Jaguar I-Pace EV400 Forum banner

41 - 60 of 62 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,494 Posts
I laugh when I hear fables about humans not being part of the ecosystem.
How much CO2 do we create by slash and burn farming and deforestation for farms and housing? Because that's PERMANENT.

All humans could die tomorrow and there would still be higher CO2 levels due to our cities, homes, and farms replacing green vegetation.

Essentially, just like 1970, people who are alive today think we have too many people on earth, but are too hypocritical to kill themselves or sterilize themselves and whatever children they can. Heck the DNC wants abortions at birth, which is the ultimate sterilization program and would make NSDAP proud.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
521 Posts
Heck the DNC wants abortions at birth, which is the ultimate sterilization program and would make NSDAP proud.
Modern eugenics is still alive in various forms, and getting support primarily from the left. That's well documented, even on PBS sites (which are wildly left).

Back on topic....

Follow the bill here:

Illinois General Assembly - Bill Status for HB3233

Of importance is this section:

(625 ILCS 5/3-805) (from Ch. 95 1/2, par. 3-805)
Sec. 3-805. Electric vehicles.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,007 Posts
Honestly some of the comments here must be satire because I refuse to believe that they are serious. If they are real beliefs I am deeply concerned. I do realize how much our true understanding of facts and knowledge has deteriorated but I guess I still have a hard time believing in the year 2019, in a time where we have so much science, technology and knowledge at our fingertips, that we still argue like we are cavemen just throwing around beliefs and not having any actual understanding of expertise and knowledge.

I go to neurosurgeon if I need brain surgery because my "opinion" is irrelevant and I DON'T know as much as a neurosurgeon with training and experience does. I go to an art history professor to learn about the history of art, my tastes and opinions do not equate to their years of education and study and deep understanding. I go to a scientist specializing in genetics to learn about the complex field of human genetics, I don't just listen to the opinion of any guy or gal because, you know, "I know what I know."

Are we really not able to actually respect and accept the vast field of human knowledge that are the direct results of years of work by so many people? Have we really become so arrogant that we just simply discard the amazing and vast accomplishments of science and education because we simply take political talking points as equal to the depth and breadth of what we really know.

It would be something to see a fact based conversation on topic. Not agreement, not blind acceptance, but basic distinction of fact and opinion, and ability to discuss rationally and honestly complex ideas.

Short of that we are really in trouble.

I am off my soap box now and will burn and smash it to bits.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
521 Posts
Honestly some of the comments here must be satire because I refuse to believe that they are serious. If they are real beliefs I am deeply concerned. I do realize how much our true understanding of facts and knowledge has deteriorated but I guess I still have a hard time believing in the year 2019, in a time where we have so much science, technology and knowledge at our fingertips, that we still argue like we are cavemen......
In 200 years we will look like cavemen to those people. In 500 years those people will look like cave men as we did.

What you might try to understand is that technology doesn't change what people are and do. Some people think the political rhetoric today is unprecedented. It's not.

Learn more about history and you'll appreciate how we haven't changed one bit.

I go to neurosurgeon if I need brain surgery because my "opinion" is irrelevant and I DON'T know as much as a neurosurgeon with training and experience does.
Thankfully the neurosurgeon hasn't been corrupted by politics the way some other fields have been, or at least you'd better hope that's true if you really need one. But the way things are going you may have trouble finding ANY neurosurgeon.

Doctor Shortage: We May Need an Additional 90,000 Physicians by 2025

As I was having a back surgery in 2008 I was hearing from my surgeon about the decline of people in his field. He's well past retirement age by now. I'd better not burst another disc.

"Science" is not a blanket term that covers all sins.

P.S. Some comments are satire.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
521 Posts
Re: neurosurgery.....

In the United States, approximately 40,000 people were lobotomized. In England, 17,000 lobotomies were performed, and the three Nordic countries of Finland, Norway, and Sweden had a combined figure of approximately 9,300 lobotomies. Scandinavian hospitals lobotomized 2.5 times as many people per capita as hospitals in the US. Sweden lobotomized at least 4,500 people between 1944 and 1966, mainly women. This figure includes young children. In Norway, there were 2,005 known lobotomies. In Denmark, there were 4,500 known lobotomies. In Japan, the majority of lobotomies were performed on children with behavior problems. The Soviet Union banned the practice in 1950 on moral grounds, and Japan and Germany soon followed suit. By the late 1970s, the practice of lobotomy had generally ceased, although it continued as late as the 1980s in France
It was the latest in behavior modification in its time (used well into the 1980s). Be very careful where and how you place your trust, and how advanced you think you are or your "science" is. The more you learn about the workings of science the more you'll understand why it's not a thing to have any faith in. If you have a brain tumor, you take a gamble that a guy with a knife will help you more than he hurts you. But that's what it is - a gamble.

I took a gamble with my back and came out okay. It didn't stop me from asking the surgeon "How many people have you crippled?" prior to the operation. My wife was shocked that I would ask such a thing. He wasn't shocked or offended. He appreciated that I was asking the right questions. Put that in your medical science pipe and smoke it.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
1,721 Posts
If you constantly focus on the dead trees you don't see the growing forest.

I applaud your critical thinking and asking tough questions but it's really better to focus on the totality of the evidence instead of focusing on individual failures of "the system".

Individual scientific studies have flaws. I have published papers that have errors in them. Every scientist has. But science is a collaborative and internally-checking pursuit, so in the end the truth prevails. Scientific inquiry is the only way known to humankind to arrive at the truth. We don't have a god who hands down facts, knowledge, and insight on a stone tablet. God didn't tell us that the earth revolves around the sun and (s)he didn't come up with the molecular mechanism for how penicillin works. Science did.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
1,158 Posts
God didn't tell us that the earth revolves around the sun and (s)he didn't come up with the molecular mechanism for how penicillin works. Science did.
It’s worth noting most of these scientific breakthroughs came from individuals who eschewed the ‘consensus’ thought and bucked conventional wisdom, often times at great cost to themselves
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
521 Posts
I applaud your critical thinking and asking tough questions but it's really better to focus on the totality of the evidence......
Is all the evidence in? Have you accepted that it is?

Who should tell me, or you where to focus? Government?

Individual scientific studies have flaws. I have published papers that have errors in them. Every scientist has. But science is a collaborative and internally-checking pursuit, so in the end the truth prevails.
Have we reached that end? How would you know?

Scientific inquiry is the only way known to humankind to arrive at the truth.
Prove that God exists. I believe he does. I can't prove it to you, but I'd like for you to know the truth about it.

And if you can prove it (or just believe it) tell me if you think he'd allow you to actually ruin his Earth.

Am I allowed to believe that or would someone like to malign me for having faith in something other than men and their so-called science?

It’s worth noting most of these scientific breakthroughs came from individuals who eschewed the ‘consensus’ thought and bucked conventional wisdom, often times at great cost to themselves
Amen to that. They bucked the hubris of others and moved the ball forward under great duress. Some of the biggest names through history in fact.

See any of that duress today? I'm pretty sure I do.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
521 Posts
If you constantly focus on the dead trees you don't see the growing forest.
So I might guess that you think I'm anti-science from that remark. Would that be the case, or would you like to elaborate on that?

I should be fair about it. I think you might be surprised at the truth about that.

And while I'm dishing out questions, have I given any real evidence about my position on AGW? See I don't call it "climate change" any more than I call abortion "women's health". It's Anthropogenic Global Warming, or maybe not, but call it by name if you're going to discuss it properly.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
1,158 Posts
It’s worth noting most of these scientific breakthroughs came from individuals who eschewed the ‘consensus’ thought and bucked conventional wisdom, often times at great cost to themselves
Amen to that. They bucked the hubris of others and moved the ball forward under great duress. Some of the biggest names through history in fact.

See any of that duress today? I'm pretty sure I do.
I’m betting there was more than a 97% consensus (although the claim of 97% is devoid of any scientific backing). In Copernicus’ the one that he was wrong

In 1515, a Polish priest named Nicolaus Copernicus proposed that the Earth was a planet like Venus or Saturn, and that all planets circled the Sun. Afraid of criticism (some scholars think Copernicus was more concerned about scientific shortcomings of his theories than he was about the Church’s disapproval), he did not publish his theory until 1543, shortly before his death. The theory gathered few followers, and for a time, some of those who did give credence to the idea faced charges of heresy. Italian scientist Giordano Bruno was burned at the stake for teaching, among other heretical ideas, Copernicus’ heliocentric view of the Universe.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
521 Posts
Three of the five big mass extinctions that science believes occurred on Earth:

End Ordovician, 444 million years ago, 86% of species lost

Graptolites, like most Ordovician life, were sea creatures. They were filter-feeding animals and colony builders. Their demise over about a million years was probably caused by a short, severe ice age that lowered sea levels, possibly triggered by the uplift of the Appalachians. The newly exposed silicate rock [is believed to have] sucked CO2 out of the atmosphere, chilling the planet.
My edits in brackets. Note the use of "was probably caused". No edit needed there. What caused the short ice age? Just curious. Also note that CO2 was believed to have been removed from the atmosphere.

Mama Earth is a b*tch, eh?

Late Devonian, 375 million years ago, 75% of species lost

Trilobites were the most diverse and abundant of the animals that appeared in the Cambrian explosion 550 million years ago. Their great success was helped by their spiky armour and multifaceted eyes. They survived the first great extinction but were nearly wiped out in the second. The likely culprit was the newly evolved land plants that emerged, covering the planet during the Devonian period. Their deep roots [may have] stirred up the earth, releasing nutrients into the ocean. This might have triggered algal blooms which sucked oxygen out of the water, suffocating bottom dwellers like the trilobites.
Wow, and no one was there fertilizing their lawns, 'cuz I heard algae blooms are my fault. Moving along.....

End Permian, 251 million years ago, 96% of species lost

Known as “the great dying”, this was by far the worst extinction event ever seen; it nearly ended life on Earth. The tabulate corals were lost in this period – today’s corals are an entirely different group. What caused it? A perfect storm of natural catastrophes. A cataclysmic eruption near Siberia [is believed to have] blasted CO2 into the atmosphere. Methanogenic bacteria [may have] responded by belching out methane, a potent greenhouse gas. Global temperatures [are believed to have] surged while oceans acidified and stagnated, belching poisonous hydrogen sulfide. “It set life back 300 million years,” says Schmidt. Rocks after this period record no coral reefs or coal deposits.
Mama Earth has real power doesn't she? She can giveth CO2 and taketh it away (toss in methane and sulfur dioxide while we're at it). You and your cars and cows - PFFFFT!!!

As for the other two:

End Triassic, 200 million years ago, 80% of species lost

Of all the great extinctions, the one that ended the Triassic is the most enigmatic. No clear cause has been found.
Science, where are you?

End Cretaceous, 66 million years ago, 76% of all species lost

Volcanic activity and the asteroid impact that [are believed to have] ended the dinosaurs’ reign provided the final blow.
And you think you're something don't you, puny human with your cell phone? The not caveman high technology know-it-all. I laugh at your primate hubris. You weren't around for any of the real action.

And what's missing from these analyses? Any sun spot activity data in there? I hear a lack of sun spots, or an abundance can cause real trouble. But what do I know? I'm just a guy with an opinion.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
521 Posts
I’m betting there was more than a 97% consensus (although the claim of 97% is devoid of any scientific backing). In Copernicus’ the one that he was wrong

In 1515, a Polish priest named Nicolaus Copernicus proposed that the Earth was a planet like Venus or Saturn, and that all planets circled the Sun. Afraid of criticism (some scholars think Copernicus was more concerned about scientific shortcomings of his theories than he was about the Church’s disapproval), he did not publish his theory until 1543, shortly before his death. The theory gathered few followers, and for a time, some of those who did give credence to the idea faced charges of heresy. Italian scientist Giordano Bruno was burned at the stake for teaching, among other heretical ideas, Copernicus’ heliocentric view of the Universe.
Just scratching the surface on that topic, but well done none the less. :grin2:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
521 Posts
End Triassic, 200 million years ago, 80% of species lost

Of all the great extinctions, the one that ended the Triassic is the most enigmatic. No clear cause has been found.
I've developed a theory. Call the State Science Institute (Ayn Rand reference)! I need a grant!



Dinosaur farts. Think about it. That monster consumes as much vegetation as a herd of cows.

And the damned things survived anyway.....

... but it's okay, we needed the extra oil for our pickup trucks.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
1,158 Posts
I’m betting there was more than a 97% consensus (although the claim of 97% is devoid of any scientific backing). In Copernicus’ the one that he was wrong

In 1515, a Polish priest named Nicolaus Copernicus proposed that the Earth was a planet like Venus or Saturn, and that all planets circled the Sun. Afraid of criticism (some scholars think Copernicus was more concerned about scientific shortcomings of his theories than he was about the Church’s disapproval), he did not publish his theory until 1543, shortly before his death. The theory gathered few followers, and for a time, some of those who did give credence to the idea faced charges of heresy. Italian scientist Giordano Bruno was burned at the stake for teaching, among other heretical ideas, Copernicus’ heliocentric view of the Universe.
The downside to posting stuff using my phone while watching my son play Little League...I have no idea what the sentence following the parenthesis was meant to say, but I think the meaning is well understood - guys like Copernicus bucked the conventional wisdom, which was 'settled science' and while it took a century, he was proven right. His story is not unique in the annals of science. Rarely have the big discoveries come from 'consensus' group-think. Group-think leads to the lemmings all running off the cliff...While we haven't gotten to the point of physically burning people at the stake for daring to question our current 'settled science' on 'Global Warming', er, I mean 'Climate Change', the ruling class squashes any and all contrary thought just the same.

I must also note that the last paragraph was lifted from a website, but pasted in here without quotes or attribution...sorry to whomever I copied it from for the oversight.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
1,158 Posts
I am sorry but this argument is a red herring. To say that tax policy is wrong is a valid argument, and to say "hey just you as a single person don't take it" has nothing to do with the original argument, rather its simply a bad argument to invalidate rather than discuss the merits or weaknesses of the position. Which is exactly what we have devolved to in this country.

Let's talk about the actual argument rather than throw up a smoke screen. What is is about Warren Buffets detailed criticism that you find incorrect? If he as an individual refuses to use them it doesn't address the economic and social points he is making.

The basic position that "all taxes bad, I keep my money" is not a economic nor political argument in my opinion.
You do know that if you are truly opposed to tax cuts, subsidies, etc. you can vote with your wallet and not take them, right?

Nothing is more baffling to me than hearing folks like Warren Buffet bemoaning his tax rate, yet no one is forcing him to take a single deduction or credit.

Write a check to the treasury to pay back every single ‘embarrassing’ subsidy/credit and then get back to me...

I didn't respond for or against the 'wrongness' of the tax policy, so if you have arrived at a conclusion on how I feel about it, you have a 50/50 chance of being wrong. If you want to call that a red herring, so be it. It is entirely possible I misunderstood the point that was being made, but I interpreted it to be much the same as guys like Buffet who feign to be offended & outraged at our 'unfair' tax system which 'favors' the rich, yet they actually never do anything about, beyond the lip service they provide.

My point remains, if one is truly offended by the system, the first place to start - even before making public proclamations about your outrage - would be to have the courage of your convictions and not participate in the offensive policies to the maximum extent legally possible or if you are adamantly convinced of your righteous thought, then by all means do the civil disobedience thing and put it all on the line. Walk the talk before telling others they must do so. Then take active steps to correct the perceived problem. It certainly weakens ones argument to rail against something they themselves are participating in - the 'but everyone else is doing it' isn't a valid excuse to participate in something one is righteously offended by.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
1,158 Posts
And then...

Yup. My argument completely ignored in favor of getting in a lick. Typical internet arguing. How are Buffet or me wrong in our arguments about tax laws being way too low on and kind to the wealthy? That's the question.
I don't see that I stated how I feel about the tax policy. Given that, you have no idea if I agree with you on that point or not.

What I did do is point out what appears to be some hypocrisy, as you seemed to be complaining about all the tax breaks/credits you received. So I stand by my statement that if you are truly offended/outraged by the current tax policy, instead of complaining about it, take action. The first action one should take is that which is in 100% of their control. Walk the talk. If you are personally embarrassed and offended that the current tax laws are 'too low', stop taking advantage of the completely optional credits/refunds. If you feel your effective tax rate is too low and it brings offense/embarrassment to you, do the righteous thing and increase your rate voluntarily. Once you have done everything that is within your power to 'make it right for yourself', then take action to make it right for those that don't have the courage of your conviction. If you are unwilling to live by what you advocate unless forced to it makes it appear as if you may not truly believe what you are saying.

I personally find it odd that one would complain publicly about willingly participating in something they find unfair/unseemly/offensive, but the participate because 'everyone else does it'. Unfortunately it seems to be human nature for folks to take all they can, even if they know they probably shouldn't. For example, recall a few years back when the Federal government was handing out wheelbarrows full of money to any government entity that could make a case for an immediate 'shovel ready' project? I happened to be in city government at that time and was the only one arguing against grabbing those fistfuls of dollars just to waste on boondoggles just because we could. Most other members on the council justified the money grab because "if we don't someone else will" that's a pretty shitty argument in my mind.

It is entirely possible I missed your point and I apologize if that is the case.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
309 Posts
I still have a hard time believing in the year 2019, in a time where we have so much science, technology and knowledge at our fingertips, that we still argue like we are cavemen just throwing around beliefs and not having any actual understanding of expertise and knowledge.
Really? This is something you have a hard time believing? What planet have you been living on? It must be lovely. What color is your sky?

Here on earth, such arguments happen a billion times every day, in every corner of the world.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,494 Posts
Really? This is something you have a hard time believing? What planet have you been living on? It must be lovely. What color is your sky?

Here on earth, such arguments happen a billion times every day, in every corner of the world.
Absolutely. There is a Church of CO2 that determines what blasphemy is. I'm not saying they are wrong, I'm saying they are totally intolerant and closed-minded.

I remember when the CoC told us H2 Fuel Cells were the savior, but they hid the fact that H2 is makes a huge amount of carbon dioxide in production and FC's get contaminated by air, have a lot of lag, are very heavy, and extremely expensive just like the H2 filling stations and the H2 motor fuel.

That was NOT long ago. There are still CoC members (a branch sect) that still believe after 10 years of usable EV technology, that H2 is not only made from sea water, but is an efficient and green motor fuel. Seriously. Some have PhD's. I say they are more deluded than the "Climate Deniers". A "Climate Denier" is a label akin to calling someone a bigot. If they don't agree with you, you call them a CD or Bigot or Trumper (even though this issue is more than 8 years old). It's an instant win for any argument because the Science (Scientologists?) of the CoC is not disputable, just like H2 motor fuel was not disputable.

What will it be tomorrow? I've heard a ground swell of tire dust, and microparticles from ICE engines that will kill all of us tomorrow.

Now normally I would just treat the CoC folk like I do the anti-vaccine crowd, but the CoC is perhaps the biggest religion in California and New York, and it surrenders US EV industry to the Chinese without even a rebuttal, even though the Chinese are now out CO2'g us by a wide margin.

Socialism is not going to work with no jobs. And the CoC folk are mostly socialist. I sort of wish they all moved to Canada in 2016 like they said they would.
 
41 - 60 of 62 Posts
Top