ElectricMotorcycleForum.com
General Category => Electric Motorcycle News => Topic started by: oobflyer on May 31, 2014, 10:55:53 AM
-
The author of this article, Eric Peters, seems to hate all things electric:
http://spectator.org/articles/59437/electric-crack-pipe (http://spectator.org/articles/59437/electric-crack-pipe)
The comments after the article are all vitriolic - posted by people with an obvious, angry bias. I'm not sure exactly what I stepped in here, but I posted this response:
Wow - I stumbled onto this article by accident - has any one of you that made comments here ever ridden an electric motorcycle?
I am an experienced rider with over 40 years of riding under my belt. I bought my first electric motorcycle in 2008 when gas was $5/gal. (and yes, before the federal tax incentives). The bike is American made (jobs, jobs, jobs anyone?) and has already more than paid for itself in gas-savings (also no oil-changes, tune-ups, etc.) I burn only domestically-produced American electrons.
Oh - and it's fun to ride - especially when I ride by the gas stations and see that gas prices are going up yet again.
How about we keep a bit of an open mind and try it before we judge?
While it's true you can't (yet) hop on an electric bike and ride across the country - that is the only disadvantage and there are many advantages to going electric.
-
Wow. Just wow. I had to drop my own comment in. I upvoted yours before I did though. ;D
I suppose that these people aren't exactly the target market for EVs, and they never will be from what I read both in the article and the comments. All I can say is, "their loss."
-
Wait a second. I read the article but I can't see any mention of him actually riding an electric bike? What a twonk.
Also I don't think the quarter mile time is correct. At the last motoring festival here we ran a 2013 S against a Tesla Roadster in a quarter mile sprint. It did it in 13.15 seconds with an inexperienced rider on a closed public Road. The SR has to be faster.
Is this American Spectator a bona fide publication? We should challenge the editor to get his contributor to try an SR.
P. S. Comparing the performance to a quarter-ton pushrod twin... What a moron.
-
Responding to the topic of subsidization:
There have been efforts in congress to stop corporate welfare (subsidization), but they have been blocked every time. Much more money comes out of our pockets and goes directly to the richest, most powerful companies on the planet (the oil//coal industry) than goes to start-up companies. The oil companies don't need subsidization - they are the most profitable companies in the history of the world.
Small start-up companies, on the other hand, do need help to get started.
For truly "Free Enterprise" one of two things must happen:
- All government subsidies must stop for all companies, or
- Subsidies should be distributed fairly and equally.
Believe me, I hate the fact that my hard-earned money is being taken from my paycheck and handed over to the oil industry - just as much as you do when tax funds are used to help start-up companies.
Since I don't use gasoline - why should I be forced to send money to the oil companies?
-
I just hope the EV haters don't start burning electric motorcycles like the H-D guys used to do with "Japanese Junk" during the 1970's and 1980's. I think this kind of thinking has something to do with worry about being left behind as new technology is introduced and as the world changes. A lot of people don't like change (like me), but sometimes you just have to get with the program and give it a try. ;)
Or it could be just about oil company employees worried about losing their jobs and expressing their thought-out-in-a-bar opinions. ::)
-
@Oob "I hate the fact that my hard-earned money is being taken from my paycheck and handed over to the oil industry". So many like to say this, however, it is totally false. The oil companies do not receive any money from the federal govt (your money) with the exception of the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP). Do you really want to abolish that program? Now they do receive tax breaks, and every company I know of receives tax breaks (even Zero :-). Now your hard earned money does go out in direct payment to solar, wind, and other natural energy source subsidies (think Solyndra). Also, "Since I don't use gasoline - why should I be forced to send money to the oil companies?" There is a big argument now about EV not paying road taxes (payed when we buy gas). The argument could be made, why should you get to ride on the roads I am paying my hard earned money for. In conclusion, for those like Frodo that struggle with reading, I am not arguing, just trying to relay a few facts. No, you really are not paying for the big bad oilman. If we are going to promote electric we need to only focuses on the positive and not always make it a big bad oilman vs solar power. We will lose that one on facts alone. The best reply is from Protomech and that is just how we have to discus it. Point out the positives and not make it an EV vs ICE (remember ice has a BIG head start. LOL)
-
I wouldn't worry much about the "Spectator". Seems like a hate-filled blog that tries to pass itself off as a news source.
For example, here is what they had to say about Maya Angelou:
"Her greatest performance wasn’t in the miniseries Roots or on the album Miss Calypso. It was playing the character Maya Angelou. There’s a P.T. Barnum quality to Maya Angelou. Convincing the world of your greatness requires a greatness. This is especially true of the mediocre."
There are plenty of ignorant corners of the internet and this one seems to be people simply yelling to each other in a very small corner.
-
bigd
Didn't think it was controversial...
In the United States, credible estimates of annual fossil fuel subsidies range from $14 billion to $52 billion annually, while even efforts to remove small portions of those subsidies have been defeated in Congress...
From:
http://priceofoil.org/fossil-fuel-subsidies/ (http://priceofoil.org/fossil-fuel-subsidies/)
Whether it comes from tax breaks or direct subsidies - you and I are paying.
benswing
I'm sure you're right - I should never have followed that link! For some reason I get defensive when I find people hating on EVs...
:-)
-
"Whether it comes from tax breaks or direct subsidies - you and I are paying." Nope, (not in an argumentive tone), the govt would receive more money to waste without incentives. I will say that is why I am for a progressive flat tax with no subsidies. That said, when the govt is able to function in a responsible manor and balance a budget (I know, wishful thinking) it can give money for research on batteries or other solar energy if that is what they wish to research. However, the only reason I brought it up is when we use that as an argument it loses the ones who are informed. Do you really believe that the oil companies would not raise the price to compensate for the lose of revenue If the govt tax incentives were taken away. That should tell you the quality of the link you referenced. When I read that I discarded the article into file 13.
-
The oil companies will charge whatever the market will bear. It's possible they would increase prices in the absence of subsidies, but as long as we maintain our oil addiction there's not a lot of consumer price sensitivity.
-
Do you really believe that the oil companies would not raise the price to compensate for the lose[sic] of revenue If the govt tax incentives were taken away
Of course they would - thus the incentives. People across this country are already screaming, "We don't want to be like Europe with their high gas prices and tiny cars!" What they don't understand is that we are paying to keep gas prices low through subsidization/tax incentives/middle-eastern wars... which then creates an unfair advantage to the oil industry, which is why electric vehicle start-up companies have a difficult time competing (which is why we need tax incentives for alternative energy). It's a vicious cycle.
President Obama said it succinctly, "We should be subsidizing the energy of the future, not the energy of the past".
Perhaps the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office would suffice as a valid source:
http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/03-06-FuelsandEnergy_Brief.pdf (http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/03-06-FuelsandEnergy_Brief.pdf)
In any case - I didn't mean to bring up a controversial topic - as I said initially I didn't even know that the fact that the federal government is subsidizing fossil fuels was controversial (the controversy is whether or not we should be doing it).
What kind of electric bike do you have, bigd? Just curious.
-
" which then creates an unfair advantage to the oil industry, which is why electric vehicle start-up companies have a difficult time competing" (I am assuming you meant alternative rather than oil) This is from your link "By 2008, fossil fuels accounted for only 33 percent of the total cost of energy-related tax incentives." Do you think it its the high cost and short range rather than any unfair advantage? When the technology is there then the electric will take off. Patience patience. If The Zero R was $6000 -- even if gas was $2.50 a gallon and same range, I think they would sell like hotcakes. I am not been controversial, just pointed out a fact that so many miss speak about (I don't think it is intentional) Oil companies receive money from the govt. When you say I don't like my money going to the oil.... A lot of people who are knowledge stop listening because they know it isn't true. This is from your link "Energy-related tax preferences account for a small percentage of the cost of all federal tax preferences,".They do have tax incentives (called preferences in your link) as all companies do. Really the main point is we need to refine the argument and point out all the positives of electric motorcycles and stop bashing the oil if you really want to promote it. I don't have one yet, I have been very plain on that point. At one time I was very excited and working to get one.
-
I have experienced EV hate a few times now since I have owned and ridden a 12 Zero DS and my current 13 FX for the last couple of seasons.
Some people just really hate the bikes because they aren't as mechanical and they don't make noise. I think that the root of this is that if they don't understand it and it is different they just default to hating it.
My favorite is the Harley riders who equate noise to power. They are in in disbelief when their hopped up open pipe Harley is left behind in the silent wake of my disappearing FX. Doesn't compute for them.
-
Many of us are fed up with bogus global warming claims being used as an excuse to pillage the taxpayer. There are no taxpayer subsidies like the solyndra debacle to oil companies, there just aren't. Let EV vehicles stand on their own and the market support them. I also won't ever buy a GM product and I despise the big banks that sucked my money in bailouts so I'm consistent.
-
Pprior - that's true to an extent. There are few direct subsidies granted to the oil industry, unlike most of the alternative-fuel subsidies.
Take a look at the back and forth between bigd (who also posts here) and myself about a year ago:
http://brammoforum.com/index.php?topic=2009.msg15900#msg15900 (http://brammoforum.com/index.php?topic=2009.msg15900#msg15900)
A few take-away points:
- oil industry receives somewhere in the ballpark of $7B/year in indirect subsidies (mostly special oil-specific tax breaks) .. in a VERY mature and profitable industry
- carbon fuels (oil, coal, natural gas) don't pay for downstream effects
Personally, I'd rather get rid of all subsidies - both for carbon energy industry and alternative fuels - and price the downstream effects into the energy in question. We'd see a very rapid shift towards renewable and alternative fuel systems.
It'll never happen, but I can dream.
-
I'm with you, in both regards
-
Proto -- I am behind this 100% "Personally, I'd rather get rid of all subsidies - both for carbon energy industry and alternative fuels "until you went here "and price the downstream effects into the energy in question." The big problem with this is how do we determine who is at fault. We can talk all we want about climate change, however, with logic, you can refute that CO2 is the cause. Smog, heck most of it comes from China in Cali. One person wanted to talk about runoff from oil of roads, when I pointed out that salt causes much more environmental damage than any other substance and wanted to know if he would like to stop using it on roads, he didn't like that (yes he lives up north. - "carbon fuels (oil, coal, natural gas) don't pay for downstream effects" We both know that coal produces far more negative effects than gas and NG. A lot of sources will tell you that EV actually has a greater negative effect than gas. Yes that is changing as more coal plants are converted to NG or renewable energy. That is why I say patience :-) not a punishment tax (reality is renewable could not handle the power needed (at this point) However, the down stream affect can be refuted in so many ways. Not saying nothing negative comes from the Fossil fuel, the point of all of it is stop the GW stuff and all that. Make the arguments about the torque for example, "Harley is left behind in the silent wake of my disappearing FX." now that gets their attention. If you read my 1st post in this Proto, I think I said you handled it rather well on that other site. Proto, you are right, I forgot I had to set you straight in that other forum LOL.
-
You make a good point bigd, in your usual long-winded way ;) If you did a list with positives on one side and negatives on the other for both ICE and EV bikes the EV would come out on top in the vast majority of cases (excepting those that travel very long distances in short periods which must be rare).
When I bought my Zero GW was of no concern to me at all, I wanted one because it was better for my needs than any available gas bike. More recently I have seen the benefits to my asthma of not breathing in fumes all the time so I am now pushing EV's because they improve air quality, my power comes from Nuclear but even with the coal fired stations, at least the pollution is outside our towns and cities. I still believe that EV's are cleaner overall but all the reports are basically guesswork. I have yet to see a convincing argument either way, (they all omit the fact that the statistics they use are for new vehicles and that catalytic converters, piston seals etc. degrade over time) so will agree that avoiding the issue and focussing on the positives is the way to go.
-
I got into a little pissing match recently regarding my Zero (as I was trying to promote the advantages of electric motorcycles), with a fellow that lives in Utah, on the BMW motorcycle forum that I frequent. His big complaint (so he says) is that he doesn't want the government subsidizing EV purchases and will never buy a vehicle that is partially paid for by his taxes. I guess he never heard of corporate tax breaks, government bail-outs of auto companies and financial institutions and subsidizes for ethanol to be used in gasoline. (Along with thousands of other examples of his tax money in action. ::) ) Some people just want everyone to buy gasoline and resent anyone who travels without doing so, I guess. ;)
-
I tried really hard to step out of this debate - not really one to get involved in conflict or enjoy confrontation... but I couldn't stop myself. I apologize in advance for escalating this....
Really the main point is we need to refine the argument and point out all the positives of electric motorcycles and stop bashing the oil if you really want to promote it
Accentuate the positive, I agree... but ignore the global climate crisis caused by the fossil fuel industry... the global climate crisis that threatens the very existence of life on earth? Really? Who, in this 21st century, thinks that we should be doing anything less than making the most rapid transition possible from fossil fuels to renewable energy?
I am not been controversial, just pointed out a fact that so many miss speak about (I don't think it is intentional) Oil companies receive money from the govt. When you say I don't like my money going to the oil.... A lot of people who are knowledge stop listening because they know it isn't true.
There are no taxpayer subsidies like the solyndra debacle to oil companies, there just aren't.
I won't keep going back and forth here - I have no idea where this denial of basic facts comes from - anyone can google "tax subsidies/oil industry" and see for themselves. The fact that the federal government subsidizes the oil/coal industry is a very important part of the debate and should be included in any discussion of future energy policy. Again - the debate isn't whether we are subsidizing the oil/coal industry - the question is should we subsidize the oil/coal industry, while simultaneously trying to deal with the effects of climate change.
The answer is, in my opinion, of course not, it simply doesn't make sense.
I'm sure that most readers of this forum understand this - after all, part of the reason we ride electric bikes is to do our part to help heal our planet. Zero, Brammo, and others tout the zero emissions aspect of the technology on their websites - the makers of these bikes are quite cognizant of the dangers of burning fossil fuel. The fact that electric bikes are also high-tech, energy-efficient and fun is a win-win-win bonus.
One final apology for being long-winded and dragging this issue out. Perhaps I should never have started this thread.... :-\
-
I just like to ride electric motorcycles because they are great fun to ride.
;D
-
The fact that electric bikes are also high-tech, energy-efficient and fun is a win-win-win bonus.
That
-
Speaking of EV haters, it appears that Jeremy Clarkson of Top Gear fame may be looking for another job if he opens his big mouth again:
http://www.autoblog.com/2014/05/05/jeremy-clarkson-bbc-warning-nword/?cps=gravity (http://www.autoblog.com/2014/05/05/jeremy-clarkson-bbc-warning-nword/?cps=gravity)
-
Accentuate the positive, I agree... but ignore the global climate crisis caused by the fossil fuel industry... the global climate crisis that threatens the very existence of life on earth? Really? Who, in this 21st century, thinks that we should be doing anything less than making the most rapid transition possible from fossil fuels to renewable energy?
Well, count me in that group. Aside from my being agnostic in the belief that "the global fossil fuel industry", and not normal geologic cycles, are causing the earth's temperature to rise, and that that phenomenon will doom us all in 100 years or less, my experience tells me that any knee-jerk "solution" to a problem rarely turns out good.
I like EVs because I feel they are superior technology, and that physics generally favors them, or will in the long run. And my Zero is a lot of fun.
But another thought occurs to me: I can generate my own power (solar and batteries). I can't refine my own fossil fuels. So if climate change alarmism (whether right or wrong in the end) becomes sufficiently prevalent that government policy causes fossil fuels to become scarce, at least I can get around with the EV.
(This same situation may also cause the power grid to become less reliable, given that nuclear is seemingly not being considered much as a renewable alternative, so being able to generate my own electricity may become doubly important.)
As a side note, I also believe that subsidies in general should be eliminated. I'm OK with a little research into diversity of energy sources, though whether the federal government is capable of effectively managing that (hello, Solyndra) is debatable at best.
-
"Accentuate the positive, I agree... but ignore the global climate crisis caused by the fossil fuel industry" Well lets work from where we agree. Again, I agree that people on here (I don't know how many or care really lol) are GW alarmist. However, if we all take a deep breath and go back to the main point of my post, who are you directing the argument to. Is the only ones you want buying an electric is the global alarmist, then keep using that argument. I propose that we use the arguments that are backed up with facts, the positives strengths of EV. Hey, if you get others that are not in the GW cult to convert you are helping your cause in a back hand way 8). Now lets stop this argument "Oil companies receive money from the govt" I have said the get tax benefits as businesses do. However, I cant think of any way to make it more plain. The govt does not send the oil companies money like they did Solyndra. Unless you count the energy for the economical disadvantage (and do we want to stop that one). Even your own links will tell you that. Big difference. I agree we should have a flat tax on all businesses. period. Ill let you decide the rate :).
"One final apology for being long-winded and dragging this issue out. Perhaps I should never have started this thread.... :-\" I see nothing wrong with expressing your opinion in a positive way and you have. I also say that you didn't cause them to read it as those evil oil companies caused me to use gas today "caused by the fossil fuel industry". Besides, You are not long winded as I was informed I was that person on this site :) ;D. Noisy, I cut it short for you LOL
-
This is a fun Top Gear video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5gFGX43vubM#t=473 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5gFGX43vubM#t=473)
It even stars Jeremy and he seems to be warming up to electric vehicles - or at least electric sport cars. ;)
-
Interesting use of the word "Alarmist" - hadn't heard that one - hilarious!
I think it speaks to the suboptimal level of science literacy in the U.S. - e.g. when an electrical engineer says that the anode of a battery is the positive terminal and the cathode of a battery is the negative terminal - no one says, "I don't believe it!"
But when a climate scientist places a thermometer into the ocean and records increasing temperatures - it somehow becomes a matter of "belief". Puzzling. I believe this is a uniquely American phenomenon. Hopefully the majority of our elected leaders have some basic science literacy... I know - that's a lot to hope for!
-
I think it speaks to the suboptimal level of science literacy in the U.S. - e.g. when an electrical engineer says that the anode of a battery is the positive terminal and the cathode of a battery is the negative terminal - no one says, "I don't believe it!"
But when a climate scientist places a thermometer into the ocean and records increasing temperatures - it somehow becomes a matter of "belief". Puzzling. I believe this is a uniquely American phenomenon. Hopefully the majority of our elected leaders have some basic science literacy... I know - that's a lot to hope for!
Apples and oranges. There's a difference in sticking a thermometer in the ocean and recording some temperature rise, and claiming that it is 100% the result of man- made CO2. The former is a measurement, and is generally absolute and repeatable (assuming the instrument is in good working order). The latter is a theory. It's the theory part I have a bit of an issue with.
-
"Apples and oranges. There's a difference in sticking a thermometer in the ocean and recording some temperature rise, and claiming that it is 100% the result of man- made CO2. The former is a measurement, and is generally absolute and repeatable (assuming the instrument is in good working order). The latter is a theory. It's the theory part I have a bit of an issue with." Not to mention that the temperature in that same place has varied over the 100, 1000, or billions (depending on your thought) years both up and down, but now it is CO2 and before it was weather cycle.
-
It's not the temperature measurements, it's the statisticians running multiple regression models and eliminating every potentially-correlating factor except for civilization-driven burning at scales not possible before.
If we're going to be pedantic like that, let's point out that it's hypotheses which are testable statements, and theories which are testable statements which have been tested and are more accurate than previous theories. Civilization-driven climate change through burning at scales not possible before is about as tested as any such hypothesis can be, so it's a real theory and you can use it to make basic statistical predictions and forecasts (note: climate, not weather).
Whatever. If you have the impulse to debate this on an EV forum, your priorities don't make sense. Go ride.
-
"more accurate than previous theories" and lets not forget that every scale model, computer prediction has been vastly incorrect. Hence, it was called global warming but when the temps went down. Now climate change. As this is non refutable, as we all know climate changes constantly. However, lets not look at other trends from past decades. "Whatever. If you have the impulse to debate this on an EV forum, your priorities don't make sense. Go ride." I agree as I was not the one that brought it up. ;D Just saying if you want to spread the word about EV leave the GW fear mongering out :-X
-
Btw, the temperatures have not gone down, and the phrase "Climate Change" was not created as a reaction to weather patterns. It was a calculated phrase put out by opponents of Anthropogenic Global Warming. Much like an opponent of the idea that the Universe has a beginning was the one who coined the term (sarcastically) "Big Bang".
Also, nobody is claiming that 100% of Global Warming is due to humans. We are now able to dig up carbon-based fuels and burn them (creating C02) at a rate that wasn't even imaginable before the industrial revolution.
It is also well known that the oil industry enjoys some of the most lucrative subsidies in the USA. This is not up for debate. Oil companies spend billions of dollars on lobbying to ensure those subsidies remain intact and get expanded.
It's strange seeing the "American Spectator" thread show up so much when the topic has completely changed. If someone wants to start a Global Warming thread, that might be a better title for further discussion.
Probably quite a few of us chose electric vehicles specifically to reduce our carbon footprint and to encourage this nascent industry to grow which will allow others to do the same. Global warming isn't as fun to discuss as electric motorcycles, though! :-)
-
"the temperatures have not gone down" Ill get the site posted that does in fact have temps and shows last 4 years. Tired tonight. "It is also well known that the oil industry enjoys some of the most lucrative subsidies in the USA." Nice try, when a person says that they are playing on our natural jealousy of those that have more (Oil makes billions). However, when you look at the percentages they are in line with most, if not all businesses. We have to be able to take out emotion to have a logical discussion. "Big Bang" I love watching Big Bang Theory "Also, nobody is claiming that 100% of Global Warming " that's the point ,no one knows how much or if it even matters that much, or if one country like the USA can make a difference. "someone wants to start a Global Warming thread" Im good with that, However, if you are saying that one side can spew as much bad information as they want and the others shouldn't say anything - um nope. Unless this is a communist site that is. Have a good day :D
-
one side can spew as much bad information as they want
This is exactly what keeps me coming back. I would very much like to end this thread here and now, but with stuff like:
every scale model, computer prediction has been vastly incorrect
and:
the temps went down
it makes me think we are being 'punked'.
I am not a scientist, but I have a degree in science. I understand the scientific method, I understand the difference between a hypothesis and a theory.
The 'debate' on climate change is over (it has been for quite some time now). It is not "fear mongering" to heed the warnings of science and reason. It is not "alarmist" to push for an end to destructive activity.
The voices of science illiterates and willful ignorance insist that the debate continues, but they are becoming a small minority, much like I imagine the flat-earthers did in the years following the shocking discovery that the world is a three-dimensional sphere.
I offer one final apology to everyone that got an email suggesting they look, once again, at this thread.
I will not waste my time responding to any more these egregious inanities. Instead - I will ride :)
-
I will add my un-researched and little-informed opinion: It is my belief (from reading newspapers and magazines, not the internet) that the world is warming and that humans are contributing to the warming. What I can not decide is to what extent we are making the problem worse and whether or not we can reverse the trend. It would seem to me that world politics and economics would prevent any significant world-wide program that would have a noticeable effect on GW. So I agree, lets all ride our electric vehicles where we can and just enjoy the weather before it starts feeling like summertime on Venus. :o
-
I will not waste my time responding to any more these egregious inanities. Instead - I will ride :)
Me either :) Though here in southeast Texas our spring respite, that has seemingly repeated itself for the last few years, is about to be over. So surface of Venus, here I come. Hope my batteries hold up :)
-
Given my background and study into sustainable food growing systems I should add the following.
Most people I know as class mates believe CO2 is just a scapegoat as reducing it won't fix anything. In fact we acknowledge in times when CO2 is higher we typically have more plant growth as a result. which in tern can sequester the carbon back into the soil.
The same people acknowledge a general warming trend and we acknowledge man could be causing the warming but have no method to determine how much of the warming we cause, and how much is cyclical.
We also know what can cause warming far faster and greater than CO2 ever could, agriculture. Or, I should say "Modern agriculture." The number one export in the US by weight is top soil, something nature builds at 1" every 500 years. In a temperate humid environment this isn't a problem nature cannot fix given enough time. However everywhere else in the world where there isn't a humid temperate climate you have a great risk to face when loosing top soil, desertification.
The way the West farms is responsible for the top soil run off and as a result desertification of once lush green forests in Africa. Those deserts we help create contribute to "climate weird'ing" as well as "climate change," both in quotes as the real issue here is AGW.
The good news is we can "re-green" the deserts and change our current agricultural practices to build soil instead of erode it. Doing so will add more biomass and naturally reduce the level of CO2 in the atmosphere but it doesn't end there. The methods required to do this also produce more nutritious food devoid of chemicals and fertilizers. It also establishes a truly sustainable system which can replace itself in its own lifetime while producing a surplus. And better yet you can grow an inch of top soil a year in intensive systems.
I don't care where someone stands in relation to CO2 legislation. If you think creating deserts while depleting soil and creating toxic food is ok however I take issue with your reasoning.
I should also add something important to this conversation. There are people who have no idea what sustainable is. but it is rather easy to define when you think about it. Something is not sustainable unless it can reproduce itself over its own lifetime. If by its own existence it cannot do this then by definition you will eventually run out of the means to create it and thus it isn't sustainable. So many people, even those who make a living at living green have a clue about what is sustainable.
I know no one here has used the term yet but I hope I have placed some perspective on it for you in case you were unaware of its abuse. Like others in this thread I am sure I will regret posting this later :)
-
Take 5 minutes and view this scientifically correct debate: https://t.co/FayxPJSs6j
-
Thank-you kingcharles! That was fantastic :)
-
Take 5 minutes and view this scientifically correct debate: https://t.co/FayxPJSs6j
While I love Nye I realize he is but a mechanical engineer not a scientist.
Also anyone who still uses the IPCC's -97% numbers (there are two of them one for "studies" and one for "scientists") clearly doesn't realize where the number came from or they wouldn't use it to support their arguments -_-
Out of the 11,944k papers the IPCC looked at they chose 75 falling into categories which supported the IPCC position (no joke read their own report) and then claimed 65, or 87% supported the IPPC position . Yeah 87% is what they claim now not 97% but you wouldn't know that unless you read their retraction. This "study" was an attempt to make up for the previous attempt bellow.
A similar story can be told for the "97% of scientist agree" meme started by IPCC in their own report they admit to how they came up with the numbers. First they had an online survey sent out to 10,257 people and 3146 replied back. The IPCC chose 75 of those 3146 replies to qualify their 97% number.
There were two questions used out of the 9 asked on the now infamous Zimmerman survey to make the 97.4% claim (numbers indicated below those two):
Q1. When compared with pre-1800's levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?
1. Risen
2. Fallen
3. Remained relatively constant
4. No opinion/Don't know
76 of 79 (96.2%) answered “risen.â€
Q2. Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures? [This question wasn't asked if they answered "remained relatively constant" to Q1]
1. Yes
2. No
3. I'm not sure
75 of 77 (97.4%) answered “yes.†This being he higher number is what the IPCC used without realizing it was really 75 out of 79 or 94.9%
Q3. What do you consider to be the most compelling argument that supports your previous answer (or, for those who were unsure, why were they unsure)? [This question wasn't asked if they answered "remained relatively constant" to Q1]
Q4. Please estimate the percentage of your fellow geoscientists who think human activity is a contributing factor to global climate change.
Q5. Which percentage of your papers published in peer-reviewed journals in the last 5 years have been on the subject of climate change?
Q6. Age
Q7. Gender
Q8. What is the highest level of education you have attained?
Q9. Which category best describes your area of expertise?
You will note no questions used to get the claimed 97.4% number even involved AGW. So yeah, anyone still using these numbers isn't thinking critically in my book.
-
Sorry, I have not watched the video here yet but please tell me that the IPCC 97% paper is not still been used. That has been refuted so many times I would hope that the more educated do not use it for anything other than bathroom material (and not talking about reading :D
-
2002 2.86°C 134
2010 2.89°C 135
2011 1.99°C 120
2012 1.91°C 119
2013 2.24°C 126
2014 2.58°C 130(1)
Now those that think that temp. went up, note That in 2002 the amount from average is 2.86 in 2014 it is "only" 2.58. Now my degree was not in math but I thought that 2.58 < 2.86. Also note that for example 2011,12,13,14 were lower than 2010. However, 2010-389ppm CO2, 2011- 391, 2012-393ppm 2013-396ppm, 2014-401ppm. Now if CO2 was the cause or even the main cause, logic would dictate that the temp would have went up consistently with the CO2. In conclusion, the climate is complex and yet some want to "think" they have the answers. Have I ever said that CO2 was not the cause of the drought ooops flooding ooops tropical ooops dry climate I am in (little sarcasm here ;). No, as nothing has come up that is conclusive either yes or no. However, because someone has a different view as I do I will not go to the childish levels of saying they are "science illiterates and willful ignorance". I just state my opinion and listen to others. Not trying to be an elitist as some, but I have read more from both nay Sayers and alarmist on this topic than most, as I am still trying to come up with a conclusive answer. I agree, I wish that others would not use "egregious inanities" like the IPCC report.
A little food for thought :-[ , I find this interesting. "The average person who says they care about climate change actually has a substantially worse than average footprint. Monroe is the CEO of Oroeco, a recently launched web app that tracks a user’s personal impact on climate change."
(1)http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/time-series/global/globe/land_ocean/ytd/4/1880-2014
-
"logic would dictate": No, it does not. You're missing the forest for the trees. A statistical trend is not borne out one year to the next but over a much longer course. CO2 buildup happens over a very long time cycle and we haven't identified how long that is. There are complex partial differential equations that go into this which are not fully understood (e.g. how much is soaked up by the ocean which we have poor observability into) - what is understood is that the whole system's inputs are lopsided (heat in vs. heat out) and trending in the wrong direction over time.
re: "worse than average", this is not food for thought; it is junk. Educated people in the first world are all worse than average. Awareness and education are not cheap, so the correlation is just via education and time to reflect on the big picture.
-
"You're missing the forest for the trees. A ... is not borne out one year to the next but over a much longer course." Agree and when we go back to the 1910 - 1940s we see temp spikes like the present before the industrial revolution. Also, 8000 years ago the earth temp rose more than at any time in the present. But the alarmist do not mention that as there was not a statistical significant CO2 rise at that time. Do we want to go even farther back? History dictates that there is a wide variety of temp and climate changes constantly (yes over time). The biggest problems with the alarmist is every prediction they make is wrong. After Sandy I remember climatologist "warning" about how many more hurricanes there will be, well low and behold they are going down, this is going to be a very low year. I remember once a person told me that to be a scientific theory, you had to be able to replicate it and get the same results. If that is correct than the alarmist are way off.
"it is junk." didn't mean to strike a nerve, just relaying a statistical fact from an experiment ;D