It isn't about the climate.<br>It is so they can remotely shut down your car and not have a dangerous car chase.,(reply>), @Lord of Nothing 1. You're not addressing the issues by saying this. Al Gore isn't some no-name crank. He was a big deal back in the day and a face of environmentalism. If you don't like him, I can say much the same about Greta Thurnberg and her stupidity. I'm not saying you have to like him, but I am saying he made predictions on behalf of environmentalism and those verbal checks he wrote have failed to clear in substantial areas. All you're doing right now by denying this is proving environmental science has gone down the dark path of unfalsifiability by way of endless revisionism.<br><br>2. No, whataboutism is when you deflect a criticism by saying, "What about &lt;&lt;INSERT GROUP HERE&gt;&gt;?" instead of addressing the issue being raised. You're under a barrel. I demonstrated an issue existential to climate science that creates a conflict of interest, namely that if the truth is that man-made climate change is insubstantial in the grand scheme of things, they face substantial funding cutbacks as they have ran down a premise that would be non-viable. Their jobs are quite literally on the line. Citing what goes on at Mercedes-Benz is deflecting with whataboutism. With it outlined this clearly, you have no excuse to play dumb.<br><br>3. And what, pray tell, does that lack of knowledge change? Nothing. The IPCC is an organization. The IPCC is not a position, it is not an argument, it is not a premise. One does not need to know the organization to know arguments it has stated and arguments it must wrestle with. To state otherwise is to commit an argument-from-authority fallacy. Before lecturing me on how to operate in the debate, don't do something that tells me you don't even know how to debate to begin with. Their status as official means nothing. Their size means nothing. If nothing else, you have confirmed that they are first and foremost a <b>political</b> entity, not a scientific one. Instead of gawking that I don't fit in a pretty little box, address some actual points. Not a one of your responses has addressed me whatsoever, two out of the three are fallacious, and the one that isn't involves you denying the history of "the science" and its advocates. There's one remaining critique of environmentalism that you have very handily demonstrated. They have no intellectual humility and are reliant not on data and good arguments, but the good will of the listeners. If I'm so wrong, why are you incapable of actually addressing a point I have made? Maybe you need to actually do some research before employing arguments based on assumptions about me and where I got my views from.,(reply>), @Harley Mitchelly <br><br>1. climate activists are not the same as climate research. just like the KuKluxKlan isnt the Republican party. <br><br>just because there are extremist versions of a side it doesnt mean they represents that side.<br><br>2. this is part of 1.<br>whataboutism only happens if you have outlandish baseless predictions and stand to loose face. on average however most climate change predictions have undershot, not overshot. but i guess thats less interesting to cite?<br>but yes, if something turns out to be a non-factor: cut it. but the same should then obviously go for the other end of the spectrum right?<br><br>3. the fact that you dont know what the ipcc is, is....... holy shit! <br>how can you even talk about anything climate but not know about the ipcc?!?!?!? <br><br>wake up!!! every debate has to happen on both sides of the trenches. and that starts with knowing at least the tiniest! bit about the other side instead of just going by hearsay from people from your own side.<br><br>the ipcc is the intergovernmental panel on climate change. the (by a million miles!) biggest and most official organization regarding the worlds climate.<br><br>absolutely unbelievable. crazy. just......<br>pls read at least the wikipedia on the ipcc?,(reply>), @Lord of Nothing 1. That's because it's not a matter of where, but when. The point is, climate activists have had a long track record of doomsaying. As much as we may cringe now, Al Gore and his Inconvenient Truth were taken as gospel, and he is but one in a sea of doomers. Mount Kilimanjaro still has a snow-cap, the world did not starve, and we still have oil. Learn your own history before someone can reference it to undermine you.<br><br>2. This is whataboutism. It's still factual that if you're a climate advocate, if you find out that the situation isn't actually that bad or that man cannot actually do much about the problem, you're out your grant money because you now have significantly less reason to exist. This is a conflict of interest, and given that the scientists have absolutely stepped outside of the lab and onto the political podium given how most every 1st world nation has an environmental department of some description, they need to reckon with the new set of standards they will be held to. I don't care about your mythical anecdotes at Mercedes-Benz. I do care that if man-made factors turn out to be a drop in the bucket in the climate change question, then those departments are de facto bloated and should get axed in a liberal fashion.<br><br>3. No idea what the IPCC is nor do I care. If you get the US to accept the implementation of Kei cars for city driving, emissions numbers will go down by virtue of the fact you have smaller engines burning less fuel on average. The point extended no further and no less than pointing out this basic observation and that few, if any, researchers would consider it given the hype-train for EVs.,(reply>), @Harley Mitchelly "Taken at face value, we all should have starved 1 billion people ago, oil should have run out by now, and we should have already been screwed by the environment multiple times over" <br>i dont know who you are referring to but i have never heard anything like this from a reputable balanced spectrum climate group.<br><br>and as for Electric money influencing the reports, dont you think big oil is influencing those reports as with a lot more money than some research groups keen on grants?<br>I've work at Mercedes Benz for a while and let me tell you: we werent spending any money fighting FOR EVs, but we were throwing money at everyone claiming he could keep ICEs at the top for just a little longer.<br><br>as for combustion efficiency numbers i'm pretty sure institutions like the IPCC wont make a fool of themselves that easily. Because if you work on an undertaking this huge, your career rides on any credible mistake.,(reply>), @Lord of Nothing The climate panels unfortunately are subject to severe political pollution. At this point there's too many credible accusations that they're playing politics and the honesty of the data itself is fair game, in no small part to the financial motives for there to always be climate problems. Political grant money and special offices are more addictive than heroin and climate science has had boatloads of both since the 1960's.<br><br>The truth is that there's loads of muddling variables to the effectiveness of EVs in improving the environment, there's too many easy ways to hide the environmental impacts of more power grid load, mining externalities, and production and shipping costs in the data, and most of the comparisons simply don't factor in improvements to ICEs or changes that would drastically alter the landscape of the car market. Environmental science has an untenable chronic failure to factor in developments over time. Taken at face value, we all should have starved 1 billion people ago, oil should have run out by now, and we should have already been screwed by the environment multiple times over. Rarely, if ever, do they account for the impact of technological development on the environment, and it's long since gotten to a point where we need to start bringing up accusations of making their theories unfalsifiable. From what I've seen, current battery technology is actually plateauing. There just is not a sufficient supply of materials to make EVs a legitimate replacement for cars at this point in time, which supports my theory that oil's likely not to die in my lifetime and while an EV may be the replacement, it will look nothing like the EVs we know now.