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


Off-Topic Discussions

3,801 to 3,850 of 4,073 << first < prev | 72 | 73 | 74 | 75 | 76 | 77 | 78 | 79 | 80 | 81 | 82 | next > last >>

I'm providing clarification that the original opinion had nothing to do with government.

I also have opinions about government, but they were not expressed in that statement. So, trying to pin me down with aspects of government is irrelevant, since I was not expressing an opinion about government.


;D

Thanks for the emotional boost into the weekend guys!

Free advice @thejeff:
Your will save has been #### lately. Just say'n... might do something about that eh?

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Irontruth wrote:
I'm providing clarification that the original opinion had nothing to do with government.

Your original opinion as actually stated: "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?"

Somehow the repeated (and ALL CAPS) mention of government caused me to miss that it "had nothing to do with government".

Fortunately, you later clarified that: "My point is that free markets and capitalism will not solve climate change.... unless the government interferes."

So, clearly you were "not expressing an opinion about government".

At which point, I have no idea what you are trying to say... and am not sure you do either.


CBDunkerson wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
I'm providing clarification that the original opinion had nothing to do with government.

Your original opinion as actually stated: "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?"

Not the first time I stated the opinion.

And I do know exactly what I am trying to say.

I'm not surprised though, since I can see how you are using highly selective reading to interpret that sentence the way you are.

Now your tactic appears to be arguing that you know what my opinion is better than I do. You are intent on proving me wrong. You don't give a s~*@ what I have to say.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Irontruth wrote:
You don't give a s$+! what I have to say.

Congratulations.

You've convinced me to come around to your viewpoint on this.

I did... but now I don't.


You've been talking AT me for a month now. Pretending like this just happened is laughable.


Aaaand you guys kept me laughing right through the weekend. You're the best!
;D

Here's the latest on LNG:
Germany Proves How Essential Natural Gas Is

Forbes wrote:

No country ever has spent more money forcing the adoption of renewable energy than Germany. Passed in 2010, Germany’s Energiewende is an “energy transition” based on relentlessly installing as much wind and solar power capacity as possible, with little to no consideration to cost.

The Energiewende demanding the use of renewables could ultimately cost the country as much as $4 trillion by 2050. Already costing hundreds of billions of dollars, wind and solar now generate just ~18% and ~8% of Germany’s electricity, respectively, and still account for just a small fraction of total energy needs...

Germany wants to add three or four terminals to help expand Europe’s total LNG import facilities to nearly 35, a “dash to gas” that is extremely telling for a continent that has deployed massive funding and policy support to force more wind and solar into the system...

The “renewables only” tunnel vision has helped soar Germany’s electricity prices for families to being three to four times more expensive than they are here in the U.S.: “If Renewables Are So Cheap Why Is Germany’s Electricity So Expensive?”

In contrast, global natural gas prices today are the lowest they have been in over 10 years, strengthening the economic argument for switching to gas. The U.S. has been at the forefront of an LNG export boom that continues to make gas more viable for rich and poor countries alike. LNG is the fastest-growing traded commodity in the world because natural gas is the world’s go-to fuel...

That is crucial enough to repeat: the shale gas revolution and the free market of the U.S. has us slashing emissions faster and much more cheaply than the renewables and regulation obsessed nations like Germany...

Just think about it: despite years of promises to effectively “get rid of them,” oil (33%) and gas (25%) still supply almost 60% of Germany’s primary energy needs (not all that surprising since wind and solar are strictly sources of electricity, a secondary energy source that accounts for just 20-30% of all energy demand).

If Germany cannot survive on just “wind and solar” how are the poor countries supposed to?


Stupid ####### virus! Totally screwing up classes, movie releases, gaming events, sports, etc.

So I can say at this point that 0.5 Gigaton of CO2 reduction is the floor for the virus this year. I still won't yet go higher than a 3.0 reduction because, assuming things are solidly turning around by June, governments worldwide are going to ramp up production like crazy.

It will be interesting to see what happens with Australia, New Zealand, Chile and Argentina as they go into winter here over the next few months. Except for NZ the winter isn't quite the same as northern hemisphere winter but it might give us an idea of what we can expect here in another 9 months or so.

Edit:
I wonder if Boeing will go bankrupt with this coming on top of their stupid as #### decisions around the 737 Max?


NASA Earth Observatory measuring NO2 over China.


Everything is like boring or scary*. WTH?!?

I'll push my CO2 reduction up to 1.0 gigaton now. Global recession is like a thing and will be for who knows how long. Plus I think one or more of the big banks in Europe may fold.

* I don't care what the proverb says, these are not interesting times.


Most of the big banks in Europe are the single large bank in a country, and most governments won't let their biggest bank fold. They aren't going to say they'll bailout the banks, but they're going to bailout the banks if it comes to that.

This recession is going to be hard on people, but it is being caused by an exogenous source which will make it much easier to recover from. The hard part will be that it is worldwide simultaneously. It will be deep and painful, but the recovery will be faster than from the 2008 recession.

Interestingly, the financial products that are most likely going to fail first right now have been hot commodities in Asia. If the European banks default on these assets, the investors hit hardest will be Asian. Complicated financial products aren't going to be a priority for rescue, and investors on other continents won't be a priority either.

Companies within Deutsche Bank could certainly be shuttered, but there's no way that Germany lets Deutsche Bank collapse. It's a pillar of the DAX and represents too much influence in the world economy for Germany to let it go away. Even if it is probably one of the most problematic banks in the world.


Irontruth wrote:
This recession is going to be hard on people, but it is being caused by an exogenous source which will make it much easier to recover from. The hard part will be that it is worldwide simultaneously. It will be deep and painful, but the recovery will be faster than from the 2008 recession...

Unless it starts a big war.

And yeah, Deutsche Bank really has its assets hanging out there.


Also, there will be a #### ton of large and small companies going bankrupt before the end of April. Entertainment companies in particular are going to get whammy'd. FLGS seem likely to culled by 1/3 or more.

If the situation lasts long enough that the dollar and the euro become deflated (and that won't be too much longer at the current pace of spending by governments), then there will be nothing quick about this recovery.

OTOH I think I might move up my prognostication for the 2020 CO2 floor reduction to 1.0 gigatons now. ####! Things are moving fast and not in a good way.


I think the term you're looking for is inflation (pedantic, yes, but inflation and deflation mean very opposite things in economics). Prices going up due to the value of currency going down is inflation.

Inflation during a recession is stagflation. Prices go up while economic demand goes down. The oft cited example being the 1970's gas shortages. During that time the government imposed wage and price freezes, and this was ineffective.

While gas prices are certainly in the news, it certainly isn't a shortage as various countries are competing to outproduce each other in order to drive out competition by lowering prices. Coupled with reduced demand due to covid-19 and there is a gas surplus at the moment. It seems unlikely that the opposite of what caused a previous period of stagflation would cause it now.

The recession is going to be deep and painful, but since the cause is exogenous, once this cause is removed the economy can return to activity again. Small businesses always have a hard time weathering economic downturns. They can be hit by forces outside themselves due to no fault of their own. That said, once the virus passes people can return to their daily lives assuming that they still have a job. This means that demand should rebound fairly quickly once communities no longer have to shelter in place. If the government puts money directly into the hands of consumers during this time prices are not going to shoot up, but rather this will ensure the least amount of disruption possible during the worst part of the pandemic.

There are certainly flaws in the system that are going to place undue burden on those least able to carry it. The recession is going to be very deep and very painful, but it isn't being caused by a financial crisis, which means the tools to dig ourselves out will be more widely available.


Irontruth wrote:
I think the term you're looking for is inflation (pedantic, yes, but inflation and deflation mean very opposite things in economics). Prices going up due to the value of currency going down is inflation...

Pedantic? Maybe, but in this case helpful.

Also true is that I wasn't using economic theory jargon in my previous post. To do so now, and making roughly the same point:
Liquidity isn't the issue right now and dumping trillions of $ into the global economy is not likely to be very useful. Evidence? Global stock exchanges seem to understand this. With each new stimulus package announcement there's a bump and then an "oh... wait" moment and the slide continues.

I agree that the proximate cause is largely exogenous but it seems to be triggering weaknesses in the systems. And since the exogenous pressure is likely to continue for another 12-18 months we can expect a great number of weaknesses to be triggered. There are a #### ton of national and international companies that have leveraged the #### out of their finances and are not in a position to weather a storm of this duration.

In short, the exogenous cause will cease to matter when enough endogenous issues come into play. And even if there haven't been enough triggered yet, well, we've got another 12-18 months to do so.


Just to clarify, my main point about in comparing this to the 2008 recession is that working class families didn't truly start to see economic growth again until 2014-2015. The recession had technically ended by 2009, but the direct fallout from it continued well into 2014 (arguably, depending on politically affiliation, some confidence in the economy did not return until 2016 or 2017).

In essence, (not counting effects that are permanent) the recession directly lasted somewhere between 6-8 years.

I think this recession will be felt more acutely in a lot of ways, but I do not think the recession will last 6-8 years. I would instead predict that it takes 3-4 years for the recovery to be comparably complete.

As for inflation, your point about the stock market is important. When the stock market takes a plunge, that is millions/billions of dollars of wealth being destroyed. The money really does just disappear. Of course, the wealthy don't spend as much in the consumer economy as the middle/working/poor classes do, but in order to protect the value of their investments they will often shut down businesses during a recession, ie, laying workers off in order to save money.

The economy is set up to funnel wealth to the owners of capital. These are also the people who are currently losing the most wealth by raw amounts of dollars. Government spending directed at large swaths of consumers/workers will maintain the viability of businesses and so reduce layoffs and business closures. The losses in the stock market will have an offsetting effect if the government were to not just borrow, but just create money.

The past week over $4 trillion of value has been lost in the stock market. Now, government spending and stock market value are not 1-for-1 related, but that is a source of absorption that would prevent inflation.

Our economy has a much higher ability to absorb inflation than people suspect. This isn't to say that the government can infuse cash into the economy at an unlimited rate, but it would take a LOT of money at a constant rate for quite a while. The amounts being proposed right now could end up having either no inflation effect, or a very modest amount of inflation. I would even argue that a modest amount of inflation would be highly preferable to the cost of an economic collapse or even moderate recession. We shouldn't start printing $1000 bills, but the modest amounts of cash to families being proposed should not have a significant inflation effect.


This is however a very different situation, since the driver here isn't the loss of paper wealth, but the economy slowing to a crawl because of pandemic measures. That will lead to the paper economy plunging as well, which will make things worse of course.

I think we will see inflationary pressure - pretty much regardless of what government fiscal policy is. Prices will rise because supply is going to drop and in many cases due to the pandemic, we're not going to be able to increase production.

This is a very different problem than anything we've seen in the recent past. Not at all helped by having evil clowns running the show.


The pandemic measures are causing demand issues before they'll cause supply issues. Even the slow down in Chinese manufacturing hasn't really hit consumers yet, and that started two months ago. The drop in demand is the real issue.

Restaurants are closed, but not from lack of food supplies.
Gyms are closed, but not from lack of equipment or personal trainers.
Concert venues are closed, but not from lack of touring artists.
Professional sports are suspended, but there's no contract lockout right now.

Everything that is closed is due to fears of the virus. This is going to have an immediate effect on demand as people who were relying on checks from those jobs need to pay bills now. That means reduced spending in order to cover rent. This is already happening, and nothing to do with supply.

If people can't afford to pay their rent, and so other sectors experience reduced demand, these are precisely the conditions that do NOT cause inflation. Drops in the stock market cause loss of paper wealth, but this is savings and emergency funds that people would use to pay for things in the event of losing their job (or they're on a fixed income). All of this again is fighting AGAINST inflation.

Year over year inflation for January and February was 1.6% and 0.1% respectively. The federal reserve usually targets about 2% inflation, so we are below what is considered "normal" or "healthy" inflation. If we were to exclude rising health care costs, we'd probably see deflation currently.

Again, I'd point out that right now in a crisis like this, we're weighing the potential cost of inflation against the guaranteed cost of lives and economic instability. An inflation rate of 3-4% combined with unemployment of 8-10% would be better than 0% inflation and 15-20% unemployment.

Liberty's Edge

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

One odd effect of the pandemic is that it is magnifying the impact of the oil production conflict between Russia and Saudi Arabia... both countries have ramped up production just as consumption has fallen. As a result, gasoline prices are falling fast.

That will have numerous impacts (e.g. cheaper goods transport), but one of the most significant may be that the price of a barrel of oil has now dropped well below the cost to produce a barrel of oil from US fracking operations. In short, it just became economically unfeasible for the largest oil producer in the world to continue producing oil. The same is true for higher cost oil extraction in other countries. Even some sites in Russia are now operating at an economic loss, and they are ultimately guaranteed to lose this fight. Saudi Arabia has the lowest oil extraction costs in the world. So long as they are producing enough oil to meet (currently low due to pandemic) demand, they can sell it at prices no one else can meet and still make a profit.

This is good for the environment in two ways. First, Saudi oil costs less to extract because less energy is used in the process... so the same amount of oil extraction and consumption is now producing less GHG pollution. Second, with oil extraction indefinitely unprofitable for the rest of the world, it is no longer a very attractive area for investment in exploration and development. That will free up trillions of dollars, much of which will find its way to renewable energy investments instead.

There is even a chance that the growth of electric vehicles makes this a permanent situation. Several countries have already seen exponential growth in EV market share due to costs falling below ICE vehicles. That means less and less oil being used as time goes on... potentially allowing Saudi Arabia to maintain a low price monopoly indefinitely. Which... may indeed be why they made this move now. There is only so much profit remaining to be had before oil is no longer the primary driver of world economic activity. Saudi Arabia is looking to make sure they get as much of that remaining profit as possible.


CBDunkerson wrote:
There is even a chance that the growth of electric vehicles makes this a permanent situation. Several countries have already seen exponential growth in EV market share due to costs falling below ICE vehicles. That means less and less oil being used as time goes on... potentially allowing Saudi Arabia to maintain a low price monopoly indefinitely. Which... may indeed be why they made this move now. There is only so much profit remaining to be had before oil is no longer the primary driver of world economic activity. Saudi Arabia is looking to make sure they get as much of that remaining profit as possible.

"Permanent" huh? Errmmm...

Manufacturers Are Struggling To Supply Electric Vehicles With Batteries

Forbes wrote:

Demand for lithium in the form of lithium carbonate and lithium hydroxide – key ingredients in these batteries – are rising rapidly: up almost 20% in 2019. Prices doubled between 2016 and 2018 in anticipation of increased demand brought on by the EV revolution.

However, the consistent increase in demand is militated against by:
1) The ongoing outbreak of coronavirus,
2) The looming economic downturn, and
3) The collapse of oil prices, making the future of EV sales uncertain. These are additional strains on supply chains...

Global electrical vehicle adoption is accelerating at breakneck speeds:
World EV production is expected to top 4 million cars this year barred the corona slowdown, reaching 12 million in 2025. Deloitte projected that 2022 will be a tipping point for EV costs, making them cost competitive with their internal combustion engine (ICE) counterparts....

The EV battery supply chain faces a number of obstacles including high costs and environmental concerns associated with the extraction and processing of key metals. Today’s low prices, which reflect an overestimation of short-term demand, will also hurt investment in future exploration and production projects. We could be witnessing the beginning of structural undersupply of key battery materials, which will have a significant impact on EV manufacturing.

Cobalt mining, for instance, is concentrated in one country — the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) — responsible for 65% of global supply. The DRC is one of the world’s least developed countries and has very limited transparency in the cobalt value chain. Multiple reports detail the hazards of the DRC’s mining industry, including severe human rights abuses, dangerous working conditions, forced labor, and child labor. Yet demand for this element may reach as much as 430,000 tons in the next decade, a 1.6 fold increase compared to today’s numbers.

Current trends suggest a shortage of raw cobalt in the future:
The current capacity to mine will not be able to meet growing demand. According to an MIT study, demand for the metal [$1 - $3 per oz.] is only expected to increase while supply would not shift substantially. MIT’s Olivetti Group calculated only a marginal increase in supply: from 149,000 tons in 2017 to 160,000 tons in 2023. This could lead to unsustainable price spikes, with severe implications for the green economy...

As the impact of coronavirus progresses around the world, its economic implications look dire:
The IMF predicts a global recession that will be tantamount to the financial crisis more than decade ago – or worse. The economic downturn not only would cause disruptions in the supply chain, but would undermine the entire market of electric cars. Furthermore, cheap gasoline resulting from the ongoing OPEC-Russia oil price war (collapse) will negatively impact EV car sales as well.

Who's gonna buy a new EV over taking their ICE to the mechanic in the next half decade or longer?

As I said up thread more than once, the adoption of EVs is going to go in fits and starts until 2050 (or maybe a little longer).

The current "fit" is looking to last as much as half a decade, barring major wars in the DRC and the like.

Liberty's Edge

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

Manufacturers Are Struggling To Supply Electric Vehicles With Batteries

Forbes wrote:
Demand for lithium in the form of lithium carbonate and lithium hydroxide – key ingredients in these batteries – are rising rapidly: up almost 20% in 2019. Prices doubled between 2016 and 2018 in anticipation of increased demand brought on by the EV revolution.

So prices for these "key ingredients" doubled from 2016 to 2018... and yet the total cost of the batteries themselves dropped about 30% over the same time frame. Strange that. Of course, it IS a Forbes 'opinion contributor' piece... so 50/50 chance it is fiction.

In any case, the article agrees that "Global electrical vehicle adoption is accelerating at breakneck speeds". Ergo, yes... increasing EV adoption will lead to decreasing gasoline usage.

Quark Blast wrote:
Who's gonna buy a new EV over taking their ICE to the mechanic in the next half decade or longer?

Lots of people. Indeed, as EVs proliferate they will make it more and more difficult for ICE components to be found and more and more difficult for ICE mechanics to stay in business.

Quark Blast wrote:

As I said up thread more than once, the adoption of EVs is going to go in fits and starts until 2050 (or maybe a little longer).

The current "fit" is looking to last as much as half a decade, barring major wars in the DRC and the like.

Can you cite a single technology transition that has followed this 'fits and starts' pattern you are suggesting?

Sorry, that just isn't consistent with history. Or logic.

Of COURSE the amount of raw materials needed will increase compared to before those materials were used for the new technology. That doesn't mean production will have to significantly slow down. Did the transition to cell phones go in 'fits and starts' because of the massive increase in need for 'gorilla glass' components (or lithium for the cell phone batteries)? No. We just built more facilities for producing the needed materials. We now need even MORE lithium for EV batteries? Guess what... lithium mining is expanding just as rapidly as electric vehicle sales.

There will be no significant 'fits and starts'. EV adoption will continue to follow an exponential curve... leading to near total market dominance about 10 years after exceeding ~3%.


CBDunkerson wrote:


Can you cite a single technology transition that has followed this 'fits and starts' pattern you are suggesting?

With this comment, you seem to be taking an extremely Euro-American centric view on this, except for course that even within Euro-American history, your suggestion that technology does not get adopted in fits and starts is quickly and obviously false.

If your claim were remotely true, it means that industrialization would have happened across different European countries at the same rate, with the same elements of technology, at the same time. Except we know that industrialization did not happen this way. France and England industrialized at different rates, and also in different ways for quite a while. Of course the second issue is that both of these countries industrialized faster than any of their neighbors. The region now known as Germany had the same technologies as France and England, but had a more difficult time adopting them broadly.

Can you cite a single technology that was adopted at a uniform rate simultaneously by:
England
China
Egypt

Your question implies that this should be easy to produce a single example.


CBDunkerson wrote:

Can you cite a single technology transition that has followed this 'fits and starts' pattern you are suggesting?

Sorry, that just isn't consistent with history. Or logic.

Of COURSE the amount of raw materials needed will increase compared to before those materials were used for the new technology. That doesn't mean production will have to significantly slow down. Did the transition to cell phones go in 'fits and starts' because of the massive increase in need for 'gorilla glass' components (or lithium for the cell phone batteries)? No. We just built more facilities for producing the needed materials. We now need even MORE lithium for EV batteries? Guess what... lithium mining is expanding just as rapidly as electric vehicle sales.

There will be no significant 'fits and starts'. EV adoption will continue to follow an exponential curve...

Funny you should mention "history". Because we're making history here with the whole AGW and going green thing. Unprecedented history. As in nothing to compare it to directly. The scale of the current endeavor is creating its own weather (so to speak) and historical comparisons fail for this reason as well (the metal head rather slaps you nicely with the other reason you're failing in logic of argumentation here).

The fits have already happened, are happening and will continue so until 2050 at least.

As always the adoption of a new technology has many limiting factors and a limited supply of critical component(s) is a major factor with EVs. Not surprising that you only want to discuss the component not in limited supply (i.e. lithium); 'cause if you tried to argue cobalt you'd fail. Again.

Liberty's Edge

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


Can you cite a single technology transition that has followed this 'fits and starts' pattern you are suggesting?
With this comment, you seem to be taking an extremely Euro-American centric view on this, except for course that even within Euro-American history, your suggestion that technology does not get adopted in fits and starts is quickly and obviously false.

So... areas that did NOT transition to a technology show that when technology transitions DO take place they happen in 'fits and starts'?

Or are you implying that the 'fits and starts' QB was referring to were different countries/regions transitioning to EVs at different times (e.g. like Norway being ahead of everyone else)? That wasn't the impression I got. However, if that's the case then yes... I imagine it COULD be 2050 before Antarctica has electric cars.

Quark Blast wrote:
Funny you should mention "history". Because we're making history here with the whole AGW and going green thing. Unprecedented history. As in nothing to compare it to directly.

Acid rain? Ozone depletion? Lead poisoning?

There seem like rather a lot of similar efforts in the past... and that's setting aside the fact that you don't explain how the effort to stop AGW would invalidate everything we know about basic economics. Why would people stop swiftly switching to a superior product because that also happened to be good for the environment?

Quark Blast wrote:
The fits have already happened, are happening and will continue so until 2050 at least.

Great! Then you can identify some of them and show how they have stopped the growth of EV adoption?

Quark Blast wrote:
As always the adoption of a new technology has many limiting factors and a limited supply of critical component(s) is a major factor with EVs. Not surprising that you only want to discuss the component not in limited supply (i.e. lithium); 'cause if you tried to argue cobalt you'd fail. Again.

Oh. So EV adoption is going to be stopped by a lack of cobalt?

I see.

Would now be a good time to point out that EV battery makers have been working to reduce cobalt content for years (to less than 3% of the battery now)? Or that the "Battery Day" event Tesla has in April is expected to announce that they are going to start using cobalt free batteries?


At one time I would suspect that oversight was on purpose ( you know CB just being a ####) but now I suspect there's something else, pervasive and endemic at work. So, I'll overlook the ########## in these recent posts and helpfully point out how wrong the sentiments expressed are.

To wit:
There's the issue of time scale that CB is overlooking here. Global humanity needs to move on this AGW thing ASAP, actually like 20 years ago. No matter. The point is we don't any longer have years to waste on our transition to near carbon-free energy production.

Here's an analogy:
Any long-term exponential increase, say for example human population, looks pretty smooth at the scale of 10,000 BCE to the present. But if one were to graph global population through the 13th, 14th and 15th century one would see one hell of a "fit".

Now the timescale needed to transition off of fossil fuels is numbered on your fingers and toes (and probably just fingers) if we want to keep the year 2100 not much higher than +2.5°C over the preindustrial average.

So a 5 year "fit" in the ICE-to-EV transition is one ####### #### of a problem! I would like to give up my ICE this year but with the Coronavirus and its attendant economic fallout, it looks like I'll be keeping my ICE for at least another 5 years. My situation is hardly unusual.

Even without the Coronavirus issue, the cobalt for EV batteries issue not only will but is already causing a slowdown in EV produciton. The fact that Tesla (and I'll assume BYD, etc.) are trying to transition away from reliance on cobalt means they see what I do. But since they clearly didn't see the issue soon enough, that means this too is a "fit" for the smooth exponential growth of EVs.

Is cobalt a BIG fit? Doesn't really matter. It's big enough to be measurable and when you add that together with all the other measurable issues it results in something less than a smooth exponential growth curve for EVs over the next 30 years.

Final note:
CB disparages the reporting, especially the guest reporting, over at Forbes (like CB's ever published for anyone half as respected). Well OK screw Forbes because Fan Gang is on my side with this issue. I'll go with him over some ###### on some internet forum any day.


So no. In other words, you've got no examples.

Sure, not every individual is going to give up the ICE car they just bought for a shiny new electric one, but those who do buy new cars are going to be shifting to more electric ones. And those who don't won't be buying new ICE cars either.

In fact, since the tech is improving and with every year electrics become more competitive, if people will be postponing car purchases during the downturn, when they do buy, they'll be buying in a situation where they'll be more likely to buy an EV.

Will that be fast enough? Not really relevant, since even without the outbreak people weren't going to start only buying EVs this year anyway.

Liberty's Edge

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

Here's an analogy:

Any long-term exponential increase, say for example human population, looks pretty smooth at the scale of 10,000 BCE to the present. But if one were to graph global population through the 13th, 14th and 15th century one would see one hell of a "fit".

Umm... if a graph shows a 'pretty smooth' exponential increase overall, then any 'fits' were too small to change (or even be visible on) the overall trend. Which is essentially MY position on EV growth (e.g. "There will be no significant 'fits and starts'. EV adoption will continue to follow an exponential curve").

Quark Blast wrote:
So a 5 year "fit" in the ICE-to-EV transition is one ####### #### of a problem!

It would indeed... and you claimed there have already been such fits in the transition to EVs... so please, pray tell. When did these 5 year reversals in EV adoption take place?

Quark Blast wrote:
I would like to give up my ICE this year but with the Coronavirus and its attendant economic fallout, it looks like I'll be keeping my ICE for at least another 5 years. My situation is hardly unusual.

I know I shouldn't ask... but how is it that you feel the coronavirus will cause significant numbers of people to hold off buying an EV for the next five years? Do you think the whole world will be staying home for five years?

Quark Blast wrote:
Even without the Coronavirus issue, the cobalt for EV batteries issue not only will but is already causing a slowdown in EV produciton.

Ummm... if EV production is slowing down, how are EV sales increasing? That is, how are they selling more cars if they are making fewer?

I think what you'd find, if you re-examined the situation with an eye towards reality, is that issues with cobalt have decreased the rate at which production can ramp up. That is... EV production is increasing, just not as fast as it might have w/o problems in the cobalt supply chain.

BTW, this nonsense all seemed painfully familiar, so I went back and checked... in 2016 you were claiming that lack of 'rare earth' minerals was causing renewables ("Especially wind power") to hit their "practical limit". They wouldn't grow much more and would just fight over scraps at the margins of the energy market. In reality... global wind power has grown another 40% since then and renewables are now the dominant form of new electricity production.


thejeff wrote:

So no. In other words, you've got no examples.

Sure, not every individual is going to give up the ICE car they just bought for a shiny new electric one, but those who do buy new cars are going to be shifting to more electric ones. And those who don't won't be buying new ICE cars either.

In fact, since the tech is improving and with every year electrics become more competitive, if people will be postponing car purchases during the downturn, when they do buy, they'll be buying in a situation where they'll be more likely to buy an EV.

Yes, I have an example. Population, though it grew exponentially overall, when viewed at the same scale as the scale needed to transition off of fossil fuels (to curb AGW) was not only flat for a century or more but actually went in the other direction.

Human endeavor at a global scale has always been like this. Exponential increases over the long term but very significant flat and reverse trends on shorter scales. The transitions for EVs are no exception.

I'm not going to stop driving over the next 5 years. I'm not going to be buying an EV over the next 5 years. That's a problem. It's a problem because, by now, EVs ought to be up-front cost competitive with ICEs. They are not and won't be until 2030 or later. EVs are still basically a luxury vehicle.

And EVs aren't the whole picture. Getting off of fossil fuels is unprecedented in human economic history. Cell phones (seemingly CB's fav example) are akin to running shoes, not fossil fuels, not even EVs.

thejeff wrote:
Will that be fast enough? Not really relevant, since even without the outbreak people weren't going to start only buying EVs this year anyway.

Or the year after that, or the year after that, or the year after that, or the year after that... and that is the issue. We needed to "start buying" EVs in significant numbers 20 years ago. If we push it out until 2025 or 2030 we'll be looking at a +2.7°C year 2100.

Then throw in a year or six delay for battery storage to catch up with need to make solar and (puke) wind more viable and 2100 starts looking like +2.8°C or +2.9°C.

You see the problem now?


CBDunkerson wrote:
Quark Blast wrote:
So a 5 year "fit" in the ICE-to-EV transition is one ####### #### of a problem!
It would indeed... and you claimed there have already been such fits in the transition to EVs... so please, pray tell. When did these 5 year reversals in EV adoption take place?

The whole of the 1990s, 2008 to 2012.

CBDunkerson wrote:
Quark Blast wrote:
I would like to give up my ICE this year but with the Coronavirus and its attendant economic fallout, it looks like I'll be keeping my ICE for at least another 5 years. My situation is hardly unusual.
I know I shouldn't ask... but how is it that you feel the coronavirus will cause significant numbers of people to hold off buying an EV for the next five years? Do you think the whole world will be staying home for five years?

Two words:

Economic Recession. Or maybe Economic Depression.

This will not be a "V-shaped recovery" from the Coronavirus.

CBDunkerson wrote:
Quark Blast wrote:
Even without the Coronavirus issue, the cobalt for EV batteries issue not only will but is already causing a slowdown in EV produciton.
Ummm... if EV production is slowing down, how are EV sales increasing? That is, how are they selling more cars if they are making fewer?

A "fit" in the growth curve means the curve trends off of exponential for a time. Not that it reverses.

CBDunkerson wrote:
Quark Blast wrote:
I think what you'd find, if you re-examined the situation with an eye towards reality, is that issues with cobalt have decreased the rate at which production can ramp up. That is... EV production is increasing, just not as fast as it might have w/o problems in the cobalt supply chain...

"Decreased the rate". Yes! Exactly my point.

Thanks!
:D

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Quark Blast wrote:
CBDunkerson wrote:
I know I shouldn't ask... but how is it that you feel the coronavirus will cause significant numbers of people to hold off buying an EV for the next five years? Do you think the whole world will be staying home for five years?

Two words:

Economic Recession. Or maybe Economic Depression.

This will not be a "V-shaped recovery" from the Coronavirus.

We should put together a list of the 'Quark Blast Prophecies'. This 'five year coronavirus recession' makes the earlier 'wind power is hitting its practical limit' one look reasonable by comparison.

Quark Blast wrote:
A "fit" in the growth curve means the curve trends off of exponential for a time. Not that it reverses.

...but if it returns to the exponential curve then the TOTAL technology transition time wouldn't change. Yet your original claim was that these 'fits' would delay EV adoption until 2050.

Which is it? Are these just minor fluctuations around the trend or are they actually going to change the trend and delay EV adoption by decades?


All they have to do individually is push the growth curve out a few months to a few years and collectively the +2.5°C year 2100 is a pipe dream.

And for the record, I never said EV adoption would be delayed until 2050. The adoption has started. My claim is that it needed to have started 20+ years ago. That it needed to have been essentially complete by 2020. EV adoption won't even be significant, viz-a-viz AGW, until 2030.

Also for the record, the Coronavirus recession doesn't need to last 5 years to cause a delay in EV purchases until 5 years from now. If the U-shaped recovery only bottoms out for 2 years it's not like 2.1 years from now I'll have $ saved up for my new EV. That purchase is 5 years out at present. We'll see if it gets pushed out further.


Quark Blast wrote:
Also for the record, the Coronavirus recession doesn't need to last 5 years to cause a delay in EV purchases until 5 years from now. If the U-shaped recovery only bottoms out for 2 years it's not like 2.1 years from now I'll have $ saved up for my new EV. That purchase is 5 years out at present. We'll see if it gets pushed out further.

Part of the point is that it will delay new car purchases. People who might otherwise have bought a new ICE car this year or next will push off those purchases and by the time they're ready to buy EVs will be more competitive.


thejeff wrote:
Quark Blast wrote:
Also for the record, the Coronavirus recession doesn't need to last 5 years to cause a delay in EV purchases until 5 years from now. If the U-shaped recovery only bottoms out for 2 years it's not like 2.1 years from now I'll have $ saved up for my new EV. That purchase is 5 years out at present. We'll see if it gets pushed out further.
Part of the point is that it will delay new car purchases. People who might otherwise have bought a new ICE car this year or next will push off those purchases and by the time they're ready to buy EVs will be more competitive.

So you'll take shaving 5 years off of operating an ultra-modern petrol consumption ICE (that's running in top shape!), over squeezing 5 more years out of a older-crappier lower MPG ICE -- in the unsubstantiated hope that 5 years from now EVs will no longer be luxury purchases for the majority of us?

Did you miss the part where I said, essentially, that any effective delay in the adoption of non-fossil fuel sources and/or any effective delay in the retirement of existing fossil fuel sources is bad?

Pushing the exponential curve out a few years is not a good result. CB has an unflagging hope that any pause in the growth curve will get compensated for with a subsequent increasing rate until we get back on the original projected curve.

I don't see that happening. At all. And his argument is, "...but if it returns to the exponential curve". Yeah, "if"... that's a #### big IF.

Additionally he never addresses my direct criticisms of his lame arguments. To repeat:
Cell phones (seemingly CB's fav example) are akin to running shoes, not fossil fuels, not even EVs.


Quark Blast wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Quark Blast wrote:
Also for the record, the Coronavirus recession doesn't need to last 5 years to cause a delay in EV purchases until 5 years from now. If the U-shaped recovery only bottoms out for 2 years it's not like 2.1 years from now I'll have $ saved up for my new EV. That purchase is 5 years out at present. We'll see if it gets pushed out further.
Part of the point is that it will delay new car purchases. People who might otherwise have bought a new ICE car this year or next will push off those purchases and by the time they're ready to buy EVs will be more competitive.

So you'll take shaving 5 years off of operating an ultra-modern petrol consumption ICE (that's running in top shape!), over squeezing 5 more years out of a older-crappier lower MPG ICE -- in the unsubstantiated hope that 5 years from now EVs will no longer be luxury purchases for the majority of us?

Did you miss the part where I said, essentially, that any effective delay in the adoption of non-fossil fuel sources and/or any effective delay in the retirement of existing fossil fuel sources is bad?

Pushing the exponential curve out a few years is not a good result. CB has an unflagging hope that any pause in the growth curve will get compensated for with a subsequent increasing rate until we get back on the original projected curve.

Right now, people were mostly buying ICE cars anyway.

But no, an economic downturn isn't going to magically make everyone have switched to EVs a decade ago, so we're all doomed.


thejeff wrote:
Quark Blast wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Quark Blast wrote:
Also for the record, the Coronavirus recession doesn't need to last 5 years to cause a delay in EV purchases until 5 years from now. If the U-shaped recovery only bottoms out for 2 years it's not like 2.1 years from now I'll have $ saved up for my new EV. That purchase is 5 years out at present. We'll see if it gets pushed out further.
Part of the point is that it will delay new car purchases. People who might otherwise have bought a new ICE car this year or next will push off those purchases and by the time they're ready to buy EVs will be more competitive.

So you'll take shaving 5 years off of operating an ultra-modern petrol consumption ICE (that's running in top shape!), over squeezing 5 more years out of a older-crappier lower MPG ICE -- in the unsubstantiated hope that 5 years from now EVs will no longer be luxury purchases for the majority of us?

Did you miss the part where I said, essentially, that any effective delay in the adoption of non-fossil fuel sources and/or any effective delay in the retirement of existing fossil fuel sources is bad?

Pushing the exponential curve out a few years is not a good result. CB has an unflagging hope that any pause in the growth curve will get compensated for with a subsequent increasing rate until we get back on the original projected curve.

Right now, people were mostly buying ICE cars anyway.

Yes, but with an economic downturn people are far less likely to buy a luxury vehicle... which is what most EVs effectively are. You know? Like, where's the $35,000 Tesla? It was supposed to be here 5 years ago. WTH?

With a little bad luck, if I suddenly need a car tomorrow, it won't be an EV. It'll be an ICE.

thejeff wrote:
But no, an economic downturn isn't going to magically make everyone have switched to EVs a decade ago, so we're all doomed.

Since you seemed to have missed it:

Did you miss the part where I said, essentially, that any effective delay in the adoption of non-fossil fuel sources and/or any effective delay in the retirement of existing fossil fuel sources is bad?

And speaking of magic:
We also can't magically get back on the exponential curve without there being a shift to the future. One month here, six months there, a year for this, eighteen months for that.... and suddenly it's 2030 and we still only have 7% market share for EVs. Of course looking back from 2100 to the period 1990 to 2080 the EV curve will be exponential but that will cover the fact that the initial curve (projected in 2010) saw EV market dominance by 2030 or some such.


CBDunkerson wrote:


Umm... if a graph shows a 'pretty smooth' exponential increase overall, then any 'fits' were too small to change (or even be visible on) the overall trend. Which is essentially MY position on EV growth (e.g. "There will be no significant 'fits and starts'. EV adoption will continue to follow an exponential curve").

Wow.... your argument here is that since you could plot a smooth curve... therefore, all the data is also smooth. That's f+$&ing brilliant. It is also painfully obvious that either you've never taken a course on statistics, or you've forgotten everything you've ever learned about it.


Quark Blast wrote:


Did you miss the part where I said, essentially, that any effective delay in the adoption of non-fossil fuel sources and/or any effective delay in the retirement of existing fossil fuel sources is bad?

Except for a delay in which the usage of fossil fuels is also dramatically reduced.

If the replacement of ICE with EV happens at 2% normally, but is reduced to 0.5 or 1%, and ICE usage drops by 15% during that same period, then the overall carbon effect would be beneficial.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Quark Blast wrote:
I don't see that happening. At all. And his argument is, "...but if it returns to the exponential curve". Yeah, "if"... that's a #### big IF.

For the record, I was pointing out that in your use of human population as an analogy for EV adoption you said that results 'returned to the exponential curve'... contradicting your apparent position that EV adoption will not.

Quark Blast wrote:

Additionally he never addresses my direct criticisms of his lame arguments. To repeat:

Cell phones (seemingly CB's fav example) are akin to running shoes, not fossil fuels, not even EVs.

You directed that claim at thejeff, not me... and what is there to 'address'? You are stating your opinion that the rapid pace of cell phone adoption is not indicative of technology transitions in general. I have no idea what point you are trying to make about running shoes.

How about another example? Internal combustion engines replacing horses. Not only is it a direct parallel to EVs replacing ICEs... it's the same 'industry'. Just like cell phones and EVs, you had a situation where the technology had been around for a while, but it was expensive and not really viable at first so very few people used it. Then over time the technology got better and the price came down until it slowly grew to ~3% of the market... and then within 15 years the prior technology was obsolete.

All the stables and hay delivery contracts and buggy construction shops and all the other related industries were wiped out. We're now at the start of the same thing happening to internal combustion engine vehicles and their related infrastructure and industries. Horses were the primary means of ground transportation for 'western civilization' for thousands of years... and then in less than 20 years they were replaced.

Not only WILL the same thing happen to internal combustion engine vehicles. It already IS happening.

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:
Wow.... your argument here is that since you could plot a smooth curve... therefore, all the data is also smooth.

No, it isn't.


CBDunkerson wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
Wow.... your argument here is that since you could plot a smooth curve... therefore, all the data is also smooth.
No, it isn't.

It's literally what you said.

CBDunkerson wrote:


Umm... if a graph shows a 'pretty smooth' exponential increase overall, then any 'fits' were too small to change (or even be visible on) the overall trend. Which is essentially MY position on EV growth (e.g. "There will be no significant 'fits and starts'. EV adoption will continue to follow an exponential curve").

Data points aren't curved. They're points. A point cannot be curved.

A series of points doesn't necessarily have a curve either. You have to do the math and give it a "best fit line". That is where the curve might appear.

To arrive at an "overall trend" and find an "exponential curve" it is NECESSARY to find a "best fit line". These are technical truths of statistics that you cannot deviate from. To claim otherwise, would be like saying you can do a physics equations without using math.

If you are claiming that all your points fall close to the trend line, please let us know what the R-value is. The R-value will either confirm or deny your claim that all the data falls close to the trend line.

Right now, you are making claims about hard data, but you aren't showing anything.

Lastly, an "exponential curve" does not prevent there from being "fits and starts". It's actually possible to have both.


Irontruth wrote:
Quark Blast wrote:


Did you miss the part where I said, essentially, that any effective delay in the adoption of non-fossil fuel sources and/or any effective delay in the retirement of existing fossil fuel sources is bad?

Except for a delay in which the usage of fossil fuels is also dramatically reduced.

If the replacement of ICE with EV happens at 2% normally, but is reduced to 0.5 or 1%, and ICE usage drops by 15% during that same period, then the overall carbon effect would be beneficial.

Minneapolis/St. Paul isn't the biggest metro area in the US, but it's 16th in population. I live very close to the airport, the Mall of America, and a freeway.

Long term parking for the airport is normally 80-90% full, but it's down to about 15-20% now. I don't hear many planes flying when I walk the dog (they rotate which angle they take off from, but I should hear more than I am). And, while it is a Sunday morning, I was noticing gaps between traffic on the freeway as long as 10-20 seconds and watching both directions.

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:
It's literally what you said.

As with our past discussion, you seem to have great difficulty differentiating between what you want me to have said and what I actually said.

CBDunkerson wrote:
Umm... if a graph shows a 'pretty smooth' exponential increase overall, then any 'fits' were too small to change (or even be visible on) the overall trend. Which is essentially MY position on EV growth (e.g. "There will be no significant 'fits and starts'. EV adoption will continue to follow an exponential curve").

Note the qualifiers... pretty smooth, too small to change, no significant.

If the curve is 'pretty' smooth then, by definition, I am NOT saying "all the data is also smooth".

If the 'fits' are 'too small' to change the overall trend then, by definition, they exist and deviate from the trend. So, I am NOT saying "all the data is also smooth".

If the the 'fits' are not 'significant' then, by definition, they exist and deviate from the trend. So, I am NOT saying "all the data is also smooth".

You quoted those EXACT passages of me saying things that can ONLY mean the data points are NOT a smooth progression and yet somehow stuck firmly to your conclusion that I was saying the opposite.

That isn't rational.


There are some relevant points among the prior six posts. I'll not reference any of them expressly in the wan hope that subsequent replies will not fall into the usual form of grossly tangential.

Given that we have another eight weeks of (variable*) shutdown across the globe, I'll restate that this year is likely to be a minimum 3.0 gigaton drop in CO2 emissions. It might turn out to be higher, especially if we get a solid second round of Coronavirus pandemic this fall.

Going with the lower number, that's 3.0 for the year. I can definitely imagine the possibility of more than making up for the 2020 emissions drop in 2021 as the global economy struggles to keep the 2020 recession a recession and have it not segue into a multi-year global depression.

I mentioned up-thread (2 pages back) that Lovelock might be onto something. Though sadly I see I was not the first to mention this ( see page 5 of this thread).
:D
Kooky scientists aside, the whole issue as to what rate/curve EVs are adopted at may be entirely moot.

* I'm finding conflicting information about how shutdown China still is e.g. and the rest of the world's countries have not yet passed the halfway mark for their respective shutdown periods.


Quark Blast wrote:


Given that we have another eight weeks of (variable*) shutdown across the globe, I'll restate that this year is likely to be a minimum 3.0 gigaton drop in CO2 emissions. It might turn out to be higher, especially if we get a solid second round of Coronavirus pandemic this fall.

Something to consider, the 2008 recession saw drops in CO2 emissions (2008 and 2009), but then it rebounded higher. If governments don't take great care to ensure that the recovery is geared towards reducing emissions permanently, it is more likely that we will actually see an increase in emissions afterwards that is larger than the drop during.

For example, if in an effort to help airlines recover, governments create incentives for consumer air travel, then those emissions come back higher than before.

Another example, if automotive industries are struggling, governments could roll back environmental regulations in order to allow companies to more easily meet demand. Lowering fuel economy standards, even temporarily, would set back efforts to mitigate climate change years/decades.


CBDunkerson wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
It's literally what you said.

As with our past discussion, you seem to have great difficulty differentiating between what you want me to have said and what I actually said.

CBDunkerson wrote:
Umm... if a graph shows a 'pretty smooth' exponential increase overall, then any 'fits' were too small to change (or even be visible on) the overall trend. Which is essentially MY position on EV growth (e.g. "There will be no significant 'fits and starts'. EV adoption will continue to follow an exponential curve").

Note the qualifiers... pretty smooth, too small to change, no significant.

If the curve is 'pretty' smooth then, by definition, I am NOT saying "all the data is also smooth".

If the 'fits' are 'too small' to change the overall trend then, by definition, they exist and deviate from the trend. So, I am NOT saying "all the data is also smooth".

If the the 'fits' are not 'significant' then, by definition, they exist and deviate from the trend. So, I am NOT saying "all the data is also smooth".

You quoted those EXACT passages of me saying things that can ONLY mean the data points are NOT a smooth progression and yet somehow stuck firmly to your conclusion that I was saying the opposite.

That isn't rational.

You could really just solve this problem by sharing the data you're looking at.

Unless of course....

Also, you seem to think I'm trying to trap you with word games. I'm really not. You seem to be dancing between terms like Barry Sanders in the backfield.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Irontruth wrote:
You could really just solve this problem by sharing the data you're looking at.

Oh, is that all?

Just share the data on future EV sales. I'll get right on that.


So... you don't have any data, but you know what that data will look like.

Surely then you can share the data you are using to make this prediction.

Liberty's Edge

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

Irontruth, you obviously weren't paying enough attention to even garner what the discussion was about (i.e. whether 'fits and starts' in EV adoption due to finite resources like cobalt would delay the transition to EVs for decades or be small deviations on a rapid transition). Thus, your interest seems limited to finding something to disagree with me on... even if you have to make it up.


I'm pointing out that you've said some b**$#*#%.

Either you have data, and we can appraise whether that data is smooth or not..... or you are making claims with no evidence, and acting like I'm stupid for not agreeing with you.

I'm asking for evidence to evaluate. Do you have any, or are you just making stuff up to be able to debate about it?

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Irontruth wrote:
I'm pointing out that you've said some b@%@~#%&.

A position you arrived at without even knowing the topic of discussion.

Irontruth wrote:
Either you have data, and we can appraise whether that data is smooth or not.....

Given that everyone is in agreement that the data is not 'smooth' I fail to see the point of such an exercise. The point of contention is whether future deviations will cause EV adoption to be stalled for decades or only be temporary setbacks before returning the trend returns to the same sort of rapid growth seen the past few years.

Irontruth wrote:
I'm asking for evidence to evaluate. Do you have any, or are you just making stuff up to be able to debate about it?

I have already supplied the reasons that I believe EV adoption will proceed as a rapid transition, with accompanying examples and data. I see no point in indulging your demands that I defend a position which exists only in your imagination.

3,801 to 3,850 of 4,073 << first < prev | 72 | 73 | 74 | 75 | 76 | 77 | 78 | 79 | 80 | 81 | 82 | 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.