Time to End the Climate Gravy Train

And the rest of us will give your unsupported and largely unexplained scientific theories all the respect they and you deserve. Which is none.

Okay, what do you mean by "ecological doomsday scenario"?

Not a fan of the Geocities school of web design, eh? Try this. Another possibility is aluminum.

That's nice, but it doesn't change the fact that Ed's claim ~twenty years ago that 94% of Americans could get by with an electric car as their daily driver was a lie. The technology just wasn't there yet. It would take another ~10 years before it hit that point. (I can't find the quote now, but Musk has admitted that one of the reasons why it took so long to bring the first Teslas to market was because they failed to understand just how limited the battery technology of the day was.) GM killed the EV-1 in '99, two years after Toyota introduced the Prius. Toyota was willing to sell the Prius at a (rumored substantial) loss because they believed in the technology. Don't you think that if they thought a fully electric car was a viable product (at the time) they would have introduced one instead (or in conjunction with the Prius)? GM might be stupid, but Toyota? Come on.

Why? Does Ed admit that he was talking out of his ass in the first film? And that GM had very good legal reasons for crushing the EV-1s after they decided to discontinue the program (even if canceling the program was, to quote the GM exec who gave the order "stupid")?

I mean, if we're going to pick our ideas for what cars should run on from actors (and in the case of Begley, I use that term loosely), shouldn't we pick a good actor, like say, Jack Nicholson?



And while electric cars are certainly the wave of the future, I'll never own one. There's simply no way I'll ever be able to afford one. (Not to mention I cannot stand the bewildering array of useless crap modern cars are festooned with these days.) My next (and probably last) vehicle will either be a diesel or a carbed gasser. I figure that if we wind up in a second civil war or Mad Max type scenario, either one of those will offer me more fuel options than an electric will. And even if we don't, I'll at least be able to afford to fix it (i.e. do it myself) if something breaks. Yeah, I know, I know, electric cars have fewer problems than do ICE cars, but given that any kind of significant repair to a car represents a severe financial hardship for me, I'm going to stick with something that I know I can fix.

Using modern instruments and methods yeah, however we have records going back thousands in the form of ice cores and other such things.

Cool, so try to persuade me.

Which is it of these two: humans aren't increasing carbon in the Earths atmosphere, or carbon in the atmosphere doesn't trap heat.

For you to be correct at least one of those has to be true. Which one do you assert it is?

I'm not going to try and persuade you or anyone else, because you've already made up your mind, as I have. Neither of your assertions is incorrect and you know it. The problem is, the effects that are being claimed against the amount of CO2 or any other greenhouse gasses being added by human activity don't wash as driving causes of climactic changes versus things that happen naturally.

Now, you or anyone else can go scouring the internet to find 'facts' that prove your position, and so could I if I felt like it. Then we'd attack each other's data, sources, claim that 'my data is better than yours,' so on and so forth, until it all devolved right back to name calling as it always seems to do around here. The bottom line is that scientists don't agree on this stuff, and many of them aren't even sure we can model this all properly given what we do know.

So quit trying to change my mind, if that's what you are doing. If you want to debate it with someone, find someone else. There is no piece of data you can pull off the internet and paste here that is going to convince me that human civilization is radically effecting the Earth's climate. If the Earth is warming, even at an alarming rate, my assertion is that it's being primarily driven by natural causes, not man-made ones.

If you're saying your mind is made up regardless of any evidence that comes along then how sad.

Ok, believe what you will.

But here's my question to you.

What gravy train are you on about?

Who is getting rich here?

So why are you posting any of this, if you want no debate, want no facts, and admit that you have no facts? Why bother?

The evidence disagrees.

By and large they do agree. And there was a recent study of model accuracy and it was shockingly high (especially the older models; I’d expect the newer ones to be better). Imperfect doesn’t mean useless. And I bet you can’t find a single peer-reviewed paper... hell, let’s relax it to “preprint that no journal is willing to publish for its glaring methodological errors”... that supports your position. Your sources are blogs and pundits, don’t even pretend otherwise. You couldn’t find the 3% of climate scientists who disagree with the consensus (if it’s even 3% anymore) with someone telling you all the names to google.

Do I sound dismissive? Damn right I am. You’re not interested in facts at all. You want to believe in debunked fairy tales, go ahead, but when it comes to public policy, just stay home and don’t vote. Your ignorance is not just as good as someone’s knowledge.

Your assertion has no evidentiary support. “La la la la I can’t hear you” is pretty pathetic from a toddler, let alone a grown man.

There. Is. No. Evidence. Just thought I’d save Marsh the trouble.

The only reason to own an electric is if they are more economical than the alternative.

I gave away my perfectly maintained (I do DIY) 10 year old Honda to my son and was left grasping for what to replace it. Used Hondas are way too expensive for anything nice enough to hold my sorry ass. I looked at used/new small pickups. The Frontier was the only one I thought affordable, and it drove worse (drives like a truck!) than my son's 28 year old Mazda B2600 he was replacing with my Fit.

In a mad max scenario, I bet my solar/windmill farm will be much better at providing energy than your biofuel rendering operation. Plus the car will power my house during dark, windless days. And my neighbors won't be killing me over the noxious odours. nyeah thpddddt!

Because fuck the whole lower emissions of an electric car.

Shows how little you know. Some, but not all, diesels can run on straight vegetable oil with minor modifications. And even if one has to make biodiesel, the waste products from the process include methanol (which can be used to powered modified gassers) and glycerin. You know, one of the ingredients in soap and nitroglycerin. As for illumination, LED lights use very little power, and the reason Andy Weir had Mark Watney growing potatoes on Mars is that they're the most nutritionally complete plant that can be easily grown. They also can be used to power an LED light. Also, windmills can be easily made from car parts. Not that they'll do me a whole lot of good. Tennessee is literally the worst state in the country for wind power because of how little wind we get.

Tucker, you ignorant slut:

Economics includes externalities and may consider intangibles if they have value to the individual.

For me, the smug self satisfaction of driving in the HOV lane with just myself in the car (AF vehicles are OK) is priceless. Lower emissions are debatable with the source of electricity still being coal and natural gas for the most part in this part of the country, but I think it's hilarious when people try to rationalize electrics being more polluting than fossil fueled cars.

In a mad max economy, I would be eating roasted corn and drinking shine while you're trying to extract vegetable oil and eating my dust as I drive circles around you. In Tennessee you should be gaining access to plutonium powered cells at Oak Ridge if you had an ounce of imagination. Try running your diesel rabbit on that.

LOSE THE AVATAR

I guess your ass must have typed that, because surely your fingers wouldn't be so stupid.

Save for the fact that because I'm in farm country, I've got access to literally tanker trucks worth of things like vegetable oil and grease. It'll be a while before I have to worry about making vegetable oil from scratch.

I'm guessing that you've never been near Oak Ridge. Forget the armed guards, etc., etc., whole swaths of the area around Oak Ridge are off-limits simply due to the radoactive waste that's leaked out of the years. According to a friend of mine who's worked there, the levels are high enough that your cancer would get cancer. And a fission powered car really isn't all that practical.

And I won't be driving a Rabbit. It'll be something more like this:

Can't imagine road maintenance will be a thing in such a situation, so 4WD will be really important.

Tuck, tuck, tuck. If you had the reading comprehension of a bright 3rd grader you would understand the following:

You would also note:
The article you thoughtfully posted from a heavily left wing blogger cites a heavily left wing study that shows electrics are on par with efficient gas fueled cars in most states in terms of carbon footprint. Where electrics achieve a marked improvement is in regions relying heavily on hydro-electric (Pacific NW and upstate NY).

Your selection of a coal-burner pickup for your post apocalyptic DD is telling. Turn in your libtard card at the door as it slams shut behind you.