Space junk and global warming?

[billrealph]

We believe at lest 40% of today’s global warming is caused by the ring of space junk {Metal} around the planet. Reflecting and there for, magnifying the sunlight towards the earth as well as the outer atmosphere. If this is true N.A.S.A and other countries must be accountable for cleaning up their junk and the environmental damage that they have caused. Magnets maybe used to retrieve their junk?
This can be seen through space junk tracking. Only together as a whole may we have a slight chance to save this planet or we will loss every living thing and it's a very good chance you will be here to see it all.

To do this is self government, get rid of the people destroying it your so called representatives. The Individual Two-Third Majority Vote Self-Government is for you as an individual govern your own countries government department for a true democracy, not this false democracy we have today. :cheers2:

[Trigcove]

Um....
Wouldn't metalic space junk reflect sunlight *away* from the earth, thereby causing global cooling?

Really, if you're thinking about adopting science (or worse yet, pseudo-science) as your religion, you might want to consider something that has a more accurate track record.

Science once thought Thalidomide was good for pregnant mothers.
Science once thought that Fen-phen was good for dieting.
Science once thought that MTBE was a good "anti-pollution" additive for gasoline.
Science once thought that Iridium was a good concept for global cellular phone service.
Science once thought that Silicon was a good matierial for breast implants.
Science once thought that Y2K would be the end of the world.
Science once thought that eggs were bad for us. (no offense to the vegans.)
Science told us we would be killed by killer bees; Ebola; SARS; Bird Flu; Swine Flu; an asteroid; high-power lines; and nuclear winter.

Now Science is convincing us all that:
~the theory of evolution should be taught, while other theories should not.
~Man-made CO2 is causing global warming.
~Ethanol made from corn is a good substitute for gasoline.
~It's necessary to save species from extinction. (Would you really like dinosaurs around?)
~Hybrid cars, like the Prius, have a small carbon footprint (more than a Hummer, when you compare their full manufacture-to-scrap lifetimes.)

I'm telling you, the stuff science thinks it knows (but doesn't) has filled, and continues to fill, volumes. The truth usually only comes out *after* the money and energy are spent.

So, by all means, spend a huge chunk of the worlds wealth vacuuming a few pieces of harmless space junk out of orbit... or maybe feed hungry people.

You be the judge.

[etherea]

Bravo!!!!!! Feeding the hungry is only important to governments when they have to discuss it at summits and have to adopt the "we're doing better than you" mentality.

[ThePoetSappho]

couldn't we just throw it into a blackhole?

[White_Horse_Mescalito]

tmmf09

you're spamming and all your post will get pulled if you don't chill

[etherea]

Why does someone always through a spanner in the works. This was getting interesting until that tmmf shit!

[TheMagneticHeadache]

Um....
Wouldn't metalic space junk reflect sunlight *away* from the earth, thereby causing global cooling?

Really, if you're thinking about adopting science (or worse yet, pseudo-science) as your religion, you might want to consider something that has a more accurate track record.

Science once thought Thalidomide was good for pregnant mothers.
Science once thought that Fen-phen was good for dieting.
Science once thought that MTBE was a good "anti-pollution" additive for gasoline.
Science once thought that Iridium was a good concept for global cellular phone service.
Science once thought that Silicon was a good matierial for breast implants.
Science once thought that Y2K would be the end of the world.
Science once thought that eggs were bad for us. (no offense to the vegans.)
Science told us we would be killed by killer bees; Ebola; SARS; Bird Flu; Swine Flu; an asteroid; high-power lines; and nuclear winter.

Now Science is convincing us all that:
~the theory of evolution should be taught, while other theories should not.
~Man-made CO2 is causing global warming.
~Ethanol made from corn is a good substitute for gasoline.
~It's necessary to save species from extinction. (Would you really like dinosaurs around?)
~Hybrid cars, like the Prius, have a small carbon footprint (more than a Hummer, when you compare their full manufacture-to-scrap lifetimes.)

I'm telling you, the stuff science thinks it knows (but doesn't) has filled, and continues to fill, volumes. The truth usually only comes out *after* the money and energy are spent.

So, by all means, spend a huge chunk of the worlds wealth vacuuming a few pieces of harmless space junk out of orbit... or maybe feed hungry people.

You be the judge.

Well said.

[granny_longhair]

Well said.

Sorry, but I don't think it was well said.

You made your list, I'll make one also. It's short, but it makes the point.

Science gave us a green revolution that feeds most of the world.

Science eradicated many infectious diseases that were the scourge of the planet.

Science gave us transportation and communication abilities beyond our wildest dreams.

Science has given us an understanding of the world and the universe that was unthinkable a century ago.


Yes, science has made mistakes, although most of the things on your list were more the fault of politicians than of scientists.

If you expect science (or anything else) to be perfect and without mistakes, you will be sadly disillusioned. Thalidomide was a terrible disaster, but do you want to shut down the entire process of investigating the natural world because of it?

I am not saying that science has all the answers, nor that scientists should rule the world. Someone needs to keep them reined in and focused on things that matter.

But if you did away with an institution every time it made a mistake, human civilization would never exist.

[granny_longhair]

We believe at lest 40% of today’s global warming is caused by the ring of space junk {Metal} around the planet. Reflecting and there for, magnifying the sunlight towards the earth as well as the outer atmosphere[FONT=&quot].

This is utter nonsense. Simply reflecting sunlight does not "magnify" it. In order to magnify it, you need a lens.

The full moon reflects a million billion times more sunlight to earth than space junk does. Why don't you think moonlight causes global warming?

[PAX-MAN]

GRANNY!
Talking about science........ makes me remember an episode of Family Guy that I saw last Sunday. Stewie and Brian go to an alternate universe where Christianity never really took off . So the Dark Ages never really existed. [Something that I would like to add: I don't think they burned witches so alot of herbalists didn't die off. ] There was an extra thousand years of science in that universe- and it was a pretty incredible place! Let's hope that green science will save this universe.

PAX

[granny_longhair]

There was an extra thousand years of science in that universe- and it was a pretty incredible place!

I'll bet it was!



Let's hope that green science will save this universe.

I truly believe it will be love that saves the universe, but it will have to be assisted by science. The population of the earth is going to double at least one more time. Where is all that food going to come from?

Not only that, we have not done a very good job of taking care of the earth so far, and if we are to turn the tide with all that, it will be science that provides the tools.

[sunfighter]

Well said, Granny.

[Trigcove]

Sorry, but I don't think it was well said.

You made your list, I'll make one also. It's short, but it makes the point.

Science gave us a green revolution that feeds most of the world.

Science eradicated many infectious diseases that were the scourge of the planet.

Science gave us transportation and communication abilities beyond our wildest dreams.

Science has given us an understanding of the world and the universe that was unthinkable a century ago.

Yes, science has made mistakes, although most of the things on your list were more the fault of politicians than of scientists.

If you expect science (or anything else) to be perfect and without mistakes, you will be sadly disillusioned. Thalidomide was a terrible disaster, but do you want to shut down the entire process of investigating the natural world because of it?

I am not saying that science has all the answers, nor that scientists should rule the world. Someone needs to keep them reined in and focused on things that matter.

But if you did away with an institution every time it made a mistake, human civilization would never exist.

No, you're right, Granny.
Science is responsible for a great many advances. And you're also right that politicians (and capitalists) are the ones who typically distort the information, if not outright lie about it.

My point is that science makes its advancements by trial and error. They typically get it wrong the first dozen times before they hit on a genuine breakthrough. When it comes to really big, world shaking stuff, I would prefer that we pitch out all the rhetoric and agendas and simply take a good, honest look at what we're being asked to believe, rather than all jump on the bandwagon when the politicians and media get a hard on for some cause.

Right now, "green" is the big hot-button. If anyone so much as hints that something is "green", why... half the world climbs on board and rides that pony - even if it turns out to be complete bullshite. And believe me, there are a LOT of bullshite merchants out there.

These hybrid cars that are supposed to be so green - they're one of my favorite examples. Their "dust to dust" energy consumption (meaning their *full* lifetime, from raw minerals to a pile of rust) is almost double that of a Hummer. In some cases, it's more than double. And yet, people still buy them, thinking they're doing something good for the earth. (FYI, the car with the best lifetime record is...... the Ford Focus. Read 'em and weep, Toyota Corolla @ #9.)

This sort of thing just makes me shake my head in wonder at the foolishness of people. At the expense of sounding like an X-Files commercial, the truth is out there if one hasn't drunk the kool-aid, yet, and still has an interest in looking for it. Of course, when I say something like that, someone will always want to argue with me by saying, "well, we have to try, or the world is going to go to hell in a handbasket." And my response is always, "Yes, by all means, let's do whatever we can to make things better, but for God's sake, lets make *sure* that, whatever we decide to do, it really is going to make things better and not worse."

Science is based on mostly trial and error, with an occasional success thrown in to make it worthwhile. As my ol' daddy used to say, "even a blind pig gets an acorn once in a while." The acorns are nice, but lets not start believing that it's all acorns, okay?

There are many endeavors out there that are much more worthy of the money and energy. We can't afford the continued luxury of expensive gaffs like the ones I mentioned earlier.

[Trigcove]

I truly believe it will be love that saves the universe, but it will have to be assisted by science. The population of the earth is going to double at least one more time. Where is all that food going to come from?


Here's a little trade-off for science to consider: There is a finite amount of food that the world can produce. We may not be there, yet, but it's still finite. If science gives us a world where annually the mortality rate is reduced and longevity is increased, then it contributes to the overpopulation of the world. There is an end result to that, but it's not a very nice one.

Nature will resolve the problem, even if we can't. There will be pestilence, disease and famine. This will fix the population problem, although it won't be pretty. We're seeing this happen already, with the antibiotic resistant staff infections (MRSA). This is a direct case of nature overriding science. Living in a natural world requires one to submit to the rule of nature. Instead, we try to sterilize eveything around us, to the point where our bodies have no need for natural resistances. Then, when we do catch a bug, we need antibiotics to kill them. Pretty soon, the bugs get comfortable with the antibiotics and we're all screwed.

Newton said that for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. Of course, this is supposed to refer only to bodies in motion, but I think it holds true for just about anything. It's Yin and Yang, the natural balance of the universe. You can't make something better here without making something worse there - and vice versa.

[BSAlightning]

I think as much light that is reflected towards the earth is also reflected away from it with space junk. Not a problem.

[sunfighter]

These hybrid cars that are supposed to be so green - they're one of my favorite examples. Their "dust to dust" energy consumption (meaning their *full* lifetime, from raw minerals to a pile of rust) is almost double that of a Hummer. In some cases, it's more than double. And yet, people still buy them, thinking they're doing something good for the earth. (FYI, the car with the best lifetime record is...... the Ford Focus. Read 'em and weep, Toyota Corolla @ #9.)


This is complete misinformation. Interesting -- it shows how you doubt scientists but you believe any rubbish coming from the internet.

The person who originally posted the hybrid-Hummer calculation has admitted that they were completely wrong. Hybrids are WAY better on a life-cycle basis than Hummers.

[Trigcove]

Sorry, but I don't think it was well said.

You made your list, I'll make one also. It's short, but it makes the point.

Science gave us a green revolution that feeds most of the world.

Science eradicated many infectious diseases that were the scourge of the planet.

Science gave us transportation and communication abilities beyond our wildest dreams.

Science has given us an understanding of the world and the universe that was unthinkable a century ago.

Yes, science has made mistakes, although most of the things on your list were more the fault of politicians than of scientists.

If you expect science (or anything else) to be perfect and without mistakes, you will be sadly disillusioned. Thalidomide was a terrible disaster, but do you want to shut down the entire process of investigating the natural world because of it?

I am not saying that science has all the answers, nor that scientists should rule the world. Someone needs to keep them reined in and focused on things that matter.


I hate to sound like Columbo here, but I have "one more thing" to contribute to the discussion. This is in reference to your points quoted above, Granny.

Science gave us the green revolution which allowed us to feed more people than ever before, which in turn allows for more population growth, which will mean that even the green revolution won't be able to feed everyone, eventually. The problem just got delayed and a lot bigger, it didn't go away.

Science didn't eradicate diseases, but it did make it so people could beat them... at least for a while. The diseases will just get stronger and come back again. Polio has reared it's ugly head again and Small Pox may be next. Every year we hear about yet another potentially deadly disease on the rise. Most of them turn out to be nothing (like the ones I mentioned earlier) but one day there may be a true "population thinner" that will arise from the ashes of all the diseases that we *thought* we had beaten.

As for the transportation and communication advances, aren't there a lot of scientists telling us that those same transportation advances causing a great deal of climate change, now? And don't they also warn that all the cell phones and other radio waves in the air can cause cancer?

Our "understanding" of the world and the universe frequently leads to war and/or a squandering of the worlds wealth on trivial matters, while people in third world countries die of hunger and disease.

Investigating the natural world is fine, as long as we don't try to "fix" what we perceive as problems. There is always a tradeoff. Less yin results in more yang, and sooner or later nature reacts to restore the balance - often in unexpected and catastrophic ways.

Thanks for your indulgence. I'll try to shut up, now. You can see that I'm not at all passionate about this topic.

[sunfighter]

Here's a little trade-off for science to consider: There is a finite amount of food that the world can produce. We may not be there, yet, but it's still finite. If science gives us a world where annually the mortality rate is reduced and longevity is increased, then it contributes to the overpopulation of the world. There is an end result to that, but it's not a very nice one.

Keep in mind it takes 10 lbs of grain to produce one lb of meat. If the world ate less meat, there would be a huge multiplier effect in making more grain available.

[sunfighter]

As for the transportation and communication advances, aren't there a lot of scientists telling us that those same transportation advances causing a great deal of climate change, now? And don't they also warn that all the cell phones and other radio waves in the air can cause cancer?


Your science education is weak, I must say. Almost no scientists think that cell phones and radio waves cause cancer. And science and engineering are providing transportation solutions like solar-powered fuel cells and high-speed bullet trains that are solving climate-change problems, not making them worse. The problem isn't science. It's materialism and the profit motive of large corporations.

[Trigcove]

This is complete misinformation. Interesting -- it shows how you doubt scientists but you believe any rubbish coming from the internet.

The person who originally posted the hybrid-Hummer calculation has admitted that they were completely wrong. Hybrids are WAY better on a life-cycle basis than Hummers.

I'd like to see a link or a reference for that last statement, please.

Actually, it wasn't a "person" who made the study, it was an independent study group by the name of CNW Research, and the website has links to most of their responses to their detractors. They are not funded by the automotive industry or oil industry. The thing that was "admitted to" was that the lifetime of the hybrid car was estimated low. I put "admitted" in quotes, because they never denied it in the first place. The initial report had the hybrids coming out at nearly three times the energy consumption of a hummer. This is because it was all of the data they had to analyze. After the re-calculation in 2008, the the rate was still 2x that of a Hummer. CNW has offered it's calculation information to ANY other entity who would like to do their own independent study. To date, there have been no takers. However, there are many activist and political organizations with a "horse in the race" who would like to take exception to the CNW report.

Here's the link to my info:

http://www.cnwmr.com/nss-folder/automotiveenergy/

There are a number of websites that refute the information found in the study, but all of them appear to be environmental sites with an activist perspective (none are independent study groups) and they typically don't refute the findings of the independent study so much as they try to ridicule it by misdirection. They say things like, "lets compare the cost of making the Prius batteries (120lbs) to the hummer's tires (240lbs)," as though that weren't already considered in the independent study, or, "Toyota only uses about a 1000 tons of nickel a year to produce the Prius batteries, but the plant in Sudbury produces 95,000 tons of nickel annually," as though the plant's annual output has anything to do with the dust-to-dust cost of a Prius. They use emotional tactics to invoke a specific response from the reader. Many of them cite MIT and Argonne Labs studies, but to date, I have not been able to find those studies anywhere. The only MIT studies that I find talk about fuel usages, which is only a part of the total dust to dust energy cost of a vehicle. Many detractors say that the CNW report is unreliable, because it hasn't undergone peer evaluation. Well, neither has Toyota's own, more favorable, evaluation, but don't forget, they have a vested interest in the more positive outcome of their study. And so far, no other independent peer has stepped up to produce their own report.

It's interesting that you would take the evidence of an unbiased research group as "rubbish", but you take the word of activist groups as truth. This is all part of the "if it claims to be green, it's GOOD!" mentality that abounds today.

Show me your unbiased evidence that refutes the CNW report. I don't want to see any websites that aren't backed up with a link to an independent study, because it will just be more propaganda from groups with a vested interest in the outcome - and I don't want to see any evidence that relies on hearsay to make its claim.

For the record, I own a Toyota Corolla. I'm not anti-Toyota, anti-hybrid, or anti-Hummer. I just like to know the truth about the things I'm being asked to believe.

[sunfighter]

OK, well good for you for injecting some information into this debate. I will attempt to refute. I posted this elsewhere. I will look for it.

I'm not saying that CNW is biased, but I think they made mistakes with their analysis. Seems kinda fishy that they first assumed that the lifetime of a Hummer is 379,000 miles while a Prius is only 109,000. Well, OK, you say they corrected that, so let me look a little deeper ....

[Trigcove]

Your science education is weak, I must say. Almost no scientists think that cell phones and radio waves cause cancer. And science and engineering are providing transportation solutions like solar-powered fuel cells and high-speed bullet trains that are solving climate-change problems, not making them worse. The problem isn't science. It's materialism and the profit motive of large corporations.

You've got a lot of nerve calling my science education weak. At least I'm supplying links and proofs for my claims. Where are yours?

Here's one on cell phones and radio waves, from the National Cancer Institute:

http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/risk/cellphones

And another from the EM Radiaton Research Trust:

http://www.radiationresearch.org/pdfs/15reasons.asp

I can get you even more, if you need 'em.

As for what science and engineering providing solar powered fuel cells, what you mean is, "they're working on solar powered fuel cells." Hopefully, they won't introduce them before they're fully tested and analyized for potential repercussions that they just didn't think would happen.
Bullet trains may be a good solution, or they may spawn problems of their own. The jury is still out.

However, I agree with you that materialism and corporate greed is at the root of most of the misdirection. Don't forget that whoever makes those bullet trains is a large corporations, too. Never trust a source with a "horse in the race" or a profit to be made by the outcome.

[granny_longhair]

Trigcove, you raise some interesting ideas, even if I'm not sure I buy into all of your claims. For instance, polio is only making a "comeback" because people have lost their fear of it and aren't vaccinating as diligently as they once did. That's no fault of the science involved. And when I said "eradicate", I didn't necessarily mean the diseases themselves disappeared ... I just meant that the incidence of the diseases went to practically zero.

However, I do agree with you that science can be a double-edged sword. For instance, it would seem that all our fantastic medical advances and food production are just helping to hasten the day when the earth bursts at the seams from too many people. This is why population control is so desperately needed. But again, this is less a matter of science than it is of the nations of the world having the political will to institute control programs.

It's funny that the solutions to many of these problems are so self-evident to minds that look at them in a fresh way. I'm referring to my fifth-graders, who see them as pretty much black and white. Even second graders have insights that would astonish many politicians, I think. It's a joy to teach science to kids, because they soak up the information like sponges, and because they don't get things all wrapped up in politics.

It's very true, as you say, that science is mostly a trial-and-error process. But rather than seeing that as a drawback, I see it as a positive. It means that the scientific process is self-correcting. Instead of pointing to the thalidomide incident as a failure of science, I look at it and say ... look at how this terrible tragedy was corrected. New things were learned, and corrections were made. Can you say that about other human endeavors? Well, some you can and some you can't.

And besides, what's the alternative? As I mentioned earlier, if you expect science or any other human activity to be perfect every time, you will terribly disappointed. Mistakes will be made. Things will go wrong. Causes and effects will be misunderstood. But the way science works, hopefully the mistakes will be corrected. In contrast, in so many other areas of human activity, it appears that the same mistakes are repeated over and over.

[Trigcove]

OK, well good for you for injecting some information into this debate. I will attempt to refute. I posted this elsewhere. I will look for it.

I'm not saying that CNW is biased, but I think they made mistakes with their analysis. Seems kinda fishy that they first assumed that the lifetime of a Hummer is 379,000 miles while a Prius is only 109,000. Well, OK, you say they corrected that, so let me look a little deeper ....

It's not so much that they corrected it as they clarified their reasons for doing it. You can read up on their website, where they respond to the various complaints and detractors.

[sunfighter]

CNWMR does not release its methodology because it is a for-profit business. So, you say they are not funded by the automotive industry, but it seems they get their money from them in other ways.

Ah, they changed the estimated lifetime to Prius to 121,000 miles. That still seems way too low.

Still looking ...

[Trigcove]

Trigcove, you raise some interesting ideas, even if I'm not sure I buy into all of your claims. For instance, polio is only making a "comeback" because people have lost their fear of it and aren't vaccinating as diligently as they once did. That's no fault of the science involved. And when I said "eradicate", I didn't necessarily mean the diseases themselves disappeared ... I just meant that the incidence of the diseases went to practically zero.

I contend that in some cases they are making things worse. MRSA is the one that specifically comes to mind. It has grown resistant solely through the over use of common antibiotics.

However, I do agree with you that science can be a double-edged sword. For instance, it would seem that all our fantastic medical advances and food production are just helping to hasten the day when the earth bursts at the seams from too many people. This is why population control is so desperately needed. But again, this is less a matter of science than it is of the nations of the world having the political will to institute control programs.

Thank you for seeing my point, even if you don't necessarily agree with it. People seem to have become so polarized that they are unable to even look at the potential for error in their beliefs. It is refreshing to find someone who will at least consider all sides of an issue.

You are right, of course. Population control needs to be promoted. Unfortunately it seems to be religious beliefs, more than politics or science, that is getting in the way.

It's funny that the solutions to many of these problems are so self-evident to minds that look at them in a fresh way. I'm referring to my fifth-graders, who see them as pretty much black and white. Even second graders have insights that would astonish many politicians, I think. It's a joy to teach science to kids, because they soak up the information like sponges, and because they have such clear ideas, unbiased by politics.

Teach them science, but please also teach them to remain objective and to look for the flaws.

It's very true, as you say, that science is mostly a trial-and-error process. But rather than seeing that as a drawback, I see it as a positive. It means that the scientific process is self-correcting. Instead of pointing to the thalidomide incident as a failure of science, I look at it and say ... look at how this terrible tragedy was corrected. New things were learned, and corrections were made. Can you say that about other human endeavors? Well, some you can and some you can't.

And besides, what's the alternative? As I mentioned earlier, if you expect science or any other human activity to be perfect every time, you will terribly disappointed. Mistakes will be made. Things will go wrong. But the way science works, hopefully the mistakes will be corrected. In contrast, in so many other areas of human activity, it appears that the same mistakes are repeated over and over.

I don't expect perfection, I hope for caution. We improve our understanding with every mistake, but how many mistakes could have been avoided with a little more caution and investigation. Why is the world so anxious to speed up the progress train? It's sending us, hell bent for election, to the end of times. And, sometimes the best intentions are stoking the boilers.

[sunfighter]

You've got a lot of nerve calling my science education weak. At least I'm supplying links and proofs for my claims. Where are yours?

I apologize. You are giving me some information that I need to check out. It seems you do have some science on your side, but I want to research a bit.

[granny_longhair]

It has grown resistant solely through the over use of common antibiotics.

Yes, but again that's not a condemnation of the scientific process. Things will evolve, ideas will change, ethics will be reversed. And bugs will find ways to become resistant to antibiotics. That's just the way it works. So you go back into the lab and you find new antibiotics, or perhaps some new methodology all together ... something that doesn't work on the same principle as antibiotics.


Population control needs to be promoted. Unfortunately it seems to be religious beliefs, more than politics or science, that is getting in the way.

Perhaps you're right. Nonetheless, it is the world's governments that are going to have to do something about it. I don't think even something like the Catholic Church, as powerful as it is, could reverse the population explosion.


Teach them science, but please also teach them to remain objective and to look for the flaws.

Of course. Healthy skepticism is inherent in the scientific method. Not to deify scientists, but I don't think they forget that as much as the public does.


We improve our understanding with every mistake, but how many mistakes could have been avoided with a little more caution and investigation.

Oh, no doubt plenty of them. You're completely right ... there needs to be a healthy caution applied to anything. I just don't want to see the pendulum swing too far in the other direction.

[Trigcove]

CNWMR does not release its methodology because it is a for-profit business. So, you say they are not funded by the automotive industry, but it seems they get their money from them in other ways.

Ah, they changed the estimated lifetime to Prius to 121,000 miles. That still seems way too low.

Still looking ...

From what I've read, they make their money by selling the reports and data that they collect. I don't know how they could make much from that alone, since they publish the report (or at least a portion of it) on the internet, free to all. Perhaps those who commission the reports pay big bucks for the info, then they allow it to be released to the public. However, the auto industry could not benefit in any way from a biased report, since all makes and styles of vehicles are included and most manufacturers have entries that look both favorable and not so favorable.

They don't release their methods, because their methods are propietary. They will, however, release the 5000 data points that are used to compile the information. This is similar to any business that will safeguard their techniques and processes, but will gladly provided a data sheet on their product, as well as quality control records and information.

The changing lifetime of a Prius is effected by it's estimated viable years. So far, most Prius drivers are reporting that they drive 8000-9000 miles per year. This is multiplied by the expected mechanical lifetime of the vehicle, resulting in an estimated Mileage Lifetime. The mechanical lifetime is estimated not on mileage, but on changing technology and physical age deterioration, as are all the vehicles tested. A hummer is expected to live a lot longer than a Prius, and therefore will be driven a lot more miles. As annual mileage reports increase, so will the mileage lifetime of a Prius.

[sunfighter]

Still researching ... but the biggest criticism of CNWMR I've found so far is the way they amortize or attribute the costs of R&D to the lifecycle of the vehicle. The Hummer uses old, paid-for, technology, while the Prius calculation uses high, recent, R&D costs spread over a relatively small number of vehicles.

If so, this calculation changes drastically if re-done now or in the near future.

Again, I apologize to you, Trigcove. I was hasty in dismissing your views and I might even end up changing my mind about a few things.

[sunfighter]

So, I've learned that there are contrary analyses by MIT and the Rocky Mountain Institute, both of which I regard very highly. So, I'm going to read them.

[Trigcove]

Still researching ... but the biggest criticism of CNWMR I've found so far is the way they amortize or attribute the costs of R&D to the lifecycle of the vehicle. The Hummer uses old, paid-for, technology, while the Prius calculation uses high, recent, R&D costs spread over a relatively small number of vehicles.

If so, this calculation changes drastically if re-done now or in the near future.

Again, I apologize to you, Trigcove. I was hasty in dismissing your views and I might even end up changing my mind about a few things.

Yes, CNW did acknowledge from the start that they used these methods to make their calculations. They state that this is not unreasonable, because some makes and models of cars never get to the next generation of testing. It would be disingenuous for them to report based on a 20 year history, if the technology only lasted 4 years. You are right that the figures will change with every passing year. If all cars go to hybrid models, Prius may well be at the top of the list for the new technology, but right now, we're comparing what is at this moment. At the time that this point was raised, there were very few hybrid cars on the market. If you look at the record for the last report, there are many hybrid cars listed. However, Prius still ranks higher than a Hummer. It will undoubtedly get better, but I don't think it will ever become the eco-messiah that many otherwise concienscious green-thinkers hoped or thought it was.

Just a couple of points I would like to throw out:
1. Independent thinking is critical when evaluating the issues.
2. Eco-business is a very large entity, now, and a very profitable one. That makes it even more important to exercise independent though about what they're asking us to believe.
3. The truth probably lies somewhere other than with the one who shouts the loudest or the longest. (heh... and that makes *me* suspect. Go do your homework!)

I thank you for and accept the apology. Don't give it another thought.
I don't expect to change anyone's mind. Our core beliefs (those which we inherently choose to believe, based on our own personal experiences and understandings) are very powerful, so much so that we tend to automatically believe whatever supports them and dismiss that which doesn't as some kind of chicanery. We frequently do this simply because it "sounds right", rather than for any substantial reasons.
Just to have you honestly examine other possibilities is the most that I would hope for.

[Trigcove]

So, I've learned that there are contrary analyses by MIT and the Rocky Mountain Institute, both of which I regard very highly. So, I'm going to read them.

Yes, so I've heard - and another one by... ah, I forget the name, but equally well respected (edit: Argonne National Laboratory). The only problem is, I couldn't find those reports anywhere. All I could find were some evaluations on MPG for hybrid vehicles. (further edit: If these reports existed, it seems logical that someone would have posted a link to one of them, along with their criticism.)

It is acknowledged that hybrids get better MPG, but that is only a portion of the dust to dust cost of energy.

If you find the actual reports, post a link. I've been wanting to read them, myself.

[sunfighter]

Here's the link to the Rocky Mountain Institute analysis:

http://www.rmi.org/images/PDFs/Transportation/T07-01_DustToDust.pdf

I think this is the MIT report, although it's 9 years old:

http://web.mit.edu/energylab/www/pubs/el00-003.pdf

[Trigcove]

Here's the link to the Rocky Mountain Institute analysis:

http://www.rmi.org/images/PDFs/Transportation/T07-01_DustToDust.pdf

I think this is the MIT report, although it's 9 years old:

http://web.mit.edu/energylab/www/pubs/el00-003.pdf

Ah, thanks for that. Your info scouring skills are much better than mine.

First of all, the MIT report is, as you say, 9+ years old and seems to be an exercise in determining what the most efficient form of technology for the year 2020 might be. Throughout the report, they refer repeatedly to the number of assumptions that they made in order to extrapolate estimations. So we know that it's based on "best guess" theory, rather than quantifiable knowledge.

Their finding is that the hybrid battery/internal combustion engine technology will likely be the most efficient, but their assumption is that all of the infrastructure to make this happen will be in place by 2020. This is something we don't know. I would say that it really doesn't matter, since all improvements have cost. We know there will be cost involved with any technology changeover. However, I don't think any of this is relevant to the Prius/Hummer findings in CNW's report. They're dealing with the here and now.

The RMI report ends with the following statement:

"We recognize that the GREET model does not include the transportation of the materials used to make the car, which could be a significant contribution. RMI plans on continuing to develop our capacity for vehicle lifecycle analysis, including the greenhouse gas and energy ramifications of transporting materials, in the near future. However, since the components of the Prius, except for the NiMH battery and Hybrid drivetrain, are approximately the same as the Hummer, and since the Hummer contains many more pounds of metal than the Prius, we do not believe the difference between the vehicles’ materials transportation will be a more significant issue than that of fuel economy."

Self admittedly, they have an incomplete report. Their other data may be entirely accurate, but they have not looked at *all* the data. They merely say that they don't believe that it would make that much difference. I'm inclined to wonder how they make this judgement without knowing what that difference is. Still, they use that judgement to refute CNW's report. I don't think it would cost as much to ship a thousand pounds of steel from Pittsburg to Detroit as it would to ship 100 pounds of battery materials around the world, but that's just me and my opinion vs. them and theirs.

CNW has responded to critics who cite the RMI findings. You can find this on the CNW site:

http://www.cnwmr.com/nss-folder/automotiveenergy/Response2%20Slate%20March%202008.pdf

In their response, CNW indicates that the RMI study and all others, were incomplete. They offer the following:

"One very simple example: Prius tires last approximately one quarter of the miles of those on a Toyota Corolla. No Prius life-cycle study, aside from ours, calculates the energy and resources consumption necessary to make those additional three sets of tires."

He goes on to say that no one has asked for the CNW data collection points. So how do the others insure that they comparing apples to apples? You'd think it would be something they would want to know before they attempt to duplicate the study.

All up, I'd say there was clearly room to doubt whether or not hybrid technology is worth its salt. Still, it's a free-market economy and if people wish to own one, far be it from me to tell them no. However, if the goal is to drive a fuel efficient, low GHG emitting vehicle in the here and now, there are many, many choices that will achieve that goal much better than a Hybrid - including domestic products as well as Euro and Japanese makes.