Cooling Looms As Earth’s True Climate Calamity

[Lord of Planar]

Can you pour gas on the ground legally? No you can't.

Does that keep people from doing it?

 

[What if...?]

Does that keep people from doing it?

I guess you're trying to say people are going to throw their lithium battery banks in the river?

 

[Glen Contrarian]

By Jay Lehr, Ph.D.
June 26, 2013


Although we have been enmeshed in a long debate over global warming and climate change, this controversy has been politically motivated, not a response to actual global warming, as there has been no warming for 16 years.

In fact, it is likely we will soon need to take a long, hard look at adjustments in behavior based not on warmth, which, by and large, results in good things, but, rather, on cold, which creates endless problems for both individuals and society.

Solar Activity Waning
Scientists from Pulkovo Observatory in St. Petersburg, Russia, stated in the Voice of Russia on April 22 that solar activity is waning to such an extent that the global average yearly temperature will soon begin to decline.

Now, there is no reason to believe there will be any warming during the remainder of this century, says Vladimir Kotlyakov, head of the Institute of Geography at the Russian Academy of Science, speaking with Vladimir Radyuhin for the Hindu newspaper on April 22, 2013. In the same article, Dr. Yuri Nagovitsyn, academic secretary of the Pulkovo Observatory, is quoted as saying coming generations will have to grapple with temperatures several degrees lower than those today.

On Jan. 8, on NASA's Science News website, Tony Phillips cited Matt Penn and William Livingston of the National Solar Observatory as noting we are now in the final stages of Solar Cycle 24, which has been "the weakest in more than 50 years." By the time Solar Cycle 25 arrives shortly, they predict, "magnetic fields on the sun will be so weak that few if any sunspots will be formed," Phillips wrote.

Cold Temperatures Appearing
The effects of this weak solar activity have been notable. The United Kingdom just suffered through a winter with temperatures 5 to 10 degrees Celsius below normal, and German meteorologists report 2013 has been the coldest year in 208 years. Writing April 27 in England's Sunday Telegraph, Christopher Booker noted 3,318 places in the United States that had recorded their lowest temperatures for that time of year since records began. Similar records were set in every province of Canada, and the Russian winter has brought its deepest snowfall in 134 years.

Government Changes Needed
Cold causes more disruptions for people than warming, and mankind always has been more prosperous during warmer periods. However, with modern technology, we have the ability to plan accordingly and manage the slow change toward cooling that is likely upon us.

[Excerpt]

Read more:
Cooling Looms As Earth

Of course our dear leader has claimed that the atmosphere is warming and wants to destroy our largest source of energy COAL. This produces the bulk of our electrical generation. We have since the inception of the EPA cleaned our water, atmosphere and conserved our forests. While China Russia, and India have continued to spew pollution into the air, water and ground, while destroying their forest lands. China and India is buying all the lumber they can from South America, Africa and even the US. That does not include coal, petroleum and rare minerals, while Obama is destroying America and the ability to recover from one of the worst Depressions is 80 years.

Hm. By Jay Lehr, Ph.D...a man who says that global warming is the biggest scam ever perpetrated on human society. Who is he?

Outside of his work for the Heartland Institute, Dr. Lehr's current client list includes biotech giant Monsanto and Dow AgroSciences Canada (a division of Dow Chemical) -- one of the world's largest chemical companies. During the 2009 U.N. Conference on Climate Change, Monsanto was named the world's "worst corporate climate lobbyist."

So...the OP of this thread was based on what a PAID LOBBYIST said was a scam. I don't know if the author of the OP realizes this, but there's a lot of people out there who, if you pay them enough, will not only say what you want them to say, but might even believe it for you, too...

...and as a corporate lobbyist, Lehr is getting paid a LOT more than the 97% of climatologist Ph.D.'s out there who say that global warming is real.

Lehr says to 'follow the money' in this supposed controversy. I agree - follow the money...right to his bank account.

 

[Vern]

Well, I make mistakes like the power grid losses, but you are wrong in what you say about me.

It wasn’t just power grid losses. It was everything you posted. And you posted so many falsehoods I didn’t even notice this one the first time.

Now comparing that with the battery fires we have seen for so few Volts made, what is the reality? The volt doesn't even need to be in an accident.

1 volt caught fire. It happened 3 weeks after being crash tested. They didn’t drain the battery after the crash (they drain the gas tanks). But as repeatedly demonstrated you don’t really care what the facts are

 

[Lord of Planar]

It wasn’t just power grid losses. It was everything you posted. And you posted so many falsehoods I didn’t even notice this one the first time.



1 volt caught fire. It happened 3 weeks after being crash tested. They didn’t drain the battery after the crash (they drain the gas tanks). But as repeatedly demonstrated you don’t really care what the facts are

Yes, that one is what you get when you google. I thought there were more than the one. Are you certain their was only one?

If there was only one, maybe it was complaints that were later found to be shorted battery cells that could have lead to fires. I might be mixing that up, it's been some time. Still, I think more than one went up in smoke.

add---

Just looked it up. It was more than one. You are wrong.

 

[Wehrwolfen]

No commercial EVs use lead acid batteries. They are not suited for that use. Home builders do, but many of their batteries are rebuildable and lead acid batteries are one of the most recycled items.

Actual types used have environmental issues, but these are being addressed. They certainly don't end up in the landfill.

Can you pour gas on the ground legally? No you can't.

You're not very good at this.

Did you know that the interstate transportation of hazardous materials is prohibited? It is a felony, if convicted leads to time in jail and very high fines. Then there's those pesky exploding batteries. You know everything from alkaline to Lithium ion batteries.
Then please explain to the readers why Volts explode and burn, and the same for the now defunct Fiskars?

 

[Vern]

Just looked it up. It was more than one. You are wrong.

mmmm, I cant help but notice you didn't supply a link. You bothered to google something (finally) and didn’t bother to post the link. It makes me wonder if you want to debate the facts or just propagate false right wing talking points. Anyhoo, I can only find one report of a volt fire. I’m unaware of multiple volts.

I guess you could be referring to the fact that after the one volt caught fire 3 weeks after its crash test (yes 3 weeks) because they didn't drain the battery, the NHTSA smashed up some battery packs. They got one to smoke and spark after they turned it upside down “within hours” and one battery pack caught fire a week later. Yea, a week later. I guess we could just chalk up your confusion in the matter to a perfectly innocent mistake like all the others you’ve posted in this thread. It is odd because all your mistakes seem to be a steady stream of falsehoods attacking American innovation and jobs.

But your post doesn't address the other perfectly innocent mistake about volts catching fire for no reason. You said “The volt doesn't even need to be in an accident.” . You basically implied there were a lot of fires and some of them just happen for no apparent reason. Did the link you didn’t post have anything about the “spontaneous combustion”?

Anyhoo, here’s the NHTSA press release about the one volt fire and the tests on the battery packs.

Statement of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration On Formal Safety Defect Investigation of Post-Crash Fire Risk in Chevy Volts | National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA)

Here’s where they concluded there was no defect in the volt and as of the date of the press release they were still unaware of a real world fire involving any electric vehicle.

NHTSA Statement on Conclusion of Chevy Volt Investigation | National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA)

 

[Lord of Planar]

mmmm, I cant help but notice you didn't supply a link. You bothered to google something (finally) and didn’t bother to post the link.

Good, you looked it up. Two vehicles, not one.

Granted, they were both because of test crashes.

Tell me. How many Pinto's caught fire from a test crash? Isn't that number..... ZERO?

 

[Lord of Planar]

But your post doesn't address the other perfectly innocent mistake about volts catching fire for no reason. You said “The volt doesn't even need to be in an accident.” . You basically implied there were a lot of fires and some of them just happen for no apparent reason. Did the link you didn’t post have anything about the “spontaneous combustion”?

These types of batteries can start on fire just from improper manufacturing. Once we get several thousand of these types of cars on the road, i think it's safe to say that some will catch fire for no apparent reason. the statistics imply that as a reality.

As for implying a lot of fires? I will say that I believe there will be more problems of fires with batter cars than there was with the Pinto.

Please notice, I clearly said: "Now comparing that with the battery fires we have seen for so few Volts made, what is the reality?"

So few made...

A question, that implies I suspect there will be several more once these are on the road in numbers.

 

[Vern]

Good, you looked it up. Two vehicles, not one.

Mmmmm, obviously you seem have knowledge of two volts catching fire but are unwilling to share it because the solid factual link I posted showed one volt catching fire. I explained your possible confusion in the matter so I’m a little perplexed that you are still confused. For a guy who wanted to “clarify the angles” you only seem to post obfuscating ‘recollections’. So in addition to being consistently wrong, your posts also consistently attack American innovation and jobs.

Tell me. How many Pinto's caught fire from a test crash? Isn't that number..... ZERO?

Since you keep bringing it up as if you are making a point, I decided to look into it. I should have realized your Pinto ‘recollectin’ would be just as false as all your other ‘recollectin’. The first problem with your narrative is Pinto were not catching fire 3 weeks after the crash. They were “bursting into flames” or “exploding. Ford crashed tested 11 pintos. 8 burst into flames. The three that didn’t had been modified with a fix. So don’t ‘interpret’ that as 8 out of 11. Its 8 out of 8. Its part of the reason they got eviscerated for the issue. The other reason is they calculated it was cheaper to pay victims than fix it.

“Records indicated that Ford had first conducted rear-end collision tests on the Pinto in December 1970, months after it was already in production. Initially, 11 carefully coordinated crashes were conducted, and in all but three of them, gas tanks ruptured and often burst into flames. In the three tests that didn't result in fires, the cars had prototype safety devices that engineers had developed while working with suppliers.”
HowStuffWorks "The Pinto Fire Controversy"

So the list of falsehoods you posted in your non stop agenda to attack American innovation and jobs continues to grow.

These types of batteries can start on fire just from improper manufacturing. Once we get several thousand of these types of cars on the road, i think it's safe to say that some will catch fire for no apparent reason. the statistics imply that as a reality.
.

And now we learn that your post of volts catching fire for no reason was just you “supposing” again. Really? You didn’t say “they could catch fire for no reason based on my knowledge of laptop batteries.” You said “the volt doesn’t even need to be in accident”. I think in an honest debate, you should have mentioned the ‘basis’ of that ‘opinion’. Bursting into flames (unlike the Pinto) is not inherent in a lithium ion battery. But like all your other ‘facts’, it was convenient to your nonstop agenda to attack American innovation and jobs.

 

[Lord of Planar]

OK, but those were not crash tests performed by the certification agency. They knew they had a potential problem, and wanted to see if retooling was viable or not.

What if the certification agency changed the testing to exploit and test the weakness of batteries, trying to cause fires? I know you will say they have, but have they really?

As for catching on fire for no reason, statistics have it that some battery packs will have manufacturing deficiencies. I will place this in the catagory that the future will prove me correct.

 

[Vern]

OK, but those were not crash tests performed by the certification agency. They knew they had a potential problem, and wanted to see if retooling was viable or not.

What if the certification agency changed the testing to exploit and test the weakness of batteries, trying to cause fires? I know you will say they have, but have they really?
.

Please explain what point you think you made concerning the pinto and how it relates to the volt. You seem to be implying that 8 out 8 cars bursting into flames is not relevant because ford did it. FYI that makes it more relevant. They would have liked them to not explode. And amazingly, you are posting more falsehoods. Ford did not want to see if retooling was viable. They didn't want to pay for it. They calculated it was cheaper to pay victims. Wikipedia told you it would cost 11 dollars a car. That's why you cant trust Wikipedia. One fix would have cost 11. It ignored the other two fixes. One would have cost 5.08. And one was less than a dollar. (my HowStuffworks link above)

And now you are trying to imply that the NHTSA changed the testing to cause the pinto to explode. They didn't crash test the pinto. Crash testing by NHTSA started in the late 70s. And when you smash up 3 batteries without draining the energy after you smash them up, you are changing the testing. I have no problem with them investigating the batteries in a special test that didn't follow the protocol of draining the battery. I have a problem with people like you trying to exploit it to attack American jobs and innovation.

As for catching on fire for no reason, statistics have it that some battery packs will have manufacturing deficiencies. I will place this in the catagory that the future will prove me correct.

yes, some battery packs out of the hundreds of millions in laptops caught fire. But again, when you use that factoid to post that "The volt doesn't even need to be in an accident (to catch fire)." you should have stated the basis of that opinion was just you "supposing". It was deceptive at best. But again, it was consistent with the steady stream of falsehoods you've posted attacking American jobs and innovation.

What is your agenda attacking American jobs and innovation with a steady stream of falsehoods? do you even know why you are doing it?

 

[Lord of Planar]

Please explain what point you think you made concerning the pinto and how it relates to the volt. You seem to be implying that 8 out 8 cars bursting into flames is not relevant because ford did it.

It was more like 8 out of 11, and the purposely changed the test to make them cause on fire.

FYI that makes it more relevant. They would have liked them to not explode. And amazingly, you are posting more falsehoods. Ford did not want to see if retooling was viable. They didn't want to pay for it. They calculated it was cheaper to pay victims. Wikipedia told you it would cost 11 dollars a car. That's why you cant trust Wikipedia. One fix would have cost 11. It ignored the other two fixes. One would have cost 5.08. And one was less than a dollar. (my HowStuffworks link above)

Yes.

You can never make something 100%. they could have retooled and put these inexpensive parts on. It was the retooling of the assembly process ityself that would have really racked up the cost.

And now you are trying to imply that the NHTSA changed the testing to cause the pinto to explode.

No.

Never said such a thing. I asked what would the results be if the NHTSA changed the crash test to purposely make the Volt catch fire.

They didn't crash test the pinto. Crash testing by NHTSA started in the late 70s.

Yep. Still, had to put it out there. We don't really know how it would have fared in the testing performed now.

And when you smash up 3 batteries without draining the energy after you smash them up, you are changing the testing. I have no problem with them investigating the batteries in a special test that didn't follow the protocol of draining the battery.

True. However, such batteries are a whole different game, still new, and we still don;'t know everything.

I have a problem with people like you trying to exploit it to attack American jobs and innovation.

I have problems with you too.

yes, some battery packs out of the hundreds of millions in laptops caught fire. But again, when you use that factoid to post that "The volt doesn't even need to be in an accident (to catch fire)." you should have stated the basis of that opinion was just you "supposing". It was deceptive at best. But again, it was consistent with the steady stream of falsehoods you've posted attacking American jobs and innovation.

I guess like I said, we will need to let the future see who is correct.

What is your agenda attacking American jobs and innovation with a steady stream of falsehoods? do you even know why you are doing it?

Please... That is a stretch to accuse me of such things, especially after you speak of falsehoods.

 

[Vern]

It was more like 8 out of 11, and the purposely changed the test to make them cause on fire.

HOLY COW. it was 8 out of 8 unmodified. I clearly stated that. You are obviously at the point where your brain is rejecting actual facts to maintain your beliefs. The 3 that didn't blow up were modified with one of the possible safety fixes. Its one thing to post the silly falsehoods you’ve posted repeatedly but you don’t get to ignore the facts I’ve already posted.
Let me summarize for you so you cant confuse yourself again:
8 out 8 unmodified pintos blew up
3 out 3 modified didn't.

And accusing Ford of modifying their own test is just you creating facts out of thin air to maintain your beliefs. You do that a lot. .

I have problems with you too.

Of course you do. I’m posting facts that prove you’ve posted nothing but falsehood after falsehood. You have literally posted nothing true.

Please... That is a stretch to accuse me of such things, especially after you speak of falsehoods.

How is it a stretch. You’ve posted nothing but lying republican talking points and I’ve refuted every single one. That’s why you don’t want to get into a “googling contest” because you cant back up your points.
Seriously please explain why you feel it necessary to post nothing factual and create facts out of thin air to attack American jobs and innovation

 

[Lord of Planar]

Vern

Ford did a study to see what their liability might be. All businesses do such things. If it For'd fault that people cause accidents? You cannot make things 100% safe, especially when you think you make something fool-prove, a better fool is created.

The people rear ending others are at fault, by the legal standards of the time. Now that we have testing, and such a weakness was found by those who certify the cars, it isn't quite the same story.

It's tragic that 27 people died because of the gas tanks. It's tragic that people die because of careless drivers, which is far more common.

 

[Vern]

Vern
Ford did a study to see what their liability might be. All businesses do such things. If it For'd fault that people cause accidents? You cannot make things 100% safe, especially when you think you make something fool-prove, a better fool is created.
The people rear ending others are at fault, by the legal standards of the time. Now that we have testing, and such a weakness was found by those who certify the cars, it isn't quite the same story.
It's tragic that 27 people died because of the gas tanks. It's tragic that people die because of careless drivers, which is far more common.

See how you did that. You posted a false statement about Ford modifying its own test to make sure the Pinto caught fire and then effortlessly move onto your next false statement as if you said nothing. Yes ford did a study to find out their liability. Strangely you left out the reason Ford did the study. They wanted to know if it was cheaper to fix the pinto or cheaper to kill people. They figured it was cheaper to kill people. So actually no, all business don’t do that.

Now up to now you’ve posted falsehood after falsehood attacking American jobs and innovation. Now you are posting falsehood after falsehood defending greed and malfeasance. I cant imagine one good reason to justify either agenda let alone both. And the hypocritical part is that you wring your hands in worry over possible future volt fires ( and of course you were vague about the future part) but pintos exploding and burning 27 people to death you’re all “ eh, sh*t happens”.

 

[Lord of Planar]

See how you did that. You posted a false statement about Ford modifying its own test to make sure the Pinto caught fire and then effortlessly move onto your next false statement as if you said nothing. Yes ford did a study to find out their liability. Strangely you left out the reason Ford did the study. They wanted to know if it was cheaper to fix the pinto or cheaper to kill people. They figured it was cheaper to kill people. So actually no, all business don’t do that.

Yes, for tested for liability. As for not clearly stating that, I thought it was obvious.

Now up to now you’ve posted falsehood after falsehood attacking American jobs and innovation. Now you are posting falsehood after falsehood defending greed and malfeasance. I cant imagine one good reason to justify either agenda let alone both. And the hypocritical part is that you wring your hands in worry over possible future volt fires ( and of course you were vague about the future part) but pintos exploding and burning 27 people to death you’re all “ eh, sh*t happens”.

How did I attack jobs and innovation?

Yes. It happens. Just a little more frequent in Pintos than other cars. Do you disagree it was the person's fault rear ending another, or not?

 

[Vern]

Lord, I really don’t understand your ridiculous defense of the pinto. You’ve yet to explain how this in any relates to your non stop falsehoods about the volt. It seemed to upset you that the Volt is greener, cheaper and more patriotic than an ICE. And you were so determined to prove otherwise you didn’t let the facts get in your way.

Yes, for tested for liability. As for not clearly stating that, I thought it was obvious.

Read this slowly and as many times as necessary
Ford was aware of the problem with the Pinto and determined it was cheaper to let people die.

How did I attack jobs and innovation?

You attacked American jobs and innovation when you attacked the volt. You didn’t criticize the volt. You posted ridiculous falsehood after ridiculous falsehood attacking the volt. Thanks to the conservative entertainment complex’s non stop lies about the volt, it has hurt sales. And you are doing the same.

Yes. It happens. Just a little more frequent in Pintos than other cars. Do you disagree it was the person's fault rear ending another, or not?

More falsehoods. No shock there. In ford's own test it was 100%. That’s not a “little more often”. Seriously, what is your point in posting falsehoods defending Ford’s greed and malfeasance as it relates to the pinto? Stop posting falsehoods for one post and explain your agenda

Yes, the person rear ending the other car is at fault. (Why would you post such a silly deflecting question?) But its Ford’s fault that the collision resulted in 27 people being burned alive.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Yep.

100% of a test they designed for such an end result, and correct me if I'm wrong...

It was 30 MPH...

Get rear ended with a 30 MPH speed differential, and something else is happening. It's not a typical fender bender.

 

[Vern]

Yep.

100% of a test they designed for such an end result, and correct me if I'm wrong...

.

er uh Lord, I've been doing nothing but correct you because you've been consistently wrong, be it transmission losses, the efficiency of an ICE, ICE being cleaner than coal, pretending only coal and oil will be used for peak energy production, pretending the Volt will be charged at peak, the number of volts that caught fire now and in the future, that no pintos caught fire in crash tests and why ford did a liability study.

here's a crazy, why not post something true? oh, facts don't help your old agenda of attacking American jobs and innovation or your new agenda of defending Ford's greed and malfeasance. And you never did explain why you are posting about the pinto so I'll just assume its to deflect from all the non stop falsehoods about the volt. (since you refuse to tell us, I can assume)