I'm a lifelong petrolhead and drive sports cars, motorcycles, and drive a diesel truck to tow all the gear... But I'd still buy an electric car when it comes time to get a new one.
I've been buying fuel-efficient cars since I could drive because I was POOR. Then when I wasn't poor anymore I realized I was cheap
I don't get why people want to pay more than they have to, and honestly most of the people I hear out here bitching around gas prices aren't driving old cars, they're driving brand new Hemi Rams and it's like "guys, the politicians you think are making gas prices go up didn't make you buy a 17 mpg tank on a 72-month loan that you're not going to use for anything except going to the D-back tailgate, did they?"
I've held off on electric for a long time due to the lack of infrastructure, but Ford's lineup of EV/hybrids has gotten me interested again, particularly since a plug-in is still the only way that solar breaks even out here despite the fact that the sun is always there (our power company specifically does not want people to switch to solar since they're heavily invested in fossil fuels). I'm a truck guy who need it for actual work and hobbies, so it's nice to see some performance FINALLY being welded onto cost.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qJv1IPNZQao
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IOKElp_jGLQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vpTHi7O66pI&t=119s
Link 1: John Cristy's conclusions about the climate being carbon insensitive have been disproven and discredited by other scientists, and I'm mildly surprised that he's still beating that drum. Basically he and Sanders found a math error with some of the models and then extrapolated that into a faulty conclusion that doesn't hold up to further scrutiny. This is actually kind of ironic since he was one of the scientists who originally figured out why there was a temporary cooling bias in satellite data (he was one of the lead authors of a paper that was basically "no really, its getting warmer":
https://web.archive.org/web/20070423150153/http://www.climatescience.gov/Library/sap/sap1-1/finalreport/sap1-1-final-execsum.pdf) and he should probably know better by now about temporary biases.
Link 2: Linzen has a huge body of impressive work but a lot of his theories on climate change have not borne out. His theory about the Iris effect turned out to be effectively backwards in that what he thought would provide a cooling effect instead provided a warming effect in-line with NASA predictions (ironically, John Christy, the guy in your first link, worked on the project that showed the warming effect from the Iris effect after the erruption of Pinatubo).
I mean, it is absolutely important to listen to scientists even when they represent like a 1% consensus, because they're occasionally right. But most of the time, they're not, or (like these two) they find discrepancies but jump to conclusions that don't bear out. You see this pretty often in other branches of science as well, especially with older researchers who are approaching new subjects (the theory is that they overestimate their general knowledge capacity due to having been geniuses in a specialized area).
Ironically the one time that I know of where an iconoclast scientist was RIGHT was the guy who discovered that leaded gasoline was completely saturating the air in the world with extreme levels of lead due to a massive coverup by the petroleum companies. Fascinating story if you like reading about that kind of thing:
https://www.mentalfloss.com/article/94569/clair-patterson-scientist-who-determined-age-earth-and-then-saved-itLink 3: Saw that years ago, would be interesting as an add-on to other strategies if they can figure out how to reduce methane output from cow butts to keep it at a net negative. I'd seen some promising stuff a decade ago about adding seaweed to their feed to do so but haven't checked up on that in a while.
I checked out what he says about the 1930's being hotter in the summer than recent summers and sure enough NOAA has verified the data.
It's called a statistical outlier. If there's a trend in one direction in a complex system with a bunch of inputs and you have some spikes in that trend line, that's not by itself evidence of anything, any more than the cooler-than-expected years around the turn of the century (that turned out to be Mt. Pinatubo releasing a bunch of ash into the upper atmosphere that blocked some sunlight, not that that stopped every libertarian thinktank in 2002 from releasing a swarm of "itz gettin cooler global warmin's is a hoaxzas" "articles") is any evidence of anything by itself.
I get that people who don't know much about statistics don't get that, but I'm surprised again that John Christy is pretending not to.