Belief in man made climate change declining

[JoeWeber 1,866]

1 hour ago, brenthutch said:

The OP is not about climate change per se, it is about how belief in man made climate change drops as costs rise. If you have something to contribute, be my guest.

You are no less boring than ever. So what if you are right between bookends, the big scheme of things still exists. 

[brenthutch 356]

8 hours ago, JoeWeber said:

You are no less boring than ever. So what if you are right between bookends, the big scheme of things still exists. 

I’ll take that given everything between the bookends contains the entire library.

Here is some more foreshadowing from Germany 

https://www.politico.eu/article/german-government-coalition-greens-robert-habeck-combustion-motor-heat-pumps-coal-phase-out/

“The Greens have every reason to be nervous, as their climate policies are becoming a hard sell in Germany. Despite a general consensus that the country needs to act urgently to fight the growing crisis around climate change, Germans are less convinced when this involves bans or costly investments.”

[JoeWeber 1,866]

3 hours ago, brenthutch said:

I’ll take that given everything between the bookends contains the entire library.

Here is some more foreshadowing from Germany 

https://www.politico.eu/article/german-government-coalition-greens-robert-habeck-combustion-motor-heat-pumps-coal-phase-out/

“The Greens have every reason to be nervous, as their climate policies are becoming a hard sell in Germany. Despite a general consensus that the country needs to act urgently to fight the growing crisis around climate change, Germans are less convinced when this involves bans or costly investments.”

So, what you're missing is that there are multiple problems. One of which is a warming planet and another of which is the prevalence of short term, selfish thinking based on lame assed arguments that the cost is too high. You know, like the old AAD arguments. No matter, with or without you it's happening.

[lippy 457]

6 hours ago, brenthutch said:

“Despite a general consensus that the country needs to act urgently to fight the growing crisis around climate change, Germans are less convinced when this involves bans or costly investments.”

If we, as a species, we’re worth half a shit at weighing long-term risks vs short term costs, there would be fewer McDonalds and Lipitor in the world. 
 

You’re focusing on the second half of the sentence quoted above: while it may unfortunately be true, it doesn’t negate the first half. 
 

Now if you’ll excuse me, I’m headed back to my hotel in Ankara to take a shower. I’m a bit nasty from walking through a bunch of flooded streets today. While it’s not unheard of to flood here, apparently it’s happened more this year than anybody can remember. (I wrote that just for you Brent….this time, you can focus on the first half of the sentence and ignore the second).

 

p.s. with only two bookends, it sounds like you have a pretty shite library. 

[brenthutch 356]

1 hour ago, lippy said:

While it’s not unheard of to flood here, apparently it’s happened more this year than anybody can remember. 

 

p.s. with only two bookends, it sounds like you have a pretty shite library. 

And that is why we keep actual records instead of relying on people’s faulty memories.

Who said I only have two bookends?

[JerryBaumchen 874]

4 hours ago, JoeWeber said:

So, what you're missing is that there are multiple problems. One of which is a warming planet and another of which is the prevalence of short term, selfish thinking based on lame assed arguments that the cost is too high. You know, like the old AAD arguments. No matter, with or without you it's happening.

Hi Joe,

Re:  lame assed arguments that the cost is too high

Those that sat in gas lines during the fuels shortage of the '70's did not concern themselves with the costs.  They just wanted their cars to get them going again.

When there is no more, the costs will not be something to be concerned about.

BTDT,

Jerry Baumchen

[timski 68]

6 hours ago, JoeWeber said:

So, what you're missing is that there are multiple problems. One of which is a warming planet and another of which is the prevalence of short term, selfish thinking based on lame assed arguments that the cost is too high. You know, like the old AAD arguments. No matter, with or without you it's happening.

But Joe, it's his thread, so you know, he can decide what to believe in!  

[JoeWeber 1,866]

1 hour ago, timski said:

But Joe, it's his thread, so you know, he can decide what to believe in!  

Thanks, I forgot myself.

[Phil1111 691]

5 hours ago, JerryBaumchen said:

Hi Joe,

Re:  lame assed arguments that the cost is too high

Those that sat in gas lines during the fuels shortage of the '70's did not concern themselves with the costs.  They just wanted their cars to get them going again.

When there is no more, the costs will not be something to be concerned about.

BTDT,

Jerry Baumchen

Some in SC have been far to hard on Brent. Yes he cherry picks stories but when FOX and the right wing media pummels his brain with misinformation. Its just very difficult for Brent to be objective.

So the facts in Germany: Germany pledges US$2.2 billion to Green Climate Fund, on May 3rd. Money to help other countries meet climate objectives. Then three days later "Ramping up renewable power production rather than subsidies is the key to lower electricity prices for Germany's energy-hungry industry, Chancellor Olaf Scholz said on Saturday, in an apparent dig at proposals by his government's economy minister." "The German government insists that protecting the climate is one of its central concerns. It has said it wants to slash greenhouse gas emissions by at least 65% from 1990 levels by 2030 and has plans in place to sharply boost renewable energy production while phasing out fossil fuels."

For Brent, 2030 is like seven years from now. Imagine Brent.... phasing out coal....oil....gas....diesel and even nat gas.

[billvon 1,945]

7 minutes ago, Phil1111 said:

For Brent, 2030 is like seven years from now. Imagine Brent.... phasing out coal....oil....gas....diesel and even nat gas.

It would be some hellish Mad Max wasteland where everyone is scrambling for gasoline, almost no one can drive and the environment has been DESTROYED!

Well, exactly the opposite, actually.  But what's important is that you FEEL it will be bad.

[Phil1111 691]

1 minute ago, billvon said:

It would be some hellish Mad Max wasteland where everyone is scrambling for gasoline, almost no one can drive and the environment has been DESTROYED!

Well, exactly the opposite, actually.  But what's important is that you FEEL it will be bad.

Many gun loving right wingers dream about survivalist living in a apocalyptic world. Where their AR-15s make them relevant, for once.

[billvon 1,945]

2 minutes ago, Phil1111 said:

Many gun loving right wingers dream about survivalist living in a apocalyptic world. Where their AR-15s make them relevant, for once.

And they are finally - FINALLY! - seen as powerful, and they get the respect they feel they are owed from their lessers.

[gowlerk 1,610]

12 hours ago, JoeWeber said:

No matter, with or without you it's happening.

That's the best part. It must drive him nuts.

[olofscience 326]

11 hours ago, brenthutch said:

And that is why we keep actual records instead of relying on people’s faulty memories.

But talking about actual records requires you to do actual maths.

You've never really been up to it 

[BIGUN 1,000]

4 hours ago, olofscience said:

But talking about actual records requires you to do actual maths.

You've never really been up to it

If the climate change advocates are wrong; nothing happens. 

If the climate change skeptics are wrong . . .

 

Edited May 25 by BIGUN

[wmw999 1,720]

35 minutes ago, BIGUN said:

If the climate change advocates are wrong; nothing happens. 

If the climate change skeptics are wrong . . .

 

Well, the skeptics would say that by being wrong on climate change, we impacted them!!! I.e. they had to pay more for something, pay for something they disagreed with, or go farther to get gasoline, or buy a smaller vehicle than a Freightliner

Wendy P.

[brenthutch 356]

2 hours ago, BIGUN said:

If the climate change advocates are wrong; nothing happens. 

 

You must be unfamiliar with the concept of opportunity cost.

[BIGUN 1,000]

2 hours ago, wmw999 said:

they had to pay more for something, pay for something they disagreed with, or go farther to get gasoline, or buy a smaller vehicle than a Freightliner

Yeah, well . . . prolly the same argument the horsemen had about the horseless carriage. Time to move up and on as a society. 

[olofscience 326]

2 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

You must be unfamiliar with the concept of opportunity cost.

What were you going to spend it on? Healthcare? 

[BIGUN 1,000]

2 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

opportunity cost.

I know, right? The opportunity to own an EV that will cost less and the opportunity to invest that money that one loses on CE. 

[brenthutch 356]

33 minutes ago, BIGUN said:

I know, right? The opportunity to own an EV that will cost less and the opportunity to invest that money that one loses on CE. 

“Electric vehicles generally experience depreciation from the moment of purchase, with the most significant impact occurring within the first three years of ownership. There have been reports that EVs lose up to 52% of their value just after three years as compared to ICE vehicles' 39.1%.”

Looks like someone needs to take some financial literacy courses.

[normiss 422]

56 minutes ago, BIGUN said:

Yeah, well . . . prolly the same argument the horsemen had about the horseless carriage. Time to move up and on as a society. 

Just you wait and see the uproar over the electric starter!

[olofscience 326]

27 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

Looks like someone needs to take some financial literacy courses.

And that would be you.

The reason for the higher depreciation for used electric cars is the Federal tax rebates - that meant they were already thousands below list price the moment they were purchased.

 

With supply of electric vehicles far below demand, they actually hold value better, especially during the chip shortage that caused car manufacturers to stop production of many models.

Not to mention their much higher reliability due to having a tiny fraction of moving parts and high temperatures of a standard ICE vehicle.

Source

[SkyDekker 901]

1 hour ago, brenthutch said:

“Electric vehicles generally experience depreciation from the moment of purchase, with the most significant impact occurring within the first three years of ownership. There have been reports that EVs lose up to 52% of their value just after three years as compared to ICE vehicles' 39.1%.”

Looks like someone needs to take some financial literacy courses.

Ahh yes the most solid evidence of "there have been reports." This is only bettered by "all the best people say."

[billvon 1,945]

1 hour ago, olofscience said:

The reason for the higher depreciation for used electric cars is the Federal tax rebates - that meant they were already thousands below list price the moment they were purchased.

In addition, Tesla just dropped the price of their cars.  So if you buy a $45,000 car, and that car drops in price to $42,000 right after you buy it, you "lose" $3000 in value.

And there have been reports that most EVs go UP in value the instant they drive off the lot, since there are long waiting lists for many EVs and people would rather get them sooner.