Toyota's President Says Electric Vehicles Are Overhyped

[Gordon71]

I would like to have one but it just doesn't make sense for me based on my driving habits. My 2016 Kia Soul base has only 20,000 miles on it and it had 4500 on it when I bought it. I live in a rural area where there is no mass transit.

 

[pmcdonald]

These online debates so often end up in the various parties talking past each other, rather than really listening and addressing the points as they're intended. (Unsurprising, given the staccato nature of forums where we can't react and shift our thoughts in real-time as we would in a face to face conversation.)

Before I directly respond to the very thorough posts above could I step back and confirm what positions we're actually debating?

This is where I stand. I accept the scientific orthodoxy that, based off polar core samples and supported by other indicators, CO2 levels are currently much higher than they have been at any point in human history. Further, that there is a correlation between temperature and CO2 levels.

The impact of this is speculative as we're in paleogeological territory in terms of historic precedents, but from everything I've read and discussed with experts in related academic fields it sounds like it'll be unpredictable and disruptive, to put it mildly. Several people I spoke to were privately far more bleak in their outlook.

My position on the OPs topic is, as vehicle emissions contribute a significant percentage of total CO2 emissions, I welcome any and all developments towards lower emission vehicles, whether EV, hydrogen or cupcake powered. I also acknowledge the challenges going forward with EVs: human rights issues with sourcing some of the components, the question of how the charge energy is generated, the higher upfront costs of these vehicles and the associated equity issues, and a big issue of battery disposal. None of these are trivial.

Still, I believe it is preferable to the status quo of producing ICE vehicles, and welcome diverse solutions to the problem. That's what I'm arguing.

 

[Handlebars]

These online debates so often end up in the various parties talking past each other, rather than really listening and addressing the points as they're intended. (Unsurprising, given the staccato nature of forums where we can't react and shift our thoughts in real-time as we would in a face to face conversation.)

Before I directly respond to the very thorough posts above could I step back and confirm what positions we're actually debating?

This is where I stand. I accept the scientific orthodoxy that, based off polar core samples and supported by other indicators, CO2 levels are currently much higher than they have been at any point in human history. Further, that there is a correlation between temperature and CO2 levels.

The impact of this is speculative as we're in paleogeological territory in terms of historic precedents, but from everything I've read and discussed with experts in related academic fields it sounds like it'll be unpredictable and disruptive, to put it mildly. Several people I spoke to were privately far more bleak in their outlook.

My position on the OPs topic is, as vehicle emissions contribute a significant percentage of total CO2 emissions, I welcome any and all developments towards lower emission vehicles, whether EV, hydrogen or cupcake powered. I also acknowledge the challenges going forward with EVs: human rights issues with sourcing some of the components, the question of how the charge energy is generated, the higher upfront costs of these vehicles and the associated equity issues, and a big issue of battery disposal. None of these are trivial.

Still, I believe it is preferable to the status quo of producing ICE vehicles, and welcome diverse solutions to the problem. That's what I'm arguing.

Let's see where we agree then, to start off.
I believe that CO2 exerts a warming influence. We agree on that, I would presume, so the basis of global warming is not in dispute. Actually my statement of belief is stronger than yours. It's a causal relationship, not just correlation.

What the climate sensitivity to it is, is another matter which is not settled but the envelope has spread in the "slightly less" direction in the past few years. "IPCC broadening its sensitivity range from 2C to 4.5C in its fourth assessment report, published in 2007, to 1.5C to 4.5C in its fifth assessment. Different methods produce different estimates in part because they are measuring different properties of the climate system"

Which ice core samples do you believe support your belief? You could also answer, instead, as to which ice core researcher you believe is very trustworthy. Not having any basis for a reality changing belief, a world changing belief, isn't a solid footing, wouldn't you agree?

And if the source is proven to be a liar or cheater regarding the work, or refuses to let it be examined, or refuses to submit the underpinning evidence for verification, then any belief in the veracity of the work is not well founded...agreed?

No scientists have come out against the liars' lies, so far. Nobody dares. They are all corrupted by fear and promise. Almost nobody can publish or be an Editor without being in agreement with The Cause. It happened once but the publication was interfered with and weakened. But we can run through the exercise for ice cores as well.

One more quote for hide the decline

Also we have applied a completely artificial adjustment to the data after 1960, so they look closer to observed temperatures than the tree-ring data actually were….”

[Tim Osborn, CRU December 20, 2006

"completely artificial adjustment to the data". Tim is more sophisticated in his use of language than is Phil Jones. Just outright lying and cheating presented to the World Meteorological Organization. That is for the WMO, the weather people. Imagine how much less respect they have for the public.

 

[FlatSix911]

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:
Keith is Keith Briffa, the tree ring expert. His graph line of tree ring proxy data is to be used.
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:
Mann:
Jones:
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. 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.
Compare the 2 pics, one showing what it would be without the trick and one showing with the trick

https://climateaudit.files.wordpress.com/2014/09/hide-the-decline-tree-ring-data1.jpg

https://climateaudit.files.wordpress.com/2014/09/hide-the-decline-before.jpg

Next the lies told to the public after they got caught

Very interesting... thanks for sharing.

 

[Handlebars]

My position on the OPs topic is, as vehicle emissions contribute a significant percentage of total CO2 emissions, I welcome any and all developments towards lower emission vehicles, whether EV, hydrogen or cupcake powered. I also acknowledge the challenges going forward with EVs: human rights issues with sourcing some of the components, the question of how the charge energy is generated, the higher upfront costs of these vehicles and the associated equity issues, and a big issue of battery disposal. None of these are trivial.

Still, I believe it is preferable to the status quo of producing ICE vehicles, and welcome diverse solutions to the problem. That's what I'm arguing.

If there are severe problems of deception that can be shown, where no climate scientist is willing to decry it, or contradict, then we really can't depend on anything they say.
My opinion then is that it's very likely that we need to exercise caution. We need to spend on infrastructure, research, development, and so on.

We haven't taken infrastructure seriously. New York spent big on green auto fleets but didn't even protect subway entrances from hurricane weather.
Pure luck that it's not been hit by a hurricane.
As to banning ICE engines, that is absolutely nuts. Don't burn your bridges. When it's better to have a different fuel mode, consumers will choose it. That's our history. People flock to the better choice.

 

[Handlebars]

Very interesting... thanks for sharing.

View attachment 75288 View attachment 75289

Yes, the black line is the tree ring proxy line they delete when it begins to turn the "wrong" way. There are OTHER similar 'frauds' committed in reconstruction studies but unless there's a big stink..and there hasn't been...
By that I mean back in time from the modern era, way back, they have cut out other parts that disagree with the narrative. They had no need to switch it out with anything else because nobody knows the actual thermometer temps back 1000 years, so these are only picked out by people getting lucky spending hour upon hour month after month looking through archives.
Another way to phony a reconstruction is simply through picking and choosing...for example with proxies they may bundle them. There are starts and stops in samples and ages all over the place all the time. The trees do not consist of all 1000 year old trees nor are the same type of trees or same location of trees. The individual trees lived at different times for different lengths of time.
The most influential tree for the CRU ( Tim in the emails), was one of ten modern day trees sampled in Siberia, larches, most were less than 100 years old, and one had a spike where they wanted to show a spike. There ya go. Huge spike in global temperature.

Also. Say in making a temperature reconstruction you have a bundle of tree proxy lines making an average and you reach the end of life in one tree in that proxy line...that can cause an instant change in the average, producing a spike up or down..or you can add another one to the bundle, or you can weight that one tree's value more than 100 or 1000 other trees, or you can alter the presumed date of the proxy by 1000 years and nobody bats an eye.
You can turn it upside down in places and they say it doesn't matter.
As they say in the emails, nobody actually even knows the relationship of tree rings to weather. Precipitation, shade, soil, disease, injury, part of the tree you sample, etc. etc.
All guesses and then there is the cherry picking...picking tree rings samples that are ones that support your narrative.

As you properly discuss in your papers we just do not know how exactly do the tree rings relate to weather

It's complete garbage, not science.

 

[pmcdonald]

Thank you @Handlebars for your considered replies. Forgive me for the late response - it has been a busy day and I like to let your posts sit and think through my own assumptions.

I believe my own position is a relatively simple one, but you may find it substandard. I'm not a climate scientist, geologist, paleontologist, biologist, environmental scientist, or any other 'ist'. Nor will I likely ever be. (Okay, perhaps just a cyclist.) I'm not an armchair scientist either. I have a young family, work full time, I don't have the hours to pour over every controversy. So I look around and see the responses from global bodies, industry figures, insurance councils, and yes, the much maligned scientific community. I note some well documented issues along the way, I make a judgement call that nevertheless I'm happy to accept that consensus. You see the same and call hoax. That's good.. the world needs skeptics and contrarians.

It boils down really simply for me (and this is my personal thought process, I don't expect anyone else to agree or follow):

a) get this wrong and underreact and we've caused ourselves and most living creatures on this planet a world of suffering for the sake of short term economic convenience,
b) get this wrong and overreact and we've caused ourselves some short term economic pain, perhaps kick starting some lucrative new industries and tech along the way, and ended up with a cleaner, more sustainable world for our troubles.
(The third unicorn option is to get it exactly right, but given how well countries are playing together as I write, and given how many temperature and CO2 yardsticks we've already merrily skipped past I don't see this happening.)

And that's where I stand. Possibly to your disappointment I'm not going to get down in the weeds and debate individual studies - I just don't have the time or the background. Once again, I'm deferring to the experts, regardless of how human they've been along the way. And also once again, I'm going to disappointingly agree to disagree. I'm not going to change your mind on this (nor it seems is NASA, the IPCC, NOAA, the World Bank, key bluechip industry giants or anyone else) and you're not going to change mine. But isn't it great we can have this civil, polite dialogue together! And that's me over and out for this thread.

 

[Handlebars]

pmcdonald, thank you.
You should really not want to have the ice core people be your "go to".

Nobody is arguing about single studies..this is about the very top in stature ALL lying and cheating and keeping silent while the public and many other scientists and ALL scientific organizations known in western science are deceived.

Try d) All western nations commit suicide by buying in.

If you're not stopping the CCP from doing it, if you give them money and rewards for increasingly doing it, you're not stopping the main output, you're just severely going to tilt the table to them because they can increase output ... until they own you one and all. It's not complicated.
That's how things ACTUALLY work.

 

[Art Deco]

Thank you @Handlebars for your considered replies. Forgive me for the late response - it has been a busy day and I like to let your posts sit and think through my own assumptions.

I believe my own position is a relatively simple one, but you may find it substandard. I'm not a climate scientist, geologist, paleontologist, biologist, environmental scientist, or any other 'ist'. Nor will I likely ever be. (Okay, perhaps just a cyclist.) I'm not an armchair scientist either. I have a young family, work full time, I don't have the hours to pour over every controversy. So I look around and see the responses from global bodies, industry figures, insurance councils, and yes, the much maligned scientific community. I note some well documented issues along the way, I make a judgement call that nevertheless I'm happy to accept that consensus. You see the same and call hoax. That's good.. the world needs skeptics and contrarians.

It boils down really simply for me (and this is my personal thought process, I don't expect anyone else to agree or follow):

a) get this wrong and underreact and we've caused ourselves and most living creatures on this planet a world of suffering for the sake of short term economic convenience,
b) get this wrong and overreact and we've caused ourselves some short term economic pain, perhaps kick starting some lucrative new industries and tech along the way, and ended up with a cleaner, more sustainable world for our troubles.
(The third unicorn option is to get it exactly right, but given how well countries are playing together as I write, and given how many temperature and CO2 yardsticks we've already merrily skipped past I don't see this happening.)

And that's where I stand. Possibly to your disappointment I'm not going to get down in the weeds and debate individual studies - I just don't have the time or the background. Once again, I'm deferring to the experts, regardless of how human they've been along the way. And also once again, I'm going to disappointingly agree to disagree. I'm not going to change your mind on this (nor it seems is NASA, the IPCC, NOAA, the World Bank, key bluechip industry giants or anyone else) and you're not going to change mine. But isn't it great we can have this civil, polite dialogue together! And that's me over and out for this thread.

What he said. With boldface and CAPS.

 

[BarryS]

pmcdonald, thank you.
You should really not want to have the ice core people be your "go to".

Nobody is arguing about single studies..this is about the very top in stature ALL lying and cheating and keeping silent while the public and many other scientists and ALL scientific organizations known in western science are deceived.

Try d) All western nations commit suicide by buying in.

If you're not stopping the CCP from doing it, if you give them money and rewards for increasingly doing it, you're not stopping the main output, you're just severely going to tilt the table to them because they can increase output ... until they own you one and all. It's not complicated.
That's how things ACTUALLY work.

great book of evidences :

 

[Handlebars]

Thank you @Handlebars for your considered replies. Forgive me for the late response - it has been a busy day and I like to let your posts sit and think through my own assumptions.

I believe my own position is a relatively simple one, but you may find it substandard. I'm not a climate scientist, geologist, paleontologist, biologist, environmental scientist, or any other 'ist'. Nor will I likely ever be. (Okay, perhaps just a cyclist.) I'm not an armchair scientist either. I have a young family, work full time, I don't have the hours to pour over every controversy. So I look around and see the responses from global bodies, industry figures, insurance councils, and yes, the much maligned scientific community. I note some well documented issues along the way, I make a judgement call that nevertheless I'm happy to accept that consensus. You see the same and call hoax. That's good.. the world needs skeptics and contrarians.

It boils down really simply for me (and this is my personal thought process, I don't expect anyone else to agree or follow):

a) get this wrong and underreact and we've caused ourselves and most living creatures on this planet a world of suffering for the sake of short term economic convenience,
b) get this wrong and overreact and we've caused ourselves some short term economic pain, perhaps kick starting some lucrative new industries and tech along the way, and ended up with a cleaner, more sustainable world for our troubles.
(The third unicorn option is to get it exactly right, but given how well countries are playing together as I write, and given how many temperature and CO2 yardsticks we've already merrily skipped past I don't see this happening.)

And that's where I stand. Possibly to your disappointment I'm not going to get down in the weeds and debate individual studies - I just don't have the time or the background. Once again, I'm deferring to the experts, regardless of how human they've been along the way. And also once again, I'm going to disappointingly agree to disagree. I'm not going to change your mind on this (nor it seems is NASA, the IPCC, NOAA, the World Bank, key bluechip industry giants or anyone else) and you're not going to change mine. But isn't it great we can have this civil, polite dialogue together! And that's me over and out for this thread.

I happened to look at your link to wiki. It's full of name calling and lies that you should be able to recognize as such by now.
Wiki has activist editors who control content with a heavy hand. Jimmy Wales is a political activist himself and he has fully conflicted editors do the dirty work on climate change.

Connolley received national press attention over several years for his involvement in editing Wikipedia articles relating to climate change. Connolley was a member of the RealClimate website until 2007 and now operates a website and blog that discuss climate issues. He has also been active in local politics as a member of the Green Party.

He rewrote articles over 5000 times to agree with Michael Mann and cohort.

Lo and behold, he is very closely associated with Michael Mann and was a MEMBER of the Michael Mann website RealClimate, where I already showed you the Michael Mann lie about "no researcher ever grafting' thermometer temps onto proxy reconstructions.

The story was first broken by climate change denialists,[6][7] with columnist James Delingpole popularising the term "Climategate" to describe the controversy.[8] They argued that the emails showed that global warming was a scientific conspiracy and that scientists manipulated climate data and attempted to suppress critics.[9][10] The CRU rejected this, saying that the emails had been taken out of context.[11][12] Fact-checkers confirmed that climate change deniers misrepresented the contents of the emails.[13]

BTW, scientists manipulate data as a job. There's nothing inherently wrong with manipulating data. That is how childishly stupid and desperate the sidestepping defence you linked to, is. What happened was deceitful manipulation followed by swarms of lies when found out.

they argued that the emails showed that global warming was a scientific conspiracy

Some did argue that. Wiki choose to point to only the people who didn't understand what was going on or were off target or are simply conspiracy-minded. It's very selective untruthful reporting. They made hay off the more excitable people who rushed in without prior experience of how the lies were formed and what it was about. And they deceive the reader by promoting the lie that that is all it was.
Now we know and now we have the proof of their lies and follow-up lies, after the second climategate dump exposed more, and Mann went to court.

The court record shows that Mann implicitly admitted the graph using "Mike's Trick to Hide the Decline" that he helped create with CRU people, was misleading. WAS misleading, while he falsely denied he played any part whatsoever in it's making.
So funny.
You just linked to proven lies by Mann's team-mates as part of your belief basis after being shown that they were lies.
I guess you simply didn't inspect what you linked to, considering it a decent source and not subject-controlled by the very same group.

You see the same and call hoax.

But that isn't true, pmcdonald.
I showed where a group colluded to produce and protect lies and exaggerations.
I already explained carefully to you that my statement of belief for warming due to CO2 is stronger than yours.

You failed to show even a single item from me was wrong in any way whatsoever.
You simply pack up and pretend we are in 2 different boxes that can never reach agreement on anything; meanwhile you fail to address the lies proven to you to be lies. You dismiss directly lying to the public and repeatedly deceiving the public about the most important subject ever occurring on the earth, you see what they did to the graph in those 2 pics, to present to the WMO, and you treat that as just "being human"?

A corporate sale based on that kind of rancid deception would be called criminal, not "overly simplified" or "just being human". How much more important is the climate than a commercial sales pitch?