Blackhawk wrote: Fri Oct 25, 2019 1:09 pm
The number of innocent deaths that Trump has caused due to ego or profit makes me wish I was religious, just to relish the thought of him in hell.
Then how would you reconcile voting for him like all of the other religious nutjobs do?
Pfft. It's what the cool kids are doing, and it isn't like facts are a cornerstone of my world.
/edit - and just so someone doesn't pre-coffee this post out of context, this is a joke.
Blackhawk wrote: Fri Oct 25, 2019 1:09 pm
The number of innocent deaths that Trump has caused due to ego or profit makes me wish I was religious, just to relish the thought of him in hell.
Then how would you reconcile voting for him like all of the other religious nutjobs do?
General Motors, Fiat Chrysler, Toyota and a group of other foreign automakers are seeking to become a party to a legal battle between the Trump Administration and the state of California over whether California can set auto emission rules for itself and 13 other states that have chosen to follow its lead.
The automakers say they are seeking to intervene because they want the two sides to come together and find a single national standard that would govern the fuel economy rules automakers would need to meet. They say they support rules tougher than those in place today, although they oppose significantly tougher standards put in place during the Obama administration. Those standards would have raised the average fuel economy to 54.5 miles per gallon by 2024.
The automakers seeking to enter the legal battle have formed a new lobbying group, the Coalition for Sustainable Automotive Regulation. In the filing, they say neither side in the dispute can adequately represent their interests in the case.
...
But by entering into the suit the way they are, these automakers are siding with the Trump administration in its argument that it should be able to strip the states of their power to set tougher clean air standards.
...
The legal action is at odds with the actions of four other automakers -- Ford (F), Volkswagen (VLKAF), Honda (HMC) and BMW -- which earlier this year reached an agreement with California to meet the state's tougher standards.
If you ever find yourself curious whether a particular automaker is serious or bullshitting about their EV plans, check their position on emissions regulations. Those truly intending to convert quickly have no reason to oppose a CAFE of 54.5 five years from now.
Zaxxon wrote: Tue Oct 29, 2019 3:46 pm
If you ever find yourself curious whether a particular automaker is serious or bullshitting about their EV plans, check their position on emissions regulations. Those truly intending to convert quickly have no reason to oppose a CAFE of 54.5 five years from now.
I'm still waiting for Ford's to do more than talk a good game, but it's is seemingly happening... We'll see...
Ford doesn't currently offer any electric vehicles, but it announced Thursday that, once it does, it will offer the largest North American network of electric vehicle chargers of any automaker — including Tesla.
Unlike Tesla, though, Ford didn't build this charging network on its own. Working with EV charging companies Greenlots and Electrify America, Ford has created what it calls the FordPass Charging Network. When needed, users will be directed to one of the network's chargers using an app or in the vehicle's central touch screen.
Next year, Ford will begin selling an electric crossover SUV with styling based on the Ford Mustang. It's the first vehicle Ford has ever offered that was designed, from the outset, as an electric vehicle. That vehicle has not been unveiled yet. An electric version of the Ford F-150 pickup is also being developed.
The FordPass network will include more than 12,000 charging stations with a total of 35,000 plugs in the United States and some parts of Canada. Tesla has 4,375 public charging stations with about 15,000 plugs in the United States, according to the Department of Energy.
Ford also announced it is working with Amazon (AMZN) Home Services to install at-home chargers for customers who buy a Ford electric vehicle. Most electric car owners charge their cars at home or at work the vast majority of the time. Public chargers, like those in the FordPass Charging Network, are mostly used when drivers are taking longer road trips.
Although I hate those network comparisons, as they're bunk. You know who else can use 'Ford's' (really an amalgamation of EA's, et al) network? Teslas. The reverse is not true, ergo there is no scenario at present or coming soon where anyone can possibly have a larger network than Tesla's, at least when the logic in use is to include multiple compatible networks as 'owned' by the company who can use them.
Zaxxon wrote: Tue Oct 29, 2019 3:55 pm
Agree on Ford and hopefully being serious.
Although I hate those network comparisons, as they're bunk. You know who else can use 'Ford's' (really an amalgamation of EA's, et al) network? Teslas. The reverse is not true, ergo there is no scenario at present or coming soon where anyone can possibly have a larger network than Tesla's, at least when the logic in use is to include multiple compatible networks as 'owned' by the company who can use them.
That was stated explicitly in one of the articles I linked to. I'm not sure what's bunk except for the typical modern news emphasis. It was also stated that most of EA is really Shell and that the core of what is the "Ford"network is the FordPass app.
Edit here you go
While Tesla's chargers can only be used by Tesla (TSLA) cars, the chargers in the FordPass network will work with most other electric cars. Unlike Tesla's chargers, which are all run and operated by Tesla, the chargers in the FordPass network will be operated by different companies. The charging network will include fast chargers that can rapidly juice up a vehicle's battery to about 80% in about 40 minutes, in some cases. While the chargers themselves will work with many different cars, only Ford drivers will be able to use the FordPass app.
Ford (F) electric vehicle owners will be able to pay for charging through the app without having to subscribe separately to individual charging networks. Greenlots, a subsidiary of Shell, operates the software behind the app.
Zaxxon wrote: Tue Oct 29, 2019 3:55 pm
Agree on Ford and hopefully being serious.
Although I hate those network comparisons, as they're bunk. You know who else can use 'Ford's' (really an amalgamation of EA's, et al) network? Teslas. The reverse is not true, ergo there is no scenario at present or coming soon where anyone can possibly have a larger network than Tesla's, at least when the logic in use is to include multiple compatible networks as 'owned' by the company who can use them.
That was stated explicitly in one of the articles I linked to. I'm not sure what's bunk except for the typical modern news emphasis. It was also stated that most of EA is really Shell and that the core of what is the "Ford"network is the FordPass app.
Yep, those reading the details will see that. Sorry for my tart response. It's the fact that the headline is bunk, and that 90%+ of people will read only that:
Ford announces launch of largest electric vehicle charging network in the US
...and assume that Ford will have the largest electric vehicle charging network in the US. Which is the part that's bunk. Typical of Tesla coverage, and boils my blood, as you all know by this point. (See also--'Tesla sales in the US drop 36%!!!!ZOMG!!11!!' from today.)
Zaxxon wrote: Tue Oct 29, 2019 3:55 pm
Agree on Ford and hopefully being serious.
Although I hate those network comparisons, as they're bunk. You know who else can use 'Ford's' (really an amalgamation of EA's, et al) network? Teslas. The reverse is not true, ergo there is no scenario at present or coming soon where anyone can possibly have a larger network than Tesla's, at least when the logic in use is to include multiple compatible networks as 'owned' by the company who can use them.
Zaxxon wrote: Tue Oct 29, 2019 3:55 pm
Agree on Ford and hopefully being serious.
Although I hate those network comparisons, as they're bunk. You know who else can use 'Ford's' (really an amalgamation of EA's, et al) network? Teslas. The reverse is not true, ergo there is no scenario at present or coming soon where anyone can possibly have a larger network than Tesla's, at least when the logic in use is to include multiple compatible networks as 'owned' by the company who can use them.
Zaxxon wrote: Tue Oct 29, 2019 3:55 pm
Agree on Ford and hopefully being serious.
Although I hate those network comparisons, as they're bunk. You know who else can use 'Ford's' (really an amalgamation of EA's, et al) network? Teslas. The reverse is not true, ergo there is no scenario at present or coming soon where anyone can possibly have a larger network than Tesla's, at least when the logic in use is to include multiple compatible networks as 'owned' by the company who can use them.
Why does it matter?
Because truth in headlines has become a lost art.
It's true from a certain point of view. Yes, Tesla can use the chargers, but they won't have the benefit of Ford One Touch or whatever they call it to pay for everything seamlessly. From a Ford owner's perspective, that may be worth something. Ford certainly thinks so. You are free to disagree.
stessier wrote: Tue Oct 29, 2019 4:30 pmIt's true from a certain point of view. Yes, Tesla can use the chargers, but they won't have the benefit of Ford One Touch or whatever they call it to pay for everything seamlessly. From a Ford owner's perspective, that may be worth something. Ford certainly thinks so. You are free to disagree.
Kraken wrote: Thu Oct 24, 2019 5:53 pm California’s authority under the Clean Air Act to set automobile emissions standards
Can we just flash a few pictures of orange, smoggy skies as a reminder of why they should be allowed to and call it a day?
I have about 5 or 6 truly memorable sunsets that have made a lasting impression; one of those was in about 2000 in San Diego. As the sun was setting over the pacific it was green. Vomit, bile green. It was awful but amazing at the same time. And I asked someone what the heck was going on and they just said 'smog'.
I give LA major props as they have dramatically improved that situation over the last 20 years ( I'm assuming it's better in San Diego as well but I don't go there nearly as often)
OR
cry in a corner that the world has come to a point where you have to pay for imaginary shit.
The White House appears to be abandoning its plan to freeze the fuel efficiency standards of cars at 2020 levels, reversing a cornerstone policy of Trump’s campaign, reports The Wall Street Journal. The administration is now considering a 1.5 percent annual increase instead.
The move could leave General Motors, Toyota and Fiat Chrysler in a lurch. The companies sided with the president in a legal battle over whether California could set its own fuel economy standards. From the outside, it seemed they capitulated to his demands, rather than the overwhelming evidence that vehicle emissions need to be cut in order to protect against climate change. Now, they may have squandered a lot of goodwill and damaged their reputations without getting what Trump promised.
...
The new plan will likely involve a 1.5 percent increase in fuel efficiency every year, “using an industry measure that takes both gas mileage and emissions reductions into account,” according to The Wall Street Journal. If it moves forward, the administration could face legal challenges from California and other states who still want to see stricter standards.
NASA scientists are helping California create a detailed, statewide inventory of methane point sources—highly concentrated methane releases from single sources—using a specialized airborne sensor. The new data, published this week in the journal Nature, can be used to target actions to reduce emissions of this potent greenhouse gas.
...
The team identified more than 550 individual point sources emitting plumes of highly concentrated methane. Ten percent of these sources, considered super-emitters, contributed the majority of the emissions detected. The team estimates that statewide, super-emitters are responsible for about a third of California's total methane budget.
Emissions data like this can help facility operators identify and correct problems—and in turn, bring California closer to its emissions goals. For example, of the 270 surveyed landfills, only 30 were observed to emit large plumes of methane. However, those 30 were responsible for 40% of the total point-source emissions detected during the survey. This type of data could help these facilities to identify possible leaks or malfunctions in their gas-capture systems.
...
Although the survey provides a detailed map of methane emissions for the areas observed in the state, researchers caution that this was the first attempt to estimate emissions for individual methane sources from a large population distributed across such an extensive area over multiple years.
NASA scientists are helping California create a detailed, statewide inventory of methane point sources—highly concentrated methane releases from single sources—using a specialized airborne sensor. The new data, published this week in the journal Nature, can be used to target actions to reduce emissions of this potent greenhouse gas.
...
The team identified more than 550 individual point sources emitting plumes of highly concentrated methane. Ten percent of these sources, considered super-emitters, contributed the majority of the emissions detected. The team estimates that statewide, super-emitters are responsible for about a third of California's total methane budget.
Emissions data like this can help facility operators identify and correct problems—and in turn, bring California closer to its emissions goals. For example, of the 270 surveyed landfills, only 30 were observed to emit large plumes of methane. However, those 30 were responsible for 40% of the total point-source emissions detected during the survey. This type of data could help these facilities to identify possible leaks or malfunctions in their gas-capture systems.
...
Although the survey provides a detailed map of methane emissions for the areas observed in the state, researchers caution that this was the first attempt to estimate emissions for individual methane sources from a large population distributed across such an extensive area over multiple years.
Climate scientists predicted nuclear winter. Nuclear winter never happened. Therefore, now that climate scientists are predicting climate change it won't happen either. It's Science.*
Real shame Trump and a bunch of the GOP in DC weren't members of Heavens Gate.
--------------------------------------------
I am Dyslexic of Borg, prepare to have your ass laminated.
I guess Ray Butts has ate his last pancake. http://steamcommunity.com/id/daehawk
"Has high IQ. Refuses to apply it"
When in doubt, skewer it out...I don't know.
malchior wrote: Sun Nov 10, 2019 12:32 am
Climate scientists predicted nuclear winter. Nuclear winter never happened. Therefore, now that climate scientists are predicting climate change it won't happen either. It's Science.*
[...]
*Disclaimer: Not science. A massive nuclear war never happened. Dinesh DSouza is a felon and the right is full of insane evil idiots like this fraud.
Yeah, D'Souza leans really hard into outright lies. For what seemed like forever earlier this year he kept posting about how the Democrats were the party of Southern slavery (which is of course true) but flatly denying that the parties flipped in the South during the Civil Rights movement.
He wound up going toe-to-toe with @KevinMKruse, an actual historian of this whole thing. It was ridiculous, and D'Souza obviously knew he was lying, but he kept insisting on misapplications of history. It was positively Orwellian.
e.g. D'Souza seemed to think that saying "There has never been a single slave-owner in the Republican Party!!" was somehow a slam dunk that precluded the possibility of GOP racism in 2020. (Of course the claim is true, but only because the party was formed by Abolitionists less than a decade prior to Emancipation.)
Holman wrote: Sun Nov 10, 2019 10:51 am
e.g. D'Souza seemed to think that saying "There has never been a single slave-owner in the Republican Party!!" was somehow a slam dunk that precluded the possibility of GOP racism in 2020. (Of course the claim is true, but only because the party was formed by Abolitionists less than a decade prior to Emancipation.)
The claim actually wasn't true, as historians and average joes unearthed a number of instances of Republicans owning slaves.
The Environmental Protection Agency is pushing forward with a policy that could limit the science the agency uses to underpin regulations, a change long sought by conservatives but derided by many scientists and public health experts as an effort to stifle reliance on research into the harmful effects of pollution on Americans.
The agency in recent days submitted an updated version of its Strengthening Transparency in Regulatory Science rule to officials at the Office of Management and Budget. If OMB approves, the next step would be to seek public comment, signaling that the EPA intends to finalize the controversial proposal in 2020.
...
The new rule would allow the EPA to consider only studies where the underlying data is made available. Critics say that would restrict the use of research that includes sensitive personal data and hamstring the agency’s ability to protect Americans from toxic chemicals, air pollution and other risks.
...
On Wednesday the House Science, Space and Technology Committee will hold a hearing on the subject titled Strengthening Transparency or Silencing Science; one of the top EPA officials overseeing the plan will testify.
...
“This proposal has nothing to do with science. They want politicians, not scientists, to evaluate the evidence of harm to the public,” Michael Halpern, deputy director for the Center for Science and Democracy at the Union of Concerned Scientists, wrote in an online posting. “ … This entire exercise is designed to exclude certain types of public health studies that demonstrate that pollution makes people sick.”
Yeah, but they're just experts - what do they know?
A child born today, the authors note, could live in a world that’s four degrees warmer than in preindustrial times. “We have no idea what that looks like from a public health perspective, but we know it is catastrophic,” said Nick Watts, executive director of Lancet Countdown: Tracking Progress on Health and Climate Change, during a press conference announcing the findings. “We know that it has the potential to undermine the last 50 years of gains in public health and overwhelm the health systems we rely on.”
The state of California is taking aim at GM (GM), Chrysler, Toyota, Nissan and other automakers that are aligning with the Trump administration in its battle over emissions rules.
California issued a statement late Monday saying that as of January the state would only buy vehicles from automakers that recognize the California Air Resources Board's authority to set tough greenhouse gas emissions standards for vehicles. California also pledged only to do business with automakers that committed to stringent emissions reduction goals.
Separately, the state also said it will no longer buy sedans that are powered only by internal combustion engines, no matter who manufactures the car. It will buy only plug-in electric or hybrid sedans, although California would make an exception for certain public safety vehicles. That rule does not apply to SUV or truck purchases.
...
California's ban could take a bite out of affected automakers' sales, particularly GM and Chrysler. Between 2016 and 2018, California purchased $58.6 million in vehicles from GM, $55.8 million from Fiat Chrysler, $10.6 million from Toyota and $9 million from Nissan, according to Reuters.
Boris Johnson and Nigel Farage will be represented in Thursday’s televised debate on climate change by melting ice sculptures, after both leaders decided not to show up.
Channel 4, which is organising the debate, said the sculptures would represent “the emergency on planet earth”.
The prime minister refused to show up to the discussion, which is being attended by the other party leaders. It comes as he also continues to duck an interview with BBC broadcaster Andrew Neil, who was let loose on Jeremy Corbyn earlier this week.
The Conservatives say they had offered to send Mr Johnson’s underling Michael Gove to stand in for the PM in the debate, but that the request was refused.
Israeli researchers have developed bacteria fed only with carbon dioxide, the Weizmann Institute of Science (WIS) in central Israel reported on Wednesday.
These bacteria, which build the entire biomass of their body from the carbon in the air, may help develop future technologies that reduce greenhouse gas accumulation in the atmosphere and fight global warming, the Xinhua news agency reported.
Israeli researchers have developed bacteria fed only with carbon dioxide, the Weizmann Institute of Science (WIS) in central Israel reported on Wednesday.
These bacteria, which build the entire biomass of their body from the carbon in the air, may help develop future technologies that reduce greenhouse gas accumulation in the atmosphere and fight global warming, the Xinhua news agency reported.
Farmers are getting on board. As a gardener, climate change has been obvious to me for at least a decade -- the growing season is longer and the weather is more capricious. Farmers are even more in tune. It's not that they don't believe in global warming, it's that they have no channels to join the conversation.
Kraken wrote: Mon Dec 09, 2019 11:51 pmFarmers are getting on board. As a gardener, climate change has been obvious to me for at least a decade -- the growing season is longer and the weather is more capricious. Farmers are even more in tune. It's not that they don't believe in global warming, it's that they have no channels to join the conversation.
I'm sure that doesn't reflect all farmers, but during this presidency they seem to consistently put up with a lot so they can MAGA. I'd be willing to bet many are fed up with the trade war and have legitimate fears of climate change ruining their lives.
Black Lives Matter
2021-01-20: The first good night's sleep I had in 4 years.
2025-01-20: The nightmares continue.
Kraken wrote: Mon Dec 09, 2019 11:51 pmFarmers are getting on board. As a gardener, climate change has been obvious to me for at least a decade -- the growing season is longer and the weather is more capricious. Farmers are even more in tune. It's not that they don't believe in global warming, it's that they have no channels to join the conversation.
I'm sure that doesn't reflect all farmers, but during this presidency they seem to consistently put up with a lot so they can MAGA. I'd be willing to bet many are fed up with the trade war and have legitimate fears of climate change ruining their lives.
Remember the Seinfeld episode where Jerry's girlfriend forces him to make a choice between a goofy voice and her? It's like that. The girl is a thriving farm business with expansive markets and reliable growing conditions. The goofy voice is the one that says, "Guns! Fuck Yeah!" So they do what Jerry did and select the voice, even if it is so clearly against their livelihood to do so.
