I mean, not as if 40C was unheard of in the Mediterranean?..
Climate change is real, but not sure how useful is thinking about it without carefully measuring your options.
When you pay more for a green alternative to something very much not green, you may be causing lots of bad things indirectly.
I mean, if a thing itself is 100% green energy\resource\process, then money you pay for it are maybe 20% green and 80% pretty much brown. So if it costs twice and you pay for that, you may be creating a demand for dirtier production just to soothe your conscience about global warming.
That's simplifying life to a neanderthal level.
I mean, not as if 40C was unheard of in the Mediterranean?..
Record breaking temperatures are by definition unheard of. What the Mediterranean is experiencing is not normal by any definition.
When you pay more for a green alternative to something very much not green, you may be causing lots of bad things indirectly.
The not green versions are also costing us by costing the environment.
I mean, if a thing itself is 100% green energy\resource\process, then money you pay for it are maybe 20% green and 80% pretty much brown. So if it costs twice and you pay for that, you may be creating a demand for dirtier production just to soothe your conscience about global warming.
This makes absolutely not sense at all. You have absolutely no evidence or data to back up these numbers you made up. You've essentially made a bunch of false assumptions and then used those false assumptions to then validate your inaccurate claim.
Record breaking temperatures are by definition unheard of. What the Mediterranean is experiencing is not normal by any definition.
Record breaking temperatures do not account for anything before records start. Obviously.
You have absolutely no evidence or data to back up these numbers you made up.
There are no numbers in my comment which should be backed up by evidence. These are an example.
It's just that if you explain things as they are, nobody understands you, and if you simplify (by providing such made up analogies and examples), those same people (like you) act snobbish (while you personally really shouldn't).
You’ve essentially made a bunch of false assumptions and then used those false assumptions to then validate your inaccurate claim.
What I've used is called conditional logic mostly.
About the rest - I do realize that connecting money (as the universal equivalent) to energy and energy (from all sources) to pollution may be too complex for you.
Record breaking temperatures do not account for anything before records start. Obviously.
Firstly setting new records repeatedly for records that have existed for a 100+ years is still extremely concerning. I don't know how you think this is actually somehow a rebuttal of what I said. Additionally we have average temperature and environmental conditions going back millions of years through ice core and geologic records.
There are no numbers in my comment which should be backed up by evidence. These are an example.
80% and 20% are numbers. My point is your "example" is made up and hence meaningless. It's as meaningful as me giving you an example where all work that is dont to pay for that additional cost is done through green means.
What I’ve used is called conditional logic mostly.
What you've done is not understand how conditional logic works as your IF/THEN conditional statement is not based on reality and is speaking purely hypothetically. I agree that in your made up reality that doesn't exist, this made up condition would not be reasonable.
About the rest - I do realize that connecting money (as the universal equivalent) to energy and energy (from all sources) to pollution may be too complex for you.
Apparently the whole concept of reading may be too complex for you as you clearly seem to lack the ability to comprehend what you've read. Dirty solutions have environmental impact that ultimately has a monetary cost to mitigate. Just because you don't pay for it at purchase does not mean there is not a monetary cost.
Firstly setting new records repeatedly for records that have existed for a 100+ years is still extremely concerning.
Of course. So what?
I don’t know how you think this is actually somehow a rebuttal of what I said.
Not a rebuttal, just a response.
My point is your “example” is made up and hence meaningless.
I could have used p and (1-p) with p between 0.1 and 0.9. Still wouldn't be meaningless.
It’s as meaningful as me giving you an example where all work that is dont to pay for that additional cost is done through green means.
It would be wrong and the example where most of the work is done through "brown" means wouldn't be. For my example I don't need anything more specific.
Internet pseudointellectualism is so cute.
What you’ve done is not understand how conditional logic works
I'm sure I know how things to which I refer work sufficiently for this kind of conversation, to some extent I just like allowing the opponent to present all the fallacies they'd like while seeming rhetorically all right. It indicates whether they are arguing in good faith.
If somebody is arguing in good faith, they'll make an effort to extract something they agree with from the opponent, and make assumptions in favor of that opponent in unclear cases, otherwise the usual.
is not based on reality
So in reality most of the production backing your money as its accepted equivalent is being done by green means?
Dirty solutions have environmental impact that ultimately has a monetary cost to mitigate. Just because you don’t pay for it at purchase does not mean there is not a monetary cost.
The burden of proof that this cost is bigger than the indirect cost I'm talking about is on you. Since I've said only that it may or may not justify particular green means, and you were arguing with that. Apparently that anything green is always better? I don't know what you were trying to say.
That's simplifying life to a neanderthal level
Is exactly what's wrong with your argument. Your logic smells kinda..brown.
I think my logic is still sufficient, and your comment is still insufficient.
You see, "neanderthal" is a metaphor, it doesn't mean an actual neanderthal-level person can argue with me.
In my case I'm using it as a hyperbolic simile to indicate that your "shouldn't use green stuff because some might use brown stuff to make it" argument is simplistic to the point of being primitive and regressive.
It relies on a false assumption that progress can't be achieved because anything that's good for the planet is created by processes much worse than what's currently destroying the planet.
Oh, I'll write it even simpler.
What matters is how much brown stuff you spend total. So if you directly spend less brown stuff, replacing it with green stuff, but indirectly more brown stuff, then you are making things worse. Because the goal is a good total of carbon emissions or whatever else for the whole planet, not just for your own western country where the dirtier parts may not be done.
It's not that I didn't understand you the first time. It's that you were and are wrong in a way typical of both paid and unpaid status quo apologists.
Ah. No, I don't think I'm wrong in saying that spending more energy produced the "dirty" way is worse than spending less.
Though if somebody disagrees with this two times, trying again makes little sense.
I don't see how much in common does the linked article have with this subject.
Your argument is clear. There's an opportunity cost to Green.
What you're missing is the momentum of green. A single solar panel in a sea of coal power plants is certainly dirtier than coal in the short term. For the exact reasons you outlined.
But you have 2 flaws in your logic.
we aren't in that situation right now and I'd like to understand why you think we are. As we become more green then green things result in less brown, so there's a snowball effect you're ignoring here. Furthermore that snowball effect has already begun!
Renewable energy, like panels, result in brown during manufacturing and installation. Once they're up they generate power for, on average, 25 years. The electricity-per-co2-ton is better than coal over 25 years.
The indication of this is distorted by subsidies for green. And "we" here ignores most of the planet.
It's good that it's begun.
Is it better than nuclear?
Actually an actual Neanderthal might be good enough to argue with you but the rest of us wouldn’t get it
Well, yeah, I should have used Australopithecus instead of Neanderthal.
It's a average temperature. Sure there have always been single days with extra high temperatures... but not every day for multiple weeks.
Oh. 40C average is something hellish.
You’re just a moron
Finally instead of glueing together entities you don't understand in text, as neural nets may do, you use the only argument available to your kind. I'm satisfied by this conversation finally.
I mean, not as if 40C was unheard of in the Mediterranean?..
Climate change is real, but not sure how useful is thinking about it without carefully measuring your options.
When you pay more for a green alternative to something very much not green, you may be causing lots of bad things indirectly.
I mean, if a thing itself is 100% green energy\resource\process, then money you pay for it are maybe 20% green and 80% pretty much brown. So if it costs twice and you pay for that, you may be creating a demand for dirtier production just to soothe your conscience about global warming.
That's simplifying life to a neanderthal level.
Record breaking temperatures are by definition unheard of. What the Mediterranean is experiencing is not normal by any definition.
The not green versions are also costing us by costing the environment.
This makes absolutely not sense at all. You have absolutely no evidence or data to back up these numbers you made up. You've essentially made a bunch of false assumptions and then used those false assumptions to then validate your inaccurate claim.
Record breaking temperatures do not account for anything before records start. Obviously.
There are no numbers in my comment which should be backed up by evidence. These are an example.
It's just that if you explain things as they are, nobody understands you, and if you simplify (by providing such made up analogies and examples), those same people (like you) act snobbish (while you personally really shouldn't).
What I've used is called conditional logic mostly.
About the rest - I do realize that connecting money (as the universal equivalent) to energy and energy (from all sources) to pollution may be too complex for you.
Firstly setting new records repeatedly for records that have existed for a 100+ years is still extremely concerning. I don't know how you think this is actually somehow a rebuttal of what I said. Additionally we have average temperature and environmental conditions going back millions of years through ice core and geologic records.
80% and 20% are numbers. My point is your "example" is made up and hence meaningless. It's as meaningful as me giving you an example where all work that is dont to pay for that additional cost is done through green means.
What you've done is not understand how conditional logic works as your IF/THEN conditional statement is not based on reality and is speaking purely hypothetically. I agree that in your made up reality that doesn't exist, this made up condition would not be reasonable.
Apparently the whole concept of reading may be too complex for you as you clearly seem to lack the ability to comprehend what you've read. Dirty solutions have environmental impact that ultimately has a monetary cost to mitigate. Just because you don't pay for it at purchase does not mean there is not a monetary cost.
Of course. So what?
Not a rebuttal, just a response.
I could have used p and (1-p) with p between 0.1 and 0.9. Still wouldn't be meaningless.
It would be wrong and the example where most of the work is done through "brown" means wouldn't be. For my example I don't need anything more specific.
Internet pseudointellectualism is so cute.
I'm sure I know how things to which I refer work sufficiently for this kind of conversation, to some extent I just like allowing the opponent to present all the fallacies they'd like while seeming rhetorically all right. It indicates whether they are arguing in good faith.
If somebody is arguing in good faith, they'll make an effort to extract something they agree with from the opponent, and make assumptions in favor of that opponent in unclear cases, otherwise the usual.
So in reality most of the production backing your money as its accepted equivalent is being done by green means?
The burden of proof that this cost is bigger than the indirect cost I'm talking about is on you. Since I've said only that it may or may not justify particular green means, and you were arguing with that. Apparently that anything green is always better? I don't know what you were trying to say.
Is exactly what's wrong with your argument. Your logic smells kinda..brown.
I think my logic is still sufficient, and your comment is still insufficient.
You see, "neanderthal" is a metaphor, it doesn't mean an actual neanderthal-level person can argue with me.
In my case I'm using it as a hyperbolic simile to indicate that your "shouldn't use green stuff because some might use brown stuff to make it" argument is simplistic to the point of being primitive and regressive.
It relies on a false assumption that progress can't be achieved because anything that's good for the planet is created by processes much worse than what's currently destroying the planet.
Oh, I'll write it even simpler.
What matters is how much brown stuff you spend total. So if you directly spend less brown stuff, replacing it with green stuff, but indirectly more brown stuff, then you are making things worse. Because the goal is a good total of carbon emissions or whatever else for the whole planet, not just for your own western country where the dirtier parts may not be done.
It's not that I didn't understand you the first time. It's that you were and are wrong in a way typical of both paid and unpaid status quo apologists.
Ah. No, I don't think I'm wrong in saying that spending more energy produced the "dirty" way is worse than spending less.
Though if somebody disagrees with this two times, trying again makes little sense.
I don't see how much in common does the linked article have with this subject.
Your argument is clear. There's an opportunity cost to Green.
What you're missing is the momentum of green. A single solar panel in a sea of coal power plants is certainly dirtier than coal in the short term. For the exact reasons you outlined.
But you have 2 flaws in your logic.
we aren't in that situation right now and I'd like to understand why you think we are. As we become more green then green things result in less brown, so there's a snowball effect you're ignoring here. Furthermore that snowball effect has already begun!
Renewable energy, like panels, result in brown during manufacturing and installation. Once they're up they generate power for, on average, 25 years. The electricity-per-co2-ton is better than coal over 25 years.
It's good that it's begun.
Actually an actual Neanderthal might be good enough to argue with you but the rest of us wouldn’t get it
Well, yeah, I should have used Australopithecus instead of Neanderthal.
It's a average temperature. Sure there have always been single days with extra high temperatures... but not every day for multiple weeks.
Oh. 40C average is something hellish.
You’re just a moron
Finally instead of glueing together entities you don't understand in text, as neural nets may do, you use the only argument available to your kind. I'm satisfied by this conversation finally.