Electric Cars: Chev Bolt seems to be the first practical one.

[/pine]

Can you cite a source for that? Not an isolated case, but a general case that would change the overall picture.

Obviously they (NASA/NOAA) are not going to come out and tell the world that the adjustments they make (have made) were to correct the bias to warming trends...but essentially that is what they've done...
Google "TOB weather recordings"...I'm sure you'll find the spiel they (NASA/NOAA) hand out... a bunch of bunk...the truth is there...of course because it does not come from sources that has ".gov" at the end the baby will get thrown out with the bath water...which is typical for those that only pay attention to a biased mainstream media...

 

[California]

There is no denying they (NASA/NOAA) "adjusted" the TOB's...(Times of Observation) and then retro-adjusted previously recorded temps taken at cooler times of the day...

Can you cite a source for that? Not an isolated case, but a general case that would change the overall picture.

Google "TOB weather recordings"...I'm sure you'll find the spiel they (NASA/NOAA) hand out... a bunch of bunk...the truth is there.

Your 'truth' is nothing more than your *belief* if you aren't willing to provide the information to support your statement. Again, I ask you to support your assertion with some link to a credible source. Not to World Net Daily or to some astrologer.

 

[/pine]

...rather you find a source you believe rather than me cite something just so you can (try to) shoot it down as not credible...They NASA/NOAA admit openly they "adjusted" the TOBs globally...it's a common knowledge absolute fact...period...!

 

[California]

I happened to look over in the Friendly Politics forum and in a thread titled Global Warming - NASA data shows industrialization is the major factor there happens to be today a post that is directly relevant to your misinformation: I'll quote the whole thing here for you. But instead of continuing this side topic in this Electric Car thread, I urge you to take any reply over there, not argue your case here.

====== Quoting Post # 1211 in the Global Warming thread ========

there seems to be a problem:

Morning Mix
Scientists published climate research under fake names. Then they were caught.

Scientists published climate research under fake names. Then they were caught. - The Washington Post

There was a problem, though. The paper, Grinspoon said, seems to have an agenda.

There was another problem, too. The names Den Volokin and Lark ReLlez are fake.
...

The journal withdrew the paper, as the website Retraction Watch reported earlier in September. In place of the study, a statement now reads: "This article has been withdrawn upon common agreement between the authors and the editors and not related to the scientific merit of the study. The Publisher apologizes for any inconvenience this may cause.

As an aside, in the same article where that was reported is thing:


NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies mapped five-year global temperature averages. 2014 now ranks as the warmest year on record since 1880, according to an analysis by NASA scientists. (YouTube/NASA Goddard)

Yes, that is weather but added to all the other "warmest ever" reports over the past years it adds to the GW climate info.

Bottom line. As long as you read only denialist type stuff you will remain stupidly denialist.

=====end quote ======

 

[/pine]

I happened to look over in the Friendly Politics forum and in a thread titled Global Warming - NASA data shows industrialization is the major factor there happens to be today a post that is directly relevant to your misinformation: I'll quote the whole thing here for you. But instead of continuing this side topic in this Electric Car thread, I urge you to take any reply over there, not argue your case here.

====== Quoting Post # 1211 in the global Warming thread ========

there seems to be a problem:

Morning Mix
Scientists published climate research under fake names. Then they were caught.

Scientists published climate research under fake names. Then they were caught. - The Washington Post

There was a problem, though. The paper, Grinspoon said, 都eems to have an agenda.

There was another problem, too. The names Den Volokin and Lark ReLlez are fake.
...

The journal withdrew the paper, as the website Retraction Watch reported earlier in September. In place of the study, a statement now reads: 典his article has been withdrawn upon common agreement between the authors and the editors and not related to the scientific merit of the study. The Publisher apologizes for any inconvenience this may cause.

As an aside, in the same article where that was reported is thing:


NASA痴 Goddard Institute for Space Studies mapped five-year global temperature averages. 2014 now ranks as the warmest year on record since 1880, according to an analysis by NASA scientists. (YouTube/NASA Goddard)

Yes, that is weather but added to all the other "warmest ever" reports over the past years it adds to the GW climate info.

Bottom line. As long as you read only denialist type stuff you will remain stupidly denialist.

=====end quote ======

not even germane to my point...there is no further argument...AGW has been debunked...period...(some of you just haven't realized it yet...LoL)

 

[California]

...there is no further argument...

Let's leave it at that and let this thread stay on-topic, related to EV's.

That Friendly Politics thread would be a better place to continue your topic.

 

[hawkeye08]

Relating to EV's, since folks have been sold a bill of goods about climate, they are less likely to believe the benefits of EVs. EVs will not save the planet. I would like to see EVs succeed, but the marketing garbage needs to stop. The EVs are a viable vehicle in limited situations and excel in those situations. Many of us do not have the luxury and having a separate vehicle just for those use cases, but rather we have to compromise. I drive a 3/4 gasser truck. Most of the time, an EV would handle my needs just fine. The other times not at all. I need a vehicle that will handle my needs near 100% of the time, so I have a truck.

 

[houstonscott]

Relating to EV's, since folks have been sold a bill of goods about climate, they are less likely to believe the benefits of EVs. EVs will not save the planet. I would like to see EVs succeed, but the marketing garbage needs to stop. The EVs are a viable vehicle in limited situations and excel in those situations. Many of us do not have the luxury and having a separate vehicle just for those use cases, but rather we have to compromise. I drive a 3/4 gasser truck. Most of the time, an EV would handle my needs just fine. The other times not at all. I need a vehicle that will handle my needs near 100% of the time, so I have a truck.

Exactly, EV is a hobby car, not frontline transportation. It bothers me when the EV owners want us to modify the grid for their hobby battery car, and want to and activity work to stop ICE cars, through politics and policy. It you EV people would just enjoy you battery car hobby and quit demanding everyone else follow your interest we'd all just be fine. When the battery is less then 100lbs, is smaller then a current gas fuel tank 20 gal, lasts 150k miles or ten years, recharges in under 7 minutes, and can power a 300hp truck/SUV towing uphill with A/C on and a range well over 300 miles you'll have something.

 

[California]

EVs are a viable vehicle in limited situations and excel in those situations. Many of us do not have the luxury and having a separate vehicle just for those use cases, but rather we have to compromise. .... I need a vehicle that will handle my needs near 100% of the time, so I have a truck.

Agree, an EV is more suitable as a second car. Some urban people get by with a Leaf but I never could.

Different people have different needs, My own vehicle use is: I need something that can pull a one ton 4x8 trailer occasionally. My Subaru does a decent job of that, and this combo serves for what I used to own a pickup to do. I don't have anything heavier than that to haul. Photo below, from 2009: I'm right at rated capacity. Towed 100 miles first day from there to home, another 100 miles next day over to ranch. (orchard). Temperature 105~110 both days. That heat is probably the hardest I'll ever work the elderly (1999) Subaru.

The second family car for last 10 years has been a Focus wagon. it's essentially the same thing as the Subaru except better mileage and rated only a half ton towing. That's the vehicle a Bolt could replace with near 1:1 capability, assuming I wouldn't tow with it. Bolt's 230 mile range is quite sufficient for a second car in our use.

Both of the present cars get better mileage than a daily-driver pickup would. The trailer makes up what I occasionally need for cargo capacity. I'm still interested in a Bolt but perhaps later when some come off lease and aren't so expensive.

 

[KubotainNH]

Curious, are you putting that tractor in the little trailer or did I miss something in the text?