Funny how 31000 scientists disagree with global warming

[jreeves]

No, actually if we went green, we would pay less for energy.

It's called conservation. Ever heard of it?

Please, so your telling me that Hybrids are cheaper than traditional cars?

With gas at 2.50 and going up, damned right that they are. And were you driving an electric RAV 4 Toyota, and had solar on your roof, you would be paying nothing at all to the oil companies.

LOL....How much does this Toyota package cost?

 

[jreeves]

Poor jreeves.

Busted again.

Hypocrite...1.5 billion tons of Co2 emissions is hypocritical at best

 

[jreeves]

No, actually if we went green, we would pay less for energy.

It's called conservation. Ever heard of it?

Please, so your telling me that Hybrids are cheaper than traditional cars?

With gas at 2.50 and going up, damned right that they are. And were you driving an electric RAV 4 Toyota, and had solar on your roof, you would be paying nothing at all to the oil companies.

awe yes the hybrid..

Are hybrids too ‘un-green’ to build? | Editors Blog
These hybrid solutions would appear to be a very attractive solution to all concerned. But there are downsides to these solutions that is often overlooked. For example, their complexity and use of heavy, expensive and sometimes toxic materials (copper, lead or lithium, for example). There is the extra energy required to extract, transport and refine these rare elements in the first place. This must be added to the energy that goes into the manufacture of these new sub-systems. We have a double whammy debit. The extra and weighty components are going to need energy to be accelerated, cornered and braked for the lifetime of the host vehicle.

We can perhaps understand when these systems are adopted on the largest, most expensive and most uneconomical of 4X4s. But as a sensible solution in the majority of cars, can they compete in the most cost effective way?

 

[Old Rocks]

Please, so your telling me that Hybrids are cheaper than traditional cars?

With gas at 2.50 and going up, damned right that they are. And were you driving an electric RAV 4 Toyota, and had solar on your roof, you would be paying nothing at all to the oil companies.

LOL....How much does this Toyota package cost?

Competition is Good: Thank You Honda
Here's something that should have happened years ago: Actual competition for the top spot in the dedicated-hybrid market. Thanks to the new Honda Insight which undercuts the Prius in price, Toyota is announcing a $1,000 price cut on the upcoming 2010 Prius, bringing the base price to $21,000, or $1,200 more than the $19,800 Insight hybrid. More details on 2010 Toyota Prius hybrid pricing below...

Toyota to Cut New Prius Hybrid Base Price to $21,000, Offer 5 Trim Levels : TreeHugger

21,000 for a midsized automobile with the best reliability record out there, and it gets 50 MPG.

 

[jreeves]

With gas at 2.50 and going up, damned right that they are. And were you driving an electric RAV 4 Toyota, and had solar on your roof, you would be paying nothing at all to the oil companies.

LOL....How much does this Toyota package cost?

Competition is Good: Thank You Honda
Here's something that should have happened years ago: Actual competition for the top spot in the dedicated-hybrid market. Thanks to the new Honda Insight which undercuts the Prius in price, Toyota is announcing a $1,000 price cut on the upcoming 2010 Prius, bringing the base price to $21,000, or $1,200 more than the $19,800 Insight hybrid. More details on 2010 Toyota Prius hybrid pricing below...

Toyota to Cut New Prius Hybrid Base Price to $21,000, Offer 5 Trim Levels : TreeHugger

21,000 for a midsized automobile with the best reliability record out there, and it gets 50 MPG.

Didn't you say a RAV4 in your previous post? Lmao...with a solar roof

 

[Old Rocks]

Please, so your telling me that Hybrids are cheaper than traditional cars?

With gas at 2.50 and going up, damned right that they are. And were you driving an electric RAV 4 Toyota, and had solar on your roof, you would be paying nothing at all to the oil companies.

awe yes the hybrid..

Are hybrids too ‘un-green’ to build? | Editors Blog
These hybrid solutions would appear to be a very attractive solution to all concerned. But there are downsides to these solutions that is often overlooked. For example, their complexity and use of heavy, expensive and sometimes toxic materials (copper, lead or lithium, for example). There is the extra energy required to extract, transport and refine these rare elements in the first place. This must be added to the energy that goes into the manufacture of these new sub-systems. We have a double whammy debit. The extra and weighty components are going to need energy to be accelerated, cornered and braked for the lifetime of the host vehicle.

We can perhaps understand when these systems are adopted on the largest, most expensive and most uneconomical of 4X4s. But as a sensible solution in the majority of cars, can they compete in the most cost effective way?

Boy, what a crock of shit you post. The Prius has a reliability rating that exceeds almost all other automobiles. The present batteries are NiMH, and the future ones will probably be Lithium. Both Nickel and Lithium are expensive enough that recycling of the batteries is a foregone conclusion. What is the battery in your present car made of, by the way?

 

[jreeves]

LOL....How much does this Toyota package cost?

Competition is Good: Thank You Honda
Here's something that should have happened years ago: Actual competition for the top spot in the dedicated-hybrid market. Thanks to the new Honda Insight which undercuts the Prius in price, Toyota is announcing a $1,000 price cut on the upcoming 2010 Prius, bringing the base price to $21,000, or $1,200 more than the $19,800 Insight hybrid. More details on 2010 Toyota Prius hybrid pricing below...

Toyota to Cut New Prius Hybrid Base Price to $21,000, Offer 5 Trim Levels : TreeHugger

21,000 for a midsized automobile with the best reliability record out there, and it gets 50 MPG.

Didn't you say a RAV4 in your previous post? Lmao...with a solar roof

What about the family that has 3 children are they all suppose to pack into a Prius?

 

[elvis]

How was Toyota able to bring the Prius down from 29k to 21k? Competition alone?

 

[jreeves]

With gas at 2.50 and going up, damned right that they are. And were you driving an electric RAV 4 Toyota, and had solar on your roof, you would be paying nothing at all to the oil companies.

awe yes the hybrid..

Are hybrids too ‘un-green’ to build? | Editors Blog
These hybrid solutions would appear to be a very attractive solution to all concerned. But there are downsides to these solutions that is often overlooked. For example, their complexity and use of heavy, expensive and sometimes toxic materials (copper, lead or lithium, for example). There is the extra energy required to extract, transport and refine these rare elements in the first place. This must be added to the energy that goes into the manufacture of these new sub-systems. We have a double whammy debit. The extra and weighty components are going to need energy to be accelerated, cornered and braked for the lifetime of the host vehicle.

We can perhaps understand when these systems are adopted on the largest, most expensive and most uneconomical of 4X4s. But as a sensible solution in the majority of cars, can they compete in the most cost effective way?

Boy, what a crock of shit you post. The Prius has a reliability rating that exceeds almost all other automobiles. The present batteries are NiMH, and the future ones will probably be Lithium. Both Nickel and Lithium are expensive enough that recycling of the batteries is a foregone conclusion. What is the battery in your present car made of, by the way?

This is what you posted previously and why I posted the article about hybrid 4x4's.

Your attempt at a distortion is rejected...
And were you driving an electric RAV 4 Toyota, and had solar on your roof, you would be paying nothing at all to the oil companies.

 

[Old Rocks]

Competition is Good: Thank You Honda
Here's something that should have happened years ago: Actual competition for the top spot in the dedicated-hybrid market. Thanks to the new Honda Insight which undercuts the Prius in price, Toyota is announcing a $1,000 price cut on the upcoming 2010 Prius, bringing the base price to $21,000, or $1,200 more than the $19,800 Insight hybrid. More details on 2010 Toyota Prius hybrid pricing below...

Toyota to Cut New Prius Hybrid Base Price to $21,000, Offer 5 Trim Levels : TreeHugger

21,000 for a midsized automobile with the best reliability record out there, and it gets 50 MPG.

Didn't you say a RAV4 in your previous post? Lmao...with a solar roof

What about the family that has 3 children are they all suppose to pack into a Prius?

Silly ass. Have you never looked in one? The seat in back will easily accomodate three children. And there is a lot of room for luggage under that hatchback.

 

[Old Rocks]

The RAV4 EV is an all-electric version of the popular RAV4 SUV produced by Toyota. It was sold from 1997 to 2003.

The first fleet version of the RAV4 EV became available on a limited basis in 1997. In 2001 it was possible for businesses, cities or utilities to lease one or two of these cars. Toyota then actually sold or leased 328 RAV4 EVs to the general public in 2003, at which time the program was terminated despite waiting lists of prospective customers.

The RAV4 EV closely resembles the regular ICE (internal combustion engine) version - without a tailpipe - and has a governed top speed of 78 mph (~126 km/h) with a range of 100 to 120 miles (160 to 190 km). The 95 amp-hour NiMH battery pack has a capacity of 27 kWh, charges inductively and has proven to be surprisingly durable. Some RAV4 EV's have achieved over 150,000 miles (240,000 km) on the original battery pack. It was also one of the few vehicles with a single speed automatic transmission at that time.

Besides the batteries, controller and motor, the remaining systems in the RAV4 EV are comparable to the gas-powered RAV4, such as power brakes, power steering, air conditioning, tire wear and suspension components except for the power sources involved. The power brakes use an electric pump to provide vacuum instead of deriving vacuum from the engine manifold while the power steering and air conditioning systems use electric motors instead of mechanical energy delivered by fan belts. The passenger compartment heater is electrical.
Toyota RAV4 EV - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[jreeves]

With gas at 2.50 and going up, damned right that they are. And were you driving an electric RAV 4 Toyota, and had solar on your roof, you would be paying nothing at all to the oil companies.

awe yes the hybrid..

Are hybrids too ‘un-green’ to build? | Editors Blog
These hybrid solutions would appear to be a very attractive solution to all concerned. But there are downsides to these solutions that is often overlooked. For example, their complexity and use of heavy, expensive and sometimes toxic materials (copper, lead or lithium, for example). There is the extra energy required to extract, transport and refine these rare elements in the first place. This must be added to the energy that goes into the manufacture of these new sub-systems. We have a double whammy debit. The extra and weighty components are going to need energy to be accelerated, cornered and braked for the lifetime of the host vehicle.

We can perhaps understand when these systems are adopted on the largest, most expensive and most uneconomical of 4X4s. But as a sensible solution in the majority of cars, can they compete in the most cost effective way?

Boy, what a crock of shit you post. The Prius has a reliability rating that exceeds almost all other automobiles. The present batteries are NiMH, and the future ones will probably be Lithium. Both Nickel and Lithium are expensive enough that recycling of the batteries is a foregone conclusion. What is the battery in your present car made of, by the way?

Before you tell me what kind of vehicle I should be driving, quit emitting 1.5 billion tons of CO2 in the atmosphere. Then, at least I will take you seriously, until then you are a hypocrite and shouldn't be telling anyone what to drive. BTW have you seen this...

Consumer complaints about Toyota Prius Battery Problems

I could not control the speed at the time. The car became heavy and moved very slowly, around 10 to 12 miles per hour, no matter how I pushed the accelerator. At the same time, the battery icon warning light was on with the word �Main� indicating there was a problem with the �main battery�. In such way, I moved slowly and cautiously my Prius with hazard warning signal on, heading home. By the time I got to my house, it was about 7:00PM, I called Toyota station where I have had my Prius checked periodically but there was no service reception after hour.

I came to Concord Toyota on Monday, July 11th and reported the incident. A Service Advisor of the Company had my car towed to Concord Toyota Dealer and reassured me that the main battery may be fixed without charge since my Prius�s main battery may not be mature enough to have problem. Concord Toyota got it fixed within few days. Toyota service agent called July 13th 2004 to let me know that I had to pay $520 for a problem he named �the sensor.� I inquired him a bit on the problem of loosing car power that I encountered on the street leading to the warning signal of Main Battery. Just a week later, I received a second Toyota Notice on the recall for fixing Prius�s main battery (the first notice was the recall for fixing the vibration of steering wheel.)

This time, with the Toyota notice, Concord Toyota conducted the inspection at no cost, because I already paid $520 for the real problem that happened to me on the street couple weeks ago! From the incident on 7/8/04, I have the following question: I believe the incident of loosing vehicle power during performance, which illuminated the Master Warning Light, and Hybrid System Malfunction Warning Light happening to my prius on July 8th 2004 was related to Toyota Notice for Potential Problem that I received lately.

Read more: "Consumer complaints about Toyota Prius Battery Problems" - Consumer complaints about Toyota Prius Battery Problems

 

[jreeves]

The RAV4 EV is an all-electric version of the popular RAV4 SUV produced by Toyota. It was sold from 1997 to 2003.

The first fleet version of the RAV4 EV became available on a limited basis in 1997. In 2001 it was possible for businesses, cities or utilities to lease one or two of these cars. Toyota then actually sold or leased 328 RAV4 EVs to the general public in 2003, at which time the program was terminated despite waiting lists of prospective customers.

The RAV4 EV closely resembles the regular ICE (internal combustion engine) version - without a tailpipe - and has a governed top speed of 78 mph (~126 km/h) with a range of 100 to 120 miles (160 to 190 km). The 95 amp-hour NiMH battery pack has a capacity of 27 kWh, charges inductively and has proven to be surprisingly durable. Some RAV4 EV's have achieved over 150,000 miles (240,000 km) on the original battery pack. It was also one of the few vehicles with a single speed automatic transmission at that time.

Besides the batteries, controller and motor, the remaining systems in the RAV4 EV are comparable to the gas-powered RAV4, such as power brakes, power steering, air conditioning, tire wear and suspension components except for the power sources involved. The power brakes use an electric pump to provide vacuum instead of deriving vacuum from the engine manifold while the power steering and air conditioning systems use electric motors instead of mechanical energy delivered by fan belts. The passenger compartment heater is electrical.
Toyota RAV4 EV - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Where is the price?

Never mind I found it....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toyota_RAV4_EV#Discontinuance
The MSRP was $42,000


So let me get this right your initial cost is more and you pay more per mile....seems like a winner to me...

 

[jreeves]

Didn't you say a RAV4 in your previous post? Lmao...with a solar roof

What about the family that has 3 children are they all suppose to pack into a Prius?

Silly ass. Have you never looked in one? The seat in back will easily accomodate three children. And there is a lot of room for luggage under that hatchback.

Lmao...yeah right...I can see two children plastered against the rear drivers side window why the baby behind the passenger side stretches out in his car seat.....dumbass

 

[jreeves]

No, actually if we went green, we would pay less for energy.

It's called conservation. Ever heard of it?

Please, so your telling me that Hybrids are cheaper than traditional cars?

With gas at 2.50 and going up, damned right that they are. And were you driving an electric RAV 4 Toyota, and had solar on your roof, you would be paying nothing at all to the oil companies.

Toyota RAV4 EV - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Mileage costs
As of May, 2006, charging an RAV4 EV from full-dead to full-charge, at a rate of US$0.09 per kilowatt-hour, costs around $2.70.


Yeah the oil companies wouldn't get shit just the electric company.....

 

[Old Rocks]

$2.70 for one hundred miles. That is the equivelant of 100 mpg. And, if you have solar panels on the roof of your residence, you not only provide energy for your home, but the fuel for your car. Pays the cost of solar back rather quickly, particularly if you are reasonably intelligent, and build your own panels. A 5 kw grid parrallel inverter is only about $2000, and you can get the solar cells for about a $1.25 a watt. A 5 kw installation would cost just a bit over 10 grand.

By the way, JR, can you do basic math?

 

[sealybobo]

An interesting tidbit. The media-hyped United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report, claiming imminent disaster, was put-out by 52 "scientists", yet 31000 don't believe the hype. Not going to hear about this are you.


Global Warming Petition Project

This is rediculous. Yesterday I saw a special on Australia and how they are going to make Melborne a zero emmissions city within 20 years or so.

Yea, that's a horrible idea.

God forbid we stop polluting.

Whether its because we are warming the atmosphere or just giving ourselves cancer because the air is polluted, you right wingers are bad/stupid people. If you are wrong, we all die. And if we clean up the air, you'll go on forever arguing your nonsense.

Stop it.

 

[Meister]

$2.70 for one hundred miles. That is the equivelant of 100 mpg. And, if you have solar panels on the roof of your residence, you not only provide energy for your home, but the fuel for your car. Pays the cost of solar back rather quickly, particularly if you are reasonably intelligent, and build your own panels. A 5 kw grid parrallel inverter is only about $2000, and you can get the solar cells for about a $1.25 a watt. A 5 kw installation would cost just a bit over 10 grand.

By the way, JR, can you do basic math?

What electric car do you drive Old Rocks?

 

[del]

$2.70 for one hundred miles. That is the equivelant of 100 mpg. And, if you have solar panels on the roof of your residence, you not only provide energy for your home, but the fuel for your car. Pays the cost of solar back rather quickly, particularly if you are reasonably intelligent, and build your own panels. A 5 kw grid parrallel inverter is only about $2000, and you can get the solar cells for about a $1.25 a watt. A 5 kw installation would cost just a bit over 10 grand.

By the way, JR, can you do basic math?

What electric car do you drive Old Rocks?

yabba dabba doo!

 

[Skull Pilot]

What if global-warming fears are overblown? - May. 14, 2009

NEW YORK (Fortune) -- With Congress about to take up sweeping climate-change legislation, expect to hear more in coming weeks from John Christy, director of the Earth System Science Center at University of Alabama-Huntsville.

A veteran climatologist who refuses to accept any research funding from the oil or auto industries, Christy was a lead author of the 2001 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report as well as one of the three authors of the American Geophysical Union's landmark 2003 statement on climate change.

Yet despite those green-sounding credentials, Christy is not calling for draconian cuts in carbon emissions. Quite the contrary. Christy is actually the environmental lobby's worst nightmare - an accomplished climate scientist with no ties to Big Oil who has produced reams and reams of data that undermine arguments that the earth's atmosphere is warming at an unusual rate and question whether the remedies being talked about in Congress will actually do any good.

Christy's critics in the blogosphere assume his research is funded by the oil industry. But Christy has testified in federal court that his research is funded by the National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration and that the only money he has ever received from corporate interests - $2,000 from the Competitive Enterprise Institute for penning a chapter of a global warming book in 2002 - he gave away to a charity, the Christian Women's Job Corps.
0:00 /3:37Duke: 80% less carbon by 2050

His most controversial argument is that the surface temperature readings upon which global warming theory is built have been distorted by urbanization. Due to the solar heat captured by bricks and pavement and due to the changing wind patterns caused by large buildings, a weather station placed in a rural village in 1900 will inevitably show higher temperature readings if that village has, over time, been transformed into small city or a suburban shopping district, Christy says.

The only way to control for such surface distortions is by measuring atmospheric temperatures. And when Christy and his co-researcher Roy Spencer, a former NASA scientist now teaching at UA-Huntsville, began analyzing temperature readings from NOAA and NASA satellites, they found much slighter increases in atmospheric temperatures than what was being recorded on the surface. Christy and Spencer also found that nearly all the increases in average surface temperatures are related to nighttime readings - which makes sense if bricks and pavement are in fact retaining heat that would otherwise be dispersed.

In testimony to the House Ways and Means Committee in February, Christy displayed a chart showing central California temperature trends for both the developed San Joaquin Valley and the largely undeveloped Sierra foothills. "The daytime temperatures of both regions show virtually no change over the past 100 years, while the nighttime temperatures indicate the developed Valley has warmed significantly while the undeveloped Sierra foothills have not," Christy told the committee.

I recently spoke with Christy about his controversial research.

Why did you help write the 2001 IPCC report and the 2003 AGU statement on climate change if you disagreed with their fundamental conclusions?

With the 2001 IPCC report, the material in there over which I had control was satisfactory to me. I wouldn't say I agreed with other parts. As far as the AGU, I thought that was a fine statement because it did not put forth a magnitude of the warming. We just said that human effects have a warming influence, and that's certainly true. There was nothing about disaster or catastrophe. In fact, I was very upset about the latest AGU statement [in 2007]. It was about alarmist as you can get.

When you testified before Ways and Means, did you have any sense that committee members on either side were open to having their minds changed? Or are views set in stone at this point?

Generally people believe what they want to believe, so their minds will not change. However, as the issue is exposed in terms of economics and cost benefit - in my view, it's all cost and no benefit - I think some of the people will take one step backward and say, Let me investigate the science a little more closely.

In laymen's terms, what's wrong with the surface temperature readings that are widely used to make the case for global warming?

First is the placement of the temperature stations. They're placed in convenient locations that might be in a parking lot or near a house and thus get extra heating from these human structures. Over time, there's been the development of areas into farms or buildings or parking lots. Also, a number of these weather stations have become electronic, and many of them were moved to a place where there is electricity, which is usually right outside a building. As a result, there's a natural warming tendency, especially in the nighttime temperatures, that has been misinterpreted as greenhouse warming.

Are there any negative consequences to this localized warming?

It's a small impact, but there is an indication that major thunderstorms are more likely to form downwind of major cities like St. Louis and Atlanta. The extra heating of the city causes the air to rise with a little more punch.

Have you been able to confirm your satellite temperature readings by other means?

Weather balloons. We take satellite shots at the same place where the balloon is released so we're looking at the same column of air. Our satellite data compares exceptionally well to the balloon data.

During your House Ways and Means testimony, you showed a chart juxtaposing predictions made by NASA's Jim Hansen in 1988 for future temperature increases against the actual recorded temperature increases over the past 20 years. Not only were the actual increases much lower, but they were lower than what Hansen expected if there were drastic cuts in CO2 emissions - which of course there haven't been. [Hansen is a noted scientist who was featured prominently in Al Gore's global warming documentary, "An Inconvenient Truth."] Hansen was at that hearing. Did he say anything to you afterwards?

We really don't communicate. We serve on a committee for NASA together, but it only deals with specific satellite issues. At the Ways and Means hearing, he was sitting two people down from me, but he did not want to engage any of the evidence I presented. And that seems to be the preferred tactic of many in the alarmist camp. Rather than bring up these issues, they simply ignore them.

(Contacted by Fortune, Hansen acknowledges that his 1988 projections were based on a model that "slightly" overstated the warming created by a doubling in CO2 levels. His new model posits a rise of 3 degrees Celsius in global temperatures by 2100, vs. 4.2 degrees in the old one. Says Hansen, "The projections that the public has been hearing about are based on a climate sensitivity that is consistent with the global warming rate of the past few decades." Christy's response: "Hansen at least admits his 1988 forecasts were wrong, but doesn't say they were way wrong, not 'slightly,' as he states." Christy also claims that even Hansen's revised models grossly overestimated the amount of warming that has actually occurred.)

I know you think there's been something of a hysteria in the media about melting glaciers. Could you explain?

Ice melts. Glaciers are always calving. This is what ice does. If ice did not melt, we'd have an ice-covered planet. The fact is that the ice cover is growing in the southern hemisphere even as the ice cover is more or less shrinking in the northern hemisphere. As you and I are talking today, global sea ice coverage is about 400,000 square kilometers above the long-term average - which means that the surplus in the Antarctic is greater than the deficit in the Arctic.

What about the better-safe-than-sorry argument? Even if there's a chance Gore and Hansen are wrong, shouldn't we still take action in order to protect ourselves from catastrophe, just in case they're right?

The problem is that the solutions being offered don't provide any detectable relief from this so-called catastrophe. Congress is now discussing an 80% reduction in U.S. greenhouse emissions by 2050. That's basically the equivalent of building 1,000 new nuclear power plants all operating by 2020. Now I'm all in favor of nuclear energy, but that would affect the global temperature by only seven-hundredths of a degree by 2050 and fifteen hundredths by 2100. We wouldn't even notice it.