Featured Toyota Says It Isn't Anti-EV; Suggests It'll Build More EVs If Demand Exists

The graph also has a map option which shows the areas of relatively high or low vaccination rates. Just I don't care for the units. I would like to know the percent unvaccinated as there are single and double dose vaccines.

There is a valid issue of COVID variants versus percent covered. Regardless, the monoclonal antibodies are a good thing for initial treatment if the patient did not get the vaccine.

Bob Wilson

 

Looks like the federal tax credit extension/ alteration is still in play even though it’s not mentioned here

Electric vehicle infrastructure gets $15 billion in new US bipartisan proposal, new EV rebate to come later - Electrek

if passed it could increase the RAV4 rebate somewhat

 

Great ..... and so now - instead of just jacking prices up $5K-$10k over MSRP as is currently the case - dealerships can jack sales prices up even higher.

.

 

Since it’s retroactive through may this year if you buy a $20,000 brand new Chevy Bolt you could then claim the $12,500 tax rebate (independent of your income) and end up with a $7500 brand new car

 

why make EV's so much about CO2 - when all that does is piss of the transportation purchasers that follow (the ½ or more) scientists that teach man-made global warming is BS. There's plenty of valid reasons to prefer ev over hybrids- like higher efficiency, more torque, making your own fuel at home, cleaner, simpler etc.

 

i want a toyota bev, does that change their perception of demand?

 

Source please!!!

 

Yes, I'd also like to see a source for that BS about "(the ½ or more) scientists ... teach man-made global warming is BS."

 

Perhaps he meant 1/2%?

 

If you're selling a widget that's outdated and no longer what people want in a widget and everyone is on a waiting list for the new widget that makes it so you never have to buy gasoline ever again and you can't make as much of a profit off of building that kind of widget, then as a matter of necessity you come up with all kinds of dishonest claims about why your outdated widget is actually the better widget even though it's not.

That's when you apply twisted logic like: just because there's endless numbers of people on a waiting list for electric cars doesn't means there's high demand becuase they're still waiting and haven't had their demand fulfilled therefore that's not considered legitimate demand, that's just waiting. Lol... You asked for it, You got it: Toyota!

 

He should be able to clear that bar fairly easily, getting up into the low single digit %s.

 

0.1% according to this article.
‘Case closed’: 99.9% of scientists agree climate emergency caused by humans | Climate crisis | The Guardian
‘Case closed’: 99.9% of scientists agree climate emergency caused by humans
The scientific consensus that humans are altering the climate has passed 99.9%, according to research that strengthens the case for global action at the Cop26 summit in Glasgow.

And even conservatively speaking, 3% according to this older article.
Do scientists agree on climate change? – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet
Do scientists agree on climate change?
Yes, the vast majority of actively publishing climate scientists – 97 percent – agree that humans are causing global warming and climate change.

But general public belief is off.
Scientists Agree on Man-Made Climate Change More Than People Think - Bloomberg
Europeans Badly Underestimate Scientists’ Agreement on Climate Change
On average, people estimated that the proportion of scientists who agree that man-made climate change is happening is 68% when in reality, the figure is nearly 100%.

 

When the science advances, lots of people prefer to remain dumb, stupid and wrong... For example the RX industry has the whole country strung out on psych meds as a permanent solution for mental health and even though the science has advanced far beyond the dishonest statement that "you just have a chemical imbalance in your head" most people prefer to keep that falsity alive because it's easier to understand than a far more complex analysis of mental health. And profits for RX industry dishonesty keep rolling in.

I also run into this constantly in my forest protection work where forestry science from the 1970's that has been proven wrong is still driving policy, academia and funding decisions because we've been unable to take out the trash and sawmills need to keep alive the lie so they can keep destroying the planet and profits from timber industry dishonesty keep rolling in.

Point being, the objectives of capitalism are more easily achieved through dishonesty rather than honesty and we may well set the whole planet on fire learning that we can no longer live under this type of tyranny.

 

I don't believe one can get 99.9% of scientists to agree on much of anything. 97% yes, 99% sometimes, but not 99.9%.

That looks like headline writer error, a fairly common problem. Or hyperbole, a common tabloid issue. A careful reading of the actual article finds that it doesn't claim "99.9% of scientists", but rather of a set of published studies. Published studies, with or without publication bias, isn't the same as "scientists".

I find that one much more realistic, and can agree it may be outdated and behind. But 3% or even 1% is still a very long way from 0.1%.

That last link is back to the very same faulty Guardian headline above.

 

Well, 97% or 99% or 99.9%, they are all much closer to the 100% than 50% someone claims. But to be honest, I don't think it really makes much difference. I don't really care. Even if 100% of scientists agree, that's still not going to be enough to change the general public behavior or the policy maker's already biased minds. But I digress.

 

why - so folks can belittle sources?
97% Scientists Do Not Agree with Climate Change or the Solution | Armstrong Economics it's like convincing mormans that Protestants are deceived. call the opposition the enemy - that's fine. But the enemy of your enemy ought to be your friend.

 

... because this source is directly asking to be belittled:



Straight from "COMMUNISM!" scaremongering to extremely bad math. Representing 75/10,000 as 0.0075%, in error by two decimal places, shows terrible arithmetic unworthy of a so-called 'economics' website, or deliberate misrepresentation that calls the rest of their page into question.

 

There's nothing in the body of that article that supports it's title claim. Any other so called "sources?"

 

"...90% said yes to the first question but 82% said yes to the second question."

Was this a typo?

 

so 90% of the scientists who responded to the poll agreed that the earth is warming, and 82% agreed it is caused by man.
so i don't understand the purpose of the post, just to say it isn't 97%?