Jump to content

Climate Hoax


Husker_Du

Recommended Posts

13 hours ago, Offthemat said:

Somewhere someone is asking what they have to do.  They had taken it far enough, and decided that the funnest way to give up the prank was to make an outrageous claim, like it’s major cause is cow farts and the best way to save yourself is to eat bugs.  Haha hahaha.  Well, now what are they going to do?

... and what about goats, they are ruminates may be cute but they fart too correct, plus think of the trees!  

55f82aab180000270061d14d.jpeg?cache=szUX

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

image.png.8d813b1691ce9a4677f991fbebf4bbf5.png

 

Tesla makes cars at a huge loss.  Carbon credits is the main business of Tesla.  So, due to made up games (aka a hoax) of spreadsheet formulas we have given $9 billion to the richest man in the world and the total is increasing at a rate of about $20,000 per hour.

So, yeah.  It feels kind of hoax-y.

Edited by Lipdrag
  • Fire 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Lipdrag said:

 

image.png.8d813b1691ce9a4677f991fbebf4bbf5.png

 

Tesla makes cars at a huge loss.  Carbon credits is the main business of Tesla.  So, due to made up games (aka a hoax) of spreadsheet formulas we have given $9 billion to the richest man in the world and the total is increasing at a rate of about $20,000 per hour.

So, yeah.  It feels kind of hoax-y.

Well let's be accurate.  The chart says $9B to the "EV maker."  That would be Tesla and pays for labor, materials, etc.  Is Tesla making excess profit from the subsidy, that could be looked into.  If they are the profit goes to the share holders of which Musk is one.  He isn't getting $9B.  Now that doesn't mean we need to continue giving Tesla govt money, they should be able to stand on there own now.  But its just like a tax deduction, if the govt set up rules/criteria for receiving the subsidy or for customers receiving and Tesla qualifies then it should continue till the program is changed.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, ionel said:

Well let's be accurate.  The chart says $9B to the "EV maker."  That would be Tesla and pays for labor, materials, etc.  Is Tesla making excess profit from the subsidy, that could be looked into.  If they are the profit goes to the share holders of which Musk is one.  He isn't getting $9B.  Now that doesn't mean we need to continue giving Tesla govt money, they should be able to stand on there own now.  But its just like a tax deduction, if the govt set up rules/criteria for receiving the subsidy or for customers receiving and Tesla qualifies then it should continue till the program is changed.  

I stipulate what you say.  Musk has probably made more than $9 billion from the credits because the share value of Tesla reflects people's opinion that Tesla does not have to have a valid business model but simply be subsidized in every phase of its business cycle:

  • development - Direct cash grants and subsidized via tax abatement
  • operations - Direct cash grants and subsidized via tax abatements
  • sales - mandated and buyers are subsidized including direct cash payments
  • sales of cars by competitors - competitors penalized and Tesla given cash

The investors know it is not a valid business model but a hoax - backed by unwise ideologues and people demogoging the situation - and they are in on it.

"if the govt set up rules/criteria for receiving the subsidy or for customers receiving and Tesla qualifies then it should continue till the program is changed."  

Note:   I blame Tesla and Musk not one bit for recognizing the hoax and winning the game.  

  • Fire 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Lipdrag said:

I stipulate what you say.  Musk has probably made more than $9 billion from the credits because the share value of Tesla reflects people's opinion that Tesla does not have to have a valid business model but simply be subsidized in every phase of its business cycle:

  • development - Direct cash grants and subsidized via tax abatement
  • operations - Direct cash grants and subsidized via tax abatements
  • sales - mandated and buyers are subsidized including direct cash payments
  • sales of cars by competitors - competitors penalized and Tesla given cash

The investors know it is not a valid business model but a hoax - backed by unwise ideologues and people demogoging the situation - and they are in on it.

"if the govt set up rules/criteria for receiving the subsidy or for customers receiving and Tesla qualifies then it should continue till the program is changed."  

Note:   I blame Tesla and Musk not one bit for recognizing the hoax and winning the game.  

I was never sure whether to buy TSLA or short it.  Finally bought some, made some money and sold it.  It felt a little bit like investing in bitcoin.  Now if I could buy SpaceX ...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gore predictions:

1.  “Within the decade there will be no more snows of Kilimanjaro,” he said to the audience in An Inconvenient Truth. This occurred moments before he makes his prediction for Glacier National Park.

Result:    Alluding poorly to the title of the Ernest Hemmingway short story The Snows of Kilimanjaro, Gore was trying to claim that Africa’s tallest mountain, with a peak that stands higher than 19,000 feet, would no longer have measurable snow cover on or before 2016.

As of November 2022, Snow-forecast.com, a webpage for skiers, reported that an average of 93 combined inches of snowfall (almost 8 feet) hits just the middle altitudes of Kilimanjaro during November and December. And 9 inches of combined snowfall is the average expected for the middle elevations for July and August, the lightest two-month period for snowfall on the middle part of the mountain.

The upper altitudes of Kilimanjaro supposedly get pummeled with an average of 171 inches (more than 14 feet) of snow during November and December. Another 127 inches (10 more feet) is expected during April and May. The expectation for September and October is 59 inches. According to Snow-forecast, every two-month period on Kilimanjaro’s higher elevations is expected to feature well over a foot of snowfall.

2.   In his history lecture on the hurricanes of 2005, Gore claimed the lesson to learn was that we had been ignoring “warnings that hurricanes would get stronger” because of human-inflicted climate change.

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) hosts a regularly updated webpage titled “Global Warming and Hurricanes: An Overview of Current Research Results.” The update as of October 2022 has this to say:

We conclude that the historical Atlantic hurricane data at this stage do not provide compelling evidence for a substantial greenhouse warming-induced century-scale increase in: frequency of tropical storms, hurricanes, or major hurricanes, or in the proportion of hurricanes that become major hurricanes.

The NOAA lists six named hurricanes making landfall on the continental United States in 2005, including four major ones.

What Gore knew (or should have known) but did not mention when he claimed there had been “a lot of big hurricanes” was that the four “major” storms of 2005 were all measured at Category 3 intensity when they made landfall. This includes the star of Gore’s presentation, the obviously devastating Hurricane Katrina that ravaged New Orleans in August 2005.

Category 3 is the lowest category that still qualifies as a “major” hurricane by the NOAA’s definition.

In 2006 not a single hurricane of any kind made landfall in the continental United States. And then, over the next 10 years through 2016, not a single major hurricane hit the USA. During seven of those years (2009–2015) just four total hurricanes of any kind made landfall, three of them Category 1 and one a Category 2.

No comparable era of docile hurricanes appears in the NOAA records going back more than a century. This period of unprecedented calm following immediately on the heels of Gore’s hurricane hyperbole really was—to borrow his analysis— “one for the books.”

If Gore proved anything at all, it was that Mother Nature might be real, with a wicked sense of humor, and she decided to spend 11 years making a mockery of his movie.

Gore is a self acknowledged climatologist.   Apparently he got it wrong.  

mspart

  • Fire 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here another:    https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2009/12/al_gore_trips_on_artic_ice_mis.html

Yes this is from the vaunted NPR:

Mr Gore, speaking at the Copenhagen climate change summit, stated the latest research showed that the Arctic could be completely ice-free in five years.

In his speech, Mr Gore told the conference: "These figures are fresh. Some of the models suggest to Dr [Wieslav] Maslowski that there is a 75 per cent chance that the entire north polar ice cap, during the summer months, could be completely ice-free within five to seven years."

However, the climatologist whose work Mr Gore was relying upon dropped the former Vice-President in the water with an icy blast.

"It's unclear to me how this figure was arrived at," Dr Maslowski said. "I would never try to estimate likelihood at anything as exact as this."

Mr Gore's office later admitted that the 75 per cent figure was one used by Dr Maslowksi as a "ballpark figure" several years ago in a conversation with Mr Gore...

...Perhaps Mr Gore had felt the need to gild the lily to buttress resolve. But his speech was roundly criticised by members of the climate science community. "This is an exaggeration that opens the science up to criticism from sceptics," Professor Jim Overland, a leading oceanographer at the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration said.

So lies are told to convince us of something that has not been predicted.  

mspart

  • Fire 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Last time I checked, Al Gore wasn't a climatologist so this is a horrible example. Try again. 

Politicians also exaggerate or lie pretty much every sentence they make (even though some like Fat Donny lie a lot more) so what any of them say is pretty much worthless, no matter what. 

Edited by red viking
Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, red viking said:

Last time I checked, Al Gore wasn't a climatologist so this is a horrible example. Try again. 

Politicians also exaggerate or lie pretty much every sentence they make (even though some like Fat Donny lie a lot more) so what any of them say is pretty much worthless, no matter what. 

He’s not a climate scientist, he’s a climate profiteer, but he does have stronger connections for promoting climate related legislation than a scientist would. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Offthemat said:

He’s not a climate scientist, he’s a climate profiteer, but he does have stronger connections for promoting climate related legislation than a scientist would. 

There are many, many more people that stand to profit or otherwise directly benefit off of fossil fuels than green energy, including politicians. The fossil fuel industry is a fat, bloated pig. 

Edited by red viking
Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, red viking said:

There are many, many more people that stand to profit or otherwise directly benefit off of fossil fuels than green energy, including politicians. The fossil fuel industry is a fat, bloated pig. 

Right now there is.  Won’t be that way in the future as green energy will become the fat bloated pig. 

Edited by JimmyBT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, red viking said:

Last time I checked, Al Gore wasn't a climatologist so this is a horrible example. Try again. 

Politicians also exaggerate or lie pretty much every sentence they make (even though some like Fat Donny lie a lot more) so what any of them say is pretty much worthless, no matter what. 

Last time I checked Al Gore (in the 70’s) held the first ever congressional climate  hearings.  He’s also regularly speaks at climate conventions all over the world and is highly regarded when it comes to climate change and it’s supposed impact on the planet.  

You are right about one thing though. He’s full of shit and lies. 

Edited by JimmyBT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, red viking said:

There are many, many more people that stand to profit or otherwise directly benefit off of fossil fuels than green energy, including politicians. The fossil fuel industry is a fat, bloated pig. 

You wouldn’t be one of those brainiacs that pays more for bottled water than gasoline, would you?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, red viking said:

There are many, many more people that stand to profit or otherwise directly benefit off of fossil fuels than green energy, including politicians. The fossil fuel industry is a fat, bloated pig. 

Governments make very much more off of organic energy than the companies themselves make.  When you add in sales tax and excise taxes (state and federal) the government portion of every gallon of gas is 2 - 3 times the profit margin.

 

The combined average federal, state, local (excise and sales tax) load on a $3.00 gallon of gas is about 70 cents.  That leaves $2.30 of revenue.  Average net profit margin in the oil/gas industry to about 5%.  But remember, the gas station owner and the trucking company bringing the gas to the station get to profit some also.  So, even if we combine the profits of all entities other than government they get 11 cents of profit.  Of which the governments take another 25% or so.  Therefore, the "profit" of a gallon of gas is 72 cents to GOV.  About 8 cents to robber barons oil companies and others in the value chain.  But wait, all of those other companies in between also have employees which are a significant portion of their costs who all then pay taxes also.  So let's add another 10 or 15 cents to the government take of each gallon of organic fuel used.  

The organic fuel industry is a very well run and efficient organization and not a fat bloated pig.  Yes, it is very large but it is also pretty lean.  Every percent is very tightly controlled and spent - except the government percents.  If the organic fuel industry were so ridiculously fat, bloated, and profitable then why aren't their P/E ratios and other Wall Street financial indicators skewed to ridiculous numbers?

  • Fire 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, red viking said:

There are many, many more people that stand to profit or otherwise directly benefit off of fossil fuels than green energy, including politicians. The fossil fuel industry is a fat, bloated pig

What is their percent profit and how does it compare to other industry/sectors? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here in WA, gas tax is 49.4 cents/gallon, fed tax is 18.4 cents/gallon, and the CO2 tax is 46 cents/gallon.   That's total of 113.8 cents/gallon.   WA gets 95.4 cents/gallon. 

Greedy government.   they make way more than the gas companies. 

mspart

  • Fire 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, ionel said:

What is their percent profit and how does it compare to other industry/sectors? 

I don't care what their % profit is. Their total profit is fat & bloated and the renewable energy sector can't come close. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, mspart said:

Here in WA, gas tax is 49.4 cents/gallon, fed tax is 18.4 cents/gallon, and the CO2 tax is 46 cents/gallon.   That's total of 113.8 cents/gallon.   WA gets 95.4 cents/gallon. 

Greedy government.   they make way more than the gas companies. 

mspart

They "make" zero. The money gets distributed. Mostly to services with smaller amounts to the workers (at relatively low wages). .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, red viking said:

They "make" zero. The money gets distributed. Mostly to services with smaller amounts to the workers (at relatively low wages). .

This is not a refutation that the government makes massive money on a gallon of gas. 

Federal Government makes 25 billion on gas sales alone in 2023.   This does not count diesel.    Shell made 28 billion for 2023.  So who is the evil here.   The oil producer or the federal government.   They roughly make the same. 

mspart

  • Fire 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, red viking said:

I don't care what their % profit is. Their total profit is fat & bloated and the renewable energy sector can't come close. 

Prove it, whats the % profit?  Prove they "line their pocket," how?  Do they have excess profit?  They are a big company, they will have large revenue, revenue isn't profit, profit goes to share holders (that's you and me) it also helps them pay a fair wage to workers and taxes to the govt.  

You don't care because it ruins the story you are trying to sell. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...