The Death of EV’s Is Neigh

[leftwinger]

When was the last time typical Joe or Jane American replaced an engine in an ICE vehicle? Besides, EVs are a different beast. Where'd you get the idea that everything would be the same?

Plenty of people have to replace the Inverter also. Got to find someone to figure it out and replace it. The corner Shell station is likely to refuse to look at it.

 

[leftwinger]

If the science were real, those grifters would do a virtual meeting, rather than show up to 5-star accommodations in jets that belch out more CO2 that my car will in five years, you idiot.

Tens of millions lost homes and jobs in 2009. Yet Congress flew off in many private jets to Copenhagen for weeks long 5-star stay at some BS global warming conference. Money is no object with these busturds. Ill never forget it.
I was barely making CA costly payments and eating (feeding others) on about $100/wk leftover funds buying WalMart close out bakery & bread for a treat. This went on for years while they handed out Tax dollars to State SEIU & unions + Solydra type companies (donors).

 

[Weatherman2020]

Convincing a small number of people to vote for candidates who accept mainstream science.

Only 4 years to act!

TIME IS UP, IT IS POINTLESS NOW, THE END IS HERE!!!

 

[Crick]

Only 4 years to act!



TIME IS UP, IT IS POINTLESS NOW, THE END IS HERE!!!

You're making a mistake that quite a few deniers have made. Hansen was not saying that in 4 years catastrophic events will happen. He was saying that another 4 years without committed action will make it impossible to us to avoid catastrophic events. Those events could be decades away. Keep in mind that we have not yet seen all the warming that the atmosphere's current CO2 levels will produce.

 

[ding]

You're making a mistake that quite a few deniers have made. Hansen was not saying that in 4 years catastrophic events will happen. He was saying that another 4 years without committed action will make it impossible to us to avoid catastrophic events. Those events could be decades away. Keep in mind that we have not yet seen all the warming that the atmosphere's current CO2 levels will produce.

The GHG's in the atmosphere - in their entirety- are only 44% efficient in raising the surface temperature of the planet (33C instead of 75C), why do you believe that an increase of CO2 from 300 ppm to 600 ppm will be 500% efficient.

The amount of warming directly caused by us adding extra CO2 to the atmosphere is, by itself, relatively weak. Learn your science.

 

[Weatherman2020]

You're making a mistake that quite a few deniers have made. Hansen was not saying that in 4 years catastrophic events will happen. He was saying that another 4 years without committed action will make it impossible to us to avoid catastrophic events. Those events could be decades away. Keep in mind that we have not yet seen all the warming that the atmosphere's current CO2 levels will produce.

catastrophic events!
Good thing history is void of any weather related catastrophic events. It would be hard to discern otherwise.
Like hurricanes and tornadoes.

BTW - what happened to those Cat 6 hurricanes?

 

[Sunsettommy]

catastrophic events!
Good thing history is void of any weather related catastrophic events. It would be hard to discern otherwise.
Like hurricanes and tornadoes.

BTW - what happened to those Cat 6 hurricanes?

He is lying to you Hansen made it clear it was DURING the Obama administration that they had a LAST CHANCE to "Avoid Flooded Cities, Species Extinction and Climate Catastrophe" which was more than 4 years ago 14 to be more precise thus we are now doomed for 10 years.

 

[ding]

Hansen was not saying that in 4 years catastrophic events will happen. He was saying that another 4 years without committed action will make it impossible to us to avoid catastrophic events. Those events could be decades away.

There are so many things wrong with this. But let's give it a try. 4 years to do something is a very specific timing to avoid catastrophic events. Catastrophic events - which and of itself is vague - might be decades away is not a very specific timing. How can he be so specific about the when something must be done but vague about what will happen and when it will happen if we don't? Seems a bit like a used car salesman's pitch.

 

[Stryder50]

Another inconvenient Truth;

Fueling electric vehicles costs roughly $17 per gallon: Study​

MSN

Remove the guv'mint subsidies, i.e. all of we taxpayers underwriting a failed technology, and only the very rich can afford this if users were to pay the full, real cost$.

 

[Weatherman2020]

Then how do you explain so many scientists accepting it and the massive amount of scientific evidence supporting it?

Having to take a fossil fuel generator with you all the time - classic

 

[Crick]

Having to take a fossil fuel generator with you all the time - classic

That has no bearing on AGW theory.

 

[Weatherman2020]

That has no bearing on AGW theory.

Topic is the death rattle of EV’s.

 

[Crick]

Topic is the death rattle of EV’s.

Your were responding to a comment of mine about the validity of AGW theory.

Then how do you explain so many scientists accepting it and the massive amount of scientific evidence supporting it?

Having to take a fossil fuel generator with you all the time - classic

 

[Weatherman2020]

Your were responding to a comment of mine about the validity of AGW theory.

Either way, everyone knows manmade Gorebal warming is a myth. There’s zero evidence of anyone in the know changing their lifestyle nor anyone going after China, who puts out more CO2 than all other industrialized nations combined.

 

[Crick]

Either way, everyone knows manmade Gorebal warming is a myth. There’s zero evidence of anyone in the know changing their lifestyle nor anyone going after China, who puts out more CO2 than all other industrialized nations combined.

How did you get through your childhood (assuming that you have done so) without learning the absolute basics of how science - and everything else for that matter - works?

The real problem that drives deniers like you to make idiotic statements like that one, is that the science supporting AGW theory is so robust and so voluminous that there's really nothing else you can say. Of course that leaves us to wonder why you continue to say anything and don't just accept fucking reality. And that brings us back to wondering how you're making it through life and the apparent answer is "not well".

 

[Weatherman2020]

How did you get through your childhood (assuming that you have done so) without learning the absolute basics of how science - and everything else for that matter - works?

The real problem that drives deniers like you to make idiotic statements like that one, is that the science supporting AGW theory is so robust and so voluminous that there's really nothing else you can say. Of course that leaves us to wonder why you continue to say anything and don't just accept fucking reality. And that brings us back to wondering how you're making it through life and the apparent answer is "not well".

There’s zero evidence of anyone in the know changing their lifestyle nor anyone going after China, who puts out more CO2 than all other industrialized nations combined.

All you have are pretty Excel charts created by people who get wealthy from the PT Barnum hoax.

 

[Crick]

There’s zero evidence of anyone in the know changing their lifestyle nor anyone going after China, who puts out more CO2 than all other industrialized nations combined.

You already said that and, being as dumb as dumb can be, didn't really bear repeating.

All you have are pretty Excel charts created by people who get wealthy from the PT Barnum hoax.

All I have are the studied conclusions of thousands of degreed, published, active climate research scientists with mountains and mountains of empirical data supporting them. You, as far as we can tell, have absolutely, positively NOTHING.

 

[Weatherman2020]

You already said that and, being as dumb as dumb can be, didn't really bear repeating.

All I have are the studied conclusions of thousands of degreed, published, active climate research scientists with mountains and mountains of empirical data supporting them. You, as far as we can tell, have absolutely, positively NOTHING.

Name one scientist who’s dramatically altered their lifestyle.
One.
When’s the next climate change conference? I love air shows.

 

[Crick]

Name one scientist who’s dramatically altered their lifestyle.
One.
When’s the next climate change conference? I love air shows.

Are you refuting the rise of CO2, its anthropogenic origin or its effectiveness absorbing IR?

 

[Flash]

And the government is subsidizing and mandating EVs so that people will run out of charge in the middle of nowhere and be forced to use mass transit which the government can turn on and off in order to control people who might want to take up arms against their awful tyranny. Is that the picture? Do you not see any fundamental logical flaws there?

You are really confused about this, aren't you Missy?

Why should my tax money be used to subsidize your charging station? If you are one of these dumbasses that buys a L-I battery vehicle with limited distance then it should be your responsibility to pay for your own charging stations, don't you think?

The other thing is that the idiots that buy EVs are welfare queens. They ride on roads that are paid for out of the fuel tax. Some states tack on a yearly tax for EVs but it is usually well below what somebody would pay in the fuel tax for the same miles.

I have no problem with the concept of EVs but L-I is a piss poor technology for vehicles. L-I is fine for small hand and garden tools but sucks donkey dicks for vehicles.

The fact that they are subsidized by the friggin government is positive proof they are shitty technology.

If they were good technology then everybody would be wanting them and the government wouldn't have to subsidize them.

Kinda like the stupid solar cells and wind turbines. If the stupid government didn't subsidize them then nobody would buy them because they are so inefficient.