Berkeley Earth Study Group..Global Warming

Tell the whole story . . .

"There was no contract manufacturer in the U.S. that could actually produce our vehicle," the car company's founder and namesake told ABC News. "They don't exist here."

Henrik Fisker said the U.S. money has been spent on engineering and design work that stayed in the U.S., not on the 500 manufacturing jobs that went to a rural Finnish firm, Valmet Automotive. At the inception of the company, Fisker explored the possibility of producing the Karma in the U.S. However, there are no contract manufacturers like Valmet in the U.S., and none of the established domestic automakers were willing to partner with Fisker to provide a manufacturing option in the U.S.

Not a single dollar of the DoE loans has been, or will be, spent outside of America. All expenditures are reviewed by PriceWaterhouseCoopers on behalf of the DoE. After receiving the DoE loan, Fisker made it a priority to create U.S. jobs which led to the purchase its a former GM assembly plant in Delaware where it plans to establish production of a second, higher volume-lower-cost, line of vehicles (Project Nina) starting in 2012.

Only private equity financing, of which Fisker have raised over $600 million so far, has been used for costs not covered by the DoE loans, of which only a small part is production costs in Finland. The majority of private funding has been used to create jobs, including 650 people at Fisker’s headquarters in California, over 100 at the Delaware plant and many more at various suppliers throughout the U.S.

More than 45% of the components of the Fisker Karma sedan are manufactured by approximately 40 suppliers located in the U.S. Some of the biggest suppliers in the U.S. include A123 Systems (Li-ion battery), General Motors Springhill Engine Plant (gasoline engine), Goodyear (tires) and TRW (regenerative braking system). With the help of DoE loans, Fisker has already created hundreds of U.S. jobs, with thousands more in the near future.

 

Who is the freak? You are ready to be a right-wing Montana kook and start killing people who you disagree with. :insane:

Typical schoolyard rant and totally off topic. You got no argument, just bluster. What a loser.

 

Stop lying. There is nothing surreptitious about it. Nothing at all. It's being audited by Price Waterhouse. Neither is there anything obscure about electricity or electric cars.

You just posted a story without bothering to check it out, as usual. And you got caught, as usual.

 

Impossible for you, not for science. Read the IPCC report and learn something. But it is way over 13 pages, so you will just remain ignorant on the subject and be made a fool of when you try to argue it.

 

And so it does. It says that 96% of the climatologists in the world agree and 4% dissent. We call this overwhelming support. You may continue to cite the 4% who cannot convince their colleages, but I will go with the consensus of expert opinion.

Ahh, McIntyre. To quote RealClimate.com . . . False claims of the existence of errors in the Mann et al (1998) reconstruction can be traced to spurious allegations made by two individuals, McIntyre and McKitrick (McIntyre works in the mining industry, while McKitrick is an economist). The false claims were first made in an article (McIntyre and McKitrick, 2003) published in a non-scientific (social science) journal “Energy and Environment” and later, in a separate “Communications Arising” comment that was rejected by Nature based on negative appraisals by reviewers.

The claims of McIntyre and McKitrick, which hold that the “Hockey-Stick” shape of the MBH98 reconstruction is an artifact of the use of series with infilled data and the convention by which certain networks of proxy data were represented in a Principal Components Analysis (“PCA”), are readily seen to be false , as detailed in a response by Mann and colleagues to their rejected Nature criticism demonstrating that (1) the Mann et al (1998) reconstruction is robust with respect to the elimination of any data that were infilled in the original analysis, (2) the main features of the Mann et al (1998) reconstruction are entirely insensitive to whether or not proxy data networks are represented by PCA, (3) the putative ‘correction’ by McIntyre and McKitrick, which argues for anomalous 15th century warmth (in contradiction to all other known reconstructions), is an artifact of the censoring by the authors of key proxy data in the original Mann et al (1998) dataset, and finally, (4) Unlike the original Mann et al (1998) reconstruction, the so-called ‘correction’ by McIntyre and McKitrick fails statistical verification exercises, rendering it statistically meaningless and unworthy of discussion in the legitimate scientific literature.

The claims of McIntyre and McKitrick have now been further discredited in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, in a paper to appear in the American Meteorological Society journal, “Journal of Climate” by Rutherford and colleagues (2004)

The IPCC report is not like a weblog at all. It is a multidisciplinary, multi-author, multi-national report that is edited like a textbook. Of course it is not a refereed scientific journal, but all of the authors publish in the journals and all of the research included is cited and has withstood journal publication and comment, including standard peer reviews.