Global warming HOAX

jfelbab said:
IMO, this BS is all about power and money.
Click to expand...

There is usually someone trying to exploit it either way.

However, we are consuming this planet's resources as we apparently hope technology (you know science) is going to save the day - clean water, food (not soylent green), and universal free wireless service.
 
Angus said:
Ron,

Don't get me wrong - I like you, and I know we'd share a laugh / GREAT meal if we'd ever met in person. But your kill me with this hoax nonsense. Global warming is happening, the evidence of it is real, science has without any doubt proven it.

Nasa's site Global Climate Change site is filled with excellent examples:

http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
Click to expand...

Quite honestly, I really don't believe EITHER SIDES "evidence". "Scientific data" can be subjective and manipulated as a stock prospectus can. Both sides have their agendas, and reasons to manipulate data.

Do I believe in being a "good steward" of our planet? YES !!! Will I buy a Tesla? NO. Not until they have better ways of producing energy. IMHO right now, these are "feel good" cars. So instead, I will drive an economical fossil fuel car. :D

I believe about 25% of what I see, 5% of what I hear, and 5% of what I read (unless I am directly involved)

That said, do I believe the sky is falling? No! Do I believe we need to be more careful with our environment and recourses? YES !!!

It is fun watching people's viewpoints. (sorta like reading the comments on msn's news)
 
Bunky said:
There is usually someone trying to exploit it either way.

However, we are consuming this planet's resources as we apparently hope technology (you know science) is going to save the day - clean water, food (not soylent green), and universal free wireless service.
Click to expand...


Amen !
 
Very simple, for action there is an equal but opposite reaction. Thus, you pump mass amounts of hydrocarbons into an enclosed space... guess what climate change will happen. Anyone who thinks otherwise can miniaturize this by simply pulling their car into the garage closing the door an leave the car running. Then after an hour report back an let us know how it went.

I love Tesla for other reasons, instant throttle response, insanely lower maintenance costs, no gas bills, tax incentives, instant torque, better safety and more storage space. I think normal people should drive Electric, for gear heads who appreciate the combustion engine it should be more of an accessory. Nothing pisses me off more then seeing a Mom with one kid in a suburban star destroyer class or a clueless house wife driving an S65 Amg. There is just NO need and a waste.

Once we start building self generating power structures like wind an solar, the E car will be far more beneficial then drawing off the grid which is partially fueled by petroleum based products (NOT ALL).
 
The Driver said:
Very simple, for action there is an equal but opposite reaction. Thus, you pump mass amounts of hydrocarbons into an enclosed space... guess what climate change will happen. Anyone who thinks otherwise can miniaturize this by simply pulling their car into the garage closing the door an leave the car running. Then after an hour report back an let us know how it went.

I love Tesla for other reasons, instant throttle response, insanely lower maintenance costs, no gas bills, tax incentives, instant torque, better safety and more storage space. I think normal people should drive Electric, for gear heads who appreciate the combustion engine it should be more of an accessory. Nothing pisses me off more then seeing a Mom with one kid in a suburban star destroyer class or a clueless house wife driving an S65 Amg. There is just NO need and a waste.

Once we start building self generating power structures like wind an solar, the E car will be far more beneficial then drawing off the grid which is partially fueled by petroleum based products (NOT ALL).
Click to expand...

Partially a decent example. BUT, you left out plant life.

As far as the E car, it needs to be plugged in. Electricity has to come from somewhere..... So IMHO at this point it is a "feel good". Also what about the hazmat from the old batteries?
Again, my opinion..... Wind and solar are a long time off, at least till it's viable both economically and efficiency. (even kennedy didn't want windmills killing his view off cape cod). Nuclear should be considered for the interim (heck, we just gave iran the ok to get nuclear energy). Again, I said my opinion.
 
Ronkh said:
Quite honestly, I really don't believe EITHER SIDES "evidence". "Scientific data" can be subjective and manipulated as a stock prospectus can. Both sides have their agendas, and reasons to manipulate data.

Do I believe in being a "good steward" of our planet? YES !!! Will I buy a Tesla? NO. Not until they have better ways of producing energy. IMHO right now, these are "feel good" cars. So instead, I will drive an economical fossil fuel car. :D

I believe about 25% of what I see, 5% of what I hear, and 5% of what I read (unless I am directly involved)

That said, do I believe the sky is falling? No! Do I believe we need to be more careful with our environment and recourses? YES !!!

It is fun watching people's viewpoints. (sorta like reading the comments on msn's news)
Click to expand...

Have you always been a trouble maker, Ron??? ;)

I'll agree, limited scientific data is open to subjectivity. That subjectivity ends when a standard evidence is reached and the results are reproducible over and over and over again. It's those reproducible results that are important and critically relevant to the climate change argument.

For example the below graph shows temperature data from four international science institutions. All show rapid warming in the past few decades and that the last decade has been the warmest on record.:

attachment.php


Further more:

"The scientific evidence is clear: global climate change caused by human activities is occurring now, and it is a growing threat to society." (2006)[SUP]3[/SUP] - American Association for the Advancement of Science

"Comprehensive scientific assessments of our current and potential future climates clearly indicate that climate change is real, largely attributable to emissions from human activities, and potentially a very serious problem." (2004)[SUP]4[/SUP] - American Chemical Society

"Human‐induced climate change requires urgent action. Humanity is the major influence on the global climate change observed over the past 50 years. Rapid societal responses can significantly lessen negative outcomes." (Adopted 2003, revised and reaffirmed 2007, 2012, 2013)[SUP]5[/SUP] - American Geophysical Union

"Our AMA ... supports the findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s fourth assessment report and concurs with the scientific consensus that the Earth is undergoing adverse global climate change and that anthropogenic contributions are significant." (2013)[SUP]6[/SUP] - American Medical Association

"It is clear from extensive scientific evidence that the dominant cause of the rapid change in climate of the past half century is human-induced increases in the amount of atmospheric greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide (CO2), chlorofluorocarbons, methane, and nitrous oxide." (2012)[SUP]7[/SUP] -American Meteorological Society

""The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now." (2007)[SUP]8[/SUP]" - American Physical Society

"The Geological Society of America (GSA) concurs with assessments by the National Academies of Science (2005), the National Research Council (2006), and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2007) that global climate has warmed and that human activities (mainly greenhouse‐gas emissions) account for most of the warming since the middle 1900s." (2006; revised 2010)[SUP]9[/SUP] " - The Geological Society of America

Again, all of the above data from: http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/
 

Attachments

  • 1309_Temp_anomaly.jpg
    1309_Temp_anomaly.jpg
    44.3 KB · Views: 37
Records are usually the first thing people point to as "evidence". Just out of curiosity, what caused the first record? I'll hang up and listen....
 
Angus said:
Haha, nice!

Whats the blue T mean at the bottom of your display?
Click to expand...

Touring mode.

Less noise, a touch less responsive, next lower is economy..... Ooops I screwed up, I cudda gotten better mileage in economy mode.....

Next higher is sport, then track modes
 
And I also try to help climate change by reducing the earth of methane producing animals (one at a time)

20130505_183849_zps9738406b.jpg



20130503_191653_zps0111d4b4.jpg



20130209_181911_zpsa2275a5b.jpg



But I'm not sure how much my emissions are adding to it.
 
Ronkh said:
Partially a decent example. BUT, you left out plant life.

As far as the E car, it needs to be plugged in. Electricity has to come from somewhere..... So IMHO at this point it is a "feel good". Also what about the hazmat from the old batteries?
Again, my opinion..... Wind and solar are a long time off, at least till it's viable both economically and efficiency. (even kennedy didn't want windmills killing his view off cape cod). Nuclear should be considered for the interim (heck, we just gave iran the ok to get nuclear energy). Again, I said my opinion.
Click to expand...

Being a car enthusiast and into performance you of all people should know the term every once counts. Every daily driver replaced will help, doing nothing won't... The fact is this, even though there is an energy transmission chain, there is NO WAY that we are using the SAME or MORE petroleum products then we would if we ran straight combustion. My father was an engineer so I come from this mind set, simplicity is better. A standard four cylinder has 41 moving parts, an electric motor has maybe 2, thus the rate of failure is far lower. For the everyday driver this is a huge win, everyone hates repair costs.

Consider the chain for petroleum as well, needs to mined/driled, shipped, refined, shipped again, then recieved + picked up (While burning even more to be picked up). I work in the maritime oil transport industry.

Lets not forget tesla is converting superchargers to complete solar. This means ZERO emissions from end to end.

People can speculate about batteries all they like, the fact is if you don't know what a CR123 or an 18650 are you really can't comment because at that point it's just rhetoric. Batteries are a lot safer an the life TONS longer. I have no doubt a tesla battery which is comprised of 18650's will last over 6+ years easily. And... REGARDLESS of what anyone thinks batteries are here to stay. Every mobile device we use is lithium and thus the progression of technology will be biased towards them. So, why not adopt the technology that's going to innovated and constantly pushed regardless of whether you do it or not? It's no brainer.

Unfortunately we can't run nuclear cars. I do believe fission is a great source for land line powered products for sure.
 
The Driver said:
Being a car enthusiast and into performance you of all people should know the term every once counts. Every daily driver replaced will help, doing nothing won't... The fact is this, even though there is an energy transmission chain, there is NO WAY that we are using the SAME or MORE petroleum products then we would if we ran straight combustion. My father was an engineer so I come from this mind set, simplicity is better. A standard four cylinder has 41 moving parts, an electric motor has maybe 2, thus the rate of failure is far lower. For the everyday driver this is a huge win, everyone hates repair costs.

Consider the chain for petroleum as well, needs to mined/driled, shipped, refined, shipped again, then recieved + picked up (While burning even more to be picked up). I work in the maritime oil transport industry.

Lets not forget tesla is converting superchargers to complete solar. This means ZERO emissions from end to end.

People can speculate about batteries all they like, the fact is if you don't know what a CR123 or an 18650 are you really can't comment because at that point it's just rhetoric. Batteries are a lot safer an the life TONS longer. I have no doubt a tesla battery which is comprised of 18650's will last over 6+ years easily. And... REGARDLESS of what anyone thinks batteries are here to stay. Every mobile device we use is lithium and thus the progression of technology will be biased towards them. So, why not adopt the technology that's going to innovated and constantly pushed regardless of whether you do it or not? It's no brainer.

Unfortunately we can't run nuclear cars. I do believe fission is a great source for land line powered products for sure.
Click to expand...

Interesting
Not near puter right now, so have time to digest
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top