NortonH

Great. You have found a dictionary definition so now use it. Tell me why the currency in Zimbabwe is useless and why Nigeria has a reasonably strong, convertible currency. Why does the Saudi currency have value even though they produce nothing other than oil and hot camels?

I have tried in the past to establish the link between conserved quantities. This has relied on my being allowed to define some concepts in finance which mirror energy conservation principles in physics. My attempts have been met with trolling and banning but they are still on the board and have not been refuted. A currency is only worth what it can buy and a currency which can be immediately converted to (ie BUY) a liter of petrol is more valuable than one which cannot. This is clearly demonstrated in the various countries around the world. If you have the choice of a USD or a Zim Dollar it is clear which one is better. Even in screwed up countries like Nigeria the currency has value simply because it can easily be exchanged for energy.

This link was in the FIRST LINE of the article. https://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/11/12/one-of-the-longest-running-climate-prediction-blunders-has-disappeared-from-the-internet/

Is there any event which would falsify the model? It is just that we were told there would be no more snow and now when there is loads of snow we are told that that is also what we expect.

I do not think that that sort of comment adds to the discussion. If you care to discuss the topic then please do. If you plan to just troll the thread until you successfully get it closed down then I will leave you to it.

That is called 'anecdotal evidence', I believe.

When you spend money what is it you are actually doing? In reality money is just a coupon which allows you to consume some energy. Without energy available your money is worth nothing. If you spend a load of money then somewhere a lot of energy has been consumed. The link is pretty clear to anyone who has ever worked in business and understands the concepts of 'conserved quantity', 'joule' and 'watt'. (Please note: If this message is to hard to refute then please just shut down all discussion.)

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/03/08/erie-pa-buried-under-13-feet-of-snowfall-breaks-all-time-record/ In latest news another climate record tumbles.

http://joannenova.com.au/2018/03/giant-spanish-bank-spends-e100-b-on-earths-weather-cos-they-are-nice-people/ So what does "spending $100bn" mean? It means consuming $100Bn worth of energy, most of which has come from fossil fuels. Spending money = Consuming energy.

If you intend to enforce this law then you are effectively discriminating against followers of some religions in which younger women and girls can be married off. The Perfect Man, Mohamed PBUH, married Aisha at six years old and consumated the marriage three years later. i expect to hear now from all the islamophobes.

Seen it here. https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/03/07/exclusive-an-ugly-chapter-that-didnt-make-the-bestseller-book-the-politically-incorrect-guide-to-climate-change/

http://joannenova.com.au/2018/03/uk-weather-going-mediterranean-so-fast-it-overshoots-to-south-pole/

I recently saw an ad on TV for a company which provided free credit scores for potential home buyers or anyone else who might be planning to take out a loan. One of the key things they wanted to emphasise was that "getting your credit score will not affect your credit score". Is this not a blatant violation of Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle?

Imagine if I did that.

Not sure what you mean by that. I checked my sons bedroom this morning. The count was as follows: Sons Present ONE Receipts for Sales of children ZERO I hope that clarifies things. A battery is not a source of energy, it is a temporary reservoir. The battery that has been provided at an undisclosed cost estimated at around $50M stores as much energy as about 15 tons of diesel. ie half a road tanker. If you think it is a boost to clean energy then I suggest you take a look at how it is produced and how much fossil energy went into its fabrication.

It was during the colonial period that Africa developed. Food production went from subsistence to large scale commercial farming in less than fifty years. Countries like Zimbabwe have reversed the process. In 1880 there were no railways in Africa. Eighty years later you could take a train from Capetown to Nairobi and beyond. In 1960 Nigeria was one of the largest peanut growers in the world no commercial agriculture is all but irrelevant there. In the 1970s it was not uncommon to holiday in Mogadishu and people went on honeymoons to Belgian Congo (DRC). Hydroelectric power went from zero gigawatts with schemes like Kariba and Caborra Bassa. So what is strange about saying that it was in this century that Africa developed?

I started with a claim which I was prepared to back up with a logically constructed argument. I was hindered from making the argument by trolling. Even now you can see that some people are still whining about a concept I am trying to use simply because they refuse to engage in any serious discussion and are able to get away with trolling. (HINT: If you see mods trolling then you know that trolling is OK!) Please explain how me using a precise and unambiguous definition of a concept I want to use in an argument in any way 'rejects information'. Is there not some rule against attempting to hijack a thread? Or are you 'soap boxing'? I will wait for a mod to decide. Not my problem. I will exercise my right to ignore you. No. I would say you were misrepresenting my argument in an attempt to resurrect your glorious day of trolling. I will now exercise my right to ignore any irrelevant comments from you.

A useful old adage - the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Before people prattle on about their lofty plans for saving Africa I suggest they do a bit of research or just visit the place. Africa was doing OK for a century before 'aid' started destroying the place.

What I want to say goes a long way beyond that and the questions I asked were very simple and easy to answer if you have in mind a definition of 'subsidy'. The ONLY reason people chose to troll me rather than answer the very simple questions is because the example i gave makes it quite clear to even the dimmest bulb that the only useful definition of subsidy is as a conserved quantity and the 'dictionary definition' is to vague and ambiguous to be of any use in a scientific debate. As soon as I asked those questions my point was clear and the only escape for the trolls was to avoid answering the questions. I suggest you answer them right now and you will see what I mean.

Energy is measured in joules. Watts is a measure of power. I am surprised that there were no 'physics' qualified mods to help you with that. Probably too busy looking to nit pick bad old Norton rather than help you with a basic scientific misunderstading. I hope I have been able to help you.

That is not the scenario I proposed so if that is supposed to be an attempt to answer my very simple questions then that is a fail. You are slowly getting there! I have actually given the answer already. Is this relevant? Is there not some rule about hijacking threads? Yes. You have finally comprehended something. If 'clean energy' does not make sense economically in a free market then it does not make sense in energy terms and is therefore pointless. That is pretty much what I claim. I am actually trying to put more general case but that is certainly one example. It could have been so simple without all the trolling eh!? Please see the definition I used for subsidy and try again. Alternatively please tell me EXACTLY how you define the word subsidy and I am happy to work with that. Either way you like.

I believe you. These are known as the creditors in any business start up. They are the ones who benefit from a successful venture. No. That is why I specifically defined the word I want to use. Please read the definition I gave. It has nothing to do with government, it is to do with net flow one way or the other. Let me illustrate very briefly by asking you a question - every week my mother pays $100 towards my nephews rent. I claim that she is subsidizing his rent. By the dictionary definition we have been prescribed that is not the case however. So in your opinion, if i said that I thought my mum was subsidizing my nephews rent would you understand what I was trying to say? Would you agree with my claim? Yes. I do. The fact is of course that this cannot be changed. We cannot adjust the intensity of wind or sunlight. We are stuck with them. That is the question we have to think seriously about. One thing we need to accept is that when coal is gone then all the subsidies to wind and solar are gone as well. So if we are designing renewable systems that rely on coal to provide the subsidies they need to keep them going then we have a problem.It seems to me that renewables are likely to fail and I would suggest we use our resources to develop thorium instead. If renewables work then why do they need subsidies paid for my fossil fuel?

OK. Thanks. I would argue that even prestige cannot be obtained without energy being expended but let's just keep in simple. So the question is - why does the Lexus cost more than the RAM? I would argue that at every step of the process the Lexus has had more spent on its components or fabrication and all of that has eventually come down to energy consumed. I do not know the vehicles in question but I know Lexus is known for quality. That means that every component has been given more care and attention, more man hours, more testing etc. What does 'higher quality' entail? I compare the metal in my garden spade to the turbine blade of a Rolls Royce jet engine. The two items are about the same size and weight and made of similar materials and so naively you might think that the same energy has bee expended on each one despite the huge difference in price. However on closer examination, if you look at the processing and man hours of attention that has gone into the turbine blade it is clear that it has absorbed more energy in its fabrication. How do we keep track of all this energy? Well I contend that it can be done by treating the free market as a huge analog computer. The cost of the item produced by the market is a good measure of the energy that went into providing it.

I just checked those. My point stands. That does not change the point I made. (Remember set theory. The set of things I am talking about is not necessarily the things you want to talk about even though there may be a non-empty intersection set.) In any case the same logic does actually apply. If companies are recieving subsidy from outside then they are consuming more energy than they produce. If the company is not an energy producer then that is not likely to be a problem.If the company IS an energy producer (or supposed to be) then that is clearly an absurd situation. Yet that is precisely what we have with wind farms and solar plants.

Nobody on this thread is under any obligation. Sorry. If you follow common courtesy I am happy to answer questions but if I get the impression I am being trolled I will ignore you. You refuse to answer the simple questions I asked so understand that I feel no obligation whatsoever to jump when you command. You obviously missed the bit earlier where Iodine very kindly allowed me to use a word more commonly understood. I have define the word I want to use in the way I want it so that it is a conserved quantity. Unfortunately the dictionary definition that everyone else wanted to use did not appear to lead to a conserved quantity, however, since nobody who demanded we use the dictionary definition could be bothered answering the three little questions I asked I am still unable to ascertain for sure. In any case the definition I have very kindly been allowed to use (on this thread only) does lead to a conserved quantity. I agree. But I was planning to make the case that if you choose the right (conserved) quantities there is a relationship between the two. It is getting a bit late in the evening now so it might have to wait until tomorrow. Most businesses use a start up capital. There is nothing wrong with spreading that out over time for a finite period but if it is permanent then that is a different matter. In any case, until these things are off subsidies I will make the case that they are net absorbers of money and hence energy.