Jump to content
BigSqwert

The environment thread

Recommended Posts

I'll start with an article about the car company that has peaked (or is it piqued??) my interest.

Tesla delays production of its electric sports car

Posted by Michael Kanellos

 

Tesla Motors is pushing out production of its sports car again, but the car goes farther on a battery charge than previously expected.

 

The company said late Monday night said that it will deliver 50 Tesla Roadsters, its $98,000 all-electric sports car, in the first quarter of 2008 and 650 in total in 2008.

 

Earlier this year, the company said it would try to come out with cars before the end of 2007 (In 2006 and earlier in 2007, the company was shooting for mid-2007). Tesla also said it would try to come out with 800 cars during the first year of production.

 

"We may have a few production cars built late this year, but the vast majority will come out in 2008," a company spokesman said in an e-mail. The number of cars produced may go up depending on demand, but 650 is the current goal of new interim CEO Michael Marks.

 

The delays will allow the company to conduct further durability and reliability tests, which can cost millions of dollars and take several months. Testing is one of the reasons that you don't see a lot of successful car start-ups, according to some car executives and investors.

 

In one bright spot for the company, a Tesla Roadster went 245 miles on a single charge in a recent test. That works out to 235 miles for highway driving and 255 miles a charge for city driving. (These cars, like hybrids, get better city mileage because braking recharges the battery.) Earlier this year, the company lowered its estimates from 250 miles on a charge to 200 miles.

 

The company also changed it waiting policy. Until now, you could join a "club" to get in line to get a car. Premium club members, or buyers, plunked down $50,000 and got priority on cars coming off the line. Patient buyers only had to put down $35,000 but had to wait behind the premium buyers. However, the full amount was refundable until three months before the car was going to be manufactured, when potential buyers had to confirm which options they wanted. If you bought the car, the club fee was applied in full to the purchase price.

 

Now, Tesla wants people to pay $5,000 to get on the list. You get $4,500 back if you cancel your order.

 

Another electric car company, Phoenix Motorcars, also had to delay its electric SUV this year.

 

Tesla is also providing batteries to Norway's Think, which wants to come out with an electric city car in Europe this fall.

 

LINK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE(Yossarian @ Sep 26, 2007 -> 08:49 AM)
I just have one question. Were they right, wrong, or just kidding when they told me in the 70s and 80s that we were surely on the verge of a new Ice Age?

Who told you that? I grew up during those decades, and I don't remember that being said. Not to say it wasn't, I just don't recall the discussion.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Sep 26, 2007 -> 01:53 PM)
Who told you that? I grew up during those decades, and I don't remember that being said. Not to say it wasn't, I just don't recall the discussion.

IIRC I posted something about this not too long ago. I'll have to go back and see if I can find it. It's probably in the Goracle thread somewhere... :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't recall any ice age threats back then either but I won't say they didn't occur. Science tends to get more advanced and accurate with time. I would feel more assurance that the scientific facts of today are more accurate than those from 1970, 1950, 1920, etc. Look at it from a medical standpoint. Would you feel that the advances in medicine are less accurate than what was known in 1960?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE(BigSqwert @ Sep 26, 2007 -> 09:06 AM)
I don't recall any ice age threats back then either but I won't say they didn't occur. Science tends to get more advanced and accurate with time. I would feel more assurance that the scientific facts of today are more accurate than those from 1970, 1950, 1920, etc. Look at it from a medical standpoint. Would you feel that the advances in medicine are less accurate than what was known in 1960?

I'd be more curious to see if it was a small handful of marginal scientists, versus a great majority of the climate science community, that was saying it.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE(BigSqwert @ Sep 26, 2007 -> 02:06 PM)
I don't recall any ice age threats back then either but I won't say they didn't occur. Science tends to get more advanced and accurate with time. I would feel more assurance that the scientific facts of today are more accurate than those from 1970, 1950, 1920, etc. Look at it from a medical standpoint. Would you feel that the advances in medicine are less accurate than what was known in 1960?

The point is, sometimes things are subjective. However, if it doesn't fit your agenda or way of thinking, it must be biased.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Sep 26, 2007 -> 07:53 AM)
Who told you that? I grew up during those decades, and I don't remember that being said. Not to say it wasn't, I just don't recall the discussion.
From the mid 70s to the mid 80s North America had some of the coldest winters on record. In January and February of 1977 there was an especially vicious cold snap, with heavy snow. The city of Buffalo was marooned for about a week. December 1981, December 1983 and especially January 1985 were extremely cold. Many record cold readings from these times, especially January 1985 still stand. A seasonal cold front known as the Siberian Express was constantly in the news and on weather maps during that era. The winter temperature averages for many North American cities, including Chicago were ratcheted down in the early 80s. Many environmentalists in that era were warning that we were surely on the cusp of a new Ice Age. I have an old tape of a show narrated by none other than Leonard Nimoy which gives graphic warning of an impending Ice Age. Weather patterns change gradually over time. If we were about to freeze in the 70s and 80s, we're not about to turn into a hot house now. You can agree or not with me, like me or not as a poster, but I never try to BS folks. Not on the internet, and not in real life either. That was an era of extremely cold winters, and yes we were warned of an impending Ice Age. The Global Warming propaganda machine would make Joseph Goebbels jealous.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE(kapkomet @ Sep 26, 2007 -> 09:10 AM)
The point is, sometimes things are subjective. However, if it doesn't fit your agenda or way of thinking, it must be biased.

With regards to global warming an overwhelming majority of scientists across the globe are in agreement that it is currently taking place. The debate is how severe its effects will be. How many times must this fact be posted in this website?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It has been many more times than just the 70's.

 

http://epw.senate.gov/speechitem.cfm?party=rep&id=263759

 

Since 1895, the media has alternated between global cooling and warming scares during four separate and sometimes overlapping time periods. From 1895 until the 1930’s the media peddled a coming ice age.

 

From the late 1920’s until the 1960’s they warned of global warming. From the 1950’s until the 1970’s they warned us again of a coming ice age. This makes modern global warming the fourth estate’s fourth attempt to promote opposing climate change fears during the last 100 years.

 

 

The media have missed the big pieces of the puzzle when it comes to the Earth’s temperatures and mankind’s carbon dioxide (C02) emissions. It is very simplistic to feign horror and say the one degree Fahrenheit temperature increase during the 20th century means we are all doomed. First of all, the one degree Fahrenheit rise coincided with the greatest advancement of living standards, life expectancy, food production and human health in the history of our planet. So it is hard to argue that the global warming we experienced in the 20th century was somehow negative or part of a catastrophic trend.

 

Second, what the climate alarmists and their advocates in the media have continued to ignore is the fact that the Little Ice Age, which resulted in harsh winters which froze New York Harbor and caused untold deaths, ended about 1850. So trying to prove man-made global warming by comparing the well-known fact that today's temperatures are warmer than during the Little Ice Age is akin to comparing summer to winter to show a catastrophic temperature trend.

 

In addition, something that the media almost never addresses are the holes in the theory that C02 has been the driving force in global warming. Alarmists fail to adequately explain why temperatures began warming at the end of the Little Ice Age in about 1850, long before man-made CO2 emissions could have impacted the climate. Then about 1940, just as man-made CO2 emissions rose sharply, the temperatures began a decline that lasted until the 1970’s, prompting the media and many scientists to fear a coming ice age. Let me repeat, temperatures got colder after C02 emissions exploded. If C02 is the driving force of global climate change, why do so many in the media ignore the many skeptical scientists who cite these rather obvious inconvenient truths?

 

and

 

That sentence appeared over 100 years ago in the February 24, 1895 edition of the New York Times.

 

Let me repeat. 1895, not 1995.

 

A front page article in the October 7, 1912 New York Times, just a few months after the Titanic struck an iceberg and sank, declared that a prominent professor “Warns Us of an Encroaching Ice Age.”

 

The very same day in 1912, the Los Angeles Times ran an article warning that the “Human race will have to fight for its existence against cold.” An August 10, 1923 Washington Post article declared: “Ice Age Coming Here.”

 

By the 1930’s, the media took a break from reporting on the coming ice age and instead switched gears to promoting global warming:

 

“America in Longest Warm Spell Since 1776; Temperature Line Records a 25-year Rise” stated an article in the New York Times on March 27, 1933. The media of yesteryear was also not above injecting large amounts of fear and alarmism into their climate articles.

 

An August 9, 1923 front page article in the Chicago Tribune declared:

 

“Scientist Says Arctic Ice Will Wipe Out Canada.” The article quoted a Yale University professor who predicted that large parts of Europe and Asia would be “wiped out” and Switzerland would be “entirely obliterated.”

 

A December 29, 1974 New York Times article on global cooling reported that climatologists believed “the facts of the present climate change are such that the most optimistic experts would assign near certainty to major crop failure in a decade.”

 

The article also warned that unless government officials reacted to the coming catastrophe, “mass deaths by starvation and probably in anarchy and violence” would result. In 1975, the New York Times reported that “A major cooling [was] widely considered to be inevitable.” These past predictions of doom have a familiar ring, don’t they? They sound strikingly similar to our modern media promotion of former Vice president’s brand of climate alarmism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE(Yossarian @ Sep 26, 2007 -> 09:10 AM)
From the mid 70s to the mid 80s North America had some of the coldest winters on record. In January and February of 1977 there was an especially vicious cold snap, with heavy snow. The city of Buffalo was marooned for about a week. December 1981, December 1983 and especially January 1985 were extremely cold. Many record cold readings from these times, especially January 1985 still stand. A seasonal cold front known as the Siberian Express was constantly in the news and on weather maps during that era. The winter temperature averages for many North American cities, including Chicago were ratcheted down in the early 80s. Many environmentalists in that era were warning that we were surely on the cusp of a new Ice Age. I have an old tape of a show narrated by none other than Leonard Nimoy which gives graphic warning of an impending Ice Age. Weather patterns change gradually over time. If we were about to freeze in the 70s and 80s, we're not about to turn into a hot house now. You can agree or not with me, like me or not as a poster, but I never try to BS folks. Not on the internet, and not in real life either. That was an era of extremely cold winters, and yes we were warned of an impending Ice Age. The Global Warming propaganda machine would make Joseph Goebbels jealous.

I do definitely remember the cold spells. No question about it. But like you say, weather patterns change gradually over time. That's why I'd be surprised if any significant number of actual scientists, who had actual evidence to back it up, were saying that it was a harbinger of an Ice Age. I do know that we have seen CO2 spiking since the middle of the 20th Century, so I suppose even in the 70's that the spike may have started to emerge. But pointing at some cold years and saying its an ice age is almost as silly as that Day After Tomorrow movie.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Sep 26, 2007 -> 09:15 AM)
It has been many more times than just the 70's.

 

http://epw.senate.gov/speechitem.cfm?party=rep&id=263759

and

A speech from Inhofe?

 

I am sure there have been scares, and fearmongering, because that is unfortunately the nature of some people. But, at least right now, the hard scientific evidence is just so completely obvious and overwhelming that our climate is changing, that the only real debates worth having are when, how much, and what can we do about it.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Sep 26, 2007 -> 09:19 AM)
A speech from Inhofe?

 

So, who to believe -- a US senator with no reason to be biased or a scientist whose job depends on getting you to believe in global warming and giving him money to study it. Hmmmmm.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE(hitlesswonder @ Sep 26, 2007 -> 02:23 PM)
So, who to believe -- a US senator with no reason to be biased or a scientist whose job depends on getting you to believe in global warming and giving him money to study it. Hmmmmm.

Oh, you know that's not true. Scientists aren't political, they're political. ;)

 

No one is going to change their minds on this, because facts to some are perhaps a little less clear to others because how dare anyone just believe something (or question it, depending on what you believe) that is spoon fed to them on almost a daily basis?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE(hitlesswonder @ Sep 26, 2007 -> 09:23 AM)
So, who to believe -- a US senator with no reason to be biased or a scientist whose job depends on getting you to believe in global warming and giving him money to study it. Hmmmmm.

:lol:

 

Now that is hilarious. Who to believe? A Senator whos very nature is to be biased to his party, or a scientist actually in possesion of facts and evidence? And you would pick the Senator?!

 

Amazing. Some people are so actively in denial about this that they would rather believe a Senator than a thousands of scientists in a matter of... science.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Sep 26, 2007 -> 02:28 PM)
:lol:

 

Now that is hilarious. Who to believe? A Senator whos very nature is to be biased to his party, or a scientist actually in possesion of facts and evidence? And you would pick the Senator?!

 

Amazing. Some people are so actively in denial about this that they would rather believe a Senator than a thousands of scientists in a matter of... science.

You're somewhat correct, on the surface - the short term meteorlogical data suggests that it's been slightly warmer over the last 25 years (Balta will link us ad naseum). I bet after the last ice age, we went through a period of global warming, too!

 

Anyway, as I said, everyone has their minds made up on this issue, and no one will believe anything otherwise, so time to move on, folks.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

cold winter

 

another cold winter

 

a really cold winter

 

I could do this all day, but if you're on the left and/or for Kucinich I doubt it would change your mind, even if you could suddenly ice skate in your kitchen. This is not meant to bash anyone, just to strongly disagree with the Global Warming theory as it's taught. I didn't make any of this up. It was a period of very harsh winters. In recent years that has changed. I still think that the summer of 1955 remains the hottest summer on record in Chicago. Of course 1988 and 1995 are right up there too. Anyone know Tom Skilling?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE(hitlesswonder @ Sep 26, 2007 -> 09:23 AM)
So, who to believe -- a US senator with no reason to be biased or a scientist whose job depends on getting you to believe in global warming and giving him money to study it. Hmmmmm.

That's laughable. Ever heard of lobbyists?

Edited by BigSqwert

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE(Yossarian @ Sep 26, 2007 -> 09:32 AM)
cold winter

 

another cold winter

 

a really cold winter

 

I could do this all day, but if you're on the left and/or for Kucinich I doubt it would change your mind, even if you could suddenly ice skate in your kitchen. This is not meant to bash anyone, just to strongly disagree with the Global Warming theory as it's taught. I didn't make any of this up. It was a period of very harsh winters. In recent years that has changed. I still think that the summer of 1955 remains the hottest summer on record in Chicago. Of course 1988 and 1995 are right up there too. Anyone know Tom Skilling?

I'm wondering if you truly understand the global warming issue. Just because "warming" is in the phrase doesn't mean that there can't be blizzards or cold spells in unusual places. Part of the global warming issue is that weather patterns can be altered because of changes in sea temperatures.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE(hitlesswonder @ Sep 26, 2007 -> 10:23 AM)
So, who to believe -- a US senator with no reason to be biased or a scientist whose job depends on getting you to believe in global warming and giving him money to study it. Hmmmmm.

 

:lolhitting :lolhitting

 

You didn't honestly keep a straight face when you typed that, did you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE(BigSqwert @ Sep 26, 2007 -> 08:36 AM)
I'm wondering if you truly understand the global warming issue. Just because "warming" is in the phrase doesn't mean that there can't be blizzards or cold spells in unusual places. Part of the global warming issue is that weather patterns can be altered because of changes in sea temperatures.
I understand it very well, and disagree like hell with it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE(kapkomet @ Sep 26, 2007 -> 09:10 AM)
The point is, sometimes things are subjective. However, if it doesn't fit your agenda or way of thinking, it must be biased.

 

:notworthy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×