| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
boggsman1
Joined: 24 Jun 2002
Posts: 9122
Location: at a computer
|
 Posted: Wed Dec 09, 2020 1:11 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| mrgybe wrote: | | boggsman1 wrote: | | Many right leaning folks have a real issue when it comes to admitting when they were wrong. |
Boggsy, You don't seem to understand how a debate works. Simply saying that someone is "dead wrong" about EVs and Tesla doesn't make it so. What did I say that was dead wrong? Quote me. Nodding in agreement with someone who promoted the notion that 10 million would die of Covid, and is still trying desperately to prove he was right all along, doesn't help your case. |
I don't have time to pull the exact quotes. But , your constant disparaging of Tesla, your constant doubt of the market size/growth were clearly stated multiple times. If you're giving debate lessons, typically changing gears would also be a debate faux pas. This little circle jerk was spawned from a comment I made about Janet Yellen and Larry Kudlow. My suggestion is you start a new thread or, if you disagree that Janet Yellen is an excellent choice for Treasury, then go ahead and state your case. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
mac
Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 17751
Location: Berkeley, California
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 09, 2020 1:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mrgybe wrote: | | boggsman1 wrote: | | Many right leaning folks have a real issue when it comes to admitting when they were wrong. |
Boggsy, You don't seem to understand how a debate works. Simply saying that someone is "dead wrong" about EVs and Tesla doesn't make it so. What did I say that was dead wrong? Quote me. Nodding in agreement with someone who promoted the notion that 10 million would die of Covid, and is still trying desperately to prove he was right all along, doesn't help your case. |
The irony is rich, the dishonesty is sad. It is pretty easy to find what I said, it is in the first posting on the coronavirus thread. It also included a conditional statement--if--which duckgybe has consistently ducked. Here's what I said, on March 8, with bolding that shows gybe's lies:
| Quote: | | if 30 million Americans contract the disease, and 3% of the die, that is over one million people! |
One is not ten. Currently the US has 15.6 million cases, and the death rate has dropped from 3.5%, but just under 300,000 have died.
Duckgybe has dishonestly accused me of higher numbers. Here's what I actually posted, and here is the source.
| Quote: | “Congress’ physician has told the members in a closed session that he expects 70-150 million people will contract the disease.”
|
Here is my source:
| Quote: | | Congress' in-house doctor told Capitol Hill staffers at a close-door meeting this week that he expects 70-150 million people in the U.S. — roughly a third of the country — to contract the coronavirus, two sources briefed on the meeting tell Axios. |
Duckgybe has also called comments about his comparison of COVIPD to the flu lies. That is a bald-faced lie. Here are a few of his pithy comments making exactly that comparison:
| Quote: | About 80,000 people contracted Covid 19 in China, the epicenter. 68K have recovered, 9K are being treated, 3K have died. In the 2017/18 flu season, 80,000 people died in the US alone.......40,000 in 2016/17, 23,000 in 2015/16, 50,000 in 2014/15. About 30 million people contracted flu in each of those years in the US.
Relative to a normal flu season, a small number have been infected and the the large majority have recovered. This in a country with nowhere near our medical systems. The numbers simply don't support your assertion that this is 20 times more deadly. |
duckgybe cherrypicked the highest death rate for flu--which is approximately 0.2%. Most years are less, I’ve posted both the data and the source. The current death rate for COVID in the United States is about 1.9%. 294,000 deaths in 15.6 million infections--about ten times as deadly as the flu in gybe’s maximum year. At the time he made the comment, the death rate was higher and the ratio was well over ten times as deadly—and about 20 times as deadly as influenza in most years.
Mrflu has trouble with honesty and math. Debates rely on facts and honesty. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mrgybe
Joined: 01 Jul 2008
Posts: 5181
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 09, 2020 6:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| boggsman1 wrote: | | I don't have time to pull the exact quotes. But, your constant disparaging of Tesla, your constant doubt of the market size/growth were clearly stated multiple times. |
Too bad you don't have time to back up your assertion that I was dead wrong, so let me help by repeating what I have said, all of which I stand by and is most certainly not "dead wrong".
Tesla has not made one penny of profit on their products; neither has any other EV manufacturer. They all lose money on every vehicle they produce. Despite relentless promotion and government intervention, less than 1% of vehicles globally are EVs. Future growth is predicated entirely on government mandates and subsidies. When subsidies are removed, sales drop precipitously.......see Hong Kong, mainland China, UK etc, etc. As an aside, to suggest that EVs are zero emission is simply not true. These are facts and I make no apology for not liking those facts. However, stating facts is not disparagement. Calling someone a cretin is disparagement, as is stating that Kudlow is always wrong. That's why I made my original comments. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
swchandler
Joined: 08 Nov 1993
Posts: 10588
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 09, 2020 6:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Ever wonder why mrgybe never has any disparaging words for vehicles using ICEs?
When you think about it, he probably had no problems whatsoever with the Trump Administration's foolish relaxation of fuel efficiency standards and emissions regulations for specious reasons. Needless to say both rollbacks benefit the oil and gas industries immensely, and we all know that he's never one to go against their interests. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mac
Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 17751
Location: Berkeley, California
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 09, 2020 7:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Back to something at least somewhat related to the subject. Of course duckjibe made no comments disparaging debt while Trump was POTUS and McConnell rammed through a tax cut benefiting primarily those in the investor class. There may be something more than hypocrisy involved.
| Quote: |
Opinion by
Charles Lane
Editorial writer and columnist
Dec. 7, 2020 at 3:33 p.m. PST
Add to list
“When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?” is a witticism attributed frequently but inaccurately to the great 20th-century British economist John Maynard Keynes. Still, his heirs in the economics profession have found it useful over the years, when their theories have bumped up against reality.
Right now, economics is going through a mind-change on public-sector debt that borders on intellectual revolution.
Government debt accumulation was once considered inherently risky: By competing with private investors for investible funds, it would trigger ruinous interest-rate spikes. The new consensus is that debt is, if not quite the proverbial free lunch, then such a good deal that the United States and its fellow industrialized democracies can’t afford not to borrow. And this applies not only to the covid-related crisis but also to the more normal times ahead.
What happened? Mainly, the gap between theory and fact became too large to ignore: The Congressional Budget Office’s 10-year forecast of U.S. government debt as a share of total output grew from a mere 6 percent in 2000 to 109 percent in 2020. Yet in that same period, real (inflation-adjusted) interest rates on benchmark U.S. government bonds fell from 4.3 percent to negative 0.1 percent, as two top former Obama administration economists, Jason Furman and Lawrence H. Summers, point out in a new paper that’s attracting attention in pre-Biden Washington.
In fiscal 2020, the U.S. government borrowed a staggering 15 percent of gross domestic product, yet the 10-year government bond still pays less than one percent.
The strong likelihood is that low rates will continue well after the pandemic ends, Furman reported at a Dec. 1 virtual conference sponsored by the Brookings Institution. A blue-chip panel including former Federal Reserve chairman Ben S. Bernanke, and Olivier Blanchard and Kenneth Rogoff, former chief economists of the notoriously austerity-minded International Monetary Fund, nodded in agreement. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
vientomas
Joined: 25 Apr 2000
Posts: 2343
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 09, 2020 11:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| If I were Boggs' father, I'd be asking Gybe what his intentions were with my son. It's getting a lil hot in here eh Mr. Gybe? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mac
Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 17751
Location: Berkeley, California
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 10, 2020 1:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Caught in yet another lie: |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mac
Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 17751
Location: Berkeley, California
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 10, 2020 7:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mrgybe wrote: |
Tesla has not made one penny of profit on their products; neither has any other EV manufacturer. They all lose money on every vehicle they produce. Despite relentless promotion and government intervention, less than 1% of vehicles globally are EVs. Future growth is predicated entirely on government mandates and subsidies. When subsidies are removed, sales drop precipitously...... |
Sigh, another self-righteous claim about the moral inferiority of electric vehicles. Mrhypocrite ignores, as he always has, the costs of internal combustion engines as power plants. There are subsidies in the granting of leases for mineral extraction on public land that could have other beneficial uses, subsidies in transferring the health and environmental costs to the public, and subsidies in the transport of fuels on large ships. Those costs are far from trivial, for example:
| Quote: | According to a new report from the American Lung Association of California, cars are responsible for $37 billion in health and climate costs each year.
That's just for California, Connecticut, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, and Vermont---the 10 states that have zero emission vehicle sales programs. The price tag includes the economic costs of 220,000 days of missed work, 109,000 asthma-related attacks, and 2,580 premature deaths per annum.
Even if you don't have asthma, you're getting hit: The report estimates that every tank of gasoline you combust adds $18.42 to public health and climate bills---bills your taxes pay off.
|
https://www.wired.com/2016/10/not-just-clean-air-electric-cars-can-save-us-billions/#:~:text=According%20to%20a%20new%20report,and%20climate%20costs%20each%20year.
Auto exhaust is a product, like tobacco, that causes cancer when used as directed. Exhaust includes CO2, our favorite climate warming pollutant, but also a witches brew of partially burned hydrocarbons, referred to in the contamination world as poly-aromatic hydrocarbons, or PAH's. Those that aren't inhaled fall to the ground and runoff into rivers, lakes and oceans. Nasty stuff.
In this country, about 1/4th of the production of oil comes from leases on Federal lands. Oil companies love Republican administrations because they flood the market with leases, driving the costs down. Again, a subsidy for damaging our health and climate.
Like many businesses, the oil industry gives lip service to the magic hand of competition--while they do their best to transfer costs to the public and hamstring competition. That behavior is not surprising--but it is why we have regulation. Removing that regulation makes some businesses even more rapacious--see Facebook in the 21st Century.
And then there is the cost to consumers. Electric cars are not only cleaner, they are much simpler, don't drop as much crap on the road, and in many areas are a fraction of the cost of gasoline cars.
| Quote: | | A 2018 study from the University of Michigan's Transportation Research Institute found that electric vehicles cost less than half as much to operate as gas-powered cars. The average cost to operate an EV in the United States is $485 per year, while the average for a gasoline-powered vehicle is $1,117. |
No wonder a few thousand deaths a day don't seem to bother people, they make the oil industry look positively virtuous. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
techno900
Joined: 28 Mar 2001
Posts: 4166
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 11, 2020 9:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
While I am not opposed to electric cars, they may not be as "clean" as many think. There is always more to the story.
| Quote: | The Dirty Secrets Of ‘Clean’ Electric Vehicles
While one might question the inherent inequity in imposing such a trade-off, the supposed advantages of EVs in emitting lower carbon emissions are overstated according to a peer-reviewed life-cycle study comparing conventional and electric vehicles. To begin with, about half the lifetime carbon-dioxide emissions from an electric car come from the energy used to produce the car, especially in the mining and processing of raw materials needed for the battery. This compares unfavorably with the manufacture of a gasoline-powered car which accounts for 17% of the car’s lifetime carbon-dioxide emissions. When a new EV appears in the show-room, it has already caused 30,000 pounds of carbon-dioxide emission. The equivalent amount for manufacturing a conventional car is 14,000 pounds.
Once on the road, the carbon dioxide emissions of EVs depends on the power-generation fuel used to recharge its battery. If it comes mostly from coal-fired power plants, it will lead to about 15 ounces of carbon-dioxide for every mile it is driven—three ounces more than a similar gasoline-powered car. Even without reference to the source of electricity used for battery charging, if an EV is driven 50,000 miles over its lifetime, the huge initial emissions from its manufacture means the EV will actually have put more carbon-dioxide in the atmosphere than a similar-size gasoline-powered car driven the same number of miles. Even if the EV is driven for 90,000 miles and the battery is charged by cleaner natural-gas fueled power stations, it will cause just 24% less carbon-dioxide emission than a gasoline-powered car. As the skeptical environmentalist Bjorn Lomborg puts it, “This is a far cry from ‘zero emissions’". |
https://www.forbes.com/sites/tilakdoshi/2020/08/02/the-dirty-secrets-of-clean-electric-vehicles/?sh=7d8e4744650b |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mac
Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 17751
Location: Berkeley, California
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 11, 2020 12:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Thanks for the hit piece, including comments by a denier who has made tons of money pandering to carbon fans. I agree that there are environmental costs with battery powered vehicles—but this is a hit piece, not a balanced comparison.
Many who study the carbon footprint of our travel choices prefer using hydrogen as a fuel source. It obviously eliminates the weight and manufacturing emissions of batteries. But it still requires energy to generate hydrogen, which has a carbon signature unless done using solar power.
The crime of the carbon industry is to have curtailed research and development of alternatives. These efforts have been supported by mouthpieces like mrgybe and Lomborg. It has been cheaper for them to buy “researchers” and the Republican Party than to reduce their environmental impacts. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum
|
|
|
Search
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Register
