Who is right? The climate alarmists? Or the Climate deniers?

No, I'm not... I'm making a point that "electric vehicles" are not any more "green" than ICE vehicles are (and are actually even worse)...

Electric vehicles move the burning of carbon based fuels to the power plant that is generating the electricity "fueling" the car rather than burning the carbon based fuel right from the tank of the car itself. --- It is just taking a very efficient way of powering a car (ICE) and making it a lot less efficient (electric)... It is moving away from a resource that is both renewable and plentiful (oil) and replacing it with a resource that is non-renewable and nowhere near as plentiful (lithium).

I'm in the accounting profession... Being decent at math is a requirement.

 

Are you also "one of those internet geniuses"?? --- You are not exempt from your own standards.

I know more than a number of those so called scientists, yes.

What science are you going to ignore or bastardize next, the laws of thermodynamics? the stefan boltzmann law?

 

I cited NASA. If you want more information I'd suggest starting there, though you could also look to the many other organizations that track predictive models.

US cities have plenty of opportunity to improve public transit.

 

Internal combustion is not as efficient in energy production than are point source electricity plants based on natural gas. Plus cars are fueled by oil based products, with oil being worse from a greenhouse gas perspective.

Oil is NOT renewable.

Electric vehicles cost less per mile to fuel - an indication of efficiency.

 

False. I have NEVER said that, and YOU should accuse me of what I say, not what you DREAM I said.

YOU are suggesting that all the physics, chemistry and other Phds from around the world are working on climatology fields, yet don't know about stuff so fundamental as thermodynamics and Boltzmann!!!

How do you propose THAT happened???

 

So, you're smarter than all the Phds around the world who are working on climate related fields!!!

Cool!!

 

IC is more efficient.

Electric cars are fueled by oil based products too, just from the power plant rather than the vehicle itself.

There is no such thing as a "greenhouse gas".

Oil is renewable (it forms naturally underground).

Electric vehicles cost more to fuel (and that's especially true if Democrats would stop artificially driving up the price of gas via their war on carbon based fuels).

 

They violate those laws all the time with their Church of Global Warming tripe, and so do you.

 

In the regard that I do not deny the laws of thermodynamics nor the stefan boltzmann law?? Yes, of course I am.

 

We create almost ZERO electricity from oil or oil based products.

Oil is not renewable, as the conditions for its creation do not exist and the time required is far, far to long.

Your claim that there is no such thing as a "greenhouse gas" is just plain silly. That term is well defined.

 

This is a totally ludicrous charge against the entire world of Phds who study the chemistry and physics of climate.

And, don't try to rope me into that. I've only pointed out that the entire world of physics and chemistry is VERY knowledgeable concerning stuff like thermodynamics.

 

Yes, it is. It can also be synthesized.

They exist naturally (underground) dude... The Earth is one great big natural Fischer-Tropsch processor.

Not very long at all, actually. It doesn't take much time at all for a capped oil well to have oil inside it again.

There is no such thing. The very idea itself is a violation of science.

 

You've only pointed out that you are unwilling to think for yourself (thus always appealing to unnamed "experts" instead).

 

I don't have to make personal claims.

There is a world chock full of scientists and educational institutions who deeply disagree with you on pretty much everything you say.

No single individual on this board can be both sane AND think they are smarter than the entire world of science.

 

And vice versa... So? --- That's why we should talk about the science itself rather than the unnamed people.

Science is not a world (or a group of people). Science is a set of falsifiable models that predict nature. Let's talk about THAT instead...

 

Sometimes the dissenters win.
“Why should a change of paradigm be called a revolution? In the face of the vast and essential differences between political and scientific development, what parallelism can justify the metaphor that finds revolutions in both?

One aspect of the parallelism must already be apparent. Political revolutions are inaugurated by a growing sense, often restricted to a segment of the political community, that existing institutions have ceased adequately to meet the problems posed by an environment that they have in part created. In much the same way, scientific revolutions are inaugurated by a growing sense, again often restricted to a narrow subdivision of the scientific community, that an existing paradigm has ceased to function adequately in the exploration of an aspect of nature to which that paradigm itself had previously led the way. In both political and scientific development the sense of malfunction that can lead to crisis is prerequisite to revolution.”
― Thomas S. Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions

 

We have experts working on these issues.

You claim the entire world of scientists are just plain blithering idiots.

I'm not interested in discussing any technical topic in the face of that kind of stupidity.

 

You keep saying stuff like that.

But, the problem is that new ideas have to be judged on the basis of testing and verification.

You keep citing single papers that YOU cherry pick. And, you totally ignore that those ideas have to face the testing and verification of others.

Simply finding someone who says something you like is not even slightly what Kuhn was talking about.

 

Yup... a bunch of unnamed "experts"...

No... just the unnamed "experts" who you are appealing to.

You aren't interested in discussing any technical topic PERIOD....... because the laws of thermodynamics and the stefan boltzmann law completely trample any "greenhouse gas" or "greenhouse effect" theory.

You cannot create energy out of nothing.
You cannot make heat flow from cold to hot.
You cannot simultaneously reduce Earth's radiance and increase its temperature.

You cannot measure "global sea level". -- No valid reference point.
You cannot measure "global CO2 level" -- Not enough stations.
You cannot measure "global temperature" via thermometers -- Not enough stations.
You cannot measure "global temperature" via satellites -- Earth's emissivity is unknown.

 

Sorry, Dude.

Not interested in your self preening claims of superiority over all scientists throughout the world.

 

Right, sure it is.

You avoid the question entirely, and then go off on a tangent. Where is it the job of the Government to change the behavior of people?

Enacting mandates for emissions is not "changing behavior".

Oh, and for the part I seem to have ignored, that actually was against the law in many places until fairly recently. There was even a case that made the news in the 1980's in North Carolina over that. Somehow it came out in court that a husband had performed oral sex on his wife during their divorce proceedings, and the judge ordered him arrested for violating the state's sodomy laws. Even the wife was furious about that, but the judge was just enforcing the laws, as was his duty as an officer of the court.

Until just a few decades ago, such things would get you arrested in most states. So I guess you want to see a return to that kind of enforcement of "behaviors" you do not like.

 

Actually, almost everything is very clear, if you study the Spanish Flu pandemic.

And having spent decades in the military we do a lot of training in NBC, which includes biological warfare. And for the last decade I served in medical units, where this was a major part of my training.

Plus just being a voracious reader. Each of the books I suggested were ones I had already read, one of them almost 3 decades ago. I was stationed in North Carolina at the time, and was pretty nervous when news broke of an ebola outbreak just a few hundred miles away.

 

Right. With such a low population density, I doubt it. In fact, most cities in the country have no mass transit at all. There is simply not enough people to make it cost effective.

Let me guess, you live in a large and dense city. And if not, I bet you have not used any form of mass transit in years (unless you were on vacation).

This is typical of you. You dismiss something, and can not even site any kind of facts or figures to validate your claim. Talk about arrogance.

 

Exactly. We have substantial cities with very little mass transit.

And, our cities are plenty dense.

So you're left making up crap about me and then claiming it's true.

How lame is THAT?

 

I have read Kuhn and I doubt that you have.