Electric cars vs fossil fuel cars

Discussion in 'Business & Economics' started by Luchito, Nov 17, 2021.

  1. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Given that I saved $17,000 over your example car, I got quite a good deal, actually.
    For me it is free. One of the cars (not mine) gets free charging at any charger. That was part of the deal when I bought it. My car charges either at the Von's/CVS I usually go to (they have free charging) or I charge at home. And the electricity at home is indeed free since it comes from a magic technology called "photovoltaics."
    Nope. There is no "base huge circuit board." There are small circuit boards as there are in any car.

    Again, you have no f*cking idea what you are talking about. You are completely ignorant about EV's if you think they have a big huge circuit board under the floor or something.
    While on fire. Remember the Pinto?
    You have no idea what you are talking about. I've spent a fair amount of time under the car (tow hitch, addition to the HV battery circuit, fixing some rat-chewed wires) and there is no such thing.
    I have it. It's not there. You don't know what you are talking about.
    Because she was a woman and is thus clueless when it comes to scams? How bigoted of you.
    Nope. I love that car - it's the car we use for vacations and going out. She gets it because it is the safer of the two cars, and she takes the kids to school.
    I know I saved it because I can do basic math.

    Your words: "a gasoline car, sedan large size, leather seats, and without being luxury, it will cost you around 45,000 dollars." I got a car similar to that for 28,000. 45,000-28,000=17,000.

    But I support your right to pay 17K more for a similar gas car. And to pay another 2k a year or so for gas and maintenance.
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. Luchito Registered Senior Member

    This is the Tesla 28,000 dollars, the one with plastic trash can lids used as rim covers.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    And this is a $45,000 large sedan gasoline car

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    No wonder you said yours was "new" and cost you 28 thousand bucks,

    With that price I thought you went to China to pick up one.

    Listen, you didn't buy an electric car but just bought an electric pet.

    Don't forget to put a leash on it when you park that thing at the parking lot, otherwise police will put you a ticket...

    You just can't compare your 28,000 bucks electric thing with a solid and relaible 45,000 dollars gasoline car.

    You are done here.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. Sarkus Hippomonstrosesquippedalo phobe Valued Senior Member

    Ah, so you're a denier, I see. I presume, then, that you have evidence of the global average temperature of Earth moving in line with the sun's behaviour?
    You know, something like: this
    Or are you going to simply dismiss it as being part of a global conspiracy??

    As for the solar system moving "thru a different location with different temperature", do you know how ignorant that reveals you to be? If there was any other significant source of heat in the solar-system, other than the sun, you don't think scientists would be all over it? You don't think they'd see Pluto, the moon, all the planets, heat up as the result of receiving the same energy density from this mysterious external source (i.e. if the earth receives 1 unit per square metre, Pluto would also receive the same 1 unit/m2). But you know all this, right? You can factor all that into your theory, and show how the global temperature rises of all the planets are the result of this external source? Or are you just throwing out whatever nonsense you want to avoid having to accept reality?

    So now you think that the engine of an electric car is more likely to be damaged from a "path hole" (I assume you mean pothole?) compared to a non-electric car?? Where are you getting this data from? Source? That which protects the mechanical engine from damage (i.e. the suspension) will also protect the electric engine. And since the electric engine has far fewer parts, and far fewer moving parts, it should be far more robust against such shocks.
    But, if you have contrary evidence, please do present it.
    Noone thinks the electric car is "perfect". It is currently expensive and, for the vast majority, less convenient. Some also claim that they are, on the whole, less fun to drive.
    "a big lie" that you can't show it to be, you mean? Rather you come up with some ignorant waffle to try and avoid accepting the reality? But no, you're right, driving electric cars won't, in and of itself, "save the planet". First, the planet is not in trouble... only our way of life upon the planet. The planet will still be here long after we are gone. What we are trying to save is the way of life we have now, and avoid future hardships for billions of people.
    Second, switching to electric or other non-fossil fuels is only part of the solution. Switching to electric cars is just a step on that journey. It is not a panacea.
    If everything that burns fossil fuels was instead electric and generated from renewables, we wouldn't be in the mess we are in now. Humanity would no longer be the source of the changing climate, and we could then focus on other matters.
    First one must accept reality: that we are the primary cause of the climate changes we are witnessing. If one can't do that then one is part of the problem, not the solution. But I agree that we must adapt to the changes. And we are, and will. But if we don't do what we can to arrest the changes that we are currently causing, then it will become a runaway carriage, impossible to stop. It is better to try and stop the carriage from breaking free, than deal with the catastrophe that will result if it does.
    Oh, but that's right, you're ignorant enough to not see our hand in loosening the restraints. Whether that ignorance is wilful or just stupidity on your part I have yet to fathom.
    And you better just think.
    It's not a big deal. It really isn't. The chile earthquake shortened the earth day by about 1-2 millionths of a second. It shifted the axis by about 3-inches. Given that that axis shifts about 10cm per year anyway, how is the extra 3-inches making a significant difference? How does it make it a "big deal"? It might have happened suddenly, shifting in a matter of moments as much as it normally does over months, but the overall effect is that tiny on a global level. Tiny. You can try to spin it as being somehow more significant than it is, but it would be like changing a 1,000,000 year mortgage to a 999,999 year mortgage, and seeing how that affected your repayments (hint... almost imperceptible).

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Seriously, do some research. Work out for yourself why causes behind the observations of Venus and Mars are not the same as on Earth. Stop being so ignorant.
    And you should simply become better informed about reality, because you are clearly ignorant. And naive.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Mate, that ship has well and truly sailed. Climate change is already on us and we all know what's causing it.

    If you want to associate yourself with the handful of remaining idiots that pretend its nothing to do with human CO2 emissions, that's your choice of course. But nobody who has read or heard anything about the subject is going to give you the time of day. That debate is over.
  8. Luchito Registered Senior Member


    Big mistake. your entire message from now on I can bet is full of a brainswashed brain rejecting any other alternative but "fossil" fuels cars as the four horses of the Apocalipse.

    What do you know about the universe? Look, when in science there is no answer to resopond an observed phenomenon, then is time to think out of the book. I didn't afirm that is the cause, but going out of the book opens new paths to find answers. Albert Einstein also went out of the book with his "time dilation" to explain why traditional calculations won't fit with observation. In apprearance his theory did work, but today the explanation given by him has been way debunked.

    In my case, I have not affirmed anything, and speculations are valid when they stay as speculations alone.

    However, Venus, Mars and Earth are showing the same sympotom: the cold zones are disappearing, and this is a sure fact. If you don't see the sun is the fault, then start looking for possible answers... and feel free to do it thinking out of the book.

    Do you think we know everything? Look, dudes from NASA believe that "we observe the far away galaxies as they were in their past". Such is lunacies, but such is what you will find as "science" everywhere. And such is ignorance, this is based on the fact that ignorances in not only lack of knowlegde about something but when you have learned wrong.

    Well, check rihght now if those other planets have been affected as well, and write back with your findings.

    You know little about impact and building of cars, houses, bridges, and so forth.

    Contrary to make those from above as "solis as a rock", they are built with flexibility, like our junctions between bones. When you ompare wht will be a damage of a solid flat and unique plate with circuits exposed to an impact with a group of bodies forming one sole structure and bonded together with sealants and bolts. the solid flatstructurewill suffer cracks and must bereplaced the whole, while in the otherstructure only the broken parts must be replaced. The whole againstabfew parts is a complete different language.

    I know a dude who swears he enjoys it. I guess this is about taste and the way you are acostumed to drive cars. My expression given was more a statement to diminish the wonders billvon was writing about his electric car.

    Congratulations, you are not brainwashed like the rest.


    Can a Carbon-Emitting Iron Ore Tycoon Save the Planet?
    Andrew Forrest made a mining fortune. Now he wants to lead a climate change revolution — and beat the fossil fuel giants along the way.

  9. Luchito Registered Senior Member


    Superman, Batman, Wonder Woman and others are doing it already, saving humanity.

    Do you think that changing everything into electric devices will really stop the climate change? Have you realized the climate inour planet has changed thru millenniums and we humans still are here? Why not looking for a way of adapting to the changes and go with the traffic as our ancestors did as well? Do you want to play being a hero? I don't get it. I just don't.

    That is a bold statement. You give for granted that burning "fossil" fuels is the cause of climate change.

    Do you remember the nuclear tetst in the atmosphere the big countries weere doing for two decades? Do you remember that suddenly they stop doing it and since their quitting of nuclear tests overground these are made solely under ground?

    Well, those nuclear tests did not only duplicate the amount of radiocarbon in the planet but no doubt that also triggered other major changes in our atnmosphere, but nobody wants to talk about it. I can bet that you have never thought about it. Well, start to include this thought in your mind.

    The works ofman in our planet do change the environment, and if you want to explain our current climate you mus include everything which man has made over ground, things that can trigger other changes. If radiocarbon was duplicated in the whole planet, this is an indication that man's works can change the status of our planet in barely two decades. Two decades.

    This is likea man is drinking alcohol everyday andhe is slowly messing up his liver. But, he acquired hepatitis by contagious means from a sick person, and since then his comsumption of alcohol will damage faster his liver.

    If you want to find a reason of climate change as caused by man actions, then you must use all kind of possible factors, and don't try to defend or diminish what others did in the past, saying, "oh, what there is no evidence that nuclear tests have ever affected our climate"... Think out of the book.

    Can't... because Venus and Mars are showing the same changes...

    What solution? I still don't see climate has stop changing with you using your electric car.

    Think different from now on. Rather than going against the traffic, just go with it. Water from sea is ruining your beach house? Then build a new one high on the mountain.

    Thanks for such a flowered compliment.

    That is what you say. A sting from a bee will shake you, but you say "oh, that is nothing", no further effects." Sure, right...

    Venus and Mars are planets similar to earth, if you didn't know it.
    Last edited: Dec 2, 2021
  10. billvon Valued Senior Member

    OK great. I don't have one of those. I agree the wheels are ugly.
    Ugly front. Looks like a cowcatcher on a train. I wouldn't want to spend $45K on that thing, but if you do, knock yourself out.
    It's not a Tesla and it's not from China.

    Looks like your ego is now involved, and it is important for your self esteem to "prove" that you got a better deal than I did or something. You may believe that if it makes you feel better about yourself. Meanwhile I will be paying zero for fuel and maintenance for a car that I paid less for than you did.

    You have some pretty serious misconceptions about EV's if you think they have a car-sized "base circuit" board that costs $20,000. I recommend you learn a little more about EV's.

    EV's are the future. Not just because of the reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, although that will be important. Not just because oil is a finite resource, though that will be an issue as well. What will drive people to EV's are that:

    1) they are cheaper to own
    2) they are far faster than pretty much anything else on the road
    3) they require far less maintenance

    Right now they are more expensive to buy, but as of this year the gap is closing, and within a few years they will be cheaper than gas cars. The only inherently expensive thing in an EV is the battery, and battery costs are coming down fast. Over the past decade, battery prices have declined from 1200/kwhr to 137/kwhr - a factor of 8.7. That means today a new (large) battery costs about 13,700.

    If that holds, by 2030 batteries will cost $15/kwhr, and a 100 kwhr battery (enough to give you 300+ miles of range) will cost $1500. No doubt some will cost more based on what materials they use, and which components are amenable to economies of scale. No doubt some will cost less since they will be smaller. And at that battery cost, EV's will be far cheaper than gas cars.

    So cheaper, faster, more reliable - these are the factors that will drive EV adoption, above and beyond their benefits for CO2 reduction.
  11. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Why? It sounds like you deny that anthropogenic greenhouse gases are causing warming all over the planet.

    Is that not true? Do you actually accept the science behind AGW? Or do you deny it? Sounded like you deny it above.

    From ScienceFocus.com, an article by Dr. Alastair Gunn:

    The most recent studies show that there have been no significant changes in the average Martian temperature since at least the time of the Viking landers in the 1970s. So there is no evidence that Mars is actually heating up at all.


    ?? There have been dozens of studies concerning the isotope signal from nuclear testing. In science a great many people are talking about it. It is no longer much of an issue because we stopped aboveground testing, in part due to this atmospheric contamination.

    Here are links to studies from the CDC, NIH and EPA, along with a Science Direct article and the Wikipedia entry:






    For you to think that no one is talking about it tells me you get most of your information from popular media.
    That is part of it. So is changing how we make cement, how careful we are with methane releases, and how we grow our food.
    Of course. If someone came and killed you and your family and everyone in your city, humanity would still be here as well. But we would still object to that, because in our morality, killing lots of people is evil. So is killing lots of people through our neglect and greed, even if most of humanity will still survive.
    It's the biggest cause. There are others, of course.
    Good example.

    Now let's say that you are a doctor. What's your approach?

    "Drink as much as you want! Don't live in fear. People's livers change with time. Completely natural. Nothing to worry about. Other people die of liver failure even if they don't drink."

    "You have to cut back on your drinking unless you want to damage your liver irreparably."

    Nope, they are not.
    Sure, we can do that. And all those people in Bangladesh? Are you going to pay for their new mountain homes? Or just let them die?

    We are definitely making Earth more like Venus every day, that's true.
  12. Luchito Registered Senior Member

    See? Besides that your car is uuuugly!* like the Tesla picture I put in my former massage, you seem to know little about science. However I must recognize that you are good copyng and pasting links.

    (*note: this is what I learned from an old black man, when drinking with him outside a liquor store. He was asking for money, and I rather bought a Hennessy and started drinking with him for a while. When he was talking about his ex wife, and how people change thru the years, and how people's personaslity turns "ugly", he empathized that when a man is ugly, then he is ugly, but when a woman is ugly, then she is uuuugly!)

    I was to pass over your reply because doesn't bring anything new and neither contributes at all in this discussion.

    But, I invite you to think.

    Look, Venus is a NEW planet.

    When you look at Venus you see planet earth as it was in its past.

    On the other hand, when you look at Mars, then you see planet earth as will be in its future.
  13. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Coming from you - a science denier - that's funny!
    Again, the opposite is true. It's remarkable that you are not even getting 50% of what you post right. You'd think if you guessed, you'd get at least 50% of these claims right.
    Venus was once more Earth-like, but climate change made it uninhabitable
    A severe climate change event on Venus may have transformed an Earth-like climate to the current uninhabitable-to-humans state.
    By Richard Ernst, The Conversation | Published: Tuesday, January 5, 2021

    We can learn a lot about climate change from Venus, our sister planet. Venus currently has a surface temperature of 450℃ (the temperature of an oven’s self-cleaning cycle) and an atmosphere dominated by carbon dioxide (96 per cent) with a density 90 times that of Earth’s.

    Venus is a very strange place, totally uninhabitable, except perhaps in the clouds some 60 kilometres up where the recent discovery of phosphine may suggest floating microbial life. But the surface is totally inhospitable.

    However, Venus once likely had an Earth-like climate. According to recent climate modelling, for much of its history Venus had surface temperatures similar to present day Earth. It likely also had oceans, rain, perhaps snow, maybe continents and plate tectonics . . .

    Less than one billion years ago, the climate dramatically changed due to a runaway greenhouse effect. It can be speculated that an intensive period of volcanism pumped enough carbon dioxide into the atmosphere to cause this great climate change event that evaporated the oceans and caused the end of the water cycle.

  14. Luchito Registered Senior Member



    https://archive.org/details/bookofmars00glas page 95

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    1968, Average temperature of atmosphere in Mars: -110 C



    Atmospheric temperatures at the southern landing site (Viking Lander 1) were as high as -14 C (7 F) at midday, and the predawn summer temperature was -77 C (-107 F). In contrast, the diurnal temperatures at the northern landing site (Viking Lander 2) during midwinter dust storms varied as little as 4 degrees C (7 degrees F) on some days. The lowest predawn temperature was -120 C (-184 F), about the frost point of carbon dioxide

    Averge temperature given by Vikings in 1970s (from -77 C and -120 C ) : -99 C



    As a result, Mars' atmosphere cannot retain heat and the surface of Mars has an average temperature of -81 °F. During winter, temperatures at the poles drop even further, reaching lows of -195 °F. Near the equator of Mars, daytime temperatures during the summer can reach 70 °F, but plummet to -100 °F at night.


    The atmosphere of Mars is colder than Earth's. Owing to the larger distance from the Sun, Mars receives less solar energy and has a lower effective temperature, which is about 210 K (−63 °C; −82 °F)

    Average temperature of atmosphere in Mars today : -81 F = -62 C

    Do you know what?

    You are OK man, you are OK.

    But Dr. Alastair Gunn is an idiot. Do not trust him.

    Yeah, sure billvon, sure... you and your sources... sure...

    What is now?... isotopes?... sure... right... Mars temperature never changed right? never changed... now you complaint about isotopes...

    Do you know who wrote those articles? Let me tell you whom: Dr. Alastair Gunn's buddies, the other idiots.

    I remember when fluorescent and led lightbulbs became popular in the market, replacing incandescent bulbs.

    In an article I read in those years, a dude was happy about the new technology, and at some point he was mockering of Edison's light bulb.

    Yup. I think he had the right in mocking Edison's light bulb, calling it a primitive technology. What that dude was not realizing is that Edison's primitive technology was the one which caused the great progress ever reached by the entire humanity in the whole eras. Not electricity but the incandescent light bulb changed the game.

    Rather than mockeries, that dude should have just say "thanks" to Edison. That's all.

    Same than you and lots of people. It appesars that you don't want to recognize that thanks to the gasoline car the whole world also progressed as never ever. You want to change the energy source, that's fine, but you are not saying thanks to the former technology, you just hate it, and I wonder why.

    No doubt that something is happening in our solar system, (hope the links I gave you right above satisfy your curiosity) and that climate change will happens with or without gasoline cars, this is for sure.

    Each generation must take care of their own problems, and it appears you want to care too much about them. Remember they are growing up with better knowldege and available technology, don't worry too much... they will find out how to fix your mess... ha ha ha ha

    Liver recovers by itself even when doctors say that is not possible, they don't know what they are talking about, those doctors usually hang out with Dr. Alastair Gunn, you know...

    The way that organ is messed up already, forget about treatment, I strongly recommend a trasnsplant.

    They are dying right now anyway and you have never send them the 63 cents a day to buy them two boxes of food, and now you come here saying you care for them. Come on billvon, stop following Dr Alastair Gunn's example. He is a son of a Gunn, you can't trust him.

    Venus will start to make water in abundance in a near future, and will start to transform istelf into a planet earth alike.

    On the other hand, Mars used to have a greater atmosphere and water by lots on its surface.

    We are on the way to become like planet Mars.
  15. Sarkus Hippomonstrosesquippedalo phobe Valued Senior Member

    If it quacks like a duck...

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    It's a step on the journey for sure. If, as the science suggests, human activity is resulting in AGW, then we need to reduce the specific activity that is causing it. One of those... one, not the only one, and just one of many... is the pollution of fossil-fuel vehicles. In the US, for example, transportation is the cause of almost 30% of greenhouse gas emissions. Transportation covers air-travel, cars, trains, buses, trucks etc. So you can see that getting Joe Public to swap from fossil fuel to EV is only a small part... but it is a part. The others will come, in time, with air-travel being the one that will lag behind due to technology of being able to transport 100s of passengers at a time.
    So cars being one of the "four horses"? No. Noone seriously thinks it is. But transportation as a whole, yeah, that is. If tomorrow every form of powered transport was electric rather than fossil fuel then that would dramatically cut the greenhouse emissions. And cutting our emissions of greenhouse gasses is the key to humanity not causing its own climate problems.
    It's a fallacy to think that when the cause is unknown that all theories are equally valid. Yours wasn't. The science does not support it. Period. If the solar system as a whole was "warming up" then the science would clearly indicate that.
    He had science and theory behind him, supporting his claims. You don't. Thinking outside the box is great: but it must be supported by the observations. Your notion isn't.
    Fallacious thinking, I'm afraid. When the observation does not support the claim, the claim is invalid, whether speculation alone or anything more.
    Your flaw here is in the assumption that the symptoms are the same. They're not. Mars has not had any appreciable increase in global mean temperature over the past 50 years, for example. It's ice caps noticeably wax and wane, and the current trend is within those norms. The mean global temperature of the earth has increased beyond anything the sun alone can cause. The temperature increase is also more pronounced at the surface rather than the upper atmosphere, and if the sun was the cause we would expect the outer atmosphere to warm up the most. It is in fact the opposite.
    Your ideas, whether "speculation" or not, are merely a display of ignorance.
    Of course not.
    ??? I honestly think you have just dived in to the deep end of the pool without any life-jacket. From this above it is clear your grasp of even basic physics is woeful. Going into why you might think that our observations of a galaxy 1 billion LY away isn't an observation of what and where it was 1 billion years ago, is a tangent to this thread, and off-topic, but needless to say that until you can support that claim you're going to be judged as ignorant.
    "The most recent studies show that there have been no significant changes in the average Martian temperature since at least the time of the Viking landers in the 1970s. So there is no evidence that Mars is actually heating up at all."
    No, I actually know quite a bit.
    You epreviously kept talking of a "base circuit" and now "a solid flat and unique plate with circuits exposed"... I'll wait for you to provide the evidence behind these claims, that these parts, whatever you think they are, will somehow fail more frequently, and cost more to replace, from things like driving over a pothole. Until then it's just an unsupported claim.
  16. Sarkus Hippomonstrosesquippedalo phobe Valued Senior Member

    Well, if that's who you're pinning your hopes on, it explains much.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    It will be a significant step toward halting the impact of humanity on climate change.
    Sure, as a species we will more than likely survive through significant global warming, through ice ages etc. But our way of life will change. Catastrophically. And that is what we are striving to stave off. When more and more of the world become uninhabitable, when food crops fail due to increased temperatures and lack of water, human life will almost certainly continue but it will be a struggle, and for a much reduced population. Sure, we can be complacent enough to therefore not worry about anything, and kick the can down the road to future generations, and to let them suffer for our failures. Or, maybe, just maybe, we can recognise our impact, see where it will likely lead, and do what we can to limit the hardships ahead.
    It's not about playing the hero. Sure, some get a kick out of playing the eco-warrior, showing off about how they're doing their part more than others etc, but that's not what it's about. It's about doing what we can for our future generations. It's about not being selfish. Small changes now, paying a small cost now, to stave off massive change, and massive cost in the future.
    The science clearly shows that greenhouse emissions are a significant cause, and that the burning of fossil fuels is a significant contributor to that. So not "the cause", but "a cause". A significant cause.
    They certainly did have major effects on our atmosphere, mostly well known and well documented (e.g. https://theconversation.com/climate...bomb-tests-damage-our-upper-atmosphere-146760 for a relatively simplistic starter). So are you going to actually provide some evidence that they have been a significant contribution to the current situation? Or are you merely going to continue to throw up unsupported speculation to help justify your ignorance?
    Radiocarbon (Carbon 14) was not duplicated "in the whole planet". What resulted was a doubling of the atmospheric C-14 as a result of the atmospheric testing between 1945 and 1963 when it was banned. It is now mostly back to pre-1945 levels - or should be by about 2030.
    But yeah, man can have a significant impact on the planet in a short time. In terms of climate change, it's been a gradual effect since the start of the industrial revolution, and has been getting out of hand more recently. That's what the science clearly shows. And the link between them is no longer disputed by anyone other than those akin to conspiracy nuts.
    Noone is defending or diminishing anything. One merely needs to look at the science to understand what the relative significance of events have been.
    Evidence, please? And you'll need to offer more than your naive simplistic averaging of a reported high and low in various documents.
    I'll leave it to you to work out why it's a nonsense bit of "analysis", though.
    Every journey starts with a single step. Again, if you're assuming that the EV is seen as the panacea for climate change, you're just displaying your ignorance, and creating strawmen.
    Ah, the "head in the sand approach". It is thought over 250 million people live within 2 metres of sea level. And this will only increase if climate change continues. The nation of Tuvalu is disappearing as a result. Sure, we can just ignore it and tell them to live elsewhere. We all have the right to say that. Some of it is too late to stop, unfortunately, but some of it we can start to do something about. Or choose not to.
    More head in the sand, I see.
    For some it will have a major effect. For the majority of us, no, a sting from a bee is a temporary matter only, with no lasting health concerns. But, if you want to argue that a bee sting does have a significant effect - i.e. shortening of life...?
    Not sufficiently similar to be able to say that the same cause is behind all similar observations. Or do you think that just because something looks like a car, has four wheels, a steering wheel, etc, that it must be powered by fossil fuels?
  17. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Let's say that in 1968 you put a weather station in Florida. You measured the temperature for a year or so before the weather station died.
    Then in 1975 you put a weather station in Maine. You measured the temperature for a year or so before the weather station died.

    You then concluded "since the temperature in 1968 was much warmer than the temperature in 1975, the Earth is cooling fast!"

    Would your conclusion be correct?
    The idea that you mock sources . . . actually fits in perfectly with your anti-science fundamentalist agenda.
    You brought up isotopes, actually. If you want to stop talking about them, by all means, feel free.
    Fluorescent lights hit the market in 1934. LED lights hit the market in 1998. So you're off by about 64 years there.
    Yep. Incandescent light bulbs did a lot for us. Now it's time to move on.
    Horses did a lot for us. Then we moved on to gas cars. They did a lot for us. Now it's time to move on again.
    Because you need a strawman to argue against, so you created one. Simple.
    We can all thank God you're not a doctor, then.
    I contribute about $20K a year to charities that do just that. One is called Direct Relief; they get food, clothing and shelter to people who are involved in climate disasters. Another is UNICEF, which provides aid (food, clothing, medical care) to kids worldwide.

    How about you? Do you try to help, or are you more down with just causing those disasters?

    Did you see that on FOX News?
    Venus had free water a few billion years back. Then CO2 levels started rising. The planet warmed up. Then all the water evaporated, and the resultant water vapor warmed the planet further. Today the surface temperature of Venus is 870F.

    So we're following in Venus's footsteps.
  18. Sarkus Hippomonstrosesquippedalo phobe Valued Senior Member

    Being a game-changer doesn't mean we should forgive all its faults, nor progress from it. Further, when the game-changer, such as the combustion engine, is subsequently found to cause long-lasting harm that had gone undetected for decades, and the impacts underappreciated for decades more, it would only be the naive, the ignorant, or the stupid that would not do all they could do replace with more updated technology that can achieve the same benefits with a reduction, or ideally an elimination, of the damage.
    It's quite possible to say "thanks" to someone for doing what they knew to be the best at the time, but also recognising the long-lasting damage that their technology, and our dependence upon it, has caused. They were genuinely ignorant of the harm it might cause. There is no blame attached to what they discovered and implemented. What they discovered, and what it meant to the advancement of science and technology can be applauded without shame or guilt. What can not be applauded is the wilful ignorance of the damage it causes once that damage has been identified and scientifically confirmed. Once we know something is more damaging than helpful, once we know the risk-reward is not in its favour, it is stupidity and wilful ignorance that keeps it in place.
    Noone disputes the benefits it has led to. Your strawman is obvious, and tedious, and pathetic.
    Now, however, we know the harm that it is doing. So why should we continue with that technology just because in the past it has aided mankind's development? You are wanting to ignore the damage it has done because it has been the cause of advancement in the past, despite alternative techology now being able to offer the same performance without the damaging effect. That is nothing but stupidity and/or wilful ignorance.
    Nothing is happening "in our solar system". Things, different things, are occurring with each planetary body. To link one to to the other, as you are doing, despite the evidence presented, is wilful ignorance on your part.
    If that's what you consider to be moral, then that's on you.
    It is a separate matter, however, to you being willfully ignorant of the evidence and conclusions thereof regaring the human impact on global warming.
    You are in fact a dispicable human. That much is also now clear.
    Again, thankfully, doctors in my country aren't as wilfully ignorant as you.
    Ah, now you're touching on the issues of moraliy, and specifically why/how one can be impassioned toward one cause but not another of apparent equal importance. The difference would be in the assumption of "equal", i.e. between specific individuals versus principle and longer term.
    The addage about giving people a fish v teaching them to fish seems applicable here, in one guise or another. I.e. of what point is there in treating the immediate concern (the hunger of the individuals) if you don't first/also tackle their future, and ensure there is somewhere for them to even be hungry in the future.
    I'm sure I've had a fantasy like that. Just a pity it is wholly unsupported by any science whatsoever. Feel free to post any science that supports this "speculation"? I'll wait.
    It probably did, yes.
    You really don't have a clue, do you. It seems every time you make a "speculation" you reveal greater ignorance than before.
    I think I'm just going to leave you to post more, and thereby give you the freedom to reveal your own ignorance.
  19. Luchito Registered Senior Member


    What a funny post of yours. Do you believe those ignorant?


    The scenario they are showing you, a hot planet, even hotter (not sexy, just hotter from hot, temperature) than Mercury, sulfur like crazy, hot as sauna for the Devil and friends... did I already say is hot?... well... hell... oh yes, hot as hell.... such was earth long ago.

    Those lunatics who say Venus was like earth before have not a single evidence or model to follow, nothing at all but their childish imagination.

    No doubt Venus is a new planet in the solar system, this is why is way different than the rest of planets

    Your sources like that son of a Gunn and now your new introduction of Richard Ernst are laughable. Both of those dudes don't even know what are they talking about.

    Look, you argue the following

    But... you have not noticed that I have used the same sources of Gunn, and Gunn said climate in Mras has not changed, but even when we apply your insight, at the end it shows that climte in Mars does have changed... can't you see it? Gunn is dead wrong.

    Your focus is just contradicting my evidence, presented not only as a link but explaining a process thru years from different sources, while Gunnused the same source and what he said is not what the sources indicated.

    Let me tell you this way, in order for Venus to be like earth and later to be the planet that is today, then, you are saying that Venusians went crazy driving "fossil" fule cars and ignored that electric cars should have saved their planet...

    Find your venusians and bring them here, everybody reading this discussion surely will be very interested in listening what they have to say.

    How in the world you believe such a bunch of stupidities said by Richard Ernst?

    Look, anyone can make "models" of assumed causes for a certain phenomenon, but this is too much, Ernst's model is based on fantasies. Same fantasies invented by Gunn.

    Their agenda is the denial of reality.

    Evidence shows Venus, Earth and Mars are warming, and that Venus is a new planet.

    Lets start making some conclusions here.

    1) Earth won't become like Venus if people continue driving "fossil" fuel cars.
    2) Electric cars are not the saviors to stop the current increase of temperature in Venus, Mars and Earth.
    3) Electric cars are just a new alternative for trasnsportation.
    4) The cost of an electric car is way over its real value.
    5) ... you keep adding more conclusions...
  20. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Talk about a childish imagination . . . .

    I think I read a plot like that in a science fiction story once. That writer had a good imagination, too.
    The two landers on Mars were in different locations. Again, it's like measuring Florida, then measuring Maine 7 years later, then saying "Earth is cooling!"
    My focus is on science, which is why I often disagree with you. Your focus is on what your religion and what your political leaders tell you to believe.
    For your edification:
    What Is a Logical Fallacy?
    Logical fallacies are flawed, deceptive, or false arguments that can be proven wrong with reasoning. There are two main types of fallacies:

    • A formal fallacy is an argument with a premise and conclusion that doesn't hold up to scrutiny.
    • An informal fallacy is an error in the form, content, or context of the argument.

    1) Ad Hominem
    An ad hominem fallacy uses personal attacks rather than logic. This fallacy occurs when someone rejects or criticizes another point of view based on the personal characteristics, ethnic background, physical appearance, or other non-relevant traits of the person who holds it.

    Ad hominem arguments are often used in politics, where they are often called "mudslinging." They are considered unethical because politicians can use them to manipulate voters' opinions against an opponent without addressing core issues.

    Here's the facts:

    1) The Earth is warming.
    2) We are adding greenhouse gases to the atmosphere. These have the effect of warming the planet.
    3) The predicted warming is now happening.
    4) Most people now understand this, and are voting for governments that will tackle this problem.
    5) EV's are one part of the solution (not the whole part.)
    6) Sales of EV's are increasing dramatically for several reasons:
    - a) They are better cars - faster, safer, less maintenance, easier to drive, more efficient, lower cost of ownership.
    - b) Governments are encouraging their purchase to help deal with climate change (see #4 above)
    - c) They are getting cheaper rapidly and are now close to price parity.
    - d) For some drivers - drivers who simply want the fastest car out there - EV's are the clear winner.
    7) Within 10 years, more than 50% of cars sold in the US will be EVs based purely on today's increases in sales.

    All your blather won't matter to anyone.

    You may not like EV's; that's fine. You will soon be like the guy who insists on continuing to ride his horse to town because he doesn't "believe" in cars.
  21. Luchito Registered Senior Member

    It's about test. You like electric cars, perhaps thinking you will save money on fuel, but those cars prices are so high that comparing in "savings" you won't see any in the next ten years, and your electric car will fail and you will be saorry because you paid too much for a car that at the end of the day wasn't a great thing.

    About governments. Lol. Who told you governments take measures thinking about you?

    Look, the government is right now in bankcruptcy, every six months the level of the debt HAVE to be increased. This means, the government is in the hands of banks and corporations which are the ones making the decisions and the government just comply with them. Plain truth.

    The new approach is selling those electric cars because those are so expensive that companies make more money selling them than selling fuel cars. That's all. Welcome to reality.
  22. billvon Valued Senior Member

    As of now, breakeven time is two to five years. Thus if you are rich and replace your car every year, you won't see any savings. However, if you are like me and keep cars for at least ten years, you save a lot.

    And that's with today's EV prices. They continue to come down.

    From a recent analysis:
    When you conduct an apples to apples comparison, and look at other gas powered cars in the same class, electric vehicles will start saving money in a few years.

    For Hatchbacks, like the Nissan Leaf, the study showed that owners can break even in about three and half to five years. For Sedans like the Honda Clarity it's two years.

    I've owned three electric vehicles - from HEV to PHEV to BEV - over the past 15 years. None have failed.

    How many EV's have you owned, again?
    The Constitution. You should read it sometime.
    Sounds like you understand bankruptcy and government budgets about as well as you understand EV's.
    Of course. They make car companies more money and they are cheaper to own after two to five years. Win-win.
  23. river

    Yeah well I know electric vehicles will soon own the day . But not yet .

    My Mustang GT , 5.0 litre . Sounds Good . Real Good .

    I just wish that the accelerator was mechanical rather than computer based . Mechanical is instant in reaction to the accelerator peddle being pressed . the computer is not . The computer hesitates , for split second .

Share This Page