[AlexFL]

…and he is 100% correct, even though this sketchy viking dude disagrees.

[pz619]

Originally Posted by AlexFL

…and he is 100% correct, even though this sketchy viking dude disagrees.

Yeah, I'm not going to take the CEO's word on it, especially when he has a vested interest in selling gas powered cars.

I like gas powered cars (no secret there), but I'm siding with the scientific and environmental community on this one.

[shiftdnb]

Issue is at this point EVs aren't necessarily innocent in their effect on the Environment.

[AlexFL]

Originally Posted by shiftdnb

Issue is at this point EVs aren't necessarily innocent in their effect on the Environment.

Yes. All those Teslas need to be charged up and 60% of US electricity is being generated from fossil fuels.

[Patton250]

Originally Posted by pz619

Yeah, I'm not going to take the CEO's word on it, especially when he has a vested interest in selling gas powered cars.

I like gas powered cars (no secret there), but I'm siding with the scientific and environmental community on this one.

Perhaps you should look at where the scientific and and especially the environmental community get their research money from and ask yourself then whether or not you side with them. Climate prediction is not science. It’s guessing. There’s nothing wrong with that of course as long as you don’t cite it as fact. Besides the CEO of BMW just any other auto manufacturer can make plenty of money off of electric vehicles as well. So your logic doesn’t hold water on this one. But who are we fooling on this subject? This was never about the climate anyway.

[///MPhatic]

The future is in sustainability.

We cannot sustain the use of fossil fuels, so any effort with that goal is not only wasted, but lost on where it should be applied.

Although at present it takes the use of fossil fuels to make an electric car, it won't always be that way, and the quicker we stop wasting time on fossil fuel related endeavors the quicker we can get out of this bad haircut phase.

ICE tech is still very viable IMO, and will be for many years to come, but not using fossil fuels for combustion.

[FrankMstein]

Originally Posted by Patton250

Perhaps you should look at where the scientific and and especially the environmental community get their research money from and ask yourself then whether or not you side with them. Climate prediction is not science. It’s guessing. There’s nothing wrong with that of course as long as you don’t cite it as fact. Besides the CEO of BMW just any other auto manufacturer can make plenty of money off of electric vehicles as well. So your logic doesn’t hold water on this one. But who are we fooling on this subject? This was never about the climate anyway.

Science is opinion until new evidence is presented and is respected as the current direction. The CEO of BMW is NOT presenting any new evidence hmmm, just his opinion, like, um, you. His and your (political) armchair science position review is flawed opinion. But hey, that is my opinion. I'm siding with science (and the environmental community) not CEO's, they have more credibility and it's served me well.

Damn dude, their "predictions" are based on scientific methods. Many more smarter people and countries than you and I are on board with it even Syria/al-Assad, of all people! You know who isn't, Russia/China...good luck with denial.

https://www.usgs.gov/faqs/what-diffe...ind%20patterns.

[heavyD^2]

Originally Posted by Patton250

Perhaps you should look at where the scientific and and especially the environmental community get their research money from and ask yourself then whether or not you side with them. Climate prediction is not science. It’s guessing. There’s nothing wrong with that of course as long as you don’t cite it as fact. Besides the CEO of BMW just any other auto manufacturer can make plenty of money off of electric vehicles as well. So your logic doesn’t hold water on this one. But who are we fooling on this subject? This was never about the climate anyway.

It is true that the science part of it is highly subjective because some of it is biased and models have shown to be inaccurate but the research is still useful. Humans do need to be mindful of our individual carbon footprints but we will look back at this one day and realize that climate change has largely been driven as a means for wealth transfer. The people largely responsible for driving climate change (the world's richest 1% is set to be responsible for 16% of global carbon emissions by 2030 according to Oxfam international) are the ones that are responsible for the largest carbon footprints by a considerable margin. They are pushing it on us to make sacrifices so they can sustain their lavish lifestyles all while capitalizing financially.

[Patton250]

Originally Posted by FrankMstein

Science is opinion until new evidence is presented and is respected as the current direction. The CEO of BMW is NOT presenting any new evidence hmmm, just his opinion, like, um, you. His and your (political) armchair science position review is flawed opinion. But hey, that is my opinion. I'm siding with science (and the environmental community) not CEO's, they have more credibility and it's served me well.

Damn dude, their "predictions" are based on scientific methods. Many more smarter people and countries than you and I are on board with it even Syria/al-Assad, of all people! You know who isn't, Russia/China...good luck with denial.

https://www.usgs.gov/faqs/what-diffe...ind%20patterns.

Unless you are completely off the grid and don’t drive a gas powered car and live on solar and wind electrical driven power everything you just said was utter hypocrisy. I 100% believe that you will die if you step out in front of a moving 18 wheeler going 60 mph. Science has proved that through repeated observations. Therefore I won’t step out in front of an 18 wheeler truck. If you believe all that gibberish you just wrote then you would be living differently. That’s my opinion. You can live in your denial if you’d like.

Originally Posted by heavyD^2

It is true that the science part of it is highly subjective because some of it is biased and models have shown to be inaccurate but the research is still useful. Humans do need to be mindful of our individual carbon footprints but we will look back at this one day and realize that climate change has largely been driven as a means for wealth transfer. The people largely responsible for driving climate change (the world's richest 1% is set to be responsible for 16% of global carbon emissions by 2030 according to Oxfam international) are the ones that are responsible for the largest carbon footprints by a considerable margin. They are pushing it on us to make sacrifices so they can sustain their lavish lifestyles all while capitalizing financially.

This is exactly the type of post that can get most people banned from here if they even attempt to respond to it. I know you’re probably not doing it on purpose but this is an extreme troll post. In other words responding to your shocking post is dangerous. Have a great day brother.

[pz619]

Originally Posted by Patton250

Perhaps you should look at where the scientific and and especially the environmental community get their research money from and ask yourself then whether or not you side with them. Climate prediction is not science. It’s guessing. There’s nothing wrong with that of course as long as you don’t cite it as fact. Besides the CEO of BMW just any other auto manufacturer can make plenty of money off of electric vehicles as well. So your logic doesn’t hold water on this one. But who are we fooling on this subject? This was never about the climate anyway.

I’m not going to argue with you about the merits of environmental studies and automotive emissions. The real point I was trying to make is listening to BMW’s CEO talk about gas powered car’s effect on the environment is like taking Marlboro’s CEO word that cigarettes are in fact good for you.

[Patton250]

Originally Posted by pz619

I’m not going to argue with you about the merits of environmental studies and automotive emissions. The real point I was trying to make is listening to BMW’s CEO talk about gas powered car’s effect on the environment is like taking Marlboro’s CEO word that cigarettes are in fact good for you.

And I’ve argued no it’s not. Are you trying to tell me that BMW can’t make money off of an all electric fleet? Of course they can. And they will once the governments force them to. He’s merely stating some facts and that is automobiles that are gas powered contribute very little carbon emissions compared to all other sources. That’s a fact.

[heavyD^2]

Originally Posted by Patton250

This is exactly the type of post that can get most people banned from here if they even attempt to respond to it. I know you’re probably not doing it on purpose but this is an extreme troll post. In other words responding to your shocking post is dangerous. Have a great day brother.

I have no idea what you are going on about but it made for a good laugh.

[FrankMstein]

Originally Posted by heavyD^2

I have no idea what you are going on about but it made for a good laugh.

I'll bet it was meant for me.

[G35POPPEDMYCHERRY]

isnt miami supposed to be under water soon

[NickyC]

My simple plan to "save" the environment:

1. Ban all ICE engines.
2. Ban all coal power plants.
3. Ban all nuclear power plants.
4. Mandate all electric vehicles.
5. Politicians are exempt from all of the above because science.

WIN

[FrankMstein]

Originally Posted by G35POPPEDMYCHERRY

isnt miami supposed to be under water soon

Predicted to be 1/3 of the state by 2100. Mar-a-Lardo not soon enough.

[pz619]

Originally Posted by Patton250

And I’ve argued no it’s not. Are you trying to tell me that BMW can’t make money off of an all electric fleet? Of course they can. And they will once the governments force them to. He’s merely stating some facts and that is automobiles that are gas powered contribute very little carbon emissions compared to all other sources. That’s a fact.

https://www.epa.gov/greenvehicles/fa...-gas-emissions

Except, it's not a fact.

[Patton250]

Originally Posted by pz619

https://www.epa.gov/greenvehicles/fa...-gas-emissions

Except, it's not a fact.

I’m not going to get into a cut-and-paste war with you because you would not believe the sites I would paste just like I don’t believe your site. If you want to believe those guys you go right ahead. I’m not even gonna waste my time and click on it. We are not allowed to talk about these things on this forum anyway. So I’ll let this be my last post on the subject.

[Patton250]

Originally Posted by FrankMstein

Predicted to be 1/3 of the state by 2100. Mar-a-Lardo not soon enough.

No you see if you upset somebody enough by what you posted they can report you and then you would get band for 30 days. (Ask me how I know) Go ahead and delete what you posted and I’ll delete my reply.

[FCX5]

Originally Posted by Patton250

And I’ve argued no it’s not. Are you trying to tell me that BMW can’t make money off of an all electric fleet? Of course they can. And they will once the governments force them to. He’s merely stating some facts and that is automobiles that are gas powered contribute very little carbon emissions compared to all other sources. That’s a fact.

Here is a ranking of consumer satisfaction by car brands. BMW ranks below Porsche, but above the other Germans. The highest is Tesla. The reason people will make EVs is because Tesla is the highest valued company and the most liked by consumers so they want to be like Tesla, not because the govt is forcing them. It is better for their investors….end of story. The CEO of BMW needs an EV strategy because it effects the stock value. His job depends on that. Nobody is doing it for the environment, as far as I can tell. It makes economic sense.

https://www.consumerreports.org/car-...s-a1291429338/

[chassis]

EVs are total lifecycle carbon unfavorable vs ICE.

From digging and refining lithium to producing electricity to charge to end of life and recycling (???) EVs are no bueno vs ICE.

And EVs are 30% less cost for carmakers to assemble.

Carmakers want EVs. BMW CEO is playing both sides of the court to keep his options open.

[Patton250]

Originally Posted by FCX5

Here is a ranking of consumer satisfaction by car brands. BMW ranks below Porsche, but above the other Germans. The highest is Tesla. The reason people will make EVs is because Tesla is the highest valued company and the most liked by consumers so they want to be like Tesla, not because the govt is forcing them. It is better for their investors….end of story. The CEO of BMW needs an EV strategy because it effects the stock value. His job depends on that. Nobody is doing it for the environment, as far as I can tell. It makes economic sense.

https://www.consumerreports.org/car-...s-a1291429338/

Tesla is a niche company that people like and find nifty. It’s just something fun. It’s not a practical type vehicle for the vast majority of Americans. Governments are absolutely forcing companies to go EV especially European governments. I cannot even believe you said that. It’s governments mandating it otherwise auto manufacturers wouldn’t be doing it because people don’t want it. Wanting to buy something fun and different like a Tesla is vastly different than the entire continent switching from ice to EV. It’s going to be an infrastructure catastrophe if they keep forcing it. You know it and I know it and everyone else knows it.