Ecocharger + 1,474 DL October 22 (edited) 14 hours ago, notsonice said: Enjoy the cleaner air Coal and Clunkers are doomed......if you to not like the rules......China could use some immigrants PBS Court upholds California’s authority to set nation-leading vehicle emission rules California can continue to set its own nation-leading vehicle emissions standards, a federal court ruled Tuesday. . Apr 9, 2024 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (.gov) Accomplishments and Successes of Reducing Air Pollution from Transportation in the United States | US EPA Reducing pollution from transportation sources has led to healthier air for Americans. In cities, smog has been visibly reduced. . Aug 20, 2024 The New York Times Supreme Court Allows E.P.A. to Limit Power Plant Emissions It was a provisional victory for the Biden administration, whose climate initiatives have been stymied. A challenge to the rule at issue is... . 5 days ago Progaganda is no substitute for research, but I guess you never learned that. I have already shown you the reduction in air particulates from better technology, but I guess that was too much for you to accommodate into your mental capacity. No surprise there. Edited October 22 by Ecocharger 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ecocharger + 1,474 DL October 22 12 hours ago, Rob Plant said: 58% so still the majority of Americans then! You mean that a drastically reducing share of Americans are being fooled by the standard propaganda line? Yes, that appears to be the case. But there are still one or two die-hards who will fight to the end despite the science. Right, Rob? 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TailingsPond + 1,008 GE October 22 (edited) 11 minutes ago, Ecocharger said: You mean that a drastically reducing share of Americans are being fooled by the standard propaganda line? Yes, that appears to be the case. But there are still one or two die-hards who will fight to the end despite the science. Right, Rob? 58% is a strong majority. Dollar voting says clear victory. Meanwhile... Trump : 46.4%, Harris 48.1% https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/president-general/2024/national/ Edited October 22 by TailingsPond 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TailingsPond + 1,008 GE October 22 (edited) 11 minutes ago, Ecocharger said: But there are still one or two die-hards who will fight to the end despite the science. Right, Rob? you Edited October 22 by TailingsPond 1 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TailingsPond + 1,008 GE October 22 15 minutes ago, Ecocharger said: I have already shown you the reduction in air particulates from better technology, but I guess that was too much for you to accommodate into your mental capacity. No surprise there. No you didn't. You might have found a paper or two where a point source emissions got better (e.g. coal smokestacks got better). You have never shown great improvement in actual air quality. The air people breath remains very dirty primarily from fossil fuels. 1 1 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ecocharger + 1,474 DL October 22 6 minutes ago, TailingsPond said: you Dust off your science and see if you can upgrade to the new realities. The air is now cleaner despite rapid increases in fossil fuels. 2 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ecocharger + 1,474 DL October 22 2 minutes ago, TailingsPond said: No you didn't. You might have found a paper or two where a point source emissions got better (e.g. coal smokestacks got better). You have never shown great improvement in actual air quality. The air people breath remains very dirty primarily from fossil fuels. The research showed that the airborne particulates reduced drastically while human health problems related to smoking continued to hold. Just as expected. 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TailingsPond + 1,008 GE October 22 (edited) 1 minute ago, Ecocharger said: The research showed that the airborne particulates reduced drastically while human health problems related to smoking continued to hold. Just as expected. That was indoor air pollution from cooking. I'm talking about how dirty the air is when you go outside for "fresh air." Edited October 22 by TailingsPond 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ecocharger + 1,474 DL October 22 (edited) Just now, TailingsPond said: That was indoor air pollution from cooking. And you need to add in smoking. Edited October 22 by Ecocharger 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ecocharger + 1,474 DL October 22 (edited) 13 hours ago, Rob Plant said: 58% so still the majority of Americans then! The trend is clear, welcome to reality, "...the share of car-buying Americans who believe [that EVs are environmentally helpful] has gone down by 5 percentage points in the last two years, from 63% to 58%," Edited October 22 by Ecocharger 2 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TailingsPond + 1,008 GE October 22 2 minutes ago, Ecocharger said: And you need to add in smoking. Once again indoor air pollution. We need improvements in outdoor air quality. 1 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TailingsPond + 1,008 GE October 22 (edited) 4 minutes ago, Ecocharger said: The trend is clear, welcome to reality, "...the share of car-buying Americans who believe [that EVs are environmentally helpful] has gone down by 5 percentage points in the last two years, from 63% to 58%," Math is math dude. 58% is a massive majority. The youth are more pro-green, the ideological majority shifts every time a old human dies. The numbers will go up. Edited October 22 by TailingsPond 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ecocharger + 1,474 DL October 23 (edited) 1 hour ago, TailingsPond said: Math is math dude. 58% is a massive majority. The youth are more pro-green, the ideological majority shifts every time a old human dies. The numbers will go up. No, the youth are apparently now shifting as seen from my quote above, the trend is down for EVs. The trend is clear, welcome to reality, down means down "...the share of car-buying Americans who believe [that EVs are environmentally helpful] has gone down by 5 percentage points in the last two years, from 63% to 58%," Edited October 23 by Ecocharger 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ecocharger + 1,474 DL October 23 1 hour ago, TailingsPond said: Once again indoor air pollution. We need improvements in outdoor air quality. No, smoking is in the first instance interior to the human body and not included in the stats. Further it is resistant to new technology, thus not responding over time to technological change. 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ecocharger + 1,474 DL October 23 (edited) 17 hours ago, TailingsPond said: Remember the time when you wrote economists do not predict elections? You are too easy, try harder man, you are not even self consistent. Well, I guess I have to teach you again what an economist is (hint: an economist is not a journalist or a political scientist). Here is the answer to the question you are asking, and it appears that these pollsters are university political scientists. "Donald Trump’s average forecasted margin of victory in the state rose to 1.9 percentage points—the largest it has been since October 9th—on the back of polls from Redfield & Wilton and Washington Post/George Mason University.. " "For the first time in two months Donald Trump has taken the lead in our model, which now gives him a 54 in 100 chance of winning the election. " Why should we trust the results of The Economist publication? Partly because it is anti-Trump, yet gives the edge to Trump in its own model. That is what we need to see for credibility. Alternatively, there would be more credibility if a pro-Republican publication had a model showing Harris winning. Edited October 23 by Ecocharger 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TailingsPond + 1,008 GE October 23 4 minutes ago, Ecocharger said: Well, I guess I have to teach you again what an economist is (hint: an economist is not a journalist or a political scientist). Here is the answer to the question you are asking, and it appears that these pollsters are university political scientists. "Donald Trump’s average forecasted margin of victory in the state rose to 1.9 percentage points—the largest it has been since October 9th—on the back of polls from Redfield & Wilton and Washington Post/George Mason University.. " "For the first time in two months Donald Trump has taken the lead in our model, which now gives him a 54 in 100 chance of winning the election. " what percentage are decided for trump? far less than 58% 2 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TailingsPond + 1,008 GE October 23 (edited) 7 minutes ago, Ecocharger said: Well, I guess I have to teach you again what an economist is (hint: an economist is not a journalist or a political scientist). The link you posted is literally called the economist. You yourself are forecasting the election therefore you are not an economist or, economists forecast elections. Logic man, try it sometime. Edited October 23 by TailingsPond 1 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ecocharger + 1,474 DL October 23 3 minutes ago, TailingsPond said: what percentage are decided for trump? far less than 58% You really are confused...that was another article. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ecocharger + 1,474 DL October 23 (edited) 4 minutes ago, TailingsPond said: The link you posted is literally called the economist. No, it is called The Economist and is not written by economists. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Economist "The newspaper has a prominent focus on data journalism and interpretive analysis over original reporting, to both criticism and acclaim." Edited October 23 by Ecocharger 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TailingsPond + 1,008 GE October 23 2 minutes ago, Ecocharger said: No, it is called The Economist and is not written by economists. You still retain the internal conflict that economists do not predict elections, and yet... It's okay, we know you are not a working economist so predict away! Your predictions are always fun. 1 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ecocharger + 1,474 DL October 23 (edited) 9 minutes ago, TailingsPond said: You still retain the internal conflict that economists do not predict elections, and yet... It's okay, we know you are not a working economist so predict away! Your predictions are always fun. Giving you some basic instruction is always fun. I get that you are not working nor have ever studied economics. Here is the description of the model used by The Economist, rather impressive. "Methodology The Economist’s model of America’s presidential election estimates each major candidate’s chances of winning each state and the overall electoral college. Developed with a team of scholars at Columbia University, the forecast combines national and state-level polls with fundamental data about the state of the economy, historical voting patterns and the demographics of each state to predict the likelihood of various outcomes of the race. The model does this by constructing thousands of scenarios, each one containing different vote shares in each state and different values for the impact of polling biases and other characteristics. The model is more likely to generate scenarios that are closer to matching the polls and fundamental data it has been given. The win probabilities presented here represent the share of these scenarios won by each candidate." "For the first time in two months Donald Trump has taken the lead in our model, which now gives him a 54 in 100 chance of winning the election. " Edited October 23 by Ecocharger Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TailingsPond + 1,008 GE October 23 3 minutes ago, Ecocharger said: Giving you some basic instruction is always fun. I get that you are not working nor have ever studied economics. You can't understand that your own statements are conflicting. I don't understand why you are so proud of studying economics when economists screw up all the damn time. Economics is not a real science as they can not do controlled experiments, a lot is more like history where they try to explain what happened. Basically useless; computer scientists took over market predictions long ago. 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
notsonice + 1,255 DM October 23 4 hours ago, Ecocharger said: "...the share of car-buying Americans who believe [that EVs are environmentally helpful] has gone down by 5 percentage points in the last two years, from 63% to 58%," no surprise you do not bother to include a link or the whole story..... the next point made in the article is ".. https://www.carscoops.com/2024/09/americans-increasingly-dont-believe-evs-are-cleaner-than-ice-cars/#:~:text=The number of American drivers,percent in 2022%2C Ipsos found. Even factoring in electricity production and mining for battery minerals, EVs have been proven in multiple studies to be greener overall. love it that you could not post the next point...shows how fragile of a Drama Queen you are and lets look at the bigger picture ....you should do that once in a while https://www.autoremarketing.com/ar/analysis/survey-ev-owners-are-eager-to-come-back-for-more/ the highlight showed 77% of those who don’t already have an EV and are considering buying or leasing a car in the next 12 months are considering a battery electric or plug-in hybrid vehicle. Clunkers are doomed Friday, Sep. 6, 2024, 01:04 PM Auto Remarketing Staff FacebookTwitterLinkedInEmailShare Owners of electric vehicles are ready to come back for more. The 2024 EV Driver Survey, conducted early this year by nonprofit organizations Plug In America and EPRI, found 89% of EV owners said they are likely or very likely to purchase an EV as their next vehicle, a result Plug In America said has been consistent since the survey was first done in 2021. And among Tesla drivers and EV drivers age 65 and older, more than 90% of the respondents said their next vehicle would likely be an EV. The survey of more than 4,200 consumers, including more than 3,300 EV drivers, showed 77% of those who don’t already have an EV and are considering buying or leasing a car in the next 12 months are considering a battery electric or plug-in hybrid vehicle. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
notsonice + 1,255 DM October 23 5 hours ago, Ecocharger said: Progaganda is no substitute for research, but I guess you never learned that. I have already shown you the reduction in air particulates from better technology, but I guess that was too much for you to accommodate into your mental capacity. No surprise there. Progaganda is no substitute for research??? you did not even address the articles...... and then you post your standard Drama Queen BS babble I have already shown you the reduction in air particulates from better technology????? Yeah the reduction of the use of Coal also means the reduction in air particulates..... the last 15 years in the US is proof... Higher MPG vehicles results in less pollution.......EVs and Plug in hyrbids means even less pollution than your beloved clunkers put out and you are against tougher emission standards.. which means your clunkers are sent to the crushers....or getting rid of the sale of clunkers....and you get all giddy when coal is used .... shows how mentally challenged you are Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ecocharger + 1,474 DL October 23 3 hours ago, TailingsPond said: You can't understand that your own statements are conflicting. I don't understand why you are so proud of studying economics when economists screw up all the damn time. Economics is not a real science as they can not do controlled experiments, a lot is more like history where they try to explain what happened. Basically useless; computer scientists took over market predictions long ago. Says the Non-Economist...I have heard that same assessment before from other non-economists. 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
