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


Off-Topic Discussions

3,851 to 3,900 of 4,052 << first < prev | 72 | 73 | 74 | 75 | 76 | 77 | 78 | 79 | 80 | 81 | 82 | next > last >>

CBDunkerson wrote:


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.

Are your reasons based on evidence?

If so, I would like to see the evidence you used to arrive at your conclusion. On the last page, you provided no sources of information, just your opinion or unverified data.

And, I already know that for the 3-4 weeks before that page, you were arguing with me about whether I was allowed to hold an opinion about non-governmental effects on the economy, and in none of those did you ever link sources of information about EVs.

Part of the reason this thread is so toxic, is people routinely think that their OPINION is valuable. F!~! our opinions. Lets see the evidence. (btw, the conversation from weeks ago could have been a WHOLE lot shorter if instead of just disagreeing with me, you asked me for evidence to support my opinion)

Liberty's Edge

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

Are your reasons based on evidence?

If so, I would like to see the evidence you used to arrive at your conclusion.

You are welcome to go back and read them.

Irontruth wrote:
And, I already know that for the 3-4 weeks before that page, you were arguing with me about whether I was allowed to hold an opinion about non-governmental effects on the economy

Then you 'know' something that has no basis in reality.

Irontruth wrote:
Part of the reason this thread is so toxic, is people routinely think that their OPINION is valuable.

That seems unlikely to me, but... are you saying you shouldn't have been 'allowed to hold an opinion about non-governmental effects on the economy'? Here, I thought you should... so maybe we WERE disagreeing on that after all.

In any case, the fact that you are literally searching for (and making up) reasons to argue with me would seem a more likely cause of 'toxicity' than people simply having opinions.


CBDunkerson wrote:
Irontruth wrote:

Are your reasons based on evidence?

If so, I would like to see the evidence you used to arrive at your conclusion.

You are welcome to go back and read them.

In this post, every link you provide is a link to one of my posts. None of those posts from me contain data, or links to data, about EV sales/usage/replacement of ICE.

No links in this post.

No links in this post.

Technically a link in this post, but not yours, and you don't cite it or refer to it to support your argument in any way.

No links in this post.

The link in this post is to a post from QB from 4 years ago, that post contained no links to any evidence.

No links in this post.

No links in this post.

No links in this post.

No links in this post.

No links in this post.

No links in this post.

No links in this post.

Those are all your posts on the last page.

I see zero evidence outside of you just talking. Do you think I should be persuaded by you just talking, or should I look at the evidence myself and see if I can reach the same conclusion as you?

I stand by my mistrust of capitalism. My point is that it is possible that if you asked me for evidence (or an example) of what I was talking about, you might actually agree with me (or not). Instead, you chose to dismiss me out of hand and used super piss poor logic to do it.

What evidence did you see that convinced you of your opinion of EV sales?

Liberty's Edge

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

Those are all your posts on the last page.

I see zero evidence outside of you just talking.

...and yet I provided evidence. The fact that you cannot see it, don't know where to look, and/or apparently think that only links are evidence doesn't make it go away.

Irontruth wrote:
Do you think I should be persuaded by you just talking, or should I look at the evidence myself and see if I can reach the same conclusion as you?

You should definitely look at the evidence yourself. That said, information provided by others can be a useful place to start checking.

Irontruth wrote:
I stand by my mistrust of capitalism.

Which wasn't even a topic of discussion, but clearly this all has little to do with what I am saying / have said and everything to do with your hurt feelings.

Irontruth wrote:
My point is that it is possible that if you asked me for evidence (or an example) of what I was talking about, you might actually agree with me (or not). Instead, you chose to dismiss me out of hand and used super piss poor logic to do it.

Nonsense.

The entire discussion you are complaining about stemmed from evidence you cited in a video about supposed problems that would slow EV adoption, me pointing out some flaws in the analysis provided by that video, and you responding in a ridiculously rude and irrational way... and then going rapidly downhill from there.

Irontruth wrote:
What evidence did you see that convinced you of your opinion of EV sales?

Let's start with... EV sales. That is, my opinion that EV sales will grow exponentially to quickly dominate the automotive market is largely based on the fact that, in 'early mover' countries... EV sales have grown exponentially to quickly dominate the automotive market.

The fact that this is exactly how disruptive transitions have progressed historically doesn't hurt either.


You know what, f&@$ it.

You're absolutely right. You've provided no evidence to back up anything you said, but I am convinced you are right. You are obviously a genius and know everything.

I should be ashamed of myself for questioning you and your opinions. I should never ask for evidence to support an argument you make. Clearly, everything you say is true, regardless of whether there is evidence to support it or not.

It's all my fault. I was being argumentative and just looking for a fight. I'm stupid and clearly don't understand anything.

You're probably right about capitalism. We shouldn't be worried about climate change, the markets will solve it all and we don't have to do anything.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Irontruth wrote:
You've provided no evidence to back up anything you said

Obviously false.

Irontruth wrote:
You're probably right about capitalism.

Nice to hear... though I haven't actually said anything about capitalism.

Irontruth wrote:
We shouldn't be worried about climate change, the markets will solve it all and we don't have to do anything.

The fact that market forces are driving adoption of wind, solar, EVs, and other things which are reducing, and will eventually stop, the growth of GHGs doesn't mean we don't need to worry about climate change. We've already caused significant global warming and there will be more before the problem is brought under control.


CBDunkerson wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
You've provided no evidence to back up anything you said

Obviously false.

Irontruth wrote:
You're probably right about capitalism.

Nice to hear... though I haven't actually said anything about capitalism.

Irontruth wrote:
We shouldn't be worried about climate change, the markets will solve it all and we don't have to do anything.
The fact that market forces are driving adoption of wind, solar, EVs, and other things which are reducing, and will eventually stop, the growth of GHGs doesn't mean we don't need to worry about climate change. We've already caused significant global warming and there will be more before the problem is brought under control.

You may not have used the word "capitalism", but isn't saying "market forces are driving adoption" saying something about capitalism?


CBDunkerson wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
You've provided no evidence to back up anything you said

Obviously false.

Irontruth wrote:
You're probably right about capitalism.

Nice to hear... though I haven't actually said anything about capitalism.

Irontruth wrote:
We shouldn't be worried about climate change, the markets will solve it all and we don't have to do anything.
The fact that market forces are driving adoption of wind, solar, EVs, and other things which are reducing, and will eventually stop, the growth of GHGs doesn't mean we don't need to worry about climate change. We've already caused significant global warming and there will be more before the problem is brought under control.

Let's separate this out for a second. I'm much stupider than you, so simple statements are helpful.

Will market forces solve the issue of GHG emissions with no further actions required (other than letting market forces do their thing)? (ie, I'm not adding in things like how to mitigate hurricane damage, species extinction, habitat migration, sea level rise, etc)

I want to make sure I'm believing the right thing. Remember, you do not need any evidence to support this. If you say it's true, then it must therefore be true.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
thejeff wrote:
You may not have used the word "capitalism", but isn't saying "market forces are driving adoption" saying something about capitalism?

I don't believe so. Market forces have nothing to do with capitalism. The global oil market is the same thing in communist countries that it is in capitalist ones. The term 'market forces' just refers to basic economics in relation to supply, demand, and cost of various commodities. The political rules around who 'owns' the commodities don't factor into it directly at all. Indirectly, different ownership structures can trend towards different types of market intervention efforts, but the overall 'laws of economics' do not change.

Irontruth wrote:
Will market forces solve the issue of GHG emissions with no further actions required (other than letting market forces do their thing)?

Setting aside the fact that we've been over this, AND that your hypothetical (i.e. a market without outside influences) is a situation that does not exist and CANNOT exist... barring some unforeseen new factor (e.g. super cheap methane hydrate collection) the answer is effectively 'yes', in that market forces currently are in the process of solving the GHG emissions problem... despite the vast majority of interventions working against that outcome (i.e. far more effort going towards propping up fossil fuels than to expanding the use of renewables).


thejeff wrote:
You may not have used the word "capitalism", but isn't saying "market forces are driving adoption" saying something about capitalism?

@thejeff - Stop making sense, it'll get you nowhere in this thread.

:D

NOT taking my own advice and back to the OP:

Global CO2 emissions were up in 2019

Late last year this article here sets a pre-coronavirus stage for GHG emissions - Natural Gas Rush Drives a Global Rise in Fossil Fuel Emissions.

icn wrote:

A surge in natural gas has helped drive down coal burning across the United States and Europe, but it isn't displacing other fossil fuels on a global scale. Instead, booming gas use is fueling the global growth in greenhouse gas emissions, according to a new study by researchers at Stanford University and other institutions.

In fact, natural gas use is growing so fast, its carbon dioxide emissions over the past six years actually eclipsed the decline in emissions from the falling use of coal, the researchers found.

Renewable energy sources such as wind and solar are also failing to cut emissions fast enough, the report says, as much of their growth has provided new energy supplies instead of displacing fossil fuels...

"Globally, most of the new natural gas being used isn't displacing coal, it's providing new energy. That's the key interaction, and that's true for renewables even," said Rob Jackson, a professor of Earth system science at Stanford's School of Earth, Energy & Environmental Sciences and the report's lead author. "We need renewables that displace fossil fuels, not supplement them."...

Supporters often refer to natural gas as a "bridge fuel" between higher-emitting fossil fuels and renewable energy, but some industry executives have instead begun calling it a "forever fuel"—one they see continuing to grow for decades to come...

Another concern is that all of this new infrastructure—an LNG terminal can cost billions of dollars to build—will make it far more difficult to cut emissions years from now, when investors will be expecting returns from these projects.

"I have strong concerns about the pace of our natural gas build-out in the United States and globally," Jackson said, "because those facilities will be producing pollution for many decades."...

China now accounts for half of global coal consumption, and a recent report by the Global Energy Monitor found that the country has plans to build a slate of new coal plants that would match the capacity of all the coal power generation of the European Union.

A separate report, by BNEF, found that coal power generation in developing nations reached a new high in 2018. The report also found a decline in new investment in clean energy...

"It's shocking in a way," Jackson said. "I believe that wind and solar and renewables will help us turn the corner. We haven't turned the corner yet though."

I can't see any reason the coronavirus will reset the theoretical angle of decline in CO2 but I can see a coronavirus-inspired global recession (or depression) reducing CO2 from fossil fuels and shifting that use forward in time such that renewables can catch up.

But that is only theoretical. Practically humans will act like we always have (can anyone say, "short-term self-interest"?) and it'll be a total crap shoot as to whether we even make a +2.5°C year 2100. If we do I suspect because it'll be from one of two things - A near-miracle scalable CO2 sequestration tech rolled out before 2040, or, a total #### show in terms of global economy for the next 5-to10 years; and of course logically it may be a combo of both.


CBDunkerson wrote:


Setting aside the fact that we've been over this, AND that your hypothetical (i.e. a market without outside influences) is a situation that does not exist and CANNOT exist... barring some unforeseen new factor (e.g. super cheap methane hydrate collection) the answer is effectively 'yes', in that market forces currently are in the process of solving the GHG emissions problem... despite the vast majority of interventions working against that outcome (i.e. far more effort going towards propping up fossil fuels than to expanding the use of renewables).

I have never once claimed that markets are not influenced by outside forces.

Oh man... this is really confusing. I was convinced you were right... that I was just accusing you of things that weren't true just to be argumentative. But now... you've just accused me of something that is untrue. Did you do it to be argumentative?

I had such faith in you, then you decided to strawman me.


Irontruth wrote:
CBDunkerson wrote:


Setting aside the fact that we've been over this, AND that your hypothetical (i.e. a market without outside influences) is a situation that does not exist and CANNOT exist... barring some unforeseen new factor (e.g. super cheap methane hydrate collection) the answer is effectively 'yes', in that market forces currently are in the process of solving the GHG emissions problem... despite the vast majority of interventions working against that outcome (i.e. far more effort going towards propping up fossil fuels than to expanding the use of renewables).

I have never once claimed that markets are not influenced by outside forces.

So what do you mean by "Will market forces solve the issue of GHG emissions with no further actions required (other than letting market forces do their thing)?"

Are you asking if market forces will solve the issue if we keep all other influences the same? That, for example, all government policies (taxes, regulations, subsidies, etc) stay as they are today? Any non-governmental influences as well of course?


Are "markets" and "government legislation" synonyms that I was unaware of?

Outside of this thread, has this ever once been confusing to you guys? Are these words that I am typing? Do you see this as some sort of alien language that is full of ambiguity? Does this post appear like inky circles with hard to interpret patterns?

Maybe we need to include definitions of words.

capitalism noun

cap·​i·​tal·​ism | \ ˈka-pə-tə-ˌliz-əm , ˈkap-tə- \
Definition of capitalism
: an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market.

free market noun

Definition of free market
: an economy operating by free competition

Huh... I don't feel like I'm using these words incorrectly when I read the definition. Help me understand the problem that is happening that when I use these words you two seem to read something COMPLETELY DIFFERENT. Neither of these words implies that the terms are talking about governments.

I fully agree (as I have agreed NUMEROUS times) that governments influence capitalism and free markets. But the terms themselves do NOT refer to government control of such things. This idea isn't even hinted at in the definition.


Irontruth wrote:
Are "markets" and "government legislation" synonyms that I was unaware of?

I think you misread me - though it's quite possible I'm still misreading you.

No they're not, of course.

I will attempt to rephrase: When you say both "Will market forces solve the issue of GHG emissions with no further actions required (other than letting market forces do their thing)?" and "I have never once claimed that markets are not influenced by outside forces", you are acknowledging that markets are influenced by outside forces, including, but not limited to government policies, but does the "no further actions required" part mean without any of those outside forces being changed?


thejeff wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
Are "markets" and "government legislation" synonyms that I was unaware of?

I think you misread me - though it's quite possible I'm still misreading you.

No they're not, of course.

I will attempt to rephrase: When you say both "Will market forces solve the issue of GHG emissions with no further actions required (other than letting market forces do their thing)?" and "I have never once claimed that markets are not influenced by outside forces", you are acknowledging that markets are influenced by outside forces, including, but not limited to government policies, but does the "no further actions required" part mean without any of those outside forces being changed?

When I say the word "markets" why do you IMMEDIATELY talk about government?

Does the word "markets" mean government?

If it does, then I'm an a+%+%~+ for keeping trying to go over the difference between the words. If they are different things though... then maybe... just maybe... the fact that you keep reading "government" every time I say "markets" is the problem.

Bob and Jim are conjoined twins.
Bob and Jim definitely influence each other.
I have the opinion that Bob is an a@%!&++.

Is my point about Bob or Jim?


I know, maybe I'm actually talking about quantum mechanics. The cosmos is literally made of quarks, electrons, and other similar particles, maybe when I say "markets" I am actually talking about those things. Markets cannot exist independently of quarks and electrons, so if we're going to talk about markets, we are also talking about quarks and electrons.


Irontruth wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
Are "markets" and "government legislation" synonyms that I was unaware of?

I think you misread me - though it's quite possible I'm still misreading you.

No they're not, of course.

I will attempt to rephrase: When you say both "Will market forces solve the issue of GHG emissions with no further actions required (other than letting market forces do their thing)?" and "I have never once claimed that markets are not influenced by outside forces", you are acknowledging that markets are influenced by outside forces, including, but not limited to government policies, but does the "no further actions required" part mean without any of those outside forces being changed?

When I say the word "markets" why do you IMMEDIATELY talk about government?

Does the word "markets" mean government?

If it does, then I'm an a&~$@!@ for keeping trying to go over the difference between the words. If they are different things though... then maybe... just maybe... the fact that you keep reading "government" every time I say "markets" is the problem.

Bob and Jim are conjoined twins.
Bob and Jim definitely influence each other.
I have the opinion that Bob is an a*~!#*#.

Is my point about Bob or Jim?

Because you talked about "outside forces on markets". A major outside force on markets is government. Though there are of course others.


Ah I get it. Nice one. Took me a while.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Irontruth wrote:
CBDunkerson wrote:
...your hypothetical (i.e. a market without outside influences) ...
I have never once claimed that markets are not influenced by outside forces.

You asked me;

Irontruth wrote:
Will market forces solve the issue of GHG emissions with no further actions required (other than letting market forces do their thing)?

Which, as we've gone over ad nauseum, is a situation that cannot exist. There is no such thing as a market where 'no further action' is being taken and the 'market forces are doing their thing' on their own. There are always outside forces acting to push the market in different directions.

Note: Once again you have gone off on some kind of absurd semantic tangent rather than addressing any of the actual issues you supposedly wanted to discuss.


If all you're going to do is strawman me, then you don't actually need me.

At this point, you've either unintentionally, or intentionally, never understood what I was trying to say to you. I've tried numerous ways to explain it.


I've been trying to understand you, with little success. And you've repeatedly misunderstood me. (See last evening's little go around.)

I still don't really understand what you mean by "Will market forces solve the issue of GHG emissions with no further actions required (other than letting market forces do their thing)?"

I think overall what you're trying to say is that left to itself capitalism won't save us, but that government action will be necessary to sufficiently cut green house gas emissions. Which I largely agree with.

OTOH, CB is right to point out that currently the switch to renewables is being driven more by market forces and that is likely to increase, while the bulk government action has actually been supporting the fossil fuel industry (especially if you consider the various petro-states). I would throw in the caveat that the relatively small amounts of government support for renewables have worked as "seed capital", helping renewables get to the competitive point they're reaching now.


thejeff wrote:

I think overall what you're trying to say is that left to itself capitalism won't save us, but that government action will be necessary to sufficiently cut green house gas emissions. Which I largely agree with.

OTOH, CB is right to point out that currently the switch to renewables is being driven more by market forces and that is likely to increase, while the bulk government action has actually been supporting the fossil fuel industry (especially if you consider the various petro-states). I would throw in the caveat that the relatively small amounts of government support for renewables have worked as "seed capital", helping renewables get to the competitive point they're reaching now.

Are these two things mutually exclusive?


@thejeff - Say, you know... ah... meh, just shakes head instead.

Back to the OP (sorta):

Boeing* is about to RIF by 20% or more. I can only imagine a great many other companies are staring at the same wall of indebtedness falling down on them. Right now, technically, they're saying "buyout" as an initial option but who's going to take a buyout when they've just lost 25%-50% of their 401k?

As mentioned up thread, Japan, Italy and many other countries were looking at economic retraction recession by the fourth quarter of last year. At this point there is no avoiding a global recession and it will be years before we get back to normal. I mean after the "new normal" of Coronavirus pandemic every 6 months or so finally gets stoppered with a vaccine and herd immunity. You know? A couple of years out. Of course by then we'll be in a global depression.

* And by "Boeing" I don't of course include either the #### as #### board if directors, nor the C-suite. That mutual admiration society all want to keep their stock options and golden parachutes.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
thejeff wrote:
I think overall what you're trying to say is that left to itself capitalism won't save us, but that government action will be necessary to sufficiently cut green house gas emissions. Which I largely agree with.

Again, I'd disagree that capitalism has anything to do with it (e.g. communist countries need to cut emissions too)... and the rest of this is largely a matter of definitions.

Such as, what does "save us" mean in reference to AGW? People have already died as a result of AGW, so it is too late to save THEM... and AGW alone cannot wipe out the entire human race, so there is no need to save ALL of us from it. Thus, we could theoretically agree on the need for government intervention... depending on what level of 'saving' is envisioned.

For example, keeping warming from exceeding 1.5 C above pre-industrial would almost certainly require massive government intervention to stop AGW at this point. Conversely, it is difficult to see even the most determined pro-fossil fuel government action pushing us past 3 C now.

Either way, the problem IS going to be resolved as a result of people switching to less expensive technologies (i.e. 'market forces') that also happen to be less polluting. Market interventions in either direction just shift the margins.


CBDunkerson wrote:
thejeff wrote:
I think overall what you're trying to say is that left to itself capitalism won't save us, but that government action will be necessary to sufficiently cut green house gas emissions. Which I largely agree with.

Again, I'd disagree that capitalism has anything to do with it (e.g. communist countries need to cut emissions too)... and the rest of this is largely a matter of definitions.

Whether communist countries have to cut emissions or not is irrelevant to whether capitalism can solve GHG emissions.

If you think capitalism has nothing to do with solving the issue of GHG emissions, then essentially you agree with me that it isn't a trustworthy solution.

CBDunkerson wrote:

Either way, the problem IS going to be resolved as a result of people switching to less expensive technologies (i.e. 'market forces') that also happen to be less polluting. Market interventions in either direction just shift the margins.

Then you would appear to reverse course here.

You use bad logic and contradict yourself all in one post.


Irontruth wrote:
CBDunkerson wrote:
thejeff wrote:
I think overall what you're trying to say is that left to itself capitalism won't save us, but that government action will be necessary to sufficiently cut green house gas emissions. Which I largely agree with.

Again, I'd disagree that capitalism has anything to do with it (e.g. communist countries need to cut emissions too)... and the rest of this is largely a matter of definitions.

Whether communist countries have to cut emissions or not is irrelevant to whether capitalism can solve GHG emissions.

If you think capitalism has nothing to do with solving the issue of GHG emissions, then essentially you agree with me that it isn't a trustworthy solution.

CBDunkerson wrote:

Either way, the problem IS going to be resolved as a result of people switching to less expensive technologies (i.e. 'market forces') that also happen to be less polluting. Market interventions in either direction just shift the margins.

Then you would appear to reverse course here.

You use bad logic and contradict yourself all in one post.

Just be clear here, you're using different definitions of "capitalism" here, so CB isn't saying what you think he's saying.


Mostly cause he seems to reject all definitions for the word.

I've even let him define words exactly how he wants, and then when I use them in a sentence, he rejects the meaning.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Irontruth wrote:
If you think capitalism has nothing to do with solving the issue of GHG emissions, then essentially you agree with me that it isn't a trustworthy solution.

Your 'logic' here is... not.

The planet Jupiter has nothing to do with solving the issue of GHG emissions. That makes it irrelevant, not 'untrustworthy'.


CBDunkerson wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
If you think capitalism has nothing to do with solving the issue of GHG emissions, then essentially you agree with me that it isn't a trustworthy solution.

Your 'logic' here is... not.

The planet Jupiter has nothing to do with solving the issue of GHG emissions. That makes it irrelevant, not 'untrustworthy'.

But again, you're using different definitions of "capitalism" here.


CBDunkerson wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
If you think capitalism has nothing to do with solving the issue of GHG emissions, then essentially you agree with me that it isn't a trustworthy solution.

Your 'logic' here is... not.

The planet Jupiter has nothing to do with solving the issue of GHG emissions. That makes it irrelevant, not 'untrustworthy'.

I propose a plan to let Jupiter solve global warming for us.

Yes or no, do you trust that plan to work?

Your knowledge of logic appears to be even worse than your knowledge of statistics.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Irontruth wrote:
CBDunkerson wrote:
The planet Jupiter has nothing to do with solving the issue of GHG emissions. That makes it irrelevant, not 'untrustworthy'.

I propose a plan to let Jupiter solve global warming for us.

Yes or no, do you trust that plan to work?

I trust your plan to be irrelevant.

That is, global warming is going to be 'solved' by other factors. So, in a sense, we could say that your plan will 'work' in that global warming will end up being solved... but in truth your plan will have nothing to do with achieving that outcome.

Capitalism, like the planet Jupiter, is not going to stop global warming. However, it also isn't going to prevent global warming from being stopped. It's irrelevant to the issue.


CBDunkerson wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
CBDunkerson wrote:
The planet Jupiter has nothing to do with solving the issue of GHG emissions. That makes it irrelevant, not 'untrustworthy'.

I propose a plan to let Jupiter solve global warming for us.

Yes or no, do you trust that plan to work?

I trust your plan to be irrelevant.

That is, global warming is going to be 'solved' by other factors. So, in a sense, we could say that your plan will 'work' in that global warming will end up being solved... but in truth your plan will have nothing to do with achieving that outcome.

Capitalism, like the planet Jupiter, is not going to stop global warming. However, it also isn't going to prevent global warming from being stopped. It's irrelevant to the issue.

Just trying to keep us all on the same page, this is with the understanding that capitalism and market forces aren't the same thing - or even closely linked.

Capitalism is irrelevant, but marker forces aren't.

Is that what you're saying?


CBDunkerson wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
CBDunkerson wrote:
The planet Jupiter has nothing to do with solving the issue of GHG emissions. That makes it irrelevant, not 'untrustworthy'.

I propose a plan to let Jupiter solve global warming for us.

Yes or no, do you trust that plan to work?

I trust your plan to be irrelevant.

So, you can't just give me a straight yes or no response? There's another person in this thread who relies on quippy remarks to avoid answering questions. If you aren't sure who I'm referring to, it's Quark Blast.

I'll let you decide if you want to be MORE like Quark Blast, or less.

Lastly, remember that I am stupid. If you don't just say yes or no, it is hard for me to be sure. In other words, I'm giving you permission to tacitly call me stupid by just using a single word response. A longer more complicated response will just go over my head.


Hey guys, nothing new to add to the OP discussion, just chiming in to say thanks for all the laughs these past couple of weeks. It's been hilarious from the outside*, though I am starting to worry about thejeff... like, is he under an Imperius Curse or what? His will save has been total #### for sure.

I'll just lurk until the 15th or 16th or whenever it is the powers that be have a real end-game plan for the virus thingy. Whenever and whatever it is they come up with, we won't be doing this in the fall, or next winter, or spring. "Unemployment worse than the great depression" isn't going to fly. Then and only then can we take a reasonable stab at CO2 emissions for the year, EV near-futures, etc.

* Srsly, like tears of mirth on occasion watching these two do everything wrong in an argument this side of Godwin. It's like finding a hoard of Nazi gold, only without the guilt.

;D


CBDunkerson wrote:


Capitalism, like the planet Jupiter, is not going to stop global warming. However, it also isn't going to prevent global warming from being stopped. It's irrelevant to the issue.

Just to point out here, your argument is that the way in which we organize our economy is irrelevant to the issue of global warming.

As an example, the fact that Koch industries emits 100-million tons of CO2, and has made staunch opponents of fighting global warming billionaires who invest in politicians to prevent legislation that would affect global warming... to you that is irrelevant. Because that is an example of capitalism. And since capitalism is irrelevant, therefore this example must also be irrelevant.

The Koch brothers and Koch Industries have had zero impact on global warming. They are entirely irrelevant. This is your argument.

Liberty's Edge

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

Just trying to keep us all on the same page, this is with the understanding that capitalism and market forces aren't the same thing - or even closely linked.

Capitalism is irrelevant, but marker forces aren't.

Is that what you're saying?

Yes, with the exception of 'capitalism and market forces are not closely linked'... they are, but market forces are closely linked with all economic systems. WHICH economic system you have is irrelevant for this issue, because the underlying market forces are the same.

Irontruth wrote:
So, you can't just give me a straight yes or no response?

No. The question you asked, and your tendency to misinterpret, required an answer longer than one word.

Irontruth wrote:
There's another person in this thread who relies on quippy remarks to avoid answering questions.

I did answer the question. In detail, with explanations of my reasoning.

Irontruth wrote:
Lastly, remember that I am stupid. If you don't just say yes or no, it is hard for me to be sure. In other words, I'm giving you permission to tacitly call me stupid by just using a single word response. A longer more complicated response will just go over my head.

So it would seem. Yet, the fact remains that neither 'yes' nor 'no' would fully answer the question you asked.

Irontruth wrote:
Just to point out here, your argument is that the way in which we organize our economy is irrelevant to the issue of global warming.

This is close enough that you could actually be understanding my position. However, I'd phrase it more as; Whether we follow capitalism, socialism, mercantilism, or some other 'modern' economic system is irrelevant to the issue of 'solving' global warming.

Irontruth wrote:

As an example, the fact that Koch industries emits 100-million tons of CO2, and has made staunch opponents of fighting global warming billionaires who invest in politicians to prevent legislation that would affect global warming... to you that is irrelevant. Because that is an example of capitalism. And since capitalism is irrelevant, therefore this example must also be irrelevant.

The Koch brothers and Koch Industries have had zero impact on global warming. They are entirely irrelevant. This is your argument.

...and you're back to complete nonsense.

The Koch brothers are human beings... not an economic structure.

If the US were a communist country, the Koch brothers (or someone else gaining money/power from fossil fuels in their place) would still be pushing to ignore global warming... and the falling costs of wind and solar power would still be causing them to lose. The forces 'solving' global warming are fundamental economics... underlying all organizing systems.


CBDunkerson wrote:
thejeff wrote:

Just trying to keep us all on the same page, this is with the understanding that capitalism and market forces aren't the same thing - or even closely linked.

Capitalism is irrelevant, but marker forces aren't.

Is that what you're saying?

Yes, with the exception of 'capitalism and market forces are not closely linked'... they are, but market forces are closely linked with all economic systems. WHICH economic system you have is irrelevant for this issue, because the underlying market forces are the same.

If you can demonstrate this in a paper, I'll help you submit it for a Nobel Prize.

You will have single-handedly redefined the entire field of economics. Who needs Amartya Sen, we've got CBDunkerson now.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Irontruth wrote:
CBDunkerson wrote:
Yes, with the exception of 'capitalism and market forces are not closely linked'... they are, but market forces are closely linked with all economic systems. WHICH economic system you have is irrelevant for this issue, because the underlying market forces are the same.

If you can demonstrate this in a paper, I'll help you submit it for a Nobel Prize.

You will have single-handedly redefined the entire field of economics. Who needs Amartya Sen, we've got CBDunkerson now.

The idea that there are fundamental 'laws of economics' which always apply is hardly new or revolutionary.

As for demonstrating that they will 'solve' global warming... I'd argue that current events are already doing that far more definitively than any paper could.

I'd also think that this should be obvious. Capitalism did not prevent widespread adoption of the automobile, cell phone, e-mail, or hundreds of other technologies all over the world. I can see no logical support for your apparent position that it might prevent the similar global adoption of wind, solar, and/or EV technologies now.


CBDunkerson wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
CBDunkerson wrote:
Yes, with the exception of 'capitalism and market forces are not closely linked'... they are, but market forces are closely linked with all economic systems. WHICH economic system you have is irrelevant for this issue, because the underlying market forces are the same.

If you can demonstrate this in a paper, I'll help you submit it for a Nobel Prize.

You will have single-handedly redefined the entire field of economics. Who needs Amartya Sen, we've got CBDunkerson now.

The idea that there are fundamental 'laws of economics' which always apply is hardly new or revolutionary.

As for demonstrating that they will 'solve' global warming... I'd argue that current events are already doing that far more definitively than any paper could.

I'd also think that this should be obvious. Capitalism did not prevent widespread adoption of the automobile, cell phone, e-mail, or hundreds of other technologies all over the world. I can see no logical support for your apparent position that it might prevent the similar global adoption of wind, solar, and/or EV technologies now.

You aren't arguing that fundamental 'laws of economics' exist, you are right now claiming that the rules of how an economy is organized are irrelevant to how that economy functions.

The only way capitalism can be irrelevant, is if the rules of how an economy is organized are irrelevant.

I never said that capitalism might prevent the adoption of any technology. I said something else. You waste a lot of time and effort trying to strawman me.


BTW, by claiming that communism is irrelevant to climate change, you are also saying that the things the Chinese government does are irrelevant.
Since communism is a state run economic system, you are also saying that the Chinese government is irrelevant to the issue of climate change.

Do Chinese coal plants emit fairy dust instead of CO2?

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Irontruth wrote:
You aren't arguing that fundamental 'laws of economics' exist,

Yes, I am. I literally just did that.

Irontruth wrote:
you are right now claiming that the rules of how an economy is organized are irrelevant to how that economy functions.

Nope.

I suspect what is happening is that rather than trying to understand my position, your hostility is driving you to invent caricatures of it for you to disagree with.

Irontruth wrote:
The only way capitalism can be irrelevant, is if the rules of how an economy is organized are irrelevant.

Do you agree that capitalism is irrelevant to the amount of light generated by the Sun? If yes, does that mean that the rules of how an economy is organized are irrelevant? If no, you've disproved your own 'logic'.

Irontruth wrote:
I never said that capitalism might prevent the adoption of any technology.

You have disagreed with my claims that market forces will (continue to) drive rapidly increasing adoption of renewable electricity generation and electric vehicle adoption, and thereby 'solve' climate change, by saying that you do not trust capitalism to solve climate change. If that doesn't mean that you somehow believe capitalism might prevent the rapid adoption of these technologies... then what DOES it mean?

Irontruth wrote:
I said something else. You waste a lot of time vand effort trying to strawman me.

You mean like all that stuff about how you repeatedly bringing up government action in your statements in no way meant your position had anything whatsoever to do with government action? That isn't 'strawmanning'. That's 'mistakenly' believing that the words you actually write mean what they appear to.

Irontruth wrote:
BTW, by claiming that communism is irrelevant to climate change you are also saying that the things the Chinese government does are irrelevant.

Setting aside the fact that I didn't say that: Is communism relevant to the hanzi writing system used by the Chinese government? If not, does that also mean that the things the Chinese government does are irrelevant? If not, you've disproved your own 'logic'.


So you don't know what a dichotomy is. Neat.

Also:

CBDunkerson wrote:


WHICH economic system you have is irrelevant for this issue, because the underlying market forces are the same.

You said that the economic system is irrelevant. China is communist. That is an economic system where the government has massive control over the economy.

For your statement to be correct, the Chinese government's economic decisions must be irrelevant to the outcome of climate change. If they are relevant, then your statement is incorrect.


Irontruth wrote:

So you don't know what a dichotomy is. Neat.

Also:

CBDunkerson wrote:


WHICH economic system you have is irrelevant for this issue, because the underlying market forces are the same.

You said that the economic system is irrelevant. China is communist. That is an economic system where the government has massive control over the economy.

For your statement to be correct, the Chinese government's economic decisions must be irrelevant to the outcome of climate change. If they are relevant, then your statement is incorrect.

China is really only nominally communist at this point. Sure, the government has massive control over the economy, but they're also tied deeply into international trade, which is "capitalist". The same market forces apply to them. Much more so than back in the 60s and 70s, when they were much more economically isolated.


thejeff wrote:
Irontruth wrote:

So you don't know what a dichotomy is. Neat.

Also:

CBDunkerson wrote:


WHICH economic system you have is irrelevant for this issue, because the underlying market forces are the same.

You said that the economic system is irrelevant. China is communist. That is an economic system where the government has massive control over the economy.

For your statement to be correct, the Chinese government's economic decisions must be irrelevant to the outcome of climate change. If they are relevant, then your statement is incorrect.

China is really only nominally communist at this point. Sure, the government has massive control over the economy, but they're also tied deeply into international trade, which is "capitalist". The same market forces apply to them. Much more so than back in the 60s and 70s, when they were much more economically isolated.

He said the economic system is irrelevant. I am responding to THAT statement. I appreciate your attempt at adding nuance to what is going on, but you're changing the topic and not addressing the assumptions that were laid out by CBD. By changing the topic, you are neither refuting or confirming anything that I addressed.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Irontruth wrote:
So you don't know what a dichotomy is.

I ignore most of your pointless insults, but this one I have to ask... what are you even talking about?

Irontruth wrote:
You said that the economic system is irrelevant.

Yes. To the question of whether adoption of renewable power and EVs will be able to 'solve' global warming.

Irontruth wrote:
For your statement to be correct, the Chinese government's economic decisions must be irrelevant to the outcome of climate change. If they are relevant, then your statement is incorrect.

The decisions of communist, capitalist, monarchist and other governments are relevant. However, my position is that ALL of them will inevitably 'choose' to adopt renewable power and electric vehicles because the underlying economic forces make that choice inevitable. Even if some country were to irrationally refuse to do so, they'd quickly fall far behind the rest of the world and eventually reverse course or face revolution, conquest, or some other force which would change that.


CBDunkerson wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
So you don't know what a dichotomy is.

I ignore most of your pointless insults, but this one I have to ask... what are you even talking about?

You do not seem to understand how to phrase a concept and it's logical negation.

For example:

CBDunkerson wrote:


The decisions of communist, capitalist, monarchist and other governments are relevant. However, my position is that ALL of them will inevitably 'choose' to adopt renewable power and electric vehicles because the underlying economic forces make that choice inevitable. Even if some country were to irrationally refuse to do so, they'd quickly fall far behind the rest of the world and eventually reverse course or face revolution, conquest, or some other force which would change that.

You can even see that within the statement almost suspect it might not be a dichotomy, and attempt to hedge. Completely ignoring the fact that you tacitly admit in this statement that the method of economic organization might alter how a country adopts a technology.

If a country will face revolution or conquest because it fails to adopt a technology.... that literally means that the decision making process impacted the adoption of that technology.

I'm going to give an extreme example. I am not predicting this, nor do I think it is likely. It's an example and thought experiment.

If ICE engines dominate the market until the year 2200, and fossil fuels generally stay in wide usage until that time, but inevitably EV's and other power generation methods supplant them, but just not until the year 2200. Will that increase or decrease the odds that we see dramatic global temperature increase by the year 2100?

Because in this example, I fully agree with you that these new technologies supplant the old ones. The point here is that the specific details of HOW it happens and WHEN are important to the outcome.

If China continues INCREASING the number of coal plants globally until the year 2040, that will be bad news for the global temperature. In fact, it doesn't matter if Chinese windpower multiplies by 100-fold if the number of global coal plants ALSO increases during that period AND those plants are in use.

I am skeptical of your claims. As someone who studies history (QB likes to denigrate the fact that I went to community college for a while), I find your claims about history to be really, really, really bad. Especially since you've not produced a single shred of evidence to support your claims. I would agree that technologies are routinely adopted, but the questions are how fast, and to what effect?

If EV's take 40 years to supplant ICE vehicles... is that soon enough? That is the question. Will it be FAST ENOUGH to make a difference?

I couldn't care less about what your personal prediction is. I want to see evidence that backs up your claim. If you don't have evidence, than all you have is your opinion... which is useless.

On the flip side, I think the technologies that will be developed in 2040-2050 will be massive leaps that we can't imagine right now. Predictions of technologies in the next 15 years can be somewhat accurate, but further than 20 years and we just cannot predict what will and won't be possible (excluding some outliers, like FTL travel).

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Irontruth wrote:
CBDunkerson wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
So you don't know what a dichotomy is.

I ignore most of your pointless insults, but this one I have to ask... what are you even talking about?

You do not seem to understand how to phrase a concept and it's logical negation.

For example:

<snip text from my last post>

So... you were talking about something which hadn't even happened yet?

Irontruth wrote:
You can even see that within the statement almost suspect it might not be a dichotomy, and attempt to hedge.

Yeah, I have no idea what you are trying to say. Maybe if you made it a sentence?

Irontruth wrote:
If ICE engines dominate the market until the year 2200, and fossil fuels generally stay in wide usage until that time, but inevitably EV's and other power generation methods supplant them, but just not until the year 2200. Will that increase or decrease the odds that we see dramatic global temperature increase by the year 2100?

Setting aside the fact that events from 2101 through 2200 will have absolutely no impact on what the global temperature increase by the year 2100 would be... obviously, continued use of ICEs up to 2100 would result in higher temperatures than if we converted to EVs. That's just not a plausible scenario based on current information.

Irontruth wrote:
If China continues INCREASING the number of coal plants globally until the year 2040, that will be bad news for the global temperature.

Again, obviously... but just as implausible.

Irontruth wrote:
I am skeptical of your claims. As someone who studies history (QB likes to denigrate the fact that I went to community college for a while), I find your claims about history to be really, really, really bad.

Such as?

Irontruth wrote:
Especially since you've not produced a single shred of evidence to support your claims. I would agree that technologies are routinely adopted, but the questions are how fast, and to what effect?

I have cited previous rapid technology conversions and data on the transitions currently in progress. That is evidence. You haven't even said exactly what it is that you disagree with.

Irontruth wrote:
If EV's take 40 years to supplant ICE vehicles... is that soon enough? That is the question.

If so then it is a question too vague to be answered.

Define 'supplant'. Does that mean a majority of new car sales are EVs? All new car sales are EVs? A majority of cars in operation are EVs? All cars in operation are EVs? The date for each of those events is different, and the last may never happen. At that, what does 'soon enough' mean? Soon enough to prevent extinction of the human race? Soon enough to prevent any further greenhouse warming?

Irontruth wrote:
Will it be FAST ENOUGH to make a difference?

Of course. Whether the transition takes 5 years or 50 it will still make a difference over never having happened at all.


CBDunkerson wrote:
I have cited previous rapid technology conversions and data on the transitions currently in progress. That is evidence.

No, you have not cited a single piece of evidence. I've already demonstrated this before.

You CLAIM to have evidence. You have not shown it to us.

Where are you getting the information that led you to the conclusion you have reached.


CBDunkerson wrote:


Irontruth wrote:
If China continues INCREASING the number of coal plants globally until the year 2040, that will be bad news for the global temperature.

Again, obviously... but just as implausible.

BTW, it is true that China continues to increase the number of coal plants.

That is a claim.

If I were to cite evidence to support that claim, I would have to do something like this:

As of Nov 2019, Chinese coal consumption was still on the rise and could potentially offset carbon reductions from Europe.

But hey, I'm sure EV sales in Iceland will make these Chinese coal plants irrelevant. You say you have evidence, even though you haven't shown it to us. And since you SAY it's true... well.... that seems to just be irrelevant at this point.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Irontruth wrote:
No, you have not cited a single piece of evidence. I've already demonstrated this before.

True or false;

Data on how quickly electric vehicle sales are increasing in various countries constitutes evidence of how quickly the transition from ICEs to EVs can take place.

If you accept that to be true, then I've cited evidence. If not, then you are using some definition of 'evidence' which is not apparent to me.

3,851 to 3,900 of 4,052 << 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.