or Connect
Cycling Forums › Forums › Bikes › Road Cycling › What - Intelligent Thought?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

What - Intelligent Thought? - Page 2

post #16 of 222

Re: What - Intelligent Thought?

On 11 Feb 2007 23:14:25 -0800, "amit.ghosh@gmail.com"
<amit.ghosh@gmail.com> wrote:

>it however does not say that "trying to hold down CO2 emission would
>end up costing millions or even billions of lives". that part is
>invented by you.


If TK had ever shown the inclination towards hyperbole, I could mark
it down to that. But every time I made that assumption in the past, he
ended up being dead serious (and defending the hyperbole for days if
not weeks, maybe years). I guess that he expects to hear sometime in
the future a broadcast along the lines of, "Today the loss in lives
due to CO2 emissions reduction passed the 900 million mark, but the
U.N and its U.S. liberal lackeys have vowed to hold the course..."

I think a Chung chart showing worst case intersection between "lost
lives" and and resulting reduced CO2 emissions from just the reduction
in population alone would be useful. With luck, we can go back to our
former ways when only 400 or 500 million are dead. We liberals are an
optimistic lot.

Curtis L. Russell
Practicing liberal asshole...
post #17 of 222

Re: What - Intelligent Thought?

On Feb 11, 10:41 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
> At the basis of the global warming hysteria (snip)


Hysteria??? Hysteria???

Here's *your* hysteria right here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PbcctWbC8Q0

--D-y
post #18 of 222

Re: What - Intelligent Thought?

Tom Kunich wrote:
> At the basis of the global warming hysteria is the idea that man is causing
> it and that therefore man is evil.


No. The basis of the concern is that the contribution man makes is
accelerating the warming. Nobody thinks that man alone is the sole cause
of this.

-paul
post #19 of 222

Re: What - Intelligent Thought?

"Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote in message
news:ceSzh.599$tD2.336@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> At the basis of the global warming hysteria is the idea that man is
> causing


Caught your limit on that one, Tom.
post #20 of 222
Thread Starter 

Re: What - Intelligent Thought?

"Kurgan Gringioni" <kgringioni@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1171262806.744854.301240@a75g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
> On Feb 11, 10:26 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
>>
>> > Would you rather pay American engineers from General Electric to build
>> > windfarms or pay Saudi Arabian princes $70/barrel for oil?

>>
>> In the 1930's the Morgan Company built the world's biggest wind
>> generator.
>> Until a decade ago it was the largest on record. It was also as efficient
>> as
>> the most modern one's today.

>
> Dude, you're an idiot. 1930's tech=2000 tech?


No, I'm an engineer - what was it you said you do for a living again? Oh,
that's right - you're an inheritance baby.

> That's like saying the propellor of a 1930s plane moves air as
> efficiently as a modern jet turbine (the same fluid dynamics advances
> apply to both turbines that move air and turbines that are moved by
> air).


You really don't have a clue do you? Maybe you'd like to explain why most
of the early aerodynamic sections in the design book were put there by the
Wright brothers? Wait, - obviously because they were stupid and today's air
is a lot different from that of 1905.

Here's a clue Henry - if you don't understand what you're talking about
perhaps you ought to study the subject beyond a wikipedia entry.
post #21 of 222

Re: What - Intelligent Thought?

On Mon, 12 Feb 2007 16:12:23 GMT, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com>
wrote:

>
>Here's a clue Henry - if you don't understand what you're talking about
>perhaps you ought to study the subject beyond a wikipedia entry.


I guess that's why an article in today's online WSJ says that
wind-driven turbines (and geothermal generation) are both close to
being economically viable even without subsidies and that with
economies of larger scale production of the turbines and a reduction
in the current financing penalty paid on both, they both may be viable
in the near future - without subsidies.

Ten barrels to make one - who did our math? Kind of reminds me of the
new ESPN commercial, the 'talking out of your ass' one.

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...
post #22 of 222

Re: What - Intelligent Thought?

On Mon, 12 Feb 2007 18:53:53 +0200, Donald Munro
<fat-dumbass@hotmail.com> wrote:

>Curtis L. Russell wrote:
>> Ten barrels to make one - who did our math? Kind of reminds me of the
>> new ESPN commercial, the 'talking out of your ass' one.

>
>Surely you mean ass-hat.


BTW, I have to admit, I don't understand the purpose of the
commercial, except to reinforce to current viewers that they should
keep watching ESPN. I haven't seen it aired anywhere else and to a
generally non-sport person like my wife (she basically knows cycling,
ACC basketball and a bit of ACC football), the references make no
sense. As far as she is concerned (AFASIC), yeah, the Spurs, whoever
they are, don't have a chance this year, in whatever sport they play.

They did mention Lance and marathoning, though.

Me, I watch to see people bludgeoned unconscious in hockey games.
Cycling could use more of that stuff.

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...
post #23 of 222
Thread Starter 

Re: What - Intelligent Thought?

"Curtis L. Russell" <curtis@md-bicycling.org> wrote in message
news:h351t2lmlh32t4gbchhrpqvv31mqmh7v97@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 12 Feb 2007 16:12:23 GMT, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>Here's a clue Henry - if you don't understand what you're talking about
>>perhaps you ought to study the subject beyond a wikipedia entry.

>
> I guess that's why an article in today's online WSJ says that
> wind-driven turbines (and geothermal generation) are both close to
> being economically viable even without subsidies and that with
> economies of larger scale production of the turbines and a reduction
> in the current financing penalty paid on both, they both may be viable
> in the near future - without subsidies.


Then by all means why don't you invest in them.

> Ten barrels to make one - who did our math? Kind of reminds me of the
> new ESPN commercial, the 'talking out of your ass' one.


Do you even understand what a wind turbine is? Can you spend one minute
explaining what they're composed of, what goes in to making one? What are
the maintenance schedules? How long before they're obsolete? How much energy
they return?

I really think you ought to put your life savings into wind turbines because
the WSJ said they're "close" to being "economically viable" even "without
subsidies".
post #24 of 222
Thread Starter 

Re: What - Intelligent Thought?

"Mike Jacoubowsky" <mikej1@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:apUzh.6935$gj4.6370@newssvr14.news.prodigy.net...
>> Nahh, I'm pretty sure that the Liberals would much rather just kill off
>> 2/3rds of the world's population. That way their homes in the Marin
>> Redwoods would remain unchanged.

>
> Collateral damage is a terrible thing. But what the heck does this have to
> do with bicycle racing?


The same sort of collateral damage is occurring in bike racing - wild
imaginations making drugs more important than anything else. Let's face it
Mike, when the whack jobs are in control of everything, the whole world is
whacky.
post #25 of 222

Re: What - Intelligent Thought?

Tom Kunich wrote:

<snip>

Tom:

I just read in Nature the full 4th report is out, Nature lists 600 authors,
representatives from 113 governments, and 620 expert reviewers. So the
1500 number wasn't all that far off. Also, it didn't take them all that
long to reconcile the executive summary with the full report.

http://www.nature.com/news/2007/0701...070129-15.html

Interestingly, that link will redirect to:
http://www.evilaliens.org/ConquerEar...ation/USAMustB
eDestroyed.html

you will also want to read

http://www.evilaliens.org/ConquerEar...ation/UseHuman
sAsFood.html

--
Bill Asher
post #26 of 222
Thread Starter 

Re: What - Intelligent Thought?

"Paul Cassel" <pcasselremove2@comremovecast.net> wrote in message
news:dtudndCFDZEm4k3YnZ2dnUVZ_s7inZ2d@comcast.com...
> Tom Kunich wrote:
>> At the basis of the global warming hysteria is the idea that man is
>> causing it and that therefore man is evil.

>
> No. The basis of the concern is that the contribution man makes is
> accelerating the warming. Nobody thinks that man alone is the sole cause
> of this.


Paul, the earth started warming about 1880 long before man had any input
into the situation. It seemed to peak about 1940 and started back down at
the point when man's increasing use of energy was at it's highest growth. By
1970 the hysterics were claiming Global Cooling would kill the majority of
mankind.

I cited a New York Times article from 1932 telling the world how we were
going to burn up and drown by the 21st century. The article actually said
that.

Then another article was published in 1970 proclaiming that we were about to
enter an ice age. The New York Times has only shown consistency in one
area - leftist political propaganda.

Shortly after the greenies were screaming about the coming ice age the
temperature started back up again. And lo and behold but now WE'RE the cause
of the heating.

There is one point I've been trying to make here and elsewhere: The earth
isn't something that is easily effected by man. While I'm certain that we're
having some effects, most of them are highly localized and the sum of them
is buried in the noise of natural climatic variation.

While man probably is having the sum zero effect on climate change he most
certainly could have a serious effect if he starts fiddling with the
climate. One suggestion is that we build a more efficient carbon fixing
plankton and release it into the oceans. While the amount of carbon in the
atmosphere CAN'T rise too much (it will level off around 400 ppm) cutting
too much CO2 out of the atmosphere COULD be done and would have some very
serious consequences.
post #27 of 222
Thread Starter 

Re: What - Intelligent Thought?

"Jim Flom" <jim.flomREMOVE@telus.net> wrote in message
news:g%%zh.63335$Oa.38502@edtnps82...
> "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote in message
> news:ceSzh.599$tD2.336@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>> At the basis of the global warming hysteria is the idea that man is
>> causing

>
> Caught your limit on that one, Tom.


But I have an unlimited license.....
post #28 of 222

Re: What - Intelligent Thought?

On Feb 12, 11:48 am, Curtis L. Russell <cur...@md-bicycling.org>
wrote:
> On Mon, 12 Feb 2007 16:12:23 GMT, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >Here's a clue Henry - if you don't understand what you're talking about
> >perhaps you ought to study the subject beyond a wikipedia entry.

>
> I guess that's why an article in today's online WSJ says that
> wind-driven turbines (and geothermal generation) are both close to
> being economically viable even without subsidies and that with
> economies of larger scale production of the turbines and a reduction
> in the current financing penalty paid on both, they both may be viable
> in the near future - without subsidies.
>
> Ten barrels to make one - who did our math? Kind of reminds me of the
> new ESPN commercial, the 'talking out of your ass' one.
>
> Curtis L. Russell
> Odenton, MD (USA)
> Just someone on two wheels...


Hey Curtis WTF do those wild eyed communists at the WSJ know. They
don't know **** and are just anti-capitalist, anti-American propaganda
purveyors. They never research anything with anyone other than liberal
commie plotters.
Neither do those damned Germans who suck at engineering and never get
anything right. That's why they use windpower everywhere. Only people
with no understanding of engineering would go there.
Bill C
post #29 of 222
Thread Starter 

Re: What - Intelligent Thought?

<amit.ghosh@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1171318732.507708.11850@a75g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
>
> but i agree, i'd like to see where people (including you) put their
> money. that is a better test of what they really believe (of course
> they can still be wrong).


Mutual funds mostly mid cap.

> lately, energy shortages, and extreme temperature events (hot or cold)
> have been making traditional energy companies rich, so that's where
> i'd put my money.


It really doesn't pay to put your money into individual stocks unless you're
rich and can take the ups and downs of the market. Most market "experts" are
people who got in at the right time in the right market and think that they
got rich because they were smart instead of lucky.
post #30 of 222

Re: What - Intelligent Thought?

On Feb 11, 9:38 pm, "b...@mambo.ucolick.org" <b...@mambo.ucolick.org>
wrote:

> I can't see any way that holding down CO2 emission would
> cost billions of lives. Where did you get that?


For whatever you say Tom's problems are here, your's are far worse.
Billions? Who knows? But don't do your typical "I can't see the
forest through the trees; Ben Franklin didn't say that" because of
your distaste for Tom.

If I were to play you in chess, I would beat you every time. That is
because you only see the state of the board at present, while I make a
point of looking ahead many moves.

For example, your solution to poverty is to "give" someone else's
money/assets to the impoverished. It never occurs to you to ask: "And
then what? And then what? And then what? ..."

> Your
> carbon load now scales more or less with your standard of
> living and the vast majority of people in the world have
> a fairly low standard of living, but they aren't about
> to drop dead from their low carbon emissions.


Indeed. They'd more likely drop dead from industrialized nation's
reduction in carbon emissions, since they'll probably go from sweat
shop poor to dead poor. But heck, that'll only confuse you.

> The problem is reconciling an attempt
> to keep CO2 down with everybody's perfectly
> understandable desire for an improved standard
> of living.


No ****, that's the essence of the point. Even a blind pig can root
up a turnip occasionally.

Do something you've never done before. Go past square one.

Ask, "If 'we' reduce carbon emissions by reducing energy consumption,
what happens?"

"And then what? And then what? And then what? ..."

Can you do it? I always want to believe you can.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Road Cycling
Cycling Forums › Forums › Bikes › Road Cycling › What - Intelligent Thought?