Great article with great visual aids.
Seriously. You're asking me to prove a negative? Kids these days...
There could well be something under the rock. But since it's impossible to prove there isn't, it's up to those who think there is to prove there point of view.
"And dealer associations are hardly unique in wanting to protect their anti-competitive business model. Think "teacher's unions and charter schools", for example."
But not oil companies. Is that what you're saying? Talk about hypocrisy.
Actually, that wasn't what I was saying; I was pointing out that dealer associations have motivations other than anti-electric-car bias. They would be doing exactly the same thing if Tesla were selling ICE luxury cars with the same "no dealer" sales model.
No, I haven't. Perhaps I should have said "Nobody has provided any evidence..."
That's true, if not really germane to the discussion. Not to highjack the thread, but in other news over 2,000 low-temperature and snowfall records were set in this country last week. Heck, Cairo just had its first snow in 112 years! But I suppose that all falls under "climate change."
Just to clarify where I'm coming from: after owning my Model S for three months, I think that electric cars are both better to drive and better for the environment than gas cars. You don't need to invent conspiracy theories every time you see coverage of Tesla that's less than slavishly admiring.
Dramsey, you may well be correct about the Audis going wild and I may misremember the connection to cruise control, or the papers I was reading in the 80's may have painted an overly speculative picture. (Imagine that!)
Still, cars are complicated machines. There was a series of serious accidents with ambulances (M-B), maybe early 80's, which were a total mystery. Nothing wrong technically. Then somebody noticed that the crashes had all occurred with a critical patient riding in the back. Turned out, the mucus suction device was fed from the same vacuum tank that powered the brake assist: the sicker a patient, the greater the hurry, the less braking available. Boom. And this anecdote was corroborated by someone who had been involved in the investigation.
It's plausible that there is something. However, you said, 'especially when there's nothing under the rock, implying you had turned the rock over, and had found nothing.
I was not asking you to prove anything, wise one.
I am just going to sit back in my tin foil hat and enjoy this discussion. I will let you guys sort it out. :)
Regarding fracking, documented methane releases from fracking, are 30+ times worse ounce per ounce than carbon dioxide emissions, and are why I am opposed to fracking (http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/ksinding/new_report_confirms_methane_e...). This follows reports that methane releases from the arctic (http://www.newsminer.com/news/local_news/uaf-researchers-show-arctic-lea...)are much higher than previously reported and are alarming as we approach the tipping point that may trigger uncontrollable climate change as summarized in this video clip lasthours.org. That is why I had my gas furnace and water heater removed and replaced with a heat pump and heat pump water heater. Natural gas is not the clean energy touted by the gas industry when methane releases are accounted for and added in at levels actually being reported at fracking sites, not the levels that the industry has previously reported.
@Dramsey You followed up with "No, I haven't. Perhaps I should have said "Nobody has provided any evidence..." Almost right. You should have said: "I have not seen any evidence, but then again, I haven't looked" Your stataement "Nobody has provided any evidence..." has no factual basis, just as your original statement had none. You made the statement about snow in Cairo. If you had done your research you would know that Climate Change includes snowfall where it normally doesn't fall due to the change in weather systems. The shifting and weakening jet streams is causing weather systems to get into a 'locked in' state. The unusual snow supports Climate Change, rather than refutes it. Climate Change science is complicated and interwoven. It cannot be discussed, with anymerit, without doing a lot of research first. http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn24756-nightmare-before-christmas-f...
I thought I would sit back and avoid this argument here but I feel compelled to add this one comment:
weather DOES NOT = climate
Pretty simple concept, but confusing for some. 97% of scientists agree. If 97% of doctors agreed, would you question them?
Ok, now I'm out.
There's a bloke here who runs around claiming global warming is actually very beneficial, and over population is not a problem we should be worried about, but eventual under population (in his mind)
When it comes to human caused GW, suddenly there are thousand doubts. When someone mentions 5000 year old earth, there is steadfast acceptance, no questions asked.
"Oh, but all science is just opinion, and scientists keep changing their opinion!"
Ignorant minds, clinging on to Stone Age thinking.
OK, now I am out too.
I hope fracking doesn't cause my child to be born with 2 heads. that's 2 mouths to feed and I can't afford it after my MS.
@leilani "I am just going to sit back in my tin foil hat and enjoy this discussion. I will let you guys sort it out. :)"
Well, they aren't all guys ( though I imagine a majority), and you might as well put on the tin foil hat and get out the popcorn. ;-)
As to them "sorting it out", ha!
Nice article, thanks for writing it.
Here is a T-grin for you :-) And I'll keep mine own. :-)
@jchangyy Eh? All discussions which can be based on fact, should be based on fact and rational discussion and any particular opinion on the topic is without merit unless it backed by fact and rationality. Discussions which are purely opinion, such as 'is a banana milkshake more yummy than a strawberry one', is purely opinion where everyone's opinion has equal merit. Which camp does 'I hope fracking doesn't cause my child to be born with 2 heads. that's 2 mouths to feed and I can't afford it after my MS.' fall into?
@bb...wow. take it easy. You need to take a chill pill. I was just trying lighten up the mood. Now, what we don't know is the effects of fracking on water supply and long term consequences. there are contradictory studies (once by environmental groups and others by large NG corps) on the effects of fracking on our water source. some of the consequences may not be apparent for years to come, so it's hard to say what effects fracking may have on our future generation.
I googled but I still can't figure out the meaning of author's license plate:
"Eff" stands for "F" which stands for "F*ck" so in other words, my license plate reads "F*ck Oil" ;)
Once again, way past ur bed time, and u have to explain the best vanity plate? I guess we will add insomniac, to bright, articulate, and hiotty
@jchangyy Chilled. Now shaken but no longer stirred. I had incorrectly assumed your orginal comment was a fatuous dismissal of evnironmental concern.
Leilani is the best, please teach me how to drive like you do.
@Azdcmoney i'm a night owl :)
@Dramsey You have not understood climate change. Rising average temperature does not mean that temperature is higher every day and everywhere. When complex system is rapidly pushed, it will oscillate back and forth, until new balance is found. New balance is likely very different than old one. Average temp will be higher, but distribution of heat and rain might be very different from current.
Oceans have enormous heat capacity. That slows down climate change. It also means that CO2 releases during last decades do not yet have full effect. Even if we completely stop CO2 releases now, warming will continue decades.
For climate 50 years is very short time.
Part of sea level rise is caused by warming of water. That will stop when warming stops. Glaciers continue to melt until climate has cooled close to normal temp. So sea will keep rising much longer.
Only one example: Bangladesh, population 150 M, with 70% of the total area only about 1 meter above sea level. Where could they go? So in future: "100 000 000 poor Muslim textile workers and farmers seeking new home. Who will/must take them?"
Since we can't perform a double-blind experiment with the earth, the only test of climate change theory is its ability to make accurate predictions. It's failed miserably at this, and what's worse, its priests are never held accountable for their failed prognoses. The IPCC predicted snowless winters in England by 2010; in 2008, Al Gore claimed the North Pole would be ice-free in five years. There are innumerable other examples.
At the very least, existing climate change models are wrong. Maybe we shouldn't base policy on the predictions models that we know are wrong.
OK, far afield from the original topic, so I'll shut up now.
Actually no. I've been reading up on the subject for some years now. As noted in my previous reply, at the very least the existing climate change models are wrong, since they have a crappy record of making accurate predictions. My conclusion is that "climate change" is whatever its adherents want it to me, and that definition changes frequently.
Remember in the 1970s when climate scientists were assuring us that we were entering a new, mini-ice age? There was serious talk about spreading carbon black on glaciers to promote warming.
@SMinnihan Nissan is selling much more cars than Tesla. Without Tesla people would still repeat: "Electric cars have no future outside cities, because range is small. It is not possible to make practical long range EV." So Tesla is EV leader!
Tesla is growing very rapidly. In my opinion, growth is more likely too fast than too slow. Making 20 000 - 40 000 mid priced cars per year is not much. 40 000 premium cars/year is so large market share, that every car manufacturer must take an action. They cannot ignore EV any more.
Tesla is not yet large enough to make an affordable vehicle. Simply impossible.
+ Dramsey +1 Shop
Perhaps big oil is twisting things to their advantage. Perhaps they have somehow subverted the press. They certainly have done things in the past worthy of condemnation. As have most all large corporations ay one time or another. As have most all large organizations of most any kind. They share the one thing that makes this possible, they are made up of people.
The same is true of the Dealer Associations.
I may have a belief they are acting purely is their self interests with a complete lack of concern for the greater good. The article may or may not align with our beliefs. That doesn't change the fact that it did not credibly defend it's position.
You don't have to agree or disagree with the article's general theme or position to see the deficiencies.
@Dramsey Nature was taking us towards next ice age. It would have come in few thousand years. Perhaps we have canceled it now. Mini-ice age is a possibility. We should have sunspot max now or at least very soon. Sun is still fairly passive. So mini-ice age could start soon. We cannot predict sun so we know more after a year. Mini-ice now would be good in short term. It would cancel global warming we are causing. I'm afraid we would continue to add CO2 to atmosphere, so when mini-ice age ends, we would be in a big trouble.
Man made global warming is a scientific theory. Theories are tested by an experiment. We are making that experiment now. Unfortunately we have only one climate to test it. It would be much better to test it in mars first.
Tsernobyl reactor was considered so safe that it did not need pressure proof building around it. It had an interesting design feature: When shutting down, its power output first increased. Similarly designed car would first accelerate when driver press brake, then slowly stop. Reactor had safety system to prevent this feature causing an accident. Then somebody wanted to make an experiment. He started by switching that safety system off. Was that an acceptable experiment?
Most scientists agree that increasing CO2 will lead to worse disaster for nature (extinct species) and for us (deaths by storms, floods,...) than Tsernobyl. Still many want to continue this experiment.
Interesting to note that without "Big Oil" Mrs. Davidson would be unemployed as her sport/profession would not exist. Talk about biting the hand that feeds you!
That is an excellent article!
The problem we have today with climate change deniers is that those same people feel that science is opinion even though we live in a scientific society and scientific age. In the 70s and 80s, scientists recognized and publicized information about ozone depletion. It was affectionately called the "hole in the ozone layer". As a society, we felt the issue was compelling enough to ban the products that were a primary cause in ozone depletion - CFCs. We were intelligent back then.
The difference between then and today is that every low information person out there thinks they know more about this issue than actual scientists. We have consistently dumbed down science and brought up an uneducated population in the last 20 to 30 years. When I was in high school, I was required to take Physics and Calculus. Today, kids barely understand basic algebra at that level. They think physics is something you do at the gym.
We should all be coming together behind the recognized climate change data, however "politics of the dumb" and the efforts of subversive, shady, conservative political organizations such as ALEC endeavor to turn back the clock of progress... and to what end? Funneling more money into the hands of the few? That is surely an admirable and lofty goal that will propel our society forward, don't you think?
If anyone wants to watch a chilling prediction 15 years ago from someone I hope we can agree is one of the finest, most respected and recognized scientists of our time - Dr. Carl Sagan - have a look:
Everyone who values science and who believes in a scientific world should find Dr. Sagan's words chilling in today's day and age.
I like the picture of Leilani and her car. AND you can do this with the car on and not pass out from carbon monoxide.
X Deutschland Site Besuchen