> It's possible to help create something and yet hate nature the creation.

Sure, but people who hate their creation tends to not claim credit for it.

For that matter, I find that people who can create don't tend to get hung-up on their old creations, be they good or bad - they're just busy creating new things. On the other hand, if someone can't create, and they were lucky to be involved in the creation of something big but lost control - they can spend a lifetime being bitter.

According to his wikipedia page, he was laid off and left Wikipedia one year after its creation in 2002, and since then, he's been either working on a competing project or attacking Wikipedia, or both. Yet he seems to refer to himself as "Wikipedia co-founder" in his book.

There seem to be a few assumptions built into to your argument:
1. There is only a marginal net reduction is NO2 from EVs + fossil fuel power plants compared to ICE cars.
2. All (or almost all?) power plants in California are fossil fuel power plants.
3. Fossil fuel power plants are located in heavily residential areas, so there are no gains to be made from shifting NO2 from residential cars to power plants.
4. You are more informed than these researchers.
5. The researchers are green-washing, acting in bad faith or otherwise biased.

Even if we leave aside your claims 1, 4 and 5, I can't see how 2 and 3 could be true in general. Claim 2 is especially easy to disprove, given that the study was done in California, which has significant renewable energy in the electricity grid.
https://www.theguardian.com/us...

"...which is looking less likely: https://wmo.int/news/media-cen..."

The last few sentences from the article you quoted:
----------
"What we should take from this is the reef – the world’s largest living structure – is currently still able to recover from repeated shocks. But these shocks are getting worse and arriving more often, and future recovery is not guaranteed.

This is the rollercoaster ride the reef faces at just 1.1C of warming. The pattern of disturbance and recovery is shifting – and not in the Reef’s favour."
----------

Even the Paris Agreement was for 1.5C and below 2C, which is looking

Even so in the parts of Alaska outside of the Arctic Circle there's summers where the sun rises at 3AM and sets at 9PM, then in the winter it's sunrise at 9AM with sunset at 3PM.

In Fairbanks at the winter solstice the sun rises at 10:58 and sets at about 14:40.

At the summer solstice it's 02:57 and 00:47. Even though the sun officially sets year round it never really gets dark between mid April and mid August because the night periods never leave the twilight stage.

That *should* mean there are more males at the bottom end where people really need help

More at the top and more at the bottom, and the effects on earnings are not symmetrical. Once somebody is cognitively deficient enough to be considered a ward of the state the amount of resources they require to survive remains more or less constant with diminishing IQ but on the other end of the curve income potential does not have an corresponding cap.

but there are no such differences in average IQ between males and females

I've seen claims to the contrary stating that there is a small difference in the average and a significant difference in standard deviation.

I watched a guy from Scandinavia doing a interview recently, and talking about these topics. One fact that blew me away was that on average men are overall contributors to the welfare state over their lives, and women, on average, receive 1.3 million (he said dollars - not sure what currency precisely) from the welfare state over their lifetime.

In Scandinavia you see sex-based differences in group averages and in the US those same measurements show both sex-based and race-based differences in group averages.

The economic gains occurred when the workforce was doubled by encouraging women to get jobs instead of families.

That makes balance sheets look good in the short term and only has the minor downside of extinction-level fertility rates and a long term outcome indistinguishable from genocide.

It's ... well, fascism.

"Fascism" is a completely meaningless term because there are two contradictory definitions of it in common use:

• "Everything I hate is fascism" (most common)
• "Everything I like is fascism" (less common)

There's a reason that 1-2 GW is the upper limit of electrical generation plants regardless of type. We could build 10 GW coal or natural gas power plants but don't because the limiting factor is distribution and grid stability, not the generators.

Building a 10 GW or even 100 GW nuclear reactor is no big deal. There are no special engineering challenges and reactors of that size would substantially more cost effective to build because construction and operation costs scale less than linearly.

The only problem is finding practical ways to consume all energy. Nobody wants a 100 GW point source of electricity on the grid because even if you build the transmission lines to distribute all that power one plant would be such a large fraction of the supply that if it went down you'd instantly get a blackout.

Traditionally we tried to keep neutron absorbers away from the reactions unless you want to halt the reactions.

One of the advantages of a liquid fuel design is that the two most significant fission product poisons (iodine and xenon) can easily be removed from the solution since they are gasses at those temperatures. This frees up a large fraction of the neutron budget which can then be used to transmute thorium into uranium.