I realise by the title of this thread (and direction often taken here) that the thread is principally by climate science sceptics for climate science sceptics and that’s ok. Many of the points made here are entirely valid; I‘m sceptical of some elements myself. A few random observations though - no particular order - my opinion only:
- what are legitimate concerns for some are conspiracy affirming fodder for others; with each pearl of wisdom a nugget of nonsense if you like. We should recognise the difference.
- finding sceptical climate science articles is like shooting fish in a barrel. It would pay to spend time finding the many credible (climate sceptic) articles rather than posting the barely believable.
- points like: ‘EV to replace ICEV is impossible’; ‘EV’s are a fad’; ‘EV’s are not economically viable’; ‘climate science is just about money’, are negative absolutes without any real validation. More truths born of opinion.
- repeatedly returning to the contradiction between EV intent and current fossil fuel power supply, whilst completely ignoring ongoing/long term action to change the generation mix may also be a contradiction.
- we have to have at least one eye on the future. Desperately negative commentary based on the current state of electrification, projected blindly onto the future, is short sighted at best.
- the big picture matters. The same initiative may fall short in some areas but work well in others. When the result is a net positive then the aim may have been achieved.
- critising the high cost of EV‘s to achieve electrification in the same conversation as observing how much money those purchasers will lose when EV prices drop seems a conflicted point.
- people purchasing EV’s know that they are paying an inflated developmental price; common knowledge - technology reduces in cost over time. They can afford it and sales have to start somewhere. Fair or not.
- criticising specific (current) EV range/infrastructure examples without referencing localised info - owners needs and expectations, journey type and future range/infrastructure improvements etc, may be a little myopic. Planning will be required to make a journey by EV, as it is by ICEV.
- there is definitely room for constructive criticism as well as destructive criticism in this debate. Unless we challenge our thinking occasionally, then confirmation bias will likely result.
- does ridiculing science add value to the discussion?
[ATTACH]106661[/ATTACH]
There are many ways to counter my points above - I could do it myself. But, you can’t have a conversation without counter discussion points unless we only want to talk about EV ‘Drawbacks’ that is!
