Wash Post: ‘How Elon Musk backed away from his climate crusade’ – ‘Once one of America’s outspoken voices on the threat of climate change, Musk now argues these existential risks have been overstated’
Wash Post: ‘How Elon Musk backed away from his climate crusade’ – ‘Once one of America’s outspoken voices on the threat of climate change, Musk now argues these existential risks have been overstated’
Musk’s politics hadn’t seeped into Tesla. Then he axed its …
The Washington Post: The Tesla CEO was once an outspoken voice on climate change. But Musk now argues many risks are overstated. …
Excerpt: Once one of the most vocal American executives on the dangers of climate change, Musk called for a ‘popular uprising’ against the fossil fuel industry in a 2016 film. At Tesla, every internal power point presentation had to include figures from former vice president Al Gore’s documentary ‘An Inconvenient Truth’ citing rising carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, a reminder of the company’s mission. But the paragraph about global warming is no longer required in Tesla’s power point decks and climate change has plummeted on Musk’s list of priorities: In an August live stream on X, he told Trump ‘we don’t need to rush’ to solve the climate crisis.”
After examining climate data extending back nearly 100 years, a team of
Government scientists has concluded that there has been no significant
change in average temperatures or rainfall in the United States over that
entire period.
While the nation’s weather in individual years or even for periods of years
has been hotter or cooler and drier or wetter than in other periods, the new
study shows that over the last century there has been no trend in one
direction or another.
The study, made by scientists for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration was published in the current issue of Geophysical Research
Letters. It is based on temperature and precipitation readings taken at
weather stations around the country from 1895 to 1987.”
Yeah, temperatures have been rising since 1989, but they are no warmer than they were in the recent past.
Your NOAA chart is a BIG LIE, created to be useful to people like you who want to distort climate reality.
The written, historical weather records from around the world show it was just as warm in the recent past as it is today and the temperature rise we are experiencing is not unprecedented, as you and all Climate Alarmists imply.
The NOAA chart is Climate Change Propaganda.
If you didn’t have these bogus charts, you wouldn’t have anything to argue about. Take away your bogus chart and we won’t hear anything out of you or the rest of the Climate Alarmists.
The written, historical temperature records from around the world demonstrate that your bogus chart is a BIG LIE.
Phil Jones and the other original Temperature Data Mannipulators had this all planned out: Let’s make it appear that the past was cooler than today and that temperatures have been steadily rising since the end of the Little Ice Age and we can blame this rise on CO2 since CO2 has also been rising during this time period.
Phil doesn’t tell us that the temperatures have actually been rising and falling during this time period on a cyclical basis and all the high points since the Little Ice Age belong on the same horizontal line on the temperature graph since they are all equally warm.
And that’s what Phil wanted to hide, otherwise they could not make CO2 out to be the Bad Guy without a continuous rising of the temperatures so they created a continuous rise of temperatures in their computers, and erased the real temperature profile of the written temperature records, as a means of selling their Human-caused Climate Change Propaganda, and you and other Climate Alarmists are the beneficiary of this BIG LIE. You roll this BIG LIE out in every argument.
But the written, historical temperature records prove the bogus Hockey Stick temperature profile is a BIG LIE and does not exist in the Real World.
We are in a warming trend of a cyclical climate so anyone who has paid attention to the past cyclical movements could predict that this would be a period of warming. The problem with Climate Alarmists is they want us to believe this warming will continue as long as we add CO2 to the atmosphere. What they don’t tell you is similar warming occurred in the past with much less CO2 in the air at the time.
I’m just waiting for the cyclical cooling to kick in. Then we’ll see what the Climate Alarmists have to say. Their bogus Hockey Sticks won’t help them then.
Skeptical views on here need to be more balanced. I know some of you believe, I’m a supporter of mainstream CC science, masquerading as a neutral. I can assure you I am neutral, if anything slightly biased towards skepticism! I am however also a supporter of science, and as things stand, with the only real record keeping that there is available (both surface and satellite based), there’s an obvious trend. There may well be other explanations outside of mainstream CC science for this. But by being so petulant, many of you constantly shouting fraud, you do yourselves no favours. At least admit there has been a warming trend. There are too many other indicators out there to deny a warming trend. Net loss of summer sea ice, net loss of global glacier volume, subtle climate shifts. Yes, of course this might all be cyclical…. but then again it might not! Nobody will take skepticism seriously, if you won’t even accept the best evidence that is currently available.
Some of you are like really partisan football supporters who watch several matches in which your side loses but you keep on insisting that: the opposition cheated; the referee was biased; your team played the better football etc. Similarly, alternative science to the mainstream on CC has yet to score enough goals to be taken seriously. Only when that happens, will the world of politics sit up and listen.
Now, it may well be that the current status quo is about to change. But there has been a huge amount of finance and political investment ploughed into “owning the science” of climate change. Yes, it may well be that the peer review process needs to be seismically shaken – in other words, the referee replaced. But that won’t happen by just shouting foul play constantly. The onus is on the skeptical camp to produce enough evidence to shift the balance – not the other way around. Some of you just need to grow up and start behaving in a way that true science demands.
Your opinion of science is unfortunately that which is commonly promoted by politicians and the main stream media. Science is a process. It is not an invariant position to be used as a gotcha in arguments.
Further, skepticism is fundamental to the scientific process.
Some of us studied the low level science and determined that CO2 causes no warming. A combination of radiation physics, atmospheric physics and boundary layer physics tells a different story.
The warming over the past 30 years was the result of natural cycles/events. First, the AMO phase change in the mid 1990s and then two distinct decreases in clouds which happened at the same time as chlorine spewing volcanic eruptions. Bardarbunga in 2014 and Hunga-Tonga in 2022.
In all 3 of these situations cloud reductions were the mechanism that produced warming. Meanwhile, NOAA radiosonde data going back to 1948 shows no increase in atmospheric opacity (see Miskolczi 2023).
Climate science only says there is a greenhouse effect and manmade CO2 emissions make that effect stronger. The WUWT Peanut Gallery here will not even admit that 128 year old consensus of at least 99.9% of scientists.
It is the Climate Howlers who must produce evidence that manmade CO2 emissions will amplify any natural warming trend enough to be dangerous. After a 49 year trend of CO2 emissions amplifying global warming, there is zero evidence of any crisis or emergency.
There is evidence of warmer winters in colder states and nations, a longer growing season and greening of our planet. The Climate Howlers never claimed the first 49 years of global warming would be so pleasant. They have been predicting global warming doom for the past 49 years.
The climate crisis is just a prediction that has been wrong for 49 years in a row. Those who predict a climate crisis must supply the evidence of a climate crisis. Skeptics have very good reasons to be skeptical of continued predictions of global warming doom.
Oh dear…. poor RG, still worshiping a totally FAKE consensus as his only science..
Hilarious.
You have proven over and and over again that there is no empirical scientific evidence of warming by atmospheric CO2, and no evidence of CO2 warming in the UAH atmospheric data.
Post says”At least admit there has been a warming trend.”
This is not the issue. There has been warming since about 1975, but there has been cooling of greater magnitude since 6000 BC. So pick your time frame carefully.
The real issue, which you ignore, is blaming the warming on CO2. And the “onus”, as you say, isn’t on the skeptical camp it is on the folks who blame CO2.
What is “alternative science” as opposed to just science?
Yes, there has been a gradual temperature rising.
No, GAT is bogus. No CO2 is not the control knob.
Lots of faux scientology is stated as fact.
Media runs with sensationalized headlines since it gains ad click revenues. The fallacies and faults are too numerous to list.
But the pragmatics and skeptics need to raise the bar as you are saying.
So, add to your presentation also, that the climate pragmatics and skeptics must absolute stop using alarmist terminology as that only give them credit at our expense.
Many thanks, you said it much more succinctly than me👍😎.
Yes, raise the bar – exactly right. There’s just far too much petulant squealing fraud and foul play. Some here would literally argue black is white, rather than concede any ground.
The advocates of a particular claim are the ones who have to prove what they claim.
In the case of climate science, skeptics are mainly focused on telling Climate Alarmists that they have failed to prove their case for CO2 being the control knob of the Earth’s temperatures.
No evidence has ever been produced showing any effects of CO2 on the Earth’s atmosphere. I don’t have to prove that statement. It is up to Climate Alarmists to refute my statement if they can. To date, they never have refuted that statement.
Now’s your chance, Climate Alarmists! Refute my statement. if you have some evidence. I won’t hold my breath waiting for an answer because they don’t have the answer and you won’t see it here. They wish they had the answer..
Here’s the closet AGW cultist again, with yet another load of empty blather.
I can assure you that your blather marks you as a dyed-in-the-wool brain-washed AGW believer.
You are fooling no-one but yourself.
The fact that you don’t know that US past data has been highly adjusted to get rid of the 1930-40s peak, shows your ignorance of reality. Here’s just one example of many !!
Yes, and you see temperature profiles like that all over the world where it shows it was just as warm in the Early Twentieth Century as it is today.
In fact. all the written, historical temperature records show this same temperature profile where it is just as warm in the past as it is today, all over the world, where measurements were taken.
I wonder if Neutral has even seen these types of charts? What is reality, Neutral, written temperature charts that do not show a “hotter and hotter and hotter and hotter” warming trend, or the bogus, bastardized Hockey Stick chart that shows temperatures getting hotter and hotter and hotter and show today as being the hottest period in human history?
The bogus Hockey Stick chart is a construct created in a computer by unscrupulous people as a means of promoting the Human-caused Climate Change narrative.
There is no “hotter and hotter” Hockey Stick profile in the written, historical temperature record. Somebody is lying to you, and the rest of humanity.
Who are you going to believe, written, historic temperature records where the recorders had no climate change agenda, or a completely different looking, scary temperature profile created in a computer that just happens to promote a climate change ideology?
Me? I’m going to believe the written, historic records. Especially since we know the Temperature Data Mannipulators conspired to change the temperature record by reducing the “warm blips” that were in the written record.
And I don’t think this has been discussed very much but when Phil Jones was talking about bastardizing the temperature record, he was complaining that he had to do something about the land temperature “warm blip” and he also mentioned a sea-surface “warm blip”.
So Phil Jones had too much warmth in both the land temperatures and the sea surface temperatures and he had to cool them off in order that it would appear that today is the hottest times in human history caused by human-caused CO2. It’s the BIG LIE of Alarmist Climate Science.
The written temperature record puts the lie to the bogus, bastardized Hockey Stick temperature chart and all it implies.
Maybe temperature have risen slightly. Maybe not. Whatever, the difference is small and the causes (if any) are not clear. definitely no need to be alarmed let alone panic.
I said there was a CYCLICAL warming trend we are experiencing now.
I also said there were cyclical warming trends in the recent past that are equal to this warming trend.
The past warming trends occurred when there was much less CO2 in the air, yet the high temperatures reached then are the same as today.
So something other than CO2 accounts for the previous warmings. If something else accounts for previous warmings, then why should we assume CO2 is significant in the current warming?
The current warming is equal to past warmings, so more CO2 in the air appears to have had little to no effect.
“historical weather records from around the world show it was just as warm in the recent past as it is today”
The best available data and proxies say 2023 and 2024 were the warmest years in the past 5000 years. There are no averages of proxies to refute that claim except for during the peak temperatures of the Holocene Climate Optimum, about 8000 years ago.
Can you explain why the written temperature record does not have a Hockey Stick profile?
Can you explain why the written temperature record shows it was just as warm in the recent past as it is today.
Why would you believe a computer-generated construct over the actual written temperature records?
The written temperature record was created without those involved having a climate change agenda, they just wrote down the temperatures. That can’t be said for the creators of the Hockey Stick chart, who all had a human-caused climate change bias.
Think “Cyclical Warming”. You will be much closer to the truth.
Actually, temperatures have been rising gradually since the ending of the Little Ice Age.
Much of the warming seen in surface station data is due to monitoring stations falling out of siting specifications due to land use changes which have affected over 90% of the US surface station network.”
The best data comes from the satellite measurement which show modest warming for the past four decades. Only satellites are able to gather global temperature data as surface stations are absent for vast regions of the globe.
The instrument readings were the DATA. What is being passed off as “data” now IS NOT “data” at all. Guesswork, assumptions and bullshit, yes. Data, no.
Net Zero mandates, tax credits and subsidies have the potential to be a climate related crisis if Net Zero is not stopped by state and federal governments
The actual key, if you had enough critical thinking ability to see it, is that Musk no longer needs to embrace the Climate Cult of Doom in order to generate a market for his electric buggies. That market is already established.
Mr. Wanderer: I am also aware of some people who will say whatever to support the Climate Cult. And when Musk was one of those people (take Mr. Stokes opening and change to “Musk’s original stance, when he agreed with Mr. Stokes, then change “influence Trump” to “influence Obama” or “influence Bush”), did Mr. Stokes complain about Elon back then? Well, let’s say I’m not searching the archives for Mr. Stokes comment on Mr. Musk back then.
He’s not one to outright lie. He’s not been great with timings but he’s always delivered. He works from first principles and if he’s come to the conclusion AGW risks are overstated then that’s what he thinks.
So, Musk’s previous embracement of the CAGW Narrative was not an outright lie? Or, when he promises to deliver man on Mars he is so stupid and delusional to really believe it?
Musk is a genius of unscrupulous PR. He will pick up the side of truth or half-truth when it suits him, but his success does not make him morally right.
So, Musk’s previous embracement of the CAGW Narrative was not an outright lie?
I doubt it. The climate crisis is very easy to be swept up by and it takes a huge amount of learning and knowledge to truly understand that it’s hyped so I don’t blame him for not being able to apply his first principles thinking until he’d had a proper chance to understand the myriad aspects of climate.
Musk BS in October 2022:
Elon Musk predicted that Tesla would produce 50,000 Tesla Semi trucks in 2024
Actual production to date: 100 to 200
More Elon Musk BS: He first proposed a $25,000 electric vehicle (EV) in September 2020 at a “Battery Day” event.
More BS
More Elon Musk BS> His prediction for Tesla’s Cybertruck sales in 2025 is 250,000 units per year. As of October 2024, industry experts estimate that at least 27,185 Tesla Cybertrucks have been sold:
Musk is a BS artist with predictions
Just like Trump
But unlike Trump, Musk does not lie about his actual accomplishments.
And that is bad for himself, his investors, and his employees? What a concept, private individuals serving their private interests, while also taking care of important public interests.
We (all Democrats and climate crisis mongers, anyway) all know that it is vastly better that the government determine what is best for private individuals, and to decide who’s getting it and who’s not getting it. Right?
Musk knew that pretending there was a climate crisis would help his EV business, so that is what he did.
Now that the worm is turning across the Western world and people are questioning the propaganda they have been fed and are turning in ever greater numbers to political parties that are far more sceptical of the information they have been fed, he now thinks it is the right time to drop his pretense so that he can, down the line, be seen to have been on the side of the people he relies on to buy his products. Simples!
Nick, what are you saying? Businessmen aren’t allowed to change their minds as new data becomes available? Does that also hold for scientists? Get serious, in what world are you living? For both civilization and science to advance the Scientific Method must hold. Belief systems only apply in your approach to life and how you treat your neighbor.
Politics is all about money, particularly where it is invested. Those who control where money is invested profit the most from the knowledge and control.
Money and politics are power. Money is an equivalent of human labor, but just having money in the bank is not enough for individuals with insatiable appetite for power. Those, who control decisions where human labor will be applied, have real power. It is absolutely logical Musk is concerned with politics.
You can’t discuss reality with someone who believes that model results create reality, and if empirical observations (data) contradict model results the observations (data) are wrong.
Learned a long time ago never to engage in a battle of wits with the unarmed – they never know when they have lost.
Learned a long time to not feed the trolls. Never address a troll. Talk about the troll, ridicule, whatever with anyone else, just not the troll. When they get no attention, they are defeated.
You quote a sentence written by a WaPo “journalist” as though it has some meaning. Please share some of your insights into how backing down from being a climate activist can help an EV manufacturer.
Well, the winds are shifting. The climate crisis scam was a marketing ploy for electric vehicles and government intervention to begin with. Since Tesla may be the only EV product that can even hope to stand on its own without government coercion it makes sense to abandon the old hype and join the side of practical reality.
Yes, because anyone who denies climate is a stooge for murky corporate interests and anyone who recognizes the climate threat is a saint and a hero without one shred of ego, greed, or hunger for power.
An inclination to believe that people are motivated purely by self-interest is called cynicism. But being often guilty of this myself, I would not rush to accuse Nick, particularly because he may be correct this time.
There is no climate crisis. That exists only in the fevered minds of climate alarmists.
Unfortunately, many climate alarmists are in high government positions where they can do great damage when they are governed by their distorted understanding about CO2.
Human beings, even very smart human beings, are easily misled. That’s just a fact. Propaganda works. Not on everyone, but on too many.
A crisis- or emergency- is when one of the engines on the jet you’re flying in is on fire. That doesn’t compare to the supposed 1.5 deg C rise in temperature.
Actually, there is a climate crisis. The crisis is the determined destruction of the power of individuals to live life as we see fit, and to destroy the capitalist economy that delivers a higher standard of living to more people than any other system of economic organization.
This is because decision makers at the top of the social pyramid have zero sum mentality. They are already at the top, they have no desire and no destination to climb further. They are not concerned with improvements of living conditions of the world population and are opposed to upward mobility, be it individual or state. They are trying to preserve status quo with them at the top. They do not need healthy capitalism for this, a crony corrupted one will suffice. So, to keep hoi polloi in control they fabricate one crisis after another. And a perennial one, like the climate crisis is just perfect.
Yes, our old mates Sky News, quoting their host as authority: “Sky News host Chris Kenny says Climate and Energy Minister Chris Bowen is looking to allow state governments to “force” coal-fired generators to stay in the market “if they need to”. “News today the green-as-they-get, green as Kermit the Frog, Chris Bowen, the climate and energy minister, he is looking at rules and regulations that will allow state governments to force coal-fired generators to stay in the market,” Mr Kenny said.”
Maintaining or refurbishing existing ones is not a fundamental problem. The problem is the regulations that make their continued operation not profitable. At the same time they are required to stay online while sustaining losses.
He’s had no crusade at all. For that matter, he’s just a con man. I don’t understand for my life why this amorphous moe-foe is celebrated as a genius and a messiah. And now he’ll get a free hand and probably a lot of government money. This latter is, incidentally, his most important source of income so far.
His ability to secure funding (primarily from NASA) brought it to fruition more than any other contribution. Musk has had successes (and failures) as a businessperson, but he isn’t some kind of messianic figure.
When have I said this? EV is a scam. But before you get a hard on, the fact that EV is a scam doesn’t mean science is a scam. EV and most (but not all) of green is just parasitism. Ironically, the anti-scientific scamming from fossils industry actually suppressed the work in the real solutions.
Solutions to what – the non-problem that you can’t find data for it actually being a problem. But, it is what it is – you can’t find any, because there isn’t any.
Right, so claiming, for instance, that Obama, “killed Bin Laden when no one else could,” probably wouldn’t be an accurate thing to say. In fact it would rather demean the efforts of all the hundreds of people directly involved in the effort.
It is not true that other people could not do it. What one man can do, another can. It has all been calculated long ago. The story is different. Returning the first stage is not that much economically justified, but Musk figured how to make it appear to be so. He uses profits from military launches to subsidize commercial part of his business. He says they are cheap because of the returned stages, while the are actually cheap because they are indirectly subsidized by the Government. Similarly, Tesla is barely operationally profitable with all of the subsidies and is deeply in red from all of the investments. Yes, he is a genius of converting taxpayers money in his image of genius.
“It is not true that other people could not do it.”
That’s true. There are plenty of smart people who could manage to build the rockets Musk is building.
The difference is that Musk can focus on the project with as much effort as it takes to get it done.
Lot’s of NASA scientists had the same technical capability, but in their case, they have to get the ear of the NASA Administrator, but if he doesn’t have the same vision as the rocket builder, then the project is not going to get done.
Musk has a vision of going to Mars, and he is proceeding down this road. In the process, his efforts will serve to develop the Earth/Moon system.
I’m not a fan of NASA administrators. Well, one in particular.
I have some bad news to you. We don’t go to Mars anytime soon. And Musk knows that, too. This is just bs for the masses. BTW we don’t go to the Moon either, Musk fokked it with the HLS. Beside the fact that why we should have people on the Moon, we can do there virtually everything with remote controlled robots for the fraction of the price. In any manned space mission’s budget keeping the humans alive is like 95%.
Did you see the first stage of that Musk rocket return to its launch tower after launching its payload into orbit? Do you know how long very smart humans have been dreaming of being able to do that?
This is exactly what I am talking about. This fokker fooled you. What you said is wrong on multiple levels:
The rocket doesn’t return to is launch tower. With the Falcon, only the first stage returns, not the “rocket after launching its payload”, and the Falcon doesn’t even return to the launch tower. The Starship has yet to launch a payload. For that matter, the second stage has yet to return to the launch tower. It has yet to reach orbit. Currently its payload capacity is zero, an essentially fully fueled rocket with no payload could only reach suborbital speed.As for “being able to reuse”, you have the Space Shuttle, from the late 70s. Arguably, it has done more than the Falcon ‘cos only the propellant tank, a “dumb” piece was lost.By the way, SpaceX “revolutionized” space by making it cheap. But we haven’t ever seen a proper audit. SpaceX is a privately traded company. We simply don’t know whether it’s really that cheap. Musk is all hype. See the Vegas Loop.The same with reusability. We still don’t know whether it’s worth it. We don’t see the numbers. Very likely it’s not. The only other reusable system so far, the Space Shuttle, was extremely expensive. Every major player in this field has done studies in reusability and it turned out that using expendable was simply cheaper. This is the real reason why they have not bothered with it. Not their inability.
“This is exactly what I am talking about. This fokker fooled you. What you said is wrong on multiple levels:
The rocket doesn’t return to is launch tower. With the Falcon, only the first stage returns, not the “rocket after launching its payload””
If you read my post carefully you will see that I said “first stage” not “rocket, and this particular first stage *did* return to the tower from which it was launched.
The rest of your comment has nothing to do with the first stage successfully returning to its launch tower.
Did you know that the Space Shuttle had the capability to take that big, orange External Tank into low-Earth orbit? An instant space station! There were designs to do just that. The NASA Administrator chose to reject that space station proposal in favor of a space station proposal that would require dozens of Space Shuttle launches to get everything in orbit. The External Tank space station would have been bigger than that and would have required about three Space Shuttle launches.
Naturally, the bureaucratic NASA administrator wanted to maximize the launching of Space Shuttles, so that’s why he did it that way.
We could have had an External Tank space station around the Earth and around the Moon and around Mars by now, had we followed a different course. But shortsighted bureaucrats are not cut out for this kind of job.
NASA Administrator Dan Goldin was the shortsighted bureaucrat who made this stupid decision. He’s also the one who promoted partnering with Russia. I’m sure glad he is retired.
Still, even now, it’s not NASA pushing the envelope, it’s people like Musk and Bezos (a student of Gerard O’Neill, who was a promoter of space development).
If you read my post carefully you will see that I said “first stage” not “rocket
Yeah, and it’s wrong ‘cos you said it returns after launching its payload into orbit. No, the first stage doesn’t launch anything into orbit. It’s even worse with Musk’s rockets because of reusability, the first stage had to be designed relatively small (otherwise the kinetic energy would be too large and position would be too off for return). And now it turned out that this genius has bitten his own axx ‘cos he has problems returning the oversized second stage of Starship that is also called Starship.
An instant space station!
No, it’s not. A space station is not just a container with thin walls. Heating/cooling, energy, whatever, these are far from trivial, and the US simply didn’t have the technology that time. This is the reason why they had to buy the Zarya in 1998 (that was built in Soviet times) for the ISS, and get it launched with a Proton.
Naturally, the bureaucratic NASA administrator wanted to maximize the launching of Space Shuttles, so that’s why he did it that way.
Yeah, really /s You right wingers are pathologically against government.
On this site, there are left-wing, centrist and some right-wing people per my estimation and, to make your statement more accurate, a lot of them are not government toadies and never will be.
Why are you a government toadie. That’s pretty weird unless it’s your job.
On this site, there are left-wing, centrist and some right-wing people per my estimation
And your estimation is wrong. You deniers are clearly showing one particular type of right wing cretinism, kinda unique to the US (with some forays into Europe).
Why are you a government toadie.
Yeah, this kind of pathological hatred towards the government is a very telling sign.
He is successful, this is why. Success is highly valued, much more than adherence to truth. And this particular type of successful sociopath is just adored and admired in American culture.
Yeah, there is this interesting kinda people usually called an “Elon dxckrider”. Like you. And you believe all the scam he’s coming up. I’m pretty sure you love the Vegas Loop, right?
Another example of the voices in your head extrapolating things that don’t exist. I barely follow Elon’s exploits, although I do plan to when he starts firing the useless people who steal my money, if I have time.
Delivers what? The HLS? The “Starship” has already cost at least 3B of taxpayer money, and it’s an obvious failure. Or the Cybertruck? What a piece of junk that is…
A Washington Post “hit piece.” The question is whether this is just more of the sillycon valley boyz spoiling each others’ breakfasts or does it presignal Bezos’ change of heart? Only his hair dresser knows for sure.
Less than a day later, we learn Jeff Bezos has donated $1 million to the Trump inauguration fund.
Whodathunkit.
Richard Greene
December 12, 2024 3:43 am
Musk and Kennedy have changed some previously radical positions to get political power. They can not be trusted.
What they are doing can be compared to Kamaliar Harris changing radical positions to win an election. She was not smart enough to pull off that deception. Republicans criticized her for trying. I called her Kamaliar
Republicans see the same behavior by Musk and Kennedy … but cheer when they do it.
Morano is a below average reporter best known for hyperbolic comments on Fox News. He is jumping to conclusions here too. Adults who change their radical position before an election to gain favor with one candidate can never be trusted. Kennedy and Musk appear to be getting the power they lusted for.
Kennedy is a crackpot on many subjects. Musk has a huge financial conflict of interest and should never be given political power. Tesla takes government tax credits and SpaceX does a large amount of business with the government (50% or more of their revenues).,
….. and also possibly have a trusted friend tap them on the shoulder. The one YouTube video I saw of him talking about climate change, he showed a slide of the Keeling Curve, pointed out the big increase in CO2 and said, so here you can see how the temperature has risen, or something like that. I think he was just assuming that old trope “It’s simple physics”, not being totally stupid.
Having said that though, there are still prominent posters on here who still believe “it’s simple physics” even though it could fall into “the most complex physics ever to be studied” class.
Musk and Kennedy have changed some previously radical positions to get political power. They can not be trusted.
So no one is allowed to change previously held positions? By the logic of your statement, if Musk and Kennedy had kept their previously radical positions to get political power then they could be be trusted.
Musk with his huge financial interests already has political power.
One does not have to be in a government position to have political power.
Just ask a lobbyist.
Opinions vary about RFK Jr, no doubt. But I give him credit for the points he makes in this video, using the term “carbon fundamentalism” to describe the ideology behind senseless programs like CCS and offshore wind. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9EkKQWzJ3bo
About Musk, as Donald Trump has often said, “Let’s see what happens.”
Maybe he has seen a graph of annual CO2 emissions and realized the effort to reduce CO2 emissions is stupid. CO₂ emissions – Our World in Data
mleskovarsocalrrcom
December 12, 2024 8:17 am
EVs are niche automobiles that don’t need CC to sell. Musk sees the writing on the wall with the AGW scare becoming neutralized and wants to remain relevant in the market. City living with short commutes and available dedicated charging is the future of EVs. If/when EV battery range is increased the EV market will expand. Honda is currently building a battery plant for the next generation battery (fast charge, up to 650 miles, non volatile chemistry, lighter weight) that will provide the power if they can make it work as planned. If.
Almost 60% of US households are multi 4 wheel vehicle. So, yes. You do 90% of your driving with electrons, and then uncover your legacy vehicle for “long trips”. Otay by me…
John Hultquist
December 12, 2024 8:26 am
Only Elon knows what he thinks – until he tells the world.
What I think is that he has learned much about global warming and the ClimateCult™ in the past 10 or so years. People reading WUWT posts can say the same. There a many people that change their minds when the truth is revealed to them. He joined Tesla in 2004 and helped harvest all the credits and subsidies available. This follows the advice of Warren Buffet.
Most of us, and likely Elon too, have learned of the issues with electrifying the transportation system. No need to reiterate that here. Being a bright fellow, seeing him adjust to reality is a good sign. Lots of once high-flying companies have lost their luster {Sears, Spiegel, Montgomery Ward, Kodak, K-Mart, Intel are examples}. To me, Musk seems to think ahead – like a chess master – while many are still in the Checkers mode. Note that Tesla captured the charging aspect before other companies thought of it?
Elon Musk seems to be moving toward a more objective and rational approach to the subject of climate change but he remains a long way from the destination if he still talks in terms of a climate crisis. A return to glaciation which is clearly in our near future (decades?, centuries? or perhaps a millennium?) will be a climate crisis. A mild gentle warming and greening of our planet with a net increase in living plants and creature is a bounty, not a crisis. Only those who hate human society can believe otherwise.
Edward Katz
December 12, 2024 2:45 pm
It could be that Musk’s examination of Tesla’s sales and market value have led him to believe in co-existence with the sectors still highly dependent on fossil fuels. In other words, he realizes that alternate energies have their place and can make money given their present levels of dependability, but that fossil fuels will continue to dominate for decades yet.
The key sentence there is
“This shifting stance could influence Trump and help the Tesla CEO’s businesses.”
There is no climate crisis – you would know that if you looked at the data.
See also the ‘World Climate Declaration – There is no Climate Emergency’ at https://clintel.org/world-climate-declaration/
“US Data Since 1895 Fail To Show Warming Trend”
After examining climate data extending back nearly 100 years, a team of
Government scientists has concluded that there has been no significant
change in average temperatures or rainfall in the United States over that
entire period.
While the nation’s weather in individual years or even for periods of years
has been hotter or cooler and drier or wetter than in other periods, the new
study shows that over the last century there has been no trend in one
direction or another.
The study, made by scientists for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration was published in the current issue of Geophysical Research
Letters. It is based on temperature and precipitation readings taken at
weather stations around the country from 1895 to 1987.”
======
No reason to change that conclusion.
That was written in 1989. Temperatures have been rising since. Here is the current from NOAA:
Now all you have to do is a Santer and link it to CO2. 😉
Climate Attribution Studies don’t count.
Horrible news today …Santa cancelled due to melting polar ice…
Yeah, temperatures have been rising since 1989, but they are no warmer than they were in the recent past.
Your NOAA chart is a BIG LIE, created to be useful to people like you who want to distort climate reality.
The written, historical weather records from around the world show it was just as warm in the recent past as it is today and the temperature rise we are experiencing is not unprecedented, as you and all Climate Alarmists imply.
The NOAA chart is Climate Change Propaganda.
If you didn’t have these bogus charts, you wouldn’t have anything to argue about. Take away your bogus chart and we won’t hear anything out of you or the rest of the Climate Alarmists.
The written, historical temperature records from around the world demonstrate that your bogus chart is a BIG LIE.
Phil Jones and the other original Temperature Data Mannipulators had this all planned out: Let’s make it appear that the past was cooler than today and that temperatures have been steadily rising since the end of the Little Ice Age and we can blame this rise on CO2 since CO2 has also been rising during this time period.
Phil doesn’t tell us that the temperatures have actually been rising and falling during this time period on a cyclical basis and all the high points since the Little Ice Age belong on the same horizontal line on the temperature graph since they are all equally warm.
And that’s what Phil wanted to hide, otherwise they could not make CO2 out to be the Bad Guy without a continuous rising of the temperatures so they created a continuous rise of temperatures in their computers, and erased the real temperature profile of the written temperature records, as a means of selling their Human-caused Climate Change Propaganda, and you and other Climate Alarmists are the beneficiary of this BIG LIE. You roll this BIG LIE out in every argument.
But the written, historical temperature records prove the bogus Hockey Stick temperature profile is a BIG LIE and does not exist in the Real World.
We are in a warming trend of a cyclical climate so anyone who has paid attention to the past cyclical movements could predict that this would be a period of warming. The problem with Climate Alarmists is they want us to believe this warming will continue as long as we add CO2 to the atmosphere. What they don’t tell you is similar warming occurred in the past with much less CO2 in the air at the time.
I’m just waiting for the cyclical cooling to kick in. Then we’ll see what the Climate Alarmists have to say. Their bogus Hockey Sticks won’t help them then.
Skeptical views on here need to be more balanced. I know some of you believe, I’m a supporter of mainstream CC science, masquerading as a neutral. I can assure you I am neutral, if anything slightly biased towards skepticism! I am however also a supporter of science, and as things stand, with the only real record keeping that there is available (both surface and satellite based), there’s an obvious trend. There may well be other explanations outside of mainstream CC science for this. But by being so petulant, many of you constantly shouting fraud, you do yourselves no favours. At least admit there has been a warming trend. There are too many other indicators out there to deny a warming trend. Net loss of summer sea ice, net loss of global glacier volume, subtle climate shifts. Yes, of course this might all be cyclical…. but then again it might not! Nobody will take skepticism seriously, if you won’t even accept the best evidence that is currently available.
Some of you are like really partisan football supporters who watch several matches in which your side loses but you keep on insisting that: the opposition cheated; the referee was biased; your team played the better football etc. Similarly, alternative science to the mainstream on CC has yet to score enough goals to be taken seriously. Only when that happens, will the world of politics sit up and listen.
Now, it may well be that the current status quo is about to change. But there has been a huge amount of finance and political investment ploughed into “owning the science” of climate change. Yes, it may well be that the peer review process needs to be seismically shaken – in other words, the referee replaced. But that won’t happen by just shouting foul play constantly. The onus is on the skeptical camp to produce enough evidence to shift the balance – not the other way around. Some of you just need to grow up and start behaving in a way that true science demands.
Your opinion of science is unfortunately that which is commonly promoted by politicians and the main stream media. Science is a process. It is not an invariant position to be used as a gotcha in arguments.
Further, skepticism is fundamental to the scientific process.
You should carefully reread and parse it.
There is a difference between activists and advocates. The point he is making is we need to be advocates, not activists.
Some of us studied the low level science and determined that CO2 causes no warming. A combination of radiation physics, atmospheric physics and boundary layer physics tells a different story.
The warming over the past 30 years was the result of natural cycles/events. First, the AMO phase change in the mid 1990s and then two distinct decreases in clouds which happened at the same time as chlorine spewing volcanic eruptions. Bardarbunga in 2014 and Hunga-Tonga in 2022.
In all 3 of these situations cloud reductions were the mechanism that produced warming. Meanwhile, NOAA radiosonde data going back to 1948 shows no increase in atmospheric opacity (see Miskolczi 2023).
Global Average (delta-)Temperature is a meaningless metric that cannot describe “the climate”.
Climate science only says there is a greenhouse effect and manmade CO2 emissions make that effect stronger. The WUWT Peanut Gallery here will not even admit that 128 year old consensus of at least 99.9% of scientists.
It is the Climate Howlers who must produce evidence that manmade CO2 emissions will amplify any natural warming trend enough to be dangerous. After a 49 year trend of CO2 emissions amplifying global warming, there is zero evidence of any crisis or emergency.
There is evidence of warmer winters in colder states and nations, a longer growing season and greening of our planet. The Climate Howlers never claimed the first 49 years of global warming would be so pleasant. They have been predicting global warming doom for the past 49 years.
The climate crisis is just a prediction that has been wrong for 49 years in a row. Those who predict a climate crisis must supply the evidence of a climate crisis. Skeptics have very good reasons to be skeptical of continued predictions of global warming doom.
There is no degree offered in “climate science” so there are only climatologists.
“The WUWT Peanut Gallery here will not even admit that 128 year old consensus of at least 99.9% of scientists.”
That has been fact checked and debunked countless times.
Oh dear…. poor RG, still worshiping a totally FAKE consensus as his only science..
Hilarious.
You have proven over and and over again that there is no empirical scientific evidence of warming by atmospheric CO2, and no evidence of CO2 warming in the UAH atmospheric data.
A complete FAIL, actually.
Post says”At least admit there has been a warming trend.”
This is not the issue. There has been warming since about 1975, but there has been cooling of greater magnitude since 6000 BC. So pick your time frame carefully.
The real issue, which you ignore, is blaming the warming on CO2. And the “onus”, as you say, isn’t on the skeptical camp it is on the folks who blame CO2.
What is “alternative science” as opposed to just science?
Alternative to mainstream CC science – I would have thought that was obvious from the context.
A fair position. Ignore the downvotes.
Yes, there has been a gradual temperature rising.
No, GAT is bogus. No CO2 is not the control knob.
Lots of faux scientology is stated as fact.
Media runs with sensationalized headlines since it gains ad click revenues. The fallacies and faults are too numerous to list.
But the pragmatics and skeptics need to raise the bar as you are saying.
So, add to your presentation also, that the climate pragmatics and skeptics must absolute stop using alarmist terminology as that only give them credit at our expense.
Many thanks, you said it much more succinctly than me👍😎.
Yes, raise the bar – exactly right. There’s just far too much petulant squealing fraud and foul play. Some here would literally argue black is white, rather than concede any ground.
So ignore all the deliberate data manipulation and lies..
… only an AGW stall-wart would just accept that.
Your generalizations aren’t helpful.
Skeptics don’t have to prove anything.
The advocates of a particular claim are the ones who have to prove what they claim.
In the case of climate science, skeptics are mainly focused on telling Climate Alarmists that they have failed to prove their case for CO2 being the control knob of the Earth’s temperatures.
No evidence has ever been produced showing any effects of CO2 on the Earth’s atmosphere. I don’t have to prove that statement. It is up to Climate Alarmists to refute my statement if they can. To date, they never have refuted that statement.
Now’s your chance, Climate Alarmists! Refute my statement. if you have some evidence. I won’t hold my breath waiting for an answer because they don’t have the answer and you won’t see it here. They wish they had the answer..
Here’s the closet AGW cultist again, with yet another load of empty blather.
I can assure you that your blather marks you as a dyed-in-the-wool brain-washed AGW believer.
You are fooling no-one but yourself.
The fact that you don’t know that US past data has been highly adjusted to get rid of the 1930-40s peak, shows your ignorance of reality. Here’s just one example of many !!
Yes, and you see temperature profiles like that all over the world where it shows it was just as warm in the Early Twentieth Century as it is today.
In fact. all the written, historical temperature records show this same temperature profile where it is just as warm in the past as it is today, all over the world, where measurements were taken.
I wonder if Neutral has even seen these types of charts? What is reality, Neutral, written temperature charts that do not show a “hotter and hotter and hotter and hotter” warming trend, or the bogus, bastardized Hockey Stick chart that shows temperatures getting hotter and hotter and hotter and show today as being the hottest period in human history?
The bogus Hockey Stick chart is a construct created in a computer by unscrupulous people as a means of promoting the Human-caused Climate Change narrative.
There is no “hotter and hotter” Hockey Stick profile in the written, historical temperature record. Somebody is lying to you, and the rest of humanity.
Who are you going to believe, written, historic temperature records where the recorders had no climate change agenda, or a completely different looking, scary temperature profile created in a computer that just happens to promote a climate change ideology?
Me? I’m going to believe the written, historic records. Especially since we know the Temperature Data Mannipulators conspired to change the temperature record by reducing the “warm blips” that were in the written record.
And I don’t think this has been discussed very much but when Phil Jones was talking about bastardizing the temperature record, he was complaining that he had to do something about the land temperature “warm blip” and he also mentioned a sea-surface “warm blip”.
So Phil Jones had too much warmth in both the land temperatures and the sea surface temperatures and he had to cool them off in order that it would appear that today is the hottest times in human history caused by human-caused CO2. It’s the BIG LIE of Alarmist Climate Science.
The written temperature record puts the lie to the bogus, bastardized Hockey Stick temperature chart and all it implies.
Maybe temperature have risen slightly. Maybe not. Whatever, the difference is small and the causes (if any) are not clear. definitely no need to be alarmed let alone panic.
“accept the best evidence that is currently available.”
Best evidence is that the planet is current in a cool phase, with temperatures lower than they have been for most of the Holocene.
There is also FAR more Arctic sea ice than there has been for most of the Holocene.
Trees appearing under retreating glaciers, dated to the MWP.
Seems that you have swallowed all the lies and distortions of AGW cult, and have become one of them.. just believing, without knowing the facts.
“there has been a warming trend”
Yes, since the COLDEST period in 8000+ years.. THANK GOODNESS…
But apart from urban warming and data tampering, there is no empirical scientific evidence of any human causation for this highly beneficial warming.
If you think there is then produce it, otherwise you are just following a rancid “faith-based” cult belief system.
“At least admit there has been a warming trend.”
Can’t you read?
I said there was a CYCLICAL warming trend we are experiencing now.
I also said there were cyclical warming trends in the recent past that are equal to this warming trend.
The past warming trends occurred when there was much less CO2 in the air, yet the high temperatures reached then are the same as today.
So something other than CO2 accounts for the previous warmings. If something else accounts for previous warmings, then why should we assume CO2 is significant in the current warming?
The current warming is equal to past warmings, so more CO2 in the air appears to have had little to no effect.
“historical weather records from around the world show it was just as warm in the recent past as it is today”
The best available data and proxies say 2023 and 2024 were the warmest years in the past 5000 years. There are no averages of proxies to refute that claim except for during the peak temperatures of the Holocene Climate Optimum, about 8000 years ago.
No. Warmest years ON RECORD, and those records do not include the 5000 year proxies and historical accounts.
It was just as warm in the 1930’s in the United States, as the high point recently.
Current temperatures are cooler than the high point in the 1930’s, and are down to the level of the 1998 high point.
Did CO2 suddenly stop going into the atmosphere?
“2024 were the warmest years in the past 5000 years”
Now that just is a complete LIE, based on abject ignorance.
Oh, piss off, liar.
Can you explain why the written temperature record does not have a Hockey Stick profile?
Can you explain why the written temperature record shows it was just as warm in the recent past as it is today.
Why would you believe a computer-generated construct over the actual written temperature records?
The written temperature record was created without those involved having a climate change agenda, they just wrote down the temperatures. That can’t be said for the creators of the Hockey Stick chart, who all had a human-caused climate change bias.
Think “Cyclical Warming”. You will be much closer to the truth.
Cyclical warming is followed by cyclical cooling.
It’s not about the environment, according to multiple UN and IPCC officials, it is about redistributing the world’s wealth.
If one recalls the old axiom that “he who controls the money, controls” it is a fundamental conclusion that this is all about control.
That graph is all BS , and you KNOW it.
Those temperatures are FAKE, FAKE, FAKE and bare zero resemblance to any actual measured temperatures in the USA.
The WUWT Peanut Gallery does not accept conclusions backed by data. They only accept conclusions that make them feel good.
You just can’t control yourself. You need a t-shirt “INSULTS R US.”
Even a rabid AGW cultist like RG must know that the NOAA USA data is totally faked and maladjusted.
Have another peanut, little monkey !!
Poor dickie-boi…you have NEVER produced anything backed by data.
Care to try again?? Of just run away as usual…
1… Please provide empirical scientific evidence of warming by atmospheric CO2.
2… Please show the evidence of CO2 warming in the UAH atmospheric data.
3… Please state the exact amount of CO2 warming in the last 45 year, giving measured scientific evidence for your answer.
“If there are no measurements to support a conjecture, it is just speculation.” {RG}
Look at the starting point. 1850-1880 was the coldest 3 decades in the entire 19th century.
Look at 1820, the measured C02 then is the same as today.
Actually, temperatures have been rising gradually since the ending of the Little Ice Age.
Much of the warming seen in surface station data is due to monitoring stations falling out of siting specifications due to land use changes which have affected over 90% of the US surface station network.”
The best data comes from the satellite measurement which show modest warming for the past four decades. Only satellites are able to gather global temperature data as surface stations are absent for vast regions of the globe.
OH! He’s always looking at the data. It’s all about ‘the data’…..
The instrument readings were the DATA. What is being passed off as “data” now IS NOT “data” at all. Guesswork, assumptions and bullshit, yes. Data, no.
Net Zero mandates, tax credits and subsidies have the potential to be a climate related crisis if Net Zero is not stopped by state and federal governments
The actual key, if you had enough critical thinking ability to see it, is that Musk no longer needs to embrace the Climate Cult of Doom in order to generate a market for his electric buggies. That market is already established.
The key is malleability. He’ll say whatever helps his business.
Yes. And now he no longer needs to pretend that he is following the Climate Cult.
I’m also aware of some people who will say whatever supports their Climate Cult agenda. You may be aware of these people too, of course…
Mr. Wanderer: I am also aware of some people who will say whatever to support the Climate Cult. And when Musk was one of those people (take Mr. Stokes opening and change to “Musk’s original stance, when he agreed with Mr. Stokes, then change “influence Trump” to “influence Obama” or “influence Bush”), did Mr. Stokes complain about Elon back then? Well, let’s say I’m not searching the archives for Mr. Stokes comment on Mr. Musk back then.
“He’ll say whatever helps his business.”
At last, we agree on something !!
He’s not one to outright lie. He’s not been great with timings but he’s always delivered. He works from first principles and if he’s come to the conclusion AGW risks are overstated then that’s what he thinks.
So, Musk’s previous embracement of the CAGW Narrative was not an outright lie? Or, when he promises to deliver man on Mars he is so stupid and delusional to really believe it?
Musk is a genius of unscrupulous PR. He will pick up the side of truth or half-truth when it suits him, but his success does not make him morally right.
I doubt it. The climate crisis is very easy to be swept up by and it takes a huge amount of learning and knowledge to truly understand that it’s hyped so I don’t blame him for not being able to apply his first principles thinking until he’d had a proper chance to understand the myriad aspects of climate.
I agree. Good comment.
A lot of people “believed” the CO2 based AGW scam at one stage.
I was once in a group called “Climate Action, Newcastle”…
same group that recently took plastic kayaks to block a Newcastle coal ship.
When you actually look, rather than “believing”, you start to become a climate realist… and realise it is all an anti-science CON.
Musk BS in October 2022:
Elon Musk predicted that Tesla would produce 50,000 Tesla Semi trucks in 2024
Actual production to date: 100 to 200
More Elon Musk BS: He first proposed a $25,000 electric vehicle (EV) in September 2020 at a “Battery Day” event.
More BS
More Elon Musk BS> His prediction for Tesla’s Cybertruck sales in 2025 is 250,000 units per year. As of October 2024, industry experts estimate that at least 27,185 Tesla Cybertrucks have been sold:
Musk is a BS artist with predictions
Just like Trump
But unlike Trump, Musk does not lie about his actual accomplishments.
.
Both Musk and Trump accomplish more in one minute, than you have in your whole lifetime !!
Petty jealous seems to be your only accomplishment.
More DTS + MDS… sad and very pathetic.
Malleability? What are you talking about?
You will say whatever to help promote your taxpayer funded renewable dream.
Mr. G: Malleability, indeed! Mr. Stokes never complained when Mr. Musk’s “stance” was to win influence with Obama.
Nope- he’s worth 361 billion- he doesn’t need another penny.
He didn’t need another penny 360 billion dollars ago, clearly something more than financial need is driving his decisions.
Yes, He wants everyone else to have the chance to prosper and be free. Even you. !
What a beautifully altruistic thing he did by amassing $361 billion in personal wealth <3
Most of that is in companies that are actually attempting to do something worthwhile.
Sorry that you don’t understand the concept. !
And that is bad for himself, his investors, and his employees? What a concept, private individuals serving their private interests, while also taking care of important public interests.
We (all Democrats and climate crisis mongers, anyway) all know that it is vastly better that the government determine what is best for private individuals, and to decide who’s getting it and who’s not getting it. Right?
It was not that many years ago that a Democrat congressman stated publicly that they knew how better to spend our money than we did.
And the country sat back and watched how wrong he was.
“The key is malleability.”
You mean like the USA and world temperature data ??
For someone who seems usually to be driven by models and data your comments about Musk seem to be driven by opinion and malice.
On the contrary, Musk says GFY sometimes without regard to business.
You have got it one Nick.
Musk knew that pretending there was a climate crisis would help his EV business, so that is what he did.
Now that the worm is turning across the Western world and people are questioning the propaganda they have been fed and are turning in ever greater numbers to political parties that are far more sceptical of the information they have been fed, he now thinks it is the right time to drop his pretense so that he can, down the line, be seen to have been on the side of the people he relies on to buy his products. Simples!
Sounds like the definition of a politician. Just have to wonder if he has “values” like you know who word salad chef.
Says the man who’s being paid to support the climate cult.
Nick, what are you saying? Businessmen aren’t allowed to change their minds as new data becomes available? Does that also hold for scientists? Get serious, in what world are you living? For both civilization and science to advance the Scientific Method must hold. Belief systems only apply in your approach to life and how you treat your neighbor.
I suspect Musk isn’t terribly concerned about making money- given that his net worth is now 361 billion. He’s more concerned about politics.
Politics is all about money, particularly where it is invested. Those who control where money is invested profit the most from the knowledge and control.
Money and politics are power. Money is an equivalent of human labor, but just having money in the bank is not enough for individuals with insatiable appetite for power. Those, who control decisions where human labor will be applied, have real power. It is absolutely logical Musk is concerned with politics.
Often true, especially in the aggregate. There are some, however, that are in it for ego.
Not exclusive, usually goes along.
Ignoring the fact that it is a stance that reflects REALITY, and is absolutely beneficial for ALL the people in the USA.
You really do no want people to be well off, and free, do you Nick !! Disgusting !!
One day, if you can ever overcome your putrid AGW cult brain-washing, you may also WAKE UP TO REALITY…
… and become a worthwhile person, rather than a sycophantic AGW shill/parasite.
You can’t discuss reality with someone who believes that model results create reality, and if empirical observations (data) contradict model results the observations (data) are wrong.
Learned a long time ago never to engage in a battle of wits with the unarmed – they never know when they have lost.
Learned a long time to not feed the trolls. Never address a troll. Talk about the troll, ridicule, whatever with anyone else, just not the troll. When they get no attention, they are defeated.
You quote a sentence written by a WaPo “journalist” as though it has some meaning. Please share some of your insights into how backing down from being a climate activist can help an EV manufacturer.
Well, the winds are shifting. The climate crisis scam was a marketing ploy for electric vehicles and government intervention to begin with. Since Tesla may be the only EV product that can even hope to stand on its own without government coercion it makes sense to abandon the old hype and join the side of practical reality.
Tesla can hope, but so far they have been barely afloat due to subsidies.
Remove subsidies, and they will need government bail out.
And now, by siding with Trump, Musk has now greatly reduced the number of virtue-seekers likely to buy EVs.
Not done for money, obviously !
Hey Nick, when will we know that climate has been defeated?
Yes, because anyone who denies climate is a stooge for murky corporate interests and anyone who recognizes the climate threat is a saint and a hero without one shred of ego, greed, or hunger for power.
Stand in line so Gretta can pin a medal to your bare skinned chest.
We will have nothing…..
Yeah, everyone who disagrees with Our Holy Cause is a vendido? Projecting a bit, Nick?
Fascinating how the person who makes his living pushing the Climate Catastrophe scam, accuses someone who disagree with him of doing it for the money.
An inclination to believe that people are motivated purely by self-interest is called cynicism. But being often guilty of this myself, I would not rush to accuse Nick, particularly because he may be correct this time.
Always looking for the snippet. And again you ignore everything else. You need a t-shirt NITS R US.
Key word: “could” is not proof of anything except a speculation by the author.
Ya, because a move away from unreliable wind & solar and back to fossil fuels and/or nuclear will benefit *all* businesses.
“‘we don’t need to rush’ to solve the climate crisis”.
Let’s stop calling it a crisis then, shall we?
Yeah, really!
There is no climate crisis. That exists only in the fevered minds of climate alarmists.
Unfortunately, many climate alarmists are in high government positions where they can do great damage when they are governed by their distorted understanding about CO2.
Human beings, even very smart human beings, are easily misled. That’s just a fact. Propaganda works. Not on everyone, but on too many.
“… many climate alarmists are in high government positions…” are soon gonna hear “you’re fired”
A crisis- or emergency- is when one of the engines on the jet you’re flying in is on fire. That doesn’t compare to the supposed 1.5 deg C rise in temperature.
Actually, there is a climate crisis. The crisis is the determined destruction of the power of individuals to live life as we see fit, and to destroy the capitalist economy that delivers a higher standard of living to more people than any other system of economic organization.
This is because decision makers at the top of the social pyramid have zero sum mentality. They are already at the top, they have no desire and no destination to climb further. They are not concerned with improvements of living conditions of the world population and are opposed to upward mobility, be it individual or state. They are trying to preserve status quo with them at the top. They do not need healthy capitalism for this, a crony corrupted one will suffice. So, to keep hoi polloi in control they fabricate one crisis after another. And a perennial one, like the climate crisis is just perfect.
Point – game – match.
Ah well you know how it is with watermelons-
Labor to push regulations allowing states to force coal-fired power to stay online
Fantasy meets physics and economics but you can’t blame entrepreneurs for scooping up big time with the latest policy fads.
Yes, our old mates Sky News, quoting their host as authority:
“Sky News host Chris Kenny says Climate and Energy Minister Chris Bowen is looking to allow state governments to “force” coal-fired generators to stay in the market “if they need to”.
“News today the green-as-they-get, green as Kermit the Frog, Chris Bowen, the climate and energy minister, he is looking at rules and regulations that will allow state governments to force coal-fired generators to stay in the market,” Mr Kenny said.”
Fair and balanced, huh?
Oh those Labor States needed to alright-
NSW leans to lengthy extension to Australia’s largest coal generator in blow to renewable transition | RenewEconomy
But when you’ve already blown yours up any port in a storm-
Diesel generators eyed as potential solution to South Australia’s electricity supply concerns, as government seeks new switch-on powers
While you’re waiting for backup to Vic brown and Hunter black-
Project EnergyConnect
But you’re right Chris Kenny shouldn’t insult Kermit the Frog like that
Good one! 🙂
You are right. Kermit sang, “It isn’t Easy Being Green.”
A modern day Nastradamus.
If you read carefully, he didn’t actually insult Kermit, just said he was green…
… which is undeniably true.
Funny. That sounds like something Nick would write.
Coal fired generators will ALWAYS need to stay available in the market, unless replaced with GAS or NUCLEAR. !
If good old Eraring Power Station in NSW is not kept operational… the NEM collapses.
And yes, the Sky comments were balanced, and based on REALITY.
Do you DENY that Kermit the Frog is green?
Do you DENY that Bow-wow is a putrid oozing sickly green?
Why doesn’t Labor push for actually building some NEW coal fired power stations.
Might be cheaper than continually trying to maintain 40-50 year old ones. !
Maintaining or refurbishing existing ones is not a fundamental problem. The problem is the regulations that make their continued operation not profitable. At the same time they are required to stay online while sustaining losses.
He’s had no crusade at all. For that matter, he’s just a con man. I don’t understand for my life why this amorphous moe-foe is celebrated as a genius and a messiah. And now he’ll get a free hand and probably a lot of government money. This latter is, incidentally, his most important source of income so far.
Did you see the first stage of that Musk rocket return to its launch tower after launching its payload into orbit?
Do you know how long very smart humans have been dreaming of being able to do that?
Musk did it when nobody else could.
Musk did not design or build the rocket.
His ideas and motivation brought it to fruition.
And his money. But that’s a bad thing according to some.
His ability to secure funding (primarily from NASA) brought it to fruition more than any other contribution. Musk has had successes (and failures) as a businessperson, but he isn’t some kind of messianic figure.
Dare I say it – YMMD (your mileage may differ Alan), but I think he’s certainly becoming one in the area of free speech.
Who is talking about Musk being some kind of a messiah?
Good question.
Musk has more success in 1 second, than you will ever have in your lifetime. Try not to be so petty and jealous.
Yep. And for Tesla, he has had the EV subsidies. Tesla has never been profitable on its own.
So, EVs are wonderful except that they’re not. OK. Have you had this discussion with thefinalnail?
Cognitive dissonance ^4
When have I said this? EV is a scam. But before you get a hard on, the fact that EV is a scam doesn’t mean science is a scam. EV and most (but not all) of green is just parasitism. Ironically, the anti-scientific scamming from fossils industry actually suppressed the work in the real solutions.
Solutions to what – the non-problem that you can’t find data for it actually being a problem. But, it is what it is – you can’t find any, because there isn’t any.
Do you realize when you are whining like this that what you say is against science? Not a good sign…
“has never been profitable on its own.”
Neither have wind turbines or solar panels. !
When ever I see one of AJ’s posts, I realise the poor guy doesn’t even have the IQ of a crayon.
Trying to imply that Musk isn’t responsible for getting the team together that does Space X….. just reinforces that incredibly low IQ.
Barack Obama did not kill Osama Bin Laden.
Joe Biden did not end poverty for people of color.
Kamala Harris did not prevent illegal border crossings.
But you voted for all of them anyway, didn’t you.
Right, so claiming, for instance, that Obama, “killed Bin Laden when no one else could,” probably wouldn’t be an accurate thing to say. In fact it would rather demean the efforts of all the hundreds of people directly involved in the effort.
Just like you try to demean the huge efforts of Elon Musk in putting together companies aimed at human progress.
AJ, stoppit. You’re more intelligent than that. Stop sounding like a complete idiot in public.
You owe me.
It is not true that other people could not do it. What one man can do, another can. It has all been calculated long ago. The story is different. Returning the first stage is not that much economically justified, but Musk figured how to make it appear to be so. He uses profits from military launches to subsidize commercial part of his business. He says they are cheap because of the returned stages, while the are actually cheap because they are indirectly subsidized by the Government. Similarly, Tesla is barely operationally profitable with all of the subsidies and is deeply in red from all of the investments. Yes, he is a genius of converting taxpayers money in his image of genius.
“It is not true that other people could not do it.”
That’s true. There are plenty of smart people who could manage to build the rockets Musk is building.
The difference is that Musk can focus on the project with as much effort as it takes to get it done.
Lot’s of NASA scientists had the same technical capability, but in their case, they have to get the ear of the NASA Administrator, but if he doesn’t have the same vision as the rocket builder, then the project is not going to get done.
Musk has a vision of going to Mars, and he is proceeding down this road. In the process, his efforts will serve to develop the Earth/Moon system.
I’m not a fan of NASA administrators. Well, one in particular.
I have some bad news to you. We don’t go to Mars anytime soon. And Musk knows that, too. This is just bs for the masses. BTW we don’t go to the Moon either, Musk fokked it with the HLS. Beside the fact that why we should have people on the Moon, we can do there virtually everything with remote controlled robots for the fraction of the price. In any manned space mission’s budget keeping the humans alive is like 95%.
Exactly. For that matter, I think Musk’s only actual talent is he can hype up anything.
Exactly. This is an open secret in the industry and if you point this out to anyone he gets dumbfounded.
This is exactly what I am talking about. This fokker fooled you. What you said is wrong on multiple levels:
The rocket doesn’t return to is launch tower. With the Falcon, only the first stage returns, not the “rocket after launching its payload”, and the Falcon doesn’t even return to the launch tower. The Starship has yet to launch a payload. For that matter, the second stage has yet to return to the launch tower. It has yet to reach orbit. Currently its payload capacity is zero, an essentially fully fueled rocket with no payload could only reach suborbital speed.As for “being able to reuse”, you have the Space Shuttle, from the late 70s. Arguably, it has done more than the Falcon ‘cos only the propellant tank, a “dumb” piece was lost.By the way, SpaceX “revolutionized” space by making it cheap. But we haven’t ever seen a proper audit. SpaceX is a privately traded company. We simply don’t know whether it’s really that cheap. Musk is all hype. See the Vegas Loop.The same with reusability. We still don’t know whether it’s worth it. We don’t see the numbers. Very likely it’s not. The only other reusable system so far, the Space Shuttle, was extremely expensive. Every major player in this field has done studies in reusability and it turned out that using expendable was simply cheaper. This is the real reason why they have not bothered with it. Not their inability.
Lovely statements about something you know absolutely nothing about for the reasons set out in your post.
You like to think that 🙂
What a weird post. Did you think you were going to be the King of the World growing up (allegedly).
Jealousy Personality Disorder ??
What a weird conclusion. How about reacting in substance? You seem to be organically unable to do that.
Nope, it’s an accurate conclusion. Your post reeks of jealousy. It’s hardly surprising where you are now in life, and you only get one.
Yeah, I knew you would fail. Elon fanboys are pretty illiterate in actual scientific and engineering matters.
Little Nicky has obviously been studying Kamal-speak.
Hilarious garbage. !!
“This is exactly what I am talking about. This fokker fooled you. What you said is wrong on multiple levels:
The rocket doesn’t return to is launch tower. With the Falcon, only the first stage returns, not the “rocket after launching its payload””
If you read my post carefully you will see that I said “first stage” not “rocket, and this particular first stage *did* return to the tower from which it was launched.
The rest of your comment has nothing to do with the first stage successfully returning to its launch tower.
Did you know that the Space Shuttle had the capability to take that big, orange External Tank into low-Earth orbit? An instant space station! There were designs to do just that. The NASA Administrator chose to reject that space station proposal in favor of a space station proposal that would require dozens of Space Shuttle launches to get everything in orbit. The External Tank space station would have been bigger than that and would have required about three Space Shuttle launches.
Naturally, the bureaucratic NASA administrator wanted to maximize the launching of Space Shuttles, so that’s why he did it that way.
We could have had an External Tank space station around the Earth and around the Moon and around Mars by now, had we followed a different course. But shortsighted bureaucrats are not cut out for this kind of job.
NASA Administrator Dan Goldin was the shortsighted bureaucrat who made this stupid decision. He’s also the one who promoted partnering with Russia. I’m sure glad he is retired.
Still, even now, it’s not NASA pushing the envelope, it’s people like Musk and Bezos (a student of Gerard O’Neill, who was a promoter of space development).
Yeah, and it’s wrong ‘cos you said it returns after launching its payload into orbit. No, the first stage doesn’t launch anything into orbit. It’s even worse with Musk’s rockets because of reusability, the first stage had to be designed relatively small (otherwise the kinetic energy would be too large and position would be too off for return). And now it turned out that this genius has bitten his own axx ‘cos he has problems returning the oversized second stage of Starship that is also called Starship.
No, it’s not. A space station is not just a container with thin walls. Heating/cooling, energy, whatever, these are far from trivial, and the US simply didn’t have the technology that time. This is the reason why they had to buy the Zarya in 1998 (that was built in Soviet times) for the ISS, and get it launched with a Proton.
Yeah, really /s You right wingers are pathologically against government.
On this site, there are left-wing, centrist and some right-wing people per my estimation and, to make your statement more accurate, a lot of them are not government toadies and never will be.
Why are you a government toadie. That’s pretty weird unless it’s your job.
And your estimation is wrong. You deniers are clearly showing one particular type of right wing cretinism, kinda unique to the US (with some forays into Europe).
Yeah, this kind of pathological hatred towards the government is a very telling sign.
He is successful, this is why. Success is highly valued, much more than adherence to truth. And this particular type of successful sociopath is just adored and admired in American culture.
Exactly.
Yep, you’re a loser. Winners are sociopaths in your world.
Jealousy Personality Disorder again.
Try harder. Believe me, being a winner is better than being a whiner.
And what if I don’t want to emulate a sociopath?
Yeah, there is this interesting kinda people usually called an “Elon dxckrider”. Like you. And you believe all the scam he’s coming up. I’m pretty sure you love the Vegas Loop, right?
Another example of the voices in your head extrapolating things that don’t exist. I barely follow Elon’s exploits, although I do plan to when he starts firing the useless people who steal my money, if I have time.
The phrase “Elon dxckrider” is well known, so I’m surely not alone crediting this.
Maybe. Then you just look like one such dxckrider. Convergence of stupidity.
I have some bad news to you. The only effect this will have is speeding up the already ongoing, slow motion collapse of the US.
Speaking of con-artists, little nikky arrives with zero introspection.
Musk accomplishes more in 1 second than you will ever accomplish in your whole pathetic lifetime.
Correction. He’s a successful con man because he delivers the product. He is not in jail precisely for that reason.
It is not really “a con” then, is it.
A “con” delivers nothing, or something fake.. eg the “CO2 causes AGW” con. !
Delivers what? The HLS? The “Starship” has already cost at least 3B of taxpayer money, and it’s an obvious failure. Or the Cybertruck? What a piece of junk that is…
You have delivered absolutely NOTHING but dribble.
Musk is so far ahead of anything you will ever be remotely capable of.
Like how amorphous he looks? 🙂
Your dislike of winners is psychiatric.
Can’t you go somewhere else to share your personality defects ??
Please, pretty please.
I guess the “winners” here are supposed to be the role models. But if so, then we are really fokked.
Don’t worry about us mate. You’re already really fokked. Probably no way back.
Wow, you really are a low-end loser, aren’t you nikky !!
A life full of empty nothing-mess.
A Washington Post “hit piece.” The question is whether this is just more of the sillycon valley boyz spoiling each others’ breakfasts or does it presignal Bezos’ change of heart? Only his hair dresser knows for sure.
Less than a day later, we learn Jeff Bezos has donated $1 million to the Trump inauguration fund.
Whodathunkit.
Musk and Kennedy have changed some previously radical positions to get political power. They can not be trusted.
What they are doing can be compared to Kamaliar Harris changing radical positions to win an election. She was not smart enough to pull off that deception. Republicans criticized her for trying. I called her Kamaliar
Republicans see the same behavior by Musk and Kennedy … but cheer when they do it.
Morano is a below average reporter best known for hyperbolic comments on Fox News. He is jumping to conclusions here too. Adults who change their radical position before an election to gain favor with one candidate can never be trusted. Kennedy and Musk appear to be getting the power they lusted for.
Kennedy is a crackpot on many subjects. Musk has a huge financial conflict of interest and should never be given political power. Tesla takes government tax credits and SpaceX does a large amount of business with the government (50% or more of their revenues).,
Some people just happen to change their minds- which can happen to people who are open minded.
Long term radical green positions suddenly reverse just before an election and the changes are rewarded with political power and fame.
Nothing to see there?
Look over there, a squirrel.
A lot of lefties have been bowing to the new king at his place in Mara-Lago.
They’re called throne-sniffer wannabes. Oooooh, ouch. It’s true though.
“Look over there, a squirrel.”
Oh look… RG is in his mirror room, preening himself again.
The squirrel nutter he sees, is himself, and he is too un-self-aware to realise it.
….. and also possibly have a trusted friend tap them on the shoulder. The one YouTube video I saw of him talking about climate change, he showed a slide of the Keeling Curve, pointed out the big increase in CO2 and said, so here you can see how the temperature has risen, or something like that. I think he was just assuming that old trope “It’s simple physics”, not being totally stupid.
Having said that though, there are still prominent posters on here who still believe “it’s simple physics” even though it could fall into “the most complex physics ever to be studied” class.
But honest ones admit their mistakes, not just turn coats.
They should explain themselves- that would help “the cause” – to steal a phrase from “the evil ones”. 🙂
Musk and Kennedy have changed some previously radical positions to get political power. They can not be trusted.
So no one is allowed to change previously held positions? By the logic of your statement, if Musk and Kennedy had kept their previously radical positions to get political power then they could be be trusted.
That’s stoopid.
Your somment is stupid
Biden changed his mind and pardoned his son.
Therefore, employing your logic, Biden cannot be trusted.
Let’s be direct: Biden did not change his mind, he lied from the start.
I think so, too.
Biden could always be trusted…
.. to look after only his best interests.
you “somments” are those of a low-IQ brick. !
Didn’t Musk endorse Trump when Harris was leading in the polls?
Doesn’t reading Musk’s X feed show an evolution in his thinking?
It amazes me that these clowns dissing Musk don’t seem to want the US Government to operate more efficiently. Just DUMB !.
That is not necessarily true as the pools were run by lefties. Nevertheless, he has risked all his business as democrats are very vengeful.
Musk with his huge financial interests already has political power.
One does not have to be in a government position to have political power.
Just ask a lobbyist.
RG makes more moronic prattle..
Shhhhh, RG…. No-one cares about your low-IQ opinions.
Opinions vary about RFK Jr, no doubt. But I give him credit for the points he makes in this video, using the term “carbon fundamentalism” to describe the ideology behind senseless programs like CCS and offshore wind.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9EkKQWzJ3bo
About Musk, as Donald Trump has often said, “Let’s see what happens.”
Maybe he has seen a graph of annual CO2 emissions and realized the effort to reduce CO2 emissions is stupid.
CO₂ emissions – Our World in Data
EVs are niche automobiles that don’t need CC to sell. Musk sees the writing on the wall with the AGW scare becoming neutralized and wants to remain relevant in the market. City living with short commutes and available dedicated charging is the future of EVs. If/when EV battery range is increased the EV market will expand. Honda is currently building a battery plant for the next generation battery (fast charge, up to 650 miles, non volatile chemistry, lighter weight) that will provide the power if they can make it work as planned. If.
People with EVs in cities will probably also have a large petrol or diesel car for when they want to do a bigger trip.
Almost 60% of US households are multi 4 wheel vehicle. So, yes. You do 90% of your driving with electrons, and then uncover your legacy vehicle for “long trips”. Otay by me…
Only Elon knows what he thinks – until he tells the world.
What I think is that he has learned much about global warming and the ClimateCult™ in the past 10 or so years. People reading WUWT posts can say the same. There a many people that change their minds when the truth is revealed to them. He joined Tesla in 2004 and helped harvest all the credits and subsidies available. This follows the advice of Warren Buffet.
Most of us, and likely Elon too, have learned of the issues with electrifying the transportation system. No need to reiterate that here. Being a bright fellow, seeing him adjust to reality is a good sign. Lots of once high-flying companies have lost their luster {Sears, Spiegel, Montgomery Ward, Kodak, K-Mart, Intel are examples}. To me, Musk seems to think ahead – like a chess master – while many are still in the Checkers mode. Note that Tesla captured the charging aspect before other companies thought of it?
Only Elon knows what he thinks when he is telling something.
“Only Elon knows what he thinks – until he tells the world.”
Only, when he tells the world, like anyone and everyone else, it is to have the world know what he wants them to know, only.
Elon Musk seems to be moving toward a more objective and rational approach to the subject of climate change but he remains a long way from the destination if he still talks in terms of a climate crisis. A return to glaciation which is clearly in our near future (decades?, centuries? or perhaps a millennium?) will be a climate crisis. A mild gentle warming and greening of our planet with a net increase in living plants and creature is a bounty, not a crisis. Only those who hate human society can believe otherwise.
It could be that Musk’s examination of Tesla’s sales and market value have led him to believe in co-existence with the sectors still highly dependent on fossil fuels. In other words, he realizes that alternate energies have their place and can make money given their present levels of dependability, but that fossil fuels will continue to dominate for decades yet.
A pragmatist, realising what actually makes sense from the PEOPLE’S point of view.