3 ms·

What concrete numbers would persuade you one way or another? You are probably not going to “just” answer that question, which should illuminate for you why the

What concrete numbers would persuade you one way or another? You are probably not going to “just” answer that question, which should illuminate for you why the only place your brand of skepticism gets air time is among people who have made up their minds about everything. Even though I think you are being sincere, the thing you are advocating for is co-opted by people who are not.

hinkley 2y ago
Companies grow in volume all the time. It’s a common way to vilify companies by ignoring their mix of good and bad and just focus on them doing the same volume of bad, despite doing more volume overall. I already suspected from the headline that’s exactly what they were doing, and they didn’t exceed my low expectations.
- doctorpangloss 2y ago
  I don't know. Something something, "why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye?" This is my feedback to you. All you have to do is say a number that should go into that spot that would be the smallest one that would convince you that the thrust of what they are saying is true. If you're saying there is no number, then I was mistaken for being charitable in my assessment of your sincerity.
  - hinkley 2y ago
    You know this article is casting aspersions right? How hypocritical do you have to be? I’d want to know what their goal was, what their velocity is, and what evidence we have that they intend to sandbag forever instead of just being 18 months behind schedule. This is generally how we’ve berated other fossil fuel giants in the past. So they were aiming for 5% and got 1% with a whole plant nearly done but not running. That could still go either way and there’s 18 months of subsequent data out there somewhere that would tell us which. Without that data there’s no scoop, no story. It’ll be news in January when their reports come out.

hinkley 2y ago

Companies grow in volume all the time. It’s a common way to vilify companies by ignoring their mix of good and bad and just focus on them doing the same volume of bad, despite doing more volume overall. I already suspected from the headline that’s exactly what they were doing, and they didn’t exceed my low expectations.

doctorpangloss 2y ago
I don't know. Something something, "why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye?" This is my feedback to you. All you have to do is say a number that should go into that spot that would be the smallest one that would convince you that the thrust of what they are saying is true. If you're saying there is no number, then I was mistaken for being charitable in my assessment of your sincerity.
- hinkley 2y ago
  You know this article is casting aspersions right? How hypocritical do you have to be? I’d want to know what their goal was, what their velocity is, and what evidence we have that they intend to sandbag forever instead of just being 18 months behind schedule. This is generally how we’ve berated other fossil fuel giants in the past. So they were aiming for 5% and got 1% with a whole plant nearly done but not running. That could still go either way and there’s 18 months of subsequent data out there somewhere that would tell us which. Without that data there’s no scoop, no story. It’ll be news in January when their reports come out.