GM is pulling back on EVs

[K4fxd]

What do you think the oil companies are going to say? In todays cancel climate they have no choice but to say what people want to hear. The truth be damned.

Sponsored

 

[Burkey]

What do you think the oil companies are going to say? In todays cancel climate they have no choice but to say what people want to hear. The truth be damned.

LMFAO.
You “We absolutely NEED fossil fuels”
Also you “People will cancel fossil fuels”

Pick a lane and stay in it.

 

[RagmopInKona]

Ooooh…let’s see who the clueless one really is


There was a time when Tesla sold cars before the tax breaks were introduced, so clearly they CAN sell cars without the tax breaks. Them NOW choosing to further discount superseded models is entirely up to them.


Nobody is claiming that EV’s are “so good”. They are REQUIRED. If the fossil fuel industry could make carbon capture or any number of technologies work, we wouldn’t need them.
You seem slightly confused about the predicament.
Just to be clear, even the petrochemical companies accept that their product (post combustion) will eventually cause a crisis.

Don’t believe me? See the links and photos below.

BP:
https://www.bp.com/content/dam/bp/b...group-reports/bp-climate-policy-positions.pdf

Exxon Mobil:
“In this edition of our 2023 Advancing Climate Solutions Progress Report, we share the ways in which ExxonMobil remains determined to tackle head-on the challenge of strengthening energy supply security and reducing emissions to support a net-zero future while growing value for our shareholders and stakeholders. We discuss the ways we will continue delivering solutions that lower the greenhouse gas emissions intensity of our portfolio and help meet society’s growing need for affordable and reliable energy and products.”

https://corporate.exxonmobil.com/ne...s/advancing-climate-solutions-progress-report


Shell:
“With this target, we will contribute to a net-zero world, where society stops adding to the total amount of greenhouse gases (GHGs) in the atmosphere.
Shell supports the most ambitious goal of the Paris Agreement, which is to limit the rise in global average temperature this century to 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels.”

https://www.shell.com/energy-and-in...ml#iframe=L3dlYmFwcHMvY2xpbWF0ZV9hbWJpdGlvbi8

In other words, if you’re still in any doubt about why this is needed, you are what we would call a “cooker“ here in Australa.

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/cooker#:~:text=(slang, derogatory, Australia),who is involved in politics.

Go back to your thread,
Funny, elon sad himself they lowered the prices because of slow sales and to get the tax hand outs.
but you know more than everyone. get lost.

 

[RagmopInKona]

LMFAO.
You “We absolutely NEED fossil fuels”
Also you “People will cancel fossil fuels”

Pick a lane and stay in it.

People are stupid. so yes they would do both, without thinking. They have zero idea of how much crude oil is in everything they touch and use daily.
Walk into a food store any food store. now remove crude oil use.
No packaging for any of it. no glass, no plastic, no cans, no coolers to keep it cold, no machines to harvast it, no way to ship it as electric power comes from fossil fuels/natural gas, coal and a tiny amount from green farces.
YOU LIKE THE REST OF YOUR FOLLOW THE AGRENDA DRIVEN PAID OFF SCIENCE. have zero clue of what you are pushing for. You want to see real inflation, keep pushing. When pump fuel isn't covering most of the crude pumping/drilling and refining, your food cost will go through the roof and availbility will be nil for the little people.
Blind leading the ducking blind.

 

[K4fxd]

https://www.yahoo.com/news/climate-scientist-admits-making-research-190638158.html

A climate scientist has admitted overhyping the impact of global warming on wildfires to ensure his work was published in the prestigious science journal Nature.

How long till the zealots try to destroy this guy?

LMFAO.
You “We absolutely NEED fossil fuels”
Also you “People will cancel fossil fuels”

Pick a lane and stay in it.

The climate zealots will definatly go after the CEO's and top managment of oil companies if they said the truth about the warming planet.

 

[sk47]

People are stupid. so yes they would do both, without thinking. They have zero idea of how much crude oil is in everything they touch and use daily.
Walk into a food store any food store. now remove crude oil use.
No packaging for any of it. no glass, no plastic, no cans, no coolers to keep it cold, no machines to harvast it, no way to ship it as electric power comes from fossil fuels/natural gas, coal and a tiny amount from green farces.
YOU LIKE THE REST OF YOUR FOLLOW THE AGRENDA DRIVEN PAID OFF SCIENCE. have zero clue of what you are pushing for. You want to see real inflation, keep pushing. When pump fuel isn't covering most of the crude pumping/drilling and refining, your food cost will go through the roof and availbility will be nil for the little people.
Blind leading the ducking blind.

Hello; For good and for ill humans started down a path a few hundred years ago. Had we the foresight to know where that path would lead perhaps some different choices might have been made. I privately doubt that, but such matters little as here we are. The use of coal and later oil and natural gas have had tremendous benefits. The moder day idealists imagine a world powered by "green energy" with little to no pollution.

Nobody is claiming that EV’s are “so good”. They are REQUIRED.

 

[RagmopInKona]

Hello; For good and for ill humans started down a path a few hundred years ago. Had we the foresight to know where that path would lead perhaps some different choices might have been made. I privately doubt that, but such matters little as here we are. The use of coal and later oil and natural gas have had tremendous benefits. The moder day idealists imagine a world powered by "green energy" with little to no pollution.

Even so, Even if we stayed with the village type culture and all your needs came from local farms, businesses. You still have to package it . a small group you can just have a market they buy/trade from /at daily, as the pop gets bigger that becomes impossible .
I'll bet Burkley doesn't shop local, his crap comes from around the world. International shipping is one of the biggest polluters and emmissions, along with poor countries with no regulations making the crap. These types think the emmisons put in the air/water stay hovering over that country and never leave it. the old out of sight out of mind.
They support heavy pollution as long as it is N.I.M.B.Y. and out of their sight, They support slavery, and child labor, but it is ok because they don't see it. If they didn't support those things they never buy anything from a 3rd world country. But then they have to pay more for things, and hypocrites don't follow their own stance they force others or TELL others to follow.
The old do as I say, not as I do.
Why if the guy is so hell bent on, fossil fuels are the devil himself, does he have a v8 mustang and not a tiny ev?
Because he falls in the do as I say, not as I do, those ideals are for the little people, not "I".
He killed his own thread reporting anyone with views outside his, and now trolls this one. Pathetic!

 

[sk47]

Why if the guy is so hell bent on, fossil fuels are the devil himself, does he have a v8 mustang and not a tiny ev?
Because he falls in the do as I say, not as I do, those ideals are for the little people, not "I".

Hello; A few months back Burkey told us of a need for a new vehicle. After all his preaching what did he buy? A new ICE. When called out more gently than he deserves on this hypocrisy, he came up with a slew of excuses. A thing is I happen to buy most of the excuses which in summary were an EV would not work very well for him and his family. I see he has not added the new ICE to his user details list.

 

[sk47]

https://www.yahoo.com/news/climate-scientist-admits-making-research-190638158.html

A climate scientist has admitted overhyping the impact of global warming on wildfires to ensure his work was published in the prestigious science journal Nature.

How long till the zealots try to destroy this guy?


The climate zealots will definatly go after the CEO's and top managment of oil companies if they said the truth about the warming planet.

Hello; The attacks are started. My guess is he will be driven from the club.

Editor of Nature journal slams climate scientist Patrick Brown's 'highly irresponsible' research after he said publications reject studies that don't 'support certain narratives' (msn.com)

 

[RagmopInKona]

 

[Vlad Soare]

There was a time when Tesla sold cars before the tax breaks were introduced, so clearly they CAN sell cars without the tax breaks. Them NOW choosing to further discount superseded models is entirely up to them.

Correction - they COULD* sell cars without the tax breaks. They used to sell them to rich nerds and virtue signallers. But now that those early adopters are running out, and the need to start targeting normal people instead becomes more and more pressing, they must adopt new strategies.
Besides, at the time you're talking about Tesla was, for all intents and purposes, alone on the market. It isn't anymore.

* past tense, not conditional

 

[jtmat]

Correction - they COULD* sell cars without the tax breaks. They used to sell them to rich nerds and virtue signallers. But now that those early adopters are running out, and the need to start targeting normal people instead becomes more and more pressing, they must adopt new strategies.
Besides, at the time you're talking about Tesla was, for all intents and purposes, alone on the market. It isn't anymore.

* past tense, not conditional

CAN is correct. "Could" makes no sense in the discussion. I understand you are overseas, so I'm speaking American English.

You are correct in a roundabout way. What you described is simply the product lifecycle. Majority of products go through those phases.

You are also correct about competition although Tesla's competitive advantage in several key areas helps offset -- self-driving, network, batteries, etc. Competitors such as BYD will exist, but there is no reason to believe they can't co-exist.

People are stupid. so yes they would do both, without thinking. They have zero idea of how much crude oil is in everything they touch and use daily.
Walk into a food store any food store. now remove crude oil use.
No packaging for any of it. no glass, no plastic, no cans, no coolers to keep it cold, no machines to harvast it, no way to ship it as electric power comes from fossil fuels/natural gas, coal and a tiny amount from green farces.
YOU LIKE THE REST OF YOUR FOLLOW THE AGRENDA DRIVEN PAID OFF SCIENCE. have zero clue of what you are pushing for. You want to see real inflation, keep pushing. When pump fuel isn't covering most of the crude pumping/drilling and refining, your food cost will go through the roof and availbility will be nil for the little people.
Blind leading the ducking blind.

What a bunch of FUD (Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt).

You don't understand what is being discussed. Try understanding what Net zero, carbon neutral, etc. actually mean.

 

[RagmopInKona]

CAN is correct. "Could" makes no sense in the discussion. I understand you are overseas, so I'm speaking American English.

You are correct in a roundabout way. What you described is simply the product lifecycle. Majority of products go through those phases.

You are also correct about competition although Tesla's competitive advantage in several key areas helps offset -- self-driving, network, batteries, etc. Competitors such as BYD will exist, but there is no reason to believe they can't co-exist.



What a bunch of FUD (Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt).

You don't understand what is being discussed. Try understanding what Net zero, carbon neutral, etc. actually mean.

It means we still pollute but buy emission credits and donate to green causes to make everyone think we care.
Maybe stop thinking everyone is stupid.
Many know first hand how it works. You can be carbon nuetral and still put 500000 tons of greenhouse pollution into the air/water/soil

 

[jtmat]

https://www.yahoo.com/news/climate-scientist-admits-making-research-190638158.html

A climate scientist has admitted overhyping the impact of global warming on wildfires to ensure his work was published in the prestigious science journal Nature.

How long till the zealots try to destroy this guy?

That was interesting to learn about. Thanks for posting it.

Seems Dr. Brown is pushing his own agenda now that he is out of mainstream research. He even says it in his response. While reading his response I thought it odd the way he mentioned technology. Sure enough, Breakthrough Institute: The Breakthrough Institute is a global research center that identifies and promotes technological solutions to environmental and human development challenges.

It is interesting watching how people maneuver and how gullible people who only read headlines eat it up without researching first.

https://www.thefp.com/p/i-overhyped-climate-change-to-get-published

I left academia over a year ago, partially because I felt the pressures put on academic scientists caused too much of the research to be distorted. Now, as a member of a private nonprofit research center, The Breakthrough Institute, I feel much less pressure to mold my research to the preferences of prominent journal editors and the rest of the field.​

​

I don't think the mainstream will destroy him. Sounds like he is still towing the line, if you read his new paper. He seems to not like the publication process. Nature of course has pushed back:

Dr Magdalena Skipper, the Editor in Chief of Nature, disputed the accusations and pointed to recent studies that did not show the alleged editorial biases – including a paper that concluded a rise in carbon emissions in the Amazon was due to a decline in law enforcement.​

​

She also said that peer reviewers of Dr Brown’s work had suggested taking other variables into account, but the authors had argued against their inclusion.​

​

“The only thing in Patrick Brown’s statements about the editorial processes in scholarly journals that we agree on is that science should not work through the efforts by which he published this article,” she said.​

​

“We have an expectation that researchers use the most appropriate data and methods when assessing these data, and that they include all key facts and results that are relevant to the main conclusions of a paper.​

​

“When researchers do not do so, it goes against the interests of both fellow researchers and the research field as a whole. To deliberately not do so is, at best, highly irresponsible.​

​

“We are now carefully considering the implications of his stated actions; certainly, they reflect poor research practices and are not in line with the standards we set for our journal.”​

 

[RagmopInKona]

That was interesting to learn about. Thanks for posting it.

Seems Dr. Brown is pushing his own agenda now that he is out of mainstream research. He even says it in his response. While reading his response I thought it odd the way he mentioned technology. Sure enough, Breakthrough Institute: The Breakthrough Institute is a global research center that identifies and promotes technological solutions to environmental and human development challenges.

It is interesting watching how people maneuver and how gullible people who only read headlines eat it up without researching first.

https://www.thefp.com/p/i-overhyped-climate-change-to-get-published

I left academia over a year ago, partially because I felt the pressures put on academic scientists caused too much of the research to be distorted. Now, as a member of a private nonprofit research center, The Breakthrough Institute, I feel much less pressure to mold my research to the preferences of prominent journal editors and the rest of the field.​

​

I don't think the mainstream will destroy him. Sounds like he is still towing the line, if you read his new paper. He seems to not like the publication process. Nature of course has pushed back:

Dr Magdalena Skipper, the Editor in Chief of Nature, disputed the accusations and pointed to recent studies that did not show the alleged editorial biases – including a paper that concluded a rise in carbon emissions in the Amazon was due to a decline in law enforcement.​

​

She also said that peer reviewers of Dr Brown’s work had suggested taking other variables into account, but the authors had argued against their inclusion.​

​

“The only thing in Patrick Brown’s statements about the editorial processes in scholarly journals that we agree on is that science should not work through the efforts by which he published this article,” she said.​

​

“We have an expectation that researchers use the most appropriate data and methods when assessing these data, and that they include all key facts and results that are relevant to the main conclusions of a paper.​

​

“When researchers do not do so, it goes against the interests of both fellow researchers and the research field as a whole. To deliberately not do so is, at best, highly irresponsible.​

​

“We are now carefully considering the implications of his stated actions; certainly, they reflect poor research practices and are not in line with the standards we set for our journal.”​

Burkley is that you?

Sponsored