Re: Global Warming: Junk science at it's [best] worst

On Sep 20, 8:26 pm, bill.slo...@xxxxxxxx wrote:
On Sep 21, 3:41 am, Simon S Aysdie <gwh...@xxxxxx> wrote:

So why are you making such a fuss about the adovacy of energy
efficiency? It's a side show - something that individuals can
contribute now, even if it isn't going to make much difference in the
long run - and yet you concentrate on it to the exclusion of the
substantive issue.

You're complaint is I don't talk much about what you want to talk
about. I told you what I was going to talk about. You say "X" is a
"substantive issue," but that is just your assertion and bias. I know
you want to have control of other people, but maybe you would consider
that you can't always get what you want, and adjust your attitude
accordingly.

You have no idea how survivable such a thing is. There could be
political unrest as a result, wars could start.

I do have a fairly clear idea of how survivable such a rise in the
energy price is, and so would you, if you knew any history.

The price of energy doubled in 1974 as an indirect consequence of the
Yom Kippur war

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1973_oil_crisis

I wish you would read it yourself, and the discussion. Most of all,
do your own thinking.

In any case, every problem in there was government/policy spawned.
Your solution to the failures of government is, of course, more
government and more imposition of policies/statutes. You've got the
faith; I don't.

New Orleans was created and destroyed by Hurricane Guvmint. It was not a "weather disaster."

The weather did the damage.

No. People moved in there because of government built levees. The
government inadequately maintained the levees. Then when the weather
hit, and the government made matters much worse. It was pure
government failure, alpha to omega.

How many other under-specified and under-
maintained coastal defences are going to be shown up as global warming
enlarges the areas of of ocean that spend some of the year with
surfaces temperatures above 28C and can thus spawn and support
hurricanes?

So how are these coastal areas valued in a world of tradeoffs and
scarcity? Eliminate political boundaries and people can simply
migrate and homestead other areas. Less policy is better policy.
Less government is better government.

There are plenty of other areas to worry about.

Yeah, like between people's ears. laughs.

I think the point is that you think energy efficiency will reduce
global warming. It won't. I was missing "the major part" for the
same reason I missed talking about it raining this morning.

You missed it because you weren't paying attention. You were much more
interested in being the only kid in the class telling the yokels about
the Khazzoom-Brookes postulate.

No. Say for the sake of argument that you are 100% right about global
warming and the disastrous effects it will bring. It doesn't matter
because it is not a politically solvable problem. Obviously that is
merely my opinion, but I've heard no argument to dissuade me.

I was offering you a perspective on a single aspect, and one I happen
to know a little more about than most other people. Now, I am glad
you have acquired a more accurate view of matters, so that when you
propose your ideas to people, it will be more according to the facts,
and in this way, people can make their own free judgments regarding
the tradeoffs.

You did come to an accurate view that efficiency will make any
increased cost of energy less painful. Good. You also began (sort
of) to recognize that energy efficiency won't do squat regarding
aggregate energy consumption. Good. I accomplished _my_ goal.

Dude, people claim that more efficient machines lower aggregate energy
consumption and thus the aggregate carbon footprint. I have heard it
claimed many many times -- not just here and now.

They can, but only in a fairly coercive environment...

Energy efficiency won't do squat in that regard. Any reduction in
carbon footprint has to do with other (coupled) aspects of policy.
The variables and their effects are separable. I'm not saying that a
"environmentally friendly" practice should not include efficiency.
But the only concievable reason to include is as you pointed out: to
reduce the pain. That was my whole point of the wealth/poverty
inclusion, and again I am glad you got it more clearly than you did at
the start. My work here is pretty much done.


But if you foul up your environment sufficiently badly, the upward
spiral reverses rapidly and drastically.

Perhaps you are right and such doom is impending. But it is way down
on my list of priorities.

It isn't difficult to identify the current US administration
with the leaders of earlier communities who lead their
populations over the brink.

If you think the current administration is somehow unique, then you
live in a different universe than I do. "Leaders" always screw things
up. Less leading is better leading. What happened to people
demanding a servant rather than a leader? The world is upside down.

Maybe some people don't want to switch, or feel any of that sort of pain at all.

So what.

"So" people can make their own free choices.

You have gotten fascinated by the Khazzoom-Brookes postulate, and lost
sight of the primary aim, which is to reduce carbon dioxide emissions
- which does not entail any kind of permanent reduction in energy
production or consumption.

I haven't lost sight of it at all. I wasn't talking about it.

You talked of nothing else, but didn't bother citing the source, so
that it looked as if it was your own brilliant insight.

I told you that was what I was talking about, and what I was going to
talk about. I promised nothing else. It doesn't matter whose
"insight" it is. The lose-lose is if I point to sources, then I
"appeal to authority." If I "think of it myself," then I have no
"credentials." The eternal problem for anyone is to evaluate ideas --
regardless of the source/credentials -- and see if they withstand
scrutiny, or seem reasonable in any way. I have no credentials, so as
best I know, you are stuck with reasoning it out yourself.

If you have to know, it was the economist Edward Flaherty that
provoked this whole line of thinking in me. At first I could not
believe what he was saying: "it had to be wrong as it was
counterintuitive, and did not 'add up'." It countered my own biases
and I did not want it to be true. I finally had to admit he had an
important and subtle point, and he was right.

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.econ/browse_frm/thread/b2c05177b31a230/12ca6d69173f67b5?hl=en&lnk=st&q=&rnum=1#12ca6d69173f67b5

Interesting:
_Eco-Imperialism and the drive to destroy the free market_, By Tom
DeWeese
http://www.eco.freedom.org/articles/deweese-1205.shtml


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Six days to SCHIP
    ... One might think that the government would WANT to learn to make money ... But not without reason. ... To get flexibility and efficiency, ... the USAian way is already AFU -- my main grumble is that your way ...
    (alt.smokers.cigars)
  • Re: Global Warming: Junk science at its [best] worst
    ... So why are you making such a fuss about the adovacy of energy ... People moved in there because of government built levees. ... maintained coastal defences are going to be shown up as global warming ... of) to recognize that energy efficiency won't do squat regarding ...
    (sci.electronics.design)
  • Re: T12s going the way of the dodo
    ... Come to think of it the main reason for a phase out could be energy ... efficiency. ... Two watts saved over tens of millions of bulbs adds up. ...
    (rec.games.video.arcade.collecting)
  • =?ISO-8859-1?Q?"We_are_in_the_middle_of_a_revolution_and_Im_happ?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?y_
    ... planet is "a free-market system and a lot less government." ... how the environment figures into his small-government agenda. ... What makes you the strongest candidate on energy and the ... to certain forms of pollution. ...
    (alt.gathering.rainbow)
  • Re: Aztlan - The illegal alien conspiracy Why no comments?
    ... Mexicans come here to get away from Mexico -- not to re-create. ... crude that we suck down as energy whores in the US of A? ... Consumption is ingrained in us and we know no other way. ... long before the crude dries up the government must 'secure a supply' ...
    (soc.retirement)
Quantcast