Electric Car thread

[kevinmccune]

The elephant in the room is the fact that petrochemical industry rides on the back of the petrofuel industry. Only 15% percent of a barrel of crude oil is used for petrochemicals, which in turn are used to make anything from plastic to make-up to medicine. As the need for petrofuel declines, more and more of the burden for production, distribution, and refinement of crude oil will fall on the petrochemical industry. Basic economics will dictate that the costs of petrochemicals will increase.

https://petroleumservicecompany.com/blog/oil-barrel-42-gallon-breakdown/

As my dad would say, "There ain't no such thing as a free lunch."

We really need to develop Thermoplastic tires as well, the "thermosetting" compounds in our"Rubber" tires are very hard to repurpose or recycle,I want "tweels" on my EV!

 

[Zekeer]

Dude! it takes heat to create electricity it doesn't have to come from fossil fuels-the future is increasingly EV! One day perhaps the ZP energy will be a thing if allowed as was with Tesla as was with the gift after the "Trinity Nuclear test" we were shown the way out, (but it is too hard to meter.) Tesla(Nikola was on the cusp of all this He was even in limited communication with these "beings" the "Airship ' fiasco fell on its ear as well.
Mankind reminds me of the three chances that were given to a Man to be rescued from the Floodwaters( Man of great faith) Our salvation may come from a direction we didn't expect.

Can you name me a Green energy part . That goes into electric or solar anything that doesn't require traditional power sources to produce the parts ? I have no problem with battery operated vehicles . What I have a Problem with is cutting off the old before the New is anywhere near solvent . All based on a lie that Human's are destroying the planet with fossil fuels . One volcano spewing ash creates more carbon emissions then all humans have throughout all time . Not to mention that what happened with Nordstream released 1000 times more environmental green house gases . Then we could do with Fossil fuel for a million lifetimes . This is my problem . The technology is great and Impressive . Butttt the politics and narrative forcing us in that direction seemingly overnight is all based on lies ,
Absolutely destroying the supply chain worldwide and the economy with it .
Lastly the only salvation coming for Humanity is Christ Returning . Which sadly will not be salvation for most .

 

[kevinmccune]

After the fact about anything can be produced with the heat generated by a nuclear reactor or the deferred solar heat driving a hydro plant( of course after the parts are made with fossil fuel, you had better check your facts on the co2, marked increase after the 'industrial revolution- its a fact go check) The Lord has been coming for a long time, if you are waiting for the "kingdom of Heaven" to be here on earth you will wait a long time, Jesus Himself said the "Kingdom' is within you, you can choose to live in the kingdom or enjoy the"Promethean"" Hell Satanic man has unleashed on the biosphere. We may be getting better, alas, for some species it is too late. I have a fair understanding of 'basic science" and "cause and effect'.
'

 

[Rexlion]

https://principia-scientific.com/new-discovery-nasa-study-proves-carbon-dioxide-cools-atmosphere/

https://everythingclimate.wpcomstaging.com/tipping-point-1-5-degrees-celsius-warming/

There are a wide variety of differing ideas and views in the scientific community on the issue of man-made climate change. Any claim of consensus is illusory.

 

[procreator]

As I scientist myself, I can confidently state this: Science says nothing but scientists do.

 

[pmcdonald]

https://principia-scientific.com/new-discovery-nasa-study-proves-carbon-dioxide-cools-atmosphere/

https://everythingclimate.wpcomstaging.com/tipping-point-1-5-degrees-celsius-warming/

There are a wide variety of differing ideas and views in the scientific community on the issue of man-made climate change. Any claim of consensus is illusory.

Be wary of your sources. One is a publication with a reputation for pushing fringe views, the other a partisan blog. Which is fine. But not evidence of rife disagreement on the topic among the scientific community.

I dunno, the scientists in my world seem to have a reasonable consensus on the science and the need for urgent action. It's a little chilling talking to some of them, actually. Given I'm never going to publish a peer reviewed study on the science I'll take my odds deferring to the majority.

 

[procreator]

IMO, there is not much disagreement on climate change. Where the problem comes is in attributing cause. It gets magnified when scientists (see above) act like politicians, and politicians act like scientists.

 

[kevinmccune]

IMO, there is not much disagreement on climate change. Where the problem comes is in attributing cause. It gets magnified when scientists (see above) act like politicians, and politicians act like scientists.

Or hypocrites, for instance, Mr.Gore.

 

[Handlebars]

Be wary of your sources. One is a publication with a reputation for pushing fringe views

It links to the NASA report. I'm always cautious about what Principia says. Not for your reason, but because I am aware of some of their errors and overstatements.

I dunno, the scientists in my world seem to have a reasonable consensus on the science

Which is actually a problem and one sign of that scientific field's almost 100% political corruption, which is not a blessing.

 

[Handlebars]

(...)the co2, marked increase after the 'industrial revolution- its a fact go check)

That is a correlation. Another correlation is that the warming occurred after The Little Ice Age.

 

[Handlebars]

Be wary of your sources. One is a publication with a reputation for pushing fringe views, the other a partisan blog. Which is fine. But not evidence of rife disagreement on the topic among the scientific community.

I dunno, the scientists in my world seem to have a reasonable consensus on the science and the need for urgent action. It's a little chilling talking to some of them, actually. Given I'm never going to publish a peer reviewed study on the science I'll take my odds deferring to the majority.

The world-famous paper on Quantifying the Consensus was a despicable cheat job. After the political group of turds started their project to show consensus in the actual literature, they found they had nothing to show of what they believed existed...that there was scientific consensus IN THE SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE, with the UN IPCC finding of over 50% of global warming being due to human contribution. So they secretly convened and decided to cheat.
But they carelessly left their site open as the leaders announced the cheat they had to do, to their group of politically motivated volunteer readers. They got caught. It didn't matter.
The climate scientists themselves are corrupt and so are the journals and so is the media and all government agencies concerned, and so is the UN IPCC.
So the message went out world wide in headlines. NO repercussions. Almost all people are just believing in "The Science".
Declared method:

We classified each abstract according to the type of research (category) and degree of endorsement. .... Explicit endorsements were divided into non-quantified (e.g., humans are contributing to global warming without quantifying the contribution) and quantified (e.g., humans are contributing more than 50% of global warming, consistent with the 2007 IPCC statement that most of the global warming since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations) .

After finding out that very few papers explicitly agree with the IPCC finding, here's the cheat announcement:

Okay, so we’ve ruled out a definition of AGW being ‘any amount of human influence’ or ‘more than 50% human influence’. We’re basically going with Ari’s porno approach (I probably should stop calling it that) which is AGW = ‘humans are causing global warming’. e.g. – no specific quantification which is the only way we can do it considering the breadth of papers we’re surveying.

Get it? They were to show

...and quantified (e.g., humans are contributing more than 50% of global warming, consistent with the 2007 IPCC statement that most of the global warming since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations) .

but instead, they will give you

no specific quantification

So they just produced a 97% figure and simply lied about their method and it was a super media hit worldwide with climate scientists glorying in it, basking in it. Not a quantification of consensus with IPCC finding. Another cheat of the public trust is all.

The study group is mostly connected members of "Skeptical Science" website, of which Michael Mann, hockey stick fame, has a type of special access. Also a main connection to The Guardian.

 

[Handlebars]

Be wary of your sources. One is a publication with a reputation for pushing fringe views, the other a partisan blog. Which is fine. But not evidence of rife disagreement on the topic among the scientific community.

I dunno, the scientists in my world seem to have a reasonable consensus on the science and the need for urgent action. It's a little chilling talking to some of them, actually. Given I'm never going to publish a peer reviewed study on the science I'll take my odds deferring to the majority.

“Carbon dioxide and nitric oxide are natural thermostats,” explains James Russell of Hampton University, SABER’s principal investigator. “When the upper atmosphere (or ‘thermosphere’) heats up, these molecules try as hard as they can to shed that heat back into space.”

That is from the NASA article. So obviously Earth would fry without those two major GHG's.
It's not as simple and clear-cut as the corrupt science and media and governments would have you believe.

Don't you worry your pretty little head about this here high level stuff we're dealing with, Darlin'.
Just stop doing what you're doing and do what we tell ya. Have some more crispy crickets and roach milk and be good now.

 

[procreator]

One of the biggest mistakes people make when hearing statistics is to confuse correlation with causation. Statistically speaking, correlation is a mathematical calculation of the agreement between sets of data. Causation is, well, the thing or things that causes there to be a relationship.

A famous, though tongue-in-cheek example which has been used for decades to illustrate the difference between the two is the comparison of stork population to human live births shown below. In this instance, there is a 62% correlation between the number of stork breeding pairs and the human birthrate. I would argue there is no chance that the number of storks is the cause of the birth rate.

The media is so quick to throw out numbers with no context. Elements of this context that need to be understood before interpreting the data are the sampling method, the statistical method, the hypothesis that the researcher was attempting to prove, etc.

Be wary whenever anyone makes a statistical claim. As someone famously said, "There are lies, damned lies, and statistics."

 

[Handlebars]

One of the biggest mistakes people make when hearing statistics is to confuse correlation with causation. Statistically speaking, correlation is a mathematical calculation of the agreement between sets of data. Causation is, well, the thing or things that causes there to be a relationship.

A famous, though tongue-in-cheek example which has been used for decades to illustrate the difference between the two is the comparison of stork population to human live births shown below. In this instance, there is a 62% correlation between the number of stork breeding pairs and the human birthrate. I would argue there is no chance that the number of storks is the cause of the birth rate.

The media is so quick to throw out numbers with no context. Elements of this context that need to be understood before interpreting the data are the sampling method, the statistical method, the hypothesis that the researcher was attempting to prove, etc.

Be wary whenever anyone makes a statistical claim. As someone famously said, "There are lies, damned lies, and statistics."

View attachment 139370

Or the correlation between shark attacks and ice cream cone sales.
People go splash around at the beach in summer and people buy ice cream cones in summer.

 

[Handlebars]

In the Little Ice Age conditions were dire. Crop failures, wild storms, disease was rampant, education was reduced or stopped, travel reduced, people were burned at the stake for weather witching.
As The Little Age receded and temperatures rose, things got better, crops were better, starvation receded, education improved, travel improved, glaciers melted, and so on and the industrial revolution MAGICALLY presented!

The Little Ice Age was a period of bitter winters and mild summers that affected Europe and North America between the 14th and 19th centuries. The cold weather is well documented in written records and supported by paleoclimatic records such as tree rings, glacial growth, and lake sediments.

 

[Handlebars]

I would argue there is no chance that the number of storks is the cause of the birth rate.

So you're saying that storks don't deliver the babies? I'd argue that the proxy evidence from millions of congratulations cards shows different.

 

[procreator]

 

[BigNerd]

EV good... ICE bad... next ICE age really bad.

Is that correlation?

 

[Handlebars]

EV good... ICE bad... next ICE age really bad.

Is that correlation?

No, that isn't a correlation.
But luckily Joetato just announced that by 3035 American companies will be producing all EV.

 

[Zekeer]

Be wary of your sources. One is a publication with a reputation for pushing fringe views, the other a partisan blog. Which is fine. But not evidence of rife disagreement on the topic among the scientific community.

I dunno, the scientists in my world seem to have a reasonable consensus on the science and the need for urgent action. It's a little chilling talking to some of them, actually. Given I'm never going to publish a peer reviewed study on the science I'll take my odds deferring to the majority.

So what are you saying ? That you believe the climate issues are man made ? By who and how ? And do you honestly believe man can predict the climate 50 years from now . When they screw up the weather weekly .
Don't get me wrong : Is see earth quakes increases , storms worsening , climate patterns changing in areas . Floods, droughts etc. I agree all that is true . But when we know our Govt has been cloud seeding for decades . Or if we remember 3 grade biology class . Anyone with basic knowledge . Should know 2 things . C02 is a Good thing . The second is that Earth Worship goes back to ancient times . And that's all this Climate Chaos nonsense is =Earth Worship Which doesn't work . If it did all the Child sacrifices being made should take care of it right ??? You know that's part of earth worship .