Join The Community

Negative Public Reaction to Seeing the Car

WOW! I wasn't prepared driving in my Model S Sig today to get a negative taunt thrown at me... I was showing some friends of mine at their office in a heavily walked area. Some guy comes up and says "Oh, so that's what my tax money is paying for." Now, I'm not normally political, but I went off... For those just receiving your car, have some nice witty retorts just in case you get something like that... I have a few good ones now that I am prepared. Of course, that's been the 1 bad out of 100 good who keep stopping and looking or wanting to see it (and I've only had it on the street for less than an hour)...

Yes, CO2 caused the amplitude swings.

I would love to disregard AGW... my life would much simpler but as a rational person with a conscience I find this impossible given the present state of the science. If there is an alternative theory which better explains the facts then please post a link.

nwdiver93 - please save the cuteness, and arrogant tone. If you have a paper to cite, cite it. I presume you are talking about Shakun(2012)? If so, then read this post debunking that paper:

And this post:

shows how that Shakun conveniently stopped showing CO2 rise on his graphs right at the point the earth started leveling off temperature. ie he stopped his graphs around 6,000 BC, when the continuation of his proxy temperature data showed the earth either leveling off temperature or cooling. I guess he just didn't feel like explaining how his dataset showed the opposite of what he was trying to claim?

Anyways, the overall point against Shakun(2012) is that trying to figure out the average temperature of the earth 30,000 years ago is, to put it mildly, very hard to do and will be full of large error bars. Here's a climate scientist making this case a bit better than I can:

Last time I checked science is done by scientists... not bloggers.

Also last time I checked no scientist had published a paper for peer review claiming something other than CO2 was the prime reason New York is periodically covered by a mile of ice.

97% of published papers agree with AGW; A few think it might be something else. ZERO have an alternative theory.

Absolute temperature may be difficult to determine from Ice Cores but Relative temperature is not. O16/O18 isotope ratios in precipitation change with temperature.

- We know beyond reasonable doubt when Ice Ages have occured.
- We know beyond reasonable doubt Earths Orbit Triggered this
- We know beyond reasonable doubt this Obital change could not cause the dramatic changes in Earths temperature seen in the Geologic record.
- CO2 is the ONLY variable with physical properties sufficient to cause this shift.

I agree that there are "qualified" people who disagree with AGW just as there are some "qualified" people who disagree with Evolution, Vaccines, Germ Theory, ect ect. However, no group has come up with a theory that better fits the facts.

If I need to check again please post a link...

Oh awsome, Shop. Blogger and retired tv weatherman Watt, who was put on the web by the Heartland Institute who fund climate denial. Heartland also ran the Phillip Morris campaign in the 90s to show scientists were undecided about ciggs and cancer.

Perfect example of how the game is run. If you were "researching", you would have found this in 3 mins.

Done talking. You guys are just arrogant and rude. Attack the messenger, attack lack of credentials, anything except talk about the science. I'm outta here.

Oh and if you bothered to read the links, it wasn't Watt who wrote them.


Read your links... that's why I responded with this

"I agree that there are "qualified" people who disagree with AGW just as there are some "qualified" people who disagree with Evolution, Vaccines, Germ Theory, ect ect. However, no group has come up with a theory that better fits the facts."

Don't like a theory? Come up with a better one, that's how science works.

Think AGW is bunk? Find a better explanation for the observations. That's how science works.

The fact no scientist has published an alternative despite millions in funding from fossil fuel interests speaks volumes. Most end up like Richard Muller, discovering that the consensus of their peers was in fact correct, "The Earth is warming and humans are mostly responsible"

Nc, try to calm down..are you saying that you are the scientist and the rest of us should not be allowed to discuss this sacred issue? We are all buying Tesla autos. I think your fight might be with those that are dissing electric vehicles and not smart individuals like shop.

BS comparison. And I'm much more than old enough! All this $$ comparison is really a laugh. The AGW-pushers are floating on a sea of money, with conflict-of-interest the rampant norm throughout their research and PR. Yet those are the very (totally undocumented, except for ridiculous distortions and exaggerations), accusations they throw around against sceptics; as though they can't imagine anyone being less corrupt than they are. E.g.: the top pro-AGW website (Real Climate) is owned and operated by the wealthy PR firm Fenton; the top sceptic site (WattsUpWithThat) is personal out-of-pocket by a meteorologist Anthony Watts - but is the Top Science Blog winner several years running, with an order or two of magnitude more readers.

You have been conned.

Brian H,

It seems you are the smartest person on the forum. Thus, it is time perhaps for you to realize that you would be best off correcting grammar mistakes of your buddies, Republicans, instead of arguing against climate change, influence of oil companies in politics, and other things that most of Tesla owners or reservation holders believe in.

Where did I make a mistake? Should I replace "Republicans" with "Democrats"?


WhatsUpWithThat isnt personaly funded. Nearly 90 k for the website development came from the Heartland institute. True or not? You can buy a lot of nice web site for 90,000.

Heartand is the same group in the 90s that was lobbying our congress and working with Phillips Morris. They had a "question the science" by funding "science" research campaign. Also true or not?

Please give us an answer to those two questions.


I am the smartest person on the forum. My mother had me tested.

I'm the smartest
Just ask me!

Another thread derailed...

(The ratio is still pretty good in this forum though, compared to others.)

Strip the political ideology away from the AGW denial and there's really nothing left.

Frontline ran a great episode called "Climate of Doubt"

AGW denial is almost completely a political position entirely divorced from reality and science.

Arguing or even discussing at this point is also becoming pointless. The people who deny it will continue no matter what unless they do the research themselves and discover they are wrong. The people supporting it will never change their mind until they do their own research and discover they are wrong. From what
Now. When I say research I mean doing the science. Not reading a paper published on the internet.

If it is happening or not, maybe the more important thing to think about is can we do anything about it at this point if it is happening? It might even be more fun than the argument about it.
I don't understand why the Brian H's or shop's don't feel they can discus that part. They can be right and I am happy with that. Lets have a hypothetical discussion then. If it is true, hypothetically, can we scrub the atmosphere of CO2? Since it is hypothetical we can go crazy with the ideas. (some call it brain storming)
I heard some ideas about using orbital material to obscure sunlight over the oceans. If heated oceans release CO2 do cooled oceans absorb co2? What weather disasters can happen from heated air moving over a cooled ocean? Can you stop a hurricane by have a satellite (or millions of tiny satellites) shadowing a large (600-1000 mile dia) area in front of it cooling the ocean and air? A cooled ocean will shrink. Would that cause sever waves or something like a storm surge?


Yes, some people will deny until they discover they are wrong to do so:

-Eventually even research funded by the oil industry show GW is real, and humans are to blame.

Perhaps the carbon extractive industries that have profited so much, should be required to chemically re-bind the carbon they have released, and return it to the earth where they found it?

I wouldn't want the thread to die yet, I enjoyed reading it.

1. "Sucks to be stuck in the past, doesn't it?"
2. "Relax, I'm driving your wife around in it."
3. "Yup, and my brother is robbing your home right now."
4. "That's right. Win-win!"
5. "Well of course. After all I'm paying for the car..."
6. "Then you'll be pleased to know the car is fantastic!"
7. "Chill out. It's much less than you're paying for my solar
8. "But I look great driving it. Isn't it worth it?"
9. "Hey thanks. Can you buy me a cup of coffee too?"
10. "And that's how I was able to afford the Tech Package."
11. "Totally, and check out those rims!"
12. "No, I put your tax dollars into a mutual fund making me 8%"

WhatsUpWithThat isnt personaly funded. Nearly 90 k for the website development came from the Heartland institute. True or not?

False. Outrageous BS. WUWT received a one-time grant for half the cost of ($40K out of $80K) setting up a public graphic charting access to a government data site that was previously almost unusable. Not a cent otherwise, before or after. The other half of that project was paid out-of-pocket and by reader contributions.

Heartland's "questioning the science" consists of promoting open research and investigation as ideals, to students, as opposed to taking the AGW creed on faith. I.e., promoting science instead of suppressing it.

The whole "meme" of "questioning climate change" is also outrageous BS. Climate is never static; what's questioned is the "hidden variable fraud" of superficially eliminating all natural variation from consideration and then using the fallacious "argument from ignorance" ('we can't think of anything else that could do it') to assign all "forcing" to hypothetical human emission CO2 influence.

But as CO2 continues to rise at an accelerating rate, the globe's temperature has plateaued for 16 years, in flat contradiction to the output of all the GCM (climate models). They are crude approximations by any professional standards anyway, and this falsification by observation is only to be expected.

I think there is a negative public reaction to this thread... ;)

I know there is...

This thread is now completely out of whack!!!!

Sudre - I've already proposed something that people can do to reduce co2, but tellingly none of the global warming alarmists in this thread have gotten behind it. To wit, promote nuclear energy. Cue the personal attacks now that I've said something else in 3, 2, 1...

Shop, I happen to love nuclear energy, coz its very energy dense. Like you, I hate the alarmists who scream that nuclear is dangerous. However, I happen to believe in global warming.

Elon Musk has calculated that the land area dedicated to a nuclear power plant (the actual facility + unused surrounding "safety zone") would produce MORE electrical power annually if dedicated to solar instead. However he did not mention the longitude/latitude used for this calculation.

Brant, you mean safety zone in case of a meltdown?? That's a huge area, and a silly argument. Are you saying instead of nuke plants we should commandeer, what 500 square miles of land for solar?

Just quoting Elon. You can listen for yourself to what he said on the link I provided earlier to his talk at Oxford (or look it up on youtube) My understanding was that there is a defined zone around a Nuke plant that cannot be used for residential/commercial/farming/airport/anything actually. I don't think its that silly if it can't be used for anything else. Whats the difference? If you can use the same dedicated land area for solar and make more electricity without the hassle of dealing with spent fuel rods?

And don't get me wrong Shop; I like Nuclear just fine. But if Elon is right it would make sense to put the Nuke plants up north and Solar plants down south.

The problem with nuclear is that I don’t think that any country has really figured out a good way to deal with spent fuel. There seem to be many approaches, but none of them a good long term (or short term) solution.

X Deutschland Site Besuchen