How many Prius owners believe in Global Warming theory?

Take your pick . . .

JunkScience.com -- The Real Inconvenient Truth: Greenhouse, global warming and some facts

Global Warming: A closer look at the numbers

THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: Shattering the Greenhouse Effect

Ten Global Warming Myths

​

 

As someone who was using CFLs before the 'curlies' existed, I must dispute much of this.

Standard bulb sizes and uses that don't have CFL replacements are not being banned.

Dimmer switch compatible CFLs have been available for a long time. The cheapie CFLs are pushing them aside where it is harder to find them, but they still exist.

Sub-zero CFLs have also long been available, but are suffering the same fate as the dimmer versions.

 

so, again, we have to listen to the lowest 3% that don't get it?
Arguments from Global Warming Skeptics and what the science really says (see #3)

why does human nature do this?

it is just laughable that this smaller group of deniers gets so much voice on a subject they know nothing about. sad.

I read a book once on brain surgery...please listen to me about your upcoming gall bladder appointment. it really seems like that.

 

"Reducing CO2? Didn't we read all those leaked emails from bank cartel funded "scientists"?"

I live in New Mexico. Aliens live here too, or so I am told ...

 

I know it was colder when I was young, is that a theory?

I am not wise enough to predict if it will be warmer in the future, but straight line interpolation sure makes it plausible.

As to a 'law' or equation of climate change, I am a skeptic. But it is warmer.

 

Climate warming appears to be an accepted fact based upon all of the available data. John Christy who lives in Huntsville agrees it is happening.

Mankind as the cause also looks to be accurate. However, I think there is a man-based solution. The reason has to do with the link between food and fuel.

There was an ammonia tank explosion in Coffeyville this week highlighting the extent that fuel is used to make fertilizers and power industrial scale farming. To the extent that we'll burn up the cheap hydrocarbons soon enough, I suppose there will be a back-handed solution.

I didn't buy a Prius in 2005 because of global warming but to replace a 32 MPG Camry lost in an accident. Since then, I've been getting 52 MPG and very happy about it. Averaging about 20,000 miles per year, we've avoided burning up gas-money:

20,000 / 52 = 385 gal.
20,000 / 32 = 625 gal.
625-385 = 240 gal./year
~1,200 gal. (@$2.50/gal) ~= $3,000 saved
​

Did saving 1,200 gallons, about 8,000 lbs, save planet Earth from global warming, no. Did it convience anyone else, no. But it did payoff in my home accounts and this meant I had money for my hobbies.

Bob Wilson

 

He is, Grumpy just has a different POV and this science along with 1stA gives him that right to do so. The personal attacks just weaken your argument and speaking for myself I couldn't be more thankful. :yo:


http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2010/09/shattering-greenhouse-effect.html

 

OK, so all the free and independent scientist say global warming is FACT, yet all the nasty scientists with vested interests disagree.

There was also an earlier post where the writer said he was more intelligent than me so as such I am wrong and he is right.

lol, it's because of these sorts of pious attitudes that the majority of people don't believe in global warming. Global warming might be true, but so much piffle has been belched by the doom mongers that nobody listens to them any more and the louder they shout, the less we listen.

 

you know, there are lies, damn lies, and statistics.

what i know is that i've done about all i can do. i recycle, try not to waste, and drive a prius. if they want me to do more, then they better make it affordable. i can't afford a wind turbine and solar roof panels. this may be off topic slightly, but i would be willing to bet that the most radical green folks would also be the group that thinking drug manufacturers are evil because they charge so much for medicines that save lives. yet, they expect people to pay out the nose to be green, and want to basically extort money through cap and tax. i don't ever hear the far green talk about how overpriced green technology is.

 

Grumpy has no First Amendment rights. Those rights are specific to one country and one citizenship.

 

Let's say Climate Change isn't real and we act like it is.
Best case scenario: Cleaner air
Worst case scenario:
The main proponents of Cap and Trade are Goldman Sachs and the nuclear power industry.
#1) Nuclear power plant disaster, killing millions and poisoning the environment for thousands of years.
Nuclear plants are disasters waiting to happen.As well as being prime terrorist targets.
#2)They create tons of radioactive waste which must be stored to protect the environment and must be secured from terrorists for thousands of years.
#3)Debilitate the economies of industrialized nations,and hinder the development of the third world poor.
Meanwhile enriching Goldman Sachs( who is the main lobby for Cap and Trade.)
While enriching the nuclear power industry( the other C&T lobby.)

 

Nothing wrong with nuclear. Lots of the civilized world uses it for production. You can treat the end product and reduce the half life of the waste significantly. I would rather store a few hundred years of radioactive waste that produced clean energy than burn a gazillion tons of coal and pollute the air. Not to mention the medical research benefits of nuclear plants.

 

If I was a terrorist,I would commandeer a nuke plant then put it into meltdown mode.
Probably wouldnt need to fire a shot.
Or fly a 747 into a French nuke plant.

 

Which shows your nievety of how "nuke pants" work. If you were given clear and free access into a plant and a few hours to do whatever you want, it is almost a guarentee nothing bad can happen. It is all computer controlled on redundant safety systems. Anything happens to any safety at any time, it shuts down immediately.

Almost 25% of the cost of a reactor goes into safety.

The fuel itself (which is STABLE) is sealed inside of zirconium alloys. This is the "fuel rod" that they put inside of sealed steel chambers. The walls are 30cm thick (about a 1ft) of solid steel. The primary cooling is almost as thick. Then this whole thing is placed inside of a very dense concrete chamber with walls about 1m (39in to 40in) thick. Then this is placed in a containment area which has 1.5 to 2.5m thick walls out of reinforced concrete (8ft+).

If anything happens to the cooling supply such as low pressure, steam getting in it, or your terrorist friend shutting it off, the reaction automatically and almost instantanteously backs off. If the change is too great, then it shuts the whole reaction down immediately.

If all that fails, then there is the emergency core cooling system. If that fails, then there is the backup emergency core cooling system.

Even with an earthquake, the reactor automatically shuts down before even the human "operators" know what is going on.

You know that during the Cold War, neither side (Russia/USA) targeted eachothers nucelar reactors because the damage would be modest to none.

The three mile island "distastor" was human error. Half the core melted, yet only a limited amount of radioactive particles made it out of the steam towers. All safety systems worked as intended. Except for the goof-ups of the untrained operators that actually made it worse. However the safeties still worked despite the human errors. Had the plant been allowed to do what it was supposed to and the operators had just let it be, the plant would have likely shut itself down and had been operational again after they replaced the mechanical part in a few weeks.

Chernobyl had no such safeties and again was human error, so dont even bother bringing that up. There are currently 11 operating nuclear plants in Russia that do not conform to international safety standards. These are basically identical in design to Chernobyl and have few to none safeties. They have been retrofited over the years, but are still not up to snuff. These are the dangerous plants. Nothing built today or anytime in the 80's poses any threat to anybody.

 

Agreed, I dont know how to melt down a nuke.
Lets just blow it to hell with fertilizer and diesel fuel.
Or dynamite, or a backpack nuclear weapon device.

 

Diesel/Fertilizer will have no effect. It is design to withstand a fission reaction... Dynamite does not work like in the movies. It is one of the least effective explosives, good for blasting some rock walls when drilled inside, but otherwise worthless. Well fishing in the south is another use.

You can slam your 747 into the reactor and the 99.9% chance that you will miss it because it is extremely small compared to other targets, and it is surrounded by other buildings/devices. If you did hit it dead nuts, and didnt ricochet off the side (remember a curve is the strongest shape), you would have to get through meters and meters of concrete and steel with air gaps. So each time you are starting over in momentum. It is not as easy as you think.

Also, you do realize that a nuclear power plant is incapable of producing a reaction similar to a nuclear explosion. It is just not possible.

You will have more problems with the radiation from a backpack nuclear bomb then you would with the effects caused by damage to the reactor itself.

Radioactive Iodine would be the "bad" if something were to go wrong. What is not absorbed by the safeties, would be released into the atmosphere. It is very dense and would not travel far. However taking a note from France

In April 1996 the French Ministry of Health decided to distribute stable iodine tablets to the population
living in the vicinity of all nuclear power plants (NPP) in France. In case of a severe nuclear accident, the intake
of stable iodine would prevent irradiation of the thyroid by the radioactive iodine released by the plant. This
preventive distribution began in late 1996 around four pilot sites (Chooz, Fessenheim, Golfech, and Saint Alban)
and was extended to all French sites in 1997.
​

Got any other myths that you need debunked? The only argument to nuclear power is what to do with the spent fuel rods. That is the only argument that can be made.

 

Please explain how I attacked Grumpy personally. Grumpy stated that the scientists were smarter than him. I asked him why he doesn't care to believe what they say.

Not sure what this is in reference to, but it does have a pretty cherry picked chart with dubious looking data. Even the other temperature charts linked to on the site don't show anything by increasing temperature trends.

I don't believe anyone here stated that they were more intelligent than you.

So what exactly would it take to convince you to believe the science?

 

You can't be serious. I hope this comment is some sort of twisted satire, but it doesn't read that way. Speaking as an engineer, let me assure you that it is easy to understand how a large aircraft full of fuel can knock down a big building. The physics behind it are very simple.

Tom