[Extreme4x4]

The cheering for Russia is a bit misplaced. Russia is primarily an extraction-based economy. It sells oil and gas to the rest of the World. It provides other goods and services, but I won't go into those here. I digress. Following its invasion of Ukraine, Russia's customers placed a partial but growing boycott on its primary products. This has had major negative impact on the Russian economy. In response, now Russia wants to further restrict the sales of its primary products to its primary customers.

Yes, Germany has aggressive plans to go green. Switching from gas to coal for its fossil fuel-powered electricity generation plants is a hiccup in its plans. However, I doubt that the average German citizen will know the difference. Unlike 80 years ago, Germany has a lot of friends and allies today. It has a number of options for replacing the gas that it no longer receives from Russia. Unlike 80 years ago, Russia has few friends and allies. What is it going to do with the gas that it does not sell to Germany?

Russia will sell as much as China wants, to China and other countries that either don't care about Ukraine, or pretend to care. The West gets hurt, the Russian people get hurt (not the oligarchs), and the Ruble soars.

There are no easy answers here, and feel good policies solve nothing. Never have and never will.

The climate has always changed, and always will. There have been times in the past with much worse, and more frequent weather events, and times with less. This is more tied to solar flare activity than anything else. Are our emissions good, no. Pollution is never good. However, as I have said before, but expanded upon.............. the entire Western world could go back to caves and dragging knuckles and it wouldn't make one bit of difference.

Working on new technologies is what we have always done. Trying to shove it down our throats before it is fully baked, and being willing to sacrifice the quality of life for a huge amount of Americans is a political thing............. and a money thing. It has always been about money and control, and fear works.

 

[MisterMe]

Russia will sell as much as China wants, to China and other countries that either don't care about Ukraine, or pretend to care. The West gets hurt, the Russian people get hurt (not the oligarchs), and the Ruble soars.

There are no easy answers here, and feel good policies solve nothing. Never have and never will.

Keep hoping.

 

[mbukukanyau]

Russia will sell as much as China wants, to China and other countries that either don't care about Ukraine, or pretend to care. The West gets hurt, the Russian people get hurt (not the oligarchs), and the Ruble soars.

There are no easy answers here, and feel good policies solve nothing. Never have and never will.

The climate has always changed, and always will. There have been times in the past with much worse, and more frequent weather events, and times with less. This is more tied to solar flare activity than anything else. Are our emissions good, no. Pollution is never good. However, as I have said before, but expanded upon.............. the entire Western world could go back to caves and dragging knuckles and it wouldn't make one bit of difference.

Working on new technologies is what we have always done. Trying to shove it down our throats before it is fully baked, and being willing to sacrifice the quality of life for a huge amount of Americans is a political thing............. and a money thing. It has always been about money and control, and fear works.

You know, they behave like donkeys were regislated off our roads with car mandates and tax incentives

 

[Ed753]

I ran across this the other day, makes you think.....

 

[MisterMe]

I ran across this the other day, makes you think.....

View attachment 66517

I guess it makes you think if you're not used to thinking. For those who are used to thinking, the graph is easy to understand. The graph shows that EV sales have increased exponentially since 2010. As of 2021, EV sales represent 89% of new car sales. The silly comment that "fuel demand has not declined much" appears to be based is a logical fallacy. Just because a new car is purchased does not mean that it replaces an old car in the installed based. Over time, most older cars are retired by a number of methods. However, the process is not instantaneous. A few older cars will leave the installed based quickly. Some will leave in a few years. Others will leave in a few decades. A precious few will be around for more than a century.

That's one thing. The silly comment has another problem. "Not declined much" is a pejorative. Where the person who constructed the graph sees a small decline in fuel use, I see a significant decline. It is worth noting that the graph shows that monthly fuel demand has a periodic variation. This applies to both motor gasoline deliveries and to motor diesel deliveries. The troughs of monthly deliveries appear to have the lowest random variation, so it is the troughs that I inspected. In 2010, the trough of gasoline deliveries was about 110 MI. Over the intervening eleven years until 2021, the trough of gasoline deliveries had declined to about 70 MI. On a percentage basis, this represents a decline in deliveries of gasoline of roughly 36%.

One cannot but notice that diesel deliveries have changed very little. The reason is obvious. Very few diesel engines have been replaced by electric motors.

The real news here is the decline in gasoline deliveries. Your source may call the decline of about 35% "not much." He may call it "banana" if that floats his boat. However, I am willing to be dollars to donuts that most people think that a drop of about 35% demand after an 11-year transition to EV is significant.

 

[mbukukanyau]

I ran across this the other day, makes you think.....

View attachment 66517

Not if Fuhrer Schwab has anything to say about it

 

[NHRATA01]

I ran across this the other day, makes you think.....

View attachment 66517

Makes you think?

Here's what it makes me thinnk.

1. The creator of the graph is trying to sway the audience by the title.

2. The title itself ignores the data the chart presents. You can clearly send a declining trend in gasoline consumption. Remove diesel from the data, and it would be more apparent. In fact, I'll do it myself. Here's annual consumption of gasoline in kbpd:

2013 through 2020 translates into a 25% reduction.

 

[CaptainDan]

Makes you think?

Here's what it makes me thinnk.

1. The creator of the graph is trying to sway the audience by the title.

2. The title itself ignores the data the chart presents. You can clearly send a declining trend in gasoline consumption. Remove diesel from the data, and it would be more apparent. In fact, I'll do it myself. Here's annual consumption of gasoline in kbpd:

2013 through 2020 translates into a 25% reduction.

I agree with you, but your bar chart is of the typical exaggerated style, wherein the bottom line of the graph isn't zero.
(Does your leftmost bar LOOK like it's only 25% higher than the rightmost bar?) it looks like your bottom line is set to a value of 16.50

 

[Neanderthal]

I agree with you, but your bar chart is of the typical exaggerated style, wherein the bottom line of the graph isn't zero.
(Does your leftmost bar LOOK like it's only 25% higher than the rightmost bar?) it looks like your bottom line is set to a value of 16.50

Unfair! Calling out a psyop is just not kosher. I'm reporting you to Roy Rogers.

 

[Ed753]

I guess it makes you think if you're not used to thinking. For those who are used to thinking, the graph is easy to understand. The graph shows that EV sales have increased exponentially since 2010. As of 2021, EV sales represent 89% of new car sales. The silly comment that "fuel demand has not declined much" appears to be based is a logical fallacy. Just because a new car is purchased does not mean that it replaces an old car in the installed based. Over time, most older cars are retired by a number of methods. However, the process is not instantaneous. A few older cars will leave the installed based quickly. Some will leave in a few years. Others will leave in a few decades. A precious few will be around for more than a century.

That's one thing. The silly comment has another problem. "Not declined much" is a pejorative. Where the person who constructed the graph sees a small decline in fuel use, I see a significant decline. It is worth noting that the graph shows that monthly fuel demand has a periodic variation. This applies to both motor gasoline deliveries and to motor diesel deliveries. The troughs of monthly deliveries appear to have the lowest random variation, so it is the troughs that I inspected. In 2010, the trough of gasoline deliveries was about 110 MI. Over the intervening eleven years until 2021, the trough of gasoline deliveries had declined to about 70 MI. On a percentage basis, this represents a decline in deliveries of gasoline of roughly 36%.

One cannot but notice that diesel deliveries have changed very little. The reason is obvious. Very few diesel engines have been replaced by electric motors.

The real news here is the decline in gasoline deliveries. Your source may call the decline of about 35% "not much." He may call it "banana" if that floats his boat. However, I am willing to be dollars to donuts that most people think that a drop of about 35% demand after an 11-year transition to EV is significant.

I'm not a thinking man, but if I was, I'd say it sure made you think a lot................

Makes you think?

Here's what it makes me thinnk.

1. The creator of the graph is trying to sway the audience by the title.

2. The title itself ignores the data the chart presents. You can clearly send a declining trend in gasoline consumption. Remove diesel from the data, and it would be more apparent. In fact, I'll do it myself. Here's annual consumption of gasoline in kbpd:

2013 through 2020 translates into a 25% reduction.

Welcome to the "non-thinking" thinking club!

 

[NHRATA01]

I agree with you, but your bar chart is of the typical exaggerated style, wherein the bottom line of the graph isn't zero.
(Does your leftmost bar LOOK like it's only 25% higher than the rightmost bar?) it looks like your bottom line is set to a value of 16.50

They set the Y axis to cover the full scale of the data at least. They also clearly indicate the bar values making it pretty simple to calculate the % reduction. That's at least a little better than having the y-axis values skewed by a data set with a magnitude 4x higher and zero change, in an attempt to obfuscate useful data in a dataset of a lower magnitude.

I can't take credit for it, have to blame chartists of the website I should have linked and properly credited, theglobaleconomy.com.

 

[NHRATA01]

Unfair! Calling out a psyop is just not kosher. I'm reporting you to Roy Rogers.

Hey look, a boomer who never took statistics!

 

[CaptainDan]

They set the Y axis to cover the full scale of the data at least. They also clearly indicate the bar values making it pretty simple to calculate the % reduction. That's at least a little better than having the y-axis values skewed by a data set with a magnitude 4x higher and zero change, in an attempt to obfuscate useful data in a dataset of a lower magnitude.

I can't take credit for it, have to blame chartists of the website I should have linked and properly credited, theglobaleconomy.com.

It's called "exaggerated style" because it is. It is used to zoom in on little detail changes. But in general, for those not doing the detailed math, it LOOKS like a much bigger difference than it is.

Throw in the different scales (percent of sales and number of sales) used on different graphs overlaid on each other

And the first graph (which overlaid the "uninvolved" Diesel portion) they added an extra layer of confusion. Which is all intentional, since they talked about it as, "See, no difference!" Once you strip away the extra confusion layers, and look at the actual math, we have discovered, yes difference.

 

[Ed753]

Same Data:

 

[CaptainDan]

Same Data:
View attachment 66529

Yes, that's what I was saying!

Thank you.

 

[Ed753]

Yes, that's what I was saying!

Thank you.

Now if I wanted to make a chart to manipulate one's mind, I would have made it like this.....

 

[AWHoden]

View attachment 66502

Misrepresentative. That article was about a specific town in the Arctic Circle (Spitzbergen, Norway) NOT about the entire world. Sigh.

Snopes: Warm Welcome

Wayback Machine article referenced in the Snopes.com link.

 

[Neanderthal]

Back to Germany firing up coal plants: I wish I could say it's amazing that the Krauts have forgotten the reasons for NATO and to a lesser extent the EU which looks more and more like a joke. No, EU is NOT the USA but with a bunch of different languages and cultures and concepts of what The Threat is.

Decades of Pax American have turned the Euros, and all US "liberals" as well, into marshmallow-brained money addicts. Most of the upper echelons of these Euro nations should be given psych evaluations because they don't live in sort any real world. And putting an East German mole into the top job in your country for 16 years. GREAT IDEA! Again, what could possibly go wrong?

1. Your Number One Threat is the Soviets. OK, call them the Rooskies, same people different decade. And vastly different capabilities, obviously.
2. Hey! Let's get most of our energy needs from our #1 Designated NATO Enemy, Ivan! What could possibly go wrong?

Rilly. Are there any grownups left at top leadership in Euro, other than in the smaller nations who are still well aware of the Russian Bear and his carnivorous ways?

Decades of softening and peace and prosperity, and the old USSR could walk in in a week, most likely. And be at the Atlantic, repeating what the Germans did to the French and Belgians not so terribly long ago. When I was stationed in Germany in the '70s, it was not a given at all that we could stop Ivan coming through the Fulda Gap, and various other entries into Europe. The German armed forces then were pretty badass, but mass and numbers can often decide the battle. OTOH look at Israel. Or Ukraine. Or Japan in WWII.

But depending on your mortal enemy for strategic energy supplies? Someone needs a straight jacket and suicide watch. Meanwhile let's Roll Some Coal. Unfortunately this Big Buford appears to be a true rectal cavity:
Go to :42 to skip the BS:

 

[Mr.Buttons]

Back to Germany firing up coal plants: I wish I could say it's amazing that the Krauts have forgotten the reasons for NATO and to a lesser extent the EU which looks more and more like a joke. No, EU is NOT the USA but with a bunch of different languages and cultures and concepts of what The Threat is.

Decades of Pax American have turned the Euros, and all US "liberals" as well, into marshmallow-brained money addicts. Most of the upper echelons of these Euro nations should be given psych evaluations because they don't live in sort any real world. And putting an East German mole into the top job in your country for 16 years. GREAT IDEA! Again, what could possibly go wrong?

1. Your Number One Threat is the Soviets. OK, call them the Rooskies, same people different decade. And vastly different capabilities, obviously.
2. Hey! Let's get most of our energy needs from our #1 Designated NATO Enemy, Ivan! What could possibly go wrong?

Rilly. Are there any grownups left at top leadership in Euro, other than in the smaller nations who are still well aware of the Russian Bear and his carnivorous ways?

Decades of softening and peace and prosperity, and the old USSR could walk in in a week, most likely. And be at the Atlantic, repeating what the Germans did to the French and Belgians not so terribly long ago. When I was stationed in Germany in the '70s, it was not a given at all that we could stop Ivan coming through the Fulda Gap, and various other entries into Europe. The German armed forces then were pretty badass, but mass and numbers can often decide the battle. OTOH look at Israel. Or Ukraine. Or Japan in WWII.

But depending on your mortal enemy for strategic energy supplies? Someone needs a straight jacket and suicide watch. Meanwhile let's Roll Some Coal. Unfortunately this Big Buford appears to be a true rectal cavity:
Go to :42 to skip the BS:

This video is full of idiots, from the Truck Bro, to the faux outraged dolts recording and "reporting" this because idiot 1 got smoke on dumbass' 2 car.

Kudos to the old man for breaking up these two road raging instigator/instigatee/provoker lightweights...Of course it didn't last long, as soon as the old man got them to stop their mating dance in the parking lot they went right back to locking their *****es together for supreme dominance over the other.

 

[AWHoden]

This video is full of idiots, from the Truck Bro, to the faux outraged dolts recording and "reporting" this because idiot 1 got smoke on dumbass' 2 car.

Kudos to the old man for breaking up these two road raging instigator/instigatee/provoker lightweights...

Huh?