Tesla Launch of Pick-Up

[Yosemite_Sam1]

Elon Musk, mentioned that Tesla is ready to launch a "kick-ass" pick up next year.

My son works at Tesla and this is just a confirmation of what he told me in secret a few months ago that their lab was reverse-engineering several full size pick ups.

What do you think?

Keep it civil but let the fire works begin.

[Yosemite_Sam1]

pianotuna wrote:
Clearly a south going and north going zax

time2roll wrote:
I will defer this to the wisdom of the Lorax.

Somehow I feel he will come out with something to say something against that, lol.

Watch out!

[pianotuna]

Clearly a south going and north going zax

time2roll wrote:
I will defer this to the wisdom of the Lorax.

[Yosemite_Sam1]

time2roll wrote:
I will defer this to the wisdom of the Lorax.

:D;):B

[time2roll]

I will defer this to the wisdom of the Lorax.

[ShinerBock]

Even more insults. Tssk Tssk. Don't worry, I am quite used to it dealing with many on the left who tend to dehumanize you or insult your intelligence if you don't agree with their beliefs.

If you don't like the IFLS article which again is linked to a study done by a Belgian firm that was posted in US National Library of Medicine National Institutes of Health. Then you probably won't like to hear it from these guys either.

Effect of VOC Emissions from Vegetation on Air Quality in Berlin during a Heatwave

Trees might actually make summer air pollution even worse

Roadside trees trap asthma-inducing pollutants

The Paradox of Pollution-Producing Trees

[Yosemite_Sam1]

pianotuna wrote:
Hi ShinerBock,

Your credibility rating is considerably lower that it was when you first posted.

This 'research' is akin to the British study that 'proves' cloth bags harm the environment more than plastic ones. It is possible to design the parameters of any research in a manner that supports dingbat ideas.

ShinerBock wrote:

pianotuna wrote:
Sounds like junk science to me. Funded by the oil companies?

ShinerBock wrote:
Greener But Not Cleaner? How Trees Can Worsen Urban Air Pollution

Just because it goes against what you want to believe, does not mean it is junk science or funded by oil companies. IFLScience is not known for collaborating the oil companies and are quite fond of EV's and protecting the environment. Also, if you look at the link of the study posted in the National Center for Biotechnology Information database, you will see how the Belgian scientist conducted the research that the article is based on.

Basically, trees consume CO2 which is good for the environment, but not PM or NOx which is harmful to our health. Since the trees(and buildings) block the wind that would otherwise carry these substances away, they allow them to stagnate in a local area making it worse for our health.

And he'll remain unfazed by it all -- even disputing first hand accounts against people who are actually into the profession, with multi-years experience and actually doing it past and present.

[pianotuna]

Hi ShinerBock,

Your credibility rating is considerably lower that it was when you first posted.

This 'research' is akin to the British study that 'proves' cloth bags harm the environment more than plastic ones. It is possible to design the parameters of any research in a manner that supports dingbat ideas.

ShinerBock wrote:

pianotuna wrote:
Sounds like junk science to me. Funded by the oil companies?

ShinerBock wrote:
Greener But Not Cleaner? How Trees Can Worsen Urban Air Pollution

Just because it goes against what you want to believe, does not mean it is junk science or funded by oil companies. IFLScience is not known for collaborating the oil companies and are quite fond of EV's and protecting the environment. Also, if you look at the link of the study posted in the National Center for Biotechnology Information database, you will see how the Belgian scientist conducted the research that the article is based on.

Basically, trees consume CO2 which is good for the environment, but not PM or NOx which is harmful to our health. Since the trees(and buildings) block the wind that would otherwise carry these substances away, they allow them to stagnate in a local area making it worse for our health.

[Yosemite_Sam1]

ShinerBock wrote:

pianotuna wrote:
Sounds like junk science to me. Funded by the oil companies?

ShinerBock wrote:
Greener But Not Cleaner? How Trees Can Worsen Urban Air Pollution

Just because it goes against what you want to believe, does not mean it is junk science or funded by oil companies. IFLScience is not known for collaborating the oil companies and are quite fond of EV's and protecting the environment. Also, if you look at the link of the study posted in the National Center for Biotechnology Information database, you will see how the Belgian scientist conducted the research that the article is based on.

Basically, trees consume CO2 which is good for the environment, but not PM or NOx which is harmful to our health. Since the trees(and buildings) block the wind that would otherwise carry these substances away, they allow them to stagnate in a local area making it worse for our health.

I advised you earlier to stop digging when you find yourself in the hole.

IFL is a click-bait site whose claim to infamy is to sell T-shirts based on plagiarized photos.

What else is there in your portfolio of beliefs? Let me guess.

1. Earth is flat.

2. Moon landing is hoax

3. Climate change is a liberal conspiracy to make money.

4. Cigarettes don't cause cancer.

5. Sucking the tailpipe of a truck with running engine can turn you into Spiderman.

[ShinerBock]

pianotuna wrote:
Sounds like junk science to me. Funded by the oil companies?

ShinerBock wrote:
Greener But Not Cleaner? How Trees Can Worsen Urban Air Pollution

Just because it goes against what you want to believe, does not mean it is junk science or funded by oil companies. IFLScience is not known for collaborating the oil companies and are quite fond of EV's and protecting the environment. Also, if you look at the link of the study posted in the National Center for Biotechnology Information database, you will see how the Belgian scientist conducted the research that the article is based on.

Basically, trees consume CO2 which is good for the environment, but not PM or NOx which is harmful to our health. Since the trees(and buildings) block the wind that would otherwise carry these substances away, they allow them to stagnate in a local area making it worse for our health.

[Yosemite_Sam1]

pianotuna wrote:
Sounds like junk science to me. Funded by the oil companies?

ShinerBock wrote:
Greener But Not Cleaner? How Trees Can Worsen Urban Air Pollution

So f***in obvious junk science or plain idiocy even from the title.

[pianotuna]

Sounds like junk science to me. Funded by the oil companies?

ShinerBock wrote:
Greener But Not Cleaner? How Trees Can Worsen Urban Air Pollution

[ShinerBock]

Yosemite Sam1 wrote:


Okay, okay, we are all going to die -- eventually. Happy now?

Why would I be happy about dying? I think you are mistaking my willingness to admit that Tesla(and many EV's) have many hurdles to overcome in order to meet their expected growth goals as me being some sort of pessimist about everything. Far from the truth.

As I stated before, just because someone disagrees with you doesn't mean they are a (insert dehumanizing label here). It just means they have a different world view than you do with different experiences. You can't move forward by pretending everything is perfect and labeling those that disagree in order to shut them up.

[Yosemite_Sam1]

ShinerBock wrote:

Yosemite Sam1 wrote:


Another adage that you might want to get wisdom from: If you find yourself in a hole, stop digging.

I don't find myself in holes because I have enough sense to foresee problems and find solutions instead of sticking my head and one pretending that no problems exists.

Yosemite Sam1 wrote:
1. Direct knowledge, where his daughter actually presided over the plant's decommissioning is better than your crystal balling.

Again, the plant you speak of has no bearing on what I was talking about so it does not matter who has direct knowledge of what.

Yosemite Sam1 wrote:
2. Air quality actually improve in urban green zones -- even if surrounded by residential area.

That is not what I hear like most "feel good" ideas that is backed by no data.....

Greener But Not Cleaner? How Trees Can Worsen Urban Air Pollution

The CO2 that trees consume is not an mediate health risk. NOx and PM is a mediate health risk, and trees do not consume these. Mainly areas with high population densities have issues with these two health risks. Most rural areas away from these metro areas don't have enough of a concentration of them to be a health risk.

Okay, okay, we are all going to die -- eventually. Happy now?

OMG, somebody said here, arguing with you is a lot worse than arguing with his wife.

I just but agree and worst -- like the wife is drunk or something.

[ShinerBock]

Yosemite Sam1 wrote:


Another adage that you might want to get wisdom from: If you find yourself in a hole, stop digging.

I don't find myself in holes because I have enough sense to foresee problems and find solutions instead of sticking my head in one pretending that no problems exists.

Yosemite Sam1 wrote:
1. Direct knowledge, where his daughter actually presided over the plant's decommissioning is better than your crystal balling.

Again, the plant you speak of has no bearing on what I was talking about so it does not matter who has direct knowledge of what.

Yosemite Sam1 wrote:
2. Air quality actually improve in urban green zones -- even if surrounded by residential area.

That is not what I hear like most "feel good" ideas that is backed by no data.....

Greener But Not Cleaner? How Trees Can Worsen Urban Air Pollution

The CO2 that trees consume is not an mediate health risk. NOx and PM is a mediate health risk, and trees do not consume these. Mainly areas with high population densities have issues with these two health risks. Most rural areas away from these metro areas don't have enough of a concentration of them to be a health risk.