“The sales of 20,000 EVs began last month and will continue over the course of 2024, the rental giant said Thursday in a regulatory filing. Hertz will record a non-cash charge in its fourth-quarter results of about $245 million related to incremental net depreciation expense.
The dramatic about-face, after Hertz announced plans in 2021 to buy 100,000 Tesla Inc. vehicles, underscores the waning demand for all-electric cars in the US. EV sales growth slowed sharply over the course of 2023, rising just 1.3% in the final quarter as consumers were put off by high costs and interest rates.”
Just more evidence that the general population do not want the EV.
“We reached out to five mechanics and technicians from different parts of the U.S. to see how much an EV battery replacement costs for different vehicles, and the average results ranged from $4,489 all the way to a staggering $17,658.
All EV batteries will eventually fail to hold a charge and require replacement.
It’s hard to pinpoint how long EV batteries will last, but most have a life span between eight and 15 years.
Sourcing a replacement EV battery from anyone but your car’s manufacturer is nearly impossible, which is the main reason replacement costs are so high.
EV battery repair is a growing industry that may help you avoid the high cost of a replacement, but it’s not commonly available yet.
The Federal Government requires the car maker to guarantee 100,000 miles or 8 years whichever comes first. Some warranties only cover the EV battery if it no longer holds a charge at all, while others will cover the replacement of any EV battery that has dropped below 60% or 70% of its maximum capacity.
I do not think that a used EV buyer would have any guarantee on battery that had already met one of those stipulations.
The following chart was assembled by Consumer Affairs after interviewing mechanics around the country. It may look strange to be dealing with 2014 EVs but that reflects the car’s age using the battery. The Prius is a hybrid with a small ICE engine and a battery combination.
“Buying a used Tesla with close to or more than 100,000 miles on the odometer, or holding onto the one you already own out of warranty, is a much riskier decision given the high cost of repairs”.
The Alliance for Automotive Innovation says there are approximately 100,000 public charging ports in the US. The Federal Government is attempting to provide more. The Fed’s target is 500,000 charging ports. If there were more charging stations, there would be less range anxiety.
The rough number of gasoline/diesel filling stations is 145,000. Well, if it feels like there is a filling station almost anywhere, why would there need to have 500,000 charging ports? The answer is because it takes so long to recharge the battery.
The Biden Administration’s plan to put up 500,000 charging ports will probably take a while to accomplish. Currently, the plan is for each State to install a charging station along their major highways, 50 miles apart. Further, a charging station must be within a mile of an on and off Interstate intersection.
A private party that wants to operate a charging station picks a site for the station. The site is approved. The Feds will pay up to 80% of the cost and the private party must pay 20% or more. These stations can cost up to $1million. Each station must have a minimum of 4 charging ports.
The API says that the average fill-uptakes 2 minutes for an ICE vehicle. Then that vehicle could go 300 to 400 miles of highway driving.
Level 1 Minimum cost using house AC outlet. One hour provides 2.5 miles of range. So about 6 days to get charged to 350 miles range.
Level 2 Purchasing a charger/installation required. 240-volt system, a home installation. One hour provides 10 to 20 miles of range. Using the 20 miles per hour charge would need 17 hours to get 350 miles range.
Level 3 Fast DC. The public stations are mostly at this level. One hour charge provides about 180-to-240-mile range. Using 240 mile per hour charge would take about an hour and a half to get 350 miles range.
Tesla Supercharger. Dedicated Tesla charging points. One hour would give 1000 miles range. The 350-mile range would be done in about 20 minutes.
Some thoughts:
Anyone that buys an EV and uses a level1 must have more money than that sense. For certain, that person has an ICE car in the garage. The EV is for show.
If you buy an EV and you live in an apartment, where you only have street parking, you would have to go to public charging stations.
Level 2 requires a professional installation with costs that can be steep, often a thousand dollars or more. The charger itself isn’t free.
Level 3. If you use FastDC you will spend more money for charges than if you use a level 2 installed system using your cheaper home electricity.
Very important: routine charging with Superchargers and Fast DC degrades the batteries to the point they won’t be able to hold their charge as long. The fast chargers heat up the battery and that can cause loss of battery range. Tesla says that you should use these fast chargers sparingly.
Every charge degrades the battery’s capacity a little. From Wikipedia:
Capacity loss or capacity fading is a phenomenon observed in rechargeable battery usage where the amount of charge a battery can deliver at the rated voltage decreases with use.[1][2]
In 2003 it was reported the typical range of capacity loss in lithium-ion batteries after 500 charging and discharging cycles varied from 12.4% to 24.1%, giving an average capacity loss per cycle range of 0.025–0.048% per cycle.[3]
Public charging stations are often not close to an available place that you can retire to, while you wait for your battery to get charged. Think of sitting in your car in inclement weather, either hot or cold.
Public charging stations are not always reliable. The following is from
The cause may be lack of income the company gets from charging EVs. The US numbers of EVs on the road are not as many as was predicted.
Charging time is very long. Charging stations are inadequate for even the small number of EVs on the road. The fast chargers are desirable, but their use shortens the life of the battery.
Car and Driver say that range is the all-important stat. Car and Driver posting goes on to say:
“Whether or not you make it to the next public charging spot, are able to complete your daily commute, or are instead stranded on the side of the road depends on it.
Range is so heavily scrutinized because EVs can travel on average barely half the distance of gas-powered vehicles before they require a “fill-up,” and because gas pumps are far more ubiquitous than fast chargers”.
The amount of charge of the EV’s battery is akin to the amount of gasoline (or diesel) in the ICE’s (internal compbution engine)tank. The battery charge will determine how many miles your EV can go before it is exhausted. That is equivalent to an ICE running empty of gasoline. Many postings by EV owners are about trying to find an EV battery charging station before the battery is “empty”. see hereand here and here .Pretty agonizing and unlike the feeling you have, that there is a gasoline station almost anywhere. You can get more charge and thus miles of range by getting a bigger, heavier battery, but that drives the cost of the vehicle up. You don’t have to buy a bigger motor to get more range, if you purchase a smaller, lighter ICE vehicle at a lesser cost.
The EPA rates highway vehicle range and puts the range number on the vehicle’s window sticker in the show rooms. They do this for Electric vehicles (EV) and internal combustion (ICE –gasoline and diesel) vehicles. The range provided by the EPA for EVs is almost always an overstatement according to Car and Driver. Car and Driver EV range tests are conducted at a steady 75 miles per hour (MPH). They do this “because highway driving is where range most matters”. By contrast, ICE vehicles almost always beat the EPA ratings in the 75 MPH tests. This is because the ICE vehicles have transmission gears whereas only a few EV models have transmission gearing. The EV motors must increase revolutions where the motors are less efficient.
There are other factors that affect range. One of which is temperature. In cold weather, ICE vehicles heat the cabin using the waste heat that comes from combustion of the gasoline. In the summer, ICE engine heat is dissipated by the radiator. The EVs use a resistive heater that consumes a lot of battery power.
The South Dakota Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Deployment Plan (SDEVIDP) referenced several tests relative to use of heaters in the cold weather and air conditioning in the hot weather.
According to field testing performed by the Norwegian Auto Federation, operation on a standardized test course in temperatures ranging 21° F to 37° F reduced EV range by approximately 20% and they also lengthened charging times in cold temperatures. A similar result was observed in dynamometer testing by the American Automobile Association that indicated that without internal vehicle heating, EV battery range dropped by 12% at 20° F, but with the heater in operation, it dropped roughly 41%. Consistent with other studies, at 95° F, EV battery range dropped by 4% without air conditioning and by 17% with air conditioning in operation.
The Idaho National Laboratory conducted a study of EV charging under a broad range of temperature conditions over a nearly two-year period, using data collected from a taxi fleet operating in New York City. The study determined that the time to reach 80% state of charge (SOC) doubled or tripled at temperatures below 32° F.
There is another factor that limits range. The manufacturers of the EV batteries recommend that you always keep the charge between 20% to 80%. Not 0% to 100%. So good management of the battery’s life limits the range to just 60%. More on this during the discussion of battery charging.
Summary
The EV range is usually overstated by the EPA. To increase range, you would need a bigger battery and that is costly. Temperature, cold or warm, reduce the battery charge. On a cold day, for example, by as much as 40% if you use the cabin heater on a cold day. To extend the battery’s life, it should not drop below 20% or exceed 80%. You will have to recharge it more often to prevent it from going below 20%,
The title is paraphrasing the Ragin Cajun, political adviser to the Clintons, James Carville. Carville said when asked about the biggest issue in an upcoming election, “it’s the economy, stupid” I contend that the biggest issue for the electric vehicle (EV) is the battery.
The battery represents the proposed transition from gasoline and diesel fuel to electricity. The transition will not be easy, if at all. Usually, major transitions have occurred because some new thing is better than the existing thing. That is not happening here. The EV is more costly, is less flexible, not as capable and is planned to be charged from an electrical grid that is sourced from wind turbines and solar cells. The latter, the so-called renewable energy, has not demonstrated that it is capable of keeping the grids supplying a reliable supply of electricity 24/7. Nowhere. Nada. see here But politicians keep throwing money at these schemes. You must wonder why they would do that. Well maybe not.
The EV sales are not displacing gasoline and diesel vehicles because they are better. No. It is replacing those fuel driven vehicles by Government fiat. Governments are giving EVs huge subsidies, and enacting regulatory systems making gasoline and diesel vehicles attain goals that are not reachable nor necessary. Six states have legislated that no gasoline or diesel-powered vehicle can be manufactured or sold after 2030 to 2035. And the Feds are considering that too.
The WSJ blog posted Car Dealers to Biden: EV’s Are Not Selling reporting that 3900 US car dealerships wrote a letter to President Biden saying his EV sales mandate is not working. They told him that:
“Dealers have a 103-day supply of EVs compared to 56 days for all cars. It takes them on average 65 days to sell an EV, about twice as long as for gas-powered cars. EV sales are slowing though manufacturers have slashed prices and increased discounts.
But most consumers aren’t “ready to make the change,” in part because EVs are still too expensive. Many apartment renters also don’t have garages for home charging, and public charging networks are spotty with one in four not functional, according to one study.
“Customers are also concerned about the loss of driving range in cold or hot weather,” the auto dealers say. “Some have long daily commutes and don’t have the extra time to charge the battery.
The dealers want the Administration to “tap the brakes” on its proposed tailpipe emissions rules that would effectively mandate that EVs comprise two-thirds of car sales by 2032
The dealers’ letter is an important political signal that progressive climate coercion isn’t as popular as Democrats think. Americans don’t like to be told what to do or what they must buy. As the dealers put it, “many people just want to make their own choice about what vehicle is right for them.” Imagine that.
The liabilities that are built in the EV battery are, to name a few:
The Range—how many miles can a charged battery propel a vehicle?
How long does it take to charge the battery?
What is the life of the battery?
How much is the cost of a replacement battery?
How safe are these batteries?
Will insurance rates be hiked up?
If most the materials needed to make a battery are suppled from China, is that worrisome?
Battery recycling?
Major electrical revisions to supply @ home charging?
New fees replacing gasoline tax such as miles driven tax or a tax for charger use.
Government overreach?
The future postings will address these liabilities.
Economically developed Nations around the world are pushing the idea that the global temperature is rising unabated to a point where it will become an existential threat to mankind. The problem, they say, is carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from the use of fossil fuels. They think that CO2 emissions created by the use of gasoline, and diesel, along with natural gas and coal must be discontinued. I think that these Nations are planning to subjugate you under the guise of saying they are just following “science”.
A part of their plan is to accomplish this by using electricity produced from renewable energy sources—Wind Turbines and Solar Cells— and make people buy electric vehicles (EV). This plan will not work. But it will spend trillions of dollars before it is revealed as a failure. Their plan will not be accomplished because wind and solar are not dispatchable. Meaning, the Electric grids must provide, unfailingly, power 24/7. This is accomplished by the use of fossil fuel power that can be ramped up and down to meet requirements. The renewables are not dispatchable because grid operators cannot ramp them up and down. No wind, no sun, no renewable power. As they are today, EVs will continue to run on electricity made mostly by the combustion of fossil fuels.
Nevertheless, the government will try to force you into buying an electric vehicle (EV).
The EPA announced the new standards require a 49 mpg fleetwide average by 2026, a 33% increase over model year 2021 standards. The EPA said that these tough new tailpipe emission standards are designed to effectively force the auto industry to phase out the sale of gas-powered cars
The target cars are those powered by Internal Combustion Engines— aka ICE.
And then they are enacting laws that no gasoline or diesel car can be manufactured and sold after some certain date.
California, always the leader in penalizing the people living in that state, has a new law that it will be illegal to sell new gasoline-powered cars after 2035. Nothing from the Biden Administration yet but they are playing with a date to match California.
Washington Free Beacon carries this story:
“All CARS ARE BAD” Pete Buttigieg’s Equity Advisers Want You To Stop Driiving
Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg is appointing a group of “leading experts” to advise him on “transportation equity,” including several who argue that cars cause climate change and promote racism and therefore should be phased out.
And wouldn’t you know it, they make this issue, “racism”
So the Government is going to phase out all ICEs. Let’s see how that will work.
Hedges and Company say” Need to know how many cars there are on Earth in 2023? Here is how many cars there are in the world, including trucks, broken down by world region?
1). Asia: 543 million vehicles on the road 2). Europe: 413 million vehicles (288 million in EU plus 125 million in non-EU countries)1 3). North America: 358 million vehicles 4). South America: 84 million vehicles 5). Middle East: 50 million vehicles 6). Africa: 26 million vehicles 7). Antarctica: about 50 vehicles
That totals up to about 1.5Billion.
Basically only the North American and EU are making rules to get rid of gasoline and diesel vehicles. North American and EU vehicles are less than half of the world’s vehicles.
My guess is that the developing nations will not ban ICE vehicles as they will not have much available electricity to power EVs.
How effective will that be?
What does the vehicle situation in the US look like?
Statistica says: In the first quarter of 2023, there were around 286 million vehicles operating on roads throughout the United States.
From a Heartland posting we learn the following:
Historically, internal combustion engine (ICE) car sales in America are upwards of 55 million annually with about 15 million or 27 percent being new and 40 million or 73 percent being used car sales.
With a total of 50 to 55 million ICE vehicles being sold annually for new and used, it’s obvious that the auto industry and the economy has been benefiting and prospering in the used ICE car market.
The average life of an American vehicle is 13 years. For example, the California rule that no new ICE vehicle can be sold after 2035, would be mostly ineffective in that for years there will be grandfathered ICE vehicles on the road. Of course, California might get really draconian and try to make ICEs illegal own and drive.
The next blog will examine the new and used EV market.
President Biden has called for 50% of all new car and light truck sales be Zero Emission Vehicles (ZEV) by 2030. Even more draconian laws from States like California say:
“…….. all new cars sold in the state by 2035 be free of greenhouse gas emissions like carbon dioxide”.
That means no gasoline vehicle sales can be made in California after 2035.
What is the outcome of these proposals that only allow ZEV to be made? The Fuels Institute, a proponent of the man-made global warming, posted “Reducing carbon emissions effectively-now and tomorrow” has the answer. The charts premise is that of California’s pathway, meaning 100% of new car sales are ZEVs and no new fossil fuel powered cars can be sold.
“As the chart shows, in a hypothetical scenario in which all U.S. light duty vehicle sales are required to be ZEV in 2035, the market would likely only convert 16.5% of vehicles in operation to ZEV by that time. This would leave 83.5% of vehicles in 2035 still operating primarily on liquid fuels used in combustion engines with a potential life expectancy of longer than 20 years. This means that BEVs and a cleaner electricity grid will not be able to significantly cut transportation-related CO2e emissions for many years to come, resulting in increased atmospheric concentrations that will linger for another 100-plus years
It might be possible for the manufacturers to make enough ZEVs, but it may not make any difference if the manufacturers can. The cost, the range anxiety, the charging time, fires, etc. have turned off the common man buying ZEVs so far.
Open Letter to Speaker of the House of Representatives.
Speaker Kevin McCarthy
Your leadership regarding Climate Change is very important. Your members must weigh in on the nearly a half of trillion dollars of subsidies for the so-called renewable energy projects and directing legislation to stop the urge of the Democrats to rush headlong into unproven schemes to replace fossil fuels.
Your Email for contributions has a list of your objectives beyond just energy that are things I hope you can obtain though it will be uphill with the Senate and Executive in the hands of the Democrats. I hope you can find ways to block the Biden Administration’s plans.
This letter is to focus on just one part of the House’s objectives and that is to counter the disinformation that the global warming alarmists have been spewing. The way things work now are—-Media support the alarmist’s “experts” and they know that there will be no significant effort by skeptics to counter the alarmists.
Now that you can control the Committee’s agenda, your members should standup to the global warming alarmists. This will take some courage on everyone’s part because some members are afraid of the media. Fox’s post titled “Politico Urges readers don’t believe the polls showing sinking levels of trust of media” One of Politico staff protested the results of the Gallup poll. But the poll says:
“The recent polling showed only 16% of Americans said they have a “great deal or quite a lot” of confidence in newspapers with only 11% of Americans having confidence in television. It represented a 5% decrease since 2021 and was also the lowest rating given towards newspapers since Gallup’s original poll back in 1973.
And there is no need not be afraid of the title “skeptic”. Almost without exception skeptics believe that the globe is warming.
The skeptics need a microphone that is so big it can work around the media. I think the House of Representatives can do this.
The House could have regular sessions of skeptical testimony. The House should rely on the skeptical experts, of which there are many, to counteract the alarmists. Don’t be afraid to allow the alarmists “experts” to testify, too. The alarmists usually get beaten in debates with the skeptics. In fact they have a reluctance to debate. Try getting Al Gore to debate any skeptical expert. No way, he always backs out. You will be doing this to help educate all of the Members of the House of Representatives. Record all the sessions and publish them on YouTube.
The site names 1010 experts listed by country. (The site needs to update the list as it has now grown to 1499 experts.)
The Skeptical Daily post a summary regarding the skeptics on the lists and some notable quotes. They call the list of the skeptic experts a Declaration.
“The scale of the opposition to modern day ‘settled’ climate science is remarkable, given how difficult it is in academia to raise grants for any climate research that departs from the political orthodoxy. A lead author of the declaration, Professor Richard Lindzen, has called the current climate narrative “absurd”, but acknowledged that trillions of dollars and the relentless propaganda from grant-dependent academics and agenda-driven journalists currently says it is not absurd.
The Declaration is an event of enormous importance, although it will be ignored by the mainstream media. But it is not the first time distinguished scientists have petitioned for more realism in climate science. In Italy, the discoverer of nuclear anti-matter Emeritus Professor Antonino Zichichi recently led 48 local science professors in stating that human responsibility for climate change is “unjustifiably exaggerated and catastrophic predictions are not realistic”. In their scientific view, “natural variation explains a substantial part of global warming observed since 1850”. Professor Zichichi has signed the WCD.
The Declaration notes that the Earth’s climate has varied for as long as the planet has existed, with natural cold and warm periods. “It is no surprise that we are experiencing a period of warming,” it continues. Climate models have many shortcomings, it says, “and are not remotely plausible as global policy tools”. They blow up the effect of greenhouse gases, such as carbon dioxide, but ignore any beneficial effects. “CO2 is not a pollutant,” it says. “It is essential to all life on Earth. Photosynthesis is a blessing. More CO2 is beneficial for nature, greening the Earth; additional CO2 in the air has promoted growth in global plant biomass. It is also good for agriculture, increasing the yield of crops worldwide.”
Last year, Steven Koonin, an Under-Secretary of Science in the Obama Administration, published a book titled Unsettled in which he noted that, “The science is insufficient to make useful projections about how the climate will change over the coming decades, much less what our actions will be.” He also noted that rigidly promulgating the idea that climate change is settled demeans and chills the scientific enterprise, “retarding its progress in these important matters”. In 2020, the long-time green activist Michael Shellenberger wrote a book called Apocalypse Never in which he said he believed the conversation about climate change and the environment had in the last few years “spiraled out of control”. Much of what people are told about the environment, including the climate, is wrong, he wrote.
These experts get printed in skeptic websites, but we need to widen the audience.
Firstand foremost the media, the alarmists and some educators have convinced the young that they may die soon. This poisoning of our childrens minds must be stopped.
“The climate crisis can be overwhelming. (Click on that climate link. See what the kids are being taught.)
Statistics often paint a dire picture of the earth’s trajectory. The UN has warned that existing climate pledges provide ‘no credible pathway’ to preventing temperatures from rising 1.5 degrees above pre-industrial levels. Deadly floods and fires are on the rise, while global wildlife populations have shrunk 70 per cent since 1970.
Presented with these facts, it’s easy to sink into eco-anxiety. Previous studies have proven that this distress is heightened in children and the new survey confirms this.”
Secondly, the public should know that the basis of the catastrophic climate change is the computer forecasted global temperatures. It goes, things get very hot, glaciers melt, sea level rises, cities are deluged with sea water, crops cannot survive, creatures cannot adapt to temperatures and huge extinctions occur, etc.
The following chart shows that the forecast temperatures by the alarmist are higher than the actual temperature readings and that the forecast temperatures become more ridiculous as time goes by. These temperatures are the ones They use to forecast catastrophe.
All the squiggly lines are individual computer forecasts. The Red line is the average global warming temperatures predicted by the computers. The lower Green straight line is the mean of the actual measured temperature for this same period. Note that as the years go by, the computer forecast gets further away from the actual measured temperature. The actual temperatures noted in the chart are based upon weather balloons and satellite measurements. The actual temperatures are rising but not at the rate that will cause a catastrophic outcome. The computer produced temperature forecasts are used to brain wash our children.
“In 2023 it’s hard to avoid seeing images and headlines like these. The result for many is a deep seated fear[5], anxiety[6][7], and pessimism[8][9] about the future. The topic of Climate Change (CC) has seeped into nearly every facet of our lives, and never in a positive way. It’s always present as a dark cloud hanging over society; a source of guilt for those who indulge in some of life’s most basic pleasures, the basis of moralistic judgments by those who like to signal their concern, and the cause of nihilism[10][11] and hopelessness[12] felt by many in the youngest generations.
Why does CC have such deeply negative connotations and harmful effects on people’s mental well being? Because we are constantly reminded of the six dark and destructive consequences of CC:
1) heat will cause millions to die or live in misery
2) tens of millions (some say billions) will be forced to migrate
3) a million or more species will become extinct in just a few decades
4) sea level rise will have disastrous world-wide consequences
5) agricultural production will be devastated, causing widespread famine
6) humanity will suffer floods, droughts, and other terrible natural disasters
These are the six pillars of climate change despair that activists and the media obsess over. The activists do it because they think they are saving the planet; the media do it because bad news gets more clicks than good news. Plus, they both do it to appear virtuous. They both keep ramping up the rhetoric so that with each passing year the predictions about each of these consequences become even more frightening and apocalyptic. There are some lesser concerns (eg. Arctic and glacier melting), but these six are the catastrophic ones.
No wonder so many people are depressed and pessimistic about the future. It shouldn’t be surprising there’s an epidemic of “climate change anxiety”.
But is it in any way justified? What is the truth (if any) behind these catastrophic predictions? That’s what I want to examine here. The fact is, every one of these pillars is made of sand, and crumbles apart when subjected to the slightest critical scrutiny.
The author, Doug R Rogers, puts together a comprehensive essay. Please read it to it end by clicking here.
The Fourth issue is the headlong race to decarbonize the world. Renewables (mostly wind and solar) are believed to be the future energy sources, leaving fossil fuels (coal, oil and natural gas) to be only available chemical feed stocks, for example. Combined with electric vehicles (EV) the globe will be free of carbon dioxide gas vented into the atmosphere they say.
The benefits accrued by fossil fuels are discounted in this rush to decarbonization. The benefits from vented CO2 are enormous. The greening of the globe has been the result of the vented CO2. Crops, such as wheat, oats, rice, potatoes, cane, etc. have skyrocketed in quantity feeding billions of new people.
Renewables are not reliable. What we know is that wind and solar are dependent on the weather. No wind, no sun, no renewable produced electrical energy. No where has a major grid sourced by solely wind and solar been demonstrated. No plans have been made to prove a grid can actually run solely on wind and solar. Grids have to be supplied 24/7 with NO interruptions. Yet we find that the politicians, urged on by the media, are willing to build more wind and solar capacity and prematurely shut down fossil fuels before they can prove that renewables can provide 24/7 with no interruptions.
The enormous upset that has occurred in western Europe would not have been so serious if renewable could have done the job. For example, Germany has renewables with name plate capacity greater than the nation’s electrical needs. But at times in September ‘22 the wind did not blow, and the sun shined only intermittently. So no matter what their nameplate capacity was, wind and solar were producing little to no electricity. That happened and they stumbled through, saved by natural gas and coal based production of electricity.
Obviously, there are many more issues than the several I have mentioned. I picked them because the first one, traumatizing our children has to be stopped NOW. The other three go right to the heart of the problem. The experts could line up excellent debates or testimonies at House Committee requests.
Expert testimony by skeptics has been ignored by the media. So how can we get around that?
Freelancers Wanted: Help Knock Out the Mainstream Propaganda Machine authored by Matt Taibbi is a plan to create a team to produce a document that knocks out the mainstream Propaganda machine. Perhaps supporters that could fund similar skeptical teams. There must be NGOs that are skeptical in their view. Find them, give them help with finance, programs and topics
Another interesting team is the Center of the American Experiment. The Center of the American Experiment is a Minnesota-based think tank that advocates for conservative and free-market principles.[5] One of their tasks has been to target the objectional courses that public schools in Minnesota are putting into their schooling. The Center of the American Experiment has people and programs to show what is going on and how to change it. The group will speak to PTAs school boards or other interested groups. This group has been successfully getting schools to drop radical racial material. This could be a model for another skeptical group to copy.
.
Work with the local TV stations. They are often in need of topics to produce for their locality. Hire people that know how to do communications. Make sure that Federal Departments that award research money gives skeptics fair treatment. If they don’t, you can have your way with their funding.
Climate Change Sanity 