Conspiracy theories surrounding human influenced climate change, what's up with that?


Off-Topic Discussions

3,701 to 3,750 of 3,905 << first < prev | 69 | 70 | 71 | 72 | 73 | 74 | 75 | 76 | 77 | 78 | 79 | next > last >>

You did, but I appreciate the clarity now as well.

The only person who has held onto that post is QB.


Here, lets try this again...

To aid the discussion:

Coronavirus could cause solar panel price spike

PV Mag wrote:

FEBRUARY 4, 2020

The coronavirus outbreak in China could raise solar module prices in the near term as manufacturers have already begun experiencing wafer and solar glass shortages. Production rates are also being affected by an extended new year holiday introduced by the authorities as a measure to deal with the virus, and the requirement workers from infected areas quarantine themselves for two weeks.

Boom!

Coronavirus could cause PV module, battery cell shortages in Australia

PV Mag wrote:

FEBRUARY 14, 2020

As the outbreak takes its toll on solar panel and battery manufacturing in China, Australia is bracing for disruptions in the supply chain...

We strongly believe the stock available in Australia will not get us through to mid-March, let alone late March...

Beyond potential solar project delays, the coronavirus outbreak is expected to cause a PV module price spike that will affect the global industry. Investment banking firm Roth Capital Partners has predicted that solar prices including the cost of PV modules could rise in the near term as a result of shortages of solar wafers and module glass...

Australia and China had been expected to add around 1 GW of grid-scale energy storage capacity between them, WoodMac said, but that figure may now face revision because of the coronavirus.

Boom!

Coronavirus Pressure On Solar Panel Supply In Australia

SolarQuotes Blog wrote:

February 12, 2020

The supply issue isn’t just occurring with modules. Some solar inverter companies are assumed to have been affected as well; but the major concerns are focused on solar panels.
Aside from the tragedy of the misery the coronavirus has and will continue to wreak on those directly affected, it has highlighted how dependent we have become on the welfare of the people who power the “factory of the world”.

Boom!


Quark Blast wrote:
thejeff wrote:

Was your response here a complete non sequitor? The conversation was clearly about changes in the emission rate up to there - since you'd argued that increases from India and the developing world were accelerating and would continue to more than make up for developed nation cutbacks.

Then you throw that link out there as if it's a response. And now you're claiming you were always just saying there were still net emissions. Makes no sense at all.

Admit it. You screwed up. You misread a chart. You lost track of the conversation. Something. It's okay. It happens. If you want to be taken seriously, you've got to just accept it. Or at least drop it.

The "something" that happened was my position was intentionally(?) misrepresented. As for your advice to "at least drop it": You know that advice works just as well when you practice it as when I do, right?

I've given multiple options for others to move on. Indeed, as pointed out in my last thread, most of my posts are not about the trivial minutia that so seems to obsess certain posters. Be an adult and interact with the portion of my posts that don't poke your pedantic predilections. How hard is that?

As to the relevant points in your most recent post:
Others were trying to argue that it's a good thing that in 2019 total CO2 emissions were down. Arguing that the increases among the bulk of humanity is more than offset by the decreases among the wealthier few.

My point is that the 2019 total CO2 in the atmosphere set yet another record.

Somehow CB thinks the rate of emissions is important and further asserts that the rate is decreasing.

The Mauna Loa link proves my point. More CO2 in the atmosphere for 2019. Even though the rate for 2019 was measured as less than the rate for 2018, one can easily see that the difference in rate is at the level of background noise in the data.

In other words, that "rate drop" is not a trend given the character of the data-set under consideration. Moreover, (sans rate/sans "trend") the total CO2 went up in 2019 and that is the more important fact for the discussion as I presented it.

Nobody misrepresented you - or at least you can't point out where. Other than possibly not realizing you shifted course in the middle of a discussion by posting a snarky "you're wrong" link.

Good lord, this is a waste. You're just trying to shift the conversation again. Either because you couldn't follow the conversation you were having or because we caught you out again with links you cited not saying what you claimed.

This bit, btw? wrote:

My point is that the 2019 total CO2 in the atmosphere set yet another record.

Somehow CB thinks the rate of emissions is important and further asserts that the rate is decreasing.

This kind of thing is why IT went to that absurd hypothetical. Cause that absurd hypothetical was just a change in the rate of emissions. Still sould be a new total CO2 record.

Rates matter. If we get down to net zero emissions, it'll be after a series of years of decreasing emissions. Before that, we'll have to stop increasing emissions every year. If we've done that or even are approaching that, that's a good thing. (Would have been better years ago, but still good.)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Quark Blast wrote:

Here, lets try this again...

To aid the discussion:

Coronavirus could cause solar panel price spike

PV Mag wrote:

FEBRUARY 4, 2020

The coronavirus outbreak in China could raise solar module prices in the near term as manufacturers have already begun experiencing wafer and solar glass shortages. Production rates are also being affected by an extended new year holiday introduced by the authorities as a measure to deal with the virus, and the requirement workers from infected areas quarantine themselves for two weeks.

Boom!

Coronavirus could cause PV module, battery cell shortages in Australia

PV Mag wrote:

FEBRUARY 14, 2020

As the outbreak takes its toll on solar panel and battery manufacturing in China, Australia is bracing for disruptions in the supply chain...

We strongly believe the stock available in Australia will not get us through to mid-March, let alone late March...

Beyond potential solar project delays, the coronavirus outbreak is expected to cause a PV module price spike that will affect the global industry. Investment banking firm Roth Capital Partners has predicted that solar prices including the cost of PV modules could rise in the near term as a result of shortages of solar wafers and module glass...

Australia and China had been expected to add around 1 GW of grid-scale energy storage capacity between them, WoodMac said, but that figure may now face revision because of the coronavirus.

Boom!

Coronavirus Pressure On Solar Panel Supply In Australia

SolarQuotes Blog wrote:

February 12, 2020

The supply issue isn’t just occurring with modules. Some solar inverter companies are assumed to have been affected

...

But the rate of production of solar panels doesn't matter as long as the total number of solar panels is increasing.

My point is that the 2019 total CO2 in the atmosphere 2020 total of solar panels set yet another record.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Quark Blast wrote:
Except the poster just prior to your latest is confusing rate with absolute amount, again.

Nope, that's still all you.

Quark Blast wrote:
Why are you even bringing "trend" back into the discussion?

You literally wrote that solar panels were "on a getting scarce trend".

Seriously, this is pathetic.

Quark Blast wrote:
"No indication"? There's definitely some indication. Manufacturing in South Korea is on the skids waiting on supplies from China. Jaguar Land Rover 'shipping parts in suitcases' to beat the damage being waged by the Coronovirus shutdown of the global supply chain.

Setting aside that those are distribution, rather than manufacturing, delays... there is also no evidence that they will continue indefinitely, and thus do nothing to dispute my statement that, "...there is no indication that any disruption in Chinese solar manufacturing will be long term...".

Quark Blast wrote:
Others were trying to argue that it's a good thing that in 2019 total CO2 emissions were down. Arguing that the increases among the bulk of humanity is more than offset by the decreases among the wealthier few.

No. This is false. Nobody made any of those arguments in this discussion. They exist solely in your imagination.

Quark Blast wrote:
Somehow CB thinks the rate of emissions is important and further asserts that the rate is decreasing.

Of course the rate of emissions is important. If we were emitting the same amount of CO2 over 1000 years that we currently do in 1 year it would be a non-issue. The high rate of emissions is the entire problem.

However, your second claim, that I 'assert that the rate of emissions is decreasing', is another of your delusions. Never happened.

Quark Blast wrote:
The Mauna Loa link proves my point.

No, it doesn't... because, as I have pointed out multiple times now, that data doesn't show emissions (e.g. humans are emitting about 35 billion tons of CO2 per year) at all. It shows the rate of growth of atmospheric CO2 concentration (e.g. the atmospheric concentration of CO2 has been growing about 2 parts per million per year). The relationship between these two different values could be described as;

(CO2 molecules emitted by humans + CO2 molecules emitted by natural sources - CO2 molecules removed from the atmosphere) / Total molecules in the atmosphere = Increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration

You keep claiming that changes in the last variable, as shown by the Mauna Loa graph you linked, tell us how the first variable has changed. That is false, because it ignores the impact of all the other variables. Annual variations in the amount of CO2 added and/or removed by natural sources have far more impact on those values than variations in the annual rate of human emissions do.

The very fact that the data showed a 2.99 part per million (ppm) increase in 2016, followed by only 1.89 ppm in 2017, should have been enough to clue you in that you can't use this data to determine changes in human emissions... unless you believe that they dropped ~63% that year.


CBDunkerson wrote:
Quark Blast wrote:
Why are you even bringing "trend" back into the discussion?

You literally wrote that solar panels were "on a getting scarce trend".

Seriously, this is pathetic.

Why did I use "trend"? Well, goose and gander and all that of course. Don't like your own medicine naturally. No surprise there.

CBDunkerson wrote:
Quark Blast wrote:
"No indication"? There's definitely some indication. Manufacturing in South Korea is on the skids waiting on supplies from China. Jaguar Land Rover 'shipping parts in suitcases' to beat the damage being waged by the Coronovirus shutdown of the global supply chain.
Setting aside that those are distribution, rather than manufacturing, delays... there is also no evidence that they will continue indefinitely, and thus do nothing to dispute my statement that, "...there is no indication that any disruption in Chinese solar manufacturing will be long term...".

Today's distribution delays become tomorrow's production delays.

As for how long this will last, there is some indication that the best answer is still indefinite rather than short term.

Coronavirus: South Korean sect identified as hotbed

BBC wrote:
The sect in the city of Daegu accounts for 30 of 53 new cases, with officials warning of an unprecedented crisis.

'Cause you know, an "unprecedented crisis" is all about being short term and totally manageable.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Quark Blast wrote:

As for how long this will last, there is some indication that the best answer is still indefinite rather than short term.

Coronavirus: South Korean sect identified as hotbed

So... now you're saying that spread of the virus in South Korea is evidence that there will be long term production delays... in China.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
CBDunkerson wrote:
Quark Blast wrote:

As for how long this will last, there is some indication that the best answer is still indefinite rather than short term.

Coronavirus: South Korean sect identified as hotbed

So... now you're saying that spread of the virus in South Korea is evidence that there will be long term production delays... in China.

Ok, now you ARE being unfair.

As your own quote makes absolutely clear, the ONLY thing he is trying to claim in that sentence is that, right now, it is unclear how long Covid-19 will be a significant factor.

I again urge you to suppress your instinctive desire to just nit pick him to death and score points and, instead, to address the ACTUAL things he is arguing that you disagree with.

Sure, he is sometimes unclear and sometimes he is wrong. But in some cases he IS quite clear and arguably quite correct. In this case (and the whole "naming the virus" nonsense) he is being very clear and you (collective, not just CB) are just coming off as an idiot with a grudge trying to score points.


Yeah! What he^ said.
:p

CBDunkerson wrote:
Quark Blast wrote:

As for how long this will last, there is some indication that the best answer is still indefinite rather than short term.

Coronavirus: South Korean sect identified as hotbed

So... now you're saying that spread of the virus in South Korea is evidence that there will be long term production delays... in China.

Oh, and you know something, something Global Economy.

Because it sure looks like this Coronavirus thing is going to be global and...

This:
Coronavirus: China’s manufacturing supply chain pummelled from all sides in efforts to restart
-- Coronavirus costs keep mounting for manufacturers, who are facing huge losses in sales and struggling to ramp up production
-- Logistical logjams persist as transport networks struggle to find workers and navigate lockdowns across China

And this:
Coronavirus hits China's tech manufacturing production across the board

Apple's coronavirus warning foreshadows broader threat for tech

Etc.


pauljathome wrote:


I again urge you to suppress your instinctive desire to just nit pick him to death and score points and, instead, to address the ACTUAL things he is arguing that you disagree with.

Sure, he is sometimes unclear and sometimes he is wrong. But in some cases he IS quite clear and arguably quite correct. In this case (and the whole "naming the virus" nonsense) he is being very clear and you (collective, not just CB) are just coming off as an idiot with a grudge trying to score points.

Every time you defend him, you sound like someone who refuses to listen to information that doesn't agree with you. When you step into a conflict and refuse to listen to the other side, the other side is going to not give a s&*@ what you have to say.

For example, when you jumped into the virus nitpick, you explicitly refused to acknowledge posts that were part of the issue because those posts didn't adhere to the narrative you wanted to push.

If you aren't going to listen to both sides of the issue, you need to stop trying to play the peacemaker, because you aren't. You are picking a side and pushing an agenda, and I do not give a f#~+ about your agenda.

Silver Crusade

Irontruth wrote:


Every time you defend him

I'm not actually defending him. I'm criticizing you (collective you). The fact that you think my criticizing you is defending him is pretty good evidence of the problem. You can (and often are) BOTH be wrong.

I'm trying to raise the tone of the discussion.

I am observing that your (often valid) criticisms of his ACTUAL arguments are greatly WEAKENED by your constant nit picking and carping on trivial nonsense.

If you are posting just to convince yourself how intelligent you are and how stupid he is then by all means continue as you are.

But if your goal is to actually convince him or other viewers that he is wrong or that you are right then I stand by my claim that you should change your tactics.

Feel free to again swear at me in response. It pretty much makes my point for me. You are allowing emotion to cloud your judgement and to weaken your argument

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
pauljathome wrote:
Ok, now you ARE being unfair.

Sorry, but you seem (again / still) clearly biased... even before you, oh so 'impartially', declared that everyone disagreeing with you is "an idiot".

pauljathome wrote:
As your own quote makes absolutely clear, the ONLY thing he is trying to claim in that sentence is that, right now, it is unclear how long Covid-19 will be a significant factor.

That's just not true.

QB: "Solar panels just became a commodity that is on a getting scarce trend."
CBD: "Solar panel manufacturing and installation have been growing steadily for many years. There is no 'getting scarce trend' in sight."
QB: "In case you haven't noticed, manufacturing in China just fell off a cliff. And China produces 60%+ of the world's solar panels and a sizable chunk of the associated infrastructure."
CBD: "Problems with your prediction include... there is no indication that any disruption in Chinese solar manufacturing will be long term..."
QB: "'No indication'? There's definitely some indication. Manufacturing in South Korea is on the skids waiting on supplies from China. Jaguar Land Rover 'shipping parts in suitcases' to beat the damage being waged by the Coronovirus shutdown of the global supply chain."
CBD: "Setting aside that those are distribution, rather than manufacturing, delays... there is also no evidence that they will continue indefinitely, and thus do nothing to dispute my statement"
QB: "As for how long this will last, there is some indication that the best answer is still indefinite rather than short term.
Coronavirus: South Korean sect identified as hotbed"
CBD: "So... now you're saying that spread of the virus in South Korea is evidence that there will be long term production delays... in China."

I said that there was no indication that Covid-19 would cause Chinese manufacturing delays leading to a long term disruption (i.e. that the situation was 'unclear'). QB insisted that it would lead to a solar panel "getting scarce trend".

That's reality. Your claim that he has just been saying it is "unclear how long Covid-19 will be a significant factor" is complete fiction.


CB wrote:
I said that there was no indication that Covid-19 would cause Chinese manufacturing delays leading to a long term disruption (i.e. that the situation was 'unclear'). QB insisted that it would lead to a solar panel "getting scarce trend".

To your second point:

QB wrote:
Don't like your own medicine naturally. No surprise there.

.

To your first point ("no indication" Ha!):

QB wrote:
BBC wrote:
The sect in the city of Daegu accounts for 30 of 53 new cases, with officials warning of an unprecedented crisis.
'Cause you know, an "unprecedented crisis" is all about being short term and totally manageable.

.

CBDunkerson wrote:
Quark Blast wrote:

As for how long this will last, there is some indication that the best answer is still indefinite rather than short term.

Coronavirus: South Korean sect identified as hotbed

So... now you're saying that spread of the virus in South Korea is evidence that there will be long term production delays... in China.

Oh, and you know something, something Global Economy.

Because it sure looks like this Coronavirus thing is going to be global and...

This:
Coronavirus: China’s manufacturing supply chain pummelled from all sides in efforts to restart
-- Coronavirus costs keep mounting for manufacturers, who are facing huge losses in sales and struggling to ramp up production
-- Logistical logjams persist as transport networks struggle to find workers and navigate lockdowns across China

And this:
Coronavirus hits China's tech manufacturing production across the board

Apple's coronavirus warning foreshadows broader threat for tech

Etc.

.

pauljathome wrote:

... I am observing that your (often valid) criticisms of his ACTUAL arguments are greatly WEAKENED by your constant nit picking and carping on trivial nonsense...

If your goal is to actually convince him or other viewers that he is wrong or that you are right then I stand by my claim that you should change your tactics...

Exactly this.

If you're going to claim to be the adult in a conversation ya need to walk the talk. At least occasionally. Doing so never, as has been amply demonstrated, is total weaksauce.

Silver Crusade

CBDunkerson wrote:
pauljathome wrote:
Ok, now you ARE being unfair.

Sorry, but you seem (again / still) clearly biased... even before you, oh so 'impartially', declared that everyone disagreeing with you is "an idiot".

To be pedantic, I didn't say that you were an idiot. I said that you come across as an idiot. That is actually significantly different.

I stand by my claim that your tactics are not very good, assuming that you are actually trying to change peoples minds.

But I'll officially shut up again. Its pretty obvious that you (and this time I mean only CB, I'll wait for IT's response) have no real desire to actually argue, you're just determined to prove to yourself how smart you are.


pauljathome wrote:
Irontruth wrote:


Every time you defend him

I'm not actually defending him. I'm criticizing you (collective you). The fact that you think my criticizing you is defending him is pretty good evidence of the problem. You can (and often are) BOTH be wrong.

I'm trying to raise the tone of the discussion.

I am observing that your (often valid) criticisms of his ACTUAL arguments are greatly WEAKENED by your constant nit picking and carping on trivial nonsense.

If you are posting just to convince yourself how intelligent you are and how stupid he is then by all means continue as you are.

But if your goal is to actually convince him or other viewers that he is wrong or that you are right then I stand by my claim that you should change your tactics.

Feel free to again swear at me in response. It pretty much makes my point for me. You are allowing emotion to cloud your judgement and to weaken your argument

But your goal isn't to raise the tone of the discussion. You've ignored facts that don't support your narrative, which demonstrates that you have a bias in this discussion.

If you want to convince me you aren't biased, you will have to include all the facts.

I was a sailor for seven years. So, it would seem that you're putting your own bias about using those words that I don't carry. Saying words like s%~$ and f!@% are really just part of my vocabulary in how I talk. When you see them, it means I'm just putting less effort into censoring myself. For me, it's about as meaningful as saying "umm" in a conversation.

I will continue to nitpick him until he stops talking down to other people in this thread. I don't care that he makes mistakes. I care that he talks down to other people in this thread and I'm not going to sit around doing nothing.


"But your goal isn't to raise the tone of the discussion...."
:)
:D
;D

catches his breath

Something, something unintentional autobiography

But to the OP:

Nobody with university bonafides has pulled it all together so I can't link to something solid but I'm quite certain we'll see a measurable and significant CO2 drop for this year. The Coronavirus has really thrown a wrench into the global supply chain and therefore the global economy. I'll still hold to a prognosticated 3 gigaton reduction at the moment but by mid March I'll reassess.


Well here's some arguably good news:
Coronavirus cuts Chinese carbon emissions by up to 25 percent
Nitrogen oxides have also fallen significantly as factories are closed.

ArsTech wrote:

On Monday, we discussed the possibility that the coronavirus outbreak could interrupt global trade and just-in-time manufacturing, causing car makers to miss ambitious new European carbon emissions regulations. Whether that happens remains to be seen, but in the meantime, the virus has had a concrete effect on CO2, and it's surprisingly positive when seen through the lenses of climate change and air pollution.

According to a report in CarbonBrief, the disruption to China's economy has meant that the country has emitted about 25 percent less CO2 into the atmosphere over the past two weeks than it would if businesses were operating as normal...

.

In other news:
James Lovelock might have been onto something.


I'm not here to raise the tone of the discussion. I'm here to engage with people where they are at.

Silver Crusade

Irontruth wrote:
I'm not here to raise the tone of the discussion. I'm here to engage with people where they are at.

Fair enough.

Bye.


Of course, in my mind the conversation has improved. 5-6 years ago we still had to argue that AGW was actually real.

Now we are just arguing over how bad it is, and what can be done about it.

The conversation has progressed.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
pauljathome wrote:
To be pedantic, I didn't say that you were an idiot. I said that you come across as an idiot. That is actually significantly different.

It is only different if you concede that your perception of how I (and everyone else disputing QB and yourself) 'come across' is biased. If, as you pretend, you are the voice of reason and impartiality here, then the presumption would be that you believe your perception is accurate.

pauljathome wrote:
I stand by my claim that your tactics are not very good, assuming that you are actually trying to change peoples minds.

Tactics? This is not a war, or even any sort of formal debate. It should be treated as an everyday conversation. I shouldn't need to engage in 'tactics' to get people to consider the evidence impartially... and anyone who can't do that isn't likely to change their mind in any case.

pauljathome wrote:
Its pretty obvious that you (and this time I mean only CB, I'll wait for IT's response) have no real desire to actually argue,

Errr... I DON'T have a desire to argue. I'd much rather have a reasonable discussion. Sadly, QB, and now you, make that difficult by saying obviously false (and inflammatory) things and refusing to address actual evidence.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

Given the current, 'you are being unreasonable' / 'no YOU are', level of discourse it might be useful to apply a factual test.

QB said that solar panels are now on a getting scarce trend, AND (in the same post) that he finds it ridiculous to call a period of just one year a trend.

Now, 'getting scarce' is subjective, but clearly it must involve some degree of decline in production and/or installation of solar panels. Further, for it to be reasonable to call that a trend it must, again per QB, last longer than a year.

Thus, we must conclude that, at the very minimum, QB is suggesting that global solar panel production / installation will decline in 2020 and 2021. Personally, I still wouldn't call that either "getting scarce" OR a "trend" unless there was a massive drop... but it is the minimum plausible interpretation of what has been written.

Anyone dispute that? Is there some other reasonable interpretation? QB? When you wrote that they were "getting scarce" did you somehow mean that there would be MORE solar panels?

If not, I think that alone should make it readily apparent just how 'reasonable' one side of this discussion is and that it is not 'unfair' to call them on it... but if anyone really thinks this prediction is likely, we'll find out soon enough.


Jeff Bezos is supposedly going to donate $10 billion to help fight climate change. The number sounds gaudy, and arguably, any donation is better than no donation, but I am not enthused about it.

1) It's not enough to solve the issue. Before we get to an "perfect is the enemy of good" issues, he could easily devote another $10 billion. No one can actually use $127 billion dollars, and I'd say it's questionable whether someone could actually "use" even $50 billion. He's worth $127 billion, he could donate $70 billion and be very financially stable.

2) Most likely this isn't money going to existing programs. It will go into a fund that he essentially controls and will engage in projects that he deems a priority. The money should go to actual climate experts, or engineers already working on solutions. We've seen similar issues with billionaires donating to "education". They pick and choose projects that appeal to them, but these projects result in failure more often than success.

3) It staves off the urgency of the issue. By giving a large and public donation, it creates space to claim that billionaires will solve the problem for us, and we do not need to pursue government action to find a solution. This means the government is less likely to regulate these people, and less likely to pursue aggressive taxation of the wealthy in order to pay for solutions. It's making a small concession now to avoid having to make bigger concessions later.


One guys take on why ICE's aren't going away.

He hints at multiple reasons why capitalist markets are not going to solve climate change for us. Internal combustion engines are still very efficient, cheaper, and useful. He's not getting at broader economic forces between different industries, but focused on automobiles. The video isn't about climate change, just a video about why cars use certain kinds of engines, and why companies spend money on certain types of research.


CB wrote:

Now, 'getting scarce' is subjective, but clearly it must involve some degree of decline in production and/or installation of solar panels. Further, for it to be reasonable to call that a trend it must, again per QB, last longer than a year.

Thus, we must conclude that, at the very minimum, QB is suggesting that global solar panel production / installation will decline in 2020 and 2021. Personally, I still wouldn't call that either "getting scarce" OR a "trend" unless there was a massive drop... but it is the minimum plausible interpretation of what has been written.

"minimum plausible interpretation"?

:D

Remember, unlike the ####### ####### who interpreted the Mauna Loa data as a "trend" (when it's clearly not), I'm merely prognosticating that solar panels will be get scarce this year and that the trend has already started.

The disadvantage of JIT manufacturing is that the pipe is skinny/short and so there is no stockpiling of needed materials.

QB wrote:

Today's distribution delays become tomorrow's production delays.

As for how long this will last, there is some indication that the best answer is still indefinite rather than short term.

Now we can say the situation is no longer short term.

'This is going to be a very big deal' — Coronavirus poised to disrupt storage, solar sectors
February 18th, 2020

Boom! QB is right again!

UD wrote:
If the outbreak were to be sufficiently contained by the end of February —​ the best-case scenario —​ prices of solar cells and modules would not drop in the first half of 2020, according to analysis from Xiaojing Sun, senior research analyst, solar systems and technologies, with Wood Mackenzie. But in the worst-case scenario, where the outbreak continues for months, U.S. module prices are projected to rise by 5% in the first half of the year and remain high in the third quarter of 2020 as well.

Note: this article was published on February 18th.

"By the end of February"? That would be no, we can no longer hold out any hope for "the best case scenario".

Now for "the worst case" - one caveat. This is the worst case for China. Korea? Europe? USA? Those aren't being factored in here.

Therefore, at this point I think we can bank on something worse than the "worst case" as outlined in the linked article.


Quark Blast wrote:


Remember, unlike the ####### ####### who interpreted the Mauna Loa data as a "trend" (when it's clearly not), I'm merely prognosticating that solar panels will be get scarce this year and that the trend has already started.

His point is that YOU defined a one year change as "not a trend".

Therefore, by YOUR logic, a one year dip in solar panel manufacturing is not a trend.

It's literally YOUR logic. You defined a one year change as "not a trend".


The Mauna Loa data in question is reported once/annum.

The Mauna Loa data had year-over-year variance greater than the 1-year decreasing "trend" claimed.

This "trend" was seen by someone looking back at multi-year data.

Ha!
;D

Data on solar panel production (and related accouterments) are published in monthly and quarterly reports.

I was, as already mentioned, prognosticating the beginning of a downward production trend.

That trend has in fact now been acknowledged to have begun. Right now it's looking like at least a three quarter trend. Let's see if the prognostication holds.

Some people are just too ######## ### ###### ### ####!
:D

Oh, and MY logic is impeccable thanks.


Quark Blast wrote:

The Mauna Loa data in question is reported once/annum.

The Mauna Loa data had year-over-year variance greater than the 1-year decreasing "trend" claimed.

This "trend" was seen by someone looking back at multi-year data.

Ha!
;D

Data on solar panel production (and related accouterments) are published in monthly and quarterly reports.

I was, as already mentioned, prognosticating the beginning of a downward production trend.

That trend has in fact now been acknowledged to have begun. Right now it's looking like at least a three quarter trend. Let's see if the prognostication holds.

Some people are just too ######## ### ###### ### ####!
:D

Oh, and MY logic is impeccable thanks.

Will: 1d20 + 8 ⇒ (14) + 8 = 22


Quark Blast wrote:

The Mauna Loa data in question is reported once/annum.

The Mauna Loa data had year-over-year variance greater than the 1-year decreasing "trend" claimed.

This "trend" was seen by someone looking back at multi-year data.

Ha!
;D

Data on solar panel production (and related accouterments) are published in monthly and quarterly reports.

I was, as already mentioned, prognosticating the beginning of a downward production trend.

That trend has in fact now been acknowledged to have begun. Right now it's looking like at least a three quarter trend. Let's see if the prognostication holds.

Some people are just too ######## ### ###### ### ####!
:D

Oh, and MY logic is impeccable thanks.

It isn't me you have to convince, it's you from 2 pages ago.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Quark Blast wrote:
Remember, unlike the ####### ####### who interpreted the Mauna Loa data as a "trend"

Ok, I'm tired of this lie.

Please cite the (non-existent) post you keep quoting where someone (other than you) said that there was a "trend" in the Mauna Loa data.

Quark Blast wrote:
(when it's clearly not), I'm merely prognosticating that solar panels will be get scarce this year and that the trend has already started.

Ah, "this year". So, when you said, they were on a "getting scarce trend" you meant for part of a year... and yet, you've been on a multi-post diatribe (as quoted above) about your belief that;

"Also, I must point out that scientifically speaking a 1-year "trend" is no trend at all."

Also strange... if you only meant (without, you know, actually saying) "this year" why did you object so strongly when I said that solar panel production had been increasing for years and that there was no indication that any disruption would be long term? You now seem to be claiming to have agreed with that position all along... so why were you arguing against it?

QB wrote:

Today's distribution delays become tomorrow's production delays.

As for how long this will last, there is some indication that the best answer is still indefinite rather than short term.

Now we can say the situation is no longer short term.
'This is going to be a very big deal' — Coronavirus poised to disrupt storage, solar sectors
February 18th, 2020

Boom! QB is right again!

...and now you're back to claiming, I'm not sure what. That the disruption can be limited to both "this year" AND "no longer short term"?

At that, nothing in that article talks about disruptions or price increases extending in to next year. So, are you claiming that a partial year "trend" is long term?

In any case, you now seem to be agreeing that there is no indication of anything that would change the ongoing upward trend, or cause a two or more year decline, in global solar panel production and/or installation.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Irontruth wrote:
One guys take on why ICE's aren't going away.

Yeah, I've seen some of this guy's other videos. Can't say I'm a fan. His analyses invariably seem to be damaged by confirmation bias... considering only factors that support his conclusions and failing to perform any sort of reality checks.

Irontruth wrote:
He hints at multiple reasons why capitalist markets are not going to solve climate change for us.

The first half of the video is about what he calls the 'science' of why ICEs beat EVs. His argument essentially being that gasoline currently has much higher energy density than batteries, which is true, and that therefore EVs will not be able to compete until we develop more energy dense batteries... which is false.

Notice that he didn't raise the possibility of countervailing factors at all? Maybe there aren't any? Or they don't have a significant impact? Well...

1: Internal combustion engines average around 20% efficiency and few exceed 30%... while electric engines average around 95% efficiency and few are below 90%. This means that EVs generally require less than 1/3rd (i.e. 30% / 90%) the amount of energy to do the same amount of work as ICEs. So right off the bat, wipe out 2/3rds of the 'soda cans' from his demonstration.

2: Most gasoline powered cars have about 600 lbs worth of power systems (i.e. engine & transmission), compared to about 150 lbs for an EV (i.e. motors and electronics). The difference in engine weights is so great that some EVs now have separate left and right motors... allowing them to eliminate one or both axles (~1000 lbs each). That results in up to ~2600 lbs of ICE components (nearly half the weight of the car) being swapped for ~500 lbs of (better performing) EV components.

3: All of his calculations were based on the energy density of batteries sold in 2018. Tesla and other 'leading edge' battery manufacturers are not selling their batteries to the public... so the values he was looking at were for something like laptop, cellphone, or portable (e.g. AA) batteries... from two years ago. In short, the most recent EV batteries have significantly better stats than whatever he was using.

Energy density is certainly a major issue, but EVs will surpass ICEs in virtually every way long before batteries match the energy density of gasoline (if that ever happens at all).

Irontruth wrote:
Internal combustion engines are still very efficient, cheaper, and useful.

As noted above, ICEs are terribly IN-efficient compared to EVs.

The cost break even point for ICEs vs EVs is expected to be when battery prices hit ~$100/kWh. In 2010 we were at about $1,100/kWh. Last year the commercially available cost dropped to $156/kWh, and a few companies were claiming to have hit $100/kWh. General estimates for $100/kWh range from this year to 2023.

Also note... that's purchase cost. EVs will be cheaper to purchase within a few years... but when operating costs (e.g. 'fuel' and maintenance) are considered they're already significantly cheaper over the life of the vehicle.

Irontruth wrote:
He's not getting at broader economic forces between different industries, but focused on automobiles. The video isn't about climate change, just a video about why cars use certain kinds of engines, and why companies spend money on certain types of research.

The rest of his video is no better.

For example, the part where he demonstrates that you 'only' need a 10% increase in ICE efficiency to get environmental benefits equal to those from EV sales at current levels... do I really need to point out how implausible a 10% increase in ICE efficiency is? After a century of cut-throat competition? If it could be done they'd have done so by now. Likewise, the idea that EV sales will go from the exponential growth rate they have been on to ZERO growth is just absurd.

Then there's the whole thing about how all these factors result in companies investing in ICE research rather than EVs. Really? Even a brief reality check finds the exact opposite;

ICE vehicle plants are being converted to build EVs
Volvo has ceased ICE research entirely
Thirteen countries are phasing out ICEs

He also goes on at some length about EVs being only 2% of global sales... apparently not having bothered to study technology disruptions at all. If he had, he'd know that when exponentially growing technologies (as EVs have been) get over 2% they're only a few years from market dominance.

We're already seeing this with EVs in a few countries that have adopted policies which shifted the price point. Norway adopted new incentives and got above 2% EV sales in 2013... and by 2019 it was 56%. Iceland went over 2% in 2015... and hit 25% in 2019. Sweden, over 2% in 2017... 11% in 2019. Et cetera.

We are now hitting that same ~2% tipping point (w/o subsidies) world-wide and thus some time in the next few years we'll see EV sales start surging along the same trajectory (i.e. ~10% after 2 years, ~25% after 4, ~60% after 6, etc). The same thing has already happened with global renewable energy (~66% of new capacity last year), and yet somehow people still manage not to see what is happening there either.

Basically, that guy is a case study in how smart people make bad arguments. It is always possible to reach the wrong conclusions if you ignore all factors that contradict your pre-conceived assumptions and make no effort to check that your analyses matches reality.


CBDunkerson wrote:

[

2: Most gasoline powered cars have about 600 lbs worth of power systems (i.e. engine & transmission), compared to about 150 lbs for an EV (i.e. motors and electronics). The difference in engine weights is so great that some EVs now have separate left and right motors... allowing them to eliminate one or both axles (~1000 lbs each). That results in up to ~2600 lbs of ICE components (nearly half the weight of the car) being swapped for ~500 lbs of (better performing) EV components.

Notice how you ONLY compared the weight of the engine vs motor. How come you didn't include battery weight vs fuel tank weight? Oh, wait... I already know why.

Don't make obviously disingenuous claims on the same page where you b~#$$ about the consistency of QB. It makes you look stupid.

Also, note how my point was about capitalist markets not providing solutions, and every example you gave about how countries have changed market share have done so THROUGH GOVERNMENT INTERVENTION.

For the sake of conversation, can we agree that capitalist markets and government policy are different mechanism? Cause if you aren't able to tell the difference... well... I guess maybe that why you also excluded battery weight from your weight argument. You're leaving s+#% out intentionally that doesn't match your argument.

A smart person making an argument while intentionally ignoring factors.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Irontruth wrote:
Notice how you ONLY compared the weight of the engine vs motor. How come you didn't include battery weight vs fuel tank weight? Oh, wait... I already know why.

Err... setting aside the fact that I did mention (twice) that batteries had much lower energy density than gasoline... AND related my point about efficiency directly to his 'soda cans' battery vs fuel weight comparison... that was also the entire point of the 'science' portion of the video. I needed to repeat everything he said, in even more detail than I did, before explaining why I disagreed?

If that were reasonable... well then you'd be equally 'guilty' of not repeating everything I said before disputing it. By the 'logic' you present, you must "look stupid", be making "obviously disingenuous claims", and be "leaving s+&@ out intentionally that doesn't match your argument".

Irontruth wrote:
Also, note how my point was about capitalist markets not providing solutions, and every example you gave about how countries have changed market share have done so THROUGH GOVERNMENT INTERVENTION.

Again, not true. I pointed out that the whole world was at a tipping point for EVs, and had already tipped for renewable energy... how can that be if these things only happen through government intervention?

What my specific country examples showed was that different levels of government intervention shifted the tipping point a few years, but then resulted in the same rapid acceleration in each case.

Irontruth wrote:
For the sake of conversation, can we agree that capitalist markets and government policy are different mechanism?

Not really. They are not synonymous, but they are too closely connected to be considered truly different things.

I could make a strong argument that the only reason the rest of the world hasn't already tipped into mass EV adoption is because of government interventions (e.g. fuel subsidies, infrastructure spending, oil wars, etc) delaying that point. Governments are always involved in the market. Supposed 'non-interventionist' policies are just government support of the status quo. It is impossible for government policy NOT to influence markets... and vice versa.

IMO 'free market' ideology is about 90% gibberish, 9% lies, and 1% basic economics.


CBDunkerson wrote:


Irontruth wrote:
For the sake of conversation, can we agree that capitalist markets and government policy are different mechanism?

Not really. They are not synonymous, but they are too closely connected to be considered truly different things.

I could make a strong argument that the only reason the rest of the world hasn't already tipped into mass EV adoption is because of government interventions (e.g. fuel subsidies, infrastructure spending, oil wars, etc) delaying that point....

You're putting a lot of effort to do some mental gymnastics in order to talk down to me.

Please highlight where I have said in this thread that government policies cannot impact markets. Because that is what you are implying that my position is in your statement here.

Stop debating me like you've learned debate tactics from QB.

My point: government policies and capitalist markets are not interchangeable terms. Do you disagree with this position?


Good grief people!

@thejeff Time to make a will save again.
:D

CB wrote:
incoherent diatribe

where he ^linked to a prior post of mine.

However, the relevant prior post of mine was in fact prior to that one and said, in part,

QB wrote:

Note especially the words "for energy production". Cause you know humanity emitted a ####ton of CO2 for other things like deforestation, transportation, construction, etc.

So, CO2 for those things increased last year. Yeah... they did. Which means, if CO2 for energy production held steady, net CO2 increased last year. Which is just what the Mauna Loa Observatory was screaming at you but you failed to listen. Again. <eyeroll>

CO2 went up in the atmosphere last year. That's not good. <-- That's the entirety of my point for that series of posts. Nothing about rate and certainly nothing about the rate "going down" (as if you can see a trend - looking back - in year-over-year Mauna Loa data).

OTOH - looks like the global stock markets and, finally, the WHO are recognizing that we're are in the beginning of a global recession precipitated by the Coronavirus pandemic.

A lot more than solar panels are about to get scarce. Rightly or wrongly, I'd stock up now on all non-perishables you might need for the next few months. Because everyone else will.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Irontruth wrote:
Please highlight where I have said in this thread that government policies cannot impact markets. Because that is what you are implying that my position is in your statement here.

I made no such implication.

Indeed, your claim was that "every example you gave about how countries have changed market share have done so THROUGH GOVERNMENT INTERVENTION"... that inherently states that government policy changed market share. Which is true. On the other hand, I don't agree with, "my [i.e. your] point was about capitalist markets not providing solutions". Sometimes they do, as noted for global EVs and renewable energy.

Irontruth wrote:
My point: government policies and capitalist markets are not interchangeable terms. Do you disagree with this position?

I already said, "They ['capitalist markets' and 'government policy'] are not synonymous". 'Not synonymous' and 'not interchangeable terms' ARE interchangeable terms.

However, what you originally said was, "can we agree that capitalist markets and government policy are different mechanism?"

IMO that's a bridge too far. They are two sides of the same coin.


CBDunkerson wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
Please highlight where I have said in this thread that government policies cannot impact markets. Because that is what you are implying that my position is in your statement here.

I made no such implication.

Indeed, your claim was that "every example you gave about how countries have changed market share have done so THROUGH GOVERNMENT INTERVENTION"... that inherently states that government policy changed market share. Which is true. On the other hand, I don't agree with, "my [i.e. your] point was about capitalist markets not providing solutions". Sometimes they do, as noted for global EVs and renewable energy.

Irontruth wrote:
My point: government policies and capitalist markets are not interchangeable terms. Do you disagree with this position?

I already said, "They ['capitalist markets' and 'government policy'] are not synonymous". 'Not synonymous' and 'not interchangeable terms' ARE interchangeable terms.

However, what you originally said was, "can we agree that capitalist markets and government policy are different mechanism?"

IMO that's a bridge too far. They are two sides of the same coin.

You literally flip your position from earlier in the post.

Either they are the same, or they are different. Which one is it? If it helps, I'll let you provide me two new terms:

1: This term defines factors where the government interferes with a market in order to make it behave in a certain way.

2: This term defines when a market's internal operation causes change without government influence.

Tell me what you would like to call #1 and #2, since "government policy" and "capitalist markets" seems to be too confusing for you.


3) Markets only exist and function with government influence.

Our existing fossil fuel "market" has government interference baked into it. To the point that removing that influence is seen as government intervention.

There is no clean dividing line.


Can something influence the market that isn't a government policy?

There is a dividing line. Sure, it's hard to call it clean, but there is a dividing line.

Does A=B, or does A=/=B. It cannot be both, and it cannot be neither. Either A and B are equivalent, or they are different.

"Government policy" and "capitalist markets" are either equivalent, or they are not. It cannot be both, and it cannot be neither.

The doesn't mean that they don't have a relationship, but having a relationship does not mean that they are equivalent.

If A=2*B, then A=/=B. The two are related, but they are not equivalent. This is literally week 1 stuff in a logic class. I don't understand how we can possibly be having this much difficulty with it.


Irontruth wrote:
I don't understand how we can possibly be having this much difficulty with it.

Ummm, I don't know... this? vv

I'm not here to raise the tone of the discussion. I'm here to engage with people where they are at.

;D

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Irontruth wrote:
You literally flip your position from earlier in the post.

No.

Quote:
1: This term defines factors where the government interferes with a market in order to make it behave in a certain way.

'Observed reality'

Quote:
2: This term defines when a market's internal operation causes change without government influence.

'Fairy tales'

Irontruth wrote:
The two are related, but they are not equivalent.

Yes. Exactly what I have been saying.


CBDunkerson wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
You literally flip your position from earlier in the post.

No.

Quote:
1: This term defines factors where the government interferes with a market in order to make it behave in a certain way.

'Observed reality'

Quote:
2: This term defines when a market's internal operation causes change without government influence.

'Fairy tales'

Irontruth wrote:
The two are related, but they are not equivalent.
Yes. Exactly what I have been saying.

Okay, so the two terms you've chosen imply that government policy is the ONLY determining factor in how markets operate. There are zero other factors for us to examine in attempting to determine how markets will behave in the future.

For example, your claim right now would lead me to conclude that say... a volcano eruption would have no impact on capitalist markets, unless that volcano eruption was a direct result of a government policy.

Your terms would imply that changes in technology have zero impact in how markets work.

Your terms would imply that consumer demand has no impact on how markets react.

I'm asking you straightforward questions, and you've decided to respond precisely how Quark Blast responds.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Irontruth wrote:
Okay, so the two terms you've chosen imply that government policy is the ONLY determining factor in how markets operate. There are zero other factors for us to examine in attempting to determine how markets will behave in the future.

Again, just no. That bears no resemblance to my thoughts on the matter or anything I have written.

This should be very simple. I am saying (at your request) that markets are inherently influenced by government policies. There is no such thing as a market "without government influence". No more. No less.

That does NOT mean, as you repeatedly claim out of nowhere, that I am also saying government policies are the ONLY thing which influences markets or that the two terms are synonymous. I made statements contradicting those positions even before you started falsely ascribing them to me.

The Sun influences all weather on Earth. That does not mean that the Sun is the only thing which influences weather on Earth or that the Sun and weather on Earth are synonyms. Ditto government policies and markets.


CBDunkerson wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
Okay, so the two terms you've chosen imply that government policy is the ONLY determining factor in how markets operate. There are zero other factors for us to examine in attempting to determine how markets will behave in the future.

Again, just no. That bears no resemblance to my thoughts on the matter or anything I have written.

This should be very simple. I am saying (at your request) that markets are inherently influenced by government policies. There is no such thing as a market "without government influence". No more. No less.

That does NOT mean, as you repeatedly claim out of nowhere, that I am also saying government policies are the ONLY thing which influences markets or that the two terms are synonymous. I made statements contradicting those positions even before you started falsely ascribing them to me.

The Sun influences all weather on Earth. That does not mean that the Sun is the only thing which influences weather on Earth or that the Sun and weather on Earth are synonyms. Ditto government policies and markets.

I literally asked you to tell me what term we should use for when markets are affected by sources other than governments, and you implied that such a possibility was a "fairy tale".

If you want to have a second go at it, feel free.

For reference, here is where I asked you, and you replied.

CBDunkerson wrote:


Quote:
2: This term defines when a market's internal operation causes change without government influence.

'Fairy tales'

Do you want to change your answer? Or are you sticking by your terminology that characterizes that ALL market changes are due to the government.

I don't need you to talk down to me. I don't need you to explain anything. Just give me the term you want to use.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Irontruth wrote:
I literally asked you to tell me what term we should use for when markets are affected by sources other than governments, and you implied that such a possibility was a "fairy tale".

Again, that is NOT what you originally wrote.

Irontruth wrote:

For reference, here is where I asked you, and you replied.

2: This term defines when a market's internal operation causes change without government influence.

CBDunkerson wrote:
'Fairy tales'

Seriously?

You believe that "without government influence" is the same thing as "affected by sources other than governments"? You can't see the difference?

Markets are NEVER "without government influence"... and they are ALWAYS "affected by sources other than governments".

The weather is NEVER 'without Solar influence'... and it is ALWAYS 'affected by sources other than the Sun'.

Irontruth wrote:
Or are you sticking by your terminology that characterizes that ALL market changes are due to the government.

I have explicitly told you that this is not my position multiple times. Of course, based on your statements above, you don't seem to be able to tell the difference between 'government policies influence markets' and 'ONLY government policies influence markets'.

Irontruth wrote:
I don't need you to explain anything.

Yet when I didn't explain (again) in sufficient detail you complained about that too.

However, you are right... the fact that you continue to insist on things that are plainly not true indicates that you don't need me to explain. I already have. Several times... but you've still managed to make up your own false ideas that directly contradict what I have said. You don't need me to explain. You need to overcome your own blinders and try to understand what I have actually been saying rather than what you want to believe I have been saying.


CBDunkerson wrote:


Markets are NEVER "without government influence"... and they are ALWAYS "affected by sources other than governments".

What are the two terms you would like to use for the separate categories of things?

That is literally all I've been asking you for.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Irontruth wrote:
CBDunkerson wrote:


Markets are NEVER "without government influence"... and they are ALWAYS "affected by sources other than governments".

What are the two terms you would like to use for the separate categories of things?

That is literally all I've been asking you for.

Which 'separate categories'? The two definitions you made up earlier? I already provided terms for those.

Or maybe you mean what terms would I like to use for the sentences where I have been using "markets" and "government influence"? Errr... maybe those two?

Since you keep asking me questions, maybe you could answer one... so that maybe we could talk about the actual substance rather than increasingly obscure semantic nonsense;

Was I wrong that the video which started this whole kerfluffle left out major factors which would significantly change the 'science' analysis he presented?


I tried using "capitalist markets" and "government policy" as separate terms before, but whenever I made point about "capitalist markets" you always responded with something about "government policy". I want to make sure that going forward, when I say "markets" or similar, I am specifically not talking about factors that influence them like "government policy". If I am discussing "government policy" and how it affects markets, I will specifically refer to "government policy". If I don't mention "government policy", or something similar, please assume that I am talking about something else, or if it's confusing, please ask a question for clarification.

So, when I say something like:

Quote:
I've seen nothing about free markets or capitalism

I am discussing how those things behave in exclusion of government interference. Yes, I understand that governments interfere in them. My point is that free markets and capitalism will not solve climate change.... unless the government interferes. In which case, it is no longer the free market or capitalism solving the problem. It is the government policy addressing the problem.

If you would like to disagree with me, I'm willing to debate that issue. Please present some evidence that the free market or capitalism (with no help from the government) are solving the issues of climate change. Remember, my point here is specifically that they cannot do so unless the government gets involved, so any reference to a solution that includes government involvement is not a rebuttal, since my claim IS that government involvement is required.

As for your "facts", well it's hard to take your claim that someone else misrepresented facts seriously when you yourself misrepresented facts in your attempt to do so. Just for s*!*s and giggles, highlight where in this thread I claimed his video was correct on battery density. If you can point out where I made that claim, I'll defend it. If you can't highlight it, I would appreciate an apology from you for jumping on me about something I never said.


Irontruth wrote:

I tried using "capitalist markets" and "government policy" as separate terms before, but whenever I made point about "capitalist markets" you always responded with something about "government policy". I want to make sure that going forward, when I say "markets" or similar, I am specifically not talking about factors that influence them like "government policy". If I am discussing "government policy" and how it affects markets, I will specifically refer to "government policy". If I don't mention "government policy", or something similar, please assume that I am talking about something else, or if it's confusing, please ask a question for clarification.

So, when I say something like:

Quote:
I've seen nothing about free markets or capitalism

I am discussing how those things behave in exclusion of government interference. Yes, I understand that governments interfere in them. My point is that free markets and capitalism will not solve climate change.... unless the government interferes. In which case, it is no longer the free market or capitalism solving the problem. It is the government policy addressing the problem.

If you would like to disagree with me, I'm willing to debate that issue. Please present some evidence that the free market or capitalism (with no help from the government) are solving the issues of climate change. Remember, my point here is specifically that they cannot do so unless the government gets involved, so any reference to a solution that includes government involvement is not a rebuttal, since my claim IS that government involvement is required.

As for your "facts", well it's hard to take your claim that someone else misrepresented facts seriously when you yourself misrepresented facts in your attempt to do so. Just for s%!%s and giggles, highlight where in this thread I claimed his video was correct on battery density. If you can point out where I made that claim, I'll defend it. If you can't highlight it, I would appreciate an apology from you for jumping...

I would agree that capitalism or the free market cannot solve climate change without government involvement. But that's not really meaningful. I also would say the free market couldn't continue the current fossil fuel paradigm without government involvement.

Actually maybe without government involvement in the market, the problem would solve itself, since the world economy would collapse and emissions would drop through the floor.

The question is meaningless. There is no free market without government influence. There things other than government that influence the markets, but those always interact with government influence as well so talking about "without government involvement" is meaningless.

I think that's something like what CB's been saying, but I'm not completely sure.


thejeff wrote:

I would agree that capitalism or the free market cannot solve climate change without government involvement. But that's not really meaningful. I also would say the free market couldn't continue the current fossil fuel paradigm without government involvement.

Actually maybe without government involvement in the market, the problem would solve itself, since the world economy would collapse and emissions would drop through the floor.
The question is meaningless. There is no free market without government influence. There things other than government that influence the markets, but those always interact with government influence as well so talking about "without government involvement" is meaningless.

I think that's something like what CB's been saying, but I'm not completely sure.

This is why I need the definition of the terms to be adhered to. You are not adhering to the definition of terms, you are conflating terms. If you alter the definition of the terms in any way, you dramatically alter the meaning of my position. So, if you're going to reply to ME and respond to MY argument, it would be helpful if you don't change those definitions. If you do change them, you are arguing with a statement of your own making, and you aren't actually addressing me.

I will rewrite my position for you to make it clear. First, we will need to AGREE on two terms for the following definitions. What terms will we use for the following two categories of influences on the economy:
1: government sources of influence on the economy
2: nongovernment sources of influence on the economy.

Tell me what terms YOU AGREE mean those two things, and I will rewrite my position for you. Once we AGREE on those two terms, and I write my position, I will respond to criticism of it.

thejeff wrote:
Actually maybe without government involvement in the market, the problem would solve itself, since the world economy would collapse and emissions would drop through the floor.

I'm also going to point out that this is an undefendable hypothetical. For it to even be possible would require assumptions that are entirely unrealistic and serves no purpose beyond a thought exercise.

3,701 to 3,750 of 3,905 << first < prev | 69 | 70 | 71 | 72 | 73 | 74 | 75 | 76 | 77 | 78 | 79 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Off-Topic Discussions / Conspiracy theories surrounding human influenced climate change, what's up with that? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.