gut;1503409 wrote:Tesla still isn't viable. They are making money only because of selling their carbon credits. Great example of being completely propped up by the govt, on both ends. And it begs the question of how necessary and what contributions Tesla made to the market. All the big boys would, and already were, researching hybrids and battery power.

There were more failures than Solyndra, and who knows how many other cases the govt crowded-out other investors. There is absolutely no need for the govt to get into the VC game. None. And in most cases, these companies stand a better chance with private capital and the governance/expertise that comes with it.

Do you really think Tesla hasn't brought anything to the market? Hell the big autos are fighting to keep laws on the books to make it harder for Tesla to sell cars. They're scared of an affordable electric car like the type Tesla makes being available.

I Wear Pants;1503415 wrote:Do you really think Tesla hasn't brought anything to the market? Hell the big autos are fighting to keep laws on the books to make it harder for Tesla to sell cars. They're scared of an affordable electric car like the type Tesla makes being available.

LMFAO...did you just put "affordable" and Tesla in the same sentence?!?

I didn't say Tesla hasn't brought anything to market, I said they are making money only because of govt regulations. Their cars are arbitrarily cheaper because of a tax deduction the buyer can claim. They STILL wouldn't be making money if it wasn't for the emissions credits they're able to sell, being based in CA.

gut;1503417 wrote:LMFAO...did you just put "affordable" and Tesla in the same sentence?!?

I didn't say Tesla hasn't brought anything to market, I said they are making money only because of govt regulations. Their cars are arbitrarily cheaper because of a tax deduction the buyer can claim. They STILL wouldn't be making money if it wasn't for the emissions credits they're able to sell, being based in CA.

You really don't see Tesla as moving towards more afordable cars?

$62,400 for the Model S is competitive for the luxury car market.

Like any mass produced product the first models will be expensive which is why a luxury cars make sense to begin with as not many people would buy a $60k Corolla equivalent even with the benefit of it being electric. However those looking at pricier vehicles may be enticed to buy. After they sell enough of these they can look for more inexpensive models that will likely have wider distribution. It's already happened with the Model S being what, half the cost of the Roadster. The Model X will cost about the same as a Cayenne. Yes a premium car as well but it's something I see on the road pretty often.

The point is that these are real cars that are priced similarly to other cars in their price range and that price range isn't that of Ferraris. That's exciting to me and I see them continuing to grow and with that growth they'll want to offer some more inexpensive options. I assume Elon Musk is smart enough to get that done.

I Wear Pants;1503446 wrote:... real cars that are priced similarly to other cars in their price range ...

Isn't that self-evident? If they're priced similarly, then I submit they're in the same price range.

I Wear Pants;1503446 wrote:You really don't see Tesla as moving towards more afordable cars? .

I don't see it as necessary for the govt to have funded them.

I also think they are still a ways away from being able to survive without a variety of govt subsidies.

gut;1503482 wrote:I don't see it as necessary for the govt to have funded them.

I also think they are still a ways away from being able to survive without a variety of govt subsidies.

Meh, our difference here is you probably the government should never spend on industries, I think it can and has been beneficial.

I Wear Pants;1503324 wrote:My thing is that I don't think the economic and societal changes are very harmful and in some cases aren't harmful at all/are beneficial. And should current scientific consensus be correct we're killing ourselves down the line by not doing something about it.

And even ignoring the environmental change argument things like increased recycling, greater energy efficiency, and a greater use of renewable energy is a benefit in the long run. Plus I'd rather us have a head start, because eventually we will not be able to use fossil fuels like we do now, whether that's in 20 years or 200 years it will happen. And if it's in 200 years I think everyone will be grateful that we started innovating and investing in alternatives before the "oh shit, we're out" moment.

Those that don't think they would be that harmful have NO IDEA what carbon sequestration and carbon "credits" cost to a given industry like Steel, Aluminum, oil refineries, power generation (yes, our electricity), etc. If we, as a country, went with the hard left's wants of carbon credits and sequestration you will see massive cost hikes and massive layoffs in the big energy consuming industries.

jmog;1503144 wrote:I did not say they haven't taken higher mathematics, I said anyone who HAS taken chaos theory knows this and in my opinion they are pulling the wool over the eyes of the general public.

NEVER was the words or phrases or suggestions that I am smarter than the climate researchers. You can keep stretching all you want.

My opinion there is a political slant to climate research, absolutely, but never did I say I was smarter than the climate researchers or knew more than they did.

Read carefully, I used the chaos theory statement as evidence of the political slant, saying that if they have taken classowork in chaos theory (and I assume they have) then they know their models are not fool proof. However, they portray that AGW is pretty much a fact, which it is not.

It is no stretch at all unless you have a different definition of suggestion. You regularly and persistently appeal to your own intelligence, academic credentials, authority and use it as a basis for claiming why all of these other colleagues and people you debate with on forums are incorrect.

And, yes you did say that lots of climate researchers haven't taken higher order math LOL. Please Read:

jmog;1491296 wrote:Your second bad assumption is that climate researchers have taken bifurcating systems or chaos theory mathematics. Many climate scientists are either PD meteorologists who don't take math higher than differential equations or they are PhD civil engineers that specialize in environmental studies. They again, only take differential equations and typically a high level statistics class. FYI, civil engineers are typically not the brightest engineers.
You get a lot of statisticians in climate research to help the meteorologists out, unfortunately you don't get enough chaoticians (yes, like the guy from Jurassic Park) to fix their models.

Now please revisit this claim of yours.

I did not say they haven't taken higher mathematics, I said anyone who HAS taken chaos theory knows this and in my opinion they are pulling the wool over the eyes of the general public.

NEVER was the words or phrases or suggestions that I am smarter than the climate researchers.

As you can see...you did exactly what you claimed that you did not do. Once again.

gut;1503482 wrote:I don't see it as necessary for the govt to have funded them.

I also think they are still a ways away from being able to survive without a variety of govt subsidies.

Sure but what is "necessary". Should just look at it as a consumption expenditure. We the People acting collectively through our agents in Congress think these types of subsidies will make us better off and we choose to create policies that will allocate resources in that manner. Simple as that. Hardly any different than deciding to allocate real resources towards the construction of F-22's that will never use....these are things that we want and desire as a People.

QuakerOats;1502016 wrote:The earth's climate has been changing back and forth for millions and millions of years, long before man was around, and long before the demonized 'industrial revolution'. Please explain all those changes in climate prior to our arrival, and how they differ from our current entrance into another cooling cycle.

Waiting for BS's response, perhaps I missed it.

BoatShoes;1503599 wrote:Sure but what is "necessary". Should just look at it as a consumption expenditure. We the People acting collectively through our agents in Congress think these types of subsidies will make us better off and we choose to create policies that will allocate resources in that manner. Simple as that. Hardly any different than deciding to allocate real resources towards the construction of F-22's that will never use....these are things that we want and desire as a People.

Subsidies are form and function rather different than direct investment. We could debate if the govt should be in the subsidy business in the first place (and certainly some subsidies are failures, i.e. education). But being as taxes are a drag on productivity, subsidies can make sense for fledgling industries. Better still are deferrals as opposed to outright subsidies.

I Wear Pants;1503508 wrote:Meh, our difference here is you probably the government should never spend on industries, I think it can and has been beneficial.

It's a form of corporate welfare, and generally a waste of taxpayer money. Redistribution isn't exactly working for people, why should we think it would work for corporations?

http://www.reviewjournal.com/news/nation-and-world/climate-report-struggles-temperature-quirks


Yeah Boatshoes, climate research and the IPCC is not politically motivated at all.

Explain 2 things:

1. Why is the first draft of the report sent to governments and policy makers and NOT a peer reviewed journal?
2. Explain why Germany and the US governments are asking them to either completely omit or add in a reason or hypothesis for the slow down in warming?

Here, I'll quote the relevant parts.

In a leaked June draft of the report’s summary for policymakers, the IPCC said that while the rate of warming between 1998 and 2012 was about half the average rate since 1951, the globe is still heating up.

Germany called for the reference to the slowdown to be deleted, saying a time span of 10 to 15 years was misleading in the context of climate change, which is measured over decades and centuries.
The U.S. also urged the authors to include the “leading hypothesis” that the reduction in warming is linked to more heat being transferred to the deep ocean.
Belgium objected to using 1998 as a starting year for any statistics. That year was exceptionally warm, so any graph showing global temperatures starting with 1998 looks flat. Using 1999 or 2000 as a starting year would yield a more upward-pointing curve. In fact, every year after 2000 has been warmer than the year 2000.
Hungary worried the report would provide ammunition for skeptics.

So the governments are getting involved with how the research is written/reported....there is no way to deny that there isn't a political slant/backing/bias in climate change research in general but ESPECIALLY the IPCC.

Dr. Roy Spencer, a former NASA scientist and author of Climate Confusion, argues in his influential blog the UN report shows scientists are being forced to "recognise reality".

He said: "We are now at the point in the age of global warming hysteria where the IPCC global warming theory has crashed into the hard reality of observations."

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/430649/What-climate-change-Fewer-people-than-EVER-believe-the-world-is-really-warming-up

jmog;1504282 wrote:http://www.reviewjournal.com/news/nation-and-world/climate-report-struggles-temperature-quirks


Yeah Boatshoes, climate research and the IPCC is not politically motivated at all.

Explain 2 things:

1. Why is the first draft of the report sent to governments and policy makers and NOT a peer reviewed journal?
2. Explain why Germany and the US governments are asking them to either completely omit or add in a reason or hypothesis for the slow down in warming?

Here, I'll quote the relevant parts.





So the governments are getting involved with how the research is written/reported....there is no way to deny that there isn't a political slant/backing/bias in climate change research in general but ESPECIALLY the IPCC.

1. The IPCC report is based off of research that goes to peer reviewed journals...that you discount anyway (see above).
2. Because demagogues use any slight deviation from the trend to discount the research altogether....also known as throwing the baby out of with the bath water.

Don't know why you changed the subject anyway. The matter at hand was you talking about how all of the dumb civil engineers who aren't as smart as you, etc.

Please revisit this claim;

I did not say they haven't taken higher mathematics, I said anyone who HAS taken chaos theory knows this and in my opinion they are pulling the wool over the eyes of the general public.

NEVER was the words or phrases or suggestions that I am smarter than the climate researchers.

in light of this;

Your second bad assumption is that climate researchers have taken bifurcating systems or chaos theory mathematics. Many climate scientists are either PD meteorologists who don't take math higher than differential equations or they are PhD civil engineers that specialize in environmental studies. They again, only take differential equations and typically a high level statistics class. FYI, civil engineers are typically not the brightest engineers.
You get a lot of statisticians in climate research to help the meteorologists out, unfortunately you don't get enough chaoticians (yes, like the guy from Jurassic Park) to fix their models.

BoatShoes;1504511 wrote:2. Because demagogues use any slight deviation from the trend to discount the research altogether....also known as throwing the baby out of with the bath water.

When it comes to actual science, "slight deviations" have a nasty habit of invalidating results and destroying theories.

If they are going to cherry-pick studies to do a meta-analysis, that's a very rigged result. Meta analysis isn't even appropriate, or at least shouldn't be needed, for this field.

And I suspect it's a result of sloppy reporting of leaks, but I've seen some critics say the new "95% CI" is not derived from science or statistics, but from a discussion of researchers about what they think it should be. That's akin to putting your thumb in the air, and it's inconceivable. If true, we are planting the flag firmly in junk science territory.

Boat, way to not answer the question and bring up questions about me that have already been answered instead of dealing with the questions about the IPCC.

jmog;1504625 wrote:Boat, way to not answer the question and bring up questions about me that have already been answered instead of dealing with the questions about the IPCC.

My answer was clear. The evidence that the IPCC reports are politically motivated is miniscule at best. Do you care to comment on the posts that clearly demonstrate your saying things you claim you did not say?

I did not say they haven't taken higher mathematics, I said anyone who HAS taken chaos theory knows this and in my opinion they are pulling the wool over the eyes of the general public.

NEVER was the words or phrases or suggestions that I am smarter than the climate researchers.

Yes you did:

Your second bad assumption is that climate researchers have taken bifurcating systems or chaos theory mathematics. Many climate scientists are either PD meteorologists who don't take math higher than differential equations or they are PhD civil engineers that specialize in environmental studies. They again, only take differential equations and typically a high level statistics class. FYI, civil engineers are typically not the brightest engineers.
You get a lot of statisticians in climate research to help the meteorologists out, unfortunately you don't get enough chaoticians (yes, like the guy from Jurassic Park) to fix their models.

Look, I believe gut touched on this briefly but I'll make it more clear. My problem with this claim of AGW is that the scientists that are displaying these findings are BIASED towards the result that will garner them more funding(ie. their job). They also likely go into studying climate change because they are emotionally involved when seeing trees chopped down and exhausts from cars polluting the atmosphere. They have no intention of trying to be credible and likely throw out any conclusions that don't drive their AGENDA while hiding behind a cloud of PHds from junk science.

Do humans have an impact on the climate? Yes. Is it significant enough to destroy the global economy over? NO. GTFO.

BoatShoes;1504635 wrote:My answer was clear. The evidence that the IPCC reports are politically motivated is miniscule at best. Do you care to comment on the posts that clearly demonstrate your saying things you claim you did not say?




Yes you did:

1. The questions about me have already been answered.
2. So direct requests from governments for the IPCC to alter their report is "minuscule at best"? You can't be serious.

Life on Earth good for another 2 billion years -------- thank you.

http://www.nbcnews.com/science/life-earth-has-another-good-1-75-billion-years-go-4B11199461

http://thedailyshow.cc.com/videos/8q3nmm/burn-noticed

Posting this for Pick6.

But in all seriousness, this is extremely alarming.

Commander of Awesome;1657092 wrote:http://thedailyshow.cc.com/videos/8q3nmm/burn-noticed

Posting this for Pick6.

But in all seriousness, this is extremely alarming.

I don't disagree with global warming, but more the cause and actual "we are all doomed" scenario. but the reasoning those guys have are completely retarded.

Growth has continued for the second consecutive year.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2738653/Stunning-satellite-images-summer-ice-cap-thicker-covers-1-7million-square-kilometres-MORE-2-years-ago-despite-Al-Gore-s-prediction-ICE-FREE-now.html