No data required to recognize propaganda. Its easy to see when someone starts with the conclusion and finds facts to sort of support it. All you need is to see lots of facts that don't support the conclusion. And a conclusion that wouldn't be drawn from the facts provided.

Not really. Tere are millions of well educated Americans who believe those things and will not except any evidence to the contrary. They think people are ignorant if they don't accept GDP as a good measure of their economic well-being.

It is precisely this belief in authority that created the problem. Its the Hamiltonian notion that people can't accurately determine their own interests and they should be ruled by a knowledgeable elite who can. The result, of course, is a government run by an elite that serves their interests and the people who pay them. Mistrust of that government is an informed response, not a problem. Restoring self-government might restore that trust, but its not clear that is achievable given the tight grip of our current rulers.

The reality is that all music is based on previous performances. As is most human knowledge. Copyright is just an artificial construct to encourage creativity by providing a financial reward to the creator. The idea that people "own" the music because they "own" the copyright is the problem. AI creating new music based on old music is no different. If you can't tell it violated the copyright of a song by simply listening to the new song, then it isn't a violation of the copyright. Its a new creation.

As I recall most of the cast of the Monkees TV show couldn't play an instrument or sing. So they lip-synched to the music performed by studio musicians. It didn't prevent their songs from being hits. The idea that people have a right to know what goes on behind the screen of a performance is ridiculous.

Virtually every "record" now is a digital representation of the performance. If you listen to live music you notice the difference. What's happening here is that AI is taking out the performance and just creating the digital representation. Its just one example of the ongoing AI controversy. AI is able to produce stuff digitally that used to require human talent. The people whose livelihoods are based on that talent are quite naturally unhappy.

You are right. I mistook your response was from someone else. I apologize.

I think the game of trying to attribute emissions to specific nations is probably necessary in the context of international agreements to reduce emissions. For that purpose, the use of where the emissions were produced is probably as good as any other. National governments have some direct control over the emissions from production within their country, they have little direct control over the emissions from products used in their country that are produced elsewhere.

That doesn't mean we can use it as the sole criteria in assessing national "responsibility" for climate change. When people do that, they are usually engaged in propaganda against an adversary.

Thank you for so obviously confirming my point.

No, because you were the idiot who put water into a full container that was obviously going to overflow.

This is not tough to understand. You plug your car in to charge it when all the only available additional power is from burning coal there are going to be emissions from the additional coal burned. It makes no difference what anyone else does. If you don't plug in your car, no one is responsible for those emissions because they wouldn't exist.

You missed the emissions associated with sending the email. And the possibility the person receiving the mail printed it. Did you forget my vacation paid for with the proceeds of the carbon offset. Those all increased CO2 emissions. The reality is no one can accurately measure and certify the existence of any offset. Can you determine whether someone printed an email? Yes, in theory. But to create an offset you have to prove they would have printed it if the offset wasn't purchased.

Bill Gates can sell carbon offsets whenever he decides to not take a trip with his private jet. In fact, he can buy the offsets from himself and use them to offset the trips he does take. The entire concept is a fraud.

I am not going to argue with a propagandist. You choose the criteria of evaluation to fit your conclusion.

Doesn't that pretty much describe the United States strategy for reducing emissions? The emissions from almost its entire manufacturing sector of 30 years ago have been exported. As this story points out, the emissions from producing the solar panels it uses have been exported to China. The emissions for making the money it uses to buy those solar panels from the LNG it sells are exported to the EU. The reality is no matter how you evaluate it, the Chinese are producing fewer emissions than Americans on a per capita basis now and have collectively produced far fewer total emissions in the past. The rest of the "west" just adds to that disparity.

This is BIll Gates flying off in his jet and complaining about the emissions from somebody's gas hog truck. The complaint is valid, but not the claim to moral superiority.

And if you look at just current emissions, "the west" and China are almost equal when you add just the EU to US emissions. When you add places like the UK and Canada the west pulls ahead in that particular comparison.

But that is using production. So emissions from all the stuff China produces to sell in the US are Chinese emissions.

But I am just playing your propaganda game by cherry picking facts and criteria to support a particular narrative.

You want a non-propaganda narrative for who is responsible for climate change. Try a comparison of total emissions from US and China since the beginning of the industrial revolution. Or, since you are interested in "the west", try a comparison of the total emissions from "the west" and China since the start of the industrial revolution.

So what? We know coal is cheap in China. Probably in Newcastle as well.

Because natural gas from Russian pipelines was cheaper. Where is the evidence that their purchased of LNG is replacing coal?

Not nearly as aggressively as China.

Like I said, you are a propagandist.

Because you are both creating emissions no matter what power you are using.

No one cares who was first. The fact is if you add your demand more emissions are created and the amount of emissions depends on the additional source of power required to meet that demand. It doesn't make any difference whether you are first or last. If your using power results in more dirty power being used then you should stop.

Let me explain it to you from the other direction. When you shut off your demand do you expect the grid operator to reduce the amount of solar used proportional to your use? And a portion of the nuclear power the grid creates. And a portion from hydro? The obvious answer is no. So why are you claiming when you turn the demand on you can measure the effect of that added demand on climate emissions based on a portion of each of those?