The future of electric cars

On Sat, 18 Jun 2016 09:56:32 -0700 (PDT), "G.B.Applebaum"
wrote:

Yeah, but Snell would have us live in a cave without the amenities.

To be fair, I think he means that in order to achieve no more carbon pollution, we all have to give up our high living standards. I believe that is not true, that we can certainly improve things a number of ways and actually increase our standard of living.

I agree. But the thing is, Snell thinks only those who believe global
warming is a problem should give up their standard of living. That's a
pretty antisocial viewpoint. He doesn't think those of us opposed to
the military should be able to give up paying taxes, after all. He
likes to brand everyone else a hypocrite, but it's easy enough to see
real hypocrisy in his views.

For instance, every new home should have solar panels on the roof. This should be part of construction standards the way each home must have indoor plumbing and bathrooms.

I just got back from Holland, and virtually every new house had solar
panels on the roof, and even apartments had little solar panel window
shades outside. Makes perfect sense to supplement the national grid
this way.

On Saturday, June 18, 2016 at 9:56:34 AM UTC-7, G.B.Applebaum wrote:

Yeah, but Snell would have us live in a cave without the amenities.

Not exactly "us", which would include Snell. He claims, rather, that he gets a pass on all of this because he doesn't believe in AGW, or climate change, or whatever label you choose to place on it.

40 gigatons of CO2 dumped into the atmosphere every year by mankind and he doesn't believe that it has any effect on the Earth. That's what I call stump-stupid.

On Saturday, June 18, 2016 at 2:37:58 PM UTC-5, palsing wrote:
On Saturday, June 18, 2016 at 9:56:34 AM UTC-7, G.B.Applebaum wrote:

Yeah, but Snell would have us live in a cave without the amenities.

Not exactly "us", which would include Snell. He claims, rather, that he gets a pass on all of this because he doesn't believe in AGW, or climate change, or whatever label you choose to place on it.

40 gigatons of CO2 dumped into the atmosphere every year by mankind and he doesn't believe that it has any effect on the Earth. That's what I call stump-stupid.

Hottest May on record:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/servic...ntp/201605.gif

On Saturday, June 18, 2016 at 6:31:51 PM UTC-5, R.S Birnbaum wrote:
On Saturday, June 18, 2016 at 2:37:58 PM UTC-5, palsing wrote:
On Saturday, June 18, 2016 at 9:56:34 AM UTC-7, G.B.Applebaum wrote:

Yeah, but Snell would have us live in a cave without the amenities.

Not exactly "us", which would include Snell. He claims, rather, that he gets a pass on all of this because he doesn't believe in AGW, or climate change, or whatever label you choose to place on it.

40 gigatons of CO2 dumped into the atmosphere every year by mankind and he doesn't believe that it has any effect on the Earth. That's what I call stump-stupid.

Hottest May on record:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/servic...ntp/201605.gif

More fun facts:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/time-series/global

On Saturday, June 18, 2016 at 9:57:11 AM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Fri, 17 Jun 2016 17:38:37 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

You won't be doing any of those things. The condition of the climate is far more important that your petty little concerns and you need to be doing your part.

But unlike you, I don't believe in carbon allotments. Nor living in
caves.

You will have to specifically show where I ever suggested that people live in caves.

The concept that we each have an allotment of CO2 to add to the atmosphere is useful for determining who might be doing inordinate damage to the environment. YOU, for example.

On Saturday, June 18, 2016 at 3:37:58 PM UTC-4, palsing wrote:
On Saturday, June 18, 2016 at 9:56:34 AM UTC-7, G.B.Applebaum wrote:

Yeah, but Snell would have us live in a cave without the amenities.

Not exactly "us", which would include Snell. He claims, rather, that he gets a pass on all of this because he doesn't believe in AGW, or climate change, or whatever label you choose to place on it.

Of course, I never made such a claim! What I have suggested is that warmingistas do not get a pass. If you think there is a problem, then act as if there is a problem.



40 gigatons of CO2 dumped into the atmosphere every year by mankind and he doesn't believe that it has any effect on the Earth. That's what I call

stump-stupid.

Clearly, the burning of so much fossil fuel and the clearing of so much forest are not natural processes. If you are SO concerned about any effects such activities might have, then don't conduct those activities yourself or accept much benefit from them. If that concept eludes you then perhaps you aren't very intelligent.

On Saturday, June 18, 2016 at 9:56:08 AM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Fri, 17 Jun 2016 17:26:00 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

NYC, Chicago, Denver, etc, don't "require" mass transit, so you should have no objection to living in such a place in order to reduce your CO2 footprint.

Most people would disagree, and consider a public transport system to
be a fundamental aspect of any successful, functional large city.

Colorado Springs counts as a large city, yet most of its denizens get by without using its vestigial mass transit system.



So? I don't live in Colorado Springs. And in fact, the quality of the
public transportation system in Colorado Springs is so poor as to be
useless to most people.

That's probably because hypocrites such as you don't ride it. It's available and should be used, especially by those concerned by AGW.

Which part of "I don't live in Colorado Springs" was unclear to you?

You miss the point. If you were truly concerned about the environment, you would move to a large city and make every effort to live a low-carbon lifestyle once there. Colorado Springs just happens to be the nearest such city to you and most everything you NEED can be found there, but not everything you WANT.
But hey, at least sea level rise won't be a problem!

If you moved to Colorado Springs, you could work to improve the transit system there, support the system by using it instead of driving your car and do your part to fight AGW.

And if you moved to Syria, you could work to improve life there

The Syrians should do that for themselves.


(and automatically improve life in the U.S.) So what?

Assertion made without evidence or proof, as usual.

On Sun, 19 Jun 2016 04:17:08 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Saturday, June 18, 2016 at 9:56:08 AM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Fri, 17 Jun 2016 17:26:00 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

NYC, Chicago, Denver, etc, don't "require" mass transit, so you should have no objection to living in such a place in order to reduce your CO2 footprint.

Most people would disagree, and consider a public transport system to
be a fundamental aspect of any successful, functional large city.

Colorado Springs counts as a large city, yet most of its denizens get by without using its vestigial mass transit system.

You may be satisfied with "getting by". I aspire to a somewhat better
society.


So? I don't live in Colorado Springs. And in fact, the quality of the
public transportation system in Colorado Springs is so poor as to be
useless to most people.

That's probably because hypocrites such as you don't ride it. It's available and should be used, especially by those concerned by AGW.

Which part of "I don't live in Colorado Springs" was unclear to you?

You miss the point. If you were truly concerned about the environment, you would move to a large city and make every effort to live a low-carbon lifestyle once there.

I don't miss the point at all. It's a stupid point, and it makes you
look even more stupid than usual.

On Sun, 19 Jun 2016 03:42:45 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Saturday, June 18, 2016 at 9:57:11 AM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Fri, 17 Jun 2016 17:38:37 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

You won't be doing any of those things. The condition of the climate is far more important that your petty little concerns and you need to be doing your part.

But unlike you, I don't believe in carbon allotments. Nor living in
caves.

You will have to specifically show where I ever suggested that people live in caves.

You do it all the time.

The concept that we each have an allotment of CO2 to add to the atmosphere is useful for determining who might be doing inordinate damage to the environment. YOU, for example.

It's useful for policy planning. It's not useful for any sort of
individual assessment.

On Sunday, June 19, 2016 at 4:00:07 AM UTC-7, wrote:
On Saturday, June 18, 2016 at 3:37:58 PM UTC-4, palsing wrote:
On Saturday, June 18, 2016 at 9:56:34 AM UTC-7, G.B.Applebaum wrote:

Yeah, but Snell would have us live in a cave without the amenities.

Not exactly "us", which would include Snell. He claims, rather, that he gets a pass on all of this because he doesn't believe in AGW, or climate change, or whatever label you choose to place on it.

Of course, I never made such a claim!

Sure you did.

What I have suggested is that warmingistas do not get a pass.

This statement certainly infers that others get a pass. What other conclusion could you come to? You absolutely think that you get a pass.

If you think there is a problem, then act as if there is a problem.

40 gigatons of CO2 dumped into the atmosphere every year by mankind and he doesn't believe that it has any effect on the Earth. That's what I call
stump-stupid.

Clearly, the burning of so much fossil fuel and the clearing of so much forest are not natural processes. If you are SO concerned about any effects such activities might have, then don't conduct those activities yourself or accept much benefit from them. If that concept eludes you then perhaps you aren't very intelligent.

My take here is that this concept eludes YOU, which clearly indicates your own lack of intelligence.

Volunteering to cut way back on emissions can never work. NEVER. Your own poor attitude shows this in spades. Only world-wide legislation has even a small chance of being effective. We will all be affected, one way or another.... even you...