GREEN NEW DEAL = BLIZZARD OF LIES

[Ecocharger + 1,446]

There is nothing like kicking a sick performer when they are down.

The EV industry, now struggling and losing sales, is being further hit by the governments who formerly supported them.

Subsidies and breaks offered to EV industries by the governments are now being removed and higher fees are being levied on the struggling industry.

https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/Governments-Deliver-Blow-To-EV-Darlings.html

"Financial Times: EV additions to national fleets cost governments globally $10 billion in fuel duty revenue losses.

Governments are depriving themselves, or rather, their successors, of billions in fuel duty revenues in the name of electrification.

Governments have started to phase out tax incentives and have lifted registration fees for new EVs to compensate for the decline in fuel duty revenues."

"In Europe, governments are taking a different but equally unpopular approach: they are phasing out EV incentives. The first results are in. In December, Germany announced the abrupt end to EV subsidies. Over the first quarter of this year, EV sales in the EU’s largest economy dropped by over 14%. In January alone, EV sales took a 50% dive following the cancelation of incentives."

[TailingsPond + 671]

1 hour ago, Ecocharger said:

No, oil companies do not do science climate change research intended for the public, and there is no statutory obligation to advise the public.

However, there are statutory requirements for the governments to research and advise the public on climate change, and failure of the government departments to consider all of the relevant science research is a breach of responsibility and a violation of a public duty of care.

Those are actionable offenses which could give rise to class action lawsuits.

 

They do not have to do climate change research but they do have scientific obligations that have to be reported to regulators.

"Research intended for the public" is funny.  So they did research and then hid it from the public?  Yep - they knew long ago!

https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2023/01/harvard-led-analysis-finds-exxonmobil-internal-research-accurately-predicted-climate-change/

 

 

 

Edited May 9 by TailingsPond

[TailingsPond + 671]

3 hours ago, Ecocharger said:

However, there are statutory requirements for the governments to research climate change and advise the public on climate change, and failure of the government departments to consider all of the relevant science research is a breach of responsibility and a violation of a public duty of care.

Those are actionable offenses which could give rise to class action lawsuits.

Refusal by the government to consider and discuss recent climate science constitutes a violation of  duty of care.

 

Are you referring to the junk papers we discussed as "relevant science?"

I really, really, hope you present those papers and try to start a lawsuit against the government.  You would be like pillow man losing all his money. 

 

[Rob Plant + 2,747]

15 hours ago, Ecocharger said:

Rob, you are still confused. Such terms as "carelessness" do not rise to the level of criminal offenses.

To show criminality it must be proven that the relevant official was knowledgeable of violations and despite that knowledge proceeded with the violation.

That is a very high burden of proof.

Eco it may be different in the US to the UK, but I can assure you if you are the CEO of a business and someone is seriously injured or even dies because of "carelessness" which is ultimately someone not following procedures (or no procedures are in place) then that CEO will go to jail unless they can prove all risk assessments have been carried out, procedures are clear and employees have been trained to the standards required. If the injured employee has willfully ignored all of their training and not followed procedure and that can be proven then the CEO is in the clear, but the onus is on the CEO to prove that, not the injured employee.

[Rob Plant + 2,747]

15 hours ago, Ecocharger said:

There is nothing like kicking a sick performer when they are down.

The EV industry, now struggling and losing sales, is being further hit by the governments who formerly supported them.

Subsidies and breaks offered to EV industries by the governments are now being removed and higher fees are being levied on the struggling industry.

https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/Governments-Deliver-Blow-To-EV-Darlings.html

"Financial Times: EV additions to national fleets cost governments globally $10 billion in fuel duty revenue losses.

Governments are depriving themselves, or rather, their successors, of billions in fuel duty revenues in the name of electrification.

Governments have started to phase out tax incentives and have lifted registration fees for new EVs to compensate for the decline in fuel duty revenues."

"In Europe, governments are taking a different but equally unpopular approach: they are phasing out EV incentives. The first results are in. In December, Germany announced the abrupt end to EV subsidies. Over the first quarter of this year, EV sales in the EU’s largest economy dropped by over 14%. In January alone, EV sales took a 50% dive following the cancelation of incentives."

Now new EV's such as the new ones from BYD are less than $10,000 all those levies will return as they have done in many countries already. The days of EV subsidies to encourage their uptake is over as the technology and cost point has overtaken the ICE vehicle. Good old fashioned simple economics will bring these EV's to the masses unless governments impose massive import duties on them, which is the subsidies in reverse. The issue for those governments who do impose those duties will be it will go against their climate goals they have signed up to.

Interesting times ahead, lets see who blinks first!

[bloodman33 + 22]

Ecocharger: The Vermont bill passed with a vetoproof majority.

The law passed with just three no votes in Vermont’s state Senate in early April, followed by approval in the state House on Monday. The Senate will deliver a final vote later this week before the bill heads to Republican Gov. Phil Scott’s desk. 

[Ecocharger + 1,446]

China loves oil. China needs oil.

https://www.reuters.com/markets/commodities/china-april-crude-oil-imports-rise-545-previous-year-2024-05-09/

"China's crude oil imports rose on the previous year in April, as refiners prepared for a fully recovered Labour Day holiday travel season, official data showed on Thursday.

Crude imports in April totalled 44.72 million metric tons, or about 10.88 million barrels per day (bpd), according to data from the General Administration of Customs.

That represented a 5.45% increase from the relatively low 10.4 million bpd imported in April 2023."

Edited May 10 by Ecocharger

[Ecocharger + 1,446]

On 5/9/2024 at 1:49 PM, TailingsPond said:

They do not have to do climate change research but they do have scientific obligations that have to be reported to regulators.

"Research intended for the public" is funny.  So they did research and then hid it from the public?  Yep - they knew long ago!

https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2023/01/harvard-led-analysis-finds-exxonmobil-internal-research-accurately-predicted-climate-change/

 

 

 

Exactly, reports to regulators, but that is not what is being complained about in these issues.

The complaints are about oil companies doing their own science research and advising governments and the public. The latter complaints have no foundation in law, governments and the public do not rely in statute upon oil companies to provide advice on climate policy.

To show legal liability there must be proof that the government and the public were reliant on the supposed "silence" of the oil companies, and that the oil companies were commissioned by the government to do climate research upon which public policy was formulated. The author of that study did not even attempt to show reliance by government or the public. If those oil studies were not publicly released, how could they influence the public or the government? That alone shows the absence of liability for the oil companies.

The governments who launch these suits may be liable for legal harassment and are co-conspirators in their own allegations, since governments have supported the oil production as public policy and continue to do so at an increased rate.

Pure nonsense.

Edited May 10 by Ecocharger

[Ecocharger + 1,446]

22 hours ago, TailingsPond said:

Are you referring to the junk papers we discussed as "relevant science?"

I really, really, hope you present those papers and try to start a lawsuit against the government.  You would be like pillow man losing all his money. 

 

Those are central papers in the debate, so of course the government has to consider them.

It appears that there has been no challenge to them, so of course that is essential research.

[Ecocharger + 1,446]

2 hours ago, bloodman33 said:

Ecocharger: The Vermont bill passed with a vetoproof majority.

The law passed with just three no votes in Vermont’s state Senate in early April, followed by approval in the state House on Monday. The Senate will deliver a final vote later this week before the bill heads to Republican Gov. Phil Scott’s desk. 

Veto?

[turbguy + 1,535]

The agreements and disagreements voiced here concerning the potential reduction of gaseous and particulate emissions via cutting back on burning "stuff" is one of the debates of the millennia.

-Some believe anthropological effects on the climate do not exist, or are so minor as to be dismissed as "lost in the noise" of measurement. Or they question the methods used to make measurements. Or they question the analysis and reporting. Or they question models used to predict the future.

-Some believe that we are well past making any meaningful effort to stabilize the climate.

-Some believe something between these extremes.

-Some believe that, if needed, technology will provide a solution.

I feel that over my lifetime, I note a change to a warmer climate, with increasing occurrence of severe weather (not climate) events. Since weather is a chaotic system, accurate predictability over a very long term is difficult .  Even today's weather models don't seem to do well over a week's duration.  The climate is a longer term trend, with warming (or cooling) evidenced by something as simple a sea level change due to increasing (or decreasing) ice accumulation on land.   

The bottom line with ALL of this (and other) thread's conversation is to come to re-realize that all of humanity is the caretaker of the only planet with limited areas we can hope to survive upon.   If you are of the opinion that someone else, or perhaps some deity, has this obligation, you might need to rethink your world view.

Humanity does not have any other choice. 

Mars is certainly not the answer (at least for many, many generations).

Money is certainly not the answer.

In fact, money appears to be the impediment!

Edited May 11 by turbguy

[Ecocharger + 1,446]

Another nail in the old coffin...the price of EVs will increase even as the sales of EVs decline and unsold EVs pile up on sales lots..

This will create another burden on the already stalled "transition".

https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/Biden-Admin-Set-to-Announce-Tariffs-on-Chinese-EVs-and-Solar-Panels.html

"Biden's tariffs, targeting China's "new three" green goods, are expected to be announced next week, escalating trade tensions between the US and China.

The move is anticipated to impact various sectors, leading to market turbulence and a weakening yuan, with potential retaliatory measures from Beijing.

Analysts weigh in on the implications, with some highlighting the broader geopolitical implications and market volatility expected in response to the tariff announcement."

Edited May 11 by Ecocharger

[Ecocharger + 1,446]

21 hours ago, Rob Plant said:

Now new EV's such as the new ones from BYD are less than $10,000 all those levies will return as they have done in many countries already. The days of EV subsidies to encourage their uptake is over as the technology and cost point has overtaken the ICE vehicle. Good old fashioned simple economics will bring these EV's to the masses unless governments impose massive import duties on them, which is the subsidies in reverse. The issue for those governments who do impose those duties will be it will go against their climate goals they have signed up to.

Interesting times ahead, lets see who blinks first!

Bottom line is that EVs are now tanking and fossil fuel vehicles increasing in sales in Europe. Your analysis seems rather strange.

[Ecocharger + 1,446]

21 hours ago, Rob Plant said:

Eco it may be different in the US to the UK, but I can assure you if you are the CEO of a business and someone is seriously injured or even dies because of "carelessness" which is ultimately someone not following procedures (or no procedures are in place) then that CEO will go to jail unless they can prove all risk assessments have been carried out, procedures are clear and employees have been trained to the standards required. If the injured employee has willfully ignored all of their training and not followed procedure and that can be proven then the CEO is in the clear, but the onus is on the CEO to prove that, not the injured employee.

Rob, that is not the issue here. The agitation is about oil companies supposedly not informing the government about climate change. That is surely not any where near criminality. Nor is it even a duty which would create liability.

However, it is a violation of duty for the government to ignore or suppress new climate research which might disturb the climate panic. The public welfare is ill served when the truth is hidden, and that could reasonably lead to class action lawsuits against governments.

Edited May 11 by Ecocharger

[notsonice + 1,243]

1 hour ago, Ecocharger said:

The public welfare is ill served when the truth is hidden, and that could reasonably lead to class action lawsuits against governments.

 

it is a violation of duty for the government to ignore or suppress new climate research???????

and your ignored research????? postings of babble, from lunatics such as yourself , is not credible research and the failure of the government to recognize your made up babble is not a violation of anything

 

The public welfare is ill served when the truth is hidden, and that could reasonably lead to class action lawsuits against governments.????

lots of these class action lawsuits being filed these days?????

please share them with us...........

you do not want to believe the truth or science presented to you on global warming......that's your choice

and now you are posting that somehow ......truth is hidden ......and based on your BS this serves a basis to file class action suits against governments......

lol.............you are nuts.......

[TailingsPond + 671]

On 5/10/2024 at 1:00 PM, Ecocharger said:

Those are central papers in the debate, so of course the government has to consider them.

It appears that there has been no challenge to them, so of course that is essential research.

You really need to get over this "unchallenged means it is good" ideology.

Once again, citations means it is good research.

I could "publish" 1 + 2 = 2 and nobody would challenge my paper.  It would be so stupid nobody of worth would comment. Absurdity.

Also did you already forget how the authors of one of your favourite papers refuted themselves? At least they understand that they know nothing.  You seem to think they are some Athena of wisdom.

 

Edited May 12 by TailingsPond

[Ecocharger + 1,446]

4 hours ago, TailingsPond said:

You really need to get over this "unchallenged means it is good" ideology.

Once again, citations means it is good research.

I could "publish" 1 + 2 = 2 and nobody would challenge my paper.  It would be so stupid nobody of worth would comment. Absurdity.

Also did you already forget how the authors of one of your favourite papers refuted themselves? At least they understand that they know nothing.  You seem to think they are some Athena of wisdom.

 

Well, no, this has attracted attention and an attempted alternative experiment which did not work when the CO2 level was increased..

Read again, he makes it clear that he is not refuting his own earlier experiment, which is quoted in support of the new experiment. No refutation here, except of the standard forcing equations.

He does observe of the other study, "The result is similar but lower than what Harde and Schnell found."

So he is not in total agreement with Harde and Schnell. And then he proceeds to adjust the CO2 levels.

Here is the key conclusion of the study.

"The presence of IR radiation from a heated surface (like when the sun heats the earth’s surface) strongly attenuates the heating ability of increasing backscatter from increased amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. This result has consequences for the climate change models used by IPCC."

https://www.scirp.org/journal/paperinformation?paperid=124562

"This study deal with interactions between thermal and radiative energy flow in experimental situations of varying complexity. Of special interest is how IR energy, re-emitted from CO₂ gas, behaves in an earth/atmosphere simulated setup. Such an experiment was performed by Hermann Harde and Michael Schnell where they show that IR radiation emitted from CO₂ can warm a small black-body metal plate. In a control experiment, we verified this result. However, in their experiment, the amount of IR radiation from the heating element was strongly attenuated. In a modified experiment, where IR emission from the heating source is present, no heating but a slight cooling of a black object is found when air is replaced by CO2. The modified experimental situation is also more like the earth/atmosphere situation. The presence of IR radiation from a heated surface (like when the sun heats the earth’s surface) strongly attenuates the heating ability of increasing backscatter from increased amount of CO₂ in the atmosphere. This result has consequences for the climate change models used by IPCC."

 

 

Edited May 12 by Ecocharger

[TailingsPond + 671]

1 hour ago, Ecocharger said:

Read again, he makes it clear that he is not refuting his own earlier experiment, which is quoted in support of the new experiment. No refutation here, except of the standard forcing equations.

Seim and Olsen clearly admit their first experiment was inferior to Harde and Schnell **.  They may not come to the exact conclusions as Harde and Schnell in their newer paper, but you can not argue that Seim and Olsen still think that their earlier paper is still of much merit.  Hence, they refuted their earlier experiment.

The forcing equations are the whole thing...

Once again why not e-mail them? Ask them for yourself, these guys are not swamped with messages over this I guarantee you.

** "In a control experiment, we verified this result."

Edited May 12 by TailingsPond

[bloodman33 + 22]

Prolong space travel to Mars or anywhere else will never happen.  Human suffer eye damage and blindness in long periods of a weightless environment.  There is no fix.   It is complete science fiction.  Creating artificial gravity sounds good if you want to spend the worlds GDP on it.  LOL.Go to Mars and go blind. We are stuck on earth whether we like it or not and global warming caused by big oil and coal will turn it to hell on earth.   I suspect we are already screwed.  Luckily I will be dead before things get real bad.   Ah by lakefront property in South Dakota when the middle of the US fills up with water!  Good investment for your kids, kids, kids.

[bloodman33 + 22]

Buy, VLO, TNK, DHT, STNG, RIVN, MTDR, ARM, LLY!  And you Trump supporters out there buy DJT.  Max out your credit cards!!!!!  If he wind Russia and China will bribe him by taking ads out on his platform.  Give money to my queen AOC. 

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,187]

1 hour ago, bloodman33 said:

Prolong space travel to Mars or anywhere else will never happen.  Human suffer eye damage and blindness in long periods of a weightless environment.  There is no fix.   It is complete science fiction.  Creating artificial gravity sounds good if you want to spend the worlds GDP on it.  LOL.Go to Mars and go blind. We are stuck on earth whether we like it or not and global warming caused by big oil and coal will turn it to hell on earth.   I suspect we are already screwed.  Luckily I will be dead before things get real bad.   Ah by lakefront property in South Dakota when the middle of the US fills up with water!  Good investment for your kids, kids, kids.

"Real bad" as in not as bad as 1930's.  "Real bad" as in ice extent according to Canada's,ice report it has not changed since they started taking data in the early 1970's, nor does it disagree with USN Satellite data from same time period.  Huh, its almost as if when so called "scientists" start at HIGH point of ice extent in the Arctic(1980) it looks like it has shrunk, when in reality it has not. 

Oh right, get off your arse and look up Iceland Reykjavik temp data... has it changed any?  Nope... Ah, but look at GISTEMP data sets and they claim it has, even though the ACTUAL temperature record says otherwise... Ah, but it hasn't been DEFRAUDED like GISTEMP.  Has the US dataset which removed ALL city data shown any warming?  Tiny bit to -->Nope, but  these temp data series are buried by all the "data" which has ~60% city data in it and have been manipulated.   Satellite data shows slight rise... of course how do you do a check on Satellite data which measures air temp at mid altitudes... GISTEMP...

[TailingsPond + 671]

2 hours ago, bloodman33 said:

Prolong space travel to Mars or anywhere else will never happen.  Human suffer eye damage and blindness in long periods of a weightless environment.  There is no fix.   It is complete science fiction.  Creating artificial gravity sounds good if you want to spend the worlds GDP on it.  LOL.Go to Mars and go blind. We are stuck on earth whether we like it or not and global warming caused by big oil and coal will turn it to hell on earth.   I suspect we are already screwed.  Luckily I will be dead before things get real bad.   Ah by lakefront property in South Dakota when the middle of the US fills up with water!  Good investment for your kids, kids, kids.

A trip to mars would only take about 9 months.  Humans have lived longer than that on the space station without going blind.

To be clear, I do not think living on mars is viable, I just do not agree that going there would make you go blind.

[notsonice + 1,243]

4 hours ago, footeab@yahoo.com said:

"Real bad" as in not as bad as 1930's.  "Real bad" as in ice extent according to Canada's,ice report it has not changed since they started taking data in the early 1970's, nor does it disagree with USN Satellite data from same time period.  Huh, its almost as if when so called "scientists" start at HIGH point of ice extent in the Arctic(1980) it looks like it has shrunk, when in reality it has not. 

Oh right, get off your arse and look up Iceland Reykjavik temp data... has it changed any?  Nope... Ah, but look at GISTEMP data sets and they claim it has, even though the ACTUAL temperature record says otherwise... Ah, but it hasn't been DEFRAUDED like GISTEMP.  Has the US dataset which removed ALL city data shown any warming?  Tiny bit to -->Nope, but  these temp data series are buried by all the "data" which has ~60% city data in it and have been manipulated.   Satellite data shows slight rise... of course how do you do a check on Satellite data which measures air temp at mid altitudes... GISTEMP...

 

PIOMAS Arctic Sea Ice Volume Reanalysis

Polar Science Center

https://psc.apl.uw.edu › research › projects › arctic-sea-ic...

 

Average Arctic sea ice volume in April 2024 was 22.4 10³ km³. This value is the 4th lowest on record for March, about 1.7 10³ km³ above the low record set in ...

‎PIOMAS Data · ‎Validation · ‎Applications · ‎Publications

Edited May 13 by notsonice

[Rob Plant + 2,747]

On 5/11/2024 at 7:34 AM, Ecocharger said:

Bottom line is that EVs are now tanking and fossil fuel vehicles increasing in sales in Europe. Your analysis seems rather strange.

No theyre not as has been proven by Notsonice

These new BYD cars havent even landed in Europe yet, but at $10,000 they will sell before they get to the lots unless massive levies are put on them.

You seem to be willfully ignoring this new price point for EV's, surprise surprise.

Edited May 13 by Rob Plant

[Rob Plant + 2,747]

11 hours ago, TailingsPond said:

A trip to mars would only take about 9 months.  Humans have lived longer than that on the space station without going blind.

To be clear, I do not think living on mars is viable, I just do not agree that going there would make you go blind.

Maybe he is thinking theres nothing to do for 9 months other than masterbate and that will make him go blind?