LDRHAWKE

Well-known member
First Name
John
Joined
Dec 24, 2019
Threads
19
Messages
362
Reaction score
436
Location
Saint Augustine, Fl
Vehicles
Toyota FJ, GTS1000,FJR1300, Aprillia Scarabeo,
Occupation
Retired Engineer
Country flag
It's already been proven that human activities have already altered the climate in dramatic fashion. This is only in doubt to climate deniers who don't follow the science.



Global warming theory did not start with politicians, it started with scientists who were studying climate back as early as 1882:

Beyond Google: my afternoon trawling Trove for the first mentions of climate change | Libraries | The Guardian

and this newspaper brief from scientific thought in 2012:

1632115020903.png




That's false. The Federal Budget did not include $150 billion in research grants designed to prove global warming. That's not how science works. In any case, much of that money was to mitigate the effects of climate change, harden cities against flooding, etc.



I bet you never thought you would become the subject of that famous observation! Everyone who buys into the climate denial misinformation could be classified as a sucker.



Climate science does not predict the end of the world due to global warming, it predicts rapid climate change (historically the climate changes much more slowly), flooding, heat waves, large scale crop failures, etc. etc. etc. This does not end the world, it merely reduces our standard of living, reduces the carrying capacity of the planet for humans, makes us more uncomfortable and takes millions of lives. It's not the end of the world but I don't think it's a better future than if we act now to limit humans impact on climate. The impacts of human induced climate change have already cost world economies billions of dollars in damages and millions of deaths. Yet some people prefer to deny anything at all is happening. It's like the flat earthers, they believe what they believe and no evidence is good enough to get them to change their mind.

Sad.
Tesla EV’s will become a huge success because they make more efficient use of the energy on earth and a better automotive design, not because they stop global warming.

You argue carbon-dioxide emissions are destroying the planet, but the climate impacts of carbon dioxide are minimal, at worst. Political Activists would also have you believe fossil-fuel emissions have driven carbon-dioxide concentrations to their highest levels in history. The Obama-era Environmental Protection Agency went so far as to classify carbon dioxide as a toxic pollutant, and it established a radical goal of closing all of America’s coal-fired power plants. All the while his buddies Strong and Gore are pushing the Cap and Trade con to bilk the World of $trillions. I find it amazing how alarmists always ignore these facts.

The cessation of observed global warming for the past decade or so has shown how exaggerated NASA's and most other computer predictions of human-caused warming have been and how little correlation warming has with concentrations of atmospheric carbon dioxide. As many scientists have pointed out, variations in global temperature correlate much better with solar activity and with complicated cycles of the oceans and atmosphere. The real numbers are half of what NASA has stated after getting caught fudging. There isn't the slightest evidence that more carbon dioxide has caused more extreme weather.

Marxists at the U.N. IPCC octopus in order to frame CO2 emissions as evil to trick governments to shut down the fossil fuel industry along with all of Western capitalism and pave the way for global Marxism after a massive redistribution of wealth for their idea of Marxist social-racial justice, which they now proudly call the Great Reset. In short, they’re trying to make useful idiots who will ruin their children’s future thinking they’re saving the world, but just putting them in charge while starving and freezing or boiling in the dark.

Seldom is the public ever informed of the glaring discrepancies between basic science and what politicians and pop-scientists tell us, and/or block us from reading on the internet.

There is no Climate Crisis. There is no Climate Emergency.

Yes, irregular warming is occurring. Yes, it is at least partly due to human greenhouse gas emissions. But seldom are the benefits of a somewhat warmer climate system mentioned, or the benefits of more CO2 in the atmosphere (which is required for life on Earth to exist). But if we waste trillions of dollars (that’s just here in the U.S. — meanwhile, China will always do what is in the best interests of China) then that is trillions of dollars not available for the real necessities of life. Prosperity will suffer, and for no good reason.”

The climate predicting computers overstate the global temperatures by a wide margin as can be seen when compared to actual temperature measurements. Alarmists use them to put fear in to the pubic. Their predictions should never be used for making policy.

You say it is all about the science. But nothing you counter with is about science. Claims of unprecedented carbon-dioxide levels ignore most of Earth’s 4.6-billion-year history. Relative to Earth’s entire record, carbon-dioxide levels are at historically low levels; they only appear high when compared to the dangerously low levels of carbon dioxide that occurred in Earth’s very recent history. The geologic record reveals carbon dioxide has almost always been in Earths’ atmosphere in much greater concentrations than it is today. For example, 600 million years ago, when history’s greatest birth of new animal species occurred, atmospheric carbon-dioxide concentrations exceeded 6,500 parts per million (ppm) — an amount that’s 17 times greater than it is today.

Atmospheric carbon dioxide is currently only 410 parts per million. That means only 0.04 percent of our atmosphere is carbon dioxide (compared to 0.03 percent one century ago). Only one molecule in 2,500 is carbon dioxide. Such levels certainly do not pose a health risk, as carbon-dioxide levels in our naval submarines, which stay submerged for months at a time, contain an average carbon-dioxide concentration of 5,000 ppm.

The geologic record is important because it reveals relationships between carbon-dioxide levels, climate, and life on Earth. Over billions of years, the geologic record shows there is no long-term correlation between atmospheric carbon-dioxide levels and Earth’s climate. There are periods in Earth’s history when carbon dioxide concentrations were many times higher than they are today, yet temperatures were identical to, or even colder than, modern times. The claim that fossil-fuel emissions control atmospheric carbon-dioxide concentrations is also invalid, as atmospheric concentrations have gone up and down in the geological record, even without human influence.

The absurdity of climate alarmism claims gets even stranger when you consider there are 7.5 billion people on our planet who, together, exhale 2.7 billion tons of carbon dioxide each year, which is almost 10 percent of total fossil-fuel emissions every year. However, we are but a single species. Combined, people and all domesticated animals contribute 10 billion tons.

Further, 9 percent of carbon-dioxide emissions from all living things arise not from animals, but from anaerobic bacteria and fungi. These organisms metabolize dead plant and animal matter in soil via decay processes that recycle carbon dioxide back into the atmosphere. The grand total produced by all living things is estimated to be 440 billion tons per year, or 13 times the amount of carbon dioxide currently being produced by fossil-fuel emissions. Fossil-fuel emissions are less than 10 percent of biological emissions. Are you laughing yet?

The actual driver of climate change is the sun. If it changes it’s output by 1/10 of 1%, the change will either encase the planet in ice, or fry it to a crisp, depending which way it goes.

And please don’t use the CNN and CNBC argument 99% of scientist believe in global warming that’s the biggest hoax and lie. If you have digested any of this and still believe or don’t at least question Global Warming …..it is sad. But I would like to hear your counter to the points made above in a scientific rebuttal , and please don’t simply say I am a climate denier who doesn’t follow the science.
Sponsored

 

HaulingAss

Well-known member
First Name
Mike
Joined
Oct 3, 2020
Threads
9
Messages
4,495
Reaction score
9,476
Location
Washington State
Vehicles
2010 F-150, 2018 Model 3 Perform, FS Cybertruck
Country flag
I go back and forth on this. Cars have entered the realm of technology. It makes it difficult to buy any vehicle because what comes out in 2-3 years is going to be a lot better than what is released today.
You can waffle if you want but technological disruptions don't waffle - they flip. Comparing a newer ICE to an older ICE is not the same technological difference as comparing ICE to EV.

Sometimes you just need a car or truck and you have to buy what's available right now. Of course when the Cybertruck is availavle, now that will be the perfect time to buy. ;)
I was responding to someone who was considering replacing their 2018 Tundra with a 2022 Tundra. I said it was a bad move from a personal economic perspective.

Context matters.

Sure, if you don't have a truck now and you absolutely need a truck, then buy an ICE truck - that is your only option. I would buy used at this point. But that's not what I was discussing.
 

HaulingAss

Well-known member
First Name
Mike
Joined
Oct 3, 2020
Threads
9
Messages
4,495
Reaction score
9,476
Location
Washington State
Vehicles
2010 F-150, 2018 Model 3 Perform, FS Cybertruck
Country flag
Tesla EV’s will become a huge success because they make more efficient use of the energy on earth and a better automotive design, not because they stop global warming.

You argue carbon-dioxide emissions are destroying the planet, but the climate impacts of carbon dioxide are minimal, at worst. Political Activists would also have you believe fossil-fuel emissions have driven carbon-dioxide concentrations to their highest levels in history. The Obama-era Environmental Protection Agency went so far as to classify carbon dioxide as a toxic pollutant, and it established a radical goal of closing all of America’s coal-fired power plants. All the while his buddies Strong and Gore are pushing the Cap and Trade con to bilk the World of $trillions. I find it amazing how alarmists always ignore these facts.

The cessation of observed global warming for the past decade or so has shown how exaggerated NASA's and most other computer predictions of human-caused warming have been and how little correlation warming has with concentrations of atmospheric carbon dioxide. As many scientists have pointed out, variations in global temperature correlate much better with solar activity and with complicated cycles of the oceans and atmosphere. The real numbers are half of what NASA has stated after getting caught fudging. There isn't the slightest evidence that more carbon dioxide has caused more extreme weather.

Marxists at the U.N. IPCC octopus in order to frame CO2 emissions as evil to trick governments to shut down the fossil fuel industry along with all of Western capitalism and pave the way for global Marxism after a massive redistribution of wealth for their idea of Marxist social-racial justice, which they now proudly call the Great Reset. In short, they’re trying to make useful idiots who will ruin their children’s future thinking they’re saving the world, but just putting them in charge while starving and freezing or boiling in the dark.

Seldom is the public ever informed of the glaring discrepancies between basic science and what politicians and pop-scientists tell us, and/or block us from reading on the internet.

There is no Climate Crisis. There is no Climate Emergency.

Yes, irregular warming is occurring. Yes, it is at least partly due to human greenhouse gas emissions. But seldom are the benefits of a somewhat warmer climate system mentioned, or the benefits of more CO2 in the atmosphere (which is required for life on Earth to exist). But if we waste trillions of dollars (that’s just here in the U.S. — meanwhile, China will always do what is in the best interests of China) then that is trillions of dollars not available for the real necessities of life. Prosperity will suffer, and for no good reason.”

The climate predicting computers overstate the global temperatures by a wide margin as can be seen when compared to actual temperature measurements. Alarmists use them to put fear in to the pubic. Their predictions should never be used for making policy.

You say it is all about the science. But nothing you counter with is about science. Claims of unprecedented carbon-dioxide levels ignore most of Earth’s 4.6-billion-year history. Relative to Earth’s entire record, carbon-dioxide levels are at historically low levels; they only appear high when compared to the dangerously low levels of carbon dioxide that occurred in Earth’s very recent history. The geologic record reveals carbon dioxide has almost always been in Earths’ atmosphere in much greater concentrations than it is today. For example, 600 million years ago, when history’s greatest birth of new animal species occurred, atmospheric carbon-dioxide concentrations exceeded 6,500 parts per million (ppm) — an amount that’s 17 times greater than it is today.

Atmospheric carbon dioxide is currently only 410 parts per million. That means only 0.04 percent of our atmosphere is carbon dioxide (compared to 0.03 percent one century ago). Only one molecule in 2,500 is carbon dioxide. Such levels certainly do not pose a health risk, as carbon-dioxide levels in our naval submarines, which stay submerged for months at a time, contain an average carbon-dioxide concentration of 5,000 ppm.

The geologic record is important because it reveals relationships between carbon-dioxide levels, climate, and life on Earth. Over billions of years, the geologic record shows there is no long-term correlation between atmospheric carbon-dioxide levels and Earth’s climate. There are periods in Earth’s history when carbon dioxide concentrations were many times higher than they are today, yet temperatures were identical to, or even colder than, modern times. The claim that fossil-fuel emissions control atmospheric carbon-dioxide concentrations is also invalid, as atmospheric concentrations have gone up and down in the geological record, even without human influence.

The absurdity of climate alarmism claims gets even stranger when you consider there are 7.5 billion people on our planet who, together, exhale 2.7 billion tons of carbon dioxide each year, which is almost 10 percent of total fossil-fuel emissions every year. However, we are but a single species. Combined, people and all domesticated animals contribute 10 billion tons.

Further, 9 percent of carbon-dioxide emissions from all living things arise not from animals, but from anaerobic bacteria and fungi. These organisms metabolize dead plant and animal matter in soil via decay processes that recycle carbon dioxide back into the atmosphere. The grand total produced by all living things is estimated to be 440 billion tons per year, or 13 times the amount of carbon dioxide currently being produced by fossil-fuel emissions. Fossil-fuel emissions are less than 10 percent of biological emissions. Are you laughing yet?

The actual driver of climate change is the sun. If it changes it’s output by 1/10 of 1%, the change will either encase the planet in ice, or fry it to a crisp, depending which way it goes.

And please don’t use the CNN and CNBC argument 99% of scientist believe in global warming that’s the biggest hoax and lie. If you have digested any of this and still believe or don’t at least question Global Warming …..it is sad. But I would like to hear your counter to the points made above in a scientific rebuttal , and please don’t simply say I am a climate denier who doesn’t follow the science.
You should take this to a climate denial website - you'll find an audience hungry for anything that confirms their belief the "big guy" is lying to them.

About the only thing I agree with you on is that the transition to EV's will be driven primarily by economics, not a concern for reducing climate impacts. But that doesn't speak to whether global warming science is good science or a conspiracy to steal your taxes.

BTW, have you heard about chemtrails? It's a huge government coverup. :ROFLMAO:
 

HaulingAss

Well-known member
First Name
Mike
Joined
Oct 3, 2020
Threads
9
Messages
4,495
Reaction score
9,476
Location
Washington State
Vehicles
2010 F-150, 2018 Model 3 Perform, FS Cybertruck
Country flag
I'm number 235,000 ish. The spreadsheet someone here did had me at Oct 31 2022. Now that the CT first deliveries are delayed until 4th Q with "ramp up the end of 2023" I can easily see where I'll be lucky at best to see my CT in 1st Q 2024.
Unless you have a reservation for a Single Motor Cybertruck, I'll bet dollars to donuts your reservation comes up in 2023, not 2024. I think people will be surprised how fast Tesla is able to produce these trucks once the initial ramp difficulties are sorted. Everything about the Cybertruck is based on being able to ramp to huge volumes. This is not to say the early ramp won't have stumbles, just that Tesla will position themselves to churn them out in huge volumes relatively quickly rather than slowly ramping to high volume over a four year period.
 

HaulingAss

Well-known member
First Name
Mike
Joined
Oct 3, 2020
Threads
9
Messages
4,495
Reaction score
9,476
Location
Washington State
Vehicles
2010 F-150, 2018 Model 3 Perform, FS Cybertruck
Country flag
It’s really just sad to see that Tesla is prioritizing cars they already manufacture when there is soo much interest in this new product. They are dangling the carrot for way too long and people are walking away.
Let them walk. Tesla's business plan is not to get as many people as possible committed to buying and then making sure they retain them. No, it's to build a product so compelling that people want to buy it. But they can't sell it until they make it.

The industry standard timeframe for bringing a new car model to market is 6 years (from concept to first deliveries). And that's with a model that is just a one generation iteration of a previous model. A revolutionary redesign of what a truck actually is should be expected to add at least two years to that timeframe. So, figure 8-9 years for traditional automakers to bring something as revolutionary to market.

Tesla will be doing it in record time. Stunningly fast, even if you ignore that it is a revolutionary design with revolutionary engineering.
 


Ogre

Well-known member
First Name
Dennis
Joined
Jul 3, 2021
Threads
164
Messages
10,719
Reaction score
26,998
Location
Ogregon
Vehicles
Model Y
Country flag
You can waffle if you want but technological disruptions don't waffle - they flip. Comparing a newer ICE to an older ICE is not the same technological difference as comparing ICE to EV.
Did you wake up on the wrong side of the bed?

I know people who are complaining about those exact decisions on these forums. People who won't buy a Model Y until they can be sure to get a Tera Texas one. Lots of people won't buy a Model X until the new revision is out.

I was responding to someone who was considering replacing their 2018 Tundra with a 2022 Tundra. I said it was a bad move from a personal economic perspective.
Kind of ironic for a person who's alias is @No-mo-ice
 

HaulingAss

Well-known member
First Name
Mike
Joined
Oct 3, 2020
Threads
9
Messages
4,495
Reaction score
9,476
Location
Washington State
Vehicles
2010 F-150, 2018 Model 3 Perform, FS Cybertruck
Country flag
Kind of ironic for a person who's alias is @No-mo-ice
My point was simply that my response was specific to that poster's situation. Taking that and applying it to the general case (and saying it was flawed) is not fair or helpful.

Context should never be ignored.
 

Ogre

Well-known member
First Name
Dennis
Joined
Jul 3, 2021
Threads
164
Messages
10,719
Reaction score
26,998
Location
Ogregon
Vehicles
Model Y
Country flag
Unless you have a reservation for a Single Motor Cybertruck, I'll bet dollars to donuts your reservation comes up in 2023, not 2024.
I'd take that bet. Musk said "Volume production late 2023". So there is a good chance they won't get 235k trucks out in 2023.

If we're lucky, might be close though. I wouldn't make it a big bet. Maybe just a couple donuts.
 

Crissa

Well-known member
First Name
Crissa
Joined
Jul 8, 2020
Threads
126
Messages
16,227
Reaction score
27,096
Location
Santa Cruz
Vehicles
2014 Zero S, 2013 Mazda 3
Country flag
... Now that the CT first deliveries are delayed until 4th Q with...
That's not what Elon said, that's not what Tesla said. It's what others have said. We don't have a date in 2022, but the later half is more likely given the delay to 4680 production.

The ramp was always going to take a couple years. Giga Shanghai, for instance, had first deliveries at the end of 2019 and is only now at full production. It also took them three years to chew through Model 3 reservation backlog - more if you count internationally.

-Crissa
 

Ogre

Well-known member
First Name
Dennis
Joined
Jul 3, 2021
Threads
164
Messages
10,719
Reaction score
26,998
Location
Ogregon
Vehicles
Model Y
Country flag
I'm number 235,000 ish. The spreadsheet someone here did had me at Oct 31 2022. Now that the CT first deliveries are delayed until 4th Q with "ramp up the end of 2023" I can easily see where I'll be lucky at best to see my CT in 1st Q 2024.
You pinned your expectations on what is likely a bad calculation based on guesswork. The spreadsheet's estimate is a massive chunk of guesswork. Don't set your expectations based on that.

Now you are hearing other guesses about production ramp up speed which contradict it.

There is zero evidence the speed of the ramp-up is going to be slower once production starts.
 


Ogre

Well-known member
First Name
Dennis
Joined
Jul 3, 2021
Threads
164
Messages
10,719
Reaction score
26,998
Location
Ogregon
Vehicles
Model Y
Country flag
The fact that politicians have been able convince far to many gullible people
that man is able to control World climate
There is a long history of this. Sort of like how they've convinced millions of people that the best way to handle poverty, hunger, and healthcare is to rely on personal charity.
 

LDRHAWKE

Well-known member
First Name
John
Joined
Dec 24, 2019
Threads
19
Messages
362
Reaction score
436
Location
Saint Augustine, Fl
Vehicles
Toyota FJ, GTS1000,FJR1300, Aprillia Scarabeo,
Occupation
Retired Engineer
Country flag
You should take this to a climate denial website - you'll find an audience hungry for anything that confirms their belief the "big guy" is lying to them.

About the only thing I agree with you on is that the transition to EV's will be driven primarily by economics, not a concern for reducing climate impacts. But that doesn't speak to whether global warming science is good science or a conspiracy to steal your taxes.

BTW, have you heard about chemtrails? It's a huge government coverup. :ROFLMAO:
OK…let’s get on a topic that won’t overtax your mind. I see you live in Washington State. Does BigFoot have a Cybertruck on order??. And if he does do you think it is a single, dual, or tri motor?
 

Ogre

Well-known member
First Name
Dennis
Joined
Jul 3, 2021
Threads
164
Messages
10,719
Reaction score
26,998
Location
Ogregon
Vehicles
Model Y
Country flag
OK…let’s get on a topic that won’t overtax your mind. I see you live in Washington State. Does BigFoot have a Cybertruck on order??. And if he does do you think it is a single, dual, or tri motor?
You didn't answer his question about chemtrails.
 

LDRHAWKE

Well-known member
First Name
John
Joined
Dec 24, 2019
Threads
19
Messages
362
Reaction score
436
Location
Saint Augustine, Fl
Vehicles
Toyota FJ, GTS1000,FJR1300, Aprillia Scarabeo,
Occupation
Retired Engineer
Country flag
There is a long history of this. Sort of like how they've convinced millions of people that the best way to handle poverty, hunger, and healthcare is to rely on personal charity.
There is a long history of this. Sort of like how they've convinced millions of people that the best way to handle poverty, hunger, and healthcare is to rely on personal charity.
There is a long history of this. Sort of like how they've convinced millions of people that the best way to handle poverty, hunger, and healthcare is to rely on personal charity.
It’s called work.
 
 




Top