Evening apparition of Mercury

On Friday, April 24, 2015 at 3:16:52 PM UTC-4, Mike Collins wrote:

You have this terrible right wing inability to compromise.

To socialists such as yourself, what's yours is yours, what's anybody elses is negotiable. You people do not understand the concept of compromise.

How this for compromise: YOU don't fly around the world anymore, and MAYBE I'll consider installing some CFLs or not buying a large vehicle.

I'm not what you
would describe as a "Warmingista", I know enough science to be able to
evaluate the evidence presented in papers and look beyond the headlines in
newspapers.

You are a warmingista. You want political action on AGW that won't affect you, only others, and the politicians for whom you vote usually lean socialist.


incorrect and irrelvant material deleted

I spent most of my time in the 20th century being frugal and not taking
foreign holidays and now I have both the time and the money I will do so.

So? That's no excuse if you think that AGW is a problem.

But I support taking action to reduce CO2 emissions so my grandchildren
will be able to enjoy a reasonable lifestyle.

The AGW laws that you would enact would virtually guarantee that future generations would NOT have a "reasonable lifestyle." Pity you can't see that.

wrote:
On Friday, April 24, 2015 at 3:16:52 PM UTC-4, Mike Collins wrote:
wsnell01 wrote:
On Wednesday, April 22, 2015 at 1:28:11 PM UTC-4, Mike Collins wrote:

Even if I wanted to walk across Australia I only had a month between
retiring and return to part-time work so the 86 day record would have been
too long.

So what it boils down to is that it would be inconvenient, for various
reasons, for you to take the low-carbon approach to Australia, but a tax,
law, or regulation that would inconvenience other people to the point of
their having to walk or ride a bus to work is OK, so long as those
restrictions don't inconvenience you in the same ways?

I'm not as selfish as you

I pay whatever taxes are required for this. I also pay taxes on petrol and
diesel which would start revolutions in your country.
And this:
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_Passenger_Duty

Of course to be practical there would no no measurable difference because
the aircraft I flew had a few empty seats and in an A380 the percentage of
fuel for each passenger is tiny

Those air passenger duties are relatively small, easy to pay for rich
warmingistas, maybe a barrier to the less well-heeled.

A round trip flight from London to Sydney causes the emission of over 5
tons of CO2 per passenger, an amount that is equal to the entire CO2
emitted in a year by the average world citizen, hardly a "tiny" amount.

The presence of empty seats doesn't absolve you of your guilt; if you
and others didn't make such flights in the first place, the airlines
would eventually stop flying. It is immoral, unfair and hypocritical for
one to the point other peoples' skepticism of AGW when one so blatantly
does what he thinks others should compelled not to do, ie, put
unnecessary carbon into the air.

You still don't get the point. I'm not a green activist. If I preach it's
only to the idiots who refuse to allow themselves to understand. I live in
the 21st century and want to carry on with a 21st century lifestyle. But
avoiding extravagances is a way to ensure this lifestyle can carry on for
longer.

And fuel taxes are still high.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_Price_Escalator

But you live in a country where people can drive Hummers happily. In
Britain somebody driving one of these is the object of derision. Or maybe a
drug dealer.

wrote:
On Friday, April 24, 2015 at 3:16:52 PM UTC-4, Mike Collins wrote:

You have this terrible right wing inability to compromise.

To socialists such as yourself, what's yours is yours, what's anybody
elses is negotiable. You people do not understand the concept of compromise.

How this for compromise: YOU don't fly around the world anymore, and
MAYBE I'll consider installing some CFLs or not buying a large vehicle.

I'm not what you
would describe as a "Warmingista", I know enough science to be able to
evaluate the evidence presented in papers and look beyond the headlines in
newspapers.

You are a warmingista. You want political action on AGW that won't
affect you, only others, and the politicians for whom you vote usually lean socialist.


incorrect and irrelvant material deleted

I spent most of my time in the 20th century being frugal and not taking
foreign holidays and now I have both the time and the money I will do so.

So? That's no excuse if you think that AGW is a problem.

But I support taking action to reduce CO2 emissions so my grandchildren
will be able to enjoy a reasonable lifestyle.

The AGW laws that you would enact would virtually guarantee that future
generations would NOT have a "reasonable lifestyle." Pity you can't see that.

Perhaps you would condescend to inform me what those laws are?

On Friday, April 24, 2015 at 4:20:28 PM UTC-4, Mike Collins wrote:

You still don't get the point. I'm not a green activist. If I preach it's
only to the idiots who refuse to allow themselves to understand.

If you preach at all, you are a green activist.

I live in
the 21st century and want to carry on with a 21st century lifestyle.

Your "21st century lifestyle" is not enjoyed by the vast majority of people on this planet.

But
avoiding extravagances is a way to ensure this lifestyle can carry on for
longer.

Your trip to Australia was an extravagance. It caused CO2 emissions equal to or greater than the world per capita per year average, and more than twice the "target average."

And fuel taxes are still high.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_Price_Escalator

But you live in a country where people can drive Hummers happily.

I live in country where very few people drive Hummers. Most of the least efficient vehicles seem to come from Europe:

http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/best/bestworstNF.shtml

In
Britain somebody driving one of these is the object of derision. Or maybe a
drug dealer.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/hannahel...their-wedding/

http://www.edmunds.com/hummer/h1/2001/mpg/

Aston Martin = 15 MPG, Hummer H1=14.8 mpg.

The H1 _can_ carry more drugs, I suppose.

On Friday, April 24, 2015 at 4:23:39 PM UTC-4, Mike Collins wrote:
wsnell01 wrote:

The AGW laws that you would enact would virtually guarantee that future
generations would NOT have a "reasonable lifestyle." Pity you can't see that.

Perhaps you would condescend to inform me what those laws are?

I say we don't find out, but some possibilities a

Draconian fuel economy standards, fuel taxes, guzzler taxes, restrictions (usually unequally applied, of course) as to when, where and if one can drive, ridiculous standards for new building construction, curfews, checkpoints, rolling blackouts, intrusive inspections, renewable subsidies, cars-for-clunkers^2, import quotas, etc., and who even knows what else.

wrote:
On Friday, April 24, 2015 at 4:23:39 PM UTC-4, Mike Collins wrote:
wsnell01 wrote:

The AGW laws that you would enact would virtually guarantee that future
generations would NOT have a "reasonable lifestyle." Pity you can't see that.

Perhaps you would condescend to inform me what those laws are?

I say we don't find out, but some possibilities a

Draconian fuel economy standards,
You mean the standards other countries already use.

fuel taxes

Excellent idea!

Guzzler taxes

Fuel taxes should take care of that

restrictions (usually unequally applied, of course) as to when, where and if one can drive

Stupid idea - usually favouring the rich

ridiculous standards for new building construction
You mean decent insulation standards - good idea

curfews an American solution. I can't recall such a thing in the UK unless in a riot.

checkpoints

A good idea for trucks, not necessary for other vehicles

rolling blackouts

Likely in the US because of your inefficient power grid but not a way to
ensure future fuel efficiency.

Intrusive inspections

What do you mean by this?

renewable subsidies

Useful as a startup measure but not long-term.

cars-for-clunkers

Stupid idea

Import quotas

I thought you were a capitalist. Have you never heard of the benefits of
free trade?

wrote:
On Friday, April 24, 2015 at 4:20:28 PM UTC-4, Mike Collins wrote:

You still don't get the point. I'm not a green activist. If I preach it's
only to the idiots who refuse to allow themselves to understand.

If you preach at all, you are a green activist.

I live in
the 21st century and want to carry on with a 21st century lifestyle.

Your "21st century lifestyle" is not enjoyed by the vast majority of
people on this planet.

But
avoiding extravagances is a way to ensure this lifestyle can carry on for
longer.

Your trip to Australia was an extravagance. It caused CO2 emissions
equal to or greater than the world per capita per year average, and more
than twice the "target average."

And fuel taxes are still high.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_Price_Escalator

But you live in a country where people can drive Hummers happily.

I live in country where very few people drive Hummers. Most of the least
efficient vehicles seem to come from Europe:

http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/best/bestworstNF.shtml


http://www.thehcf.org/emaila5.html


In
Britain somebody driving one of these is the object of derision. Or maybe a
drug dealer.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/hannahel...their-wedding/

http://www.edmunds.com/hummer/h1/2001/mpg/

Aston Martin = 15 MPG, Hummer H1=14.8 mpg.

The H1 _can_ carry more drugs, I suppose.

Probably could.
Not many Aston Martins around in the UK. But most cars on the road have
engines smaller then 2litres. Most of the economical VW group cars (VW,
SEAT, Skoda) are not even sold in the USA.
The Ford Focus is on your list as an economical car but outside the USA it
has a much smaller engine and better fuel efficiency.

To get back to the original subject of the thread this evening was clear so
I walked out to a nearby field to look for Mercury. At 10 degrees altitude
it was just visible to the naked eye at mag - 0.5. By the time it was 8
degrees high it was much brighter against the darkening sky but has started
twinkling. The Moon, Jupiter, Venus and Mercury gave a good idea of the arc
of the ecliptic and the moonlight was bright enough to walk home along an
unlighted lane.
Mars was lower than Mercury and I didn't manage to see it even with
binoculars.

On Sunday, April 26, 2015 at 7:03:06 PM UTC-4, Mike Collins wrote:
wsnell01 wrote:
On Friday, April 24, 2015 at 4:23:39 PM UTC-4, Mike Collins wrote:
wsnell01 wrote:

The AGW laws that you would enact would virtually guarantee that future
generations would NOT have a "reasonable lifestyle." Pity you can't see that.

Perhaps you would condescend to inform me what those laws are?

I say we don't find out, but some possibilities a

Draconian fuel economy standards,
You mean the standards other countries already use.

You mean the standards that make cars cost-prohibitive for some.

fuel taxes

Excellent idea!

We use them to pay for roads.

Guzzler taxes

Fuel taxes should take care of that

Fuel taxes do not seem to be preventing the sale of UK guzzlers.

restrictions (usually unequally applied, of course) as to when, where and if one can drive

Stupid idea - usually favouring the rich

Yet the sort of thing that one might see in authoritarian areas such as the UK.

ridiculous standards for new building construction
You mean decent insulation standards - good idea

No, I mean new standards for water heaters that requiring remodeling of the utility spaces in small townhouses and condos and limitations on window sizes, to give two examples. Insulation pays for itself, rapidly.

curfews an American solution. I can't recall such a thing in the UK unless in a riot.

Same here.

checkpoints

A good idea for trucks, not necessary for other vehicles

Agreed, but leftists LOVE that sort of thing.

rolling blackouts

Likely in the US because of your inefficient power grid but not a way to
ensure future fuel efficiency.

Unlikely in the US, so long as enough fossil plants remain on-line.

http://www.theguardian.com/environme...new-technology

Intrusive inspections

What do you mean by this?

Exactly what it says. The UK, lacking a Constitution is vulnerable to such things.

renewable subsidies

Useful as a startup measure but not long-term.

When/if we need renewables, we'll probably get the equipment from the Chinese.

cars-for-clunkers

Stupid idea

http://www.autoblog.com/2009/09/28/b...get-extension/

Import quotas

I thought you were a capitalist. Have you never heard of the benefits of
free trade?

That's why I am against import quotas and against subsidies.

On Sunday, April 26, 2015 at 7:03:06 PM UTC-4, Mike Collins wrote:
wsnell01 wrote:
On Friday, April 24, 2015 at 4:20:28 PM UTC-4, Mike Collins wrote:

In
Britain somebody driving one of these is the object of derision. Or maybe a
drug dealer.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/hannahel...their-wedding/

http://www.edmunds.com/hummer/h1/2001/mpg/

Aston Martin = 15 MPG, Hummer H1=14.8 mpg.

The H1 _can_ carry more drugs, I suppose.

Probably could.
Not many Aston Martins around in the UK.

There are relatively few Aston Martins here either, but if the UK didn't produce them, there would be even fewer everywhere. Meanwhile the H1 does as well on MPG, and can carry more people, cargo.

But most cars on the road have
engines smaller then 2litres.

Funny you should say that that, my daily driver falls into that category.

Most of the economical VW group cars (VW,
SEAT, Skoda) are not even sold in the USA.

Those ~1.0 engines will get you killed to death on the highway. Of course the -entire- UK is only about the size of Oregon so maybe that's why you can cram yourself into one of those. When those things break down, do you even bother to fix them? The performance/price looks very poor.

The Ford Focus is on your list as an economical car but outside the USA it
has a much smaller engine and better fuel efficiency.

That model isn't on CR's recommended list so why should anyone care?