Toyota's President Says Electric Vehicles Are Overhyped

That is true enough, but why is about per capita when the CCP has all those people in poverty and slavery?
Why is it about freedom to do it because of "per capita" reasons when "the world will end" if it's not stopped?
China's emissions response is problematic. America's emissions response is problematic. Australia's emissions response is problematic. Human rights is also a conversation we need to have. We all need to do a lot better.

I note it's a common tactic from climate skeptics to create division and stoke nationalist sentiment. It's an effective tactic. I wish we'd all put our big boy and big girl pants on and get serious about this. At present projections I fear my children won't inherit a world as pleasant to live in as the one I grew up in.
 
China's emissions response is problematic. America's emissions response is problematic. Australia's emissions response is problematic. Human rights is also a conversation we need to have. We all need to do a lot better.

I note it's a common tactic from climate skeptics to create division and stoke nationalist sentiment. It's an effective tactic. I wish we'd all put our big boy and big girl pants on and get serious about this. At present projections I fear my children won't inherit a world as pleasant to live in as the one I grew up in.
Curious as to why you didn't use the term "climate deniers".
 
If the CCP were distributing the fantastic wealth to the slave/citizen persons it would make some sense to use "per capita" measuring stick, but it doesn't. It's essentially buying up the globe instead.
 
If the CCP were distributing the fantastic wealth to the slave/citizen persons it would make some sense to use "per capita" measuring stick, but it doesn't. It's essentially buying up the globe instead.
The latest in the shifting and relentless pursuit of empire-making. It feels weird to be on the other side of it, doesn't it?

The failings of other countries and individuals IMO don't give us a free pass. Correspondingly, if we have our own houses in order, nor should their actions be shielded from criticism. For the time being the West is still a formidable coalition.

OT, stumbled across this amazing but out of date diagram:
histomap-big.jpg
 
The latest in the shifting and relentless pursuit of empire-making. It feels weird to be on the other side of it, doesn't it?

The failings of other countries and individuals IMO don't give us a free pass. Correspondingly, if we have our own houses in order, nor should their actions be shielded from criticism. For the time being the West is still a formidable coalition.

OT, stumbled across this amazing but out of date diagram:
histomap-big.jpg
Interesting chart... when was this published? The increased influence of China is not shown.
 
You're suggesting that ebikes are made by slaves? As well as smartphones and all the other products?
We all know that there are human rights issues in the world, but I thought the topic here was emission / pollution.

Slavery is a legitimate problem, but you're somehow deviating the topic from emission per capita, which is an environmental issue and global warming.
The topic here is "Toyota's President Says Electric Vehicles Are Overhyped".
If you said that I deviated from the deviation you'd be closer, but not really. It's not a deviation from the deviation, to talk about the reasoning behind the issue of who bears responsibility to reduce CO2 while others are given free rein.

If you have problems with comparing China to USA / Canada, let's take a different approach.
What about Europe (UK, Germany, France & Italy) vs USA / Canada?
That is a fairer comparison. Canada is huge though. How many of Germany fit into a Canada? That means transport of everything from here to there and back again. And it's cold...heating is necessary and air conditioning in summer.
At least it's a fair comparison as to CO2 per person because there is little need for people to be in dire poverty, no starvation or organ snatching order filling and slave labor while the governing political party itself grows fabulously rich and buys up other countries.
Per Capita makes no sense when it's the CCP, but for European countries we can compare on per capita. Still there will be reasons why it isn't a fair comparison, but they can be adjusted for.
and it makes no sense at all for the CCP to be allowed to continue in efforts to reach a peak by 2030. That's when the world ends by CO2, according to one genius.
 
Last edited:
I wonder though, what is North America doing differently compare to Asia and Europe?
Growing the food is one difference. How much food is Germany growing compared to USA?

"In 2018, Germany produced 26.1 million tons of sugar beet (4th largest producer in the world), which serves to produce sugar and ethanol; 20.2 million tons of wheat (10th largest producer in the world); 9.5 million tons of barley (3rd largest producer in the world, only behind Russia and France), 8.9 million tons of potato (7th largest producer in the world); 3.6 million tons of rapeseed (6th largest producer in the world); 2.2 million tons of rye (largest producer in the world); 1.9 million tons of triticale (2nd largest producer in the world); 1.4 million tons of grape (16th largest producer in the world); 1.2 million tons of apple (12th largest producer in the world). In addition, this year, the country also produced 3.3 million tons of maize and smaller yields of other agricultural products, such as cabbage (604 thousand tons), carrot (625 thousand tons), oats (577 thousand tons), onion (409 thousand tons), etc.[6] "

"

United States agriculture production in 2018​

In 2018:


  • It was by far the largest world producer of maize (392 million tons). The country has been the world leader in maize production for decades and only recently China, with 257.3 million tonnes produced this year, has been approaching North American production;
  • It was the largest world producer of soy (123.6 million tons), a position that they held for many years, but recently, they have been competing with Brazil for world leadership. Brazil surpassed US soybean production in 2020. [8];
  • It was the 4th largest world producer of wheat (51.2 million tons), behind China, India and Russia;
  • It was the 3rd largest world producer of sugar beet (30 million tons), behind Russia and France (the beet is used to manufacture sugar and ethanol) ;
  • It was the 10th largest world producer of sugar cane (31.3 million tons) - Cane is also used to manufacture sugar and ethanol;
  • It was the 5th largest world producer of potato (20.6 million tons), behind China, India, Russia and Ukraine;
  • It was the 3rd largest world producer of tomatoes (12.6 million tons), behind China and India;
  • It was the 3rd largest world producer of cotton (11.4 million tons), behind China and India;
  • It was the 12th largest world producer of rice (10.1 million tons);
  • It was the largest world producer of sorghum (9.2 million tons);
  • It was the 3rd largest world producer of grape (6.8 million tons), behind China and Italy;
  • It was the 4th largest world producer of orange (4.8 million tons), behind Brazil, China and India;
  • It was the 2nd largest world producer of apple (4.6 million tons), second only to China;
  • It was the 3rd largest world producer of onion (3.2 million tons), behind China and India;
  • It was the 3rd largest world producer of peanut (2.4 million tons), behind China and India;
  • It was the largest world producer of almonds (1.8 million tons);
  • It was the 2nd largest world producer of strawberry (1.3 million tons), second only to China;
  • It was the 10th largest world producer of oats (814 thousand tons);
  • It was the 8th largest world producer of lemon (812 thousand tons);
  • It was the 3rd largest world producer of pear (730 thousand tons), behind China and Italy;
  • It was the 3rd largest world producer of green pea (722 thousand tons), behind China and India;
  • It was the 6th largest world producer of peaches (700 thousand tons);
  • It was the 2nd largest world producer of walnut (613 thousand tons), second only to China;
  • It was the 2nd largest world producer of pistachio (447 thousand tons), second only to Iran;
  • It was the 3rd largest world producer of lentils (381 thousand tons), behind Canada and India;
  • It was the 2nd largest world producer of spinach (384 thousand tons), second only to China;
  • It was the 4th largest world producer of plum (368 thousand tons), behind China, Romania and Serbia;
  • It was the 4th largest world producer of tobacco (241 thousand tons), behind China, Brazil and India;
  • It produced 3.6 million tons of lettuce and chicory;
  • It produced 3.3 million tons of barley;
  • It produced 1.7 million tons of beans;
  • It produced 1.7 million tons of watermelon;
  • It produced 1.6 million tons of rapeseed;
  • It produced 1.5 million tons of carrot;
  • It produced 1.2 million tons of cauliflower and broccoli;
  • It produced 960 thousand tons of sunflower seed;
  • It produced 804 thousand tons of tangerine;

In addition to smaller productions of other agricultural products, such as melon (872 thousand tons), pumpkin (683 thousand tons), grapefruit (558 thousand tons), cranberry (404 thousand tons), cherry (312 thousand tons), blueberry (255 thousand tons), rye (214 thousand tons), olive (138 thousand tons), etc.[9] "

And that isn't counting meat and dairy production....
 
Last edited:
CCP vs US

China's Economy Set to Overtake U.S. Earlier Due to Covid Fallout​

By
Lizzy Burden
December 25, 2020, 7:05 PM EST


No, i'm not🤔

As far as climate deniers: Think about all the coal plants that had closed recently, the Rockefeller's totally divesting from fossil fuels: https://www.marketwatch.com/story/r...nthropist-to-shun-oil-investments-11608405422



the new electric airplanes that will arrive soon:


places in the North where the permafrost is melting very fast...

The problem is that there are about 70million climate change deniers in this country alone !! We need to be united. What sort of proofs or morals they have that they refuse to see the reality of this ?

Each one of those climate change deniers should inhale for 90seconds /day their ice car tailpipe exhaust fumes. Or just walk near a highway for 10min.
Wait, we are already doing that in most cities for longer times unless your car has a medical grade H13 HEPA air filter or we are wearing a face mask equivalent when outside.


IS not about what proofs the science and what the scientists are presenting. Let's ignore those. The facts of climate change are literally in the air and in the nature all around us.

Going back to the original thread ,Toyota said that in '21 they will make their first EV. They also claim a prototype with SSD batteries.
Only big supplier for batteries In Japan is Panasonic and is way too busy making sure that Tesla has all the batteries they need . W/o batteries there is no electric car . What will they do ?? Hydrogen fuel cell cars ? Imo they've lost the race already.
 
Last edited:
I note it's a common tactic from climate skeptics to create division and stoke nationalist sentiment. It's an effective tactic. I wish we'd all put our big boy and big girl pants on and get serious about this. At present projections I fear my children won't inherit a world as pleasant to live in as the one I grew up in.
You note that, do you. Now note this. this is the highest rank of climate change authorities. a Presidential Advisor, a major player in IPCC and the UN.
Listen to him declare his huge aversion to polarizing and name calling.

He's was liar whenever he felt the need.

Here is he calling for the derogatory term to be used by everyone in order to marginalize and dehumanize.
Next bigshot, a constant liar, Michael Mann lying about the scientific work to the public over and over and over...as shown by his own words to the court.
 
Last edited:
IS not about what proofs the science and what the scientists are presenting. Let's ignore those. The facts of climate change are literally in the air and in the nature all around us.
That's not rational thinking. Scientific evidence or "proof" is ALL it is about. It's NOT about you seeing a pond dry up or having a warm day in winter. It's not about know-nothings believing that inland glaciers (formed to full extent in 1850 at the tail end of the little ice age), should not be melting. Michael Mann feeds that garbage to his deluded fans. He knows better.
Know-nothings are so easy to convince, simply because they are so lazy, so ignorant, and so easily led.
 
Last edited:
.. As I also note the common political tactic of 'smear the individual, smear the policy' (or at least whatever Prof Schneider advocated - he's been dead for 10 years). If there's an issue with the scientific orthodoxy as it stands, let's see it and the citation count.
 
.. As I also note the common political tactic of 'smear the individual, smear the policy' (or at least whatever Prof Schneider advocated - he's been dead for 10 years). If there's an issue with the scientific orthodoxy as it stands, let's see it and the citation count.
There are huge issues. You do not need to see any citation count at all, because their own words show that the big fellers are all lying to the public about the work.
Are you ready to admit the biggest players all lie about the work or remain silent knowing the lies are being told?
You will get the evidence. Their own admissions are what you get. They got caught. The biggest names lied to the public brazenly and repeatedly about the science. Ready to admit that when you see the evidence?
 
.. As I also note the common political tactic of 'smear the individual, smear the policy' (or at least whatever Prof Schneider advocated - he's been dead for 10 years). If there's an issue with the scientific orthodoxy as it stands, let's see it and the citation count.
You need to see how they kept contrary or critical papers out of journals in order to understand why no other narratives are seen in the journals. Then you'll understand about citations.
You already saw the words of Phil Jones, unwilling to disclose the data used ... because the person asking "wanted to find fault".
That is science, pal. Phil Jones is anti-science. Your guys are liars and anti-science fraudsters. Stick with it and you'll see more evidence.
 
Ok, now "Hide the Decline". First, some uninformed skeptics jumped all over that believing that actual temperature was declining and the scientists were hiding that. A trick to hide the decline.
So the involved scientists made hay with that. Of course, a trick, as Stephen Schneider explained falsely to the audience, can be a neat way of doing something.
But a trick for doing what?
To hide something.
What was being hidden>
The proxy for ancient temperatures was showing decline as modern instruments were showing incline, thus DESTROYING the credibility of their upcoming IPCC claim that the proxy showed the hottest decade in 1000 years.
The neat trick Michael Mann used, was to hide the proxy line and use end padding on his hockey stick graph that was instrumental temperatures...so the proxy looked like it lined up perfectly with instrumental temperatures, thus hiding what a lousy job the proxy does even when cherry picked - which is something they like to do. One of them even claimed that yes, of course, that is how you make cherry pie; they rubbed it in your face and you still believe.
If the proxy does the exact opposite of what thermometers do, during a period when we can see both of them together, it discounts their ridiculous main headline IPCC claims.
So they hid that conflicting evidence and called it "bad data" when caught. They could never say what made it bad. So they did wrong. Simply not doing what you want it to doesn't make it bad data. It makes it INCONVENIENT DATA. It conflicted with their narrative for IPCC.
But here's what Phil Jones and Michael Mann did which is worse.
They colluded to trick the World Meteorological Organization by simply removing the data that conflicted, and labeled the thermometer data as tree ring data.
The dishonesty, it can hardly get worse. But it does.
Next for the complete the evidence of that.
 
Last edited:
Now here is What Michael Mann was planning for the IPCC report section which he was in charge of,to a great extent. The other scientists feared his wrath.
He was planning to show the hottest decade in 1000 years had just occurred. Phil Jones jumped on that bandwagon and got himself involved in doing a cover story for the WMO, the World Meteorological Organization 50th anniversary edition. he asked Mann for advice and supervision on doing "the trick" to hide the decline in the proxy values, the direct conflict between proxy and instruments.
So this is their conversation that Schneider says was only about a smart way to do something.

Jones to Mann and company:
WMO want to go with the millennial record on the cover and I said I would produce something and some text. The figure will be the 3 curves ( Mike’s, mine amd Keith/Tim’s). Tim is producing this curve (all wrt 61-90 and 50 year smoothed). Each will be extended to 1999 by instrumental data for the zones/seasons they represent.
Keith is Keith Briffa, the tree ring expert. His graph line of tree ring proxy data is to be used.
Once Tim’s got a diagram here we’ll send that either later today or first thing tomorrow.
I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline. Mike’s series got the annual land and marine values while the other two got April-Sept for NH land N of 20N. The latter two are real for 1999, while the estimate for 1999 for NH combined is +0.44C wrt 61-90. The Global estimate for 1999 with data through Oct is +0.35C cf. 0.57 for 1998.
Thanks for the comments, Ray.

Jones is explaining that he will delete the Briffa data from 1961 onward and replace it with real modern temperature data in order to present a tidy picture that is a lie.
He even labels it and colors it as the tree ring data line.


Mann:
The text looks good, and I agree w/ everything that is said. I think its a strong but defensible statement, and will help to bolster the claims to be made in IPCC. The ’99 numbers are very interesting, and should help thwart the dubious claims sometimes made that El Nino is the sole culprit in the anomalous recent warmth.

Mann:
Just for comparison to what Tim is producing, I’m attaching the plot you may remember that we (actually, the UK Met Office staff) prepared for the final version of the IPCC chapter 2 draft (in pdf format). To refresh your memory, we used the ’61-90 base period for the absolute anomaly scale, but we aligned the series based on an earlier (’31-60) interval of the instrumental record, which pre-dates (largely) the recent decline in the Briffa et al series. I think this leads to a similar picture, but if you think there are any significant discrepancies w/ what Tim is preparing, we should discuss.

Jones:
Keith and Tim’s diagram is the new one that didn’t make it to the present IPCC draft. For the other two, yours has 0.12 added to it to correct your base period of 1902-80 (can’t remember your exact dates) to 1961-90. For mine we’ve used a mean and SD calculated by Tim based on April-September average temps from the NH Land series north of 20N.

Briffa complies and sends a message to his publisher to make sure they use a new version to complement the lie being formed by Mann and Jones. and the rest of the crew.

Amanda
with regard to the earlier message ( copied below) could you confirm the the new Figure was substituted as I now wish to cite this in a forthcoming WMO publication that will be widely distributed.


Only one scientist raised a query. George Kulkla wrote to Briffa about the problem. He knew that the proxy data showed decline not incline so he asked the expert whose work it was, what the heck was going on.

Dear Keith,
You are the only guy who may know what was and is going on in the northern forests. With respect to that I do not think that the WMO statement # 913 on the status of the global climate in 1999 is a sufficiently reliable last word. For one thing: the curve attributed to you doesn’t seem to jive with any of the figures of your 2000 QSR paper. Where from did they get the 0.6 degree departure at 1600 AD?
Another problem: the ring density and width in the last several decades are both decreasing which at any other
time would be interpretted as a sign of cooling. So why is it shown in the WMO report as an unprecedented warming? As you properly discuss in your papers we just do not know how exactly do the tree rings relate to weather. In my understanding we are left with the following options:
1) The calibrations of the rings to temperature prior to 1950 are biased, possibly due to the poor coverage of temperature stations.
2) Something other than the temperature influenced the trees in the last several decades and we do not know what.
In either case it is not very responsible to relate the curves to global climate as WMO has done. You are saying it, albeit somehow indirectly but pretty clearly, in all your papers. Unfortunately it appears that these are tooo long for WMO to read.
Ciao and greetings to everyone down there!
George
Compare the 2 pics, one showing what it would be without the trick and one showing with the trick




Next the lies told to the public after they got caught
 
Last edited:
Mann to someone who inquired about hiding the decline by grafting real temps onto tree ring proxy temps

JohnFinn said:
Whatever the reason for the divergence, it would seem to suggest that the practice of grafting the thermometer record onto a proxy temperature record – as I believe was done in the case of the ‘hockey stick’ – is dubious to say the least
Michael Mann said:
No researchers in this field have ever, to our knowledge, “grafted the thermometer record onto” any reconstrution. It is somewhat disappointing to find this specious claim (which we usually find originating from industry-funded climate disinformation websites) appearing in this forum.

Nobody has ever done that Mann says, after he helped Jones do it.
He denies anyone ever doing it, but he is listed as co-author of it IN HIS OWN CV.

In court he claimed it was indeed misleading but he swears he had absolutely nothing to do with it.
As it sits in his CV.
This is how brazen the lies are.

Muir Russell of the Muir Russel investigation into the climategate graphs for WMO and then IPCC Third Assessment Report ( named here as TAR):

"In relation to “hide the decline”, we find that, given its subsequent iconic significance (not least the use of a similar figure in the TAR), the figure supplied for the WMO Report was misleading in not describing that one of the series was truncated post 1960 for the figure, and in not being clear on the fact that proxy and instrumental data were spliced together."

Mann response from court pleadings


"The “misleading” comment made in this report had absolutely nothing to do with Dr. Mann, or with any graph prepared by him. Rather, the report’s comment was directed at an overly simplified and artistic depiction of the hockey stick that was reproduced on the frontispiece of the World Meteorological Organization’s Statement on the Status of the Global Climate in 1999.41 Dr. Mann did not create this depiction, and the attempt to suggest that this report suggested an effort by Dr. Mann to mislead is disingenuous."

OK. So if it had absolutely nothing to do with Dr Mann, why is it in Dr. Mann's CV ? They all lent their help or silence to Jones and company to do Mikes Trick and to help mislead readers of the WMO and subsequent IPCC report.
Jones, P.D., Briffa, K.R., Osborn, T.J., Mann, M.E., Bradley, R.S., Hughes, M.K., Cover Figure for World Meteorological Organization (WMO) 50th Year Anniversary Publication: Temperature changes over the last Millennium, 2000.
Mann lost the case because he refused to show his work to the court for 8 years. He couldn't or he'd just kill his lawsuit. So he ground down a poor guy through years of terror and in the end Mann wouldn't comply with the court demand because he was lying through his teeth at every turn. Witnesses were getting to be elderly and some dying as he stalled the court. It was simply a terror tactic funded by very wealthy invested parties.

That is whom you trust pmcdonald. "Citations! Citations!" You say. They have TONS of citations, but they are LIARS and they act in concert. They never get a real peer review. It's pal review. And they keep all dissenting opinion out of the journals. They call it "The Cause".
What matters citations when they are lying in the work and to the public and keeping journal editors in fear of never working again?
 
Last edited:
Hopefully you have now seen 1 or 2 of Stephen Schneider's lies directly to the public. You might want to justify lying to the public in an official capacity, well, to self promote, even, maybe like a Dr. Fauci; he's doing it for a good cause. Schneider was doing it for "The Cause".
His credentials:
"Stephen Henry Schneider (February 11, 1945 – July 19, 2010)[1] was Professor of Environmental Biology and Global Change at Stanford University, a Co-Director at the Center for Environment Science and Policy of the Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies and a Senior Fellow in the Stanford Woods Institute for the Environment. Schneider served as a consultant to federal agencies and White House staff in the Richard Nixon, Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, George H. W. Bush, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush and Barack Obama administrations.

Schneider's research included modeling of the atmosphere, climate change, and the effect of global climate change on biological systems. Schneider was the founder and editor of the journal Climatic Change and authored or co-authored over 450 scientific papers and other publications. He was a Coordinating Lead Author in Working Group II Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Third Assessment Report and was engaged as a co-anchor of the Key Vulnerabilities Cross-Cutting Theme for the Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) at the time of his death. During the 1980s, Schneider emerged as a leading public advocate of sharp reductions of greenhouse gas emissions to combat global warming. In 2006 Professor Schneider was an Adelaide Thinker in Residence advising the South Australian Government of Premier Mike Rann on climate change and renewable energy policies.[2] In ten years South Australia went from zero to 31% of its electricity generation coming from renewables.

An annual award for outstanding climate science communication was created in Schneider's honor after his death, by the Commonwealth Club of California.[3] The Stephen Schneider Memorial Lecture of the American Geophysical Union honors Schneider's life and work.[4]"

SEVEN times advisor or consultant to a President.
But he's telling lies for The Cause. He tells it to your face and yet you believe.

"On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but — which means that we must include all the doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands, and buts. On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people we'd like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climatic change. To do that we need to get some broadbased support, to capture the public's imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This 'double ethical bind' we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both. (Quoted in Discover, pp. 45–48, October 1989.)"

So it's actually COMMENDABLE behavior to lie to the public about your work and to exaggerate the true situation.
It's not enough to have the ear of the most powerful and relate to him the most scary scenario he could legitimately offer.

Schneider believed that the scientists themselves need to get out there and lie to the public in order to help The Cause.

Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.


"Each of us"
All scientists involved should not just do the very best work and let it talk.

"has to decide what the right balance is"
Having it all factual and honest is not being good enough as an ACTIVIST.

This is politics, not science. Science has been captured and held hostage by activists.
 
Last edited:
Back