Two days of being in Melbourne and driving around in my mum's ICE lexus, I have to say I already do miss my electric cars.
We were chauffeured back to our place following the LV event in a Tesla 3 today. Wow, what a piece of rubbish. Cheap plastic finishes throughout. Awful ride with really harsh suspension. No thanks
it's about keeping the developing countries poor and forever reliant on the west, and if it's about phasing out some petrol cars and this chatline's little hobby, so be it
Seems to me that too many Western countries are reliant on China, which conveniently calls itself a developing country. And how about China's debt diplomacy? There's a cracking way of keeping developing countries poor...
It’s amazing how many “developing” countries have a very advanced space programme, nuclear weapons, etc. Maybe it’s time Australia was re-classified?
Classic https://www.news.com.au/technology/motoring/motoring-news/rowan-atkinson-blamed-for-slumping-electric-car-sales/news-story/cc709061b0606f1d4ac4318ff0d2721f
Yes, a car enthusiast with a Masters' Degree in Engineering, versus a bunch of out of work arts students...
It's too bad he didn't use any math, or use any of his engineering background, to come up with his preposterous statements.
Almost as a bad as the models being used by “climate scientists” that say we’ll all be underwater by, you know, in a few years. Sent from my iPhone using FerrariChat
The weather is changing, as it has done since the dawn of time. The question is is it a function of complex external events beyond our control, or an atmospheric trace gas, 0.04%, of which 4% is of human source. If you have reproducable evidence (not software models) that CO2 causes climate change, do please share it with us. Sent from my SM-T710 using FerrariChat.com mobile app
Which oil companies don't don't fully agree with the following: a) That climate change is a major and real problem; and b) That the fossil fuel products they sell are a major contributor to climate change When you have the answer to that question, then you'll know all there is to know on this topic
Most big oil acknowledges climate change. Exxon CEO did so at COP28. Even I acknowledge that the climate is changing (all the time). I do not believe that strong evidence has been produced that unequivocally proves it’s from human activity or carbon output. The models are a joke. To be clear, big oil also STRONGLY advocate for continued use of fossil fuels. They talk about using extraction methods that are lower on carbon emissions, and their idea of net zero means their emissions for producing their oil, not global consumption. Basically, they are using language that makes them less vilified. But it’s smoke. They know that one has to toe the narrative line so as not to be targeted by the elites and stupid governments (US, EU, OZ, etc.). So, yeah they say things but just look closer at the words. Big oil is smarter than those trying to undo them. Sent from my iPhone using FerrariChat
Of course oil companies advocate selling oil because otherwise they would not have any income -- and of course they advertise their own efforts to clean up processing because that helps them with their singular objective of selling more oil. If the math models were the ludicrous joke you say they are, why wouldn't the oil companies simply show the "correct" math, and blow massive holes in those models, obliterating the largest impediment (by far) to their near-term business and long-term viability? The question remains: Which oil companies don't fully agree climate change is a major and real problem? (not just acknowledge it). Which oil companies don't fully agree that the fossil fuel products they sell are a major contributor to climate change?
It's because climate science ceased being a science decades ago. It's now a religion and you can't argue with someone about their religion.
My guess is most if not all of them SAY it’s a problem. How many believe or actually agree in private, there is no way to tell. Sort of like CEOs jumping on the DEI train I think. That is no longer the leading, in vogue requirement for staying invited to the right events. As to having big oil debunk the models would be like the fox watching the henhouse. That would not be a credible case to be made. And, it isn’t necessary. Others have done that and of course they get ostracized or defunded. However, the list of scientists speaking out against is growing. It’s a fun debate. I’m all for a clean earth. I love that one can breathe the air in LA today when you couldn’t 25 years ago. But the green energy movement isn’t about a clean earth. It’s about money, control, and for the lost - religion. Just my 2 cents. Sent from my iPhone using FerrariChat
Math is math. It is not a religion. Math is either right or it is wrong. You don't analyze math differently based upon who wrote it. That's just not the way any valid scientific analysis works at all. It defies all logic that there is a model "proving" that fossil fuels cause climate change that is totally incorrect, and yet the oil companies are just silent and don't challenge it (and the oil companies have privately done more work on that math than anyone, so they know). Not only do they not challenge it, they agree with it when asked direct pointed questions about climate change. For sure, it is the last thing oil companies want to talk about, but when asked point blank, they agree there is a causal relationship. There are many oil companies -- I welcome anyone to find any oil company in modern times who says fossil fuels aren't a major factor in causing climate change.
