TK was exactly right. OT

SLAVE of THE STATE

On Jun 20, 8:28*pm, Fred Fredburger
<FredFredbur...@Where.Are.The.Nachos> wrote:
> SLAVE of THE STATE wrote:
>
> > On Jun 19, 4:38 pm, Fred Fredburger
> > <FredFredbur...@Where.Are.The.Nachos> wrote:
>
> >> Every month or so, Bill comes across something that validates one of
> >> Tom's thousands of arguments. Then he gets confused and thinks it
> >> validates them all. Or something, I don't get it.
>
> > If the we-meme operates strongly enough, then confusion is not erased
> > but automatically bypassed.
>
> Yep. Works that way with the them-meme too, though.

"[T]he people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders...
It works the same way in any country." -- Hermann Goering

SLAVE of THE STATE

On Jun 22, 9:00*pm, "b...@mambo.ucolick.org" <b...@mambo.ucolick.org>
wrote:
> On Jun 21, 4:35 pm, Bill C <tritonri...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> > *You're making the argument that progressives and environmentalists
> > haven't called for alternative energy/fuels??
>
> Not at all. *Wind, solar, running your Microbus off
> used vegetable oil. *It's just that right now, biofuel
> mostly means corn-based ethanol, and apart from some
> early misguided enthusiasm, I don't think there are
> many serious environmentalists who think that is a good
> idea. *It doesn't reduce emissions in the long run and
> it's basically a way to subsidize farming conglomerates
> that already grow too much corn.

As far as CO2 emissions, the carbon cycle is far shorter for
biofuels. Even trees used/cut for heating/cooking are only 100-200
years in cycle. For something like sugar cane ethanol, the capture/
release cycle is probably less than a year. So a net emission in the
long term is near-zero for such a fuel, provided the processing does
not get supplementary energy from ultra-long cycles from things such
as fossil oil/coal/gas.


> Other energy sources have their own tradeoffs (rich greenies
> would rather put wind farms where they don't have to
> look at them, etc) but that has always been the case.
> Oil had tradeoffs too. *It's just that oil was so
> valuable that if oil was under some land, you could
> just pay the owners to leave, or pay off the powers that
> be to let you steal it. *That goes on with ANWR drilling
> too. *The effect on the oil supply will be minimal, but
> some people will make bank.

You're worried Santa Claus's view might be ruined on his once-a-year
ANWR flyover? No one is trying to "steal" ANWR because no one really
wants it other than oil prospectors. It essentially comes under
lockean homesteading.

bjw@mambo.ucolick.org

On Jun 23, 12:39*pm, SLAVE of THE STATE <gwh...@ti.com> wrote:
> On Jun 22, 9:00*pm, "b...@mambo.ucolick.org" <b...@mambo.ucolick.org>
> wrote:
>
> > On Jun 21, 4:35 pm, Bill C <tritonri...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> > > *You're making the argument that progressives and environmentalists
> > > haven't called for alternative energy/fuels??
>
> > Not at all. *Wind, solar, running your Microbus off
> > used vegetable oil. *It's just that right now, biofuel
> > mostly means corn-based ethanol, and apart from some
> > early misguided enthusiasm, I don't think there are
> > many serious environmentalists who think that is a good
> > idea. *It doesn't reduce emissions in the long run and
> > it's basically a way to subsidize farming conglomerates
> > that already grow too much corn.
>
> As far as CO2 emissions, the carbon cycle is far shorter for
> biofuels. *Even trees used/cut for heating/cooking are only 100-200
> years in cycle. *For something like sugar cane ethanol, the capture/
> release cycle is probably less than a year. *So a net emission in the
> long term is near-zero for such a fuel, provided the processing does
> not get supplementary energy from ultra-long cycles from things such
> as fossil oil/coal/gas.

I haven't looked into it very deeply, but my understanding
is that is the problem - the energy costs of growing and
processing all that corn are significant and paid in fossil fuel.
Biofuel might be a good idea at some point, especially since
fossil fuels are a limited resource, but I think its present form
has problems.

If it wasn't for govmint subsidies, Midwestern corn ethanol
would be undercut by cheaper Brazilian sugar cane ethanol.
Aside from the questionable environmental issues
(Brazilian clearcutting), you, Salma Hayek, and I probably all
agree on the undesirableness of these govmint subsidies.
(Obama disagrees - I'm shocked, shocked to discover that
he isn't perfect in all respects!)

> > Other energy sources have their own tradeoffs (rich greenies
> > would rather put wind farms where they don't have to
> > look at them, etc) but that has always been the case.
> > Oil had tradeoffs too. *It's just that oil was so
> > valuable that if oil was under some land, you could
> > just pay the owners to leave, or pay off the powers that
> > be to let you steal it. *That goes on with ANWR drilling
> > too. *The effect on the oil supply will be minimal, but
> > some people will make bank.
>
> You're worried Santa Claus's view might be ruined on his once-a-year
> ANWR flyover? *No one is trying to "steal" ANWR because no one really
> wants it other than oil prospectors. *It essentially comes under
> lockean homesteading.

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. With my
"steal" comment, I was thinking more of land in the
lower 48. As far as I know, farmers, Indian tribes, LA
landowners and other such people sometimes got
dispossessed when oil was found. And no, I haven't
seen "There Will Be Blood" yet. I get plenty of that
on training rides.

Ben

SLAVE of THE STATE

On Jun 23, 1:59*pm, "b...@mambo.ucolick.org" <b...@mambo.ucolick.org>
wrote:
> On Jun 23, 12:39*pm, SLAVE of THE STATE <gwh...@ti.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 22, 9:00*pm, "b...@mambo.ucolick.org" <b...@mambo.ucolick.org>
> > wrote:
>
> > > On Jun 21, 4:35 pm, Bill C <tritonri...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> > > > *You're making the argument that progressives and environmentalists
> > > > haven't called for alternative energy/fuels??
>
> > > Not at all. *Wind, solar, running your Microbus off
> > > used vegetable oil. *It's just that right now, biofuel
> > > mostly means corn-based ethanol, and apart from some
> > > early misguided enthusiasm, I don't think there are
> > > many serious environmentalists who think that is a good
> > > idea. *It doesn't reduce emissions in the long run and
> > > it's basically a way to subsidize farming conglomerates
> > > that already grow too much corn.
>
> > As far as CO2 emissions, the carbon cycle is far shorter for
> > biofuels. *Even trees used/cut for heating/cooking are only 100-200
> > years in cycle. *For something like sugar cane ethanol, the capture/
> > release cycle is probably less than a year. *So a net emission in the
> > long term is near-zero for such a fuel, provided the processing does
> > not get supplementary energy from ultra-long cycles from things such
> > as fossil oil/coal/gas.
>
> I haven't looked into it very deeply, but my understanding
> is that is the problem - the energy costs of growing and
> processing all that corn are significant and paid in fossil fuel.
> Biofuel might be a good idea at some point, especially since
> fossil fuels are a limited resource, but I think its present form
> has problems.

I have not dug deeply either, since I only care in an energy-geek sort
of way. But I have heard it repeated quite often that the corn
ethanol payoff is about a dead zero. (You put in what you get out. 1-
for-1.) I saw a special this past weekend that sugar cane ethanol
processing is seven times better than corn (7-for-1). If processing
energy was supplied by nukes or wind, then there is a net zero in the
long term. (True even for corn ethanol.)

I don't know how much CO2 a forest absorbs (the rate) compared to a
converted-to-crop field. (On an equal acre basis.)

> If it wasn't for govmint subsidies, Midwestern corn ethanol
> would be undercut by cheaper Brazilian sugar cane ethanol.

Midwestern corn ethanol would be nearly non-existent except for
Livedrunk parties and shellac thinning.

> Aside from the questionable environmental issues
> (Brazilian clearcutting), you, Salma Hayek, and I probably all
> agree on the undesirableness of these govmint subsidies.
> (Obama disagrees - I'm shocked, shocked to discover that
> he isn't perfect in all respects!)

That Obama dude is an empty suit.

> > > Other energy sources have their own tradeoffs (rich greenies
> > > would rather put wind farms where they don't have to
> > > look at them, etc) but that has always been the case.
> > > Oil had tradeoffs too. *It's just that oil was so
> > > valuable that if oil was under some land, you could
> > > just pay the owners to leave, or pay off the powers that
> > > be to let you steal it. *That goes on with ANWR drilling
> > > too. *The effect on the oil supply will be minimal, but
> > > some people will make bank.
>
> > You're worried Santa Claus's view might be ruined on his once-a-year
> > ANWR flyover? *No one is trying to "steal" ANWR because no one really
> > wants it other than oil prospectors. *It essentially comes under
> > lockean homesteading.
>
> 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.

> With my
> "steal" comment, I was thinking more of land in the
> lower 48. *As far as I know, farmers, Indian tribes, LA
> landowners and other such people sometimes got
> dispossessed when oil was found. *

I'll bet you'd find the biggest and baddest stealing always took place
with the helping hand (and even sanction) of guvmint.

> And no, I haven't
> seen "There Will Be Blood" yet.

I did. The property transfers were legal, that I remember. There is
the question of a promised donation to a church. But that story is not
really about land-stealing and even oil. It is about a strange
individual with arrested general development and yet knows how to do
one thing very well. It was also about other people with problems.
It was depressing really. I did not like it.

fred.garvin@yahoo.com

On Jun 19, 7:36*am, Bill C <tritonri...@verizon.net> wrote:
> While just about everyone lined up and relentlessly hammered on him,
> with just a few allowing they had some doubt, he was the one who was
> right on the money.
> *Hope he doesn't hold his breathe waiting for folks to admit being
> mistaken, since I happen to like having him around.
>
> http://tinyurl.com/6mnu2p
>
> New study to force ministers to review climate change planExclusive
> Official review admits biofuel role in food crisis
> Julian Borger and John Vidal The Guardian, Thursday June 19 2008
> Article historyBritain and Europe will be forced to fundamentally
> rethink a central part of their environment strategy after a
> government report found that the rush to develop biofuels has played a
> "significant" role in the dramatic rise in global food prices, which
> has left 100 million more people without enough to eat.
>
> <more there>
>
> Bill C

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
5) I saw just recently that a scientist from Boulder is being paid to
research the ice-melting patterns in Greenland. Funny thing, the
icecap in Greenland is melting from the bottom, where it is NOT
exposed to higher atmospheric temperatures. Why would ice melt from
the bottom, and not at the surface where exposed to a "hotter
atmosphere"?
6) why won't you folks just admit that while there may be changes in
earth's climate, it is not due to human influences and it is not
directly related to CO2 emissions.

One more thing, recent calculations have shown that if all the tax
increases that the Dali Bama has proposed take effect, the marginal
top tax rate will increase from 39 percent to over 56 percent. Do we
really want the government taking over half of every dollar to spend
on some poorly run, poorly regulated, inefficient program designed to
do nothing but redistribute the wealth of those who can and will work
to those who won't work, for the purpose of buying their votes with
our money???

bjw@mambo.ucolick.org

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:
> > I haven't looked into it very deeply, but my understanding
> > is that is the problem - the energy costs of growing and
> > processing all that corn are significant and paid in fossil fuel.
> > Biofuel might be a good idea at some point, especially since
> > fossil fuels are a limited resource, but I think its present form
> > has problems.
>
> I have not dug deeply either, since I only care in an energy-geek sort
> of way. *But I have heard it repeated quite often that the corn
> ethanol payoff is about a dead zero. *(You put in what you get out. 1-
> for-1.) *I saw a special this past weekend that sugar cane ethanol
> processing is seven times better than corn (7-for-1). *If processing
> energy was supplied by nukes or wind, then there is a net zero in the
> long term. *(True even for corn ethanol.)

Wait, there's a better way!

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080707/ehrenreich

"This is the humane alternative to biofuels derived directly
from erstwhile foodstuffs like corn. Biofuels, as you might have
noticed, are exacerbating the global food crisis by turning
edible plants into gasoline. But we could put humans back in
the loop by first turning the corn into Doritos and hence into
liposuctionable body fat. There would be a reason to live again,
even a patriotic rationale for packing on the pounds."

It's RBR Fattie Masters meet Fight Club.


> > 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. 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.

> > With my
> > "steal" comment, I was thinking more of land in the
> > lower 48. *As far as I know, farmers, Indian tribes, LA
> > landowners and other such people sometimes got
> > dispossessed when oil was found. *
>
> I'll bet you'd find the biggest and baddest stealing always took place
> with the helping hand (and even sanction) of guvmint.

Yes, I agree. People paid or persuaded govmint to help
them take land for oil. Before that they did it for water
(Owens Valley, Hetch Hetchy) and before that they did it
for ranches, and before that they did it for gold. It's the
story of the American west - we discovered alchemy,
turning gold into condos.

Ben

Robert Chung

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/hadsst2gl.png
http://anonymous.coward.free.fr/temp/temp-co2-spots.png

fred.garvin@yahoo.com

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/tem...p-co2-spots.png

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.

Robert Chung

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/tem...://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.

Howard Kveck

In article <5d64a81c-3f67-41ca-a159-563392e00791@q27g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
Robert Chung <rechung@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/tem...://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.

³There is a series of moments and this is one of them. Our will is being tested, but
we are resolute. We have a better way. Stay strong! Stay the course! Kill them! Be
confident! Prevail! We are going to wipe them out! We are not blinking!²

--
tanx,
Howard

The bloody pubs are bloody dull
The bloody clubs are bloody full
Of bloody girls and bloody guys
With bloody murder in their eyes

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

Robert Chung

On Jun 23, 11:02*pm, Howard Kveck <YOURhow...@h-SHOESbomb.com> wrote:

> ³There is a series of moments and this is one of them. Our will is being tested, but
> we are resolute. We have a better way. Stay strong! Stay the course! Killthem! Be
> confident! Prevail! We are going to wipe them out! We are not blinking!²

I can press when there needs to be pressed. I can hold hands when
there needs to be hold hands.

Donald Munro

bjw@mambo.ucolick.org wrote:
> It's the story of the American west - we discovered alchemy, turning gold
> into condos.

At the moment the converse isn't working.

Bill C

On Jun 19, 7:38*pm, Fred Fredburger
<FredFredbur...@Where.Are.The.Nachos> wrote:

>
> Every month or so, Bill comes across something that validates one of
> Tom's thousands of arguments. Then he gets confused and thinks it
> validates them all. Or something, I don't get it.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

No Fred
I think just happen to think he should get credit for when he is
right, just as he should be challenged when he's wrong. I agree with
your assessment, and it what I've been saying in that there's almost
always a kernel of truth in there underneath.
This is where JT and I were butting heads on Micheal Moore too. Lots
of truth there, lots of distortion. Both should be recognized. Things
are either true(reproducible, verifieable, or open to mathematical
proof), Supposition (varies from major pre-ponderance of the evidence
down to the exceptions that may prove the rule eventually), and proven
false (pretty much same standard as for proven) lots of grey in the
middle, but things need to be recognized for what they are, and dealt
with as such. When there's a question I lean towards "We don't know",
"Not proven", etc...because you can move on from there and are open
minded. Just because we believe something, or say something doesn't
make it so. It makes us idiots, and closed minded bigots frequently.
What is, is.
Bill C

Michael Press

In article
<eb2021e4-a296-4911-92a3-04f39733fcee@f1g2000prb.googlegroups.com>,
"bjw@mambo.ucolick.org" <bjw@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.

I promise that they will not bulldoze the saguaro.
They will sell them for a pretty penny,
_then_ they will bulldoze the habitat.
Hope this clears things up for you.

--
Michael Press