Duhhhh… Dat Der Global Warmin Umm Hmm

Posted originally at: Webs05.com

How are people who deny global warming still taken seriously?  I mean come on, really.  How much proof and science do you need before all the nutjobs finally give in. 

But what I really find interesting is that evangelical churches around the country are stepping up and telling everyone that we need to do something about this crisis.  Sorry I cannot find the link to the PBS program that detailed this extensively, but I am still searching.  Why is this?  Because they actually sat down skimmed through the bible and found that there is actually nothing in the bible that says anything to the sort of, “Thou shalt not take care of the planet that gave you life!”

… Well maybe not (we all know devote Christians don’t read or care what is in the Bible, they just believe wink … just kidding), but some actually realized that you don’t have to give up all science and reason just because you choose to have faith.  If any fundi’s are reading, stop for a minute and read carefully right here:
God built this planet so your species and many others have a place to live right?  What gives you the right to trash it?  Or better yet, why do you think God is ok with you trashing it?  If God built it for you than this planet is still his right?  Would you trash your mother’s home just because she let you live in it?

Hearing people give excuses to global warming reminds me of watching the Illinois State University students trash various parts of the campus.  I still have to push in chairs for the College of Business students in the computer lab.  It’s like they come to college expecting everyone to wipe their ass.  Maybe that’s it, maybe the Evangelicals think God is going to wipe their ass for them, so they don’t need to save the planet…

Washington Post Article Found via Groovy Green (link for Groovy Green is below):

That means that “An Inconvenient Truth” may be shown only with the written permission of a principal—and only when it is balanced by alternative views that are approved by both a principal and the superintendent of schools.

Hardison was pleased.

“I am happy they are giving the kids as much information as possible,” he said.

Is this dipshit on crack?  WTF is he thinking?  When you take away information from the kids how the hell are you giving them more.

Here is the shinning star of this dipshit though (found via Groovy Green):

“No you will not teach or show that propagandist Al Gore video to my child, blaming our nation — the greatest nation ever to exist on this planet — for global warming,” Hardiman wrote in an e-mail to the Federal Way School Board. The 43-year-old computer consultant is an evangelical Christian who says he believes that a warming planet is “one of the signs” of Jesus Christ’s imminent return for Judgment Day.”

What a genius this guy is!  Yes, our destruction of a planet that is also causing global warming is in fact the coming of Jesus Christ.  Someone who’s existence has yet to be proven.  Just as Colbert once said, “We all know reality has a well known liberal bias…”

71 thoughts on “Duhhhh… Dat Der Global Warmin Umm Hmm

  1. Les: but some actually realized that you don’t have to give up all science and reason just because you choose to have faith

    Exactly, a religous theory has to work around what we know, otherwise it would be like believing:

    The bible says the earth is flat!

    Just because living people thousands of years ago who didn’t have the instrumentation or know-how to see otherwise made a human-created theory to interpret NDE’s and the like from their perspective

    Maybe that’s it, maybe the Evangelicals think God is going to wipe their ass for them, so they don’t need to save the planet…

    Funny you should say, notice how everything they want to do is OK in their eyes, I have yet to see a xian with morals such that they consider themselves to be in the wrong. Some may be fundies because they see blind faith as a licence to be an asshat, much like those who base their morals on the law, and consider whatever’s allowed to be acceptable.

    When you take away information from the kids how the hell are you giving them more.

    LOL , you can’t have the true faith if you have reason, and that means having as little understanding and alternative views as possible, lest you be contaminated and condemned to hell.
    It’s a way of scaring people off from the reason that casts doubt on their beliefs, inbuilt into the religous text like any self-sustaining cult.

    I have no respect for fear-mongering tactics for the distress they cause and the slowing of understanding, mainly as the effect of making people cling to arbitary fundie principles in hope of redemtion. The more information children are given the better prepared they are for the world, and the more in touch with reality they are, and that will affect everyone close to them

    Yes, our destruction of a planet that is also causing global warming is in fact the coming of Jesus

    ROFL (roll on floor laughing). JC would have to violate the laws of thermodynamics to do this

    What you might find interesting is that some things are beyond doubt but are still questioned becaue they havn’t been directly proven, a good example is:

    How do we know atoms really exist?

    Now if they didn’t, the whole of chemistry, which follows exact, predictable well known rules everytime, would be completely made up, the amount of micromanagement on a hypothetical god’s part required to satisfy all predicted observations and manipulate spectroscopic machines would be phonomenal, it would be like saying:

    you’re not really driving, god is creating an image just for you outside each window, as well as managing the sound of the engine, airflow through the window, resistance on the pedals, the angle of the car, readings of the dial, etc.
    Just before you get out the car you are instantly teleported to the destination you thought you drove to

    For those interested in global warming, the radiated heat from earth; light with frequencies in the infrared range,is absorbed by molecules of the atmosphere as vibrational energy, this is because the energy required to vibrate or bend happens to be of the order covered by the IR range.

    Absorbed heat will then be re-emmited in all directions as the molecule relaxes in energy, some of these directions go back to earth.

    Now different combinations of atoms in small molecules (which you tend to find in vapour phase) result in different amounts of energy to vibrate, meaning there are different frequencies of absorption for different molecules, Here are some infra red spectra (graphs of absorbance/transmittance of light of within the IR frequency range through a sample)

  2. Maybe that’s it, maybe the Evangelicals think God is going to wipe their ass for them, so they don’t need to save the planet…

    Now that’s going to be a hard image to get out of my mind….

  3. Would’ve avoided my mistake (as would me paying more attention), I like the idea

    Could have it so when you highlight something and click quote it automatically credits it to the writer of the entry/comment, wouldn’t work if you wanted to copy and paste though. Don’t know if it can be done, not being up on that kind of thing.

  4. Evangelical types are largely reality-immune and many regard science and its pursuits with fear and disdain, but I also strongly suspect that many of them reject the theory of global warming simply because they think it’s a product of liberalism.

  5. I am of two braaaains! on this one.  Certainly there are nutjob evangelical Christians who think global warming is a commie plot, but there is also an evangelical movement to begin to take global warming very seriously.  I’m disinclined to gloat over the former without at least expressing my great appreciation of the latter.  They may not have everything right yet but it is important common ground.

    Hmmm…

  6. That was part of what I meant to bring up, but unfortunately I can no longer find that PBS link.  I will applause the religious that are willing to listen to common sense and decency.  I will check through my email again, I think I was sent the link.

  7. I have no problem with the idea that the Earth may be going into a warming cycle. I have IMMENSE problems with the thought that we puny humans are having a large part to do with that cycle. Has anyone thought about the possibility of the SUN going through a warming cycle? Does the sun have a large impact on our weather patterns?  big surprise  big surprise

  8. How are people who deny global warming still taken seriously?  I mean come on, really.  How much proof and science do you need before all the nutjobs finally give in.

    There is no science behind global warming. It’s called CLIMATE SHIFT. GW is a bunch of whoey spewed by people that do not understand the truth.

    The most telling fact is the warming alarmists who conveniently leave out temperature data from various periods in time because that data does not advance their theory (see little ice age). Plus in the 70’s, all the news mags were talking of a nuclear winter and the coming ice age. Funny how people lose memory so fast.

    Lets get even simpler: if mankind wanted to raise the temp a few degrees over the next few years, what we do to accomplish that? Answer: we don’t know how to do it. So if we can’t create it, we can’t stop it. All those nuke tests over the years (US had >1000) didn’t do anything. And if you do a little research, you will find that a single volcano spews more than all of mankind can.

    Anybody that has any education in earth sciences laughs at the Gore-bots.

    And lets say global warming is occurring. Guess what? When we go into ice ages, EVERYTHING dies. It is one big frozen desert. The warm periods are the times the earth flourishes. So that is one more point lost on the alarmists: does their prediction even suggest disaster? Not only can they not predict what is happening, they don’t even understand the consequences of their prediction.

  9. dc: I have yet to see a xian with morals such that they consider themselves to be in the wrong.

    With all due respect, you haven’t been paying very close attention then.

    dof: They may not have everything right yet but it is important common ground.

    DOF talking about common ground.  I guess that is why I consider you to be one of the sane posters here.

  10. Climate shift, like Climate change is one of those phrases invented as a media freindly altenative to the prefered term of some scientists ‘Global Overheating’.

    Yes there are also scientists who will cast doubt on Global warming.  But then there are those who will pick up their Phillip Morris cheque and deny cigarettes are bad for you.

    Once again Moloch proves his only purpose in life is to spread his childish insignificant views.

  11. There are still lots of uncertainties about global warming.  But that it is happening, and that it is largely or mostly due to us humans, is beyond doubt.  Sure, I would also like to believe that it’s not happening- who wants to face the fact that we as a species have fucked up royally?  But the current warming of the oceans corresponds all too well with the rise of CO2 in the atmosphere, and fits the climatological models too well, to be a result of chance.  The climatologists who deny global warming are an ever-shrinking minority. 

    While global warming will have winners and losers, the big picture is not nice.  Especially troubling currently is the situation in Africa, where drought is already contributing to warfare and creating millions of climate emigrants.  Not to mention the many small Pacific islands which will be under water in the foreseeable future, and the already noticeable increase in hurricanes worldwide.  Here in Austria, for instance, the storm Cyril created winds up to 225 kmh two weeks ago, which is absolutely unprecedented.

    Unfortunately, I doubt that much will be done about global warming.  The main problem is the unpopularity of what must be done, politically and individually.  Who wants to change their comfortable, profitable, polluting lifestyle?

  12. I happen to be in agreement to some extent with zilch, but am unsure about the dire predictions he suggests.  I tend to think that Jonathon Adler sums it ups nicely here when he says:

    The evidence that human beings are, and will continue to, have an impact on the climate has been strong for quite some time. There is significant uncertainty about what precisely this means (e.g. the effect it will actually have on weather, sea-level, etc.), but little doubt that it will produce signficant environmental changes, some of which will impose significant costs and some of which may provide benefits. There is also little doubt that the distribution of climate change’s costs and benefits will be anything but uniform. So, for instance, parts of Canada might benefit from longer growing seasons and milder winter, while low-lying tropical regions are flooded and suffer greater disease outbreaks.

    At the same time, we have no clue how to reduce anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases sufficiently so as to stabilize atmospheric concentrations anywhere near present levels. Existing technologies, including projected advances in renewables, nuclear, and other low-to-zero-emission energy sources, can only do so much. Ditto for conservation. The realistic costs of climate change policies approach the magnitude as those of climate change itself, and include significant uncertainties of their own.

    The real debate is thus over what sort of insurance policy—or, more properly, mix of policies—represents the proper response to the real risk of climate change, and how should the costs of such policies be apportioned.

  13. Yes there are also scientists who will cast doubt on Global warming.  But then there are those who will pick up their Phillip Morris cheque and deny cigarettes are bad for you.

    The ones who cast doubt are the ones viewing ALL the data, not just selected tidbits that further their point. Explain this for global warming: Why was most of Texas and Oklahoma covers in inches of ice recently? Why has Denver received significant, lasting snowfall for 6 weekends in a row (Following a record blizzard that shut down the city for two days)? I view the ones pushing GW as the check takers, not the deniers. If global warming were to (somehow) be proven false, what would happen to all the funding going towards research and publicity? Sure wouldn’t be in the hands of Heidi Cullen and the like.

    Once again Moloch proves his only purpose in life is to spread his childish insignificant views.

    How is the truth childish and insignificant?

    Gosh, so what happened to all the pre-humans and animals around at the time of the last ice age?

    It’s called adaptation and evolution. Ever go to above the arctic circle? Not much life there but some has adapted to survive very well. In contrast, look at the Amazon and you can’t take one step without finding creatures.

    Such childish responses to my (for once) sensible comments. It’s a wonder I even bother with you cretins.

  14. Leguru: “I have no problem with the idea that the Earth may be going into a warming cycle. I have IMMENSE problems with the thought that we puny humans are having a large part to do with that cycle. Has anyone thought about the possibility of the SUN going through a warming cycle? Does the sun have a large impact on our weather patterns?”

    A termite weighs about 2.5 milligrams.  Your house weighs around 54,000 kilograms excluding the foundation, or about 22 billion times as much as the termite.  How can puny little termites do any real damage to anything as massive as your house?

    Answer: a lot of termites, each doing a little bit of damage at a time.  And no, we’re not different from termites; we’re living things that consume resources and produce waste.  Even termites, tiny as they are, produce enough methane to contribute measureably to global warming, though their production has been stable for a long, long time.  They have not learned to dig gigatonnes of coal out of the ground and burn it.

    And yes, solar cycles are factored in.  The sun’s output is remarkably stable but it is in a period of cooling that will slightly lower the global warming curve, giving us a little more time.  Maybe as much as an extra year to get our asses in gear.

    Consi: “DOF talking about common ground.  I guess that is why I consider you to be one of the sane posters here.”

    Shh!  The voices in my head will hear you!  wink

    Jonathon Adler by Consi: “At the same time, we have no clue how to reduce anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases sufficiently so as to stabilize atmospheric concentrations anywhere near present levels.”

    Do you mean Jonathan Adler the climate scientist, or Jonathan Adler the power systems engineer?  ‘Cause I couldn’t find either of those guys.  I’m thinking it’s Jonathan Adler the Yale law professor, who has apparently made an exhaustive search of reasons why we can’t do anything about global warming.

    Stuff I’ve read by actual scientists and engineers says we CAN reduce greenhouse emissions enough to make a difference, if we start now.

  15. Okay, I’m a skeptic (about almost everything, not just Global Warming). I’m not about to deny the problem, but I would be much comforted by one simple thing (and I’m horribly afraid this is going to put me on the moron, I mean the moloch’s side for a momment). Can someone point me to a group of scientists who are studying global warming that are not taking grant money from the government to do so? I can’t shake the idea (no matter how hard I try) that anyone who gets money based on how much they say the sky is falling is going to become the proverbial Chicken Little.

    I repeat, I’m not saying Global Warming doesn’t exist. I’m saying the way scientists are funded makes me question how exaggerated their results might be.

    On a side note, no matter how true this might be, we aren’t going to change anything the way we’re going. To make an average American change his behavior, you have to do it based on a benefit, not a fear. It’s a basic sales technique. Want everyone driving hybrid cars? Start making them look cooler, and make them do things that current cars can’t do and Americans will snatch them up.

    I sell appliances, sometimes. The Energy Star rating is a nice comfort, but I’ve never been able to sell one based on that. Fortunately, appliance manufactures know that, and they put features in the Energy Star products that don’t exist in the more basic models.

  16. I dunno, KPG, fear got us to invade Iraq…

    But you are right about making electric cars cooler.  Though this is going to have to move faster than the market will pull it. If we can send our sons and daughters to die in a war, we can live with flourescent light bulbs.

    Which brings me to science funding.  Companies are obviously not going to fund climate research – there’s no profit in it.  But it needs to be done.  There are certain things govenments are for, and this is one of them.  It will require the government to stop being complicit with the deniers.

    And they are complicit – just ask NASA’s James Hansen.  He isn’t being paid to show global warming in the data, quite the opposite.  He could make a lot more money churning out FUD for oil companies.

    BTW even though I am an American consumer, I always buy the most efficient appliances I can find.  And my main transportation is a bike. I should add that if the gov’t had required SUV’s to meet car fuel economy standards, Ford wouldn’t be looking at a $12bn loss right now.  They’d still be competitive.  Darn government!

    Whatever its other deficits, global warming is going to be terribly, awfully unprofitable.  Companies need to start taking a hard look at that.  And the government needs to stop making it easy for them not to.

  17. Quotes not in any particular order;

    leguru: Has anyone thought about the possibility of the SUN going through a warming cycle?

    Sun-spots happen, but the trend we see is more than consistent than that could account for, besides the current theory of human produced CO2 (of which there is a lot) absorbing+emmitting back is exactly what you would predict given the frequencies of light that try to leave earth and how it resembles the frequencies absorbed by CO2 according to it’s IR spectrum

    Moloch: All those nuke tests over the years (US had >1000) didn’t do anything. And if you do a little research, you will find that a single volcano spews more than all of mankind can

    Nuke tests are nuclear reactions, not chemical, (though the energy released can cause chemical reactions like combustion and bond fission), anyway the point is the a nuke won’t make a greenhouse gas directly, only indirectly by the fires afterwards, and that depends on there being burnable material, a nuke test in the middle of the ocean or desert won’t be so.

    Volcanoes produce a variety of gasses, and importantly, lots of ash. The ash, while as an aerosol blocks out sunlight and may cause local cooling – global warming relies on light actually reaching earth first

    Also the weather cycles you mentioned in your comment need a reason to be, I must emphasise to any skeptics that greenhouse gasses absorb and re-emmit the same IR frequencies of light as come off earth, and the re-emmiting will send some back to earth, this is entirely predicted from what we know of chemicals

    DOF: Even termites, tiny as they are, produce enough methane to contribute measureably to global warming

    As a point of interest – cows are also a significant contributer, due to the bacteria of their digestive system

    DOF: I’m thinking it’s Jonathan Adler the Yale law professor, who has apparently made an exhaustive search of reasons why we can’t do anything about global warming

    I bet he has a gain of some kind from the use of carbon feuls to go to that effort

    Consi: With all due respect, you haven’t been paying very close attention then

    That would be correct, I tend to only identify a certain stereotype as strict xians, such that my classification of someone as a xian automatically satisfies the prejudice I stated, apologies to those to who that prejudice doesn’t apply.
    You’ll probably notice my attention span needs some work with the mis-refrence earlier as an example

    Moloch: When we go into ice ages, EVERYTHING dies

    Not necessarily a bad thing, If you don’t exist how can you care?

    Moloch: Why has Denver received significant, lasting snowfall for 6 weekends in a row (Following a record blizzard that shut down the city for two days)?

    Some places can cool due to global warming, I’m not so sure about denver but places like the UK are kept warm by a transatlantic flow of water from the tropics, which after goes north where it cools, goes transatlantic and drifts south and brings cool water to the east coast of canada and the US (hence why new york can be colder than britain), finally making it’s way back to the tropics. This cycle is driven by differences in salt concentrations and is under threat of stopping if melting of north pole Ice dilutes concentration too much.

    KPG: I sell appliances, sometimes

    Hey I work in an electrical retail warehouse, though when I have to go on the shop floor, even with a 20cf fridge freezer, customers always think I am able to answer their questions so I’m forever fobbing them off saying we don’t have something in stock. There is no reward for performance in my job so not much point in doing more than minimum.

    DOF: I dunno, KPG, fear got us to invade Iraq…

    If polititions repeat something enough times, regardless of how reasoned a person is, they will eventually change to some extent the public’s natural perception to get what they want and cause a natural fear or attitude towards something. Things like racism or homophobia wouldn’t exist without some kind of campaign; without a reason to feel something you need it drummed into you.

    On science funding – you may be interested to know a lot of research comes from the military funds, also some by corporations. Either way for an organisation to sponser global warming research with a result in mind they have to gain from it. Research generally only happens if there is money in it, it’s expensive to do, time consuming and hard work

    One thing I worry about with electric cars is how people crossing the road arn’t going to hear them comming

  18. Cow farts!  A nontrivial source of methane.  Reminded of that, I cannot help laughing at the thought of scientists (or more likely, their unfortunate graduate assistants) attempting to get accurate measurement of output, so to speak.

    And now that you mention it, cows and termites produce methane pretty much the same way, by bacterial decomposition in their guts.  Cows, on a somewhat larger scale per organism – heh.

    One thing I worry about with electric cars is how people crossing the road arn’t going to hear them comming

    Short term, look for some ninny to suggest putting noise devices on electric cars LOL  Long-term, schools can dig out all the old safety stuff from the closets: “Look both ways before you cross the street!” Being somewhat hard of hearing, I am in that habit anyway.  Modern cars are already almost silent to me.

  19. Here’s a new way to fight the iraq war, sparing our forces whilst ridding the world of methane producers:

    Cow bombs

    refrence: What’s really weird and almost certainly untrue is the belief that people somewhere have inserted a tube into a cow’s posterior in order to ignite the gas and in so doing, caused the cow to explode

    Here the concept of cow sniping might actually have use – the bullet might, through friction or maybe a spark from hitting a bone, ignite the methane. Alternatively an RPG might do the trick.

    You could also use it as a way of demolishing buildings, through a chain explosion of cows that you’ve managed to get around the perimiter of the target building, how you get them around the target building is where the creativity comes in, you could place pheromones for example, make cows addicted to a drug and leave that drug near the building desired, or plain simple rope restraint

    The claim is that gas within a cow’s intestines, once ignited, could cause a huge explosion resulting in gloppy shards of cow gut shrapnel . This is almost certainly untrue according to people who study such matters.

    LOL, I suppose if the rod had a source of oxygen to allow the burning, it could be done. Someone will. Actually I heard somewhere that a certain type of plant causes flatulence that has to be released by probe by the farmer, otherwise the cow can die by rupture under gas pressure

    p.s. methane is as far as I’ve heard a stronger greenhouse gas than CO2, so burning it is better than releasing it into the atmosphere

  20. I think it’s funny how Moloch doesn’t show any sources, he just spews bullshit.  Which is the same thing the deniers are doing.

  21. CoMD’s! LOL  Cows of Mass Destruction!!! At least sales of barbecue sauce would rise in the target country.  But the UN may have restrictions on such weapons. 

    There’s a Far Side cartoon in there somewhere.  I miss Gary Larson.

  22. Webs: I think it’s funny how Moloch doesn’t show any sources, he just spews bullshit.  Which is the same thing the deniers are doing.

    The idiocy of saying something like “If global warming is occurring, why does it still snow/get cold” is on par with the standard creationist canard of “If humans evolved, why do we still have monkeys?” No wonder so many creationists are also global warming deniers.

  23. DOF: Which brings me to science funding.  Companies are obviously not going to fund climate research – there’s no profit in it.  But it needs to be done.  There are certain things govenments are for, and this is one of them.  It will require the government to stop being complicit with the deniers.

    I personally think we need to take away the string that ties funding to results and let the researchers work as they think is best.

    And they are complicit – just ask NASA’s James Hansen.  He isn’t being paid to show global warming in the data, quite the opposite.  He could make a lot more money churning out FUD for oil companies.

    Off to look up James Hansen. He may be just what I’m looking for. I’d even settle for scientists from other fields going over the data and going “Yep, that’s what it means.” And they may be out there, but every time I ask somebody to point me in the right direction they get huffy and dismissive because I don’t automatically believe the aquired wisdom on Global Warming.

  24. KPG: I personally think we need to take away the string that ties funding to results and let the researchers work as they think is best

    Funding for free research would be nice, only a government body would provide that, otherwise it’s a case of trying to anticipate the benefits of what you’re doing to justify to the organisation funding you.

    Alternatively save up enough money and go freelance, this is best done after working for someone else where you can build up some rep first and learn technicalities like where chemicals are ordered from, how the lab’s leased, where equipment comes from+ maintained, and generally learning how things are done in a safer setting

    For a moment I thought you meant Prof James Hanson, this dude I see wandering around sometimes, but he doesn’t know me personally

  25. DoF: making electric cars cooler.

    The Tesla Roadster looks cool but as cheap as the are to run (1Cent/mile) they still take 3+ hours to ‘fill’. I think that and the price of the vehicle is the downside more than the looks.

    How long do the batteries last?
    Li-Ion batteries are good for 500 complete charge/discharge cycles. One cycle consists of discharging the pack from 100% state of charge (SOC) to 0% SOC. Realistically, drivers will not completely discharge their pack. More likely, drivers will drive the car for 50 or 100 miles then plug it back in to charge it up to 100% SOC. Driving only 50 miles is only a partial discharge, roughly using 20% of the charge. If a driver continues to drive 50 miles every day and recharges every night, then after 5 days they would complete the equivalent of one charge/discharge cycle.

    In estimating the life of our batteries, you can multiply the number of cycles by the range. Thus, 500 cycles times 250 miles/charge works out to 125,000 miles, but our estimate is a more conservative 100,000 miles. However the cycle life of 500 cycles is based upon performance that is more challenging to the battery cells than our application. We believe that our pampered batteries will achieve more cycles due to temperature control of the batteries and minimizing the maximum charge voltage.

    Now I look at it more closely, I realise most vehicles on the road don’t do anywhere near 250 miles (400 km) between sleeps so the 3 hour charge time is all but irrelevant.
    I think I did just over 10,000 km last year.
    But it’s still pretty pricey.
    $US92k = £47k = €71.3k = $AU120k … of course outside the US you’d have to add postage and handling.  wink

  26. Moloch: Think whatever you want dope.

    Thanks for proving my point LOL!

    The point of the Tesla is to show that not only can electric cars look cool, but they can also perform.  The fact the Tesla Roadster is about a 13sec quarter mile means it is insanely fast.  But the best feature is that it lasts for some 250 miles with decent performance.

    This is Tesla’s plan, get people interested, show that money can be made making these vehicles, then other startups will popup like Phoenix Motors and such.  This is how the electric car will take off.  It’s an ingenious plan.

  27. It may be that the big three American auto companies are too hide-bound to ever make popular electric cars.  They may not survive the transition.

    But automaking is a “big company” endeavour.  It will be interesting to see what happens next in the industry.

  28. I just remembered YouTube had something on Electric Cars.
    “The electric car is not for everybody – it’ll only suit about 90% of the population.”
    Parts 1, 2 & 3 of ‘The Electric Car’ is an eye opener … maybe not.  wink

  29. I always thought the auto companies didn’t want to do electric/hybrid at first.  They made the first ones butt ugly. 

    I figure for something like the Tesla, you could carry a diesel generator as an emergency “fuel” supply.  They did the smart thing and are using Li-ion battery tech developed for laptops, since that area has a lot of research and effort already put into it. 

    I remember in the 70’s there was an electric conservation movement, getting people to turn off lights when leaving a room, using thermostats, etc.  Little reminder stickers and plates for light switches that said “Don’t Forget”. 

    Nothing like high fuel costs to encourage conservation.  Once I was able to have the CF bulbs pay for themselves through the savings, I replaced all but a few lights in the house.

  30. Tesla roadster – is that to go with the watch?
    Actually that just made me think – there would be a market for cars that claim to destructively interfere with light, ready for exploiting.

    Hydrogen cells convert chemically stored energy into electrical kinda like a battery in that concept, and maybe they can be topped up w/o memory effect. However the idea of lugging around a tank of liquid H2 seems dangerous, and if you left a tank of it long enough you wouldn’t be able to keep it cold permanently, and as it turns to vapour the whole thing could explode. You also have danger of a spark when filling up. A safer way of using H2 would be to have some kind of reducing agent + acid mix to make H2 in situ as needed

  31. It reminds me of an episode of The Simpsons where Homer is at the Epcot center and views an animatronic display of an electric car.  The car wheezes asthmatically, “I’m an electric car; I can’t go very far, or very fast.  If you drive me, people will think you’re gay.”  Then animatronic gays wave appreciatively; “He’s one of us!  One of us!”

    Cars are woven into our culture in so many ways it is difficult to imagine the post-automotive America.  It would also have to be a post-sururban America, a post War-On-Drugs America (to eliminate a huge source of poverty and street crime that keeps people from living in cities), and in some ways a post-consumerist America.  GM did a great job of slapping the flag on the fenders.

  32. DOF: It reminds me of an episode of The Simpsons

    Me too, I thought of the one where homer sees a model fo an alcohol powered car and imagines hiself at a filling station

    One for you (car), one for me, One for you…

    LOL

  33. Moloch: There is no science behind global warming. It’s called CLIMATE SHIFT. GW is a bunch of whoey spewed by people that do not understand the truth.

    Not so much, unless you consider The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), The US National Academy of Sciences, The American Meteorological Society, the American Geophysical Union, and the American Association for the Advancement of Science among your group of “people who do not understand the truth.”

    Quoting the Science link from 2004 above:

    This analysis shows that scientists publishing in the peer-reviewed literature agree with IPCC, the National Academy of Sciences, and the public statements of their professional societies. Politicians, economists, journalists, and others may have the impression of confusion, disagreement, or discord among climate scientists, but that impression is incorrect.

    Also – when you’re talking about “truth”, what is your claim?  That increasing levels of atmospheric CO2 is somehow good, or that all that pollution is simply having no effect whatsoever?  You have data that you can share?

  34. Consi, what a surprise, an article written by two people from a Libertarian think tank.  Their assertion that suburbanization is driven by wealth ignores crime and the constant cultural pressure of automobile lobbying and advertising.  And while they note that only a small percentage of absolute land area of the US is ‘developed’, they’re overlooking the fact that cities are far more energy-efficient than spread-out communities.

    If the Europeans are catching up to us in total driving, it just shows they’re human.  Cars are nifty, and driving where and when you want to drive is even niftier.  Doesn’t make it a wise use of resources.

    Moving to a less automotive-dependent culture won’t fix global warming – it’s just one component in the fix.  There are going to have to be a lot of changes.  But what the heck, keep denying, keep stalling, keep dismissing the evidence, we’ve got lots of time.  First-ever South American hurricanes don’t mean anything.  The loss of Arctic ice cover doesn’t mean anything.  Northward migration of Southern warm-weather agricultural pests doesn’t mean anything.  Rising sea levels don’t mean anything.  Keep demanding your “rights”.

  35. Here in the UK at least it’s a bit of a mixed situation, there is a general peer pressure of society of being expected to be able to drive, and train fares are continually rising oppertunistically above inflation because of the increased cost of other options, however running a car is expensive with petrol costing about £1 per litre last time I checked due to taxation, among other costs, in addition, those that already have driving licences put continual pressure for driving tests to be made harder for infinitely perfect safety. For all the academic tests I’ve taken I cannot for the life of me pass the practical driving one, let alone scrape the eyesight bit, and have given up, lessons cost about £16 per hour, and the standard wage of a young adult is about £4something to put it in perspective. Driving instructers, like taxi drivers and property developers seem the anti-robin hood type and rely on money from rich parents, student loans and mortgages. It was in the news recently that people are willing to borrow 5 to 7 times their salary on a mortgage for their first property, imagine this coupled with a £20000 student loan. I am a little annoyed also how for all the time and work that went into my study, the pay I would get compared to other fields. Pre-doc allowance is about 12K per annum.

  36. A coupla quotes I had stored which seem rather apt, here.

    Bob Brown (Oz Greens leader): If this world were our apartment, would we get our bond back?

    Bob’s gay too … another reason conservatives hate him.  LOL

    Tibetan Book of Living and Dying: Modern industrial society is a fanatical religion. We act as if we’re the last generation on the planet.
    Believing fundamentally this life is the only one, modern people have developed no long term vision, so there is nothing to restrain them from plundering the planet for their own immediate ends and from living in a selfish way that could prove fatal for the future; we are signing an IOU our children will not be able to pay.

    To my knowledge I have no children but I still care about the planet. Weird.

  37. Michael Peacock: Not so much, unless you consider The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), The US National Academy of Sciences, The American Meteorological Society, the American Geophysical Union, and the American Association for the Advancement of Science among your group of “people who do not understand the truth.”

    Not to mention the leading scientists in virtually every developed (and often less developed) country on the planet. But don’t fool yourself for a second in assuming that Moloch is interested in the truth.

    LuckyJohn: To my knowledge I have no children but I still care about the planet.

    Same here, on both counts.

    Regarding electric cars, I personally would love to own one if only they were both available and affordable. For now I’ve got my lusts set on owning a Prius. It’d be nice to drive with only half the guilt.

  38. LJ: To my knowledge I have no children but I still care about the planet. Weird.

    The first applies to me, the second I don’t understand because its not game theory – I don’t have a reason to care about the planet, also because existing with all the responsibilities that come with it isn’t necessarily the kindest thing, to end life on the planet would end suffering in life

  39. existing with all the responsibilities that come with it isn’t necessarily the kindest thing, to end life on the planet would end suffering in life

    It would also end music, art, ice cream, and women in sundresses.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.