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 10:59 On Jul 5, 10:54 am, Dave Head <rally...(a)att.net> wrote: > On Mon, 05 Jul 2010 09:06:32 -0500, Free Lunch <lu...(a)nofreelunch.us> > wrote: > > > > > > >On Mon, 05 Jul 2010 09:05:22 -0400, Dave Head <rally...(a)att.net> wrote > >in misc.transport.road: > > >>On Sun, 04 Jul 2010 13:55:15 -0400, John Lansford > >><jlnsf...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > >>>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. > > >>>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? > > How many should die from the coming economic collapse that is, in > part, the result of spending idiot amounts of money attempting to take > the last few tenths of a percent of pollution out of some effluent at > hideous costs and all dreamed up by some capitalist-hating > envirowackos who are using environmentalism to attack our industries? doesn't removing pollution create jobs to produce the pollution removal equipment? What's the difference between paying someone to create a pollution reduction device and someone who produces body armor for a soldier in terms of a job?
From: Free Lunch on 5 Jul 2010 10:59 On Mon, 05 Jul 2010 10:54:25 -0400, Dave Head <rally2xs(a)att.net> wrote in misc.transport.road: >On Mon, 05 Jul 2010 09:06:32 -0500, Free Lunch <lunch(a)nofreelunch.us> >wrote: > >>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? > >How many should die from the coming economic collapse that is, in >part, the result of spending idiot amounts of money attempting to take >the last few tenths of a percent of pollution out of some effluent at >hideous costs and all dreamed up by some capitalist-hating >envirowackos who are using environmentalism to attack our industries? Since no one is proposing such a thing, we can cheerfully ignore your dishonest question.
From: Rich Piehl on 5 Jul 2010 11:03 On 7/5/2010 9:57 AM, Larry G wrote: > On Jul 5, 10:39 am, Rich Piehl > <rpiehl5REMOVETHIS...(a)NOSPAMcharter.net> wrote: >> On 7/5/2010 7:32 AM, Larry G wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >>> 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??? >> >> Did you miss that he only wrote the article. He uses scientific data of >> Gabriel Caldaza who is an economics professor.>http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Gabriel_Calzada >> >> Did you miss that? >> >> >> >>> here's a question for you. do you think spending govt money on body >>> armor, MRAPS and Predator drones - creates jobs? >> >> Apples and oranges. The debate over defense expenditures is a whole >> 'nother discussion. >> >>> do you think when they build anti-pollution equipment for coal-powered >>> plants and municipal wastewater treatment plants - provides jobs? >> >> Apples and oranges. The green jobs proposed by the Administration would >> close the coal power plants - witness the comments by Biden no coal >> plants in Americahttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iJ55UzAsp6M >> >> >> >>> Would you agree that in both examples given that jobs are produced - >>> by spending money we don't have? >> >> You missed the conclusion of the article. In Spain creating green jobs >> cost the work force 2.2 jobs for every one 1 they created. It's a >> losing proposition. >> >> For added evidence I offer the report by Sen Kit Bond, long-time member >> of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee and is currently >> Ranking Member of the Green Jobs and the New Economy Subcommittee >> >> http://bond.senate.gov/public/_files/BondGreenJobsReport.pdf > > Kit Bond? are you kidding? that idiot can't walk straight. Again did you note the sources of the report? Did you even have time to read the report? No, you'd rather belittle the messenger than read the reports. > > "You missed the conclusion of the article. In Spain creating green > jobs > cost the work force 2.2 jobs for every one 1 they created. It's a > losing proposition. " > > is this sort of like automating something with a robot that replaces 3 > workers? Nothing like it. Obama is talking about how creating green jobs will create full employment. The finds of these two contradict Obama, saying green jobs will make unemployment worse.
From: Dave Head on 5 Jul 2010 11:12 On Mon, 05 Jul 2010 09:11:27 -0500, Free Lunch <lunch(a)nofreelunch.us> wrote: >Who is doing climate research who things that carbon dioxide is not >strongly affecting the climate? Its not hard to look around and find them. The Virginia state climatologist has expressed serious doubts. There are many, many others - I haven't saved every report I have heard over the years when prominant scientists have expressed doubt about the methodology and the facts of global warming, but they aren't small. >You have been lied to by the same folks who told you tobacco was safe. >They are lobbyists, not scientists, and they are being paid by the coal >and gas and oil industries. You are mistaken to believe their lies. Not hardly. No, they are not lobbyists, they are scientists that are sick of the deception of the international bunch of those scientists that continue to get paid in grant money to study a problem that is simply their own fabrications. That is where the fraud is occuring. >>They've even >>claimed to have lost the original temperature data by erasing the >>magnetic tapes it was on. > >Nonsense. That's what they said. They don't have the original temperature data because it was on magtape that was erased in the 80s. >Of course it is real. Bother you much that there hasn't been any warming for the last 11 years, hmmmm???? >No one expects to spend fifty trillion on the problem in the US, >however. That was the quoted sum about 3 years ago during the big bruhaha over GW at the time. 50 Trillion dollars. Its simply designed to bankrupt the USA, that's all. >We do need to change our profligate use of fossil fuels. This is what it's all about, a bunch of envirowackos using a scarecrow that is Global Warming to attempt to get their way, and a bunch of anti-capitalists among them that are using the same thing to attempt to damage capitalism and the USA which is the most capitalistic country. We'll stop using fossil fuels just as soon as we can WITHOUT WRECKING THE ECONOMY. To do that, we have to invent the magic batter that will hold about 10X what a regular litium ion battery will hold, and still be affordable. I think someone will eventually do it. But until we can electrify transportation, we're stuck with using huge amounts of oil. 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 to change our behavior. Yeah, but we don't need to be idiots about it. Research the H out of the magic battery, and maybe even try to think of ways to use electricity to power cars that doesn't involve the magic battery. Can we move cars on electric rail vehicles, and build the electrical rails so the railcars can be driven onto and the driver relaxes while the system moves him and the car electrically close to where he wants to go? I dunno, but we better think of something. >Don't listen to the lobbyists who want you >to destroy your grandchildren's future. Don't listen to envirowackos who want to spend our country into economic collapse on impossibly expensive goals fighting dubious problems in the most expensive way.
From: Dave Head on 5 Jul 2010 11:20
On Mon, 5 Jul 2010 07:59:10 -0700 (PDT), Larry G <gross.larry(a)gmail.com> wrote: >doesn't removing pollution create jobs to produce the pollution >removal equipment? In Korea, China, etc. Its heavy industry, and we don't do that here any more. We just have to pay the extra money for the higher electricity prices that result from the pollution equipment that is unnecessarily stringent, and in large part dreamed up by enemies of this country to damage it ecomomically. >What's the difference between paying someone to create a pollution >reduction device and someone who produces body armor for a soldier in >terms of a job? The difference is that the body armor saves the lives our our soldiers. The production of pollution control equipment simply makes the products of the plant buying that equipment more expensive, with no commensurate benefit to society - it only moves the needle on some pencil-necked-geek's "pollution meter" a little less. That's all. We've solved most of the pollution problems we had about 20 years ago. Almost everything since has been an attack on our capitalistic way of life by the leftists anti-capitalists using the environmental movement as a weapon. |