Comments by "TeeKay" (@teekay_1) on "Net Zero and EVs are two totally IRRECONCILABLE policies | MGUY Australia" video.

@Luka_3D Having a car and roads to travel on is liberating. It means that you can go anywhere you want anytime you want without "papers please" or applying for a license to go places. It means that if there is a better job on the other side of the continent, you can rent a van, put your belongings in a van and move to the other side of the continent.
5
@teardowndan5364 recorded history Recorded history is roughly the last 80 years, meaning that although we have good records from Romans, they did not possess thermometers nor did they keep any sort of weather technology or even thought to carefully record temperatures. By contrast, the earth is 4.5 billion years old, meaning that we're looking at 1.777777777777778e-11% of the planets history and coming to a conclusion that the last 20 years is an aberration.
4
@hiflyer000 You can't honestly say with a straight face all of our agricultural, industrial, and scientific activities over the past 100+ years has had zero effect on the planet Without data you have no basis for that belief. You have a feeling, but that's about it.
4
@Tom-pt3jf Examined by whom? A high school drop out? By financial people who want to understand how a company can make a profit. By customers who want to understand what an EV does that a gas car cannot do.
3
@teardowndan5364 Sure, because more people are living there with more A/C with more cars, and a bunch of stuff creating heat islands. As I pointed out in another post, cities have temperatures that are hotter than the surrounding area by 1.8 to 5.4 degrees. Which is why you can't extrapolate anything from city temperatures. It's why big cities are ultimately self-defeating.
2
@Luka_3D The reason that it's the only means of transport is because the population density is too low to make any sort of rail transport impractical. You always have the choice to move to a city if you feel that's your jam, but if you ban cars, you are locked into wherever you are now because alternatives will go up in price, and in the US you'll be locked into wherever your bicycle will take you, which isn't very far. We're a big country with a lot of low-density population that needs personal transport. There's no way around this.
2
@marxistilluminati9529 "death of infrastructure". Do you hear yourself? And of course, government works for man, not vice-versa.
2
There's not enough minerals on the planet to replace gas powered cars with EVs.
1
@gregb1599 Many already catch fire in your pants For young men many things do catch fire in your pants, but a phone ain't one of them unless you're charging it.
1
@gregb1599 A leaf actually makes sense. Short range car, no ambition of replacing gas cars, great commuter, or weekend going-to-the-hardware, grocery and dry-cleaner car.
1
@badchefi In the US, $25K of petrol (we call it gas) will power a car for over 213,000 miles or roughly 342790 km.
1
@gerbre1 _ Studies have shown that temperature differences between urban and rural areas are similar_ Actually this is untrue. They are called urban heat islands and they represent anywhere from a 1.8 to 5.4 degree variance from rural areas. Search for "Urban Heat Islands: Why Cities are Warmer than Rural Areas".
1
@teardowndan5364 Let's be clear unprecedented in the last 20-30 years . Like most humans you imagine what the world was like when you were a child is "normal" for the earth. We may actually be moving towards normal with the increased temperatures.
1
@gerbre1 That only works if your readings aren't in cities and you have enough to fairly represent most spots on earth.
1
@gerbre1 Climate Scientists don't have good data, not one of the climate models work even at a basic level, we have no way to track sea rise. The whole climate "hockey stick" was shown to be nonsense almost two decades ago.
1
@davelowe1977 Here's the dirty secret about every climate model. If you take known conditions from say 1960 and let the model run, it never comes close to current conditions in 2024. That would be a perfectly reasonable test that if you can't extrapolate 45 years into the future, it's a given that you can't get better predictions if you look ahead 100 years or 1000 years. So if people are claiming scientists have these great models and great data, they're lying.
1
@gerbre1 Well the theory that rising CO2 causes global warming is falling out of favor because the evidence doesn't support it. And what are your credentials that makes you an expert? Or did you listen to Al Gore?
1
@jeremyashford2145 Seriously? The hockey stick curve was debunked 20 years ago.
1
@gerbre1 CO2 has been shown to be a lagging indicator, not a leading indicator of warming. Try to keep up.
1
@gerbre1 "The absolute values are irrelevant" And yet the crazies say a 1.3 degree rise in temperature will cause the poles to melt and seas to rise, all of which now we know were silly prognostications.
1
@gravesclayton3604 An armed citizenry is a threat to governments that try to restrict free speech.
1
@MookMineola It's expensive because no insurance company wants to take on the liability of a battery with hidden damage, so they often want to replace not just the broken parts, but the battery, which very often totals the car.
1
@Acemeistre It comes from the WEF.
1
@Acemeistre They post their goals openly, and every leader in the world goes to their annual meeting and espouses their goals. So apparently, those with much ignorance don't understand that aspect of the WEF.
1
@Acemeistre Well 15 minute cities, "you will own nothing and be happy", "The Great Reset" all come from the WEF, and countries are starting to implement these nutty ideas. Nobody's blaming anyone except our politicians who follow and push this stuff on the masses. The reality is Climate Science at this point is an oxymoron. We have neither the data to make it a science, and the solutions being offered are worse than the imagined problem. They will make us poorer, hungrier, and less safe.
1