Allpar Forums banner
101 - 120 of 141 Posts

·
Jeepaholic
Joined
·
5,994 Posts
"You’ve fell victim to one of the classic blunders! The most famous is never get involved in a land war in Asia, but only slightly less well known is this; never go in against a Sicilian, when death is on the line! Aha ha ha ha"...and even slightly less known is to never get involved in a discussion of climate change, politics, or religion on Allpar!
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
32,506 Posts
Would you trust Exxon to "homogenize" the data?

I thought so.
Once again, you are asking me a question then answering it (in your own mind, but not publicly) without waiting for a reply.
So, once again, enjoy fabricating both sides of the conversation by yourself.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
14,498 Posts
Discussion Starter · #104 ·
Once again, you are asking me a question then answering it (in your won mind, but not publicly) without waiting for a reply.
So, once again, enjoy fabricating both sides of the conversation by yourself.
So, you choose to believe one side without thinking while not trust the other side.

I trust neither because both have an agenda.

So, I would trust neither the oil companies nor NASA to manipulate the data.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
14,498 Posts
Discussion Starter · #106 ·
There is no data that is manipulated. It's just easier to claim something you don't agree with is "false" or "manipulated" when you have no real argument against it.
So, you claim that the climate models use raw data?
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
7,038 Posts
So, you claim that the climate models use raw data?
I don't claim to be a climate scientist, but I trust those who are to do their jobs better than some kind of armchair conspiracy theorist who claims everything they don't want to believe in is false.

Why question everything? What is the point of having experts in any field if people with no scientific training claim to know more than these experts?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
14,498 Posts
Discussion Starter · #108 ·
I don't claim to be a climate scientist, but I trust those who are to do their jobs better than some kind of armchair conspiracy theorist who claims everything they don't want to believe in is false.

Why question everything? What is the point of having experts in any field if people with no scientific training claim to know more than these experts?
Experts have NEVER lied to the people?

The experts do not agree on man-made climate change. That is enough for me to doubt the solution will actually work.

If the science is so sure, where is the guarantee? Where is the assurance that the solution will correct the problem?

Spending trillions without a guarantee is every con artist's dream.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
7,038 Posts
Experts have NEVER lied to the people?

The experts do not agree on man-made climate change. That is enough for me to doubt the solution will actually work.

If the science is so sure, where is the guarantee? Where is the assurance that the solution will correct the problem?

Spending trillions without a guarantee is every con artist's dream.
That type of thinking is a disease. I have grown up around people who think everything is a hoax, a lie, and a conspiracy. From what I can recall, none of those theories were ever proven to be accurate. There's always some "big reveal" that will come to the surface and enlighten everyone about all of the lies and manipulation supposedly happening behind the scenes, but never once have I seen that happen. This is no different.


Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals1 show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree*: Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities. In addition, most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position.
Stop using a straw man argument. The statement "Experts have NEVER lied to the people?" is not constructive to this discussion because speaking in absolutes is just a way for you to try to discredit someone else's argument. Somewhere, at some time, an expert lied to someone. That does not mean that ALL experts who say that climate change is man-made are lying. Again, I worry for the mental health of people who are skeptical of everything they're ever told, especially when this many experts in one field have agreed on something. That level of paranoia is dangerously close to Schizophrenia.

With 97% or more of actively publishing climate scientists agreeing that climate trends are "extremely likely" due to human activities, ask yourself this: What is more likely--that all of those scientists are lying or that you are simply wrong? Let's just refer to Occam's Razor.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
14,498 Posts
Discussion Starter · #111 ·
That type of thinking is a disease. I have grown up around people who think everything is a hoax, a lie, and a conspiracy. From what I can recall, none of those theories were ever proven to be accurate. There's always some "big reveal" that will come to the surface and enlighten everyone about all of the lies and manipulation supposedly happening behind the scenes, but never once have I seen that happen. This is no different.




Stop using a straw man argument. The statement "Experts have NEVER lied to the people?" is not constructive to this discussion because speaking in absolutes is just a way for you to try to discredit someone else's argument. Somewhere, at some time, an expert lied to someone. That does not mean that ALL experts who say that climate change is man-made are lying. Again, I worry for the mental health of people who are skeptical of everything they're ever told, especially when this many experts in one field have agreed on something. That level of paranoia is dangerously close to Schizophrenia.

With 97% or more of actively publishing climate scientists agreeing that climate trends are "extremely likely" due to human activities, ask yourself this: What is more likely--that all of those scientists are lying or that you are simply wrong? Let's just refer to Occam's Razor.
Sorry, but if one side denigrates the scientists that dispute the theory because they are funded by X while praising the scientists that promote the theory even though they are funded by Y, then that side is hypocritical.

The FACT is that there is no 97% consensus. That has been debunked over and over again. Besides, science does not work on a popularity contest.

Give me a guarantee that we will not have severe weather events if we spend trillions more that we need to borrow. You cannot, therefore, I am not buying your elixir. Take your horse and wagon and peddle that elsewhere.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
32,506 Posts
From someone biased by being involved in the petrochemical industry?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
14,498 Posts
Discussion Starter · #113 ·
From someone biased by being involved in the petrochemical industry?
Nope.

I would not trust someone from the petrochemical industry as much as I would not trust someone from the environmental activist industry.

I am not biased.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: DarkSky

·
Registered
Joined
·
47 Posts
On the bright side, all the coal powered and nuke plants will be very inefficiently powering those batteries in those toy cars that can never stray from their county. And as a real bonus after 10 years the toy car is mechanically totalled since replacing the battery pack will exceed the value of the 'paper weight'. Kind of like today's 3 year old BMW.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
32,506 Posts
On the bright side, all the coal powered and nuke plants will be very inefficiently powering those batteries in those toy cars that can never stray from their county. And as a real bonus after 10 years the toy car is mechanically totalled since replacing the battery pack will exceed the value of the 'paper weight'. Kind of like today's 3 year old BMW.
Existing data refutes your assertion.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,956 Posts
Existing data refutes your assertion.
Given BEV sales in the US there isn't enough data to draw a conclusion yet. There just aren't enough 10 year old BEVs used in extreme/hot/cold service to see if the batteries die within 10 years and what the cost of replacing a battery is vs the residual value of the vehicle without a battery.

What we have sufficient data on is hybrids, and the batteries tend to last more than 10 years and aren't that expensive to replace that it totals the car, but the hybrid battery has less than 10% of the capacity of a BEV battery, so there is no reason to expect that we can extrapolate the hybrid experience to BEVs.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
32,506 Posts
Given BEV sales in the US there isn't enough data to draw a conclusion yet. There just aren't enough 10 year old BEVs used in extreme/hot/cold service to see if the batteries die within 10 years and what the cost of replacing a battery is vs the residual value of the vehicle without a battery.

What we have sufficient data on is hybrids, and the batteries tend to last more than 10 years and aren't that expensive to replace that it totals the car, but the hybrid battery has less than 10% of the capacity of a BEV battery, so there is no reason to expect that we can extrapolate the hybrid experience to BEVs.
There are 1.1M BEVs in the US, and 10M worldwide. That will give us plenty of life data. Plus, battery testing and qualification is ongoing from the first units produced. Please don't suggest that life testing has not been done.
In addition, battery cost per kwh has dropped 83% since 2010, and there are now for-profit battery recycling operations with the technology to extract and make purer lithium than that which was originally used. There is also an emerging market for reusing automotive batteries in solar storage and other battery backup applications.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DarkSky

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,956 Posts
There are 1.1M BEVs in the US, and 10M worldwide. That will give us plenty of life data. Plus, battery testing and qualification is ongoing from the first units produced. Please don't suggest that life testing has not been done.
In addition, battery cost per kwh has dropped 83% since 2010, and there are now for-profit battery recycling operations with the technology to extract and make purer lithium than that which was originally used. There is also an emerging market for reusing automotive batteries in solar storage and other battery backup applications.
Lab / track testing has proven to miss problems many times. Yes, there are sufficient numbers now to tell us something by 2030. As for mainstream cars and the value of one after the battery pack dies, we will get that 10-15 years after the first $25K MSRP BEV that sells well goes on sale, something that could happen within the next 5 years.. So any honest jury is out until at least 2035 on that question.

Any estimate on replacement cost is just that, an estimate, because we don't know supply and demand in 10-15 years.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
14,498 Posts
Discussion Starter · #120 ·
Some science is settled science. The make up of water of two molecules of hydrogen and one molecule of oxygen is settled science. There is no debate there.
That was not a theory.

Gravity is still a theory that is undergoing changes. We understand gravity here on Earth, but gravity does not always work predictably in space and science is still refining what they know because as science observes more, the theory of gravity does not fit what they observe.
 
101 - 120 of 141 Posts
Top