BMW to launch production hydrogen fuel cell vehicle in 2028

[Neusser]

Originally Posted by Nahlem

Lets see where to start with this first and foremost it is correct nature do absorb co2 but not all co2 that is a false claim, our plants and vegetations do adapt but not as fast as we pour out co2.

Plants simply take up CO2. There is no adaptation. This is what they do. The more CO2 you have, the more plants grow.

This is literally why gardeners and most large-scale food producers inject above-average amounts of CO2 into their greenhouses.

You are putting out CO2 right now. "Big Oil" does not care about CO2, but those sitting in Davos who want you on a carbon tracker and social credit do.

[SportySpice]

Originally Posted by Neusser

Eco-greenie with his B58.

It takes all kinds, I guess.

Owning a car means I have to deny climate change? Wrong.

[Nahlem]

Originally Posted by Neusser

Plants simply take up CO2. There is no adaptation. This is what they do. The more CO2 you have, the more plants grow.

This is literally why gardeners and most large-scale food producers inject above-average amounts of CO2 into their greenhouses.

You are putting out CO2 right now. "Big Oil" does not care about CO2, but those sitting in Davos who want you on a carbon tracker and social credit do.

Once again, you’re demonstrating a complete lack of understanding of how plants and ecosystems work, so stop using these tired, debunked arguments.

You clearly don’t grasp the connection between photosynthesis, extreme weather patterns, and the overall health of ecosystems. Oversimplifying a complex process like CO2 absorption while ignoring the realities of climate change is insulting to scientists and experts who’ve dedicated their lives to understanding these issues. Controlled CO2 injections in greenhouses have nothing to do with the uncontrolled emissions we’re pumping into the atmosphere—so don’t even bother making that comparison.

As for humans exhaling CO2, I’ve already explained: it’s part of a natural cycle—a zero-sum game. You’re either not reading or wilfully ignoring the facts.

Now, let’s address your conspiracy nonsense about Davos and the ‘elites.’ This ‘elite control’ fantasy you keep spouting is exactly that—a fantasy. No one is trying to control you through climate science. If anything, those in power benefit from you consuming more, not less. The real issue here is our over-reliance on fossil fuels and the measurable, documented damage they’re doing to our planet.

Honestly, the fact that you keep shifting the conversation from scientific evidence to wild conspiracy theories tells me you have no real argument. You’re not engaging with facts—you’re just repeating baseless talking points.

Enough said. It’s clear you have no clue what you’re talking about, and you’ve provided zero factual support for your claims. This conversation is over."

[Neusser]

Originally Posted by Nahlem

Once again, you’re demonstrating a complete lack of understanding of how plants and ecosystems work, so stop using these tired, debunked arguments.

You clearly don’t grasp the connection between photosynthesis, extreme weather patterns, and the overall health of ecosystems. Oversimplifying a complex process like CO2 absorption while ignoring the realities of climate change is insulting to scientists and experts who’ve dedicated their lives to understanding these issues. Controlled CO2 injections in greenhouses have nothing to do with the uncontrolled emissions we’re pumping into the atmosphere—so don’t even bother making that comparison.

As for humans exhaling CO2, I’ve already explained: it’s part of a natural cycle—a zero-sum game. You’re either not reading or wilfully ignoring the facts.

Now, let’s address your conspiracy nonsense about Davos and the ‘elites.’ This ‘elite control’ fantasy you keep spouting is exactly that—a fantasy. No one is trying to control you through climate science. If anything, those in power benefit from you consuming more, not less. The real issue here is our over-reliance on fossil fuels and the measurable, documented damage they’re doing to our planet.

Honestly, the fact that you keep shifting the conversation from scientific evidence to wild conspiracy theories tells me you have no real argument. You’re not engaging with facts—you’re just repeating baseless talking points.

Enough said. It’s clear you have no clue what you’re talking about, and you’ve provided zero factual support for your claims. This conversation is over."

The argument was so basic and so demonstrable at a simple comprehensible level that you cannot argue against it, as no amount of computer modeling and number fudgery can compete with basic natural scientific principles.

As for the rest, I edited papers on the Davos social credit system, IoB, digital ID, and CBDCs at my previous employer. If you want a view of what they would like to implement, look to China, where many items are already reality. They really do plan for you to "own nothing and be happy."

You are free to name-call, but it doesn't help the situation.

[Neusser]

Originally Posted by SportySpice

Owning a car means I have to deny climate change? Wrong.

That is called a straw man fallacy.

You own a B58. A gas guzzling I6er. The M-Peformance version, no less.

Why not a 3-4 cylinder or an EV?

Or why not take the bus?


Practice what you preach. Or is there a smidgen of doubt there?

[SportySpice]

Originally Posted by Neusser

You are putting out CO2 right now. "Big Oil" does not care about CO2, but those sitting in Davos who want you on a carbon tracker and social credit do.

What? Who at Davos wants to put you on a carbon tracker and social credit? For what purpose? Do you actually think the people at Davos are more elite, richer, and exert more control than the people and countries running the fossil fuel industry?

You made some weird claim about somebody (the Davos people?) ending personal ownership. Why? Those same Davos people have gotten very, very rich by selling crap to the little guy. Why would they want to end that?

And do you think we can’t already be tracked with our phones, cars, televisions, etc- the things we willingly use? Do you honestly think that we aren’t already under control with jobs, mortgages, and other financial and social commitments? Absolutely nothing needs to change to achieve whatever dystopian future you seem to be imagining.

[SportySpice]

Originally Posted by Neusser

That is called a straw man fallacy.

You own a B58. A gas guzzling I6er. The M-Peformance version, no less.

Why not a 3-4 cylinder or an EV?

Or why not take the bus?


Practice what you preach. Or is there a smidgen of doubt there?

The “straw man” argument is yours. YOU are the one claiming I can’t drive my car and believe that climate change is happening.

Since you want to play this game, I do take buses and trains. I drive less than 4,000 miles per year. I fly rarely and I don’t eat beef.

But I don’t operate a utility company. I’m not forcing people to return to offices and commuting after remote work has proven effective. I’m not building and selling giant houses in far flung suburbs. I don’t take private jets or fly commercial ones frequently. I’m not lobbying politicians to ignore carbon emissions. And I’m not on social media spreading fake news.

As I’ve said already in this post that I support research and investment in FCEVs, BEVs, and alternative fuels. I support investment in public transportation and walkable communities. You’re welcome.

[Ugly Kar]

Originally Posted by Nahlem

Lets see where to start with this first and foremost it is correct nature do absorb co2 but not all co2 that is a false claim, our plants and vegetations do adapt but not as fast as we pour out co2, we also do not know how much co2 is stored in our oceans or can be stored nor do we want to find out alright sense once the oceans tips to a certain threshold its game over.

The fact that you use one of the worst arguments in history if ever one existed about humans exhaling co2 and saying that is not an issue without realising that everything we exhale is part of the natural cycle and fossil fuels aint so stop spreading that myth. The fossil fuels that we are burning is co2 that has been stored away from our atmosphere and removed by time it self that we are now pouring back in to our atmosphere again causing weather events to become worse then they actually need to be.

No catalytic converters do not convert all our emissions in to less harmful stuff nor do they work properly the first 10-15 min of starting a car before they get to the proper operating temperature a lot of people has less then that to their work in their cars. So no they do not get the cars up to proper temperature before turning the car off again.

If the emissions weren't harmful to us from the cars then by all means it shouldn't be dangerous to sit in a garage with the car on right?

So stop spreading miss information that is being pumped out by the big oil companies and get your facts straight.

Can you tell me where I can find this misinformation being pumped out by big oil companies? I would like to read up on it, but I’ve searched and haven’t been able to find anything. I want to make sure I have the facts straight.

[Neusser]

Originally Posted by SportySpice

The “straw man” argument is yours. YOU are the one claiming I can’t drive my car and believe that climate change is happening.

Since you want to play this game, I do take buses and trains. I drive less than 4,000 miles per year. I fly rarely and I don’t eat beef.

But I don’t operate a utility company. I’m not forcing people to return to offices and commuting after remote work has proven effective. I’m not building and selling giant houses in far flung suburbs. I don’t take private jets or fly commercial ones frequently. I’m not lobbying politicians to ignore carbon emissions. And I’m not on social media spreading fake news.

As I’ve said already in this post that I support research and investment in FCEVs, BEVs, and alternative fuels. I support investment in public transportation and walkable communities. You’re welcome.

A straw man is a silly caricature of your interlocutor's argument that makes the argument appear easy to defeat. A fallacy.

Back to reality: I asked you why you why you drive a gas guzzling B58 (M-Perf. version) when it would make far more sense to live in line with your beliefs.

Purchase an "environmentally friendly" car?

This is not complicated, but cognitive dissonance sure gets the emotions out on display.

[Neusser]

Originally Posted by SportySpice

What? Who at Davos wants to put you on a carbon tracker and social credit? For what purpose? Do you actually think the people at Davos are more elite, richer, and exert more control than the people and countries running the fossil fuel industry?

You made some weird claim about somebody (the Davos people?) ending personal ownership. Why? .

The comment I made was merely the tip of the iceberg--a reference to a video WEF put out in which they say directly that "You will own nothing and be happy."

The reams of information on this subject are easy to find. I have worked on materials for Agenda 2030 (part of The Great Reset) as well as seminars on the IoB and IoT (which are really one and the same) and how digital information on all aspects of your life will be centralized at the international level and linked to your incoming digital ID as well as a social credit score.

I even worked on a sample document containing a model for how one's access could be refused at a fully digitally staffed hotel (I will not mention the chain) if they were not "vaccinated" or did not have enough social credit points. Similar models are being considered for vehicles, banking, and other areas of life.

I no longer work at the employer who was heavily involved in this, as I could not in good conscience continue, but I can say that it was a top US consulting company.

Back to owning nothing--that you are not even aware of this tiny snippet of information (the video) but charge in headfirst says all I need to know.

[BroDoze]

Cow farts

[SportySpice]

Originally Posted by Neusser

A straw man is a silly caricature of your interlocutor's argument that makes the argument appear easy to defeat. A fallacy.

Back to reality: I asked you why you why you drive a gas guzzling B58 (M-Perf. version) when it would make far more sense to live in line with your beliefs.

Purchase an "environmentally friendly" car?

This is not complicated, but cognitive dissonance sure gets the emotions out on display.

You keep using these words - do you know what they mean? YOU built the “straw man.” Where have I demonstrated “cognitive dissonance?” What “emotion” is on display? You have no argument so you’re deflecting and distracting.

[SportySpice]

Originally Posted by Neusser

The comment I made was merely the tip of the iceberg—a reference to a video WEF put out in which they say directly that "You will own nothing and be happy."

The reams of information on this subject are easy to find. I have worked on materials for Agenda 2030 (part of The Great Reset) as well as seminars on the IoB and IoT (which are really one and the same) and how digital information on all aspects of your life will be centralized at the international level and linked to your incoming digital ID as well as a social credit score.

I even worked on a sample document containing a model for how one's access could be refused at a fully digitally staffed hotel (I will not mention the chain) if they were not "vaccinated" or did not have enough social credit points. Similar models are being considered for vehicles, banking, and other areas of life.

I no longer work at the employer who was heavily involved in this, as I could not in good conscience continue, but I can say that it was a top US consulting company.

Back to owning nothing—that you are not even aware of this tiny snippet of information (the video) but charge in headfirst says all I need to know.

Provide some REPUTABLE sources since they’re so extensive.

Your climate change denialism and unhinged conspiracy theories tell me all I need to know

[Tejas1836]

Originally Posted by SportySpice

Provide some REPUTABLE sources since they’re so extensive.

Your climate change denialism and unhinged conspiracy theories tell me all I need to know

LOL

[Neusser]

Originally Posted by SportySpice

You keep using these words - do you know what they mean? YOU built the “straw man.” Where have I demonstrated “cognitive dissonance?” What “emotion” is on display? You have no argument so you’re deflecting and distracting.

I said you drive a gas guzzler and that this fact is inconsistent with your virtue signaling.

You then said I claimed you should not own a car. That is a straw man. A caricature of what I said. We both know your beliefs and actions are inconsistent here. But take solace, you are hardly alone. Quite dishonest, ofc.

Exhibit B: Our local Green Party distributes campaign posters from the back of a Cayenne Turbo owned by one of the (local) party bigwigs who lives in a 4-million-euro villa around the corner.

[Neusser]

Originally Posted by SportySpice

Provide some REPUTABLE sources since they’re so extensive.

Your climate change denialism and unhinged conspiracy theories tell me all I need to know

You can start here.

https://www.malone.news/p/the-great-...m-with-chinese

You may also want to consider a less emotional response in the future.

[SportySpice]

Originally Posted by Neusser

I said you drive a gas guzzler and that this fact is inconsistent with your virtue signaling.

You then said I claimed you should not own a car. That is a straw man. A caricature of what I said. We both know your beliefs and actions are inconsistent here. But take solace, you are hardly alone. Quite dishonest, ofc.

Exhibit B: Our local Green Party distributes campaign posters from the back of a Cayenne Turbo owned by one of the (local) party bigwigs who lives in a 4-million-euro villa around the corner.

You questioned why I own my car because I accept the science of climate change. That is the straw man.

How are my beliefs and actions inconsistent? You told me to take the bus. I do take the bus. You lost that argument so you’re latched onto my car. If you think climate change isn’t an issue and more emissions are better because plants and greening, why aren’t you driving an X7 or a 20 year old Chevy Suburban? Do you see how stupid and disingenuous your argument is? Probably not because you keep trying to make it.

[SportySpice]

Originally Posted by Neusser

You can start here.

https://www.malone.news/p/the-great-reset-capitalism-with-chinese

You may also want to consider a less emotional response in the future.

Lol I said REPUTABLE. You’re seriously using an antivaxxer known for spreading misinformation during the COVID pandemic as a source? Explains a lot. You may want to do a little less worrying about my car and a little more digging into the source of the crackpot conspiracy theories you’ve latched on to.

I’ll worry about my emotions when you address your health, mental and otherwise.

[David70]

Originally Posted by Neusser

Eco-greenie with his B58.

It takes all kinds, I guess.

Best I can tell from your posts are that someone can't believe in global warming unless they are doing everything possible to prevent it. Makes no sense.

[Neusser]

Originally Posted by SportySpice

You questioned why I own my car because I accept the science of climate change. That is the straw man.

How are my beliefs and actions inconsistent? You told me to take the bus. I do take the bus. You lost that argument so you’re latched onto my car. If you think climate change isn’t an issue and more emissions are better because plants and greening, why aren’t you driving an X7 or a 20 year old Chevy Suburban? Do you see how stupid and disingenuous your argument is? Probably not because you keep trying to make it.

It's all in black and white. I pointed out that you own a gas guzzler and asked why not drive something more appropriate, or why not take the bus?

Still no answer to the question, ofc.

[Neusser]

Originally Posted by SportySpice

Lol I said REPUTABLE. You’re seriously using an antivaxxer known for spreading misinformation during the COVID pandemic as a source? Explains a lot. You may want to do a little less worrying about my car and a little more digging into the source of the crackpot conspiracy theories you’ve latched on to.

I’ll worry about my emotions when you address your health, mental and otherwise.

Malone invented MRNA tech.

His information as it pertains to technocracy and Davos is a compilation of more knowledgable folks, ofc.

If a major player like Malone could wake up, imagine what could lie in your future, Sporty Spice.

[Skyscraper]

This could be a repeat post because I got burnt out on the rhetoric. Then I see it morfed into an environment debate. Again.

A lot of the posts are from people that have no idea how a hydrogen powered car would work or the fuel. Hydrogen cars are still electric cars. The hydrogen cell is basically a hydrogen powered generator that replaces the battery.
Amazon is currently converting all of their electric rechargeable fork lifts to hydrogen powered. Look up PLUG energy. They have been struggling for over 20 years with private funding to get this technology going.

Why so long? Because crooked politicians chose Tesla to give our tax dollars to. We funded the development, the infrastructure and subsidize every car sold with tax dollars.
Do you think they were going to do that for Toyota or BMW? Hell no. Where’s the kick back for my mansion?, said Pilosi.

Hydrogen fuel stations need two things. A water line and power line. You can manufacture hydrogen at the station. Amazon has installed two on site stations this year. How bad does a rechargeable fork lift need to be for Amazon to invest into this change?

Second hurdle is on site generating fuel stations. Imiagin being a technology that kills mining, processing, shipping across oceans, delivering to stations, ect.

Tesla kept all of those processes in business and created even more.

Hydrogen has a mountain to climb because it’s a true disruption to the global economy.

This is a summary post to shed some quick facts, so save the internet search debate for someone who cares.