by metatron 262 Replies latest jw friends
Toyota's doing a great job with their marketing spin!!!
Boy howdy tell me about it; so is Honda with their 2001 model magick Insight perputual motion machine that my friend's wife bought used, and has had for 4 years now with no battery problems!
BA- Reads between the lines.
Six- Actually reads.
Abaddon: Essentially you have attacked the argument for AGW as mischaracterised by webpages like FOS I wouldn't wipe my butt with (I think I have documented why).
You have attacked papers supporting AGW using papers authored by obvious (and demonstrable) opinions for hire, ignored the refutations of such anti-AGW papers, ignored the climb-down of the authors of such papers, or tried (prehaps unwittingly) to imply things like CO2 solubility have been 'missed out' of the data supporting AGW.
You sound like a broken record. "Obvious" and "demonstrated"? By you? where? You have demonstrated nothing but hearsay and counter opinions by zealots that are themselves flawed.
The burden of proof is on you to support your position. Attacking my comments by the way is not supporting your position.
Prove that FOS scientists are any less reliable than those who author Real Climate Project.
Accusation is not proof of guilt, and the lack of accusation is not proof of innocense!
Please no emotional appeals to Exxonsecrets and Sciencecop et al. Their so called evidence reads like the evidence presented at my DF'ing!
Frank75
6of9,
Ok- what is not readily apparent, and what is not spoken about in R&T, is how these battery's ability to store a charge will degrade over time. I
assume you have a cellphone? How often do you replace the battery because, while it technically "works", it just won't hold the charge you need to get you through the day anymore?
Same deal with the Prius battery, only worse- the efficiency that is commonly measured in mpg is increasingly reduced as the battery ages. Consumers will undoubtedly find that their actual mpg will decrease drastically well before the Toyota-projected "8 years plus life" of the battery. This changes the economical analysis presented by R&T, probably written for them by Toyota. Prius consumers will have to make the choice between paying for a new battery much sooner than 8 years, or filling their gas tanks much more often than they did when their Prius was new.
Think about your cell phone battery.
I use mine fairly heavily and replace it at least annually.
Toyota's doing a great job with their marketing spin!!!
BA- Reads between the lines.
I am a delivery driver and the battery in my Hyundai was the original when I got it at 130,000 miles( my mom's old car ) it croaked at 207,000 thousand miles. That and it is the old lead acid type not the new Ni Mh Suggestion stop buying american crap. The Ni Mh battery
This type of battery is used in auto racing because of it's reliabilty and safety mainly safety. They are known to last forever and take a 130mph crash. So I would disagree. And what cell phone do you use I have never replace a cell phone battery and I also use these in my RC hobby I have had only one go out and that was because I used a faulty charger setting.
DEAR people, After being gone from here, I see things are pretty much the same! After several pages of this, the effort put into it is impressive. Unfortunately, it seems the educational, informational, political, and reasonableness level of the broad spectrum of people precludes reasonable & calm discussions. I do miss the posts of people like Abaddon, Hillary Step, AlanF, Seeker4, and many others. But, alas, it's not worth wading thru the often-inflammatory posts. Too bad, because polite discussion could be a useful tool. All the best, Pat
As soon as I started reading this thread's posts something, one of my old stats professors, said came to mind
"Opinions are like armpits, everyone has them but most of them stink, science on the other hand works on completely different level, all its statements must be verifiable and replicable otherwise it would not be called science."
I will try to address few important points raised
Despite a loss of religion, some people still love doomsaying about the End of the World, regardless. It's just a habit of thinking.
Forgive me for saying that but this reminds me so much of Joseph McCarthy and subsequent whole era of McCarthyism, where no one was allowed to raise an issue for fear of being labeled as a traitor and a communist.
The fact that religions or politicians talk about global warming now does not nullify its existence. What you have to understand that many of them will take real issues and ride the wave until something else pops up. Rational people need to raise above the notion of politicism and see the bigger picture. After all so what if issues like global warming finally got into political debate. Many of my colleagues would say "it was about bloody time"
Global Warming existed before it was ever "politicized" (and what would that mean anyway, to some of you here it apparently has simple equation politics=lies heck even kids in primary school deal with more complex equations than that. Go just few years back when lone scientists (especially in US in the wake of 9/11 and thereafter) were not allowed to even talk about it much less have whole campaings formed around the issues such as that so was that political issue then too?
I agree that IPCC report got politicised and if you get one of the issues of New Scientist that came out a couple of week ago you will see in what sense it got political. To get countries like Saudi Arabia and China on board scientists had to water down the language of the report a bit, effecively things are worse than we were told in the report. Please go and get the copy of the magazine, read it and then we can continue constructive discussion otherwise this doesn't lead anywhere.
Not to mention that IPCC is just one off report we are talking about here, there are so many other that hurts, including Pentagon's own report you read about not long ago http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,1153513,00.html Or what about British Antarctic Survery report http://www.antarctica.ac.uk/About_BAS/Corporate/Annual_Reports
Or if you really don't like scientists then take Stern report http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/independent_reviews/stern_review_economics_climate_change/sternreview_index.cfm Or how about GEO3 heck that one will get you thinking http://www.unep.org/geo/geo3
Someone mentioned that Nuclear power and Coal have about the same impact. Well that is usual disinformations that many anti-nuclear government and non-governmental agencies including green-peace and friends of earth like to promote but in reality is a rubbish. While it is true that to process or extract Uranium you do pollute a bit; not nearly as much as coal extraction, but even if it was the same it doesn't have biggest chunk of pollution that come through BURNING OF THE URANIUM like in the case of BURNING OF THE COAL. (heck nuclear power can be our only hope to save this planet in fact, ask any informed scientist or engineer and chances are you'll hear the same) Huge difference!!!
I mean there are so many academic reports that I really don't know where to begin here that will get anyone's head spinning and if any of you are interested PM me and I can email as many as you can handle.
But I'm glad I read this thread because this is, oh heck I'll just say it, it is like a laboratory and it demonstrates so well on a small scale why it is so hard to get us people to do anything constructive to save our planet. Thank you for your time.
John
Dear SixofNine,
Your inability to comprehend what you read, coupled with your lack of knowledge of the fundamental laws of physics, is why it’s pointless going any further with you. Yes, I know, you’re very "Special", and obviously, so was your "Education", but because you are bereft of a basic understanding of reading comprehension, math and physics, anything more than a jingle or a sound-bite is lost on you.
You substitute "Solar Flares" for "Solar Fluctuations" and demonstrate your lack of knowledge about the cyclical nature of Global Warming/Cooling. Your eyes gloss over the point made about energy conversion inefficiency.
Go on believing that technology is PFM (Pure F’n Magic), it obviously makes you feel more comfortable.
I never intended to hi-jack this thread, and this is clearly off topic. If you choose to do so, start a thread on Hybrid Technology, perhaps someone will engage your mental masturbation there.
You can go back to reading your Buzz Lightyear comic books now.
PS- Try breathing through your nose, at least you’ll appear less stupid that way.
The 'Moral Maze' a BBC Radio 4 debate in which experts present their views on a subject of the day dealt with Gloabl Warming, pros and cons this week.
Against the backdrop of this thread it makes interesting listening :
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/religion/moralmaze.shtml
Click 'listen to latest edition' in the right hand panel towards the top.
HS
Yes, that was interesting to listen to. It essentially mirrors the discussion on this thread thus far. Lots of good points made, including what has gone wrong regarding the scientific "consensus" claims, the attempted shutdown of various sides of the argument, the premature conclusions, and the mistaken notion that political science = science.
BA
But I'm glad I read this thread because this is, oh heck I'll just say it, it is like a laboratory and it demonstrates so well on a small scale why it is so hard to get us people to do anything constructive to save our planet. Thank you for your time.John
Thanks John. I appreciate your comments and I think after being involved with this thread almost from the start that I can say 98 percent of the posters are very much interested in salvation for the planet. All that is happening is we are trying to get at the truth of what will/can provably do that if there is anything we are in fact able to do.
Really the whole thing started out about the hype/hysteria over GW. I have been in business management most of my adult life. Early in that career, I could be swayed because of inexperience an naivety by dramatic emotional appeals to deal with problems (sometimes very real, other times very imaginary) in the work process either mechanical or human resource related. As a result I learned to take a "step back, wait a minute, let's sleep on it" approach when someone comes to me with doom and gloom, one sided stories or a closed, thick paper folder I would never have time to go through for analysis. Sadly I have purchased expensive equipment/processes that performed no better, marginally better or even much worse than the old ones. Even greater sadness do I feel when it came to human resource issues in those early days. Sad because I was manipulated into letting go good people because I couldn't see past the private agendas of ambitious sometimes ruthless people.
As a result I learned to take things with a grain of salt when the red flags of agenda are clearly present. Yes Abaddon, even agendas on the critical side of the GW issue!
Most of the back and forth I have had with Abaddon is role playing. At least on my part. I believe in the middle of the road approach on this one as I believe that is where we and the science will ultimately end up. Also because personally I care very much for the earth's natural resources, environment and my community responsibility. One of the issues brought against me when I was removed from the JW hierarchy well before finally being DF'd was over my efforts to get my book study group involved in the community and be better citizens. One way was to pick up garbage over a couple of Saturday mornings in the spring, another was to shovel driveways, pick up prescriptions or run other errands for shut ins etc. I also pay extra for green power and my business goes out of its way to encourage safe environmental solutions, reduce, reuse and recycle.
But there again I was able to use my experience when the industry I am in went hysterical over the environment. I remember the claims of saving the planet by buying this product or eliminating this or that. Many companies jumped on the band wagon with "Environmentally Friendly this" and "biodegradable that" which are absolutely useless catchphrases. The same things are being said about solutions to global warming too. I remember what I learned about being sceptical and now apply it to the many arguments being put forward as well as "earth friendly" solutions being promoted to replace fossil fuels. We don't want earth friendly replacements, we want safe, sustainable, practical, worthwhile/worthy solutions.
A prostitute is friendly but is hardly safeand hardly long term sustainable. So before we rush headlong from the frying pan into the fire lets make sure our next steps are well thought out. This is not as easy as finding something to replace the propellants in Lysol spray or lemon pledge!
Abaddon wants to debate, like in debate class. I have chosen the devils advocate role on this one, as it reminds me of the time I was given pro abortion to debate in my high school debate. At the time and place an unpleasant prospect. Especially being raised a JW! At any rate I understand many of the arguments Abaddon raises although he still has not proved or established anything that reasonable scientific doubt and alternate theories cannot at present still account for or explain. So as the devils advocate it would not be right to roll over just yet, especially when someone clearly dismissive of contrary opinion who has shown a God Complex in his constant appeal to his own authority or pseudo expertise.
Abaddon, has dismiss FOS and CO2 science as junk/crank science and I reject Real Climate project, Exxon secrets etc. along with all of the other scientists who are dismissive of constructive critique and debate as a purely defensive mechanism. I wonder if I can be permitted to post sobering information from someone who clearly supports AGW, but by his own accord is only 2/3 convinced from the science which he says has not completed the scientific process/requirement from theory and hypothetical to proven and established yet.
That is Richard A. Muller
In one of his papers on Ice Ages and Global Climate change he discusses the pattern of our earths long history in a gradual meaningful way.
I wish to post the graphs he use to illustrate the difficulty we have as humans when it comes to knowing how best to tamper with the complex, monstrous task of "SAVING THE PLANET"
Here is a general recent view of climate that has roused the current debates about GW in general and AGW more specifically.
This graph clearly shows an upward trend and even if we go into a downward trend over the next 20-25 years, the upward momentum will still be present.
I have said a lot about the Mann et al graph and the contention and controversy it has produced.
What happens if we step back using similar data to Mann et al. (only proxy data exists prior to 1900), but instead of looking at 1000 years, lets look at the start of the Greco/Roman age of mankind that dates back more than 2400 years.
Does it not make sense that we should go back to such a relevant Genesis of our age, as opposed to the dark ages which is totally arbitrary, statistically short and inappropriate to say the least?
What happens if we step back even farther using similar data again to what Mann used but instead of looking at 2400 years, lets look at the start of the agriculture age which was about 7000 BC.
Since our civilization is at stake, should we not go back to the start of it, as opposed to some other arbitrary point?
What starts to emerge as far as a picture of the true nature of climate variance when we zoom out to take a snapshot of 2400 years or 12,000?
Does the name calling, brow beating or chest beating start to diminish? Shouldn't it?
None of this argues for or against AGW. It is just a collection of graphs that as far as I know is not challenged or disputed.
Now what about 100,000 years?
Or 420,000 years?
Now 3,000,000?
I have searched and can find nothing critical of Muller, his credentials or aspersions about who he sleeps with. So I wonder if his comments with pass without cheap shots from Abaddon or anyone else.
Muller wrote the following in 2003/2004 when the Mann et al. hockey stick graph and the Soon, Baliunas, Macintyre debacle was still raging.
He had this to say after giving benefit of the doubt to the motives of all involved:
It was unfortunate that many scientists endorsed the hockey stick before it could be subjected to the tedious review of time. Ironically, it appears that these scientists skipped the vetting precisely because the results were so important.Let me be clear. My own reading of the literature and study of paleoclimate suggests strongly that carbon dioxide from burning of fossil fuels will prove to be the greatest pollutant of human history. It is likely to have severe and detrimental effects on global climate. I would love to believe that the results of Mann et al. are correct, and that the last few years have been the warmest in a millennium.
Love to believe? My own words make me shudder. They trigger my scientist's instinct for caution. When a conclusion is attractive, I am tempted to lower my standards, to do shoddy work. But that is not the way to truth. When the conclusions are attractive, we must be extra cautious.
Frank75
:pats Brother Apostate's head:
Nice massive brow you've got there.
"I never intended to hi-jack this thread, and this is clearly off topic."
You intended (and still intend) to come across as an expert. As I pointed out, you are not, you are an opinionated, bloviating, pseudo-expert who knows just enough to sound smart to dumb people.
You substitute "Solar Flares" for "Solar Fluctuations" and demonstrate your lack of knowledge about the cyclical nature of Global Warming/Cooling.
lol, and you continue to try and mislead the forum both about what you know about global warming, and what is known about global warming. "hohum, nothing to see here concerned citizens, just nature at cyclical play, we can't do a thing about it, so don't bother your pretty little heads worrying about human contributions, concerned citizens, hey, did I ever tell you about the time I saved the company 27k a year by switching to FedEx?"
But hey, I'll be sure to flagellate myself if "flarings" is the wrong term.
Your eyes gloss over the point made about energy conversion inefficiency.
Is that the point you made about battery usage in hybrid vehicles being inefficient by "orders of magnitude"? You're cute when you're caught being a bloviating psuedo-expert. Speaking of "gloss over", it always amazes me how so many hard-working, brilliant, problem solving scientist, researchers, and engineer's best work can be so easily glossed over by one Armchair Einstein on the internet who knows just enough to be dangerous.
