Gore-Backed Car Firm Gets Large U.S. Loan. Piece of shit only runs 50 miles on a charge!

Discussion in 'General Motoring' started by Major Debacle, Sep 30, 2009.

  1. Major Debacle

    Some O Guest

    IMO Gore is a very smart salesman.
    If he really understood the facts of GW I doubt he'd distort the truth
    as he has to make so much money.
    Well OK, he's also a very smart crook! <:)
     
    Some O, Oct 5, 2009
    #21
  2. If it's so imaginary, why does every national science academy in the
    world say it's real? Every scientific organization? Why do all the
    articles in scientific journals say it's real?

    A term a Bush pollster told the Bush people to use as it was less
    "alarming."

    I thought you right-wingers admired greed. And I thought you
    considered the rich to be harder-working and smarter than everybody
    else.
     
    erschroedinger, Oct 5, 2009
    #22
  3. Major Debacle

    Bill Putney Guest

    News flash: They don't. You're way behind on your reading, or just tend
    to ignore what you choose to because it doesn't fit the idiot agenda.
    Or you're looking at the data that NASA and others faked and compiled
    before they were forced to correct it and they conveniently hid it in
    hard to find pages of their web site.
    News flash: They don't. You're way behind on your reading, or just tend
    to ignore what you choose to because it doesn't fit the idiot agenda.
    Or you're looking at the data that NASA and others faked and compiled
    before they were forced to correct it and they conveniently hid it in
    hard to find pages of their web site.


    Why do all the
    News flash: They don't. You're way behind on your reading, or just tend
    to ignore what you choose to because it doesn't fit the idiot agenda.
    Or you're looking at the data that NASA and others faked and compiled
    before they were forced to correct it and they conveniently hid it in
    hard to find pages of their web site.
     
    Bill Putney, Oct 5, 2009
    #23
  4. Major Debacle

    dr_jeff Guest

    What data did NASA fake and compile? Please prove that they faked it.
    And, what do the corrected data show?
    So the only data that the scientific organizations used where those from
    NASA? Or was there other data that they looked at?
    While there are those who argue that climate change is not real, the
    scientific consensus is that global warming is real. There is very
    little data that don't support that global warming is real.

    Jeff
     
    dr_jeff, Oct 5, 2009
    #24
  5. Major Debacle

    News Guest


    Most non-supportive "data" came out of the Bush/Cheney editing pool.

    Speaking of which, why is it that no Bush/Cheney-backed car firm had an
    idea good enough to be funded?

    Any innovative ideas at all? Or did they put the 'no' in innovation.
     
    News, Oct 5, 2009
    #25
  6. Major Debacle

    PeterD Guest

    This is common knowledge, they used bad data, got bad results. Then
    they covered up... Been well documented.
    There is NO scientific consensus that global warming is caused by man,
    is anything other than a natural occurance, or that it is even
    happening at all... Again, just as others are saying, you are choosing
    to belive the sky is falling.
     
    PeterD, Oct 6, 2009
    #26
  7. Major Debacle

    hls Guest

    There are those who will bend data and observations to try to promote
    their agenda, for sure.

    This issue is very complex. There is simultaneous damage by greenhouse
    effect, and temporal cooling effects.

    The wise bird never shits in his nest.
     
    hls, Oct 6, 2009
    #27
  8. Major Debacle

    dr_jeff Guest

    Gee, then it should be easy to support your claim.
    You're saying that NASA lied about its data. These are not the only data
    that climatologists use to understand climate and climate change. Nor
    are the data in question that only data that NASA has.
    Really? Why does Science and Nature, the preeminent science journals in
    the world both say otherwise?

    You say there is nothing happening at all. However, CO2 has been proven
    to trap heat (infrared radiation) and the level of CO2 in the atmosphere
    is going up. The question is how much is this going to affect global
    climate in the future? Already, global average temperatures have risen
    markedly, particularly in the last 15 or 20 years. In addition, large
    amounts of artic and antartic ice have melted. The ice caps on mountains
    all over the world are disappearing.

    I chose to believe that global warming is true because all of the data
    back up the theory.

    Jeff
     
    dr_jeff, Oct 6, 2009
    #28
  9. Major Debacle

    dr_jeff Guest

    What are temporal cooling effects?

    Yet, we're increasing greenhouse gases. Does this sound like the
    intelligent choice?

    jeff
     
    dr_jeff, Oct 6, 2009
    #29
  10. Major Debacle

    Bill Putney Guest

    Even more, the earth has actually been cooling off. The biggest driver?
    Solar activity. Gee - imagine that!!! LOL!

    (The warmest year on record in relatively recent history was in the 30's
    - 1936 or 1938 - I think - I forget which. When you look at the false
    NASA data, it looks like it was in the last 10 years, but when you look
    at the corrected data, not even then - it was back in the 30's. Talk
    about your inconvenient truth!) :)
     
    Bill Putney, Oct 6, 2009
    #30
  11. Major Debacle

    dr_jeff Guest

    Actually, the corrected NASA data show it was in the last few years.

    http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/

    If I am incorrect show the link that demonstrates this.

    Jeff
     
    dr_jeff, Oct 6, 2009
    #31
  12. Major Debacle

    hls Guest

    Temporal effects as in short term cooling and heating cycles, identifiable
    but seeming to contradict (to some) the upward trend.

    Increasing greenhouse gases doesnt seem to be wise, hence the nest comment.
     
    hls, Oct 6, 2009
    #32
  13. Major Debacle

    Bill Putney Guest

    It is - for those who have eyes to see and ears to hear the truth.
    You'll have to find it yourself. If we spoon-fed it to you, you'd not
    believe it anyway. You'll believe what you want anyway. In fact, it's
    been documented before on this very news group - there - your homework
    is mostly done for you. But you still won't believe it.
    Funny how before the mistakes were revealed the GW'ers would always
    point to the NASA data and say "LOOK - the most respected scientific
    organization of the U.S. Gov't says so - so it is indisputable", then
    when it turns out they faked data - and on more than one occasion - it's
    "These are not the only data that climatologists use to understand
    climate and climate change".

    Read up on the "hockey stick curve" that Al Gore used to "prove" global
    warming. Turns out that no matter what numbers you plug into the
    formula used to create the curve creates the same general shape curve of
    increasing temperature over time. That's just one example of majorly
    faked non-NASA data. There also the Cascades Mountains snow pack data
    faking (actually cherry picking mins and max's to force the conclusion)
    - Assistant State Climatologist in Washintgton state got removed from
    his position for blowing the whistle on that one - that's how honest and
    pure they were about "science". When data was corrected, it showed the
    warming that was claimed was a lie. Duh!

    Hints for NASA: (1) Don't claim your data is scientific when you control
    your temperature measuring stations and data so sloppily that you allow
    air conditioning units to be installed a few feet away from the station
    and then soon after report a temperature rise. (2) When you falsify
    October's data by copying over September's data to show warming over the
    previous year, be aware that when you have to copy one day twice to make
    a 30 day month fit the 31 day month, once people see the mistake and
    correct the data, it will be pretty obvious that it had to be
    intentional fakery. Nice try. Busted! (3) Oh - and don't launch
    satellites to monitor actual temperatures that contradict the trends
    "proven" by the faulty terrestrial based measurement data and throw all
    of your faulty warming models into a cocked hat.
    You'd have to ask them. Vested interests in perpetuating the myth? But
    really - you'd have to ask them.
     
    Bill Putney, Oct 6, 2009
    #33
  14. Major Debacle

    dr_jeff Guest

    Yes, I looked at it. It turns out NASA correct the data, and it is still
    clear that the globe is getting warming.

    So, no, you can't support your claim. If you think you can, go ahead.
    First, no one said that it is "indisputable." Nothing is. Did they fake
    data or was there an error in the data? The answer: There was an error
    in the data which they corrected. Those are two very different things.
    Really? Demonstrate that what they do is sloppy. Do they even have
    temperature measuring stations? Or is that a different gov't agency?
    Was this intential or an error? Unfortunately, when an organization
    tries to get data out faster, there will be some errors. This is an
    example of how one organization made and error and corrected it.
    There were some errors. There are always are. However, the trends are
    overwhelmingly clear. Just like the trends of leaves appearing on trees
    earlier in the spring (or winter), snow on the ground for less time of
    the year, decreasing ice caps on mountains and smaller glaciers.
    As a member of AAAS (the American Association for the Advancement of
    Science; the publisher of Science), I am part of them. And the answer is
    that the data overwhelmingly support global warming.

    Jeff
     
    dr_jeff, Oct 6, 2009
    #34
  15. Major Debacle

    Bill Putney Guest

    Bill Putney, Oct 6, 2009
    #35
  16. Major Debacle

    dr_jeff Guest

    That's one of many stations.

    In addition, the data I am talking about are global averages, not just
    the averages for the US. http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/
    When you look at the US highest temps and the highest global temps, you
    will see that there are differences:
    http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Top10.warmest.doc

    Jeff

    Are the
     
    dr_jeff, Oct 6, 2009
    #36
  17. Major Debacle

    Bill Putney Guest

    No such thing is clear. NASA corrects data only when publicly
    embarrassed into doing so.
    As I said already done.
    Yet above, you said it is clear. Can it be both clear and not indisputable?
    Sorry - we're supposed to believe that data from a 30 day month gets
    copied to a 31 day month, and one day just happens to get duplicated to
    fill in the extra day. Sorry - not credible.

    Funny how all the errors that get discovered after the fact are in the
    direction of pushing the data to show warming over time - never the
    opposite.
    Maybe it is of another agency. So they use the data to publish
    conclusions and attempt to shape policy. So tell me how it affects this
    discussion one iota who owns the stations that they report data from.
    If the owner is sloppy but they use the data, does that make their data
    any better or themselves any more or less credible? (answer: no)
    Go ahead and explain the 31 days of data being altered by duplicating
    one day to fill in the extra day of the 31 day normally colder month.
    Like I said, it's funny how the errors *always* push the data in the
    direction of showing warming aver time - never the reverse. Defies
    credibility.
    Much of that is cherry picked out of *lots* of data. Where the desired
    trend doesn't exist, that parameter is not discussed.

    Then, again, there's the example of the Cascade Mountain snow pack where
    "mistakes" were made. What were the "mistakes"? When they wanted to
    show warmer, they skewed the sample point to be the nearest local
    maxima, and when they wanted to show cooler, they skewed it to nearest
    local minima. That *can't* be random error.

    Then they removed the guy who pointed it out from his position as
    Assistant State Climatologist. Yeah - real "science" going on there.
    Ahh - I see - so you are involved in the inner workings of the
    organization at the highest levels? I doubt it. You or your employer
    pay annual or bi-annual dues to maintain your membership. You might
    even participate at some level. Doesn't prove anything. The word
    "science" has been so misused and abused that it has no credibility when
    it is used to try to establish authority anymore. And the global
    warmers have done more to damage the reputation of true science than
    practically anything else in modern times. It is a false- or
    pseudo-science if there ever was one. Yet it effects policy change that
    is very damaging.
     
    Bill Putney, Oct 6, 2009
    #37
  18. Major Debacle

    Bill Putney Guest

    That is correct, yet the very small temperature changes that are being
    talked about were affected enough to make a significant difference when
    averaged over all the data stations. You will even see references on
    the NASA site that the minor changes being shown are smaller than the
    resolution of the data.

    Read up on gage R&R.
     
    Bill Putney, Oct 6, 2009
    #38
  19. Major Debacle

    dr_jeff Guest

    No, but I am a proud member. I have been for years.
    That's incorrect. You have so far have shown that one dataset had some
    errors in it that were corrected. That's it. You have failed to address
    why so much ice is melting at the poles and on the tops of mountains,
    why the ocean levels are rising, why the leaves appear earlier in the
    year and stay on trees longer, why trees and other wildlife that are
    adapted to particular climates are moving north or up mountains (where
    is is cooler) or how the fact the CO2, methane and other gases trap heat.
    That's incorrect. The evidence that global warming is occurring is
    overwhleming. And, the models are getting better. As new data are
    generated, the data are incorporated into the models or the models are
    rejected. This is how science is done.

    Jeff
     
    dr_jeff, Oct 6, 2009
    #39
  20. Major Debacle

    Bill Putney Guest

    No - two - the air conditioner fiasco, and the copying September data
    into October (and somehow mysteriously copying the one day twice to fill
    in the 31 days - quite by accident you understand). :)

    You are self-selecting your sources to reinforce your beliefs. Nothing
    I can say will convince you, which I started out saying. And that's OK.
    I am not responsible for your beliefs. Let's talk in another 5 years
    (but unfortunately the politicians will have possibly done irreparable
    damage due to acting on this false science).

    The real die hards will be those that can "scientifically" explain how
    global warming causes ice ages (not to say that we are headed for an ice
    age, but to explain what we have already started seeing and will
    continue to see, that's the kind of insanity one will have to exhibit to
    keep denying the reality). To paraphrase Bill Clinton's campaign: "It's
    the sun, stupid."
    Yeah - like they had to do when the NASA satellite proved that the
    models were absolutely worthless - that things had actually been cooling
    off, or at best, not heating up nearly as their false models had been
    saying they were.

    Oh - BTW - read *this* NASA web page:
    http://spacescience.spaceref.com/newhome/headlines/essd06oct97_1.htm
    (hey - it's on a NASA site, so it must be true, right?)

    "Over the past century, global measurements of the temperature at the
    Earth's surface have indicated a warming trend of between 0.3 and 0.6
    degrees C. But many - especially the early - computer-based global
    climate models (GCM's) predict that the rate should be even higher if it
    is due to the man-made 'Greenhouse Effect'."


    Like I said elsewhere: The amount of changes they are talking about -
    less than a degree C over a century - are less than the resolution and
    repeatability of their measurements. It's laughable.


    "Unlike the surface-based temperatures, global temperature measurements
    of the Earth's lower atmosphere obtained from satellites reveal no
    definitive warming trend over the past two decades. The slight trend
    that is in the data actually appears to be downward. The largest
    fluctuations in the satellite temperature data are not from any man-made
    activity, but from natural phenomena such as large volcanic eruptions
    from Mt. Pinatubo, and from El Niño. So the programs which model global
    warming in a computer say the temperature of the Earth's lower
    atmosphere should be going up markedly, but actual measurements of the
    temperature of the lower atmosphere reveal no such pronounced activity.

    "In theory, one could argue that the computer models are accurate, and
    that the real measurements have some problem. However this is not the
    case. An incredible amount of work has been done to make sure that the
    satellite data are the best quality possible. Recent claims to the
    contrary by Hurrell and Trenberth have been shown to be false for a
    number of reasons, and are laid to rest in the September 25th edition of
    Nature (page 342). The temperature measurements from space are verified
    by two direct and independent methods."

    Anyway - when you keep reading, you find out that now they're saying
    it's water vapor, not CO2, that has the effects. So the question
    arises: If that's the case, why are we supposed to control CO2 emissions?

    Oh - and don't forget to check out this page linked from that one:
    http://spacescience.spaceref.com/newhome/essd/essd_strat_temp.htm

    You are one of a dwindling set of people who are called scientists who
    still believe the religion of global warming. Unfortunately the
    politicians are lagging the true science - some possibly honestly doing
    so, some due to vested interests or corruption (yeah - shocking, I know).

    Why don't you ask some of your science buddies why they are now calling
    it "Climate Change" and have suddenly stopped calling it "Global
    Warming" (hint: It's because they realize that they can no longer claim
    it is warming, but they can't yet publicly admit it - by the time people
    start asking them why they used to call it global warming when it
    clearly is cooling off, they will be able to say with a straight face:
    "Oh I never believed that - those were some *earlier* well-intentioned
    kooks who didn't quite understand what was going on. All *real*
    scientists know it was cooling off." But the thing they will have a
    hard time explaining is why they forced everyone to reduce CO2 emissions
    when it is claimed that CO2 causes warming and yet things were cooling
    off and not warming up - but I'm sure by then they will have come up
    with something equivalent to "Well, you see - warming causes ice ages.").
     
    Bill Putney, Oct 6, 2009
    #40
Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.