Al Gore wins Nobel Peace Prize

[habernac]

LOL. Not adding to the discussion here, all I can think about right now is the Simpson's episode where Lisa is playing with her new Al Gore doll. She pulls the string on his back and it says "You are hearing me talk."

[Burninator]

Originally Posted by the_only_turek_fan

words

Fair enough.

A couple points though. I find that you have to be very careful, especially on the Internet, when looking into a science such as this. There is lots of misinformation out there, that may actually not be debunking the pro-man made global warming theories. There is definitely lots of spin. A theory presented by Gore from a scientific journal is not debunked by a newspaper article or a blog. Not saying that is where you are looking, but you have to be sketpical about the source. And I find that a lot of information on the anti-man made side are lacking that creditable source.

To honest I don't think you have looked at both sides fairly, as you said Micheal Crichton was fair and balanced and yet you go onto use his "environmentalism is a religion" argument. I would consider him far from fair and balanced.

http://forum.calgarypuck.com/showthr...chael+crichton

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by Incinerator

What's your take on this?

http://www.reason.org/commentaries/d...20060719.shtml

I question their data and the method they used to acquire it. The cost of a Hummer is three time that of the Civic, so according to the author, the manufacturer is eating a massive amount to sell the Civic versus the Hummer. Doesn't fit from a manufacturing or sales perspective.

From an ownership perspective, the fuel consumption of the Hummer is four times that of the hybrid. So if both vehicles travel 100,000 miles in a five year period, the cost to fuel the Hummer (10 mpg, and that is being liberal) at $3.00 per gallon is going to be $30,000. The Civic is going to be (based on 45 mpg) is going to be $6,667. The Hummer costs ~$60,000 while the Civic is ~$22,000. Costs for the Hummer are $90,000 (without maintenance) and the Civic is $29,000 (without maintenance). You tell me how a vehicle that is operationally three times as expensive and consumes more fuel, is somehow going to be cheaper in the phoney dust-to-dust energy cost rating. Seems bogus to me, and I subscribe to their political ideology.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by Cube Inmate

I don't really follow your point because I'm not very familiar with the EV1, but I'll comment nonetheless. Are you implying that they "killed" the electric car because the technology would threaten the oil industry?

Only partially. GM makes massive amounts of money from maintenance and repairs of their vehicles. With the electric vehicles the mainenance costs are extremely low as there are fewer moving parts. No need for oil changes or transmission fluid changes or transmissions at all. The number of parts to manufacture and maintain an electric car are lesser than a combustion engine vehicle. Killing a platform that would restrict your ability to sell more parts is just good business sense, and GM did just that.

I think "green" technologies are incredibly important not because of the GW implications, but because we live in a world of scarce resources and it's necessary to make better use of those. Furthermore, the true pollutants resulting from our energy usage can and do have a measurable impact on quality of life (e.g. smog).

So, to your example of GM vs. the Asian auto industry.... I guess the pertinent question is "why is Asia developing green technologies and GM is not?" One perspective: GM is in the back pocket of "big oil" and doesn't want to hurt that industry. Another perspective: GM doesn't know how to make these things profitably.

GM had a vehicle that was on the verge of profitability, and they killed it. It made no sense what so ever to kill the EV1 when they did, especially when they had a grassroots movement promoting the vehicle for them. They were into the government's of the western states for fleet sales for crying out loud (Phoenix still has its infrastructure of changing stations in parking garages downtown). GM wanted the platform dead, and they killed it themselves, crushing the vehicles at the proving grounds in Mesa. GM had built the product and it was the best of the vehicles available (including the EV Ford Ranger, EV Toyota RAV4 and hideous product from Honda that escapes me).

Frankly, I don't care why they've been surpassed by the Japanese. The fact is that N. American consumers are buying hybrid vehicles and GM is suffering for it. Eventually, GM will either come around to using greener technologies or it'll go out of business. We don't need our domestic corporations to lead the way in technologies. We certainly don't need to coerce them into unprofitable ventures using political tricks. We simply need individuals such as yourself to lead the way in supporting green technologies and the market will ensure that they are adopted.

True dat, but I think North America should strive to be leaders at everything. It is what made us the envy of the world. With our failure to strive for the top wrung of the ladder, we just hurt ourselves and our place in the world. We wonder why the US buck is dropping like a stone, but its the lack of confidence the rest of the world has in America that is causing it to plunge.

[arsenal]

That's an extremely flawed example. In the real world, someone who thinking of buying a hybrid, probably doesn't have the funds available to purchase a hummer.

Compare a hybrid civic to a normal civic, and you get a fair TCO comparison. That is where th TCO of purchasing a normal civic is cheaper than purchasing a hybrid.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by arsenal

That's an extremely flawed example. In the real world, someone who thinking of buying a hybrid, probably doesn't have the funds available to purchase a hummer.

Compare a hybrid civic to a normal civic, and you get a fair TCO comparison. That is where th TCO of purchasing a normal civic is cheaper than purchasing a hybrid.

Did you read the article? I don't disagree with what you are saying, but the argument in the article was that the TCO was less on the Hummer, by almost 40%.

[transplant99]

A theory presented by Gore from a scientific journal is not debunked by a newspaper article or a blog.

But that's the problem right there...it is merely a theory...yet presented as fact or accepted as fact by many. This is where the problem begins IMO.

There are a myriad of theories, yet the only real hard scientific data we have to fall back on is the history of climate change through the millions of years the earth has been around. It has heated and cooled all by itself before, and as such, the fact that things are changing now means it could simply be a natural occurence. An occurence we never had the abitilty to see/monitor as residents until technology has now allowed. Humans being residents of this system obviously have to have some sort of involvement in what is happening....but to what degree? This is where the REAL issue lies from my viewpoint.

What's happened though, much like religions around the world, the extremists are the ones making the most noise, ergo, getting the most attention. That takes away from the possibility of real fact finding. Gore is one of these guys IMO.

For him to win a "peace" prize because he is a staunch extremist trying to instill his belief through fear and media while calling it science is a joke.

[Hakan]

Michael Crichton the imminent authority on climate change. What a joke.

Do some serious research on the topic. Wikipedia, movies, and Michael Crichton don't count.

[transplant99]

Do some serious research on the topic. Wikipedia, movies, and Michael Crichton don't count.

Like Al Gore's movie?

[Hakan]

Originally Posted by transplant99

Like Al Gore's movie?

Just like Al Gore's movie.

[Incinerator]

Originally Posted by Lanny_MacDonald

I question their data and the method they used to acquire it. The cost of a Hummer is three time that of the Civic, so according to the author, the manufacturer is eating a massive amount to sell the Civic versus the Hummer. Doesn't fit from a manufacturing or sales perspective.

From an ownership perspective, the fuel consumption of the Hummer is four times that of the hybrid. So if both vehicles travel 100,000 miles in a five year period, the cost to fuel the Hummer (10 mpg, and that is being liberal) at $3.00 per gallon is going to be $30,000. The Civic is going to be (based on 45 mpg) is going to be $6,667. The Hummer costs ~$60,000 while the Civic is ~$22,000. Costs for the Hummer are $90,000 (without maintenance) and the Civic is $29,000 (without maintenance). You tell me how a vehicle that is operationally three times as expensive and consumes more fuel, is somehow going to be cheaper in the phoney dust-to-dust energy cost rating. Seems bogus to me, and I subscribe to their political ideology.

I think their point is that it cost more to produce the hybrids and the battery production burns more fossil fuels than if you just produce and operate a Hummer from beginning to end, not to mention the disposal cost for the Hybrids when they reach the end of their 100,000 miles lifespan as compared to the Hummer's 300,000. That's how I took what "Dust-to-Dust" meant anyways.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by Hakan

Just like Al Gore's movie.

OK, so it doesn't count...just wanted to be clear on that.

[Cube Inmate]

Originally Posted by Lanny_MacDonald

GM had a vehicle that was on the verge of profitability, and they killed it.

It sounds like the cancellation was entirely a financial decision, then. Either the EV1 was doomed to unprofitability (as some sources claim) or the vehicle would have caused a drop in sales of GM's *more* profitable vehicles...perhaps fewer Cavaliers would have sold if the EV1 had been manufactured.

Either way, I don't blame the company for that decision. It might have been a stupid decision both from a technology and a financial standpoint, but it was a business decision...not a moral decision.

As I said before...if you want to encourage your domestic industries to catch up technologically, just keep on supporting those companies that are in line with your beliefs. Coerce with your own dollars as you see fit, not with laws and "my" (tax) dollars.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by Incinerator

I think their point is that it cost more to produce the hybrids and the battery production burns more fossil fuels than if you just produce and operate a Hummer from beginning to end, not to mention the disposal cost for the Hybrids when they reach the end of their 100,000 miles lifespan as compared to the Hummer's 300,000. That's how I took what "Dust-to-Dust" meant anyways.

Ah, okay, I get it. Still kind of screwy. The average Hummer will not make 300,000 miles, and the average hybrid has the potential to go much further, based on track history of similar civics. Like I said, kind of screwy to me.

[Burninator]

Originally Posted by transplant99

But that's the problem right there...it is merely a theory...yet presented as fact or accepted as fact by many. This is where the problem begins IMO.

Agreed. There is junk flying from both sides. Although we might disagree at which side is flinging more, but this is what happens when people who are not scientists try to act as scientists. The idea of a theory is replaced by fact. My biggest problem with this debate is that people are not listening to the scientists, and instead are listening to people who have an elementary understand of the issue and base their findings on their own simple observations (see: Micheal Crichton). Scientists are not nearly as cut and dry as everyone else, and their effort is a collaboration and all around much more trustworthy. But there is a large disconnect between the scientific community and the public.

[the_only_turek_fan]

Originally Posted by Burninator

Agreed. There is junk flying from both sides. Although we might disagree at which side is flinging more, but this is what happens when people who are not scientists try to act as scientists. The idea of a theory is replaced by fact. My biggest problem with this debate is that people are not listening to the scientists, and instead are listening to people who have an elementary understand of the issue and base their findings on their own simple observations (see: Micheal Crichton). Scientists are not nearly as cut and dry as everyone else, and their effort is a collaboration and all around much more trustworthy. But there is a large disconnect between the scientific community and the public.

Agreed, agreed, agreed. Good post.

I just want to throw out that scientists that are motivated to get grants from the government might alter their findings to what the politician wants just to receive the grant/keep receiving the grant.

There is a lot of junk being thrown out there by a lot of people. However, personally, I just think there is more junk being thrown out there by the Al Gores of the world

[Incinerator]

Originally Posted by Lanny_MacDonald

Ah, okay, I get it. Still kind of screwy. The average Hummer will not make 300,000 miles, and the average hybrid has the potential to go much further, based on track history of similar civics. Like I said, kind of screwy to me.

They were talking about the Prius, a gas powered Civic can probably go 400K+ miles, especially the early 90s ones. But Hybrids are a different story, it's not a perfected technology yet and the cost to make these cars are astronomical. What you pay at the dealer is already discounted combined with government incentives.

[Agamemnon]

Originally Posted by Incinerator

I think their point is that it cost more to produce the hybrids and the battery production burns more fossil fuels than if you just produce and operate a Hummer from beginning to end, not to mention the disposal cost for the Hybrids when they reach the end of their 100,000 miles lifespan as compared to the Hummer's 300,000. That's how I took what "Dust-to-Dust" meant anyways.

This guy sure disagrees with the legitimacy/accuracy of the Dust-to-Dust article;

http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2007/8/27/124134/961

[Incinerator]

Originally Posted by Agamemnon

This guy sure disagrees with the legitimacy/accuracy of the Dust-to-Dust article;

http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2007/8/27/124134/961

I'm still undecided on the issue, on one hand I'm definitely not a Hummer-driving kinda guy but on the other hand I just don't see what the benefit is to pay such a premium for a hybrid that will take me 10 years to save back on fuel savings. Which is why I drive a 4-banger Honda, I'm happy with my car's purchase price and fuel consumption.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by Incinerator

I'm still undecided on the issue, on one hand I'm definitely not a Hummer-driving kinda guy but on the other hand I just don't see what the benefit is to pay such a premium for a hybrid that will take me 10 years to save back on fuel savings. Which is why I drive a 4-banger Honda, I'm happy with my car's purchase price and fuel consumption.

I agree with your stance. I'm not going to be an early adopter and get hit in the wallet for technology that is expensive because of its appeal. Having said that, I sure did chuckle when that guy ripped that report to shreds. All of those things I thought were out of touch with reality, were.