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: Larry G on 5 Jul 2010 11:55 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 " The debate over defense expenditures is a whole 'nother discussion. " 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?
From: Rich Piehl on 5 Jul 2010 12:07 On 7/5/2010 10:55 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 > > " The debate over defense expenditures is a whole > 'nother discussion. " > > 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? Doesn't matter whether you create 10 solar panels or 10 million. For every green job created you eliminate 2.2 existing jobs. Want proof? How much does Spain spend on body armor? They are not a military power. The Caldaza study of Spain shows that for every green job created it eliminates 2.2 regular jobs from the economy with no spending on body armor. Trading body armor for solar panels will only exacerbate the problem.
From: Beam Me Up Scotty on 5 Jul 2010 12:26 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-environment-ozone-hole-25-years/ 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?
From: Larry G on 5 Jul 2010 13:04 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.
From: Brent on 5 Jul 2010 13:54
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. |