Confronting global warming hysteria: Sen. James Inhofe takes on CNN and the rest of the MSM

Posted by: ST on September 29, 2006 at 9:04 am

We’ve all read about the hysteria surrounding claims of “global warming”, most noteably coming from Al “Inconvenient Truth” Gore (read about his latest global warming rant here).

Senator James Inhofe (R-OK) is a well-known critic of the theory of global warming and its alarmists, and made a speech on Monday on the Senate floor to discuss the myths surrounding global warming. Yesterday, CNN ran a piece criticizing Inhofe’s speech and falsely claimed that Inhofe was “alone” on Capitol Hill with respect to his feelings on the hyped up claims of global warming.

Inhofe fought back yesterday at length with another speech, which took to task the claims made by CNN, while criticizing the MSM for ignoring any facts that call global warming claims into question. Here’s part of it:

I have been engaged in this debate for several years and believe there is a growing backlash of Americans rejecting what they see as climate scare tactics. And as a result, global warming alarmists are becoming increasingly desperate.

Perhaps that explains why the very next day after I spoke on the floor, ABC News’s Bill Blakemore on Good Morning America prominently featured James Hansen touting future scary climate scenarios that could / might / possibly happen. ABC’s “modest” title for the segment was “Will the Earth Become Too Hot? Are Our Children in Danger?”

The segment used all the well worn tactics from the alarmist guidebook — warning of heat waves, wildfires, droughts, melting glaciers, mass extinctions unless mankind put itself on a starvation energy diet and taxed emissions.

But that’s no surprise – Blakemore was already on the record declaring “After extensive searches, ABC News has found no such [scientific] debate” about manmade catastrophic global warming.

(LINK )

You have to be a pretty poor investigator to believe that. Why would 60 prominent scientists this last spring have written Canadian Prime Minister Harper that “If, back in the mid-1990s, we knew what we know today about climate, Kyoto would almost certainly not exist, because we would have concluded it was not necessary.” (LINK)

On Tuesday’s program, the ABC News anchor referred to Blakemore as “passionate” about global warming. “Passionate” is one word to describe that kind of reporting, but words like objectivity or balance are not.

I believe it’s these kinds of stories which explain why the American public is growing increasingly skeptical of the hype. Despite the enormous 2006 media campaign to instill fear into the public, the number of people who believe that weather naturally changes — is increasing.

A Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg poll in August found that most Americans do not attribute the cause of recent severe weather events to global warming, and the portion of Americans who believe that climate change is due to natural variability has increased over 50% in the last five years.

Given the diminishing importance of the mainstream media, I expect that trend to continue.

Read it all.

RSS feed for comments on this post.

91 Responses to “Confronting global warming hysteria: Sen. James Inhofe takes on CNN and the rest of the MSM”

Comments

  1. G Monster says:

    I’m not a believer in global warming as of yet, mainly because Al Gore is pushing it. I know Al Gore is out to make himself rich with no concern for his country, as he has displayed by going to Saudi Arabia, and speaking against the United States.

    I’m just saying we need to cut way back on our consumption of foreign oil. I think the electric car is the future. I hope this country gets the jump on everyone else, and builds it’s own electric cars, and hopefully is so far advanced that we export them to the other countries and make money.

  2. Lorica says:

    Good one Brad. So now we are comparing humans to viruses?? I always thought that most viruses or germs were pretty simple on a cellular level, compared to human beings that is. I must be confused. It is good to see you are using a Doonsbury cartoon to help explain it to me.

    The organization of the modern biology is not what I am getting at. I have no problem with the theory of evolution for animals. Sure there is plenty to suggest that is a possibility My problem is bringing it over to humans. You can’t find any single ongoing evidence that evolution works for humans. Which at one time, race was considered evidence of human evolution, but that was proven completely in error. I have only talked about humans in this little evolutionary discussion. Seems to me that humans are getting a raw deal when it comes to evolution. – Lorica

  3. Aghast says:

    Thanks G Monster

    I’m here in good faith, though I don’t really expect to change anyone’s mind here. I like trying to figure out what you guys are thinking, and can’t help responding when I read something that irks me.

  4. Baklava says:

    Aghast wrote, “And yes, many California cities have great public transportation systems… but I’m more concerned with inner-city travel (in places where it’s sorely needed, like Atlanta).

    That has less to do with BIG oil and more to do with priorities and expeditures by the leftist who run the big cities (including Atlanta, New Orleans, Dallas or wherever). More money is wasted by leftists on dependancy and not spent on infrastructure related items because of the budget strains created by dependancy. Leftism causes cities to over tax and businesses tend to move out because of hte burden. Conservatives believe in creating a situation where employment and employers benefit with lower taxes. With lower taxes and the conomy thriving and businesses not leaving dependancy on government is LESSENED and it allows for cities to invest in capitol improvements and buses and water and other infrastructure. Leftists are “well intentioned” don’t get me wrong, but their solutions cause more harm than good. You are talking to a former leftists who has studied the issues at length here and converted to conservativism in 1991 after visiting the library 3 times a week that year. My conservativism grows stronger everyday. Why? Because I do care and am well intentioned.

    Aghast misinformed by saying, “The people were never against it. That’s fantasy.” There are plenty of times my misinforming co-poster that CA’nians voteed against a proposition for a rail or this or that because it cost too much or taxed too much. Sure people want things for free. But you wrote “the people were ‘never’ against it. That isn’t true. People vote everyday with their pocketbooks. The bus that I take is fairly full but not completely even in spite of the high gas prices. If MORE people rode the bus the city would by MORE buses. If the demand is there the supply would be met through dollars. Reality is key here.

    Aghast attempted insult by saying, “You don’t even understand what a plug-in hybrid is!

    I know very well what it is. I have more knowledge in my right brain on this subject than you have in your entire brain. OK. Enough with that fun. Seriously though. I tried to explain that I know what it is and that there is a news story on the subject that I read months ago. My background is on electronics and instead of readhing comprehension you jumped to thinking you know what I know and insulting. Maybe I wasn’t clear. People here aren’t clamoring for the plug in hybrid though some are. The most important point is the REASON why Toyota disables the button for America. It’s the BIG government stupid! Due to the regulations it chose to do business here with the button disabled and even tells customers that you will VOID the warranty if you modify your Prius. Not to mention that if you plug it in you might be getting your energy from a coal fired plant and polluting more.

    Aghast wrote, “deep cycle batteries have had no problem running all the way down for decades.

    Tell me Aghast. Do you know that there is a limit to how many times a deep cycle battery can be drawn down? The answer is yes. The only reason why it’s called a deep cycle battery is because it can handle it better and more times than another battery. :-w

    Aghast wrote, that’s categorically untrue. You show yourself to be completely susceptible to absorbing and re-emmitting propaganda. They have not introduced approved medical treatments using them, but there are absolutely trials that show incredible promise for these cells beyond what adult or umbilical stem cells can do

    Get back to me child when those uses have come through. Grow up and stop with the incessant propensity to attack others who have a different message than you. You just stated what I stated. There are ZERO uses for embryonic stem cells to date. I didn’t talk about what was promising to be useful later. The point is also that you seemed to miss is that it doesn’t require GOVERNMENT funds in AMerica. We have lots of exploration and research and development in all of these areas. It is hte ONLY reason why I brought it up. Yet you attack me as being susceptible to propoganda as if you are all knowing and know what I know etc.

    Aghast wrote, “It will cost you HALF as much as gas costs today to run.

    What technology will cost half as much. Which one? Please do tell! You did not pinpoint which one and the short talk on plug in hybrids is evidence that yes the energy has to come from somewhere and does cause faster degradation levels of the batteries. The size battery the Prius has will not get you very far before it has to start charging the battery with it’s engine and the calculations are(done a few years ago when electricy was cheaper) that the amount of electricity to charge the battery to get you the amount of miles down the road costs you about $2.00 to $3.00 of electricity per 20-40 miles (depends on the size of the plug in hybrid we are talking about). These electric motors draw lots of energy. They aren’t 450 watt motors that you find in electric drills. They are motors that draw Kilowatts. More than your electic stove’s heating elements. More than your 9,000 watt electic oven depending on which hybrid you are talking about.

    Finally, Aghast wrote, “Your blanket proclamations that americans don’t want it is unfounded and obviously heavily biased toward a political agenda.

    It’s based on the fact that we don’t have these alternative cars in mass. That’s reality. Americans don’t want to buy something that they can’t rely on being able to transport them around the country and find a filling station to fill it. If it’s not diesel or gas America won’t buy it. Hybrid’s are great promise and people are buying them even though they are heavier (example the Prius is heavier than the Toyota Echo) because the larger battery, electrical components and motors, and even though they are pricier up front by a few thousand. That does NOT sound like HALF the cost. That sounds like MORE money to people. and it is not an agenda but reality.

    Leftists (I used to be one) have trouble with reality. Facts matter less.

  5. Aghast says:

    Lorica,

    The differences between humans from different parts of the world are absolutely due to evolutionary adaptation. What social scientists have been saying is that the divergence between races is mostly skin-deep. We most certainly have not diverged as a species. If an asian person and a white person couldn’t interbreed…then we’d have a serious difference.

    Evolution occurs when populations are stressed and usually isolated, causing individuals to be selected out of the population for one reason or another. Of course evolution is happenning today with humans: true, our population is growing, and we aren’t living in isolated populations, but people with serious health problems live longer and are able to pass those problems on…they are no longer being selected out of the population. I guess you could say we are bound to devolve in that respect. Also, republicans have more children than democrats…since 80% of people follow their parents’ political affiliations, we are evolving into a more republican population(you should like that!). I guess you could say we’ll devolve in that respect too :d (kidding guys)

    So what makes humans different from other animals from an evolutionary standpoint? Are you saying animals evolved from their ancestors but humans didn’t?

  6. Aghast says:

    Baklava, I don’t mean to rude here, but you’re projecting again.

    Just one question… see if you can answer just this one, then you can launch into whatever tirade you want condemming leftists and big government

    Why would your critisism of plug-in hybrids involve range, if you knew what a plug-in hybrid was?

    And, for the record:

    It will cost you HALF as much as gas costs today to run.

    is true. according to people who have done their own conversions, because they plug into the grid every night (when electricity is cheaper) they pay the equivalent of 130 to 160 MPG in electricity costs. As gas gets more expensive, those numbers (relative to the price of gas) can only go UP.

    Harping on the technology gets you nowhere… you know it’s possible to do it. Missle defense…that’ll work, plug-in hybrids? no way! (for the record I think missle defense CAN work, because I’m not willing to ignore science in service of a political agenda)

    And a plug-in hybrid can run on gas like any other car…400 miles on a tank of gas…that’s the point. gas for long range, electric for commuting.

    And subways can pay for themselves when actually designed to be useful.

    Frankly Baklava, all your ranting about big government and leftists is totally irrelevant. If big government stopped plug-in hybrids, point me to the beaurocracy and I’ll give them hell.

    But leftist policies never stopped any plug in hybrid. Your explaination of “the button on the prius” is irrelevant, because the prius, unmodified, still isn’t a plug-in hybrid. It doesn’t PLUG IN!!!!

    And don’t expect me to believe that oil companies don’t see this as a threat to their bottom line. they’d be stupid not too.

    Your post was just so wrong.

  7. Severian says:

    Aghast, you are the one who keep mixing data sets. You mentioned a puff piece claiming that the sun wasn’t responsible for warming, I merely pointed you to real data that shows this to be wrong. Real data, not a news article written about a report that wss written to summarize what other people wrote in their reports. You seem to prefer your facts pre-digested and pre-chewed. Your nonsensical point about plotting data and superpositiion of different trends was not the reason for that quotation but since you mention it, it has more relevance than you realize. Since the 1600’s, not only has the solar output increased, but if you look over the timeframe involved, and extend it back to the 1100’s, you will note that there was a warming period, the Medieval Warm Period, followed by a prolonged cooling period, the “Little Ice Age”, followed by another warming period up to the current era. You want us to believe that the cooling period in the 70’s, despite the rise in atmospheric CO2, was simply an anomaly of a short term cycle laid over a longer term rise, despite the fact that the data does not support that sufficiently. What is more supported is that the current warming trend is a part of a longer term, multi-century oscillation that CO2 has little to no effect on, and the short term oscillations are laid over that. Look at the temp data, we’ve seen warm periods where there was no CO2 loading, followed by cold periods, and a warm period that just happens to coincide with CO2 rising, but all of which correlate with solar output. This, however, doesn’t support the kind of rampant social engineering you want to accomplish, so it just has to be CO2, and man made CO2 at that, which you continue to assert despite having been shown the flaws with that argument.

    As for your incessant harping on conspiracy theories, you created the straw man that I claimed thousands of scientists were in a conspiracy, when you’re tired of getting straw burns from humping that straw man and are ready to move on let me know. You made the absolutely ludicrous statement that there is nothing that would make all these scientists agree whereas evil big oil money was the only explanation for the dissenters. Bull. I pointed out various reasons scientists would do the opposite. Dislike of globalization, dislike of western power and US hegemony, basic dislike of humanity in general, desire to get research funding from governmental agencies, desire to get fame and recognition, desire to grow their influence and department size, desire to get funding to pursue their pet projects, desire to prove a deeply held belief is right (I’ve seen that one more than I’d like , people who either deliberately or unconsciously slant data because they just cant’ face the fact their theory is incorrect). All of these are obviously in play with some people, and all of them will drive these same people, regardless of a divergent background or views, into supporting the same dishonest story about anthropogenic global warming. There are people out there who think to themselves, hey, if I go along with this we get funding, I get to do the research I want to do, and it’s not like it’s really hurting anyone, I mean, mankind needs to be controlled and reigned in, so a little white lie is OK. Gore himself has admitted to this philosophy, it’s OK to lie and exaggerate as long as it’s for a good cause.

    But no, these people are all pure as the driven snow and the only thing that can possibly influence people is evil oil money.

    You have not countered even basic falshoods in your data that you support, the pro warming side you have accepted as the truth a priori. You have never addressed the massive distortions and outright lies that went into the manufacturing of the hockey stick. All you are interested in is saying that there is no debate, that this is true, and therefore we should all just shut up like good sheep and go along with whatever social engineering you think is best for us.

    Until you can present truly compelling data that it is CO2 that is forcing the temperature rise, and that it is manmade CO2 that is causing it, you are just rationalizing the kind of changes you want to see in the world and lying to try and convince people that they should go along. There has been massive fraud in the pro global warming community, for whatever reasons, and it stinks to high heaven. YOu have not refuted a single one of the numerical analyses about CO2 percentages and effects, you have not provided any real data, just a trivial lesson in algebra and graphing basic functions.

    Mankind is not responsible for more than a tiny fraction of the warming, and there is absolutely no proof that the world will be worse off with a minor warming than with a cooling, in fact evidence points the opposite way.

    Until you can come up with something other than your transparent attempt to claim that all the dissent is from evil old Big Oil, and that all the pro warming scientists are all honest and pure, and provide something more credible than what you have to support the contention that warming is man made and also is catastrophic, you are just another true believer trolling cyberspace looking for an audience.

  8. Baklava says:

    Aghast asked a good question, “Why would your critisism of plug-in hybrids involve range, if you knew what a plug-in hybrid was?

    It wasn’t a criticism. It was more or less a quickly worded (therefore poorly) statement on how Americans want things. We want it to think for us. We don’t want to have to fiddle or remember to push a button like the ones in Japan. I personally have a minivan and would buy a manual tranmission minivan if they made them. But they don’t here. Why? Because of the marketplace. Not enough of a demand. I was enumerating a few reasons why it’s NOT here. It’s NOT because of BIG oil that Toyota decided to market they way they did to Americans. Americans want a statement of reliability (read 100,00 mile battery life). Deep cycling batteries do degrade their lives faster whether you recognize it or not. Regulations and marketing decision was the reason.

    Aghast laughingly wrote, “It will cost you HALF as much as gas costs today to run.

    I suppose you don’t pay the electric company anything to run your stove or oven!!! Where do you live? We need to move there!!! Facts matter still. Please enumerate the reasons why you think a plug in hybrid with it’s 1) higher up front cost 2) cost of electricity when pluggin in 3) still needing gas to go a distance will cost HALF as much as gas costs today to run?

    Aghast wrote, “they pay the equivalent of 130 to 160 MPG in electricity costs

    Please share with us the source for these calculations. As far as I can gather it isn’t true for anything that weighs as much as a Prius or Escape Hybrid.

    Aghast wrote, “Harping on the technology gets you nowhere… you know it’s possible to do it.

    I’m sorry buy either through reading comprehension or my not being clear, you get the impression that I’m saying that it’s technically impossible. That’s not what I’m saying. I’m saying that it isn’t because of BIG oil and it is because of the realities of the American marketplace. I’m also refuting a few of your claims. Is any of the ohter guys having problems understanding my point here? Sev?

    Aghast wrote, “Frankly Baklava, all your ranting about big government and leftists is totally irrelevant.

    OK. So creating more dependancy on government will help free up government to have expenditures on infrastructure? Is that what you are saying? Otherwise my point is relevant. It is due to big government mentality that many locations can’t afford the pipe dreams you are talking about. They are pipe dreams because of the lack of ability to afford these projects. Things aren’t free. They cost money. Lots of it.

    And because you asked for it, here is the link:

    It has the following text:

    *Disclaimer: The modification below is undertaken at your own risk. It could result in damage to your vehicle. You could be injured doing the modification. It could easily void your warranty. It may reduce your gas mileage. It may shorten the life of your NiMH battery and lead to early replacement [NOT HALF THE COST AGHAST]not covered by the Hybrid Warranty. It may irreversibly damage the HV ECU (Hybrid Computer) of your car and require expensive replacement. Neither the author, Evan Fusco, MD nor anyone distributing this document will be held responsible for injuries or damage or financial loss resulting from any of the modifications. If you choose to make these alterations to your vehicle you do so under your own risk and responsibility. The information here is provided for informational purposes only and it is not suggested or advised that you carry them out. You should not try this unless you are reasonably comfortable working with electronics. I provide no guarantee that the information contained here is accurate though I’ve tried to assure that it is.
    What this is:
    These instructions allow you to take advantage of the built-in feature of what is commonly called “EV (electric vehicle) Mode” of your 2004+ Prius. In Japan and European versions of the Toyota Prius the vehicle is sold with an EV Button pre-installed by Toyota. For some reason, in the North American version this button is left off (note: speculation focuses on possible EPA/NHTSB regulations that were unclear as to whether the option to use 2 different ‘fuels’ was legal.

  9. Great White Rat says:

    A good reference for the global warming debate is The Skeptical Environmentalist by Bjorn Lomborg.

    Professor Lomborg admits he’s “an old left-wing Greenpeace member”. His original undertaking was proving those of us who discount global warming as simple right-wing propagandists. The intent was to examine all the statistics the right uses and prove we’re all wrong. Instead, he found that the data stood up to careful scrunity and conflicted with the libs’ myths about pollution, global warming, disappearing forests, etc. And he had the integrity to say so.

    It’s a very well documented work. Not a light read, but well worth the time.

  10. Baklava says:

    I’ve read so much of his work GWR.

    Yes. Well worth the time. Can’t be discounted quickly as Algore does.

  11. Aghast says:

    Bjorn Lomborg?

    The number of refereed publications Lomborg has produced on statistical or other scientific analysis of environmental issues? 0.

    He was a political scientist and game theoriest, not a climatologist. And greenpeace has no record of Lomborg ever being actively involved in the organisation. His cred is zilch. He openly appealed to other scientists in a now-public letter to help respond to claims of “shoddy science”…he can’t even defend his own work. Those who support him are social scientists…not natural scientists. See a trend here?

    When he submits his work to peer review, I’ll be happy to look at it. But this guy has been thoroughly debunked (i know, by scientists who are bent on perpetrating a hoax, right?).

    See… it doesn’t matter what “facts” are presented…. you’ll always believe that they are manufactured, because they challenge your worldview (sorry, it’s really because they conspire against profit). And I will always find ten scientists to every one you trot out whe presenting your “facts”, because there’s a consensus on my side.

    I know, they are all wrong and you are right. when your guy submits to peer review, maybe we can have a debate about that.

    But all of this, you don’t really know, but I do crap is stupid. Niether of us are climatologists… we aren’t an appropriate group to be coming to a conclusion on this. but you won’t even admit that the people studying this have reached consensus…because you read a book, by a non-climatologist, that was never peer reviewed (and when investigated was found to be, even if not intentionlly, scientifically fraudulent).

    I know, I know, you’ll say “Aghast’s giving up on the argument, he admits he doesn’t have the facts, etc…”. No, I’m just done with trying to counter nonsense, only to be responded to with more straw-grasping nonsense.

    You can’t distinguish between rational and non-sensical arguments, becuase you wish so much for one side to be true.

    Hey, I’d love for you to be right. I have NO agenda in promoting global warming. But I’m certainly not going to ignore consensus and focus on a someone who gets no respect from the relevant scientific community, simply because he tells me what I want to hear.

  12. Baklava says:

    I could’ve guessed you would casually attack and dismiss Lomborg. You never deal with the substance… or almost never. When you do deal with the substance you do so atrociously with little reading comprhension…. just stringing along phrases and snippets that aren’t very well thought out.

    Next time. Read his work. It’ll take awhile. Look at both sides of the argument.

    You do not deserve the right to even speak his name let alone cast him aside so callously like you do. A mere lay person yourself you admit and not a good one. This is what we expect from liberals because we’ve seen the pattern before. You continue it.

    Aghast continues to try to perpetuate this lie, “but you won’t even admit that the people studying this have reached consensus

    Look up the word again. Then look for the scientists who disagree with your theory and their evidence. Then you will have done the due diligence to see your are not being truthful.

    Aghast wrote with florish, “You can’t distinguish between rational and non-sensical arguments, becuase you wish so much for one side to be true.

    Whatever… you failed to let us know what source of energy will zip us around for half the cost. You failed. Not us.

  13. Severian says:

    Is any of the ohter guys having problems understanding my point here? Sev?

    I thought your points were clear, if one of them was perhaps awkwardly put from the standpoint of Conan the Grammarian, I understood you. Aghast either did and deliberately misinterpreted it or didn’t, but that goes back to my he’s either incompetent or dishonest comment. There are significant other issues with plug in hybrids, and with hybrids in general relating to amount of energy needed to manufacture, to “fuel” (as you point out, wall power has to come from somewhere, and without analysis there is absolutely no guarantee that moving the point of power generation from the car to the power plant, with the attendent losses and inefficiencies from transferring power over long distances will increase or decrease efficiency and pollution). But it’s the general type of “cure” the left provides for us, not proven, not really practical, but it feels good, makes a good headline, and costs money. I thought your comments on the free market aspects of why certain cars are not going to work here was right on target, but what kind of response can you expect from someone who blames the evil oil companies for paying off all the thousands of scientists who disagree with global warming.

    You can’t distinguish between rational and non-sensical arguments, becuase you wish so much for one side to be true.

    Aghast is a funny one to making that statement considering how much hero worship he lavishes on those “experts” who he agrees with. He certainly has an overabundence of “respect” for authority, well, for authority he agrees with anyway.

  14. brad says:

    Lorica,

    This is why I said the science discussion was over. You don’t get that the organizing principle behind biology would apply across all of biology. You’d think I was somehow crossing a line between viruses and humans. Why are humans so special to you? why beyond biology?

  15. Baklava says:

    Sev wrote, “ absolutely no guarantee that moving the point of power generation from the car to the power plant, with the attendent losses and inefficiencies from transferring power over long distances will increase or decrease efficiency and pollution)

    You have too much common sense. And added on that is the fact that the power required to charge a battery and then to use that power ends up as a 50% power loss already. CA has during peak hours needs that are 20% greater than it has supply so it has to transfer energy across long distances over power lines and every few hundred miles is so much loss of the energy that it’s ridiculous. CA ends up making more pollution because it doesn’t want the energy plants in their own backyard. Hypocrites.

    BTW, I looked up the electric motors in the Toyota Prius. They are 50 Kilo Watt motors. That’s 50,000 watts. That is a lot of energy to run those motors to get you the 10-20 miles the relatively small battery packs the Prius has as compared to GM’s EV1 had. They are actually LARGE battery packs as compared to the rest of the cars on the road and it requires a lot of energy to charge them. A constantly running 5 or 10 horsepower motor would have a hard time keeping them charged to fuel the needs of the 50 Kilo Watt electric motors’ demands. Obviously the motor wouldn’t be on full power all the time because the car wouldn’t need to be accelerating or going top speed all the time but it is a power hungry motor and it takes a lot to charge the battery packs.

    I’m not saying (for those of you in Rio Linda) that Prius is bad. I’m saying that energy aint free and you aren’t getting HALF the cost of running around town no way no how. Period.

    Just call me Severized…

  16. Aghast says:

    “You do not deserve the right to even speak his name”

    that’s rich. 300 social scientists back him up in a petition…only to be refuted by 600 natural scientists in another petition. And I’ve got to pour through his non-peer reviewed research to call BS? Laughable.

    As for the source of energy that will zip you around at half the cost. It’s the power from the outlet, on the wall….like, the one your computer is plugged into. I’ve said it over and over. And regarding the transfer of emmisions from your tailpipe to the power plant, we know that grid power emits less carbon per kw/h of energy produced than your average car.

    And this one:
    “someone who blames the evil oil companies for paying off all the thousands of scientists who disagree with global warming.”

    I coud rewrite that:

    “someone who blames [the hatred of conservative profit] for [motivating] all the [tens of] thousands of [evil] scientists who [have reached an consensus about] global warming.”

    (I threw in [evil] since we’re all of a sudden making value judgements for each other)

    And I never once said that the oil companies were “paying off” scientists. They don’t need to pay them for any quid pro quos or other specific arrangements. It’s much more subtle. Think tanks, for example, let you subtly announce that you’ll give scientists jobs if they support your cause. Oil companies openly create and contribute to such think tanks, which then attract and fund scientists who might otherwise not be funded (maybe because they are shoddy, or unscientific).

    My “hero worship” is towards the consensus of climatologists, which I have yet to see refuted beyond the mention of a very discredited political scientist.

    I do find it funny that you mock me for “respecting” the authorities I agree with.

    Obviously I have respect for authorities I agree with. But you shouldn’t assume cuasality there. I have respect for them because they have the respect of the vast majority of people who study the subject at hand. And I agree with them because every buffoon that global warming deniers trot out to make their case is thoroughly destroyed by real scientists in short measure. That says nothing about whether your authorities deserve any respect.

    History has plenty of examples of established entities denying science in pursuit of a political agenda. We can all name a few. But there was always a political agenda to fit the crime.

    If your idea of a political agenda is “to make conservatives seem evil” and to stop “western capitalist profit”, or just to “get attention”… well, that just won’t cut it. Those aren’t well funded or motivating agendas.

    Arguments like “to protect a $100+ billion industry” and “to preserve the appearance of papal infallability” make a lot more sense.

    But I’m the consiracy nut. I get it now… I feel as if I’ve descended into the cave (you know the one). I see how you trust the shadows on the wall, and how hostile you are to those who try to tell you that what you see is just shadows and not real.

    By the way, this thread has gotten looooong….and noone has compared anyone to Hitler…might be a record!

  17. Baklava says:

    Aghast wrote, “As for the source of energy that will zip you around at half the cost. It’s the power from the outlet, on the wall….like, the one your computer is plugged into

    A computer will use 200-400 Watts of energy. Toyota Prius has 50,000 Watt motors and will drain the battery pack if not charged in less than 10-20 miles depending. To plug in and charge these battery packs we are not talking about a slow charge 2 Amp (2 times 120 volt = 240 Watt) battery charger that you use to charge a typical car battery. We are talking about a charger that would use a lot of energy all night to recharge your battery pack and for what? 10-20 miles. It is NOT half the cost To get you those miles.

    You FAIL basic arithmetic and basic understanding of electronics and common sense and logic. You did it with your belief and regurgitation of some talking points about climatology with out addressing the science behind such claims. You dismiss somebody’s work with a Masters and a PhD and you display ZERO ability to comprehend a simple amount of logic to understand the energy required to move a mass 10 miles via electricity.

    You’ve repeated your points without fail while we’ve written new ones with new data. The only reason why this thread is so long is because we naively had hope that you might read and comprehend. I owe you an apology for believing that. Good day!

  18. Severian says:

    Bak to Aghast:

    I’m sorry, I’m not allowed to argue unless you’ve paid.

    =))

  19. Severian says:

    Aghast lies once again:

    And I never once said that the oil companies were “paying off” scientists.

    But you said:

    The fact that scientists (paid to provide a certain point of view) refute this paper becomes, for you, evidence of the conspiracy. Even when it is an open secret that these scientists are paid to refute this stuff. I mean, we KNOW one side is being paid for their point of view, and yet you alledge conspiracy on the OTHER side.

    Typical liberal, can’t keep your untruths straight. Not the hallmark of a logical mind.

  20. Aghast says:

    Baklava, did you even follow the link? There’s a detailed graph that goes over cost of electricity vs. gas taking into account the efficiencies of both technologies. Yet you respond with a completely irrelevant analysis of a prius (which ISN’T a plug-in hybrid).

    “A computer will use 200-400 Watts of energy. [yes, so what?] Toyota Prius has 50,000 Watt motors and will drain the battery pack if not charged in less than 10-20 miles depending. [because the prius is not a plug-in hybrid, and doesn’t have the capacity a plig-in hybrid would have] To plug in and charge these battery packs we are not talking about a slow charge 2 Amp (2 times 120 volt = 240 Watt) battery charger that you use to charge a typical car battery. [except that we’re not working with typical car batteries, we’re talking about li-ion or li-poly batteries] We are talking about a charger that would use a lot of energy all night to recharge your battery pack and for what? 10-20 miles. It is NOT half the cost To get you those miles.”

    What’s really funny, is that even with your numbers, you turn out to be laughably wrong!

    240 watts * 8 hours = 1920 watt hours OR just under 2kWh.

    That’s 15 cents worth of electricity at average standard rate. (Or 6 cents if you get the cheaper nightly rate). 10 miles on 15 cents? That’s like 45 cents/gallon gasoline! (you obviously didn’t look at or understand the graph either, because 2Kwh will actually only get an electric car 2 to 4 miles.)

    You are actually so off it’s funny… (you didn’t even run your own numbers!) in reality these cars use a lot more energy than 240 Watts when charging.

    And for the record Lomborg has a PhD in GAME THEORY. When he has a degree in a natural science, and publishes peer reviewed reseach, then he might be considered an authority.

    And Sev, “paid” and “paid off” clearly have different connotations. I’m not arguing that the scientists are paid to willingly lie… I’m arguing that those who would counter global warming through shoddy science get funding they otherwise wouldn’t. And the oil companies admit this. It would be irresponsible to their shareholders to NOT try and counter the science.

  21. Severian says:

    All depends on what the meaning of is is eh Aghast.

    Go back to the drawing board sport, the shoddy science is in the pro-global warming crowd, in addition to deliberate misrepresentation and outright lies. Just because some annonymous online blog poster named Aghast comes on and says the science is shoddy and refuses to disuss the science is no proof.

    BTW Aghast, the people who demolished Mann’s hockey stick, who accurately pointed out the flaws and outright manipulation in it, were statisticians, not climatologists. You seem to have an overabundance of respect for climatologists, just remember God created climatologists so meteorologists would look accurate.

  22. Severian says:

    Oh BTW Aghast, you say you’re an engineer, well, I’m a physicist, which is closer to being a climatologist than you are, so my opinions, by your rationale, should automatically hold more weight than yours. Which is it, are mine more authoritative or are you a hypocrite on this line of reasoning too? :-"

  23. Aghast says:

    Yes, definitions: (from thefreedictionary.com)

    pay off
    1. To pay the full amount on (a debt).
    2. To effect profit: a bet that paid off poorly.
    3. To get revenge for or on; requite.
    4. To pay the wages due to (an employee) upon discharge.
    5. Informal To bribe.
    6. Nautical To turn or cause to turn (a vessel) to leeward.

    Which definition of “paid off” did you mean? Because clearly I interpreted #5. None of the others make any sense in the way you used the word.

    There’s obviously a subtle but substantive difference, that even the dictionary acknowledges. Nice try though.

  24. Aghast says:

    Severian, You know perfectly well that one scientist does not a consensus make. a scalar data point (your opintion or my opinion) is never conclusive, regardless of your expertise.

    Also, I have more respect for statisticians (who are not the social scientists I referenced above and who did find problems with Mann’s work, I don’t deny.) I have not referenced mann at all here. Even the temperature graph I linked to was based on surface temperature measurements dating from 1850.

    What’s funny, since you still mention it, it that the Hockey Stick graph (valid or not) has no bearing on the argument of global warming at this point.

    We both agree it’s getting hotter… the question is why.

  25. Aghast says:

    Just curious Sev, what area of physics do you study/teach?

    (I promise I’m not being cynical or trying to cut you down or trap you or anything)

  26. Severian says:

    I don’t teach, my experiences with academia have not been enjoyable, the politics, laziness, infighting, backstabbing, and lack of any kind of work ethic or emphasis on results turned me off. There is a LOT of truth to the statement that the reason the battles in academia are so vicious are that the stakes are so small.

    I did a lot of work in quantum chemistry and high power chemical lasers, but for the last few years my focus has been on algorithm development and system architecture development. Nice thing about physics, it teaches you how to think, not how to solve a particular problem, and algorithm/architecture is interesting and allows me to touch enough different problem areas to keep me interested.

    What kind of engineering do you do?

  27. Severian says:

    Oh, BTW, game theory is not social science, it’s a very mathematically intensive field, as or more rigorous than statistics, which form a significant part of it. And the bleatings of people who lived by the hockey stick that it is now unimportant is more of the fuzzy headed “that doesn’t matter now” you always get from people who got hung out to dry after their pet project got gored. It was and still is being used as a prime driver of the IPCC and definitely of Gore’s crowd. Add to that the fact that it was used as the basis for starting most of this insanity about anthropogenic global warming, and saying the fact it’s bogus doesn’t matter is pure crap. But I completely understand why the people who used it heavily now want to claim it doesn’t matter and continue on with their mantras unchecked. The discrediting of the hockey stick destroys one of the cornerstones of the entire global warming industry, that is that it’s unusually hot now and that is because of human activity. Expanding the tree ring data used in the analysis to today shows that these tree rings, used to justify the analysis that it is so hot now, don’t show temperatures nearly as high as the instruments of today. What this means is that there is no proof at all that it was cooler in the past than it is now. The same type of data says it’s cooler now than it is, so you can chuck a major cornerstone of your entire religion out the window. And the fact that the Maunder Minimum is perfectly correlated with the Little Ice Age renders any claims that the sun is not driving the majority of the planetary warming that is happening, which is less than many claim, meaningless.

    You have provided no compelling proof, but you have spewed a considerable amount of libel at various scientists you don’t agree with (or rather don’t support the rationale you use to justify your social positions), and made a lot of patently untrue statements. And it is still painfully obvious that you don’t fully understand the science, and want to use it as a stick to bludgeon society into the kind of changes that fit the liberal ideology.

    This entire thread can be summarized by my Devil’s DP Dictionary’s definition of endless loop:

    Endless loop – n., see loop, endless

    Loop, endless – n. see endless loop

  28. Aghast says:

    I’m a computer engineer.

    I agree with you about academia… I got out after getting my Bachelor’s. I had worked with graduate students that were so clueless it was scary. It seemed the longer they spent at the university, the less practical their knowledge was. Sure, the could code a linked-list class in 10 minutes, but ask them to design some software to perform an actual task and their eyes glaze over.

    I do software development now. My background in physics has been invaluable (I was a physics major before deciding I wanted a decent job out of school) – knowing how to mathematically model real-world processes obviously helps a lot in software development.

    So I guess we both spend a lot of time dealing with algorithms/architecture.

  29. Severian says:

    Sounds like we do Aghast, we have something in common at least. :)>-

    Yeah, finding grad students for a work environment is frightening isn’t it? I had one, who had to draw up an interface diagram, get 3 of the 11 signals wrong. When confronted and told to fix it, she asked “Why? 8 out of 11 right is a B in any class!” Absolutely scary ain’t it? The PhD’s I’ve had to work with from academia haven’t been much better, they are remarkably similar only you have the additional fun of trying to work with their egos.

    Let me be the proof, you can make money in physics. I’m not rich, but well paid and happy! But you have a lot more chance of finding a good job in s/w, you need one good physics person for about every 10,000 or more programmers, but physics is an excellent basis for other careers.

    With your background, I’d have expected you to be a bit more cynical about some of this, not as enamored with “experts” as you seem to be. I guess everyone is not as much of a curmudgeon as I am though.

  30. Baklava says:

    Aghast shows extreme incompetence by writing, “That’s 15 cents worth of electricity at average standard rate.

    That is for running the slow charger for charging normal car batteries. It is not for getting the amount of energy into larger battery packs required to get a mass weighing 3,000 pounds 10 miles at 65 mph speed on non level surface. You FAIL AGAIN and I give up even trying to explain to you why you are failing.

    I’d be surprised if 15 cents of electricity can move a mass of 3,000 pounds 1 mile given normal driving circumstances (not moving to 30 MPH and then coasting). You are factually incorrect and calling me off the mark. It’s laughable.

    Please tell us (I was using Prius as an example) what comparitive plug in hyrbid you would use as an example and what Wattage motors it has. It has to be a car that COULD be in the marketplace like the Prius. The Prius is an example I used because it is a working example of a car with electric motors that could be used exclusively electically and without the gas motor running. The FOrd Think is not such and example as it ways hundreds versus 3,000 pounds. Once you see that 50,000 watt motors is what you need to propel an electric car of that mass acceptably for the American marketplace your harping becomes irrelevant and you have to use the 50,000 WATT number not the 240 watt number which is a whole separate part of the discussion that you FAILED to recognize was about a SLOW charger for normal car batteries. You would need something charging at 1800 Watts all night to get your Prius 10 miles. NOW DO THE MATH AND APOLOGIZE ! :-w

  31. G Monster says:

    OMG, This discussion continues. I spent 3 years in algebra in highschool but I’m not sure how to spell algebra. I was great by the third year, but Sev and Aghast are definitely smarter than me.

    I am glad I got you all on the subject of the electric car, and away from global warming as the global warming stuff I do not understand. I am reading your posts, and listening to your reasoning.

    I did state that oil will be dropping in price immediately about a week ago. I hit the nail on the head with that one. Although, it might be dropping for reasons other than I stated, I still got it right. (Even a blind squirrel finds a nut in the woods on occassion.)

    Luckily, I will be hitting the lotto within the next year and won’t need to rely on my brain to earn a living, although I am a pretty good salesman. Trust me, I sold it all. Cars, homes, motorhomes, boats, etc.

  32. Baklava says:

    Can you sell me a motorhome G that can move me 1 mile with 15 cents worth of electricity? I want one.

    I heard they have some out there with 1 horsepower (about 700 watt) motors that can cost less per mile than a VR6 Volkswagen diesel powered motorhome. I wanted to replace that motor with the one that moves my garage door because it only has a 1/2 horsepower motor and there are too many times I have to grease it up because my garage door gets stuck. But then my garage door will work and my motorhome will start dragging too huh. So then I might have to get one of those NEW Li Poly fangled batteries that Toyota doesn’t even put in their Prius for some reason. Boy Toyota is so stupid. Don’t they know how much more COST effective the new fangled technology is. I’ll put that in there and then the 1/2 horsepower motor will move my motorhome faster and better and cheaper. Energy is all relative right? My one relative said so. HE keeps talking about living off a windmill. He said with all the wind that comes through his .2 acre lot he can capture enough of it to generate 50 Watts of continuous electricity. I tole him that my lights in my house don’e use that much all put together even the one in my fridge. So he can keep his food cold with his windmill. For free!! And charge his motorhome too….

  33. Baklava says:

    BTW Aghast, Your link compared an EV1 (GM’s electic vehincle that was much lighter than a normal car and weight MATTERS) to a 22 mpg car. It said that the EV1 sould be 4cents per mile and the 22 MPG car would be 7 cents per mile. That’s a great way for liars to compare things. Try the Toyota Corolla which is still heavier or the Honda Civic hx. You get double the mileage almost and therefore 3.5 cents per mile using gas and then increase the weight of the electic vehicle as it has to be comparable and marketable. Put in that backup gasoline motor because yourself called it a hybrid. Makes sure to add the wieght of the transmission. Now you sse the necessity ofr the prius electric motore comparison at 50,00 watts. You see the fact that those motors will drawn down it’s sizable battery in 10 miles. And you see the 1800 watts it’d take all night to charge it if the Prius WERE plug in -able.

    I don’t know why I spend the time. YOu will probably FAIL again. But suffice to say, adding that weight will NOT be a car that gets 4 cents of electric energy per mile. It will be nearer the 7 cents which is the mark set for the 22 MPG car.

  34. Baklava says:

    That… is a car that costs MORE to operate not half as much. Thanks for the link to shred your claim.

  35. Aghast says:

    Baklava… I was just running the numbers you presented.

    But, now that I re-read what you said, it’s clear you said:

    “we are not talking about a slow charge 2 Amp charger”

    I stand corrected about what you said… I missed the “not” (honest mistake, sorry). In reality we’re looking at more like a 4Kw charger, if we are to provide enough energy to go 60 miles on one 8-hour charge.

    But let’s run your new numbers….first some data regarding electric vehicle efficiency:

    “Older electric vehicles in commercial fleets have energy efficiencies of about 2 mi/kWh while new electric vehicles such as GM’s EV1 have energy efficiencies of over 6 miles per kWh. Heavy duty vehicles such as trucks and buses average about 1 mile per kWh.” – from http://www.atti-info.org

    OK, so 1.8 kW * 8 hours = 14.4 kwH.

    ok, that’s $1.08. let’s say the battery is 80% efficient (a reasonable assumption for lead-acid – li-ion can get up to 96% – wow!) so we can get 11 kwh of power out of it.

    at 3 mile/kwh (what we would expect from a modern electric car with regenerative braking, etc…) that’s 33 miles on $1.08.

    since we’re charging at night, we would take advantage of the cheaper electricity bringing the cost down to ~43 cents to go 33 miles.

    Compared to a 30 mpg car, with regular gas at $2.03, it’s less than ONE QUARTER THE COST!

    This will become even more feasible as gas prices rise, battery technology improves, manufacturing costs go down due to mass production, etc…

    so when you say
    “You would need something charging at 1800 Watts all night to get your Prius 10 miles.”

    what you really meant was 33 miles.

    Even if you were right and it was only 10 miles, it would still be cheaper! This is why I find your reponses so silly.

  36. Aghast says:

    Makes sure to add the wieght of the transmission.

    No thanks. In-hub motors do away with transmission power loss and wieght, and allow for easily implemented regenerative braking. The engine itself just needs to act as a generator plugged into the electric drivetrain.

  37. Severian says:

    The ONLY reason hybrids exist is regenrative braking. Right now, there is no other way to get kinetic energy turned back into usable power other than electric motors and generators. So far no one has been able to figure out how to turn kinetic energy back into gasoline, but gasoline is still a more efficient car. A hybrid has to turn gasoline into kinetic energy into electrical energy and back into kinetic energy at the wheels.

    There are a fair number of cars out there that get better mileage than the Prius and other hybrids, such as the VW diesels.

    “Plug-in” hybrids will not be a viable solution to anything unless and until we improve our electrical generating capacity, which means either more coal plants or more nuclear, and with the enviromentalists blocking just about every new power plant or attempting to, this is a solution that just won’t be practical on anything like a large scale until that issue is solved.

  38. Aghast says:

    I think its inevitable that the market will bring it about. I do believe in the market…I just think we can influence it for the good of our economic, geopolitical, and environmental futures. (I know, I know. typical leftist idealism that will result in unintended consequences that will ruin us all)

    I’m not saying that every detail has been figured out. Its definitely risky for a car company to embrace that sort of change without a breakthrough (in fuel cells, for example) to make it a sure thing, or help from national policy makers.

  39. G Monster says:

    I believe everything is settled? Now, Severian, Aghast, and Baklava, you 3 get together and bring me a product that I can sell to the world. We should make a great team.

  40. Baklava says:

    Sev is correct in writing, “but gasoline is still a more efficient car.

    hybrids can take advantage of storing some energy while braking and while the gas engine is running but not being used for accelerating and then using that energy to with electric motors in order to increase MPG. But the losses involved with creating the electricity in Nevada (or similar distance) using it to charge a large battery pack (I see Aghast realized his mistake and is admitting 4Kwatts all night long) in a house in Sacramento CA, is neither environmentally friendly nor cost effective nor pallatable to the American marketplace.

    Quadruply this is not a BIG oil conspiracy as you see it.