NotebookCHECK - Notebook Forum

Too little too late. Te rules for pickups should have been introduced 20 years ago. Repugnant vehicles and now the rest of the world is seeing an upsurge in sales of these US gas guzzling behemoths

Quote from: Mr Majestyk on July 29, 2023, 04:57:42Too little too late. Te rules for pickups should have been introduced 20 years ago. Repugnant vehicles and now the rest of the world is seeing an upsurge in sales of these US gas guzzling behemoths

Unfortunately, much of the US sees bigger vehicles as safer, despite the reality of it being a little more complex. It also doesn't help matters that you feel very unsafe in a small car when you're surrounded by giant SUVs and pickups.

A punishing trifecta for the American people. This is indistinguishable from Soviet policy. Why do government hate the people they represent? Force manufacturers to increase costs and truck weight, then ban heavy trucks, forcing people into small cars. Get a Yugo or a Lada for our greater Soviet cause?

Now... in the future we have massive environmental problems from the huge amount of minerals and metals required for batteries and "renewable" electrical generation. All the while, the idea that CO2 is warming the world is still an unproven hypothesis, the idea that that warming is bad is unproven, there is no increase in extreme weather, and crop production is increasing, mainly due to CO2 fertilisation. Ideal CO2 for plants is 1500ppm. Best way to help the planet is to keep your old gas-guzzling car. No mining or production needed, and you put plant food out the exhaust.

IMHO, every change that reduces or regulates unnecessary usage of SUVs / trucks is never a bad thing. It is a bit too late, a bit too little, but every small change might at least help by a small portion or slow the process.
If every new truck or SUV be at least a hybrid, it would certainly do something as well.

Quote from: Anti-propaganda man on July 29, 2023, 12:36:04A punishing trifecta for the American people. This is indistinguishable from Soviet policy. Why do government hate the people they represent? Force manufacturers to increase costs and truck weight, then ban heavy trucks, forcing people into small cars. Get a Yugo or a Lada for our greater Soviet cause?

Now... in the future we have massive environmental problems from the huge amount of minerals and metals required for batteries and "renewable" electrical generation. All the while, the idea that CO2 is warming the world is still an unproven hypothesis, the idea that that warming is bad is unproven, there is no increase in extreme weather, and crop production is increasing, mainly due to CO2 fertilisation. Ideal CO2 for plants is 1500ppm. Best way to help the planet is to keep your old gas-guzzling car. No mining or production needed, and you put plant food out the exhaust.

So nice the Exxon CEO or antiscience or delusional Qanon angertainment fascist spews his carbon-industrial-complex propaganda.

Quote from: Anti-propaganda man on July 29, 2023, 12:36:04A punishing trifecta for the American people. This is indistinguishable from Soviet policy. Why do government hate the people they represent? Force manufacturers to increase costs and truck weight, then ban heavy trucks, forcing people into small cars. Get a Yugo or a Lada for our greater Soviet cause?

Now... in the future we have massive environmental problems from the huge amount of minerals and metals required for batteries and "renewable" electrical generation. All the while, the idea that CO2 is warming the world is still an unproven hypothesis, the idea that that warming is bad is unproven, there is no increase in extreme weather, and crop production is increasing, mainly due to CO2 fertilisation. Ideal CO2 for plants is 1500ppm. Best way to help the planet is to keep your old gas-guzzling car. No mining or production needed, and you put plant food out the exhaust.

For someone calling themselves anti-propoganda you sure speak nothing but propoganda.

1) Nobody is banning anything, all it does is set emissions standards. How manufacturers go about it is up to them. Why do you think those people driving ICE cars should be privileged with the right to harm others?

2) Switch to EVs and renewables would actually reduce the amount of mining. And that is not factoring recycling, add in the fact that its all recycled and its a no brainer

3) CO2 and other GHG warming the world is pretty well known, you can do the test yourself as a science project. Fill up a closed area with same composition as our atmosphere and measure the temperature. GHG are insulators that trap more of the sun's energy on earth. You think that has no consequences? Currently our oceans are acting as a heatsink, but even that has a tipping point

4) Ideal amount varies by plant, but its funny and naive how you think things have no consequences. More CO2 does make plants grow more, but there is 1 problem. And that is all that CO2 just turns into more carbs but it doesn't have the nutritional balance. It's not a big issue for processed food as they can just add more artificial nutrients but what about wildlife? What would happen if they take in more carbs but less nutrients? Yeah, ecosystem collapse

Quote from: antipropaganda on July 29, 2023, 22:58:03So nice the Exxon CEO or antiscience or delusional Qanon angertainment fascist spews his carbon-industrial-complex propaganda.

Let's count. That's seven absurd slanderous attacks and no replies to any content. It seems you're the angry lunatic buddy.

Quote from: A on July 30, 2023, 01:40:50For someone calling themselves anti-propoganda you sure speak nothing but propoganda.

1) Nobody is banning anything, all it does is set emissions standards. How manufacturers go about it is up to them. Why do you think those people driving ICE cars should be privileged with the right to harm others?

2) Switch to EVs and renewables would actually reduce the amount of mining. And that is not factoring recycling, add in the fact that its all recycled and its a no brainer

3) CO2 and other GHG warming the world is pretty well known, you can do the test yourself as a science project. Fill up a closed area with same composition as our atmosphere and measure the temperature. GHG are insulators that trap more of the sun's energy on earth. You think that has no consequences? Currently our oceans are acting as a heatsink, but even that has a tipping point

4) Ideal amount varies by plant, but its funny and naive how you think things have no consequences. More CO2 does make plants grow more, but there is 1 problem. And that is all that CO2 just turns into more carbs but it doesn't have the nutritional balance. It's not a big issue for processed food as they can just add more artificial nutrients but what about wildlife? What would happen if they take in more carbs but less nutrients? Yeah, ecosystem collapse

1. It's a de-facto ban. There is no environmental harm from CO2 emissions. If anything it's beneficial. There are other pollutants from vehicle exhaust which are harmful to human health in a busy city centre environment. These can be addressed through improvements in exhaust scrubbing, or by limiting older cars entering city centres.

2. Not true. See here: https://manhattan.institute/article/mines-minerals-and-green-energy-a-reality-check - wind turbine blades and solar panels are not recyclable. Battery and renewable production requires up to 10x the amount of mining.

3. CO2 is a greenhouse gas but the effect of increasing it is very small and not capable of doing the heavy lifting required to raise temperature. Doubling CO2 only increases its warming effect by 1%, as most warming is done within the first 50ppm concentration. This is never mentioned by media or government. Futhermore, most warming from CO2 occurs at night, when it's colder, so this is beneficial for nature. See here: https://clintel.org/carbon-dioxide-has-reached-a-point-of-diminishing-returns/

4. Yes, there is a slightly lower nutrient count but this is offset by the huge increase in production. This is really at the point of wanting to find something bad in every situation. It's a mindset that has been pushed on people by anti-scientific environmental propaganda: "Everything humans do is bad". The biosphere is more productive under high CO2 levels, as evidenced by the geological record. Rainforest soil is low in nutrients but is the most productive ecosystem due to very high vegetation growth.

Quote from: JoeBlack on July 29, 2023, 16:36:46IMHO, every change that reduces or regulates unnecessary usage of SUVs / trucks is never a bad thing. It is a bit too late, a bit too little, but every small change might at least help by a small portion or slow the process.
If every new truck or SUV be at least a hybrid, it would certainly do something as well.

Who defines what is unnecessary? I get you city boys don't need trucks. But a lot of the US is rural, farmland or forest. We do need trucks out here. Every week I'm hauling firewood, building materials or some other items that a little ev would not be able to carry in it's wildest dreams.

This kinda policy just punishes rural America, which is were your food comes from. So enjoy the massive increase in food prices, since it will be you guys paying the bill, not us.

Quote from: Wes on July 30, 2023, 16:35:39

Quote from: JoeBlack on July 29, 2023, 16:36:46IMHO, every change that reduces or regulates unnecessary usage of SUVs / trucks is never a bad thing. It is a bit too late, a bit too little, but every small change might at least help by a small portion or slow the process.
If every new truck or SUV be at least a hybrid, it would certainly do something as well.

Who defines what is unnecessary? I get you city boys don't need trucks. But a lot of the US is rural, farmland or forest. We do need trucks out here. Every week I'm hauling firewood, building materials or some other items that a little ev would not be able to carry in it's wildest dreams.

This kinda policy just punishes rural America, which is were your food comes from. So enjoy the massive increase in food prices, since it will be you guys paying the bill, not us.

A regulation or a law usually defines such situations - I am well aware that farming, working in the woods and many others job require a big vehicle, everyone is aware of that.
You might not like it, but every step to sustainability is pretty much necessary. You might not agree with that, but hopefully a lot of others will adjust their lifestyle if it is required by regulation or simply because they feel like it.

Quote from: Anti-propaganda man on July 30, 2023, 16:22:361. It's a de-facto ban. There is no environmental harm from CO2 emissions. If anything it's beneficial. There are other pollutants from vehicle exhaust which are harmful to human health in a busy city centre environment. These can be addressed through improvements in exhaust scrubbing, or by limiting older cars entering city centres.

It isn't a defecto ban, the requirement is set to 43.5mpg by 2032. Even the cheapest ICE car the Mirage gets 39mpg with today's tech. Then there is always the option of adding a small battery and making it a hybrid like a Prius which gets 56mpg. Aka, you can reach that regulation without a single EV.

But do note that the requirement is fleet average. What that means is if you sell enough higher mpg cars, you can still have even a 10mpg car.

Quote2. Not true. See here:  - wind turbine blades and solar panels are not recyclable. Battery and renewable production requires up to 10x the amount of mining.

Manhattan institute is a lobby group... weren't you anti-propaganda?

Wind turbine blades and solar panels are recyclable just fine.
Search for: "GE Renewable Energy Announces US Blade Recycling"

The confusion lies in the fact that at this time wind turbine blades aren't recycled into other wind turbine blades. Full loop is what is needed to achieve true sustainability, but that shouldn't be confused with "not recyclable" as they are recyclable into construction material just fine

Solar panels are also recyclable, they are mostly made of glass and aluminum,
Search for: "Solar Panel Recycling | US EPA"

The issue with solar panel recycling is it costs around $15-25 to recycle compare to $5 to dump them. And as modern crystalline solar panels sold in US pose little environmental risk, they are often times dumped. But that shouldn't be confused with impossible to recycle, that is a lie

It also does not take 10x more mining, your propaganda article claims 500k lb per battery of mining, but if you look at their details:
"Cobalt ore grades average about 0.1%, thus nearly 30,000 pounds of ore.(e)
Nickel ore grades average about 1%, thus about 6,000 pounds of ore.(f)
Graphite ore is typically 10%, thus about 1,000 pounds per battery.(g)
Copper at about 0.6% in the ore, thus about 25,000 pounds of ore per battery.(h)
"

It claims 30k for cobalt, 6k for nickel and 25k from copper and it just adds them all up. But what they don't tell you is cobalt, nickel and copper come from the same mines! That means if you mine 30k for cobalt, you will already get all the copper and nickel with it. Adding it up is simply deceptive.

Then they go into silly thing like claiming 1k for graphite ore. Graphite or if you don't know is fancy word for high purity coal. But nobody uses natural graphite in batteries as it isn't pure enough. It is made synthetically. The fact that they don't know this is already shows how shabby their research is, or they don't care and intentionally make it deceptive

They also don't mention at all how much mining goes into making a gasoline car, as those require a lot of elements much rarer than anything that goes into an EV, like platinum.

Quote3. CO2 is a greenhouse gas but the effect of increasing it is very small and not capable of doing the heavy lifting required to raise temperature. Doubling CO2 only increases its warming effect by 1%, as most warming is done within the first 50ppm concentration. This is never mentioned by media or government. Futhermore, most warming from CO2 occurs at night, when it's colder, so this is beneficial for nature. See here

Clintel, another propaganda lobby group, you sure love those.

First of all, again as an insulator CO2, traps energy. And that heating effect stacks over time. This is why we aren't even seeing the full impact of climate change yet, we will only see it once we reach peak emissions and after a few decades pass

Second of all, the 50ppm is nonsense. Again, this is something anyone can test themselves via a simple science project. Currently, the earth's oceans are acting as a heatsink which is limiting the impact, but if you've ever worked with anything that overheats, once it reaches a tipping point things go down fast

Quote4. Yes, there is a slightly lower nutrient count but this is offset by the huge increase in production. This is really at the point of wanting to find something bad in every situation. It's a mindset that has been pushed on people by anti-scientific environmental propaganda: "Everything humans do is bad". The biosphere is more productive under high CO2 levels, as evidenced by the geological record. Rainforest soil is low in nutrients but is the most productive ecosystem due to very high vegetation growth.

What do you mean "slightly"? This isn't magic, if your nutritional count is 1X and your carbs are 1Y, if you double your carbs, your nutrition count stays the same. You can't get nutrition out of nowhere. The soil doesn't magically become more nutritious. You can offset that with supplements as I pointed out but what about wildlife? Wildlife will have one of 2 options, either end up malnutrition due to lack of nutrients in their regular diet. Or eat more vegetation leading to obesity.

The problem isn't in the end goal of "more productive" but everything it takes to get to that end goal. The rate of change is the problem, any time in our history where rate of change was too fast, it has led to mass extinctions. Because it doesn't matter what the ideal is, what matters is whether or not whats living there now is capable of surviving the sudden switch.

Your logic of "it's ideal at the other side" is like telling someone to walk through a large high speed fan pointing to the other side and saying look see there are people just fine on the other side of the fan, so walking through that grinder should be perfectly fine right?

Any rapid change is bad, human caused or not

Quote from: Mugen on July 30, 2023, 21:45:56Just more hot air media propaganda lies! Battery powered vehicles are simply gimmicks and they will never replace gasoline powered vehicles!  Battery powered vehicles are simply junk ! Overpriced n overrated!   Stop trying to sell us on the fear n control that climate change is going to kill us all in 5 years!  One big Globalist government hoax!  Climate change is natural n not man made!  Wake up before its too late you WoKe Libtard idiots!

Horseless carriages are simply a gimmick and will never replace the horse /s

Even if we ignore climate change, EVs are superior in pretty much almost every single way as cars. It doesn't mean they don't have downsides like all tech, but little by little even those are getting less of a problem.

That said, again, nothing in the new rules mandates EVs.

Quote from: A on July 30, 2023, 21:28:31It isn't a defecto ban, the requirement is set to 43.5mpg by 2032. Even the cheapest ICE car the Mirage gets 39mpg with today's tech. Then there is always the option of adding a small battery and making it a hybrid like a Prius which gets 56mpg. Aka, you can reach that regulation without a single EV.

But do note that the requirement is fleet average. What that means is if you sell enough higher mpg cars, you can still have even a 10mpg car.

Nit-picking. There's a plan to phase out (ban) the sale of internal combustion engines in light vehicles in the future. This is just a step to smooth the transition. As part of that, it's an unnecessary mandated imposition of cost on to the consumer.

Quote from: A on July 30, 2023, 21:28:31Manhattan institute is a lobby group... weren't you anti-propaganda?

Wind turbine blades and solar panels are recyclable just fine.
Search for: "GE Renewable Energy Announces US Blade Recycling"

The confusion lies in the fact that at this time wind turbine blades aren't recycled into other wind turbine blades. Full loop is what is needed to achieve true sustainability, but that shouldn't be confused with "not recyclable" as they are recyclable into construction material just fine

Solar panels are also recyclable, they are mostly made of glass and aluminum,
Search for: "Solar Panel Recycling | US EPA"

The issue with solar panel recycling is it costs around $15-25 to recycle compare to $5 to dump them. And as modern crystalline solar panels sold in US pose little environmental risk, they are often times dumped. But that shouldn't be confused with impossible to recycle, that is a lie

It also does not take 10x more mining, your propaganda article claims 500k lb per battery of mining, but if you look at their details:
"Cobalt ore grades average about 0.1%, thus nearly 30,000 pounds of ore.(e)
Nickel ore grades average about 1%, thus about 6,000 pounds of ore.(f)
Graphite ore is typically 10%, thus about 1,000 pounds per battery.(g)
Copper at about 0.6% in the ore, thus about 25,000 pounds of ore per battery.(h)
"

It claims 30k for cobalt, 6k for nickel and 25k from copper and it just adds them all up. But what they don't tell you is cobalt, nickel and copper come from the same mines! That means if you mine 30k for cobalt, you will already get all the copper and nickel with it. Adding it up is simply deceptive.

Then they go into silly thing like claiming 1k for graphite ore. Graphite or if you don't know is fancy word for high purity coal. But nobody uses natural graphite in batteries as it isn't pure enough. It is made synthetically. The fact that they don't know this is already shows how shabby their research is, or they don't care and intentionally make it deceptive

They also don't mention at all how much mining goes into making a gasoline car, as those require a lot of elements much rarer than anything that goes into an EV, like platinum.

From an International Energy Agency report (2022) - "A typical electric car requires six times the mineral inputs of a conventional car and an onshore wind plant requires nine times more mineral resources than a gas-fired plant." - https://www.iea.org/reports/the-role-of-critical-minerals-in-clean-energy-transitions/executive-summary

Have you ever dismissed an "environmental" lobby group for simply being a lobby group? Thought not. Cars in general are obviously resource intensive to produce. The best thing you can do for the environment is keep your old one running, not endlessly market, turn over, and sell unnecessary "new and better".

Solar panels contain toxic substances. Yes, technically recyclable but not actually recycled. Nit-picking. All current wind turbine blades go to landfill, lasting only 15 years! It's very wasteful. Maybe they could be recycled in the future. This is buried in small print and the average person doesn't know any of this because of the one-sided propaganda. They're not "sustainable", and like electric cars. also very expensive. Generation capacity will have to increase drastically to service electric vehicles, again pushing up costs.

QuoteClintel, another propaganda lobby group, you sure love those.

First of all, again as an insulator CO2, traps energy. And that heating effect stacks over time. This is why we aren't even seeing the full impact of climate change yet, we will only see it once we reach peak emissions and after a few decades pass

Second of all, the 50ppm is nonsense. Again, this is something anyone can test themselves via a simple science project. Currently, the earth's oceans are acting as a heatsink which is limiting the impact, but if you've ever worked with anything that overheats, once it reaches a tipping point things go down fast

CO2 warms less and less in a logarithmic fashion as concentrations increase, as you can see from the graphs in that summary (and many others). It's not nonsense, it's basic radiation science. The greenhouse effect of CO2 is already saturated and it's hard to add any significant warming. I know this may sound shocking, but it only does so because it hasn't been mentioned in 30 years of propaganda. The IPCC models are based on shaky assumptions of feedback effects, not CO2 itself. After 30 years their temp range for doubling CO2 is still a wide 1.8C-5.7C, with other scientists outside the organisation saying it may be 0.8C. if that's the case it means most of the warming in the past 50 years has been due to other causes.

QuoteWhat do you mean "slightly"? This isn't magic, if your nutritional count is 1X and your carbs are 1Y, if you double your carbs, your nutrition count stays the same. You can't get nutrition out of nowhere. The soil doesn't magically become more nutritious. You can offset that with supplements as I pointed out but what about wildlife? Wildlife will have one of 2 options, either end up malnutrition due to lack of nutrients in their regular diet. Or eat more vegetation leading to obesity.

The problem isn't in the end goal of "more productive" but everything it takes to get to that end goal. The rate of change is the problem, any time in our history where rate of change was too fast, it has led to mass extinctions. Because it doesn't matter what the ideal is, what matters is whether or not whats living there now is capable of surviving the sudden switch.

Your logic of "it's ideal at the other side" is like telling someone to walk through a large high speed fan pointing to the other side and saying look see there are people just fine on the other side of the fan, so walking through that grinder should be perfectly fine right?

Any rapid change is bad, human caused or not

Slightly means less than 10% decrease in nutrition, whereas the increase in productivity is an average of 50% for food crops as a whole - https://co2coalition.org/facts/more-co2-means-more-plant-growth/

The rate of increase in photosynthesis and primary productivity across the whole biosphere is really striking. It should be reported by media every day. The increase in temperature also helps crop growth and biosphere productivity to a lesser extent - https://theconversation.com/yes-more-carbon-dioxide-in-the-atmosphere-helps-plants-grow-but-its-no-excuse-to-downplay-climate-change-130603

As I mentioned the rainforests prove that nutritional value is not a limiting factor for vegetation or animal life. The majority of Earth's history had much higher CO2 levels, dinosaurs existed in an atmosphere of 4000ppm CO2. They obviously got their nutrition! Remember plants grow in cracks in concrete. They will grow anywhere. You do NOT need more water and sunlight for more growth when CO2 levels are higher. CO2 is the limiting factor.

Changes in the CO2 level, no matter the rate of change, have never led to mass extinctions. Drastic temperature changes have, but there's no evidence any in history have been caused by changes in CO2 levels. There is no giant fan or grinder. This whole episode in history looks like it's been a hysteria over nothing.

Quote from: Anti-propaganda man on July 30, 2023, 23:02:12Nit-picking. There's a plan to phase out (ban) the sale of internal combustion engines in light vehicles in the future. This is just a step to smooth the transition. As part of that, it's an unnecessary mandated imposition of cost on to the consumer.

There is currently no such plan. It might end up the end result, but there is no such plan for it. And overall EVs are cheaper to fuel, lower maintenance and once mass produced at same scale should be cheaper to build, so it is still a win-win.

QuoteFrom an International Energy Agency report (2022) - "A typical electric car requires six times the mineral inputs of a conventional car and an onshore wind plant requires nine times more mineral resources than a gas-fired plant."

Yeah, when you cherry pick your minerals. did you know that gasoline cars use infinite times more minerals than EVs? (since EVs don't use platinum). The link you gave only talks about certain minerals, not all minerals. All that means is some minerals will see increase production, while others will see decrease

QuoteHave you ever dismissed an "environmental" lobby group for simply being a lobby group? Thought not. Cars in general are obviously resource intensive to produce. The best thing you can do for the environment is keep your old one running, not endlessly market, turn over, and sell unnecessary "new and better".

I simply pointed out that all your stuff comes from lobby groups, but notice how I still responded to every point? I didn't dismiss anything.

QuoteSolar panels contain toxic substances. Yes, technically recyclable but not actually recycled. Nit-picking. All current wind turbine blades go to landfill, lasting only 15 years! It's very wasteful. Maybe they could be recycled in the future. This is buried in small print and the average person doesn't know any of this because of the one-sided propaganda. They're not "sustainable", and like electric cars. also very expensive. Generation capacity will have to increase drastically to service electric vehicles, again pushing up costs.

Toxic substances such as? Do understand, solar panels is a term for multiple different technologies. And the media loves to pretend we all use multi-junction cells that NASA uses which have all the technologies in 1. That isn't realistic. The most common solar panels are Crystalline ones, they don't posses anything that toxic in them. At least not the ones sold in US. Outside US, or grey market ones, some use lead in their soldering, but even then very little. But the ones you get installed on your roof today are lead free.

For recycling, you need scale to make it economic. Prior there simply wasn't enough of them to warrant the cost. But as pointed out, GE is already recycling their blades, all of them are not being sent to landfills. From June 2022 release "Veolia's work to support the ecological transformation of the planet through the "repurposing" of wind turbine blades is bringing environmental and economic benefits to Missouri. Since the program began in 2020, Veolia has processes more than 1,500 blades which have reached the end of their life cycle, making it possible to reuse the blade materials instead of disposing of the blades in landfills"

There is few people who don't know that wind blades were being dumped, its actually the opposite, few know about it being recycled. You sure didn't until I gave it to you.

And they are working on full recyclability so that they can reuse in new wind turbines, Vestas has already found a way without changing the turbines but looking to make it more affordable. While others like GE are looking towards new wind turbine blades which are easier to recycle into new wind turbine blades

Adoption of EVs would actually help reduce the cost of the grid, even more so if they do vehicle to grid.

QuoteCO2 warms less and less in a logarithmic fashion as concentrations increase, as you can see from the graphs in that summary (and many others). It's not nonsense, it's basic radiation science. The greenhouse effect of CO2 is already saturated and it's hard to add any significant warming. I know this may sound shocking, but it only does so because it hasn't been mentioned in 30 years of propaganda. The IPCC models are based on shaky assumptions of feedback effects, not CO2 itself. After 30 years their temp range for doubling CO2 is still a wide 1.8C-5.7C, with other scientists outside the organisation saying it may be 0.8C. if that's the case it means most of the warming in the past 50 years has been due to other causes.

Again, you are free to try the experiment yourself. The so called unknowns are the sinks, but you understand that the moment you overflow that sink, there is going to be rapid collapse right? You are just playing Russian roulette

QuoteSlightly means less than 10% decrease in nutrition, whereas the increase in productivity is an average of 50% for food crops as a whole -

The rate of increase in photosynthesis and primary productivity across the whole biosphere is really striking. It should be reported by media every day. The increase in temperature also helps crop growth and biosphere productivity to a lesser extent

Nutrition is not brought to plants by magical faeries. Do you know what nutrition is? It is elements that are in the soil. It is impossible for the soil to magically become more nutritious. There is only one of 2 options, either you have faster soil depletion or you get less nutrients, all would be in same proportion to plant growth. You can't make something out of nothing

QuoteAs I mentioned the rainforests prove that nutritional value is not a limiting factor for vegetation or animal life. The majority of Earth's history had much higher CO2 levels, dinosaurs existed in an atmosphere of 4000ppm CO2. They obviously got their nutrition! Remember plants grow in cracks in concrete. They will grow anywhere. You do NOT need more water and sunlight for more growth when CO2 levels are higher. CO2 is the limiting factor.

Again you keep jumping to end results forgetting about how to get there. Ecosystems evolve over time to facilitate the change, but rapid change meant mass extinctions along the way to that change. Dinosaurs put on lots of carbs to get their nutritional value, hence why they were so big. Cause they had to eat a lot to get the nutrients they needed. But current life isn't made for taking up lots of carbs, rainforests have their own ecosystems with organisms evolved for that ecosystem

QuoteChanges in the CO2 level, no matter the rate of change, have never led to mass extinctions. Drastic temperature changes have, but there's no evidence any in history have been caused by changes in CO2 levels. There is no giant fan or grinder. This whole episode in history looks like it's been a hysteria over nothing.

Any rapid change of anything has domino effect. That domino effect leads to changes elsewhere.

The point of the fan I am speaking of is for you to realize you don't just go from A straight to Z. There is B, C, D and etc. You only look at end result ignoring a giant spinning fan grinder simply because Z looks fine to you

As soon as electric cars become mainstream on the streets, electricity prices will go up 10 times. Who wants to argue with me (but not A, he already lost this argument earlier). =)

CAFE standards have been incentivising larger ICE vehicles since the early 90s. Is is impossible to meet the MPG requirements to even put a B500 type small pickup on the road. Reduce, Reuse and Recycle... Putting recycle first is a sham. Because of the regulations car manufacturers have not been able to reduce use of minerals and oil consumption in the production and operation of ICE vehicles. I would love to see the comparison between a modern B500 to a modern EV the cost to production would be ridiculous. All rare metals like palladium, rubidium and platinum are 100% reusable there is not a current method of reconditioning lithium cells let alone recycling them in such a way that doesn't completely negate the gross savings on energy and pollution. ICE cars and and it's byproducts besides plastic are easily broken down by plants and other natural means. Carbon dioxide is actually required by plants to even live. This 1967 pickup trucks are less permanently damaging than any modern vehicle by a large margin. If left in a field as proven over the past 70 years they return to the earth. But the biggest reason I can't use EVs comes down to temperature. Lithium cathodes break down under temps more than 140 degrees ferenheight. And battery chem reactions are really slow in cold temps. My trucks see both. There will be no chemical battery fuels car/truck that will be cost effective or reliable in the condition I work in. I'm holding out for hydrogen personally.

Quote from: NikoB on July 31, 2023, 14:34:58As soon as electric cars become mainstream on the streets, electricity prices will go up 10 times. Who wants to argue with me (but not A, he already lost this argument earlier). =)

Not sure where you got the idea that I lost the argument except you always declaring yourself winner of every conversation with everyone regardless how badly you lose.

Electricity prices won't go up sorry, electricity usage has been increasing over decades, yet the cost of electricity factoring inflation either stayed the same or went down

usinflationcalculator (.) com/inflation/electricity-prices-adjusted-for-inflation/

In 1978, electricity factoring inflation was 0.193, in 2019 it was 0.159

This is considering that in 1980 we used 2094twh compared to 3954twh in 2019, aka around double

statista (.) com/statistics/201794/us-electricity-consumption-since-1975/

Quote from: Impybots on July 31, 2023, 21:13:00CAFE standards have been incentivising larger ICE vehicles since the early 90s. Is is impossible to meet the MPG requirements to even put a B500 type small pickup on the road. Reduce, Reuse and Recycle... Putting recycle first is a sham. Because of the regulations car manufacturers have not been able to reduce use of minerals and oil consumption in the production and operation of ICE vehicles. I would love to see the comparison between a modern B500 to a modern EV the cost to production would be ridiculous. All rare metals like palladium, rubidium and platinum are 100% reusable there is not a current method of reconditioning lithium cells let alone recycling them in such a way that doesn't completely negate the gross savings on energy and pollution. ICE cars and and it's byproducts besides plastic are easily broken down by plants and other natural means. Carbon dioxide is actually required by plants to even live. This 1967 pickup trucks are less permanently damaging than any modern vehicle by a large margin. If left in a field as proven over the past 70 years they return to the earth. But the biggest reason I can't use EVs comes down to temperature. Lithium cathodes break down under temps more than 140 degrees ferenheight. And battery chem reactions are really slow in cold temps. My trucks see both. There will be no chemical battery fuels car/truck that will be cost effective or reliable in the condition I work in. I'm holding out for hydrogen personally.

What nonsense are you talking about? First of all, nothing is every 100% recoverable, you will always have some losses in every process, there is no avoiding that.

Second of all, lithium ion cells have been recyclable for decades, if you go to Tesla's impact report they even break down how much materials of the batteries they recycle every year.

And plastics aren't breakable down by plants, are you being serious? Unless the plastics in question come from bioplastics which are biodegradable.

Lithium ion batteries have something called thermal management systems, that keep the battery working in both freezing cold and high temperature without much issue.

PS Hydrogen isn't going to happen, it has poor energy density by volume and is unsafe for regular people to work with. Modern hydrogen cars have been out since the 1960s, in comparison lithium ion evs have been out only since 2000s. Despite hydrogen cars having far more investment and subsidies, EVs outsell hydrogen cars over 300x to 1. And the gap just keeps growing.

As usual, the American know-it-all, A, is not aware that Elon is already predicting a severe shortage of electricity in a few years. Scarcity = skyrocketing prices, right, huh? ;)

Quote from: A on July 31, 2023, 00:23:02There is currently no such plan. It might end up the end result, but there is no such plan for it. And overall EVs are cheaper to fuel, lower maintenance and once mass produced at same scale should be cheaper to build, so it is still a win-win.

Come on. Every statement points towards a ban. Every country around the world is implementing one in some way or another. California has 2035 for no new conventional car sales. This policy is just an attempt to do it by the back door.

In the UK EVs are the same price to fill up as petrol (gasoline) cars are. Electricity prices have doubled, and this is with 36% of electricity coming from "renewable" sources. UK renewables are backed up primarily by natural gas power stations. These stations always need to be on standby to fill shortfalls in renewables due to unpredictable weather that changes by the hour. So they are not a secure or cost effective option, since they effectively need 100% backup for when there's no wind & sun. This means 2x the generation infrastructure that would otherwise exist.

Are EVs really lower maintenance? They are much heavier, so the suspension, brakes and tires will be more expensive to replace. If the underside obtains any damage the cars are a write-off due to the entire battery being compromised. Insurance premiums are higher because of this. "Should" be cheaper to build, maybe, after 20 years of subsidies and artificially driving up the cost of conventional cars. The cost of EVs will also be socialised beyond their owners, by driving up wholesale electricity prices, installation of public charging points, roads requiring more maintenance due to heavier traffic.

QuoteYeah, when you cherry pick your minerals. did you know that gasoline cars use infinite times more minerals than EVs? (since EVs don't use platinum). The link you gave only talks about certain minerals, not all minerals. All that means is some minerals will see increase production, while others will see decrease

So the IEA is pushing out falsehoods are they? Are they a lobby group for fossil fuels? What's your source that gasoline cars use more resources in manufacture? You sound like a science denier.

QuoteI simply pointed out that all your stuff comes from lobby groups, but notice how I still responded to every point? I didn't dismiss anything.

And the lobby group's stuff comes from real-world data. I think it's great that there are lobby groups trying to improve society by publishing suppressed information.

QuoteToxic substances such as? Do understand, solar panels is a term for multiple different technologies. And the media loves to pretend we all use multi-junction cells that NASA uses which have all the technologies in 1. That isn't realistic. The most common solar panels are Crystalline ones, they don't posses anything that toxic in them. At least not the ones sold in US. Outside US, or grey market ones, some use lead in their soldering, but even then very little. But the ones you get installed on your roof today are lead free.

For recycling, you need scale to make it economic. Prior there simply wasn't enough of them to warrant the cost. But as pointed out, GE is already recycling their blades, all of them are not being sent to landfills. From June 2022 release "Veolia's work to support the ecological transformation of the planet through the "repurposing" of wind turbine blades is bringing environmental and economic benefits to Missouri. Since the program began in 2020, Veolia has processes more than 1,500 blades which have reached the end of their life cycle, making it possible to reuse the blade materials instead of disposing of the blades in landfills"

There is few people who don't know that wind blades were being dumped, its actually the opposite, few know about it being recycled. You sure didn't until I gave it to you.

And they are working on full recyclability so that they can reuse in new wind turbines, Vestas has already found a way without changing the turbines but looking to make it more affordable. While others like GE are looking towards new wind turbine blades which are easier to recycle into new wind turbine blades

Adoption of EVs would actually help reduce the cost of the grid, even more so if they do vehicle to grid.

Remember: at the heart of this is - all of the roll-out and experimentation and new challenges of "renewables" is completely unnecessary. Yes, solar panels are a mixed bag. The main points is: they are pointless. At a latitude north of the Mediterranean they take more energy to make than they produce in their lifetime. What a waste of time! I cringe whenever I see them on new houses. Nuclear fusion plants are not viable yet because they can't produce more energy than they need to create the reaction. But solar is the same and they just go ahead and sell them anyway! It's a scam. The majority of people with them will only break even and not save any money.

Will there be a market big enough for crushed wind turbine blades? The numbers are staggering. A new nuclear or coal plant will last 45-60 years. A 1.5GW power station can be replaced by 6,000 land wind turbines which together generate an average of 1.5GW. So that's 18,000 blades with a lifespan of 15 years. So in 60 years that's 72,000 wind turbine blades to dispose of or recycle, when you could have just built one power station. How many nationwide?

To produce and uneconomically recycle enormous numbers of blades and panels is just stupid. All this should be considered before changing the infrastructure of the world, not after, especially since this all marketed as "green"!

QuoteAgain, you are free to try the experiment yourself. The so called unknowns are the sinks, but you understand that the moment you overflow that sink, there is going to be rapid collapse right? You are just playing Russian roulette

No, the oceans take a long time to change temperature. The temperature has increased 1C in 100 years. It's not significant, and there's no proof that it's caused by CO2.

I'm not able to model the entire Earth system myself, sorry! Neither are the modellers at the IPCC. We can look at Earth's history and see there's no precedent for CO2 causing any harm. In fact, it's lucky we came along. CO2 has been on a downward curve for millions of years as plants and oceans draw it out of the atmosphere. If it drops below 150ppm plant life starts to die and life on Earth comes to an end.

QuoteNutrition is not brought to plants by magical faeries. Do you know what nutrition is? It is elements that are in the soil. It is impossible for the soil to magically become more nutritious. There is only one of 2 options, either you have faster soil depletion or you get less nutrients, all would be in same proportion to plant growth. You can't make something out of nothing

This is stupid. Plant growth increases more than nutrient quantity decreases. More nutrients are obviously taken up from the soil under high CO2 than would otherwise have been.

QuoteAgain you keep jumping to end results forgetting about how to get there. Ecosystems evolve over time to facilitate the change, but rapid change meant mass extinctions along the way to that change. Dinosaurs put on lots of carbs to get their nutritional value, hence why they were so big. Cause they had to eat a lot to get the nutrients they needed. But current life isn't made for taking up lots of carbs, rainforests have their own ecosystems with organisms evolved for that ecosystem

There is no evidence any ecosystem is suffering from elevated CO2 levels.

QuoteAny rapid change of anything has domino effect. That domino effect leads to changes elsewhere.

The point of the fan I am speaking of is for you to realize you don't just go from A straight to Z. There is B, C, D and etc. You only look at end result ignoring a giant spinning fan grinder simply because Z looks fine to you

You're hallucinating. There is no grinder. All animals and plants survive different annual mean temperatures, different seasonal mean temperatures of more than that, and hugely different daily temperatures, which is called weather. Go outside and you'll notice this.

Quote from: A on July 31, 2023, 21:18:47Electricity prices won't go up sorry, electricity usage has been increasing over decades, yet the cost of electricity factoring inflation either stayed the same or went down

Electricity prices are up 90% on average here across the EU just from what they were a year ago.

Quote from: A on July 31, 2023, 21:25:41Lithium ion batteries have something called thermal management systems, that keep the battery working in both freezing cold and high temperature without much issue.

And they even ignite themselves up for no reason to set the whole freighter with 3000 cars (500 EVs) on fire near the Netherlands.

Quote from: Wes on July 30, 2023, 16:35:39This kinda policy just punishes rural America, which is were your food comes from. So enjoy the massive increase in food prices

I wonder how people in rural areas were able to live before such absurdly large trucks were manufactured. And how food is produced in other countries, like in Europe, where such large trucks are not common either (and yes, we have rural areas here too).

You don't need a truck to haul wood a few times a year. You just need a car that can attach a utility trailer, and that car definitely doesn't have to be a truck.

Quote from: Neenyah on July 31, 2023, 22:32:22Electricity prices are up 90% on average here across the EU just from what they were a year ago.

The prices have normalized again, so 90 % isn't true. And the price increase was the result from Russias attack on Ukraine, not because of the increased usage of electricity.

Quote from: Anti-propaganda man on July 31, 2023, 21:44:08You're hallucinating. There is no grinder. All animals and plants survive different annual mean temperatures, different seasonal mean temperatures of more than that, and hugely different daily temperatures, which is called weather. Go outside and you'll notice this.

What you write is missing the point.

We humans are what produces the grinder. The mass extinction isn't happening because of climate change, it is happening because humans destroy the natural habitat of plants and animals.

Nature will adapt to higher temperatures eventually. Climate change is not a danger to nature, it is a danger to us. To humans and the civilization we built.

Our civilization only started to develop after the current ice age entered a mild period ca. 12,000 years ago, when the ice caps retreated - a temperature optimum for humans, a world with mostly stable, mild weather. That is what global warming, induced because of our CO2 output, is destroying.

Historically, we already know that a few degrees of cooling (the "little ice age" in the renaissance era) had disastrous consequences - war, famines, misery. Now, the planet is rapidly warming, with the permanent ice caps starting to disappear (which would mean the definite end to the current ice age). It will upend our civilization, possibly ending it, if we don't stop releasing CO2 into the atmosphere.

You can deny science and spread your climate-change-denying propaganda all day long - the facts remains that it is getting warmer, that the ice is melting, that weather extremes are increasing. And the reason has been known for decades. The only reason why you deny it is because the people responsible, the fossil fuel companies, realized this decades ago as well and started to sow doubt and produce propaganda to trick people into denying the obvious.

The most ironical thing is that people who claim to be "conservative" deny global warming. Nothing is more conservative than to conserve the current climate optimum, instead of deliberately destroying it because you hate the people who support decarbonization.

Quote from: Neenyah on July 31, 2023, 22:32:22Electricity prices are up 90% on average here across the EU just from what they were a year ago.

That is cause the Europe significantly reduced renewable investments in 2011 after taking bribes from Putin and the fossil fuel industry. And as mentioned above the panic from the war caused prices to jump. That is one of the problems of fossil fuels, their price volatility.

QuoteAnd they even ignite themselves up for no reason to set the whole freighter with 3000 cars (500 EVs) on fire near the Netherlands.

Cool story, but no. Netherlands coat guard clearly said they do not know the cause of the fire yet. Funny how a few bribes from the fossil fuel industry and some media outlets are willing to push out fake misinformation to blame EVs:

electrek (.) co/2023/07/26/surprise-media-is-misreporting-the-source-of-a-dutch-cargo-ship-fire/

We do have a cargo ship caught on fire here in the US carrying gasoline cars recently, the cause was a gasoline car. Gasoline is highly flammable and can ignite on any spark, even friction

Quote from: Benjamin Herzig on July 31, 2023, 23:05:57

Quote from: Neenyah on July 31, 2023, 22:32:22Electricity prices are up 90% on average here across the EU just from what they were a year ago.

The prices have normalized again, so 90 % isn't true. And the price increase was the result from Russias attack on Ukraine, not because of the increased usage of electricity.

It's because of the reliance on immediately dispatchable gas, which is a result of the reliance on renewables, which use gas as a backup. It's also due to closing coal and nuclear plants. It's short-sighted policy (a.k.a. not sustainable).

Quote from: Anti-propaganda man on July 31, 2023, 21:44:08You're hallucinating. There is no
What you write is missing the point.

We humans are what produces the grinder. The mass extinction isn't happening because of climate change, it is happening because humans destroy the natural habitat of plants and animals.

Nature will adapt to higher temperatures eventually. Climate change is not a danger to nature, it is a danger to us. To humans and the civilization we built.

Our civilization only started to develop after the current ice age entered a mild period ca. 12,000 years ago, when the ice caps retreated - a temperature optimum for humans, a world with mostly stable, mild weather. That is what global warming, induced because of our CO2 output, is destroying.

Historically, we already know that a few degrees of cooling (the "little ice age" in the renaissance era) had disastrous consequences - war, famines, misery. Now, the planet is rapidly warming, with the permanent ice caps starting to disappear (which would mean the definite end to the current ice age). It will upend our civilization, possibly ending it, if we don't stop releasing CO2 into the atmosphere.

You can deny science and spread your climate-change-denying propaganda all day long - the facts remains that it is getting warmer, that the ice is melting, that weather extremes are increasing. And the reason has been known for decades. The only reason why you deny it is because the people responsible, the fossil fuel companies, realized this decades ago as well and started to sow doubt and produce propaganda to trick people into denying the obvious.

The most ironical thing is that people who claim to be "conservative" deny global warming. Nothing is more conservative than to conserve the current climate optimum, instead of deliberately destroying it because you hate the people who support decarbonization.

Repeat after me: four legs good, two legs bad. No, this whole movement comes from a position of self-loathing. It's disgusting that so many have been conned. Renewables destroy more of the habitat of plants and animals than fossil fuels, due to land use and mining. Fossil fuels also are used for fertilizer and pesticide, reducing land area needed to grow crops and protecting nature. As I mentioned, CO2 fertilisation means more crop growth per unit area, meaning more land set aside for nature. As I said, there is no proof CO2 is causing the warming, which again is beneficial for nature and human civilisation. There is no increase in extreme weather, crop productivity is increasing, biosphere productivity is increasing, the deserts and greening due to CO2, the Arctic is greening due to temperature increase and CO2 fertilisation. (It is a desert).

You're right, a few degrees cooling would be bad. Conversely a few degrees warming would be good. There have been many instances of cooling and warming in the past few thousand years, all of them natural. This leads one to believe the current warming is natural.

Fossil fuel companies provide a product people want. They are more moral than a renewables company, since they don't base their sales on fraudulent claims of being "green", although they are actually more green, since CO2 increases greenery.

The Holocene Climatic Optimum occured in 6000BC, when it was 3 degrees warmer in the Northern Hemisphere. Now we are not in that period, so we are not in a climate optimum. It used to be understood that warmer is better, which it is.

The rate and magnitude of change is not unusual, see graph below (10-year average). You obviously haven't done your homework on anything. I'm a real scientist, you just repeat what you've been told.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_England_temperature#/media/File:20190731_Central_England_Temperature_(CET)_(annual_mean,_beginning_in_1659).png

The picture you have linked shows the exact opposite from what you describe, Mr. "Real Scientist". It shows that the average temperature in England fluctuated around 9 degrees Celsius before the industrial revolution, and it increasing by roughly 1.2 degrees Celsius since 1900, with no end to the warming in sight.

As far as the Holocene Optimum goes: The current temperatures are already warmer than the optimum. So we are way past the stage where any warming can be beneficial.

Very funny though how quickly you switch your arguments - while you still deny global warming, you also are quick to start to argue that global warming is beneficial (it isn't).

Quote from: Anti-propaganda man on August 01, 2023, 00:03:43There have been many instances of cooling and warming in the past few thousand years, all of them natural. This leads one to believe the current warming is natural.

Except that such changes typically took thousands of years, not a few decades.

This line of thinking shows the child-like logic at play here. Global warming can't be because of humans and our CO2 output, because that would mean our own actions would have consequences. That creates a bad feeling, so any straws are grasped to deny science. Reality, like the melting ice and extreme weather (which you can deny all you want, everyone can observe the extreme temperature records in areas like the Mediterranean countries), gets ignored, all to maintain the lie.

Frankly, the fact that you deny science so much on a website about technology, something only possible thanks to science, is disgusting. You are not welcome to spread your anti-scientific propaganda lies here.

Quote from: Anti-propaganda man on August 01, 2023, 00:03:43It's because of the reliance on immediately dispatchable gas, which is a result of the reliance on renewables, which use gas as a backup. It's also due to closing coal and nuclear plants. It's short-sighted policy (a.k.a. not sustainable).

What nonsense are you talking about?

renewableenergyworld (.) com/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/LCOE_New_Solar.jpg

As you can see, renewable prices have been dropping to record lows every year, meanwhile fossil fuel prices have jumped. That is one of the problems of fossil fuels, their costs are volatile.

Quote from: Anti-propaganda man on July 31, 2023, 21:44:08Repeat after me: four legs good, two legs bad. No, this whole movement comes from a position of self-loathing. It's disgusting that so many have been conned. Renewables destroy more of the habitat of plants and animals than fossil fuels, due to land use and mining. Fossil fuels also are used for fertilizer and pesticide, reducing land area needed to grow crops and protecting nature. As I mentioned, CO2 fertilisation means more crop growth per unit area, meaning more land set aside for nature. As I said, there is no proof CO2 is causing the warming, which again is beneficial for nature and human civilisation. There is no increase in extreme weather, crop productivity is increasing, biosphere productivity is increasing, the deserts and greening due to CO2, the Arctic is greening due to temperature increase and CO2 fertilisation. (It is a desert).

Sorry, the land use of fossil fuels is larger than renewables, the mistake you are using is counting "spacing" as land use. If you look at actual land use, it isn't much different than coal:

climatecrock (.) files (.) wordpress (.) com/2023/03/image (.) png

same for mining. Do you realize how much coal is mined every year? And most of that is burned. In comparison, renewables last decades and recyclable.

QuoteYou're right, a few degrees cooling would be bad. Conversely a few degrees warming would be good. There have been many instances of cooling and warming in the past few thousand years, all of them natural. This leads one to believe the current warming is natural.

Rapid change one way or the other is bad.

QuoteFossil fuel companies provide a product people want. They are more moral than a renewables company, since they don't base their sales on fraudulent claims of being "green", although they are actually more green, since CO2 increases greenery.

More like fossil fuel companies did whatever necessary that people would be dependent on them, sabotaging all competition to insure they have a monopoly. They falsely cover up harm even when people's lives are harmed. You call that good? And sorry, the only green they are is $$$

Quote from: Benjamin Herzig on July 31, 2023, 23:05:57I wonder how people in rural areas were able to live before such absurdly large trucks were manufactured. And how food is produced in other countries, like in Europe, where such large trucks are not common either (and yes, we have rural areas here too).

You just didn't study the difference in US and EU agriculture - the size of farms in the US is many times larger.

The EU is smaller in everything. Less territory, less cars, less consumption. Save on everything you can.

The USA is the scope. But due to certain manipulations with the world in the last 30 years...

Quote from: Benjamin Herzig on August 01, 2023, 00:59:28The picture you have linked shows the exact opposite from what you describe, Mr. "Real Scientist". It shows that the average temperature in England fluctuated around 9 degrees Celsius before the industrial revolution, and it increasing by roughly 1.2 degrees Celsius since 1900, with no end to the warming in sight

It shows a 2C rise in average temperature from 1690-1735. It also shows many 1C rise and falls over hundreds of years. The excuse made is that it's just regional temperature. Of course the last 50 years tie up with global temperatures, so it leads one to believe it shouldn't be dismissed as just regional. There are no older accurate measurements of temperature other than those records. IPCC uses proxies for historical temps and does not state methodology for arriving at their conclusions. The raw data for proxies does not show anything like the "hockey stick" temp graphs they produce.

QuoteAs far as the Holocene Optimum goes: The current temperatures are already warmer than the optimum. So we are way past the stage where any warming can be beneficial.

Warmth is better than cold for life. Compare the arctic to a rainforest. 20x as many people die from the cold as from heat.

QuoteVery funny though how quickly you switch your arguments - while you still deny global warming, you also are quick to start to argue that global warming is beneficial (it isn't).

Do you need glasses? I'm saying there's no proof CO2 is causing the warming, and that warming is beneficial.

QuoteExcept that such changes typically took thousands of years, not a few decades.

Wrong, see graph as mentioned.

QuoteReality, like the melting ice and extreme weather (which you can deny all you want, everyone can observe the extreme temperature records in areas like the Mediterranean countries), gets ignored, all to maintain the lie.

Frankly, the fact that you deny science so much on a website about technology, something only possible thanks to science, is disgusting. You are not welcome to spread your anti-scientific propaganda lies here.

Everyone can observe the news, which is propaganda. No one can observe the entire Earth's climate. Look up a CNN director admitting they push climate change stories simply for ratings, because fear sells. Disgusting!

There's no increase in extreme weather when you look at the data.