More Global Warming

[30A Skunkape]

In honor of this frosty morning, and in case you missed it on the news, recent comments on the topic by the founding father of The Weather Channel:

Wednesday, November 07, 2007
Weather Channel Founder: Global Warming ‘Greatest Scam in History’


By John Coleman

It is the greatest scam in history. I am amazed, appalled and highly offended by it. Global Warming; It is a SCAM. Some dastardly scientists with environmental and political motives manipulated long term scientific data to create an illusion of rapid global warming. Other scientists of the same environmental whacko type jumped into the circle to support and broaden the “research” to further enhance the totally slanted, bogus global warming claims. Their friends in government steered huge research grants their way to keep the movement going. Soon they claimed to be a consensus.

Environmental extremists, notable politicians among them, then teamed up with movie, media and other liberal, environmentalist journalists to create this wild “scientific” scenario of the civilization threatening environmental consequences from Global Warming unless we adhere to their radical agenda. Now their ridiculous manipulated science has been accepted as fact and become a cornerstone issue for CNN, CBS, NBC, the Democratic Political Party, the Governor of California, school teachers and, in many cases, well informed but very gullible environmental conscientious citizens. Only one reporter at ABC has been allowed to counter the Global Warming frenzy with one 15 minutes documentary segment.

I do not oppose environmentalism. I do not oppose the political positions of either party. However, Global Warming, ie Climate Change, is not about environmentalism or politics. It is not a religion. It is not something you “believe in.” It is science; the science of meteorology. This is my field of life-long expertise. And I am telling you Global Warming is a non-event, a manufactured crisis and a total scam. I say this knowing you probably won’t believe a me, a mere TV weatherman, challenging a Nobel Prize, Academy Award and Emmy Award winning former Vice President of United States. So be it.

I have read dozens of scientific papers. I have talked with numerous scientists. I have studied. I have thought about it. I know I am correct. There is no run away climate change. The impact of humans on climate is not catastrophic. Our planet is not in peril. I am incensed by the incredible media glamour, the politically correct silliness and rude dismissal of counter arguments by the high priest of Global Warming.

In time, a decade or two, the outrageous scam will be obvious. As the temperature rises, polar ice cap melting, coastal flooding and super storm pattern all fail to occur as predicted everyone will come to realize we have been duped. The sky is not falling. And, natural cycles and drifts in climate are as much if not more responsible for any climate changes underway. I strongly believe that the next twenty years are equally as likely to see a cooling trend as they are to see a warming trend.

[TripleB]

How could this guy have any credibility? He's never been invited to a Barbara Streisand party! I bet he has never even met with Hugo Chavez!! Come on Skunky...you'll have to do better than that. Gimme something that someone like...say...Ruth Buzzie says...then I'll believe it!

[Miss Kitty]

:clap:...who knew the secret to finding 3b was GLOBAL WARMING????
:welcome: back!

[Andy A.]

Right on, 30A Skunkape, right on. As a former AF weather observer and pilot, I couldn't agree with him more.

[seacrestkristi]

http://www.webpan.com/thelaughin/images/show/ruth_buzzi/buzzi_laugh-In.jpgThat's not what the natives at the North Pole say :moon:
Yeah, :welcome: back B3!!! :wave: ;-) :clap:

[TripleB]

http://www.webpan.com/thelaughin/images/show/ruth_buzzi/buzzi_laugh-In.jpgThat's not what the natives at the North Pole say :moon:
Yeah, :welcome: back B3!!! :wave: ;-) :clap:
My Eskimo friend Nanook says he loves the warmer weather. He's always wanted lakefront property.

[Bob]

The oil war crew is buzzing about.

[30A Skunkape]

The oil war crew is buzzing about.

You know, your comment got me to thinking about a grand rounds I attended my last year at Tulane. A nephrologist (kidney specialist) gave a lecture on table salt's role in leading to essential hypertension. He had a powerpoint full of graphs, data, etc. When he was finished the audience had a chance to ask questions as is the tradition. A cardiologist who specialized in congestive heart failure questioned the entire premise that salt does anything other than create a temporary rise in blood pressure and proceeded to shred the nephrologist's data and facts. They debated (vigorously), and finally the nephrologist was sick of debating and said to the cardiologist "It is obvious that you have read the propaganda put out by 'big salt'!". He actually said it, 'big salt'. So, a few points I would like to apply to the global warming debate: First-How is it that there is no 'consensus' on salt's effect on hypertension in a microsphere like the human body, yet there is 'consensus' that human activity is leading to global warming on the macro scale? Second, why is it that when there is legitimate debate, some people are so tempted to intellectually cash out and blame the big corporations for producing bad data that clouds the water, so to speak. :idontno:

[seacrestkristi]

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2007/02/02/world/03clim600.1.jpg

[NoHall]

1) If the globe is warming, where's all the @#$%! water? I am back to filling up the landfills with plastic bottles because I don't want to refill them from my precious well.

2) Why the @#$%! should I believe anyone who tells me what's going to happen with the weather in ten years when I can't find anyone who can consistently predict the weather TOMORROW?

My dad and I have an ongoing game of comparing our weather reports--I get mine off the computer, and he gets his off the local news and the Weather Channel. Although all three are supposedly from the Weather Channel, it's not unusual for us to come up with 3 different forecasts. :bang:

Silliness...

[Dune-AHH]

1)
My dad and I have an ongoing game of comparing our weather reports--I get mine off the computer, and he gets his off the local news and the Weather Channel. Although all three are supposedly from the Weather Channel, it's
not unusual for us to come up with 3 different forecasts. :bang:

Silliness...

:idontno: Are you Averaging the Answers? :lol:

[Andy A.]

Just a wore or two on Global Warming and forecasting the weather. First of all, I don't doubt that at this particular point in time, the earth might be warming. Whether it is due to man's actions is another question. For man to be so arrogant as to think he has the capability to change climates is quite an assumption. Why do I say this? All you really need to do is be caught in Mother Nature's grasp once or twice to really understand how infinitesimal man is when compared to the forces of Mother Nature. As noted above, forcasters can't agree on tomorrow's weather sometimes, let alone years down the road. Climatology and weather forcasting are still inexact science and forcasters use different techniques to make their forecasts. Let me give an example. When I received a forecast for a flight and there was some doubt as to its accuracy in my mind, I would ask the forecaster if I could see his upper air charts. After looking at them I would make up my mind as to the accuracy of his forecast. Was I always right? No, but I was using the expertise I had been taught as a Rawindsonde operator. The point is, weather personnel, like others, have their preferences for the information used in their predictions and consequential actions.

[seacrestkristi]

So you don't think man's constant auto emissions have any negative effect on the environment?:confused: Isn't every action followed by an opposite and equal reaction? :idontno:

[Bobby J]

I just don't understand what the big deal for us to all try to cut back and be respectful of our environment. I am and have been torn on the global warming issue for awhile but do not see the harm in helping mother nature out a little. This is not a conservative/liberal issue. It is a common sense issue. The above report concerns me as much as all the other data. What do you believe? Next week someone will tell us John Coleman made a bunch of money to write that. Who knows? I know one thing for sure, it would not hurt us to cut back and clean up. The water is getting dirty. That is a fact. Thanks for the post Skunk. I like to raise my children with some hope!

[30A Skunkape]

Bobby, nobody in their right mind thinks we shouldn't strive to 'keep it clean'. That is common sense and indeed a moral obligation. My beef is with those who have politicized the issue as well as those who want to plunge headlong into disastrous ideas like Kyoto. As a reminder, here is the Kyoto clock. http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/Kyoto_Count_Up.htm

[pgurney]

Worth the read:

http://homepages.tesco.net/~kate-and-david/2007/Holland(2007).pdf

[NoHall]

:idontno: Are you Averaging the Answers? :lol:
No. We play eenie meenie minie moe.

All you really need to do is be caught in Mother Nature's grasp once or twice to really understand how infinitesimal man is when compared to the forces of Mother Nature. As noted above, forcasters can't agree on tomorrow's weather sometimes, let alone years down the road. Climatology and weather forcasting are still inexact science and forcasters use different techniques to make their forecasts.
Right on. It cracks me up that they think they can predict this with less than 100 years of accurate information about the weather.

So you don't think man's constant auto emissions have any negative effect on the environment?:confused: Isn't every action followed by an opposite and equal reaction? :idontno:


I just don't understand what the big deal for us to all try to cut back and be respectful of our environment. I am and have been torn on the global warming issue for awhile but do not see the harm in helping mother nature out a little. This is not a conservative/liberal issue. It is a common sense issue.

As an asthmatic who gets allergy shots, yes I think it has an impact. I think we will kill ourselves before we'll actually kill the planet, though. And I think that if we don't want to kill ourselves, we should clean our rooms.

Bobby, nobody in their right mind thinks we shouldn't strive to 'keep it clean'. That is common sense and indeed a moral obligation.

Gore said that the debate is over. I missed the debate altogether. (Which is actually okay with me.)

[30A Skunkape]

Worth the read:

http://homepages.tesco.net/~kate-and-david/2007/Holland(2007).pdf

Too many words; pictures of polar bears on thin ice or stock footage of hurricanes are far more effective:wave:;-)

[Miss Kitty]

Who do I blame for having to turn the AC on in the middle of November? No menopause jokes, please. :roll:

[seacrestkristi]

Amen, sista Kit-tay! My ceiling fan was just turned on hi. :wave:

[NoHall]

Who do I blame for having to turn the AC on in the middle of November? No menopause jokes, please. :roll:

Same person we've blamed for years. I've always been a convertible girl, and have always had the top down well into December. I had it down today, in fact. But now I'm shivering in front of the furnace at home.

I like having seasons, even if they're all in one day!

[fisher]

So you don't think man's constant auto emissions have any negative effect on the environment?:confused: Isn't every action followed by an opposite and equal reaction? :idontno:

No, every action is not followed by an opposite and equal reaction. Where did you come up with that one? Sounds like a quote from Hillary.:D

[fisher]

I just don't understand what the big deal for us to all try to cut back and be respectful of our environment. I am and have been torn on the global warming issue for awhile but do not see the harm in helping mother nature out a little. This is not a conservative/liberal issue. It is a common sense issue. The above report concerns me as much as all the other data. What do you believe? Next week someone will tell us John Coleman made a bunch of money to write that. Who knows? I know one thing for sure, it would not hurt us to cut back and clean up. The water is getting dirty. That is a fact. Thanks for the post Skunk. I like to raise my children with some hope!

Absolutely agree!

[fisher]

No. We play eenie meenie minie moe.


Right on. It cracks me up that they think they can predict this with less than 100 years of accurate information about the weather.






As an asthmatic who gets allergy shots, yes I think it has an impact. I think we will kill ourselves before we'll actually kill the planet, though. And I think that if we don't want to kill ourselves, we should clean our rooms.



Gore said that the debate is over. I missed the debate altogether. (Which is actually okay with me.)


What is very interesting to me is that 30 short years ago, many leading climatologists were predicting a return to an ice age due to global cooling at the time.

[seacrestkristi]

No, every action is not followed by an opposite and equal reaction. Where did you come up with that one? Sounds like a quote from Hillary.:D

Here's a link.
Uh, it's one of Newton's Laws~http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/airplane/newton.html ;-) You may remember this from science class.

BTW, I'm a person with my own ideas and feelings. I am not related to Hillary by blood. I just find myself defending her when what I hear doesn't jive, when it is totally f627in' horse hockey. Why is she being drug in on my little ole comment on this thread? I find it pathetic that you would be mean to me because you know I like Hillary. Its just really sad and hurtful, but that's another thread again. :sick: Do your homework before you put me down in public, mister fisher. :moon:

[savvytangerine]

Here's a link.
Uh, it's one of Newton's Laws~http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/airplane/newton.html ;-) You may remember this from science class.

BTW, I'm a person with my own ideas and feelings. I am not related to Hillary by blood. I just find myself defending her when what I hear doesn't jive, when it is totally f627in' horse hockey. Why is she being drug in on my little ole comment on this thread? I find it pathetic that you would be mean to me because you know I like Hillary. Its just really sad and hurtful, but that's another thread again. :sick: Do your homework before you put me down in public, mister fisher. :moon:
:clap:Kristi! :wub::wave:

Loved that you stuck up for yourself with such class!:clap:

Is Global Warming real? Well the weather sure has been strange - and I do tend to agree with the simple statement from SK "everyone action has an equal reaction."

I try to do my part, little by little. It is good for my wallet, and good for the world - whether that good is seen is ten years, 20 years or more I don't know. But if we each make a little effort.. what can it hurt?

[seacrestkristi]

Thanks, savvyt! I appreciate the support, gull. :cool:Did you sign up for the ornament xchange yet?

[fisher]

Here's a link.
Uh, it's one of Newton's Laws~http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/airplane/newton.html ;-) You may remember this from science class.

BTW, I'm a person with my own ideas and feelings. I am not related to Hillary by blood. I just find myself defending her when what I hear doesn't jive, when it is totally f627in' horse hockey. Why is she being drug in on my little ole comment on this thread? I find it pathetic that you would be mean to me because you know I like Hillary. Its just really sad and hurtful, but that's another thread again. :sick: Do your homework before you put me down in public, mister fisher. :moon:

Yes, I took science class and Mr. Newton was talking about the laws of motion and force, not about the type of actions you refer to in your post.

I have seen your posts on Hillary and was not putting you down or being mean. Just making a little fun of Hillary (which will happening to all the candidates for the next 12 months or so). I apologize if I offended you.

[jack S]

We are all in this together! If the environmentalists are wrong, what do you loose? Some greenbacks in your oil stock? IF they are right? WE ALL LOOSE! Here is a link to a few words by Deepak Chopra who is far better than I at an explanation....
http://link.brightcove.com/services/link/bcpid1127733584/bclid267040/bctid842184

[fisher]

We are all in this together! If the environmentalists are wrong, what do you loose? Some greenbacks in your oil stock? IF they are right? WE ALL LOOSE! Here is a link to a few words by Deepak Chopra who is far better than I at an explanation....
http://link.brightcove.com/services/link/bcpid1127733584/bclid267040/bctid842184

If they are wrong and we sign the Kyoto protocol or take some other drastic measures in this country that the rest of the world doesn't, we lose our competitive advantage and potentially suffer the meltdown Shelly is predicting.

[seacrestkristi]

Thanks for sharing the link jack! :cool:

[30A Skunkape]

We are all in this together! If the environmentalists are wrong, what do you loose? Some greenbacks in your oil stock? IF they are right? WE ALL LOOSE! Here is a link to a few words by Deepak Chopra who is far better than I at an explanation....
http://link.brightcove.com/services/link/bcpid1127733584/bclid267040/bctid842184

I wonder if there was a similar conversation in Spain circa 1490:idontno:

[pgurney]

I wonder if there was a similar conversation in Spain circa 1490:idontno:

LOL

[Bob]

You know, your comment got me to thinking about a grand rounds I attended my last year at Tulane. A nephrologist (kidney specialist) gave a lecture on table salt's role in leading to essential hypertension. He had a powerpoint full of graphs, data, etc. When he was finished the audience had a chance to ask questions as is the tradition. A cardiologist who specialized in congestive heart failure questioned the entire premise that salt does anything other than create a temporary rise in blood pressure and proceeded to shred the nephrologist's data and facts. They debated (vigorously), and finally the nephrologist was sick of debating and said to the cardiologist "It is obvious that you have read the propaganda put out by 'big salt'!". He actually said it, 'big salt'. So, a few points I would like to apply to the global warming debate: First-How is it that there is no 'consensus' on salt's effect on hypertension in a microsphere like the human body, yet there is 'consensus' that human activity is leading to global warming on the macro scale? Second, why is it that when there is legitimate debate, some people are so tempted to intellectually cash out and blame the big corporations for producing bad data that clouds the water, so to speak. :idontno:Even if Global Warming is completely false, the ancillary benefits of reduced greenhouse gas emissions would, by it's nature, eliminate oil supply as a major driver of foreign supply and cause measurable improvement in health related quality of life. It is telling that sides are taken by party line. This is much more than a "prove it" issue. It's a matter of the well being of our nation.

[fisher]

Even if Global Warming is completely false, the ancillary benefits of reduced greenhouse gas emissions would, by it's nature, eliminate oil supply as a major driver of foreign supply and cause measurable improvement in health related quality of life. It is telling that sides are taken by party line. This is much more than a "prove it" issue. It's a matter of the well being of our nation.

Most people debating the human induced global warming hysteria aren't saying don't conserve, don't recycle, don't buy hybrids, etc. We just don't buy the hype or believe the very questionable "science" behind this theory.

Buying into the hype and doing something drastic on a countrywide basis could be very, very detrimental to the USA in the global community. We live in a world totally transformed by our new way of life compared to 100, 200 or 300 years ago. In addition, there are now over 6 BILLION people on the planet that must be fed, clothed, housed, etc. It takes big industry and unfortunately, some not so nice environmental damage to keep these 6 billion people going day in and day out.

Most of us Global warming "bashers" do conserve as much as most of the global warming crowd. I dare say that 99% or more of us contrarians certainly conserve more energy than Al Gore and his mansion in Tennessee, his SUV's, his trips on private jet aircraft, etc. If you are going to talk the talk, you better walk the walk in a much bigger way than the rest of us.

[hoity-toity]

I desecrate my body whenever convenient. Not to mention extensions of the body.



In my humble opinion, the "science", at a minimum, is economic stimulation and leeching. mo' problems mo' money.

[elgordoboy]

The expert who wrote the article in the op lost me at "I know I am correct". I guess the nephrologist quoted later by Skunkape also knew he was correct. It's seems readily apparent to me that we humans affect everything around us, I don't need an expert to confirm or deny that. As for the 6 billion people on the Earth what happens when they all start consuming, combusting, and farting as much as we Americans are at present. If it turns out we actually have a problem right now how much harder is it to fix in 2050 when the whole world is industrialized? I was flipping channels the other day and stopped on Children of the Corn 2..I think I must've burped or something and set the remote down...a Native American character commented that "we don't inherit the earth from our forefathers we borrow it from our children".

[30A Skunkape]

Even if Global Warming is completely false, the ancillary benefits of reduced greenhouse gas emissions would, by it's nature, eliminate oil supply as a major driver of foreign supply and cause measurable improvement in health related quality of life. It is telling that sides are taken by party line. This is much more than a "prove it" issue. It's a matter of the well being of our nation.

I agree 100% that we should increase funding for research in alternative energy and do our best to keep the environment clean. I guess I am trying to voice my concern that injecting politics into science in an effort to achieve an end gain is a slippery slope.

[elgordoboy]

I agree 100% that we should increase funding for research in alternative energy and do our best to keep the environment clean. I guess I am trying to voice my concern that injecting politics into science in an effort to achieve an end gain is a slippery slope.
No issue with that.

[seacrestkristi]

Even if Global Warming is completely false, the ancillary benefits of reduced greenhouse gas emissions would, by it's nature, eliminate oil supply as a major driver of foreign supply and cause measurable improvement in health related quality of life. It is telling that sides are taken by party line. This is much more than a "prove it" issue. It's a matter of the well being of our nation.

Amen, Bob A Rino! UR A smart'un :biggrin:

I agree 100% that we should increase funding for research in alternative energy and do our best to keep the environment clean. I guess I am trying to voice my concern that injecting politics into science in an effort to achieve an end gain is a slippery slope.

:blink: OMG, I agree! :biggrin: Dang that feels good. :clap:

[Bobby J]

I am kinda wondering how all these scientist from all over the world got together and pulled this "scam" off. Do they have a secret cave they meet in? Maybe like a bat cave? It sounds as far fetched as.... Global Warming.:blink: Both sides to this debate puzzle me.

[Bob]

Most people debating the human induced global warming hysteria aren't saying don't conserve, don't recycle, don't buy hybrids, etc. We just don't buy the hype or believe the very questionable "science" behind this theory.

Buying into the hype and doing something drastic on a countrywide basis could be very, very detrimental to the USA in the global community. We live in a world totally transformed by our new way of life compared to 100, 200 or 300 years ago. In addition, there are now over 6 BILLION people on the planet that must be fed, clothed, housed, etc. It takes big industry and unfortunately, some not so nice environmental damage to keep these 6 billion people going day in and day out.

Most of us Global warming "bashers" do conserve as much as most of the global warming crowd. I dare say that 99% or more of us contrarians certainly conserve more energy than Al Gore and his mansion in Tennessee, his SUV's, his trips on private jet aircraft, etc. If you are going to talk the talk, you better walk the walk in a much bigger way than the rest of us.Tell me you have ever seen a GW sticker on the back of a Prius.

[fisher]

Tell me you have ever seen a GW sticker on the back of a Prius.

I haven't been looking, but there weren't many prius' on the road when W stickers were popular.

However, I DID SEE Al "hypocrite" Gore driving an Escalade and flying in a private jet in the movie An Incovenient Truth. I've also seen pics of his energy gobbling house. Got to walk the walk if you are going to talk the talk.

[jodiFL]

I had the "joy?" of interacting with a scientist that was asking for questions that the public would like to have answered by a "consortium" of scientists but when told the concerns of most people (what is being done about lowering the costs of green energy for the average person, why are we still subsidizing big oil,etc?) they called us arrogant in thinking we had all the answers to a "very complicated problem that no one had the answers to". I got the very distinct impression that they didnt really want to know that the average joe knows ways to help but is hindered by the start up costs of implementing the methods. And the scientists had no intention of examining ways to lower costs for consumers. They just wanted more questions so that they could keep getting their grant money and saying "the public" wants answers to this. I still have access to this little debate word for word and often read it just to make sure I didnt miss something. Not sure if I can post some of the exchanges due to legalities, KNOW I cant post some of it due to language, dont want to post some of it due to me being a smart*** at one point.. (who me? naahhh:roll:) But I still to this day think the scientific community just wants to keep their grants/jobs so they will keep on arguing this until they die.

[fisher]

Tell me you have ever seen a GW sticker on the back of a Prius.

I'm not sure if any of the attached story is correct, but if true, you might want to consider ditching the Prius Bob.


By Chris Demorro

The Toyota Prius has become the flagship car for those in our society so environmentally conscious that they are willing to spend a premium to show the world how much they care. Unfortunately for them, their ultimate ‘green car’ is the source of some of the worst pollution in North America; it takes more combined energy per Prius to produce than a Hummer.
Before we delve into the seedy underworld of hybrids, you must first understand how a hybrid works. For this, we will use the most popular hybrid on the market, the Toyota Prius.

The Prius is powered by not one, but two engines: a standard 76 horsepower, 1.5-liter gas engine found in most cars today and a battery- powered engine that deals out 67 horsepower and a whooping 295ft/lbs of torque, below 2000 revolutions per minute. Essentially, the Toyota Synergy Drive system, as it is so called, propels the car from a dead stop to up to 30mph. This is where the largest percent of gas is consumed. As any physics major can tell you, it takes more energy to get an object moving than to keep it moving. The battery is recharged through the braking system, as well as when the gasoline engine takes over anywhere north of 30mph. It seems like a great energy efficient and environmentally sound car, right?

You would be right if you went by the old government EPA estimates, which netted the Prius an incredible 60 miles per gallon in the city and 51 miles per gallon on the highway. Unfortunately for Toyota, the government realized how unrealistic their EPA tests were, which consisted of highway speeds limited to 55mph and acceleration of only 3.3 mph per second. The new tests which affect all 2008 models give a much more realistic rating with highway speeds of 80mph and acceleration of 8mph per second. This has dropped the Prius’s EPA down by 25 percent to an average of 45mpg. This now puts the Toyota within spitting distance of cars like the Chevy Aveo, which costs less then half what the Prius costs.

However, if that was the only issue with the Prius, I wouldn’t be writing this article. It gets much worse.

Building a Toyota Prius causes more environmental damage than a Hummer that is on the road for three times longer than a Prius. As already noted, the Prius is partly driven by a battery which contains nickel. The nickel is mined and smelted at a plant in Sudbury, Ontario. This plant has caused so much environmental damage to the surrounding environment that NASA has used the ‘dead zone’ around the plant to test moon rovers. The area around the plant is devoid of any life for miles.

The plant is the source of all the nickel found in a Prius’ battery and Toyota purchases 1,000 tons annually. Dubbed the Superstack, the plague-factory has spread sulfur dioxide across northern Ontario, becoming every environmentalist’s nightmare.

“The acid rain around Sudbury was so bad it destroyed all the plants and the soil slid down off the hillside,” said Canadian Greenpeace energy-coordinator David Martin during an interview with Mail, a British-based newspaper.

All of this would be bad enough in and of itself; however, the journey to make a hybrid doesn’t end there. The nickel produced by this disastrous plant is shipped via massive container ship to the largest nickel refinery in Europe. From there, the nickel hops over to China to produce ‘nickel foam.’ From there, it goes to Japan. Finally, the completed batteries are shipped to the United States, finalizing the around-the-world trip required to produce a single Prius battery. Are these not sounding less and less like environmentally sound cars and more like a farce?

Wait, I haven’t even got to the best part yet.

When you pool together all the combined energy it takes to drive and build a Toyota Prius, the flagship car of energy fanatics, it takes almost 50 percent more energy than a Hummer - the Prius’s arch nemesis.

Through a study by CNW Marketing called “Dust to Dust,” the total combined energy is taken from all the electrical, fuel, transportation, materials (metal, plastic, etc) and hundreds of other factors over the expected lifetime of a vehicle. The Prius costs an average of $3.25 per mile driven over a lifetime of 100,000 miles - the expected lifespan of the Hybrid.

The Hummer, on the other hand, costs a more fiscal $1.95 per mile to put on the road over an expected lifetime of 300,000 miles. That means the Hummer will last three times longer than a Prius and use less combined energy doing it.

So, if you are really an environmentalist - ditch the Prius. Instead, buy one of the most economical cars available - a Toyota Scion xB. The Scion only costs a paltry $0.48 per mile to put on the road. If you are still obsessed over gas mileage - buy a Chevy Aveo and fix that lead foot.

One last fun fact for you: it takes five years to offset the premium price of a Prius. Meaning, you have to wait 60 months to save any money over a non-hybrid car because of lower gas expenses.

[jodiFL]

I have read that over and over. A vegetarian in a Hummer puts less stress on the environment/has a smaller carbon footprint than a meat eater in a Prius

[seaside2]

Let's stir this thing up here a little ibt.

One of the best ways to sharply reduce global warming is to stop burning fossil fuels. The alternative sources are conservation, wind, solar, tide, geothermal and the old stand by:Nuclear.

Yes, there are dangers in nuclear, but there a dangers in continuing to burn fossil fuels, not the least of which is global warming. Others include economic meltdown (Do I hear a Shelly on this one?), inflation like we have never seen before as we print $ to pay the folks in the Middle East for the crude oil, spills, etc.

We have what it takes to get something done, but sit on our lobbyist butts and let the folks in Dubai buy $360 million planes, build 365 day/year indoor sky slopes, etc:All with out money.:bang:

[seacrestkristi]

Anobody know much about these? You Texans and Okies? :idontno: Imagine the wind off the gulf sometimes. :blink:
http://i.treehugger.com/files/wind-farm.jpg

[fisher]

Anobody know much about these? You Texans and Okies? :idontno: Imagine the wind off the gulf sometimes. :blink:
http://i.treehugger.com/files/wind-farm.jpg

Not that I think that it would help with global warming and it sure would be ugly, but on this one I agree with SCK. Let's put up some big old wind farms around the country. In addition, lets add a small windmill to each new house built in the US. Again, ugly, but it sure would put a dent in our reliance on foreign oil and keep us away from adding any more nuclear waste to the planet. I also think we need to think seriously about adding solar panels to most homes in very sunny climes of the US. In addition, I think we need to put major dollars into researching fuel cells for vehicles. Right now fuel cell technology is cost prohibitive, but who would have thought 30 years ago that a very powerful computer would be sitting in the laps of most Americans on a cost effective basis. Doing all of those things would put a real hurt on all the Islamo fascists that are funding terrorism with oil money and be good for the environment.

See, Bob, I do believe in conservation. I'm just not buying the whole man, carbon dioxide, global warming hype.

[seaside2]

Anobody know much about these? You Texans and Okies? :idontno: Imagine the wind off the gulf sometimes. :blink:
http://i.treehugger.com/files/wind-farm.jpg


These suckers work. They are in Califirnia and lots of other places.

Fisher is saying the same thing I am, I am probably just more aggressive about the whle thing. Just think how much we could get done if we divert all of the NASA money and manpower to doing something about this.

The most stable and costs efective fuel cells depend on dissociating water into Hyrdogen and Oxygen. Best way is electricity made with, you guessed it, nuclear power.

[seacrestkristi]

Wonder if they would work as well in Tennessee? :idontno: the windmills, that is?
How is energy obtained from tides? Seems like a lot of power would be in the ocean?

[Bob]

I'm not sure if any of the attached story is correct, but if true, you might want to consider ditching the Prius Bob.


By Chris Demorro

The Toyota Prius has become the flagship car for those in our society so environmentally conscious that they are willing to spend a premium to show the world how much they care. Unfortunately for them, their ultimate ‘green car’ is the source of some of the worst pollution in North America; it takes more combined energy per Prius to produce than a Hummer.
Before we delve into the seedy underworld of hybrids, you must first understand how a hybrid works. For this, we will use the most popular hybrid on the market, the Toyota Prius.

The Prius is powered by not one, but two engines: a standard 76 horsepower, 1.5-liter gas engine found in most cars today and a battery- powered engine that deals out 67 horsepower and a whooping 295ft/lbs of torque, below 2000 revolutions per minute. Essentially, the Toyota Synergy Drive system, as it is so called, propels the car from a dead stop to up to 30mph. This is where the largest percent of gas is consumed. As any physics major can tell you, it takes more energy to get an object moving than to keep it moving. The battery is recharged through the braking system, as well as when the gasoline engine takes over anywhere north of 30mph. It seems like a great energy efficient and environmentally sound car, right?

You would be right if you went by the old government EPA estimates, which netted the Prius an incredible 60 miles per gallon in the city and 51 miles per gallon on the highway. Unfortunately for Toyota, the government realized how unrealistic their EPA tests were, which consisted of highway speeds limited to 55mph and acceleration of only 3.3 mph per second. The new tests which affect all 2008 models give a much more realistic rating with highway speeds of 80mph and acceleration of 8mph per second. This has dropped the Prius’s EPA down by 25 percent to an average of 45mpg. This now puts the Toyota within spitting distance of cars like the Chevy Aveo, which costs less then half what the Prius costs.

However, if that was the only issue with the Prius, I wouldn’t be writing this article. It gets much worse.

Building a Toyota Prius causes more environmental damage than a Hummer that is on the road for three times longer than a Prius. As already noted, the Prius is partly driven by a battery which contains nickel. The nickel is mined and smelted at a plant in Sudbury, Ontario. This plant has caused so much environmental damage to the surrounding environment that NASA has used the ‘dead zone’ around the plant to test moon rovers. The area around the plant is devoid of any life for miles.

The plant is the source of all the nickel found in a Prius’ battery and Toyota purchases 1,000 tons annually. Dubbed the Superstack, the plague-factory has spread sulfur dioxide across northern Ontario, becoming every environmentalist’s nightmare.

“The acid rain around Sudbury was so bad it destroyed all the plants and the soil slid down off the hillside,” said Canadian Greenpeace energy-coordinator David Martin during an interview with Mail, a British-based newspaper.

All of this would be bad enough in and of itself; however, the journey to make a hybrid doesn’t end there. The nickel produced by this disastrous plant is shipped via massive container ship to the largest nickel refinery in Europe. From there, the nickel hops over to China to produce ‘nickel foam.’ From there, it goes to Japan. Finally, the completed batteries are shipped to the United States, finalizing the around-the-world trip required to produce a single Prius battery. Are these not sounding less and less like environmentally sound cars and more like a farce?

Wait, I haven’t even got to the best part yet.

When you pool together all the combined energy it takes to drive and build a Toyota Prius, the flagship car of energy fanatics, it takes almost 50 percent more energy than a Hummer - the Prius’s arch nemesis.

Through a study by CNW Marketing called “Dust to Dust,” the total combined energy is taken from all the electrical, fuel, transportation, materials (metal, plastic, etc) and hundreds of other factors over the expected lifetime of a vehicle. The Prius costs an average of $3.25 per mile driven over a lifetime of 100,000 miles - the expected lifespan of the Hybrid.

The Hummer, on the other hand, costs a more fiscal $1.95 per mile to put on the road over an expected lifetime of 300,000 miles. That means the Hummer will last three times longer than a Prius and use less combined energy doing it.

So, if you are really an environmentalist - ditch the Prius. Instead, buy one of the most economical cars available - a Toyota Scion xB. The Scion only costs a paltry $0.48 per mile to put on the road. If you are still obsessed over gas mileage - buy a Chevy Aveo and fix that lead foot.

One last fun fact for you: it takes five years to offset the premium price of a Prius. Meaning, you have to wait 60 months to save any money over a non-hybrid car because of lower gas expenses.I don't have a Prius. I don't believe in the complication of 2 drive trains. I have a Honda, a Toyota and 2 well used Mercedes-Benzs. I'm waiting for the free market to bring me some viable choices in greener technology. Expensive gas will accelerate the trend.

[scooterbug44]

The Hummer vs. Prius article is bunk! We had a huge discussion about it when Chickpea was considering a Prius and Christ had cribbed it for one of his columns in the Walton Sun. Basically it was written by a PR firm (hint-not hired by Prius) using out of date info and comparing apples and kumquats.

I'm not a scientist and I DIDN'T stay in a Holiday Inn Express last night, but it doesn't take a genius to figure out that there WILL be not-so-bueno consequences to us F-ing up the planet at every opportunity!

Yes, many so called environmentalists are hypocrites and nothing is a 100% solution, but wind, solar, and water power are much more attractive options than nuclear or being tied to the cluster that is the Middle East for fuel.

[seaside2]

Wonder if they would work as well in Tennessee? :idontno: the windmills, that is? Find a place with consistent winds, breezes really, and off you go. The breeze does not have to be big, just consistent. Trouble is, these things are God awful expensive to buy and maintain.
How is energy obtained from tides? The device is hooked to the ocena's floor (Anchored, sort of), and as the tides rise and fall, the water goes up and down through the center of the thing, turns a propeller like wheel that turns a generator. Wires then take the power to the shore. Seems like a lot of power would be in the ocean? There is another version that uses the temperature differential between the surface (Warm) and very deep(cold) to move water through a turbine. Haven't seen one of them commercially applied, but :idontno:

[pgurney]

Skunky, here's a new one for you. A new publication documenting a 2000 year temperature reconstruction that actually shows a MWP and a LIA.

http://www.ncasi.org/publications/Detail.aspx?id=3025

[sowalgayboi]

Anobody know much about these? You Texans and Okies? :idontno: Imagine the wind off the gulf sometimes. :blink:
http://i.treehugger.com/files/wind-farm.jpg

Wouldn't our height restrictions stop these? They look over 50 feet.

[seaside2]

Yes, these puppies are really tall. Remember the flack that was started when they wanted to put them two or three miles off the Long Island shore. Seems like a left wing liberal by the name of Kennedy had a l;ot to say about "visual pollution".

[John R]

for wind to be viable to feed the grid, it needs annual average speed of 11mph. we, and a good portion of the eastern area of the county cannot support wind power.

http://www.awea.org/faq/usresource.html

[Bobby J]

Still trying to figure out how they got all these scientist from all over the world in on this "scam". I would think we should be looking at the data from the scientist versus some dude that use to be a meteorologist. His opinion really carries no weight. Like I said I am torn on the issue but after looking over the article I believe it could be a scam.

[wrobert]

Wouldn't our height restrictions stop these? They look over 50 feet.

I actually contacted the planning department about what I might need to do in order to place a windmill on my property for power creation.

Boy you talk about some interesting conversations. Major developement order, minor developement order, technical review meeting. Then I contacted Chelco about hooking to the grid. I got a book of information that I will end higher an electrical engineer to decipher. It is ashame but Florida does not appear to be serious about alternative energy yet. Maybe some day.

[Dune-AHH]

I actually contacted the planning department about what I might need to do in order to place a windmill on my property for power creation.

Boy you talk about some interesting conversations. Major developement order, minor developement order, technical review meeting. Then I contacted Chelco about hooking to the grid. I got a book of information that I will end higher an electrical engineer to decipher. It is ashame but Florida does not appear to be serious about alternative energy yet. Maybe some day.

Do you know of any update on Florida producing ethanol from sugarcane?
Last news I read on this was many many months ago.

[Romeosmydog]

Still trying to figure out how they got all these scientist from all over the world in on this "scam". Yep, you figured us out. We scientists have our yearly "Secret Meeting for the Purpose of Scamming the World Convention" every year. Last year we all got together at the top of Kilimanjaro. Not as much of that pesky snow to impede our evil plans to scam the universe. ;-)

[seacrestkristi]

:lolabove::lolabove::lolabove: scientist + sense of humor = fuNNe :funn::floor::rolling:

:welcome:Romeosmydog :wave:

[30A Skunkape]

This just in from the arid summit of an African mountain:http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/femail/article.html?in_article_id=495495&in_page_id=1879

[John R]

This just in from the arid summit of an African mountain:http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/femail/article.html?in_article_id=495495&in_page_id=1879

It's amazing that the author wrote such a disbelieving article about an idea which is not new. Discussion of negative growth has been around for quite awhile now. I'm sure this was discussed somewhere in your studies. Those who choose not to procreate are in reality, making quite an impact.

http://www.npg.org/

[30A Skunkape]

It's amazing that the author wrote such a disbelieving article about an idea which is not new. Discussion of negative growth has been around for quite awhile now. I'm sure this was discussed somewhere in your studies. Those who choose not to procreate are in reality, making quite an impact.

http://www.npg.org/

At any rate, fewer people to crowd the beach:cool:

[Bobby J]

At any rate, fewer people to crowd the beach:cool:


I like it. ;-)

[reddsings]

I actually contacted the planning department about what I might need to do in order to place a windmill on my property for power creation.

Boy you talk about some interesting conversations. Major developement order, minor developement order, technical review meeting. Then I contacted Chelco about hooking to the grid. I got a book of information that I will end higher an electrical engineer to decipher. It is ashame but Florida does not appear to be serious about alternative energy yet. Maybe some day.

Its cool to watch Ed Bagly add stuff to his house but somehow he never has to get planning for his windmills
With all our sunshine a black colored water tank on the roof or in a sun trap high enough will help heat your water all year
Never ceases to amaze when there is all this "bchin" but soon as you go to be any where near self sufficient obstacles appear to nix you back to conformity

[hnooe]

No, every action is not followed by an opposite and equal reaction. Where did you come up with that one? Sounds like a quote from Hillary.:D

That must explain the fact that Bush/Cheney can continue walk all over the Constitution and we all just sit unreactive, numb and silent....

[JUL]

This looks like global warming to me