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: Dave Head on 5 Jul 2010 15:35 On Mon, 05 Jul 2010 15:22:08 -0400, John Lansford <jlnsford(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: >Dave Head <rally2xs(a)att.net> wrote: > >>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. > >So you're in favor of eliminating those pollution controls, and a >return to, say, 1960-level heavy industry in the US? 1990 level. Quit spending billions on gaining 0.23% improvement as has been going on. > >Or are you too young to realize what level of pollution the US was >experiencing at that time? I'm not; I remember driving to Chattanooga >in the mid-60's and wondering why the air was yellow and was hard to >breathe. Is that what you'd like a return to? Because China isn't >nearly as interested in clean air as we are. > >>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. > >To what point, in your opinion? To the point of bankrupting the country, and then instituting mass socialism / Marxism to attempt to keep everyone from starving. They'll try to confiscate as much private property as possible and redistribute it so that people don't die right away, and then keep the system going so that their control is maintained in perpetuity. > >John Lansford, PE
From: Beam Me Up Scotty on 5 Jul 2010 15:42 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-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? 1% - 20% sounds like odds in football games. Science is all about chance? Like the 50% chance of rain? HHHHhhhhhhmMMMMmmmm???????
From: Larry G on 5 Jul 2010 16:01 On Jul 5, 3:42 pm, Beam Me Up Scotty <Then-Destroy- Everyth...(a)Blackhole.NebulaX.com> wrote: > 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-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_r... > > > 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??????? "Science is all about chance? Like the 50% chance of rain?" do you think the folks that predict weather are scientists? Do you think they are wrong/bad/stupid lying scientists if they predict rain and it does not rain? If they miss a 50% forcecast - do you doubt all the others including the 90% ones?
From: Beam Me Up Scotty on 5 Jul 2010 16:12 On 7/5/2010 4:01 PM, Larry G wrote: > On Jul 5, 3:42 pm, Beam Me Up Scotty <Then-Destroy- > Everyth...(a)Blackhole.NebulaX.com> wrote: >> 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-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_r... >> >>> 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??????? > > "Science is all about chance? Like the 50% chance of rain?" > > do you think the folks that predict weather are scientists? Do you > think they are wrong/bad/stupid lying scientists if they predict rain > and it does not rain? > > If they miss a 50% forcecast - do you doubt all the others including > the 90% ones? > > "I" take them for what they are.... a guess.
From: Free Lunch on 5 Jul 2010 16:48
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. >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. |