Still want an EV?

[M5Rick]

Originally Posted by gblansten

https://gmauthority.com/blog/2023/04...end-this-year/

It could be said that 'the stable door was shut after the horse BOLTed'

[KRS_SN]

Boom!

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-66264893.amp

Both parties suggested plans by Labour Mayor Sadiq Khan's to expand London's Ultra Low Emission Zone (Ulez) played a part in the defeat.

[M5Rick]

Originally Posted by KRS_SN

Boom!

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-66264893.amp

Both parties suggested plans by Labour Mayor Sadiq Khan's to expand London's Ultra Low Emission Zone (Ulez) played a part in the defeat.

This is a huge blow to Khan and means he has to listen to the people instead of wasting more time and money with his ill thought out expansion plan.

[David70]

Originally Posted by gblansten

https://gmauthority.com/blog/2023/04...end-this-year/

Ending Bolt production at the end of this year has nothing to do with GM EV production numbers YTD.

[gblansten]

Originally Posted by David70

Ending Bolt production at the end of this year has nothing to do with GM EV production numbers YTD.

OK. But I was asked about Bolt production and I posted a salient and relevant link.

[Efthreeoh]

Originally Posted by David70

Ending Bolt production at the end of this year has nothing to do with GM EV production numbers YTD.

Agree.

GM is just sunsetting the BEV2 platform in the US. The BEV2 platform will live on in Asia. The expanded model range of GM US EV are going to be on the GM Ultium platform, which makes complete economic sense.

[fcman]

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

If some models predicted a less warmer climate, which should statistically happen (i.e. some models should be wrong), then I'd halfway believe "the science ".

"If some models showed that the earth was flat, I'd believe the science"


Treating scientific unanimity as "proof of invalidity" is nonsense, plain and simple

[Efthreeoh]

Originally Posted by fcman

"If some models showed that the earth was flat, I'd believe the science"


Treating scientific unanimity as "proof of invalidity" is nonsense, plain and simple

Ah, the "flat earther" insult. Come on, you can do better than that can't you?

Since no one knows exactly what the climate was when materials from core samples are analyzed as a baseline climate for models, it is difficult to consider all the models point in one direction. It's a legitimate activity for sure and interesting to consider the data and its precision. But to base economic and social policy from such model data with zero political risk? No.

It's the ultimate Chicken Little fairytale, but with no consequence to those who tell it. How in God's name anyone buys into climate fear is absolutely baffling to me. Why we've let the con job get this far is truly a study in the power of the lie.

[Car-Addicted]

Things that make you go Hmmm:

Supreme Court of British Columbia dismisses Dr Michael Mann’s defamation lawsuit versus Canadian skeptic climatologist, Dr Tim Ball. Full legal costs are awarded to Dr Ball, the defendant in the case.

In 2003 a Canadian study showed the “hockey stick” curve “is primarily an artefact of poor data handling, obsolete data and incorrect calculation of principal components.” When the data was corrected it showed a warm period in the 15th Century that exceeded the warmth of the 20th Century.

[Donatello.]

Originally Posted by Car-Addicted

You do understand that EVERY metric that the climate change folks tell us is a sign of man made end times has been duplicated and exceeded by significant factors long before the model T was a glimmer in Henry Ford's eye?

Show us your data.

I'm not saying you are right or wrong. Simply prove it.

Again, question everything...on both sides...of everything

[fcman]

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

Since no one knows exactly what the climate was when materials from core samples are analyzed as a baseline climate for models, it is difficult to consider all the models point in one direction. It's a legitimate activity for sure and interesting to consider the data and its precision. But to base economic and social policy from such model data with zero political risk? No.

Which carries a bigger risk:

Taking precautions based on current unanimous scientific analysis and observing the impact.

OR

Changing nothing and crossing your fingers that everything's all good? Because change is oh so scary

[M5Rick]

Originally Posted by KRS_SN

Boom!

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-66264893.amp

Both parties suggested plans by Labour Mayor Sadiq Khan's to expand London's Ultra Low Emission Zone (Ulez) played a part in the defeat.

High Cou rt hearing coming up..

[G MONEY]

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

Not sure what you are trying to say. The less they realize the actually know what?

I can’t even find a weather guy to be right on his prediction 2 days in a row. Da Fuck.

[Efthreeoh]

Originally Posted by fcman

Which carries a bigger risk:

Taking precautions based on current unanimous scientific analysis and observing the impact.

OR

Changing nothing and crossing your fingers that everything's all good? Because change is oh so scary

In the context of this discussion I hope you see the irony in your statement.

What risk and to whom? It is all conjecture, unanimous (if you think so) or not. The people currenty generating fear through climate models will not be on the planet when the time they are seeking to fix the climate comes to fruition. They can say anything they want with zero repercussions. There is no risk if you or us are not here on the planet. This is not a movie where a giant frigid vortex cyclone hurricane dumps 30 feet of snow on New York City (after it floods...) in the span of 3 days.

You'll not be on the planet, nor will 4 generations of your offspring before there is any discernable change in the climate. Human life on the planet (as you currently understand it) is going to change just like every other species has adapted or gone extinct. Watching the climate in 30-year, 100-year, or 1,000-year increments is microseconds in the span of geological time.

Seriously you should be concerned about the value of the US dollar vs. the Yen. That's where you are going to get screwed in the near term.

[Car-Addicted]

Originally Posted by fcman

Which carries a bigger risk:
Taking precautions based on current unanimous scientific analysis and observing the impact.

First error: unanimous - Sharing the same opinions or views; being in complete harmony or accord. The science is NOT settled. it never is.

[TboneS54]

Originally Posted by fcman

Which carries a bigger risk:

Taking precautions based on current unanimous scientific analysis and observing the impact.

OR

Changing nothing and crossing your fingers that everything's all good? Because change is oh so scary

Faulty logic. You're assuming there are no downsides to the precautions taken. And you're assuming that there will be major (negative) cosequences if no action is taken.

Maybe we should do away with habeus corpus and due process? The guy who looks really guilty probably is guilty (even though we don't have good evidence). Probably safer to put him in prison lest he does do something really bad in the future.

[Car-Addicted]

Sri Lanka’s Green New Deal was a disaster

As I reported to you in this blog last April, the government decided to impose organic farming on the entire country. According to the Journal, “…widespread hunger [occurred] after the agriculture economy collapsed – Sri Lanka’s people have wrought the first contra-organic national uprising in history.”

https://www.farmprogress.com/comment...was-a-disaster

[TboneS54]

Originally Posted by Car-Addicted

Sri Lanka’s Green New Deal was a disaster

As I reported to you in this blog last April, the government decided to impose organic farming on the entire country. According to the Journal, “…widespread hunger [occurred] after the agriculture economy collapsed – Sri Lanka’s people have wrought the first contra-organic national uprising in history.”

https://www.farmprogress.com/comment...was-a-disaster

Sorry, I take issue with this type of shit.

This is not evidence of any other than how NOT to transition.

Had they implemented the correct farming technique (regenerative farming), there wouldn't have been issues. What they did was simply not use pestisides in a agricultural setup that was built around pesticides (i.e., no natural predators around to kill the bugs).

When you do it correctly, it's a self governing eco system.

Anyway. It's easy to grab attention and and easy to find something that seems to support a certain viewpoint, but when broken down, you see it doesn't mean much at all.

It'd be like an allopath telling an obese person that they can continue living their current lifestyle, they just need to take these certain pills to stay alive. Then taking away those pills (pesticides) and expecting them to get healthier. But you didn't change their diet/lifestyle, and now they may actually die. Then the allopaths will say, "see see, people NEED the pills". The answer was to not reach a state of obesity in the first place.

[Car-Addicted]

Originally Posted by TboneS54

Sorry, I take issue with this type of shit.
This is not evidence of any other than how NOT to transition.

I'm sure your righteous indignation comes as a great source of comfort to the people from Sri Lanka.
Sri Lanka is grappling with a record 90 percent food inflation, making even staples such as rice unaffordable for millions of families. (Indeed, the average monthly cost of a nutritious diet has soared 156 percent since 2018)

My original point was, that driving forward with the green new deal will have massive implications to the poor. Spending Trillions in pursuit of Climate fools gold in first world countries will leave generations with insurmountable debt and a planet with no discernible change other than planetary evolution.

Date: (2016 Apr) Sustaining food self-sufficiency of a nation:
With rice comprising approximately 40 % its total crop production (FAO 2014a), Sri Lanka provides an interesting example of a country with a long-standing, national self-sufficiency policy. Since gaining independence in 1948, agricultural policies in Sri Lanka have generally been aimed at improving its self-sufficiency in all food crops. Particularly, the target for rice production (the staple food of the country) was established at 100 % of domestic demand (Imbulana et al. 2006). Due to a combination of high yielding varieties, paddy expansion, and increased use of irrigation and fertilizer, rice production has steadily risen to meet this target. As a result, Sri Lanka has been almost entirely reliant on its own rice production since 2005 (DCS 2014; FAO 2014a). While the country is currently able to meet domestic demand for rice, it is unclear whether the country can continue to do so under projected population growth.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4815756/

[Murf the Surf]

Originally Posted by Car-Addicted

I'm sure your righteous indignation comes as a great source of comfort to the people from Sri Lanka.
Sri Lanka is grappling with a record 90 percent food inflation, making even staples such as rice unaffordable for millions of families. (Indeed, the average monthly cost of a nutritious diet has soared 156 percent since 2018)

My original point was, that driving forward with the green new deal will have massive implications to the poor. Spending Trillions in pursuit of Climate fools gold in first world countries will leave generations with insurmountable debt and a planet with no discernible change other than planetary evolution.

Date: (2016 Apr) Sustaining food self-sufficiency of a nation:
With rice comprising approximately 40 % its total crop production (FAO 2014a), Sri Lanka provides an interesting example of a country with a long-standing, national self-sufficiency policy. Since gaining independence in 1948, agricultural policies in Sri Lanka have generally been aimed at improving its self-sufficiency in all food crops. Particularly, the target for rice production (the staple food of the country) was established at 100 % of domestic demand (Imbulana et al. 2006). Due to a combination of high yielding varieties, paddy expansion, and increased use of irrigation and fertilizer, rice production has steadily risen to meet this target. As a result, Sri Lanka has been almost entirely reliant on its own rice production since 2005 (DCS 2014; FAO 2014a). While the country is currently able to meet domestic demand for rice, it is unclear whether the country can continue to do so under projected population growth.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4815756/

"De-carboning" the economy is going to have staggering economic implications. I think as people start feeling the impact the push back is going to be something to see.

[fcman]

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

In the context of this discussion I hope you see the irony in your statement.

What risk and to whom? It is all conjecture, unanimous (if you think so) or not. The people currenty generating fear through climate models will not be on the planet when the time they are seeking to fix the climate comes to fruition. They can say anything they want with zero repercussions. There is no risk if you or us are not here on the planet. This is not a movie where a giant frigid vortex cyclone hurricane dumps 30 feet of snow on New York City (after it floods...) in the span of 3 days.

You'll not be on the planet, nor will 4 generations of your offspring before there is any discernable change in the climate. Human life on the planet (as you currently understand it) is going to change just like every other species has adapted or gone extinct. Watching the climate in 30-year, 100-year, or 1,000-year increments is microseconds in the span of geological time.

Ok you’re definitely just trolling now

[G30M]