# Climatologist Dr. Michael Mann completely vindicated...again. **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [August 23, 2011, 12:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climatologist-dr-michael-mann-completely-vindicated-again/593724 "2011-08-23T00:17:11Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 20
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2011, 4:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climatologist-dr-michael-mann-completely-vindicated-again/593724/381 "2011-09-06T04:10:32Z")
> [@Abe](#): > > Yes, one can post cites and argue different points that converge on a wider thesis, that is in fact, perhaps unsurprisingly, called debating. What you have been doing - and particularly what you’ve done the last few posts - isn’t. And one can deal with the problems of the day in a rational manner. > [@Abe](#): > > I have addressed a number of the subjects on which you threw the weight of your opinion around. From the demonization of the Volt as “failure” of the green industry It’s a failure of GM. GM is not “the green industry”. It’s a car company. I’m demonizing yet another failure of a company that made so many bad decisions it went bankrupt. I’ve repeatedly said it was a failure of GM but you can’t hear that because you can’t get beyond your incessantly pointless cites that ignore the larger picture. It bothers your sense of religion to hear any blasphemous renderings to virtually anything green. The car is a waste of space because nobody is buying it. > [@Abe](#): > > … to the dangerous claim that there is no climate emergency. It’s dangerous to piss away assets we don’t have. ---
**Author:** ![Abe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/f1d935/32.png) [@Abe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Abe)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2011, 6:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climatologist-dr-michael-mann-completely-vindicated-again/593724/382 "2011-09-06T06:38:24Z")
> [@brazil84](#): > > A cite for exactly what claim? > > I have no idea what your point is here. This: > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > Seems to me that if you have a model which makes predictions no better than chance expectation, then it’s reasonable to say that the model is “wrong.” > > It is not reasonable, since climate predictions are hardly “no better than chance expectations”. I’d like to see a cite supporting this claim about random results. You claimed it, I asked for support. ---
**Author:** ![Abe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/f1d935/32.png) [@Abe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Abe)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2011, 6:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climatologist-dr-michael-mann-completely-vindicated-again/593724/383 "2011-09-06T06:59:51Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > And one can deal with the problems of the day in a rational manner. > > It’s a failure of GM. GM is not “the green industry”. It’s a car company. I’m demonizing yet another failure of a company that made so many bad decisions it went bankrupt. I’ve repeatedly said it was a failure of GM but you can’t hear that because you can’t get beyond your incessantly pointless cites that ignore the larger picture. It bothers your sense of religion to hear any blasphemous renderings to virtually anything green. The car is a waste of space because nobody is buying it. > > It’s dangerous to piss away assets we don’t have. This post attempts to leapfrog all the arguments and citations already levelled at these arguments and that you have not tried to address. I’m not taking that bait. Regarding your point about the Volt, you can excuse readers for misinterpreting your intent when you brought it up with such comments: > [@](#): > > sigh… fucking the economy in the ass is the wrong way to advance technologies. It takes money out of circulation to buy technology that isn’t ready. The Volt is a perfect example. It’s a waste of production facilities to produce a car that nobody will buy. Even on subsequent visits, a lot of your comments still read like an attempt to indict current renewables initiatives based on a very few specific examples, one of them the Volt. If I am wrong, I apologize in advance for misreading. My objections to your claims, however (including your premature judgement of the Volt), still stand. ---
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2011, 7:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climatologist-dr-michael-mann-completely-vindicated-again/593724/384 "2011-09-06T07:23:50Z")
> [@Abe](#): > > You claimed it, I asked for support. Ok, so we are assuming for the sake of argument that the predictions made by your climate models are just as accurate as random guessing, just like the predictions made by astrological models. Agreed? ---
**Author:** ![Abe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/f1d935/32.png) [@Abe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Abe)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2011, 8:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climatologist-dr-michael-mann-completely-vindicated-again/593724/385 "2011-09-06T08:19:26Z")
> [@brazil84](#): > > Ok, so we are assuming for the sake of argument that the predictions made by your climate models are just as accurate as random guessing, just like the predictions made by astrological models. Agreed? No, and I won’t even ask what kind of reasoning leads to this bizarre conclusion. All I’d like is (per my original request) to see support for your extraordinary claim that climate science produces results that are no better than chance. ---
**Author:** ![phaemon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/977dab/32.png) [@phaemon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/phaemon)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2011, 9:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climatologist-dr-michael-mann-completely-vindicated-again/593724/386 "2011-09-06T09:11:29Z")
> [@brazil84](#): > > The controversial issue is not whether CO2 is likely to cause warming. The central issue is whether any such warming would be amplified by water vapor feedback. I realise this is the central issue for you, however **Waldo** is talking about a cooling trend, so clearly it’s not the central issue for him. ---
**Author:** ![phaemon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/977dab/32.png) [@phaemon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/phaemon)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2011, 9:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climatologist-dr-michael-mann-completely-vindicated-again/593724/387 "2011-09-06T09:25:47Z")
> [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > Well, the part where the globe is warming, for a start; Ok, now I’m confused. So you say: [ul] [li]Yes, CO2 levels are increasing[/li][li]Yes, additional CO2 traps additional energy[/li][li]Yes, additional energy makes things warmer[/li][li]Except the Earth, of course, which isn’t warming[/li][/ul] Is there any particular reason the Earth wouldn’t get warmer? Some mechanism where the extra energy gets disposed of? I realise I must have misstated your argument, because it makes no sense as written. Can you fix the line which is incorrect? > [@](#): > > I’d like to know exactly what amount X of “warming” is predicted over Y number of years, such that anything less would prove the prediction false. But there’s no reason why getting specifics wrong would prove the general theory wrong. If I say my kettle will boil in 1 minute, and it actually takes 3 minutes to boil, that doesn’t prove that the element isn’t heating at all, or that water doesn’t heat when in contact with hot metal. Or that water _never_ boils! And it also doesn’t prove it wrong if I measure one minute in and see the water is significantly warmer but not yet boiling. That’s a good time to refine my estimate, not abandon my theory! ---
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2011, 10:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climatologist-dr-michael-mann-completely-vindicated-again/593724/388 "2011-09-06T10:37:32Z")
> [@Abe](#): > > No, and I won’t even ask what kind of reasoning leads to this bizarre conclusion. Suit yourself. > [@](#): > > All I’d like is (per my original request) to see support for your extraordinary claim that climate science produces results that are no better than chance. Umm, that’s not the claim I made. The sentence you quoted was conditional. Reading is fundamental. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2011, 2:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climatologist-dr-michael-mann-completely-vindicated-again/593724/389 "2011-09-07T02:01:24Z")
> [@Abe](#): > > Even on subsequent visits, a lot of your comments still read like an attempt to indict current renewables initiatives based on a very few specific examples, one of them the Volt. If I am wrong, I apologize in advance for misreading. My objections to your claims, however (including your premature judgement of the Volt), still stand. I was quite specific about what I criticized. I picked on the Volt because it is being publicly funded multiple times. If Ford built it then there wouldn’t be much to say but GM and Chrysler were bailed out with public funds. Chrysler recognized that hybrids were money losers and dropped them for the time being. I expected more from the Fiat variable electro/hydraulic valve technology but that’s another thread. Ford on the other hand didn’t go bankrupt and is free to do as they choose. They make one of the few hybrids that pays for itself and that’s the Escape. And they’re selling their Lincoln hybrid luxury car for the same price as the non-hybrid version. Good on them for eating the difference and for staying out of bankruptcy. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/the_other_waldo_pepper/32/12370_2.png) [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Other_Waldo_Pepper)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2011, 10:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climatologist-dr-michael-mann-completely-vindicated-again/593724/390 "2011-09-07T10:05:10Z")
> [@phaemon](#): > > Ok, now I’m confused. So you say: > [ul] > [li]Yes, CO2 levels are increasing[/li][li]Yes, additional CO2 traps additional energy[/li][li]Yes, additional energy makes things warmer[/li][li]Except the Earth, of course, which isn’t warming[/li][/ul] > > Is there any particular reason the Earth wouldn’t get warmer? No, there isn’t. And so if the Earth doesn’t get warmer, then what would that tell us? > [@](#): > > But there’s no reason why getting specifics wrong would prove the general theory wrong. If I say my kettle will boil in 1 minute, and it actually takes 3 minutes to boil, that doesn’t prove that the element isn’t heating at all, or that water doesn’t heat when in contact with hot metal. Or that water _never_ boils! And it also doesn’t prove it wrong if I measure one minute in and see the water is significantly warmer but not yet boiling. That’s a good time to refine my estimate, not abandon my theory! That’s a fine analogy for _‘getting significantly warmer, but three times slower than you’d expect’_. Over in the BBQ thread this spawned, GIGO has now spelled out that his claims wouldn’t be falsified even if the temperature _ **doesn’t** _ get significantly warmer; further, his claims wouldn’t be falsified even if the temperature gets _ **cooler** _ in the next decade – and cooler in the decade after that, and cooler in the decade after that, and cooler in the decade after that, and cooler in the decade after that – before, say, leveling off in that lowered plateau for centuries. What’s the analogous kettle analogy there? ---
**Author:** ![phaemon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/977dab/32.png) [@phaemon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/phaemon)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2011, 10:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climatologist-dr-michael-mann-completely-vindicated-again/593724/391 "2011-09-07T10:44:42Z")
> [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > No, there isn’t. And so if the Earth doesn’t get warmer, then what would that tell us? Well, I’m not sure…presumably that we’d missed something, but it’s difficult to see what…to move to the kettle analogy: It’s like we’ve checked the socket is providing power, that the fuse is OK, that in fact the element is getting hot, but the water doesn’t! Well, what _does_ that mean? We’ve even double-checked that it’s actually water in the kettle! When you run out of things to check, what’s left? If you get a phenomenon that defies the basic laws of physics, then you’re pretty much stuck. Maybe go to church more regularly? I’ve no idea what scientific answer would satisfy you. What would _you_ say was the answer? ---
**Author:** ![The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/the_other_waldo_pepper/32/12370_2.png) [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Other_Waldo_Pepper)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2011, 4:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climatologist-dr-michael-mann-completely-vindicated-again/593724/392 "2011-09-07T16:05:37Z")
> [@phaemon](#): > > It’s like we’ve checked the socket is providing power, that the fuse is OK, that in fact the element is getting hot, but the water doesn’t! Well, what _does_ that mean? We’ve even double-checked that it’s actually water in the kettle! When you run out of things to check, what’s left? I’m not sure. But if that hypothetical result wouldn’t falsify the predicted amount of “warming” – but would, instead, merely _ **describe** _ the predicted “warming” – then what, exactly, is being predicted? I don’t recall ever hearing experts (a) opine panickedly that we need to act now to stop the predicted warming, and then (b) go on to spell out that by “predicted warming” they of course mean “the temperature may well spend decades going down, followed by centuries of not actually getting any warmer”. > [@](#): > > If you get a phenomenon that defies the basic laws of physics, then you’re pretty much stuck. Maybe go to church more regularly? I’ve no idea what scientific answer would satisfy you. What would _you_ say was the answer? Beats me. I’m merely asking those who claim warming is coming to spell out just how much warming they predict; if we instead get significantly less warming, or _ **no** _ warming, or plenty of cooling, then I’d simply ask for their revised answer; I’m not a scientist, I’m just a guy who asks scientists making predictions to make falsifiable ones. ---
**Author:** ![HookerChemical](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/278dde/32.png) [@HookerChemical](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HookerChemical)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2011, 4:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climatologist-dr-michael-mann-completely-vindicated-again/593724/393 "2011-09-07T16:55:45Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > The Volt is nothing but a Prius with batteries and there is already an established market of hybrids that they failed miserably at with the Malibu. On top of that they want to void pre-bankruptcy warranties which is leaving a bad taste in peoples mouths. This is the kind of crap that makes me hate these threads. This statement is so full of misinformation, I can’t let it go. I realize it’s not a material part of the debate, but it’s such a shining example of the garbage information spouted by **Magiver** and others I can’t let it go. This kind if information is so easily refuted with the top three Google results, it’s insulting. First, the Volt is not a “Prius with batteries.” The Prius [has batteries](http://www.toyotapriusbattery.com/), despite your implication that it does not. Second, the Volt’s major difference is that the engine is a series hybrid rather than a parallel hybrid, like the Prius. In a series hybrid, the engine functions as a generator generator and doesn’t directly drive the wheels directly, but it powers an electrical engine. Third, the Volt is a plug-in hybrid, the Prius is not. Fourth, the only car I found that GM has only sought to void the pre-bankruptcy warranty on is the Impala. I agree that that’s a load of crap, but it has nothing to do with the Volt. The production version of Volt was available in December 2010. GM emerged from bankruptcy in July 2009. The Volt is not impacted by the bankruptcy and warranty issue. This kind of garbage is flat out wrong and irrelevant. It’s like saying that global warming doesn’t exist because bananas are blue. ---
**Author:** ![phaemon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/977dab/32.png) [@phaemon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/phaemon)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2011, 11:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climatologist-dr-michael-mann-completely-vindicated-again/593724/394 "2011-09-08T11:59:01Z")
**The Other Waldo Pepper** : Well, I’ve given my opinion: 10 years significantly cooler than the previous 10. The reason to “act now” is precisely because we’re not absolutely sure what will happen, so we should stop tampering with the atmosphere. (yes, I know there are some who predict that implementing more modern, efficient and robust forms of energy generation will cause economic collapse and the downfall of civilisation, but I’m not _entirely_ convinced that’s true…) ---
**Author:** ![The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/the_other_waldo_pepper/32/12370_2.png) [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Other_Waldo_Pepper)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2011, 1:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climatologist-dr-michael-mann-completely-vindicated-again/593724/395 "2011-09-08T13:38:18Z")
> [@phaemon](#): > > **The Other Waldo Pepper** : Well, I’ve given my opinion: 10 years significantly cooler than the previous 10. I’m fine with that (er, provided you spell out what “significantly” means). I wouldn’t be surprised if everyone offering up such predictions had a different falsification criterion. I merely ask what those criteria _ **are,** _ is all. ---
**Author:** ![phaemon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/977dab/32.png) [@phaemon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/phaemon)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2011, 1:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climatologist-dr-michael-mann-completely-vindicated-again/593724/396 "2011-09-08T13:52:22Z")
Actually, why quibble: 10 years cooler than the previous 10 whether significant or not (so technically I’ve included plateau-ing for 20 years, but that’s OK). ---
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2011, 3:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climatologist-dr-michael-mann-completely-vindicated-again/593724/397 "2011-09-08T15:13:13Z")
> [@phaemon](#): > > Well, I’m not sure…presumably that we’d missed something, but it’s difficult to see what…to move to the kettle analogy: > > It’s like we’ve checked the socket is providing power, that the fuse is OK, that in fact the element is getting hot, but the water doesn’t! Well, what _does_ that mean? We’ve even double-checked that it’s actually water in the kettle! When you run out of things to check, what’s left? > > If you get a phenomenon that defies the basic laws of physics, then you’re pretty much stuck. Maybe go to church more regularly? I’ve no idea what scientific answer would satisfy you. What would _you_ say was the answer? It would hardly come as a surprise if the climate cooled. Clearly there are important forces at work which are not well understood. Complex systems often do things which are very different from what one would expect by assuming they are simple. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2011, 9:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climatologist-dr-michael-mann-completely-vindicated-again/593724/398 "2011-09-08T21:45:18Z")
> [@HookerChemical](#): > > This is the kind of crap that makes me hate these threads. This statement is so full of misinformation, I can’t let it go. I realize it’s not a material part of the debate, but it’s such a shining example of the garbage information spouted by **Magiver** and others I can’t let it go. This kind if information is so easily refuted with the top three Google results, it’s insulting. > > First, the Volt is not a “Prius with batteries.” The Prius [has batteries](http://www.toyotapriusbattery.com/), despite your implication that it does not. :rolleyes: Oh for pete’s sake… Firstly, we all know the Prius has batteries. It’s been out for over a decade. It was a truncated statement that you should have been able to figure out. The Volt is a Prius with batteries as in: the Volt is based on the same 2 electric motor, ice engine, planetary gear transmission platform with additional batteries for extended range. The motors/ice engine are configured differently than the Prius to better optimize the extended range function. > [@HookerChemical](#): > > Second, the Volt’s major difference is that the engine is a series hybrid rather than a parallel hybrid, like the Prius. In a series hybrid, the engine functions as a generator generator and doesn’t directly drive the wheels directly, but it powers an electrical engine. Secondly, You’re flat out wrong. The Volt is not a series hybrid. The engine is connected to the transmission in [extended range mode](http://gm-volt.com/2010/10/11/motor-trend-explains-the-volts-powertrain/) in conjunction with one of the electric motors. When the batteries run down or the car runs at 70 mph it runs like a Prius. It’s an extended range hybrid. This has been discussed at length in other threads. > [@HookerChemical](#): > > Third, the Volt is a plug-in hybrid, the Prius is not. Third, duh. > [@HookerChemical](#): > > Fourth, the only car I found that GM has only sought to void the pre-bankruptcy warranty on is the Impala. I agree that that’s a load of crap, but it has nothing to do with the Volt. The production version of Volt was available in December 2010. GM emerged from bankruptcy in July 2009. The Volt is not impacted by the bankruptcy and warranty issue. Fourth, The warranty issue has everything to do with how people perceive the car company and it affects purchase decisions. The Volt should not be built because it does not generate money and this company just got out of bankruptcy. I don’t know how many times I’ve said that. It absolutely affects GM’s bottom line. > [@HookerChemical](#): > > This kind of garbage is flat out wrong and irrelevant. It’s like saying that global warming doesn’t exist because bananas are blue. Next time you want to lecture someone perhaps you could spend a little extra time getting your facts straight first and then address what was said. GM is a car company. They’re job is to make money building cars. They just came out of bankruptcy and the Volt was an amazingly bad choice to make in light of their financial situation. ---
**Author:** ![HookerChemical](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/278dde/32.png) [@HookerChemical](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HookerChemical)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2011, 12:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climatologist-dr-michael-mann-completely-vindicated-again/593724/399 "2011-09-09T00:50:37Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > :rolleyes: Oh for pete’s sake… Firstly, we all know the Prius has batteries. It’s been out for over a decade. It was a truncated statement that you should have been able to figure out. The Volt is a Prius with batteries as in: the Volt is based on the same 2 electric motor, ice engine, planetary gear transmission platform with additional batteries for extended range. The motors/ice engine are configured differently than the Prius to better optimize the extended range function. From the post I took issue with: > [@](#): > > The Volt is nothing but a Prius with batteries So an apple is nothing but an orange with seeds. You’re saying two different things are the same except for a feature they have in common. > [@](#): > > Secondly, You’re flat out wrong. The Volt is not a series hybrid. The engine is connected to the transmission in [extended range mode](http://gm-volt.com/2010/10/11/motor-trend-explains-the-volts-powertrain/) in conjunction with one of the electric motors. When the batteries run down or the car runs at 70 mph it runs like a Prius. It’s an extended range hybrid. This has been discussed at length in other threads. It’s a [series](http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/17/automobiles/17VOLT.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=Chevy%20Volt&st=cse) [powertrain](http://spectrum.ieee.org/green-tech/advanced-cars/lithium-batteries-for-hybrid-cars). It can function in parallel, but it’s primarily a series system. Looking at the other thread (late 2010), I don’t see a lot of agreement with your position. You had taken a position against it before the Volt was even available to the public. > [@](#): > > Third, duh. The ability to plug-in is one of the major draws. If you’re going to overlook that feature, you may as well say the Prius is the same as a Mustang because they both use gasoline. > [@](#): > > Fourth, The warranty issue has everything to do with how people perceive the car company and it affects purchase decisions. Your post implied that the warranty issue was related to the Volt. If you’re discussing the Volt then bring up warranties, it’s certainly assumed that you’re talking about the warranty on the Volt. If you’re talking about GM being out to weasel out of an obligation, that’s one thing, but it’s completely irrelevant to the discussion of greenhouse gas. It has no bearing on Volt emissions or the success of the Volt. It’s simply there to tar GM and therefore the Volt. I stand by my assertion that you managed to cram a ton of misinformation and misdirection into two sentences. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2011, 1:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climatologist-dr-michael-mann-completely-vindicated-again/593724/400 "2011-09-09T01:56:03Z")
> [@HookerChemical](#): > > From the post I took issue with: > > So an apple is nothing but an orange with seeds. Wow, you really are not very good at analogies. The Volt uses the same hybrid set up as a Prius unlike the setup Honda uses. Toyota could add more batteries and do the same thing but they chose not too. What don’t you understand about that? It actually gets poorer gas mileage than the Prius when in extended range mode. > [@HookerChemical](#): > > You’re saying two different things are the same except for a feature they have in common. > > It’s a [series](http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/17/automobiles/17VOLT.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=Chevy%20Volt&st=cse) [powertrain](http://spectrum.ieee.org/green-tech/advanced-cars/lithium-batteries-for-hybrid-cars). It can function in parallel, but it’s primarily a series system. Looking at the other thread (late 2010), I don’t see a lot of agreement with your position. You had taken a position against it before the Volt was even available to the public. I took the position because it was a guaranteed money loser for GM which just came out of bankruptcy. What is so hard to grasp about this? Seriously? Are you challenged in some way that you can’t grasp I have a problem with this specific car or is it your lot in life to defend all green products as a matter of principle? I predicted it wouldn’t sell well and it didn’t. The only way they can ramp up production is if their political bedfellow GE buys the numbers they said they would. > [@HookerChemical](#): > > The ability to plug-in is one of the major draws. If you’re going to overlook that feature, you may as well say the Prius is the same as a Mustang because they both use gasoline. Why yes, the thrill of plugging the car in for hrs at a time to be useful is driving people in droves to the dealer. Quite the selling point. Just ignore the fact that for all practical purposes it has to be garaged and it’s 40-50 mile range goes out the window in colder weather. If it’s driven anywhere in the cold (such as to work) then the car will be forced to heat the batteries to keep from ruining them. > [@HookerChemical](#): > > Your post implied that the warranty issue was related to the Volt. If you’re discussing the Volt then bring up warranties, it’s certainly assumed that you’re talking about the warranty on the Volt. If you’re talking about GM being out to weasel out of an obligation, that’s one thing, but it’s completely irrelevant to the discussion of greenhouse gas. It has no bearing on Volt emissions or the success of the Volt. It’s simply there to tar GM and therefore the Volt. > > I stand by my assertion that you managed to cram a ton of misinformation and misdirection into two sentences. I implied nothing and have stated my position numerous times. It’s NOT a serial hybrid as you suggest. It is clearly an extended range hybrid. Why you would argue the point makes no sense. It’s a money losing venture from a company that has a responsibility to it’s stockholders to make a profit. That’s it’s function, to make a profit. If they can do so from selling fuel efficient cars then more power to them. The car is a environmental waste of time because nobody wants it. It’s a failure on many levels and I’ve discussed this in length before. GM could have fielded another economy car or a hybrid that actually worked unlike the Malibu Hybrid which they had to withdraw. Hell, they could have rebadged the Saturn Sky with the Cruze engine and put another fuel efficient car on the road that people would actually buy. It was an extremely poor business decision. If Ford wants to lose money on a flagship car like the Volt then they can answer to their stockholders but at least it’s a financially viable company that wasn’t just bailed out at public expense. They have taken a much more practical approach in their production of fuel efficient cars and people are buying them. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climatologist-dr-michael-mann-completely-vindicated-again/593724.md?page=19) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climatologist-dr-michael-mann-completely-vindicated-again/593724.md?page=21)