EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on Jul 25, 2007 11:47:30 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Coast2CoastHoya on Jul 25, 2007 13:31:49 GMT -5
Very good article - raises a few very important issues. Thanks, ed.
|
|
hifigator
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,387
|
Post by hifigator on Jul 25, 2007 14:34:41 GMT -5
I think he made a great point in the sales figures and I arive at the same conclusion. For most of us Honda and Toyota are basically interchangeable. They are both viewed as reliable middle of the road cars. Obviously some people are biased towards one or the other, but they are at least in the same category. Now the Honda Accord and the Toyota Camry are both tremendously popular, with the Honda having the slight edge the last figures I saw. Yet in the hybrid version, the Prius has such a huge edge in sales, even though the numbers with regards to price and economy are virtually identical. Why? I think he hit the nail on the head by suggesting that the Prius makes a visual statement, whereas the Honda Hybrid looks just like the regular version from a distance. It is just my opinion, but I don't think that so many people are opting for the Prius because they really prefer the styling as much as it is that they want others to know that they have a hybrid. Thoughts?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 26, 2007 18:23:18 GMT -5
I have a Prius and it saves me a ton at the pump. But more importantly (to me, at least) is that its about as zero-emissions as you can get. To me, that's where it counts the most.
As to Prius over Civic hybrid, I chose the Prius because it is slightly better on the MPG and emissions fronts. Period. I actually think the Civic hybrid has better "looks," but the Prius does what I want a car to do slightly better than the Civic.
The points about environmental politics (EDIT: in the article) are good ones... but to make a blanket statement like Prius/hybrid owners are only out to make a fashion statement is horribly weak sauce. Some of us actually care about our carbon footprint, recycle and aim only to use reusable products/services, have replaced all the bulbs in our homes with energy efficient ones, unplug all appliances when they aren't in use, don't deal with companies that have poor environmental records, etc. I'm sure some ARE in it for the looks... but there are some of us who do our best to take care of the environment we've got left. We're not all Hollywood phonies trying to make a fashion statement.
Besides, people in it for the looks are going to buy one of the Lexus hybrids!
|
|
DFW HOYA
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 5,852
|
Post by DFW HOYA on Jul 26, 2007 18:31:32 GMT -5
I have a Prius and it saves me a ton at the pump. But more importantly (to me, at least) is that its about as zero-emissions as you can get. To me, that's where it counts the most. I looked at a Prius but the sticker price was too much for my salary, and I stayed with my 1999 Saturn (130K, 32 city, 40 hwy). Too bad they don't make the Honda Insight anymore--OK, the design isn't great but the 65-70 MPG is.
|
|
SoCalHoya
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
No es bueno
Posts: 1,313
|
Post by SoCalHoya on Jul 26, 2007 19:33:11 GMT -5
I got my Prius because it was (at the time, 2001 model) the most inexpensive. It also got better gas mileage than anything Honda was developing at the time. The Prius is ugly. I'd prefer if it looked more like a regular car. The new models are great lookin', though.
|
|
hifigator
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,387
|
Post by hifigator on Jul 27, 2007 11:44:00 GMT -5
Buff, I think the point had to deal with the disparity between sales numbers of 'normal' cars compared to the hybrid. If you like the Prius better, then good for you. But the empirical evidence suggest that people like Honda vehicles in general and that body style in particular. And at least presumably the ergonomic layout inside the vehicle. Yet in hybrid sales they are lagging far behind, in spite of the fact that the prices are similar as well as the energy efficiency numbers. I think that is sound reasoning for looking for other reasons why the Prius is so much more popular. Knowing many of the ultra-environmentalists, I could certainly see many of them having the attitude that they want to make a statement. And the unique styling of the Prius certainly does that. Besides, it fits you well.
|
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on Jul 27, 2007 12:17:01 GMT -5
|
|
hifigator
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,387
|
Post by hifigator on Jul 27, 2007 12:51:43 GMT -5
I have no real way of knowing how accurate the information is coming as a letter to the editor, but if so then that is exactly the kind of conflicting evidence that we keep seeing. As we adjust the timetables around, then everything we can measure seems to be more cyclical than movement in one direction. Given that has been the case, it certainly begs the question whether any short term movements we can now measure are the direct or indirect result of any of our actions?
|
|
|
Post by Coast2CoastHoya on Jul 27, 2007 14:42:08 GMT -5
I went to a day-long climate change forum at EPA today, featuring top negotiators, researchers, and policy fellows. I will post some reflections later I will say that it looks like this thing is happening, and happening a lot faster than most skeptics want to believe. There were some interesting solutions proposed that I'd like to bounce off the Board, too - enviros, skeptics, and others alike.
As for the Prius v. Civic, I think the Prius looks cooler, and considering they cost the same and the Prius has better performance numbers, if I was looking to buy I'd choose the Prius. And who cares if people want other people to know where their views stand? Do you have a problem with personalized plates, bumper stickers, team-logo flags, yellow ribbons, or other little ways people advertise their views on their cars? I sure don't. Plus, if you're going to be a snob about something - and I'm not saying Prius owners are snobs (except Buff) - why not be a snob about something that's good, like non-renewable resource conservation, economic responsiblity, and environmental protection?
|
|
hifigator
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,387
|
Post by hifigator on Jul 28, 2007 12:18:27 GMT -5
I went to a day-long climate change forum at EPA today, featuring top negotiators, researchers, and policy fellows. I will post some reflections later I will say that it looks like this thing is happening, and happening a lot faster than most skeptics want to believe. There were some interesting solutions proposed that I'd like to bounce off the Board, too - enviros, skeptics, and others alike. As for the Prius v. Civic, I think the Prius looks cooler, and considering they cost the same and the Prius has better performance numbers, if I was looking to buy I'd choose the Prius. And who cares if people want other people to know where their views stand? Do you have a problem with personalized plates, bumper stickers, team-logo flags, yellow ribbons, or other little ways people advertise their views on their cars? I sure don't. Plus, if you're going to be a snob about something - and I'm not saying Prius owners are snobs (except Buff) - why not be a snob about something that's good, like non-renewable resource conservation, economic responsiblity, and environmental protection? A couple of quick responses. I don't know if you were talking about me directly or not. I am not a skeptic. I favor taking most, if not all of the steps that are typically proposed. My criticism is simply when one side acts like the other side is making this a political argument, when the fact is that both sides are. Is it right to act as if it is a certainty that our actions are causing this global climate change? No. Is it wise to consider that as a likely possibility and act accordingly? Yes. Is inquisitive thinking of this sort the same as resistance from "Big Oil" by acting in their own best interesets? Absolutely not. That is my main beef. Enough on that issue. As for letting others know where you stand, I certainly have no problem with that. I know this is an internet forum and people will tend to be far more bold, but trust me. What you see is in fact what you get in my case. I learned a long time ago that it is far easier to say what you really think than to try to remember what stories you told to whom. If you disagree with me, that's fine. I just want to make sure there isn't a communication gap. That's all. As for the cars, I just find it curious that the differences in sales figures are so dramatically different. If you like the styling of one over the other, that is fine. But when the Honda is often the most popular car of all, it is safe to conclude that on average people approve of the exterior design and interior layout. Therefore, if the sales of the hybrid are dramatically lagging then there must be another reason. Certainly one possibility is that people just love the design of the competitor, in this case the Prius. But as the replies from this very board show, that is somewhat dubious. Therefore many people select the Prius for some other reason. I have a theory that it is because people want others to know they are driving a hybrid. Your suggestion that maybe they are trying to be a trend setter and recruit more people to their way of thinking is certainly one possiblity. But I can't help but think that at least some significant number of people are making the decision for whatever status they think comes from such a statement. And all I can tell you about status is that the correct amount won't fill up a thimble.
|
|
|
Post by Coast2CoastHoya on Aug 3, 2007 16:12:11 GMT -5
Don't worry dude, I wasn't calling you out or calling you a skeptic. I was using the general "you." I appreciate your willingness to proffer your opinions and engage in some hearty discussion. You (this time "you" being hifi) said that you want hear more facts, study results, etc. Well, there's a lot out there. Start with the World Resources Institute at www.wri.org. It's a non-partisan group that's been doing research in this area for a long time, with some very eye-opening results (they showed me stuff I'd never even heard of). They talk science, sociology, econ, ecology, etc. Good stuff. I do have to argue with you about something fundamental. For one, there are many more than two "sides" to this issue. There are real shades of this discussion between and among political parties, economists, environmentalists, lawyers, scientists, statisticians, and diplomats. It's not just a back-and-forth debate; it's far more intricate and interdisciplinary than that everywhere except in the mainstream media and with political opportunists. One side can't "win" because it's all linked, and it involves us all. It's not like gun control, where if you don't like the outcome of the debate you can just move somewhere else. One can't move away from climate change because it's happening in different ways and degrees everywhere. For two, the "debate" about whether humans are causing increased rates of global warming - which is causing ecological change on a global scale (see below) - is substantively over. People can argue about the degree to which we're causing change, what the consequences of that change will be, and what we can or should do about it, but the basic facts are basic facts, and we can't "debate" them any more than we can "debate" the existence of gravity just because things can fly. The only place in the world that people are still debating whether global warming is occuring, etc., is in politically conservative American circles. Before the industrial revolution, human-induced ecological change was largely on a local or regional scale, but it did happen and we have evidence of its effects. Research shows us that civilizations have actually collapsed as a result of their failure to properly use (and not use) natural resources and how that affected the ecosystem upon which they depended. Examples may include the Mayans in North America and the Mycenaeans of the ancient Mediterranean. We also know that certain practices (agricultural, mechanical, etc.) have effects on micro- and local climates; you can even feel this every time you're near a flowing water fountain on a hot day, or if you've felt how it's warmer in a city than in the country on a wintry day. It's not nature that did that; it's human alteration of nature that does it. I (and others) get animated about one "side" or the "other" making "political" arguments about this because this is no more a question for political "sides" to decide than it is for them to decide whether it's bad to drink ocean water filled with sewage (like so many of my fellow surfers in SoCal do when they surf in the winter and the storm drains overflow). I agree fully that this should not be "politicized," in the sense that "global warming" becomes an issue for one party to exploit by believing in it and one party to exploit by not believing in it. It is so not that simple anymore; maybe 20 years ago it was but not in 2007. It really makes me frustrated when I see politicians - and I'm sorry but it's true: it's almost always Republicans - playing on the ignorance of their constituents in this area to curry votes and favor with false information and name-calling about "effects on the economy", "liberals," "hippies," and "radical environmentalists." These are nothing more than red herrings and straw men. On the other hand, I think it's absolutely within the functions and duties of Congress (for example) to tackle this issue, and applaud recent efforts by Senators from both parties for proposing various policy approaches. I'd really like to see the Republican party stop fooling around and come to the table on this one, because I think Republican values on fiscal responsibility, long-term strategic thinking, disciplined approaches to living, and a strong history of conservation actions (Roosevelt, Nixon, Bush I) have a major role to play. Democrats, on the other hand, need to incorporate their values on socio-economic and racial justice, health and welfare, shared benefits and responsibilities through government programs and tax incentives, recognition of society's complexities, and progressive thinking about environmental protection. Both parties need to stop using judgment-neutral terms (like "global warming") as pejoratives to attack the other. I think that's what you're speaking to as well, hifi. When I have more time (and my notes) I'll post what I learned at the EPA last week. And once again, apologies for the long post.
|
|
hifigator
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,387
|
Post by hifigator on Aug 3, 2007 16:35:14 GMT -5
It is too late on a Friday afternoon to go too deeply into this. So I will be concise. I have said that I think it is prudent and wise to act as if global warming as we define it today is happening and to explore ways to minimize how our actions are contributing. But that is not the same as saying blanketly that we are without a doubt creating this greenhouse effect through our callous actions. That is the difference. As we examine history we see sustained periods which indicate that temperatures were cooler than they are today. We also see sustained periods where temperatures were warmer than they are at this present time. That to me casts reasonable doubt to any conclusion that leaves no room for doubt that perhaps whatever temperature swings we are seeing are part of a cycle rather than the specific result of our actions. That being said, I still think it is wise and prudent to act as if we do know this. Does that make it clearer?
|
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on Aug 3, 2007 18:22:35 GMT -5
"For two, the "debate" about whether humans are causing increased rates of global warming - which is causing ecological change on a global scale (see below) - is substantively over."
I strongly disagree. It's not over. And, it's this attitude and the declaration by "believers" that a consensus exists that is getting in the way of reasonable discussion on the issue. It's the know-it-all attitude and references such as the Republicans are playing on the ignorance of their constituents contained in your post that especially grates on me. And your saying that those with an opposite view are now name-calling while you essentially do the same.
I think it is the height of egoism for man to believe he/she can significantly alter the temperature of the earth by its minute actions when compared to the monstrous heat source that is the sun.
You have a theory and it's only a theory yet you treat it as if it's a fact.
|
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on Aug 4, 2007 9:17:21 GMT -5
This will be the first of several posts (long) on why I do not believe man is causing any significant warming of the planet. This post will address my suspicion of scientists.
I am not a climatologist or related scientist but I have a degree in engineering and graduate study in engineering and math; and, I have led an organization of approximately 1,800 scientists, engineers and mathematicians.
I have also been around the block a few times and that experience gives me pause when considering what scientists have to say and what is proposed in response. I remember DDT being banned because of the danger to the environment and have seen some estimates that a million or more people have died from malaria capable of being controlled by DDT. I have seen an American supersonic transport program killed by environmentalists fearful of danger to the ozone layer yet have seen the Concorde fly for many years and American and foreign military aircraft routinely flying supersonic but, after the transport program was killed, the topic of supersonic flight disappeared. I have hear that acid rain will kill millions. I have heard that nuclear power plants pose large risks but have observed no domestic deaths from the reactors that have been operating for many years and have also observed that other countries are increasingly dependent on nuclear power; and nuclear-powered submarines and surface ships are commonplace. I have heard that drilling for oil in Alaska or off the coast of California or Florida is bad because of the danger of spillage or hurting Alaskan caribou while many of the same people insist on energy-independence; and, I have seen the few significant spillages disappear with time, thanks to man and natural forces.
I have heard of the dangers of smog, killer bees, snakehead fish, Asian (or other variety) flu that will kill millions, and killer red ants. And, of course, I've heard we are entering a new ice age. Furthermore, I've heard that 2006 was going to be a horrible year in this country for hurricanes and I've heard the same predictions for 2007.
Is there any wonder why I'm suspicious of what scientists say and what others propose in response to what they say?
|
|
|
Post by Coast2CoastHoya on Aug 4, 2007 10:12:53 GMT -5
Fair enough, and yes it does. I agree that it's prudent to act on the best available knowledge we have, with the understanding that there's a lot we don't yet know. It is too late on a Friday afternoon to go too deeply into this. So I will be concise. I have said that I think it is prudent and wise to act as if global warming as we define it today is happening and to explore ways to minimize how our actions are contributing. But that is not the same as saying blanketly that we are without a doubt creating this greenhouse effect through our callous actions. That is the difference. As we examine history we see sustained periods which indicate that temperatures were cooler than they are today. We also see sustained periods where temperatures were warmer than they are at this present time. That to me casts reasonable doubt to any conclusion that leaves no room for doubt that perhaps whatever temperature swings we are seeing are part of a cycle rather than the specific result of our actions. That being said, I still think it is wise and prudent to act as if we do know this. Does that make it clearer?
|
|
SirSaxa
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 747
|
Post by SirSaxa on Aug 4, 2007 16:01:54 GMT -5
Coast, thanks for your post and all the info. From your comments, it sounds like the EPA presentation was an eye-opener, even for you -- someone who is involved in the subject area and keeps up to date.
OF course, there will always be those who will be contrarians. Fortunately, most of the world now recognizes the facts and the critical implications. As far as the Republcans go, my guess is that once the current administration leaves office, the Republican party position will change significantly.
|
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on Aug 5, 2007 15:31:36 GMT -5
My second post on why I do not believe man is causing significant warming. My first post addressed my suspicions of scientists. This post addresses intimidation. What follows is based on anecdotal information only.
"There is a consensus". "The question of whether or not man is causing global warming is over". Just two of many such statements made on this board and in the community. In other words, "if you don't agree with me, shut up".
Scientists and others who espouse one of their proclamations on global warming doi not accept disagreement. If you try to get accepted at one of the universities or think tanks for the purpose of studying the subject and don' toe the line, forget it. If you make it into a university and take a position of opposition, yiour grades suffer.
If you try to get a grant to conduct research that smells of opposition, look elsewhere. I have one quote that says "Scientists who doubt the scope and cause of climate change have trouble getting funding and academic posts unless they conform to an 'alarmist scenario'...." If you try to join the faculty "not here" is the reply. If you want to work at an organization making grants, be a believer.
If you happen to produce a work that says global warming may not be caused by humans, you are chastised and referred to as "not reputable". You are seldom called upon to speak at symposia on in the media.
What I don't understand is, if "global warming" believers are so sure of their position, why do they make it so difficult for opposing views to be heard? Why do they basically tell us to shut up?
|
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on Aug 5, 2007 15:52:05 GMT -5
My third post on why I do not believe man is causing significant global warming. This post addresses temperature measurements and the conversion of those measurements into an "average earth temperature" or similar terminology.
Scientists measure temperature by devices I will lump under the term thermometers. How accurate are these thermometers? Have all of them been calibrated according to procedures of the National Institute of Standards and Technology or their international equivalents? How recently for the measurements taken? What is the error band around the measurements? +/- 2 degrees? +/- 1/2 degree? How about +/- 1/10 degree? And these error bands must be applied to all the thermometers used. If, for instance, we use 5,000 thermometers, what is the cumulative error band for the 5,000? Remember we are talking about temperature changes in fractions of a degree.
Where were the measurements made? Has there been any attempt to ensure measurements are made equitably between urban and rural areas? Is it air temperature? At what height and what assumptions were made to adjust for height? Or was it earth temperature and, if so, at what depth? What cloud cover existed and how is this accounted for? How about wind? What time of day (or night) were measurements made? Are measurements always made at the same time of day? Were all of these same conditions existing in older measurements? Conduct an experiment by taking the household thermometer outside and take measurements at various places in the yard, in shade and in sun, allowing time for the measurements to settle out. Then repeat it at a different time of day or night.
The majority of the earth surface is water. How do we take measurements over or under water? How about over or in ice? How accurate are these measurements?
How do scientists "average" their measurements? The total surface area of the earth (if my math is correct) is about 200,000,000 square miles. Again, using the 5,000 thermometer example would mean they are separated from one another by a distance on the order of 70 miles (assuming equal distribution of the thermometers, an unrealistic assumption). What assumptions were made as to how the temperature varied between the 70 miles? Linearly? Bi-linearly? Exponentially? Whatever. What is the error band resulting from the assumption, whatever it was?
Now let's add up the uncertainties in the measurement devices, where and how measurements are made, and how scientists average the measurements to obtain an "average earth temperature". And, I am to believe it when scientists tell me that the average temperature of the earth has risen by one half of a degree?
|
|
|
Post by ExcitableBoy on Aug 5, 2007 16:48:53 GMT -5
This will be the first of several posts (long) on why I do not believe man is causing any significant warming of the planet. This post will address my suspicion of scientists. I am not a climatologist or related scientist but I have a degree in engineering and graduate study in engineering and math; and, I have led an organization of approximately 1,800 scientists, engineers and mathematicians. I have also been around the block a few times and that experience gives me pause when considering what scientists have to say and what is proposed in response. I remember DDT being banned because of the danger to the environment and have seen some estimates that a million or more people have died from malaria capable of being controlled by DDT. I have seen an American supersonic transport program killed by environmentalists fearful of danger to the ozone layer yet have seen the Concorde fly for many years and American and foreign military aircraft routinely flying supersonic but, after the transport program was killed, the topic of supersonic flight disappeared. I have hear that acid rain will kill millions. I have heard that nuclear power plants pose large risks but have observed no domestic deaths from the reactors that have been operating for many years and have also observed that other countries are increasingly dependent on nuclear power; and nuclear-powered submarines and surface ships are commonplace. I have heard that drilling for oil in Alaska or off the coast of California or Florida is bad because of the danger of spillage or hurting Alaskan caribou while many of the same people insist on energy-independence; and, I have seen the few significant spillages disappear with time, thanks to man and natural forces. I have heard of the dangers of smog, killer bees, snakehead fish, Asian (or other variety) flu that will kill millions, and killer red ants. And, of course, I've heard we are entering a new ice age. Furthermore, I've heard that 2006 was going to be a horrible year in this country for hurricanes and I've heard the same predictions for 2007. Is there any wonder why I'm suspicious of what scientists say and what others propose in response to what they say? Actually, yes. There should be wonder. No domestic deaths from nuclear reactors? Fine. But how is that in any way a reflection on scientists with some sort of purported agenda? I shouldn't have to remind you how correct those same cook scientists were in the case that made you qualify your statement with the word "domestic." You've also heard the "dangers" of smog because they're real. I assume you do not live in Beijing or Mexico City or some other equally polluted city, where even the biggest science skeptic would recognize their persistent hacking cough that magically seems to go away when out of the city. I don't need science to tell me that I don't want to live my life in that type of environment. You also mention the “dangers” of the flu. Maybe you remember the Spanish flu in 1918/1919? Were the scientists wrong about that? Or does it not count because they're now talking about a different type of flu? Let me ask you: what was your initial, gut reaction when you first heard reports that the recent earthquake in Japan caused a leak of nuclear waste? Was it that since the scientists were wrong about domestic deaths, that the waste probably wasn't all that dangerous? Or was it "gee, I hope it's not too serious"? If you had any of the latter, I would seriously hope you could at least recognize this irony. What you lambaste scientists for doing (studying theoreticals, often ad nausea, to know how they will affect us and our environment), you do so because there simply haven't been chances for you to need their expertise. (Also, supersonic air travel failed commercially, and there was a fairly large oil spill just this past year. I'm not sure how either of these reflect poorly on scientists.) I’m not trying to say that scientists get it right all of the time. Indeed, skepticism is a very healthy trait. But what I simply do not understand is how you can dismiss a profession because you’ve been warned of a potential danger that you personally have not witnessed.
|
|