[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q0kjI08n4fg]
Disrupting the Borg is expensive and time consuming!
Google Search
-
Recent Posts
- Mission Accomplished
- Both High And Low Sea Ice Extent Caused By Global Warming
- Record Sea Ice Caused By Global Warming
- “Rapid Antarctic sea ice loss is causing severe storms”
- “pushing nature past its limits”
- Compassion For Terrorists
- Fifteen Days To Slow The Spread
- Maldives Underwater By 2050
- Woke Grok
- Grok Explains Gender
- Humans Like Warmer Climates
- Homophobic Greenhouse Gases
- Grok Explains The Effects Of CO2
- Ice-Free Arctic By 2027
- Red Hot Australia
- EPA : 17.5 Degrees Warming By 2050
- “Winter temperatures colder than last ice age
- Big Oil Saved The Whales
- Guardian 100% Inheritance Tax
- Kerry, Blinken, Hillary And Jefferson
- “Climate Change Indicators: Heat Waves”
- Combating Bad Weather With Green Energy
- Flooding Mar-a-Lago
- Ice-Free Arctic By 2020
- Colorless, Odorless CO2
Recent Comments
- Disillusioned on Mission Accomplished
- Bob G on Mission Accomplished
- James Snook on Both High And Low Sea Ice Extent Caused By Global Warming
- czechlist on Mission Accomplished
- arn on Record Sea Ice Caused By Global Warming
- Disillusioned on Record Sea Ice Caused By Global Warming
- Gamecock on “Rapid Antarctic sea ice loss is causing severe storms”
- Disillusioned on “pushing nature past its limits”
- Disillusioned on “pushing nature past its limits”
- czechlist on “Rapid Antarctic sea ice loss is causing severe storms”
Tesla stock has also overheated.
I see CO2 coming out of that zero emissions vehicle.
There’s no free lunch.
Some of us would like to encourage inovation toward a less carbon based energy future. Glitches and subsidies are to be expected. The oil and gas industry get a lot more subsidies than the new tech.
Star Trek did an episode about silicon based life in the early 1970s. A possible option for those of you who are concerned about our carbon based biosphere.
Our planet was gifted with a carbon cycle.
It keeps us alive.
It’s prudent to embrace it.
Oil and gas industry pays taxes you globtard. Tax write off ? subsidy
This green lie is getting old. The oil industry pays billions in taxes and royalties. Name a “subsidy” please. I call bullshit you liar.
Exactly. But Libtards just blindly repeat this stuff. They don’ need no steeenkeen facts.
Bobby Sands embraced a carbon free lifestyle in the 80’s. He lasted about 2 months or so. The Irish are always living on the edge.
Avery, It would be more accurate to say that the oil and gas industry subsidize the government.
Where is it exactly libtards think wealth comes from?
“Some of us would like to encourage inovation toward a less carbon based energy future.”
And those same some are deluded, looking for grants, stupid, or combinations of those ‘qualities’. If you actually study the history of the Earth, we could use more CO2, and not less. 17 years of zero warming as CO2 levels have reached ‘unprecedented’ levels. 😆
Obviously CO2 is not a major driver of climate, and this interglacial is quite long in the tooth. We should celebrate any warming that our CO2 may be capable of producing, as we will eventually need it.
Have you never heard of ice ages? Do you think cooling or warming is a greater danger? When has the Earth ever overheated? And why not? Why do you hate humans? Are you as stupid as you pretend to be?
I think it is certain that he is as stupid as he pretends to be!!
Li’l advice for commenter Avery Harden: You were doing fine with your first two sentences, truisms that they were. The roof caved in on you with the last sentence. You are more than welcome to say such things, but if you wish to have a devastating impact, you must be prepared to back up what you say with real evidence. Otherwise, you will appear foolish, looking like someone who can offer little more than unsubstantiated talking points. This always undermines any good intentions you may have.
You want to go carbon free, go for it.
But don’t you dare tell me to do the same.
Meant to say:
You want to go carbon free, go for it.
But don’t you dare tell me to do the same. Who do you think you are?
You are not my wife nor my girlfriend nor my mistress. You have no standing.
“Glitches and subsidies are to be expected.”
Unless they are obvious catastrophes that weren’t addressed up front because of the attempts of apologists to ignore the harm. Time will tell.
“The oil and gas industry get a lot more subsidies than the new tech.”
I’ve looked into research into this and this talking point is actually a myth. In some cases the oil and gas business may receive tax breaks, which means they would pay, in particular cases, less tax. This is worlds apart from an actual subsidy where a business is unprofitable and it’s actually funded by citizen taxes.
There is no scientific reason to go to a less carbon based energy future unless we run out of oil, gas and coal which in the US would be in about 200 years.
Are you sure … how many false alarm “we are running out of” have you already lived through?
Besides, you think we need to throw common sense and logic out the window and increase the costs of everything because of a problem a hundred years from now? Where did you study economics … Nitwit U ?
Tesla received $465 million in federal subsidies before they even began production, and Tesla receives approximately $45,000 in federal and state subsidies for each car they sell. This is a scam from start to burning finish.
Okie I’m curious how you get to $45,000 … I’d like to see that broken down for future reference. I was just fighting with some greenturds over at Bloomberg ( http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-10-02/tesla-slides-after-baird-cuts-rating-san-francisco-mover.html ) and info like that would be killer.
Sources:
http://capoliticalnews.com/2013/05/27/seiler-tesla-loses-10000-per-car-profit-made-from-government-subsidies-loans-and-incentives/
http://calwatchdog.com/2013/05/26/tesla-just-a-tax-funded-government-project/
Good stuff. Thanks for the links.
Doesn’t look good for the sales brochure … … .. not good at all
One of the YouTube commenters wrote “THEY should get him a new car”. Uncle Sam probably chipped in 100K for the burning one, so what’s another 100K to keep trying.
Tesla … the Ford Pinto of the new millennium 😉
iPhone owners are so stupid that they can’t even turn their phones sideways to record a video.
A Tesla car cost way more than $60,000. More than double that much
They list at $57,400 to $105,400 in a car mag I have in my office. The battery size is the big difference but there are others.
The S in Tesla S stands for spontaneous 😉
I’m quite proud of that one … it just popped into the noggin while sparing with the leftards on the Bloomberg.
Fire Sale: Brand New Tesla Electric Car, Non Smoker…oeps, I have to take that back.
There was also an incident with a shipment of Fisker Karma’s that burned to the ground when they were stored on a parking lot in New York that became submerged by water due to Tropical Storm Sandy.
http://www.greencarreports.com/news/1080184_sandy-carnage-fisker-karmas-submerged-in-salt-water-burn-at-port
Sounds like you all are against innovation if a “liberal” is for it. The world can not continue to dig and suck all the carbon out of the earth and dump it into the thin fragile biosphere and expect nothing bad to happen. Remember we are 7 billion people and soon to be 9 billion and many of those people aspire to American style lifestyles of consuming far more than they do today. Innovation is what will save us, carbon will kill us.
Avery, you do realize that we have gotten more efficient, don’t you?
Sounds like you liberals are against all innovation and think we still live in the dark ages
😉
“Carbon will kill us.” That may be the single most stupid statement ever spouted on these boards. Mr. Avery, humans, and all life on earth for that matter, are carbon based life forms. CO2 is essential for photosynthesis, and therefore all life on earth. Take away the carbon, and we are dust in the wind.
Yea, but too much of a good thing is bad.
Avery, there’s a marked reduction in plant growth below 250 ppm CO2…
…this is shown because there’s a marked increase in plant growth when you increase CO2 above 250 ppm
Right now, CO2 levels are only ~150 ppm above that…
What exactly would you call “too much”?
Oh my God. You have me convinced now. Your logic is so impeccable. It is imperative that we deny cheap, affordable energy to the world’s people, because too much prosperity is a bad thing. We can all see what horrible lives we in the west live compared to historical times when wind provided power. How could you know so much, and me so little. I am awed by you, Mr. Avery.
Without citing a model, show me where more CO2 is a problem.
The Horror!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P2qVNK6zFgE&feature=player_embedded
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/01/calculating-the-greenhouse-effect/ Great discussion someone above linked to from back in 2006.
F-
Try again, and this time without using models.