My three electric vehicle questions.

[Woodznutz]

Solution to what?

High energy use and cost.

 

[elektra]

I am rather more careful with my words. I would NEVER have said "all".




There you go! Now you've got it. Do you see the difference between "ALL" and "MOST"?






You know as well as I do about the Anderegg et al. study and the Cook study etc. I even know what your "response" will be to them. But just in case you actually DON'T know:

1. J. Cook, et al, "Consensus on consensus: a synthesis of consensus estimates on human-caused global warming," Environmental Research Letters Vol. 11 No. 4, (13 April 2016); DOI:10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002
   
   Quotation from page 6: "The number of papers rejecting AGW [Anthropogenic, or human-caused, Global Warming] is a miniscule proportion of the published research, with the percentage slightly decreasing over time. Among papers expressing a position on AGW, an overwhelming percentage (97.2% based on self-ratings, 97.1% based on abstract ratings) endorses the scientific consensus on AGW.”
   
   J. Cook, et al, "Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature," Environmental Research Letters Vol. 8 No. 2, (15 May 2013); DOI:10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024
   
   Quotation from page 3: "Among abstracts that expressed a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the scientific consensus. Among scientists who expressed a position on AGW in their abstract, 98.4% endorsed the consensus.”

You did say all, or implied, but who cares. First off you only give us an article describing the study so the truth will be well hidden.

"Among an abstract", which is not a study! Very important distinction, the study itself many times says something much different than the abstract. Without the actual study we never know the truth.

"Among abstracts that expressed a position on AGW"

According to the article you presented, 65% of all scientists stated no position. The article explicitly states, "only 35%" of scientist could be said to have a position on Global Warming.

At best, the study/article may say 35% of all scientists agree, and then it is that they agree there is global warming. We do not have the study, hence the papers, so we do not know if they agree climate change is man made or chatostrophic.

35% may agree there is climate change, from your article.

 

[jc456]

Passive solar doesn't need the equipment that active solar uses. It relies on insulation for most of its efficiency.

show us how it's manufactured.

 

[jc456]

You did say all, or implied, but who cares. First off you only give us an article describing the study so the truth will be well hidden.

"Among an abstract", which is not a study! Very important distinction, the study itself many times says something much different than the abstract. Without the actual study we never know the truth.

"Among abstracts that expressed a position on AGW"

According to the article you presented, 65% of all scientists stated no position. The article explicitly states, "only 35%" of scientist could be said to have a position on Global Warming.

At best, the study/article may say 35% of all scientists agree, and then it is that they agree there is global warming. We do not have the study, hence the papers, so we do not know if they agree climate change is man made or chatostrophic.

35% may agree there is climate change, from your article.

well in all fairness, and it is who I am, he said most every in his post. So he's correct, he never said never. Just ask him how many are most.

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

You did say all, or implied, but who cares.

I care. This is something in science that is important. You use words specifically and carefully.

First off you only give us an article describing the study so the truth will be well hidden.

No, I supported my position.

"Among an abstract", which is not a study!

I supplied you SEVERAL studies.

 

[jc456]

I supplied you SEVERAL studies.

That are all bullshit.

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

That are all bullshit.

Nope. But you wouldn't know it.

I'd ask how many scientific studies you've done but I know the answer already

 

[jc456]

Nope. But you wouldn't know it.

I'd ask how many scientific studies you've done but I know the answer already

It’s obvious you don’t know

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

It’s obvious you don’t

Uh huh.

 

[elektra]

No, I supported my position.
I supplied you SEVERAL studies.

From your link, 66.4% disagree, 97% of 32.6%, were in the authors opinion, believe. So, less than 32.6%, who were not questioned, are interpreted to believe based on abstracts, not on thier actual study.

We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming. Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming.

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

From your link, 66.4% disagree, 97% of 32.6%, were in the authors opinion, believe. So, less than 32.6%, who were not questioned, are interpreted to believe based on abstracts, not on thier actual study.

We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming. Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming.

if 66.4% expressed no position that is NOT the same thing as disagreeing with it.

Right now generally speaking north of 97% of the earth's climate scientists appear to believe that AGW is real. I can confirm this just from my personal exposure to a number of earth, atmospheric and oceanographic scientists I have had the honor to work with at a variety of universities across the US.

Your experience may vary but that is doubtful.

 

[jc456]

f 66.4% expressed no position that is NOT the same thing as disagreeing with it.

It isn’t confirmation either

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

It isn’t confirmation either

You should just sit this one out. This is a bit more complex than your limited logic skills.

Like the difference between ""not-guilty" and "Innocent" . They aren't the same thing but no one could explain it to someone like you.

 

[jc456]

You should just sit this one out. This is a bit more complex than your limited logic skills.

Like the difference between ""not-guilty" and "Innocent" . They aren't the same thing but no one could explain it to someone like you.

You should follow your own advice

 

[elektra]

if 66.4% expressed no position that is NOT the same thing as disagreeing with it.

Right now generally speaking north of 97% of the earth's climate scientists appear to believe that AGW is real. I can confirm this just from my personal exposure to a number of earth, atmospheric and oceanographic scientists I have had the honor to work with at a variety of universities across the US.

Your experience may vary but that is doubtful.

NO, 97% of the 32% sampled, are insinuated to agree, based on your link.

You display the ultimate ignorance then denial. I challenge you to prove what you state, you post the link, and your link, your proof proves you wrong. Then you dare try to argue it is 97% of all scientists when the study you are quoting says 97% of 32%.

You have been lying, unwittingly like a fool.

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

You should follow your own advice

Yawn

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

NO, 97% of the 32% sampled, are insinuated to agree, based on your link.

In science there is something called a "SAMPLE". This is done when it is impossible to ping every single member of a population.

For instance when testing a drug the manufacturer tests on a SAMPLE of people taking the drug. Obviously the full population of the entire world would be impossible to measure.

In statistics this is an integral and important concept.

You display the ultimate ignorance

I work with statistics most days.

then denial. I challenge you to prove what you state, you post the link, and your link, your proof proves you wrong. Then you dare try to argue it is 97% of all scientists when the study you are quoting says 97% of 32%.

I cannot help you understand basic science so I will let these folks do it for me: 3. Populations and samples | The BMJ

You have been lying, unwittingly like a fool.

You are, of course, wrong.

A "lie" is an untruth told knowingly. For me to lie I would have to KNOW that I am spreading a falsehood. Clearly you simply "disagree" with me but you can't differentiate between someone "lying" and someone with whom you simply disagree.

In this case I am not spreading a lie, nor am I unknowingly spreading a falsehood.

This is, unfortunately, how science is done. You would know that if you had ever done more than sit through a high school rocks-for-jocks class.

 

[Leo123]

These solutions are worse than the problem ... 2ºC in 100 years is pathetic ... who cares? ... then there's blatant lying, "Hypercanes and Hockey Sticks" ...

Business politicized and monetized both the problems and the solutions ... that's their job ...

Your whole argument is based on an as yet proven human caused climate change. Gas engine cars will never go away. EV's are only viable because of government policies but will remain as a very small market share especially for the rich elites.

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

Gas engine cars will never go away.

So ICE engines are the pinnacle of all development in the world? Interesting conjecture.

EV's are only viable because of government policies

Well, to be fair, EV's slightly predate gasoline engines for cars. As for these "government policies" can you tell me how much "help" I got when I bought my all electric car?

but will remain as a very small market share especially for the rich elites.

Oh, now I'm a "rich elite"! I guess education really DOES PAY!

 

[elektra]

This is, unfortunately, how science is done. You would know that if you had ever done more than sit through a high school rocks-for-jocks class.

Science? Asking scientists their opinion is not science. Insinuating what a scientist thinks based on an abstract is simply pure propaganda. Show us one example of the abstract of one of those 97%, show one of those abstracts to reflect exactly what the study states and show us that this confirms said scientist believes man is contributing to catastrophic man made global warming.

You can not do it, because no scientist has been asked. You can not do that because the, "study" admits they only based their opinion on abstracts, not studies. Two very different things.

Your article, and that is what you linked to, states explicitly that less than 32% of scientists agree, based on a particular criteria applied to the abstracts. 97% of the 32%. The researchers do not state it is 97% of all scientists.

We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming. Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming.

32.6% is what your study states. And of that 32.6% only 97.1% state it is man made AGW