Global Heat and Climate Extremes Endanger Billions

[thaibeachlovers]

1 hour ago, JonnyF said:

 

In fairness, the liberal elites have a plan.

 

Continue with their lavish lives of private jets, luxury yachts and water front mansions while taxing the rest of us to death and expecting us to give up our holidays, cars and eat bugs.

 

Most people are seeing through it, although as this thread shows there are a minority of useful idiots still drinking the kool aid.  

ain't that the truth.

 

IMO the biggest lie of all is that they can fix it, if only we give up our holidays, cars and eat bugs, etc.

Soooo, it's all our fault because we don't want to.

[JCauto]

4 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

I could if I wanted to, but...

 

...I'm not a serious poster and what I said was completely manufactured out of thin air because I've never had the patience or knowledge to carefully read and fully absorb a scientific paper about climate change.

 

I am now going to pretend I was so offended by your post so that I don't have to answer a reasonable question and be shown to not understand much of what I'm talking about.

FYI, I am not trying to recruit anyone, I'm explaining things to people who don't understand them according to what they post. I happen to work in this field so I know a bit more about it than most people do. Sorry if you are easily offended.

[JonnyF]

9 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

ain't that the truth.

 

IMO the biggest lie of all is that they can fix it, if only we give up our holidays, cars and eat bugs, etc.

Soooo, it's all our fault because we don't want to.

 

Indeed.

 

They know they can't fix it. But what better reason for transferring wealth from us to them via "green" taxes than "saving the world". 

 

But first, they need to terrify us.

 

 

[placeholder]

2 hours ago, JonnyF said:

 

In fairness, the liberal elites have a plan.

 

Continue with their lavish lives of private jets, luxury yachts and water front mansions while taxing the rest of us to death and expecting us to give up our holidays, cars and eat bugs.

 

Most people are seeing through it, although as this thread shows there are a minority of useful idiots still drinking the kool aid.  

 

https://www.statista.com/statistics/1325899/public-awareness-of-net-zero-concept-united-kingdom/

And then there are the useless idiots who believe it's a conspiracy.

https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/08/09/what-the-data-says-about-americans-views-of-climate-change/

 

[Yellowtail]

6 hours ago, JCauto said:

 

1. Haven't figured out how to do it and can't be arsed.

Of course. 

6 hours ago, JCauto said:

2. I think it demonstrates an understanding of statistics. 

How? 

6 hours ago, JCauto said:

3. If that's your level of intellectual understanding, then you're not worth debating. However it's obvious that it's not, you're just trolling. Yawn. I described my work, that means I read quite a lot of studies relating to climate change, forestry and other relevant issues. To pretend one could read the entire corpus of climate change research is an absurdity as you're fully aware. Your point was a dumb one.

Yet here you are. 

6 hours ago, JCauto said:

4. Which study? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_consensus_on_climate_change Tell me which of the references you are talking about and I'll respond.

Wikipedia? I do not remember the study, it came out (I think) over ten years ago and the 93% was quoted for years. Do you have one more recent? 

6 hours ago, JCauto said:

5. I know many who believe otherwise, they post about it on ASEAN Now every time there's a climate thread. This is just disingenuous. Why don't you argue your points with facts? It's so easy to disprove this, it's not even worth the clicks. Check this thread for instance.

I know of people that think otherwise, but I don't know anyone. 

6 hours ago, JCauto said:

6. Just go to the source.  https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/

Of course. Long on rhetoric, short on data. 

6 hours ago, JCauto said:

7. By no means do I take an article at face value. I explained to you already that I'm an engineer and data scientist. Why do you keep trying to mischaracterize what I say and do?

When I said: "I don't accept anything I am unable to review", your response was:  "...- well, in that case you've got a bit of reading to do. Probably enough for the rest of your life if you spend 16 hours a day at it."

 

Does that not imply that one should take studies at face value? 

6 hours ago, JCauto said:

Are you trained in engineering or science, or are you self-taught? Did you work as a scientist or technical person in those fields?

I am an engineer. 

[JCauto]

42 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

1. Wikipedia? I do not remember the study, it came out (I think) over ten years ago and the 93% was quoted for years. Do you have one more recent? 

2. Of course. Long on rhetoric, short on data. 

3. When I said: "I don't accept anything I am unable to review", your response was:  "...- well, in that case you've got a bit of reading to do. Probably enough for the rest of your life if you spend 16 hours a day at it."

Does that not imply that one should take studies at face value? 

4. I am an engineer. 

 

1. It's ironic to accuse people of making stuff up then not being able to produce the evidence you said you knew was full of lies. My point was that it's absurd to attach a precise number to the percentage of scientists and engineers who understand that climate change is real due to any study's limitations given how many there are, but that it is highly likely to be a large percentage of them. 
2. There's lots more out there, not hard to find if you care to look.

3. Of course one should read studies. My point was that I work in the field, so I necessarily have to read a lot of studies, observe a lot of statistics, create analyses and write reports that are fully sourced with proper citations. I don't need to read every report and it would be impossible to do so, that was my point. You either have read enough to have come to a well-founded conclusion about climate change or you haven't. 

4. Which field? Mine was Civil and I worked in water resources and environmental assessment mostly.

[Yellowtail]

23 minutes ago, JCauto said:

 

1. It's ironic to accuse people of making stuff up then not being able to produce the evidence you said you knew was full of lies. My point was that it's absurd to attach a precise number to the percentage of scientists and engineers who understand that climate change is real due to any study's limitations given how many there are, but that it is highly likely to be a large percentage of them. 

I have not accused you of making anything up. The "evidence" was not full of lies, the data and method we sound. The articles written by "journalists" were full of lies.

 

23 minutes ago, JCauto said:

2. There's lots more out there, not hard to find if you care to look.

That's what I thought 

23 minutes ago, JCauto said:

3. Of course one should read studies. My point was that I work in the field, so I necessarily have to read a lot of studies, observe a lot of statistics, create analyses and write reports that are fully sourced with proper citations. I don't need to read every report and it would be impossible to do so, that was my point. You either have read enough to have come to a well-founded conclusion about climate change or you haven't. 

I have read and understood enough to know that most of what is written for the public is nonsense. 

23 minutes ago, JCauto said:

4. Which field? Mine was Civil and I worked in water resources and environmental assessment mostly.

Mechanical, I worked in mostly manufacturing, still do a bit of consulting. My sister is civil, she worked in water resources, distribution at first and later wastewater treatment. She just retired this year, My dad was electrical. 

[G_Money]

2 hours ago, placeholder said:

 

https://www.statista.com/statistics/1325899/public-awareness-of-net-zero-concept-united-kingdom/

And then there are the useless idiots who believe it's a conspiracy.

https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/08/09/what-the-data-says-about-americans-views-of-climate-change/

 

Gretas right hand man…lol

 

Any more stats/graphs?

 

Long live fossil fuels.

[placeholder]

4 minutes ago, G_Money said:

Gretas right hand man…lol

 

Any more stats/graphs?

 

Long live fossil fuels.

I've got graphs and stats.

You've got nothing.

[Yellowtail]

4 minutes ago, placeholder said:

I've got graphs and stats.

You've got nothing.

How does a graph of what the public thinks about an issue like climate change support an argument one way or the other. 

 

Notice they do not ask how many people want to pay twice as much for electricity. 

[G_Money]

14 hours ago, placeholder said:

I've got graphs and stats.

You've got nothing.

Any graphs on the destruction of the water supply and culture of the natives in South America?

 

How many Electric Vehicles do you own?

[thaibeachlovers]

17 hours ago, JCauto said:

 

...I'm not a serious poster and what I said was completely manufactured out of thin air because I've never had the patience or knowledge to carefully read and fully absorb a scientific paper about climate change.

 

I am now going to pretend I was so offended by your post so that I don't have to answer a reasonable question and be shown to not understand much of what I'm talking about.ble as it's none of your business what

FYI, I am not trying to recruit anyone, I'm explaining things to people who don't understand them according to what they post. I happen to work in this field so I know a bit more about it than most people do. Sorry if you are easily offended.

I do wish your lot would stop trying to make people they disagree with the topic.

 

BTW your question was not reasonable, as I do not have to justify my opinions to you. By all means disagree with them and put up your reasons why I am wrong. Insults are not the way to get a positive response.

If you know so much, why are you unable to put up any solutions ? You can run around saying the sky is falling as much as you like, but don't expect to be taken seriously, unless you have a solution or two. So far all I see from your side is fearmongering, but that only works on the easily impressed.

[thaibeachlovers]

16 hours ago, JCauto said:

 

1. It's ironic to accuse people of making stuff up then not being able to produce the evidence you said you knew was full of lies. My point was that it's absurd to attach a precise number to the percentage of scientists and engineers who understand that climate change is real due to any study's limitations given how many there are, but that it is highly likely to be a large percentage of them. 
2. There's lots more out there, not hard to find if you care to look.

3. Of course one should read studies. My point was that I work in the field, so I necessarily have to read a lot of studies, observe a lot of statistics, create analyses and write reports that are fully sourced with proper citations. I don't need to read every report and it would be impossible to do so, that was my point. You either have read enough to have come to a well-founded conclusion about climate change or you haven't. 

4. Which field? Mine was Civil and I worked in water resources and environmental assessment mostly.

Sooooo, you have studied a lot and from those studies you conclude that the climate is changing. I could tell you that without reading anything. It's obviously warmer now than in i972 when the winter snow level in NZ was hundreds of feet below where it is now. A lake that froze every year now doesn't freeze at all.

 

Frankly I don't care if the climate is changing, always has, always will. What I care about is using climate change to bring in loony tunes policies that would never be accepted by the sheeple if they didn't fear the unknown. Our last government brought in all kinds of barking policies under the guise of climate change mitigation. Of course none of them would actually do anything about it. It's all about power, and money, IMO. Hopefully most if not all will now be relegated to the dustbin of history.

[JCauto]

1 hour ago, thaibeachlovers said:

I do wish your lot would stop trying to make people they disagree with the topic.

 

BTW your question was not reasonable, as I do not have to justify my opinions to you. By all means disagree with them and put up your reasons why I am wrong. Insults are not the way to get a positive response.

If you know so much, why are you unable to put up any solutions ? You can run around saying the sky is falling as much as you like, but don't expect to be taken seriously, unless you have a solution or two. So far all I see from your side is fearmongering, but that only works on the easily impressed.

 

What the heck does that first sentence mean? Sounds like a DJT Rally speech it's so incoherent. What would you do if you're on an electric boat, and it's sinking, and there's a shark 10 yards away...?

 

"If you know so much, why are you unable to put up any solutions ?"

Do you recall this post? I made it about 6 posts of yours ago.

"Did you observe point 7, about what I do professionally? This is an example of "what to do about it". You try to sequester carbon in the forest tree stems and protect habitat for biodiversity (since catastrophic climate change is a precursor to another existential danger, that being Biodiversity Collapse). There are many other things people are doing about it - you may have observed that there has been a massive shift to renewable energy from carbon-based fuel. We may well be able to get to a point of zero-emission energy within a reasonable timeframe. People are researching new ways to remove or sequester carbon and other pollutants such as algae farming and low emission agriculture. If we look at the example of chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) that were destroying the ozone layer not so long ago, they are no longer a problem because we recognized the damage they were causing, then banded together as humans to ban the CFCs and put in alternatives that don't damage the ozone. It worked. 

 

So it's like most things, if one observes a problem and is able to quantify it and identify mitigation measures, one can then mobilize governments and ordinary folks to do something about it and create a movement towards less damaging ways of living. That is happening, although sadly it has happened too late (due to the staunch resistance of those profiting from dirty tech) and there remain many unenlightened people who see this as a threat so try to do the opposite."

 

You even responded to it, saying "Thank you for that reply. However, there is one insoluble problem that will negate all those attempts to mitigate the problem- overpopulation. Millions of people in poor countries want to live like westerners and that is a lifestyle that is destroying the planet's ability to support humanity. They all want to live in cities, fly on exotic holidays and drive cars etc. If governments were serious about solutions they wouldn't be trying to get us to breed more, as they are doing. Is it the biggest irony of all that western people that have the lifestyle want to revert to a simpler way of life, while the people that have the simpler way of life want to be like us, and consume like there is no tomorrow? Consumption is going to kill us all, in my opinion."

 

Yet, not even 4 posts later, you write in direct response to me again "If you know so much, why are you unable to put up any solutions ? You can run around saying the sky is falling as much as you like, but don't expect to be taken seriously, unless you have a solution or two. So far all I see from your side is fearmongering, but that only works on the easily impressed."

 

You've also been clear that you're not so much longer for this world due to your age, hence I will stop after this post because it is clear that you are suffering from cognitive issues and it's not nice to be mean to the elderly.

[Hummin]

Human made or not

 

The ND-GAIN’s overall rankings state that the top 10 most climate-resilient countries in the world in 2023 are:

1. Norway
2. Finland
3. Switzerland
4. Denmark
5. Singapore
6. Sweden
7. Iceland
8. New Zealand
9. Germany
10. United Kingdom

https://www.independent.co.uk/advisor/solar-panels/countries-that-will-survive-climate-change

[Yellowtail]

1 hour ago, JCauto said:

 

What the heck does that first sentence mean? Sounds like a DJT Rally speech it's so incoherent. What would you do if you're on an electric boat, and it's sinking, and there's a shark 10 yards away...?

 

"If you know so much, why are you unable to put up any solutions ?"

Do you recall this post? I made it about 6 posts of yours ago.

"Did you observe point 7, about what I do professionally? This is an example of "what to do about it". You try to sequester carbon in the forest tree stems and protect habitat for biodiversity (since catastrophic climate change is a precursor to another existential danger, that being Biodiversity Collapse). There are many other things people are doing about it - you may have observed that there has been a massive shift to renewable energy from carbon-based fuel. We may well be able to get to a point of zero-emission energy within a reasonable timeframe. People are researching new ways to remove or sequester carbon and other pollutants such as algae farming and low emission agriculture. If we look at the example of chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) that were destroying the ozone layer not so long ago, they are no longer a problem because we recognized the damage they were causing, then banded together as humans to ban the CFCs and put in alternatives that don't damage the ozone. It worked. 

 

So it's like most things, if one observes a problem and is able to quantify it and identify mitigation measures, one can then mobilize governments and ordinary folks to do something about it and create a movement towards less damaging ways of living. That is happening, although sadly it has happened too late (due to the staunch resistance of those profiting from dirty tech) and there remain many unenlightened people who see this as a threat so try to do the opposite."

 

You even responded to it, saying "Thank you for that reply. However, there is one insoluble problem that will negate all those attempts to mitigate the problem- overpopulation. Millions of people in poor countries want to live like westerners and that is a lifestyle that is destroying the planet's ability to support humanity. They all want to live in cities, fly on exotic holidays and drive cars etc. If governments were serious about solutions they wouldn't be trying to get us to breed more, as they are doing. Is it the biggest irony of all that western people that have the lifestyle want to revert to a simpler way of life, while the people that have the simpler way of life want to be like us, and consume like there is no tomorrow? Consumption is going to kill us all, in my opinion."

 

Yet, not even 4 posts later, you write in direct response to me again "If you know so much, why are you unable to put up any solutions ? You can run around saying the sky is falling as much as you like, but don't expect to be taken seriously, unless you have a solution or two. So far all I see from your side is fearmongering, but that only works on the easily impressed."

 

You've also been clear that you're not so much longer for this world due to your age, hence I will stop after this post because it is clear that you are suffering from cognitive issues and it's not nice to be mean to the elderly.

"Sounds like a DJT Rally speech..."

[thaibeachlovers]

17 hours ago, JCauto said:

What the heck does that first sentence mean? Sounds like a DJT Rally speech it's so incoherent. What would you do if you're on an electric boat, and it's sinking, and there's a shark 10 yards away...?

Seems pretty plain to me.

If anyone else can't understand it I'll explain very slowly.

[thaibeachlovers]

17 hours ago, JCauto said:

You try to sequester carbon in the forest tree stems and protect habitat for biodiversity (since catastrophic climate change is a precursor to another existential danger, that being Biodiversity Collapse).

To answer just a small part of your post ( us ancient people need to preserve our energy, don't you know ), in the real world the great forests and jungles of the world are being destroyed as fast as humans are able to light fires in them. That's so they can raise cattle for hamburgers and plant palm oil trees to make soap and such like. Why do they need to do that, you ask. Because the human population keeps growing and needs more hamburgers and soap, and that makes the 1% very very rich. After all, doesn't every peasant dream of being rich and living in a mansion with a tv in every room, a huge yacht, a private jet and a car for every day of the week?

 

Your lot can blather away about sequestering carbon and such like as much as you like, but while the world's population is on a vertical graph line increase, it's a lost cause.

IMO humans are the author of their own demise because they just keep making too many of us. That's never going to stop till Gaia removes us, so why worry, be happy ( till you can't ).

[thaibeachlovers]

17 hours ago, Hummin said:

Human made or not

 

The ND-GAIN’s overall rankings state that the top 10 most climate-resilient countries in the world in 2023 are:

1. Norway
2. Finland
3. Switzerland
4. Denmark
5. Singapore
6. Sweden
7. Iceland
8. New Zealand
9. Germany
10. United Kingdom

https://www.independent.co.uk/advisor/solar-panels/countries-that-will-survive-climate-change

Most of them are cold countries with a mainly similar population.

 

Singapore has a tiny population, but likely most will die if the water supply from Johor gets turned off.

It doesn't even have land to grow enough food as they have built on most of it

 

The UK freezes if the warm ocean current stops flowing.

 

NZ will have problems that I can't discuss on here.

[nauseus]

On 6/25/2024 at 3:37 PM, thaibeachlovers said:

It's a large country, mostly uninhabitable and IMO a quadrupling of the population would make zero difference overall.

Perhaps it's the lack of trees that has contributed to the rise in temperature.

I have traveled through much of the country during my time there.

 

However, you are correct in that large areas of buildings does cause a LOCAL rise in temperature. London was much warmer in winter than areas outside London, likely due to the heat sink of concrete and brick. I'm not sure that bare dirt would get less hot than concrete though, and outside cities in Saudi that is what there is.
 

 

Well the data is LOCAL (Saudi Arabian cities). More people and all their increased activites cause temperature rises - think air conditioning and all the hot air exhausted from thousands of A/C units, not in use until relatively recently. Saudi Arabia is rich in oil and cash - development there been pretty much unlimited LOCALLY for more than 50 years. Power usage per capita has become very high. See Saudi on the map:

 

https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/per-capita-oil

[placeholder]

12 minutes ago, nauseus said:

 

Well the data is LOCAL (Saudi Arabian cities). More people and all their increased activites cause temperature rises - think air conditioning and all the hot air exhausted from thousands of A/C units, not in use until relatively recently. Saudi Arabia is rich in oil and cash - development there been pretty much unlimited LOCALLY for more than 50 years. Power usage per capita has become very high. See Saudi on the map:

 

https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/per-capita-oil

Making things up much? Got any figures to show how much those heat those a/c unis emit vs how much heat is incoming from solar radiation? Any actual figures on how much is trapped due to greenhouse gases? Give it up already.

From the landing page of the World News Forum

"Any alleged factual claims must be supported by a valid link to an approved credible source."

https://aseannow.com/forum/158-world-news/

 

[placeholder]

On 6/26/2024 at 10:25 AM, G_Money said:

Any graphs on the destruction of the water supply and culture of the natives in South America?

 

How many Electric Vehicles do you own?

Your environment concerns about South America are touching.

A Growing Movement Looks to End Oil Drilling in the Amazon
Activists and Indigenous groups used a summit of South American leaders to highlight a campaign to phase-out drilling in the world’s largest tropical rainforest.

When leaders of eight Amazon nations gathered this week in Brazil for a summit on deforestation, they also played host to a growing movement by civil society groups to phase out oil and gas development within the world’s largest tropical rainforest.

The Amazon basin has seen renewed efforts to expand drilling into new areas in recent years as governments and oil companies have sought to replace declining production from decades-old fields in Ecuador, Peru and other countries.

Existing or planned oil and gas development blocks cover an estimated 250,000 square miles of undisturbed forest across the basin, according to a report last year by the environmental group Earth InSight, an area that is home to more than 12 million people.

https://insideclimatenews.org/news/10082023/amazon-nations-debate-ending-oil-exploration/#:~:text=Decades of oil development have,wastewater%2C poisoning people and wildlife.

[nauseus]

23 minutes ago, placeholder said:

Making things up much? Got any figures to show how much those heat those a/c unis emit vs how much heat is incoming from solar radiation? Any actual figures on how much is trapped due to greenhouse gases? Give it up already.

From the landing page of the World News Forum

"Any alleged factual claims must be supported by a valid link to an approved credible source."

https://aseannow.com/forum/158-world-news

 

 

The data  was in the OP. KSA population has increased fourfold since 1970 and the country has been able to afford great development.

 

Your pompous post does not deserve a response but you can chew on these bones:

 

https:/joint-research-centre.ec.europa.eu/jrc-news-and-updates/cities-are-often-10-15-degc-hotter-their-rural-surroundings-2022-07-25_en

 

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1359431108001725

 

 

Good Boy.

 

 

 

[placeholder]

2 minutes ago, nauseus said:

 

The data  was in the OP. KSA population has increased fourfold since 1970 and the country has been able to afford great development.

 

Your pompous post does not deserve a response but you can chew on these bones:

 

https:/joint-research-centre.ec.europa.eu/jrc-news-and-updates/cities-are-often-10-15-degc-hotter-their-rural-surroundings-2022-07-25_en

 

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1359431108001725

 

 

Good Boy.

 

 

 

First off, the urban heat island effect has little to do with your claim that air conditioners are emitting more heat. Actually, had you actually read the articles, you might have noticed this:

"The urban heat island effect is generally strongest in areas with temperate and humid climate conditions as well as dense rural vegetation. In contrast, where rural surroundings have only scarce vegetation, particularly in deserts, cities, like Cairo in Egypt, often show cooler surface temperatures in summer than their neighbouring non-urban areas."

https://joint-research-centre.ec.europa.eu/jrc-news-and-updates/cities-are-often-10-15-degc-hotter-their-rural-surroundings-2022-07-25_en

It [Riyadh] is the largest city on the Arabian Peninsula, and is situated in the center of the an-Nafud desert, on the eastern part of the Najd plateau.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riyadh#:~:text=It is the largest city,part of the Najd plateau.

 

As for the other article..

"The results demonstrate the rise degree is 2.56 °C under inversion conditions and 0.2 °C under normal conditions, which indicates that thermal pollution is serious at stable atmosphere."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riyadh#:~:text=It is the largest city,part of the Najd plateau.

While a/c can have a strong effect on cities where there is an inversion effect,  Riyadh is on a plateau surrounded by deserts. So no inversion effect.

 

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1359431108001725

 

And as these graphs show, the increase in heat is not confined to the cities. Quite the contrary, in fact. The top figures show measurement from 1979. The bottom from 2019

 

Linear trends in (top) monthly maximum of daily maximum (TXx) and (bottom) monthly minimum of daily minimum (TNn) temperature change for (a),(c) the whole year and (b),(d) summer only. Study period: 1979–2019.

https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/apme/60/8/JAMC-D-20-0273.1.xml

 

[Hummin]

5 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Most of them are cold countries with a mainly similar population.

 

Singapore has a tiny population, but likely most will die if the water supply from Johor gets turned off.

It doesn't even have land to grow enough food as they have built on most of it

 

The UK freezes if the warm ocean current stops flowing.

 

NZ will have problems that I can't discuss on here.

 

Cold is not necessary bad, it comes with fresh air, free aircon and great natural resources almost untuched whit smaller population. Free fish and great fishing up North, oysters, berries, hunting rights if you buy a smaller farm,  right now I can only think positive about having a farm up north, and a farm in Thailand. 7- 8 months in Norway, 4 - 5 months in Thailand the next 15 years.

 

when the warm ocean current stops in thousands of years? 

 

The only problem I see, is if we reach a new level of conflict up North, Then, 

[GanDoonToonPet]

On 6/24/2024 at 7:49 AM, novacova said:

Climate fluctuations have been going on for eons, nothing has changed except for human hysterics and gimmicks 

 

Speed fluctuations have been going on for eons so why not drive your car everywhere at 200 mph?

[placeholder]

5 minutes ago, GanDoonToonPet said:

 

Speed fluctuations have been going on for eons so why not drive your car everywhere at 200 mph?

Not taking into account the concept of rates seems to be a nearly universal characteristic among denialists. 

[G_Money]

4 hours ago, placeholder said:

Your environment concerns about South America are touching.

A Growing Movement Looks to End Oil Drilling in the Amazon
Activists and Indigenous groups used a summit of South American leaders to highlight a campaign to phase-out drilling in the world’s largest tropical rainforest.

When leaders of eight Amazon nations gathered this week in Brazil for a summit on deforestation, they also played host to a growing movement by civil society groups to phase out oil and gas development within the world’s largest tropical rainforest.

The Amazon basin has seen renewed efforts to expand drilling into new areas in recent years as governments and oil companies have sought to replace declining production from decades-old fields in Ecuador, Peru and other countries.

Existing or planned oil and gas development blocks cover an estimated 250,000 square miles of undisturbed forest across the basin, according to a report last year by the environmental group Earth InSight, an area that is home to more than 12 million people.

https://insideclimatenews.org/news/10082023/amazon-nations-debate-ending-oil-exploration/#:~:text=Decades of oil development have,wastewater%2C poisoning people and wildlife.

You never did answer how many EV’s you have.

 

Or have you already switched back to gasoline power?  So much for that fad.

 

 

[placeholder]

6 minutes ago, G_Money said:

You never did answer how many EV’s you have.

 

Or have you already switched back to gasoline power?  So much for that fad.

 

 

I make it a point not to ask or answer personal questions. Given that we are all anonymous here, there is no way of checking their truthfulness. And even if we could count on the answers, so what? What bearing does that have on the data?

 

I notice that you seem to suffer from the same linking disability that afflicts so many right wingers in this forum.

 

As for Americans wanting to switch back to ICE vehicles, given that the majority sold in the US are Teslas, and they are notorious for the poor quality of their build, I'm not surprised.

 

And the American car market is no longer the world's largest.

[G_Money]

1 minute ago, placeholder said:

I make it a point not to ask or answer personal questions. Given that we are all anonymous here, there is no way of checking their truthfulness. And even if we could count on the answers, so what? What bearing does that have on the data?

 

I notice that you seem to suffer from the same linking disability that afflicts so many right wingers in this forum.

 

As for Americans wanting to switch back to ICE vehicles, given that the majority sold in the US are Teslas, and they are notorious for the poor quality of their build, I'm not surprised.

Was that code for:  I don’t own one or already got rid of the one I had?  Regardless of the manufacturer.