In general, considering all of human history we can very roughly categorise the time a person spends into two:
- Working to provide the necessities of life – without which that person will die.
- Time after having provided for the necessities of life during which we can create “luxuries”.
A necessity of life, is something that without which we would die: air, water, food. However, being a necessity of life, they don’t have much other use other than to keep us alive. So having sated our need, their value falls dramatically and in most cases like water (flood), air (wind) or food (being fat), in great excess they have negative value.
In contrast, a luxury item is by definition unnecessary. If we do not have it, it has value, but it is something we would quickly sacrifice in order to have a necessity of life. But whereas the necessities of life tend to be mundane and of little value when in excess, luxuries often retain their value as we get more and more of them. For example the value of each gold ornament would be seen as having the same value, if two were held rather than one.
We can also divide our time between providing the necessities of life and the luxuries. However, because necessities are extremely valuable when in deficit and of little value when in excess, the value of time spent providing necessities and luxuries is not equivalent.
So how do we value 1 hour’s worth of time producing luxuries compared to an hour producing essentials? Continue reading
As most people will be aware, if energy prices rise, the price of raw materials like iron also rises and that in turn means the price of energy will rise. But, also indirect costs like school teachers will also rise as they require higher pay to pay for higher energy and goods manufactured with higher energy costs, so that the effect of raising energy has both direct and indirect costs.
Because the price of energy has been very closely linked historically to (inflation adjusted) GDP there is very good reason to believe that as energy costs raise, the amount of energy going into producing energy also raises, so there must be a point where if the cost is too high, so that the energy going into producing energy becomes too high, that there is no net production of energy.
For a while I’ve been trying to use an approach I call “enerconics” which uses energy value as a unit of economic activity rather than money to work out the effect of changing from low cost energy sources to high cost ones and also by implication to work out when an energy source is no longer a net contributor to an economy.
After getting stuck on how to interpret the energy value of energy, I’ve finally found a way round that issue which tentatively allows me to start making predictions about the effect on the economy of higher energy prices. It turns out that in a modern economy where about 25% of the economic activity is involved in producing energy and food-energy, that the effective limit on the cost of energy is that if “stable” energy costs rise to 4x the present cost, then the economy suffers irreversible hyper-inflation leading to a total collapse.
However a note of caution: I was tempted to start with a normal warming “not being an expert”, but I can’t pretend to not be an expert – because I am the only person I know to have written about this subject – instead I’ll just say this is work in progress.
The other night I watched the film “anchorman” and whilst beforehand I thought it would be a very poor comedy, at times it looked more like a documentary of our media. It certainly highlighted the way that the media fake “news” to get ratings.
Climate porn as we all know, has been a ratings grabbing device for media and politicians for a while now. And like all click bait, most people have already realised it’s bullshit.
But, isn’t it interesting that the main groups pushing this climate porn: the politicians and media are not only the most disrespected groups in society, but are also appearing to be on the way out. In the UK, for example, the politicians who push the climate porn were all severely beaten by the TOTALLY NEW Brexit party. Likewise, in the US, the Democrats and Republicans were beaten by the TOTALLY NEW phenomenon of Trump. Politicians of the old parties now look like big fish floundering on the sand as the water level drops. Continue reading
I’ve been doing some reading on Doomsday cults and research on cognitive dissonance which has allowed me to get a better understanding of the climate cult. Unfortunately, that research suggests that even when Doomsday cults like the Climate Cult have their prophecies of doomsday proved false, that they merely ignore the fact the prophecies were wrong and a new prophecy is created. So, proving them wrong will not make them disappear, indeed, there is a suggestion that the leaders use the perceived attacks to re-invigorate the cult beliefs of being “special” and “under attack”.
Unfortunately, the only thing none of this research has explained, is how to stop doomsday cults. But by inference, it appears they disappear as soon as the academic researchers & press stop being interested in them. In short – these cults appear to be a form of attention seeking, and stop paying them attention and they’ll fade away.
So they are best ignored, but that still leaves the real question of what is happening to the climate. At present, there’s not the slightest hint of any adverse trends in the climate, indeed, the modest warming is not only very beneficial to humanity, but it is taking us away from the possibility of sudden and REALLY catastrophic cooling. So, for the last few years of the El Nino & the raised temperatures it caused, I’ve been having a pretty relaxed time with no concerns at all about the global climate.
Also, despite many going on about much cooler conditions in American this spring, elsewhere the (British) Biased Corp are lying about warming. So, I’m totally ignoring anecdotal Biased Corp style lies about short term localised weather events.
However, yesterday, I spotted that the ENSO index on Watts Up With That had changed so it was only just on El Nino. That raises the possibility that we are heading toward a La Nina and potentially a significantly cooler period. There are two general scenarios which I have to treat separately: Continue reading
To put it simply, the age of rationalism is over and we are now in the age of the brainwashed crazy climate cult. As a direct result, the UK is now heading toward a self-inflicted >30 year recession, the like of which will make every other recession look like a picnic.
This post, is simply me trying to work out what practically I can do to minimise the effects on me and those around me. Continue reading
To sum it up: Nice.
Warmer than the little ice-age, cooler than the climate optimum. No trends in severe weather and no hint of a cooling trend (which is the most concerning scenario that anyone can contemplate).
Best of all, whatever we do to CO2 – even if the climate cults worst ideas about feedbacks were true, there is absolutely no prospect of us seeing temperatures warmer than any previous climate optimum, because there is clearly a hard stop that prevents warming … so any warming would be limited and entirely beneficial.
But if I had to put it on a scale from 0 to 10 my “concern”. I would say 1/10 … because although we currently do not have any evidence to suggest it is happening, there is the possibility that we may see a global civilisation alternating cooling trend develop.
When I heard that there was a daft party in Australia committed to the economic insanity of “really tackling climate change”, I laughed at them. Because whilst I didn’t really want them to suffer the huge economic costs of the climate cult agenda, at least if the Aussies went first, the rest of the world would quickly see how stupid it was and that would be the end of that crazy talk.
However, I didn’t reckon on the stupidity of May who now free of any electoral constraint or any need to see through her own suicidal policy, wants to leave a legacy for the UK. Not the £350million a week that we pay to the EU, but MORE THAN £1 , 000 , 000, million (based on treasury estimates). Of course that is a vast underestimate … because the figure is based on conventional economics which doesn’t take account of the vicious cycle affects of the cost of rising energy. However, even based on that very Conservative (LOL) estimate of the cost, that’s 100% of GDP over the next 30 years which amounts to a DIRECT hit of 3% reduction in GDP per year. As the UK growth has not been above 3% in many years May is basically committing the UK to permanent recession.
However that is very much an UNDERESTIMATE of the cost of this insane commitment. So, let’s start laying out what it is likely to actually means:
The end of manufacturing in the UK
The US presidential election takes place on 3rd November 2020. By that time, if Trump is to be re-elected he needs to not only convince those climate sceptics who voted for and worked to get him elected, it is worth wasting their time again when he’s done so little to push back on the climate cult, but he also needs to convince those luke warmer “climate alarmists” that the science is not on their side and they shouldn’t be pushing for a Democrat victory.
And it all starts in less than a week, on June 18th Trump holds his 2020 US presidential race”kickoff” rally in Orlando. If he’s going to win, given the Democrats area already focussing on climate, he’s got to start delivering on his promise to do something about the climate cult … and that doesn’t mean giving into them, but putting a stake right through its heart. Continue reading
We sceptics won the argument on the climate science as much as a decade ago when all the “predictions” of the alarmists (as I then called them) came to nought. The temperature as given by the satellites (as opposed to adjusted by humans at NASA), showed no warming since the removal of cooling causing pollutants like SO2 and there was no trend in severe weather.
We won the scientific debate!! So we sceptics thought that was the end of the scam.
On St.Patrick’s day, I thought I would find any twitter posters who might be interested to know that the evidence shows St.Patrick was born in Glasgow (and to know the people claiming otherwise are just ignoring the overwhelming evidence).
After a while I began wondering why no one was responding. Eventually I checked through another twitter account, only to find that I had been what is called “Shadow banned”. Apparently this happens to a lot of bloggers who put in URLs.
Well, for very good reason I was livid. I wouldn’t have minded if twitter had sent me a polite notice about posting URLs, but to let me think I was posting messages was not acceptable.
So, I finally decided to go online with gab.com
not least because I’ve seen an increasing number of people being “deplatformed” from facebook (I’ve deleted my account) and twitter – and I like to know what people are thinking – but clearly isn’t possible when extremist left wingers in twitter are decided who I can read.
So I’m now fairly regularly on gab. My handle is @haseler and the URL is: https://gab.com/haseler. The only draw back on gab is that you’ll find you want to mute a few people – but unlike twitter, at least you know who you’ve muted and unlike twitter who are deplatforming almost anyone these days, you’ll know its for good reason.