electric cars are a stupid ass idea

[VaporTrail]

46 minutes ago, MLD Woody said:

This pivot to "they're just in it for the money", when referring to the climatologists doing research at universities, etc, where they've dedicated their lifes, is hilarious. It's just the next attempt to deflect from a group that fell for the politicization of a scientific issue. Thinking these scientists got into this line of work "for the money" is hilarious. I don't care about politicians' thoughts on this issue. Unfortunately they're necessary to get anything done, but they'll just try to maintain the status quo, because that's all they ever do. 

Again and again it seems like no real progress will get made on this issue until older generation is no longer in the political equation. Which is a shame. And backed up by polling. It's a lost cause for so many in the older generation and nothing is changing their minds. I just hope they don't leave the place too fucked up. At least not worse than it is now. 

You are downplaying how politicized academia is. There are academic, political, and financial pressures to publish certain outcomes in any field, let alone one as polarizing as climatology. 

[MLD Woody]

6 hours ago, VaporTrail said:

You are downplaying how politicized academia is. There are academic, political, and financial pressures to publish certain outcomes in any field, let alone one as polarizing as climatology. 

To the point where the overwhelming consensus of climatologists are reaching the same/similar conclusions? Where nearly ever reputable scientific organization in the world has the same/similar stance on climate change? How should we weight a study through a right wing think tank paid for by oil companies vs a study done by a handful of universities? 

Sure, politics exist in everything, unfortunately. But this scientific issue has been clearly politicized by those in power to sway the public in ways to protect the status quo and keep wealth where it is. Its frustrating to watch. 

So we'll just keep spinning our wheels for years and years and years, barely making any progress. Again, I just hope that when certain folks are no longer in power we can try to get something done. 

[calfoxwc]

12 hours ago, DieHardBrownsFan said:

You break down in Bum fuk Wyoming, good luck finding a place that can repair your car.

driving out west - 80 mph a lot of the time, hours straight through the Great Plains...few side roads....

yep. seriously.

[calfoxwc]

6 hours ago, MLD Woody said:

To the point where the overwhelming consensus of climatologists are reaching the same/similar conclusions? Where nearly ever reputable scientific organization in the world has the same/similar stance on climate change? How should we weight a study through a right wing think tank paid for by oil companies vs a study done by a handful of universities? 

Sure, politics exist in everything, unfortunately. But this scientific issue has been clearly politicized by those in power to sway the public in ways to protect the status quo and keep wealth where it is. Its frustrating to watch. 

So we'll just keep spinning our wheels for years and years and years, barely making any progress. Again, I just hope that when certain folks are no longer in power we can try to get something done. 

there he goes again. He's channeling his inner Sheply bird.

https://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/climate-change/the-bogus-consensus-argument-on-climate-change/

The Bogus “Consensus” Argument on Climate Change

By Robert P. Murphy

 

October 8, 2019

 

"[Cook et al.] got their 97 percent by considering only those abstracts that expressed a position on anthropogenic global warming (AGW). I find it interesting that 2/3 of the abstracts did not take a position. So, taking into account David Friedman’s criticism above, and mine, Cook and Bedford, in summarizing their findings, should have said, “Of the approximately one-third of climate scientists writing on global warming who stated a position on the role of humans, 97% thought humans contribute somewhat to global warming.” That doesn’t quite have the same ring, does it? [David R. Henderson, bold "

[hammertime]

11 hours ago, MLD Woody said:

To the point where the overwhelming consensus of climatologists are reaching the same/similar conclusions? Where nearly ever reputable scientific organization in the world has the same/similar stance on climate change? How should we weight a study through a right wing think tank paid for by oil companies vs a study done by a handful of universities? 

Sure, politics exist in everything, unfortunately. But this scientific issue has been clearly politicized by those in power to sway the public in ways to protect the status quo and keep wealth where it is. Its frustrating to watch. 

So we'll just keep spinning our wheels for years and years and years, barely making any progress. Again, I just hope that when certain folks are no longer in power we can try to get something done. 

For someone who chides J on his conspiracy thread your quite the hypocrite.

Your global warming crap has far more BS in it than just about anything J posts.

[cccjwh]

If you can't agree on reality, there is no way to have a debate. 

[MLD Woody]

And cal posts a link from a right wing think tank, started by a Koch brother and funded by Exxon, among others ... 

 

But it's those fat cat university professors we need to worry about!

 

 

 

Again, this is a lost cause for certain folks. They've been conditioned to think what they think and there's no changing it. We just have to wait until they're no longer part of the political equation

[Vambo]

8 minutes ago, MLD Woody said:

And cal posts a link from a right wing think tank, started by a Koch brother and funded by Exxon, among others ... 

 

But it's those fat cat university professors we need to worry about!

 

 

 

Again, this is a lost cause for certain folks. They've been conditioned to think what they think and there's no changing it. We just have to wait until they're no longer part of the political equation

[VaporTrail]

On 3/21/2022 at 6:09 PM, MLD Woody said:

To the point where the overwhelming consensus of climatologists are reaching the same/similar conclusions? Where nearly ever reputable scientific organization in the world has the same/similar stance on climate change? How should we weight a study through a right wing think tank paid for by oil companies vs a study done by a handful of universities? 

Sure, politics exist in everything, unfortunately. But this scientific issue has been clearly politicized by those in power to sway the public in ways to protect the status quo and keep wealth where it is. Its frustrating to watch. 

So we'll just keep spinning our wheels for years and years and years, barely making any progress. Again, I just hope that when certain folks are no longer in power we can try to get something done. 

Climatology research should determine economic policy?

Here's an open letter penned this week by 500 academics, mostly climatologists, who recommend that funding from oil companies be banned for research on climate change, the environment, and energy policy. You agree with that?
Source: https://fossilfreeresearch.com/

Do you really believe that we have been "barely making any progress" in our lifetimes? You can see wind farms all over the country. Hell, even private industry is making efforts to go green - on the east side of Cleveland, you have a massive wind turbine with "Lincoln Electric" written on the side of it and the Progressive HQ has a giant field of solar panels (for all the good that will do in northeast Ohio weather).

You can't run a modern economy on renewable resources. No one wants nuclear power plants or wind farms because of NIMBYism. Ohio has 2 nuclear power plants, wind farms in the northwest region of the state, and 6 hydroelectric dams. All of that adds up to a grand total of 5% of energy consumed by the state. 
Source: https://www.eia.gov/state/?sid=OH#tabs-1

[Vambo]

 

[calfoxwc]

will the woodpecker grow up? will he ever admit he voted for

the death, destruction and war crimes going on in the Ukraine?

Will he ever stop moulting?

How and Why Birds Molt - The Spruce

https://www.thespruce.com › importance-of-molting-386470

How Birds Molt . The exact cycles, frequency, and timing of molts vary for different species, but every bird shares some similarities when molting. In general, feathers are molted in a symmetrical pattern across the bird's wings, tail, and body so it retains its balance for flight. The entire cycle typically takes 5-12 weeks, though ducks often ...

[calfoxwc]

hey woodpecker:

feel like a complete fool yet?

they invest is what they are selling....

https://republicandaily.com/2022/03/pelosi-makes-big-green-energy-stock-trade/

Pelosi Makes Big Green Energy Stock Trade

[MLD Woody]

7 hours ago, calfoxwc said:

hey woodpecker:

feel like a complete fool yet?

they invest is what they are selling....

https://republicandaily.com/2022/03/pelosi-makes-big-green-energy-stock-trade/

Pelosi Makes Big Green Energy Stock Trade

I'm against representatives and senators owning any stocks. I made a thread about this. You refused to agree, tiptoed around the subject, and then started vomiting up links and woodpecker gifs. 

Congressmen on both sides of the aisle do this practice. I want to ban them owning stocks. You're incapable of potentially ever agreeing with a Dem... so you gave no real answer. 

 

Pelosi doing shady stuff with the stock market speaks to the issue of politicians being able to sell stocks btw, not anything to do with climate change.

[MLD Woody]

On 3/22/2022 at 7:18 PM, VaporTrail said:

Climatology research should determine economic policy?

Here's an open letter penned this week by 500 academics, mostly climatologists, who recommend that funding from oil companies be banned for research on climate change, the environment, and energy policy. You agree with that?
Source: https://fossilfreeresearch.com/

Do you really believe that we have been "barely making any progress" in our lifetimes? You can see wind farms all over the country. Hell, even private industry is making efforts to go green - on the east side of Cleveland, you have a massive wind turbine with "Lincoln Electric" written on the side of it and the Progressive HQ has a giant field of solar panels (for all the good that will do in northeast Ohio weather).

You can't run a modern economy on renewable resources. No one wants nuclear power plants or wind farms because of NIMBYism. Ohio has 2 nuclear power plants, wind farms in the northwest region of the state, and 6 hydroelectric dams. All of that adds up to a grand total of 5% of energy consumed by the state. 
Source: https://www.eia.gov/state/?sid=OH#tabs-1

Should they determine the policy? Not directly. But should the findings of a consensus of experts be used to shape that policy? Absolutely. Most politicians are lawyers by trade. They're taught to argue. They aren't doctors, scientists, engineers, etc. Climatologists and their research should help shape the current issue, where it is likely to go, and what some of the best methods are at attacking it. Then, it is up to our shitty, dysfunctional government to try and do something with that info.

I don't necessarily think any group should be completely banned from getting to invest in research or try to make their point. But the funding for the research and any potential conflicts of interest should be ABUNDANTLY clear. Unfortunately, we have people like Cal and others on this board reposting "studies" from "something something Climate Freedom Institute", masquerading as a legitimate scientific institute, that is an off shoot of a conservative think tank, that took money from a PAC, that took money from oil companies (or something like that). We had people on here believing "America's Frontline Doctors" as actual experts on the pandemic. It is way to easy to put on a front of expertise, tell people what they want to hear, and have the damage be done. No one on the MAGA Facebook group is waiting for the response to say the study wasn't peer reviewed, etc... they're reading the headline of the Newsmax article the linked the Fox article that linked the study and calling it a day. 

That Lincoln wind turbine is over a decade old at this point. I'll concede I was too hyperbolic in my language. We have made *some* progress, but I don't think it has been enough. We literally have people in this country that don't think the climate is even change ("look! it snowed by me!"), let alone people that admit it is changing but don't think humans have anything to do with it. Throw in the wealthy individuals and companies that are better served keeping the status quo, that have way too much influence in politics as it is, and you have a recipe for barely ever getting anything done. 

I've made the point before, I'm not for letting the market decide when things like this should be worked on. What was our meat packing industry before The Jungle and some actual govt. regulations? Capitalism is going to pay zero concerns to what the climate will look like in 80 years. That isn't driving supply and demand now, that isn't affecting making as much money as you can now. THIS is what a govt. and taxes should be used for, steering the market and economy in certain directions for the greater good, not spending as much on defense as the next X number of countries combined.

France sources 70%+ of its power through nuclear energy. Unfortunately, nuclear power has a bad reputation in this country and our current fleet of power plants is very outdated. Nuclear is scary to people, and without any education on the subject, it isn't a surprise some people are against it (Green Peace really fucking this one up too). You're right about the NIMBYism here. Absolutely. The inability in the current state for the US to source most of its energy through renewables due to investment, current tech, resources, etc. should not preclude us from ever making those investments and attempting to move towards that future state. And I mean more of an effort than what we are doing now. Again, this is where I would look to the govt. to get involved, to push the issue, and kickstart the process. 

 

 

It is all incredibly frustrating to me. You want to have a conversation about how best to handle our country's energy future and we have people thinking the climate isn't changing at all and there is nothing we need to do. You can't get to these conversations about a future state with green energy if you have 30% of this country thinking it isn't happening / doesn't matter / we can't do anything about it anyway. That is an anchor to any progress.

[calfoxwc]

32 minutes ago, MLD Woody said:

I'm against representatives and senators owning any stocks. I made a thread about this. You refused to agree, tiptoed around the subject, and then started vomiting up links and woodpecker gifs. 

Congressmen on both sides of the aisle do this practice. I want to ban them owning stocks. You're incapable of potentially ever agreeing with a Dem... so you gave no real answer. 

 

Pelosi doing shady stuff with the stock market speaks to the issue of politicians being able to sell stocks btw, not anything to do with climate change.

liar. I only disagree with stupid stuff you say, which is most all the time.

[MLD Woody]

7 hours ago, calfoxwc said:

liar. I only disagree with stupid stuff you say, which is most all the time.

Cal, these threads still exist. You posted a bunch of non answers because you couldn't bring yourself to agree with a Dem. 

You're against Dem politicians selling stocks and you'll do all the mental gymnastics needed to be ok with Rep politicians selling stocks. It's pretty obvious to anyone with common sense...

[calfoxwc]

3 hours ago, MLD Woody said:

Cal, these threads still exist. You posted a bunch of non answers because you couldn't bring yourself to agree with a Dem. 

You're against Dem politicians selling stocks and you'll do all the mental gymnastics needed to be ok with Rep politicians selling stocks. It's pretty obvious to anyone with common sense...

liar. another fake gotcha. You get non-answers because you are a moron

and ask moronic questions.

[MLD Woody]

17 minutes ago, calfoxwc said:

liar. another fake gotcha. You get non-answers because you are a moron

and ask moronic questions.

I'll give this one more attempt....

Should politicians be able to own stocks?

[Axe]

12 minutes ago, MLD Woody said:

I'll give this one more attempt....

Should politicians be able to own stocks?

They should be able to own stocks purchased prior to taking office.

[calfoxwc]

no, they vote and it would influence their vote which is corrupt. It's called

conflict of interest. That is why Pres Trump yielded control of his businesses.

Energy Secretary Granholm's investment in electric vehicle ...

https://www.foxnews.com › politics › energy-secretary-granholm-electric-vehicle-battery-investment

As the Biden administration presses ahead with its green energy agenda that includes electric vehicles, Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm has until late August to fully divest up to $5 million in ...

But the subject is electric cars being a stupid-ass idea, you're a moron woodpecker.

as nearly? always, you divert the subject. You just aren't very smart.

Here is your birdbrain energy secretary we have because you and others voted against

your own country. You voted for incompetence, corruption, lack of national defense readiness, out of control crime,

and you are one of those directly responsible for russian war crimes in the Ukraine. You voted for fake mmgw,

and for biden hair sniffer, and you voted for hunter biden because you want to kiss his butt.

   There will be a civil war part two before you and your leftwing egocentric birds of a feather ilk force everybody to buy

your stupid-ass electric cars.

[Vambo]

 

[calfoxwc]

15 hours ago, Vambo said:

 

So, we will give you another chance, woodpecker - do you think this is wrong or not?

[MLD Woody]

41 minutes ago, calfoxwc said:

So, we will give you another chance, woodpecker - do you think this is wrong or not?

Yes you fucking moron. I literally said this in the original thread. The one you waffled back in forth in because you're incapable of doing anything that might have you agree with a liberal.

Pelosi is a cheating POS and shouldn't be able to own stocks. Or her husband. No politician or their close family should be able to own stocks. I didn't watch the video but I imagine that is what it's about. 

Pelosi is an old, hypocritical, shit politician that needs replaced. 

Politicians, no matter their ideology, shouldn't be able to own stocks. 

 

Get it?

See how easy it is to respond when you have actual beliefs? And not just talking points you regurgitate from your political party of choice?

[calfoxwc]

7 hours ago, MLD Woody said:

Yes you fucking moron. I literally said this in the original thread. The one you waffled back in forth in because you're incapable of doing anything that might have you agree with a liberal.elosi is a cheating POS and shouldn't be able to own stocks. Or her husband. No politician or their close family should be able to own stocks. I didn't watch the video but I imagine that is what it's about. Pelosi is an old, hypocritical, shit politician that needs replaced. 

Politicians, no matter their ideology, shouldn't be able to own stocks. Get it?See how easy it is to respond when you have actual beliefs? And not just talking points you regurgitate from your political party of choice?

then why didn't you vote for Pres Trump and your country? no, you are the coward that won't man up and vote for the right things.

and you proved me correct again. the original op was about electric cars being a stupid ass idea. Why don't you stop being a wimpy birdbrain and stick to the op just once? or are you too stupid? There is no waffle, I've never been an advocate of conflict of interest.

Molting 101 - Your Connection to Wildlife

https://blog.cwf-fcf.org › index.php › en › molting-101

Male and female Downy Woodpeckers. When the weather warms up, many birds will drop their dull winter feathers and start to grow bright plumage. Have you ever noticed that it's often males that don bright feathers? That's because they're showing off. It's true. The brighter the look, the more attention they get from the ladies. Reason #4.

[VaporTrail]

On 3/24/2022 at 1:06 AM, MLD Woody said:

I've made the point before, I'm not for letting the market decide when things like this should be worked on. What was our meat packing industry before The Jungle and some actual govt. regulations? Capitalism is going to pay zero concerns to what the climate will look like in 80 years. That isn't driving supply and demand now, that isn't affecting making as much money as you can now. THIS is what a govt. and taxes should be used for, steering the market and economy in certain directions for the greater good, not spending as much on defense as the next X number of countries combined.

France sources 70%+ of its power through nuclear energy. Unfortunately, nuclear power has a bad reputation in this country and our current fleet of power plants is very outdated. Nuclear is scary to people, and without any education on the subject, it isn't a surprise some people are against it (Green Peace really fucking this one up too). You're right about the NIMBYism here. Absolutely. The inability in the current state for the US to source most of its energy through renewables due to investment, current tech, resources, etc. should not preclude us from ever making those investments and attempting to move towards that future state. And I mean more of an effort than what we are doing now. Again, this is where I would look to the govt. to get involved, to push the issue, and kickstart the process. 

I would say the government is pushing the issue. Obama's EPA emissions standards made exhaust emissions more stringent and raised the fee penalties on the manufacturers. I disagree completely that capitalism is paying zero concerns to the climate over the next generation, I'll cite Tesla's stock prices as evidence to the contrary. 

Quote

It is all incredibly frustrating to me. You want to have a conversation about how best to handle our country's energy future and we have people thinking the climate isn't changing at all and there is nothing we need to do. You can't get to these conversations about a future state with green energy if you have 30% of this country thinking it isn't happening / doesn't matter / we can't do anything about it anyway. That is an anchor to any progress.

I think that you're largely ignoring the economic constraints of this issue. What we can practically do about it is significantly different from doing nothing about it. 

For the economic constraints, as I posted in the other thread, you need a lot more raw materials to produce an electric vehicle versus an internal combustion vehicle. These materials now have inflated value due to the conflict in Ukraine and the subsequent sanctions on Russia. Even before this conflict, Teslas were pretty much exclusively used by wealthy people, and now they're going to be more expensive. Internal combustion engine vehicles will also be more expensive because of these shortages, but you wouldn't expect to see as much price increases as you would with EVs based off of just the raw materials for construction. 

So, let's fast forward to the beginning of this month. Biden EOs stringent emissions standards, and companies who don't adhere to them. The companies aren't going to eat that cost. It's going to get passed onto the consumer. So who's getting punished? The people who could never afford an EV. The same people that got squeezed by pandemic inflation and now Ukraine conflict inflation. Letting these people suffer for the sake of the climate two generations later doesn't exactly seem like a move "for the greater good" to me. 

I maintain that using artificially made punishments to get people to go green isn't the best idea because of the downstream effects. Things are changing for the greener, and they continued to get greener even after Trump EO'd Obama's emissions standards away. We will continue to move toward green tech, but the rate limiting step for this is how much the working class can put up with. 

[Vambo]

 

[Vambo]

 

[Vambo]

 

[Vambo]

 

[Axe]