GM is pulling back on EVs

[sk47]

Embedded in the story from that link was a link to the original AXIOS story. It’s quite a different read from the one you posted.

https://www.axios.com/2023/02/14/el...tsnext&utm_medium=email&utm_source=newsletter

Hello; Same story with a different take. Kinda reminds me of reviews in auto magazines. Someone had to polish hard to make a winter trip without using heat so benign.
I personally would want to make that trip in an ICE. Good heat. Shorter fuel stops and very likely less expense for fuel ( gasoline) over commercial EV chargers.
But i will say it again, to each his/her own. Any who wish to try an EV ought to be able to go for it. It is the mandates and other anti-fossil fuel crap which is disturbing.
Using a save the planet bit as an excuse to force EV's onto the unwilling is also fraught with problems. It is become clear that on top of the grids not being up to the task, not enough chargers and the like, the climate saving claims are not measuring up.
Perhaps the mining damage to the environment being the greatest flaw in the "green" agenda, but not the only flaw.
I keep pointing out how a zero CO2 emission level starting tomorrow will not bear fruit for at least 50 years. Of course, we will not be anywhere near zero CO2 emissions any time for decades, if ever. What did folks do this winter in countries that ran short of oil or natural gas do? Why they cut down a lot of trees to burn. Most folks want to be warm.

Sponsored

 

[sk47]

California defunds job training for ousted oil industry workers (msn.com)
Hello; I look forward to the spins to come about this. My take is since they are workers in the hated oil patch it becomes OK to short them. So much for the oil workers can move to other jobs spiel we have heard so often.
Another empty promise it appears????

 

[sk47]

Cool the Climate Alarmism (msn.com)

“The report released before last year’s climate conference points to global warming of between two and three degrees centigrade over pre-industrial levels, considerably less than the increase of four or even five degrees that was once widely forecast.”

Hello; This raises some need for thought. Point being the models of a few years ago are now being revised to indicate a ‘global warming’ of about half as much. Were not the models of just a few years ago thought to be a sort of climate gospel and not to be questioned. I recall such negative comments directed at me when I questioned the climate models a year or two ago in a different thread.

“We do know that climate modeling can give some indications as to what may lie ahead, but we also know that the models are by no means infallible (indeed, some argue that they are profoundly flawed). Those who forecast what the climate will do and why (and those who interpret those forecasts) should bear that in mind.”

Hello; This.

“ It’s something of a cliché to compare some forms of climate fundamentalism to a religion, but that doesn’t make it any less true. True believers are not famous for changing their minds. Equally, for those convinced that command-and-control is the way to manage an economy, society, or both, the climate crisis — a perpetual Covid — is shaping up well as a battering ram to smash through the defenses that liberal democracy normally puts up against authoritarians on the make.”

Hello; Several times I and others have made similar comments. I have also used the phrase “true believers”. One of the regular contributors on here recently stated something like -because we people cannot be trusted to do what he thinks of as the right thing, they must be made to do so. Else they (you and me) will keep on using fossil fuels and such.

“For our part, we believe in human ingenuity and in our species’ ability to adapt, as well as having a conviction that free markets are the best way of unleashing both. We also think that recognizing the need for trade-offs is often inherent in good policy-making, and so is sound cost-benefit analysis. Wishful thinking is not. Nor is apocalyptic fear-mongering”

Hello; I also figure to depend on human ability to adapt. What here is called wishful thinking I sometimes refer to as “someday it will be fixed” thinking.

“When it comes to alternative energy, we should push to get the technology right rather than on the installation of hardware that is not ready for prime time. And the discipline of the market — from the cost of insurance to the tastes of the car buyer — should dictate our choices, not the edicts of central planners drunk on their own righteousness.”

Hello; well stated.

“To the extent that climate policy inhibits economic growth, it is self-defeating. The richer humanity becomes, the greater our ability to spend what it takes to live with, adapt to, and — who knows — one day accurately model the future of the climate.”

Hello; I call it opportunity cost. We are being set up to put all our eggs into one basket in too much of a hurry. If those eggs happen to not work out, we may have used up financial resources and may not be able to change directions to go for some other technology which proves to be better.

 

[tripleyellowmustang]

But at least the U.K. is going green.
https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/sharp-loss-britain-blue-water-060000092.html

Not to be outdone, back in the U.S. trouble is brewing.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/californias-grid-faces-collapse-leaders-070027432.html

 

[Burkey]

I had a lengthy reply locked and loaded but thought it might perhaps be more productive to focus on less of the claims you’re making.

This raises some need for thought.

Indeed it does. Maybe you should ask some questions?
Let’s look at the opening statement.
“The report released before last year’s climate conference points to global warming of between two and three degrees centigrade over pre-industrial levels, considerably less than the increase of four or even five degrees that was once widely forecast.”

I have questions.
1. WHO was making those predictions? The author doesn’t cite any specific piece of work so I imagine that we’re meant to already know?
2. WHEN were they making those predictions?
If you look at global CO2 emissions, you’ll notice that they were doubling every 20 years (or thereabouts) for quite some time. Knowing WHEN that prediction was made and under what specific CO2 atmospheric concentration, this would help immensely.

Did you ask these questions?. If so, can you share the answers?

Point being the models of a few years ago are now being revised to indicate a ‘global warming’ of about half as much.

Yes, some scientists may have predicted what you’re reporting. Not all of them of course, but some, yes.
There are very good reasons for why they would have made those predictions and it was NOT a “faulty model”. If you’d ask questions like the ones I posed earlier, you’d get proper answers. Instead it seems that you‘ll continue to insist that you already know why.

Government POLICY (you know, the part that actually changes our lives) is generally based off what the IPCC has to say on the matter.
So, instead of attacking an imaginary boogeyman, let’s refer to what the IPCC had to say back in 1990:

“They predicted that under a "business as usual" (BAU) scenario, global mean temperature would increase by about 0.3 °C per decade during the [21st] century. They judged that global mean surface air temperature had increased by 0.3 to 0.6 °C over the last 100 years, broadly consistent with prediction of climate models, but also of the same magnitude as natural climate variability. The unequivocal detection of the enhanced greenhouse effect was not likely for a decade or more.”

Please note, actual observed warming has been 0.2* per decade since that report was released. So yes, the IPCC overstated warming by 0.1-0.4* per decade in their first report, issued 30 years ago, UNDER THE ASSUMPTION THAT CO2 CONCENTRATIONS WOULD CONTINUE TO RISE AT THE RATE THEY HAD BEEN OVER HISTORY, WHICH THEY MOST CERTAINLY HAVE NOT, primarily as a result of governments heeding their warnings, reducing emissions.

In other words, the IPCC reports are going to consistently overstate warming, because they are trying to show what will happen IF nothing is done. Governments then subsequently implement measures to make sure that those predictions don’t actually occur. For the “AGW sceptic” it reads like a list of failed predictions. For the rest of us, it’s a reminder that the steps that are being taken are actually having an impact.

Now, back to the “failed predictions” as you might call them. Do you happen to have any idea what they predicted for the CO2 concentration that would land us at the stated temp increase?

Do you happen to have the actual graph, as published by the author of the paper in question? How exactly did you conclude that the model was faulty if you don’t have all of the information?

These are questions that deserve answers.

In the meantime, please take a look at global CO2 emissions and how they changed over time, specifically how the curve distinctly changed around 2010.
I wonder how that could possibly impact the results of predictions that are based on assumptions regarding future emissions?

If you want even the most basic understanding of how accurate the predictions have been and why they sometimes deviate from reality, you can learn enough in under five minutes to satisfy some of those curiosities.
As always, there’s more that can be learned by digging deeper, but this is the amateur version for easy consumption.

https://www.science.org/content/art...ate-models-correctly-predicted-global-warming

 

[Burkey]

We could easily summarise this entire thread by reading this:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidr...ained-a-machine-to-spot-them/?sh=5bc6b4bb49f4

 

[Gregs24]

We could easily summarise this entire thread by reading this:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidr...ained-a-machine-to-spot-them/?sh=5bc6b4bb49f4

The switch from outright “climate denial” to “solutions denial” likely came about because the scientific evidence for human-caused climate change is now so overwhelming. “Science denial has become untenable,” Cook told me. “So inevitably, opponents of climate action are strategically shifting to misinformation targeting climate solutions in order to delay climate policy.”

'Straws' and 'clutching' come to mind here.

 

[kz]

The switch from outright “climate denial” to “solutions denial” likely came about because the scientific evidence for human-caused climate change is now so overwhelming. “Science denial has become untenable,” Cook told me. “So inevitably, opponents of climate action are strategically shifting to misinformation targeting climate solutions in order to delay climate policy.”

'Straws' and 'clutching' come to mind here.

Don't worry, I'm sure there is msn.com article that states otherwise and it is absolutely, without a slightest doubt true.

 

[sk47]

In other words, the IPCC reports are going to consistently overstate warming, because they are trying to show what will happen IF nothing is done. Governments then subsequently implement measures to make sure that those predictions don’t actually occur. For the “AGW sceptic” it reads like a list of failed predictions. For the rest of us, it’s a reminder that the steps that are being taken are actually having an impact.

Hello; Eventually you and Greg's have stated some truths. Attitudes exposed. Is not saying "consistently overstate warming," the same as saying we are being lied to about warming??? Regardless of what you come back with I see such as lying.
Same sort of attitude Gregs posted recently about forcing all into EV's. That because we ordinary people cannot be trusted to do what he considers to be the right things, we must be forced out of ICE. Else we will continue to use natural gas and oil products.

Again, for another time let me ask about what is predicted to happen if we all went co2 free tomorrow. According to the climate gurus warming will continue for at least 50 years regardless. Then maybe, just maybe only, after that first 50 years warming might slow down some for the next 50 years or so. To me that means warming is baked into the climate gurus cake already.

To the next point. Yes, to us ordinary folks when someone or some agencies make a prediction which does not happen it is considered a failed prediction. Fancy that. You tell me a thing will happen and then it does not happen, but i am supposed to think it is a reminder the failed models are still doing OK. Thing is, according to the graphs and charts, Co2 is still increasing in the atmosphere, not dropping. Wouldn't the CO2 levels need to be falling some? Square that one please. Could it be the climate models are flawed in that the weather/climate systems are too complex to fit into the models accurately? Odds are the programing is not refined enough to know what will happen even ten years away. I did some work with early computer projections about animal populations in 1993. Those programs had holes in them. ( Note- I did not write such programs, only tried to use them. )

 

[AZlb5.0]

Good video on long range across a few different types of EVs. Very well balanced pros and cons. Seems that cold weather isn’t a friend to the batteries. Also info on on the reality of public charging. Real life expectations if you’re going to drive your EV a long distance. My take the more you pay the more range you get and you need to plan and give yourself plenty of time.

 

[Burkey]

Hello; Eventually you and Greg's have stated some truths. Attitudes exposed. Is not saying "consistently overstate warming," the same as saying we are being lied to about warming??? Regardless of what you come back with I see such as lying.
Same sort of attitude Gregs posted recently about forcing all into EV's. That because we ordinary people cannot be trusted to do what he considers to be the right things, we must be forced out of ICE. Else we will continue to use natural gas and oil products.

Again, for another time let me ask about what is predicted to happen if we all went co2 free tomorrow. According to the climate gurus warming will continue for at least 50 years regardless. Then maybe, just maybe only, after that first 50 years warming might slow down some for the next 50 years or so. To me that means warming is baked into the climate gurus cake already.

To the next point. Yes, to us ordinary folks when someone or some agencies make a prediction which does not happen it is considered a failed prediction. Fancy that. You tell me a thing will happen and then it does not happen, but i am supposed to think it is a reminder the failed models are still doing OK. Thing is, according to the graphs and charts, Co2 is still increasing in the atmosphere, not dropping. Wouldn't the CO2 levels need to be falling some? Square that one please. Could it be the climate models are flawed in that the weather/climate systems are too complex to fit into the models accurately? Odds are the programing is not refined enough to know what will happen even ten years away. I did some work with early computer projections about animal populations in 1993. Those programs had holes in them. ( Note- I did not write such programs, only tried to use them. )

Instead of doubling down, why can’t you just admit that you‘r wrong? It‘s really not that hard.

I don’t believe that you’re as dense as what your reply suggests.

 

[Strokerswild]

Good video on long range across a few different types of EVs. Very well balanced pros and cons. Seems that cold weather isn’t a friend to the batteries. Also info on on the reality of public charging. Real life expectations if you’re going to drive your EV a long distance. My take the more you pay the more range you get and you need to plan and give yourself plenty of time.

And the bold is why a BEV will never work for me in MN.

A couple of times a year, once in our lovely winter, I make a trek to a favorite resort spot in northern MN for a getaway, which is 238 miles door to door one way. During that winter trek it can be well below zero, -25 or worse at night. Since I'm averse to freezing to death, I'll not rely on a BEV. It would be bad enough during the summer months unless I hauled a gas generator with, which I'm sure everyone who goes there for peace and quiet would want to listen to.

Urban commuting, maybe, but it could be sketchy also with the cold and weather we get here.

 

[Burkey]

Good video on long range across a few different types of EVs. Very well balanced pros and cons. Seems that cold weather isn’t a friend to the batteries. Also info on on the reality of public charging. Real life expectations if you’re going to drive your EV a long distance. My take the more you pay the more range you get and you need to plan and give yourself plenty of time.

Good share. If there was any bias there I must’ve missed it. As you said, he seemed pretty reasonable in his presentation.
The question I’m left with is how on Earth did Ford arrive at the Mach-E design? The people responsible for approval need to find new jobs. Gross.

 

[AZlb5.0]

Good share. If there was any bias there I must’ve missed it. As you said, he seemed pretty reasonable in his presentation.
The question I’m left with is how on Earth did Ford arrive at the Mach-E design? The people responsible for approval need to find new jobs. Gross.

He was very well balanced in talking the plus and minuses on EVs.

And the bold is why a BEV will never work for me in MN.

A couple of times a year, once in our lovely winter, I make a trek to a favorite resort spot in northern MN for a getaway, which is 238 miles door to door one way. During that winter trek it can be well below zero, -25 or worse at night. Since I'm averse to freezing to death, I'll not rely on a BEV. It would be bad enough during the summer months unless I hauled a gas generator with, which I'm sure everyone who goes there for peace and quiet would want to listen to.

Urban commuting, maybe, but it could be sketchy also with the cold and weather we get here.

Todays EVs will definitely fair better in more temperate weather. I also think with the evolution of batteries in cold climate will affect them less and less. What I don’t see around is public charging. That in itself will always be an issue, and being that at times it will take 4+ hours to get a full charge, people will need to plan accordingly on long range trips.

 

[sk47]

Instead of doubling down, why can’t you just admit that you‘r wrong? It‘s really not that hard.

I don’t believe that you’re as dense as what your reply suggests.

Hello; I will take this as you cannot address my questions so have resorted again to a personal insult. Seems to be the case when I rebut your claims.
Already have the "heads I win-tails you lose" gambit from Gregs. Now from you we have twisted definition of lying. " are going to consistently overstate warming, ". So, it is OK to consistently ovderstate whatever it is you hope to use to generate fear among the populus. Hey, we get it and have gotten it for some time. No ploy is too underhanded to use to get their way.

Sponsored