Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

zombienudist t1_ixcgus8 wrote

Reply to comment by H2FLO in How do you find out whether companies manufacture their products morally and sustainably? by Dokayn

I give numbers and math and you give feelings. Then you say the numbers are unreliable but give no reason why. If the numbers are wrong you should be able to provide your own. But you keep writing words but have nothing to substantiate them. So again I say that your words are useless without the numbers to back it up.

1

H2FLO t1_ixcp14c wrote

I provided you a source with plenty of information that explains my point.

2

zombienudist t1_ixcr7fd wrote

But can't show me where I made a mistake with my numbers. Again you wrote a lot of words but unless you can challenge directly those words are meaningless. You can't just say that my numbers are wrong for reasons that are unexplained. Should be very easy to do the math with the correct numbers. I mean the only way you can know if my numbers are wrong is if you have others. So do the math and show me I am wrong.

This is why I love math. There is no BS. You can't write out long essays that obscure the truth. The base numbers are either right or wrong. So if they are wrong it should be pretty easy to point out which ones are wrong or to do your own math. Strangely I don't see a lot of numbers in what you are writing. So do the math or don't. But don't tell me I am wrong when you can't even put a few numbers together yourself to prove you are right.

1

H2FLO t1_ixcx7h3 wrote

You’re obviously not understanding my point or read the article. It’s impossible to perform calculations when everything is variable. Enjoy your EV, brah. I’m not trying to keep you from that.

2

zombienudist t1_ixd5sp3 wrote

I understand exactly what you are saying. I just don't think it makes any sense. If it does then every life cycle study that has ever been done is wrong. The variation in the numbers is because of differences in location. So the electricity in X place is dirtier then somewhere else and you have to adjust for that. These variables are well known. You just have to do the math for each location. This is exactly what I did and why I said that here it is better. Somewhere else it might not. See understanding this allows you to use the correct numbers.

So I will say the same thing again. Unless you are able to show which of my numbers are wrong, based on my location, then you can just stop writing anything at all because it is meaningless. Seriously it is like you are telling me that 2+2 = 5 but then can't tell me how you reached the conclusion. If you are right it should be extremely easy to show that using the correct numbers. Now if you are arguing that it is completely unknowable then what kind of stupid argument is that? You need to have words with every scientific publication that has ever published a life cycle study on this because they will all be wrong too.

1