GOSH DARN EV Penalty Tax Car Registration Tags Went Up To $200 !!!!

[Bombastinator2]

Yep, there's a relatively small cadre of extremely well-paid "experts" who have decades of appearances on TV, radio, and now podcasts to argue the pro side of cigarettes/second-hand smoke, lead in gasoline, fossil fuel extraction/anti-climate change, etc.

I'm pretty sure there was a book published relatively recently about it, but I can't recall the title at the moment.

Oil companies and cigarette companies have a lot in common. One of the ironies is cigarette companies still HATE vaping (even though they pretend they don’t) and the vapes THEY sell are all disposable and thus just as difficult to quit as regular cigarettes. (You need to titrate juices and disposables can’t do that) and those same “scientists” are used for all the “save the children” stuff without any view to actually helping them quit and more or less forcing them onto cigarettes. Australia is doing it, several other nations have done it.

 

[Bombastinator2]

Yikes. I feel for you. Get better. I know how you feel.. Secure boarder lowering human trafficking, fentanyl killing Americans and gangs committing horrific violent crimes, not to mention the trillions it cost to feed and house 18 million ppl. Not to mention low inflation, and World peace and stability.through strength. Awful. New Zealand needs you. .

In fairness there is a tendency for media to exaggerate things because horrible things happening far away make people feel more secure. Theres also the whole “the grass is always greener on the other side” thing.
Theres this thing about America compared to New Zealand. There are a lot more people in much denser confines in a much larger country. One person doing one thing in New Zealand is lots more in America. (Again I haven’t done the math, I’m just guessing). Personally I haven’t actually felt unsafe till Trump threw his hat in the ring in 2015 as the cops were closing in. If it were only mountain people in the boonies raging about something would you care? If they figured out a way to control the government you might.

 

[Bombastinator2]

Exxon's internal research on fossil fuels and the climate was exactly in line with academic research through the 1970s and into the 1980s. Then it dawned on the executive office that revenue and profits were going to suffer if anything was done to address the growing obviousness of anthropogenic climate change. So, Exxon threw their own scientists under the bus and went on a full-court press against climate science and climate scientists, using tainted "scientists" on loan from Big Tobacco, primarily Frederick Seitz and S Fred Singer. The denial campaign has been underway for decades.

I think your description of timing may be late, but iirc that’s more or less how it went. I got the impression the decision by the oil companies was made in more like the sixties, but I have no data.

 

[Bombastinator2]

As am I. It is obvious that current gas taxes and other related fees are inadequate to fund adequate maintenance of roads and bridges in most areas. These inequitable EV fees are not helping the situation very much. The only rational approach would appear to be a mileage and vehicle weight class charge.

There is supposed to be, though not a very granular one. Thats the whole Diesel-costing-more thing. That system was created before there were many diesel cars. The market has a way of creating weird solutions though.
The Subaru Brat had seats in the bed to make it a “car”. They all came with seats, most of which were shipped back and reused. A few of them wound up getting sold that way too, but every last one had them. Be a car to avoid regulation, then morph into a truck to avoid different regulation.
The whole French “windows in the roof” thing was to avoid a window count tax.
The distictive “barrel” shape of Dutch tall ships was to avoid a tax by lowering deck square footage.
One has to be careful.
I wonder if I could avoid the thing by claiming my car “had an engine” in it. Bungee a gas generator in back, charge from it using level one, then only use it for emergencies. I wonder if that is what that Tesla range extender is really for? The way around it would be “if it’s got a charge port it’s an electric car”. Quiet aftermarket charge port installs on hybrids then? More electric restomods? It goes on and on..

 

[Bombastinator2]

I've argued with deniers for decades and that this particular one is simply regurgitating their debunked boilerplate without the least shame shows my efforts were entirely wasted.
Denial is a virtue signal of tribal allegiance, nothing more. No science will dissuade that.

Ah. So “someone else” then. A dupe not a devil.

 

[Bombastinator2]

You know 70's they predicted a NEW ICE AGE. Ha ha. True! That is why all temp rise charts start in 1970's. This is a fact. No denial but deception abd ppl drink the coolaid. 70's was coldest decade in seceral 100's years. Media report that? Climite models that predict doom disseminated widely. A year or 30 years later when the prediction was wildly off and exaggerated by an absurd margin, crickets and spin. Go to North Poll in summer. Ice is melting! Ahaaa. Yep every year and winter it forms, and some places it's thicker and larger.

Go back to Medieval Europe, it was warmer than present. It's called MWP, Medieval Warming Period. I am not in denial I am Climate Realistic and use my Engineering and Airline pilot background to observe climite both on ground reading weather charts and in flight observing WX 40,000 feet. Read all the info, not just what you are feed by state media.l and Gretta Thungberg. John Kerry is not bright and on a power trip. Find his speach at Davos a few yrs ago. Scarry narcissism. These are the people pushing this agenda, which I assure you puts us LAST. Al Gore is another narcissist virtue signaling.

BTW what about America Continent in MWP times? Was it hotter than today. Likely. Who knows no one recorded history. Natives did not have thermometers. DATA please.

Take a humble pill. Smart people, smarter than you and I with several PhD's in physics, atmospheric science say "WE DON'T KNOW". Others have opinions and "believe" they know. Of course the scientists that are "deniers", which is anyone who disagree man is causing all climite chsnge), get no attention or Grants. If it is not the narrative the power brokers want "no grant for you, next".

They want us afraid and poor, but gosh darn it they will have 20 000 sq ft homes, yachts, and business jets. Al Goore has a monster home and gigantic house boat near a freind. The house boat had two tiny solar panes and is connected with not one but two high power shore to ship power lines. Oh it's IK carbon credits you know. Scam. Let the hypocrites walk the walk first. You give up steak and eat bugs first Bill Gates.

The travesty is death of science for junk science for "belief" over facts. "DO you belive in climite change." You must repent. Climate science is a religious thing now, belief system.. Take it faith and follow the Gov mandates. Call it "Scientisem". Gov funds biased research grants *free money* to only those who support the narrative. It's curropt and they have been caught over and over faking it or hiding data that refutes climite change is man made. Yet media obfiscates all the data.and makes up stories every hurricane (which factually are less and not as strong historicaliy). The issue is Mass increase population along coastal areas not there 70 yrs ago. 1800'a had hurricanes of biblical proportions. So damages are greater. We can not control climite. Sorry it's natural and we are at its mercy, impotent to control it. .

Science = Math, Data, Observable phenomenon and repeatable experiments. Uou don't have ALL OF THESE THINGS YOU JUST TALKING. Prove it. Go past MSNBC and the View. Climite changing? Yes but why? All man? That is axiomatically and categorically false. People talking last 50 yes is proof of Climate change all caused by man are either gullible and ignorant or lying. Yes man has some effect? OK put a number on it. 100%? No. Again CO2 does what how? Is CO2 a precursor to Climate change is debated by PhD's with good points on both sides Or is CO2 a result if temp rise for other reasons. CO2 is mostly 98% natural and we can't change that. CO2 is nor even close to the #1 green house gas by a huge factor. #1 green house gas is water in atmosphere. H2O is most potent green house gas second to none. CO2 is life as is H2O.

We can't have a substantive conversation with actual facts and data because you call people "deniers". Nope just rational and realistic. Cimite is changing, always had and always will regardlesd of cow farts, EV's or human,. but why? SUN, orbits vary and a million other reasons, mist we dont understand.

Then we can talk what can we do? Well unilateral edicts from people who crave power and control over us, not to be trusted the ones we should submit to. The "new green deal" calked "inflation reduction act" did nothing for environment and increased inflation. DO YOU NEED MORE PROOF CLIMITE CHANGE IS USED to scam us. It was a pork barrel extravaganza that made people wealthy or gave them more political power or pushed a progressive agenda. You and Me? Did nothing for us.

I'm ALL FOR EV (free market chouce), conservation and lowering pollution. We can do that. Forcing people to eat bugs and drive EV's that are debatable as far as lowering CO2, may cause more harm than advertised. Clearly "rare earth" materials that takes massive energy to extract, transport, process is an issue. It is scaring earth.

The source of electricity creates heat and pollution. Oh right wind solar. Does not work on a cold icy night. You will freeze. Not to mention making solar panels, more batteries and wind turbine generators is not Eco freindly or cheap. People who make "green energy" are happy when people mandated their product. It is Globilist economics and USA is getting the shift. You don't really think all this is virtuous and without selfish motives. Hey a Tesla Cyber Truck turns you on go for it. But driving a well maintained 2004 Toyota Camery or Honda Accord 39 yrs and 300k miles verses burying several EV's in 30 yrs is a net gain for Earth's resources and better for atmosphere.

.Opinion is fine. Man made climite change is a SWAG, aka Scientific Wild A** Guessing, or more politely a theory, hypothesis. Educated guessing is OK, but this topic is now a Religion. How dare I question the orthodoxy of "existential threat" from my existence and ICE car. We do need to discuss rational ways to lower CO2 output. Get off coal great. Can you say Nuclear?

It takes decades to plan, approve, build a Nuclear plant. None built in +40 years until recently. Yeah a new reactor after 40 yrs. More coming? Don'tthink so. Our current reactors are old and past original economic life. . We better build 67 more 1 Gig Watt Reactors in next 10 yrs, plus a lot more power lines and towers, sub-stations, transformers. If we are going all WV someday.

. I know people are not serious when they don't talk about this EV thing with Nuclear in same breath. Liquid fossil fuel makes jets, large cargo ships and 28 wheelers go, not to mention all the heavy equipment needed to dig up the RARE limited supply of materials out the ground to make batteries.

BTW all that stuff is mostly in countries that hate USA. Do the math is the "extestental threat" of 1 degree Celsius rise in 120 yrs in "global temp" enough to commit suicide, become a poor weak nation, like others? People want America to be weak... no super powers, we are "all equal" to lowest common denominator. No thanks. Cripple America economically by making energy scares and expensive, the last 3 yrs will seem like the good old days. Let's be rational.

Part of the issue is nuclear weapon avoidance. I think it’s one of the reasons thorium is not pursued more. Apparently it’s easier to build a nuclear weapon from a thorium reactor than a light water reactor. Not a whole lot easier. Iirc you’ve got to work on the governmental level and take apart a thorium reactor and sort of replumb it. Non zero though. Uranium is in the reaction. To make a thorium reactor viable one has to make one using a totally different pathway that doesn’t turn thorium into uranium. And can’t even if you mess with it.
My personal tinfoil hat theory is that’s actually how North Korea got their uranium. They built a thorium reactor and then just used sea water or something.

 

[WetEV]

Take a humble pill. Smart people, smarter than you and I with several PhD's in physics, atmospheric science say "WE DON'T KNOW".

So start with a simple problem.


Here is a practical problem that might help you to understand.

Suppose we launch a satellite into orbit.

The stuff in the satellite needs to be in the working temperature range. Batteries, electronics and such what all will fail if too hot or too cold.



How can I design a satellite so that the temperature of the satellite stays in range?

 

[gmcjetpilot]

Merchants of Doubt?

Every single denier talking head on TV is on the take.

Every single Climite Fanstic on TV is on the take. It goes both ways, but follow the money. The money goes to ppl who have religious ferver and say "extestental threat", "tipping point", "all scientist agree", and the famous "I am the a science". All untrue.

 

[gmcjetpilot]

So start with a simple problem.


Here is a practical problem that might help you to understand.

Suppose we launch a satellite into orbit.

The stuff in the satellite needs to be in the working temperature range. Batteries, electronics and such what all will fail if too hot or too cold.



How can I design a satellite so that the temperature of the satellite stays in range?

Besides the patronizing, I have a Master's in Engineering, commercial, space, military Aerospace, my first career. I transitioned to Airline pilot, international. I designed and later and now fly the most sophisticated manmade technology like B777. Your point?

Here is a thought experiment to help you understand. Make an ALL ELECTRIC AIRCRAFT that can fly at an altitude of 39,000 ft at 560 mph, with +300 passengers or 220,000 lbs, of cargo and 9,000 mile range. How about an mega oceanic 1300ft long by 200' wide super cargo container ship with batteries and electric motors? Lets ban cargo ships and mandatory sailing ships only. Ha ha.

Get mad a few dozand super tankers plying the oceans, because they are making more pollution than all passenger cars in the World! So EV's are going to save the planet. Let's get real.
Even those super tankers are a tiny fraction of a fraction of 1% of all CO2 annually, compared to natural sources of CO2. Deal with it. Not denial just enlightened.

Kiss the earth because that is where oil comes from.

This is not to say man has no effect on climite or we should do nothing. But doing pointless things that bankrupt us on a theory is folly. Use science for good and truth, not propaganda or a climite cult religion. We are like primitive natives. When the weather was bad they said the gods were mad at them. Now evening news a storm like thousands that came before, yell "Climite Change". Really science please, not your feelings. Unlike religion which is based on faith, science requires proof.

People say "they will make better battries". OK. Waiting. The energy density, weight, volume, of batteries is tiny fraction of Jet A, Diesel, gasoline from petroleum. To fill a B777, long range jet airliner carries 45,000 gal of fuel. May take an hour plus for a fill up on a long leg if fuel is needed. How long to charge a long range electric jet the size and performance of a B777? Trick question, never going to happen in our lifetime (or ever) without a new quantum leap in technology yet invented and may be beyound the laws of physics. Nothing is close to Petroleum. Yes gas, natural gas is great. Hydrogen fuel cells invented for Apollo? Great not for a large plane or ship. Car? Many challenges, not the least to make hydrogen is energy intensive, infrastructure. They are out there. We can dream on. But why? Is earth too far gone? No. But vote for me I will save you.

 

[fjord]

Every single Climite Fanstic on TV is on the take.

Why would anyone corrupt choose the side with a lot less money?
Besides, Exxon’s own scientists knew the truth. Did you know that?

 

[fjord]

It’s hard to take someone seriously who can’t even spell “climate”.

 

[Drew21]

compared to natural sources of CO2.

Can you point me to natural sources that explain the exponential rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations since the Industrial Revolution?

On a more general note regarding advances in renewable energy sources and storage, you surely realize that modern fossil fuel-based technology such as jetliners, cargo ships, etc. are the result of centuries of scientific and engineering advancements? Imagine how badly the Wright brothers would have pooped their pants if a Boeing 777 flew over Kitty Hawk in 1903 right after they completed their first 12-second flight.

So, what sort of advancements might be made in renewable energy in the next 120 years? Will they be enough to help reduce problems stemming from global climate change? I hope so.

 

[gmcjetpilot]

Likewise in Washington…all told $300 a year. Not to mention super high insurance cost ostensibly because of higher repair costs. I am a convert to mileage based charges for both!

I think milage based is good. We have technology to track that if willing to give up privacy. Thst ship sailed however.

 

[gmcjetpilot]

Can you point me to natural sources that explain the exponential rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations since the Industrial Revolution?

On a more general note regarding advances in renewable energy sources and storage, you surely realize that modern fossil fuel-based technology such as jetliners, cargo ships, etc. are the result of centuries of scientific and engineering advancements? Imagine how badly the Wright brothers would have pooped their pants if a Boeing 777 flew over Kitty Hawk in 1903 right after they completed their first 12-second flight.

So, what sort of advancements might be made in renewable energy in the next 120 years? Will they be enough to help reduce problems stemming from global climate change? I hope so.

CDN is a channel on YouTube.

You emotionally exaggerated "exponentatal increase" in CO2. 337 ppm to 417 ppm and temps up last 120 yrs 1 degree Celsius. Yawn. CO2 has been higher pre industrial re

Of that man made CO2 is 0.000000008% of atmosphere. Yawn. Biggest green house gas water vapor. Where is this CO2 coming from? Some is man-made, clearly, but factually look it up natural sources make up over 98%. Yes some natural sources can and do increase. Man is not accountable for all the increase. Problem is measuring it.

"Natural sources of (CO2) include: volcanic eruptions, animal and plant respiration (breathing), decomposition of organic matter (dead plants and animals), forest fires, and the release of CO2 from the oceans (ocean outgassing), where it is naturally absorbed and stored; essentially, any natural process that breaks down carbon-based materials releases CO2 into the atmosphere." Methane is bubbling

Scientists debate the effect of CO2, and sources. We only hear one side cherry picked for worst case predictions. Does CO2 cause temperature increse or is CO2 a byproduct of rising temperatures for other reasons. Past periods had highest CO2 yet temperature were coldest. Hummm may be CO2 (a tiny fraction of Atmo) is not everything?

There are other factors. We know that climate has always changed often drastically without man. CO2 numbers are often taken over short periods, to dramatize the increase over a short period. Climate is measured in 100,000's of years not decades. Propaganda. Like all Temp charts start in the 1970"s, coldest decade in 300 years. Sneaky. How can you trust these people when caught lying and deceiving over and over.

I have a masters in engineering and did analysis and certification of structures on B767, B747-400 and B777. I worked on SDI (star wars), JSF (joint strike fighter now F35). I changed careers.As a pilot Weather and climate is a passion. Sadly there is a lot of lying and fear mongering. We don't know what we don't know. As a pilot I have studied weather low, high and it's fascinating. We can't predict weather more than a few days out, and get it wrong. So know climate 10, 20, 30 yrs from now.

Lower CO2? OK but CO2 makes planet greener. Trees, plants eat CO2 and make O2.

Not against man made climite change theory but know enough it is over hyped to the point childern are having emotional trauma PTSD., anxieties. With predictions that are apocalyptic and always wrong. That is nuts. Climate change has become a cult, a religion. People don't want to hear good news. Media will not report lower tempatures. CDN is good YT channel. Climate change fear T

. Please find some sources that gives rebutted claims you hear.

 

[fjord]

Incoherently repeating all the standard denier talking-points without realizing they’ve all been thoroughly debunked casts grave doubt on your understanding of the subject.

 

[MikeinPA]

Incoherently repeating all the standard denier talking-points without realizing they’ve all been thoroughly debunked casts grave doubt on your understanding of the subject.

gmcjet probably does not realize that ALL of his talking points comes from pro-fossil fuel think tanks and their paid scientists. Completed documented for over a decade ago. And that every one of those talking points has been debunked to death ad infinitum. And that the main point of these talking points is to inject doubt into what should be a straightforward conversation about polluting our shared atmosphere. And that future generations will look back in horror at what we have done, so selfishly and with so little care.

 

[MikeinPA]

Also, its kind of funny they have hijacked their own thread.

 

[MikeinPA]

Of that man made CO2 is 0.000000008% of atmosphere. Yawn. Biggest green house gas water vapor. Where is this CO2 coming from? Some is man-made, clearly, but factually look it up natural sources make up over 98%. Yes some natural sources can and do increase. Man is not accountable for all the increase. Problem is measuring it.

gmcjet, the concentration of CO2 is 0.04%, of which one third is from recent CO2 additions from human activity. Let's try something here. You look at your statement that it is 0.0000000008% and compare that to published data--then correct your previous statement?

 

[Drew21]

"Natural sources of (CO2) include: volcanic eruptions, animal and plant respiration (breathing), decomposition of organic matter (dead plants and animals), forest fires, and the release of CO2 from the oceans (ocean outgassing), where it is naturally absorbed and stored; essentially, any natural process that breaks down carbon-based materials releases CO2 into the atmosphere."

Awesome copy-and-paste. Now please show me evidence of those processes increasing since the Industrial Revolution in concert with the rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide.

CDN is a channel on YouTube.

I checked out your Youtube channel which tells me that "The Climate Discussion Nexus offers a forum for more open debate on all aspects of climate change, especially better use of science to shape policy."

I watched several of the videos and looked at the titles/summaries of the rest. I didn't see any "open debate" but did see a lot of misinformation very similar to the sort you repeat here. The only "policy" I can see is the continued policy of funneling money to the fossil fuel industry.

Let's try something different:
- If I needed to land a plane, I'm sure you would recommend a pilot, perhaps even yourself.
- If I was having heart issues and shortness of breath, you would probably recommend I consult with a cardiologist.
- If my roof was leaking, you might suggest a general contractor or roofing professional.

We can agree that each of those individuals is an expert in their profession, but you hopefully wouldn't suggest that I ask a pilot about my heart issues or trust a roofer to land a plane with 300 passengers, correct?

So, now let's say I want to learn about climate science. Some might point me to the IPCC report as a synthesis of decades of research by hundreds of climate scientists. That's the very report I suggested you check out recently.

Your recommendation is instead that I start with a Youtube channel run by a historian/journalist. You might say, "Look, there's an interview with an 'exiled climatologist' on CDN, so that proves that climate change is a hoax."

You regularly insinuate that climate scientists are "on the take." Do you think that when a scientist is awarded a big research grant that money goes into their pocket? If that's your view of professional climate scientists, why would you believe that professional climate change deniers are any more honorable or honest?

It's great that you have advanced degrees. Me too. Probably lots of other folks around here as well. Mine are in Ecology/Evolutionary Biology, so I'm not an expert on climate science, but what I realized early on is that college and grad school are partially about gaining expertise in a specific field but more importantly about learning how to learn. Learning how to sift through evidence and data. Learning how to parse truth from fiction. Or, as my grandpa used to say, not letting someone piss on my leg and tell me it's raining.

Science grows through cycles of experiments (often modeling in this context), collection and analysis of data, more experiments/modeling, and so on. Over time, repeated research findings lend more and more support to certain conclusions (e.g., human-caused climate change, smoking is bad for you, gravity).

On the other side, you have Senator Inhofe from OK bringing a snowball into the US Congress during a Februrary (2015) snowstorm and waving it around as evidence of the climate change hoax.

These are not the same thing.

 

[Bombastinator2]

Every single Climite Fanstic on TV is on the take. It goes both ways, but follow the money. The money goes to ppl who have religious ferver and say "extestental threat", "tipping point", "all scientist agree", and the famous "I am the a science". All untrue.

Mmmmm.. calling BS. This is more word chicanery. The trick word here is “all”. “All” and “none” are rarely true. In order for the phrase “all scientists agree” in basically anything requires one to make a determination of who is or is not a scientist. If one sets the requirement low enough, science even thinks cryptids like Bigfoot, slenderman, and mothman exist. One could merely say “a vast preponderance of scientists agreed” and still cover all bases, at which point the defender of a debunked point could say “so not all of them” and there is some article or other that’s starts “not all scientists agree…”. One can always find some crackpot that believes just about anything. One just has to count them as a scientist. I remember someone pulling something like this a few years ago with a high school science teacher, because it was all they could find. My 9th grade science teacher referred to himself as A “science!” Teacher (Note the exclamation point) because normally there are specialties and they are referred to as “the sciences” which get more specialized the higher up you go. At his level they hadn’t even branched yet. Effectively the 1700s.

An example of this in action. It happens to have a blue slant, and there are probably red slant ones as well. I’m referencing it for the system of deduction rather than the results