Gore-Backed Car Firm Gets Large U.S. Loan. Piece of shit only runs 50 miles on a charge!

Global warming exists. The reason you can conclude that is because it is
something which can be measured.

The disagreement occurs when the cause is trumpeted to be man's puny
efforts as opposed to natural occurrences. The climatic models are so
complex that there are very few people who could pretend to understand
them. The result is "thousands of dermatologists all agree on the best
way to treat your brain cancer".

The political nonsense and public stupidity lead to waste in the
trillions. A favorite bully boy target is the automobile. There are few
industries that can match the improvement made here. They simply choose
to take a number and lower it no matter how it is to be achieved or if
the effort is better expended elsewhere. The burning of rain forests
adds more pollution than the ENTIRE PLANET's content of autos. No
regulation there.

Then you have the electric car. How will you charge it? Coal fired power
plants, of course. You can speak of the naivety of the people who refuse
to drink the supplied Kool-Aid. It is dwarfed by the utter stupidity
ingrained in the "green" movement.

So "everyone" agrees, like "everyone agreed" global cooling was
inevitable in headlines from the 70s and 80s.

Oh my gosh, a glacier is melting. But is it worse than the 20 or 30
times it has melted before based on historic samples?

The number of hurricanes! But gee, historical testing shows we are in a
"mild" 1500 year hurricane cycle.

Then what happens if you spend all of these trillions of dollars which
could be spent elsewhere and Krakatoa blows up again?

 

Actually the data is showing cooling off now. But that's the only thing
you said that I disagree with.

Hah! Yeah - like solar output,

Besides the point that they only work when tailored for the actual data
you use to build them to prove that warming is taking place, but
miserably fail when used for projections with new data.

And yet when it is proven that controlling CO2 isn't going to fix
anything (and in fact with what little effect it has, it will move
things an immeasurable amount in the wrong direction anyway), they will
continue to create a new false economy built around it because they want
to build their own self-enriching industry based on it (think: Al Gore).
Everyone but them will suffer.

Exactly. Their solution is to destroy the coal industry (Obama vowed to
do so) and to do no nuclear.

BTW - are we still wasting tax money on bio-fuels wasting even more
energy and at the same time making a food source scarcer and dricing
prices up?

Why don't they fix the problems they have already created instead of
creating new problems? Because there's money to be made at the expense
of everyone else - all in the name of helping everybody.

And the overall "increase" in melting is fabricated by cherry picking
the data.

Oh well then we must discontinue looking at that parametric. Look
instead over hear at the snow pack data that we picked local minima on
during times we wanted to claim higher temperatures and local maxima
during times we wanted to claim lower temperatures.

Yep - inflicting the worst possible economic damage possible in the name
of fixing a non-problem.

 

If you don't know the basics, don't know the history, why the hell
shoudl anyone waste their time trying to show you the facts?

 

Really? Cars don't get that much better mileage than those made in the
'60s and '70s. About a 50% or so increase from 1975.
http://www.afdc.energy.gov/afdc/pdfs/1975_feg.pdf

Unfortunately, we're also running out of oil, especially oil that can
easily be refined into gasoline. And we're using oil faster than ever.
Last year, a huge amount of oil was found. But that oil is going to be
more expensive than ever to get out of the ground.

It's also possible to charge the cars with power generated overnight,
when the electricity generation is more efficient. In addition, the
energy used to generate the electricity is less than the energy used by
a gasoline motor to run the car. So a net energy savings occurs if the
right type of energy is used to generate the electricity.

Really? Not everyone agreed in the 70s and 80s. And not everyone agrees,
today.

We have a more energy-efficient economy. THat's a good thing.

Jeff

 

This the typical "dumb" response, tying efficiency to mileage. Average
mileage may be nearly the same but customer preferences and gov
requirements mean the same mileage is coming from larger, more powerful,
more luxurious and dramatically safer vehicles.

Another old chestnut. There is no oil "shortage" now or even
foreseeable. And while "Arabian" style crude is a small part of the
totals, oil is the only practical choice because the alternatives cost
astronomically more AND most of then from source to use to disposal have
a GREATER net impact on the environment.

The old spend trillions on infrastructure to save a few bucks theory.

You should check the magazine covers with the scientific community
banding together to study the problem. About the same degree as today.

If someone invents a new insulation and it costs me $10k to replace my
$200 worth of attic fiberglass and it saves me $42/yr in fuel oil, I
would have a different description.

It is equivalent to the imbeciles that buy a Prius to "save money", even
when you do the math and show them the payback period. Or the "do
gooder" who buys it to "set an example", even when studies show the
entire process from creating the battery/car to disposing of it at the
end of its life have a net NEGATIVE compared to std vehicles.

 

Not really. Compare this to A/C efficiency or refrigerator efficiency.
There is a much better increase in efficiency compared to cars. And
let's compare this to computers, which are millions of times faster,
able to store millions of times more data, and are able to send data to
other computers millions of times faster. Gee, A/C and refrigerators
don't even compare.

The fact is that to do what cars do, get people and things from point A
to point B, they do so using almost as much fuel as they did 30 years ago.

Except that the supply and demand are nearly the same amount. And
remember what happened when the demand went up a just a bit more about 1
or 1.5 years ago? High gas prices.

That the Middle East no longer supplies as high a proportion of the
world's oil supply, the supply is still limited.

Yet, the fact is that by conservation, we become more competitive than
other countries. The alternative is that we become less competitive. It
may be old, but it is true.

Really? Time magazine is not the voice of the scientific community. The
fact is that the scientific community did not support the global cooling
the way it has examined and supported with data global heating today. If
I am incorrect, support your argument.

That's a straw-man argument.

Some people realize that the environment is more important than just
money. (Unfortunately, no one has accounted for the environmental cost
of making the batteries.)

Really? What studies? Be specific, please.

Jeff

 

No, it is not. It's the stuff of right-wing web sites, the same
conspiracy nuts who claim Bush was behind 9/11 and Obama is not a US
citizen.

Yes there is. Every national science academy, every scientific
organization in the world says so. All the articles in scientific
journals say so.

Do yourself a favor: Read some science. Right-wing web sites are not
good sources.

No, we are choosing to believe the science instead of right-wing
propaganda and idiotic conspiracy theories.

 

The 2000s are the hottest decade ever. How is that cooling off?

Uh, you forget a lot. It's 2005, then 1998 and 2007 tied. 8 of the
hottest years on record have occurred in the 2000s.

Oh BS.

Yes, talk about truth. Talk about science. Please learn some.

 

So tell us, what scientific sources did you consult to come to this
conclusion?

You are a liar.

Turns out that's wrong. The National Academy of Sciences validated
Mann's work, and 10 other reconsructions of temp. agree with it.

No it didn't. What scientific sources did you get this from?

Hint: Don't post lies from right-wing web sites.

Yeah, all science is in on a vast conspiracy and only Bill Putney sees
the truth!

Pathetic.

 

Are the 48 US states the globe?

 

So how do you claim the whole world, when there have only been
precision measureing devises to the degree claimed used in the last maby
100 years, being generous. and no possible way to know the world temps
before that, as much of it not even connected before that. this is a
bunch of PROJECTION with no historical possibility other than generally
large changes. your scientific basic is CRAP. No one knows either way
and can not prove it. They are "all" using computer modles on both sides
and its CRAP. A bunch of idiots guessing and we are supposed to change
how the world works on this????????? What a bunch of retards. KB

 

Here's one from a very obscure right-wing web site - OH WAIT - it's
NASA's own data and on their own web site (after they corrected the
false data)!! Imagine that.

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.D.txt

1934 and 2008 tied.

"Four of the top 10 years of US CONUS high temperature deviations are
now from the 1930s: 1934, 1931, 1938 and 1939, while only 3 of the top
10 are from the last 10 years (1998, 2006, 1999). Several years (2000,
2002, 2003, 2004) fell well down the leaderboard, behind even 1900."

 

NASA. But like I said, you won't believe it no matter what.

Very convincing argument.

If you check the prior post, I was direct quoting exactly what someone
in this thread had said, and yet I'm a liar when I actually quote what
someone said. You just stuck your foot in it. I say something that is
a direct quote documented in this very discussion, and I am a liar.

BTW - Saul Alinsky's Rules for Radicals don't work anymore. People have
become immune to them. So you need to learn to discuss with factual
information rather than using the worn out methods.

Ummm - that's the point. No matter the numbers you put into it, it
shows the rise in temperature as you move time forward. Appreciate the
confirmation of the false science even though you see it as proving the
"science" that is false.

It happened. Google is spelled g-o-o-g-l-e. Again - it happened.

Again, Saul Alinsky and his methods are dead.

Can't argue the facts, so you continue to revert to the Saul Alinsky
methods. Very convincing. And scientific.

From Saul Alinsky's "Rules for Radicals":
1. "Power is not only what you have, but what the enemy thinks you have."

2. "Never go outside the expertise of your people. When an action or
tactic is outside the experience of the people, the result is confusion,
fear and retreat.... [and] the collapse of communication.

3. "Whenever possible, go outside the expertise of the enemy. Look for
ways to increase insecurity, anxiety and uncertainty. (This happens all
the time. Watch how many organizations under attack are blind-sided by
seemingly irrelevant arguments that they are then forced to address.)

4. "Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules. You can kill them
with this, for they can no more obey their own rules than the Christian
church can live up to Christianity."

5. "Ridicule is man's most potent weapon. It is almost impossible to
counteract ridicule. Also it infuriates the opposition, which then
reacts to your advantage."

6. "A good tactic is one your people enjoy."

7. "A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag. Man can sustain
militant interest in any issue for only a limited time...."

8. "Keep the pressure on, with different tactics and actions, and
utilize all events of the period for your purpose."

9. "The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself."

10. "The major premise for tactics is the development of operations that
will maintain a constant pressure upon the opposition. It is this
unceasing pressure that results in the reactions from the opposition
that are essential for the success of the campaign."

11. "If you push a negative hard and deep enough, it will break through
into its counterside... every positive has its negative."

12. "The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative."

13. Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it. In
conflict tactics there are certain rules that [should be regarded] as
universalities. One is that the opposition must be singled out as the
target and 'frozen.'...

"...any target can always say, 'Why do you center on me when there
are others to blame as well?' When your 'freeze the target,' you
disregard these [rational but distracting] arguments.... Then, as you
zero in and freeze your target and carry out your attack, all the
'others' come out of the woodwork very soon. They become visible by
their support of the target...'

"One acts decisively only in the conviction that all the angels
are on one side and all the devils on the other."

 

They don't. Just the ones you want to believe do.


The ones that forget that science and politics are not one and the
same.

Naw. Just covers a lot more ground. Cooler temps than normal, more
rain than predicted when alarmists scream "DROUGHT!!!", Fewer
hurricanes than predicted, can more easily be attributed to "climate
change" than global warming.


All you have to do is "prove" something is out of the ordinary,
climate-wise.

Al Capone probably worker harder and was smarter than most anybody. He
was rich. Was he a good guy????

 

FWIW it seems to me that there does seem to be a temperature increase but to
me the question remains whether in an historical context it (and other
changes) means that much, and whether humans have had such an impact, all of
which have been raised in this thread so far.

Certainly carbon dioxide levels are higher than when I was a kid. I
remember learning 2.5% (that's in the 60s) and now it is 3.5%, which is, of
course, an enormous increase, though this level is not as high as peak
levels seen in the historic past.

That oil will run out makes sense, whatever we may be discovering now, since
we are using it at a rate much faster than petroleum deposit creation. The
only question is when, though it may not be as soon as some doom-sayers seem
to think.

I certainly agree that an enormous amount of hooey is said and done in the
name of 'greeness'. The Prius (already mentioed) and, indeed, all
electrical cars are inferior to modern diesels. Most of recycling is daft
from an energy or raw material point of view. Glass especially, since the
essential raw material, sand, is infinitely available. As I understand it,
about the only thing genuinely worth recycling is aluminium since the energy
required to reprocess the metal is a lot less that that required to process
ore. All the rest ought to be incinerated (not sent to landfill sites), but
everyone is a NIMBY (not in my backyard). While we are at it, the heat
generated from such an incinerator could be used for heating water,
especially for homes in the vicinity.

And do on.

DAS

To send an e-mail directly replace "spam" with "schmetterling"
---
[...]

[...]

 

LOL! Even if you believe the GW'ers, it's a whopping 0.6°C over a
century. Don't tell anybody, but it's dropping now due to decrease in
solar activity.