EVs are NOT the answer to save this planet!

[tintin]

Originally Posted by steamship

I find it odd that even when someone provides a link to an official government website, it gets laughed at, because it doesn't go with the trend of "climate change/global warming" and mans destruction of the Earth. After all, government bodies always tell the truth... don't they!

Take two examples:
1. The current weather being experienced in the USA. A sure sign of man's interference in global weather! And yet they experienced something very similar in the 1970s.
2. The little ice age between the 14th and 19th centuries. A sure sign of man's interference! Are we supposed to them believe that we did something about it changed the weather.

Global weather patterns have been changing for thousands upon thousands of years, and will continue to do so. The only difference is that governments and the media continue this incessant fearmongering of doom and gloom, and a perfect example of this is the following list (not all weather related). It's not from an official government source, but all the sources are linked:

https://www.aei.org/carpe-diem/50-ye...erts-are-0-50/

Hmm, thanks Sean - a one minute Google search confirms that AEI is funded by the sorts of (mainly US...) corporate supporters who have a financial interest in debunking climate change, so I for one would take anything from them with a Very Large Pinch Of Salt. A bit like trusting anything that has Koch involved with it

[Simon Wallwork]

tintin
I came across that website I linked to when I was trying to find out how much it has warmed since about 2000.
It caught my interest, but despite much clattering away at my keyboard, I've yet to discover the answer, although it is, I think practically zero.

I see I've not convinced you, so could you please try to find out how much it's warmed over the last 23 years or so- during which CO2 levels have continued increasing?

I don't mean vague platitudes like 'warmest July for decades' etc, but an actual number, in degrees.

Anyone know the answer?

[steamship]

Originally Posted by tintin

corporate supporters who have a financial interest in debunking climate change

Fair comment. And there are likely to be just as many who have a financial interest in pushing the climate change agenda, or for that matter, other agendas.

[tintin]

Originally Posted by Simon Wallwork

tintin
I came across that website I linked to when I was trying to find out how much it has warmed since about 2000.
It caught my interest, but despite much clattering away at my keyboard, I've yet to discover the answer, although it is, I think practically zero.

I see I've not convinced you, so could you please try to find out how much it's warmed over the last 23 years or so- during which CO2 levels have continued increasing?

I don't mean vague platitudes like 'warmest July for decades' etc, but an actual number, in degrees.

Anyone know the answer?

Google is your friend, I'm not interested in doing this for you, sorry...

[Simon Wallwork]

No worries tin-tin, and Happy New Year to all.

I can tell you because I've googled it to death, that there is NO figure for it.

And the reason for that, is it hasn't warmed since 1998

You are, of course welcome to spend 2023 (or as long as you feel like it) worrying about AGW, paying extra taxes, gradually losing hard won freedoms- like in Oxford- but I think the penny is starting to drop, with some of us anyway.

Let's face it- if you hadn't been told about Global Warming, you'd have noticed nothing.

[Conan_the_Librarian]

For my twopenneth worth. The climate is changing. It has done so for millennia out of hand. It will do untill the sun becomes a red giant and consumes all the inner planets.
It will be globally warmer and globally colder than it is now.

We should all be asking what are the plans to deal with the consequences of the changes that are going to happen.

One third of the worlds population lives on the coast or on rivers that, should all the ice melt, will be 65 meters below sea level.
If the gulf stream is driven south by an increase in fresh water melt from the polar ice cap, the climate in the UK will be the same as Northern Canada. Poler bears in Yorkshire anyone?
Just about all of the evidence presented by people and organisations with credibility is refuted by others with credibility.

As a fully paid up cynic; I note that a lot of people are getting rich out of climate change.

It's not how we stop change. We can't. We may slow it a bit, but it will change. It wil be how we deal with the change.

I've bought a house on a hill.

[ainarssems]

Well EV's are not the answer to save the planet. The whole increased growth strategy is doomed as population increases and everybody wants more. There are finite resources on earth, only way to survival is to get off this rock in long term but in short to mid-term we need to try and limit the damage while we develop technology to spread in space.

I take the whole CO2 and climate change thing with a pinch of salt. The climate has been changing and it will be changing on it's own all the time. Humans do have an input in it but a I am not sure how much. For all I know there could be another Ice age and everybody will be grateful we warmed up planet a bit so it's a bit less severe. With all the supercomputers and everything they cannot produce a reliable weather forecast couple of weeks in future so why would I believe they can get reliable forecast on global warming.

But forget CO2, there are other more certain things with burning fossil fuels like soot, particulate matter, NxOy, SxOy and other pollution. Even if you keep burning fossil fuels to generate electricity to charge your EV there is a difference in burning it in city centre with lot of population where all inhabitants inhale or moving it to power plant in middle of nowhere where it will get dispersed and diluted before reaching anybody. Yest, it's still pollution and it may affect wildlife but at least it's a stop gap measure . And yes, mining materials for EVs also cause pollution and damage and it is just a next step, it's not necessarily a solution.

You could say I am biased because I have bought Tesla myself but to be honest environmental concerns was a minor part of my decision. My next target car was C6 A6 diesel quattro estate for about £3-4k and when I started the search I would have never thought I will ever be buying a car for £30k+. But after 10+ months searching an widening my horizons I could not find a car that I would be happy with for the price I was prepared to pay. I went as high as £12k for A6 Allroad Biturbo. But then I started to put the whole ownership numbers together and realised that over 10 previous years I have spent about £30k in diesel for my £2200 A6 C5 diesel. And while I looked at different EVs including brand new ones the only choice for me at the end was Model S old enough to qualify for free supercharging. Back then electricity was still cheap and while I expected prices to go up I did not expect them to go up so quickly.

I mostly used free superchargers, free charging at Tesco or Rushden lakes and in 1st year of ownership doing £18k miles I saved about £4.8k in diesel costs and only paid about £60 when giving a little top up charge at home.

So while my decision to get Tesla was purely economical it does make me feel better about myself and hopefully for my kids when I drive in town or city centre by knowing that while I might have not have reduced total emissions or environmental damage , I still have improved it a tiny bit for some people.

[ainarssems]

Originally Posted by Conan_the_Librarian

I've bought a house on a hill.

Wise choice, but I did not quite go to top of hill. I avoided low local elevation to exclude flooding but I also stayed away from top of hills to avoid wind

[roberto]

the only thing that bothers me and God forbid i do hope it never happens.

an electric car Motorway Pile Up.
were fires cant be put out and families burn to death in their electric cars.

sadly or not im starting to fancy an EV myself but im waitng for an alternative.

Happy New Year to yoy All.

[Spanker]

Here's an interesting (to me) link on the interesting website dailysceptic.org:

"There's is no climate change emergency"

And another website that I find interesting to digest is expose-news.com.
They often like to provide a statistical analysis on official data, whilst backing up their claims, findings and opinions with links to official governmental and institutional sites.
A typical article on climate change psychology is here for example:

"Covid PsyOps Are Now Being Used for Climate Change"

I encourage anyone to read the many interesting articles on such sites to see what alternative views are out there. You may not believe them. They may not fit in with your view of the world. They may not even be true!
But no matter what you think about "climate change deniers", "anti-vaxxers", "conspiracy theorists" or any other term that has been woven into our vernacular to deliberately belittle others who oppose a governmental narrative, I encourage you to ask yourself the question "why aren't these topics/views/official data/statistics/scientific facts from experts etc. debated or challenged in detail on the sites, channels or newspapers that I use to form my own opinions?".
You may come to the conclusion that it's because it's all BS.
Or you may come to the conclusion that it's rather odd that you've not heard of such opinions in detail before. Like someone is keeping something from you.
Who knows how you interpret it. It's a rhetorical question anyway.

I've no interest in debating or trying to change anyone's opinion on climate change or any other of the divisive topics in today's society.
But I will say that after many years of looking at (what I believe to be) both sides of the fence, I'm confident that the majority of the population, with their reliance on the typical TV news and so-called newspapers, are blissfully unaware of what's really going on in the world. Just an opinion.

And I'm sorry to say that Google isn't your friend. And hasn't been for a very long time.
None of the major tech platforms are. Read about the Twitter Files (or maybe you haven't)?
During the World Economic Forum’s (WEF) Sustainable Development Impact Meetings recently, the unelected globalists held a panel on “Tackling Disinformation” where participants from the UN, CNN, and Brown University discussed how to best control narratives.

Melissa Fleming, Under-Secretary-General for Global Communications at the United Nations, highlighted that the UN had partnered with several big tech companies, including TikTok and Google, to control COVID and climate narratives while claiming, “We own the science.”

“We own the science, and we think that the world should know it, and the platforms themselves also do” — Melissa Fleming

See it, with opinion, here
Is that what you want when you search for something? Collusion to shape your thoughts?
Do you want to search for something or someone controversial only to be inundated with negative hit-pieces or so-called Fact Checkers trying to suspiciously debunk or obfuscate what you're trying to do a deep-dive on?
Or would you rather have the opportunity to make your own mind up on a topic where there's controversy and opposing views AND data from credible sources?

Please don't think that a quick trip to Wikipedia is going to allow you to get to the bottom of things either. You may find the same shenanigans going down over there. I've seen it with my own eyes when a healthy, positive article on a scientist turned toxic just before the tiny little padlock closed on the "edit button" at the top of the article.

"Trust No One" to coin a phrase from The X-Files (especially if they've received funding or a grant from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. Oops... I've let slip a personal opinion there).