The 'Lefts' answer to Global Warming

[goinbroke2]

Once I see IPCC on something, I'm somewhat leary. You know, fool me once and all that.

 

The IPCC has been wrong on many things (glaziers in himalaya's etc) but still cling that THEY are the experts that NO ONE can dispute with...then when they do admit it, it's in a small single line saying "oops we might of over estimated".

 

The process of peer reviewing is valid, but not un-corruptable. (as we have seen)

The fact that they let anything leftwing, jump on their coattails to bolster the appearance of being the overseer of all things enviro kind of tells me they are easily manipulated.

 

The problem with being easily manipulated is that you lose credibility.

 

 

 

And they have.

[Imawhosure]

Mustang......SIGH.............we no longer have to supply facts. You see, your guys got caught doing fabrications to fit their models, lol. Everything put forth by them is now either suspect at best, or a proven exaggeration by their own admission.

 

And so, since our guys have NOT been proven to lie, cheat, exaggerate, manipulate, create false crisis, (Ala Al Gore) etc.........it is now YOUR side that has to show NEW data that makes your case. Data that does not have the stench of those data creators of the radical enviro socialistic regime. Our data and position only became questionable because of lies and fabrications by your guys. Once it was shown what your guys did, our position returned to extremely solid, just as we claimed all along.

 

So, got any latest and greatest data to support your position? Data NOT tainted by those phony manipulators,upto and including the charming and delightful, phoney baloney, leader of the enviro religion, Al Gore? Cause if you gonna regurgitate that which has been admitted by the perps to be false, we are just waisting bandwidth!

 

Oh, and if you don't...........and even if you do...........why doesn't someone post the reason they admitted to cooking the books, lolol. We won't hear from an enviro for a month-)

[mustang_sallad]

Mustang......SIGH.............we no longer have to supply facts. You see, your guys got caught doing fabrications to fit their models, lol. Everything put forth by them is now either suspect at best, or a proven exaggeration by their own admission.

 

Please show me the analysis of the "climategate" incident that shows that there was any actual falsifying of data.

[xr7g428]

my place of work just happens to be a company that designs, builds, and sells electric vehicles.

 

So you have a strong vested interest in getting people out of their cars. So you want to move society in the direction that benefits you the most. Got it.

 

As Sinclair put it:

 

"It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!"

 

What are you doing on a website devoted to Ford Motor Company?

[Mark B. Morrow]

So you have a strong vested interest in getting people out of their cars. So you want to move society in the direction that benefits you the most. Got it.

 

As Sinclair put it:

 

"It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!"

 

What are you doing on a website devoted to Ford Motor Company?

 

 

I guess he's here because he likes Fords. Ford will soon be in the business of building and selling electric vehicles as well.

[grbeck]

More garbage.

 

I understand your frustration at having your arguments carried to their logical conclusion, but calling a post "garbage" won't make the issue go away.

 

Its not a black and white issue.

 

Really? Then I would suggest that you not post things like this in the future:

 

If you think that the government imposing laws like "build more fuel efficient vehicles" and "use more efficient lightbulbs" is extreme... you need to grow up and suck it up. Are you gonna cry because you can't buy the classic light bulb?

 

I do reduce my energy consumption wherever possible, I rarely drive a car, I rarely eat meat, I bike to work, and my place of work just happens to be a company that designs, builds, and sells electric vehicles. The fact that I still do consume energy doesn't mean that I don't believe people should generally reduce the amount of energy they consume. How is that even a remotely logical conclusion?

 

That's all well and good, but the fact that other people may choose not to, for whatever reason (for example, they may drive a relatively large vehicle) does not make them less pure than you are, nor is it really any of your business.

 

And I'm glad that you have a job that you enjoy, but the simple fact is that your company will benefit from a government action. Which, in turn, will provide you with job security. In this case, the government action is enacting regulations or changes in the tax code that will make electric vehicles cost competitive with conventional or hybrid vehicles (which they are not at this point, which is why they aren't that popular). This particular action is much less likely to happen without groups clamoring for the federal government to address climate change.

 

Your call for more regulation in order to "do something" about manmade global is obviously driven as much by self-interest as anything else. You can delude yourself into believing that you are somehow more pure and are not motivated by self-interest, but that only works for a little while.

 

Some people claim to care about the environment, so they all automatically get lumped in together? There isn't one large group of "Environmentalists" that all have to agree on every idea. Just last month I wrote a letter to my city's paper, arguing against a community that is fighting for a new wind farm in my area. I'm all for wind farms. A few whacko people who claim to care about the environment but really only care about their view don't de-validate any of my arguments.

 

You mean like lumping everyone who is skepitcal of the theory of manmade global warming as shills for the petroleum industry? No, your side would never do THAT, now would it? It's best not to whine about an argument or tactic when you or your side has used it in the past (and continues to use it).

 

Incidentally, the environmental community has been happy to have members of the Kennedy family (particulary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.) lead the crusade in the past...but now that they have strayed off the reservation on one issue, they are apparently classified as "wackos." This will certainly be news to them.

Edited March 29, 2011 by grbeck

[RangerM]

Just last month I wrote a letter to my city's paper, arguing against a community that is fighting for a new wind farm in my area. I'm all for wind farms.

 

[mustang_sallad]

Your call for more regulation in order to "do something" about manmade global is obviously driven as much by self-interest as anything else.

 

What came first? My desire to do something for the planet, or the job I got that's doing something for the planet? Take a guess.... I had a job offer for a very secure job and for more money that I passed up to work here.

[RangerM]

What came first? My desire to do something for the planet, or the job I got that's doing something for the planet? Take a guess.... I had a job offer for a very secure job and for more money that I passed up to work here.

And you support any government favortism that provides additional job security for you, as opposed to the rest of us who compete on the merits of our respective products/services.

 

If you are truly a selfless person, make your case for your electric cars on their (unsubsidized) merit, as opposed to telling us to "grow up and suck it up".

[mustang_sallad]

And you support any government favortism that provides additional job security for you, as opposed to the rest of us who compete on the merits of our respective products/services.

my point was that if job security was my main goal, i wouldn't have taken this job in the first place. If I lose my current job, I also have other possibilities to fall back on that are to be honest more financially lucrative. My point was that my support for government regulation protecting the environment is not based on the fact that I won't have to be afraid of getting laid off. Why would I have taken a much less secure job for less money unless I genuinely felt strong about what I was doing?

 

 

If you are truly a selfless person, make your case for your electric cars on their (unsubsidized) merit, as opposed to telling us to "grow up and suck it up".

My argument is that the merits of electric vehicles are not fully recognized in our current system, and that we need to make adjustments to our current system that recognize the substantial benefits enjoyed by all people if vehicles can run around without burning gasoline in a piston engine.

 

I want you to suck it up and pay a bit more for each gallon because the 4$ we pay at the pump doesn't at all cover the actual cost to our society of burning a gallon of gasoline.

[mustang_sallad]

So you have a strong vested interest in getting people out of their cars. So you want to move society in the direction that benefits you the most. Got it.

 

As Sinclair put it:

 

"It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!"

Again, I had a very healthy salary waiting for me that had nothing to do with electric vehicles. I chose instead to take a job i felt strongly about. I guess you'd rather me preach about the need to use less energy, and then take a job in a completely unrelated field?

 

 

What are you doing on a website devoted to Ford Motor Company?

 

As Mark said... maybe I like Ford vehicles? Maybe I happen to think they're doing a good job of building vehicles that use less energy? They've put together a really nice lineup of hybrid and electric vehicles, and I'm happy to be contributing to it. What are you doing on a FMC website?

[mustang_sallad]

 

ya sorry about that... they were arguing against the new wind farm. Edited.

[xr7g428]

Why would I have taken a much less secure job for less money unless I genuinely felt strong about what I was doing?

 

Poor judgment, bad decision making, blind faith, religious zealotry?

 

Thanks for playing, but you have now told us that your feelings outweigh everything else in your decision making process.

 

So unless we can some how change how you feel about the topic, logic and facts are not going to make any difference.

 

But here is the cool part: Freedom for us also means freedom for you. We get choices, and you get choices. You should keep this in mind as you try to force your belief system on others; it might not go the way you want it to.

[Trimdingman]

How much does it cost to build and maintain one of those windmills? How long does it have to operate before these costs are recovered and it becomes viable? I have never seen the numbers. I bet that the answer is that they will never pay for themselves in electricity produced. It is Medieval technology. This is indicative of the collapse of our civilization.

[goinbroke2]

Some of the words/sentence structure stand out.....perhaps now we know where save the planet went? :shades:

[goinbroke2]

Some of the words/sentence structure stand out.....perhaps now we know where save the planet went? :shades:

[Mark B. Morrow]

How much does it cost to build and maintain one of those windmills? How long does it have to operate before these costs are recovered and it becomes viable? I have never seen the numbers. I bet that the answer is that they will never pay for themselves in electricity produced. It is Medieval technology. This is indicative of the collapse of our civilization.

 

 

The Wheel is pre-medieval technology. We are still using it. Technology does advance.

[grbeck]

What came first? My desire to do something for the planet, or the job I got that's doing something for the planet? Take a guess.... I had a job offer for a very secure job and for more money that I passed up to work here.

 

That's all well and good, but it doesn't prove that your position on manmade global warming and the desire for govenment action (which will benefit your company, and, by extension, you) isn't driven by self-interest. After all, groups and individuals on your side of the discussion have accused their opponents of being guided solely by self-interest on much less evidence than we (meaning, the posters on this board) have regarding your background.

Edited March 30, 2011 by grbeck

[mustang_sallad]

That's all well and good, but it doesn't prove that your position on manmade global warming and the desire for govenment action (which will benefit your company, and, by extension, you) isn't driven by self-interest. After all, groups and individuals on your side of the discussion have accused their opponents of being guided solely by self-interest on much less evidence than we (meaning, the posters on this board) have regarding your background.

 

I had a job offer at a company designing electric vehicles. I had another offer with more security and more money doing something else. I chose the electric vehicle job, so you tell me I make more financial decisions and that my opinions about energy consumption in society are completely driven by self interest. If I had chosen the other job, you'd call me a hypocrite who doesn't want to put actions in front of my words, and that I don't actually believe that people need to consume less energy. So basically I just suck either way and you guys must all be right. You can go ahead and think that, i'm going to live my life and talk to my grand kids knowing that I did my part, thank you very much.

[grbeck]

My argument is that the merits of electric vehicles are not fully recognized in our current system, and that we need to make adjustments to our current system that recognize the substantial benefits enjoyed by all people if vehicles can run around without burning gasoline in a piston engine.

 

Electric vehicles have been around since the dawn of the automobile age. They have major drawbacks compared to conventional vehicles, and decades of research have only made limited progress in addressing them. The reason that their merits are not fully recognized is because, for the overwhelming majority of people, their drawbacks outweight their merits.

 

Perhaps this will change, but I'd have a lot more faith in the viability of electric vehicles if their proponents spent more time trying overcome those drawbacks and less time trying to handicap conventional vehicles, or load every ill of society on the back of petroleum use to "prove" that we need to abandon it.

 

I want you to suck it up and pay a bit more for each gallon because the 4$ we pay at the pump doesn't at all cover the actual cost to our society of burning a gallon of gasoline.

 

A tired argument that puts every ill of modern society on the back of petroleum while ignoring its very real benefits (starting with a cleaner environment - burning wood or coal for home and office heating fuel, and relying on horses for transportation, resulted in a much dirtier environment than we enjoy today).

 

We (meaning, the western world, not just the U.S.) reap many benefits from petroleum use, starting with a higher standard of living that has enabled more people to enjoy longer, healthier, richer lives than any other society in history.

Edited March 30, 2011 by grbeck

[grbeck]

I had a job offer at a company designing electric vehicles. I had another offer with more security and more money doing something else. I chose the electric vehicle job, so you tell me I make more financial decisions and that my opinions about energy consumption in society are completely driven by self interest. If I had chosen the other job, you'd call me a hypocrite who doesn't want to put actions in front of my words, and that I don't actually believe that people need to consume less energy. So basically I just suck either way and you guys must all be right. You can go ahead and think that, i'm going to live my life and talk to my grand kids knowing that I did my part, thank you very much.

 

That's nice, but it still doesn't prove that your position on global warming isn't driven by self interest. But then, I'm only using the standard that many on your side of the discussion have used to judge the motives of those who disagree with them. What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. I'd suggest that you tell your grandchildren that one - everyone needs to learn it.

[RangerM]

my point was that if job security was my main goal, i wouldn't have taken this job in the first place. If I lose my current job, I also have other possibilities to fall back on that are to be honest more financially lucrative. My point was that my support for government regulation protecting the environment is not based on the fact that I won't have to be afraid of getting laid off. Why would I have taken a much less secure job for less money unless I genuinely felt strong about what I was doing?

Only you can answer that question for yourself. No one wants to put you out of work, however we also don't wish to be compelled to keep you employed (ala the Auto bailouts).

 

I also work in the environmental consulting field. I took the job because I also wanted something that I could feel good about doing. However, in the last 19 years I have become aware that to love "protecting" the environment comes hand-in-hand with hating the industries (and the people that work for them) that have any impact whatsoever, without crediting the good that comes from them. My job encompasses helping my clients comply with the law as much as keeping the environmentalists at bay.

My argument is that the merits of electric vehicles are not fully recognized in our current system, and that we need to make adjustments to our current system that recognize the substantial benefits enjoyed by all people if vehicles can run around without burning gasoline in a piston engine.

 

I want you to suck it up and pay a bit more for each gallon because the 4$ we pay at the pump doesn't at all cover the actual cost to our society of burning a gallon of gasoline.

Again, if the "substantial benefits" are there, then the product speaks for itself. As it is, the benefits are outweighed by the disadvantages. The playing field must be tilted (in their/your favor), and even with the substantial "tilting" going on, the interest is still not enough to get people to choose them in numbers that would make any real impact.

 

The "actual costs" to our society are outweighed by the overwhelming benefits that the IC engine provides, otherwise the popularity of burning gasoline would have either abated or been replaced with something better.

Edited March 30, 2011 by RangerM

[mustang_sallad]

The "actual costs" to our society are outweighed by the overwhelming benefits that the IC engine provides, otherwise the popularity of burning gasoline would have either abated or been replaced with something better.

 

Isn't this the whole point of this discussion? Figuring out what the actual costs to our society are? There seems to be a very good chance that the cost could be very high in the long term, especially if we keep going in the same direction.

[RangerM]

Isn't this the whole point of this discussion? Figuring out what the actual costs to our society are? There seems to be a very good chance that the cost could be very high in the long term, especially if we keep going in the same direction.

The whole point of the discussion, at least from my view, is that the planet and our use of its resources is fine. In fact, it's better today for our use of petroleum than if we never had. Society is composed of people with the ability to think for themselves, and make choices based on cost-benefit analysis.

 

A lot of things could happen if we keep going in the same direction, but with the alternatives available today and in the near term, a lot of negative things will happen if we are forced into them. Even if they are simply subsidized, it is still an inefficient diversion of limited resources.

 

Is electric the future of cars? I'd say yes. Does that mean we should encourage electric cars? I'd say no. The problem isn't the car. We know how to build a vehicle. We don't know how to store electricity in as efficient a manner as the energy contained in a transportable and convenient fuel source as petroleum. No matter how many ways you build an electric car, you won't make a better battery. Build the better battery, and society along with the electric car will follow (that cost-benefit analysis thing).

[Imawhosure]

Mustang, as I stated------>your arguement is now so weak, I don't even have to respond, lol. What is more; all pols show you guys are in deep doo. All things having to do with global warming/climate change are history....at least for awhile.

 

Now, I am not a pollyanna type person, but unless the repubs run a weak candidate, your stuff is gonna go the way of the do-do bird for the immediate future.

 

Let me say that your attempt at trying to get me to prove MY point with proof is laughable, since your house of cards has collapsed. My proof is history, your proof was exaggerations by your guys. Lets just chalk one up for the good guys, and call it a day. Your position is untenable at this point in time, and if you are not aware of it, trust me; the rest of us are.........including the charming and delightful Al Gore, who for some unknown reason has gone into hiding, lololol.