we can get a lot of the VW and Audi diesels in the states.
I was close getting a diesel Jetta. I have some issues with VW, though. (Overpriced and incredibly expensive to repair being the two major issues.) I've driven an Audi diesel in Europe and absolutely loved it.
Car Geek Out: There's a top gear episode (highly recommend it) for the Audi A8 diesel where they try to see if they can drive 800 miles on one tank of gas. I won't tell you want happens but their challenges aren't always predictable. Part 1 on youtube Part 2 on youtube
Car Geek Out: There's a top gear episode (highly recommend it) for the Audi A8 diesel where they try to see if they can drive 800 miles on one tank of gas. I won't tell you want happens but their challenges aren't always predictable. Part 1 on youtube Part 2 on youtube
I've seen that episode. I still think they fudged it a little.
I used to own a 94 GEO Metro 5-Spd. That thing could get upwards of 50 MPG. I never should have sold that car! The car also lacked all luxuries. No A/C, no power anything (that includes steering). It was cheap to own and without all the added items it was also cheap to maintain.
So, who made out better? The guy who bought the $6K GEO Metro or the guy buying the $25K Prius?
A guy I used to work with had one of those electric cars, Impact or something? Right before he sold it he was looking at a couple thousand dollars to replace the batteries.
I don't think a single person argued that getting the Prius for financial reasons was a sound idea.
There was a statement that "spending less energy means spending less money." The Prius was an illustration of how this is often not the case. Sheesh. Are we not allowed to use illustrative examples anymore?
If it helps at all, one of these is absolute garbage, while the other is FUD and Post hoc ergo propter hoc
I've seen both and neither convince me.
Bottom line: We don't know for sure if CO2 is actually causing global warming. What we do know is that releasing crap into our atmosphere is a bad thing regardless.
Global warming exists. Even longer then humankind. Global warming = average temperature rising. This has happened several times in Earth's history. As for greenhouse gasses. How do you think the temperature doesn't drop to -40 degrees Celsius at night? CO2 and other 'Greenhouse' gasses are natural, that way not all the warmth that the earth sends out goes out into space, and thus Earth becomes a livable planet for macro organism.
My biology teacher last year showed us, the class, Al Gore's movie. And that we had to look critically at it. He then told that CO2 isn't the only side of the story and that we should be just as worried about methane gas in the earth, for if that escapes it has far greater effects on our ozone layer.
Either way, be smart about energy, if you can drive 10 miles longer on your gastank because you're driving 'green', then that saves you money, if you put energy saving light bulbs in all your lights you'll get the benefits of less energy usage (only looking at light) in about a year.
I have to wonder if the reason we see the mini cold area in the 90's and not anywhere else is because we have better records than in the past. If we had awesome records for every year in history the whole chart would likely be full of jagged ups and downs in each large up and down cycle.
The fact that the graph dates both the "Hebrew Exodus", which has no evidence of ever occurring, and "Christ's Birth" makes me dubious. I wouldn't trust that chart at all.
The fact that the graph dates both the "Hebrew Exodus", which has no evidence of ever occurring, and "Christ's Birth" makes me dubious. I wouldn't trust that chart at all.
Those were probably put there as historic notes only to give people a point of reference other than just dates. As long as some people don't think the Roman Empire existed after the Feudal era in Europe those notes should help them with the context of the chart.
The fact that the graph dates both the "Hebrew Exodus", which has no evidence of ever occurring, and "Christ's Birth" makes me dubious. I wouldn't trust that chart at all.
Further the fact that they never state that anything before 1856 is based on writings of the day and guesses, meaning the only credible evidence is in that last 151 years, which as we can plainly see has a general upwards motion. Further there is no real debate, as many of the "scientists" haven't had a paper peer reviewed in years on the subject, making them about as credible a source of information as your run of the mill retarded parakeet.
The fact that the graph dates both the "Hebrew Exodus", which has no evidence of ever occurring, and "Christ's Birth" makes me dubious. I wouldn't trust that chart at all.
Those were probably put there as historic notes only to give people a point of reference other than just dates. As long as some people don't think the Roman Empire existed after the Feudal era in Europe those notes should help them with the context of the chart.
The problem isn't that they put unrelated events on the timeline to give a sense of historical context. The problem is that they put events that did not happen. There was no Jewish exodus from Egypt. I wouldn't be surprised if the people who made that chart are creationist nutjobs.
The problem isn't that they put unrelated events on the timeline to give a sense of historical context. The problem is that they put events that did not happen. There was no Jewish exodus from Egypt. I wouldn't be surprised if the people who made that chart are creationist nutjobs.
Given that, would you use that chart to shut up people who are overreacting about the whole Global Warming topic?
Well, I always thought global warming existed. However, my fear increased during my last trip to Peru. It is how down there, even hotter than what I remembered. Also during my last trip to the highlands I barely saw any icebergs at all. I mean the Andes used to have a bunch of them but now they are all gone
Last week marked the 20th anniversary of the mass hysteria phenomenon known as global warming. Much of the science has since been discredited. Now it's time for political scientists, theologians and psychiatrists to weigh in.
What, discredited? Thousands of scientists insist otherwise, none more noisily than NASA's Jim Hansen, who first banged the gong with his June 23, 1988, congressional testimony (delivered with all the modesty of "99% confidence").
But mother nature has opinions of her own. NASA now begrudgingly confirms that the hottest year on record in the continental 48 was not 1998, as previously believed, but 1934, and that six of the 10 hottest years since 1880 antedate 1954. Data from 3,000 scientific robots in the world's oceans show there has been slight cooling in the past five years, never mind that "80% to 90% of global warming involves heating up ocean waters," according to a report by NPR's Richard Harris.
The Arctic ice cap may be thinning, but the extent of Antarctic sea ice has been expanding for years. At least as of February, last winter was the Northern Hemisphere's coldest in decades. In May, German climate modelers reported in the journal Nature that global warming is due for a decade-long vacation. But be not not-afraid, added the modelers: The inexorable march to apocalypse resumes in 2020.
This last item is, of course, a forecast, not an empirical observation. But it raises a useful question: If even slight global cooling remains evidence of global warming, what isn't evidence of global warming? What we have here is a nonfalsifiable hypothesis, logically indistinguishable from claims for the existence of God. This doesn't mean God doesn't exist, or that global warming isn't happening. It does mean it isn't science.
So let's stop fussing about the interpretation of ice core samples from the South Pole and temperature readings in the troposphere. The real place where discussions of global warming belong is in the realm of belief, and particularly the motives for belief. I see three mutually compatible explanations.
...
Finally, there is a psychological explanation. Listen carefully to the global warming alarmists, and the main theme that emerges is that what the developed world needs is a large dose of penance. What's remarkable is the extent to which penance sells among a mostly secular audience. What is there to be penitent about?
As it turns out, a lot, at least if you're inclined to believe that our successes are undeserved and that prosperity is morally suspect. In this view, global warming is nature's great comeuppance, affirming as nothing else our guilty conscience for our worldly success.
Imagine if there were no reliable records of global surface temperature. Raucous policy debates such as cap-and-trade would have no scientific basis, Al Gore would at this point be little more than a historical footnote, and President Obama would not be spending this U.N. session talking up a (likely unattainable) international climate deal in Copenhagen in December.
Steel yourself for the new reality, because the data needed to verify the gloom-and-doom warming forecasts have disappeared.
Or so it seems. Apparently, they were either lost or purged from some discarded computer. Only a very few people know what really happened, and they arenÂ’t talking much. And what little they are saying makes no sense.
Okay, not to derail this thread, but this just turned my night upside down. I actually thought that was legit, but the more I read about it, the more it turns out to be complete bollocks. Apparently this is what I get for trusting the bible, even in a non-religious context.
Okay, not to derail this thread, but this just turned my night upside down. I actually thought that was legit, but the more I read about it, the more it turns out to be complete bollocks. Apparently this is what I get for trusting the bible, even in a non-religious context.
Yeah, when I first found out about this too it just about knocked me out.
An interesting side note is that they recently started transcribing captain Cooksship logs.
Do we have any information on the calibration techniques used at the time? While the information is useful I would hesitate to include it in a scientific study.
Comments
Part 1 on youtube
Part 2 on youtube
So, who made out better? The guy who bought the $6K GEO Metro or the guy buying the $25K Prius?
A guy I used to work with had one of those electric cars, Impact or something? Right before he sold it he was looking at a couple thousand dollars to replace the batteries.
I'm not sure who's this illusionary person you're proving your point to...
We can do what we can, like recycle and carpool, but if it's too late, at least we'll be prepared for what's to come.
it is over simplified but its other videos are a little more complex.
It is was an interesting watch.
Bottom line: We don't know for sure if CO2 is actually causing global warming. What we do know is that releasing crap into our atmosphere is a bad thing regardless.
[Edit] Semi-obligatory:
My biology teacher last year showed us, the class, Al Gore's movie. And that we had to look critically at it. He then told that CO2 isn't the only side of the story and that we should be just as worried about methane gas in the earth, for if that escapes it has far greater effects on our ozone layer.
Either way, be smart about energy, if you can drive 10 miles longer on your gastank because you're driving 'green', then that saves you money, if you put energy saving light bulbs in all your lights you'll get the benefits of less energy usage (only looking at light) in about a year.
I have to wonder if the reason we see the mini cold area in the 90's and not anywhere else is because we have better records than in the past. If we had awesome records for every year in history the whole chart would likely be full of jagged ups and downs in each large up and down cycle.
We have plenty of time left.
On the other hand: Good news everyone! You can sue for Global Warming!