Great News for V8s and ICE Vehicles in General

[ValhallaNitePony]

Sponsored

 

[Gregs24]

Air pollution, destruction of the environment as a result of everything associated with getting a finite resource to the pump for us to consume. E15/E85 our current alternative is in some ways worse than traditional fossil fuels, Not just from an emissions standpoint but also from a food cost perspective, as you're literally burning food and devoting fields to produce a single crop.

Then there's less of a push for manufacturers to make efficient (read: fast) vehicles.

but you know, climate change is a hoax, once in a century storms happening every few years is the norm, We've always had massive hurricanes and severe weather and insurance costs were going to go up anyway, it's not at all related to changes in weather. Probably just a liberal plot. Just like Zillow removing data about how likely a home is to be affected by severe weather because it was impacting sales.

Plants use CO2, more is better. Only an idiot would argue against it.

declines in violent crime rates be damned, let's bring back leaded gas!

How Climate Change Will Affect Plants – State of the Planet

It always helps to dig a little deeper to avoid simplistic assumptions

Leaded gas - just plain stupid

 

[Zig]

How Climate Change Will Affect Plants – State of the Planet

It always helps to dig a little deeper to avoid simplistic assumptions

Leaded gas - just plain stupid

How did grass get under the polar ice?

leaded paint - not a snack.

 

[exm]

Too bad everyone else will suffer in the long term as a result.

inb4 No PoLiTiCs

Maybe because we have been misled for the past decade? You think a Prius will help save the planet and a V8 will doom it?

Climate Change Study Predicting Dire Economic Damage Is Retracted

A widely cited study on economic damage from climate change was retracted Wednesday following criticism from peers.

The research, published last year in the prestigious journal Nature, projected that the world’s economic output would decline 62% by 2100 under a high-carbon emissions scenario. The estimate was much more severe than other forecasts, prompting scrutiny of the underlying data.

“We broadly agree with the issues raised, and have made corrections to the underlying economic data and to our methodology to address them,” said study author Leonie Wenz, from the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research in Germany. “These changes are too substantial for a correction of the original article in Nature.”

The study examined historical data from some 1,600 regions worldwide over the past four decades to project how changes in temperature and precipitation would affect economic growth, including factors like agricultural yields, labor productivity and infrastructure.
However, after the study was published, other researchers found that economic data from one country—Uzbekistan—during a short time from 1995 to 1999 had skewed the results. Without Uzbekistan, the 2100 damage forecast fell to 23%, not 62%. The researchers published their critique in Nature in August.

Another researcher who wasn’t involved in the original work, Christof Schötz, said the results were more uncertain than the study suggested and published a separate critique in Nature in August.
The study had been cited by the U.S. Congressional Budget Office, the World Bank and the Network for Greening the Financial System, or NGFS, a coalition of central banks from which the Federal Reserve withdrew this year.

The coalition, which has members in about 90 countries, incorporated the damage forecast in risk tools that banks can use, for instance, to stress-test portfolios to meet European regulations. The NGFS damage estimate still incorporates the study—with a disclaimer flagging the retraction—pending its next update.

Central bank models of the economic impacts of climate change could have far-reaching implications. If these models show impacts are going to be much worse than previously thought, regulators could make banks set aside more capital to buffer against potential losses associated with assets exposed to climate change, according to Ely Sandler, a researcher at the Harvard Kennedy School.

Scientists noted that despite problems with the data in this study, there is still scientific agreement that climate change hurts the world economy.

“There is a broad scientific consensus regarding the severe negative economic effects of climate change,” said Schötz, who added the retraction “does not alter that reality.”
Wenz noted that, despite the retraction, the conclusions of her group’s study are consistent with other research showing climate change has substantial effects on macroeconomic productivity, and that those impacts outweigh the costs of climate change mitigation.
The group plans to submit a revised version of the study for peer review.
Nature said it followed the journal’s process for handling concerns about a published paper, which involves consulting the original authors of the paper and seeking advice from independent, external peer reviewers.

“Our priority is always to uphold the integrity of the scientific record,” said Karl Ziemelis, chief applied and physical sciences editor for Nature.

 

[Upacurb]

Consumer choice isn't bad. I say make both EVs and ICE and let the consumers decide.

The Earth is 4.5 billion years old give or take.....even if we had been tracking data for 200 years...I question whether what we have would be statistically relevant .....

In the 80s it was the Ozone layer - then global warming - now climate change........in another 10 years it will probably be something else......

 

[135Hoser]

I thought obvious sarcasm about leaded gas was obvious sarcasm.

How Climate Change Will Affect Plants – State of the Planet

It always helps to dig a little deeper to avoid simplistic assumptions

If you read a little further into the article you linked, they go on to say that there's a ton of downsides to crops as a result of all the other things happening along with increased co2 concentrations.

Maybe because we have been misled for the past decade? You think a Prius will help save the planet and a V8 will doom it?

We're all being mislead, lol. I think people having the choice for hyper-efficient vehicles is great, but also fuel economy standards as a whole across a manufacturers fleet are important.

Wow, one study retracted. Some might say it's the only study on this subject. Nobody else is looking at these things. Everything brought up by the study must also be false.

Windmills cause cancer!

 

[Zig]

… and that those impacts outweigh the costs of climate change mitigation.

Uhh the cost of mitigation has an impact . Oh so on-demand is better than prepay?

 

[exm]

Consumer choice isn't bad. I say make both EVs and ICE and let the consumers decide.

The Earth is 4.5 billion years old give or take.....even if we had been tracking data for 200 years...I question whether what we have would be statistically relevant .....

In the 80s it was the Ozone layer - then global warming - now climate change........in another 10 years it will probably be something else......

Exactly! I'm not disputing myself that the earth is warming, or even that humans have a (small) part of this. However, the 'experts' are trying to destroy economies for solutions that are unproven. It's all about reducing CO2 so the earth doesn't warm by 0.5 degrees Celsius or something.

In my humble opinion, we'll find a technical solution sooner than later to reduce CO2 if that's such a big concern. Meanwhile, it's okay to invest in clean energy and vehicles but let's not destroy our economy for this. It's crazy that blue states are against natural gas and nuclear energy - I'm fine with stopping with coal by the way - driving up energy costs for everyone. For... What?

Someone already brought up Europe, an excellent example of climate hysteria gone wrong.

Happy to hear what the Trump admin did yesterday. Now if Ford would make a hybrid V8 (like Porsche)... More power and more mpg.... I would be all-in!

 

[135Hoser]

Consumer choice isn't bad. I say make both EVs and ICE and let the consumers decide.

The Earth is 4.5 billion years old give or take.....even if we had been tracking data for 200 years...I question whether what we have would be statistically relevant .....

In the 80s it was the Ozone layer - then global warming - now climate change........in another 10 years it will probably be something else......

Jesus christ. We've done ice core samples and extensive geological analysis to give us a very informed idea of what conditions were like for the last hundred million years or so.

Yes, we had issues with CFCs burning a hole in the ozone layer in the 80's/90's. Humanity decided this was really bad and we did our best to limit the use of CFCs and to stop releasing them willy nilly into the atmosphere. Guess what? the ozone layer got better.

Global warming is climate shift. It got renamed because idiots were "disproving" global warming by saying "BUT IT STILL GETS COLD IN WINTER DOESN'T IT?!". It changed to climate shift in the hopes that the general public would understand our climate is a complex system with many interconnected parts that work together, and there's more to the issue than just "boy its sure warm this summer"

Yes, it will likely be something else in addition to this problem in a few years, because yay consumerism, yay quarterly profits, yay AI bullshit that nobody wants but it's still forced on us, yay crypto gobbling up electricity. Yay death of all sea life in the ocean as a result of acidification and microplastics and dumping of toxic waste.

How would humanity not face different problems as time goes on?

 

[exm]

Jesus christ. We've done ice core samples and extensive geological analysis to give us a very informed idea of what conditions were like for the last hundred million years or so.

Yes, we had issues with CFCs burning a hole in the ozone layer in the 80's/90's. Humanity decided this was really bad and we did our best to limit the use of CFCs and to stop releasing them willy nilly into the atmosphere. Guess what? the ozone layer got better.

Global warming is climate shift. It got renamed because idiots were "disproving" global warming by saying "BUT IT STILL GETS COLD IN WINTER DOESN'T IT?!". It changed to climate shift in the hopes that the general public would understand our climate is a complex system with many interconnected parts that work together, and there's more to the issue than just "boy its sure warm this summer"

Yes, it will likely be something else in addition to this problem in a few years, because yay consumerism, yay quarterly profits, yay AI bullshit that nobody wants but it's still forced on us, yay crypto gobbling up electricity. Yay death of all sea life in the ocean as a result of acidification and microplastics and dumping of toxic waste.

How would humanity not face different problems as time goes on?

With all due respect: if you have this opinion why are you driving a V8 instead of a Tesla?

 

[Upacurb]

With all due respect: if you have this opinion why are you driving a V8 instead of a Tesla?

For the same reason celebrities/politicians take private jets to conferences to talk about climate change......maybe they haven't heard of a Teams meeting?

 

[Gregs24]

I thought obvious sarcasm about leaded gas was obvious sarcasm.



If you read a little further into the article you linked, they go on to say that there's a ton of downsides to crops as a result of all the other things happening along with increased co2 concentrations.


We're all being mislead, lol. I think people having the choice for hyper-efficient vehicles is great, but also fuel economy standards as a whole across a manufacturers fleet are important.

Wow, one study retracted. Some might say it's the only study on this subject. Nobody else is looking at these things. Everything brought up by the study must also be false.

Windmills cause cancer!

Yes 100%. Interesting some crops do not benefit from CO2 increases anyway such as maize (corn)

 

[hoodscoops]

Too bad everyone else will suffer in the long term as a result.

inb4 No PoLiTiCs

How?

Innovation. America will suffer in the long term. Lack of future technical dominance

 

[Gregs24]

Exactly! I'm not disputing myself that the earth is warming, or even that humans have a (small) part of this. However, the 'experts' are trying to destroy economies for solutions that are unproven. It's all about reducing CO2 so the earth doesn't warm by 0.5 degrees Celsius or something.

In my humble opinion, we'll find a technical solution sooner than later to reduce CO2 if that's such a big concern. Meanwhile, it's okay to invest in clean energy and vehicles but let's not destroy our economy for this. It's crazy that blue states are against natural gas and nuclear energy - I'm fine with stopping with coal by the way - driving up energy costs for everyone. For... What?

Someone already brought up Europe, an excellent example of climate hysteria gone wrong.

Happy to hear what the Trump admin did yesterday. Now if Ford would make a hybrid V8 (like Porsche)... More power and more mpg.... I would be all-in!

It is actually more than this and 0.5C globally is absolutely massive in energy terms

What climate hysteria went wrong in Europe - do tell as I live here and am not aware of any such hysteria?

 

[Gregs24]

Consumer choice isn't bad. I say make both EVs and ICE and let the consumers decide.

The Earth is 4.5 billion years old give or take.....even if we had been tracking data for 200 years...I question whether what we have would be statistically relevant .....

In the 80s it was the Ozone layer - then global warming - now climate change........in another 10 years it will probably be something else......

Ozone layer is recovering because of the changes made - tick

Global warming and climate change are the 'same thing', the globe is warming which is resulting in climate change.

Even very basic research provides you with the information you need on climate changes and statistical relevance, not sure why you haven't done this research and yet have such a strong opinion?

Sponsored