The Politics of Climate Change: Green New Deal And Other Madness

Pierre said:
About the electromagnetic emission of electric vehicles:

"I wouldn't suggest buying an electric car...it's a rip off...check the EMF emissions, it's off the charts...it's a silent killing machine."

https://twitter.com/x/status/1605666332506300417
Click to expand...

Man oh' man, they supposedly are fixing one problem only to create another behind our backs. This is the first time I read anything about this. Thanks Pierre. This will make for some interesting Christmas dinner conversation, though I know what the counter arguments will be like.
"Oh not again, you are finding conspiracies everywhere. Lets eat more turkey !!!"
My answer, "Pass me the caterpillar pie. "

PS: Did you know this ?

Before gasoline-engine models took over, electric cars were becoming quite popular with urban residents, especially women, because they were quiet, easy to drive, and did not emit stinky pollutants. Innovators such as Thomas Edison began taking note of the electric cars’ high demand and started exploring ways to improve the technology.

They were all the rage and showing no signs of declining in popularity. However, as the saying goes, “all good things come to an end,” and by 1935, electric vehicles completely disappeared.

Inexpensive Texas crude oil and better roads contributed to this disappearance, and as a result, gas stations popped up across the U.S., which led to the rise in popularity of gas-powered vehicles.

Decades later, however, the realization that fossil fuels are in short supply and are bad for the planet has sparked a resurgence of electric cars, with a couple of technology updates. Electric vehicle benefits include zero tailpipe emissions, better efficiency and greater reductions in greenhouse gas emissions when coupled with a low-carbon electricity sector.
Click to expand...

defendershield.com

Electric Cars & EMF Radiation: Could Your Tesla Be Bad for You? : DefenderShield

Although electric cars like the Tesla and Prius help the environment, your exposure to Eectromagentic Radiation (EMF) may increase.
defendershield.com defendershield.com
 
FlJKgTBXgAEl_NI
 
Hi_Henry said:
Man oh' man, they supposedly are fixing one problem only to create another behind our backs. This is the first time I read anything about this. Thanks Pierre. This will make for some interesting Christmas dinner conversation, though I know what the counter arguments will be like.
"Oh not again, you are finding conspiracies everywhere. Lets eat more turkey !!!"
My answer, "Pass me the caterpillar pie. "

PS: Did you know this ?


Before gasoline-engine models took over, electric cars were becoming quite popular with urban residents, especially women, because they were quiet, easy to drive, and did not emit stinky pollutants. Innovators such as Thomas Edison began taking note of the electric cars’ high demand and started exploring ways to improve the technology.

They were all the rage and showing no signs of declining in popularity. However, as the saying goes, “all good things come to an end,” and by 1935, electric vehicles completely disappeared.

Inexpensive Texas crude oil and better roads contributed to this disappearance, and as a result, gas stations popped up across the U.S., which led to the rise in popularity of gas-powered vehicles.
Click to expand...

I keep reading that story about how popular electric cars supposedly had been. Yet I have never seen a historical picture of one or a technical description. Does anybody have a source on this? With some technical details? Maybe I'm missing something here, but how on earth should this even have been possible back then if the technology STILL sucks today, even with all these innovations and high tech computer-controlled batteries etc.?
 
luc said:
I keep reading that story about how popular electric cars supposedly had been. Yet I have never seen a historical picture of one or a technical description. Does anybody have a source on this? With some technical details? Maybe I'm missing something here, but how on earth should this even have been possible back then if the technology STILL sucks today, even with all these innovations and high tech computer-controlled batteries etc.?
Click to expand...
Here's a site with a lot of info:

 
luc said:
how popular electric cars supposedly had been. Yet I have never seen a historical picture of one or a technical description.
Click to expand...

I've come across a number of photos of ~100 year old electric vehicles but haven't saved them, though I found a few websites with photos but very little technical description. I wonder if the technology was inexpensive, durable and easy, so the patents were removed and the technology squelched like the eternal lightbulb. Or if it is based on something entirely different from the 'scientific' paradigms imposed on us.

Google Books Page 172-174 electric vehicles in 1909 Journal of Electricity, Power and Gas
The Old Motor
Wired Mag
Curbed

--https://books.google.com/books?id=fr5MAQAAIAAJ&lpg=PA174&dq=babcock%20electric%20car%201244%20miles&pg=PA174#v=onepage&q=babcock%20electric%20car%201244%20miles&f=false Page 173-174 electric vehicles
--https://theoldmotor.com/?s=electric+car
--https://www.wired.com/2010/06/henry-ford-thomas-edison-ev/
--https://archive.curbed.com/2017/9/22/16346892/electric-car-history-fritchle
 
Last edited:
luc said:
I keep reading that story about how popular electric cars supposedly had been. Yet I have never seen a historical picture of one or a technical description. Does anybody have a source on this? With some technical details? Maybe I'm missing something here, but how on earth should this even have been possible back then if the technology STILL sucks today, even with all these innovations and high tech computer-controlled batteries etc.?
Click to expand...
Check this out. I don't know the history of the automobile but this source seems convincing.


Advanced Vehicle Testing Activity

avt.inl.gov avt.inl.gov

PS: Looks like (many) someone beat me to the punch :-)
 
Again, I thought it was a Babylon Bee article, yet it isn´t 🤣

nypost.com

New York Times essay says you should mate with short people to save the planet

An essay written by author, Mara Altman, for the New York Times insisted that being short is “better” for the future to the amusement of several Twitter users on Sunday and Monday.
nypost.com nypost.com

New York Times essay says you should mate with short people to save the planet​


A guest essay for the New York Times insisted that being short is “better” for the future to the amusement of several Twitter users on Sunday and Monday.

Author Mara Altman penned the essay remarking that not only do shorter people tend to live longer, but they’re also crucial in conserving food and resources on our dying planet.

“The short are also inherent conservationists, which is more crucial than ever in this world of eight billion. Thomas Samaras, who has been studying height for 40 years and is known in small circles as the Godfather of Shrink Think, a widely unknown philosophy that considers small superior, calculated that if we kept our proportions the same but were just 10 percent shorter in America alone, we would save 87 million tons of food per year (not to mention trillions of gallons of water, quadrillions of B.T.U.s of energy and millions of tons of trash),” she wrote.

Altman continued, “Short people don’t just save resources, but as resources become scarcer because of the earth’s growing population and global warming, they may also be best suited for long-term survival (and not just because more of us will be able to jam into spaceships when we are forced off this planet we wrecked).”

Altman went as far as to suggest people begin purposefully mating with shorter people in order to produce a shorter society.

“When you mate with shorter people, you’re potentially saving the planet by shrinking the needs of subsequent generations. Lowering the height minimum for prospective partners on your dating profile is a step toward a greener planet,” she wrote.

The article’s headline as well as the subject was heavily mocked on Twitter for linking height to saving the planet from climate change.

“Someone short and single is writing op-eds for The New York Times,” Babylon Bee owner Seth Dillon joked.

Former Washington Post reporter Christopher Ingraham wrote, “thought this was a high-quality s–tpost but no, it’s a real op-ed from today’s NYT.”

“Very heightist of you, @nytimes,” Former Virginia Rep. Scott Taylor tweeted.
https://twitter.com/x/status/1609935556594618372

“’ He’s even restricted dairy from his sons’ diets and only allows them minimal sugar in an attempt to limit their growth, saving them from the ills of height.’ Anyone else thinks things are getting pretty weird around here?” writer Caitlin Flanagan asked.

Journalism professor John Schwartz joked, “Sing to me, o muse: ‘short is better, and it is the future.’”

“I’m going to quietly stick with being tall,” journalist Benjamin Ryan wrote.

The New York Times was previously criticized for profiling an advocate calling for “voluntary human extinction” in reaction to climate change and a growing global population.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Trending content

Back
Top Bottom