These Are The People Who Said We Should Take Climate Change Seriously

[Resnic]

Sounds like someone is trying to get a research grant so they can take a year off and not have to produce anything in the end to justify the free cash.

 

[otto105]

So, are you denying Harvard's theory of Aliens among us?

Harvard ain’t a person. And those Harvard researchers are speculating.

 

[Independent thinker]

You’re not questioning science, you’re denying it for political purposes.

You’re not questioning science, you’re denying it for political purposes.

 

[22lcidw]

This is what science is all about, asking the crazy "what if" questions.

Back in the day people like you were freaking out when someone said "just imagine that the earth is not the center of the universe".

That would not be in Africa several centuries ago or so. Their historical records printed perfectly, and their advanced civilization laughed at that as you and many of the primitive technologies of Europe at the time. Do not worry. Asia was advanced also in that era. That caste system though was tough and rigid. And they are licking their chopsticks getting ready to take over for us. I hope that means we do not go down in a nuclear conflagration.

 

[SeaMajor7]

How, exactly, are the scientists discussed in your linked article connected to those who would advocate for fighting climate change?

The notion of "fighting climate change" is completely insane.
There, I said it.

 

[otto105]

The notion of "fighting climate change" is completely insane.
There, I said it.

You didn’t need to prove your ignorance

 

[hjmick]

The notion of "fighting climate change" is completely insane.
There, I said it.

Okay, mitigating our effects on climate? Does that work for you?

I have always been of the opinion that much of what we see in regards to the climate changing is cyclical. They once grew grapes and produced wine in northern England but no longer. And that didn't end recently...

At the same time, I think it is the height of hubris to believe that what humans do on the planet has no effect on the world and climate. I see no reason why we shouldn't do what we can to ease that effect.

That being said, I also think it is ridiculous to think that anything substantial will change without countries like China and India making changes.

I also think changes should start with industry, not private citizens.

Banning ICEs? Not on board with that plan. Certainly not until the infrastructure is in place to support alternatives and the technology is such that it doesn't take seven hours or more to recharge. It needs to be as convenient and fast to refuel as an ICE.

Yes, I know there is more to the whole issue than EVs, but that's the one people whine about the loudest...

For me? Leave my gas stove, furnace, and water heater alone, and you can go fuck yourself (not you specifically, but those who would try such a thing) if you think you'll be taking my central air...

 

[otto105]

Okay, mitigating our effects on climate? Does that work for you?

I have always been of the opinion that much of what we see in regards to the climate changing is cyclical. They once grew grapes and produced wine in northern England but no longer. And that didn't end recently...

At the same time, I think it is the height of hubris to believe that what humans do on the planet has no effect on the world and climate. I see no reason why we shouldn't do what we can to ease that effect.

That being said, I also think it is ridiculous to think that anything substantial will change without countries like China and India making changes.

I also think changes should start with industry, not private citizens.

Banning ICEs? Not on board with that plan. Certainly not until the infrastructure is in place to support alternatives and the technology is such that it doesn't take seven hours or more to recharge. It needs to be as convenient and fast to refuel as an ICE.

Yes, I know there is more to the whole issue than EVs, but that's the one people whine about the loudest...

For me? Leave my gas stove, furnace, and water heater alone, and you can go fuck yourself (not you specifically, but those who would try such a thing) if you think you'll be taking my central air...

First, it doesn’t take 7 hours to charge an EV.

Second, it is in our collective interest to use more efficient appliances.

Do you still use coal to heat your house? Get work in buggy pulled by a horse? Are you Amish? Or a Luddite?

 

[Foxfyre]

and that we should only deal in facts and listen to the science. So, should we listen to them or not? Or is all they do is deal in conspiracy theories?

Harvard Scientists Say There May Be an Unknown, Technologically Advanced Civilization Hiding on Earth

What if — and stick with us here — an alien reptilian race is hiding in plain sight, disguised as humans, and sheltering deep underground? In a yet-to-be-peer-reviewed paper that's likely to raise more than a few eyebrows in the scientific community, a team of researchers from the Human...

www.yahoo.com

Actually I don't have all that much problem with this unless somebody starts pretending the 'what if' aspect of it is actually fact. It would be fun to find out that it was fact though.

True science asks what if questions about everything however implausible it may seen. Worry a lot more about the stuff they claim is 'settled science' when it isn't than their 'what ifs' that seem really way out in left field.

Think what we could learn from an alien species sufficiently technologically advanced to be able to come here. It could advance our own science by maybe thousands of years.

And if it turns out to just be some creative person's pure imagination at play, well at least we had some fun thinking about it.

 

[SeaMajor7]

Okay, mitigating our effects on climate? Does that work for you?

I have always been of the opinion that much of what we see in regards to the climate changing is cyclical. They once grew grapes and produced wine in northern England but no longer. And that didn't end recently...

At the same time, I think it is the height of hubris to believe that what humans do on the planet has no effect on the world and climate. I see no reason why we shouldn't do what we can to ease that effect.

That being said, I also think it is ridiculous to think that anything substantial will change without countries like China and India making changes.

I also think changes should start with industry, not private citizens.

Banning ICEs? Not on board with that plan. Certainly not until the infrastructure is in place to support alternatives and the technology is such that it doesn't take seven hours or more to recharge. It needs to be as convenient and fast to refuel as an ICE.

Yes, I know there is more to the whole issue than EVs, but that's the one people whine about the loudest...

For me? Leave my gas stove, furnace, and water heater alone, and you can go fuck yourself (not you specifically, but those who would try such a thing) if you think you'll be taking my central air...

I live on a GIANT GLACIAL MORAINE in NY called Long Island.
Yeah, climate changes.
Water vapor is the #1 greenhouse gas.
Ban THAT!!!!!
The demented LEFT only care about one thing: CONTROL OF THE PEOPLE.
GTFOH!!!!

 

[hjmick]

The demented LEFT only care about one thing: CONTROL OF THE PEOPLE.

NEWS FLASH!! That's all either party gives a shit about.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

Actually I don't have all that much problem with this unless somebody starts pretending the 'what if' aspect of it is actually fact. It would be fun to find out that it was fact though.

True science asks what if questions about everything however implausible it may seen. Worry a lot more about the stuff they claim is 'settled science' when it isn't than their 'what ifs' that seem really way out in left field.

Think what we could learn from an alien species sufficiently technologically advanced to be able to come here. It could advance our own science by maybe thousands of years.

And if it turns out to just be some creative person's pure imagination at play, well at least we had some fun thinking about it.

Corona's Clown Princes

These whatiffies have an undeserved prestige, so even their goofiest ideas are given the benefit of the doubt. They'll flash their academic credentials in order to blind us to the ulterior motives for their scare stories.

But what if the Globalwarmies' ideal air is actually the most toxic of all that mankind has managed to survive in? What they call "Clean Air" is the ideal habitat for harmful microbes, insects, and Liberals.

 

[Foxfyre]

Corona's Clown Princes

What if the Globalwarmies' ideal air is actually the most toxic of all that mankind has managed to survive in? What they call "Clean Air" is the ideal habitat for harmful microbes, insects, and Liberals.

Pretty easy to test I would say.

On a more subtle scale, I would say that kids allowed to play in the dirt and mud puddles and taste their mud pies will more likely have stronger immune systems than those raised in fastidiously more sterile conditions.

And lo and behold my comment which belongs squarely in at least one field of science has been studied and so far affirmed:

Is playing in the dirt good for kids' immune systems?

Experts explain why it's healthy to let your children occasionally play in the dirt — and it may not be for the reasons you assume.

www.livescience.com

 

[Independent thinker]

Actually I don't have all that much problem with this unless somebody starts pretending the 'what if' aspect of it is actually fact. It would be fun to find out that it was fact though.

True science asks what if questions about everything however implausible it may seen. Worry a lot more about the stuff they claim is 'settled science' when it isn't than their 'what ifs' that seem really way out in left field.

Think what we could learn from an alien species sufficiently technologically advanced to be able to come here. It could advance our own science by maybe thousands of years.

And if it turns out to just be some creative person's pure imagination at play, well at least we had some fun thinking about it.

Over by decades I have seen settled science say that butter is bad for you, butter is good for you, butter is bad for you, butter is good for you. Same with coffee and a gazillion other things. Science is always settled until science proves science wrong.

 

[otto105]

I live on a GIANT GLACIAL MORAINE in NY called Long Island.
Yeah, climate changes.
Water vapor is the #1 greenhouse gas.
Ban THAT!!!!!
The demented LEFT only care about one thing: CONTROL OF THE PEOPLE.
GTFOH!!!!

So!

It’s water vapor that is causing our rapid warming.

 

[hjmick]

First, it doesn’t take 7 hours to charge an EV.

Second, it is in our collective interest to use more efficient appliances.

Do you still use coal to heat your house? Get work in buggy pulled by a horse? Are you Amish? Or a Luddite?

There are variables where charge time is concerned. From the charger used to the system in the car. Yes, fast chargers can indeed reduce charge time considerably, but there are not fast chargers everywhere...

https://cars.usnews.com/cars-trucks/advice/ev-charging-time

	Powertrain	Top All-Electric Driving Range	Level 2 Charging Time
2024 Lexus TX Plug-In Hybrid	PHEV	33 miles	3 hours
2024 Kia Sportage Plug-In Hybrid	PHEV	34 miles	2 hours
2023 Subaru Crosstrek Hybrid	PHEV	17 miles	2 hours
2024 BMW i4	EV	307 miles	8-10 hours
2023 Chevrolet Bolt EUV	EV	247 miles	7-10 hours
2023 Tesla Model 3	EV	358 miles	10-12 hours
2023 Lucid Air	EV	516 miles	7-13 hours

How Long Does It Take to Charge an Electric Vehicle?

There is no simple answer, but knowing the variables will help you better estimate the time it takes for an EV battery pack to fully charge.

www.caranddriver.com

How Long Does It Take to Charge an Electric Car? | Edmunds

How fast an electric car charges depends on a number of important factors. Read on to learn the factors that determine how long it takes to charge an EV and how to maximize battery life when charging an EV.

www.edmunds.com

It can take anywhere from 20 minutes to upward of 50 hours to charge an electric car with a 60-kWh battery, depending on the charging voltage and many other factors, according to the U.S. Department of Transportation. For DC fast charging specifically, it can take about 7 to 35 minutes to charge an electric car with 100 miles of range, depending on the model and charger speed, according to Edmunds' EV charging tests. Keep in mind that these are rough estimates, which is why you see such a wide variance in times, as several factors can affect how long an electric car takes to charge...

What are the factors that affect electric car charge times?​

The charging time of an electric car depends on several factors, including the size of the EV battery, the speed of the charging station, the maximum capacity of the car's onboard charger, how much charge the battery has when plugged in, and the ambient temperature. We discuss these factors below.
Search EV tax credits and rebates in your area

How does battery size affect charging?​

A larger battery will take longer to charge than a smaller battery, all else being equal. EV battery sizes today range from around 30 kWh to more than 200 kWh. To illustrate the impact of battery size on charging time, consider two EVs, both using Level 2 charging at a rate of 9.6 kW, which is the best-case scenario for home chargers utilizing the common NEMA 14-50 wall outlet. One of our EVs has a usable battery capacity of 40 kWh, the other 80 kWh. Not surprisingly, double the battery size means double the charging time:

Usable battery capacity	Level 2 charging time (9.6 kW)
40 kWh	4.5 hours from empty to full
80 kWh	9 hours from empty to full

What are the different charging station speeds?​

This is the EV equivalent of gas-pump speed, and there are effectively three speeds to be aware of, in order from slow to fast: Level 1, Level 2, and DC fast charging or Level 3.

Level 1 charging​

This type of charging uses a standard outlet in your home. Level 1 is the most convenient method but also the slowest, charging at roughly 1.2 kW. For example, a 2023 Chevrolet Bolt EV using a standard 120-volt outlet will take approximately 60 hours to get to a full charge from empty. On the extreme end, a 2023 GMC Hummer EV, which has a huge battery, could take 200 hours — eight days! — to charge fully using the same outlet...

Level 2 charging​

Level 2 uses a 240-volt outlet and represents the fastest way to charge at home since anything greater can only be found in industrial or commercial settings. Level 2 chargers can be found at your workplace, out in public and at home. You'll likely need an electrician to install a 240-volt outlet or verify if you have the proper outlet and if your home can accommodate the extra draw in power. The same Chevy Bolt we referenced earlier would take 7.5 hours to charge from empty to full on a Level 2 charger, assuming a charge rate of 9.6 kW per the NEMA 14-50 setup's maximum output. The Prius Prime would charge up in about two hours, limited by its 6.6-kW onboard charger. The Hummer EV, though, would need a whopping 24.5 hours to go from zero to a full charge.

Vehicle Level 1 charging time (1.2 kW) Level 2 charging time (9.6 kW) 2023 Chevy Bolt EV 60 hours 7.5 hours 2023 GMC Hummer EV 196 hours 24.5 hours

Level 3 (DC fast charging)

These chargers can add range at a rate of 180 to 240 miles per hour, according to a rough estimate by the U.S. Department of Transportation. DC fast chargers are usually found in office parks, shopping centers or dedicated charging stations.....

DC fast-charging stations are the most expensive way to charge up your EV, and a full charge sometimes approaches the price of a tank of gas... <snip> We also should note that extended use of DC fast chargers is hard on the battery due to the higher temperatures generated, which can shorten its lifespan...

In the table below, we use the Tesla Model Y rather than the Chevy Bolt as our EV example because the Bolt EV struggles at DC fast chargers. Specifically, the Bolt EV's battery management system limits its DC fast-charging rate to just 55 kW, which puts it at the back of today's EV pack. The Model Y can charge at up to 250 kW, which is the maximum charge rate at Tesla Supercharger stations. As for the Prius Prime, its lack of support for DC fast charging is typical of plug-in hybrids.

Charger speed	EV charge time from empty (Tesla Model Y)	PHEV charge time from empty (Toyota Prius Prime)	Typical charger locations
Level 1 (1.2 kW)	69.5 hours	12 hours	home
Level 2 (9.6 kW)	8.5 hours	2 hours	home, workplace, public
DC fast (250 kW)	about an hour	not supported	public

... <snip> ...

What are the charging times of popular electric vehicles?​

Here is a list of Level 2 charging times for some popular EVs, assuming a charge rate of 9.6 kW and that you're charging from zero to 100%. In the case of one vehicle — the Nissan Leaf Plus — the onboard charger's maximum charge rate is less than 9.6 kW, which means the lower number is the effective charge rate.

Vehicle	Level 2 charge time	Onboard charger max rate	Usable battery capacity
2024 Audi Q8 e-tron	12.5 hours	19.2 kW	106 kWh
2023 Chevrolet Bolt EV	7.5 hours	11.5 kW	65 kWh
2023 Ford Mustang Mach-E Extended Range	10.5 hours	11.5 kW	91 kWh
2023 GMC Hummer EV	24.5 hours	11.5 kW	212 kWh
2023 Hyundai Ioniq 5 Long Range	8.5 hours	11 kW	74 kWh
2023 Kia Niro EV	7.5 hours	11 kW	64.8 kWh
2023 Nissan Leaf Plus	10 hours	6.6 kW	59 kWh
2023 Polestar 2	8.5 hours	11 kW	75 kWh
2023 Tesla Model 3 Long Range	8.5 hours	11.5 kW	75 kWh
2023 Tesla Model Y Long Range	8.5 hours	11.5 kW	75 kWh
2023 Volkswagen ID.4 Pro	9 hours	11 kW	77 kWh

From your government:

https://www.energy.gov/energysaver/how-charge-electric-vehicles

Level 1 Charging	Level 2 Charging	Level 3 Charging
Requires 30 hours for full charge. Uses a standard 120-volt household outlet. Provides approximately 5 miles of range per hour of charging.	Requires 4–7 hours for full charge. Uses a 240-volt outlet. Can be used at home or in public charging stations. Provides approximately 25 miles of range per hour of charging.	Requires 20–30 minutes for 80% charge and 1 hour for a full charge. Uses a public charging station. May affect battery performance and life with frequent use. Provides approximately 100–200+ miles of range after 30 minutes of charging.

From some random blog:

EV Charging Guide: Everything You Need to Know - The Plug - HelloTech

Electric vehicles (EVs) and plug-in hybrids are becoming more and more popular, but the infrastructure for EV chargers is still being built. If you’re

www.hellotech.com

There are more sources I could provide for you, but I think I've made my point...

 

[Foxfyre]

Over by decades I have seen settled science say that butter is bad for you, butter is good for you, butter is bad for you, butter is good for you. Same with coffee and a gazillion other things. Science is always settled until science proves science wrong.

Can't argue with this. This year by the way, coffee is in and butter isn't all that bad, both in moderation of course. Who knows what the verdict will be next year?

I think part of the problem is the plethora of people studying for their PhDs and having to come up with an original, not ever researched before, topic for their doctoral dissertations. And some of those 'original' studies are a real--I mean REAL!--stretch to prove scientifically. My daughter worked as a paid research assistant to lots of PhD candidates while working on her own PhD and confided that some of that research was clearly bogus. I have witnessed some of the same on a much smaller scale.

But it gets published and, if sensational enough, will be prominently featured as a 'peer reviewed scientific study' by the media or those who use it to prove their point about whatever.

It's important to note that 'peer reviewed' does not reflect agreement with a thesis but rather agreement that an approved scientific process was used to produce it. And anybody who has ever worked in that dynamic knows full well that anscientific process can be faked and, if nobody ever thoroughly investigates and exposes the fakery, it will likely never be known.

P.S. Enough climate scientists/scientific groups have been caught 'cooking the books' enough to know that such exists whether or not it is on a large scale.

 

[Independent thinker]

Can't argue with this. This year by the way, coffee is in and butter isn't all that bad, both in moderation of course. Who knows what the verdict will be next year?

I think part of the problem is the plethora of people studying for their PhDs and having to come up with an original, not ever research before, topic for their doctoral dissertations. And some of those 'original' studies are a real--I mean REAL!--stretch to prove scientifically. My daughter worked as a paid research assistant to lots of PhD candidates while working on her own PhD and confided that some of that research was clearly bogus. I have witnesses some of the same on a much smaller scale.

But it gets published and, if sensational enough, will be prominently featured as a 'peer reviewed scientific study' by the media or those who use it to prove their point about whatever.

It's important to note that 'peer reviewed' does not reflect agreement with a thesis but rather agreement that an approved scientific process was used to produce it. And anybody who has ever worked in that dynamic knows full well that an scientific process can be faked and, if nobody ever thoroughly investigates and exposes the fakery, it will likely never be known.

P.S. Enough climate scientists/scientific groups have been caught 'cooking the books' enough to know that such exists whether or not it is on a large scale.

Yeah, I have a thread on here somewhere where I ask what the formula is for figuring out if the Earth is warming or not and by how much. Turns out there is no one formula. They are always changing the formula and the newest formula always shows that the planet is warming. So, there really is no base point comparisons where you compare the current year's stats to the exact same stats from the previous years. So, as you say, these people can cook the books every single year to make it appear the planet continues to warm. All they have to do is change the formula every year to get the results they want.

 

[otto105]

Over by decades I have seen settled science say that butter is bad for you, butter is good for you, butter is bad for you, butter is good for you. Same with coffee and a gazillion other things. Science is always settled until science proves science wrong.

I believe that you’re mistaken. If the science was settled say like gravity, there wouldn’t be a back and forth.

 

[SeaMajor7]

I believe that you’re mistaken. If the science was settled say like gravity, there wouldn’t be a back and forth.

Gravity is NOT fully understood, stupid.