@EnterNameI mean you are a happy chappy. You love failures.   Is that clear enough. 

Edited 29 November, 20241 yr by Ootohere

1 minute ago, Ootohere said:

@EnterNameI mean you are a happy chappy. You love failures.   Is that clear enough. 

It's clear, but my being a happy chappy isn't because I have accepted the reality that most people don't want to be forced into an EV.

It's because I'm naturally good-natured and cheerful.

Positively playful, even.

You should try it. Turn that froon upside-doon! 😊

25 minutes ago, EnterName said:

Yes they do, and as a result, the market is manipulated by that leverage and influence.

I am against that.

Good, we are on the same page.

I don't think anyone is blind to car industry and oil industry's manipulation in politics.

 

But I think a lot of people misunderstand their manipulation goal. They manipulate to maximise their profits margins. However, mass market EV hurts their profit margins. No prizes for figuring out which way they push.

 

27 minutes ago, EnterName said:

The market should NOT be manipulated at all. Not even a little bit. Facilitation is fine. Offering protection against predatory pricing is okay, though if someone comes along and does it better and cheaper, well TS. That said, if it's a foreign state-backed company, then I think it's reasonable for predatory pricing protection legislation to be used to protect local businesses against that.

Hum. Let's consider the evidences.

Billions are poured into fossil fuel industry, manipulating the prices people pay for fossil fuel [1]. Billions more damages as result of using this is not compensated by the end user nor the industry. Perhaps now would be a good time to consider the effect of fossil fuel subsidies on fuel prices, it is the definition of predatory pricing.

Then I think it's more than reasonable for governments to apply subsidies/grants/whatever you call it, in order to protect against predatory pricing.

 

36 minutes ago, EnterName said:

Yes, if you heavily subsidise EVs and punish ICE vehicles, then you can tip the scales sufficiently for the market to buy the subsidised vehicles. (Just look at all the whooping and hat-throwing on here over an hour's free electricity. Some people are cheaply bought.) But of course then you have to keep the subsidies in place until you have killed off the opposition.

There is no longer any subsidies for EV's in UK. There is discounts in form of BIK but no longer any subsidies like in 2010's.

 

The free energy 2 hours was due to excess wind generation. It was purely by Octopus Energy. There was no grid or government involvement, I'd have thought you will call this evidence for a working because it is completely driven by changes in wholesale energy prices.

 

Lots of wind supply, low demand => cheap energy => supplier decided to pass it on.

 

43 minutes ago, EnterName said:

That's what venture capitalists are for. Incidentally, Musk did this with Tesla, and everyone loved him until he lost all his lefty credentials and now he's hated by the woke because he bought Twitter, now X. Nevertheless, he's made a good product and the market have responded accordingly. Teslas are everywhere! (I seem to recall you bought one yourself, did YOU get it wrong? 😋) 

1 company achieve this whilst going against intense pressure from legacy auto makes.

Where are those venture capitalists for the legacy manufacturers? Consumers and legacy manufacturers have always resisted changes, from seat belts [2] to new energy vehicle [3][4].

 

The whole car industry is set up such that the most profit is made by the "fast follower", not the innovator. Apart from meeting regulatory changes over the years, is there anything that is actively pushed by the car industry for all their vehicles (not just most expensive ones) that benefits vast majority of people? I cannot think of one,

 

EV would not be a thing if it wasn't for disrupters such as Tesla (not just Mr Musk), Leaf/Zoe and governments realise needing to do something about climate change.

Let's be honest with ourselves. when there is a change needed that does not benefit the bottom line for established industry, the change will not happen. As evident earlier: GM EV1.

Industry resisting change is seen time and time again with: tobacco industry, CFC ban, car emissions, financial industry resisting regulation leading to 2008 crash, tech industry poor data privacy until GDPR, and many many more.

 

EV's worsen ICE manufacturers profit margins and dilutes their established in-house knowledge, so you can only expect car industry to resist the change.

 

This is the reason judging success of EV by saying market is right doesn't work. The product lines are limited by established manufacturers in order to slow the adoption, maximise profit. As result, public cannot buy their choice of size/shape, the trade is not equal, it is controlled by the products offered by car industry and usage prices have been subsidies in favour of long established industry.

 

 

 

 

 

  [1] https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/WP/Issues/2023/08/22/IMF-Fossil-Fuel-Subsidies-Data-2023-Update-537281

Quote

Globally, fossil fuel subsidies were $7 trillion in 2022 or 7.1 percent of GDP.

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seat_belt#History

[3] https://www.pcmag.com/news/toyota-mazda-subaru-resist-full-ev-push-will-co-develop-new-gas-engines

[4] https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/09/nobody-wants-buy-electric-cars/322832/

 

12 minutes ago, wyx087 said:

But I think a lot of people misunderstand their manipulation goal. They manipulate to maximise their profits margins. However, mass market EV hurts their profit margins. No prizes for figuring out which way they push.

Yes, and they will do this by whatever means works.

 

14 minutes ago, wyx087 said:

Hum. Let's consider the evidences.

Billions are poured into fossil fuel industry, manipulating the prices people pay for fossil fuel [1]. Billions more damages as result of using this is not compensated by the end user nor the industry. Perhaps now would be a good time to consider the effect of fossil fuel subsidies on fuel prices, it is the definition of predatory pricing.

Then I think it's more than reasonable for governments to apply subsidies/grants/whatever you call it, in order to protect against predatory pricing.

<snip>

[1] https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/WP/Issues/2023/08/22/IMF-Fossil-Fuel-Subsidies-Data-2023-Update-537281

If you're advocating for scrapping the IMF, I'm with you on that.

Fossil fuel subsidies lower fuel prices, punitive taxes on fuel raise the prices again. Swings and roundabouts,

(Where does the IMF get that $7,000,000,000 from to subsidise the fossil fuel industry, eh? Not willingly from me, I can tell you!)

 

22 minutes ago, wyx087 said:

There is no longer any subsidies for EV's in UK. There is discounts in form of BIK but no longer any subsidies like in 2010's.

Indeed, and the market has reacted accordingly. Sales are slowing and prices are dropping rapidly.

When used EVs (and new) reach a desirable price for the market, the market will react accordingly.

 

24 minutes ago, wyx087 said:

1 company achieve this whilst going against intense pressure from legacy auto makes.

Yes. Other EV companies CEO's Mums are asking "Why can't you be more like that nice boy, Elon? Look how well he's doing!".

 

26 minutes ago, wyx087 said:

Where are those venture capitalists for the legacy manufacturers? Consumers and legacy manufacturers have always resisted changes, from seat belts [2] to new energy vehicle [3][4].

Venture capitalists are part of the market. Legacy manufacturers are faced with the prospect of huge fines for failing to sell EVs that the market doesn't want.

So they're being blackmailed by the EU into spaffing huge amounts of money on EV production lines, to make cars people don't want.

It's not hard to see why venture capitalists are saying "I'm out!" to that deal.

 

30 minutes ago, wyx087 said:

EV would not be a thing if it wasn't for disrupters such as Tesla (not just Mr Musk), Leaf/Zoe and governments realise needing to do something about climate change.

<BUZZ!> No.

Climate change concern is for lefties and centrist virtue-signallers.

I (and most people IMO) don't actually GAF about man-made climate change in the West. Pollution yes, but CO2 is not pollution.

You can give me the Thunberg "How DARE you!?" all you like, I don't care and I've explained why previously. It's a made-up problem, IMO.

 

35 minutes ago, wyx087 said:

Let's be honest with ourselves. when there is a change needed that does not benefit the bottom line for established industry, the change will not happen. As evident earlier: GM EV1.

You can say "Let's be honest..." or "Let's be clear..." (a tried and trusted favourite) or even "We all agree it's indisputable that...", but the assertion that "there is a change needed" needs to be convincing enough for the market to buy into it, and I mean that literally.

 

38 minutes ago, wyx087 said:

Industry resisting change is seen time and time again with: tobacco industry, CFC ban, car emissions, financial industry resisting regulation leading to 2008 crash, tech industry poor data privacy until GDPR, and many many more.

Oh come on!

The tobacco industry promoted fake "research" in to the benefits of tobacco consumption, and suppressed any information that highlighted the risks of using tobacco. So the market was skewed in favour of the tobacco industry, by political blobs like Ken Clarke.

(Fortunately that sort of thing would NEVER happen with something like a coronavirus vaccine. Oh nonononono! The big pharmaceutical companies are there to save lives, not make money. Angels, every one of them. #ClapForPfizer)

The financial crash of 2008 was not down to too little regulation, IMO it was down to too much regulation. When you have dopey ideologues coming up with regulation and the best brains money can buy finding ways around it, there's only going to be one winner there. One example was literally obliging banks to lend to people with terrible credit ratings. (Remember sub-prime mortgages?) The banks then started taking whatever legal (and potentially lucrative) measures they could come up with, to mitigate having to lend money to the most unreliable people imaginable. It's worth noting that very few banks were allowed to fail. The market was tampered with.

IMO, the poor data privacy of the tech industry was both inadequately punished and under-reported. If people knew their data was not secure, guess what, the market would respond accordingly and the tech companies would up their security game or fail. Data security would become a selling feature, not a dirty little secret.

 

56 minutes ago, wyx087 said:

EV's worsen ICE manufacturers profit margins and dilutes their established in-house knowledge, so you can only expect car industry to resist the change.

Having been told to jump through ever more hoops to satisfy emission regulations, (example of that sort of bumf here  https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/BRIE/2023/740246/EPRS_BRI(2023)740246_EN.pdf )it's not unreasonable for the car industry to throw their hands up and say "Oh come on now!" when the politicians suddenly demand "You know what? We've decided you have to make EVs. and if you don't make enough, we're going to fine you.".

Why SHOULD they make cars according to political diktat, rather than market demand? (I'm going to disregard a "Muh climate change!" answer to that question.)

 

1 hour ago, wyx087 said:

This is the reason judging success of EV by saying market is right doesn't work. The product lines are limited by established manufacturers in order to slow the adoption, maximise profit. As result, public cannot buy their choice of size/shape, the trade is not equal, it is controlled by the products offered by car industry and usage prices have been subsidies in favour of long established industry.

If you make it, promote it and price it right, people will buy it. If you promote it really well, you can charge what you want for it. 🤷‍♂️

As soon as coercion is applied, people like me who do not like being told what to do without a convincing reason, will dig our heels in against the coercion.

1 hour ago, wyx087 said:

The whole car industry is set up such that the most profit is made by the "fast follower", not the innovator. Apart from meeting regulatory changes over the years, is there anything that is actively pushed by the car industry for all their vehicles (not just most expensive ones) that benefits vast majority of people? I cannot think of one,

Sorry, I missed this point, and it's a good one.

That's quite a narrow set of terms, but if you'll allow it, let me use seat belts as an good example.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seat_belt#:~:text=Volvo introduced the first production,was the 1959 Volvo 122

Volvo introduced seatbelts into their cars as early as 1959.

This was innovative and helped cement Volvo's reputation as making cars that looked after their passengers.

Even today, Volvo are associated with dull but safe cars.

The market responded accordingly.

Demand for seat belts grew, and so more manufacturers introduced them

Eventually the legislators caught up, and in the UK it became mandatory to wear a seatbelt in the front of a car in 1983, and in the back seats in 1991.

 

1 hour ago, EnterName said:

If you make it, promote it and price it right, people will buy it. If you promote it really well, you can charge what you want for it. 🤷‍♂️

 

As soon as coercion is applied, people like me who do not like being told what to do without a convincing reason, will dig our heels in against the coercion.

Here lays the problem. EV haven't been promoted fairly and without biases. There is intense pressure to surpress its transition, from "opinion pieces" to straight up lies told to the public, creating misinformation and "people like" you. 

 

Unfair publicity = skewed perception = market isn't representitive of true demand. 

 

1 hour ago, EnterName said:

The tobacco industry promoted fake "research" in to the benefits of tobacco consumption, and suppressed any information that highlighted the risks of using tobacco.

1 hour ago, EnterName said:

Climate change concern is for lefties and centrist virtue-signallers.

I (and most people IMO) don't actually GAF about man-made climate change in the West. Pollution yes, but CO2 is not pollution.

You can give me the Thunberg "How DARE you!?" all you like, I don't care and I've explained why previously. It's a made-up problem, IMO.

I'm sensing a lot of similarity here, histroy is reapeating itself. 

I bet if you were a smoker back then, you'd be saying the same thing. "It's a made-up problem"  🤪 

 

1 hour ago, EnterName said:

You can say "Let's be honest..." or "Let's be clear..." (a tried and trusted favourite) or even "We all agree it's indisputable that...", but the assertion that "there is a change needed" needs to be convincing enough for the market to buy into it, and I mean that literally.

For a change to take hold. The market will not buy into just being good enough replacement. 

 

Time and time again, people have only expressed willingness to change if it benefits them in some way. It's far easier to continue in old ways. Therefore, as I keep saying, the market isn't always right, change doesn't always happen from market forces alone. Especially when profit margin is being threatened. 

 

1 hour ago, EnterName said:

Yes, and they will do this by whatever means works.

Exactly, including cheating consumers and government. The market only works if everyone is at level playfield, car and energy industry is never a level playing field. 

 

I do wonder, do you think VAG dieselgate was justified? 

 

I'm not going to get into a quoting contest with a reply for every point. That's just silly. I'm trying to stay on topic regarding "market is always right". 

The average age of a used car on the road today is twelve so maybe in 16 years time when the average age has probably reached 16 the majority will be ev

 

The Government will possibly have to step in and cap the resale price of electricity to secure interest from the many who cannot charge at home.

Edited 29 November, 20241 yr by Stonekeeper

@Stonekeeper^^^ Where is that figure from?

 

They might well take all the cars still on the DVLA Data Base as not on a SORN and say on the road.

Vintage, Classics, collections, lots of old cars including those not requiring MOT,s or VED and driven seldom, decades old cars and that gives a Average Year of cars on the road.

eg. 12 years.

Edited 29 November, 20241 yr by Ootohere

1 hour ago, wyx087 said:

I'm sensing a lot of similarity here, histroy is reapeating itself. 

I bet if you were a smoker back then, you'd be saying the same thing. "It's a made-up problem"  🤪 

Well now, isn't THIS ironic?

We've agreed that the tobacco industry promoted misleading data and suppressed truthful data so that the public perception about tobacco use was skewed in their favour.

But you're convinced that isn't the case for vast sums of money being spent on climate-change initiatives?

🤪 indeed!

Incidentally, it may interest you to know that there are some people who are crazy enough to still be smoking. Can you believe it!?

 

Look, we've had this debate before and when we got into it and I presented my data, you went off on a tangent talking about "imperialism" and "oppression".

Come back at me against the data I have already provided, not with political ideology.

 

 

1 hour ago, wyx087 said:

For a change to take hold. The market will not buy into just being good enough replacement. 

Agreed, it has to be BETTER.

 

1 hour ago, wyx087 said:

Time and time again, people have only expressed willingness to change if it benefits them in some way. It's far easier to continue in old ways.

Yes, that is perfectly sensible behaviour. What's your point? 🤷‍♂️

 

1 hour ago, wyx087 said:

Therefore, as I keep saying, the market isn't always right, change doesn't always happen from market forces alone. Especially when profit margin is being threatened.

Yeah, you do keep saying that, but the market IS always right, so long as it's left to operate without some smart-alec trying to "improve" things in line with his ideology.

Answer me this: Do you honestly believe that all your opinions on issues are perfectly aligned with the smartest people on the planet who are most knowledgeable about those issues and hold the correct opinion on the issue? (They are correct because they have the intelligence and expert knowledge on the issue to be able to reach the correct opinion? For the love of God, don't deflect by trying to assert than I'm claiming to be the smartest guy in the world.)

If not, which of the opinions you presently hold are correct, and which are incorrect?

You might want to have a think about that one.

 

2 hours ago, wyx087 said:

Exactly, including cheating consumers and government. The market only works if everyone is at level playfield, car and energy industry is never a level playing field.

A level playing field is a sensible goal to aim for.

 

2 hours ago, wyx087 said:

I do wonder, do you think VAG dieselgate was justified? 

Do I think VAG should have been punished? Absolutely not. VAG did nothing wrong, IMO.

They built vehicles to pass the emissions tests and pass they did.

VAG shouldn't be blamed for a inadequate test, blame the idiots who created a test that was easy to cheat.

I believe ALL the car manufacturers cheated.

VAG was just clumsy/daft/honest(?) enough to get caught.

 

2 hours ago, wyx087 said:

I'm not going to get into a quoting contest with a reply for every point. That's just silly. I'm trying to stay on topic regarding "market is always right". 

You do you.

4 hours ago, Ootohere said:

^^^ Where is that figure from?

 

I have fact checked myself just now and i appear to have given a US and EU figure

 

UK stats ignore Cars pre 1994?

6 hours ago, EnterName said:

Well now, isn't THIS ironic?

We've agreed that the tobacco industry promoted misleading data and suppressed truthful data so that the public perception about tobacco use was skewed in their favour.

But you're convinced that isn't the case for vast sums of money being spent on climate-change initiatives?

🤪 indeed!

We have agreement about tobacco industry, that's good. Remember that was the truthful scientific consensus that is being brought into doubt using very unscientific methods.

 

Now you are now putting words in my mouth. Vast sum of money going into climate change initiatives does not equal to tobacco industry promoting misleading data. Former is late in the action phase while latter is in the early discovery phase. Just like during discovery phase, vast sum of money was spent by oil industry to bring climate change into doubt (see book below).

 

But somehow, you are convinced money into this is for scientists to reach consensus on climate change.

Again, same question as before, are MAJORITY of scientists being bribed to achieve this consensus?

 

Again, this book is worth a read: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merchants_of_Doubt

I'm sensing a lot of commonality:

Quote

The book states that Seitz, Singer, Nierenberg and Robert Jastrow were all fiercely anti-communist and they viewed government regulation as a step towards socialism and communism. The authors argue that, with the collapse of the Soviet Union, they looked for another great threat to free market capitalism and found it in environmentalism.

 

 

6 hours ago, EnterName said:

Look, we've had this debate before and when we got into it and I presented my data

The data you presented was designed to be evoke a reaction in your favour. You chose the data to make your point, not to be truthful.  (see first post you linked)

When pointed out, you moved the goal post by changing to a different metric.  (see your second link, where you changed from per capita CO2 emission to total country CO2 emission)

 

Your data:

Truth:

 

6 hours ago, EnterName said:

Yeah, you do keep saying that, but the market IS always right, so long as it's left to operate without some smart-alec trying to "improve" things in line with his ideology.

I think this recent summary video nicely sums up why the market is NEVER left to operate by itself, there is too many invested stakeholders trying to resist any and all changes.

 

 

6 hours ago, EnterName said:

Answer me this: Do you honestly believe that all your opinions on issues are perfectly aligned with the smartest people on the planet who are most knowledgeable about those issues and hold the correct opinion on the issue? (They are correct because they have the intelligence and expert knowledge on the issue to be able to reach the correct opinion? For the love of God, don't deflect by trying to assert than I'm claiming to be the smartest guy in the world.)

If not, which of the opinions you presently hold are correct, and which are incorrect?

You might want to have a think about that one.

Why does correctness or alignment of opinions matter? My opinion doesn't matter, you are free to agree or disagree. Neither does opinions of smartest people on the planet, why does anyone's opinions matter? Why do you care about opinions of individuals?

 

Fact of the matter is climate change require action, government policy intervention is normal when the companies making the products keeps resisting the change.

Governing entities using policy/incentives/disincentives to drive change is completely normal from dawn of civilisation.

 

Another fact is that the car market cannot be always right. Not only there's not enough competing product choices, there's also too many vested interest resisting change. As shown with GM EV1, Vauxhall Luton plant blame "stories", the VW video and there's countless more.

4 minutes ago, wyx087 said:

But somehow, you are convinced money into this is for scientists to reach consensus on climate change.

Cuts in Government funding in recent years for e.g. the SERC led to there being some eminent scientists appearing on the media expressing concerns that as their funding would now have to increasingly come from corporates they would be pressured to produce the "right" results from their now commercially funded research.

 

There's a long history over hundreds of years of the accepted scientific status quo being eventually overturned by scientists who were initially treated as heretics or pariahs, e.g. the sun and planets circulating around the earth. 

 

So I believe it's understandable that research results from  funding by corporates and a majority view may not be seen as an accurate representation of scientific 'fact' in some quarters.

This is a classic example of why it is so important to try and establish where these scientific reports and YouTube channels etc receive their funding from, and you can get a pretty good idea from seeing who these are associated with as they will a vested interest in the "right" result. Remember, "Follow the Money" and "He who pays the piper calls the Tune"

Here is a genuine tale of woe with a 2-year-old Ionic 5, spoiler alert, it also mentions several duff chargers. 

 

 

Edited 29 November, 20241 yr by Graham Butcher

Things are getting bad for Jaguar, besides the awful rebranding debacle.

 

 

Edited 30 November, 20241 yr by Ootohere

11 hours ago, wyx087 said:

We have agreement about tobacco industry, that's good. Remember that was the truthful scientific consensus that is being brought into doubt using very unscientific methods.

Yep.

 

11 hours ago, wyx087 said:

Now you are now putting words in my mouth. Vast sum of money going into climate change initiatives does not equal to tobacco industry promoting misleading data.

Pretty much the same thing, IMO.

 

11 hours ago, wyx087 said:

But somehow, you are convinced money into this is for scientists to reach consensus on climate change.

Again, same question as before, are MAJORITY of scientists being bribed to achieve this consensus?

Ah ha! This is the money-shot.

The whole idea of "consensus" is (IMO quite a feminine) perversion of science.

Scientists don't care about consensus. Consensus is for women, soy-boys and deciding where the lads are going for a drink tonight.

Any "science" that leans on consensus is not science.

Unfortunately, your whole case rests on an artificial consensus, which is pushed by people with vested interests in pushing the "green" agenda.

(It was the same with the COVID-19 vaccines, IMO. The "consensus" on the benefits of the vaccine did not represent the reality of the effectiveness and safety of the vaccines.

Some of most ardent vaccine enthusiasts stopped at three shots and said "Now hang on a minute...".)

All scientists have incentives and disincentives to push the Climate Change agenda.

You want a load of funding from "green" groups and/or Governments? Tell them you're studying the effects of "climate change" on <whatever you like> and the money will flow.

 

11 hours ago, wyx087 said:

The data you presented was designed to be evoke a reaction in your favour. You chose the data to make your point, not to be truthful.  (see first post you linked)

When pointed out, you moved the goal post by changing to a different metric.  (see your second link, where you changed from per capita CO2 emission to total country CO2 emission)

Hat-tip to @Graham Butcher at this point.

Wyx, now you're being disingenuous. The data is as presented on the website.

Framing it as "EnterName's Data" vs "Truth" is getting into Clique territory of dishonesty, and I notice they have shown their approval of some of your posts.

I literally cut and paste the graph from the website. It's not MY data, it's THE data as provided by that source.

 

11 hours ago, wyx087 said:

I think this recent summary video nicely sums up why the market is NEVER left to operate by itself, there is too many invested stakeholders trying to resist any and all changes.

Haven't watched the video but I agree, there are way too many ideologues who think they can control everything better than just letting people trade freely.

 

11 hours ago, wyx087 said:

Why does correctness or alignment of opinions matter? My opinion doesn't matter, you are free to agree or disagree. Neither does opinions of smartest people on the planet, why does anyone's opinions matter? Why do you care about opinions of individuals?

Whoa! Now this is quite a pivot from Captain Consensus, isn't it? 🤨

Suddenly you don't GAF about consensus, who cares about people's opinions!?

INB4 "You're putting words in my mouth!" No. I'm not putting words in your mouth, I'm re-framing what you said to highlight the logical inconsistencies in your argument.

 

11 hours ago, wyx087 said:

Fact of the matter is climate change require action,

LOL I missed this off my list of cliches.

In return I offer: Let's be clear, Climate Change is more about wealth redistribution from developed countries to developing countries than any immediate threat to the planet. How's that for a fact?

 

11 hours ago, wyx087 said:

government policy intervention is normal when the companies making the products keeps resisting the change.

Governing entities using policy/incentives/disincentives to drive change is completely normal from dawn of civilisation.

Yes, which is why I want the smallest Government possible.

The less they can get their hands on to mess up for the rest of us, the better IMO.

 

11 hours ago, wyx087 said:

Another fact is that the car market cannot be always right. Not only there's not enough competing product choices, there's also too many vested interest resisting change. As shown with GM EV1, Vauxhall Luton plant blame "stories", the VW video and there's countless more.

Your urge to tell people what to do and your desire to change laws to force them to do it if they don't comply drips from almost every post.

I can just see you at the exit to Sainsbury's trying to tell people they have bought the "wrong" shopping, with "facts" and "data" to back up why they should have bought X instead of Y, which is killing people in Africa!!!!!! 😄

Edited 30 November, 20241 yr by EnterName
corrected some typos

 

4 hours ago, EnterName said:

Your urge to tell people what to do and your desire to change laws to force them to do it if they don't comply drips from almost every post.

Why do you keep putting words into other people's mouth. The quoted bit does not have anything to do with what you said.

It simply stated that you are wrong about market always right, summarising multiple evidences I've presented throughout. You have completely ignored that point because you no longer have anything to add, zero evidence or examples throughout last few posts.

 

4 hours ago, EnterName said:

Ah ha! This is the money-shot.

The whole idea of "consensus" is (IMO quite a feminine) perversion of science.

Scientists don't care about consensus. Consensus is for women, soy-boys and deciding where the lads are going for a drink tonight.

Any "science" that leans on consensus is not science.

Unfortunately, your whole case rests on an artificial consensus, which is pushed by people with vested interests in pushing the "green" agenda.

Ok, let me present my evidence that scientific consensus is the truthful and trustworthy. 

 

The scientific consensus for man made climate change comes from many researches building on one another. It is not artificial because the majority has to be in agreement and all evidences have been through the scientific method.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_consensus

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

To combat what today we call climate change FUD, lots of scientists banded together:

https://www.ucsusa.org/about/mission-values

The level of consensus for man made climate change is as as strong as gravity, which is a fact.

 

Now, I await your evidence to why you say that climate change scientific consensus is artificial and has vested interest. How could the majority be bought?

 

4 hours ago, EnterName said:

Wyx, now you're being disingenuous. The data is as presented on the website.

Framing it as "EnterName's Data" vs "Truth" is getting into Clique territory of dishonesty, and I notice they have shown their approval of some of your posts.

I literally cut and paste the graph from the website. It's not MY data, it's THE data as provided by that source.

My apologies. I meant to frame it as "EnterName's manipulated graph" vs "Truth".

The website defaults to the truth I posted.

Your graph was chosen to highlight your point. But percentage change from 0 will always be much higher than 1.

 

Yes, the underlying data haven't changed, this is important and very valid point.

But the way you chose to change the graph is not representative of truth and make your posts untrustworthy. 

 

4 hours ago, EnterName said:

Whoa! Now this is quite a pivot from Captain Consensus, isn't it? 🤨

Suddenly you don't GAF about consensus, who cares about people's opinions!?

INB4 "You're putting words in my mouth!" No. I'm not putting words in your mouth, I'm re-framing what you said to highlight the logical inconsistencies in your argument.

I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of scientific consensus vs personal opinions.

My opinion on climate change does not have any weight in climate science because I am no climate scientist.

All the same, you and probably everyone on this forum opinion on climate change does not have any weight in climate science because they are no climate scientist.

 

 

 

16 hours ago, PetrolDave said:

There's a long history over hundreds of years of the accepted scientific status quo being eventually overturned by scientists who were initially treated as heretics or pariahs, e.g. the sun and planets circulating around the earth. 

Indeed, very true.

But it's important to remember that the overturning and change of consensus was done through the scientific method by actual scientists verifying work by "pariah". They eventually gain recognition if multiple papers verified their new theory. Thus the new theory becomes the consensus.

 

They key is always that the public doesn't get involved. Can you image how long news networks like CNN/GBNews could debate if Earth circulating sun was just discovered today?

19 hours ago, wyx087 said:

Why do you keep putting words into other people's mouth. The quoted bit does not have anything to do with what you said.

It simply stated that you are wrong about market always right, summarising multiple evidences I've presented throughout. You have completely ignored that point because you no longer have anything to add, zero evidence or examples throughout last few posts.

It very much has to do with what I said. You said the market can't always be right and implied it needs intervention. You keep repeating it.

In fact you've done it again in the post I'm quoting here.

The reason I haven't presented any additional evidence is because there's no point. When I did, you started blathering on about colonialism and imperialism and how not ruining our economies to the benefit of the developing countries is unfair. It's not about the "science", it's about "Social Justice", and I have no interest in that. You want an electric car, fine. Don't object to me not wanting one.

 

19 hours ago, wyx087 said:

Ok, let me present my evidence that scientific consensus is the truthful and trustworthy. 

 

The scientific consensus for man made climate change comes from many researches building on one another. It is not artificial because the majority has to be in agreement and all evidences have been through the scientific method.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_consensus

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

To combat what today we call climate change FUD, lots of scientists banded together:

https://www.ucsusa.org/about/mission-values

The level of consensus for man made climate change is as as strong as gravity, which is a fact.

That is a silly thing to say, and reiterates your adherence to consensus.

I don't need scientific consensus to see the effect of gravity. I can see it's effect, and the scientific explanation for it is plausible.

The "science" behind man-made climate change is flaky at best, and downright dishonest at worst. The fact that a load of scientists have been persuaded to go along with it is to their shame.

Every time they predict something and then get it completely wrong, they say "Ah! Our model was incorrect. We forgot to account for X. Please give us more money for additional resources & research to improve our model."

They can't predict anything with a reasonable degree of accuracy and have now given up even trying.

Thanks for the link to "Union of Concerned Scientists" by the way. That gave me a good laugh when this popped up immediately. 😂

 

19 hours ago, wyx087 said:

Now, I await your evidence to why you say that climate change scientific consensus is artificial and has vested interest. How could the majority be bought?

Money.

Lots and lots of someone else's money.

 

19 hours ago, wyx087 said:

My apologies. I meant to frame it as "EnterName's manipulated graph" vs "Truth".

The website defaults to the truth I posted.

Your graph was chosen to highlight your point. But percentage change from 0 will always be much higher than 1.

 

Yes, the underlying data haven't changed, this is important and very valid point.

But the way you chose to change the graph is not representative of truth and make your posts untrustworthy. 

Pfft! I screen-capped the graph from the link I provided.

The curves, X & Y axes are all clearly labelled.

Just because my choice of graph highlights a truth you'd rather wasn't highlighted does NOT make it dishonest.

🎵 Calling me "untrustworthy" is weak, you're playing to the clique, don't cry at my critique, it's the truth I seek.  🎵

Word!

 

19 hours ago, wyx087 said:

I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of scientific consensus vs personal opinions.

My opinion on climate change does not have any weight in climate science because I am no climate scientist.

All the same, you and probably everyone on this forum opinion on climate change does not have any weight in climate science because they are no climate scientist.

You're missing my point, or perhaps my point is missing you because you're avoiding it.

My point (which I'll dumb-down for you) is "Do you think you are in agreement with every top expert on every issue you hold an opinion on?".

You can dodge that question too, if you like. But it's there for people to see it's been asked and dodged. Again.

 

19 hours ago, wyx087 said:

Indeed, very true.

But it's important to remember that the overturning and change of consensus was done through the scientific method by actual scientists verifying work by "pariah". They eventually gain recognition if multiple papers verified their new theory. Thus the new theory becomes the consensus.

 

They key is always that the public doesn't get involved. Can you image how long news networks like CNN/GBNews could debate if Earth circulating sun was just discovered today?

I know this was to @PetrolDave but I'll address it anyway. For the love of God step away from the word "consensus" when talking about science.

Consensus is anti-science.

Edited 1 December, 20241 yr by EnterName

2 hours ago, EnterName said:

That is a silly thing to say, and reiterates your adherence to consensus.

I don't need scientific consensus to see the effect of gravity. I can see it's effect, and the scientific explanation for it is plausible.

The "science" behind man-made climate change is flaky at best, and downright dishonest at worst. The fact that a load of scientists have been persuaded to go along with it is to their shame.

Every time they predict something and then get it completely wrong, they say "Ah! Our model was incorrect. We forgot to account for X. Please give us more money for additional resources & research to improve our model."

They can't predict anything with a reasonable degree of accuracy and have now given up even trying.

Totally agree with this point of view, I recall that when TFL hired UCL to do a study into what benefits expanding the LEZ into the ULEZ and spreading it to cover all points with in the M25, the report from UCL was that there would be no or no discernable benefits and that the mayor's office had to put pressure on UCL to alter the wording of their report to make it more ambiguous. Presumably because, as it was, their original report was too easy for the average person to read it and decide that the proposed scheme was just a way of plugging massive gaps in their funding.

4 hours ago, Graham Butcher said:

Totally agree with this point of view, I recall that when TFL hired UCL to do a study into what benefits expanding the LEZ into the ULEZ and spreading it to cover all points with in the M25, the report from UCL was that there would be no or no discernable benefits and that the mayor's office had to put pressure on UCL to alter the wording of their report to make it more ambiguous. Presumably because, as it was, their original report was too easy for the average person to read it and decide that the proposed scheme was just a way of plugging massive gaps in their funding.

Perfect example of the sort of scientific corruption I'm on about.

10 hours ago, EnterName said:

It very much has to do with what I said. You said the market can't always be right and implied it needs intervention. You keep repeating it.

In fact you've done it again in the post I'm quoting here.

 

Don't object to me not wanting one.

There it is again, no where in the last few posts have I ever objected to you not wanting EV.

Unless you are linking you, the individual, to represent the whole market. Me saying market isn't always right, using multiple supporting evidence, is ignored. Are you turning the whole topic around to me objecting you not wanting EV...??

 

10 hours ago, EnterName said:

The "science" behind man-made climate change is flaky at best, and downright dishonest at worst. The fact that a load of scientists have been persuaded to go along with it is to their shame.

Every time they predict something and then get it completely wrong, they say "Ah! Our model was incorrect. We forgot to account for X. Please give us more money for additional resources & research to improve our model."

They can't predict anything with a reasonable degree of accuracy and have now given up even trying.

You have utterly zero understanding of how scientific community works.

 

10 hours ago, EnterName said:

Just because my choice of graph highlights a truth you'd rather wasn't highlighted does NOT make it dishonest.

No, it is not the truth you highlighted. You highlighted a mathematical phenomenon expressed in graph form (as number approaches 0, anything divide by it approaches infinity). Your screenshot is not representative of the truth. In another words, you have manipulated the data for your narrative.

 

 

I'd be happy to see anything you have to back up many radical claims you've made, from reputable sources. However, you are not providing any. Examples just from your latest post:

10 hours ago, EnterName said:

Money.

Lots and lots of someone else's money.

10 hours ago, EnterName said:

The fact that a load of scientists have been persuaded to go along with it is to their shame.

 

 

10 hours ago, EnterName said:

My point (which I'll dumb-down for you) is "Do you think you are in agreement with every top expert on every issue you hold an opinion on?".

You can dodge that question too, if you like. But it's there for people to see it's been asked and dodged. Again.

As I said, my opinion doesn't matter. But if you insist on a direct answer for your internet points and to fuel more personal attacks:

Of course no, I fully expect a lot of my personal opinion to be different to experts in many issues.

 

But I live to learn and if their scientific papers gain momentum and get verified in multiple other papers using different methodology, I will change my opinion after reviewing the evidences.

 

Just like how apes see the effect of gravity, except through the lens of academia papers.  😜

 

7 hours ago, Graham Butcher said:

Totally agree with this point of view, I recall that when TFL hired UCL to do a study into what benefits expanding the LEZ into the ULEZ and spreading it to cover all points with in the M25, the report from UCL was that there would be no or no discernable benefits and that the mayor's office had to put pressure on UCL to alter the wording of their report to make it more ambiguous. Presumably because, as it was, their original report was too easy for the average person to read it and decide that the proposed scheme was just a way of plugging massive gaps in their funding.

New report is out:

https://www.london.gov.uk/media-centre/mayors-press-releases/new-data-shows-mayors-ulez-expansion-working-better-expected-bringing-cleaner-air-five-million-more

 

Money raised is to fund public transport expansions. Recent addition of Super Loop is brilliant, I've used it a few times.

Quote

Any net revenue raised through the ULEZ is reinvested back into public transport, including the expansion of bus services in outer London.  The ULEZ is expected not to raise any net revenue by the 2026/2027 financial year as the percentage of compliant vehicles continues to rise.     

 

What I said.

On 01/12/2024 at 09:55, EnterName said:

It very much has to do with what I said. You said the market can't always be right and implied it needs intervention. You keep repeating it.

In fact you've done it again in the post I'm quoting here.

The reason I haven't presented any additional evidence is because there's no point. When I did, you started blathering on about colonialism and imperialism and how not ruining our economies to the benefit of the developing countries is unfair. It's not about the "science", it's about "Social Justice", and I have no interest in that. You want an electric car, fine. Don't object to me not wanting one.

 

Your stealth-edited version of what I said.

 

Not your finest moment, @wyx087.

2 hours ago, EnterName said:

What I said.

 

Your stealth-edited version of what I said.

 

Not your finest moment, @wyx087.

Oh wow, you have completely run out of reasonable thing to say.

You really have nothing interesting to say, no evidence to back up any of your claims. Now it's on to sentiments.

 

But to be clear, no it was not a stealth edit, look again, all words are exactly what you posted.

I removed your repeated waffle about why evidence wasn't provided because "not about science". I have left a blank line to clearly signal words were removed in the quote. No reasonable reader is going to be confused about the quote.

 

Ok, if you want to focus on this bit. Happy to oblige

Where, in my last few posts from your "market is always right" post, have I objected to you not wanting an EV?

A very simple question based on your statement of accusation. I'm sure you can find and screenshot the exact sentence if your statements are not downright lies.