THe GW Scan Is Still Alive, Amazingly
in [Drive]
|
Prev: Besides the Revolution, what influence do the French hve in USculture?
Next: Ridiculous Speed Limits
From: Free Lunch on 5 Jul 2010 10:11 On Mon, 05 Jul 2010 09:19:00 -0400, Dave Head <rally2xs(a)att.net> wrote in misc.transport.road: >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. So does dealing with carbon dioxide pollution. >Global warming is different in that the proponents will not discuss >their work, publish their research or debate the topic. Nonsense. The scientists who have been working on it have been publishing for decades. >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. Who is doing climate research who things that carbon dioxide is not strongly affecting the climate? >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. 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. >They've even >claimed to have lost the original temperature data by erasing the >magnetic tapes it was on. Nonsense. >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. More nonsense about the costs. >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. Of course it is real. No one expects to spend fifty trillion on the problem in the US, however. We do need to change our profligate use of fossil fuels. We do need to change our behavior. Don't listen to the lobbyists who want you to destroy your grandchildren's future.
From: Larry G on 5 Jul 2010 10:17 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-environment-ozone-hole-25-years/
From: Rich Piehl on 5 Jul 2010 10:39 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 America http://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
From: Dave Head on 5 Jul 2010 10:54 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?
From: Larry G on 5 Jul 2010 10:57
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. "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? |