New technology has sparse statistics and as problems come to light, safety regulations develop [...] But there is more than one kind of new rechargeable battery, and more variations will be developed. — unenlightened

You seem to have faith that new technology will solve the problems associated with large scale energy storage.

Why don't you have faith that new technology will solve the problems associated with climate change (e.g. the CO2 level) ?

These "sports" cars are what he is concerned about, and their safety is not their major feature, and nor is utility or economy. These cars are what is known as "penis extensions". EVs have superior acceleration, potentially, but they are too quiet to satisfy poseurs. — unenlightened

It sounds like you are suffering from "penis jealousy". :razz:

Why don't you have faith that new technology will solve the problems associated with climate change — Agree-to-Disagree

Seems ominous that we haven't heard anything about fusion lately. :worry: But there's the thorium reactor. Maybe.

You seem to have faith that new technology will solve the problems associated with large scale energy storage.

Why don't you have faith that new technology will solve the problems associated with climate change (e.g. the CO2 level) ? — Agree-to-Disagree

Faith? I think it probable that new technology will improve in safety and efficiency. But addressing climate change is far more a matter of the collective will to change our lifestyle. I have no faith in that happening until it is far too late for most of us. But change we will, of necessity.

But I have clearly shown the evidence why MGUY is an unreliable witness, and your continued defence of the indefensible shows you to be the same. As I have hinted, the choice is between EVs and horses (or camels); but all this is a minor quibble, as are most of your posts.

Let us discuss the banning of all flights and the planting of all runways with vegetables. Let us discuss a 25% tariff on meat, a 50 % tariff on gas, and so on, let us have faith in bold politicians taking decisive effective action to address the global crisis. :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :death:

Why do oligarchs all have big yachts?

But I have clearly shown the evidence why MGUY is an unreliable witness — unenlightened

Sorry, I must have missed that bit. What do you mean by an unreliable witness? Someone who says things that you don't like? MGUY provides links to where he gets his information from. You can easily check that what he is saying is reliable. As long as you are not too lazy to check.

But addressing climate change is far more a matter of the collective will to change our lifestyle. — unenlightened

As far as I can see that collective will doesn't exist.

Do you accept that there are some serious problems with EVs, lithium batteries, solar power, wind power, infrastructure for charging EVs, infrastructure for getting electricity from where it is generated to where it is used, the fact that many people don't want an EV, the fact that EVs are not suitable for all situations, etc.

As far as I can see that collective will doesn't exist. — Agree-to-Disagree

And that's why most of us will die an early death.

Do you accept that there are some serious problems with EVs, lithium batteries, solar power, wind power, infrastructure for charging EVs, infrastructure for getting electricity from where it is generated to where it is used, the fact that many people don't want an EV, the fact that EVs are not suitable for all situations, etc. — Agree-to-Disagree

No.

And that's why most of us will die an early death. — unenlightened

Being overly pessimistic does not help things. It often leads to depression and/or causes people to stop trying. You might be worrying about something that never happens because technology will save us..

I think that many people (especially young people) have been brainwashed into thinking that there is no hope. They attack anybody who doesn't share their pessimistic view.

Climate scientists have done a great job of scaremongering by continually predicting that things are rapidly getting worse. Children are scared stiff.

The people who are trying to save humanity and the planet are coming up with unrealistic plans, and are blaming the wrong people. They are not willing to compromise on any point so nothing ends up being done. Blocking traffic and vandalising great works of art and historical monuments (like Stonehenge) is not helping their cause. In fact it is harming their cause.

The activists who are concerned about climate change need to rethink their methods.

Donald Trump provides links to where he gets his information from. Trust him. Don’t be lazy: look up all the stupid shit he says. Because he’s definitely worth the effort.

Do you accept that there are some serious problems with EVs, lithium batteries, solar power, wind power, infrastructure for charging EVs, infrastructure for getting electricity from where it is generated to where it is used, the fact that many people don't want an EV, the fact that EVs are not suitable for all situations, etc.
— Agree-to-Disagree

No. — unenlightened

By saying "No" you have proved that you are not a reliable source of information.

You are a delusional evangelist and you have your head buried in the sand.

Rational people know that there are some serious problems.

You are a delusional evangelist — Agree-to-Disagree

Coming from a delusional climate denier this means a lot I’m sure.

By saying "No" you have proved that you are not a reliable source of information. — Agree-to-Disagree

No.

You can rely on the reliable truth of my non-agreement. On this matter I speak with authority. I am not pretending to disagree, I actually do disagree.

You can rely on the reliable truth of my non-agreement. On this matter I speak with authority. I am not pretending to disagree, I actually do disagree. — unenlightened

I am not doubting the sincerity of what you are saying.

You are not reliable because you are wrong. Any rational person knows that there are some serious problems with EVs, lithium batteries, solar power, wind power, infrastructure for charging EVs, infrastructure for getting electricity from where it is generated to where it is used, the fact that many people don't want an EV, the fact that EVs are not suitable for all situations, etc.

Rational people know that there are some serious problems. — Agree-to-Disagree

Just to be completely transparent, there are of course always problems with technology and infrastructure. however, in relation to the problems of climate change, which, in case you had forgotten, is the topic under discussion. there are no serious problems at all; the problems you have suggested are trivial by comparison with the effects of climate change.

For example, just heat related deaths in England and Wales:

Different methods were used by Government bodies to estimate heat-related
mortality in 2022. A UKHSA analysis reported an estimated 2,985 excess deaths
associated with the five heat periods in England (Figure 1).32
Using a slightly different baseline, an Office for National Statistics (ONS) analysis
reported 3,271 excess deaths associated with the five heat periods in England and
Wales.
33 The ONS also estimated there were 3,363 – 5,587 heat-related deaths in
England in all of 2022.34c

https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/POST-PN-0723/POST-PN-0723.pdf
Compared to:

In the UK, fires linked to lithium-ion batteries in e-scooters and e-bikes have quadrupled since 2020, killing eight people and injuring 190, external.

https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/climate-change-heat-and-health

That's 8 deaths in 3 years, versus around 3,000 deaths in 1 year. Do you think 8 deaths in three years is the serious problem?

You are not reliable because you are wrong. — Agree-to-Disagree

Yeah, I'll not try and argue with that. :fire:

in relation to the problems of climate change, which, in case you had forgotten, is the topic under discussion. there are no serious problems at all; the problems you have suggested are trivial by comparison with the effects of climate change. — unenlightened

But since you’re dealing with someone who denies it’s really a problem, and who delusionally believes that people who have studied this issue their entire lives are wrong for making such a big deal of it (and he feels entitled to do so because he’s chosen to spend hours listening to long-refuted climate deniers like Richard Lindzen and Alex Epstein and whatever random YouTubers he pulls from his ass (and expects everyone to take seriously)).

He’s worth a few sentences and a couple laughing emojis. He long ago proved that’s all he was worth, after being humiliated over and over again.

For example, just heat related deaths in England and Wales (2022).
- a UKHSA analysis reported an estimated 2,985 excess deaths associated with the five heat periods in England.
- using a slightly different baseline, an Office for National Statistics (ONS) analysis reported 3,271 excess deaths associated with the five heat periods in England and Wales. — unenlightened

If you are going to start talking about excess deaths associated with heat periods then you should read the following. It provides some context for the numbers.

Point 1
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/deaths/articles/excessmortalityduringheatperiods/englandandwales1juneto31august2022#:~:text=Each%20heat%2Dperiod%20peak%2C%20most%20notably%20that%20on%2019%20July%202022%2C%20was%20followed%20by%20a%20fall%20in%20deaths%20to%20below%20the%20average%20over%20the%20following%20days

Note that this extract comes from "ons.gov.uk", the same organisation that some of your numbers come from.

Each heat-period peak, most notably that on 19 July 2022, was followed by a fall in deaths to below the average over the following days; this suggests a short-term mortality displacement, where deaths among vulnerable individuals are ‘brought forward’ to within the heat-periods.

So the number of excess deaths associated with the five heat periods in England and Wales is not as bad as the raw numbers suggest.

Point 2
https://ourworldindata.org/part-one-how-many-people-die-from-extreme-temperatures-and-how-could-this-change-in-the-future
How many people die from extreme temperatures, and how this could change in the future
Cold deaths vastly outnumber heat-related ones, but mostly due to “moderate” rather than extremely cold conditions.

If you look at many of the “optimal temperature” curves above, you’ll find that most of us spend most of the year a bit below the optimum. We most frequently experience temperatures a bit colder than is “best”. This means most temperature-related deaths happen in “moderately cold” conditions, not on extremely cold or hot days. It’s not because the mortality risk in this zone is the highest, but the amount of time spent there is.

What’s consistent in these studies is that cold-related deaths vastly outnumber those from heat. In the Global Burden of Disease study, cold-related deaths were around four times higher than heat-related ones. The study that estimates that 7.7% of deaths were attributed to temperature found that 7.3% were from cold temperatures; 0.4% were from heat.

Globally, cold deaths are 9 times higher than heat-related ones. In no region is this ratio less than 3, and in many, it’s over 10 times higher. Cold is more deadly than heat, even in the hottest parts of the world.

Summary of point 2

Most people spend most of the year a bit colder than is "best" (a bit below the optimum).

A little bit of global warming would save many lives, even in the hottest parts of the world.

So the number of excess deaths associated with the five heat periods in England and Wales is not as bad as the raw numbers suggest. — Agree-to-Disagree

Indeed. Lets divide by two because who cares if sick and old people die only a little bit early. So that's 8 deaths in 3 years compared to 1500 deaths in 1 year.

Summary of point 2

Most people spend most of the year a bit colder than is "best" (a bit below the optimum).

A little bit of global warming would save many lives, even in the hottest parts of the world. — Agree-to-Disagree

Now that I have to admire. When the numbers are not in your favour, just change the subject. Of course in this miserable damp and somewhat cold climate, premature deaths from cold are greater than those from heat. It does not follow that "A little bit of global warming would save many lives" though, because climate change is creating more energetic weather systems; this results in more extreme weather variations.

Some researchers expect that as many as 1.8 million deaths each year are attributed to short-term temperature variability alone. Large swings from cold to warm conditions, or vice versa, can put pressure on our organ systems and increase health risks.

For example, snow in Florida is also the result of climate change. Unfortunately such inconvenient facts rather mess up the neat statistics. And it's not just temperature, power cuts, floods, damage to homes also contribute.

Summary. Cherry picked statistics without an understanding of how climate is changing are worse than useless.

Even the long-used climate denial line (commonly used by Bjorn Lomberg) about cold deaths is probably wrong to begin with.

In a 2014 interview in the Washington Post of University of Miami climatologist Larry Kalkstein, who has published numerous research papers on weather-related mortality, weighed in on the matter: “Comparing apples to apples, which would be to evaluate acute or short-term responses to weather, I would always give the nod to heat-related deaths. However, if you are considering the seasonal differences in daily mortality, rather than just the “spikes” that we find with acute deaths, I can see why one can argue that winter (or cold-related) mortality is greater.” That was certainly the conclusion of a 2015 epidemiological study of deaths in 13 countries in The Lancet, which found that cold-related deaths in the U.S. were about a factor of fifteen higher than heat-related deaths. Cold deaths outnumbered heat deaths by a factor of twenty when averaged over all 13 countries studied. However, this study did not control for the seasonal cycle in death rates; deaths are always higher in winter, due to influenza and other non-weather-related factors.

The 2005 study, Heat Mortality Versus Cold Mortality: A Study of Conflicting Databases in the United States, advocated using gross mortality (or excess mortality, as shown in Figure 2 for the 1995 Chicago heat wave) as a way to arrive at a better estimate of heat-and cold-related deaths. They stressed that one must correct for the seasonal cycle in deaths before using this technique, to remove the influence of the winter influenza season and other non-weather-related factors. Interestingly, they found that major heat waves cause big spikes in the death rate, whereas major cold waves do not: “Severe heat waves often produce large "spikes" in mortality, especially during the 1995 heat wave across the Midwest. However, abnormally cold conditions have little effect on the standardized daily mortality. For example, February 1996, a cold period across much of the United States, produced no spikes in winter mortality levels.” Similarly, from the 2016 U.S. National Climate Assessment: “The relationship between mortality and an additional day of extreme heat is generally much larger than the relationship between mortality and an additional day of extreme cold.”

https://www.wunderground.com/cat6/Which-Kills-More-People-Extreme-Heat-or-Extreme-Cold

Question: has this imbecile once cited a credible source or an actual climate scientist? Has there ever been a criticism of fossil fuels and all the problems they cause— apart from climate change? Has there ever once been anything said of the devastation the changing climate has caused? If so, where?

Don’t hold your breath: there is none. It’s just dismissing, minimizing, denying. Then citing climate deniers with deep ties to the fossil industry and plagiarizing AI summaries. That’s all it’s been. All while pretending not to be a climate denier.

This troll should have been booted from this site a while ago.

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/02/03/climate/trump-epa-workers-zeldin.html?unlocked_article_code=1.uE4.wFYZ.EH4Zzdmr8gS6&smid=url-share

Trump’s appointed climate denier leading the EPA now wants to fire over 1,000 employees at EPA. They’re as transparently a death cult as they come.

Lets divide by two because who cares if sick and old people die only a little bit early. So that's 8 deaths in 3 years compared to 1500 deaths in 1 year. — unenlightened

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-66890135

There have been more than 50,000 heat-related deaths and more than 200,000 related to cold in England and Wales since 1988, new official figures show.

Some 4,507 deaths were estimated to be linked to heat in England last year - when temperatures topped 40C. That was the highest number of estimated heat-related deaths over the last 35 years - but does not take into account population growth, and is a similar number to levels in the 1990s and early 2000s when the population was smaller.

The ONS compiled its figures based on information from the Centre for Environmental Data Analysis and created a new method to understand how temperature affects risk of death.

Their analysis also showed a sharp rise in deaths during the winter of 2010/11 when the UK saw unusually cold temperatures.

So your logic is to let 200,000 people die (who had their whole lives ahead of them) in order to let a few sick and old people live for an extra month. People are dying of cold at 4x the rate that they are dying of heat.

Why not install some air conditioning in the places where the sick and old people live. Then a little bit of global warming would save many lives (even in the hottest parts of the world), and the sick and old people would be better off (with air conditioning they could protect themselves from heat and cold).

It is a win-win situation.

Rapid tech progress have allowed newer EVs to achieve comparable lifespans with other vehicles in the UK, even under more intensive use:

The closing longevity gap between battery electric vehicles and internal combustion vehicles in Great Britain
^{— Viet Nguyen-Tien, Chengyu Zhang, Eric Strobl, Robert J R Elliott · Nature · Jan 24, 2025}

Dude should go back to SpaceX and all that. :D

Tesla Sales in Europe Plummet Amidst Elon’s Stupid Meddling
^{— Lucas Ropek · GIZMODO · Feb 3, 2025}

now wants to fire over 1,000 employees at EPA — Mikie

Is this the same EPA as the one that that brought is the "EV mandate"? :rofl:

This troll should have been booted from this site a while ago. — Mikie

I think that it is you who is the troll Mikie.

- a troll is an an ugly creature often depicted as a dwarf
- they live under bridges or in their mother's basement
- they abuse anybody who is more intelligent than them (which is most people)

So your response to the complete refutation of your first argument, is to repeat your second argument as if that has not also been thoroughly refuted.

And even if the arrithmeticial idiocy of subtracting cold deaths from heat deaths was correct, that does not make your previous suggestion that I am [water off a duck's back] for thinking that 8 deaths in 3 years is not a serious problem in the transport industry, any more legitimate.

It is clear that you do not have any coherent understanding, but are flailing about looking for contrarian ideas to whatever is the last thing that has been said. So let's go back to your claim about the serious problems with EVs. What serious problems?

abuse anybody who is more intelligent than them — Agree-to-Disagree

:lol:

No, just climate denying trolls like you.

It is clear that you do not have any coherent understanding, but are flailing about looking for contrarian ideas to whatever is the last thing that has been said. — unenlightened

:up:

Hey look, I just copied an AI summary about combustion engine problems. Check and mate:

Combustion engines, also known as internal combustion engines, have several problems including significant air pollution due to emissions like carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides, and particulate matter, high fuel consumption, noise generation, vibration, dependence on fossil fuels, and potential for maintenance issues like oil leaks, worn bearings, and faulty spark plugs, all contributing to environmental concerns and potential health risks.

Let it be noted just how lopsided the exchanges between unenlightened and the climate denier are in terms of coherence, depth of knowledge, understanding of the issues, etc.

Which is why I guess he thinks he’s the smartest one in the room. The dumbest people aren’t usually very self-aware.

Anyway— let this be a good lesson kids. This could be you if you consume an exclusive diet of propaganda.

@unenlightened @Mikie

So let's go back to your claim about the serious problems with EVs. What serious problems? — unenlightened

I am compiling a list of problems with EVs.

While I am doing that I want you to answer these questions.

1) Do you drive an EV ?

2) If you don't drive an EV then why don't you drive an EV ?

1) I had an estate car for a couple of years when I started a vegetable and whole-food shop, and needed to transport goods in the 80s. It was petrol, because EVs hadn't been invented, except for very slow lead-acid accumulator vans used for local milk deliveries. Otherwise, I have never owned or driven any vehicle other than a bike.

2) EVs are not without costs to the environment, and public transport is the better option except in very isolated regions.

You won't be interested to hear that I have once flown in a plane, aged 10, taken by my parents. That was 1962. And I am a vegetarian, but not a strict one, and have been since I left the parental home.