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


Off-Topic Discussions

3,751 to 3,800 of 4,072 << first < prev | 71 | 72 | 73 | 74 | 75 | 76 | 77 | 78 | 79 | 80 | 81 | next > last >>
Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Irontruth wrote:
Quote:
I've seen nothing about free markets or capitalism
I am discussing how those things behave in exclusion of government interference.

Which is problematic, as it is my belief (as I have explained multiple times), that there is no way to exclude government interference. Any more than we can exclude Solar influence when talking about what causes the weather.

In short, you are trying to 'define terms' to include things I believe to be false. The only way to have a meaningful conversation is to try to understand each person's intent... you have apparently been applying YOUR definitions to MY words, even when I provided detailed explanations directly contradicting that reading.

It's the equivalent of demanding that before we can have a discussion about the causes of weather events we must all agree to define 'weather' as something like, 'the interaction of gas, liquid, and temperature flows, uninfluenced by the Sun'.

Irontruth wrote:
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.

This is true, in the sense that government ALWAYS interferes and thus any market solution will inherently involve government interference.

However, I would argue that the net impact of government interference thus far has been to delay the resolution of climate change. That is, I'd argue that all indications are that market forces (e.g. renewable power and EVs becoming cheaper than fossil fuel variants) are now in the process of 'solving' climate change... and that they would have done so sooner except that the net impact of government policies has been holding them back.

Irontruth wrote:
As for your "facts", well it's hard to take your claim that someone else misrepresented facts seriously

Setting aside that you are dodging the question... I said that he left things out which would have changed the analysis. That is different than saying he misrepresented facts.

Irontruth wrote:
...when you yourself misrepresented facts in your attempt to do so.

Such as? What did I misrepresent?

Irontruth wrote:
Just for s~@*s and giggles, highlight where in this thread I claimed his video was correct on battery density.

You didn't. Though your initial endorsement and attacks on my criticism of it might be taken to imply that.

Irontruth wrote:
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.

I will not apologize, because I haven't claimed you DID say that. Indeed, the very question you are dodging here was me asking whether I was right about flaws in his analysis or not. I asked because you haven't said what your position is... you've just thrown a lot of insults and false accusations. Now including this one. Does this mean I should be expecting an apology?


CBDunkerson wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
Quote:
I've seen nothing about free markets or capitalism
I am discussing how those things behave in exclusion of government interference.

Which is problematic, as it is my belief (as I have explained multiple times), that there is no way to exclude government interference.

Yes or no.

There exist factors other than government interference in how markets behave.

I'm doing this short and simple for a reason so that we stop talking past each other. I'm not reading your posts beyond the 5th sentence any more. If you want me to read it, keep it short.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Irontruth wrote:
There exist factors other than government interference in how markets behave.

We've been over this. Yes, there are other factors.

Irontruth wrote:
If you want me to read it, keep it short.

Your insistence on placing roadblocks in the way of meaningful conversation is getting tedious.


Am I allowed to have and express an opinion about these other factors?

Long posts from both of us results in many statements that get ignored. Short posts require us to be direct and to the point. If I literally disagree with the first sentence you post, that means that all subsequent points made relying on the premise of that sentence are irrelevant until we agree on that premise or replace it.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Irontruth wrote:
Am I allowed to have and express an opinion about these other factors?

Yes.


When I say: I don't trust capitalist markets to solve climate change.

I am talking about those other factors. I am not talking about government involvement and I am not expressing an opinion about government involvement (I have one, and it isn't the same as above). I'm hoping this makes it clearer why your attempts to talk about government involvement appear essentially nonsensical as a reply to my opinion about "not government involvement".

Example: If I express the opinion that "not dogs" make horrible pets, giving me evidence that dogs are good pets is not addressing the opinion I have expressed.

Liberty's Edge

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

Yes, I understand your position.

However, as previously explained, I disagree in two particulars.

First, I believe excluding government involvement makes any analysis of market behavior essentially meaningless. Like trying to determine the causes of today's weather while excluding the Sun.

Second, I believe the 'other things' would be well on the way to having 'solved' global warming by now if not held back by the net impact of government policies.


Do you agree that there are a category of factors that impact markets that are not from the government?

If yes, do you agree that it is possible to hold and express an opinion about those factors?

I've asked these questions before, and you said yes to both. But your "firstly" here directly contradicts both of those statements. You say that those factors are "meaningless" and impossible to analyze. "Meaningless" implies that those factors have no actual effect, which means they aren't actually factors and the category is non-existent, and then you finish it off by saying that it is impossible to discuss them.

Liberty's Edge

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

Still yes to both questions.

Irontruth wrote:
But your "firstly" here directly contradicts both of those statements.

There is no contradiction. Indeed, my second point DID express an opinion about the 'other factors'.

Text after fifth sentence ignored per instructions.


Irontruth wrote:

Do you agree that there are a category of factors that impact markets that are not from the government?

If yes, do you agree that it is possible to hold and express an opinion about those factors?

I've asked these questions before, and you said yes to both. But your "firstly" here directly contradicts both of those statements. You say that those factors are "meaningless" and impossible to analyze. "Meaningless" implies that those factors have no actual effect, which means they aren't actually factors and the category is non-existent, and then you finish it off by saying that it is impossible to discuss them.

There is a difference between examining multiple factors affecting something, including government and non-government factors, and trying to examine some of those factors while excluding analysis of the others. Because they all affect each other.

Those other factors aren't meaningless, but you can't understand those effects while excluding government.


thejeff wrote:
Irontruth wrote:

Do you agree that there are a category of factors that impact markets that are not from the government?

If yes, do you agree that it is possible to hold and express an opinion about those factors?

I've asked these questions before, and you said yes to both. But your "firstly" here directly contradicts both of those statements. You say that those factors are "meaningless" and impossible to analyze. "Meaningless" implies that those factors have no actual effect, which means they aren't actually factors and the category is non-existent, and then you finish it off by saying that it is impossible to discuss them.

There is a difference between examining multiple factors affecting something, including government and non-government factors, and trying to examine some of those factors while excluding analysis of the others. Because they all affect each other.

Those other factors aren't meaningless, but you can't understand those effects while excluding government.

This is another way of saying that governmental factors are the only factors that affect markets. If ALL other factors are dependent on government factors, then only government factors are relevant.

If there does exist at least one relevant factor that is independent of the government, then your statement is incorrect.

You are taking on an incredibly steep burden of proof in this statement. If this isn't what you are saying, then you have not actually contradicted the possible relevancy of my original opinion.


Irontruth wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Irontruth wrote:

Do you agree that there are a category of factors that impact markets that are not from the government?

If yes, do you agree that it is possible to hold and express an opinion about those factors?

I've asked these questions before, and you said yes to both. But your "firstly" here directly contradicts both of those statements. You say that those factors are "meaningless" and impossible to analyze. "Meaningless" implies that those factors have no actual effect, which means they aren't actually factors and the category is non-existent, and then you finish it off by saying that it is impossible to discuss them.

There is a difference between examining multiple factors affecting something, including government and non-government factors, and trying to examine some of those factors while excluding analysis of the others. Because they all affect each other.

Those other factors aren't meaningless, but you can't understand those effects while excluding government.

This is another way of saying that governmental factors are the only factors that affect markets. If ALL other factors are dependent on government factors, then only government factors are relevant.

If there does exist at least one relevant factor that is independent of the government, then your statement is incorrect.

You are taking on an incredibly steep burden of proof in this statement. If this isn't what you are saying, then you have not actually contradicted the possible relevancy of my original opinion.

That is not what I'm saying. I'm saying all the factors are interdependent. You can't analyze government influence without including the other factors. You can't analyze the other factors without including the government.


Are you saying that it is impossible to differentiate the impact factors have on market economies?

Liberty's Edge

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

There is a difference between examining multiple factors affecting something, including government and non-government factors, and trying to examine some of those factors while excluding analysis of the others. Because they all affect each other.

Those other factors aren't meaningless, but you can't understand those effects while excluding government.

Exactly.

At one level you can point to gasoline and say that it dominates the market because it is a low cost solution... but those low costs are underpinned by massive global infrastructure, ludicrously low land use and sale rates for oil exploration and development, massive military spending to protect oil sources and supply routes, waiving of major health and environmental costs, direct subsidies, et cetera.

We're now approaching the point where batteries can cover most of the use cases gasoline currently does with vastly less government support. That represents a tipping point where 'other market forces' will drive rapid adoption of battery electric vehicles. We have seen many individual countries bring that point forward a few years by providing just a bit more support... but it is still less than what gasoline receives.

Another thing to note is that markets impact government as much as governments do markets. Once the global tipping point has passed the balance of government support will also begin to shift... greatly accelerating the transition. That's one reason disruptions like this tend to be so rapid.


CBDunkerson wrote:


Another thing to note is that markets impact government as much as governments do markets. Once the global tipping point has passed the balance of government support will also begin to shift... greatly accelerating the transition. That's one reason disruptions like this tend to be so rapid.

These market impacts, can they be differentiated and measured? Because if they can't, then there is no evidence to support the claim you make here. If they can, then your claim earlier that they can't be analyzed

CBDunkerson wrote:


First, I believe excluding government involvement makes any analysis of market behavior essentially meaningless.

... would then be wrong.

Your statements are logically contradictory. If you can't separate market and government impact, then you cannot know whether or not markets impact the government.

In math terms, putting your two claims together:
A+B=X
You've said you can solve for A without separating A+B. That is a logical impossibility.


CBDunkerson wrote:


Second, I believe the 'other things' would be well on the way to having 'solved' global warming by now if not held back by the net impact of government policies.

This where you do it as well. You tell me that we can't analyze the other things without government interference, then you make this claim.

If my claim that these "other things" is inherently flawed because we can't separate the "other things" from government influence, then your claim here must also be false, since you would need to be able to separate them in your analysis in order to make the claim.

You say that my claim is impossible, and then turn around and make a similar claim but in the opposite direction.

You insist that simultaneously A=B and A=/=B.


You apparently mean different things by "can't analyze the other things without government interference" and "an't separate the "other things" from government influence".

My read is that CB is considering how those other things interact with government policies and vice versa and reaching that conclusion. I read you as saying "forget government policy and tell me what effect those other things will have", which is meaningless since government policy will change what effect the other things will have.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
thejeff wrote:
My read is that CB is considering how those other things interact with government policies and vice versa and reaching that conclusion. I read you as saying "forget government policy and tell me what effect those other things will have", which is meaningless since government policy will change what effect the other things will have.

Again, this.

I hoped the Sun and weather analogy would help... there is virtually no part of the weather which isn't influenced by the Sun.

Clouds influence the weather? Absolutely, but they are formed from water that was evaporated... largely due to sunlight.

Wind currents influence the weather? Absolutely, but the major wind flows of the planet are all caused by air rising after being heated... mostly by sunlight.

Plants can influence the weather? Absolutely, but they rely on sunlight to live.

Et cetera.

Thus, discussing how various factors influence the weather while excluding the Sun is 'meaningless' / inherently false. Those factors would not behave the way they do without the Sun.

Ditto markets and government policies. Yes, there are many factors involved... but government policies influence virtually all of them in some way. Taking out only the most obvious government influences (like taking the Sun's impact on local temperature out of weather analysis) isn't sufficient... because they influence the other pieces as well. And vice versa.

However, it often IS possible to determine the NET impact of government policies (e.g. the Sun has a net warming impact).

Given that you apparently disagree with me on what that net impact IS in reference to climate change, I'd think that would be a far more interesting topic of discussion than these endless semantic digressions.


I see @thejeff failed his will save a few times since I was last by this way.

Incidentally, these most recent exchanges help me (since they don't involve me) because I can see I'm not the cause of all the ####### #### posts in this thread; arguably even when I'm participating.

You just can't talk to some people without a ##### #### of ######## #####!
:D

Back to the OP:
Looks like China is doing its damndest to ramp up production. Just as requests from elsewhere are falling off. I think three quarters of reduced CO2 emissions might be a little optimistic. At this point, the way the global supply chain works and given the lock-down mode of slowing viral spread, I'd say we're committed to two quarters of markedly less CO2 emissions globally and therefore a net global recession for the year. Still my three gigaton prognostication seems about right so far.


thejeff wrote:

You apparently mean different things by "can't analyze the other things without government interference" and "an't separate the "other things" from government influence".

My read is that CB is considering how those other things interact with government policies and vice versa and reaching that conclusion. I read you as saying "forget government policy and tell me what effect those other things will have", which is meaningless since government policy will change what effect the other things will have.

Was my original opinion on this tangent about government policy?

Btw, your "meaningless" argument has two faults either:

1) it admits that I'm right, the other nongovernmental are not trustworthy to solve climate change without governmental interference.

or

2) you have to demonstrate that other factors in capitalism have no bearing on the outcome of climate change

If you want to go with #1, I agree with you. In fact... that was my point to begin with. You've actually agreed with me.

If you want to go with #2, I eagerly await your demonstration of this fact.


CBDunkerson wrote:


Given that you apparently disagree with me on what that net impact IS in reference to climate change, I'd think that would be a far more interesting topic of discussion than these endless semantic digressions.

I have never once disagreed with you on the net impact. I expressed a specific opinion, and you decided to disagree with it. I've been pointing out that your disagreement with MY opinion was nonsensical.

Let me use your weather analogy.

I don't trust the Earth's rotation to solve global warming.

Please tell me why ignoring the Sun's influence in this opinion makes my opinion wrong. (Hint: if you try to use gravity, I can already demonstrate that this would be a false objection)


Irontruth wrote:
thejeff wrote:

You apparently mean different things by "can't analyze the other things without government interference" and "an't separate the "other things" from government influence".

My read is that CB is considering how those other things interact with government policies and vice versa and reaching that conclusion. I read you as saying "forget government policy and tell me what effect those other things will have", which is meaningless since government policy will change what effect the other things will have.

Was my original opinion on this tangent about government policy?

Btw, your "meaningless" argument has two faults:

1) it admits that I'm right, the other nongovernmental are not trustworthy to solve climate change without governmental interference.

or

2) you have to demonstrate that other factors in capitalism have no bearing on the outcome of climate change

If you want to go with #1, I agree with you. In fact... that was my point to begin with. You've actually agreed with me.

If you want to go with #2, I eagerly await your demonstration of this fact.

Honestly, I've got no idea at this point what your original interpretation was.

But you are still fundamentally misunderstanding. And possibly I'm misunderstanding you as well.

1) is true but only in the sense that there is always government interference. Nothing happens without government interference, or at least nothing significant. Though I'd prefer not to use the term "interference", since that implies there is a separate independent market that the government interferes with, rather than government being one of many things influences all market decisions.

2) is of course not true, nor have I ever suggested it.

Another possibility might be that "market forces" will solve climate change despite government influence. CB above has talked about government policies that favor fossil fuel extraction industries and those industries losing ground despite that. That still wouldn't be "without government influence" though. Government is still affecting the process.


thejeff wrote:

Honestly, I've got no idea at this point what your original interpretation was.

But you are still fundamentally misunderstanding.

You don't know what my opinion is....

But you know that it is wrong.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Irontruth wrote:
I have never once disagreed with you on the net impact.

Ok... so when you've (repeatedly) said things like; "My point is that free markets and capitalism will not solve climate change.... unless the government interferes"... you haven't meant that the net impact of government action would have to be to fight against climate change?

That was certainly the impression I got. In any case, another way I have stated my position on the net impact has been; 'My point is that markets currently ARE solving climate change... despite government interference.'

To me it seems that these positions are in dispute. Are you really claiming otherwise?

Irontruth wrote:

Let me use your weather analogy.

I don't trust the Earth's rotation to solve global warming.

Please tell me why ignoring the Sun's influence in this opinion makes my opinion wrong.

This isn't a representation of your position under 'my' analogy.

This argument is analogous to saying that you don't trust interest accumulation (Earth's rotation) to solve global warming. Which is not the argument you've made. You've been saying that you don't trust markets (the climate system) AT ALL to solve global warming unless government policies (the Sun) interfere to make that happen.

Why the switch from saying that ALL factors, other than the Sun/government interference, are insufficient to just that Earth's rotation/one particular factor can't do it? It's a different argument.


CBDunkerson wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
I have never once disagreed with you on the net impact.

Ok... so when you've (repeatedly) said things like; "My point is that free markets and capitalism will not solve climate change.... unless the government interferes"... you haven't meant that the net impact of government action would have to be to fight against climate change?

That was certainly the impression I got. In any case, another way I have stated my position on the net impact has been; 'My point is that markets currently ARE solving climate change... despite government interference.'

To me it seems that these positions are in dispute. Are you really claiming otherwise?

Irontruth wrote:

Let me use your weather analogy.

I don't trust the Earth's rotation to solve global warming.

Please tell me why ignoring the Sun's influence in this opinion makes my opinion wrong.

This isn't a representation of your position under 'my' analogy.

This argument is analogous to saying that you don't trust interest accumulation (Earth's rotation) to solve global warming. Which is not the argument you've made. You've been saying that you don't trust markets (the climate system) AT ALL to solve global warming unless government policies (the Sun) interfere to make that happen.

Why the switch from saying that ALL factors, other than the Sun/government interference, are insufficient to just that Earth's rotation/one particular factor can't do it? It's a different argument.

It is an analogy that I wrote to help you understand my point. If you attack the analogy, that means you are trying to NOT understand my point. If you want to understand what I am trying to tell you, read the analogy as if it is explaining my position to you. Looking for holes in the analogy and focusing on them will only serve to reinforce your previously held belief that I am wrong.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Irontruth wrote:
It is an analogy that I wrote to help you understand my point. If you attack the analogy, that means you are trying to NOT understand my point.

Don't be ridiculous.

You said you were using my analogy.

If you are instead using some other analogy, where the terms mean different things, you'd need to explain what those WERE for there to be ANY chance of me understanding what you are talking about.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Irontruth wrote:
thejeff wrote:

Honestly, I've got no idea at this point what your original interpretation was.

But you are still fundamentally misunderstanding.

You don't know what my opinion is....

But you know that it is wrong.

Using thejeff's numbering system:

1) You said something incoherent

2) You said something else incoherent

Ipso facto, whichever way it's taken one can be sure you're wrong while at the same time not truly knowing what your opinion is because it's incoherent.

Liberty's Edge

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

In 2019 renewables accounted for ~297 TWh out of ~233 TWh of new electricity output globally

Note that renewable output increased more than total output.

This means that 100% of the new electricity generation required for population growth, improved standards of living, conversion to EVs, et cetera is now being provided by renewables... AND they are reducing the amount of electricity generated by other sources.

In short, electricity generation has tipped. We should see transportation following suit, and overall emissions levels starting to decline, within a few years.


CBDunkerson wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
It is an analogy that I wrote to help you understand my point. If you attack the analogy, that means you are trying to NOT understand my point.

Don't be ridiculous.

You said you were using my analogy.

If you are instead using some other analogy, where the terms mean different things, you'd need to explain what those WERE for there to be ANY chance of me understanding what you are talking about.

So, your point here is that you didn't understand my analogy as I intended, therefore my analogy was wrong.

It seems at this point that you've put so much effort and energy into being convinced that I'm wrong, that you don't actually care what I say.


Quark Blast wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
thejeff wrote:

Honestly, I've got no idea at this point what your original interpretation was.

But you are still fundamentally misunderstanding.

You don't know what my opinion is....

But you know that it is wrong.

Using thejeff's numbering system:

1) You said something incoherent

2) You said something else incoherent

Ipso facto, whichever way it's taken one can be sure you're wrong while at the same time not truly knowing what your opinion is because it's incoherent.

You are claiming that because he didn't understand the thing I said, therefore the thing I said was wrong.

Is that the gist?


Irontruth wrote:
thejeff wrote:

Honestly, I've got no idea at this point what your original interpretation was.

But you are still fundamentally misunderstanding.

You don't know what my opinion is....

But you know that it is wrong.

I know you were misunderstanding the thing that I just said. Which is all that I said there.

Your original opinion might have been right. I've got no idea now.


Without explaining the post, quote and bold the portion you think I misunderstood. I will then reply to it, characterize my understanding of it, and you can tell us how much I understand it.


Irontruth wrote:
Without explaining the post, quote and bold the portion you think I misunderstood. I will then reply to it, characterize my understanding of it, and you can tell us how much I understand it.

Well, I already explained why above, but sure:

thejeff wrote:

You apparently mean different things by "can't analyze the other things without government interference" and "an't separate the "other things" from government influence".

My read is that CB is considering how those other things interact with government policies and vice versa and reaching that conclusion. I read you as saying "forget government policy and tell me what effect those other things will have", which is meaningless since government policy will change what effect the other things will have.


thejeff wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
Without explaining the post, quote and bold the portion you think I misunderstood. I will then reply to it, characterize my understanding of it, and you can tell us how much I understand it.

Well, I already explained why above, but sure:

thejeff wrote:

You apparently mean different things by "can't analyze the other things without government interference" and "an't separate the "other things" from government influence".

My read is that CB is considering how those other things interact with government policies and vice versa and reaching that conclusion. I read you as saying "forget government policy and tell me what effect those other things will have", which is meaningless since government policy will change what effect the other things will have.

In order to understand the entire effect the other factors will have, we must consider government impact on them, and by not considering that (government impact) an evaluation of those factors has no merit.

I've paraphrased, with the intent that using my own words to thereby demonstrate whether I did or did not comprehend what you wrote.


Irontruth wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
Without explaining the post, quote and bold the portion you think I misunderstood. I will then reply to it, characterize my understanding of it, and you can tell us how much I understand it.

Well, I already explained why above, but sure:

thejeff wrote:

You apparently mean different things by "can't analyze the other things without government interference" and "an't separate the "other things" from government influence".

My read is that CB is considering how those other things interact with government policies and vice versa and reaching that conclusion. I read you as saying "forget government policy and tell me what effect those other things will have", which is meaningless since government policy will change what effect the other things will have.

In order to understand the entire effect the other factors will have, we must consider government impact on them, and by not considering that (government impact) an evaluation of those factors has no merit.

I've paraphrased, with the intent that using my own words to thereby demonstrate whether I did or did not comprehend what you wrote.

So with that understanding, how do you get to:

Quote:

1) it admits that I'm right, the other nongovernmental are not trustworthy to solve climate change without governmental interference.

or

2) you have to demonstrate that other factors in capitalism have no bearing on the outcome of climate change


My original opinion that got all this argument started was (paraphrasing):

I don't trust capitalism to solve climate change.

We can get where you want to go, but I think it's important to ensure we agree on what that sentence means, or at least what information I was trying to relay. I am fully willing to reword that statement with whatever terms we agree upon in order to convey my meaning as accurately as possible.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Irontruth wrote:
So, your point here is that you didn't understand my analogy as I intended, therefore my analogy was wrong.

In the first post you said that you were following my analogy. Now you say you were using a different analogy of your own. If the latter is true then you never explained what your analogous terms were meant to refer to... making it impossible for me to understand your analogy.

Thus, I have no idea whether your analogy is "wrong" or not. You've mixed the pickles with the goalposts of oranges to grapes and asked me to explain why the elephant doesn't fly.


CBDunkerson wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
So, your point here is that you didn't understand my analogy as I intended, therefore my analogy was wrong.

In the first post you said that you were following my analogy. Now you say you were using a different analogy of your own. If the latter is true then you never explained what your analogous terms were meant to refer to... making it impossible for me to understand your analogy.

Thus, I have no idea whether your analogy is "wrong" or not. You've mixed the pickles with the goalposts of oranges to grapes and asked me to explain why the elephant doesn't fly.

Which terms were confusing to you? Before you say "all of them", how about you pick one that makes the least sense to you. I'll clear it up, and we can go from there.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Irontruth wrote:
Which terms were confusing to you? Before you say "all of them", how about you pick one that makes the least sense to you. I'll clear it up, and we can go from there.

No. "All of them", is the correct answer.

Your 'analogy' was: "I don't trust the Earth's rotation to solve global warming.

Please tell me why ignoring the Sun's influence in this opinion makes my opinion wrong. (Hint: if you try to use gravity, I can already demonstrate that this would be a false objection)"

That isn't an analogy. You don't explain what ANY of these terms are supposed to be comparable to. Defining the intended comparison for just ONE term wouldn't make it any more comprehensible.

How do the Earth's rotation, global warming, the Sun's influence, and gravity compare to elements of whatever other topic you are supposedly using them as an analogy for?


CBDunkerson wrote:

In 2019 renewables accounted for ~297 TWh out of ~233 TWh of new electricity output globally

Note that renewable output increased more than total output.

This means that 100% of the new electricity generation required for population growth, improved standards of living, conversion to EVs, et cetera is now being provided by renewables... AND they are reducing the amount of electricity generated by other sources.

In short, electricity generation has tipped. We should see transportation following suit, and overall emissions levels starting to decline, within a few years.

True enough, but then there's this:

Mexico is illegally destroying protected mangrove trees to build an $8 billion oil refinery

It's not that other places don't have good laws on the books, it's that those laws are not effectively enforced. People want their profits now. They want to eat and drink today.

Japan Retreats to Coal and Energy Incoherence Reigns Supreme

CU wrote:
In a bold move backward, its electric utilities and energy ministry are proposing the construction of 22 coal-fired power plants.

.

Not related to AGW but another example of the very same principle here:
China Moves Uyghur Muslims Into ‘Forced Labor’ Factories

'Cause ya know, we gotta have them cheap iPads.


CBDunkerson wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
Which terms were confusing to you? Before you say "all of them", how about you pick one that makes the least sense to you. I'll clear it up, and we can go from there.

No. "All of them", is the correct answer.

Your 'analogy' was: "I don't trust the Earth's rotation to solve global warming.

Please tell me why ignoring the Sun's influence in this opinion makes my opinion wrong. (Hint: if you try to use gravity, I can already demonstrate that this would be a false objection)"

That isn't an analogy. You don't explain what ANY of these terms are supposed to be comparable to. Defining the intended comparison for just ONE term wouldn't make it any more comprehensible.

How do the Earth's rotation, global warming, the Sun's influence, and gravity compare to elements of whatever other topic you are supposedly using them as an analogy for?

I'm unclear, are you saying you refuse to hear an explanation so that we can try to understand each other?

If you don't care what I have to say, why don't you just stop replying to me? I am willing to explain myself, but that requires us both to want to communicate, and right now I do not get the sense you want to do that.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Irontruth wrote:
I'm unclear, are you saying you refuse to hear an explanation so that we can try to understand each other?

Are you saying that you hate puppies?

If the words I write don't contain any of the words you are asking me if 'I am saying', then the answer is probably, 'no, that is not what I am saying'.

If you want to explain what you mean then why won't you just DO that already?


CBDunkerson wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
I'm unclear, are you saying you refuse to hear an explanation so that we can try to understand each other?

Are you saying that you hate puppies?

If the words I write don't contain any of the words you are asking me if 'I am saying', then the answer is probably, 'no, that is not what I am saying'.

If you want to explain what you mean then why won't you just DO that already?

Because right now you don't seem to care what I have to say. It would be a waste of time to start explaining if you're just going to ignore it. That's why I want to know which part of the analogy you'd like to start with first.


CBDunkerson wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
I'm unclear, are you saying you refuse to hear an explanation so that we can try to understand each other?

...

If you want to explain what you mean then why won't you just DO that already?

Because then he would expose an opinion that could be objectively proven wrong.

What gets me about this exchange (though I do find it amusing that you all banter like an old married couple) is why anyone would want to labor so hard on essentially pointless asides in lieu of actually talking about the substance of the thread topic.


Quark Blast wrote:

It's not that other places don't have good laws on the books, it's that those laws are not effectively enforced. People want their profits now. They want to eat and drink today.

They don't want to just eat and drink. The decision maker wants maximized profits above and beyond mere self sustainment.

When you have a profit driven corporation it functionally becomes an A.I. paperclip maker. While there are individual human beings involved in the decision making, the A.I. (rules of the game) determine which individuals make the decisions... the ones that make the most paperclips.

It doesn't care how the paperclips are made
It doesn't care what you need to do to make the papeclips
The paperclips must be made.

The paperclip maker is supposed to be kept in check by opposing forces. Unfortunately, the profit driven corporate environment just selects for a better paperclip maker by shoveling more money at them. The paperclip maker has also figured out that if you shovel some of that money at government you can change the rules that prevent you from making more paperclips.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
Quark Blast wrote:

It's not that other places don't have good laws on the books, it's that those laws are not effectively enforced. People want their profits now. They want to eat and drink today.

They don't want to just eat and drink. The decision maker wants maximized profits above and beyond mere self sustainment.

Right, the people who want to eat and drink are the one's (e.g.) hired to do construction of the oil refinery in Mexico that kills all the mangrove habitat.

This is why the Yellow Vest protests in France were so vehement. These lorry drivers already live 30 miles outside Paris because they can't afford to live anywhere close to their job site/work area. Now a 20% fuel tax will suck up all (or more!) of the $300/month "extra" their jobs currently provide them. In the mean time corporate entity XYZ gets tax breaks A, B and C.

BigNorseWolf wrote:

When you have a profit driven corporation it functionally becomes an A.I. paperclip maker. While there are individual human beings involved in the decision making, the A.I. (rules of the game) determine which individuals make the decisions... the ones that make the most paperclips.

It doesn't care how the paperclips are made
It doesn't care what you need to do to make the papeclips
The paperclips must be made.

The paperclip maker is supposed to be kept in check by opposing forces. Unfortunately, the profit driven corporate environment just selects for a better paperclip maker by shoveling more money at them. The paperclip maker has also figured out that if you shovel some of that money at government you can change the rules that prevent you from making more paperclips.

The oil company, to continue with my specific example from above, and the government are also big players in this short sighted endeavor. Goal direct AI is a dangerous thing.

Laws should incentivise the outcome you want... long term.


Quark Blast wrote:
CBDunkerson wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
I'm unclear, are you saying you refuse to hear an explanation so that we can try to understand each other?

...

If you want to explain what you mean then why won't you just DO that already?

Because then he would expose an opinion that could be objectively proven wrong.

What gets me about this exchange (though I do find it amusing that you all banter like an old married couple) is why anyone would want to labor so hard on essentially pointless asides in lieu of actually talking about the substance of the thread topic.

That's an interesting theory, except I've been very cooperative with thejeff and continue answering his questions.

I'm also amused by it. Especially since none of them have asked me for an example of what I'm talking about, and if I were to provide that example, they would fully agree with me. Instead they immediately jumped to trying to prove my opinion was impossible on the face of it, which is an absurd claim.


Irontruth wrote:
Quark Blast wrote:
CBDunkerson wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
I'm unclear, are you saying you refuse to hear an explanation so that we can try to understand each other?

...

If you want to explain what you mean then why won't you just DO that already?

Because then he would expose an opinion that could be objectively proven wrong.

What gets me about this exchange (though I do find it amusing that you all banter like an old married couple) is why anyone would want to labor so hard on essentially pointless asides in lieu of actually talking about the substance of the thread topic.

That's an interesting theory, except I've been very cooperative with thejeff and continue answering his questions.

I'm also amused by it. Especially since none of them have asked me for an example of what I'm talking about, and if I were to provide that example, they would fully agree with me. Instead they immediately jumped to trying to prove my opinion was impossible on the face of it, which is an absurd claim.

Honestly, I suspect I largely agree with you already. I object to the framing of the claim - of the "market" as an independent thing with which government "interferes".

I believe your point to merely be that governments will need to be part of the solution and I can't really argue with that.
Though I'd also point at CB's earlier claim that to date governments have played a larger role supporting the fossil fuel industry - often in less obvious ways than their smaller, but more open attempts to transition to renewable energy. There's a decent argument to be made that thus far any progress has been despite government rather than because of it.


In my opinion, as expressed above, does it "exclude" government policy as a potential factor in solving (or not solving) climate change?

Analogy:

Opinion: I don't think cats make good pets.

Does that opinion tell you anything about what I think about dogs? The flaw in the rebuttal that CBD has been pushing is that he is addressing things outside the scope of my opinion. If I don't trust "non-government factors", then bringing up "government factors" has no bearing on my trust of "non-government factors". If "government factors" can be used to solve "non-government factors", that already admits that "non-governmental factors" cannot be trusted on their own since we need "government factors" to fix them.


Irontruth wrote:

In my opinion, as expressed above, does it "exclude" government policy as a potential factor in solving (or not solving) climate change?

Analogy:

Opinion: I don't think cats make good pets.

Does that opinion tell you anything about what I think about dogs? The flaw in the rebuttal that CBD has been pushing is that he is addressing things outside the scope of my opinion. If I don't trust "non-government factors", then bringing up "government factors" has no bearing on my trust of "non-government factors". If "government factors" can be used to solve "non-government factors", that already admits that "non-governmental factors" cannot be trusted on their own since we need "government factors" to fix them.

Or maybe I don't agree with you, since you appear to want to argue with me.

3,751 to 3,800 of 4,072 << first < prev | 71 | 72 | 73 | 74 | 75 | 76 | 77 | 78 | 79 | 80 | 81 | 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.