That's a good point. People want high performance, so the only thing a company can do is give them what they want in that segment. And it is fun to drive fast cars. But I wish the demand was for high end, economical, streamlined, light weight cars. The environmental cost of a car includes the materials going into it and the space it takes, in addition to the energy it consumes. It would be better if people wanted a small car with a 'green mode' button.
That's about how some pumper's arguments look from the bear's point of view. I think both sides of the market have expressed some reasonable and some silly, repetitive arguments.
If bashers are paid, then their opinion isn't valid, and there is no reason to feel threatened by their ideas. This is a comfortable way to look at the message board. But, what if bashers are not working as part of a conspiracy, and simply expressing their own points of view about the stock or the company? Would that mean some people have thought freely about Tesla and don't agree with all the expectations for it? That would be unsettling.
Of course, one could say the same about pumpers, including analysts. Do we shorts mock the insincerity of analysts and pumpers out of a need to avoid considering the alternative that they may be correct? I think that's possible sometimes. Anyone who plays in this game is vulnerable to such mental weakness arising under fire.
The fear of being wrong when a major loss is possible, or probable, may be assuaged somewhat by self delusion. But the best way to deal with trading fear is to completely accept the loss that one is risking, and to know in advance what steps one will take to limit it. And in sizing up the possible loss that is risked, one can be most realistic by giving full consideration to all the ways one's position could go wrong. That includes acknowledging the validity of other points of view and intelligence of those who hold them.
What I can't figure is why anyone ever listened to him about the price of a stock. But why doesn't matter. He got the price up above 280 when they wanted it there, so he did his job, and he will get a very generous bonus.
I did a little homework to check the facts. They only build a coal plant about every week. Their total electricity capacity is 1.2 million GW. So using your solar panel figures, they are passing 1% and approaching 2% solar. That's a positive trend.
Is China still building a coal plant every day? If so they will be able to power those car chargers that Farmer is writing about.
I'm worried about the anti-science movement, and I don't agree with it. But it's obvious to me that intellectuals would be well advised not alienate the general population by responding on a low level. A lot of damage has been done by promoting science ideologically. That has provoked resistance. If you get in peoples faces, talking ABOUT science, they are going to think science is an ideology, and you further ignorance. Rude, lower brain behavior doesn't do much to promote the acceptance of logical thinking.
Kbodie used the phrase "fear mongers". I took that to mean activists who promote an agenda using the leading scientific consensus as justification. If they exaggerate or express intolerance, they polarize the issue and provide motivation to the anti-science movement. The scientific consensus itself, I tend to agree with. If the scientific community, and activists claiming to support it, are respectful and tolerant of the denier's views and questions, then there will be a chance for dialogue. I would advise everyone on both sides to back away from zealous activism, and consider the evidence with open minds. If the scientific consensus is right, then we need to stop wasting time and energy in polarized fighting. The way to get cooperation, is to show respect.
Anti science gets stronger when zealots who happen to support science are intolerant and abusive. Intolerance leads away from science. Intolerance is toxic to science, and to free society.
Please read all my posts on this before you go off like that.
I think the scientific consensus is more likely correct than not. But rather than abusing those with other views, using an intolerant tone like yours, I prefer to advocate for both open mindedness and skepticism. The good thing about science is that it is structured around the idea that the leading consensus may need revision, and that asking questions and testing things is good. Dogmatic, zealous defense of the leading theory falls short of the scientific method.
I'm no fan of over regulation or big government either. But I maintain that the deniers and the fear mongers both have their minds made up and express little interest in learning more about this. And there is too much intolerance on both sides. That's a generalization, and I admit there are many individual exceptions. I just think it's dumb to be totally certain. The most intelligent thing anybody ever said was, "I don't know".
That's true. I remember when the popular worry was a new ice age, but I don't recall if people were thought to be the cause. Groupthink makes large groups of people very wrong sometimes.
The problem with the ongoing discussion of this issue is that people look at it ideologically, and begin their thinking with their answers and opinions firmly in place first, following up with rationalization. Both sides do the same thing. So, there is never any hope of finding the truth, which I suspect is very complex and not fully grasped by anyone yet.
I prefer to remain open minded, and skeptical. I think the evidence is a bit stronger for humans adding to the prior natural warming, than not. But, I'm not convinced. One can prove anything by cherry picking evidence. This isn't an argument anyone should want to win for political reasons only, and then possibly be proved wrong afterwards by nature.
It's true many important new things are mocked at first, but that doesn't mean that every mocked thing will change the world.
Insider trading is when you act on material non-public information you somehow know. He provided his source, and it was a public one, Inside EVs I think he said. You could check that easily, and tell us if you can't find it.
""Danes eschew cars; bikes proliferate""
I like where they are going with that, but NOT how they are getting there. People should be asked to act green, not taxed into it, or fined into it. Heavy handed regulations bring resentment, denial, and resistance. The Danes may be more accepting of the rules due to cultural differences and the small distances they have to travel. In America, such regulations are pushed back against by freedom lovers, even if the aim of the taxes and regulations is wise long term. This is why truthful information campaigns and education are the way to go here. People may ride bikes, the train, and drive less if it becomes a popular movement that can be joined voluntarily.