The climate change consensus extends beyond climate scientists

[redpoint5]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

I don't think electric vehicles do jack to save the planet, but it seems the cult of climatology believes everyone else should be forced to drive one. Look at our own climate justice virtue signalers here. Only 1 of them drives an electric, but they all think everyone else should be buying them.
I saw a where small town in Maine is installing a bunch of solar panels in a pointless virtue signaling move. The panels are going in a small clearing with Forrest on 3 sides and the panels will be buried in snow for at least 4 months out of the year and barely see any sun for half the year.
Just because solar panels will only work for a few months out of the year and are never going to be economical up north isn't a reason not to buy them, it's all about virtue signaling.
You have to spend other people's money in the proper politically motivated way to show how much you fake care about the environment.

I'm sure EVs do some immeasurably small thing to affect climate change, as nearly everything has an affect on nearly everything else, but your overall point stands that it isn't enough, and often misused to signal superior virtue and shame others.

There's a ground-installed collection of solar panels in a small farmer's field where I drive by. Probably 1/3 of the panel is blocked by weeds that were allowed to grow in front, and this is Oregon, so out of the 8 good daytime hours per day, about half of those are rainy/overcast. I see many instances of suboptimal installation here, presumably because the systems were subsidized heavily and hastily installed. Then there's the fact that anywhere in the rainy valley is a poor location for PV. On top of all that, the vast majority of our electricity is already among the cleanest and cheapest; hydro.

All that said, and even granted the virtue signaling, I do believe most in the extreme end of the climate change prevention camp have good intentions. It may be cult-ish, and they may have bad ideas, but I'm not going to ascribe ill-intent on them.

[oil pan 4]

I live in the country, have absolutely no public charging, pull a trailer, have one of the oldest shortest range slowest charging electric vehicles made and it works great for me.

What excuse could the believers possibly have?

[redpoint5]

Same excuses everyone uses for falling short of their own standards of behavior. Denial, downplaying severity, procrastination, distraction, blame-shifting...

It's like how when we cut someone off, it's not that big of a deal because we either had to, or it was an honest mistake, or we were busy thinking about more important things... but when someone else cuts you off, they are wretched evil blights on humanity.

What I'm getting at is that those that would attempt to force people into EVs aren't evil sub-humans bent on ruining everything that's good, but just the normal kind of ignorant, limited, and fallible people like the rest of us. I don't find your examples of hypocrisy to prove the "believers" are ill-intentioned, or that all "believers" can be categorized as hypocrites.

[freebeard]

On topic:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jdhnhknaJOg

[litesong]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

I.....have one of the oldest shortest range slowest charging electric vehicles made....

You pay big money for sub-standard items. I believe that.
I loved my electric bike, till someone stole it.

[litesong]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

.... 97% of voters.

"4 oil pans" thinks it represents 97% of voters. "4 oil pans" puts too much used sump pump oil on its salads.

[redneck]

.

[redpoint5]

Originally Posted by litesong

"4 oil pans" thinks it represents 97% of voters. "4 oil pans" puts too much used sump pump oil on its salads.

I LOLed a lot reading this, for various reasons. Mostly it struck me that the use of "it" to be the non-offensive way to refer to someone without implying gender is probably more offensive to most people. "It" sounds like an inanimate object, or something sub-human.

[litesong]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

Mostly it struck me that the use of "it"......"It" sounds like an inanimate object, or something sub-human.

First, mostly it struck me that "it" thot "it" represented 97% of the people. Second, 400 cubic kilometers of melted ice, rising to 1000 cubic kilometers & maybe to 10,000 cubic kilometers per year, didn't phase "4 oil pans".... nary at all.
10,000 cubic kilometers represent an ice cube melt, 70,000 feet long, by 70,000 feet wide, by 70,000 feet high. THAT occurrence is what we must avoid.

[redpoint5]

Originally Posted by litesong

First, mostly it struck me that "it" thot "it" represented 97% of the people. Second, 400 cubic kilometers of melted ice, rising to 1000 cubic kilometers & maybe to 10,000 cubic kilometers per year, didn't phase "4 oil pans".... nary at all.
10,000 cubic kilometers represent an ice cube melt, 70,000 feet long, by 70,000 feet wide, by 70,000 feet high. THAT occurrence is what we must avoid.

There's already commonly improperly used English pronouns that denote an unsure or irrelevant gender. They, them, their, etc. Why use an awkward new one that practically nobody else uses? I probably read 5 of your posts before I figured out what it was you were doing.

Anyhow, we're terrible at evaluating extremely big and extremely tiny things. 10,000 kilometers sounds like a lot to me. Then there's 1,332,000,000 cubic kilometers of water on earth. 10k^3 represents 0.0000075 of the water. So, in one regard it sounds like a whole lot, and in another it seems like practically nothing. Without context it's meaningless. And all that was your worst case scenario. You're (it?) saying current melt rates are 0.0000003 per year total water volume right now. All that assumes we're (its?) both right on our facts.