[gblansten]

Originally Posted by M3WC

GM promises to speed up EV production.

https://insideevs.com/news/677660/gm...ev-production/

A grand total of 49 Hummer EV's produced in first half of 2023. What an embarrassment. Mary Barra continues to get a pass though from the media. GM's battery scaling has been a complete sh*t show.

I can easily see them scaling to 200 Hummers in the last half of the year.

[David70]

Originally Posted by M3WC

GM promises to speed up EV production.

https://insideevs.com/news/677660/gm...ev-production/

A grand total of 49 Hummer EV's produced in first half of 2023. What an embarrassment. Mary Barra continues to get a pass though from the media. GM's battery scaling has been a complete sh*t show.

How did they do with Bolts, their volume model? Strange article to only talk about their lowest production models.

[gblansten]

Originally Posted by David70

How did they do with Bolts, their volume model? Strange article to only talk about their lowest production models.

https://gmauthority.com/blog/2023/04...end-this-year/

[Car-Addicted]

GM’s battery production woes worsen as CAMI EV plant shuts down amid shortage

During an interview last month, GM’s CEO Mary Barra explained battery production as the factor limiting them from scaling production.

GM sold a total of 15,652 EVs in the second quarter of this year. However, nearly 14K were Chevy Bolt EV or EUV models, which GM is discontinuing later this year (at least in its current form).

https://electrek.co/2023/07/17/gm-ba...nt-shuts-down/

[Efthreeoh]

Originally Posted by freakystyly

Yeah that was hastily written. Just trying to say that there is a lot going on in the climate. It can't just be written off as a simple contained system. Basically it's a rabbit hole trying to understand how it works. There's geological factors (earthquakes, volcanoes), sea currents, solar anomalies, etc.... Adding some numbers, there's something like 6.6 billion cubic kilometers of atmosphere and it varies so wildly. Oceans are around 1.3 billion cubic kilometers and the same deal.

Okay, understood.

This has been my position since I've been debating the topic here on Bimmerpost for 15 years or so. The climate system is far too complex to think that mere humans can develop all the variables for an algorithm that can calculate adjustments to the climate elements to purposfully direct, let alone just change the climate. And then invent mechanisms the make the adjustments.

Even PT Barnum would never attempt such a ruse

[RM7]

Originally Posted by Car-Addicted

The fall back position of the climate activist, the personal insult. Go get that Geology 101 Book, it will do you a world of good.

https://www.amazon.com/Science-101-M...9877258&sr=8-3

I’ve studied weather (formal classes). Ive made forecasts. Ive been in the process. You have no idea what you spew. Yeah, saying that weather forecasting is guessing is wildly misrepresenting this field, science and procedures. Ill call that idiotic all day long.

[RM7]

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

Okay, understood.

This has been my position since I've been debating the topic here on Bimmerpost for 15 years or so. The climate system is far too complex to think that mere humans can develop all the variables for an algorithm that can calculate adjustments to the climate elements to purposfully direct, let alone just change the climate. And then invent mechanisms the make the adjustments.

Even PT Barnum would never attempt such a ruse

Is it impossible? No. The closer you try to look, the more complex it gets and the harder it is to take into account all the variables. Thats where your differing results can lie, but when you’ve got models that take us to where we are based on previous data, you can start to get a picture. Shirley you don’t think that the increase of CO2 is just magic? Just how much is a problem?

[Efthreeoh]

Originally Posted by RM7

Is it impossible? No. The closer you try to look, the more complex it gets and the harder it is to take into account all the variables. Thats where your differing results can lie, but when you’ve got models that take us to where we are based on previous data, you can start to get a picture. Shirley you don’t think that the increase of CO2 is just magic? Just how much is a problem?

There is no empirical evidence with which to truly validate the climate models. If some models predicted a less warmer climate, which should statistically happen (i.e. some models should be wrong), then I'd halfway believe "the science ". All the models predict a dire climate future, which tells me the models are constructed based on inaccurate understanding of the climate processes, or are agenda driven.

I've asked this question tens of times on this forum to those who believe humans can control the climate; on what day (or period) in the Earth's climate history are you going to set the climate to? If the modeling is now that good, we should have a precise plan of CO2 goals and the physical mechanisms designed to achieve the perfect (and) static climate.

All humans seek the most comfortable life at the lowest possible financial cost. Modern Humans output a lot of CO2 to live that life. If the state of the climate is solely based on CO2 ratios, then the obvious solution is to reduce the planet's human population. It's the only logical conclusion.

[M5Rick]

Originally Posted by gblansten

https://gmauthority.com/blog/2023/04...end-this-year/

It could be said that 'the stable door was shut after the horse BOLTed'

[KRS_SN]

Boom!

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-66264893.amp

Both parties suggested plans by Labour Mayor Sadiq Khan's to expand London's Ultra Low Emission Zone (Ulez) played a part in the defeat.

[M5Rick]

Originally Posted by KRS_SN

Boom!

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-66264893.amp

Both parties suggested plans by Labour Mayor Sadiq Khan's to expand London's Ultra Low Emission Zone (Ulez) played a part in the defeat.

This is a huge blow to Khan and means he has to listen to the people instead of wasting more time and money with his ill thought out expansion plan.

[David70]

Originally Posted by gblansten

https://gmauthority.com/blog/2023/04...end-this-year/

Ending Bolt production at the end of this year has nothing to do with GM EV production numbers YTD.

[gblansten]

Originally Posted by David70

Ending Bolt production at the end of this year has nothing to do with GM EV production numbers YTD.

OK. But I was asked about Bolt production and I posted a salient and relevant link.

[Efthreeoh]

Originally Posted by David70

Ending Bolt production at the end of this year has nothing to do with GM EV production numbers YTD.

Agree.

GM is just sunsetting the BEV2 platform in the US. The BEV2 platform will live on in Asia. The expanded model range of GM US EV are going to be on the GM Ultium platform, which makes complete economic sense.

[fcman]

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

If some models predicted a less warmer climate, which should statistically happen (i.e. some models should be wrong), then I'd halfway believe "the science ".

"If some models showed that the earth was flat, I'd believe the science"


Treating scientific unanimity as "proof of invalidity" is nonsense, plain and simple

[Efthreeoh]

Originally Posted by fcman

"If some models showed that the earth was flat, I'd believe the science"


Treating scientific unanimity as "proof of invalidity" is nonsense, plain and simple

Ah, the "flat earther" insult. Come on, you can do better than that can't you?

Since no one knows exactly what the climate was when materials from core samples are analyzed as a baseline climate for models, it is difficult to consider all the models point in one direction. It's a legitimate activity for sure and interesting to consider the data and its precision. But to base economic and social policy from such model data with zero political risk? No.

It's the ultimate Chicken Little fairytale, but with no consequence to those who tell it. How in God's name anyone buys into climate fear is absolutely baffling to me. Why we've let the con job get this far is truly a study in the power of the lie.

[Car-Addicted]

Things that make you go Hmmm:

Supreme Court of British Columbia dismisses Dr Michael Mann’s defamation lawsuit versus Canadian skeptic climatologist, Dr Tim Ball. Full legal costs are awarded to Dr Ball, the defendant in the case.

In 2003 a Canadian study showed the “hockey stick” curve “is primarily an artefact of poor data handling, obsolete data and incorrect calculation of principal components.” When the data was corrected it showed a warm period in the 15th Century that exceeded the warmth of the 20th Century.

[Donatello.]

Originally Posted by Car-Addicted

You do understand that EVERY metric that the climate change folks tell us is a sign of man made end times has been duplicated and exceeded by significant factors long before the model T was a glimmer in Henry Ford's eye?

Show us your data.

I'm not saying you are right or wrong. Simply prove it.

Again, question everything...on both sides...of everything

[fcman]

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

Since no one knows exactly what the climate was when materials from core samples are analyzed as a baseline climate for models, it is difficult to consider all the models point in one direction. It's a legitimate activity for sure and interesting to consider the data and its precision. But to base economic and social policy from such model data with zero political risk? No.

Which carries a bigger risk:

Taking precautions based on current unanimous scientific analysis and observing the impact.

OR

Changing nothing and crossing your fingers that everything's all good? Because change is oh so scary

[M5Rick]

Originally Posted by KRS_SN

Boom!

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-66264893.amp

Both parties suggested plans by Labour Mayor Sadiq Khan's to expand London's Ultra Low Emission Zone (Ulez) played a part in the defeat.

High Cou rt hearing coming up..

[G MONEY]

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

Not sure what you are trying to say. The less they realize the actually know what?

I can’t even find a weather guy to be right on his prediction 2 days in a row. Da Fuck.

[Efthreeoh]

Originally Posted by fcman

Which carries a bigger risk:

Taking precautions based on current unanimous scientific analysis and observing the impact.

OR

Changing nothing and crossing your fingers that everything's all good? Because change is oh so scary

In the context of this discussion I hope you see the irony in your statement.

What risk and to whom? It is all conjecture, unanimous (if you think so) or not. The people currenty generating fear through climate models will not be on the planet when the time they are seeking to fix the climate comes to fruition. They can say anything they want with zero repercussions. There is no risk if you or us are not here on the planet. This is not a movie where a giant frigid vortex cyclone hurricane dumps 30 feet of snow on New York City (after it floods...) in the span of 3 days.

You'll not be on the planet, nor will 4 generations of your offspring before there is any discernable change in the climate. Human life on the planet (as you currently understand it) is going to change just like every other species has adapted or gone extinct. Watching the climate in 30-year, 100-year, or 1,000-year increments is microseconds in the span of geological time.

Seriously you should be concerned about the value of the US dollar vs. the Yen. That's where you are going to get screwed in the near term.