I guess purported climate change really isn't all that important, eh?

davidallen

Heisman Winner
Gold Member
Aug 15, 2006
18,709
7,215
113
55
Portland,OR
This is exactly what I was talking about above....can bet your ass the CEO and on down don't believe that crap they are just parroting the line so everyone will "feel" good about FORD and their efforts. No chance in hell they will completely re-tool their whole line and go electric in basically 13 years. When this whole electric car deal falls on its ass whichever company decided to keep producing gas guzzlers will be very happy and their stock holders will be ecstatic!

Exactly where do all these people think ALL this electricity will come from?
That last question is the easiest to answer... Are you under the impression that retooling just now started? Can you name a car company in the US not focused on building an all electric line? You’re aware that John Deere is a decade into building autonomous electric tractors?

Seems things have been changing right under your nose, but you are just now becoming aware. Don’t worry, you’ll be just fine.
 

sbaPoke

All-American
Jan 24, 2015
2,872
3,397
113
I would start with "Apocalypse Never" by M. Shellenberger and or "The Greenhouse Delusion: A Critique of Climate Change" by Vincent Gray (its a bit older).

Let me pose a question to you, do you believe the earth can warm (or cool) regardless of atmospheric CO2 levels?
I do, since CO2 isn’t the only factor.
 

sbaPoke

All-American
Jan 24, 2015
2,872
3,397
113
That last question is the easiest to answer... Are you under the impression that retooling just now started? Can you name a car company in the US not focused on building an all electric line? You’re aware that John Deere is a decade into building autonomous electric tractors?

Seems things have been changing right under your nose, but you are just now becoming aware. Don’t worry, you’ll be just fine.
Electric mining equipment has already started being used too.

The reason that electric automobiles will completely take over IMO is less about mpg or the environment than it is because they are simply better for most people’s needs, and that gap is only going to widen. No more stoping for gas. That alone would be enough to drive the change. Recharge at your own home, performance blows the doors off the ICE in many respects. Quiet. Far less maintenance. More storage.
 
  • Like
Reactions: davidallen

davidallen

Heisman Winner
Gold Member
Aug 15, 2006
18,709
7,215
113
55
Portland,OR
Electric mining equipment has already started being used too.

The reason that electric automobiles will completely take over IMO is less about mpg or the environment than it is because they are simply better for most people’s needs, and that gap is only going to widen. No more stoping for gas. That alone would be enough to drive the change. Recharge at your own home, performance blows the doors off the ICE in many respects. Quiet. Far less maintenance. More storage.
Completely agree... the only way to achieve real change is systemic incentives and meeting the needs/goals of consumers with better experiences. Short-haul air routes will be cheaper and safer on electric airplanes if just a little bit longer. Hyperloop will get you closer to your destination in a shorter time period for more money than current solutions. Between the two we will have more energy-efficient and cleaner transport in the next 15 years or so.
 

iasooner1

All-American
Nov 13, 2002
2,891
4,142
113
Show us the picture again of the toy electric excavator you used when your house was flooding last spring @chubbyguy. Got tickets for the first e-airbus flights to Spokane and back in 2035 yet ?
 

windriverrange

Heisman Candidate
Gold Member
Jul 7, 2008
8,407
9,327
113
Catoosa
Electric mining equipment has already started being used too.

The reason that electric automobiles will completely take over IMO is less about mpg or the environment than it is because they are simply better for most people’s needs, and that gap is only going to widen. No more stoping for gas. That alone would be enough to drive the change. Recharge at your own home, performance blows the doors off the ICE in many respects. Quiet. Far less maintenance. More storage.
sba, hope we're still both here battling in 2035......there are ~300 million cars, motorcycles, trucks etc in the US currently. If electric cars could survive on their own without government subsidies I'd be fine with the projects. My issue here is once again (just like green energy) the government is picking winners and loser with tax dollars.

Things I'm interested to know about electricity production for an almost all EV fleet in the US?
1. How much of the GDP will be consumed producing a more robust grid?
2. Will EV's be held to the same safety standards as internal combustion engine cars?
3. Right now ~74.6% of all electricity is produced by fossil fuels - coal, petroleum and gas. 8% is nuclear. If the world tries to wean itself off of fossil fuels where do you make up the lost equivalency?
4. As more and more EV's are built rare earth minerals will skyrocket in cost which will equal raised costs of EV's. Will the people that need EV's the most be able to afford them?
5. What will happen when the tertiary incomes/taxes are lost due to dropping fossil fuels use? Same with jobs?
6. Currently what is the highest HP generated by an EV type vehicle?
7. Per studies indicating that the true driver of climate warmth and cold is sun spots, we are heading into a cooling off period. Batteries perform worse in cold weather how is that overcome?

IMHO the only way I see this happening is a definite increase in nuclear power...or start building new homes underground, maybe both. Without nuclear this whole thing is a pipe dream and of course the government will only understand that when they have forced a bunch of onerous regulations on the population and can't go back.

All this is to me is a bunch of feel good nonsense and until you can drive the cost down (without subsidies) and get comparable performances as internal combustion engines this will be for a select market with minimal impact on the sale/ownership of internal combustion cars...at least until they can match safety standards, power, range, ease of use and costs.
 
Last edited:

davidallen

Heisman Winner
Gold Member
Aug 15, 2006
18,709
7,215
113
55
Portland,OR
sba, hope we're still both here battling in 2035......there are ~300 million cars, motorcycles, trucks etc in the US currently. If electric cars could survive on their own without government subsidies I'd be fine with the projects. My issue here is once again (just like green energy) the government is picking winners and loser with tax dollars.

Things I'm interested to know about electricity production for an almost all EV fleet in the US?
1. How much of the GDP will be consumed producing a more robust grid?
2. Will EV's be held to the same safety standards as internal combustion engine cars?
3. Right now ~74.6% of all electricity is produced by fossil fuels - coal, petroleum and gas) 8% is nuclear. If the world tries to wean itself off of fossil fuels where do you make up the lost equivalency?
4. As more and more EV's are built rare earth minerals will skyrocket in cost which will equal raised costs of EV's. Will the people that need EV's the most be able to afford them?
5. What will happen when the tertiary incomes/taxes are lost due to dropping fossil fuels use? Same with jobs?
6. Currently what is the highest HP generated by an EV type vehicle?
7. Per studies indicating that the true driver of climate warmth and cold is sun spots, we are heading into a cooling off period. Batteries perform worse in cold weather how is that overcome?

IMHO the only way I see this happening is a definite increase in nuclear power...or start building new homes underground, maybe both. Without nuclear this whole thing is a pipe dream and of course the government will only understand that when they have forced a bunch of onerous regulations on the population and can't go back.

All this is to me is a bunch of feel good nonsense and until you can drive the cost down (without subsidies) and get comparable performances as internal combustion engines this will be for a select market with minimal impact on the sale/ownership of internal combustion cars...at least until they can match safety standards, power, range, ease of use and costs.
#1 marginal cost is zero. The grid has to be secured and upgraded in any case.
#2 Yes, and as a general rule EVs are the safest most advanced vehicles on the road.
#3 Your figures are out of date. Renewables at 17% and growing at a rate the exceeds EV consumption. Expect renewables to accelerate as we are crossing the cost curve for photovoltaic. Coal is down to 23% and dropping fast. With Biden in office, the cost of coal is going to be atrocious. Fossil Fuels are hovering near 63% and dropping.
#4 EV prices are dropping as does the component cost for rare earth metals. The two materials to consider are Neodymium and Dysprosium. Neodymium is the second most abundant rare-earth element (almost as abundant as copper). The main sources are Brazil, China, USA, India, Sri Lanka, and Australia. Dysprosium is a very small component - found largely in the USA, China, Russia, Australia, and India. Did you know that your total cost of ownership for most EVs is less than it is for an ICE vehicle? You will pay a bit more upfront, pay less in fuel costs, and maintenance/repair. Now you know... One more thing, how many rare earth metals are in a catalytic converter?
#5 The gas tax will need to be augmented and eventually replaced. Seems like a per-mile tax would be the smartest way to proceed.
#6 Thousands - ok .... and HP really is a shitty measure. My Model X is rated north of 500 hp. Enjoy this video of a Model X beating a Lambo in the quarter-mile. Torque. The new Tesla Roadster will come off the line with a 1.9 sec 0-60, a top speed of 250 mph, and 600 miles of estimated range.
#7 Yeah, great theory, and certainly solar activity has contributions to global climate. It is foolish to not attribute some measure, and feel free to argue to how large a measure, in changing climate. And yes, the climate is not static the niche we hold as a species, where we live, where we thrive, shifts as the climate does. Seems obvious to me that thinking long term and making whatever contributions we can to mitigate change that will disrupt humans flourishing. The move to EVs isn't exclusively based on decarbonizing our transportation systems but that is a benefit for sure. EVs are safer, have more self-driving capabilities, cheaper to fuel, cheaper to maintain, some have 4X the life expectancy of an ICE vehicle, they are also a hell of a lot of fun to drive.

Off my soapbox...
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: sbaPoke

iasooner1

All-American
Nov 13, 2002
2,891
4,142
113
[QUOTE="davidallen, post:
You’re aware that John Deere is a decade into building autonomous electric tractors?
[/QUOTE]

Of course. According to my game watch partner and 40 year JD engineer who works with some EV tech: “the EV tractors are only hybrid and still are combined with big Diesel engines and, per my understanding, most of that thinking isn't power by EVs, it's powered by hot air”.
 

davidallen

Heisman Winner
Gold Member
Aug 15, 2006
18,709
7,215
113
55
Portland,OR
Of course. According to my game watch partner and 40 year JD engineer who works with some EV tech: “the EV tractors are only hybrid and still are combined with big Diesel engines and, per my understanding, most of that thinking isn't power by EVs, it's powered by hot air”.
You hang out with the wrong folk...why would he lie to you like that? Wait a minute, is that one of your imaginary friends?

 

aix_xpert

Heisman Candidate
Sep 5, 2001
10,625
7,887
113
Completely agree... the only way to achieve real change is systemic incentives and meeting the needs/goals of consumers with better experiences. Short-haul air routes will be cheaper and safer on electric airplanes if just a little bit longer. Hyperloop will get you closer to your destination in a shorter time period for more money than current solutions. Between the two we will have more energy-efficient and cleaner transport in the next 15 years or so.
Until the people making the rules are the first to feel the pain of the ecological challenge, then you'll never get the buy-in of the people. You want me to think that the world is at stake, then outlaw private jets and yachts. You have ANY idea how much CO2 a private plane creates or how much diesel these yachts burn per hour? But we can't ask the millionaires to do that. Its much easier to just dictate to the common folk that they need to tighten their belts and use less energy and expect to pay more for it. And then just to ensure those millionaires aren't inconvenienced by such draconian and oppressive policies, we even created a tool that will let the elitists buy their freedom from environmental oppression (hello carbon credits).
 

davidallen

Heisman Winner
Gold Member
Aug 15, 2006
18,709
7,215
113
55
Portland,OR
Until the people making the rules are the first to feel the pain of the ecological challenge, then you'll never get the buy-in of the people. You want me to think that the world is at stake, then outlaw private jets and yachts. You have ANY idea how much CO2 a private plane creates or how much diesel these yachts burn per hour? But we can't ask the millionaires to do that. Its much easier to just dictate to the common folk that they need to tighten their belts and use less energy and expect to pay more for it. And then just to ensure those millionaires aren't inconvenienced by such draconian and oppressive policies, we even created a tool that will let the elitists buy their freedom from environmental oppression (hello carbon credits).
Can you highlight the “draconian and oppressive policies” you are subject to?
 

aix_xpert

Heisman Candidate
Sep 5, 2001
10,625
7,887
113
Can you highlight the “draconian and oppressive policies” you are subject to?
Well, I avoid the stupidest states that have already implemented some of the policies. For example, I don't have brown-outs like my friends in California. Seems strange that its the only state in the country that thinks that turning off power for its citizens is better than implementing vegetation cleanup and power-line management. Or how about those cities (like Georgetown, TX) who committed to only using Green energy and seemed completely shocked that their utility costs didn't just double or triple, but rather increased 10X from the prior year. My fear though is that these moronic ideas are being pushed at the D.C. level, so in the future, there won't be a state where I'm safe from the lunacy.
 

davidallen

Heisman Winner
Gold Member
Aug 15, 2006
18,709
7,215
113
55
Portland,OR
Well, I avoid the stupidest states that have already implemented some of the policies. For example, I don't have brown-outs like my friends in California. Seems strange that its the only state in the country that thinks that turning off power for its citizens is better than implementing vegetation cleanup and power-line management. Or how about those cities (like Georgetown, TX) who committed to only using Green energy and seemed completely shocked that their utility costs didn't just double or triple, but rather increased 10X from the prior year. My fear though is that these moronic ideas are being pushed at the D.C. level, so in the future, there won't be a state where I'm safe from the lunacy.
I pay $14 or so more pure month for pure renewable electricity. Sad that Texans couldn’t figure it out.

Cali has some issues no doubt on the infra side, good example of how ignoring a problem seldom solves it.
 

iasooner1

All-American
Nov 13, 2002
2,891
4,142
113
[/URL]
No I hang out with the right people. My specific friend I was referring to has his Phd in Engineering from Iowa State and we were referring to SESAM not Gridcon. He mentioned you looking at the fuel cells powered by water for your edification
 

davidallen

Heisman Winner
Gold Member
Aug 15, 2006
18,709
7,215
113
55
Portland,OR
No I hang out with the right people. My specific friend I was referring to has his Phd in Engineering from Iowa State and we were referring to SESAM not Gridcon. He mentioned you looking at the fuel cells powered by water for your edification
So.... you misinterpreted his comment or he was wrong? JD clearly has all electric under development, both grid connected and fuel cell driven...
 

davidallen

Heisman Winner
Gold Member
Aug 15, 2006
18,709
7,215
113
55
Portland,OR
No I hang out with the right people. My specific friend I was referring to has his Phd in Engineering from Iowa State and we were referring to SESAM not Gridcon. He mentioned you looking at the fuel cells powered by water for your edification
Oh and SESAM is all electric, you said that Deere was only doing “Hot Air” Hybrid. Am I missing something here?
 

Bitter Creek

Heisman Candidate
Apr 24, 2008
7,567
3,409
113
The climate scam is one of the easiest to follow the money.

I’m all for cleaning the ocean.

We can probably do better than round’up which is literally everywhere.

And there is plenty of dough thrown at the problem, it just never gets where it can make a difference.

Like the Clintons and Haiti, 1.8B for us, 200MM for you.
Yep. I would add plastic to the list too.

Plastic is a fantastic product when used over and over. Its a terrible product when you use it once and send it to the landfill.
 

Bitter Creek

Heisman Candidate
Apr 24, 2008
7,567
3,409
113
Thanks for the non-link, but, even putting aside the serious flaws with that write up, it doesn’t address my question as to motive.
If you preach that the end is coming (often while living in a sea level mansion on the coast), you will get votes.
If you get votes, you get power.
If you get power, you get money.
 
  • Like
Reactions: CoastGuardCowboy

sbaPoke

All-American
Jan 24, 2015
2,872
3,397
113
If you preach that the end is coming (often while living in a sea level mansion on the coast), you will get votes.
If you get votes, you get power.
If you get power, you get money.
I strongly suspect the opposite is true. I think there are more votes to be had by pushing back against the effort to do something about climate change. But that’s just my gut read on things.
 
  • Like
Reactions: davidallen

windriverrange

Heisman Candidate
Gold Member
Jul 7, 2008
8,407
9,327
113
Catoosa
Musk: Electric Cars Will Require a Lot More Electric Power Than We Currently Have


I think this guy is a giant huckster, but a smart huckster......he says exactly whats wrong with the whole "all EV fleet" thinking that politicians with absolutely no knowledge what it will take always are spouting off about.
 

davidallen

Heisman Winner
Gold Member
Aug 15, 2006
18,709
7,215
113
55
Portland,OR
Musk: Electric Cars Will Require a Lot More Electric Power Than We Currently Have


I think this guy is a giant huckster, but a smart huckster......he says exactly whats wrong with the whole "all EV fleet" thinking that politicians with absolutely no knowledge what it will take always are spouting off about.
Is that gross or net?
 

davidallen

Heisman Winner
Gold Member
Aug 15, 2006
18,709
7,215
113
55
Portland,OR
Musk: Electric Cars Will Require a Lot More Electric Power Than We Currently Have


I think this guy is a giant huckster, but a smart huckster......he says exactly whats wrong with the whole "all EV fleet" thinking that politicians with absolutely no knowledge what it will take always are spouting off about.
Wait, so Obama’s house is next to a pond not a bay? @07pilt will be glad to know we resolved that question once and for all.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 07pilt

windriverrange

Heisman Candidate
Gold Member
Jul 7, 2008
8,407
9,327
113
Catoosa
Most useless, corrupt and pathetic group of shitbags on the planet. That they siphon off ~24% of their operating income from american taxpayers is criminal, irresponsible and proof of congressional ineptitude.

Baffles me how this organization is not de-funded and kicked the hell out of the US.... I once stayed at a hotel in Tbilisi ROG while a UN conference was going on. There were some riots one night (real peaceful riots) and the hotel staff said it would be best if we didn't venture out so everyone headed to the restaurant bar. Set will 4 people from the US that belonged to some BS UN group on climate and listened to more goofiness then one could in a pre-K class during story telling time. Uncharacteristically I just listened and when asked my opinion acted like it wasn't that important and I didn't care. Am certain I lost at least 10 IQ points listening to those idiots.
 

Sunburnt Indian

All-American
Nov 7, 2001
2,993
7,645
113
Edge of the Comancheria
Most useless, corrupt and pathetic group of shitbags on the planet. That they siphon off ~24% of their operating income from american taxpayers is criminal, irresponsible and proof of congressional ineptitude.

Baffles me how this organization is not de-funded and kicked the hell out of the US.... I once stayed at a hotel in Tbilisi ROG while a UN conference was going on. There were some riots one night (real peaceful riots) and the hotel staff said it would be best if we didn't venture out so everyone headed to the restaurant bar. Set will 4 people from the US that belonged to some BS UN group on climate and listened to more goofiness then one could in a pre-K class during story telling time. Uncharacteristically I just listened and when asked my opinion acted like it wasn't that important and I didn't care. Am certain I lost at least 10 IQ points listening to those idiots.
From another who can clearly define all seven components of critical thinking. Even after losing the 10 points from his IQ.
 

windriverrange

Heisman Candidate
Gold Member
Jul 7, 2008
8,407
9,327
113
Catoosa
Head for Kansas! The Seas Are Rising- Some Inconvenient Truths

By davenj1 | Dec 02, 2020 6:11 AM ET

With a Biden presidency, expect to hear lectures about climate change- the phenomena formerly known as global warming. Icons of the cult like Al Gore and Greta Thunberg, along with a nanny Biden administration will tell us of the calamity that will ensue should we do nothing.

In geological terms, a relatively short time ago- 20,000 years- the world was in a deep freeze. Most of the world’s water was tied up in ice. Greenland’s ice was 30% thicker than today. Sea levels were 400 feet below what they are today also. It is what created the bridge between Asia and North America that allowed people to migrate here. Then about 15,000 years ago, global warming started and the sea levels rose as the ice gradually melted. In North America alone, sea levels rose up to 50 feet creating the North Sea.

Since 1880 when measurements were first devised, sea levels have risen 6.5 inches- nowhere near 50-400 FEET, with most of it coming after 1950. Some claim this is due to manmade greenhouse gases exasperating the phenomena, but could it be that measurement technology simply got better after 1950? Regardless, 6.5 inches is hardly something to shout “calamity” from the rooftops. Further, the measured sea rises, although occurring over a large area, are not evenly distributed. The 6.5 inches cited is the average.

So what do we know about the rising seas? We know that about two-thirds is attributable to melting glaciers and ice. Most of it is caused by melting of the Antarctic ice shelf where it is predicted that by 2100 it could increase sea levels another six feet on average. The important factor to consider here is that this seems to be a natural cycle of the earth.

The other third is attributable to warmer oceans. As water temperatures increase, the ocean expands and sea levels rise. According to the experts, today’s average ocean temperature is 1.2 degrees warmer than in 1950. Again, the effects are not seen evenly across the globe. For example, the sea level rise in San Francisco Bay over that time period is 6 inches, but nowhere near six inches in many other areas.

Next comes a major question about sea level rises. Is the anticipated inundation attributable to the sea levels rising, or the land sinking? In fact, human development is responsible for 80% of land subsidence in the United States. The pumping of subsurface groundwater for drinking and agriculture has caused the land to subside in wide areas. Further, densely populated areas- mainly along the coasts- have massive buildings, roads, and infrastructure that compresses the underlying ground and surrounding land surfaces. As a result, seawater moves inland.

One such case is Norfolk, Virginia. There, 54% of the “rise” is sea level is NOT a rising ocean, but sinking land. Another area where this phenomena is most noted is Miami-Dade county in southern Florida. The case on the eastern coast of the United States is compounded by the Gulf Stream- a channel of warm water that originates in the warm seas around the Equator and travels north along the coast. The Gulf Stream is a conveyor belt that transports warm water directly into the colder Northern Atlantic contributing to glacial melt.

Short term slowdowns of the Stream can have serious effects. In Florida alone, it can add 1-3 feet of higher tides over a day or week. Throw in heavier-than-normal rainfall and tidal flooding can make the problem worse.

Of course, warmer oceans spawn hurricanes. Most will point to Hurricanes Katrina and Harvey as proof-positive that we are heading towards world calamity. But, New Orleans is a city that was below sea level long before the Industrial Revolution and the production of greenhouse gases by mankind. The devastation caused was by failure of the system of levees and pumps designed to avoid such a disaster. As for Harvey, it barreled ashore a low-lying area- again, low-lying long before the Industrial Revolution. The fact it stalled in the area dumping large amounts of rain only made the problem worse. Compounding the problem in that area of Texas, waterlands that would have absorbed the moisture were sacrificed for development.

Finally, there are natural occurrences like El Nino and La Nina that have been occurring with some regularity over long periods of geologic time- once again, long before the Industrial Revolution. There can be temporary changes to sea levels directly attributable to both over several months.

This writer has always likened the climate change hysteria to that which occurs every summer regarding shark attacks. Namely, are the sharks getting more aggressive, or are there just more humans swimming in the water? Likewise, are hurricanes getting more destructive, or are they destructive because more people are living in the natural paths of hurricanes?

There are human “causes” involved but they have nothing to do with greenhouse gases. It has to do where people live and what they do where they live regarding development. Unless Thunberg, Gore, Biden and “climate czar” John Kerry have some master plan to (1) stop natural geologic and meteorological processes that have occurred over the eons and (2) stop people from living along the coasts and developing naturally low-lying areas, then they are the proverbial salmon swimming upstream. Unlike the salmon, there will be no reward at the end of the journey.
 

windriverrange

Heisman Candidate
Gold Member
Jul 7, 2008
8,407
9,327
113
Catoosa
Climate Alarmists Said We Had 14 Months Before Climate Change Was Irreversible...It's Been Over 14 Months
By Brandon Morse | Dec 03, 2020 12:30 PM ET
Share Tweet Share
AP Photo/Jacquelyn Martin
There’s a steady pattern for climate alarmists. Take a date that’s far enough away to make people believe that doing what they say in terms of climate regulations will change things for the better, but not too far away to make people forget about it, then say that on that date things are going to get so bad for the planet because we didn’t do as they say.

New York’s socialist do-nothing congresswoman, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, said we had 12 years before the world was doomed, but Think Progress thought that date was a little far out and consulted “experts” who had a more convenient timetable. They released a message that said we didn’t have 12 years, we had 14 months before it all went belly up and our climate doom was sealed.

“We should of course be as clear as possible about what we mean when we talk dangerous warming limits and pathways for limiting warming below them,” wrote climatologist Dr. Michael Mann in an email to Think Progress.

“But saying there should be no targets or timelines at all is really just giving a free pass to polluters,” he added. “It’s a welcome message to the forces of denial and delay.”

As you can see, the 12-year count wasn’t scary enough. If they want people to act, they have to put on a show that inspires a little urgency, and more importantly, obedience to those who use it to want to regulate.

That was over 14 months ago.

Where are we now?

The answer to that is the same answer it always is whenever the date these alarmists and end-of-days regulation preachers are reached.

There’s not much difference and we’re still doing great. As it turns out, again, the climate alarmists were doing what they do; alarming people. Outside of the Coronavirus, there haven’t been any major issues plaguing the world, and despite what Prince Harry says, the virus isn’t nature’s punishment for environmental abuse.


Not only is everything still good environmentally, but we also have a lot of improvements. According to the founder of the group Environmental Progress and author of Apocolypse Never: Why Environmental Alarmism Hurts Us All, Michael Shellenberger, the idea that we’re doing irreversible things is complete bunk and things are on the up and up:

Last January, after climate scientists criticized Rep. Ocasio-Cortez for saying the world would end in 12 years, her spokesperson said “We can quibble about the phraseology, whether it’s existential or cataclysmic.” He added, “We’re seeing lots of [climate change-related] problems that are already impacting lives.”
That last part may be true, but it’s also true that economic development has made us less vulnerable, which is why there was a 99.7% decline in the death toll from natural disasters since its peak in 1931.
In 1931, 3.7 million people died from natural disasters. In 2018, just 11,000 did. And that decline occurred over a period when the global population quadrupled.
What about sea level rise? IPCC estimates sea level could rise two feet (0.6 meters) by 2100. Does that sound apocalyptic or even “unmanageable”?
Consider that one-third of the Netherlands is below sea level, and some areas are seven meters below sea level. You might object that Netherlands is rich while Bangladesh is poor. But the Netherlands adapted to living below sea level 400 years ago. Technology has improved a bit since then.
What about claims of crop failure, famine, and mass death? That’s science fiction, not science. Humans today produce enough food for 10 billion people, or 25% more than we need, and scientific bodies predict increases in that share, not declines.
Here are

some other inconvenient facts. According to NASA, the world is actually getting greener.

Let’s toss on that glaciers are actually getting bigger in various areas of the world:

Jakobshavn, which sits on Greenland’s west coast, has been growing thicker thanks to the North Atlantic Oscillation climate pattern which switches from warm to cold water every 20 years according to space.com. Climateers say that this is temporary because the oceans are warming, but Jakobshavn isn’t the only growing glacier. The two major glaciers at Glacier National Park (GNP) have been growing since 2010.
The GNP even had to quietly toss out signs they had put up that claimed the glaciers would be gone by 2020.
AOC and the hard-left want the very socialistic Green New Deal to be pushed through so badly they’ll lie their heads off to make it happen and if it means scaring the population into compliance then so be it.

You’ll never see AOC show up to debate anyone about it. It’s clear the ramifications of the Green New Deal would scare the population even more than the left’s climate scaremongering. Better to tell everyone that we’re about to hit the point of no return and make them climate issue voters.

Only once again, the deadline’s come and gone, and everything is great. The only thing burning up is the left’s climate narrative.
 

iasooner1

All-American
Nov 13, 2002
2,891
4,142
113
Oh and SESAM is all electric, you said that Deere was only doing “Hot Air” Hybrid. Am I missing something here?
Yes you are missing a lot of something. The “hot air” remark from my buddy with the PhD in electrical engineering was aimed at folks of your ilk and his. He mentioned last night that the first patent for an electric tractor is from the 19th Century and that he knows the guy responsible for Gridcon, another huckster. If the thing has a cable over 1/2 mile long and is “autonomous”, who plugs/unplugs it in and out in the fields, how does it find its own outlet ? Thieves would love to steal that much copper (1000 meters), as you know in the production of methamphetamine
Also, the biggest problem with electric motors is heat. EV car lives are 4x that of IECs ? My cars usually last 20 years and if you are driving your Tesla for 40, 60 or more then you may recoup the expense someday.
As for e-buses in our lifetimes, good luck
 
Last edited:

davidallen

Heisman Winner
Gold Member
Aug 15, 2006
18,709
7,215
113
55
Portland,OR
Yes you are missing a lot of something. The “hot air” remark from my buddy with the PhD in electrical engineering was aimed at folks of your ilk and his. He mentioned last night that the first patent for an electric tractor is from the 19th Century and that he knows the guy responsible for Gridcon, another huckster. If the thing has a cable over 1/2 mile long and is “autonomous”, who plugs/unplugs it in and out in the fields, how does it find its own outlet ? Thieves would love to steal that much copper (1000 meters), as you know in the production of methamphetamine
Also, the biggest problem with electric motors is heat. EV car lives are 4x that of IECs ? My cars usually last 20 years and if you are driving your Tesla for 40, 60 or more then you may recoup the expense someday.
As far e-airbuses in our lifetimes, good luck
Now I know you are making this stuff up... “how does it find it’s own outlet?”
 

Latest posts