Global WARMING ? Russia Suffering Extreme Winter
benrand
our little bit of history could screw this planet up is a bit paranoid.
--
Time is the wisest of all counselors.
-Plutarch
BlackWater <b...@barkk.com> wrote in message
news:NvesOlybpT5GFG...@4ax.com...
> Proponents of the "global warming" theory are
> fond of picking examples which seem to support
> their assertions ... you know, the north pole
> has melted or Nebraska has been getting hotter,
> that sort of thing.
>
> Well, things ain't the same all over.
>
> This winter, Russia has suffered extremes of
> cold not seen for over 100 years -- with
> average lows running THIRTY+ degrees below
> normal in Moscow alone. Many apartment-
> dwellers are living in their kitchens,
> huddled around the cookstove, the rest of
> their homes coated with ice on the *inside*
> walls. Emergency hospitals are filled with
> people requiring amputations of fingers
> and toes from frostbite. The death toll
> from this winter is expected to be very high.
>
> There have been some assertions, as yet
> unproven, that "global warming" might have
> the opposite effect in the higher latitudes,
> causing more snow and cold there while
> super-heating the tropics. Maybe, maybe not.
>
> In any event, the Russians would be HAPPY
> to see a little more warmth right about now.
>
> BW
John R. Rybock
>Proponents of the "global warming" theory are
>fond of picking examples which seem to support
>their assertions ... you know, the north pole
>has melted or Nebraska has been getting hotter,
>that sort of thing.
>
>Well, things ain't the same all over.
>
"Global warming" doesn't simply mean higher temps; if you read
anything other than that term, you'd learn that one effect is more
manic weather - including the possibility of major cold spells.
Vlar Schreidlocke
suggested that Congress make a law against Global Warming, or, if they
wouldn't comply, he could make it an executive order. That way only
criminals would have Global Warming.
Perhaps we could get Global Warming added to the list of psychological
disorders. Then we could easily absolve anyone of any responsibility
for it. We could adjust the definition of it to account for any random
climate fluctuations or general unpredictability. It hink capitalizing
it is a good first step.
On Mon, 12 Mar 2001 11:32:32 -0500, BlackWater <b...@barkk.com> wrote:
>Proponents of the "global warming" theory are
>fond of picking examples which seem to support
>their assertions ... you know, the north pole
>has melted or Nebraska has been getting hotter,
>that sort of thing.
>
>Well, things ain't the same all over.
>
tagueb...@wfu.edu
<bl...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> We have only been on this planet for a little amount of time. To think that
> our little bit of history could screw this planet up is a bit paranoid.
Tell that to the dodo bird...
Do you remember the Cuyahoga river catching on fire in Ohio? It happened
at least three times over the span of thirty years.
Think about that for a minute: a river caught on fire. If man can catch
rivers on fire, I'm sure we can do a lot of damage....
--
My 2 electrons,
Brian
Remove "REMOVE" to reply
Chief
> rivers on fire, I'm sure we can do a lot of damage....
The river is still there. Albeit probably not as clean as it could be I'll
admit.
Ken (NY)
with trembling hands:
>True "GW" would indeed add energy to the climate
> system, yeilding more climatic extremes rather
> than just slight generalized warming trend. The
> tropics could become notably hotter while the
> temperate/sub-arctic lattitudes could become
> substantially colder ... with gawdawful storms
> on the zonal boundaries.
Two months in office and the liberals are already accusing him
of destroying the world. Didn't take them long to get their marching
orders, did it
Regards,
Ken (NY)
--
Chairman,
Department Of Redundancy Department
____________________________________
http://www.danielfaulkner.com/
for the truth about Mumia Abu-Jamal
No trees were harmed to bring you
this e-Presentation...
benrand
--
Time is the wisest of all counselors.
-Plutarch
BlackWater <b...@barkk.com> wrote in message
news:uzatOjHBtvO1cjjt=OgeDD...@4ax.com...
> Well ... I'm not sure that's ideal reasoning. I'm sure
> there are some things we could do to *really* screw
> things up. A thermonuclear war would do it. It *is*
> possible that our industrial wastes have *some* effects
> on the larger environment. Doesn't mean that GW is a
> true hypothesis, or, if true, that GW isn't a good thing
> in disguise. Just don't be so quick to dismiss human
> impact. There's a lot of us now and we're a busy lot.
>
> The lack of a decent high-resolution picture of the
> past climate is the chief limiting factor when it
> comes to determining whether this is a natural, or
> human-driven warming spell. The low-rez picture
> shows that it's been cooler, and it's been warmer.
> Why isn't entirely clear. Variations in solar
> output ? Biological events ? Tectonic activity ?
> All of the above ... ?
>
> BW
Papa Budge
<b...@barkk.com> wrote:
> Proponents of the "global warming" theory are
> fond of picking examples which seem to support
> their assertions ... you know, the north pole
> has melted or Nebraska has been getting hotter,
> that sort of thing.
>
> Well, things ain't the same all over.
That's why they like to call it "global warming" rather than "Russia
warming."
--papa budge
"Ring the bells that still can ring.
Forget your perfect offering.
There is a crack in everything:
That's how the light gets in."
--lc
"I am a liar who always tells the truth."
--jc
benrand
beLIEVE they buy this shit???"
I can see him saying it, over a Starbucks Mochachino.
BretCahill
Global warming predicts a one degree
increase in global temperature will result
in extreme weather.
>are
>fond of picking examples which seem to support
>their assertions ... you know, the north pole
>has melted or Nebraska has been getting hotter,
>that sort of thing.
>
>Well, things ain't the same all over.
>
>This winter, Russia has suffered extremes of
>cold not seen for over 100 years -- with
>average lows running THIRTY+ degrees below
>normal in Moscow alone.
Extremely cold winters and extremely
hot summers -- it was 107 for the first
time last summer where I live -- fits the
global warming model.
Bret Cahill
All conservatism is based on censorship of
economic information.
-- Bret Cahill
silverback
>Proponents of the "global warming" theory are
>fond of picking examples which seem to support
>their assertions ... you know, the north pole
>has melted or Nebraska has been getting hotter,
>that sort of thing.
>
so what. Its clear you have no idea what the word global means in
global warming. Hint dumbass some areas of the world may actually get
colder during global warming.
>Well, things ain't the same all over.
>
>This winter, Russia has suffered extremes of
>cold not seen for over 100 years -- with
>average lows running THIRTY+ degrees below
>normal in Moscow alone. Many apartment-
>dwellers are living in their kitchens,
>huddled around the cookstove, the rest of
>their homes coated with ice on the *inside*
>walls. Emergency hospitals are filled with
>people requiring amputations of fingers
>and toes from frostbite. The death toll
>from this winter is expected to be very high.
>
>There have been some assertions, as yet
>unproven, that "global warming" might have
>the opposite effect in the higher latitudes,
>causing more snow and cold there while
>super-heating the tropics. Maybe, maybe not.
>
>In any event, the Russians would be HAPPY
>to see a little more warmth right about now.
>
>BW
***********************************************
GDY Weasel
emailers remove the spam buster
For those seeking enlightenment visit the White Rose at
http://www.spiritone.com/~gdy52150/whiterose.htm
*********************************************
Mathew
You must also believe that the world is not thoroughly polluted,and
the Cayhoga river in ohio did not catch on fire.
You must also believe that smog is not manmade.
>
>
>
>
Mathew
On Mon, 12 Mar 2001, BlackWater wrote:
> Speculations about which I thoughtfully included
> in a later paragraph for "balance".
>
> True "GW" would indeed add energy to the climate
> system, yeilding more climatic extremes rather
> than just slight generalized warming trend. The
> tropics could become notably hotter while the
> temperate/sub-arctic lattitudes could become
> substantially colder ... with gawdawful storms
> on the zonal boundaries.
>
> Or not.
>
> The wealth of speculation is matched only by the
> severe deficit of good high-rez climatological
> data for the past million years. Not a good
> foundation for making public/global policy
> decisions.
True.We will have to find out what caused the Ice Age.
Could Global Warming could even lead to another Ice Age?
>
> BW
>
>
ralph
A controlled experiment with two identical planets in identical orbits
around identical stars, one with CO2 emisisons limited, one without?
A .999 correlation between CO2 emissions and temperature rise for 100
years?
You take the data you can get and draw the best conclusions you can.
It's extremely disingenuous to complain that the evidence does not meet
some arbitrary standard of proof when it is clearly impossible to
collect the evidence that would meet that standard.
It's reminiscent of the smoking/cancer debate. Strong correlations
between smoking and cancer were repeatedly shown, but the prosmoking
advocates could always argue that correlation was not proof, the
correlation was not perfect or even near perfect, by the standards used
by the physical sciences, biomedical studies in vitro and in lab animals
were limited in their application to humans, etc.
BlackWater wrote:
>
> ryb...@mindless.com (John R. Rybock) wrote:
>
> Speculations about which I thoughtfully included
> in a later paragraph for "balance".
>
> True "GW" would indeed add energy to the climate
> system, yeilding more climatic extremes rather
> than just slight generalized warming trend. The
> tropics could become notably hotter while the
> temperate/sub-arctic lattitudes could become
> substantially colder ... with gawdawful storms
> on the zonal boundaries.
>
> Or not.
>
> The wealth of speculation is matched only by the
> severe deficit of good high-rez climatological
> data for the past million years. Not a good
> foundation for making public/global policy
> decisions.
>
> BW
--
The first rule of fart club is:
you don't talk about fart club.
Ken (NY)
with trembling hands:
>> Two months in office and the liberals are already accusing him
>>of destroying the world. Didn't take them long to get their marching
>>orders, did it ?
>
> I'm sure it was planned well in advance.
>
> "Conservatives" = EVIL ... "Liberals" = SAINTLINESS.
>
> The funny part is that so many of the olde tyme
> 60s generation, the core of "liberal" power, are
> now living a very "Republican" lifestyle ... kids,
> car payments, mortgages, investments, college
> funds, careers, retirement planning.
My neighbor is one of those people. He calls himself a
"recovering liberal".
Ken (NY)
wrote with trembling hands:
>> The wealth of speculation is matched only by the
>> severe deficit of good high-rez climatological
>> data for the past million years. Not a good
>> foundation for making public/global policy
>> decisions.
>
>True.We will have to find out what caused the Ice Age.
>Could Global Warming could even lead to another Ice Age?
That is what the "global cooling" scientists have been saying
all along - earth is presently in a warming cycle and eventually will
go into another cooling cycle.
Mathew
On Tue, 13 Mar 2001, Ken wrote:
> On Tue, 13 Mar 2001 13:24:38 +1000, Mathew <m...@kuentos.guam.net>
> wrote with trembling hands:
>
> >> The wealth of speculation is matched only by the
> >> severe deficit of good high-rez climatological
> >> data for the past million years. Not a good
> >> foundation for making public/global policy
> >> decisions.
> >
> >True.We will have to find out what caused the Ice Age.
> >Could Global Warming could even lead to another Ice Age?
>
> That is what the "global cooling" scientists have been saying
> all along - earth is presently in a warming cycle and eventually will
> go into another cooling cycle.
Sounds schizzophrenic,but then you know how Mother Nature can be, when she
is on her cycle ;)
Mathew
On Tue, 13 Mar 2001, Ken wrote:
> On Mon, 12 Mar 2001 17:46:20 -0500, BlackWater <b...@barkk.com> wrote
> with trembling hands:
>
> >> Two months in office and the liberals are already accusing him
> >>of destroying the world. Didn't take them long to get their marching
> >>orders, did it ?
> >
> > I'm sure it was planned well in advance.
> >
> > "Conservatives" = EVIL ... "Liberals" = SAINTLINESS.
> >
> > The funny part is that so many of the olde tyme
> > 60s generation, the core of "liberal" power, are
> > now living a very "Republican" lifestyle ... kids,
> > car payments, mortgages, investments, college
> > funds, careers, retirement planning.
>
> My neighbor is one of those people. He calls himself a
> "recovering liberal".
He still has flashbacks every now and then,that he is at Woodstock,
and offers to share his peace pipe with you :)
benrand
People like you want sometning for nothing...you want long lasting tires,
but aren't willing to accept that it's a nasty business, making tires.
I could name a thousand different businesses that you don't want to pollute,
yet you enjoy the fruits of...
Do us all a favor and move to India, they might need some help over there,
with all kinds of stuff. Pollution is low on their scale.
You have no IDEA how good you have it.
Gary Carroll
>
> On Mon, 12 Mar 2001 11:32:32 -0500, BlackWater <b...@barkk.com> wrote:
>
> >Proponents of the "global warming" theory are
> >fond of picking examples which seem to support
> >their assertions ... you know, the north pole
> >has melted or Nebraska has been getting hotter,
> >that sort of thing.
> >
>
> so what. Its clear you have no idea what the word global means in
> global warming. Hint dumbass some areas of the world may actually get
> colder during global warming.
If that is the case, why did you just assert that snow melting on
a mountain in Africa was proof positive that man-made global warming
was upon us?
Mathew
On Tue, 13 Mar 2001, BlackWater wrote:
> Point problems ... not global ones
Half the world's waterways are polluted.
>
> BW
>
>
Mathew
When snow starts to melt of a year round permamnent area,you can bet it
is from some kind of warming.
>
>
Gary Carroll
Of course it is. But if :
(1) a global climate change like "Global Warming" may make some areas
colder and some areas warmer, and
(2) a few years sample is inadequate to judge...
Then you can certainly dismiss a much colder winter in Siberia as
"interesting data, but only a single sample and not conclusive proof of
anything." On the other hand, one also can't claim one mountaintop
getting warmer is proof that the whole globe is getting warmer. See, if
global warming will make some areas warmer and some colder, then the
reverse is also true: if the processed were reversed and the earth
cooled, then some areas would get warmer but some cooler... how do you
know which is happening on that mountaintop?
Also, since the earth has been getting warmer for many of thousands of
years (since the last ice age), why would you say that a continuation of
this trend is obviously man made? Global warming might very well be real
but perfectly natural.
Or a combination of natural and man made.
Or simply a ten year blip in a fairly steady state.
CaptainKK
one question.
How many ice ages have there been?
If the answer is one the yes global warming is real and is continuing,
we may speed it up a bit but we aren't going to stop it.
If the answer is more than one then global warming is fake since the
temperatures cycle up and down and we are on the latest up cycle.
BlackWater wrote:
> Proponents of the "global warming" theory are
> fond of picking examples which seem to support
> their assertions ... you know, the north pole
> has melted or Nebraska has been getting hotter,
> that sort of thing.
>
> Well, things ain't the same all over.
>
benrand
"all along - earth is presently in a warming cycle and eventually will
"go into another cooling cycle.
Ken (NY)
--
Not if we mandate everybody drive an electric car.
silverback
simple you stupid moron. Glaciers are melting the world over. And that
does include the polar ice caps.
silverback
<garycarro...@home.com> wrote:
>Mathew wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, 13 Mar 2001, Gary Carroll wrote:
>>
>> > silverback wrote:
>> > >
>> > > On Mon, 12 Mar 2001 11:32:32 -0500, BlackWater <b...@barkk.com> wrote:
>> > >
>> > > >Proponents of the "global warming" theory are
>> > > >fond of picking examples which seem to support
>> > > >their assertions ... you know, the north pole
>> > > >has melted or Nebraska has been getting hotter,
>> > > >that sort of thing.
>> > > >
>> > >
>> > > so what. Its clear you have no idea what the word global means in
>> > > global warming. Hint dumbass some areas of the world may actually get
>> > > colder during global warming.
>> >
>> > If that is the case, why did you just assert that snow melting on
>> > a mountain in Africa was proof positive that man-made global warming
>> > was upon us?
>>
>> When snow starts to melt of a year round permamnent area,you can bet it
>> is from some kind of warming.
>
>Of course it is. But if :
>(1) a global climate change like "Global Warming" may make some areas
>colder and some areas warmer, and
>(2) a few years sample is inadequate to judge...
no carol yer dead wrong again. The melting of glaciers is one of the
physical signs of global warming or climate shift. So is the melting
of perma frost.
>Then you can certainly dismiss a much colder winter in Siberia as
>"interesting data, but only a single sample and not conclusive proof of
>anything." On the other hand, one also can't claim one mountaintop
>getting warmer is proof that the whole globe is getting warmer. See, if
>global warming will make some areas warmer and some colder, then the
>reverse is also true: if the processed were reversed and the earth
>cooled, then some areas would get warmer but some cooler... how do you
>know which is happening on that mountaintop?
>Also, since the earth has been getting warmer for many of thousands of
>years (since the last ice age), why would you say that a continuation of
>this trend is obviously man made? Global warming might very well be real
>but perfectly natural.
>Or a combination of natural and man made.
>Or simply a ten year blip in a fairly steady state.
***********************************************
silverback
wrote:
>I think the whole global warming thing can be settled by the answer to
>one question.
>How many ice ages have there been?
>If the answer is one the yes global warming is real and is continuing,
>we may speed it up a bit but we aren't going to stop it.
>If the answer is more than one then global warming is fake since the
>temperatures cycle up and down and we are on the latest up cycle.
wrong bozo you forgot you first have to prove there are cycles and
that they are reproducablie. None of you right wing idiots have even
came close on either point.
***********************************************
ralph
size of CT broke off and floated away. It's still out there, an iceberg
now half the size of CT. In case you don't realize it, that's not
normal.
--
Shel Scott
>In case you missed it, last year a piece of the Antarctic ice shelf the
>size of CT broke off and floated away. It's still out there, an iceberg
>now half the size of CT. In case you don't realize it, that's not normal.
>
have chunks breaking off from time to time. You can only pile ice and
snow so high. Did you actually think it would just shrink in summer
and expand in winter for thousands of years? Give your head a shake.
-- email: ssc...@uniserve.com
): "I may make you feel, but I can't make you think" :(
(: Off the monitor, through the modem, nothing but net :)
Shel Scott
>gdy5...@nospamspiritone.com (silverback) wrote:
<nothing of consequence>
>Fascist liberals can't really prove anything except that they're
>idiots. Like you.
>
Another amusing day in the news, watching the usual Democrat 'knobs
set their hair on fire over Bush's quite sensible refusal to put fees
and restrictions on carbon dioxide emissions. I guess the fact that
CO2 isn't a pollutant doesn't matter to these fools; I guess the idea
of the entire US being in the same predicament that California was in
this past winter doesn't bother the eco-fascists.
Gary Carroll
...
> >> > > so what. Its clear you have no idea what the word global means in
> >> > > global warming. Hint dumbass some areas of the world may actually get
> >> > > colder during global warming.
> >> >
> >> > If that is the case, why did you just assert that snow melting on
> >> > a mountain in Africa was proof positive that man-made global warming
> >> > was upon us?
> >>
> >> When snow starts to melt of a year round permamnent area,you can bet it
> >> is from some kind of warming.
> >
> >Of course it is. But if :
> >(1) a global climate change like "Global Warming" may make some areas
> >colder and some areas warmer, and
> >(2) a few years sample is inadequate to judge...
>
> no carol yer dead wrong again. The melting of glaciers is one of the
> physical signs of global warming or climate shift. So is the melting
> of perma frost.
But earlier you said that global warming would lead to deeper and longer
lasting snowfalls and thus shorter growing seasons.
(begin quote from the past)
>> On Thu, 14 Sep 2000 15:23:57 GMT, gdy5...@nospamspiritone.com
>> (silverback) wrote:
...
>>"more snowfall which is
>>completely in agreement with global warming reduces the amount of
>>annual tree growth because the deeper snow doesn't melt as quick
>>reducing the growing season."
(end quote)
And you seem to have forgotten your previous comment about "Its clear
you have no idea what the word global means". Do you mean ANY snowmelt
indicates global warming? If so, then colder than normal winters would
indicate global cooling.
silverback
<samb...@prontomail.com> wrote:
>On Wed, 14 Mar 2001 00:16:03 GMT, gdy5...@nospamspiritone.com
>(silverback) wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 13 Mar 2001 16:09:14 -0600, CaptainKK <Capt...@Netscape.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>I think the whole global warming thing can be settled by the answer to
>>>one question.
>>>How many ice ages have there been?
>>>If the answer is one the yes global warming is real and is continuing,
>>>we may speed it up a bit but we aren't going to stop it.
>>>If the answer is more than one then global warming is fake since the
>>>temperatures cycle up and down and we are on the latest up cycle.
>>
>>wrong bozo you forgot you first have to prove there are cycles and
>>that they are reproducablie. None of you right wing idiots have even
>>came close on either point.
>
>Neither have you been able to prove that the current warming is
>man-made.
wrong again sammy thats already been done and the worlds leading
scientist are agreed on it.
>
>Fascist liberals can't really prove anything except that they're
>idiots. Like you.
>
>>
>>>
silverback
<garycarro...@home.com> wrote:
>silverback wrote:
>...
>> >> > > so what. Its clear you have no idea what the word global means in
>> >> > > global warming. Hint dumbass some areas of the world may actually get
>> >> > > colder during global warming.
>> >> >
>> >> > If that is the case, why did you just assert that snow melting on
>> >> > a mountain in Africa was proof positive that man-made global warming
>> >> > was upon us?
>> >>
>> >> When snow starts to melt of a year round permamnent area,you can bet it
>> >> is from some kind of warming.
>> >
>> >Of course it is. But if :
>> >(1) a global climate change like "Global Warming" may make some areas
>> >colder and some areas warmer, and
>> >(2) a few years sample is inadequate to judge...
>>
>> no carol yer dead wrong again. The melting of glaciers is one of the
>> physical signs of global warming or climate shift. So is the melting
>> of perma frost.
>
>But earlier you said that global warming would lead to deeper and longer
>lasting snowfalls and thus shorter growing seasons
in some areas carol
.
>(begin quote from the past)
>>> On Thu, 14 Sep 2000 15:23:57 GMT, gdy5...@nospamspiritone.com
>>> (silverback) wrote:
>...
>>>"more snowfall which is
>>>completely in agreement with global warming reduces the amount of
>>>annual tree growth because the deeper snow doesn't melt as quick
>>>reducing the growing season."
>(end quote)
>
>And you seem to have forgotten your previous comment about "Its clear
no I haven't forgotten it at all. Its factual.
>you have no idea what the word global means". Do you mean ANY snowmelt
>indicates global warming? If so, then colder than normal winters would
>indicate global cooling.
poor damn dumb fool, still thinks snowfall is the same as colder
temperatures. Hey carol the two are a hell of allot more independent
than your tiny little mind can ever comprehend.
Further show me where I ever stated that this increase in snowfall
was going to be global?
silverback
wrote:
>ralph <124...@gernsback.net> wrote:
>>In case you missed it, last year a piece of the Antarctic ice shelf the
>>size of CT broke off and floated away. It's still out there, an iceberg
>>now half the size of CT. In case you don't realize it, that's not normal.
>>
>You're wrong. That there is an Antarctic ice sheet means it _must_
>have chunks breaking off from time to time. You can only pile ice and
moron there has never been as large a chunk breaking off in all of
recorded history.
>snow so high. Did you actually think it would just shrink in summer
>and expand in winter for thousands of years? Give your head a shake.
>-- email: ssc...@uniserve.com
>): "I may make you feel, but I can't make you think" :(
>(: Off the monitor, through the modem, nothing but net :)
***********************************************
Sam Barber
(silverback) wrote:
>On Wed, 14 Mar 2001 15:08:31 GMT, Sam Barber
><samb...@prontomail.com> wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 14 Mar 2001 00:16:03 GMT, gdy5...@nospamspiritone.com
>>(silverback) wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 13 Mar 2001 16:09:14 -0600, CaptainKK <Capt...@Netscape.com>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>I think the whole global warming thing can be settled by the answer to
>>>>one question.
>>>>How many ice ages have there been?
>>>>If the answer is one the yes global warming is real and is continuing,
>>>>we may speed it up a bit but we aren't going to stop it.
>>>>If the answer is more than one then global warming is fake since the
>>>>temperatures cycle up and down and we are on the latest up cycle.
>>>
>>>wrong bozo you forgot you first have to prove there are cycles and
>>>that they are reproducablie. None of you right wing idiots have even
>>>came close on either point.
>>
>>Neither have you been able to prove that the current warming is
>>man-made.
>wrong again sammy thats already been done and the worlds leading
>scientist are agreed on it.
I proved to you twice today thatthey don't. You decided to trash the
science to hold on to your illusions. Even with an article that you
thought supported your position.
How else would you like me to embarrass you today, Giddykins?
It's always my pleasure to do so.
Shel Scott
>ssc...@unispam.com (Shel Scott) writes:
>>ralph <124...@gernsback.net> wrote:
>>>In case you missed it, last year a piece of the Antarctic ice shelf the
>>>size of CT broke off and floated away. It's still out there, an iceberg
>>>now half the size of CT. In case you don't realize it, that's not normal.
>>>
>>You're wrong. That there is an Antarctic ice sheet means it _must_
>>have chunks breaking off from time to time.
>
>have chunks breaking off from time to time".
>
material for years until gravity, wind, and tides took their toll.
My brain remains sheltered within my skull. How is yours? :-)
> If this is NORMAL, tell us exactly WHEN a chuck the size of CT
>broke off LAST time.
>
Not being the master of space and time, I can't answer your question.
However, your apparent statement - that no large chunk of ice has
_ever_ broken off Antarctica before - is about as credible as the idea
that no other solar system has a planet with life. It's certainly not
an occurrence on which to base harsh and restrictive legislation.
> And while you're at it, explain why for the first time, a large expanse of
>open water is found at the North Pole.
>
Sorry, kid, but other posters on this thread have answered this one
for you. See, you caught the BS story on the headlines, but missed
the follow-up correction to that story.
That is the way that misinformation is propagated - folks absorbing
ill information as fact.
Shel Scott
>Why not take prudent actions now?
>
What would prudent action be? To increase the price of fossil fuels
another 30% ? 50% ? It's highly likely that even harsher measures
than these will have no noticable effect on climate change.
Geo
>In article <3ab0043b....@news.uniserve.com> ssc...@unispam.com (Shel Scott) writes:
>>From: ssc...@unispam.com (Shel Scott)
>>Subject: Re: Global WARMING ? Russia Suffering Extreme Winter
>>Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2001 23:56:14 GMT
>
>>ralph <124...@gernsback.net> wrote:
>>>In case you missed it, last year a piece of the Antarctic ice shelf the
>>>size of CT broke off and floated away. It's still out there, an iceberg
>>>now half the size of CT. In case you don't realize it, that's not normal.
>>>
>>You're wrong. That there is an Antarctic ice sheet means it _must_
>>have chunks breaking off from time to time.
>
> What a logical assertion: "That you have a brain means it MUST
>have chunks breaking off from time to time".
>
> If this is NORMAL, tell us exactly WHEN a chuck the size of CT
>broke off LAST time.
Happens all the time.
Check the maritime warnings for icebergs.
> And while you're at it, explain why for the first time, a large expanse of
>open water is found at the North Pole.
Happens every year.
Geo
Atheist #15
Sam Barber
(silverback) wrote:
>On Thu, 15 Mar 2001 03:20:02 GMT, Sam Barber
>you did nothing of the sorts moron.
I forgot. You have no capacity for embarrassment for being wrong.
Sam Barber
(silverback) wrote:
>On Thu, 15 Mar 2001 03:35:58 GMT, Sam Barber
><samb...@prontomail.com> wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 15 Mar 2001 00:06:31 GMT, gdy5...@nospamspiritone.com
>>(silverback) wrote:
>>
>>>On Wed, 14 Mar 2001 23:56:14 GMT, ssc...@unispam.com (Shel Scott)
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>ralph <124...@gernsback.net> wrote:
>>>>>In case you missed it, last year a piece of the Antarctic ice shelf the
>>>>>size of CT broke off and floated away. It's still out there, an iceberg
>>>>>now half the size of CT. In case you don't realize it, that's not normal.
>>>>>
>>>>You're wrong. That there is an Antarctic ice sheet means it _must_
>>>>have chunks breaking off from time to time. You can only pile ice and
>>>
>>>moron there has never been as large a chunk breaking off in all of
>>>recorded history.
>>
>>It's actually almost the full size of CT: twice the size of Delaware.
>
>bad syntax on my part. idiot. i know perfectly well how big it is. But
>there is no example of anything even close to that size in the past.
Which is a meaningless statement, dumbkins.
>
>>
>>I guess I have to keep educating you, Giddykins. Too bad your
>>so dumb.
>>
>
>reread above and then insert yer head in yer bung hole.
>
>>----
>>Science News
>>
>>References & Sources
>>Week of Apr. 1, 2000; Vol. 157, No. 14
>>
>>http://www.sciencenews.org/20000401/fob7ref.asp
>>
>>Titanic iceberg sets sail from Antarctica An iceberg about the size
>>of Connecticut recently split off from the Ross Ice Shelf in
>>Antarctica.
>>
>>References:
>>
>>2000. Real-time satellite images of massive Antarctic iceberg.
>>University of Wisconsin-Madison Press Release. March 22.
>>
>>2000. Massive iceberg peels off from Antarctic ice shelf. National
>>Science Foundation Press Release. March22.
>>
>>Further Readings:
>>
>>1995. Giant iceberg breaks off Antarctica. Science News 147(April
>>29):271.
>>
>>Monastersky, R. 1998. Giant iceberg breaks off. Science News
>>154(Oct. 24):263.
>>
>>Additional information about the iceberg can be found at
>>http://www.news.wisc.edu/newsphotos/iceberg.html.
>>
>>Sources:
>>
>>Doug MacAyeal
>>Department of Geophysical Science
>>HGS 413
>>University of Chicago
>>5801 South Ellis Avenue
>>Chicago, IL 60637
>>
>>Matthew Lazzara
>>National Atmospheric, Oceanic and Space Sciences
>>Building 925
>>1225 West Dayton Street
>>University of Wisconsin-Madison
>>Madison, WI 53706
>>
>>From Science News, Vol. 157, No. 14, April 1, 2000, p. 215.
Mathew
I would go for a combination if anything.Though you have to see what
natural,non-manmade,effect the climate of the earth.
The temperature during the Ice Age was just 2 degrees less than it is now.
What caused the Ice Age?
> Or simply a ten year blip in a fairly steady state.
Nature has its own delicate balance,and man has to understand if the
things he does to nature effects this balance.
>
Robert W Lawrence
<>
<> And while you're at it, explain why for the first time, a large expanse
of
<>open water is found at the North Pole.
Nonsense-this has been totally debunked. it is COMMOM for their to be open water
at the North Pole during the summer.
Robert W Lawrence
lawr...@rwlcpa.com
1Peter 5:7
Scott Erb
Sam Barber wrote:
>On Thu, 15 Mar 2001 00:07:11 GMT, gdy5...@nospamspiritone.com
>(silverback) wrote:
> >wrong again sammy thats already been done and the worlds leading
> >scientist are agreed on it.
>
> I proved to you twice today thatthey don't. You decided to trash the
> science to hold on to your illusions. Even with an article that you
> thought supported your position.
OK, let's do it your way for a second. Obviously in science nothing is
absolutely proven, and in something as complex as the climate there are
always alternate models, and in this case a lot of money that will go to
scientists who question that global warming is, at least in part, a
human product.
Now, given that: a) global warming exists, according to almost all
evidence; b) we've released massive amounts of green house gasses into
the atmosphere; c) most models show that such gasses could lead to
warming that not only could be severe, but cannot be stopped in the
short term; and d) virtually all models show such pollutants will have
SOME impact (some think it might be ultimately cooling like nuclear
winter), isn't it prudent to have public policy that early enough braces
for the possibility that these scientists and models may be right?
I think the plan Bush killed yesterday, supported by Whitman, was a step
in the right direction. Doing nothing may end up being seen as the
right thing if it turns out scientists were wrong. But if these
scientists who believe warming to be at least partially a result of man
made pollutants (including people like William Hook of the American
Meterological Association, and Thomas Carl of the Federal Atmospheric
Data Center in Asheville), then it'll be too late by the time we have
incontrovertible proof.
Sam Barber
wrote:
Two things, Scott:
1) I answered you a few weeks ago without a reply.
2) Your position differs quite substantially from Giddykins.
silverback
oh really and just what is my position? So far all I have stated in
this thread is that global warming is correct and the affects are
being to be felt now. I also believe that we need to develop
sustainable energy sources such as solar, wind and biomass and quit
subsitdizing the fossil fuels and nukes.
By the way sammy I too oppose the dimwit's actions on that plan.
Sam Barber
Anything that agrees with your fascist liberal fantasies.
The science be damned.
Scott Erb
Shel Scott wrote:
>
> Scott Erb <scot...@maine.edu> wrote:
> >Why not take prudent actions now?
> >
> What would prudent action be? To increase the price of fossil fuels
> another 30% ? 50% ? It's highly likely that even harsher measures
> than these will have no noticable effect on climate change.
> -- email: ssc...@uniserve.com
Good point. I'm not sure what the most prudent action would be. I think
for a start Bush could have given the EPA power to regulate CO2.
Whitman was in favor of that. But yes, I'm not sure what the most
pragmatic response would be, given economic realities at the time. It's
easy to express concern about the environment, harder to come up with
policy alternatives.
Mathew
Well,strict laws keep America from having pollution like India's
But you go down to Meican border and find it.
On Tue, 13 Mar 2001, benrand wrote:
> I went outside and breathed some fresh air.
>
>
> People like you want sometning for nothing...you want long lasting tires,
> but aren't willing to accept that it's a nasty business, making tires.
>
> I could name a thousand different businesses that you don't want to pollute,
> yet you enjoy the fruits of...
>
>
> Do us all a favor and move to India, they might need some help over there,
> with all kinds of stuff. Pollution is low on their scale.
>
>
> You have no IDEA how good you have it.
>
>
>
>
Michael Ejercito
wrote:
>
>
Well, we can stop the warming right away, by detonating one hundred
million tons of TNT. Or scrub the carbon dioxide from the atmosphere,
which would taker about a year.
Michael
_
Michael Ejercito
(silverback) wrote:
>On Fri, 16 Mar 2001 01:12:40 GMT, Sam Barber
><samb...@prontomail.com> wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 15 Mar 2001 07:13:30 -0500, Scott Erb <scot...@maine.edu>
>>wrote:
>>>Why not take prudent actions now?
>>
>>Two things, Scott:
>>
>>1) I answered you a few weeks ago without a reply.
>>2) Your position differs quite substantially from Giddykins.
>
>oh really and just what is my position? So far all I have stated in
>this thread is that global warming is correct and the affects are
>being to be felt now. I also believe that we need to develop
>sustainable energy sources such as solar, wind and biomass and quit
>subsitdizing the fossil fuels and nukes.
you forgot two things. Biomass releases carbon dioxide, whjile nukes
do not.
Michael
Michael Ejercito
> All this is moot. There ARE NO technologically
> viable replacements for fossil fuels. We MUST
> have the energy - or rapidly become just another
> third-world shithole - we we have no choice but
> to use fossil fuels.
>
> Hydrogen is too hard to
> make, store and transport. Solar and wind are
> rather high-investment/low-yeild. Hydroelectric
> is good, but the eco-freaks complain every time
> you wanna dam a river ... not to mention that
> people are sure to be living in what would be
> the reservoir area. You can make methanol from
> coal and water - and it's the liquid fuel with
> the best hydrogen/carbon ratio - but the process
> is kinda ineffecient and you've gotta get the
> sulfur out.
>
> US homes are now TOO well insulated ... to the
> point where radon gas and killer mold spores
> have become real problems. The "hybrid" auto
> will hopefully replace the SUV, but that won't
> happen overnight. I suppose everybody could
> ride motorcycles - at 35 to 100 MPG they are
> a good individual transport ... but only when
> the weather is bearable.
>
> Industry is already fairly effecient with energy -
> because fuel costs money - so I don't think we
> can cut too much there. Nuclear power ain't bad
> - and the plants are pretty safe - but the
> eco-nuts hate them and we STILL don't have a plan
> for dealing with the waste during the million
> years it will take to "cool off".
>
> In short, we are stuck. The benifits of western
> society depend on high energy consumption. No
> way out. We can squeeze a LITTLE tighter, but
> there are practical limits. Until somebody finds
> out how to build a "Mr. Fusion" or how to turn
> junk mail into anti-matter ... we are destined
> to use a LOT of fossil fuels.
>
> I suggest we find ways to "sink" the CO2 rather
> than waste time on politically-impossible schemes
> to limit energy use.
>
> BW
One way is to use bases such as lye and quicklime. They absorb
carbon dioxide like a sponge.
Michael
_
Mathew
What would the TNT do?
How would you take out the carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere?
>
>
> Michael
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _
>
>
silverback
>> One way is to use bases such as lye and quicklime. They absorb
>>carbon dioxide like a sponge.
>
> I suggest we seed the south pacific with iron
> salts so the resulting plankton bloom will
> absorb the CO2. It's already been tried on
> a small scale and it's REALLY impressive what
> just a speck of iron will do. There are also
> fast-growing land plants which can rapidly
> fix a lot of carbon - if we plant 'em where
> we need 'em.
wrong bozo. We are not going to pollute the ocean and change the
dominant species in the food chain to save the asses of the oil
companies.
>
> We've painted ourselves into a corner,
> energywise. No escape. All we can do is
> find ways to cope with the results. Much
> of the 2nd and 3rd world is just now
> about to enter their own urban/industrial
> periods and THEY will start using energy
> like mad as soon as folks leave the
> malaria-infested farm. So, we've got our
> stuff AND their stuff to cope with now.
silverback
Yer wrong stupid. Biomass does not release additional CO2 into the
atmosphere as the CO2 was removed from the atmosphere in the last
growing season.
>
>
> Michael
Shel Scott
>Shel Scott wrote:
>> Scott Erb <scot...@maine.edu> wrote:
>> >Why not take prudent actions now?
>> >
>> What would prudent action be?
>
>for a start Bush could have given the EPA power to regulate CO2.
>
Anyway, that's the last thing we want - give gov't bureaucrats power
over a common everyday gas, and we'll end up needing a license to
exhale!
What if, in efforts to curb CO2, much of the first world ends up in
the mess California finds itself, yet climate change continues?
Time to take even more draconian measures? Meahwhile, what about the
rest of the world during this (highly unlikely) devolving of the
developed world? Will they be allowed to continue until they "catch
up"?
All it takes is one major volcanic eruption - I mean _major_, such as
scientists suspect happened at Krakatoa around 530 A.D. - and whatever
the effect man is having on global climate will be quite irrelevant -
or maybe even beneficial.
BTW, don't overlook California's problem - if there simply isn't the
power to be bought regardless of the price, Southern Californians had
better learn to live in the climate they chose - desert -, rather than
the climate their huge appetite for electricity allows them to enjoy
(at cut-rate prices by gov't fiat, no less).
silverback
>gdy5...@nospamspiritone.com (silverback) wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 20 Mar 2001 09:06:05 -0500, BlackWater <b...@barkk.com> wrote:
>>
>>>meje...@csulb.edu (Michael Ejercito) wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Sat, 17 Mar 2001 14:56:37 -0500, BlackWater <b...@barkk.com> wrote:
>>>>> I suggest we find ways to "sink" the CO2 rather
>>>>> than waste time on politically-impossible schemes
>>>>> to limit energy use.
>>>
>>>> One way is to use bases such as lye and quicklime. They absorb
>>>>carbon dioxide like a sponge.
>>>
>>> I suggest we seed the south pacific with iron
>>> salts so the resulting plankton bloom will
>>> absorb the CO2. It's already been tried on
>>> a small scale and it's REALLY impressive what
>>> just a speck of iron will do. There are also
>>> fast-growing land plants which can rapidly
>>> fix a lot of carbon - if we plant 'em where
>>> we need 'em.
>>
>>wrong bozo. We are not going to pollute the ocean and change the
>>dominant species in the food chain to save the asses of the oil
>>companies.
>
> You miss the point on two counts ...
>
> First of all, it's the oil companies or NOTHING.
> There simply ARE NO viable alternative energy
wrong you lying son of a bitch. Solar, wind and biomass are all
cheaper today once the corporate welfare is taken away from the fossil
fuel groups.
in fact roughly 1/3 of California power generators are from
alternative sources.
> sources for cities, industry and, especially,
> transportation. It's politically impossible
> to build new nuclear power plants and the eco-
we don't need any fucking nukes that pose an even greater threat to
the environment than oil.
> fascists despise coal and hydroelectric projects
the only eco fascists are the fuckers in 3 piece suits in corporate
board rooms. The problem is a lack of regulation.
> as well.
>
> Note that I say "viable" alternatives. Some twits
> go on and on about "bio-fuel" ... but frankly
> that's just using-up farmland and irrigation
> water better used for FOOD. The expense is also
bullshit you stupid fucker. Why corn can provide a cheap source of
fuel other bio mass sources come from logging slash operations and
still others from the local landfill and sewage treatment plant.
> too high. Electric cars are pointless since
wrong again fool, they don't contribute any pollution to smog prone
cities.
> they need a power plant to re-charge 'em - same
> CO2 expendature. Advanced autos like the hybrid
> designs and (someday) fuel cells STILL need a
> fuel ... and the only stuff that's easy to make
> and easy to handle are liquid hydrocarbons. Oh
> yea, and let's not forget about all the OTHER
> neat stuff that comes from petroleum - from the
> asphalt on the roads to the plastic in your
> computer keyboard.
>
> Greenies have no shortage of fantastic plans for
> producing power from wind, tides and sun ... but
> the economics are NOT VIABLE, not now, not for a
yer lying again. They all are competitive today once the corporate
welfare is taken away from the oil companies.
The only reason we don't have these sources today is because the
fucking fat cats can't buy up the entire source and then gouge
everyone on the price.
> VERY long time. The energy costs would BREAK the
> western world and prevent anybody else from getting
> a start. This makes these worthless schemes a
> POLITICAL impossibility as well as an economic
> impossibility.
>
> Maybe you think living in some malaria-infested
> equatorial swamp is romantic - being "one" with
> nature, especially the bugs and germs - , but
> the rest of the world is desperate for something
there you go lying again. We can meet the Kyoto threaty and suffer no
lost in life style or even an increase in cost of power.
> better, the "western" lifestyle. Raising yourself
> out of the swamp is an energy-intensive endeavour
> and there's nothing that can be done about that.
> You can squeeze a little here and there, but you're
> not going to make much of a dent in energy demand.
>
> Petroleum is the only viable response to that demand.
bullshit The fucking oil companies need to be banned from all energy
production that does not come from oil itself. Ban tyhem from ever
entering the solar, wind or biuomass fields. And ban them from the
Artic wildlife refuge forever.
> Maybe we can make methanol from coal and water with
> some economy if we find some better catalysts, but
all research funding from government sources needs to be directed
solely at small scale solar, wind and biomass production. No federal
dollaars for any damn corporation that engages in any part of the
fossil fuel group.
> for now it's too expensive. You can bitch and moan
> about the evil oil companies all you want, but you're
> just wasting your time. We NEED petroleum, we need
> a LOT of it -- and we're gonna get it.
Over our dead bodies. If the fucking dimwit allows drilling in the
Artic wildlife refuge than the environmentalist have the right and
should actively sabotage all aspects of the operation, and inculde the
corporate headquarters and the homes of the top management including
the members of the board. The one way to get right ot the rats is to
burn em out.
>
> SO ... the SANE person, faced with the inevitibility
> of massive continued petroleum consumption, quits
> trying to demonize corporations because some dimwit
> flower-power parent-funded potheads tell 'em to and
> instead begins to think about ways to DEAL with all
> the CO2 that IS going to be produced. This "greenhouse"
> stuff MAY all be nonsense, but just in case we had
> better have a "plan B".
>
> Now for your second error ... adding a little iron
> salts to the ocean is NOT "pollution". The waters
it is pollution you dumb fuckhead. You are adding a toxic chemical to
natural water. And yes fuckhead iron is toxic as it is the cause of
acid mine drainage.
> of the southern pacific are iron-starved. Plankton
wrong
> and related organisms need iron in order to grow
> and reproduce. It's the #1 limiting factor in that
growth was limited naturally you dumb fuckhead and now you want to
upset that delicate balance in nature to save the ass of some fucking
oil company exec.
> area. As these micro-organisms grow, they consume
> CO2 and many use it to produce calcium carbonate
wrong again you dumb bastard. When those organism die of they sink and
decompose depressing the oxygen levels at the bottom. Thats how lakes
become euthrophic. And now you want to deliberately make the ocean
euthrophic. And for the dumb fucker who has no idea what euthrophic
means its those lakes that durning the summer time turn into a mass of
green pea soup. The water is foul and the stench from the decomposing
algae is imparted to the water if not posioning it.
> shells ... permanently fixing the carbon. Sun +
> CO2 + Iron + Plankton = a massive all-natural
> solar-powered CO2 elimination machine.
>
> Plankton is FISH FOOD. Little fish eat it, whales
dumb fuck you don't have a clue. While fish may eat some plankton by
adding iron to the ocean the dominate species are changed destroying
the food chain for fish and other vertabrates.
> eat it, crabs and clams and all manner of creatures
> eat it. More plankton is a GOOD thing ... might
> even help the whales reproduce faster. Plankton
> is the foundation of the ocean food chain. If we
> can save OUR asses AND feed the fishies in one
> shot -- go for it.
JulianD.
ONE thing. Bush is not going to kowtow to those crazies, he is going
to open Alaska to drilling, he's not going to inhibit our lifestyle by
curbing CO2 and believing in the still unproven greenhouse nonsense.
Be afraid whackos. Be very afraid. Whitman will do his bidding.
Oil is blood.
JD
On Tue, 20 Mar 2001 19:10:23 GMT, ssc...@unispam.com (Shel Scott)
silverback
>Make no mistake about it, the environmental nuts are right about only
>ONE thing. Bush is not going to kowtow to those crazies, he is going
>to open Alaska to drilling, he's not going to inhibit our lifestyle by
>curbing CO2 and believing in the still unproven greenhouse nonsense.
and we're going to boot his sorry ass from office and then bring him
to trial for sedition and treason.
***********************************************
JulianD.
(silverback) wrote:
>On Tue, 20 Mar 2001 21:55:35 -0500, JulianD. <ju...@ersatz.com> wrote:
>
>>Make no mistake about it, the environmental nuts are right about only
>>ONE thing. Bush is not going to kowtow to those crazies, he is going
>>to open Alaska to drilling, he's not going to inhibit our lifestyle by
>>curbing CO2 and believing in the still unproven greenhouse nonsense.
>
>and we're going to boot his sorry ass from office and then bring him
>to trial for sedition and treason.
You'll have to explain the above silverdouche, the part about
'sedition or treason'. Or are you just trolling? We're used to your
inane reasoning, but the above is a little extreme even for you.
I must be dense.
JD
Michael Ejercito
(silverback) wrote:
>On Tue, 20 Mar 2001 04:54:39 GMT, meje...@csulb.edu (Michael
>Ejercito) wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 16 Mar 2001 02:20:08 GMT, gdy5...@nospamspiritone.com
>>(silverback) wrote:
>>
>>>On Fri, 16 Mar 2001 01:12:40 GMT, Sam Barber
>>><samb...@prontomail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Thu, 15 Mar 2001 07:13:30 -0500, Scott Erb <scot...@maine.edu>
>>>>wrote:
>>>>>Why not take prudent actions now?
>>>>
>>>>Two things, Scott:
>>>>
>>>>1) I answered you a few weeks ago without a reply.
>>>>2) Your position differs quite substantially from Giddykins.
>>>
>>>oh really and just what is my position? So far all I have stated in
>>>this thread is that global warming is correct and the affects are
>>>being to be felt now. I also believe that we need to develop
>>>sustainable energy sources such as solar, wind and biomass and quit
>>>subsitdizing the fossil fuels and nukes.
>> you forgot two things. Biomass releases carbon dioxide, whjile nukes
>>do not.
>
>Yer wrong stupid. Biomass does not release additional CO2 into the
>atmosphere as the CO2 was removed from the atmosphere in the last
>growing season.
Then what does biomass release, fool? For someone with a chemistrey
degree, you do not know much about combustion of organic materials.
Michael
Michael Ejercito
(silverback) wrote:
>On Tue, 20 Mar 2001 09:06:05 -0500, BlackWater <b...@barkk.com> wrote:
>
>>meje...@csulb.edu (Michael Ejercito) wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 17 Mar 2001 14:56:37 -0500, BlackWater <b...@barkk.com> wrote:
>>>> I suggest we find ways to "sink" the CO2 rather
>>>> than waste time on politically-impossible schemes
>>>> to limit energy use.
>>
>>> One way is to use bases such as lye and quicklime. They absorb
>>>carbon dioxide like a sponge.
>>
>> I suggest we seed the south pacific with iron
>> salts so the resulting plankton bloom will
>> absorb the CO2. It's already been tried on
>> a small scale and it's REALLY impressive what
>> just a speck of iron will do. There are also
>> fast-growing land plants which can rapidly
>> fix a lot of carbon - if we plant 'em where
>> we need 'em.
>
>wrong bozo. We are not going to pollute the ocean and change the
>dominant species in the food chain to save the asses of the oil
>companies.
It has noithing to do with saving oil companies. If oil companies
can save themselves by doing this, they WOULD HAVE DONE THIS ALREADY.
This is about saving ourselves.
Michael
Michael Ejercito
(silverback) wrote:
Well, there are few places on Earth where the sun shines
sufficiently that solar power is viable. There are few places where
wind power is viable.
>> sources for cities, industry and, especially,
>> transportation. It's politically impossible
>> to build new nuclear power plants and the eco-
>
>we don't need any fucking nukes that pose an even greater threat to
>the environment than oil.
No, they are not. Western Europe is not an environmental wasteland.
>> fascists despise coal and hydroelectric projects
>
>the only eco fascists are the fuckers in 3 piece suits in corporate
>board rooms. The problem is a lack of regulation.
>
>> as well.
>>
>> Note that I say "viable" alternatives. Some twits
>> go on and on about "bio-fuel" ... but frankly
>> that's just using-up farmland and irrigation
>> water better used for FOOD. The expense is also
>
>bullshit you stupid fucker. Why corn can provide a cheap source of
>fuel other bio mass sources come from logging slash operations and
>still others from the local landfill and sewage treatment plant.
>
>> too high. Electric cars are pointless since
>
>wrong again fool, they don't contribute any pollution to smog prone
>cities.
The pollution is simply concentrated.
>> they need a power plant to re-charge 'em - same
>> CO2 expendature. Advanced autos like the hybrid
>> designs and (someday) fuel cells STILL need a
>> fuel ... and the only stuff that's easy to make
>> and easy to handle are liquid hydrocarbons. Oh
>> yea, and let's not forget about all the OTHER
>> neat stuff that comes from petroleum - from the
>> asphalt on the roads to the plastic in your
>> computer keyboard.
>>
>> Greenies have no shortage of fantastic plans for
>> producing power from wind, tides and sun ... but
>> the economics are NOT VIABLE, not now, not for a
>
>yer lying again. They all are competitive today once the corporate
>welfare is taken away from the oil companies.
> The only reason we don't have these sources today is because the
>fucking fat cats can't buy up the entire source and then gouge
>everyone on the price.
You think the power companies can not buy all the land where wind
and solar power are practical?
>> VERY long time. The energy costs would BREAK the
>> western world and prevent anybody else from getting
>> a start. This makes these worthless schemes a
>> POLITICAL impossibility as well as an economic
>> impossibility.
>>
>> Maybe you think living in some malaria-infested
>> equatorial swamp is romantic - being "one" with
>> nature, especially the bugs and germs - , but
>> the rest of the world is desperate for something
>
>there you go lying again. We can meet the Kyoto threaty and suffer no
>lost in life style or even an increase in cost of power.
Prove it.
>> better, the "western" lifestyle. Raising yourself
>> out of the swamp is an energy-intensive endeavour
>> and there's nothing that can be done about that.
>> You can squeeze a little here and there, but you're
>> not going to make much of a dent in energy demand.
>>
>> Petroleum is the only viable response to that demand.
>
>bullshit The fucking oil companies need to be banned from all energy
>production that does not come from oil itself. Ban tyhem from ever
>entering the solar, wind or biuomass fields. And ban them from the
>Artic wildlife refuge forever.
Go ahead and try to ban them, coward.
>
>> Maybe we can make methanol from coal and water with
>> some economy if we find some better catalysts, but
>
>all research funding from government sources needs to be directed
>solely at small scale solar, wind and biomass production. No federal
>dollaars for any damn corporation that engages in any part of the
>fossil fuel group.
We still have plenty ofg fossil fuekls, gdybozo52150.
>> for now it's too expensive. You can bitch and moan
>> about the evil oil companies all you want, but you're
>> just wasting your time. We NEED petroleum, we need
>> a LOT of it -- and we're gonna get it.
>
>Over our dead bodies. If the fucking dimwit allows drilling in the
>Artic wildlife refuge than the environmentalist have the right and
>should actively sabotage all aspects of the operation, and inculde the
>corporate headquarters and the homes of the top management including
>the members of the board. The one way to get right ot the rats is to
>burn em out.
So you condone illegal acts?
so why isn't the opcean eutrophic already, considering that
trillions of organisms died over the past billion years?
Michael
_
_
Michael Ejercito
wrote:
Put dust in the atmosphere, reducing sunlight.
>How would you take out the carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere?
Mix it with lye or quicklime.
Michael
Michael Ejercito
>On Wed, 21 Mar 2001 12:05:24 GMT, gdy5...@nospamspiritone.com
>(silverback) wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 20 Mar 2001 21:55:35 -0500, JulianD. <ju...@ersatz.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Make no mistake about it, the environmental nuts are right about only
>>>ONE thing. Bush is not going to kowtow to those crazies, he is going
>>>to open Alaska to drilling, he's not going to inhibit our lifestyle by
>>>curbing CO2 and believing in the still unproven greenhouse nonsense.
>>
>>and we're going to boot his sorry ass from office and then bring him
>>to trial for sedition and treason.
>
>
>You'll have to explain the above silverdouche, the part about
>'sedition or treason'. Or are you just trolling? We're used to your
>inane reasoning, but the above is a little extreme even for you.
>I must be dense.
>
Silverback gets hius source material from Secret Squirrel.
Michael
silverback
Ejercito) wrote:
Poor stupid little fucker, can't understand that removing CO2 from the
atmosphere during the growing season and then bnurning it as fuel
releasing the CO2 back into the atmosphere during the winter doesn't
change the level of CO2 in the atmosphere while burning fossil fuels
does addd CO2 to the atmosphere increasing the level of CO2 in it.
silverback
Ejercito) wrote:
nope, its compounding the problem..
>
>
> Michael
silverback
Ejercito) wrote:
bullshit junior. The fact is on average a solar panel occupying about
half of a west or south sloping roof is more than enough to power the
entire single family home. And thats using photovotic cells that are
only 10% efficent. Newer and more expesive cells are 30% efficent.
>wind power is viable.
Low scaled wind power is possible in just about every area of the
country just as solar power is.
>>> sources for cities, industry and, especially,
>>> transportation. It's politically impossible
>>> to build new nuclear power plants and the eco-
>>
>>we don't need any fucking nukes that pose an even greater threat to
>>the environment than oil.
> No, they are not. Western Europe is not an environmental wasteland.
using examples from those socialist countries again junior?
yup they can't buy the entire country junior.
>>> VERY long time. The energy costs would BREAK the
>>> western world and prevent anybody else from getting
>>> a start. This makes these worthless schemes a
>>> POLITICAL impossibility as well as an economic
>>> impossibility.
>>>
>>> Maybe you think living in some malaria-infested
>>> equatorial swamp is romantic - being "one" with
>>> nature, especially the bugs and germs - , but
>>> the rest of the world is desperate for something
>>
>>there you go lying again. We can meet the Kyoto threaty and suffer no
>>lost in life style or even an increase in cost of power.
> Prove it.
>>> better, the "western" lifestyle. Raising yourself
>>> out of the swamp is an energy-intensive endeavour
>>> and there's nothing that can be done about that.
>>> You can squeeze a little here and there, but you're
>>> not going to make much of a dent in energy demand.
>>>
>>> Petroleum is the only viable response to that demand.
>>
>>bullshit The fucking oil companies need to be banned from all energy
>>production that does not come from oil itself. Ban tyhem from ever
>>entering the solar, wind or biuomass fields. And ban them from the
>>Artic wildlife refuge forever.
> Go ahead and try to ban them, coward.
we are going to ban them and if that fails they are going to get a
good old fashion lesson in what a monkey wrtench is.
>>
>>> Maybe we can make methanol from coal and water with
>>> some economy if we find some better catalysts, but
>>
>>all research funding from government sources needs to be directed
>>solely at small scale solar, wind and biomass production. No federal
>>dollaars for any damn corporation that engages in any part of the
>>fossil fuel group.
> We still have plenty ofg fossil fuekls, gdybozo52150.
no we don't
>>> for now it's too expensive. You can bitch and moan
>>> about the evil oil companies all you want, but you're
>>> just wasting your time. We NEED petroleum, we need
>>> a LOT of it -- and we're gonna get it.
>>
>>Over our dead bodies. If the fucking dimwit allows drilling in the
>>Artic wildlife refuge than the environmentalist have the right and
>>should actively sabotage all aspects of the operation, and inculde the
>>corporate headquarters and the homes of the top management including
>>the members of the board. The one way to get right ot the rats is to
>>burn em out.
> So you condone illegal acts?
I have no problem with civil disobedience when its directed at god
damn Nazis.
***********************************************
silverback
>On Wed, 21 Mar 2001 12:05:24 GMT, gdy5...@nospamspiritone.com
>(silverback) wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 20 Mar 2001 21:55:35 -0500, JulianD. <ju...@ersatz.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Make no mistake about it, the environmental nuts are right about only
>>>ONE thing. Bush is not going to kowtow to those crazies, he is going
>>>to open Alaska to drilling, he's not going to inhibit our lifestyle by
>>>curbing CO2 and believing in the still unproven greenhouse nonsense.
>>
>>and we're going to boot his sorry ass from office and then bring him
>>to trial for sedition and treason.
>
>
>You'll have to explain the above silverdouche, the part about
>'sedition or treason'. Or are you just trolling? We're used to your
stealing an election, dummy
Mathew
What are the adverse effects of these?
>
>
> Michael
>
>
Mike Hartigan
I think that one of the immediate effects would be that many liberals
would suddenly find themselves with one less thing to complain about and
would run the very real risk of getting a life.
Linda
If alternative power is cheaper than standard power, (or even close),
why aren't you using it? Who is stopping you from buying those
solar panels for your roof? Who is preventing you from putting
up a windmill?
You never do come up with a good answer.
silverback wrote:
...
> >>wrong you lying son of a bitch. Solar, wind and biomass are all
> >>cheaper today once the corporate welfare is taken away from the fossil
> >>fuel groups.
> >> in fact roughly 1/3 of California power generators are from
> >>alternative sources.
> > Well, there are few places on Earth where the sun shines
> >sufficiently that solar power is viable. There are few places where
>
> bullshit junior. The fact is on average a solar panel occupying about
> half of a west or south sloping roof is more than enough to power the
> entire single family home. And thats using photovotic cells that are
> only 10% efficent. Newer and more expesive cells are 30% efficent.
>
> >wind power is viable.
>
> Low scaled wind power is possible in just about every area of the
> country just as solar power is.
>
> ...
silverback
wrote:
>OK, so I'll ask you the question I've asked you many times before.
>If alternative power is cheaper than standard power, (or even close),
>why aren't you using it? Who is stopping you from buying those
>solar panels for your roof? Who is preventing you from putting
>up a windmill?
>You never do come up with a good answer.
oh they are out there sweetie. But as soon as a good small company
comes in the corporate bastards destroy it.
>
>silverback wrote:
>...
>
>> >>wrong you lying son of a bitch. Solar, wind and biomass are all
>> >>cheaper today once the corporate welfare is taken away from the fossil
>> >>fuel groups.
>> >> in fact roughly 1/3 of California power generators are from
>> >>alternative sources.
>> > Well, there are few places on Earth where the sun shines
>> >sufficiently that solar power is viable. There are few places where
>>
>> bullshit junior. The fact is on average a solar panel occupying about
>> half of a west or south sloping roof is more than enough to power the
>> entire single family home. And thats using photovotic cells that are
>> only 10% efficent. Newer and more expesive cells are 30% efficent.
>>
>> >wind power is viable.
>>
>> Low scaled wind power is possible in just about every area of the
>> country just as solar power is.
>>
>> ...
>
***********************************************
Mathew
It seems your life is affected by this more than any liberals :)
>
>
Michael Ejercito
wrote:
Well, after each rainmfall, there would be a thin deposit of
washing soda and chalk.
Michael
Michael Ejercito
(silverback) wrote:
>On Fri, 23 Mar 2001 01:07:35 GMT, Linda <dollar...@yahoo.com>
>wrote:
>
>>OK, so I'll ask you the question I've asked you many times before.
>>If alternative power is cheaper than standard power, (or even close),
>>why aren't you using it? Who is stopping you from buying those
>>solar panels for your roof? Who is preventing you from putting
>>up a windmill?
>>You never do come up with a good answer.
>
>oh they are out there sweetie. But as soon as a good small company
>comes in the corporate bastards destroy it.
How do they destroy it?
Michael
Michael Ejercito
(silverback) wrote:
You need the right kind of weather for that. The only places where
it would be economical would be the desert regions of the American
Great Basin.
>>wind power is viable.
>
>Low scaled wind power is possible in just about every area of the
>country just as solar power is.
Wind power is only viable near mountains, where the passes and
canyons cause the wind to blow faster. In California, there is a bunch
of windmills near the Cajon Pass. In the Great Plains, wind power will
not be viable unless you have tornadoes every week.
>>>> sources for cities, industry and, especially,
>>>> transportation. It's politically impossible
>>>> to build new nuclear power plants and the eco-
>>>
>>>we don't need any fucking nukes that pose an even greater threat to
>>>the environment than oil.
>> No, they are not. Western Europe is not an environmental wasteland.
>
>using examples from those socialist countries again junior?
Yes.
Solar and wind power is not practical in the whole country.
Otherwise, industries would simply set up solar panels to poweer their
machinery. Not every business can afford to move to the Mojave Desert.
You wil get a good old fashion lesson in what prison is like.
>>>
>>>> Maybe we can make methanol from coal and water with
>>>> some economy if we find some better catalysts, but
>>>
>>>all research funding from government sources needs to be directed
>>>solely at small scale solar, wind and biomass production. No federal
>>>dollaars for any damn corporation that engages in any part of the
>>>fossil fuel group.
>> We still have plenty ofg fossil fuekls, gdybozo52150.
>
>no we don't
So let';s burn them all up.
>>>> for now it's too expensive. You can bitch and moan
>>>> about the evil oil companies all you want, but you're
>>>> just wasting your time. We NEED petroleum, we need
>>>> a LOT of it -- and we're gonna get it.
>>>
>>>Over our dead bodies. If the fucking dimwit allows drilling in the
>>>Artic wildlife refuge than the environmentalist have the right and
>>>should actively sabotage all aspects of the operation, and inculde the
>>>corporate headquarters and the homes of the top management including
>>>the members of the board. The one way to get right ot the rats is to
>>>burn em out.
>> So you condone illegal acts?
>
>I have no problem with civil disobedience when its directed at god
>damn Nazis.
Civil disobedience does notr involve acts of terror.
>>>>
Michael
_________
________
Linda
(By the way, thanks for calling me sweetie... I'm Gary Carroll.
But my monitor died and I am posting from my wife's computer.
Sorry for the confusion.)
silverback
wrote:
>But why are YOU not using them?
oh I do
>(By the way, thanks for calling me sweetie... I'm Gary Carroll.
>But my monitor died and I am posting from my wife's computer.
>Sorry for the confusion.)
>
well thanks carol, its nice to know that the whole country isn't bat
shit crazy.
silverback
Ejercito) wrote:
wrong junior, There is enough sunlight in almost every region of the
US for it.
>>>wind power is viable.
>>
>>Low scaled wind power is possible in just about every area of the
>>country just as solar power is.
> Wind power is only viable near mountains, where the passes and
bullshit again junior. There is a wind farm in western Minnesota, not
a mountian in the entire state or anywhere within the next 400 miles.
***********************************************
Michael Ejercito
(silverback) wrote:
So the manufacturing companies could simply install solar panels,
and not have to pay electric bills. Businesses exist to make profit,
and if solar panels can save them thousands of dollars, every
business, from the mom-and-pop store to airplane manufacturers would
do so. So why do thwy NOT install solar panels?
>>>>wind power is viable.
>>>
>>>Low scaled wind power is possible in just about every area of the
>>>country just as solar power is.
>> Wind power is only viable near mountains, where the passes and
>
>bullshit again junior. There is a wind farm in western Minnesota, not
>a mountian in the entire state or anywhere within the next 400 miles.
So why don;t businesses everywhere install windmills and solar
panels? It would reduce cost, and thus increase profit. Are you
implying businesses are NOT interested in profit?
Michael
_
silverback
Ejercito) wrote:
more right wing trash talk. if he ever knew a ceo of a corporations he
would know that the majority of corporations are run by idiots that
couldn't rub two sticks together without first stealing them from the
poor.
>>>>>wind power is viable.
>>>>
>>>>Low scaled wind power is possible in just about every area of the
>>>>country just as solar power is.
>>> Wind power is only viable near mountains, where the passes and
>>
>>bullshit again junior. There is a wind farm in western Minnesota, not
>>a mountian in the entire state or anywhere within the next 400 miles.
> So why don;t businesses everywhere install windmills and solar
>panels? It would reduce cost, and thus increase profit. Are you
>implying businesses are NOT interested in profit?
>
>
> Michael
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>_
***********************************************
JulianD.
(silverback) wrote:
boohoo hoo...silverdouche is so despondent. most corporations are run
by very smart and effective people. if not, they'd be out on their
asses by the stockholders. what a dick.
silverback
you meant to say ran by crooks
Linda
also claims that all corporations make very high profits. Silverback
also thinks he is not an idiot. Unless silverback thinks that being an
idiot makes one *better at operating a buisness, the question arises as
to why silverback does not start his own business? Especially in
California, where power bills are high. If he installs those low-cost
solar panels that will eliminate any power bills for his business yet
not from his competitors, surely he will be successful. How about it
silverback? Why would you not do this?
Or even if you don’t want to run a business, why would you not use these
low cost generators of free power on your house?
Why don’t you sell them to businesses in California?
> > (In response to:)
> > So the manufacturing companies could simply install solar panels,
> >and not have to pay electric bills. Businesses exist to make profit,
> >and if solar panels can save them thousands of dollars, every
> >business, from the mom-and-pop store to airplane manufacturers would
> >do so. So why do thwy NOT install solar panels?
Brett Kottmann
> OK, so I'll ask you the question I've asked you many times before.
> If alternative power is cheaper than standard power, (or even close),
> why aren't you using it? Who is stopping you from buying those
> solar panels for your roof? Who is preventing you from putting
> up a windmill?
> You never do come up with a good answer.
His job is to sit around at Dem. party headquarters in BFE, Minnesota
and type "yer lyin" in response to the well articulated arguments of
anyone but fellow liberals.
The hope is that you'll waste time trying to educate him.
BTW-the return for roof-mounted solar panels is 26 years.
Stupendous Man
http://reagan.webteamone.com/
http://www.buyntrade.com/
___________________________________________________________
The Supreme Court said the count does not "comport with minimal
constitutional standards" and violates "rudimentary requirements of
equal treatment and fundamental fairness."
Recount is _unconstitutional_ AND _violates Federal law_. Any questions?
Michael Ejercito
(silverback) wrote:
>On Sat, 24 Mar 2001 21:24:11 GMT, meje...@csulb.edu (Michael
>Ejercito) wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 23 Mar 2001 12:22:18 GMT, gdy5...@nospamspiritone.com
>>(silverback) wrote:
>>>wrong junior, There is enough sunlight in almost every region of the
>>>US for it.
>> So the manufacturing companies could simply install solar panels,
>>and not have to pay electric bills. Businesses exist to make profit,
>>and if solar panels can save them thousands of dollars, every
>>business, from the mom-and-pop store to airplane manufacturers would
>>do so. So why do thwy NOT install solar panels?
>
>more right wing trash talk. if he ever knew a ceo of a corporations he
>would know that the majority of corporations are run by idiots that
>couldn't rub two sticks together without first stealing them from the
>poor.
Corporations do not steal anythinfg any more than scabs steal
anything.
No one would accuse Bill Gates of being stupid. It takes genius to
market a defective product and make billions of of it.
Think about it for once in your life. If solar power were the
solution, every business would install solar panels, and make money.
The fact that they don't shows that there is a cost to the operation
of solar panels-a cost that is more expensive than buying electricity
from someone else.
Michael
Michael Ejercito
wrote:
>Silverback claims the majority of corporations are run by idiots, yet
>also claims that all corporations make very high profits. Silverback
>also thinks he is not an idiot. Unless silverback thinks that being an
>idiot makes one *better at operating a buisness, the question arises as
>to why silverback does not start his own business? Especially in
>California, where power bills are high. If he installs those low-cost
>solar panels that will eliminate any power bills for his business yet
>not from his competitors, surely he will be successful. How about it
>silverback? Why would you not do this?
>Or even if you don’t want to run a business, why would you not use these
>low cost generators of free power on your house?
>Why don’t you sell them to businesses in California?
Silverback has never had any credibility on Usenet. Among other
things, he ebelives there have not been any Ice Ages since the
dinosaurs went extinct, and that the First Amendment PROHIBITS freedom
of speech.
Michael
JulianD.
It's nonetheless fun to reply to him. There's some sort of guilty
obscene pleasure to it, like putting salt on slugs or using a
microscope on ants on a sunny day when we were kids.
Guilty as charged.
JD
silverback
wrote:
>Silverback claims the majority of corporations are run by idiots, yet
>also claims that all corporations make very high profits. Silverback
>also thinks he is not an idiot. Unless silverback thinks that being an
>idiot makes one *better at operating a buisness, the question arises as
>to why silverback does not start his own business? Especially in
>California, where power bills are high. If he installs those low-cost
>solar panels that will eliminate any power bills for his business yet
>not from his competitors, surely he will be successful. How about it
>silverback? Why would you not do this?
>Or even if you don’t want to run a business, why would you not use these
>low cost generators of free power on your house?
>Why don’t you sell them to businesses in California?
another damn idiot that doesn't know shit.
>
>
>> > (In response to:)
>> > So the manufacturing companies could simply install solar panels,
>> >and not have to pay electric bills. Businesses exist to make profit,
>> >and if solar panels can save them thousands of dollars, every
>> >business, from the mom-and-pop store to airplane manufacturers would
>> >do so. So why do thwy NOT install solar panels?
>
>> silverback wrote:
>> more right wing trash talk. if he ever knew a ceo of a corporations he
>> would know that the majority of corporations are run by idiots that
>> couldn't rub two sticks together without first stealing them from the
>> poor.
***********************************************
silverback
<bkot...@webteamone.com> wrote:
>Linda wrote:
>
>> OK, so I'll ask you the question I've asked you many times before.
>> If alternative power is cheaper than standard power, (or even close),
>> why aren't you using it? Who is stopping you from buying those
>> solar panels for your roof? Who is preventing you from putting
>> up a windmill?
>> You never do come up with a good answer.
>
>His job is to sit around at Dem. party headquarters in BFE, Minnesota
>and type "yer lyin" in response to the well articulated arguments of
>anyone but fellow liberals.
>
>The hope is that you'll waste time trying to educate him.
>
>BTW-the return for roof-mounted solar panels is 26 years.
yer lying again stupe its down to less than half that.
silverback
Ejercito) wrote:
>On Sun, 25 Mar 2001 01:11:43 GMT, gdy5...@nospamspiritone.com
>(silverback) wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 24 Mar 2001 21:24:11 GMT, meje...@csulb.edu (Michael
>>Ejercito) wrote:
>>
>>>On Fri, 23 Mar 2001 12:22:18 GMT, gdy5...@nospamspiritone.com
>>>(silverback) wrote:
>>>>wrong junior, There is enough sunlight in almost every region of the
>>>>US for it.
>>> So the manufacturing companies could simply install solar panels,
>>>and not have to pay electric bills. Businesses exist to make profit,
>>>and if solar panels can save them thousands of dollars, every
>>>business, from the mom-and-pop store to airplane manufacturers would
>>>do so. So why do thwy NOT install solar panels?
>>
>>more right wing trash talk. if he ever knew a ceo of a corporations he
>>would know that the majority of corporations are run by idiots that
>>couldn't rub two sticks together without first stealing them from the
>>poor.
> Corporations do not steal anythinfg any more than scabs steal
>anything.
wrong junior the history of corporations is one of robber barons.
>
> No one would accuse Bill Gates of being stupid. It takes genius to
>market a defective product and make billions of of it.
another dimwit. Ya gates was the idiot that thought no one would ever
need more than 1 meg of ram.
BTW you are right windoze is a defective product.The future belongs
to Linux
>
> Think about it for once in your life. If solar power were the
>solution, every business would install solar panels, and make money.
>The fact that they don't shows that there is a cost to the operation
>of solar panels-a cost that is more expensive than buying electricity
>from someone else.
wrong again junior. Thats nothing more than right wing trash talk.
There are already a large number of businesses that use solar and wind
power.
>
>
> Michael
Michael Ejercito
(silverback) wrote:
>On Sun, 25 Mar 2001 23:04:04 GMT, meje...@csulb.edu (Michael
>Ejercito) wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 25 Mar 2001 01:11:43 GMT, gdy5...@nospamspiritone.com
>>(silverback) wrote:
>>>more right wing trash talk. if he ever knew a ceo of a corporations he
>>>would know that the majority of corporations are run by idiots that
>>>couldn't rub two sticks together without first stealing them from the
>>>poor.
>> Corporations do not steal anythinfg any more than scabs steal
>>anything.
>
>wrong junior the history of corporations is one of robber barons.
So what do they steal, exactly?
>>
>> No one would accuse Bill Gates of being stupid. It takes genius to
>>market a defective product and make billions of of it.
>
>another dimwit. Ya gates was the idiot that thought no one would ever
>need more than 1 meg of ram.
He has been wrong before. He could not have predicted the future.
> BTW you are right windoze is a defective product.The future belongs
>to Linux
>
>>
>> Think about it for once in your life. If solar power were the
>>solution, every business would install solar panels, and make money.
>>The fact that they don't shows that there is a cost to the operation
>>of solar panels-a cost that is more expensive than buying electricity
>>from someone else.
>
>wrong again junior. Thats nothing more than right wing trash talk.
>There are already a large number of businesses that use solar and wind
>power.
Okay, then, thewy obviously made a cost-benefit analysis and
decided to go solar.
Michael
_
Michael Ejercito
(silverback) wrote:
>On Sun, 25 Mar 2001 19:52:55 GMT, Linda <dollar...@yahoo.com>
>wrote:
>
>>Silverback claims the majority of corporations are run by idiots, yet
>>also claims that all corporations make very high profits. Silverback
>>also thinks he is not an idiot. Unless silverback thinks that being an
>>idiot makes one *better at operating a buisness, the question arises as
>>to why silverback does not start his own business? Especially in
>>California, where power bills are high. If he installs those low-cost
>>solar panels that will eliminate any power bills for his business yet
>>not from his competitors, surely he will be successful. How about it
>>silverback? Why would you not do this?
>>Or even if you don’t want to run a business, why would you not use these
>>low cost generators of free power on your house?
>>Why don’t you sell them to businesses in California?
>
>another damn idiot that doesn't know shit.
Who? You?
I could not have wrote that better myself.
Michael
Tom Wootton
>Silverback claims the majority of corporations are run by idiots, yet
>also claims that all corporations make very high profits. Silverback
>also thinks he is not an idiot. Unless silverback thinks that being an
>idiot makes one *better at operating a buisness, the question arises as
>to why silverback does not start his own business?
That was very well put, Linda. IRT your question, I assume the answer is
that Silver does not wish to become an idiot.
--
Tom Wootton
"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would
take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place
and kill him."
-------Mark Twain
Alex Chaihorsky
"Tom Wootton" <alterk...@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:81Qz6.14666$RF1.1...@bgtnsc06-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> Linda wrote in message <3ABE4C92...@yahoo.com>...
> >Silverback claims the majority of corporations are run by idiots, yet
> >also claims that all corporations make very high profits. Silverback
> >also thinks he is not an idiot. Unless silverback thinks that being an
> >idiot makes one *better at operating a buisness, the question arises as
> >to why silverback does not start his own business?
>
> That was very well put, Linda. IRT your question, I assume the answer is
> that Silver does not wish to become an idiot.
>
> --
> Tom Wootton
>
Silverback is not a human - its a AI program. Answering his mails is like
talking to your PC.
There are many such programs on the net now - one way to recognize them is
to pay attention at the pattern. They usually make short comments that are
scattered all over the threads. If you take a better look at WHAT it says,
you will see how fragmented the logic is.
Regards,
Alex Chaihorsky
Reno, NV