Press Misrepresenting Electric Car Study

[ShrikeHawk 384]

The Low Carbon Vehicle Partnership (LowCVP) which produced a study, touted by conservative pundits as proof that electric cars are not a solution, is saying they are being misrepresented. The LowCVP did not say conventional cars are more green the electric cars. Here's a quote from Prof. Neville Jackson, Chairman, Low Carbon Vehicle Partnership:

 

"The article by Ben Webster, “Want a green car? Electric may not be the best choice”, The Times, June 10, was in my view misleading in its representation of the findings of the recent Ricardo-Low Carbon Vehicle Partnership study on the life cycle carbon emissions of electric vehicles (EVs).

[...]

By effectively doubling the projected carbon emitted in manufacture, Ben Webster skews his argument on potential carbon savings in favour of fossil fuelled vehicles and against EVs."

 

Here's a link to the actual response to the press (.pdf form); a letter from the LowCVP itself:

http://lowcvp-islein...O2%20Report.pdf

 

Once again, we find out later that science is being misused by those with a political agenda. The conservative press are taking a tiny snippet from the LowCVP study and taking out the only the bits they want to, not report and illuminate, but deceive the public to further their own agenda. You can't believe everything you read from the press, whether conservative or liberal. While the study does not say Electric Vehicles (EV) are the end-all-be-all of altrnative energy solutions ( I would prefer hydrogen fuel-cells ), it NEVER says EVs are less green than convention cars. In fact, the opposite is true. Here's a quote from the LowCVP site (bold by me):

 

The study - which has been widely picked by UK national and international media - says that electric and hybrid cars create more carbon emissions during their production than standard vehicles – but are still greener overall.

 

The same page goes on to say this (bold by me):

 

 

Greg Archer, LowCVP Managing Director, said: “This work dispels the myth that low carbon vehicles simply displace emissions from the exhaust to other sources. However, it does highlight the need to look at reducing carbon emissions from vehicles throughout their lifecycle. "The automotive industry is already taking positive steps to address this issue - the recent announcement by Toyota of a solar array to provide electricity to power the hybrid Auris production facility and wind power at the Nissan Leaf plant are excellent examples of this."

 

Here's the URL where I got the quotes:

 

http://www.lowcvp.or.../searchresults/

 

I find it disturbing that conservatives are so vehemently against alternative energy solutions. It's as though they want to destroy it simply because the idea itself is championed by liberals. As though without really understanding the idea, they still hate it only because it's supported by their enemies. I don't understand why alternative energies is considered a "liberal" concept. It's actually geo-politically and economically VERY conservative. I consider giving Billions of dollars per year to nations who support Muslim extremists pure insanity. In my view, anyone who supports continued petroleum use (beyond the need to develop plastics) is someone who supports - though indirectly - Muslim extremism.

Edited July 4, 2011 by ShrikeHawk

[Icarus999 70]

the electric car was workable... it was tested, and when the batteries were finally here to make it practical.... all of the cars that were built and leased out for testing purposes were seized from their (owners?). There is a huge amount of old money

involved in the energy market and they own both the democratic and republican parties. Most reasonable people when presented facts and figures agree and are willing to accept new cleaner sustainable technology if it works, and that is a huge threat to the old money interests that I refereed to. Political parties are useful mind control tools that are used by the global elite to keep people arguing on an emotional plane rather that thinking deeply about the issues and working together in a logical and productive manner.

[UK_Widowmaker 571]

The Fossilfuel industry don't believe anything will effectively replace..well... fossilfuel basically...but then they would of course!...Makes me laugh, when they say they are spending billions of dollars trying to find an alternative...hahahaha...yeah right

[ShrikeHawk 384]

I think Thorium nuclear plants is a brilliant idea. I hope we get started building them right away. I imagine though that the petroleum industry will try very hard to nix it. They don't want competition. It's bad for their profit margin. So they will continue to fund studies that allegedly "prove" alternative energy solutions are not "effective."

 

Thorium plants are just one of many steps to reducing the USA's (and many other country's) dependence on foreign oil. Electric cars are another step. The petroleum industry will tell you Electric Vehicles (EVs) are not viable because they aren't "perfect right this instant." They're hoping the American public is dumb enough to ignore the massive hole in their argument - petroleum cars have had decades and billions of dollars dedicated to their development. EVs have not. EVs need the money and the development time. They need the infrastructure that petroleum cars already benefit from.

 

Consider this: EVs have a much smaller carbon footprint when used in areas where power is generated more by nuclear, wind, and solar. Their footprint is much larger - almost equivalent to conventional cars - when used in areas that use coal and petroleum to generate power. So if we as a nation decide to start building Thorium nuclear plants we solve only one part of the energy problem. If we also start building/using/developing EVs..NOW, we'll have two parts of the energy problem solved once Thorium reactors go online! Delaying work on EVs because they aren't absolutely perfect right now, is childish and shortsighted.

 

I want to eliminate our dependence on hostile foreign nations as soon as possible. Building EVs is a much smaller/quicker/easier step than ripping out all of our coal and petroleum burning plants. Replacing them is going to take a looooong time. While we're doing that, it only makes sense to begin work...NOW on EVs so that the two can work together once both are available and solve many problems (e.g., Geo-political, Energy, Environment) at once.

[+Typhoid 231]

isn't this sort of political?

 

Conservatives are not against alternative energy. Conservatives are opposed to mandatory schemes that are based on scientific frauds.

 

Alternative energy schemes that are voluntary are just fine. If you want to pay the extra costs, that's your privilige.

 

The condemnation of those who misuse science to serve a political agenda is laughable coming from the perspective of the "low carbon" crowd. That entire agenda is built on a scientific fraud and relies on the demonization of opponents.

 

A key factor with respect to plug in cars (not hybrids) is that the electrical grid has to be able to support it. In most places, that grid is powered by Oil, Natural Gas, or Coal. So the plug-in's absolutely do nothing more than shift the source of emissions. The advocates of "low carbon cars" are careful to avoid acknowledging that reality. You all notice the press rebuttal failed to even mention that point.

 

The propaganda about the oil companies paying to keep competitors out of the market is nonsense as well. Those are energy companies, not oil companies. Most of those "evil oil companies" are themselves invested heavily in all forms of energy. Most of them have bailed out of the alternative energy schemes because -

 

Alternative Energy either doesn't work or is not cost competitive.

Edited July 6, 2011 by Typhoid

[SayethWhaaaa 245]

isn't this sort of political?

 

This is quite political. I urge you gents to avoid any Conservative/Liberal battling in this thread or take it to The Arena (the dedicated political forum) and discuss it there. We already had one issue akin to this earlier today that didn't end well, it'd be really nice to not have to wash blood off the walls again tonight...

[+Typhoid 231]

"it'd be really nice to not have to wash blood off the walls again tonight... "

 

HA HA HA

 

 

roger that! I'm outa here!!

 

[JediMaster 451]

The problem is there is big money on both sides of this issue. That means politicians are being bought and sold over it. THAT makes it political.

Science is not and will never be, but scientific studies that require funding usually are.

 

Trace back every one of these studies and you'll find one side or the other behind the funding, and even if claims of distance are made they're not believed.

 

Maybe if someone like Bill Gates funded such a study, when he has little of interest in either side, it could be viewed reasonably.

[Lexx_Luthor 57]

Bill Gates -- there was a time -- Kepler and Tycho -- where the rich funded a lot of very basic science, while staying out as well. I tend to think that's when science made its greatest advances. Sadly, I don't think today's very wealthy are independent of the giant banking system so I'd place little faith in them as opposed to the wealthy men of the distant past.

 

A quickie from uni....The dude who came up with the idea that matter could be described as waves was Louis DeBroglie, a wealthy French physicist after WW1. Now...I had a physics professor, and during a Modern Physics class lecture, when we were studying matter waves, this prof said...I swear I'm not making this up...

 

Physics Prof::

Why rich people go into science I'll never know.

 

That is sad. Cool guy though, but still.

 

Typhoid has tiptoed away from this thread now. But, just to keep things fresh, if anybody wondered where all the fuss about "carbon" comes from, while real pollution is being ignored, its because of carbon credit trading. It turns out that the giant banks are the one's most hoping to do carbon trading, and since we all know the giant banks have bought the .govs, we can see why carbon is being pushed hard as the "new pollution."

[+Typhoid 231]

And carbon credit trading has crashed, big time!! The markets are shutting down after the carbon price tanked to a nickel a ton.

 

Which is not surprising since carbon trading is quite literally trading on nothing more than Hot Air based on a scientific fraud.

[Lexx_Luthor 57]

T::

Which is not surprising since carbon trading is quite literally trading on nothing more than Hot Air based on a scientific fraud.

 

hehe, was just thinking, if they make carbon credits Legal Tender, payable for all debts public and private, and make "taxes" (say to the U.N.) payable only in carbon credits, then all bets are off. The social science, or behavioral science, behind monetary fraud is endlessly fascinating.

[ShrikeHawk 384]

This IS a bit political, and if one of the admins wants to move it to the Arena (I don't know how to do that), that's totally cool with me. Originally, I placed it here to counter-balance an opposing thread that has since been removed. I'm missing my opponent, but it's probably best for all in the end. For now, I'll lay off blaming political factions and stick strictly to energy concerns.

 

First of all, Nuclear/Solar/Wind absolutely, positively, without-a-doubt DO WORK. There are plants for all of these items up and running and providing power. They have been doing this for many years now. Tidal energy production (using the power of tidal currents to drive turbines) is fairly new. I'm not sure if that's producing power for the public yet or not. But there's no reason to think it won't. Solar-power satellites beaming power down to power stations via microwave is an old idea. Everyone is scared of the idea of a runaway satellite so I don't know if that'll ever be implemented. I think it's workable.

 

As far as being cost-competitive, of course it is! And, the more it is used, the more competitive it becomes. Right here in Odessa, where practically everyone works in the oil fields nearby, you can switch to an energy provider that uses only renewable energy sources. Their cost per KW is much lower. This is an oil boom-town. There are plans to build 300 more wells (this doesn't bother me because it's Domestic production). At the same time, they are also building over 500 windmills! There's no shortage at all of wind out here so these babies are going to see a lot of work. It's development like this that will insure that wind-power becomes even more cost competitive.

 

The reason...Supply and Demand. Remember this one. It drives the price of EVERYTHING from jumbo jets to drinking straws to fresh oranges. Right now there is very little Demand because...those guys...have been convincing the American public that public that petroleum use is just fine and that Alternative Energies "don't work." "Whoever it is" has a vested interest (their stock portfolio) in petroleum and they will spend a lot of money trying to cause doubt about Alternative Energy. So far it's worked and there is very little Demand. With so little Demand there are very few manufacturers who are willing to build the materials needed to build alternative energy plants. So Supply is very low. All this forces the price..UP. This leads to the mistaken belief that Alternative Energy is expensive and not cost effective. BUT, if Demand increases (e.g., "an enlightened public insists on getting it"), then that changes things. Initially, it will cause the price to climb still higher, because Demand is high but Supply is low. But once manufacturers realize there's money to be made, they'll start tooling up and provide more Supply, driving the price back down again. Once a large infrastructure is in place, bulk rates will begin to apply and the price will drop even further.

 

You see this all the time with new technologies. When the iPhone first came out just a few years ago, you had pay ($600? $800?) bucks for it. Supply was low, and the Demand was low. The cost stayed high as Demand skyrocketed but few manufacturing facilities made it, so Supply was low, forcing the price UP. Now, most people who want an iPhone have one so Demand has dropped. The many facilities that made it are still in place so Supply is high. Thus iPhones are getting more affordable all the time because of the simple process of Supply and Demand.

 

We could see the same effect with Alternative Energy power plants and Electric Vehicles. If only the Demand was there, it would happen. If only the infamous "they" would stop opposing it - just change your stock portfolio, boys - and get on the bandwagon. If only the American public would educate itself a little bit (give up Housewives of LA for just one night), it could all happen.

 

I'm not suggesting this because of Global Warming. I'm not convinced that petroleum use is causing it. It could very well be just another natural stage of the Earth and it's only Human arrogance that suggests we could cause or even the fix the problem. I can't decide who's right. The numbers and rhetoric on BOTH sides of the argument are deceptive for their own reasons. I won't try to figure it out anymore. My motivations are Economic and Geo-Political. Economically, I'm sick and tired of the US...PAYING another country for something so vital as energy production. Without energy our whole nation comes to a screeching halt! I hate the idea of depending on somebody else for something so critical. It's Un-American. As an Emphatic Capitalist, it chills me to the bone to know we're doing something so stupid. It gets worse. On the Geo-Political side the people we are paying...HATE us. They would love to see our country, and many others, burned to the ground. The governments we pay do not suggest this overtly, but they are happily supplying cash and arms to the people who would destroy our nation. Why do the Taliban and Al-Qiada seem to have unlimited resources? Because they're getting the money from the USA! Want to shut down terrorist organizations? STOP paying for oil. How do we that? Make our own energy. We can't do it all with oil, so we need Alternative Energy. Solve this issue, and many many other issues are solved as well.

[JediMaster 451]

Well, I'm sure human activity isn't helping, but there's one unavoidable fact: the Martian polar caps are shrinking. We're not doing that.

Solar energy decreases as a square of the distance, so Mars is getting a lot LESS solar energy than earth.

 

So, doing the math, if our planet gets more solar energy than Mars, and what Mars is getting is enough to make its caps shrink...

 

Does this mean we can do whatever we want? Of course not. We will just make it worse. Would the world change in such a way to make the climate hostile to humanity even if we weren't here? Possibly.

The fallacy of the "green" movement is that the Earth and the sun are static. It has been both far warmer and far cooler than it is now with no human intervention. It can easily become either again, and any change could possibly render the planet if not uninhabitable at least inhospitable except for the previously inhospitable regions (ie Antartica becoming a great place to live if it gets real hot and the equatorial areas being nice and temperate if things chill down).

 

So the question is not "is mankind changing the climate", because we know we are, it's "is mankind changing the climate enough, in combination with its own tendency to change anyway, that we or our children or grandchildren will be in severe peril, and what can we do to alleviate the problem?" It's quite possible that if every "emitter" disappeared today, whether coal burner, fossil fuel burner, gas emitter, etc, the world would continue on its merry way with no real observable difference in what is to come ie it's too late for us to change anything except for the worse. Doesn't mean we shouldn't try. But if all our efforts won't help, and business as usual isn't going to make it that much worse, how much effort should we really exert?

 

This is what studies should be for.

 

 

This is what they have failed to provide.

[ShrikeHawk 384]

Well, I'm sure human activity isn't helping

 

Totally Agree.

 

So the question is not "is mankind changing the climate", because we know we are, it's "is mankind changing the climate enough, in combination with its own tendency to change anyway, that we or our children or grandchildren will be in severe peril, and what can we do to alleviate the problem?"

 

Spot on. Nobody seems to know for certain, but even so we should still take action and stop stalling. I still think about it like this: It's a bad idea to defecate in your own bed. Medical science will tell you that you "might get sick" and you "could ultimately die" from it. But neither of those statements are certainties. What Anti-Alternative Energy pundits are suggesting is that since it's "not certain" that petroleum use is triggering climate change, then without overwhelming proof it's okay to continue petroleum use as normal. It's like them saying it's okay to defecate in your bed and sleep in it because you "might not die."

[Capitaine Vengeur 263]

 

 

"When the last tree has been cut down,

When the last river has been poisoned,

When the last fish has been caught,

Only then you will realize that money cannot be eaten."

 

(Native American prophecy, 19th Century)

 

 

 

We have only one inhabitable planet. We have billions of people to feed and hundreds of vain individual desires to satisfy, but we have only planet. No spare parts, no spare world, no world mechanic. Yes Shrike, nobody seems to know for certain. But if we have the slightest doubt about anything having the slightest chance to irreparably harm our irrepleacable treasure (though underrated as such), we should feel the instinctive duty to search for and find solutions - whatever costly would be the research, whatever ridiculous would seem the experiments, whatever unpleasant would be the solutions. But do we degenerate chimps still perceive such instinctive duties?

 

 

[eraser_tr 29]

I normally stay away from these now but had to mention something.

 

No matter what anyone thinks about environmentalism or climate change, switching to alternative fuel sources is a necessity. It's all because of peak oil. While there may be plenty of oil in the ground to use, there are fewer discoveries and production is declining. Demand is continually increasing and production can never catch up, prices will get to a point where it will be too expensive to use.

[JediMaster 451]

As long as the alternatives are more expensive, less portable, or require expensive infrastructure upgrades that increase the cost indirectly, there will be resistance.

 

In fact, the reason oil is lasting this long is because the overall cost has increased to the point where things like shale and sands are now cost-effective, along with new drilling techniques getting at previously unreachable fields or getting it out of unreachable parts of existing fields.

 

Oil at $90/b has proven to be sustainable and while sub-$50/b oil is probably long gone, we'll have $90+ oil for quite some time yet.

 

When oil's price becomes too high THEN we will get the other sources made affordable, if only by comparison if not absolutely.

[ShrikeHawk 384]

The problem is waiting until oil is too expensive. By the time we reach that point, we'll be in a serious bind. Alternative energies are going to need some time to develop; time to "mature" as a technology. This isn't Hollywood where you can outrun an explosion or dodge into a building before the deadly cold kills you. In reality, by the time the problem comes to a head it's already too late. Waiting until the oil situation gets really really bad is the worst thing we can do. Politicians will insist that scientists produce a solution overnight, and they simply will be unable to do it.

 

The best solution is to get going...NOW. Don't worry that EVs don't have absolutely zero emmission this very moment. Keep working at it. Provide even these "imperfect" cars to the general public. Let them get used to the idea. The cars will get better and people will like them better as time marches on.

 

We should continue building wind farms and solar farms. That's a little easier to sell because people won't work with them directly. They only care that the lights go on when they hit the switch. The old power plants need to be replaced anyway. And imagine all the jobs that building alternative energy plants would create. People are constantly complaining about the unemployment rates. Well, we should start a New New Deal and get working on public works projects for alternative energy. It will create new jobs, more money flow, and thus revitalize the economy!

 

Developing alternative energy would...

- Limit foreign spending on oil

- The savings could be used to cut back on the deficit.

- Stop supplying money to hostile nations

- They wouldn't be able to supply terrorists so much.

- Environmental improvements

- Our air would get cleaner - Total cases of Asthma and pulmonary diseases should drop

- No more oil spills - a an environmental disaster every time

- Climate change may be slowed or even reversed

- Avoidance of future conflicts

- We'll have no more need to muck about in the volatile Middle-east

- We'll have no need to compete with China for oil

- Future conflicts over oil resources can be dodged completely

 

The number of Win-Win scenarios constantly grow. Pick your favorite cause whether it be Environment, Geo-Politic, Economic, or Personal Stock Portfolio, there's a way for almost everyone to get something they want. So my question is...what they heck are we waiting for?

[+Typhoid 231]

the problems with these schemes is that they are based on scientific frauds paid for by political activists/green energy advocates.

 

If you want to argue climate change - it's based on scientific fraud

 

If you want to argue Peak Oil - it's based on a scientific and political fraud achieved by stopping new production and then claiming the reduction in new wells is proof of Peak Oil.

 

If you want to argue alternative energy on its merits - fine. Do so. There are some good arguments, some of which I've seen here. But quit referring to scientific frauds as the rationale and quit demonizing those of us who point out the scientific failures.

 

Example of a scientific failure - not one climate prediction by the Thermophobes in over 20 years has actually been correct. Not one. And all of the Thermophobic predictions are based on nothing more than theoretical models which have all failed in relation to the real world.

 

Claims that alternative energy schemes are cost-competitive are also based on fraudulant cherry-picking of the data and ignoring key limitations (such as wind not working in low-wind and low-temperature conditions, thereby requiring conventionally powered backup plants).

 

Don't call me a denier if I disagree with you. Don't demonize skeptical scientists and don't claim that all skeptics are oil industry shills. (which is the standard response - not saying that anyone here has said that).

 

My 2 cents. Adios.

[ShrikeHawk 384]

the problems with these schemes is that they are based on scientific frauds paid for by political activists/green energy advocates.

[...]

Don't demonize skeptical scientists and don't claim that all skeptics are oil industry shills. (which is the standard response - not saying that anyone here has said that).

 

I think it's hardly sporting to call the scientists frauds and shills on one side of the debate, and in the same post ask that the scientists on the other side be not demonized and accused of being shills. You can hardly expect cooperation when you're doing the very thing you ask another to stop doing.

 

Back to the topic...

 

I have never seen Al Gore's movie, "An inconvenient truth." The reason: I already knew about it. I had learned all of this stuff watching science and nature programs (for free) for over a decade. Up until that movie released, nobody questioned the science. Nobody doubted the results. The facts and figures all survived peer review. There was no doubt about it all...until Al Gore championed the cause. As soon as a "political figure" stuck his finger in the pie, then suddenly there are doubters everywhere. And the doubters overwhelmingly sprung the opposite side of the political spectrum from Al Gore. Hmmm. Coincidence? Once the fact of climate change got into the hands of politicians - God help us all - a very clear and straightforward understanding became muddy and uncertain. Climate change became a political tool wielded both sides without any appreciation whatsover for its scientific revelations. I imagine the politicians supporting it now probably knew nothing about it because they were too busy, eating Spotted Owl and Bengal Tiger at state dinners, to know anything about science and nature.

 

I don't believe that the politicians ( for or against ) know anything about climate change. At first, it was called Global Warming. But then all the "against" pundits presumed that meant that every square inch of the entire Earth's surface would rise a few degrees. When it didn't happen they cried, "foul" and called the the whole idea "fraud." Had the politicians read any further than the title, they would have understood that's not how it works. Global Warming changes weather "patterns." So a location that was normally very dry might suddenly become very wet. A hundred miles away, the neighboring location that used to get all the rain might suddenly turn dry. We can also expect more storms and more violent ones. We are experiencing ALL these things. Expecting the entire planet to evenly get warmer is the simplistic understanding of a child. Certainly the understanding of an adult who didn't seriously examine the science; who also thought political infighting much more exciting than gaining real knowledge.

 

So, when science tried to clarify by renaming the idea, "Climate Change," the "against" pundits cried "foul" again. They claimed that changing the name at all was substantial proof that the science was fraudulent in the first place. Once again, the politicians play to the "dumber and dumberer" to make their point. In the end, politicians have systematically destroyed any chance for the original science to get its point across. Handing real science to politicians is like giving a fully-armed F-15E to a rich, spoiled child and expecting him to be responsible with it. It will never work.

 

Supporters of climate change are using it to force the nation into accepting alternative energy. They claim, "we messed the planet up, it's up to us to fix it." While I believe that climate change is happening, I'm not clear on who's fault it is. Maybe it's the Earth's natural cycle and maybe it's our fault. It hardly matters...now, does it? The important point is that alternative energy is a good idea, but using the fact of climate change to force it on people is a bad idea. It's hard to prove whose "fault" it is, Humanity or the Earth. Nobody wants to DO anything until absolute proof is provided that Humanity is the cause. It's kinda like two guys, A and B, watching a tsunami wave approaching and arguing about who caused it. Neither one will move until one or the other proves his point. Well, it hardly matters does it? The important thing is to DO something fast, right now!

 

All of which leads me to my original point. If you don't believe that climate change is real, then fine. Don't. Drop the subject and move on to other reasons why alternative energy should be adopted with a vengeance. The important thing is to DO something fast, right now. I think the thing to DO is start developing alternative energy. My reasons are Geo-Political and Economic. I have outlined them in my previous posts. They are not based on alleged "fraudulent science." I don't think anyone will claim that most of the oil being in the middle east is "fraud." If I claim the middle-east is an unstable, volatile region, I don't think I can be called, "fraud." If I claim that our troops are dying in the middle-east while trying to stabilize the region ( albeit through force of arms ), I don't think I can be called, "fraud." If I claim we are giving money to this same region to get oil, I don't think that is, "fraud." So if I say I think it's STUPID to engage in all the above activities when we have the power, the money, the manpower, and the knowhow to avoid charging that whole quixotic morass, and save thousands of American lives, and insure that the USA retains economic dominance over the rest of the world, does it make me a "leftist hippy activist shill?" I don't think so. I think that makes me "more conservative" than all the petroleum backers whose support insures the continued existence of terrorism. These are cold, full-metal-jacket realities, folks. As a nation we should pay attention to them.

Edited July 9, 2011 by ShrikeHawk

[eraser_tr 29]

SMH.

 

I'm with shrikehawk 100%. And quite frankly, all of these concepts and observations were around before the world fell down the rabbit hole^TM. The calculations for Peak Oil were formulated by a geophysicist working for the energy companies (shell I believe). So he *should* have been a shill for the petroleum giants, but this was in the days when reality mattered. For new oil discoveries to be downplayed and production artificially limited for some agenda would be an impossible conspiracy. It would require literally every oil producing country and every energy company to participate and basically cooperate with "the opposing side" to accomplish "their" goals.

 

Peak oil can be applied to the world, countries and even an individual oil field. And it's not just oil the calculations and theory can be used for, they can be used for almost any commodity. It is such pure and simple logic, and honestly not that much different from the law of diminishing returns that it's undeniable.

 

Whether people believe in something or not does not make it real or false. Without delving into the weirdness of quantum physics and its meaning for reality, for all intents and purposes, there is a singular reality we're dealing with. There are not two sides to everything.

 

The universe didn't rearrange itself from everything revolving around the Earth to the Earth revolving around the sun when Gallileo proved it to be. Nor did the earth suddenly wrap itself into a ball when people stopped believing the earth was flat. It was like that all along. If people believed gravity was based on fraudulent science with a political motive, such people would not stand mid-air like Wyle E Coyote before he looks down.

[Lexx_Luthor 57]

ShrikeHawk::

I don't believe that the politicians ( for or against ) know anything about climate change. At first, it was called Global Warming.

 

At first, it was called Global Cooling. But that was a 1970s thing.

 

If you want less petroleum use, then stop the subsidizing of oil, and let the free market find its price. That free market price will be significantly much higher I think. THAT is how you "educate" folks. The nicest thing about the ramp in fuel price here in USA back in 2008 was that everybody drove slower, and thus more safely in that respect. High speed kills, and like afterburner, eats fuel. Even the big truckers slowed down, as they then had to take into account fuel costs as well as time to deliver. I loved those higher prices.

 

 

 

"Climate" is changing, because that's what it generally does. I like to think, if we are warming up, its more volcanic related, and any reported ocean warming may best be explained by this, since heat capacity of the atmosphere is many orders of magnitude *less* than the heat capacity of the oceans. Think about it: The mass of water in the oceans is vastly greater than the mass of air in the atmosphere, and we all know about the specific heat of liquid water being vastly larger compared to most if not all other substances, especially gases such as air.

 

Possibly, one of the amazing realizations in the early research into climate and chaos was that there is no such thing as a climate, if one defines climate as "average" weather. Climate does not exist, since as a chaotic system, it has no average, or "normal" steady state, or something like that. Or so I've read in a book about Chaos anyways.

 

---

 

Most important, for those who last page poasted that "nobody is certain", it IS certain that those most behind the idea of human caused global warming is the global banking system, as that system stands to profit by this idea -- carbon credit trading for example, and the confiscation of private non-banking or "main street" wealth as opposed to "wall street" wealth as another example. We also know for certain, just looking at this one CombatAce thread, that we are not yet willing to talk among ourselves about the banking system.

[JediMaster 451]

That's because unlike the weather, we have really NO idea how that smoke-and-mirrors show works!

[ShrikeHawk 384]

Well, this thread is about the press misrepresenting a study about electric vehicles, and by extension, the benefits of electric vehicles and alternative energy. How the banks are profiteering from concerns about CO2 is getting a bit off-topic. However if Lexx wants to start another thread about that thought, I'd be happy to chop it up there.

[Lexx_Luthor 57]

Yep, butt, somehow E-car threads always turn into gas prices or climate, and those always turn into banking when the situationally (just made that up) aware are round and bout.

 

I love golf carts. Beef them up a bit should be all we need for urban and local rural soul transportation. Souls are light weight generally. Carry a few high density packed tool bags maybe, or a tiny trailer even. Don't try to make them look like those jelly bean cars. E~cars should have their own independent look, but not have that golf cart look either.

 

The real issue here is road systems and driver training must ensure equal utility for walkers, bicyclists, bikers, E~cars, and older cars or trucks. Its said that New York intentionally destroyed bicycle transportation in favour of gasoline car transportation. I dunno, but there's a lot of petty corruption going round (by petty I mean non~banking).