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: Brent on 5 Jul 2010 13:58 On 2010-07-05, Rich Piehl <rpiehl5REMOVETHISFOR(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. 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)
From: Beam Me Up Scotty on 5 Jul 2010 13:59 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.
From: Free Lunch on 5 Jul 2010 13:59 On Mon, 05 Jul 2010 11:12:03 -0400, Dave Head <rally2xs(a)att.net> wrote in misc.transport.road: >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. Where did the "Virginia state climatologist" publish? What were the reasons? I don't care about what Drudge says, I'm asking about science. >>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. You are lying. You have no evidence at all to support your claims. You know you have no evidence. >>>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???? There has been. You are just repeating another lie told by the lobbyists. >>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. Another magical number pulled from nowhere. >>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. What total nonsense you claim. You are advocating the destruction of private property. >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. 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. >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. It is clear that you do not live in Florida. >> We do >>need to change our behavior. > >Yeah, but we don't need to be idiots about it. No one, other than the AGW deniers, are being idiots. >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. Do Koch and BP pay you to say these stupid things?
From: Dave Head on 5 Jul 2010 14:04 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.
From: Rich Piehl on 5 Jul 2010 14:05
On 7/5/2010 12:58 PM, Brent wrote: > On 2010-07-05, Rich Piehl<rpiehl5REMOVETHISFOR(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. |