tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post7898808743546916961..comments2024-03-29T00:39:31.629-07:00Comments on CONTRARY BRIN: Science - Technology UpdatesDavid Brinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14465315130418506525noreply@blogger.comBlogger134125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-87295905999920763982018-05-30T17:57:33.894-07:002018-05-30T17:57:33.894-07:00Alfred: "but I’ll bow to your view and consi...Alfred: <i>"but I’ll bow to your view and consider adopting your calendar phases as a replacement for mine."</i><br />I'm mostly theorizing, not advancing a coherent view just yet.<br /><br /><i>"What I will say is I pay less attention to the actions of rich guys and more to the actions of smaller rich guys and families."</i><br />I find the interactions fascinating: rich guys tend to deal with 'smaller rich guys' more often than with the 'other big fish,' sometimes predation, more often, mutually beneficial trade.<br /><br /><i>"California is perfectly situated. We are a crossroad."</i><br />Concur, but what that means depends on when we look: California of the transcontinental railroad was very different from the post-Panama Canal era, and different in turn from the trans-Pacific era.<br /><br /><i>"Rents can’t keep up with what people can make serving all the new people."</i><br />That really depends on the relative value of undeveloped land, transit systems, and work structures. NYC was as much a city of immigrants as CA in each of the eras we're discussing (even the post WW2 era, though to a much lesser extent). Rents (including stores) remained the principal means of amassing wealth for most of the 'small rich' (and many of the 'large rich') in each era; not quite so much in CA.donzelionhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05991849781932619746noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-57102537868824140732018-05-30T17:50:10.692-07:002018-05-30T17:50:10.692-07:00Hi sociotard
Re-Musk - He has done it! - his Typ...Hi sociotard<br /><br />Re-Musk - He has done it! - his Type 3 at $35,000 is equivalent to a Taurus + 7 years fuel AND he will be making better margin than Ford ever did<br /><br />Once the volumes get up there EV's are going to be cheaper to make than IC cars - and that is before you talk about the reduced cost of ownership<br /><br />Musk's targets are aspirational - they will never be met but they drive excellent performance<br /><br />I believe that he has actually achieved his goal - EV's are now seen as inevitable - Tesla has done it's "world saving" (or at least contributing to world saving) and now can develop into a high end high profit company with the Chinese and Indians making the bottom end vehicles<br /><br />It is going to take 10 years to get the production volumes up but inside of five years an EV will be "obvious" choice for anybody wanting a new carduncan cairncrosshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14153725128216947145noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-30147379088857560872018-05-30T17:32:56.062-07:002018-05-30T17:32:56.062-07:00okay guys. fun is fun.
But onward
onward
okay guys. fun is fun.<br /><br />But onward<br /><br />onward<br />David Brinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14465315130418506525noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-85493007672621121952018-05-30T17:09:19.958-07:002018-05-30T17:09:19.958-07:00Okay. That makes sense now. I admit I don't wa...Okay. That makes sense now. I admit I don't watch what Tesla does all that much except to be amused at the people who can't decide if it is a car company or a software company. Investors are split on that.<br /><br />He may fail some day and fall like other giants, but I know too many people who would enjoy seeing it to believe them much when they make predictions.<br /><br />As for wagers, I think the stock market already provides a way to do it. If you think he will succeed/fall, buy calls/puts. Get your timing right, though. Personally, I don't have a good feel for the odds, so I don't play with those options.Alfred Differhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01170159981105973192noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-75160846296116835522018-05-30T16:35:18.913-07:002018-05-30T16:35:18.913-07:00I suspect because that is a middle class car, not ...I suspect because that is a middle class car, not a rich person car, and right now all the Teslas are really for rich people.<br /><br />I wasn't the one who came up with the Taurus target. <a href="https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2009/08/24/plugged-in" rel="nofollow">Musk did.</a><br /><br />Okay, he was trying to say sell it so it would be comparable to a Taurus, amortized with fuel costs over 7 years. Fine. The point stands that he wants to make a middle-class affordable car, and he just isn't there. He's also missed most of his target dates.sociotardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11697154298087412934noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-77362324019745920602018-05-30T16:15:06.944-07:002018-05-30T16:15:06.944-07:00Why would he try to sell at the same price as a Ta...Why would he try to sell at the same price as a Taurus?Alfred Differhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01170159981105973192noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-24946792386878210912018-05-30T16:06:43.215-07:002018-05-30T16:06:43.215-07:00Regarding Elon Musk:
Is this an area where you wo...Regarding Elon Musk:<br /><br />Is this an area where you would be willing to make a wager?<br /><br />Because the question isn't "Is Elon Musk tackling important problems", but rather, is he going to win. In particular, can Elon Musk overcome challenges in production and cost reduction to actually sell his electric cars for the same price as a Ford Taurus? Can he do so before his investors decide he can't, pull funding, and his research funding desiccates completely?sociotardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11697154298087412934noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-36200771636148516872018-05-30T15:50:40.304-07:002018-05-30T15:50:40.304-07:00@donzelion | I had a whole page response worked up...@donzelion | I had a whole page response worked up with bits and pieces of CA history, economic theory, and personal preferences. Upon review, though, I’m pretty sure Dunning-Kruger applies to me in a potentially embarrassing way, so I’ve tossed it all in the trash. It would be fun to go a few rounds as I might learn something, but right now I’ll limit my claim (and try to defeat a Dunning-Kruger flaw) to knowing a little bit of the wholesale electricity market from the perspective of an IT guy that was trained by a motivated employer. It is fun to learn, but I’ll bow to your view and consider adopting your calendar phases as a replacement for mine. 8)<br /><br />I’ll also accept your view about utilities failing in the initial model being beaten by people focused on efficiency. My understanding of utilities as renters of credit comes from a bit of investment history post WWI. Utilities that provided the infrastructure for the immigrant waves arriving had customers and very rich men simply weren’t rich enough to do what history shows was done.<br /><br />What I will say is I pay less attention to the actions of rich guys and more to the actions of smaller rich guys and families. Cities are generally born from towns which are born from local needs usually related to trade and the associated infrastructure. The roads, ports, warehouses, homes, commercial buildings, water supply, sewage, and countless other bits and pieces cost hideously large sums of money if one adds them up. They start small for towns at crossroads, but get incrementally pushed if there is excess capital in the region and a need for infrastructure. Take a blank map of the US and draw in where the cities are with populations over 1 million and you’ll see where the excess capital WAS by looking into the fields around them. If you can’t see the shape of the Greater Mississippi River basin on the map, start to include cities with populations over 100K. These places were not built by a few very rich men. They were built by many, many smaller rich men and not until those men and their families arrived.<br /><br />This ties back closely to my views on immigration. When population expands, the economy does too simply because they bring economic activity with them. Piketty rightly pointed out that a high population growth rate makes old money far less effective at controlling the majority of income from economic growth. Rents can’t keep up with what people can make serving all the new people. If those people are ALSO innovators, growth per capita occurs and then the lid really comes off the pot. California is perfectly situated. We are a crossroad. We have more people than a lot of nations do. We have a significant amount of human capital here and the infrastructure for growing that. And… we are pretty damn rich. We are better off being what we really are and it seems likely the world will be too.<br />Alfred Differhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01170159981105973192noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-662519174518094462018-05-30T15:15:19.358-07:002018-05-30T15:15:19.358-07:00@occam's comic | I already admit that climate ...@occam's comic | I already admit that climate change is dangerous. I'm not ready to admit that some of the dangers we've seen recently are caused by climate change. They might be, but to say so would imply some credibility to the causal mechanism that I don't believe is there.<br /><br />You are arguing the danger is unavoidable. You are possibly correct in your conclusion, but can't have a functioning crystal ball.<br /><br />You are arguing we aren't doing even 1/10 of what has to be done. I don't believe you can know such a thing without a similar crystal ball. The first one has to look into the future. This one has to look sideways at all of what is being done and THEN look into the future to see if it is enough. This is where I object because you are making an economic projection, can't possibly have enough facts on which to make it in a sound manner, and in doing this you make yourself and your position look crazy. <br /><br />The position is NOT crazy. We could be in big danger and we should do something about it. Don't give our opponents the ammunition they use to shoot at us. We already have a list of possible future scenarios that range from very unpleasant to catastrophic collapse of civilization. That range is enough to justify TWODA plans at a minimum even without an ability to make sound economic projections. We don’t have to convince everyone for TWODA to work. We don’t have to convince all that many for innovations to occur that change prices that move behaviors. <br /><br />The economic ‘system’ you think needs deep changes is already capable of changing itself. Prices provide compressed information about all the factors involved in production and services and… well… everything we buy and sell. Prices WILL move as climate impacts arrive. If you want to go past TWODA, consider what can be done to influences prices and USE the system instead of fighting it. If you fight, you won’t win. If you use it, we might.Alfred Differhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01170159981105973192noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-30157232785058043262018-05-30T14:34:58.324-07:002018-05-30T14:34:58.324-07:00Occam: "Without deep changes to the economic ...Occam: <i>"Without deep changes to the economic system, political system, the pattern of our daily lives, our culture and our spiritual outlook we are headed for lots of trouble."</i><br /><br />I do not think you and Alfred are so far apart, Occam - except perhaps he assumes that deep changes will occur with a fairly high probability, and you're more skeptical. <br /><br />For me...my assumption is that economic incentives matter, politics matter, and the two help drive technology, culture, and spirituality. I assume trouble ahead, and assume responding to it will demand a price: my fear is that unless we see what is being done and permit the experiments to take hold, they will be aborted before they even bear fruit, as they have been many times before. A winnable battle is underway - one in which victory does not require awaiting the emergence of some charismatic messiah, some technological magic - but only holding fast to principles, defending them, including the principle that no one should profit from making a mess that others will have to clean up.donzelionhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05991849781932619746noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-86047978968367428362018-05-30T13:27:15.000-07:002018-05-30T13:27:15.000-07:00Alfred
"
I'm not quibbling about he dang...Alfred <br />"<br />I'm not quibbling about he danger we face. It's very real. I'm arguing that we should not claim to be able to make predictions we simply can't make."<br /><br />At what point do you admit do you admit that climate change is dangerous?<br />Many people of Houston and Puerto Rico are already there. <br /><br />Treebeard <br />Yes I am kind of a heretic, I do not believe that some new shiny techno gizmo will save us. Without deep changes to the economic system, political system, the pattern of our daily lives, our culture and our spiritual outlook we are headed for lots of trouble.<br />occam's comicnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-57078748299869132082018-05-30T12:51:04.570-07:002018-05-30T12:51:04.570-07:00Occam: "Climate change has moved from a probl...Occam: "Climate change has moved from a problem we could have avoided to a predicament that we will have to deal with."<br /><br />When wasn't climate a predicament we have to deal with? <br /><br />That's not to suggest we do nothing - again, California is taking a lead in America, and demonstrating that it's possible to grow jobs and an economy while also embracing proactive policies to head off long term problems. Let Trump protect coal owner cronies (he's already abandoned the workers, but there's so few left they'll zealously defend what employers they can still find) - while they play their games, a middle class MAY build a better future (of course, tariffs on China may raise the cost of that future...).<br /><br />We can stop practices that kill the ozone layer; we can stop practices that clearcut forests. We can mitigate carbon dioxide emissions. The means used to achieve one set of goals may not suffice for a new goal - yet we can devise new means. The question is less 'how bad will it get' than it is 'how to make things a little better?' (and who pays to do so).<br /><br />If the Ent sees my view as sorcery/alchemy, I'd counter by saying the difference between alchemy and chemistry is all in the method: science is not sorcery, and disdains 'progress' in favor of 'truth' through a disciplined, competitive process (which, occasionally may result in new profits as well, and livelihoods for many). We've never 'bent nature to our will' - rather, we harnessed nature through newer, more ingenious means. We will do the same with our climate. Hopefully when we do, we'll do so in a manner that continues to enrich most of us, rather than a small few.donzelionhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05991849781932619746noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-18592838226626975982018-05-30T12:37:31.774-07:002018-05-30T12:37:31.774-07:00There! You see Occam! Treebeards defeatist snark w...There! You see Occam! Treebeards defeatist snark will save us all 'cause...you know...stuff...Marshall Boicehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01634278429278925746noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-61255210420860386052018-05-30T12:35:34.120-07:002018-05-30T12:35:34.120-07:00@occam's comic | The fact that you think we ha...@occam's comic | <i>The fact that you think we have 50 more years to solve the problem is part of the problem.</i><br /><br />If that were true they way you describe it, I'd agree that it is a problem. My belief is we are in the midst of solving it right now, that it will take some time to do it, that many ideas will have to be tried in parallel with many of them failing, and I suspect sunspot cycle 25 is going to be rather mild which will buy us a little time.<br /><br /><i>Climate change has moved from a problem we could have avoided to a predicament that we will have to deal with.</i><br /><br />Yes. I completely agree with this. Add on that 'dealing with it' will be very expensive and I'd nod my head again. I used to rail against fools who thought they weren't going to incur any costs for being wrong because they didn't BELIEVE they were wrong. I stopped a few years ago and turned my attention to 'dealing with it.'<br /><br /><i>350ppm of CO2 was the safe level</i><br /><br />I'm not so sure about this. What 'safe' is depends on what we are capable of doing and how rich we are collectively. Obviously the higher the CO2 level is, the more expensive remediation is going to be. Just how expensive, though, requires an economic projection which we suck at. We CAN say that relative to current wealth, the costs we will incur in future generations will be staggeringly large. Relative to their wealth, though, I just don't know. My closet full of clothes used to require a nobleman's income to purchase and maintain while the other things I own were simply out of their reach. Not so anymore.<br /><br />I'm not quibbling about he danger we face. It's very real. I'm arguing that we should not claim to be able to make predictions we simply can't make. With economics, the predictions we CAN make are mostly about what will NOT happen. For example, if an oil producing nation decided to do the good thing and stop providing oil, we can safely predict the oil markets will make up for that at some point. The supply would not simply vanish unless demand did. Even then the supply might not vanish. Prices might change instead.<br /><br />What we've done to the CO2 levels is mostly a late 20th century problem. The world changed a great deal from 1800 to 1850 to 1900 to ... etc. It will continue to change in radical ways. When I was born, we were on the brink of global scale starvation. Now we have over 2x more of us and many suffer from obesity. Predicting POSSIBLE dangers is well worth the effort, but claiming they are unavoidable is a failure to learn from our history. Working to prevent POSSIBLE dangers gets my full-throated support.Alfred Differhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01170159981105973192noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-23188186745242594772018-05-30T12:20:09.623-07:002018-05-30T12:20:09.623-07:00No worries Occam, every problem created by shiny n...No worries Occam, every problem created by shiny new technologies can be solved by even shinier, newer technologies. We are mighty beings, remember? Regular gods in the making. Nature bends to our wills, because we have the sorcery called Science and the god called Progress. If we fail to solve a problem, it can only mean that some traitorous heretics sabotaged us or our faith in Progress was insufficiently strong. Don't tell me you have joined with the heretics now?Treebeardnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-86753728238719976252018-05-30T11:36:28.933-07:002018-05-30T11:36:28.933-07:00"my exact words (as actually quoted by David ..."my exact words (as actually quoted by David previously) being “Until 1979, 'Global Cooling' was the Scientific Consensus”.<br /><br />DONE!<br /><br />That's the wager then, you sniveling git. Writhing to evade accountability, you finally stated an explicit. Let's pick a neutral stakes holder. We've settled on the bet. Now it will take months to corner you into accepting rules. Oh, how I want your money. But remember how certain YOU are! You should be salivating over getting mine.David Brinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14465315130418506525noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-61720105022630803552018-05-30T10:52:14.198-07:002018-05-30T10:52:14.198-07:00locumranch:
Current 'Climate Change Theory ha...locumranch:<br /><i><br />Current 'Climate Change Theory has more in common with CATECHISM than science.<br /></i><br /><br />The difference being that climate change (aka global warming) is demonstrably real. It's not a question of which authority figure asserts which thing. "It's actually happening, Reg!"<br /><br />http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2018/Senate/Maps/May21.html#item-7<br /><i><br />For years, climate-deniers—a faction that the GOP has an even greater monopoly on than gun zealots—have insisted that there is no warming. That fiction is getting harder to maintain; just this month the planet had its 400th consecutive month of warmer-than-average temperatures. That's a staggering 33 straight years; the odds of that happening by random chance are 3.87259 X 10E121. To put that large a number in some sort of context, 2E64 grains of rice would be enough to bury New York City to a depth of 20 feet, and 10E121 is considerably more than 100,000,000,000,000,000,000 times larger than 2E64. To put it another way, there's no way that 400 straight months could possibly be random chance.<br /><br />Anyhow, now that global warming is all-but-undeniable, Republican partisans have moved on to excusing the phenomenon's effects as beyond the control of man. Sunspot activity is one popular explanation, another is "Earth's natural cycles." Rep. Mo Brooks (R-AL) proposed an interesting one this week: That ocean levels are rising because of all the rocks falling into them, particularly from the Cliffs of Dover. The Cliffs are 15 km and the coastline of the UK alone is 12,429 km, so that math doesn't quite add up. Of course, Brooks also insisted this week that the size of the Antarctic ice shelf is currently growing. That is 100% correct, if by "growing" you mean "shrinking." Clearly, facts are not Brooks' strong suit. And not only is he a duly-elected member of Congress, he's Vice-Chair of the Committee on Space, Science, and Technology.<br /></i>LarryHartnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-43450688549763676352018-05-30T10:35:21.929-07:002018-05-30T10:35:21.929-07:00locum: re-read your own wikipedia entry. Your wor...locum: re-read your own wikipedia entry. Your words “Until 1979, 'Global Cooling' was the Scientific Consensus” - are rebutted by its text, as I quoted earlier: the consensus favored 'global warming' even in the early 1970s, and 'cooling' was raised as a possibility based on a set of estimates about aerosols which were reevaluated by the proponents themselves, and rejected in the face of better data and methodologies.<br /><br /><i>"One obtains the Climate Scientist credential by practicing rote memorisation,"</i><br />Now that strikes me as unfair: one no more becomes a scientist by rote memorization than one becomes a doctor by rote memorization of anatomical parts and a few Latin phrases. Your own reluctance to look at the methodologies that lead the early proponents of 'cooling theory' to reject it and embrace a 'warming theory' illustrates the problem: they used methodologies, they refined them, they advised on a project of collecting better data, that project was launched - all of which is precisely how its supposed to be done.<br /><br /><i>"Current 'Climate Change Theory has more in common with CATECHISM than science."</i><br />Were this claim accurate, then Exxon-Mobil et. al. would repudiate the catechism in their internal projects - rather than relying on it to build projects at significantly greater cost than was necessary. Instead, the 'internal use' of the science (to ensure profitable petrol projects) and the 'external' debunking of the science (to avert policies that threatened profits) is a consistent marker.<br /><br />But that was the '80s-'00s era, when petrol was the only player that could benefit from a public rejection/private acceptance. Today, many folks have figured out a large group of investments that require privately anticipating climate change while publicly debunking it (esp. through insurance gambits in connection with construction). Look to Louisiana: the upstate factories knew how to protect themselves from floods - and also knew that if lower properties flooded, while theirs did not, numerous means of enriching themselves and securing their profits would follow in one form or another.donzelionhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05991849781932619746noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-39302213401309046322018-05-30T10:20:37.696-07:002018-05-30T10:20:37.696-07:00Alfred: "There is a really good chance you k...Alfred: <i>"There is a really good chance you know the history FAR better than I do."</i><br />Unlikely; this was a guest lecture in property law class (or organized by the school), one I may be misremembering, and only an introductory segment in a presentation more focused on the 2001 power crisis in California. But that said, my point was about the role of capitalism in breaking neo-feudalism, and the place of energy in that story (sorry if that's my recurring fixation)<br /><br /><i>"I treat California as two different entities with a division at WWII."</i><br />I see the evolution as linked to transportation/shipping, and prefer setting the periods as follows:<br />(1) Domestic transport (1869 - 1914, the period from the transcontinental railroad to the Panama Canal) - a period of railroad barons and land barons during which a few well-placed oligarchs - Getty, Hearst, Huntington, Stanford, and a few others - attained wealth as impressive as anything back east, but with a tiny middle class<br />(2) 1914 - 1941 - the era in which electricity + developers started breaking the baronies (3) WWII - 1970s - the era of mass industry in CA - with a massively growing middle class<br />(4) 1970s - current - the era of trans-Pacific trading in CA<br /><br /><i>"Excess capital is often invested locally no matter where one looks."</i><br />Equity yes; debt capital, not so much. One piece of the value of equity is the control, and control is most valuable when leveraged to influence relations with local authorities (e.g., one doesn't even need to bribe a city council member if one owns the factory that employs a good chunk of voters). For debt, all you need is a good risk/profit ratio - that could be realized anywhere.<br /><br />During Phase 1, California went with a typical 'baronial' development model - a handful of oligarchs obtained a slight but meaningful geographic advantage somewhere, then leveraged it into a massive fortune through trust-monopoly tricks. During Phase 2, electricity ruptured one part of the 'real estate' gambit in most trusts (acquire a critical but overlooked plot, then use it to squeeze off the rival factory, reducing its profits to the point where you can acquire it at a fraction of its actual value). Once electricity came on stream (and every investor knew it would only grow further), the efforts had to favor enhancing the factory itself, rather than squeezing rivals. During Phase 3, with mass electricity on stream, industrialization flowered in CA - and a mass middle class grew along with it. Utilities morphed from 'secretive, opaque' kingmakers modeled on railroads of the 19th century into mass credit aggregators. A historical novelty.<br /><br /><i>"Utilities are essentially renters of credit, so they can't be the big money makers."</i><br />My understanding is that the initial effort to use utilities the same way railroads had been used initially failed: those who tried to play a territorial game got beaten by those who focused on efficiency. Utilities BECAME renters of credit, perhaps in spite of the owners' original intent.donzelionhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05991849781932619746noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-3402004348565023432018-05-30T08:35:26.382-07:002018-05-30T08:35:26.382-07:00Alfred Differ:
“Ukraine is not defensible by NATO...Alfred Differ:<br /><br />“Ukraine is not defensible by NATO forces. Look at the terrain and who close the US Navy can get and you might see the problem. The Black Sea is NOT one we can dominate without Turkey's acceptance. The terrain is essentially flat meaning there are few defensible borders between any point in Ukraine and Moscow. Any fool who goes in their with force simply HAS to be a neighbor to have a chance. Ukraine's neighbors are better known for fighting there instead of in their own homelands, so there is an historical problem in this.”<br /><br />All right. Everything is a matter of strategy. It is not necessary to fight with the Russians in Ukraine. Give me command of NATO and in five months the NATO officers will be in charge of all the facilities of the KGB and the Russian army. One more year and the Russians would have their first real elections.<br />Yes. I think I can do that. If I have command of NATO. Maybe General Patton was right. They must have attacked the Russians immediately. The thousands of American soldiers killed in Vietnam and in many other conflicts would have been saved. The Russians have several weak points that it is possible to use. Who knows. We could even use Donald Trump in the operation "Winter on Fire" (without asking permission).<br />There is a possibility that some places are very radioactive. But, well,¡We can not make breakfast without breaking some eggs!<br /><br />¡Alba gu bràth! ¡Alba gu bràth!.<br /><br />Winter7<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-76667983348186559482018-05-30T07:11:19.608-07:002018-05-30T07:11:19.608-07:00David accuses me of "raving that a majority o...<br />David accuses me of "raving that a majority of scientists in the 70s were declaring a coming ice age".<br /><br />This accusation is a LIE most deliberate because I have never claimed "a MAJORITY of scientists in the 70s were declaring a coming ice age", my exact words (as actually quoted by David previously) being “Until 1979, 'Global Cooling' was the Scientific Consensus”.<br /><br />The precise term for this fallacious line of argument is Argumentum Ad Populum (Latin for "argument to the people") wherein David concludes that a proposition like climate change theory must be true because many, most or a MAJORITY of climate scientists currently believe it.<br /><br />That is to say that David engages in Argumentum Ad Populum (by insisting that a MAJORITY of scientists believe as he does) while falsely dismissing the rhetorical opposition for engaging in the same fallacious line of argument.<br /><br />And, pray tell, how does one become a Climate Scientist in this day & age?<br /><br />One obtains the Climate Scientist credential by practicing rote memorisation, parroting the official academic party line & prostrating oneself before other established climate scientists until one has been confirmed into this exclusive meteorological order like the Priests of Old.<br /><br />Current 'Climate Change Theory has more in common with CATECHISM than science.<br /><br /><br />Bestlocumranchnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-9975879462783581762018-05-30T06:15:16.059-07:002018-05-30T06:15:16.059-07:00@Yana -
"You seem somewhat angry about it......@Yana -<br /><br /><i>"You seem somewhat angry about it..."</i><br /><br />Annoyed, more like. Said roommate also likes listening to some strange talk radio, and gets a lot of "information" from YouTube, so he talks about how nothing we do to the climate matters anyway because Yellowstone is "overdue" for an eruption that will destroy civilization, and maybe global warming is good because we're "overdue" for that ice age... There's only so many times you can present the contradictory data before you start wanting to throw things every time someone discusses a natural phenomenon as "overdue", as if reality consults a timetable.<br /><br />And I can't look at things from Loco's point of view - since my spinal discs started degenerating, I can't get my head far enough up my ass. There's a good reason why I stopped even reading his drivel a few years ago; like President Donnie, he engages in a Directed Denial of Service attack against facts.Jon S.https://www.blogger.com/profile/13585842845661267920noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-46112209351521704492018-05-30T04:17:01.687-07:002018-05-30T04:17:01.687-07:00Alfred Differ said...
@Occam's comic | Dangero...Alfred Differ said...<br />@Occam's comic | Dangerous climate change is unavoidable.<br /><br />No. I strongly disagree.<br /><br /><br />You can disagree all you want but it will not change a thing.<br />350ppm of CO2 was the safe level.<br />We have blown past that (now at ~410ppm)and there is no sign of it even slowing down.<br /><br />The fact that you think we have 50 more years to solve the problem is part of the problem. Time was the scarcest resource we had and we have wasted too much of it. Climate change has moved from a problem we could have avoided to a predicament that we will have to deal with. occam's comicnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-71539485242474416512018-05-30T01:21:12.284-07:002018-05-30T01:21:12.284-07:00A note about the "manual for civilians to pre...A note about the "manual for civilians to prepare for war" in Sweden. I don't have any citations, but an acquaintance from Sweden reported that this 'manual' is something that had previously been printed in every edition of the telephone directory, and the fact that there is a 'new manual' comes about only because they aren't printing telephone directories any longer.gregory byshenknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-9037798002178388942018-05-30T00:47:35.255-07:002018-05-30T00:47:35.255-07:00Huh! Maybe that pesky water allotrope from the &qu...Huh! Maybe that <a href="https://www.unibas.ch/en/News-Events/News/Uni-Research/Water-is-not-the-same-as-water.html" title="para and ortho. Watch these terms get trotted out in new holistic quantum medicines" rel="nofollow">pesky water allotrope from the "Naked Now"</a> isn't so far fetched?Tony Fiskhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14578160528746657971noreply@blogger.com