Reality check on electric cars

[Into the Night]

Church?

Religion.

Your dishonesty is well noted.

Inversion fallacy. You are describing yourself again.

https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

Science is not NASA or any other government agency.

Global warming is real and it is science.

Define 'global warming'. Define 'real'. Science has no theories about buzzwords.
No gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth. You are AGAIN ignoring the 1st law of thermodynamics. You can't create energy out of nothing.

I suppose the damage caused by fossil fuels is fake too.

There is no such thing as a fossil fuel. Fossils aren't used as fuel. Fossils don't burn.
Define 'The Damage'.

 

[Into the Night]

You are so ridiculous.

You are describing yourself again.

I am not going to teach you what a religion is, you obviously do not know.

Okay. Define 'religion'. Let's see you try.

I am not going to teach you what science is, you have rejected it.

Okay. Define 'science'. Let's see you try.

I will not provide the incredible amounts of data

What data? Random numbers are not data.

scientists have accumulated,

What scientists?

you have rejected that too.

I will certainly reject any 'data' that does not meet my standards, which are quite sensible:

* I must know who collected the data and when.
* I must know the purpose of the collecting the data.
* I must know what instrumentation was used to collect the data, and it's method of calibration.
* There must not be any fault in the instrument or it's use.
* Data must be collected by the same authority.
* The data must be public.

If a statistical summary is used:
* The variance MUST be declared and justified.
* The margin of error value MUST be calculated and accompany the summary.
* The data must be public.
* The selection MUST be by randN.
* The normalization MUST be by paired randR.
* No predictions are possible using a statistical summary.

An appeal to recognized and educated experts you wave away.

'Expert' worship. Science is not 'experts'. Math is not 'experts'.

I am glad that there are not that damn many rightys sunk into that cesspool of ignorance.

Inversion fallacy. You are describing yourself. It is YOU that is denying theories of science. It is YOU that is denying mathematics.

Religion isn't science or mathematics, dude.

Science is a set of falsifiable theories. It is not 'experts'. It is not scientists. It is not a political group. It is not a government agency. It is not data or random numbers. It is not a government agency. It is not a web site, book, pamphlet, or scripture. It is an open functional system. A proof is not possible in an open functional system. They are only possible in closed functional systems, such as mathematics or logic. There is no voting bloc in science. There is no peer review, no elite voting body, no consensus of any kind is used in science. Those are elements found in politics or religion.

Science is set of falsifiable theories. That is it. That is all. There is nothing more. That's all it is.

You deny the 1st law of thermodynamics. No gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth...ever. You cannot create energy out of nothing.
You deny the 2nd law of thermodynamics. You can't reduce entropy...ever. You cannot heat a warmer object with a colder gas.
You deny the Stefan-Boltzmann law. You cannot trap light. You cannot trap thermal energy.

You can't use 'data' (which are actually just random numbers of type randU) to get around these theories, dude. You cannot just discard them or set them aside. You cannot just ignore the demands of statistical mathematics (not even the way the government likes to).

You show me a scientist that ignores these laws and somehow believes that any Magick Holy Gas can warm the Earth, and I'll show you a scientist that denies science.

 

[Nordberg]

Into the dark, you are borderline nuts. Which scientists? Almost every fucking one of them.https://climate.nasa.gov/faq/17/do-scientists-agree-on-climate-change/

 

[Into the Night]

Into the dark, you are borderline nuts. Which scientists? Almost every fucking one of them.https://climate.nasa.gov/faq/17/do-scientists-agree-on-climate-change/

Can't answer the question, eh? You just produce yet another link to a government agency and call them 'scientists'.

Science is not a government agency, dumbass. It isn't a scientist or any group of scientists either.

Since you can name any scientist, I can only assume you don't know of any. You certainly don't get to speak for all scientists. Omniscience fallacy.

It is obvious that you still want to deny science and mathematics as well. You still think a Magick Holy Gas can somehow create energy out of nothing.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

Into the dark, you are borderline nuts. Which scientists? Almost every fucking one of them.https://climate.nasa.gov/faq/17/do-scientists-agree-on-climate-change/

This release shows that CO2 is almost certainly not the only potential cause of anthropogenic climate change, and potentially a minor one:

https://www.nasa.gov/centers/langley/news/releases/2004/04-140.html

NASA scientists have found that cirrus clouds, formed by contrails from aircraft engine exhaust, are capable of increasing average surface temperatures enough to account for a warming trend in the United States that occurred between 1975 and 1994.

"This result shows the increased cirrus coverage, attributable to air traffic, could account for nearly all of the warming observed over the United States for nearly 20 years starting in 1975, but it is important to acknowledge contrails would add to and not replace any greenhouse gas effect," said Patrick Minnis, senior research scientist at NASA's Langley Research Center in Hampton, Va. The study was published April 15 in the Journal of Climate. "During the same period, warming occurred in many other areas where cirrus coverage decreased or remained steady," he added.

In fact, there are now arguments that aircraft contrails contribute far more to climate than CO2.

https://www-pm.larc.nasa.gov/sass/pub/conference/Whelan.etal.ESALPS.10.pdf
https://weather.com/science/environment/news/2019-06-28-air-craft-contrails-global-warming

If this is true, then the push to end fossil fuels is a bogus and largely dead end in science and politics. Contrails can be easily eliminated by a combination of rerouting flights around areas that produce them, and having planes fly at altitudes that don't produce them.

That's just one example of the idiocy of fixation on a cause and then fixation on a single solution like the Gorebal Warming religious fanatics have done.

 

[Nordberg]

Thank you for injecting that gratuitous ad hominem. It shows you to be devoid of any ability to actually produce a reasoned rebuttal to my position.

Bullshit. I have provided answers to every insane right-wing response. No Aad hominem. Just showing how you guys ignore the facts and science to continue beliefs that have no scientific backing. I have destroyed your position since you are presenting belief to counter scientific facts.

 

[Lionfish]

Bullshit. I have provided answers to every insane right-wing response. No Aad hominem. Just showing how you guys ignore the facts and science to continue beliefs that have no scientific backing. I have destroyed your position since you are presenting belief to counter scientific facts.

Nordy, you are the king.

 

[Into the Night]

This release shows that CO2 is almost certainly not the only potential cause of anthropogenic climate change, and potentially a minor one:
...deleted propaganda URL...

No gas or vapor is capable of warming the Earth. You can't create energy out of nothing.

NASA scientists have found that cirrus clouds, formed by contrails from aircraft engine exhaust,

They aren't.

are capable of increasing average surface temperatures enough to account for a warming trend in the United States that occurred between 1975 and 1994.

No gas or vapor is capable of warming the Earth. You cannot create energy out of nothing.

In fact, there are now arguments that aircraft contrails contribute far more to climate than CO2.
...deleted Holy Links...

Buzzword fallacy. You mean 'warming', not 'climate'. Climate has no 'contributions'. No gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth. You can't create energy out of nothing.

If this is true, then the push to end fossil fuels

Fossils aren't used for fuel in aircraft or anywhere else. Fossils don't burn. Aircraft burn oil products such as kerosene or gasoline.

is a bogus and largely dead end in science and politics.

No science here. The Church of Global Warming denies science. You think choosing one Holy Vapor over a Holy Gas is going to make any difference?

Contrails can be easily eliminated by a combination of rerouting flights around areas that produce them, and having planes fly at altitudes that don't produce them.

Waste of fuel. Also, many airports simply won't get serviced with flights.

That's just one example of the idiocy of fixation on a cause and then fixation on a single solution like the Gorebal Warming religious fanatics have done.

YOU are a Gorebal Warming religious fanatic.

Like your fellow believers, you believe that Earth is somehow warming (it is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth), and that some Magick Holy Gas or Vapor is somehow able to create energy out of nothing, in violation of the 1st law of thermodynamics.

 

[Into the Night]

Bullshit. I have provided answers to every insane right-wing response. No Aad hominem. Just showing how you guys ignore the facts and science to continue beliefs that have no scientific backing. I have destroyed your position since you are presenting belief to counter scientific facts.

He is you. Kettle logic. He is a believer in the Church of Global Warming, just as you are.

BOTH of you are ignoring the 1st law of thermodynamics. No gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth. You cannot create energy out of nothing. It is YOU ignoring science. You ignore mathematics too. It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth.

 

[Into the Night]

Nordy, you are the king.

This kind of failure can throw debris up to a mile away. I don't blame that van for turning around! He was actually lucky. That tower could've easily collapsed on him. Fortunately, it didn't.

 

[Lionfish]

 

[Nordberg]

Fuel used to charge electric cars is a sliver of what ICEs use. It is better in every fucking possible way. Far less pollution. Lesser hydrocarbons.https://www.nrdc.org/experts/luke-t...cles-can-dramatically-reduce-carbon-pollution Anyone can figure out that charging EVS requires some regular energy sources. They also know it is a hell of a lot less and they do not spray poisons out of their tailpipes. If you toss solar panels on your garage, that does not even happen.

 

[RB 60]

These electric cars with their magnetic field is fucking up the electrical signals in their driver's brains. Interesting. Aren't most Democrats?

 

[Into the Night]

Most electricity is generated in the United States using methane, but there are plenty of coal plants.

 

[Into the Night]

Fuel used to charge electric cars is a sliver of what ICEs use.

Nope. Apparently you are completely clueless about the cost of energy conversion.

It is better in every fucking possible way.

Nope. You cannot create energy out of nothing.

Far less pollution.

Define 'pollution'.

Lesser hydrocarbons.

Coal is not a hydrocarbon, so...yes. So?

...deleted propaganda URL...
Anyone can figure out that charging EVS requires some regular energy sources.

Which comes from burning fuel in most parts of the world.

They also know it is a hell of a lot less

Nope. It is MORE. The cost of energy conversion creates additional losses. You can't create energy out of nothing.

and they do not spray poisons out of their tailpipes.

You figure that water and CO2 are poisons?????? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

If you toss solar panels on your garage, that does not even happen.

Not enough. You can't charge your Tesla overnight with a solar panel! The damn thing doesn't even provide enough current during the day!

 

[Nordberg]

He is you. Kettle logic. He is a believer in the Church of Global Warming, just as you are.

BOTH of you are ignoring the 1st law of thermodynamics. No gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth. You cannot create energy out of nothing. It is YOU ignoring science. You ignore mathematics too. It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth.

There is no such church. Moreso, scientific acceptance is the opposite of a belief, religious or otherwise. How fucking twisted are you? Scientists accept their data. You simply hand wave the facts and data away. That is not compelling argument. You have none.

 

[Into the Night]

There is no such church.

The Church of Global Warming is a fundamentalist style religion.

Moreso, scientific acceptance

You deny science. Science isn't 'acceptance'.

is the opposite of a belief, religious or otherwise.

The Church of Global Warming's initial circular argument is the Earth is somehow warming. That is your belief.

How fucking twisted are you?

Not nearly as twisted as you are.

Scientists accept their data.

What data? What scientists?

You simply hand wave the facts and data away.

What facts? What data?

That is not compelling argument. You have none.

You have no data. You have not named any scientist. You have not provided any theory of science or any equation or any law associated with one.
You can't even define what 'global warming' or 'climate change' even mean.

You deny the 1st law of thermodynamics. No gas or vapor has the capability to create energy out of nothing. No gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth.

You deny mathematics. It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth, the global concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere, the pH of the oceans, the global ocean level, the emissivity of Earth, the total snow and ice on Earth, the number of storms on the Earth, or the total rainfall or snowfall on the Earth.

YOU HAVE NO DATA. Random numbers are not data.

Any scientist that denies science is not a very good scientist.

You are making an attempted proof by void.

 

[Lionfish]

 

[Stringfellow Hawk]

Nordy only repeats what he has been programmed to say.

 

[Lionfish]