GM is pulling back on EVs

[AZlb5.0]

But again in some countries rapid charging is very much a thing where 4 hour charges are not a thing. US infrastructure needs to catch up, but we have covered this already.

What countries because that was done in Europe like a few days ago. So? This wasn’t an US based video.

Sponsored

 

[Gregs24]

What countries because that was done in Europe like a few days ago. So? This wasn’t an US based video.

It was filmed in the UK a few weeks ago. Europe is not a country, some European countries have very good infrastructure, some don't. Holland and Germany have lots of charge points, others such as Latvia and Estonia have virtually none.

Lots of info here: Ratio of public chargers per EV stock by country, 2020 – Charts – Data & Statistics - IEA

Lessons to learn:
EV Charging Infrastructure Best Practice: Learnings From Norway (mer.eco)

 

[AZlb5.0]

It was filmed in the UK a few weeks ago. Europe is not a country, some European countries have very good infrastructure, some don't. Holland and Germany have lots of charge points, others such as Latvia and Estonia have virtually none.

Lots of info here: Ratio of public chargers per EV stock by country, 2020 – Charts – Data & Statistics - IEA

Lessons to learn:
EV Charging Infrastructure Best Practice: Learnings From Norway (mer.eco)

Lol talking to me like I don’t know Europe is not a country. You’re a smug individual. I asked which countries because this was filmed in Europe as me describing that it wasn’t in the US. Take your personal cheap shots at other people not me. I’ve yet to disrespect you in any way shape or form.

 

[Gregs24]

Lol talking to me like I don’t know Europe is not a country. You’re a smug individual. I asked which countries because this was filmed in Europe as me describing that it wasn’t in the US. Take your personal cheap shots at other people not me. I’ve yet to disrespect you in any way shape or form.

I told you which countries have better infrastructure. Get over yourself....

 

[sk47]

He never does - he just rambles on with his own agenda and NEVER accepts he is wrong. he has been called out so many times - he is just a troll. Maybe he is Chinese ?

Hello; You two need to get a room.

 

[Burkey]

All this and no real answer. Yet, I (we ) are supposed to swallow this word salad.

I’m sorry that you think my reply was a word salad. Perhaps if you phrased your questions properly, I wouldn’t have to try and unpack what exactly it is that you’re asking.
When you phrase the questions more accurately, I’ll be able respond with an answer.

The way you phrase it is like watching the anti-evolution crowd in action. Eg. “If we came from monkeys, why do monkeys still exist?” When I see that, I realise that someone missed entire sections of biology. Where do you even start?
.
Here’s a question or two that might help me to work out where you’re at.

1. Do you understand that there are currently no plans, at any point in time, for humans to emit zero C02?

2. Do you understand that the current plan is to eventually reduce atmospheric CO2 concentrations to pre-industrial levels (or thereabouts)?

3. Do you understand that it is generally accepted that the CO2 emissions we put in the sky today, won’t have their maximum impact until ~10 years from now?

A simple yes or no will do.

As a side note, you suggest that scientists changing heir mind when new evidence becomes available is a bad thing. That’s a positive, not a negative. Unless of course you believe that people should continue believing what they already believe, regardless of the evidence?

 

[sk47]

I’m sorry that you think my reply was a word salad. Perhaps if you phrased your questions properly, I wouldn’t have to try and unpack what exactly it is that you’re asking.
When you phrase the questions more accurately, I’ll be able respond with an answer.

The way you phrase it is like watching the anti-evolution crowd in action. Eg. “If we came from monkeys, why do monkeys still exist?” When I see that, I realise that someone missed entire sections of biology. Where do you even start?
.
Here’s a question or two that might help me to work out where you’re at.

1. Do you understand that there are currently no plans, at any point in time, for humans to emit zero C02?

2. Do you understand that the current plan is to eventually reduce atmospheric CO2 concentrations to pre-industrial levels (or thereabouts)?

3. Do you understand that it is generally accepted that the CO2 emissions we put in the sky today, won’t have their maximum impact until ~10 years from now?

A simple yes or no will do.

As a side note, you suggest that scientists changing heir mind when new evidence becomes available is a bad thing. That’s a positive, not a negative. Unless of course you believe that people should continue believing what they already believe, regardless of the evidence?

Hello; Most of this I have already addressed. Guess you did not understand. Changing conclusions based on proper evidence/ facts is fine. Searching for ways to support an agenda is wrong.

 

[Burkey]

Hello; Most of this I have already addressed. Guess you did not understand. Changing conclusions based on proper evidence/ facts is fine. Searching for ways to support an agenda is wrong.

I agree. If you can provide examples of that occurring on the pro-science side I’d love to see them.

For clarity, are you trying to claim that humans aren’t causing the planet to warm? Or, are you claiming that we are, but that the predictions for the future aren’t accurate? I know that you think the models are inaccurate, but that doesn’t mean that you even accept other premises.

If not, what specifically is your position? I don’t want to build a strawman here. We need to know what specific level of denial you’re at.

Try and number the claims. It’s easier to address.
.

 

[sk47]

I agree. If you can provide examples of that occurring on the pro-science side I’d love to see them.

For clarity, are you trying to claim that humans aren’t causing the planet to warm? Or, are you claiming that we are, but that the predictions for the future aren’t accurate? I know that you think the models are inaccurate, but that doesn’t mean that you even accept other premises.

If not, what specifically is your position? I don’t want to build a strawman here. We need to know what specific level of denial you’re at.

Try and number the claims. It’s easier to address.
.

Hello; Already laid out a position in this and in the science is cancelled thread. How often you choose to ignore or maybe just cannot keep up. Plenty from me in writing.
Many days ago i asked a simple question. What happens if emissions stop tomorrow? You and the other champions ignored it for days. I eventually provided the answer myself - Warming will continue for a long time ( i used 50 years some sources say centuries).
Since then, you and one or two others have been railing against me for so many pages. You posted a link from which I pulled an answer from NASA. Resulted in some name calling and putdowns aimed at me.
Now you want me to do over that I have already done more than once. Someone perhaps can help me put a name to this strategy of yours. I understand what you do and figure many others do as well. Stick to the name calling & putdowns you are at least good at that.

 

[sk47]

Hello; Question= What happens if we stop emitting greenhouse gasses today?
Answers from recent link.

“Moreover, temperatures are expected to remain steady rather than dropping for a few centuries after emissions reach zero, meaning that the climate change that has already occurred will be difficult to reverse in the absence of large-scale net negative emissions.”

“The confusion around the impact of zero emissions is understandable. Even a NASA climate FAQ – last updated in 2007 – still says that “even if we stopped emitting greenhouse gases today, global warming would continue to happen for at least several more decades, if not centuries”. (NASA’s Dr Gavin Schmidt tells Carbon Brief that this wording does not reflect more recent research and an update is in the works). “

 

[Burkey]

Hello; Question= What happens if we stop emitting greenhouse gasses today?
Answers from recent link.

“Moreover, temperatures are expected to remain steady rather than dropping for a few centuries after emissions reach zero, meaning that the climate change that has already occurred will be difficult to reverse in the absence of large-scale net negative emissions.”

“The confusion around the impact of zero emissions is understandable. Even a NASA climate FAQ – last updated in 2007 – still says that “even if we stopped emitting greenhouse gases today, global warming would continue to happen for at least several more decades, if not centuries”. (NASA’s Dr Gavin Schmidt tells Carbon Brief that this wording does not reflect more recent research and an update is in the works). “

I still don’t what what your SPECIFIC objections are.

I know that you don’t trust the models.

What OTHER specific objections do you have with the science behind AGW?
Do you trust that the data is valid?
Do you trust that warming is occurring as a result of human activity?

I‘m trying to keep it simple so that we can actually work out where the issues might exist.

For the life of me, I can’t work out why you’re objecting to NASA being willing to change their outlook based on the evidence that has since emerged. It’s weird.

You’d attack them if they didn’t change it but then also attack when they do. Ever felt like you‘ve placed a bet that you can’t lose?

 

[Gregs24]

I’m sorry that you think my reply was a word salad. Perhaps if you phrased your questions properly, I wouldn’t have to try and unpack what exactly it is that you’re asking.
When you phrase the questions more accurately, I’ll be able respond with an answer.

The way you phrase it is like watching the anti-evolution crowd in action. Eg. “If we came from monkeys, why do monkeys still exist?” When I see that, I realise that someone missed entire sections of biology. Where do you even start?
.
Here’s a question or two that might help me to work out where you’re at.

1. Do you understand that there are currently no plans, at any point in time, for humans to emit zero C02?

2. Do you understand that the current plan is to eventually reduce atmospheric CO2 concentrations to pre-industrial levels (or thereabouts)?

3. Do you understand that it is generally accepted that the CO2 emissions we put in the sky today, won’t have their maximum impact until ~10 years from now?

A simple yes or no will do.

As a side note, you suggest that scientists changing heir mind when new evidence becomes available is a bad thing. That’s a positive, not a negative. Unless of course you believe that people should continue believing what they already believe, regardless of the evidence?

Yes or no answers - good luck getting that out of him. He simply cannot do it.

A very good example of this is Newtonian Physics which we now know is wrong BUT is right in our small world (give or take). So do I have to keep running with Newtonian Physics because that is what I was taught as a child or do I accept that new understanding and research provides more accurate information? Depends whether you ever want to progress or not....

 

[Gregs24]

I still don’t what what your SPECIFIC objections are.

I know that you don’t trust the models.

What OTHER specific objections do you have with the science behind AGW?
Do you trust that the data is valid?
Do you trust that warming is occurring as a result of human activity?

I‘m trying to keep it simple so that we can actually work out where the issues might exist.

For the life of me, I can’t work out why you’re objecting to NASA being willing to change their outlook based on the evidence that has since emerged. It’s weird.

You’d attack them if they didn’t change it but then also attack when they do. Ever felt like you‘ve placed a bet that you can’t lose?

Again just like on the thread he got himself banned from - he will NEVER actually accept anything or give his opinion, just argue AGAINST everything. He is just a troll.

 

[kz]

Again just like on the thread he got himself banned from - he will NEVER actually accept anything or give his opinion, just argue AGAINST everything. He is just a troll.

It's pretty sad to watch and clearly a mental health issue - he's the only one in this thread where is contribution to the forum are threads like this, anti-vax "science" one and most recently troll baiting one about genders (what a surprise). He never answers any questions directly claiming he already did and then claims a "win". His existence has been pretty damn miserable.

 

[Burkey]

It's pretty sad to watch and clearly a mental health issue - he's the only one in this thread where is contribution to the forum are threads like this, anti-vax "science" one and most recently troll baiting one about genders (what a surprise). He never answers any questions directly claiming he already did and then claims a "win". His existence has been pretty damn miserable.

I missed the troll baiting re genders. Sounds like some good fun to be had there.

Sponsored