Cue Sammy Hagar.

.

"Lower Highway Speed Limits Could Result in Significant Reductions in.. blah... blah... blah..."

And facts show that reduced speed limits cause higher deaths due to accidents. The interstate highway is designed for safe travel at 70 mph. People tend to drive at whatever speed "feels" safe. Some will obey a dangerously slow speed limit while most will drive the natural, safe, design speed. The high speed differential will cause accidents and kill more people - as the evidence of the past thirty years indicates.

But, this is what Globalwarmist religion is all about, isn't it? "So what if people die - we have Mother Earth to worship!"

Praise be to Algore!

.

Actualy the thing that is realy causing waste isnt high speed its bouncing from high to low and back again many times during a trip. Most of this is the fault of cities with far far more jobs then they have roads to deal with the commuters AND cargo trucks.

I'm fine with it as long as all the go slows make up the lost time and wages.

Today is is possible to reduce fuel consumption by 3 to 4 times by making the right vehicle choices. Simple design concepts have shown that even vans can have very low drag (look up MB boxfish concept).

Trucks can be improved also.

Both better CAFE standards and fuel taxes in lieu of other taxes are needed to encourage the right choices.

Of all the ways to reduce carbon emissions, speed limit reduction has to be the most difficult to enforce and may have a substantial economic impact to the trucking industry (perhaps not in the Netherlands).

I prefer approaches like:
- lowering the drag coefficient of vehicles
- retrofitting existing cars and trucks with hybrid systems
- better government incentives for upgrading to EVs and PHEVs and for vehicle conversions to LNG
- Elimination of ALL fossil fuel subsidies (with possible exception of Natural Gas)

All this is doable with existing technology and isn't likely to require serious changes to individual behaviors.

Gornicle: What planet do you come from? And what do you mean by "What scientist do not agree on is the cause."?

There is overwhelming consensus among thousands of scientists in multiple disciplines about the causes.

This is supported by recent IPCC assessment (http://www.ipcc.ch/) and though you may be loathe to admit it, even the long-skeptical Bush administration released a report in May 2008 saying “it is likely that there has been a substantial human contribution to surface temperature increases in North America.”

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=washingtonstory&sid=aXQeBMUnvRys

http://www.climatescience.gov/Library/sap/sap3-3/final-report/default.htm

Nattering naysayers like yourself claiming otherwise does not change the facts. Polar ice is melting - primarily as a result of human activity and perhaps as much as 10% the result of solar influence. We are rapidly approaching tipping points with positive feedback mechanisms that will accelerate the process.

There may have been a few flaws in the material that Al Gore presented, but the lion's share of it was spot-on. Just saying otherwise does not make it so.

Regarding the UK court decision in Dimmock v Secretary of State for Education and Skills, the judge sided with the defendant (Gore) writing:

"I have no doubt that Dr Stott, the Defendant's expert, is right when he says that: 'Al Gore's presentation of the causes and likely effects of climate change in the film was broadly accurate.'" On the basis of testimony from Robert M. Carter and the arguments put forth by the claimant's lawyers, the judge also pointed to nine errors, i.e. statements that he found to depart from the mainstream scientific positions on global warming. He also found that some of these errors arose in the context of alarmism and exaggeration in support of Al Gore's political thesis. Since the government had already accepted to amend the guidance notes to address these errors along with other points in a fashion that the judge found satisfactory, no order was made on the application.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_Inconvenient_Truth

To make only 9 errors in the hundreds of facts presented is pretty impressive, and these issues were long ago addressed.

Get an ethic, stop sowing misinformation, and start helping to solve the problem.

Find a real job and quit being a mouthpiece for the fossil companies.

Get real and yes, thank God for Al Gore!

How about this old design solution: fossil fuel tax increasing by $0.01 per gallon per month forever. That will prompt slower driving, less driving, and choice of better designed vehicles.

@Gornacle: Wow, quite the master of cherry-picking phrases out of context to twist and distort the facts to make any and all claims with no substance. Impressive!

How convenient to ignore the Bush administration's own assessment in your rant. And of course I suppose the IPCC doesn't count for anything either since in your mind all scientists are liars, cheats, and self-serving.

Did you even try to learn the context of where "hide the decline" was used? Did you actually read any of the email thread from which you quote? Clearly not since it would be antithetical to your objectives!

The Washington Post article was simply giving Gore the courtesy of responding to attacks on "An Inconvenient Truth." Apparently you are not interested in what he had to say in his defense.

It's clear that you are content to carry on unencumbered by the truth, and unencumbered by a conscience. It's time for a little introspection guy.

When speed limits were dropped to 55 mph by the Nixon Administration during the first oil price shock, I noticed how much less stressful driving suddenly became.

All vehicles were driving the same speed, instead of the 20 mph differential between trucks and cars. There wasn't the constant passing and lane jockeying. Back then trucks didn't have as much power as today, and even if they had wanted to break the truck speed limit of 55 mph, they had a hard time doing it. The slower speed meant drivers were in better control and had more time to plan ahead.

When fuel prices were at their peak two years ago, I drove cross-country on I-80. I drove at a steady 62 mph and was passed by only two trucks over a span of nearly 1,000 miles. Truckers had self-regulated themselves to a 60 mph limit, since fuel costs were exceeding labor costs.

Ah, Mr. Gornacle. . . your lack of depth is once again revealed.

When confronted with the truth about your unsupportable assertions, your only recourse is to claim hysteria and silliness on the part of those shining the light. When you have no basis for discussion, deflect.

Thank God for people who care enough about our environment to stand against those who would decimate it for a buck. In what twisted reality does casting aspersions on their characters make any moral or ethical sense?

Yet, unencumbered by the facts, you prattle on with mockery and "LOL!!!s" and "good laughs" while polar ice continues to melt and oceans become more acidic.