Reality check on electric cars

Both Gore's movie and his book are full of shit science that the scientific illiterate eat up.
Another word for "shit science" is "science denial". I personally prefer that one because it doesn't give even the slightest bit of indication that any sort of science is involved. :)
 
I haven't read Gore's book, but I reiterate that I really liked An Inconvenient Truth. Anyone can insult a book or a documentary. The important thing in discussions is to provide evidence for one's assertions.
The laws of thermodynamics and the stefan boltzmann law are both great places to start to come to the conclusion that An Inconvenient Truth is really just A Convenient Lie (of omission).
 
The irony here is that I'm actually a big fan of "An Inconvenient Truth", wherein Al Gore was prominently featured. I do believe in Global Warming and I also believe it's being caused by humanity, but that doesn't mean that EVs will solve the problem or even be better than gas powered regular cars.

The Church of Global Warming is a false religion.

No gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth, or to trap light or heat.
It is not possible to heat a warmer surface using a colder gas, or to create energy out of nothing.

It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth, the global CO2 content, the pH of the oceans, or the global sea level. Al Gore is flat wrong in "An Inconvenient Truth", and the entire movie is based on denying science and mathematics.

There is no "problem" to solve.

As I detailed in another post, EVs waste more energy than simply burning the gasoline in a car to make it move.

EVs also have the serious disadvantage of a long 'refueling' time. It takes hours (even possibly days!) to charge an EV battery from fully discharged to full. A typical EV has a range of 200 to 300 miles before requiring a full recharge to do it again. A gasoline car can be refueled in just a few minutes, effectively giving the gasoline car an effective range of infinite.

CO2 is an absolutely essential gas for life to exist on Earth. Without it, there is no plant life, and no other life either.
 
I haven't read Gore's book, but I reiterate that I really liked An Inconvenient Truth. Anyone can insult a book or a documentary. The important thing in discussions is to provide evidence for one's assertions.

"An Inconvenient Truth" provides NO valid evidence for it's assertions. It quotes made up numbers as 'data'. It blatantly denies theories of science. It contains bad math.
Manufacturing numbers and using them as 'data' is not evidence. Ignoring theories of science is not evidence. Ignoring mathematics is not evidence.
 
I haven't read Gore's book, but I reiterate that I really liked An Inconvenient Truth. Anyone can insult a book or a documentary. The important thing in discussions is to provide evidence for one's assertions.

I'll give you one example from his book. Gore calls the internal combustion engine the worst invention ever and a "mortal threat to humanity." This is so, over the top, scientifically illiterate, it sets the tone for the rest of his book which is largely fiction rather than factual science.
 
I'll give you one example from his book. Gore calls the internal combustion engine the worst invention ever and a "mortal threat to humanity." This is so, over the top, scientifically illiterate, it sets the tone for the rest of his book which is largely fiction rather than factual science.

Alright, that does sound over the top, but I wasn't defending his book, just the Inconvenient Truth documentary.
 
Alright, that does sound over the top, but I wasn't defending his book, just the Inconvenient Truth documentary.

It's full of the same sort of nonsense.


I could do this sort of thing too. Gore is a scientific illiterate. I even picked a video that isn't just anti-Gore and the movie, note that.
 
Last edited:
overflow-030312-jpg.1523913
 

If by that you mean they are an important tool to implement tyranny, you are correct.

No gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth, Sock. You cannot create energy out of nothing. There is no 'battle of global warming', only the battle with fundamentalist religions like yours. EVs use about twice the energy of a gasoline car to travel the same distance. They are energy wasters. They take too long to charge. They are time wasters. They are expensive to repair and maintain. They are money wasters.
 
Alright, that does sound over the top, but I wasn't defending his book, just the Inconvenient Truth documentary.

Not possible. The Inconvenient Truth documentary (movie) denies the same science and mathematics, quotes manufactured 'data', and makes the same over the top arguments.
 
I'll give you one example from his book. Gore calls the internal combustion engine the worst invention ever and a "mortal threat to humanity." This is so, over the top, scientifically illiterate, it sets the tone for the rest of his book which is largely fiction rather than factual science.

Alright, that does sound over the top, but I wasn't defending his book, just the Inconvenient Truth documentary.

Not possible. The Inconvenient Truth documentary (movie) denies the same science and mathematics, quotes manufactured 'data', and makes the same over the top arguments.

I don't recall Gore ever saying something similar to cars being a "mortal threat to humanity" in An Inconvenient Truth. If there is any particular statement in the documentary that you have issue with, by all means present it, just as Gardner presented his point in relation to the book.
 
In the UK, a lawsuit was filed against the government for using this film in public schools. The government lost the case.

Court Identifies Eleven Inaccuracies in Al Gore’s ‘An Inconvenient Truth’
https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/n...even-inaccuracies-al-gores-inconvenient-truth

Gore's climate film has scientific errors - judge
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2007/oct/11/climatechange

The movie, if shown, as a result has to be presented as a one-sided argument for climate change and the inaccuracies found by the court must be pointed out by teachers.

If anything, the Nobel prize committee, years on now, got another slapdown because of giving this schlock film an award.

The real inconvenient truth here is that nearly 20 years down the road, all of AlGore's predictions in the movie have failed to come true. The average psychic could have done better.
 
In the UK, a lawsuit was filed against the government for using this film in public schools. The government lost the case.

Court Identifies Eleven Inaccuracies in Al Gore’s ‘An Inconvenient Truth’
https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/n...even-inaccuracies-al-gores-inconvenient-truth

Gore's climate film has scientific errors - judge
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2007/oct/11/climatechange

The movie, if shown, as a result has to be presented as a one-sided argument for climate change and the inaccuracies found by the court must be pointed out by teachers.

If anything, the Nobel prize committee, years on now, got another slapdown because of giving this schlock film an award.

The real inconvenient truth here is that nearly 20 years down the road, all of AlGore's predictions in the movie have failed to come true. The average psychic could have done better.
Al Gore literally flunked science in college.
 
Freshman astronomy no less...



Self-proclaimed expert on global warming, Al Gore, has often criticized skeptics of his theories of imminent environmental doom.

Turns out Gore wasn’t much of a science student in college. According to his Harvard transcript, he earned a D in natural science his sophomore year. He followed that up with a C+ in another natural science course his senior year.
https://www.thecollegefix.com/al-gore-climate-expert-bombed-science-in-college/
 
Back
Top