Found the wrong-wing losers who never watched the show in the first place.

Whoa. Triggered much? Need a safe space?

the right has never been all that concerned with things like cause and effect or facts... they just have a whole bunch of feelings.

Yeah, they are always whining about microaggressions and complaining about needing safe spaces to process their feelings — right?

They even have a slogan along those lines, what is it now? Oh, wait. Facts don't care about your feelings.

It's pathetic to pretend that I was expressing incomprehension just to make yourself feel better.

Huh? Who is pretending?

Welcome to Remedial English 101. Today's lesson is on sarcasm.

I certainly don't need to feel better; your reasoning makes me laugh out loud all on its own! But thank you for reminding us once again that you have lost the argument.

1. I said that an ICE car burns its own weight in fossil fuels each year, while an EV's battery is not consumed and the materials are permanently available. You said "uh no". But you didn't counter by demonstrating that an ICE vehicle doesn't burn its own weight, nor by demonstrating that an EV's materials are in fact consumed.

• You: Cats are awesome. Dogs are unfriendly.
• Me: Actually dogs are highly social animals.
• You: But but but you didn't say anything about cats!

Total comprehension failure.

(Incidentally, ICE vehicles burn less than half their weight in fuel per year on average. The USA is not the world.)

Instead you talked about: a. the energy and byproducts costs of resource extraction.

Nope, I talked about lithium recovery in recycling.

b. the small percentage of batteries that "are recycled" -- but this is because you're choosing a dumb denominator -- all the EV batteries in existence.

Nope. The denominator is the number of dead batteries. (For lead acid batteries, it is 99%.)

Why should we ignore the environmental impacts of past oil spills when accounting for the externalities of oil extraction for cars?

Because that was the comparison, not "all drilling in history".

As for Turkmenistan, you're the one being dumb here -- these are fossil fuel fields that produce *oil that is used for petroleum products for cars*, as well as other oil products, as well as natural gas. The methane is a direct byproduct of oil extraction for cars.

Uh, no. The methane leaks straight out of the ground.

Go ahead, Sparky, list the top five oil wells in Turkmenistan that are on fire and unquenchable. (Hint: it's a short list, plenty of empty slots.)

Even if Li extraction created more byproducts or used more energy per-kg or per-barrel than oil extraction, the fact that the amounts involved are so much smaller means that oil extraction is many many times worse.

That is illogical. You can't say that 10 000 apples are worse than 1 orange without specifying a metric. (Hmm, like a citation!) Oranges could kill 10 000 times more apple worms than apples do. Thus 10 000 apples are indeed no worse for worms than 1 orange.

Pretending that you're above swearing doesn't make you morally superior, it makes you a pathetic fucking hypocrite.

As already stated, I'm not pretending anything. But thank you for reminding us yet again that you have lost the argument.

You swear, I swear

Oh, really? Go ahead, find just one single post of mine containing profanity. Take your time. Take all the time you need. Just don't forget to eat and sleep. It may take longer than you think.

and you can take your tone policing

Tone policing?! That is funny. Are you feeling oppressed by the cis-hetero patriarchy? Do you need a safe space?! LOL

You go right ahead with your potty mouth. It's so impressive, it really is.

I am still waiting for you to demonstrate why you think that oil extraction is less impactful than lithium extraction, whether in relative or absolute terms.

Nope. You can't change the goalposts. You made the assertion; it falls on you to substantiate your claim.

The null hypothesis requires no defence.

Oooooh emotional nonsense. I'm wounded, wounded, I tell you.

<shrug> It makes no difference to me. That post wasn't even addressed to you, although the fact that the author of the replied-to post agrees with me reinforces that you are the one out in left field.

Great to see how you love to deal in cold hard facts, and didn't just studiously ignore the fact that we extract tens of thousands of times more oil, gas, coal and iron ore than lithium, and thus the impacts of *extraction alone* are far greater for fossil fuels than for lithium.

Irrelevant. Comparing gross impacts is completely nonsensical: Which has more impact on your heart, running or walking? Well, you walk everywhere and that raises your heartrate. But you never run, so that has no effect. Your conclusion: walking is infinitely better for your heart than running! <doh!>

Go ahead, try to convince a doctor.

ICE vehicles use gasoline, not coal etc.

And there are only about 30 million EV's versus about 1.5 billion ICE vehicles. That is two orders of magnitude difference gone right there.

How much ICE fuel is produced using forced/child labour? Virtually none. How many batteries are produced using child labour? The vast majority.

Yeah, an oil spill is so much worse than slavery!

And what on earth are you going on about iron ore for?

I would hate to think of you as cherry-picking the facts that suit your argument.

Think what you like. You are wrong anyway.

lithium can be reused effectively forever once extracted.

Sheer nonsense. Recycling is not 100 efficient — in fact it can be as low as 50%! And it uses large amounts of energy and toxic chemicals, similar to initial extraction. In fact it is more costly than just mining more, so guess what — it makes no practical difference.

Really? You need a citation to be sure that drilling for oil is in fact orders of magnitude more harmful than mining for battery materials?

Yes, that is what I said. Should I have used smaller words?

How embarrassing to not be able to figure from first principles.

Thank you for demonstrating that you have lost the argument.

1. An ICE vehicle burns its own weight in fossil fuel each year, on average, while an EV's battery materials are very much not used up each year. In fact, they are permanently available once extracted.

Uh, no. Existing recovery methods consume a lot of energy, produce hazardous by-products, and only recycle a percentage of the original metal. Worse still, only around 5% of batteries are recycled. So this argument is irrelevant.

2. Perhaps you need to look into the history and present day experience of fossil fuel extraction, as you seem to be unaware of Piper Alpha, two Gulf Wars, the Niger Delta, unquenchable methane fires in Turkmenistan, and on and on and endlessly on

The question is about current drilling for oil to fuel ICE vehicles, not all drilling for all purposes, and certainly not oil politics — wars are fought over essential materials. If lithium becomes dominant then wars will be fought over it. And methane gas fields in Turkmenistan are utterly irrelevant. Don't be dumb.

3. You seem to have absolutely no conception of the relative size of Li extraction compared to other material extractions. Even if it grew 500 -fold, it would be less than aluminium, and we extract nearly *25,000* times as much iron ore cf lithium.

Irrelevant. See above comment.

4. Aha! You cry. But! But this is iron ore, and we were talking about fossil fuels. Right. Well, we extract *77,000* times more coal than lithium, and nearly *40,000* times more oil than Li, and *38,000* times more gas than Li. So yes, sunshine, the Li is not the cause of the environmental harm in this picture.

Coal? Gas? What has that got to do with oil drilling to fuel ICE vehicles? Oh right, nothing.

It is, in fact, the fossil fuels. It was always the fucking fossil fuels, and you have to be committed to clinging to ignoring the facts to have ever thought otherwise.

Oh look, you know a naughty word. That really makes you sound impressive!

Any half-wit can tell the difference between "fossil fuels" and "oil", particularly when we are specifically talking about vehicles. And oil itself is used for numerous purposes, most of which are irrelevant to road vehicles. So most of your argument has nothing to do with the issue.

Perhaps you should try this first principle: stick to the subject.

Number of relevant citations produced to date: zero.

The general consensus is that the entire environmental impact of lithium battery manufacturing is canceled out by the time the vehicle hits the 15k to 30k mile mark, typically, depending on the local power grid's energy mix. So clearly drilling for oil and then burning it is way more harmful than mining battery materials over the lifetime of a vehicle, on average.

Unlike the emotional nonsense response from shilly, that is a legitimate argument. But as you say:

That said, you're probably technically correct that drilling for the oil and then *not* burning it would have less environmental impact than battery mining. Of course, you couldn't power a car that way, but... :-D

As you correctly point out, the question was not about the net impact per mile travelled. It was about resource extraction.

And even if the drilling impact is greater than the mining, even if we give lithium a 10-times advantage over oil, even if we do consider net impact per mile travelled, it is vastly less than "several orders of magnitude" worse.

So not only is shilly wrong, but in fact he is wrong by "several orders of magnitude"! :D

you think that drilling for oil is somehow less harmful than mining for battery materials, when it is absolutely the other way round by several orders of magnitude

Citation required

Seriously? My statement was in response to the guy that sees flicker only from the side of his eyes, not head on. Apparently you missed that.

Here the error that I was responding to:

at 60Hz on a CRT, I could see flicker

No, you cannot.

So no, not missed.

As to the other things, I fucking _wrote_ that.

What an impressive implementation of vulgarity. It really improves your credibility!

I am beginning to think you lot do not know what interference is.

OK mate, enlighten us. Exactly what are the two interfering sources, what are their frequencies, and what is the nature of the product? Scientifically correct terminology please.

You just have no clue how things work.

Oh really. I am an imaging scientist with a PhD. What are you?

1. You did not understand what you quoted

Garbage. You are out of your depth.

2. Sure there is, your eyes are "vibrating" and that cause interference.

Nonsense. You clearly understand neither human vision nor sampling theory.

You could not even really see without that vibration.

What on earth are you talking about? Try using the correct scientific terms instead of "gobbledygook".

Nobody can see flickers at 60Hz. The human eye is simply not capable of it

3. You can see the flicker.

Q.E.D.

Now you have contradicted yourself and admitted that you were wrong.

You cannot see the individual images.

Wrong again. The counter-demonstration is trivial.

lWhat you see is an inference effect coming from your eyes "vibrating"

This is multiply false.

The critical flicker fusion rate is defined as the rate at which human perception cannot distinguish modulated light from a stable field. This rate varies with intensity and contrast, with the fastest variation in luminance one can detect at 50–90 Hz.

• 1. I cited scientific evidence to the contrary.
• 2. There is nothing to "interfere" with.
• 3. I can see 60 Hz flicker. Consciously.

The human Eye is limited to about 20Hz on average with some (few) people going as high as 30Hz.

The human eye can detect flicker at 50–90 Hz but reports are showing the possibility to distinguish between steady and modulated light up to 500 Hz.

What you can see is inference effects.

Presumably you mean "interference effects", but what you refer to is actually a sampling effect in time (aliasing). This is a different (but related) issue to flicker.

Nobody can see flickers at 60Hz. The human eye is simply not capable of it.

The human eye can detect flicker at 50–90 Hz but reports are showing the possibility to distinguish between steady and modulated light up to 500 Hz.

I see you are practicing your "Big Lie" skills. Unfortunately I do not believe in Hell, otherwise I would be sure they would find a nice, permanent place for you there.

Typical warmist climatista: can't win on the science, so stoops to weak ad hominem attacks (look it up).

You lose.

Here in Australia, many more people die from heat than cold, and that will only continue to get worse in the future.

Actually, the cold kills 13 times as many Australians as the heat.