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



T

Tom Kunich

Guest
"patch70" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:p[email protected]
>
> Tom Kunich Wrote:
>> 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.


I wonder if you live in California? Same with Ben.

You people don't seem to have any idea of what it's like here. In 40 years
of working, I've worked closer than 15 miles from home for a total of 5
years. Most of the time my commute has been more than 25 miles and for about
5 years I worked more than 30 miles from home.

Today essentially EVERYONE in the bay area works 20 miles or more from work.
Public transportation has worked for me for a total of 6 years.

And aside from the stupidity implicit in Ben's postings, job growth in
California is stagnating. If you cut out all the jobs in the "service
industry" (always have a job as long as you can work a slurpy machine)
California has been losing jobs and businesses for 10 years now and it is
beginning to show. Electronics, mechanical engineering, biotech firms are
all leaving this state to find someplace that is a little more business
friendly. Many are simply moving out of the country.

One of the places I worked was in Berkeley and a city inspector came in and
threatened to close the place down for having toxic chemicals on site. The
toxic chemicals were - TWO UNOPENED CANS OF MOTOR OIL to lube the machines
in the machine shop.

Berkeley used to be the hub of electronics and biotech and they legislated
all of those businesses right out of town. It mostly moved out onto the
peninsula and was being fed by graduates from Stanford but then the towns
over there began taxing innovative businesses out of the area there as well.
Finally the state government got in on it and now even the huge business
boom in San Diego is moving across the border to get away from the socialist
pigs in power here.

For awhile it looked like Oregon was going to take off as a tech business
hub but with the influx of Californians they managed to kill the golden
goose there as well.

You people don't get it and I don't believe you ever will. And it will show
in the end.
 
T

Tom Kunich

Guest
"patch70" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:p[email protected]
>
> Did you know that there are still "scientists" that will tell you that
> smoking cigarettes is safe? Do you also believe them?


You needn't write anything more. Proving yourself a constipated old fool is
now complete.
 

patch70

New Member
Jun 19, 2003
1,682
0
0
52
Tom Kunich said:
You needn't write anything more. Proving yourself a constipated old fool is now complete.

Once again, clarity is not foremost in your arguments.

Do I take it from this that you do believe that smoking is safe? You do seem to like believing the 'minority' view when it comes to evidence about climate change after all.
 
On Feb 20, 9:18 pm, "Tom Kunich" <[email protected] com> wrote:
>
> I wonder if you live in California? Same with Ben.
>
> You people don't seem to have any idea of what it's like here. In 40 years
> of working, I've worked closer than 15 miles from home for a total of 5
> years. Most of the time my commute has been more than 25 miles and for about
> 5 years I worked more than 30 miles from home.
>
> Today essentially EVERYONE in the bay area works 20 miles or more from work.
> Public transportation has worked for me for a total of 6 years.
>
> And aside from the stupidity implicit in Ben's postings, job growth in
> California is stagnating. If you cut out all the jobs in the "service
> industry" (always have a job as long as you can work a slurpy machine)
> California has been losing jobs and businesses for 10 years now and it is
> beginning to show. Electronics, mechanical engineering, biotech firms are
> all leaving this state to find someplace that is a little more business
> friendly. Many are simply moving out of the country.


Dear Britney,

Your continued rudeness doesn't warrant polite responses,
but I like doing it because civility seems to upset you.

It's pretty funny to hear someone who's previously
boasted about his comfortable salary and garage full
of bikes moaning about the dire California economy.
I like California, but the one thing that frosts me is
listening to some Californians ***** about either the
"bad" economy or how terrible it is that people are
moving to California. I was born in California but I
grew up in Western PA in a city that now has 2/3 the
population it did in 1970. Some of them moved out to
the burbs but a lot just left, like me. Californians
don't understand that, except for the fraction that
relocated from a similar place. Your "bad" economy
would be a boom nearly anywhere in the Rust Belt or
Midwest. And you can ride year-round.

I don't have a problem with people driving to work.
But quit whining about how you don't have a choice.
You have a choice, you just decided to buy a house a
certain size or in a certain place or not move when
your job changed and not ride a bike. That's fine,
but it's a choice. People who move to Tracy so they
can afford a 3BR tickytack house instead of a 1.5BR
condo in the East Bay or Mountain View are making a
perfectly understandable lifestyle choice (though
personally I could never do that commute), but it's
not a necessity.

You're not so bad off; maybe you bought your house
before things went completely batshit crazy. It's
none of your business, but recently I lived in LA for
3 years and Santa Cruz for 4, and lived no more than
5 miles from work, but I was free to rent a (crazy
overpriced) apartment near work, because I could never
ever have afforded to buy in the area. Lots of people
I know are in the same situation. So sit back in your
living room, put your feet up on your paid-for sofa,
and quit your bitching.

Ben
Nobody goes to California anymore, it's
too crowded.
 
R

Robert Chung

Guest
[email protected] wrote:

> I like California, but the one thing that frosts me is
> listening to some Californians ***** about either the
> "bad" economy or how terrible it is that people are
> moving to California.


When Marco Polo reached the North Pole? He was looking for affordable
housing within commute distance to China.
 
C

Curtis L. Russell

Guest
On Wed, 21 Feb 2007 00:37:11 GMT, "Tom Kunich" <[email protected] com>
wrote:

>Let me explain this to you in terms that even a lamp post might be able to
>understand - THERE IS NO GLOBAL WARMING.


And Mr. Bull knows - he talks to lamp posts all the time. Actually,
there are months on end that they are the only ones that understand
and agree with him.

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...
 
C

Curtis L. Russell

Guest
On Wed, 21 Feb 2007 05:39:46 GMT, "Tom Kunich" <[email protected] com>
wrote:

>Proving yourself a constipated old fool is
>now complete.


Kind of like the lamp posts - Mr. Bull knows constipated old fools.
Proving that he is one has been his Internet ambition as long as I've
seen him on rbr. His success in that endeavor is now legendary.

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...
 
C

Curtis L. Russell

Guest
On Tue, 20 Feb 2007 23:33:54 GMT, ST <[email protected]> wrote:

>What?!?! Shows where your priorities are......


No, it shows that you are too lazy to paraphrase, or maybe you just
can't read for comprehension.

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...
 
B

Bill C

Guest
On Feb 20, 10:12 pm, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
wrote:
> 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...htmlhttp://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


Ben we've seen an exodus of companies away from the high tax, high
cost of doing business, cold weather New England states to toher areas
of the country and other countries. Despite highly skilled workers,
great education, good living conditions, reliable ifrastructure, and
all the benefits people usually cite they have left.
I'm really surprised that California hasn't had a lot more of the
same problems, but I'd put a lot of that on the climate. We are doing
a lot of the same regulatory things you are, without the additional
huge climate cost.
Finding a way to reduce, or reverse this trend played a good saize
part in our last State elections.
Bill C
 
C

Curtis L. Russell

Guest
On Wed, 21 Feb 2007 20:41:28 +0200, Donald Munro
<[email protected]> wrote:

>> Once again, clarity is not foremost in your arguments.

>
>He trying to be elliptical.


Anything but a Knee Jerk Literal.

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...
 
D

Donald Munro

Guest
Tom Kunich Wrote:
>> You needn't write anything more. Proving yourself a constipated old fool
>> is now complete.


patch70 wrote:
> Once again, clarity is not foremost in your arguments.


He trying to be elliptical.
 
J

Jack Hollis

Guest
On 20 Feb 2007 15:18:44 -0800, "Bill C" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>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


Exactly and the US and Europe are already losing manufacturing jobs to
Asia. Add in the extra expense of complying with CO2 restrictions and
the problem will get worse. Kyoto is a flawed agreement and should be
thrown out in favor of a truly fair agreement that includes everyone.
In a sense, the US is just being more honest than the Europeans
because only two EU nations have met their Kyoto goals. Talk is
cheap.

Remember, capital doesn't go to where it's needed the most, it goes to
where it's treated the best.
 
B

Bill C

Guest
On Feb 20, 8:38 pm, patch70 <[email protected]
mx.forums.cyclingforums.com> wrote:


And the folks at the Indy Racing League are already doing it. Quick
convene the ICC for a trial.
The reality is that they are going along with the wave for PR reasons
as they try to expand their product and profits, but for all the put-
downs of them they've done an incredible job of expansion and
marketing and are working to be proactive. It's never going to be a
"green" sport but they realise the need to move that direction.
IMO this is a good thing based on fuel security. I can't see the US
going the way of Brazil, but any cut into what we import from unstable
places is a huge improvement. We are lucky as hell to have Canada as
reliable exporting friend and ally.
Bill C
 
B

Bill C

Guest
On Feb 21, 4:36 pm, "Bill C" <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Feb 20, 8:38 pm, patch70 <[email protected]
>
> mx.forums.cyclingforums.com> wrote:
>
> And the folks at the Indy Racing League are already doing it. Quick
> convene the ICC for a trial.
> The reality is that they are going along with the wave for PR reasons
> as they try to expand their product and profits, but for all the put-
> downs of them they've done an incredible job of expansion and
> marketing and are working to be proactive. It's never going to be a
> "green" sport but they realise the need to move that direction.
> IMO this is a good thing based on fuel security. I can't see the US
> going the way of Brazil, but any cut into what we import from unstable
> places is a huge improvement. We are lucky as hell to have Canada as
> reliable exporting friend and ally.
> Bill C


After the brain fart, here's the link:
http://msn.foxsports.com/nascar/story/6492038?CMP=OTC-K9B140813162&ATT=167

Bill C
 
H

Howard Kveck

Guest
In article <[email protected]>,
Curtis L. Russell <[email protected]> wrote:

> On Tue, 20 Feb 2007 16:13:23 +1100, patch70
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >I thought the US considered itself a world leader. If they are, then
> >they should lead on this rather than say "we won't do anything until
> >China and India lead the way".

>
> I wouldn't be terribly surprised if that doesn't happen and soon. The
> tipping point will arrive to where more is made from going green than
> not, and most of those people that Kunich points to for support will
> have crossed the room where the money is being made.


I did hear a report on NPR a few days ago that described how many large
corporations are trying to get Congress to work on coming up with a set of specs on
what 'green' regulations are so they can start working on products and processes that
will fit into them. It is a good way for them to get a head start on that and help
them increase their profits.

--
tanx,
Howard

Never take a tenant with a monkey.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?
 
H

Howard Kveck

Guest
In article <[email protected]>,
"Bill C" <[email protected]> wrote:

> On Feb 20, 8:38 pm, patch70 <[email protected]
> mx.forums.cyclingforums.com> wrote:
>
>
> And the folks at the Indy Racing League are already doing it. Quick
> convene the ICC for a trial.
> The reality is that they are going along with the wave for PR reasons
> as they try to expand their product and profits, but for all the put-
> downs of them they've done an incredible job of expansion and
> marketing and are working to be proactive. It's never going to be a
> "green" sport but they realise the need to move that direction.
> IMO this is a good thing based on fuel security. I can't see the US
> going the way of Brazil, but any cut into what we import from unstable
> places is a huge improvement. We are lucky as hell to have Canada as
> reliable exporting friend and ally.
> Bill C


If they choose to go straight ethanol, there are a couple of considerations that
revolve around fuel consumption. I haven't checked to see if ethanol directly compares
to methanol in terms of how much is needed to make the same power, but I know that
when cars switch from gas to methanol, consumption goes up about 60 - 70%. More pit
stops or bigger fuel cells on the cars are the choices.

--
tanx,
Howard

Never take a tenant with a monkey.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?
 
B

Bill C

Guest
On Feb 21, 9:37 pm, Howard Kveck <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> If they choose to go straight ethanol, there are a couple of considerations that
> revolve around fuel consumption. I haven't checked to see if ethanol directly compares
> to methanol in terms of how much is needed to make the same power, but I know that
> when cars switch from gas to methanol, consumption goes up about 60 - 70%. More pit
> stops or bigger fuel cells on the cars are the choices.
>
> --
> tanx,
> Howard
>
> Never take a tenant with a monkey.
>
> remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -


What I've seen is that ethanol is about 80% as efficient. I also saw
something a while ago about Nascar going to smaller fuel cells and
increased pit stops which would seem to prepare teams for racing that
way.
I'd bet that they have had plans cooking for a while now. The
mandated switch to the "car of tomorrow" comes on-line shortly which
is a whole new ballgame for the teams. I can easily see them going
back to the earlier sized fuel cell, and swithcing to ethanol for the
2009 season. That would give teams time to get all the chassis and
aero stuff sorted out, and give them a decent working lead into
building ethanol engines.
Bill C
 
B

Bill C

Guest
On Feb 22, 2:22 pm, "Tom Kunich" <[email protected] com> wrote:
> "Bill C" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:[email protected]
>
>
>
> > What I've seen is that ethanol is about 80% as efficient.

>
> 62%


Looks like what I was hearing was overly optimistic and your estimate
is closer to the general concensus.


For:
http://www.ncga.com/ethanol/pdfs/Wang2005.pdf

against:

http://www.catoinstitute.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=7308

Fuel Comparison Chart

Gasoline Ethanol (E85)
Energy Content per Gallon 109,000 - 125,000 Btu
~ 80,000 Btu

AFDC Home | FreedomCar & Vehicle Technologies Home | EERE Home
Webmaster | Web Site Policies | Security & Privacy | Disclaimer |
USA.gov

U.S. Department of Energy

Content Last Updated: 06/09/2003

I'd still rather, on balance, subsidize US farmers than Hugo Chavez,
and the Saudis, and it seems pretty clear that E-85 or straight
ethanol are better for the environment.
Some improvement is better than none.
Just my opinion though.
Bill C