Electric Cars

AronRa

Administrator
One can fill up a gas powered car with enough fuel to last a week in about 5 minutes or less. The area required to keep a city full of battery powered car depends on the amount of time it takes to charge the battery. It takes a considerable longer amount of time to charge a cars battery than it does to fill a tank with gasoline. There is not enough space in the city I live in to provide charging stations for all of us who want to own cars. Plus no one is talking about the added strain on the electrical grid.
We have a Kia Niro EV. We have 250 miles of range and only need to charge once or twice a week. We charge from home overnight, and it is so cheap that I can't even see the difference on our electric bill. It's like six cents a minute or something like that, and the performance is amazing!
 

We are Borg

Administrator
Staff member
We have a Kia Niro EV. We have 250 miles of range and only need to charge once or twice a week. We charge from home overnight, and it is so cheap that I can't even see the difference on our electric bill. It's like six cents a minute or something like that, and the performance is amazing!
People think they need lots of miles of range, but most people do not drive that far per day. But more loading stations would be nice.
 

he_who_is_nobody

Well-Known Member
What is not confirmed is weather or not our interference results in something catastrophic.

Wrong, and I already provided you with the citation that proves that.

I would consider Ice ages catastrophic but those exist regardless.

Red herring.

I am highly skeptical to this ...

You mean denial.

... and even more skeptical of other statements about going green at all costs or otherwise in the utmost degree.

Me too.
 

he_who_is_nobody

Well-Known Member
I'm inclined to agree with this. It's way outside of my usual small sphere of topics I engage with, and as such I don't know if it's a good argument or not, just for total transparency. But what is clear is there was an ice age (at least one) and that thawed on its own without humans whizzing around in Ferrari's and flying planes all over the place.

Again, no idea if there's a good counter to that, perhaps there is, I just don't know enough about it and haven't spent much time on it.

This is actually a terrible argument and ignores that scientists have known that the earth's climate is unstable for a century. Honestly, do you really think that climate researchers (which include geologists, archaeologists, physicists, and chemists) were not taking something like that into account?
 

*SD*

Administrator
Staff member
Honestly, do you really think that climate researchers (which include geologists, archaeologists, physicists, and chemists) were not taking something like that into account?

No, which is why I made no such argument. I explicitly stated that I didn't know if the point I raised was a good one or not, and that I was open to it being blown out of the water. However, there isn't anything false in what I said, unless you want to deny that there have been previous warm up and cool down events with regards planet Earth. Which I'm sure you don't deny, so I don't know what you're attacking here.
 

*SD*

Administrator
Staff member
Fantastic. Doesn't contradict anything I said. Not saying you you alleged a contradiction, it just pisses me off when people want to take me to task and can't point out a single falsehood in the claims I actually made, rather than the ones they imagined I made.
 

BoganUSAFFLClerk

Active Member
Non-sequitur. Would you mind reading the citation I provided? Remember, your ignorance is not an argument.
Your citation has NOTHING to do with the argument I am making.

Milankovitch (Orbital) Cycles have NEVER been used as an argument by me.​

Your conclusion that your source has something to do with what I am arguing is literally a non sequitur.

Capture.PNG

Now if ice ages exist without the age of industry of man then obviously heavy industry isn't necessarily creating ice ages or conditions that create them.
 

he_who_is_nobody

Well-Known Member
Your citation has NOTHING to do with the argument I am making.

Yes, it does, if only you would read it for comprehension.

Milankovitch (Orbital) Cycles have NEVER been used as an argument by me.

Milankovitch Cycles are the main cause of the Ice Ages; thus, being used even if you did not realize it. All this is explained in the citation.

Your conclusion that your source has something to do with what I am arguing is literally a non sequitur.

Wrong. It deals with the heart of the argument.

Now if ice ages exist without the age of industry of man then obviously heavy industry isn't necessarily creating ice ages or conditions that create them.

Correct and explained in the said citation. Your argument is a non sequitur for the topic of this thread.
 

BoganUSAFFLClerk

Active Member
Milankovitch Cycles are the main cause of the Ice Ages; thus, being used even if you did not realize it. All this is explained in the citation.
No the main argument about ice ages would be the green house effect brought about by supposed green house gases produced by human industry.

This is why people argue that humans are responsible for climate change. Human industry causes climate change is the argument not Milankovitch Cycles.

Ironically again the title of the thread is about electric cars. The implication being electric cars being better for the environment due to less emissions i.e. human industry.

So no literally Milankovitch Cycles have nothing to do with the arguments of climate change or ice ages. Literally a non sequitur.
 

he_who_is_nobody

Well-Known Member
No the main argument about ice ages would be the green house effect brought about by supposed green house gases produced by human industry.

You seemed very confused. No scientists are arguing that the greenhouse effect is going to cause an Ice Age. However, I saw that you were making this mistake, so I tried to educate you about it with my citation. You really do not have to look this foolish all the time.


This is why people argue that humans are responsible for climate change. Human industry causes climate change is the argument not Milankovitch Cycles.

Again, scientists argue that humans are responsible for climate change based on evidence. If you read the citation, I provided you would already know this. Unfortunately, your knowledge about climate change appears to be as shallow as your knowledge about the CoViD vaccines. Is anyone surprised by that?

So no literally Milankovitch Cycles have nothing to do with the arguments of climate change or ice ages. Literally a non sequitur.

Exactly! Because our emissions causing an Ice Age is not an argument science is making. So you are right; you were making a non sequitur. We agree.
 

BoganUSAFFLClerk

Active Member
You seemed very confused. No scientists are arguing that the greenhouse effect is going to cause an Ice Age. However, I saw that you were making this mistake, so I tried to educate you about it with my citation. You really do not have to look this foolish all the time.




Again, scientists argue that humans are responsible for climate change based on evidence. If you read the citation, I provided you would already know this. Unfortunately, your knowledge about climate change appears to be as shallow as your knowledge about the CoViD vaccines. Is anyone surprised by that?



Exactly! Because our emissions causing an Ice Age is not an argument science is making. So you are right; you were making a non sequitur. We agree.
You are ridiculous. The definition of Non sequitur means a conclusion or statement that does not follow from the previous statement or argument. OBVIOUSLY if we are literally arguing in a thread about ELECTRIC CARS and somehow you think your citation has something to do with the previous argument made and I quote:
1.PNG
Obviously if I am arguing that ice ages happen regardless of industry and we are speaking about VEHICLES and about industry then what does Orbital Cycles have to do with warming?

YOUR OWN SOURCE EVEN SAYS: "WHY THE MILANKOVITCH (ORBITAL) CYCLES CAN'T EXPLAIN EARTH'S CURRENT WARNING."

If it has NOTHING to do with warming then why address it to heavy industry argument made by me and others when they argue that climate change can generate ice ages?

I am LITERALLY not making the argument that such cycles cause ice ages therefore non sequitur. It literally doesn't follow to what I am arguing which also means it is a strawman.
 
Last edited:

he_who_is_nobody

Well-Known Member
You are ridiculous. The definition of Non sequitur means a conclusion or statement that does not follow from the previous statement or argument. OBVIOUSLY if we are literally arguing in a thread about ELECTRIC CARS and somehow you think your citation has something to do with the previous argument made and I quote:
1.PNG
Obviously if I am arguing that ice ages happen regardless of industry and we are speaking about VEHICLES and about industry then what does Orbital Cycles have to do with warming?

I was pointing out that we know what caused Ice Ages. See how they have nothing to do with industry and how you bring them up is a non sequitur? See how that citation only addresses the first two sentences where you are talking about Ice Ages and industry? Looking back at my comment, I only addressed those first two sentences with that citation. Why you chose to take a screenshot of your whole comment when I only address a small part of it is beyond me.

YOUR OWN SOURCE EVEN SAYS: "WHY THE MILANKOVITCH (ORBITAL) CYCLES CAN'T EXPLAIN EARTH'S CURRENT WARNING."

Yes, and it also explains how they explain Ice Ages, which is why I used it to respond to those two sentences. It also goes over what is causing the current warming.

If it has NOTHING to do with warming then why address it to heavy industry argument made by me and others when they argue that climate change can generate ice ages?

First off, what others? Do you have a mouse in your pocket? You are the only one making that argument about our current predicament, and science is not. My point was to educate you on what causes Ice Ages and give you a good source explaining why current climate change is not happening naturally but is caused by industry. Said citation did precisely that.

You appear so ignorant of this subject that you cannot even form an argument that is not made of straw.

I am LITERALLY not making the argument that such cycles cause ice ages therefore non sequitur.

I know you were not arguing that because you were ignorant of what causes them, thus the citation.

It literally doesn't follow to what I am arguing which also means it is a strawman.

That is because you are ignorant of what causes Ice Ages and the arguments for anthropogenic climate change. However, could you prove me wrong? In this thread about electric cars, how is discussing that Ice Ages happened without industry follow? Remember to provide your citations.
 

BoganUSAFFLClerk

Active Member
I was pointing out that we know what caused Ice Ages. See how they have nothing to do with industry and how you bring them up is a non sequitur? See how that citation only addresses the first two sentences where you are talking about Ice Ages and industry? Looking back at my comment, I only addressed those first two sentences with that citation. Why you chose to take a screenshot of your whole comment when I only address a small part of it is beyond me.

Yes, and it also explains how they explain Ice Ages, which is why I used it to respond to those two sentences. It also goes over what is causing the current warming.

First off, what others? Do you have a mouse in your pocket? You are the only one making that argument about our current predicament, and science is not. My point was to educate you on what causes Ice Ages and give you a good source explaining why current climate change is not happening naturally but is caused by industry. Said citation did precisely that.
You appear so ignorant of this subject that you cannot even form an argument that is not made of straw.

I know you were not arguing that because you were ignorant of what causes them, thus the citation.

That is because you are ignorant of what causes Ice Ages and the arguments for anthropogenic climate change. However, could you prove me wrong? In this thread about electric cars, how is discussing that Ice Ages happened without industry follow? Remember to provide your citations.
1) I don't care how climate change or ice ages are made I am here with an interest about electric cars or technology.

2) The topic of the thread is about electric cars. If you want to talk about technology related to electric cars go right ahead.

3) You making an argument to my literal non argument of NOT explaining how ice ages or climate change is made is a literal strawman and literal non sequitur.

4) If ice ages happened regardless of human industry and ice ages are a form of climate change then we know it is possible for climate change to happen without human industry as it has happened before literally without such a massive system as it produced several ice ages.

Remember: 1 don't care about climate change I care about technology, 2 the topic is said technology, 3 I am not making a positive claim about climate change I am simply stating an observation, 4 it is true that ice ages happened without human industry as during their existence without the presence of modern man or man at all.
 
Top