Why I bought a Prius - Another Perspective

Sorry, I don't mean to hijack this thread, but I can't let this go David. I assume you are refering to how the glaciers (that once covered most of North America, for instance) melted? That's easy, because of natural climate variation that occured over hundreds of thousands of years. And similar such natural climate variations will continue to occur in the future. But to not beleive in global warming is really a completely uninformed position. The amount of warming that has occured over the 50 years is similar in magnitude to what naturally would take many thousands of years. Scientifically, we are well past any rational disagreement on this subject. How MUCH human induced global warming is occuring, and how FAST its occuring are debatable, but we are WAY beyond IF it is occuring.

A bit of information from a few "crackpot" references:

"NASA Confirms Global Warming Impact on Ice Sheets
http://www.scenta.co.uk/scenta/news.cfm?ci....content_view_1

"NASA-led scientists say ocean data ties manmade emissions to warmer Earth"
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/7665636/

These articles based on information from the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute, and the Scripps Institution of Oceanography.
"Stark Effects From Global Warming
CO2 emissions are causing oceans to warm, ocean chemistry to change, and rainfall patterns to shift"
http://pubs.acs.org/cen/news/83/i12/8312globalwarming.html
and
"Studies confirm global warming underway"
http://www.swissinfo.org/sen/swissinfo.htm...143&sid=5548239

This from the Goddard Institute for Space Studies
"2005 Warmest Year in Over a Century"
http://grounds-mag.com/news/warmest_year_030706/

And this quotes are from the United States Deparetment of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Institution.
"Is the climate warming? Yes."
and
"recent decades appear to be the warmest since at least about 1000AD, and the warming since the late 19th century is unprecedented over the last 1000 years."
and
"Global mean sea level has been rising at an average rate of 1 to 2 mm/year over the past 100 years, which is significantly larger than the rate averaged over the last several thousand years."

And I could go on and on....

 

Ha! Very funny. Oh wait, do you mean that? :blink: I'm not sure if you're kidding or not, but if you aren't, you might want to read up on this. Perhaps you mean you don't believe that the warming is anthropogenic (fossil fuel-burning related). But, the warming itself is pretty well documented. There's lots of stuff out there, I know, but try to look at some of the primary literature scientific studies that are well-carried out, not at media reports, and I think you'll see that something is definitely happening here. Or just ask anyone that gardens. I don't want to turn this thread into a debate, but here's just a snapshot of global temperatures from the NOAA (a govermental organization) (scroll to the bottom):

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/paleolast.html
and a nice summary of the info
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/end.html

If you've already read up on this and your opinion is firm, though, that's fine - every one's entitled to one.

Anyway, that being said, I always choose my cars based largely on their efficiency. So I'd have to say:

1) 40 % efficiency - high MPG, lower CO2 emissions, lower gas usage, cheaper to run over the long haul.
2) 20 % low maintenance/high reliability.
3) 20% roominess/hatchbach versatility versus the similar FE vehicles
3) 20% cool technology/features

Now I that I have it, I love it for the reasons above, plus the ultra-smooth CVT and the smart key system.

 

25% cool gadgets, new technology
-5% exterior looks (I love what's on the inside!)
15% 4 doors
15% environmental concerns/fuel economy
10% Fed tax credit
40% X-factor - I can't explain it but I was hooked after one test drive. I feel like this is the automobile version of myself.

Other considerations: Georgia state tax credit of $5,000 (bill is dead but wasn't when I bought) and HOV lane access (still pending).

 

Oooh, I'm right with you there!

 

My breakdown is something like this:

20% four-door and hatchback
20% reliability/company reputation
35% environmental friendliness (low emissions/high MPG/support technology)
10% comfort/driving position (first car I've ever owned that doesn't require me to sit on a pillow!)
10% nerd/geek factor
15% unique look

- 10% not a manual transmission

 

What he said

 

For me it was:

Reduce gasoline consumption. This country, and others, are taking part in the greatest transfer of wealth in world history by enriching the OPEC boys....who among other things $upport terrorist worldwide.

Save money. With China coming online bigtim as an oil importer I look for nothing but higher and higher prices.

Neat technology.

Fun to drive.

 

Here are mine:

35% Automatic transimission
30% Cool Gadgets/Technology/Safety
50% Chance that it would save money (only useful here when combined with other aspects)
8% Good for the environment
15% damn cool looking car

I hear alot from the civic owners that they wish they had some of the features of the prius in thier hybrids, but they wouldnt buy a prius due to cost, its ugly & they would rather just have a normal looking car or that they just prefer honda over toyota.. (silly)

I also will agree with kingofqix's statment! B)
alot of brain washing goin on..
Thats my 2 cents..

 

Being the very first person on this side of the planet to instigate the use of the word "stealth" with Prius, I feel your pain.

Waiting for the increased usage of electricity in our beloved hybrid is a horribly long process. But we are indeed making small steps forward... which is actually the better way of ensuring that change will be well accepted and permanent.

I figured it would take about 10 years for the choice by the average joe to abandon traditonal technology to be a "no brainer". Until then, the resistance to change would remain common and widespread.

In other words, the only way to prove to the doubters that a hybrid will deliver at least 10 years and +200,000 miles of trouble-free operation is to literally wait that long. Then taking a rather large next step is no big deal.

 

My thoughts on the "global warming" issue:

In general, most scientists are going with the flow in regards to this (and there is very little free literature that argues against global warming). However, it has been documented that while some glaciers are receeding, even more are expanding around the world.

Additionally, we only really have temperature data for the past 100 years or so. Before comuters, how accurate was that data? Using home made thermometers, meteorologists would walk out to their farm fields to take readings. not as accurate as what we have now. The data they've generated for the past 1000 years probably isn't as reliable as they want people to think. One site claims it is based on tree rings. well, rings can be different sizes for reasons other than temperature. The simple fact is they are mearly making SWAGs (scientific wild nice person guesses) that fit the theory.

The "urban warming effect". Not to discount the possible impact of fossil fuels, but urban areas are generally warmer for other reasons. the built up infrastructure (concrete, roads, buildings) retain heat better than dirt, grass, or vegetation. (point: first snow of every year sticks to the grass, trees, and shrubs, but not to streets/sidewalks). Additionally, we heat our homes, which leaks out into the urban areas no matter what precautions or "winterizing" we do to a house. Want to test this? Take a temperature reading in the evening at your local airport then drive 2-3 hours away from the city to the middle of nowhere and take another reading. i can almost gaurantee it'll be different.


All that being said, I don't feel one way or another in regards to global warming, i just like to play devil's advocate. Our burning of fossil fuels definately has a negative impact on the environment, but i don't feel it's been sufficiently proven that fossil fuels impact global warming any more than other human-related reasons.

 

Well, sorry, but that is because you are misinformed. Vast amounts of peer reviewed scientific research says otherwise. All the things you state are issues to a degree, but they are just "soundbites" that tend to confuse the casual observer. It is because of those types of "soundbites" that the average person remains misinformed. For instance, the "1000 years of temperature data" is based on extensive research derived from artic ice core research, tree ring research, geologic research, etc. The globe has warmmed and cooled many times throughout history, but the present rate of warming is completely unprecedended and can only be explained by anthropologic effects.

 

Sorry, to clump people together, but I always find it interesting that generally, the people who don't believe in the scientific evidence of global warming wholeheartly without question believe that ome dude split the red sea, after we die we will spend eternity either on top of heavenly clouds or in a firery hell, and that evolution is a fallacy. Question, did the dinosaurs come before or after adam and eve?

 

60% for the way-cool technology
15% for the hybrid and saving some money
15% for having something before anyone else
10% for being an obsessive compulsive person

 

Interestingly enough, we've done that already... where is the outrage? We now have full battery Rav4EVs put on the road in 1996 that have well over 150k miles on the original battery packs, and those packs are still deliverying 95%+ of their original capacity. And again - this is a full battery vehicle which sees complete charge/discharge cycles, unlike a hybrid which treats the battery like a rare, fragile piece of art.

 

Peer review doesn't mean that a body of work or research project is correct, or that the ideas that pass peer review to go on to be published even represent a quality body of work. It only means that the selected panel of peers that reviewed the material are willing to let it be published in their journal. In most instances the peers that review material are in full agreement with it regardless of the holes in research, logic or data. Window dressing is done from first review to publishing to make the work more meaty and to reduce controversy regarding gaps and errors.

To take a less controversial topic to task, research about food and health conditions continues to undulate back and forth. Ten years ago coffee was bad for you. Today it is good for you. Chocolate used to be bad for you, now it has the highest concentration of antioxidants of just about any food you can find, be careful how much you eat. Red meat used to be bad, now it is ok if you don't overdo it. Bread was bad, now if it is whole wheat it is ok. Fat, well it isn't as bad as it used to be. About the only thing which hasn't been overturned is the benefits of oatmeal and associated oat bran.

And nearly all of this research was peer reviewed. And as those former research projects are contradicted the usual reason they are no longer applicable is because the research was limited, the dataset was restricted, the project didn't last long enough or test a wide enough group of people, the quantities of the "bad" food being researched were so great that even generous eaters wouldn't eat that quantity at any given sitting and of course there is the fact that some tests were done on lab animals and when the test was replicated in a more realistic environment with people, well the results just didn't come out that way. And in nearly all of these instances the research that is being overturned now was peer reviewed.

The same thing happens in the hard sciences, like earth sciences, chemistry, physics, and in the non-sciences, business, marketing, economics, psychology, sociology. Research comes and goes. Some is done well and conclusions stand. Some is done so poorly that initial conclusions are so weak that they barely stand, but if you get a powerful school, journal, benefactor, administrator or any other pushing force, that theory will be published as if it is fact and gospel and it will stand because it is peer reveiwed.

Anymore a lot more needs to stand behind research than just peer review. Data, multiple interpretations of that data, different ways to examine the data all need to be explored before something can become fact. Multiple samplings of data need to happen and multiple conclusions about data sets must be made. In short group think needs to be eliminated, and disagreement needs to be accepted, published and promoted. As an intelligent individual, I do not want conclusions made for me, I want to make them on my own. I want to read the arguments made by researchers against each others body of work.

Whenever researchers on any subject seem to agree with each other all the time on topics of interest, I'm immediatly skeptical. If it weren't for skepticism, humans would become complacent.

 

Jeromep,

I (generally) agree with everything you say. But the basic question of "is there anthropologic forced global warming" is now about as debatable as "does smoking cause cancer". The level of certainty of the answer is very high, and that is what I'm taking about. I'm not trying to say that there aren't unanswered questions, far from it. Much is left to be studied, and the research will probably continue for the rest of human existence. But the real scientific debate has moved beyond IF and is now focused on WHEN, and WHERE, and HOW MUCH. The "multiple samplings" and multiple conclusions" you mention have already been undertaken. Something I can't document right now (don't remember where), but I read somewhere in the last year that more human hours have been devoted to the study of global warming that any other scientific investigation in history. And in the past couple of years, the conclusions have been getting stronger and more aligned. Many of the "opposing view points" you can now read were legitimate questions 5 years ago, but they are now just being recycled for political (or whaterver) purposes. There has emerged in the past 2 years or so a very broad, strong and defensible scientific consensus on the basic question.

 

50, 100, 150 and more years ago, peer review used to be the crucible where poor research, bad conclusions, incomplete data and thoughts were burned off to reveal weaknesses in research and to discredit, when necessary, poor hypothesis. There is a huge difference in what peer review once was and what it is now. Then it was true debate, often times in person, between members of scientific and research societies. Researchers used to write papers, make conclusions and publish data without the pre-filtering we see today in peer review. Those researchers then truly stuck their necks out on the line when the published. If they had done everything in their power it would be difficult for their work to be discredited, or at least they themselves wouldn't be discredited. If they had not, debate would ensue, based on an unfiltered work that was truly the creation of the author in question. The crucible in action. Omissions of data that were the author's fault would not be forgiven by this system. Interpretation of data was allowed. Replication of results through true experiment duplication was encouraged and essential. Duplication of results through experiment adjustment was also necessary.

There were egos at work all the time. Individuals trying to discredit one another, not always for the betterment of the science, but because they had a personal grudge against the other. Especially in Victorian and Edwardian Britain, if you were not of the right birth it would be years and years, if ever that you might be able to join one of the societies, have your 2 cents aired and either gain credibility or loose it. Whatever the flaws then the end result is the scientific foundation our lives are built on today.

However, it goes back to my first point, that foundation is gradually being torn apart by the current peer review process; one that is often times done behind closed doors, with scientific arena insiders who often times have a political agenda they are looking to promote. 150 years ago there certainly was politics, but when it came right down to it the crucible of peer debate overcame the politics and good research rose to the top. Today political views pervade the scientific community. It doesn't matter how brilliant you are, or how thorough your research in a topic area, if it doesn't meet with political standard, or heaven forbid, make good news copy, it isn't going to be filtered through the review process.

In a world where our higher education system is where most research is done and where publish and perish is the standard for these researchers to keep their jobs, feed their families, keep a roof over their heads... well, I sure do see the conflict of interest here. Let's see, publish what I have found to be true, or publish what will put food on the table and grant me job security. That is pretty clear.

I write these words not as an affront to global warming theory (and it is just exactly that), but as an affront to the scientific research process as we see it today, with regard to all issues. Global warming research is just one of the areas which has been befallen by this one-sided process of trying to prove the "popular" conclusion true rather than doing different tests and letting the chips fall where they will. I have tried my best to avoid getting into the global warming debate, there are no winners here. However this is the best opportunity to point out that good scientific research is under attack, and unless real research is encouraged, unless science is devoid of politics or agenda, we all risk loosing the thing which defined the 20th century, unbridled research and discovery for the sake of research and discovery and the improvement of mankind.

 

I would guess that my choice broke down to:
20 % decrease gas milage over my old SUV for my daily commute,yes there could be other solutions to that, but not quite as well and there is the future where I believe that gas prices will continue to rise.
10 % 4 doors hatch back and interior space
20 % Hybrid technology that I had finally been convinced was worth investing in and supporting and had been looking at for a while.
20 % Gadgets including the Navigation system, Bluetooth was a big draw as I am a huge supporter of hands free operation if a car phone needs to be used.
10 % an environmental and political move to decrease oil and in particular imported oil.
10 % Visual statement to others and I do like the styling.
10 % I just liked it when I drove it.

 

Prius was the easiest car to pick I ever bought! There wasn't another qualified car.

My selection criteria were quite simple:

1 Had to get better mpg than my old car that got 42 mpg (on trips in summer.)
2 Had to be a hatchback or station wagon.
3 Had to hold min of 4 people.
4 Had to have an automatic continuously variable transmission, and not with belts to wear out.
5 Had to be as affordable as my last car. That means under 25,000.
6 Had to be more reliable than my last car. So no more European cars!
Even a Ford would have qualified here!
7 Then once I saw it I had to have a car with the start Power button instead of a key in a slot!

The Hybrid part came along for free!