Fast fact 2. The British NHS covers every citizen. The N stands for "National".

Fast fact 3. chttps://www.cnbc.com/2013/06/25/medical-bills-are-the-biggest-cause-of-us-bankruptcies-study.html

But I have already pled guilty and withdrawn my accusation.

Mea culpa.

Good point, well made.

As long as the Soviet Union appeared to be an existential threat, — frank

You guys are still not convinced climate change is an existential threat? Well I guess we'll find out the hard way if there are limits or not.

I think the more serious problem with democracy is that it mandates short-termism in policy. Any problem that can be kicked down the road by 5 years isn't worth the cost of solving, any investment that won't show a profit within 5 years is not worth making. Either is liable to be an expensive free gift to one's opponents.

Always happy to help.

Wow. There's a lot of strong emotions about this. — frank

Here's a little education, to tame some of those strong emotions.

In a democracy there is no way to limit government spending. Only an entity who does not answer to the people can do that. It's kind of bizarre that it's Elon Musk doing it, but there you have it.

This fault in democracy is something the human race has yet to resolve. — frank

No, it's true. The US has struggled with the problem for decades. There is no solution within the framework of democracy. — frank

That's completely ridiculous. The US government doesn't even have a health service, and barely an education service. And the resolution of the problem is anyway completely automatic, and built into the financial system. If the government overspends, inflation balances the books by effectively reducing everyone's wealth and earnings. That regime is then liable to be removed at the next election.

Surely there must be an alarm bell ringing somewhere about this? — Wayfarer

Here is the alarm bell ringing in my ear. The climate catastrophe is eating your wealth, burning, flooding, blowing away, desiccating your assets faster than you can increase them. This results in some desperation amongst the electorate and makes them vulnerable to populist snake oil salesmen with promises of easy solutions involving making some other pay.

Now that you have elected said populists to power, you find that their purpose is to manipulate the markets by random acts of economic destruction that because they have inside knowledge of, they can profit from big time at your expense.

Such acts of destruction include the whole fabric of government , but prioritising anything relating to "checks and balances", "healthy and safety", or "quality control". This is how disaster economics works; most people are impoverished and immiserated, while a very few celebrate with a nazi victory salute.

So your response to the complete refutation of your first argument, is to repeat your second argument as if that has not also been thoroughly refuted.

And even if the arrithmeticial idiocy of subtracting cold deaths from heat deaths was correct, that does not make your previous suggestion that I am [water off a duck's back] for thinking that 8 deaths in 3 years is not a serious problem in the transport industry, any more legitimate.

It is clear that you do not have any coherent understanding, but are flailing about looking for contrarian ideas to whatever is the last thing that has been said. So let's go back to your claim about the serious problems with EVs. What serious problems?

So the number of excess deaths associated with the five heat periods in England and Wales is not as bad as the raw numbers suggest. — Agree-to-Disagree

Indeed. Lets divide by two because who cares if sick and old people die only a little bit early. So that's 8 deaths in 3 years compared to 1500 deaths in 1 year.

Summary of point 2

Most people spend most of the year a bit colder than is "best" (a bit below the optimum).

A little bit of global warming would save many lives, even in the hottest parts of the world. — Agree-to-Disagree

Now that I have to admire. When the numbers are not in your favour, just change the subject. Of course in this miserable damp and somewhat cold climate, premature deaths from cold are greater than those from heat. It does not follow that "A little bit of global warming would save many lives" though, because climate change is creating more energetic weather systems; this results in more extreme weather variations.

Some researchers expect that as many as 1.8 million deaths each year are attributed to short-term temperature variability alone. Large swings from cold to warm conditions, or vice versa, can put pressure on our organ systems and increase health risks.

For example, snow in Florida is also the result of climate change. Unfortunately such inconvenient facts rather mess up the neat statistics. And it's not just temperature, power cuts, floods, damage to homes also contribute.

Summary. Cherry picked statistics without an understanding of how climate is changing are worse than useless.

This is an emergency. Banjos ain't music, but I need something American I can smile at.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=af9wHDrkjfk

Rational people know that there are some serious problems. — Agree-to-Disagree

Just to be completely transparent, there are of course always problems with technology and infrastructure. however, in relation to the problems of climate change, which, in case you had forgotten, is the topic under discussion. there are no serious problems at all; the problems you have suggested are trivial by comparison with the effects of climate change.

For example, just heat related deaths in England and Wales:

Different methods were used by Government bodies to estimate heat-related
mortality in 2022. A UKHSA analysis reported an estimated 2,985 excess deaths
associated with the five heat periods in England (Figure 1).32
Using a slightly different baseline, an Office for National Statistics (ONS) analysis
reported 3,271 excess deaths associated with the five heat periods in England and
Wales.
33 The ONS also estimated there were 3,363 – 5,587 heat-related deaths in
England in all of 2022.34c

https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/POST-PN-0723/POST-PN-0723.pdf
Compared to:

In the UK, fires linked to lithium-ion batteries in e-scooters and e-bikes have quadrupled since 2020, killing eight people and injuring 190, external.

https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/climate-change-heat-and-health

That's 8 deaths in 3 years, versus around 3,000 deaths in 1 year. Do you think 8 deaths in three years is the serious problem?

You are not reliable because you are wrong. — Agree-to-Disagree

Yeah, I'll not try and argue with that. :fire:

By saying "No" you have proved that you are not a reliable source of information. — Agree-to-Disagree

No.

You can rely on the reliable truth of my non-agreement. On this matter I speak with authority. I am not pretending to disagree, I actually do disagree.

Do you accept that there are some serious problems with EVs, lithium batteries, solar power, wind power, infrastructure for charging EVs, infrastructure for getting electricity from where it is generated to where it is used, the fact that many people don't want an EV, the fact that EVs are not suitable for all situations, etc. — Agree-to-Disagree

No.

As far as I can see that collective will doesn't exist. — Agree-to-Disagree

And that's why most of us will die an early death.

Why do oligarchs all have big yachts?

You seem to have faith that new technology will solve the problems associated with large scale energy storage.

Why don't you have faith that new technology will solve the problems associated with climate change (e.g. the CO2 level) ? — Agree-to-Disagree

Faith? I think it probable that new technology will improve in safety and efficiency. But addressing climate change is far more a matter of the collective will to change our lifestyle. I have no faith in that happening until it is far too late for most of us. But change we will, of necessity.

But I have clearly shown the evidence why MGUY is an unreliable witness, and your continued defence of the indefensible shows you to be the same. As I have hinted, the choice is between EVs and horses (or camels); but all this is a minor quibble, as are most of your posts.

Let us discuss the banning of all flights and the planting of all runways with vegetables. Let us discuss a 25% tariff on meat, a 50 % tariff on gas, and so on, let us have faith in bold politicians taking decisive effective action to address the global crisis. :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :death:

I think that MGUY is concerned that the proposed solutions to climate change that are being rushed in will cause serious problems. I have the same concern. — Agree-to-Disagree

I don't believe you. It is not credible that either of you are concerned about safety, because you only bring up these concerns as a reason for not dealing with the safety concerns associated with climate change.

I think MGUY is concerned about possible restrictions on his enjoyment of fast petrol cars. He has videos on all these:

Mercedes-Benz SLK 350

Maserati GranTurismo (2013)

MG Midget (1971)

Ferrari 360

Mercedes C63 (2020)

These "sports" cars are what he is concerned about, and their safety is not their major feature, and nor is utility or economy. These cars are what is known as "penis extensions". EVs have superior acceleration, potentially, but they are too quiet to satisfy poseurs.

It may be that once the age distribution of gasoline cars and EVs is taken into account that they both have a similar risk of catching fire, There is also the possibility that the risk of an EV catching fire is greater than the risk of a gasoline car catching fire. — Agree-to-Disagree

And that is the careful conclusion that MGUY doesn't come to, because he's a petrol-head.

New technology has sparse statistics and as problems come to light, safety regulations develop. In some cases, the technology may have to be abandoned - the use of DDT, and asbestos comes to mind. It may yet happen with EVs, because large scale energy storage is a new tech, if one discounts the lead/acid batteries that powered EVs in the early part of the 20th century. But there is more than one kind of new rechargeable battery, and more variations will be developed.

But the persistent long term deleterious effects of fossil fuel use are extremely well understood. You, nor MGUY choose to remotely consider them:— all your research and all your criticism is directed at problems that arise from efforts to find alternatives, and the difficulties of pinning down the exact extent of a global change of inconceivable complexity, of which no one has any experience, even theoretically through geological records.

And so pages of script and hours of labour are wasted here, discussing your petrol head video maker, not to convince you, because no one here has any wish to argue with a climate change denier, but simply to explain to the general reader, why you and MGUY are not reliable sources of information.

Meanwhile the world burns. — Mikie

But at least it smells nice.

What do we eat?

cats kill 1000 times more birds. — Mikie

Yeah but horses hardly kill any birds - they're a win win solution.

Is this information incorrect because it is in MGUY's video? — Agree-to-Disagree

- Electric cars can 'explode' and the public must be warned say worried UK fire chiefs. — Agree-to-Disagree

What about petrol cars? Can they not explode? Batteries are a new hazard that people need to become aware of. But the information that would be more informative than 'what fire chiefs say' is the comparison.

Australia’s Department of Defence funded EV FireSafe to look into the question. It found there was a 0.0012% chance of a passenger electric vehicle battery catching fire, compared with a 0.1% chance for internal combustion engine cars. (The Home Office said it was unable to provide data for the UK.)

Elon Musk’s Tesla is the world’s biggest maker of electric cars. It says the number of fires on US roads involving Teslas from 2012 to 2021 was 11 times lower per mile than the figure for all cars, the vast majority of which have petrol or diesel engines.

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2023/nov/20/do-electric-cars-pose-a-greater-fire-risk-than-petrol-or-diesel-vehicles.

Fire departments are right to be concerned, and there are new factors to take into account, fumes and restarts, along with unknowns such as the rate of increase as batteries age. Nevertheless, MGUY is more than a little misleading in his representation of the risks of EVs that ignores completely the familiar, and by an order of magnitude greater risks of fossil fuel vehicles.

Horses hardly ever explode; perhaps cars should be banned altogether.

I would be interested to hear from other people on this thread what they think about MGUY's videos.
https://www.youtube.com/@mguytv — Agree-to-Disagree

Since you ask, looking at the banner of his website, he declares upfront that his site is an EV free zone. Then there are some videos highlighting problems with EVs. Then there are some videos extolling the virtues of high end petrol sports cars.

I think MGUY is a petrol-head. These are not a rare breed in the UK or in Australia. So it is not the site to look for a balanced view of EVs as a practical means of transport, never mind as a way to contribute to stabilising the climate.

Thank you for sharing that. I agree. My ex wife killed herself, and later my second wife's niece. I am left, as I am always left after contributions to this perennial topic, with a feeling of failure, and a feeling of reproach from an unanswerable source.

I feel some obligation to talk to people who might become another of those people who might become another that one can no longer talk to, but there is- as others have pointed out, no argument to be made. Might as well sing a song.

Doesn't seem very smart or insightful TBH. — Darkneos

I dunno, why is anything important? — Darkneos

Your honesty is admirable. But unimportant. Your estimation of my responses likewise.

Did "concerned" (heck, or "caring") go out of fashion? — jorndoe

I'm happy to claim "alarmist", as I am being battered by another storm, and the first official 'red warning' for a long time. If you look at a few economic commentators, you will see that every major economy is in trouble. While one can blame the oligarchs to an extent, one of the reasons that disaster capitalism is taking over the world is that disaster is taking over the world. We are getting poorer, because our stuff is burning, being blown down, washed away, drying out, etc. The rich can still make money from our desperation...

I often think it's comical – Fal, lal, la!
How Nature always does contrive – Fal, lal, la!
That every boy and every gal
That’s born into the world alive
Is either a little Liberal
Or else a little Conservative!
Fal, lal, la!

Gilbert and Sullivan, Iolanthe.

How the mind loves to classify, and no mind more so than the philosopher's! And if something, or someone does not fit neatly into the compartments one has, then a new compartment must be created, named, and defined. And for many, perhaps most, the classification of a philosophy or philosopher counts as a sufficient understanding thereof. Hence the proliferation of names of 'isms.

Processism: a philosophy characterised by the prioritising of 'happens' over 'is'; of event over object; of doing over being. Now I can relax! I still know everything!

You are so very stupid, you cannot read your own evidence. I cannot help you.

Light is the left hand of darkness
and darkness the right hand of light.
Two are one, life and death, lying
together like lovers in kemmer,
like hands joined together,
like the end and the way.

― Ursula K. Le Guin, The Left Hand of Darkness.

The left hand of Taoism is Confucianism. Confucianism is conservative, traditional, hierarchical, rule-based, legalistic. It is very much a moral code for the proper functioning of human society. This other hand is dominant in Chinese culture, because it supports the culture.

The Taoist is always a maverick, an individualist, a gypsy, a wanderer in the wilderness not a cultivator of the rice paddy.

As I understand it, Taoism does avoid a human-centered morality. — T Clark

That is my understanding also. But it does not deny it, but offers the 'other hand'. The two work together.

What others teach, I also teach; that is:
"A violent man will die a violent death!"
This will be the essence of my teaching. — Tao Te Ching

_________________________________________________

Argument about God, god, gods, and the supernatural seem out of place to me in relation to Taoism. The supernatural pervades Chinese culture; the Confucian will emphasise the sacred Emperor, and the respect and duty due to the ancestors; the Taoist's supernatural tends more to the magical prediction, spells, charms, blessings. But neither is central to the respective thought system.

To get a better idea of Gods, dragons, and other monsters, have a read, or watch the cartoon of Monkey - Journey to the West.

I have been banging on for ages about sea level rise as a major factor that will affect us, and in the first video, Father Christmas on his day off explains how sea level rise is likely to be exponential, and how when you are on an exponential curve, if you look back, things seem to be changing gradually, but when you look forwards, you are facing a wall of abrupt change. His topic is the North polar region and Greenland as you would expect from Santa. Santa suggests you cut back on the meat a bit.



So for some balance, here is my favourite doom-merchant showing an ongoing collapse of sea ice in the Antarctic that you can follow live via links in the description on youtube.

I think trying to label people as some definite type usually backfires. Just because something is greyish doesn't mean it's not bad. Musk probably isn't a Nazi, but he's a naive moron who buys into ideological stuff that suits his personal beliefs. So when a far-right party in some other nation says something he agrees with, it's not that they're composed of former or present nazis, it's because they align in their current policies with what he agrees with. — Christoffer

Amen to that, and it's probably not worth arguing the exact definition of our insults as if there is a precise and important distinction between far-right, fascist, and nazi.

Hard to think they're Nazis. — AmadeusD

I don't think it is actually. Not that I know anything about them but a violent criminal gang that uses Heil Hitler, passes my test with flying colours. Surely they don't have to be white?

But folks get called 'communist' without having joined the party; anyway, I'll stick with "cockwomble" myself and recognise an enemy of society, whatever the currently politically correct label.

People have been saying silly things and getting predictions wrong for as long as they have been talking. But to do it deliberately, as you do, is fortunately much rarer, though I have the impression it is becoming normalised of late.

(one of hte claims tacitly supported is that someone with Bi-polar doesn't do what Elon did - therefore it's a Nazi salute. — AmadeusD

That makes no sense. But what makes some sense is the connection drawn between ex nazis in various organisations that Musk has associated himself with and blatant sympathisers he has openly supported. If it quacks like a nazi, and nests with nazis, and twaddles like a nazi, maybe it's a nazi.

Having said that, I'm not entirely sure I agree with myself. This discussion at least starts to make a case for the other side.

—

Is anyone here prepared to claim Elon Musk made a Nazi salute? — AmadeusD

I don't think he is smart enough to be that fluent in such symbolic gesturing. My guess is that he was going for hand on heart sincerity and this, and missing by a country mile. What an enormous cockwomble though!

It rather plays to the general distraction though to have missed the far more significant alignment of all the American tech and media oligarchs behind the inauguration, and the immediate announcement of the "Stargate" project.

Meanwhile, in another part of the forest, here are a couple of grownups talking about international affairs and stuff.

Climate-change/global-warming alarmists have been scaremongering and warning of impending doom for well over 100 years. Like most doomsday cults, when the predicted disaster doesn't happen when it was predicted they just shift the date of disaster to some time in the future. — Agree-to-Disagree

"The effect may be considerablein a few centuries."

Come back in another century and sneer about failed doomsday cults. :roll:

l You might like to explore this site a little...
https://www.libraryofsocialscience.com/ideologies/

...the age of nationalism powerfully promoted the conviction that the war experience fulfilled the task of “rejuvenating and regenerating a civilization now in steep decline.” The bellicose “mood” that resulted had by 1914 become an essential factor in the origins of the First World War. In Berlin, Vienna, Paris, and London, a “storm of war feeling broke.”

The assumption took hold on segments of the collective mythopoeia that destroying a contemptible society would “open the way to a better one.” Within this mindset, the brief bout of ruthless slaughter of the enemy this demanded was perceived as a ritual act of purification; a “cleansing fire.”

The West marched joyfully into mental catacombs of its own making. It would only emerge from them in 1945—after over 70 million combatants and civilians had died as a direct result of war, persecution, or genocide—a mere fraction of the survivors whose lives were devastated.

As prospects of a short war evaporated and the death toll grew ever higher, powerful psychological processes ensured that the war would remain for millions a catalyst to experiencing transcendence. It was as if the fantasy of redemption through sacrifice—stubbornly entertained by both the fighters and onlookers—was fuelled rather than quenched by the blood of the fallen, like pouring oil on flames.

https://www.libraryofsocialscience.com/newsletter/posts/2014/2014-11-11-Griffin.htm