| |
Main
Date: 20 Feb 2007 00:22:08
From: ST
Subject: Global Warming? Journalism? Don't Make Me Laugh!
|
http://www.axcessnews.com/modules/wfsection/article.php?articleid=12990
February 15, 2007
Global Warming? Journalism? Don't Make Me Laugh!
By Alan Caruba
(AXcess News) S. Orange, NJ -
As a very young man, fresh out of college and the army in the mid-1960's, I
found myself employed as a rookie reporter on a weekly newspaper in New
Jersey. I had never taken a course in journalism in my life, but I could
write. The managing editor of the newspaper group that serviced a number of
communities taught me all I ever needed to know about journalism. He taught
me to be skeptical of everything and everyone. Not distrustful. Skeptical.
People will tell you the truth they believe or want you to believe. They may
be wrong. Or they may be deceitful. There's a difference. However, when
error and deceit combine, there is a purpose, an agenda, and it exists, as
often as not, to acquire wealth and power despite the harm it will leave in
its wake. At the heart of what is wrong with journalism today is that
legions of journalists will stand shoulder to shoulder for the sole purpose
of deriding any "global warming skeptic" rather than wonder for a second how
the "news" of a coming Ice Age in the 1970s became the "news" of Global
Warming in the 1980s. I am reminded of this daily as I read newspapers and
news magazines in which various reporters blithely and deliberately inform
the reader that all questions regarding the existence of global warming have
been answered, that the science is beyond doubt, and that the cause is the
production of greenhouse gases, largely from industry, transportation, and
other human activities. This is not merely an error. It is a complete
deception the journalists have joined. They have ceased to be skeptical.
They want you to stop being skeptical despite all evidence to the contrary.
"Global Warming, as we think we know it, doesn't exist," says Dr. Timothy
Ball. He has Ph.D. in climatology, having earned his degree from the
University of London, England, and taught for many years at the University
of Winnipeg. A Google search of his name turns up a plethora of posts
attacking him, always a sure sign that the Greens feel threatened by an
outspoken scientist. The quote below explains why: "Believe it or not,
Global Warming is not due to human contribution of Carbon Dioxide (CO2).
This in fact is the greatest deception in the history of science." Dr. Ball
is hardly alone in his views. Dr. Richard Lindzen, an atmospheric physicist
and a professor of meteorology at MIT, as well as a member of the National
Academy of Science, has said of Global Warming that, "the consensus was
reached before the research had even begun." Increasingly, not just climate
scientists, but people in leadership positions around the world have joined
in rebuking the Global Warming hoax. Czech President Vaclav Klaus is only
the most recent, joining Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper who, in
2006, received a letter from sixty prominent scientists expressing
opposition to the theory of Global Warming. The list is growing as other
scientists in France, Denk and around the world speak up. There is
something quite horrible about the complete failure of America's journalists
to even acknowledge there might be something terribly wrong about the theory
of Global Warming. So far the published science that purports to support the
theory has been severely challenged and even disproved to the point of
having deliberately falsified data. Too many journalists have remained
steadfast to this greatest hoax of our times, publishing the most
astonishing nonsense about the North Pole melting or all the polar bears
disappearing. Anything can be attributed to Global Warming, but the premise
of a rapidly warming Earth is baseless. The Earth warmed barely one degree
Fahrenheit from 1850 to 1950 and there is no evidence of further warming.
Anyone who challenges the "truth" of the global warming charlatans is
demonized and compared to Holocaust deniers. Others are routinely accused of
being in the pay of corporate interests. My own background as a public
relations counselor has been cited as "proof" that I cannot be trusted.
However, in nine years of writing a weekly commentary, my credibility would
be in shreds if my facts were wrong. Is this new generation of journalists
indifferent to the truth? Do they arrive at their job imbued with a mission
to save the world? Do they believe that inconvenient facts can and should be
ignored? This is not journalism. It is advocacy. The former belongs in the
news columns, the latter on the editorial and opinion pages. For the week
leading up to and following the recent release of the United Nations climate
report sumy, the front pages of America's newspapers proclaimed that
Global Warming was real, millions would die from starvation, and the fresh
water resources of the world would go dry by 2080. The final report is not
due out for months and, like previous reports, what "science" is cited to
support this balderdash will be thoroughly encumbered with words like
"could", "may", "might", "is believed", or "is predicted." These are mushy
words that scientists abhor. They want proof. The final report will
actually be altered to reflect the initial sumy. That is not science. It
is propaganda. We look to journalists to present facts as accurately and
dispassionately as possible. When they tell you the Earth is doomed, look
for an alternative source of information.
|
|
| |
Date: 26 Feb 2007 19:06:04
From: bjw@mambo.ucolick.org
Subject: Re: Global Warming? Journalism? Don't Make Me Laugh!
|
On Feb 26, 7:56 pm, Fred Fredburger
<FredFredbur...@WhereAreTheNachos.huh > wrote:
> Tom Kunich wrote:
> > dogwalk.com - that was fraud.
>
> Is it your belief that the dotcom bust was caused by dogwalk.com?
And was there ever a dogwalk.com (or dog-walk.com) to
begin with, or is that another one of Tom's alternate
realities?
|
| | |
Date: 27 Feb 2007 10:09:21
From: Donald Munro
Subject: Re: Global Warming? Journalism? Don't Make Me Laugh!
|
bjw@mambo.ucolick.org wrote:
> And was there ever a dogwalk.com (or dog-walk.com) to
> begin with, or is that another one of Tom's alternate
> realities?
Dunno about dogwalk.com, but VDB provides an optimal fitness programs for
dogs, kind of like a canine version of 53x12.com.
|
| | | |
Date: 27 Feb 2007 05:02:33
From: Howard Kveck
Subject: Re: Global Warming? Journalism? Don't Make Me Laugh!
|
In article <45e3ea62$0$6913$ec3e2dad@news.usenetmonster.com >,
Donald Munro <fat-dumbass@hotmail.com > wrote:
> bjw@mambo.ucolick.org wrote:
> > And was there ever a dogwalk.com (or dog-walk.com) to
> > begin with, or is that another one of Tom's alternate
> > realities?
>
> Dunno about dogwalk.com, but VDB provides an optimal fitness programs for
> dogs, kind of like a canine version of 53x12.com.
Going the other way:
http://chasemeladies.blogspot.com/2004/04/running-away-from-dogs-fun-way-to.html
--
tanx,
Howard
Never take a tenant with a monkey.
remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?
|
| |
Date: 25 Feb 2007 08:51:02
From: dustoyevsky@mac.com
Subject: Re: Nascar considering starving the world
|
On Feb 24, 11:55 pm, Fred Fredburger
<FredFredbur...@WhereAreTheNachos.huh > wrote:
> Have you ever watched a kid with a new toy they really like? They're
> cool as hell! It's a lot of fun just to watch them enjoying themselves.
> Liberals, not so much.
Neocons, playing with their New Iraq toy, also "not so much". --D-y
|
| | |
Date: 25 Feb 2007 12:03:31
From: Fred Fredburger
Subject: Re: Nascar considering starving the world
|
dustoyevsky@mac.com wrote:
> On Feb 24, 11:55 pm, Fred Fredburger
> <FredFredbur...@WhereAreTheNachos.huh> wrote:
>> Have you ever watched a kid with a new toy they really like? They're
>> cool as hell! It's a lot of fun just to watch them enjoying themselves.
>> Liberals, not so much.
>
> Neocons, playing with their New Iraq toy, also "not so much". --D-y
>
Have you ever seen Neocons having fun? I've seen Dick Cheney smirk. Does
that count?
|
| | | |
Date: 25 Feb 2007 15:58:18
From: John Forrest Tomlinson
Subject: Re: Nascar considering starving the world
|
On Sun, 25 Feb 2007 12:03:31 -0800, Fred Fredburger
<FredFredburger@WhereAreTheNachos.huh > wrote:
>dustoyevsky@mac.com wrote:
>> On Feb 24, 11:55 pm, Fred Fredburger
>> <FredFredbur...@WhereAreTheNachos.huh> wrote:
>>> Have you ever watched a kid with a new toy they really like? They're
>>> cool as hell! It's a lot of fun just to watch them enjoying themselves.
>>> Liberals, not so much.
>>
>> Neocons, playing with their New Iraq toy, also "not so much". --D-y
>>
>
>Have you ever seen Neocons having fun? I've seen Dick Cheney smirk. Does
>that count?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0d3A-hEjRZM
--
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************
|
| | | |
Date: 25 Feb 2007 21:07:46
From: Robert Chung
Subject: Re: Nascar considering starving the world
|
Fred Fredburger wrote:
> Have you ever seen Neocons having fun? I've seen Dick Cheney smirk.
> Does that count?
http://youtube.com/watch?v=0d3A-hEjRZM
|
| | | | |
Date: 25 Feb 2007 21:38:33
From: Tom Kunich
Subject: Re: Nascar considering starving the world
|
"Robert Chung" <me@address.invalid > wrote in message
news:54e8kiF20ndspU1@mid.individual.net...
> Fred Fredburger wrote:
>
>> Have you ever seen Neocons having fun? I've seen Dick Cheney smirk.
>> Does that count?
>
> http://youtube.com/watch?v=0d3A-hEjRZM
I thought that you were off writing a desertation about how the Chinese were
so stupid that it wasn't even possible for them to do any exploration even
at the height of their civilization.
|
| | | | | |
Date: 25 Feb 2007 14:12:32
From: Howard Kveck
Subject: Re: Nascar considering starving the world
|
In article <tlnEh.6520$Jl.6080@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net >,
"Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com > wrote:
> "Robert Chung" <me@address.invalid> wrote in message
> news:54e8kiF20ndspU1@mid.individual.net...
> > Fred Fredburger wrote:
> >
> >> Have you ever seen Neocons having fun? I've seen Dick Cheney smirk.
> >> Does that count?
> >
> > http://youtube.com/watch?v=0d3A-hEjRZM
>
> I thought that you were off writing a desertation
A desertation would be mighty dry reading.
--
tanx,
Howard
Never take a tenant with a monkey.
remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 25 Feb 2007 23:11:05
From: Tom Kunich
Subject: Re: Nascar considering starving the world
|
"Howard Kveck" <YOURhoward@h-SHOESbomb.com > wrote in message
news:YOURhoward-C6F07A.14123225022007@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
>>
>> I thought that you were off writing a desertation
>
> A desertation would be mighty dry reading.
http://www.factmonster.com/computers/jargon/S/spelling-flame.html
"spelling flame: n.
[Usenet] A posting ostentatiously correcting a previous article's spelling
as a way of casting scorn on the point the article was trying to make,
instead of actually responding to that point"
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 25 Feb 2007 18:05:39
From: Howard Kveck
Subject: Re: Nascar considering starving the world
|
In article <dIoEh.5811$_73.2165@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net >,
"Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com > wrote:
> "Howard Kveck" <YOURhoward@h-SHOESbomb.com> wrote in message
> news:YOURhoward-C6F07A.14123225022007@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
> >>
> >> I thought that you were off writing a desertation
> >
> > A desertation would be mighty dry reading.
>
> http://www.factmonster.com/computers/jargon/S/spelling-flame.html
>
> "spelling flame: n.
>
> [Usenet] A posting ostentatiously correcting a previous article's spelling
> as a way of casting scorn on the point the article was trying to make,
> instead of actually responding to that point"
First, where you see a spelling flame, I see a play on words (and I would have done
it no matter who had done the original). Perhaps you got someone to explain it to you.
Second, your spelling is atrocious but I'm not going to take the time to point out
all of the errors. Particularly in light of the fact that I've had a few typos myself
(including one in a subject line).
Lastly, you actually think there was something substantive to address in your post?
Oh...
--
tanx,
Howard
Never take a tenant with a monkey.
remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 25 Feb 2007 23:22:56
From: William Asher
Subject: Re: Nascar considering starving the world
|
"Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com > wrote in
news:dIoEh.5811$_73.2165@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net:
> "Howard Kveck" <YOURhoward@h-SHOESbomb.com> wrote in message
> news:YOURhoward-C6F07A.14123225022007@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
>>>
>>> I thought that you were off writing a desertation
>>
>> A desertation would be mighty dry reading.
>
> http://www.factmonster.com/computers/jargon/S/spelling-flame.html
>
> "spelling flame: n.
>
> [Usenet] A posting ostentatiously correcting a previous article's
> spelling as a way of casting scorn on the point the article was trying
> to make, instead of actually responding to that point"
Ok, in light of your also believing the Chinese took co Polo to the
North Pole, was your comment about the Chinese being stupid and not
exploring a serious comment but completely ill-considered given your past
positions or simply meant to be a racist insult?
--
Bill Asher
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 25 Feb 2007 19:55:34
From: Fred Fredburger
Subject: Re: Nascar considering starving the world
|
William Asher wrote:
> "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote in
> news:dIoEh.5811$_73.2165@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net:
>
>> "Howard Kveck" <YOURhoward@h-SHOESbomb.com> wrote in message
>> news:YOURhoward-C6F07A.14123225022007@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
>>>> I thought that you were off writing a desertation
>>> A desertation would be mighty dry reading.
>> http://www.factmonster.com/computers/jargon/S/spelling-flame.html
>>
>> "spelling flame: n.
>>
>> [Usenet] A posting ostentatiously correcting a previous article's
>> spelling as a way of casting scorn on the point the article was trying
>> to make, instead of actually responding to that point"
>
> Ok, in light of your also believing the Chinese took co Polo to the
> North Pole, was your comment about the Chinese being stupid and not
> exploring a serious comment but completely ill-considered given your past
> positions or simply meant to be a racist insult?
>
He's Tom Kunich, he doesn't have to make sense.
|
| | | | | | | | | |
Date: 26 Feb 2007 04:11:29
From: William Asher
Subject: Re: Nascar considering starving the world
|
Fred Fredburger <FredFredburger@WhereAreTheNachos.huh > wrote in
news:3I6dnXtKE8yrx3_YnZ2dnUVZ_sbinZ2d@comcast.com:
>
> He's Tom Kunich, he doesn't have to make sense.
>
Well, yeah, but I expect him to be consistent. Relentlessly consistent.
Consistent to the point of pathologic behavior even. Only a few days
ago, the Chinese were exploring the Moon with co Polo in the 13th
century, bringing cheese, dust, and syphillis back to a waiting world.
Now the Chinese are too stupid to find there way out of an egg roll. If
Tom starts flopping in the wind like a weather vane, it could lead to a
causal discontinuity in the fabric of space-time. Nobody wants that,
since it could lead to an American winning the TdF, again.
--
Bill Asher
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 25 Feb 2007 22:17:20
From: Fred Fredburger
Subject: Re: Nascar considering starving the world
|
William Asher wrote:
> Fred Fredburger <FredFredburger@WhereAreTheNachos.huh> wrote in
> news:3I6dnXtKE8yrx3_YnZ2dnUVZ_sbinZ2d@comcast.com:
>
>> He's Tom Kunich, he doesn't have to make sense.
>>
>
> Well, yeah, but I expect him to be consistent. Relentlessly consistent.
> Consistent to the point of pathologic behavior even. Only a few days
> ago, the Chinese were exploring the Moon with co Polo in the 13th
> century, bringing cheese, dust, and syphillis back to a waiting world.
> Now the Chinese are too stupid to find there way out of an egg roll. If
> Tom starts flopping in the wind like a weather vane, it could lead to a
> causal discontinuity in the fabric of space-time. Nobody wants that,
> since it could lead to an American winning the TdF, again.
>
Relentless consistency in one way usually leads to whacky inconsistency
in others. The thing that's new here is that Tom's posting frequency has
gone up, making the discontinuities in his belief system more obvious.
And entertaining.
|
| |
Date: 22 Feb 2007 14:58:02
From: Bill C
Subject: Re: Nascar considering starving the world
|
On Feb 22, 5:07 pm, "Bill C" <tritonri...@verizon.net > wrote:
> On Feb 22, 4:01 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > How many times does someone have to explain that you aren't subsidizing
> > American farmers who have cultivated about every possible profitable acre?
> > Ethanol or soy biodiesel does one thing - reduce the amount of US food grain
> > surplus and since the USA is supplying 60% of the world's surpluses which
> > are then used by the starving third world, implimentation of ethanol or
> > biodiesel programs instantly cause further food shortages and starvation of
> > those already on subsistence diets.
>
> You are flat out wrong on anything close to utilizing every good
> acre. Massachusetts has more forest now than it did in the mid 1800s
> when much more land was being farmed. We have been losing farms at a
> ridiculous rate. I'd rather these farmers, and I know, personally,
> they would've done aanything rather than give up the farms if they
> could've found a way to stay solvent. Out of the dairies I grew up
> knowing ands working with, there are 2 left. I won't even go into the
> other types of farms that are gone.
> There is NO food shortage, hasn't been in ages. There is a huge
> political, educational, and logistics problem to get the food to the
> people.
>
> http://www.wfp.org/aboutwfp/introduction/hunger_causes.asp?section=1&...
>
> Wrong on both charges!
>
> I do think that it's part of the solution, not the panacea. Anything
> that gives the US better energy security, which is what lost the war
> for the Nazis, and caused the Japanese to attack the West. We need to
> stop relying on unstable, unfriendly Countries to supprt our economic,
> and strategic core. Chavez right now could put a giant hurt on the US
> economy by selling to China instead of us. What makesd you think he's
> not planning on it.
> I'm surprised that Bush hasn't forced that card yet to justify new
> wilderness and offshore drilling.
>
> Bill C
Well he's found another way to screw us with this:
http://fieldandstream.blogs.com/conservation/2007/02/when_corn_kills.html
Just like Afghanistan and Iraq. No fucking plan, or clue. Except for
Cheney saying conservation and energy efficiency are useless except to
make you feel good.
Bill C
|
| |
Date: 22 Feb 2007 14:07:23
From: Bill C
Subject: Re: Nascar considering starving the world
|
On Feb 22, 4:01 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com > wrote:
>
> How many times does someone have to explain that you aren't subsidizing
> American farmers who have cultivated about every possible profitable acre?
> Ethanol or soy biodiesel does one thing - reduce the amount of US food grain
> surplus and since the USA is supplying 60% of the world's surpluses which
> are then used by the starving third world, implimentation of ethanol or
> biodiesel programs instantly cause further food shortages and starvation of
> those already on subsistence diets.
You are flat out wrong on anything close to utilizing every good
acre. Massachusetts has more forest now than it did in the mid 1800s
when much more land was being farmed. We have been losing farms at a
ridiculous rate. I'd rather these farmers, and I know, personally,
they would've done aanything rather than give up the farms if they
could've found a way to stay solvent. Out of the dairies I grew up
knowing ands working with, there are 2 left. I won't even go into the
other types of farms that are gone.
There is NO food shortage, hasn't been in ages. There is a huge
political, educational, and logistics problem to get the food to the
people.
http://www.wfp.org/aboutwfp/introduction/hunger_causes.asp?section=1&sub_section=1
Wrong on both charges!
I do think that it's part of the solution, not the panacea. Anything
that gives the US better energy security, which is what lost the war
for the Nazis, and caused the Japanese to attack the West. We need to
stop relying on unstable, unfriendly Countries to supprt our economic,
and strategic core. Chavez right now could put a giant hurt on the US
economy by selling to China instead of us. What makesd you think he's
not planning on it.
I'm surprised that Bush hasn't forced that card yet to justify new
wilderness and offshore drilling.
Bill C
|
| |
Date: 22 Feb 2007 12:03:13
From: Bill C
Subject: Re: Nascar considering starving the world
|
On Feb 22, 2:22 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com > wrote:
> "Bill C" <tritonri...@verizon.net> wrote in message
>
> news:1172168286.723794.199960@l53g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > What I've seen is that ethanol is about 80% as efficient.
>
> 62%
Looks like what I was hearing was overly optimistic and your estimate
is closer to the general concensus.
For:
http://www.ncga.com/ethanol/pdfs/Wang2005.pdf
against:
http://www.catoinstitute.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=7308
Fuel Comparison Chart
Gasoline Ethanol (E85)
Energy Content per Gallon 109,000 - 125,000 Btu
~ 80,000 Btu
AFDC Home
|
| | |
Date: 27 Feb 2007 08:57:08
From: bjw@mambo.ucolick.org
Subject: Re: Nascar considering starving the world
|
On Feb 27, 4:13 am, Donald Munro <fat-dumb...@hotmail.com > wrote:
> b...@mambo.ucolick.org wrote:
> > To be fair to Kunich, I don't think he was saying
> > the Chinese were dingbats, I think he was putting
> > those words in Robert Chung's mouth, or Chung's
> > desertation, more precisely.
>
> A Kunich interpreter, presumably a combination of Forth and Brainfuck.
My PhD advisor had a bumper sticker (which thankfully
he had the taste to put in his office rather than on his
car) that read:
"FORTH [HEART] IF HONK THEN"
where the [HEART] was a big red heart like in "I heart NY."
Forth was used in some telescope and satellite
control systems (and maybe T3's Skynet - that
would account why it was so malicious once achieving
self-awareness), and of course lives on in every
Postscript printer ever made. So next time a
printer gives you trouble, remember it's because
deep down inside, printers are run by a Kunich AI.
Ben
|
| | | |
Date: 01 Mar 2007 16:39:29
From: Nev Shea
Subject: Re: Nascar considering starving the world
|
"bjw@mambo.ucolick.org" <bjw@mambo.ucolick.org > wrote in
news:1172595428.649457.196270@s48g2000cws.googlegroups.com:
> So next time a
> printer gives you trouble, remember it's because
> deep down inside, printers are run by a Kunich AI.
at first I thought a Kunich AI was an oxymoron because it couldn't be an
artificial intelligence if programmed to mimic Kunich, but now I realize
this AI must stand for "Artificial Imbecile".
Nice to know rbr is in the forefront of Artificial Imbecile research
because I've never heard of it before.
NS
|
| | |
Date: 22 Feb 2007 21:01:14
From: Tom Kunich
Subject: Re: Nascar considering starving the world
|
"Bill C" <tritonrider@verizon.net > wrote in message
news:1172174593.416195.176760@v45g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
> On Feb 22, 2:22 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
>> "Bill C" <tritonri...@verizon.net> wrote in message
>>
>> news:1172168286.723794.199960@l53g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>
>>
>> > What I've seen is that ethanol is about 80% as efficient.
>>
>> 62%
>
> Looks like what I was hearing was overly optimistic and your estimate
> is closer to the general concensus.
>
>
> For:
> http://www.ncga.com/ethanol/pdfs/Wang2005.pdf
>
> against:
>
> http://www.catoinstitute.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=7308
>
> Fuel Comparison Chart
>
> Gasoline Ethanol (E85)
> Energy Content per Gallon 109,000 - 125,000 Btu
> ~ 80,000 Btu
>
> AFDC Home
|
| | | |
Date: 23 Feb 2007 18:27:17
From: Fred Fredburger
Subject: Re: Nascar considering starving the world
|
Tom Kunich wrote:
> Ethanol is a dead end. It is a way of using some alternate form of energy
> such as sunlight to make a portable and storable energy source. It is and
> always will be a very poor efficiency model. It is NOT a cure for CO2
> emissions since it is energy intensive.
Your reasoning isn't obvious, but I think it's correct. The statement
that things that are energy intensive do not cure CO2 emissions requires
a bit of explanation.
If I build a nuclear power plant and do "energy intensive" things with
that energy, I might reduce CO2 emissions. Or I might find that the
energy produced is not easily applicable to the problem at hand.
I'd guess that you're thinking that producing ethanol takes more energy
than you get when you burn it. That's true enough. That COULD actually
lead to increased CO2 emissions if all you're doing is converting
gasoline to ethanol and then combusting the ethanol. In that case, you
should save yourself the trouble and just burn the gasoline. Or it
could reduce CO2 emissions if paired with some lower impact energy
source used to produce the ethanol (say, the nuclear power plant I
mentioned earlier). I'd guess the biggest part of the energy used in
creating ethanol is the energy required to gather the biomass. Ever seen
an electric, nonpolluting tractor? I haven't.
|
| | | | |
Date: 24 Feb 2007 04:25:30
From: Tom Kunich
Subject: Re: Nascar considering starving the world
|
"Fred Fredburger" <FredFredburger@WhereAreTheNachos.huh > wrote in message
news:tNedne3W5ukYP0LYnZ2dnUVZ_s-rnZ2d@comcast.com...
> Tom Kunich wrote:
>
>> Ethanol is a dead end. It is a way of using some alternate form of energy
>> such as sunlight to make a portable and storable energy source. It is and
>> always will be a very poor efficiency model. It is NOT a cure for CO2
>> emissions since it is energy intensive.
>
> Your reasoning isn't obvious, but I think it's correct. The statement that
> things that are energy intensive do not cure CO2 emissions requires a bit
> of explanation.
>
> If I build a nuclear power plant and do "energy intensive" things with
> that energy, I might reduce CO2 emissions. Or I might find that the energy
> produced is not easily applicable to the problem at hand.
Hydrocarbon fuel supplies something like 80% of all the energy in the USA.
Talking about nuclear power plants and hydroelectric power is nice but in
the end it's natural gas, oil or coal that turns the lights on.
> I'd guess that you're thinking that producing ethanol takes more energy
> than you get when you burn it.
http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20060715/fob4.asp
The long and the short of it - corn based ethanol supplies 25% more energy
than it consumes to produce. It isn't clear from the article if this
includes the increased fertilizer and pesticides required to grow the corn
in the first place.
There is an ongoing discussion about using grass to produce ethanol. This
WON'T work since grass is extremely rapid growing and hence burns up all of
the nutrients in the soil if you are cutting the stuff off all the time.
Also in order to reduce it to ethanol requires a technology that doesn't
exist that would use a bacteria to reduce the cellulose that doesn't exist
and the technology to design the bacteria doesn't exist.
> That COULD actually lead to increased CO2 emissions if all you're doing is
> converting gasoline to ethanol and then combusting the ethanol. In that
> case, you should save yourself the trouble and just burn the gasoline. Or
> it could reduce CO2 emissions if paired with some lower impact energy
> source used to produce the ethanol (say, the nuclear power plant I
> mentioned earlier). I'd guess the biggest part of the energy used in
> creating ethanol is the energy required to gather the biomass. Ever seen
> an electric, nonpolluting tractor? I haven't.
Most of the studies are strongly biased towards "alternatice energy" to the
extent that they fudge the numbers seriously and then excuse their acts by
saying that this is the 'theoretical output'. That would be fair enough if
any of these numbers were achievable in a practical sense.
The wind power farm in the Altamont pass near where I live is the best wind
area in the western USA and yet they can barely remain in operation. The
numbers you read about the USA producing some 50 gigawatts of electrical
power out of all of the wind farms is probably grossly overstated. The farms
in the Altamont run from the western end to the eastern end. Only the first
couple of rows are now in use with the rest obsolete, broken down or taken
out of service for lack of parts. And the greenies who originally demanded
this sort of thing are now trying to kill it off completely -
http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/swcbd/Programs/bdes/altamont/complaint.pdf
The only thing sillier than a Liberal is a child with a new toy.
|
| | | | | |
Date: 24 Feb 2007 21:55:28
From: Fred Fredburger
Subject: Re: Nascar considering starving the world
|
Tom Kunich wrote:
> "Fred Fredburger" <FredFredburger@WhereAreTheNachos.huh> wrote in message
> news:tNedne3W5ukYP0LYnZ2dnUVZ_s-rnZ2d@comcast.com...
>> Tom Kunich wrote:
>>
>>> Ethanol is a dead end. It is a way of using some alternate form of energy
>>> such as sunlight to make a portable and storable energy source. It is and
>>> always will be a very poor efficiency model. It is NOT a cure for CO2
>>> emissions since it is energy intensive.
>> Your reasoning isn't obvious, but I think it's correct. The statement that
>> things that are energy intensive do not cure CO2 emissions requires a bit
>> of explanation.
>>
>> If I build a nuclear power plant and do "energy intensive" things with
>> that energy, I might reduce CO2 emissions. Or I might find that the energy
>> produced is not easily applicable to the problem at hand.
>
> Hydrocarbon fuel supplies something like 80% of all the energy in the USA.
> Talking about nuclear power plants and hydroelectric power is nice but in
> the end it's natural gas, oil or coal that turns the lights on.
>
>> I'd guess that you're thinking that producing ethanol takes more energy
>> than you get when you burn it.
>
> http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20060715/fob4.asp
>
> The long and the short of it - corn based ethanol supplies 25% more energy
> than it consumes to produce. It isn't clear from the article if this
> includes the increased fertilizer and pesticides required to grow the corn
> in the first place.
It's a controversial subject. The answer you get depends on who you want
to listen to. Here's an alternative view:
http://www.coe.berkeley.edu/labnotes/0305/patzek.html
I don't know what's true. I do know it's not so simple or clear a
solution as is frequently presented.
>
> There is an ongoing discussion about using grass to produce ethanol. This
> WON'T work since grass is extremely rapid growing and hence burns up all of
> the nutrients in the soil if you are cutting the stuff off all the time.
> Also in order to reduce it to ethanol requires a technology that doesn't
> exist that would use a bacteria to reduce the cellulose that doesn't exist
> and the technology to design the bacteria doesn't exist.
>
>> That COULD actually lead to increased CO2 emissions if all you're doing is
>> converting gasoline to ethanol and then combusting the ethanol. In that
>> case, you should save yourself the trouble and just burn the gasoline. Or
>> it could reduce CO2 emissions if paired with some lower impact energy
>> source used to produce the ethanol (say, the nuclear power plant I
>> mentioned earlier). I'd guess the biggest part of the energy used in
>> creating ethanol is the energy required to gather the biomass. Ever seen
>> an electric, nonpolluting tractor? I haven't.
>
> Most of the studies are strongly biased towards "alternatice energy" to the
> extent that they fudge the numbers seriously and then excuse their acts by
> saying that this is the 'theoretical output'. That would be fair enough if
> any of these numbers were achievable in a practical sense.
Anyone who's doing that is being a bit too visionary. That tends to work
against practical solutions.
>
> The only thing sillier than a Liberal is a child with a new toy.
Have you ever watched a kid with a new toy they really like? They're
cool as hell! It's a lot of fun just to watch them enjoying themselves.
Liberals, not so much.
|
| |
Date: 22 Feb 2007 10:18:06
From: Bill C
Subject: Re: Nascar considering starving the world
|
On Feb 21, 9:37 pm, Howard Kveck <YOURhow...@h-SHOESbomb.com > wrote:
>
> If they choose to go straight ethanol, there are a couple of considerations that
> revolve around fuel consumption. I haven't checked to see if ethanol directly compares
> to methanol in terms of how much is needed to make the same power, but I know that
> when cars switch from gas to methanol, consumption goes up about 60 - 70%. More pit
> stops or bigger fuel cells on the cars are the choices.
>
> --
> tanx,
> Howard
>
> Never take a tenant with a monkey.
>
> remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
What I've seen is that ethanol is about 80% as efficient. I also saw
something a while ago about Nascar going to smaller fuel cells and
increased pit stops which would seem to prepare teams for racing that
way.
I'd bet that they have had plans cooking for a while now. The
mandated switch to the "car of tomorrow" comes on-line shortly which
is a whole new ballgame for the teams. I can easily see them going
back to the earlier sized fuel cell, and swithcing to ethanol for the
2009 season. That would give teams time to get all the chassis and
aero stuff sorted out, and give them a decent working lead into
building ethanol engines.
Bill C
|
| | |
Date: 25 Feb 2007 22:12:59
From: bjw@mambo.ucolick.org
Subject: Re: Nascar considering starving the world
|
On Feb 25, 9:11 pm, William Asher <gcn...@yahoo.com > wrote:
> Fred Fredburger <FredFredbur...@WhereAreTheNachos.huh> wrote innews:3I6dnXtKE8yrx3_YnZ2dnUVZ_sbinZ2d@comcast.com:
>
>
>
> > He's Tom Kunich, he doesn't have to make sense.
>
> Well, yeah, but I expect him to be consistent. Relentlessly consistent.
> Consistent to the point of pathologic behavior even. Only a few days
> ago, the Chinese were exploring the Moon with co Polo in the 13th
> century, bringing cheese, dust, and syphillis back to a waiting world.
> Now the Chinese are too stupid to find there way out of an egg roll. If
> Tom starts flopping in the wind like a weather vane, it could lead to a
> causal discontinuity in the fabric of space-time. Nobody wants that,
> since it could lead to an American winning the TdF, again.
To be fair to Kunich, I don't think he was saying
the Chinese were dingbats, I think he was putting
those words in Robert Chung's mouth, or Chung's
desertation, more precisely. Kind of like the
"Why do you hate freedom?" rhetorical strategy.
Apparently, denying co Polo's trip (IIRC, he goes with
Win-Ny Poo to the East Pole to discover honey) is equal
in Kunich's mind to calling the Chinese stupid. But
being Tom, he manages to assign the words to Chung so
incompetently that you reasonably thought he was
claiming the thought for himself.
Ben
|
| | | |
Date: 27 Feb 2007 13:13:37
From: Donald Munro
Subject: Re: Nascar considering starving the world
|
bjw@mambo.ucolick.org wrote:
> To be fair to Kunich, I don't think he was saying
> the Chinese were dingbats, I think he was putting
> those words in Robert Chung's mouth, or Chung's
> desertation, more precisely.
A Kunich interpreter, presumably a combination of Forth and Brainfuck.
|
| | | |
Date: 26 Feb 2007 08:28:38
From: Curtis L. Russell
Subject: Re: Nascar considering starving the world
|
On 25 Feb 2007 22:12:59 -0800, "bjw@mambo.ucolick.org"
<bjw@mambo.ucolick.org > wrote:
>To be fair to Kunich, I don't think he was saying
>the Chinese were dingbats, I think he was putting
>those words in Robert Chung's mouth, or Chung's
>desertation, more precisely.
And spelled dessertation - something about the Chinese claiming to
have invented creme brulee. Whatever. Since the best creme brulee has
a coffee bean, not some berry, in the middle, they could at best
invented an inferior creme brulee.
Unless co and the Sixth Chinese Fleet also discovered Northern
Africa. Have to read the dessertation.
Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...
|
| | | | |
Date: 27 Feb 2007 09:55:22
From: Bob Martin
Subject: Re: Nascar considering starving the world
|
in 537348 20070226 132838 Curtis L. Russell <curtis@md-bicycling.org > wrote:
>On 25 Feb 2007 22:12:59 -0800, "bjw@mambo.ucolick.org"
><bjw@mambo.ucolick.org> wrote:
>
>>To be fair to Kunich, I don't think he was saying
>>the Chinese were dingbats, I think he was putting
>>those words in Robert Chung's mouth, or Chung's
>>desertation, more precisely.
>
>And spelled dessertation ...
It's "dissertation".
|
| | | | | |
Date: 27 Feb 2007 08:43:48
From: Curtis L. Russell
Subject: Re: Nascar considering starving the world
|
On Tue, 27 Feb 2007 09:55:22 GMT, Bob tin <bob.tin@excite.com >
wrote:
>
>It's "dissertation".
Damn, it may be a bad joke, but you'd think it wouldn't need
explanation. Unless you are unfamiliar with creme brulee, which does
make you an unfortunate.
Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 27 Feb 2007 21:00:44
From: Donald Munro
Subject: Re: Nascar considering starving the world
|
Bob tin wrote:
>>It's "dissertation".
Curtis L. Russell wrote:
> Damn, it may be a bad joke, but you'd think it wouldn't need
> explanation. Unless you are unfamiliar with creme brulee, which does
> make you an unfortunate.
I thought it was some exotic kind of irony that I hadn't been programmed
to understand.
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 27 Feb 2007 17:36:43
From: Bob Martin
Subject: Re: Nascar considering starving the world
|
in 537453 20070227 134348 Curtis L. Russell <curtis@md-bicycling.org > wrote:
>On Tue, 27 Feb 2007 09:55:22 GMT, Bob tin <bob.tin@excite.com>
>wrote:
>
>>
>>It's "dissertation".
>
>Damn, it may be a bad joke, but you'd think it wouldn't need
>explanation. Unless you are unfamiliar with creme brulee, which does
>make you an unfortunate.
If it had been funny I'd probably have got the joke ;-)
|
| | | | |
Date: 26 Feb 2007 18:59:33
From: Fred Fredburger
Subject: Re: Nascar considering starving the world
|
Curtis L. Russell wrote:
> On 25 Feb 2007 22:12:59 -0800, "bjw@mambo.ucolick.org"
> <bjw@mambo.ucolick.org> wrote:
>
>> To be fair to Kunich, I don't think he was saying
>> the Chinese were dingbats, I think he was putting
>> those words in Robert Chung's mouth, or Chung's
>> desertation, more precisely.
>
> And spelled dessertation - something about the Chinese claiming to
> have invented creme brulee. Whatever. Since the best creme brulee has
> a coffee bean, not some berry, in the middle, they could at best
> invented an inferior creme brulee.
>
> Unless co and the Sixth Chinese Fleet also discovered Northern
> Africa. Have to read the dessertation.
Was Northern Africa discovered by Juan Valdez?
|
| | | | | |
Date: 27 Feb 2007 08:40:01
From: Curtis L. Russell
Subject: Re: Nascar considering starving the world
|
On Mon, 26 Feb 2007 18:59:33 -0800, Fred Fredburger
<FredFredburger@WhereAreTheNachos.huh > wrote:
>Was Northern Africa discovered by Juan Valdez?
He gets credit for realizing that coffee doesn't have to be made 9
parts coffee bean, one part water, which made it way more popular (not
to mention, cheaper). Unfortunately, the French had already committed
to bad cofee at that point.
Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...
|
| | |
Date: 22 Feb 2007 19:22:51
From: Tom Kunich
Subject: Re: Nascar considering starving the world
|
"Bill C" <tritonrider@verizon.net > wrote in message
news:1172168286.723794.199960@l53g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> What I've seen is that ethanol is about 80% as efficient.
62%
|
| |
Date: 21 Feb 2007 13:52:29
From: SLAVE of THE STATE
Subject: Re: Global Warming? Journalism? Don't Make Me Laugh!
|
On Feb 20, 6:57 pm, "b...@mambo.ucolick.org" <b...@mambo.ucolick.org >
wrote:
> "One who does not recognize ideas as property is not
> asserting anything" is not a serious argument. Aren't
> you asserting that ideas are not property?
http://www.alexross.com/dopey.jpg
|
| |
Date: 21 Feb 2007 13:38:38
From: Bill C
Subject: Re: Nascar considering starving the world
|
On Feb 21, 4:36 pm, "Bill C" <tritonri...@verizon.net > wrote:
> On Feb 20, 8:38 pm, patch70 <patch70.2mc...@no-
>
> mx.forums.cyclingforums.com> wrote:
>
> And the folks at the Indy Racing League are already doing it. Quick
> convene the ICC for a trial.
> The reality is that they are going along with the wave for PR reasons
> as they try to expand their product and profits, but for all the put-
> downs of them they've done an incredible job of expansion and
> keting and are working to be proactive. It's never going to be a
> "green" sport but they realise the need to move that direction.
> IMO this is a good thing based on fuel security. I can't see the US
> going the way of Brazil, but any cut into what we import from unstable
> places is a huge improvement. We are lucky as hell to have Canada as
> reliable exporting friend and ally.
> Bill C
After the brain fart, here's the link:
http://msn.foxsports.com/nascar/story/6492038?CMP=OTC-K9B140813162&ATT=167
Bill C
|
| |
Date: 21 Feb 2007 13:36:08
From: Bill C
Subject: Nascar considering starving the world
|
On Feb 20, 8:38 pm, patch70 <patch70.2mc...@no-
mx.forums.cyclingforums.com > wrote:
And the folks at the Indy Racing League are already doing it. Quick
convene the ICC for a trial.
The reality is that they are going along with the wave for PR reasons
as they try to expand their product and profits, but for all the put-
downs of them they've done an incredible job of expansion and
keting and are working to be proactive. It's never going to be a
"green" sport but they realise the need to move that direction.
IMO this is a good thing based on fuel security. I can't see the US
going the way of Brazil, but any cut into what we import from unstable
places is a huge improvement. We are lucky as hell to have Canada as
reliable exporting friend and ally.
Bill C
|
| | |
Date: 21 Feb 2007 18:37:15
From: Howard Kveck
Subject: Re: Nascar considering starving the world
|
In article <1172093768.480603.325110@s48g2000cws.googlegroups.com >,
"Bill C" <tritonrider@verizon.net > wrote:
> On Feb 20, 8:38 pm, patch70 <patch70.2mc...@no-
> mx.forums.cyclingforums.com> wrote:
>
>
> And the folks at the Indy Racing League are already doing it. Quick
> convene the ICC for a trial.
> The reality is that they are going along with the wave for PR reasons
> as they try to expand their product and profits, but for all the put-
> downs of them they've done an incredible job of expansion and
> keting and are working to be proactive. It's never going to be a
> "green" sport but they realise the need to move that direction.
> IMO this is a good thing based on fuel security. I can't see the US
> going the way of Brazil, but any cut into what we import from unstable
> places is a huge improvement. We are lucky as hell to have Canada as
> reliable exporting friend and ally.
> Bill C
If they choose to go straight ethanol, there are a couple of considerations that
revolve around fuel consumption. I haven't checked to see if ethanol directly compares
to methanol in terms of how much is needed to make the same power, but I know that
when cars switch from gas to methanol, consumption goes up about 60 - 70%. More pit
stops or bigger fuel cells on the cars are the choices.
--
tanx,
Howard
Never take a tenant with a monkey.
remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?
|
| | | |
Date: 27 Feb 2007 13:53:59
From: Bill C
Subject: Re: Nascar considering starving the world
|
On Feb 27, 10:48 am, "dustoyev...@mac.com" <dustoyev...@mac.com >
wrote:
> On Feb 25, 5:11 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Howard Kveck" <YOURhow...@h-SHOESbomb.com> wrote in message
>
> >news:YOURhoward-C6F07A.14123225022007@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
>
> > >> I thought that you were off writing a desertation
>
> > > A desertation would be mighty dry reading.
>
> >http://www.factmonster.com/computers/jargon/S/spelling-flame.html
>
> > "spelling flame: n.
>
> > [Usenet] A posting ostentatiously correcting a previous article's spelling
> > as a way of casting scorn on the point the article was trying to make,
> > instead of actually responding to that point"
>
> I'm so glad I went back and read your post, TK.
>
> Tom Kunich trying to invoke usenet rules to gain points. Yet more
> Klassic Kunich. What a laugh. I mean really.
>
> Your spelling and word form problems undercut your attempts to be an
> authority on everything.
>
> You're one of the few people who gets twitted on this, ever notice?
> It's because you act like such an incredible jerk around here, Kunich.
>
> Get it? --D-y- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Haven't seen it in a while but one of the best, and truest sigs I've
seen stated:
Typos are a feature, not optional. Reader beware.
Bill C
|
| |
Date: 21 Feb 2007 06:24:50
From: Bill C
Subject: Re: Global Warming? Journalism? Don't Make Me Laugh!
|
On Feb 20, 10:12 pm, "b...@mambo.ucolick.org" <b...@mambo.ucolick.org >
wrote:
> On Feb 20, 4:18 pm, "Bill C" <tritonri...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> > I find it almost impossible to reconcile being pissed off about
> > "offshoring" with support for Kyoto. They actually ratify, and put
> > teeth into, Kyoto then you'll see a massive increase in corporations
> > moving to where it's sheapest to do business. Major multi-nationals
> > really don't care where they do business as long as it's cheap,
> > functional, and stable. China, India, and Mexico, Vietnam
> > increasingly, seem to be working really well now. Kyoto would make
> > them boom countries as corporations fled to them to protect their
> > bottom line.
>
> This argument sounds plausible, but I just read
> something interesting. Suppose you think of California
> as a separate country (everybody else does, yes?)
> Attractive climate, but high cost of living and
> nanny-state government, right? It turns out that
> in part because of regulations that favor energy
> conservation, California's per capita energy consumption
> has grown less than the rest of the US. Now of course
> it starts off lower because the climate is moderate,
> but it has also grown more slowly over the last 20 years,
> even though California has had a robust economy
> and a lot of population growth and people idling
> in traffic on the 210 Freeway.
>
> http://www.lbl.gov/Science-Articles/Archive/energy-myths2.htmlhttp://www.nrdc.org/onEarth/06spr/ca1.asp (see graph on right)
>
> Some of this is because (IIRC) electricity is relatively
> expensive, reducing demand, which favors manufacturers
> offshoring to North Carolina or wherever. But despite
> that, California is not yet vacant.
>
> Obviously, Kyoto doesn't do much good if the
> developing countries never ever cap emissions.
> It was intended to be a first step, since the
> developing countries would never agree to cut
> without us cutting too (the developed countries
> still emit much more CO2 than the 3rd world,
> so we have to go first to be credible).
>
> Ben
Ben we've seen an exodus of companies away from the high tax, high
cost of doing business, cold weather New England states to toher areas
of the country and other countries. Despite highly skilled workers,
great education, good living conditions, reliable ifrastructure, and
all the benefits people usually cite they have left.
I'm really surprised that California hasn't had a lot more of the
same problems, but I'd put a lot of that on the climate. We are doing
a lot of the same regulatory things you are, without the additional
huge climate cost.
Finding a way to reduce, or reverse this trend played a good saize
part in our last State elections.
Bill C
|
| |
Date: 21 Feb 2007 00:44:34
From: bjw@mambo.ucolick.org
Subject: Re: Global Warming? Journalism? Don't Make Me Laugh!
|
On Feb 20, 9:18 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com > wrote:
>
> I wonder if you live in California? Same with Ben.
>
> You people don't seem to have any idea of what it's like here. In 40 years
> of working, I've worked closer than 15 miles from home for a total of 5
> years. Most of the time my commute has been more than 25 miles and for about
> 5 years I worked more than 30 miles from home.
>
> Today essentially EVERYONE in the bay area works 20 miles or more from work.
> Public transportation has worked for me for a total of 6 years.
>
> And aside from the stupidity implicit in Ben's postings, job growth in
> California is stagnating. If you cut out all the jobs in the "service
> industry" (always have a job as long as you can work a slurpy machine)
> California has been losing jobs and businesses for 10 years now and it is
> beginning to show. Electronics, mechanical engineering, biotech firms are
> all leaving this state to find someplace that is a little more business
> friendly. Many are simply moving out of the country.
Dear Britney,
Your continued rudeness doesn't warrant polite responses,
but I like doing it because civility seems to upset you.
It's pretty funny to hear someone who's previously
boasted about his comfortable salary and garage full
of bikes moaning about the dire California economy.
I like California, but the one thing that frosts me is
listening to some Californians bitch about either the
"bad" economy or how terrible it is that people are
moving to California. I was born in California but I
grew up in Western PA in a city that now has 2/3 the
population it did in 1970. Some of them moved out to
the burbs but a lot just left, like me. Californians
don't understand that, except for the fraction that
relocated from a similar place. Your "bad" economy
would be a boom nearly anywhere in the Rust Belt or
Midwest. And you can ride year-round.
I don't have a problem with people driving to work.
But quit whining about how you don't have a choice.
You have a choice, you just decided to buy a house a
certain size or in a certain place or not move when
your job changed and not ride a bike. That's fine,
but it's a choice. People who move to Tracy so they
can afford a 3BR tickytack house instead of a 1.5BR
condo in the East Bay or Mountain View are making a
perfectly understandable lifestyle choice (though
personally I could never do that commute), but it's
not a necessity.
You're not so bad off; maybe you bought your house
before things went completely batshit crazy. It's
none of your business, but recently I lived in LA for
3 years and Santa Cruz for 4, and lived no more than
5 miles from work, but I was free to rent a (crazy
overpriced) apartment near work, because I could never
ever have afforded to buy in the area. Lots of people
I know are in the same situation. So sit back in your
living room, put your feet up on your paid-for sofa,
and quit your bitching.
Ben
Nobody goes to California anymore, it's
too crowded.
|
| | |
Date: 21 Feb 2007 10:16:46
From: Robert Chung
Subject: Re: Global Warming? Journalism? Don't Make Me Laugh!
|
bjw@mambo.ucolick.org wrote:
> I like California, but the one thing that frosts me is
> listening to some Californians bitch about either the
> "bad" economy or how terrible it is that people are
> moving to California.
When co Polo reached the North Pole? He was looking for affordable
housing within commute distance to China.
|
| |
Date: 20 Feb 2007 19:12:52
From: bjw@mambo.ucolick.org
Subject: Re: Global Warming? Journalism? Don't Make Me Laugh!
|
On Feb 20, 4:18 pm, "Bill C" <tritonri...@verizon.net > wrote:
> I find it almost impossible to reconcile being pissed off about
> "offshoring" with support for Kyoto. They actually ratify, and put
> teeth into, Kyoto then you'll see a massive increase in corporations
> moving to where it's sheapest to do business. Major multi-nationals
> really don't care where they do business as long as it's cheap,
> functional, and stable. China, India, and Mexico, Vietnam
> increasingly, seem to be working really well now. Kyoto would make
> them boom countries as corporations fled to them to protect their
> bottom line.
This argument sounds plausible, but I just read
something interesting. Suppose you think of California
as a separate country (everybody else does, yes?)
Attractive climate, but high cost of living and
nanny-state government, right? It turns out that
in part because of regulations that favor energy
conservation, California's per capita energy consumption
has grown less than the rest of the US. Now of course
it starts off lower because the climate is moderate,
but it has also grown more slowly over the last 20 years,
even though California has had a robust economy
and a lot of population growth and people idling
in traffic on the 210 Freeway.
http://www.lbl.gov/Science-Articles/Archive/energy-myths2.html
http://www.nrdc.org/onEarth/06spr/ca1.asp (see graph on right)
Some of this is because (IIRC) electricity is relatively
expensive, reducing demand, which favors manufacturers
offshoring to North Carolina or wherever. But despite
that, California is not yet vacant.
Obviously, Kyoto doesn't do much good if the
developing countries never ever cap emissions.
It was intended to be a first step, since the
developing countries would never agree to cut
without us cutting too (the developed countries
still emit much more CO2 than the 3rd world,
so we have to go first to be credible).
Ben
|
| | |
Date: 23 Feb 2007 18:01:16
From: Fred Fredburger
Subject: Re: Global Warming? Journalism? Don't Make Me Laugh!
|
bjw@mambo.ucolick.org wrote:
> Some of this is because (IIRC) electricity is relatively
> expensive, reducing demand, which favors manufacturers
> offshoring to North Carolina or wherever. But despite
> that, California is not yet vacant.
I moved away from CA 15 years ago. So, near as I can tell, it IS vacant.
Unfortunately, I wont even get the "most specious reasoning of the day"
award for this.
|
| |
Date: 20 Feb 2007 18:57:15
From: bjw@mambo.ucolick.org
Subject: Re: Global Warming? Journalism? Don't Make Me Laugh!
|
On Feb 20, 7:06 pm, "SLAVE of THE STATE" <gwh...@ti.com > wrote:
> On Feb 20, 3:14 pm, John Forrest Tomlinson <usenetrem...@jt10000.com>
> wrote:
>
> > It's bad not to respect reasonable protections for intellectual
> > property.
>
> You've asserted that ideas are property. You didn't argue your
> assertion. Since you are asserting a positive, you need to make the
> argument. One who does not recognize ideas as property is not
> asserting anything, and so they don't need to prove anything.
Copyright doesn't protect ideas, only the tangible
expression of ideas, as you know. If Steve had
sumized the article instead of cut-n-pasting,
there would be no issue.
"One who does not recognize ideas as property is not
asserting anything" is not a serious argument. Aren't
you asserting that ideas are not property?
> > Then why did it say "All rights reserved" at the bottom?
>
> Sure, and "I own the universe." Someone can say anything they want.
> ST had no contract with the guy who allegedly put it out there. He
> didn't agree not to copy it.
Some things don't require an explicit agreement. Actually
most things don't. I don't have a contract with John's
Aunt Minnie not to trip her in the street, but I still have
an obligation not to do it, and can get arrested if I do.
BTW, Steve's and yours and my ISP's terms of service probably
do include contract language forbidding wholesale abuse of
copyright, though I doubt any ISP would enforce it for
reposting random wackjob editorials to Usenet (nor am I
fond of people who complain to ISPs to shut off voices
they don't like).
Ben
I only trip uncles
|
| |
Date: 20 Feb 2007 18:06:40
From: SLAVE of THE STATE
Subject: Re: Global Warming? Journalism? Don't Make Me Laugh!
|
On Feb 20, 3:14 pm, John Forrest Tomlinson <usenetrem...@jt10000.com >
wrote:
> On 20 Feb 2007 11:36:16 -0800, "SLAVE of THE STATE" <gwh...@ti.com>
> wrote:
>
> >On Feb 20, 3:18 am, John Forrest Tomlinson <usenetrem...@jt10000.com>
> >wrote:
>
> >> You don't care about copyright at all, huh? That's bad.
>
> >Can you explain why it is "bad?"
>
> It's bad not to respect reasonable protections for intellectual
> property.
You've asserted that ideas are property. You didn't argue your
assertion. Since you are asserting a positive, you need to make the
argument. One who does not recognize ideas as property is not
asserting anything, and so they don't need to prove anything.
> > The person who allegedly wrote it
> >put it out there to see.
>
> Then why did it say "All rights reserved" at the bottom?
Sure, and "I own the universe." Someone can say anything they want.
ST had no contract with the guy who allegedly put it out there. He
didn't agree not to copy it.
I don't have a problem with you saying "it feels wrong." But that is
an emotion, however valid. It is not an argument for rational law, or
other people's ethics.
|
| | |
Date: 20 Feb 2007 21:48:39
From: John Forrest Tomlinson
Subject: Re: Global Warming? Journalism? Don't Make Me Laugh!
|
On 20 Feb 2007 18:06:40 -0800, "SLAVE of THE STATE" <gwhite@ti.com >
wrote:
>On Feb 20, 3:14 pm, John Forrest Tomlinson <usenetrem...@jt10000.com>
>wrote:
>> On 20 Feb 2007 11:36:16 -0800, "SLAVE of THE STATE" <gwh...@ti.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >On Feb 20, 3:18 am, John Forrest Tomlinson <usenetrem...@jt10000.com>
>> >wrote:
>>
>> >> You don't care about copyright at all, huh? That's bad.
>>
>> >Can you explain why it is "bad?"
>>
>> It's bad not to respect reasonable protections for intellectual
>> property.
>
>You've asserted that ideas are property. You didn't argue your
>assertion. Since you are asserting a positive, you need to make the
>argument. One who does not recognize ideas as property is not
>asserting anything, and so they don't need to prove anything.
>
>> > The person who allegedly wrote it
>> >put it out there to see.
>>
>> Then why did it say "All rights reserved" at the bottom?
>
>Sure, and "I own the universe." Someone can say anything they want.
>ST had no contract with the guy who allegedly put it out there. He
>didn't agree not to copy it.
>
>I don't have a problem with you saying "it feels wrong." But that is
>an emotion, however valid. It is not an argument for rational law, or
>other people's ethics.
ST does what he wants right? Law of the jungle, huh? Someday that
will come back and hurt you big time.
--
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************
|
| |
Date: 20 Feb 2007 15:46:52
From:
Subject: Re: Global Warming? Journalism? Don't Make Me Laugh!
|
On Feb 20, 4:26 pm, patch70 <patch70.2mb...@no-
mx.forums.cyclingforums.com > wrote:
> Tom Kunich Wrote:
>
> > Yeah, let's see - it takes REAL leadership to jump off of a cliff
> > sceaming, "I'm doing this for humanityyyyyyyyyy!"
>
> Once again, you have shot yourself in the foot.
>
> The cliff leap scenario is a potential outcome of doing nothing about
> our contributions to climate change. Yet you want us all to continue
> driving quickly down that road in a car with crappy brakes where
> multiple signs are telling us that there is a cliff ahead. But because
> some petroleum industry boss told you that the sign wasn't clear, you
> want to accelerate more.
>
> So the choice is:
>
> 1. Do something now and potentially save ourselves from huge problems.
> 2. Do nothing now and potentially put ourselves in the situation of
> having an uninhabitable planet.
>
> Again - only a fool or someone with a vested interest could see option
> 2 as being appropriate.
>
> A further question for you:
> If you are so worried about the economy, what is the economic impact of
> having to deal with disasters on the scale of Hurricane Katrina every
> few months?
>
> --
> patch70
Dumbass,
So now Katrina was a global warming issue? I guess all the info about
natural cycles didn't sink in with you. What happened to the mega-
storm season that we were supposed to have last year, due to global
warming? Oh, yeah... I forgot, it didn't happen.
Fred
|
| | |
Date: 21 Feb 2007 12:26:47
From: patch70
Subject: Re: Global Warming? Journalism? Don't Make Me Laugh!
|
fred.garvin@yahoo.com Wrote:
> Dumbass,
>
> So now Katrina was a global warming issue? I guess all the info about
> natural cycles didn't sink in with you. What happened to the mega-
> storm season that we were supposed to have last year, due to global
> warming? Oh, yeah... I forgot, it didn't happen.
>
> Fred
Fred, learn to read. I said disasters on the scale of HK.
Where did I say that CLIMATE CHANGE caused HK? So why are you arguin
this
--
patch70
|
| | |
Date: 21 Feb 2007 00:02:01
From: William Asher
Subject: Re: Global Warming? Journalism? Don't Make Me Laugh!
|
Fred Garvin wrote:
> So now Katrina was a global warming issue? I guess all the info about
> natural cycles didn't sink in with you. What happened to the mega-
> storm season that we were supposed to have last year, due to global
> warming? Oh, yeah... I forgot, it didn't happen.
The predictions were wrong because the rapid development of el Nino caught
everyone by surprise. El Nino correlates with decreased hurricane activity
because shear increases. La Nina correlates with increased hurricane
activity because shear decreases (at least in the Atlantic, results may
vary in other basins, offer not valid in Sectors N through J (awww, the
never come up into the hills)). At the beginning of 2006, there was la
Nina, by the time the hurricane season was underway, el Nino had formed.
http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2006/s2748.htm
Interestingly, the one who forecast all the storms for 2006 was Bill Gray,
the most noted climate change skeptic. He was going strictly on the ENSO
correlation, not climate change, since he doesn't believe the Earth is
getting warmer, or if it is, it doesn't matter, or CO2 isn't responsible,
or something like that. But don't let facts get in the way of a good rant.
--
Bill Asher
|
| |
Date: 20 Feb 2007 15:18:44
From: Bill C
Subject: Re: Global Warming? Journalism? Don't Make Me Laugh!
|
On Feb 20, 6:07 pm, fred.gar...@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Feb 20, 3:58 pm, patch70 <patch70.2mb...@no-
>
> mx.forums.cyclingforums.com> wrote:
> > Tom Kunich Wrote:
>
> > > You and ass crack can tell us what you do for a living and what effect
> > > cutting fuel consumption for transportation by 60% wold effect you.
>
> > I ride to work. It would make no difference to me. My work does not
> > "consume" fuel either.
>
> > --
> > patch70
>
> Are you truly that naive? Everything you buy requires energy to
> either grow or manufacture and is delivered by trucks that require
> fuel. Do you sit in a dark hole somewhere doing some off the wall job
> that requires absolutely no energy consumption whatsoever?
>
> With thinking like your's, it's no wonder so many people don't seem to
> think that following Kyoto is that big a deal. Maybe you can find a
> way to generate energy by sitting around in a circle with all your
> friends and singing Cumbaya.
>
> Or, maybe you'll just beg for alms on the sidewalks, hoping someone
> will be so moved by your singing they'll give you money.
>
> You're an idiot.
>
> Fred
I find it almost impossible to reconcile being pissed off about
"offshoring" with support for Kyoto. They actually ratify, and put
teeth into, Kyoto then you'll see a massive increase in corporations
moving to where it's sheapest to do business. Major multi-nationals
really don't care where they do business as long as it's cheap,
functional, and stable. China, India, and Mexico, Vietnam
increasingly, seem to be working really well now. Kyoto would make
them boom countries as corporations fled to them to protect their
bottom line.
Bill C
|
| | |
Date: 21 Feb 2007 13:55:06
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: Global Warming? Journalism? Don't Make Me Laugh!
|
On 20 Feb 2007 15:18:44 -0800, "Bill C" <tritonrider@verizon.net >
wrote:
>Major multi-nationals
>really don't care where they do business as long as it's cheap,
>functional, and stable. China, India, and Mexico, Vietnam
>increasingly, seem to be working really well now. Kyoto would make
>them boom countries as corporations fled to them to protect their
>bottom line.
> Bill C
Exactly and the US and Europe are already losing manufacturing jobs to
Asia. Add in the extra expense of complying with CO2 restrictions and
the problem will get worse. Kyoto is a flawed agreement and should be
thrown out in favor of a truly fair agreement that includes everyone.
In a sense, the US is just being more honest than the Europeans
because only two EU nations have met their Kyoto goals. Talk is
cheap.
Remember, capital doesn't go to where it's needed the most, it goes to
where it's treated the best.
|
| |
Date: 20 Feb 2007 15:07:57
From:
Subject: Re: Global Warming? Journalism? Don't Make Me Laugh!
|
On Feb 20, 3:58 pm, patch70 <patch70.2mb...@no-
mx.forums.cyclingforums.com > wrote:
> Tom Kunich Wrote:
>
> > You and ass crack can tell us what you do for a living and what effect
> > cutting fuel consumption for transportation by 60% wold effect you.
>
> I ride to work. It would make no difference to me. My work does not
> "consume" fuel either.
>
> --
> patch70
Are you truly that naive? Everything you buy requires energy to
either grow or manufacture and is delivered by trucks that require
fuel. Do you sit in a dark hole somewhere doing some off the wall job
that requires absolutely no energy consumption whatsoever?
With thinking like your's, it's no wonder so many people don't seem to
think that following Kyoto is that big a deal. Maybe you can find a
way to generate energy by sitting around in a circle with all your
friends and singing Cumbaya.
Or, maybe you'll just beg for alms on the sidewalks, hoping someone
will be so moved by your singing they'll give you money.
You're an idiot.
Fred
|
| |
Date: 20 Feb 2007 11:41:28
From: SLAVE of THE STATE
Subject: Re: Global Warming? Journalism? Don't Make Me Laugh!
|
On Feb 20, 3:18 am, John Forrest Tomlinson <usenetrem...@jt10000.com >
wrote:
> You don't care about copyright at all, huh? That's bad.
Can you explain why it is "bad?" The person who allegedly wrote it
put it out there to see. ST never agreed, by contract or otherwise,
not to copy it.
Can you explain how ideas can be property, when ideas completely lack
the critical feature of property (that is, ideas are not rivalrous
scarce; ideas can be replicated ad infinitum, unlike actual
property).
_Against Intellectual Property_, N. S. Kinsella
http://www.mises.org/journals/jls/15_2/15_2_1.pdf
|
| |
Date: 20 Feb 2007 11:36:16
From: SLAVE of THE STATE
Subject: Re: Global Warming? Journalism? Don't Make Me Laugh!
|
On Feb 20, 3:18 am, John Forrest Tomlinson <usenetrem...@jt10000.com >
wrote:
> You don't care about copyright at all, huh? That's bad.
Can you explain why it is "bad?" The person who allegedly wrote it
put it out there to see.
Can you explain how ideas can be property, when ideas completely lack
the critical feature of property (that is, ideas are not rivalrous
scarcely; ideas can be replicated ad infinitum, unlike actual
property).
|
| | |
Date: 20 Feb 2007 18:14:59
From: John Forrest Tomlinson
Subject: Re: Global Warming? Journalism? Don't Make Me Laugh!
|
On 20 Feb 2007 11:36:16 -0800, "SLAVE of THE STATE" <gwhite@ti.com >
wrote:
>On Feb 20, 3:18 am, John Forrest Tomlinson <usenetrem...@jt10000.com>
>wrote:
>
>> You don't care about copyright at all, huh? That's bad.
>
>Can you explain why it is "bad?"
It's bad not to respect reasonable protections for intellectual
property. Linking to the thing is enough. Don't copy it the whole
thing -- you're running around the paper's advertising.
> The person who allegedly wrote it
>put it out there to see.
Then why did it say "All rights reserved" at the bottom?
--
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************
|
| |
Date: 20 Feb 2007 04:19:02
From: need more sun
Subject: Re: Global Warming? Journalism? Don't Make Me Laugh!
|
On Feb 20, 1:22 am, "ST" <n...@null.com > wrote:
> http://www.axcessnews.com/modules/wfsection/article.php?articleid=12990
>
> February 15, 2007
> Global Warming? Journalism? Don't Make Me Laugh!
> By Alan Caruba
> (AXcess News) S. Orange, NJ -
>
> As a very young man, fresh out of college and the army in the mid-1960's, I
> found myself employed as a rookie reporter on a weekly newspaper in New
> Jersey. I had never taken a course in journalism in my life, but I could
> write. The managing editor of the newspaper group that serviced a number of
> communities taught me all I ever needed to know about journalism. He taught
> me to be skeptical of everything and everyone. Not distrustful. Skeptical.
> People will tell you the truth they believe or want you to believe. They may
> be wrong. Or they may be deceitful. There's a difference. However, when
> error and deceit combine, there is a purpose, an agenda, and it exists, as
> often as not, to acquire wealth and power despite the harm it will leave in
> its wake. At the heart of what is wrong with journalism today is that
> legions of journalists will stand shoulder to shoulder for the sole purpose
> of deriding any "global warming skeptic" rather than wonder for a second how
> the "news" of a coming Ice Age in the 1970s became the "news" of Global
> Warming in the 1980s. I am reminded of this daily as I read newspapers and
> news magazines in which various reporters blithely and deliberately inform
> the reader that all questions regarding the existence of global warming have
> been answered, that the science is beyond doubt, and that the cause is the
> production of greenhouse gases, largely from industry, transportation, and
> other human activities. This is not merely an error. It is a complete
> deception the journalists have joined. They have ceased to be skeptical.
> They want you to stop being skeptical despite all evidence to the contrary.
> "Global Warming, as we think we know it, doesn't exist," says Dr. Timothy
> Ball. He has Ph.D. in climatology, having earned his degree from the
> University of London, England, and taught for many years at the University
> of Winnipeg. A Google search of his name turns up a plethora of posts
> attacking him, always a sure sign that the Greens feel threatened by an
> outspoken scientist. The quote below explains why: "Believe it or not,
> Global Warming is not due to human contribution of Carbon Dioxide (CO2).
> This in fact is the greatest deception in the history of science." Dr. Ball
> is hardly alone in his views. Dr. Richard Lindzen, an atmospheric physicist
> and a professor of meteorology at MIT, as well as a member of the National
> Academy of Science, has said of Global Warming that, "the consensus was
> reached before the research had even begun." Increasingly, not just climate
> scientists, but people in leadership positions around the world have joined
> in rebuking the Global Warming hoax. Czech President Vaclav Klaus is only
> the most recent, joining Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper who, in
> 2006, received a letter from sixty prominent scientists expressing
> opposition to the theory of Global Warming. The list is growing as other
> scientists in France, Denk and around the world speak up. There is
> something quite horrible about the complete failure of America's journalists
> to even acknowledge there might be something terribly wrong about the theory
> of Global Warming. So far the published science that purports to support the
> theory has been severely challenged and even disproved to the point of
> having deliberately falsified data. Too many journalists have remained
> steadfast to this greatest hoax of our times, publishing the most
> astonishing nonsense about the North Pole melting or all the polar bears
> disappearing. Anything can be attributed to Global Warming, but the premise
> of a rapidly warming Earth is baseless. The Earth warmed barely one degree
> Fahrenheit from 1850 to 1950 and there is no evidence of further warming.
> Anyone who challenges the "truth" of the global warming charlatans is
> demonized and compared to Holocaust deniers. Others are routinely accused of
> being in the pay of corporate interests. My own background as a public
> relations counselor has been cited as "proof" that I cannot be trusted.
> However, in nine years of writing a weekly commentary, my credibility would
> be in shreds if my facts were wrong. Is this new generation of journalists
> indifferent to the truth? Do they arrive at their job imbued with a mission
> to save the world? Do they believe that inconvenient facts can and should be
> ignored? This is not journalism. It is advocacy. The former belongs in the
> news columns, the latter on the editorial and opinion pages. For the week
> leading up to and following the recent release of the United Nations climate
> report sumy, the front pages of America's newspapers proclaimed that
> Global Warming was real, millions would die from starvation, and the fresh
> water resources of the world would go dry by 2080. The final report is not
> due out for months and, like previous reports, what "science" is cited to
> support this balderdash will be thoroughly encumbered with words like
> "could", "may", "might", "is believed", or "is predicted." These are mushy
> words that scientists abhor. They want proof. The final report will
> actually be altered to reflect the initial sumy. That is not science. It
> is propaganda. We look to journalists to present facts as accurately and
> dispassionately as possible. When they tell you the Earth is doomed, look
> for an alternative source of information.
>From wikipedia:
Alan Caruba is a public relations advisor, best known as a critic of
environmentalism and Islam and, in 1990, founder of the National
Anxiety Center, a think tank dedicated to debunking the idea that
there is global warming and damage in the ozone layer.
Caruba's business website states that his clients have included
corporations, think tanks, trade associations and others. Since the
late 1980s, he has been the public relations counselor for the New
Jersey Pest Management Association and, for 10 years until 2005, he
served as the Director of Communications for the American Policy
Center." [1] In the 70s he played role in the introduction of the
carbamate insecticide bendiocarb [2], which was later withdrawn from
the ket by its manufacturer.
Contents
[hide]
* 1 Views
* 2 Publications
* 3 Accuracy
* 4 National Anxiety Center
[edit] Views
Caruba writes extensively on a wide variety of topics that include
energy issues, education, the United Nations, and popular culture. He
has claimed that global warming is a 'hoax' [3], denied that CFCs
damage the ozone layer, and criticised many other claims made by
environmentalists. He has criticized Sourcewatch, who criticized him
in return [4].
Caruba initially supported the Bush administration's war with Iraq,
but has since written to express a note of caution regarding the hoped-
for outcome.
He believes that:
The whole of America, Europe and other nations that are the
engines of the global economy, has been under attack by the
environmentalists because an evil, corrupt United Nations wants to be
an unelected global government and we stand in their way. This is why
the worldwide environmental movement is directed from the United
Nations. Behind the United Nations are those who subscribe still to
the failed economic theories of xism and who hate the success of
the United States and others who have embraced capitalism...They are the
ones seeking to destroy the sovereignty of the United States by
stealth, creating a North American Union to merge our nation with
Canada and Mexico, sinking the individual protections afforded by our
Constitution into a morass of regulations over which there will be no
vote by Americans. Global warming is the mask, the charade, the Big
Lie by which the destruction of the United States of America is being
advanced. "Global Warming on Steriods" Jan. 3, 2007
[edit] Publications
Caruba writes a weekly column, "Warning Signs", widely excerpted on
conservative news and opinion websites. He is, for example, a regular
contributor to CNSnews.com, the Free ket News Network, and
AxcessNews.com.
In 2003, a collection of his columns was published, "Warning Signs",
by Merril Press. In late 2006, a new collection titled "Right Answers:
Separating Fact from Fantasy" was published.
Caruba is the author of several books dating back to the 1970's and
has contributed opinion pieces to consumer and trade magazines, as
well as to newspapers including The Philadelphia Inquirer, The
Providence Journal, and The Washington Times.
Caruba is a founding member of the National Book Critics Circle and
maintains a website on new fiction and non-fiction, [5]. He is also a
member of the Society of Professional Journalists, American Society of
Journalists and Authors, and the National Association of Science
Writers.
[edit] Accuracy
The accuracy of some of Caruba's articles has been called into
question, but he has never withdrawn or altered any of his weekly
commentaries. One example is a January 2003 article about mercury [6]
which has been disputed.
[edit] National Anxiety Center
The National Anxiety Center identifies itself as "a clearinghouse for
information about 'scare campaigns' designed to influence public
policy and opinion." The Center maintains a website at www.anxietycenter.com.
Not someone I would choose to believe...
|
| |
Date: 20 Feb 2007 04:13:13
From: need more sun
Subject: Re: Global Warming? Journalism? Don't Make Me Laugh!
|
On Feb 20, 1:22 am, "ST" <n...@null.com > wrote:
> http://www.axcessnews.com/modules/wfsection/article.php?articleid=12990
>
> February 15, 2007
> Global Warming? Journalism? Don't Make Me Laugh!
> By Alan Caruba
> (AXcess News) S. Orange, NJ -
>
> As a very young man, fresh out of college and the army in the mid-1960's, I
> found myself employed as a rookie reporter on a weekly newspaper in New
> Jersey. I had never taken a course in journalism in my life, but I could
> write. The managing editor of the newspaper group that serviced a number of
> communities taught me all I ever needed to know about journalism. He taught
> me to be skeptical of everything and everyone. Not distrustful. Skeptical.
> People will tell you the truth they believe or want you to believe. They may
> be wrong. Or they may be deceitful. There's a difference. However, when
> error and deceit combine, there is a purpose, an agenda, and it exists, as
> often as not, to acquire wealth and power despite the harm it will leave in
> its wake. At the heart of what is wrong with journalism today is that
> legions of journalists will stand shoulder to shoulder for the sole purpose
> of deriding any "global warming skeptic" rather than wonder for a second how
> the "news" of a coming Ice Age in the 1970s became the "news" of Global
> Warming in the 1980s. I am reminded of this daily as I read newspapers and
> news magazines in which various reporters blithely and deliberately inform
> the reader that all questions regarding the existence of global warming have
> been answered, that the science is beyond doubt, and that the cause is the
> production of greenhouse gases, largely from industry, transportation, and
> other human activities. This is not merely an error. It is a complete
> deception the journalists have joined. They have ceased to be skeptical.
> They want you to stop being skeptical despite all evidence to the contrary.
> "Global Warming, as we think we know it, doesn't exist," says Dr. Timothy
> Ball. He has Ph.D. in climatology, having earned his degree from the
> University of London, England, and taught for many years at the University
> of Winnipeg. A Google search of his name turns up a plethora of posts
> attacking him, always a sure sign that the Greens feel threatened by an
> outspoken scientist. The quote below explains why: "Believe it or not,
> Global Warming is not due to human contribution of Carbon Dioxide (CO2).
> This in fact is the greatest deception in the history of science." Dr. Ball
> is hardly alone in his views. Dr. Richard Lindzen, an atmospheric physicist
> and a professor of meteorology at MIT, as well as a member of the National
> Academy of Science, has said of Global Warming that, "the consensus was
> reached before the research had even begun." Increasingly, not just climate
> scientists, but people in leadership positions around the world have joined
> in rebuking the Global Warming hoax. Czech President Vaclav Klaus is only
> the most recent, joining Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper who, in
> 2006, received a letter from sixty prominent scientists expressing
> opposition to the theory of Global Warming. The list is growing as other
> scientists in France, Denk and around the world speak up. There is
> something quite horrible about the complete failure of America's journalists
> to even acknowledge there might be something terribly wrong about the theory
> of Global Warming. So far the published science that purports to support the
> theory has been severely challenged and even disproved to the point of
> having deliberately falsified data. Too many journalists have remained
> steadfast to this greatest hoax of our times, publishing the most
> astonishing nonsense about the North Pole melting or all the polar bears
> disappearing. Anything can be attributed to Global Warming, but the premise
> of a rapidly warming Earth is baseless. The Earth warmed barely one degree
> Fahrenheit from 1850 to 1950 and there is no evidence of further warming.
> Anyone who challenges the "truth" of the global warming charlatans is
> demonized and compared to Holocaust deniers. Others are routinely accused of
> being in the pay of corporate interests. My own background as a public
> relations counselor has been cited as "proof" that I cannot be trusted.
> However, in nine years of writing a weekly commentary, my credibility would
> be in shreds if my facts were wrong. Is this new generation of journalists
> indifferent to the truth? Do they arrive at their job imbued with a mission
> to save the world? Do they believe that inconvenient facts can and should be
> ignored? This is not journalism. It is advocacy. The former belongs in the
> news columns, the latter on the editorial and opinion pages. For the week
> leading up to and following the recent release of the United Nations climate
> report sumy, the front pages of America's newspapers proclaimed that
> Global Warming was real, millions would die from starvation, and the fresh
> water resources of the world would go dry by 2080. The final report is not
> due out for months and, like previous reports, what "science" is cited to
> support this balderdash will be thoroughly encumbered with words like
> "could", "may", "might", "is believed", or "is predicted." These are mushy
> words that scientists abhor. They want proof. The final report will
> actually be altered to reflect the initial sumy. That is not science. It
> is propaganda. We look to journalists to present facts as accurately and
> dispassionately as possible. When they tell you the Earth is doomed, look
> for an alternative source of information.
More bull, like that propagated by your dear president. This kind of
horsesh*t was quoted by pro-oil businesses and their scientists (and,
of course, Bush himself) in trying to make out that global warming was
all nonsense. It's not, it's real, the icecaps are melting and there
is undeniable proof of all that.
>From environment.newscientist.com
Instant Expert: Climate Change
Climate change is with us. A decade ago, it was conjecture. Now the
future is unfolding before our eyes. Canada's Inuit see it in
disappearing Arctic ice and permafrost. The shantytown dwellers of
Latin America and Southern Asia see it in lethal storms and floods.
Europeans see it in disappearing glaciers, forest fires and fatal heat
waves.
Scientists see it in tree rings, ancient coral and bubbles trapped in
ice cores. These reveal that the world has not been as warm as it is
now for a millennium or more. The three warmest years on record have
all occurred since 1998; 19 of the warmest 20 since 1980. And Earth
has probably never warmed as fast as in the past 30 years - a period
when natural influences on global temperatures, such as solar cycles
and volcanoes should have cooled us down. Studies of the thermal
inertia of the oceans suggest that there is more warming in the
pipeline.
Climatologists reporting for the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change (IPCC) say we are seeing global warming caused by human
activities and there are growing fears of feedbacks that will
accelerate this warming.
-------
from http://www.guardian.co.uk/frontpage/story/0,,2016244,00.html
Climate change: scientists warn it may be too late to save the ice
caps
David Adam, environment correspondent
Monday February 19, 2007
A critical meltdown of ice sheets and severe sea level rise could be
inevitable because of global warming, the world's scientists are
preparing to warn their governments. New studies of Greenland and
Antarctica have forced a UN expert panel to conclude there is a 50%
chance that widespread ice sheet loss "may no longer be avoided"
because of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.
Such melting would raise sea levels by four to six metres, the
scientists say. It would cause "major changes in coastline and
inundation of low-lying areas" and require "costly and challenging"
efforts to move millions of people and infrastructure from vulnerable
areas. The previous official line, issued in 2001, was that the chance
of such an event was "not well known, but probably very low".
The melting process could take centuries, but increased warming caused
by a failure to cut emissions would accelerate the ice sheets' demise,
and give nations less time to adapt to the consequences. Areas such as
the Maldives would be swamped and low-lying countries such as the
Netherlands and Bangladesh, as well as coastal cities including
London, New York and Tokyo, would face critical flooding.
The warning appears in a report from the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change, which assesses the likely impacts of global warming
and will be published in April. A final draft of the report's sumy-
for-policymakers chapter, obtained by the Guardian, says: "Very large
sea level rises that would result from widespread deglaciation of
Greenland and West Antarctic ice sheets imply major changes in
coastlines and inundation of low-lying areas, with greatest effects in
river deltas.
"Relocating populations, economic activity and infrastructure would be
costly and challenging. There is medium confidence that both ice
sheets would be committed to partial deglaciation for a global average
temperature increase greater than 1-2C, causing sea level rise of 4-6m
over centuries to millennia." Medium confidence means about a five in
10 chance.
The revelation comes as a new report points out that greenhouse gas
emissions running into hundreds of millions of tonnes have not been
disclosed by Britain's biggest businesses, masking the full extent of
the UK's contribution to global warming. According to a report by
Christian Aid, only 16 of Britain's top 100 listed companies are
meeting the government's most elementary reporting guidelines on
greenhouse gas emissions. As a result, almost 200m tonnes of damaging
CO2 is estimated to be missing from the annual reports of FTSE 100
companies. The figure is more than the annual reported emissions of
Pakistan and Greece combined.
This month the IPCC published a separate study on the science of
climate change, which concluded that humans are "very likely" to be
responsible for most of the recent warming, and that average
temperatures would probably increase by 4C this century if emissions
continue to rise. Even under its most optimistic scenario, based on a
declining world population and a rapid switch to clean technology,
temperatures are still likely to rise by 1.8C.
The new report is expected to say this means there is "a significant
probability that some large-scale events (eg deglaciation of major ice
sheets) may no longer be avoided due to historical greenhouse gas
emissions and the inertia of the climate system". Scientists involved
with the IPCC process cannot talk publicly about its contents before
publication. But a senior author on the report said: "It's not rocket
science to realise that with the numbers coming out from the IPCC
[science report], the warming by the end of the century is enough to
do that." The report's conclusion poses a conundrum for governments of
how to address a problem that is inevitable but may not occur for
hundreds or thousands of years. "That's for the policy makers to
decide but it really is a very difficult question," the source said.
"Those are moral questions and the answer you give will depend very
much on which part of the world you live in."
Jonathan Overpeck, a climate scientist at the University of Arizona,
said the key question was not whether the ice sheets would break up,
but how quickly. Some models suggest rapid melting that would bring
sea level rises of more than a metre per century. "That would be much
harder for us to cope with," he says.
The IPCC science report predicted sea level rises of up to 0.59m by
the end of the century. But that does not include the possible
contribution from ice sheets, because the experts judged it too
unpredictable to forecast over short timescales.
-------
What agenda could scientists possibly have for faking such data? What
financial gain would be achieved? There is far more financial gain
possible for those who claim climate change is not real, that big
businesses can go on behaving as before, that oil companies don't have
to limit their production, that governments don't have to change their
policies. If any side has something to gain from untruths, it is those
who advocate doing nothing, who claim that all is fine.
Read the IPCC report, or articles about it. And stop writing bullshit
pretending that the problem doesn't exist. You are like an ostrich
with it's head in the sand...wake up, smell the daisies and look with
open eyes at what is a huge amount of evidence, plus an ever-growing
number of scientists that agree. You are a flat-earther, nothing
else.
|
| |
Date: 20 Feb 2007 06:18:38
From: John Forrest Tomlinson
Subject: Re: Global Warming? Journalism? Don't Make Me Laugh!
|
On Tue, 20 Feb 2007 00:22:08 GMT, "ST" <none@null.com > wrote:
>http://www.axcessnews.com/modules/wfsection/article.php?articleid=12990
You don't care about copyright at all, huh? That's bad.
--
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************
|
| | |
Date: 20 Feb 2007 23:33:54
From: ST
Subject: Re: Global Warming? Journalism? Don't Make Me Laugh!
|
On 2/20/07 3:18 AM, in article j6mlt2dadv6taut04qaaect1ub53frjmce@4ax.com,
"John Forrest Tomlinson" <usenetremove@jt10000.com > wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Feb 2007 00:22:08 GMT, "ST" <none@null.com> wrote:
>
>> http://www.axcessnews.com/modules/wfsection/article.php?articleid=12990
>
> You don't care about copyright at all, huh? That's bad.
What?!?! Shows where your priorities are......
|
| | | |
Date: 21 Feb 2007 09:23:38
From: Curtis L. Russell
Subject: Re: Global Warming? Journalism? Don't Make Me Laugh!
|
On Tue, 20 Feb 2007 23:33:54 GMT, ST <no@no.com > wrote:
>What?!?! Shows where your priorities are......
No, it shows that you are too lazy to paraphrase, or maybe you just
can't read for comprehension.
Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...
|
| |
Date: 20 Feb 2007 00:12:09
From: bjw@mambo.ucolick.org
Subject: Re: Global Warming? Journalism? Don't Make Me Laugh!
|
On Feb 19, 10:32 pm, fred.gar...@yahoo.com wrote:
> Nothing bizarre about it at all. First, you have to understand it's
> not just about you and your car. If you factor in the costs to
> industry to meet the Kyoto protocol requirement, which by the way the
> industries of China and India, and the rest of the developing world
> for that matter, don't have to meet, you'd see that what we're really
> talking about is a UN effort to equalize the economies of the world by
> destroying the US economy, not by bringing up the economies of the
> rest of the world.
Right, because the Black Helicopter thing didn't pan out.
People made the same forecasts of economic ruin to fight
emissions controls on industry, smokestacks, and auto
tailpipes. It wasn't true then either. Have a little
faith in American ingenuity.
> I'm not asking China or India to lead anything. What I really would
> like is for the "oh, fuck, the sky is falling" crowd to acknowledge
> that there's an almost non-existent correlation between CO2 emissions
> and temperatures, but a 100% correlation between the fluctuations of
> world temperatures and sunspot activity.
RBR only has room for one sunspot psychoceramic
fracture-specialist and Kunich claimed that position
months or years ago. Correlation does not imply
causation, and as Bill Asher was pointing out a
little while back, the low-sunspot period 500 years
ago coincided with a North Atlantic cooling, not a
global cooling.
> Hell, the explosion of Krakatoa in 1883 put more pollutants into the
> atmosphere in one fell swoop than man has in the history of mankind.
>
> The sky is not falling.
Indeed it is not. It's the water rising we're worried
about. Krakatoa put ash into the atmosphere, not CO2
nor other greenhouse gases.
Ben
|
| |
Date: 19 Feb 2007 21:32:13
From:
Subject: Re: Global Warming? Journalism? Don't Make Me Laugh!
|
On Feb 19, 10:13 pm, patch70 <patch70.2ma...@no-
mx.forums.cyclingforums.com > wrote:
> fred.gar...@yahoo.com Wrote:
>
> > Lost nothing??? The Kyoto protocols would cripple the world's greatest
> > (ever) economy and yet accomplish nothing because China and India will
> > more than make up for any carbon-based pollution reductions taken in
> > the US.
>
> > We'd lose everything.
>
> What the? A truly bizarre argument.
>
> The losses would be that a few very wealthy CEOs might have to accept a
> salary of 10 million pa rather than 15. And st CEOs would realise
> that there is plenty of money to be made in going green. Someone has to
> make money selling clean energy just as those promoting 'dirty' (ie CO2
> producing) energy will have reduced profits if we go down the sensible
> pathway. If those fossil fuel sellers have half a brain, they will be
> the ones to put the money into the clean energy and will therefore
> offset any lost profits.
>
> I thought the US considered itself a world leader. If they are, then
> they should lead on this rather than say "we won't do anything until
> China and India lead the way".
>
> --
> patch70
Nothing bizarre about it at all. First, you have to understand it's
not just about you and your car. If you factor in the costs to
industry to meet the Kyoto protocol requirement, which by the way the
industries of China and India, and the rest of the developing world
for that matter, don't have to meet, you'd see that what we're really
talking about is a UN effort to equalize the economies of the world by
destroying the US economy, not by bringing up the economies of the
rest of the world.
I'm not asking China or India to lead anything. What I really would
like is for the "oh, fuck, the sky is falling" crowd to acknowledge
that there's an almost non-existent correlation between CO2 emissions
and temperatures, but a 100% correlation between the fluctuations of
world temperatures and sunspot activity.
Hell, the explosion of Krakatoa in 1883 put more pollutants into the
atmosphere in one fell swoop than man has in the history of mankind.
The sky is not falling.
Fred
|
| | |
Date: 20 Feb 2007 07:41:15
From: Bob Martin
Subject: Re: Global Warming? Journalism? Don't Make Me Laugh!
|
in 536664 20070220 053213 fred.garvin@yahoo.com wrote:
>On Feb 19, 10:13 pm, patch70 <patch70.2ma...@no-
>mx.forums.cyclingforums.com> wrote:
>> fred.gar...@yahoo.com Wrote:
>>
>> > Lost nothing??? The Kyoto protocols would cripple the world's greatest
>> > (ever) economy and yet accomplish nothing because China and India will
>> > more than make up for any carbon-based pollution reductions taken in
>> > the US.
>>
>> > We'd lose everything.
>>
>> What the? A truly bizarre argument.
>>
>> The losses would be that a few very wealthy CEOs might have to accept a
>> salary of 10 million pa rather than 15. And st CEOs would realise
>> that there is plenty of money to be made in going green. Someone has to
>> make money selling clean energy just as those promoting 'dirty' (ie CO2
>> producing) energy will have reduced profits if we go down the sensible
>> pathway. If those fossil fuel sellers have half a brain, they will be
>> the ones to put the money into the clean energy and will therefore
>> offset any lost profits.
>>
>> I thought the US considered itself a world leader. If they are, then
>> they should lead on this rather than say "we won't do anything until
>> China and India lead the way".
>>
>> --
>> patch70
>
>Nothing bizarre about it at all. First, you have to understand it's
>not just about you and your car. If you factor in the costs to
>industry to meet the Kyoto protocol requirement, which by the way the
>industries of China and India, and the rest of the developing world
>for that matter, don't have to meet, you'd see that what we're really
>talking about is a UN effort to equalize the economies of the world by
>destroying the US economy, not by bringing up the economies of the
>rest of the world.
>
>I'm not asking China or India to lead anything. What I really would
>like is for the "oh, fuck, the sky is falling" crowd to acknowledge
>that there's an almost non-existent correlation between CO2 emissions
>and temperatures, but a 100% correlation between the fluctuations of
>world temperatures and sunspot activity.
>
>Hell, the explosion of Krakatoa in 1883 put more pollutants into the
>atmosphere in one fell swoop than man has in the history of mankind.
>
>The sky is not falling.
>
>Fred
You seem to have a poor grasp of the facts, Fred.
The pollutants in the atmosphere are actually hiding the true effects of
CO2 emissions.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/tvradio/programmes/horizon/dimming_prog_sumy.shtml
Is it coincidence that there is more scepticism about AGW in the USA than amywhere else?
|
| | |
Date: 20 Feb 2007 05:43:10
From: ST
Subject: Re: Global Warming? Journalism? Don't Make Me Laugh!
|
On 2/19/07 9:32 PM, in article
1171949533.496276.170510@p10g2000cwp.googlegroups.com,
"fred.garvin@yahoo.com" <fred.garvin@yahoo.com > wrote:
> On Feb 19, 10:13 pm, patch70 <patch70.2ma...@no-
> mx.forums.cyclingforums.com> wrote:
>> fred.gar...@yahoo.com Wrote:
>>
>>> Lost nothing??? The Kyoto protocols would cripple the world's greatest
>>> (ever) economy and yet accomplish nothing because China and India will
>>> more than make up for any carbon-based pollution reductions taken in
>>> the US.
>>
>>> We'd lose everything.
>>
>> What the? A truly bizarre argument.
>>
>> The losses would be that a few very wealthy CEOs might have to accept a
>> salary of 10 million pa rather than 15. And st CEOs would realise
>> that there is plenty of money to be made in going green. Someone has to
>> make money selling clean energy just as those promoting 'dirty' (ie CO2
>> producing) energy will have reduced profits if we go down the sensible
>> pathway. If those fossil fuel sellers have half a brain, they will be
>> the ones to put the money into the clean energy and will therefore
>> offset any lost profits.
>>
>> I thought the US considered itself a world leader. If they are, then
>> they should lead on this rather than say "we won't do anything until
>> China and India lead the way".
>>
>> --
>> patch70
>
> Nothing bizarre about it at all. First, you have to understand it's
> not just about you and your car. If you factor in the costs to
> industry to meet the Kyoto protocol requirement, which by the way the
> industries of China and India, and the rest of the developing world
> for that matter, don't have to meet, you'd see that what we're really
> talking about is a UN effort to equalize the economies of the world by
> destroying the US economy, not by bringing up the economies of the
> rest of the world.
>
> I'm not asking China or India to lead anything. What I really would
> like is for the "oh, fuck, the sky is falling" crowd to acknowledge
> that there's an almost non-existent correlation between CO2 emissions
> and temperatures, but a 100% correlation between the fluctuations of
> world temperatures and sunspot activity.
>
> Hell, the explosion of Krakatoa in 1883 put more pollutants into the
> atmosphere in one fell swoop than man has in the history of mankind.
>
> The sky is not falling.
>
> Fred
>
And Oprah is not running for president......
But, be still my beating heart, they will keep dreaming and hoping
|
| |
Date: 19 Feb 2007 19:58:55
From:
Subject: Re: Global Warming? Journalism? Don't Make Me Laugh!
|
On Feb 19, 7:31 pm, patch70 <patch70.2ma...@no-
mx.forums.cyclingforums.com > wrote:
> Obviously I am wasting my time but:
>
> Do you have health insurance? Home insurance? Car insurance?
>
> Most people would say yes to at least two of these.
>
> Yet the vast majority don't actually need them.
>
> Problem is, if you do need them and don't have them, you're screwed.
>
> If > 90% of the world's climate scientists agree that "CLIMATE CHANGE"
> is real, then it doesn't take much brain power to realise that we
> should do what we can to reduce human impact on this.
>
> If we are right, our grandchildren will thank us.
>
> If we are wrong, we have lost nothing.
>
> If we procede as business as usual and CLIMATE CHANGE is real, then
> trying to fix it up when it is too late is like being that person with
> no insurance at a time when they really wished they'd taken it out
> earlier. Too damn late.
>
> --
> patch70
Lost nothing??? The Kyoto protocols would cripple the world's
greatest (ever) economy and yet accomplish nothing because China and
India will more than make up for any carbon-based pollution reductions
taken in the US.
We'd lose everything.
Fred
|
| | |
Date: 20 Feb 2007 17:00:34
From: Bill C
Subject: Re: Global Warming? Journalism? Don't Make Me Laugh!
|
On Feb 20, 7:49 pm, William Asher <gcn...@yahoo.com > wrote:
> Tom Kunich wrote:
> > Let me explain this to you in terms that even a lamp post might be
> > able to understand - THERE IS NO GLOBAL WARMING. There is climate
> > cyclic variation. People that tell you that there is global warming
> > are stupid because it would take a couple of thousands of years of
> > ACCURATE temperture monitoring to find short term cyclic variations in
> > the weather pattern. And they there are the larger cycles such as the
> > 150 thousand year ice age cyclehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_age.
>
> You need to be more precise in your language. There has been a warming of
> the global climate over the last 20 years. Even very few of the "climate
> change skeptics" dispute that. Your quarrel is a) whether the observed
> warming is a short-term cycle or the beginning of a longer-term trend, b)
> if it is a longer-term trend, whether the increase is due to the increase
> in atmospheric radiatively important trace species or some other factor
> that has not yet been identified (since no other known forcing can account
> for such a rapid increase) and c) whether the increase in RITS is linked to
> man's activities.
>
> You don't want to question that the Earth has warmed over the past 25
> years. You have a 10% chance on being right on one of the other options
> though. Sort of like a blind squirrel finding an acorn now and then.
>
> --
> Bill Asher
The sad thing is that this stuff was discussed, and used as background
material, in Sci-Fi stories ages ago. "Terraforming" was a huge topic.
The general concensus, backed by serious science, was that an
environment was an incredibly complex system. I have serious questions
about how much we are changing the climate, but none that we are. It's
insane to argue the humans have NO effect on climate.
Bill C
|
| | |
Date: 20 Feb 2007 16:13:23
From: patch70
Subject: Re: Global Warming? Journalism? Don't Make Me Laugh!
|
fred.garvin@yahoo.com Wrote:
> Lost nothing??? The Kyoto protocols would cripple the world's greates
> (ever) economy and yet accomplish nothing because China and India wil
> more than make up for any carbon-based pollution reductions taken i
> the US.
>
> We'd lose everything.
What the? A truly bizarre argument.
The losses would be that a few very wealthy CEOs might have to accept
salary of 10 million pa rather than 15. And st CEOs would realis
that there is plenty of money to be made in going green. Someone has t
make money selling clean energy just as those promoting 'dirty' (ie CO
producing) energy will have reduced profits if we go down the sensibl
pathway. If those fossil fuel sellers have half a brain, they will b
the ones to put the money into the clean energy and will therefor
offset any lost profits.
I thought the US considered itself a world leader. If they are, the
they should lead on this rather than say "we won't do anything unti
China and India lead the way"
--
patch70
|
| | | |
Date: 20 Feb 2007 15:30:04
From: Tom Kunich
Subject: Re: Global Warming? Journalism? Don't Make Me Laugh!
|
"patch70" <patch70.2mafyn@no-mx.forums.cyclingforums.com > wrote in message
news:patch70.2mafyn@no-mx.forums.cyclingforums.com...
>
> I thought the US considered itself a world leader. If they are, then
> they should lead on this rather than say "we won't do anything until
> China and India lead the way".
Yeah, let's see - it takes REAL leadership to jump off of a cliff sceaming,
"I'm doing this for humanityyyyyyyyyy!"
By 2015 China and probably India will be putting out more CO2 than the USA.
They not only are not part of the Kyoto Protocol demands - they are in fact
given a complete PASS in the text of the document. They not only don't have
to cut their production of CO2 but they have already said that they never
will.
But of course completely ignornant fools who like to ch in "like, I
really like the environment" parades are the ones who should be making these
decisions for the USA. We're a democracy after all.
|
| | | | |
Date: 21 Feb 2007 10:26:59
From: patch70
Subject: Re: Global Warming? Journalism? Don't Make Me Laugh!
|
Tom Kunich Wrote:
> Yeah, let's see - it takes REAL leadership to jump off of a clif
> sceaming, "I'm doing this for humanityyyyyyyyyy!"
Once again, you have shot yourself in the foot.
The cliff leap scenario is a potential outcome of doing nothing abou
our contributions to climate change. Yet you want us all to continu
driving quickly down that road in a car with crappy brakes wher
multiple signs are telling us that there is a cliff ahead. But becaus
some petroleum industry boss told you that the sign wasn't clear, yo
want to accelerate more.
So the choice is:
1. Do something now and potentially save ourselves from huge problems.
2. Do nothing now and potentially put ourselves in the situation o
having an uninhabitable planet.
Again - only a fool or someone with a vested interest could see optio
2 as being appropriate.
A further question for you:
If you are so worried about the economy, what is the economic impact o
having to deal with disasters on the scale of Hurricane Katrina ever
few months
--
patch70
|
| | | | | |
Date: 21 Feb 2007 00:37:11
From: Tom Kunich
Subject: Re: Global Warming? Journalism? Don't Make Me Laugh!
|
"patch70" <patch70.2mbugz@no-mx.forums.cyclingforums.com > wrote in message
news:patch70.2mbugz@no-mx.forums.cyclingforums.com...
>
> Tom Kunich Wrote:
>> Yeah, let's see - it takes REAL leadership to jump off of a cliff
>> sceaming, "I'm doing this for humanityyyyyyyyyy!"
>
> Once again, you have shot yourself in the foot.
>
> The cliff leap scenario is a potential outcome of doing nothing about
> our contributions to climate change.
Let me explain this to you in terms that even a lamp post might be able to
understand - THERE IS NO GLOBAL WARMING. There is climate cyclic variation.
People that tell you that there is global warming are stupid because it
would take a couple of thousands of years of ACCURATE temperture monitoring
to find short term cyclic variations in the weather pattern. And they there
are the larger cycles such as the 150 thousand year ice age cycle
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_age .
Pretending to knowledge that cannot exist with the data we have could not be
a dumber idea. But I suppose if we consider the source then we shouldn't be
at all surprised.
Here's todays PRESENT cost of idiots like you
http://www.renewableenergyaccess.com/rea/news/story?id=38601
"Biofuels, and specifically ethanol, have been the subject of a great deal
of criticism in recent months by detractors claiming that more energy is
required to produce ethanol than is available in the final product, that it
is too expensive, and that it produces negligible carbon reductions. These
critiques are simply not accurate."
Now isn't this just precious - except the "detractors" were REAL scientists
who published reports in Nature and Science detailing how much energy it
took to produce a gallon of ethanol using corn or soybeans.
http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20070203/food.asp
"Shoppers, brace yourselves. Higher across-the-board superket prices may
be around the corner, says agricultural economist Lester Brown. A rapidly
escalating demand for the corn that underlies a broad range of products-from
breakfast cereals to milk and meats-has been driving up the price of this
grain, he notes. Those commodity-price hikes could soon inflate the cost of
plenty of other products."
"About 3 weeks after Brown released his report to that effect, President
Bush in his State of the Union address called for a new decade-long program
aimed at reducing U.S. gasoline use by 20 percent. "To reach this goal," the
President said, "we must increase the supply of alternative fuels [to]
nearly five times the current target." In an online brief about energy
provisions mentioned in the address, the White House explained that this new
program would rely on ethanol made from corn and grasses."
"However, only corn distilleries are ready to ramp up their production of
ethanol within the President's timeframe. The Energy Department acknowledges
that new, more complicated technologies will be needed before other ethanol
sources, such as switchgrass, become economically feasible."
"The competition for corn between motors and mouths has already grown at a
pace unforeseen by either the U.S. government or the alternative-fuels
industry, Brown says. Indeed, he found, neither had done a realistic
projection of corn demand from ethanol distilleries even in the near
future."
"Brown created such a projection mainly by tallying existing fuel
distilleries and those under construction and in planning. His work shows
that by the 2008 harvest, ethanol-fuel distilleries will need 139 million
metric tons of corn-more than twice the amount that the U.S. Department of
Agriculture had predicted. In fact, the total that Brown has calculated
would amount to half the total U.S. corn harvest-up from just 20 percent
now."
"With the United States producing 70 percent of the corn that other
countries import from all sources, shifting very much of the grain from food
into energy could have global economic repercussions, Brown says. "If we
want to continue down this path, I think it should be the result of
conscious policymaking," he says. That's not the case today, he adds."
"Brown says that in this country, U.S. policymakers need to start asking
themselves whether fuel is the best use of grain. The amount required "to
fill a 25-gallon SUV tank with ethanol will feed a person for a year," he
notes. If we're not careful, the United States could be seen as reducing
corn exports for the sake of fueling bad-mileage vehicles, says Brown. "That
would not be a positive image."
I've been pointing out that the results of stupid alarmist jackasses such as
yourself is the death of concievably millions and millions of people since
the USA presently supplies 60% of the world's surplus food production.
But I've never seen the death of millions to bother Liberals in the least.
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 21 Feb 2007 09:17:52
From: Curtis L. Russell
Subject: Re: Global Warming? Journalism? Don't Make Me Laugh!
|
On Wed, 21 Feb 2007 00:37:11 GMT, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com >
wrote:
>Let me explain this to you in terms that even a lamp post might be able to
>understand - THERE IS NO GLOBAL WARMING.
And Mr. Bull knows - he talks to lamp posts all the time. Actually,
there are months on end that they are the only ones that understand
and agree with him.
Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 21 Feb 2007 12:38:12
From: patch70
Subject: Re: Global Warming? Journalism? Don't Make Me Laugh!
|
Tom Kunich Wrote:
> Let me explain this to you in terms that even a lamp post might be abl
> to understand - THERE IS NO GLOBAL WARMING.
> <snip>
> I've been pointing out that the results of stupid alarmist jackasse
> such as
> yourself is the death of concievably millions and millions of peopl
> since
> the USA presently supplies 60% of the world's surplus food production.
It is great that you no more than the vast majority of the world'
climate scientists.
Did you know that there are still "scientists" that will tell you tha
smoking cigarettes is safe? Do you also believe them?
Your argument on the world starving is again ridiculous. The approac
to reducing CO2 emissions is multifaceted. It is not simply turnin
food into car fuel and therefore leading to mass starvation.
If you are wrong and CLIMATE CHANGE is real and we are contributing t
it but do nothing to stop it, it is far more likely that millions woul
die from natural disasters, droughts, wars over water supplies, etc. An
the world will hold you personally responsible, Tom
--
patch70
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 27 Feb 2007 07:48:34
From: dustoyevsky@mac.com
Subject: Re: Nascar considering starving the world
|
On Feb 25, 5:11 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com > wrote:
> "Howard Kveck" <YOURhow...@h-SHOESbomb.com> wrote in message
>
> news:YOURhoward-C6F07A.14123225022007@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
>
>
>
> >> I thought that you were off writing a desertation
>
> > A desertation would be mighty dry reading.
>
> http://www.factmonster.com/computers/jargon/S/spelling-flame.html
>
> "spelling flame: n.
>
> [Usenet] A posting ostentatiously correcting a previous article's spelling
> as a way of casting scorn on the point the article was trying to make,
> instead of actually responding to that point"
I'm so glad I went back and read your post, TK.
Tom Kunich trying to invoke usenet rules to gain points. Yet more
Klassic Kunich. What a laugh. I mean really.
Your spelling and word form problems undercut your attempts to be an
authority on everything.
You're one of the few people who gets twitted on this, ever notice?
It's because you act like such an incredible jerk around here, Kunich.
Get it? --D-y
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 21 Feb 2007 05:39:46
From: Tom Kunich
Subject: Re: Global Warming? Journalism? Don't Make Me Laugh!
|
"patch70" <patch70.2mc0jb@no-mx.forums.cyclingforums.com > wrote in message
news:patch70.2mc0jb@no-mx.forums.cyclingforums.com...
>
> Did you know that there are still "scientists" that will tell you that
> smoking cigarettes is safe? Do you also believe them?
You needn't write anything more. Proving yourself a constipated old fool is
now complete.
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 21 Feb 2007 09:20:55
From: Curtis L. Russell
Subject: Re: Global Warming? Journalism? Don't Make Me Laugh!
|
On Wed, 21 Feb 2007 05:39:46 GMT, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com >
wrote:
>Proving yourself a constipated old fool is
>now complete.
Kind of like the lamp posts - Mr. Bull knows constipated old fools.
Proving that he is one has been his Internet ambition as long as I've
seen him on rbr. His success in that endeavor is now legendary.
Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 21 Feb 2007 17:30:06
From: patch70
Subject: Re: Global Warming? Journalism? Don't Make Me Laugh!
|
Tom Kunich Wrote:
> You needn't write anything more. Proving yourself a constipated old foo
> is now complete.
Once again, clarity is not foremost in your arguments.
Do I take it from this that you do believe that smoking is safe? You d
seem to like believing the 'minority' view when it comes to evidenc
about climate change after all
--
patch70
|
| | | | | | | | | |
Date: 21 Feb 2007 20:41:28
From: Donald Munro
Subject: Re: Global Warming? Journalism? Don't Make Me Laugh!
|
Tom Kunich Wrote:
>> You needn't write anything more. Proving yourself a constipated old fool
>> is now complete.
patch70 wrote:
> Once again, clarity is not foremost in your arguments.
He trying to be elliptical.
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 21 Feb 2007 13:37:49
From: Curtis L. Russell
Subject: Re: Global Warming? Journalism? Don't Make Me Laugh!
|
On Wed, 21 Feb 2007 20:41:28 +0200, Donald Munro
<fat-dumbass@hotmail.com > wrote:
>> Once again, clarity is not foremost in your arguments.
>
>He trying to be elliptical.
Anything but a Knee Jerk Literal.
Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 21 Feb 2007 00:49:24
From: William Asher
Subject: Re: Global Warming? Journalism? Don't Make Me Laugh!
|
Tom Kunich wrote:
> Let me explain this to you in terms that even a lamp post might be
> able to understand - THERE IS NO GLOBAL WARMING. There is climate
> cyclic variation. People that tell you that there is global warming
> are stupid because it would take a couple of thousands of years of
> ACCURATE temperture monitoring to find short term cyclic variations in
> the weather pattern. And they there are the larger cycles such as the
> 150 thousand year ice age cycle http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_age .
You need to be more precise in your language. There has been a warming of
the global climate over the last 20 years. Even very few of the "climate
change skeptics" dispute that. Your quarrel is a) whether the observed
warming is a short-term cycle or the beginning of a longer-term trend, b)
if it is a longer-term trend, whether the increase is due to the increase
in atmospheric radiatively important trace species or some other factor
that has not yet been identified (since no other known forcing can account
for such a rapid increase) and c) whether the increase in RITS is linked to
man's activities.
You don't want to question that the Earth has warmed over the past 25
years. You have a 10% chance on being right on one of the other options
though. Sort of like a blind squirrel finding an acorn now and then.
--
Bill Asher
|
| | | |
Date: 20 Feb 2007 09:52:38
From: Curtis L. Russell
Subject: Re: Global Warming? Journalism? Don't Make Me Laugh!
|
On Tue, 20 Feb 2007 16:13:23 +1100, patch70
<patch70.2mafyn@no-mx.forums.cyclingforums.com > wrote:
>I thought the US considered itself a world leader. If they are, then
>they should lead on this rather than say "we won't do anything until
>China and India lead the way".
I wouldn't be terribly surprised if that doesn't happen and soon. The
tipping point will arrive to where more is made from going green than
not, and most of those people that Kunich points to for support will
have crossed the room where the money is being made. One of them just
sold us a bunch of light bulbs.
I'm old enough to have grown up when we didn't have air conditioning
in cars even in Kansas and Texas, and the best part of the five and
dime was that they DID have air conditioning. Now they use air
conditioning in yland in the fall.
Being a godless liberal, I have faith enough in the intelligence of
humankind and the general direction of social evolution (Kunich
aside), that I believe that we are in the dither and blather period,
to be followed by the time when things are solved for the better. Its
not like we are talking about there not being solutions - the longer
looking arguments are about what will be the solution.
Well, except for Kunich and his ilk, which (pronoun chosen
deliberately, so don't give me a hard time) think that there is no
problem and no solution needed and everything is fine, but they
complain more than anyone else anyway.
Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...
|
| | | | |
Date: 21 Feb 2007 18:30:35
From: Howard Kveck
Subject: Re: Global Warming? Journalism? Don't Make Me Laugh!
|
In article <c72mt2lkf8fd9guliqggfvfa3ott1ablue@4ax.com >,
Curtis L. Russell <curtis@md-bicycling.org > wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Feb 2007 16:13:23 +1100, patch70
> <patch70.2mafyn@no-mx.forums.cyclingforums.com> wrote:
>
> >I thought the US considered itself a world leader. If they are, then
> >they should lead on this rather than say "we won't do anything until
> >China and India lead the way".
>
> I wouldn't be terribly surprised if that doesn't happen and soon. The
> tipping point will arrive to where more is made from going green than
> not, and most of those people that Kunich points to for support will
> have crossed the room where the money is being made.
I did hear a report on NPR a few days ago that described how many large
corporations are trying to get Congress to work on coming up with a set of specs on
what 'green' regulations are so they can start working on products and processes that
will fit into them. It is a good way for them to get a head start on that and help
them increase their profits.
--
tanx,
Howard
Never take a tenant with a monkey.
remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?
|
| | | |
Date: 20 Feb 2007 05:38:21
From: ST
Subject: Re: Global Warming? Journalism? Don't Make Me Laugh!
|
On 2/19/07 9:13 PM, in article
patch70.2mafyn@no-mx.forums.cyclingforums.com, "patch70"
<patch70.2mafyn@no-mx.forums.cyclingforums.com > wrote:
> fred.garvin@yahoo.com Wrote:
>> Lost nothing??? The Kyoto protocols would cripple the world's greatest
>> (ever) economy and yet accomplish nothing because China and India will
>> more than make up for any carbon-based pollution reductions taken in
>> the US.
>>
>> We'd lose everything.
>
> What the? A truly bizarre argument.
>
> The losses would be that a few very wealthy CEOs might have to accept a
> salary of 10 million pa rather than 15. And st CEOs would realise
> that there is plenty of money to be made in going green. Someone has to
> make money selling clean energy just as those promoting 'dirty' (ie CO2
> producing) energy will have reduced profits if we go down the sensible
> pathway. If those fossil fuel sellers have half a brain, they will be
> the ones to put the money into the clean energy and will therefore
> offset any lost profits.
>
> I thought the US considered itself a world leader. If they are, then
> they should lead on this rather than say "we won't do anything until
> China and India lead the way".
>
Are you stupid or what???
You think it is all just about a CEOs salary??
Remember Dumbass, fossil fuels are produced mostly in OTHER countries. Why
do you assbags think the angry white man in America is the cause/cure?
How about all the UAW union jobs?
And you guys really think Kunich is an idiot??
Lets all discuss our jobs we have and talk about the changes you might have
to make if we make these pie-in-the-sky changes.
Remember......... China, India, Brazil etal are not included in Kyoto..
|
| | | | |
Date: 20 Feb 2007 10:02:28
From: Curtis L. Russell
Subject: Re: Global Warming? Journalism? Don't Make Me Laugh!
|
On Tue, 20 Feb 2007 05:38:21 GMT, ST <no@no.com > wrote:
>Remember Dumbass, fossil fuels are produced mostly in OTHER countries. Why
>do you assbags think the angry white man in America is the cause/cure?
>
>How about all the UAW union jobs?
>And you guys really think Kunich is an idiot??
Well, it isn't about where they are produced and more about where they
are consumed. We're right there in the lead on that one.
Your lack of faith in the U.S. is illuminating, but not surprising.
And, no, I don't think Kunich is an idiot, I think he is a closed
minded conservative that borders on being a crackpot. That makes the
issue of whether he is a stupid or foolish person a moot point.
And he is so repetitive that I would guess that many on this list
could write his replies for him.
Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...
|
| | | | |
Date: 20 Feb 2007 16:49:04
From: patch70
Subject: Re: Global Warming? Journalism? Don't Make Me Laugh!
|
ST Wrote:
> How about all the UAW union jobs?
> And you guys really think Kunich is an idiot??
>
>
> Lets all discuss our jobs we have and talk about the changes you migh
> have
> to make if we make these pie-in-the-sky changes.
>
> Remember......... China, India, Brazil etal are not included i
> Kyoto..
By your reasoning, then it was a disaster that Germany was defeated i
World War II because all those poor gas chamber operators lost thei
jobs
--
patch70
|
| | | | | |
Date: 20 Feb 2007 23:25:46
From: ST
Subject: Re: Global Warming? Journalism? Don't Make Me Laugh!
|
On 2/19/07 9:49 PM, in article
patch70.2mahhn@no-mx.forums.cyclingforums.com, "patch70"
<patch70.2mahhn@no-mx.forums.cyclingforums.com > wrote:
> ST Wrote:
>> How about all the UAW union jobs?
>> And you guys really think Kunich is an idiot??
>>
>>
>> Lets all discuss our jobs we have and talk about the changes you might
>> have
>> to make if we make these pie-in-the-sky changes.
>>
>> Remember......... China, India, Brazil etal are not included in
>> Kyoto..
>
> By your reasoning, then it was a disaster that Germany was defeated in
> World War II because all those poor gas chamber operators lost their
> jobs.
>
What kind of whacked out fucked up logic is this?!?!?!
Are you saying we are a Germany that "deserves" to be taken down?
The UAW workers are just gas chamber operators?
You guys really scare the shit of of us.........
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 21 Feb 2007 09:15:36
From: Curtis L. Russell
Subject: Re: Global Warming? Journalism? Don't Make Me Laugh!
|
On Tue, 20 Feb 2007 23:25:46 GMT, ST <no@no.com > wrote:
>What kind of whacked out fucked up logic is this?!?!?!
>Are you saying we are a Germany that "deserves" to be taken down?
>The UAW workers are just gas chamber operators?
>
>You guys really scare the shit of of us.........
Now how are you going to save the world when you are so easily
frightened?
Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...
|
| | | | | |
Date: 20 Feb 2007 15:32:14
From: Tom Kunich
Subject: Re: Global Warming? Journalism? Don't Make Me Laugh!
|
"patch70" <patch70.2mahhn@no-mx.forums.cyclingforums.com > wrote in message
news:patch70.2mahhn@no-mx.forums.cyclingforums.com...
>
> ST Wrote:
>> How about all the UAW union jobs?
>> And you guys really think Kunich is an idiot??
>>
>>
>> Lets all discuss our jobs we have and talk about the changes you might
>> have
>> to make if we make these pie-in-the-sky changes.
>>
>> Remember......... China, India, Brazil etal are not included in
>> Kyoto..
>
> By your reasoning, then it was a disaster that Germany was defeated in
> World War II because all those poor gas chamber operators lost their
> jobs.
You and ass crack can tell us what you do for a living and what effect
cutting fuel consumption for transportation by 60% wold effect you.
I'm waiting.
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 21 Feb 2007 09:58:58
From: patch70
Subject: Re: Global Warming? Journalism? Don't Make Me Laugh!
|
Tom Kunich Wrote:
> You and ass crack can tell us what you do for a living and what effec
> cutting fuel consumption for transportation by 60% wold effect you.
I ride to work. It would make no difference to me. My work does no
"consume" fuel either
--
patch70
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 21 Feb 2007 00:07:37
From: Tom Kunich
Subject: Re: Global Warming? Journalism? Don't Make Me Laugh!
|
"patch70" <patch70.2mbsxz@no-mx.forums.cyclingforums.com > wrote in message
news:patch70.2mbsxz@no-mx.forums.cyclingforums.com...
>
> Tom Kunich Wrote:
>> You and ass crack can tell us what you do for a living and what effect
>> cutting fuel consumption for transportation by 60% wold effect you.
>
> I ride to work. It would make no difference to me. My work does not
> "consume" fuel either.
So those who do - such as 90% of those living in the bay area who live more
than 15 miles from work should suffer because you believe that they ought to
commute on bicycles?
Explain what your work is since it is impossible to have any company that
does not consume energy.
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 21 Feb 2007 12:29:39
From: patch70
Subject: Re: Global Warming? Journalism? Don't Make Me Laugh!
|
Tom Kunich Wrote:
> So those who do - such as 90% of those living in the bay area who liv
> more than 15 miles from work should suffer because you believe tha
> they ought to commute on bicycles?
Tom, learn to read. I said "I ride to work". I did not say "everyon
should ride to work". However, the more people the do, the better. Fo
health, for reducing pollution, for reducing congestion on roads, fo
making the dwindling supplies of petrol last longer etc. Publi
transport is another good option too
--
patch70
|
| | | | | | | | | |
Date: 21 Feb 2007 04:18:56
From: Tom Kunich
Subject: Re: Global Warming? Journalism? Don't Make Me Laugh!
|
"patch70" <patch70.2mc010@no-mx.forums.cyclingforums.com > wrote in message
news:patch70.2mc010@no-mx.forums.cyclingforums.com...
>
> Tom Kunich Wrote:
>> So those who do - such as 90% of those living in the bay area who live
>> more than 15 miles from work should suffer because you believe that
>> they ought to commute on bicycles?
>
> Tom, learn to read. I said "I ride to work". I did not say "everyone
> should ride to work". However, the more people the do, the better. For
> health, for reducing pollution, for reducing congestion on roads, for
> making the dwindling supplies of petrol last longer etc. Public
> transport is another good option too.
I wonder if you live in California? Same with Ben.
You people don't seem to have any idea of what it's like here. In 40 years
of working, I've worked closer than 15 miles from home for a total of 5
years. Most of the time my commute has been more than 25 miles and for about
5 years I worked more than 30 miles from home.
Today essentially EVERYONE in the bay area works 20 miles or more from work.
Public transportation has worked for me for a total of 6 years.
And aside from the stupidity implicit in Ben's postings, job growth in
California is stagnating. If you cut out all the jobs in the "service
industry" (always have a job as long as you can work a slurpy machine)
California has been losing jobs and businesses for 10 years now and it is
beginning to show. Electronics, mechanical engineering, biotech firms are
all leaving this state to find someplace that is a little more business
friendly. Many are simply moving out of the country.
One of the places I worked was in Berkeley and a city inspector came in and
threatened to close the place down for having toxic chemicals on site. The
toxic chemicals were - TWO UNOPENED CANS OF MOTOR OIL to lube the machines
in the machine shop.
Berkeley used to be the hub of electronics and biotech and they legislated
all of those businesses right out of town. It mostly moved out onto the
peninsula and was being fed by graduates from Stanford but then the towns
over there began taxing innovative businesses out of the area there as well.
Finally the state government got in on it and now even the huge business
boom in San Diego is moving across the border to get away from the socialist
pigs in power here.
For awhile it looked like Oregon was going to take off as a tech business
hub but with the influx of Californians they managed to kill the golden
goose there as well.
You people don't get it and I don't believe you ever will. And it will show
in the end.
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 21 Feb 2007 00:05:09
From: ST
Subject: Re: Global Warming? Journalism? Don't Make Me Laugh!
|
On 2/20/07 2:58 PM, in article
patch70.2mbsxz@no-mx.forums.cyclingforums.com, "patch70"
<patch70.2mbsxz@no-mx.forums.cyclingforums.com > wrote:
>
> Tom Kunich Wrote:
>> You and ass crack can tell us what you do for a living and what effect
>> cutting fuel consumption for transportation by 60% wold effect you.
>
> I ride to work. It would make no difference to me. My work does not
> "consume" fuel either.
>
Really??
What do you do? Lets look at the economics of the supply of materials you
use in your work and the distribution of the product afterwards....
|
| | |
Date: 19 Feb 2007 20:39:19
From: Fred Fredburger
Subject: Re: Global Warming? Journalism? Don't Make Me Laugh!
|
fred.garvin@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Feb 19, 7:31 pm, patch70 <patch70.2ma...@no-
> mx.forums.cyclingforums.com> wrote:
>> Obviously I am wasting my time but:
>>
>> Do you have health insurance? Home insurance? Car insurance?
>>
>> Most people would say yes to at least two of these.
>>
>> Yet the vast majority don't actually need them.
>>
>> Problem is, if you do need them and don't have them, you're screwed.
>>
>> If > 90% of the world's climate scientists agree that "CLIMATE CHANGE"
>> is real, then it doesn't take much brain power to realise that we
>> should do what we can to reduce human impact on this.
>>
>> If we are right, our grandchildren will thank us.
>>
>> If we are wrong, we have lost nothing.
>>
>> If we procede as business as usual and CLIMATE CHANGE is real, then
>> trying to fix it up when it is too late is like being that person with
>> no insurance at a time when they really wished they'd taken it out
>> earlier. Too damn late.
>>
>> --
>> patch70
>
> Lost nothing??? The Kyoto protocols would cripple the world's
> greatest (ever) economy and yet accomplish nothing because China and
> India will more than make up for any carbon-based pollution reductions
> taken in the US.
It's a pity that valid points get lost in all the back and forth
partisan bullshit. There is short term benefit to doing nothing, so you
know that some will. There is an interesting discussion about how one
would go about minimizing the cost and maximizing the incentives to
action. If you don't solve this problem, everyone will cheat because
they think everyone else will (that's my obligatory cycling content, it
just happens to fit).
But we never have this discussion because we're to busy being amazed by
one idiot who contends that there is no consensus for global warming or
another crackpot who insists that everyone needs to buy hydrogen cars NOW.
|
| | | |
Date: 20 Feb 2007 15:19:10
From: Tom Kunich
Subject: Re: Global Warming? Journalism? Don't Make Me Laugh!
|
"Fred Fredburger" <FredFredburger@WhereAreTheNachos.huh > wrote in message
news:5tSdnTFHPLvG5kfYnZ2dnUVZ_tadnZ2d@comcast.com...
>
> But we never have this discussion because we're to busy being amazed by
> one idiot who contends that there is no consensus for global warming or
> another crackpot who insists that everyone needs to buy hydrogen cars NOW.
And here all this time I thought we never have those discussions because
people like you are wankers and know absolutely nothing about the subject
except what your leader Al Bore tells you.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_global_warming_consensus
"Their views contrast with the mainstream scientific opinion on climate
change, as reported in the IPCC Third Assessment Report (2001"
Here's the significant thing about that - the RELEASE of the 2001 IPCC
report has been held up for three months so that they could change the
scientific reports to MATCH THE SUMY CONCLUSIONS. They have even said
that!
So explain how ANYONE could tell us how people oppose the scientific "facts"
when they aren't even available?
|
| | | | |
Date: 25 Feb 2007 12:09:44
From: Fred Fredburger
Subject: Re: Global Warming? Journalism? Don't Make Me Laugh!
|
Tom Kunich wrote:
> "Fred Fredburger" <FredFredburger@WhereAreTheNachos.huh> wrote in message
> news:5tSdnTFHPLvG5kfYnZ2dnUVZ_tadnZ2d@comcast.com...
>> But we never have this discussion because we're to busy being amazed by
>> one idiot who contends that there is no consensus for global warming or
>> another crackpot who insists that everyone needs to buy hydrogen cars NOW.
>
> And here all this time I thought we never have those discussions because
> people like you are wankers and know absolutely nothing about the subject
> except what your leader Al Bore tells you.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_global_warming_consensus
>
> "Their views contrast with the mainstream scientific opinion on climate
> change, as reported in the IPCC Third Assessment Report (2001"
>
> Here's the significant thing about that - the RELEASE of the 2001 IPCC
> report has been held up for three months so that they could change the
> scientific reports to MATCH THE SUMY CONCLUSIONS. They have even said
> that!
>
> So explain how ANYONE could tell us how people oppose the scientific "facts"
> when they aren't even available?
>
>
You've blown any claim to impartiality so many times it doesn't bear
repeating. But I really DID like your claim that Clinton was evil
because he didn't regulate businesses and investors enough, allowing the
dotcom bust to happen.
Clinton shall burn in hell because of his conservative, pro-business
policies. I'm sure of it.
|
| | | | | |
Date: 25 Feb 2007 21:36:59
From: Tom Kunich
Subject: Re: Global Warming? Journalism? Don't Make Me Laugh!
|
"Fred Fredburger" <FredFredburger@WhereAreTheNachos.huh > wrote in message
news:s4idnXGT2dKUcHzYnZ2dnUVZ_oannZ2d@comcast.com...
>
> You've blown any claim to impartiality so many times it doesn't bear
> repeating. But I really DID like your claim that Clinton was evil because
> he didn't regulate businesses and investors enough, allowing the dotcom
> bust to happen.
Is that anything like your claim that Conservatism definitionally means that
we have to allow fraud because after all it is only free trade?
> Clinton shall burn in hell because of his conservative, pro-business
> policies. I'm sure of it.
And you will certainly never learn the difference between government
intervention in patent fraud and when it becomes regulation of honest
business.
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 25 Feb 2007 19:52:22
From: Fred Fredburger
Subject: Re: Global Warming? Journalism? Don't Make Me Laugh!
|
Tom Kunich wrote:
> "Fred Fredburger" <FredFredburger@WhereAreTheNachos.huh> wrote in message
> news:s4idnXGT2dKUcHzYnZ2dnUVZ_oannZ2d@comcast.com...
>> You've blown any claim to impartiality so many times it doesn't bear
>> repeating. But I really DID like your claim that Clinton was evil because
>> he didn't regulate businesses and investors enough, allowing the dotcom
>> bust to happen.
>
> Is that anything like your claim that Conservatism definitionally means that
> we have to allow fraud because after all it is only free trade?
Which, of course, I never said.
Not that anyone has any reason to expect anything other than
intellectual dishonesty from you.
>
>> Clinton shall burn in hell because of his conservative, pro-business
>> policies. I'm sure of it.
>
> And you will certainly never learn the difference between government
> intervention in patent fraud and when it becomes regulation of honest
> business.
>
>
The dotcom bust wasn't about patent fraud. It was about investors
gullible enough to invest in anything that sounded Internet-y, and
businesses unethical enough to milk that. Stopping the dotcom bust would
have involved protecting the gullible from themselves and policing
business ethics.
No more red herrings, Tom. Try being honest and using a little less
bullshit sometime.
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 26 Feb 2007 17:58:29
From: Tom Kunich
Subject: Re: Global Warming? Journalism? Don't Make Me Laugh!
|
"Fred Fredburger" <FredFredburger@WhereAreTheNachos.huh > wrote in message
news:3I6dnXhKE8zqxH_YnZ2dnUVZ_sapnZ2d@comcast.com...
> Tom Kunich wrote:
>> "Fred Fredburger" <FredFredburger@WhereAreTheNachos.huh> wrote in message
>> news:s4idnXGT2dKUcHzYnZ2dnUVZ_oannZ2d@comcast.com...
>>> You've blown any claim to impartiality so many times it doesn't bear
>>> repeating. But I really DID like your claim that Clinton was evil
>>> because he didn't regulate businesses and investors enough, allowing the
>>> dotcom bust to happen.
>>
>> Is that anything like your claim that Conservatism definitionally means
>> that we have to allow fraud because after all it is only free trade?
>
> Which, of course, I never said.
There's the implication right above in the quotation of yours. So don't cry
because someone quotes you and then accepts what you said as what you
believe.
> Not that anyone has any reason to expect anything other than intellectual
> dishonesty from you.
Ahem.
>>> Clinton shall burn in hell because of his conservative, pro-business
>>> policies. I'm sure of it.
>>
>> And you will certainly never learn the difference between government
>> intervention in patent fraud and when it becomes regulation of honest
>> business.
>
> The dotcom bust wasn't about patent fraud.
So selling public stock in a "company" without any assets, no intellectual
property and not even a business plan describing a method by which ANY of
these could be achieved isn't fraud? Funny that none of these companies
could have qualified for an honest bank loan.
> It was about investors gullible enough to invest in anything that sounded
> Internet-y, and businesses unethical enough to milk that. Stopping the
> dotcom bust would have involved protecting the gullible from themselves
> and policing business ethics.
>
> No more red herrings, Tom. Try being honest and using a little less
> bullshit sometime.
dogwalk.com - that was fraud.
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 26 Feb 2007 18:56:47
From: Fred Fredburger
Subject: Re: Global Warming? Journalism? Don't Make Me Laugh!
|
Tom Kunich wrote:
> dogwalk.com - that was fraud.
Is it your belief that the dotcom bust was caused by dogwalk.com?
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 25 Feb 2007 20:13:45
From: Joe Cipale
Subject: Re: Global Warming? Journalism? Don't Make Me Laugh!
|
Fred Fredburger wrote:
>
> No more red herrings, Tom. Try being honest and using a little less
> bullshit sometime.
Fred,
Have you forgot WHO you are discussing this with???
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 25 Feb 2007 21:59:21
From: Fred Fredburger
Subject: Re: Global Warming? Journalism? Don't Make Me Laugh!
|
Joe Cipale wrote:
> Fred Fredburger wrote:
>
>>
>> No more red herrings, Tom. Try being honest and using a little less
>> bullshit sometime.
>
> Fred,
>
> Have you forgot WHO you are discussing this with???
SHHHHH! I know and you know but HE doesn't know.
|
| |
Date: 20 Feb 2007 13:31:48
From: patch70
Subject: Re: Global Warming? Journalism? Don't Make Me Laugh!
|
Obviously I am wasting my time but:
Do you have health insurance? Home insurance? Car insurance?
Most people would say yes to at least two of these.
Yet the vast majority don't actually need them.
Problem is, if you do need them and don't have them, you're screwed.
If > 90% of the world's climate scientists agree that "CLIMATE CHANGE
is real, then it doesn't take much brain power to realise that w
should do what we can to reduce human impact on this.
If we are right, our grandchildren will thank us.
If we are wrong, we have lost nothing.
If we procede as business as usual and CLIMATE CHANGE is real, the
trying to fix it up when it is too late is like being that person wit
no insurance at a time when they really wished they'd taken it ou
earlier. Too damn late
--
patch70
|
| | |
Date: 20 Feb 2007 02:36:13
From: Tom Kunich
Subject: Re: Global Warming? Journalism? Don't Make Me Laugh!
|
"patch70" <patch70.2ma84z@no-mx.forums.cyclingforums.com > wrote in message
news:patch70.2ma84z@no-mx.forums.cyclingforums.com...
>
> If > 90% of the world's climate scientists agree that "CLIMATE CHANGE"
> is real, then it doesn't take much brain power to realise that we
> should do what we can to reduce human impact on this.
By all means demonstrate that 90% of the world's scientists agree with
global warming. That is a complete and utter lie promolgated by the media
and the Global Warming myth perpetrators.
|
| | | |
Date: 20 Feb 2007 16:22:16
From: patch70
Subject: Re: Global Warming? Journalism? Don't Make Me Laugh!
|
Tom Kunich Wrote:
> By all means demonstrate that 90% of the world's scientists agree wit
> global warming. That is a complete and utter lie promolgated by th
> media and the Global Warming myth perpetrators.
Sure Tom, and the world is flat, the Easter Bunny is real, and cyclin
is free of doping..
--
patch70
|
| | | | |
Date: 20 Feb 2007 05:39:41
From: ST
Subject: Re: Global Warming? Journalism? Don't Make Me Laugh!
|
On 2/19/07 9:22 PM, in article
patch70.2maggz@no-mx.forums.cyclingforums.com, "patch70"
<patch70.2maggz@no-mx.forums.cyclingforums.com > wrote:
>
> Tom Kunich Wrote:
>> By all means demonstrate that 90% of the world's scientists agree with
>> global warming. That is a complete and utter lie promolgated by the
>> media and the Global Warming myth perpetrators.
>
> Sure Tom, and the world is flat, the Easter Bunny is real, and cycling
> is free of doping...
>
And we were coming into an Ice Age in the 1970s.......
That was the "flavor of the month" in the media at the time.
|
|
