Why Can’t the U.S. Build 5-Minute E.V. Chargers?

So get even, steal it.  LOL

It's the stupidity that amazes me. This is America shooting itself in the foot. WHY??? 

Sure, Big Oil will profit immensely. And sure... Big Oil gave a crapton of money to Trump's campaign... but it's unthinkable that an American President would allow himself to be bought, right?

Unthinkable. 

When I was younger, was I oblivious to flooding, drought, wildfires, extreme heat, i.e. those things we're experiencing these days?  I don't think they were so common back then, but they sure as hell are these days.  Doesn't that mean something other than environmental scientists because the people generally are so fucking stupid they don't give a shit, and even if they DID give a shit what the hell are they doing about it - voting for and supporting an idiot who doesn't give a shit about it? 

All of the above. 

It's not all that easy and simple, lots of issues to solved. And at this point, the demand is probably not there.

To be realistic and pragmatic, most people are not concerned about climate change or are convinced that it is an imminent threat. A few more EV's on the road won't much difference That's the global view on the matter.

BYD’s 5-Minute EV Charging: Why Doesn’t America Have It Yet?

... most people are not concerned about climate change or are convinced that it is an imminent threat

So, because of flawed beliefs that counter the scientific findings of those who study the climate as a profession, the climate change problem is not a problem?   If 'we' believe it is not a problem, then the laws of physics will accommodate 'us'?

This battery charging technology is a game changer.   It puts us another step closer to reducing our carbon footprint and also improving air quality.   EVs offer plenty of positives but partisan beliefs are irrationally fighting them.

I'm not fighting them. We know that some climate scientists are fudging the facts and figures. It's happening too slowly and not affecting people's immediate lives, so it is of no concern to the majority of global citizens. It's better to adapt to any possible future effects than seeking simple solutions, because there are none. 

Sabine has some interesting views on the subject.   I Was Worried about Climate Change. Now I worry about Climate Scientists.

We know that some climate scientists are fudging the facts and figures.

How do you know this? Because MAGA says so? That's not the most reliable source...

How about the US House of Representatives? Can you accept this?

WASHINGTON – U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Science, Space, and Technology members today responded to reports about the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) 2015 climate change study (“the Karl study”). According to Dr. John Bates, the recently retired principal scientist at NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center, the Karl study was used “to discredit the notion of a global warming hiatus and rush to time the publication of the paper to influence national and international deliberations on climate policy.”

Chairman Lamar Smith (R-Texas):   “I thank Dr. John Bates for courageously stepping forward to tell the truth about NOAA’s senior officials playing fast and loose with the data in order to meet a politically predetermined conclusion.  In the summer of 2015, whistleblowers alerted the Committee that the Karl study was rushed to publication before underlying data issues were resolved to help influence public debate about the so-called Clean Power Plan and upcoming Paris climate conference.  Since then, the Committee has attempted to obtain information that would shed further light on these allegations, but was obstructed at every turn by the previous administration’s officials.  I repeatedly asked, ‘What does NOAA have to hide?’

“Now that Dr. Bates has confirmed that there were heated disagreements within NOAA about the quality and transparency of the data before publication, we know why NOAA fought transparency and oversight at every turn.  Dr. Bates’ revelations and NOAA’s obstruction certainly lend credence to what I’ve expected all along – that the Karl study used flawed data, was rushed to publication in an effort to support the president’s climate change agenda, and ignored NOAA’s own standards for scientific study.  The Committee thanks Dr. Bates, a Department of Commerce Gold Medal winner for creating and implementing a standard to produce and preserve climate data, for exposing the previous administration’s efforts to push their costly climate agenda at the expense of scientific integrity.”

Oversight Subcommittee Chairman Darin LaHood (R-Ill.):   “I applaud Dr. Bates’s efforts in uncovering the truth of this data manipulation, and I commend Chairman Smith and the Science Committee for conducting rigorous oversight on behalf of the American people.  Transparent and faithful execution of the scientific process, especially where taxpayer dollars are involved, is crucial to ensure that our policies are based on sound science and not on politically predetermined outcomes.”

Environment Subcommittee Chairman Andy Biggs (R-Ariz.): “ I commend Dr. Bates for bringing to light the corrupt practices used by his former colleagues and hope this serves as a deterrence to anyone thinking of manipulating science to serve their own political agenda.  I applaud Chairman Smith and the Science Committee's efforts to provide the necessary oversight to ensure the American people have the best information possible.”

 

Background

In the summer of 2015, NOAA scientists published the Karl study, which retroactively altered historical climate change data and resulted in the elimination of a well-known climate phenomenon known as the “climate change hiatus.”  The hiatus was a period between 1998 and 2013 during which the rate of global temperature growth slowed.  This fact has always been a thorn in the side of climate change alarmists, as it became difficult to disprove the slowdown in warming. 

The Karl study refuted the hiatus and rewrote climate change history to claim that warming had in fact been occurring.  The committee heard from scientists who raised concerns about the study’s methodologies, readiness, and politicization.  In response, the committee conducted oversight and sent NOAA inquiries to investigate the circumstances surrounding the Karl study.  

Over the course of the committee’s oversight, NOAA refused to comply with the inquiries, baselessly arguing that Congress is not authorized to request communications from federal scientists.  This culminated in the issuance of a congressional subpoena, with which NOAA also failed to comply.  During the course of the investigation, the committee heard from whistleblowers who confirmed that, among other flaws in the study, it was rushed for publication to support President Obama’s climate change agenda.

Former NOAA Scientist Confirms Colleagues Manipulated Climate Records - Press Releases - House Committee on Science Space & Tech - Republicans

During my 88 years I have seen with my own eyes the climate change, and no politically-corrupt propaganda is going to change my mind about what I have personally experienced actually happening.  Because of my old age I may not personally suffer much, but I sure as hell wish that my grandchildren won't have to.  I just wonder how extreme the disasters have to be before people wake up from the political expediency.

Has the climate changed over the past 50 or 100 years? Yes, absolutely it has. 

The problem I was replying to is that we know that there are some climate scientists who have modified their data. It's human nature to provide what one thinks the people in power want to hear in order to continue to get that government money. Like so many other areas, there is way too much money involved in climate science for it to be 100% honest. Add to that, it's also about power. Politicians will use the agenda of climate change to gain power over the citizens as well.  Anybody who doubts that is true is just lying to themselves.

Yes, selfish personal gain may well be involved in what we are being told. 

We know that some climate scientists are fudging the facts and figures.

Well of course 'some' climate scientists are dishonest.   Scientists are people too and there are scientists who are criminals, liars, etc.   There are even scientists who believe that the Earth was created in 7 days and that Genesis depicts reality.

The fact that 'some' scientists are dishonest has no meaning.   What matters is the science itself and the consensus of worldwide climate scientists who study the climate as a profession.   Their collective interpretation of the data matters.   

This " IPCC Seventh Assessment Report " and other similar reports from highly credible scientific organizations such as the NOAA is what matters.

The chairman of the committee once declared that Obama should be impeached. That's enough to make me doubt any publication he approved.

Brian Babin (that's the chairman) is doing what Republicans Fascists are doing throughout government, at all levels: lying in official documents. Dr Goebbels would be proud.

The fact that 'some' scientists are dishonest has no meaning.   What matters is the science itself and the consensus of worldwide climate scientists who study the climate as a profession.   Their collective interpretation of the data matters.

The problem I was replying to is that we know that there are some climate scientists who have modified their data. 

Why do you presume that the vast majority of climate scientists are fudging their data rather than presume that it is but a tiny minority of same who are dishonest?

The vast majority (supermajority) insideclimatenews   pewresearch ( footnotes ) of worldwide climate scientists agree that we must reduce our carbon (and other) emissions because we are experiencing and will continue to experience in a greater degree global warming and the effects thereof.

ipcc.ch

Urgency of Near-Term Integrated Climate Action

C.1 Climate change is a threat to human well-being and planetary health (very high confidence).
There is a rapidly closing window of opportunity to secure a liveable and sustainable future for
all (very high confidence). Climate resilient development integrates adaptation and mitigation
to advance sustainable development for all, and is enabled by increased international
cooperation including improved access to adequate financial resources, particularly for
vulnerable regions, sectors and groups, and inclusive governance and coordinated policies
(high confidence). The choices and actions implemented in this decade will have impacts now
and for thousands of years (high confidence). { 3.1 , 3.3, 4.1 , 4.2, 4.3, 4.4, 4.7, 4.8, 4.9, Figure 3.1 ,
Figure 3.3, Figure 4.2} (Figure SPM.1, Figure SPM.6)

C.1.1 Evidence of observed adverse impacts and related losses and damages, projected risks, levels and trends in vulnerability
and adaptation limits, demonstrate that worldwide climate resilient development action is more urgent than previously
assessed in AR5. Climate resilient development integrates adaptation and GHG mitigation to advance sustainable
development for all. Climate resilient development pathways have been constrained by past development, emissions
and climate change and are progressively constrained by every increment of warming, in particular beyond 1.5°C.
(very high confidence) {3.4, 3.4.2, 4.1 }

C.1.2 Government actions at sub-national, national and international levels, with civil society and the private sector, play a
crucial role in enabling and accelerating shifts in development pathways towards sustainability and climate resilient
development (very high confidence). Climate resilient development is enabled when governments, civil society and
the private sector make inclusive development choices that prioritize risk reduction, equity and justice, and when
decision-making processes, finance and actions are integrated across governance levels, sectors, and timeframes (very
high confidence). Enabling conditions are differentiated by national, regional and local circumstances and geographies,
according to capabilities, and include: political commitment and follow-through, coordinated policies, social and
international cooperation, ecosystem stewardship, inclusive governance, knowledge diversity, technological innovation,
monitoring and evaluation, and improved access to adequate financial resources, especially for vulnerable regions,
sectors and communities (high confidence). {3.4, 4.2, 4.4, 4.5, 4.7, 4.8} (Figure SPM.6)

C.1.3 Continued emissions will further affect all major climate system components, and many changes will be irreversible on
centennial to millennial time scales and become larger with increasing global warming. Without urgent, effective, and
equitable mitigation and adaptation actions, climate change increasingly threatens ecosystems, biodiversity, and the
livelihoods, health and well-being of current and future generations. (high confidence) {3.1.3, 3.3.3, 3.4.1, Figure 3.4,
4.1 , 4.2, 4.3, 4.4} (Figure SPM.1, Figure SPM.6)

The fact that 'some' scientists are dishonest has no meaning.   What matters is the science itself and the consensus of worldwide climate scientists who study the climate as a profession.   Their collective interpretation of the data matters.   

Actually what matters is how politicians use the interpretation to their benefit. As I said above, part of the problem is that the climate change agenda is about power and control. And the money, there's a lot of money to be made around climate change. 

Brian Babin (that's the chairman) is doing what Republicans Fascists are doing throughout government, at all levels: lying in official documents. Dr Goebbels would be proud.

Gee, how do you feel about Adam Schiff? He's lied for years, stating he's seen all sorts of evidence yet never produces any facts. Does that mean you doubt anything he does as well? I would assume not as nobody is 100% wrong all the time. 

The problem I was replying to is that we know that there are some climate scientists who have modified their data. 

Why do you presume that the vast majority of climate scientists are fudging their data rather than presume that it is but a tiny minority of same who are dishonest?

Why not be honest with your reply rather than twist what I said. I clearly said that 'there are SOME who have modified their data", and you twist it to "why do I presume that the VAST MAJORITY are fudging their data". 

Whataboutism!

The subject is Brian Babin. 

Funny, I thought the subject was 'Why can't the U.S. build 5-minute EV Chargers". 

But you had declined to accept anything presented in the link from 5.1.1 so I gave you a link to a report from the U.S. House of Representatives. You're the one who brought in the name of Brian Babin. You haven't shown any refuting of anything presented from either link, you just deny them because of partisan views. Sad.

To me what matters is the state of the environment that we leave for extant younger and future generations.

I clearly said that 'there are SOME who have modified their data", and you twist it to "why do I presume that the VAST MAJORITY are fudging their data".

On one hand, we have liberals who tend to wholeheartedly believe there is anthropogenic warming and that humans globally need to address that fact and work towards reducing this effect so that the wildly unpredictable climate disasters we've been seeing already are possibly reduced and hopefully, our great-grandchildren won't have to try and survive in some sort of Waterworld.

On the other hand, we have conservatives who believe some cabal of liberal funded scientists are altering the data to make it seem like humans are having an effect on climate so that they can scam the gullible sheep out of their money which they claim is going into climate research and alternative energy sources.

I put it to you, just as you say "SOME" modified their data, couldn't both sides be partly, or even mostly right here? Couldn't there be many climate scientists doing good work and finding truly alarming data on humans' effect on the climate while there are also unscrupulous ones who are trying to take advantage and even falsifying data to make profits?

Personally, I believe, for the most part, even those NOAA scientists who published the Karl study thought they were doing the right thing by basically cutting out what they likely were interpreting as an anomaly in the data and not a trend that would change the conclusions they had made based on the last near century of data. But I'll accept that there are likely many profiteers on both sides who want people to see the data presented in whichever way makes them the most profit. And while that's of course good business sense, it almost certainly is going to hurt us, as a species, in the long run. The sooner we can agree on a middle ground on climate the better it will be for all of us including our great grandchildren, even if it is just learning to adapt to a rapidly changing environment.

Because you brought up the point that there are dishonest scientists.   Why bring this up if you are not trying to argue that we cannot trust the findings of climate scientists?

I was not being dishonest, I was following your implied logic.

So clear this up.   Do you think that the super majority of climate scientists are presenting us with false claims and false data or do you indeed recognize that they are providing us with the best understanding of our climate available today?

And yeah we do not need you to repeat that some are dishonest ... forget the dishonest ones.

You are twisting the comments to try to make some point as if this is all a game. All I said was that we know some climate scientists are presenting false data, and tied it into some politicians using that for power and control. Simple fucking logic, if some are presenting false data than the fucking majority are presenting good data. 

You're trying to make points and play games. Back on fucking ignore you go.

Look, Snuffy, I explained to you exactly how (and why) I interpreted your comment.   I think my interpretation was entirely reasonable.

However, since you objected, I asked you to clear things up.   So now you note that the majority are presenting good data.   Good.   So what is the point of stating that some are not?   It is like claiming that some people cheat on their taxes.   Yeah, obviously.   What is the point of making such an obvious statement?

Instead of simply clearing things up you blow up.

And your stupid 'ignore' claim is irrelevant.   I reply to posts, not people.   When a post is made that I wish to comment on, I will do so.   If you do not read it, that is perfectly fine with me.   That way I do not get irrational, emotional responses from you when I was being entirely fair to you.

Bottom line, you believe that the consensus views (that means the super majority) of worldwide climate scientists is the most accurate, honest information we have at the moment.   I agree.