Ford eating its own to feed EVs

I haven't looked at Corvettes in years but the last time I did it was cramped. I had a '62 AH Sprite which was one of the smallest cars made and I had more leg room.

If I want acceleration, I've got the bikes. Cars are something with a roof, windows, and a heater to drive in the winter or use for laundry/CostCo runs. Of the three I like the Challenger's looks but I don't need a SRT Hellcat. A VStrom will do 0 to 60 in 3.6 seconds one hell of a lot cheaper. Okay, it will only do 115 but you can only stretch the Highway Patrol's sense of humor just so far.

I sometimes look at the inside mirror because it's there but I don't use it for parking. The cam is mostly so I don't run over the cat.

This is interesting:

Politicians make bad electrical engineers.

Gnatguy would know ... Elon Musk seems to be making a lot of money out of them, but Gnatguy knows better.

In Gnatguy's ever-so-expert opinion.

Not really. The process of getting everything set up to handle a different kind of generation system is bound to be messy.

Really? The European electricity grid is under stress because the Russians are withholding natural gas as a political weapon. That hasn't got much to do with green political parties, who have always wanted to make their countries less dependent on fossil carbon fuels, of which natural gas is one.

Probably true, but irrelevant. Politicians direct other people to hire electrical engineers to change the grid to suit the energy sources that work for the country as a whole. With the Russians throttling natural gas supplies for political ends, buying more natural gas isn't a great idea.

Gnatguy does love his convenient delusions.

There's nothing unrealistic about Joe Biden's energy goals. They don't suit the fossil carbon extraction industry, which is going to make a lot less moneyu after they have been achieved, and are spending big on lying propaganda in the hope of slowing down the project. Gullible twits like Gnatguy believe the propaganda.

That's not what it says. It just says that it is going to cost a lot of money. It doesn't say how much it would cost to get the same amount of energy any other way - which has to be more since solar cells are now the cheapest power source you can get, and wind power is in second place.

There was a plan to replace them - in the short term - by burning more natural gas, which emits a bit less C)2 per kilowatt hour than burning coal. The Russian invasion of the Ukraine messed that up, in the short term.

Obama got replaced by Trump. Trump was very enthusiastic about dismantling any forward-looking agencies - most famously the one that was to generate early warnings of a pandemic - but he was broad-spectrum stupid.

But it was Gnatguy - not me - that introduced Obama's initiative. It's his thread drift, not mine.

People with enough sense to realise that anthropogenic global warming is real, and needs to be reversed, are aware that the greenies have a point.

Gnatguy won't recognise any plan that any Democrat puts forward. He hasn't got enough sense to explain what might be wrong with it, so he takes the easier option of denying that it is actually any kind of plan.

Absolutely NO SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE exists that PROVES that ANY climate change is ANTHROPOGENIC! NONE!! NADA!!! ZIPPO!!! If you have it PRODUCE IT!!!!

That link offers a great deal of evidence, and Gnatguy does specialise in telling us that our evidence doesn't convince him. always without mentioning why.

Hey Bozo, "suggestions" are exactly that, suggestions, or, more accurately, GUESSES. I specifically stated PROOFS.

Climate change concerns arise from evidence, observations, reasoning, etc. That's "science", and it never involves proofs. Proofs are in mathematics (and mathematics doesn't address issues like climate change or anthropogenesis).

So, you can be unconvinced forever, disconnected thus from the reality around you. Except that it's REAL, climate is, and it will always be around you.

As Whit3rd has pointed out, science doesn't offer proofs - only mathematics does that.

The American Institute of Physics web-site does muster a lot of persuasive evidence and puts it together in a way that makes it relatively easy to understand, if you have enough sense to process the evidence.

Your problems are that you don't want to understand that anthropogenic global warming is real, you haven't got enough sense to understand the most rudimentary evidence and that you imagine that argument by reiterated denial is likely to convince other people.

All it does is convince us that you are a half-wit, and we've been convinced of that for some time now.

Hey Bozo, if you can't produce PROOFS then say that all you have are GUESSES!

Wrong. Popper claims that the strongest possible scientific assertion is that a particular hypothesis hasn't been falsified yet.

The hypothesis that anthropogenic global warming is real and getting worse has been extensively tested, and has yet to falsified. It's way beyond any kind of guess.

Climate change denial propaganda does lie a lot about the outcomes of some of the attempts to falsify the hypothesis. and you do seem to be the kind of gullible twit who doesn't notice when he gets lied to. You also like Donald Trump, who also lies a lot.

Again, Bozo, you don't produce PROOFS of these bizarre hypotheses - it IS NOT up to me to PROVE THEM WRONG. No one has produced ANY scientific evidence linking CO2 to global warming, just a coincidental CO2 rise as temperatures rose, and even that is flawed.

You can't prove a hypothesis - you can only falsify it. It is up to you to falsify it if you want to claim that it is wrong.

There's actually loads of scientific evidence linking rising levels of CO2 in the atmosphere to rising temperatures at the surface of the earth. and a detailed explanation of the way this works. You don't seem to be able to understand any of it.

The temperature rise isn't in any way "coincidental". There are well-worked out links along every step in the path. The climate change denial propaganda you seem to be relying on ignores all of this, and you are too dim to realise that you are being lied to.

Bill Sloman, Sydney

The handwriting is on the wall: the internal combustion engine will be banned from all new car sales nationwide, if not worldwide, in about three years. The auto industry conversion to EV has to be done, it might as well be now as later. Aircraft and boats will be next. Violators will be sentenced to hard labor planting trees.

If there is then PRODUCE IT!

Sorry Bozo, but I don't have to prove that climate change because of anthropogenic causes - it is up to you blowhards to prove that it IS.

No, you THINK it is. The actual handwriting on the wall is this greening of the economy will produce a severe backlash. When you tell a single mom with 3 kids that she has to junk her perfectly good ICE car and buy a $70k electric when she is only earning $20/hr she will REVOLT. Now, multiply that by ONE HUNDRED MILLION!

She either won't be able to buy gasoline or it will very expensive.

What is that woman doing with three kids anyway?