Ford finally gets it

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

No evidence could ever substantiate that made up claim.

As faulty as it still is, the most accurate way to measure impact to people is the big metrics on a global scale (we are talking about global warming, and not Lake Mead warming after all) on things like life expectancy, GDP per capita, calories per capita, and other measures of health and well-being.



I don't trust this either. What is powering this carbon capture technology? Diesel powered machines? Having not researched anything, common sense tells me it would be cheaper to avoid emitting CO2 in the first place than sequestering already dilute gasses from the air.

The numbers are from those who looked into it, in detail.
And they didn't spin it into the myopic, non-externality, voodoo-economics netherworld, as hallucinated by the likes of the Bjorn Lombergs and Chicago School of Economics sociopaths, addicted to privatizing profits while socializing costs.
We are talking about global warming.
And tell me about this magical capability of summarily, and accurately, discounting the efforts of investigators, without investing one iota of human capital into your own investigation. Absolutely amazing!

[redpoint5]

I don't need to look into anything to know it's all contrived. When dieselgate came out, the corrupt "stats" guys come up with nonsense like cheating caused a billion excess deaths or some absurd number. I don't have to be a mathmagician to instantly see that 1.4 trillion is a fictional number. I'm to believe that more than 5% of the total US gross domestic product depends on lake Mead? Lotta BS going on there. Had they not gotten so greedy with their made up number, it might not have instantly triggered my BS filter.

I'm not saying there are no negative externalities, only that they can't be monetized in any meaningful way. How much is someone wrongfully killed worth? Those sorts of things require the law to come up with some figure, but it doesn't really have anything to do with reality...

...which always brings me back to the point that a very broad measure of well-being is the most accurate way, not some myopic and corrupt statistician deciding what is relevant for consideration and how to value them. If I hired a numbers guy to make the argument that global warming has had a positive economic impact, we'd unsurprisingly see numbers making that claim.

Even if we could somehow be certain warming was a net economic negative due to less snow melt being captured by lake Mead, it's still meaningless because it wouldn't account for the all of the heating costs offset in the entire rest of the world.

As I said, this is global warming, not lake Mead warming. I can't care if there's some localized badness happening if globally everyone is thriving.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

I don't need to look into anything to know it's all contrived. When dieselgate came out, the corrupt "stats" guys come up with nonsense like cheating caused a billion excess deaths or some absurd number. I don't have to be a mathmagician to instantly see that 1.4 trillion is a fictional number. I'm to believe that more than 5% of the total US gross domestic product depends on lake Mead? Lotta BS going on there. Had they not gotten so greedy with their made up number, it might not have instantly triggered my BS filter.

I'm not saying there are no negative externalities, only that they can't be monetized in any meaningful way. How much is someone wrongfully killed worth? Those sorts of things require the law to come up with some figure, but it doesn't really have anything to do with reality...

...which always brings me back to the point that a very broad measure of well-being is the most accurate way, not some myopic and corrupt statistician deciding what is relevant for consideration and how to value them. If I hired a numbers guy to make the argument that global warming has had a positive economic impact, we'd unsurprisingly see numbers making that claim.

Even if we could somehow be certain warming was a net economic negative due to less snow melt being captured by lake Mead, it's still meaningless because it wouldn't account for the all of the heating costs offset in the entire rest of the world.

As I said, this is global warming, not lake Mead warming. I can't care if there's some localized badness happening if globally everyone is thriving.

Right. The students across the street at the university are forced to incur ten's of thousands in student debt in order to look into things, however, we're to believe that you possess the facility for spontaneous, magic knowledge acquisition capabilities, expending no energy at all.
You don't just 'believe'.
You don't just 'think.'
No, you miraculously 'know' about things you've self-admittedly, never spent a second researching!
Truly in a class of your own.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm done with you. You've stepped on a grenade of your own manufacture. You've lost any credibility you might have had. I regret the effort spent attempting rational discourse with you.

[redpoint5]

I'm always talking about numbers, but only when it's useful. Figuring out efficiency improvements from a mod can reasonably be calculated, for instance. Figuring out the economic impact of temperature rise 50 years from now is nonsense, let alone accurately predicting what the temperature increase will be.

You made the claim of global warming causing a yearly 1.4 trillion economic loss due to the impact to Lake Mead, so the burden of proof is on you, not me... and I already explained why I don't need to "research" it, because it isn't reasonable that Lake Mead represents more than 5% of gross domestic product.

If someone says that Michael Jordan can dunk on a 150ft tall basketball hoop, I don't need to research that to dismiss it as false.

There is so much misinformation flooding the circuits of our devices and brain, that one needs to become extremely efficient at filtering the noise, which is 98% of everything. I'm not going to research every claim because there isn't time.

[cRiPpLe_rOoStEr]

Originally Posted by freebeard

OTOH I think the fungibility of sources for electricity is it's strength.

Similar circumstances may be considered for alcohol and biomethane. No wonder I'd rather place a bet on plug-in hybrids as a middle-to-long-term option closer to become some sort of one-size-fits-all.

[ME_Andy]

The Lake Mead claim is probably based on Vegas shutting down if it has no water supply.

It is interesting to think about why Ford has high EV demand, GM does not (yet). Maybe it's because Ford went all in with their most popular model names (F150 and Mustang). GM went with the Hummer name, which is completely sold out already. The names they made up (Volt and Bolt) didn't do so great.

Regardless, I'm always tempted to buy a used Volt.

If you look at the financials recently, GM isn't doing so great. Revenue is dropping. Ford is still doing well. I don't know why.

[redpoint5]

There is no scenario in which less snow in the mountains that feed lake Mead equates to over 5% of GDP. It would be cheaper to bulldoze all of Las Vegas and rebuild than 1.4 trillion annually.

It's anti-human propaganda masquerading as fact to get devout believers to drink the kool aid, and nothing more.

To even hypothesize how the figure could be contrived plays into the trap the evildoers set. I denounce it and will not waste a single millisecond more being their useful pawn.

[ME_Andy]

Google says the GDP of Vegas is $128B so I guess you are right.

[freebeard]

The global warming economic impact of Lake Mead / Hoover Dam, affects 40-million Americans, an $ 1.4-trillion / yr alone.

Google says the GDP of Vegas is $128B so I guess you are right.

Partially true: That is only a first-order effect. Second and third order effect might include gaming money diverted into macrame and home canning. Lounge lizard acts might reform and spread out and revive stand-up comedy clubs across the country.

You don't just 'believe'.
You don't just 'think.'
No, you miraculously 'know' about things you've self-admittedly, never spent a second researching!

If you lack the ability to generalise from a synthesis of all your experience, you are one brick shot of a six-pack.

[cRiPpLe_rOoStEr]

Originally Posted by ME_Andy

It is interesting to think about why Ford has high EV demand, GM does not (yet). Maybe it's because Ford went all in with their most popular model names (F150 and Mustang). GM went with the Hummer name, which is completely sold out already. The names they made up (Volt and Bolt) didn't do so great.

Seems like GM was only making EVs for compliance, unlike Ford which might be holding some hope to benefit from a higher profit margin.