Global Warming is over.

[rwh11385]

Until I get a new house and invest in solar panels, I pay for green electricity from local wind farms, and recycle, reduce waste, compost, grow my own veggies, etc. I would really like to drive and try out the ELR when it is released. Plus like others I am involved in the pursuit of more efficient tech to help reduce human impact. But regardless your point or argument wouldn't mean anything - our actions do not change science - it is just a matter of if man is ignorant or informed about nature.

The Earth revolved around the sun completely regardless of how man thought otherwise. However, we were able to make much more sense of our world and understand seasons better when we behave informed of the truth. Reality will remain true whether or not we accept it. The decision is whether to pursue understanding and facts, or to pretend it bends in the best interest of profits. Acid rain did not stop because we didn't acknowledge it and did nothing about it.

[herbivor]

stop talking and do something about it. Change yourself first. All you guys do is sit here and talk talk talk trying to prove something. Why don't you do something about it, list all that you've done pls

Ok. I moved to the city within walking distance to work. I also became vegetarian, which is about the equivalent energy savings to going from driving a Hummer to a Prius. But none of that really matters, even if everyone did those things, until we change the our fundemental infrastructure and economic structure and develop a completely new way of living.

[Cliche Guevara]

Deniers, read this: http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...o-conservative

[nando]

stop talking and do something about it. Change yourself first. All you guys do is sit here and talk talk talk trying to prove something. Why don't you do something about it, list all that you've done pls

how would you know what I do with my personal life? how would you have any idea of what sort of changes I may or may not have made already?

you're right, it's better to bury your head ind the sand and pretend nothing is happening. *LALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALA* EVERYTHING IS OKAY *LALALALALALALALALALALALA*

;)

[herbivor]

I just read that "the permafrost traps 1600 billion tons of carbon. 100 billion times could be released this century mostly in the form of methane which would have a warming affect equivalent to 270 years of carbon dioxide emissions at current levels. It's as if we conjured up out of nowhere a second human population that's capable of burning coal and oil and gas nearly as fast as we do. " So even if we cease to exist altogether the motions of warming feedback loops are in place. We live on a new planet.

[z31maniac]

stop talking and do something about it. Change yourself first. All you guys do is sit here and talk talk talk trying to prove something. Why don't you do something about it, list all that you've done pls

I'm doing something about it.

I bought a 3600lb car that burns premium and makes 420hp.

Fuck winter.

[Fusion]

And Herb's all tingly about the BRZ STI.
So yes, this thread is mostly full of hypocritical rants, regardless of Heeter's tomatoes (I have my doubts).

Kyoto's dead, Obama gives zero shits, EU is a fraudulant cap/trade business.

I'm just looking forward to see what's hidden under Antarctica's ice. We have maps of Antarctica's "naked" land that are older than the official "discovery" by Cook.

[gwb72tii]

I'm doing something about it.

I bought a 3600lb car that burns premium and makes 420hp.

Fuck winter.

you made me laugh

[rwh11385]

And Herb's all tingly about the BRZ STI.
So yes, this thread is mostly full of hypocritical rants, regardless of Heeter's tomatoes (I have my doubts).

Kyoto's dead, Obama gives zero shits, EU is a fraudulant cap/trade business.

I'm just looking forward to see what's hidden under Antarctica's ice. We have maps of Antarctica's "naked" land that are older than the official "discovery" by Cook.

It's easy to doubt what you are ignorant of, which for you is pretty much everything.









And that's the problem, your argument is based on ignorance and attacking science, and that's it. You attack with Guilt by association (like with Al Gore), but fundamentally are helpless outside of fallacies like appeal to consequences.

And technology is the answer for having fun and reducing impact, so get over your whole ignorance and hatred of science. Buddy's Mustang gets better mpg's (combined) than a 325is and has higher highway mileage than a 318is. The BRZ has better fuel economy and higher power than the 318is or 325is. But without reason for wanting better fuel economy (rising fuel prices, and environmental influence), we wouldn't have a lot of the tech we have now.

http://fastlane.gmblogs.com/2012/10/25/new-small-block-corvette-lt1-engine-brings-big-gains-in-performance-and-fuel-economy/

brand new Gen 5 engine – one of the most technically advanced engines in the world and the most significant redesign of the Small Block ever. It will have the highest base horsepower and torque, as well as the greatest efficiency, of any Corvette in its 60-year history.

In addition to the LT1’s innovative advanced combustion system, some additional features that play into the impressive performance and fuel economy are:
Active Fuel Management
Continuously variable valve timing

http://www.autoblog.com/2012/10/24/meet-the-lt1-the-corvette-c7s-new-6-2-liter-small-block-v8/

GM is calling the LT1 its most advanced combustion system ever. The company analyzed literally hundreds of systems to get to this final product, including crunching over 6 million hours of CPU time dedicated to combustion system optimization, and nearly 10 million hours when combustion, structure, cooling systems, lubrication and vent systems are factored in. In fact, the motor and its systems are so advanced that an academic SAE paper is being written to explain the whole shebang

Engine technology and simulation ability has grown substantially, which will lead to more awesome products that reduce carbon footprint while not missing out on performance or fun. (Porsche 918 anyone? No screw that, it's for hippies, right?)

You can't pool everyone who doesn't believe in denialism with Al Gore and hypocritical huge house with electricity bills out of the ass. That's ignorant and weak. Some people support research and tech, donate towards it, aware of human's impacts on the world, and want to move towards better solutions. Some people even work directly in the investigation of new technologies to improve these things.

And no, it's not:

I'm not an engineer, but I can't believe that there's no way to reduce fuel consumption in current engines to 50%. If I had all the money that was spent on hybrid dead-ends, I'm pretty sure I'd come up with something.

So the real question is what are you doing to improve the world? All I see is that you are detracting from people wanting to support innovation and science to understand our influence on the planet and also technology that can help us live and prosper with reduced impact. What do you do besides doubt what you are ignorant on, and raiding junkyards and cutting vinyl? Why attack science? Why attack people pursuing answers instead of assuming something doesn't exist?

[Fusion]

Once again you do not fail to entertain. :up:

The straw man fallacy occurs in the following pattern of argument:
1. Person 1 has position X.
*currently regarding the obviously hypocritical/egoistic writing between the lines

2. Person 2 disregards certain key points of X and instead presents the superficially similar position Y. The position Y is a distorted version of X and can be set up in several ways, including:

1. Presenting a misrepresentation of the opponent's position.

All I see is that you are detracting from people wanting to support innovation and science to understand our influence on the planet and also technology that can help us live and prosper with reduced impact.

2. Quoting an opponent's words out of context — i.e. choosing quotations that misrepresent the opponent's actual intentions (see fallacy of quoting out of context).[4]

Originally Posted by Fusion
I'm not an engineer, but I can't believe that there's no way to reduce fuel consumption in current engines to 50%. If I had all the money that was spent on hybrid dead-ends, I'm pretty sure I'd come up with something.

3. Presenting someone who defends a position poorly as the defender, then refuting that person's arguments — thus giving the appearance that every upholder of that position (and thus the position itself) has been defeated.[3]

4. Inventing a fictitious persona with actions or beliefs which are then criticized, implying that the person represents a group of whom the speaker is critical.

belief in denialism

5. Oversimplifying an opponent's argument, then attacking this oversimplified version.
Person 2 attacks position Y, concluding that X is false/incorrect/flawed.

This reasoning is fallacious because attacking a distorted version of a position does not address the actual position.

You can't pool everyone who doesn't believe in denialism with Al Gore and hypocritical huge house with electricity bills out of the ass. That's ignorant and weak. Some people support research and tech, donate towards it, aware of human's impacts on the world, and want to move towards better solutions. Some people even work directly in the investigation of new technologies to improve these things.

It's easy to doubt what you are ignorant of, which for you is pretty much everything.

How can I detract someone from supporting innovation? This is a car forum for an 80's model BMW. Not a scientific discussion expected to have results or consequences. 99.9% of everything written here, pro or con any position, will have zero impact on anything. Your whole effort to keep presenting your narcistic ego is laughable and has nothing to do with any science. If it did, you'd be doing something more creative with your time spent arguing here. Instead, you present a couple pounds of vegetables as your contribution to the environment? I love home grown products, don't get me wrong, but I never thought they'd make me laugh like I am now.

[rwh11385]

Once again you do not fail to entertain. :up:

The straw man fallacy occurs in the following pattern of argument:
1. Person 1 has position X.
*currently regarding the obviously hypocritical/egoistic writing between the lines

2. Person 2 disregards certain key points of X and instead presents the superficially similar position Y. The position Y is a distorted version of X and can be set up in several ways, including:

1. Presenting a misrepresentation of the opponent's position.


2. Quoting an opponent's words out of context — i.e. choosing quotations that misrepresent the opponent's actual intentions (see fallacy of quoting out of context).[4]



3. Presenting someone who defends a position poorly as the defender, then refuting that person's arguments — thus giving the appearance that every upholder of that position (and thus the position itself) has been defeated.[3]

4. Inventing a fictitious persona with actions or beliefs which are then criticized, implying that the person represents a group of whom the speaker is critical.



5. Oversimplifying an opponent's argument, then attacking this oversimplified version.
Person 2 attacks position Y, concluding that X is false/incorrect/flawed.

This reasoning is fallacious because attacking a distorted version of a position does not address the actual position.





How can I detract someone from supporting innovation? This is a car forum for an 80's model BMW. Not a scientific discussion expected to have results or consequences. 99.9% of everything written here, pro or con any position, will have zero impact on anything. Your whole effort to keep presenting your narcistic ego is laughable and has nothing to do with any science. If it did, you'd be doing something more creative with your time spent arguing here. Instead, you present a couple pounds of vegetables as your contribution to the environment? I love home grown products, don't get me wrong, but I never thought they'd make me laugh like I am now.

Well Pavel, you certainly have attempted to make an argument from the fallacy fallacy, but have yet to actually show that your comments aren't attacks based in ignorance. But let's actually see if I committed the strawman fallacy, or if you are just avoiding that you made poor claims in actuality.

a) Did you doubt my ability to garden veggies based in ignorance?
b) Did you try to claim that herb wanting a BRZ was hypocritical because he says he thinks that humans have an impact on climate change?
c) Is this the first time that you have made arguments based on your ignorance of a subject?

For these, did I respond to those and discuss them? Or did I twist them in an untrue manner? I responded to them and tried to pursue why you operate in such a way, which you have so graciously explained in your own post - simply, you assume that everyone else must be as uneducated as you. Everyone who has a clue wouldn't be on an E30 board, so therefore everyone is as equally clueless about subjects that matter as you. This is similar to gwb's posts that claim because no one (besides maybe Q5) is an expert, everyone is an equal idiot. And his assumption that because he is a FA then no one else could possibly understand the economy like he does.

Your proof of hypocrisy is that herbivor is attracted to the BRZ as well as the Model S, so what? The BRZ isn't fuel efficient? No. If herb was aware of global warming that would require him to buy the Model S only? No. You don't have an argument, all you have is hatred of AGW, period.

Where do you support science or facts? You attack statistics because of your absolute ignorance of it. You claim that manned space is deaded, yet fail to actually read and follow it. You claim that our current engines can improve their efficiencies beyond their theoretical limits to try and argue that hybrids are stupid. You attack the science and research about global warming because you don't like the impact of the costs to be green.

We're talking about cars and being green, how is the efficiency of the engine/car not the subject and your past claims about such not relevant?

How are you not in the denial camp? You want to disregard science because you don't like the potential consequences of action. And likewise, you attack everyone who follows science as the same as Al Gore.

Just because this is a forum for 80s BMWs, does that mean that everyone must be completely ignorant of science and innovation? Does that require that everyone be unaware of facts or reality? Why even have discussion about new products or science in the P&R forum if you assume that everyone has to be incompetent about it? Based on your reasoning, you expect everyone else who is a on forum about 80s BMWs to be as unaware or poorly read as you, which ignores the fact that many are engineers and do have knowledge and experience in modern technology. Your assumption is flawed that someone who cares about science in a thread couldn't also have something to do with it outside the forum. But ignorance is your forte. Are you saying that Q5 must not have anything positive to do with his time in regards to this subject since he defends the subject from ignorant comments from the likes of you? That's pretty dumb - as people who are pursuing solution and innovation have reason to defend their work from people who are clueless about it but hate on it because anti-science pundits want the sheep to.

Those were more than "a couple of pounds". The tomatoes needed to be picked every couple of days about that much each year, I ate two ears of corn every day for a couple of weeks, and the largest pumpkin was 66 pounds alone. But the point was that you doubted my claims yet have no clue, just like in this and other threads. Why do you think that your opinion must be true about something you know little about? Is your ego that vast that you don't think anyone else can know more than you? You've certainly tried to make that claim about the forum, that just because it's an old car that no one is capable of a scientific discussion. The flaw in your assumption is to think that everyone must be as uninformed as you are.

[Fusion]

I may be sceptical about some concrete points of science, and the way they are used/misused, but in no way does that make me anti-science, nor am I disregarding science as a whole.
Likewise, I'm very interested in innovations. Some time ago, someone posted a video from a "green" conference, where the presenter showed foils with the abitlity to absorb/transfer sunlight into electricity. Aside from the presenter sounding like a bloated ass Steve Jobs wannabe, the technology was amazing. The only problem with that tech, and most of todays innovations, is that profit (and the money machine as a whole) always gets in the way of them becoming every-day items that anyone can easily afford, thus slowing down technological progress.

Tech like that, or even efficient engines are not something we should be aiming to own because of an AGW theory. They should make so much sense, that people will willingly phase out unneeded, inefficent items.
How many people would buy solar panels if their cost was 1/20th of todays usual price?
Who wouldn't want efficent, sustainable, free energy if it was cheap?

[rwh11385]

I may be sceptical about some concrete points of science, and the way they are used/misused, but in no way does that make me anti-science, nor am I disregarding science as a whole.
Likewise, I'm very interested in innovations. Some time ago, someone posted a video from a "green" conference, where the presenter showed foils with the abitlity to absorb/transfer sunlight into electricity. Aside from the presenter sounding like a bloated ass Steve Jobs wannabe, the technology was amazing. The only problem with that tech, and most of todays innovations, is that profit (and the money machine as a whole) always gets in the way of them becoming every-day items that anyone can easily afford, thus slowing down technological progress.

Tech like that, or even efficient engines are not something we should be aiming to own because of an AGW theory. They should make so much sense, that people will willingly phase out unneeded, inefficent items.
How many people would buy solar panels if their cost was 1/20th of todays usual price?
Who wouldn't want efficent, sustainable, free energy if it was cheap?

The problem is when you start hating on technology because it is associated with being green. Many companies research efficiency in the path of being green but most wouldn't do so if there wasn't financial benefit as well. Semi tails and underbellies may help the environment but they are also a significant reduction in fuel cost (and payback period is very short). Should we hate on piezoelectric panels if they are sold as a way to reduce carbon footprint, regardless of if they are sweet period? No. What the anti-GW people need to get over is that technology and science is good and can benefit the world with cool products and good performance, as well as reducing environmental impact. As mentioned somewhere, Corvallis's alma mater has ties to a plant that turns ocean plastic waste into fuel. Green and awesome. Porsche 918? Awesome. The problem is when people dislike something or want to stop research because they associate negative feelings towards one of the reasons for it, namely climate change.

What if solar panels was 1/20th of what they cost in 1980?




Oh wait, they are. The companies have a hard time keeping up with the advances in technology, which is why the manufacturers are challenged but Solar City can do well.

That's a good question. Apparently extreme conservatives don't want sustainable free energy because they constantly attack it. (maybe has something to do with who lobbies them or supports their campaigns? just a thought) Or they are stuck in the costs now instead of looking ahead into the future, or change their argument to payback period... what will they say when it is cheap and efficient and solely arguing based on financial backing? Oh wait - plenty of those companies are exploring new technologies as well and not assuming their fossil resources will carry them indefinitely, yet citizens should believe this? http://www.businessweek.com/articles...ig-in-biofuels It might be a small % of income but still they are looking ahead.

Who doesn't want fuel produced from CO2 and sunlight? The problem is when government tries to legislate innovation (switchgrass or algae ethanol). But Joule Unlimited or Sandia hopefully will make it happen.


But I forgot, are we allowed to talk about technology or innovation? I thought you said this was an 80s BMWs forum, so therefore such is a stupid place for such a discussion.

[Fusion]

So than you agree that money (in the form of corruption, investment payback etc.) is the largest burden to innovation and the application of tech?

[rwh11385]

So than you agree that money (in the form of corruption, investment payback etc.) is the largest burden to innovation and the application of tech?

People ignorantly hating on science and tech is the largest burden to innovation.

Funding for research is the key to innovation. People in these things call universities pursue innovation with little consideration for real payback periods, for the most part. Companies fund research based on future payback and needs. And the government didn't fund the Manhattan Project because of financial payback either. The DOD and DARPA are pursing a lot of efficiency tech to reduce fatalities because fuel supply caravans are vulnerable to attack. NOAA is spending to understand climate, not to have a payback - although accurate forecasting of Sandy helped prevent deaths.

The largest flaw is to assume that right now is the best it will get (like gwb does). The price of solar PVs have dropped according to Moore's Law. Commercial facilities like warehouses and manufacturing plants have invested in them since payback isn't the same for companies with long-term operation foresight.