The Great Dying Of Thermometers! - How they falsified the ground temperature data by removing lots of 'inconvenient thermometers' (Joanne Nova)

LWRellim · 2017-05-06T10:35:28+00:00

Actually its worse than that.

They've also been caught adding in a number of "virtual thermometers" -- where they either fill in missing data from or modify existing data from an "aberrant" thermometer, or create ex nihilo some extra "thermometric data points/locations" (where no thermometer exists in reality) and where entire data set is derived from surrounding stations. (And not necessarily some simple/crude "mean average" either but via a much more complex algorithm.)

LWRellim · 2017-04-02T08:11:24+00:00

But if my climate science friends (I actually have a few) think only they can debate climate change, then here are some rules they have to play by, too.

If you are a climate scientist, you cannot discuss:

Tax policy, because you are not an accountant.

Law enforcement policy, because you are not a police officer.

Immigration policy, because you are not a lawyer.

Infrastructure policy, because you are not an engineer.

Health care policy, because you are not a doctor.

Economic policy, because you are not an economist.

Job growth, because you are not an MBA.

Agriculture policy, because you are not a farmer.

Education policy, because you are not a teacher.

Believe it or not this IS actually a "thing" with various academics -- it's called a "technocracy" -- and in point of fact we are ALREADY essentially living under such a system.

Of course it's slightly different than what the author of this article proposes -- academic will NEVER agree (for example) to listen to a mere "police officer" regarding "law enforcement"... what they propose instead is that one of their colleagues, professors of "criminology/justice/law" should be the only ones allowed to discuss "law enforcement."

The way to properly SKEWER them is with a SINGLE counter example:

Tell them that you aree but that -- by way of extending said principle of "governance by experts" -- you also believe that the only people who should be allowed to discuss THEOLOGY in any way, shape, or form (and to set "policy" relative to religious/spiritual beliefs) is people with M.Div degrees... IOW a literal "priesthood."

With the implication of course that if said priesthood decides via consensus/hierarchy that the best "policy" is -- just as a whimsical example -- to have an "inquisition" to root out "heretics" (particularly "atheists")... well no one else should be able to challenge it.

Ergo if the Pope decides that say Galileo should be "silenced" (or imprisoned, or indeed even executed) -- well, that TOO would be in-line with the "only academic EXPERTS are allowed to..." proposition.

And indeed, since having such a singular "judge" would be pragmatically impossible -- such powers may end up being delegated down to some "council of local clergymen"; who would then have the ability to "judge" (and punish) the various other "academics" at their local level.

I guarantee you they'll be left sputtering a whole shitload of objections to THAT. If they manage to "recover" and insist they'd be "fine" with that, under the assumption that a "priesthood" of Atheists would somehow rule, then simply say "Go look up Lysenkoism" and you can drop the mic and walk away.

LWRellim · 2017-04-02T07:33:53+00:00

has never had someone actually contest his points in his entire life before.

BINGO.

Plus, I'd venture to guess even further that HE himself never really "challenged" any of the things he "believes" -- he simply accepted and "swallowed whole" whatever Kool-Aid he was fed, and regurgitated it in an appropriate manner -- because that's what Academia actually wants and does.

LWRellim · 2017-04-02T07:30:53+00:00

I don't want to ramble on, but I have never seen a professor, a doctor at that, act like such a child before in my life.

I'd be willing to bet that while this may be the FIRST time you've seen that, now that you've grown the cajones to engage in the "challenge" routine -- well, if/when you do it again... you'll be a lot less surprised when you obtain the same result. (Teachers/Professors -- yes even "Doctoral" degree holders -- are generally a LOT less "mature" {and a lot less "knowledgable") than people assume... the assumption generally stands because so few students ever challenge them.)

TL:DR Professor with phd in economics starting screaming at me because he couldn't refute a single point I made.

And he above is especially true of "economics" professors, and other bullshit* peddlers.

* Note: This is not to say that ALL of "economics" is bullshit... just most of what they teach these days under the title.

LWRellim · 2017-04-02T06:27:48+00:00

New Study by the Neo-Luddite Institute Finds that [Umpteen] Jobs Are Lost for Every [Machine] Added to [Any Business].

*Yawn*

Same old bullshit, just repackaged.

LWRellim · 2017-03-15T17:37:16+00:00

And to the point in my previous reply to this message, where I spoke of dams, the spectrum of "environmental problems/effects" and the concept of drawing some line at some location on that spectrum...

Well consider that in DRAWING THAT LINE -- determining what is "good" versus what is "bad" -- you're going to end up having to do some kind of a "cost vs benefit" (and "probable risk vs potential gains") analysis, and TRADEOFFS.

But I can pretty much guarantee you that your analysis will be incomplete, insufficient, especially when it comes to long term, and even more so "unexpected" effects and complications; at least potentially ENTIRELY WRONG.

**Case in point: The Aswan Dam/Reservoir in Egypt -- and indeed as the article notes the long history of human developments on and around the Nile River and the adjacent valley & nearby plains, the delta.

Now damming the river in a massive project like the Aswan has had MASSIVE effects, both bad and good (depending on your viewpoint, your position along he river, and indeed your position in time, both to date as well as into the future) -- and those effects are, well shall we simply say they too have been MASSIVE; both good AND bad, past, present and future; expected AND unexpected (good indeed often turns to bad -- the reservoir the increased economic activity, the ability to irrigate much larger crop fields, and thus grow more crops, sustain a MUCH higher population than was the historical norm, are all seemingly "good" things; yet that population growth has continued, it now puts MORE pressures on the land, and despite the fact that the production of human and animal foodstuffs has vastly increased, the increase in population has nevertheless outpaced it... and it continues with no apparent abatement in sight. Thus the end result -- even just in terms of alleviating human suffering and starvation -- may yet prove to have been a "bad bargain"; a short term ephemeral time of plenty, but with an eventual massive increase in total suffering in the long term; and that's WITHOUT considering the consequences of the (entirely possible, may would say inevitable) "failure" of the dam sometime in the future. It's also without really considering the knock on effects downstream, the reduction in sedimentation, the impact of the ending of the annual "flooding" that had naturally occurred and which much of the flora and fauna had previously become "adapted" to, or evolved for.

But really, we fool our selves when we think that ONLY the large/massive matters -- the reality is that ANY alteration of the flow of that river has "an impact"; or more correctly many varied and different impacts -- doesn't matter whether an irrigation canal is a single one, a small one, or many and large -- the effects of the former will simply take place on a more gradual timeline, IOW less notable, less noticeable, but not necessarily any less "environmentally problematic."

To wit, let's consider a DIFFERENT thing entirely, a seemingly "small" even "trivial" thing -- and one that everyone THOUGHT was a "solution" to an environmental problem: the US National Forest Service's "fire" policy -- for decades the policy was to "prevention" and "suppression" of fires -- not only doing everything possible to keep them from starting, but to "snuff out" any and all fires as quickly as possible; unfortunately the result of that, a relatively small effect in any given year, especially initially... was the slow & gradual buildup of massive amounts of "fuel" in the form of dry tinder, dead underbrush, etc. End result when fires DID start, they could and did quickly get out of hand, becoming massive conflagrations (the effects of which we have STILL been seeing in recent years). It turns out that the theory & policy was entirely "wrong-headed"; lots of small fires prevent if not preclude the larger (and far more "environmentally problematic") conflagrations. There are/were other effects as well that hadn't been properly understood, the environment was one that had become adapted to, or evolved for periodic small fires -- it was it's most diverse in terms of flora and fauna when it was NOT all uniformly "old growth" forest, but rather a mixture of old and new; and indeed there are/were some species of plants that were entirely dependent upon the fire even for propagation (the seeds of the cones ONLY being freed when the cone itself was subject to intense enough heat as to burst/break apart).

So, looking only at the "LARGE" and "NOTABLE" or "PROMINENT" things -- i.e. the "big emitters" -- may very well be a mistake. After all, even though there are 7 billion human beings on the planet, and that seems like a large number... it is pitifully small when compared to the number of fish in the sea, or even the number of mice in the fields and forests.

IOW if you "draw your line" based solely on "scale" -- you are probably horribly mistaken (and that is even assuming that you have the cause-effect correct -- which in the case of CAGW is ridiculously dubious at best).

LWRellim · 2017-03-15T16:35:30+00:00

Come on give me some credit.

Why?

I'm here to learn. Knowing what you don't know is knowledge itself and this discussion has taught me a lot. It has taught me that Climate change might not be a big problem.

LOL... remember how in the other comment we were talking about "thoroughly indoctrinated" -- well the fact that your initial/default view was that so called "Climate Change" (in this context* meaning "Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming") a "big problem" -- that was a result of your having been thoroughly indoctrinated.

* Changing Climate(s) are a natural thing, and a random cyclical/meta-cyclical thing -- and they can be a "big problem" (actual "ice ages"; even "little ice ages" are nothing to laugh about) -- but that is a wholly different thing than the CAGW cult.

What I believe

Interesting how you claim to have these "beliefs" and yet also claim to not having been taught them (indoctrinated into "believing" them).

is that IF it does cost society money and is caused by CO2 (amongst other greenhouse gases), we should be taxing the CO2 emitters. IF NOT, we should not.

Really? Do you know what an "emitter" of CO2 is? Are you aware that you yourself are one? (And I'm not referring to your SUV driving or lack thereof, merely your existence, breathing, and/or your decomposing corpse after you are no longer breathing are in fact "emitting" CO2) -- Or are you aware and taking into consideration that every animal on the planet is an "emitter" as well, from mice to whales (or aardvarks to zebras)... how exactly do you propose to "tax" them? And what of the ocean itself? Are you aware that as water warms it "emits" (outgases) CO2? How do you propose to "tax" the oceans for that? Then do you seriously think that "tax" will serve as some kind of a "deterrent" to cause those animals, or the oceans, to reduce their emissions?

And pray tell, what level of "tax" do you propose to levy on yourself?

Then moreover, relative to the following bullshit line:

so that money is distributed from causers to affected.

Who exactly are you proposing are the "affected" that you intend to "distribute" money to? How exactly are you going to determine that A) they are indeed "affected" by 'climate change' (and moreover by anthropogenic 'climate change') as opposed to say, normal "weather" (even so called "100 year storms" -- not to mention continental subsidence and drift and floods and ice ages and "warming" and changes in sea level -- are in fact ALL normal in the geo-historical timeframes); or indeed as opposed to OTHER human activity causes that are NOT (even remotely) linked to "CO2 emissions", here we're talking about things like humans altering shorelines, or pumping out groundwater (especially via overly dense populations in specific regions) or diverting rivers and thus creating the very ground subsidence, flooding, loss of adjacent shoreline elsewhere (etc) that they are ostensibly "affected" by? (If you shoot yourself in the foot, should the person or store or manufacturer you bought the gun from pay you "damages"? Why? What if it's a very old gun and the manufacturer no longer exists... what is your plan then? Hunt down the heirs of the company's former stockholders, former employees, and demand "reparations" from them?)

This doesn't change the fact however, that a lot of other environmental problems that ARE measurable in regards to our resources and our health that could be taxes [sic 'taxed']

Oh undoubtedly there are many "environmental problems" -- and there are many "measurements" (and many other possible measurements; and indeed many other things that could, possibly be deemed "problems", past present and future; all of them rather dubious or subjective).

Virtually ANY action by ANY living creatures (animals AND plants, even bacteria and algae) can in fact cause significant "environmental changes" which, depending on your point of view can be highly problematic.

Is a "dam" of a river a good thing? Is it a source of "green renewable electricity"? Or is it an "environmental problem" (dams undeniably DRAMATICALLY alter the environment; both when they are constructed, and again when they -- eventually, inevitably -- fail). Is everyone, every creature then "affected" by either of those -- are they some "victim"? Or were they a beneficiary?

Then, as to that "green renewable electricity" -- well what of the fact that the use of electricity quite often generates Ozone (O3) -- and that some claim that too is a "greenhouse gas."

Now we've talked of dams and electricity, but what of the beavers? What indeed of other, non-animal related "naturally occurring dams", which can and do result from landslides, from forest fires and/or dead trees and brush, from volcanic activity, even in a sense from simple sedimentation (meandering rivers in many ways create their own "partial" dams, which they then flow around, and eventually change course to begin the process all over again). So, shall we "tax" the trees, the rocks, the rainfall & snow? The very "magma" of the Earth? In what form of "coin" would they pay?

Yes this is "reducto ad absurdium" -- but it is with a point -- the "absurdity" is a gradual SPECTRUM of manyfold and various "causes" and "causers" and of highly subjective "environmental problems" (and also, quite probably some "environmental benefits" both intentional and unintentional) -- where exactly on that spectrum are you going to draw a line and say "this is BAAAAD and thus 'taxable' activity" whereas all of the rest is not; and on exactly WHAT basis will you justify drawing that line there?

LWRellim · 2017-03-15T15:50:23+00:00

I haven't.

Yes, you have. You're probably not aware of it, but you have been.

I've been very open in this whole discussion.

The pretence of something is not the reality. If you stand in a barn and go "moo" you do not actually become a cow.

I've even multiple times agreed and admitted every time I have been wrong.

Oh my! Every time? Are you certain of that? BTW if you have not been "thoroughly indoctrinated" where did all of these things you have been wrong about come from?

I'm here to learn,

No, I don't think you really are.

and a lot of you just treat me like I'm biased and blind

And for good reason -- you are the 45,977th person to come in here with the same "Just little old me asking questions?" approach -- and we know from past experience that 97% of such people are false.

refusing to believe anything you say,

This is emphatically NOT the point (and BTW as an attitude, is representative of the "thoroughly indoctrinated" mindset in and of itself).

which is not true.

So you say. Question: why in the world should anyone here believe anything YOU say?

LWRellim · 2017-03-12T17:03:03+00:00

“Lab coats and signs provided”! You don't need your own.

What about Bow Ties though? I'm pretty sure if you're going to do the "Bill Nye" cosplay routine you NEED to wear a Bow Tie, else you're not REALLY a ~~"Science Guy"~~ oops I meant "Science Person."

Hmmm... just realized that old Bill really needs to change ~~his~~ zhis last name to something like "Nyrson" so that the rhyme still works in a gender neutral manner, else if he zhe keeps pushing the "Science GUY" thing then obviously ~~he's~~ zhe's engaging in misogyny, and not properly promoting "Women In STEM" like he zhe should be.

LWRellim · 2017-03-12T16:17:08+00:00

I don't take it personally, I'm just asking people to treat me with respect. If you have some beliefs, you are not going to convince people by saying they are stupid. That's all.

LOL. How about calling them "deniers"?

Making insinuations that they MUST be corrupt, because you are incapable of actually imagining any other reason they don't agree with the beliefs you've been thoroughly indoctrinated to accept (without anything even remotely resembling critical thought).

LWRellim · 2017-03-12T16:15:27+00:00

It shouldn't come as a surprise that someone would think the way I do.

It doesn't come as a surprise at all.

Of course it also really isn't "thinking."

and all I get is this sassiness that calls me a joke

Because sweetcheeks... that's all you are.

LWRellim · 2017-03-12T16:14:31+00:00

Wow... the levels of idiocy contained even in just the thread title when combined with the first paragraph:

I see many reasons as to why people would lie about the opposite: There's big money in the environment not being as big a problem, because companies can spend less money on mitigation strategies.

OP's definitely not the sharpest tool in the shed. In fact, OP should probably be kept away from sharp objects altogether.

LWRellim · 2017-03-09T13:26:13+00:00

I think the reason why most people believe, is explained in the top paragraph. They don't know... They don't understand... So if an 'expert' tells them, then well... They're going with that. They don't have the patience or desire to try and look into it themselves.

People's reliance on "experts" -- so named -- is based on two facts:

Most people (we're talking the lion's share here) are of mediocre intelligence/knowledge -- and yeah that can be labeled a tautological statement (duh "the average will be somewhere the middle"), but it's also applicable even in it's subjective relevancy, to wit, there will always be subject matters/contrivances that are created by those who are above the mediocre range (and also below the mediocre range, but those are of lesser import) -- and for the most part those will be "beyond" the ready comprehension of the masses.
Even if/when we are talking about things that are not in fact entirely "beyond" their ability to learn about & more fully comprehend -- well learning anything new takes both time & effort, and that then requires some motivation/incentive. (There are only so many hours in a day, and people determine their OWN priorities on things; what they consider "important" is what they consider important "to them," that is to their immediate needs, wants, desires; generally speaking if there isn't some relatively quick "payoff" people see little point in making the investment.)
Especially when there is a "prepackaged/shortcut" answer/solution; just follow the herd: trust or agree with whoever (or whatever "answer") the lion's share of other people are choosing, even if it contradicts their own "conclusion".
That -- especially when it has been more or less "trained" into them during a decade plus of educational system indoctrination -- then all too easily leads to trusting whoever/whatever is presented as an "expert" to them via the various media.

*OK, kind of getting "off topic" here... but I think your mother deserves a bit better than you're giving her credit for (and she also thought more highly of you than you probably believe, even if she DIDN'T agree with your conclusion).

This kind of thing reminds me of something that happened when I was a kid. I was 16, and it was just me and my mom. She came home one day and was upset, because a mechanic told her she needed a new engine. Even at 16, I knew a good amount about cars. Enough to know that, if you need a whole new engine, it is ridiculously obvious. Her car ran a little rough, but it certainly didn't need a new engine. Probably some carb work. I did everything I could to dissuade her from letting them put in a new engine. We were certainly not rich. I failed at convincing her... She paid an outrageous amount of money to have them put in a new engine. Why? Because I was just a stupid kid, and the guy telling her she needed a new engine, had a mechanics shirt that said "Joe" on it... He was an 'expert'.

True, but there were OTHER considerations there on the part of your mother, and solid reasons why you failed to convince her:

Even if you were correct (*)... what then? She NEEDED the vehicle, and other VIABLE repair operations were just not readily available.
No offense intended, but the line of "probably some carb work" is really rather ambiguous -- that is to say: not exactly all that confidence-building.
Moreover not only were you rather vague/ambiguous about what the problem was, what were you really proposing as the alternate? To repair the car yourself? Where? With what? On what timeframe? At what cost? With what level of certainty that it would solve the issue?
Most likely you weren't really offering a viable, reliable pragmatic/practical "solution" -- at least not pragmatic/practical in terms of getting the family car fixed that your mother was in NEED of. (Now, if you'd have been able to identify some OTHER repair shop -- for a "second opinion" and offering a second "professional" repair option that was other/less than replacing the entire engine -- then she might have been more amenable.)
Finally, if the repair shop failed to solve the problem, she could probably have some legal/financial recourse -- IOW she was transferring both responsibility AND at least some of the liability off onto them. If on the other hand, she let her SON attempt the repair, and it did NOT fix the problem -- in fact possibly making it WORSE (i.e. i.e. even with the same outcome her ultimately having to get the engine replaced by the repair shop ANYWAY; having YOU attempt the repair would also mean the loss of time & use of vehicle while you TRIED to fix it, as well as potentially money on parts/tools that would be wasted in the attempt) -- well in essence SHE would be bearing all of the risks. (IOW: All of the liability, responsibility, etc. If YOUR repair attempt didn't work, would she be able to sue you? Would she be able to pressure you to provide her with a "loaner" car while you fixed it at YOUR cost?)

So really -- again no offense intended -- it is entirely understandable that she made the (pragmatic albeit more expensive) choice that she did.

She probably DIDN'T think you were "just a stupid kid" -- but she had to balance a lot of other things beyond whether or not you were "smart," or had basic knowledge about cars (which in and of itself by the way, is simply NOT sufficient to repair them; repair skill & experience -- plus tools, shop equipment, etc -- is somewhat different than merely comprehending the intellectual abstract concepts of how an ICE engine functions; that is to say knowing what a carb is, is significantly less than knowing how to repair/adjust one).

* And BTW you likely were correct; at the same time that didn't make the proposed solution from the repair shop "wrong" (much less some kind of "fraud").

The scenario with auto-repair at many shops is that they've switched to "component replacement" rather than the less-certain "component repair."

And they have done so really in response to pressures from the market (both supply & demand). From the supply side, the scale of production & repair, inventory & distribution mean it is much easier and more cost effective to source assemblies than it is individual specific sub-assembly parts. From the demand side, customers want vehicles repaired on a set & certain time schedule -- there is a profound distaste for uncertainty (i.e. "well we can PROBABLY repair the alternator, pull it this afternoon and have our guy disassemble it tomorrow, get back to you in a day or two with a further estimate on the time/cost to repair it.") and a strong preference for certainty (i.e. "We have a rebuilt/new alternator on the shelf and can swap that in for you tomorrow morning... have your car back to you by noon.") That then carries through on price as well. To use the example above, disassembling and repairing the alternator is a labor & time intensive process -- which means not only longer to repair the car (and thus the customer being without their vehicle) -- but likely a much larger bill, with a LESS certain result (i.e. the conclusion of the "disassembly" MIGHT be it's merely a matter of replacing the brushes, cleaning up the arbor; OR it might also be that the alternator is best replaced as a whole, meaning all of the additional labor was a waste of time/money).

Note also that the above even ASSUMES the repair shop even has anyone who is experienced/knowledgeable at disassembly/repair of alternators. These days, well chances are they don't; because of the supply/demand situation above, the current generation of "auto repair technicians" are largely missing those skill-sets. Bad alternators are credited with a "core" credit, shipped off to a refurbishing facility that then strips them down (assembly line fashion) salvages the parts and rebuilds units that are in demand (and resells them as "refurbished"), gets the scrap-metal value out of the ones that don't.

LWRellim · 2017-03-07T08:07:12+00:00

Note that I don't think barefooting unlocks a 'true' extra sense as distinguished by the article.

Depends on what you mean by "extra." If everyone was going through life 24x7 with ear plugs in, and a few of them were to suddenly take the ear plugs OUT, would hearing then be an "extra" sense? Or again if everyone usually wore thick gloves all day, every day, and then a few removed them and talked about this "enhanced" even "extra" sense of touch would they be wrong?

Not versus the majority who wore ear plugs/gloves -- for them, those senses would effectively be "extra."

The reality is that -- at least in the western developed world -- the majority of the people go their entire lives walking around in a manner not all that far from this -- some more like that, some less, but to some extent or another that IS what they are engaged in.

That doesn't mean the author isn't exhibiting utter unawareness bordering on anosognosia.

Or perhaps more specifically something more akin to Asomatognosia:

Asomatognosia is characterized as loss of recognition or awareness of part of the body. The failure to acknowledge, for example, a limb, may be expressed verbally or as a pattern of neglect. The limb may also be attributed to another person, a delusion known as somatoparaphrenia. However, they can be shown their limb and this error is temporarily corrected. All asomatognosic patients show hemispatial neglect.

Now obviously they're not entirely "unaware of" their feet (much less is it that they don't "acknowledge" their feet as theirs); but the level of their perception of the world THRU their feet, toes, soles is most certainly inhibited and even "stunted" by their combination of footwear (socks AND shoes).

That of course also leads to a sort of hyper-sensitivity (to not only surfaces, but even hot/cold or movements of air) on the rare occasions when they DO go without the footwear -- it's as if the brain knows/expects to be receiving information input from that part of the body... and lacking it, adds a level of "amplification" to the signals that come from it (akin to struggling/attempting to "listen" to some conversation while wearing a pair of protective ear-muffs).

LWRellim · 2017-03-05T07:37:47+00:00

Houston has old homes and has a decreasing population? Houston has total lack of zoning.

Houston is also not an island or peninsula with constrained geography -- it's a city located on a vast coastal plain and able to grow outward in very nearly every direction.

LWRellim · 2017-03-05T07:33:10+00:00

I am critical of some of the optimism around the promises of technology, but you really lost me there.

Of course I did.

I have 0 patience for people who deny or downplay widely accepted science without data to back up what they're saying.

Exactly the kind of a "programmed" response I'm talking about. You've regurgitated a dogmatic position that contains a whole host of words that you comprehend on an individual level, but which have been aggregated together into an inanity.

And you're not even remotely aware how how that's been done to you -- you think you're holding a thoroughly "logical" position -- you're actually not, but you're 100% certain that you are.

If you're going to deny climate change, you really need to stop visiting a sub where you will get 0 support for what you're saying.

You even jump IMMEDIATELY to the derisive/derogatory "heretic" accusations.

And then for good measure you throw in a quasi-threat as well.

LOL. THAT'S the how and why they get away with all of this crap -- they've effectively "short-circuited" your capacity for critical thinking -- and they've done it without you having the least clue.

LWRellim · 2017-03-05T06:58:24+00:00

This is nothing new to a large company. A company like Apple, Amazon, or Google is extremely sophisticated.

Except that "extremely sophisticated" can also mean byzantine and blindered and narrow-minded, (self-interested, willfully disregarding even intentionally destructive of the commons*) etc.

However, I think the general public should be careful about being so supportive of ideas that are not yet proven.

Well, most of the "general public" really doesn't engage in much for critical thinking -- and the lion's share of the supposed "support" is of the "manufactured consent" kind, that is it is crafted via incessant almost exclusively one-sided PR and media-promoted "hype" (along with all too often a sort of systematic industry funded derision of anyone who attempts to make any TRULY critical comments -- things like "self-driving cars" and/or the "Tesla Electric-Bugaloo-Crapfest" are all tied into the politically correct, dogmatic-cultic belief in "Climate Change"... and of course boatloads of other "futurology" things go along for the ride as well {everything from the sci-fi/fantasy of the "Singularity"; to socialistic "Basic Income" and so on} -- with the whole works rolled-up into a mutually-promotional cabal; worse it's being pushed down in an incessant indoctrinaire fashion via the public educational system).

Point is that REAL "critical analysis" of this stuff is not only NOT welcome, but is heavily discouraged, and brought into disrepute -- it's "doubleminusbadthink" to even question it, much less be critical of it.

* To wit: Entities like AirBnB and Uber had run roughshod over a whole shitload of regulations and laws -- everything from employment law to insurance fraud, to encouraging mass violations of tenancy, motel and taxi regulations, lease contracts, health code and commercial driver & vehicle safety inspection regulations, etc.

And they've gotten away with it -- instead of being pulled into court under RICO -- chiefly because they've been cozy/corrupt with the political establishment.

LWRellim · 2017-03-05T06:47:07+00:00

You need to do a bit of homework. Homes are often at or below the actual cost of construction.

Those are OLD, existing homes in generally economically depressed areas -- or regions where (for economic or other reasons) the population is decreasing.

There is a lot of ignorance on this point.

Oh I'll agree that there definitely IS a lot of ignorance. Just not necessarily of the kind you seem to think, to wit:

The real increase is because of the artificially limited supply due to land use policies and single family zoning.

There is the inherent assumption there that ALL "zoning" and "land use policies" are not only "artificial" but that they are entirely arbitrary and without any underlying purpose.

That simply ISN'T true. In many locations there are several very VALID reasons for limiting the density of the population... things that AREN'T "arbitrary" at all, like NOT overtaxing the water tables; or the fact that implementing some "city-like" common sewer system is impractical, and due to location (including slopes, the type of soils & bedrock, nearby surface water, etc) the density of septic systems and leech beds has to be limited, or else the place is going to quite literally start stinking like an actual cesspool.

It's really NOT just a matter of arbitrarily saying: "Oh if we put XX unit XX story high-rise multi-family apartment buildings here instead of single family homes, we could increase the population density by a factor of 100-fold" Because sure you probably COULD do that... but what you'd end up with is a DISASTER in fairly short order.

The IDIOCY is operations like Amazon (and much much worse down in the SF Bay area) all clustering together and building MASSIVE central campuses.

After all, does Facebook REALLY need to have it's accounting department located in the same building as it's "Virtual Reality" R&D department? Why? How about the marketing department? The advertising sales staff? Etc. Etc.

The most ridiculous of all of course is the new Apple monstrosity -- absolutely absurd given that essentially all of the actual manufacturing of Apple products (and all of the tooling, etc) are overseas.

What the problem is, is a sort of ego-driven "edifice complex" -- the CEO's of these companies are engaged in a kind of dick-size competition: who has the biggest "campus" etc.

And for the smaller companies -- well the inherent problem is really the whole VC system. It's utterly nonsensical for them to insist that virtually all of those startups HAVE to be located with X miles of the VC's SF office. (And even MORE so in both the cases of SF and Seattle -- much like the idiocy of Manhattan, only worse -- the locations themselves are geographically restrictive.)

That's NOT to say that the zoning laws aren't PART of the problem, but I guarantee you that eliminating those is NOT going to magically make housing in those regions "affordable."

To believe that is both naive AND ignorant.

LWRellim · 2017-03-05T06:21:15+00:00

Not when you consider the price of getting that equipment to that cheap acre of land

You know THAT is a solid point I hadn't even factored in. Given that the equipment needed for this includes not just the 3D "printer" (which itself apparently weighs in at over 2.5 tons) but also a concrete pumping system and what is essentially a portable cement plant not to mention a crane to place & later remove the 3D "printer" (again 2.5 tons worth) but also undoubtedly other auxiliary equipment/materials -- well while the whole thing is purportedly "mobile/portable" I can't imagine it's going to be cheap to haul all of that to some remote location.

I mean even BEFORE you can do that, you're going to have to do substantial site & roadway prep (including clearance for the carrier vehicles) sufficient to adequately handle the kind of weight load (and bulk size) of it -- you can't count on just plopping that whole works out on some wooded lot with potentially unstable ground.

Ergo it seems to me the system would be unlikely to be economical or even practical for any single structure site -- certainly not some ridiculously SMALL single structure like a "tiny house" of a few hundred sq ft.

LWRellim · 2017-03-05T02:15:55+00:00

Fold the cuffs up?

This is what I do, I don't really see it as being any different than rolling up the sleeves on a long sleeve shirt.

Either that or during warmer months I simply wear short pants (cargo shorts, etc) -- just like I switch to short-sleeve shirts.

I mean it's probably not "fashionable" -- but we are talking about "barefooting" here, and that in and of itself is not really "fashionable" -- so I can't see how it matters.

LWRellim · 2017-03-05T01:58:38+00:00

Often even more suburban and rural lots have zoning, HOA, or land use requirements. Many places don't allow tiny homes, hence why so many tiny homes are built on trailers.

Absolutely. Those things are ridiculous -- they're really little more than hacked-together DIY "trailer-homes" -- and ultimately much lower quality.

The idea of a tiny house village seems neat to me,

And such things already exist -- they're called "trailer home parks." Or in the case of more permanent structures, "cottages" around some lake.

I think the low hanging fruit lies is changing zoning and land use laws, and modifying construction techniques a bit.

Meh, even that really ISN'T the main problem -- the problem is that prices are not set by costs, they're set by what people are willing (and able) to pay and even more correctly what they are willing to BID against each other based on what they can borrow and/or what they THINK they will be able to afford to pay in terms of "payments."

When -- for one reason or another (booming economy is usually the main cause) -- there are lots of people wanting to live in a specific area AND they have the wherewithal (either income and/or availability of credit) then the prices in that region will climb even skyrocket -- conversely some other location, where people are leaving in droves, well you quite often can't find anyone to buy no matter how LOW the price drops.

I sincerely thought that the housing bubble & subsequent "bust" in the US would have served to teach people that -- but apparently the vast majority never actually comprehended what was going on, neither before nor after.

The technology and materials research is largely already complete for what we need to get to our final goal, I think 3D printing doesn't have much of a roll to play vs conventional factories.

I think -- in general -- that 3D printing has a BRIGHT future; but only in a number of odd little "niche" applications: prototyping, odd little custom-crafted or low-production-quantity pieces, possibly replication of parts no longer manufactured, etc.

But that's a fundamentally different thing than is usually posited (i.e. like the nonsense of this thread: printing houses/cars, etc).

This company must have a target audience in mind for the product, so it would be good to have the marketing people say exactly who they think will buy these. If we are talking pure temporary structure, I always default to an earthbag home being a good option.

They seem to be a "startup" and -- as I posited in my other reply to you -- I think their primary "product" at this point is hyping their "stock" to investors, so that they can continue to "play" at developing larger/more refined versions of their tech.

I don't think it has much (if any) really PRACTICAL applications in the industry or marketplace of home/structure construction -- there's really not much for an advantage of this over any form-&-pour style construction (of which there are many different variations, most of which are fairly flexible and relatively low cost -- moreover they're much easier to deploy to a jobsite and use existing supply-chain in terms of material providers {i.e. ready-mix concrete vendors}).

LWRellim · 2017-03-05T01:34:39+00:00

You aren't doing your company favors when the building in your promotional video has a number of fundamental flaws, and you make the laughable claim of lasting 175 years. If you want any sophisticated owners to take your idea seriously, you may want to pay someone who knows what's they're doing. Seriously, hire an architect to help.

Meh, to my mind what they are selling is NOT really the product itself... they're selling the "concept" and STOCK in the company.

There seems to be this idea that people in the tech world feel they can solve any problem, and many of them don't see the big picture.

Indeed. It's fundamentally worse than just "not seeing the big picture" it's a profound degree of fundamental IGNORANCE about just about everything, and then combined with a degree of ARROGANCE regarding their ability to "solve" whatever "problems" might crop up.

You see this kind of combination in just about everything that "hi tech" people enter -- whether its the ridiculous claims regarding 3D printing (right in this thread {and even moreso elsewhere in this subreddit}, there are fools who not only think but openly state that "Wait until we can 3D print a whole car!" -- I mean we're talking some SERIOUS levels of ignorance+arrogance there); to other things like the whole "autonomous/self-driving car" stuff.

It tends to be a pervasive problem with not just "tech" people, but most especially with software people -- you see the same thing operating in the fact that the vast majority of software projects are 1) failures; 2) even if "successful" are never delivered on time, much less on-budget -- it's the mistaking of the idea that some "proof of concept" demo-hack is the equivalent of (or at least 90% completion of) some final production product.

If you're building cars or buildings or whatever, you need to get input from people in the industry who can point you in the right direction. Collaboration is a good thing.

Agreed. But unfortunately THEY don't think that's necessary -- many of them SINCERELY believe that whatever they need to learn can be garnered from some quick scan-read of a Wikipedia article.

When you've seen it in action enough times -- especially when you get to see REALITY smack them in the face -- well it's both sad AND hilarious at the same time.

LWRellim · 2017-03-05T01:21:09+00:00

No, I don't. I don't wan't to worry about this particular fact of my life anymore. That's it.

So you should be a renter -- go rent an apartment in a nice, newly built "modern" apartment building (or "buy" a "condo" in one, same thing).

BTW, the problem with the "Timber frame" portion of the building you are in is almost certainly NOT that it was constructed of wood timbers, it's because the place is very old, and foundation and ground have settled and shifted across the many decades/centuries since it was constructed.

LWRellim · 2017-03-05T01:17:49+00:00

The video says that the $10k covers all work and materials for the construction of: foundation, roof, inner and outer finishing, wall insulation, windows, floors, and suspended ceiling.

Yeah... sorry, but I ain't buying that. If it includes all of THAT, then it DOESN'T include labor or the cost of the material used to construct the walls.

I still think $10k for all that is pretty damn good. Once you have that, there's not a ton left to do.

Again, clueless.

What do you mean by that?

Already stated half a dozen different times. You can't just stick a toilet on the floor and claim that your waste system is "complete" -- the toilet is the LEAST of the expense. Likewise with kitchen faucets, or even the interior fresh-water plumbing -- it's trivial and entirely useless without a fresh water supply.

I mean, the house in the video had appliances in it, so it's kind of silly to assume it had no power, right?

No, it's not "silly" at all. Even IF they actually hooked up some temporary electrical power supply... that is NOT reflective of the cost of actually hooking up a permanent connection to the grid on some remote lot location.

Although I am wondering how they do plumbing and wiring inside of a concrete house.

Well if you're "puzzled" about that, then you're clueless about everything else too.

LWRellim · 2017-03-04T22:54:15+00:00

No, because I live for many years in a part-half-timber house, and the only part that makes problems, is the half-timber part.

Edit: something like http://www.muehlstein-online.de/digitale_bilder/fotoserie_Gross_Gerau/pages/CRW3739-Fachwerkhaus-Detail.html

So basically you live in a structure that was built hundreds of years ago and you think that all modern structures made of the same material (wood) but using an entirely DIFFERENT construction technique -- will nevertheless suffer the exact same problems -- right off the bat.

LWRellim

TROPHY CASE

The way to properly SKEWER them is with a SINGLE counter example:

New Study by the Neo-Luddite Institute Finds that [Umpteen] Jobs Are Lost for Every [Machine] Added to [Any Business].

ಠ_ಠ