SuzukiSavage.com - Print Page

SuzukiSavage.com
/cgi-bin/YaBB.pl
General Category >> Politics, Religion (Tall Table) >> Won't That be a sight!!??
/cgi-bin/YaBB.pl?num=1669748262

Message started by justin_o_guy2 on 11/29/22 at 10:57:42

Title: Won't That be a sight!!??
Post by justin_o_guy2 on 11/29/22 at 10:57:42

Imagine, if you will, the day a semi truck load of EV batteries, being transported by an EV tractor, experiences the tractor batteries bursting into flames, igniting the freight.
How much damage is That going to do?

Title: Re: Won't That be a sight!!??
Post by Eegore on 11/29/22 at 19:05:57

I wonder how long it will take those portable infernos to do as much damage as Deep Water Horizon, Exxon Valdez, Amoco Cadiz, Castillo de Bellver, Nowruz, Kolva River, Mingbulak, Atlantic Empress, or Ixtoc 1.

Title: Re: Won't That be a sight!!??
Post by justin_o_guy2 on 11/29/22 at 19:58:11

Doesn't look too bad from here. A drunk on a ship. It got fixed up. The bean counters at ,was it BP? They wanted to keep their heavy mud,so they started pumping it out, replacing it with sea water. Even a rough neck with a year in the field knows better. It's my understanding that several people refused, were fired, until someone took the job and did the stupid things. And they had crap blow out preventing equipment.
The crap they sprayed was the screwup. But, hey,mismanagement of a crisis is where government excels.

Do we get to include the toxic crap of recycling and mining? Can we include All the trouble of The Green New Deal?
The windmills suck. Solar,Meh,, marginal,,
But, hey! They haven't done the damage that oil has. What a goofy point.
How MANY MILLIONS of barrels, how many Billion miles of transportation have we seen from oil?

And look at the miniscule part of transportation EVs represent and the troubles they have caused and the obvious trouble they are very likely to cause.

Weak sauce, E.
EV? Ohh,goody, a fire that won't put out. It's gotta burn out. Brilliant.

Title: Re: Won't That be a sight!!??
Post by Eegore on 11/29/22 at 20:59:59

"Do we get to include the toxic crap of recycling and mining? Can we include All the trouble of The Green New Deal?"

Yes.

Title: Re: Won't That be a sight!!??
Post by justin_o_guy2 on 11/29/22 at 21:03:18

How MANY MILLIONS of barrels, how many Billion miles of transportation have we seen from oil?

And look at the miniscule part of transportation EVs represent and the troubles they have caused and the obvious trouble they are very likely to cause.

Title: Re: Won't That be a sight!!??
Post by Eegore on 11/29/22 at 21:10:53

And look at the miniscule part of transportation EVs represent and the troubles they have caused and the obvious trouble they are very likely to cause.

I agree.

Title: Re: Won't That be a sight!!??
Post by justin_o_guy2 on 11/29/22 at 22:04:27

I'm happy to hear that. That is frikken Cool

Title: Re: Won't That be a sight!!??
Post by Eegore on 11/30/22 at 07:44:29

So you are saying its the rate of damage over time, not the amount of damage visible today right?

As in we look not only at the positive outcomes, Electric = less emissions = Good, but the rate of damage done to human infrastructure and lives over a given timeframe.

Title: Re: Won't That be a sight!!??
Post by justin_o_guy2 on 11/30/22 at 10:09:31

Isn't that the reasonable way? Unless they figure out a safer battery, recyclable, the EVs have a serious limitation in how good they are as a desirable substitute for what we have.
I keep seeing pictures of Mines for materials for batteries, only to do some digging and Maybe that isn't Really what the words by the picture claim.. So, exactly how nasty and how many yards of dirt need moved to get the stuff for a battery? Will it require huge open mines? How much of the world are we going to have to dig up to make batteries so we protect the world? I'm not convinced this has been thought out.
I'm hoping I understood your question.

Title: Re: Won't That be a sight!!??
Post by Eegore on 12/01/22 at 08:51:07

What about complaints about Big Oil underground dealings and the many findings over the years of bribery and such? Many cases exist where they paid out millions in judgements. Should corrupt management decisions where they lie to line their pockets and damage others with product mismanagement, with the cooperation of Governments, be measured against the overall benefits of oil usage?

https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/Worlds-Largest-Oil-Traders-Caught-In-Global-Corruption-Scandal.html

https://www.u4.no/topics/oil-gas-and-mining/basics

Title: Re: Won't That be a sight!!??
Post by justin_o_guy2 on 12/01/22 at 09:29:16

Well, that Is a good question. And I'm not sure how to answer that. Is that because of oil? Or management? If we can decide to throw something away because corruption has eroded its value to the point that it is no longer beneficial, can we start with government?

Title: Re: Won't That be a sight!!??
Post by Eegore on 12/01/22 at 11:07:05

I'd say it's because of management, but to simplify it, do the benefits outweigh the risk? Bad decisions seem abound in any industry, thus Green energy will most likely have the same corruption, so is the logic you presented of looking at the billions of miles of transportation a strong argument in this case as well?

Just as looking at the benefits - billions of miles of transportation should be weighed against the level of damage oil spills, or bad management decisions, to the environment and human life. As you said, comparing oil spills is "Weak sauce," if you look at the overall percentage of damage. Spilled oil accounts for a very small percentage of oil extruded and used.

Are sh!tty executives a good enough reason to reduce the benefits of oil to the general population since they used oil as the medium to obtain the illicit gains?

Title: Re: Won't That be a sight!!??
Post by justin_o_guy2 on 12/01/22 at 12:33:33

If I'm tracking right, I'm going to have to say stick with petroleum and allow electric to grow into the market. Government mandated making gas vehicles taken off the market is wrong on every level. And is corrupt in itself.

Title: Re: Won't That be a sight!!??
Post by Eegore on 12/01/22 at 14:22:13

"If I'm tracking right, I'm going to have to say stick with petroleum and allow electric to grow into the market. Government mandated making gas vehicles taken off the market is wrong on every level. And is corrupt in itself."

I think its inevitable that electric will enter the market by consumer demand, as for Government mandate I don't really have an opinion on it right now. There's going to be stupid ideas by Government but sometimes progress is hindered by private companies monopolizing competition and law needs to fight that - or we would be using typewriters and licking stamps to have this conversation today.

What I was trying to clarify is that my focus on oil spills is not a large enough percentage of risk compared to the useable amount of oil, even if some of the Executive leaders manipulate for their own gain. That appeared to be your assessment when you said:

"How MANY MILLIONS of barrels, how many Billion miles of transportation have we seen from oil?"

Would it make much sense for me, or anyone, to focus exclusively on the negative impacts of oil, like spills, and not compare those events to the positive value of MILLIONS of barrels and Billions of miles of usage?

Title: Re: Won't That be a sight!!??
Post by justin_o_guy2 on 12/01/22 at 15:20:32

No. Compare the horror of a jetliner crash. Mucho carnage is often the result. But man miles traveled per fatality shows it's The safest travel.
The number of cars,gas powered, diesel, everything Not EV outnumber EVs ,the miles of non drama in petrol transportation ,I feel safe saying, are orders of magnitude better than EVs.

Title: Re: Won't That be a sight!!??
Post by Eegore on 12/01/22 at 19:43:53

"No. Compare the horror of a jetliner crash. Mucho carnage is often the result. But man miles traveled per fatality shows it's The safest travel."

I agree, even if we take all the drug-trade, airline CEO corruption, and the Government run TSA implementation, basically all the bad things we could look up regarding air travel - all of those things have to be compared to the number of flight events where there were no negative results. Otherwise we are just drudging up negative after negative with no applied value since it lacks comparative substance.

The bad events should be compared, like MILLIONS of oil barrels, to the positive events.

Title: Re: Won't That be a sight!!??
Post by justin_o_guy2 on 12/01/22 at 21:31:21

And thus far, based on the insignificant percentage of vehicles on the road, the crashes from autopilot, whether operator was outside of recommended parameters or not, the crashes, the fires,
I think they are overrepresented in the Big Drama department considering how few there are.

Title: Re: Won't That be a sight!!??
Post by Eegore on 12/02/22 at 05:59:28

So using Big Oil as an example for climate change, what value does the Hockey Stick graph have as an argument against oil?

Technically the hockey stick is mostly accurate. If we break it down only the last few portions, the outliers are up for debate. So should we be using these climate change models as a basis for climate change fact since these graphs are for the most part, entirely accurate?

We know we should compare positive/neutral results against negative, like oil spills, but what about information promoting climate change risk?

Title: Re: Won't That be a sight!!??
Post by justin_o_guy2 on 12/02/22 at 06:25:19

Technically the hockey stick is mostly accurate.

No.

The data used to create it
Destroyed.
We can't believe what we are told. For the last time, please, read,remember.

They Retired the weather stations in places distant From the heat islands of society. I watched the news.It was open and admitted And they followed it up with admitting they knew that would yield higher temperatures, and they said
We will compensate by adjusting the data down. That was before I was a dad. She is soon to be 36,
You don't remember the emails from Climate Gate? Someone Wants people believing in this fake problem. It's a Fake problem.
The information available is not to be trusted, just like the information that was The Truth that justified our entry into Vietnam. It was all lies. But Someone Wanted the people to support the action, so they lied. What,? Government doesn't LIE? Take the jabs! You won't get it, transmit it, die from it. You can pretend That was The Science.. I'm not buying it. You can stop wasting your time and mine trying to pretend there is even the slightest reason to believe anything from a government mouth or paid Scientist that global warming is a problem that we caused or can reverse.

Funny thing about how much the words of Maurice Strong keep popping up.

The whole point is to get People to agree that People are the problem.

Title: Re: Won't That be a sight!!??
Post by Eegore on 12/02/22 at 07:25:13

Title: Re: Won't That be a sight!!??
Post by justin_o_guy2 on 12/02/22 at 08:26:28

7D5D5F574A5D380 wrote:

"You can stop wasting your time and mine trying to pretend there is even the slightest reason to believe anything from a government mouth or paid Scientist that global warming is a problem that we caused or can reverse."

Mathematically the hockey stick is mostly accurate. It's only the end uptick that is often times altered for effect.

So, Now it's okay to be expected to sort wheat from chaff, and throw out the lies?
I'm pretty sure you have upbraided me several times for offering data loaded with bullshit. Just use the good stuff. Right?

We don't need to argue about that, the point is the overall weather documentation over time.

Why would I believe anything from the outfit that is trying to convince Me that I am the problem?
Would you agree it doesn't make a lot of sense to look at only a portion of the overall evidence?

I would LOVE to Look at the Evidence. Who do I trust to present the evidence?
I'm going to have to rely on my lying eyes.

Would it be a good argument to say that the predictions of hockey-stick style climate change models haven't come true,
Haven't come True? Not even almost come True. They have been telling us about the dire consequences for decades. It's been as accurate as
The Laptop is Russian disinformation.

even though we can point to specific events like hurricanes
And what exactly do you have to say about hurricanes? That after the dire warning of

More and Bigger that Florida made about ten years without a big one?

or surface glacier volume?

So what? The history of the world shows ice ages coming and going. It was WARMER IN THE MEDIEVAL ERA THAN IT IS NOW.

I mean if I start looking up adverse weather impact, I could find it right?

Depends on what you call adverse. And then you have to decide if the data that supports the reports are dependable.

YaKnow, for such a smart guy you sure have trouble getting 2+2 to add up to 4.

Title: Re: Won't That be a sight!!??
Post by Eegore on 12/02/22 at 08:54:28

YaKnow, for such a smart guy you sure have trouble getting 2+2 to add up to 4.

Sure. You are proving my points here:

So, Now it's okay to be expected to sort wheat from chaff, and throw out the lies?

It's not. That's why I am asking. It doesn't make sense to provide evidence that has incorrect information and then say "the point is" global warming is fact/fiction - Oil is good/bad etc. The argument isn't the issue, the method is. What use is it for me to bring up evidence that is incorrect, even partially, and then tell You that You are missing the point?

We can agree that if many hockey stick global climate models were true we would see and feel the impacts substantially by now. So bringing up more hurricane and flood events isn't exactly enough to "prove" the warming models. Around every corner will be another "Expert" claiming humans will cease to exist in 10 years.

Also we agree, I believe, that vilifying Big Oil as an entire industry because of corrupt executives ignores the impact of actual oil. What good would it do for me to keep bringing up past legal issues and saying this is a reason to end oil as fuel?

Last we agree that the value of damage reports from Big Oil need to be compared to the overall dispersal of oil as a whole without negative impacts or they really hold no value. Its even harder to make a comparison when the evidence (like a hockey stick model) has not provided the results claimed.

Sorting out the lies has to come from the method not the argument.

Title: Re: Won't That be a sight!!??
Post by justin_o_guy2 on 12/02/22 at 09:01:33

Arrite. I'm good, I think, with where we are on this, the only thing that we haven't nailed down is

EVs are overrepresented in the Drama department considering how few there are and how few ManMiles they have provided.

Title: Re: Won't That be a sight!!??
Post by Eegore on 12/02/22 at 09:08:03

"EVs are overrepresented in the Drama department considering how few there are and how few ManMiles they have provided."

Well they are oversimplified in the solution to emissions problem. It's too easy to vilify lying Oil execs, show out of context images of oil spills like they happen every week, toss up a Facebook post of a disproven climate model and say oil is a problem only EV can solve.

Like saying Solar can power entire cities. It can, but the volume isn't compared to output, it is over simplified. They just look at the one side, the positive side.

And this here:

You can stop wasting your time and mine trying to pretend there is even the slightest reason to believe anything from a government mouth or paid Scientist that global warming is a problem that we caused or can reverse.

Could also be:

You can stop wasting your time and mine trying to pretend there is even the slightest reason to believe anything from Twitter/Facebook or paid Website with historical inaccuracies they never correct, that massive youth heart attack rates are a problem that a vaccine caused.

Twitter and Facebook, to me, are Your Government officials and paid Scientists. You see it?

Title: Re: Won't That be a sight!!??
Post by justin_o_guy2 on 12/02/22 at 10:43:22

Unlike the Warmists, and the government media truth manufacturers, the things you are critical of, rightfully, are not wrong every time.

Title: Re: Won't That be a sight!!??
Post by Eegore on 12/02/22 at 10:55:51

"Unlike the Warmists, and the government media truth manufacturers, the things you are critical of, rightfully, are not wrong every time."

Well I don't follow much of the climate change info to begin with beyond a specific region of CO due to a huge AG project I got involved in because we didn't think less than .5% temp average had a significant impact. We were tasked to disprove the model but couldn't. Turns out my meteorologist friend knows his stuff.

So I'm not trying to start a debate here, I am trying to collaborate our assessment methods.

Just as your assessment of a paid Scientist is equal to my assessment of a poorly referenced website article or Facebook image, it is safe to say my assessment of vaccine impact (not efficacy, that's a different issue) mandates a comparative value, just like your assessment of oil spill damage mandates a comparative value to oil used with no negative impact.

Lying Oil execs aren't a strong argument against comparative volume of oil damage to humans, just as lying Pfizer execs aren't a strong argument against comparative volume of youth heart attacks, or cardiac issues in general. Those both create distrust in their agendas, but are still not valid arguments for comparative volume of impact.

Am I creating a decent example for our methods of assessment? Not the end results of our examples.