Page 9 of 13 FirstFirst ... 45678910111213 LastLast
Results 201 to 225 of 306

Thread: Hybrid cars...anybody got one?

  1. #201
    MasterCrafter OptiBoarder MasterCrafter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    The Lab
    Occupation
    Optical Laboratory Technician
    Posts
    459
    Quote Originally Posted by shanbaum View Post
    "Spoofing" indeed. It's genuinely amusing that someone who can't get the gist of a Daily Show clip thinks he's qualified to pontificate on "what the Earth has been doing for millions of years."

    Well, thanks, in any case, for demonstrating why it's so hard to argue with liberals.
    Are you doubting the fact that the earth has been warming and cooling for millions of years?

    Are you trying to say that millions of years ago the earth warmed due to mother nature. But now it is warming because we are driving cars around?

    Anyways here is a cool car... 650 hp .. Shanny do you know what HP means?

    http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/...p/viewall.html



  2. #202
    Master OptiBoarder
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    washington
    Occupation
    Dispensing Optician
    Posts
    1,916
    I am not smart enough to argue politics, but I WISH they would figure out a Hybrid mini van. I loved my van, but when it was time to trade it in, I opted for a compact SUV that got better gas mileage. I had heard that Toyota was going to introduce one, but last year's earthquake pushed it back.

    I know they're not sexy, but when you've got two kids and a dog the size of a horse, a mini-van rocks. Plus, when you are a military family and you move often, nothing beats all the seats folding flat for packing up tons of crap.

  3. #203
    Objection! OptiBoard Gold Supporter shanbaum's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    Manchester, CT USA
    Occupation
    Other Optical Manufacturer or Vendor
    Posts
    2,976
    Quote Originally Posted by MasterCrafter View Post
    Are you doubting the fact that the earth has been warming and cooling for millions of years?

    Are you trying to say that millions of years ago the earth warmed due to mother nature. But now it is warming because we are driving cars around?

    Anyways here is a cool car... 650 hp .. Shanny do you know what HP means?

    http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/...p/viewall.html
    Crafter, I do not doubt that the Earth has had warming and cooling cycles, only because the scientific literature so asserts. That has almost nothing to do with the warming controversy. As I wrote earlier, you and I, like most people, are not climatologists. The vast majority of us don't even ever see any of the primary scientific materials. We rely on the handful of scientists who write for a lay audience, and on journalists, to form an understanding and/or opinion about scientific matters.

    I can't put my finger on it at the moment, but one article (in a primary science journal) that I read analyzed articles about global warming in scientific journals. I don't recall the exact details, but the number of articles supporting anthropogenic warming was more than double the number of articles expressing scepticism. That doesn't mean that the supporters are right, but it does mean that they are very likely the majority.

    I realize that in the right-wing media, the story is that the whole warming thing was cooked up by academics seeking grant money. A half-second's reflection dismisses that; if climate change is settled science (as the majority of actual scientists claim), there is no need for further grants for studies, is there? There's nothing left to prove! It would be the deniers who stand to gain at this point. As in, they're just arguing against the conventional wisdom in order to rake in all that grant money they need in order to disprove the anthropogenic nature of the warming that everyone agrees is taking place.

    In reality, grants for studies amount to chicken feed either way. The big money is in doing something, or not doing something, about carbon emissions. And to suggest that it's the guys plying alternative energy sources (or academic studies of any sort) who have Congress by the balls - and not the carbon guys (y'know, like Exxon Mobil) - well, that requires a more fertile imagination than mine. As always, money drives the politics in this country, and it's useful to follow the money. (Hint: it doesn't lead to university campuses).

    One of the things that inclines my opinion towards that of the majority is that it's pretty clear that human activity can have significant environmental impact. Back in the 70's and 80's, acid rain resulting from sulphur dioxide emissions was a known, measured problem. The Republicans came up with a cap-and-trade system that was implemented in the early 90's (by the first Bush) and the scheme actually worked. Acid rain has been diminished by 65% or more. (In Europe, more traditional regulation was actually more effective, but that's another story).

    The other thing is simpler: if there is merely the possibility that the anthropogenic warming scenario is true, it would be suicidal to ignore it. And when the negative version of the cost/benefit analysis comes up with outcomes like, "we'll needlessly spend money trying to develop alternative fuels when we could be burning all these fossil fuels that we know we have" - well, that's not really very compelling to me; I think that having alternatives to what we know with some certainty are limited resources (whatever the magnitude of that limitation) would be a very good thing. If the worst case is money is directed towards people other than owners and developers of fossil fuels, even if the putative developers of alternatives are sometimes feckless, I think that is not so bad. It's not like the money goes away; it just travels a different route for a while.

    What you think about these things is going to be determined by what you read and hear on the subject. Read Scientific American, or Nature, and you're likely to see it one way. If you form your opinions by listening to Rush Limbaugh and reading FreeRepublic.com, your opinions will differ. I will rely on the former; to me, the latter, by comparison, are risible. Sorry to be dismissive, but they don't even warrant serious criticism. They are ridiculous.

    And yes, I do understand horsepower. My first car was a '67 Mustang GT. It started out with a 390 V8; I bought a 427 off a guy who crashed his racing boat and had it installed. Don't talk to me about some puny 5.8 liter cornpopper.

  4. #204
    Master OptiBoarder
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    new york
    Occupation
    Optometrist
    Posts
    3,749
    Quote Originally Posted by optilady1 View Post
    I am not smart enough to argue politics, but I WISH they would figure out a Hybrid mini van. I loved my van, but when it was time to trade it in, I opted for a compact SUV that got better gas mileage. I had heard that Toyota was going to introduce one, but last year's earthquake pushed it back.

    I know they're not sexy, but when you've got two kids and a dog the size of a horse, a mini-van rocks. Plus, when you are a military family and you move often, nothing beats all the seats folding flat for packing up tons of crap.
    Toyota just released a wagon/crossover version of the Prius called the Prius V. It's not huge, but its worth a look. I think it gets about 45 mpg, highway or city.

  5. #205
    Compulsive Truthteller OptiBoard Gold Supporter Uncle Fester's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    At a position without dimension...
    Occupation
    Dispensing Optician
    Posts
    5,291
    So Doc do you think the auto makers are finally coming to realize that electric is the future?

    I think they're finally realizing that with the world wanting more and more oil they have to change their thinking. Even if consumers want big powerful cars when gas is cheap they are too vulnerable when it spikes.

    Anyone know who's leading the development of battery technology? I would guess India or China.

  6. #206
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2000
    Location
    Only City in the World built over a Volcano
    Occupation
    Dispensing Optician
    Posts
    12,996
    I thought Arnie's brilliant idea was to put Hydrogen re-filling stations across California. I can just immagine what happens when one fills the tank smoking a cigarette. Or what happens when one doesn't get the seals just right before filling.
    Who's gonna clean up all that water off the road?

    Chip

  7. #207
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2000
    Location
    Only City in the World built over a Volcano
    Occupation
    Dispensing Optician
    Posts
    12,996
    Odd we had electric cars in the past, Studebaker's first two years they were electric. But somehow it was supplanted by something better, the internal combustion engine.
    My granmother (who would be about 115 today) had an Electic (Essex, I think) Had to take it to garage every couple of days (she only drove to the grocery store and hair dresser) for a charge.

    Chip

  8. #208
    Master OptiBoarder
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    new york
    Occupation
    Optometrist
    Posts
    3,749
    Quote Originally Posted by Uncle Fester View Post
    So Doc do you think the auto makers are finally coming to realize that electric is the future?

    I think they're finally realizing that with the world wanting more and more oil they have to change their thinking. Even if consumers want big powerful cars when gas is cheap they are too vulnerable when it spikes.

    Anyone know who's leading the development of battery technology? I would guess India or China.
    I think a couple of things are pushing alternately fueled cars. For one, automakers are under pressure to decrease CO2 emissions and to increase fleet mileage. Nothing is better than electric.

    The drawback to EVs is not that they lack power. They, in fact, can produce very high torque from a getaway at a light. It's a range/weight/power/price ratio that presents a challenge right now.

    From what I can see it's companies like Toshiba and Panasonic are leading the way in battery technology. These are Japanese companies I think. Toshiba has developed the SCiB lithium battery which is currently being offered in the Mitsubishi iMiev. This battery can withstand up to 6000 recharging cycles, which is double what other lithium batteries can take. They can also be quick charged, meaning with the right equipment, they can charge to something like 80% of capacity in 5-10 minutes and to 90% in 15. And they don't produce a lot of heat like other batteries.

  9. #209
    Master OptiBoarder
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    new york
    Occupation
    Optometrist
    Posts
    3,749
    Quote Originally Posted by chip anderson View Post
    Odd we had electric cars in the past, Studebaker's first two years they were electric. But somehow it was supplanted by something better, the internal combustion engine.
    My granmother (who would be about 115 today) had an Electic (Essex, I think) Had to take it to garage every couple of days (she only drove to the grocery store and hair dresser) for a charge.

    Chip
    Batteries of the past, back in the dinosaur era, you remember Chip, were much heavier, bigger and packed less energy. Lead-acid batteries cannot take repeated deep charge and discharge cycles. Mitsubishi is guaranteeing their batteries for eight years or 100,000 miles. Todays batteries can withstand up to 6000 recharge cycles, that's what, 16.5 years if you recharge once per day. If you skip Sundays and walk to church, you can extend your battery life even longer.

    I don't think hydrogen is going to make it any time soon. The most practical way to produce hydrogen involves using natural gas, and there are no hydrogen producing facilities ready to go...but there are a ton of electrical outlets all over the place. Hydrogen also requires a much larger and heavily constructed fuel tank to get the amount of fuel to get a range like an ICE. Practicality, right now limits range to about half of what you might expect in an gasoline fueled car. So you would be at the "gas station" twice as often. With an electric, you recharge at home, or maybe at work. And while hydrogen can be explosive, so is gasoline.
    Last edited by fjpod; 05-04-2012 at 03:03 AM.

  10. #210
    MasterCrafter OptiBoarder MasterCrafter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    The Lab
    Occupation
    Optical Laboratory Technician
    Posts
    459
    Quote Originally Posted by shanbaum View Post
    Crafter, I do not doubt that the Earth has had warming and cooling cycles, only because the scientific literature so asserts. That has almost nothing to do with the warming controversy. As I wrote earlier, you and I, like most people, are not climatologists. The vast majority of us don't even ever see any of the primary scientific materials. We rely on the handful of scientists who write for a lay audience, and on journalists, to form an understanding and/or opinion about scientific matters.

    I can't put my finger on it at the moment, but one article (in a primary science journal) that I read analyzed articles about global warming in scientific journals. I don't recall the exact details, but the number of articles supporting anthropogenic warming was more than double the number of articles expressing scepticism. That doesn't mean that the supporters are right, but it does mean that they are very likely the majority.

    I realize that in the right-wing media, the story is that the whole warming thing was cooked up by academics seeking grant money. A half-second's reflection dismisses that; if climate change is settled science (as the majority of actual scientists claim), there is no need for further grants for studies, is there? There's nothing left to prove! It would be the deniers who stand to gain at this point. As in, they're just arguing against the conventional wisdom in order to rake in all that grant money they need in order to disprove the anthropogenic nature of the warming that everyone agrees is taking place.

    In reality, grants for studies amount to chicken feed either way. The big money is in doing something, or not doing something, about carbon emissions. And to suggest that it's the guys plying alternative energy sources (or academic studies of any sort) who have Congress by the balls - and not the carbon guys (y'know, like Exxon Mobil) - well, that requires a more fertile imagination than mine. As always, money drives the politics in this country, and it's useful to follow the money. (Hint: it doesn't lead to university campuses).

    One of the things that inclines my opinion towards that of the majority is that it's pretty clear that human activity can have significant environmental impact. Back in the 70's and 80's, acid rain resulting from sulphur dioxide emissions was a known, measured problem. The Republicans came up with a cap-and-trade system that was implemented in the early 90's (by the first Bush) and the scheme actually worked. Acid rain has been diminished by 65% or more. (In Europe, more traditional regulation was actually more effective, but that's another story).

    The other thing is simpler: if there is merely the possibility that the anthropogenic warming scenario is true, it would be suicidal to ignore it. And when the negative version of the cost/benefit analysis comes up with outcomes like, "we'll needlessly spend money trying to develop alternative fuels when we could be burning all these fossil fuels that we know we have" - well, that's not really very compelling to me; I think that having alternatives to what we know with some certainty are limited resources (whatever the magnitude of that limitation) would be a very good thing. If the worst case is money is directed towards people other than owners and developers of fossil fuels, even if the putative developers of alternatives are sometimes feckless, I think that is not so bad. It's not like the money goes away; it just travels a different route for a while.

    What you think about these things is going to be determined by what you read and hear on the subject. Read Scientific American, or Nature, and you're likely to see it one way. If you form your opinions by listening to Rush Limbaugh and reading FreeRepublic.com, your opinions will differ. I will rely on the former; to me, the latter, by comparison, are risible. Sorry to be dismissive, but they don't even warrant serious criticism. They are ridiculous.

    And yes, I do understand horsepower. My first car was a '67 Mustang GT. It started out with a 390 V8; I bought a 427 off a guy who crashed his racing boat and had it installed. Don't talk to me about some puny 5.8 liter cornpopper.
    Listen, I will just let the IPCC scientists speak for themselves.

    Here are some direct quotes from the leading "man made" global warming scientists

    "The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't."

    "And the curve will also show that the IPCC curve needs to be improved according to missing long-term declining trends/signals, which were removed (by dendrochronologists!) before Mann merged the local records together."

    "I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards)and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.”

    "I’ll maybe cut the last few points off the filtered curve before I give the talk again as that’s trending down as a result of the end effects and the recent cold-ishyears "

    If FOIA ( Freedom of Information Act ) does ever get used by anyone, there is also IPR ( Information Protection Rights? ) to consider aswell. Data is covered by all theagreements we sign with people, so I will be hiding behind them.”

    I could go on and on








  11. #211
    Objection! OptiBoard Gold Supporter shanbaum's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    Manchester, CT USA
    Occupation
    Other Optical Manufacturer or Vendor
    Posts
    2,976
    Quote Originally Posted by MasterCrafter View Post

    I could go on and on


    Yes, you probably could, but your knowledge of that controversy (most, but not all, of what you've posted is about "climategate") is obviously limited to the initial reports, and not the results of the subsequent investigations into it.

    And, to state the obvious, these quotations are completely unrelated to essentially any of my comments.

  12. #212
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2000
    Location
    Only City in the World built over a Volcano
    Occupation
    Dispensing Optician
    Posts
    12,996
    One must remember that a guarantee is not always a statement of quality. Mitsubishi's gas engines don't exactly have a sterling reputation. An remember the engines and planes they made in WWII were often made to make one flight in one direction with no return.
    I'm most gratefull to Daddy for having been on the Enterprise and seeing that most of them never quite made it to thier destination.

    Chip

  13. #213
    Master OptiBoarder
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    new york
    Occupation
    Optometrist
    Posts
    3,749
    Quote Originally Posted by chip anderson View Post
    One must remember that a guarantee is not always a statement of quality. Mitsubishi's gas engines don't exactly have a sterling reputation. An remember the engines and planes they made in WWII were often made to make one flight in one direction with no return.
    I'm most gratefull to Daddy for having been on the Enterprise and seeing that most of them never quite made it to thier destination.

    How about Toyota, is their quality good? How about Ford, GM Chrysler?


    Chip
    Listen 50 years ago, CR-39 was no good either. It yellowed and warped. It had a different index and none of our tooling and charts worked. What would you say today? Don't use it, because 50 years ago it was no good?

  14. #214
    MasterCrafter OptiBoarder MasterCrafter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    The Lab
    Occupation
    Optical Laboratory Technician
    Posts
    459
    Quote Originally Posted by shanbaum View Post
    Yes, you probably could, but your knowledge of that controversy (most, but not all, of what you've posted is about "climategate") is obviously limited to the initial reports, and not the results of the subsequent investigations into it.

    And, to state the obvious, these quotations are completely unrelated to essentially any of my comments.
    Who was Climategate investigated by?

    Penn State did it's own investigation and cleared themselves!! Really.. It's like the cat who ate the canary and did his own ivestigation into who ate the canary.

    Besides I forgot.. it's no longer called "global warming" Now it's "climate change" Why do you think they changed that?

    They did it because it stopped getting warmer. Now they want to blame everything on man made CO2 emmisions. So if it gets cold they blame it on man.. if it gets warmer they blame it on man.

    Does this scientist count?

    "Satellite data from NASA covering 2000 through 2011 cast doubt on current computer models predicting global warming, according to a new study. The data shows that much less heat is retained by carbon dioxide in the earth's atmosphere than is assumed in current models. 'There is a huge discrepancy between the data and the forecasts that is especially big over the oceans,' said Dr. Roy Spencer, a co-author of the study and research scientist at the University of Alabama."


    Fjpod -
    hydrogen is the only true green solution. If people want a real solution then we should be investing into this technology. Electric cars are not an effective green solution. Instead of sinking billions into EV's at least throw that money at something that truely causes no pollution.

    Edit: click this and read ----> cast doubt on current computer models



  15. #215
    One eye sees, the other feels OptiBoard Silver Supporter
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Wauwatosa Wi
    Occupation
    Dispensing Optician
    Posts
    5,456
    Quote Originally Posted by MasterCrafter View Post
    Listen, I will just let the IPCC scientists speak for themselves.
    This is political theatre. Both sides do it, and they're very good at it.

    http://www.factcheck.org/2009/12/climategate/
    http://www.factcheck.org/2010/04/som...e-conclusions/
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10538198
    Science is a way of trying not to fool yourself. - Richard P. Feynman

    Experience is the hardest teacher. She gives the test before the lesson.



  16. #216
    Objection! OptiBoard Gold Supporter shanbaum's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    Manchester, CT USA
    Occupation
    Other Optical Manufacturer or Vendor
    Posts
    2,976
    Yes, Crafter, the opinions of Dr. Spencer, anthropogenic warming skeptic, matter. But his is a minority opinion. The fact that he's also a creationist diminishes the import I impart to his opinions, but I suppose they would elevate them for a creationist. Are you a creationist?

    I will give you some advice on how to investigate an issue, if you want to be taken seriously: it does not consist of trying to find everything that you can find that supports your pre-determined opinion and pasting bits of that into a post. You also have to consider the arguments on the other side. Then try to explain how you arrive at your conclusion. And if you want to have an actual discussion, speak to the points that your partner in discussion makes.

    My point was, for every Dr. Spencer, there are two or more Dr. Sharps.

    If you want to know something about the East Anglia controversy, there is no shortage of actual information that you can study to make an informed decision. Or, you can cut and paste highlights from just one side.

  17. #217
    MasterCrafter OptiBoarder MasterCrafter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    The Lab
    Occupation
    Optical Laboratory Technician
    Posts
    459
    Quote Originally Posted by Robert Martellaro View Post
    While I do agree both sides do it.

    Factcheck.org is not a very reliable source. They are sponsored by a very Liberal group.


    "Kathleen Hall Jamieson, Ph.D. is the Director of the ANNENBERG Public Policy Center at the University of Pennsylvania which is the organization BEHIND the FactCheck.org “truthfulness” website.
    Dr. Jamieson's newest book entitled “Echo Chamber: Rush Limbaugh and the Conservative Media Establishment” is a MAJOR HIT PIECE against the Conservative voices in the media on television, radio, and in print."

    Now if Rush Limbaugh were to have been behind that website would you call that credible?



  18. #218
    MasterCrafter OptiBoarder MasterCrafter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    The Lab
    Occupation
    Optical Laboratory Technician
    Posts
    459
    Quote Originally Posted by shanbaum View Post
    Yes, Crafter, the opinions of Dr. Spencer, anthropogenic warming skeptic, matter. But his is a minority opinion. The fact that he's also a creationist diminishes the import I impart to his opinions, but I suppose they would elevate them for a creationist. Are you a creationist?

    I will give you some advice on how to investigate an issue, if you want to be taken seriously: it does not consist of trying to find everything that you can find that supports your pre-determined opinion and pasting bits of that into a post. You also have to consider the arguments on the other side. Then try to explain how you arrive at your conclusion. And if you want to have an actual discussion, speak to the points that your partner in discussion makes.

    My point was, for every Dr. Spencer, there are two or more Dr. Sharps.

    If you want to know something about the East Anglia controversy, there is no shortage of actual information that you can study to make an informed decision. Or, you can cut and paste highlights from just one side.

    Yes I am a creationist. But in a sense that would take a long time to explain. In short I believe God and science are one in the same. If you go all one way, the pieces do not fit. When you combine God and science it makes more sense. God is science !!

    Besides I need to believe in an after life. Somewhere I will will be able to be reunited with family and friends in the afterlife. Do you believe we just go into nothingness? Never to see your kids or grandkids or parents again?

    Anyways these are the typical answers you get from Global Warming alarmists. People actually buy into these answers. Look at the spin and bias they put into thier answer.

    Source Wiki Answers:
    Several billion has been spent on determining whats causing globalwarming.

    Scientist are paid through grants from the federal government to find out whats causing the warming and if their is an immediate threat. And 98% concluded that global warming is man made and we are in great danger.

    While only several million has been spent (by major oil corporations) to debunk the findings and make people think it's just natural and we shouldn't be alarmed.

    So, most debunker's want you to believe that since the Oil corporations are paying people off, to make up lies, that the government is also paying off their scientist as well to make up the facts, even though the scientist are not being paid by the government to determine if it is man mad or not.

    The federal government has no stake in global warming being true or not true. They will get sponsored regardless. While big oil corporations only care about one thing and one thing only, and that's making a profit.

    Every debunker's argument wants you to think that just because we have cold weather in the winter that global warming is a farce. They don't want you to realize, that it means the winters are gonna be colder. And the summers are gonna be hotter. And the weather (Hurricanes, Torandos, Floods, etc.) is gonna be far worse then usual.

    The Feds have no stake? laughable

    Only the Oil companies want to make a profit? Wow does Al Bore?

    What about all those floods and hurricanes in the past? There is no flood today that rivals some of the biggies from the past. PERIOD

    Besides... copying and pasting is fun. Less Typing



  19. #219
    Objection! OptiBoard Gold Supporter shanbaum's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    Manchester, CT USA
    Occupation
    Other Optical Manufacturer or Vendor
    Posts
    2,976
    Quote Originally Posted by MasterCrafter View Post

    Anyways these are the typical answers you get from Global Warming alarmists. People actually buy into these answers. Look at the spin and bias they put into thier answer.
    I don't know if these "spins" are typical or not. I don't understand what you think the "fed's stake" is; I do think that oil companies (like all companies) are primarily interested in making a profit, and I don't know why you're obsessed with Al Gore. In this context, Al Gore is a journalist, and an advocate for one side of the story.

    The issue of anthropogenesis is distinct from warming. There is little debate about warming that I can see (Judith Curry's objection to Richard Muller's conclusions notwithstanding - I think her complaint has been successfully repudiated). And global warming is likely (according to my understanding of physics) to cause weather to be more extreme, and not simply warmer everywhere. What "biggies" from the past are you talking about? We had an event last fall here in Connecticut that was literally unprecedented in recorded history, but whether any current events are the result of anthropogenic warming is unknown. That says nothing about whether it's anthropogenic or not.

    But in any case, these are not the "answers" I proposed.

  20. #220
    One eye sees, the other feels OptiBoard Silver Supporter
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Wauwatosa Wi
    Occupation
    Dispensing Optician
    Posts
    5,456
    Quote Originally Posted by MasterCrafter View Post
    Now if Rush Limbaugh were to have been behind that website would you call that credible?
    Limbaugh is a radio 'personality'. Facts are usually not very funny, or entertaining. Regardless, not liking the messenger is one thing, not liking the message is another. In matters such as this, you need to rely on the scientific method, instead of searching for politically neutral messengers. Did you read the BBC story?

    "Science is a way of trying not to fool yourself."
    - Richard Feynman
    Science is a way of trying not to fool yourself. - Richard P. Feynman

    Experience is the hardest teacher. She gives the test before the lesson.



  21. #221
    Master OptiBoarder
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    new york
    Occupation
    Optometrist
    Posts
    3,749
    Quote Originally Posted by MasterCrafter View Post
    Who was Climategate investigated by?


    Fjpod -
    hydrogen is the only true green solution. If people want a real solution then we should be investing into this technology. Electric cars are not an effective green solution. Instead of sinking billions into EV's at least throw that money at something that truely causes no pollution.
    Hydrogen IS an option, but it has issues also, which have caused it to falter, although I'm sure you think it is a liberal plot. The most sensible way to produce it uses large quantities of natural gas, which we have enough of at the moment, but it is certainly not going to last forever. Just because hydrogen is ubiquitous in the atmosphere doesn't make it available for use as a fuel.

    Additionally, there is no infrastructure to distribute hydrogen as a fuel. At least with electricity, everyone has it in their home and could charge overnight when electricity is plentiful and cheap. For the foreseeable future, it is foolish to think we are going to install hydrogen or even electric filling stations. Battery technology is here today. Hydrogen is welcome to compete, but frankly it is just not ready for prime time. It will improve. Everything is subject to Moore's Law (not Michael Moore, BTW, lest you freak out that I'm talking liberal jibberish).

    Look, I like the idea of alternative fuels as ONE measure we can take to reduce our dependency on foreign oil. A little more drilling, a little more on the gasoline tax can help us get there. A little conservation instead of bragging about how big our peni....errrr...SUVs are would also be helpful. But, you have to believe we have a problem first, that needs to be solved. OTW, we'll just have to agree to disagree.

    Back to the original point of the thread...those that have actual experience with hybrids...what do you think of them?

  22. #222
    MasterCrafter OptiBoarder MasterCrafter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    The Lab
    Occupation
    Optical Laboratory Technician
    Posts
    459
    Quote Originally Posted by Robert Martellaro View Post
    Limbaugh is a radio 'personality'. Facts are usually not very funny, or entertaining. Regardless, not liking the messenger is one thing, not liking the message is another. In matters such as this, you need to rely on the scientific method, instead of searching for politically neutral messengers. Did you read the BBC story?

    "Science is a way of trying not to fool yourself."
    - Richard Feynman
    Yes I did read it.

    But what scientist think they know as fact today.. can change over and over in the next few years.

    Take Dinosaurs for instance. What we learned about them in school back in the day was taught as fact. No questions about it. Now days everything we thought we knew about them is different.

    These climate scientists use "computer models" of what they think should happen. They input thier numbers in to come up with the answers they want to hear. If the numbers do not add up. They change the numbers to get the results they want.

    This same climate panel said the himalayan glaciers were going to melt by 2035.

    But they have grown in size and that same scientist now regrets he said it. He is an ALARMIST



  23. #223
    MasterCrafter OptiBoarder MasterCrafter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    The Lab
    Occupation
    Optical Laboratory Technician
    Posts
    459
    Quote Originally Posted by shanbaum View Post
    I don't know if these "spins" are typical or not. I don't understand what you think the "fed's stake" is; I do think that oil companies (like all companies) are primarily interested in making a profit, and I don't know why you're obsessed with Al Gore. In this context, Al Gore is a journalist, and an advocate for one side of the story.

    The issue of anthropogenesis is distinct from warming. There is little debate about warming that I can see (Judith Curry's objection to Richard Muller's conclusions notwithstanding - I think her complaint has been successfully repudiated). And global warming is likely (according to my understanding of physics) to cause weather to be more extreme, and not simply warmer everywhere. What "biggies" from the past are you talking about? We had an event last fall here in Connecticut that was literally unprecedented in recorded history, but whether any current events are the result of anthropogenic warming is unknown. That says nothing about whether it's anthropogenic or not.

    But in any case, these are not the "answers" I proposed.
    Well one of the "biggies" was the mississippi flood of 1927. This is one example.

    What was going on in 1927 to cause this?

    Another one is the Great Dust Bowl of the 1930's. That drought caused havoc for years.

    Were these caused by man made global warming?

    I think not. It's called MOTHER NATURE!!



  24. #224
    Ophthalmic Optician
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    USSA
    Occupation
    Dispensing Optician
    Posts
    12,591
    Quote Originally Posted by fjpod View Post
    Can anyone relate their experience wih hybrids?
    ...
    Ophthalmic Optician, Society to Advance Opticianry

  25. #225
    Compulsive Truthteller OptiBoard Gold Supporter Uncle Fester's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    At a position without dimension...
    Occupation
    Dispensing Optician
    Posts
    5,291
    Quote Originally Posted by Johns View Post
    ...
    Fer cry'n out loud were on page 9!

    How about that Obamacare?

    (sorry doc)

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Rimless disaster
    By idoctor in forum General Optics and Eyecare Discussion Forum
    Replies: 41
    Last Post: 06-24-2006, 03:28 AM
  2. Health Hazards in Optical
    By Jubilee in forum General Optics and Eyecare Discussion Forum
    Replies: 38
    Last Post: 07-16-2005, 07:09 PM
  3. Oprah gives the poor people a reality check.
    By mrba in forum Just Conversation
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 09-28-2004, 12:30 PM
  4. Cars vs. Computers
    By Joann Raytar in forum Just Conversation
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 03-25-2002, 06:27 PM
  5. Air bags in cars
    By Di822 in forum General Optics and Eyecare Discussion Forum
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 04-26-2001, 03:36 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •