Rob Plant + 2,756 RP March 15 (edited) 19 minutes ago, Ecocharger said: I challenged your trivial article and now you have nothing to say about its contents. This is an embarrassment for you and for the entire Climate Panic movement. Wow youre stupid Your challenge was this "Utter rubbish, a concocted estimation model promoted by an anti-fossil fuel enterprise." My rebuttal to your nonsense was this (you must have dementia old boy if you cant remember) "So you are now saying the British Medical Journal are an anti-fossil fuel enterprise!!! Wow there really is no hope for you!! Do you honestly think thats why it was founded??? The original BMJ was founded in 1840 you buffoon about 130 years before climate change even became a concern Here have a read if you can" The BMJ - Wikipedia If you want I can keep on posting your stupidity in case some on here missed it. Edited March 15 by Rob Plant 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Rob Plant + 2,756 RP March 15 8 minutes ago, Ecocharger said: No, the YOY numbers show a disastrous decline beginning in December 2023 which is continuing. You still have not acknowledged that, so I guess you are not really open to looking at the facts, old boy. While EV sales are declining in both Europe and US, sales of fossil fuel cars are rapidly increasing. The Dream is dead. Good God man You cherry pick 1 month's y-o-y numbers (ie December) and say EV's are dead but ignore that EV's increased in 2023 compared to 2022 by 37%!!! Do you not understand what increased means?? Here lets try 1 last time for the slow ones on here, Then I'm done with you as I have better things to do with my time than argue with the retarded EU car sales surged by almost 14% in 2023, with over 10.5 million new registrations. Battery-electric sales soared by an impressive 37% and now command close to a 15% market share EU car sales on the up in 2023, with electric models increasingly popular - ACEA - European Automobile Manufacturers' Association 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ecocharger + 1,474 DL March 15 (edited) 1 hour ago, Rob Plant said: no it doesnt petrochemicals and fertilisers will be around for centuries powergen and alternative transport in EV's H2 fuel cells etc possibly yes Billions of people will die??? where the hell do you get those numbers from fool? You are living in a fairy tale, you stop the transportation and medical systems people die. Time to wake up. Your numbers are tilted to mask the realities, the YOY numbers for EV sales are down. https://www.acea.auto/pc-registrations/new-car-registrations-13-9-in-2023-battery-electric-14-6-market-share/#:~:text=In December 2023%2C new battery,by 16.9% to 160%2C700 units. "In December 2023, new battery-electric car sales declined for the first time since April 2020 (during the COVID-19 pandemic’s peak), dropping by 16.9% to 160,700 units. This decrease can be attributed to a comparatively robust performance in December 2022 and a significant downturn in Germany (-47.6%), the largest market for this power source. " German EV sales have driven over a steep cliff. https://insideevs.com/news/704440/plugin-car-sales-germany-december2023/ "In December, the total new plug-in electric car registrations amounted to 72,548, which is 58% less than a year ago" That is a 58% decline year on year. A disaster. Edited March 15 by Ecocharger Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Rob Plant + 2,756 RP March 15 49 minutes ago, Ecocharger said: you stop the transportation and medical systems people die. What are you talking about who is going to stop that by driving an electric vehicle? Big pharma will 100% still be around People ARE dying from air pollution in their millions We will never agree on EV's so theres no point carrying on the back and forth, believe what you will we are both lucky enough to live in countries where we can. 2 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
notsonice + 1,255 DM March 15 (edited) 3 hours ago, Rob Plant said: Good God man You cherry pick 1 month's y-o-y numbers (ie December) and say EV's are dead but ignore that EV's increased in 2023 compared to 2022 by 37%!!! Do you not understand what increased means?? Here lets try 1 last time for the slow ones on here, Then I'm done with you as I have better things to do with my time than argue with the retarded EU car sales surged by almost 14% in 2023, with over 10.5 million new registrations. Battery-electric sales soared by an impressive 37% and now command close to a 15% market share EU car sales on the up in 2023, with electric models increasingly popular - ACEA - European Automobile Manufacturers' Association Here lets try 1 last time for the slow ones on here, Then I'm done with you as I have better things to do with my time than argue with the retarded...????? Amen. Ecochump, is suffering from mental retardation, from all the exhaust fumes he sucks in every day. He is a perfect example of being a victim of his own incompetency. Edited March 15 by notsonice 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ecocharger + 1,474 DL March 17 (edited) On 3/15/2024 at 12:28 PM, Rob Plant said: What are you talking about who is going to stop that by driving an electric vehicle? Big pharma will 100% still be around People ARE dying from air pollution in their millions We will never agree on EV's so theres no point carrying on the back and forth, believe what you will we are both lucky enough to live in countries where we can. EVs are a tiny, tiny fraction of the transportation system less than 1%, medical supplies and transportation rely on gasoline and oil. Those air pollution numbers are debatable. A person in their 80s with emphysema has contributory factors which are more significant than air pollution. Also, air pollutants have been in drastic decline due to regulations in North America and Europe despite increases in fossil fuel transportation and oil use. The whole premise is counterfactual to begin with. EVs have a larger lifetime pollution profile than equivalent fossil fuel cars, so that is a non-argument for any transition. Edited March 17 by Ecocharger 2 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TailingsPond + 1,008 GE March 17 (edited) 1 hour ago, Ecocharger said: A person in their 80s with emphysema has contributory factors which are more significant than air pollution. Haha Emphysema is caused by air pollution, usually smoking, but that is still air pollution. Also coal mine dust. You keep saying breathing exhaust is just fine, a perfect example of your resistance to accept reality. How did the lie that smoking is fine work out for the US tobacco industry? Edited March 17 by TailingsPond 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ecocharger + 1,474 DL March 17 (edited) 48 minutes ago, TailingsPond said: Haha Emphysema is caused by air pollution, usually smoking, but that is still air pollution. Also coal mine dust. You keep saying breathing exhaust is just fine, a perfect example of your resistance to accept reality. How did the lie that smoking is fine work out for the US tobacco industry? You are blaming fossil fuels for emphysema in a man who has smoked for decades? That is the kind of anti-logic which has plagued the climate movement. Your logic is also flawed in that pollutants related to fossil fuels have been in drastic decline over the past thirty years, so that should reduce deaths from pollution according to the study. Just not your day. And what did you find out about Darwin, did he get his PhD from Cambridge? You have been very slow in answering that question. Edited March 17 by Ecocharger 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ecocharger + 1,474 DL March 17 (edited) EV sales in California are plummeting downward, while fossil fuel vehicles are quickly increasing in sales. https://www.latimes.com/california/newsletter/2024-02-15/essential-california-ev-sales-essential-california#:~:text=EV sales significantly declined in,time in over a decade. "California has been at the forefront of a booming electric vehicle market, but recent trends show signs of fatigue. EV sales significantly declined in the latter half of 2023 for the first time in over a decade." "In the third quarter, EV sales in California experienced their first quarterly drop since 2012. Additionally, fourth-quarter sales declined by 10.2%, falling from 100,151 to 89,933 units. Even the popular Tesla is reporting a 10% decline in sales in the final quarter of last year." "Academic researchers have found that [California] charging stations have become notoriously unreliable, with at least a 20% malfunction rate. Even with a reliable charger, there aren’t enough available, forcing many to wait in long lines. The state aimed for 250,000 chargers statewide by 2025, but the Energy Commission reports far fewer publicly accessible chargers — only 93,855." Edited March 17 by Ecocharger 1 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TailingsPond + 1,008 GE March 17 (edited) 4 hours ago, Ecocharger said: You are blaming fossil fuels for emphysema in a man who has smoked for decades? That is the kind of anti-logic which has plagued the climate movement. No, I did not blame fossil fuels, in fact - I pointed out it was usually from smoking myself - smoking is a form of air pollution. Cigarette smoking causes enough air pollution to not only hurt the user, but also those who do not smoke themselves, so we ban it from most public spaces. Why do you give free passes to fossil fuel smoke but not cigarette smoke? They really are not that different (burning organic matter). You do not understand mechanisms of disease. We can directly track hospital emergency visits for various diseases with air pollution levels. Low quality air makes people sick, this is well known to everyone but you. "Go get some fresh air" is a very old saying, soon we will have no fresh air. You keep pretending exhaust is fine; I will not, because it is not. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37011135/ "Conclusions: We reported positive associations between short-term air pollution exposure and increased rates of asthma ED visits. We found that air pollution exposure posed a higher risk for children and older populations." https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35759498/ "The present study found a significant association of air pollutants and ED visits for nervous system diseases. In particular, episodic and paroxysmal disorders were most frequent, and visits for migraines accounted for nearly 40% of all paroxysmal disorders." https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32545456/ "In this study, urban ambient air pollution is associated with an increase in the number of ED visits for mental health among children and young adults. The results are in line with those obtained in other centers." https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34792769/ "Short-term exposures to PM2.5, PM10, CO, and NO2 were associated with increased visits for total eye diseases and conjunctivitis" https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8164616/ "The results generally indicate that there is a potential increased risk of ED visits for a range of disease groups on the day of or subsequent days post-exposure to elevated ambient air pollution concentration levels. " Edited March 17 by TailingsPond 1 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TailingsPond + 1,008 GE March 17 Discredit all those studies Eco. Ground level air pollution kills people, and most ground level air pollution comes from burning fossil fuels. 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TailingsPond + 1,008 GE March 17 (edited) 4 hours ago, Ecocharger said: "California has been at the forefront of a booming electric vehicle market, [] Even with a reliable charger, there aren’t enough available, forcing many to wait in long lines. Booming EV market, got it. The EV boom is happening so fast they can't build the charging stations fast enough, got it. When people line up to get your service that is a good sign. "I'm sorry sir, we have no more available reservations." Edited March 17 by TailingsPond 1 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TailingsPond + 1,008 GE March 17 (edited) Look Edited March 17 by TailingsPond 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TailingsPond + 1,008 GE March 17 (edited) Open your eyes Edited March 17 by TailingsPond 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
footeab@yahoo.com + 2,191 March 17 37 minutes ago, TailingsPond said: Open your eyes Read some damned history: Its always looked like that. First Spanish sailor in 1542 who saw it called it bay of the Smoke... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TailingsPond + 1,008 GE March 17 (edited) 5 minutes ago, footeab@yahoo.com said: Read some damned history: Its always looked like that. First Spanish sailor in 1542 who saw it called it bay of the Smoke... I doubt it was anything like that, but okay; there are some relatively rare natural smokey forests etc. It could also have been a forest fire nearby that day, or it was just foggy and the dude sensationalized. Moot. I posted several pictures of smog from various places. Do you really think they are all natural and not the result of burning stuff? Have you never seen smog with your own eyes? If not, fly a bunch - you can literally see the pollution over the cities. There is no doubt about pollution if you just look. Alternatively, you could read the several papers I linked. Edited March 17 by TailingsPond 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TailingsPond + 1,008 GE March 17 (edited) 20 minutes ago, footeab@yahoo.com said: Read some damned history: Its always looked like that. Did your history books have pictures? Like a little comic book? Please reference your source. Meanwhile... Edited March 17 by TailingsPond Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TailingsPond + 1,008 GE March 17 You guys can deny CO2 and climate change all you want; but if you actually look at pictures and sensor data (PM 2.5, etc.) there can be no denying that fossil fuel use increases local air pollution which leads to negative health effects. Did you ever go camping as a kid? If so, when you sat around the fire did you avoid the smokey side? 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron Wagner + 710 March 17 https://www.theepochtimes.com/opinion/top-california-officials-blame-everything-on-climate-change-5608154 Top California Officials Blame Everything on Climate Change Friends Read Free 23 40 Save California Governor Gavin Newsom speaks during the U.N. Climate Action: Race to Zero and Resilience Forum Supported by Bloomberg Philanthropies, in New York City, on Sept. 21, 2022. (Monica Schipper/Getty Images for Bloomberg Philanthropies) By John Seiler 3/15/2024 Updated: 3/15/2024 Print Commentary It’s like listening to a broken record in California as practically every issue is attributed to climate change. Even with the $73 billion budget deficit, elected and appointed officials are fighting to keep spending billions of dollars on their questionable agenda. Mentioning “climate” is like a magic word advancing legislation or regulations. A search of California Legislative Information, the Legislature’s official website, found 361 bills with the word “climate” in the title or text introduced in the 2023–24 legislative session. Story continues below advertisement Then there’s Gov. Gavin Newsom’s Jan. 10 budget proposal for fiscal year 2024–25, which begins on July 1 and projected a deficit of “only” $38 billion. It mentioned “climate” 77 times. Here are just a few of those climate bills: Financial Risk Reporting Senate Bill 261 was by state Sen. Henry Stern (D-Calabasas). According to a Senate analysis, “This bill requires companies that do business in California and have gross revenues exceeding $500 million annually, excluding insurance companies, to report on their climate-related financial risk, and requires the California Air Resources Board (CARB) to contract with a qualified climate reporting organization to review and publish an analysis of those reports, as specified.” This would be pointless meddling in companies’ financial matters, which already are regulated by numerous state and federal laws, and the federal Securities and Exchange Commission. It would be another prod for companies to leave this state. Mr. Newsom signed it into law last October. RELATED STORIES Group of Businesses Sue California to Block New Climate Disclosure Laws 2/1/2024 UN Climate Change Conference Head Refutes California Climate Policy 12/6/2023 California Gov. Gavin Newsom speaks as he attends the Climate Ambition Summit at the United Nations Headquarters in New York City on Sept. 20, 2023. (Kena Betancur/Getty Images) Advising the UN on a Greenhouse Gas Treaty Senate Resolution 34 was by state Sen. Dave Cortese (D-San Jose). An advisory measure, part of it read, “Resolved, that the Senate calls on the State Air Resources Board to engage necessary federal entities as appropriate to urge the United States Ambassador to the United Nations to propose a climate treaty that would restore and stabilize GHG [greenhouse gas] levels as our common climate goal.” It passed 29 to 0 in the Senate. This was just posturing. While California politicians like to boast the state has the “fourth largest world economy,” it’s really just a subsection of the much larger U.S. economy. And the U.S. Constitution assigns all foreign relations, including treaties, to the federal government. Fossil-Fuel Nonproliferation Treaty Senate Joint Resolution 2 is by state Sen. Lena Gonzalez (D-Long Beach). An Assembly Floor Analysis stated it “Formally endorses the call for a Fossil Fuel Non-Proliferation Treaty (Treaty), states California’s agreement with the principle of nonproliferation of fossil fuels, and urges the United States government to join in formally developing a Fossil Fuel Non-Proliferation Treaty.” It passed 28 to 7 in the Senate and 50 to 14 in the Assembly. The treaty came about in 2021 and “coordinated a letter signed by 100 Nobel laureates, including scientists, peace makers, writers, and the Dalai Lama, urging world leaders ‘to take concrete steps to phase out fossil fuels in order to prevent catastrophic climate change.’ … The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty was used as a model.” This is so naïve. The Nuclear NPT is supposed to prevent countries with nuclear weapons helping other countries develop them. But according to the Arms Control Association’s “Arms Control and Proliferation Profile: China”: “China, one of the five nuclear weapons states under the NPT, is estimated, as of January 2024, to possess roughly 500 nuclear warheads, an arsenal that has increased significantly in recent years. It has simultaneously sought to modernize and expand its nuclear delivery systems in pursuit of a robust nuclear triad.” As to proliferation: “China has aided Pakistan’s nuclear and missile programs among other states. Iran, Libya, North Korea, and Saudi Arabia have also been identified as recipients of sensitive technologies and materials from China.” Story continues below advertisement On the Fossil Fuel NPT, again communist China isn’t going to go along. I’ve written several articles in The Epoch Times on how it’s increasing its use of fossil-fuels to boost factory production. Here’s a short update from CNBC: “China and India’s growing economies will continue to fuel demand for coal even as they set ambitious renewable energy targets, according to experts. Waste coal is unloaded near an unauthorized steel factory in Inner Mongolia, China, on Nov. 3, 2016. (Kevin Frayer/Getty Images) “While China is the world’s largest energy consumer, India is ranked third globally, and both countries are the top consumers of coal as they strive to fuel economic growth. “China’s share of global electricity consumption, 60% of which is generated by coal, is set to jump to one-third by 2025, compared with a quarter in 2015, according to projections by energy watchdog International Energy Agency.” All California’s attack on fossil fuels has done is slow our own ability to develop the technologies of the future, giving China an edge. Climate-Resilient Schools Senate Bill 1182 also is by Ms. Gonzalez, who has authored a number of the climate bills. It would require the State Energy Resources Conservation and Development Commission “to develop a Master Plan for Healthy, Sustainable, and Climate-Resilient Schools on or before March 31, 2026.” The Master Plan would include “assessments of a representative sample of the state’s public elementary and secondary school buildings and grounds, as provided, and a set of priorities, benchmarks, and milestones for health, resilience, and decarbonization of public school campuses and support facilities.” This is what concerns legislators instead of improving the low test scores of the state’s students. According to the Nation’s Report Card, in the 2022 National Assessment of Educational Progress, for 4th graders in math, just 30 percent scored at or above the proficient level. Similar low scores were recorded for other grades and for English language skills. The bill is set for a hearing on March 19 in the Committee on Energy, Utilities and Communications. Controlling Childcare Assembly Bill 2732 is by Assemblymember Diane Papan (D-San Mateo). It would “would state the intent of the Legislature to enact legislation to ensure the state’s climate change and resiliency actions include and prioritize the childcare sector.” This is more meddling in families, which are better equipped than government bureaucrats to take care of their own children. But it shows how “climate change” is used as a catch-all excuse to control more of our lives. The bill may be heard in an unspecified committee on March 17. California Gov. Gavin Newsom speaks at the Hong Kong University on climate issues in Hong Kong on Oct. 23, 2023. (Anthony Kwan/AP Photo) California Not Meeting Climate Goals Despite the past and coming hyper-regulation, the state still isn’t meeting its unrealistic climate goals. The California Green Innovation Index for 2023 by the nonprofit organization Next 10, just released, found “total greenhouse gas emissions rebounded between 2020 and 2021, jumping by 3.4 percent to 381.3 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (MMTCO2e) in 2021. This increase followed an 8.8 percent drop in emissions in 2020 due to the COVID-19 pandemic. ... “To meet the 2030 target of nearly 260 MMTCO2e, California would need to triple the rate at which it has been cutting emissions since 2010—going from the actual average annual reduction of about 1.5 percent a year to about 4.4 percent a year. This is up from the 3.6 percent needed in 2020 (due to the large drop in emissions due to COVID) and the 4.2 percent needed in 2019. Even in more recent years, California’s emissions decreased by only 1.6 percent on average per year from 2016 to 2021—much less than the rate needed to meet the 2030 goal. Using the trajectory in emissions since 2010, California won’t meet the 2030 goal until 2047.” Beginning with Mr. Newsom, most of the current state politicians will be out of office in 2030, and almost all of them by 2047. So there will be no consequences for the failure to meet unrealistic climate goals. Conclusion: The Legislature Isn’t Serious The large number of pointless climate bills show the California Legislature just isn’t serious about the real dangers to this state, the country, and the world. It ought to be finding ways to cut operating costs, especially energy costs, to the state’s high-tech companies to keep us ahead of communist China’s rapidly advancing tech industries. And how about a big push for more nuclear-power plants? Or cutting taxes so companies that have moved to states such as Texas with laxer environmental laws, return here? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
notsonice + 1,255 DM March 17 14 hours ago, footeab@yahoo.com said: Read some damned history: Its always looked like that. First Spanish sailor in 1542 who saw it called it bay of the Smoke... how is your grand tunneling project coming along???? too much natural smoke to figure out where to put the tunnels???? 1 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ecocharger + 1,474 DL March 18 22 hours ago, TailingsPond said: Discredit all those studies Eco. Ground level air pollution kills people, and most ground level air pollution comes from burning fossil fuels. Pollution has declined in recent decades, both atmospheric and closer to ground. So that should result in fewer pollution deaths despite higher oil and gas production and demand. If your study has any value to it...which I doubt. 1 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ecocharger + 1,474 DL March 18 22 hours ago, TailingsPond said: Booming EV market, got it. The EV boom is happening so fast they can't build the charging stations fast enough, got it. When people line up to get your service that is a good sign. "I'm sorry sir, we have no more available reservations." Sales are going DOWN in California, the Mecca of the EV trade. What more can be said? 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ecocharger + 1,474 DL March 18 18 hours ago, TailingsPond said: Open your eyes Look at the data, friend. Pollution is down. Your study should show a decline in pollution related deaths. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ecocharger + 1,474 DL March 18 (edited) 17 hours ago, TailingsPond said: You guys can deny CO2 and climate change all you want; but if you actually look at pictures and sensor data (PM 2.5, etc.) there can be no denying that fossil fuel use increases local air pollution which leads to negative health effects. Did you ever go camping as a kid? If so, when you sat around the fire did you avoid the smokey side? You have to look at trends if you want to be taken seriously. Pollution is down, deaths from pollution should also be down, that is, if your study has any value. And what did you find out about Darwin. Did he get his PhD at Cambridge? That was big on your want list...what was the result of your discovery? Did Darwin get his PhD degree? No? As I recall, you made a big issue out of this. Did you just LOSE interest? Or were you just blowing smoke? Edited March 18 by Ecocharger 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TailingsPond + 1,008 GE March 18 29 minutes ago, Ecocharger said: Pollution has declined in recent decades, both atmospheric and closer to ground. Pollution from what? Say it. 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Most Active Members
Recently Online
Popular Members
Most Active Members
Recently Online
Popular Members
