Why We Should Not "Pull Together"

Hank Aaron. His life was threatened because he was a great hitter, and played smart and stayed healthy and broke some drunk's hitting record. I didn't know why there was an uproar about Hank in my youth. He was a Brave, I cheered for him. Grown up, I heard the back story - urine dumped on him at MLB games. Death threats as he approached the record. When he hit that 715th in 74, they say his mom ran on the diamond not to cheer him ... but out of fear he would be killed. Killed for hitting a baseball really, really well, and being black skinned... 
So you think it's bad today when some whack job sends pretend bombs?

Oh, and Trump "attacks the press". Wowee. Look at what JFK did with the protection of the oh so noble press. How was anyone ever so naive as to believe all the mythical majesty of the "press". Rate gathering wonders, yes they are that. Purposeful? Doing meaningful work? Only by accident. There could hardly be anyone more reprehensible to me than Trump, he's easily the worst employee I've ever been stuck with. Still, he's a step above "the press" in terms of integrity since he clearly is just what he says, a compulsive self promoter - just like the press but honest about it. 

I struggle to make sense of this time, too. I feel angry at the stupid. People say silly stuff like "we must all pull together to make our democracy work" as if the alpha and omega of this nation is what the government does or doesn't do (and as if the USA was a democracy - "and to the republic for which it stands").
People say silly stuff like "we must all pull together" as if they don't see how afraid I am of what you want the government to do to me, and what you think I want the government to do to you.
Pull together? Well, are you going to stop using the government against me? If not, how can I pull with you?
With this much power at stake, does it make sense to "pull together"? "Pull together", whatever that means. Really, you think 300 million people are going to have a common interest other than you shouldn't hurt me and I shouldn't hurt you?

You don't like violence? Every act of government is an act of violence, we ignore that we accept violence from the powerful. You want to smoke something that I don't think you should? Well, someone with a gun will take care of it and you can go to jail or get shot for "breaking the law". That is violence, lawful or not.

When someone says "we should all pull together" I wonder how they can miss how absurdly thin that gruel is when the pulling apart they are arguing against is about who gets to do what to whom with the violence of law. The Germans and Japanese "pulled together" about 70+ years ago, I don't want any part of "pulling together".

I'd rather we do what I see us doing every day which is looking each other in the eye with a polite greeting and mutual acknowledgement of the humanity before us and refuse to let these empty headed political types drag us into their nightmares of political conquest and imagined glory. 

If you want to pull with me, let's pull for more and greater restrictions on what you can use the government to do to me, and on what I can use the government to do to you. 

If you insist on having more reasons why government can commit violence on your fellow citizens, be aware enough not to ask them to happily participate in their own victimization.

I'd Like To Buy An Argument

The IPCC has told us, again, that we only have ten years until disaster. "Cut carbon emissions, and we really mean it this time."  I heard this is the 4th time they've made the announcement.

Someone asked me recently, in the face of my AGW denialism, "What is your argument, that we should do nothing?"

Translation: we the non-deniers, who believe in the god of science, think things are so bad that "we" should get the 535 assclownstooges and our president to use violent coercion to make us do something, anything, to reduce carbon emissions because we are afraid of something that we don’t understand.

My argument isn’t an argument. This is what I understand to be true:

The term scientist is so vague that saying “a majority of scientists agree” is a meaningless statement. Quantify – do you mean actual people doing research on climatology in labs daily? Do you mean anyone published in a professional journal? Do you mean anyone with a PHD in a scientific field? Do you include PHD physicists and other hard sciences only? 

“Science”, or the scientific method, cannot be used to test climate in the same way it can be used to test, for example, gravity. Climate cannot be reduced to lab experiments. What is asserted about what causes what in climate is conjecture. It may be correct, it may not be correct, and since the conjecture cannot be tested the answer is not certain. Therefore, what is asserted about causality with regard to climate is belief, and has become strongly held belief for reasons I don't understand. 

There is a way to validate causality with climate, which would be to create a predictive model - one that accurately forecasts (forward and in reverse) temperatures based on the man made inputs that people fear cause changes in climate. Many climate models have been built, and none have accurately predicted climate temperature change. 

Scientific consensus – good if it advances inquiry. As a way of setting policy, consensus is a joke. Consensus is nothing more than the opinions of "scientists". This is in no way equivalalent to the application of the scientific method under controlled conditions. The whole point of the scientific method is that experts are not trustworthy (we all fall victim to bias). All work is subjected to scrutiny, tests must be performed in another lab by other scientists to be accepted as valid. Scientific consensus is to the scientific method as sawdust is to a smooth automobile transmission. 

There are many well articulated arguments against the notion that CO2 is a driver of climate change. The ones I have found are in my blog. One rule I follow is that being informed means I could articulate the case I oppose in terms that would be acceptable to someone who is a believer. Most of those who advocate for AGW cannot articulate the sceptic’s position, or won’t, and default to accusations of poor character.

Licensing and Other Bogus Government Repression

Licensing - the illusion of quality that only empowers the state, makes it expensive to start businesses, and penalizes mobility between states.
https://www.realclearpolicy.com/articles/2018/10/10/how_licensing_reform_can_help_states_and_veterans_110848.html

What Tesla Means

To some part of the population, Tesla means something over and above making cars. I have exchanged thoughts recently with a friend who's enamored of Tesla and apparently Musk as well. He's a believer in electric. He seems to think electric means "good for the environment" and such, and he's what you could call a "true believer". The nitty gritty bottom line doesn't matter as much as the meaning, the association to what is coming that will be better than what is.

I hope he's right.

To me, electric cars are rich kids' toys. They don't help reduce emissions, they have a value near zero when the battery quits (or can you get a car battery re-built for cheap these days?), and even with a substantial tax credit, they are expensive and little.

There are two sources of emissions for vehicles - one is the manufacture of the vehicle, the other is  from fuel use. The last time I saw these numbers compared, these are expected to be equal over the life of the car. In other words, a substantial reduction in emissions would be achieved by preventing the manufacture of new cars/trucks, ships, airplanes, houses, commercial buildings, and shutting down industrial food production (we can have a cow, chickens and veggies in the back yard like the great depression or the war!), etcetera.

As of a few years ago, the emissions break even for an electric was about the point in time that the battery would be expended. That is to say, the emissions cost to build an electric is so high, that even though they are not burning gas electrics do not reduce emissions.

What might change this formula would be to have zero emissions sources of electricity - nuclear being the most likely option at this point (not that it is likely for the US to build nuclear). 15 years of solar and wind speculation has brought, from my perspective, disappointment.

My friend says he can drive across country for free. What's the cost of the inconvenience of having to recharge on a specified interval, vice having the chance to stop and add gas in a few minutes whenever it is needed?

What's the cost to others of your $2500 to $7000 tax credit to play with your electric car which does not create a public good?

What if you spend less on a gas powered car - at what point would you reach free given:
-an expected ~$2000 (for my F150) annual fuel bill
-depreciation of the more expensive electric car from full cost to zero over the expected five year life of the battery, whereas my truck at the five year mark had depreciated between $14,000 and $18,000, depending on how this is calculated
-the difference in purchase price for the electric versus a similarly capable gasoline powered car
If these numbers really show he drives the car "for free", I'd like to see them.

Electric cars are like all cars - we choose them based on our identity. To me, Tesla's an ambitious idea, I hope it works, but even if it does, it won't matter much to me - it's not going to create sunshine out of cucumbers. To my friend, Tesla hints at something beautiful and hope filled and better than the current sometimes squalid state of human experience. I'm happy for him.

https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=726718267156239993#editor/target=post;postID=5962610422521073459

https://www.fidelity.com/news/article/top-news/201810051527RTRSNEWSCOMBINED_KCN1MF27C-OUSBS_1