Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
cobran20

The Dirt on Clean Electric Cars

45 posts in this topic

10 hours ago, tor said:

Weird arse question. If prices go up but I don't think they went up because of global cooling? if prices don't go up but global cooling happens?

If prices go up I will agree that someone that predicted prices would go up is correct. If they don't I would say they were wrong.

Every predictor using 2 or 3 levels of predictions has so many get out free clauses I disregard them.

I believe Armstrong has predicted overall global cooling due to sunspots. I am fully expecting him to die or claim methodological issues in measurements.

If Armstrong has predicted higher basic food prices I agree this will happen somewhere but it would happen with global warming, global cooling or global nothing (it happened a few years back, rice in Indonesia if I remember correctly). Climate change doesn't have to be involved.

If he is predicting emergency style prices for staples worldwide (weird as there are beans, rice, potatoes, and wheat which all respond differently) because of global cooling what is his suggestion? If he is saying we all sit still and die I am not super interested even if he is correct.

He has clearly predicted higher commodity prices due to drought caused by global cooling (ie. no evaporation to generate rain!).

Basic supply & demand theory regarding prices. Pretty straight forward.

Obfuscating again?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/20/2018 at 9:18 AM, cobran20 said:

At this rate, it will be a miracle if Tesla remains solvent much longer. In case you haven't noticed, they are not being profitable and it is only a question as to how much longer before their bond holders pull the pin. If you bothered to read the article without your 'cool sh!t' bias, it explains clearly the cost & pollution created in the manufacture of EVs, which the public doesn't get told as it against the 'clean image' being publicised.

Corporate fleet vehicles (which constitute a large portion of sales) are churned on average 3-4 years. So what type of car will their bean counters recommend? Unless of course the government forces the issue and we end up with higher TOC on owning cars, like our electricity prices.

Then there are the hidden taxes nobody has talked about. If the government doesn't get fuel excise revenues, what will be charged on EV's - distance based tax? Why isn't that being explained.

Also, if there is a big move to EVs, what reliable source of electricity generation will be used?

But all those questions don't matter ... as long as it is cool sh!t' technology.

Perhaps Musk will do a Houdini after all..

Tesla's Stock Soars 15% After Blowout Earnings as Model 3 Deliveries Rise

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, cobran20 said:

He has clearly predicted higher commodity prices due to drought caused by global cooling (ie. no evaporation to generate rain!).

Basic supply & demand theory regarding prices. Pretty straight forward.

Obfuscating again?

I thought I was pretty clear. Linking two things gives me (and him) a lot of outs. Rice went up like crazy a few years back without either global cooling or change or f*cking anything related. No one on either side is going to agree the other side is right on that type of idea.

Personally I think armstrong is good at gold, mediocre at markets and sh*te at science.

Would I change my mind on his science credentials if rice prices go up? No.

Would I consider him one of those weird arse f*ckers that turn up in history occasionally (note occasionally) if a bunch of scientists start checking out his idea and it turns out to be correct? f*ck yeah. But at the moment he is claiming something that I learned in stats first year as I am sure you did. Sunspots are linked to everything if you are a sh*tty mathematician. The miniskirt correlation for example. Armstrong hasn't done much to show me much more than that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, tor said:

I thought I was pretty clear. Linking two things gives me (and him) a lot of outs. Rice went up like crazy a few years back without either global cooling or change or f*cking anything related. No one on either side is going to agree the other side is right on that type of idea.

Personally I think armstrong is good at gold, mediocre at markets and sh*te at science.

Would I change my mind on his science credentials if rice prices go up? No.

Would I consider him one of those weird arse f*ckers that turn up in history occasionally (note occasionally) if a bunch of scientists start checking out his idea and it turns out to be correct? f*ck yeah. But at the moment he is claiming something that I learned in stats first year as I am sure you did. Sunspots are linked to everything if you are a sh*tty mathematician. The miniskirt correlation for example. Armstrong hasn't done much to show me much more than that.

You were obviously a bit to inebriated at the time you read  my question. So I'll ask again and highlight it for you:

He has clearly predicted higher commodity prices due to drought caused by global cooling

It is a very specific forecast that he has made. As you may have noticed from some of the newspaper articles I have posted, it has began to occur already in countries located in both hemispheres.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, cobran20 said:

You were obviously a bit to inebriated at the time you read  my question. So I'll ask again and highlight it for you:

He has clearly predicted higher commodity prices due to drought caused by global cooling

It is a very specific forecast that he has made. As you may have noticed from some of the newspaper articles I have posted, it has began to occur already in countries located in both hemispheres.

How are you going to know if it cooling or not? You don’t trust any measurements.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, cobran20 said:

You were obviously a bit to inebriated at the time you read  my question. So I'll ask again and highlight it for you:

He has clearly predicted higher commodity prices due to drought caused by global cooling

It is a very specific forecast that he has made. As you may have noticed from some of the newspaper articles I have posted, it has began to occur already in countries located in both hemispheres.

If prices go up he can say "caused by drought which was caused by cooling" and I can say "no it was drought caused by el nino" or "the price was caused by government policy" or whatever. How are you going to measure the relationship? If you and staringclown can't even agree how to measure global temperature how do you expect anyone to agree on 3 measurements and the causal relationships?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, tor said:

If prices go up he can say "caused by drought which was caused by cooling" and I can say "no it was drought caused by el nino" or "the price was caused by government policy" or whatever. How are you going to measure the relationship? If you and staringclown can't even agree how to measure global temperature how do you expect anyone to agree on 3 measurements and the causal relationships?

Pure BS. If there were ongoing frosts and no new government taxes, there is only one cause. It is fairly easy to discern ... unlike global warming.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, cobran20 said:

Pure BS. If there were ongoing frosts and no new government taxes, there is only one cause. It is fairly easy to discern ... unlike global warming.

So climate change is complex and to difficult to measure unless the measurement of temperature agrees with your world view? In which case all other variables can be discounted as having any influence?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, staringclown said:

So climate change is complex and to difficult to measure unless the measurement of temperature agrees with your world view? In which case all other variables can be discounted as having any influence?

So crops on both hemispheres can suffer due to frost but the earth can still  boil? How are those predictions coming along. So far the globull warmists seem to have scored 0% over the last 30 years.

BTW, isn't the ice in the artic supposed to just about have disappeared ... and it is only autumn there:

Solution to cancelled barges 'comes a bit late,' says N.W.T. MLA

Quote

Barge service to Paulatuk, N.W.T., and the western Nunavut communities of Cambridge Bay and Kugluktuk, as well as a Nunavut gold mine, has been cancelled due to extreme ice conditions.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Evidence please. I'm not the one that disputes every measure of temperature. That'd be you champ. And BTW, I'm not asking for bloggers opinions or some sh*t that you drag up from your denial site links from arseholes that don't have a clue what the f*ck they're talking about. Actual evidence of frost damage in both hemispheres if you please. Broad scale frost damage caused by global cooling across the world leading to massive crop damage as is your claim. I won't hold my breath.

You're all over the shop trying to prove _something_. Try arguing with more than just hearsay.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One point you don't seem to grasp is that once you dispute the very data gathering of temperature, you have assigned yourself to irrelevancy. You can no longer have a position in the debate. You've effectively stated that no-one knows what the global temperature is doing, least of all you, so you have relinquished all claims to any further argument on the subject. Checkmate old boy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, staringclown said:

Evidence please. I'm not the one that disputes every measure of temperature. That'd be you champ. And BTW, I'm not asking for bloggers opinions or some sh*t that you drag up from your denial site links from arseholes that don't have a clue what the f*ck they're talking about. Actual evidence of frost damage in both hemispheres if you please. Broad scale frost damage caused by global cooling across the world leading to massive crop damage as is your claim. I won't hold my breath.

You're all over the shop trying to prove _something_. Try arguing with more than just hearsay.

Evidence of what - the incorrect forecasts? That I have already posted on the other thread, going back from 1989 when the theory started. Where is one the scientists made that has materialised? For that matter, is there one from them on what the climate will be over the next 5 years? Any mention from them of the current records  being broken to the downside?

Evidence requested indeed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, staringclown said:

One point you don't seem to grasp is that once you dispute the very data gathering of temperature, you have assigned yourself to irrelevancy. You can no longer have a position in the debate. You've effectively stated that no-one knows what the global temperature is doing, least of all you, so you have relinquished all claims to any further argument on the subject. Checkmate old boy.

How you arrived at such conclusions is beyond me. Perhaps you're drinking the same staff as Tor? Armstrong's forecast is very specific and that is our bet. Are you now telling me that if his event materialises, it is consistent with global warming theory?

Based on forecasts made, it is the proponents of global warming who have NFI. I only follow those who have made accurate forecasts more consistently than a broken clock, certainly not those who are worse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How did I arrive at my conclusions?

When I proposed using the satellite data as a measure of temperature you rejected the idea due to a giant conspiracy of climate scientists. I thought OK, how about using the data from the people that actually measure the temperatures using thermometers at weather stations.

I think I first passed through the looking glass when you started arguing that temperatures couldn't be reliably measured using thermometers. This was a revelation to me. A conspiracy of such magnitude was unfathomable. The coordination required to engineer this conspiracy this big would be so complicated. Especially, the involvement of the conservative weather station operators. Surely they'd call out any fraudulent doctoring of their own reported data?

Anyhow, I was now in Bizzaro world and so asked what measure you would accept? You came back with agricultural commodity prices as a surrogate measure of global cooling. Tor had already pointed out that these prices do not have a sole dependency on temperature and there are a bunch of other variables that affect these prices. Disease, pests, bad farmers, market manipulation, good farming, oversupply - more farming of a lucrative crop, storage of last years crop etc. So price is a really bad surrogate measure for climate change. 

It was about now that I considered I'd passed through Bizzaro world and entered Bat sh*t crazy world. I thought while I'm visiting I might as well come up with my own surrogate for measuring climate change. Here it is:

Hedgehogs per square inch.

Hear me out. Hedgehogs are tricky little bastards. They can hide easily in long grass. This means if I get out there and start measuring hedgehogs over a wide enough area then less hedgehog count means more grass. Clearly more grass means there must be less cows. Less cows means less bovine flatulence. Methane is a major greenhouse gas therefore less bovine flatulence means less methane and lower temperatures. So I'll start surveying hedgehogs and if I find less over the next few years then I'll concede that global warming isn't real. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, staringclown said:

How did I arrive at my conclusions?

When I proposed using the satellite data as a measure of temperature you rejected the idea due to a giant conspiracy of climate scientists. I thought OK, how about using the data from the people that actually measure the temperatures using thermometers at weather stations.

I think I first passed through the looking glass when you started arguing that temperatures couldn't be reliably measured using thermometers. This was a revelation to me. A conspiracy of such magnitude was unfathomable. The coordination required to engineer this conspiracy this big would be so complicated. Especially, the involvement of the conservative weather station operators. Surely they'd call out any fraudulent doctoring of their own reported data?

Anyhow, I was now in Bizzaro world and so asked what measure you would accept? You came back with agricultural commodity prices as a surrogate measure of global cooling. Tor had already pointed out that these prices do not have a sole dependency on temperature and there are a bunch of other variables that affect these prices. Disease, pests, bad farmers, market manipulation, good farming, oversupply - more farming of a lucrative crop, storage of last years crop etc. So price is a really bad surrogate measure for climate change. 

It was about now that I considered I'd passed through Bizzaro world and entered Bat sh*t crazy world. I thought while I'm visiting I might as well come up with my own surrogate for measuring climate change. Here it is:

Hedgehogs per square inch.

Hear me out. Hedgehogs are tricky little bastards. They can hide easily in long grass. This means if I get out there and start measuring hedgehogs over a wide enough area then less hedgehog count means more grass. Clearly more grass means there must be less cows. Less cows means less bovine flatulence. Methane is a major greenhouse gas therefore less bovine flatulence means less methane and lower temperatures. So I'll start surveying hedgehogs and if I find less over the next few years then I'll concede that global warming isn't real. 

 

If Armstrong's forecast proves to be correct, then tell me how that would be compatible with global warming? Are we measuring the same planet?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/22/2018 at 7:33 PM, cobran20 said:

If you have to wait 15min to refill, I bet that people will soon be pissed off to say the least. My 2ltr diesel has a comfortable range of over 400km/refill.

But what they won't tell you is how the government will replace the tax revenues they earn on fossil fuels. Right now it looks great not to pay for the high petrol prices. But once when they become common, you can bet your life they will be taxed (my guess is a hefty mileage based tax). Nothing also said regarding the infrastructure to generate enough electricity to power thousands of electric cars & trucks.

The new electric vehicle highway is a welcome gear shift, but other countries are still streets ahead

Quote

...

Now that there’s some movement afoot from both parties, there’s a third player to consider: the electricity utilities.

If most electric vehicle owners plug in their vehicle when they get home from work of an evening – just as many of us let our phone run down during the day and then throw it on the kitchen-bench charger when we walk in the door – this could pose significant problems for the electricity grid.

According to one British estimate, as few as six cars charging at the same time on a street at peak times could lead to local brownouts (a drop in voltage supply). That might sound extreme, but it’s fair to say that daily electric car charging collectively shortens the life of electricity infrastructure such as transformers.

For this reason, my colleagues and I have researched smart charging strategies aimed at preventing the peak load period for electric car charging from overlapping with the residential peak.

The issue is even more acute when using domestic renewable energy, because of the “duck curve” – which shows the timing imbalance between peak demand and peak renewable energy production. As the name suggests, the graph is shaped like a duck.

The duck curve can be smoothed out with the help of power storage technologies such as batteries, and by behavioural change on the part of consumers (such as temporal load shifting)....

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, tor said:

It was 400km range you wanted right?

https://jalopnik.com/the-2020-kia-soul-ev-gets-much-better-range-and-deserve-1830748157

What's next on your complaint list?

A range based on real driving rather than 'potential' for a start. That is a bit like the fuel economy car manufacturers quote on cars with petrol/diesel motors - total BS for real driving undertaken by everyday drivers. Then there is availability of fast charging across the country, 4WD owners will have their needs. All possible ... eventually.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IMO, a step in the right direction to help the uptake of EVs. But it still has a long way to match the refueling time/distance of a fossil fuel vehicle.

link

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0