Forums

Join The Community
RegisterLogin

My justification story for buying a Model S...

I have been reading great deal of post here lately on justification for buying a Tesla Model S, and I thought I would share my justification story...

When I first saw a Tesla Roaster on the road, I was so envious, it was in the HOV lane blazing past me, as I sat in my gas guzzling luxury sedan in miserable gridlock traffic. After figuring out what it was, and read about it, I was astonished! Then I went to a dealer, sat in it, and quickly came to the realization it just was't practical for me (Never mind, I could hardly get out of it, as I am 6'1" tall, and nearly had to fall out of it, just to get out). Thus needless to say, when I first read about the Tesla Model S, I was extremely excited!  

I commute a long distance for my work, however, I'm a performance-car enthusiast, and don't feel comfortable driving cheap 'economical' ICE vehicles, much less anything that makes me feel like I am worth less than I have worked so long and hard to create for myself.

Call it what you want, however, I grew up my entire childhood dreaming of owning fast, technologically advanced, luxury cars (many of my toys growing up were toy exotic Matchbox, etc cars). 
Unfortunately,  I also grew up dreaming of owning a home close to the ocean, in a safe neighborhood, where most people around the country could only dream of living.

With that said, the only way for me to afford my childhood dreams was to commute 125 miles round trip, in worst traffic on the planet. I have been making the long commute for well over 3/4 of my life, and it only gets harder to deal with every year, as traffic gets worse, and gas gets more expensive. 

Thus for my needs and dreams, the Tesla Model S Performance is a Godsend of a vehical! Not only do I get to drive a semi-exotic, super fast, high-peformance, technologically advanced, luxury sport-car / sedan (that I would have only dreamed about as a child), it saves me serious money, time, and trouble with my long commuting lifestyle! Plus I get to feel and look good doing it (which no other vehicle on Earth can do currently).

It's going to be like my own version of... 'my cake, and eat it to'!

Sorry Brian H and everyone else. Reading to many subjects at once I guess. I am completely off with my comment.

Actually, since you accuse me of relying on Foxnews for ideas, I should inform you that I read all of the info that goes through the worlds #1 (voted 3 yrs running) science blog, wattsupwiththat.com, casually known as WUWT. It's a firehose of research and comments, with a following of people so heavy with hard science and engineering degrees that I feel very under-educated reading it. I get almost none of my information from TV, and by now could probably hand most TV "analysts" aces and spaces in a discussion of the subject, and still wipe the mat with them.

It has had, mostly since 2008/9, something over 100 million page views. No other (mainly climate) science blog competes remotely. It is owned and financed by a meteorologist, from his own pocket and site donations. He has recently published a peer-reviewed study of weather station quality, and trend by station quality rating, of climate changes. The lowest quality stations report the most 'warming', the best report the least, with almost an order of magnitude difference, over all available time scales.

typo: aces and spades

Brian -

(Way off topic and this may need to be junked or moved elsewhere)

You forget to mention that the Watts' "donations" are largely from the Heartland Institute. Watts is a crank with an axe to grind that shows in every post. He also has never taken a position that disagrees with his sponsors. Unfortunately it is pretty easy to produce propaganda that looks like science and deceive a reasonable number of people with STEM backgrounds who are operating out of their fields. Reading WUWT may feel educational but it is mental junk food. It's a thin veneer of technobabble covering what appears to be a political agenda sponsored by a few powerful interests.

Believe me when I say that I wish that Watts was correct and there was not a problem to be dealt with. I've spent the last 15 years learning indirectly about this field through my spouse who does research in the field. I have more STEM education than most people and I would say that 15 years of supplementary effort is not enough to actually reason about any modern field (my wife doesn't understand my work either). I think you have to participate on the frontier and none of us have the time to do that in more than one place.

So, I can't see Watt's portrayal of the science as being good faith. It would be nice if there was a conspiracy of dunces in academia trying to create problems where there are none in order to protect their grant money, but I see no plausible way this could be the case. I say that after 15 years of bringing various climate denier arguments to the dinner table (OK, maybe just 2 years - they repeat pretty frequently). I say this after sitting at the bar and listening to scientists talk passionately about their work and ask why they bother producing reports for policy makers that are systematically ignored. And I say that after having put in some part-time effort of my own.

Realclimate has better scientific content from people working within their field. It's not perfect, but at least the authors generally only post on subject matter they are involved with (and the contributor list is correspondingly deep). I still don't think it is something that people out of the field can reason about, but at least the contributors seem mostly honest.

I say all this realizing that this is an "us vs them" topic and I will never change your tribal affiliation. Another unfortunate fact of modern life.

On-topic: EVs and Tesla might be a small part of the solution to AGW and is way low on the bang-per-buck scale. But if you have some money to spare and want to drive a fast car, it seems more responsible than buying an M5.

If I go through with my reservation, AGW will be one reason among many. Liquid fuel scarcity and national security loom larger. I like to support technology that reduces and/or centralizes pollution. I like supporting technology and design jobs in the USA. And it sounds like fun.

I,too, do not want to extend this thread on such a contentious and undecidable issue. For what it's worth, I'm on the fence about this. But you make it sound like it's a done deal except for lunatics. I'm sorry, but there's a little more to it.

On one side, scientists who learn climate science see real change. On the other side, scientists who look at climate science fundamentals and know its limitations, I repeat: fundamental limitations, know that things can change abruptly toward global cooling. It's in the math, and this stuff is chaotic (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_theory) at best, totally unknowable at worst.

If a flea on the beach sees the water level rising, is it a splash, the result of an earthquake depression that will permanently engulf the area, or is it just the tide coming in and out? It can take all the local measurements it wants; the flea has no way to know.

ndt;
"You forget to mention that the Watts' "donations" are largely from the Heartland Institute. Watts is a crank with an axe to grind that shows in every post. He also has never taken a position that disagrees with his sponsors."

What a load!! I know the actual details, and that's pure Horse Pucky. Anthony conceived an $80,000 project (costs, not personal billing) to establish free and user-friendly access and analysis to a public data base, legally already mandated but never implemented, which he initiated. His own time was unpaid, but a professional coder was needed to help. The other half was for dedicated servers. HI offered to consider covering some or all of the cost on a one-time basis, if it could itself attract sponsorship. In the end, after all the BS thrown about by such as yourself, only half was contributed by HI, and Anthony is still scrambling to cover the rest.

That's it. HI's only funding of WUWT or Anthony. Before or after.

As for the garbage pit RealClimate, is was founded and is richly funded by Fenton, the PR firm, for the explicit purpose of suppressing dissent. Many of its primary contributors and editors are full-time government employees, at GISS and elsewhere, doing RC work on government time. Yet its traffic is a mere tiny sliver of WUWT's, because it ruthlessly censors and abuses any who disagree with the "Consensus line". Examine the self-portraits of "denizens" of WUWT or Climate Etc., Judith Curry's blog, or Tallbloke's Talkshop (best EU science blog 2011). Many and many document how they were driven to serious doubts about the AGW consensus by the arrogant and petulant, trivial narrowness of the material and moderation at RC. It is its own worst enemy.

Here's a wee sample:
Guest post submitted by Ian Rons
Further Down the Bore-Hole*
.
Regular readers will doubtless be familiar, either at first- or second-hand, with the enthusiasm with which moderators at RealClimate.org seem to reject comments from AGW sceptics. Ecotretas’ recent story on Realclimate censorship piqued my interest ...

*RC's sub-site where it dismisses, usually without notice or reason, unwelcome queries and comments.

typo: "As for the garbage pit RealClimate, it was founded and is richly funded by Fenton,..."

Actually it is still owned by Fenton, through 'Environmental Media Services', its huge media arm. These are big boys, playing with hundreds of millions of dollars per annum, and heavily involved in political campaigning for (exclusively) leftist causes nationally and world-wide.

HI's total annual budget is ~$5 million, most of which goes on projects and activities which have nothing to do with climate. It would barely make for a rounding error on Fenton's income statements.

EdG , I like to hear different takes on any issue. I know that I do not know the answer. .

Brian H, thanks for the info. WUWT. Is interesting.

Net. How about some facts, I thought I was leaning your way. But you are sending me the other way

edit: Tallbloke's Talkshop (best EU science blog 2012)

Brian H - if you follow the money back through WUWT to the Heartland Institute you get to financing from contributors such as Koch Industries & Exxon-Mobil. The Heartland Institute has an interesting history also (opposing the link between smoking & cancer).

That said I am now going back to Model S obsessive waiting and hoping.

KJR4235, sounds like you are watching a lot of tv, Any facts?..

Mel-
Not much TV. If you start with the WUWT website you don't find much (no real "about us" information). Then do a Google search on the primary blogger, Watt. Then read Wikipedia for where his seed money came from. Then Google Heartland Institute. & I stopped there.

Wiki is edited aggressively by William Connolly on such subjects. He's a co-founder of RealClimate, the AGW whitewash site. You're just following a story line laid out carefully for you.

About WUWT, no real "About" page? Misstate mendaciously, much?
http://wattsupwiththat.com/about-wuwt/about2/
Far more thorough than most sites.

As far as the Google hits on HI, it drives leftists nuts, because despite being outspent by orders of magnitude, it still helps hold back the AGW scamsters, amongst others. Enjoy The Narrative™ you're being fed. While it lasts. The public is turning against all the deception.

If you want real science, forget blogs. Those are full of BS in both ways and biased for whatever reasons. Read the actual researches. Earth is warming up, there is no doubt about that in any paper, only thing questionable is is human contribution to that significant or not.

+1 Timo.

Any idiot with wordpress and a 15 dollar domain can be a blog author. Go read Nature, or Sci Am for a better use of your time. Go down to Scripps in La Jolla, or talk to oyster farmers in Washington state. Marine bioliogists and commercial interests are convinced, as are 95% of the reasearchers currently working in the field. There is no"other side" of the discussion to hear from.

Heh. Both those are now owned by Georg von Holzbrinck, a German environmental activist. Quality and standards have dropped through the floor, as has circulation.
When his tendentious political editorializing got to be too much, people who had subscribed for decades began dropping them. I'm one.

Brian H is environmental denialist and religious defender of "nothing is changing in environment" suffering from very bad confirmation bias. Any contradictory evidence is being dismissed by default and any supporting evidence is accepted without question.

No need to continue this any further, he has made his mind and there is nothing we can do about that, so please just ignore him so that we can get back to topic.

WTB on-topic.

KJR4234 , I read the blogs, and I wish I did that before I opened my fat mouth, sorry for that, you are more knowledgable on this than I. I have a problem believing many blogs as most appear purely political. . So many of my friends blame the Koch brothers for just about everything so I jumped the gun with no research
,

Brian H

Thanks for your good humor. I think I'll stay with my "justification". Not sure why we actually need any justifications.

Glad to hear we are an Oil Empire. One less concern for me to worry about. Must mean the gasoline producers are raking it in with such an abundant oil supply and the high cost of gasoline.

By the way, remember these are MY justifications and what matters to me. Glad you love the S. Me to.

Got another ride yesterday in the back seat-not quite as much fun as driving, but I thoroughly enjoyed the ride.

I was told in the next 4 or so weeks the showrooms in the SF Bay area will have test cars to drive. That's a mile from my home-I may just want another drive! or two!

mitrabbit;
Time scales; the recoverable reserves are obviously not on the market yet, or even drilled. Their existence will impact prices, but only when more certainty about access is available. For now, federal lands are de facto off the table for exploration and development. Economics sez that will change. But timing is where politics comes in.

@Timo;
The "denialist" label is scurrilous. But I certainly deny that the "consensus" is more than opportunistic miscegenation between the neo-pseudo-science of "climatology" and politicians who LUV the idea of controlling all access to energy and charging (taxing) for it.
Check out http://judithcurry.com/2012/08/08/consensus-by-exhaustion/ , if you dare. And trace Dr. Curry's CV ("qualifications"), too, if that's the kind of thing that impresses you.

Brian H, I just have one question that I don't know if you have ever answered.

Is the earth warming? (just drop the who/what/why for now)

I think that is where the "denialist" part comes from.

WTB on-topic.

Is it really that hard to make a new post if you want to have a completely different topical discussion?

Sudre_;
Has been since about 1790 (AKA the low point of The Little Ice Age, coldest period since the glaciers went home). Slowed or stopped in the last dozen years or so; many solar scientists are suggesting we're in for another 30-50 yr. bout of cold. You won't like it. Warm=more life; Cold=more death.

Hoo boy....

So what I get out of that chart is that the 5 year moving average based on Hansens actual data nearly perfectly matches the slope marked 30 year Warming Trend (Hansen) based on 1983 to 2011 actual data. Furthermore, the 5 year moving average over the same period of time moves at the same slope, and correlates very closley with Hansen's data.

So what am I supposed to get out of this?

CO2 disolves in seawater to create Carbonic Acid. We can also measure falling ocean pH if you like.

@jbunn;
Heh. Details -- that C-curve presupposes NO increased CO2 emissions, sort of an unreal "perfect Hansen world". And the real data is even below that. Meantime, actual emission increases were above even the "uncontrolled unregulated" A-curve assumptions.

It could hardly be a bigger FAIL.

P.S. --Hansen's "actual data" is easily demonstrated to be badly fudged. But even that is in the 'C' band. Which is far, far from the real emissions. Conclusion with either data set: CO2 influence is nil.

Interesting. Then where does the CO2 go, in your opinion?


X Deutschland Site Besuchen