Will Donald Trump's denial of scientific fact affect Tesla?

[22522]

Don't say you folks! Hillary won the popular vote by 200k. It's the damn electoral that f'd us!

Nothing False About Temperature Data

Thanks. I read it.

They are mangling their data (doing it wrong).

If they are saying the Mercury evaporates out of the sensors over time, they need to show that with a controlled experiment.

The reference of the published data needs to be preserved. Use "in 1950 degrees here is what today's data looks like."

I personally have not seen a year hotter than in the early 1980s.

I do think man made climate change is happening, but don't know how strong the moderating responses will be, or if they are moderating at all. But when you take 100 years of published data, then change all the numbers, randomly, I guess, your credibility goes away.

When placing blame for division, look in the mirror.

Elon uses CO2 concentration, which maintains his credibility. Hard to deny. I wish he would add methane as it has a 13x effect, but I don't know the magnitude of the change over time.

 

[ggr]

Thanks. I read it.

They are mangling their data (doing it wrong).

What aspect of it are they doing wrong? If you mean the other stuff you wrote, see below.

If they are saying the Mercury evaporates out of the sensors over time, they need to show that with a controlled experiment.

Ummm, yeah, funny that... they did.

The reference of the published data needs to be preserved. Use "in 1950 degrees here is what today's data looks like."

Temperature scales are well defined by physics, movement of molecules, etc. There are no "1950 degrees". Unless you're about to overturn our entire body of knowledge this is a ridiculous statement.

I personally have not seen a year hotter than in the early 1980s.

Oh, I see, on average you have lived everywhere in the world over the last 30 years. I guess the other explanation is that you experienced a particularly hot day in Texas one year.

I do think man made climate change is happening, but don't know how strong the moderating responses will be, or if they are moderating at all. But when you take 100 years of published data, then change all the numbers, randomly, I guess, your credibility goes away.

Randomly? I don't think that means what you think it means, or at least not in this context.

When placing blame for division, look in the mirror.

This I am forced to agree with. We are all to blame. (Although I don't get to vote, not that it would have mattered.)

Elon uses CO2 concentration, which maintains his credibility. Hard to deny. I wish he would add methane as it has a 13x effect, but I don't know the magnitude of the change over time.

There are many references. Here is one: Overview of Greenhouse Gases | Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions | US EPA. Methane is about 1/8th the effect of CO2, just because there's so much CO2. Interestingly, fossil fuel use accounts for 2 out of 3 of the biggest contributors, since most of the Nitrous Oxide comes from burning fossil fuel (particularly diesel) too. The other big contributor is indeed methane. Interestingly, there's an international move to ban hydroflourocarbons (HFCs) which account for only 3% of the greenhouse effect. The oil industry and the beef industry don't care, in fact no industry particularly cares about HFCs. The chemical producers of HFCs are quite happy to provide other, more expensive, replacements to the current generation of refrigerants.

 

[vinnie97]

Why don't you "look it up" then and use your own research tool. It's not hard, the Founding Fathers put it writing just for people like you even though most of us learned this in the 5th grade. And by the way, the "population centers" are where most people live. Your welcome.

Mob rule is not what they envisioned, even though that's what you're championing. TIME might as well be a commie rag, trying to seed doubt as to the legitimacy of the election and blaming it on racism. And in spite of the media proclaiming it doesn't exist, I have no doubt there's voter fraud that helped put the queen of corruption over the top. When you have an environment that encourages lawlessness (sanctuary cities), it comes as no surprise at all. Both parties and their corporate benefactors have benefited from the incestuous relationship. 30 years on, it's nice to have someone in power who believes the immigration laws are something to finally consider enforcing!

 

[msnow]

Mob rule is not what they envisioned, even though that's what you're championing. TIME might as well be a commie rag, trying to seed doubt as to the legitimacy of the election and blaming it on racism. And in spite of the media proclaiming it doesn't exist, I have no doubt there's voter fraud that helped put the queen of corruption over the top. When you have an environment that encourages lawlessness (sanctuary cities), it comes as no surprise at all. Both parties and their corporate benefactors have benefited from the incestuous relationship. 30 years on, it's nice to have someone in power who believes the immigration laws are something to finally consider enforcing!

I told you, don't rely on TIME, my words, Wikipedia or any of the thousands of search results. Just pick one and look at Madison's own words. He proposed it because of the population differences in the slave states (not "racism"). That's what he said and that was in fact the discussion at the Constitutional Convention in 1787. Look it up rather than deny the facts. Prove me wrong! Also, I'm not saying we do away with the Electoral College, I'm just saying we should have a public debate about a process that is based on facts that no longer exist.
Your conspiracy theories about rigging the election are humorous because if they "put her over the top" as you say then why didn't "they" (whoever that is, space aliens?) finish the job? They must have forgot PA, and MI.
As for legitimacy, it's hard to say you're President of all the people when most of them didn't vote for you. Trump knows this because he tweeted the same words I just used in 2012. You can look that up too.

 

[22522]

Here is one: Overview of Greenhouse Gases | Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions | US EPA. Methane is about 1/8th the effect of CO2, just because there's so much CO2.

Thank you for the reference. Let's look at the unit math together, because I want to get it right.

From this reference, annual emissions of methane are 11% of CO2 equivalent. Where CO2 is 81%. This is in metric tons. I presume they are weighing methane with a multiplier of 25 to get that number.

On the methane tab, same site, it says " Methane's lifetime in the atmosphere is much shorter than carbon dioxide (CO2), but CH4 is more efficient at trapping radiation than CO2. Pound for pound, the comparative impact of CH4 on climate change is more than 25 times greater than CO2 over a 100-year period."

But they also say methane lasts 12 years. Why are they normalizing over 100 years to weigh contributions from methane? There might be good reasons to push the effect off the edge of uncertainty and a lot of dynamics that are not even in the model, but it isn't good science.

Let's look at 12 years. If you don't smear over 100 years to come up with a factor of 25, you end up with a factor of 208 times worse than CO2. Or to convert back to the first tab, and methane gets a number of 91 compared to CO2s number of 81. I did not renormalize to get percent, but in one significant figure calculations:

Using a 10 year effect window, The methane emissions from this year will heat the atmosphere 10% more than CO2 emissions from this year.

Looks like we are neglecting what will kill us, if we really want to get the attribution right:
Fracking could prompt a sharp rise in greenhouse gas emissions

Methane emissions in fracking are not well documented. I don't buy the EPA accounting on methane release during fossil fuel production.

Where is the math error? ( I am sure there is one somewhere). For short fuse (<10 year) global warming, annual methane release is worse than CO2, based on what we think is being emitted. And we don't have a good handle on how much methane is actually being emitted.

https://thinkprogress.org/methane-l...ountless-studies-find-8b060b2b395d#.ytmh3wjwm

Tesla does not use methane extensively, do they?

 

[McRat]

This isn't the first President. Most have be lousy at their jobs, hence why we celebrate certain Presidents and not others.

Some of the truly great Presidents will never be recognized. And some of the worst have had their careers revised in the history books.

But when it comes to EV's, we are witnessing the beginning of the EV Age. No President can stop it, any more than a President can put the nuclear genie back in it's bottle.

 

[Chopr147]

Mob rule is not what they envisioned, even though that's what you're championing. TIME might as well be a commie rag, trying to seed doubt as to the legitimacy of the election and blaming it on racism. And in spite of the media proclaiming it doesn't exist, I have no doubt there's voter fraud that helped put the queen of corruption over the top. When you have an environment that encourages lawlessness (sanctuary cities), it comes as no surprise at all. Both parties and their corporate benefactors have benefited from the incestuous relationship. 30 years on, it's nice to have someone in power who believes the immigration laws are something to finally consider enforcing!

Oh, voter fraud is real though maybe not as big as some believed. I am all for voter I.D. laws. It really makes no sense not to. Our system must be protected and the people must be confident the votes are legit.
CLAIM: 3 Million Votes in Presidential Election Cast by Illegals...

 

[msnow]

Oh, voter fraud is real though maybe not as big as some believed. I am all for voter I.D. laws. It really makes no sense not to. Our system must be protected and the people must be confident the votes are legit.
CLAIM: 3 Million Votes in Presidential Election Cast by Illegals...

lol about your known alt right source. BTW, universities have studied voting fraud for decades. Latest study had 30 confirmed instances out of 1 billion votes and voter fraud has never ever changed the result of an election.

 

[kort677]

lol about your known alt right source. BTW, universities have studied voting fraud for decades. Latest study had 30 confirmed instances out of 1 billion votes and voter fraud has never ever changed the result of an election.

then they are clueless, do some research on JFK an IL.

 

[msnow]

then they are clueless, do some research on JFK an IL.

I have. You're right, there were irregularities with Mayor Daly's "machine" but not enough to change the results. Even Nixon acknowledged they didn't challenge not because it didn't happen but because it wouldn't have changed the results. But that was long before the 2000-2012 study I mentioned. There is much more governance and many more controls than existed in the 60's. People should always be diligent though.

 

[Chopr147]

Or Al Franken in Minn. What was it? 100,000 votes in the trunk of a car. I forget and not bothering to look it up.


But this is partly another reason for the electoral college. It's really hard to rig an election. A few counties, maybe. But Mitt Romney receiving ZERO votes in 58 precincts in Philly and surrounding areas is not possible. But it did happen.

 

[msnow]

Or Al Franken in Minn. What was it? 100,000 votes in the trunk of a car. I forget and not bothering to look it up.


But this is partly another reason for the electoral college. It's really hard to rig an election. A few counties, maybe. But Mitt Romney receiving ZERO votes in 58 precincts in Philly and surrounding areas is not possible. But it did happen.

From my perspective the EC gives far too much power to the states with the least number of people. It's not fair to tax base who are impacted most.

 

[Chopr147]

Well, I guess we differ on that. I am from NY a very liberal state and even more so in the Manhattan bubble. I know a few who live in the city and after a while you lose any sense of what the rest of the world is about. This is the wrong mentality to have so much impact on an election

 

[djplong]

Yes it IS possible to get ZERO votes in certain Philly precincts when they have less than a hundred voters and are almost entire black and minority.

And Voter ID laws have been pretty much dog-whistles for reinstating poll taxes were are unconstitutional. They are a solution for a problem that doesn't exist - even if I *do* agree with the original sentiment. It's the execution of that idea that turns my stomach.

 

[Chopr147]

Not 1 pct. 58 pct.s!!! Not possible. I'm all for voter I.D. if only to bring a sense of confidence in our system which has been lacking somewhat with several reports "irregularities"

 

[AndreN]

Not 1 pct. 58 pct.s!!! Not possible. I'm all for voter I.D. if only to bring a sense of confidence in our system which has been lacking somewhat with several reports "irregularities"

No, it is entirely possible, because it is exactly what happened. A Republican election official looked into it and could not find a single person in those precincts that had voted for Romney. Source: What’s behind fears of voter fraud?