Global Warming? Journalism? Don't Make Me Laugh!



patch70

New Member
Jun 19, 2003
1,682
0
0
52
Tom Kunich said:
You and ass crack can tell us what you do for a living and what effect cutting fuel consumption for transportation by 60% wold effect you.

I ride to work. It would make no difference to me. My work does not "consume" fuel either.
 
On Feb 20, 3:58 pm, patch70 <[email protected]
mx.forums.cyclingforums.com> wrote:
> Tom Kunich Wrote:
>
> > You and ass crack can tell us what you do for a living and what effect
> > cutting fuel consumption for transportation by 60% wold effect you.

>
> I ride to work. It would make no difference to me. My work does not
> "consume" fuel either.
>
> --
> patch70


Are you truly that naive? Everything you buy requires energy to
either grow or manufacture and is delivered by trucks that require
fuel. Do you sit in a dark hole somewhere doing some off the wall job
that requires absolutely no energy consumption whatsoever?

With thinking like your's, it's no wonder so many people don't seem to
think that following Kyoto is that big a deal. Maybe you can find a
way to generate energy by sitting around in a circle with all your
friends and singing Cumbaya.

Or, maybe you'll just beg for alms on the sidewalks, hoping someone
will be so moved by your singing they'll give you money.

You're an idiot.

Fred
 
J

John Forrest Tomlinson

Guest
On 20 Feb 2007 11:36:16 -0800, "SLAVE of THE STATE" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>On Feb 20, 3:18 am, John Forrest Tomlinson <[email protected]>
>wrote:
>
>> You don't care about copyright at all, huh? That's bad.

>
>Can you explain why it is "bad?"


It's bad not to respect reasonable protections for intellectual
property. Linking to the thing is enough. Don't copy it the whole
thing -- you're running around the paper's advertising.

> The person who allegedly wrote it
>put it out there to see.


Then why did it say "All rights reserved" at the bottom?

--
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************
 
B

Bill C

Guest
On Feb 20, 6:07 pm, [email protected] wrote:
> On Feb 20, 3:58 pm, patch70 <[email protected]
>
> mx.forums.cyclingforums.com> wrote:
> > Tom Kunich Wrote:

>
> > > You and ass crack can tell us what you do for a living and what effect
> > > cutting fuel consumption for transportation by 60% wold effect you.

>
> > I ride to work. It would make no difference to me. My work does not
> > "consume" fuel either.

>
> > --
> > patch70

>
> Are you truly that naive? Everything you buy requires energy to
> either grow or manufacture and is delivered by trucks that require
> fuel. Do you sit in a dark hole somewhere doing some off the wall job
> that requires absolutely no energy consumption whatsoever?
>
> With thinking like your's, it's no wonder so many people don't seem to
> think that following Kyoto is that big a deal. Maybe you can find a
> way to generate energy by sitting around in a circle with all your
> friends and singing Cumbaya.
>
> Or, maybe you'll just beg for alms on the sidewalks, hoping someone
> will be so moved by your singing they'll give you money.
>
> You're an idiot.
>
> Fred


I find it almost impossible to reconcile being ****** off about
"offshoring" with support for Kyoto. They actually ratify, and put
teeth into, Kyoto then you'll see a massive increase in corporations
moving to where it's sheapest to do business. Major multi-nationals
really don't care where they do business as long as it's cheap,
functional, and stable. China, India, and Mexico, Vietnam
increasingly, seem to be working really well now. Kyoto would make
them boom countries as corporations fled to them to protect their
bottom line.
Bill C
 

patch70

New Member
Jun 19, 2003
1,682
0
0
52
Tom Kunich said:
Yeah, let's see - it takes REAL leadership to jump off of a cliff sceaming, "I'm doing this for humanityyyyyyyyyy!"

Once again, you have shot yourself in the foot.

The cliff leap scenario is a potential outcome of doing nothing about our contributions to climate change. Yet you want us all to continue driving quickly down that road in a car with crappy brakes where multiple signs are telling us that there is a cliff ahead. But because some petroleum industry boss told you that the sign wasn't clear, you want to accelerate more.

So the choice is:

1. Do something now and potentially save ourselves from huge problems.
2. Do nothing now and potentially put ourselves in the situation of having an uninhabitable planet.

Again - only a fool or someone with a vested interest could see option 2 as being appropriate.

A further question for you:
If you are so worried about the economy, what is the economic impact of having to deal with disasters on the scale of Hurricane Katrina every few months?
 
On Feb 20, 4:26 pm, patch70 <[email protected]
mx.forums.cyclingforums.com> wrote:
> Tom Kunich Wrote:
>
> > Yeah, let's see - it takes REAL leadership to jump off of a cliff
> > sceaming, "I'm doing this for humanityyyyyyyyyy!"

>
> Once again, you have shot yourself in the foot.
>
> The cliff leap scenario is a potential outcome of doing nothing about
> our contributions to climate change. Yet you want us all to continue
> driving quickly down that road in a car with crappy brakes where
> multiple signs are telling us that there is a cliff ahead. But because
> some petroleum industry boss told you that the sign wasn't clear, you
> want to accelerate more.
>
> So the choice is:
>
> 1. Do something now and potentially save ourselves from huge problems.
> 2. Do nothing now and potentially put ourselves in the situation of
> having an uninhabitable planet.
>
> Again - only a fool or someone with a vested interest could see option
> 2 as being appropriate.
>
> A further question for you:
> If you are so worried about the economy, what is the economic impact of
> having to deal with disasters on the scale of Hurricane Katrina every
> few months?
>
> --
> patch70


Dumbass,

So now Katrina was a global warming issue? I guess all the info about
natural cycles didn't sink in with you. What happened to the mega-
storm season that we were supposed to have last year, due to global
warming? Oh, yeah... I forgot, it didn't happen.

Fred
 
W

William Asher

Guest
Fred Garvin wrote:

> So now Katrina was a global warming issue? I guess all the info about
> natural cycles didn't sink in with you. What happened to the mega-
> storm season that we were supposed to have last year, due to global
> warming? Oh, yeah... I forgot, it didn't happen.


The predictions were wrong because the rapid development of el Nino caught
everyone by surprise. El Nino correlates with decreased hurricane activity
because shear increases. La Nina correlates with increased hurricane
activity because shear decreases (at least in the Atlantic, results may
vary in other basins, offer not valid in Sectors N through J (awww, the
never come up into the hills)). At the beginning of 2006, there was la
Nina, by the time the hurricane season was underway, el Nino had formed.

http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2006/s2748.htm

Interestingly, the one who forecast all the storms for 2006 was Bill Gray,
the most noted climate change skeptic. He was going strictly on the ENSO
correlation, not climate change, since he doesn't believe the Earth is
getting warmer, or if it is, it doesn't matter, or CO2 isn't responsible,
or something like that. But don't let facts get in the way of a good rant.

--
Bill Asher
 
S

ST

Guest
On 2/20/07 2:58 PM, in article
[email protected], "patch70"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>
> Tom Kunich Wrote:
>> You and ass crack can tell us what you do for a living and what effect
>> cutting fuel consumption for transportation by 60% wold effect you.

>
> I ride to work. It would make no difference to me. My work does not
> "consume" fuel either.
>


Really??

What do you do? Lets look at the economics of the supply of materials you
use in your work and the distribution of the product afterwards....
 
T

Tom Kunich

Guest
"patch70" <[email protected]rums.com> wrote in message
news:p[email protected]
>
> Tom Kunich Wrote:
>> You and ass crack can tell us what you do for a living and what effect
>> cutting fuel consumption for transportation by 60% wold effect you.

>
> I ride to work. It would make no difference to me. My work does not
> "consume" fuel either.


So those who do - such as 90% of those living in the bay area who live more
than 15 miles from work should suffer because you believe that they ought to
commute on bicycles?

Explain what your work is since it is impossible to have any company that
does not consume energy.
 
T

Tom Kunich

Guest
"patch70" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:p[email protected]
>
> Tom Kunich Wrote:
>> Yeah, let's see - it takes REAL leadership to jump off of a cliff
>> sceaming, "I'm doing this for humanityyyyyyyyyy!"

>
> Once again, you have shot yourself in the foot.
>
> The cliff leap scenario is a potential outcome of doing nothing about
> our contributions to climate change.


Let me explain this to you in terms that even a lamp post might be able to
understand - THERE IS NO GLOBAL WARMING. There is climate cyclic variation.
People that tell you that there is global warming are stupid because it
would take a couple of thousands of years of ACCURATE temperture monitoring
to find short term cyclic variations in the weather pattern. And they there
are the larger cycles such as the 150 thousand year ice age cycle
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_age .

Pretending to knowledge that cannot exist with the data we have could not be
a dumber idea. But I suppose if we consider the source then we shouldn't be
at all surprised.

Here's todays PRESENT cost of idiots like you

http://www.renewableenergyaccess.com/rea/news/story?id=38601

"Biofuels, and specifically ethanol, have been the subject of a great deal
of criticism in recent months by detractors claiming that more energy is
required to produce ethanol than is available in the final product, that it
is too expensive, and that it produces negligible carbon reductions. These
critiques are simply not accurate."

Now isn't this just precious - except the "detractors" were REAL scientists
who published reports in Nature and Science detailing how much energy it
took to produce a gallon of ethanol using corn or soybeans.

http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20070203/food.asp

"Shoppers, brace yourselves. Higher across-the-board supermarket prices may
be around the corner, says agricultural economist Lester Brown. A rapidly
escalating demand for the corn that underlies a broad range of products-from
breakfast cereals to milk and meats-has been driving up the price of this
grain, he notes. Those commodity-price hikes could soon inflate the cost of
plenty of other products."

"About 3 weeks after Brown released his report to that effect, President
Bush in his State of the Union address called for a new decade-long program
aimed at reducing U.S. gasoline use by 20 percent. "To reach this goal," the
President said, "we must increase the supply of alternative fuels [to]
nearly five times the current target." In an online brief about energy
provisions mentioned in the address, the White House explained that this new
program would rely on ethanol made from corn and grasses."
"However, only corn distilleries are ready to ramp up their production of
ethanol within the President's timeframe. The Energy Department acknowledges
that new, more complicated technologies will be needed before other ethanol
sources, such as switchgrass, become economically feasible."

"The competition for corn between motors and mouths has already grown at a
pace unforeseen by either the U.S. government or the alternative-fuels
industry, Brown says. Indeed, he found, neither had done a realistic
projection of corn demand from ethanol distilleries even in the near
future."

"Brown created such a projection mainly by tallying existing fuel
distilleries and those under construction and in planning. His work shows
that by the 2008 harvest, ethanol-fuel distilleries will need 139 million
metric tons of corn-more than twice the amount that the U.S. Department of
Agriculture had predicted. In fact, the total that Brown has calculated
would amount to half the total U.S. corn harvest-up from just 20 percent
now."

"With the United States producing 70 percent of the corn that other
countries import from all sources, shifting very much of the grain from food
into energy could have global economic repercussions, Brown says. "If we
want to continue down this path, I think it should be the result of
conscious policymaking," he says. That's not the case today, he adds."

"Brown says that in this country, U.S. policymakers need to start asking
themselves whether fuel is the best use of grain. The amount required "to
fill a 25-gallon SUV tank with ethanol will feed a person for a year," he
notes. If we're not careful, the United States could be seen as reducing
corn exports for the sake of fueling bad-mileage vehicles, says Brown. "That
would not be a positive image."

I've been pointing out that the results of stupid alarmist jackasses such as
yourself is the death of concievably millions and millions of people since
the USA presently supplies 60% of the world's surplus food production.

But I've never seen the death of millions to bother Liberals in the least.
 
W

William Asher

Guest
Tom Kunich wrote:

> Let me explain this to you in terms that even a lamp post might be
> able to understand - THERE IS NO GLOBAL WARMING. There is climate
> cyclic variation. People that tell you that there is global warming
> are stupid because it would take a couple of thousands of years of
> ACCURATE temperture monitoring to find short term cyclic variations in
> the weather pattern. And they there are the larger cycles such as the
> 150 thousand year ice age cycle http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_age .


You need to be more precise in your language. There has been a warming of
the global climate over the last 20 years. Even very few of the "climate
change skeptics" dispute that. Your quarrel is a) whether the observed
warming is a short-term cycle or the beginning of a longer-term trend, b)
if it is a longer-term trend, whether the increase is due to the increase
in atmospheric radiatively important trace species or some other factor
that has not yet been identified (since no other known forcing can account
for such a rapid increase) and c) whether the increase in RITS is linked to
man's activities.

You don't want to question that the Earth has warmed over the past 25
years. You have a 10% chance on being right on one of the other options
though. Sort of like a blind squirrel finding an acorn now and then.

--
Bill Asher
 
B

Bill C

Guest
On Feb 20, 7:49 pm, William Asher <[email protected]> wrote:
> Tom Kunich wrote:
> > Let me explain this to you in terms that even a lamp post might be
> > able to understand - THERE IS NO GLOBAL WARMING. There is climate
> > cyclic variation. People that tell you that there is global warming
> > are stupid because it would take a couple of thousands of years of
> > ACCURATE temperture monitoring to find short term cyclic variations in
> > the weather pattern. And they there are the larger cycles such as the
> > 150 thousand year ice age cyclehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_age.

>
> You need to be more precise in your language. There has been a warming of
> the global climate over the last 20 years. Even very few of the "climate
> change skeptics" dispute that. Your quarrel is a) whether the observed
> warming is a short-term cycle or the beginning of a longer-term trend, b)
> if it is a longer-term trend, whether the increase is due to the increase
> in atmospheric radiatively important trace species or some other factor
> that has not yet been identified (since no other known forcing can account
> for such a rapid increase) and c) whether the increase in RITS is linked to
> man's activities.
>
> You don't want to question that the Earth has warmed over the past 25
> years. You have a 10% chance on being right on one of the other options
> though. Sort of like a blind squirrel finding an acorn now and then.
>
> --
> Bill Asher


The sad thing is that this stuff was discussed, and used as background
material, in Sci-Fi stories ages ago. "Terraforming" was a huge topic.
The general concensus, backed by serious science, was that an
environment was an incredibly complex system. I have serious questions
about how much we are changing the climate, but none that we are. It's
insane to argue the humans have NO effect on climate.
Bill C
 

patch70

New Member
Jun 19, 2003
1,682
0
0
52
Dumbass,

So now Katrina was a global warming issue? I guess all the info about
natural cycles didn't sink in with you. What happened to the mega-
storm season that we were supposed to have last year, due to global
warming? Oh, yeah... I forgot, it didn't happen.

Fred

Fred, learn to read. I said disasters on the scale of HK.

Where did I say that CLIMATE CHANGE caused HK? So why are you arguing this?
 

patch70

New Member
Jun 19, 2003
1,682
0
0
52
Tom Kunich said:
So those who do - such as 90% of those living in the bay area who live more than 15 miles from work should suffer because you believe that they ought to commute on bicycles?

Tom, learn to read. I said "I ride to work". I did not say "everyone should ride to work". However, the more people the do, the better. For health, for reducing pollution, for reducing congestion on roads, for making the dwindling supplies of petrol last longer etc. Public transport is another good option too.
 

patch70

New Member
Jun 19, 2003
1,682
0
0
52
Tom Kunich said:
Let me explain this to you in terms that even a lamp post might be able to understand - THERE IS NO GLOBAL WARMING.
<snip>
I've been pointing out that the results of stupid alarmist jackasses such as
yourself is the death of concievably millions and millions of people since
the USA presently supplies 60% of the world's surplus food production.

It is great that you no more than the vast majority of the world's climate scientists.

Did you know that there are still "scientists" that will tell you that smoking cigarettes is safe? Do you also believe them?

Your argument on the world starving is again ridiculous. The approach to reducing CO2 emissions is multifaceted. It is not simply turning food into car fuel and therefore leading to mass starvation.

If you are wrong and CLIMATE CHANGE is real and we are contributing to it but do nothing to stop it, it is far more likely that millions would die from natural disasters, droughts, wars over water supplies, etc. And the world will hold you personally responsible, Tom.
 
S

SLAVE of THE STATE

Guest
On Feb 20, 3:14 pm, John Forrest Tomlinson <[email protected]>
wrote:
> On 20 Feb 2007 11:36:16 -0800, "SLAVE of THE STATE" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> >On Feb 20, 3:18 am, John Forrest Tomlinson <[email protected]>
> >wrote:

>
> >> You don't care about copyright at all, huh? That's bad.

>
> >Can you explain why it is "bad?"

>
> It's bad not to respect reasonable protections for intellectual
> property.


You've asserted that ideas are property. You didn't argue your
assertion. Since you are asserting a positive, you need to make the
argument. One who does not recognize ideas as property is not
asserting anything, and so they don't need to prove anything.

> > The person who allegedly wrote it
> >put it out there to see.

>
> Then why did it say "All rights reserved" at the bottom?


Sure, and "I own the universe." Someone can say anything they want.
ST had no contract with the guy who allegedly put it out there. He
didn't agree not to copy it.

I don't have a problem with you saying "it feels wrong." But that is
an emotion, however valid. It is not an argument for rational law, or
other people's ethics.
 
J

John Forrest Tomlinson

Guest
On 20 Feb 2007 18:06:40 -0800, "SLAVE of THE STATE" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>On Feb 20, 3:14 pm, John Forrest Tomlinson <[email protected]>
>wrote:
>> On 20 Feb 2007 11:36:16 -0800, "SLAVE of THE STATE" <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >On Feb 20, 3:18 am, John Forrest Tomlinson <[email protected]>
>> >wrote:

>>
>> >> You don't care about copyright at all, huh? That's bad.

>>
>> >Can you explain why it is "bad?"

>>
>> It's bad not to respect reasonable protections for intellectual
>> property.

>
>You've asserted that ideas are property. You didn't argue your
>assertion. Since you are asserting a positive, you need to make the
>argument. One who does not recognize ideas as property is not
>asserting anything, and so they don't need to prove anything.
>
>> > The person who allegedly wrote it
>> >put it out there to see.

>>
>> Then why did it say "All rights reserved" at the bottom?

>
>Sure, and "I own the universe." Someone can say anything they want.
>ST had no contract with the guy who allegedly put it out there. He
>didn't agree not to copy it.
>
>I don't have a problem with you saying "it feels wrong." But that is
>an emotion, however valid. It is not an argument for rational law, or
>other people's ethics.


ST does what he wants right? Law of the jungle, huh? Someday that
will come back and hurt you big time.
--
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************
 
On Feb 20, 7:06 pm, "SLAVE of THE STATE" <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Feb 20, 3:14 pm, John Forrest Tomlinson <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> > It's bad not to respect reasonable protections for intellectual
> > property.

>
> You've asserted that ideas are property. You didn't argue your
> assertion. Since you are asserting a positive, you need to make the
> argument. One who does not recognize ideas as property is not
> asserting anything, and so they don't need to prove anything.


Copyright doesn't protect ideas, only the tangible
expression of ideas, as you know. If Steve had
summarized the article instead of cut-n-pasting,
there would be no issue.

"One who does not recognize ideas as property is not
asserting anything" is not a serious argument. Aren't
you asserting that ideas are not property?

> > Then why did it say "All rights reserved" at the bottom?

>
> Sure, and "I own the universe." Someone can say anything they want.
> ST had no contract with the guy who allegedly put it out there. He
> didn't agree not to copy it.


Some things don't require an explicit agreement. Actually
most things don't. I don't have a contract with John's
Aunt Minnie not to trip her in the street, but I still have
an obligation not to do it, and can get arrested if I do.

BTW, Steve's and yours and my ISP's terms of service probably
do include contract language forbidding wholesale abuse of
copyright, though I doubt any ISP would enforce it for
reposting random wackjob editorials to Usenet (nor am I
fond of people who complain to ISPs to shut off voices
they don't like).

Ben
I only trip uncles
 
On Feb 20, 4:18 pm, "Bill C" <[email protected]> wrote:

> I find it almost impossible to reconcile being ****** off about
> "offshoring" with support for Kyoto. They actually ratify, and put
> teeth into, Kyoto then you'll see a massive increase in corporations
> moving to where it's sheapest to do business. Major multi-nationals
> really don't care where they do business as long as it's cheap,
> functional, and stable. China, India, and Mexico, Vietnam
> increasingly, seem to be working really well now. Kyoto would make
> them boom countries as corporations fled to them to protect their
> bottom line.


This argument sounds plausible, but I just read
something interesting. Suppose you think of California
as a separate country (everybody else does, yes?)
Attractive climate, but high cost of living and
nanny-state government, right? It turns out that
in part because of regulations that favor energy
conservation, California's per capita energy consumption
has grown less than the rest of the US. Now of course
it starts off lower because the climate is moderate,
but it has also grown more slowly over the last 20 years,
even though California has had a robust economy
and a lot of population growth and people idling
in traffic on the 210 Freeway.

http://www.lbl.gov/Science-Articles/Archive/energy-myths2.html
http://www.nrdc.org/onEarth/06spr/ca1.asp (see graph on right)

Some of this is because (IIRC) electricity is relatively
expensive, reducing demand, which favors manufacturers
offshoring to North Carolina or wherever. But despite
that, California is not yet vacant.

Obviously, Kyoto doesn't do much good if the
developing countries never ever cap emissions.
It was intended to be a first step, since the
developing countries would never agree to cut
without us cutting too (the developed countries
still emit much more CO2 than the 3rd world,
so we have to go first to be credible).

Ben