Is Jean-Marc Jancovici a c ...?

[Obamot]

At bottom there is confusion all along the line ...

What is your opinion ?

I learn a lot.

Certainly this is the biggest potential but solar energy is difficult to store in a vehicle, for example, we do not find the flexibility of use of gasoline. [...]

I think the energy is not the cause of all our ills, it's just a developer / amplifier of what we are internally, that is to say relatively selfish, focused on ourselves.
Even an altruistic concern may be reduced to a selfish concern.
If it brought us no satisfaction, we would not just.
The biggest job would be educational work, in my opinion, not necessarily scrimp with energy.

Eclectron need to know, what is your purpose here? Did you come here to ask questions, or gradually lead the debate in terms of your powers as you have not announced immediately.

Personally I answered, thinking you that you had a sincere approach such as this feels in your first questions. Here you want to question what has already been discussed in the rivers son for the final lock you in contradictions: on one side you'd clarification applicant VS another, from scratch would proclaim that "according to youEnergy would not be a determining factor.

Before saying things that maybe you don't think are peremptory (even if they are) you should educate yourself better and do as Ahmed wisely suggests, and this before having "opinion"on everything and nothing (and I say that without any offense, we are all subject to a certain humility ^^). But not to dodge, here are some ideas:

1) Energy issues are CRUCIAL for all countries and the government. Security of supply is a major issue and even military. Indeed for most of the countries, energy issues are closely related to defense ministries.

2) Directly related to energy issues, presides over economic issues (without energy what can be done)? If the cost of energy explodes, what happens economically? (See the oil crises, 9/11, millions of deaths) and further up in the 70s, the "car-free Sundays" following the first oil crisis.

3) So yes you have to dig because - and I am not pointing the finger at you for that, there is confusion also to the head of governments on these questions - but it happens to you without even realizing it, confuse "effects"VS"causes"(even countless doctors make the mistake and it can be fatal for their patients). In reality you have to start with the CAUSES and then move on to the effects. However, it is not that simple, because the causes are not often not what we believe, it's a bit like original sin.

In short, we can only encourage you to browse the forum, read the threads around the questions you ask yourself, BEFORE, in order to form an opinion for what you will say next. And not start expressing your "opinions" to force us to do all the work for you and spend hours trying to dismantle arguments - which we have already done hundreds of times - just so that the light be done. Because unfortunately, most of the time, no one will do this "work" because nobody can put themselves in the shoes of anyone in their brain to establish the "right formulas" of connections ^^

There is no function "download"To change the mind

[eclectron]

Already a conflict?
Ah exchanges by internet ...

To be clear about my motivation, I came on the subject about Jancovici because I had a doubt about the origin of global warming.
The interest of knowing the cause of the warming with certainty being to be able to use the fossils, or not, for the energy transition.

From one thing to another we come to a general discussion on the future of the world (and the solar) which has probably already been made here.
Excuse me for not typing all the forum... but know that I was not born from the last rain either.

I feel my beliefs / knowledge through yours and vice versa. I am motivated by the interactive exchange, to narrow my perspective.
And possibly you, yours, if you're interested to refine necessarily with a look a little different, mine.

The knowledge of a day is not that of tomorrow.
Who can claim to be right about everything?

I find that I am not understood by ObamotEnergy is THE critical issue!
And many other problems follow closely.
Then the injustice of "my measure" on the debt, of course I had seen.
Because of the injustices in this world there are none?
Absurdity for absurdity, why not apply this unjust measure that regulates the debt problem. Hop, a problem evacuated.
If the idea is too raw, maybe it can be refined? It was just to discuss it.
But obviously as everywhere, to build does not interest you, what interests you is to tackle, to assert you and to comfort you.

The world's problems are globally known and raised and we are basically in agreement.
They are sometimes overestimated as overcrowding by myself, there are few. See the video of Hans Rosling

In short, I only want to check the validity of the problems I know and especially to find solutions. That's my motivation.

Either you agree to talk with a new or not is up to you.
I understood that it is not as I would not think like you, knowing that you already have disparate opinion on global warming for example.

Frankly you do not give me more desire to share with you.

[Obamot]

To be clear about my motivation, I came on the subject about Jancovici because I had a doubt about the origin of global warming.
The interest of knowing the cause of the warming with certainty being to be able to use the fossils, or not, for the energy transition.

To reply without mistake, a cause adds another. But no matter, in 2 cases must do something and fast.

From one thing to another we come to a general discussion on the future of the world (and the solar) which has probably already been made here.
Excuse me for not typing all the forum... but know that I was not born from the last rain either.

Excuse us also not to repeat the myth of Sisyphus, it is more when one is new to be understanding and patient, no =?

I feel my beliefs / knowledge through yours and vice versa. I am motivated by the interactive exchange, to narrow my perspective.
And possibly you, yours, if you're interested to refine necessarily with a look a little different, mine.

Yes, but this is precisely not the case. We cannot oppose too much "convictions" with "skills", it always ends up getting stuck.

The knowledge of a day is not that of tomorrow.
Who can claim to be right about everything?

Uh, the I can hardly grasp what your actions have brought the debate? Who claims to have reason prevails here? It should be applied is Ockham's Razor, as someone have nothing new to offer, it would be well to go carefully, because others are probably already gone through a lot of assumptions (almost all?) it is not to be discouraged, it is to confront his theory to other existing theories (if indeed hers takes the road ... If it does not, should we complain about? From who?)

Nor can you inflict all kinds of theories on others without having studied them yourself thoroughly. It does not fit ... otherwise you'll be repacked immediately. It's nice to tell you before it happens to you, I think!

I find that I am not understood by ObamotEnergy is THE critical issue!
And many other problems follow closely.
Then the injustice of "my measure" on the debt, of course I had seen.
Because of the injustices in this world there are none?
Absurdity for absurdity, why not apply this unjust measure that regulates the debt problem. Hop, a problem evacuated.
If the idea is too raw, maybe it can be refined? It was just to discuss it.
But obviously as everywhere, to build does not interest you, what interests you is to tackle, to assert you and to comfort you.

But what does this have to do with Jancovici? Yes there are injustices, but I don't see the connection to all the above mixture. If you don't treat every topic for what it is, it's okay for the discussion to go all over the place. If it was your dough as a banker, you wouldn't say so quickly: "hop and a discharged topic"must be consistent.
The least we can say is that you do not go with the back of the spoon.
«be refined"You say, but that is precisely the purpose of considering the value of raw materials - not to market - but the actual cost of geological time it took to establish energy reserves. And that, if we accept the hypothesis as valid and there is no reason why it will not be - this is a debt that has been done to future generations. And cases like Jancovici are the archangels of the removal of this "debt" (saying that it would be Mother Nature who would pay the bill: blackjack). And that is precisely what you want: cancel any debt ....! Too easy !

The world's problems are globally known and raised and we are basically in agreement.

I do not agree with the debt, so the removal of any debt is even worse.

They are sometimes overestimated as overcrowding by myself, there are few.

No, what appears from your interventions is that the problems of the world are not the ones you thought they would be. And sorry to say that they exceed a little your ability to apprehend (without wanting to offend you and in the state) if you would have understood and said:
— Eureka, I thank you including friends...

Instead, you say you learn a lot, not so sure because you did not bounce on what has been said (particularly by Ahmed I sometimes struggle to understand but we are at the opposite of a "conflict") Then to add layers of opinions that are not knowledge, and even themselves by skills: as you go there ...

In short, I only want to check the validity of the problems I know and especially to find solutions. That's my motivation.

It should not be discouraged it yet, but it should not be that you burn the steps, you know? (I started in my last post) but we must draw a little more for "solutions"Since would find your motivation. And it is not appropriate to take the opportunity to make intentions. Only facts count and they are stubborn.

Either you agree to talk with a new or not is up to you.

It's not the fact that you're new that's a criterion

I understood that it is not as I would not think like you, knowing that you already have disparate opinion on global warming for example.

It is already not know how you think, and precisely to structure thinking it takes humility right?

"Disparate"is a complicated word for me, which I do not understand in the context, I am going to have to study this word.

Frankly you do not give me more desire to share with you.

[/ Quote]
Indeed, a monologue can hardly turn into dialogue and to further dialogue is needed to have a sound basis. And instead, we just encourage you to clean up your databases. It's nice not? It's still your choice!

[Remundo]

dear friends, you are very very HS ...

Remundo for moderation

[Ahmed]

You are right RemundoBut I readily admit that about Jancovici do not really interest me, because even if some of his analyzes are relevant, his initial assumptions make his conclusions inadequate and if I intervened in this thread, it was to dialogue with Eclectron; but nothing prevents to continue the discussion in (or?) a more appropriate thread!

[Obamot]

You are right to stress that the debt issue has several aspects that are often confused or omitted. There is the problem of European states who borrow from private institutions thus ensure a good pension, the states of the third world * which amounts to collusion between the local bourgeoisie and the IMF WB +, the backs of people, that of the United States is a global scam (and now their only possibility to maintain their hegemony) ...
I understand the distinction you operate between fictional and real debt debt, but its relevance is limited because it does not do justice to the most important aspect: the inability of the system to function without resorting to the expedient of debt; at this point, we must go further and understand the need to invoke the future profits (which assumes all borrowing, by definition) the fact of their present inability, while concealing the evidence is that the second term of the proposal completely invalidates the first ...
Clearly, it is because the conditions for making profits are constantly diminishing (because the astronomical amounts of accumulated capital no longer find sufficient opportunities to invest, because human labor is constantly reduced, because the number of real innovations stagnates, because the equipment rate of solvent households reaches saturation ...) that the reasons to hope for a later "improvement" ** is illogical.

* The case of Greece is similar to the financial extractivism vis-à-vis the Third World.
** I put quotation marks to signify that I only put myself from the system point of view, which is very different than sharing it!

This is where I was going. Debt as practiced today (with perpetual re-scheduling) makes me think of a private tax. It acts on the economy as an additional constraint that makes it lose its original function (motivation to action and therefore the reimbursement And alternatively the role it should have just assumed: offset supply means to achieve a goal: the realization of projects that benefit the community) ... the one of a kind of aid to state funding in exchange for the assurance of stability and reimbursement.

Deep down with it, is unveiled one of the most hypocritical cogs in the system, since any state could have put an end to the spiral through the creation of money (that's what it does with the private paper and bank, with regard to the private debt, it seems to me) so in fact it is the state that self-sustain the debt, at least in three ways 1) while continuing to live above his means 2) by refusing for obscure reasons to mop it up. 3) by basing the volume of money creation relative to volume of debt at time "T" that it uses as an index (whereas it could do so from other indices of “consumption.” And of course no more debt would mean an equitable sharing of dividends from a country's product, but that would be wrong on the ground, the principle of privatization of profits and of "mutualisation" of losses / bad debts (Bad risks).

Therefore the extent of debt erasure suggested by Eclectron finesse without sufficient analysis (and at least for the complexity of these reasons, even if it would be necessary to deepen the causes) longer a problem that it solves, because in fact this is the case (the debt is permanently blotted but at the same time re-scaled, so we no longer see the end and that we no longer able at some point to be able to pay - if that interests: I have no doubt that the ratio between reliability reimbursement VS perpetual debt savament are calculated - since it is precisely the purpose of the stress state of play as you described so well) but it has had the effect of further increasing the profits of those who distribute the boarding-pass game of the aircraft .. ..).

and therefore the desired effect by Eclectron. End of HS?

PS: That said, it is the words of peremptory Jancovici, suggesting free of mineral resources, which resulted in contrast to assume that this was a debt! And is étrernelle!

[Remundo]

You are right RemundoBut I readily admit that about Jancovici do not really interest me, because even if some of his analyzes are relevant, his initial assumptions make his conclusions inadequate and if I intervened in this thread, it was to dialogue with Eclectron; but nothing prevents to continue the discussion in (or on?) a more appropriate thread!

YES, absolutely here:
energies-fossil-nuclear / digressions-summer-on-the-public-debt-t14864.html # p307722

[izentrop]

Sorry if already mentioned, I have not read the 27 pages of it.

On December 16, 2015, Benoît Thévard wrote about Dormez tranquilles until 2100: "why Jancovici's last book disappointed me"

Why Jean-Marc Jancovici is it obliged to go through stratagems he denounced himself to get his message? Reasoning tempting but too simplistic and sometimes absurd distortion of reality, contempt activists and differing opinions, exaggerated victimization of a pathway that is required in France for decades, etc. Of course, all this does not affect the outstanding work accomplished to advance the awareness of the immense challenges of energy and climate. Surely with more rigor, humility and respect, this book would have been outstanding, but unfortunately it leaves the unpleasant feeling of having read a pro-nuclear propaganda paper and anti-renewable, still associated with brilliant and relevant explanations on the links between politics, economy and energy.

http://www.avenir-sans-petrole.org/2015 ... -decu.html

[Christophe]

No I do not think that this testimony was mentioned ...

QED short ...

[Remundo]

yes, Mr. THEVARD develops exactly the same view as me on this topic.