Jump to content


No Lunar New Year special?


  • Please log in to reply
55 replies to this topic

Puggsley #21 Posted 22 January 2020 - 01:28 PM

    Major

  • Member
  • 75882 battles
  • 2,151
  • [FIDDY] FIDDY
  • Member since:
    04-03-2014

They cop plenty of flak from people who already benefit hugely from low cost and reliable electricity, but who love to virtue signal and are unable to read a graph showing forecast vs actual.

 

But not from the 2 billion people who have no access to electricity. They just want low cost and reliable power.



Ezz #22 Posted 22 January 2020 - 01:33 PM

    How many flipping posts do I need to get past Major?

  • Beta-Tester
  • 73775 battles
  • 36,882
  • [PBKAC] PBKAC
  • Member since:
    07-17-2012
And the problem is if 'low cost and reliable' continues to mean something that is going to screw the planet then we all suffer. Regardless of how we charge our tablets.

Who the [edited] are you? Get Spoofed! "wouldn't be a proper WG balance change if they didn't [edited] something up after all "

>9000 cynicism brought to you by P2W, RIP Balance and the Cartoon Connection

R. Pubbie: "why are all PBKAC players so rude, arrogant and nasty? and why do Mods favor them?"


Puggsley #23 Posted 22 January 2020 - 02:59 PM

    Major

  • Member
  • 75882 battles
  • 2,151
  • [FIDDY] FIDDY
  • Member since:
    04-03-2014

I like models to be reasonably accurate in terms of prediction (sign and magnitude) before I want to use them to provide guidance for important decisions. And we ain't anything like that, not even in the same galaxy, as far as understanding the impact of CO2 on climate.  

 

Its like when I go offshore paddling. We'll use a forecast to decide if its ok to go or not. But on the drive out and during the paddle I am constantly checking if the actual weather is playing along. I'm in the real world, not model land. When the actual results diverge from that the model suggests, I don't believe the model. Its no longer useful to use to make important decisions. We will use experience etc to decide what is the best course of action. 

 

What we/I don't do is say "Oh the forecast said nor easterly 2m swells with the smaller set being south easterly at 1m, and gentle winds. The swells are pretty much that but its really windy and choppy. Its ok to be out here because the forecast said so. Lets ignore the actual wind and rely on the model."   

 

I'd be a drowneded Puggs!



MagicalFlyingFox #24 Posted 22 January 2020 - 07:45 PM

    Destroyer of Tier 6 CW

  • Beta-Tester
  • 35461 battles
  • 13,828
  • [ATLUS] ATLUS
  • Member since:
    10-03-2012

View PostPuggsley, on 22 January 2020 - 04:13 PM, said:

No need, its already a fabulous money maker. 

 

And to be honest if people around the world are going to use it, I'd rather they use the better quality stuff we have

 

And on a personal front its better from here or I will need to be plying my trade a lot more frequently overseas. The value of our exported mining expertise is already larger than the export wine industry, could be huger!

Straight outta the handbook.

 

 

If we stop digging it up, its going to cost more because there is less of it. If it costs more, it will become (even more) uneconomical.

 


Its already becoming uneconomical to run fossil fuels. We should have invested heavily in and become the word leader in photovoltaics -  which we were, some 10 years ago before the current mob had their uninterrupted run.

 

Economically it made sense to, let alone the 'ifs and buts' of the 'models'.

 

View PostPuggsley, on 22 January 2020 - 05:59 PM, said:

I like models to be reasonably accurate in terms of prediction (sign and magnitude) before I want to use them to provide guidance for important decisions. And we ain't anything like that, not even in the same galaxy, as far as understanding the impact of CO2 on climate.  

 

Its like when I go offshore paddling. We'll use a forecast to decide if its ok to go or not. But on the drive out and during the paddle I am constantly checking if the actual weather is playing along. I'm in the real world, not model land. When the actual results diverge from that the model suggests, I don't believe the model. Its no longer useful to use to make important decisions. We will use experience etc to decide what is the best course of action. 

 

What we/I don't do is say "Oh the forecast said nor easterly 2m swells with the smaller set being south easterly at 1m, and gentle winds. The swells are pretty much that but its really windy and choppy. Its ok to be out here because the forecast said so. Lets ignore the actual wind and rely on the model."   

 

I'd be a drowneded Puggs!


There is a lot to unpack here that I'm not going to because to drive my point, I dont need to.

 

Already collected data is all we need to know that what we are doing is not sustainable. The accuracy of the models does not matter when anyone can tell that it is going to get worse.


Edited by MagicalFlyingFox, 22 January 2020 - 07:45 PM.

http://www.theuselessweb.com/

 A. Guy on 02 June 2018 - 12:40 AM, said:

Destroyer of Tier 6 CW... says it all about you.


Ezz #25 Posted 22 January 2020 - 08:03 PM

    How many flipping posts do I need to get past Major?

  • Beta-Tester
  • 73775 battles
  • 36,882
  • [PBKAC] PBKAC
  • Member since:
    07-17-2012

If only the deniers invested more in finding low cost and reliable energy that doesn't screw the earth instead of obfuscation of established science.

 

Makes you wonder why if coal wasn't dirty they needed to call something clean.


Edited by Ezz, 22 January 2020 - 08:04 PM.

Who the [edited] are you? Get Spoofed! "wouldn't be a proper WG balance change if they didn't [edited] something up after all "

>9000 cynicism brought to you by P2W, RIP Balance and the Cartoon Connection

R. Pubbie: "why are all PBKAC players so rude, arrogant and nasty? and why do Mods favor them?"


Puggsley #26 Posted 23 January 2020 - 09:43 AM

    Major

  • Member
  • 75882 battles
  • 2,151
  • [FIDDY] FIDDY
  • Member since:
    04-03-2014

View PostMagicalFlyingFox, on 22 January 2020 - 09:45 PM, said:

Straight outta the handbook.

 

 

If we stop digging it up, its going to cost more because there is less of it. If it costs more, it will become (even more) uneconomical.

 


Its already becoming uneconomical to run fossil fuels. We should have invested heavily in and become the word leader in photovoltaics -  which we were, some 10 years ago before the current mob had their uninterrupted run.

 

Economically it made sense to, let alone the 'ifs and buts' of the 'models'.

 


There is a lot to unpack here that I'm not going to because to drive my point, I dont need to.

 

Already collected data is all we need to know that what we are doing is not sustainable. The accuracy of the models does not matter when anyone can tell that it is going to get worse.

 

Lest I intrude with brutal reality, what has actually happened, and will continue to happen, is that the bits of the world which don't have to make any reduction will continue to use the cheapest source of energy. And its not magical unicorn farts which are cheapest.

 

Yes reducing supply does make the price go up, which in the real world encourages people to find ways to mine more coal (or shift to energy which is becomes economic because the overall price has risen). If there was less demand the price would go down, but there is not. Demand is not falling at all because people (I know this is really surprising) want cheap energy. Like getting rid of bots in WoT, making the reward of botting go up will not make the bots go away.

 

I know this will seem ludicrous in fantasical land, but its pretty simple really. 

 

And as its a global commodity, people look all over the world to find suitable deposits. Of which there are plenty. So far most of the coal has been mined from places which are well serviced by transportation or a close to markets. Deposits which are a little further away will move into play.

 

How would we become a world leader in a hugely energy intensive manufacturing process when we decide to make our energy more expensive. Are you relying on magic puddings?? There is a reason why China dominated the manufacturing of PV. Wanna hint? It's cheap energy derived from........... Can you guess? No, its not people pedalling bicycles, or the collective thoughts of truanting schoolchildren. Maybe if we could work out a way to turn hypocrisy into electricity we could be saved by the doomers.

 

I would love to see you unpack it, if you can. You already appear to think that making coal more expensive is not going to have the obvious flow on effect. Your world is stable eh? Must be frustrating to live in the real dynamic one.

 

Its the laziest and most laughable method of debating to make a statement like "I don't need to". I'd love to see how you make the logical leaps required to think that models which only ever run hot and have a huge spread of forecasts (I thought the science was settled - not in the models apparently) should be relied on to develop policy.

 

Are you the sort of person who, after a year of daily forecasts of heavy rain, and the actual weather being a year of a slight mist, still believes that its going to be heavy rain based on the forecast? Is the fact that there was some precipitation good enough for you?

 

After years of saying that "tank X will not be sold again" and WG repeatedly selling it again, you still continue to believe that Tank X will not be sold again.

 

Beg to differ. The amount of warming is critical if we are going to decide how much money to spend on solving/mitigating the problem. Its important because the ordinary people have shown incredible reluctance to spend even a small amount of money to fight climate change. And we have seen political parties around the world not voted into power when they campaign on radical environmental policies to combat CAGW. Ordinary people need to be convinced with reliable science, not yelled at.

 

To be honest the continued approach of yelling at people who ask the obvious questions is the one thing which pretty much guarantees that ordinary voters continue to reject extreme climate policies. If the obvious issues were addressed it would be much easier to implement climate policies because the predictions would be a lot more realistic, albeit the forecast amount of warming would be a lot lower.

 

Its going to get a lot worse because the CMIP6 models have increased the Total Climate Sensitivity to 4.5 (up from 3.2 in CMIP5), when the number which makes the models kind of replicate the actual observations is 1.5. The models will run even hotter for the next round.  

 

 

 



MagicalFlyingFox #27 Posted 23 January 2020 - 10:45 AM

    Destroyer of Tier 6 CW

  • Beta-Tester
  • 35461 battles
  • 13,828
  • [ATLUS] ATLUS
  • Member since:
    10-03-2012

'reliable' science is just [edited]spouted to try to discredit climate science. Talking hasnt worked for decades, the implacts of climate change on agriculture and the environment have already long arrived. Shouting is all that is left. 

 

As is the premise of building a new thermal coal mine - its just not worth it anymore. 

Between social and economic pressure, the world is changing. 

 

Like i said, we were at the forefront of PV. Not in mass production but in the research and development. The patents, the industry, the production doesnt matter so much. Now? We lag behind European countries because the focus from a federal level went away.

 

Comparing an energy economy to premium tanks in WoT is farcicle. Sure, Pay2Win tanks are farcicle as well, but like fossil fuels, continuing to sell them and bring them into the game isn't going to make the game better, it is just going to make the game worse. The bare minimum WG can do to make the game better is to stop doing so but they wont because they value their short term gain over the long term health of the game. 

 

Basing severity off models is pointless when the data already exists to tell you that something big needs to be done and the sooner the better. Scientific concensus is completely different to modelled predictions. The scientific concensus is that its here, it exists, its going to get worse than it already is. 

 

All this inaction about 'oh we need to find out how bad it is going to be before we do anything' is nonesense. Its basically the 'holidaying in Hawaii' response. Wait for it all to burn down, make a token effort and then let the ones that have to live with it pick up the peices after you're gone. 

 

 

 

And with China, sure they dominate the manufacturing of PV. They dominate the manufacturing of everything. Who could have expected that low cost of labour and millions of exploitable people would result in a manufacturing powerhouse. 

 


http://www.theuselessweb.com/

 A. Guy on 02 June 2018 - 12:40 AM, said:

Destroyer of Tier 6 CW... says it all about you.


Ezz #28 Posted 23 January 2020 - 10:49 AM

    How many flipping posts do I need to get past Major?

  • Beta-Tester
  • 73775 battles
  • 36,882
  • [PBKAC] PBKAC
  • Member since:
    07-17-2012
To draw a parallel to the offshore paddling models, the models are saying that it's going to be shit out there offshore and going to get worse, yet government seems happy to continue paddling out there anyway.

Edited by Ezz, 23 January 2020 - 10:49 AM.

Who the [edited] are you? Get Spoofed! "wouldn't be a proper WG balance change if they didn't [edited] something up after all "

>9000 cynicism brought to you by P2W, RIP Balance and the Cartoon Connection

R. Pubbie: "why are all PBKAC players so rude, arrogant and nasty? and why do Mods favor them?"


mttspiii #29 Posted 23 January 2020 - 11:10 AM

    Major

  • Beta-Tester
  • 33795 battles
  • 17,210
  • [PVP] PVP
  • Member since:
    04-15-2012

View PostPuggsley, on 23 January 2020 - 09:43 AM, said:

There is a reason why China dominated the manufacturing of PV. Wanna hint? It's cheap energy derived from........... Can you guess?

 

Millions of underpaid manpower.


I'm fierce and I'm feeling mighty,

I'm a golden girl, I'm an Aphrodite

 

 


Puggsley #30 Posted 23 January 2020 - 02:05 PM

    Major

  • Member
  • 75882 battles
  • 2,151
  • [FIDDY] FIDDY
  • Member since:
    04-03-2014

View Postmttspiii, on 23 January 2020 - 01:10 PM, said:

 

Millions of underpaid manpower.

 

Making PV cells is not hugely labour intensive, and in any case China ran out of peasants quite a while ago and is relatively expensive for labour. They have been outsourcing low paid labour tasks to SE Asia for quite a while now.

 

The world is entering robotic manufacturing where labour costs are becoming a lot less relevant. Reliable and low cost energy locations are where industry will move to. Which is the reason why China has been building a large fleet of new HELE coal plants - short term Western analysts have been talking about low utilisation and how terrible it is without discussing the long term relationship between energy and manufacturing. It doesn' make sense in the 3 month horizon of the West, but when you are talking about multi decade plans makes a fair bit. Its also why China has been aggressively buying up coal projects around the world. 

 

Australia has a huge strategic advantage in low cost and reliable energy sources. We could be a metals processing powerhouse, turning our own ores into metals for use in manufacturing and capturing the value add. Instead we plunge headlong into the most expensive power in the world, where it is so unreliable we have to ask the value adding energy users to "load shed" and wonder why we can only sell raw products and then buy finished goods back.

 

We are about to lose aluminium smelting on the mainland, and instead ship most of our bauxite to Mozambique where that industry is now about 30% of their economy.



Warhammer124 #31 Posted 23 January 2020 - 02:12 PM

    Representative of the anti drama organization

  • Member
  • 24397 battles
  • 116
  • [R4VEN] R4VEN
  • Member since:
    10-18-2012
The least they can do is give us our tankrewards event, wot asia is truly ignored by WG and no one can deny it.
Hippity Hoppity no drama lords on my property 

Puggsley #32 Posted 23 January 2020 - 03:00 PM

    Major

  • Member
  • 75882 battles
  • 2,151
  • [FIDDY] FIDDY
  • Member since:
    04-03-2014

View PostMagicalFlyingFox, on 23 January 2020 - 12:45 PM, said:

'reliable' science is just [edited]spouted to try to discredit climate science. Talking hasnt worked for decades, the implacts of climate change on agriculture and the environment have already long arrived. Shouting is all that is left.  Well the impacts of all that fabulous CO2 fertilisation is totally clear. Agricultural productivity is at record levels. The average calorific intake of people on the planet has never been higher. Whats not to love about that.  Because agricultural productivity is higher we have moved out of farming marginal land and forested areas has grown. The planet is much more green than a couple of decades ago. https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/carbon-dioxide-fertilization-greening-earth

 

As is the premise of building a new thermal coal mine - its just not worth it anymore. Says you, basing it on, well what are you basing it on? Advocates and vested interests telling you that's how it is?

 

I'll base it on the fact that lots of coal projects are currently underway to supply the increasing tonnages required by the large fleet of HELE plants built in the last decade which will run for 50 years. And all the energy reports which you can download and read. Pay particular attention in all those reports about the heroic assumptions about how much money taxpayers will need to hand over to make renewables provide like for like power compared to coal. The political risk of voters not accepting those taxation requirements are discussed in depth. And also note that when they talk about liquid fuels they specifically say that the conversion of coal to liquids is NOT included in the total coal requirements for the next 40 years.

 

Between social and economic pressure, the world is changing. Those two pressures are also resisting any move to really deep cuts to CO2. Voters have consistently shown around the world they don't want it.

 

At elections (the last Australian federal election was specifically spruiked as The Climate Change election where people were given the choice . , and in the choices they make when they have the option to pay additional to help solve CAGW. A couple of percent of people voluntarily pay a few dollars to offset CO2 when they fly. I'll take actual observed actions as a better indicator of how people actually feel than responses to feelgood surveys.

 

Like i said, we were at the forefront of PV. Not in mass production but in the research and development. The patents, the industry, the production doesnt matter so much. Now? We lag behind European countries because the focus from a federal level went away.

 

Comparing an energy economy to premium tanks in WoT is farcicle. It was simply an example to show how it is not such a good idea to rely on prediction which are demonstrably incorrect. If you cannot draw that inference then maybe you are being deliberately obtuse.  Sure, Pay2Win tanks are farcicle as well, but like fossil fuels, continuing to sell them and bring them into the game isn't going to make the game better, it is just going to make the game worse. The bare minimum WG can do to make the game better is to stop doing so but they wont because they value their short term gain over the long term health of the game. 

 

Basing severity off models is pointless when the data already exists to tell you that something big Which data says that? Temps have been increasing since the LIA. We don't know why they warmed after the LIA, we dont know why temp increases from 1940 to 1970 - which are similar magnitude to those over the last few decades - were natural, and the ones now are supposedly due to human emissions, we cannot explain why there have been ice ages at CO2 levels 10 times current levels which the models say is impossible. needs to be done and the sooner the better. Scientific concensus Means nothing, that is not how science works. Politics uses consensus. Science develops hypotheses, tests them, and if the actual observations don't match the models predictions, then the models are thrown out. . is completely different to modelled predictions. How many times do you have to be told that the model predictions are the fundamental basis of telling people that we have to change. Where do you think the predictions of doom come from? That is from the model outputs. Hence the importance of model quality.  

 

The scientific concensus is that its here, it exists, its going to get worse than it already is. And from looking at the models those scientists will also tell you that it is not nearly as bad as the models show. Hell even the IPCC talks about this in the technical papers and see it as a major problem with credibility. 

 

All this inaction about 'oh we need to find out how bad it is going to be before we do anything' is nonesense. Its basically the 'holidaying in Hawaii' response. Wait for it all to burn down, make a token effort and then let the ones that have to live with it pick up the peices after you're gone. That is such bullshit. It is about scientifically examining the models and fixing the problems. This could have been done 2 decades ago but the doomers refused to interact with anyone who asked questions. Anyone who questioned it was immediately labelled a "denier". We could now have quality models which would not be able to be challenged because they would produce easily defendable predictions. We forecast 0.05 degree warming per decade and we actually got 0.06 degree (actual mid tropospheric mid latitude temperature - -satellite data 1996 to 2015). This validates our model and gives us confidence they are able to be used as the basis of policy. Imagine how much authority that would have. 

 

Instead what actually happened was the average of the 58 CMIP5 models for the same period was 0.36 degrees per decade. This is way higher than the actual observed temperatures. When this is pointed out the questioner is screamed at, for the temerity of bringing facts to the party. And we waste more time by "deniers" being easily able to point this huge discrepancy out to ordinary people. People who vote. Vote to reject the shrill calls for immediate and hugely expensive action to avoid the impending catastrophy!

 

"Deniers" can easily point people to data sets which are developed by NOAA and challenge them to find the necessary acceleration of sea level rises. When people see that there has been no acceleration of sea level rise over the last 100 years, its kind of devastating to doomers who tell them its rising faster and faster.

 

Those of us who have training in hard sciences are much less likely to believe in CAGW simply because we would be professionally censured were we to try the Climate Science approach. Elections are decided by swinging voters, who by their very nature are sceptical. You simply lay out your argument to them and tell them to vote based on what they think. The facts don't support the need for immediate and radical action. And they vote accordingly. Pretty simple really. Doomers who scream "denier" at swinging voters who have looked at the data, have lost it the moment they open their mouth.

 

It could have been so different if they had just engaged with people who pointed out the obvious errors and fixed them. Instead they doubled down and wonder why people are now not listening.

 

And with China, sure they dominate the manufacturing of PV. They dominate the manufacturing of everything. Who could have expected that low cost of labour and millions of exploitable people would result in a manufacturing powerhouse. 

 

 



K4BeeTee #33 Posted 23 January 2020 - 09:22 PM

    Corporal

  • Member
  • 14426 battles
  • 39
  • Member since:
    04-05-2016
I remember in the 70's how the doomers were screaming about the coming ice age by 2020 or something. Spock even narrated one....its somewhere on YT....worth a giggle

Ezz #34 Posted 23 January 2020 - 09:25 PM

    How many flipping posts do I need to get past Major?

  • Beta-Tester
  • 73775 battles
  • 36,882
  • [PBKAC] PBKAC
  • Member since:
    07-17-2012
Thank goodness we burnt all that coal right. Ice ages are cold!

Who the [edited] are you? Get Spoofed! "wouldn't be a proper WG balance change if they didn't [edited] something up after all "

>9000 cynicism brought to you by P2W, RIP Balance and the Cartoon Connection

R. Pubbie: "why are all PBKAC players so rude, arrogant and nasty? and why do Mods favor them?"


Vindictus_Maximus #35 Posted 23 January 2020 - 09:37 PM

    Sergeant

  • Member
  • 9404 battles
  • 163
  • [BAMF] BAMF
  • Member since:
    12-16-2017

Theology, be it Christianity, Islam, Climate science, Jedi Lore, Flat Earth theory or any other religious belief -  should all be discussed in the Off Topic thread. Mods please put them back on topic.....

 

 



NameWasStolenStresslevel #36 Posted 23 January 2020 - 09:48 PM

    Captain

  • Member
  • 50019 battles
  • 1,422
  • Member since:
    01-19-2015

what u mean there was no lunar year special? here on HK server we are getting 888 combat xp if we manage to meet certain conditions during battle. 888 xp.

 

ps. Wargaming know asians love to save their gold in the garage and they know that HK players are mostly asians who have lots of gold in their garage and i might be wrong but ANZ players probably are full of people who loves to save bunchs of gold in their garages. So its very likely WG is giving nothing for free so easily. They will be giving our servers "special" in form of things to buy with gold. This way they plan to empty the garages until next year holiday ops so people will be hungry again for loot boxes and then WG will rinse and repeat again next year after next year again and again..

 

Unless of course, i am wrong again. This is just mere speculation.

 

Could be some thing good coming soon, i can smell some marathon coming soon.


Edited by NameWasStolenStresslevel, 23 January 2020 - 09:55 PM.

Having META problems?

 #Hashtag break the META

     (HAHAGHa i must have drank somethin)

             https://worldoftanks.asia/en/hall-of-fame/vehicles/A100_T49/#wot&w_ts=overall&w_nb=500

         Currently Hall of Fame T49's number 1 in WTR!!! (parameters are *battles +500* and *since 2014's* ranking)


kovacs #37 Posted 23 January 2020 - 10:05 PM

    Corporal

  • Beta-Tester
  • 25892 battles
  • 95
  • Member since:
    07-15-2012
.

Edited by kovacs, 11 May 2020 - 10:17 PM.


MagicalFlyingFox #38 Posted 23 January 2020 - 11:15 PM

    Destroyer of Tier 6 CW

  • Beta-Tester
  • 35461 battles
  • 13,828
  • [ATLUS] ATLUS
  • Member since:
    10-03-2012

View PostPuggsley, on 23 January 2020 - 06:00 PM, said:

 

Swinging voters listen to the media.

 

There's no point in continuing this coversation, its clear that scientific concensus means nothing apparently. 

 

Evidently those 'scientists' staking their entire reputation on this aren't practising 'hard science' 


http://www.theuselessweb.com/

 A. Guy on 02 June 2018 - 12:40 AM, said:

Destroyer of Tier 6 CW... says it all about you.


MagicalFlyingFox #39 Posted 23 January 2020 - 11:16 PM

    Destroyer of Tier 6 CW

  • Beta-Tester
  • 35461 battles
  • 13,828
  • [ATLUS] ATLUS
  • Member since:
    10-03-2012

View PostWarhammer124, on 23 January 2020 - 05:12 PM, said:

The least they can do is give us our tankrewards event, wot asia is truly ignored by WG and no one can deny it.

WG only care about RU server. Why do you think they delayed the Campaign? 


http://www.theuselessweb.com/

 A. Guy on 02 June 2018 - 12:40 AM, said:

Destroyer of Tier 6 CW... says it all about you.


Vindictus_Maximus #40 Posted 24 January 2020 - 10:09 AM

    Sergeant

  • Member
  • 9404 battles
  • 163
  • [BAMF] BAMF
  • Member since:
    12-16-2017

Seeing the thread is abandoned

 

D5zudRn.jpg

9YR9cmL.jpg






1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users