Scientific American endorses Kamala Harris

[HarleyER]

For only the second time in its 179 year old history has the publication backed a presidential candidate.
Hopefully posting this in the science forum will lead to a more respectful dialogue......

Vote for Kamala Harris to Support Science, Health and the Environment

Kamala Harris has plans to improve health, boost the economy and mitigate climate change. Donald Trump has threats and a dangerous record

www.scientificamerican.com

"Kamala Harris has plans to improve health, boost the economy and mitigate climate change. Donald Trump has threats and a dangerous record"

Just from your article link that you've posted it doesn't sound like an objective "scientific" analysis (eg. "has plans" vs "has threats"). Typical for Scientific American which is neither scientific or american.

 

[sjastro]

"Kamala Harris has plans to improve health, boost the economy and mitigate climate change. Donald Trump has threats and a dangerous record"

Just from your article link that you've posted it doesn't sound like an objective "scientific" analysis (eg. "has plans" vs "has threats"). Typical for Scientific American which is neither scientific or american.

Before I respond to your post, I’d like to make it perfectly clear I am not an American and therefore do not have an emotional attachment to either of your major political parties.

Scientific American was founded in 1845 to report on scientific and technological progress to the educated American public.
Today its reach is still predominately American but in order to be more understandable to the general public it has become more popular science than serious peer reviewed science.
Therefore I don’t see the necessity of questioning its title or its intentions.

Since this is a science forum and Climate Science and COVID have been raised, here is some of the nonsense spewed by Trump on these subjects.

CLIMATE SCIENCE.

• Climate warming is a hoax perpetrated by the Chinese communist party to undermine the American economy by making local manufacturing uncompetitive.
• Windmill noise causes cancer.
• When the wind stops blowing you don’t get any energy (doesn’t understand the technology of energy storage and the contribution from other renewables).
• Cold snaps indicate global warming is not occurring (confuses weather with climate).

COVID.

• Initially downplayed the virus claiming it was no worse than the flu and which would eventually disappear.
• Suggested hydroxychloroquine, injecting disinfectants into the bloodstream, or using UV light “inside the body” as treatments.
• Discredited public health experts such as Dr Anthony Fauci.
• Blamed the Chinese communist party for the escalation of infection and death rates instead of the slower initial response by sections of the American population who believed in the misinformation spread by Trump.

Unless you can demonstrate the Democrats have been as equally irresponsible, Scientific American’s endorsement of Harris is valid.

 

[RDKirk]

I've been planning a thread showing how the far Left is embracing Lamarckism now.

 

[Astrid]

Before I respond to your post, I’d like to make it perfectly clear I am not an American and therefore do not have an emotional attachment to either of your major political parties.

Scientific American was founded in 1845 to report on scientific and technological progress to the educated American public.
Today its reach is still predominately American but in order to be more understandable to the general public it has become more popular science than serious peer reviewed science.
Therefore I don’t see the necessity of questioning its title or its intentions.

Since this is a science forum and Climate Science and COVID have been raised, here is some of the nonsense spewed by Trump on these subjects.

CLIMATE SCIENCE.

• Climate warming is a hoax perpetrated by the Chinese communist party to undermine the American economy by making local manufacturing uncompetitive.
• Windmill noise causes cancer.
• When the wind stops blowing you don’t get any energy (doesn’t understand the technology of energy storage and the contribution from other renewables).
• Cold snaps indicate global warming is not occurring (confuses weather with climate).

COVID.

• Initially downplayed the virus claiming it was no worse than the flu and which would eventually disappear.
• Suggested hydroxychloroquine, injecting disinfectants into the bloodstream, or using UV light “inside the body” as treatments.
• Discredited public health experts such as Dr Anthony Fauci.
• Blamed the Chinese communist party for the escalation of infection and death rates instead of the slower initial response by sections of the American population who believed in the misinformation spread by Trump.

Unless you can demonstrate the Democrats have been as equally irresponsible, Scientific American’s endorsement of Harris is valid.

Yes, blame us.

Trump fomenting even more distance and difference between the IISA and China is dangerous and contelmptible.

 

[sjastro]

Yes, blame us.

Trump fomenting even more distance and difference between the IISA and China is dangerous and contelmptible.

Don't take my post as an endorsement of the CCP.

China has imposed economic sanctions on Australia which they are now lifting as it has been harming your economy.

Australia–China trade war - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The next step in restoring China-Australia relations is to release Australian journalists imprisoned on trumped up espionage charges.

 

[Astrid]

Don't take my post as an endorsement of the CCP.

China has imposed economic sanctions on Australia which they are now lifting as it has been harming your economy.

Australia–China trade war - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The next step in restoring China-Australia relations ias lirrlevto.offer s to release Australian journalists imprisoned on trumped up espionage charges.

I live in Hong Kong.

I've been beaten.and imprisoned for opposition to.CCP
policies.

As have many Americans for doing the same in their country.

The USA has little good example to.show the rest of us about how to be a good world citizen

 

[sjastro]

I live in Hong Kong.

I've been beaten.and imprisoned for opposition to.CCP
policies.

As have many Americans for doing the same in their country.

The USA has little good example to.show the rest of us about how to be a good world citizen

I'm very sorry for what you have had to endure.

 

[Astrid]

I'm very sorry for what you have had to endure.

Don't worry about it

By very far my worst experience in my life was in NYC.

As for "enduring" life in
China, those who've not lived here no.idea.


In the event my home in Repulse Bay is nothing to "endure".

But tnx anyway

 

[Palmfever]

Yeah,
They begun getting political a couple elections ago.
They are a monthly mag.
I canceled my subscription about a year ago and still receive please renew letters.
For straight articles on the scientific frontier without the crap 'New Scientist' which is a weekly, thus far has been an informative experience. An online subscription allows for more rapid acquisition of info.

 

[AV1611VET]

What about Popular Science?

 

[HarleyER]

Before I respond to your post, I’d like to make it perfectly clear I am not an American and therefore do not have an emotional attachment to either of your major political parties.

Scientific American was founded in 1845 to report on scientific and technological progress to the educated American public.
Today its reach is still predominately American but in order to be more understandable to the general public it has become more popular science than serious peer reviewed science.
Therefore I don’t see the necessity of questioning its title or its intentions.

Since this is a science forum and Climate Science and COVID have been raised, here is some of the nonsense spewed by Trump on these subjects.

CLIMATE SCIENCE.

• Climate warming is a hoax perpetrated by the Chinese communist party to undermine the American economy by making local manufacturing uncompetitive.
• Windmill noise causes cancer.
• When the wind stops blowing you don’t get any energy (doesn’t understand the technology of energy storage and the contribution from other renewables).
• Cold snaps indicate global warming is not occurring (confuses weather with climate).

COVID.

• Initially downplayed the virus claiming it was no worse than the flu and which would eventually disappear.
• Suggested hydroxychloroquine, injecting disinfectants into the bloodstream, or using UV light “inside the body” as treatments.
• Discredited public health experts such as Dr Anthony Fauci.
• Blamed the Chinese communist party for the escalation of infection and death rates instead of the slower initial response by sections of the American population who believed in the misinformation spread by Trump.

Unless you can demonstrate the Democrats have been as equally irresponsible, Scientific American’s endorsement of Harris is valid.

• Climate warming is a hoax perpetrated by the Chinese communist party to undermine the American economy by making local manufacturing uncompetitive.

I would have stopped at simply saying that Climate warming is a hoax. The Chinese communist party is probably partly responsible but it certainly is being perpetrated by someone. While the Chinese are building coal burning plants at an astonishing rate, the west is wringing their hands over the environmental impact.

• When the wind stops blowing you don’t get any energy (doesn’t understand the technology of energy storage and the contribution from other renewables).

You DON'T get any energy when the wind stops blowing. Just because it might be stored previously doesn't give you any more energy. It's like putting $100 in the bank and keep drawing on that account. Eventually it runs out.

• Cold snaps indicate global warming is not occurring (confuses weather with climate).

Climate change has been happening for hundreds of year. Do you remember the ice age? How about the great warming of Europe during the Middle Ages. There is no reliable scientific methods for measuring how many cycles the climate has changed in the last 10,000 years for comparison.

COVID.

While everyone is convinced that Covid started over in China, there has been no investigations into how it was released, why it was released, what steps are being taken to prevent it from being released, etc. The Chinese government has disavowed any involvement in the matter. Dr. Fauci NIH helped fund studies into the Wuhan virus, although they deny it. Yet there has been no formal investigation and when they do try to investigate anything these day (including Trump's assassination attempts) it is met with stonewalling. In fact, they won't even call it the Wuhan virus.

I don't give a hoot as to when or for what purpose these magazines were created. Many of them initially were created with good intention and often provided insightful information. But many of them have left the reservation long ago and are simply a Democratic propaganda machine that make Pravda look like the Wall Street Journal.

Here are some scientific facts. You can't run an electric vehicle if there are no power plants to generate electricity. Windmills and solar panels won't do it. Lithum batteries and electric vehicles are far worst polluters then combustible engines. Electric vehicles are made with plastic and plastic is made with petroleum. Windmills and solar panels are a ecological threat to wild life all the while removing good farm land which could feed a starving planet. While Western Europe and American wring their hands over "climate change", China accounts for over 95% of all new coal power plants last year. We'll see if any of these points end up in "Scientific American". How much carbon emissions are spent attending a climate change conference? How many politicians and leaders who tout climate change and rising sea levels have bought beach front property in the last 5 years?

Are the Democrats equally responsible? Far worst. They are implementing policies that makes no sense at all. People are being duped.

 

[RDKirk]

I would have stopped at simply saying that Climate warming is a hoax. The Chinese communist party is probably partly responsible but it certainly is being perpetrated by someone. While the Chinese are building coal burning plants at an astonishing rate, the west is wringing their hands over the environmental impact.
<snip>
Climate change has been happening for hundreds of year. Do you remember the ice age? How about the great warming of Europe during the Middle Ages. There is no reliable scientific methods for measuring how many cycles the climate has changed in the last 10,000 years for comparison.

So, is climate change a hoax, or has climate change been happening for hundreds of years?

 

[AV1611VET]

COVID.

While everyone is convinced that Covid started over in China, there has been no investigations into how it was released,

While academia was busy arguing that the Bible considers bats as fowl ...

Leviticus 11:19 And the stork, the heron after her kind, and the lapwing, and the bat.

... and thus It made a mistake in putting them off-limits to human consumption, they went ahead and ate them.

Even selling them in the marketplace as a delicacy.

Thanks, academia, for giving us COVID-19.

He who laughs first at God's word, laughs last.

 

[Hans Blaster]

• Climate warming is a hoax perpetrated by the Chinese communist party to undermine the American economy by making local manufacturing uncompetitive.

I would have stopped at simply saying that Climate warming is a hoax. The Chinese communist party is probably partly responsible but it certainly is being perpetrated by someone. While the Chinese are building coal burning plants at an astonishing rate, the west is wringing their hands over the environmental impact.

Not the Chinese -- scientists. They are the ones that have figured out global warming/climate change and warned us about it. They were doing it back when Mao was rounding up all the intellectuals in China and forcing them to work in the rice paddies. (Back then Mao might have called GW a "western/capitalist hoax", but I doubt that he cared about it.)

• When the wind stops blowing you don’t get any energy (doesn’t understand the technology of energy storage and the contribution from other renewables).

You DON'T get any energy when the wind stops blowing. Just because it might be stored previously doesn't give you any more energy. It's like putting $100 in the bank and keep drawing on that account. Eventually it runs out.

The point of that "bullet" was that the argument "don't use wind because it might not always blow" is a bad argument against wind power. Not only is there storage, but there are reliable sources of wind (offshore winds usually blow) and when wind power is distributed across a wide area, it becomes collectively more reliable. (The fact that the Sun heats the land and then it cools on a daily cycle will *always* drive some winds somewhere.)

• Cold snaps indicate global warming is not occurring (confuses weather with climate).

Climate change has been happening for hundreds of year. Do you remember the ice age?

Nope I'm not that old. I don't even remember President Nixon, (I was a Young American) let alone the last ice age.

How about the great warming of Europe during the Middle Ages. There is no reliable scientific methods for measuring how many cycles the climate has changed in the last 10,000 years for comparison.

Of course there are. We learned about them in meteorology school. You just haven't learned them. That doesn't mean they don't exist.

COVID.

While everyone is convinced that Covid started over in China, there has been no investigations into how it was released, why it was released, what steps are being taken to prevent it from being released, etc.

Of course there have. It has a natural origin and jumped from bats to humans (with perhaps one or two intermediates). The closest related known viruses are in bats in southern China. There are limits to how much investigating can be done as the Chinese government has blocked certain channels of inquiry.

The Chinese government has disavowed any involvement in the matter.

What matter? Collecting the virus and accidentally releasing it? Perhaps that happened, but it likely didn't. They certainly didn't manufacture it, nor would deliberate release into their own population make a lick of sense.

Dr. Fauci NIH helped fund studies into the Wuhan virus, although they deny it.

The studies were at an institute in Wuhan, not on that virus (SARS-CoV-2).

Yet there has been no formal investigation and when they do try to investigate anything these day (including Trump's assassination attempts) it is met with stonewalling.

I thought Gym Jordan or one of his fellow travelers spent some time "investigating" the origins of SARS-CoV-2.

In fact, they won't even call it the Wuhan virus.

Because that is not the name. Viruses don't get named after places anymore. It is called SARS-CoV-2. (The original SARS virus is now SARS-CoV-1, with or without the "-1".

I don't give a hoot as to when or for what purpose these magazines were created. Many of them initially were created with good intention and often provided insightful information. But many of them have left the reservation long ago and are simply a Democratic propaganda machine that make Pravda look like the Wall Street Journal.

Scientific American is mostly articles about recent scientific discoveries. Little is even close to "opinion".

Here are some scientific facts. You can't run an electric vehicle if there are no power plants to generate electricity. Windmills and solar panels won't do it. Lithum batteries and electric vehicles are far worst polluters then combustible engines. Electric vehicles are made with plastic and plastic is made with petroleum. Windmills and solar panels are a ecological threat to wild life all the while removing good farm land which could feed a starving planet. While Western Europe and American wring their hands over "climate change", China accounts for over 95% of all new coal power plants last year. We'll see if any of these points end up in "Scientific American". How much carbon emissions are spent attending a climate change conference? How many politicians and leaders who tout climate change and rising sea levels have bought beach front property in the last 5 years?

Given the number of errors above, I see no reason to take your word on any scientific topic.

Are the Democrats equally responsible? Far worst. They are implementing policies that makes no sense at all. People are being duped.

 

[sjastro]

I would have stopped at simply saying that Climate warming is a hoax. The Chinese communist party is probably partly responsible but it certainly is being perpetrated by someone. While the Chinese are building coal burning plants at an astonishing rate, the west is wringing their hands over the environmental impact.

China has also installed as much solar capacity as the rest of the world combined and doubled its new solar installations in 2023.
Additionally, it increased new wind capacity by 66%.

You DON'T get any energy when the wind stops blowing. Just because it might be stored previously doesn't give you any more energy. It's like putting $100 in the bank and keep drawing on that account. Eventually it runs out.

What a terrible analogy, you are not dealing with a bank account but a diversified portfolio.
It is not only wind but a mix of other renewables such as solar energy, solar thermal and where feasible hydropower, geothermal, biomass, tidal and wave energies.

To illustrate this is not a utopian idea the state of South Australia in 2001 had only around 1% of renewables feeding into the power grid, in 2020 it was 60%, by 2027 it is tipped to be 100% three years ahead of schedule and all accomplished by wind, solar, solar thermal and battery energy storage.
This also includes green hydrogen while not a renewable is produced by renewable sources.

Climate change has been happening for hundreds of year. Do you remember the ice age? How about the great warming of Europe during the Middle Ages. There is no reliable scientific methods for measuring how many cycles the climate has changed in the last 10,000 years for comparison.

Here is some basic science, what differentiates AGW from natural warming/cooling is the lower stratosphere is cooling and out of phase with the troposphere which is warming.
This is a distinct signature of AGW which was predicted in 1966, confirmed by satellite measurements in 1979 and cannot be explained by natural climate change cycles.

Here are a couple of posts which simplify the science.

Global Warming Denial: Is there a good argument?

Paradoxically the strongest evidence for AGW is based on temperature measurements of the lower stratosphere. While AGW increases the temperature of the troposphere, the lower stratosphere which is immediately above the troposphere is getting colder. This was a prediction made in 1967 before AGW...

www.christianforums.com

Earth in hot water? Worries over sudden ocean warming spike

well ... according to science there has been warming and cooling going on for millions of years ... long before mankind ... to think mankind can control the earths weather globally on a large scale is ridiculous imo ... we can and do manipulate it some what (such as cloud seeding) but the...

www.christianforums.com

While everyone is convinced that Covid started over in China, there has been no investigations into how it was released, why it was released, what steps are being taken to prevent it from being released, etc. The Chinese government has disavowed any involvement in the matter. Dr. Fauci NIH helped fund studies into the Wuhan virus, although they deny it. Yet there has been no formal investigation and when they do try to investigate anything these day (including Trump's assassination attempts) it is met with stonewalling. In fact, they won't even call it the Wuhan virus.

You are avoiding or denying Trump’s complicity in the escalation of the infection and death rates in your country.
The Lancet which one of the oldest medical journals gives a damning account.

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)32545-9/abstract

I don't give a hoot as to when or for what purpose these magazines were created. Many of them initially were created with good intention and often provided insightful information. But many of them have left the reservation long ago and are simply a Democratic propaganda machine that make Pravda look like the Wall Street Journal.

Of course you are going to be critical of Scientific American as it doesn’t align with your political ideology, if it endorsed Trump instead of Harris would you be as critical of the publication engaging in politics, somehow I doubt it.

Here are some scientific facts. You can't run an electric vehicle if there are no power plants to generate electricity. Windmills and solar panels won't do it. Lithum batteries and electric vehicles are far worst polluters then combustible engines. Electric vehicles are made with plastic and plastic is made with petroleum. Windmills and solar panels are a ecological threat to wild life all the while removing good farm land which could feed a starving planet. While Western Europe and American wring their hands over "climate change", China accounts for over 95% of all new coal power plants last year. We'll see if any of these points end up in "Scientific American". How much carbon emissions are spent attending a climate change conference? How many politicians and leaders who tout climate change and rising sea levels have bought beach front property in the last 5 years?

Here the real scientific facts.

Cars are not stationary ornaments but are meant to be driven.
You are making a straight out comparison between a vehicle with an internal combustion engine against a vehicle modified to run on battery power where the carbon footprint for the modified vehicle will be larger.

The facts are very different when including driving conditions. Even if the batteries were recharged on a 100% fossil fuel driven grid, the overall reduction in CO₂ emissions for an electric car driven for 250,000 kilometres is around 18% - 87% based on 2020 data.
It would be ludicrous to use electric vehicles to reduce CO₂ emissions using your ‘scientific facts’.

Your one sided description of China’s activities has been addressed and need not be repeated.

Finally on the subject of windmills.
It’s very nice for you to be concerned about the environmental impacts of windmills and solar farms, doing nothing is a considerably worse option as according to the sixth IPCC report a 1.5⁰c increase puts 9 -14% of assessed species are at a very high risk of extinction (currently we are at 1.36⁰c).
Then there is the increase in aridity and desertification due to changing rainfall patterns to consider.

What is significant about your post is how you have avoided Trump’s claim of windmills noise causing cancer.
Is Trump serious or is he lying?

 

[Hazelelponi]

For only the second time in its 179 year old history has the publication backed a presidential candidate.
Hopefully posting this in the science forum will lead to a more respectful dialogue......

Vote for Kamala Harris to Support Science, Health and the Environment

Kamala Harris has plans to improve health, boost the economy and mitigate climate change. Donald Trump has threats and a dangerous record

www.scientificamerican.com

I wonder how much they got paid... Hahaha

I want to hear Kamala explain what science is, that would be as hilarious as Ukraine, Venn diagrams and the cloud... Hahaha

 

[Hazelelponi]

Yes, blame us.

Trump fomenting even more distance and difference between the IISA and China is dangerous and contelmptible.

It's never a good idea to hop in bed with ones enemies like a harlot - and China is our enemy.

That sort of thing bites back.

 

[HarleyER]

So, is climate change a hoax, or has climate change been happening for hundreds of years?

The climate has always been changing. Spending trillions of dollars isn't going to stop it from changing. That is the hoax.

 

[HarleyER]

Not the Chinese -- scientists. They are the ones that have figured out global warming/climate change and warned us about it. They were doing it back when Mao was rounding up all the intellectuals in China and forcing them to work in the rice paddies. (Back then Mao might have called GW a "western/capitalist hoax", but I doubt that he cared about it.)

The point of that "bullet" was that the argument "don't use wind because it might not always blow" is a bad argument against wind power. Not only is there storage, but there are reliable sources of wind (offshore winds usually blow) and when wind power is distributed across a wide area, it becomes collectively more reliable. (The fact that the Sun heats the land and then it cools on a daily cycle will *always* drive some winds somewhere.)

Nope I'm not that old. I don't even remember President Nixon, (I was a Young American) let alone the last ice age.

Of course there are. We learned about them in meteorology school. You just haven't learned them. That doesn't mean they don't exist.

Of course there have. It has a natural origin and jumped from bats to humans (with perhaps one or two intermediates). The closest related known viruses are in bats in southern China. There are limits to how much investigating can be done as the Chinese government has blocked certain channels of inquiry.

What matter? Collecting the virus and accidentally releasing it? Perhaps that happened, but it likely didn't. They certainly didn't manufacture it, nor would deliberate release into their own population make a lick of sense.

The studies were at an institute in Wuhan, not on that virus (SARS-CoV-2).

I thought Gym Jordan or one of his fellow travelers spent some time "investigating" the origins of SARS-CoV-2.

Because that is not the name. Viruses don't get named after places anymore. It is called SARS-CoV-2. (The original SARS virus is now SARS-CoV-1, with or without the "-1".

Scientific American is mostly articles about recent scientific discoveries. Little is even close to "opinion".

Given the number of errors above, I see no reason to take your word on any scientific topic.

Not only is there storage, but there are reliable sources of wind (offshore winds usually blow) and when wind power is distributed across a wide area, it becomes collectively more reliable.

And what studies can you cite that shows the environmental impact on the ocean currents and sea creatures? You're simply trading one problem for another.

They certainly didn't manufacture it, nor would deliberate release into their own population make a lick of sense.

You don't know that because there has never been any thoughtful investigation into the matter. No one wants to release any information.

Given the number of errors above, I see no reason to take your word on any scientific topic.

This is a typical response from someone who doesn't want to face the issues and simply wish to foster their preconceived notions. Take my advice then, don't believe everything you read in the papers.

I'm old enough to remember paper bags in grocery stores. We use to use them all the time. Then the environmentalist told everyone paper bags were destructive to the forest and we needed to switch to plastic bags. Well, that didn't seem to work out very well because now they want us to go back to paper.

 

[HarleyER]

China has also installed as much solar capacity as the rest of the world combined and doubled its new solar installations in 2023.
Additionally, it increased new wind capacity by 66%.

What a terrible analogy, you are not dealing with a bank account but a diversified portfolio.
It is not only wind but a mix of other renewables such as solar energy, solar thermal and where feasible hydropower, geothermal, biomass, tidal and wave energies.

To illustrate this is not a utopian idea the state of South Australia in 2001 had only around 1% of renewables feeding into the power grid, in 2020 it was 60%, by 2027 it is tipped to be 100% three years ahead of schedule and all accomplished by wind, solar, solar thermal and battery energy storage.
This also includes green hydrogen while not a renewable is produced by renewable sources.

Here is some basic science, what differentiates AGW from natural warming/cooling is the lower stratosphere is cooling and out of phase with the troposphere which is warming.
This is a distinct signature of AGW which was predicted in 1966, confirmed by satellite measurements in 1979 and cannot be explained by natural climate change cycles.

Here are a couple of posts which simplify the science.

Global Warming Denial: Is there a good argument?

Paradoxically the strongest evidence for AGW is based on temperature measurements of the lower stratosphere. While AGW increases the temperature of the troposphere, the lower stratosphere which is immediately above the troposphere is getting colder. This was a prediction made in 1967 before AGW...

www.christianforums.com

Earth in hot water? Worries over sudden ocean warming spike

well ... according to science there has been warming and cooling going on for millions of years ... long before mankind ... to think mankind can control the earths weather globally on a large scale is ridiculous imo ... we can and do manipulate it some what (such as cloud seeding) but the...

www.christianforums.com

You are avoiding or denying Trump’s complicity in the escalation of the infection and death rates in your country.
The Lancet which one of the oldest medical journals gives a damning account.

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)32545-9/abstract

Of course you are going to be critical of Scientific American as it doesn’t align with your political ideology, if it endorsed Trump instead of Harris would you be as critical of the publication engaging in politics, somehow I doubt it.

Here the real scientific facts.

Cars are not stationary ornaments but are meant to be driven.
You are making a straight out comparison between a vehicle with an internal combustion engine against a vehicle modified to run on battery power where the carbon footprint for the modified vehicle will be larger.

The facts are very different when including driving conditions. Even if the batteries were recharged on a 100% fossil fuel driven grid, the overall reduction in CO₂ emissions for an electric car driven for 250,000 kilometres is around 18% - 87% based on 2020 data.
It would be ludicrous to use electric vehicles to reduce CO₂ emissions using your ‘scientific facts’.

Your one sided description of China’s activities has been addressed and need not be repeated.

Finally on the subject of windmills.
It’s very nice for you to be concerned about the environmental impacts of windmills and solar farms, doing nothing is a considerably worse option as according to the sixth IPCC report a 1.5⁰c increase puts 9 -14% of assessed species are at a very high risk of extinction (currently we are at 1.36⁰c).
Then there is the increase in aridity and desertification due to changing rainfall patterns to consider.

What is significant about your post is how you have avoided Trump’s claim of windmills noise causing cancer.
Is Trump serious or is he lying?

China has also installed as much solar capacity as the rest of the world combined and doubled its new solar installations in 2023.
Additionally, it increased new wind capacity by 66%.

So? That doesn't address the coal burning facilities.

What a terrible analogy, you are not dealing with a bank account but a diversified portfolio.

It's not a terrible analogy. When the wind stops blowing windmills do not create energy. If you're using energy from other resources, you still are not using windmills if the wind is not blowing. I know they like to tout windmills are 20-40% effective, but I sincerely doubt this. People have too much faith in what the government tells us.

You are making a straight out comparison between a vehicle with an internal combustion engine against a vehicle modified to run on battery power where the carbon footprint for the modified vehicle will be larger.

You're comparing apples to oranges. You're taking a vehicle with a combustable engine and comparing it to one that runs on electricity. What you're not including are factors like 1) what is the carbon footprint for generating the electricity that fuels that electric vehicle, 2) what is the environmental impact of disposing of those electric batteries when they reach end of life (3-5 years), and 3) where are we going to get our supply of litium? Currently the only source is China. A large disposit was found in the US, but the enviromentalist don't want us to dig for it.

I should note that I'm not anti-electric car. I think that it is a great idea. But you just can't legislate them into existence and tell everyone they need to run out and buy a $60,000 vehicle without developing the infrasture and taking a more scientific approach to the problem.

What is significant about your post is how you have avoided Trump’s claim of windmills noise causing cancer.
Is Trump serious or is he lying?

Has any scientific studies been done to say otherwise? What exactly is the impact on these windmills to people who live around them and to birds that fly into them?

Now I don't see Scientific America doing an article on the effects of late term abortion, the environmental impact of illegal immigrates and the effect on the desserts, or the polluting of the oceans and rivers from illegals deficating on the sidewalks.

Thanks for the articles but I've dealt with statistics in my profession. You can make them say anything you want to make your case. All one really has to do is open their eyes to the truth.