GM is pulling back on EVs

[K4fxd]

I don't believe there is a climate crisis,” Clauser said during at Quantum Korea. “The world we live in today is filled with misinformation. It is up to each of you to serve as judges, distinguishing truth from falsehood based on accurate observations of phenomena.”Jul 31, 2023

It is an opinion piece, don't get carried away.

https://gript.ie/nobel-winning-scientist-has-imf-talk-cancelled-over-climate-views-group-says/

Nobel winning scientist has IMF talk cancelled over climate views, group says.

Sponsored

 

[jtmat]

https://media4.manhattan-institute....ehicles-for-everyone-the-impossible-dream.pdf

The above is very long but accurately breaks down BEV's

Some key points. There are so many I will not post more. Read it.


the energy equivalent of about 300 gallons of oil is used to fabricate
a quantity of batteries capable of storing the energy contained in a single gallon of gasoline.

The ore grades for each mineral dictate the quantities of rock that must be dug up and
processed to produce minerals needed to fabricate one battery; thus:
• Lithium brines contain @ ~0.14% lithium, so that entails ~20,000 pounds of brines to yield 30 pounds of pure lithium
• Cobalt @ ~0.1% ore grades means ~60,000 pounds of ore dug up per battery
• Nickel @ ~1.3% grade, means ~10,000 pounds of ore
• Graphite @ ~10% leads to 2,000 pounds of ore
• Copper @ ~0.6% yields about 12,000 pounds of ore
These five elements total ~100,000 pounds of ore to fabricate one EV battery.
To properly account for all the earth moved, there’s also the overburden, the materials first dug up to get to the ore; depending on ore type and location, it averages three to seven tons of overburden removed to access each ton of ore, i thus ~500,000 pounds total. The exact number varies for different batteries and mines. Note that this doesn’t include large quantities of chemicals to process and refine the ores, or the mining/refining for the other 400 pounds of battery minerals used (e.g., steel, aluminum).

I would not expect anything less from The Manhattan Institute. They are an extremely conservative, corporate-funded, New York-based policy group.

I'd read their paper with hefty skepticism as I would something from an opposite leaning Think Tank.

 

[K4fxd]

I would not expect anything less from The Manhattan Institute.

Yep, when you can't dispute the facts, attack the source.


The World Climate Declaration, supported by some 1500 scientists and professionals, including Professor Ivar Giaever, who is also a Nobel laureate in physics, also argues that climate models are “not remotely plausible as global policy tools.


The Declaration claims that “climate policy relies on inadequate models … that have many shortcomings and are not remotely plausible as policy tools. They do not only exaggerate the effect of greenhouse gases, they also ignore the fact that enriching the atmosphere with CO2 is beneficial.”

I suppose you could call 1500 scientists a consensus.

More co2 = healthier plants = more food and more o2

https://gript.ie/nobel-winning-scientist-has-imf-talk-cancelled-over-climate-views-group-says/

 

[jtmat]

Yep, when you can't dispute the facts, attack the source.


The World Climate Declaration, supported by some 1500 scientists and professionals, including Professor Ivar Giaever, who is also a Nobel laureate in physics, also argues that climate models are “not remotely plausible as global policy tools.


The Declaration claims that “climate policy relies on inadequate models … that have many shortcomings and are not remotely plausible as policy tools. They do not only exaggerate the effect of greenhouse gases, they also ignore the fact that enriching the atmosphere with CO2 is beneficial.”

I suppose you could call 1500 scientists a consensus.

More co2 = healthier plants = more food and more o2

https://gript.ie/nobel-winning-scientist-has-imf-talk-cancelled-over-climate-views-group-says/

I don't disagree with the WCD. But I see their agenda: We strongly oppose the harmful and unrealistic net-zero CO2 policy proposed for 2050.

That seems to be in alignment and consistent with an ongoing argument on this thread.

Do 97 percent of scientists still believe in climate change?

I personally believe in climate change, which WDC also supports. The question, unless I'm wrong, is how much is caused or can be reversed by human activities.

 

[sk47]

The question, unless I'm wrong, is how much is caused or can be reversed by human activities.

Hello; I imagine you did not intend to support one of my own view points, but that you have in writing ought to count. For months and in many posts I have been pointing out even if emissions of Co2 went to zero tomorrow, that the popular model has continued warming for at least 50 years.
On that point we two had a go about that model prediction. At least some of that sort of prediction apparently was based on NASA work. I believe you yourself posted that NASA was to review their own findings. My guess is some of those less than helpful findings may be reversed.

The climate was going to change regardless of human actions. What human actions may have done is something of a thin layer on top of thick layers of natural processes. Back in my youth winters were very much harder than they have been the last couple of decades. I clearly recall the predictions of a coming ICE AGE in my lifetime. That the climate scientists of the 1970's got it wrong then does not necessairly indicate that todays scientists have the changed story wrong. Gives lots of pause does it not?

"The World Climate Declaration, supported by some 1500 scientists and professionals, including Professor Ivar Giaever, who is also a Nobel laureate in physics, also argues that climate models are “not remotely plausible as global policy tools."

This is worth repeated quotes.

Thing is, natural of man induced, we will have to deal with the climate as it is.

 

[sk47]

Fierce new discovery changes major belief about the Sun (msn.com)

“The international team behind the discovery found that this type of light, known as gamma rays, is surprisingly bright. That is, around 1 trillion electron volts, which is more than scientists had previously anticipated.”

“‘The sun is more surprising than we knew,’ said Nisa in a statement. ‘We thought we had this star figured out, but that’s not the case.’”

“‘When we first saw it, we were like, “We definitely messed this up. The sun cannot be this bright at these energies”,’ she said.”

“The findings published in the journal Physical Review Letters suggest that the sun is a much more dynamic and energetic place than we previously thought.”

“However, it does suggest that the sun is more active than we previously thought. This could have implications for our understanding of space weather, which can have a significant impact on our planet.”

“The discovery also raises new questions about the nature of the sun and how it works.”



Hello; Not trying to imply this new and recent discovery has implications about our understanding of natural climate change. Such would be premature. Main point might be it is not a good idea to claim total understanding of how natural mechanisms work.

 

[jtmat]

Hello; I imagine you did not intend to support one of my own view points, but that you have in writing ought to count. For months and in many posts I have been pointing out even if emissions of Co2 went to zero tomorrow, that the popular model has continued warming for at least 50 years.

I support you 100%. You can believe whatever you want. We often align but you are too busy doing the "us against them" to see it. Then I think we are aligned and you say something weird and blow it. lol

On that point we two had a go about that model prediction. At least some of that sort of prediction apparently was based on NASA work. I believe you yourself posted that NASA was to review their own findings. My guess is some of those less than helpful findings may be reversed.

Could have. You tell a lot of winding stories and it is hard to keep up with your point.

I don't really care about the climate change argument. It does not move me to defend/not defend it. I'll make comments about an argument for fun, but that is about it.

Greenpeace blocked my ship from going into port and I've been against them since. That was in the 90s. Their methods remind me of the methods you and some others used/use in the science thread because you didn't like the subject. Far anything is too far.

The climate was going to change regardless of human actions. What human actions may have done is something of a thin layer on top of thick layers of natural processes. Back in my youth winters were very much harder than they have been the last couple of decades. I clearly recall the predictions of a coming ICE AGE in my lifetime. That the climate scientists of the 1970's got it wrong then does not necessairly indicate that todays scientists have the changed story wrong. Gives lots of pause does it not?

Why did you decide to not have kids because there is too many people in the world, if you knew climate change was inevitable?

That is "Greenpeace" hardcore. I think you have a green jacket in your closet. And you never won the Masters Tournament, if you know what I mean.

 

[sk47]

I support you 100%. You can believe whatever you want. We often align but you are too busy doing the "us against them" to see it. Then I think we are aligned and you say something weird and blow it. lol



Could have. You tell a lot of winding stories and it is hard to keep up with your point.

I don't really care about the climate change argument. It does not move me to defend/not defend it. I'll make comments about an argument for fun, but that is about it.

Greenpeace blocked my ship from going into port and I've been against them since. That was in the 90s. Their methods remind me of the methods you and some others used/use in the science thread because you didn't like the subject. Far anything is too far.



Why did you decide to not have kids because there is too many people in the world, if you knew climate change was inevitable?

That is "Greenpeace" hardcore. I think you have a green jacket in your closet. And you never won the Masters Tournament, if you know what I mean.

Hello; That you argue "for fun" rather than from some level of conviction would seem to put your comments into a questionable light. Just goofing around to have something to do with no real backbone to it.

Climate change was pretty much not among the reasons I decided to not have children, so low as to not be a real factor. As I have stated before, back in the 1960 & 70's it was thought we were entering into the early stages of the next ICE AGE. I had other much more relevant reasons to be concerned. I gained a fair understanding of natural population dynamics around the time i decided to be childless. There were also the levels of pollution which existed at the time. I will correct you on one item once again. Back in 1975 there were not "too" many people. We were at or approaching going beyond sustainable limits at the time to be sure, but the hope was human population would stabilize. Had such population stabilization happened many of our current environmental issues would be very much less dire or even perhaps not problems at all. Point being climate change was not then and is not now high on my list of things to be concerned about. There are many other more dire environmental issues to be concerned about.

I have often been torn about the actions of "Greenpeace". I did not join the organization and did not like some of the tactics used. At the same time some of the goals they championed I did favor. I guess the save the whales part was an example of something I liked, but I did not always support the aggressive tactics. Maybe a modern comparison is the way some climate activists throw paint on museum paintings to make a point. It does not help that i find much climate activism to not be backed up by reason.

Criticize and poke fun at me as you will. I get that you are not serious about the things you rant on about. It is all for fun. You champion the BEV but do not own one, I get it. Whatever my faults, I did step up and walk the walk of my considered beliefs and have for decades.

 

[K4fxd]

Ever checked the credentials of the scientists on those lists?

So again you trash the source instead of the facts presented.

 

[Burkey]

So again you trash the source instead of the facts presented.

Because the “facts” they present aren’t necessarily facts. That happens a lot when you aren’t qualified to be speaking on a topic, which is what I was highlighting.
All of these claims have been debunked, repeatedly, but you just won’t look for the information. Not my fault and it’s not my job to educate you either.
You can be as ignorant as you choose to be.

Why are you so easily convinced by the signature of a politician?

 

[Burkey]

More co2 = healthier plants = more food and more

It’s been REPEATEDLY debunked already. All you need to do is ask Google PROPER questions, like “Is CO2 good for plants”.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/ask-the-experts-does-rising-co2-benefit-plants1/

This isn’t new information. It’s been known for quite some time.
How long? Well, here’s an article from 20 years ago. You’ve had THAT long to catch up and yet you’ve failed. HOW? How have you achieved this level of ignorance for two decades?

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/12/021206075233.htm

 

[Gregs24]

It’s been REPEATEDLY debunked already. All you need to do is ask Google PROPER questions, like “Is CO2 good for plants”.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/ask-the-experts-does-rising-co2-benefit-plants1/

This isn’t new information. It’s been known for quite some time.
How long? Well, here’s an article from 20 years ago. You’ve had THAT long to catch up and yet you’ve failed. HOW? How have you achieved this level of ignorance for two decades?

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/12/021206075233.htm

It also clearly states that maize (corn) the second biggest food crop grown on Earth does NOT have improved yields in higher CO2 environments.

This is all so easy to find from reputable sources

 

[Gregs24]

I don't really care about the climate change argument. It does not move me to defend/not defend it. I'll make comments about an argument for fun, but that is about it.

Because there is no argument

Interestingly the 'deniers' in general have moved on from the 'there is no climate change' to 'well it isn't humans causing it, it's just natural cycles' and now moving on to 'well there isn't anything we can do about it'. And they expect to be taken seriously.

The Four Stage Strategy. - YouTube

 

[K4fxd]

researchers concluded that elevated atmospheric CO2 actually reduces plant growth when combined with other likely consequences of climate change –

So again another someday maybe it will happen.

In the Jurassic era there were large jungles capable of supporting HUGE plant eaters.

l'll take a page out of your play book. Stanford University is highly biased.




Moore says. Doubling CO2 from pre-industrial levels, she adds, does boost the productivity of crops like wheat by some 11.5 percent and of those such as corn by around 8.4 percent.

They do reluctantly admit the truth, then walk it back in the next paragraph with some bamboozling double speak.


NY Times, Public radio? You think she might be biased?


ABOUT THE AUTHOR(S)
Annie Sneed is a science journalist who has written for the New York Times, Wired, Public Radio International and Fast Company.

science journalist, So not even a real scientist.

 

[K4fxd]

https://www.yahoo.com/news/scientist-used-spread-climate-change-043030138.html



"The origins go back to the…U.N. environmental program," says Curry. Some U.N. officials were motivated by "anti-capitalism. They hated the oil companies and seized on the climate change issue to move their policies along."

The U.N. created the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

"The IPCC wasn't supposed to focus on any benefits of warming. The IPCC's mandate was to look for dangerous human-caused climate change."

"Then the national funding agencies directed all the funding…assuming there are dangerous impacts."

The researchers quickly figured out that the way to get funded was to make alarmist claims about "man-made climate change."

This is how "manufactured consensus" happens.

More truth coming to light

Sponsored