Useless retort when one considers what I typed.
It’s basic math. Saying your “for” something isn’t a strategic goal. It’s good intentions. Good intentions are… good. But they’re not a strategic goal. They’re the pavement on the road to financial hell.
If the goal is to reduce global warming then it has to be based on the best return for the money spent. Otherwise we’re losing ground. I pick on the Volt because there was no realistic projected return on investment (financial or co2 reduction). It’s the poster child of waste.
Really silly when you are dealing with a niche item. And as I’m taking all the electric cards and hybrids in the picture yours is still and attempt at straw manning what I say.
Nah, it is clear that you did pick it because it was from a car company that was bailed out, incidentally you are going to a lot of pain for so little, what I have said here does imply that items like the Volt are useful to check what works and not and limited “mistakes” offer lessons to what to do next, as the guy from TED that talked about the God complex:
the money spent is not niche money. It’s gone just like the money poured into Solyndra. It was dead on arrival. It’s not a mistake when the business model is a predicted failure. The same thing for Tesla. Tax money for luxury cars that nobody will buy.
GM pissed away an entire manufacturing plant. It wasn’t a one-time mistake, it’s still ongoing. It represents a real loss in production of a car that could make a difference.
For someone who continuously talks about the serious nature of global warming you completely ignore waste and lost opportunity. Efficiency in energy use starts with efficient use of money toward that goal.
Again, not accurate as they continue to sell it in the niche they have. So again, you only look ridiculous when you claim that nobody is buying.
And doubly ridiculous because you are still attempting to pigeon-hole me when I was referring to battery technology and I do take then all efforts into account. That some are willing to put their money in a Volt is interesting, but not very important for the big picture.
There is just so much disinformation, wrong information, and good old fashioned fear mongering associated with “global warming” or “climate change”, it’s become a joke of sorts.
The letter, published in Nature is an example of just how bad “science” has become. Instead of a scientific study on plant nutrition, growth rates and water use of common food crops, in an atmosphere with higher CO2 levels, the only message we hear is “Increasing CO2 threatens human nutrition!”.
Which we see here translated into “The disastrous consequences of rapid climate change”. A study on crops grown with increased CO2 is turned into “The disastrous consequences of rapid climate change”.
There are just so many problems, so much ignorance in this short example.
The most obvious is that a higher level of CO2, the one factor the studies were supposed to be comparing, isn’t climate change. It’s a change in the atmospheric amount of a trace gas, which happens to be an essential nutrient for all plants. The studies were not about climate at all.
More importantly, “The researchers were surprised to find that zinc and iron varied substantially across cultivars of rice.”
I looked at the data, and what no popular press story is telling the world, is that several of the test areas showed an increase in zinc and iron, as well as some crops showing an increase in protein.
But of course they averaged them all together, and tell only the story that CO2 threatens the food supply. That’s the linguistic hand grenade lobbed into a conversation, so frightened people can yell even louder about “The disastrous consequences of rapid climate change”, while ignoring the much more important parts of a discussion.
A complete and detailed discussion would include all kinds of facts and data that don’t give a sense of danger and urgency. But unlike the short fear filled conversation (like I quoted above), in the real world some people are more interested in solving problems than trying to convince everyone they will only get much worse.
For example, increasing the zinc in rice. If two billion people are short on zinc, as the nature fear story says, then that is actually the problem to be solved now.
But back to the brain addled fear mongering. The story started back in 2002 when Loladze thought the extra growth from enriched CO2 was diluting the nutrients. Because he was basing this on greenhouse experiments, using pots, the outdoor CO2 enriched crop experiments started. Lieffering et al. 2004 notes that rice showed a 14% increase in productivity (you won’t hear that in NATURE of course) as well as that with sufficient soil nutrients, enriched CO2 rice showed no sign of dilution of nutrients. Okada et al., 2001, Kim et al., 2003
But come on, who are we kidding. Facts won’t make any difference when the conclusion is already reached. Global warming/climate change is going to be real bad, and we have to act now. That’s the real goal of research, not to enrich the food supply, or increase production. Not to stop zinc deficiency, or increase iron in poor people’s diets.
That’s why there might be a dozen topics about global warming, but never a one about making rice better.
Ah, irony.
:smack: nobody is buying this car. It is a huge manufacturing plant dedicated to failure. And yet you ignore the obvious. You’re actually defending a waste of money. It’s the tax funded poster child of what’s wrong this war on warming. It’s not the car, it’s the Solyndra, it’s the lack of support for diesels, It’s a thousand other bits of stupid that add up to billions of dollars of failed effort toward a common goal.
I don’t recall you ever taking in to account the natural progression of technology and trends. It’s been one long post-a-cite of impending doom. You just don’t get it. There are easy solutions sitting on the curb because politicians can’t make a decision that doesn’t involve giving their cronies millions of dollars.
Again, not my problem that your statements are sounding more ridiculous, complain to the dictionary people if you have a beef on what “nobody” means.
Nah, anybody else can get it, as I pointed before you are relying on a caricature of an environmentalist when I’m not like that, hence the ridiculousness of your attempts at pigeon-hole others.
Like the fossil fuel companies, yes.
Or would, if the HoR would let them. :rolleyes:
The bill passed today and is now on its way to the Senate.
Virtually all Republicans miss the point of King Canute.*
And no, King Canute was not the loopy one, the King (or to be more precise, the point of the legend) actually made his sea stunt to teach a lesson to his subjects that they were really demanding the impossible and the reckless. Sadly that kind of leadership is missing here, the Republicans are only happy to not make waves and tell their [del]subjects[/del] represented citizens that on this issue most of them they are dead wrong.
From A Child’s History of England, by Charles Dickens:
I see that the members of the House Science Committee are not just obviously accomplished scientists, but they are also true patriots concerned with a strong military to protect national security. Because as everyone knows, the Pentagon is composed almost exclusively of tree-hugging environmentalist hippies and they must be stopped! 
Now 17 years since the US rejected the Kyoto Protocol, and still nothing changes. Can anything change in the US, and for the world, while the politial class continues to be funded by vested interests?
That’s not quite true. A lot more CO2 has been released since then, and the global mean temperature has … OK it hasn’t changed.
I think you are right. Nothing has changed.
As usual, this is wrong.
Would it be possible, I wonder, to built a giant radiator-fin at the equator, that protrudes beyond the atmosphere, and bleed off the Earth’s excess heat that way?
Probably not until a space elevator is also possible . . .
Of course it’s wrong. Everything I’ve ever seen him post on this subject has been wrong. I don’t know why you even bother responding.
Incidentally, I was just reading this new article:
Athabasca Glacier could disappear within generation
That article in turn has some good links to related news, in case anyone missed it:
Unprecedented B.C. glacier melt seeps into U.S. climate change concerns
Huge Antarctic ice sheet collapsing
Greenland glacier melting 5 times faster than in 1990s
Warmer climate adding to extreme weather woes, expert says
Glacier time-lapse images reveal ‘epochal change’
And the heat from volcanoes underwater goes where?