Designed for the most demanding needs of photographers and videographers.
Connect and charge all of your devices through a single Thunderbolt or USB-C port.

AI Has Reached a Human Level of Intelligence and Credibility

re: AI
re: Matt Taibbi

Meaning the race to the bottom has succeeded.

Lies, inuendos, false accusations of all kinds, total hallucination. YES, AI has now mimicked humans very successfully!

AI has no intelligence—none. It is a mimickry machine. And now the most powerful internet company in the world has designed its AI to be not a garbage dump, but a garbage factory. Well, at least that’s consistent with all Google’s other “be evil” behaviors.

"I Wrote What!?" - Matt Taibbi Unloads On Google's 'AI-Powered Libel Machine'


...Chuckling to start, by the end of the night I wasn’t laughing, unprepared as I was for certain horrifying if lesser-publicized quirks of “the Gemini era.”

..None of this happened! Though it sounds vaguely like a headline for an article I might have written, there was never a Rolling Stone piece called “The Great California Water Heist,” and I’d never heard of the “Compton Pledge.”

More questions produced more fake tales of error-ridden articles. One entry claimed I got in trouble for a piece called “Glenn Beck’s War on Comedy,” after suggesting “a connection between a conservative donor, Foster Friess, and a left-wing activist group, the Ruckus Society.”

With each successive answer, Gemini didn’t “learn,” but instead began mixing up the fictional factoids from previous results and upping the ante, adding accusations of racism or bigotry


WIND: this is how they’ll take you out. What humans could do before (and are doing) in rotting publications like The Atlantic and “the news” is now automated.

AI does and will tremendous uses in specific instances.

But when it comes to information you can trust, that is logically impossible. It will be trained on garbage (opinions, etc) and its mind warped by its creators. Tere is no law of physics dictating “the truth”, so it becomes logically impossible to ever have an AI that would be truthful and objective. If humans have never agreed, an AI certainly cannot. And if it could be done, we’d pull the plug before society collapses from it.

See also:

If AI Thinks George Washington is a Black Woman, Why Are We Letting it Pick Bomb Targets?


After yesterday’s Racket story about misadventures with Google’s creepy new AI product, Gemini, I got a note about a Bloomberg story from earlier this week. From US Used AI to Help Find Middle East Targets for Airstrikes:

The US used artificial intelligence to identify targets hit by air strikes in the Middle East this month, a defense official said, revealinggrowing military use of the technology for combat… Machine learning algorithms that can teach themselves to identify objects helped to narrow down targets for more than 85 US air strikes on Feb. 2

The U.S. formally admitting to using AI to target human beings was a first of sorts, but Google’s decision to release a moronic image generator that mass-produces black Popes and Chinese founding fathers was the story that garnered the ink and outrage. The irony is the military tale is equally frightening, and related in unsettling ways:


Connect and charge all of your devices through a single Thunderbolt or USB-C port.

Electric Vehicles: Terrible in Cold Weather, So Add Chemical Energy Complexity?

re: electric vehicles
re: cognitive dissonance

re: WSJ: The Electric-Vehicle Cheating Scandal
WSJ: The Six Months That Short-Circuited the Electric-Vehicle Revolution
re: ChatGPT: Calculating EV Charging Power Requirements
re: Electric Vehicles: a Multi-Pronged Menace with Few if any Benefits?

ICE = Internal Combustion Engine
EV = electric vehicle

Real science is never settled, and anyone who has certainty on such things is not qualified to discuss it.

EVs are crap in the cold. And the idea of heating a Sprinter van or other large EV in the cold with electricity from batteries is batshit crazy.

Hence the rollout of dumb-ass products like the eSprinter, whose battery pack is 26X too small (according to my estimates based on real usage of my Sprinter*). Another science fair project.

Replacing a time-proven outstanding energy density system (ICE) with a fundamentally nonsensical way of storing energy eg heavy batteries witih very low energy density compared to liquid fuel... is batshit crazy.

So what do you do to fix the 'stupid' in an EV? Add complexity!

* I estimate that I’d need a 3 megawatt (3000 kilowatt) battery pack to deliver something approaching what the 48.6 gallon diesel fuel tank in my diesel Sprinter can deliver. Which I can refill in ~7 minutes for $200 instead vs 7 hours or maybe 7 days eg 3000 kW @ $0.26 kW = $780. But the eSprinter has a toy 115 kW battery pack, 26X too small. A Sprinter with a 3 MW battery pack would also weigh 15000 pounds or more, drastically cutting range in mountains, and turning it into a battering ram that would endanger anything it contacted. Even if you cut the power pack in half, it’s absurd. And the Sprinter can not only heat the cabin with its ample waste heat, it can also generate 1.5 kW of elecricity at 800 rpm at just 0.8 gallons/hour. And with a 2nd alternator, it can generate ~3 kW while driving all while heating the cabin.

Microwave Energy Could Fix The Biggest Problem Facing EVs


According to the American Automobile Association (AAA), an EV can lose as much as 12% of its range when temperatures drop to 20 degrees, and as much as 41% if you turn on the cabin heater. In other words, for every 100 miles of combined urban/highway driving at 20°F temperatures, the range of an EV drops to 59 miles. Range loss due to low temperatures varies according to the EV model, with...

Researchers from the University of Birmingham are working on an energy storage system that combines microwave energy and a chemical heat pump to produce heating or cooling on demand. 

Dubbed e-Thermal bank, the system is designed as a secondary energy source for EVs that can harness electricity to drive a high-density (1600Wh/Kg) thermochemical-based system. The thermal bank is  ‘charged’ at the EV charging station by using microwave energy to dissociate a solid-vapor working pair.  


WIND: let’s see... burn fossil fuels to make electricity, then convert that electricity to microwaves to store chemical potential energy... what does that remind me of?

Batteries with 10X the energy density would make EVs a non science-fair project. Along with cheap nuclear power. Then and only then. Someday?

How about just adding a gas or diesel heater to the EV? Also known as an "engine" in an ICE, although there are small and extremely efficient heaters for Sprinter vans and similar. How stupid is this stuff going to become?

View all handpicked deals...

Nikon Z8 Mirrorless Camera
$3997 $3797
SAVE $200

Russell Brand: Excess Deaths

re: gears of the machine
re: COVID and ethics in medicine

Real science is never settled, and anyone who has certainty on such things is not qualified to discuss it.

And if you have to create a propaganda video, you should expect some right and proper mockery for public idiocy.

This piece is funny—and hits close to home on the “science”.

Don’t like the numbers? Change the math!

Russell Brand:

If you enjoy propaganda, you'll LOVE this from the UK government😂 They've realised TOO MANY people have died in the last few years, SO they have come up with a NEW method to calculate excess deaths, so there are NO MORE excess deaths! That's SMART.


AI, the Destroyer of Worlds?

re: gears of the machine

Real science is never settled, and anyone who has certainty on such things is not qualified to discuss it.

In so many ways. Watch and wait. It’s not going to end well. The correlation between AI getting better and life getting worse from propaganda fuckery will approach 100%.

Gemini is not just a screwed up, heavily biased, and ham-handed early deployment of a tech in its infancy. It's the cutting edge of information warfare built to colonize the public mind with great reset bullshittery and deep-state lies. — Jeffery A Tucker 

What’s real? What’s not real? Who will be able to tell the difference. Don’t worry, your overlords will tell you what to think in ways that the masses won’t even suspect, since they already don’t. Except this go-round, it will all be AI-generated.


But, you can trust the science, right?

Medical doctor? Take my poll!

Leading Scientific Journal Publishes Fake AI Generated Paper About Rat With Giant Penis


A leading scientific journal faces humiliation after it published a completely fake paper, purportedly written by Chinese researchers, which contained AI generated images of a rat with a penis bigger than its own body.

The Telegraph reports that the journal Frontiers in Cell and Development Biology published a paper that claimed to show the signalling pathway of sperm stem cells, but depicted a rat sitting upright with a massive dick and four giant testicles.

The illustration was reportedly created by using Midjourney, the AI imaging tool, which added labels to the ridiculous diagram using terms that don’t exist, including “dissilced”, “testtomcels” and “senctolic”.

Another ludicrous image to the right of the rat displays “sterrn cells” in a Petri dish being spooned out.

...Remarkably, the paper found its way into the journal, where it was read by scientists who immediately recognised the images and descriptions were not grounded in “any known biology”.

The journal retracted the paper, issued an apology and announced that it is working to “correct the record”.


WIND: correct the record? How about shuttering its doors permanently? No wonder some many garbage studies get published these days.

What exactly is a “leading scientific journal” these days? A dumpster fire of intellectual fakery,

But AI did not bring that on. All scientific journals today are follow the money ventures which have no become highly-politicized and polarized intellectual backwaters.

Science Magazine has become a political tool for virologists doing dangerous gain of function research?

re: Paul D Thacker
re: ethics in medicine
re: gears of the machine

re: Quiz for Medical Doctors: Which Credible Journals?

Real science is never settled, and anyone who has certainty on such things is not qualified to discuss it.

Are you starting to see how the gears of the machine work?

BTW, are you anMD? Take my poll!

Science Magazine has become a political tool for virologists doing dangerous gain of function research.


German Newspaper Forces Correction at Science Magazine, While Americans Ignore Study That Undermines Market Theory for Pandemic Origin

Latest revelations add evidence that American science writers are allergic to journalism. Science Magazine accused of “careless and unprofessional handling of statistical methodology.”

While American science writers continue to ignore new research that calls a study published by Science Magazine “flawed” and “invalid,” a German newspaper forced the journal to issue a correction to their study, authored by Arizona researcher Michael Worobey, that argued the COVID pandemic began in a wet market.


WIND: small potatoes, just one zit on the body politic.

Meanwhile, the full brutality of election season is in full swing, lawfare has become an art form, those most in need of Secret Service protection are denied it repeatedly, and half the country does not trust elections, since fraud in the 2020 was rampant. See the study where 20% of voters openly admits to illegaly votingin one way or another. Even 5% would have swung it. True or not, we sure look like a banana republic.

Mercedes Sprinter: no more 4WD or 3.0L Engine ... Now “all wheel drive” and 4 Cylinder Engine

re: Mercedes Sprinter

New tires on the Sprinter yes do they roll so much nicer than the 3.5 year old ones. Same unbeatable offroad tires as I in 2017. This is my 3rd set so far and never a flat. You can get 50K miles on a set if you’re foolish, but 30K is smarter. After all, 16/32 tread works a lot better than 4/32 and fresh resilient rubber is much more resistant to damage.


I recently took my 2017 Mercedes Sprinter in for some body work (somebody backed a trailer hitch into the van door and then vanished so the $1000 deductible is mine to pay). I learned that the new Sprinter models have changd.

The awesome go-almost-anywhere utility of the Mercedes Sprinter might be at risk—I can’t tell for sure, and we’ll have to see how this sorts out.

2024 Mercedes Sprinter info

No longer can you have real 4WD and low range gearing; you now get “all wheel drive” without a low range. All my lifetime xperience with all wheel drive is that is gets you stuck; I’d have been towed 3 or 4 times by now at $3000 a tow if I could even have persuaded a tow truck to venture there.

But... could the AWD be better than the 4WD? At least one coin-operated auto-review site claims so. Without driving one, it’s hard to say. Can’t rule it out I suppose.

The 4 cylinder engine high-output 1.95L twin turbo diesel engine might be OK or even better: on paper it is a bit more powerful than the 3.0L engine in my 2016 Sprinter.. And the 9-speed transmission is a big improvement.

I plan on maintaining my 2017 Sprinter as long as I can. The thing was expensive enough without all the build-out costs. Now I have to find a dealer who won’t charge me an outrageous $3500 for a Service B.

* But what do you expect from a company that features “Sustainability” and “Inclusions” front and center on the web page with “Inclusion” a feature story. Destroying real utility all while selling ultra-high-end schlock for the ultra-wealthy who won’t be eating insects for lunch. This is a company that lies to and mislead its customers (eg dieselgate and more), proven in court several times.

** The same reason Mercedes put non-diesel rated lightweight car oil in the 3.0L diesel Sprinter, ensuring improper breakin for a lifetime of problems and increased emissions, all to save 0.25 mpg from the lighter oil.

Mercedes Sprinter, sourthern California desert
f11 @ 1/60 sec, ISO 100; 2018-12-21 11:19:51
GFX 50R + Fujifilm GF 250mm f/4 R LM OIS WR @ 205.5mm equiv (250mm)
ENV: Eureka Dunes, altitude 2800 ft / 853 m, 55°F / 12°C
RAW: LACA corrected, diffraction mitigating sharpening

[low-res image for bot]
2017 Mercedes Sprinter 4x4 with 265/70R17 wheels/tires has about 9 inches of rear differential clearance

Connect and charge all of your devices through a single Thunderbolt or USB-C port.

Nina Teicholz: Junk Food has been Rebranded as “Ultra-processed” —  Why that’s a bad idea

re: Nina Teicholz
re: ethics in medicine
re: gears of the machine
re: Unsettled Science: Harvard Has Been Anti-Meat for 30+ Years—Why?

Real science is never settled, and anyone who has certainty on such things is not qualified to discuss it.

Click title to read more.

Nina Teicholz: Junk Food has been Rebranded as “Ultra-processed


Why that’s a bad idea

...Junk food is now called “ultra-processed” (UPF) a term introduced by the Brazilian scientist Carlos Monteiro in 2010 to try to identify foods that undergo many processing steps, often with artificial ingredients, resulting in “food-like substances,” as Michael Pollan once described them.

...When I first heard of UPF’s, I assumed the terminology was relatively benign: a convenient, more scholarly sounding way to classify junk food. Yet now that the U.S. government is considering restricting these foods (more on this later), I believe that officializing Nova could do more harm than good. While it seems like a no-brainer to take any possible steps to reduce the ubiquity of junk food, UPF, as a category and a concept, has serious problems...

...To illustrate: according to Nova, a home-baked cookie is fine (merely “processed”), while a store-bought one is UPF. A large body of science now tells us that a cookie, due to its sugar and flour, is harmful, regardless of where it’s baked. This body of science is shining a light on how chronic diseases can effectively be reversed. Why travel down the murky path of UPF instead?

...When Brazil adopted Nova, I looked up the foundational paper and encountered my first doubts upon seeing category #2, “processed culinary ingredients.” This group lumps butter and salt, both ancient ingredients consumed by humans for millennia, together with industrial vegetable oils, even though butter can be made by shaking milk in a container (albeit for a long time), and salt, by evaporating sea water, whereas the equipment necessary for making seed oils, such as corn, safflower, and sunflower, is the following:


WIND: as with most labels, the system will be gamed.

Butter is hardly the same as industrial vegetable oil! That’s all you need to know about this new bullshit gimmick.

City Journal: Tapping the Brakes on Electric Vehicles

re: electric vehicles
re: WSJ: The Electric-Vehicle Cheating Scandal
re: ChatGPT: Calculating EV Charging Power Requirements
re: Electric Vehicles: a Multi-Pronged Menace with Few if any Benefits?

re: cognitive dissonance and rationalization
re: City Journal

ICE = Internal Combustion Engine, EV = electric vehicle

Real science is never settled, and anyone who has certainty on such things is not qualified to discuss it.

Anyone who actually cares about the environment and/or considers climate change a threat should ponder long and hard whether EVs are creating far more problems than they solve, and at a massive opportunity cost.

Reasonable people could debate these issues for societal benefit for generations, which is why there is near-nil debate. The current follow the money reality guarantees the worst possible outcomes and a price that several generations to come will pay dearly for.

See also, climate change portion of Woke Religion Taxonomy.

City Journal: Tapping the Brakes on Electric Vehicles


Tesla will fix its cold-weather woes, but an all-EV future is still dead on arrival

...unprecedented magnitude of government intervention gives EV enthusiasts confidence that it will all “spur consumer demand.”

...No one really knows how much, or how little, EVs reduce global CO2 emissions... you can’t measure an EV’s CO2 emissions... everything about those numbers is highly variable, requiring estimates, guesses, and assumptions about when an EV is driven, when and where it’s recharged, and especially where the materials came from to build it in the first place.
[WIND: and how often the battery pack needs replacing, repair costs, how long they actually last particularly given the electronics, whether they are ever driven even to break-even point, etc. A farce in terms of ROI.]

...At the higher end of known ranges, upstream battery emissions can wipe out emissions avoided by not driving a gasoline car... all the variables relevant to mining and processing battery minerals point to upstream emissions rising.

...All the world’s mines, both currently operating and planned, can supply only a small fraction of the 700 percent to 4,000 percent increase in various minerals that will be needed to meet the wildly ambitious EV goals. The IEA estimates that we’ll need hundreds of new mega-mines to feed factories across the “transition” landscape, and that it takes 10 to 16 years to find, plan, and open a new mine.

... EVs use 300 percent to 400 percent more copper.... one major mining CEO observed that the coming chasm between demand and supply could trigger a ten-fold copper price hike... would add about $15,000 to the cost of building an EV.

...And we haven’t talked about the other engineering-economic problems with accelerating the EV revolution, such as building enough chargers, expanding the electric grid, and hoping consumers will tolerate radical increases in inconveniences.

...very long refueling times... only one-third of U.S. households have a garage... eye-wateringly expensive grid upgrades... typical EV fueling station will have the power demand of a stadium. Highways need tens of thousands of fuel stations.

WIND: often, it’s hard to tell good news from bad. This all look like good news from where I sit—an economic and utility reality check before too much damage is done. We are seeing this now and that’s a very good thing.

EVs are surely not a win for the environment. With all factors accounted for from mining to usage to recycling to multiple life-degrading costs to humans to charging by burning fossil fuels, EVs look far worse than the gas-sipping cars my daughters drive. My bullshit meter is pegged at redline as to the net benefit claims of EVs.

EVs on present course mean an opportunity cost in the tens of trillions of dollars... down the toilet. Vast damage to our ability to move forward with better solutions. Any time central planning forces the populace to gag-down a “solution”, everyone suffers, and for generations. This is what we now face. EVs make no sense in their present state.

As just one spitball idea: replacing half of big pickup trucks and similar with 40 mpg gasoline-sipping cars would mean huge reductions in fuel usage, eclipsing all the alleged benefits of EVs. And it could be done cheaply: a $10K tax credit on a $20K car getting ~40 mpg. Instead, we spend trillions on the EV chain, starting with $7500 tax credits along with all sorts of other subsidies. It is stupid beyond belief to discard a highly efficient technology honed to perfection over 100 years. The model of liquid fuel is the right one and there are many liquid fuels, some of which can be created by... electricity.

The EV mania has all the hallmarks of a mass psychosis.


Environmental destruction is already huge, but exported to other countries. This is ethically dubious on top of being a national security threat. Then there is the resource problem:

All the world’s mines, both currently operating and planned, can supply only a small fraction of the 700 percent to 4,000 percent increase in various minerals that will be needed to meet the wildly ambitious EV goals. The IEA estimates that we’ll need hundreds of new mega-mines to feed factories across the “transition” landscape, and that it takes 10 to 16 years to find, plan, and open a new mine.

Power sourcing and charging

A paltry million trucks with GM batteries would charge at 350 gigawatts, consuming 29% of the entire generating capacity of the USA grid. Ten million such vehicles would be 3500 gigawatts — about 3X capacity of the entire US grid. That’s an extra 2300 gigawatts, or roughly 1100 full-scale 2 GW nuclear power plants. There are only 61 nuclear plants of that size in the country today (~98 reactors). Rationing comes to mind.

The basic physics means we need at least hundreds of new 3GW nuclear power stations across the country eg 100 'nukes' x 3 GW = 300 GW. The basic math is absurdly demanding.

Along with a near complete grid overhaul, along with trillion of dollars in charging stations. Maybe $30 trillon? Probably $100T, given corruption and grifting and incompetence—witness what’s happened so far.

BTW, drive by any conventional apartment complex, with hundreds of cars parked outside. How exactly are those folks going to charge their cars? And how would the tens of megawatts of power be delivered there and to hundreds of other such places. Prepare for charging rationing and the ultimate control over travel.

And it’s high school math to see that the current power grid is pathetically inadequate for supporting widespread EV adoption.

...typical EV fueling station will have the power demand of a stadium. Highways need tens of thousands of fuel stations.

Did anyone make note of the land area requirements to charge? It’s a simple calculation of vehicles per hour for refueling with liquid vs electricity. Probably on the order of 10-20 acres vs a 1-acre conventional station. Maybe much more given charging station breakdowns (very common). How does the land cost alone figure in, even if land can be found?

Refueling nightmare

I could grudgingly tolerate at the very maximum half an hour to recharge to 100% battery capacity. That kind of wrecks many days there, but OK, let’s say I accept it. Oh, how long do I have to wait just to plug-in... an hour?

As for my needs, an eSprinter that would provide adequate range and heating for my outdoors usage would need to be 3 megawatts, or 26X what the eSprinter offers... and that would weigh15000 pounds and have a huge upstream environmental cost. Seriously? With a 115 kW charger, that would take 26 hours. Even the pathetic 115 kW battery pack would take an hour—unacceptable. Diesel rocks—fill up a 48 gallon tank in 10 minutes, be on my way and with ample waste heat for cold weather.


The harsh reality today is that EVs endangers local, state, and national security and safety. We as a country cannot be dependent on communist China any more than we are already, or any other country. What if they pull the plug on sourcing? Already China has done that more than once with rare earth metals, threatening even our military capability. But with EVs, we’re talking vastly more.

Science fair project?

Electric vehicles surely have some place place in our future. But not in their present state. Their alleged benefits are dubious, coming with huge generation-spanning costs and liabilities.

Were battery technology to show a 10X reduction in environmental damage and resource requirements and could also deliver 10X the power at the same weight and we can source locally, then we’re on to something. But as it stands, it’s an environmental and security disaster.

Barring that, what I see is a science fair project that exists because of massive distortions of the market via corrupting government subsidies at every step of the chain from mine to final disposal.

Connect and charge all of your devices through a single Thunderbolt or USB-C port.

The Tucker Carlson Encounter: The Case Against Ozempic

re: diabetes
re: cognitive dissonance
re: follow the money

re: Today’s Health “Care” and “Science” — a Parasitical Feedlot and Slaughterhouse Symbiosis

Real science is never settled, and anyone who has certainty on such things is not qualified to discuss it.

Out of control obesity and pre-diabetes and diabetes? Fix it with a drug that costs $20K a year!

Semaglutides are the worst idea to come along in my lifetime, far worse than statins.

Messing with the gut is messing with the brain, depression and suicide, etc. Stomach paralysis so you don’t eat... and with a little luck (most people) you’ll not die a miserable death.

BTW, the American Academy of Pediatrics (IMO, a group of psychopaths) is recommending semaglutides as a 1st-line treatment for teens. The NAACP (lobbyist for pharma now!) says you’re a racist for not supporting government funding for these drugs.

Oh, and $30M bribes in direct cash payments to doctors to recommend this stuff. Trust your doctor? Is that legal? Yep.

“You would be hard pressed to find a doctor who treats obesity in this country who has not received some kind of direct consulting grant...”

BTW, did you know that about 50% of revenue of the “news” is from Big Pharma?

The whole thing should make you vomit.

See it at TCN or at

The Tucker Carlson Encounter: The Case Against Ozempic

Despite the COVID vaccines' very public failure, big pharma is continuing to pump out heaps of suspicious new drugs.

Ozempic, a diabetes pill that's now being prescribed for weight loss, is a perfect example. Americans don't know nearly enough about this drug and others like it, and that ought to change.

TrueMed founder Calley Means knows a great deal about this pill's problematic nature, and he joined The Tucker Carlson Encounter to lay out a detailed case against it. Click the image below to watch.

Calley Means tells Tucker:

"If a fish tank is dirty, you clean the tank, you don't drug the fish. And in America right now, we've got a very dirty tank... Something has happened. And the core mistake of Ozempic is that obesity is not an Ozempic deficiency. Obesity is not the root cause of the problem. Obesity is one branch of the tree of underlying metabolic dysfunction that's ravaging our country."

WIND: there are numerous weak points in the claims. But directionally.. spot-on.

feckless and reckless: here in America we feed and drug people like cattle, so they can be fed into the assembly line medicine slaughterhouse.

The medical industry and doctors are a cesspool of financial corruption.

After all, if the sicker people are the more money you make (medical industry, medical groups, TV news, NIH research, etc, etc)—what do you think follow the money would predict? A sub-normal IQ can make that connection.

Trust your doctor? That’s for children and idiots. Doctors all over the place are the enemies of health. That’s not an exaggeration. To add a little balance to that, it is especially research and educational type doctors who get the lion’s share of the payoffs.

OWC Envoy Pro Elektron

Ultra-high performance across entire capacity, outperforms the competition.

Tiny, bus-powered, rugged, compact!

√ No more slow and noisy hard drives!

Electric Vehicles: a Multi-Pronged Menace with Few if any Benefits?

re: electric vehicles
re: cognitive dissonance

re: WSJ: The Electric-Vehicle Cheating Scandal
WSJ: The Six Months That Short-Circuited the Electric-Vehicle Revolution
re: ChatGPT: Calculating EV Charging Power Requirements

ICE = Internal Combustion Engine
EV = electric vehicle

Real science is never settled, and anyone who has certainty on such things is not qualified to discuss it.

Funny how stuff bubbles around in my polymath noggin, then boils over…

Why can’t there be a rational conversation about the benefits of EVs (any?) vs the numerous major negative aspects? Quasi-religious dogma with hypnosis of the public gets in the way.

For some time now, I’ve pondered the safety of electric vehicles, along with the impacts on human life and environmental destruction.

It all started with the psychological aspects: as a cyclist, I loathe EVs because they are hard to hear coming, and worse, might be on autopilot. The driver might be messing with the huge playscreen inside—many times I've seen this—it’s terrifying to watch a Tesla blow through a stop light at 50mph while the driver plays Tetris (so to speak) or whatever the fuck s/he is doing in the course of manslaughter. Or wander several feet into the bike lane (often). I suppose there is plenty of that with non-EV cars too, but the stealthy approach makes it a far more serious risk. On the plus side, no exhaust, but modern gas-sipping cars gas emit very clean exhaust.

I am willing to set aside that safety concern, since it might or might not be a real issue, except making me extra cautious out there on my bicycle.

There is a lot more to to consider with EVs, factors that I’d bet that very few EV drivers consider, let alone objectively evaluate. What follows might make you angry one way or another, either from cognitive dissonance, or suddenly realizing that unicorns and rainbows were not the whole story*.

As for EV drivers in my neighborhood, mommies create traffic jams 5 days a week as they drive less than a mile to pick up up kids from school, rather than walking/biking (in a very pleasant tree-shaded neighborhood with trails everywhere and free of crime!). These are not serious people on the mission to “save the world”. EV purchases are mostly about virtue signalling justified by rationalizations stemming from mass hypnosis psyops campaigns*. Lead by example—walk yourself and your carbon emitters to and from school, ladies.

* I expect that anger at that statement will result in citing “studies” purporting to be realistic and/or how we are going to save the world with EVs. But I live in the real world, not the fantasy world of BIBO and GIGO studies.

Goring the sacred cow and teat-attached grifters

What follows is only a partial list of the EV issues that come to mind in just a few minutes. Each of these considerations ought to be weighed against the alternatives with conventional. And BTW, ICE vehicles (internal combusion engine) could be run off other fuels—totally non-polluting eg hydrogen which strangely enough might be there in abundance for thousands of years. Or might not.

Claiming human-caused climate change appears to be at best a dubious if not crackpot, but launching for there to “war” is religiously delusional. You have to argue about provable specifics, not some hysterical generic “threat”. But any weighting always devolves to political follow the money infighting and dogmatic beliefs, so no serious analsysis is possible at this point. All such attempts will be no more than BIBO.

BUT the world absolutely needs cheap energy, and that should push us to nuclear.

The physics of impact

re: Testing Suggests Highway Guardrails No Match for Heavy EVs

EVs are a growing menace to other drivers, whose non-EV cars have had their weight driven lower and lower for incremental gains in fuel economy. Yes, the government is literally killing people to “save the world”. Luckily, other safety measures have largely mitigated that negative until now, but the growing mass differential is a killer.

You don’t need a video to know that in physics, the greater mass wins. There are some minor safety improvements too (eg specialty structural steel and similar), but when 5000 pounds strikes 3000 pounds, the poor bastard in the 3000 pound rig is going to be crushed like a grape under a rock.

The Ford F150-Lightning weighs 6500 pounds (unladen!), 35% more than its non-EV model. The Tesla Cyber Truck weighs-in at a whopping 6843 pounds—1100 pounds more than my Sprinter high-roof cargo van diesel. The Tesla Model S at 4900 pounds. This is ridiculous. And it beats the crap out of the roadways by a factor of 2X or more.

To hugely increase the odds of maiming or killing the other driver, buy an EV. You are a good person, aren’t you?

I think of my daughters in their gas-sipping cars in the sub-3000 pound range. Any kind of impact with an EV sledgehammer won’t end well for them. It should shock anyone’s conscience to needlessly drive a battering ram. This menace is growing, and now a serious concern in my neighborhood where about 1 in 4 cars is now a Tesla.

As for my Sprinter van, it also presents a danger to small vehicles. But unlike EVs, its weight provides vast utility—it has a legitimate reason to be large and heavy (5600 pounds, unladen). But EVs are large and heavy while existing for dogmatic quasi-religious reasons, offering no additional (and generally far less) functionality than their ICE equivalents, pound for pound.

Road wear and tear

Bad roads equate to safety problems and tens of $billions in vehicle damage every year. Just drive around California, and you’ll see.

EVs cause 2X or more wear on roads, already in terrible shape here in California.

EV drivers are freeloaders, paying no fuel taxes to maintain roads. And grid freeloaders, paying nominal or zero fees to maintain the grid! BTW, how much energy goes into road repair? How do EV “benefits” take these factors into account? I’d bet they don’t.

EV drivers ought to pay at least 20 cents a mile to be allowed to drive (based on equivalence to California fuel taxes). And EV users ought to pay a substantial fee to use the grid. No more grid freeloading—the grid needs huge upgrades to support EV charging, let alone maintenance.

If you buy an EV, you’re a triple freeloader: huge tax credits when purchasing, freeloading the road system (no fuel taxes), freeloading the electric grid system (subsidies and non-charges), all while raising insurance rates for everyone. Actually, there are a lot more freeloader subsides for EVs than that (massive government subsidies in other places), but you get the idea. This is not ethical or reasonable or justifiable except by brute political force engendered by pervasive propaganda. Raw power wielded with the same age-old "argument" of coercion and force. It is a system of the soft violence of government power wielded by special interests. Our only system today.

Faux utility, severe limitations

EVs work in limited and restricted scenarios (some very useful to some to be sure), but they are ridiculous as reliable all-arounders—caricatures of utility—science fair projects.

You are not going to go camping or on any serious trip, not without making it all about fussing over the EV and its needs, like a baby that craps its diaper every few hours. You will shiver in bitter cold because keeping it warm takes too much juice. Consider a vacation camping: worrying about science fair technology while communing with nature? That’s for the mentally defective, for children and idiots pretending to be adults. As for public transportation with electric vehicles, that’s a raging dumpster fire, for example Another Winter of E-Bus Discontent.

Charging mostly with fossil fuels, waste heat

All of this ridiculousness, PLUS the 6.67X cheating on mileage equivalance.

The vast bulk of electricity for charging of EVs is from fossil fuels. Do the “EV benefits” figure that? Does that make it something like 100K or 150K miles just to break-even on the environmental 'hit' of an EV vs ICE? There is no honest analysis of it—BIBO and GIGO.

Meanwhile, see ChatGPT: Calculating EV Charging Power Requirements. How much more fossil fuel would be burned just to charge another 10 million EVs? Technically speaking, a shit-ton. Along with collapse of the grid, if all that juice could even be transmitted where needed. It can’t.

How much more electricity is used to heat the cabin of an EV in cold weather? A great deal on a winter day, reducing range considerably—and then try charging it—oops. What about a larger vehicle, like the Mercedes eSprinter clown-show? Essentially the entire battery pack of the eSprinter just for heating it for one night up in the White Mountains. Does the benefits modeling take that into account at all or in any cold-weather situation? Very funny.

The waste heat from an ICE vehicle is a huge benefit. Dunno about you, but waste heat heats the cabin of my Sprinter in a big way*. Electric vehicles “burn” their batteries just to heat the cabin using electricity generated (mostly) from burning fuels whose waste heat is wasted. This is beyond stupid to the point of lunacy—burn a fuel and throw away a major benefit.

* Based on running dual 1500W space heaters in my Sprinter, I estimate that the waste heat from the engine while driving equates to ~15 kW electric equivalent. Engine heat serves a valuable purpose even on summer days, eg in the mountains it might still be 45°F. Barring an order-of-magnitude improvement in batteries, no eSprinter could ever have enough battery capacity to keep me warm at 10K feet when it’s below freezing, a common situation. I calculate that I’d need a ~3 megawatt battery pack for just 3-4 days in the autumn/winter/spring (about 26X what a 113 kW eSprinter has). And if there were a 3 megawatt battery travel van (25,000 pounds?), it would mean days of charging vs a 10-minute fill-up of my diesel tank.

Environmental costs

All of this ridiculousness, PLUS the 6.67X cheating on mileage equivalance.

Building EVs requires massive inputs up to 10X that of ICE vehicles. Over time and in theory that huge environmental impact is made-up as they are driven (allegedly). But the required electricity is largely fueled by burning fossil fuels! Typical estimates range from 50K to 70K miles to “break even” vs some rigged analaysis that left out factors that count.

But it gets better: vast environmental damage is done out-of-sight and out-of-mind overseas eg in China. The damage is hidden from us over here; we get the nice shiny thing, letting us pretend it’s all great. When you buy an EV, you are choosing to export a massive environmental impact to others. And semi slave labor if that bothers you at all All while undermining national security (dependence on the CCP). In what world are any of those a responsible act? Exporting your own mess is like dumping your garbage in the neighborhood ravine—it’s not in your yard but that makes it OK? Oh, it’s also a national security threat since we cannot build most of the stuff we need here in the USA.

BTW, what is the environmental cost of a fleet of $1M buses that is mostly inoperable? Was that factored into the “break even” bullsh*t? Or an entire fleet of EVs that is not economical to operate? Models telling us these “facts” are thinly-disguised propaganda for psyops campaigns targeting the public.

Then there are the extremely expensive and invasive regulations forcing all manner of infrastructure “improvements” for homes and businesses. These are not free and have their own massive environmental costs to replaced existing highly functional stuff that works and works well. Are all these factors counted in the “break even” calculations? Hah!

EVs are almost certainly a net environmental loser, and if not, have at best marginal benefits along with big losers on the other side.

How many miles are EVs actually driven over their lifespan, and how many hugely environmentally damaging battery packs will soon need replacement?

Everyone’s insurance rises

The 2X to 3X higher repairs costs of EVs have ballooned auto insurance rates for everyone. It’s math: when vehicle repair costs double or triple, then your insurance costs necessarily skyrocket, no matter what you drive. Because you might damage one of those EVs. EV owners burden everyone for their own electromagnetic fetish.

Thus, EV drivers take money out of the pockets of those who can least afford it, in addition to all the other parasitical costs discussed above. High-income people buy EVs. Working-class people don’t,but they still need a vehicle, now more and more costly to insure. In what reality is this anything but financial violence against The Many, when far cheaper ICE* cars exist? EVs and the clown show of related dark-alley schemes are all about the privileged few degrading life for the many.

Grid collapse, abuse of the masses

Already in California the grid is near the breaking point, and EV drivers have been asked to not charge their cars on hot days. And when they can be charged, it is all baseline load capacity that is needed at night, not solar or wind or other 'green' gimmicks—that baseline-load generating capacity must exist now and in the future. We are not going to have giant batteries, that idea is for drunken teenagers to masturbate over.

Most people have rudimentary to zero understanding of economics. The drive for 'green' and the strain on the grid also hits everyone in the wallet via electricity prices—hurting the 99%. EVs are abuse by the well-off of the poor and middle class. Like a law of physics.


How soon before you will be told when and how far you can drive, all monitored by the computer in your EV? Rationed charging is coming. California has even proposed requiring EVs to act as batteries for the grid, so you would not even control the charge in your own car!

Uncontrollable burning, natural disasters, etc

Ever drive through a long tunnel? Sooner or later, a burning EV will kill hundreds or at least injure them with highly toxic smoke, maybe up in Loveland pass in Colorado or similar.

Sooner or later, many people will die in a natural disasters via something as simple as stranding due to EV lack of charge, or an out-of-control EV burning and blocking roads in the face of a hurricane. Something like that. Inevitable.

You can bring fuel in a container to get an ICE going again. If you cannot charge your EV (grid down, government edict, etc), you are hosed, stranded, and maybe dead. You can drive a tanker truck of fuel to an emergency zone, but you cannot drive electricity there. So you drive it there, then burn it to create electricity, losing a lot of the energy in the process. It takes a village. Of morons.

BTW, what’s the cost of dealing with an EV battery fire vs a burning ICE? Perhaps 100X that of conventional car? One you let burn a short while and is easily snuffed, the other is a horror movie reigniting itself, like a zombie that cannot be killed. Taking days to deal with, often re-igniting, and producing highly toxic fumes for everyone nearby. Does that get calculated into the “benefits”?


Where is a truly objective benefits analysis on all this? There cannot be one, and even if there could be one, it would have to be suppressed—it would threaten too many interests.

First, you have to accept the human-caused climate change religion. Inherent bias. And then the idea that what we do actually matters, which it doesn’t—just look at what the world is actually doing, namely dozens of gigawatts of coal burning plants.

As for “interests”, what was once weak-sauce “science” is now a multi-trillion dollar grifter industry based on dubious data and computer models (aka propaganda), the worst science ever seen, even worse than the medical field. Who pays for this crap? We all do. For no benefit except to the parasites feeding off government funding (my money, your money).

Even if one stipulates that climate change is a risk, net EV “benefits” would be at best a rounding error in the global scheme of things. And it is very likely that EVs and their massive infrastructure buildout are a house-odds net-browning proposition—the public being the suckers in that casino. It’s plain as day, but no one is allowed to say it.

“Global warming” now rebranded as “climate change” started well before modern times, a trend in progress that is almost certainly more benefit than risk. And it has been a lot warmer not that long ago, which ample evidence proves. We might actually be heading for an ice age in 500 years. No one can agree, but it’s easy to decide: consensus really means follow the money.

The illusion of concensus [sic] in science is created by institutions and governments threatening the livelihood of dissident scientists. Compared to contemporary American science, Lysenko and the Soviet Union were amateurs at this tactic. We don't even need a gulag.
—  Jay Bhattacharya

Here in 2024, it is not possible to have an objective analysis, because it’s all about the money, the vast grifting infrastructure now wrapped around “climate science”, like a python around a pig. The “science” means being oblivious to real factors, weighting factors arbitrarily, claiming that guesses/projections are facts, failing to compare properly, and culling anyone from the field that dares to ask hard questions. But worst of all, and deep down, it stems from a sullen hatred for humanity, deeming quality of life for real human beings as a nothing.

EVs and their climate change farce are all part of the civilization-destroying woke religion sweeping this country.

Connect and charge all of your devices through a single Thunderbolt or USB-C port.

Scientific Alarmism Drives DoD Climate Policy

re: climate science

re: woke psychopathology

You can’t make this shit up. There could not be anything more anti-scientific and more anti-national-security. See also, climate change portion of Woke Religion Taxonomy.

Scientific Alarmism Drives DoD Climate Policy


Executive Order 14057 justifies the Department of Defense’s (DOD) Plan to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions as necessary to counteract the existential threat of climate change. The program’s comprehensive and prohibitively expensive initiative proposes to transform the operational military by achieving net zero carbon emissions by 2045, purportedly on firmly established “science-based” targets that are validated by computer models and consensus within the scientific community. The plan's ambitious yet unrealistic goals, which are presented as an alarmist ultimatum, ignore the foundational principles of physics and battle-proven lessons of military history.


The narrative that the earth's climate balances precariously on the brink of catastrophe and merits the distinction of a national security priority is constantly presented to the public in familiar, apocalyptic terms. President Biden warns that global warming is the greatest threat to national security. DOD Secretary Austin alerts the public of existential climate threats, including an ice-free Arctic Ocean, although as of January 2023 the Arctic sea ice pack is at its highest since 2003. The DOD and high ranking officials from the navyarmy, and air forceproclaim that it is incumbent upon the armed services to implement net-zero without delay to avert a worldwide catastrophe. Despite the incessant fearmongering, no one appears to pause and consider that the DOD produces only 1% of the United State's CO2 emissions, which in turn is responsible for 13% of the world's total. Even if the DOD achieves net-zero, eliminating 0.13% of the world’s CO2 output would not detectably reduce global temperatures.

.... Bjorn Lomborgwarns that a zero fossil fuel solution is expensive, leads to misery and an impoverishment of the planet, and will fail to mitigate temperature elevation appreciably.

...Computer modeling, a useful tool for conceptualization, forms the heart of climate science. [WIND: models are propaganda, and always have been]

...DOD officials defend net-zero defense prioritization by claiming that scientific consensus and sham peer reviewed studies validate this contention. Peer review has degenerated into a process that favors a regression to the mean, and has become a form of consensus. The original 97% consensus claim from Cook in 2013 that humans are the major cause of global warming that will result in catastrophic climate events has been widely discredited

...Virtue signaling climate scientists and their dutiful DOD disciples, whose premises are based on computer modeling, enact policies that weaken the military and serve as classic examples of those who hijack science to advance political agendas.

WIND: we are apparently doomed to a snowflake military that will ask the enemy to put the battle on hold until they can recharge their weapons.

Fixation on CO2 Ignores Real Driver of Temperature, Experts Say

Trillions Spent on ‘Climate Change’ Based on Faulty Temperature Data, Climate Experts Say

re: climate science

re: woke psychopathology

The thermometer in my breezeway reads 5°F hotter than 20 feet further away. Maybe I can contribute my bullshit temperature readings to help save the burning planet?

See also:
Watts Up With That?
2001-2020 ‘Global Greening Is An Indisputable Fact’ And It’s Driven By CO2 Fertilization
Scientific Alarmism Drives DoD Climate Policy
UN Says Melting Arctic Ice Is Key Indicator of Climate Change—But It’s Not Melting
Fixation on CO2 Ignores Real Driver of Temperature, Experts Say

Seriously, these jackass “scientists” are putting sensors at AIRPORTS, where it is obviously going to be hotter from pavement alone, let alone jet exhaust. See for yourself—the very first one I checked... at an airport. What a scam.

NCEI: Local Climaoalogical Data

Trillions Spent on ‘Climate Change’ Based on Faulty Temperature Data, Climate Experts Say


Meteorologist finds 96 percent of NOAA temperature stations located in ‘urban heat islands,’ including next to exhaust fans and on ‘blistering-hot rooftops.’


More than 90 percent of NOAA’s temperature monitoring stations have a heat bias, according to Anthony Watts, a meteorologist, senior fellow for environment and climate at The Heartland Institute, author of climate website Watts Up With That, and director of a study that examined NOAA’s climate stations.

“And with that large of a number, over 90 percent, the methods that NOAA employs to try to reduce this don’t work because the bias is so overwhelming,” Mr. Watts told The Epoch Times.

“The few stations that are left that are not biased because they are, for example, outside of town in a field and are an agricultural research station that’s been around for 100 years ... their data gets completely swamped by the much larger set of biased data. There’s no way you can adjust that out.”

...Mr. Spencer also said computerized climate models used to drive changes in energy policy are even more faulty.

...NOAA and NASA have adjusted historical temperature data in such a way as to make the past appear colder and, by so doing, make the current warming trend more pronounced.

...Consequently, NOAA requires all its climate observation stations to be located at least 100 feet away from elements such as concrete, asphalt, and buildings...

a report that shows that 89 percent of NOAA’s stations had heat bias issues due to being located within 100 feet of those elements, and many were located by airport runways.

...The report concluded that the U.S. temperature record was unreliable, and because it was considered “the best in the world,” global temperature databases were also “compromised and unreliable.”

Following the report, the U.S. Office of Inspector General (OIG) and the Government Accountability Office confirmed Mr. Watt’s findings and stated that NOAA was taking steps to address the issues. “NOAA acknowledges that there are problems with the USHCN data due to biases introduced by such means as undocumented site relocation, poor siting, or instrument changes,” the OIG report reads.

“All of the experts thought that an improved, modernized climate reporting system is necessary to eliminate the need for data adjustments.”

...Despite the assurances, Mr. Watts had doubts about NOAA addressing the issues and in April 2022 and May 2022, he and his team revisited many of the same temperature stations they had observed in 2009.

He published his findi96 percent, of NOAA’s temperature stations still failed to meet its own standardsngs in a new study on July 27, 2022. It found that even more, approximately.

...NOAA has also been adjusting historical temperature data...“Incredibly, the range of data adjustments exceeds 2 degrees Fahrenheit, which is significant with respect to current temperature trends,” Lt. Col. Shewchuk said.

“NOAA also employs a very unusual follow-on data adjustment process, where they periodically go back and re-adjust the previously adjusted data. This makes it difficult to find ground truth, which seems more like shifting sands.”

WIND: “need for data adjustments”? WTF? When you have to “correct” or “adjust”, you know it’s bullshit—you’re dealing with a climate change grifter industry driven by follow the money:

...When asked why NOAA isn’t only using thermometers where there’s no possibility for an urban heat island effect, Mr. Spencer said: “I think their goal is not to get the most accurate long-term temperature record but to use as much thermometer data as they can get their hands on. This is good to build a congressionally-funded program and keep people employed.”

And wait.. “re-adjust” already adjusted data? It was GIGO, now it’s readjusted GIGO.

Anyone who thinks you can measure the temperature of the earth now or at any time is an idiot. This is not science, it’s playground games.

Scientific data today in most every field is garbage. And just today, we learn that the Big Bang theory looks like toast, due to massive structures that exist when they cannot. Is it all bullshit?

And on the totally batshit crazy what-the-hell-are-you thiking super-max grifting front...

Scientists Resort to Once-Unthinkable Solutions to Cool the Planet


Three geoengineering projects seek to alter the chemistry of the atmosphere and the ocean. Critics warn of unintended consequences

Dumping chemicals in the ocean? Spraying saltwater into clouds? Injecting reflective particles into the sky? Scientists are resorting to once unthinkable techniques to cool the planet because global efforts to check greenhouse gas emissions are failing.

These geoengineering approaches were once considered taboo by scientists and regulators who feared that tinkering with the environment could have unintended consequences, but now researchers are receiving taxpayer funds and private investments to get out of the lab and test these methods outdoors. 


WIND: parasites and grifters, that’s “climate science”.

Connect and charge all of your devices through a single Thunderbolt or USB-C port.

“Illusion of concensus in science is created by institutions and governments threatening the livelihood of dissident scientists”

re: Matt Taibbi
re: Jay Bhattacharya

Aprops everything.

The illusion of concensus in science is created by institutions and governments threatening the livelihood of dissident scientists. Compared to contemporary American science, Lysenko and the Soviet Union were amateurs at this tactic. We don't even need a gulag.
—  Jay Bhattacharya

There is a field that calls itself misinformation science, but that is a misnomer. They are, first and foremost, propagandists. Ironically, the title of the field itself misinforms. —  Jay Bhattacharya

The dissidents and critical thinkers (no difference) are the people who make progress for humanity.

Connect and charge all of your devices through a single Thunderbolt or USB-C port. | Terms of Use | PRIVACY POLICY
Contact | About Lloyd Chambers | Consulting | Photo Tours
Mailing Lists | RSS Feeds |
Copyright © 2020 diglloyd Inc, all rights reserved.
Display info: __RETINA_INFO_STATUS__