placeholder

The last time that occurred, at least for the Eurasian section of the Arctic was 4 million years ago. https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms6608 Also, did you not this in the article you linked to? "This temperature drop was triggered by the rise of the Himalayas. As they grew higher they were exposed to increased weathering, which sucked CO2 out of the atmosphere and reduced the greenhouse effect."

No, the weren't kept under lock and key. In fact, as we now know, they were found in his bedroom, his bathroom, and the Mar a Lago ballroom. Photos included in the federal indictment filed against Donald Trump show boxes allegedly containing classified documents stored in unusual locations — stacked on a ballroom stage and in a bathroom next to a shower and toilet at Mar-a-Lago, the former president's residence in Florida. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-indictment-pictures-photos-documents-boxes-mar-a-lago-bathroom/

"Donald Trump has made fresh claims that the FBI planted evidence in the August 8 search of his Mar-a-Lago resort in Florida – an argument notably absent in legal filings by his attorneys. The former US president repeated the claim in a posting on his Truth Social network Thursday, after the Justice Department demanded that a federal judge reinstate access to hundreds on classified documents the FBI retrieved in its recent search of his Palm Beach residence... “They leak, lie, plant fake evidence, allow the spying on my campaign, deceive the FISA Court, RAID and Break-Into my home, lose documents, and then they ask me, as the 45th President of the United States, to trust them. Look at the I.G. Reports on Comey, McCabe, and others." https://www.mediaite.com/news/trump-returns-to-fbi-planted-evidence-accusation-in-wild-rant-after-doj-appealed-special-master-ruling/

Who's denying that Trump declassified docs? One question isn't whether he declassified but rather whether he classified the docs that he had in his possession at Mar-A-Lago. If anything, the evidence you offer here proves that Trump knew how to declassify docs. Yet he chose not to declassify those docs at Mar-A-Lago according to standard procedure. In fact, after his term was over, he's on video acknowledging that he had docs in his possession that weren't declassified.

Also, he's on video claiming he had classified documents including one concerning Iran. In the tape he says he could have declassified the documents but now he can't. The thing is, his lawyers haven't been able to locate that document about Iran. Trump boasts about having non-declassified papers in bombshell recording: ‘I have a big pile’ https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/donald-trump-iran-document-tape-b2354610.html

Trump first claimed that the FBI planted classified documents in his BR. Only later did he claim that he had declassified them., And even if declassified, they are still official labelled sensitive and can only be stored in secure locations. He had no right to keep them once the National Archives asked for them back. That's the law.

FBI found documents containing classified intel on Iran and China at Mar-a-Lago https://www.cnbc.com/2022/10/22/fbi-found-documents-containing-classified-intel-on-iran-and-china-at-mar-a-lago.html

It wasn't just Kim's letters though was it? Can you link me to the source that claimed that's all it was? Just curious to see where you get your misinformation.

You keep on saying that it's not what you said even after I offer quotes. But you never reply with evidence of what you said. All you offer is empty denialism.

Not only refused to return them but also apparently lied in claiming that they had returned them all.

No

And ultimately they can and are being recycled. In fact, the lithium carbonate recycled from batteries actually can perform better than the newly mined and refined mineral. Recycled Lithium-Ion Batteries Can Perform Better Than New Ones https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/recycled-lithium-ion-batteries-can-perform-better-than-new-ones/#:~:text=The researchers found that batteries,last longer and charge faster.

Given your claim of 10,000 years, I'm not surprised that you consider this "higher math".

And I guess I really can't hold you to account since you ascribed your evidence in this threat to an alleged scrap dealer, who apparently gave you information sometime before 2014 when rules were established for battery disposal in the UK. What made you think such "evidence", if the unconfirmable information you provided can be dignified with that word, would be relevant?

Yes those 2 comments are specific to the uk.

Let me help you with the math. It looks like china's electricity growth has been about 5% per year for at least 10 years. From 2017 to 2020 China's total rate of increase was about 5%. Yet as the chart below shows, the growth in wind power alone for those years was 16%. Actually that growth rate continued through 2022). https://www.globaldata.com/data-insights/power-and-utilities/power-generation-and-cumulative-capacity-of-wind-power-plants-in-china-2017-2021/ So how long would it take for wind power alone to account for 50% of power generates.. It looks like in 2020 a total of 400 TW hours were generated by wind. At the rate of 16%, in 23 years the total electricity generated by wind would come to about 12500 TW hours. In the meantime, at the 5% rate of increase, total power production starting at 7500 TW hours would rise to just slightly more than 23,000 TW hours Now maybe to your way of thinking 23 years is approximately 10,000 years. Not to mine. And I'm not even including solar in my calculations.

Here's a link for that https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/fbi-agent-testified-republicans-was-suspended-leaked-classified-inform-rcna88407

Well, you got me on the charging station quesiton. As for the other, his objection to the government ban is based on general and mostly baseless assertions about EVs. I highly recommend the article that .Khun LA linked to before that very efficiently and facutally dealt with the nonsense propagated by Atkinson https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/jun/08/fact-check-why-rowan-atkinson-is-wrong-about-electric-vehicles

It's a good thing fossil fuels have so little impact on human health: Air Pollution from Fossil Fuels Costs $8 Billion Per Day, New Research Finds The study, the first of its kind to quantify the global impacts of air pollution caused by burning fossil fuels, focused on the health impacts of three specific types of pollutants: Nitrogen dioxide, ozone, and fine particulate matter, which has the greater impact, causing about 1.8 billion days of missed work due to disease and $2.2 trillion in air pollution costs every year. Nitrogen dioxide and ozone pollution cost $351 billion and $380 billion, respectively. Together, air pollution from these three pollutants is responsible for 4.5 million premature deaths around the world each year, the study said. https://e360.yale.edu/digest/air-pollution-from-fossil-fuels-costs-8-billion-per-day-new-research-finds And there are already batteries that don't contain cobalt being used in mass production The lithium iron phosphate battery (LiFePO 4 battery) or LFP battery (lithium ferrophosphate) is a type of lithium-ion battery using lithium iron phosphate (LiFePO 4) as the cathode material, and a graphitic carbon electrode with a metallic backing as the anode. Because of their lower cost, high safety, low toxicity, long cycle life and other factors, LFP batteries are finding a number of roles in vehicle use, utility-scale stationary applications, and backup power.[6] LFP batteries are cobalt-free.[7 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lithium_iron_phosphate_battery

The point being that you consistently assign discreditable motives to those whom you criticize. It's a way of taking cheap shots because while your characterization can't be proved, it can't be disproved either. Why not try sticking to what can be proved? You know, those strange and rare objects known as "facts".

As I suspected you continue to compare apples to oranges. What you don't seem to get is that mining for minerals to make EVs is not the same as mining for hydrocarbons. Batteries are not fuel and are not continuously being consumed. In fact, EV batteries can mostly be recycled. Over the lifetime of an EV vs an ICE vehicle, EVs will do much less harm as far as emissions go. And that's not taking into account the huge harm to human health that is caused by automotive emissions. Also, you take no account of the environmentally damaging effects of hydrocarbon extraction. Or are you seriously claiming that mining for hydrocarbons isn't environmentally damaging? Also, you take no account of the fact that the share of electricity generated by wind and solar is continually increasing. In the UK in 2022 41% of electric power consumed came from renewables. Most new power plant investment worldwide is now in renewables. As for disposing of turbine blades, time marches on. Your article comes from the dark ages of 2020. Here's one from February 2023 Vestas hails breakthrough for recyclable wind turbines A new chemical recycling process can break down the epoxy resin in wind turbine blades into virgin-grade materials. https://www.energymonitor.ai/tech/renewables/vestas-hails-breakthrough-for-recycling-wind-turbine-blades/

Again with "virtue signallers"?

Utterly devastating to Atkinson's claims. Clearly, he got his information from denialist sources.

You don't seem to have a clue about relative harm over the lifetimes comparatively of EVs vs ICE vehicles Don’t get fooled: Electric vehicles really are better for the climate Over its lifetime, the average electric vehicle produces less than half the carbon pollution of a gas-powered vehicle. https://yaleclimateconnections.org/2022/11/dont-get-fooled-electric-vehicles-really-are-better-for-the-climate/ Nor do you seem to understand why Solar and Wind are far greener than extracting fossil fuels. I expect it's because you're comparing apples to oranges. And of course, what would a comment from you be without attributing discreditable motives to others. In this case your comment alleging that those who buy electric vehicles want to "virtue signal".

For starters did this escape your notice: "RAC spokesman Simon Williams said: 'When charging at home, the running costs are far cheaper. But that is only possible for those who have a driveway and can install a home charger on their house.' "