A very well-made mod and super fun to drive. Modelling and textures that are at the top of what LFS allows. Great sound too. IMHO one of the coolest LFS mods actually (Ok, there are many ).

Quote from rane_nbg :

Well, yes, that is not good. But how about this, are those companies burning all the fossil fuel they produce by themselves? Or are we the users, responsible as well?

Quote from k_badam :

I am guilty of it too.

I would like to return for a moment to this misleading, and fairly generally accepted, notion of collective responsibility for global warming. Because there is a blind spot here.

We owe this perverse notion of responsibility historically to the propaganda of Philip Morris. The international company specializing in tobacco products has continually tried to shift its responsibilities onto consumers. This rhetoric has since been echoed by plastic manufacturers who now claim that the pollution generated by their products is the responsibility of consumers.

It is interesting to note here the blind spot of the English and Dutch versions of Wikipedia on Philip Morris. Here is the text as it appears in French:

(quote from French Wikipedia)
Lobbying activity with French institutions
In September 2013, the company was singled out by the French press for its listing of MEPs, particularly French, with a view to approaching them. Le Parisien notes that “these methods seem very effective” and cites the postponement of examination of a directive whose vote could thus be postponed until after the 2014 elections (26,27).
In October 2014, a report revealed the existence of studies financed by Philip Morris International showing the financial benefits of smoking for the State (28).
(quote end)

I am summarizing the matter for those who cannot know it, since it does not exist in their language.
In 2014 Philip Morris published a scientific report showing that advertising menthol cigarettes aimed at adolescents was economically profitable for states. The scientific explanation was this: Menthol cigarettes generate types of cancer that have little impact during the active life. These patients with these cancers ignore each other a long time. These patients therefore cost nothing to public health systems. These cancers also have the advantage of being rapidly devastating. So workers who have contributed to pension funds all their lives die before receiving their pension. QED.

This is at the kind of cynicism we owe the contemporary notion of collective responsibility for the climate. We must never forget it ! Climate scepticism uses the same codes.

Of course, we can all improve our behaviours. With my wife, we began this shift more than 15 years ago. We eat, we move, we consume differently. Our carbon footprint is certainly much better today. But I still sometime have to take 4 planes in 3 days for my professional needs. The land alternative would force me to travel several thousand kilometres in vehicle and 24 hours by boat.

When I hear Jean-Marc Jancovici say that we should be satisfied with 4 plane trips in our entire life, I am not fooled and I am angry. This nuclear lobbyist, who painted himself green to make the climate cause an extremely lucrative business, has no credibility in this debate.

Faced with the threat of global warming, the elites are protecting themselves. They put in place coercive concepts and devices to try to contain popular anger. Beyond global warming, it is our freedoms that are at stake too. All over the world, political regimes are turning towards autocracy.

Let's not feel guilty beyond reason. We are above all the victims of a mercantile system.

Last edited by Avraham Vandezwin, Thu 26 Oct 2023, 12:28. Reason : bad text formatting

Quote from k_badam :

Container ships are amazingly efficient, the numbers are big so it looks bad but when you consider the amount of stuff that is being moved, it is the best option for transporting goods. The real issue for the climate is not the container ships themselves, but the fact that so many container ships are needed. There is no way that most in the west need to consume as much as they do currently, I am guilty of it too.

Yes, you're right (I gave these figures as an indication for Joe mama1256). Logic would also dictate that it would be better to transport a large quantity of goods on a single recent boat, rather than distributing them among three old floating bins. But all these boats pollute non-stop, from the first day of their commissioning until their dismantling, since they almost never stop.

The question remains of what is being transported. And here, I would like to know too the exact proportion of really useful goods that actually require transport. There is a difference between essential computer components that Westerners do not know how to manufacture and perfectly useless low-end Chinese gadgets that will end up in our trash. We are all guilty. The more the economic system makes us precarious, the more it favors the trade of poor quality goods manufactured on the other side of the planet.

From my point of view, it is easier to rule on large cruise ships which serve no purpose and carry mass tourism which benefits no one. These should be banned from circulation in the name of basic decency.

Quote from Joe mama1256 :

yea, but to make the batterry of the electric car it pollutes soo much, so is it worth it? And they dont talk about big boats which polutes way more than 10 cars.

For the electric car, I have already given my opinion in detail. But for boats, you are very far from the reality.

The container ship Antoine de Saint Exupéry, the last flagship of the merchant navy manufactured by France, emits as much CO2 per kilometer as 3,202 cars.

The Icon of the Seas, scheduled for official launch in 2024, will be the largest cruise ship ever built. 365 m long, 250,000 tonnes, 20 floors high, this boat will carry seven swimming pools, 7,500 passengers and 2,350 crew members... Imagine what it will generate in the way of perfectly useless pollution and what ecological disaster it will cause in its wake ?

And these boats also pollute when they are docked, since their engine works to supply them with electricity. For example, ferry traffic alone in the port of Ajaccio (in southern Corsica) multiplies the city's overall pollution by 40...

Quote from gu3st :

It's as polite as I can make it.

All pedagogy requires a minimum of indulgence.

Quote from paket42x :

Hydrogen combustion engine is a future IMHO.
Well, science is just not ready enough

I also think that the hydrogen combustion engine is a possible future, for a set of reasons.

Technologically, this engine already works perfectly. Since the 1960s, individuals (a bit of a DIY enthusiast ) have been able to adapt ordinary production cars to hydrogen combustion. In the early 2000s, BMW developed a V12 that ran on gasoline and/or hydrogen, as well as other exclusive hydrogen models. Toyota recently developed a very efficient three-cylinder hydrogen engine. Etc.

The problem mainly lies in the production of green hydrogen on a large scale. In my humble opinion, it would have been more relevant and effective, in terms of reducing CO2 emissions, to really study this question, rather than forcing motorists to drive cars equipped with a blender engine powered by lithium batteries. Each electric car produced using this technology is an ecological bomb and a bomb in the literal sense, since fatal accidents are increasing. This electric car technology should be banned in the name of common sense and safety. But this is what the law wants to impose on us.

However, hydrogen is also better suited here. Since an electric motor can be powered by a hydrogen fuel cell. This electric solution has the advantage of offering true vehicle autonomy, without recharging constraints. It is by measuring these aberrations that we can judge the scope and real motivations of environmental policies.

In fact (in short), the concept of the lithium electric car will only have a negative impact on the climate. Its area of use, limited to countries capable of setting up the networks necessary for its operation, nullifies its ecological claims. More seriously, the lithium electric car is an illusion and an alibi which masks a frightening and catastrophic reality.

Global warming is a reality. Its catastrophe has already occurred and is ecologically measurable. The anthropogenic cause of global warming is both scientific evidence and ecocide. This crime was perpetrated with the aggravating circumstances of premeditation by the oil and gas industry (see link above). And whatever happens, whatever we change in our behaviours, this industry will deplete natural resources, as long as this is technologically possible and authorized. Thus, the fossil fuels that we do not consume will be consumed by others. As global warming is a global phenomenon, our imposed efforts will be of no use as long as the fossil fuel industry thrives. Consumerism is an ideology before being the engine of our economy.

It is for these reasons that the hydrogen engine will not be considered as a solution, as long as the fossil fuel industry has not adapted to sell us water at a high price. I think science has little to do with it.

Quote from gu3st :

By the sounds of it you need to pay more attention in school.

It's said more concisely than I do, but the idea is the same.

Quote from Joe mama1256 :

Bro, my french teacher is teaching us about this and is saying "ThE hUmAnS mAdE ThIs AnD ThEy CuT tHe tReEs aNd ThAtS BaD ThEy ArE ToO HuNgRy of MoNeY, AnD ThEy dEsTrOy ThE fOrEsT bY pUtTiNg BuIlDiNgS" but bro, think about it, how do they get money then? what will make them get rich to pay the electricity, and the taxes? Have u thought about this? are they gonna go to the street with 50€ in their pocket and beg to people for money? They wont, and they we say "Dont use the plane too much use the train" ok lets go from pais to russia yay thats very expensive with train compared to plane less expensive, being ecologist is a joke in my opinion.

Brother, I agree with everything you said except the last sentence.

I never said that we should prevent humans from living or working to serve the climate cause. Without being an extremist environmentalist, you can very simply adapt your behaviour without ending up becoming a beggar.

The cynical historical choices of the big polluters I am talking about could have been better without harming anyone. This type of economy does not benefit populations. Quite the contrary.

For example, in my opinion, some political choices made under the pretext of global warming, particularly regarding electric cars, are antisocial. In the sense that it would prohibit the less wealthy from owning a car, without having any effect on global warming, and the rich to treat themselves with new toys.

The problem with transforming everything into a market is that an object costs more in climatic terms for its production than for its use. This purely consumerist vision (transforming everything into a replacement market) is at the origin of the global warming problems that we are experiencing.

In a better world, planes could become less polluting. Governments could stop cutting railway lines or promote the development of river transport, encourage recycling etc. Or, let's dream a little, really change the economic paradigm.

Everything could be managed more intelligently without become punitive. This is called a social project, a Cultural Revolution or a utopia, depending on the political involvement of which one shows oneself capable.

Talk to your French teacher about it.

Quote from rane_nbg :

Well, yes, that is not good. But how about this, are those companies burning all the fossil fuel they produce by themselves? Or are we the users, responsible as well?

Of course, as consumers, we obviously have our responsibilities. There is no question of denying them. But the industry has made historically opportunistic mercantile choices, in full awareness of their long-term harm. The scientific reality of global warming appeared since the 1950s.

The consumption of fossil fuels is one thing. Their extraction conditions is another. The 425 worst carbon bombs on the planet alone, perfectly identified, could destroy the entire fight against global warming. The fossil prospecting should have ended in 2021, for all new projects (to stay under 1.5°). However, the expansion project for largest gas field (TotalEnergies with Nord Field East, between Qatar and Iran) dates from June 2022...

On the other hand, after significant advances by BMW & Toyota, research on the hydrogen combustion engine is making little progress. It is not certain that Europe will accept this hydrogen solution and other green fuels, in addition to all-electric technology. However, the first hydrogen engine dates from... 1799. The first electric car to reach 105 km/h was developed by a Belgian company in 1899. “La Jamais Contente” is still visible at Autoworld of Brussels. The industry has always made historical commercial choices which induce and precede consumer behaviour.

The problem, in my opinion, is that industry and politics are concerned about the climate issue especially with the perspective of creating new markets, such as that of electric cars whose carbon footprint is not fantastic. While a very large part of the global automobile fleet was eligible for adaptation to hydrogen.

We will have to wait for the big oil groups to organize themselves to sell us water (in the form of hydrogen) at the same price as petrol for the combustion engine to once again become an acceptable solution. In the meantime, the climate cause has allowed the automobile industry to justify massive lay-offs.

We certainly need to alter our behaviour. But some drastic reductions in CO2 emissions could also be made by banning cruise shipping, for example. But, instead stop these kinds of stupidities, politics prefer to obliged us buy electric cars.

That for this few examples (among others), that I'm not very optimist on the humans abilities to do something in sense for the climate .

For those who are still hesitant to read this study in full, this is what it demonstrates formally.

As early as 1971, the oil company Total had, thanks to its own scientific analyses, models as reliable as those of the IPCC...

Total had thus predicted by calculation and published (in Total information n°47) that the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere could reach 400 PPM in 2010. The 2021 analyses confirmed a content of 420 PPM of CO2 in the atmosphere.

ExxonMobil carried out modelling in 1977 which predicted that the combustion of fossil fuels alone would lead to an increase in temperatures of 0.2° per decade, which corresponds to the current rate.

But these companies preferred to create doubt about the state of scientific knowledge on the climate by using an opposing discourse and adapted lobbying strategies. Like this one:

Extract of the study :
“Although some declare that science has demonstrated the existence of PEG [potential enhanced greenhouse] climate change today… I do not believe such is the case. We will require substantial additional scientific investigation to determine how its effects might be experienced in the future.” (LeVine, 1989, p. 1)

Thus, the data from contemporary science, detailed in the IPCC reports (and here doubted without admissible arguments), only confirm the accuracy of the predictions of the fossil fuel industry. QED

The reality of global warming, its anthropogenic cause and the IPCC forecasts have been confirmed (since 1971) by the polluters themselves. The world's 20 major oil and gas companies are responsible for more than a third of greenhouse gas emissions since 1965.

Last edited by Avraham Vandezwin, Mon 23 Oct 2023, 14:31. Reason : Precision

For those who want to understand and who have a little time for that, a well-documented study on the origin of “the factory of ignorance” on climate issues, the consequences of which can still be read here.

If anyone here doesn't know it yet, the French oil company Total had measured since 1971 the dramatic consequences of its activities on global warming. A long campaign of media jamming and a war against science have been waged for decades to hide the responsibility of large oil industrial groups.

Magical thinking, according to which global warming is natural, and that science is incapable of demonstrating its anthropogenic origin, is the latest avatar of this perfectly orchestrated disinformation campaign.

Good reading.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959378021001655

Quote from Viperakecske :

sun is getting bigger = warmer on earth

Quote from Viperakecske :

Also earth temperature goes up and down every few thousand years so global warming is nothing

Sorry if it's a bit long.

Current solar activity does not support this hypothesis. Even if you are right, this hypothesis is scientifically debated.

The problem is that current solar activity and the magnification of the sun have opposite effects to those that would lead to an increase in Earth's temperature. In fact, the Sun, even though it is getting bigger, is less active and radiates less energy. This invalidates the hypothesis of global warming linked to solar activity. You will easily find articles on this subject.

As for the natural cycles to which you refer, they have nothing to do with the temporality of current global warming. If you refer to the last link I posted, you will see that the most significant recent warming occurred 56 million years ago. The Earth has warmed by 5 to 6° over a period of 200,000 years. Current global warming follows the temporal curve of human activities. Such rapid warming has never occurred on Earth. And climate models demonstrate that without human activity, we would only experience natural global warming, the pace, and gradualness of which would threaten neither nature nor humanity.

Last edited by Avraham Vandezwin, Sat 21 Oct 2023, 14:57. Reason : add quote for better readability

Quote from paket42x :

Live on the same planet ye ofc.
But do we actually live for speed? In a Live For Speed.

As far as I'm concerned, the answer is clear, I'm not here for speed. For a set of reasons that have nothing to do with this debate. And which I have already explained here in detail (most of my posts concern the game, if that's what you're wondering about?). I play for fun. In conditions unsuitable for online.

Quote from Viperakecske :

id like to deeply apologize on my behaviour.

I am more interested in your opinion on global warming, its real reality, the scientific analysis made of it and the solutions within our reach to minimize its impact, than in your puns.

Quote from Viperakecske :

dont bother whit abraham vazelin he weird and write too much

Avraham also provides access to information that you could consult? Why not ? We all live on the same planet (well almost). This information matters more than who publishes it. You can be sure of that.
Unless your only motivation is to do something to close this topic, as always?

Last edited by Avraham Vandezwin, Fri 20 Oct 2023, 16:54. Reason : bad word

Quote from SamH :

I find that implausible. I'm going to go back to ignoring you.

I am infinitely grateful to you.

Last thing:

What is not plausible? That I can read? Or that your sources inevitably bring us back to the same clichés like "the Little Ice Age", which is still discussed in your article? Shouldn't you know, at the stage we are at, that this epiphenomenon means nothing in the debate we are having? Why make infinite loops to constantly return to the same insignificances and the same confusions? Who is trolling here SamH?

Quote from SamH :

Avraham, I posted a link to an article and a precis of what the article discusses. You make yet more leaps of logic and profess to know what I understand or don't understand. I'm not interested in feeding your logical fallacies with attention. Stop trolling.

I'm not trolling. I tell you that I have read your article and that it tells us nothing pertinent. Have you at least read it yourself ?

Quote from SamH :

https://judithcurry.com/2013/03/11/lets-play-hockey-again/

This article discusses the problem with using the deficiencies in low resolution proxy data as a false argument for implausible and alarmist conclusions about recent warming.

You obviously still haven't understood what "temporality" means, and the reference to the Little Ice Age is still not relevant.
Refer to the link above in my last post to understand what the scientific world means by “disaster”. You will perhaps finally understand why living species will not be able to adapt to such sudden warming, not to mention the societal consequences.

Quote from Aleksandr_124rus :

The Earth has been around for billions of years, and you're saying "never before have temperatures changed so rapidly"

For your complete information.
The greatest global warming dates back 56 million years. The Earth has experienced a global increase in temperatures of 5° to 6° over a period of 200,000 years. We are very far from the current situation... and see what the consequences were.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41561-023-01246-8

[no need to come back to me, you have exhausted your quota]

Quote from rane_nbg :

I'd really like to know the education and current job of the following gentlemen:

[1] Aleksandr_124rus
[2] Avraham Vandezwin
[3] SamH

You guys have very serious philosophical skills and a lot of free time. Tnx.

I'm not at the top of your list but I've already responded.
When it comes to free time, appearances are against me. I have few like most people who have a real job. I am lucky enough to work from home, when I am not traveling for work and to be my own boss.
So, the LFS forum became, in a way, my playground. When my activities permit, it is open on my second screen. I take a look at it from time to time. Especially when I'm on the phone.
I know that you have chosen total transparency. Professionally, I can't afford it.
But, you know, on the internet everyone can be whatever they want, as long as they are able to remain credible. A quarter of an hour said Warhol. Wikipedia made this dream possible.

EDIT: Clarification: I used the expression "intellectual background" in an effectively equivocal and undoubtedly inappropriate manner in the sense of “what do you have in mind that could make us understand what you are saying”. This wasn't a CV request.
But my English is horrible

Last edited by Avraham Vandezwin, Thu 19 Oct 2023, 09:01.

You are good with aphorisms.
Aphorisms have meaning (from the Nietzschean perspective) in a given intellectual context. This is how it becomes understandable. Without context we think it's jokes. Is it a balga? Or, may I ask what your intellectual background is?
(this is neither an attack nor an irony but a simple curiosity that you are not obliged to satisfy)

Quote from Aleksandr_124rus :

Someone who is right will certainly accept pathetic attempts at excuses like you. I don't even care if you really think wikipedia is a source of apharisms and yourself a source of generally accepted concepts. You're the only one who thinks that and no one else. You have shown your low level of discourse, your appeals to my personality do not interest me. Everything is clear to me about you. This is the end of our dialogue with you.

I hope you understood, I'm not 12 and a half anymore. There are a number of things I know for sure without needing to check them in Wikipedia.

For example, Kant was (in his time and through his philosophical thought) infinitely closer to the sciences than Heidegger. I haven't read the black notebooks. What is in it that directly relates to science or our topic? For example.

I studied philosophy in graduate school for 5 years with a Kantian philosopher as my teacher (a little known in his field) at a time when the domestic internet was not even a subject. I have been living from the concept for almost 30 years. This is what nourishes me every day.

I tell you this with all kindness. You will not impress me with your salamalecs and your half-scholar sleight of hand or with your false imposture trials.

Occam's Razor is a philosophical tool. You can use it however you want. Even grab it by the blade and cut your fingers with it. It's kind of what you do every day.

It is a shame that you are not up to the task of your subject. It is important. You will realize it in the very too near future.

In the meantime, have fun. It seems that you are not capable of anything else yet.

You are playing, Alexandr. Like a child.

What kinds of meaning would have aphorisms from philosophers from such different eras, about such historically changing notions as science and philosophy? Popper's demarcation explores the boundary between science and what is not science. It does not aim to bring together science and philosophy. You're still talking nonsense.

You feel like you're producing meaning because you're manipulating words and concepts. Since you don't bother to understand what they really are and mean, you don't even understand other people's explanations.

This is like mashing potatoes with a fork to make mash. Your purely covering verbiage stretches into increasingly transparent layers which hide from your consciousness the extent of your ignorance. But only in your sight. This is partly why this attitude is futile.

If you want to understand, swallow your childish pride. Knowledge is not a struggle. It's a work. Really try. You'll see, it's worth it.

You will manage to wear my patience to the end. That won't prove you right, though.

Like your alter-ego SamH, you swell syllogisms like balloons. You seem to be the products of the same cognitive dissociation and same ignorance. And your stupidities are displayed for everyone to see. It's just you who doesn't realize it.

Trust me on this, at least, no one learns on the internet. Go back to school.

Quote from Aleksandr_124rus :

It's working!!! Holy sh*t it really works!
I wasn't expecting it, but you were able to give me some kind of answer.

Please do so with all my other questions from now on, as long as we talk in a respectful manner.




And why did you choose those definitions? Why did you choose Le Larousse's definition of science? And whose definition of philosophy I couldn't find. But Wikipedia Source which is usually adopted by a majority of people. But you have chosen other definitions of Science and Philosophy. But the fact that these definitions are different already indicates that these definitions are not generally accepted. You have one definition and wikipedia says different and another source will say a third and so on.

Here's a link to 50 definitions of philosophy, for example. Because it's defined in many different ways.

Or here's a link to an explanation of philosophical positions on different definitions of philosophy. That is, the definitions change depending on your philosophical views on the matter.

Same thing with the definition of science. Why did you choose to define Le Larousse? Not some other kind?
The definition given is reduced to laws or experiments. So Sociology, Anthropology and History are not sciences from this definition. There are no laws and no experiments. That's the first thing that came to mind, there are probably more such disciplines.

For this reason there are many definitions, the broadest ones that include everything become vague, the narrower ones do not include some commonly accepted sciences. This is the problem with definitions of broad concepts like philosophy and science. The problem of demarcation.

You can continue to live in your own world. But in the real world there is no such thing as commonly accepted notions of broad concepts. And I've just clearly demonstrated that.

You are deluding yourself, Alexandr. You are confusing definitions and aphorisms. Your sleight of hand doesn't work.

Quote from Aleksandr_124rus :

Can you refer to my questions and answer them? Well no. As could be expected.. I realise I was naive in expecting answers from Avraham. But apparently you think these concepts have a common meaning. Apparently, according to you, it was given to us by aliens or God. What am I supposed to think if you can't answer?

Let me offer you a challenge, this challenge will be difficult for you, so its maybe beyond your comprehension. The challenge is that I will ask you a question and you will answer it directly, let's see if you can do it.

So you think the definitions of science and philosophy are common. Can you cite them?

EDIT cuz maybe he wouldn't understand. (My question means that you need cite the commonly accepted defenitions of science and philosophy. And thats it. You don't need to quote Nicolas Boileau for answering question. You don't need to describe philosophical positions on various issues that I didn't ask about, and you don't have to avoid the question in any other way, I know you like to do that. But just try it for once answering question. I believe you can do it.)

I'll give you the dictionary definitions since you don't seem to have any.

Philosophy
Set of questions that human beings can ask about themselves and examination of the answers they can provide; systematic and general (but not scientific) vision of the world (aesthetics, ethics, logic1, metaphysics, morality, ontology, theology).

Science
Coherent body of knowledge relating to certain categories of facts, objects or phenomena obeying laws and/or verified by experimental methods.

In fact, language is used to understand reality: A horse is a horse and a donkey is a donkey.

Does this answer work for you?