Offer a 4CV diesel and I might buy one
Japan’s Nissan Motor Corp and France’s Renault will wait to see the market’s preference between hybrid and diesel cars before deciding which to pursue, the automakers’ chief Carlos Ghosn said Wednesday.
The head of the two auto giants said Renault and Nissan were working with both hybrid and diesel technology but will produce cars according to consumer demand. “When the market will shift, we will follow.”
Ghosn hailed the coming new clean diesel technology, saying it “is extremely performant, not only in terms of fuel efficiency but also in terms of emissions. Nissan said in April it would sell its first clean diesel cars in the United States within three years.
Phew! Don’t know if I can stand such a torrid pace. At least they admitted that they are followers not leaders. It’s good to be honest with yourself.
33—Once again we agree. Now, being completely calm==is there any reason that the referenced chart is not completely dispositive???
Good one on the exhale!
#22 – Stars and Bars,
I watched that for 9 minutes and 40 seconds of my life that I will never get back. The only thing it had to say was that in the early 70s they predicted global cooling. It took him 9 minutes and 20 seconds to get around to saying that and he never contradicted a single point about global warming. Yeah. Open mind. Open to having valuable time wasted.
What happened to global cooling? Catalytic converters happened. We listened to the scientists and took action to reduce particulate pollution. It’s why you see blue sky today. They don’t have blue sky in China. So, we took action and solved the problem. The cooling was caused by global dimming due to particulate air pollution.
Since you couldn’t find a single peer reviewed article in English, I’ll have to see if any of the many Russian speaking people I know can find your peer-reviewed Russian article and will translate it for me. I’m not going to take a blogspot article as gospel nor will I assume the translation to be accurate and complete.
As for your statement that global warming is a scam to create a carbon tax, how about cars are a scam to create an oil tax? I want to stop subsidizing that crap. We have plenty of reasons besides global warming to stop burning fossil fuels. 70-130,000 people a year die of air pollution in the U.S. alone.
#27 – Stars & Bars (again),
Godwin’s Law — You lose. Can’t you make a point without name calling?
http://tinyurl.com/6h49c
#29-31, 33,
From what I’ve read in the peer-reviewed publications, cosmic rays a.k.a. sunspots, etc, were determined in around 2003-2004 to be a contributing factor. I read one article that gave the range at 5-30% of the total warming we are experiencing. Three others agreed on 5-15% of the total warming due to cycles in the sun. That leaves a minimum of 70%, using the extreme estimate, of the responsibility for global warming with humans.
Again, as I’ve stated many times on this site before, there is no downside to taking action on global warming. We will spark new industry. We will reduce deaths from air pollution. We will reduce the price of oil, thereby reducing the available funding for terrorists. We will stop burning coal, which puts a tremendous amount of mercury and particulate pollution, into the atmosphere.
Seriously, what are you afraid of? Allowing the U.S. to take the lead in a new industry for a change? Leaving a habitable planet for the next generation? Exxon/Mobil going out of business because they lose their subsidies? Allowing people to generate some of their own power and become less dependent on the utility companies? Give me a clue here?
#30 – TheGlobalWarmer,
Your statement
To do anything to stave off Global Warming ™ is foolish because it’s a weak theory built on shaky and incomplete science. Yeah, they may yet be some catastrophe, but we don’t yet know that with any certainty at all, therefore there is no need to panic.
surprises me. From someone as well-spoken and well-read as yourself, this seems an odd contradiction. Here’s an obviously imperfect analogy, as all analogies are, by definition.
You go to your doctor and are told that your Cholesterol™ is very high. S/he tells you that you should take action to lower your Cholesterol™ to reduce your risk of Heart Attack™ and Stroke™. However, by your above logic, you ask, “can you assure me that I actually will have a Heart Attack™ or Stroke™?” S/he says, “Of course not. However, statistics show that people with Cholesterol™ at your level are at high risk.” You say, “Well, can you tell me exactly when I might have this Stroke™ or Heart Attack™? What will be the exact severity of it?” S/he tell you that clearly these things can never be predicted with that level of accuracy.
You go home and eat a nice Bacon Double Cheeseburger™, of course. Since the exact effects of high Cholesterol™ in a particular individual can never be known, there is obviously no point in getting all worked up about it. You’ll wait until more data is in.
So, clearly the analogy is not perfect, but please tell me where it fails to represent your attitude toward Global Warming™?
37—Good Post, thanks for your time. Godwins law is just a restatement of the monkeys at the typewriters—“Given enough time———”
I reread my source carefully, and it does NOT claim that sunspot activity is the controlling variable for global warming. I must have read something close to that on some other website and lumped my readings all together. Bad scholarship on my part! So, I believe your Max 30% contribution until something better comes along. Also, my referenced website says that volcanoes put out more pollution than people do and I have read too many times that such is not the case, maybe over some past time period or some such but a mark against the websites position. First time I have read that sunspots heat Hurricanes from the top which is a fun fact (to keep private?)
“Again, as I’ve stated many times on this site before, there is no downside to taking action on global warming.” ///// There are upsides and downsides to EVERYTHING. Dont get unhinged just because “on balance” decreasing pollution is what we ought to do!
I don’t think I intimated a “fear” of anything–just requesting facts to support/understanding a theory.===and you gave me one, so thanks again.
#22 – Stars and Bars,
I consulted with someone with a bit more professional interesting in climate change and got the following two responses. To the Russian article:
One thing I find strange is that this publication “comprises high-quality and timely previews and reviews of fundamental and state-of-the-art astrophysical developments around the world, as presented at some ten IAU-sponsored conferences per year.” according to their own site. This to me does not sound like Earth climatology in any way, so I’m perplexed as to why they would publish this and question the quality of the peer review.
With respect to the article from China, her response was:
I’m a bit suspicious about this coming out of China and being funded by the Chinese government. I don’t really understand the method they use. The one item that struck me as wrong or misleading and “sloppy” for real scientists is on page 6 in the last paragraph, these two sentences:
“The global climate warming is not solely affected by the CO2 greenhouse effect. The best example is temperature obviously cooling however atmospheric CO2 concentration is ascending from the 1940s to 1970s.”
That time period does show a drop in temperatures and has been explained as caused by the “dimming” due to increased pollution combined with the lag in warming by increasing CO2. So to show this one period as the best example of CO2 not having a big affect is very suspicious to me, since they have conveniently ignored other scientific explanations for that cooling period. If they disagree with those explanations then they should acknowledge them and state why they disagree. Otherwise, as is, to me questions their scientific objectivity.
That said, I do concede that there are a few genuine articles contradicting global warming. I would also say that it is by far, not the majority opinion. I would also say again that there is really only upside to all of the actions dictated by global warming, even in the unlikely case that it turns out false. All of the things we must do for global warming are things we must do anyway. And, if global warming is correct, as seems likely given that we’re already seeing a lot of it, and we take no action, we’ll be seriously scrod.
Of course there are downsides: moving closer together would be one. Public transit vs individually owned private transportation. Very little effort is going into making “good” vehicles more efficient, instead they always start by making them smaller.
Simply surviving is not a worthy future for mankind – we’re better than that.
Looking back it looks like I missed clicking Say It or something so in response to #38:
Global Warming (TM) does not exist as a physical phenomenon – it is simply a fear campaign promoted by Algore and others as a lever to pass social control laws and bring about a new world order where the environmental elites dictate to the rest of us how to live.
“Climate change” is happening, however it is not as serious as the doomsayers are telling us and is not so serious that we need to give up all the good things in life and trash our economy.
Frightening to me however is that I allow myself 2-3 Bacon Double Cheeseburgers a year and last night happened to be one of those times. How the hell did you know that? 😉
#42 – TheGlobalWarmer,
Global Warming ™ does not exist as a physical phenomenon
Doesn’t that assertion in light of thousands of peer-reviewed papers sound just a little religious?
“Climate change” is happening, however it is not as serious as the doomsayers are telling us and is not so serious that we need to give up all the good things in life and trash our economy.
Who said anything about giving things up? I’ve reduced my electric bill by over 16% year over year without giving up anything. When I finally get a prius, I will consider it a huge improvement over my 15 year old camry. It’ll probably be faster and roomier inside too, though I doubt I’ll mash the peddle often enough to be sure.
Who said anything about trashing the economy? This could be a huge new industry. If we do it right, perhaps for a brief instant, we could even lead other countries, as we almost did with the electric car. Or, do you prefer to leave all the wealth and tax subsidies in the hands of Exxon/Mobil?
How the hell did you know that?
May the Schwartz be with you.
Contempt for mankind Scott
Q: What does CO2 have to do with vehicle emissions?
A: Nothing!!!! NOT ONE THING!!!!
All this talk about CO2 is just a smoke screen.
FYI: Vehicle emissions are CO not CO2.
#44 – Stars & Bars,
Better check the output from your emissions test after next inspection. You are completely and utterly wrong. For every gallon of gasoline burned, over 19 pounds of carbon dioxide are produced. The carbon monoxide is far more dangerous to those of us made of meat, but is still in only trace quantities.
But, at least, thanks for buying a dictionary and looking up my name.
#43 – The oceans are going to rise 23 feet and flood out the cities – that’s the unproven and unlikely religious part.
You’re still not getting it: Global Warming (TM) is the term I use to describe the fear campaign. “Climate Change” is what’s actually happening and climate change is currently trending warmer. I don’t happen to believe the current warming is a problem.
You may not advocating sacrifice but most of the priests of Global Warming (TM) are. If we first come out with a Surburban class vehicle that doesn’t cost any more to buy or operate than the current Surburban and uses an alternate fuel, then, and only then is it acceptable to talk about getting people to switch. Forcing fuel prices up before then is forcing people to sacrifice and unnacceptable.
I agree that there are huge opportunities to make money – but what you’re proposing is NOT what Algore and his fellow control freaks are proposing.
#46 – TheGlobalWarmer,
People love to quote and requote and rerequote the 23 feet out of context, as you are guilty of at the moment. The quote is 23 feet of sea level rise if/when the Greenland Ice sheet melts. It is thouruoughly and completely proven that this will be the level of rise for that much meltwater.
The majority opinion is that this will take well over 100 years for that to happen. Many are coming to the conclusion that it will be sooner due to new information about how the ice melts and how fast it is already melting. We’d also get another 20 feet or more if/when the Antarctic Peninsula melts. Again though, check the time frame on these forecasts.
However, even a modest sea level rise erases large sections of Florida, all of New Orleans, most of Bangladesh, and many other low lying areas, many with high population densities. This is why the forecast is for a billion climate refugees by 2050. You must remember storm tides. You must also remember how many people in the world rely on mountaintop glaciers for their fresh water.
You’re really hung up on things neither Gore nor anyone else is saying.
And, we do have the technology to build your 35 MPG surbusban. African safari vehicles carry 11 passengers and get 24 MPG with old technology. If you need to drive off-road, you don’t need a huge engine. Safari vehicles do some really amazing off-roading through things you’d have trouble imagining it you haven’t been on safari. And, they do it with a 2.5 liter diesel engine and don’t feel at all underpowered.
If you need to drive on road, a minivan will be a much better vehicle. Either way though, you don’t need to do 0-60 in 4 seconds up a 45 degree slope of mud. Giving up that will be giving up something I doubt you ever do.
#47 – Me,
sed ‘s/thouruoughly/thoroughly/g’ #47
(geek speak for “Oops, typo.”)
#45 Hold us in contempt Scott
Gee, I expected a bit more from you on 44, there are several harmful compounds in vehicle emissions such as hydrocarbons and nitrogen oxides but you stuck with the tried and untrue CO2 BS. Do you think if the government subsidized logging companies we could compensate for the CO2 from vehicles? Better yet, lets get the government to put a big cork in Mt. St. Helens.
FYI: If your types are successful in creating a Federal Carbon Tax, just where do you believe the money will go? Where does the money end up that you pay in Federal Income Tax?