#51 · Sep 08, 2008 17:09 UTC
Damn, It's hotter 'n hell down here. I sure hope it dudn't git any warmer. I'd hate to to have to move north wif olladim smart people in Jawja. ;D
#52 · Sep 08, 2008 17:42 UTC
strategery — Sep 08, 2008They actually think that we humans, the equivalent of a few ant beds on earth, can actually cause global warming. ;D
I think you are vastly underestimating our impact. The equivalent of a few ant beds? Are you serious? Humans have removed 270,000 square miles of the Amazon rain forest, mostly to graze cattle on. For some perspective, the state of Texas is 268,601 square miles. If an ant colony did that much damage to their local ecosystem, the ecosystem would perish.
So Randy, what replenishes oxygen in our atmosphere? In case you are totally ignorant, that would be "photosynthesis." The Amazon basin produces about 20% of the earth's oxygen. So if we lose 10% of the Amazon (which we have since 1970), we effectively lose 2% of the earth's entire capacity to regenerate oxygen.
Here's simple graphic, that even you can understand. Maybe you can tell me how the incredibly steep rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide since 1750 is not related in any way to humans. And how it's only by complete coincidence that it happens to coincide with the beginning of the industrial revolution.
#53 · Sep 08, 2008 18:21 UTC
It's also interesting that the sharp drop in the graphic coincides with the Great Plague which vastly reduced the human population level. Coincidence I'm sure. That graphic makes me want to go water my plants. :D
#54 · Sep 08, 2008 18:54 UTC
DM — Sep 08, 2008It's also interesting that the sharp drop in the graphic coincides with the Great Plague which vastly reduced the human population level. Coincidence I'm sure. That graphic makes me want to go water my plants. :D
Plague was in the 1300's, and at that time, we were still so few on the earth that it's negligible in impact. I think what you are looking at is a mini ice age in the 1800s.
What's fun is to Google "atmospheric carbon dioxide" and then hit the Images link. http://images.google.com/images?q=atmospheric%20carbon%20dioxide
Here's another insteresting one, showing the historical record going back four hundred thousand years RE: carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Clearly, our spike coincides very suspiciously with a huge growth in population and the burning of fossil fuels. I'm sure atmospheric carbon dioxide has some sort of political agenda, though. You just can't trust those wacko liberal gases.
#55 · Sep 08, 2008 19:15 UTC
Well, it is actually a bit more complicated than that as I understand it. Even put simply, there is some impact, the question is just how much.
http://www.koshland-science-museum.org/exhibitgcc/historical06.jsp
http://www.koshland-science-museum.org/exhibitgcc/historical06.jsp
#56 · Sep 08, 2008 19:51 UTC
See also ...
http://cc.oulu.fi/~usoskin/personal/aah4688.pdf
http://www.hs.uni-hamburg.de/cs13/day1/03_Solanki.ppt
http://www.junkscience.com/oct06.html
Also with cool graphs that are quite similar, but have some interesting different info as well. Again, it is not as easy as one would think when you look close. Apparently at least one MIT nut faculty in climatology also ... (Wiki the favorite source for us here!)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Lindzen
http://www-eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen/PublicationsRSL.html
Note however that Lindzen also now makes some consulting money from the folks who benefit most from his comments. So ... as with everything it appears not to be as easy as the press would portray here.
http://cc.oulu.fi/~usoskin/personal/aah4688.pdf
http://www.hs.uni-hamburg.de/cs13/day1/03_Solanki.ppt
http://www.junkscience.com/oct06.html
Also with cool graphs that are quite similar, but have some interesting different info as well. Again, it is not as easy as one would think when you look close. Apparently at least one MIT nut faculty in climatology also ... (Wiki the favorite source for us here!)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Lindzen
http://www-eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen/PublicationsRSL.html
Note however that Lindzen also now makes some consulting money from the folks who benefit most from his comments. So ... as with everything it appears not to be as easy as the press would portray here.
#57 · Sep 08, 2008 19:54 UTC
I just guessed plague at the sharp decline at 1600, not 1800. I google plague before I posted and came up with the plague of London, 1665. I assumed it coincided with the Big Plague that wiped out much of Europe, but didn't dig into actual dates. I do love history, but I can't remember everything. I have trouble with what happened two days ago. :D
#58 · Sep 08, 2008 20:34 UTC
doc — Sep 08, 2008Well, it is actually a bit more complicated than that as I understand it. Even put simply, there is some impact, the question is just how much.
http://www.koshland-science-museum.org/exhibitgcc/historical06.jsp
I'm confused, because this asserts that there is a human factor, yet you say it is "more complicated than that." Actually, it's not. This is what is so frustrating about the arguments against global warming having a human factor. Everyone who is against it says "maybe" or "it's more complicated." No, it's not. It's pretty fucking clear, and anyone who believes we can put this many people on earth, burn this much shit, and clear away this much greenery without affecting anything is higher than Robert Downey Jr. on a bender.
Carry on.
#59 · Sep 08, 2008 21:52 UTC
The only real complication is with economic and political forces with vested interests to defend.
The debate is more akin to a rerun of the tobacco vs science wars of the 50's.
This idea that human activity can't affect the atmosphere - Acid Rain, Photochemical smog, Ozone depletion.
Successful action was taken on those issues.
The debate is more akin to a rerun of the tobacco vs science wars of the 50's.
This idea that human activity can't affect the atmosphere - Acid Rain, Photochemical smog, Ozone depletion.
Successful action was taken on those issues.
#60 · Sep 09, 2008 00:02 UTC
charger — Sep 08, 2008[quote author=doc link=1220144218/50#54 date=1220901311]Well, it is actually a bit more complicated than that as I understand it. Even put simply, there is some impact, the question is just how much.
http://www.koshland-science-museum.org/exhibitgcc/historical06.jsp
I'm confused, because this asserts that there is a human factor, yet you say it is "more complicated than that." Actually, it's not. This is what is so frustrating about the arguments against global warming having a human factor. Everyone who is against it says "maybe" or "it's more complicated." No, it's not. It's pretty fucking clear, and anyone who believes we can put this many people on earth, burn this much shit, and clear away this much greenery without affecting anything is higher than Robert Downey Jr. on a bender.
Carry on.
The point, as I said, is that the amount of human impact is not as clear as your posts suggest here is all. There is some impact, as I said, but it is far more complex than the simple graphs you posted pointed out. So the overstatement of the "stupidity" of any position save one is what I am calling into question here.
#61 · Sep 09, 2008 00:05 UTC
fingers — Sep 08, 2008The only real complication is with economic and political forces with vested interests to defend.
The debate is more akin to a rerun of the tobacco vs science wars of the 50's.
This idea that human activity can't affect the atmosphere - Acid Rain, Photochemical smog, Ozone depletion.
Successful action was taken on those issues.
The problem is there are complications on all sides of most issues. When folks lose site of that on all sides is when it gets concerning.
#62 · Sep 09, 2008 07:37 UTC
doc — Sep 09, 2008[quote author=fingers link=1220144218/50#58 date=1220910771]The only real complication is with economic and political forces with vested interests to defend.
The debate is more akin to a rerun of the tobacco vs science wars of the 50's.
This idea that human activity can't affect the atmosphere - Acid Rain, Photochemical smog, Ozone depletion.
Successful action was taken on those issues.
The problem is there are complications on all sides of most issues. When folks lose site of that on all sides is when it gets concerning.
So, do you have a solution, or do you think we should just wait it out? Would it be smart to start to curb our carbon dioxide emissions, or is that just whistling past the graveyard? Is there some magical data that we are waiting to get in? I'm just thinking, maybe I should go burn down some trees and buy a Hummer, if it's really not an issue. And while I'm at it, I think the oceans could use some more mercury, and rivers look kind of neat when they are full of industrial chemicals.
#63 · Sep 10, 2008 00:07 UTC
charger — Sep 09, 2008[quote author=doc link=1220144218/50#60 date=1220918718][quote author=fingers link=1220144218/50#58 date=1220910771]The only real complication is with economic and political forces with vested interests to defend.
The debate is more akin to a rerun of the tobacco vs science wars of the 50's.
This idea that human activity can't affect the atmosphere - Acid Rain, Photochemical smog, Ozone depletion.
Successful action was taken on those issues.
The problem is there are complications on all sides of most issues. When folks lose site of that on all sides is when it gets concerning.
So, do you have a solution, or do you think we should just wait it out? Would it be smart to start to curb our carbon dioxide emissions, or is that just whistling past the graveyard? Is there some magical data that we are waiting to get in? I'm just thinking, maybe I should go burn down some trees and buy a Hummer, if it's really not an issue. And while I'm at it, I think the oceans could use some more mercury, and rivers look kind of neat when they are full of industrial chemicals.
The first solution I would offer is perhaps a sedative. Then make some reasonable decisions about how to proceed weighing costs and benefits. Just like every other decision we should make. How would you suggest doing it? Shut all the cars off, turn out the lights and go kill the cows eating the green grass? Calm - balance in everything - panic is not a solution. There are few downside issues associated with the changes you suggest. The speed to have them done, and in haste creating bigger issues getting to the changes are more the issue (where we will find we now need additional changes - we always need change as you know) the solution is the question in some way.
I appreciate you read the book from Kotter on change in the leadership literature (create the need - emotional intensity and loyalty: http://www.amazon.com/Our-Iceberg-Melting-Succeeding-Conditions/dp/031236198X). I have most of his work and use it in consulting. It is a well researched model that generally works well. But, you go too fast and you lose folks.
#64 · Sep 10, 2008 06:27 UTC
All interesting theories except when you consider that one good sized volcano will do more harm than everything man's done...
#65 · Sep 10, 2008 11:59 UTC
Charger....answer me this. :D
OK, we had a tropical period when all the dinosaurs lived...right?
Well, where the hell did that global warming come from?
There were no cars or fossil fuels...how the hell did it happen...dinosaur dung? ;D
So we go from that to an ice age.
How the hell did that come about...a friggin' meteorite hitting the planet? ;D
It's all cyclical...and ignorant people are falling for less than honorable people hatching this moronic scheme.
If we let them....when the cycle comes back around and it starts cooling down again, they'll claim that all their work fixed it.
The ignorant people will be amazed and will offer to even work for free while the gov't parses out just what they think the population needs.
ALso, how long has mankind been keeping weather data?
Yep, just a nano second compared to how long this worlds been in existence.
So the scammers are expecting us to believe their MAN MADE global warming nonsense based on this short period of data collection.
Sure, you can discuss ice core drilling in the two poles and then as Craig said, you'll find out that volcanos can cramp our style more than we can.
Mother nature recovers from a HUGE volcano eruption with no problem.
Mankind isn't even a pimple on Mother Nature's ass. ;D
It's a scam...no doubt about it.
I wish the zombies would come out of their trance and figure it out. ;D
Randy
OK, we had a tropical period when all the dinosaurs lived...right?
Well, where the hell did that global warming come from?
There were no cars or fossil fuels...how the hell did it happen...dinosaur dung? ;D
So we go from that to an ice age.
How the hell did that come about...a friggin' meteorite hitting the planet? ;D
It's all cyclical...and ignorant people are falling for less than honorable people hatching this moronic scheme.
If we let them....when the cycle comes back around and it starts cooling down again, they'll claim that all their work fixed it.
The ignorant people will be amazed and will offer to even work for free while the gov't parses out just what they think the population needs.
ALso, how long has mankind been keeping weather data?
Yep, just a nano second compared to how long this worlds been in existence.
So the scammers are expecting us to believe their MAN MADE global warming nonsense based on this short period of data collection.
Sure, you can discuss ice core drilling in the two poles and then as Craig said, you'll find out that volcanos can cramp our style more than we can.
Mother nature recovers from a HUGE volcano eruption with no problem.
Mankind isn't even a pimple on Mother Nature's ass. ;D
It's a scam...no doubt about it.
I wish the zombies would come out of their trance and figure it out. ;D
Randy
#66 · Sep 10, 2008 12:02 UTC
strategery — Sep 10, 2008
OK, we had a tropical period when all the dinosaurs lived...right?
Well, where the hell did that global warming come from?
#67 · Sep 10, 2008 12:09 UTC
HAHAHAHHA ...damn good one.
I'm on board with Craig with this one. ;D
Randy
I'm on board with Craig with this one. ;D
Randy
#68 · Sep 10, 2008 19:06 UTC
CraigBert — Sep 10, 2008All interesting theories except when you consider that one good sized volcano will do more harm than everything man's done...
Yep. It is not such a clear issue as it is continually portrayed.
#69 · Sep 10, 2008 21:02 UTC
doc — Sep 10, 2008[quote author=CraigBert link=1220144218/50#63 date=1221028067]All interesting theories except when you consider that one good sized volcano will do more harm than everything man's done...
Yep. It is not such a clear issue as it is continually portrayed.
On either side...which is the point. Muddy the waters, and people who don't like Al Gore or anyone who's come out strong on the side of finding new ways to power our civilization will slow the progress to new energy sources.
Let's look at this realistically, though: There's nothing but benefit in curbing your energy use, since energy costs money. Devising new technologies that can provide energy at the levels that fossil fuels provide but do not pollute the environment as much is a win-win, because it gets us off foreign supplies of oil (no amount of arctic or off-shelf drilling will make that feasible any time soon, by the way), and cleans the environment.
The only people who are have reason to be against curbing energy consumption are energy companies...which, strangely enough, a lot of the data calling climate change into question is coming from.
I think the fanatics on both sides are annoying as fuck (From Al Gore to William Gray), but the reality is that it's not that hard to reduce the amount of energy you waste. It just takes a little discipline...and it will cause you to save money.
Erring on the side of caution is better than just waiting it out and realizing it's too late to do anything about it.
It's the environmental version of Pascal's wager, except it saves you money.
Tripper
#70 · Sep 10, 2008 21:41 UTC
Tripper — Sep 10, 2008[quote author=doc link=1220144218/50#67 date=1221073588][quote author=CraigBert link=1220144218/50#63 date=1221028067]All interesting theories except when you consider that one good sized volcano will do more harm than everything man's done...
Yep. It is not such a clear issue as it is continually portrayed.
On either side...which is the point. Muddy the waters, and people who don't like Al Gore or anyone who's come out strong on the side of finding new ways to power our civilization will slow the progress to new energy sources.
Let's look at this realistically, though: There's nothing but benefit in curbing your energy use, since energy costs money. Devising new technologies that can provide energy at the levels that fossil fuels provide but do not pollute the environment as much is a win-win, because it gets us off foreign supplies of oil (no amount of arctic or off-shelf drilling will make that feasible any time soon, by the way), and cleans the environment.
The only people who are have reason to be against curbing energy consumption are energy companies...which, strangely enough, a lot of the data calling climate change into question is coming from.
I think the fanatics on both sides are annoying as fuck (From Al Gore to William Gray), but the reality is that it's not that hard to reduce the amount of energy you waste. It just takes a little discipline...and it will cause you to save money.
Erring on the side of caution is better than just waiting it out and realizing it's too late to do anything about it.
It's the environmental version of Pascal's wager, except it saves you money.
Tripper
I agree, as I said previously if any position gets too passionate the position's logic fails to work - on either side. For me it is actually an economy issue more than an environmental one right now. Most changes to "green" create a greater ability to retain control of the country's infrastructure and infrastructure needs than does maintaining the current e path. This seems actually seems a far more urgent issue in many ways to me right now.
#71 · Sep 10, 2008 23:21 UTC
Only Economic forces will change behaviour.
In the US it can be sold as a patriotic duty to stop funding Arab Sheiks to attack them.
Who cares what reason people change their ways - so long as they change.
$100+ oil has done more for the environment than anything else - long may it continue.
btw - the volcanic reference - It sounds superficially convincing but it is false.
Volcanos erupt and have done regularly.
The routine volcanic eruptions in the last couple of million years - nope - they have had a negligible effect on CO2 levels since Man has walked the Earth - the graph spike is actually NOW.
Now a mega eruption - i.e. something like Yellowstone blasting the big one and wiping out a sizeable portion of the US - then that would be similar or maybe greater effect to Man's CO2 effect - and it would cause a sharp and devastating climate change.
But relying on such a defence against "global whining" is kinda like saying that falling off a roof is nothing to worry about as people have routinely fell off higher places in the past. :P
But sure - slow down and consider all the evidence and make your judgements - no need to rush as nothing will be done any time soon anyway.
Maybe God has made the oil price high to save you from yourselves :P
In the US it can be sold as a patriotic duty to stop funding Arab Sheiks to attack them.
Who cares what reason people change their ways - so long as they change.
$100+ oil has done more for the environment than anything else - long may it continue.
btw - the volcanic reference - It sounds superficially convincing but it is false.
Volcanos erupt and have done regularly.
The routine volcanic eruptions in the last couple of million years - nope - they have had a negligible effect on CO2 levels since Man has walked the Earth - the graph spike is actually NOW.
Now a mega eruption - i.e. something like Yellowstone blasting the big one and wiping out a sizeable portion of the US - then that would be similar or maybe greater effect to Man's CO2 effect - and it would cause a sharp and devastating climate change.
But relying on such a defence against "global whining" is kinda like saying that falling off a roof is nothing to worry about as people have routinely fell off higher places in the past. :P
But sure - slow down and consider all the evidence and make your judgements - no need to rush as nothing will be done any time soon anyway.
Maybe God has made the oil price high to save you from yourselves :P
#72 · Sep 10, 2008 23:40 UTC
Here is a scientific paper on the matter of volcano contribution.
http://www.bgs.ac.uk/downloads/start.cfm?id=432
http://www.bgs.ac.uk/downloads/start.cfm?id=432
#73 · Sep 11, 2008 01:40 UTC
fingers — Sep 10, 2008Here is a scientific paper on the matter of volcano contribution.
http://www.bgs.ac.uk/downloads/start.cfm?id=432
You miss comprehended the comment, thus going down the wrong trail. We were not discussing current volcanic activity. The point was nature can render all our ideas irrelevant. Reference the following for example ...
http://atlas-conferences.com/c/a/j/i/28.htm
#74 · Sep 11, 2008 01:53 UTC
I thought we were talking about a hurricane. WTF??? :D Oh, that's right, we're two named storms past Gustav.
#75 · Sep 11, 2008 02:06 UTC
Actually seems to me more like some folks are just trying to find a way to fight.
#76 · Sep 11, 2008 03:57 UTC
fingers — Sep 10, 2008 Now a mega eruption - i.e. something like Yellowstone blasting the big one and wiping out a sizeable portion of the US - then that would be similar or maybe greater effect to Man's CO2 effect - and it would cause a sharp and devastating climate change.
Not that people will care much then since only an estimated 6% of humans will survive. ;)
#77 · Sep 11, 2008 09:39 UTC
doc — Sep 11, 2008[quote author=fingers link=1220144218/50#71 date=1221090033]Here is a scientific paper on the matter of volcano contribution.
http://www.bgs.ac.uk/downloads/start.cfm?id=432
You miss comprehended the comment, thus going down the wrong trail. We were not discussing current volcanic activity. The point was nature can render all our ideas irrelevant. Reference the following for example ...
http://atlas-conferences.com/c/a/j/i/28.htm
Who are you to talk about people misomprehending shit
How about you read my post AGAIN - the whole thing before you shoot your mouth off.
I covered that point.
doc — Sep 11, 2008[quote author=fingers link=1220144218/50#71 date=1221090033]Here is a scientific paper on the matter of volcano contribution.
http://www.bgs.ac.uk/downloads/start.cfm?id=432
You miss comprehended the comment, thus going down the wrong trail. We were not discussing current volcanic activity. The point was nature can render all our ideas irrelevant. Reference the following for example ...
http://atlas-conferences.com/c/a/j/i/28.htm
How about you read my post AGAIN - the whole thing before you shoot your mouth off.
Now a mega eruption - i.e. something like Yellowstone blasting the big one and wiping out a sizeable portion of the US - then that would be similar or maybe greater effect to Man's CO2 effect - and it would cause a sharp and devastating climate change.
Actually seems to me more like some folks are just trying to find a way to fight.
No - Sounds like you are trying to start one in you usual passive aggressive manner
OK - the fact you misunderstand an issue and find an argument hard to follow is not evidence that someone is starting a fight it is simply evidence that you are feeling defensive.
The argument that nature can throw in events that are more extreme than the actions of man is not in question.
The argument is about risk.
here is a primer for you on the subject - from you favourite source of info
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Risk_management
#78 · Sep 11, 2008 12:43 UTC
Hey Tripper.....
Not a damn gas or diesel fan is against the invention and usage of new fuels.
Not one.
We're just sick of the wackos that want us to stop using before a replacement is here.
That....or price gas and diesel into oblivion.
This does nothing but wreck our econony and there's nothing smart about that.
One side of our gov't has consistantly BLOCKED the building of Atomic power plants...which would help keep the environment clean.
That same side of gov't has consistantly BLOCKED the building of new refineries and blocked drilling of new oil for the last 35 years.
That same side of gov't doesn't want us using coal or clean coal usage as well.
OK....so what the hell does that leave us with ....horses?
Nope, too much dung.
Bikes?
Oh yeah.
Electric cars that will go a whopping 60 miles before they have to have a 14 hour recharge. :D
We keep hearing about hydrogen powered but it's not available, no one can afford it, and you can only refuel it in California and New York.
I mean....MY GOD....when will you wackos STOP shooting the U.S. in the damn foot over and over and over and over..? ;D
Our goal should be a smooth transition...not the proverbial fuel rug being pulled out from under us all.
Randy
Not a damn gas or diesel fan is against the invention and usage of new fuels.
Not one.
We're just sick of the wackos that want us to stop using before a replacement is here.
That....or price gas and diesel into oblivion.
This does nothing but wreck our econony and there's nothing smart about that.
One side of our gov't has consistantly BLOCKED the building of Atomic power plants...which would help keep the environment clean.
That same side of gov't has consistantly BLOCKED the building of new refineries and blocked drilling of new oil for the last 35 years.
That same side of gov't doesn't want us using coal or clean coal usage as well.
OK....so what the hell does that leave us with ....horses?
Nope, too much dung.
Bikes?
Oh yeah.
Electric cars that will go a whopping 60 miles before they have to have a 14 hour recharge. :D
We keep hearing about hydrogen powered but it's not available, no one can afford it, and you can only refuel it in California and New York.
I mean....MY GOD....when will you wackos STOP shooting the U.S. in the damn foot over and over and over and over..? ;D
Our goal should be a smooth transition...not the proverbial fuel rug being pulled out from under us all.
Randy
#79 · Sep 11, 2008 19:42 UTC
strategery — Sep 11, 2008 One side of our gov't has consistantly BLOCKED the building of Atomic power plants...which would help keep the environment clean.
That same side of gov't has consistantly BLOCKED the building of new refineries and blocked drilling of new oil for the last 35 years.
That same side of gov't doesn't want us using coal or clean coal usage as well.
You have no idea how distructive to the environment atomic power plants are do you?
#80 · Sep 11, 2008 20:44 UTC
especially when they leak! :o :o
;D
;D
#81 · Sep 11, 2008 20:54 UTC
strategery — Sep 11, 2008Hey Tripper.....
Not a damn gas or diesel fan is against the invention and usage of new fuels.
Not one.
We're just sick of the wackos that want us to stop using before a replacement is here.
That....or price gas and diesel into oblivion.
This does nothing but wreck our econony and there's nothing smart about that.
I agree. But sticking to the "just increase supply and all will be well" mantra, which is what most Republicans trumpet (uh, "Drill baby drill" sound familiar?), is foolishness.
One side of our gov't has consistantly BLOCKED the building of Atomic power plants...which would help keep the environment clean.
Because no one's figured out the best way to handle the waste products...and there's such a bias against this in the NIMBY crowd (which runs across all party lines) that they haven't pursued it. There's also a danger of terrorists getting a hold of spent fissile material and creating dirty bombs, which further complicates the argument. Perhaps you should consider there's a lot more to it than you have thought.
That same side of gov't has consistantly BLOCKED the building of new refineries and blocked drilling of new oil for the last 35 years.
No, that was the whole government, not just the Democrats. If we had realized it was time, it could have happened. The oil industry didn't want to flood the market because they were making too much money off it. It's both sides.
That same side of gov't doesn't want us using coal or clean coal usage as well.
Because the technology is largely a sham designed by coal companies to stay in business. It's a stopgap, and it (so far) doesn't really work, from what I've read in science magazines and on energy websites.
OK....so what the hell does that leave us with ....horses?
Nope, too much dung.
Mmm...horsecrap.
Bikes?
We're too fat and lazy to actually power our own machines.
Oh yeah.
Electric cars that will go a whopping 60 miles before they have to have a 14 hour recharge. :D
This is actually improving - and plug-in hybrids will solve the problem entirely, because you can use the electric engine until it craps out and then use the gas engine until you can charge it back up, getting mileage way up there. I'd love to have one of those - my commute is 9 miles each way, so it'd take a while before I'd ever have to use the gas engine. As battery technology improves (and it is improving every day), electrics will be able to travel farther and farther on the same charge, and charge times will become shorter and shorter.
We keep hearing about hydrogen powered but it's not available, no one can afford it, and you can only refuel it in California and New York.
Hydrogen fuel cell cars won't happen any time soon, and they don't work at extreme temperatures (won't start) - that's the same problem they're having with electrics in cold climates.
I mean....MY GOD....when will you wackos STOP shooting the U.S. in the damn foot over and over and over and over..? ;D
This is a retarded statement. EVERYONE IS CULPABLE HERE - not just the people who you've demonized all your life because your daddy told you to.
Our goal should be a smooth transition...not the proverbial fuel rug being pulled out from under us all.
Randy
Yeah, and all the conservation steps and technology those of us in the "reality-based community" have been trumpeting will help buy us more time to figure it all out.
DRILLING FOR MORE OIL WILL NOT...at least not soon.
Tripper
#82 · Sep 12, 2008 04:21 UTC
Strat
Are you forever stupid and unable to learn, read, before you open your mouth?
Try reading about this car and trade your German made shit in for this.
The know how is there. The cost are just high to build it as were computers at one time. If the government will get the fuck out of the way, and actually get behind some of this new discovery and tech., we'll get some place Jed.
Or, you could always pray for the power to fly around place to place like Jesus did.
Research, the want for information, the desire to learn....doesn't take much Jed. ;)
Now, to brighten your day, read and learn Jed.
http://www.teslamotors.com/
Your first thought is....."No Shit"......right??????
Are you forever stupid and unable to learn, read, before you open your mouth?
Try reading about this car and trade your German made shit in for this.
The know how is there. The cost are just high to build it as were computers at one time. If the government will get the fuck out of the way, and actually get behind some of this new discovery and tech., we'll get some place Jed.
Or, you could always pray for the power to fly around place to place like Jesus did.
Research, the want for information, the desire to learn....doesn't take much Jed. ;)
Now, to brighten your day, read and learn Jed.
http://www.teslamotors.com/
Your first thought is....."No Shit"......right??????
#83 · Sep 12, 2008 19:42 UTC
Hook, I've been know about Tesla for well over a year now.
OK Hook....how does that car work?
I know....I want YOU to tell ME. ;D
Tripper....much of your info is wrong...but then again, we're used to that. ;D
France gets 80% of their power from Atomic power.
Why can't we?
Is France wrong? ;D
Shale oil extraction is a good thing also.
But nope...can't do that either.
Like most REAL men, I make up my own mind.
That's the problem with leftist, socialist wackos....they have the Daily Kos and George Soros...who owns them and are their daddies. ;D
The bottom line is....America has PLENTY of power...the LEFT is simply continuing to BLOCK access to it.
The LEFT is the reason we're paying out the ass for gas.
You should hang your head in SHAME. ;D
Randy
OK Hook....how does that car work?
I know....I want YOU to tell ME. ;D
Tripper....much of your info is wrong...but then again, we're used to that. ;D
France gets 80% of their power from Atomic power.
Why can't we?
Is France wrong? ;D
Shale oil extraction is a good thing also.
But nope...can't do that either.
Like most REAL men, I make up my own mind.
That's the problem with leftist, socialist wackos....they have the Daily Kos and George Soros...who owns them and are their daddies. ;D
The bottom line is....America has PLENTY of power...the LEFT is simply continuing to BLOCK access to it.
The LEFT is the reason we're paying out the ass for gas.
You should hang your head in SHAME. ;D
Randy
#84 · Sep 12, 2008 20:23 UTC
strategery — Sep 12, 2008Tripper....much of your info is wrong...but then again, we're used to that. ;D
France gets 80% of their power from Atomic power.
Why can't we?
Is France wrong? ;D
HOLY SHIT! Are you now using France as a justification for your argument? Who are you? Bizarro-Randy?
The bottom line is....America has PLENTY of power...the LEFT is simply continuing to BLOCK access to it.
The LEFT is the reason we're paying out the ass for gas.
Oh, I see. Record oil company profits (11.7 billion for Exxon/Mobil last quarter) have nothing to do with it, right? The fact that the highest-profit company in the world last year was an oil company (and the third in line was alos an oil company)--completely unrelated. It's all the LEFT MAKING those companies rake in 60 billion a year in profit!
#85 · Sep 12, 2008 20:57 UTC
strategery — Sep 12, 2008Hook, I've been know about Tesla for well over a year now.
OK Hook....how does that car work?
I know....I want YOU to tell ME. ;D
Tripper....much of your info is wrong...but then again, we're used to that. ;D
Only because you don't know what good info is...
France gets 80% of their power from Atomic power.
Why can't we?
Is France wrong? ;D
Did I ever say that I didn't want nuclear power?
Shale oil extraction is a good thing also.
But nope...can't do that either.
Because it's really dirty, like coal. There is still debate on this one.
Like most REAL men, I make up my own mind.
That's fucking hilarious. You're right, though, you MAKE it UP in YOUR OWN MIND. I filled in the words you left out.
That's the problem with leftist, socialist wackos....they have the Daily Kos and George Soros...who owns them and are their daddies. ;D
Mmmm...even more retardedness. Ever seen me post anything from the Daily Kos? Nope. It's a blog site with a bunch of opinions on it. George Soros is the mythical darth vader of the retard right.
The bottom line is....America has PLENTY of power...the LEFT is simply continuing to BLOCK access to it.
The LEFT is the reason we're paying out the ass for gas.
You should hang your head in SHAME. ;D
Not nearly the amount of shame with which you should hang YOUR head for supporting without any real question dangerous ignoramuses like Bush, McCain, and Palin.
Tripper
#86 · Sep 13, 2008 01:06 UTC
strategery — Sep 12, 2008Hook, I've been know about Tesla for well over a year now.
OK Hook....how does that car work?
I know....I want YOU to tell ME. ;D
Tripper....much of your info is wrong...but then again, we're used to that. ;D
France gets 80% of their power from Atomic power.
Why can't we?
Is France wrong? ;D
Shale oil extraction is a good thing also.
But nope...can't do that either.
Like most REAL men, I make up my own mind.
That's the problem with leftist, socialist wackos....they have the Daily Kos and George Soros...who owns them and are their daddies. ;D
The bottom line is....America has PLENTY of power...the LEFT is simply continuing to BLOCK access to it.
The LEFT is the reason we're paying out the ass for gas.
You should hang your head in SHAME. ;D
Randy
I can tell you how that car works but judging by the rest of your post I don't think you would be able to understand it or even care to understand it.
Science is science - you see science and engineering through a prism of narrow politics and subjective belief when science is about the objective.
I get hugely irritated by threads like this, science is not religion or politics.
It is about the search for objective truth
Strong absolute beliefs pollute your ability to reason.
Doc - for all his swagger about being academic is clearly no scientist - he understands the general process that science follows well enough doing social science - enough so he believes that he can filibuster a discussion into a post modernist cul de sac.
But not well enough to understand real physical sciences do not allow that cul de sac as an answer.
Any old theory will not do - it is not a matter of all belief being equal when you are building something the LHC or a plane or a bridge.
Or even when you are talking about a global experiment like the one we as humanity are carrying out environmentally - even if it is not well understood in detail major features need to be dealt with and not dismissed in an act of belief or misdirection.
You have to be objective about it - study the evidence and let it guide you regardless of your apriori beliefs.
It is clear that religious fervour , in extreme, robs people of their reason - or more likely gives them an excuse to deny reason.
That is what I find annoying - not that you might come to a different conclusion to me - but that you never used reason to arrive there.
You just believe in shit with no reason and even in spite of evidence to the contrary you will insist you are right with no evidence to present yourself.
It is just living in a world of lies.
You think that is being a "Man" - it is actually more akin to the behaviour of a small child, one who insists the world disappears when their eyes are shut.
The child believes it passionately and Doc will no doubt come along stating that all belief is subjective and that the child is as right in it's belief as the spectators are who are looking on at this child with it's hands over is eyes.
Couple of propositions
1. The ability to reason is inversely proportional to the extremity of blind faith.
2. The extremity of blind faith correlates with the inability to reason.
Are those statements both the same ?
My hypothesis is that
Doc is #1
Stratman is #2
One reasons to fulfil his beliefs
One believes his beliefs fulfil his reasons.
Objective evidence be damned.
#87 · Sep 13, 2008 01:24 UTC
I see the idiot still reigns. Have a nice life.
#88 · Sep 13, 2008 01:26 UTC
lol - see yah you pseud.
#89 · Sep 13, 2008 04:41 UTC
here we go again ::)
#90 · Sep 14, 2008 03:21 UTC
Strat
If you knew about that car, why did you say the stupid stuff in your post?
And why would I want an idiot to explain how a car works when I can get factual info from the article I posted?
You haven't changed, I see.
If you knew about that car, why did you say the stupid stuff in your post?
And why would I want an idiot to explain how a car works when I can get factual info from the article I posted?
You haven't changed, I see.