Global warming...

[Burgerman]

While I agree in general with your sentiments re meddling, there's an argument for some degree of doing so and that such legislation drives innovation... look at the clean air acts and low emission zones in Europe and elsewhere and how car manufacturers have implemented lower emission, higher efficiency, small-volume turbo-diesels to meet those requirements. Would they have done so if not for 'meddling'?

They are measured at
a) idle (where they are burning least fuel, and producing about 1 percent of any waste.)
b) at a fixed "cruise" rpm. Where they are not under any load and not propelling a car.

At every other throttle position or rpm, or load, the emissions are not measured and are always far higher. Its easy to map an engine to be cuddly and polar bear friendly at the 2 points where its measured, and be grotesquely polluting at all other points on the 3D fuel/boost/ignition map where it actually gets driven. What's more most are exactly like that.

Bikes for eg, have all kinds of trickery in the fuelling, ignition etc. The old Suzuki's for eg had a pink wire connecting the ignition/fuel map to the gearbox to reduce power, emissions, and noise on an EEC drive past test at WOT in 3rd Gear. As soon as any mechanic or owner gets hold of it they disconnect this so it runs properly... The car industry do all the same tricks.

Vaccum cleaners are a bit different. They are sold to the ignorant public like drills are. The more "watts" the better and more powerful it is... My 2000 watt vacuum cleaner says 150 Air watts! That makes it just 7.5 percent efficient!

[Mark]

If you use a lower powered vacuum cleaner which takes longer to clean each room, how has that reduced the house's energy consumption?

I'm not sure the above statement is necessarily true or proven. Dyson's are all <1600W and are far more efficient than many larger cleaners.

That is a good point Irving, but they are not legislating for efficiency, which might have some merit, they are just picking a motor wattage. Indeed other EEC legislation actually results in increased energy wastage. Hence my opinion that it is muddled meddling.

[Irving]

Yes Mark & BM, I guess I was being a little optimistic. Of course MOST manufacturers will work to the letter of the legislation not the spirit intended. The meddling is well meaning but ultimately flawed; I guess because often its the manufacturer's experts that draft it....

[Lord Chatterley]

While I agree in general with your sentiments re meddling, there's an argument for some degree of doing so and that such legislation drives innovation... look at the clean air acts and low emission zones in Europe and elsewhere and how car manufacturers have implemented lower emission, higher efficiency, small-volume turbo-diesels to meet those requirements. Would they have done so if not for 'meddling'?

Yes.

LC

[Lord Chatterley]

Huge demonstrations by climate stasists gets some real-time feedback - e.g. "your anti-fossil fuel banner is made from fossil fuels," from Alex Epstein - quite amusing, really...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mojiBJ55G2g&list=UUYi3PK144qrY_YGWFyAbK1A&index=4

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bcgH62jiocA&list=UUYi3PK144qrY_YGWFyAbK1A&index=3

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZVBNelw4yks&list=UUYi3PK144qrY_YGWFyAbK1A

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hz2HVN_iLKM&list=UUYi3PK144qrY_YGWFyAbK1A

LC

[Burgerman]

ALL of those are funny, in a sad way. He is correct. But just like religion the masses do not get it, and have been brainwashed.

Here is the real facts about warming. Natural warming. www.wheelchairdriver.com/warming.pdf

But the "masses" in the US are still in the minority. In the UK and all over Europe they arte now the majority. Just like religion. And its all Maggie thatcher's fault.

[motoman]

- e.g. "your anti-fossil fuel banner is made from fossil fuels," from Alex Epstein - quite amusing, really...

Not to mention almost everybody has a backpack on....all made from oil. As was their shoes, clothes ect. And all of it brought to market by oil powered ships and diesel burning trucks.

[Burgerman]

Along with almost every part of that city and its infrastructure, including the roads they are standing on.

And the very reason he is not dead by 30 (or never born) to begin with. We wont mention the masses of fuel that it takes to do intensive industrialised food production, shipping, refrigeration, and cooking...

Or the oil burning busses and trains or cars they all used to get there!

And they all offer no alternative.

And then there's this!

www.wheelchairdriver.com/warming.pdf Which puts the claimed warming into some real perspective.

[Lord Chatterley]

But you're hurting Leonardo DCaprio's feelings...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2766871/Leonardo-DiCaprio-s-climate-change-hypocrisy-As-Hollywood-star-lectures-U-N-MailOnline-reveals-jetset-lifestyle-includes-19-flights-world-year-borrowing-mega-yacht-owned-oil-billionaire.html

LC

[Burgerman]

Toyota Prius and an electric car

Leonardo bought this above to save the planet.

A Prius does LESS MPG on an average day than a Diesel VW golf. As tested by TopGear.
And requires extra manufacturing of polluting lithium batteries, and extra electronics to boot.

Electric cars suffer the same pollution issues are charged via 35 percent efficient COAL power stations...

[Sully]

The alternative is to move to higher ground, buy more bikinis, enjoy the pretty much hurricane free Atlantic, til more farm land in Greenland.

For prevention to have worked, it would have had to start at least a hundred years ago. And don't forget to plug all the volcanoes cover the methane bubbling lakes in the arctic, as well as along the American Atlantic Coast and use the gas, the un-burned methane is 17 times more heat capturing than it is when it is burned.

Hey I'll be dead before this becomes critical why should I worry about it? My kids will have waterfront property.

[Lord Chatterley]

The sheer dishonesty of the Climate Stasists is revealed here:

Cook, Mann and many of the other members of ‘the team’ are wilfully deceptive. They should have been laughed off the stage, not applauded. I’m not willing to accept the ‘Noble cause corruption’ narrative and neither, it seems, are some others. This isn’t just individual failure, it’s institutional. And that’s where it really sticks in the craw for me. And it drives much of my anger, as well as that of the people who I have successfully introduced to climate scepticism/realism...
When I am introducing someone to the sceptical range of views an exercise I often use is to give them a link to the IPCC WG1 report (now AR5, previously I linked them to AR4). I then invite them to pick three chapters at random – any three whatsoever (other than the Summary for Policymakers (SPM)) – and skim them (or read them in full if they have the time) and come back to me with their impressions. I experience the same response every time and indeed, it matches my own. Reading the report’s individual chapters (sans the SPM), one comes away with the impression of a scholarly, ponderous document. Lots of caveats, uncertainties, doubts, gaps and so on are clearly articulated. In short, it is what one generally expects from academic output. Then the anger flows in. It is a painfully sharp contrast to the mainstream narratives. Within those there’s disaster lurking at any moment, around every corner. It’s always ‘worse than we thought’. The climate science establishment are unanimous in agreeing that thermageddon is imminent – they’re 95% certain, in fact! About every aspect of the topic!


Read the whole thing here:

http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2014/9/26/watts-up-with-mann.html

LC

[s7even]

1. Obviously it's just a natural climate cycle.
2. Fossil fuels are finite and that's really what it's about.
I think it's all about power, money, and control. It's a distraction but technically everything humans talk about is.

[Lord Chatterley]

I vividly remember Milton Friedman on the BBC's flagship programme Question Time in 1979 telling the audience that - contrary to all the world's experts - fossil fuels would not run out by 2004 - there was almost a riot.

This is 1978 where he quotes Jevons who was a better economist than anyone in any government today [Jevons understood Marginalism indeed he was the first person to define it!]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WjdJH-KrxKE

LC

[s7even]

Isn't friedman saying jevons was wrong?

[Burgerman]

1. Obviously it's just a natural climate cycle.
2. Fossil fuels are finite and that's really what it's about.
I think it's all about power, money, and control. It's a distraction but technically everything humans talk about is.

And only when the cost of it gets high enough to extract and to buy because of scarcity will anyone really look for or pay more for the alternatives like nuclear, wind, solar, etc.

1. Obviously it's just a natural climate cycle.

www.wheelchairdriver.com/warming.pdf

[Lord Chatterley]

Isn't friedman saying jevons was wrong?

Yes, and the point is this, as Frieman says - Jevons was no mug, he was one of the greatest economists of the whole Victorian era!

We haven't even bothered looking for fossil fuels except in a few convenient locations - there's no need.

LC

[s7even]

Yeah it may not be running out anytime soon it's just a finite resource. As finite as every resource on the planet. Finite doesn't mean limited it just means not unlimited. There could be 1,000,000,000,000,000 years worth of fossil fuel (depending how much is used per year) probably there is 10,000 years worth if we continue using it at this rate of increase. Why aren't they figuring this out somehow?

[Burgerman]

It will never run out as such, but will become more expensive bit by bit as more and more needs to be found, and extracted from more difficult places.

As such simple economics will mean less and less is used over time, and more and more other methods will be adopted.
Its already happening. I have 2.5kw DIY solar system, which drastically subsidises my power bill. So I am using less (expensive) coal.

See here http://www.wheelchairdriver.com/solar-p ... riment.htm DIY

[s7even]

Prices increase because wages increase. The stock market f'd up the whole supply/demand thing. Now it's all about what the media makes tom, dick, and harry think. Not what is actually available/wanted.

Anything the Main Stream Media says is probably not entirely true. It's always because someone rich has an agenda. Until Rupert Murdoch has stocks in renewable energy companies Fox news will continue to deny humans are affecting global warming. Which they are. However, like the studies you link to say, it's a negligible amount.

[Burgerman]

That isn't true.

Why are diamonds, gold or moon rocks expensive? And sand is cheap?

Try ordering a ton of sand, and a ton of diamonds, then tell me why one is not as expensive.

Or why do rare antiques sell for high prices? Or why a glut of anything causes the market price on or off the stock market to drop like a stone?

If you had the only decent oilfield/reserves left on the planet, that oil would be very valuable.
Until someone discovers another field 1000 times bigger... Then oil prices will fall.

Another example. Last few tickets sold illegally for any big event, fetch 10x face value. Scarcity, supply and demand drive prices of everything.

The law of supply and demand always changes prices.

[s7even]

why are diamonds expensive? I don't know there isn't a shortage of them. That's a whole new topic. Gold isn't actually that valuable - sure it's nice in electronics because of it's conductivity but it's not really that special or even that rare. Diamonds are at least useful for machining super hard stuff. Sand is glass, some glass is expensive. Why?

[Burgerman]

Gold is rare. So are diamonds. In both cases extracting them is expensive too. That's why you cant get a ton of gold or diamonds delivered unless you are as rich as a small country. And a ton of sand is £20...

[s7even]

They are probably as rare as fossil fuels. Global warming being man made is a fictitious narrative just like the scarcity of gold and diamonds. It's hard to extract. Like windows are hard to manufacture. So a ton of those will probably be £20k it's basically sand though.

Inflation can only ever go up. Capitalism is flawed. Endless inflation can't be sustained then it crashes. History shows that.

Global warming is a distraction.
Sorry my brain jumps around a lot like a pissed blue bottle bouncing off fragments of concepts.

[motoman]

Capitalism is flawed.

If thats the case whats the alternative? Socialism? Every socialist country has failed.

And diamonds are not as rare as one would think. The De Beers company has had a monopoly on them for nearly 100 years (I think) and they artificially inflate prices by controlling availability.

[s7even]

...that's what I'm saying.

Socialism isn't really an alternative to capitalism. I don't have an alternative because it's complex. Well it is and it isn't.

Basically there are resources on the planet and we share those resources. Capitalism isn't fair. It lets the rich get more than their fare share and the poor have to do all the work to share out what's left. It's just greed. Part of the human condition.

[sacharlie]

Capitalism is flawed.

If thats the case whats the alternative? Socialism? Every socialist country has failed.

Thats just not true, maybe what you were taught and constantly promoted but not true. Also every country that has taken back its own resources from the corporate thieves of the IMF and WB has been pronounced a socialist state by whichever country promotes those corporations.

[Burgerman]

And the latest country to allow totally uncontrolled capitalism appears to have gone from poverty to massive expansion, with plenty of signs of overtaking the USA in about 10 years... China. All controls were removed and things were left pure.

It works beautifully... Its new, will need some controls, and has problems, but billions are no longer in the desperate poverty that they were.

Want to be poor, go broke? Then dilute capitalism, add too many controls. And if not, do as china... Or Hong Kong...

Check out east/west Germany differences after the war too...

Socialism is fair, everyone is poor.
Capitalism is unfair, but the poorest are as rich as the average in a socialist country or better. More people eat and suffer less.

[s7even]

True global socialism can't coexist with capitalism. So the socialism you've seen fail has failed because of capitalism. The answer isn't socialism nor is it capitalism. There are not two options. It's not East vs West, left vs right. Or libs vs dems.

[Lord Chatterley]

why are diamonds expensive? I don't know there isn't a shortage of them. That's a whole new topic. Gold isn't actually that valuable - sure it's nice in electronics because of it's conductivity but it's not really that special or even that rare. Diamonds are at least useful for machining super hard stuff. Sand is glass, some glass is expensive. Why?

We did not know the answer this question until that chap Jevons came along!!

It was finally explained in full by the Theory of Marginal Utility thanks to three economists, Jevons in England, Menger in Austria, and Walras in Switzerland. Their Theories form the foundation of Austrian School economics which is consistent with freedom and capitalism.

Naturally, collectivist governments like our own government do not recognise the validity of Austrian School economics - governments prefer the discredited theories of Karl Marx, J.M. Keynes and others which favour state ownership and control of the means of production, distribution and exchange.

The best Austrian School economist today is George Reisman - his seminal treatise on Capitalism, which took him 13 years to complete, is offered by him free below-

http://mises.org/books/capitalism.pdf

It explains why David Beckham is paid so much, why diamonds cost a lot and why gold should be the standard of currency.
Add it to your bookmarks.

LC