RobbieB

Greta Rides Again?

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Bruce Hudson said:

Who is delicious?

PS: Having roast chicken tonight. Using a standard electric oven. Powered by solar panels, with a battery.

We are having Lamb chops with lemon and rosemary cooked on my gas fired charcoal BBQ. With this light easterly blowing off the harbor I should just about be able to smell the two stroke. I will have at least 3 mozzie coils going as well as a few citronella garden touches. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

WholeTurkey_box.png

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Kedge said:

1) Good for you on the toothbrush and bottles!.....now go vote for someone who give a rats about the planet rather than their coal sucking billionaire buddies. Personal responsibility is good. System change is better.

2) Kedge is what you turn to when you're fucking stuck.....saves your arse when other options are gone

and lastly...........

Had to use.....jpg

And like you, the inventor of the condom first had to have his dick in his hand.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, VWAP said:

WholeTurkey_box.png

It's funny how Vegans aspire to eat food that's like food for normal people. 

I'm waiting for someone to invent meat based vegetables and salad, then I'll go "vegan".

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Bruce Hudson said:

You really shouldn't eat things (or people) you fuck.

 

1 hour ago, Bruce Hudson said:

Who is delicious?

PS: Having roast chicken tonight. Using a standard electric oven. Powered by solar panels, with a battery.

Time to practice what you preach. 

 

6q7gz1e.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Dark Cloud said:

Here's a fact.

This was cooked on a 57cm weber kettle, over wood and charcoal, and was fucking delicious.

 

No photo description available.

I take the easy option and use a gas bbq. 

 

 

9C020645-2BF2-401B-AC21-3DBC0D3F6525.jpeg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, toecutter said:

All this "fossil fuel is bad" BS hinges on the theory that CO2 is "controlling the Earth's thermostat" when the theory can't even be demonstrated in a lab experiment. Gravity is a theory, yet a pre-schooler can demonstrate it by throwing a half eaten crayon across a room. But not so with CO2 where the best we can do is "believe the science" because that's all the "proof" we got.

(Got a live one here.)

No evidence? You have been misinformed. There is quite a bit. Maybe someone hasn't build a lab big enough to fit the earth yet. Or maybe you don't need to.

Maybe it was the socialists? A conspiracy? Maybe there is a red under your bed. Chinese, Cuban or Russian? Could be onto something though, because both socialism and global warming got thought about in the 19th century.

John Tyndall discovered in 1859 that several gases, including CO2 and water vapour, could trap heat. (He proved it by an experiment, you know, the one you say didn't exist? His lab is still there  at the London Institute.) This was the first evidence for what we know now as greenhouse gases. Then, towards the end of the same century, a Swedish scientist named Svante Arrhenius proved the relationship between greenhouse gas concentrations and surface temperatures.

Sorry to have break it to you @toecutter on Sailing Anarchy but you are sucking in some bad juju.

https://skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-co2-enhanced-greenhouse-effect-advanced.htm

---

PS: I've had nasty toe nails... (ouch!) ...three times. Then the nails fell off. (Don't let @Dark Cloud get near your toes, or he/she is likely to fuck them before eating them.)

PPS: You got me on your last point. How the heck are we going to become socialist because we are heating up the planet? Do we really need to keep burning fossil fuels to stop becoming socialist? Heck, most OECD countries have universal healthcare without becoming socialists!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, The Dark Knight said:

I take the easy option and use a gas bbq. 

 

 

9C020645-2BF2-401B-AC21-3DBC0D3F6525.jpeg

Lame. Lift your game. There be no flavour in gas

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Meanwhile, back at the LV and Greta Show, the barometer is falling.

Apologies to all.  Let the shitfight resume.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Bruce Hudson said:

 

Sorry to have break it to you @toecutter on Sailing Anarchy but you are sucking in some bad juju.

https://skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-co2-enhanced-greenhouse-effect-advanced.htm

 

That is your proof? An online alarmist magazine?

Lets have a little look at some of the 'scientists' who contribute to this work of fiction.

Howard is an author and freelance Earth Science writer.

Graham Wayne is a journalist who writes about climate change science and the ways it will affect us in the UK's Guardian

John Garrett is a technical illustrator residing in Wildomar

James Wight is a Science student with Macquarie University

Bärbel Winkler lives and works in Germany. She has always had a lot of interest in environmental issues and has been active as a volunteer at the local zoo and a conservation group for many years

Collin Maessen lives in The Netherlands and has a BSc in software engineering.

Glenn studied Mechanical Engineering at Melbourne University

David Kirtley I am not a scientist, but I've had a life-long interest in the sciences and in learning how the world works, from astronomy and geology to biology and evolution

Rob is an environmentalist, scuba diver, spearfisherman, kayaker and former police officer.

Andy Skuce unfortunately passed away on September 14, 2017

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Bruce Hudson said:

(Got a live one here.)

No evidence? You have been misinformed. There is quite a bit. Maybe someone hasn't build a lab big enough to fit the earth yet. Or maybe you don't need to.

Maybe it was the socialists? A conspiracy? Maybe there is a red under your bed. Chinese, Cuban or Russian? Could be onto something though, because both socialism and global warming got thought about in the 19th century.

John Tyndall discovered in 1859 that several gases, including CO2 and water vapour, could trap heat. (He proved it by an experiment, you know, the one you say didn't exist? His lab is still there  at the London Institute.) This was the first evidence for what we know now as greenhouse gases. Then, towards the end of the same century, a Swedish scientist named Svante Arrhenius proved the relationship between greenhouse gas concentrations and surface temperatures.

Sorry to have break it to you @toecutter on Sailing Anarchy but you are sucking in some bad juju.

https://skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-co2-enhanced-greenhouse-effect-advanced.htm

---

PS: I've had nasty toe nails... (ouch!) ...three times. Then the nails fell off. (Don't let @Dark Cloud get near your toes, or he/she is likely to fuck them before eating them.)

PPS: You got me on your last point. How the heck are we going to become socialist because we are heating up the planet? Do we really need to keep burning fossil fuels to stop becoming socialist? Heck, most OECD countries have universal healthcare without becoming socialists!

you have a strange and somewhat misguided obsession with me fucking things. When I said a steak was fucking delicious. You have adjectives down your way ?

You were dropped at birth, right ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Bruce Hudson said:

(Got a live one here.)

Indeed we have. K1W1 as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, LB 15 said:

Indeed we have. K1W1 as well.

should get some mileage 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Dark Cloud said:

you have a strange and somewhat misguided obsession with me fucking things. When I said a steak was fucking delicious. 

Thank you. I guess I appeal to your morbid fascination with things Dystopian.

1 minute ago, LB 15 said:

Indeed we have. K1W1 as well.

I'll take a K1W1 over a dead parrot any day.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Zonker said:

I like Predict Wind (used it for Indian Ocean / South Atlantic). I like the European model better than old GFS, and not sure how the new higher resolution GFS model compares. 

I do not think whatever secret sauce Jon applies to his Predict Wind models (which are just based on underlying ECMWF / GFS data) is that exciting or more accurate. His company is pretty small, and to think he can do better than the big supercomputers that NOAA/Europeans use is probably just marketing - except in some local forecasts where I think he blending small scale data in better. 

 

 

I thought they added historical weather data, so that it's statistically more correct? Or, maybe all models do, I don't know. I just read something about this the last time I subscribed to it. 

Anyway, I read an article (in Swedish, google translate if you want), saying that it was Jimmy Cornell who decided to help Greta find a boat, and contacted La Vagabonde. He wanted them to have a pro sailor onboard, but they said no. Then after a little back and forth, they accepted to have Nikki onboard. It also says that Christian Dumard is doing weather routing for them, from France. That might be true, but in fact a Predictwind employee is doing it from New Zealand. He is a friend of mine and have written about how big a responsibility it is, and the challenging weather where they have been telling the boat to slow down in periods to avoid bad weather. That also might explain why they sometimes are so slow - combined with the fact that they slow down at night to get some rest. 

After reading who's doing the actual weather routing, I'm less worried that she'll DIE. But they for sure will be late to the conference. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Bruce Hudson said:

Thank you. I guess I appeal to your morbid fascination with things Dystopian.

I'll take a K1W1 over a dead parrot any day.

You leftist nut job Kiwi's don't need Greta, you have your own Messiah.

Related image

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, toecutter said:

Link to a lab experiment that proves CO2 greenhouse warming and I promise I'll believe you.

So what regardless - so does water vapour.....

FKT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, toecutter said:

Link to a lab experiment that proves CO2 greenhouse warming and I promise I'll believe you.

Here's John Tyndall's paper from 1861. http://tyndall1861.geologist-1011.mobi/

Here's a recap about the experiment and the greenhouse warming effect, in a 1959 article in Scientific American: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/carbon-dioxide-and-climate/

Here's an easy to follow excerpt from a Novo documentary, published on PBS: https://www.pbslearningmedia.org/resource/nvdtwm-sci-co2evidence/evidence-that-carbon-dioxide-traps-heat-decoding-the-weather-machine/ 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, toecutter said:

No lab experiment there. Come on, stop horsing around. It can't be that hard can it?

Were you expecting a video in 1861? The paper (from 1861) outlines the experiment and the results gained.

The 1959 Scientific American article accurately reports the experiment.

The Novo documentary shows John Tyndall's experiment accurately.

There are three references to the experiment which shows the difference between gases including but not limited to nitrogen and gases including but not limited to carbon dioxide, how some trap heat and how others do not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, LB 15 said:

You leftist nut job Kiwi's don't need Greta, you have your own Messiah.

Me a leftist? Hahahahahaha! Good one.

Aside from my political persuasions, it is really good to have a leader who is not a bigot! And bonus, she can read a teleprompter. 

PS: When you wrote "Kiwi's", did you mean "Kiwi is" or were you trying to indicate a possessive, as in something belonging to a kiwi? I am absolutely sure that you did not try to refer to the plural of kiwi, because that would mean you made a mistake, and Michael Palin does not make mistakes!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Bruce Hudson said:

Me a leftist? Hahahahahaha! Good one.

Aside from my political persuasions, it is really good to have a leader who is not a bigot! And bonus, she can read a teleprompter. 

PS: When you wrote "Kiwi's", did you mean "Kiwi is" or were you trying to indicate a possessive, as in something belonging to a kiwi? I am absolutely sure that you did not try to refer to the plural of kiwi, because that would mean you made a mistake, and Michael Palin does not make mistakes!

She may not be a bigot but she is fucking useless. Pity she doesn't have hundreds of wisdom teeth to get pulled. Actually at the four days leave she is taking for one she would need less than a hundred and we could be saved from her shittiness for a year.

Still at least we get to leave our quality of coal in the ground so we can import crap stuff to burn...

Did I say she is useless yet. Maybe Queensland would take her on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Gissie said:

She may not be a bigot but she is fucking useless. Pity she doesn't have hundreds of wisdom teeth to get pulled. Actually at the four days leave she is taking for one she would need less than a hundred and we could be saved from her shittiness for a year.

Still at least we get to leave our quality of coal in the ground so we can import crap stuff to burn...

Did I say she is useless yet. Maybe Queensland would take her on.

Trade you for Sarah Hanson young.....

FKT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Fah Kiew Tu said:

Trade you for Sarah Hanson young.....

FKT

Wow, she would fit in well with our green party tossers. What is it about green making peoples minds turn to humus.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, toecutter said:

An experiment from 2019 or thereabouts will be fine.  Surely it's readily replicable?

Yes, it is replicable, Professor Andreas Sellar dusted off the equipment to bring it back to life, and it featured on the Nova documentary.

Sorry, it wasn't in 2019. Nor was it Tuesday last week. Or 20 January, 2017. The documentary was released April 2018.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, toecutter said:

An experiment from 2019 or thereabouts will be fine.  Surely it's readily replicable?

An experiment by a blind alcoholic muslum, conducted on a sunday inside the clock tower at notre dame. That demonstrates that CO2 at 401 ppm is exactly 3.141% more effective at trapping heat than air at 23 degrees celcius. Which has been repeated 4 times including on a 29th of Feburary.

 Surely that's not too much to ask?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Gissie said:

Wow, she would fit in well with our green party tossers. What is it about green making peoples minds turn to humus.

Yup. She's useless. Nobody would ever agree with her.

Take for example the carbon tax recently passed. In this case, Ardern was so useless, everybody but one couldn't be bothered to vote against her.

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=12283372

1 hour ago, Gissie said:

Still at least we get to leave our quality of coal in the ground so we can import crap stuff to burn...

I guess that makes you an Act party supporter. I heard that you existed. Nice to meet you. 

When you have a conference, do you all five of you take one vehicle or do you make a statement and drive one vehicle each?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't wait to see how much impact your economy strangling new policies will have on the climate.  Please report back soon, on how much NZ has reduced the temperature of the planet. That is proof right ?  On the economy front, there is sure to be an improvement in the quality of life amongst you lot - having a job is totally over-rated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Dark Cloud said:

I can't wait to see how much impact your economy strangling new policies will have on the climate.  Please report back soon, on how much NZ has reduced the temperature of the planet. That is proof right ?  On the economy front, there is sure to be an improvement in the quality of life amongst you lot - having a job is totally over-rated.

Absolutely, me too. The economy needed a bit of strangling. Some of the metrics are already down. Unemployment is, which is a real indication of things to come. Quite a regime they have on the go.

I can definitely support you waiting for that proof. While you're waiting can you go down to the hardware store and get a left handed screwdriver, and while there ask for a long weight. Seems to me like that the kind of thing you are into.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Bruce Hudson said:

Absolutely, me too. The economy needed a bit of strangling. Some of the metrics are already down. Unemployment is, which is a real indication of things to come. Quite a regime they have on the go.

I can definitely support you waiting for that proof. While you're waiting can you go down to the hardware store and get a left handed screwdriver, and while there ask for a long weight. Seems to me like that the kind of thing you are into.

Sure. Can I drive my V8, or do I need to sail there ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Dark Cloud said:

Sure. Can I drive my V8, or do I need to sail there ?

I completely recommend you drive your V8 to New Zealand. From Melbourne.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Bruce Hudson said:

I completely recommend you drive your V8 to New Zealand. From Melbourne.

 

If I fit a foil or 2 I should fly ok. May run out of fuel.

But all shit and giggles aside, Gaucho G was offering real and viable solutions to reducing CO2, without ignoring the existing renewables which you support. The difference is that, while he is offering possible solutions, all you do is try to cherry pick holes in anybody's opinions.  Do you see the difference ?

There are different ways to approach an outcome, and you don't need to discredit everything that doesn't fit within your narrow bandwidth

 

?u=https%3A%2F%2Ftse4.mm.bing.net%2Fth%3Fid%3DOIP.Wk3OurSkcF1IK03h960j-wHaE8%26pid%3DApi&f=1

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, toecutter said:

Where's the link? It wasn't about absorption bands was it? I want to see empirical temperature data goddammit!

Here's John Tyndall's paper from 1861. http://tyndall1861.geologist-1011.mobi/ (Look for Absorption Observed and Absorption Calculated differentials.)

Here's a recap about the experiment and the greenhouse warming effect, in a 1959 article in Scientific American: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/carbon-dioxide-and-climate/ (You failed to pick up my deliberate error. The article was from 2008.)

Here's an easy to follow excerpt from a Nova documentary, published on PBS: https://www.pbslearningmedia.org/resource/nvdtwm-sci-co2evidence/evidence-that-carbon-dioxide-traps-heat-decoding-the-weather-machine/  (Tyndall's experiment is explained, his equipment is shown in the lab he repeated his experiment.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Dark Cloud said:

But all shit and giggles aside, Gaucho G was offering real and viable solutions to reducing CO2, without ignoring the existing renewables which you support. The difference is that, while he is offering possible solutions, all you do is try to cherry pick holes in anybody's opinions.  Do you see the difference ?

Ha. Nice try. I'm very aware of what GauchoGreg said. Is this an example of GauchoGreg's support of a mix?

14 hours ago, GauchoGreg said:

There is no way that we can move people from urban settings out all over the countryside to have their own wind/solar power and food production without killing off a massive portion of our populace and covering the available open land with little farmsteads and wind/solar production.

Or maybe this?

14 hours ago, GauchoGreg said:

Alternative energy in America involves many of the world's largest wind and solar farms.  But the thing is, the utility companies have to rely upon subsidies for the power to pencil, and the utility companies are running into the problem where they have too much power much of the time, and too little much of the time.  I work with wind farm real estate, and spoke to an owner yesterday who discussed how last year they had a HUGE period of time with no wind at all... their typical royalties for that month dropped about 90%, indicating the obvious fact that wind energy for that month was 90% down.   Yeah, and you were saying something about reliable? 

Though in all seriousness, this was, kind of:

12 hours ago, GauchoGreg said:

I love the idea of incorporating solar into roof tops, parking covers, in polluted brownfield areas, and integrated into roadways, as examples that are exciting in what opportunities they offer, but I also recognize their limitations

(It was the most positive GauchoGreg got, though integration into roadways was proven to be a loser. GauchoGreg is out of date. I suppose there could be even more advances with nuclear, however advancements (I'm up to date as of 2018) are not keeping pace with renewable energy sources.

13 minutes ago, Dark Cloud said:

There are different ways to approach an outcome, and you don't need to discredit everything that doesn't fit within your narrow bandwidth

Nuclear is less viable than renewable energy sources. That is not according to me, its according to a 2019 report by EIA. https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/assumptions/pdf/table_8.2.pdf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Bruce Hudson said:

Ha. Nice try. I'm very aware of what GauchoGreg said. Is this an example of GauchoGreg's support of a mix?

Or maybe this?

Though in all seriousness, this was, kind of:

(It was the most positive GauchoGreg got, though integration into roadways was proven to be a loser. GauchoGreg is out of date. I suppose there could be even more advances with nuclear, however advancements (I'm up to date as of 2018) are not keeping pace with renewable energy sources.

Nuclear is less viable than renewable energy sources. That is not according to me, its according to a 2019 report by EIA. https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/assumptions/pdf/table_8.2.pdf

Yeah what I thought - thanks for confirming.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, toecutter said:

Sooooo.....

The scientists can research pine beetles and fish psychology and armadillos and polar bears and walruses and adelie penguins and crop nutrition and concensus and denier mental issues and the "95% dead: great barrier reef and cream themselves over countless climate models and heaps of other stupid shit not once, but a multiplicity of times and yet they say to themselves, "Yeah, nah we already proved CO2 is the bad guy back in 1959. Nothing more to do here despite half the population thinking it's a scam and it's the one thing we could demonstrate to put this whole thing in the bag"

Hmmmmm......

You are absolutely right. Except it was 1861, not 1959. And research didn't stop. Clear statements by scientists have been made. Increasingly, scientists are becoming more political, as they are frustrated because their messages are not getting through.

Media has misinformed us. Overstatements by overzealous 'environmentalists' have been made. Mad as hatter claims have been made. Those who profit from fossil fuels have deliberately attempted to misinform, sow discord. Most climatologists have reached consensus. The only dissenters I have seen have clear links to PragerU, Heartland Institute - all dissenters I have seen have clear links to the petrochemical industry. (Part of a project I'm working on, I've taken a serious look - and would LOVE to hear if there are any climatologists who don't have links to the petrochemical industry who dissent.)

This what Evans said in 2006: "This experimental data should effectively end the argument by skeptics that no experimental evidence exists for the connection between greenhouse gas increases in the atmosphere and global warming."

Here's his paper:

Evans 2006 - Experimental evidence for global warming.pdf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No dispute here. 

image.png.79f235d19835acfe2d27e78e1689f377.png

Am wondering about their tactics. If it were me, I'd gibe onto port and head more or less straight through those lighter winds (11 knots?) to get to the good pressure (32 knots?) and direction on the other side, then go broad as possible (on port) to stay in the pressure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Bruce Hudson said:

No dispute here. 

image.png.79f235d19835acfe2d27e78e1689f377.png

Am wondering about their tactics. If it were me, I'd gibe onto port and head more or less straight through those lighter winds (11 knots?) to get to the good pressure (32 knots?) and direction on the other side, then go broad as possible (on port) to stay in the pressure.

No easy solution to thier situation .  That tropical low to the south ....packs a punch . It will overwhelm them soon 

this low was forcast when they were still in the longitude of bermuda ...they should have stopped for a some interviews...partonizing ...and you tubing ....then set off again

 

IMG_0567.PNG

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Bruce Hudson said:

SNIP

PPS: You got me on your last point. How the heck are we going to become socialist because we are heating up the planet? Do we really need to keep burning fossil fuels to stop becoming socialist? Heck, most OECD countries have universal healthcare without becoming socialists!

You made two statements upthread which clearly indicated your preference for communistic social arrangements. One had to do with taxing large vehicles so certain people who either would like to drive one or need to drive one cannot afford to. Whether such can e attributed to communism is irreleant: it is read as such by many and in fact looks on the face of it more like an envy social class warfare thng than sound environmental policy.

I'm sure you have wondered at the absurdity of these sorts of regulations. I mean, really! You can buy as much gasoline as you want in a year, drive as far as you want in a year, but oh wait, you can't own something that looks like it could be a "major contributor to climate change" ?

Sheesh

Don't get me wrong. I don't want restrictons on purchase of fuel. But you know that's coming from the communists.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, toecutter said:

Link to a lab experiment that proves CO2 greenhouse warming and I promise I'll believe you.

IT's really cold on Mars. HAha.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, The Dark Knight said:

It's funny how Vegans aspire to eat food that's like food for normal people. 

I'm waiting for someone to invent meat based vegetables and salad, then I'll go "vegan".

Here you go, enjoy a 'marrut'

VegNews.ArbysMarrot.png?sha=787c2cfbb43e

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Bruce Hudson said:

No dispute here. 

image.png.79f235d19835acfe2d27e78e1689f377.png

Am wondering about their tactics. If it were me, I'd gibe onto port and head more or less straight through those lighter winds (11 knots?) to get to the good pressure (32 knots?) and direction on the other side, then go broad as possible (on port) to stay in the pressure.

I think, looking at this, that they turned north to avoid thunderstorms.

My concerns from the beginning were that one way or another they would end up in the sporty weather that this time of year brings to the N. Atlantic. They don't have a fast enough boat to actually *avoid* weather, so they are going to get clobbered just a matter of time. However bedause they have a supercomputer at their disposal and professional weather forecasters and weather routers on their team, they can get around some of the tricky bits with the Faustian reality that the delays caused by those adjustments to track will utimately slow them and therefore increase the likelihood that weather from the West will eventually catch them. Weather goes the speed of a transatlantic steamer...not 5 knots...

Remember the old saying, "when you get to Calais the weather will be what it was when you departed New York"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Bruce Hudson said:

Absolutely, me too. The economy needed a bit of strangling. Some of the metrics are already down. Unemployment is, which is a real indication of things to come. Quite a regime they have on the go.

...

Well, at least you have that to root for.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So I was right, they've turned east again around the upper limit of that front.

Note how the high is actually getting strong circulation--being pumped by that deepening low east of me. BTW here in New England the weather cleared overnight as that low deepens and moves east. That low was the little tiny depression just off Hatteras as they began their journey.

Looking at all the weather captures over the past few days is fascinating and a lesson always repeated: what you predicted didn't quite work out that way but what happened made perfect sense in hindsight." That's y truism of practical weather observation.

I will also add that at least by the measures of these charts, they haven't been in or even near any particularly sporty stuff yet (of course as I said before, the *actual* conditions could be very different!). It seems like they are trying to avoid wind above 30 knots. But in summer ocean racing we pray for 30 knots or more, which is an irony. 45 knots is just not a problem for a well found ocean cruising sailboat--with 20 foot waves. Not scary, just business as usual--heck, DORADE was fine for that purpose and designed a really long time ago!

So at least from this armchair, they *seem* to be extremely conservative with wind--but again, they may be sailing in much greater winds than we see on that chart at times. We've already learned that the wind direction has varied greatly from the predictions.

 

weather_21_nov.PNG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Bruce Hudson said:

Ha. Nice try. I'm very aware of what GauchoGreg said. Is this an example of GauchoGreg's support of a mix?

Or maybe this?

Though in all seriousness, this was, kind of:

(It was the most positive GauchoGreg got, though integration into roadways was proven to be a loser. GauchoGreg is out of date. I suppose there could be even more advances with nuclear, however advancements (I'm up to date as of 2018) are not keeping pace with renewable energy sources.

Nuclear is less viable than renewable energy sources. That is not according to me, its according to a 2019 report by EIA. https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/assumptions/pdf/table_8.2.pdf

The best I can say about you is that you have avoided the typical anti-nuke slant that we could not possibly deal with nuclear "waste", must have had your ass handed to you by someone else on that issue.  But your intellectually bankrupt nature is shown by:

  • This point is foremost.... you are consistently ignoring the point that the cost of nuclear is artificially elevated by people like yourself.... I love that.... your ilk obstructs, appeals, protests, and causes the construction time for a plant to go up 10x, as well as its cost, then of course the $/mwh goes up accordingly.... then you say, "see, the energy costs too much";  you also keep ignoring that the modern/anticipated new nuclear designs (such as MSR, etc., why is it that you keep ignoring them?) are both fundamentally easier to site, profoundly less complex relative to their safety, and far more efficient... which will lead to much lower costs than what the current stock of plants can do (well, unless you obstruct them, too, like AOC and St. Greta have done by banning nuclear in their schemes);
  • Ignoring that there has been no solution to the erratic nature of wind/solar (mass energy storage systems are further away, and/or represent major environmental issues on their own, than MSR reactors, etc.);
  • Ignoring the transmission losses that are inherent from having wind & solar farms typically remote from the place of electrical use;
  • Ignoring that I'm not suggesting we go away from "renewables", but rather that we need modern nuclear to allow for us to both more rapidly move away from coal/gas AND have all the electrical power we need to improve our quality of life and the quality of the environment;
  • Ignoring that having an INCREASE in electrical power production can provide other benefits to the environment, like facilitate widespread desalination, which can increase instream water flows on our rivers, which will lead to healthier oceans, decommissioning dams to help fish and open up more arable lands... maybe even revealing Hetch Hetchy Valley to rival Yosemite, etc.), as well as opening up more arable lands to farming;
  • Ignoring that the low hanging fruit for sites well suited to wind farms have been developed and are dwindling; leaving us with the need to move on to lesser sites, often natural places (sensitive habitats, scenic areas, etc.), open seas (funny how the same people that used to claim offshore oil rigs were "ugly", or protest new hydroelectric dams for ruining beautiful valleys, now turn a blind eye to onshore or offshore wind farms where they don't have to see them), and environmentally sensitive places, like Steens Mountain, with wind and solar farms (https://abcbirds.org/10-worst-wind-energy-sites-for-birds/);
  • And, finally, for my comment that millions/billions would have to die... my point was in response to your self flagellation for your off-grid / home farm.... there is no way our world population could revert to the similar agrarian lifestyle of everyone growing their own food, producing their own energy, even with modern tech.... there is simply not enough arable land and irrigation water for such an incredibly inefficient concept (not to mention most people are just too inept and lazy to be that kind of person).

Here is the thing, the problem is NOT that "renewable" energy is pushed for, the problem is that Leftists like those pushing the NGD (AOC, St. Greta, and all the anti-nuke politicians in the US, Europe, and Aus/NZ) are banning nuclear.  What should happen is to the various energy tech should be scientifically studied and considered, with the winners being those scientifically and economically recognized as best for different places relative to clean electricity production, potential for expanded energy production, sensitivity to other environmental issues (such as preservation of natural habitats and scenic landscapes), AND, improves our economic well-being (ghast!).

The problem is that people have turned this into a quasi-religious "green" quest, people like you with a druid-like celebration of your drop in consumption.... for the leaders of the movement ignoring science and demonizing people for suggesting alternative methods of reducing pollution and greenhouse gas emissions and claiming they are "deniers" (akin, to the historic damning of heathens).  It is made all the more clear by the celebration of St. Greta and her "green" sacrifice for her minions.

strike_france_74071610.jpg&w=840&h=630

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, fastyacht said:

You made two statements upthread which clearly indicated your preference for communistic social arrangements. One had to do with taxing large vehicles so certain people who either would like to drive one or need to drive one cannot afford to. Whether such can e attributed to communism is irreleant: it is read as such by many and in fact looks on the face of it more like an envy social class warfare thng than sound environmental policy.

I'm sure you have wondered at the absurdity of these sorts of regulations. I mean, really! You can buy as much gasoline as you want in a year, drive as far as you want in a year, but oh wait, you can't own something that looks like it could be a "major contributor to climate change" ?

Sheesh

Don't get me wrong. I don't want restrictons on purchase of fuel. But you know that's coming from the communists.

Bingo.  He was responding to me with my Yukon XL and Crew Cab PU.  He responded better than I had hoped.... showing either the envy you suggest, or the religious damnation that comes with those who see their world view as a religious quest... in this case to damn me to "Green Hell" for my audacity to want a vehicle that can hold all the people and gear we often need to move from Point A to Point B, often not on the smoothest of roads.  Ignoring I said I would love to have my same rigs powered by a nice big e-motor some day.  Also clueless about how much I drive my cars (I would bet my house I use less gas in the course of a year than he does)... just that I should not have such evil things.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, fastyacht said:

 

So at least from this armchair, they *seem* to be extremely conservative with wind--but again, they may be sailing in much greater winds than we see on that chart at times. We've already learned that the wind direction has varied greatly from the predictions.

 

 

With a toddler onboard, it makes sense. I have seen 1 video from them, from a calm trip, and they laughed a little about how he kept falling and getting bruises all over. Which is normal behavior for any toddler, but it must be worse on a boat. I’m not saying it’s wrong, lots of people bring their kids but I guess they all act quite conservative. 
 

And they’re also responsible for the safety of a pretty famous teenager ;) 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, fastyacht said:

You made two statements upthread which clearly indicated your preference for communistic social arrangements. One had to do with taxing large vehicles so certain people who either would like to drive one or need to drive one cannot afford to. Whether such can e attributed to communism is irreleant: it is read as such by many and in fact looks on the face of it more like an envy social class warfare thng than sound environmental policy.

I'm sure you have wondered at the absurdity of these sorts of regulations. I mean, really! You can buy as much gasoline as you want in a year, drive as far as you want in a year, but oh wait, you can't own something that looks like it could be a "major contributor to climate change" ?

Sheesh

Don't get me wrong. I don't want restrictons on purchase of fuel. But you know that's coming from the communists.

Hahahahaha!

Targeted consumption tax equates to communism? Wait until the Americans find out you think they are communist! They'l enjoy that!!

Actually, you misrepresented what I said. At the core, if you must know is user pays consumption tax that is justified by the emissions. I'm not promoting restrictions, just targeted taxes that accelerate alternatives to fossil fuels. I think the highest petroleum tax in the world (without checking) is the great 'communist nation' The Netherlands! Ha!! (Seriously, you actually think a targeted tax equates to communism. Seriously? That means you think every country is communist. Rather than a reflection on reality, that is a reflection on you and your logic! Was it your intention to promote yourself in this way??)

For fun, what do you think about subsidies? (Dare you do go to go to a bar in Roberts County and loudly declare Trump a communist for paying subsidies! What fun!! Can I watch?)

2 hours ago, GauchoGreg said:

Bingo.  He was responding to me with my Yukon XL and Crew Cab PU.  He responded better than I had hoped.... showing either the envy you suggest, or the religious damnation that comes with those who see their world view as a religious quest... in this case to damn me to "Green Hell" for my audacity to want a vehicle that can hold all the people and gear we often need to move from Point A to Point B, often not on the smoothest of roads.  Ignoring I said I would love to have my same rigs powered by a nice big e-motor some day.  Also clueless about how much I drive my cars (I would bet my house I use less gas in the course of a year than he does)... just that I should not have such evil things.

Sure, I'll take that bet. I currently do about 3800 KM a year in a 2 Litre turbo that uses on average 7 litres per 100 KM. Add to that my household electric use, the electricity generated by fossil fuels I use is zero because it is solar. I doubt that you use less gas than me, just on the basis of your household use. Also doubt that if you did find that I used less, you would follow through by giving me your house. (Not that I'd be interested.) 

PS: Don't be a schmuck. Go back and look what I said about your rights.  What I said was the opposite of what you are putting forward. I'm all for choice, and having lived in the US and been exposed to the lack of choice in the US, please don't think for a moment you are fooling me. For example, the bloody mindedness of using 'choice' and 'freedom' to support the most complex sales tax system I have ever seen! I know that most talk up the concept of small governance, but in the case of sales taxes and under the guise of freedom and choice deliver the exact opposite.

Maybe you are just being a little bitter for being found out about your 'research' on nuclear isn't the amazing 'solution' you thought it was. 

2 hours ago, GauchoGreg said:

But your intellectually bankrupt nature is shown by:

Quoting experts. In this case, the EIA who are neither "leftist" or have a dog in the fight.

You make the assumption I am leftist again! 

You certainly write a lot of tripe. You just got to face that your data is out of date, than unless there is some big change, the nuclear is not a good option - which is why so few nuclear plants are being built.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Bruce Hudson said:

Hahahahaha!

Targeted consumption tax equates to communism? Wait until the Americans find out you think they are communist! They'l enjoy that!!

Actually, you misrepresented what I said. At the core, if you must know is user pays consumption tax that is justified by the emissions. I'm not promoting restrictions, just targeted taxes that accelerate alternatives to fossil fuels. I think the highest petroleum tax in the world (without checking) is the great 'communist nation' The Netherlands! Ha!! (Seriously, you actually think a targeted tax equates to communism. Seriously? That means you think every country is communist. Rather than a reflection on reality, that is a reflection on you and your logic! Was it your intention to promote yourself in this way??)

For fun, what do you think about subsidies? (Dare you do go to go to a bar in Roberts County and loudly declare Trump a communist for paying subsidies! What fun!! Can I watch?)

This is a funny post.

In the U.S. we have something called "sales tax" which is state based. Some states have tiered taxes; most do not. The tiers are in fact "targeted consumption" and yes, people scream bloody murder about them. In Connecticut for instance, they were brought on by Dummycrats ("communists" haha).

At the Federal level we had a very bad targeted consumption tax called the Luxury Tax which was partially repealed. It was signed into law by a ReDumblican named George Herbert Walker Bush. Some attribute his loss for a 2nd term to this particular tax--a tax which destroyed over 30,000 jobs in NJ alone and bankrupted most of the good larger boat builders in the US and hastened their purchase and control by offshore foreign owners. (Bertram, Palmer Johnson, Broward, Trojan and others.) Boy that went well. Be careful what you wish for.

I really don't think it is "communist" but I used that word in modifier form--"communistic" because that is a common sentiment in the U.S.---> taxing in a punitive way being seen as class warfare stuff....I guess you have to be here to understand that.

As for emissions--isn't that more logically covered by excise tax on fuel? I mean, you burn it you pay it.....that's how it is *supposed* to work....

BTW the big vehicle stuff always gets around these attempts by the congress crafting loopholes. If you look at US Federal tax code, a large part of it could be argued to be unconstitutional because it does not in fact meet the requirements spelled out in the Constitution regarding proprtionality (that's not to say you will see any body with "standing" actually bring such suits...but they happened in the late 19th century and a few tmes in  the 20th whcih essentially formed the basis of how the Federal governement can tax, say, income, for instance...). There scores of exceptions and credits that serve special interests or even one particular Senator;s home state. But that's a long winding road into U.S. law, history and other stuff that really doesnt belong here.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, fastyacht said:

In the U.S. we have something called "sales tax" which is state based. Some states have tiered taxes; most do not. The tiers are in fact "targeted consumption" and yes, people scream bloody murder about them. In Connecticut for instance, they were brought on by Dummycrats ("communists" haha).

Thank you for the lesson. You really know your stuff. Can you learn me some more?

So when I was given a pair of jeans that were the wrong size, and so we took them back to the same chain of stores but in a different county (both in CA), can you please explain the 9 cents extra tax I had to pay? Is it possible there are county taxes as well? Who administers all these taxes? Is it more or less efficient than having one Federal tax? How does this impact the size of governance?

Please learn me on the country I have lived a few years in, and have done business in for a few decades.

35 minutes ago, fastyacht said:

At the Federal level we had a very bad targeted consumption tax called the Luxury Tax which was partially repealed. It was signed into law by a ReDumblican named George Herbert Walker Bush. Some attribute his loss for a 2nd term to this particular tax--a tax which destroyed over 30,000 jobs in NJ alone and bankrupted most of the good larger boat builders in the US and hastened their purchase and control by offshore foreign owners. (Bertram, Palmer Johnson, Broward, Trojan and others.) Boy that went well. Be careful what you wish for.

Yup. I recall the lifting in luxury tax on boating in NZ. It was fully repealed in the mid 1980s in NZ. Part of making tax simpler and governance smaller. Destroyed a whole lot of accountancy careers - which was great - they put their minds to work on more productive things.

35 minutes ago, fastyacht said:

I really don't think it is "communist" but I used that word in modifier form--"communistic" because that is a common sentiment in the U.S.---> taxing in a punitive way being seen as class warfare stuff....I guess you have to be here to understand that.

Having lived in the few places I came to think of the US as having no equal with the hypocrisy of philosophy and what is delivered on the ground. I have first hand experienced the level of human freedom, and when I lived in the US there was more regulation and less freedom. (Though I agree you need to actually live in a place to fully understand it, then live in another place to understand the differences).

35 minutes ago, fastyacht said:

As for emissions--isn't that more logically covered by excise tax on fuel? I mean, you burn it you pay it.....that's how it is *supposed* to work....

Yup. That's why I suggested it. (Look what I wrote again. Think why I referred to using an inefficient monstrosity as a right.)

35 minutes ago, fastyacht said:

BTW the big vehicle stuff always gets around these attempts by the congress crafting loopholes. If you look at US Federal tax code, a large part of it is Unconstitutional because it does not in fact meet the requirements spelled out in the Constitution regarding proprtionality. There scores of exceptions and credits that serve special interests or even one particular Senator;s home state. But that's a long winding road into U.S. law, history and other stuff that really doesnt belong here.

Agreed. That you raise it means you misunderstood what I said. Small government is good. Simple regulation is good. The US has neither, but you guys keep supporting both complexity and big governance! (Federal, State, County, City, Borough etc). 15,000 (or some huge number) of police forces? Bloody inefficient. Not exactly an intelligent use of freedom of choice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Bruce Hudson said:

Hahahahaha!

Targeted consumption tax equates to communism? Wait until the Americans find out you think they are communist! They'l enjoy that!!

Actually, you misrepresented what I said. At the core, if you must know is user pays consumption tax that is justified by the emissions. I'm not promoting restrictions, just targeted taxes that accelerate alternatives to fossil fuels. I think the highest petroleum tax in the world (without checking) is the great 'communist nation' The Netherlands! Ha!! (Seriously, you actually think a targeted tax equates to communism. Seriously? That means you think every country is communist. Rather than a reflection on reality, that is a reflection on you and your logic! Was it your intention to promote yourself in this way??)

For fun, what do you think about subsidies? (Dare you do go to go to a bar in Roberts County and loudly declare Trump a communist for paying subsidies! What fun!! Can I watch?)

Sure, I'll take that bet. I currently do about 3800 KM a year in a 2 Litre turbo that uses on average 7 litres per 100 KM. Add to that my household electric use, the electricity generated by fossil fuels I use is zero because it is solar. I doubt that you use less gas than me, just on the basis of your household use. Also doubt that if you did find that I used less, you would follow through by giving me your house. (Not that I'd be interested.) 

PS: Don't be a schmuck. Go back and look what I said about your rights.  What I said was the opposite of what you are putting forward. I'm all for choice, and having lived in the US and been exposed to the lack of choice in the US, please don't think for a moment you are fooling me. For example, the bloody mindedness of using 'choice' and 'freedom' to support the most complex sales tax system I have ever seen! I know that most talk up the concept of small governance, but in the case of sales taxes and under the guise of freedom and choice deliver the exact opposite.

Maybe you are just being a little bitter for being found out about your 'research' on nuclear isn't the amazing 'solution' you thought it was. 

Figure of speech, so, yeah, you would be right I will not give you my house.  But I have opted to drive as little as possible, work from home, live in a place where I am close to all of my goods & services, and drive much less than half of the typical American.... but hey, congratulations on driving only 3,800km per year.  Personally, that would not be something I would strive for or celebrate.

Here is a sincere kudos... good for you in driving a small diesel rather than a hybrid or e-car... in current society, you have opted for the most environmentally friendly vehicle you could drive.  So, honestly, good for you.

Again, I've done my research on nuclear, as well as alternative energy, while it seems you place a barrier up against nuclear, period, and ignore the drawbacks of wind/solar.

Now, my question for you, would you support nuclear, of any type, in ANY situation.  Or is the word so taboo for you that you will never support it, regardless of how any form of nuclear may be superior?  Do you put any value to the other side benefits I have pointed out.  Seems to me, you are the one that has avoided research, and are incredibly close minded.

Another item you keep ignoring (along with my valid point about the current world population could not be sustained in your agrarian lifestyle), is the amount of acreage, as well as where it would have to be, to satisfy current and future energy needs with wind or solar.  I'm sure you will not like the source for the following, by try contesting the material/stats:

world energy demand has been growing at about 2 per cent a year for nearly 40 years. Between 2013 and 2014, again using International Energy Agency data, it grew by just under 2,000 terawatt-hours.

If wind turbines were to supply all of that growth but no more, how many would need to be built each year? The answer is nearly 350,000, since a two-megawatt turbine can produce about 0.005 terawatt-hours per annum. That’s one-and-a-half times as many as have been built in the world since governments started pouring consumer funds into this so-called industry in the early 2000s.

With 50 acres per 2mw turbine, 350K turbines would require 17,500,000 acres per year (more than 27K square miles).  And that is not even replacing current carbon-based power....  you would have to cover a very large percentage of the existing land mass to pull that off.  Solar is not any more land efficient, although at least it can be used in roof-top applications, brownfields, etc.  By the way, you mentioned out in-road applications have been deemed to not work... I would correct you that they are not currently feasible... who's to say that in-road solar could never work?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Bruce Hudson said:

snip

So when I was given a pair of jeans that were the wrong size, and so we took them back to the same chain of stores but in a different county (both in CA), can you please explain the 9 cents extra tax I had to pay? Is it possible there are county taxes as well? Who administers all these taxes? Is it more or less efficient than having one Federal tax? How does this impact the size of governance?

snip

One word:

California.

As for the rest:

Nobody (except "progressives" *want* "big government" but we keep trying to play whack a mole -- and losing.
Freedom? Well, yeah, we have freedom if you are rich, not so much if you are middle class, zero if you are poor but hey, they don't vote or vote only Democrat so there you go...and there's this thing called Gerrymandering...etc.

What we really would like to achieve =/ what we are actually getting in the U.S.  That's not a surprise. Still kiss the ground when I get home from some god-forsaken place.

My greatest mystery: for how few New Zealanders exist, I seem to run across them on a surprisingly regular basis. I suppose sailing is mostly to blame. But they do get around. So do your rivals to the west.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, GauchoGreg said:

Here is a sincere kudos... good for you in driving a small diesel rather than a hybrid or e-car... in current society, you have opted for the most environmentally friendly vehicle you could drive.  So, honestly, good for you.

Nope, not diesel. All 91 Octane here. Is 20 years old. Intend it to be the last car I own. May convert it to electric one day. (You may benefit from assuming less).

4 minutes ago, GauchoGreg said:

Again, I've done my research on nuclear, as well as alternative energy, while it seems you place a barrier up against nuclear, period, and ignore the drawbacks of wind/solar.

Yes, and again (as said before) you appear to be out of date. Also, you are mixing up what the EIA say, with what you think my philosophies are.

The US lags with wind and solar. It would benefit from having more just on the basis of sound business.

9 minutes ago, GauchoGreg said:

Now, my question for you, would you support nuclear, of any type, in ANY situation.  Or is the word so taboo for you that you will never support it, regardless of how any form of nuclear may be superior?  Do you put any value to the other side benefits I have pointed out.  Seems to me, you are the one that has avoided research, and are incredibly close minded.

Yes, I'd support it. I last looked at nuclear in depth in October 2019 after watching the recent Netflix doco on Bill Gates. He (and the company he invests in) has some interesting ideas on using depleted uranium. As for the benefits you pointed out? Mostly, you are simply out of date. You also live in the fishbowl aka the US, so you get to be misinformed more than most. Sorry.

Frankly, the rest of your post is a bit pedestrian. You make far too many assumptions.

Land use? Really?

Solar and wind are part of the mix. The US, through poor governance has got a very poor mix. And in the end, you (as in US citizens) pay for it. 

15 minutes ago, GauchoGreg said:

By the way, you mentioned out in-road applications have been deemed to not work... I would correct you that they are not currently feasible... who's to say that in-road solar could never work?

Never say never. What dooms most of the roads include the angle is wrong (reducing efficiency), there are shadows that make a lot of roads unsuitable, but mostly it was keeping the panels clean. Maybe there will be some new unforeseen development, but for now, based on tests and reports written this year, solar panels on roads are not a good investment. (I suggest Googling it). 

Note that solar is not just PV panels. Nor is it just utility scale. For PV Germany is a great case to study. Non PV solar developments are increasingly becoming important.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All of this doesn't matter much more anymore, anyway.

We are in the the scorch earth period of the miraculous fossile fuels burning explosion feast, but unfortunately that won't last much more ..., really scrapping the bottom of the barrel these days

nd-aboveground-big.png

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/11/24/upshot/nd-oil-well-illustration.html?auth=login-smartlock

See wtc one ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, fastyacht said:

Nobody (except "progressives" *want* "big government" but we keep trying to play whack a mole -- and losing.

Where are the progressives in the US? All I see are right of center (the Dems) and the far right (GOP). Sure there are some who call themselves progressives, even socialists. But when you look at the policies promoted, and compare them to most of the world (you know, the 96% who don't live in the US), then you realize they are mostly centrist policies.

The disconnect between labels and reality is complete.

Until you understand that disconnect, to be truly progressive (not the AOC or Sanders version), keep playing whack a mole, and you'll keep getting big government. It's simply the wrong game.

18 minutes ago, fastyacht said:

Freedom?

Refer to the Cato / Fraser human freedom report. (Yes I know the Koch connection). Still, it is good work. 

Also the EIU's democracy report. 

---

6 minutes ago, toecutter said:

^^^ Are all kiwis bitter because your PM has just committed you to returning to the stone age, or are you the exception??

I guess you are referring to the Carbon Tax. (Funny thing is that in my travels, probably the most backwards least amount of tech at a community level I have seen is in the US. I guess rural France is about the same.) NZ is a mix, but stone age? Yeah right. (Who holds the America's Cup right now? Did you notice our boats aren't made of stone?) Also, you fail to realize that every single member of parliament but one voted for the carbon tax. They voted that way because the overwhelming majority of NZders support it, including me. Ardern just happened to be PM at the time, the Carbon Tax was a sure thing regardless of which party lead NZ government. (I know you are a fan of assumptive thinking, but realize that we have a strong democracy here in NZ, and that the leader, though influential, has surprisingly few powers to effect that sort of change.)

The Carbon Tax accelerates NZ's adoption of tech which does not use fossil fuels which is the exact opposite of what you are putting forward.

Reacting to your misinformation makes me bitter? Yeah right.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, stayoutofthemiddle said:

Anyone know anything about how that Cat handles offshore conditions? Two hulls would concern me in big seas. I guess I'm old school and would rather cross in a big mono-hull...

Can get a bit dicey on a dead run. Putting the nose into the back of a wave is always a worry, but in general they are just fine.

Wind is 19 knots. Speed, 9.0 knots. The seem to be making a few course changes which adds miles.

I'm surprised how slow La Vagabonde is going. Fastest I seen the reported speed is just over 10 knots.

image.png.0feb4d507dbe92aec0c613dbc46e988d.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, stayoutofthemiddle said:

Anyone know anything about how that Cat handles offshore conditions? Two hulls would concern me in big seas. I guess I'm old school and would rather cross in a big mono-hull...

I have no idea but now that I know that very skilled sailors both arranged the trip and do the weather routing, I’m confident that it’s ok. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Bruce Hudson said:

Can get a bit dicey on a dead run. Putting the nose into the back of a wave is always a worry, but in general they are just fine.

Wind is 19 knots. Speed, 9.0 knots. The seem to be making a few course changes which adds miles.

I'm surprised how slow the speeds are. Fastest I seen the reported speed is just over 10 knots.

image.png.0feb4d507dbe92aec0c613dbc46e988d.png

They are not in race mode ;) even if they have an event in Spain to get to, this seems like a safe mode trip, for good reasons. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, NORBowGirl said:

They are not in race mode ;) 

What is this thing? I don't understand?? ;) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, fastyacht said:

One word:

California.

As for the rest:

Nobody (except "progressives" *want* "big government" but we keep trying to play whack a mole -- and losing.
Freedom? Well, yeah, we have freedom if you are rich, not so much if you are middle class, zero if you are poor but hey, they don't vote or vote only Democrat so there you go...and there's this thing called Gerrymandering...etc.

What we really would like to achieve =/ what we are actually getting in the U.S.  That's not a surprise. Still kiss the ground when I get home from some god-forsaken place.

My greatest mystery: for how few New Zealanders exist, I seem to run across them on a surprisingly regular basis. I suppose sailing is mostly to blame. But they do get around. So do your rivals to the west.

Whose god has forsaken those places?  

All in all, I find - as do others - that the US is exceptionally laggard in most new technologies.  We see a constant parade of vendors showing us new building products.  Invariably and regrettably they are not US companies.  In the last few months, we have had representatives from Swedish, Japanese, German, Spanish, Chinese, Italian, Norwegian and Canadian companies showing us exceptional solar, siding, window, weatherization, insulation, elevator and lighting products.  

Oh, there was one US Company:  Big Ass Fans from Kentucky.  (Which are actually pretty cool.)

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, NORBowGirl said:

They are not in race mode ;) even if they have an event in Spain to get to, this seems like a safe mode trip, for good reasons. 

They said that they were intentionally slowing to stay behind the tropical depression.  Letting it move away to the northwest.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Bruce Hudson said:

What is this thing? I don't understand?? ;) 

Hehe ;) 

I’ve never had a celebrity or a toddler amongst my crew so I’m not sure either :P

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, toecutter said:

Link to a lab experiment that proves CO2 greenhouse warming and I promise I'll believe you.

Proofs are for mathematicians, science cannot prove stuff. Your demand is silly.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, NORBowGirl said:

Hehe ;) 

I’ve never had a celebrity or a toddler amongst my crew so I’m not sure either :P

Be fascinating to hear Greta compare the experiences of the first crossing with the second.  Racers versus cruisers.

There might be a case to crowd source a faster boat just for Greta. Maybe a trans Atlantic taxi service if not flying becomes a thing. 

But then:

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, NORBowGirl said:

Hehe ;) 

I’ve never had a celebrity or a toddler amongst my crew so I’m not sure either :P

I had a couple of NBA players on my crew once.  Frankly, I'd take the toddler.  Less likely to grind the genoa clew through the block.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Bruce Hudson said:

The US lags with wind and solar.

Worse yet - you still can't tap to pay!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Bruce Hudson said:

Yup. She's useless. Nobody would ever agree with her.

Take for example the carbon tax recently passed. In this case, Ardern was so useless, everybody but one couldn't be bothered to vote against her.

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=12283372

I guess that makes you an Act party supporter. I heard that you existed. Nice to meet you. 

When you have a conference, do you all five of you take one vehicle or do you make a statement and drive one vehicle each?

Really, the fact they all voted to fuck the poor over climate change shows she is a great leader, wow. Can you imagine the abuse and vitriol poured on any head that had the temerity to suggest there could be a better way. The denizens of twitter and outrage would have descended on their head.

As for the way she has moved forward on our homeless and housing problem, just the best. They will be gone soon because we have a wellness budget. :lol:

As for the claim I must be an Act supporter, shows how bad your sense of judgement is. Or it is just a glib bit of misdirection you rave on about hating.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Left Shift said:

I had a couple of NBA players on my crew once.  Frankly, I'd take the toddler.  Less likely to grind the genoa clew through the block.  

Worse to have the equivalent of the toodle and hydraulic winches. You would be happy with just the clew through the block.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Talk about threading the needle, WAY out there with 2500 nm to go, yikes. Maybe Greta will never leave Sweden again when/if she ever gets back...

 

DD6A7D1B-537B-41BF-A82A-86CF86BFD777.jpeg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Gissie said:

Really, the fact they all voted to fuck the poor over climate change shows she is a great leader, wow. Can you imagine the abuse and vitriol poured on any head that had the temerity to suggest there could be a better way. The denizens of twitter and outrage would have descended on their head.

 As for the way she has moved forward on our homeless and housing problem, just the best. They will be gone soon because we have a wellness budget. :lol:

 As for the claim I must be an Act supporter, shows how bad your sense of judgement is. Or it is just a glib bit of misdirection you rave on about hating.

  

I unreservedly apologize for mistaking you for an Act supporter and any harm that may have caused. (The way that you stated that you opposed the carbon tax seemed to be near identical to that of Owen Jennings. For a moment I wondered if you were Owen. My bad.)

Are 'the poor' really worse  off because of the carbon tax? You must of missed the memo to all poor not to buy carbon. It was a bit of a silly memo, because the poor don't buy carbon anyway. Because. They. Are. Poor. (I can only imagine your 'dream' of the PM having carnal relations with 'the poor' relates to your not getting your way.) Note that the Carbon tax is the product of the last three governments.

There are better ways. And for the most part, we're doing them as well.

I think you might have missed another memo. It is the kindness budget, not the wellness budget - and it won't eliminate the housing problem or homelessness. They admit their policy isn't perfect, so maybe you can fix it for them since you seem to have great insights into 'the poor'. https://www.beehive.govt.nz/release/more-1000-homeless-be-housed-through-budget-2019

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, yl75 said:

Nobody is more violently stupid and vulgar than ignorant Anglo Saxons cheap punks, quite a few of them on this thread, that's for sure.

Cool, you have a time machine!! What was it like in Britain 1000 plus years ago? I'd bet they were stupid and vulgar. Definitely poor, so cheap punks as well. Probably bigots as well! Can't see how 'Anglo Saxons' (a people from the past) can be on this thread. Please explain.

(Or maybe you think Anglo Saxons are something else. Note that if you have ancestors from Brittany, Normandy or northern France, then you are likely to have recent 'Anglo Saxon' ancestry.)

PS: I am completely out of touch of what is happening in France. I haven't lived in France since 2018.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/14/2019 at 11:40 AM, NORBowGirl said:

All civilizations and religions have stories about how the earth was born and how it will end. If you believe the Aztecs got it right about the end, I guess you also believe their version of the beginning is accurate. 

I said they predicted change and no one caught my mistake, It is the Mayans not Aztecs.
What I find funny is that not one scientist can tell us where we are in the 400,000 year cycle that cleanses the earth every so often.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I feel REALLY BAD for the entire crew of this boat. That cat is going to take a pounding before they get to safe harbor 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, GauchoGreg said:

 

By the way, again, the idea that we should be restricted in our liberties, such as the size of car we want to drive (I happily drive a Yukon XL and Crew Cab Silverado 6.2 pickup), while restricting nuclear and only promoting wind/solar is insanely stupid.  I'm looking forward to large electric motors that will power up full size vehicles like mine, and drawing tons of electricity through the grid powered by incredibly clean nuclear plants.... and everyone else can do the same.  There is no need to limit what we can do so that we can only go with wind and solar. 

And thank you, but I'm not going to cook my big bloody ribeye steak with a fucking solar oven.

First, you should pay for driving your big ass cars.  You impose costs on your fellow travelers.   Pay.

Second, you should take a look at Georgia's new nuclear plants.  I wish someone else would pay but it will primarily be homeowners, as we pay the highest rates.

Third, I hope you know that your big bloody ribeye steak may cost society a lot of money.  Obesity and heart problems go hand in hand.  Please pay for the chaos you advocate. 

  • Like 2
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, hasher said:

 

Third, I hope you know that your big bloody ribeye steak may cost society a lot of money.  Obesity and heart problems go hand in hand.  Please pay for the chaos you advocate. 

Hey now! Get up to date. Steak doesn't cause obesity or heart problems, hasher.  McDonald's might but it ain't because of the meat.  Don't listen to sugar-industry funded shit

 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, MR.CLEAN said:

Hey now!  Steak doesn't cause obesity or heart problems, hasher.  McDonald's might but it ain't because of the meat.

I eat steak.  I don't eat disproportionate sizes.  My property taxes are basically for schools and the public hospital.  The City and police only get a small part.  Our schools are failing and we pay twice what we should for medical care.  I follow the science about diet and those who know have been advocating less red meat.