TK was exactly right. OT - Page 5

r15757 wrote:
> Subsidies hell. Mandates. We have ethanol mandates in addition to
> subsidies. Why do they need subsidies if they have mandates?

Perhaps they should get womandates instead.

On Jun 23, 11:30*pm, "b...@mambo.ucolick.org" <b...@mambo.ucolick.org>
wrote:

>
> "Want" is a funny word, isn't it? *The way you use it
> there is an excluded middle - you either want something,
> or don't want it, leaving it valueless. *I don't personally
> want or wish to possess the mountains a few miles from
> my house, but that doesn't mean I think the state should
> sell off the park to people who will bulldoze the saguaro
> for condos.
>
>
> - Show quoted text -

Hey Ben
The point here is that the undeveloped land in the reserves and parks
is collectively owned by the people, paid for by our tax dollars. I
don't want my government selling off the rights for a buck an acre, or
something close. As an owner, like you, it's worth much more to me as
it is right now. Just the pleasure of knowing it is there, in that
condition, is worth more to me than what I would get out of selling
off the rights to develop it. On a purely free market basis, if
nothing else, I'm not selling it because all of the offers have been
FAR below what I consider the actual value to be to me. I'm a big
proponent of folks selling the development rights to land trusts too.
Cuts the money going to the government, and preserves the land. Works
for me!
Bill C
Sounds like you see it the same way.

On Jun 23, 9:50*pm, Robert Chung <rech...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jun 23, 9:28*pm, fred.gar...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jun 23, 10:01*pm, Robert Chung <rech...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jun 23, 8:24*pm, fred.gar...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > > > A few things that have me perplexed:
>
> > > > 1) the earth stopped its most recent warming cycle in 1998
> > > > 2) the earth cooled enough in the last few years to give back all the
> > > > warming from the previous century
> > > > 3) the oceans stopped heating roughly 7 years ago, and have begun to
> > > > cool
> > > > 4) the earth's warming cycles correspond almost perfectly with solar
> > > > activity, but not so perfectly w/ human behavior or CO2 emission
> > > > levels or CO2 atmospheric levels
>
> > > Perhaps the reason you're perplexed is because you haven't looked at
> > > the data:
>
> > >http://anonymous.coward.free.fr/temp...//anonymous.co....
>
> > Very pretty charts. *I suppose you'll have us believe that a 0.4
> > degree change in surface temperature is major, when the experts say
> > that it's not surface temps that matter. *Oh, wait... you're trotting
> > out the data that supports your believes, regardless of conflicting
> > data.
>
> Hmmm.
>
> You claimed "that the earth cooled enough in the last few years to
> give back all the warming from the previous century." The first plot
> showed that not to be true. The SST temperature is still almost 1
> degree celsius warmer than a century ago.
>
> Second, that's about 0.4 degrees celsius worth of warming in about 25
> years -- so yeah, that's pretty major.
>
> Third, you claimed that the Earth "stopped its most recent warming
> cycle in 1998." The data show that 1998 was an extreme blip but that
> warming has continued since then.
>
> Fourth, you claim that "earth's warming cycles correspond almost
> perfectly with solar activity, but not so perfectly w/ human behavior
> or CO2 emission levels or CO2 atmospheric levels." The second plot
> shows global sea-land temperature, solar activity, and CO2 level. I'd
> say global temperature corresponds much more closely to CO2 level than
> to solar activity.
>
> No wonder you're perplexed. Denial will do that.

Right. There is no question that rising CO2 levels result in warming.
-Paul

On Jun 23, 8:30 pm, "b...@mambo.ucolick.org" <b...@mambo.ucolick.org>
wrote:
> On Jun 23, 2:53 pm, SLAVE of THE STATE <gwh...@ti.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jun 23, 1:59 pm, "b...@mambo.ucolick.org" <b...@mambo.ucolick.org>
> > wrote:
> > > It is an Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, not an Arctic
> > > National People Refuge. The whole point of it is that
> > > nobody wants it. Other than oil prospectors.
>
> > And so they should not be precluded from working land that no one else
> > wants.
>
> "Want" is a funny word, isn't it? The way you use it
> there is an excluded middle - you either want something,
> or don't want it, leaving it valueless.

The way you use it is the way a child demanding a chocolate bar uses
it. I mean it to the point one is willing to act on the wants through
their own efforts -- to put visible self-created investment into
acheiving the want. Saying "I want to retire a multi-millionaire at
age 50" means nothing unless one is willing to do something about it.

To have some idea about the values people hold, we can only look at
their actions and attempt to make reasonable judgments about what the
values behind those actions mean. IOW, talk is cheap. Assuming that a
reasonable judgment could be made, there is next the cost of viewing
and assessing the information. That study itself could have a high
transaction cost -- perhaps unfundable. A low cost way of teasing out
a hint of values is to look at what people are willing to pay (in
money/time/resource) for X, as it is a form of action/transaction. It
is very imperfect, as price is not value, but the sad reality is that
any other method of assessing value faces even graver difficulty in
the ironic attempt to drive the subjectivity out of a subjective
matter. I mean that despite all its problems as a "value viewer," the
price system is the best thing available. I think polling -- asking
people what they value -- has worse problems, although I do not claim
that it can never give a decent answer. IOW, talk is cheap. (That
politicians specialize in talk should give that one away.)

So if you want to have some hint of how valued something is -- that
landscape from valued to valueless -- look at what the going price
across markets are in money/time/resource/blood. And make sure that
the entity doing the spending is spending _their own_ money/time/
resource/blood. And note that is never the function of The State, who
never spends its own money/time/resource/blood, since it can only
seize those from the population under its regime. Yes, The State
always destroys the price system wherever it decides to "supply a
good." If you want to have an affordable hint about values, the worst
possible thing you could do is destroy the price system. Sad but
true. Don't be a commie unless your basic goal is to obscure human
values and insert your own in place. I mean, if you value tyrrany...

You want X, you value X? What are you going to _do_ for it?

> I don't personally
> want or wish to possess the mountains a few miles from
> my house, but that doesn't mean I think the state should
> sell off the park to people who will bulldoze the saguaro
> for condos.A

Yeah, the guvmint stole the land fair and square, so "they" should
decide how it is used. You want to possess a view of the mountains
or something else about the mountains, but you can't really describe
how you gained title to the mountains or how you paid for them. So
you use the hammer of the state to seize the land for your purposes,
denying others of more direct and obvious use. When you say "the
state," you really mean yourself owning that land. You want to take
control of that resource by fiat, since "owning property" is
essentially a matter of answering the "who controls the physical
thing" question.

Your way of looking at it has to do with the way you were trained to
think about it. The language is your (as with anyone) tool of
abstraction -- your way of framing the world. Your frames control the
boundaries of your conceptions and perceptions.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_framing

I'm not going to give you any hints. You might become dangerous.

On Jun 24, 11:21*am, Bill C <tritonri...@verizon.net> wrote:
> On Jun 23, 11:30*pm, "b...@mambo.ucolick.org" <b...@mambo.ucolick.org>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > "Want" is a funny word, isn't it? *The way you use it
> > there is an excluded middle - you either want something,
> > or don't want it, leaving it valueless. *I don't personally
> > want or wish to possess the mountains a few miles from
> > my house, but that doesn't mean I think the state should
> > sell off the park to people who will bulldoze the saguaro
> > for condos.
>
> *The point here is that the undeveloped land in the reserves and parks
> is collectively owned by the people, paid for by our tax dollars.

Bull****. That is the crap they sold you for your puny vote and
confidence.

> I
> don't want my government selling off the rights for a buck an acre, or
> something close. As an owner, like you, it's worth much more to me as
> it is right now. Just the pleasure of knowing it is there, in that
> condition, is worth more to me than what I would get out of selling
> off the rights to develop it. On a purely free market basis, if
> nothing else, I'm not selling it because all of the offers have been
> FAR below what I consider the actual value to be to me.

So first you talk about the guvmint essentially siezing the land, and
next you talk about selling on a "pure free market basis."
Interesting.

SLAVE of THE STATE wrote:
> I'm not going to give you any hints. You might become dangerous.

He's still got millions of 3rd world residents to work on, he won't
get around to you for a while yet.

On Jun 24, 12:44*pm, Donald Munro <fat-dumb...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> SLAVE of THE STATE wrote:
>
> > I'm not going to give you any hints. *You might become dangerous.
>
> He's still got millions of 3rd world residents to work on, he won't
> get around to you for a while yet.

Those 3rd world residents were on his land before he got there. They
gotta go.

Paul G. wrote:
> Right. There is no question that rising CO2 levels result in warming.

Karp season starts next month.

On Jun 24, 3:23*pm, SLAVE of THE STATE <gwh...@ti.com> wrote:

>
> > I
> > don't want my government selling off the rights for a buck an acre, or
> > something close. As an owner, like you, it's worth much more to me as
> > it is right now. Just the pleasure of knowing it is there, in that
> > condition, is worth more to me than what I would get out of selling
> > off the rights to develop it. On a purely free market basis, if
> > nothing else, I'm not selling it because all of the offers have been
> > FAR below what I consider the actual value to be to me.
>
> So first you talk about the guvmint essentially siezing the land, and
> next you talk about selling on a "pure free market basis."
> Interesting.

That was mine not, Ben's.
Bill C

On Jun 24, 3:40*pm, Bill C <tritonri...@verizon.net> wrote:

> That was mine not, Ben's.

While I've slipped in comments to older posts/attrib's before, I
almost always leave the attrib markers in place. This time I did not
slip in a comment to an older Ben posting, nor did I misplace my
comment according to the attrib markers.

Back to the point: It is a confidence game.

On Jun 24, 2:24*pm, Donald Munro <fat-dumb...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Paul G. wrote:
> > Right. There is no question that rising CO2 levels result in warming.
>
> Karp season starts next month.

Prof Larry S. Karp? Weren't you banging his daughter, and doesn't
that make you a Karpette Bagger?
-Paul

Paul G. wrote:
> Prof Larry S. Karp? Weren't you banging his daughter, and doesn't that
> make you a Karpette Bagger?

On rbr we refer to it as tapping unless it involves a female climate
scientist in which case it is referred to as nailing.

On Jun 24, 7:41*pm, SLAVE of THE STATE <gwh...@ti.com> wrote:
> On Jun 24, 3:40*pm, Bill C <tritonri...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> > That was mine not, Ben's.
>
> While I've slipped in comments to older posts/attrib's before, I
> almost always leave the attrib markers in place. *This time I did not
> slip in a comment to an older Ben posting, nor did I misplace my
> comment according to the attrib markers.
>
> Back to the point: It is a confidence game.

Not sure if I would've supported buying/taking ANWR, but now that I,
through my involuntary contribution, own it, and I'm gonna pretend the
system might work, then I'm happier treating it like a painting on a
wall. Just as much fun to look at and does a lot more good though.
Once in a while, if enough of us scream at them, they actually listen.
They took our money, they bought it, we own it.
Bill C

Donald Munro wrote:

> Paul G. wrote:
>> Prof Larry S. Karp? Weren't you banging his daughter, and doesn't that
>> make you a Karpette Bagger?
>
> On rbr we refer to it as tapping unless it involves a female climate
> scientist in which case it is referred to as nailing.
>

Once you've nailed a chick who understands baroclinic torque and her own
Coriolis forcing, you'll never go back. Or so I'm told.

--
Bill Asher

On Jun 22, 1:34*pm, Bill C <tritonri...@verizon.net> wrote:

> *Scary thing is they are on both fringes, and do matter.

Your fringe at work:

http://thinkprogress.org/2008/06/25/...tant-solitary/
http://www.usdoj.gov/opr/oig-opr-inv...-hire-slip.pdf