ReasonTalk.com

reggie1979 wrote: ↑

05 Sep 2019

People in the US are more worried about taking selfies than science.

Remember, on top of electric cars being the answer to our climate problems, the earth is flat, there were no dinosaurs, and ancient aliens seeded the earthlings.

Oh, and the earth was created 6000 years ago and the sun orbits the earth.

Interesting - electric cars being an answer to climate problems doesn't belong in your example of scientific ignorance. It's odd that you'd put it in there.

EnochLight wrote: ↑

05 Sep 2019

Interesting - electric cars being an answer to climate problems doesn't belong in your example of scientific ignorance. It's odd that you'd put it in there.

More particles because heavier, way harder to recycle, and have you ever seen one burn?

fullforce wrote: ↑

05 Sep 2019

More particles because heavier, way harder to recycle, and have you ever seen one burn?

It's a fact that an electric vehicle, charged with a renewable energy source, will emit far, far less carbon dioxide over its useful life than a similar weight vehicle made with a combustion engine. And it being harder to recycle is not an argument against making them. It was hard to go to the moon, yet it was accomplished. And see one burn? LOL! Dude, in the US alone, there is an estimated 171,500 highway vehicle fires annually that result in an average of over 340 deaths/year. All from gasoline powered vehicles.

https://electrek.co/2019/04/22/study-el ... -debunked/

https://www.wsj.com/articles/electric-v ... 1556480535

EnochLight wrote: ↑

05 Sep 2019

reggie1979 wrote: ↑

05 Sep 2019

People in the US are more worried about taking selfies than science.

Remember, on top of electric cars being the answer to our climate problems, the earth is flat, there were no dinosaurs, and ancient aliens seeded the earthlings.

Oh, and the earth was created 6000 years ago and the sun orbits the earth.

Interesting - electric cars being an answer to climate problems doesn't belong in your example of scientific ignorance. It's odd that you'd put it in there.

Scientific ignorance? Do you have any idea what it takes to build an electric car? Wait, your snarky incorrect statement already answered this for me.

reggie1979 wrote: ↑

05 Sep 2019

Scientific ignorance? Do you have any idea what it takes to build an electric car? Wait, your snarky incorrect statement already answered this for me.

Scientific ignorance = the earth is flat, there were no dinosaurs, ancient aliens seeded the earthlings, the earth was created 6000 years ago, and the sun orbits the earth. Your words.

Those are all blatant un-truths, yet you chose to include "electric cars being the answer to our climate problems" in that list. Why? Who is being snarky?

Do you have any idea what it takes to drill for oil, refine petroleum, and manufacture the vehicles to burn it? And please explain what "snarky" statement I made was incorrect.

I'll wait.

EnochLight wrote: ↑

05 Sep 2019

reggie1979 wrote: ↑

05 Sep 2019

Scientific ignorance? Do you have any idea what it takes to build an electric car? Wait, your snarky incorrect statement already answered this for me.

Scientific ignorance = the earth is flat, there were no dinosaurs, ancient aliens seeded the earthlings, the earth was created 6000 years ago, and the sun orbits the earth. Your words.

Those are all blatant un-truths, yet you chose to include "electric cars being the answer to our climate problems" in that list. Why? Who is being snarky?

Do you have any idea what it takes to drill for oil, refine petroleum, and manufacture the vehicles to burn it? And please explain what "snarky" statement I made was incorrect.

I'll wait.

Wow, you took that seriously? Holy cow.

You do know that electric cars have rubber tires, don't you? And what is the primary ingredient? I'll let you look it up. The toxicity it takes to make ONE electric car is staggering. Kudos for no emissions but they are not making the planet a better place.

I know it's just weather and not climate, but this awesome weather map is worth a look if you want to get a glimpse of the complexity of all the currents that drive our weather (and in the long run climate as well): https://earth.nullschool.net/

It's really complex. The oceans ARE getting deeper because of the glaciers melting. Fact. But on the other hand, there seems to be some evidence that the ozone is trying to repair itself.

Again, we were in DIRE STRAIGHTS here in Cali a few years ago, then the ocean cooled down and we had two record breaking snow/rain years and one decent one in between.

It's been a steady summer this year. It's hot, but it's like normal hot like 20 years ago. I can't explain that.

Remember guys, the Sahara used to be a Savanna not too long ago in human history. Unless conspiracy theorists are right and this is just one of many industrial societies, there is no way humans could have impacted that from happening.

Don't get me wrong (like some have) I think we are too blame for a ton of the problems, I'm just saying until about 100 years ago humans were NOT affecting these kinds of things.

You know what else is scientific ignorance? More than 2 genders!

EnochLight wrote: ↑

05 Sep 2019

It's a fact that an electric vehicle, charged with a renewable energy source, will emit far, far less carbon dioxide over its useful life than a similar weight vehicle made with a combustion engine. And it being harder to recycle is not an argument against making them. It was hard to go to the moon, yet it was accomplished. And see one burn? LOL! Dude, in the US alone, there is an estimated 171,500 highway vehicle fires annually that result in an average of over 340 deaths/year. All from gasoline powered vehicles.

Well, oil is kind of renewable, albeit a slow one as natures pace to refill is probably slower than the current rate of extraction, as the "manufacturing" down inside the earth crust is slow, but the sun is gas ball and it is burning up, it won't renew, albeit it will last x million of years. Semantics, yes. Anyhoo, I prefer to talk about low toxicity sources (i.e. toxicity for all thing living on earth).

Electric cars are cleaner (less toxic) than gasoline cars unless you use a god awful source to make electricity (one could argue nuclear power is such - the French will probably disagree, but the Japanese may not). Big power plants can burn fossil fuel more cleanly and efficient than a car engine, plus power plants are far away from cities (where cars concentrate, causing a local toxicity issue). The energy consumption to manufacture a new car is pretty substantial and it also has an environmental impact, so replacing all gasoline cars overnight is probably a bad idea, optimum is some form of phase out, but I don't know how fast.

What is interesting though, is that an electric car may very well have a much longer life span, since engine and transmission break down won't happen and most other stuff can be serviced at lower cost making the economical life longer. this will probably be especially true if we get battery swap stations like Tesla envision so the car value is not tied to the degradation of an old battery pack. The recycling of Li batteries when in full scale will be just as doable as we now recycle the lead starter battery - the rest of the components will be fairly similar to dismantle and recycle, less the requirement to capture motor/transmission oil (how well that is done today, is another question). Just my thoughts...

Last Alternative wrote: ↑

06 Sep 2019

You know what else is scientific ignorance? More than 2 genders!

A new thread may be a more interesting place to discuss the difference between gender and biological sex definitions to those here to discuss climate change…

reggie1979 wrote: ↑

05 Sep 2019

Wow, you took that seriously? Holy cow.

You do know that electric cars have rubber tires, don't you? And what is the primary ingredient? I'll let you look it up. The toxicity it takes to make ONE electric car is staggering. Kudos for no emissions but they are not making the planet a better place.

When you're sliding in valid answers with snarky responses like you did, it bares clarification is all. You're welcome. And to think that because all cars require tires equates to "electric car bad" is quite a stretch, but nice try. While the manufacture of gasoline cars might not be quite as bad as electric, if electric has zero carbon emissions, so why would it not make sense to go with them instead?

Boombastix wrote: ↑

06 Sep 2019

Well, oil is kind of renewable, albeit a slow one as natures pace to refill is probably slower than the current rate of extraction, as the "manufacturing" down inside the earth crust is slow, but the sun is gas ball and it is burning up, it won't renew, albeit it will last x million of years. Semantics, yes.

To be fair, suggesting fossil fuels like oil is "kind of renewable" and the sun won't renew is a bit disingenuous, especially when speaking on terms of human time scales. The sun will be around literally billions of years longer, and continue to produce energy just as long. But I think we're going off subject here.

selig wrote: ↑

06 Sep 2019

Last Alternative wrote: ↑

06 Sep 2019

You know what else is scientific ignorance? More than 2 genders!

A new thread may be a more interesting place to discuss the difference between gender and biological sex definitions to those here to discuss climate change…

Agreed. Also, spotted the homophobe!

Homophobe? Not even. Some of my friends are gay and that has nothing to do with genders. You’re confused.. Just making a joke. Calm down! Apologies y’all.
K back to global warming...

EnochLight wrote: ↑

05 Sep 2019

carbon dioxide

Ah, the stuff plants need.

EnochLight wrote: ↑

06 Sep 2019

Agreed. Also, spotted the homophobe!

You completely lost the plot. Unbelievable.

Good god.

Scientifically there are only two HUMAN genders. Gay/transgender may be you are born with (I think so, I'm gay and always have been that way) but they are not technically scientific genders.

Other species are different. Ancient aliens are different

fullforce wrote: ↑

06 Sep 2019

EnochLight wrote: ↑

05 Sep 2019

carbon dioxide

Ah, the stuff plants need.

And your point?

fullforce wrote: ↑

06 Sep 2019

EnochLight wrote: ↑

06 Sep 2019

Agreed. Also, spotted the homophobe!

You completely lost the plot. Unbelievable.

Did I? OK.

reggie1979 wrote: ↑

06 Sep 2019

Good god.

Scientifically there are only two HUMAN genders. Gay/transgender may be you are born with (I think so, I'm gay and always have been that way) but they are not technically scientific genders.

Other species are different. Ancient aliens are different

That's the thing about science - as new discoveries are made, we change our understanding of the world around us. Currently, research is showing that gender identity is more than just male/female.

Obviously other species are different. And "Ancient Aliens" are a science fiction tv series with roots in Fox television.

EnochLight wrote: ↑

06 Sep 2019

To be fair, suggesting fossil fuels like oil is "kind of renewable" and the sun won't renew is a bit disingenuous, especially when speaking on terms of human time scales. The sun will be around literally billions of years longer, and continue to produce energy just as long. But I think we're going off subject here.

Well, it was tongue in cheek, but the point I coming to was, I think toxicity is a better point of reference when talking about energy sources, and not the renewability per se. Heck, with so much CO2 in the atmosphere we get stronger storms, so wind power is now more renewable than ever But it seems it is not such a good thing. At the end of the day I think toxicity is what matters most. Harvesting sun - low toxicity (assuming you recycle the Cd in the panels). Nuclear - low toxicity when it works, one of the worst when it blows up. Fossil - toxic in the amounts we use today. And so on.

Save the planet by eating other humans.
Why stop at electric cars etc? LOLz

OMG.

Is anyone interested in facts? FACT, in 1970 Nixon signed the EPA in existence. First of it's kinda and BEST example in human history.

We were headed towards "Soylent Green" prior to that. The EPA despite it's faults helped clean up and put a better tomorrow forward.

BO didn't do that. He gave up.

reggie1979 wrote: ↑

16 Sep 2019

Is anyone interested in facts? FACT, in 1970 Nixon signed the EPA in existence. First of it's kinda and BEST example in human history.

We were headed towards "Soylent Green" prior to that. The EPA despite it's faults helped clean up and put a better tomorrow forward.

BO didn't do that. He gave up.

Of course we’re interested in facts, so the question is: why would you post an outright fabricated lie in the same paragraph as your fact?

We were not headed towards turning people into food. Suggesting as such is very perplexing.

Climate change is the natural result of our huge resource needs and human population growth getting totally out of control. Honestly climate change is what is good for the earth. Just like what it did to the dinosaurs, climate change would most likely wipe out humanity, the earth will simply adapt and continue to be around like always. If you look at countries like India, Brazil, Nigeria and China, when they inevitably become rich the earth just wouldn't be able to sustain it.

I guess if we are serious with climate control, change the system, decrease globalization.

miscend wrote: ↑

17 Sep 2019

Honestly climate change is what is good for the earth. Just like what it did to the dinosaurs, climate change would most likely wipe out humanity, the earth will simply adapt and continue to be around like always.

That's a strangely non-humanist thing to say, but I get where you're coming from. I just don't buy into the whole "humans will destroy themselves and earth will move on" sort of philosophy. If anyone (thing) can fix this, it's humans. We caused it. We can stop it. We just need to get off our asses and change human society as a whole. It should also be pointed out that the final extinction of the dinosaurs was largely caused by the Chicxulub meteor impact, not by climate change caused by the dinosaurs.

miscend wrote: ↑

17 Sep 2019

If you look at countries like India, Brazil, Nigeria and China, when they inevitably become rich the earth just wouldn't be able to sustain it.

Do you have scientific data to back up that claim? Arguably, when India, Brazil, Nigeria and China become completely modernized and "rich" by global standards, this could also place their cultures in a position to do so responsibly and with minimal impact on the environment, if done the right way. Is it a long shot? Well, sure. But I fail to understand what makes any of those countries unable to be sustained by the earth if they inevitably become rich..?