My three electric vehicle questions.

[Cardinal Carminative]

Science? Asking scientists their opinion is not science.

Many of the studies were nothing more than examining what was in the published record.

Insinuating what a scientist thinks based on an abstract is simply pure propaganda.

An abstract is meant to summarize the research in a paper succinctly. As such it is a perfect way to go about it.

You can not do it, because no scientist has been asked.

No scientist need be asked for that type of study.

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.

In science we have something called a SAMPLE. A sample means one does not need to measure every member of a large population.

The drugs you currently take that your doctor has prescribed were NOT TESTED ON ALL HUMANS but rather a small SUBSET called a "Sample".

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

In science we have something called a SAMPLE.

It is pretty commonly used.

 

[elektra]

Many of the studies were nothing more than examining what was in the published record.
An abstract is meant to summarize the research in a paper succinctly. As such it is a perfect way to go about it.
No scientist need be asked for that type of study.
In science we have something called a SAMPLE. A sample means one does not need to measure every member of a large population.
The drugs you currently take that your doctor has prescribed were NOT TESTED ON ALL HUMANS but rather a small SUBSET called a "Sample".
In science we have something called a SAMPLE.

And yet, your linked to, "study" contradicts what you state.

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.

Fine, you told us what an abstract is suppose to state. I say you are a liar. Now post an abstract and the study, used by the author in your link so we can see if you simply believe blindly, ignorantly, or if you have actually looked at this intelligently.

An abstract, is many times meant to sell a product, a study, a scientific paper. Many times an abstract has nothing to do with the content of the study, paper, or whatever it describes. Post your abstract and study from the link you claim substantiates all scientist's opinions.

32.6%, is stated as the total, endorsing AGW. It says it in black and white, Further it states the 97.1% is the subtotal within the 32.6%

you can cry statistics, sample, you can obfuscate the fact all you want, but your link explicitly states 32.6% of scientists endorse AGW

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

And yet, your linked to, "study" contradicts what you state.

Incorrect.

Fine, you told us what an abstract is suppose to state. I say you are a liar.

Once again, incorrect.

1. An abstract is, indeed, as I characterized it.

2. If there was anything I said that was in error it is, by definition, NOT a lie since I didn't say it with intent to spread false information.

An abstract, is many times meant to sell a product, a study, a scientific paper.

It is not used to 'sell' anything.

Many times an abstract has nothing to do with the content of the study,

100% incorrect. Absolutely wrong.

32.6%, is stated as the total, endorsing AGW. It says it in black and white, Further it states the 97.1% is the subtotal within the 32.6%

In science we often characterize something by using a SAMPLE of the population.

you can cry statistics, sample, you can obfuscate the fact all you want

I have done the opposite of obfuscation.

, but your link explicitly states 32.6% of scientists endorse AGW

No, pay closer attention:

If I have 100 abstracts in front of me and 36 of those express NO OPINION RELATED TO THE TOPIC AT HAND they are no longer part of the analysis.

The remaining 64 abstracts are then the "sample" of interest.

Those 36 that expressed no opinion do carry any weight as I understand it. They are neither in agreement or in disageement.

But you act as if I only provided links to ONE study, when in fact I provided links to NUMEROUS studies.

The general finding through not just abstract/text analysis but other methods (ie direct polling) that show a consistent approximately 97% of agreement with the concept of AGW being real.

This is how science is done. Multiple independent methods finding similar results.

This also comports well with my personal experience working with a variety of earth and ocean scientists all over the US (NY, MA, CA, KY, IL, LA...)

 

[krichton]

1. What is the impact of mining the materials needed to construct the batteries. Getting rid of fossil fuels to mine for more scarce materials seems conflicting.
2. Disposal of the batteries. I've seen some say recycling, but how would that work?
3. Where does the energy come from to charge the batteries? I've seen some say solar, but that doesn't sound realistic. Wouldn't you need enough solar panels to cover Nevada to power the charging stations?

Since the government is trying to force people to buy them, I'd like some answers. I still have doubts that creating and charging batteries will be a cleaner solution to energy needs.

Is lithium cleaner than extracting, transporting, refining and finally burning oil in your car engine, for it to now be released in the air again? That is the question you should be asking.

Australia produces half the world's supply of lithium. HALF. Their major source of pollution is from car emissions. Lithium isn't even on the map. What does that tell you? That doesn't mean it's entirely clean by any means but compared to oil, it's far and away cleaner.

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

Is lithium cleaner than extracting, transporting, refining and finally burning oil in your car engine, for it to now be released in the air again? That is the question you should be asking.

And not all Li is from "hard rock mining". Yes some is, but there are large deposits that are Li salts in evaporite deposits that can effectively be "mined" with hot water as I understand it.

Australia produces half the world's supply of lithium. HALF. Their major source of pollution is from car emissions. Lithium isn't even on the map. What does that tell you? That doesn't mean it's entirely clean by any means but compared to oil, it's far and away cleaner.

Agreed, there's not anything we are using or going to use that will be zero impact on the planet. In a sense we are in the process of shifting one environmental damage to another (hopefully overall less) damaging system.

But even if no one had an EV they'd still use a ton of Li in all the power sources we see all over the place today. And even an internal combustion vehicle requires a lot of mining (including things like Rhodium for the catalytic converter which EV's don't have).

 

[elektra]

If I have 100 abstracts in front of me and 36 of those express NO OPINION RELATED TO THE TOPIC AT HAND they are no longer part of the analysis.

The remaining 64 abstracts are then the "sample" of interest.

Those 36 that expressed no opinion do carry any weight as I understand it. They are neither in agreement or in disageement.

But you act as if I only provided links to ONE study, when in fact I provided links to NUMEROUS studies.

The general finding through not just abstract/text analysis but other methods (ie direct polling) that show a consistent approximately 97% of agreement with the concept of AGW being real.

This is how science is done. Multiple independent methods finding similar results.

This also comports well with my personal experience working with a variety of earth and ocean scientists all over the US (NY, MA, CA, KY, IL, LA...)

you are such an idiot, if you had a 100 abstracts, and 36 were not related to the topic at hand?

Now you are stating, that the research group gathered every single abstract on every scientific paper in the world, went through them, and only used those relating to global warming. That the researchers had to throw away abstracts?

You are fool if you expect us to believe that. From your link, from your source, the facts disagree with you.

32.6% endorsed AGW,

That is 32.6% of all the studies they looked at, they claim endorse AGW, the 97.1% that agree, is of that 32.6%
As you link states!

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.

OF the 32.6%, 97.1% form a consensus that it is humans causing global warmin

Thank you for the wonderful facts. Facts you give, and now they are facts you are trying to dismiss.

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

you are such an idiot,

-sigh-

if you had a 100 abstracts, and 36 were not related to the topic at hand?

It's called sampling.

Now you are stating, that the research group gathered every single abstract on every scientific paper in the world, went through them, and only used those relating to global warming.

I literally said the exact opposite of this.

You are fool if you expect us to believe that.

I would hope you wouldn't believe it because I never said that.

It is clear I cannot explain it to you so I will just stop where I'm at. If you can't read what I wrote or if you are going to lie about what I posted I'm going to just give it up right now.

Thanks.

 

[jc456]

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

Factually historical evidence precludes your ignorance

 

[elektra]

It's called sampling.
I literally said the exact opposite of this.
I would hope you wouldn't believe it because I never said that.

It is clear I cannot explain it to you so I will just stop where I'm at. If you can't read what I wrote or if you are going to lie about what I posted I'm going to just give it up right now.

Thanks.

Yes, sampling, not science. An opinion, not science. Insinuation, not fact.

Yes, you should just stop, for there is no way you can explain away the facts that you disagree with, facts are stubborn things.

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.

In a small sample of titles and abstracts, researchers were able to insinuate the opinion of 32.6% of the scientists, the researchers state that 32.6% of scientists endorsed AGW.

Nowhere in these studies does it state what PV expects us to believe, that they used to statistics to infer what the entire population of scientists believe.

It is only through lies and misinformation that Democrats shove Climate Change and the scam solution of green energy down our throat.

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

Yes, sampling, not science.

^^^^^this is the single most hilarious thing I've read in a while. Thanks!

 

[Crick]

Yes, sampling, not science. An opinion, not science. Insinuation, not fact.

Yes, you should just stop, for there is no way you can explain away the facts that you disagree with, facts are stubborn things.



In a small sample of titles and abstracts, researchers were able to insinuate the opinion of 32.6% of the scientists, the researchers state that 32.6% of scientists endorsed AGW.

Nowhere in these studies does it state what PV expects us to believe, that they used to statistics to infer what the entire population of scientists believe.

It is only through lies and misinformation that Democrats shove Climate Change and the scam solution of green energy down our throat.

Wow, you would not BELIEVE how stupid this make you seem. Or is it more than just seeming?

 

[ReinyDays]

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.

Er ... no ... "natural global warming" ... 2 (±0.5) ºC in 100 (±50) years ... well within the natural variability of the climate system these past 500,000 (±50,000) years ... keep in mind, most of us here in the United States have experienced a 2ºC temperature increase in just the past hour or two ... or four degrees "red, white and blue" Fahrenheit ...

Gas engine cars will go away when the gasoline is gone ... besides, we were discussing taking 90 (+1,-3) % of passenger vehicles OFF the roads ... both piston and electric ... half of us live in cities, we should be walking to work everyday ...

I insist ... EV operations along the Columbia River is cheaper than piston engines ... effectively carbon-neutral electricity dirt cheap ... just who's stupid enough to live anywhere near the Columbia River ... what a shit-hole this area is ... you'd hate it here so don't bother coming ...

 

[miketx]

One answer to this is to stop mining the earth period. Develop space based industries along with practical vehicles that can get from here to the moon in hours and to the asteroid belt in days or weeks and mine them. Comets too. This stuff is just waiting for us. Also power from fusion. Problems solved. Of course no one will do this until all the democrats are gone.

 

[miketx]

Wow, you would not BELIEVE how stupid this make you seem. Or is it more than just seeming?

Anything postulated by democrats is stupid.

 

[elektra]

^^^^^this is the single most hilarious thing I've read in a while. Thanks

Yes, a study, not Science, and a small sample, which again is not Science.

Again I will quote your source

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 man caused global warming.

 

[elektra]

Wow, you would not BELIEVE how stupid this make you seem. Or is it more than just seeming?

Me, I did not right the study, the author makes it clear that 97% refers to 32.6% of the papers. 97% of 32.6% believe man is causing global warming

It is the study supplied by advocates of AGW. I did not link to it. It is Cook, who wrote the study, the people you yourself have quoted.

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 tha

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

Yes, a study, not Science, and a small sample, which again is not Science.

LOL. You are so out of your depth here it isn't even in the same ballpark.

Look, just because you made it through junior high school science class does NOT mean you know anything about science.

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 man caused global warming.

Let me highlight the bit you keep ignoring:

"Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that man caused global warming."

But I'm most curious why you limit yourself to only ONE of the MANY different papers and studies I cited.

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

Me, I did not right the study, the author makes it clear that 97% refers to 32.6% of the papers. 97% of 32.6% believe man is causing global warming

It is the study supplied by advocates of AGW. I did not link to it. It is Cook, who wrote the study, the people you yourself have quoted.

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 tha

Well, you clearly don't understand what is being said and you are assuming your lack of understanding somehow makes a valid point.

This is what Dunning-Kruger looks like. Someone who doesn't understand a topic but who also lacks the ability to see that they don't understand a topic.

That's probably why the other poster and myself are pointing this out to you.

 

[elektra]

"Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that man caused global warming."

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 man had caused global warming.

yes that is 97% of 32.6% as your study states, not 97% pf 100%

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

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 man had caused global warming.

yes that is 97% of 32.6% as your study states, not 97% pf 100%

OK, I have to ask you just to get a sense of exactly how far off in left field you are.

If I am measuring the consensus on a topic.

I have 100 people.

33 of them say "I approve!"
1 of them says "I disapprove!"
and 64 of them say "I don't have any opinion whatsoever because my interest is in something unrelated!"

If I am assessing consensus why would I include those people without any opinion whatsoever?


Now in this case it isn't even really a POLL...this is grabbing 100 documents nominally in a given field and assessing what the general consensus is. If 64 of those papers do not express any point either pro or con to the concept (perhaps they are about how thermometers work, or some other ancillary concept that does not NEED to have an opinion) then there is NO REASON to include them in the measure of consensus.

I wish I could explain it simply enough for you to understand.