Climate change is a fraud

[Razblo]

Question for anyone.
What would be the source of energy for electric cars if everyone had access to one?

[-1-]

Why does anyone care what a non-expert thinks about a highly technical topic?

I think the idea is that there are two camps of highly trained experts and they claim contradicting things. Now the rest of humanity has to separate the wheat from the chaff, so to speak; we have to decide for ourselves which expert to listen to.

You see, LuckyR, one highly trained expert says "there is anthropo... etc. climate change" and the other says "the climate change is due to non anthropopopo...etc. influences." Since we can't agree with one expert without directly disagreeing with the other expert, we must decide for our own which to believe, and that is the basis which renders this discussion valid.

-- Updated 2017 August 3rd, 2:05 am to add the following --

Question for anyone.
What would be the source of energy for electric cars if everyone had access to one?

same as the ones we presently using: coal-burning, oil-burning, windmills, hydroelectric dams, and nuclear power. To name the most important ones.

The idea behind electric cars and other vehicles is that they don't pollute where they are used. (They pollute at the sources of where the electricity is created, and that's mostly far from cities.)

The other idea is that they use way less energy to transport a person. We talk about energy efficiency in cars which efficiency is calculated to move the entire car. But the car I believe is about 20 times the mass of a regular passenger. In electric bicycles and mopeds, the engine, vehicle and the person has in combination 1.4 times to 1.8 times the mass of the human alone. In gasoline etc. engine cars, it's 21 times the mass of the human alone. In electric cars, which house the passenger in a weather-isolated room, which are heated in the summer, air conditioned in the summer, has a radio and gps, and 12-volt 2-amp power source for passeger use, and has the complete safety and operational display and equipment which a gasoline-powered car has, the total-vehicle to human ratio in mass is about 4:1 or 5:1. This is so because to convert electric energy to circular motion and work, is much simpler than to convert chemical energy stored in gasoline to circular motion and work.

To house and operate an electric motor you need way less metal, and because the total weight of the automobile is about 1/4 of the traditional automobiles' weight, the power consumption is also 1/4. If you consider that electric engines have up to 98 percent efficiency, and the power stations that create electrical energy have at minimym 49 percent effiency (the efficiency of a gasoline engine... I am not quite sure of the figure, it may be only 43 percent eff, please don't quote me) (at least not by name), the entire fleet of gasoline engine-cars operate with four times the energy usage of the electric car.

-- Updated 2017 August 3rd, 2:07 am to add the following --

add to the energy-wise more efficient electric cars' advantage, that it can generate its own fuel when it's decelerating or rolling down an incline. That further reduces electric and other energy use which the gasoline engine can't capture.

-- Updated 2017 August 3rd, 2:08 am to add the following --

I expect -0+ to chime in at this point, and prove that I am wrong, and then prove that he is right by naming the same points as I have above.

[Razblo]

Question for anyone.
What would be the source of energy for electric cars if everyone had access to one?

same as the ones we presently using: coal-burning, oil-burning, windmills, hydroelectric dams, and nuclear power. To name the most important ones.

The idea behind electric cars and other vehicles is that they don't pollute where they are used. (They pollute at the sources of where the electricity is created, and that's mostly far from cities.)

The other idea is that they use way less energy to transport a person. We talk about energy efficiency in cars which efficiency is calculated to move the entire car. But the car I believe is about 20 times the mass of a regular passenger. In electric bicycles and mopeds, the engine, vehicle and the person has in combination 1.4 times to 1.8 times the mass of the human alone. In gasoline etc. engine cars, it's 21 times the mass of the human alone. In electric cars, which house the passenger in a weather-isolated room, which are heated in the summer, air conditioned in the summer, has a radio and gps, and 12-volt 2-amp power source for passeger use, and has the complete safety and operational display and equipment which a gasoline-powered car has, the total-vehicle to human ratio in mass is about 4:1 or 5:1. This is so because to convert electric energy to circular motion and work, is much simpler than to convert chemical energy stored in gasoline to circular motion and work.

To house and operate an electric motor you need way less metal, and because the total weight of the automobile is about 1/4 of the traditional automobiles' weight, the power consumption is also 1/4. If you consider that electric engines have up to 98 percent efficiency, and the power stations that create electrical energy have at minimym 49 percent effiency (the efficiency of a gasoline engine... I am not quite sure of the figure, it may be only 43 percent eff, please don't quote me) (at least not by name), the entire fleet of gasoline engine-cars operate with four times the energy usage of the electric car.

-- Updated 2017 August 3rd, 2:07 am to add the following --

add to the energy-wise more efficient electric cars' advantage, that it can generate its own fuel when it's decelerating or rolling down an incline. That further reduces electric and other energy use which the gasoline engine can't capture.

-- Updated 2017 August 3rd, 2:08 am to add the following --

I expect -0+ to chime in at this point, and prove that I am wrong, and then prove that he is right by naming the same points as I have above.

Good show of a breakdown analysis. I'll spend more time dissecting it

In the meantime... global warming elite news:

The home of former vice-president and climate change activist Al Gore burns 34 times more electricity than the average American household, a report from National Center for Public Policy Research has revealed.
According to the report, Gore’s energy use at his 10,070-square-foot Colonial-style home in the upmarket Belle Meade neighborhood of Nashville averages 19,241-kilowatt hours (kWh) a month, compared to the U.S. household average of 901 kWh per month.

Over the past year, Gore has used more energy than the average American family does in 21 years, and has an enormous energy bill of $22,000 a year.

However, that money is pocket change compared to his estimated net worth of $300 million, which he has acquired through years of corporate speeches, documentary films, and book deals.

[LuckyR]

Why does anyone care what a non-expert thinks about a highly technical topic?

A non expert? Hey, are all these above experts? Wow! Who would have thought.

So easy to become an expert these days it seems.

Sorry for confusing you, I wasn't advocating for this vs that poster on the thread. Rather I was referring to legit experts in the field whose life's work is climate science.

[Razblo]

(Nested quote removed.)

A non expert? Hey, are all these above experts? Wow! Who would have thought.

So easy to become an expert these days it seems.

Sorry for confusing you, I wasn't advocating for this vs that poster on the thread. Rather I was referring to legit experts in the field whose life's work is climate science.

How do you determine legit? Government funded/state sanctioned experts or those climate experts denied funding for having come to conclusions a government may not like because it may not fit into their plan? Or both of these?

-- Updated August 4th, 2017, 1:31 am to add the following --

Question for anyone.
What would be the source of energy for electric cars if everyone had access to one?

same as the ones we presently using: coal-burning, oil-burning, windmills, hydroelectric dams, and nuclear power. To name the most important ones.

The idea behind electric cars and other vehicles is that they don't pollute where they are used. (They pollute at the sources of where the electricity is created, and that's mostly far from cities.)

Ah, you mean just the general atmosphere? Certainly not some alternative or parallel atmosphere, right? Maybe some utopian-parallel-universe atmosphere?

The other idea is that they use way less energy to transport a person. We talk about energy efficiency in cars which efficiency is calculated to move the entire car. But the car I believe is about 20 times the mass of a regular passenger. In electric bicycles and mopeds, the engine, vehicle and the person has in combination 1.4 times to 1.8 times the mass of the human alone. In gasoline etc. engine cars, it's 21 times the mass of the human alone. In electric cars, which house the passenger in a weather-isolated room, which are heated in the summer, air conditioned in the summer, has a radio and gps, and 12-volt 2-amp power source for passeger use, and has the complete safety and operational display and equipment which a gasoline-powered car has, the total-vehicle to human ratio in mass is about 4:1 or 5:1. This is so because to convert electric energy to circular motion and work, is much simpler than to convert chemical energy stored in gasoline to circular motion and work.

To house and operate an electric motor you need way less metal, and because the total weight of the automobile is about 1/4 of the traditional automobiles' weight, the power consumption is also 1/4. If you consider that electric engines have up to 98 percent efficiency, and the power stations that create electrical energy have at minimym 49 percent effiency (the efficiency of a gasoline engine... I am not quite sure of the figure, it may be only 43 percent eff, please don't quote me) (at least not by name), the entire fleet of gasoline engine-cars operate with four times the energy usage of the electric car.

The google self-driving car seems to be promoted, or at least believed, as a vehicle which any and everybody could use. So not only just current possessors of driver's licenses but also the elderly and disabled. On top of these then it is logical to include those adults that do not currently drive from choice, and children.

My argument previously was to do with probable restriction of movement. A poster here signaled the possible public space saving virtue associated with self-driving cars due to their ability to ride bumper to bumper. Now this may work smoothly if we are mostly using the same routes and travelling in two directions, there and back, but driving in every direction (as we currently do) could be highly problematic. However, this is not really a problem if planners only want the public to travel in directions and to places the planners and authorities deem by how roads are laid out. If we get to have the freedom of movement we do now, plus add practically everybody inside a driverless car and not just the current driver license holder, and also can move in multiple directions, then it would be a complex grid indeed. Possibly many over and under, multistory, carriageways.

That is a massive amount of concrete - a massive amount of cement production (coal burning, although releasing t's smoke into an alternative reality parallel universe atmosphere).

But I doubt this would be a plan. I think it would be very restrictive movement to make it viable. But viable to whom? Not viable to mass scale freedom-of movement, I suggest.

add to the energy-wise more efficient electric cars' advantage, that it can generate its own fuel when it's decelerating or rolling down an incline. That further reduces electric and other energy use which the gasoline engine can't capture.

Given the acceleration in technology of driverless electric, it seems to me that by the time most of us could have access to an electric car the driverless electric car would be upon us. Hills, by then, may well not be available to us for decelerating downward. The masses would be in those multi-story concrete units on flat grid blocks next to concrete carriageways of bumper to bumper google cars occasionally traveling nowhere particularly pleasant.

A highly controlled environment for a highly controlled population. A sort of utopian North Korea.

[LuckyR]

(Nested quote removed.)


Sorry for confusing you, I wasn't advocating for this vs that poster on the thread. Rather I was referring to legit experts in the field whose life's work is climate science.

How do you determine legit? Government funded/state sanctioned experts or those climate experts denied funding for having come to conclusions a government may not like because it may not fit into their plan? Or both of these?
.

"State sanctioned", eh? Have you ever done research?

Legit, meaning: has published original research in the field in question. (Emphasis on the word "original", an editorial is not research, btw).

[Razblo]

(Nested quote removed.)

How do you determine legit? Government funded/state sanctioned experts or those climate experts denied funding for having come to conclusions a government may not like because it may not fit into their plan? Or both of these?
.

"State sanctioned", eh? Have you ever done research?

Legit, meaning: has published original research in the field in question. (Emphasis on the word "original", an editorial is not research, btw).

Well it is good you cleared that up because there are obviously 'original' scientists who counter the currently dominant narrative with their research.

[Eduk]

If you are unsure what the scientific consensus is then I suggest asking climate scientists.
You could write to a few bodies. Ideally independent from each other. You may be limited to English speaking organisations, or not.
You could also look at the meta data where climate scientists have done exactly what I said above.
I believe the consensus is clear, please tell me if your results are different.
Of course everything could be a conspiracy. Each body. Each meta analysis. Each journal. NASA. Etc etc. Would only need many thousands of people world wide to be involved in the conspiracy. And it would be the first conspiracy to operate on such a level. Look into the meta data for conspiracies too while you are it, though that could all be part of the conspiracy.
I think at this point the simplistic thing to do is become a climate scientist.

[Razblo]

If you are unsure what the scientific consensus is then I suggest asking climate scientists.
You could write to a few bodies. Ideally independent from each other. You may be limited to English speaking organisations, or not.
You could also look at the meta data where climate scientists have done exactly what I said above.
I believe the consensus is clear, please tell me if your results are different.
Of course everything could be a conspiracy. Each body. Each meta analysis. Each journal. NASA. Etc etc. Would only need many thousands of people world wide to be involved in the conspiracy. And it would be the first conspiracy to operate on such a level. Look into the meta data for conspiracies too while you are it, though that could all be part of the conspiracy.
I think at this point the simplistic thing to do is become a climate scientist.

Asking a climate scientist. Well, 'climate' scientists disagree. And they had all "simplistically" become 'climate' scientists.

[Eduk]

But what you are looking for is the consensus opinion.
Like I said meta studies have been published on the consensus. And you are free to ask scientific bodies directly. They all have emails addresses.
This is something you are genuinely capable of if you so wished.

[LuckyR]

(Nested quote removed.)


"State sanctioned", eh? Have you ever done research?

Legit, meaning: has published original research in the field in question. (Emphasis on the word "original", an editorial is not research, btw).

Well it is good you cleared that up because there are obviously 'original' scientists who counter the currently dominant narrative with their research.

The countering is a reasonable discussion on what percentage of the actual global warming is caused by human activity. No one knows what the exact percentage is. Ultimately, who cares? It isn't about blame, it is about solving the problem.

As to scientists who "debunk" global warming, a small fraction (10%) in a popular review of the "ten most prominent global warming skeptics" are actually trained in climatology. And again, even they acknowledge global warming, their difference from the rest of their peers is the relative role of humans and a different projection on final outcome.

[Razblo]

But what you are looking for is the consensus opinion.
Like I said meta studies have been published on the consensus. And you are free to ask scientific bodies directly. They all have emails addresses.
This is something you are genuinely capable of if you so wished.

I have had my questions answered by scientists.

[Eduk]

Scientific consensus means you don't get to pick and choose your scientists.
So for example I could Google climate change hoax. Then find what I wanted to find.
Likewise I could Google climate change consensus and then find what I wanted to find.
It is arguable that both methods are flawed.
Instead I could Google climatologists near me. Or climatologists UK or USA, wherever you are from. Then from their navigate to what they have to say on global warming. This would be less likely to simple reinforce my preconceptions.
For example NASA has a pretty good pedigree. You can read what they have to say on the subject for yourself.
Now you could have some conspiracy theory about NASA and the moon landing. Or NASA and a flat earth. But seriously at this point we have gone beyond what the evidence is.
If you have progress to this hopeless point then I can only offer two crumbs of comfort. One, you could still become a climatologist and actually check the numbers yourself. This is a possible thing for a human to do. Two, continue to ignore the consensus while pretending you aren't and hopefully have no adverse effect on the rest of the innocent population. After all the majority of people have next to no influence on the topic.

[Razblo]

Scientific consensus means you don't get to pick and choose your scientists.
So for example I could Google climate change hoax. Then find what I wanted to find.
Likewise I could Google climate change consensus and then find what I wanted to find.
It is arguable that both methods are flawed.
Instead I could Google climatologists near me. Or climatologists UK or USA, wherever you are from. Then from their navigate to what they have to say on global warming. This would be less likely to simple reinforce my preconceptions.
For example NASA has a pretty good pedigree. You can read what they have to say on the subject for yourself.
Now you could have some conspiracy theory about NASA and the moon landing. Or NASA and a flat earth. But seriously at this point we have gone beyond what the evidence is.
If you have progress to this hopeless point then I can only offer two crumbs of comfort. One, you could still become a climatologist and actually check the numbers yourself. This is a possible thing for a human to do. Two, continue to ignore the consensus while pretending you aren't and hopefully have no adverse effect on the rest of the innocent population. After all the majority of people have next to no influence on the topic.

Was Gilileo's theory supported by a consensus at his time? Was Einstien's relativity theory constructed with the use of a consensus team?

Are you a climatologist?

Also, there is this thing you may not have heard about. It's called money. It has a lot of influence. There is also this thing called excommunication of those who go against the majority of the day. Galileo suffered from that.

The public money splashed out on renewable technologies creates a pig-in-trough expected outcomes.

One should consider history and psychology.

Scientists are not automatically and universally characters of high moral fibre.

I would regard the excommunicated and blackballed scientists with a greater degree of integrity.

What really is the integrity of the political hierarchy who find it all rather easy spending everyone else's money other than their own for the use most who clamber to the top of the food chain u.timately desire which is control and protection of their position?

It's not outlandish conspiracy theory. It has been forever a authority default motivation.

[Eduk]

How do you know the world is not flat?
I don't mean that as rhetorical question, I would like to know your methodology.