DC Tom Posted February 11, 2009 Posted February 11, 2009 How much pollution will occur when the owners have to shell out thousands of $ to replace the batteries soon? Less than is caused by manufacturing the damned things to begin with. From a rational "cradle-to-grave" evaluation of environment costs, the Prius is very environmentally unfriendly - heavy metal pollution from nickel mining, for example, is extremely bad and virtually unavoidable from what I understand (look up the city of Nor'ilsk in Russia, "The Most Polluted City On the Planet". The Canadian mines are not much cleaner despite much stronger environmental regulations.) The most environmentally friendly car you can buy is...a used one, actually, since there's no additional environemtal cost of producing it for you. But again, this all goes back to the modern idiotic dogma that "environmentalism" is strictly about CO2 emissions reduction - not just that, but CO2 emissions at the tailpipe. No one seems to give a sh-- about CO2 emissions from cement manufacture when they're pushing their "green" hydroelectric solutions...
finknottle Posted February 11, 2009 Posted February 11, 2009 Ill believe SOME of this Global Warming terrorism/foreign threats crapola when one...just ONE of the so-called "solutions" doesnt involve some kind of governmental money grab. Fixed it for you.
RkFast Posted February 11, 2009 Posted February 11, 2009 Except it hasn't. In fact, the past eight years have been about as anti-science as any have seen, with respect to the (Bush) Administration's relationship and attitude towards science. People have been yammerring about some intrusion of their rights and a tax blood-bath, yet no where has that been seen. Not even in very science-friendly, non-skeptical of global warming states. In fact, Massachusetts' Green Industry is actually thriving. Not realized, but proposed. Start with "cap and trade" and work down from there.
ieatcrayonz Posted February 11, 2009 Posted February 11, 2009 Look dudes, we can argue all we want about global warming and people's contribution to it. I am not too political but am smart enough to know governments do things too slowly and usually they are wrong. Plus even if people are the cause, what are we going to do? Kill ourselves? If we do that there would be a t-shirt shortage for sure. Or even worse we could drive Honda Fits? Anyway, we have all read that the best studies show that cow farts along with farts of other mammals are the primary cause of global warming. As such I still maintan that we must kill all mammls so that humans may live. We should start with the cows. This seems to be going the other direction with more and more demand for live cows. Vegetarians want cows to live but meat eaters want to kill them. If government wants to do something it should make vegetarians illegal. Plus if this catches on there will be even more demand for live cows. Everyone says they care about global warming but their actions say otherwise.
DC Tom Posted February 11, 2009 Posted February 11, 2009 Not in any way shape or form has it been cooling over the last eight years. No data on that page even remotely shows that the global surface temp is cooling. In fact, Hanson et al go out of their way to repeatedly make the point that that isn't the case. "Calendar year 2008 was the coolest year since 2000." First sentence of the article. And then the article goes on to do what I've already said twice in this thread is invalid anyway: derive long-term trends from short-term data ("The map of global temperature anomalies in 2008 (right panel of Fig. 1), shows that most of the world was either near normal or warmer than in the base period (1951-1980)." A one year sample compared to a thirty-year baseline taken sixty years ago is proof of a long-term climate trend? YOU CAN'T DERIVE LONG-TERM TRENDS FROM SHORT-TERM DATA!!!) To me, the data in that report looks ambiguous ("within the bounds of error, the temperature has pretty much stayed the same over the past eight years"). But again, all I said was that it could just as easily prove StupidNation's point as yours. Personally, I see a downtrend in that data over the past eight years...but I wouldn't even begin to suggest there's enough data to suggest it's a real trend and not an artifact. You know, Tom, just because you say it's stupid doesn't necessarily make it so. No, what makes the global warming "debate" stupid is that it's dishonest and political, on both sides. What real science there is gets submerged under all the bull sh-- like Gore's ridiculous book/movie. You don't even understand my disagreement with global warming science, so let me make it excruciatingly clear for your arrogant ass: I've never said that the data is wrong, but that the science cannot be performed properly in the perverted and dogmatic atmosphere that surrounds the entire issue.
Dan Posted February 11, 2009 Posted February 11, 2009 Look dudes, we can argue all we want about global warming and people's contribution to it. I am not too political but am smart enough to know governments do things too slowly and usually they are wrong. Plus even if people are the cause, what are we going to do? Kill ourselves? If we do that there would be a t-shirt shortage for sure. Or even worse we could drive Honda Fits? Anyway, we have all read that the best studies show that cow farts along with farts of other mammals are the primary cause of global warming. As such I still maintan that we must kill all mammls so that humans may live. We should start with the cows. This seems to be going the other direction with more and more demand for live cows. Vegetarians want cows to live but meat eaters want to kill them. If government wants to do something it should make vegetarians illegal. Plus if this catches on there will be even more demand for live cows. Everyone says they care about global warming but their actions say otherwise. Why not kill all the vegetarians AND the cows? Then we're doubling our impact.
ieatcrayonz Posted February 11, 2009 Posted February 11, 2009 "Calendar year 2008 was the coolest year since 2000." First sentence of the article. And then the article goes on to do what I've already said twice in this thread is invalid anyway: derive long-term trends from short-term data ("The map of global temperature anomalies in 2008 (right panel of Fig. 1), shows that most of the world was either near normal or warmer than in the base period (1951-1980)." A one year sample compared to a thirty-year baseline taken sixty years ago is proof of a long-term climate trend? YOU CAN'T DERIVE LONG-TERM TRENDS FROM SHORT-TERM DATA!!!) Dude I don't know what you're smoking but 60 years isn't a long time? I have as much or more respect for old people than anyone but have you ever seen a sixty year old? The next time you do ask them if they think sixty years is a long time. After they scream "WHAT???" a few hundred times they'll tell you how long it is and what it does to the human body. Well, actually they'll start to tell you and then lose their train of thought and wander off aimlessly and then ask you where they can buy a lottery ticket. But you get the point. If we can't figure stuff out from 60 years worth of information then we can't figure it out at all. We don't even have time machines yet and even if we get them they'll need testing before we can safely send any thermometers through. We don't have that kind of time because the planet is warming or possibly cooling too fast to mess around. Yet still all you need to do here in the midwest is drive 5 miles in any direction and you'll count hundreds of cows along the way. And the worst part is that these cows are still alive and farting away.
ExiledInIllinois Posted February 11, 2009 Posted February 11, 2009 Less than is caused by manufacturing the damned things to begin with. From a rational "cradle-to-grave" evaluation of environment costs, the Prius is very environmentally unfriendly - heavy metal pollution from nickel mining, for example, is extremely bad and virtually unavoidable from what I understand (look up the city of Nor'ilsk in Russia, "The Most Polluted City On the Planet". The Canadian mines are not much cleaner despite much stronger environmental regulations.) The most environmentally friendly car you can buy is...a used one, actually, since there's no additional environemtal cost of producing it for you. But again, this all goes back to the modern idiotic dogma that "environmentalism" is strictly about CO2 emissions reduction - not just that, but CO2 emissions at the tailpipe. No one seems to give a sh-- about CO2 emissions from cement manufacture when they're pushing their "green" hydroelectric solutions... I agree. Like you said about driving a used car... It is the most enviro-friendly... And if one wants a new car, why not just drive it for 10-15 years or more?... Sounds more enviro/ecco-friendly IMO than geting a new one every 3 years.
ieatcrayonz Posted February 11, 2009 Posted February 11, 2009 Why not kill all the vegetarians AND the cows? Then we're doubling our impact. I know vegetarians are dorks but let's not be too harsh. They are people. Killing people is simply not right and it won't solve anything except maybe some minor annoyances. It is the cows and other mammals doing the damage. We should kill all mammals, cows first.
ExiledInIllinois Posted February 11, 2009 Posted February 11, 2009 Why not kill all the vegetarians AND the cows? Then we're doubling our impact. Shh... Don't stop the dolt, they are on a roll! I am waiting for the tie in with regards to the Canadians and the nickel mines Tom mentioned! Crayonz does make for some entertaining reading!
finknottle Posted February 11, 2009 Posted February 11, 2009 I agree. Like you said about driving a used car... It is the most enviro-friendly... And if one wants a new car, why not just drive it for 10-15 years or more?... Sounds more enviro/ecco-friendly IMO than geting a new one every 3 years. Because that philosophy will undermine the bailout of the Big 3. Where money meets jobs is where you will see the true committment of the Democrats.
ieatcrayonz Posted February 11, 2009 Posted February 11, 2009 I agree. Like you said about driving a used car... It is the most enviro-friendly... And if one wants a new car, why not just drive it for 10-15 years or more?... Sounds more enviro/ecco-friendly IMO than geting a new one every 3 years. It's a pretty good idea to drive cars for a long time but a better idea to drive used cars. If you are married, you should have yourself and your spouse each register and take title to their own car. A few years into driving them, you can sell them to each other. This way you are both driving used cars and realistically if you liked the first one better you could always just borrow it from your spouse anyway if you are on good terms in your marriage. And if your spouse isn't too bright you can make a few bucks in the process.
Dan Posted February 11, 2009 Posted February 11, 2009 I love these Global Warming threads. "Calendar year 2008 was the coolest year since 2000." First sentence of the article. And then the article goes on to do what I've already said twice in this thread is invalid anyway: derive long-term trends from short-term data ("The map of global temperature anomalies in 2008 (right panel of Fig. 1), shows that most of the world was either near normal or warmer than in the base period (1951-1980)." A one year sample compared to a thirty-year baseline taken sixty years ago is proof of a long-term climate trend? YOU CAN'T DERIVE LONG-TERM TRENDS FROM SHORT-TERM DATA!!!) To me, the data in that report looks ambiguous ("within the bounds of error, the temperature has pretty much stayed the same over the past eight years"). But again, all I said was that it could just as easily prove StupidNation's point as yours. Personally, I see a downtrend in that data over the past eight years...but I wouldn't even begin to suggest there's enough data to suggest it's a real trend and not an artifact. I have a question, how do you propose we determine long-term trends, if not from the data at hand? Obviously, the more data you have, the better your trend analysis would be. But, the data in that analysis dated back to 1880. You're not gonna get much loner term than that. I would agree, that data does suggest that over the past 8 years, the temperature data is quite ambiguous. However, it is interesting when you look over the course of the last 100 years, "The ten warmest years all occur within the 12-year period 1997-2008". It certainly seems to indicate an overall warming trend over the last 100 years. So, is it fair to say that global temperatures are generally increasing or decreasing over the last 100 years? No, what makes the global warming "debate" stupid is that it's dishonest and political, on both sides. What real science there is gets submerged under all the bull sh-- like Gore's ridiculous book/movie. You don't even understand my disagreement with global warming science, so let me make it excruciatingly clear for your arrogant ass: I've never said that the data is wrong, but that the science cannot be performed properly in the perverted and dogmatic atmosphere that surrounds the entire issue. Are you suggesting that there is no good science on the subject either way?
Dan Posted February 11, 2009 Posted February 11, 2009 I know vegetarians are dorks but let's not be too harsh. They are people. Killing people is simply not right and it won't solve anything except maybe some minor annoyances. It is the cows and other mammals doing the damage. We should kill all mammals, cows first. But, it'll be easier to kill the mammals once the vegetarians are dead as well.
ExiledInIllinois Posted February 11, 2009 Posted February 11, 2009 Because that philosophy will undermine the bailout of the Big 3. Where money meets jobs is where you will see the true committment of the Democrats. Sadly so. Don't we all love a good "bailout?" Chrysler and the Savings and Loans of the 1980's seem like a long time away. A motto all baby-boomers can live by: Send lawyers, guns and money Dad, get me out of this
ExiledInIllinois Posted February 11, 2009 Posted February 11, 2009 It's a pretty good idea to drive cars for a long time but a better idea to drive used cars. If you are married, you should have yourself and your spouse each register and take title to their own car. A few years into driving them, you can sell them to each other. This way you are both driving used cars and realistically if you liked the first one better you could always just borrow it from your spouse anyway if you are on good terms in your marriage. And if your spouse isn't too bright you can make a few bucks in the process. Does that mean your spouse has to have a different routing number?
drnykterstein Posted February 11, 2009 Posted February 11, 2009 http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2009/0...he-beholder.ars
ieatcrayonz Posted February 11, 2009 Posted February 11, 2009 But, it'll be easier to kill the mammals once the vegetarians are dead as well. Point well taken. Doublemets. On the flip side it is fun to watch them complain to no avail all the time.
Johnny Coli Posted February 11, 2009 Posted February 11, 2009 "Calendar year 2008 was the coolest year since 2000." First sentence of the article. And then the article goes on to do what I've already said twice in this thread is invalid anyway: derive long-term trends from short-term data ("The map of global temperature anomalies in 2008 (right panel of Fig. 1), shows that most of the world was either near normal or warmer than in the base period (1951-1980)." A one year sample compared to a thirty-year baseline taken sixty years ago is proof of a long-term climate trend? YOU CAN'T DERIVE LONG-TERM TRENDS FROM SHORT-TERM DATA!!!) To me, the data in that report looks ambiguous ("within the bounds of error, the temperature has pretty much stayed the same over the past eight years"). But again, all I said was that it could just as easily prove StupidNation's point as yours. Personally, I see a downtrend in that data over the past eight years...but I wouldn't even begin to suggest there's enough data to suggest it's a real trend and not an artifact. No, what makes the global warming "debate" stupid is that it's dishonest and political, on both sides. What real science there is gets submerged under all the bull sh-- like Gore's ridiculous book/movie. You don't even understand my disagreement with global warming science, so let me make it excruciatingly clear for your arrogant ass: I've never said that the data is wrong, but that the science cannot be performed properly in the perverted and dogmatic atmosphere that surrounds the entire issue. How the fug is anyone perverting that data? How is that data set "dishonest" and/or political? Are you suggesting that Hansen is just fabricating data?
finknottle Posted February 11, 2009 Posted February 11, 2009 I've never said that the data is wrong, but that the science cannot be performed properly in the perverted and dogmatic atmosphere that surrounds the entire issue. Gee, I'd like to do some intellectually honest scientific research, but I just can't concentrate with all these controversial talk shows and demonstrations. What is your take on Copernicus. Garbage science, given the circus atmosphere? Any research worth its salt is usually performed amidst skepticism and controversy - otherwise nobody is impressed.
Recommended Posts