Forums

Climate change: There is 3 types of people

Climate change: There is 3 types of people

1) People who change their habits
2) People who say they care
3) People who deny climate changes
Planet doesn’t see any difference between type 2 and type 3.

Lately, I have been arguing too much on Twitter and Instagram against type 3, I need an Instabrake.

Darthamerica | 24 november 2019

Andy, a few others like to attack me personally because I bring facts to discussions. Inconvenient facts that dispell myths. Again, I told you that an EV is not yet able to match the performance of an ICEV. I gave you examples. No one can refute it. Sorry but not sorry of that upsets anybody.

andy.connor.e | 24 november 2019

@Darth

Heres all the reasons why you are wrong:

"a few others like to attack me personally because I bring facts to discussions"

Lets diagnose these "facts". This is all from Page #4 of comments that you posted, directly quoted from you:

"EVs are not yet able to match an ICEV's performance, convenience and cost yet."
-You did not specify what class of vehicles we are comparing here. Since its left ambiguous, Tesla's vehicles are directly matching cost of their ICEV class competitors. The performance of Tesla's EVs greatly outperforms any comparably priced ICEV. Convenience? Charging at home, preheating cabin, software automation functions, OTA updates, can charge in any of the some 2 billion plugs available in this country. No routine oil changes. "Convenience".

You said this here:

"Andy try to be objective and not rush to the defense of EVs."
Then you say things like this:

"It's not as easy to service or repair."
"It's not as flexible with regard to fueling."
-These are objectively incorrect. You are uneducated about current EV infrastructure, so this is useless to debate with you.

You say things like this to make EVs sound bad:

"besides Taycan, name an EV that can sustain its speed for any meaningful time?"
-What does this even mean? You mean cruise control? Yes EVs have that.

"Besides Taycan, name an EV that can break 155mph under 15 seconds?"
-Because whats funny to me is that a statement like this coming from you as a disadvantage to EVs. Please, what ICEVs can achieve this? This performance spec is out of the range of the overwhelming majority of drivers. A car for the masses is not going to be spec'd like a high performance vehicle. Is there some disconnect between being realistic here?

"What EV can actually drive 500 miles?"
-What ICEV can? No ICEV i've ever driven has had a range of 500 miles or more. Nor have i ever been in a vehicle long enough to drive that kind of distance without needing to stop. You realize 500 miles is over 7 hours of driving nonstop at 70mph right? So if you can ignore biological needs for over 7 hours you are one in a billion my friend.

"What EV can be refueled under 5 min?"
-Again, this is only relevant if you do NOT have home/work charging availability or are doing a long distance trip. Even so, we are talking about the difference of minutes here. The time you spend at the rest stop is enough to get you 50% of your battery back at a supercharger. Not even taking into account the V3 supercharger speeds which are not nationally deployed yet.

"What EV can be refueled under 5 min in the middle of the desert?"
-What!? What vehicle can? I dont even understand this perspective. A gas station would require employment, a building and logistics to transport the fuel to that location. You can build a solar array with batteries anywhere and setup chargers and leave and it works by itself with little to no regular maintenance. I do not understand you level of thinking.

"pickup trucks from a few years ago will exceed 800+ miles including the F-150."
-I will restate my earlier point. 800 miles is over 11 hours of driving at 70mph. This is an impractical thing to point out. The only reason i can think of why a truck would have 800 miles of range is because thats the achievable range given the gas tank was oversized to give you a reasonable amount of range while towing something. Which is a very niche demand. My family has had water vehicles for decades now and we have never towed for more than 40 miles which has not yet required more than a standard 4WD Toyota tundra with a 21 gallon gas tank. This is an invalid point you are even making.

"What I'm saying is that EVs aren't yet able to match the capabilities of ICEVs."
-This is wrong. Its incorrect. Its an uneducated statement.

Hey everyone. Check out these "objective facts"

jimglas | 24 november 2019

darth is a fossil fuel troll

Darthamerica | 24 november 2019

Andy you're wrong. No EV can match ICEVs for the money period. The technology isn't mature ornfar enough along yet. Range, speed, infrastructure, flexibility you name it. The only thing EVs are in some cases equal to ICEVs is 0-60 times.

NKYTA | 24 november 2019

You are pissing into the wind Andy. ;-)

RedShift | 24 november 2019

Darth the emperor speaks. Everyone, since please, don’t ignore Darth. Listen to him speak. It’s gospel.

RedShift | 24 november 2019

Since = listen

SCCRENDO | 24 november 2019

@andy. Stop feeding the troll. He is a known climate change denier who has never posted a link in support of his idiotic statements.

Darthamerica | 24 november 2019

Yes Andy, listen to the crazed climate mob! Turn off your brain and don’t engage in discussion where you might learn something or teach something. We can’t afford to have anybody getting out of line or entertaining heresies in our cult!

BadgerErickson | 24 november 2019

There are (5) types of Ross1 identities, but they ALL smell like assholio.

Global warming is killing MILLIONS every year now; flooding deaths or other healthcare issues from air pollution.

MitchP85D | 24 november 2019

Darth, what these Green New Dealers fail to grasp is that ICE is competing against BEV, and this competition will make both of them better for the consumer. I like the BEV because I can charge at home. Don't have to deal with gas stations for local commute and in town driving. My wife prefers the ICE when she drives down to Corpus Christy by herself. She does not like having to supercharge out of town. She only likes to take the Model-S out of town when I am with her. Like you said, the 5 min gas station stop is a lot more convenient than the 1/2 hour supercharge. By the way, I don't mind the 1/2 hour supercharge. I always choose the Tesla over my ICE when I go out of town.

What these Green New Dealers want to do, is to take that option away from my wife, and a whole bunch of other folks as well!

Darthamerica | 24 november 2019

Mitch they are trying to force their religious beliefs on people. They also don't seem to get it that BEVs aren't some ultimate solution to all transportation needs. BEVs are a growing segment of a very diverse market that will remain diverse. There are some things BEVs are good at, some things they are not. And when it comes to price vs performance, there are nowhere near close to match it an ICEV yet. But these zealots get enchanted by 0-60 times, which is meaningless after a certain point, and think EVs are some sort of panacea. They'll gladly celebrate Cybertrucks claimed 500 mile range and then rebuke you for mentioning that an F-150 can get ~900 miles out of a tank of gas. They make no logical sense whatever just like their fantasized "climate crisis" that doesn't exist. But I know you know all that Mitch!

RedShift | 24 november 2019

Darth and his pet poodles! Birds of a feather stink together!

MitchP85D | 24 november 2019

Like I told SCCRENDODO. I bring data to the debate. He brings slander. You're no different RedShift.

Darthamerica | 24 november 2019

Mitch, they can't keep up in a debate. All they have is ad hominem. They live in an alternate reality where the laws of nature, supply and demand are governed by this forum.

SCCRENDO | 24 november 2019

Hey weathermoron. You wouldn’t know data if it was staring you in the face.

tomasrey88 | 24 november 2019

Just to let you know, type 3 is not necessarily your enemy. The oil companies want us to fight among ourselves so that they win. Divide & conquer is their strategy. People who are climate change deniers may still believe that pollution from fossil fuels cause a host of health problems. These people may still believe in changing from fossil fuels to solar/wind. I mean, who cares what reason you believe that we should stop using coal / oil? As long as the end result is the same, we use sustainable energy, who cares who is right or wrong? Let's unite in our common interests, not divide over trivial matters. United we stand. Divided we fall against the oil cartels.

I mean, climate change aside, only a total idiot would look up at the yellow smog filled sky over any major city and say, "wow, what a beautiful, healthy day! I love air pollution." Try to find common interests and unite to fight our enemy, not argue about who is right.

Many republicans and climate change deniers buy Teslas and install solar panels, too, you know.

RedShift | 24 november 2019

Mitch, Darth

I give you less than zero credibility in whatever you say.

Psychobabble, all psychobabble.

RedShift | 24 november 2019

You two can get a room and spoon as much as you want.

:-)

NKYTA | 24 november 2019

Flag and move on.

Darth can have his Taycant thread.
Mitch can his Arctic Thread and spew non-scientific nonsense.

They deserve to be flagged on every other thread. It is just Tesla bashing, annoying.

FactDoc | 24 november 2019

I feel like deleting this thread

Mitch and Darth spent to much of their worthless lives spreading fake facts and news.

If this gets 10 votes I delete it

MitchP85D | 24 november 2019

OK you Green New Dealers. See if you can address this issue. Is it not better to have ICE and BEV compete against each other? The result will be that ICE becomes more fuel efficient and BEV becomes cheaper.

I think Darth is correct. You Green New Dealers don't have the logic or ability to respond. You would rather preach your New Age Religion to everybody on the planet, and use the force of government to make everybody abide by your set of rules.

SCCRENDO | 24 november 2019

ICE are filthy. Phase them out. BEVs are clean. Subsidize them. We want the government to abide by scientific principles not the whims of the ignorant.

MitchP85D | 24 november 2019

ICE is becoming cleaner and more fuel efficient. As long as the ICE competition is there, BEV will become less glitchy and cheaper.

blue adept | 25 november 2019

@Varricks

Right, so the take-a-ways from my second reply to you are (1), even if emitted only a trickle at a time it all adds up and manifests a cumulative effect on our atmosphere which affects all of us.

Now if we were each inside our own little bubbles it wouldn't matter however much of this or that that we emit as it would only pose a threat to ourselves, but what might seem miniscule to you adds up to quite a bit once it is released into the atmosphere.

And (2), keep your kitchen floors clean unless you want ants 'cause that's how you get ants.

Now where was I? Oh, yeah...

>>> "And how odd that Freon was outlawed just as DuPont's patents on it were running out."

Indeed. The corporate influence on our nation's politics is as unnerving as it is unethical and, perhaps, even unlawful.

>>> "My generation (now 65) was told in junior high that we'd be in another ice age by now, and that oil would all be used up by 1990."

There is a very likely chance that you would have (been "in another ice age") had no one taken action necessary to remedy the problem by first reducing, then outlawing the use of R-12 refrigerant that enabled the deterioration of the Ozone Layer of the atmosphere, along with several other additional steps that were taken to mitigate the caustic emissions that had been and were being emitted into the atmosphere back then.

Granted, not so much has proven to be the case in regards to oil reserves, unfortunately...Clearly exaggeration was the practice of the day which really only demonstrates the lengths that they (the petrol-heads) were willing to go to to scare people into allowing them to expand their exploration and extraction efforts (cue the environmentally destructive Persian Gulf and Deepwater Horizon oil spills among various "fracking efforts" here and there).

Darthamerica | 25 november 2019

@Blue you're ignoring the fact that BEV production and charging create huge amounts of CO2. If you're cherry picking the cleanest part of the life cycle to fit a narrative then you're not really accomplishing your goal. It's not possible for a modern society to be zero emissions or fossil fuel free. You al are at war with reality.

eurekaa987 | 25 november 2019

Wow! This topic is intresting . It's true. We should adopt to climate change as quick as possible. It's the perquisite for enjoying the change.

andy.connor.e | 25 november 2019

The first time in the planets history a species has technologically advanced to the point that we are at today. Modern humans have been on the planet for a minimum of 190k years. Yet in 7000 generations of human life, we have managed to get to where we are today, the first time in human history. It would be advantageous of our species to maintain the climate stability that has existed for the last thousands of years that have enabled our species to flourish. People have probably never considered how fragile our society is, and how volatile the climate and universe is. A supervolcano eruption or a couple kilometer size extra terrestrial impact would send our society into chaos.

Its absolute lunacy for our species to behave irresponsibly when we know these things. Whether people like to accept the reality or not, we are killing off categories of the food chain without consideration. We have done this in only really the last 70 years. We have yet to feel the true effects of what we are doing, as well as its hard to feel the real effects of what we are doing today because our actions are accelerating. 5 years from now will be even more significant it our rate of destruction than 5 years ago. Climate change especially we do not understand. We are at the infant stages of understanding the climate of this planet and the forces that are at work that change it, from a slow and steady rate to a catastrophic rate.

Not really sure why people waste so much time arguing over products and companies. If you have a problem with climate change, do something about it. Be an example of what you can do. I've tried to eliminate using plastic waste and its impossible. Not everyone has tens of thousands of dollars to invest in electric sustainable energy whether that be an EV or getting their households off fossil fuels, but we can try. Never in the history of the planet has CO2 been the primary driving factor of climate change, so its hard for me to sit here and agree with one side's climate change argument. I dont think anyone really knows, because if they did the science and numbers are there and theres no dispute.

The political aspect of this stems from the fact that there is a shitload of money involved here and policy can be passed. Research does not get funded if the basis of the research is not to investigate human activity in regards to climate change, so most of the studies are not figuring out natural variations in climate as compared to exclusively human activity.

This is a very complicated problem here that one variable such as CO2 cannot possibly be solely responsible for (especially considering we do not fully understand how our planets climate works), in the same way that lack of exercise cannot possibly be solely responsible for someone being obese. This is how i'll leave this topic because not a single discussion i've had so far on these forums about anything climate change related has been at all productive.

andy.connor.e | 25 november 2019

@Darth

I think the main problem with your mentality, is that you cannot look at the bigger picture here. You can only put two specification tables next to eachother and claim one is better. What you're not considering is that the point here is NOT the specification tables and how they compare, that is EVs vs ICEVs. Thats not the point. The point for the company themselves is that they have no choice but to care about that because thats the way you be a competitive company with a competitive product. The point you're missing is that this is the technological solution our planet needs, and we should support it. If you cant think on that level, you and i have nothing in common to talk about.

SCCRENDO | 25 november 2019

@andy. Modern humans probably started diverging around 70000 years ago. See "Sapiens" by Yuval Harari

andy.connor.e | 25 november 2019

Just saying. We should not be so casual about society today. Its extremely fragile.

jimglas | 25 november 2019

Shut down the power grid
We are 3 days away from anarchy

andy.connor.e | 25 november 2019

Give it a week or 2 and people start dying.

andy.connor.e | 25 november 2019

Imagine how many people would die if they did not have access to electricity for those in medical needs, old people requiring electricity to get up and down the stairs. Wheelchairs? You have no idea how fragile our society is.

andy.connor.e | 25 november 2019

I'd be dead in a couple months. Its a little freaky to think about.

Darthamerica | 25 november 2019

Andy, you should consider what you're saying. Look at human lifespans and prosperity for the last 100+ years. You want to stop that progress for a problem you admit is not proven and that if it does exist it is not known how much influence we have on it? Also, you'll notice that the zealots are so US centric in their suggestions. They never consider the rest of the world. China, India, Africa are not going to retard their development and growth to please radical far left California liberals.

andy.connor.e | 25 november 2019

@Darth

What progress is being stopped?

NKYTA | 25 november 2019

Burning more dinosaurs.

andy.connor.e | 25 november 2019

If you want any productive talk at all with @Darth, stop being sarcastic and let him respond.

MitchP85D | 25 november 2019

Darth, exactly. California leebruls direct their ire at America. The country that has actually DECREASED our CO2 emissions over the past two decades! They don't want to offend their totalitarian buddies overseas.

SCCRENDO | 25 november 2019

But not enough. And the Trump regime is pushing back on the progress needed

Darthamerica | 25 november 2019

Andy there's a direct correlation between energy consumption, transportation cost and life expectancy. Remember that America isn't the entire world. California even less so. The world needs cheap plentiful energy to grow. Right now that means fossil fuels in abundance. There's no escape from that...

andy.connor.e | 25 november 2019

What is the argument here? There are too many topics or points being thrown into the conversation to know what to respond to. How about we set the foundation of this discussion? What problematic topic are we going to start with? You pick i dont care but just pick one.

SCCRENDO | 25 november 2019

Darth is a Russian troll who pops up with stock messages when you push certain buttons. When you talk above switching the world to EVs he has half a dozen unsubstantiated statements as to why we are wasting our time. At least he hasn't blamed the Ukranians yet.

Darthamerica | 25 november 2019

Fair enough and agreed Andy, let's deal with one point at a time. Climate change happens. But to what extent it is influenced by humans is not well understood, has never been accurately modeled and that should be a gate to determining what if any regulatory and legislative actions are taken. An analogy being would you agree to major surgery without knowing you had a problem?

andy.connor.e | 25 november 2019

That is a good analogy. I would never have surgery if i did not understand the problem first, which is the same as the climate issue since we do not yet fully understand how the climate works.

Where im torn is what do we do? Do we just keep continuing with the way we are going, or do we try to limit our impacts until we can understand better the impacts that we are having?

andy.connor.e | 25 november 2019

Not to keep talking without letting you respond, but look at it from learning from our mistakes. We did not fully understand the impacts of letting industrial manufacturing dump 100% of pollutants into the air. We did not fully understand the impacts of dumping trash and hazardous materials into lakes, rivers and the ocean. Now there is regulatory agencies to prevent that. Had we known in hindsight the impacts of our decisions we could have prevented all of that in the first place. To me its the same, just a larger can of worms. Should we learn from our history and decide maybe this time we should act in a responsible matter especially when we know what we are doing is causing an increase in CO2 and methane levels in the atmosphere? I certainly think so. I think that marks an intelligent and responsible species.

Darthamerica | 25 november 2019

Andy look at the way we are going. We have Tesla, Porsche, Ford... We have billions being spent on R&D for things like fusion. We have residential solar. Every generation of ICE gets more efficient and cleaner. My point is that we are doing it already. But it's going to take time for the technologies to mature. There is no need to force feed green deals down people's throats.

andy.connor.e | 25 november 2019

No one would disagree things are getting better. But the dispute i think is between our society as a whole mutually agreeing on a speed of transitioning off fossil fuels. I dont really hold the podium to decide that. Despite everything we have in place today, many of the large automobile manufacturers are not developing EVs, and have actually tried to reduce the emissions limitations that a state like California has in place. That violates ethicality in my mind.

Pages