Climate Change examined in this month's National Geographic

wrote:
On Saturday, November 14, 2015 at 12:02:21 PM UTC-5, Chris L Peterson wrote:

That said, and intricacies of microeconomics aside, I'm sure you'll
agree that any commodity with reasonable demand and non-negligible
cost is unlikely to see a decrease in usage if its cost drops. And
that certainly includes public transportation systems.

In some areas riding the bus (in lieu of a car) might carry a certain
chic, compared to riding a liquor-cycle (in lieu of a car) for example.
However, if the cost of riding the bus were dropped to zero, the bus
might then become a haven for bums who don't ever take baths. Having
just a few of them aboard each bus will tend to reduce overall ridership, AEBE.






In the UK anyone over 60 can apply for a free bus pass. In some areas this
covers trains and underground as well. The buses don't have a noticeable
load of unbathed vagrants.

On Sun, 15 Nov 2015 17:40:00 -0000 (UTC), Mike Collins
wrote:

wrote:
On Saturday, November 14, 2015 at 12:02:21 PM UTC-5, Chris L Peterson wrote:

That said, and intricacies of microeconomics aside, I'm sure you'll
agree that any commodity with reasonable demand and non-negligible
cost is unlikely to see a decrease in usage if its cost drops. And
that certainly includes public transportation systems.

In some areas riding the bus (in lieu of a car) might carry a certain
chic, compared to riding a liquor-cycle (in lieu of a car) for example.
However, if the cost of riding the bus were dropped to zero, the bus
might then become a haven for bums who don't ever take baths. Having
just a few of them aboard each bus will tend to reduce overall ridership, AEBE.






In the UK anyone over 60 can apply for a free bus pass. In some areas this
covers trains and underground as well. The buses don't have a noticeable
load of unbathed vagrants.

Snell likes to construct bizarre scenarios that don't reflect how
things actually work in practice, as if a contrived scenario somehow
provides powerful evidence for his dogma.

I would imagine that a decent person with a reasonable outlook could envisage that each planet has a specific climate and what the common feature is that determines the nature of each individual climate in comparison to another planet.


http://calgary.rasc.ca/images/planet_inclinations.gif

The ineffective proposition of 'no tilt/no seasons' is replaced by a spectrum based on inclination. The climate of Jupiter with its 3° inclination is Equatorial whereas the climate of Uranus with its 82° inclination is close to being polar.

The seasons are caused by a combination of two surface rotations to the Sun and easily discerned by splitting the planet's two day/night cycles apart. The polar day/night cycle and the fact that the entire planet turns once as a function of its orbital motion has already made it into educational circulation thereby displacing a 'tilting' Earth so at least some strides are being made.

Again, reasonable people will have no difficulty whatsoever with dual rotations and dual day/night cycles in isolation and the seasons where they combine.

On 14/11/2015 16:16, Paul Schlyter wrote:
On Fri, 13 Nov 2015 10:43:06 -0700, Chris L Peterson
wrote:

That simply makes no sense. If you reduce the cost of use,
you'll increase the usage.

Well, that depends. The usage of some things are quite independent of
its price. Consider for instance salt, you need a certain amounts and
you don't pay much for it. Suppose salt became 10 times more expensive.
Most people would continue using as much salt as they did before but pay
10 times more for it, which still isn't very much. Some would complain
but most people wouldn't bother to do that.

Also depends where and when you are. Back in Roman times salt was
valuable enough that salary today is a derived word from it.

Now, suppose that salt instead got 10 times cheaper. Nobody would
complain about that of course, but hardly anyone would start consuming
significantly more salt than they already did before.

Salt is an interesting example of a product of which we are very price
insensitive. Therefore, a government wishing to increase the use of salt
by subsidizing it would most likely fall in trying to do that.

More topical would be if you s/salt/sugar/ and then watch the outcry of
the laissez faire economists and junk food vendors demanding that people
have the right to stuff themselves with fizzy pop and over sweetened
junk food until their knees, pancreas and kidneys fail.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/heal...g-obesity.html

Then they expect the NHS to pick up the pieces...

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

On Monday, 16 November 2015 15:32:00 UTC+1, Martin Brown wrote:

More topical would be if you s/salt/sugar/ and then watch the outcry of
the laissez faire economists and junk food vendors demanding that people
have the right to stuff themselves with fizzy pop and over sweetened
junk food until their knees, pancreas and kidneys fail.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/heal...g-obesity.html

Martin Brown

There is no need for a tax on crap to reduce obesity. Just move the CroakerCola to the top shelf where the gluttons can't reach it. Some fat people would stand outside and try to get people to go in and buy their crap for them. Like under-age addicts asking adults to buy them cigarettes. Obesity begins and ends on the supermarket checkout belt. "Tighten your belts" takes on a whole new meaning if you narrow the gap, by law, between the checkouts. Obesity would drop like a stone if they couldn't waddle through with their 8 liters [2 US Gals] of brown sugar. Have you noticed the similarity between CroakerCola and waste water at treatment plants? Have you noticed the similarity between 2 liter bottles of CroakerCola and gas bottles? Ironic, isn't it? ;ø]

On Sunday, November 15, 2015 at 12:42:21 PM UTC-5, Mike Collins wrote:

In the UK anyone over 60 can apply for a free bus pass. In some areas this
covers trains and underground as well. The buses don't have a noticeable
load of unbathed vagrants.

That's perhaps because your un-bathed vagrants don't really stand out very much?

wrote:
On Sunday, November 15, 2015 at 12:42:21 PM UTC-5, Mike Collins wrote:

In the UK anyone over 60 can apply for a free bus pass. In some areas this
covers trains and underground as well. The buses don't have a noticeable
load of unbathed vagrants.

That's perhaps because your un-bathed vagrants don't really stand out very much?



Now you are behaving in just the way you complain of in others. Are you a
wannabe playground bully?

On Sunday, November 15, 2015 at 1:01:23 PM UTC-5, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Sun, 15 Nov 2015 17:40:00 -0000 (UTC), Mike Collins
wrote:

wsnell01 wrote:
On Saturday, November 14, 2015 at 12:02:21 PM UTC-5, Chris L Peterson wrote:

That said, and intricacies of microeconomics aside, I'm sure you'll
agree that any commodity with reasonable demand and non-negligible
cost is unlikely to see a decrease in usage if its cost drops. And
that certainly includes public transportation systems.

In some areas riding the bus (in lieu of a car) might carry a certain
chic, compared to riding a liquor-cycle (in lieu of a car) for example.
However, if the cost of riding the bus were dropped to zero, the bus
might then become a haven for bums who don't ever take baths. Having
just a few of them aboard each bus will tend to reduce overall ridership, AEBE.

In the UK anyone over 60 can apply for a free bus pass. In some areas this
covers trains and underground as well. The buses don't have a noticeable
load of unbathed vagrants.

Snell likes to construct bizarre scenarios that don't reflect how
things actually work in practice, as if a contrived scenario somehow
provides powerful evidence for his dogma.

Why do you consider that a "bizarre scenario?"

Last paragraph, wrt people go back to driving on fare-free systems:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_p...#Disadvantages


Library patrons avoiding specific library:

http://lj.libraryjournal.com/blogs/a...eless-problem/

Public libraries do not generally charge fees to enter premises.

On Tuesday, November 24, 2015 at 10:28:46 AM UTC-5, Mike Collins wrote:
wsnell01 wrote:
On Sunday, November 15, 2015 at 12:42:21 PM UTC-5, Mike Collins wrote:

In the UK anyone over 60 can apply for a free bus pass. In some areas this
covers trains and underground as well. The buses don't have a noticeable
load of unbathed vagrants.

That's perhaps because your un-bathed vagrants don't really stand out very much?



Now you are behaving in just the way you complain of in others. Are you a
wannabe playground bully?

I am only suggesting a possible explanation for why you don't notice unbathed people on your bus system. They can be quite noticeable here. I shudder to imagine what would happen to ridership if the fares were zero here, especially for everyone, not just those over age sixty.

On Tuesday, November 17, 2015 at 5:07:34 AM UTC-5, Chris.B wrote:

Have you noticed the similarity between CroakerCola and waste water at treatment plants?

If you have made such a comparison, then you have WAY too much time on your hands.

Was that a taste test, BTW?