[Anand]

Alarmists write books or newspaper or magazine articles because they can gain fame and notoriety. Scientists are humans and not above these temptations. Want to get an accurate picture with all the caveats about a hypothesis? Read a journal article. Read many on the same topic. But most are so specialized and technical that only specialists can read them and understand them. I get such crappy reviews sometimes from journal articles that I have submitted that I wonder if the referees even read the paper. Same thing with patents . Patent examiners are some of the most ignorant people I have encountered. Can't really blame people. Info overload. Who has the time to spend 5-6 hrs reviewing a paper when you have your own work to do and when you get so many of them to review. Dont get your info on science from magazines and news. They are mostly sensational crap. Basic Science doesn't work that way. It is always slow, constantly re-evaluating and re-adjusting and deals with probabilities not certainties.

 

[chows4us]

I have submitted that I wonder if the referees even read the paper.

You need to listen to these guys The Skeptics Guide to the Universe | Weekly science podcast produced by the SGU Productions llc. Also provides blogs, forums, videos and resources.

They go over exactly what you are saying, about refereed papers and junk science. How people have biases and really don't know what they are doing in their testing ... but its a skeptic podcast so they question everything.

But its not like popular culture stuff its actually a science podcast.

 

[chows4us]

I have submitted that I wonder if the referees even read the paper.

You need to listen to these guys The Skeptics Guide to the Universe | Weekly science podcast produced by the SGU Productions llc. Also provides blogs, forums, videos and resources.

They go over exactly what you are saying, about refereed papers and junk science. How people have biases and really don't know what they are doing in their testing ... but its a skeptic podcast so they question everything.

But its not like popular culture stuff its actually a science podcast.

 

[Anand]

I think we are now in an age where gut instinct and belief systems reinforced by media outlets one chooses to subscribe to, make up our facts and understanding of the world. Recent US prez elections for example. One can make up whatever story one wants or embellish and propagate it via FB etc and suddenly it is fact. A healthy skepticism is always good. But careful evaluation requires a lot of effort, reading, thought and time. I feel an intellectual laziness has crept into society enabled by social media.
In grad school I had to go the library and browse throught large volumes of abstracts to find the literature reference I needed. Used to take me hours. But this kind of work was rewarding because often i would encounter related papers I wasn't looking for but nevertheless were relevant and held my interest. Now, I can pull a particular journal article from my laptop and not bother browsing the scientific literature at all. It is a shame but probably inevitable because of the volume of information. One of my favorite journals used to be published once a month and I could afford to spend a few hours reading through the articles that interested me. Now it is published once a week and is at least five times as thick. And I have numerous journals that I like to browse. It is tough out there.

 

[chows4us]

One can make up whatever story one wants or embellish and propagate it via FB etc and suddenly it is fact.

Funny you mention that because in a recent podcast they talk about people who think they can read wikipedia and have the equivalent of a degree. Sure.

 

[Brett_Coon]

I made no comment on the science. A few posts ago I said "I am not qualified to tell what's happening". I am talking "alarmists", the "poor us the world is going to end" people.

Well, it seems your position is that you cannot trust the scientific consensus on global warming because there have been false alarms in the past. Am I characterizing your position correctly? My point is that the existence of prior false alarms is insufficient grounds to dismiss the current consensus.

Its trivial to find this. I've read this since the mid 2000s. And the quotes then went back to the mid-1800s when PA was the source of our oil. So here are some attributed. This stuff is easy to research.

Sorry, I should have clarified. I'm not asking if anyone has ever predicted a looming oil shortage, because as you say that's easy to confirm. Instead, I'm doubting your implication that scientific views on peak oil had the same strong consensus as today's scientific consensus on global warming. More to the point, I claim it's an inaccurate and misleading comparison. It's also my understanding that most (all?) peak oil theories were actually predictions based on science, technology, and economics, e.g. trying to predict the point when the cost of extracting more fossil fuels would exceed what society is willing to pay. So it's not purely a scientific theory to begin with.

It's entirely a normal part of the way science works for theories to be proposed, gain some support, and then later be modified, adjusted, or dropped as more is learned. But it's rare for them to develop a broad base of supporting evidence and a wide level of acceptance among scientists who understand the issues, and then later turn out to be significantly wrong. I contend that the admittedly alarmist positions you quoted never achieved anywhere near >90% consensus among as many scientists as global warming.

The point is "at the time" I am sure they all thought they were right. Scientists are smart you know. But they were wrong. Don't believe everything you read.

Again, the important thing here is the broad consensus after years of analysis and review. Sure, it could still be wrong, but it's very unlikely at this point.

The standard model predicts the graviton. Not found yet. what if its never found? They have no clue about what dark energy is or if the universe is a multiverse or not.

Boy, that escalated quickly. Not sure what gravitons or dark energy have to do here. But just to be clear, global warming in not based on in-depth knowledge of either, so we're still good.

Cost/benefit analysis.

I believe it was on SGU (aka The Skeptics Guide to the Universe), also one of my favorite podcasts, where Steve outlined the three big questions of global warming: (1) is the Earth warming up?, (2) did humans cause it?, and (3) what should we do about it?
There is very wide consensus, even among warming skeptics, that the answer to (1) is yes.
The big split starts with (2), with the overwhelming majority of climate scientists saying "yes" to (2), while the doubters tend to say either "no", or "mostly no".

Question (3) is different because it's not really a scientific question, it's science + technology + business + politics + human behavior. So there is no single right answer. The more scientific part of the question is "what could we do to stop/reverse global warming?", and there are plenty of ideas here, not all of which are practical or affordable.

Guess my point is that (3) is where the cost/benefit analysis comes in. You can (and should) agree with the scientific consensus on (1) and (2), but you can still object to specific "solutions" proposed for (3). Trouble comes when you conflate these questions and doubt global warming as a whole because you think the cure is worse than the illness.

-Brett

 

[swessels]

Well, it seems your position is that you cannot trust the scientific consensus on global warming because there have been false alarms in the past. Am I characterizing your position correctly? My point is that the existence of prior false alarms is insufficient grounds to dismiss the current consensus.



Sorry, I should have clarified. I'm not asking if anyone has ever predicted a looming oil shortage, because as you say that's easy to confirm. Instead, I'm doubting your implication that scientific views on peak oil had the same strong consensus as today's scientific consensus on global warming. More to the point, I claim it's an inaccurate and misleading comparison. It's also my understanding that most (all?) peak oil theories were actually predictions based on science, technology, and economics, e.g. trying to predict the point when the cost of extracting more fossil fuels would exceed what society is willing to pay. So it's not purely a scientific theory to begin with.

It's entirely a normal part of the way science works for theories to be proposed, gain some support, and then later be modified, adjusted, or dropped as more is learned. But it's rare for them to develop a broad base of supporting evidence and a wide level of acceptance among scientists who understand the issues, and then later turn out to be significantly wrong. I contend that the admittedly alarmist positions you quoted never achieved anywhere near >90% consensus among as many scientists as global warming.



Again, the important thing here is the broad consensus after years of analysis and review. Sure, it could still be wrong, but it's very unlikely at this point.



Boy, that escalated quickly. Not sure what gravitons or dark energy have to do here. But just to be clear, global warming in not based on in-depth knowledge of either, so we're still good.


I believe it was on SGU (aka The Skeptics Guide to the Universe), also one of my favorite podcasts, where Steve outlined the three big questions of global warming: (1) is the Earth warming up?, (2) did humans cause it?, and (3) what should we do about it?
There is very wide consensus, even among warming skeptics, that the answer to (1) is yes.
The big split starts with (2), with the overwhelming majority of climate scientists saying "yes" to (2), while the doubters tend to say either "no", or "mostly no".

Question (3) is different because it's not really a scientific question, it's science + technology + business + politics + human behavior. So there is no single right answer. The more scientific part of the question is "what could we do to stop/reverse global warming?", and there are plenty of ideas here, not all of which are practical or affordable.

Guess my point is that (3) is where the cost/benefit analysis comes in. You can (and should) agree with the scientific consensus on (1) and (2), but you can still object to specific "solutions" proposed for (3). Trouble comes when you conflate these questions and doubt global warming as a whole because you think the cure is worse than the illness.

-Brett

Love all these references to the SGU podcast. I've been an ardent listener for years now.

Back on topic, I'm excited about the new 718s but want to see how the market looks after they've been on the streets for a year. CPO 981s still look very attractive to me.

I am surprised by the lack of motivating lease options Porsche is offering on the 718. It seems there were routinely 981 lease offerings in the $600 ballpark.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[chows4us]

Well, it seems your position is that you cannot trust the scientific consensus on global warming because there have been false alarms in the past. Am I characterizing your position correctly? My point is that the existence of prior false alarms is insufficient grounds to dismiss the current consensus.

No. I said repeatedly I have no idea who is right or wrong. I am talking about "alarmists" in general and since this an auto forum and specifically in this thread we are discussing the 718 and its move to turbos (and eventually hybrids/EV) its all tied together and I focused on global warming. The politicians and regulators didn't just pull this out of the sky. They decided on regulation based upon "scientists".

I believe much of what is spouted is alarmist and turned out wrong. Gasoline and oil reserves is an example.

Sorry, I should have clarified. I'm not asking if anyone has ever predicted a looming oil shortage, because as you say that's easy to confirm. Instead, I'm doubting your implication that scientific views on peak oil had the same strong consensus as today's scientific consensus on global warming.

If you go back in time, time after time, leading theories have been wrong. I'm sure the medieval "scientists" or leaders were convinced the sun revolved around the earth. PERIOD. It must be so. Wrong. And I'm sure that WAS the consensus of the leading minds of the time. Of course there were a handful of renegade "scientists" who said .... "no", but they worried about talking about that aloud.

In 1917 Einstein said the universe was steady state. Hubble proved him wrong. I doubt very many scientists in 1917 argued with Einstein.

The brontosaurus never existed but how many kids grew up with it? and many dinosaurs had feathers. 20 years ago they all looked like lizards. But wait, now the Brontosaurus did exist. What? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brontosaurus

The list goes on and on and on. How about this Martian canals? You get the point.

It's entirely a normal part of the way science works for theories to be proposed, gain some support, and then later be modified, adjusted, or dropped as more is learned. But it's rare for them to develop a broad base of supporting evidence and a wide level of acceptance among scientists who understand the issues, and then later turn out to be significantly wrong. I contend that the admittedly alarmist positions you quoted never achieved anywhere near >90% consensus among as many scientists as global warming.

I guess you need to go back to 1550 and take a poll among the leading scientists of the time about the nature of the solar system or poll Einstein's peers before Hubble did his thing.

Boy, that escalated quickly. Not sure what gravitons or dark energy have to do here. But just to be clear, global warming in not based on in-depth knowledge of either, so we're still good.

You are hung up on trying to convince me that global warming is real. For this discussion I don't care if it is or isn't. I'm talking about the alarmist attitudes about "the sky is falling, what will we do". Global warming happens to be tied to cars. I brought up gravitons simply because its the lacking proved point about the standard model and in a month or 10 years they might figure out "oh now, we've been wrong the whole time".

Wiki has many examples of debunked theories that, at the time, I'd guess there was consensus https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superseded_scientific_theories

I kind of like this one https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aristotelian_physics Good old Aristotle.

But "at the time", I'm sure they all thought they were right.

I believe it was on SGU (aka The Skeptics Guide to the Universe), also one of my favorite podcasts, where Steve outlined the three big questions of global warming: (1) is the Earth warming up?, (2) did humans cause it?, and (3) what should we do about it?

None of this is relevant to my "alarmists" alarm. People are constantly telling me the world is going to end. I was kind of disappointed in 2012, especially since they made a movie. Considering this stuff moves at a glacial pace, I'll guess there is a lot of time to figure it. And it will be what it turns out to be, right or wrong. But alarming everyone that the cities on the coast will sink into the sea and ... here it ties to cars and the 718 ...

forcing emissions regulations that change the fundamental nature of the cars we drive (yes flat 6 engines), I find that concerning. And next the EU will IC ban cars. Its a matter of time, just when, not if. Maybe in a decade, maybe a century, but its coming.

i didn't want to focus on just global warming. I can find lots of articles on both sides. Its "alarmists" that alarm me. It doesnt matter if its the next guru telling his/her followers to drink some koolaid or scientists telling me Planet X is going to collide with the earth. Unless you are 100% sure, don't panic the public or the decision makers. If you are wrong, then you MESSED UP OUR CARS!!!

^^^^ This. Don't mess with our cars unless you are 100% sure.

 

[RandR]

Guys this is getting silly

(1) the two biggest GHG emitters are China (~10BtCO2) and the USA (~6BtCO2)
(2) Speak to a geologist - there have been much hotter periods in earth history
(3) the earth does appear to be getting warmer
(4) this could be caused by a number of factors including (1)
(5) if the earth is getting warmer then mitigation and time frames need an honest discussion
(6) Most people a largely ill educated in terms of earth history, climate and weather
(7) There is a huge propaganda industry out there that exists for a variety of political reasons
(8) The earth will outlive humankind by billions of years - life forms come and go
(9) The earth is 4.5 billion years old
(10) If you believe GHG are important to various climate conditions the US and China needs to get their respective houses in order
(11) If you believe GHG are important then a realistic debate about nuclear power needs to be had
(12) Lets talk about the 718

 

[MidEngine-Fan]

Back on the 718: I find myself wishing for Porsche to back its cars better with longer-running guarantees against engine and transmission failure. It would increase the price of a car, but would incentivize Porsche more in a direction I want.

Edit: relates to turbo failure worries on the 718.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

 

[RandR]

Back on the 718: I find myself wishing for Porsche to back its cars better with longer-running guarantees against engine and transmission failure. It would increase the price of a car, but would incentivize Porsche more in a direction I want.

Edit: relates to turbo failure worries on the 718.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

Agreed, particularly in relation to new engine designs - after all Hyundai offer 5 yr warranties

 

[chows4us]

I thought Hyundai was 10 year warranties.

 

[ralarcon]

" If you believe GHG are important to various climate conditions the US and China needs to get their respective houses in order"

If we went 100% Nuclear, we would save 1,925 Million metric tons of CO2 released yearly into the atmosphere, which is 37% of the US. energy related carbon emissions. (US. Energy Information Administration).

Cheers

 

[Traum]

Back on the 718: I find myself wishing for Porsche to back its cars better with longer-running guarantees against engine and transmission failure. It would increase the price of a car, but would incentivize Porsche more in a direction I want.

Edit: relates to turbo failure worries on the 718.

Has there been any / many reports of engines or turbos failing on the 718 already?

 

[A1reader]

Back on the 718: I find myself wishing for Porsche to back its cars better with longer-running guarantees against engine and transmission failure. It would increase the price of a car, but would incentivize Porsche more in a direction I want.

Edit: relates to turbo failure worries on the 718.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

I think Porsche allow you to extend the warranty for up to 9 years from new. Of course only the first 2 years are free!

 

[Brett_Coon]

I think Porsche allow you to extend the warranty for up to 9 years from new. Of course only the first 2 years are free!

In the US, I thought all Porsches had a four year warranty. No?

For some reason I tend to associate unusually long warranties with problem areas and low quality stuff. Like those overpriced wiper blades with lifetime warranties; the manufacturer knows most people won't bother with warranty replacement often enough to make up for the premium they're charging. Or years back when BMW was having problems with the new M3 engine so they extended the warranty in an attempt to rescue sales and placate customers.

So while I'd welcome Porsche extending all warranties to, say, five or six years, I'd be concerned if they suddenly announced a longer warranty specifically on the 4-cylinder turbo. I'd wonder if they knew something I didn't, since warranty extensions are probably cheaper than recalls.

My current car (Mini Cooper S) has a four pot turbo, and the main issue people seem to have involves crud buildup caused by short trips that don't allow the engine to heat up fully. It's a great excuse to take a longer route and drive hard. I look forward to dealing with a similar "problem" when I get my 718...


Sent from my Nexus 6 using Tapatalk

 

[chows4us]

My current car (Mini Cooper S) has a four pot turbo, and the main issue people seem to have involves crud buildup caused by short trips that don't allow the engine to heat up fully.

PorscheUSA warranty is 4 years. You cannot buy a warranty longer from PCNA.

The Mini is another issue entirely. Having owned one, year after year it ranks among the lowest of all makers in JD Power in reliability. And with actual experience, I can attest to that. A 718 will be another world to you. Good luck.

Although I have to admit, that the leaves in front of my house have not yet fallen to the ground. So the earth must be warming. But oh wait, there is a blizzard coming to the northern great plains in a few days a month early

 

[Anand]

With the three previous German cars that I owned, things really started falling apart as soon the warranty was up. Yeah I had problems with the cars even in the first 4 years and was a fool to have kept them longer. OTOH, my 13 BS with 17k miles has been dead reliable. Not a single issue worth mentioning. Not having the complexity of turbos, intercoolers and extra plumbing is good I think.
Oh, and the planet cannot warm fast enough for me! I hate the long, cold and dark New England winters. Only upside, if you can call it that, is that my scotch consumption goes up.

 

[Brett_Coon]

PorscheUSA warranty is 4 years. You cannot buy a warranty longer from PCNA.

The Mini is another issue entirely. Having owned one, year after year it ranks among the lowest of all makers in JD Power in reliability. And with actual experience, I can attest to that. A 718 will be another world to you. Good luck.

Although I have to admit, that the leaves in front of my house have not yet fallen to the ground. So the earth must be warming. But oh wait, there is a blizzard coming to the northern great plains in a few days a month early

Now you're just messing with me. Mine is a 2013, which JD Power actually likes: 2013 MINI Cooper Hardtop Pricing, Specs & Reviews | J.D. Power Cars

The first-generation MINIs didn't fair so well, but second-generation ones are pretty solid.

And I believe your Global Warming views are similarly well-researched. HA HA, see what I did there? :taunt:

Back to Porsche (and MINI), in many ways I believe the most important rating of cars is owner satisfaction, e.g. "are you happy with your purchase?" or the related "would you buy again?" At the end of the day, that's really the most key question for any purchaser.
And both Porsche and MINI do really well in that metric, at least in the surveys I've seen.

-Brett

 

[chows4us]

Now you're just messing with me. Mine is a 2013, which JD Power actually likes: 2013 MINI Cooper Hardtop Pricing, Specs & Reviews | J.D. Power Cars

The first-generation MINIs didn't fair so well, but second-generation ones are pretty solid.

C'mon, really?

2016 155, 3 points below average 2016 US Vehicle Dependability Study VDS | J.D. Power
2015 193, 46 points below average 2015 Vehicle Dependability Study | J.D. Power
2014 Absolute last, 185, 60 points below average 2014 U.S. Vehicle Dependability Study (VDS) | J.D. Power
2013 150, 24 points below average 2013 U.S. Vehicle Dependability Study (VDS) | J.D. Power

They are not even Average. That's solid? Then what's bad? If the marque doesn't even make the average grade, its not worth discussing in relation to reliability

NM, it doesn't matter and is going way OT and I'm not dissing Minis. The websites show the numbers.