Change-over to enewable energy

[Rich Grise]

NT wrote:

On Sep 29, 9:08 am, Bill Sloman <bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
On Sep 29, 4:59 am, NT <meow2...@care2.com> wrote:
On Sep 22, 3:29 pm, Bill Sloman <bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:

IEEE Spectrum seems to have some people who share my enthusiasm for
the change-over, and are rather better placed to calculate the
implications

http://spectrum.ieee.org/energy/renewables/wind-water-and-solar-power...

Lets get a reality check here. No 3rd world country is going to even
contemplate instituting a plan that costs trillions.

Third world countries don't need trillions of dollars worth of power
planet, and aren't responsible for any significant portion of the CO2
we are injecting itno the atmosphere. Once the first world has worked
out how to build renewable energy generators in volume and got the
price down by the usual economies of scale, the third world will do
their usual trick of taking advantage of the pioneering work done
elsewhere.

Third world countries aren't enthusiastic about having to import
steadily more expensive fossil carbon to keep their power plants
running. Give them an alternative and they will go for it.

I've yet to be convinced that these alt power sources will prove
cheaper than coal etc when mass produced.

I can't understand why the warmingists are also still rabid NIMBYs.

You'd think they'd be slavering over a power source that produces ZERO
carbon emissions, and provides abundant power more reliably and cheaper
than wind, solar, wave, tidal, or any other pie-in-the-sky "green"
scheme.

I'm not sure how a nuke plant would compare to a hydro dam, but one
thing we know is it doesn't cause artificial lakes, killing off some
kind of exotic species of tick.

Cheers!
Rich

 

[krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz]

On Thu, 29 Sep 2011 13:31:46 -0700, Rich Grise <richg@example.net.invalid>
wrote:

NT wrote:
On Sep 29, 9:08 am, Bill Sloman <bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
On Sep 29, 4:59 am, NT <meow2...@care2.com> wrote:
On Sep 22, 3:29 pm, Bill Sloman <bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:

IEEE Spectrum seems to have some people who share my enthusiasm for
the change-over, and are rather better placed to calculate the
implications

http://spectrum.ieee.org/energy/renewables/wind-water-and-solar-power...

Lets get a reality check here. No 3rd world country is going to even
contemplate instituting a plan that costs trillions.

Third world countries don't need trillions of dollars worth of power
planet, and aren't responsible for any significant portion of the CO2
we are injecting itno the atmosphere. Once the first world has worked
out how to build renewable energy generators in volume and got the
price down by the usual economies of scale, the third world will do
their usual trick of taking advantage of the pioneering work done
elsewhere.

Third world countries aren't enthusiastic about having to import
steadily more expensive fossil carbon to keep their power plants
running. Give them an alternative and they will go for it.

I've yet to be convinced that these alt power sources will prove
cheaper than coal etc when mass produced.

I can't understand why the warmingists are also still rabid NIMBYs.
You'd think they'd be slavering over a power source that produces ZERO
carbon emissions, and provides abundant power more reliably and cheaper
than wind, solar, wave, tidal, or any other pie-in-the-sky "green"
scheme.

The truth is that warmingists are simply last generation's communists using
other means. Of course you knew that.

I'm not sure how a nuke plant would compare to a hydro dam, but one
thing we know is it doesn't cause artificial lakes, killing off some
kind of exotic species of tick.

You've never seen a nuke's cooling lake? ...except that the fish *love* 'em.

 

[Michael A. Terrell]

"krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz" wrote:

You've never seen a nuke's cooling lake? ...except that the fish *love* 'em.

Florida Power is required to heat the water for dophins when their
Crystal Lake reactor is shut down.


--
You can't have a sense of humor, if you have no sense.

 

[Raveninghorde]

On Thu, 29 Sep 2011 06:22:41 -0700 (PDT), Bill Sloman
<bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:

On Sep 29, 11:11 am, Raveninghorde <raveninghorde@invalid> wrote:
On Thu, 22 Sep 2011 09:35:56 -0700 (PDT), Bill Sloman









bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
On Sep 22, 5:23 pm, Raveninghorde <raveninghorde@invalid> wrote:
On Thu, 22 Sep 2011 07:29:07 -0700 (PDT),BillSloman

bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
IEEE Spectrum seems to have some people who share my enthusiasm for
the change-over, and are rather better placed to calculate the
implications

http://spectrum.ieee.org/energy/renewables/wind-water-and-solar-power...

Super grids and energy security are incompatible.

The Russkies shut off gas to parts of Europe every winter. Why would
anyone want to rely even more on power from unstable areas of the
world?

And without super grids ithe idea is a bust. Most of Northern Europe
was without wind last December. So 50% of energy gone in mid winter.
Lots of fun.

If you were paying more attention, you might have noted that the
Desertec project envisages a super-grid coupling solar thermal plants
in the Sahara to Germany. A shortage of wind over northern Europe
could presumably be made up with electricity generated further south.

Anyway there is plenty of shale gas out there who needs renewables?

Anybody with enough sense to understand the scientific case for not
burning much more fossil carbon. Not you, obviously.

http://portal.acs.org/portal/acs/corg/content?_nfpb=true&_pageLabel=P...

/quote

Summary
New technology that combines production of electricity with
capture of carbon dioxide could make billions of barrels
of oil shale now regarded as off-limits because of the
huge amounts of carbon dioxide released in its production
available as an energy source. That s the conclusion
of a report on electricity production with in situ carbon
capture (EPICC) in ACS journal Energy & Fuels.

/end quote

Seems a darn sight better idea than wind, solar or biofuel.

Seen the costs? Carbon capture is expensive.

Windmills and solar aren't cheap.

 

[NT]

On Sep 29, 2:24 pm, Bill Sloman <bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:

On Sep 29, 11:18 am, NT <meow2...@care2.com> wrote:



On Sep 29, 9:08 am, Bill Sloman <bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:

On Sep 29, 4:59 am, NT <meow2...@care2.com> wrote:

On Sep 22, 3:29 pm, Bill Sloman <bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:

IEEE Spectrum seems to have some people who share my enthusiasm for
the change-over, and are rather better placed to calculate the
implications

http://spectrum.ieee.org/energy/renewables/wind-water-and-solar-power...

Lets get a reality check here. No 3rd world country is going to even
contemplate instituting a plan that costs trillions.

Third world countries don't need trillions of dollars worth of power
planet, and aren't responsible for any significant portion of the CO2
we are injecting itno the atmosphere. Once the first world has worked
out how to build renewable energy generators in volume and got the
price down by the usual economies of scale, the third world will do
their usual trick of taking advantage of the pioneering work done
elsewhere.

Third world countries aren't enthusiastic about having to import
steadily more expensive fossil carbon to keep their power plants
running. Give them an alternative and they will go for it.

I've yet to be convinced that these alt power sources will prove
cheaper than coal etc when mass produced.

There's a finite - if large - amount of coal in the ground. The deeper
we have to dig, the more expensive it gets. In the long term, it's a
no-brainer.

Thats about as bad as arguments get.


NT

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Sep 30, 1:15 am, Raveninghorde <raveninghorde@invalid> wrote:

On Thu, 29 Sep 2011 06:22:41 -0700 (PDT), Bill Sloman









bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
On Sep 29, 11:11 am, Raveninghorde <raveninghorde@invalid> wrote:
On Thu, 22 Sep 2011 09:35:56 -0700 (PDT), Bill Sloman

bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
On Sep 22, 5:23 pm, Raveninghorde <raveninghorde@invalid> wrote:
On Thu, 22 Sep 2011 07:29:07 -0700 (PDT),BillSloman

bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
IEEE Spectrum seems to have some people who share my enthusiasm for
the change-over, and are rather better placed to calculate the
implications

http://spectrum.ieee.org/energy/renewables/wind-water-and-solar-power...

Super grids and energy security are incompatible.

The Russkies shut off gas to parts of Europe every winter. Why would
anyone want to rely even more on power from unstable areas of the
world?

And without super grids ithe idea is a bust. Most of Northern Europe
was without wind last December. So 50% of energy gone in mid winter..
Lots of fun.

If you were paying more attention, you might have noted that the
Desertec project envisages a super-grid coupling solar thermal plants
in the Sahara to Germany. A shortage of wind over northern Europe
could presumably be made up with electricity generated further south.

Anyway there is plenty of shale gas out there who needs renewables?

Anybody with enough sense to understand the scientific case for not
burning much more fossil carbon. Not you, obviously.

http://portal.acs.org/portal/acs/corg/content?_nfpb=true&_pageLabel=P...

/quote

Summary
New technology that combines production of electricity with
capture of carbon dioxide could make billions of barrels
of oil shale now regarded as off-limits because of the
huge amounts of carbon dioxide released in its production
available as an energy source. That s the conclusion
of a report on electricity production with in situ carbon
capture (EPICC) in ACS journal Energy & Fuels.

/end quote

Seems a darn sight better idea than wind, solar or biofuel.

Seen the costs? Carbon capture is expensive.

Windmills and solar aren't cheap.

Windmills are cheaper than solar, and carbon capture is somewhere
between the two. Getting realistic about the costs of dumping CO2 into
the atmosphere is going to make energy more expensive, but not
cripplingly expensive. Since the cost of extracting fossil carbon from
the ground is progressively rising as we exhaust the easy-to-extract
deposits, we are probably better off going over to renewable energy
soonner rather than later.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Sep 29, 10:31 pm, Rich Grise <ri...@example.net.invalid> wrote:

NT wrote:
On Sep 29, 9:08 am, Bill Sloman <bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
On Sep 29, 4:59 am, NT <meow2...@care2.com> wrote:
On Sep 22, 3:29 pm, Bill Sloman <bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:

IEEE Spectrum seems to have some people who share my enthusiasm for
the change-over, and are rather better placed to calculate the
implications

http://spectrum.ieee.org/energy/renewables/wind-water-and-solar-power...

Lets get a reality check here. No 3rd world country is going to even
contemplate instituting a plan that costs trillions.

Third world countries don't need trillions of dollars worth of power
planet, and aren't responsible for any significant portion of the CO2
we are injecting itno the atmosphere. Once the first world has worked
out how to build renewable energy generators in volume and got the
price down by the usual economies of scale, the third world will do
their usual trick of taking advantage of the pioneering work done
elsewhere.

Third world countries aren't enthusiastic about having to import
steadily more expensive fossil carbon to keep their power plants
running. Give them an alternative and they will go for it.

I've yet to be convinced that these alt power sources will prove
cheaper than coal etc when mass produced.

I can't understand why the warmingists are also still rabid NIMBYs.
You'd think they'd be slavering over a power source that produces ZERO
carbon emissions, and provides abundant power more reliably and cheaper
than wind, solar, wave, tidal, or any other pie-in-the-sky "green"
scheme.

It could be that the prospect of finding a couple of provinces
radioactive after every earthquake or a tusami in the vicinity puts
people off.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/03/11/AR2011031103673.html

I'm not sure how a nuke plant would compare to a hydro dam, but one
thing we know is it doesn't cause artificial lakes, killing off some
kind of exotic species of tick.

Hydrolectric dams have been known to break in the aftermath of an
earthquake - good for the tick, but not so good for anybody living any
place where the floodwaters might end up.

Windmills are noisy, so it looks as if it has to be solar power -
preferably in Arizona, so it can upset Jim Thompson.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Sep 30, 9:10 am, NT <meow2...@care2.com> wrote:

On Sep 29, 2:24 pm, Bill Sloman <bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:









On Sep 29, 11:18 am, NT <meow2...@care2.com> wrote:

On Sep 29, 9:08 am, Bill Sloman <bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:

On Sep 29, 4:59 am, NT <meow2...@care2.com> wrote:

On Sep 22, 3:29 pm, Bill Sloman <bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:

IEEE Spectrum seems to have some people who share my enthusiasm for
the change-over, and are rather better placed to calculate the
implications

http://spectrum.ieee.org/energy/renewables/wind-water-and-solar-power...

Lets get a reality check here. No 3rd world country is going to even
contemplate instituting a plan that costs trillions.

Third world countries don't need trillions of dollars worth of power
planet, and aren't responsible for any significant portion of the CO2
we are injecting itno the atmosphere. Once the first world has worked
out how to build renewable energy generators in volume and got the
price down by the usual economies of scale, the third world will do
their usual trick of taking advantage of the pioneering work done
elsewhere.

Third world countries aren't enthusiastic about having to import
steadily more expensive fossil carbon to keep their power plants
running. Give them an alternative and they will go for it.

I've yet to be convinced that these alt power sources will prove
cheaper than coal etc when mass produced.

There's a finite - if large - amount of coal in the ground. The deeper
we have to dig, the more expensive it gets. In the long term, it's a
no-brainer.

Thats about as bad as arguments get.

Now try to explain why.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Sep 29, 11:37 pm, "k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
<k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Thu, 29 Sep 2011 13:31:46 -0700, Rich Grise <ri...@example.net.invalid
wrote:









NT wrote:
On Sep 29, 9:08 am, Bill Sloman <bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
On Sep 29, 4:59 am, NT <meow2...@care2.com> wrote:
On Sep 22, 3:29 pm, Bill Sloman <bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:

IEEE Spectrum seems to have some people who share my enthusiasm for
the change-over, and are rather better placed to calculate the
implications

http://spectrum.ieee.org/energy/renewables/wind-water-and-solar-power....

Lets get a reality check here. No 3rd world country is going to even
contemplate instituting a plan that costs trillions.

Third world countries don't need trillions of dollars worth of power
planet, and aren't responsible for any significant portion of the CO2
we are injecting itno the atmosphere. Once the first world has worked
out how to build renewable energy generators in volume and got the
price down by the usual economies of scale, the third world will do
their usual trick of taking advantage of the pioneering work done
elsewhere.

Third world countries aren't enthusiastic about having to import
steadily more expensive fossil carbon to keep their power plants
running. Give them an alternative and they will go for it.

I've yet to be convinced that these alt power sources will prove
cheaper than coal etc when mass produced.

I can't understand why the warmingists are also still rabid NIMBYs.
You'd think they'd be slavering over a power source that produces ZERO
carbon emissions, and provides abundant power more reliably and cheaper
than wind, solar, wave, tidal, or any other pie-in-the-sky "green"
scheme.

The truth is that warmingists are simply last generation's communists using
other means.  Of course you knew that.

It does seem to be true that some denialists are hold-over "cold
warrior's" a.k.a. rabid anti-communists - "Merchants of Doubt"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merchants_of_Doubt

"The book says that over the course of more than 20 years, Singer,
Seitz, (and a few other contrarian scientists) did almost no original
scientific research on the issues which they debated. They had once
been prominent researchers, but by the time they turned to the topics
presented in Merchants of Doubt, they were, the authors state, mostly
attacking the reputation and work of others. On every issue they were
opposed to the scientific consensus."

It's a bit of stretch to define the scientific consensus that accepts
the evidence for anthropogenic global warming in terms of their
opposition to a bunch of geriatic nuts with irrational anxieties about
middle-of-road politics, but since krw is right-wing nit-wit, it isn't
altogehter surprising that this is the way he sees it.

<snip>

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

 

On Sep 29, 9:49 am, Bill Sloman <bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:

On Sep 29, 10:49 am, dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:

You're so literal it's amazing. I thought I gave a pretty good hint
directly under the passage in question.

Here--
"The distinguishing feature of communism is not the abolition of
property generally, but the abolition of bourgeois property."

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/c...

I'd have thought you'd recognize it instantly, without the prodding.

Strange as it may seem, I'm not all that familiar with the communist
manifesto. It isn't as if what Marx cobbled together in 1848 is the
final word on socialist ideology, and Marx himself, while a towering
genius, was not known for getting the details right. He's more like
Linus Pauling than - say - Richard Feynman.

Marx was a loser, Engels a trust fund-baby. Engels was full of guilt,
which Marx made a living off exploiting.

Teh manifesto certainly doesn't have a lot to do with modern
communism, which split off from mainstream socialism around 1889 on
the question of the "leading role of the party", which most socialist
regarded as a dangerous diversion from democratic principles.

The "Communist Manifesto" certainly doesn't have much to do with the
kind of communism American rightist use to frighten each other.
Russian Communism seems to have adopted the name to emphasise their
descent from Marx, but the kind of communism Marx was contemplating in
1848 had more to do with communes than the union of the soviet
socialist republics.

Nope.

As usual, your "joke" reflects a very imperfect understanding of the
material you thought that you were joking about.

No, I just thought you'd have read the seminal work behind your world-
view. It's some pretty impressive psycho-babble, and the original
source for today's class-warfare mantras.

Here, this is a quickie--improvements in productivity will eliminate
small businesses, jobs, and crush wages, producing riots:
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/wage-labour/ch09.htm

Basically today's sinister view, posited 160+ years ago. "Once we get
super-efficient at making shoes there won't be any jobs for cobblers,
so they'll flood the labor market, drive down all wages, everyone will
starve, and the prols will revolt." But, his model lacked critical
factors, e.g. innovation, hence failed to predict reality.

He should've been a climastrologist.

--
Cheers,
James Arthur

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Sep 30, 1:07 pm, dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:

On Sep 29, 9:49 am, Bill Sloman <bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:

On Sep 29, 10:49 am, dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:
You're so literal it's amazing.  I thought I gave a pretty good hint
directly under the passage in question.

Here--
"The distinguishing feature of communism is not the abolition of
property generally, but the abolition of bourgeois property."

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/c....

I'd have thought you'd recognize it instantly, without the prodding.

Strange as it may seem, I'm not all that familiar with the communist
manifesto. It isn't as if what Marx cobbled together in 1848 is the
final word on socialist ideology, and Marx himself, while a towering
genius, was not known for getting the details right. He's more like
Linus Pauling than - say - Richard Feynman.

Marx was a loser,

But his economic and political insights were world class. As a prophet
he was rubbish, but as a scholar he was remarkable.

Engels a trust fund-baby.  Engels was full of guilt,
which Marx made a living off exploiting.

Engels valued Marx for his academic and social insights, and
subsidised him. Freudian speculations about other motivations may play
well to right-wing nit-wits, but Engels would have laughed himself
silly.

Teh manifesto certainly doesn't have a lot to do with modern
communism, which split off from mainstream socialism around 1889 on
the question of the "leading role of the party", which most socialist
regarded as a dangerous diversion from democratic principles.

The "Communist Manifesto" certainly doesn't have much to do with the
kind of communism American rightist use to frighten each other.
Russian Communism seems to have adopted the name to emphasise their
descent from Marx, but the kind of communism Marx was contemplating in
1848 had more to do with communes than the union of the soviet
socialist republics.

Nope.

Well, you could scarcely be expected to agree with the proposition
that you are a shallow nit-wit, and as a shallow nit-wit you couldn't
manage anything more impressive than simple denial.

As usual, your "joke" reflects a very imperfect understanding of the
material you thought that you were joking about.

No, I just thought you'd have read the seminal work behind your world-
view.  It's some pretty impressive psycho-babble, and the original
source for today's class-warfare mantras.

It was impressive when it was written, and acquired a lot of
historical significance after the events of 1848. It's not got a great
deal to do with my world-view, or the world view of modern socialist
whho don't seem uch point in constrasting the interests of working
class with those of the bourgeoisie

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bourgeoisie

in large part because the working class now owns enough property to be
distinctly bourgeoise, while the bourgeoisie don't have the same
direct control of the means of production they used to.

Here, this is a quickie--improvements in productivity will eliminate
small businesses, jobs, and crush wages, producing riots:

 http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/wage-labour/ch09.htm

Marx was good, but not much of a prophet, as I've said. He didn't
really have a good feel for the diversity of the market or the
advantages of small scale production for specialised products.

Basically today's sinister view, posited 160+ years ago.  "Once we get
super-efficient at making shoes there won't be any jobs for cobblers,
so they'll flood the labor market, drive down all wages, everyone will
starve, and the prols will revolt."  But, his model lacked critical
factors, e.g. innovation, hence failed to predict reality.

He kept his models simple and comprehensible. Getting them right as
well would have been a good trick, but it wouldn't have done him any
good at the time. The Fabians went a lot deeper into the assembling
and making sense of economic data that Marx and Engels had pioneered.

He should've been a climatologist.

Who also see the benefit in having a wide range of models, all of them
over-simplified (to keep them computationally tractable) and each one
illustrating a different facet of reality.

Have you seen the latest Physics Today?

http://www.physicstoday.org/daily_edition/physics_update/minimalist_model_captures_water-cycle_complexities

Apparently the climatologists have found yet another model, which may
give them the better insight into cloud behaviour that you seem to
think they need.

Not quite the story about over-fitting a single model that you've got
into your head, but your tiny mind doesn't have room for much
complexity.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Sep 29, 1:09 am, dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:

On Sep 28, 5:29 pm,BillSloman<bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:

On Sep 27, 12:34 pm, dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Sep 27, 3:05 am,BillSloman<bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:

That's exactly the mistake they describe making, in detail.

The art lies in getting a useful
approximation to reality.

Which there's almost zero chance they've done.  Your expert describes
shooting in the dark, hoping to hit something.

Wrong. And here's a report of a very simple model that captures a lot
of cloud complexity from this month's Physics Today

http://www.physicstoday.org/daily_edition/physics_update/minimalist_m...

You really don't have clue.

"Equations inspired by population-dynamics theory MAY help explain
drizzles, downpours, and disappearing clouds."

The capital letteres are yours - you aren't quoting the original
article quite as directly as the quotes imply.

"Although clouds’ complex dynamics affect long-term climate trends—
they play a part in determining Earth’s albedo and rainfall
distribution—most climate models gloss over them."

Again, this is text-chopping. It's the complex cloud dynamicis that
get simplified - "glossed over" - rather than the clouds themselves
(which was your 0riginal - ill-informed - claim).

Hilarious.

There is something comic in your enthusiasm for writing off high class
academic research because it doesn't suit your passion for the
unrestricted free market. The book "The Mercants of Doubt" comments on
the same tendency in some emminent physicists, who didn't know any
more about climate science than you do, but were equally confident
about what they wanted to believe.

For those who don't feel the need to re-affirm their prejudices, the
original paper

I. Koren, G. Feingold, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 108, 12227, 2011.

http://www.pnas.org/content/108/30/12227.full

includes this interesting paragraph from the conclusion, which
explains what the climate modellers are doing - as oposed to what
James Arthur thinks they are doing.

"There exist many examples of dynamical systems that, owing to their
complexity, are not always tractable via the purely reductionist
approach. These systems do, however, benefit from a complementary
“systems-based” approach (25) which seeks to capture emergent
behavior, as opposed to representing the detailed process
interactions. "

Where (25) is Harte J(October, 2002) Towards a synthesis of the
Newtonian and Darwinian worldviews. Phys Today, 29–34.

http://josiah.berkeley.edu/2007Fall/ER201/Readings/Week8/PhysicsToday_article.pdf

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

 

[NT]

On Sep 30, 2:22 pm, Bill Sloman <bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:

On Sep 30, 1:07 pm, dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:



On Sep 29, 9:49 am, Bill Sloman <bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:

On Sep 29, 10:49 am, dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:
You're so literal it's amazing.  I thought I gave a pretty good hint
directly under the passage in question.

Here--
"The distinguishing feature of communism is not the abolition of
property generally, but the abolition of bourgeois property."

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/c...

I'd have thought you'd recognize it instantly, without the prodding..

Strange as it may seem, I'm not all that familiar with the communist
manifesto. It isn't as if what Marx cobbled together in 1848 is the
final word on socialist ideology, and Marx himself, while a towering
genius, was not known for getting the details right. He's more like
Linus Pauling than - say - Richard Feynman.

Marx was a loser,

But his economic and political insights were world class. As a prophet
he was rubbish, but as a scholar he was remarkable.

Engels a trust fund-baby.  Engels was full of guilt,
which Marx made a living off exploiting.

Engels valued Marx for his academic and social insights, and
subsidised him. Freudian speculations about other motivations may play
well to right-wing nit-wits, but Engels would have laughed himself
silly.

Teh manifesto certainly doesn't have a lot to do with modern
communism, which split off from mainstream socialism around 1889 on
the question of the "leading role of the party", which most socialist
regarded as a dangerous diversion from democratic principles.

The "Communist Manifesto" certainly doesn't have much to do with the
kind of communism American rightist use to frighten each other.
Russian Communism seems to have adopted the name to emphasise their
descent from Marx, but the kind of communism Marx was contemplating in
1848 had more to do with communes than the union of the soviet
socialist republics.

Nope.

Well, you could scarcely be expected to agree with the proposition
that you are a shallow nit-wit, and as a shallow nit-wit you couldn't
manage anything more impressive than simple denial.

As usual, your "joke" reflects a very imperfect understanding of the
material you thought that you were joking about.

No, I just thought you'd have read the seminal work behind your world-
view.  It's some pretty impressive psycho-babble, and the original
source for today's class-warfare mantras.

It was impressive when it was written, and acquired a lot of
historical significance after the events of 1848. It's not got a great
deal to do with my world-view, or the world view of modern socialist
whho don't seem uch point in constrasting the interests of working
class with those of the bourgeoisie

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bourgeoisie

in large part because the working class now owns enough property to be
distinctly bourgeoise, while the bourgeoisie don't have the same
direct control of the means of production they used to.

Here, this is a quickie--improvements in productivity will eliminate
small businesses, jobs, and crush wages, producing riots:
 http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/wage-labour/ch09.htm

Marx was good, but not much of a prophet, as I've said. He didn't
really have a good feel for the diversity of the market or the
advantages of small scale production for specialised products.

Basically today's sinister view, posited 160+ years ago.  "Once we get
super-efficient at making shoes there won't be any jobs for cobblers,
so they'll flood the labor market, drive down all wages, everyone will
starve, and the prols will revolt."  But, his model lacked critical
factors, e.g. innovation, hence failed to predict reality.

He kept his models simple and comprehensible. Getting them right as
well would have been a good trick, but it wouldn't have done him any
good at the time. The Fabians went a lot deeper into the assembling
and making sense of economic data that Marx and Engels had pioneered.

He should've been a climatologist.

Who also see the benefit in having a wide range of models, all of them
over-simplified (to keep them computationally tractable) and each one
illustrating a different facet of reality.

Have you seen the latest Physics Today?

http://www.physicstoday.org/daily_edition/physics_update/minimalist_m...

Apparently the climatologists have found yet another model, which may
give them the better insight into cloud behaviour that you seem to
think they need.

Not quite the story about over-fitting a single model that you've got
into your head, but your tiny mind doesn't have room for much
complexity.

The only thing ad hominem shows is inability to provide a convincing
argument.

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Oct 1, 9:47 am, NT <meow2...@care2.com> wrote:

On Sep 30, 2:22 pm, Bill Sloman <bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:









On Sep 30, 1:07 pm, dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:

On Sep 29, 9:49 am, Bill Sloman <bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:

On Sep 29, 10:49 am, dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:
You're so literal it's amazing.  I thought I gave a pretty good hint
directly under the passage in question.

Here--
"The distinguishing feature of communism is not the abolition of
property generally, but the abolition of bourgeois property."

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/c...

I'd have thought you'd recognize it instantly, without the prodding.

Strange as it may seem, I'm not all that familiar with the communist
manifesto. It isn't as if what Marx cobbled together in 1848 is the
final word on socialist ideology, and Marx himself, while a towering
genius, was not known for getting the details right. He's more like
Linus Pauling than - say - Richard Feynman.

Marx was a loser,

But his economic and political insights were world class. As a prophet
he was rubbish, but as a scholar he was remarkable.

Engels a trust fund-baby.  Engels was full of guilt,
which Marx made a living off exploiting.

Engels valued Marx for his academic and social insights, and
subsidised him. Freudian speculations about other motivations may play
well to right-wing nit-wits, but Engels would have laughed himself
silly.

Teh manifesto certainly doesn't have a lot to do with modern
communism, which split off from mainstream socialism around 1889 on
the question of the "leading role of the party", which most socialist
regarded as a dangerous diversion from democratic principles.

The "Communist Manifesto" certainly doesn't have much to do with the
kind of communism American rightist use to frighten each other.
Russian Communism seems to have adopted the name to emphasise their
descent from Marx, but the kind of communism Marx was contemplating in
1848 had more to do with communes than the union of the soviet
socialist republics.

Nope.

Well, you could scarcely be expected to agree with the proposition
that you are a shallow nit-wit, and as a shallow nit-wit you couldn't
manage anything more impressive than simple denial.

As usual, your "joke" reflects a very imperfect understanding of the
material you thought that you were joking about.

No, I just thought you'd have read the seminal work behind your world-
view.  It's some pretty impressive psycho-babble, and the original
source for today's class-warfare mantras.

It was impressive when it was written, and acquired a lot of
historical significance after the events of 1848. It's not got a great
deal to do with my world-view, or the world view of modern socialist
whho don't seem uch point in constrasting the interests of working
class with those of the bourgeoisie

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bourgeoisie

in large part because the working class now owns enough property to be
distinctly bourgeoise, while the bourgeoisie don't have the same
direct control of the means of production they used to.

Here, this is a quickie--improvements in productivity will eliminate
small businesses, jobs, and crush wages, producing riots:
 http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/wage-labour/ch09.htm

Marx was good, but not much of a prophet, as I've said. He didn't
really have a good feel for the diversity of the market or the
advantages of small scale production for specialised products.

Basically today's sinister view, posited 160+ years ago.  "Once we get
super-efficient at making shoes there won't be any jobs for cobblers,
so they'll flood the labor market, drive down all wages, everyone will
starve, and the prols will revolt."  But, his model lacked critical
factors, e.g. innovation, hence failed to predict reality.

He kept his models simple and comprehensible. Getting them right as
well would have been a good trick, but it wouldn't have done him any
good at the time. The Fabians went a lot deeper into the assembling
and making sense of economic data that Marx and Engels had pioneered.

He should've been a climatologist.

Who also see the benefit in having a wide range of models, all of them
over-simplified (to keep them computationally tractable) and each one
illustrating a different facet of reality.

Have you seen the latest Physics Today?

http://www.physicstoday.org/daily_edition/physics_update/minimalist_m...

Apparently the climatologists have found yet another model, which may
give them the better insight into cloud behaviour that you seem to
think they need.

Not quite the story about over-fitting a single model that you've got
into your head, but your tiny mind doesn't have room for much
complexity.

The only thing ad hominem shows is inability to provide a convincing
argument.

There's plenty of convincing argument there. The problem is that James
Arthur has other convictions, held with irrational stubbornness, and
defended by shameless text-chopping.

Dumping on him isn't ad hominem, it's ad automaton.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

 

On Sep 30, 9:22 am, Bill Sloman <bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:

On Sep 30, 1:07 pm, dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:

Here, this is a quickie--improvements in productivity will eliminate
small businesses, jobs, and crush wages, producing riots:
 http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/wage-labour/ch09.htm

Marx was good, but not much of a prophet, as I've said. He didn't
really have a good feel for the diversity of the market or the
advantages of small scale production for specialised products.

Basically today's sinister view, posited 160+ years ago.  "Once we get
super-efficient at making shoes there won't be any jobs for cobblers,
so they'll flood the labor market, drive down all wages, everyone will
starve, and the prols will revolt."  But, his model lacked critical
factors, e.g. innovation, hence failed to predict reality.

He kept his models simple and comprehensible. Getting them right as
well would have been a good trick, but it wouldn't have done him any
good at the time. The Fabians went a lot deeper into the assembling
and making sense of economic data that Marx and Engels had pioneered.

He should've been a climastrologist.

Who also see the benefit in having a wide range of models, all of them
over-simplified (to keep them computationally tractable) and each one
illustrating a different facet of reality.

An apt comparison.

"It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how
smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's WRONG." --
Richard Feynman

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Oct 2, 5:17 am, dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:

On Sep 30, 9:22 am, Bill Sloman <bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:









On Sep 30, 1:07 pm, dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:
Here, this is a quickie--improvements in productivity will eliminate
small businesses, jobs, and crush wages, producing riots:
 http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/wage-labour/ch09.htm

Marx was good, but not much of a prophet, as I've said. He didn't
really have a good feel for the diversity of the market or the
advantages of small scale production for specialised products.
Basically today's sinister view, posited 160+ years ago.  "Once we get
super-efficient at making shoes there won't be any jobs for cobblers,
so they'll flood the labor market, drive down all wages, everyone will
starve, and the prols will revolt."  But, his model lacked critical
factors, e.g. innovation, hence failed to predict reality.

He kept his models simple and comprehensible. Getting them right as
well would have been a good trick, but it wouldn't have done him any
good at the time. The Fabians went a lot deeper into the assembling
and making sense of economic data that Marx and Engels had pioneered.

He should've been a climatologist.

Who also see the benefit in having a wide range of models, all of them
over-simplified (to keep them computationally tractable) and each one
illustrating a different facet of reality.

An apt comparison.

"It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how
smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's WRONG." --
Richard Feynman

It's not as if the climate models don't agree with experiment - it's
just that each one doesn't agree with every aspect of reality with
equal fidelity. Some model clouds better than others, others winds,
and others precipitation.

Feyman had the advantage of working with relatively simple phenomena.
When he stepped out side of sub-atomic physics, he was less dogmantic.

Remember him dipping an o-ring into ice water to model the conditions
affect the o-ring seals on the shuttle booster that blew up?

A very imperfect model of the condition affecting the Challenger, but
informative.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O-ring

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmege