Prev: Besides the Revolution, what influence do the French hve in USculture?
Next: Ridiculous Speed Limits
From: Dave Head on 5 Jul 2010 17:23 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 5 Jul 2010 18:45 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 5 Jul 2010 19:13 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 5 Jul 2010 19:23 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 5 Jul 2010 19:26
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 |