Jaguar I-Pace EV400 Forum banner

1 - 20 of 40 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,488 Posts
That's why it wasn't hard to hand young teens Panzerfaust RPGs in April 1945 when the Russians where coming into Berlin.
They will fall for any anything with immense enthusiasm. "Yeah, just get within 30m and let 'er rip. It'll be fun!"

Not saying the kid is wrong, but that's the kind they were looking for in 1945.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
521 Posts
I'm a lot less concerned about the maturity of a Swedish kid with Asperger's and more concerned about the maturity of folks at CNN who put this story up (and CNN in general). :mad:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
96 Posts
Surprised

Given this is an EV forum, where presumably many folks have at least some concern about climate change and the deleterious effects of ICEs, I'm surprised that the reaction to her is negative. It's her generation that will inherit the mess we're making and I admire her for standing up and speaking out.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
521 Posts
Bossy little socialist, isn't she?

Then, I suppose most socialists are...
They're also adept at shaming from a perception of moral high ground.

Moral high ground is the hiding place of the intellectually lazy, and the mentally ill. Often those who posit from the ivory tower suffer from both issues.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,488 Posts
Given this is an EV forum, where presumably many folks have at least some concern about climate change and the deleterious effects of ICEs, I'm surprised that the reaction to her is negative. It's her generation that will inherit the mess we're making and I admire her for standing up and speaking out.
Ever since I was child, there has been an Instant Death Sentence for Humanity. This even predates my birth. The Great Smog of London killed 12,000 in under 5 days in a single city.

Cold War - Any minute we could destroy the world 10,000 times over and create a nuclear winter.
Nuclear Energy - We will make the planet uninhabitable if we don't stop today.
Overpopulation - At 5 billion people, we were all going to starve.
Air Pollution - So bad they were giving out Body Counts on the nightly news.
Water Pollution - We would run out of drinking water before 1980.
Leaded gasoline - All the children growing up will be brain damaged.
Deforestation - The global ecosystem will collapse unless we do something today.
AiDS - This will wipe out humanity because there is no treatment or anything on the horizon.
Erosion - Our top soil will vanish and we will all starve to death.
Earthquakes - Many of our largest cities need to be moved because they will be leveled very soon.
Guns - Will be the #1 killer if we don't stop them.
Cars - Death rates spiraling out of control.
Drugs - Will wipe out an entire generation from heroin addiction.
DDT - Will kill all the life on earth due to the food chain infiltration.
Mercury in fish - Ditto.
The Killer Ozone Hole - Everybody will die from skin cancer.

Did I miss any? What will be the next Big Ten? Will science be able to deal with such problems? Or are we immediately doomed?

Most of these disasters received every bit as much press (some even more) as GHG Global Climate Change. Is there a solution by the end of the week? Can science come up with something?
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
1,557 Posts
Discussion Starter #8
That's a pretty good list, and some of them (overpopulation; air pollution; water pollution) are in fact already so bad in some places in the world that you really wouldn't want to visit, let alone live there. Civilization is in fact at stake for our children and grandchildren. That's not a lazy moral high ground. Denial is not an option.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,488 Posts
Note: I did not buy electromotive powered cars to save the planet. Nor install a very large solar array to protect Blunt Nosed Lizards in New Mexico.

These were decisions I made based on improved technology to have a better life now. An EV is a better driving machine for urban duties than my ICE cars. The Solar was to keep SCE from gouging businesses who charge electric cars. And it's 1/3 paid for in just 1 year. After that, it generates black ink on the books.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
521 Posts
Ever since I was child, there has been an Instant Death Sentence for Humanity. This even predates my birth.
I wouldn't say "instant", but yes it's what some of us do and have done throughout history.

Be sure to cite your children and grandchildren, because that shores up your position of moral high ground. If I had a dime for everyone who used this ploy.......

Wait, I think CNN just did.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,488 Posts
That's a pretty good list, and some of them (overpopulation; air pollution; water pollution) are in fact already so bad in some places in the world that you really wouldn't want to visit, let alone live there. Civilization is in fact at stake for our children and grandchildren. That's not a lazy moral high ground. Denial is not an option.
We went past 7 billion awhile back. Nobody knows yet how many people the earth can support with the advent of GMOs. We do know people were starving at a higher percentage when the world was at 1 billion.

Air pollution was more lethal in 1952 (%) than today.

We are irrigating vast desert areas like never before.

This was due to scientific invention, not running from the problems.

We got on our High Horse and proposed EVs as the solution in 1990. An EV went 187 mph, and the street version was as efficient (more) as what is sold today.
Everybody blames General Motors who invented the first practical highway capable EV with 1,100 remote charging locations. They even made a film trashing them for spending over $1 billion to do it.

Why aren't we driving EV1's? Because we refused to pay for them. Trust me, if 100,000 people put $50,000 down on an EV1, the EV age would have started then. The film was littered with omissions, and deceptive information as to what was actually going on. The EV1 is still on the Time's 50 Worst Cars of All Time list.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,488 Posts
Note: That list was off the top of my head. There were far more imminent disasters that were in the press during that interval.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
521 Posts
Air pollution was more lethal in 1952 (%) than today.
Where I live, yes. In China I'm not sure about that.

That's not a lazy moral high ground. Denial is not an option.
There's an incredible irony in those two sentences being together. I leave off the quote attribution because it's very commonly said.

What's more ironic is the perception that EVs are going to make a lick of difference in the overall GHG game.

The Dirt on Clean Electric Cars

With that Bloomberg article cited, if your daily commute looks like this.....



.....EVs are a great thing. I'd wish for all of those vehicles to be EVs, as unrealistic as that wish is.

But EVs are hardly a total solution for our transportation needs.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
1,557 Posts
Discussion Starter #14
Wealthy places will be able to insulate themselves from the detrimental effects of climate change. There will be a lock on the Golden Gate much like they have in the Netherlands now to prevent many billion dollars of real estate from being under water. Bangladesh? Not so much. Spending on mitigating infrastructure will be going through the roof, and guess what, tax breaks won't cut it. It will affect all of us, our children, our grandchildren, and on. Gee maybe I shouldn't have started this thread >:)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,488 Posts
If we really wanted to reduce CO2 emissions, we would go nuclear.
But when I was growing up, WE DID GO NUCLEAR or perhaps ballistic. Especially in California, we went nuts. Riots and everything.
There are nowhere near the protests today against GHGs than there was anti-nuclear protests.

So more people cared about storing waste in the desert than cared about GHG.

There is one EV board in particular where I argued for nuclear power, and that lead to my downfall. Don't argue with the Pope. Especially refrain from saying France (nuclear) pays 0.11 USD per kWh and exports billions of dollars of electricity to their neighbors. Green Bible says nuclear power is not affordable for society. The #1 priest apparently sells solar for a living.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
521 Posts
The topic is fine. The intellectual laziness is on those who regurgitate the fear mongering from the echo chamber. Say something other than that which has been said. Try out some quoted lines here from a well known climatologist with a pragmatic view:

Surface temperature of the planet is warmer than it was a hundred years ago about 9/10th of a degree Celsius...It's not a lot. There are two periods of warning, one in the early 20th Century that could not have been caused by human beings because we hadn't put enough CO2 in the air, and one in the later part of the 20th Century that either slows down or ends depending upon whose data you use somewhere in the late 1990s, only to resume with the big El Nino that covered the news the last couple of years.

So the theory is right, but the application of it is wrong. It is nowhere near as warm as it's supposed to be.

There are 32 families of computer models that are used by the United Nations, each government sponsored. And all of them are predicting far, far too much warming.

In "Science" magazine in late 2016, and there was a paper that was published by a French climate modeler called "The Art and Science of Climate Model Tuning," and in it, he speaks of parameterizing -- we could say fudging -- the models to give, his words, an anticipated acceptable range of results.

The models systematically predict that as you go up in the atmosphere in the tropics which are 40% of the earth that the temperature should rise dramatically as you go further up in the atmosphere. So when you get to the level of the jet stream, the computer models are predicting seven times. I didn't say seven-tenths of a degree, I said seven times more warming than is being observed.

It's a fantastic systematic error, and again, that along with the difference between the surface temperatures or rather the lower atmospheric temperatures and what's being observed, that's sufficient to kill the endangerment finding.

Fracking, that's right. And so we're substituting natural gas which is cheaper for coal for electrical generation, and that produces about half as much CO2 per unit electricity as a coal plant does, and so our emissions are going down.
Is his opinion offensive? That's the beginning of the failure to have any reasonable discussion.

He may be right, he may be wrong or he may be right on some things and wrong on others. But if you label him as a heretic ("denier") without hearing and appreciating his perspective, then you've failed at any reasonable discussion.

We live in an age of scientocracy, and that's not a good thing. I plucked this off of a site on the subject:

In a Scientocracy, unless you’re a scientist, politician, journalist, or citizen who fully accedes to the consensus, then your opinion not only doesn’t matter, it might even be dangerous.
I'm reminded of a quote from a person I consider to be an intellectual moron:

The science is settled.
Science is never settled. To proclaim such is to kill what it is by its own nature. This is the ignorance of politics at its worst.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
521 Posts
If we really wanted to reduce CO2 emissions, we would go nuclear.
But when I was growing up, WE DID GO NUCLEAR or perhaps ballistic. Especially in California, we went nuts. Riots and everything.
There are nowhere near the protests today against GHGs than there was anti-nuclear protests.

So more people cared about storing waste in the desert than cared about GHG.

There is one EV board in particular where I argued for nuclear power, and that lead to my downfall. Don't argue with the Pope. Especially refrain from saying France (nuclear) pays 0.11 USD per kWh and exports billions of dollars of electricity to their neighbors. Green Bible says nuclear power is not affordable for society. The #1 priest apparently sells solar for a living.
I'm not up on the whole Nuke thing and how the tech has advanced. I've gotten glimmers from a few that it has improved. I'm still concerned about the waste it generates and what happens when it goes wrong (Fukushima for example).

I'll say one thing about France though. There had better not be another European war, or France will be the next Chernobyl.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,488 Posts
I'm not up on the whole Nuke thing and how the tech has advanced. I've gotten glimmers from a few that it has improved. I'm still concerned about the waste it generates and what happens when it goes wrong (Fukushima for example).

I'll say one thing about France though. There had better not be another European war, or France will be the next Chernobyl.
Think about the technology you had in the mid 1970's. That's where we stopped for the most part.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
521 Posts
I'm not up on the whole Nuke thing and how the tech has advanced. I've gotten glimmers from a few that it has improved. I'm still concerned about the waste it generates and what happens when it goes wrong (Fukushima for example).

I'll say one thing about France though. There had better not be another European war, or France will be the next Chernobyl.
I should have added that I could reasonably be accused of thinking that belongs in the "China Syndrome" era. For that I apologize and am somewhat embarrassed. Anything Jane Fonda is not a good thing to admit to. :frown2:

Just being honest.........
 
1 - 20 of 40 Posts
Top