aircraft that he uses to promote the GW cause? I just happen to think that if you want to be a leader you should act like a leader and Mr. Gore hasn't proved me that he is a leader? Has he proved it to any of you?

Mark,

Myopic? Sorry that you think this. Please read this to the end. You may be surprised.

Short term data is all that is needed to conclude without any ambiguity, long term trends? I don't think so. How do you explain the medieval warming period? This is the time in which your hockey stick theory �inconveniently� seems to forget about. Surely the trend during this period was getting warmer. Who knew that a little ice was around the corner? �The year without a summer."

Statistics and averages using recently recorded data is fine for figuring short term trends, but stops there. Definitive long term analytical conclusions using short term data is scientifically impossible. There are too many variables. Your recently collected data is only good for the time frame from which the information is gathered, short term.

Hmmm, what data is missing for long term conclusions? Oh yeah, your "statistics and averages" from a long time ago. From 1700 A.D. to millions and millions of years B.C. Who was responsible for recording this data, they did a horrible job!

This is why we have to look at hard science, geology. We know that, thanks to geological data, the earth has been warmer. One must ask that if humans did not cause this warming, then how did this happen? �We learn everything from the past and nothing from the future.�

Skeptics are not arguing that we are emitting carbon gases. CO2 levels have increased from approximately 280ppm to around 370ppm. This is about a 36 percent increase over the past 150 years. The question is to what extent is this effecting temperature? Is this manmade �greenhouse� gas living up to the name and acting like a true greenhouse, preventing heat dissipation? According to this theory, even a modest 20 percent spike in CO2 would facilitate a significantly noticeable short term increase in temperature, creating warmth greater than in any of the earth�s previous years. This is not the case. Also, we are coming out of an ice age. What is the normal global temperature swing from this over a given period of time? We simply don�t know. The recession of an ice age does �conveniently� make room for a warming trend though.

Have you ever heard of Mt. Washington, NH U.S.A.? It is home to the �World's worst weather� yet only about 6,000 feet above sea level. They have set new records from January through February of 2007. The coldest and most bitter conditions ever recorded. Recordings date back to the 1800�s. My sighting of it�s snowing over here is just small reminder that the earth may be getting warmer, but it�s still cold and dangerous over here. Average temperatures may be warmer in Europe this year, but average temperatures on the North American continent have been colder, this year, thus far. Sorry, but it's a fact. This fact aids in balancing, or weakening the belief that the earth is quickly spiraling into a global warming meltdown.

I am tired or arguing and will finish with this. We skeptics need to be convinced that there is absolute, 100 percent, irrefutable proof that mankind is inherently destroying the earth. Proof that mankind is solely responsible for increasing temperature and effecting climate. That cost effective patience in waiting for new technology evolution is not an option. That if we do not act immediately, the earth is in absolute peril. This may take some time. But if it comes to this, then and only then will we skeptics rise together with you and say:

�We the people of the World, collectively demand a change in the world's energy consumption and usage, in order to preserve the existence of all God�s creations.�

In return for this promise, can we stop scaring people and indoctrinating the children? There are always two sides to an argument. If you want to change your lifestyle, please feel free. Just don�t be forceful or demanding of others. The human spirit does not respond well to this. In the meantime, you live your lives, and we will live our lives. We will continue to monitor all information. Think about it, we are discussing this issue because we care. Freedom to do so is a wonderful thing! We may be skeptics, but that doesn�t mean that we are less informed or heartless. It�s just a difference of opinion. Is this fair? Can we all be friends now?