Yet more proof.

[Scott777]

And back to the AGW issue, this picture taken during the recent total eclipse shows the effect the Sun has on us. We are in effect inside the Suns atmosphere and anyone that doesn't agree that small changes in the Suns activity changes our climate are mad.

Beelzebub seems to have done a runner.  There are 3 possibilities.

A, he has a cold which is going round, maybe because of the cold weather which started a few days ago, caused by AGBollox.
B, the mothership took him back up.
C, he cannot justify anything he claims.

[Nick]

And back to the AGW issue, this picture taken during the recent total eclipse shows the effect the Sun has on us. We are in effect inside the Suns atmosphere and anyone that doesn't agree that small changes in the Suns activity changes our climate are mad. 

[Nick]

Here is an interesting think Mr Bub, not only now will I have to pay road tax for my EV, it is now muted that I will have to pay the congestion charge in London... If that doesn't tell you it's all an economic con I don't know what does. 

[Scott777]

If you were a rich oil baron, why would you purposely campaign to reduce that industry in exchange for an industry that you have less control over?

Maybe because I planned to invest in green tech, and get more control over that instead.  It was John Paul Getty, oil industrialist, whose granddaughter invested in XR.

The oil and gas industry would love you to keep your gas boiler and diesel SUV.

But the collected richest people in the world would prefer to invest in things which gives them more control over the consumer.  So as I say, you keep being selective, or assuming only that industry has all the money.

[Scott777]

And JA was jailed for a massive bail infringement - he literally fled and failed to appear. It is completely right that he was jailed for contempt. If he hadn't fled, he would have remained free on bail.

At that point (after being jailed for contempt) there was an extradition request from the US. Usually the subject is allowed to fight the request whilst on bail. For obvious reasons he couldn't be trusted to be granted bail, so he was stuck on remand.

Incidentally, the fact his extradition from the uk was requested gives lie to his defence that the Swedish charges were only a pretext to get him to Sweden so he could be extradited to the US - he was no "safer" from extradition in the UK (in fact he would probably be safer in sweden under the protection of the EU courts). It was 100% about him avoiding facing the serious charges.

For the record I don't think he should have been extradited to the US (absolutely to Sweden), but his incarceration was almost all his own doing.  Idiot.

Well that's your excuse for imprisoning someone for doing journalism.  I'm sure Putin has his own excuses.  It's still authoritarian.  As you well know, the bail infringement was because he was in fear of being extradited.  So he was in prison for years just because he was scared of going to the US and being sent to prison, probably tortured, likely killed.  Pray tell, what is more authoritarian than that?

[Scott777]

If your bank cards are stopped you have alot more problems than just buying fuel.  True you can buy fuel for cash but you still have to buy it from a fuel station.  An electric car can be charged at home (and it's hard to stop your electric, they have to physically pull your fuse) or your friends home.  Or at work. If you have solar panels you don't even need a grid connection (but you will need patience).  The only time your scenario applies is if you bank cards are stopped (or to be fair just your app access) and you are relying on public fast chargers. Even then you could still use cash if you could persuade someone to access the charger for cash.I forgot you were a COVID sceptic too.

So, what's the problem with buying fuel from a fuel station?

What is hard about pulling your fuse?

How will you charge your electric car on a cloudy day?

And if you can't persuade someone to charge your car?  And what info will they have access to through the app?  Is it even possible to charge someone else's car with a different app?

[Scott777]

But the richest people on earth are in oil! It's the largest industrial sector in the world.

They are also in green tech.  Again, you are focussing on some people and not others.  As I explained, if the collected richest people in the world can make more from an electric-dependent population, then they will also want to fund AGW.  

[BeElBeeBub]

"Them" refers to the richest people in the world.  Don't forget what we are arguing - do these people benefit from changing to electric, and would they therefore have a reason to fund AGW?  If there is a total benefit to the rich, then there is an overall incentive to fund AGW.

But the richest people on earth are in oil! It's the largest industrial sector in the world.

If you were part of a $5tn a year industry. Not only that, it's a consumables product.  Your customers need to keep buying from you.

If you sell boilers, you get a sale from a customer every 10-20 years. If you sell the gas the boilers burn your customers have to buy your gas every single day.  A large oil producing nation has massive power over the world.  A large solar panel producing nation or wind turbine producing nation has less power, because once they have sold the kit, they aren't really needed much.

If you were a rich oil baron, why would you purposely campaign to reduce that industry in exchange for an industry that you have less control over?


If anything the "they want to control us" argument is more valid for the denialist movement. The oil and gas industry would love you to keep your gas boiler and diesel SUV.

There's a reason the green movement is historically associated with the anti big business and anti government movements.
 
Those movements recognised that alot of green technologies reduce the power of government and business.

[Scott777]

Unless you are applying "them" as "anyone not me", not true.  The solar panel (and other kit) suppliers are not the government or the energy companies. You can pick from literally dozens of suppliers 

"Them" refers to the richest people in the world.  Don't forget what we are arguing - do these people benefit from changing to electric, and would they therefore have a reason to fund AGW?  If there is a total benefit to the rich, then there is an overall incentive to fund AGW.

[BeElBeeBub]

Then the supplier saves money.  And probably won't charge you less, because they will charge based on its value to you, which is based on demand.  So they make more.

It depends on the market.  Why should it be any different from now with different suppliers and a regulatory structure. The exact same arguments apply to the current energy supply situation.

Only if you pay for solar panels, etc, which makes profit for them.

Unless you are applying "them" as "anyone not me", not true.  The solar panel (and other kit) suppliers are not the government or the energy companies. You can pick from literally dozens of suppliers

It's all about degree.  We are more at their mercy if we keep handing over power.  The more they monitor us, the more power they have.  The easier it is to switch off our power, the more power they have.  If they stop your bank cards, you cannot charge your car, but you could buy fuel with cash.

If your bank cards are stopped you have alot more problems than just buying fuel.  True you can buy fuel for cash but you still have to buy it from a fuel station.  An electric car can be charged at home (and it's hard to stop your electric, they have to physically pull your fuse) or your friends home.  Or at work. If you have solar panels you don't even need a grid connection (but you will need patience).  The only time your scenario applies is if you bank cards are stopped (or to be fair just your app access) and you are relying on public fast chargers. Even then you could still use cash if you could persuade someone to access the charger for cash.

That's a bit of slight of hand.  They do promote AGW, which will give them more power over every individual.  I never said they use it as an excuse.  Freedoms were trampled the most by people like Trudeau, who clamped down on protesters by actually blocking their accounts.  He supports the Green New Deal, 100% renewable by 2040.  And Jacinda Ardern, whose parliament passed a zero carbon bill in 2019.  And Bozo, with his "green industrial revolution".  Under the Bozo government, Julian Assange was in prison for years, when his only crime was a minor bail infringement, and journalism.  Bozo pushed digital ID (vaccine passports) until it was met with too much resistance.

I forgot you were a COVID sceptic too.

And JA was jailed for a massive bail infringement - he literally fled and failed to appear. It is completely right that he was jailed for contempt. If he hadn't fled, he would have remained free on bail.

At that point (after being jailed for contempt) there was an extradition request from the US. Usually the subject is allowed to fight the request whilst on bail. For obvious reasons he couldn't be trusted to be granted bail, so he was stuck on remand.

Incidentally, the fact his extradition from the uk was requested gives lie to his defence that the Swedish charges were only a pretext to get him to Sweden so he could be extradited to the US - he was no "safer" from extradition in the UK (in fact he would probably be safer in sweden under the protection of the EU courts). It was 100% about him avoiding facing the serious charges.

For the record I don't think he should have been extradited to the US (absolutely to Sweden), but his incarceration was almost all his own doing.  Idiot.

[Scott777]

But a core point about wind/solar is that it is alot cheaper to produce. The cost per kWh (including capital, finance and maintenance) is about 75% electricity from gas.

Then the supplier saves money.  And probably won't charge you less, because they will charge based on its value to you, which is based on demand.  So they make more.

Added to that is the fact individuals can produce their own electricity.

Only if you pay for solar panels, etc, which makes profit for them.

Ultimately we are always at the mercy of our governments

It's all about degree.  We are more at their mercy if we keep handing over power.  The more they monitor us, the more power they have.  The easier it is to switch off our power, the more power they have.  If they stop your bank cards, you cannot charge your car, but you could buy fuel with cash.

Again, if you look at the most authoritarian (and by that I mean most likely to trample individual freedoms) countries and leaders - none of them are using "AGW" as an excuse to reduce individual rights.

That's a bit of slight of hand.  They do promote AGW, which will give them more power over every individual.  I never said they use it as an excuse.  Freedoms were trampled the most by people like Trudeau, who clamped down on protesters by actually blocking their accounts.  He supports the Green New Deal, 100% renewable by 2040.  And Jacinda Ardern, whose parliament passed a zero carbon bill in 2019.  And Bozo, with his "green industrial revolution".  Under the Bozo government, Julian Assange was in prison for years, when his only crime was a minor bail infringement, and journalism.  Bozo pushed digital ID (vaccine passports) until it was met with too much resistance.

[BeElBeeBub]

You missed quite a lot.  These are direct profits.  As you say, green tech will grow.  I suggest it is ultimately just as profitable as fuels.  This is common sense, because the value of something is determined by the supply and demand.  If leccy completely replaced fuels as our source of energy, then it will have exactly the same demand.  The supply of leccy at the moment is less than fuels.  So if we completely replaced it today, it would probably have more value than fuels.  (You omit from your equation that they control the cost.  If they want to put it up, or tax it more, they can).

Then add the indirect profits.  As I said, they have much more control over us, without fuels.  Power is money.  We don't really need to quantify that.  It is common sense that we lose, if the cost is the same, but we have less control.  We lose, they gain.

But a core point about wind/solar is that it is alot cheaper to produce. The cost per kWh (including capital, finance and maintenance) is about 75% electricity from gas.

Added to that is the fact individuals can produce their own electricity.

Ultimately we are always at the mercy of our governments, which is why countries with a strong rule of law that are part of an international court system are better from freedom pov than countries where judges are considered "enemies of the people" or citizens don't have the protection of international courts.

Again, if you look at the most authoritarian (and by that I mean most likely to trample individual freedoms) countries and leaders - none of them are using "AGW" as an excuse to reduce individual rights. They might use other pretexts like "protection of the unborn" or "morals" to do so, but not AGW.

[Scott777]

Ok, let's tackle this.

We have 2 routes,

1) "AGW isn't a thing, therefore fossil fuels will be the primary energy source of choice going forward"

2) "AGW warrants drastically reducing our burning of fossil fuels"

Under scenario 1, the oil and gas extraction industry (let's call it the Fossil Extraction industry, FE industry) will continue to grow.

Under scenario 2, the FE industry will shrink.  We will still need them for lubricants, chemicals, energy dense requirements (aviation etc) but the bulk of the current use is burning, which will drastically decline.

The fossil extraction industry is worth over $5tn a year.  Nearly 2x the UK GDP.

And that figure would grow as energy requirements increased.  Not only that, it is a recurring spend.  Once you have burned some oil or gas, you can't use it again. You must purchase.more.  so being in the FE industry is good business and scenario 2 threatens that.

But what about "big green" - the solar wind industrial complex?  Surely that mega business has a vested interest in pushing for scenario 2 to grab a slice of the FE industry pie?.

Well global Solar sales are in the $250bn a year region and wind turbine sales are under $100bn> so big green is maybe 10% the size of big oil.

Even if it quadrupled in size, it would still be less than half of annual FE industry turnover

Now it might grow (hopefully will) but the key thing with green energy is it is mostly capital cost. Once it's built you just have to pay for maintance (like you do with a thermal power plant). The "fuel" is free.

So.if you re asking "where is the profit?" - it's in denying AGW.

You missed quite a lot.  These are direct profits.  As you say, green tech will grow.  I suggest it is ultimately just as profitable as fuels.  This is common sense, because the value of something is determined by the supply and demand.  If leccy completely replaced fuels as our source of energy, then it will have exactly the same demand.  The supply of leccy at the moment is less than fuels.  So if we completely replaced it today, it would probably have more value than fuels.  (You omit from your equation that they control the cost.  If they want to put it up, or tax it more, they can).

Then add the indirect profits.  As I said, they have much more control over us, without fuels.  Power is money.  We don't really need to quantify that.  It is common sense that we lose, if the cost is the same, but we have less control.  We lose, they gain.

[Nick]

This is a fallacy. It assumes that because something is so, it must always be so.

The history of the earth shows that the conditions our civilization finds conducive are not the norm.  The earth varies from being too cold for us to being too hot.  The UK has been a tropical swamp and under km of ice, several times.

There is no system maintaining the environment in a state just right for us to flourish, divine or otherwise.

Now before Nick leaps in with "aha! So you admit the climate changes naturally!"....

Yes I do - the key point is past shifts have been slow (by our time scales).  Shifts have taken thousands of years. Such shifts give our civilization a chance to adapt.  Population centers can move, crops can be bred, economies can adapt.

But we seem to be witnessing a change orders of magnitude faster.  A speed we will struggle to keep up with.

Historical data doesn't have the sample rates that we have from recent changes, it's the difference between watching an old CRT TV and a modern 4K OLED TV. So for you to say climate changes have never moved at the speed they are doing today is wrong, we don't have the sample rates to produce a statement like that. 

[BeElBeeBub]

So we arrive at a well-balanced and self-maintaining earth, whether it was god, or a natural process.

This is a fallacy. It assumes that because something is so, it must always be so.

The history of the earth shows that the conditions our civilization finds conducive are not the norm.  The earth varies from being too cold for us to being too hot.  The UK has been a tropical swamp and under km of ice, several times.

There is no system maintaining the environment in a state just right for us to flourish, divine or otherwise.

Now before Nick leaps in with "aha! So you admit the climate changes naturally!"....

Yes I do - the key point is past shifts have been slow (by our time scales).  Shifts have taken thousands of years. Such shifts give our civilization a chance to adapt.  Population centers can move, crops can be bred, economies can adapt.

But we seem to be witnessing a change orders of magnitude faster.  A speed we will struggle to keep up with.