chuck estevez
Well-Known Member
I thought you were an organic guy?
what do you think of advanced nutrients?
- Thread starter ocdgrower420
- Start date
BROBIE
Well-Known Member
ok fuck it. What does that article by "concerned scientists" aka brain-washed greenies have to do with the argument that a battery car barely if ever is more green? 33 MPG is a wash. It's a fucking scam. Your Brit "concerned Scientists" were caught falsifying data just to help their false cause of global warming
I'm outa here..going to lick some cunt.
chuck estevez
Well-Known Member
you missed the post earlier where I showed OP was just a troublemaker, Never take AN threads seriously anyways
The Yorkshireman
Well-Known Member
"The Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) is a nonprofit science advocacy organization based in the United States. The UCS membership includes many private citizens in addition to professional scientists. James J. McCarthy, Alexander Agassiz Professor of Biological Oceanography at Harvard University and past president of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, currently chairs the UCS Board of Directors."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Union_of_Concerned_Scientists
http://www.ucsusa.org/
Climategate -......
"A number of independent enquiries have investigated the conduct of the scientists involved in the emails. All have cleared the scientists of any wrong doing:
- In February 2010, the Pennsylvania State University released an Inquiry Report that investigated any 'Climategate' emails involving Dr Michael Mann, a Professor of Penn State's Department of Meteorology. They found that "there exists no credible evidence that Dr. Mann had or has ever engaged in, or participated in, directly or indirectly, any actions with an intent to suppress or to falsify data". On "Mike's Nature trick", they concluded "The so-called “trick”1 was nothing more than a statistical method used to bring two or more different kinds of data sets together in a legitimate fashion by a technique that has been reviewed by a broad array of peers in the field."
- In March 2010, the UK government's House of Commons Science and Technology Committee published a report finding that the criticisms of the Climate Research Unit (CRU) were misplaced and that CRU’s "Professor Jones’s actions were in line with common practice in the climate science community".
- In April 2010, the University of East Anglia set up an international Scientific Assessment Panel, in consultation with the Royal Society and chaired by Professor Ron Oxburgh. The Report of the International Panel assessed the integrity of the research published by the CRU and found "no evidence of any deliberate scientific malpractice in any of the work of the Climatic Research Unit".
- In June 2010, the Pennsylvania State University published their Final Investigation Report, determining "there is no substance to the allegation against Dr. Michael E. Mann".
- In July 2010, the University of East Anglia published the Independent Climate Change Email Review report. They examined the emails to assess whether manipulation or suppression of data occurred and concluded that "we find that their rigour and honesty as scientists are not in doubt."
- In July 2010, the US Environmental Protection Agency investigated the emails and"found this was simply a candid discussion of scientists working through issues that arise in compiling and presenting large complex data sets."
- In September 2010, the UK Government responded to the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee report, chaired by Sir Muir Russell. On the issue of releasing data, they found "In the instance of the CRU, the scientists were not legally allowed to give out the data". On the issue of attempting to corrupt the peer-review process, they found "The evidence that we have seen does not suggest that Professor Jones was trying to subvert the peer review process. Academics should not be criticised for making informal comments on academic papers".
- In February 2011, the Department of Commerce Inspector General conducted an independent review of the emails and found "no evidence in the CRU emails thatNOAA inappropriately manipulated data".
- In August 2011, the National Science Foundation concluded "Finding no research misconduct or other matter raised by the various regulations and laws discussed above, this case is closed".
Last edited:
BROBIE
Well-Known Member
No.. the disposal of spent batteries. or the recycling of them . I'm done here
BROBIE
Well-Known Member
So, All it states is that it has the same co2 exhaust as a 33mpg car so what? USA is not Europe . we are much more spread out and Bigger, like our penises. Whe have more like 25 mpg cars and trucks and the report doesnt take that into consideration.
The Yorkshireman
Well-Known Member
"As of June 2014, the United States has the largest fleet of highway-capable plug-in electric vehicles in the world, with over 226,000 plug-in electric cars sold since 2008, with California accounting for about one third of nationwide total sales. As of June 2014, the U.S. is the world's leader in plug-in electric car sales with a 45% share of global sales."
The Yorkshireman
Well-Known Member
BROBIE
Well-Known Member
You have no argument. No hanging up going on here. DUDE. 17 million + cars are sold annually in the US. Battery is for fringe feel good greenies.
DIESEL AND COMPRESSED GAS
Last edited:
skunkd0c
Well-Known Member
BROBIE
Well-Known Member
Yea and all that was due to gov handouts . and 226 k in 6 years is shit. Battery cars are a waste of money. The Volt is doomed. Have you been in the USA? We sell 17 million + a year.
BROBIE
Well-Known Member
That's a good one. The impartial group. sure. Look up some of the shit they got caught doing with their own numbers.
The Yorkshireman
Well-Known Member
Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah!
The Yorkshireman
Well-Known Member
The point is they're American not British like you implied.
The Yorkshireman
Well-Known Member
17 million cars a year until your country pisses off the middle east and Russia to the point that you pay as much for your petrol as I do then you'll see how much you drive that 25mpg car.
I drive a 25mpg car as it happens and the petrol at the end of my road is £1.27 per litre (and that's damn cheap) which is about $2.06.
I drive a 25mpg car as it happens and the petrol at the end of my road is £1.27 per litre (and that's damn cheap) which is about $2.06.
Last edited:
chuck estevez
Well-Known Member
over $8 a gallon, Yikes
The Yorkshireman
Well-Known Member
Tax mate.
Your juice is subsidised to fuck, it's like Americans think they've got a God given right to cheap fuel.
chuck estevez
Well-Known Member
I live in a state that has more fuel tax than most, but still. we are at half of what you're paying
My nephew just came here from the U.K for the first time, I guess you guys don't get much to eat there either.
BROBIE
Well-Known Member
America does not subsidize it's gas, they subsidize the corrupt corn lobby by forcing us to buy food fuel.
But we do need to tax the shit out of it more to pay for the roads instead of separate construction bills
The Yorkshireman
Well-Known Member
And my 25mpg gallon car is a 1999 Honda Civic Aerodeck estate, 1.6L engine.
It's expensive to run and it's no fun to drive.
It's expensive to run and it's no fun to drive.