From: Dave Head on
On Mon, 05 Jul 2010 15:48:18 -0500, Free Lunch <lunch(a)nofreelunch.us>
wrote:

>On Mon, 05 Jul 2010 14:47:42 -0400, Dave Head <rally2xs(a)att.net> wrote
>in misc.transport.road:
>
>>On Mon, 05 Jul 2010 12:59:55 -0500, Free Lunch <lunch(a)nofreelunch.us>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>As long as oil and gas and coal are relatively cheap the economy will
>>>not change. We are destroying the future of this country and you are
>>>proud of that.
>>
>>See, that's your approach - wreck the economy with $7 a gallon gas,
>>and you think that somehow, somewhere, the magic battery will pop up
>>to save us. No it won't. We'll all just lose our jobs, exist in
>>poverty, maybe even starve to death - some most surely will. We have
>>to MAINTAIN the oil economy, keep things cheap enough to have the
>>resources enough to invent the magic battery, or possible come up with
>>another solution. But pauperizing everyone in the country with $7 a
>>gallon gas, or more, is just a bad idea that will lead to generalized
>>disaster.
>>
>>>>And once we electrify transportation, we're STILL going to need oil
>>>>for petrochemicals in plastics, fertilizer, medicines, etc. We'll
>>>>STILL need a lot, just not near as much as we did. We may be able to
>>>>produce all our needs right here in the USA, especially considering
>>>>the 3X Saudi oil reserve in shale oil out west.
>>>
>>>We do need such things. If you knew anything about the climate or the
>>>carbon cycle, you would realize that we could easily use them for things
>>>like plastic if we didn't waste so much in energy.
>>
>>If it was easy, they'd already be doing it. Nobody wants to do these
>>things with oil because its already expensive. But anything else is
>>MORE expensive. If it wasn't, we'd be using it.
>>
>>>No one, other than the AGW deniers, are being idiots.
>>
>>The AGW proponents are being the idiots. When shown ways to lower the
>>earths temperature cheaply, they run from it, want to suppress it.
>
>There are no such cheap ways.

Well, if I told you once, you'd just lie and say it wouldn't work
without knowing a thing about it.

>>What they're all about is creating an artificial need to spend obscene
>>amounts of money to cure a problem that is not.
>
>I'm tired of listening to your lies. Good-bye.

Whatever, dude - ur brainwashed by the enemies of our country.
From: Larry G on
On Jul 5, 5:23 pm, Dave Head <rally...(a)att.net> wrote:
> On Mon, 05 Jul 2010 15:48:18 -0500, Free Lunch <lu...(a)nofreelunch.us>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Mon, 05 Jul 2010 14:47:42 -0400, Dave Head <rally...(a)att.net> wrote
> >in misc.transport.road:
>
> >>On Mon, 05 Jul 2010 12:59:55 -0500, Free Lunch <lu...(a)nofreelunch.us>
> >>wrote:
>
> >>>As long as oil and gas and coal are relatively cheap the economy will
> >>>not change. We are destroying the future of this country and you are
> >>>proud of that.
>
> >>See, that's your approach - wreck the economy with $7 a gallon gas,
> >>and you think that somehow, somewhere, the magic battery will pop up
> >>to save us.  No it won't.  We'll all just lose our jobs, exist in
> >>poverty, maybe even starve to death - some most surely will.   We have
> >>to MAINTAIN the oil economy, keep things cheap enough to have the
> >>resources enough to invent the magic battery, or possible come up with
> >>another solution.  But pauperizing everyone in the country with $7 a
> >>gallon gas, or more, is just a bad idea that will lead to generalized
> >>disaster.
>
> >>>>And once we electrify transportation, we're STILL going to need oil
> >>>>for petrochemicals in plastics, fertilizer, medicines, etc.  We'll
> >>>>STILL need a lot, just not near as much as we did.  We may be able to
> >>>>produce all our needs right here in the USA, especially considering
> >>>>the 3X Saudi oil reserve in shale oil out west.
>
> >>>We do need such things. If you knew anything about the climate or the
> >>>carbon cycle, you would realize that we could easily use them for things
> >>>like plastic if we didn't waste so much in energy.
>
> >>If it was easy, they'd already be doing it.  Nobody wants to do these
> >>things with oil because its already expensive.  But anything else is
> >>MORE expensive.  If it wasn't, we'd be using it.
>
> >>>No one, other than the AGW deniers, are being idiots.
>
> >>The AGW proponents are being the idiots.  When shown ways to lower the
> >>earths temperature cheaply, they run from it, want to suppress it.
>
> >There are no such cheap ways.
>
> Well, if I told you once, you'd just lie and say it wouldn't work
> without knowing a thing about it.
>
> >>What they're all about is creating an artificial need to spend obscene
> >>amounts of money to cure a problem that is not.
>
> >I'm tired of listening to your lies. Good-bye.
>
> Whatever, dude - ur brainwashed by the enemies of our country.

here's some real world prices of gasoline and last time I check none
of these countries went broke:

Netherlands Amsterdam $6.48
Norway Oslo $6.27
Italy Milan $5.96
Denmark Copenhagen $5.93
Belgium Brussels $5.91
Sweden Stockholm $5.80
United Kingdom London $5.79
Germany Frankfurt $5.57
France Paris $5.54
Portugal Lisbon $5.35
Hungary Budapest $4.94
From: Dave Head on
On Mon, 5 Jul 2010 15:45:35 -0700 (PDT), Larry G
<gross.larry(a)gmail.com> wrote:

>On Jul 5, 5:23�pm, Dave Head <rally...(a)att.net> wrote:
>> On Mon, 05 Jul 2010 15:48:18 -0500, Free Lunch <lu...(a)nofreelunch.us>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >On Mon, 05 Jul 2010 14:47:42 -0400, Dave Head <rally...(a)att.net> wrote
>> >in misc.transport.road:
>>
>> >>On Mon, 05 Jul 2010 12:59:55 -0500, Free Lunch <lu...(a)nofreelunch.us>
>> >>wrote:
>>
>> >>>As long as oil and gas and coal are relatively cheap the economy will
>> >>>not change. We are destroying the future of this country and you are
>> >>>proud of that.
>>
>> >>See, that's your approach - wreck the economy with $7 a gallon gas,
>> >>and you think that somehow, somewhere, the magic battery will pop up
>> >>to save us. �No it won't. �We'll all just lose our jobs, exist in
>> >>poverty, maybe even starve to death - some most surely will. � We have
>> >>to MAINTAIN the oil economy, keep things cheap enough to have the
>> >>resources enough to invent the magic battery, or possible come up with
>> >>another solution. �But pauperizing everyone in the country with $7 a
>> >>gallon gas, or more, is just a bad idea that will lead to generalized
>> >>disaster.
>>
>> >>>>And once we electrify transportation, we're STILL going to need oil
>> >>>>for petrochemicals in plastics, fertilizer, medicines, etc. �We'll
>> >>>>STILL need a lot, just not near as much as we did. �We may be able to
>> >>>>produce all our needs right here in the USA, especially considering
>> >>>>the 3X Saudi oil reserve in shale oil out west.
>>
>> >>>We do need such things. If you knew anything about the climate or the
>> >>>carbon cycle, you would realize that we could easily use them for things
>> >>>like plastic if we didn't waste so much in energy.
>>
>> >>If it was easy, they'd already be doing it. �Nobody wants to do these
>> >>things with oil because its already expensive. �But anything else is
>> >>MORE expensive. �If it wasn't, we'd be using it.
>>
>> >>>No one, other than the AGW deniers, are being idiots.
>>
>> >>The AGW proponents are being the idiots. �When shown ways to lower the
>> >>earths temperature cheaply, they run from it, want to suppress it.
>>
>> >There are no such cheap ways.
>>
>> Well, if I told you once, you'd just lie and say it wouldn't work
>> without knowing a thing about it.
>>
>> >>What they're all about is creating an artificial need to spend obscene
>> >>amounts of money to cure a problem that is not.
>>
>> >I'm tired of listening to your lies. Good-bye.
>>
>> Whatever, dude - ur brainwashed by the enemies of our country.
>
>here's some real world prices of gasoline and last time I check none
>of these countries went broke:
>
>Netherlands Amsterdam $6.48
>Norway Oslo $6.27
>Italy Milan $5.96
>Denmark Copenhagen $5.93
>Belgium Brussels $5.91
>Sweden Stockholm $5.80
>United Kingdom London $5.79
>Germany Frankfurt $5.57
>France Paris $5.54
>Portugal Lisbon $5.35
>Hungary Budapest $4.94

They're as expensive as they are because they're taxed out the wazoo.

They're taxed out the wazoo 'cuz they're helping support the socialism
that attacks Europe's prosperity.
From: Dave Head on
On Mon, 5 Jul 2010 15:45:35 -0700 (PDT), Larry G
<gross.larry(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>here's some real world prices of gasoline and last time I check none
>of these countries went broke:

Any of 'em 3000 miles by 1500 miles in dimensions? Any of 'em have
vast distance to cover and NO decent public transportation such as
long distance / high speed trains?

Our country is different. Things that should be delivered by train at
much greater efficiency are being delivered by trucks. Trucks need
diesel and $7 a gallon will bankrupt everybody trying to pay for the
stuff that comes to market on trucks, which is basically everything.
From: Jim Yanik on
Beam Me Up Scotty <Then-Destroy-Everything(a)Blackhole.NebulaX.com> wrote
in news:4C32359C.2020004(a)Blackhole.NebulaX.com:

> On 7/5/2010 2:29 PM, Larry G wrote:
>> On Jul 5, 1:59 pm, Beam Me Up Scotty <Then-Destroy-
>> Everyth...(a)Blackhole.NebulaX.com> wrote:
>>> On 7/5/2010 1:04 PM, Larry G wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> On Jul 5, 12:26 pm, Beam Me Up Scotty <Then-Destroy-
>>>> Everyth...(a)Blackhole.NebulaX.com> wrote:
>>>>> On 7/5/2010 10:17 AM, Larry G wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> On Jul 5, 10:08 am, Beam Me Up Scotty <Then-Destroy-
>>>>>> Everyth...(a)Blackhole.NebulaX.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Sun, 4 Jul 2010 11:08:40 -0700 (PDT), Larry G
>>>>>>>> <gross.la...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Jul 4, 1:03 pm, Dave Head <rally...(a)att.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 4 Jul 2010 09:00:19 -0700 (PDT), Larry G
>>>
>>>>>>>>>> <gross.la...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 4, 9:45 am, Dave Head <rally...(a)att.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 04 Jul 2010 09:35:43 -0230, clouddreamer
>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> <Reuse.Recy...(a)Reduce.now> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> We must change the way we live
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Or the climate will do it for us.
>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Ain't you figured out yet that GW is a scam? I mean, how
>>>>>>>>>>>> plain does it have to get - there's been NO warming for the
>>>>>>>>>>>> last 10 year, the East Anglia University bunch's e-mails
>>>>>>>>>>>> have exposed their bias and attempt to suppress data that
>>>>>>>>>>>> disagrees with what they're promoting, and the GW's refusal
>>>>>>>>>>>> to debate the topic at all. They claim that it
>>>>>>>>>>>> is settled science, but there are vast numbers of
>>>>>>>>>>>> scientists that question it. And then there's this video I
>>>>>>>>>>>> really like:
>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.kusi.com/home/78477082.html?video=pop&t=a
>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> C'mon, wise up - this GW stuff is just a way to cart
>>>>>>>>>>>> wheelbarrow loads of money out of the USA to "do something"
>>>>>>>>>>>> about the problem. Even their own approaches such as the
>>>>>>>>>>>> Kyoto treaty that failed miserably because nobody lived up
>>>>>>>>>>>> to it was supposedly only going to lower the temperature by
>>>>>>>>>>>> a few tenths of a degree by year 2100.
>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> The only way to do this would be to nuke the planet and
>>>>>>>>>>>> kill all the people, but then there's no reason to save the
>>>>>>>>>>>> planet, y'know?
>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> hmmm. do you think the ozone holes were scams also?
>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> and GW.. if we require stricter pollution restrictions -
>>>>>>>>>>> won't that create more jobs and at the same time save fuel
>>>>>>>>>>> making us even more productive?
>>>
>>>>>>>>>> More pollution controls moves jobs overseas. Yeah, it
>>>>>>>>>> creates lots of jobs in Korea and China and India.
>>>
>>>>>>>>> it might... I don't disagree with that.
>>>
>>>>>>>>> but what does that have to do with worldwide agreement that
>>>>>>>>> the Ozone holes are real and the same climate folks associated
>>>>>>>>> with GW claimed the existence of the Ozone holes. Why do you
>>>>>>>>> believe them in one case and think it's a scam in the second
>>>>>>>>> case ?
>>>
>>>>>>> is the Ozone hole fixed?
>>>
>>>>>> http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/05/100505-science-env
>>>>>> iro...
>>>
>>>>> The Hole has not been fixed... the problem was theory and now the
>>>>> repair is theory.... The hole is still there. it comes and goes
>>>>> and changes and for all we know always did.
>>>
>>>>> ""Global ozone dropped a little bit [after CFCs were banned], but
>>>>> the good news is that if we had done nothing, it would have gotten
>>>>> really, really bad."
>>>
>>>>> Now a complete rebound seems imminent. Some scientists project
>>>>> that by 2080 global ozone will return to 1950s levels."
>>>
>>>>> *seems imminent* ?????? The problem that never was might have
>>>>> been fixed? And you call that science?
>>>
>>>> yes. anyone who expects science to be unerring truth is not playing
>>>> with a full deck anyhow IMHO.
>>>
>>>> Science is what it is - imperfect but essential to all life on
>>>> earth.
>>>
>>> At best the ozone hole is a "hypothesis" the fact are NOT there.
>>>
>>> Global Warming is an Hypothesis, Much like a Sci-fi plot in a movie.
>>>
>>> Did you measure the ozone hole effect on melting the ice at
>>> Antarctica? Maybe that's both problems solved, and maybe that ozone
>>> hole is natural.
>>> Maybe the water from the ice is sucked up through the ozone hole
>>> too.
>>
>> "Deepwater Horizon BP Oil Spill:
>> Modeling the Potential Long Term Movement of Oil"
>>
>> Major Findings and Implications
>> The details of the study are outlined in the following pages, but the
>> major findings are represented in the figures on the next page and
>> include: The coastlines with the highest probability (81% � 100%) for
>> impact -- from the Mississippi River Delta to the panhandle of
>> Florida� are already receiving oil. Along U.S. Gulf of Mexico
>> shorelines, the oil is more likely to move east than west, with the
>> south coast of Texas showing a relatively low probability (less than
>> 1%) for impact. Much of the west coast of Florida has a low
>> probability (1% � 20%) for impact, but the Florida Keys, Miami and
>> Fort Lauderdale areas have a greater probability (61% � 80%) due to
>> the potential influence of the Loop Current."
>>
>> ....
>> http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2010/PDFs/long_term_oil_outlook_re
>> port_july2_2010.pdf
>>
>> this is what science is guy. most all of it looks like the above.
>> The question is - are you going to ignore it because it is imprecise
>> or "theory" ? that's ignorant man.
>>
>> do you doubt all science or just what you don't like or disagree
>> with?
>
>
> 1% - 20% sounds like odds in football games.
>
>
> Science is all about chance? Like the 50% chance of rain?
>
>
>
> HHHHhhhhhhmMMMMmmmm???????
>
>

it's not the scientists(the real scientists) I question,it's their
administrator bosses and the political class that distorts what they say to
further their own goals.

The communists have subverted the environmental movement to aid their
nefarious goals.


--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
localnet
dot com