Frost your nuts?

Lew Hodgett wrote:
> RE: Subject
>
> Like it or lump it, dependance on fossil fuels is operating on
> borrowed time.

Why do you say that? Every year the provable reserves of petroleum
increases. Heck, there's even a theory that oil is being CREATED deep
underground.

>
> Alternate clean renewable energy resources are plentiful.
>
> Geo Thermal, solar, hydro, wind, yes an even nulcear, IF the disposal
> problems can be resolved.

For the foreseeable future (say, 200 years), geothermal, solar, hydro, and
wind can, at best, merely nibble at the margins.

You can't run an Aluminum production facility - that takes Gigawatts of
power - off of sunbeams. Ever.

"Mike Marlow" wrote:

Those of us who live
> closer understand that if something like 3 Mile Island happens -
> it's our homes.

000000000000000000000000000000

Had to fly into Harrisburg once a month for a few years.

The approach took us right over TMI and as the plane banked, could
look out the window straight down into the gullet of the burned out
reactor.

Very interesting feeling.

Lew

"Doug Miller" wrote:

> Yes, quite a few -- but clearly you haven't.
------------------------------------
My employer furnished an automobile as a tool which allowed me to be
more productive.

The numbers are dated but back then my cost to the company was
budgeted at $100K/Yr or $2K/week or $400/day.

If I was off the road because of a vehicle malfunction, it represented
serious money, both in terms of direct cost but also lost revenue
generating opportunities.

You could probably double those numbers in today's market.

A vehicle is simply a rapidly depreciating piece of personal property
that starts down the road to a junk yard where you transfer to a new
vehicle and start the process all over.

Back then the number crunchers determined that dumping a car at 60,000
miles represented the lowest cost of ownership.

Today that number might be 80,000 miles, but I doubt it.

Lew

Read it & weep.

http://tinyurl.com/yah6j6m


Lew

"Mike Marlow" wrote:

> Most cars today are more than capable of exceeding 100K miles with
> nothing more than a brake job, and quite capable of doubling that
> without significant repairs.
----------------------------------------
Bought a used car in the "rust belt" lately?

60K miles and/or 3 years is a good time to dump a vehicle if you
operate there.

Lew

RE: Subject

Like it or lump it, dependance on fossil fuels is operating on
borrowed time.

Just as oil saved the whale, it's time to transition to clean energy
generation to save our planet.

You can go screaming and running into that good night or you can be
part of the solution.

Alternate clean renewable energy resources are plentiful.

Geo Thermal, solar, hydro, wind, yes an even nulcear, IF the disposal
problems can be resolved.

The challenge is to figure how best to get the job done effectively.

Flapping your gums, or in this forum your fingers on a keyboard,
simply isn't productive.

Lew

On Jan 27, 4:03=A0pm, "HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Chris Friesen wrote:
> > On 01/27/2010 09:09 AM, HeyBub wrote:
>
> >> You can't run an Aluminum production facility - that takes Gigawatts
> >> of power - off of sunbeams. Ever.
>
> > You underestimate the sun.
>
> > Average insolation for the earth is 250W/m^2. =A0Using arrays of mirror=
s
> > to focus heat it would take a reflective area 1kmx4km to generate 1GW
> > of power.
>
> Heh! Can you imagine what it costs to cover 4 sq km with grass seed, let
> alone MIRRORS?
>
> I have run the numbers. Allowing for conversion efficiency (70%), darknes=
s
> (12 hours), clouds (20%), and latitude (30=B0N), it would take a solar
> collector the size of the Los Angeles basin (~1200 sq miles) to supply
> electricity just for California (~50Gw). The only way to reduce the size =
of
> the solar farm is to move the orbit of the earth closer to the sun.

Now, polish that mirror.

> Leaving aside the cost to construct, install, and maintain something
> covering 3,000 sq km, the citizens in Los Angles would have to live in
> perpetual darkness.
>
> Which, when one thinks on it ....

They don't. That's the point.

On Fri, 29 Jan 2010 20:47:59 -0700, the infamous Mark & Juanita
<[email protected]> scrawled the following:

>Jim Weisgram wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 23 Jan 2010 10:14:01 -0600, Swingman <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>Let's see some "scientific" refutation, please:
>>>
>>>http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/01/climategate_cru_was_but_the_ti.html
>>>
>>>
>>>http://www.kusi.com/weather/colemanscorner/81559212.html
>>
> ... snip
>
>Executive summary:
>"I'm an AGW believer even though I don't have the scientific background to
>really understand what is being debated, but all of the scientists and news
>outlets I like say it's true. All of ya'll opposing that opinion have no
>scientific background to make such claims, you aren't listening to the right
>scientists and experts, and besides, you are getting your news from Fox, so
>you are just a bunch of knuckle-dragging neanderthals who should shut up and
>listen to your betters."
>
> "CRU climate fraud e-mails and other evidence of fraud by my selected
>group of experts? What e-mails?"

2 points, Mark. BUT, none of the AGWK True Believers will understand,
even in the slightest, that you were being totally sarcastic there,
and they won't think it funny.

--
It is in his pleasure that a man really lives; it is from
his leisure that he constructs the true fabric of self.
-- Agnes Repplier

On Jan 26, 2:10=A0pm, "Mike Marlow" <[email protected]>
wrote:
> <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:9587f0ef-5aeb-41d7-b6eb-9cf6d47a49d3@y12g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
>
> Yes, there are many exceptions, trucks being a major one. =A0When I
> bought my 2001, a two-year old truck with 20K was selling for $1K less
> than I paid for my new one. =A0Nuts! =A0OTOH, we bought a three-year old
> 2000 Sable for about half the original price with 12K miles on it.
> Both vehicles have been fine (though the corroded out brakes/lines on
> my truck cost a small fortune).
>
> *************************************************************************=
************
> < I hate peopel who post from google groups - there are usenet
> conventions....>

Hate Google, not me. ;-)

> Ok - so take this another turn. =A0Last year you could buy any truck for =
a
> fraction of its real worth.

Used pickups were still expensive and new ones were still selling.

>=A0So what's you point? =A0You picked a moment in
> time and that does not build an argument., =A0Trucks as well as cars have
> historically depreciated quickly. =A0Sure the numers vary, but the fact i=
s
> that they depreciate.

I didn't claim that trucks appreciate. Sure, both depreciate.

- Trucks *far* less so than cars.
- 2001 was not last year.
- My 9YO tuck still holds 25% of it's original value. *Far* more than
almost any car.

> > It makes plenty of sense if you're going to keep the car for a couple
> > hundred thousand miles too.
>
> You also have to weigh the reliability. =A0If you rely on the vehicle
> for work, you're in tough shape when it's down.
>
> *************************************************************************=
******************
>
> < Did I say how much I hate google groups' way of contributing to usenet
> posts

Tough shit. Can't get to an NNTP server. Google is the only choice.

> Sure but that's a red herring. =A0What does that have to do with deprecia=
tion?
> The given in this discussion is that the vehicles do indeed perform as
> expected. =A0Many have voiced that.

It goes to the value of a new(er) vehicle, which wasn't factored in in
the above equations. (Neither was the cost of maintenance for two
vehicles in the 100k-200k range, vs one in the 0-200k range).

[email protected] (Doug Miller) writes:
>In article <[email protected]>, Chris Friesen <[email protected]> wrote:
>>On 01/25/2010 10:53 AM, Doug Miller wrote:
>>
>>> Do the math. Buying a new car is *never* financially sound. Buy used, and let
>>
>>> someone else eat the depreciation.
>>
>>I'm not arguing that it *can* make sense to buy used, but it depends on
>>what's available in your area. I'm just saying that at the time I was
>>looking to buy a car, the type of car I wanted to buy was selling used
>>for significant fractions of the new price.
>>
>>Even now, a new Matrix XR is about $20500 with 0% financing and some
>>incentives added on top. Checking the local auto trader listings, a
>>2008 with 45000km is currently $18000. A 2006 with 79000km is $15000, a
>>2004 with 157000km is $11000.
>
>Assuming the expected life of the vehicle to be 250,000 miles (400,000 km),
>and amortizing the purchase cost over the remaining life:
>
>new: $0.0513/km
>2008: $0.0507/km
>2006: $0.0467/km
>2004: $0.0453/km
>
>Like I keep saying: do the math. It does *not* make financial sense to buy
>new. You pay a very large premium for the privilege of driving a new car. If
>you like driving a new car enough that you're willing to pay that premium,
>fine. But if you think you're saving money, you're fooling yourself.
>
>And the older the car is, the better the deal is (up to a point, of course --
>I doubt I'd be interested in buying a 25-year-old used car...).
>
>My most recent used car purchase: 1999 Saturn SL2, two years ago, with 90,000
>miles. Assuming expected life of 200,000 miles, my purchase cost of $3300
>amortized over the remaining life is $0.03/mile = $0.0186/km. That's U.S.
>dollars, of course, but it's still not much over CDN$0.02/km.

Have you factored in maintenance? The maintenance costs for a used
car can go up exponentially; particularly if it has a timing belt
instead of a chain. With most new cars requiring _no_ significant
maintenance (aside from oil changes, rubber & radiator fluid at 50k),
until about 120k; the maint charges after 120k add up quickly.

scott

On Sat, 23 Jan 2010 17:10:19 -0600, "Leon" <[email protected]>
wrote:
>I think that just because there is money to be made at undoing global
>warming pretty much tells the tale.

Think that's a little pessismistic. Even if global warming and
polluting the atmosphere with all sorts of stuff is not as rampant as
some would like to believe, there's still people who are having
breathing difficulties because of it. That *has* to have some kind of
negative affect on our planet.

Swingman wrote:
> Let's see some "scientific" refutation, please:
>
> http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/01/climategate_cru_was_but_the_ti.html
>
>
> http://www.kusi.com/weather/colemanscorner/81559212.html
>

Here's a juicy one. They make it sound like it's imminent, but the last
paragraph sums it up - they made up the whole scenario. Sounds scary
though and all because of "climate change".

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100124/ap_on_sc/us_sci_frankenstorm_scenario

In article <[email protected]>, DGDevin
<[email protected]> wrote:

> "Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
> > Let's see some "scientific" refutation, please:
> >
> > http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/01/climategate_cru_was_but_the_ti.html
>
> Ah yes, The American Thinker, home of Ed Lasky who never met a smear-tactic
> he didn't like. Say, there's a real credible source, right up there with
> DailyKOS in terms of believability.
>
>

The scrapping of data stations is being reported in many other places.
Rather than shooting the messenger, why not address the actual message?

One reporting station being used for everything north of 65 degrees in
Canada's north? A station in Hawaii being used to project data 1200
miles north?

In article <[email protected]>, Upscale
<[email protected]> wrote:

> On Sat, 23 Jan 2010 17:10:19 -0600, "Leon" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
> >I think that just because there is money to be made at undoing global
> >warming pretty much tells the tale.
>
> Think that's a little pessismistic. Even if global warming and
> polluting the atmosphere with all sorts of stuff is not as rampant as
> some would like to believe, there's still people who are having
> breathing difficulties because of it. That *has* to have some kind of
> negative affect on our planet.

Well, I'd be totally in favour of a "reduce pollution" movement.

But there are BILLIONS of dollars being made as a result of the AGW
movement, and the path leads back to the UN.

Follow the money. Always.

The people who are questioning AGW aren't making a f*king DIME.

In article <[email protected]>, Upscale
<[email protected]> wrote:

> On Sat, 23 Jan 2010 17:20:55 -0600, Dave Balderstone
> >But there are BILLIONS of dollars being made as a result of the AGW
> >movement, and the path leads back to the UN.
>
> I can't argue with that. That's the way it's always going to be. But,
> just like the current movement to go to alternative energy vehicles,
> while many are making money on it, there's others who are pursuing the
> technology for improvement purposes. Eventually more will follow.

The problem with electric cars is that gasoline needs to be at $4 a
litre ($16 a gallon) to push people to buy them, and even then the
electricity to charge them is going to come from fossil fuels. So you
can be really smug driving your electric car that's being charged by
burning coal.

It's a mug's game.

Windmills kill birds and bats, and don't run when it's really cold and
wind tends to drop off (see Britain during the recent cold snap). Solar
doesn't work at night.

People don't realize how the power grid works, and that there is a base
load that is REQUIRED. Alternatives other than nuclear can't sustain
the grid, and nuclear can't be ramped up and down fast enough to deal
with the variations in demand.

I spent some time at a family reunion last summer talking this through
with someone who works for the power utility in Ontario. It is nowhere
near as simple as the greenies want us to believe.

In article <[email protected]>, DGDevin
<[email protected]> wrote:

> "Mark & Juanita" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
> >> Ah yes, The American Thinker, home of Ed Lasky who never met a
> >> smear-tactic
> >> he didn't like. Say, there's a real credible source, right up there with
> >> DailyKOS in terms of believability.
> >
> > Yep, to the statist progressive, citing facts is considered a smear
> > tactic. You just threw in that Daily KOS (a site that does *not* deal in
> > facts, but rather feelings) statement to lend credibility to your smear.
>
> To the right-wingnut droid any suggestion that one of his parade marshals
> doesn't speak the gospel truth brings forth just this sort of reaction.
> Lasky smells like a garbage truck, but you'll happily hold your nose and
> believe whatever he says tomorrow anyway. You know what the difference is
> between left-wingnuts and right-wingnuts like you? Nothing.

So, are you going to address the evidence any time soon?

In article <[email protected]>, DGDevin
<[email protected]> wrote:

> "Dave Balderstone" <dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca> wrote in message
> news:230120101720552720%dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca...
>
>
> > The people who are questioning AGW aren't making a f*king DIME.
>
> Horsecrap, some of them have been or are continuing to be funded by the
> fossil fuel industries, Richard Lindzen being a good example. He's not only
> been supported directly by OPEC and energy companies, he works with
> organizations that get funding from companies like ExxonMobil. It amazes me
> how some people who like to imagine they are informed on this issue somehow
> manage to miss that and claim the $$$ motive is all on the other side. Well
> it doesn't really amaze me, it's actually quite predictable.

Um, it may be disturbing for you to admit, but Big Oil and Wall Street
are heavily into the carbon credit trading market.

They're making big money from the AGW hysteria.

In article <[email protected]>, DGDevin
<[email protected]> wrote:

> "Mark & Juanita" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
> > Did you read the cited article? If not, then you have no position to
> > make
> > any kind of statement regarding it. If you did, please cite, where, in
> > that
> > article there was any sort of smear
>
> Did I say the artice contained smears? No? Then what are you talking
> about?
>
> If I posted a link to an article on DailyKOS or some other looney-left
> website, would you take it seriously? Of course you wouldn't (neither would
> I) because that outlet doesn't do journalism, they do advocacy and they
> don't much care how far from the truth they have to stray in doing so. Well
> guess what, The American Thinker is cut from the same cloth, and Ed Lasky is
> a smear-monger, not a journalist--yet he's in charge of "news" at TAT (which
> he co-founded). Publications with that sort of repuation don't get to sit
> at the big table and be taken seriously, that's just the way it works.
>
> -- all that were stated were events and
> > facts that happened along with some conclusions to be drawn. You might
> > not
> > like the facts, you might not like the conclusions, but that gives you no
> > place to call those things a smear.
> >
> > Let me give you a hint:
> > Right wingnut, left wingnut == smear
>
> How about "red greens" -- do you seriously have trouble understanding that
> equating environmentalism with communism qualifies as a smear, and a
> childish one at that?
>
> Pot--kettle --black, buster, don't demand from others what you are not
> prepared to do yourself.

So you actually have NOTHING to say. Address the facts, please.

In article <[email protected]>, DGDevin
<[email protected]> wrote:

> Well, which is it? Is your position
> Statement No. 1, or the contradictory Statement No. 2?

Show me where Big Oil is arguing against AGW. They're where the money
is, period.

You're big on bluster, short on facts.

In article <[email protected]>, LDosser
<[email protected]> wrote:

> "Luigi Zanasi" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:a1179941-12c6-4025-8ff7-99c02dec432f@e25g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
> On Jan 23, 10:38 am, Dave Balderstone
> <dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca> wrote:
> <snip>
> > One reporting station being used for everything north of 65 degrees in
> > Canada's north? A station in Hawaii being used to project data 1200
> > miles north?
>
> Well, if there's only one station north of 65, this should result in
> showing less warming. The temperatures in Canada's north have been
> clearly and unequivocally warming.
>
> I know, I live here. When I first moved to the Yukon in 1989, we used
> to have at least 2-3 weeks of 40 below temperatures. Not any more.
> ========================================================
>
> Wow, 20 years of anecdotal "data"!
>

There are plenty of stations north of 65, but only one is being used by
the AGW proponents.

In article <[email protected]>, LDosser
<[email protected]> wrote:

> "Dave Balderstone" <dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca> wrote in message
> news:230120102230357526%dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca...
> > In article <[email protected]>, DGDevin
> > <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >> "Dave Balderstone" <dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca> wrote in message
> >> news:230120101720552720%dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca...
> >>
> >>
> >> > The people who are questioning AGW aren't making a f*king DIME.
> >>
> >> Horsecrap, some of them have been or are continuing to be funded by the
> >> fossil fuel industries, Richard Lindzen being a good example. He's not
> >> only
> >> been supported directly by OPEC and energy companies, he works with
> >> organizations that get funding from companies like ExxonMobil. It amazes
> >> me
> >> how some people who like to imagine they are informed on this issue
> >> somehow
> >> manage to miss that and claim the $$$ motive is all on the other side.
> >> Well
> >> it doesn't really amaze me, it's actually quite predictable.
> >
> > Um, it may be disturbing for you to admit, but Big Oil and Wall Street
> > are heavily into the carbon credit trading market.
> >
> > They're making big money from the AGW hysteria.
>
>
> They OWN it!

Much in the same way that Enron made millions off of the acid rain
scare in the late 20th century.

In article
<a1179941-12c6-4025-8ff7-99c02dec432f@e25g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>,
Luigi Zanasi <[email protected]> wrote:

> The temperatures in Canada's north have been
> clearly and unequivocally warming.

Sure they have. AND the glaciers are melting AND the polar bears are
drownding AND OMFG WE'RE ALL GOING TO DIE WILL NOBODY THINK OF THE
CHILDREN!

Better raise taxes. That'll fix things.

In article <[email protected]>, Swingman
<[email protected]> wrote:

> Still looking for refutation that the three links in my first two posts
> are false, made up, and wrong ... thus far nothing but smear tactics and
> shooting at the messengers.

A few more links:

<http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1245636/Glacier-scientists-says-
knew-data-verified.html>

<http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6999975.ece>

<http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7000063.ece>

The bullshit from the IPCC just keeps getting deeper...

In article <6B%[email protected]>, Rusty <[email protected]>
wrote:

> The right to exist and the survival of the State of Israel are of great
> importance to us found on there "about us" page
> We hate the muzzies lol kind of racist kind of unscientific probably idiots
> if you ask me ....just saying
> It's a don't let the liberals (be afraid) create laws that don't allow us to
> rape and plunder the plant.
> Woot Woot log it, burn it, pave it, then I can park my SUV on it.

Do you think you try and be a bit more incoherent? I was almost able to
parse that.

In article
<7766f765-fd84-4269-9944-23f149c96c4d@a32g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
Luigi Zanasi <[email protected]> wrote:

> assuming that the north is warming up
> faster than the south

Any data that suggests your assumption is valid has been shown to be
horribly compromised by the idiots who have been pushing the AGW
political and financial agenda.

As a result I feel confident in saying there is currently no valid
scientific evidence that shows human influenced global warming is real.
The

In article <[email protected]>, LDosser
<[email protected]> wrote:

> "Dave Balderstone" <dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca> wrote in message
> news:240120100827048132%dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca...
> > In article <[email protected]>, LDosser
> > <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >> "Luigi Zanasi" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >> news:a1179941-12c6-4025-8ff7-99c02dec432f@e25g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
> >> On Jan 23, 10:38 am, Dave Balderstone
> >> <dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca> wrote:
> >> <snip>
> >> > One reporting station being used for everything north of 65 degrees in
> >> > Canada's north? A station in Hawaii being used to project data 1200
> >> > miles north?
> >>
> >> Well, if there's only one station north of 65, this should result in
> >> showing less warming. The temperatures in Canada's north have been
> >> clearly and unequivocally warming.
> >>
> >> I know, I live here. When I first moved to the Yukon in 1989, we used
> >> to have at least 2-3 weeks of 40 below temperatures. Not any more.
> >> ========================================================
> >>
> >> Wow, 20 years of anecdotal "data"!
> >>
> >
> > There are plenty of stations north of 65, but only one is being used by
> > the AGW proponents.
>
>
> Let me guess: the warm one?

How did you know?

In article <[email protected]>, Mark &
Juanita <[email protected]> wrote:

> LDosser wrote:
>
> > "Dave Balderstone" <dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca> wrote in message
> > news:240120100931269881%dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca...
> >> In article <[email protected]>, Swingman
> >> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Still looking for refutation that the three links in my first two posts
> >>> are false, made up, and wrong ... thus far nothing but smear tactics and
> >>> shooting at the messengers.
> >>
> >> A few more links:
> >>
> >> <http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1245636/Glacier-scientists-says-
> >> knew-data-verified.html>
> >>
> >> <http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6999975.ece>
> >>
> >> <http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7000063.ece>
> >>
> >> The bullshit from the IPCC just keeps getting deeper...
> >
> >
> > Have they No shame?!
>
> They *LIED* to us! They played on our *FEARS*! ;-)

They KILLED Kenny! Those BASTARDS!

In article <[email protected]>, Larry Jaques
<novalidaddress@di\/ersify.com> wrote:

> On Sat, 23 Jan 2010 18:45:20 -0500, the infamous Upscale
> <[email protected]> scrawled the following:
>
> >On Sat, 23 Jan 2010 17:20:55 -0600, Dave Balderstone
> >>But there are BILLIONS of dollars being made as a result of the AGW
> >>movement, and the path leads back to the UN.
> >
> >I can't argue with that. That's the way it's always going to be. But,
> >just like the current movement to go to alternative energy vehicles,
> >while many are making money on it, there's others who are pursuing the
> >technology for improvement purposes. Eventually more will follow.
>
> Can you prove that statement, Uppy? (Ah dinna thin so.)
>
> What I'm amazed at is that more of the hybrids aren't being built. The
> combo is dynamite!

They're still too spendy for me. Too much cost, too little benefit. If
I could recover the extra cost in 5 years with savings in running cost,
I'd be interested. But as long as the pitch is "will nobody think of
the children!" I ain't biting.

In article <[email protected]>, Mike Marlow
<[email protected]> wrote:

> How far do you live from a reactor?

A couple or three kilometres.

Yes, there's a reactor in Saskatoon...

I'd rather live near a reactor than downwind from a sour gas well or a
coal burning power station.

In article <[email protected]>, CW
<[email protected]> wrote:

> "Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:60896329-fe7b-4f2d-a0f1-51c2d383065d@c34g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
> On Jan 26, 1:57 pm, "HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >
> > "Clean, renewable source of energy" - like what? Whale oil? There is
> > NOTHING
> > that is both sparkling clean and renewable that can make more than a trace
> > difference in our energy needs.
>
> >Yes there is. Nuclear.
>
> Fine for the rest of the world. Now, they need to come up with something
> that would work in the US.

Why? Keep buying our gas and oil, we'll keep shipping it south!

Hope 'n Change! Huzza! Go oilsands!

In article
<[email protected]>,
Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote:

> I probably get more radiation from the granite I play with.

Live in a brick house?

In article <[email protected]>, Mike Marlow
<[email protected]> wrote:

> Have you really thought about the effect of that sour gas
> well and the likes of a reactor disaster?

The problems with sour gas are real. The problems with reactors in
North America are entirely imaginary.

In article <[email protected]>, Lew Hodgett
<[email protected]> wrote:

> Like it or lump it, dependance on fossil fuels is operating on
> borrowed time.

Proven crude reserves are at their highest level EVER in human history.

In article <[email protected]>, Swingman
<[email protected]> wrote:

> However, the issue in this thread is not whether the earth is in one of
> its many warming or cooling periods, it is whether "science" is being
> subverted to intentionally mislead the public in support of a global
> economic and political agenda.

When the AGW proponents can come up with a computer model that can
accurately model THE PAST I may start listening to them.

"Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:60896329-fe7b-4f2d-a0f1-51c2d383065d@c34g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
On Jan 26, 1:57 pm, "HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote:

>
> "Clean, renewable source of energy" - like what? Whale oil? There is
> NOTHING
> that is both sparkling clean and renewable that can make more than a trace
> difference in our energy needs.

Yes there is. Nuclear.

*************************************************************************************

How far do you live from a reactor?

--

-Mike-
[email protected]

On Sun, 31 Jan 2010 11:02:58 -0600, the infamous Douglas Johnson
<[email protected]> scrawled the following:

>vonKevin <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>On this, finally, we agree. Put your money where your mouth is - DO
>>something about it. Stop exhalling CO2
>
>It wouldn't help. The issue with CO2, if there is one, is not with carbon that
>is already circulating. It with carbon that has been fossilized for millions of
>years and is being re-introduced into the cycle. -- Doug

Not necessarily. The mindless minions in the alarmist camp are
complaining about mexican food and cow farts for the methane produced
by them. If it weren't being taken seriously by people who can form
policy in the world, it would be considered quite laughable by us, the
sane(r) few.

--
Imagination is the beginning of creation. You imagine what you desire,
you will what you imagine and at last you create what you will.
-- George Bernard Shaw

"Mark & Juanita" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

>
> ... it really depends and you need to look carefully. A number of years
> ago, we bought a Ford Explorer, low miles used for significant savings
> over
> new. When I went looking for a pickup, all of the used ones I could find
> had nearly 100k miles on them and were about $5k below brand new, 0 mile
> sticker price. I figured that even for a vehicle that might last 200k or
> more miles, paying 3/4 brand new price (or more) for a 1/2 used vehicle
> didn't make any sense.
>

I agree with you conclusions above, but at least around here, that's not the
norm at all. There was a short time a couple of years ago when used trucks
were going for very close to the price of new, but that was very unusual,
and did not last long.

--

-Mike-
[email protected]

On Jan 27, 10:09=A0am, "HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Lew Hodgett wrote:
> > RE: Subject
>
> > Like it or lump it, dependance on fossil fuels is operating on
> > borrowed time.
>
> Why do you say that? Every year the provable reserves of petroleum
> increases. Heck, there's even a theory that oil is being CREATED deep
> underground.

Now find a way to burn that 'new' batch of hydrocarbons cleanly.
This is not just about an infinite supply of oil, Bub, it's the mess
it makes as well.
Same for coal. If the stuff were to deliver itself at a power station
for free, it is still godawful dirty.
Just looking at the supply is looking at the problem with blinders on.

> > Alternate clean renewable energy resources are plentiful.
>
> > Geo Thermal, solar, hydro, wind, yes an even nulcear, IF the disposal
> > problems can be resolved.
>
> For the foreseeable future (say, 200 years), geothermal, solar, hydro, an=
d
> wind can, at best, merely nibble at the margins.

The biggest culprit, in terms of dirty power, are the base-load
generating stations. That's where nuclear shines. ( I know..even in
the dark, hahafrickin' ha)

> You can't run an Aluminum production facility - that takes Gigawatts of
> power - off of sunbeams. Ever.

Aluminum production is a VERY small percentage of the power used on a
daily basis. So that dog don't hunt.
The nice thing about aluminum smelters, is that they can run on off-
peak hours smoothing the load curve.

A lot of dirt from fossil fuel also comes from mobile power.
Electrification of mass transport (people and goods) is a huge step
towards reducing dirty fuel consumption. Outlaw all stinky-fuel
powered lawnmowers and weed-whackers and leaf blowers. Put your nation
to work with push mowers and burn off some that fat! Outlaw tractors
and combines, harvest by hand... burn off even more fat.

See, Bub? You don't have an exclusive on silly-talk. <G>

Now for some light entertainment: *tuning my gittar*

*clearing throat*

When I was a child my family would travel
Down to Western Kentucky where my parents were born
And there's a backwards old town that's often remembered
So many times that my memories are worn.

Chorus:
And daddy won't you take me back to Muhlenberg County
Down by the Green River where Paradise lay
Well, I'm sorry my son, but you're too late in asking
Mister Peabody's coal train has hauled it away

Well, sometimes we'd travel right down the Green River
To the abandoned old prison down by Adrie Hill
Where the air smelled like snakes and we'd shoot with our pistols
But empty pop bottles was all we would kill.

Repeat Chorus:

Then the coal company came with the world's largest shovel
And they tortured the timber and stripped all the land
Well, they dug for their coal till the land was forsaken
Then they wrote it all down as the progress of man.

Repeat Chorus:

When I die let my ashes float down the Green River
Let my soul roll on up to the Rochester dam
I'll be halfway to Heaven with Paradise waitin'
Just five miles away from wherever I am.

On Jan 26, 11:10=A0am, "HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote:
> J. Clarke wrote:
>
> > Yep, yet another of his convenient lies. =A0If there was already a
> > system in place to trade carbon credits then we wouldn't need new
> > laws to implement carbon credits. =A0Sounds to me like scammer lobbying
> > to legitimize his scam.
>
> >> Near as I know, there is no requirement
> >> (yet) to buy these carbon credits, no issuing agency and, near as I
> >> know, no regulation as to what they are or where the money goes. It
> >> would appear that, under the circumstances, anybody with a printer
> >> and a little design skill could print up a few million of these
> >> things and get rich selling them to those that feel that throwing
> >> their money away somehow offsets their sins against the environment
> >> with the only real result being adding to the wealth of the issuing
> >> company. Kind of like a televangelist. "Send me your money and God
> >> will love you for it". The only "love" in the business is the
> >> televangelist "loving" the fact that people are so gullible as to
> >> send him their money.
>
> > I oughta try that--I wonder if anyone has tried selling carbon
> > credits on ebay?
>
> Dunno. But for $18 you can plant a tree is Israel, via the Jewish Nationa=
l
> Fund. I'm sure that counts.

Look for Ron White's bit:

=3DRon White: I was sitting on a bean bag chair, naked, eating Cheetos
the other day when Robert Tilton came on TV. He's a televangelist out
of Dallas. He looked at me and said,
"Are you lonely?"
=3DYeah.
"Have you spent half your life in bars pursuing sins of the flesh?"
=3DThis guy's good!
"Are you sitting in a bean bag chair naked eating Cheetos?"...
=3DYes, sir!
"Do you have the urge to get up and send me a thousand dollars?"
=3DHa, ha close! I thought he was talking about me there for a second!

"Chris Friesen" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

>
> It also may not save any money to buy used. I wanted a Honda or Toyota
> hatchback. Around here used ones were going for a significant fraction
> of the new price--ten year old cars going for half of new. Since I was
> planning on driving it into the ground, I figured I may as well buy
> new--that way I know the history of the car.

There are some exceptions due to market demand, but for the most part,
buying used vehicles saves a great deal of money. The biggest part of
depreciation happens in the first couple of years in a car's life, and
buying a 2-3 year old car with 20-30K miles on it generally can save about
half the price of the car. Most cars today are more than capable of
exceeding 100K miles with nothing more than a brake job, and quite capable
of doubling that without significant repairs. Not much to be gained these
days by knowing the history of a car. Notwithstanding the extreem
situations that might be referenced anectodally, most people pretty much
drive cars normally, and there just aren't the history of problems that used
to exist in the good old days.

>
> On the other hand, if you're planning on turning over vehicles every few
> years then it definitely makes financial sense to buy used.
>

It makes plenty of sense if you're going to keep the car for a couple
hundred thousand miles too.

--

-Mike-
[email protected]

On Jan 26, 10:34=A0am, Chris Friesen <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 01/26/2010 10:08 AM, HeyBub wrote:
>
> > One allows the
> > "invisible hand" to determine progress, the other uses "consensus."
>
> Would that be the "invisible hand" that contributed to massive global
> economic upheaval?

No, that would be the "iron fist" of government.

> Not sure I'd want that particular hand to determine anything.

Of course you don't. Marxists wouldn't.

On Sat, 23 Jan 2010 21:37:04 -0800 (PST), the infamous Luigi Zanasi
<[email protected]> scrawled the following:

>On Jan 23, 10:38 am, Dave Balderstone
><dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca> wrote:
><snip>
>> One reporting station being used for everything north of 65 degrees in
>> Canada's north? A station in Hawaii being used to project data 1200
>> miles north?
>
>Well, if there's only one station north of 65, this should result in
>showing less warming. The temperatures in Canada's north have been
>clearly and unequivocally warming.
>
>I know, I live here. When I first moved to the Yukon in 1989, we used
>to have at least 2-3 weeks of 40 below temperatures. Not any more. We
>actually got a couple of days last year after a few years of the
>temperatures staying above -35. And we had record hot temperatures
>last summer. (As did Larry's Oregon)

2nd hottest on record...for one day. WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE!

C'mon, WeeGee, at least _read_ the other material instead of just
drinking your AGWK Koolaid.

"Oh, I see that skeptic's article was written by a man who drove a
vehicle to work. He must be sponsored by Big Oil!" won't cut it.

Do yourself a favor. Watch the vids and -research- what they report
on. You simply have to find something wrong with what's going on if
you do (because it's killing people!)

There are too many of the Chicken Littles faking the stats to hide it
any more. Please open your eyes, my friend. Your local weather is
changing, but it has been hotter there before, and it got cooler
again, just as it's doing right now.

You said to me that Algore was irrelevant. I disagree. He's leading
millions of people down a false path. That ain't irrelevant to me.
Only if he weren't causing any harm could he be considered irrelevant.

--
We either make ourselves happy or miserable.
The amount of work is the same.
-Carlos Castaneda, mystic and author (1925-1998)
-------

On Jan 23, 10:15=A0pm, Swingman <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 1/23/2010 11:37 PM, Luigi Zanasi wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jan 23, 10:38 am, Dave Balderstone
> > <dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca> =A0wrote:
> > <snip>
> >> One reporting station being used for everything north of 65 degrees in
> >> Canada's north? A station in Hawaii being used to project data 1200
> >> miles north?
>
> > Well, if there's only one station north of 65, this should result in
> > showing less warming. The temperatures in Canada's north have been
> > clearly and unequivocally warming.
>
> > I know, I live here. When I first moved to the Yukon in 1989, we used
> > to have at least 2-3 weeks of 40 below temperatures. Not any more. We
> > actually got a couple of days last year after a few years of the
> > temperatures staying above -35. And we had record hot temperatures
> > last summer. (As did Larry's Oregon)
>
> As the AGW folks are fond of saying, methinks you're "mistaking weather
> for climate" ...
>
> Hey, what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. :)

Yabbut 20 years of weather data shows what the climate is. :-)

Luigi

On Jan 26, 4:35=A0pm, "Mike Marlow" <[email protected]>
wrote:

> =A0Nuclear is very dangerous and that fact must remain a preeminent
> fact. =A0It's when that realization is relaxed that thing go afoul.
>

I have to agree with that.

Safety, safety, safety.

Plop a few nukes along an electrified rail line, coast to coast and
look at the increase in safety we'll get from that. No solution is
perfect.
We're dealing with the lesser of evils here.

On Jan 26, 12:04=A0pm, Morris Dovey <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 1/26/2010 10:18 AM, Robatoy wrote:
>
> > On Jan 26, 11:10 am, "HeyBub"<[email protected]> =A0wrote:
>
> >> Dunno. But for $18 you can plant a tree is Israel, via the Jewish Nati=
onal
> >> Fund. I'm sure that counts.
>
> > Depends on exactly where they're planning on planting it?
>
> There's already a nice hole at 34.943909,50.757952...
>
> --
> Morris Dovey
> DeSoto Solar
> DeSoto, Iowa USAhttp://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/

Nice one in Mirnyy too. <G>

On Sun, 24 Jan 2010 21:01:30 -0800 (PST), the infamous Robatoy
<[email protected]> scrawled the following:

>On Jan 24, 11:29 pm, Larry Jaques <novalidaddress@di\/ersify.com>
>wrote:
>> On Sat, 23 Jan 2010 10:14:01 -0600, the infamous Swingman
>> <[email protected]> scrawled the following:
>>
>> >Let's see some "scientific" refutation, please:
>>
>> >http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/01/climategate_cru_was_but_the_ti...
>>
>> >http://www.kusi.com/weather/colemanscorner/81559212.html
>>
>> Poor WeeGee is a True Believer. Maybe he can come up with something.
>> <giggle>
>>
>
>You want to discuss weather patterns with a Canuckistani from the
>Yukon who has fled to warmer climes? :-)

According to him, it's downright _tropical_ up in Yellowknife
nowadays. I expect to see WeeGee and Marilyn tanning themselves by the
pool in swimsuits in January RSN.

I wonder what he would have thought if he lived when there was an
actual Northwest Passage through the ice up there. It was a hell of a
lot warmer then than it is now, and that was way before our dependence
on oil.

---
"Some of us are wondering if we have created a monster."
Kevin Vranes, climate scientist, University of Colorado
talking about global warming hysteria, January, 2007.

"Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Mike Marlow" wrote:
>
>> Most cars today are more than capable of exceeding 100K miles with
>> nothing more than a brake job, and quite capable of doubling that without
>> significant repairs.
> ----------------------------------------
> Bought a used car in the "rust belt" lately?
>
> 60K miles and/or 3 years is a good time to dump a vehicle if you operate
> there.
>

Actually - Yup. I live in Central NY where salt is the order of the day.
The thing is that most manufacturers have come a long way in protecting
against the ravages of salt. Even from a bodywork perspective, I don't
fight with rust in cars like I used to. Sure - it does come on, but not
nearly as early as we saw in the 70's and 80's. Around here you are almost
assured 100K minimum before you even see the beginning of rust signs. With
a little TLC - 200K before you're going to dump it.

So, let's see... my wife's car is a 2004. It's finally starting to show
some rust through. I probably won't screw with it, rather, I'll just
replace the car. 5 years out of the car for a fairly token investment -
time to put her in something new. Besides, doing that my just get me....
well.... you know where I'm headed...

--

-Mike-
[email protected]

--

-Mike-
[email protected]

On Jan 26, 11:56=A0pm, Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote:
> Bill wrote:
> > HeyBub wrote:
> >> J. Clarke wrote:
> >>> Perhaps we have reached a point where science is too important a
> >>> matter to be left to the scientists?
>
> > Well, the NSF (National Science Foundation), et. al., politicizes
> > science enough, wouldn't you say? =A0It provides a first-level means
> > of spending money where it needs to be spent (I didn't say it
> > is a perfect system). =A0 So science is not (independently) left to
> > the scientists. =A0Tax payers, via politicians, get some say in what
> > types of research are pursued with tax dollars.
>
> > Bill
>
> =A0 Now, take that to the next level. =A0When politicians decide what *ty=
pe* of
> research is to be funded and then the results that receive continuing
> grants, what do you think will be the primary research interests and work=
ing
> hypotheses of the scientists so funded.
>
> =A0 As one person said, the result of having the government pay for somet=
hing
> is to continue to get more of that something.
>

I have heard this at MY breakfast table...." Yup, that's a good field
to get into, the gov't is doling out all kinds of money for research
projects..." and those kids are still in highschool. (They were
talking about AGW)

I should imagine those kids are smart enough to know that if, after
the first paper calls the whole AWG for what it is, their funding will
be cut off.

The good ol' academic trough.

"Mark & Juanita" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> Did you read the cited article? If not, then you have no position to
> make
> any kind of statement regarding it. If you did, please cite, where, in
> that
> article there was any sort of smear

Did I say the artice contained smears? No? Then what are you talking
about?

If I posted a link to an article on DailyKOS or some other looney-left
website, would you take it seriously? Of course you wouldn't (neither would
I) because that outlet doesn't do journalism, they do advocacy and they
don't much care how far from the truth they have to stray in doing so. Well
guess what, The American Thinker is cut from the same cloth, and Ed Lasky is
a smear-monger, not a journalist--yet he's in charge of "news" at TAT (which
he co-founded). Publications with that sort of repuation don't get to sit
at the big table and be taken seriously, that's just the way it works.

-- all that were stated were events and
> facts that happened along with some conclusions to be drawn. You might
> not
> like the facts, you might not like the conclusions, but that gives you no
> place to call those things a smear.
>
> Let me give you a hint:
> Right wingnut, left wingnut == smear

How about "red greens" -- do you seriously have trouble understanding that
equating environmentalism with communism qualifies as a smear, and a
childish one at that?

Pot--kettle --black, buster, don't demand from others what you are not
prepared to do yourself.

Swingman wrote:

> On 1/23/2010 5:15 PM, Upscale wrote:
>> On Sat, 23 Jan 2010 17:10:19 -0600, "Leon"<[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>> I think that just because there is money to be made at undoing global
>>> warming pretty much tells the tale.
>>
>> Think that's a little pessismistic. Even if global warming and
>> polluting the atmosphere with all sorts of stuff is not as rampant as
>> some would like to believe, there's still people who are having
>> breathing difficulties because of it. That *has* to have some kind of
>> negative affect on our planet.
>
> With cleaner air in most of NA now than in almost a century, how does
> that equate with us as the culprits in AGW?
>
> So, let's get the UN involved in "pollution", not some AGW scheme to be
> used as the basis for taxation, distribution of wealth, and with a
> consequent loss of sovereignty.
>

I've made this statement before, the statists in the AGW green community
have come up with a very brilliant ploy. During the early part of the
environmental, anti-pollution movement, particulates, carbon monoxide,
sulfur dioxide, and other real pollutents were addressed. Unfortunately
for the red greens, the free market was able to overcome the barriers being
erected and actually produced lower-polluting approaches that work and are
affordable. The AGW ploy now attacks one of the products of perfect
combustion: Carbon Dioxide. By limiting and regulating this, the red greens
have figured out a means to control and attempt to destroy the
industrialized world. That's brilliant in a twisted diabolical way.


--

There is never a situation where having more rounds is a disadvantage

Rob Leatham

"Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:60896329-fe7b-4f2d-a0f1-51c2d383065d@c34g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
On Jan 26, 1:57 pm, "HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote:

>
> "Clean, renewable source of energy" - like what? Whale oil? There is
> NOTHING
> that is both sparkling clean and renewable that can make more than a trace
> difference in our energy needs.

>Yes there is. Nuclear.

Fine for the rest of the world. Now, they need to come up with something
that would work in the US.

"Doug Miller" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

>
>> You can spend a lot
>>more on the price of a car at 0% interest than you can at even low
>>interest
>>rates, and still come out ahead.
>
> "Come out ahead" compared to buying a 4-year-old used car? Nope. Not even
> close.

I don't buy 4 year old used cars though. Mine are 2-3 years old (model
years). For people who finance for long terms like 6 years, the 0% can make
quite a difference. I don't, but many have to.

--

-Mike-
[email protected]

On Jan 26, 1:57=A0pm, "HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote:

>
> "Clean, renewable source of energy" - like what? Whale oil? There is NOTH=
ING
> that is both sparkling clean and renewable that can make more than a trac=
e
> difference in our energy needs.

Yes there is. Nuclear.

On Jan 23, 11:14=A0am, Swingman <[email protected]> wrote:
> Let's see some "scientific" refutation, please:
>
> http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/01/climategate_cru_was_but_the_ti...
>
> http://www.kusi.com/weather/colemanscorner/81559212.html
>
> --www.e-woodshop.net
> Last update: 10/22/08
> KarlC@ (the obvious)

This whole topic has to be looked at from a simplified position.

You can break it into two camps. Those who are willing to believe, and
those who won't.
Those that won't believe any of it, will go to any length to prove
their point, they will argue that the speck of dirt on a thermometer
1000 miles away has skewed the readings. IOW, it doesn't matter what
you serve them up as fact, there is something wrong with it.

Those who are willing to believe that there is a threat from global
warming, will believe that, even if they don't have any evidence. (I'm
not saying that there isn't any evidence, all I am saying is that many
believers do not, themselves, have any evidence.) They just accept it
a gospel. You cannot argue/discuss this topic with people who have
become believers.

Now let's assume that there is a warming trend. How much of it is due
to the influence of man? How much of that influence can be helped?
Some CO2 escapes in each breath when I sleep. Etc.

So... what's in it for those who are willing to spend a wad of money
trying to convert the unbelievers?

Who benefits most from which position? Which research results are
skewed by the writers of the cheques that pay for such research?

I think I will go visit the website of The Onion, and get myself some
facts.

On Sun, 24 Jan 2010 12:02:46 -0800 (PST), Luigi Zanasi
<[email protected]> wrote:

>On Jan 24, 12:50 am, "LDosser" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> "Luigi Zanasi" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>
>> news:a1179941-12c6-4025-8ff7-99c02dec432f@e25g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
>> On Jan 23, 10:38 am, Dave Balderstone<dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca> wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>> > One reporting station being used for everything north of 65 degrees in
>> > Canada's north? A station in Hawaii being used to project data 1200
>> > miles north?
>>
>> Well, if there's only one station north of 65, this should result in
>> showing less warming. The temperatures in Canada's north have been
>> clearly and unequivocally warming.
>>
>> I know, I live here. When I first moved to the Yukon in 1989, we used
>> to have at least 2-3 weeks of 40 below temperatures. Not any more.
>> ========================================================
>>
>> Wow, 20 years of anecdotal "data"!
>
>Sorry, point taken. I should also use actual climate data data, which
>I am familiar with as I have done a lot of energy-efficiency related
>work as an economist.
>
>You can look for yourself at "client normals" or 20-year averages
>published by Environment Canada. for the 1961-1990 data for
>Whitehorse, go to
>http://www.climate.weatheroffice.gc.ca/climate_normals/results_1961_1990_e.html?province=YT&stationID=1527&stationName=&searchType=
>
>and for the 1971-2000 data go to
>http://www.climate.weatheroffice.gc.ca/climate_normals/results_e.html?Province=YT%20%20&StationName=&SearchType=&LocateBy=Province&Proximity=25&ProximityFrom=City&StationNumber=&IDType=MSC&CityName=&ParkName=&LatitudeDegrees=&LatitudeMinutes=&LongitudeDegrees=&LongitudeMinutes=&NormalsClass=A&SelNormals=&StnId=1617&
>
>We use this information to calculate degree-days of heating. However,
>our forecasts of energy use almost always on the high side as the
>climate normals are outdated. BTW the same amount of warming is
>present in all (IIRC) weather stations in the Yukon.
>
>And if you want more anecdotal data, When I first moved to the Yukon,
>the presence of cougars was not established and there were very few
>deer. Now, we see deer all the time and there have been documented
>attacks by cougars on people.
>
>Luigi

And there were sable tooth tigers wandering about. Then the sun cooled
off and many things disappeared. I don't think humans were to blame
for the hot spell before the Ice Age were they?

I try not to consume more than I need by driving economical vehicles
and live in an economical house, I recycle stuff, but I take vacations
1,500 miles from home. I did not breed so maybe my carbon dioxide
footprint is less than someone who had 5 kids? Nothing against having
kids, it just did not happen for us. So if that meteor hits and screws
things up taking out a few billion people then what? Or are the
billions and billions of people over in China going to screw up the
Earth's wobble and cause disastrous climate change? :-)

Mike Marlow wrote:

>
> "Chris Friesen" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>>
>> It also may not save any money to buy used. I wanted a Honda or Toyota
>> hatchback. Around here used ones were going for a significant fraction
>> of the new price--ten year old cars going for half of new. Since I was
>> planning on driving it into the ground, I figured I may as well buy
>> new--that way I know the history of the car.
>
> There are some exceptions due to market demand, but for the most part,
> buying used vehicles saves a great deal of money. The biggest part of
> depreciation happens in the first couple of years in a car's life, and
> buying a 2-3 year old car with 20-30K miles on it generally can save about
> half the price of the car. Most cars today are more than capable of
> exceeding 100K miles with nothing more than a brake job, and quite capable
> of doubling that without significant repairs. Not much to be gained these
> days by knowing the history of a car. Notwithstanding the extreem
> situations that might be referenced anectodally, most people pretty much
> drive cars normally, and there just aren't the history of problems that
> used to exist in the good old days.

... it really depends and you need to look carefully. A number of years
ago, we bought a Ford Explorer, low miles used for significant savings over
new. When I went looking for a pickup, all of the used ones I could find
had nearly 100k miles on them and were about $5k below brand new, 0 mile
sticker price. I figured that even for a vehicle that might last 200k or
more miles, paying 3/4 brand new price (or more) for a 1/2 used vehicle
didn't make any sense.

--

There is never a situation where having more rounds is a disadvantage

Rob Leatham

Chris Friesen wrote:

> On 01/26/2010 10:08 AM, HeyBub wrote:
>
>> One allows the
>> "invisible hand" to determine progress, the other uses "consensus."
>
> Would that be the "invisible hand" that contributed to massive global
> economic upheaval?

Never heard Barney Frank or Chris Dodd referred to in that way.



>
> Not sure I'd want that particular hand to determine anything.
>

Definitely not Barney's, that's for sure.

> Chris

--

There is never a situation where having more rounds is a disadvantage

Rob Leatham

Bill wrote:

> HeyBub wrote:
>> J. Clarke wrote:
>>> Perhaps we have reached a point where science is too important a
>>> matter to be left to the scientists?
>
>
> Well, the NSF (National Science Foundation), et. al., politicizes
> science enough, wouldn't you say? It provides a first-level means
> of spending money where it needs to be spent (I didn't say it
> is a perfect system). So science is not (independently) left to
> the scientists. Tax payers, via politicians, get some say in what
> types of research are pursued with tax dollars.
>
> Bill
>

Now, take that to the next level. When politicians decide what *type* of
research is to be funded and then the results that receive continuing
grants, what do you think will be the primary research interests and working
hypotheses of the scientists so funded.

As one person said, the result of having the government pay for something
is to continue to get more of that something.


>
>>
>> Hmm. There's EMPIRICAL science - math, physics, astronomy, chemistry,
>> etc. - and there's SOFT science (social science, psychology, climatology,
>> phrenology, astrology) which may not be quantifiable, reproducible, or
>> even believable.
>>
>>
>>

--

There is never a situation where having more rounds is a disadvantage

Rob Leatham

The right to exist and the survival of the State of Israel are of great
importance to us found on there "about us" page
We hate the muzzies lol kind of racist kind of unscientific probably idiots
if you ask me ....just saying
It's a don't let the liberals (be afraid) create laws that don't allow us to
rape and plunder the plant.
Woot Woot log it, burn it, pave it, then I can park my SUV on it.



"Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Let's see some "scientific" refutation, please:
>
> http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/01/climategate_cru_was_but_the_ti.html
>
>
> http://www.kusi.com/weather/colemanscorner/81559212.html
>
> --
> www.e-woodshop.net
> Last update: 10/22/08
> KarlC@ (the obvious)

On Jan 25, 3:27=A0am, Father Haskell <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Jan 23, 11:14=A0am, Swingman <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Let's see some "scientific" refutation, please:
>
> >http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/01/climategate_cru_was_but_the_ti...
>
> >http://www.kusi.com/weather/colemanscorner/81559212.html
>
> Computer codes can't make glaciers or ice caps melt.

No, but they can mess with the numbers which are supposed to indicate
WHY they're melting.
We're going through a warming phase, now let's create some fear into
that population that has way too much money. Let's harvest some more
from the serfs, The Great Unwashed believe the authority of the
scientists who DO mess with the computer models/numbers.
Regular independent business guys like myself KNOW we're, once again,
being screwed with.
I, for once, would like to keep some of that money that I earn. That
way, *I* get to decide if I want to hire people, support the economy
in MY way.... and not being led by a leash to the Extraction Station
once a year. (Tax)
I am all for survival of the fittest, make-all-you-can, keep-as-much-
as-possible, but I do NOT like corporations that have become so big
that they set the agendas on a political level along with the bankers.
Those bastards have no business telling me how to run MY business.
That includes them trying to tell me that *I* need to be penalized for
using a lot of electricity in order to run my business and keep people
employed.
.
.
It's just another tax being justified by fudged numbers.

<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:9587f0ef-5aeb-41d7-b6eb-9cf6d47a49d3@y12g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...


Yes, there are many exceptions, trucks being a major one. When I
bought my 2001, a two-year old truck with 20K was selling for $1K less
than I paid for my new one. Nuts! OTOH, we bought a three-year old
2000 Sable for about half the original price with 12K miles on it.
Both vehicles have been fine (though the corroded out brakes/lines on
my truck cost a small fortune).

*************************************************************************************
< I hate peopel who post from google groups - there are usenet
conventions....>

Ok - so take this another turn. Last year you could buy any truck for a
fraction of its real worth. So what's you point? You picked a moment in
time and that does not build an argument., Trucks as well as cars have
historically depreciated quickly. Sure the numers vary, but the fact is
that they depreciate.



> It makes plenty of sense if you're going to keep the car for a couple
> hundred thousand miles too.

You also have to weight the reliability. If you rely on the vehicle
for work, you're in tough shape when it's down.

*******************************************************************************************

< Did I say how much I hate google groups' way of contributing to usenet
posts

Sure but that's a red herring. What does that have to do with depreciation?
The given in this discussion is that the vehicles do indeed perform as
expected. Many have voiced that.

--

-Mike-
[email protected]

On Jan 24, 5:26=A0am, [email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote:
> In article <[email protected]=
.com>, Luigi Zanasi <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >On Jan 23, 10:38=3DA0am, Dave Balderstone
> ><dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca> wrote:
> ><snip>
> >> One reporting station being used for everything north of 65 degrees in
> >> Canada's north? A station in Hawaii being used to project data 1200
> >> miles north?
>
> >Well, if there's only one station north of 65, this should result in
> >showing less warming. The temperatures in Canada's north have been
> >clearly and unequivocally warming.
>
> You miss the point, and thus draw a completely incorrect conclusion:
> temperatures at latitudes of, say, 70 degrees are generally quite a bit l=
ower
> than at latitudes of, say, 40 degrees. Removing temperature stations at h=
igh
> latitudes necessarily skews the average temperature of the remaining stat=
ions
> upward, even if their individual temperatures don't change at all.
>
> For a concrete (although admittedly simplistic) example, suppose we're go=
ing
> to determine the average temperature of North America by averaging the
> temperatures today at Point Barrow AK; Whitehorse YK; Duluth MN; Houston =
TX;
> San Diego CA; and Miami FL. Now, for tomorrow's reading, eliminate Point
> Barrow and Whitehorse from that list. How do you suppose tomorrow's avera=
ge
> will compare to today's?

Granted that the year (or day, or whatever period) after the northern
stations are eliminated will show a jump in temperature.

However, in subsequent years, assuming that the north is warming up
faster than the south, the measured increase will be less than the
real one. That is the point I was making, maybe not as well as I
should.

Luigi

On Jan 27, 10:10=A0am, "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Lew Hodgett wrote:
> > RE: Subject
>
> > Like it or lump it, dependance on fossil fuels is operating on
> > borrowed time.
>
> > Just as oil saved the whale, it's time to transition to clean energy
> > generation to save our planet.
>
> > You can go screaming and running into that good night or you can be
> > part of the solution.
>
> > Alternate clean renewable energy resources are plentiful.
>
> > Geo Thermal,
>
> Show us a working base-loade geothermam power plant.

This is a good ideat, too:

http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,,4473382,00.html

> > solar,
>
> Show us a working solar base-load power plant.
>
> > hydro,
>
> Show us ten sites where a major hydro facility can be built that don't
> already have one.

There are many but the greenies want dams torn down, not built.

> > wind,
>
> Show us a working base-load wind power plant.
>
> > yes an even nulcear,
>
> This is the only item on your list that is proven to work and to have
> significant growth capability.

*LOTS* if you include Thorium and surplus weapons Plutonium. Greenies
aren't going to like this alternative much either.

> > IF the disposal
> > problems can be resolved.
>
> > The challenge is to figure how best to get the job done effectively.
>
> > Flapping your gums, or in this forum your fingers on a keyboard,
> > simply isn't productive.
>
> Neither is pretending that pie in the sky is proven technology.

What do you want from watermellons. The interest is *not* in energy,
rather the opposite.

On Jan 23, 11:14=A0am, Swingman <[email protected]> wrote:
> Let's see some "scientific" refutation, please:
>
> http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/01/climategate_cru_was_but_the_ti...
>
> http://www.kusi.com/weather/colemanscorner/81559212.html

Computer codes can't make glaciers or ice caps melt.

<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
On Jan 26, 7:31 am, "Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Mike Marlow" wrote:
> > Most cars today are more than capable of exceeding 100K miles with
> > nothing more than a brake job, and quite capable of doubling that
> > without significant repairs.
>
> ----------------------------------------
> Bought a used car in the "rust belt" lately?
>
> 60K miles and/or 3 years is a good time to dump a vehicle if you
> operate there.

Not so true anymore. My truck is a 2001 and spent the first eight of
that in the "rust belt" Vermont(7 years) and Ohio(1). I did have to
replace all the brake lines, transmission cooler lines, and radiator
last year. The rest is in pretty good shape, though. In the '70s and
'80s, yes, three/four years was about right for major rust to start.

**************************************************************************************

Likewise, I have a '94 Silverado. I did do a bunch of work on it last
year - all body work. New front fenders, and inner fenders. New cab
corners. New box - although I could have fixed the old one. Complete
re-paint. But that's at 1994 truck that just keeps on going. Plows a ton
of snow every year, makes trips to the dump and to Home Depot, and pull
stuff that it shouldn't. The pieces that I replaced all needed replacing
except for the box. I just decided that it was more expedient to replace
the box than to fix it. The fenders - shot. The inner fenders - not so
bad, but why not replace them when doing all this work? The cab corners -
shot to hell. All in all - not bad for a 15 year old truck in the rust
belt. My total investment - (minus of course my time...) - under $2K.


--

-Mike-
[email protected]

I think that just because there is money to be made at undoing global
warming pretty much tells the tale.

On Sat, 23 Jan 2010 18:45:20 -0500, the infamous Upscale
<[email protected]> scrawled the following:

>On Sat, 23 Jan 2010 17:20:55 -0600, Dave Balderstone
>>But there are BILLIONS of dollars being made as a result of the AGW
>>movement, and the path leads back to the UN.
>
>I can't argue with that. That's the way it's always going to be. But,
>just like the current movement to go to alternative energy vehicles,
>while many are making money on it, there's others who are pursuing the
>technology for improvement purposes. Eventually more will follow.

Can you prove that statement, Uppy? (Ah dinna thin so.)

What I'm amazed at is that more of the hybrids aren't being built. The
combo is dynamite!

--
We either make ourselves happy or miserable.
The amount of work is the same.
-Carlos Castaneda, mystic and author (1925-1998)
-------

On 1/24/2010 7:01 PM, Morris Dovey wrote:

> Ok. :) He listed nine assumptions he'd made, none accompanied by his
> reasons for making the particular assumption he chose

Come now, Morris ... the man is well known for his work on using
satellite temperature data ... you are too smart to have missed that as
a basis for his research, so I'm wondering why the cutesy bit of
dissimulation?

>>> My question for you is this: If some of the numbers have been fudged, do
>>> you think knowing that is a sufficient basis for a conclusion that there
>>> is no global warming danger?
>>
>> Bzzzt ... who said there is "no global warming danger"?
>>
>> And my answer is that that would be sufficient basis to do whatever an
>> INFORMED citizen can do to make sure that we are not stampeded into
>> International agreements, and conclusive proof that they are NOT what
>> they purport to be.
>
> Do I come across as likely to stampede? If yes, then how so - and if no,
> then why are you shouting?

I took your question seriously and answered it clearly and concisely,
and here you go with ad hominem remarks about "shouting"??

"Emphasis" ... and well you know that.

However, it is understandable to take such a tack when your argument is
insufficient to address the point, so we'll leave it at that.

>> AAMOF, It is part of _your_ responsibility as a citizen ... along with
>> NOT continually denigrating those who attempt to exercise that
>> responsibility.
>
> This borders on megalomania. You are neither qualified nor entitled to
> dictate the responsibilities of any other free citizen. Live with it.

> Are we to understand that skepticism is a healthy thing unless directed
> toward your notions, in which case it becomes "denigration"?

And here I thought I was wandering in the waste land looking for an
answer, but damn if you aren't more lost than I.

>>> That would be a bit like saying that knowing someone is paranoid is a
>>> sufficient basis for concluding that no one is out to get him...
>>
>> Say what?
>>
>>> Asking people to refute a reporter's opinion is just another way of
>>> saying "Lets you and him fight". No thanks.
>>>
>>> You may be that bored, but I'm not.
>>
>> Again, _nothing_ germane, whatsoever, to dispelling a necessary and
>> HEALTHY skepticism of an extremely important scientific endeavor.
>
> Agreed. Sorry I don't have any new and conclusive data here and that I'm
> not able to direct you to any I've found elsewhere.

Yep, and that's precisely how I summed up your last post ... thanks for
the verification, but you could have saved your breath my friend.

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/22/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)

On Sun, 24 Jan 2010 15:52:03 -0800, the infamous "LDosser"
<[email protected]> scrawled the following:

>"Luigi Zanasi" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:aa6d9a4d-22c8-4b85-a3ce-4439c1272ea5@g29g2000yqe.googlegroups.com...
>On Jan 24, 12:50 am, "LDosser" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> "Luigi Zanasi" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>
>> news:a1179941-12c6-4025-8ff7-99c02dec432f@e25g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
>> On Jan 23, 10:38 am, Dave Balderstone<dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca>
>> wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>> > One reporting station being used for everything north of 65 degrees in
>> > Canada's north? A station in Hawaii being used to project data 1200
>> > miles north?
>>
>> Well, if there's only one station north of 65, this should result in
>> showing less warming. The temperatures in Canada's north have been
>> clearly and unequivocally warming.
>>
>> I know, I live here. When I first moved to the Yukon in 1989, we used
>> to have at least 2-3 weeks of 40 below temperatures. Not any more.
>> ========================================================
>>
>> Wow, 20 years of anecdotal "data"!
>
>Sorry, point taken. I should also use actual climate data data, which
>I am familiar with as I have done a lot of energy-efficiency related
>work as an economist.
>
>You can look for yourself at "client normals" or 20-year averages
>published by Environment Canada. for the 1961-1990 data for
>Whitehorse, go to
>http://www.climate.weatheroffice.gc.ca/climate_normals/results_1961_1990_e.html?province=YT&stationID=1527&stationName=&searchType=
>
>and for the 1971-2000 data go to
>http://www.climate.weatheroffice.gc.ca/climate_normals/results_e.html?Province=YT%20%20&StationName=&SearchType=&LocateBy=Province&Proximity=25&ProximityFrom=City&StationNumber=&IDType=MSC&CityName=&ParkName=&LatitudeDegrees=&LatitudeMinutes=&LongitudeDegrees=&LongitudeMinutes=&NormalsClass=A&SelNormals=&StnId=1617&
>
>We use this information to calculate degree-days of heating. However,
>our forecasts of energy use almost always on the high side as the
>climate normals are outdated. BTW the same amount of warming is
>present in all (IIRC) weather stations in the Yukon.
>
>____________________________________________________________________
>
>Much Bettah!

You could make sense out of that jumble? It wasn't in English, I
think it must have been guttural Canuckistani or sumpin'.

Years like 1957 and 1948 were tossed into the 1961-1990 data? Oh,
those were the record-setting years which were outside the date
limits. Why were they there? Jayzuss, gimme a chart of the data by
plus a readable list, will ya?

(This was averaged data, completely useless to the subject, WeeGee. We
don't want averages, we want actuals to compare to one another. Or
did you just throw those out to see who's paying attention, you canny
cad?)

>----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>And if you want more anecdotal data, When I first moved to the Yukon,
>the presence of cougars was not established and there were very few
>deer. Now, we see deer all the time and there have been documented
>attacks by cougars on people.
>============================================================
>And it was uphill both ways ... :o)

Never mind that the population grew 500% (WAG) over that time and
people are living farther out each year.

---
"Some of us are wondering if we have created a monster."
Kevin Vranes, climate scientist, University of Colorado
talking about global warming hysteria, January, 2007.

On Jan 26, 6:54=A0am, "Mike Marlow" <[email protected]>
wrote:
> "Chris Friesen" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:[email protected]...
>
>
>
> > It also may not save any money to buy used. =A0I wanted a Honda or Toyo=
ta
> > hatchback. =A0Around here used ones were going for a significant fracti=
on
> > of the new price--ten year old cars going for half of new. =A0Since I w=
as
> > planning on driving it into the ground, I figured I may as well buy
> > new--that way I know the history of the car.
>
> There are some exceptions due to market demand, but for the most part,
> buying used vehicles saves a great deal of money. =A0The biggest part of
> depreciation happens in the first couple of years in a car's life, and
> buying a 2-3 year old car with 20-30K miles on it generally can save abou=
t
> half the price of the car. =A0Most cars today are more than capable of
> exceeding 100K miles with nothing more than a brake job, and quite capabl=
e
> of doubling that without significant repairs. =A0Not much to be gained th=
ese
> days by knowing the history of a car. =A0Notwithstanding the extreem
> situations that might be referenced anectodally, most people pretty much
> drive cars normally, and there just aren't the history of problems that u=
sed
> to exist in the good old days.

Yes, there are many exceptions, trucks being a major one. When I
bought my 2001, a two-year old truck with 20K was selling for $1K less
than I paid for my new one. Nuts! OTOH, we bought a three-year old
2000 Sable for about half the original price with 12K miles on it.
Both vehicles have been fine (though the corroded out brakes/lines on
my truck cost a small fortune).

> > On the other hand, if you're planning on turning over vehicles every fe=
w
> > years then it definitely makes financial sense to buy used.
>
> It makes plenty of sense if you're going to keep the car for a couple
> hundred thousand miles too.

You also have to weight the reliability. If you rely on the vehicle
for work, you're in tough shape when it's down.

On Jan 26, 11:10=A0am, "HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote:

>
> Dunno. But for $18 you can plant a tree is Israel, via the Jewish Nationa=
l
> Fund. I'm sure that counts.

Depends on exactly where they're planning on planting it?

On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 00:27:36 -0800 (PST), the infamous Father Haskell
<[email protected]> scrawled the following:

>On Jan 23, 11:14 am, Swingman <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Let's see some "scientific" refutation, please:
>>
>> http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/01/climategate_cru_was_but_the_ti...
>>
>> http://www.kusi.com/weather/colemanscorner/81559212.html
>
>Computer codes can't make glaciers or ice caps melt.

No, it takes different water use by the people around Kilimanjaro to
do that.

P.S: When a glacier melts here, another grows there. That's just the
way it is. Earth negotiates it without our help, thankfully.

P.P.S: Did you see the people recanting the Himalayan glacier disaster
story? http://fwd4.me/Clk Buy a clue, Preach.

---
"Some of us are wondering if we have created a monster."
Kevin Vranes, climate scientist, University of Colorado
talking about global warming hysteria, January, 2007.

DGDevin wrote:
> "Dave Balderstone" <dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca> wrote in message
> news:230120101720552720%dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca...
>
>
>> The people who are questioning AGW aren't making a f*king DIME.
>
> Horsecrap, some of them have been or are continuing to be funded by
> the fossil fuel industries, Richard Lindzen being a good example. He's not
> only been supported directly by OPEC and energy companies,
> he works with organizations that get funding from companies like
> ExxonMobil. It amazes me how some people who like to imagine they
> are informed on this issue somehow manage to miss that and claim the
> $$$ motive is all on the other side. Well it doesn't really amaze
> me, it's actually quite predictable.

You are quite possibly correct. Given the choice of results coming from
entities funded by private enterprise or the public largess, who should I
believe?

Hmmm. Each has their "experts," so the decision must be based on other
factors.

One group creates wealth, the other destroys it. One group stands to make
money and employ people, the other promotes feeling good. One allows the
"invisible hand" to determine progress, the other uses "consensus."

Let me think...

Mike Marlow wrote:
> "Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:60896329-fe7b-4f2d-a0f1-51c2d383065d@c34g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
> On Jan 26, 1:57 pm, "HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> "Clean, renewable source of energy" - like what? Whale oil? There is
>> NOTHING
>> that is both sparkling clean and renewable that can make more than a trace
>> difference in our energy needs.
>
> Yes there is. Nuclear.
>
> *************************************************************************************
>
> How far do you live from a reactor?
>
About 50 miles downwind from the largest nuclear generating facility in
the US. This one facility provides 35% of Arizona's electrical power as
well as So Cal - a total of 4 million people..

J. Clarke wrote:
>
> Perhaps we have reached a point where science is too important a
> matter to be left to the scientists?

Hmm. There's EMPIRICAL science - math, physics, astronomy, chemistry, etc. -
and there's SOFT science (social science, psychology, climatology,
phrenology, astrology) which may not be quantifiable, reproducible, or even
believable.

On 01/25/2010 09:21 AM, Doug Miller wrote:

> I don't mess around with recycling a few pounds
> of cans or bottles (which we use very little of anyway) -- I recycle tons at a
> time: when I need a car, I buy used, never new.

That makes no sense. Consider the following scenarios:

a) I buy a new car and drive it till it's dead.

b) I buy a new car, drive it for a while, then buy another new car and
sell my old one (to someone who drives it till it's dead).

c) I buy a used car and drive it till it's dead, then buy another used
car and drive it till it's dead.

In all cases the cars end up at the scrapyard to be recycled anyways.
Whether you buy new or used really makes little difference in the end
unless so many people are buying new that usable cars end up being
scrapped unnecessarily.

It also may not save any money to buy used. I wanted a Honda or Toyota
hatchback. Around here used ones were going for a significant fraction
of the new price--ten year old cars going for half of new. Since I was
planning on driving it into the ground, I figured I may as well buy
new--that way I know the history of the car.

On the other hand, if you're planning on turning over vehicles every few
years then it definitely makes financial sense to buy used.

Chris

On 1/23/2010 11:37 PM, Luigi Zanasi wrote:
> On Jan 23, 10:38 am, Dave Balderstone
> <dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca> wrote:
> <snip>
>> One reporting station being used for everything north of 65 degrees in
>> Canada's north? A station in Hawaii being used to project data 1200
>> miles north?
>
> Well, if there's only one station north of 65, this should result in
> showing less warming. The temperatures in Canada's north have been
> clearly and unequivocally warming.
>
> I know, I live here. When I first moved to the Yukon in 1989, we used
> to have at least 2-3 weeks of 40 below temperatures. Not any more. We
> actually got a couple of days last year after a few years of the
> temperatures staying above -35. And we had record hot temperatures
> last summer. (As did Larry's Oregon)

As the AGW folks are fond of saying, methinks you're "mistaking weather
for climate" ...

Hey, what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. :)

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/22/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)

On Sat, 23 Jan 2010 17:10:19 -0600, Leon wrote:

> I think that just because there is money to be made at undoing global
> warming pretty much tells the tale.

There's certainly no doubt about that, but that's been true for almost
every issue in the history of mankind. There's always some who say "hmmm
-how can I make money out of that?".

Unfortunately, a lot of them are politicians :-).

--
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw

Robatoy wrote:
> On Jan 26, 11:10 am, "HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>
>> Dunno. But for $18 you can plant a tree is Israel, via the Jewish
>> National Fund. I'm sure that counts.
>
> Depends on exactly where they're planning on planting it?

The Jew says to the Arab: "Why are you complaining? This used to be a
desert, now it's a forest!"

And the Arab thinks: "Yeah, but it was MY desert and now it's YOUR forest."

"Dave Balderstone" <dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca> wrote in message
news:230120102230357526%dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca...

>> > The people who are questioning AGW aren't making a f*king DIME.
>>
>> Horsecrap, some of them have been or are continuing to be funded by the
>> fossil fuel industries, Richard Lindzen being a good example. He's not
>> only
>> been supported directly by OPEC and energy companies, he works with
>> organizations that get funding from companies like ExxonMobil. It amazes
>> me
>> how some people who like to imagine they are informed on this issue
>> somehow
>> manage to miss that and claim the $$$ motive is all on the other side.
>> Well
>> it doesn't really amaze me, it's actually quite predictable.
>
> Um, it may be disturbing for you to admit, but Big Oil and Wall Street
> are heavily into the carbon credit trading market.
>
> They're making big money from the AGW hysteria.

So first you claim people questioning man-made climate change aren't making
a fucking dime doing so (we're all grownups here, aren't we--we don't have
to half-swear by using f*king asterisks, do we?), but now you point out the
oil industry (which has questioned climate change tooth and nail) is making
big money off carbon credits. Well, which is it? Is your position
Statement No. 1, or the contradictory Statement No. 2?

And then there is the issue of whether some of the people questioning
climate change are on the payroll of industries that profit from doing
little or nothing about reducing fossil fuel use, and thus are very much
making a fucking dime questioning climate change. If you believe that it's
just a coincidence that the George C. Marshall Institute (which has
vigorously disputed the scientific consensus about climate change) has been
funded by ExxonMobil and headed by a former exec of the American Petroleum
Institute, well then you're a very trusting soul. They dispute the link
between smoking tobacco and cancer too--I don't know where that falls in the
spectrum of science-denial currently so popular with the political
right-wing.

On 1/27/2010 8:44 AM, Lew Hodgett wrote:

> The challenge is to figure how best to get the job done effectively.

All discussion fosters thought on some level, whether you agree with it
or not.

> Flapping your gums, or in this forum your fingers on a keyboard,
> simply isn't productive.

Only for the close minded ... and, as we see, it was your choice to
either hit the NEXT key, or flap yours.

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/22/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)

Mike Marlow wrote:
>>
>> I'm afraid as long as decisions are made on the basis of fear,
>> nuclear is destined to be a piddly player.
>>
>
> You are right - fear should not be a deciding factor. Reality should
> be though. Nuclear is very dangerous and that fact must remain a
> preeminent fact. It's when that realization is relaxed that thing go
> afoul.

Dangerous? Oh, bother!

THE MOST dangerous form of power generation is -- wait for it now --
hydroelectric. Dams don't fail too often, but when they do, LOOK OUT.

There are three dangers from nuclear power: radiation poisoning, genetic
mutation, and cancer. With radiation poisoning, you get over it or you die.
There has never been a case of radiation-induced genetic mutation (human or
animal) coming to term and the fetus being born. And cancer is the most
studied disease on the planet.

Contrast those known dangers with the fact we don't even know the NAMES of
all the stuff that comes out of a coal-fired power plant's smokestack.

About 50% of the nation's electricity is generated by coal. If one could
show that the deaths attributed to coal-fired power plants are greater in
number than any that could conceivable occur from corresponding nuclear
facilities, wouldn't you say that reality should rule?

Okay, consider this: The nuclear fuel for a reasonably-size power plant for
ten years can be carried in a bread truck. The amount of coal that needs to
be moved from Wyoming to Chicago is vast beyond imagination. The number of
people killed or injured in mining, processing, and transporting that huge
amount of stuff is not negligible - and is considerably more than their
colleagues in the nuclear industry.

All that said, the biggest "fear" over nuclear power is: "We don't know what
to do with the waste!" Bullshit. We know LOTS of ways to dispose of the
nuclear waste material - we just haven't chosen one. We haven't chosen a
method of disposal because we don't yet have to do so. By delaying the
decision, we increase our chances of discovering an even BETTER way of
disposing of it.

It would be a shame to encase it all in molten glass beads and rocket-ship
it into the sun only to discover later that the waste material could easily
be transformed into imitation Gucci handbags.

Robatoy wrote:
> On Jan 26, 1:57 pm, "HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>
>> "Clean, renewable source of energy" - like what? Whale oil? There is
>> NOTHING that is both sparkling clean and renewable that can make
>> more than a trace difference in our energy needs.
>
> Yes there is. Nuclear.

I agree, but the rabble claim that nuclear is the least "clean" of anything.
And since, in the energy field, "consensus" trumphs facts, we're doomed.

I'm afraid as long as decisions are made on the basis of fear, nuclear is
destined to be a piddly player.

J. Clarke wrote:
>
> Yep, yet another of his convenient lies. If there was already a
> system in place to trade carbon credits then we wouldn't need new
> laws to implement carbon credits. Sounds to me like scammer lobbying
> to legitimize his scam.
>
>> Near as I know, there is no requirement
>> (yet) to buy these carbon credits, no issuing agency and, near as I
>> know, no regulation as to what they are or where the money goes. It
>> would appear that, under the circumstances, anybody with a printer
>> and a little design skill could print up a few million of these
>> things and get rich selling them to those that feel that throwing
>> their money away somehow offsets their sins against the environment
>> with the only real result being adding to the wealth of the issuing
>> company. Kind of like a televangelist. "Send me your money and God
>> will love you for it". The only "love" in the business is the
>> televangelist "loving" the fact that people are so gullible as to
>> send him their money.
>
> I oughta try that--I wonder if anyone has tried selling carbon
> credits on ebay?

Dunno. But for $18 you can plant a tree is Israel, via the Jewish National
Fund. I'm sure that counts.

Jack Stein <[email protected]> writes:
>Larry Blanchard wrote:
>> On Mon, 01 Feb 2010 12:21:56 -0500, Jack Stein wrote:
>>
>>>> * Fox News is the most trusted name in news (according to a recent
>>>> poll), but I agree that scientific truth cannot be determined by
>>>> "opinion."
>>> Thats not fair! Fox news reports news, the rest are left wing
>>> propaganda machines. How could anyone trust a left wing propaganda
>>> machine?
>
>> I *do* hope that was sarcasm :-).
>>
>What part of the left wing propaganda machine do you trust?
>Most people don't bother watching it now that there is some choice.
>

Most people? Cite please.

Even at 2m viewers, that's less than 1% of Americans who watch fox news.

Yawn.

scott

"Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> writes:
>
>"Dave Balderstone" <dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca> wrote in message
>news:260120101445329987%dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca...
>> In article <[email protected]>, Mike Marlow
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> How far do you live from a reactor?
>>
>> A couple or three kilometres.
>>
>> Yes, there's a reactor in Saskatoon...
>>
>> I'd rather live near a reactor than downwind from a sour gas well or a
>> coal burning power station.
>
>You would huh? I live 11 miles from 3 reactors. I'm not anti-nuclear.
>There have been however, enough causes for concern in the operations of
>those reactors. Have you really thought about the effect of that sour gas
>well and the likes of a reactor disaster?
>

Quite often. The chances of a reactor disaster are vanishingly small.

Even TMI released no external radiation.

That said, one would need to be building them by the hundreds to
replace the current coal and gas-fired plants.

scott

On 1/24/2010 9:14 AM, Steve Turner wrote:
> On 1/23/2010 10:14 AM, Swingman wrote:
>> Let's see some "scientific" refutation, please:
>>
>> http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/01/climategate_cru_was_but_the_ti.html
>>
>>
>>
>> http://www.kusi.com/weather/colemanscorner/81559212.html
>
> You forgot the "OT:" in your subject line.

If it bothers you that much, put it in your reply!

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/22/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)

On 1/23/2010 1:50 PM, Robatoy wrote:

> Those that won't believe any of it, will go to any length to prove
> their point, they will argue that the speck of dirt on a thermometer
> 1000 miles away has skewed the readings. IOW, it doesn't matter what
> you serve them up as fact, there is something wrong with it.

Please note that the _issue_ is AGW, NOT cyclic variations in global
climate.

http://www.drroyspencer.com/research-articles/global-warming-as-a-natural-response/

The original post asked for "scientific" refutation ... nothing but hot
air thus far ... maybe that's the problem, eh? ;)

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/22/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)

On 01/26/2010 10:08 AM, HeyBub wrote:

> One allows the
> "invisible hand" to determine progress, the other uses "consensus."

Would that be the "invisible hand" that contributed to massive global
economic upheaval?

Not sure I'd want that particular hand to determine anything.

Chris

On 1/24/2010 8:28 AM, Dave Balderstone wrote:
> In article<[email protected]>, LDosser
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> "Dave Balderstone"<dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca> wrote in message
>> news:230120102230357526%dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca...
>>> In article<[email protected]>, DGDevin
>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Dave Balderstone"<dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca> wrote in message
>>>> news:230120101720552720%dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> The people who are questioning AGW aren't making a f*king DIME.
>>>>
>>>> Horsecrap, some of them have been or are continuing to be funded by the
>>>> fossil fuel industries, Richard Lindzen being a good example. He's not
>>>> only
>>>> been supported directly by OPEC and energy companies, he works with
>>>> organizations that get funding from companies like ExxonMobil. It amazes
>>>> me
>>>> how some people who like to imagine they are informed on this issue
>>>> somehow
>>>> manage to miss that and claim the $$$ motive is all on the other side.
>>>> Well
>>>> it doesn't really amaze me, it's actually quite predictable.
>>>
>>> Um, it may be disturbing for you to admit, but Big Oil and Wall Street
>>> are heavily into the carbon credit trading market.
>>>
>>> They're making big money from the AGW hysteria.
>>
>>
>> They OWN it!
>
> Much in the same way that Enron made millions off of the acid rain
> scare in the late 20th century.

One of the infamous leaked e-mails from CRU angling for financing for A
"new building" by Shell:

http://assassinationscience.com/climategate/1/FOIA/mail/0962818260.txt

Still looking for refutation that the three links in my first two posts
are false, made up, and wrong ... thus far nothing but smear tactics and
shooting at the messengers.

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/22/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)

DGDevin wrote:
>
> Not only that, but continuing to burn a finite resource and
> continuing to pour countless billions into the coffers of nations
> which often don't like us very much seem like foolish policies in
> their own right. I'm not a climate scientist so I don't *know* if
> man-made climate change is happening (ditto with everyone else here
> including especially the ones who think they do know) but it seems to
> me there are a bunch of good reasons to move aggressively on
> replacing fossil fuels with clean, renewable sources of energy. However
> some folks just want to drive their Escalade down to the
> corner for a quart of milk and what happens in a decade or two ain't
> their damn problem--selfish and stupid, a lovely combination.

What "finite" resources? I guess you mean oil even though the provable
reserves of petroleum increase every year.

What nations "don't like us..."? The ones we send billions to each year?
Well, they like our money.

"Clean, renewable source of energy" - like what? Whale oil? There is NOTHING
that is both sparkling clean and renewable that can make more than a trace
difference in our energy needs.

On 1/24/2010 8:55 PM, Morris Dovey wrote:

> And this is usenet with long-established conventions for emphasis - and
> I seriously doubt you're unfamiliar with them:
>
> http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/warriorshtm/allcaps.htm and
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_caps#Internet

Are you really seeing "ALL" CAPS... or this is just another example of a
penchant for petty dissimulation?

> I'm certainly not an expert in climatology - and I'm certainly not about
> to tell anyone which information to accept and which to reject. My
> ignorance doesn't need spreading - there's plenty enough already without
> either of us adding to.

> I could have, but thought it would be good to let you know that I didn't
> particularly need you (or Al Gore) to cherry pick my sources for me. :)

I will bow to your apparent SOLE occupation of the moral high ground in
that regard, Morris ... delusional as it is.

What a crock ...

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/22/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)