GM and Ford are scaling back on EVs in favor of more gasoline-powered cars. And GM is repurposing money for EV investments into share buybacks and dividend hikes. 
GM Plans $10 Billion Stock Buyback
Hello president Biden and EV fans, GM Plans $10 Billion Stock Buyback in Bid to Assuage Investors
GM on Wednesday outlined plans for an accelerated $10 billion share repurchase for next year, its largest stock buyback in recent memory. The company will fund it in part by freeing up capital previously earmarked for development of EVs and autonomous vehicles, which have been the main pillars of Barra’s growth strategy.
Last month, GM said it would push back the opening of an electric-truck factory in suburban Detroit by a year. It also scrapped an earlier goal of producing 400,000 EVs over a roughly two-year stretch, through mid-2024.
The CEO also said she remains committed to electric and autonomous vehicles as growth drivers. “Our strategy hasn’t changed,” she said. “Our tactics are changing to align with what’s happening in the marketplace.” [Translation: Our strategy has changed and stock buybacks prove it. But we can’t say that, can we?”
GM said it would repurchase $6.8 billion this week, with the balance coming by the end of next year. It also will boost its common stock dividend by 33% starting in January.
Slam Dunk Ford Project Now Unclear
Ford’s EV plan is similarly distressed. Ford pauses and then scales back proposed Michigan facility backed by government funding and set to employ hundreds.
In Marshall, Michigan, an EV Battery Plant Rides a Bumpy Road.
The project seemed like a slam dunk when it was announced earlier this year: a $3.5 billion Ford Motor facility slated to create 2,500 jobs by the time production was to begin in 2026. It was a chance to show that a state-led version of the Biden administration’s strategy of using government subsidies and incentives could put an auto-related plant in a northern state that has seen its automaking dominance diminish.
Many people in this city of 6,700, where well-preserved historic storefronts and museums give the downtown a late-1800s feel, welcomed the planned facility.
After the fanfare of the February announcement of the plant, Ford quietly signaled in September that it would pause the project. When work resumed on the BlueOval battery plant in November, it was for a scaled-down version, a reflection of what is happening in the roller-coaster EV market. In an unsettled economic and political landscape, the prospect of needed jobs didn’t guarantee community acceptance.
The plant would use licensed technology from the Chinese battery manufacturer CATL to make EV batteries under Ford’s name in Marshall.
“The road to the ribbon-cutting can be long,” U.S. Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg acknowledged in an interview.
Manchin Blasts Biden’s Definition of “Foreign Entity of Concern”
Although the rules are still not clear, Biden’s EV Subsidy Rules Leave Room for Chinese Suppliers
The Biden administration is moving to jolt the domestic electric-car industry out of its reliance on China. But much-awaited rules released Friday appear to leave some room for U.S. companies to work with Chinese partners.
At issue is a new requirement that Americans can’t claim the subsidy for buying any electric vehicle that contains battery materials produced by a “foreign entity of concern.” The administration said Friday the definition would cover any firm based in China, including subsidiaries of U.S. companies, as well as companies elsewhere that are 25% or more controlled by Chinese state entities. Other arrangements that involve Chinese companies, such as licensing technology, might be permissible under the rules, officials said.
Biden administration officials declined to comment on whether specific companies’ plans would meet the new definitions.
Foreign Entity of Concern
Depending on the definition of “foreign entity of concern” a number of things are floating in the wind including $7,500 tax credits.
Lesson of the Day: When you put vague verbiage in a bill, it’s sure to cause problems. For this one, blame Senator Joe Manchin.
Sen. Joe Manchin (D., W.Va.), the key author of the Inflation Reduction Act, blasted the administration’s decision Friday, arguing it didn’t go far enough to push automakers to move supply chains from China. He said he would seek to force Treasury to change the rules, such as by supporting lawsuits that might emerge opposing them.
Well, fat chance on that Joe. Had he not signed off on the incredibly misnamed “Inflation Reduction Act”, we would not be in this place.
Why the Delays?
Why the delays in deciding what “foreign entity of concern” means?
Officials worked for months to define a foreign entity of concern under the battery provision, trying to balance their goals of making EVs cheaper, to bring down carbon emissions, with reducing reliance on China.
Defining “foreign entity of concern” cannot be done in a day, weeks, months, and I suspect years, if ever.
Biden wants to please Ford, GM, Manchin, EV car dealers, and those who feel we should not reward China at all.
Any definition is sure to offend somebody and more likely everybody unless somebody gets 100% of what they want.
The safest thing to do is nothing, but then nobody knows for sure what cars get tax credits and how much.
Hells bells, it is not even clear if Ford buyers are eligible for tax credits. “Licensing technology, might be permissible under the rules, officials said.
Clarity Provided
The Treasury Department plans to phase in enforcement of the rules, proposing a series of temporary standards for determining whether materials come from China that officials said should make compliance easier.
“We appreciate the clarity today’s guidance provides and the flexibility it creates for automakers,” said Jennifer Safavian, president and chief executive of Autos Drive America, a trade group representing German, South Korean and Japanese car companies.
We will have temporary rules, not yet published, created on the fly, and that is adding clarity?
I hate to be rude, but clearly there is no clarity. What Auto Drive America really means is they are pleased the door is not slammed in their face.
“This administration is, yet again, trying to find workarounds and delays that leave the door wide open for China to benefit off the backs of American taxpayers,” Manchin said in a statement.
How to Not Get Clarity
The last thing Biden wants is clarity, because clarity is sure to upset the most people.
I can help.
To avoid getting clarity when clarity is undesired, Biden should hand the definition over to his new economic council on supply chains.
For discussion please see Hoot of the Day: Biden Creates a New Economic Council on Supply Chains
Co-Chairs to the White House Council on Supply Chain Resilience
- The National Security Advisor
- The National Economic Advisor
- The Secretaries of Agriculture, Commerce, Defense, Energy, Health and Human Services, Homeland Security, Housing and Urban Development, the Interior, Labor, State, Transportation, the Treasury, and Veterans Affairs
- The Attorney General
- The Administrators of the Environmental Protection Agency and the Small Business Administration
- The Directors of National Intelligence, the Office of Management and Budget, and the Office of Science and Technology Policy
- The Chair of the Council of Economic Advisers
- The U.S. Trade Representative
- Other senior officials from the Executive Office of the President and other agencies.
To avoid clarity, handing the mission to a group of over 20 government agencies with competing interests will surely help. But first have them create a list of goals for the mission. And finally, don’t let any decision makers go to the meetings.
Green Fantasy
In the real world, The Green Fantasy Ends Because Consumers Don’t Want to Pay for It
EVs are not selling because despite massive subsidies to both the manufacturers and consumers, the latter via tax credits, consumers don’t want them.
It’s Not Easy to Avoid Buying Items Made or Sourced in China
And Manchin is wrong too. He wants to cut off China. Sorry, it cant be done.
For discussion, please see It’s Not Easy to Avoid Buying Items Made or Sourced in China
Share buybacks are inflationary. GM would have been better off repaying debt.
that would make bankruptcy look silly then
Stock buybacks should have never been made legal, IMO. They only increase shareholder value by enticing other ‘investors’ (AKA gamblers) to buy the stock at an even higher premium while saddling the issuing company with more costly debt service in lieu of using those debt backed monies to truly grow the company.
Too bad you don’t get to make the rules.
Let me ask you a question. What if a company has no debt? And a lot of ever increasing excess cash on the balance sheet? Would it be okay to use that excess cash to give shareholders big dividend payouts, or use it to buy back shares?
Because I own shares in several oil and gas companies that are doing exactly that. No debt. Lots of excess cash. And they don’t want to use that cash to expand their reserves, if they might be stranded assets in the future.
I didn’t ask to make the rules, I was just stating my opinion as I believe the buybacks to be abused as the shares outstanding that are reduced through buybacks are quickly reissued in the form of stock options/grants and ultimately reduce shareholder value of the long term shareholder. (What I consider a true investor.)
What oil and gas companies have excess cash that could pay “big dividend payouts” and have no debt? I ask because I seriously want to own shares in them. If I did hold those companies, I would want them to pursue buyout options of other entities in their field of expertise and grow the business and use some of the excess cash to slowly bump the dividend, in that order.
One of my favorites is Tourmaline, TOU in Canada and TRMLF in the US.
Net debt of 0.34 b C$ as of Sept 2023 statements vs market cap of 23 b C$. The only time they take on any debt at all is when they make an acquisition, but then they pay it down within a few months with their big cash flow. It earns around $3 b in cash flow per year, and distributes a lot of it through regular and special dividends.
I started accumulating it in Oct 2020 at $17 C$. Since then it has paid me $16 C$ in dividends from that prodigious cash flow. Starting in Dec 2020, here are the dividends in C$ (since US $ numbers end up with a lot of decimal places after converting).
0.14, 0.16, 0.16, 0.17, 0.75, 0.18, 1.25, 0.20, 1.50, 0.225, 2.00, 0.225, 2.25, 0.25, 2.00, 0.25, 1.50, 0.26, 1.00, 0.26, 1.00, 0.28
They also do share buybacks, but only when share prices are attractive to them.
Thanks, I hadn’t heard of that one. I will definitely check it out.
Stock buy backs were illegal for several decades as stock manipulation. I believe Clinton made them legal. Though now legal, they are still stock manipulation.
It doesn’t matter to me how companies choose to reward shareholders. I am just as happy to get paid in dividends as to see stock buybacks. If stock buybacks become illegal, then I will simply collect dividends. Or is that another way to “manipulate” things?
It does matter in practice.
Technology companies buy back shares willy-nilly regardless of price. They they dilute those buybacks with huge stock options. Then the executives sell those shares. I suspect oil and gas companies do not play this game to the same extent as “growth” companies
Mike Rose, who runs Tourmaline, owns several million shares, and is always buying more shares in the open market. As do many other “insiders” of the company. All this info is available from a variety of sources.
link to marketbeat.com
The same goes for several other oil companies I own. I follow this closely. It’s one of many indicators I use. I figure if insiders are buying frequently in the open market, that they feel that their own stock is a good investment.
The same goes for the companies themselves. Every year, many of them state their intent to buy up to 10% of their shares outstanding through Normal Course Issuer Bids which must be registered and approved by regulators. Occasionally, they also register Substantial Issuer Bids, if they find that they still have a lot of cash left over after completing their annual NCIB.
Either way, these are registered and approved by regulators. I find it odd that these pre-announced share buybacks bring such a negative response from people, who claim manipulation.
A most excellent strategy for any sector.
But what if there is nothing to spend the money on to grow the company? That’s literally what stock buybacks are saying. That no investment they can make at the current time makes sense for growing the company.
So the choices are:
1) Invest the money in something to grow that company they know will be a loser/waste of time.
2) Leave the cash in a bank account earning a tiny interest rate that loses to inflation.
3) Do a stock buyback to reduce outstanding stock (which if you pay a dividend also reduces dividend payments due to less stock).
You say #3 is a scam and yet money raised by new stock offerings (what you also mentioned) is essentially getting a loan from those new shareholders. If there is nothing worth while to spend that money on, shouldn’t they just buy back the stock from the share holders (essentially canceling out what they raised)?
To ensure that a Project, or a new Novel Market is Created, funded, and prospers, rule number one: KEEP POLITICIANS OUT.
OH, wait a minute: there is not one “Market” that is unregulated…well, so far anyway the only “market” that I know of that is NOT regulated is Bitcoin. That is another matter altogether.
So, conversely, if you WANT a market to fail, you make sure that Politicians are involved, and that all hands are greased, and then you go ahead with it.
Elon Musk, a wealthy Man, can be said to be an example of a Man who GAMED the system and lined his HUGE HUGE HUGE pockets will Gotten Gains (I left out the “ill-” word as that is how I feel when I consider the EV market and how much money has been wasted on what is NOT POSSIBLE:
If and until real world goals are set, we will see the GM’s, VW’s, Fords and so on FAIL in their EV goal setting.
IS IT NOT CRYSTAL CLEAR YET?
I OWN a plug-in Hybrid and have DRIVEN cross country and the battery charge lasts 40 minutes and then we are delivered about 50mpg. YES, we love the POWER delivery and it DOES re-charge to a point when pushing the break going down a LONG grade, but I still would prefer a Hydrogen Powered LAWN MOWER ENGINE running continuously to keep my batteries TOPPED OFF.
The CAR IS FAST. I ran across Montana at over 100mph at times because big rig trucks AND other drivers were breathing down my ass at 85MPH. So, I pushed it to over 100 MPH and they STILL were tail gating my ass.
When we went 80 MPG, the mileage dropped to 42.3MPG averaged over 1000 miles. Not bad, But I WANT a 100MPG engine and car and that is NEVER GOING TO HAPPEN.
I have directly “tweeted” Elon Musk as X and he refuses to answer the question: “WHEN will you deliver us an 80mpg VAN using hybrid power” and that MOFO refused to even discuss it. He is amazingly effective at creating a PURE EV and gaining market share but he refuses to deliver a VAN that gets great mileage (MOMS and OLD FOLKS and TRAVELERS would love a FUEL-SIPPING VAN or SUV) but instead he created a freaking ugly truck that is bullet proof.
JESUS save us from Charlatans.
Sorry for the typos: “When we went 80mph” and “At X” and so on.
Plug-in hybrids are likely to become very popular by the end of this decade. I expect their sales to exceed both ICE and EV sales sometime between 2030 and 2035. They help solve several problems that we are trying to deal with at the same time.
Battery Materials: One problem with EVs that often gets mentioned is that there isn’t enough readily accessible lithium, cobalt and rare earth minerals to make enough batteries to build 1.5 billion EVs, to replace the 1.5 billion ICE vehicles on today’s roads. So, instead of building one EV with a 400 mile battery, you can build ten Plug-in Hybrids with 40 mile batteries, using the same amount of battery materials. Since 98% of all road trips are 40 miles or less, the PHEVs will rarely need to use the gas engine, and will run on that small battery most of the time. Compared to a single EV and 9 ICE vehicles, 10 PHEVs will produce far fewer emissions.
Charging Stations and Range Anxiety: Currently, there are not enough charging stations to support a large number of EVs. And the amount of time needed to charge an EV is an impediment to their widespread adoption. Plug-in Hybrids solve these problems. While on a longer road trip you can choose a quick battery top-up at an available charging station or more fuel from a widely available gas pump. Range anxiety is no longer an issue.
These advantages to PHEVs makes it likely that they will become the dominant vehicle type over the next two decades. Eventually, they will be overtaken by EVs as battery tech improves and materials issues get solved. And as the charging infrastructure gets built out.
Why in hell did this realistic view get 2 thumbs down?
He does not even have to be correct. It was a well-stated position that deserves considering!
I appreciate all the down votes. I would miss them if people stopped.
I don’t get it as well, Papa.
I hope it improves a lot as to distances between charges. I LOVE the hybrid NOT running in heavy traffic and on reserve battery power….if you are idling, it is in effect ZERO MPG, right?
Yep. Great for city driving. No wasted energy from idling when stopped in traffic. Less smog and ghgs when running on battery.
I imagine that PHEV batteries will keep increasing distances travelled over time. The earliest PHEVs were 10-20 mile batteries and now many are 30-50 miles. I’m not sure what the sweet spot is, but I would think 40-60 miles is plenty. Since that covers 98% of all trips, why spend more money and use up more of those limited battery materials to get above 98%.
All around best comment on plug-in hybrids to date.
– GM Plans $10 Billion Stock Buyback
> Where Will the money come from? From the GM EV Stash of Cash, that’s where!
– What part of the cash stash you ask?
> From the Cash Earmarked (we all know that means, never sent there) for EV Development. So I guess they’re collective brain cells, finally came up with enough to allow for “Common Sense” to take hold. Amazing that it finally happened, and so quickly, with these otherwise Foolish Clowns…
– Last month, GM said it would push back the opening of an electric-truck factory in suburban Detroit by a year.
> Yeah, that will never, ever, happen. They won’t have any money then to do so, and the earmarked money is all gone, as earmarked money has a way of doing so!
– It also scrapped an earlier goal of producing 400,000 EVs over a roughly two-year stretch, through mid-2024.
> Yeah, that will never happen. They don’t have the money to make that happen.
– The CEO said “Our tactics are changing to align with what’s happening in the marketplace.”
> People don’t want EV’s, People can’t afford EV’s, And EV Infrastructure is virtually nowhere to be seen or available.
– GM said it would also boost its common stock dividend by 33% starting in January.
> Like that’s going to happen… and if it does, they massively will have damaged the company elsewhere to do so, and why buy shares then?
– Slam Dunk Ford Project Now Unclear
> Welcome to the party, what took you so long?
– Ford’s EV plan is similarly distressed. Ford pauses and then scales back proposed Michigan facility backed by government funding and set to employ hundreds.
> You don’t say? I never, ever would have guessed…
– In Marshall, Michigan, an EV Battery Plant Rides a Bumpy Road. It was a chance to show that a state-led version of the Biden administration’s strategy of using government subsidies and incentives could put an auto-related plant in a northern state.
> So once again, the strategy of using “Taxpayers Money” (aka Government Subsidies, and Government Incentives) isn’t working out so well. Maybe it’s because, much like The Government, The Citizen’s are Broke Too!!!
– The safest thing to do is nothing.
> Are you kidding me, that’s when the Government and Biden Inc. Double Down!
– “We appreciate the clarity today’s guidance provides and the flexibility it creates for automakers,” said Jennifer Safavian
> Hahahahaha that’s clarity? What planet is she on? When did Guidance become a Black Hole? Where standing at the edge of a cliff, with heavy winds at our back, and a hurricane is expected, and this BS is what is deemed “Clarity & Guidance”
Another blatant excuse to buyback shares. EV money could have been repurposed to invest in more fuel efficient vehicles and other innovation, but the lure of financial engineering is too irresistible.
Absolutely. They continue to produce cars that are FAST and POWERFUL and yet the MILEAGE figures are ridiculous. We do NOT need fast cars and more powerful Pickups. We need EVERY-MAN vehicles that SIP fuel and deliver real-world Mileage on a single charge. I cannot see anything yet.
Even the Japanese and German Auto Power houses have yet to deliver the EVERY-MAN CAR with huge Mileage and sufficient power.
I would have thought that VW would have come up with SOMETHING by now????!!!!!!!!!!!
Toyota has. Hybrid Prius gets 50+ MPG in city and highway.
Problem is no one wants them.
Yup. Such a car is a testosterone suppressant.
People want them.
Being third worlders, few Americans can afford them, though.
And, America being a totalitarian country: It is up to government to make sure that the right people get dibs on the few cars that does get sold. As well as that the right people get to “make” money off of how they are allocated.
Toyota is doing it’s best; but how many they can afford to build at the kind of prices Americans can afford to pay; is very limited.
The big, 800-pound elephant in the room is that apart from the climate fruitcakes, no one wants an EV. Auto manufacturers are not keen to produce vehicles that people don’t want.
Well, they took the MONEY, right, and then they are NOW saying, “NOPE, can’t happen!” What a sham.
NO ONE will call them out. ALL the Businesses that Lobby congress (Insurance, Auto’s, Pharma, Jail-Co., Military Ind Complex, War machinery, Big Government, Food-Co., Big AG, you add to this list) have lobbied Congress for protection racket Funding. It is AS SIMPLE AS THAT.
Follow that Money. Look up “Biggest Lobbyists.”
The buggest lobbyists are federal agencies. So your argument holds
“Well, they took the MONEY, right, and then they are NOW saying, “NOPE, can’t happen!” What a sham.”
No American automaker, nor any American anything-else maker, is able to compete at producing real cars, nor real anything, that people want anymore. Americans are no more able to compete against freer countries, than Soviets were 50 years ago.
That’s the whole reason for BEV nonsense to begin with: Since BEVs can’t compete anyway; “making” money from BEVs have whatsoever to do with talent, ability nor ability to devliver better quality/price; which is hjard. Instead, all that matters is subsidies, “inveeestors”, hype, mandates and childish fear mongering. Which are the only fields The West can play in these days. At everything else, they are left far, further, furthest behind.
A hiccup in the market and now its EVs going down the drain. The S curve is alive and well.
link to fortune.com
Electric vehicle sales are expected to hit a record 9% of all passenger vehicles in the U.S. this year, according to Atlas Public Policy. That will be up from 7.3% of new car sales in 2022.
It will be the first time more than 1 million EVs are sold in the U.S. in one calendar year, probably reaching between 1.3 million and 1.4 million cars, the research firm predicts.
Hey Mish what’s the name of that New York hotel I used to stay at years ago in New York City -Asshole Astoria-oh my gosh or maybe The Plaza- Perverted Hotel on the park or on the green-I’ve never seen so many perverted assholes in my life-after that we just said the hell with it and went to the Four Seasons until 9-11. Now you just have homeless people or jigaboos running around all over the place, pedophiles-Democrats seemingly in control
You want clean energy solutions? Talk to Exxon and Toyoto engineers. Not government funded climate engineers.
Exxon and Toyota are not out to destroy the world. They are out to efficiently utilize appropriate energy sources given where we humans technologically are at.
Yes Virginia, petroleum will someday be supplanted by another energy source. Point is, someday.
Seems like Toyota reached this conclusion a few years back, focusing more on hybrids.
And, yet my best Friend’s SUV Toyota (Highlander) does not Achieve great Mileage, just a big better and it is FAST. It does not NEED to be that FAST. She just drove across country in that Highlander (Oregon to her Home in Fla) and she said she drove WELL over 100mph in the open areas and it got 30mpg when she did that. Toyota should have a lesser capable SUV, that delivers a real-world 50mpg plus but I just do not see that happening yet.
Hey 30 mph at 100 mph is great gas mileage! Air friction depends on velocity squared and even higher power depending on the type of flow.
Let’s not worry about that $120b in debt on our balance sheet. Buy backs now and bailouts later.
Government regulation of the car manufacturing business is written by clerks who have ZERO knowledge experience or wisdom about economics. Every time they issue some ruling or declaration it is simply from ignorance of whatever is the subject. The chaos and confusion is a guaranteed result.
Tesla eats everyone’s lunch.
More news at 111.
Derp, 11.
The rapid growth in EV sales is over. Incentives helped with that growth. The early adopters have got their EVs.
EV sales will likely keep growing, just at a much slower pace.
The world’s largest EV market is leading the way. EV sales are up. But the rate of growth is slowing.
ICE sales are still declining.
Meanwhile what’s growing quickly now are Plug-In Hybrid sales and Extended Range Battery Hybrid sales. Chinese consumers are beginning to warm up to these dual fuel vehicles. Remember that most Chinese live in high rise condos. Charging is not always easy or convenient. So having a gas engine as well just makes sense.
Here are Chinese car sales numbers from the first 9 months of (2022) and 2023:
ICE: (10,634,837) 9,498,794 -11%
BEV: (3,076,827) 3,503,656 +14%
PHEV: (798,164) 1,370,324. +72%
HEV: (619,640) 525,096. -15%
ERHEV: (153,925) 395,390. +157%
FCV: (128) 300. 134%
Its the same in the US. Automakers are reducing plans for EVs and focusing more on Plug-In Hybrids. A wise decision as we do not yet have the electrical grids and infrastructure necessary to support a rapid growth in strictly EVs.
Toyota’s last CEO was pushed out because he didn’t want to go all in on EVs. He’s been vindicated.
Akio Toyoda actually didn’t leave. He stepped down as CEO and became chairman of the board.
Our prosperous industrial civilization was built on inexpensive and dependable fossil fuels. Life without fossil fuels was tried four hundred years ago. Life then was solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short. Wind and solar power are neither dependable nor less expensive than fossil fuels. A culture that replaces fossil fuels with wind and solar cannot compete with the cultures that use fossil fuels. Industry must relocate to use the less expensive fossil fuels or bankrupt.
Some say there is a shortage of fossil fuels. Not so. The world population of 8 billion exceeds the carrying capacity of the earth. All species experience a 90% population collapse when they exceed the carrying capacity of their niche.
Some religious zealots, ignorant of chemistry and physics, say atmospheric carbon dioxide warms the earth by trapping radiation heat from escaping into space. No. The earth radiates heat from all molecules at all frequencies according to the black body equation. Energy absorbed by carbon dioxide and water vapor do absorb a small part of the black body radiation spectrum. Water vapor absorbs a hundred times more than carbon dioxide. Zealots forget to complain about rain and snow. The energy absorbed is transferred by collision at the speed of sound to another molecule that emits the energy at some other frequency.
Lol! You were doing well for the first two paragraphs. Then you went bat sh*t crazy.
But as I often say, you don’t need to convince me of your “scientific” argument.
You need to convince the tens of thousands of scientists who have written the 88,000+ peer reviewed papers that they are all wrong and that you are right.
And you need to convince the 195 countries that have signed on to the climate accords that they can abandon their plans based on your special knowledge.
And don’t forget all the major corporations around the world who have also made plans and huge investments based on the current climate science. You should make presentations to all those boards and executives to explain why they are all wrong and you are right.
You could save the entire world a whole lot of wasted time and effort.
Incidentally, Ludwig Boltzmann and Josef Stefan first defined the Stefan-Boltzmann law and subsequent equations to calculate black body temperatures in the 1800s and scientists have been using them ever since. Including those tens of thousands of scientists who wrote those 88,000+ peer reviewed papers.
So I suspect they would find your “scientific “ presentation very humorous.
Climatologists are not scientists. Climatologists published those 88,000 papers in their private journals peer reviewed by other climatologists. Real scientists are not allowed to publish the truth in climatology journals. The truth is not new and worthy of publishing in respectable journals. We all know man made global warming is a hoax.
Lol! You just keep pulling crap out of your ass, don’t you?
I was originally going to discuss black body equations with you, but clearly your grasp of science is limited to what you read on your cult websites. In other words, you don’t really know any science at all.
You are a waste of my time.
Bye KGB.