Some climate change campaigners are claiming that parts of Arizona are becoming too hot to live in, while the figures show that people are flocking to come and live there! read it here:
Too Hot To Live | Real Climate Science
via climate science
May 14, 2024 at 01:40AM
Thomas Edison strongly advised Henry Ford to go internal combustion engine (ICE), not electric vehicles (EVs) in the late 19th century. EVs dominated the market until the advantages of ICE prevailed more than a century ago. Yet multi-pronged government intervention at the expense of taxpayers and ICE owners is desperately trying to create an industry that consumers do not like.
The economic and environmental problems of EVs are on full display–and the mainstream press is not afraid to report on them (unlike with on-grid wind and solar). A shining example of this was a recent article in Auto Overload (May 11, 2024): “21 Unfortunate Electric Vehicle Flaws That No One Is Discussing.” (May 11, 2024).
Twenty reasons were given, but the 21st pertains to the conclusion that better (“holistic”) public policy is needed. Make that no public policy except government neutrality toward energy technologies, and we are all set. After all, the 20 items to follow are reasons for not promoting EVs.
“In conclusion,” the article ends, “the journey towards adopting electric vehicles as a sustainable alternative to fossil fuel-powered transportation is fraught with complex challenges, particularly concerning the environmental and ethical implications of battery production.”
What an understatement. But the politically correct article adds:
While legislative measures and research initiatives are making strides in addressing these issues, there is a critical need for ongoing commitment and innovation to ensure that the EV revolution does not compromise human rights or environmental integrity. The future of green transportation depends not only on technological advancements but also on responsible and sustainable practices throughout the EV battery supply chain. It is imperative that stakeholders across industries continue to collaborate and invest in solutions that prioritize ethical sourcing, improved recycling methods, and overall supply chain transparency. This holistic approach will be key to realizing the full potential of electric vehicles in fostering a cleaner, more sustainable future.
The post EV Forcing: 21 Problems appeared first on Master Resource.
via Master Resource
May 14, 2024 at 01:12AM
Essay by Eric Worrall
First published JoNova; Remember when we used to laugh about Soviets queuing for years to purchase an automobile?
Ford threatens to restrict petrol car sales to meet the UK’s EV targets
Ford boss says ICE prices could rise as it seeks to dodge looming ZEV mandate penalty fines
by: Tom Jervis
9 May 2024Ford could resort to limiting the sales of its petrol cars in the UK, as it struggles to meet the electric car sales targets laid down in the government’s Zero-Emissions Vehicle Mandate.
Introduced at the start of this year, the ZEV mandate requires manufacturers to ensure that a minimum percentage of their overall sales are battery-powered, or face fines of up to £15,000 for every ICE car sold over the limit. This year, the target is set at 22 per cent, however, while EV sales continue to grow due to fleet demand, private buyers are proving reluctant to make the transition and EV targets are looking hard to meet. According to the latest industry figures, fewer than 17 per cent of models registered in April boasted zero-emissions powertrains.
Ford, which currently only has the Mach-E in its EV passenger car line-up, is one of the manufacturers feeling the pressure. The company’s European boss of its ‘Model e’ electric car division, Martin Sander, told the Financial Times’ Future of the Car Summit: “We can’t push EVs into the market against demand. We’re not going to pay penalties. We are not going to sell EVs at huge losses just to buy compliance. The only alternative is to take our shipments of [engine-powered] vehicles to the UK down, and sell these vehicles somewhere else”.
…
What can I say? Unless we find a way to derail the Western march towards green communism, a system in which the government will dictate what you are allowed to buy and own, Soviet style queues and shortages are exactly what we shall all have to get used to.
via Watts Up With That?
May 14, 2024 at 12:01AM
I am concerned by climate scientists becoming climate activists, because scholars should not have a priori interests in the outcome of their studies. Likewise, I am worried about activists who pretend to be scientists, as this can be a misleading form of instrumentalization.
In the evolving discourse surrounding climate change, a critical conversation has emerged regarding the intersection of impassioned activism and the rigor of scientific inquiry. The recent article by Ulf Büntgen in “npj Climate Action“ articulates a pressing need to differentiate between climate science and climate activism. While Büntgen’s perspective is praiseworthy for recognizing the potential pitfalls of conflating these domains, it perhaps underestimates the extent to which climate science has been subsumed by ideological influences. This subtle yet pervasive ideological capture poses a more complex challenge than Büntgen acknowledges, necessitating a deeper exploration and a more robust response than the mere separation of roles.
Büntgen starts his argument with a fundamental concern about the role of scientists in the sphere of activism:
“I am concerned by climate scientists becoming climate activists, because scholars should not have a priori interests in the outcome of their studies.”
This statement underscores the importance of maintaining objectivity within scientific research. The integrity of scientific inquiry hinges on the ability of researchers to conduct studies without predetermined outcomes. However, the reality across many scientific disciplines, particularly in climate science, reveals a landscape where research is often driven, or at least shaded, by political and ideological motivations.
He also raises an alarm about the reverse scenario—activists posing as scientists:
“Likewise, I am worried about activists who pretend to be scientists, as this can be a misleading form of instrumentalization.”
While this is a valid concern, the issue runs deeper than individual activists overstepping boundaries. Institutional science itself has become a battleground where ideological narratives are frequently promoted under the guise of empirical neutrality. This misalignment not only misleads the public but also distorts policy debates, framing them within a context that may not fully align with the nuanced realities of scientific understanding.
Büntgen’s observation about the pace of scientific research compared to the rapid shifts in political and economic responses to climate issues further illustrates the disjunction between science and activism:
“It comes as no surprise that the slow production of scientific knowledge by an ever-growing international and interdisciplinary community of climate change researchers is not feasible to track the accelerating pace of cultural, political and economic perceptions of, and actions to the many threats anthropogenic global warming is likely to pose on natural and societal systems at different spatiotemporal scales.”
Here, Büntgen touches upon a critical disconnect; however, the underlying concern is that the scientific process—necessarily cautious and iterative—is being sidelined in favor of more immediate, policy-driven agendas that prioritize action over accuracy. This scenario fosters an environment where scientific data may be cherry-picked or presented with undue emphasis to support predetermined policy goals.
Moreover, his critique of the IPCC’s presentations of data suggests an awareness of the problematic dynamics within large scientific bodies:
“Moreover, I find it misleading when prominent organisations, such as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in its latest summary for policymakers, tend to overstate scientific understanding of the rate of recent anthropogenic warming relative to the range of past natural temperature variability over 2000 and even 125,000 years.”
This point is crucial but warrants a deeper investigation into how such overstated claims serve broader narrative purposes. These narratives not only maintain a sense of urgency but also drive the policy machine that may not always be aligned with the most balanced or cautious scientific appraisal.
Büntgen rightly calls for a conceptual and practical separation between climate science and activism. This recommendation is foundational but should be considered the starting point for a broader re-evaluation of how climate science can extricate itself from the grip of activism and policy pressures without compromising the urgent need for societal engagement on climate issues.
To truly address the ideological capture of climate science, it is necessary to foster a culture of critical scrutiny and intellectual independence within the scientific community. Scientists must be encouraged to question dominant paradigms and explore alternative hypotheses without fear of professional ostracization or loss of funding. Additionally, there is a need for a transparent and rigorous peer review process that can withstand the pressures of political or ideological influence.
Furthermore, the media, policymakers, and the public must be educated on the complexities of climate science, emphasizing that scientific understanding evolves and that uncertainty is a natural and valuable aspect of scientific discourse. This understanding can help temper the often sensationalist portrayal of climate science in the media, which tends to amplify fears and simplify discussions to align with activist agendas.
In conclusion, while Büntgen’s article provides an important critique of the current state of climate science and activism, a more profound and systemic approach is required to untangle the complex web of influences that has shaped the field. Only through a rigorous recommitment to the principles of scientific inquiry and a vigilant defense against ideological influences can climate science hope to provide the objective guidance necessary for effective and rational policy-making. The challenge is not merely to separate science from activism but to ensure that science remains a beacon of inquiry, untainted by the exigencies of political and ideological campaigns.
The whole open access article is available here.
H/T Judith Curry
via Watts Up With That?
May 13, 2024 at 08:04PM
Iowa Climate Science Education 