Global warming 'confirmed' by independent study
-
Yes it will, as there will be a need for added capacity there will be a need for more funding = a larger bill for the customer.
Light moves faster than sound. That is why some people appear bright, until you hear them speak. List of common misconceptions
-
It's actually not Ian that's having these views, the Janitors name is harold.
Light moves faster than sound. That is why some people appear bright, until you hear them speak. List of common misconceptions
-
It's actually not Ian that's having these views, the Janitors name is harold.
Light moves faster than sound. That is why some people appear bright, until you hear them speak. List of common misconceptions
-
Larger bill for customer = losing customers. Besides if they have any brains at all over there they have been saving up for the upgrade ever since the previous upgrade.
harold aptroot wrote:
Larger bill for customer = losing customers.
They wouldn't lose any outside the margin. All power companies would need to do this upgrade. so the only real choice for the customers would be to skip being connected to the grid
harold aptroot wrote:
Besides if they have any brains at all over there they have been saving up for the upgrade ever since the previous upgrade.
That's not how it works. When they need to upgrade, they will take a really big loan covering the costs and push the amortization and interest on to the customer.
Light moves faster than sound. That is why some people appear bright, until you hear them speak. List of common misconceptions
-
Sorry Ian. I was a little surprised. It is hard to know who is replying to who when the threads get this long. :)
============================== Nothing to say.
There are more people mixing things up today, harold didn't like me referencing your post.
Light moves faster than sound. That is why some people appear bright, until you hear them speak. List of common misconceptions
-
harold aptroot wrote:
Larger bill for customer = losing customers.
They wouldn't lose any outside the margin. All power companies would need to do this upgrade. so the only real choice for the customers would be to skip being connected to the grid
harold aptroot wrote:
Besides if they have any brains at all over there they have been saving up for the upgrade ever since the previous upgrade.
That's not how it works. When they need to upgrade, they will take a really big loan covering the costs and push the amortization and interest on to the customer.
Light moves faster than sound. That is why some people appear bright, until you hear them speak. List of common misconceptions
Yea keep thinking that. Nuon Vaste Prijs is not going to raise its price because it contractually can't, and that's just one example. And some international player is going to undercut the others and steal all the other customers. So no, they couldn't do it like that.
-
There are more people mixing things up today, harold didn't like me referencing your post.
Light moves faster than sound. That is why some people appear bright, until you hear them speak. List of common misconceptions
-
Indeed, Fistedchuff is a symptom of his own superiority complex. No one can be as clever as him, no one can be as scientific, and yet he is an angry fool incapable of debate. In anycase, given how often doctors misdiagnose I would always validate their opinions with google. :)
============================== Nothing to say.
-
Erudite__Eric wrote:
Indeed, Fistedchuff is a symptom of his own superiority complex. No one can be as clever as him, no one can be as scientific, and yet he is an angry fool incapable of debate.
He's been there. He knows that arguing about scientific phenomena when your only qualification is that you've read a bunch of blogs on the Internet is basically futile. At least read this[^] first.
Woods and Trees Ravel. You dont need to go into that kind of depth, since as even the IPCC says, 4/5ths of it has a "very low level of scientific understanding" The basic facts speak for themselves. No feedbacks, 12 years of slight cooling, no increase in severe weather and insuficient troposphere warming all cast a great deal of doubt on the CO2 = catastrophe theory. I prefer to look at the basic facts, as do many scientists. (It is called empiricism) Oh, plus the fact the earth has been a lot warmer this interglacial, Vostock and Greenland ice core data. SO there are lots of reasons to doubt the meager warming caused by CO2 is any problem at all.
============================== Nothing to say.
-
Erudite__Eric wrote:
Indeed, Fistedchuff is a symptom of his own superiority complex. No one can be as clever as him, no one can be as scientific, and yet he is an angry fool incapable of debate.
He's been there. He knows that arguing about scientific phenomena when your only qualification is that you've read a bunch of blogs on the Internet is basically futile. At least read this[^] first.
Exactly. I don't really think there's a point to arguing with people like this, but for me on here it's quite therapeutic as I wouldn't ever want to damage the relationship with a patient, despite how much I might disagree with them. It's very interesting - people just smart enough to do some basic research and take an interest in a subject, but not educated enough to understand the subtle nuances of what they're reading and ultimately arguing, yet SO ABSOLUTELY CONVINCED of their ability. It's a broad psychological phenomenon - the less someone knows about something, the more people are likely to overestimate their knowledge of it. These guys are a perfect example. Heck, most of the people heavily into pseudoscientific nonsense like alternative medicine, chiropractic, alternate vaccine schedules, etc, are generally well educated - arts or engineering degrees; it gives them a false sense of confidence when exploring other avenues of knowledge and it can be nail-bitingly frustrating when people like that are determined to drive themselves or their loved ones off the edge of a proverbial cliff based on what they read on the internet.
- F
-
Still dodging the facts while piling on the insults. :)
============================== Nothing to say.
What was insulting about that? You guys were the ones doing the piling on. The fact is that you're not a climate scientist and ultimately your opinion on any raw data or cherry-picked studies is worth nothing. The fact is that I'm not a climate scientist and ultimately my opinion on the raw data or cherry-picked studies is worth nothing. Unfortunately, only one of us recognizes this. Toodles, champ!
- F
-
Woods and Trees Ravel. You dont need to go into that kind of depth, since as even the IPCC says, 4/5ths of it has a "very low level of scientific understanding" The basic facts speak for themselves. No feedbacks, 12 years of slight cooling, no increase in severe weather and insuficient troposphere warming all cast a great deal of doubt on the CO2 = catastrophe theory. I prefer to look at the basic facts, as do many scientists. (It is called empiricism) Oh, plus the fact the earth has been a lot warmer this interglacial, Vostock and Greenland ice core data. SO there are lots of reasons to doubt the meager warming caused by CO2 is any problem at all.
============================== Nothing to say.
-
Erudite__Eric wrote:
I prefer to look at the basic facts, as do many scientists
No, actually, scientists are expected to (duh) really understand what they're talking about.
- F
IPCC 4/5ths of factors affecting climate have a "Very low level of scientific understanding" http://www.ipcc.ch/graphics/2001syr/large/06.01.jpg[^] So that means none of them actually know what they are talking about either. In which case I agree with you entirely. :) Come back at me when you have something worth arguing against. That was too easy.
============================== Nothing to say.
-
Exactly. I don't really think there's a point to arguing with people like this, but for me on here it's quite therapeutic as I wouldn't ever want to damage the relationship with a patient, despite how much I might disagree with them. It's very interesting - people just smart enough to do some basic research and take an interest in a subject, but not educated enough to understand the subtle nuances of what they're reading and ultimately arguing, yet SO ABSOLUTELY CONVINCED of their ability. It's a broad psychological phenomenon - the less someone knows about something, the more people are likely to overestimate their knowledge of it. These guys are a perfect example. Heck, most of the people heavily into pseudoscientific nonsense like alternative medicine, chiropractic, alternate vaccine schedules, etc, are generally well educated - arts or engineering degrees; it gives them a false sense of confidence when exploring other avenues of knowledge and it can be nail-bitingly frustrating when people like that are determined to drive themselves or their loved ones off the edge of a proverbial cliff based on what they read on the internet.
- F
-
What was insulting about that? You guys were the ones doing the piling on. The fact is that you're not a climate scientist and ultimately your opinion on any raw data or cherry-picked studies is worth nothing. The fact is that I'm not a climate scientist and ultimately my opinion on the raw data or cherry-picked studies is worth nothing. Unfortunately, only one of us recognizes this. Toodles, champ!
- F
So you have no opinoins worth anything about anything other than what you have studied, or acchieved some kind of medal for? (Be it some publicaitons or so) Oh, and by the way, I am merely repeating the opinoins of climate scientists, so I gues you have to accept what I say then. :)
============================== Nothing to say.
-
Larger bill for customer = losing customers. Besides if they have any brains at all over there they have been saving up for the upgrade ever since the previous upgrade.
harold aptroot wrote:
Larger bill for customer = losing customers.
What kind of place do you live in? Where I live you have exactly TWO choices. 1. You get your electricity from the company all of your neighbors do. 2. You generate your own electricity. And option 2 only works for those that are willing to do with very little power or for those with a lot of money. Far as I know that is the situation in most of the world where electricity is available in some 'normal' fashion.
harold aptroot wrote:
Besides if they have any brains at all over there they have been saving up for the upgrade ever since the previous upgrade.
You really don't understand economics. I don't care where you get your power - it still costs money. If that wasn't the case there everyone would have all the power they could use. To do an "upgrade" it costs money. To do maintenance it costs money. To pay people to monitor it is costs money. To generate it is costs money. This is true for every single type of power (including ones that do not realistically exist like solar panel and fusion.) The fact that you don't understand where that money comes from in your situation doesn't change the fact that it still costs money. And when you attempt a major change in an economic system it WILL have ramifications far beyone what is visible from just the initial change.
-
harold aptroot wrote:
Larger bill for customer = losing customers.
What kind of place do you live in? Where I live you have exactly TWO choices. 1. You get your electricity from the company all of your neighbors do. 2. You generate your own electricity. And option 2 only works for those that are willing to do with very little power or for those with a lot of money. Far as I know that is the situation in most of the world where electricity is available in some 'normal' fashion.
harold aptroot wrote:
Besides if they have any brains at all over there they have been saving up for the upgrade ever since the previous upgrade.
You really don't understand economics. I don't care where you get your power - it still costs money. If that wasn't the case there everyone would have all the power they could use. To do an "upgrade" it costs money. To do maintenance it costs money. To pay people to monitor it is costs money. To generate it is costs money. This is true for every single type of power (including ones that do not realistically exist like solar panel and fusion.) The fact that you don't understand where that money comes from in your situation doesn't change the fact that it still costs money. And when you attempt a major change in an economic system it WILL have ramifications far beyone what is visible from just the initial change.
Plenty of choices here, of course they all use the same lines so it's actually kind of weird, but you can choose which company you get electricity from - obviously it's all the same electricity so it's more of a financial construct.
jschell wrote:
The fact that you don't understand where that money comes from in your situation doesn't change the fact that it still costs money.
It matters a lot where the money comes from; if it has to come form the govt then it's bad because that means they'll economize on health care and education, but if it comes directly from people there's really no change.
-
harold aptroot wrote:
Larger bill for customer = losing customers.
What kind of place do you live in? Where I live you have exactly TWO choices. 1. You get your electricity from the company all of your neighbors do. 2. You generate your own electricity. And option 2 only works for those that are willing to do with very little power or for those with a lot of money. Far as I know that is the situation in most of the world where electricity is available in some 'normal' fashion.
harold aptroot wrote:
Besides if they have any brains at all over there they have been saving up for the upgrade ever since the previous upgrade.
You really don't understand economics. I don't care where you get your power - it still costs money. If that wasn't the case there everyone would have all the power they could use. To do an "upgrade" it costs money. To do maintenance it costs money. To pay people to monitor it is costs money. To generate it is costs money. This is true for every single type of power (including ones that do not realistically exist like solar panel and fusion.) The fact that you don't understand where that money comes from in your situation doesn't change the fact that it still costs money. And when you attempt a major change in an economic system it WILL have ramifications far beyone what is visible from just the initial change.
-
jschell wrote:
If an alternative comes along that is 'better' then the market will drive that conversion. Could be electric, could be hydrogen, could be fusion. Could be a cultural change the removes the need for powered transportation.
This is the basis of capitalsm however, industries were smaller then. When talking about the car industry it has literlly billions of lives and trillions of dollars at stake. No leader in the industry can afford (espeacially after the last few years) to venture out and find the 'better' tech. And even if they could 'better' tech does not necessarily win. Not only that, the car industry is so coupled with the oil industry what makes you think they want anything to change? Just because I and everyone else wants a 'better' car does not make it magically appear. It is a step and repeat process. And sometimes we have to force the industry to make the change because they are fat greedy ba$tard$.
Computers have been intelligent for a long time now. It just so happens that the program writers are about as effective as a room full of monkeys trying to crank out a copy of Hamlet.
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
This is the basis of capitalsm however, industries were smaller then. When talking about the car industry it has literlly billions of lives and trillions of dollars at stake. No leader in the industry can afford (espeacially after the last few years) to venture out and find the 'better' tech. And even if they could 'better' tech does not necessarily win.
Nonsense. As an example computers in a real sense didn't exist 40 years ago for most people. But there are countless business activitities that existed then and still exist. The fact that it doesn't happen in one year doesn't mean it doesn't happen. And things that are really are 'better' do win. When it is measurably better in the aspects that the majority of the market looks for then it does win. Marginal products fail because they are not winners overall.
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
Not only that, the car industry is so coupled with the oil industry what makes you think they want anything to change?
The market doesn't work like that. If a company that creates gasoline cars came up with a 'better' electric car, one that actually was better, then they would jump at the chance to start making them. Which is EXACTLY what would happen if they came up with a 'better' gasoline powered car. The problem is not that anyone is suppresing something. The problem is nothing that is actually better.
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
And sometimes we have to force the industry to make the change because they are fat greedy ba$tard$.
Which only proves exactly what I said. If there was something better then the demand would drive the sales. They would make money because they would have something better to sell. The problem is that, as I already said, the current product offerings are NOT better. In all likelyhood they are worse overall based on all characteristics that market looks at. The fact that a small segment of the market is looking at one single characteristic of the electric car does NOT in any way make it overall better.
