ShrikeHawk

Glad to see the pilots survived, but it's still tragic to lose a Mustang.

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.

Here's a link to a very interesting article. A photo was shot of a Bald Eagle resting on a gravestone. Turns out it was the grave of a serviceman with a keen eye. An excellent marksman who served in the Aleutians. http://www.startribune.com/local/124543223.html

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.

Too bad the lunatic who came up with a veggie diet for cats, knows absolutely nothing about cats. Your cat would not only do something terrible to your shoes, it would curl up and die within a few weeks.

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?

Totally Agree. 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."

Sounds like something Yogi Berra would say. Perhaps Ben Franklin?

Happy B'Day!

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.

Congrats!

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.

Looks really cool. Looking forward to it!

Happy 4th everybody!

I remember. Happy Birthday to us!

Then again, if the sheik went to London to preach goodwill and harmony among all peoples, he'd be an "Islamic Peacemaker." That's a nice label to have isn't it? I doubt the alleged "Jewish Lobby" would have him ousted for that. So, sure the label, "Islamic Troublemaker" doesn't help anything, but is that as bad as the Sheik suggesting militarism to his congregation? People promoting hostility and anger have to be dealt with swiftly. We've had enough of people killing in the name of religion. Sh*tdisturbers like the sheik (and our own Christian ones over here) need be muzzled and made to "take a timeout."

Every country has its weirdos. Israel is not immune, nor is the USA. Remember the the guy that wanted to burn Qurans? Sheesh! What an embarrassment. It's a poor practice to judge a country by it's weirdos...or it's politicians.

Anybody know what causes this?

Awesome! That worked great. Thanks very much, Heck!

Sheesh! Right on all points. So I guess I'm just screwed on this one, yes?

Gosh I hope not. This is an A-Team model. It looked just fine in SF1. But when placed in SF2 it suddenly has this visual effect.

Great to hear, man.

Most cool! Malta is one of my favorite places for simming. Any chance you could make a blue/tan Maltese skin for the Mk V?

Isn't Cocas working on some low-poly bombers for the BoB theater? Perhaps that will help, if not solve the problem.