Lomberg's background isn't in environmentalism, let alone climate science. He's field is political science. He visited the USA where he discovered how much money there is in lobbying. That's where the "Skeptical Environmentalist" and the newspaper articles that predated it came from. It's how he chose to make himself a lot of money, by lobbying.
As I said, you're gullible. You eat this stuff up because it's what you want to hear.
LED beginning to come in for street lighting. Early days yet, but it's the future. That means a very long life before replacement is needed - LEDs rarely fail, and you can afford to lose a few our of a cluster anyway. And no problem with dimming.
So what you're saying is that scarcity "caused" them to behave in a manner that is certain to create more scarcity.
No, that is neither my summary of the article, nor the point of the article. It's YOUR assumption that warfare creates more scarcity. It might or might not be the case that that is the outcome. But warfare is never undertaken with full knowledge of the outcome. As your modern example take Iraq. The US and Britain probably wouldn't have invaded if they'd have known how long and harmful their stay after "mission accomplished" would be.
The logic is strange only to those unfamiliar with economics.
I'm familiar enough with economics to know that it's mostly bollocks. There's never a consensus of economists, and where most economists do predict one thing they are usually proved wrong. It takes a particular kind of idiot to believe what economists say and reject what scientists say.
In particular, costs 500 years down the road have to be a number of orders of magnitude greater than current costs in order to justify doing things now.
By the time the 500 years is approaching it wouldn't just be too expensive to do anything, it would be too late to do anything.
The time for action is now. And naive economic arguments don't change that. Money is a fiction of man, a fiction that has no preference for doing the right thing or doing the wrong thing. The environment is real.
That's a false trichotomy. Why have you only mentioned 3 selected things that the government spends money on? As if corporations and individuals aren't creating too much CO2.
Especially, why is Social Security there? Its not exactly the first think one comes to in the list of things that are creating CO2. Clearly your mind is on reducing government spending not the environment.
And finally it isn't a choice of cutting one thing. Every human activity needs to be made more efficient or reduced in terms of CO2 emissions and energy use.
Money spending is irrelevant. Money can be used to increase CO2 emissions and it can be used to reduce them, so it isn't even derivative of the important measure.
I'm not responsible for what someone else, far distant in the thread said.
Why not simply upgrade the generation/distribution system and perhaps implement a battery distribution system now?
I don't know how many more ways there are to explain to you. Do this first then that is naive nonsense. Apart from taking longer, you'd build something less suitable, by not having the experience of what you actually need. Things evolve together. I'm all for getting on with the electric supply infrastructure. But there's no reason nor time to be delaying EVs until that is complete.
At the moment the infrastructure is not there. If I want to go out of town in an electric car, I will quickly run out of power.
My preferred current technology is plug-in hybrid. Wheels powered totally by electric. It has a battery and an ICE generator. Charge it at home overnight. Your normal commute to work or shopping trips are done within the range of the battery. Those occasional days when you take longer trips, when the battery runs low, the generator kicks in and feeds electricity into the system. And if you get to plug it in again at your destination, then so much the better.
This means the vast majority of the time you are running on electric from the grid. But at the same time there isn't the range worry - you can go long distances if you need to. And no need for battery exchange stations.
It might sound complicated and inefficient, but it's actually simpler and more efficient than a conventional car, even when it's powered by the generator. A generator doesn't need a gearbox, and can operate at it's most efficient RPM 100% of the time.
At the moment, the lack of infrastructure is the biggest issue in making people switch.
No it's not. It's range-anxiety, and purchase-price. Both get less of a problem with each passing year.
What frequent on-and-off cycling? They're talking on at dusk, dim when it gets quiet at night. Bright again for the morning traffic and off again when the sun's up.
Most of the maintenance now is replacing lamps. If this is done alongside replacing with LED units, maintenance will reduce enormously.
And there's no need for new lampposts. Just make the new tech light fittings fit in the old lamp posts. Communication is hardly difficult or expensive these days.
No they're not. They do mark out lanes and road edges, but they are a completely different principle. They use glass beads with mirrored backs to reflect light back at the driver. Like a actual cat's eyes do.
In a dark area, a burglar needs to use a flashlight that is likely to get noticed.
Why, do crims have particularly bad eyesight? Most of the time it's easy enough to get around at night with ambient light. And even in a particularly remote area where there isn't much of that, plenty of nights have moonlight.
Hoping that it's dark enough to require a flashlight seems like the worst security policy I've ever heard.
Did you miss how reliant we are on ICEs? You can't ban them without doing serious damage to your economy unless the replacement and all it's infrastructure already exists...
I never said anything about banning. And you seem to envisage a single date when suddenly ICE is not allowed any more. Of course it wouldn't be done like that. I said evolve. You gradually make EV more attractive and ICE unattractive. Like for example in London. In the UK, cars have always had to pay for a vehicle excise license. EVs are exempt. To pass through the centre of London cars have to pay £10. EVs are exempt. They are building parking bays with electricity hook ups so you can recharge. And of course petrol (gas) tax is much higher than in the USA.
That's the way things are changed. gradually you make one thing more attractive than the other. Some people decide to change now, some change later, but in the end almost everyone changes.
You build up the electricity infrastructure hand in hand. If electricity infrastructure is not keeping up, you slow down the rate of cranking the EV change. If the electricity infrastructure is growing ahead of plan, you crank the EV change faster.
1) There's no such thing as global warming. 2) There's global warming, but the scientists are exaggerating. It's not significant. 3) There's significant global warming, but man doesn't cause it. 4) Man does cause it, but it's not a net negative. 5) It is a net negative, but it's not economically possible to tackle it. 6) We need to tackle global warming, so make the poor pay for it. 7) Global warming is bad for business. Why did the Democrats not tackle it earlier? 8) ???? 9) Profit.
The question that should be asked here is does this alleged climate change make things worse? The "worst areas" are that way not because they're particularly vulnerable to climate changes, but because they're vulnerable to everything including the mere ticking of the clock.
The Republican 9 Step Global Warming Denial Plan
1) There's no such thing as global warming. 2) There's global warming, but the scientists are exaggerating. It's not significant. 3) There's significant global warming, but man doesn't cause it. 4) Man does cause it, but it's not a net negative. 5) It is a net negative, but it's not economically possible to tackle it. 6) We need to tackle global warming, so make the poor pay for it. 7) Global warming is bad for business. Why did the Democrats not tackle it earlier? 8) ???? 9) Profit.
Slashdot Mirror
You carry 2 x $2 breathalysers in the glove box. What the fuck do you need a repair shop for?
Referring to the long list of errors in the statements of that book would be a good use of your time.
http://www.lomborg-errors.dk/
Lomberg's background isn't in environmentalism, let alone climate science. He's field is political science. He visited the USA where he discovered how much money there is in lobbying. That's where the "Skeptical Environmentalist" and the newspaper articles that predated it came from. It's how he chose to make himself a lot of money, by lobbying.
As I said, you're gullible. You eat this stuff up because it's what you want to hear.
The sig is there as a convenience for people that can't argue my points
You didn't make a point. You seem to think misquoting someone is making a point. Hence, your sig is fitting, whatever purpose you had in mind for it.
LED beginning to come in for street lighting. Early days yet, but it's the future. That means a very long life before replacement is needed - LEDs rarely fail, and you can afford to lose a few our of a cluster anyway. And no problem with dimming.
So what you're saying is that scarcity "caused" them to behave in a manner that is certain to create more scarcity.
No, that is neither my summary of the article, nor the point of the article. It's YOUR assumption that warfare creates more scarcity. It might or might not be the case that that is the outcome. But warfare is never undertaken with full knowledge of the outcome. As your modern example take Iraq. The US and Britain probably wouldn't have invaded if they'd have known how long and harmful their stay after "mission accomplished" would be.
Bjorn Lomborg has a great book on this particular subject, "The Skeptical Environmentalist".
Thanks for underlining just how much of a gullible idiot you are.
Gore depicted an unrealistic and frightening prediction of the future and has made money out of scamming idiots that buy into his tripe
I am a crackpot
Yup.
The logic is strange only to those unfamiliar with economics.
I'm familiar enough with economics to know that it's mostly bollocks. There's never a consensus of economists, and where most economists do predict one thing they are usually proved wrong. It takes a particular kind of idiot to believe what economists say and reject what scientists say.
In particular, costs 500 years down the road have to be a number of orders of magnitude greater than current costs in order to justify doing things now.
By the time the 500 years is approaching it wouldn't just be too expensive to do anything, it would be too late to do anything.
The time for action is now. And naive economic arguments don't change that. Money is a fiction of man, a fiction that has no preference for doing the right thing or doing the wrong thing. The environment is real.
That's a false trichotomy. Why have you only mentioned 3 selected things that the government spends money on? As if corporations and individuals aren't creating too much CO2.
Especially, why is Social Security there? Its not exactly the first think one comes to in the list of things that are creating CO2. Clearly your mind is on reducing government spending not the environment.
And finally it isn't a choice of cutting one thing. Every human activity needs to be made more efficient or reduced in terms of CO2 emissions and energy use.
Money spending is irrelevant. Money can be used to increase CO2 emissions and it can be used to reduce them, so it isn't even derivative of the important measure.
OK, so we have global warming now. Your scenario is that it continues for the next 500 years, and then becomes catastrophic.
Yet somehow, in you mind, that means the people who wanted to protect the environment and halt global warming were wrong.
Strange logic.
Compared with hoping the burglar is afraid of lamps?
Yes. It's about a thousand times worse than that.
I'm not responsible for what someone else, far distant in the thread said.
Why not simply upgrade the generation/distribution system and perhaps implement a battery distribution system now?
I don't know how many more ways there are to explain to you. Do this first then that is naive nonsense. Apart from taking longer, you'd build something less suitable, by not having the experience of what you actually need. Things evolve together. I'm all for getting on with the electric supply infrastructure. But there's no reason nor time to be delaying EVs until that is complete.
At the moment the infrastructure is not there. If I want to go out of town in an electric car, I will quickly run out of power.
My preferred current technology is plug-in hybrid. Wheels powered totally by electric. It has a battery and an ICE generator. Charge it at home overnight. Your normal commute to work or shopping trips are done within the range of the battery. Those occasional days when you take longer trips, when the battery runs low, the generator kicks in and feeds electricity into the system. And if you get to plug it in again at your destination, then so much the better.
This means the vast majority of the time you are running on electric from the grid. But at the same time there isn't the range worry - you can go long distances if you need to. And no need for battery exchange stations.
It might sound complicated and inefficient, but it's actually simpler and more efficient than a conventional car, even when it's powered by the generator. A generator doesn't need a gearbox, and
can operate at it's most efficient RPM 100% of the time.
At the moment, the lack of infrastructure is the biggest issue in making people switch.
No it's not. It's range-anxiety, and purchase-price. Both get less of a problem with each passing year.
What frequent on-and-off cycling? They're talking on at dusk, dim when it gets quiet at night. Bright again for the morning traffic and off again when the sun's up.
Only the single dim stage is new.
Most of the maintenance now is replacing lamps. If this is done alongside replacing with LED units, maintenance will reduce enormously.
And there's no need for new lampposts. Just make the new tech light fittings fit in the old lamp posts. Communication is hardly difficult or expensive these days.
No they're not. They do mark out lanes and road edges, but they are a completely different principle. They use glass beads with mirrored backs to reflect light back at the driver. Like a actual cat's eyes do.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cat's_eye_(road)
In a dark area, a burglar needs to use a flashlight that is likely to get noticed.
Why, do crims have particularly bad eyesight? Most of the time it's easy enough to get around at night with ambient light. And even in a particularly remote area where there isn't much of that, plenty of nights have moonlight.
Hoping that it's dark enough to require a flashlight seems like the worst security policy I've ever heard.
Yes Repubs are idiots. Gore saw the future was and has made money out of combatting it. Clever man.
It's a national and world tragedy that Bush got in as President rather than Gore.
Did you miss how reliant we are on ICEs? You can't ban them without doing serious damage to your economy unless the replacement and all it's infrastructure already exists...
I never said anything about banning. And you seem to envisage a single date when suddenly ICE is not allowed any more. Of course it wouldn't be done like that. I said evolve. You gradually make EV more attractive and ICE unattractive. Like for example in London. In the UK, cars have always had to pay for a vehicle excise license. EVs are exempt. To pass through the centre of London cars have to pay £10. EVs are exempt. They are building parking bays with electricity hook ups so you can recharge. And of course petrol (gas) tax is much higher than in the USA.
That's the way things are changed. gradually you make one thing more attractive than the other. Some people decide to change now, some change later, but in the end almost everyone changes.
You build up the electricity infrastructure hand in hand. If electricity infrastructure is not keeping up, you slow down the rate of cranking the EV change. If the electricity infrastructure is growing ahead of plan, you crank the EV change faster.
...until reality forces you to move on to step 5.
So predictable.
The Republican 9 Step Global Warming Denial Plan
1) There's no such thing as global warming.
2) There's global warming, but the scientists are exaggerating. It's not significant.
3) There's significant global warming, but man doesn't cause it.
4) Man does cause it, but it's not a net negative.
5) It is a net negative, but it's not economically possible to tackle it.
6) We need to tackle global warming, so make the poor pay for it.
7) Global warming is bad for business. Why did the Democrats not tackle it earlier?
8) ????
9) Profit.
Blah blah blah.
Imbecile.
If 30 doctors can't convince you, then you shouldn't believe them.
And with that advice you proved you're an idiot. Or at least someone who's found the argument has painted him into a corner.
I understand why you'd rather argue about that. It's easier than admitting you are wrong.
And now you're reduced to repeating me.
The question that should be asked here is does this alleged climate change make things worse? The "worst areas" are that way not because they're particularly vulnerable to climate changes, but because they're vulnerable to everything including the mere ticking of the clock.
The Republican 9 Step Global Warming Denial Plan
1) There's no such thing as global warming.
2) There's global warming, but the scientists are exaggerating. It's not significant.
3) There's significant global warming, but man doesn't cause it.
4) Man does cause it, but it's not a net negative.
5) It is a net negative, but it's not economically possible to tackle it.
6) We need to tackle global warming, so make the poor pay for it.
7) Global warming is bad for business. Why did the Democrats not tackle it earlier?
8) ????
9) Profit.
Oh look, no answer to the analogy. You've dropped the argument that you should self diagnose the environment. Perfect.
You're just left with haggling about the exact overwhelming percentage of experts.
Do yourself a favour. Don't just drop the argument. Think about why you lost it.