This is Sanity Chk's Typepad Profile.
Join Typepad and start following Sanity Chk's activity
Join Now!
Already a member? Sign In
Sanity Chk
Recent Activity
Goracle: No surprise about your rehashed misinformed drivel. The science is settled when there is 97% concurrence among those qualified to study it.
matt: That doesn't say it all. While research funded by BP should raise concerns about skewed results, these researchers have their careers on the line. Should independent teams find significantly differing results, only then would it be fair to make a claim about the BP funded findings.
Toyota should allow customers to download any sound tone desired (e.g. Jetsonmobile, Hummer, dragster, Model T, Harrier . . .).
critta: Goracle and a.b. are certifiable nut cases. Nothing intelligent to say. They babble and rant unencumbered by the facts or the thought process. Don't waste your time replying to their nattering, idiotic posts.
I don't get it either. At 50kph, the POP is no more than comic book looking neighborhood electric vehicle (NEV). NEVs have been around for quite some time and I see no real market for them short of gated communities. Harvey, I'm not sure where you found the 50Kph top speed but there might be a market for a commuter that could go 80-100kph. The Pokemon-esque styling of the POP is a little bizarre though.
Henry, The sun can produce heat far cheaper than nuclear power and it can be easily concentrated with Fresnel lenses or parabolic reflectors. Heat can be easily stored for use on cloudy days. Solar and other renewable power generation is already cheaper than nuclear when you add up all the costs. Further, these alternative power gen options support a move away from massive centralized plants that tax our grid and increase its vulnerability, to distributed power generation. There is nothing cheap about fission power and it creates massive problems - technical and political - throughout a plant's life cycle.
ai_vin: You're right, Goracle is indeed a caricature. No matter what the truth about AGW, he will twist it for game or profit in the most inane manner. Roger: I wholeheartedly concur with your assertion that acting to halt/reverse AGW through renewable energy technology is a win-win course of action. This should be readily apparent to any thinking person. I couldn't resist adding this last tidbit of data on our warming world: Surface temperature is only a small fraction of our climate with most of global warming going into the oceans. When all the heat accumulating in the oceans, warming the land and atmosphere and melting ice is tallied up, we see that global warming is still happening.Figure 3: Change in total Earth heat content from 1950 (Murphy 2009).
Goracle: Your reply is a classic example of deliberately cherry-picking statements from reputable scientists to try to misinform people. You have indeed proven yourself to be a knave who twists the truth in an attempt to trap some fools. Shameful and dishonorable!
Roger: Thank you for hitting the nail on the head. We all have to work toward solving this problem, and pronto. It's like our government is in a big row boat and those on the left side of the boat wanting to solve the problems we face are pulling for all they're worth while those on the right in the pockets of the fossil fuel interests are pushing on their oars. The party of NO are not showing an iota of leadership. They're like Nero fiddling while Rome burns.
Gee Goracle, did you bother to read the rest of the interview? Do you even understand the implication of his statistical comment? Here's BBC's next question to Jones and his answer: BBC: How confident are you that warming has taken place and that humans are mainly responsible? Phil Jones: I'm 100% confident that the climate has warmed. As to the second question, I would go along with IPCC Chapter 9 - there's evidence that most of the warming since the 1950s is due to human activity. The author then proceeds to explain Dr. Jones' reference to "statistically significant" as follows: Phil Jones is saying there is a warming trend but it's not statistically significant. He's not talking about whether warming is actually happening. He's discussing our ability to detect that warming trend in a noisy signal over a short period. To demonstrate this, look at the HadCRUT temperature record from 1995 to 2009 (http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/HadCRUT_1995_2009.gif). The linear trend is that of warming. However, the temperature record is very noisy with lots of short term variability. The noisy signal means that over a short period, the uncertainty of the warming trend is almost as large as the actual trend. Hence it's considered statistically insignificant. Over longer time periods, the uncertainty is less and the trend is more statistically significant. If you read a little further you might learn something. But wait . . . that is antithetical to your objective. Get real guy. Stop being part of the problem!
Exxon gave $1.5M to climate denier groups last year (http://www.treehugger.com/files/2010/07/exxon-gave-1-5-million-climate-denier-groups-2009.php). It wouldn't surprise me to learn that Goracle draws a paycheck from that pool. It's a tiresome, thankless job but someone has to clean up the effluence he and his fellow deniers spew . . .
So Goracle, why don't you read what Phil Jones actually said? Here, I'll make it convenient for you: http://www.skepticalscience.com/Phil-Jones-says-no-global-warming-since-1995.htm It's time to stop listening to (or being one of) the knaves who twist the truth to make a trap for fools.
Ok Crazed Poodle breath, cough up your revered Phil Jones' basis for making his stand against the scientific community's overwhelming consensus to the contrary.
I drove a Roadster and I'm smitten . . .
They had such a delightful time crushing EV-1s that I think their secret plan is to do it again. Is GM suing someone somewhere for trying to mandate ZEVs? I'm sure Bob Lutz is working somewhere behind the scenes on this. . .
"if the engine has not been run for a long time (i.e., weeks), the Volt may briefly fire up the engine during driving to lubricate the engine parts and burn off some of the fuel" Can someone please explain why the volt needs to burn off some of the fuel if the batteries do not need to be charged? If there is a need to circulate the oil then the engine could be electrically cranked without actually starting it.
Methanol or ethanol may be ok for the long distance traveler as an interim step on the way toward 15 minute rechargeable battery packs. Personally, I would love nothing more than to be able to recharge my EV at home and never pay a visit to a gas station again.
Hello! Do you have a Tesla Roadster in available in red? This is a great way to introduce people to the joys of electric cars - as long as access to charge points is convenient.
ai_vin: This is exactly what I was talking about. None of the companies drilling in the gulf have a viable plan with the compliment of equipment needed to quickly stop a similar leak when the next one occurs. The other big problem is the whole issue of chemical dispersants. At the end of the day, it may prove to have worsened the environmental impact in many ways.
ai_vin: Suffice it to say that being a fossil company mouthpiece seems to be synonymous with "hard-nosed right-winger." As a trolling troglodyte, Goracle never misses an opportunity to harangue the POTUS, all climate change researchers and their findings, Al Gore, and anyone else trying to do something about the consequences of unabated industrial and transportation CO2 spewage - regardless of the veracity of the content of their message.
ai_vin: wrt Reel$$, I might be inclined to agree were it not for previous Reel$$ posts such as: "OMG yawn... No one buys this climate BS anymore." and "Hold it... Is that?? Yes. It's the sound of crickets coming from the alarmist bunker. " and a host of others making it painfully clear that he labors on unencumbered by the facts and their implications - clearly in the same camp as Aaron Turpin.
The fact that this well was already drilled at the onset of the BP disaster means that it was likely excluded from the deep-water drilling suspension order. How do we know that this well was not drilled and capped with with the same inattention to safety measures that BP used? We need to get a handle on safety oversight so that more BP-like disasters do not reoccur. Further, we must make sure that we have what it takes (plans & equipment) to stop such a spewing spill within hours or days should one ever happen again.
Aaron: To spout unfounded assertions and state conclusions based on them makes you sound like a hack. Your unrelenting unsupported diatribe is the only propaganda here. Get real guy. Start by reading some of the actual research that you are so quick to dismiss. Stop being part of the problem.
Reel$$ == "broken record" If you don't get it and never will, then stop trying.
Stan: Pseudo-science? On what credible basis are you making such a statement? Yes, Nature is highly resilient but that doesn't mean that it can't be seriously imbalanced or broken by relentless pollution (oil in the Gulf, ever increasing CO2 in the air, etc.). There is a limit to the ability of every natural system to cope with adversity and we are pushing the boundaries of many of them. Climategate? Are you serious? This stupid diversion has been well shown as baseless. Don't you read anything other than denier drivel? Get real guy! Stop being part of the problem.