Teslas Suddenly Get Pricier . . .

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Tesla announced the other day that it will no longer be producing the least-expensive version of its Model S sedan – which lines up with Tesla’s failure to produce many (f any) of the lower-priced versions of its constantly trumpeted Model 3.

It’s a hint about how one of the biggest problems with electric cars – their being too expensive for most people to consider, so long as there are less less expensive options available – will be handled.

We’ll all just pay more – because their won’t be any less expensive options.

And not just at Tesla stores.

As “electrification” gallops ahead – every major car company is practically on a war footing, frantically rushing as many EVs to market as they possibly can and retiring as many non-electrified models as they possibly can – the price of EVs will necessarily go up as the option to avoid them diminishes.

It’s genius.

Everyone inside the business knows quite well that electric cars are not going to get cheaper – or rather, become affordable – anytime soon and quite probably never. Because the technology just costs more. The chirpy stuff you hear about battery costs going down is true – just not honest.

Yes, batter costs have come down. They are still nowhere near cost-parity with an equivalent internal combustion layout. Which means even with subsidies in perpetuity – which GM and other major car companies now want Congress to rubber stamp – most people still won’t freely buy an EV so long as they can freely buy something that will cost them literally thousands (if not tens of thousands) less to own.

That’s italicized for the sake of clarity – and editorial honesty – which you’ll not find much of in general media accounts of the electric car. These accounts will convey the truth that EVs don’t cost much to drive – and may even cost less to drive than an equivalent non-EV. At least so long as electricity is not taxed the same as gas and the utilities don’t jack up the price as a result of a massive uptick in demand (because of a massive increase in EVs) which will require investment in new generating capacity – which isn’t free or even cheap.

But they sotto voce the EV’s ownership costs – which include not only its much higher initial cost (even with subsidies and rebate kickbacks) but also its higher long-term costs, which includes the inevitable replacement of several thousand dollars worth of batteries and the likely inherently shorter service life of the EV itself, due to the inherently greater complexity (and cost) not of the electric motor (which is relatively simple) but the myriad peripheral systems, especially the electronic ones, without which the thing is a brick.

Most non-EVs can be counted on to go 15-20 years and at least 150,000 miles before they get to the “not-worth-fixing” point

The economically viable life of an EV is much shorter – around 8-10 years or less.

A barometer of this – a canary in the coal mine – is EV depreciation. Which makes Solyndra stock look like a sound investment. You can find less-than-five-year-old Nissan Leafs (the most “affordable” EV on the market, at just under $30,000) for less than $10,000.

EVs will need to be replaced more often than non-EVs, another cost tsunami almost no one in the business wants to talk about publicly because they’ve invested so much in EVs; they are like the guy who knows he has high blood pressure but refuses to take his meds or even cut salt out of his diet – and goes to the Chinese buffet for a gorge.

The average car buyer has no clue because he knows little about EVs and isn’t being told the full story. The hope – the plan – is to get him into an EV before he does know it and then give him no way to get out.

Tesla knows it can’t make money – even with the subsidies – on the “affordable” $35,000 Model 3 (and the “affordable” $76,000 version of the Model S) so it won’t sell them anymore.

If you want a Tesla S, you’ll pay $94,000 for it.

The Model 3 you can actually buy costs $44,000 to start; with options, it goes for $60,000-plus. At least you can pick a color other than black (the only color available with the $35,000 Model 3, which isn’t available).

Other brand EVs will cost you, too – because within just a couple of years, as “electrification” proceeds – there will be fewer and fewer opt-outs. Almost no mainstream press car journalist is writing about or talking about the fact that the federal government’s “fuel economy” fatwa has become a de facto electric car production fatwa.

The fatwa prescribes a mandatory minimum of 50-plus miles-per-gallon for every car built – to be achieved by model year 2025. Google around and see how many 2019 cars achieve even 40 MPG that aren’t at least partially electric (i.e., hybrids).

Compliance with the fatwa effectively requires mass production of EVs – and the discontinuation of alternatives to them. Both for the practical – mathematical – reason that the more EVs and the fewer non-EVs, the higher your “fleet average” MPGs and thus, Uncle is appeased. And also because to get people into EVs, you must  get them out of non-EVs – which most people will continue to choose, so long as they have the choice.

Thus, eliminate the choice.

Non-EV alternatives won’t be outlawed. They’ll just kind of go away. In the same way that affordable large sedans with rear-wheel-drive and V8s went away (also because of the fuel economy fatwa).

The next step is to make the rest go away, leaving the $44,000 (to start) EV as your only choice. Unlike Tesla, these will never get pricier in the future.

The car companies see this – though they’ll never admit this – as the way to fluff their profit margins. Which it will, so long as the debt necessary to keep the carousel running can be underwritten, pawned off and (ultimately) written off.

But unlike the federal government – which can float apparently limitless debt – the average American cannot. At some point – probably not far distant – the bill for all of this will come due.

And it won’t be Uncle (or the shyster banks) who pays the tab.

Got a question about cars – or anything else? Click on the “ask Eric” link and send ’em in!

If you like what you’ve found here please consider supporting EPautos. 

We depend on you to keep the wheels turning! 

Our donate button is here.

 If you prefer not to use PayPal, our mailing address is:

721 Hummingbird Lane SE
Copper Hill, VA 24079

PS: Get an EPautos magnet (pictured below) in return for a $20 or more one-time donation or a $5 or more monthly recurring donation. (Please be sure to tell us you want a sticker – and also, provide an address, so we know where to mail the thing!)

My latest eBook is also available for your favorite price – free! Click here.  






  1. Grwwww,

    The more I think of what you write, I am shocked at what can be interpreted only as willful misrepresentation or an inability to understand clearly written statements. Despite my repeated claims that human activity does cause some effects, you continue to say otherwise. Despite my repeated recognition that CO2 may cause harm, you claim I insist it causes no harm.

    For the record, after over twenty years of research on this issue, I’ve concluded a number of things, I will list the basics here. I’ve said them all before but your staggering bias prevents you from acknowledging them, or you simply lie.

    I’ll start by describing the theory and the basic science underlying it. Then I’ll describe the limits of the basic science as a predictive tool, and why scientists disagree about those limits.

    1) CAGW is a hypothesis, popularized by James Hansen in the late 80’s, which asserts that human production of CO2 will increase global average temperature, which will produce positive feedback mechanisms which will increase warming above the base level expected due to radiative forcing from CO2 alone. This extra warming will also contribute to warming the oceans, releasing more CO2 which, coupled with man’s continued production of CO2, will lead to escalated warming that will eventually become dangerous and unstoppable. I consider this hypothesis to be extremely unlikely, as any unbiased consideration of the historical and current record fails to support it.

    2) The degree to which a doubling of CO2 will warm a given, closed environment, where all the variables are known, was first demonstrated by British scientist John Tyndall in the mid 19th century. He determined that a doubling of CO2 would add about 3.7 watts per meter squared of energy to the system, resulting in about a 1 degree C rise in temperature after equilibrium, this point is called ECS (equilibrium climate sensitivity). It is accepted by all scientists in the field that, if this is all that happens (ECS = 1), then there is NO PROBLEM at all. You see, the radiative forcing potential of CO2 is logarithmic, it takes a doubling each time to produce the same effect. It also has a saturation point which further diminishes the warming potential of CO2.

    3) While this science is helpful in our understanding, it cannot provide a complete picture, nor does it provide a platform for reliable predictions. The reasons for this are simple. First, we don’t live in a simple, closed environment, where all the variable are known, we live in a complex environment where many variables are unknown. Second, predictions are based on models, which necessarily simplify the complex system and leave out known and unknown variables and misrepresent other variables. For instance, all models assume a constant solar output, which is known to be false. This is quite astonishing. Finally, all models must include assumptions about climate sensitivity that cannot be determined by the basic science.

    4) All credible scientists, both skeptic and alarmist, that I’ve read accept the validity of the basic science. They differ on its predictive ability, reliability of the models based on that science, the likely ECS resulting from increased CO2 and the feedback mechanisms triggered by the subsequent warming. This debate is real and at the heart of whether AGW is likely to be harmful. Anyone who declares that “the science is settled”, the “debate is over” or invokes the thoroughly debunked and fraudulent “consensus” is either deluded or lying. It should also be obvious that this practice, quite literally, turns the scientific method upside down.

    5) Neither I, nor any of the skeptics, claim that the human production of CO2 will definitely not cause harm, just that it is unlikely to do so. “We” also claim that the available data supports this position. You will likely misrepresent (lie) once again about my claim.

    Now I’ll discuss the basic facts, what is commonly agreed upon, and what is disputed.

    1) CO2 is a greenhouse gas, the concentration of which is affected, to some degree, by human activity and will result in some radiative forcing likely to cause some warming, though to what degree is unknown.

    2) The starting date for modern, climate research is 1880. This date roughly corresponds to the beginning of the Industrial Revolution.

    3) CO2 concentration was about 280 ppm in 1880 and has risen to a little over 400 ppm. Note: For some reason, modern alarmists assume that the starting level of 280 ppm is somehow ideal. There is no scientific basis to consider it so. Rather, the fact that it is alarmingly close to plant death level concentration suggests that such a belief is absurd.

    4) It is widely believed that GAT increased about 0.8 degrees C from 1880 until around 2000. Significant warming began around 1910 and continued until around 1940, peaking in 1937. Then it gradually cooled until the mid seventies, prompting the reverse, but equally hysterical, coming ice age hysteria. Then it gradually warmed until around 2000, leveling off at a little less than the 1937 peak. Note, the claimed correlation between CO2 concentration does not match the temperature record. The greatest warming occurred between 1910 and 1940, a period of very little increase in CO2 concentration. Then gradually fell for the next 3 1/2 decades, a period of rapid growth in CO2 concentration. Warming again until around 2000, then remaining stable after that, in the midst of rapid growth in CO2 concentration. Note, this “pause” produced grave concern among climate alarmists, and was “eliminated” not due to actual empirical observation, but by adjusting the record. Note: the post 2000 temperature record is hotly debated, correctly so. It should be obvious to any honest, reasonably intelligent person that this practice of continually adjusting the record, raises legitimate concerns of confirmation bias and/or fraud.

    I do not write this post for you, as you have demonstrated that you are well beyond the reach of reason or evidence on this issue. I write it for myself and also in the hope that others on this site, more knowledgeable than you, may find it helpful. You have also demonstrated a profound ignorance of this topic, science in general, and an inability to have a good faith discussion.


    – Continue to conflate CO with CO2, even after this error has been described to you.
    – Continue to conflate CO2 with emissions that are known to be harmful. Those harmful emissions have been reduced to a level that is likely harmless, which your own smog reduction point shows.
    – Continue to conflate the harm caused by emissions in a closed environment with that of the outside environment, and confuse effect with “harm”. This shows your ignorance of dose/response and threshold level theory.
    – Continue to ignore or downplay my factual comments about the practice of continually adjusting the record. Though I suppose this poorly written, barely comprehensible gibberish, is an attempt to do so.

    “Weather models require larger and larger computer resources to make it possible to analyze all the inputs to the system. Yes they keep changing the models towed indicating that we are affecting the atmosphere. It’s not just to make their statements true. It’s because their analysis has led to better models and better indications that the past intuition around the problem space”.

    This passage reveals a misunderstanding of the limits of modeling, a ludicrous assertion that “all the inputs” can be analyzed, many of which are unknown, some of which are illegitimately held constant. Models have not become better as evidenced by the fact that the record is continually adjusted to match those models. And, you make an unsupportable truth claim about the intentions of the scientists making the adjustments. Neither you, nor anyone else can know this.

    – You continue to insist that what is going to happen is a known truth. This is absurd, nobody knows what is going to happen, insisting otherwise is evidence of delusion. Even the scientifically unsupportable and fraudulent claim of 95% certainty does not justify such a assertion.
    – You continue to engage in the reprehensible modern practice of bad faith “mind reading” by insisting that “we” only cling to our “ignorant” beliefs to rationalize away the “fact” that we are “harming” the planet.
    – You continue to lie about, misrepresent or cannot understand the points made by others. This indicates that you are reacting in an emotional, religious manner, rather than a rational, scientific manner.

    You did write one thing that is certainly true.

    “I really am tiring of this conversation because it’s clear that people participating here are pretty ignorant of what’s actually happening”.

    I suggest that you read this excellent essay by Scott Adams,


    then look in the mirror.


    • Oops,

      This sentence,

      “It should also be obvious that this practice, quite literally, turns the scientific method upside down”

      should appear after this sentence,

      “It should be obvious to any honest, reasonably intelligent person that this practice of continually adjusting the record, raises legitimate concerns of confirmation bias and/or fraud”.

      Eric, any way you can fix this?


  2. The EV market is no different than any other market folks either you can afford a particular product or you cannot. The price is the price, right now because of battery tech, plain and simple. If it was cheaper (prices will go down), you’d pay less, just like a simple car is cheaper than a high performance car.

    There are a lot of people here crying about the price. That speaks to only one part of the market dynamics. The iPhone was like this too. No one wanted to pay $400 for a cell phone. New ones are now typically double that and people are buying them or signing up for long term payment plans (by switching carriers usually, etc.). Clover

    If you have not yet driven all the available EVs, you should. It will help you understand more about them. If you are just following along with Eric’s rants because they seem like a good line to follow, you are just shorting yourself with your ignorance.

    Go learn about what’s available and become a smarter consumer so that you can help build the marketplace that will serve your needs!

    • Hi GRwww,

      You miss the point. The price of EVs is too high for them to be other than what they are: specialty cars bought by a relative handful of affluent people who don’t particularly care about the economics of electric cars.

      But if EVs are “for the rich only,” why are they being subsidized – and mandated?

      How is this different from mulcting average-income people so that rich people can drive Porsches? And how will electric cars ever replace IC cars if the majority can’t afford to buy them?

      The iPhone example is absurd – because it was never subsidized or mandated. People who bought them paid the market price. EV buyers pay a partial price…a hefty chunk of the actual price paid by others who are forced to subsidize it.

      • Eric, the iPhone was subsidized by the phone companies themselves. If you signed a 2 year contract, you got the phone for a reduced price and that price was recovered by the cost of your phone bill over that 2 years time. It was never affordable to the $10/hour worker. Today, you have to pay the full price for an iPhone with a loan from Apple, not a loan from the phone company. They got burned by people getting phones, never paying their bills and then walking away with phones that they sold overseas where they were unlocked and sold on the black market. If you want a high end phone, you pay for it in some way. Either you switch to a low end carrier that overcharges you for bandwidth overages, or you pay directly for it.

        The price of automobiles in general, is a loss/profit gamble. There is no way to estimate the actual sales of any make/model combination and so you really have to sell them at true value, or you better have a gap fill strategy. The big automakers have used excessive profits on high end vehicles to fund these misplaced bets on popularity/sales of any particular lower priced model.

        Tesla Roadster funded parts of model S development which funded parts of Model X development which collectively funded model 3 development. Once you are done with a model, in terms of future development, you sell the profit maker, not the profit loser.

        The $35K model 3 is very much still available today. It’s not on the web site in plain sight, but you can just call and say I want a SR model 3 and they will sell you one. The problem was that the public car buyer couldn’t understand all the options on the web site. So, they reduced the choices. All Tesla owners know about this choice because it was conveyed in several different conversations from Tesla.

    • If I could afford a Tesla right now, I would probably buy a new 2500 HD 4×4 diesel pickup instead!

      At least with that I could get in and out of my property year round, which no electric vehicle currently available could do.

      • When the electricity is out, what’s going to pump that gasoline out of the ground and into your tank? Electricity is not a hard thing to find. An EV is hardly ever empty. It takes 10 seconds to plug your car in and go inside and enjoy the evening with family. Owners plug them in at night and have 100’s of miles of range available at the start of each day. Only on a road trip would you be charging as part of your driving regiment. Telsa’s Superchargers make that pretty easy. Everywhere that there is electricity to pump gasoline into your tank there is electricity to charge an EV…

        • Hmmmm……Ever heard of a gas can? I carry 2 in the truck and have three in the garage. Oh, and the 200 gallon diesel tank on a stand. No pumping.

          “Owners plug them in at night and have 100’s of miles of range available at the start of each day.”

          Absolute best case ideal condition scenario for the very few high end EV. Most EV barely have around 100 miles real world range. So a around 50 mile operational range if returning home to charge.

        • In the wild people will treat the charging stations like they treated the air hose and filler for putting air into tires. All this destination charging will be a case of broken-taken-broken-taken. You’ll be lucky to get a spot to charge and then of course they’ll sock it to you on cost because they can.

          • Just like at the gas pump? Yes there will be some places that consider charging a premium feature. Unless it is high speed and convenient to use, people will pick other places that are.

            Right now people pick gas stations for convenience of more than pumping gas it seems. They will sometimes pay above lowest price just to go to a place that has quality gas without water problems or other annoyances.

            • The further west you get in Texas the higher the price of fuel, hence, the old saying, the closer to the well, the higher the price. From Sweetwater, Tx. to 80 miles away at Big Spring, gas prices are a dollar higher at BS. Tell me they make no money from gas sales.

              Not only that but there are convenience store/truck stops that have pipelines to them. There’s a refinery not more than 5 miles east of Big Spring yet the prices are much higher than a few miles east.

              Does anyone think the stores pay a dollar more for gasoline by pipeline? Not on your life.

              • The diversity of distribution and population densities are going to drive the supply and demand equation. In rural areas, the consumer has less choice and the competition doesn’t exist to contain prices except at the volume levels that are profitable.

                What volume does a west Texas station sell vs a Buc-ee’s In the middle of Texas. Buc-ee’s, QT, and other similar sized outlets are doing a huge volume in retail vs gasoline profits!

                • Hi Grwwww,

                  “The diversity of distribution and population densities are going to drive the supply and demand equation”.

                  In the current environment, the only EV’s that would make practical and economic sense are relatively low range vehicles, price competitive with similar ICE’s, in a suburban environment. Such vehicles, if capable of being charged overnight with standard equipment, would be practical because they would meet the needs of most suburban drivers and eliminate the hassle of having to gas up.


                  • Nissan Leaf and Chevy Bolt are the lower cost choices. Used Nissan leafs with degraded battery packs are pretty cheap it seams. They just won’t be convenient for long range trips.Clover

                    Used Tesla Model S would be a better choice in my opinion. Temperature management during charging and heavy discharging are key to battery longevity. Tesla has been trying to manage this detail with their BMS. They’ve received recognition for their BMS in the EV market place.Clover

                    The price is still going to be the bigger problem. But, Tesla is still selling lots of cars which sets the stage for lots of used model 3’s coming into the market in the next several years.

                    • Clover,

                      Yes, a “used Nissan Leaf with a degraded battery pack”is cheap… for the same reason a used Corolla with a croaked transmission is cheap. Only it’s worse because the Leaf can’t be economically fixed. What fool spends $4k on a new battery pack for a $7,000 used EV?

                      Especially when one could have bought a reliable/economical used IC car for that $4,000 – one that doesn’t need a new transmission – and put the $7,000 toward other things?

                      Can I have some of whatever it is you’re smoking?

                    • Please send me the same stuff you send eric. Sometimes I like to live in a fantasy world which takes a load off my mind.

                      It sounds like you have the right stuff for that.

            • The differences for convenience for gasoline are minor. Maybe a whole $1 for a tankful. Why? Because people will drive elsewhere if it were much more than that. On an EV charge time scale well, you’re kinda stuck.

        • It takes about 10 amps to pump gas. A real electrical hog. It takes mother nature to pump mine out of an overhead tank. But I could drop a 12V pump off my battery to the gasoline in an underground tank…..or use my manual pump.

          Seems like the more money people have to spend on “technology”, the less capable they are of living without it.

          I can get whiskers off my face with a scissor and a blade and it does just fine.

  3. The US has gone completely batshit insane.

    Americans used to fight Nazis and Commies, but have now become Nazis and Commies.

    Americans are simply unable to see hypocrisy or understand unintended consequences.

    Americans say Obama was an asshole for destroying the US with wars, debt, and tyranny, but then they turn around and scream Trump is a holy god for supporting wars, debt, and the police state.

    Americans think the government can magically rule by decree.

    Americans say tyranny only affects others and that they are immune from the police state.

    Americans insist freedom only benefits other people.

    Americans want the government to ban saggy pants and smoking, but then they are puzzled why prisons are overcrowded.

    Americans demand that the government start a trade war, but then they are stunned when prices rise and no one wants US exports.

    Americans say tiny homes must be illegal, but then they baffled why homelessness and housing costs increase.

    Americans beg for welfare and then they are shocked that the US debt is growing.

    Americans want the government to have regulations and high minimum wages, but then they are dumbfounded why there are no jobs.

    Americans want the government to start endless wars, but then Americans do not understand why the world hates the USA and why there are refugees, terrorism, and tyranny.

    Anyone who loves wars, debt, and tyranny is considered to be normal and anyone who supports peace, balanced budgets, and freedom is called a nutjob and racist and is banned, gets an IRS audit, gets arrested, or is killed.

    The entire country seems to be committing suicide.


  4. Selling gas is a very low margin business for a retailer. That’s why most gas is sold at convenience stores, rather then a service station like in the past. So it wouldn’t take much disruption in the business for many to get out of the business. Guessing that disruption will be slowly strangling government regulations, as most gas retailers are small businesses that will be unable to hold out long.

    Guessing gas stations would be harder to find about a decade after the major automakers are forced out of the ICE business and only make electric.

    • Most convenience stores sell gasoline at cost and use the products in the store as their profit business. It won’t matter to them to switch out to providing EV chargers as is already happening with the installation of destination chargers. The Electrify America monies are being used by Walmart to provide charging while shopping for example.

        • Ohh I’ve done my research. We have zero companies selling gas only. All gas is sold at near cost at these stores based on what people at these companies tell me. It’s not a profit center. Their convenience store items are the profit center for them. By selling at cost, they by default have the lowest gas price and that brings people in for the other items such as food and drinks as well as cigarettes, lottery tickets and more.

          • Grrrrrww,

            You inadvertently make my point (again). Gas is so cheap – in spite of all the add-on costs of regulations and disproportionate/confiscatory taxation – that it is practically given away. Yet you want to replace this cheap, abundant, practical fuel (and means of getting around using it) with expensive, impractical electric cars.

            Oh, yes. “climate change.” Sigh…

            It’s a sickness, really.

            • Electricity and electric motor efficiencies are 1/2 to as much as 1/10th the cost per mile compared to ICE vehicles (100+ mpge for EVs). Maintenance costs for ICE vs EV is also a notable difference for the same miles. You keep holding onto your ideal view of just the fuel costs when there is a lot more you spend and throw away because of oil, cooling, and fuel.Clover

              I’ve driven a lot of different brands of ICE vehicles and only the ones at the top of prices are close to “Just Fuel” cars. Oil changes are always necessary. Trans-fluid is a probably.

              All the maintenance is going to take your time and money at some level.Clover

              How much of that do you really think is free? Are you working at a job where your time is not valued and that makes you have less concern for your time spend keeping your vehicle serviced?

              I am really curious. I was not at all aware of how much of my time I was wasting until I had my Tesla for a year with no service due to time on the road, aside from tires, which feels pretty time consuming because I gave to find another ride for the day.

              • Electric motors may be, but not the electric infrastructure required nor its expense. But then again we live in a world of false economies conjured by central banks to degree that simply didn’t exist way back when.

                Electric cars have gearboxes, cooling systems, rubber components, brake pads, and much much more. About the only thing that doesn’t happen is engine oil changes and engine air filters. Which are dirt cheap to what battery EVs add for long term ownership.

                Also keep in mind most people who keep their cars for a short period of time don’t do the work that’s supposed to get done. So it doesn’t matter what it is, it’s maintenance free.

                The battery EV is just another appliance you use up and throw away. Works well for awhile and if it gives you problems in three to four years or whenever throw it away and get a new one.

                And yes once upon a time ICE cars were like that, but if an owner took care of them they’d still last longer. With battery EVs throw away is built in. And that’s what’s desired. To get back to those days. Cars replaced early and often.

              • Grrrrwww,

                Yes, but you always leave out the cost of the car and the batteries – which make the “savings” you describe irrelevant. The fact is EVs cost so much more than otherwise comparable IC cars that they cannot compete on economic grounds. It’s just absurd. A Nissan Leaf – the lowest cost EV available – stickers for $30k, which is easily twice the cost of a current economy sedan/hatchback of about the same size. Tell me – as our eponymous Clover used to put it – how paying $15k-plus more for the Leaf will ever save you money vs. buying the $15k Versa?

                Maintenance costs? Modern IC cars need almost no maintenance for the first several years – other than trivial things like oil and filter changes, which take very little time or money. And which are still things almost anyone can do at home, cheaply.

                And an IC car will never need a new battery pack, which an EV will if it’s kept longer than 8-10 years, which is a much shorter useful service life than any modern IC car delivers.

                Also, the IC owner won’t have to spend $1,000 on an electrician to install a “fast” charge set-up at his house. How many oil and filter changes does that pay for?

                You mention the occasional time cost of servicing/maintaining an EV – which is hilarious given the baked-in/every day time cost of having to plan around recharging and waiting for recharging. If you have to spend even 30 minutes once a week waiting for a recharge you have already wasted more time than I spend in six months performing one oil and filter change.

                Yes, I know. You charge up at night. But what if something comes up and you need to drive somewhere right-the-fuck now? But your EV isn’t ready? It’s nice that your life is so organized … that nothing unforeseen/spontaneous ever occurs.

                It’s official. You are our new Clover!

                • I paid $15k because I get auto pilot with traffic aware cruise control. I get regenerative braking because it’s an EV so it feels like I am in a manual transmission car. I have more trunk space with no ICE engine for the same sized car. I have great acceleration without the noise, the lag of downshift etc. I have Tesla superchargers on my way to nearly everything I need to get to. This will get even better over time just like you don’t have to hand pump gas and hope that the tank was filled at the station as happened at the beginning of gas auto existence. It costs money to have more than the basics. Brand new basics are more than used or worn basics. You know how capitalism works right?Clover

                  My EV is an awesome, smooth, effective vehicle. Worth lots more than than the same priced gas car. Yes it costs more, but dollar for dollar it’s a much better deal to buy an EV.

                  If you can pay less than $10K for a car, your only choice is going to be something less valuable with less features than something at $35k. I don’t understand how we get into arguments about total cost, when we should be talking about total value.Clover

                  But, alas, you are a cheapskate looking to spend only for function. Perhaps that’s what you can afford. I understand that, but why are you belittling people who different opportunities than you? It’s seems like jealousy or regret for where you are at or something completely unrelated to the value of an EV. Zero maintenance is a lot more valuable to me.

                  • Clover,

                    “You know how capitalism works, right?”

                    Yes – I do. It involves something called free exchange. People buying and selling without the use of coercion.

                    What you defend is crony capitalism – fascism, really. The use of government force to leverage or advantage certain preferred (by those who benefit) “businesses” that cannot succeed on the merits, like EVs.

                    And “zero maintenance”?

                    This untruth has been deconstructed already. The fact that you bring it up again indicates you’re either embarrassingly ignorant… or a deliberate dissembler.

                    “Cheapskate”? Guilty! I live below my means, which suits me. You want to live on other people’s means – which does not suit me.

                  • Grwwwww,

                    You seem to be quite wealthy, congrats, I am not jealous nor hold any animosity because of that. You asked why Eric is belittling others who have different opportunities… (he’s not, and you don’t seem stupid enough to truly believe otherwise).

                    Why don’t you argue against the subsidies and mandates that are effectively a transfer of wealth from those “with different opportunities” to more affluent people like yourself? This type of stuff is just theft; it’s morally despicable to require the less affluent to help buy luxury goods for affluent people.

                    Please, don’t offer up the “but, other industries receive subsidies too” nonsense. Yeah, “we” know that. and we object to all of it, even when doing so is against our own interests. You, on the other hand, seem perfectly OK with forcing others to “help” you buy a car that you could probably easily afford without that help (not that “need” would make it OK).


                    • Hi Jeremy,

                      I don”t think I belittled Grrrrrwwww per se. I belittled his arguments – and his actions. His obnoxious defense of wealth transfers and mandates to benefit something he wants or favors. And his (typical) evasion of those issues by segueing into non sequiturs about the “smoothness” (and so on) of his EV.

                      I don’t have any issue at all with him spending his money on an EV or anything else he wants. I do have an issue with him spending other people’s money on such things. And with making other people spend money on things he thinks are worth spending money on.

                      Finally – and this is for him if he’s reading: I’m not rich but I’m also not in debt, which is a form of affluence very few people enjoy. My truck isn’t a $40,000 EV with a 12 inch flatscreen. But it is paid for.

                      I doubt Grrrrrrrrrwwwww’s EV is.

                    • Hi Eric,

                      You didn’t belittle Grwwww, nor have you ever claimed that his subjective preference for an EV is invalid. You argued that the willingness to delegate force so that others “help” him buy it is immoral (something he has never addressed).


                    • First, money is a manufactured chain that allows the wealthy to use us and control opportunities we have. Wealth is not always money, but your value of yourself is what allows you to strive for more opportunity which increases your wealth through money or otherwise. Knowledge is wealth, opportunity is wealth, lots of things besides the cash in your hand is wealth.

                      Because you believe that the pollution your gas or diesel motor is not an impact to the lives of others, that selfish position is no better than the selfishness you suggest EV buyers have taking tax credits. Your impacting me with a cost too.Clover

                      There is no baby tax that allows a fixed amount of money to exist so that new babies have some money to participate in the economy with. Instead that top 1% of the wealthy who have 99% of the money, are printing more and passing out pennies to those who are lucky enough.

                      Our manufactured economy is the real problem and it’s completely unfair and quite a scam. I choose to just dance right past it and do what I can with the wealth I am privileged to have. I don’t stand around and bitch and whine about what others enjoy because if I don’t act and change my situation, then what good am I to anyone else on the planet?Clover

                      Belittling has happened. Eric, you and other “climate change is not caused by me” people here have no science to argue with (save Jeremy) only giving out chants of ignorance and idiocy that is a sad statement about where society has gone with regard to sanity and responsibility.

                      Because it costs to fix the problem, or because it impacts how you live, the unwillingness to find a better path speaks loudly to lazy, irresponsible mindsets about how society could work much better to address all kinds of problems.Clover

                      We are not her alone. We cannot survive without cooperation of all of us to learn and focus on problems at hand, all around us.

                    • Clover –

                      So many false premises, but let’s start with this one:

                      “Because you believe that the pollution your gas or diesel motor (sic) is not an impact to the lives of others, that selfish position is no better than the selfishness you suggest EV buyers have taking tax credits.”

                      What is this “pollution” you are referring to? Oh. Yes. Caron dioxide. The nonreactive gas that comprises less than 1 percent of Earth’s atmosphere and of which total the amount “contributed” by vehicles is a fraction of that fraction.

                      But never mind.

                      Let’s assume C02 “pollution” is a problem. Your high-performance EV with it high-capacity/high-performance battery pack draws lots of power from utilities that create lots of C02 – more C02 than is produced by an economy IC car. You are like Greta – who flies across the ocean on a gas-guzzling jet to lecture people about their “pollution.” She could have video-transmitted her rant, just as you could drive a high-efficiency economy car… if you really believed “earth was in the balance.” But you don’t. You just want to pose – without sacrificing luxury or performance.

                      And i’s more than just tax breaks, Clover. It’s manufacturing mandates. Force and fraud. And you revel in it.

                      No one is “bitching and whining” about what others enjoy. We are critiquing what you and others steal.

                    • I hate to have to get “facts” involved in this and I’m not saying more CO2 is better for people….but it could be.

                      Has anyone noticed athletes performing at the maximum no longer mouth breathe?

                      They don’t and it’s for one reason, when you mouth breath after a huge exertion, it screws up the amount of CO2 your body needs. Nose breathing keeps the ratio of CO2 into it’s best amount. Those athletes you used to see fall over dead after doing some such as a very long, fast run that has them down to their last nth of endurance and fall over of a heart attack while “blowing hard” is a result of not enough CO2. Just saying, it could be a good thing for animals that tend to die of a heart attack after over-exertion. I have never seen this mentioned by anyone.

                      Notice you don’t see sports players removing mouth pieces any longer when they’re out of breath.

                  • “My EV is an awesome, smooth, effective vehicle”

                    Let me fix that for you: Your EV is an overpriced rich boy’s toy. It is subsidized by stealing money out of the pockets of the public either directly or indirectly (such as via the carbon credit swindle), and has gimped functionality vs. the most inexpensive gasoline car available. (For that matter its functionality is gimped vs. a $1000 used beater.)

                    • Yep, and where I live, it would last a month or two before exploding and I’d last a couple minutes or three if I didn’t have my tire bumper with me.

                      Can’t imagine hitting a hog with it and the ensuing explosion.

                      It’s the truly delusional who live in the city and have only paved roads to drive on who “think” they won’t be victims.

                      The rest of us are victims having to pay the taxes so they can buy one.

                    • Hi Jason,

                      “You’d think that after more than 50 years of failed doomsday predictions people would wise up”.

                      Eschatological hysteria has been with us for a long time. Many humans seem to have a deep, irrational fear of the “end”. Those wishing to control others exploit this fear by promising salvation and a way around the “end”. This technique was employed by religious authorities which, until quite recently, were usually State authorities as well. As religious authority began to wane in the hearts of men, and thus became ineffective as a means of control, the State turned to the misuse science to fill that role. It was a brilliant move as “science” appeals to the vanity of the intellectual and cows those who do not understand it.

                      Statism is the new religion and “science” is the scripture underlying that authority. Climate change hysteria is just the latest eschatological “crisis”, manufactured by the prophets of doom, to exploit a deep seated fear in men, and thus control them.


                  • Grwwww,

                    “Because you believe that the pollution your gas or diesel motor is not an impact to the lives of others, that selfish position is no better than the selfishness you suggest EV buyers have taking tax credits”.

                    Sorry, the two situations are not remotely similar. You don’t know, nor does anyone else, whether emissions from modern cars are causing any harm to people or the planet. BTW, I have never claimed that they are definitely not, just that the claimed certainty is FALSE. The claim of 95% certainty by the IPCC and other alarmist groups is entirely unsupportable by the actual record. Let’s see, all the models run hot and the data set has been altered many times, always to bring the “record” more in line with the theory. This is not an unfounded assertion, it is a fact. This is not science, it’s either fraud, or the most egregious display of confirmation bias on record. More and more scientists, who believe that climate change is a problem, are beginning to criticize the over the top alarmism spouted by climate hysterics among scientists and the media. Why, because to anyone not already already brainwashed by the climate cultists, it’s obvious that there’s something fishy going on.

                    Here’s the head of the WMO telling the hysterics to STFU.


                    Also, I’m pretty sure that my lifestyle is way greener than yours. But, I don’t pretend I do it to “save the planet”, or that it makes me virtuous. Last time I filled up, I noticed that my previous fill up was almost 4 months before that. I ride my bike for over 90% of my errands and I’ve been using the same 1.25L water bottle to make soda water for more than 5 years.

                    I suppose I should be grateful that you acknowledge that I actually know something about “climate change” but you kind of ruined it by claiming that no one else here does, that’s just false. You, on the other hand, have written nothing that indicates a deeper knowledge of the subject than the hysterical propaganda routinely peddled by the alarmists. You haven’t responded to the FACT that the claim of 95% certainty is not justified by the evidence, the problem of numerous adjustments to the data set, always done in a way that cools the past and warms the present, which just happens to conform to a preconceived belief. Without these adjustments, there is no warming; all the models are wrong and not a single alarmist prediction has come true.

                    No one here has belittled you because of your preference for EV’s. They have done so because of your claims of “climate change”, your insistence that your CPV is better for the environment (the small Mitsubishi Mirage is apparently the “cleanest” car available) and your refusal to acknowledge the functional drawbacks of EV’s. That you value other things about your Tesla over those drawbacks, or that these drawbacks are not meaningful to YOU, has nothing to do with the fact that they are real. The tiny EV market, which would be even smaller without the mandates and subsidies, shows pretty clearly that these drawbacks matter to a lot of people. We also criticize you for supporting a system that forces those unfortunate enough to be less financially privileged as you to “help” you buy a car that you could easily afford without that “help”.

                    You drive a Tesla because your CPV “is an awesome, smooth, effective vehicle” that you also find fun to drive. No one here has belittled you for that.


                    • As long as you FREELY made those “environmentally sensitive” decisions, good for you! Look, I VOLUNTARILY recycle, the few pennies I get for my considerable pile of empty beer and soda pop containers in no way would be worth the effort to crush and store them and take them to Castle Metals every few months or so. Or saving the dead batteries to put into the office’s battery recycle carton. Again, a decision and effort FREELY made.

                    • Yep, recycling glass, paper and plastic only costs us. I’m going to try to build a waste oil heater and melt and burn the plastic since it’s basically waste oil.

                    • Jeremy, my view is that it gets hotter because we understand more and more about how clouds have kept more heat in the atmosphere which would typically radiate up and out. Warming has create incremental, additional evaporation which then condenses to create events like the large scale rain and associated flooding in the midwest US and many other places in recent times. Things like this can escalate as a cyclical system based on critical temperature margins around these areas.

                      I am sorry that you don’t believe human presence has had any effect. In my city, we have carbon monoxide warning with suggestions to not drive. That’s an environmental effect that is directly traceable to atmospheric systems in concert with pollution into the area.

                      We have refineries in many cities. contributing from burn off flares and other forms of real cause and effect. It’s very real and very much a part of the environment people live in.

                      Perhaps you can tell me exactly how this doesn’t actually happen?

                      I don’t really understand how people can say it’s not a problem when we’ve made laws, changing allowed pollution levels and seen cleaner air over large spaces. Yet with all the uncertainty you claim, many still seem to claim that we’ve done enough.

                      It can’t be both complete uncertainty and we’ve done enough…

                    • Clover,

                      Jeremy has provided several links to authoritative (factual) material in re the “climate” scam – which you drive right by and then start babbling about government carbon monoxide warnings, which have nothing to do with CO2, which you continue to conflate with other gasses.

                      Carbon dioxide has no effect whatsoever on smog – i.e., “cleaner air.”

                      You clearly have no real understanding of the issue.

                    • Amazing how somebody can just go along with the climate change, man-made thing when the “Ring of Fire” has been extremely active for the last few years and the sun is closer to the earth right now than it’s been in hundreds of years.

                      Surely that little of ball of burning gas and they huge increase in volcanic activity for several years now could have anything to do with it…..plus the fact the govt. sprays huge amounts of aluminum and other compounds into the atmosphere every day and has been doing so for decades.

                      I recall a video from 15-20 years ago of two guys in a small private jet that snuck up behind spray plane.

                      The radar must have shown a momentary blip because they turned off the spray. After a few minutes of being right behind the plane, the pilots rightly “assumed” it was an anomaly so they went back to spraying. The plane was a KC 135 normally used for fueling other planes in the air. It had a nozzle behind each engine(4) and was releasing probably what amount to close to 83,000 lbs of something for weather modification.

                  • Grwwwww,

                    Sandwiched between paragraphs of incomprehensible babble you say this,

                    “I am sorry that you don’t believe human presence has had any effect”.

                    I have never made that claim. Not only have you not shown any understanding beyond the hysterical ravings of the useful idiots tasked with spreading this religious, end of days hysteria, you also just lie about what people actually say. Congratulations.


            • Specifically to the price of gas, this is why the gas sellers are not gonna care about switching to electric charging. One capital expense and no more fuel trucks, pump hacking or other crap to deal with there.Clover

              • Grwww,

                Gas stations can’t be converted to functionally viable EV charging stations because of throughput. Six gas pumps can refuel scores or even hundreds of cars in an hour. But the same physical space can only accommodate six EV charging spots and each EV needs at least 30-45 minutes to recover a partial charge. Leaving aside the physical problem, there is the financial problem. Six cars charged at those six pumps over an hour isn’t going to earn the station owner what five times as many cars refueling did. Unless the cost to recharge goes way up. Also, who is going to pay to replace all the gas infrastructure with high-voltage EV “fast” chargers?

                • eric, lots of stations along the interstates now have pipelines to them. Any sort of bad storm like we have in Texas and the entire thing could get out of hand. There’s not a meter pole(ha ha ha)run up to those things that delivers them power. I can just see a flood that’s broken the gasoline line and then sweeps it waist level into the charging station. No fire fighting plans for something like that. Get both sources shut down and then address the problems of exploding businesses and homes. He thought that one out well.

                • Eric, 1/10th of the vehicles will need to charge at stations in general, because they can charge at hone, at malls, at hotels, restaurants and lots of places. Because, the electricity already goes there, so the total load at any one place is much smaller.

                  Again, I do t know where you live, but in the Midwest, gas is less than $3.00 a gallon right now and provides no real profit. Instead, we gave QT, OnCue, KumNGo, Casey’s and other chains that live on food, drinks and life accessory items like whole pizzas.

                  I struggle to understand how you can have so much ignorance of the whole picture here. All across the nation, taxes and fees dominate fuel pricing profit opportunities. You have to get people to the pump. If you can also get them in the door to buy other things, that’s the profit center. Drinks above $1.00, food items at $1.50 to $3.00 or more. People spend $15.00 on gas and another 20%-30% or more on food at most of these places I go. People come in and buy $8.00 six packs of cheap beer.

                  You should go look at the map of charging locations advertised on the plugshare app. Volt/Bolt owners, Leaf owners and many other EVs have been building charging infrastructure.

                  Tesla superchargers built out through their charging partners are happening because people do want to take breaks from driving as opposed staying in their cars and driving 1,000 miles a day. not e erroneous is like you. And yes I know that is true for all people, but it seems that viewpoint is struggled with by many.

                  Fast EV charging at around 200kw is being deployed around the world by many different groups. In the US Electrify America is happening as funds from VW augment EV charger deployment. Walmart and many other companies are installing chargers through this mechanism. It’s setting the stage for VW to have compatible chargers for their own cars with other companies helping them with costs to deploy those chargers.

                  Chargers, again, can be everywhere, and gas stations on the corners and near road structures and interchanges are going to be convenient for long distance travelers. People cruising around casually will be able to charge in lots of other places because charging is going to be a how you get business and provide convenience to customers and employees.

                  Is it happening over night? No. But it’s happening all around you and ignoring it or saying it’s not happening is a pretty childish positional pit yourself in.

                  Again, the cost of operation is tires and electricity in general. The cost is going down.

                  The cost of used cars is currently going down because nearly 1/2million luxury cars have hit the market due to Tesla owners trading them in. Recent numbers show 20%-30% drop in resale value. This will cause luxury car manufacturers to accelerate the move to EVs if they want to have something to sell for profit.

                  As the ICE car manufacturing comes to a screeching halt, manufactures are going to merge, focus on very narrow product lines and end up downsizing considerably unless, or until BEVs become technologically too expensive against some other green power source such as fuel cells, micro fusion reactors or some other tech still not visible.

                  Look at all the tech focus in the car industry to see that EVs are the real next step.

                  • What a pantload. ICE production will not come to a “screeching halt” unless forced by armed thugs. The market is certainly not clamoring for them. It’s all being forced artificially for no good reason. Your vision of electric charging stations covering the landscape is absolutely ludicrous, not to mention that like most EV fanbois you ignore the huge number of people who do not have a place at home where they can charge an electric car.

                    As far as your science fiction visions of exotic power sources to come, that is pure vapor. You might as well wish for Heinlein’s DeKalb receptors. Not happening any time soon.

                    I can guarantee you that I will never be driving an electric car.

                    • I meant to say “the market is not clamoring for electric vehicles.” (We really need an editing feature here.)

                  • Luxury cars have always had huge depreciation. Because the luxury buyer isn’t looking for a used car and those who are looking for used car need the price to be low enough for them to afford the car and to take care of it. And the luxury car needs a lot to take of.

                    EVs cannot win in a free market until there is something akin to zero point energy and if that exists or ever exists the powers that be will never allow the public to see it let alone own it or use it. The purpose of the battery EV in part is control through energy and zero point is the loss of control.

        • Hey 8,

          Climate change hysteria is a mass delusion, which are far more common than most realize, for the simple reason that those suffering from the delusion, cannot see it. There are two groups, one large, one small, promoting the delusion. The large group is made up of those who genuinely believe there’s a problem and that it needs to be addressed. These people can be very smart, intelligence does not shield one from becoming deluded. These people are called “useful idiots”. The second group is very small, they know that the narrative is false, or greatly exaggerated from a small kernel of truth. These people manipulate and exploit the mostly well intended useful idiots for their own ends. Greta Thunberg is the most famous useful idiot right now, though our friend Grwwww, qualifies as well.

          We are in the midst of numerous mass delusions right now. The insistence that Russia and Putin conspired to rig the election in favor of Trump is a mass delusion. The most prominent member of the small group of manipulators is Adam Schiff, who definitely knows that the narrative is bullshit. In addition, the idea that America has never been more racist, and that this explains why Trump won, is a mass delusion.


          • Okay Jeremy, since your convinced that humans have had no effect on the atmosphere, why has the atmosphere in large cities improved after decades of pollution control mandates all while populations hsve grown?

            If no one has the knowledge nor numbers that make sense to you, perhaps you ave the exact atmospheric model for the whole planet and can tell me exactly how many inches of rain will fall in you community over the next month?

            Weather models require larger and larger computer resources to make it possible to analyze all the inputs to the system. Yes they keep changing the models towed indicating that we are affecting the atmosphere. It’s not just to make their statements true. It’s because their analysis has led to better models and better indications that the past intuition around the problem space.Clover

            Calling other people idiots is a great way to make one feel better about ones actual, ignorant position. This has been a basic posturing piece of conversation used by lots of idiots.

            Idiots are people who know better than the act out about some truth. People who know that climate change is, in fact, affected by carbon dioxide, warming created by such effects, and other gases such as methane and carbon released into the atmosphere in general are not idiots. If you think they don’t know something that is true, they are ignorant of the facts.

            I really am tiring of this conversation because it’s clear that people participating here are pretty ignorant of what’s actually happening. Instead of learning and becoming educated everyone seems to be holding up their hand to say they are voting for an opinion. Clover

            It would be great if people would actually participate intelligently by having actual science to talk about instead of opinions on what they dislike about the actual science that has demonstrated what’s going to happen.

            Greta is telling the story she knows to be true while people who just can’t feel involved in the creation of a large scale problem are running around looking for some opinion they can follow like a lemming and feel better about not addressing the problems at all.

            • Grwwww, attempting to equate local problems with smog to an alleged global problem with CO2 is either ignorant or disingenuous in the extreme. In point of fact the smog problems in large cities were NOT caused by CO2, and the catalytic converters that clean up the unburned fuel and carbon monoxide that was responsible actually turn those pollutants into HARMLESS CO2.

              You blather on about “science”, but the scientific method has been totally corrupted by the climate hysterics and politicians. They lie about a “consensus” that does not actually exist, they lie about recent years being the “hottest on record” when the actual data shows that not to be true. Data is falsified and fabricated to fit their theories and their agenda. Lies, lies, and more lies. If there really is a “large scale problem”, why all the lies? There are also many legitimate scientists who are quite skeptical about the claims of the climate shills; scientists who understand that climate change is a natural process. They are routinely ignored or shouted down.

              In point of fact there is no “large scale problem” with human activity and the world’s climate. Greta is being used by the elites pushing the false climate change dogma in order to increase their own power and wealth. In other words, another useful idiot, in this case tantamount to abuse of a handicapped minor.

            • Grwwww,

              I have never said that humans have no effect, why do you keep lying about what I’m saying? I have never denied that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. You continue to lie about what I am saying, why? I have repeatedly invoked science and provided links and examples. You haven’t. I have never called anyone an idiot in this debate. My use of the term “useful idiot” is a historical reference related to political power. I used it to illustrate that point. I am reasonably certain that I know much more about this issue than you. But, I am certainly open to being proven wrong. Perhaps you could provide something that would convince me.

              I have tried to have an intelligent conversation with you but you have never addressed any of the points I have made. You are the one who is not engaging this topic reasonably.


              • Jeremy, this is typical of those pushing climate hysteria. Like liberalism in general, it’s become a religion for a lot of the elitists’ useful idiots. Bringing to light the endless stream of lies and contrary opinions of legitimate scientists doesn’t faze them. As you can see here they lie, twist, and misinterpret as a knee-jerk reaction; anything to avoid confronting the truth.

                Members of the Climate religion call us “deniers” but in fact they are the ones denying reality in favor of a manufactured scenario.

                • Hi Jason,

                  Yes, I find this very depressing. But, I occasionally find hope. The other day at the pub I had a great conversation with a couple and one other guy. We talked about a bunch of really interesting stuff. Eventually, one of them brought up climate change, and I was hesitant to respond, but I felt I had built up enough trust to have a fruitful conversation about it, and we did. It was exactly the type of conversation that Grwwww claims he wants to have, but never contributes to himself.


                  • Jeremy, it doesn’t take a lot of research to find out CO2 levels have been many times as high in the past than now. “Real scientists” who have performed ice core sampling and tree ring growth show the extremes that have happened on earth.

                    These ignorant masses just go along with some communist professors with an agenda.

                    They don’t realize the earth is a molten ball of metals that has cooled over billions of years. It’s still molten nearly all the way through but their standing on material that isn’t molten convinces them it’s just a nice, big, ball of dirt that would be a-ok without cars to pollute it.

                    Meanwhile for a few years now, the Ring of Fire has been venting molten metals and gases that can and do change the contents of the atmosphere as does the sun that’s currently on a bend of its own.

                    A couple years ago it had the largest, and closest ejection since records of it began. And by the way, those records go back thousands of years, not a hundred or so as some believe. Ancients monitored temperature, sea levels and as many things as they could.

                    Of course nobody’s been really knowledgeable until recently, no matter they still haven’t figured out the mysteries of pyramids around the world.

                    They don’t even know the properties of pyramids than can be measured easily although they have been. They’re ignorant. Not saying they’re stupid. Ignorance is possible with the most intelligent. History makes my point for me…but nobody teaches geology these days for reasons I don’t understand. It’s a fascinating science that involves more variables than are known.

                    • Hey 8,

                      Yes, if the CAGW theory is correct, why are we still here? A question that has never been answered satisfactorily by any of the alarmists.


            • Clover –

              You write: “Okay Jeremy, since your (sic) convinced that humans have had no effect on the atmosphere, why has the atmosphere in large cities improved after decades of pollution control mandates all while populations hsve grown?”

              This statement proves you have no real understanding of the issue at hand and so no business debating it. Do you even begin to see how much you just publicly embarrassed yourself?

              Smog (an acronym derived from smoke and fog) is exacerbated by certain vehicle exhaust byproducts none of them being carbon dioxide, which plays no role whatsoever in air pollution.

              The characterization of C02 as an “emission” is despicably dishonest; it is done for psychological reasons – to make a false association (equivalence) between harmful and harmless things in the minds of the ignorant, in order to terrify them… in order to control them.

              The same criticism can be leveled at the term, “climate change” – which is purposefully evasive and thus not scientific.

              It is designed to stifle questions about how – and how much – the climate is actually changing by characterizing anyone who raises those questions as “deniers” . . . since it’s self-evident that the “climate” does “change.” It always has and it always will.

              But is it changing abnormally or dangerously? If so, is it because of human actions?

              Those questions are not to be asked. Just as one is not to raise one’s hand and question race-based hiring practices … as that is “racist.”

              If you really believe that the “climate” is “changing” catastrophically because of human activity, then how dare you – channeling Greta – drive a gratuitously overpowered electric car that results in far higher C02 “emissions” than are necessary?

              You are driving around in a high-performance luxury-sport car that uses far more energy in its manufacture and emits far more C02 than a subcompact IC engined economy car.

              So why aren’t you driving one of those, eh? And I assume that you’ve given up your probably much-larger-than-you-need home, which consumes energy so needlessly and results in even more C02 “emissions” . . . in favor of something with a much smaller carbon footprint… right?


              Then spare us your sanctimony – and your ignorance.

                  • And the truth of what’s going on weather-wise world-wide right now has mainly to do with the sun.

                    Just go to any real meteorologist and they can verify that.

                    It’s not the first time it’s happened and won’t be the last.

                    I find it funny that the people who complain about cars most have no idea one of the main pollutants is nitric oxide, something nearly everyone is low on and needs to take supplements of it. That mean old CO2 will cause a greening of the earth.

                    If you know anything about the earth from as little as a few thousands of years ago, it’s that it’s been warming for much longer than that. The first inhabitants of the American continent walked here before glaciers melted enough to raise the oceans so you needed a boat back when Columbus supposedly “discovered” America.

                    Ignorance is so rampant it’s not funny. And now with the very ignorant being able to spew their ignorance world-wide, they make an ever worse “contribution” to the rest with a little knowledge of things. FEFEFH’s.

                    • Hi Eight!

                      Yup. Ask ’em about aphelion and perihelion … and watch the deer-in-the-headlights look. Most of these beeeeeeeelievers couldn’t even tell you what percentage of the Earth’s atmosphere is CO2… but they “know” the “climate” is “changing”… catastrophically . . . because us.

                    • eric, I realize their ignorance is due to the federal school system since their parents are just as ignorant.

                      As you said, the deer in the headlights look. They have no idea that the sun and earth don’t have circular orbits and I doubt they even know about the earth and its moon. It’s even simpler than that. Ask one why the oceans have tides. I hang my head, they should hang theirs.

              • Sadly you are still debating CO2. I did not mention that here at all. Since we disagree on what effect CO2 has on the atmospheric changes, I’ve moved on. I brought up the indisputable pollutants and your back like a crazy raccoon hunting for an arguable morsel. You are looking more and more like a lemming trying to follow any disputable path.

                Regardless of your beliefs or understanding, it’s happening!


                • Grwwww,

                  “I did not mention that here at all”.

                  Well except for here.

                  “People who know that climate change is, in fact, affected by carbon dioxide…”

                  Which is just another example of your inveterate lying, as “we” don’t claim otherwise.

                  Or, here.

                  “Greta is telling the story she knows to be true…”

                  Still, for you this is pretty good, only two examples of a demonstrable lie.


                  • Not a lie. I said we don’t agree, not that I don’t feel it’s part of the problem. I mentioned it, but since I already know your position, I am confused while you are still trying to focus on only that. Climatology is such a challenge to have an honest conversation about here. I moved on to just speak about the things that are recognized pollutants from exhausts which affect people’s health. Are there disputes with that?Clover

                    • Grwwww,

                      You wrote this,

                      “Jeremy, since your convinced that humans have had no effect on the atmosphere…”

                      You made a similar claim in the past, I showed that your claim was false, you repeated it here. That is either a lie, or an inability to comprehend basic language.

                      You also claim this,

                      “I said we don’t agree…”

                      No, you didn’t. You made a false claim about what I believe.

                      “Climatology is such a challenge to have an honest conversation about here”.

                      You claim that you are interested in an honest debate, your conduct speaks otherwise. You are a dogmatist who has yet to demonstrate any knowledge of the subject beyond the hysterical propaganda of the alarmists.


                    • Clover,

                      What’s “challenging” is having a discussion with someone who obfuscates and – when corrected – will not cede the point. A very good example is the conflation of carbon dioxide with things that generate air pollution. You’ve done this – and so has the government. It is despicably dishonest to conflate the two as they are two fundamentally separate things. It is clearly meant to mislead people.

                      You also deliberately distort what others have said – then argue about what they did not say.

                      Most of us here do not “deny” that the “climate” “changes.” Of course it does. What we dispute is whether the “climate” is changing dangerously and unnaturally – two points that are by no means “settled.” If you were intellectually honest you’d concede this, too – but don’t because it’s easier to demagogue people who dispute the lunatic assertions of imminent doom as “deniers.”

                      Jeremy has repeatedly pointed you to lectures/data produced by credentialed scientists who know a great deal about the subject and who have shown – not asserted, but demonstrated with facts – that these End Times scenarios being presented are not justified by the facts. Clover

                      But for you and other believers it is a kind of religion – a matter of faith – and there is no point attempting to debate faith. You believe – and that’s the end of it.

                      And like many people who are belligerent about their faith, you are also a hypocrite. If you really believed that a climate catastrophe was imminent because of man-made C02 “emissions” then you would not have bought and be driving a Tesla – which is a gratuitously power-consumptive (and so C02 producing, both directly and indirectly) luxury-sport car that is objectively much more than you neeeeeeeeeeed to get around. But you want to preen.

                      And you certainly don’t intend to sacrifice. That is for the Little People, eh?

                      You and people like you are of the same tribe as Ernest Angley and other TeeVee evangelists who spread the Word from the comfort of affluence, drawn via hucksterism from the pockets of others.

                    • Grwwww,

                      Although you are unlikely able to see, you are not responding rationally or scientifically, but with faith and emotion, to this topic, I’ll try to show this. You claim that you want an honest conversation on this topic, in this I can accept that you are sincere. But, stripped to its most basic, you assertion is “I’m right, I’m completely certain I’m right, and anyone who disagrees with me is ignorant or selfish”. It is not possible to have an honest discussion with anyone on those grounds, though I have tried. Perhaps you are blind to this and maybe that explains why, though I repeatedly make it clear that I may be wrong in my opinions, you continue to claim otherwise. Perhaps you are not lying, you might just be unable to see that you often make false claims about my views.

                      During this discussion, I have made many statements, some of them facts, some opinions. I will not describe them all, just a few. Climate science, including modeling and predictions based on those necessarily simplified models, is a complex issue, plagued with uncertainty, as is the study of any complex system, this is a fact. The level of certainty claimed by the alarmist community is not justified by science, or observation, this is a fact. It is interesting to note that alarmist scientists and politicians often present a different opinion on certainty in private conversation than those expressed in public. For strategic reasons, they publicly downplay their own uncertainty, while expressing their actual views in private. The other day I read an article that revealed this practice, with actual quotes, but I can’t find it now (I will try to find the link later).

                      Scientific skeptics on this issue are not “deniers”, this is a fact. The despicable term “denier” is intentionally used to link skeptics to holocaust deniers, this is an opinion, though one supported by reason and evidence. The concerns of skeptics, especially the likely ECS, are legitimate and the debate around this issue is real and ongoing, this is a fact. The views of the skeptics are routinely misrepresented in the media, including what is being debated, this is a fact.

                      The repeated adjustments made to the temperature record, always in a way that aligns the data with the theory, raises legitimate concerns of confirmation bias and/or fraud, this is a fact. Note, I say raises legitimate concerns, not proves. As far as I can tell, this is the only factual issue I have raised, to which you have responded. Although it was difficult for me to understand what you wrote, I believe your point was that the data is adjusted due to better models, more powerful computers and for the purpose of continually improving the accuracy of the record. This claim of yours is an opinion. Your opinion may be true, but I find it far more likely that these adjustments reveal confirmation bias, than a continual honing in on the truth, this is an opinion.

                      If you truly wish to have an honest discussion, you must first abandon the false caricature of the skeptics as deluded cranks or dishonest, paid mouthpieces of industry. Alarmist scientists receive far more funding than skeptical scientists, much of it from sources with an agenda, this is a fact. If one believes that funding sources necessarily create a conflict of interest, one must acknowledge it on both sides. This issue is far more damaging to the alarmist side than the skeptical side.

                      Next, research uncertainty, and the problems it creates for meaningful predictions, not just in this field, but in general. Judith Curry, a former member of the alarmist camp who became concerned that the claimed certainty was incompatible with the evidence, is a good place to start. Upon expressing these concerns, she was effectively banished from her former team and slandered as a heretic. It seems telling to me that her former colleagues chose to use an explicitly religious term to condemn her.

                      Research the problems inherent in modeling as a science. I have already provided links to articles by well respected scientists with impeccable credentials. Finally, research the very real problem of mass delusion, examine your own beliefs and look for “tells”. Mass delusions are quite common. The article I linked to, by Scott Adams, is a good place to start. All of us are susceptible to confirmation bias, often triggered by cognitive dissonance. This is why I never make claims about “what will happen”. I present facts and then offer qualified opinions about what is likely to happen, based on my interpretation of those facts. Making truth claims about what “is going to happen” is a pretty reliable “tell” that one is in the midst of a mass delusion, reinforced by confirmation bias.

                      Note, I am not claiming that you are wrong, and that your concerns are certainly without merit. You may be right. But, so far, you have not demonstrated sufficient understanding of the issue to have an informed opinion. You may also not change your mind upon being informed but, at least you opinion will be informed.


              • Your website is broken so I can’t reply to many things directly.

                I have not conceded that CO2 is not a problem, because it is not. CO2 is part of the atmosphere and chemically active in what happens there.

                We don’t agree on that point. So rather than argue with your unknowing righteousness I’ve moved my argument to be about the unarguable pollutants that you are still ill prepared to dispute with your own knowledge. You are relying on Jeremy to justify your position. I’ve already posted the link to the conversation that convinced me that what I believe is true.

                You want to use bullying conversation, as you have from the very first test you posted this here. You think that cheap and lazy is good enough and a personal choice that is okay. You rely on people paying more taxes than you to cover the costs of all kinds of societal privileges you enjoy. You demand that others pay more so you can pay less and only do what you want to do.

                We are all in this together. If you think I have too much advantage in the economy because I’ve earned more opportunity through my actions, you are a sad representation of what is possible.

                ICE vehicles pollute our atmosphere. CO2 is an active molecule in the chemistry of our atmosphere. It holds heat compared to the other plethora of Nitrogen and oxygen atoms that exist in our atmosphere. Pumping more carbon into the atmosphere creates additional heating especially with cloud cover created by evaporation due to other heating sources such as pavement, temperature of exhausts from all possible sources of burning carbon based fuels.

                You want to hang onto ICE engines having no bad effects on our atmosphere. I find that to be unsupportable with anything but ignorant argument.

                What’s the chemical reaction that you think is dispensing all ICE pollutants from the atmosphere? People have been peeling converters off their cars for a long time so those aren’t doing the job. Diesel exhaust has been not meeting standards for some time and the manufactures have been lying about it because they know they can’t meet the standards to reduce the actual pollution.

                Yes plant life consumes CO2. But it takes water for that to happen. Rainforests being cleared is amplifying the amount of CO2 and reducing Oxygen.

                Your view point is that if a lemming following the crowd, looking for someone to justify and lead your perspective.

                Step out of your box and go get educated on what is happening beyond your CO2 is not a problem. Maybe then you’ll understand.

                EVs are much more efficient and less polluting than any ICE engine capable of the same performance. I don’t own an EV because it’s a sports car. I own an EV that has the performance of an EV, and it has the range I need and that’s why I bought it. I travel over 240 miles on weekend trips and that means I need what I bought.

                You are clearly showing a form of jealous conversation mode and that’s just more indication for me that you are hunting for something to justify your position or redirect the conversation.

                • Just listening to a talk today about this very thing. Of all the scientific review papers there’s .3% that support that climate change is due to man.

                  People are now becoming aware of the damage I’ve known for many years done by mining for minerals to make batteries. It’s one of the most poisonous activities happening.

                  The fact that a EV doesn’t have an engine that burns fuel doesn’t mean it’s power is produced by sources that are less polluting than burning petroleum products. I’d bet the people living downwind of coal fired generators would be able to tell you a few drawbacks.

                  But it does no good to say this. You could do the research yourself but you’re simply right and everyone else is wrong. You cannot have a debate because your mind isn’t open to other’s opinions and you are smarter than the rest of the world. Your wealth accumulation and the fact you can buy an expensive EV makes you correct and you don’t need to educate yourself nor enter into debate. You are right and that’s the end of it. You offer no reasons, you’re just simply right.

                  • We can discuss battery chemistries and have heated arguments about processes that happen once in the lifetime of the product vs pollution that happens every time the product is used. We can talk about lead acid batteries vs LI-Ion batteries and cobalt mining. The scale is much larger for the number of LI-Ion batteries than lead acid batteries. But no one is complaining about how many lead mines in the US have killed US citizens and today, continue to leach lead into water supplies, let alone lead pipes in places like Michigan?Clover

                    What’s happening with cobalt mining in third world countries is horrendous. What’s happening in your view, with people suffering and actually dying from pollution their vehicles create around them? Are you not caring about the people with new keyless cars that turn off when they park them in the garage yet start back up later and poison them to death over night?

                    Exactly which type of catastrophe is acceptable to you?

                    • Clover,

                      You keep using the word “pollution” to describe carbon dioxide. This is dishonest because the term has always – until quite recently – been used to refer to compounds which foul the air; which cause or contribute to smog and so on. Carbon dioxide is a non-reactive gas that has nothing to do with air quality issues. Using the term to refer to C02 is an attempt to conflate it with the compounds which foul the air and create/cause health problems – in order to confuse the issue. To get people to equate C02 with the compounds that foul the air, in order to get them to support your political agenda.

                      Who, exactly, is “suffering and dying” from carbon dioxide “pollution”? Please cite specific actual people who have died.

                      You can’t – and that’s the point.

                      All you can do is make assertions based on tenuous claims. As in the case of the VW TDI debacle. Lots of hysterical ululations; no actual victims presented – other than affronted government bureaucrats.

                      I am betting – don’t cheat! – that you can’t even tell me what percent of the earth’s atmosphere is C02. Can you? Without looking it up? If you can’t then stop prattling on about a topic you know very little about.

                    • Grwwww,

                      You’re continued insistence that a catastrophe is going to happen is delusional. As I’ve pointed out many times, nobody knows what’s going to happen. There’s a common word to describe people who claim otherwise, insane.

                      You continue to misrepresent what people here say. Nobody here claims that CO2 has no effect on the climate or atmosphere. We claim, with much more evidence than the alarmists, that the extra CO2 is unlikely to be much of a problem, and almost certainly won’t be anything like the hysterical, religious cult doomsday nonsense spouted by either the terrified “useful idiots” or the dishonest manipulators pushing this agenda for their ends.

                      Neither does anyone here claim that there are no pollutants in emissions, just that those pollutants have been reduced to the point that they now cause little or no harm. We know that ICE cars produce CO2 and a very small amount of “harmful” emissions but nobody can point to any actual harm to a specific person because the levels are below thresh hold.

                      BTW, your coal powered Tesla pollutes much more than a small economy ICE, so STFU about “us” supposedly harming the planet. Oh, and this brings up another one of your commonly repeated lies. Nobody here is jealous of your wealth, or critical of you for it. You’re criticized because you’re a hypocrite, a self righteous dogmatist, entirely deluded about your “superior” knowledge of AGW, a cheerleader for theft to help you buy a car that you can afford without help, and a liar.

                      In my last post, I tried to create a framework for an honest, reasonable conversation with you. However, you have shown that you are incapable of having one. See, when you classify the opinions of people who know far more about this subject than you, as “unknowing righteousness”, it’s really quite hilarious as you have done nothing but spew “unknowing righteousness” on this topic.


                  • But ESM, don’t you know that someone converted all the sloppy mining into a CO2 equivalent and it came out lower than that of a gasoline car? Therefore electric cars are automatically better, end of!

                • Grwwww,

                  “I’ve already posted the link to the conversation that convinced me that what I believe is true”.

                  Do you mean this article?


                  That you believe this proves you’re right, is more evidence that you are suffering from a mass delusion. Just like you, the author claims to refute a belief held by no actual skeptics. This is called a strawman argument. You employ it routinely, and this article is a museum quality example of the tactic.

                  The article starts with this:

                  “Increasing CO2 has little to no effect
                  “While major green house gas H2O substantially warms the Earth, minor green house gases such as CO2 have little effect…. The 6-fold increase in hydrocarbon use since 1940 has had no noticeable effect on atmospheric temperature … ”

                  The author then proceeds to make a strawman argument, then a misrepresentation of the historical record, finishing with the old start date trick, to “refute” the claim. He fails at every point. First, his simplistic discussion of the basic science is not even relevant to the “myth” he claims to refute. “Deniers” do not exist. Every skeptic understands that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, that AVG has increased since the late 19th century, that CO2 concentration has increased and that human activity drives some of that increase. NONE of this is relevant to the “myth” he claims to refute. This is a classic strawman argument.

                  He then correctly observes that the issue is about climate sensitivity, but then asserts the the “current best estimates are for a rise of around 3°C (5.4°F), with a likely maximum of 4.5°C (8.1°F)”. Which is an opinion, not well supported by the historical record. He uses this claim, “According to an ongoing temperature analysis conducted by scientists at NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS)…the average global temperature on Earth has increased by about 0.8°Celsius (1.4°Fahrenheit) since 1880. Two-thirds of the warming has occurred since 1975, at a rate of roughly 0.15-0.20°C per decade”, to support his opinion.

                  But, he includes no mention of the multiple adjustments to the record, which is proof of uncertainty, no mention of the major problems with modeling as a predictive tool and no discussion of the start date trick of 1975. Peak temperature was reached in 1937, then the AVG went down from 1940 until around 1975. That start date is chosen to create a desired outcome and to confuse people. That start date is absurd, as it ignores the rapid warming of the early 20th century and the subsequent cooling until around 1975. This claim, “two-thirds of the warming has occurred since 1975…” only appears valid due to certainty that the “adjustments” are true. This is not science, it is faith.

                  Your “argument” rests on your absolute certainty that continued increases in CO2 concentration WILL cause catastrophic consequences. This irrational assertion of faith renders honest, reasonable debate on this topic impossible because the necessary consequence of your ludicrous claim is that anyone who disagrees with you is, by definition, wrong, ignorant lying, self serving, etc… You cannot be moved by any amount of evidence that shows that the certainty of your view is not valid (note, I am addressing your certainty, I am not claiming that your views are necessarily false. You will, almost certainly, misrepresent what I actually wrote).

                  Consider that your delusional claims of certainty mean that you believe that you are better equipped to assess the complexity of the science, the likely outcomes, and the risks involved in pursuing particular policies vs. “doing nothing” (which itself is a strawman) than Freeman Dyson, one of the greatest scientists of the 20th century.

                  Your ignorance, combined with your staggering arrogance is astonishing; and further evidence that you are suffering from a mass delusion. You are an ignorant, intolerant dogmatist. Until you can demonstrate that you are capable of having an honest, reasonable discussion of this issue, I will no longer respond to you.


  5. Don’t forget – once FedGov shoves us all into EV’s – we will have only one choice for our energy needs – the heavily regulated, government controlled, electric utility monopoly. Is that freedom? At least we have some choice with fossil fuels. I’ve been around quite a few EV’s, bought some in my previous career – they work in some applications, but I haven’t the slightest bit of interest in plunking down my hard earned $$ on a whirring, government controlled transportation appliance!

    • Hi Keith,


      If it’s about economy – any currently available $15k-$17k economy sedan is superior to the least expensive electric car (the $30,000 Nissan Leaf). Who would pay twice as much for a car that goes half as far – and takes at least 6 times as long to partially refuel? You will never “save money” driving the Leaf – so who cares that it uses no gas? If the object is lowering one’s cost to drive, I mean.

      If it’s luxury, an S-Class Mercedes is a far nicer (and much larger) car than the Tesla S. Without the Teslian functional gimps.

      If it’s performance, a Hellcat costs less than a Tesla S and while the Tesla S is a little bit quicker, if you use its performance, you’ll run down the batteries and be stuck for hours…. or at least 45 minutes. The Hellcat can be gassed up in less than 5 minutes – and it costs $20,000 less than the Tesla S.

      Are you and I and the regular here the only ones not smoking crack?

      • A 1960 Valiant, with a 170 cubic inch Slant Six and “Three on the Tree” could easily get over 30 mpg without any fancy electronics or elaborate transmissions that are now de rigeur.

        I hear that Mopar is planning to bring back the Slant Six, as its relatively narrow bores and long-stroke design actually works well with today’s vehicles. With modern fuel injection and an eight-speed transmission, it’d deliver a great combo of power and fuel economy. Sometimes what’s “old” is “new” (again).

        • Hi Doug,


          I’ve mentioned this previously but for those new to the discussion: By adding an overdrive transmission to my ’76 TA – which is otherwise “70s technology” – the mileage it’s capable of is now about the same as that delivered by a new Camaro SS. But my car’s V8 doesn’t have DI or even TBI; no cylinder deactivation and not a single “sensor” on the thing.

        • Heck, a 1941 Nash “600” got 30 mpg, with an ancient flathead six! (It was called the “600” because it could go 600 miles on its 20-gallon tank of fuel.)

        • The wife’s 95 Cutlass Supreme SL, the heaviest of those cars got 30 mpg. REally nice leather interior and the big six.

    • Unlike gasoline or diesel it doesn’t take a million dollars to make a fixed amount of energy. Sunlight and wind will allow you to be free from the grid. You’ll be able to finally not rely on the gov for electricity.

      • You certainly have the wind part covered. A marble sized piece of Thorium will produce enough electricity for you to power everything you own for your entire lifetime and it’s not dangerous. Reckon why we can’t use it? Would it be govt.?

        A belly dump of Thorium is enough to power millions of people forever. Just to put things into perspective.

  6. When I was at the doctor’s office earlier today, I read an old issue of Road & Track. At the back of the magazine is a feature, “Go Lutz Yourself”, in which Bob Lutz (yes, THAT Bob Lutz) comments on various issues pertaining to the car, answers reader questions, etc. In this issue, from March/April 2016, he talked about the end of the automobile.

    To make a long story short, he sees cars becoming autonomous transportation modules and car ownership coming to an end. He said that, with our mobile devices, we’ll hail a transportation module when and where we need it; it’ll take us where we want to go. If we have that capability, he says, why would anyone own a car anymore? He said that he sees cars becoming a plaything, much like happened to horses when the automobile was first developed.

    Lutz sees these transportation modules traveling in packs at 150 mph along the highways. He said that they’d be electric. He said that, with little to differentiate a BMW transportation module from a Mercedes, that the car industry as we know it will change. Why would the end user care what MARQUE of transportation module carries him to his destination, provided it does so?

    Anyway Eric, while your concerns are real; while I see where you’re going with your point about EPA fatwas and the loss of affordable car choices; I think Mr. Lutz had a good point almost three years ago now. If cars become autonomous, will we even own them anymore? Will we even want to? I don’t know. I just thought I’d throw that out there…

    • It will matter when someone realizes the city bus experience sucks and offers a “premium” ride that has upgraded seating, entertainment and snacks, and costs 10X more than the “standard” ride. It will matter when the service doesn’t clean out the various bodily fluids that will accumulate everywhere, especially after the bars close.

      • Did you every see the PBS story about how GM, Firestone and big gasoline, worked together to buy mass transportation bus and train lines, running them into the ground so that you’d have to buy a car and then be subject to the continuous burdens of buying fuel and tires and new cars? Here’s a 60minutes video about the proposed conspiracy.


          • I keep trying to educate people on the real story of the street cars but I am dealing with leftists who think “Who Framed Rodger Rabbit?” is an accurate source of historical information.

        • Hi Frank,

          No one was ever forced to buy a non-EV. Or forced to subsidize one, either. The history of the car (non-electric) is one of free market competition; specifically, of the non-electric car beating out the early electric cars – which were briefly more popular because they were briefly superior. But they lost their market to IC cars – particularly the Model T – which beat out EVs because the Ts cost less, went farther and refueled faster.

          Sound familiar?

          • I recall a movie where some moonshiners were running a load and ran out of gas in their Model T. They poured in a few quarts of shine and kept on. Try that in an EV.

            PPGE in Ca. has shut electricity off for weather conditions to 2 million people. It’s really PO’d the public, as it should. The reality is PPGE has been run so shoddily and all the profits have been robbed so badly they have no money left to fix their lines. They claim there are huge winds coming but everywhere people posted videos of flags hanging straight down while they had no power.

            But good old frog face came to the rescue for his fanbois by notifying them they should charge up while they could. I don’t thing this reached most of em in time and what the hell could you do with one anyway. It’s not like they’d have the ability to sit in the traffic jams like all the ICE vehicles to get out of state or somewhere the power wasn’t going to be off. Meanwhile, PPGE announced their owner and some board members were getting millions in bonuses.

            I don’t guess a bear could shit in the woods in that state that it wouldn’t be hard on somebody. I just wish they’d quit moving to Texas.

            I had to laugh at the article of a couple who’d emigrated and moved to the hill country. Now they’re there in their beautiful new home, they just now noticed they weren’t far from a quarry. They acted as if it was a recent thing. I’d bet I’ve been there. The hill country has huge quarries that have a huge amount of trucks running out of them day and night. They moved and never noticed that truck traffic. Head up ass and had to bring it to Texas. No doubt in my mind the quarry supplied the concrete, rock and plaster for their home as well as the driveway, etc.

      • In this brave new world a cell phone will be a toy and you’ll use brain waves to summon your module. Which will always be clean by the way because WE take care of each other, WE are one in all and all in one. There are no men but only the great WE, One, indivisible and forever. You see in this new world we are nothing. Mankind is all. By the grace of our brothers are we allowed our lives. We exist through, by and for our brothers who are the State.

        Okay enough Rand for the evening, Cheers!

        • Google has already said it’s going to use brain to brain communication. Sounds dicey to me. I’ll just take the old mule to town to get on the high speed module that will carry me, a trailer of cattle and a couple months of groceries and beer. That should be interesting. Just hoping I don’t get one that’s just hauled a load of hogs.

    • Thus proving Lutz would be right at home in a Pringle’s can! Why don’t we all just get on the IV now, so we can merely exist, instead of living? What he is predicting is an existence without struggle, challenge, or growth. Watch “Logan’s Run” and you will get a good idea of just how shallow and pointless humanity will be at that point.

      • Hi Graves!

        Lutz misses one (of several) important – arguably, decisive – things ride-sharing will never deliver: Immediacy.

        Unless teleportation is invented, the ride-sharer will have to wait for his ride. And plan for it. No just deciding on a whim – or because it’s urgent – to jump in your car and go right now. Just think: Your kid has been hurt and is bleeding out. Instead of not wasting those perhaps life-deciding minutes for your ride (or the ambulance) you just get in the car and get to the hospital… right now.

        It is the difference between turning on the tap and – voila – water… and having to wait while someone runs down to the corner store to get (and bring back) some bottled water.

        Bottom line: Our mobility is being reduced – contrary to the glib (and imbecile) chatter about how transportation as a service is going to be a boon for us all.

        • “It is the difference between turning on the tap and – voila – water… and having to wait while someone runs down to the corner store to get (and bring back) some bottled water.”

          Ah, the story of my life. Here in NJ, we’re essentially forced to buying bottled water because the state would rather blow our money on corrupt politicians than to improve our infrastructure. And everyone wonders why folks are fleeing from “The Garden State” in droves.

      • @GTC: You, sir, hit the nail right on the head! These fools essentially want life to be completely effortless and, like you said, devoid of any risks or challenges. In fact, Nike (with others probably not far behind) is supposed to be rolling out a line of “smart” sneakers that enable the user to automatically tighten and adjust them via an app on their brain-controlling devi…err, I mean, “smartphones”. Yeah, it’s THAT bad.

      • gtc – Watch “Logan’s Run” and you will get a good idea of just how shallow and pointless humanity will be at that point.

        I’m really not seeing much difference at THIS point, other than the polyester jumpsuits.

  7. Eric, do you think that someday a stubborn holdout like me, with my ’76 Lincoln Mark IV, will not be able to find gas stations?

  8. Contrarian here.
    I own 2 Teslas ( X & 3). Engineer by education – manufacturing businessman by career.
    Teslas offer a driving experience well beyond that of an ICE vehicle. It’s that simple. Add the convenience of charging at home (at night when the load on the grid is low), no tuneups/oil changes, and you have simply improved the vehicle transportaion part of my life.
    I consider myself as a “car guy” and I have owned a goodly number of upscale and performance vehicles. After driving my first Tesla (the X) for a few months, I simply found an ICE to be crude by comparison, so I sold my very nice ICE 2nd car and bought a Tesla Model 3.
    When we get beyond minimum expenditure to do the transportation functrion, the unique benefits of the Tesla (probably other EVs also, but I have no experience there) are a powerful sales tool.

    • Jack Lundberg – are YOU the lucky guy in the “Office Space” movie, whom, unlike Bill LUNDBERG, actually got frisky with the waitress portrayed by Jennifer Anniston (at about age 29, to boot!)?

      Seriously, IF you spend YOUR money (and knowing the Tesla SRP, it’s a bunch!) for this EV experience, fine and dandy, although no mention if you have something else that’s “crude” ICE (like a “Cowboy Cadillac” diesel pickup) for when you want to foray well beyond the charging range of the Teslas, especially on one loooong road trip! It’s the taxpayer-funded SUBSIDIES that I object to, especially since the effect is to provide a tax subsidy to a very well-heeled gentleman, and THIS promulgated by those political twits professing to have the “working man’s” interests at heart! Please also answer this question: IF the price subsidies AND the tax credits weren’t available, how ‘wonderful’ or ‘unique’ would the Tesla be?

      • Douglas L Self – no I don’t own a backup ICE vehicle.
        I have not taken a really long trip via Tesla, but several day trips, plus the experiences of other Tesla owners, makes me believe long trips are entirely feasible. Tesla offers a trip planning function to accomodate long trips.
        As a conservative citizen, I wince at acepting the government subsidies, but yes, I would have made the same purchase decisions absent them.
        BEV prices will decline in the future, however I want the driving experience now.
        There is a personal vehicle revolution going on and the engineering merits of the BEV will be the victor.

        • “Tesla offers a trip planning function”

          I have to laugh at stuff like this. I can buy the cheapest econobox out there and not have to do “trip planning”, just take to the open road when the whim strikes and not worry about it. A $15,000 Hyundai Accent has more basic functionality and convenience than a $90,000 Tesla. Nobody that buys a cheap conventional economy car has to even give a thought to whether long trips are entirely feasible. They just gas up and go.

          As Eric points out elsewhere, if one wants the Tesla “driving experience” (presumably that is crazy fast acceleration) you can get much the same in a Hellcat for a lot less money than a Tesla and not have to worry about “trip planning”.

          Of course most people are concerned about getting from Point A to Point B in reasonable comfort with a minimum of fuss, not with blinding acceleration or some other esoteric aspects of the “driving experience.” Thus there is no free market pressure for electric cars. The public is not demanding them. The vast majority of people are perfectly content with the performance of their ICE vehicles.

          The limitations of current battery technology overshadows any other engineering merits of current battery electric vehicles. That may well change in the future, but as it stands now if I were in the market for a new car using my own hard-earned money and could afford my pick I’d take the Hyundai over the Tesla in a heartbeat. (Actually my own version of the ideal new car would be something really basic like a Studebaker Scotsman.)

          • Some people want a Rolex, some want a Timex.
            Different strokes for different folks.
            Neither is wrong.
            Argue abolut someting else.

            • What I want is a car that does not require a “trip planning function” to take a cross-country drive. (Also a car that is not wirelessly tethered to the manufacturer which can change functionality remotely, but that’s another issue.)

              That’s the case whether I’m in a Studebaker Scotsman or a Cadillac Eldorado. Either provides the freedom to simply take off down the road with no special planning required. Tesla simply doesn’t fit the bill.

              • Hi Jason,

                Go easy on Grwww as he’s suffering from an increasingly common delusional disorder, Malthustyria. It is a degenerative disease that attacks one’s rational faculties while enhancing emotional sensations. It is characterized by an irrational fear of a looming, total cataclysm, coupled with an absolute certainty that anyone who doesn’t likewise suffer the same affliction (agree with them) is blind or corrupt.

                Unfortunately there is no known cure as the disease is impervious to evidence, experience, history or reason. Recent clinical trials of hallucinogenic drug therapy showed promise but have been abandoned because a statistically significant number of participants advanced into full blown, irreversible psychosis. What is most vexing to researchers is that the repeated failure of what is feared to come to pass only seems to enhance the disorder.

                The disease is most concentrated among environmental activists and eschatological theorists, though it is becoming alarmingly frequent among a new political movement that dubs itself, the “Resistance”.

                While there is no cure, palliative therapy has become common. This approach conditions the sufferer to believe his disease to be a noble virtue, a sign of deeper knowledge, greater compassion and a more acute sensibility. An early pioneer in this method was Dr. Paul Ehrlich who managed to parlay his irrational fear and hysterical doom saying into a lucrative and prestigious career.


              • Tesla lets you turn off data gathering. If you know where your going, you can go without planning. On the road charging is not a pain in the ass. It’s essentially more like finding your desired restaurant.

                Range anxiety is something that will keep a lot of people incapable of understanding what’s important about owning a Tesla. If you haven’t test driven one and learned about the features of the whole car, it’s difficult for an owner to tell you what you’d like.

                Go drive one. Find a friend who has one, look on Turo for one to rent, or go to a service center or other places where you can test drive one. Tesla says you can buy one and drive it for the first week and still bring it back if you don’t like it.

                Each person will need their own personal experience with a Tesla or other EV to figure out what’s possible.

                • I have zero interest in Tesla or the rent-seeker Elon Musk. I will not test drive a Tesla. As it happens I do have a friend who has one but I have no interest in driving it or even riding in it. Charging is a pain in the ass compared to a quick fillup in a gasoline car, which is less expensive and superior in virtually every practical measure to an electric vehicle. The cheapest Mitsubishi Mirage is more convenient and practical to operate than a Tesla.

                  There is nothing “important” about owning a Tesla. Thanks but no thanks.

                • ” If you haven’t test driven one and learned about the features of the whole car, it’s difficult for an owner to tell you what you’d like.”

                  That implies there is anything in one of these evil abominations that I would actually like.

                • Hi Frank,

                  The crux of the debate – here, at least – isn’t about the virtues of Teslas or EVs as such. I agree with you that these are subjectives and will vary according to the preferences of the prospective buyer. The problem with Teslas and EVs generally is they’re being literally forced down our throats with money stolen from our pockets.

                  I wouldn’t be criticizing Tesla – as a company – if it were merely offering its cars for sale at whatever the market will bear. But Musk is using government force to create an artificial “market” for his cars – and set the precedent for other car companies to do the same.

                  The fact that none of these EVs would survive absent the subsidies and mandates is pretty compelling evidence that they’re not viable on the merits.

                  • If Elon used his own and investors’ money and didn’t use government I would probably cheer him battery EV or not. But alas he makes it so I have to pay more so he can live out a boyhood fantasy of having a car company and that’s my biggest gripe with Tesla Motors. Not doing FMEAs and other product development blunders being lower on the list.

                    • Ditto, Brent –

                      I hate being put into the position of coming across as some kind of Luddite – which I’m not. But it’s so easy to demagogue any criticism of EVs on that basis – and thereby shout down any rational discussion about EVs, including the probability that – were it not for all the government distortions caused by perverse incentives – there would be very affordable/practical electric commuter cars.

                      Instead, we get Teslas….

            • Hi Jack,

              Yes – and that’s fine (Rolex vs. Timex) so long as the guy buying is the guy paying. The problem with EVS – well, one of the problems with EVs – is that the people buying them are forcing other people to pay for them.

            • JL, some people want heroin instead of cocaine, and like your watches, both do the same, each in a different manner and/or social circle. There is no EV with the flexibility, versatility, and utility capabilities of IC automobiles, that is where your flow chart of logical progression ends. Each has different purposes and venues of function, and EVs have so many crippling disadvantages that they cannot even stand on their own merits. Hell, they are an unprofitable hemmorrage of funds for anyone building them, even with all the Federal tax theft and subsequent “dictates” of permissive use of IC vehicles.
              Eric is 100% correct that the natural economic processes of supplying to meet functional needs is being seriously screwed with. It’s “people farming” to a degree that is so insidious because it feeds on greed, pride, and the infatuation of wealth and power. Interesting that you mention a Rolex watch, because 40 years ago it became not just a quality functional timepiece, but an Icon of Greed and Self-Importance that symbolized the generation of Yuppies, the same people who are now in political power and making every effort to micromanage everyone else’s live, but still only for THEIR progeny, not yours or mine. Your just being another gilded brick in their wall of self edification. I really feel sorry sheeple like you that just jostle and elbow to have the best place at the trough, so long as you live better than the rest before your slaughter.———-Oh my, I didn’t mean for that to turn so dark and depressing, well, there it is, and not staying these things will not make them any less true.

              • gtc, you’re spot on. The country is owned by a few people and you’re not one of them.

                Every time there’s a new “tax break” you can bet your boots it won’t be for the average person.

                I know some people who were thrilled with Trump’s new tax cut….simply because they had a large enough amount of money it benefited them. Of course everyone else had to pay. Middle class and poor get stuck with the bill for those great tax cuts.

                Every day that goes by just makes me a bit more ill with the entire system and Trump’s fucking ego bullshit. He’s duplicitous as hell. He might do something that would benefit me but hasn’t so far and the odds are he never will. It doesn’t make a damn what the fuel mileage fatwa is, it won’t affect me in any good way. I guess if it goes up to 50 mpg it will affect me but not in a good way. The economy truly will tank if it isn’t about to already and those old cars will be worth that much more.

                Like George Carlin said, “while the rest of you go to vote, I’ll stay at home and beat off and have something to show for my time”.

          • The model 3 performance is cheaper than the hellcat. If you haven’t actually driven a Tesla for at least an hour using all the driving features at night and during the day, all the convenience functions and features of the Tesla platform will not really be know to you.

            I no longer have any desire to drive a gas car. In the summer, I can drive through the desert with no worry of overheating.

            The Tesla navigation system is a convenience not a crutch. There is electricity in all the places there is gasoline to be purchased. The car is not the problem, the infrastructure is.

            I don’t sit in my car while it’s charging. At destination chargers or at home I do other things. On the road I go to superchargers where I take bathroom breaks and eat a meal, shop etc.

            I thought it would be a while until EVs came. Tesla has taken more than 300,000 profit points away from ICE manufactures in their top margin markets. They are having to move on with EV development using cash they have today or else they will be non-profitable in a quarter or two and their stock prices and investors will be going down/away very quickly!

            Electric is so much better than ICE from a tech simplicity point of view but also total cost of ownership.

            • “I no longer have any desire to drive a gas car. In the summer, I can drive through the desert with no worry of overheating.”

              So your Tesla avoids a problem no car made in the last 30 years has a problem with? Wow.

              “I don’t sit in my car while it’s charging.”
              I don’t sit in my car while filling either. And it only takes 5 minutes. I don’t have to find soothing else to do while my car fills….. because it only takes five minutes.

              What are you trying to say, that having to wait an hour to partially refill your car is some sort of feature and not a bug? Rationalize much?

              • No I am saying that my Tesla works just fine. It’s not a problem to own and operate. All the ignorance spouted here with bias about EVs is just hilkatious to see. So much small penis conversations and so many who just have no idea….Clover

                • Grwww,

                  You’ve leveled juvenile and illiterate insults – but not addressed any of the points made in re the EV’s range/recharge/cost issues – all of which are objective facts.

                  Your Tesla may “work just fine” for you. Probably some Yugo owners said the same.

                  And they ask me why I drink…

                  • The cost is real it’s not an argument. The problem is that money is controlling your consideration. Money is not finite. Do you pay a baby tax each time someone is born so they will have money to spend? No, the FED prints money , inflating the cash available so that there is some to spend for all.

                    Range in any vehicle is limited by the energy on board in whatever form. Why argue about that? Temperature, rain drag, wind drag, hills etc. affect your energy usage. It’s a fact! Why argue about how bad it might be against one particular driving style, route, use pattern? It’s just something to consider for what size battery or tank you need.

                    People don’t all own gas guzzling pickup trucks that cost $70,000.00. People pick what they can afford and what meets their needs for overall cost vs benefits.

                    EVs cost less to operate! EV batteries drive the costs up. Gasoline and diesel continued use is going to kill all of us within 20 years, plain and simple.Clover

                    Standing around and arguing and pointing with your penis at how manually your opinion and reasoning is while clearly demonstrating complete ignorance of the facts with all of your posturing is childish and just speaks directly to the Dunning-Kruger effect.

                    All of us are ignorant of many things. The question is, how stupid are you for not recognizing your ignorance and standing around in your little box feeling like your the smartest and have the perfect few of everything?

                    We already know all these things about ICE environmental damage. We already know how we’ve structured our lives around car dealers, buying a car, getting insurance, getting a tag, putting fuel in the tank, watching cooling system, changing out lubricants, replacing failed Motor and transmission parts as well.

                    What you don’t know until you own an EV and more directly avTesla, is how much of that crap doesn’t have to be a part or much less a part of the interruptions or daily/weekly/monthly routine.Clover

                    Charging is not a major part of my life because I plug in and charge at home for 90% of what I drive. When I need to travel, I have superchargers to use and it’s 99% happening when I am eating diner or shopping.

                    Clearly this thread is a bunch of positioning of opinion and throwing down insults to try and make a point. I am just laughing at all of that. Your ICE car will only be worth scrap in another 5years. Enjoy!

                    • Grrrr,

                      This comment of yours – “Gasoline and diesel continued use is going to kill all of us within 20 years, plain and simple” – puts you in the camp of Hale Bopp comet apocalyptics; it’s not worth my time to deal with this sort of thing and besides, I lack the psychiatric credentials.

                    • Grrrr,

                      How is “the cost” – which you concede to be real – “not an argument”?

                      Do you believe the price of a vehicle – its total cost to own – is an irrelevant consideration?

                      This is an interesting argument!

                      It is certainly an elitist argument.

                      Yes, of course “range is limited” in any car. But it is much more limited in an electric car. And the electric car is further limited by its preposterously long recharge time.

                    • Grrr,

                      You write:

                      “Standing around and arguing and pointing with your penis at how manually your opinion and reasoning is while clearly demonstrating complete ignorance of the facts with all of your posturing is childish and just speaks directly to the Dunning-Kruger effect.”

                      I can’t even parse this. Res ipsa loquitur.

                      What I have done – which isn’t arguing with my penis (however one does that) is point out… facts about electric cars. And then you – like so many Tesla and EV apologists – accuse me of “ignorance” while ignoring these facts!

                      Once more:

                      EVs cost much more than IC cars. .
                      An EV’s range is comparatively short – forcing more frequent stops to recharge – which takes much longer than an IC car takes to refuel.


                      And they ask me why I drink…

                    • “Gasoline and diesel continued use is going to kill all of us within 20 years, plain and simple.”

                      That’s what environmentalist assholes were puking 50 years ago.

                      Rest assured that gasoline and electric vehicles will still be mainstream in 20 years (let alone 5), everyone will still be here, and a new generation of environmentalist assholes will be making even more ludicrous predictions that will never materialize.

                    • Grwwww
                      Whatever marginal grip you had on reality when you arrived, it’s gone.

                      Honestly wondering if you are really that Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez idiot.

                      Not sure why you bother with responding to them Eric, it’s pretty obvious that Grwwww lacks the mental ability to even understand your responses. Even when given clear and factual data that refutes the stupid shit it spews, it still cant’ grasp the facts.

                      The truly stupid never understand that they don’t understand.

                  • Hey Eric,

                    “Do you believe the price of a vehicle – its total cost to own – is an irrelevant consideration?”

                    Well, of course. After all “money is not finite”, so the FED can just inflate “the cash available so that there is some to spend for all”. Easy peasy, everyone can afford a model 3!

                    BTW, this is not an ignorant opinion, but a fact!


              • Teslas and all EVs have to watch their battery temps. I know that when Formula E is racing when it’s hot out (e.g. the Santiago, Chile race in January, i.e. summer down there), they have to watch their battery temps. Furthermore, the battery temps can affect their ability to use regen; if the temps are too high, they can’t use regen. That affects their energy management, which in turn determines race strategy. Anyway, in so many words, EVs DO have to watch temps too…

            • We drive 700 miles straight through, two five minute stops to gas up and pee. Have to do that to fit between somewhere before daylight and rush hour. An electric car would require two days, a motel night, and restaurant meals – plus two more damn days away from home.

              And, I don’t need any focking navigation system because I’ve driven the route so many times and know where I’m going.

              • The trip would take a little longer with a Tesla, but it wouldn’t take two days! The stops at the Supercharger would take 1/2 hour or so, during which time you can go to the bathroom, get something to drink, get something to eat if hungry, and so on.

                I could live with a Tesla on a road trip, because I stop every 2-3 hours or so. I do all the things above; after 2-4 hours behind the wheel, I need to stretch my legs. My typical stops are about a 20-30 minutes, unless I need a power nap too.

                So, why don’t I have a Tesla? Why don’t I have an EV? For me, it was economics. I got very gently used 2015 Ford Focus late last year, and it was about 1/3 the cost of the cheapest Tesla. Economics like that were compelling, so I got an ICEV. Maybe next time…

                • Hi Mark,

                  It slays me the way people excuse/rationalize away the EV’s gimps. The fact is these things reduce mobility, by not going nearly as far and taking much longer to recharge than a non-electric car takes to refuel.

                  This might be compensated for if the EV were inexpensive; if it cost less – much less – than a non-electric. But they cost much more!

                  Plus, they have an inherently shorter useful service life because of the inevitable fading of their battery packs. And they are affected by high heat and extreme cold far more so than non-electrics.

                  It is sick. A real-life parade of the naked emperor – with the masses admiring his new clothes.

                  • My latest experience with EV fanbois tells me that they now prefer to outright deny the problems. They cite some example of a Tesla that went 300+ miles with the A/C on, with no mention of the driving style used… wonder what they’d say now that several Teslas got their range cut. If you mention the recharge time they’ll fall back on the shorter fast-charge time and say that’s just a perfect excuse to get out of the car and stretch your legs etc., never mind that many areas don’t have fast chargers, you may not want to spend 30+ minutes “stretching your legs”, and you can still do this at a gas station if you actually want to. If you mention the cost they’ll say that even without the subsidies a Model 3 is “only” several thousand dollars more expensive than the BMW 3-series it directly competes with and “only” a couple thousand more than that BMW’s big brother the 5-series. (If only we could all be rich enough to not care about such trivial differences!) If you bring up China’s “absolutely spotless” environmental and human-rights records, they’re not worried because someone out there already converted all the serf tears and sloppy mining into a dry, contextless CO2 equivalent to prove that liquid fuels are still worse overall!

                    • GTC, That’s how they all are it seems.

                      I’ve gone the extra step in pointing out that the BMWs and other cars they compare to are profitable. That they have normal or better profit margins and TM’s products do not. Then they fall back on TM showing a profit from selling credits.

                      It’s simply delusional like most modern ‘thinking’.

                • It WOULD take two days because I’m not ever going to drive through the Denver area during rush hours, and even an extra two or three hours would make the trip impossible in one day. There are actually only a few time slots that are NOT a rush hour.

                  Plus I doubt that there even is a damn Supercharger in Wyoming.

                  • Just so you know, there ARE Superchargers in WY! You can go here to see: https://www.tesla.com/findus/list/superchargers/United%20States.

                    Scroll to the bottom for the list. If you look at the map, they appear to be located along the Interstates mostly.

                    On road trips, I don’t push it; I’ll get there when I get there. That’s not to say I don’t have a goal, but I won’t crash because I fell asleep trying to make a schedule. If I need to sleep, I’ll pull over-simple as that.

                    As for stretching my legs, that’s what I do. I have an ICEV, so I don’t have to; I just prefer to do things that way.

                    • Hi Mark,

                      I get that – for you – these regular and fairly long pit stops aren’t a big deal. It’s not a big deal for me to put up with the idiosyncrasies of my old two-stroke bike, which fouls plugs quickly and needs its points adjusted regularly. I put up with it because I like the bike. Not because it makes any kind of sense.

                      It’s batty that we’re even having a discussion about the “merits” of cars that force people to stop sooner and wait longer – and which cost thousands more. It is literally demented – like making excuses for a cripple who has been force-added to the roster of a track team.

                    • Well, when you’re on the wrong side of 50 and have a weak bladder, just gassing and going isn’t an option! I have to stop every so often just to drain the vein… 🙂

                      I could live with a Tesla and its pit stops, since I do that sort of thing already. Are all my pit stops 30 minutes? No, some are only 10-15, so a Tesla would add some time even to my rare road trips.

                      For me, I simply cannot AFFORD a Tesla. They’re nice cars. They’re neat cars. But they’re EXPENSIVE cars! Yeah, they save gas, but not enough to recoup 3-4 times the purchase price of an ICEV. That decision is a no-brainer.

                      Oh, the moped I had in HS was 2 stroke. That bitch fouled plugs all the time! I got so I just carried a spare with me, so I could quickly change ’em. Then, I’d clean the dirty one when I got home, so it could be my spare for next time…

                    • Well, it only takes me about 30 seconds to pee between the passenger side open doors at one of those ubiquitous truck parking pull-offs in Wyoming!

    • I for one am NOT going to let you redefine the normal by accepting this bullshit meme, ICE.
      A car, other than your marginal tesla is a normal car , your X is the electric car. Stop qualifying mine, it’s unnecessary.
      There are 100s of millions of cars in the world and a smidgen of ALL other power train types.
      All of you, Ice is a fed department or a drug, stop using it fir normal car!

  9. Some 75 years ago, another automotive innovator, Ferdinand Porsche, whom designed the VW Beetle for HITLER (fairly much at least ‘inspired by the Tatra 97, as the chief designer at Skoda put it, “sometimes ‘Ferdy looked over my shoulder and I over his”; Tatra filed a lawsuit against VW in 1938, which Hitler “settled out of court” by the taking of the Sudetenland in 1938 and the rest of Czechoslovakia the next year; the Skoda works, by then under control of the Czechoslovakian Communists, filed another suit against the post-war VW in West Germany, a settlement was reached in 1965 for $1M DM), also came up with a “hybrid” design for an AFV, or “Panzerkampfwagen”…his version of the Tiger tank was to use the Maybach engine to drive a large generator, with two large electric motors turning the drive sockets. Though this was much easier to drive than Henschel’s design, which used a conventional five-speed gearbox, it required a huge amount of copper to handle the amperage…no easy feat in wartime Germany, as even by early 1942, when the two competing Tiger tank designs went through trials, salvage crews were employed to strip wiring from bombed and/or abandoned buildings for the copper wiring, such was the shortage of copper which was very strategic to the German war economy. Also, the Porsche design had a problem which was never solved: Under heavy load, like attempted to climb a hill, the drive motors tended to catch fire! Sound familiar to Tesla fans?

    Porsche was so sure that he’d win the contract that he persuaded Krupp to go ahead and manufacture 100 hulls; but these were “orphaned” when Henschel won the Tiger tank contract. Not wanting to just scrap them, Porsche improvised a “Panzerjâger” (tank hunter) design, which involved building a fixed superstructure at the rear, and shoehorning two Maybach TRM V12s in the middle of the hull (the driver and radio operator/bow gunner were up front with barely enough room), it also mounted the new 88mm L71 gun later used on the Tiger II and the Jagdpanther. Not only was this ungainly contraption, at first termed the “Ferdinand”, but later christened the “Elephant” (at least some truth in naming), slow and unreliable, it also had NO machine guns or grenade launchers to defend against stalking infantry! Needless to say, the debut of the Elephants at the 1943 Battle of Kursk was, put charitably, lackluster. Sure…IF they sighted the enemy tanks at long range, then they could pick them off with that big tank gun while the Elephant’s thick hide easily shrugged off most hits from the Soviet 76mm tank guns, BUT…once the accompanying Panzergrenadiers were picked off, these beasts were HELPLESS. The Soviets soon adapted the tactic of hitting them with mortar fire to drive away their infantry escort, then rushing them with Molotov cocktails. Most of these 68-ton beasts that weren’t written off when they broke down, which was all too frequent, and couldn’t be easily towed (it took three half-tracks which were what the Germans used as armored recovery vehicles, they simply never had enough tank chasses to spare for ARV or combat engineering work as did the Allies), were lost due to being burnt.

    Porsche actually, only about four months after the Kursk debacle, submitted yet ANOTHER hybrid tank design for the Tiger II, which was rejected before a prototype was even authorized. Hitler became frustrated with Porsche, but rather than demand his retirement and the disbandment of the Porsche company, gave him the project to develop the tank-hunting version of the Tiger II, the Jagdtiger. He took so long in tinkering with the design that Henschel more or less finished the project without him, but it took so long that only 76 of these 78-ton monsters (with a 128mm gun with performance comparable to present-day tank guns) were ever built.

    Beware of vehicles that are a result of a “Government” dictate!

    • Hi Anonymous,

      Tell you what. When I can afford one, I will. Meanwhile, it’s just me doing everything here. Let’s see you write perfect copy – several thousand words – every day – without a net.

      Pedantic critiques over typos rile me up.

      • Come, come, Herr Peters—he is just trying to help, although sadly lacking diplomacy. The content of your articles is generally of very high caliber, not just in terms of typography and syntax, but also in logic and metaphysics. The egregious nature of the errors he has pointed-out (he missed batter for battery—late night?) makes you look foolish. Some might argue, “Well, he is a fool.” I don’t think you are a fool so much as a romantic. Anyone who champions the lost cause of automobilism has to be a romantic.

      • It happens. I’ll take good content over strict correctness if it is a choice.

        Constructively, Eric, try using Word spell check and grammar check. I cut/pate your article into it and it caught some other typos too. Just a thought.

  10. Here’s another reason to push EV’s: They do not use petro-fuels, so, no fuel taxes paid, therefore a different way to fund the highways funds is needed. This will be a miles-based tax. It’s being tried already in Oregon and under consideration in other states. In order to make it possible to assess for taxation, a vehicle will need to be tracked…EVERYWHERE. The elites hate us mundanes having private travel, so they will track us, until they can eliminate private vehicle travel and replace it with “public”, “mass” transportation. (Clover says “but if you have nothing to hide…”. Go away Clover, you slaver!)

    • That “mileage tax” is already being pushed since, “oh no”, many folks, when gas shot up past $4/gallon, actually bought econo-box cars and small trucks, which greatly reduced state and federal revenues from fuel taxes. A case of the nitwits pushing “public policy” either (1) don’t think these ideas through to their logical conclusion, and/or (2) they’re part of some larger, usually hidden, at first, agenda.

  11. Elon Musk has finally outdone Malcolm Bricklin and John DeLorean as the foremost scammer of all time. Does nobody note that all electric generation has to come from somewhere, mainly coal-fired plants or (Gasp!) nuclear power. Musk has produced a $50K + electric golf cart with limited range and a long re-charge cycle. Of course owning a Tesla allows the eco-freaks who lurk among us to bask in their moral superiority while displaying their abysmal ignorance and utter stupidity

  12. >9 BILLION of taxpayer dollars already shoved up a liberal globalist RATHOLE. That is what Musk has already grabbed from us serfs…given gratuitously by slimy, liberal “politicians” who are SUPPOSED to be good stewards of OUR MONEY. OUR $$$$$!!
    Electric cars are baubles and cannot compete in the real market against IC cars, which have become ‘very clean’… Your politicians want us serfs OUT of our safe, clean IC cars and into mASS transit or short-distance, easily-controlled electric vehicles. ECs use MORE energy and pollute MORE due to depending on the grid for recharging..not to mention taking 45 minutes at least to recharge..IF you can find a “station”. Not to mention the environmental WASTE generated by 10000s of used batteries! What crap! Do we really believe these ECs are being pushed by Corps for no reason? Nobody will be able to afford them except the Uber-rich and gvt goons..and THAT is what the elite want..serfs walking or biking..serfs who are easy to control, like in Red China. Serfa who canot get away and who are disarmed. Bet on it.


    • Don’t forget the rare earth mining operations to get the materials for the batteries. There’s no way to economically mine the minerals and comply with the EPA and as such all or nearly all mines in the USA have closed up shop.

        • Not to mention the carbon credit scam. How long would Musk’s vampire company last without being able to mulct other manufacturers, thanks to the federal mob?

        • The loan payback I am speaking of is this one. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2013-05-22/tesla-pays-off-its-465-million-loser-loan

          If you are talking about tax credits for EVs, then you need to mention every car maker selling EVs in the US. It’s a law created by people who got voted in. It could be undone readily with a vote which doesn’t seem forth coming. Are you also mad about monies handed out to ICE car manufacturers for helping them with pollution reductions there as well? All of this is around making the atmosphere cleaner. Since the laws allowed it to happen, and new laws make it less allowable and more expensive, seems like someone has to foot the bill.

          You do realize that the valuation of the economy is constantly inflated by world banks to pay for these kinds of things, and that’s why the price of things is mostly measured in dollars, instead of the pennies and dimes of a century ago right?

          • Grrwwwww,

            The mandates which have created a “market” (in quotes for reasons that ought to be obvious) were issued by regulatory bureaucracies peopled by bureaucrats no one voted for.

            The rest of the car industry is being forced to produce EVs in order to “achieve compliance” with “zero emissions” and CAFE regs. Take those regs away and there is no “incentive” to manufacture EVs except perhaps as specialty cars.

            These are facts – but I realize you prefer to deal in feelings.

          • Grwwww,

            I am opposed to all subsidies, period. They, along with regulations, are a crony capitalist scam that benefit large, politically powerful companies. Research rent seeking and regulatory capture. Also, subsidies distort market signals, direct resources along politically favored lines and retard innovation. Any business that needs subsidies is unsustainable, aren’t you greens suppose to care about that?

            “All of this is around making the atmosphere cleaner.”

            CO2 is not a pollutant, IC engines are clean and have been for more than two decade. You mention the Dunning-Kruger effect which is interesting, as you’ve yet to display any knowledge of the climate issue outside of the moronic talking points we hear so often.

            BTW, inflating the currency does not increase the “valuation of the economy”.


    • If you feel like a serf, work on that. Go get a different or better education/job. If you can’t do that, than who’s responsibility is it for you to not be able to afford something? Do you want the money system to go away? Do you want something magical to happen so that you can get your own Bugatti?

      This is an economical problem that consumers can solve with their own money habits. Keep money in your local economy and then create a product or service your community can sell to bring more money in.

      Setting here and griping about how the govt and economy work and blaming it all on a new product line is rather silly.

  13. VW has already announced that the last generation of it’s IC engines will be 2026. I think they are the first major automaker to say a time for the end of their ICE. That’s only six models years from now. Whether or not reality sets in before that date and they backtrack, we will see. But VW may find itself with nothing to sell. Well, nothing people will want to buy. I doubt they even sell 1% electric at this time (January 2019).

    Unfortunately VW won’t be alone. GM seems poised to do the same shortly. If reality doesn’t set in, I think by 2030 it will be hard to even find a new ICE vehicle.

    Seems the plan is to simply just stop making gas and diesel. Whether or not people start buying electric or not. Doesn’t seem much of a business plan.

    Seems like Chrysler, Toyota, Mazda and Hyundai are drinking the kool aid a bit slower. Wonder how long they can hold out.

  14. Interestingly, over 40 years ago at least one auto executive (GM president Pete Estes) loved the idea of electric cars because it shoved the emissions problem into somebody else’s lap – the power companies. He actually saw it as a great way to power cars with coal, using electricity as an intermediary. (Source: Car & Driver, January 1978, Patrick Bedard’s column entitled “Reddy Kilowatt was my co-pilot”.) Of course at that time electric cars were just glorified golf carts that were even less viable than they are today so it was likely just musing on Estes’ part.

    That may be an insight though into why car manufacturers are so gung-ho on this. Once their fleet is electrified that relieves them from the burden of Uncle’s emissions and efficiency fatwas and places those problems squarely on the shoulders of the power companies, battery manufacturers, and of course the buying public which will have to put up with the inconvenience, limitations, poor service life, and expense of electric vehicles.

    • With natural gas becoming the fuel of choice for power plants, they won’t have issues either, thanks to clean burning natural gas. Even with POTUS easing things up on the coal companies; even with him aggressively promoting coal; coal use is declining as the utilities are switching to natural gas. Why wouldn’t they? It’s cheaper, easier to transport, burns cleaner, and leaves NO waste. Best part is the switch happened WITHOUT gov’t intervention! It was simply the invisible hand of the market at work… 🙂

      • Hi Mark,

        Yup; I’ve been touting the virtues of natural gas for years. But – its use also produces C02, the bane of “climate change.” Thus, this eminently clean and abundant – right here – fuel will be gimped in its turn. Already has been. Note that CNG-powered cars have disappeared – even though they are “zero emissions” in every meaningful sense.

        But they work too well – and don’t cost too much – which is a real problem.

      • Except for the CO2 caused by burning it. Still injecting carbon into the atmosphere and creating the same problems. It’s not about the particulate pollution, it’s about the CO2.

        Look up Dunning-Kruger effect. This is the bigger problem with understanding the problem. Most don’t know what they don’t know…

        • It is not a “problem” because CO2 is not pollution. To properly understand it you have to follow the flow of money and power.

          • CO2 levels were much higher in the past. We are far closer to plant starvation than to anything approaching catastrophically high levels.

            It’s not about “saving the planet”, it’s about money and power. The planet does not need to be saved. If it did, you can bet your sweet bippy that electric cars and LED light bulbs would not make a damned bit of difference. (In fact if there were a real danger of any kind of planetary catastrophe we’d be hard pressed to do anything about it.)

          • That’s because for plants, CO2 is for them what O2 is for us: the breath of life. Thanks to photosynthesis, we breathe out CO2, which plants breathe in; they, in turn, ‘exhale’ O2, which we need. It’s a beneficial, symbiotic relationship. More CO2=more O2…

        • “It’s not about the particulate pollution, it’s about the CO2.”

          My how the goal posts have changed.

          I wonder if this communist NPC realizes how many will be killed because of this philosophy he has been programmed to worship and fight for. Why doesn’t he start with himself to reduce CO2 levels?

        • Grrwwww,

          Don’t you find it even incidentally curious that at just the point in time that vehicle exhaust emissions as traditionally defined (for the past 50 years) were no longer a meaningful problem in terms of air quality/health, the definition was altered to include carbon dioxide?

          Isn’t that just a bit… coincidental?

          And if carbon dioxide “emissions” produced by cars are the catastrophic threat you seem to believe they represent, then how do electric cars powered by carbon dioxide-emitting utility plants help to avoid this pending catastrophe? You can non sequitur all day about solar and wind but the inconvenient (for you) truth is that almost all of the electrical generation done in this country is powered by fossil fuels, the combustion of which produces the dread inert gas C02.

          In the aggregate, driving electric cars causes as much or even more C02 to be “emitted.” Just at different outlets.

          At the very least, shouldn’t needlessly powerful EVs which cause “excessive” C02 to be “emitted” be banned forthwith?

          Notice that “green” people never express “concern” for this. Yet, if they were really “concerned” about C02 “emissions,” they would be.

          There would be “calls” for highly efficient EVs that did not tout Ludicrous Speed – which takes Ludicrous Energy, produced by the gratuitous burning of fuel.

          Instead, crickets.

          This ought to interest you.

          • Anyone concerned about the environment would not even look at the western nations. All that’s left in the western nations is a mopping up operation. The problems are largely solved. Clean up old sites and such.

            Where to look? China, India, Brazil, and more. The amount of environmental damage that could be prevented or fixed per dollar is very high in those places. But we aren’t even supposed to look at what’s happening in these places. Not even consider it.

            If we are concerned about the planet then we should put effort to where it will do the most good.

            • China’s on a huge push to clean up their emissions; given the pollution in their cities, they had no CHOICE! I don’t know about Brazil & India, but China’s stopped all coal power plant construction and is pushing hard for cleaner energy. They’re particularly big in renewables. For example, Shanghai based Envision is a major player in wind turbines. You can find out more about them here: http://www.envision-group.com/en/index.html

              • Hi Mark,

                China’s air quality problems are the result of communist policies that enabled mass-scale industrial pollution. Electrification is just the means by which the Chinese people are to be controlled. They are to be denied the golden era of mobility Americans enjoyed.

                • Don’t forget their social credit score. Unfortunately, Big Tech is doing their damndest to bring it here too.

                  China is pushing EVs, and we may see something similar here. If you buy an ICEV (which you are free to do), you’ll pay over $14K for the plates-ouch! OTOH, if you get an EV, the plates, AKAIK, are free. So, the price of an ICEV basically equals the price of an EV.

          • From an efficiency perspective, by the mile, EVs result in less CO2 into the air and pollutants overall because of the efficiency of scale at commercial power stations. If that wasn’t true, we’d all have generators at our homes and businesses pumping out our needed electricity.

            Regarding C02, grab ahold of whatever noise you feel is the truth. Scientist tell us we are in a bad position. Plants are necessary to convert CO2 to O2 and need water for that process. It’s a balanced system that is heading away from balance.

            In the 1930’s when the dust bowl occurred, it was driven by the explosion of pollution from the Industrial Age. If we hadn’t implemented controls, how breathable would our air be now? Do you really believe that there is no problem with dumping exhaust with CO and CO2 into the air you breathe? Do you leave you car running in the garage overnight to keep it warm in the winter? Hell no, cause you’d die. It’s polluting the air, and just like second hand smoke, your pollution is impacting others on the planet from marine life to friends and family.

            Make it a non-issue all you want. Go on and on about how it’s a money game (money and profit and misuse and gaming is everywhere). That doesn’t make it a non-issue.

            Have you traveled to China to see how polluted the atmosphere is there? They will be switched to 100% EV production in 5-years time to combat that pollution.

            Giving in to the perspective of the “it can’t be that bad” crowd just shows how convenient it has become to roll the story you can more easily accept without feeling like you were sucked into participating as one of the trouble causers.

              • It’s junk science. Really a kind of religion. There is no empirical evidence that human activity is causing global warming. There is no scientific consensus that human activity is causing global warming. What one finds on close examination of such claims is falsified data, lies, and distortions. The process has been so corrupted by politics that referring to any of it it as “science” is laughable.

                One of the participants here, Jeremy, gave an excellent summation of the issue:


                Although Jeremy advises to avoid using words such as “fraud”, that exactly what the entire “science” of human-caused global warmingis – a mammoth fraud and a scam being purveyed by charlatans and control freaks with a political agenda. They are frauds. You, Sir, are a fraud.

                Climate change is a natural, ongoing process. There is nothing we can do to stop it.

            • CO2 IS a non-issue.

              China’s pollution problems have nothing to do with CO2. Your attempt at making it appear to related is fraudulent.

            • Grwww,

              “Scientist tell us we are in a bad position”.

              Some scientists do, others do not. Despite the mainstream narrative that you regurgitate dutifully, the “science is not settled”, there is not a meaningful consensus on the issue and the central question is rarely discussed. That question is the likely climate sensitivity due to increased atmospheric CO2 concentration (which is still very low compared to historical standards).

              In a controlled environment, the radiative forcing due to a doubling of CO2 is well understood and not denied by any credible scientists. However, we do not live in a controlled environment and the actual effect on temperature due to increased CO2 is not well understood. The alarmists postulate that mostly positive feedback mechanisms will increase the base ECS from approximately 1 degree C to 1.5 – 4.5 degrees C. However, the observational record does not support this belief. All models run hot because the embedded assumption of ECS are too high. Now, you’ve undoubtedly heard the hottest years on record claims endlessly parroted by the media, what you rarely hear is that all of the claimed warming is due to numerous adjustments in the temperature record.

              The skeptics believe that the actual ECS is likely to be closer to one as both positive and negative feedback mechanisms will mostly cancel each other out. Absent the temperature adjustments, the 1930’s are the hottest years in the modern record and the evidence supports the skeptics.

              Now, I am not claiming that these adjustments are necessarily fraudulent. But, three things should give an open minded person pause. First, the adjustments always lower past temperatures and increase current temperatures. Second, the adjustments are always made so as to conform with a preexisting hypothesis. Third, these numerous adjustments reveal, at the least, that the claimed level of certainty is not justifiable. These three facts indicate a strong level of confirmation bias which leads to practices that violate basic scientific procedure.


                • Hey Eric,

                  You’re welcome, though I often believe that with people like Grwww, it is pointless. Many on this site obviously have much more knowledge of the subject than he, but he clings to the mainstream narrative.

                  What you mentioned in an earlier post, that many of the true believers are emotionally attached to the certainty of looming catastrophe, is very interesting. I often meet a college friend at my local pub; we are very different but he is smart, open to honestly discussing ideas that he does not espouse and rarely prone to emotional reactions. A few weeks ago, he mentioned that his teenage son was very concerned and depressed about the coming climate catastrophe. I suggested that the outcome was likely far less dire than he thinks and that there is probably little to worry about. He asked me why I thought so and I tried to have a calm, rational conversation with him. He became increasingly angry and would not let me finish any thoughts or present a case. Unfortunately, I eventually lost my cool as well and the conversation became decidedly unpleasant.

                  I understand why those financially and politically invested in the narrative react so strongly, but why would he? He has nothing invested in it, why would the suggestion of a rosier picture be greeted with such anger?


                  • Because they are still convinced that 1. catastrophe is coming and 2. catastrophe can be averted but only by drastic human action. If you don’t believe #1, then you probably won’t participate in #2, and if enough people don’t participate in #2 then catastrophe won’t be averted, which will lead to sooner and greater suffering for him & his. Unfortunately, with #1 being the base assumption that drives all this, there isn’t much of a way to get through to someone like that. I wouldn’t know it personally, but the Socratic Method might be of help: ask them probing questions and try to get them to explain to you why they think catastrophe is coming. Maybe they’ll realize they don’t really know much about it, or maybe they will have some data at which point you can present counter-data of your own.

              • The last glacial period ended due to CO2 induced warming and warming escalated as more CO2 trapped in soil and ice was released. Warming and CO2 are related and believing that they are not is silly.

                Believing that the collective total CO2 we are creating from ICE engines is insignificant to the quality of the atmosphere and that the related temperature impact is insignificant poses risk to all of us.

                Clearly there are lots of people willing to hold onto the coattails of others and believe what they hear rather than try and truly understand the complexities of the science.

                Ignorance is the single largest contributor to bad decisions. Bad data is second place in my view. We have all kinds of detail which says as you say above that there are complex interactions. The problem is that we feel like we can just ride the line, staying close dnd not running across it. However the details we do know and the uncertainty of what moment the line might move beneath us, because of factors we can’t foresee nor potentially close, for me, says we need to get away from the line, and stop acting like we know when or how this can become a bigger problem.

                It’s really simple. ICE vehicles are worthless compared to EVs. They are more expensive to operate due to failure modes. You have to spend lots of money and time to get your fuel out of the ground. The pollution from operating the engines is a terrible side effect to have to deal with, so why do we insist on doing it.

                People who have used electric, battery powered tools, will often say I need one that plugs into the wall for enough power. The battery size/capacity is the problem, not just that it’s on a battery. Are there limits, why yes, just like the size of your tank of gas. You’ve figured out how to make that work for you.

                With the right sized battery in the right efficiency vehicle, you can get where you need to go. Everyone is so worried about time to charge. That can be a factor, but is not going to be so for long. Supercaps and other storage solutions will push out batteries when batteries are less viable. Tesla is evolving battery science and looking at supercaps seriously with their purchase of Maxwell.

                Sit in your corners and keep on naysaying and holding onto the coattails of the person reciting the story you want to believe in your ignorance.

                You are going to have a hard time…

                • Grwww,

                  There is a lot of evidence to suggest that CO2 lags temperature, which makes sense as the oceans are a great store of CO2 and warming of the oceans will release CO2 into the atmosphere. Everything else equal, the additional CO2 will produce some warming which will produce some additional release of CO2.

                  This is the basis of the runaway global warming hypothesis and, on the surface, it has some plausibility. But, historically it doesn’t hold up. There have been times of much greater CO2 concentration than today and periods that were warmer than today. If the simple runaway effect is accurate, why are we still here? In short, a system subject to only positive feedback is unstable.

                  I never said that warming is unrelated to CO2, claiming I did is intentionally disingenuous. Despite your belief, I am not ignorant on the subject, nor am I holding onto to the coattails of the person reciting the story. In fact, your position, that any disagreement with the narrative can be explained only by ignorance, is profoundly irrational.

                  I notice that you say nothing about the numerous adjustments to the temperature record, always in alignment with the preexisting hypothesis, and which accounts for all of the claimed warming since around 1998. Unlike many here, I am not claiming that this is necessarily evidence of fraud, but it does indicate confirmation bias.

                  Does this give you no pause? You’re certain they got it right this time, but all the alarmists were certain they got it right last time, and the time before that. But, the next time they adjust it, surely it’ll be right then. This fact alone shows that the claim of 95% certainty is absurd.

                  Look, there is a lot of valid debate by credible scientists about the science, the temperature record, the likely ECS, the likely effect of CO2 reduction efforts, etc… There is also a lot of debate among economists about the cost to the economy of the different projected scenarios, the cost of attempts to alter those scenarios, etc…

                  It is those who insist otherwise and dismiss their critics as ignorant, or paid hacks, or employ the morally despicable slur “denier” that are anti science.


                  • Jeremy, the reason I call it a fraud is due to my familiarity with the type of people pushing this junk science, and their real agenda – that and the overwhelming evidence for falsification of data and corruption of the scientific method.

                    Many environmentalists see the human race as a plague to be greatly restricted “for the good of the planet.” They see prosperity and freedom as destructive.

                    Globalist elites and the UN want it because they need a “global problem” requiring “global governance” as the solution. (The U.N. was created to ultimately become the seat of global government.)

                    Governments love the idea because it gives them carte blanche for regulation and taxation.

                    It is unlikely that Grwww is a member of those elites. He sounds more like one of their vast legions of useful idiots that swallow this dogma and regurgitate it. Orwell referred to this kind of thing as “duckspeak” – unthinking noise devoid of real content, like the quacking of a duck.

                    • Hi Jason,;

                      I agree with all you say. However, the proportion of those who knowingly propagate fraud vs those who are genuinely concerned about the issue is small. I still try to reach the latter group.


                  • What gives me pause is accepting that incomplete, demonstrative proof causes people to give up full stop. The complexity of all the systems involved, and our inability to control any of them with short term efforts means we need to look at the most visible cause and effects with due diligence.

                    I am speaking generally of responses here, not your polite conversation Jeremy regarding ignorance.

                    I am sure that fossil fuel burning is polluting our atmosphere. I am sure that CO2 is the most relevant cause based on the science I’ve seen and read.

                    The science shows indicators that some of the heat ejected is going out of the atmosphere not just back toward the earth.

                    Some of the various adjustments happen as we learn more about the effects of cloud cover and water density in clouds related to heat retention and reflection.

                    Large storm systems increase in severity as the approach warmer surface regions such as cities, open planesnand other place where infrared spectrum is reflected instead of absorbed. Heat rises through these storm systems, stretching them vertically tightening circulations.

                    The heat is causing evaporation which creates cloud cover and rain which can cool the ground. The question is really how much balance is there?

                    If high winds and tornadoes rip apart and destroy vegetation, we lose some CO2 consumption. The imbalance can hit extremes rather readily as we’ve seen with historical events in the distant past and the more recent increase in severe weather and climate changes which affect the animal migration food cycles due to huge time shifts in spring blooms.

                    In the Midwest, rains were so severe and so prolonged that planting could not occur to get crops in the ground and grown before peak summer heat.

                    Call it cyclical, or one off anomalies if that makes you comfortable folks. The changes are real and each of us is responsible for our continued contributions to the problems.

                    When I see people only stating that the science doesn’t show CO2 is a part of the problem, I can only assume that they haven’t actually studied this and instead are riding coattails of the storytellers that allow them to feel good about their position.

                    • Grrrrrww,

                      There’s a lot to unpackage here. First, the assertion that the climate is changing. Of course it is. That’s the small truth used to peddle the big lie – which is that it is changing catastrophically. And unnaturally. This is the point of disagreement – denial, if you prefer. It has gotten slightly warmer, on average, over the past 100 years. But not catastrophically. And it is far from certain that the variation is caused by us, or only partially by us – or not at all by us.

                      Yet we are supposed to accept that an imminent, man-made crisis is upon us and that only drastic measures will avert it. Those drastic measures affecting ordinary people – but not the elites, whose affluence and control will wax rather than wane. Do you see the elites giving up their private jets? Living in Small Homes?

                      If you truly believe that C02 “emissions” are such a dire threat, then it is very irresponsible of you to drive a high-performance electric car that causes far more C02 to be “emitted” than is absolutely necessary. You don’t need “ludicrous speed” (or even Prius speed) to get to work. But you don’t want to sacrifice speed – and all the rest – for the sake of the planet. What you really want is to preen green without giving up anything you like.

                      But you like wagging your finger at the proles who can’t afford to be as “green” as you think you are.

                    • It’s not even warming. All the warming comes from adjustments and estimations. Without those the slight warming goes away.

                      If we look at things like the frequency of hot days in the USA it appears the if anything, it is cooling. Night time temps have increased at stations that are urban or no longer rural suggesting that even before adjustments there is a strong urban heat island effect.

                    • Grwwww,

                      “Doing something” in the face of significant uncertainty is much more dangerous than doing “nothing”. Doomsayers have always been wrong, and they will prove wrong now. One reason is that most do not understand that private, uncoordinated, spontaneous action happens when people are left alone. But, the Neo-Malthusians among us believe that only coercive, planned government action counts as “doing something”. This attitude is not only wrong, but inimical to the stated goals.

                      If there is a significant problem (which I find very unlikely) then adopting coercive government plans to “fix” it is the worst approach. First, large scale government programs always cost far more than claimed, deliver far less than promised and prove nearly impossible to change or stop. In addition, they allocate resources along political lines which creates vested interests who will fight to keep the money coming in no matter what. They also hinder economic growth and reduce the ability and flexibility of private attempts to deal with the issue. You see, if you want a clean world, private wealth is the best way to get there. Wealthy societies are cleaner than poor societies.

                      A clean environment is a value shared by most people. However, it is of less value to most than life itself. Thus food, energy, some form of housing, etc… are higher values. Only when people have sufficient surplus wealth are these subordinate concerns addressed. Large scale government programs hinder wealth creation and thus retard, not enhance this process.

                      Yes, burning fossil fuels causes pollution, but CO2 is not a pollutant. Why do you continue to conflate these? Furthermore, what evidence exists to suggest that 280 ppm of CO2 is the optimal level? Or, that average global temperatures of about 0.8 degree C less than today is better than 1 or 2 degrees C warmer than today? Why is the climate of a short period prior to the industrial age an objective measure of a good climate? These embedded assumptions are arbitrary, ignore almost all of the climate record and make no sense.

                      Plant death occurs at around 150 PPM, CO2 has reached 7,000 PPM. Life can tolerate, and thrive, with much higher levels of CO2 concentration than today. Alarmists assert that 400 PPM is dangerously high, why? If anything, it’s dangerously low. Again, if the claims of the alarmists are true, why are we still here? The alarmists describe a system that is extremely sensitive to tiny variations in the concentration of a gas absolutely necessary for life. Slight variations downward will kill all life, slight variations upward may trigger an irreversible positive feedback loop (tipping point, runaway effect, etc…). They describe an extremely unstable system but, we live in a relatively stable system.

                      In the wake of the “pause”, many theories (other than the hypothesis being wrong) were offered to explain it away. You describe some of those. Luckily, the temperature record was adjusted just in time to eliminate the pause before it had gone on long enough to trigger doubts among the faithful. Remember, many conceded that a pause of 15 years would be sufficient to cause serious reexamination of the theory. Well, we exceeded that but, conveniently, it was wiped entirely away by temperature adjustments.

                      Finally, you assert that “each of us is responsible for our continued contributions to the problems”. Ok, assuming there is a problem, which I don’t but you do, why, as Eric asks, do you drive a high performance car? Of the new cars, the Mitsubishi Mirage appears to have the smallest lifetime carbon footprint. Of course, “recycling” a used car like a 10 year old Corolla, is greener than buying a new Mistu or a Tesla.

                      The main reason that average folks are skeptical of CAGW claims is that most of it’s outspoken proponents are unwilling to make any personal sacrifices, while lecturing people, far less affluent than themselves, about reducing their “impact”. Aside from the flagrant hypocrisy, it is hard to take people like Al Gore and Leonardo DiCaprio seriously because of their lifestyles. In short, their actions indicate that they are disingenuous.

                      Ironically, my “impact” is likely far less than yours. I ride my bike for 90% of the errands I run and drive my 2002 vehicle maybe 5-8 times a month. In addition, I love soda water but make my own. I drink about 1.5 liters each day and have been using the same bottle for over 5 years. So, in that time, I have “recycled” over 5,000 plastic bottles.


                  • I drive a Tesla Model 3 which now has 50k miles on it. Based on the argument numbers about initial CO2 impact, I am now only producing carbon associated with the electricity generation. I could go to zero if I went solar at home for the 8kwh or so needed to meet my 240v@32amp charge rate.Clover

                    It regrettable how polarized we are on something that seems important to deal with quickly. A lot of Europe is switching quickly, so all of those brands are only going to be selling EVs pretty soon. The reduced cost of ownership, the removal of pollution, and the technical and convenience features will drive people to EVs, and away from US big three car makers on the high profit cars. This will bring up the price and downsize the big 3 pretty readily.

                    If you’ve still not test driven an EV and importantly, a Tesla, you should do that. Look for Service Centers and Showrooms near you. If there are none, search on line for EV groups and clubs and make some friends there to learn what’s actually happening instead of just observing the news.Clover

                    The shorts in the stock market are being used to devalue Tesla and other publicly traded companies in an attempt to slow down EV market development, so the car companies are worried. VW is talking with Ford because everyone is behind and needs to find fast paths to market.

                    • Grwwww…

                      The “reduced costs of ownership”?

                      Are you high?

                      Your compact sized car cost almost $40k. Probably, you paid a lot more – Tesla3s transact for closer to $50k – but even if you paid sticker, you still paid almost twice as much as the base price of a mid-sized Camry or Accord and more than twice as much as a new Corolla – which is superior to the Tesla in every way except acceleration. $18k well-equipped. Much roomier back seat. 300-plus miles of range; refuels to full in less than 5 minutes. Does not force me to spend $1,000 to have a “fast” charger installed at home. Will never force me to spend several additional thousand on a replacement battery.

                      Do you understand why they are “switching quickly”? The governments over there have decreed that EVs must be built and that IC cars may no longer be used in certain areas and (eventually) not sold (new) at all.

                      This isn’t a market. It is Soviet-style industrial totalitarianism – and the only ones who will benefit are those rich enough or connected enough… as in the Soviet Union.

                      This is what’s so infuriating about people like you. You’re blind to the fact that EVs represent a massive increase in the cost of owning a car. As well as a massive decrease in mobility. These facts are inarguable. But you argue them nonetheless.

                      It makes my teeth ache.

                    • Grwww,

                      “It regrettable how polarized we are on something that seems important to deal with quickly”.

                      As I tried to explain in my previous post, “dealing with this quickly”, via government coercion, is the worst possible approach. If the advantages of EV’s are real, the market will produce them, without mandates or subsidies (I disagree with all subsidies). Likewise, all of the proposed solutions will place an enormous burden on the poorest people on earth, while advantaging the richest people on earth.

                      If one cars about the environment, prioritizing “climate change” is insane. All of the “solutions” are ridiculously expensive and offer, even according to their own figures, little benefit. We also know, with near certainty, that these programs will cost more than claimed and deliver less than promised.

                      The idea that “we” can control the climate is nuts and a perfect example of what Hayek dubbed the “Fatal Conceit”. Those who believe otherwise are either delusional or dishonest and should be considered with the same skepticism as Weather Shamans.

                      But, while we can’t control the climate, humans are very good at adapting to a changing environment. Expensive schemes, promoted by interested parties, to address a theoretical problem, is insane. Such schemes enrich a few, at the expense of the poor, and reduce “our” ability to adapt to a changing environment.

                      As for EV’s, your personal preference for them is not an argument. As they exist right now, they are not cheaper, they are not more convenient (for most people) and there is no clear understanding of their lifetime impact compared to modern ICE’s. That European companies are moving to EV’s is not an indication of market demand, it is driven by government mandates.


                  • Exhaust from gasoline and Diesel engines contain pollutants such as CO and other toxic and particular matter. If they did not, you could start your car in your garage in the morning to warm it up in the winter or cool it down in the summer. That’s the pollution I am calling pollution. Even CO2 can be a problem in a closed space. The problem is that since the atmosphere seems infinite, the arguments about the influence of ones tail pipe emissions on such a large system seem immaterial.

                    Demonstrably, by the small system outcomes in closed spaces, I think that’s a poor argument that is short sided and irresponsible to assume. Any balanced system has limits based on how the inputs are changed. Rates of change on enormous systems are often unobservable until the imbalance forces a massive change which might achieve a new balance or might result in system collapse. Think about supernova, meteors pulled by gravity over millions of years of cycles etc.

                    The cost issue for EVs is real, I’ve never said otherwise. I get that this is a challenge. If it wasn’t and they were cheaper to buy, the rate of change over would be faster.

                    Right now, the car market is a collapsing large economic system. The volume of monies into the system is dropping. Fewer new cars are being purchased. The car dealers around me are running adds about purchasing your used car (no purchase necessary) because that’s the market. Carmax and others have forced the market in that direction by creating a dependable used car business. That’s a force no one saw coming at first but now it is killing dealership income from tradings, or causing them to pay more to get your trade in.

                    Prices on used cars have gone up 5%-10% in the past decade comparatively from my observations. I’ve made nothing but used car purchase starting in 2006 or so, having bought 5 new cars I the decades before that. The Tesla was my first new car purchase in 12 years.

                    It’s clear that you and others are convinced you have no affect on the atmosphere that you need to worry about. That’s your position to take. The changes world governments are making around support for sources of pollution of our environment are potentially influenced and directed by those who have monies to spend or earn based on their part. That’s our capitalistic society doing its barely balanced thing. It’s a spinning wheel with the poor on the outside hanging in for dear life and the rich and greedy in the middle paying for more walls and barriers to entry so they can not worry about hanging on.

                    Regarding Eric’s charging time waste. I charge at home, payed $300 to have a NEMA 14-50 put in my garage. I only ever use a supercharger when traveling. In 50,000 miles, I’ve done that around 60times. I am not inconvenienced by charging.

                    In the northern US and Canada, block heater outlets are in public parking spaces. Eventually that’s what we’ll see everywhere. How long will that take? That depends on how the EV owners and others bargain with lawmakers and public service companies.

                    Electrify America is using VWs diesel gate monies to build charging places. Businesses are seeing the benefits of destination chargers to attract business. That’s opening the door for all the coming Taycan and other EVs to be able to start to compete with the benefits of Tesla’s supercharger network.

                    BWM’s CEO was ousted based on his position of “consumers don’t want EVs.” Tesla outsold BWM for several consecutive quarters indicating that it was more like, “consumers don’t want to buy your current EVs.”

                    Jaguar has stock at dealers that is not selling. There are stories of people buying iPace and only getting 60% or so of the EPA advertised range. That vehicle looks very dirty on the outside and based on its size would seem to have some poor drag coefficient. Faster speeds likely greatly reduce economy (wind drag is quadratic).

                    Because car manufacturers have to sell new cars, the new car business is going to move toward EVs for European markets due to laws/regulations there. The big three in the US are selling fewer new cars and are closing plants to manage profitability.

                    Ford invested $500MM into Rivian and is preparing to release an electric F-150. They want to do this before Tesla or Rivian have any scale of manufacturing or they will have a Kodak moment, missing the early market sales.

                    VW wants in on Fords drivetrain opportunities it seems. They like all the others are so late to market without the technical staff to do the design and vertical integrations that Tesla has.

                    This huge system is being disturbed by lots of forces. Lots of members of each company are trying to keep profitability balanced against the risks of new product development. The visible signs of loss of income are stretching the limits of profitability.

                    There will be mergers, partnering and general scrambling for the next 5 years. I estimate that one big player will be reduced to a single vehicle type, or go out of business completely. Four big players will likely merge to no more than two new companies.

                    As you all are complaining about the cost of EVs, I think is obvious that the market collapse will drive this kind of change.

                    • Grwwww, I like how you seem to continually mistake your opinion for fact.

                      Déjà vu.

                      Simply tell me this, where will all the juice to run these cars come from? And please, spare me the ‘coming tech’, green energy systems bullshit. A $40-60,000+ car and a $35,000 generation and storage system (look, more life limited batteries) to run a car for limited range is not practical. It is a giant step backwards in mobility and convenience even if the hundreds of Gigawatts required was magically available.

                    • I don’t see large EV use in Texas. When you’re driving a few hundred miles in a day in a one ton pickup, a possibly hauling livestock, you can’t stop to “fuel up” EV style or much any style.

                      My diesel carries 40 gallons, plenty for most days but for long trips, it’s best to stop for some beer and stick the nurse tank nozzle in the other tank of like I had, a valve under the nurse tank I could turn into the main fuel tank.

                      I don’t see EV’s making big inroads in west Texas.

                    • Good God Grwwww,

                      I know that “exhaust from gasoline and Diesel engines contain pollutants such as CO and other toxic and particular matter”.

                      This used to be a huge problem, it no longer is. There are still some pollutants in exhaust, but not much.

                      You write, “that’s the pollution I am calling pollution”. But, earlier you wrote this, “I am sure that fossil fuel burning is polluting our atmosphere. I am sure that CO2 is the most relevant cause…” You have conflated the two many times.

                      “Even CO2 can be a problem in a closed space. The problem is that since the atmosphere seems infinite, the arguments about the influence of ones tail pipe emissions on such a large system seem immaterial. Demonstrably, by the small system outcomes in closed spaces, I think that’s a poor argument that is short sided and irresponsible to assume”.

                      First, what is short sighted and irresponsible is to insist that massive, expensive programs, that overwhelmingly benefit the politically and financially powerful, should be imposed on us because of a theoretical problem. “Doing something”, in the face of extreme uncertainty, is not responsible. Although I try to avoid leveling charges of fraud, the claims of certainty made by the IPCC and other alarmist scientists are not scientifically justifiable. Moreover, it is impossible that they do not know this. In that sense, it is fraud. See Judith Curry on this.


                      Second, dose and concentration matter a lot. The idea that what happens when a car is left running in a garage, or if one tries to breathe the atmosphere left in a just finished beer serving tank (pure CO2) is relevant to an understanding of what impact IC vehicles, or tiny increases in CO2 concentration, have on the environment is false.

                      “Electrify America is using VWs diesel gate monies to build charging places”.

                      Great, so a political interest group is given money stolen from VW, due to a wildly exaggerated “scandal”, to help build an infrastructure for which no significant current market demand exists. The actions of the companies you list are driven by political demand, not market demand. Which you concede by stating, “because car manufacturers have to sell new cars, the new car business is going to move toward EVs for European markets due to laws/regulations there”.

                      Finally, it is possible that the insane regulatory quest for fractional, diminishing returns on emission standards is harming the environment. If diesel technology were not politically disfavored and hindered by such fatwas, we may have 60 – 80 MPG family cars. Such vehicles would reduce CO2 emissions. Also, these regulations, which produce only fractional improvements in cleaning tail pipe emissions, along with increasingly absurd safety mandates, increase the cost of new cars, which keeps more older cars on the road.


                • It’s possible I may have heard an even crazier load of bullshit in my time but I’m hard pressed to remember any. That, Sir, is a pantload, generated by palpable ignorance and blind adherence to dogma.

                  As far as electric cars are concerned, in their current state of development are inferior to far less expensive gasoline-powered in practically every way that is actually meaningful. That may change in the future but at the preset time that is just a fact that all of your smoke and mirrors cannot change.

                • Grwwww, I like how you seem to continually mistake your opinion for fact.

                  “It’s really simple. ICE vehicles are worthless compared to EVs.”

                  Your ignorant arrogance is astounding. You act as if your ridiculous claims in your recent posts have been accepted as fact despite numerous posters showing that you really don’t understand well enough to know. Plus, your continued use of ‘soon the tech will exist’ type arguments is laughable.

                  • I’ve been hearing the mantra of ‘soon the tech will exist’ to make electric cars practical reality for us all for at least 50 years. All this time the breakthrough has been just around the corner, wait and see by golly. Perhaps it is this time but I’m not holding my breath waiting for it.

                    Similarly, we’ve been 10 years away from practical fusion power for the last 60 years or more.

                    One of the few advantages of being old is having lived through past iterations of this garbage. It helps fine-tune the bullshit detector.

                    • You sound like you’ve been completely out of touch with what has actually been happening with EVs. Can you share which EVs you’ve owned and which you have test driven? I’m curious about your experiences.

                    • GRwwww,

                      I’m “in touch” – having driven several of the latest – so, spare me. Please. EVs are remarkably quick. The immediate torque is impressive. But those attributes have no bearing on the economy or practicality of a car. EVs are far less practical than any 10 year-old used economy car – which will still easily travel 300-plus miles on a full tank whether it’s 100 degrees outside or -10 degrees. One doesn’t have to plan one’s driving around the gas gauge because the car can be run down to fumes and refueled to full in minutes almost anywhere. And the ten-year-old economy car will probably continue to deliver reliable, economical transportation for another ten years.

                      It’s insane to argue that an EV with much less range that takes much longer to recover a charge and so limits your mobility is superior as a form of transportation.

                      Which is precisely why EVs tout their performance, their “tech” and so on. They have to do so – for the same reason that Porsche advertises the same things. People have to be convinced to spend extra – on things which are indulgences.

                      And there’s nothing wrong with this – as such. But it’s risible to listen to lectures about the virtues of buying a Porsche – or an EV.

                    • @Jason Flinders: I’m not even old – born 1995 – and even I am well used to this sort of rhetoric by now. There’s always some New Thing that will be ready “very soon!” or “right around the corner!” or “within 5 years!” or “by 2020!” or, or, or… that will cause electric propulsion to ascend to the next level and blow liquid power out of the water, and somehow that renders all the readily-apparent faults of current EVs irrelevant. Meanwhile, in the present tense, EVs continue to be utterly worthless, and the promised massive tech upgrade never actually seems to arrive. Teslas just keep on embarassing the EV concept with cruddy build quality, atrocious reliability, battery fires, horrid customer service, and lip-flappingly insane service costs but manage to sell anyway somehow, while EVs made by companies that actually know how to build cars just sit unloved and forgotten on dealer lots because Tesla already cornered the market on smug.

                      @Grwwww: How about you first? Enlighten us on “what has actually been happening with EVs”. Please provide release dates, if at all possible.

                      Hey, speaking of 2020, wasn’t Elon supposed to be building a new Roadster with a 250MPH top speed and 600 miles of range by then? Time is getting short, and I’ve heard precious little about that.

                    • eric, surely you understand strapped into the nose of a cruise missile is a much faster mode of travel than a Bonanza. So you want to stick with that old, outdated, slow mode of something with a good glide ratio as opposed to the abrupt stop of the cruise? There must be something wrong with you.

          • This web interface to comments is not really good for discussions like this…

            Eric, I think it’s hard to argue about CO2, CO, particulate matter and other outputs from exhaust pipes when you insist that it’s okay that you can’t start your engine in your garage and sleep through the night. The output from exhaust is a health hazard, plain and simple. The fact that the prolonged process of CO2 to O2 conversion happens seems to make you comfortable. That process’s balance is what is in question for the CO2 part. The other outputs are simply not healthy to breathe, and at the right dosages are lethal.

            For CO2, the detail is around the fact that there is a system operating and Jeremy and others argue that the balance of the system is not offset, demonstrably, by the contribution exhaust gases have. Because of the complexity of the involved systems (more atoms to model than we can model), everyone is in disagreement over what’s actually happening. Those who believe its all a Scam having talking points that are typically their own, or a person who some might call a Scam extremist.

            My point of arguing here is simply that we don’t know at what point the system will topple, nor why it will topple, because we are not in FULL control of it. However, we are in control of the inputs that we are generating and these inputs, based on time and measurement over that time, have had effects which point at the environment declination and weather changes overall. The scale of weather systems is much large and much more capable of changing something at a large scale. The excess rain in the midwestern US as well as unusually different/warmer weather in northern parts speaks to the scale of the impact.

            I don’t know how you can not consider those realities as part of the data that says something real is happening.

            • As we have come to expect you are being disingenuous here. It is ludicrous on its face to equate the dangers of running combustion engines in a small enclosed face to running them out in the open. Carbon dioxide is not poisonous at normal levels, in fact a small amount is necessary for hemoglobin to function – not to mention that it is necessary for plants. (We are far closer to plant starvation level than to levels toxic to humans and animals.)

              You might well also speak of the dangers of dihydrogen monoxide, an industrial solvent that is pervasive in the environment and has proven to be fatal in sufficient quantities, particularly when permitted to accumulate in enclosed spaces.

              You are making the assumption that the system will topple. That is an unfounded assumption (CO2 levels were much higher in the past and the system did not “topple”), as is your assumption that it is human activity rather than natural processes causing the “impact” that you speak of. Climate change is a natural process, and the fact that we are still emerging from the Little Ice Age (per Reid Bryson and others) means that warming can be expected.

              What we do know is the the purveyors of climate change hysteria have lied, have distorted and falsified data, and in some cases have gone so far as to attempt rewriting history (for example, the “scientists” involved in the Climategate scandal who wanted to remove the Middle Warming Period from the history books).

              There is no “crisis” except in the minds of those pushing the idea to obtain more money and power for themselves – and the useful idiots they have managed to convince.

            • Grwwww,

              “I think it’s hard to argue about CO2, CO, particulate matter and other outputs from exhaust pipes when you insist that it’s okay that you can’t start your engine in your garage and sleep through the night.”

              As I, and Jason, have previously explained, equating what happens in a closed space with “harm” in the outside world, is absurd. Gee, no one should ever build a campfire outside because if you build one on your kitchen, bad things will happen. Likewise, no outdoor grilling, smoking meats, etc…

              As for CO2, you haven’t addressed climate sensitivity, do you even know what it is?


            • CO2 is not the planet’s thermostat. It is not an input of note. I have never seen one piece of convincing evidence that CO2 acted as an ‘input’ for a control system. In over 20 years I haven’t seen a thing that shows that. A lot of people proclaim it and they adjust temperature records and more to try and show it but even if we take that result as fact it doesn’t show control system.

              • An interesting read. Grwww, take note….


                In 2003 a Canadian study showed the “hockey stick” curve “is primarily an artefact of poor data handling, obsolete data and incorrect calculation of principal components.” When the data was corrected it showed a warm period in the 15th Century that exceeded the warmth of the 20th Century.

                So, the graph was junk science. You could put baseball scores into Mann’s Climate Model and it would create the Hockey Stick.

                But the big question then became: did Mann intentionally falsify his graph from motivation to make profit and/or cause harm (i.e. commit the five elements of criminal fraud)?

                No one could answer that question unless Mann surrendered his numbers. He was never going to do that voluntarily – or face severe consequences for not doing so – that is, until Dr Ball came into the picture!

                • Alarmist climate science is entirely based on poor data handling and so much of it is kept secret. The “deniers” are very open about what they are doing and Tony Heller even offers his analysis software free to anyone who wants to play with it. Including source code.

  15. Fuel mileage is also considerably worse with this shitty gasahol. Even my motorcycle fuel mileage drops 8-10 mpg when I am forced to use it to get back home to a Non-Ethanol fuel source. Think about folks, the Govt. subsidizes production and sale of CornHolio-Gasahol, gives us shitty fuel economy, then demands automalkers increase the IC Engine fuel mileage on top of that, all the while subsidizing the castrated alternative of the dickless EV! Your butt-holes hurtin’ yet???

    • In the Western US, there’s a chain of gas/convenience stores known as “Maverik”. At SOME of their stores, they sell an “ethanol-free” 88 octane blend, but it’ll cost…but well worth it! Every one of my gasoline-powered rides go noticeably better on it! Wish I could haul a 500 gallon. tank strapped to a flatbed and “gas up” outside of CA, but somehow methinks that the NHP and CHP would long be pulling me over with a “what thuh hell ya doin’ there, old timer?”, and my load of “contraband” gasoline, along with the tank, the trailer, and the truck towing it would all be seized, and the cops would fine SOMETHING to give yours truly the “Hut! Hut! Hut!” treatment over. The hell of it is, I would legal requirement or not, have the appropriate ‘1203’ placard and likewise the 1-3-0 NPFA “Diamond” so that IF indeed their was a problem, the fire department and police would be aware, but that would just draw unwanted attention.

  16. I did not realize EV batteries have such a short life span. Many people, so I am told, have gone over 150k miles on the Prius battery. I am also told that the battery can now be “reconditioned” for around $1000, rather than replaced. But I am also told that the Prius transmission fluid never needs replaced, which sounds ridiculous to me…

    • Hi Matt,

      Got any reference for “I am also told that the battery can now be ‘reconditioned’ for around $1000”?

      Curious to see what ‘reconditioning’ is. Does it include labor? Some EV squeeze batteries into very inaccessible places.

      • Reconditioning would require dropping the pack, disassembling to the point where each cell can be checked, replacing the questionable and degraded ones, putting it all back together. It would be rather expensive and the resulting pack is likely to have remaining original cells fail in short order or sketchy quality of the replacement cells. Of course all cells may also be replaced in a reconditioning. The quality of the work is also important.

        The cost all depends on how easy toyota made it by the design of their packs. If it’s easy and cheap cells are used I can see it getting down to $1K at a shop trying for volume business.

        Of course it could all be scam where the pack is plugged into a load/charging gizmo that conditions and cycles the pack to bring some temporary life back. Not sure how well it works with LiIon though. I think it’s not supposed to work with it, but there could be a similar trick that does. It’s all temporary though.

    • Under normal circumstances, the transmission fluid in ANY automatic transmission should not need replacement. That’s why nowadays they’re made as a SEALED unit, helps prevent entry of dirt.

      Still, the one thing I don’t understand is why at most do automakers put a single-loop heat exchanger for the auto trans fluid in the “cool” radiator tank? If it were me, I’d have a air-cooled unit with a FAN, not unlike the engine itself, or stack one next to the other with the same fan/shroud assembly. It’s HEAT that’s the enemy of a modern automatic anyway.

      • Not really a new idea, the owner’s manual for my ’72 Matador specifies no fluid changes required on the automatic transmission. I didn’t buy that for minute though and have done fluid changes at regular intervals, which most likely has contributed to its longevity. (The transmission has yet to require any internal repairs.)

        I’m admittedly unfamiliar with cars made these days. They’re still doing trans coolers that way?

        • Yes! And doing a fluid/filter change at 5 years or 60K miles is a PRUDENT measure for the gear box on that Matador (not the same as the AMC car featured in the Bond film “Man with the Golden Gun”, that was a ’74, I think). BTW, I believe that’s actually a Chrysler TorqueFlite A727 in that Matador, called in the “Romney Motors” fleet the “Torque Command”. Which engine is in that 47 y.o. beast, a 304 or a 360? And although Dexron II (of which there are synthetics which have less fluid friction, therefore, less heat, which will keep that old box going) is fine, you might try Mopar ATF4 the next time. I’ve seen some articles on allpar.com about using the purple fluid on older trannies.

          As for how transmissions are cooled, I haven’t seen enough newer rides to know if they’ve deviated from the HX inside the radiator “cool” tank. I think they’ve disposed with them altogether in all but high-performance cars, but they’re still used in trucks, with many having a “Heavy-Duty” package with an Automatic Tranny cooler, my F150 has one.

          • Yes, it’s a Chrysler TorqueFlite A727, mated to an AMC 360 V8. This was the gold standard in automatic transmissions back then and in terms of reliability and longevity probably beats anything made today. With minimal care a TorqueFlite will last for decades.

            The “Man With the Golden Gun” Matador was a ’74 Matador Coupe with detachable wings in the movie. The long-awaited flying car! 🙂 Probably the neatest stunt in the film though was a looping jump over a river using a Hornet Hatchback – this was done with a real car, not model work. The stupid whistle sound they did ruined the moment though.

            I think AMC must have paid a bunch for product placement in this movie. Even the police in Hong Kong (I think it was) drove Matadors.


    • The capacity of the batteries today, deteriorate some, overtime. They don’t simply stop working. Your range will decrease, but the car will largely still work the same since the electric motor doesn’t lose compression, have worn out valve seats, rings, etc.

      Tires, power brakes/calipers/discs, power steering pump/fluid, and AC are the things that are still in an EV. Typical failures in an ICE vehicle include many more systems which all have things about them that are labor intensive. Each EVs longevity, like an ICE car depends on the use/abuse of the owner(s) over time.

  17. And think of the fees to pay to compensate for loss of fuel taxes. The car will keep up with the kilowatts used during the year which the state will upload when you renew the registration. So much per kilowatt will be added and your screwed again!
    As an avid motorcycle rider the new Livewire from HD at $30,000, gets a whopping 119 miles per 4 hour charge shows the uselessness of EV’s. Jay Leno seems to like it but then he can afford it!
    The EV has to be one of the largest scams in world history,,, only second to GW and you Eric are alone trying to inform people of this.

    • Ahh…the “plot” is, as more cars have these “tattle boxes”, and with more widespread cellular and wireless networks everywhere, you’ll simply be paying tolls, e.g., TAXES, per mile, with likely SURCHARGES, for say, driving during “heavy use” commuting hours (not unlike how SMUD charges here in Sacramento for “peak” hours), or, although all vehicles may be titled ‘equally”, some (especially if you white, straight, and don’t vote Dummycrat, funny how it’ll work out in real life) will be “more equal” than others. It’ll be relatively simple to implement “EZ-Pass” almost everywhere!

      North Platte, Nebraska, is looking better every day…


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here