Arguing with Idiots; EV Edition

Timothy Birdnow

In a post by Ars-technica on Facebook about the glories of electric vehicles a snotty alarmist spouted off.

When challenged on the efficacy of EV's Paddy Mendez says:

Talking points are prepared for them by fossil fuel interest groups. We're dealing with pre-chewed propaganda.

I reply:

Who is it spouting the fake talking points Paddy Mendez? You have to generate power to charge batteries and you lose in the conversion. Making those batteries is a very dirty process, so dirty we don't do it here in the U.S. And last longer? I know people who have evs that are ready for the scrap heap after just a few years. They are nothing but toys for rich guilt-riddled liberals.

Paddy Mendez says:

If you really wanted a reply you would have tagged me - you're sneaking your comment in so I don't answer it. You're a bunch of lying sneaks who are serving billionaires. https:// www.climatereali typroject.org/ blog/ climate-denial-m achine-how-foss il-fuel-industr y-blocks-climat e-action

https:// cleantechnica.co m/2020/07/21/ how-big-is-the-a nti-cleantech-p ropaganda-indus try/

/Tim Birdnow Mark II https://theintercept.com/2019/04/03/branded-content-fossil-fuel-companies/

Tim Birdnow Mark II https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/stories-53640382

EVs last longer and cause less pollution than ICEs.

Raymond Barnes

Paddy Mendez yes i have net zero confidence in the ipcc cherry picked scientists

Paddy at it again:

Raymond BarnesNF3 is used in silicon manufacture and trace amounts are released but neither of the others has anything to do with solar panels.

Raymond BarnesThe IPCC includes fossil fuel industry picked scientists - it's so fucking conservative that it's barely worth quoting and it still shows your arguments up for bullshit.

Raymond Barnes and Silicon is a solid quarter of the Earth's crust - it's not scary - it's the main constituent of rock after Oxygen.

Raymond Barnes states:

Paddy Mendez not so
The ippc sent out a survey to 10,257 scientists 3,167 responded they cherry picked 77 of them 75 agreed that anthropogenic emissions were to blame for climate change the famous 97%

Paddy again:





Raymond Barnes responds:

Paddy Mendezglobal temperature has risen in a straight line at a natural 0.5 C per century for 300 years since the Sun recovered from the Maunder Minimum long before industrialisati

Old Paddy piddles:

Raymond BarnesAbsolute cobblers as usual. Solar irradiation (which is the only thing affected by sunspots) is directly measurable and it hasn't changed significantly since satellite measurements began. There has been rapid global warming (in line with greenhouse effect predictions) since those satellites went up and solar irradiation can't explain that warming - it has hardly changed. Another thing that is DIRECTLY MEASURABLE is surface radiative forcing by greenhouse gases and that HAS INCREASED and IT DOES EXPLAIN THE OBSERVED WARMING. That'll be why all those scientists agree won't it?

Raymond Barnes replies:

Paddy Mendez all 75?

Paddy sneers:

All 11,602 : "The consensus among research scientists on anthropogenic global warming has grown to 100%, based on a review of 11,602 peer-reviewed articles on "climate change” and "global warming” published in the first 7 months of 2019." from : https:// journals.sagepub .com/doi/abs/ 10.1177/ 0270467619886266

Raymond BarnesWhy are you failing to provide a link for something from 2008? Can't you find anything more recent that suits your purposes? Does the 2008 reference actually suit your purposes since you've chosen not to link it I've got to guess it doesn't.

Raymond Barnes replies:

Paddy Mendez yeah read that link last week it is unbelievable 100% amazing was floored no cherry picked scientists wow good to know

Paddy Mendez scientists come to 100% consensus absolutely amazing

Paddy Mendez ref: scientific consensus on climate change Energy and the Environment 19:281-286

Paddy retorts:

Again, no link - it's almost as if you don't actually want people to read it - a bit like not tagging them when you're pretending to answer them Mister Reliable.

Raymond Barnes

So, we have a study from 2008 by "Consultant in Endocrine and General Surgery, Department of Endocrine Surgery, King's College Hospital, Denmark Hill, London SE5 9RS, United Kingdom Honorary Senior Lecturer of Surgery, King's College London" Sounds legit.



I reply:

Even official government sources admit at least some of the climate change we have seen is caused by solar activity Paddy Mendez. See https:// weather.com/ science/ environment/ news/ solar-energy-con tributes-climat e-change-studyAnd there are aspects of solar effects that are not related to Total Solar Irradiance (TSI) - the thing you alarmists use to justify your claim. The solar wind effects planetary temperatures. See also http:// myweb.wwu.edu/ ~dbunny/pdfs/ Chap10Elsevier.p dfAlso, changes in the spectrum of light being emitted can effect the climate, something not taken into account by NASA, which is only looking at TSI.. I would add that NASA has admitted in the past that solar activity has been increasing since the 19th century and correlates with the warming trend. https:// www.nasa.gov/ vision/universe/ solarsystem/ solar_trend_chan ge_climate.html. That you and yours refuse to consider other causes for warming (such as geological or solar related) proves to me you aren't interested in actually determining the truth but rather prefer to promote a ludicrous claim that we are facing doomsday if we don't adopt draconian regulatory schemes and limit human activity.
Paddy Mendez you say : "There have been numerous surveys of scientists views with many of them showing 100% agreement on the fundamentals of anthropogenic global warming." And you cite that rigorous journal Wikipedia to prove it! Balderdash! Scientists agree with only two statements on this 1.The climate is changing and 2. human beings have something to do with it. Roger Pielke Sr. - retired professor at UC Boulder - argued that human beings do have something to do with it, but that it was primarily changes in land use that caused the very modest warming. Cut down a forest and pave it over in blacktop and you warm the surrounding area. Benny Peiser debunked the first such claim when it was made by Naomi Oreskes. And there was the Oregon Petition signed by 30,000 scientists disavowing the consensus. I know; you in the Gang Green deny it, saying many signatures are false. Some are, and it was your side that was coning to sign it, but even if only one out of ten are legitimate that means 3000 signatures are legit - more than the number of signatures on the IPCC report. These scientists also disagree in a more up-to-date letter than the Oregon Petitiion. https:// www.aei.org/ carpe-diem/ there-is-no-clim ate-emergency-s ay-500-experts- in-letter-to-th e-united-nation s/ See this https:// www.institutefor energyresearch. org/ climate-change/ the-bogus-consen sus-argument-on -climate-change / for more on the facts of the debate. And David Legates published a peer revieewed paper disproving the claim. http:// www.google.com/ url?q=https%3A%2 F%2Fwww.researc hgate.net%2Fpub lication%2F2576 62261_Learning_ and_Teaching_Cl imate_Science_T he_Perils_of_Co nsensus_Knowled ge_Using_Agnoto logy&sa=U&ved=2 ahUKEwissMTI9df 2AhVSRDABHVhgCq g4ChAWegQIBxAC& usg=AOvVaw1umAH A1Ui8h1qmrGWAiH KQClaims of "concensus" is meaningly anyway; there was scientific concensus on any number of mistaken ideas, including such dandy things as geocentrism, epicycles, the ether, global cooling, and that spicy food caused stomach ulcers.

So how much is Big Green paying you Paddy Mendez? You clearly are a paid troll. I could find links to sites that are not environmentalist propgaganda to rebut all this, but why bother? You clearly won't even bother to actually study the science of this. Right now we do not have the technology to make these vehicles practical (which is why the environmentalists like them; force everyone to live in cities and use public transit.) By the way, that idiotic article from the BBC is purest batpoop. I and others douut the ill-named "climate change" (it used to be called global warming but when it stopped warming they had to change the name) because of the science. less than one molecule of carbon dioxide out of every ten thousand is in the air because of human emissions. That is impossible to lead to rising temperatures (which aren't really happening anyway if you look at the data.) Oh, and there has been ample research showing that, yes, eleectric vehicles emit more pollution when all things are considered. https://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/international-issues/electric-vehicles-in-germany-emit-more-carbon-dioxide-than-diesel-vehicles/


Oh, and Paddy Mendez, I know you for a frothing-at-the
-mouth radical who is going to try to fillibuster here. You call me sneaky, I call you a paid troll.


http://www.umich.edu/~umtriswt/PDF/SWT-2017-18_Abstract_English.pdf

And where is the "missing heat"? The "pause" in climate change (something that does not comport with any of the models used to predict global warming) was said to be lurking in the deep oceans. Yet, despite decades of Argo probes, there is no evidence of large amounts of heat there. When the Argo buoys don't agree with the models they are said to be wrong. https://joannenova.com.au/2014/10/missing-heat-not-in-deep-oceans-but-found-in-missing-data-in-upper-ocean/ Also, why is it Antactica was so cold last winter? Record breaking numbers there. It is a strange theory that you people posit as Gospel.https://www.cnn.com/2021/10/09/weather/weather-record-cold-antarctica-climate-change/index.html That does not comport with the models. Antarctica has been GAINING ice for some time (although sea ice is currently at an ebbb.) https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/nasa-study-mass-gains-of-antarctic-ice-sheet-greater-than-losses/ And the Arcitc is at an 22 year record high for ice, despite increasing atmospheric co2. Oh, and atmospheric co2 continued to rise during the pandemic shutdown at the same rate, despite a huge reduction in industrial output. https://research.noaa.gov/article/ArtMID/587/ArticleID/2742/Despite-pandemic-shutdowns-carbon-dioxide-and-methane-surged-in-2020 I guess you missed that. Now why would that be? Please note I did not use any "fossil fuel industry" statistics; I provided links to NASA and other "mainstream" outlets (despite the fact NASA and many of these others have become horribly tainted in recent years.) The reality is it doesn't work the way you want us to believe. And your solution is worse than the problem. The Earth has had much warmer periods, which are actually better for life. And we've had much higher levels of carbon dioxide without excessive heat as you people falsely claim.

I reply:

Oh, and who is it that is funding the Climate Change alarmism industry? https://www.heritage.org/environment/commentary/follow-the-climate-change-money To say it's "big oil" that is fighting your hysteria is laughable given the amount of cash you guys are getting from the Left, who want to promote their own agenda. And that includes governments, who see a golden opportunity to drastically increase their tax base and their regulatory control. YOURS is the tainted money.

Paddy Mendez you say :

"There have been numerous surveys of scientists views with many of them showing 100% agreement on the fundamentals of anthropogenic global warming."

And you cite that rigorous journal Wikipedia to prove it!

Balderdash!

Scientists agree with only two statements on this 1.The climate is changing and 2. human beings have something to do with it.

Roger Pielke Sr. - retired professor at UC Boulder - argued that human beings do have something to do with it, but that it was primarily changes in land use that caused the very modest warming. Cut down a forest and pave it over in blacktop and you warm the surrounding area.

Benny Peiser debunked the first such claim when it was made by Naomi Oreskes. And there was the Oregon Petition signed by 30,000 scientists disavowing the consensus. I know; you in the Gang Green deny it, saying many signatures are false. Some are, and it was your side that was coning to sign it, but even if only one out of ten are legitimate that means 3000 signatures are legit - more than the number of signatures on the IPCC report.

These scientists also disagree in a more up-to-date letter than the Oregon Petitiion. https://www.aei.org/carpe-diem/there-is-no-climate-emergency-say-500-experts-in-letter-to-the-united-nations/

See this https://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/climate-change/the-bogus-consensus-argument-on-climate-change/ for more on the facts of the debate.

And David Legates published a peer revieewed paper disproving the claim. http://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.researchgate.net/publication/257662261_Learning_and_Teaching_Climate_Science_The_Perils_of_Consensus_Knowledge_Using_Agnotology&sa=U&ved=2ahUKEwissMTI9df2AhVSRDABHVhgCqg4ChAWegQIBxAC&usg=AOvVaw1umAHA1Ui8h1qmrGWAiHKQ

Claims of "concensus" is meaningly anyway; there was scientific concensus on any number of mistaken ideas, including such dandy things as geocentrism, epicycles, the ether, global cooling, and that spicy food caused stomach ulcers.





Paddy Mendes you say

"Absolute cobblers as usual. Solar irradiation (which is the only thing affected by sunspots) is directly measurable and it hasn't changed significantly since satellite measurements began. There has been rapid global warming (in line with greenhouse effect predictions) since those satellites went up and solar irradiation can't explain that warming"

Wrong again. Most of the data being used to justify climate change alarmism comes from surface stations - the satellite record shows modest warming. And there was an 18 year pause, something the models could not predict. Your side had to start monkeying with the data to make it fit their predictions.

In fact, tropospheric temperatures have risen little. In fact, it has cooled slightly.

http://www-das.uwyo.edu/~geerts/cwx/notes/chap15/future_gcm.html

"The corrected MSU temperature data are generally believed to be quite accurate, both globally and regionally. The (uncorrected) lower tropospheric temperature data, above, show very little trend. Some warming is evident during the last 6 months, associated with the '97-'98 El Niño. A clear cooling trend is evident in the lower stratospheric temperature record (right), also derived from the MSU data."

End quote.

But the land has warmed a bit. This suggests solar influence over carbon dioxide in the Earth's atmosphere.

Heat re-radiated from the ground is supposed to be trapped in the troposphere. Yet here we are.

And that is no surprise; we are coming out of the Little Ice Age. What is important is there is not increase in the RATE of warming since the end of the LIA. You seem to miss the fact you have just damaged your own argument irreparably.

But the tropospheric cooling is at odds with the models. The fact is the models all say there should be a hot spot in the tropical troposphere yet it has been quite hard to find.

And after much fanfare claiming it was, the fact is the data do not support that. Roy Spencer, who runs the satellite data center at UAH, admitted as much on his website. http://www.drroyspencer.com/2015/05/new-satellite-upper-troposphere-product-still-no-tropical-hotspot/

The fact is, there is so much we do not understand about any of this. We don't understand how clouds influence the climate. We don't understand how solar magnetic effects influence climate. We don't understandMilankovitch Cycles. We don't understand how geothermal activity influences the climate.

Your claims are unsupportable.

It has been proven that the Russians were funding climate change alarmist groups to promote this fantasy so as to eliminate competition for oil and gas. https:// thehill.com/ opinion/ energy-environme nt/ 596304-investiga te-russias-cove rt-funding-of-u s-anti-fossil-f uel-groups and https:// www.jewishpress. com/indepth/ opinions/ has-russia-been- financing-weste rn-environmenta lism/2022/03/ 18/ and https:// drrichswier.com/ 2022/03/04/ russian-collusio n-exposed-russi a-funded-enviro nmental-groups- to-oppose-frack ing-in-europe-a nd-u-s/ So, are you a Russian agent, or just someone duped by Russian misinformation?

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 03:03 PM | Comments (9) | Add Comment
Post contains 2601 words, total size 30 kb.