We should be much hotter

[sounding]

In 1986 the father of global warming, NASA scientist Dr. James Hansen, said we should be at least 5 degrees Celsius warmer than we now are. Find out why he said that, April 17 at 10AM at Colony Cottage at the Civil Discourse club meeting.

[fdpaq0580]

Weather! Can't live with it, can't live without it.

Such fun! Such fun!

[tophcfa]

Weather seems to be getting more unpredictable and extreme. At our home up north we got a 30+ inch snow storm almost exactly a month ago, which was an all time record for mid March. The last two days have hit 90 degrees, another all time record for mid April. I can’t ever remember it feeling like summer in Florida on April 14th in Massachusetts. At least all the snow finally melted and the golf courses are opening up : )

PS - my buddy went skiing at Mt Snow in southern VT yesterday. Still lots of snow and he was skiing in the mid 80’s temperatures. Bizarre?

[sounding]

Weather seems to be getting more unpredictable and extreme. At our home up north we got a 30+ inch snow storm almost exactly a month ago, which was an all time record for mid March. The last two days have hit 90 degrees, another all time record for mid April. I can’t ever remember it feeling like summer in Florida on April 14th in Massachusetts. At least all the snow finally melted and the golf courses are opening up : )

PS - my buddy went skiing at Mt Snow in southern VT yesterday. Still lots of snow and he was skiing in the mid 80’s temperatures. Bizarre?

If it's more unpredictable, then our weather models are getting worse -- and in some ways they are -- as the Monday talk will show. But, weather is not more extreme. What's more extreme is media alarmism and everyone is falling for it. Today's climate is mild compared to the past ...

- 1924: 148 died in a tornado outbreak.
- 1927: 500 died in a Mississippi flood.
- 1913: Death Valley temperature hit world record high of 134 F.
- 1972: Loma, Montana, had a 24-hour temperature change of 103 F.
- 1977: Measurable snow in Miami.
- There are hundreds more examples of more extreme past weather events.
- Plus, we're in a 7-year cooling trend.

[Bay Kid]

There is only one that can control the climate.

[JMintzer]

There is only one that can control the climate.

This guy?

https://www.filmstories.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/dr-evil.jpeg

[fdpaq0580]

This guy?

https://www.filmstories.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/dr-evil.jpeg

That's HIM! That's HIM!

[rsmurano]

This is nothing new, the earth has been going thru these cycles for millions of years. Many so called scientists/weather scientists have been caught for their biased observations. For every climate doomsayer scientist there are more scientists saying the opposite

[Bay Kid]

This guy?

https://www.filmstories.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/dr-evil.jpeg

Not him, but this fella looks very suspicious.

[PersonOfInterest]

There is only one that can control the climate.

I'd say that whoever that is, he/she is not doing a very good job at 'control of the climate'. He/she must enjoy watching us deal with drought in one area of the country and flooding in another.

No one is controlling the climate in my view of things.

[lpkruege1]

If it's more unpredictable, then our weather models are getting worse -- and in some ways they are -- as the Monday talk will show. But, weather is not more extreme. What's more extreme is media alarmism and everyone is falling for it. Today's climate is mild compared to the past ...

- 1924: 148 died in a tornado outbreak.
- 1927: 500 died in a Mississippi flood.
- 1913: Death Valley temperature hit world record high of 134 F.
- 1972: Loma, Montana, had a 24-hour temperature change of 103 F.
- 1977: Measurable snow in Miami.
- There are hundreds more examples of more extreme past weather events.
- Plus, we're in a 7-year cooling trend.

One thing we say in Wisconsin. IF you don't like the weather, wait an hour, it'll change.
Remember back in the 70s when Lake Michigan froze over? Scientists told us we were on the verge of the next Global Ice Age. I guess they were wrong Again.
And Again, And Again. LOL

[sounding]

This is nothing new, the earth has been going thru these cycles for millions of years. Many so called scientists/weather scientists have been caught for their biased observations. For every climate doomsayer scientist there are more scientists saying the opposite

It's Sunday, so I'll say Amen. However, here's what the scientists at the United Nations' climate change office (IPCC) said in 2001: “In climate research and modeling … the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.”

[kkingston57]

In 1986 the father of global warming, NASA scientist Dr. James Hansen, said we should be at least 5 degrees Celsius warmer than we now are. Find out why he said that, April 17 at 10AM at Colony Cottage at the Civil Discourse club meeting.

Hard to argue facts. Weather is definitely getting crazy 26 inches in Fort Lauderdale most of which came down in 7 hours. Wait till the impending flooding in California when the 70 feet of snow melts and none of that snow is headed to the worst affected area, Lake Mead and Lake Powell.

[JMintzer]

Hard to argue facts. Weather is definitely getting crazy 26 inches in Fort Lauderdale most of which came down in 7 hours. Wait till the impending flooding in California when the 70 feet of snow melts and none of that snow is headed to the worst affected area, Lake Mead and Lake Powell.

Well, it's not like California hasn't done anything to improve their electric grid or water resources in the last 60 years...

Oh, wait... They haven't...

[PugMom]

This guy?

https://www.filmstories.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/dr-evil.jpeg

:clap2::1rotfl::1rotfl::coolsmiley:

[Fastskiguy]

37 billion metric tons of Co2 dumped into the atmosphere every year just can't be a good thing over time. I'm sure we can all agree on that. Give a hoot, don't pollute!

Joe

Annual CO2 emissions worldwide 1940-2021 | Statista (https://www.statista.com/statistics/276629/global-co2-emissions/)

[sounding]

Hard to argue facts. Weather is definitely getting crazy 26 inches in Fort Lauderdale most of which came down in 7 hours. Wait till the impending flooding in California when the 70 feet of snow melts and none of that snow is headed to the worst affected area, Lake Mead and Lake Powell.

"Worst affected" is better phrased as "man affected" and not climate affected. 1. To begin with, this is the "Desert" Southwest. 2. Those lakes are man-made ... take away the lakes and the people ... and drought problem is gone. 3. Or ... why would anyone want to have nice green lawns in a climatologically designated "desert" region? 4. See the tiny blip on the far right side of the diagram ...that's the so-called modern day mega-drought ...

[sounding]

[QUOTE=Fastskiguy;2207976]37 billion metric tons of Co2 dumped into the atmosphere every year just can't be a good thing over time. I'm sure we can all agree on that. Give a hoot, don't pollute!

Joe

CO2 is not a pollutant. More importantly it is plant food, and more is better, because we are in a CO2 famine. Learn more 10 AM, April 17, Colony Cottage ... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RLnQo8l-BHc

[rsibole]

The Arctic Ocean is warming up, icebergs are growing scarcer and in some places the seals are finding the water too hot according to a report to the Commerce Department yesterday from the Consulate at Bergen, Norway.

Reports from fishermen, seal hunters and explorers all point to a radical change in climate conditions and hitherto unheard of temperatures in the Arctic zone.


Exploration expeditions report that scarcely any ice has been met as far north as 81 degrees 29 minutes.

Soundings to a depth of 3,100 meters showed the gulf stream still very warm.

Great masses of ice have been replaced by moraines of earth and stones, the report continued, while at many points well known glaciers have entirely disappeared.


Very few seals and no white fish are found in the eastern Arctic, while vast shoals of herring and smelts which have never before ventured so far north, are being encountered in the old seal fishing grounds.

Within a few years it is predicted that due to the ice melt the sea will rise and make most coast cities uninhabitable.

I must apologize. I neglected to mention that this report was from November 2 , 1922, as reported by the AP and published in The Washington Post 100-years ago. This must have been caused by the Model T Ford's emissions or possibly from horse and cattle farts.

[YeOldeCurmudgeon]

If it's more unpredictable, then our weather models are getting worse -- and in some ways they are -- as the Monday talk will show. But, weather is not more extreme. What's more extreme is media alarmism and everyone is falling for it. Today's climate is mild compared to the past ...

- 1924: 148 died in a tornado outbreak.
- 1927: 500 died in a Mississippi flood.
- 1913: Death Valley temperature hit world record high of 134 F.
- 1972: Loma, Montana, had a 24-hour temperature change of 103 F.
- 1977: Measurable snow in Miami.
- There are hundreds more examples of more extreme past weather events.
- Plus, we're in a 7-year cooling trend.

You have data that shows the seven-year cooling trend? All the scientific literature I've seen does not show this. In fact, it's just the opposite unless you don't believe the New York Times:

Earth’s Last 8 Years Were the Hottest on Record - The New York Times (https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2023/climate/earth-hottest-years.html)

That story is based on data from NASA and the European Union’s Copernicus Climate Change Service.

Those organizations have no reason to fake their information while there are a lot of Climate Change denier groups funded by fossil fuel companies and others who stand to lose money if the necessary changes are made to combat it.

[YeOldeCurmudgeon]

Why do people denigrate scientists in an effort to ignore the reality of Climate Change? Guess it makes you feel better that you can go on living life as in the past. It is changing, gradually, but it is getting worse. All you need to do is watch the Weather Channel and stop making excuses or finding different opinions to oppose it. Organizations like NASA are composed of scientists whose life work is to study it. Are you going to believe some politician or academic with a Ph.D. in Marketing being paid to distort the truth?

Stop being irrational and listen to what the scientists are telling us.

[Bill14564]

You have data that shows the seven-year cooling trend? All the scientific literature I've seen does not show this. In fact, it's just the opposite unless you don't believe the New York Times:

Earth’s Last 8 Years Were the Hottest on Record - The New York Times (https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2023/climate/earth-hottest-years.html)

That story is based on data from NASA and the European Union’s Copernicus Climate Change Service.

Those organizations have no reason to fake their information while there are a lot of Climate Change denier groups funded by fossil fuel companies and others who stand to lose money if the necessary changes are made to combat it.

He has found a denier group/individual who cherry-picks a starting point that yields a cooling trend. There have been many posts about this in other threads. Here is just one. (https://www.talkofthevillages.com/forums/2191766-post72.html)

At this point I honestly think he is just trolling in order to drum up attendance for his talks.

[Fastskiguy]

[QUOTE=Fastskiguy;2207976]37 billion metric tons of Co2 dumped into the atmosphere every year just can't be a good thing over time. I'm sure we can all agree on that. Give a hoot, don't pollute!

Joe

CO2 is not a pollutant. More importantly it is plant food, and more is better, because we are in a CO2 famine. Learn more 10 AM, April 17, Colony Cottage ... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RLnQo8l-BHc

Surely you aren’t suggesting more CO2 would be better? Are you?

Joe

[sounding]

You have data that shows the seven-year cooling trend? All the scientific literature I've seen does not show this. In fact, it's just the opposite unless you don't believe the New York Times:

Earth’s Last 8 Years Were the Hottest on Record - The New York Times (https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2023/climate/earth-hottest-years.html)

That story is based on data from NASA and the European Union’s Copernicus Climate Change Service.

Those organizations have no reason to fake their information while there are a lot of Climate Change denier groups funded by fossil fuel companies and others who stand to lose money if the necessary changes are made to combat it.

US government data proves everything I say. The 7-year cooling trend is seen via the NOAA surface & ocean temperature data and via the NASA satellite global UAH temperature data (on Roy Spencer website). See details at the Weather Club, or Apr 17 at 10 AM at Colony Cottage.

[sounding]

He has found a denier group/individual who cherry-picks a starting point that yields a cooling trend. There have been many posts about this in other threads. Here is just one. (https://www.talkofthevillages.com/forums/2191766-post72.html)

At this point I honestly think he is just trolling in order to drum up attendance for his talks.

Here's the NASA UAH satellite data. You can plot it for yourself ... https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tlt/uahncdc_lt_6.0.txt

[sounding]

[QUOTE=sounding;2207983]

Surely you aren’t suggesting more CO2 would be better? Are you?

Joe

Absolutely, yes. Seeing is believing ... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wQ8Ws8ZrleE

[Bill14564]

Here's the NASA UAH satellite data. You can plot it for yourself ... https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tlt/uahncdc_lt_6.0.txt

Short memory or just more trolling? That is exactly what I did and what we discussed in the thread that I linked to. That data, the data you choose to use, the data I did plot, clearly shows a continuous warming trend UNLESS you cherry-pick a starting point right around an abnormally warm year.

[sounding]

Short memory or just more trolling? That is exactly what I did and what we discussed in the thread that I linked to. That data, the data you choose to use, the data I did plot, clearly shows a continuous warming trend UNLESS you cherry-pick a starting point right around an abnormally warm year.

Cherry-picking claims don't answer the question. Regardless of the cherries -- there's an answer for everything. Why can't anyone say why we have been cooling for more than 7-years? NOAA and NASA data both show it -- it is real -- but no one wants to say why ... but at 10 AM on Apr 17 at Colony Cottage the Big Cherry will be revealed.

[JMintzer]

37 billion metric tons of Co2 dumped into the atmosphere every year just can't be a good thing over time. I'm sure we can all agree on that. Give a hoot, don't pollute!

Joe

Annual CO2 emissions worldwide 1940-2021 | Statista (https://www.statista.com/statistics/276629/global-co2-emissions/)

Yeah, someone should tell Mother Nature to stop!

"What are the natural sources of CO2 emissions?

Yes, there are natural sources of atmospheric carbon dioxide, such as outgassing from the ocean, decomposing vegetation and other biomass, venting volcanoes, naturally occurring wildfires, and even belches from ruminant animals."

"Altogether the planet absorbs and emits about 100 billion tons of carbon dioxide through this natural cycle every year..."

[heron848]

What's more extreme is media alarmism and everyone is falling for it.

Enough with the gratuitous hyperbole. Not EVERYONE is falling for it!
😎

[jimjamuser]

37 billion metric tons of Co2 dumped into the atmosphere every year just can't be a good thing over time. I'm sure we can all agree on that. Give a hoot, don't pollute!

Joe

Annual CO2 emissions worldwide 1940-2021 | Statista (https://www.statista.com/statistics/276629/global-co2-emissions/)
Good link.

[jimjamuser]

Hard to argue facts. Weather is definitely getting crazy 26 inches in Fort Lauderdale most of which came down in 7 hours. Wait till the impending flooding in California when the 70 feet of snow melts and none of that snow is headed to the worst affected area, Lake Mead and Lake Powell.
Good post.

[jimjamuser]

[QUOTE=Fastskiguy;2207976]37 billion metric tons of Co2 dumped into the atmosphere every year just can't be a good thing over time. I'm sure we can all agree on that. Give a hoot, don't pollute!

Joe

CO2 is not a pollutant. More importantly it is plant food, and more is better, because we are in a CO2 famine. Learn more 10 AM, April 17, Colony Cottage ... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RLnQo8l-BHc
Excess CO2 from infernal combustion engines IS definitely a pollutant. We have had 8 years of record HEAT worldwide. And ONLY E-vehicles, which are expensive right now can help us out of this serious dilemma.

[fdpaq0580]

[QUOTE=Fastskiguy;2208002]

Absolutely, yes. Seeing is believing ... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wQ8Ws8ZrleE

Said the magician as he sawed the woman in half.

[Two Bills]

All these charts and graphs only prove whatever agenda the posters are supporting.
I do not need any chart or graph to tell me the UK weather/climate is warmer now than 80+ years ago when I was born.
Winters were bitter cold, with plenty of snow and ice.
Soft plants never stood a chance of surviving a winter.
I bring very few in now, and they get through winter mostly unscathed.
Rot due to wet is the main enemy of the gardener now.
Nature does not lie.
The only question that needs answering?
"Is the change in the Climate/Weather man made?"
Because if it isn't, we are being royally screwed by the zealots!

[YeOldeCurmudgeon]

All these charts and graphs only prove whatever agenda the posters are supporting.
I do not need any chart or graph to tell me the UK weather/climate is warmer now than 80+ years ago when I was born.
Winters were bitter cold, with plenty of snow and ice.
Soft plants never stood a chance of surviving a winter.
I bring very few in now, and they get through winter mostly unscathed.
Rot due to wet is the main enemy of the gardener now.
Nature does not lie.
The only question that needs answering?
"Is the change in the Climate/Weather man made?"
Because if it isn't, we are being royally screwed by the zealots!

If the Greenhouse Gas theory is correct, then we are not getting screwed by zealots. While correlation does not prove causation -- that is, all the data shows the precipitous increase of Global Temps (much greater than in all geological history -- aside from a cataclysm like the asteroid that struck the earth that wiped out the dinosaurs -- it coincides with the advent of the Industrial Revolution and has grown incrementally or even synergistically with the increase of industrial activity. Something is causing this. All the contrary views that it is not greenhouse gases have been debunked by scientists -- like volcanic activity or the sun getting hotter, all BS created by propaganda. The best available science says it is greenhouse gases.

[sounding]

If the Greenhouse Gas theory is correct, then we are not getting screwed by zealots. While correlation does not prove causation -- that is, all the data shows the precipitous increase of Global Temps (much greater than in all geological history -- aside from a cataclysm like the asteroid that struck the earth that wiped out the dinosaurs -- it coincides with the advent of the Industrial Revolution and has grown incrementally or even synergistically with the increase of industrial activity. Something is causing this. All the contrary views that it is not greenhouse gases have been debunked by scientists -- like volcanic activity or the sun getting hotter, all BS created by propaganda. The best available science says it is greenhouse gases.

How much did "man-made" CO2 warm the earth last year?

[sounding]

Good point. I once fell all that Al-Gore alarmism -- until I looked at the data.

[Keefelane66]

I wonder if there's a tip jar at these meetings.

[sounding]

I wonder if there's a tip jar at these meetings.

I believe these "Civil Discourse" meetings do have tip jars for the coffee, etc.

[Johncolson]

Huh! 7 inches of snow in Ft. Lauderdale. Never happened. Some very quick and easy research shows the last time it snowed in Ft. Lauderdale was January of 1977. This was the first report of snow flurries in over 200 years and no reports of snow flurries have been not seen since.

[fdpaq0580]

How much did "man-made" CO2 warm the earth last year?

Now your getting silly ... again?

[Fastskiguy]

[QUOTE=Fastskiguy;2208002]

Absolutely, yes. Seeing is believing ... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wQ8Ws8ZrleE

It's a neat video so thanks for that and obviously the idea that more CO2 can help plants grow better is a fact, agree 100%.

It's the idea that CO2 is warming our planet is my concern. It just doesn't seem like pumping so much pollution (CO2 and other greenhouse gasses) into the atmosphere is a good idea.

Think of when you are in a 30 mile line of traffic going 15mph on 75. All of the cars, all of the emissions. And this is happening all over the globe all day every day. Are you thinking about this as "awesome, more CO2, great for plants!" or are you like "sure seems like a lot of pollution....is it possible it could have an effect on the planet?"

Joe

[fdpaq0580]

Good point. I once fell all that Al-Gore alarmism -- until I looked at the data.

You mean the fake data.

[sounding]

Now your getting silly ... again?

Exactly, which is why "man-made" global warming is a silly belief -- but it is wishful thinking for many.

[sounding]

You mean the fake data.

The government data is indeed real, even the altered temperature data.

[Keefelane66]

Huh! 7 inches of snow in Ft. Lauderdale. Never happened. Some very quick and easy research shows the last time it snowed in Ft. Lauderdale was January of 1977. This was the first report of snow flurries in over 200 years and no reports of snow flurries have been not seen since.
Your mistaken it wasn't 7 inches of snow. According to news reports it was flurries Jan 1977 one day does not a cooling trend make unless you fudge the numbers.

[sounding]

Your mistaken it wasn't 7 inches of snow. According to news reports it was flurries Jan 1977 one day does not a cooling trend make unless you fudge the numbers.

Not 7 inches, and not flurries -- but it was during the Little Ice Age scare of the 60s and 70s -- which is frequently covered in the Weather Club ... Rare snow in Miami 45 years ago today | WHAM (https://13wham.com/news/local/rare-snow-in-miami-45-years-ago-today)

[ithos]

[QUOTE=sounding;2207983]
Excess CO2 from infernal combustion engines IS definitely a pollutant. We have had 8 years of record HEAT worldwide. And ONLY E-vehicles, which are expensive right now can help us out of this serious dilemma.

And how is electricity for those E-Vehicles generated? Vast majority is from carbon fuels. Add to the massive amount of fuel consumed to mine all those rare earth materials and you probably end up creating more CO2 "pollution."

If the overlords were truly concerned about CO2 in the atmosphere, they would promote natural gas and nuclear as well as mandate every engine be a hybrid.

But of course we all know that CO2 reduction is not the objective.

[nick demis]

37 billion metric tons of Co2 dumped into the atmosphere every year just can't be a good thing over time. I'm sure we can all agree on that. Give a hoot, don't pollute!

Joe

Annual CO2 emissions worldwide 1940-2021 | Statista (https://www.statista.com/statistics/276629/global-co2-emissions/)

CO2 and pollution are 2 very different things. The stats you show have been disproven by most climatologist.

[nick demis]

Not 7 inches, and not flurries -- but it was during the Little Ice Age scare of the 60s and 70s -- which is frequently covered in the Weather Club ... Rare snow in Miami 45 years ago today | WHAM (https://13wham.com/news/local/rare-snow-in-miami-45-years-ago-today)

More people need to go to one of John Shewchuk's talks at the Weather Club meetings.

[sounding]

Overlord dittos.

[Fastskiguy]

CO2 and pollution are 2 very different things. The stats you show have been disproven by most climatologist.

If you have a source that CO2 emissions are decreasing I would be genuinely interested in seeing it.

Joe

[Hoosierb4]

[QUOTE=jimjamuser;2208054]

And how is electricity for those E-Vehicles generated? Vast majority is from carbon fuels. Add to the massive amount of fuel consumed to mine all those rare earth materials and you probably end up creating more CO2 "pollution."

If the overlords were truly concerned about CO2 in the atmosphere, they would promote natural gas and nuclear as well as mandate every engine be a hybrid.

But of course we all know that CO2 reduction is not the objective.

It's not quite so simple. Considering that typical gas powered vehicles are only about 20% efficient in powering cars and that electric vehicles are near 80% efficient, the numbers favor the electric vehicles, even with today's electric generation system....and that system is getting more efficient all the time.

[Two Bills]

If the Greenhouse Gas theory is correct, then we are not getting screwed by zealots.

"If" is not a very positive word.
Sort of a maybe, possibly, or could be, not an "It is," is it?

[Fastskiguy]

[QUOTE=ithos;2208104]

It's not quite so simple. Considering that typical gas powered vehicles are only about 20% efficient in powering cars and that electric vehicles are near 80% efficient, the numbers favor the electric vehicles, even with today's electric generation system....and that system is getting more efficient all the time.

Going to need some sources before believing this. Can you cite them please?

Joe

[Bill14564]

Going to need some sources before believing this. Can you cite them please?

Joe

Here's one (https://fueleconomy.gov/feg/atv-ev.shtml)

[Hoosierb4]

Just google gas powered vehicle efficiency vs electric vehicle efficiency and you should get plenty of sources. Another way of comparing efficiencies is to look at the cost. According to energysage.com, the cost per mile for gas is about 3 times as much as for electricity to charge yur batteries. That reflects the difference in efficiency. Again, it's not even that simple. What you correctly imply is that you need to do a "total environmental warming impact" study (TEWI). I've done a few. But, they take a lot of work and I'm retired now, so won't be doing one here.

[Bill14564]

Just google gas powered vehicle efficiency vs electric vehicle efficiency and you should get plenty of sources. Another way of comparing efficiencies is to look at the cost. According to energysage.com, the cost per mile for gas is about 3 times as much as for electricity to charge yur batteries. That reflects the difference in efficiency. Again, it's not even that simple. What you correctly imply is that you need to do a "total environmental warming impact" study (TEWI). I've done a few. But, they take a lot of work and I'm retired now, so won't be doing one here.

With $3.00/gal gas and $0.11/Kwh electricity:

Electric cart: $0.01/mile
Gas cart: $0.06/mile
Car: $0.15/mile

[jimjamuser]

All these charts and graphs only prove whatever agenda the posters are supporting.
I do not need any chart or graph to tell me the UK weather/climate is warmer now than 80+ years ago when I was born.
Winters were bitter cold, with plenty of snow and ice.
Soft plants never stood a chance of surviving a winter.
I bring very few in now, and they get through winter mostly unscathed.
Rot due to wet is the main enemy of the gardener now.
Nature does not lie.
The only question that needs answering?
"Is the change in the Climate/Weather man made?"
Because if it isn't, we are being royally screwed by the zealots!
Of course, it is man-made. It happens every time the ignition key is turned on an infernal combustion engine in a car, truck, or golf cart.

[sounding]

Of course, it is man-made. It happens every time the ignition key is turned on an infernal combustion engine in a car, truck, or golf cart.

The climate crisis is an illusion. What isn't an illusion is the Little Ice Age. Once you know what caused it to get cold and then warm (like today), then you understand how the sun controls our climate. We are still thawing out from the Little Ice Age. Find out more today at 10 AM at Colony Cottage.

[YeOldeCurmudgeon]

Exactly, which is why "man-made" global warming is a silly belief -- but it is wishful thinking for many.

Oh, so the NASA scientists are silly idiots making it up? Don't you think they already know far more than you and the politicians about the geological history of the planet? Sounds more like you're one of those with their heads in the sand. Whatever. When people are invested emotionally in something, nothing can change their minds.

[YeOldeCurmudgeon]

The climate crisis is an illusion. What isn't an illusion is the Little Ice Age. Once you know what caused it to get cold and then warm (like today), then you understand how the sun controls our climate. We are still thawing out from the Little Ice Age. Find out more today at 10 AM at Colony Cottage.

First of all, it is not agreed that the Little Ice Age was global. Second, it occurred because of Sunspot activity and there is no indication that the global warming is because of increased radiation from the sun because the sunspot activity concluded and the warming trend ended before Industrialization. However, the current warming coincides with Industrial Activity and the rate of warming has increased precipitously along with the precipitous increase of industrialization. So, something is causing it that apparently relates to industrialization.

[JMintzer]

Of course, it is man-made. It happens every time the ignition key is turned on an infernal combustion engine in a car, truck, or golf cart.

As it does every time a volcano erupts, or when lightning causes a fire, or old faithful spews...

"Of course it does" means nothing...

[jimjamuser]

How much did "man-made" CO2 warm the earth last year?
Well, it was a record amount. It has been record HEAT all over the globe for the last 8 years. And the predictions are to continue increasing for as many as 30 years into the future. The only hope is for governments to support the purchasing of E- vehicles and bicycles.
........Don't take my word - verify it with the book "The New Climate War" by climatologist Dr. Michael Mann of the U. of Pennsylvania.

[jimjamuser]

If the Greenhouse Gas theory is correct, then we are not getting screwed by zealots. While correlation does not prove causation -- that is, all the data shows the precipitous increase of Global Temps (much greater than in all geological history -- aside from a cataclysm like the asteroid that struck the earth that wiped out the dinosaurs -- it coincides with the advent of the Industrial Revolution and has grown incrementally or even synergistically with the increase of industrial activity. Something is causing this. All the contrary views that it is not greenhouse gases have been debunked by scientists -- like volcanic activity or the sun getting hotter, all BS created by propaganda. The best available science says it is greenhouse gases.
True. I agree!

[jimjamuser]

I believe these "Civil Discourse" meetings do have tip jars for the coffee, etc.
Civil Discord meetings?

[jimjamuser]

Huh! 7 inches of snow in Ft. Lauderdale. Never happened. Some very quick and easy research shows the last time it snowed in Ft. Lauderdale was January of 1977. This was the first report of snow flurries in over 200 years and no reports of snow flurries have been not seen since.
That is quite possibly true, but there are many other FACTS that show the last 8 years warming at record levels. Also, look at the record temperature of the Gulf of Mexico set last year. And we have continuing ocean level rising, which is a RECORDED FACT and can't even be denied at some monthly meeting of climate skeptics.
.........Also, we have recorded increased CO2 levels in the ocean and coral reef bleaching and kills. Also, we have recorded increases in CO2 in the world's upper atmosphere which is radiating heat back to the earth's surface. And we have animal species destruction and extinction at a record level. And the ash tree that was once (100 years ago) the favorite tree lining a city's streets.......is now being eaten by beetles and falling down in snow storms everywhere up north, approaching extinction.

[jimjamuser]

[QUOTE=sounding;2208009]

It's a neat video so thanks for that and obviously the idea that more CO2 can help plants grow better is a fact, agree 100%.

It's the idea that CO2 is warming our planet is my concern. It just doesn't seem like pumping so much pollution (CO2 and other greenhouse gasses) into the atmosphere is a good idea.

Think of when you are in a 30 mile line of traffic going 15mph on 75. All of the cars, all of the emissions. And this is happening all over the globe all day every day. Are you thinking about this as "awesome, more CO2, great for plants!" or are you like "sure seems like a lot of pollution....is it possible it could have an effect on the planet?"

Joe
I am confident as to where I come down on that question.

[sounding]

Oh, so the NASA scientists are silly idiots making it up? Don't you think they already know far more than you and the politicians about the geological history of the planet? Sounds more like you're one of those with their heads in the sand. Whatever. When people are invested emotionally in something, nothing can change their minds.

NASA says we are experiencing global warming. So why are we having a 7-year cooling trend?

[sounding]

That is quite possibly true, but there are many other FACTS that show the last 8 years warming at record levels. Also, look at the record temperature of the Gulf of Mexico set last year. And we have continuing ocean level rising, which is a RECORDED FACT and can't even be denied at some monthly meeting of climate skeptics.
.........Also, we have recorded increased CO2 levels in the ocean and coral reef bleaching and kills. Also, we have recorded increases in CO2 in the world's upper atmosphere which is radiating heat back to the earth's surface. And we have animal species destruction and extinction at a record level. And the ash tree that was once (100 years ago) the favorite tree lining a city's streets.......is now being eaten by beetles and falling down in snow storms everywhere up north, approaching extinction.

UN IPCC official, Ottmar Edenhofer, said climate change policy is an illusion -- and it's all about global wealth distribution. But go ahead and eat bugs if that makes you feel better.

[jimjamuser]

Exactly, which is why "man-made" global warming is a silly belief -- but it is wishful thinking for many.
As a practical example - this summer in Florida is going to be a disastrous heat trap. Swelter away and pretend that it doesn't exist. It was recently 96 degrees in Hartford, Ct. That same worldwide HEAT is coming to Florida as we speak/type!

[sounding]

As a practical example - this summer in Florida is going to be a disastrous heat trap. Swelter away and pretend that it doesn't exist. It was recently 96 degrees in Hartford, Ct. That same worldwide HEAT is coming to Florida as we speak/type!

The solution is easy -- just move North to cooler climates. We are still thawing out from the Little Ice Age -- get used to it. When Greenland gets warm enough, maybe the Vikings will return; but right now it still too cold to grow the crops they once grew there.

[Bill14564]

UN IPCC official, Ottmar Edenhofer, said climate change policy is an illusion -- and it's all about global wealth distribution. But go ahead and eat bugs if that makes you feel better.

Well that's interesting since he is quoted as saying (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ottmar_Edenhofer), "Regarding climate change he says: 'Denying out and out that climate change is a problem for humanity, as some cynics do, is an unethical, unacceptable position.'"

Seems like he may have taken exception to the cure (at least in the 2010 timeframe where your info came from) but he doesn't deny the disease.

[jimjamuser]

CO2 and pollution are 2 very different things. The stats you show have been disproven by most climatologist.
CO2 does become pollution when it becomes excessive as it exits the exhaust pipe of US cars and trucks and the non-catalytic converter exhaust of the grass cutting, bad driving, bad parking and speeding social outcasts hired to cut grass in the TV Land community. And the non-converter exhaust of the gazillion belching Golf Carts that pollute our local neighborhoods. We also have noise pollution AND EXHAUST POLLUTION with the gasoline weed eaters and trimmers used by the so-called lawn professionals - and their chain saws. Noise and CO2 pollution together - a perfect wedding of harmful habits, a 2-for! Breathe in those fumes........suckers - that should be a sign on their trucks.

[jimjamuser]

If you have a source that CO2 emissions are decreasing I would be genuinely interested in seeing it.

Joe
Well, truth be told there is a device that reduces pollution drastically..........it is called an E-vehicle or E-bike. Buy one and BE THE CHANGE needed!

[sounding]

Well that's interesting since he is quoted as saying (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ottmar_Edenhofer), "Regarding climate change he says: 'Denying out and out that climate change is a problem for humanity, as some cynics do, is an unethical, unacceptable position.'"

Seems like he may have taken exception to the cure (at least in the 2010 timeframe where your info came from) but he doesn't deny the disease.

Notice how the all-knowing Wiki ignored the "wealth" quote.

[SallyB]

This guy?

https://www.filmstories.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/dr-evil.jpeg
funny

[jimjamuser]

[QUOTE=ithos;2208104]

It's not quite so simple. Considering that typical gas powered vehicles are only about 20% efficient in powering cars and that electric vehicles are near 80% efficient, the numbers favor the electric vehicles, even with today's electric generation system....and that system is getting more efficient all the time.
I am NOT responsible for that 1st quote.
But, I do agree with the post. Good job!

[Bill14564]

Notice how the all-knowing Wiki ignored the "wealth" quote.

No, but I notice how you ignored the denier quote.

[jimjamuser]

"If" is not a very positive word.
Sort of a maybe, possibly, or could be, not an "It is," is it?
It is NOT positive that animal and plant species are dying due to Global Warming. Last summers KILLER hurricanes hitting Florida were NOT very positive. It is NOT positive that there is very little monetary encouragement to buy an E-vehicle even though American car manufacturers see a large NEED by 2030.

[jimjamuser]

Just google gas powered vehicle efficiency vs electric vehicle efficiency and you should get plenty of sources. Another way of comparing efficiencies is to look at the cost. According to energysage.com, the cost per mile for gas is about 3 times as much as for electricity to charge yur batteries. That reflects the difference in efficiency. Again, it's not even that simple. What you correctly imply is that you need to do a "total environmental warming impact" study (TEWI). I've done a few. But, they take a lot of work and I'm retired now, so won't be doing one here.
Thanks for a VERY informative post. Statements like that need to be repeated. Group understanding WILL eventually happen.

[jimjamuser]

Oh, so the NASA scientists are silly idiots making it up? Don't you think they already know far more than you and the politicians about the geological history of the planet? Sounds more like you're one of those with their heads in the sand. Whatever. When people are invested emotionally in something, nothing can change their minds.
My sentiments exactly.

[jimjamuser]

UN IPCC official, Ottmar Edenhofer, said climate change policy is an illusion -- and it's all about global wealth distribution. But go ahead and eat bugs if that makes you feel better.
Well, global wealth distribution is a factor in Global Warming. 3rd world countries are producing a limited amount o CO2 pollution because, OBVIOUSLY, they can NOT afford automobiles with their infernal combustion engines. They don't pay people to cut their grass with noise and CO2-polluting engines. They use donkeys instead of polluting farm tractors. And they use row and sail boats not 100 ft long SPORT yachts.

[sounding]

No, but I notice how you ignored the denier quote.

Doesn't matter. What matters is that there is no "man-made" climate change. If you truly believe that to be true, then tell me ... how much has "man-made" CO2 warmed the earth last year?

[Two Bills]

It is NOT positive that animal and plant species are dying due to Global Warming. Last summers KILLER hurricanes hitting Florida were NOT very positive. It is NOT positive that there is very little monetary encouragement to buy an E-vehicle even though American car manufacturers see a large NEED by 2030.

Do you actually understand what you are on about?
'cos I lost it in the translation from gobbledygook!

[Bill14564]

Doesn't matter. What matters is that there is no "man-made" climate change. If you truly believe that to be true, then tell me ... how much has "man-made" CO2 warmed the earth last year?

Haha! YOU used the quote to support YOUR assertion of no climate change yet the person YOU quoted will tell you that YOUR position is unethical and unacceptable. And just like that, it doesn't matter. (very similar to how the data you champion contradicts the trend you assert)

A scientist will tell you there is no way to attribute a one-year change to anything; there are simply too many factors to say this much came from solar activity, this much came from volcanic activity, this much came from CO2, etc. Someone who understood weather and climate and climate change would never pose such a question.... yet you do.

[sounding]

Haha! YOU used the quote to support YOUR assertion of no climate change yet the person YOU quoted will tell you that YOUR position is unethical and unacceptable. And just like that, it doesn't matter. (very similar to how the data you champion contradicts the trend you assert)

A scientist will tell you there is no way to attribute a one-year change to anything; there are simply too many factors to say this much came from solar activity, this much came from volcanic activity, this much came from CO2, etc. Someone who understood weather and climate and climate change would never pose such a question.... yet you do.

If you truly believe that "man" is causing global warming, then tell me ... how much did "man-made" CO2 warm the earth last year? Great is not willing to say -- can you?

[Bill14564]

Haha! YOU used the quote to support YOUR assertion of no climate change yet the person YOU quoted will tell you that YOUR position is unethical and unacceptable. And just like that, it doesn't matter. (very similar to how the data you champion contradicts the trend you assert)

A scientist will tell you there is no way to attribute a one-year change to anything; there are simply too many factors to say this much came from solar activity, this much came from volcanic activity, this much came from CO2, etc. Someone who understood weather and climate and climate change would never pose such a question.... yet you do.

If you truly believe that "man" is causing global warming, then tell me ... how much did "man-made" CO2 warm the earth last year? Great is not willing to say -- can you?

Suggest you read the reply you are quoting.

Who is Great?

[JMintzer]

Well, it was a record amount. It has been record HEAT all over the globe for the last 8 years. And the predictions are to continue increasing for as many as 30 years into the future. The only hope is for governments to support the purchasing of E- vehicles and bicycles.
........Don't take my word - verify it with the book "The New Climate War" by climatologist Dr. Michael Mann of the U. of Pennsylvania.

https://media.tenor.com/BoLJMSUoi5UAAAAC/helpme-saveme.gif

[JMintzer]

It is NOT positive that animal and plant species are dying due to Global Warming. Last summers KILLER hurricanes hitting Florida were NOT very positive. It is NOT positive that there is very little monetary encouragement to buy an E-vehicle even though American car manufacturers see a large NEED by 2030.

NEED?

You spelled "BEING FORCED TO MANUFACTURE" wrong...

[JMintzer]

Well, truth be told there is a device that reduces pollution drastically..........it is called an E-vehicle or E-bike. Buy one and BE THE CHANGE needed!

You first...

[JMintzer]

Well, it was a record amount. It has been record HEAT all over the globe for the last 8 years. And the predictions are to continue increasing for as many as 30 years into the future. The only hope is for governments to support the purchasing of E- vehicles and bicycles.
........Don't take my word - verify it with the book "The New Climate War" by climatologist Dr. Michael Mann of the U. of Pennsylvania.

That is quite possibly true, but there are many other FACTS that show the last 8 years warming at record levels. Also, look at the record temperature of the Gulf of Mexico set last year. And we have continuing ocean level rising, which is a RECORDED FACT and can't even be denied at some monthly meeting of climate skeptics.
.........Also, we have recorded increased CO2 levels in the ocean and coral reef bleaching and kills. Also, we have recorded increases in CO2 in the world's upper atmosphere which is radiating heat back to the earth's surface. And we have animal species destruction and extinction at a record level. And the ash tree that was once (100 years ago) the favorite tree lining a city's streets.......is now being eaten by beetles and falling down in snow storms everywhere up north, approaching extinction.

As a practical example - this summer in Florida is going to be a disastrous heat trap. Swelter away and pretend that it doesn't exist. It was recently 96 degrees in Hartford, Ct. That same worldwide HEAT is coming to Florida as we speak/type!

CO2 does become pollution when it becomes excessive as it exits the exhaust pipe of US cars and trucks and the non-catalytic converter exhaust of the grass cutting, bad driving, bad parking and speeding social outcasts hired to cut grass in the TV Land community. And the non-converter exhaust of the gazillion belching Golf Carts that pollute our local neighborhoods. We also have noise pollution AND EXHAUST POLLUTION with the gasoline weed eaters and trimmers used by the so-called lawn professionals - and their chain saws. Noise and CO2 pollution together - a perfect wedding of harmful habits, a 2-for! Breathe in those fumes........suckers - that should be a sign on their trucks.

Well, truth be told there is a device that reduces pollution drastically..........it is called an E-vehicle or E-bike. Buy one and BE THE CHANGE needed!

It is NOT positive that animal and plant species are dying due to Global Warming. Last summers KILLER hurricanes hitting Florida were NOT very positive. It is NOT positive that there is very little monetary encouragement to buy an E-vehicle even though American car manufacturers see a large NEED by 2030.

Well, global wealth distribution is a factor in Global Warming. 3rd world countries are producing a limited amount o CO2 pollution because, OBVIOUSLY, they can NOT afford automobiles with their infernal combustion engines. They don't pay people to cut their grass with noise and CO2-polluting engines. They use donkeys instead of polluting farm tractors. And they use row and sail boats not 100 ft long SPORT yachts.

And he's back! Playing all the hits!

[Keefelane66]

And he's back! Playing all the hits!
It's like dueling wits of two unarmed people.

[kkingston57]

If it's more unpredictable, then our weather models are getting worse -- and in some ways they are -- as the Monday talk will show. But, weather is not more extreme. What's more extreme is media alarmism and everyone is falling for it. Today's climate is mild compared to the past ...

- 1924: 148 died in a tornado outbreak.
- 1927: 500 died in a Mississippi flood.
- 1913: Death Valley temperature hit world record high of 134 F.
- 1972: Loma, Montana, had a 24-hour temperature change of 103 F.
- 1977: Measurable snow in Miami.
- There are hundreds more examples of more extreme past weather events.
- Plus, we're in a 7-year cooling trend.

Anyone can pick and choose certain events to support their beliefs. Forgot to mention major hurricanes which have hit since 1992, 26 inches of rain in Fort Lauderdale in <24 hours, 800+ inches of snow in California and Utah, drought affecting SW USA. Was in S. Florida for the measureble snow. Literally had to squint in order to see that snow.

[jimjamuser]

Doesn't matter. What matters is that there is no "man-made" climate change. If you truly believe that to be true, then tell me ... how much has "man-made" CO2 warmed the earth last year?
How much? Last year it was enough to set a record for Gulf temperatures. And enough to cause a killer hurricane Ian to hit Florida last summer.

[JMintzer]

Anyone can pick and choose certain events to support their beliefs. Forgot to mention major hurricanes which have hit since 1992, 26 inches of rain in Fort Lauderdale in <24 hours, 800+ inches of snow in California and Utah, drought affecting SW USA. Was in S. Florida for the measureble snow. Literally had to squint in order to see that snow.

You mean like picking and choosing just the hurricanes that happen to make landfall?

60% of the Atlantic Hurricanes never do...

There has been no significant statistical increase in the number of hurricanes in the past 170 years...

US hurricane landfalls (https://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/hurdat/All_U.S._Hurricanes.html)

[JMintzer]

How much? Last year it was enough to set a record for Gulf temperatures. And enough to cause a killer hurricane Ian to hit Florida last summer.

You know that "man made" CO2 caused that? Impressive...

[Fastskiguy]

[QUOTE=Fastskiguy;2208002]

Absolutely, yes. Seeing is believing ... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wQ8Ws8ZrleE

Here's one (https://fueleconomy.gov/feg/atv-ev.shtml)

I guess I don't understand the graphic.

It's obvious that once the energy is in the battery, the electric car is way more efficient. But that energy has to come from somewhere and then there are losses getting it into the battery.

Of course, there are costs of getting the gas from the ground into the ICE car as well.

And the costs of manufacturing the car, battery, and disposal for both cars. Maybe some other factors I'm not aware of (probably!)

Looking at the big picture....is the electric car still "better"? I'm not trying to argue. I just think this information is critical to have before generating an opinion. Has anybody run the numbers and not fudged the hell out of them?

Joe

[Bill14564]

I guess I don't understand the graphic.

It's obvious that once the energy is in the battery, the electric car is way more efficient. But that energy has to come from somewhere and then there are losses getting it into the battery.

Of course, there are costs of getting the gas from the ground into the ICE car as well.

And the costs of manufacturing the car, battery, and disposal for both cars. Maybe some other factors I'm not aware of (probably!)

Looking at the big picture....is the electric car still "better"? I'm not trying to argue. I just think this information is critical to have before generating an opinion. Has anybody run the numbers and not fudged the hell out of them?

Joe

The graphic shows where energy is "wasted" in both gas and electric vehicles. Some of this is the same - both types of vehicles have auxiliary electrical losses. Some of the losses are specific to the type - electric vehicles have losses in charging the battery while gas engines waste a lot of energy as heat. Overall, there are more losses in gasoline vehicles. According to the chart:

Gasoline vehicles: 12% - 30% efficient
Electric vehicles: 77% - 100% efficient

So let's say a power plant burns gasoline to make electricity. There will certainly be some loss generating that electricity and transporting it to your home. Once there, more than 77% of the energy is efficiently used for moving the vehicle and less than 23% is lost due to inefficiencies.

In order for the two vehicles to be equivalent, in order for them to use the same amount of gasoline, the gasoline powered electrical plant would need to be only 30% efficient. I don't know how efficient power plants are but I assume it is more than 30%.

But let's say the power plant is only 30% efficient and the same amount of gas is used to move both electric vehicles and gas vehicles a certain distance. I know that at $3/gal my gas cart costs six times as much per mile as my electric cart. Does this mean the electric company pays only $0.50/gal for the gas it uses to generate electricity? Probably not.

If the power company can generate electricity at 1/6 the cost of gasoline then some combination of these must be true:
1. The electric company is charged less for gas than I am.
2 The electrical plants are more than 30% efficient so less gas is used to generate the electricity my electric cart requires for the same distance
3. Electricity is generated from more than just gasoline so less gas is used to generate the electricity my electric cart requires for the same distance.

I suspect it is a combination of all three but that #3 is the primary reason. But in any case, I know that running my electric cart is less expensive and if either #2 or #3 are true then I am also using less gas for that electric cart.

Automobiles are different than golf carts and I am only one person but hopefully the savings are even more in automobiles multiplied by thousands of owners.

[Dr Winston O Boogie jr]

If it's more unpredictable, then our weather models are getting worse -- and in some ways they are -- as the Monday talk will show. But, weather is not more extreme. What's more extreme is media alarmism and everyone is falling for it. Today's climate is mild compared to the past ...

- 1924: 148 died in a tornado outbreak.
- 1927: 500 died in a Mississippi flood.
- 1913: Death Valley temperature hit world record high of 134 F.
- 1972: Loma, Montana, had a 24-hour temperature change of 103 F.
- 1977: Measurable snow in Miami.
- There are hundreds more examples of more extreme past weather events.
- Plus, we're in a 7-year cooling trend.
I was in Miami in 77 for that snow.

[sounding]

How much? Last year it was enough to set a record for Gulf temperatures. And enough to cause a killer hurricane Ian to hit Florida last summer.

Good thing CO2 is causing hurricanes to decrease. We need more CO2.

[Byte1]

Why do people denigrate scientists in an effort to ignore the reality of Climate Change? Guess it makes you feel better that you can go on living life as in the past. It is changing, gradually, but it is getting worse. All you need to do is watch the Weather Channel and stop making excuses or finding different opinions to oppose it. Organizations like NASA are composed of scientists whose life work is to study it. Are you going to believe some politician or academic with a Ph.D. in Marketing being paid to distort the truth?

Stop being irrational and listen to what the scientists are telling us.

Oh, like those "scientists" that assured us that COVID came from bats at a meat market? Science is not exact, and that is why scientists are constantly studying, researching, comparing, etc.

[Dr Winston O Boogie jr]

Exactly how are these 80% and 20% numbers arrived at. What does that even mean?

[fdpaq0580]

NEED?

You spelled "BEING FORCED TO MANUFACTURE" wrong...

No individual or company is being forced to manufacture anything. You make this sound like a slave state, which it is not. But, companies that have their eyes on the future will certainly upgrade, improve, and add to their list of offerings, as well as eliminating older, less efficient products and technology.

[JMintzer]

No individual or company is being forced to manufacture anything. You make this sound like a slave state, which it is not. But, companies that have their eyes on the future will certainly upgrade, improve, and add to their list of offerings, as well as eliminating older, less efficient products and technology.

Due to new milage regulations in CAFE standards.

The same type of thing that spawned the growth of the SUVs and Minivans...

They are not considered "cars", so they didn't count towards the MPG requirements set by the Feds...

The car companies produced thousands of "economy cars" that no one wanted. But they had to be produced to counter the higher MPG cars that were actually being sold...

[fdpaq0580]

Due to new milage regulations in CAFE standards.

The same type of thing that spawned the growth of the SUVs and Minivans...

They are not considered "cars", so they didn't count towards the MPG requirements set by the Feds...

The car companies produced thousands of "economy cars" that no one wanted. But they had to be produced to counter the higher MPG cars that were actually being sold...

If one chooses to compete, one must be competitive.
But one may always choose not to compete.

[JMintzer]

If one chooses to compete, one must be competitive.
But one may always choose not to compete.

I wasn't talking about being competitive with other companies.

I was talking about stacking the deck against the auto companies...

Just as certain states are doing now by requiring a certain percentage of cars sold by 2030 to be EVs... And by ending gasoline only new car sales by 2035...

The Feds are talking about making that a national mandate...

[Pairadocs]

In 1986 the father of global warming, NASA scientist Dr. James Hansen, said we should be at least 5 degrees Celsius warmer than we now are. Find out why he said that, April 17 at 10AM at Colony Cottage at the Civil Discourse club meeting.

A "civil discourse" club sounds really interesting if truly "civil" !

[fdpaq0580]

I wasn't talking about being competitive with other companies.

I was talking about stacking the deck against the auto companies...

Just as certain states are doing now by requiring a certain percentage of cars sold by 2030 to be EVs... And by ending gasoline only new car sales by 2035...

The Feds are talking about making that a national mandate...

"Stacking the deck", or gvt mandates, laws prohibiting dangerous or harmful things are required to protect or serve the best interest of the general public.
Although there are many who argue against any regulation, the reality is that, like the chihuahua string against his leash (gvt mandates and laws, etc) trying to get to that hungry, angry Doberman, he is ignorant of the fact that his owner is saving his very life.
The old mantra of, "if it ain't broke, don't fix it", makes a nice sound bite and propaganda for holding on to old technology. But old tech is broken by the shear fact it is old and out moded and no longer the best available. Behold! "New and Improved"! Better in all quarters, and getting better all the time.
Just like buggies whips weren't broken. They just outlive their general usefulness, unless you are Amish and stuck in a time warp. The general use for the IC engine is going slowly by the wayside. Put down my flint knife and get one of steel. Trade bow and arrow for a rifle.

[MrChip72]

The car companies produced thousands of "economy cars" that no one wanted. .

Did you grow up in an ultra rich area? In many many places economy cars was the only car any entry level people could afford, especially with the lower gas mileage of these vehicles. The fact that anyone thinks this is a conspiracy theory is laughable.

[JMintzer]

"Stacking the deck", or gvt mandates, laws prohibiting dangerous or harmful things are required to protect or serve the best interest of the general public.
Although there are many who argue against any regulation, the reality is that, like the chihuahua string against his leash (gvt mandates and laws, etc) trying to get to that hungry, angry Doberman, he is ignorant of the fact that his owner is saving his very life.
The old mantra of, "if it ain't broke, don't fix it", makes a nice sound bite and propaganda for holding on to old technology. But old tech is broken by the shear fact it is old and out moded and no longer the best available. Behold! "New and Improved"! Better in all quarters, and getting better all the time.
Just like buggies whips weren't broken. They just outlive their general usefulness, unless you are Amish and stuck in a time warp. The general use for the IC engine is going slowly by the wayside. Put down my flint knife and get one of steel. Trade bow and arrow for a rifle.

https://thumbs.dreamstime.com/b/scarecrow-made-straw-17840970.jpg

[JMintzer]

Did you grow up in an ultra rich area? In many many places economy cars was the only car any entry level people could afford, especially with the lower gas mileage of these vehicles. The fact that anyone thinks this is a conspiracy theory is laughable.

It's not me saying that. It was the car companies... They know what people want to buy better than the government does...

[Byte1]

Every other post seems to be more in line with EV discussion. Of course, now that inflation and gov influence, the price of vehicles and fuel has risen substantially. Everyone seems more intent on proving how efficient EVs are, than facing the real fact that the average Joe cannot afford them. No, a tax credit doesn't do it for those that hardly pay taxes to begin with. On top of that, it still takes too long to charge the batteries sufficient to get from one place to another without taking three times as long (or more). If everyone had an EV then lines at charging stations would be down the street. Of course, another reason/excuse for some to work from home would probably be appreciated, I'm sure. Personally, I find the air quality today much better than it was when I was a child. Sure, that's mostly due to more efficient combustion engines as well as pollution control devices. Battery powered autos were invented in the 1800's and still haven't quite made the big time. Why not? Because of oil companies? OK, I'll give you that. But, that's another reason to think seriously about where we are going to get the elements to produce batteries. Are we going to give China more control? EVs are nice toys for those that have the extra, throw away money. Not so much for the blue collar worker that can barely make their rent payment.
Worried about "warming?" I moved South because it IS warmer. I had no intention on waiting for it to get warmer up North. I am sure I will be long gone before the weather changes enough that I would notice it, other than the normal seasonal cycles. I am sure that man will destroy itself way before the air and temperature quality becomes extreme enough to have any real life changing effect.
Don't tell me how efficient battery power is, because I have replaced (expensively) quite a few batteries (including lithium) in the past few years that I have been using battery powered lawn/landscaping tools and golf cart. My preference for longevity would be fossil fuel powered tools, now looking back.

[golfing eagles]

37 billion metric tons of Co2 dumped into the atmosphere every year just can't be a good thing over time. I'm sure we can all agree on that. Give a hoot, don't pollute!

Joe

Annual CO2 emissions worldwide 1940-2021 | Statista (https://www.statista.com/statistics/276629/global-co2-emissions/)

Maybe it is and maybe it isn't. Maybe it's a drop in the bucket compared to the resiliency of our planet. Maybe it's more raw material for plants to make oxygen and glucose. Maybe it's going to delay the start of the next period of northern hemisphere glaciation. I don't know, neither do you, and neither do the so called expert climatologists, other than we can rest assured what they will say since 90% are on the government payroll in one way or another.

[golfing eagles]

You have data that shows the seven-year cooling trend? All the scientific literature I've seen does not show this. In fact, it's just the opposite unless you don't believe the New York Times:

Earth’s Last 8 Years Were the Hottest on Record - The New York Times (https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2023/climate/earth-hottest-years.html)

That story is based on data from NASA and the European Union’s Copernicus Climate Change Service.

Those organizations have no reason to fake their information while there are a lot of Climate Change denier groups funded by fossil fuel companies and others who stand to lose money if the necessary changes are made to combat it.

Just one question----Who in their right mind believes the NY Times???? :1rotfl::1rotfl::1rotfl: It's the equivalent of Pravda during the cold war.

[golfing eagles]

Why do people denigrate scientists in an effort to ignore the reality of Climate Change? Guess it makes you feel better that you can go on living life as in the past. It is changing, gradually, but it is getting worse. All you need to do is watch the Weather Channel and stop making excuses or finding different opinions to oppose it. Organizations like NASA are composed of scientists whose life work is to study it. Are you going to believe some politician or academic with a Ph.D. in Marketing being paid to distort the truth?

Stop being irrational and listen to what the scientists are telling us.

What the "scientists" are telling us is that they either directly work for the government, get research grants funded by the government, or need tenure from their university which is subsidized by the government. For whatever reason, the agenda is to promote the myth of anthropogenic climate change. Actually, the reason is most likely the same as it always is----$$$$$. During the 60's , the big bucks were from escalating the war in Vietnam---Boeing, General Dynamics, Bell Helicopter and Haliburton made a killing. I suspect the new frontier is "green economy"---after all, the plan is to spend 100 TRILLION dollars over the next 50 years to combat "climate change". Who will benefit??? Who is already invested??? Can anyone spell Solyndra?????? And that's just the tip of the iceberg. Meanwhile, the "scientists" are going to continue to be the stooges for the powers that be, since to go against "the agenda" is committing professional suicide.

[Keefelane66]

Just one question----Who in their right mind believes the NY Times???? :1rotfl::1rotfl::1rotfl: It's the equivalent of Pravda during the cold war.
You watch too much faux news who just settled with Dominion for $787.5 billion for lying.

[golfing eagles]

You watch too much faux news who just settled with Dominion for $787.5 billion for lying.

The only faux news I see is the NY Times, WAPO, and their minions

[fdpaq0580]

Maybe it is and maybe it isn't. Maybe it's a drop in the bucket compared to the resiliency of our planet. Maybe it's more raw material for plants to make oxygen and glucose. Maybe it's going to delay the start of the next period of northern hemisphere glaciation. I don't know, neither do you, and neither do the so called expert climatologists, other than we can rest assured what they will say since 90% are on the government payroll in one way or another.

As you say, "MAYBE". But not positivel.

[golfing eagles]

As you say, "MAYBE". But not positivel.

Correct. I'll go as far as to state "a DEFINITE maybe" :1rotfl::1rotfl::1rotfl:

The problem is that those that know or should know have an agenda, and that leaves a lot of room for speculation. Heck, we can't even trust the data, or agree what the data they are showing us really means. So, I come back to the line I've used a bunch of times----We have warmed to the point that 2 miles of ice covering NY City has melted over the last 20,000 years. Did Fred Flintstone have a SUV??? Was Bedrock powered by a coal burning power plant? Did their cows fart more??? Or, maybe, just maybe, the last 20,000 years of global warming have absolutely nothing to do with the activity of humans. And that is just the latest 100-150,000 year cycle that has recurred over a dozen times in the last 4 million years

[fdpaq0580]

Correct. I'll go as far as to state "a DEFINITE maybe" :1rotfl::1rotfl::1rotfl:

The problem is that those that know or should know have an agenda, and that leaves a lot of room for speculation. Heck, we can't even trust the data, or agree what the data they are showing us really means. So, I come back to the line I've used a bunch of times----We have warmed to the point that 2 miles of ice covering NY City has melted over the last 20,000 years. Did Fred Flintstone have a SUV??? Was Bedrock powered by a coal burning power plant? Did their cows fart more??? Or, maybe, just maybe, the last 20,000 years of global warming have absolutely nothing to do with the activity of humans. And that is just the latest 100-150,000 year cycle that has recurred over a dozen times in the last 4 million years

Or, maybe, just maybe (and far more likely), you could be wrong. The one thing the world has never seen before is the kind of habitat destruction and pollution that 8 billion industrialized, mechanized and organized humans can cause. But, if you keep your head down and your eye on the ball and believe only what Fox (admitted purveyor of big lies) tells you, you will be just fine.

[golfing eagles]

Or, maybe, just maybe (and far more likely), you could be wrong. The one thing the world has never seen before is the kind of habitat destruction and pollution that 8 billion industrialized, mechanized and organized humans can cause. But, if you keep your head down and your eye on the ball and believe only what Fox (admitted purveyor of big lies) tells you, you will be just fine.

Anything is possible. After all, ONCE I thought I was wrong, but I was mistaken.:1rotfl::1rotfl::1rotfl:

[golfing eagles]

Or, maybe, just maybe (and far more likely), you could be wrong. The one thing the world has never seen before is the kind of habitat destruction and pollution that 8 billion industrialized, mechanized and organized humans can cause. But, if you keep your head down and your eye on the ball and believe only what Fox (admitted purveyor of big lies) tells you, you will be just fine.

Sorry, don't watch Fox, but I'm sure they're not the only media outlet telling "big lies". But you may have solved the issue and like minded anthropogenic climate change supporters might agree----70 million years ago Earth was about 10 degrees warmer----I propose that dinosaur farts contribute much more to global warming than cow farts. Just as good an explanation as Fred Flintstone driving a SUV :1rotfl::1rotfl::1rotfl:

[dewilson58]

You watch too much faux news who just settled with Dominion for $787.5 billion for lying.

My guess.............it will never be paid.
:024:

[fdpaq0580]

Anything is possible. After all, ONCE I thought I was wrong, but I was mistaken.:1rotfl::1rotfl::1rotfl:

Yes, you were mistaken. It was a lot more than once. But, then, we are all only human and suffering for our mistakes is often how we learn our hardest lessens.

[golfing eagles]

Yes, you were mistaken. It was a lot more than once. But, then, we are all only human and suffering for our mistakes is often how we learn our hardest lessens.

And the winner of today's takes the joke literally award goes to...........^^^^^^^^^

PS---as far as mistakes goes, it's "lessons".

[fdpaq0580]

And the winner of today's takes the joke literally award goes to...........^^^^^^^^^

PS---as far as mistakes goes, it's "lessons".

"Always blame auto-correct for misspellings. "
Lesson 1 of "Trying to Save Face".

[blueash]

It's Sunday, so I'll say Amen. However, here's what the scientists at the United Nations' climate change office (IPCC) said in 2001: “In climate research and modeling … the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.”

Once again the author of this thread and so many others is either ignorant of what the IPCC said, or is deliberately lying to this audience with his veneer of knowledge. He has picked a few words and thinks we are all too sheeplike to check it out. The term the IPCC used was "climate states" not "climate" They do NOT mean the same thing.

If you care you can read what real experts have said about the climate science deniers have done to twist the meaning of the IPCC report and ignore context

Fact check: Climate models reliable, IPCC statement misrepresented (https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2022/05/23/fact-check-climate-models-reliable-ipcc-statement-misrepresented/9618298002/)

Funny how the OP says that the IPCC is terrible, how the UN is terrible on climate issues, and only on this issue, one sentence that he misuses, then the IPCC report is great evidence of something something.

Here (https://skepticalscience.com/print.php?n=1273)is a correct intelligent assessment of the 2001 IPCC report including more of the exact language used:

"The climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible. Rather the focus must be upon the prediction of the probability distribution of the system’s future possible states by the generation of ensembles of model solutions. Addressing adequately the statistical nature of climate is computationally intensive and requires the application of new methods of model diagnosis, but such statistical information is essential."

In short, the IPCC is saying that we cannot precisely predict the future climate state; however, we can produce a probability distribution of possible future climate states, which is precisely what the IPCC report proceeds to do. Monckton has misrepresented the IPCC report by selecting a single sentence that serves a convenient purpose out of context, and choosing to ignore the text immediately following, not to mention essentially entire sections of the IPCC report where they do indeed detail the probabilities of future climate states from model ensembles.

[blueash]

Dr. James Hansen, said we should be at least 5 degrees Celsius warmer than we now are.

No one challenged the OP on his assertion that Professor Hansen was off by 5 degrees C in his prediction of global temperature increase in his statements in the 1980s. Note his did not include any links or any graphs, he just threw it out there to say.. oh that Hansen was so wrong. In his testimony before Congress in 1988 Hansen presented three outcomes. One was if the nations of the world did nothing to slow the rate of CO2 and other greenhouse gases, call that worst case scenario, or A

Next he presented a most likely scenario that something but not enough got done and he guessed what the CO2 level might be in future years and how that would impact temperatures, scenario B

Next he presented a best case if every industrial nation acted as if this were an emergency and how such actions would lessen the future temperatures, scenario C

His work was published and you can read the article from Journal of Geophysical Research (https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.405.9&rep=rep1&type=pdf)

He details the conditions he used to produce scenarios A, B, and C. At that time there was no inkling of fracking or electric cars, or the benefits of the Montreal, Paris and Kyoto accords, or more efficient ICEs. He also had primitive computers compared to what is now available. None the less, his graph is below. Note that in his worst case scenario, no changes and no actions, his predicted temperature increase was... wait for it... the OP says he told us 5 degrees...
His worst case scenario, not most likely was an increase of 1.5 degrees C by 2019 which is the end date of his graph.

[Keefelane66]

No one challenged the OP on his assertion that Professor Hansen was off by 5 degrees C in his prediction of global temperature increase in his statements in the 1980s. Note his did not include any links or any graphs, he just threw it out there to say.. oh that Hansen was so wrong. In his testimony before Congress in 1988 Hansen presented three outcomes. One was if the nations of the world did nothing to slow the rate of CO2 and other greenhouse gases, call that worst case scenario, or A

Next he presented a most likely scenario that something but not enough got done and he guessed what the CO2 level might be in future years and how that would impact temperatures, scenario B

Next he presented a best case if every industrial nation acted as if this were an emergency and how such actions would lessen the future temperatures, scenario C

His work was published and you can read the article from Journal of Geophysical Research (https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.405.9&rep=rep1&type=pdf)

He details the conditions he used to produce scenarios A, B, and C. At that time there was no inkling of fracking or electric cars, or the benefits of the Montreal, Paris and Kyoto accords, or more efficient ICEs. He also had primitive computers compared to what is now available. None the less, his graph is below. Note that in his worst case scenario, no changes and no actions, his predicted temperature increase was... wait for it... the OP says he told us 5 degrees...
His worst case scenario, not most likely was an increase of 1.5 degrees C by 2019 which is the end date of his graph.
The OP’s cult will believe what ever he says, who would ever think to fact-check.

[JMintzer]

You watch too much faux news who just settled with Dominion for $787.5 billion for lying.

Everybody drink!

[JMintzer]

Or, maybe, just maybe (and far more likely), you could be wrong. The one thing the world has never seen before is the kind of habitat destruction and pollution that 8 billion industrialized, mechanized and organized humans can cause. But, if you keep your head down and your eye on the ball and believe only what Fox (admitted purveyor of big lies) tells you, you will be just fine.

My liver can't take this much longer...

[fdpaq0580]

My liver can't take this much longer...

Sure it can. Just add a couple dashes of Tabasco.

[Fastskiguy]

The graphic shows where energy is "wasted" in both gas and electric vehicles. Some of this is the same - both types of vehicles have auxiliary electrical losses. Some of the losses are specific to the type - electric vehicles have losses in charging the battery while gas engines waste a lot of energy as heat. Overall, there are more losses in gasoline vehicles. According to the chart:

Gasoline vehicles: 12% - 30% efficient
Electric vehicles: 77% - 100% efficient

So let's say a power plant burns gasoline to make electricity. There will certainly be some loss generating that electricity and transporting it to your home. Once there, more than 77% of the energy is efficiently used for moving the vehicle and less than 23% is lost due to inefficiencies.

In order for the two vehicles to be equivalent, in order for them to use the same amount of gasoline, the gasoline powered electrical plant would need to be only 30% efficient. I don't know how efficient power plants are but I assume it is more than 30%.

But let's say the power plant is only 30% efficient and the same amount of gas is used to move both electric vehicles and gas vehicles a certain distance. I know that at $3/gal my gas cart costs six times as much per mile as my electric cart. Does this mean the electric company pays only $0.50/gal for the gas it uses to generate electricity? Probably not.

If the power company can generate electricity at 1/6 the cost of gasoline then some combination of these must be true:
1. The electric company is charged less for gas than I am.
2 The electrical plants are more than 30% efficient so less gas is used to generate the electricity my electric cart requires for the same distance
3. Electricity is generated from more than just gasoline so less gas is used to generate the electricity my electric cart requires for the same distance.

I suspect it is a combination of all three but that #3 is the primary reason. But in any case, I know that running my electric cart is less expensive and if either #2 or #3 are true then I am also using less gas for that electric cart.

Automobiles are different than golf carts and I am only one person but hopefully the savings are even more in automobiles multiplied by thousands of owners.

I appreciate the thoughts and I'm not sure why the electric golf cars....and "real" cars for that matter....cost less to run.

I found a blog with some efficiencies of different types of power plants and oil powered plants are between 38-45% efficient.

Between the Poles: Energy Efficiency of Fossil Fuel Power Generation (https://geospatial.blogs.com/geospatial/2010/01/energy-efficiency-of-fossil-fuel-power-generation.html)

So I guess my analysis goes as follows....

Oil to make the electricity=40% efficient, then 60-73% of that is efficient in the EV so 24-30% efficient in the car

Where the Energy Goes: Electric Cars (https://fueleconomy.gov/feg/atv-ev.shtml)

Oil into an ICE car=12-30% efficient

Where the Energy Goes: Gasoline Vehicles (https://fueleconomy.gov/feg/atv.shtml)

Which suggests an inefficient ICE car vs the EV , the EV is 2X more efficient but in an efficient ICE car it's the same.

I feel like I understand a little more....if we compare the inefficient ICE car then the EV looks pretty good at half of the emissions. But if we compare efficient cars of both types it looks like a wash. Unless I'm missing something...which is entirely possible.

What's your take?

Joe

[sounding]

I appreciate the thoughts and I'm not sure why the electric golf cars....and "real" cars for that matter....cost less to run.

I found a blog with some efficiencies of different types of power plants and oil powered plants are between 38-45% efficient.

Between the Poles: Energy Efficiency of Fossil Fuel Power Generation (https://geospatial.blogs.com/geospatial/2010/01/energy-efficiency-of-fossil-fuel-power-generation.html)

So I guess my analysis goes as follows....

Oil to make the electricity=40% efficient, then 60-73% of that is efficient in the EV so 24-30% efficient in the car

Where the Energy Goes: Electric Cars (https://fueleconomy.gov/feg/atv-ev.shtml)

Oil into an ICE car=12-30% efficient

Where the Energy Goes: Gasoline Vehicles (https://fueleconomy.gov/feg/atv.shtml)

Which suggests an inefficient ICE car vs the EV , the EV is 2X more efficient but in an efficient ICE car it's the same.

I feel like I understand a little more....if we compare the inefficient ICE car then the EV looks pretty good at half of the emissions. But if we compare efficient cars of both types it looks like a wash. Unless I'm missing something...which is entirely possible.

What's your take?

Joe

Donn Dears is the Villages' resident energy expert. Here's one of his many articles excellent ... Can Battery-Powered Vehicles Compete? - Donn Dears LLC (https://ddears.com/2022/10/05/can-battery-powered-vehicles-compete/)

[Bill14564]

I appreciate the thoughts and I'm not sure why the electric golf cars....and "real" cars for that matter....cost less to run.

I found a blog with some efficiencies of different types of power plants and oil powered plants are between 38-45% efficient.

Between the Poles: Energy Efficiency of Fossil Fuel Power Generation (https://geospatial.blogs.com/geospatial/2010/01/energy-efficiency-of-fossil-fuel-power-generation.html)

So I guess my analysis goes as follows....

Oil to make the electricity=40% efficient, then 60-73% of that is efficient in the EV so 24-30% efficient in the car

Where the Energy Goes: Electric Cars (https://fueleconomy.gov/feg/atv-ev.shtml)

Oil into an ICE car=12-30% efficient

Where the Energy Goes: Gasoline Vehicles (https://fueleconomy.gov/feg/atv.shtml)

Which suggests an inefficient ICE car vs the EV , the EV is 2X more efficient but in an efficient ICE car it's the same.

I feel like I understand a little more....if we compare the inefficient ICE car then the EV looks pretty good at half of the emissions. But if we compare efficient cars of both types it looks like a wash. Unless I'm missing something...which is entirely possible.

What's your take?

Joe

It looks the same to me, but that still leaves me with questions. Perhaps a golf cart comparison isn't valid. Fuel for my golf cart costs 1/6 what fuel for my gas cart costs. If the efficiencies are the same then the only savings would come from the cost of fuel for power generation: 1/6 what the same fuel costs me. That might be the case but it really seems like I'm missing something.

[Fastskiguy]

The graphic shows where energy is "wasted" in both gas and electric vehicles. Some of this is the same - both types of vehicles have auxiliary electrical losses. Some of the losses are specific to the type - electric vehicles have losses in charging the battery while gas engines waste a lot of energy as heat. Overall, there are more losses in gasoline vehicles. According to the chart:

Gasoline vehicles: 12% - 30% efficient
Electric vehicles: 77% - 100% efficient

So let's say a power plant burns gasoline to make electricity. There will certainly be some loss generating that electricity and transporting it to your home. Once there, more than 77% of the energy is efficiently used for moving the vehicle and less than 23% is lost due to inefficiencies.

In order for the two vehicles to be equivalent, in order for them to use the same amount of gasoline, the gasoline powered electrical plant would need to be only 30% efficient. I don't know how efficient power plants are but I assume it is more than 30%.

But let's say the power plant is only 30% efficient and the same amount of gas is used to move both electric vehicles and gas vehicles a certain distance. I know that at $3/gal my gas cart costs six times as much per mile as my electric cart. Does this mean the electric company pays only $0.50/gal for the gas it uses to generate electricity? Probably not.

If the power company can generate electricity at 1/6 the cost of gasoline then some combination of these must be true:
1. The electric company is charged less for gas than I am.
2 The electrical plants are more than 30% efficient so less gas is used to generate the electricity my electric cart requires for the same distance
3. Electricity is generated from more than just gasoline so less gas is used to generate the electricity my electric cart requires for the same distance.

I suspect it is a combination of all three but that #3 is the primary reason. But in any case, I know that running my electric cart is less expensive and if either #2 or #3 are true then I am also using less gas for that electric cart.

Automobiles are different than golf carts and I am only one person but hopefully the savings are even more in automobiles multiplied by thousands of owners.

Donn Dears is the Villages' resident energy expert. Here's one of his many articles excellent ... Can Battery-Powered Vehicles Compete? - Donn Dears LLC (https://ddears.com/2022/10/05/can-battery-powered-vehicles-compete/)

I read the article in the link but I don't think it is accurate as far as the advantages and disadvantages of ICE vs EV cars and it doesn't break down the emission differences either. I admit I didn't dig into his other stuff....but I disagree with his reasoning that "EV's can't compete". Tesla Model Y is the 9th most popular vehicle in the US so obviously EV's can compete. Model 3 came in 15th so....again they are competing and beating many ICE cars.

Joe

[Fastskiguy]

It looks the same to me, but that still leaves me with questions. Perhaps a golf cart comparison isn't valid. Fuel for my golf cart costs 1/6 what fuel for my gas cart costs. If the efficiencies are the same then the only savings would come from the cost of fuel for power generation: 1/6 what the same fuel costs me. That might be the case but it really seems like I'm missing something.

Yeah I agree, they can't be paying 1/6th the price we pay for gas and I don't get it either. I appreciate the discussion though :)

Joe