Foren

ZUR TESLA-COMMUNITY
REGISTRIERENEinloggen

And the accolades keep pouring in ...

Here is the link from Yahoo's 2013 car of the year http://autos.yahoo.com/blogs/motoramic/tesla-model-2013-yahoo-autos-car-165907072.html.

It says that 250 cars have been delivered and 359 (additional?) have been produced.

~ Prash.

As I said Brian, if you are wrong and the world listens to you then we have a serious and extremely expensive problem. If 99% of the worlds climate scientists (who actually study this stuff) are wrong and the world listens to them, then we spend money developing new technology ( like a Tesla ) that we didn't need to develop.

I'd rather have the technology earlier.

Mark E;
Every statement I made is fully documented. Your 99% is completely imaginary, though. It comes from a hilariously flawed student survey that hand-selected 79 out of 1400 respondents (out of 5,000+ invited) to a poorly worded questionaire as the only "qualified" ones, and misrepresented 77 agreements with a fuzzy misstatement of the science as a 97% "support" for the Anthropogenic Global Warming" speculation. Pathetic, really.

@Brian H: Not sure your '1880' comment reconciles with the 'little ice age' of the 16th-18th centuries with frost faires across Europe when the rivers froze:

That chart is completely erroneous. Here's some perspective:

@BrianH - I think this really isn't the forum to be arguing about climate change, though I grant that Elon has used it as part of the explanation for why he built Tesla and so has some relevance.

Your graph above is an mirrored version of Easterbrook's graph, which makes a few mistakes. For one, he defines present as 2000AD, when the data he is actually looking at defines 1950AD. His chart also has the edge marked "0 thousands of years" as 95 years before present (which is actually 1950), meaning the graph stops 155 years ago, well before any modern industrialization. Part of the confusion is he uses the date of the sample of 1987 rather than the date the layer of ice being measured as 1905 (since it takes decades for the snow to compact into ice). The CO2 line being constant until recently is obviously incorrect as well, as there is natural variation.

Read the full article at http://www.skepticalscience.com/10000-years-warmer.htm -- that site has other great articles (with links to all the source materials for the conclusions so you can verify them yourself if you are so inclined) that I encourage you to read for other doubts you may have. For example, addressing the more general point of the graph above that it has been hotter before, see http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-change-little-ice-age-medieval-w...

Beyond that, consider scientists who were opposed to the idea that climate change is attributed to human activity, yet when they researched it in detail they changed their minds -- http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/30/opinion/the-conversion-of-a-climate-ch... is a prominent example (background at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_A._Muller).

Brian, Please go somewhere else to discuss your BIG OIL agenda. You're not welcome here, spreading so called "facts" that are glued together to make it look like there is no serious climate change.

every credible scientific studies have shown a SHARP increase in global temperature since the man made pollution has started. I do grant you that there are cycles that the earth goes through, but the degree to which we've seen temperature change is out of norm. If you cannot accept that fact, then you just don't know what you're talking about or don't care.

OK Brian: How about ' the majority of scientific opinion' vs the skeptics? If the skeptics are wrong, and we listen to them, doom. If the skeptics are right, but we ignore them the we are better off.

Gambling at these stakes is no win for following the skeptic brigade and mostly upside for doing something to shift us from a fossil fuelled dependency.

Even if co2 is not to blame, setting fire to huge amounts of fuel at a rapidly increasing rate with all of the waste going into the atmosphere is irresponsible. The world uses something like 85 million barrels a day.

At 42 gallons to the barrel, that’s three billion, five hundred and seventy million gallons of oil (3,570,000,000).

Then there is coal at around 7 billion tons per year, plus land clearing etc etc.

Whether you believe in climate change or not, continuing on this path is stupid and we must move from it at some stage. I vote that we do it to avoid a potential catastrophe.

Climate skeptics remind me of the people who complain about all the money spent to avoid the y2k issue. They say 'look it wasn't that bad after all - nothing happened!' The reality is that nothing happened because we spent the time and money to fix the problem in time. I know many systems were affected as I was on some of the projects to fix them - several banks that I know of had serious widespread problems.

Of course, as with y2k, it could all be a beat up - right?

You'd better be pretty sure that you are 100% correct if you ignore all of the evidence and experts, put your head in the sand and decide to do nothing.

If you are willing to fund it, you can find a scientist willing to justify your position! That being said, I would error on the side of global warming as the negatives of siding the other way doesn't amount to anything except for dirty air and the market to sell oxygen in the future.

Surprising that there still is any discussion related to global warming. It is even more surprising that there is so much denial about global warming. This is similar to the flat earth society and creationism believers.

It's no surprise that you watch Fox.

The rest of world is making leaps and bounds when it comes to education and science and here, in this country, people still believe that the universe is 6,000 years old and the sun goes round the earth.

~ Prash.

My wife says the world revolves around me and I would like to believe her... ;)

You should Brian....thank God for your wife. No one else does. And yes, I'm a Christian, but I believe in science rather than creationism CRAP.

@BYT +1, and yours around her :)

Well, she really says the the world DOESN'T revolve around me, but she also says that I hear what I want to hear so... there you go. :D

that's sweet. sounds like she's a keeper. anyway, getting back to the forum topic, wonder if there is much attention from the European market for Tesla?

On the contrary; the mitigation efforts the AGW alarmists are pushing are so economically destructive and defective that they guarantee loss and hardship for all. Fuel poverty is wracking the UK and Germany, with millions unable to afford heat, etc. Legions have already died in poor coutries as a result of food price spikes (doubling in a couple of years) as side effects of misbegotten carbon swap and biofuel scams. More corn is grown in the US for ethanol than people, now. The UN FAO chief once described growing food for fuel as a "crime against humanity", e.g.

The payoff table is very heavily negative, while absolutely no unwanted effects of warming have been demonstrated or observed. (Actually, severe weather and droughts and all the other scary stuff hyped are characteristic of cooling climates!! The energy gradient tropic-poles gets shallower and quieter under warming.)

typo: poor countries

Back on topic ("accolades") Plugincars observes the 2 "Of The Year" awards, and summarizes about the way we do: "Expect the Model S to continue its sweep of Car of the Year awards. Hopefully, this will give Tesla the moral[e] and publicity boost it needs, as it works to ramp up production, and become financially viable for the long run."

Brian H "getting perspective" graph is deliberately chosen to not show the rapid heating of the modern age. Also that green bar showing CO2 raise is not accurate to say it mildly. CO2 has varied a lot more than that.

There is undeniable global warming happening. That can't be disputed anymore, much like dinosaur feathers can't. Only thing that can be argued (intelligently) is whether or not that is caused by human activity.

I say that however small effect the human activity has, it has an impact. CO2 is greenhouse gas. That's just fact. Pumping it to the atmosphere is a bad thing for us humans. You actually witnessed it with Sandy just recently, and Katrina and Isaac earlier. That is what it causes to us humans. Changes in weather patterns. Some added heat itself would be nice, but if you get drought/flood in places where you grow crops you have a problem. Nature likes, human infrastructures, not so much.

@Brian H: Wish you were here. In New Jersey. With your clothes spread all along the highway, for the second time in 14 months. With everything you own under 10 feet of water, for the second time in 14 months. In the dark, shivering in the cold, unshowered for days, for the THIRD time in 14 months. And your kids crying, scared, looking at you, and you are helpless... for the whatever time... From a phenomenon that supposedly happens only once in a century, this far north. Then maybe, just maybe, you would consider doing something just in case, not eve believing ... like when you knock on wood, just in case. Or you buy insurance, just in case. Or maybe you'll just stick your head back in the piles of sand washed up around your house and leave your rear end exposed for the next imaginary thing to hit it.

Ah, hmm, I keep checking into this thread to read about new accolades I've missed. Instead I get grown persons yelling at each other. Could you please take that somewhere else so we could get back to the topic at hand? I suspect there are a huge number of NEW awards coming and I for one would like a place to read about them.

Thanks everyone!

Ohms.Law,

The Teslamotorsclub.com site has basically the same information but is moderated. That stops most of the inappropriate posts.

Frontline, a Public Broadcasting Station production has a great episode in the Global Warming subject and its role in politics and questioning the science. I found it well done and that's the last if that subject I will contribute.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/hotpolitics/

I apologize. Under lots of stress. Back to the accolades.

Awesome car, more to come.

Thank Canada for Sandy's power. A massive Arctic breakout fed the western edge when it made landfall, and it switched from a tropical to a winter storm, instead of fading and losing strength. Cooling is coming! Get ready for it. It's far more dangerous and expensive than the mild warming over the last 130 yrs.

Back on topic, people.

Do we know when Motortrend does their awards?

I think it's November 12th. There is no confirmation yet that the S is a candidate, at least I haven't seen it. They release the candidates in alpha order and they haven't gotten to the Ts yet.

It's almost inconceivable that it wouldn't at least be a candidate for Motortrend.

Maybe it has to be out a whole calendar year first to be considered by MotorTrend?

I'm betting it will be a candidate. There are a lot of cars on the list and it would be a crime for the S not to be considered given how groundbreaking the car is.


X Deutschland Site Besuchen