THe GW Scan Is Still Alive, Amazingly
in [Cars]
|
Prev: Besides the Revolution, what influence do the French hve in USculture?
Next: Ridiculous Speed Limits
From: Larry G on 5 Jul 2010 08:32 On Jul 4, 4:39 pm, Rich Piehl <rpiehl5REMOVETHIS...(a)NOSPAMcharter.net> wrote: > On 7/4/2010 11:00 AM, Larry G 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? > > Using Spain's results as a model that is an incorrect conclusion to reach > > http://www.dispatch.com/live/content/editorials/stories/2009/06/24/wi... > > > > > Calzada says Spain's torrential spending -- no other nation has so aggressively supported production of electricity from renewable sources -- on wind farms and other forms of alternative energy has indeed created jobs. But Calzada's report concludes that they often are temporary and have received $752,000 to $800,000 each in subsidies -- wind industry jobs cost even more, $1.4 million each. And each new job entails the loss of 2.2 other jobs that are either lost or not created in other industries because of the political allocation of capital. Calzada says the creation of jobs in alternative energy has subtracted about 110,000 jobs from elsewhere in Spain's economy. George Will??? here's a question for you. do you think spending govt money on body armor, MRAPS and Predator drones - creates jobs? do you think when they build anti-pollution equipment for coal-powered plants and municipal wastewater treatment plants - provides jobs? Would you agree that in both examples given that jobs are produced - by spending money we don't have?
From: Dave Head on 5 Jul 2010 09:05 On Sun, 04 Jul 2010 13:55:15 -0400, John Lansford <jlnsford(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: >Dave Head <rally2xs(a)att.net> wrote: > >>On Sun, 4 Jul 2010 09:00:19 -0700 (PDT), Larry G >><gross.larry(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. > >I suppose we should eliminate all pollution controls, then. Why, >everyone would soon be employed and our economy running at full speed! We should do what we have to, not what every extremist in the country can think up.
From: Dave Head on 5 Jul 2010 09:19 On Sun, 4 Jul 2010 11:08:40 -0700 (PDT), Larry G <gross.larry(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 ? The ozone hole had a doable cure, that wasn't designed to bankrupt the free world. Global warming is different in that the proponents will not discuss their work, publish their research or debate the topic. They lie their asses off to convince people that there is a consensus of scientific opinion where there is not. Their approach of attacking CO2 is doomed to failure and they know it, and they abhor geo-engineering approaches that short-circuit their preferred, impossibly-expensive approach of reducing CO2. Proper scientific research is published with full information required to allow independent researchers to duplicate your lab results. But that isn't how the global warming proponents do things. They've even claimed to have lost the original temperature data by erasing the magnetic tapes it was on. The whole thing stinks to high heaven in the halls of science. It's great for a circus sideshow, but we shouldn't be spending more than about $5 to get in and look, certainly not $50 TRILLION that we don't have by the year 2050 to attack it. We should attempt to adapt to it, or we should attempt to geo-engineer the solution cheaply. If it turns out to be real, which is a very valid question all by itself, we'll either adapt or we won't, or be succesful with geoengineering or we won't. But we will NOT be successful with $50 Trillion pipe dreams over the next 40 years. We don't have the money and won't have the money. And if America tries to do something along this line, we'll look around and find ourselves the only ones, and the Chinese will still be digging coal and so will the Indians.
From: Free Lunch on 5 Jul 2010 10:06 On Mon, 05 Jul 2010 09:05:22 -0400, Dave Head <rally2xs(a)att.net> wrote in misc.transport.road: >On Sun, 04 Jul 2010 13:55:15 -0400, John Lansford ><jlnsford(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > >>Dave Head <rally2xs(a)att.net> wrote: >> >>>On Sun, 4 Jul 2010 09:00:19 -0700 (PDT), Larry G >>><gross.larry(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. >> >>I suppose we should eliminate all pollution controls, then. Why, >>everyone would soon be employed and our economy running at full speed! > >We should do what we have to, not what every extremist in the country >can think up. So, how many people should die from pollution?
From: Beam Me Up Scotty on 5 Jul 2010 10:08
> On Sun, 4 Jul 2010 11:08:40 -0700 (PDT), Larry G > <gross.larry(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? |