Believe it or not Mikie, I agree with most of this post.

If I am a denier then you are one as well.

And if he's not a denier? Would that make you a non-denier as well?

And if he's not a denier? Would that make you a non-denier as well? — Arcane Sandwich

Yes. That is exactly the point that I am trying to make.

Ok, cool :up:

World’s highest solar plant by elevation goes online in China

PowerChina, the project contractor, completed the project 42 days ahead of schedule in just 115 days by using pre-installed mounts and on-site assembly lines, which increased construction efficiency by 40%, despite the challenges of the plateau environment.

China will undoubtedly keep the lead in both solar and EVs. The US will regret falling so far behind. But at least they kept some Exxon shareholders happy for a few years.

Please watch this YouTube video by Sabine Hossenfelder, and think about whether it applies to climate science.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=shFUDPqVmTg

Sabine Hossenfelder has a PhD in physics. She is author of the books "Lost in Math: How Beauty Leads Physics Astray" (Basic Books, 2018) and "Existential Physics: A Scientist's Guide to Life's Biggest Questions" (Viking, 2022).

More Chinese solar power, now with added sheep!

Please watch this YouTube video by Sabine Hossenfelder, and think about whether it applies to climate science. — Agree-to-Disagree

It does, but not in the way you think. Rather, the institutions, academic and governmental, downplay and even outright reject the more pessimistic papers and predictions, despite their having been proven accurate. Thus it is the voices I post here and below, that are marginalised and ignored in favour of more reassuring IPPC positions that everything can be sorted out in a few decades time.

China is currently considered to be the world leader in
- electric vehicles (EVs)
- solar energy
- wind power
- renewable energy

Being an alarmist, I was shocked to find this video on YouTube. In case you don't want to watch the video I will quote some of the content. Remember, China is currently considered to be the world leader in electric vehicles (EVs), solar energy, wind power, and renewable energy.

China’s Too Hot, No Power! 750,000 EV Owners Suffer, Queuing 10 Hours, Can’t Charge
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HRx6Q9f-2Is&list=WL&index=4

This is from denier number 1
When I got here I thought at least a few charges would work. There are cars plugged in with no one inside them, but the charges aren't even working. What are they doing? They're waiting for midnight
when the power comes back so they can charge without waiting in line.

This is the most anxious that I've ever felt since driving an EV. It's not that I can't find a charging station. It's not about waiting for a charger. There are chargers here, but no electricity. I've only got a little bit of battery left. With so many electric cars on the road now, do you think these power restrictions are reasonable? At the second charging station there's still a power restriction. Can we charge at all? What time will the power be back on? Midnight. It's been like this everywhere in Chengdu lately. So there's no power at all.

Recently the Sichuan meteorological Observatory has issued several high temperature warnings with temperatures exceeding 40° C across the province. The extreme heat has caused tight electricity supplies leading to power restrictions in cities like Chengdu and Chongqing. This has affected Industrial and Commercial sectors, including the use of electric vehicle charging stations. As a result 750,000 new energy vehicle owners are facing difficulties charging their cars. Many have reported that electric vehicle
charging stations in Chengdu can't be used during the day and only become available late at night.

One ride hailing driver, using the alias Zang Way, shared his experience. He hadn't been
home for two days. On one night he started queuing around 9:00 p.m. and finally managed to charge his car at around 6:00 a.m., after waiting for nearly 10 hours. Zang explained that the regulation of public charging stations in Chengdu started around August 20th. At first he wasn't aware of the situation and went to queue at 5:00 a.m. as usual but by 8:00 a.m. the charging station had run out of power. With almost no battery left he had to stop at the charging station, missing an entire day of work. Since then he's been stuck in a routine of driving during the day and queuing for charging at night. He recalled one night when more than than 60 vehicles were lined up at a public charging station, stretching nearly a kilometer. Although the station had 36 chargers, only half were working due to power restrictions. It took about an hour for each car to charge meaning the entire queue would take four to 5 hours to clear. This isn't the first time Chengdu has experienced power restrictions. In 2022 high temperatures and drought led to widespread power cuts. The situation wasn't limited to Chengdu. Many cities across Central and western China face similar power issues. In 2023 several regions in China dealt with power cuts again and new energy vehicle owners will have to keep struggling. Sichuan's frequent summer power restrictions pose a big challenge for charging infrastructure. New energy vehicles heavily rely on this infrastructure which hasn't yet fully developed in Chengdu.

This is from denier number 2
As someone who's been driving electric cars for 5 years, let me tell you that I'll never buy an electric car again. My EV has a range of 420 km in theory, but only 200 km in reality, and only 150 km on the highway. Even an EV with a 600 km range only gives you just around 260 to 270 km, and that's when there's no traffic. If you get stuck in traffic, factoring in the towing fee and the time wasted, you do the math. Don't believe the hype that electricity is cheaper than gas. That's all nonsense that China has been pushing. The electric vehicle industry is offering subsidies and incentives, yet many people still choose to buy gasoline cars. Why is that?

Since the climate change threads are allowed to become a cesspool of denial and misinformation, I’m no longer posting on them— I’ve moved any serious discussion to private group chat. Feel free to message to join if you haven’t been invited already. :up:

Since the climate change threads are allowed to become a cesspool of denial and misinformation, I’m no longer posting on them— I’ve moved any serious discussion to private group chat. Feel free to message to join if you haven’t been invited already. :up: — Mikie

I still don’t understand why the mods let evangelists keep infecting the lounge. I understand it’s more lose in there compared to the proper philosophical pages, but if there’s no moderation at all it just becomes infested with posters who are only here for the purpose of evangelical propaganda for their disinformation rants. They just infect every topic so there’s no point in any discussion.

Forum rules state

Types of posters who are not welcome here:

Evangelists: Those who must convince everyone that their religion, ideology, political persuasion, or philosophical theory is the only one worth having.

If someone is having an unpopular stance that’s fine, as long as they take as much care in their arguments as everyone else. But this constant spams of bullshit everywhere just makes the lounge impossible to be in.

Shouldn’t there be at least some minor standards? Where obvious evangelists and spammers get banned even from the lounge? If someone is a member here to clearly only post in a single thread over and over, that shouldn’t be allowed. That’s not what this site is about. These are spammers.

:100:

But having been a moderator myself, I can sympathize — you can’t be everywhere at once. I think perhaps most mods also have a different opinion on climate change. It’s fine— I’ll just discuss this particular topic privately and on other websites.

I’ll just discuss this particular topic privately and on other websites. — Mikie

That is called "burying your head in the sand". If that is what you want to do then good luck to you.

Forum rules state

Types of posters who are not welcome here:

Evangelists: Those who must convince everyone that their religion, ideology, political persuasion, or philosophical theory is the only one worth having. — Christoffer

Climate change alarmism meets this definition of evangelism.

Climate change alarmism meets this definition of evangelism. — Agree-to-Disagree

You are basically only on this forum to spread disinformation about climate science. You basically interact with no other thread or category other than spam threads which focus on climate change and climate science.

I don't think anyone fit the category of forum rules against evangelism better than you do. Your only defense is that mods don't seem to care about topics in the lounge.

But I would argue that if a member is only ever posting on one subject, over and over, to the point of the creator of the thread having to change the title and intention of the thread to reflect your hijacking of it, that would warrant mods to take action.

I think perhaps most mods also have a different opinion on climate change. — Mikie

Are you saying many mods are climate science deniers and effectively won't ban evangelists of climate science denial because of this? I sincerely hope not.

This post was deleted to add new content. It will be reposted below.

@Mikie

You are basically only on this forum to spread disinformation about climate science. — Christoffer

You are an evangelist if you think that there is no disagreement about anything to do with climate change. I don't deny that climate change is happening. A lot of my posts are about whether the proposed solutions to climate change will work.

Are you saying many mods are climate science deniers and effectively won't ban evangelists of climate science denial because of this? I sincerely hope not. — Christoffer

I think that the mods can see that I am not denying climate change. Mikie is getting the titles of threads changed to suit his agenda. This is a dishonest thing to do. I will be creating a new thread to discuss whether changing the titles of threads is dishonest and unethical and a form of censorship.

You are an evangelist if you think that there is no disagreement about anything to do with climate change. — Agree-to-Disagree

Disagreement does not equal scientific data and research being wrong. There are lots of uneducated and low intelligence people who disagree with facts all the time, which leads to "the existence of disagreement", but that doesn't make the uneducated and stupid in the right about anything. Such an idea is just an attempt at manipulating the debate. There are tons of people who believe in flat earth and who would use the same type of argument in an attempt to validate their stance.

A lot of my posts are about whether the proposed solutions to climate change will work. — Agree-to-Disagree

A random sample quote from you:

What proof do you have that the current temperature is not just a "normal" temperature for an interglacial? — Agree-to-Disagree

That's not something someone who agrees with the science would say. It's something that climate science deniers usually says; a rhetoric aimed to bait a non-scientist to get lost in evidence data that requires the knowledge of climate scientists. It's a rhetoric that works against everyone but climate scientists who can provide and answer due to their deeper knowledge of the subject. Because it doesn't matter if the actual evidence is provided; the interlocutors do not know how to interconnect specific data with the holistic understanding of the subject and through that the denier claims victory without actually having won any argument. These rhetorical strategies are dishonest and hollow, and for anyone observant of such behavior, a clear indicator of who the person is and what they attempt to accomplish.

Mikie is getting the titles of threads changed to suit his agenda. — Agree-to-Disagree

What agenda?

I will be creating a new thread to discuss whether changing the titles of threads is dishonest and unethical and a form of censorship. — Agree-to-Disagree

He started a thread that has been hijacked by climate science deniers to the point an actual discourse is impossible. For you to call that unethical, one can turn it around and ask if it's ethical to spam a thread to the point the OP gives up on even trying to continue it. Who are you to place yourself on a moral high ground like that? Isn't that rather delusional and arrogant?

And a further point, the destructive use of censorship is something done by official institutions and governments. It is not applicable to other individuals, especially not within a construct they've created. If they create a place of discussion about something and someone doesn't follow the intention of that space, it is not censorship to silence those who disrupts things for the people there. This use of the concept of censorship in your rhetoric is another form of dishonest manipulative rhetoric aimed at painting your opposition as dishonest. You attempt to bootstrap yourself to a higher moral ground. But as always, it's obvious to anyone who's ever been involved in online debates. It's also rather clumsy to attempt to use that rhetoric when the entire right-wing culture at the moment have proved just how dysfunctional that rhetoric is by Musk's treatment of the concept of censorship on X. It should be obvious to all nowadays that the idea of censorship and free speech by certain people in society follows that trend of claiming to be arguing for free speech and opposing censorship, while then trying to control the flow of communication to align with their own ideology.

In that regard, it would also be a form of censorship to spam a discussion so much that people can't have a proper discussion anymore. I would argue that this form of rhetoric is a hidden form of silencing people far more than the people trying to govern discourse manners - A rhetoric in the same operation as DoS attacks towards websites. This type of DoS rhetoric functions in the same "denial of service" way, pushing so much noise into discussions that it becomes impossible for honest interlocutors to have a proper discussion. Essentially drowning out the flow off discussion with the noise of bullshit.

So I would be careful lecturing others on unethical behavior like you want to attempt.

Are you saying many mods are climate science deniers and effectively won't ban evangelists of climate science denial because of this? I sincerely hope not. — Christoffer

No I don’t think so— I meant they take climate change as more nuanced and legitimate thing to debate than, say, Holocaust history. I don’t really view it that way, but it’s not my forum. I’ve said my piece already, and I leave it to others to decide.

As far as the threads go— I created it years ago, and it basically devolved into a receptacle for denialist spam. So since I created it, I can also change it. If someone else wants to create another climate change thread, they’re welcome to. But until it’s better moderated, I see no point in continuing.

A random sample quote from you:

What proof do you have that the current temperature is not just a "normal" temperature for an interglacial?
— Agree-to-Disagree

That's not something someone who agrees with the science would say. — Christoffer

It is interesting that you took that quote from me out of context. The whole quote says:

The earth seems to have 2 states, glacial and interglacial, and it regularly moves between the 2 states. We are currently in an interglacial and the current temperature is lower than the previous 3 interglacials. The current very high CO2 level has not increased the temperature above the temperature of a "normal" interglacial.

What proof do you have that the current temperature is not just a "normal" temperature for an interglacial? — Agree-to-Disagree

Are YOU being a science denier? Do you deny these scientific facts:

- The earth seems to have 2 states, glacial and interglacial
- it regularly moves between the 2 states
- We are currently in an interglacial
- the current temperature is lower than the previous 3 interglacials
- The current very high CO2 level has not increased the temperature above the temperature of a "normal" interglacial

Do you admit that you are a science denier?

Here is the evidence that I posted in a separate post to support my statements. It is from a scientific source.

Where people can debate whether the sky is blue. — Mikie

Mikie. Do you remember the first post that you made after creating this thread.

You seem to be inviting "blue sky deniers" to post on the thread. :rofl:

Your attempt of bait-rhetorics won't work. You're only on this forum to DoS climate debates. As long as mods tolerate this, there won't be any good discussions on the topic. You win, or whatever the fuck you attempt to do.

Your attempt of bait-rhetorics won't work. — Christoffer

So you ARE a science denier.

I presented you with scientific evidence and you dismissed it as bait-rhetorics.

Why didn't you comment on the evidence rather than try to hide?

As far as the threads go— I created it years ago, and it basically devolved into a receptacle for denialist spam. So since I created it, I can also change it — Mikie

Mikie. That thread has been in existence for 4 years and contains 3.9K posts. Hundreds of people have posted on this thread knowing that the thread title was "Climate change (general discussion)". You are disrespecting all of the people who have posted on this thread by changing the title to "Science denial".

What you have done is dishonest and unethical and a form of censorship.

Just because you created a thread doesn't mean that you own it. Once created the thread belongs to The Philosophy Forum.

I think that the MODS should look at what you are doing !!!

Do what I do: put idiots on the ignore list. You don’t see anything they post. Then they can talk to themselves. In the meantime, I suggest private correspondence or Reddit.

Here is a really good argument. Climate science is wrong because we cannot stop it.

I don't think anyone fit the category of forum rules against evangelism better than you do. — Christoffer

Mikie does. Patently.

Lol — risible guy is still triggered about something. Love it. Just nice to know that no one gives a shit about his idiotic Tweets.

And there we are.

Yes, there we are: a triggered little puke following me around crying about how awful I am.

Cry more, little girl. It’s risible to me.

Here is a really good argument. Climate science is wrong because we cannot stop it. — unenlightened

Sometimes I wonder what your comprehension level is. As usual you have totally misrepresented this video.

The person talking in this video is Michael Kelly, professor emeritus of technology at the University of Cambridge. Kelly was a government scientist when the Climate Change Act launched in 2008, and has been researching the reduction of carbon in Britain since then.

Nowhere in the entire video does he say that climate science is wrong.

He talks about how we don't have the money, the workforce, or the materials, to achieve Net Zero.

Why don't you watch the video before jumping to incorrect conclusions?