From: Rich Piehl on
On 7/5/2010 12:54 PM, Brent wrote:
> On 2010-07-05, Larry G<gross.larry(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> only if you live in your own little world. It's called guns and butter
>> in econ 101....
>
>> do we spend money on body armor or solar panels?
>
> That would be guns or butter. Guns and butter is the use of welfare and
> other payments to the population so they don't get too upset about the
> warfare gravy train.
>
>

And it has nothing to do with Caldaza's conclusions.
From: Free Lunch on
On Mon, 05 Jul 2010 14:04:40 -0400, Dave Head <rally2xs(a)att.net> wrote
in misc.transport.road:

>On Mon, 05 Jul 2010 09:59:13 -0500, Free Lunch <lunch(a)nofreelunch.us>
>wrote:
>
>>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.
>
>They most certainly are. The estimates for reducing CO2 by a targeted
>amount that would NOT fix the problem were $50 trillion for that time
>(a year or 2 ago, when I read it) up to 2050.

Since you repeatedly failed to substantiate that number, I have no
reason to accept it at all, but I do point out that massive investments
in energy efficiency will provide huge long-term savings, something you
cheerfully ignore.

If you aren't being paid by Koch or some of the other polluters, you are
a fool for doing their work for free.

Please read "Thank you for Smoking", Christopher Buckley's very good
takedown of the fake science scammers who are protecting corporate
interests no matter how bad it is for this country.
From: Larry G on
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-enviro....
>
> >> 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_report_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?


From: Larry G on
On Jul 5, 2:05 pm, Rich Piehl <rpiehl5REMOVETHIS...(a)NOSPAMcharter.net>
wrote:
> On 7/5/2010 12:58 PM, Brent wrote:
>
> > On 2010-07-05, Rich Piehl<rpiehl5REMOVETHIS...(a)NOSPAMcharter.net>  wrote:
>
> >> Doesn't matter whether you create 10 solar panels or 10 million.  For
> >> every green job created you eliminate 2.2 existing jobs.
>
> > The very same can be said of military spending. Why? because it is
> > government allocation of resources. Resources taken from the private
> > sector and consumed in the political sector. The same mechanisms are at
> > work.
>
> But that's the different discussion I mentioned.  It has nothing to do
> with green jobs or solar panels produced or jobs lost because of green
> jobs created.
>
>
>
> > Actually military spending is only equal to the destruction of 'green'
> > spending if what is produced is never used. If it is used, then it
> > destroys lives, capital equipment, buildings, etc and so forth
> > increasing the negative economic impact. (also see broken window falacy)
>
> Your statement assumes military spending is only for aggression, which
> isn't true.
>
> By that statement you are saying you want a country with zero military
> spending.  none.

not zero spending and not only for aggression either but there are
choices about how much to spend and what to spend it on - and whether
or not what you spend it on - brings benefits ....
From: Larry G on
On Jul 5, 1:54 pm, Brent <tetraethylleadREMOVET...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
> On 2010-07-05, Larry G <gross.la...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > only if you live in your own little world. It's called guns and butter
> > in econ 101....
> > do we spend money on body armor or solar panels?
>
> That would be guns or butter. Guns and butter is the use of welfare and
> other payments to the population so they don't get too upset about the
> warfare gravy train.

well no... not necessarily - "butter" can be an interstate highway or
a university or an air traffic controller or an FBI agent.