You want to back up your shade throwing with some facts? Otherwise you sound like an uninformed crank.

Regarding water vapor, you should read this:
https://www.skepticalscience.com/water-vapor-greenhouse-gas.htm

Summary for the dummy:
“So skeptics are right in saying that water vapor is the dominant greenhouse gas. What they don't mention is that the water vapor feedback loop actually makes temperature changes caused by CO2 even bigger.”

Confirmation bias. I do not think it means what you think it means.

No, as I posted according to the data it’s way under 100,000 miles. Either post your calculations, or I’m calling bullshit on that 300,000 mile figure that you seem to have pulled out of your ass.

We weren’t talking about range. We were talking about whether or not it is more energy efficient to keep an old car or buy a new EV. Range has F all to do with that.

I'm not talking aboot energy efficiency, I'm talking aboot repair & maintenance costs over the life of the vehicle. I keep my cars for 200,000-300,000 miles minimum. I look at the repair & maintenance costs. Then the overall cost/mile.

The range was mentioned as it will matter to some if the vehicle is viable for their transportation needs.

But they do have service centers where it appears one must go for repairs if you can't buy parts for the vehicle.

Except in Michigan, Nebraska, Kansas, Wyoming, Alaska, Kentucky, North Dakota, South Dakota, Montana , South Carolina, Oklahoma, Arkansas, and maybe a few more states.

I’m out on the Tesla 3, my 2002 Honda Civic has some life left in her still and there are plenty of other things to waste money on.

That said, I do love my electric lawn mower. Weighs less than a gas job, and it never stalls, floods, or runs out of gas.

How often have you replaced or had the battery pack(s) rebuilt? My son works at a Batteries Plus. A neighbor has a nice battery powered lawn mower. She has him rebuild the packs. He's rebuilt the set a 2nd time in four years.

I'm probably the only idiot still mowing his lawn with a corded electric lawnmower. It's a pain to swing the extension cord over the thing every pass but it was < $100 floor model at Sears and it still works.

This is the most ludicrous statement I have read in quite awhile. The first nuclear waste ever produced is still on the Earth polluting, and will be for 18000 plus years, since there is no way to dispose of the stuff. The salt mines in Utah are collapsing in places, rusty radioactive drums have burst spilling their contents, and there isn't enough money that has ever been printed since the foundation of economies to pay the Superfund cleanup bill for radioactive contaminated Sites across the US.
Nuclear power plants have resorted to storing waste on site since there is nothing else left to do with it. A few years ago (last time I kept up with these things) there were only two Plasma Incinerators capable of destroying low-level radioactive medical waste , they both were small and slow.
Soy Boys ride around spouting "GREEN" and pushing electric vehicles like social justice warriors with no inkling how the electricity is produced to power their expensive toys. If its nuclear generated they need to do some deep soul-searching, or just STFU.
If the money spent on nuclear generated power had been placed in coal research we would have clean coal generated electricity, and the US has more coal reserves than anybody else.
When that nuclear plant on the beach in California gets hit by a tsunami or earthquake people may wake up, but it will be too late.

I prefer my corded mower. I just got a new one this year, it’s more powerful then my last one and cuts a wider path. Unfortunately with more power, you need a larger cable. The 100’ extension cord was almost as expensive as the mower.

I see this line all the time. I imagine most people who own EV's likely already have solar panels on their roof to offset where their car charging comes from. I have the solar part, just waiting for the EV's to come down in price/robust used market to add the car.

At least that one is cool to look at when in line to "STOP" for "US Officers". Now shut down waiting for Bechtel or Westinghouse to take it apart. But Robert Blake's Diablo Canyon plant is humming along...

True. In those states they send a tech to you. 80% of repairs can be handled at your home, which is pretty sweet.

Oh, in that case you're still wrong.

EVs are at least 35% cheaper to maintain:
http://www.plugincars.com/study-electrics-35-less-costly-maintain-comparable-ice-vehicles-125755.html

EVs are less than half the cost per mile to operate:
http://www.roperld.com/science/BEVvsICECost.htm

When the vehicle is out of warranty, say I hit a nice Michigan pothole (so, even if under warranty, not a warrantable repair) taking out a Trailer arm or Trapezoid arm and a rim. Does the mobile service department come and do the repair in my driveway? Do they then take it to real service shop with an alignment rack? Lets say one of the wheel end motors also gets damaged too ($$$), Do I have to pay to transport it to Cleveland or Chicago?

Keep in mind that I don't believe in anything beyond legally required insurance so I won't be filing a claim, which, in Michigan damage by a pothole is considered an At-fault Accident so a Deductible applies.

I’ve been schlepping around Santa Barbara for the past few weeks hanging out at arroyo burrow beach with the homeless looking dude who flies the mini kite and I have see enough Teslas to realize that I wish I was born a good 30 years prior to what I was...

I'm not suggesting we use nuclear reactors with 1970's technology. That's like me using pollution data from 1960's cars with leaded gasoline to make the case for EVs.

Newer reactors produce a fraction of the waste. But some geniuses thought it would be a better idea to keep using these crappy old nuclear power plants instead of building newer and better ones.

It's also highly likely we will be able to use that waste in new reactors:
https://phys.org/news/2014-08-next-generation-nuclear-reactors-radioactive-materials.html

Or sociopathic old men driving their archaic pollution-belching gasoline shitboxes with no inkling of how much damage they are doing to future generations need to do some deep soul-searching and BASIC RESEARCH instead of just talking out their asses, or just STFU.

Yeah, those reactors should be replaced with newer, safer tech.

My grandparents used to live in El Segundo and my Aunt in Carson, both near gasoline refineries. If an earthquake hits, the shit is going to hit the fan, big time.

http://articles.latimes.com/1992-10-10/local/me-619_1_safe-living

I'm ready!

Confirmation bias, as far as I can tell, is starting with a dogmatic position, then searching for any information that backs up the position ("confirms" it), whilst ignoring any information that supports the contrary position. So, that's what I think it means. If it does mean that, then it does mean what I think it means. The sneaky thing about confirmation bias is that it is subconscious, so the person exhibiting it doesn't even know it. They will usually deny it.

But it's quite easy to spot the type of people prone to it. The main giveaway is that are usually applying their bias from the very top of a bandwagon that they have joined recently. Then they are also prone to not listening to contrary opinion and start to use emotive language like "You want to back up your shade throwing.."

If one wants to be a successful debater and have people take you seriously you should first drop the aggressive tone and the use of any words that don't contain information. Otherwise you just come across as a blusterer piling on to a bandwagon.

So, to my point about the article, and the FACT that water vapour wasn't mentioned. Which was actually the only FACT that I presented. It is a FACT that the article said that the two biggest greenhouse gases are CO2 and methane. This is not true. The two biggest greenhouse gases are water vapour and CO2. That is a FACT. The article should have said that the two biggest greenhouse gases OTHER THAN water vapour are CO2 and methane.

So, the article is displaying clear confirmation bias in that it is ignoring the very existence of water vapour.

And thanks for your supportive quote..

EVs are really cool. I’ve never had a problem with EVs. It’s always been Elon Musk I’ve had the problem with. The guy was pushed out of PayPal as CEO because he was unstable. Then he carpetbags all over Martin Eberhart and pushes him out of Tesla. Then he bails out his cousins at solar city with Tesla money. He’s a loose cannon, and just because he’s rich doesn’t mean he’s some sort of genius.

I /try/ to support my statements by linking to data or studies. It's not too surprising that other EV proponents link to and talk about studies and facts that confirm that EVs are better. If you want to call that confirmation bias, you'd be wrong.

On the other hand, if I linked to some opinion piece without facts, or a writer that misrepresented the truth, or cherry picked facts to suit their opinion (like with water vapor), you'd be right to call that confirmation bias.

If you want to change my mind, or anyone's mind, maybe you should link to some studies that prove your position, and open your mind to the possibility you might be wrong. Several times I've had my mind changed here and said as much.

Water vapor isn't talked about because there's fuck all we can do about it, nor would we want to. We talk about CO2 because it's the CO2 from human industry that is driving climate change, and we can change this. Nothing can change the fact that water vapor amplifies greenhouse effects from CO2.

Ok, so I read it. It's just as bad. It falls into exactly the same confirmation bias trap. Where?, I hear you ask.

It states that water vapour in the atmosphere is short lived and that CO2 stays there for centuries etc. It fails to make ANY mention of the uptake rate of water vapour INTO the atmosphere. Water vapour is in the atmosphere just as long as CO2 is, ie, it's there all the time, just in a steady state condition with new vapour entering to replace the exiting vapour. So, exactly HALF the true information is presented in order to CONFIRM the position whilst leaving out the half that is inconvenient.

The article also starts off with it's major premise being a statement claiming what other people are trying to imply. Go and do a bit of research about debating or language and you'll pretty quickly discover that this makes for very shaky ground from which to make a point.

I agree that billionaire does not automatically equal genius. We have a glaring example of that, unfortunately.

But you have it backwards with Musk. Musk is rich because he spearheaded a revolutionary payment system, brought the price of rockets down to where it could be extremely profitable, brought three extremely successful and popular cars to market. And he sold a hell of a lot of solar panels and large scale battery systems and a few other things that made billions upon billions of dollars too.

Expecting a person like that to be 'ordinary' is just kind of odd. Of course he's going to be eccentric.

I don't know what went down at Paypal or with the original founder of Tesla. There seem to be some conflicting stories. Were you there, or do you know people that were there?

I don't.

I have no interest in making people think anything. People should think for themselves. If I change someone's mind then they are just thinking what I think. All I care about is the accuracy and quality of information. The truth about all things makes a habit of simply existing regardless of what people think.

My only position was that an article displayed confirmation bias. I have presented no other position.

But this is true, isn't it? And it's also true that we can't do anything about water vapor and we can do something about CO2, right?

That's not the way I understand it, but feel free to link to a study or fact-based article on this uptake rate you're referring to.

I'd say you aren't critically evaluating the factual data I've linked to.

Asserting the position you are trying to debunk is simply good writing. It doesn't in any way detract from the argument. Feel free to link to studies or texts on debate that say otherwise. I'm by no means an expert on debate, but I studied debate at college and have spent decades debating and researching debate online.

But really, please post a link to any study you'd like with facts and data. I'll read it.

Here's more on water vapor:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/04/water-vapour-feedback-or-forcing/

Nor any evidence to support your position.

LOL. That's a good one. I don't think Einstein could change your mind.

Well given he's been dead for quite a long time, I'd have to agree with you.

We did the same except changed our Model 3 order to the Model X which we're getting on Saturday. Wasn't totally sure on the pure minimalist approach of the 3, kinda prefer the screen to be in portrait mode when it's that large, like the extra utility the X provides and ultimately we really loved the X after driving it. So out with the 3, in with the X.

I'm like the other fools in this thread, corded mower and loving it! The cord has its annoyances but is not nearly as bad as I thought it would be, and after years f#*king around with gas mowers as a kid, I'm very happy to just plug 'er in, hit the power button, and start mowing. I'm not a masochist, if I had a huge lawn I'd get a rider-mower. But the plug-in is perfect for small to mid-sized.

I live near a nuclear power plant as well, we all do. Germany has put a hold on any new ones being built, after the Fukushima debacle they were one of the few Countries to learn just how bad this form of power generation is.
The problem is no one ever came up with a way to dispose of the waste. South Carolina took it for years and then said enough. North Carolina said "Not in my back yard" like every other State.
Solar will never replace fossil fuels, neither will wind. The ocean tide generator holds promise but funding for research is limited. Anyone calling nuclear energy "Clean" is an idiot unworthy of serious consideration. Let them drive their toy cars but when they spout off as being somehow superior they must be informed of the truth.

This popped up on twitter today; great thread, I guess a software engineer whose NDA has expired is sounding alarms about the car's firmware
https://twitter.com/atomicthumbs/status/1032939617404645376

Do you understand what he’s saying? I do, and it looks like pretty standard engineer bitching to me. I don’t see anything unusual, nor do I see any ‘alarms’ about the car’s firmware.

Yes, I understand what he’s saying, I’m a software engineer. That sounds like tech debt city and like many things I’ve seen my own companies from inside. I’ve yet to see anyone die from a bad ad placement or busted satellite internet access terminal though.

The things they talk about re: culture, and a giant fizz buzz test, do not strike me as the kind of thing that will cause a massive money losing company like Tesla to suddenly turn the corner to profitability. Not if the assembly line can be held up for firmware imaging processing.

This was my point. Only this.

I wish they paid down their technical debt too, but I have never, ever once worked with an enterprise that did, and I have worked with a /lot/ of Fortune 500, startup companies, and governments.

Let’s face it, it’s extraordinarily rare for an enterprise to stay on top of technical debt. Hell, one of my best friends is SSE over at an enterprise that /develops/ software for mission critical enterprise deployment and their core product is laden with technical debt.

I’ve worked with the government and seen their critical data center operations that are used for things like emergency deployment (disaster response) — laden with years of technical debt.

This is our corporate culture.

Speaking of that, the person clearly had an axe to grind against Tesla, so I’ll take their words about their culture with a grain of salt. I’ve spoken personally with current Tesla employees and they are remarkably passionate, supportive of the mission, in it for the long haul, and love the company.

None of the underlying tech struck me as horrid, and I was quite happy to see tech that came with the source code all the way down to the OS, so if a bug does come up, at least they can fix it if the vendor can’t.

Tesla went from a scrappy startup with high integrity to one engulfed by Silicon Valley hype. Myriad quality issues are covered up and Engineers complaining about it intimidated into silence or removed. Thermal runaway exhibited from poor battery control result in fires that are very hard to put out due to the metals used. Poor roof to pillar construction resulted in the famed "Rat hole", Musk solution? Stuff a chunk of foam in it.
Employee harassment lawsuits, Investor lawsuits, indictment from the SEC, when it can't get worse a rapper houseguest spills the beans about a drug-addled Musk frantically begging for money on overheard phone calls.
This endeavor will end sooner rather than later and the Pros will pick up the pieces to use in real car Companies, ones that make profits.
Who is out on Tesla? Anyone with common sense.

Bingo!

Would you please link to reports of this? I'm not aware of more than three or four fires in Tesla vehicles out of the hundreds of thousands built and billions of miles driven.

Out of curiosity, what would you have had them do, particularly to the cars already on the road? Can you cite a single example of a car company doing something better faced with a similar situation?

I've experienced first hand Tesla's commitment to making things right, including adding titanium armor to the underside of my car for free (with a free Tesla loaner) after one car, just one car caught on fire. Please find me another car company that would do that.

I'm only aware of them looking into Tesla, not an indictment. Do you know something I don't?

Let's keep in mind that two or three people (out of 10,000 employees), one of whom is being sued for stealing data, and all of whom were fired or resigned because they couldn't play well with others, are throwing out a bunch of accusations on Business Insider, a site that accepts content from anyone, that does not adhere to any fact-checking rules.

I own an "S" & it has exceeded my expectations. It has also been a good service experience with less repairs than any other car I've owned. They came to my office, did everything & called when they left to tell me it would have been $100 to replace the windshield washer pump, but covered it even out of warranty. I had 1 recall. They had to replace the steel bolts for the power steering pump with stainless steel bolts. They replaced the windshield wipers & key fob batteries recently @ no charge while it was in. It is the opposite experience of my old Acura dealer. I researched it intensely before buying so there was not any surprises, except maybe some pleasant ones. I've saved thousands not buying gas as work has free charging. Mine has free Supercharging which is great on trips. There is also a huge amount of storage.
More than my SUV due to the "frunk" & no gas tank or exhaust pipes. Has anyone used it as a pin hauler? It looks like it would fit.

My 2016 Tacoma has had zero recalls and no warranty work done to it. It also has the highest resale value of any vehicle sold in America. Anything less wouldn't of met my expectations.

I have a 1996 Toyota Land Cruiser with 200,000 miles on it. I will never sell it. It does look like there has been some recalls on Tacomas though, maybe not yours but there were actually four.
http://m.carcomplaints.com/Toyota/Tacoma/2016/recalls/

No recalls on mine. Took it to the dealership for one of my free lifetime oil changes in August.

Give it time, it hasn’t even been out two years.

I just got back from a 400+ mile round trip in my Model S. Total fuel cost $0.

Glad you got back safely.