If Climate Scientists Thing Denier Logic Is Bad . . .

[Bret Cahill]

Typically a denier will start off denying that the earth is warming.
If you get the denier past that stage then he'll deny that the warming
is a problem. After the BEST study they were denying that it's caused
by human created CO2. If you get the denier past that stage then
he'll deny more CO2 is a problem. And so on. (This really needs to
be flow charted.)

Anyway, if you think AGW denier rationalizations are bad consider the
recent teabagger glee on Texas executions of the innocent.

As recently as 8 years ago W. Bush was denying the State of Texas was
executing the innocent. In a "reorientation" that would put climate
change deniers to shame teabaggers are now snickering justifying even
cheering the deaths of the innocent.


Bret Cahill

[Shrikeback]

In former Soviet Russia, we find glowing fish to keep us
warm at night.

[Greegor]

Hey Bret, you're not a "package deal" leftie are you?

Marxist, gay, rabidly pro abortion, AND
a Global Warmingist too?

Is there any crackpot KOOK left view you
don't ascribe to?

Show us your individuality.

[Immortalist]

On May 20, 8:24 am, Bret Cahill <Bret_E_Cah...@yahoo.com> wrote:

Denialism is choosing to deny reality as a way to avoid an
uncomfortable truth. Author Paul O'Shea remarks, "[It] is the refusal
to accept an empirically verifiable reality. It is an essentially
irrational action that withholds validation of a historical experience
or event".

In science, denialism has been defined as the rejection of basic
concepts that are undisputed and well-supported parts of the
scientific consensus on a topic in favor of ideas that are both
radical and controversial. It has been proposed that the various forms
of denialism have the common feature of the rejection of overwhelming
evidence and the generation of a controversy through attempts to deny
that a consensus exists.

Several motivations for denialism have been proposed, including
religious beliefs and self-interest, or as a psychological defense
mechanism against disturbing ideas.

Use of the word denialism has been criticised, for example as a
polemical propaganda tool to suppress non-mainstream views.

Anthropologist Didier Fassin distinguishes between denial, defined as
"the empirical observation that reality and truth are being denied",
and denialism, which he defines as "an ideological position whereby
one systematically reacts by refusing reality and truth".

Individuals or groups who reject propositions on which a scientific or
scholarly consensus exists can engage in denialism when they use
rhetorical tactics to give the appearance of argument or legitimate
debate, when in actuality there is none.

For denialists, the facts are unacceptable. They engage in radical
controversion, for ideological purposes, of facts that, by and large,
are accepted by almost all experts and lay persons as having been
established on the basis of overwhelming evidence. To do this they
employ distortions, half-truths, misrepresentation of their opponents'
positions and expedient shifts of premises and logic. Edwin Cameron
notes that a common tactic used by denialists is to make great play of
the inescapable indeterminacy of figures and statistics, as scientific
studies of many areas rely on probability analysis of sets of data,
and in historical studies the precise numbers of victims and other
facts may not be available in the primary sources.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denialism

[Bret Cahill]

> Hey Bret, you're not a "package deal" leftie are you?
>
> Marxist, gay, rabidly pro abortion, AND
> a Global Warmingist too?
>
> Is there any crackpot KOOK left view you
> don't ascribe to?

I don't agree with everything Marx wrote but some of his stuff is
pretty good:

"The latent causes of faction are thus sown in the nature of man; and
we see them everywhere brought into different degrees of activity,
according to the different circumstances of civil society. A zeal for
different opinions concerning religion, concerning government, and
many other points, as well of speculation as of practice; an
attachment to different leaders ambitiously contending for pre-
eminence and power; or to persons of other descriptions whose fortunes
have been interesting to the human passions, have, in turn, divided
mankind into parties, inflamed them with mutual animosity, and
rendered them much more disposed to vex and oppress each other than to
co-operate for their common good. So strong is this propensity of
mankind to fall into mutual animosities, that where no substantial
occasion presents itself, the most frivolous and fanciful distinctions
have been sufficient to kindle their unfriendly passions and excite
their most violent conflicts. But the most common and durable source
of factions has been the various and unequal distribution of property.
Those who hold and those who are without property have ever formed
distinct interests in society. Those who are creditors, and those who
are debtors, fall under a like discrimination. A landed interest, a
manufacturing interest, a mercantile interest, a moneyed interest,
with many lesser interests, grow up of necessity in civilized nations,
and divide them into different classes, actuated by different
sentiments and views. The regulation of these various and interfering
interests forms the principal task of modern legislation, and involves
the spirit of party and faction in the necessary and ordinary
operations of the government."

Karlo Marx _Das KapitalOne_ "The Soviet Collective" (1783)

Even if you are anti-Marxist you really need to educate yourself about
this influential thinker.

[Bret Cahill]

Good opportunity to fix that Freudian header.

[Bill Graham]

You don't have to be a denier to ask the question, "So what should we do
about it?" You can't generate all the energy we use from a few windmills,
and tide pools. You have to either stop using the energy, or build nuclear
power plants. the global warming accepters are alternative energy deniers,
just as the global warming deniers are turning their backs on the facts they
don't want to accept. Right now, 50% of our electricity is made by burning
coal. So, when you drive your electric car 100 miles, 50 of those miles are
going to spew CO2 into the air somewhere. If not where you are on the road,
then at the local electric generation plant. So, what is your solution to
the problem?

[Bill Graham]

Or, perhaps a better question is, will whatever solution to the problem you
can come up with be applicable to all the other countries on earth too? The
USA is not the only user of energy.

[Immortalist]

Next Big Economic Bubble: Alternative Energy - "Bubble Makers" Prepare
For Transistion Of Capital.

We instead created a security bubble and its all pigs gone wild, spend
spend spend cash goes down black holes.

We need to get the security parasite corps to switch over to being
energy companies then would be working for their welfare checks.

[JohnM]

[JohnM]

On May 20, 5:24 pm, Bret Cahill <Bret_E_Cah...@yahoo.com> wrote:

<sarc> But they were mostly Spics, Coons and Dagoes, so deserved to
die anyway</sarc>

[James]

"Bret Cahill" <Bret_E...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:5e9a5deb-2360-4f28...@pr7g2000pbb.googlegroups.com

We know that people are full of shit when they start out saying one
thing and end up slamming Bush. So yesterday Bret!

[BeamMeUpScotty]

If he had said that last week, it would have been so yesterday.....

[JohnM]

On May 21, 4:41 am, "James" <kingk...@iglou.com> wrote:
> "Bret Cahill" <Bret_E_Cah...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

So you approve of the death penalty for innocent people who can't
afford proper legal representation and get rail-roaded by the system?

[T. Keating]

On Sun, 20 May 2012 12:58:27 -0700, "Bill Graham" <we...@comcast.net>
wrote:

>
>You don't have to be a denier to ask the question, "So what should we do
>about it?" You can't generate all the energy we use from a few windmills,
>and tide pools.

No.. not a few,,, but several hundred thousand will be a good start.

Who says it has to be just one solution?

PV does nicely in sunny climates.. (offsets the peak load of A/C usage
very nicely.)

Eventually humanity will have to adopt living with just renewable
energy sources or do without.. It's that simple..

> You have to either stop using the energy, or build nuclear
>power plants.

Nuclear power (fission) is a dead end technology.. It has no future.

The USA needlessly wastes a lot of energy, because it was cheap. Well
those days of wasting cheap energy are coming to an end. The USA
needs to go on a major energy diet.

I've reduced my household energy usage by 64%(2003->2011), without
giving up a 1st world lifestyle. Extra insulation, close off
un-needed rooms, swapout incandesents with compact flourescents, use
a laptop instead of Workstation, power down phantom loads when not
needed, etc.

I see no reason why my fellow citizens can't do the same. Add in
some help, (mandates ban wasteful devices), from the federal
government, and other tech improvements will go a long way.

> the global warming accepters are alternative energy deniers,

I see you're projecting your personality on to the actions to others..

Those of us who know the truth about AGW are already doing something
about it.

I now have a much smaller CO2 footprint(4 to 6 tonns) than most
americans.

>just as the global warming deniers are turning their backs on the facts they
>don't want to accept. Right now, 50% of our electricity is made by burning
>coal.

Not so.. it's down to 36%.. Coal can not compete with cheap NG right
now.


http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/05/14/483432/us-coal-generation-drops-19-percent-in-one-year-leaving-coal-with-36-percent-share-of-electricity/
"U.S. Coal Generation Drops 19 Percent In One Year, Leaving Coal With
36 Percent Share Of Electricity"

And Power co's (like FPL) are building new NG fueled Combined cycle
power plants as fast as they can, but even those aren't the answer
since they still produce too much CO2(350g to 480g) per kWh.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparisons_of_life-cycle_greenhouse-gas_emissions


Lifecycle greenhouse gas emission estimates for electricity
generators[1]

Technology Description Estimate
(g CO2/kWhe)
Wind 2.5 MW offshore 9
Hydroelectric 3.1 MW reservoir 10
Wind 1.5 MW onshore 10
Biogas Anaerobic digestion 11
Hydroelectric 300 kW run-of-river 13
Solar thermal 80 MW parabolic trough 13
Biomass various 14-35
Solar PV Polycrystaline silicon 32
Geothermal 80 MW hot dry rock 38
Nuclear various reactor types 66
Natural gas various combined cycle turbines 443
Diesel various generator and turbine types 778
Heavy oil various generator and turbine types 778
Coal various generator types with scrubbing 960
Coal various generator types without scrubbing 1050

B.T.W. Nuclear is going to shoot up well over 100g per kWH in the
near future (depeletion of high grade ores).

Solar PV output per gram of CO2 can do much better with tracking and
locating them in sunny climates. .

So, when you drive your electric car 100 miles, 50 of those miles are
>going to spew CO2 into the air somewhere. If not where you are on the road,
>then at the local electric generation plant.

Not if it comes from a renewable energy source.

>So, what is your solution to
>the problem?

100% Dependance on renewable energy sources is the ONLY long term
answer.

[Greegor]

Solyndra,
Evergreen Solar,
SpectraWatt,
Mountain Plaza
Olsen's Mills,
Solar Millennium,
Nevada’s SolarReserve Project,
Abengoa Solar
Sempra Energy

Holding off even MORE until after the election?


http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/279438/green-jobs-are-national-scandal-deroy-murdock

October 7, 2011 12:00 A.M.

Green Jobs Are a National Scandal

More bankruptcies are to come.
-----------------------------


By Deroy Murdock

Solargate is just the tip of the iceberg.

This cliché within a mixed metaphor reflects the madness of President
Obama’s obsession with “green jobs.” It would be bad enough if this
disaster were limited to possible criminality at Solyndra — the solar-
panel maker that Obama stimulated with loan guarantees, despite
repeated warnings about its rickety finances.

“The true engine of economic growth will always be companies like
Solyndra,” Obama proclaimed at its Fremont, Calif., headquarters on
May 26, 2010. Not quite. Solyndra’s August 31 bankruptcy transformed
1,100 green jobs into pink slips and marinated taxpayers in $527
million of red ink.

But many green-jobs programs that have not been raided by the FBI — as
Solyndra was last September 8 — nonetheless are fiscally reckless
enough to merit a five-alarm national scandal.

Consider these other green bankruptcies:

SpectraWatt, Inc., of Hopewell Junction, N.Y., scored $500,000 from
the Energy Department in June 2009 and $150,000 from the National
Science Foundation in June 2010, Bloomberg reports. Last August 19,
the solar-power company went bust.

Evergreen Solar was stimulated with $5.3 million of Massachusetts
government cash and praised by the White House for helping to
“kickstart the economy.” Evergreen went bankrupt last August 15.

Mountain Plaza, Inc., went bankrupt in 2003. Nonetheless, its “truck-
stop electrification” technology won $424,000 in EPA stimulus funds
administered by Tennessee’s transportation department. Yet again,
Mountain Plaza filed for bankruptcy in June 2010.

Notwithstanding its February 2009 bankruptcy and default on a $58
million loan from BNP Paribas, Wisconsin-based Olsen’s Mill
Acquisition was stimulated with $10 million in January 2010, along
with Olsen’s Crop Services. Jeff Bollier of the OshKosh Northwestern
reported that Olsen’s Mill “buys crops grown by farmers across the
eastern and central parts of Wisconsin and sells it to end users such
as Utica Energy’s ethanol plant on State Highway 91.” ADM purchased
the defunct operation’s assets last month.

Beyond outright bankruptcies, Team Obama has subsidized projects that
may be neither fraudulent nor failed, per se, but severely abuse
taxpayers:

As the Wall Street Journal reports, cash-strapped Americans are
changing babies’ diapers less frequently and doubling down on diaper-
rash ointment. What a perfect time for Team Obama to subsidize foreign
solar companies! Energy last June 18 gave Solar Trust, an American
subsidiary of Germany’s Solar Millennium, a $2.1 billion loan
guarantee for a Blythe, Calif., solar-power facility. Last June,
Energy handed Spain’s Abengoa Solar a $1.2 billion guarantee for its
Mojave (Calif.) Solar Project and backstoppped $1.45 billion last
December for Abengoa’s Gila Bend, Ariz., outpost.

On September 28, Energy approved a $737 million loan guarantee for
Nevada’s SolarReserve Project. It promises 600 construction jobs at
$1.23 million each and 45 permanent jobs at $16.4 million per
position. Energy also guaranteed $337 million for Sempra Energy’s
Mesquite Solar Project in Arizona. Its 300 construction jobs cost
$1.12 million each, while its seven permanent positions equal $48.1
million per job created. The only good news here is that this program
ended September 30. So its damage is done.

In Seattle, an Energy grant provided $20 million to weatherize homes.
Sixteen months later, this outlay has generated 14 administrative jobs
at $1.42 million apiece. How many homes have been retrofitted? Three.

Energy’s Better Buildings Neighborhood Program has fared better in
Toledo, Kansas City, and Phoenix. In those locales, $65 million has
underwritten 72 jobs. That comes to $902,777 each. Overall, this
initiative has spent $508 million in 41 states and “created or saved”
600 jobs — a real bargain at $846,666 apiece.

According to Fox News’s Dan Springer, Seattle’s hourly prevailing wage
is $12, but this program’s contractors must pay workers $21 per hour,
plus pension and benefits. Also, retrofits average $10,000 per home
and typically slice annual power bills by $300. Thus, weatherization
usually pays off in 33 years. Who stays still that long?

Does Energy hang its head in shame at such fiscal bedwetting? Hardly.

“While communities are advancing their programs at different rates, we
are pleased with the progress,” the department recently crowed.

Citing Energy’s data, Investor’s Business Daily reports that subsidies
for all energy sources averaged $1.65 per megawatt-hour in 2007. Wind
and solar: $24. Similarly, while Obama “invests” up to $48.1 million
per job, private employers hire the average individual for $58,510
annually, the Bureau of Labor Statistics calculates.

This entire fiasco helps illustrate what 19th-century French political
economist Frederic Bastiat called “that which is seen, and that which
is not seen.” While politicians cut ribbons at ceremonies outside
green-energy facilities, none will appear at a politically incorrect
coal, natural-gas, or petroleum plant that got no loan guarantees —
even to create more jobs more cheaply. Far worse, no one sees the
companies, products, and jobs that never emerged because Washington
politicians vacuumed the pockets of entrepreneurs who might have
deployed private capital more productively and innovatively.

When will liberals join the conservative choir that loudly sings
against this green-jobs fantasy? While most free-marketeers would
convert these funds to tax relief or debt reduction, only blind
liberals cannot see that this extravagance impoverishes their favorite
causes.

Every dollar that chases a money-losing windmill is a dollar that
cannot fund Head Start.

Every million that spawns only one job is a million that cannot
finance 270 average Pell Grants for needy college students.

And every billion that vanishes into green bankruptcy is a billion
that cannot help impoverished Americans heat their homes with
government assistance.

It would be refreshing to see liberals fight as hard for poor people
as for solar panels.

Undeterred, the president chases the sun, like a motorist speeding
west across the desert as dusk approaches. Obama swears that the sun
is within his grasp. Yet it stubbornly remains just beyond the
horizon.

Too bad Barack Obama won’t finance his self-defeating solar road trip
with his own money.

[kym horsell]

On Tuesday, May 22, 2012 2:26:42 AM UTC+10, T. Keating wrote:
...

> Solar PV output per gram of CO2 can do much better with tracking and
> locating them in sunny climates. .

...

One trick I used in my old house where I could get away with only 1/2 kw
of pv was use "passive tracking". Aka a couple of cheap mirrors scrounged
from old wardrobes placed strategically so they reflected sunlight
at morning and afternoon onto the panels.

A hell of a lot cheaper, simpler and more reliable than making the panels move.

There was just the problem of cleaning a few extra surfaces every few month, but even that was not as critical as a tracking pv panel since mirror+pv
was getting a boost in efficiency anyway.

--
Earth's atmosphere contains natural greenhouse gases (mostly water
vapor, carbon dioxide, and methane) which act to keep the lower layers
of the atmosphere warmer than they otherwise would be without those
gases. Greenhouse gases trap infrared radiation - the radiant heat
energy that the Earth naturally emits to outer space in response to
solar heating. Mankind's burning of fossil fuels (mostly coal,
petroleum, and natural gas) releases carbon dioxide into the
atmosphere and this is believed to be enhancing the Earth's natural
greenhouse effect. As of 2008, the concentration of carbon dioxide in
the atmosphere was about 40% to 45% higher than it was before the
start of the industrial revolution in the 1800's.
-- Dr Roy W. Spencer, "Global Warming", 2008

[deadrat]

On 5/21/12 11:29 AM, Greegor wrote:
> Solyndra,
> Evergreen Solar,
> SpectraWatt,

This was a spinoff from Intel. It got some state aid from New York, but
was basically funded by $90M in private capital. It went broke. So what?

The rest of the list is just crap you're told to parrot too.

> Mountain Plaza
> Olsen's Mills,
> Solar Millennium,
> Nevada’s SolarReserve Project,
> Abengoa Solar
> Sempra Energy

<snipped: bullshit/>

[Bill Graham]

You are wrong when you characterize me as being an energy waster. I have
CFL's all over my house, but they are not as efficient as some LED type
lamps. I have a, "power stick" that draws only 10 watts, and you wouldn't
believe how much light it puts out. If I put 18 of those in my kitchen
ceiling (instead of the CFL's I have there now) I would be blinded by the
resulting light, and still save a couple of watts per bulb. The light per
watt that that thing puts out would have Edison rolling over in his
grave....:^)

But you still have to explain how you are going to get the other half of the
world to take steps to save power. As usual, the rest of the world is quick
to jump on the US, but when it comes to them doing anything useful, they
will look the other way. Why are we always the, "Bad guys"? We use a lot of
power for two basic reasons. First, we are rich, and can afford to use a lot
of power. And, second, we live in a very big country, where distances are
great, and we have to drive a long way to get where we need to be. This
isn't going to change soon. Drive route 50 from Carson City, NE to Salt Lake
City sometime, and you will see what I mean.

[AGWFacts]

On Sun, 20 May 2012 08:24:46 -0700 (PDT), Bret Cahill
<Bret_E...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Typically a denier will start off denying that the earth is warming.

That was typical two years ago. Now they tend to insist they have
always said it was warming.

> If you get the denier past that stage then he'll deny that the warming
> is a problem. After the BEST study they were denying that it's caused
> by human created CO2. If you get the denier past that stage then
> he'll deny more CO2 is a problem. And so on. (This really needs to
> be flow charted.)

The current phase is that yes, it's warming; yes, humans did it;
yes, it's a problem; but no, clouds will save us.

> Anyway, if you think AGW denier rationalizations are bad consider the
> recent teabagger glee on Texas executions of the innocent.
>
> As recently as 8 years ago W. Bush was denying the State of Texas was
> executing the innocent. In a "reorientation" that would put climate
> change deniers to shame teabaggers are now snickering justifying even
> cheering the deaths of the innocent.

"Not guilty," not "innocent." I had an argument with a Zionist (in
Costa Rica) who insisted that killing defenceless, harmless
Palistinians was not a bad thing because many thousands of them
were not killed.

> Bret Cahill


--
"A 'crank' is defined as a man who cannot be turned." --- _Nature_, 8 Nov 1906

[AGWFacts]

On Sun, 20 May 2012 11:58:18 -0700 (PDT), Immortalist
<reanima...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> On May 20, 8:24 am, Bret Cahill <Bret_E_Cah...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Typically a denier will start off denying that the earth is warming.
> > If you get the denier past that stage then he'll deny that the warming
> > is a problem.  After the BEST study they were denying that it's caused
> > by human created CO2.  If you get the denier past that stage then
> > he'll deny more CO2 is a problem.  And so on.  (This really needs to
> > be flow charted.)
> >
> > Anyway, if you think AGW denier rationalizations are bad consider the
> > recent teabagger glee on Texas executions of the innocent.
> >
> > As recently as 8 years ago W. Bush was denying the State of Texas was
> > executing the innocent.  In a "reorientation" that would put climate
> > change deniers to shame teabaggers are now snickering justifying even
> > cheering the deaths of the innocent.
> >
> > Bret Cahill

> Denialism is choosing to deny reality as a way to avoid an
> uncomfortable truth. Author Paul O'Shea remarks, "[It] is the refusal
> to accept an empirically verifiable reality. It is an essentially
> irrational action that withholds validation of a historical experience
> or event".

Indeed, but I reject the word "choosing." Denialism is a self-
defense mechanism, and I would not agree that self-defense
mechanisms are chosen.

[Greegor]

On May 21, 12:05 pm, deadrat <a...@b.com> wrote:
> On 5/21/12 11:29 AM, Greegor wrote:
>
> > Solyndra,
> > Evergreen Solar,
> > SpectraWatt,
>
> This was a spinoff from Intel. It got some state aid from New York, but
> was basically funded by $90M in private capital.  It went broke.  So what?
>
> The rest of the list is just crap you're told to parrot too.

TOLD??

> > Mountain Plaza
> > Olsen's Mills,
> > Solar Millennium,
> > Nevada’s SolarReserve Project,
> > Abengoa Solar
> > Sempra Energy
>
> <snipped: bullshit/>

Post some examples of Green Energy success stories!

[deadrat]

On 5/21/12 3:13 PM, Greegor wrote:
> On May 21, 12:05 pm, deadrat<a...@b.com> wrote:
>> On 5/21/12 11:29 AM, Greegor wrote:
>>
>>> Solyndra,
>>> Evergreen Solar,
>>> SpectraWatt,
>>
>> This was a spinoff from Intel. It got some state aid from New York, but
>> was basically funded by $90M in private capital. It went broke. So what?
>>
>> The rest of the list is just crap you're told to parrot too.
>
> TOLD??

OK, OK, I assumed too much. Never attribute to collusion that which can
be established by individual stupidity. How about this: "The rest of
the list is just crap you were told and you decided to parrot it without
checking."

>
>
>>> Mountain Plaza
>>> Olsen's Mills,
>>> Solar Millennium,
>>> Nevada’s SolarReserve Project,
>>> Abengoa Solar
>>> Sempra Energy
>>
>> <snipped: bullshit/>
>
> Post some examples of Green Energy success stories!

A couple of points, Sparky. I don't have to post any examples of Green
Energy success because I'm not the one advancing the thesis that green
energy is a winner in the US. You're the one who's picked up the
rightard talking points about the terrible failures and regurgitated
them without checking.

It's easy to use the google to find green energy success stories. The
trouble is evaluating them, something I like to do before I take a
position. YMMV, and evidently does.

But I think if you want green energy success stories, you should start
in China. Now if only we could harness here the energy from people like
you flapping their gums about shit they know nothing about, then we
might have some of those stories for this country.

[erschro...@gmail.com]

On May 21, 12:29 pm, Greegor <greego...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Solyndra,
> Evergreen Solar,
> SpectraWatt,
> Mountain Plaza
> Olsen's Mills,
> Solar Millennium,
> Nevada’s SolarReserve Project,
> Abengoa Solar
> Sempra Energy
>
> Holding off even MORE until after the election?
>

> http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/279438/green-jobs-are-national...

Pales compared to the money Halliburton has received, a company which
built showers in Iraq that electrocuted soldiers.
http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-201_162-4893929.html

Halliburton has announced that it will repay the US government over
$27.4 million after it was discovered that it had grossly overcharged
for the meals it supplies to the US military in Iraq. This follows on
the heels of the discovery of bribery on the part of Halliburton
agents who overcharged the military $6.3 million for fuel delivered to
bases in Iraq and Kuwait.

In the run-up to the Iraq war, Halliburton was awarded a $7 billion
contract for which 'unusually' only Halliburton was allowed to bid

On September 8, 2010, an internal report released by BP into the
Deepwater Horizon Incident claimed that poor practices of Halliburton
staff had contributed to the disaster. Investigations carried out by
the National Commission on the BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill and
Offshore Drilling found that Halliburton was jointly at fault along
with BP and Transocean for the spill. The cement that Halliburton used
was an unstable mixture, and eventually caused hydrocarbons to leak
into the well, eventually causing the explosion that started the
crisis.[

[Greegor]

That's where most of the BILLIONS went!

> Now if only we could harness here the energy from people like
> you flapping their gums about shit they know nothing about, then we
> might have some of those stories for this country.

Well, I suppose on the subject of methane, you
probably have a more direct intimate experience
on the subject. Do you and your partner switch off?

[deadrat]

My partner? How long have you been interested in other people's sex lives?

That's just creepy.

So no substantive response to my calling you an ignoramus who lets
himself be manipulated by others?

Imagine my surprise.

[James]

<erschro...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:c1ee1b22-738a-47c0...@d18g2000yqc.googlegroups.com

Irrelevent again. Must bash Haliburton as answer to everything you
dislike.

[Bill Graham]

This is the general socialists attitude. The individual means nothing.
Whatever is good for the whole is OK. So, its OK to kill the innocent, as
long as the whole group (or some whole group) benefits. The idea of
protecting an individual's rights at the expense of the whole group doesn't
compute with them. In fact, it is a uniquely American Constitutional
concept.

[deadrat]

Blah, blah, blah, bullshit, bullshit, bullshit, socialists, liberals, blah.

Glad to see that you're not quoting any of those "socialists" you talk
to. Must have learned your lesson from getting called on making up poor
people to quote about how they blame rich people.

[tooly]

Critical theory is a marxist subtrafuge. Don't listen to it.

[Bill Graham]

But there are some who deny because of lack of evidence, or because there
are reasonable holes in the argument. Just becausde someone disagrees with
you, doesn't mean that he is denying truth. He might say that you are
denying the truth that he believes. We are not in full understanding of the
earth's climate patterns, or what causes it to undergo cycles of ice ages
and periods of global warming in between those colder periods. There are
important questions that are still unanswered. Questions like what effect do
underwater plants have on the conversion of CO2 back into carbon and oxygen,
Cold water holds more gas than warm water, and the undersea life in colder
regions is much more prolific. Exactly how much does This effect the
globalwarming cycle? Does undersea plant live utilize photosynthesis to
convert CO2 into carbon and oxygen? Also, We human beings put out a lot of
forest fires that are started by lightening and burned unchecked for
millions of years before we came along. Do we redeem ourselves at all by
doing this, or is the effect too small to count? Where did the oil eating
bacteria in the ocean come from? Did it develop over millions of years from
oil spills that took place long before the existence of BP? You don't have
to be a GW denier to ask questions like this..... As they say, "Enquiring
minds want to know."

[kym horsell]

...

If it's "reasonable" then it isn't "denial", of course.

But if a man goes to 3 doctors and they all tell him his xrays show
he has lung cancer and he then tells his friends that he doesn't have cancer,
then he is "in denial".

The stigmata include: there is reasonable evidence a proposition is "true";
the proposition is related to the "denier" feeling anxious or the news being "bad"; and the "denier" does not accept any information that even remotely supports the proposition -- even if that information is also reasonable and may even have been accepted by the "denier" in the past.

So, if the world is warming due to human activity and many "experts" in the field supply a wide range of evidence consistent with that proposition,
then many people naturally feel anxious about that. Maybe they are in the fossil fuel industry, or their family members are or were. Maybe they live next door to a smoking power station or on the Florida coast or in Tornado Alley.

If they then say the world is not warming, and if it is it is not related to
human activity, and also that GHG are against the laws of thermodynamics, and that temperatures can't be measured that accurately, and they can't find the definition of average and warming and climate and weather on the internet anyway, and also dozens of other "rationalizations", and in addition when shown evidence they have asked for but later appear to have forgotten they were ever shown that evidence -- then you suspect they are in "denial" and are not just "skeptical".

Generally, a skeptic will say "I can not accept the proposition is true",
a denialist will over-compensate (itself a symptom of anxiety) and try to prove the proposition and all its assumptions are false.

--
Defenses are ultimately something we do to protect ourselves from pain. While
we all use them when troubled, we generally [mature] to a point when we face
our problems and don't have to rely so heavily on our defenses to protect us.
Defenses become unhealthy when we refuse to face our true experiences,
thoughts, and feelings.
-- http://www.psychpage.com/learning/library2/counseling/defenses.html

[Bill Graham]

In my experience, people won't do anything about global warming unless the
power goes off. IOW, we will start to save energy when we turn on the switch
and nothing happens. It is sad, but true. The best any individual can do is
save what energy he can until that day arrives. IOW, put it off as long as
possible. I have swpent most of my life doing what I could. I intentionally
bought a house as close to where I worked as possible, and bicycled to work
for about ten years. Then, I rode a Honda trail 90 (110 MPG) to work for
another ten. My house is full of CFL's and the longest trip I have driven
during the last ten years or so has been about 100 miles round trip.
(driving my wife to the airport) So, my conscious is clear. When the lights
go out, I will know that it isn't my fault.

[kym horsell]

Certainly there is also the "laziness factor" (not in itself irrational) and "just in time" disaster management.

[Warning: mixed metaphors ahead]

But for slow-moving disasters these strategies -- which certainly serve to keep costs of various forms down (e.g. when there *isn't* a disaster) yet still do a reasonable job at preventing or recovering from losses -- can allow slow-moving train wrecks that suddenly flip into high gear slip under the radar and catch us with out collective pants down. (AKA exponential growth; anyone that's kept undesexed boy and girl rabbits will know what that's like).

As I've mentioned elsewhere, there's some evidence that GW will be like that.
(The logic of the "Stag Hunt" and "Prisoner's Dilemma").
It's been in the works for a while; it wasn't a priority. It became a bit more obvious and people got anxious and some pretended it wasn't there, maybe even preventing steps being taken. If it was there, it wasn't our fault. If it was our fault there was nothing that could be done.

If things proceed the way many expect from the diverse evidence they have to date, no last-minute measures are likely to have an ameliorating effect for centuries.

So the only bright spot -- almost all of us will be dead long before the global food and water rationing start. Hell, even my youngest boy will be dead before then.

--
No stop signs, speed limit, nobody's gonna slow me down
Like a wheel, gonna spin it, nobody's gonna mess me around
Hey Satan, payin' my dues, playin' in a rockin' band
Hey Mumma, look at me, I'm on my way to the promised land
I'm on the highway to hell
-- "Highway to Hell", AC/DC, 1979

[Greegor]

dr > But I think if you want green energy
dr > success stories, you should start
dr > in China.

G > That's where most of the BILLIONS went!

dr > Now if only we could harness here the
dr > energy from people like you flapping
dr > their gums about shit they know
dr > nothing about, then we might have
dr > some of those stories for this country.

G > Well, I suppose on the subject of methane, you
G > probably have a more direct intimate experience
G > on the subject.  Do you and your partner switch off?

> My partner?  How long have you been
> interested in other people's sex lives?
>
> That's just creepy.
>
> So no substantive response to my calling
> you an ignoramus who lets
> himself be manipulated by others?
>
> Imagine my surprise.

Have you ever said that to a left winger?

Oooh! LOL

[Greegor]

BG > This is the general socialists attitude.
BG > The individual means nothing.
BG > Whatever is good for the whole is OK.
BG > So, its OK to kill the innocent, as
BG > long as the whole group (or some whole
BG > group) benefits. The idea of protecting
BG > an individual's rights at the expense
BG > of the whole group doesn't compute with
BG > them. In fact, it is a uniquely American
BG > Constitutional concept.

dr > Blah, blah, blah, bullshit, bullshit,
dr > bullshit, socialists, liberals, blah.
dr >
dr > Glad to see that you're not quoting
dr > any of those "socialists" you talk
dr > to.  Must have learned your lesson
dr > from getting called on making up poor
dr > people to quote about how they
dr > blame rich people.

Liberal temper tantrums much?

[kym horsell]

On Tuesday, May 22, 2012 2:55:27 PM UTC+10, kym horsell wrote:
[... interesting discussion with Bill Graham ...]

If Bill G or anyone else is the type that over-intellectualizes everything ;) then the following very simple little model might be of interest.

How do you decide whether it is better to be lazy/not lazy, or optimistic/pessimistic in the face of a world that throws you the odd
disaster?

You make a mathematical model.

This very trivial little program shows the kind of thing that fascinates people that have a little physics and a little psychology and just can't sit back and watch the tivvy.

If you're C-literate (I guess that means you are way behind the times) it should be pretty straightforward what is going on and what the parameters are and what the actual problem assumes.

But this is also where not pushing your expectations too much into your models also comes into play (i.e. make the observations change the model, rather than the model cause you to reject observations). You probably can make it say anything you want to, with the right adjustments.

As it is, it shows that members of a population that are slightly pessimistic
(to the point of not having a trace of the optimism bias that we carry as children and as encouraged by parents and some evolutionary pressures) and also
slightly lazxy do the best in handling expected and unexpected disasters.

I hope it doesn't upset the "this is not physics" line-counting robots in the audience. :)

---START SNIP---
#include <stdio.h>
#include <assert.h>
#include <math.h>
#include <stdlib.h>

// optimists under-prepare for disaster
// pessimists may tend to over-prepare for disaster
// there is probably an optimal level
// given disaster has a given prob, which is the best strat?

typedef struct
{
float optimism; //optimism level -1..1
float laziness; // 0..1 -- 1 => will always do the work
float score;
} HUMAN;

#define MAX 10000

HUMAN human[MAX];

float u()
{
#define RMAX 10000
float x = random()%RMAX;
return x/RMAX;
}

void init_human(HUMAN* hp)
{
hp->optimism = 2*u() - 1;
hp->laziness = u();
hp->score = 0;
assert(hp->laziness>=0);
assert(hp->laziness<=1);
assert(hp->optimism>=-1);
assert(hp->optimism<=1);
}

void init()
{
int i;
for (i=0; i<MAX; i++){
init_human(&human[i]);
}
}

void deal_with(HUMAN* hp,int disaster)
{
const int prepared = hp->optimism < 0.5; // did they want to prepare?
const int did_work = hp->laziness < 0.5; // did they do the prep
const int preparation_worked = u() < 0.5; // did the preparation work
if (disaster && prepared && did_work && preparation_worked) {
hp->score += 1; // have another kid
}
else if (disaster) {
hp->score -= 1; // lost a leg
}
else if (prepared && did_work) {
hp->score -= 0.5; // cost something to prepare
}
}

int by_score(const void* xp,const void* yp)
{
int rc = ((HUMAN*)xp)->score - ((HUMAN*)yp)->score;
return -rc; //largest to smallest
}

void doit()
{
#define PR_DISASTER 0.5
const int disaster = u() < PR_DISASTER;
int i;
for (i=0; i<MAX; i++) {
deal_with(&human[i],disaster);
}
}

void stats()
{
float avgopt = 0;
float avglaz = 0;
float avgsc = 0;
int i;
for (i=0; i<MAX; i++) {
avgopt += human[i].optimism;
avglaz += human[i].laziness;
avgsc += human[i].score;
}
avgopt /= MAX;
avglaz /= MAX;
avgsc /= MAX;
printf("%g %g %g %g %g %g\n",avgopt,avglaz,avgsc,human[0].score,human[MAX/2].score,human[MAX-1].score);
assert(avglaz >= 0);
}

int main()
{
init();
stats();
int it;
for (it=0; it<1000; it++) {
doit();
// sort from best to worst
qsort(human,MAX,sizeof(human[0]),by_score);
//printf("%g %g %g\n",human[0].score,human[MAX/2].score,human[MAX-1].score);
if (it%10 == 0) {
printf("it=%d ",it);
stats();
}
// cull worst 10%
int i;
for (i=MAX*.9; i<MAX; i++) {
init_human(&human[i]);
}
}
exit(0);
}
--- END SNIP ---

--
Defence against the dark arts #1.
Goalpost shifting.
Aristotle countered sophists' use of goalpost shifting by asking a question.
His opponent then had the choice of selecting the answer they favoured --
and then shown that an alternative was more likely -- or they could choose
the answer they did not favour.
But also note: this technique can also be used by sophists who will not offer
an exhaustive list of choices. E.g. "Have you stopped beating your wife"?

[deadrat]

On usenet? You think my post was a display of temper?

I was just making fun of you.

[Bill Ward]

Not all. Just one is enough. Like proving that CO2 isn't changing the
GH effect, and can't as long as there's a water ocean, for example. Data
trumps bluster every time.

[kym horsell]

Presumably why you don't post analysis.
But a fine legacy of carping is still something to be proud of.
LOL.

--
I always wondered... If there's a mirror in the box, can the cat collapse
its own wave function? Who or what is qualified to collapse wave functions?
-- Bill Ward, 6 Apr 2012 4.12 pm AEST

[Bill Ward]

Since carping all you have, I can see why you'd think so. I prefer
explanation, myself, but that requires understanding of the subject,
which you apparently don't have.

[erschro...@gmail.com]

On May 21, 10:02 pm, "James" <kingk...@iglou.com> wrote:
> <erschroedin...@gmail.com> wrote in message

The poster was complaining about money being wasted, yet none of you
right-wingers have complained about where the REAL money is being
wasted.

[Bill Graham]

and, speaking of lower co2 emmissions, check out this you tube clip:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uBnlXGvA1Wk&feature=relate

[Bret Cahill]

> This is the general socialists attitude. The individual means nothing.
> Whatever is good for the whole is OK. So, its OK to kill the innocent, as
> long as the whole group (or some whole group) benefits. The idea of
> protecting an individual's rights at the expense of the whole group doesn't
> compute with them. In fact, it is a uniquely American Constitutional
> concept.

The Necessity of Society and Government

"Society is necessary to [man's] happiness and even existence." --
Thomas Jefferson to Thomas Law, 1814. ME 14:142

"It will be said that great societies cannot exist without
government." --Thomas Jefferson: Notes on Virginia Q.XI, 1782. ME
2:129

"Without society, and a society to our taste, men are never
contented." --Thomas Jefferson to James Monroe, 1786. ME 6:17

"It is a problem, not clear in my mind, that [a society without
government, as among our Indians] is not the best. But I believe it to
be inconsistent with any great degree of population." --Thomas
Jefferson to James Madison, 1787. ME 6:64

A Society's Self-determination

"Every society has a right to fix the fundamental principles of its
association, and to say to all individuals, that if they contemplate
pursuits beyond the limits of these principles and involving dangers
which the society chooses to avoid, they must go somewhere else for
their exercise; that we want no citizens, and still less ephemeral and
pseudo-citizens, on such terms. We may exclude them from our
territory, as we do persons infected with disease." --Thomas Jefferson
to William H. Crawford, 1816. ME 15:28

[Michael Gordge]

Tell us that hysterical story again of all glaciers melting by 2035,
ewe know, the story that was used to convince
fuckwits like ewe and Gore that AGW was anything more than a gigantic
scam.

MG

[Michael Gordge]

On May 22, 2:47 am, AGWFacts <AGWFa...@1800reality.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 20 May 2012 08:24:46 -0700 (PDT), Bret Cahill

>
> <Bret_E_Cah...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Typically a denier will start off denying that the earth is warming.
>

> That was typical two years ago. Now they tend to insist they have
> always said it was warming.

Fucking crap, people who have never denied AGW is just a fucking scam
shrug and laugh their tits off at ewe
hoax denying morons and they dont give a flying fuck if the globe is
warming or cooling, christ ewe lefties are
desperate and sick.

MG

[erschro...@gmail.com]

One mistake in a document bigger than the Encyclopedia Brittanica.
Wow. To you, that invalidates the entire document? If you found one
mistake in the encyclopedia, would you throw out the entire tome?

[my fake smile]

On May 20, 12:56 pm, Shrikeback <shrikeb...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On May 20, 8:24 am, Bret Cahill <Bret_E_Cah...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Typically a denier will start off denying that the earth is warming.

> > If you get the denier past that stage then he'll deny that the warming
> > is a problem.  After the BEST study they were denying that it's caused
> > by human created CO2.  If you get the denier past that stage then
> > he'll deny more CO2 is a problem.  And so on.  (This really needs to
> > be flow charted.)
>
> > Anyway, if you think AGW denier rationalizations are bad consider the
> > recent teabagger glee on Texas executions of the innocent.
>
> > As recently as 8 years ago W. Bush was denying the State of Texas was
> > executing the innocent.  In a "reorientation" that would put climate
> > change deniers to shame teabaggers are now snickering justifying even
> > cheering the deaths of the innocent.
>
> > Bret Cahill
>

> In former Soviet Russia, we find glowing fish to keep us
> warm at night.

Neat. Do you find all that at the Savannah or Hanford Nuclear Waste
Reservations, too?

[Bret Cahill]

> > > Typically a denier will start off denying that the earth is warming.
> > > If you get the denier past that stage then he'll deny that the warming
> > > is a problem.  After the BEST study they were denying that it's caused
> > > by human created CO2.  If you get the denier past that stage then
> > > he'll deny more CO2 is a problem.  And so on.  (This really needs to
> > > be flow charted.)
>
> > > Anyway, if you think AGW denier rationalizations are bad consider the
> > > recent teabagger glee on Texas executions of the innocent.
>
> > > As recently as 8 years ago W. Bush was denying the State of Texas was
> > > executing the innocent.  In a "reorientation" that would put climate
> > > change deniers to shame teabaggers are now snickering justifying even
> > > cheering the deaths of the innocent.
>
> > > Bret Cahill
>
> > In former Soviet Russia, we find glowing fish to keep us
> > warm at night.
>
> Neat.  Do you find all that at the Savannah or Hanford Nuclear Waste
> Reservations, too?

He doesn't kow or, for that matter care. He just wants to mainstream
himself with Lyndon LaRouche links to dowsers.


Bret Cahill

[AGWFacts]

On Sun, 20 May 2012 11:58:18 -0700 (PDT), Immortalist

<reanima...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> On May 20, 8:24�am, Bret Cahill <Bret_E_Cah...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> > Typically a denier will start off denying that the earth is warming.
> > If you get the denier past that stage then he'll deny that the warming
> > is a problem. �After the BEST study they were denying that it's caused
> > by human created CO2. �If you get the denier past that stage then
> > he'll deny more CO2 is a problem. �And so on. �(This really needs to
> > be flow charted.)
> >
> > Anyway, if you think AGW denier rationalizations are bad consider the
> > recent teabagger glee on Texas executions of the innocent.
> >
> > As recently as 8 years ago W. Bush was denying the State of Texas was
> > executing the innocent. �In a "reorientation" that would put climate
> > change deniers to shame teabaggers are now snickering justifying even
> > cheering the deaths of the innocent.
> >
> > Bret Cahill

> Denialism is choosing to deny reality as a way to avoid an
> uncomfortable truth. Author Paul O'Shea remarks, "[It] is the refusal
> to accept an empirically verifiable reality. It is an essentially
> irrational action that withholds validation of a historical experience
> or event".

Part of the process includes revising what they claim to believe,
and then denying they have done so. Mr. Monckton has been caught
on video doing this many times, and he even refuses to view his
own videos to see himself doing it---- as Potholer54 showed.

This is excellent; thank you.


--
"A 'crank' is defined as a man who cannot be turned." --- _Nature_, 8 Nov 1906

[AGWFacts]

On Mon, 21 May 2012 12:26:42 -0400, T. Keating
<tkus...@ktcnslt.com> wrote:

> On Sun, 20 May 2012 12:58:27 -0700, "Bill Graham" <we...@comcast.net>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >You don't have to be a denier to ask the question, "So what should we do
> >about it?" You can't generate all the energy we use from a few windmills,
> >and tide pools.
>
> No.. not a few,,, but several hundred thousand will be a good start.
>
> Who says it has to be just one solution?
>
> PV does nicely in sunny climates.. (offsets the peak load of A/C usage
> very nicely.)
>
> Eventually humanity will have to adopt living with just renewable
> energy sources or do without.. It's that simple..
>
>
> > You have to either stop using the energy, or build nuclear
> >power plants.
>
> Nuclear power (fission) is a dead end technology.. It has no future.
>
> The USA needlessly wastes a lot of energy, because it was cheap. Well
> those days of wasting cheap energy are coming to an end. The USA
> needs to go on a major energy diet.
>
> I've reduced my household energy usage by 64%(2003->2011), without
> giving up a 1st world lifestyle. Extra insulation, close off
> un-needed rooms, swapout incandesents with compact flourescents, use
> a laptop instead of Workstation, power down phantom loads when not
> needed, etc.
>
> I see no reason why my fellow citizens can't do the same. Add in
> some help, (mandates ban wasteful devices), from the federal
> government, and other tech improvements will go a long way.
>
> > the global warming accepters are alternative energy deniers,
>
> I see you're projecting your personality on to the actions to others..
>
> Those of us who know the truth about AGW are already doing something
> about it.
>
> I now have a much smaller CO2 footprint(4 to 6 tonns) than most
> americans.
>
> >just as the global warming deniers are turning their backs on the facts they
> >don't want to accept. Right now, 50% of our electricity is made by burning
> >coal.
>
> Not so.. it's down to 36%.. Coal can not compete with cheap NG right
> now.
>
>
> http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/05/14/483432/us-coal-generation-drops-19-percent-in-one-year-leaving-coal-with-36-percent-share-of-electricity/
> "U.S. Coal Generation Drops 19 Percent In One Year, Leaving Coal With
> 36 Percent Share Of Electricity"
>
> And Power co's (like FPL) are building new NG fueled Combined cycle
> power plants as fast as they can, but even those aren't the answer
> since they still produce too much CO2(350g to 480g) per kWh.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparisons_of_life-cycle_greenhouse-gas_emissions
>
>
> Lifecycle greenhouse gas emission estimates for electricity
> generators[1]
>
> Technology Description Estimate
> (g CO2/kWhe)
> Wind 2.5 MW offshore 9
> Hydroelectric 3.1 MW reservoir 10
> Wind 1.5 MW onshore 10
> Biogas Anaerobic digestion 11
> Hydroelectric 300 kW run-of-river 13
> Solar thermal 80 MW parabolic trough 13
> Biomass various 14-35
> Solar PV Polycrystaline silicon 32
> Geothermal 80 MW hot dry rock 38
> Nuclear various reactor types 66
> Natural gas various combined cycle turbines 443
> Diesel various generator and turbine types 778
> Heavy oil various generator and turbine types 778
> Coal various generator types with scrubbing 960
> Coal various generator types without scrubbing 1050
>
> B.T.W. Nuclear is going to shoot up well over 100g per kWH in the
> near future (depeletion of high grade ores).
>
> Solar PV output per gram of CO2 can do much better with tracking and
> locating them in sunny climates. .
>
>
> So, when you drive your electric car 100 miles, 50 of those miles are
> >going to spew CO2 into the air somewhere. If not where you are on the road,
> >then at the local electric generation plant.
>
> Not if it comes from a renewable energy source.
>
> >So, what is your solution to
> >the problem?
>
> 100% Dependance on renewable energy sources is the ONLY long term
> answer.

This is an awesome article: thank you. You did a great job
refuting the hysterical "switching over to renuable energy sources
will kill us all!" alarmist bullshit.

Where I live, nearly 100% of the electricty used comes from
photovoltaic panels; not everyone can do this, but they *CAN*
reduce their consumtion of energy and still live as well as they
do now (and perhaps even better).

[AGWFacts]

On Mon, 21 May 2012 09:45:38 -0700 (PDT), kym horsell
<kymho...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Tuesday, May 22, 2012 2:26:42 AM UTC+10, T. Keating wrote:
> ...

> > Solar PV output per gram of CO2 can do much better with tracking and
> > locating them in sunny climates. .

> ...
>
> One trick I used in my old house where I could get away with only 1/2 kw
> of pv was use "passive tracking". Aka a couple of cheap mirrors scrounged
> from old wardrobes placed strategically so they reflected sunlight
> at morning and afternoon onto the panels.

This of course is for azimuth. Since I live in the northern
hemisphere, I just aimed the PV cells to 180 degrees true. We
would get a hell of a lot more energy if the panels tracked, but
the expense is too great.

For altitude, I manually raise and lower the northern edges of the
PV panels. Since I live around 36 degrees north, the panels on the
summer solstice are tilted southward about 12 degrees. They should
be tilted more like 9 degrees but the frame the panels sit in will
not depress that low.

The reason for 9 instead of 12 (36 geographic latitude, minus 23.5
apparent solar latitude) is because even though solar irradience
peaks at meridian passage, it fits a bell curve upon which 9
degrees is at the peak of the bell curve.

This means I am losing 23% of the maximum amount of energy the
panels could receive because the panels do not track the sun.

> A hell of a lot cheaper, simpler and more reliable than making
> the panels move.

All told, about $5.20 per watt to install new, out of the box.

> There was just the problem of cleaning a few extra surfaces every
> few month, but even that was not as critical as a tracking pv panel
> since mirror+pv was getting a boost in efficiency anyway.

[BeamMeUpScotty]

How much CO2 is created when constructing a PV Mega Watt from start to
finish?

They aren't manufactured with PV power are they?


The same with Wind Power.

>> So, when you drive your electric car 100 miles, 50 of those miles are
>>> going to spew CO2 into the air somewhere. If not where you are on the road,
>>> then at the local electric generation plant.
>>
>> Not if it comes from a renewable energy source.
>>
>>> So, what is your solution to
>>> the problem?
>>
>> 100% Dependance on renewable energy sources is the ONLY long term
>> answer.

--
Bread and beer increased prosperity to a level that allowed time for
development of other technology and contributed to the building of
civilizations.[19][20][21][22] *He has the most who is most content with
the least* -Diogenes-

[Michael Gordge]

Oh soooo ewe're saying he is sounding a bit like those scientists who
convinced ewe and Cahill and
Gore that the glaciers would melt by 2035 unless ewe paid nanny state
a lot more tax?

MG

[Michael Gordge]

On May 26, 2:05 am, AGWFacts <AGWFa...@1800reality.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 21 May 2012 12:26:42 -0400, T. Keating
>
>
>
>
>

> <tkuse...@ktcnslt.com> wrote:
> > On Sun, 20 May 2012 12:58:27 -0700, "Bill Graham" <w...@comcast.net>

> >http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/05/14/483432/us-coal-generation...

> > "U.S. Coal Generation Drops 19 Percent In One Year, Leaving Coal With
> > 36 Percent Share Of Electricity"
>
> > And Power co's (like FPL) are building new NG fueled Combined cycle
> > power plants as fast as they can,  but even those aren't the answer
> > since they still produce too much CO2(350g to 480g) per kWh.
>

> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparisons_of_life-cycle_greenhouse-gas...

How much Co2 is produced to make a photovoltaic panel, dont forget to
include the mining of the raw materials
and how much is used to fit and repair them and what how much Co2 are
ewe creating by using the energy these
panels produce? fucking morons

MG

[Greegor]

MG > How much Co2 is produced to make a
MG > photovoltaic panel, dont forget to
MG > include the mining of the raw materials
MG > and how much is used to fit and
MG > repair them and what how much Co2 are
MG > ewe creating by using the energy these
MG > panels produce? fucking morons

You are right about that.
Photovoltaic cells are so VERY expensive
and their output is so puny that any
Return On Investment (ROI) takes forever.
If somebody finds a way to manufacture
durable PV cells cheaply, then they might
start a revolution.

For now, they are mostly good in remote
or super low power applications.

NOT viable for power production.

[Greegor]

> "A 'crank' is defined as a man
> who cannot be turned." --- _Nature_, 8 Nov 1906

> Oh soooo ewe're saying he is sounding
> a bit like those scientists who
> convinced ewe and Cahill and
> Gore that the glaciers would melt by
> 2035 unless ewe paid nanny state
> a lot more tax?

Sounds like a ransom situation.

[1treePetrifiedForestLane]

Calif. PUC just doubled (?) the amount of subsidies
for photovoltaics, apparently.

[AGWFacts]

On Mon, 21 May 2012 19:53:42 -0700, "Bill Graham"
<we...@comcast.net> wrote:

> AGWFacts wrote:
> > On Sun, 20 May 2012 08:24:46 -0700 (PDT), Bret Cahill

> > <Bret_E...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Typically a denier will start off denying that the earth is warming.
> >

> > That was typical two years ago. Now they tend to insist they have

> > always said it was warming.

> >
> >> If you get the denier past that stage then he'll deny that the
> >> warming is a problem. After the BEST study they were denying that
> >> it's caused by human created CO2. If you get the denier past that
> >> stage then he'll deny more CO2 is a problem. And so on. (This
> >> really needs to be flow charted.)
> >

> > The current phase is that yes, it's warming; yes, humans did it;
> > yes, it's a problem; but no, clouds will save us.

> >
> >> Anyway, if you think AGW denier rationalizations are bad consider the
> >> recent teabagger glee on Texas executions of the innocent.
> >>
> >> As recently as 8 years ago W. Bush was denying the State of Texas was
> >> executing the innocent. In a "reorientation" that would put climate
> >> change deniers to shame teabaggers are now snickering justifying even
> >> cheering the deaths of the innocent.
> >

> > "Not guilty," not "innocent." I had an argument with a Zionist (in
> > Costa Rica) who insisted that killing defenceless, harmless
> > Palistinians was not a bad thing because many thousands of them
> > were not killed.
> >
> >> Bret Cahill

> This is the general socialists attitude.

WTF? I read a science newsgroup. If you want to discuss what ever
the fuck you mean by "socialist," you need to go to a politics
newsgroup and trim the science ones from the list.

> The individual means nothing.
> Whatever is good for the whole is OK. So, its OK to kill the innocent, as
> long as the whole group (or some whole group) benefits. The idea of
> protecting an individual's rights at the expense of the whole group doesn't
> compute with them. In fact, it is a uniquely American Constitutional
> concept.

--

[AGWFacts]

On Wed, 23 May 2012 14:02:31 -0700 (PDT), Michael Gordge
<mikeg...@xtra.co.nz> wrote:

> On Mon, 21 May 2012 11:47:28 -0600, AGWFacts <AGWF...@1800reality.com> wrote:
>
> > On Sun, 20 May 2012 08:24:46 -0700 (PDT), Bret Cahill
> > <Bret_E...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Typically a denier will start off denying that the earth is warming.
> >
> > That was typical two years ago. Now they tend to insist they have
> > always said it was warming.
> >

> > > If you get the denier past that stage then he'll deny that the warming
> > > is a problem. After the BEST study they were denying that it's caused
> > > by human created CO2. If you get the denier past that stage then
> > > he'll deny more CO2 is a problem. And so on. (This really needs to
> > > be flow charted.)
> >
> > The current phase is that yes, it's warming; yes, humans did it;
> > yes, it's a problem; but no, clouds will save us.
> >
> > > Anyway, if you think AGW denier rationalizations are bad consider the
> > > recent teabagger glee on Texas executions of the innocent.
> > >
> > > As recently as 8 years ago W. Bush was denying the State of Texas was
> > > executing the innocent. In a "reorientation" that would put climate
> > > change deniers to shame teabaggers are now snickering justifying even
> > > cheering the deaths of the innocent.
> >
> > "Not guilty," not "innocent." I had an argument with a Zionist (in
> > Costa Rica) who insisted that killing defenceless, harmless
> > Palistinians was not a bad thing because many thousands of them
> > were not killed.
> >
> > > Bret Cahill

> Fucking crap, people who have never denied AGW is just a fucking scam
> shrug and laugh their tits off at ewe

What?

> hoax denying morons and they dont give a flying fuck if the globe is
> warming or cooling, christ ewe lefties aredesperate and sick.

Huh? I'm sorry: I only know English.

[BeamMeUpScotty]

On 5/25/2012 5:36 PM, Michael Gordge wrote:
> On May 26, 2:05 am, AGWFacts <AGWFa...@1800reality.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, 21 May 2012 12:26:42 -0400, T. Keating
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> <tkuse...@ktcnslt.com> wrote:
>>> On Sun, 20 May 2012 12:58:27 -0700, "Bill Graham" <w...@comcast.net>
>>> wrote:

>>> Those of us who know the truth about AGW are already doing something
>>> about it.
>>
>>> I now have a much smaller CO2 footprint(4 to 6 tonns) than most
>>> americans.

300 million Americans 6 tons

2 billion tons of Carbon is that in a life time? so divide it by 74 the
average life.

If Americans expel 300 million tons of carbon a year more than if they
lived like you.... where is all that carbon they expel plus the carbon
you say they could be saving.

Is the atmosphere expanding in volume or is it NOT expanding but the
atmospheric pressure is increasing.

Simple Physics says you can't be putting all that CO2 into the
atmosphere and having NOTHING happen and NO resulting reaction....

What is the physical reaction?? Where is the CO2 and Why can't you tell
me how it is changing the atmospheric volume or pressure?

In Chem class I learned that when you heat something you get a
"reaction" when you add more volume to a balloon you get a reaction,
where is the added volume of CO2 reaction.



--

*He has the most who is most content with the least* -Diogenes-

-Kum bay ya-

[AGWFacts]

On Mon, 21 May 2012 20:25:07 -0700, "Bill Graham"
<we...@comcast.net> wrote:

> AGWFacts wrote:
> > On Sun, 20 May 2012 11:58:18 -0700 (PDT), Immortalist

> > <reanima...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> >
> >> On May 20, 8:24 am, Bret Cahill <Bret_E_Cah...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>> Typically a denier will start off denying that the earth is warming.

> >>> If you get the denier past that stage then he'll deny that the
> >>> warming is a problem. After the BEST study they were denying that
> >>> it's caused by human created CO2. If you get the denier past that
> >>> stage then he'll deny more CO2 is a problem. And so on. (This
> >>> really needs to
> >>> be flow charted.)
> >>>

> >>> Anyway, if you think AGW denier rationalizations are bad consider
> >>> the recent teabagger glee on Texas executions of the innocent.
> >>>
> >>> As recently as 8 years ago W. Bush was denying the State of Texas
> >>> was executing the innocent. In a "reorientation" that would put
> >>> climate change deniers to shame teabaggers are now snickering
> >>> justifying even cheering the deaths of the innocent.
> >>>

> >>> Bret Cahill
> >
> >> Denialism is choosing to deny reality as a way to avoid an
> >> uncomfortable truth. Author Paul O'Shea remarks, "[It] is the refusal
> >> to accept an empirically verifiable reality. It is an essentially
> >> irrational action that withholds validation of a historical
> >> experience or event".
> >

> > Indeed, but I reject the word "choosing." Denialism is a self-
> > defense mechanism, and I would not agree that self-defense
> > mechanisms are chosen.
> >

> But there are some who deny because of lack of evidence,

You mean they deny it from the false belief that there is a lack
of evidence. Denialism includes the rejection of evidence, and it
includes self-defense mechanisms that rationalize away that
evidence.

The evidence for human-caused climate change is overwhelming,
conclusive, convincing, and built upon nearly 200 years of human
knowledge and measurement. The evidence is just as sound and
inclusive as that for the heliocentrc model of the Solar System,
the evolutionary history of the diversity of life on Earth, atomic
theory, and asll of the other venues of science where consensus
has been reached by the world's scientists.

People deny human-caused climate change out of ignorance, fear,
superstition, and greed, but never out of a "lack of evidence."

> or because there
> are reasonable holes in the argument. Just becausde someone disagrees with
> you, doesn't mean that he is denying truth. He might say that you are
> denying the truth that he believes. We are not in full understanding of the
> earth's climate patterns, or what causes it to undergo cycles of ice ages
> and periods of global warming in between those colder periods. There are
> important questions that are still unanswered. Questions like what effect do
> underwater plants have on the conversion of CO2 back into carbon and oxygen,
> Cold water holds more gas than warm water, and the undersea life in colder
> regions is much more prolific. Exactly how much does This effect the
> globalwarming cycle? Does undersea plant live utilize photosynthesis to
> convert CO2 into carbon and oxygen? Also, We human beings put out a lot of
> forest fires that are started by lightening and burned unchecked for
> millions of years before we came along. Do we redeem ourselves at all by
> doing this, or is the effect too small to count? Where did the oil eating
> bacteria in the ocean come from? Did it develop over millions of years from
> oil spills that took place long before the existence of BP? You don't have
> to be a GW denier to ask questions like this..... As they say, "Enquiring
> minds want to know."

[Bill Graham]

Well, it was 60% ten years ago, then 50%, and now you say 36%, but in any
case, NG produces CO2 just qs mu7ch as coal does, so the global warming
problem isn't any closer to a solution no matter which one we use. The solar
power and wind turbines are way less than 5% the last I heard, so we've got
a long way to go before either of those makes a significant dent in the CO2
reduction.....

[Bill Graham]

BeamMeUpScotty wrote:
> On 5/25/2012 1:05 PM, AGWFacts wrote:
>> On Mon, 21 May 2012 12:26:42 -0400, T. Keating
>> <tkus...@ktcnslt.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Sun, 20 May 2012 12:58:27 -0700, "Bill Graham" <we...@comcast.net>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> You don't have to be a denier to ask the question, "So what should
>>>> we do about it?" You can't generate all the energy we use from a
>>>> few windmills, and tide pools.
>>>
>>> No.. not a few,,, but several hundred thousand will be a good
>>> start.
>>>
>>> Who says it has to be just one solution?
>>>
>>> PV does nicely in sunny climates.. (offsets the peak load of A/C
>>> usage very nicely.)
>>>
>>> Eventually humanity will have to adopt living with just renewable
>>> energy sources or do without.. It's that simple..
>>>
>>>
>>>> You have to either stop using the energy, or build nuclear
>>>> power plants.
>>>
>>> Nuclear power (fission) is a dead end technology.. It has no future.
>>>
>>> The USA needlessly wastes a lot of energy, because it was cheap.
>>> Well those days of wasting cheap energy are coming to an end.

The classic way to stop wasting cheap stuff is to make it more expensive. At
least, this is the capitalists way of solving the problem... Something tells
me that this is going to be the way we solve this one as well. For sure,
there is little I can do to solve it but wait until that solution
happens.....

[Bill Graham]

AAlso, isn't there some limiting factor because of the sun't energy per
square meter? Something like3 17 watts per square meter IIRC. this means
that there is an upper practical limit on how much energy you can get with
them before the entire earth is covered with them.....

[Greegor]

On May 25, 7:35 pm, "Bill Graham" <w...@comcast.net> wrote:
> Greegor wrote:
> > MG > How much Co2 is produced to make a
> > MG > photovoltaic panel, dont forget to
> > MG > include the mining of the raw materials
> > MG > and how much is used to fit and
> > MG > repair them and what how much Co2 are
> > MG > ewe creating by using the energy these
> > MG > panels produce? fucking morons
>
> > You are right about that.
> > Photovoltaic cells are so VERY expensive
> > and their output is so puny that any
> > Return On Investment (ROI) takes forever.
> > If somebody finds a way to manufacture
> > durable PV cells cheaply, then they might
> > start a revolution.
>
> > For now, they are mostly good in remote
> > or super low power applications.
>
> > NOT viable for power production.

> Also, isn't there some limiting factor

> because of the suns energy per square

> meter? Something like3 17 watts per
> square meter IIRC. this means that
> there is an upper practical limit on
> how much energy you can get with
> them before the entire earth is
> covered with them.....

I could not catalog every problem with the technology
but ROI is the biggest problem for PV and wind power.
Their light/current conversion efficiency
can go down severely if they get too hot, etc.

If the PV cells take 40 years of energy
production just to recoup the cost of
producing them, then hail damage can be
a huge economic disaster.

The big watch word for any such technology
is ROI, Return On Investment. The time it
takes for the technology to produce energy
worth the cost of producing and maintaining
the technology is crucial.

I understand that routine maintenance on
wind power generators is VERY EXPENSIVE
and I suspect that issue could make the
technology untenable.

Lots of liberal happy feelings are not
a valid replacement for break even and
ROI calculations.

Grant money for green technology was
handed out idiotically, squandering
a chance to truly advance the technologies.

[Fredric L. Rice]

AGWFacts <AGWF...@1800reality.com> wrote:
>On Mon, 21 May 2012 19:53:42 -0700, "Bill Graham"

>> This is the general socialists attitude.
>WTF? I read a science newsgroup. If you want to discuss what ever
>the fuck you mean by "socialist," you need to go to a politics
>newsgroup and trim the science ones from the list.

Rightards have no idea what Socialism is and what Socialism is not,
much as these brainless rightards have no idea what evolution is
and is not -- and for the same shitbrained reasons.

---
http://www.skeptictank.org/
Save us, Obe Won Paul! You're our only hope!

[Michael Gordge]

On May 26, 9:10 am, "Bill Graham" <w...@comcast.net> wrote:
> BeamMeUpScotty wrote:
> > On 5/25/2012 1:05 PM, AGWFacts wrote:
> >> On Mon, 21 May 2012 12:26:42 -0400, T. Keating

> >> <tkuse...@ktcnslt.com> wrote:
>
> >>> On Sun, 20 May 2012 12:58:27 -0700, "Bill Graham" <w...@comcast.net>

> >>> wrote:
>
> >>>> You don't have to be a denier to ask the question, "So what should
> >>>> we do about it?" You can't generate all the energy we use from a
> >>>> few windmills, and tide pools.
>
> >>> No.. not a few,,,  but several hundred thousand will be a good
> >>> start.
>
> >>> Who says it has to be just one solution?
>
> >>> PV does nicely in sunny climates.. (offsets the peak load of A/C
> >>> usage very nicely.)
>
> >>> Eventually humanity will have to adopt living with just renewable
> >>> energy sources or do without..   It's that simple..
>
> >>>> You have to either stop using the energy, or build nuclear
> >>>> power plants.
>
> >>> Nuclear power (fission) is a dead end technology.. It has no future.
>
> >>> The USA needlessly wastes a lot of energy, because it was cheap.
> >>> Well those days of wasting cheap energy are coming to an end.
>
> The classic way to stop wasting cheap stuff is to make it more expensive. At
> least, this is the capitalists way of solving the problem... Something tells
> me that this is going to be the way we solve this one as well. For sure,
> there is little I can do to solve it but wait until that solution
> happens.....

Stupid cunt, capitalism has nothing to do with making things
expensive, what makes things expensive are dopey
fucking laws that ewe moronic lefties invent. e.g. anything legally
compulsory by default becomes expensive.
Ewe dumb fucks haven't caught on have ewes? Your dumb arsed drug laws
are the direct cause of drug crimes.

MG

[Michael Gordge]

On May 26, 7:50 am, AGWFacts <AGWFa...@1800reality.com> wrote:

> Huh? I'm sorry: I only know English.

If that were half true ewe'd stop denying AGW is a hoax.

MG

[Michael Gordge]

Nope, its just plain and simple leftist stupidity, they really are
that dumb.

MG

[Michael Gordge]

On May 27, 5:12 am, fr...@skeptictank.org (Fredric L. Rice) wrote:

> Rightards have no idea what Socialism is.......

Its stupid, its anti-human, its based on bull-shit, it cant survive
without stealing from the productive.
And really really really dumb people are still falling for it.

MG

[Michael Gordge]

On May 26, 9:10 am, "Bill Graham" <w...@comcast.net> wrote:

> BeamMeUpScotty wrote:
> > On 5/25/2012 1:05 PM, AGWFacts wrote:
> >> On Mon, 21 May 2012 12:26:42 -0400, T. Keating

> >> <tkuse...@ktcnslt.com> wrote:
>
> >>> On Sun, 20 May 2012 12:58:27 -0700, "Bill Graham" <w...@comcast.net>

> >>> wrote:
>
> >>>> You don't have to be a denier to ask the question, "So what should
> >>>> we do about it?" You can't generate all the energy we use from a
> >>>> few windmills, and tide pools.
>
> >>> No.. not a few,,,  but several hundred thousand will be a good
> >>> start.
>
> >>> Who says it has to be just one solution?
>
> >>> PV does nicely in sunny climates.. (offsets the peak load of A/C
> >>> usage very nicely.)
>
> >>> Eventually humanity will have to adopt living with just renewable
> >>> energy sources or do without..   It's that simple..
>
> >>>> You have to either stop using the energy, or build nuclear
> >>>> power plants.
>
> >>> Nuclear power (fission) is a dead end technology.. It has no future.
>
> >>> The USA needlessly wastes a lot of energy, because it was cheap.
> >>> Well those days of wasting cheap energy are coming to an end.
>
> The classic way to stop wasting cheap stuff is to make it more expensive. At
> least, this is the capitalists way of solving the problem...

Stupid cunt, the cost of removing a dead tree has nothing to do with
capitalism, read this ewe dumb fuck.

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/sydney-news/one-man-one-dead-tree-one-development-application-aerial-photographs-public-notices-one-giant-farce/story-e6freuzi-1226367763249

MG

[BeamMeUpScotty]

Socialism is like the crap that snake oil salesmen try to pass off to
you isn't it, Socialism will cure all our ills and yet I have never seen
anyone except the Socialist get cured and get out of their wheel chair
and start walking thanks to Socialism.


Reminds me of the movie "Little Big Man" with Dustin Hoffman.



The poison kills people but they just keep selling their snake oil to
all the suckers....

[kym horsell]

On Sunday, May 27, 2012 8:03:44 AM UTC+10, BeamMeUpScotty wrote:
...

> Reminds me of the movie "Little Big Man" with Dustin Hoffman.

...

Which character did you identify with? The moron or the con artist?

--
I guess I just don't like being lied to and people who don't know shit
giving science a bad name.
-- Melvin the Martian, 26 May 2012

[deadrat]

On 5/26/12 5:03 PM, BeamMeUpScotty wrote:
> On 5/26/2012 5:26 PM, Michael Gordge wrote:
>> On May 27, 5:12 am, fr...@skeptictank.org (Fredric L. Rice) wrote:
>>
>>> Rightards have no idea what Socialism is.......
>>
>> Its stupid, its anti-human, its based on bull-shit, it cant survive
>> without stealing from the productive.
>> And really really really dumb people are still falling for it.
>>
>> MG
>
>

> Socialism is like ....

Yeah, yeah. We know what's it's like. It's like, doubleplusungood.
But what *is* it?

[deadrat]

Yeah! And those homicides are murders because of dumb arsed murder laws.

And don't get me started on seat belts.

[deadrat]

Just about anything a rightard says can be explained by projection.

[Bert Hyman]

In news:f0a4a470-fa6f-45f3...@n8g2000pbv.googlegroups.com

Michael Gordge <mikeg...@xtra.co.nz> wrote:

> On May 27, 5:12 am, fr...@skeptictank.org (Fredric L. Rice) wrote:
>
>> Rightards have no idea what Socialism is.......
>
> Its stupid, its anti-human, its based on bull-shit, it cant survive
> without stealing from the productive.

It's not just a matter of surviving by stealing from the productive;
it's entirely about stealing from the productive.

> And really really really dumb people are still falling for it.

--
Bert Hyman St. Paul, MN be...@iphouse.com

[Gary Forbis]

You're talking about private equity financing(LBO), right?

Do you have any idea what Socailism is?

[AGWFacts]

On Sat, 26 May 2012 20:12:43 GMT, fr...@skeptictank.org (Fredric
L. Rice) wrote:

> AGWFacts <AGWF...@1800reality.com> wrote:
> >On Mon, 21 May 2012 19:53:42 -0700, "Bill Graham"

> >> This is the general socialists attitude.

> >WTF? I read a science newsgroup. If you want to discuss what ever
> >the fuck you mean by "socialist," you need to go to a politics
> >newsgroup and trim the science ones from the list.

> Rightards have no idea what Socialism is and what Socialism is not,
> much as these brainless rightards have no idea what evolution is
> and is not -- and for the same shitbrained reasons.

Indeed, if they ever saw a socialist they would shit their pants
in fear.

[AGWFacts]

What?

[Wally W.]

On Sat, 26 May 2012 18:56:58 -0600, AGWFacts wrote:

>On Sat, 26 May 2012 14:08:07 -0700 (PDT), Michael Gordge
><mikeg...@xtra.co.nz> wrote:
>
>> On May 26, 7:50 am, AGWFacts <AGWFa...@1800reality.com> wrote:
>>
>> > Huh? I'm sorry: I only know English.
>>
>> If that were half true ewe'd stop denying AGW is a hoax.
>
>What?

It seems he doesn't know English.

Another self-parody:

From: AGWFacts <AGWF...@1800reality.com>
Subject: Revisiting why incompetents think they're awesome
Date: Sat, 26 May 2012 15:10:03 -0600
Message-ID: <1bh2s7ds34n54q8u6...@4ax.com>

[Bill Graham]

Greegor wrote:
> Grant money for green technology was
> handed out idiotically, squandering
> a chance to truly advance the technologies.

I am certainly not surprised at that. Seldom does tha government do anything
that is efficient. The best hope for advances in energy production
technology is to be seen by private enterprise when the costs of the energy
we use today become more and more expensive and the pressure to find cheaper
sources grows accordingly. The further government keeps away from this
process, the better. Right now, (for example), the government is preventing
the importation of automobiles that are twice as efficient as the ones we
now drive, probably to keep its tax revenues up.

[Bill Graham]

I didn't say that capatolism made it expensive. I said that when some
solution to the problem is found, capitalism will provide it. Right now, the
government is impeding the progress of finding solutions to the problem.

[Bill Graham]

And what, exactly, does some Australian lawyer's tree have to do with our
discussion of solving the earth's global warming/energy use problem? -
Sometimes I wonder weather you have all your buttons......

[Bill Graham]

Gary Forbis wrote:

> Do you have any idea what Socailism is?YUP. Its government interference in
> private enterprise. Regulating it, then controlling it, and (finally)
> owning it outright. we, here in the USA, are half way there already, and
> rapidly reaching the end of the journey. The health system is almost
> completely socialized. So is the banking system. And every time Ovbama
> farts, it gets worse.
But you probably have some pie-in-the-sky definition taken from a ninteenth
century book that disagrees with this. Well, you can go with your
definition, and I will go with mine. Mine sees a problem with where we are
at today.... Right now.....And with the next few years, when all incentive
to start and run ones own business is gone, qand we relapse into several
hundred years of virtual slavery.

[kym horsell]

On Sunday, May 27, 2012 12:34:27 PM UTC+10, Bill Graham wrote:
...

> And what, exactly, does some Australian lawyer's tree have to do with our
> discussion of solving the earth's global warming/energy use problem? -
> Sometimes I wonder weather you have all your buttons......

Sorry about that.

When Kiwis move to Western Australia looking for work SOP is to warn them about driking the local water.

Some kind of govt snafu skipped the flier mailout to Michael Gorgon.

--
[T]he pattern of ocean warming rules out ocean cycles as the driver of
global warming. The world's oceans have been building up heat over the
past half century. This isn't a case of heat shifting around due to
ocean cycles but the entire global ocean system building up heat. The
specific pattern of ocean warming, with heat penetrating from the
surface, can only be explained by greenhouse warming (Barnett 2005).
-- http://www.skepticalscience.com/print.php?n=586

[Michael Gordge]

Socialism "is" stupid, it *is* based on a load of bull shit that ewe
are your brother's keeper, but ewe's fail to
mention who your brother is keeping, fuck ewes are dumb.

MG

[kym horsell]

So how did that fratricide work out for ya?
I liked the version they did in "Lost".

--
jimp wrote several times:
> According to the Russian Academy of Science, global warming is over.
> So how is that concensus thing going for you all?

Bill Snyder wrote:
> You mean according to the one kook whose paper you reference,
> who's been pushing this same nutty theory for a while now -- or
> can you cite an actual statement by the RSA?

jimp wrote:
> Hmmm, peer reviewed and published as coming from the Pulkovo Observatory
> of the RAS.

Bill Snyder:
> You claimed the Russian Academy of Sciences said that global
> warming was over. Can you substantiate that claim, or not?

Of course not if you want to get into anal symantics, no more than anyone
can substantiate the claim that man made global warming it true or that
man made global warming will cause a disaster according to some center of
science.
-- jimp <ji...@specsol.com>, 25 May 2012 22:33:57 -0000

[Michael Gordge]

On May 27, 11:05 am, Wally W. <ww8...@aim.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 26 May 2012 18:56:58 -0600, AGWFacts wrote:
> >On Sat, 26 May 2012 14:08:07 -0700 (PDT), Michael Gordge
> ><mikegor...@xtra.co.nz> wrote:
>
> >> On May 26, 7:50 am, AGWFacts <AGWFa...@1800reality.com> wrote:
>
> >> > Huh? I'm sorry: I only know English.
>
> >> If that were half true ewe'd stop denying AGW is a hoax.
>
> >What?
>
> It seems he doesn't know English.
>
> Another self-parody:
>

> From: AGWFacts <AGWFa...@1800reality.com>
> Subject: Revisiting why incompetents think they're awesome
> Date: Sat, 26 May 2012 15:10:03 -0600
> Message-ID: <1bh2s7ds34n54q8u6...@4ax.com>

Sooo ewe're another scam denier huh?

MG

[Clave]

"Michael Gordge" <mikeg...@xtra.co.nz> wrote in message
news:3f3af52b-47ca-4184...@z4g2000pbz.googlegroups.com...

<...>

> Socialism "is" stupid, it *is* based on a load of bull shit that ewe

> are your brother's keeper...

Hi, pretentious douche!

The answer to "Am I my brother's keeper?" is supposed to be "YES".

Jim

[Michael Gordge]

> >http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/sydney-news/one-man-one-dead-tr...

>
> > MG
>
> And what, exactly, does some Australian lawyer's tree have to do with our
> discussion of solving the earth's global warming/energy use problem? -
> Sometimes I wonder weather you have all your buttons......

Stupid cunt, there is no global warming problem existing anywhere but
inside the heads of lefturdian fuckwits.

MG

[kym horsell]

On Monday, May 21, 2012 1:24:46 AM UTC+10, Bret Cahill wrote:
> Typically a denier will start off denying that the earth is warming.
> If you get the denier past that stage then he'll deny that the warming
> is a problem. After the BEST study they were denying that it's caused
> by human created CO2. If you get the denier past that stage then
> he'll deny more CO2 is a problem. And so on. (This really needs to
> be flow charted.)
...

I think the flowchart is almost ready.

Elsewhere in the universe experts now expect evolutionary theory to be
accepted within 30 to 50 years. Bookmakers are covering bets on which will
be first -- fusion power or Darwinism taught uncontroversially in US schools.

'Evolution debate will soon be history'

philstar.com
May 27, 2012 11:02 AM

New York (AP) -- Richard Leakey predicts skepticism over evolution will soon
be history.

Not that the avowed atheist has any doubts himself.

Sometime in the next 15 to 30 years, the Kenyan-born paleoanthropologist
expects scientific discoveries will have accelerated to the point that "even
the skeptics can accept it."

"If you get to the stage where you can persuade people on the evidence, that
it's solid, that we are all African, that color is superficial, that stages of
development of culture are all interactive," Leakey says, "then I think we
have a chance of a world that will respond better to global challenges."

Leakey, a professor at Stony Brook University on Long Island, recently spent
several wk in New York promoting the Turkana Basin Institute in Kenya. The
institute, where Leakey spends most of his time, welcomes researchers and
scientists from around the world dedicated to unearthing the origins of
mankind in an area rich with fossils.

His friend, Paul Simon, performed at a May 2 fundraiser for the institute in
Manhattan that collected more than $2 million. A National Geographic
documentary on his work at Turkana aired this m on public television.

Now 67, Leakey is the son of the late Louis and Mary Leakey and conducts
research with his wife, Meave, and daughter, Louise. The family claims to have
unearthed "much of the existing fossil evidence for human evolution."

On the eve of his return to Africa earlier this week, Leakey spoke to The
Associated Press in New York City about the past and the future.

"If you look back, the thing that strikes you, if you've got any sensitivity,
is that extinction is the most common phenomena," Leakey says. "Extinction is
always driven by environmental change.

Environmental change is always driven by climate change. Man accelerated, if
not created, planet change phenomena; I think we have to recognize that the
future is by no means a very rosy one."

Any hope for mankind's future, he insists, rests on accepting existing
scientific evidence of its past.

"If we're spreading out across the world from centers like Europe and America
that evolution is nonsense and science is nonsense, how do you combat new
pathogens, how do you combat new strains of disease that are evolving in the
environment?" he asked.

"If you don't like the word evolution, I don't care what you call it, but life
has changed. You can lay out all the fossils that have been collected and
establish lineages that even a fool could work up. So the question is why, how
does this happen? It's not covered by Genesis. There's no explanation for
this change going back 500 mn y in any book I've read from the lips of any God."

Leakey insists he has no animosity toward religion.

"If you tell me, well, people really need a faith ... I understand that," he said.

"I see no reason why you shouldn't go through your life thinking if you're a
good citizen, you'll get a better future in the afterlife ...."

Leakey began his work searching for fossils in the mid-1960s. His team
unearthed a nearly complete 1.6-million-year-old skeleton in 1984 that became
known as "Turkana Boy," the 1st known early human with long legs, short arms
and a tall stature.

In the late 1980s, Leakey began a career in government service in Kenya,
heading the Kenya Wildlife Service. He led the quest to protect elephants from
poachers who were killing the animals at an alarming rate in order to harvest
their valuable ivory tusks. He gathered 12 tons of confiscated ivory in
Nairobi National Park and set it afire in a 1989 demonstration that attracted
worldwide headlines.

In 1993, Leakey crashed a small propeller-driven plane; his lower legs were
later amputated and he now gets around on artificial limbs. There were
suspicions the plane had been sabotaged by his political enemies, but it was
never proven.

About a decade ago, he visited Stony Brook University on eastern Long Island,
a part of the State University of New York, as a guest
lecturer. Then-President Shirley Strum Kenny began lobbying Leakey to join the
faculty. It was a process that took about 2 years; he relented after returning
to the campus to accept an honorary degree.

Kenny convinced him that he could remain in Kenya most of the time, where
Stony Brook anthropology students could visit and learn about his work. And
the college founded in 1957 would benefit from the gravitas of such a noted
professor on its faculty.

"It was much easier to work with a new university that didn't have a
200-year-old image where it was so set in its ways like some of the Ivy League
schools that you couldn't really change what they did and what they thought,"
he said.

Earlier this month, Paul Simon performed at a benefit dinner for the Turkana
Basin Institute. IMAX CEO Rich Gelfond and his wife, Peggy Bonapace Gelfond,
and billionaire hedge fund investor Jim Simons and his wife, Marilyn, were
among those attending the exclusive show in Manhattan's Chelsea neighborhood.

Simon agreed to allow his music to be performed on the National Geographic
documentary airing on PBS and donated an autographed guitar at the fundraiser
that sold for nearly $20,000.

Leakey, who clearly cherishes investigating the past, is less optimistic about
the future.

"We may be on the cusp of some very real disasters that have nothing to do
with whether the elephant survives, or a cheetah survives, but if we survive."

[deadrat]

OK, another ignoramus weighs in with the "fact" that socialism is based
on being one's brother's keeper. But what *is* socialism?

[Clave]

"deadrat" <a...@b.com> wrote in message
news:oMWdnRjGhuG1VVzS...@giganews.com...

> On 5/27/12 12:03 AM, Michael Gordge wrote:

<....>

>> Socialism "is" stupid, it *is* based on a load of bull shit that ewe
>> are your brother's keeper, but ewe's fail to
>> mention who your brother is keeping, fuck ewes are dumb.
>

> OK, another ignoramus weighs in with the "fact" that socialism is based on
> being one's brother's keeper. But what *is* socialism?

In this case it's a meaningless catch-all for whining nincompoops like
Michael who reflexively object to government of any kind.

Jim

[BeamMeUpScotty]

> On May 27, 7:23 am, deadrat <a...@b.com> wrote:
>> On 5/26/12 5:03 PM, BeamMeUpScotty wrote:
>>
>>> On 5/26/2012 5:26 PM, Michael Gordge wrote:
>>>> On May 27, 5:12 am, fr...@skeptictank.org (Fredric L. Rice) wrote:
>>
>>>>> Rightards have no idea what Socialism is.......
>>
>>>> Its stupid, its anti-human, its based on bull-shit, it cant survive
>>>> without stealing from the productive.
>>>> And really really really dumb people are still falling for it.
>>
>>>> MG
>>
>>> Socialism is like ....
>>
>> Yeah, yeah. We know what's it's like. It's like, doubleplusungood.
>> But what *is* it?

Socialism "is"..... A WASTE OF HUMAN LIFE. TO SEEK MEDIOCRITY IS
TO ignore our potential.

[AGWFacts]

On Sat, 26 May 2012 22:05:03 -0400, Wally W. <ww8...@aim.com>

wrote:

> On Sat, 26 May 2012 18:56:58 -0600, AGWFacts wrote:
>
> >On Sat, 26 May 2012 14:08:07 -0700 (PDT), Michael Gordge
> ><mikeg...@xtra.co.nz> wrote:
> >
> >> On May 26, 7:50 am, AGWFacts <AGWFa...@1800reality.com> wrote:

> >> > Huh? I'm sorry: I only know English.

> >> If that were half true ewe'd stop denying AGW is a hoax.

> >What?

> It seems he doesn't know English.

Obviously. Or he doesn't have a spelling checker.

[deadrat]

On 5/27/12 10:57 AM, BeamMeUpScotty wrote:
>
>> On May 27, 7:23 am, deadrat<a...@b.com> wrote:
>>> On 5/26/12 5:03 PM, BeamMeUpScotty wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 5/26/2012 5:26 PM, Michael Gordge wrote:
>>>>> On May 27, 5:12 am, fr...@skeptictank.org (Fredric L. Rice) wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> Rightards have no idea what Socialism is.......
>>>
>>>>> Its stupid, its anti-human, its based on bull-shit, it cant survive
>>>>> without stealing from the productive.
>>>>> And really really really dumb people are still falling for it.
>>>
>>>>> MG
>>>
>>>> Socialism is like ....
>>>
>>> Yeah, yeah. We know what's it's like. It's like, doubleplusungood.
>>> But what *is* it?

> Socialism "is"..... A WASTE OF HUMAN LIFE.

I understand you don't like it because, well, just because. But what is
it? Lots of things are wastes of human life -- creationists, the Iowa
Republican Party, lit crit, La Nouvelle Vague cinema, golf, and so on.

> TO SEEK MEDIOCRITY IS TO ignore our potential.

OK. You're a stellar example of that, I suppose. But this doesn't help
either. Is Norway a socialist country? Is the US? If the answers are
yes and no, respectively, then according to you Norway must be more
mediocre than the US. (I'm assuming here that mediocrity is so easy to
attain that one finds it if one seeks it.) But the infant mortality
rate in Norway is about half that in the US. In fact, we're worse than
Cuba in that regard, and Cuba surely counts as socialist.

But maybe that's the wrong measure of mediocrity.

All you've said (twice) is that socialism is doubleplusungood.

[Bill Graham]

Perhaps not, but when the price of gasoline goes so high that everything you
buy costs several times what it does now because of the cost of getting it
from where it is made to your local store, maybe that will get your
attention.... No?

[Wally W.]

On Sun, 27 May 2012 11:21:47 -0600, AGWFacts wrote:

>On Sat, 26 May 2012 22:05:03 -0400, Wally W. <ww8...@aim.com>
>wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 26 May 2012 18:56:58 -0600, AGWFacts wrote:
>>
>> >On Sat, 26 May 2012 14:08:07 -0700 (PDT), Michael Gordge
>> ><mikeg...@xtra.co.nz> wrote:
>> >
>> >> On May 26, 7:50 am, AGWFacts <AGWFa...@1800reality.com> wrote:
>
>> >> > Huh? I'm sorry: I only know English.
>
>> >> If that were half true ewe'd stop denying AGW is a hoax.
>
>> >What?
>
>> It seems he doesn't know English.
>
>Obviously. Or he doesn't have a spelling checker.

Which would explain why he can't parse pronouns.