8 edits
Originally posted by Metal BrainHOW put my efforts there? I have absolutely no measurable political power/influence and the best 'effort' I can make is the token one of verbal protest, which I do all the time anyway. What else CAN I do?
Your problem is with how government works, but instead of putting your efforts there....
And why should this be a reason to go against solar energy when it isn't solar energy that is the problem here; it is taxation of poor people?
What you meant to say is that the poor should not be burdened with additional new taxes.
NO. I meant to say EXACTLY what I did. Rightly or wrongly, it is my personal best moral judgment that the poor, or at the very least the poorest of the poor in the context of a poor country, should NEVER be taxed. I have no idea where you got that " additional new" taxes from but, I have no idea where you get most of your ideas from. I think a tax for the very poor is wrong whether it is a "new" one or an old one; how recent the tax was introduced being totally irrelevant to the morality of it.
We can agree on that, but you would be insane to think it will actually turn out that way just because you hope it will.
OBLIVIOUSLY, I don't think it will actually turn out that way just because I “hope” it will.
In fact, thanks to political stupidity, I am not particularly optimistic it will turn out anything like exactly the way I would won't it. But this is just because of bad politics, not because of any lack of feasibility of renewables, which have already proven perfectly feasible in many parts of the world and will become ever more feasible with advances in technology.
I have told you before and I'm telling you again, Solar will not solve the things you think it will.
What, according to you, are the “things” I hope solar will solve?
The internal combustion engine is here to stay.
Nope. You couldn't possibly be more wrong. It is just a matter of time before science and technology replaces the inevitably energy inefficient dirty polluting old combustion engines with clean, none polluting and much more energy efficient alternatives such as all-electric engines or fuel-cell based engines etc.
The laws of thermodynamics put an upper limit on how energy a heat engine can be (A “heat engine” in physics means an engine that works by at least in one stage of its energy conversions, converts heat energy into some other form of energy ). What most people don't realize is that those laws don't put an upper limit of energy efficiency on other types of energy that don't convert heat energy to some other type of energy. This means all-electric or fuel-cell based engines etc could, and eventually will, be all designed to have energy efficiency arbitrarily close to 100%.
Already we have some electric engines that are 96% energy efficient, which is about double the theoretical maximum limit of energy deficiency for the internal combustion engine.
It is pretty obvious to all of us that understand basic physics and understand that technology is improving all the time and will continue to do so into the foreseeable future, that the internal combustion engine has no long term future whatsoever. It will eventually be made completely obsolete by much more energy efficient engines that will be better in every way.
Your stupid assertions that solar will change that is absurd.
what is “absurd” about an all-electric car that has its batteries fully charged up using electricity from renewables only?
Explain to us all here the physics to us scientists here that show that would be impossible....
Your heat capacity assertion is ridiculous
...So now you inadvertently finally deny the known laws of physic. What do you understand about the physics of heat capacity? Have you done any university physics courses like I have and worked through all the equations for heat capacity and thermodynamics like I have? You are ignorant of basic physics so how do you KNOW that my/our assertions on this subject are wrong?
Originally posted by googlefudgeOil and gas companies do not get subsidies. Necessary tax breaks are not subsidies.
No, I understand the risks perfectly.
You do not understand that I want to END all drilling for oil and gas [and mining for coal]
due to the damage using such fossil fuels does for the environment.
And one part of that is to end the billions upon billions in subsidies given to massive multinationals
with multi-billion dollar profit margins.
"You do not understand that I want to END all drilling for oil and gas."
You are at least 50 years away from that even if you get the economic policies you want. Like humy you are living in a fantasy.
Originally posted by humymisprint:
HOW put my efforts there? I have absolutely no measurable political power/influence and the best 'effort' I can make is the token one of verbal protest, which I do all the time anyway. What else CAN I do?
And why should this be a reason to go against solar energy when it isn't solar energy that is the problem here; it is taxation of poor people?
[quote] ...[text shortened]... e ignorant of basic physics so how do you KNOW that my/our assertions on this subject are wrong?
".. the way I would won't it"
should be
".. the way I would want it"
1 edit
Originally posted by humy"NO. I meant to say EXACTLY what I did. Rightly or wrongly, it is my personal best moral judgment that the poor, or at the very least the poorest of the poor in the context of a poor country, should NEVER be taxed."
HOW put my efforts there? I have absolutely no measurable political power/influence and the best 'effort' I can make is the token one of verbal protest, which I do all the time anyway. What else CAN I do?
And why should this be a reason to go against solar energy when it isn't solar energy that is the problem here; it is taxation of poor people?
[quote] ...[text shortened]... e ignorant of basic physics so how do you KNOW that my/our assertions on this subject are wrong?
I have no idea what the poorest of the poor is in your judgment, but the poor are taxed with many different taxes. The rich like it that way so the poor work hard to make them richer. What you want is unrealistic even in a socialist country. Now you are just talking like a crazy person. Remind yourself of the world you really live in. In the USA wealthy corporations often pay no taxes and even get rebates. See Bernie Sanders website.
The Rockefellers run government here in the USA. This is the best democracy money can buy. When they get the carbon tax they want they will use that money to invade more oil rich countries and occupy them and your government will help ours like always. You underestimate the corruption involved here.
"In fact, thanks to political stupidity, I am not particularly optimistic it will turn out anything like exactly the way I would won't it. But this is just because of bad politics, not because of any lack of feasibility of renewables, which have already proven perfectly feasible in many parts of the world and will become ever more feasible with advances in technology."
Many part of the world? Bull crap! Denmark and who else?
"What, according to you, are the “things” I hope solar will solve?"
Reducing CO2 levels. Solar will not do that for at least 50 years. The internal combustion engine will be dominant for at least that long. Fuel cells use hydrogen and fossil fuels are the least costly source for that. Until you can get solar to produce that hydrogen with parity fossil fuels will continue to be used. That is a long way off. When you say it is a matter of time you are absolutely right, but it will be a very long time and that is your problem. All electric engines already exist and very few people are buying them. They cost too much and people don't want to plug in their car if they don't have to. You are being unrealistic here too.
"Already we have some electric engines that are 96% energy efficient, which is about double the theoretical maximum limit of energy deficiency for the internal combustion engine."
What is your source of information?
"what is “absurd” about an all-electric car that has its batteries fully charged up using electricity from renewables only?"
Batteries are big and heavy, and as a consequence only a limited number can be installed. The Tesla Model S for example, has a battery pack approximately two metres long by 1.2 metres wide, which is installed flat along the floor of the car. In the top-spec car, that gives a range of about 300 miles (482km) before plugging in and recharging is required. The Nissan Leaf achieves more like 80 miles (128km). On top of that, charging is a much slower process than just filling up with petrol.
"So now you inadvertently finally deny the known laws of physic. What do you understand about the physics of heat capacity?"
Nope. You are not an atmospheric physicist and you are being pretentious now. I already proved that assertion wrong to googlefudge. The arctic glaciers melted faster in the 1930s than they are now. You are simply making a fool of yourself by clinging onto that false notion. This is another example of you being pretentious merely because you took some physics courses unrelated to climate change.
10 edits
Originally posted by Metal Brain~30 years of higher education into physics including degree level.
"Already we have some electric engines that are 96% energy efficient, which is about double the theoretical maximum limit of energy deficiency for the internal combustion engine."
What is your source of information?
.
How many years have YOU spend studying physics with formal education and at what level?
You never tell us your science credentials and we OBVIOUSLY all know why. You are an arrogant ignorant nobody in science and nobody can take such a stupid man seriously. Judging purely from you posts, I think it would be extremely unlikely you would have even got even a pointless D for something like a very low level course such as a GCSE physics course -more like a complete fail.
You clearly have absolutely no understanding of basic science so your science credentials must be hilarious given you make out you know all about it.
"So now you inadvertently finally deny the known laws of physic. What do you understand about the physics of heat capacity?"
Nope. You are not an atmospheric physicist
You don't have to be an atmospheric physicist to have expertise in thermodynamics and therefore heat capacity you arrogant ignorant moron. Heat capacity is not the specialized preserve of atmospheric physics but rather is from the more generic thermodynamics which has applications not only for atmospheric science but rather ALL the MANY physical science applications involving teat transfer and/or energy conversions involving heat.
I have expertise in heat capacity; you don't.
I am done here; I will not waste any more time on you.
1 edit
Originally posted by humyYou are an idiot!
~30 years of higher education into physics including degree level.
How many years have YOU spend studying physics with formal education and at what level?
You never tell us your science credentials and we OBVIOUSLY all know why. You are an arrogant ignorant nobody in science and nobody can take such a stupid man seriously. Judging purely from you posts, I t ...[text shortened]... expertise in heat capacity; you don't.
I am done here; I will not waste any more time on you.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/06/02/1930s_greenland_glacier_retreat/
9 edits
The post that was quoted here has been removedInteresting.
In his mind, he was a self-evident unsung genius who was being ignored or persecuted
out of spiteful jealousy ...
That is probably something like what Metal brain thinks of himself.
I wonder how common are such people which, like him, have the same kind of delusion as stated above?
I hope not common but exceedingly rare but it now looks like we two have collectively know/heard-of of at least two such people which isn't a good sign.
I think the problem, as always, isn't really ignorance.
We are all ignorant of many things including myself.
I am completely ignorant of your family history and by knowledge of medicine is laughable thus, when I go to my doctor, I don't start lecturing him about medicine (not that I would anyway ) making out I know far more about it all than he does and that he would be just being stupid and spitefully jealous if he disagreed with me.
The way I see it is that real problem is that certain people seem to refuse to acknowledge even to themselves their own general ignorance of a subject -Metal brain's refusal to acknowledge his own general ignorance of science being a good example. his ignorance wouldn't be a problem at all if he simply accepted he doesn't really understand it and moved on. But I think “ In his mind, he was a self-evident unsung genius who was being ignored or persecuted out of spiteful jealousy” is probability a good disruption of what he does instead.
I don't think you saw this but, much earlier, Metal brain very and irrefutably clearly indicated he thought he was a creative genius and was another leonardo da vinci. On another occasion, he very and irrefutably clearly indicated he thought he was another Einstein. On both occasions, he compared himself with them and said he understands how they "must have felt" when people like 'us' (those that disagree with Metal brains opinions ) disagreed with them. WOW! What delusions of grandeur!
I don't think I compare with Einstein and, unlike Menal brain, I have some real physics credentials.
2 edits
The post that was quoted here has been removedYour comparison is ridiculous and slanderous. You obviously have not been following this these threads closely enough to know why humy is so wrong.
Humy claims heat capacity will prolong CO2 induced warming for years to explain why we are not experiencing Pliocene like temps. When I pointed out the average coldest day of the year was only about a month after the winter solstice (same for the summer solstice) and that it contradicted his assertion of years the only person on this forum to address that was googlefudge, not humy. Googlefudge claimed that the glaciers were prolonging the lag due to heat capacity. When I pointed out that didn't make sense because glaciers melted faster in the 1930s nobody challenged me in a reply to that post.
I clearly proved that heat capacity cannot possibly be the reason global warming has not progressed to Pliocene like temps (because of comparable CO2 levels of today to the Pliocene) because of a mere lag effect due to heat capacity. If she was right there would be more glacier melting today than back in the early 30s when CO2 levels were lower than today.
Humy is wrong and knows it, but never admits defeat even when it is obvious. Humy would rather continue making stupid statements that prove nothing because of a grudge that is illogical. Humy insulted me without provocation many months ago because of frustration from losing the debate. Humy's grudge is because I retaliated by insulting humy in the same way except humy really was being stupid when I retaliated.
Humy is simply a sore loser that cannot admit being wrong and expects a double standard because of delusions of superiority. I suspect you want to side with humy merely because I rightly pointed out your hypocrisy on another thread. You need to do more than just hold a grudge like humy, you need to challenge me on the facts instead of avoiding them like humy and others who have blind faith in the hypothesis of global warming alarmism.
Originally posted by humy"I don't think you saw this but, much earlier, Metal brain very and irrefutably clearly indicated he thought he was a creative genius and was another leonardo da vinci. On another occasion, he very and irrefutably clearly indicated he thought he was another Einstein. On both occasions, he compared himself with them and said he understands how they "must have felt" when people like 'us' (those that disagree with Metal brains opinions ) disagreed with them. WOW! What delusions of grandeur!"
Interesting.In his mind, he was a self-evident unsung genius who was being ignored or persecuted
out of spiteful jealousy ...
That is probably something like what Metal brain thinks of himself.
I wonder how common are such people which, like him, have the same kind of delusion as stated above?
I hope not common but exceedingly rare ...[text shortened]... n't think I compare with Einstein and, unlike Menal brain, I have some real physics credentials.
The above statement by humy is an outright lie. I never compared myself to da vinci at all. I never even brought up his name, humy did. I never compared myself to Einstein either. That is also an outright lie.
I challenge humy and anyone else on this forum to prove I made such statements. They simply do not exist. Humy has lied many times on this forum, too many times for me to count. It is a pattern with humy that is repugnant. Since humy has delusions of grandeur she keeps resorting to more lying in a feeble attempt to slander me and avoid backing up her claims with a source of information she commonly refuses to provide when called on her bluffs.
I doubt humy has any science credentials at all. If humy does she has a very limited understanding of her course of study since she has to constantly resort to lying and avoiding debating on facts like she is doing again now.
Notice how humy will not give a rebuttal to the facts. Character assassination is her only resort. Pathetic!
I once gave humy the chance to apologize for calling me stupid without provacation so we could bury the hatchet and be respectful to one another. She refused and I told her I would then continue making her look stupid for that refusal to own up to her unwarranted insults. In reality it is her that makes herself look stupid, but she will not blame herself so she irrationally blames me for her own flaws.
I made good on my promise. Humy now looks stupid because of her own vindictiveness. Humy only has humy to blame for this. I suspect this will only make it worse, but why should I care? I gave her a chance to avoid this.
I would advise duchess to not follow humy's foolish path. The result will likely be the same.
Originally posted by Metal BrainDon't count on it, don't give up your day job. Why did you say you were another Einstein?
I once gave humy the chance to apologize for calling me stupid without provacation so we could bury the hatchet and be respectful to one another. She refused and I told her I would then continue making her look stupid for that refusal to own up to her unwarranted insults. In reality it is her that makes herself look stupid, but she will not blame herself ...[text shortened]...
I would advise duchess to not follow humy's foolish path. The result will likely be the same.