[golfing eagles]

Originally Posted by jimjamuser

But, how can that be said, when this JULY was the world's HOTTEST in recorded history?

Recorded history that began in 1979 when they changed the methodology of evaluating weather data

[jimjamuser]

Originally Posted by golfing eagles

Actually, I was shooting for a match at 2nd grade.

Heat strokes?--Yeah, nobody ever had one until the invention of the internal combustion engine.

97% climatologists agree.....That's been debunked about a million times

And for the coup de grace: 4 1/2 million years of climate cycles driven by the power of the sun, Earth's orbit and axis can be negating by increasing sales of EVs to 30%????---- May I repeat?----

Sorry, that 2nd line makes no sense to me. As far as the 3rd line goes. NASA makes the 97% statement, so if you disagree with them.....I don't know......maybe write them a letter. And the little laughing icons are getting a little juvenile. I NEVER use them.
..........But, it would be nice if we could agree that WHEN (and it WILL happen) the US gets to 30% EVs, that we re-evaluate this debate about Global Warming's effect on the earth.

[bcsnave]

Originally Posted by golfing eagles

Recorded history that began in 1979 when they changed the methodology of evaluating weather data

Good for you....most times it is good to not take everything on these forums as gospel. As you have done it is good to get the entire perspective. As a statistician, I am aware data may be presented to show one perspective while excluding data that may challenge it.

[jimjamuser]

Originally Posted by tophcfa

Be careful, last time I responded to one of his posts I spent a month in the penalty box : (

I am TRULY sorry that it happened that way.

[Fastskiguy]

Originally Posted by jimjamuser

I prefer to think that MOST US politicians are doing what's best for America regardless of "lobbyists". Call me part of naive voters......please.

Originally Posted by Rainger99

You may take it seriously but if it is as serious as you say, why doesn’t the government ban all government travel and all private jet travel? We would save money and the planet!!

Private aircraft emit an estimated 7,913 lbs of CO2 per passenger, while commercial planes have an estimated 174 lbs of emissions.

If it is an existential threat, that would be a minor inconvenience. And we are only asking people to do their fair share.

When they start holding Davos and other elite conferences by zoom, we will know that they are serious.

Do you have a source for this? 7913 vs 174 is a big enough difference that it just might resonate with the masses. 45X more per passenger, it better be one important passenger!

Joe

[Keefelane66]

Originally Posted by retiredguy123

When they make an EV that will go 1,000 miles without recharging, they will have no problem selling them.

Most vehicles can't go 500 miles on a full tank

[Fastskiguy]

Originally Posted by jimjamuser

One person on here said they bought a lower-priced Tesla for 38K (after credits). That would make it affordable to probably 50% of Americans. Especially if you use it only locally, you eliminate the time spent in a line for gas at Sams. And you have fewer moving parts in the engine, so you likely have more reliability and are more maintenance-free. AT least, that is theoretically possible and with each passing year, EVs will improve.

You can be all in for the cheapest tesla including tax, fees, tags, charger, installation, and some doo dads like floor mats for $38K after tax credit. So, yeah, it's expensive but it's well under the average price of a new vehicle in the US. The idea that they are unaffordable is simply not true anymore.

The other thing is that the car is a great car. It's not a "great electric car", it's really nice compared to any $38,000 car. Some people buy them because they can do things ICE cars can't do. They certainly are fun to drive!

Finally, thanks to all of you curmudgeons for paying your taxes so I can get a $7500 credit in April.

Joe

[Rainger99]

Originally Posted by Fastskiguy

Do you have a source for this? 7913 vs 174 is a big enough difference that it just might resonate with the masses. 45X more per passenger, it better be one important passenger!

Joe

This is the source. The entire report can be downloaded from this link.

Report: High Flyers 2023: How Ultra-Rich Private Jet Travel Costs the Rest of Us and Burns Up the Planet - Institute for Policy Studies

It is from the IPS which is a liberal think tank founded in1963.

Institute for Policy Studies - Wikipedia

[golfing eagles]

Originally Posted by Rainger99

This is the source. The entire report can be downloaded from this link.

Report: High Flyers 2023: How Ultra-Rich Private Jet Travel Costs the Rest of Us and Burns Up the Planet - Institute for Policy Studies

It is from the IPS which is a liberal think tank founded in1963.

Institute for Policy Studies - Wikipedia

Isn't that an oxymoron?????

[bcsnave]

Originally Posted by golfing eagles

Isn't that an oxymoron?????

I agree it sure sounds like its a ***MORON