Answer these questions first:

1) what is it like being a climate denying idiot?

2) is moving on to the next stupid thing after prior humiliation really a winning strategy?

EVs are not without costs to the environment — unenlightened

Oh! Well there you go. Check and mate.

Imagine being so transparently idiotic. Moving on, per usual, from one stupidity to the next, the question then becomes personal: “YOU don’t own an EV for SOME reason, so those are the problems I was talking about.” As if we’re not aware that any technology has its issues.

While doofus is compiling a list of “problems with EVs” in his heroic quest to contribute to slowing the transition away from his archaic, harmful technology from the 1800s — I’ll be compiling a list of the stupid shit he’s brought up for the last 20 pages that were refuted, debunked, or retracted.

I’ll be compiling a list of the stupid shit he’s brought up for the last 20 pages that were refuted, debunked, or retracted. — Mikie

Have loads of fun! I have paid my sewer clearing dues; you always hope to find a diamond ring or a bag of crack or something, but that stuff always happens to a friend of someone's friend. :sad:

Global Temperatures Shattered Records in January

In a report this week, James Hansen, the famed former NASA scientist, argued that cutting pollution had already played a big role in causing global warming to accelerate. The reason is a little counterintuitive: For decades, humans have not only been emitting carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases when they burn fossil fuels. They’ve also been spewing tiny sulfate particles into the air.

These particles spur the formation of more and brighter clouds, which help shield Earth from the sun. But as regulators have curbed sulfate pollution to protect people’s lungs, this cooling effect has diminished, exposing the planet to more of the full force of greenhouse warming.

It’s been so warm that scientists are looking for areas added warmth might be coming from.

Not great.

James Hansen’s New Paper and Presentation: Global Warming Has ACCELERATED

Please donate to http://PaulBeckwith.net to support my research and videos connecting the dots on abrupt climate system mayhem.

James Hansen power point presentation link:
Dr. Pushker Kharecha power point slides and other scientists power point slides
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fo/y4zf25blgotzekhhjuwvk/AD5ejwIIbgxx6cRBdFRIWw8?e=1&mc_cid=8c6e107514&rlkey=sl54bq0g8t13jq6h9eerjvgxy&st=4rorogat&utm_campaign=8c6e107514-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2024_10_31_04_36_COPY_01&utm_medium=email&utm_source=SDSN&utm_term=0_-01f09620b9-179349392&dl=0

Some key points to understand:
- the 1.5C target has already been surpassed
- with temperature increasing at an accelerated pace since 2010 of 0.36 C per decade (double the rate of rise from 1970 to 2010) we will gain an additional 0.5 in less than 15 years (15 year rise will be 0.36 x 1.5 equals 0.54 C) which will bring us above 2 C by 2040 at the latest
- climate sensitivity is 4.5 C for a doubling of CO2, much higher than the IPCC value of 3 C
- AMOC will likely collapse before 2050 due to fresh water hosing in the North Atlantic at much higher rates (double) than the value used in Hansen's previous paper
- last time AMOC shut down, global sea level rise went up several meters. Clearly, with an AMOC shutdown cooling the Arctic more heat builds up in the Southern Hemisphere and equatorial regions, so Antarctica melt rate increases rapidly and dominates the reduced melt rate from Greenland glaciers

James Hansen scientific paper link:
Publisher link:
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00139157.2025.2434494#abstractart
Actual paper link:
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/epdf/10.1080/00139157.2025.2434494?needAccess=true

I am compiling a list of problems with EVs. — Agree-to-Disagree

Some problems with EVs (this is not an exhaustive list)

Limited Driving Range

Range anxiety

More Expensive to Buy

Higher insurance cost of EVs

Rapid depreciation

Higher repair costs

Parts are harder to get and are expensive

Lack of Charging infrastructure

Need to plan journeys based on location of charging stations

Long Charging Times

Queues at public chargers

Need off street parking and a charger to charge at home

May be restrictions on charging EVs in underground apartment car parks

Charging infrastructure is not very profitable as a business so there is not a lot of enthusiasm to build more charging stations

Charging stations that don't work (broken or not accepting payment)

Battery issues

Battery Degradation and Replacement Cost

Battery disposal and recycling

Problems in disasters
In hot dry conditions power companies may turn power off for a number of days to avoid the risk of sparks causing fires. Can't charge EVs. If a wildfire comes then how will you get away? Can easily keep a can of gasoline in your garage

Dangerous in a flood

Software and electronic problems

Using heating or cooling can reduce range

Faulty seals can lead to leakage (dangerous with lithium-ion batteries)

Once alight, a lithium-ion battery can be extremely difficult to extinguish
- can give off hydogen fluoride gas
- water that is used to extinguish a lithium-ion fire can be toxic

A lithium-ion battery can reignite

Impact of Temperature on Battery Performance (bad if too cold or too hot)

Dealing with extreme temperatures
- EVs generally don't cope very well with colder climates. Can cause the range to drop by an average 41%
- charging times are much slower in cold weather

Temperature sensitive batteries
Extreme heat can speed up the degradation of an EV battery pack, whereas extreme cold can negatively affect the vehicle’s range. Some counties have extreme temperatures (e.g. India, Thailand, Russia, Canada)

EVs have lower top speeds than gasoline cars because of the risk of the lithium-ion battery getting too hot

Less efficient than gasoline cars at higher speeds

Environmental Impact (e.g. if the electricity comes from a coal-powered power station)

Environmental impact of mining
Creating the lithium-ion battery pack is more environmentally harmful than the manufacturing process for an average petrol-powered car

Battery packs – There are ethical concerns about the sourcing of raw materials for electric cars and their battery packs (e.g. cobalt and lithium)

Grid Capacity

EV brakes rusting
In non-electric vehicles, the friction brakes are used so often that there is little chance for rust or corrosion to build up. However, as EVs use regenerative braking the majority of the time, their friction brakes and pads can build up rust and corrosion.

More road wear on tires because of EVs being heavy (more paticulate pollution)

EVs may be too heavy for old multi-story parking buildings

Cleaning up EVs after a disaster (e.g. fires and floods)

INSANE queue for EV charging is HILARIOUS (and tragic) - covers a number of issues
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=py9huBMByvs

Some issues with towing

The Charging Conundrum (see this video)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h-vhSby1Kd4

The Government gets a lot of revenue from taxes on gasoline. If they lose this then they will need to find new revenue streams. EVs could provide new revenue streams (e.g. road user charges, etc.)

Risk of electricity becoming more expensive

It's all fixable.

(this is not an exhaustive list) — Agree-to-Disagree

Speaking of exhausts...

When I was a kid, we used to watch the London to Brighton race.



We always laughed at how slow and crap and unreliable the old crocks were in the olden days. The above film is before my time but the old crocks are the same.

It's all fixable. — frank

A lot of it may be fixable, but in what time frame?

And pigs might fly. :rofl:

We always laughed at how slow and crap and unreliable the old crocks were in the olden days. — unenlightened

Yes, it has taken about 80 years to move from the old crocks of 1938 to the modern efficient gasoline cars of today. You shouldn't expect to be able to quickly replace the modern efficient gasoline cars of today with EVs (at their current stage of development).

Also, the "old crocks" were replaced by better cars that people wanted to buy. It didn't require government legislation to force people to move to better gasoline cars.

In Britain automakers' EV sales must account for 22% of overall sales this year, rising to 25% in 2025, 33% in 2026, 38% in 2027, 52% in 2028, 66% in 2029, 80% in 2030 and 100% in 2035. Failure to meet these requirements forces manufacturers to either purchase certificates from others who exceeded their targets or face fines of £15,000 per non-compliant vehicle.

In the EU a roughly similar program to outlaw ICE vehicles is defined by fleet carbon dioxide emissions.

Frank, this reminded me of your faith in supercomputers.

https://www.ladbible.com/news/world-news/scientists-computer-modelling-technology-ai-society-collapse-920494-20250207

Scientists used a computer to predict exactly when society will collapse

The results were pretty terrifying

A group of scientists have used a computer to try and establish exactly when society will collapse, and the results are rather daunting. (I wonder if the computer that they used was a supercomputer. :rofl: )

Through this research, the team learned that the fall of society would hit near the midpoint of the 21st century. And yes, in case you'd forgotten, that's the century we're currently in the middle of.

In fact, there's apparently less than two decades to go until the collapse. Around 17 years, to be precise, as the scientists predicted the collapse would come in 2040 (at 2:47 pm on the 5th of July :rofl: ).

:death: . :death: . :death: . :death: . :death:

:scream: . :scream: . :scream: . :scream: . :scream:

Computers are gigo.

A lot of it may be fixable, but in what time frame? — Agree-to-Disagree

In a year or two probably. One of the main manufacturers of EV's runs the US government.

Computers are gigo — frank

But inputting good data does not guarantee good results.

There can be bugs in the programming, incorrect assumptions in the computer models, limitations in what the computer model can realistically model (e.g. clouds in climate models), and all computers (even supercomputers) have some sort of a limitation on the precision that can be used to specify numbers (e.g. 32 bits or 64 bits, floating point numbers, etc.).

So?

So? — frank

You said "Computers are gigo". That is correct.

But I suspect that you believe that computers are gdigdo (good data in, good data out). This is pronounced "giddy giddo". :grin:

You may not believe that all computers are gdigdo, but you seem to have a lot of faith in supercomputers.

I am pointing out that even supercomputers have their limitations. Supercomputers let you make mistakes faster than when you are using an ordinary computer.

In 2004, it took the world a year to add a gigawatt of solar power — now it takes a day
<sup>— Charlie Giattino · Our World in Data · Feb 7, 2025


— Levelized cost of energy (LCOE) · Wikipedia</sup>

The results were pretty terrifying — Agree-to-Disagree

The Lad Bible is infallible. the clue is in the name.

The Lad Bible is infallible. — unenlightened

Lol- Imagine the level of a mind that reads that crap— let alone takes it seriously…to say nothing of actually referencing it.

The Lad Bible is infallible.
— unenlightened

Lol- Imagine the level of a mind that reads that crap— let alone takes it seriously…to say nothing of actually referencing it. — Mikie

Mikie shoots himself in the foot again. How many holes are there in your foot now Mikie?

I put a link to the article. I bet that you didn't even look at it. :scream:

If you had looked at the article then you would have found that the article has links to where it got information from.

Back in 1972, the team at MIT used computer modelling, which evaluated several data patterns relating to the likes of population, natural resources and energy use.

Other studies that support the prediction
At the time, the report wasn’t taken too seriously and did attract some ridicule, the Guardian reports. However, before you start to feel smug, you should know that in 2009, a different team of researchers did a similar study which produced similar results.

Published by American Scientist, the more recent study concluded that the model’s results were ‘almost exactly on course some 35 years later in 2008 (with a few appropriate assumptions)'.

"It is important to recognise that its predictions have not been invalidated and, in fact, seem quite on target. We are not aware of any model made by economists that is as accurate over such a long time span," the study said.

Further to this, in 2021, Dutch sustainability researcher Gaya Herrington also affirmed the somewhat bleak predictions made in the study.

Speaking to the Guardian, Herrington said: “From a research perspective, I felt a data check of a decades-old model against empirical observations would be an interesting exercise.”

Herrington found that the data aligned with the predictions made back in 1972, which had a worst-case scenario of economic growth coming to a halt at the end of this decade and society collapsing around 10 years later.

Do I need to keep spoon-feeding you Mikie. :rofl:. When are you going to start wearing big boy pants?

I am pointing out that even supercomputers have their limitations — Agree-to-Disagree

It's true. But quantum computers are God!

quantum computers are God! — frank

And lads write the Bible.

"And the morning and the evening were the eighth day."

Herrington found that the data aligned with the predictions made back in 1972, which had a worst-case scenario of economic growth coming to a halt at the end of this decade and society collapsing around 10 years later.

So present 2024 data align with the 1972 "worst-case scenario". That rather indicates that they were more erring on the complacent side than the alarmist side, wouldn't you say?

I'm having witty quip overload.

Must
return
to
cave.

But quantum computers are God! — frank

You don't need a quantum computer.

The answer has already been computed by the supercomputer "Deep Thought" in "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy)". The answer is 42.

Now you just have to work out what the question is.

So present 2024 data align with the 1972 "worst-case scenario". That rather indicates that they were more erring on the complacent side than the alarmist side, wouldn't you say? — unenlightened

You should watch the YouTube video called "Everyone is Giving Up On Climate Goals".
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I3sguj9m8ZQ

This one is not made by MGUY, the well known petrol-head.

This one is made by Sabine Hossenfelder, the well known petrol-head who has a PhD in physics.

Our climate simulations led to the staggering conclusion that continued growth of ice melt will cause shutdown of the North Atlantic and Southern Ocean overturning circulations as early as midcentury and “nonlinearly growing sea level rise, reaching several meters in 50-150 years.”Footnote111 These results contrast sharply with IPCC conclusions based on global climate models. Growing freshwater injection in the Ice Melt model49 already limits warming in the Southern Ocean by the 2020s with cooling in that region by midcentury. In contrast, models that IPCC relies on have strong warming in the Southern Ocean. Observed sea surface temperature is consistent with results from the Ice Melt model,49 but inconsistent with the models that IPCC relies on (Figure 20).Footnote112

(my bold)
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00139157.2025.2434494#d1e1581

I really recommend this paper; it brings together solar cycles, the contribution of the reduction of aerosol emissions, AMOC, and the effect of an AMOC collapse on Antarctic melting and sea level rise, and paints a detailed picture of where we are headed, which is rather too close to shit creek with no paddle for comfort. For the hard of reading, Here is the imitable Paul Beckwith ("Hello, I'm Paul Beckwith.") doing the hard work, so you don't have to. This is his second go at the paper, and as he gets towards the end he makes the connections all too clear and believable.

This one is made by Sabine Hossenfelder, the well known petrol-head who has a PhD in physics. — Agree-to-Disagree

There's not much physics in that, more politics and economics. But there is little I disagree with as to the facts of human social behaviour. And I like planet wild too.
I concluded already that the project of the oligarchs is to let climate change wipe out most of the human population and replace them with more amenable and less needy intelligent robots. But I don't have to like it, do I?

Herrington found that the data aligned with the predictions made back in 1972, which had a worst-case scenario of economic growth coming to a halt at the end of this decade and society collapsing around 10 years later.

So present 2024 data align with the 1972 "worst-case scenario". That rather indicates that they were more erring on the complacent side than the alarmist side, wouldn't you say? — unenlightened

I think that your interpretation of what Herrington said is incorrect (what Herrington said is ambiguous).

If you break it down into statements:
1) - back in 1972 they had a number of scenarios (e.g. best case, business as usual, worst case, etc.)
2) - they made different predictions based on these different scenarios.
3) - the present 2024 data align with the predictions made in 1972 (but they don't explicitly say which scenario this is based on)
4) - they then say that the 1972 predictions had a worst-case scenario of economic growth coming to a halt at the end of this decade and society collapsing around 10 years later

You have assumed that (3) and (4) are referring to the same scenario (worst case). But (4) may just be additional information which is not referring to the scenario that (3) is based on.

==========

This is similar to the situation with NASA scientist James Hansen. In a paper in 1988 he selected 3 different emissions scenarios, one in which emissions continued to increase (A), one in which the rate stayed similar to what it was in the 1980s (B), and one in which they basically stop in 2000 (C).

Each scenario gave a different temperature prediction.

The actual emissions were closest to scenario A (emissions continued to increase ), but the actual temperature was somewhere between scenario B's and scenario C's temperature predictions.

Alarmists like to claim that James Hansen's temperature predictions were correct. But they were not the temperatures that he predicted for the scenario that actually occurred.

I guess that desperate people will deny the facts and withdraw into a fantasy world. :rofl:

I concluded already that the project of the oligarchs is to let climate change wipe out most of the human population and replace them with more amenable and less needy intelligent robots. — unenlightened

Haven't the oligarchs watched the Terminator film series?

I'll be back. :cool:

If you had looked at the article then you would have found that the article has links to where it got information from. — Agree-to-Disagree

It really is like dealing with a child.

“This idiotic article has REFERENCES from which it draws its stupid conclusions and moronic implications. I guess THAT shows you!”

Yes, because climate deniers never distort and misinterpret science. I guess creationists aren’t idiots because they often quoted Stephen J Gould. Lol