Toyota Details Six New electric cars Models Launching for 2020–2025

[HappyJoy]

Does it tow my gas powered boat or snowmobiles?
I highly doubt it.

Gas powered internal combustion isnt going anywhere for a while.

That's coming. The great thing about electric vehicles is there on demand torque, great for towing, must better than gas or diesel. The challenge now is distance and there are trucks coming out shortly that are supposed to have a 400 mile range. I think Ford is partnering with Rivian.

As of now with my Hemi Jeep I get a 560 mile range with trailer despite it's gas hogness. At this point I frequent areas not served well by gas stations and charging only exists in urban areas for some time to come.
Don't get me wrong, the vehicles in the OP are sharp unlike previous generations and I would consider one as a secondary vehicle for urban areas. We will have EV and gas for decades yet and many of us like our pig SUVs.

Electric cars just don't sound cool, no rumble. Loud pipes save lives.

Well, charging stations are branching out and they will be everywhere. I think the biggest down side to electric vehicles is range. They appear to be approaching 400 miles, that's decent and while it may not meet everyone's needs it will meet most. For me, 400 miles on a truck is great, My truck is 4 wheel drive but only so in case my RZR craps out and I have to go get it. The RZR only has about 180 mile range so an electric 4x4 could very conceivably beat that.

You better put those stations at bars because you’re going to be there for a long time. Changing batteries will kill all future improvements to them so that isn’t an option.

Yeah, they take a little bit of time, but so much cheaper and they are coming out with faster chargers all the time.

 

[Pilot1]

Car companies can say anything they want. What they actually do, or produce in 2025 will still be mostly internal combustion cars. Of course they will virtue signal to those that think EV's are "Green" and crow about producing whatever, but they know gasoline, and diesel are what powers motor vehicles, and fossil fuels powers the world, and will power the world for a long time in the future.

 

[Missouri_Mike]

I’m a Ford guy but they are doing some goofy shit. Drove a new F-150 and the damn thing shuts off at stop lights. Step on the gas and it restarts. Fucking horrible. It also had a ten speed transmission. Shifted constantly.

I have a 2018 F 150. The auto start/stop feature is on many cars and it helps to save gas. However it's easy to turn off if you don't like it and the 10 speed transmission which Ford partnered with GM (I forget what vehicles they put it in) works fantastically. Smooth shifts, don't feel a thing. Also helps with fuel efficiency. It's actually one of the best transmissions you can find in a truck.

If I see an electric F-150 I will no two things for certain. The driver didn’t really need a truck and they suck dicks.

I'm sure you're always thinking about who sucks dicks and who doesn't. But I think this thread is about something else.

It’s crap and hard on your engine. As a bonus though the AC shuts off too so that’s nice. Yeah you can turn it off, every time you start it.

The ten speed is not smooth. It’s constantly hear hunting.

You mean hard on the starter? I's not you can read about it here:
NowCar | Does Auto Stop-Start Technology Harm Engines?

My A/C doesn't shut off, if I'm blasting it the engine won't shut off when I stop.

If it bothers you, then you can buy a cheap device to permanently turn the feature off and if you want to use it you just push the button.

It's really not an issue at all.

What's next? You want to get cranky about the aluminum body that the other makes are now coming around to?

That was less than convincing.

 

[HappyJoy]

I’m a Ford guy but they are doing some goofy shit. Drove a new F-150 and the damn thing shuts off at stop lights. Step on the gas and it restarts. Fucking horrible. It also had a ten speed transmission. Shifted constantly.

I have a 2018 F 150. The auto start/stop feature is on many cars and it helps to save gas. However it's easy to turn off if you don't like it and the 10 speed transmission which Ford partnered with GM (I forget what vehicles they put it in) works fantastically. Smooth shifts, don't feel a thing. Also helps with fuel efficiency. It's actually one of the best transmissions you can find in a truck.

If I see an electric F-150 I will no two things for certain. The driver didn’t really need a truck and they suck dicks.

I'm sure you're always thinking about who sucks dicks and who doesn't. But I think this thread is about something else.

It’s crap and hard on your engine. As a bonus though the AC shuts off too so that’s nice. Yeah you can turn it off, every time you start it.

The ten speed is not smooth. It’s constantly hear hunting.

You mean hard on the starter? I's not you can read about it here:
NowCar | Does Auto Stop-Start Technology Harm Engines?

My A/C doesn't shut off, if I'm blasting it the engine won't shut off when I stop.

If it bothers you, then you can buy a cheap device to permanently turn the feature off and if you want to use it you just push the button.

It's really not an issue at all.

What's next? You want to get cranky about the aluminum body that the other makes are now coming around to?

That was less than convincing.

Ok, well, go buy a Ram then.

 

[Missouri_Mike]

I’m a Ford guy but they are doing some goofy shit. Drove a new F-150 and the damn thing shuts off at stop lights. Step on the gas and it restarts. Fucking horrible. It also had a ten speed transmission. Shifted constantly.

I have a 2018 F 150. The auto start/stop feature is on many cars and it helps to save gas. However it's easy to turn off if you don't like it and the 10 speed transmission which Ford partnered with GM (I forget what vehicles they put it in) works fantastically. Smooth shifts, don't feel a thing. Also helps with fuel efficiency. It's actually one of the best transmissions you can find in a truck.

If I see an electric F-150 I will no two things for certain. The driver didn’t really need a truck and they suck dicks.

I'm sure you're always thinking about who sucks dicks and who doesn't. But I think this thread is about something else.

It’s crap and hard on your engine. As a bonus though the AC shuts off too so that’s nice. Yeah you can turn it off, every time you start it.

The ten speed is not smooth. It’s constantly hear hunting.

You mean hard on the starter? I's not you can read about it here:
NowCar | Does Auto Stop-Start Technology Harm Engines?

My A/C doesn't shut off, if I'm blasting it the engine won't shut off when I stop.

If it bothers you, then you can buy a cheap device to permanently turn the feature off and if you want to use it you just push the button.

It's really not an issue at all.

What's next? You want to get cranky about the aluminum body that the other makes are now coming around to?

That was less than convincing.

Ok, well, go buy a Ram then.

Now you’re just being a dick. Fuck Dodge. I’ll buy older Fords.

 

[imawhosure]

Does it tow my gas powered boat or snowmobiles?
I highly doubt it.

Gas powered internal combustion isnt going anywhere for a while.

That's coming. The great thing about electric vehicles is there on demand torque, great for towing, must better than gas or diesel. The challenge now is distance and there are trucks coming out shortly that are supposed to have a 400 mile range. I think Ford is partnering with Rivian.

As of now with my Hemi Jeep I get a 560 mile range with trailer despite it's gas hogness. At this point I frequent areas not served well by gas stations and charging only exists in urban areas for some time to come.
Don't get me wrong, the vehicles in the OP are sharp unlike previous generations and I would consider one as a secondary vehicle for urban areas. We will have EV and gas for decades yet and many of us like our pig SUVs.

Electric cars just don't sound cool, no rumble. Loud pipes save lives.

Well, charging stations are branching out and they will be everywhere. I think the biggest down side to electric vehicles is range. They appear to be approaching 400 miles, that's decent and while it may not meet everyone's needs it will meet most. For me, 400 miles on a truck is great, My truck is 4 wheel drive but only so in case my RZR craps out and I have to go get it. The RZR only has about 180 mile range so an electric 4x4 could very conceivably beat that.

You better put those stations at bars because you’re going to be there for a long time. Changing batteries will kill all future improvements to them so that isn’t an option.

Yeah, they take a little bit of time, but so much cheaper and they are coming out with faster chargers all the time.

Car companies can say anything they want. What they actually do, or produce in 2025 will still be mostly internal combustion cars. Of course they will virtue signal to those that think EV's are "Green" and crow about producing whatever, but they know gasoline, and diesel are what powers motor vehicles, and fossil fuels powers the world, and will power the world for a long time in the future.

Oh, and by the way Happy, you know that 97% of Scientists agree statement you like to tout?!?!?!?!?!?!?!

Well, you should look up the study, lol...……..if that is what YOU are banking on, and why YOU believe the nonsense-) I could also add, you would be sooooooo SURPRISED to see who is funding your heroes, but that is for a different thread.

So you like the 97% agree deal, huh? I know you do! Well, there is a whole bunch of sites, that tell you EXACTLY how that conclusion was drawn, and you can look up the zillions besides the one I will post for you.

But, I just want to let YOU know personally------------->you are being led down the primrose path by people who will make a whole lotta money if your side wins, and they don't live in our country, and that is why they fund your stupid groups. It is also why we proclaim that GREEN is the new RED! And if you can't figure that out, then you need a new hobby-)

Climate Change: No, It’s Not a 97 Percent Consensus | [site:name] | National Review

 

[HappyJoy]

That's coming. The great thing about electric vehicles is there on demand torque, great for towing, must better than gas or diesel. The challenge now is distance and there are trucks coming out shortly that are supposed to have a 400 mile range. I think Ford is partnering with Rivian.

As of now with my Hemi Jeep I get a 560 mile range with trailer despite it's gas hogness. At this point I frequent areas not served well by gas stations and charging only exists in urban areas for some time to come.
Don't get me wrong, the vehicles in the OP are sharp unlike previous generations and I would consider one as a secondary vehicle for urban areas. We will have EV and gas for decades yet and many of us like our pig SUVs.

Electric cars just don't sound cool, no rumble. Loud pipes save lives.

Well, charging stations are branching out and they will be everywhere. I think the biggest down side to electric vehicles is range. They appear to be approaching 400 miles, that's decent and while it may not meet everyone's needs it will meet most. For me, 400 miles on a truck is great, My truck is 4 wheel drive but only so in case my RZR craps out and I have to go get it. The RZR only has about 180 mile range so an electric 4x4 could very conceivably beat that.

You better put those stations at bars because you’re going to be there for a long time. Changing batteries will kill all future improvements to them so that isn’t an option.

Yeah, they take a little bit of time, but so much cheaper and they are coming out with faster chargers all the time.

Car companies can say anything they want. What they actually do, or produce in 2025 will still be mostly internal combustion cars. Of course they will virtue signal to those that think EV's are "Green" and crow about producing whatever, but they know gasoline, and diesel are what powers motor vehicles, and fossil fuels powers the world, and will power the world for a long time in the future.

Oh, and by the way Happy, you know that 97% of Scientists agree statement you like to tout?!?!?!?!?!?!?!

Well, you should look up the study, lol...……..if that is what YOU are banking on, and why YOU believe the nonsense-) I could also add, you would be sooooooo SURPRISED to see who is funding your heroes, but that is for a different thread.

So you like the 97% agree deal, huh? I know you do! Well, there is a whole bunch of sites, that tell you EXACTLY how that conclusion was drawn, and you can look up the zillions besides the one I will post for you.

But, I just want to let YOU know personally------------->you are being led down the primrose path by people who will make a whole lotta money if your side wins, and they don't live in our country, and that is why they fund your stupid groups. It is also why we proclaim that GREEN is the new RED! And if you can't figure that out, then you need a new hobby-)

Climate Change: No, It’s Not a 97 Percent Consensus | [site:name] | National Review

I'm sorry, I'm not going to include the local weatherman or other unqualified people as scientists who actually study the topic.

 

[Thinker101]

Hmmm...looks like a facility over in Los Angeles, we can see how much good it's doing for the air.

 

[Rustic]

I am for “all of the above” energy policy...

But all forms of energy have to be 100% reliable, 100% affordable and 100% viable... Renewable energy is nowhere near that yet.

 

[imawhosure]

As of now with my Hemi Jeep I get a 560 mile range with trailer despite it's gas hogness. At this point I frequent areas not served well by gas stations and charging only exists in urban areas for some time to come.
Don't get me wrong, the vehicles in the OP are sharp unlike previous generations and I would consider one as a secondary vehicle for urban areas. We will have EV and gas for decades yet and many of us like our pig SUVs.

Electric cars just don't sound cool, no rumble. Loud pipes save lives.

Well, charging stations are branching out and they will be everywhere. I think the biggest down side to electric vehicles is range. They appear to be approaching 400 miles, that's decent and while it may not meet everyone's needs it will meet most. For me, 400 miles on a truck is great, My truck is 4 wheel drive but only so in case my RZR craps out and I have to go get it. The RZR only has about 180 mile range so an electric 4x4 could very conceivably beat that.

You better put those stations at bars because you’re going to be there for a long time. Changing batteries will kill all future improvements to them so that isn’t an option.

Yeah, they take a little bit of time, but so much cheaper and they are coming out with faster chargers all the time.

Car companies can say anything they want. What they actually do, or produce in 2025 will still be mostly internal combustion cars. Of course they will virtue signal to those that think EV's are "Green" and crow about producing whatever, but they know gasoline, and diesel are what powers motor vehicles, and fossil fuels powers the world, and will power the world for a long time in the future.

Oh, and by the way Happy, you know that 97% of Scientists agree statement you like to tout?!?!?!?!?!?!?!

Well, you should look up the study, lol...……..if that is what YOU are banking on, and why YOU believe the nonsense-) I could also add, you would be sooooooo SURPRISED to see who is funding your heroes, but that is for a different thread.

So you like the 97% agree deal, huh? I know you do! Well, there is a whole bunch of sites, that tell you EXACTLY how that conclusion was drawn, and you can look up the zillions besides the one I will post for you.

But, I just want to let YOU know personally------------->you are being led down the primrose path by people who will make a whole lotta money if your side wins, and they don't live in our country, and that is why they fund your stupid groups. It is also why we proclaim that GREEN is the new RED! And if you can't figure that out, then you need a new hobby-)

Climate Change: No, It’s Not a 97 Percent Consensus | [site:name] | National Review

I'm sorry, I'm not going to include the local weatherman or other unqualified people as scientists who actually study the topic.

I didn't ask you too, lol. When you look, you notice that the 97% was based on something like 34 people...……...but I have a feeling you already knew that, since you came back so fast with the answer.

See, even you knew the study was phony-e-baloney. Now, what does that say about the people who come on here and claim the 97%-)

 

[imawhosure]

As of now with my Hemi Jeep I get a 560 mile range with trailer despite it's gas hogness. At this point I frequent areas not served well by gas stations and charging only exists in urban areas for some time to come.
Don't get me wrong, the vehicles in the OP are sharp unlike previous generations and I would consider one as a secondary vehicle for urban areas. We will have EV and gas for decades yet and many of us like our pig SUVs.

Electric cars just don't sound cool, no rumble. Loud pipes save lives.

Well, charging stations are branching out and they will be everywhere. I think the biggest down side to electric vehicles is range. They appear to be approaching 400 miles, that's decent and while it may not meet everyone's needs it will meet most. For me, 400 miles on a truck is great, My truck is 4 wheel drive but only so in case my RZR craps out and I have to go get it. The RZR only has about 180 mile range so an electric 4x4 could very conceivably beat that.

You better put those stations at bars because you’re going to be there for a long time. Changing batteries will kill all future improvements to them so that isn’t an option.

Yeah, they take a little bit of time, but so much cheaper and they are coming out with faster chargers all the time.

Car companies can say anything they want. What they actually do, or produce in 2025 will still be mostly internal combustion cars. Of course they will virtue signal to those that think EV's are "Green" and crow about producing whatever, but they know gasoline, and diesel are what powers motor vehicles, and fossil fuels powers the world, and will power the world for a long time in the future.

Oh, and by the way Happy, you know that 97% of Scientists agree statement you like to tout?!?!?!?!?!?!?!

Well, you should look up the study, lol...……..if that is what YOU are banking on, and why YOU believe the nonsense-) I could also add, you would be sooooooo SURPRISED to see who is funding your heroes, but that is for a different thread.

So you like the 97% agree deal, huh? I know you do! Well, there is a whole bunch of sites, that tell you EXACTLY how that conclusion was drawn, and you can look up the zillions besides the one I will post for you.

But, I just want to let YOU know personally------------->you are being led down the primrose path by people who will make a whole lotta money if your side wins, and they don't live in our country, and that is why they fund your stupid groups. It is also why we proclaim that GREEN is the new RED! And if you can't figure that out, then you need a new hobby-)

Climate Change: No, It’s Not a 97 Percent Consensus | [site:name] | National Review

I'm sorry, I'm not going to include the local weatherman or other unqualified people as scientists who actually study the topic.

Wassa matta-) You no lika being outted-)

 

[HappyJoy]

Well, charging stations are branching out and they will be everywhere. I think the biggest down side to electric vehicles is range. They appear to be approaching 400 miles, that's decent and while it may not meet everyone's needs it will meet most. For me, 400 miles on a truck is great, My truck is 4 wheel drive but only so in case my RZR craps out and I have to go get it. The RZR only has about 180 mile range so an electric 4x4 could very conceivably beat that.

You better put those stations at bars because you’re going to be there for a long time. Changing batteries will kill all future improvements to them so that isn’t an option.

Yeah, they take a little bit of time, but so much cheaper and they are coming out with faster chargers all the time.

Car companies can say anything they want. What they actually do, or produce in 2025 will still be mostly internal combustion cars. Of course they will virtue signal to those that think EV's are "Green" and crow about producing whatever, but they know gasoline, and diesel are what powers motor vehicles, and fossil fuels powers the world, and will power the world for a long time in the future.

Oh, and by the way Happy, you know that 97% of Scientists agree statement you like to tout?!?!?!?!?!?!?!

Well, you should look up the study, lol...……..if that is what YOU are banking on, and why YOU believe the nonsense-) I could also add, you would be sooooooo SURPRISED to see who is funding your heroes, but that is for a different thread.

So you like the 97% agree deal, huh? I know you do! Well, there is a whole bunch of sites, that tell you EXACTLY how that conclusion was drawn, and you can look up the zillions besides the one I will post for you.

But, I just want to let YOU know personally------------->you are being led down the primrose path by people who will make a whole lotta money if your side wins, and they don't live in our country, and that is why they fund your stupid groups. It is also why we proclaim that GREEN is the new RED! And if you can't figure that out, then you need a new hobby-)

Climate Change: No, It’s Not a 97 Percent Consensus | [site:name] | National Review

I'm sorry, I'm not going to include the local weatherman or other unqualified people as scientists who actually study the topic.

I didn't ask you too, lol. When you look, you notice that the 97% was based on something like 34 people...……...but I have a feeling you already knew that, since you came back so fast with the answer.

See, even you knew the study was phony-e-baloney. Now, what does that say about the people who come on here and claim the 97%-)

That's neat. I have no idea what you're talking about, I tend to ignore people who can't see the obvious and there is a ton of dubious claims from the anti-science crowd that it is too aggravating to debate the topic.

You'll figure it out, it's probably already too late.

 

[imawhosure]

You better put those stations at bars because you’re going to be there for a long time. Changing batteries will kill all future improvements to them so that isn’t an option.

Yeah, they take a little bit of time, but so much cheaper and they are coming out with faster chargers all the time.

Car companies can say anything they want. What they actually do, or produce in 2025 will still be mostly internal combustion cars. Of course they will virtue signal to those that think EV's are "Green" and crow about producing whatever, but they know gasoline, and diesel are what powers motor vehicles, and fossil fuels powers the world, and will power the world for a long time in the future.

Oh, and by the way Happy, you know that 97% of Scientists agree statement you like to tout?!?!?!?!?!?!?!

Well, you should look up the study, lol...……..if that is what YOU are banking on, and why YOU believe the nonsense-) I could also add, you would be sooooooo SURPRISED to see who is funding your heroes, but that is for a different thread.

So you like the 97% agree deal, huh? I know you do! Well, there is a whole bunch of sites, that tell you EXACTLY how that conclusion was drawn, and you can look up the zillions besides the one I will post for you.

But, I just want to let YOU know personally------------->you are being led down the primrose path by people who will make a whole lotta money if your side wins, and they don't live in our country, and that is why they fund your stupid groups. It is also why we proclaim that GREEN is the new RED! And if you can't figure that out, then you need a new hobby-)

Climate Change: No, It’s Not a 97 Percent Consensus | [site:name] | National Review

I'm sorry, I'm not going to include the local weatherman or other unqualified people as scientists who actually study the topic.

I didn't ask you too, lol. When you look, you notice that the 97% was based on something like 34 people...……...but I have a feeling you already knew that, since you came back so fast with the answer.

See, even you knew the study was phony-e-baloney. Now, what does that say about the people who come on here and claim the 97%-)

That's neat. I have no idea what you're talking about, I tend to ignore people who can't see the obvious and there is a ton of dubious claims from the anti-science crowd that it is too aggravating to debate the topic.

You'll figure it out, it's probably already too late.

LOLOLOLOLOLOL, yeah sure, ok, whatever you say. I proved my point, and anybody reading the posts now know that people like you JUST BELIEVE, and when confronted with facts, collapse like the Mexican government did when faced with tariffs.

No harm, no foul, and have a pleasant afternoon.

 

[Rustic]

You better put those stations at bars because you’re going to be there for a long time. Changing batteries will kill all future improvements to them so that isn’t an option.

Yeah, they take a little bit of time, but so much cheaper and they are coming out with faster chargers all the time.

Car companies can say anything they want. What they actually do, or produce in 2025 will still be mostly internal combustion cars. Of course they will virtue signal to those that think EV's are "Green" and crow about producing whatever, but they know gasoline, and diesel are what powers motor vehicles, and fossil fuels powers the world, and will power the world for a long time in the future.

Oh, and by the way Happy, you know that 97% of Scientists agree statement you like to tout?!?!?!?!?!?!?!

Well, you should look up the study, lol...……..if that is what YOU are banking on, and why YOU believe the nonsense-) I could also add, you would be sooooooo SURPRISED to see who is funding your heroes, but that is for a different thread.

So you like the 97% agree deal, huh? I know you do! Well, there is a whole bunch of sites, that tell you EXACTLY how that conclusion was drawn, and you can look up the zillions besides the one I will post for you.

But, I just want to let YOU know personally------------->you are being led down the primrose path by people who will make a whole lotta money if your side wins, and they don't live in our country, and that is why they fund your stupid groups. It is also why we proclaim that GREEN is the new RED! And if you can't figure that out, then you need a new hobby-)

Climate Change: No, It’s Not a 97 Percent Consensus | [site:name] | National Review

I'm sorry, I'm not going to include the local weatherman or other unqualified people as scientists who actually study the topic.

I didn't ask you too, lol. When you look, you notice that the 97% was based on something like 34 people...……...but I have a feeling you already knew that, since you came back so fast with the answer.

See, even you knew the study was phony-e-baloney. Now, what does that say about the people who come on here and claim the 97%-)

That's neat. I have no idea what you're talking about, I tend to ignore people who can't see the obvious and there is a ton of dubious claims from the anti-science crowd that it is too aggravating to debate the topic.

You'll figure it out, it's probably already too late.

Lol
You bleeding hearts want to force your shit on everybody, when are you going to realize what you’re selling is not what normal people are buying.

 

[HappyJoy]

Yeah, they take a little bit of time, but so much cheaper and they are coming out with faster chargers all the time.

Car companies can say anything they want. What they actually do, or produce in 2025 will still be mostly internal combustion cars. Of course they will virtue signal to those that think EV's are "Green" and crow about producing whatever, but they know gasoline, and diesel are what powers motor vehicles, and fossil fuels powers the world, and will power the world for a long time in the future.

Oh, and by the way Happy, you know that 97% of Scientists agree statement you like to tout?!?!?!?!?!?!?!

Well, you should look up the study, lol...……..if that is what YOU are banking on, and why YOU believe the nonsense-) I could also add, you would be sooooooo SURPRISED to see who is funding your heroes, but that is for a different thread.

So you like the 97% agree deal, huh? I know you do! Well, there is a whole bunch of sites, that tell you EXACTLY how that conclusion was drawn, and you can look up the zillions besides the one I will post for you.

But, I just want to let YOU know personally------------->you are being led down the primrose path by people who will make a whole lotta money if your side wins, and they don't live in our country, and that is why they fund your stupid groups. It is also why we proclaim that GREEN is the new RED! And if you can't figure that out, then you need a new hobby-)

Climate Change: No, It’s Not a 97 Percent Consensus | [site:name] | National Review

I'm sorry, I'm not going to include the local weatherman or other unqualified people as scientists who actually study the topic.

I didn't ask you too, lol. When you look, you notice that the 97% was based on something like 34 people...……...but I have a feeling you already knew that, since you came back so fast with the answer.

See, even you knew the study was phony-e-baloney. Now, what does that say about the people who come on here and claim the 97%-)

That's neat. I have no idea what you're talking about, I tend to ignore people who can't see the obvious and there is a ton of dubious claims from the anti-science crowd that it is too aggravating to debate the topic.

You'll figure it out, it's probably already too late.

Lol
You bleeding hearts want to force your shit on everybody, when are you going to realize what you’re selling is not what normal people are buying.

I literally just walked away from a pointless debate and now I'm forcing shit on everybody? OK. You're a whack job.

 

[imawhosure]

Oh, and by the way Happy, you know that 97% of Scientists agree statement you like to tout?!?!?!?!?!?!?!

Well, you should look up the study, lol...……..if that is what YOU are banking on, and why YOU believe the nonsense-) I could also add, you would be sooooooo SURPRISED to see who is funding your heroes, but that is for a different thread.

So you like the 97% agree deal, huh? I know you do! Well, there is a whole bunch of sites, that tell you EXACTLY how that conclusion was drawn, and you can look up the zillions besides the one I will post for you.

But, I just want to let YOU know personally------------->you are being led down the primrose path by people who will make a whole lotta money if your side wins, and they don't live in our country, and that is why they fund your stupid groups. It is also why we proclaim that GREEN is the new RED! And if you can't figure that out, then you need a new hobby-)

Climate Change: No, It’s Not a 97 Percent Consensus | [site:name] | National Review

I'm sorry, I'm not going to include the local weatherman or other unqualified people as scientists who actually study the topic.

I didn't ask you too, lol. When you look, you notice that the 97% was based on something like 34 people...……...but I have a feeling you already knew that, since you came back so fast with the answer.

See, even you knew the study was phony-e-baloney. Now, what does that say about the people who come on here and claim the 97%-)

That's neat. I have no idea what you're talking about, I tend to ignore people who can't see the obvious and there is a ton of dubious claims from the anti-science crowd that it is too aggravating to debate the topic.

You'll figure it out, it's probably already too late.

Lol
You bleeding hearts want to force your shit on everybody, when are you going to realize what you’re selling is not what normal people are buying.

I literally just walked away from a pointless debate and now I'm forcing shit on everybody? OK. You're a whack job.

It was only a pointless debate because------------>you were being embarrassed, and have nothing but BELIEF in a phony-e-baloney bunch of nonsense, and can't admit it!

 

[22lcidw]

Yep, I am sure you do. Watch and see, lol. Until you bring the price down, it ain't happening, no matter how hard you try, or what you say.

Yeah, well they have been coming down so don't sweat it. Looking forward to the new Ford, I believe an electric F150 is being tested now.

Watch the video, I am sure you will get chills up and down your leg, lol. That video was from 2008, predicting 2015, lololol!

You and yours are soooooooooo accurate. You people are the best comedians on this site; you really are! Each and every day, it is a new skit from you, lol.

Why watch Colbert when we can watch you people make not only fools, but DAMN fools out of yourselves-)

The video has been chopped up and edited, it's pretty obvious.

IT IS A PROMO for the whole show on GMA. You can access it on youtube if you wish, lol. I just figured as soon as everyone seen the promo, they would laugh so hard, they would piss their pants-)

Hey! I am just trying to be as good a comidian as you peeps. You make us laugh, so I wanted to see if I could make everyone laugh too, without making everyone watch an hour of totally disproven propaganda. But hey, if you want to feed your inner Socialist, feel free to access the whole thing on youtube-)

I don't base my opinion of the realities of climate change on a sensationalist ABC promo from 2008, only anti-science morons would put any stock into that.

The best thing for the environment is to see some blue cities mushroomed clouded!

 

[HappyJoy]

Yeah, well they have been coming down so don't sweat it. Looking forward to the new Ford, I believe an electric F150 is being tested now.

Watch the video, I am sure you will get chills up and down your leg, lol. That video was from 2008, predicting 2015, lololol!

You and yours are soooooooooo accurate. You people are the best comedians on this site; you really are! Each and every day, it is a new skit from you, lol.

Why watch Colbert when we can watch you people make not only fools, but DAMN fools out of yourselves-)

The video has been chopped up and edited, it's pretty obvious.

IT IS A PROMO for the whole show on GMA. You can access it on youtube if you wish, lol. I just figured as soon as everyone seen the promo, they would laugh so hard, they would piss their pants-)

Hey! I am just trying to be as good a comidian as you peeps. You make us laugh, so I wanted to see if I could make everyone laugh too, without making everyone watch an hour of totally disproven propaganda. But hey, if you want to feed your inner Socialist, feel free to access the whole thing on youtube-)

I don't base my opinion of the realities of climate change on a sensationalist ABC promo from 2008, only anti-science morons would put any stock into that.

The best thing for the environment is to see some blue cities mushroomed clouded!

That's pretty weird.

 

[HappyJoy]

I'm sorry, I'm not going to include the local weatherman or other unqualified people as scientists who actually study the topic.

I didn't ask you too, lol. When you look, you notice that the 97% was based on something like 34 people...……...but I have a feeling you already knew that, since you came back so fast with the answer.

See, even you knew the study was phony-e-baloney. Now, what does that say about the people who come on here and claim the 97%-)

That's neat. I have no idea what you're talking about, I tend to ignore people who can't see the obvious and there is a ton of dubious claims from the anti-science crowd that it is too aggravating to debate the topic.

You'll figure it out, it's probably already too late.

Lol
You bleeding hearts want to force your shit on everybody, when are you going to realize what you’re selling is not what normal people are buying.

I literally just walked away from a pointless debate and now I'm forcing shit on everybody? OK. You're a whack job.

It was only a pointless debate because------------>you were being embarrassed, and have nothing but BELIEF in a phony-e-baloney bunch of nonsense, and can't admit it!

Embarrassed? Hardly, just not going to waste my time skimming through the sources you will use from poorly created websites jacked with half truths. I've done it before, nothing comes of it.

You'll figure it out eventually.

 

[Rustic]

Oh, and by the way Happy, you know that 97% of Scientists agree statement you like to tout?!?!?!?!?!?!?!

Well, you should look up the study, lol...……..if that is what YOU are banking on, and why YOU believe the nonsense-) I could also add, you would be sooooooo SURPRISED to see who is funding your heroes, but that is for a different thread.

So you like the 97% agree deal, huh? I know you do! Well, there is a whole bunch of sites, that tell you EXACTLY how that conclusion was drawn, and you can look up the zillions besides the one I will post for you.

But, I just want to let YOU know personally------------->you are being led down the primrose path by people who will make a whole lotta money if your side wins, and they don't live in our country, and that is why they fund your stupid groups. It is also why we proclaim that GREEN is the new RED! And if you can't figure that out, then you need a new hobby-)

Climate Change: No, It’s Not a 97 Percent Consensus | [site:name] | National Review

I'm sorry, I'm not going to include the local weatherman or other unqualified people as scientists who actually study the topic.

I didn't ask you too, lol. When you look, you notice that the 97% was based on something like 34 people...……...but I have a feeling you already knew that, since you came back so fast with the answer.

See, even you knew the study was phony-e-baloney. Now, what does that say about the people who come on here and claim the 97%-)

That's neat. I have no idea what you're talking about, I tend to ignore people who can't see the obvious and there is a ton of dubious claims from the anti-science crowd that it is too aggravating to debate the topic.

You'll figure it out, it's probably already too late.

Lol
You bleeding hearts want to force your shit on everybody, when are you going to realize what you’re selling is not what normal people are buying.

I literally just walked away from a pointless debate and now I'm forcing shit on everybody? OK. You're a whack job.

Lol
Progressives/socialists cannot tolerate anybody that disagrees with them.... Trying the same thing over and over again and expecting different results is insanity. To think a famous scientist once said that.
Insanity is extremely common, socialism has been tried countless times and in countless forms since the dawn of civilization. And it still has a 100% failure rate.