Cc

"CW"

08/01/2010 9:49 AM

OT: Carbon credits

Al Gore has stated that he bought carbon credits to offset the energy
consumption of his house. Near as I know, there is no requirement (yet) to
buy these carbon credits, no issuing agency and, near as I know, no
regulation as to what they are or where the money goes. It would appear
that, under the circumstances, anybody with a printer and a little design
skill could print up a few million of these things and get rich selling them
to those that feel that throwing their money away somehow offsets their sins
against the environment with the only real result being adding to the wealth
of the issuing company. Kind of like a televangelist. "Send me your money
and God will love you for it". The only "love" in the business is the
televangelist "loving" the fact that people are so gullible as to send him
their money.


This topic has 74 replies

LH

"Lew Hodgett"

in reply to "CW" on 08/01/2010 9:49 AM

09/01/2010 5:41 PM


"Doug Miller" wrote:

> No, it's Gore's enormous use of energy, while telling everyone else
> to reduce
> theirs, that makes him a hypocrite.

I take it you have seen one of Gore's electricity bills.

Are you sworn to secrecy or could you share the info with us?

Lew


LH

"Lew Hodgett"

in reply to "CW" on 08/01/2010 9:49 AM

10/01/2010 6:09 PM


>> Confirmation bias. It's rife on this ng.
>
> So, what have you made from wood lately?
-----------------------------------------------
When you have facts, use them.

When you don't, throw crap on the wall and hope it sticks.

A classic case of crap on the wall.

Lew


DB

Dave Balderstone

in reply to "CW" on 08/01/2010 9:49 AM

10/01/2010 7:59 PM

In article <[email protected]>, Revivul
<[email protected]> wrote:

> Confirmation bias. It's rife on this ng.

So, what have you made from wood lately?

The last thing I did was a bowl from a piece of box elder burl as a
Christmas gift for the family of a good friend of my 14 year old son.

My next project may be a large bookcase for my daughter's room.

DB

Dave Balderstone

in reply to "CW" on 08/01/2010 9:49 AM

10/01/2010 9:27 PM

In article <[email protected]>, Lew Hodgett
<[email protected]> wrote:

> >> Confirmation bias. It's rife on this ng.
> >
> > So, what have you made from wood lately?
> -----------------------------------------------
> When you have facts, use them.
>
> When you don't, throw crap on the wall and hope it sticks.
>
> A classic case of crap on the wall.

We've seen them come and go, here on the wreck. Remember "The Man in
the Doorway" a few years back?

I don't recall who summed that one up, but the line was classic:

"There's someone filling a much needed gap."

Ra

Revivul

in reply to "CW" on 08/01/2010 9:49 AM

10/01/2010 9:05 PM

On Sun, 10 Jan 2010 19:59:21 -0600, Dave Balderstone
<dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca> wrote:

>In article <[email protected]>, Revivul
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Confirmation bias. It's rife on this ng.
>
>So, what have you made from wood lately?

'bout six hours, today, marking and mortising the legs for my night
stand.

Sadly, the upper, front through mortise was slightly tight -- just
tight enough to split the 3/8" of wood remaining above it when I
tapped the through-tenon into place to dry fit it all.

Probably beyond repair. May be a do-over.

Whaddyagonnado??

>The last thing I did was a bowl from a piece of box elder burl as a
>Christmas gift for the family of a good friend of my 14 year old son.
>
>My next project may be a large bookcase for my daughter's room.

Sounds like fun!

Hh

"HeyBub"

in reply to "CW" on 08/01/2010 9:49 AM

09/01/2010 6:04 AM

Mark & Juanita wrote:
> wrote:
>
>> Al Gore has stated that he bought carbon credits to offset the energy
>> consumption of his house. Near as I know, there is no requirement
>> (yet) to buy these carbon credits, no issuing agency and, near as I
>> know, no regulation as to what they are or where the money goes. It
>> would appear that, under the circumstances, anybody with a printer
>> and a little design skill could print up a few million of these
>> things and get rich selling them to those that feel that throwing
>> their money away somehow offsets their sins against the environment
>> with the only real result being adding to the wealth of the issuing
>> company. Kind of like a televangelist. "Send me your money and God
>> will love you for it". The only "love" in the business is the
>> televangelist "loving" the fact that people are so gullible as to
>> send him their money.
>
>
> It's better than that. He bought the carbon offsets from an
> eco-company that he happens to own. i.e., he paid himself. Kind of
> like you putting $20 in the nightstand to pay for spending the night
> in your own bed.

It's in the taxes.

I once had an opportunity to buy into a sand pit.

As the sand was sold, I would get a tax credit for depleting a natural
resource.

When the sand ran out, We'd end up with a big honkin' hole in the ground. We
would then charge people to dump stuff in the hole (concrete, tree stumps,
construction debris, that sort of thing).

As the hole filled up, we would get another tax break for depleting another
resource (the hole).

When the hole got filled, we'd cover it with topsoil and sell the land for a
low-cost housing development. More tax breaks.

It's the American way.

Sk

Swingman

in reply to "CW" on 08/01/2010 9:49 AM

11/01/2010 9:47 AM

On 1/11/2010 9:38 AM, Revivul wrote:

> Confirmation bias* is an inherently evil and destructive thing.
>
> So are the other dodges, argumentative tricks and manipulations, and
> logical fallacies that are bandied about on this ng when ANY OT thread
> comes up -- particularly in response to information or positions that
> don't jibe with the popular ones, here.

Rachel, Rachel? Is that you, Rachel Maddow? We didn't know YOU were a
woodworker!!

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/22/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)

kk

in reply to "CW" on 08/01/2010 9:49 AM

08/01/2010 9:51 AM

On Jan 8, 11:49=A0am, "CW" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Al Gore has stated that he bought carbon credits to offset the energy
> consumption of his house. Near as I know, there is no requirement (yet) t=
o
> buy these carbon credits, no issuing agency and, near as I know, no
> regulation as to what they are or where the money goes. It would appear
> that, under the circumstances, anybody with a printer and a little design
> skill could print up a few million of these things and get rich selling t=
hem
> to those that feel that throwing their money away somehow offsets their s=
ins
> against the environment with the only real result being adding to the wea=
lth
> of the issuing company. Kind of like a televangelist. "Send me your money
> and God will love you for it". The only "love" in the business is the
> televangelist "loving" the fact that people are so gullible as to send hi=
m
> their money.

It's even better when you buy the carbon credits from yourself. Even
a televangelist doesn't benefit from sending himself money.

Rc

Robatoy

in reply to "CW" on 08/01/2010 9:49 AM

08/01/2010 10:00 AM

On Jan 8, 12:49=A0pm, "CW" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Al Gore has stated that he bought carbon credits to offset the energy
> consumption of his house. Near as I know, there is no requirement (yet) t=
o
> buy these carbon credits, no issuing agency and, near as I know, no
> regulation as to what they are or where the money goes. It would appear
> that, under the circumstances, anybody with a printer and a little design
> skill could print up a few million of these things and get rich selling t=
hem
> to those that feel that throwing their money away somehow offsets their s=
ins
> against the environment with the only real result being adding to the wea=
lth
> of the issuing company. Kind of like a televangelist. "Send me your money
> and God will love you for it". The only "love" in the business is the
> televangelist "loving" the fact that people are so gullible as to send hi=
m
> their money.

Great idea! Then use all that collected money to buy a 50-foot boat
with twin V-12 Lambourghini enigines....

Ra

Revivul

in reply to "CW" on 08/01/2010 9:49 AM

10/01/2010 6:14 PM

On Sun, 10 Jan 2010 18:25:02 -0600, "HeyBub" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>Revivul wrote:
>>>
>>> So what, exactly, is "the right thing"? According to Copenhagen
>>> it's paying trillions of dollars of tribute to the world's largest
>>> polluter.
>>
>> Reduce our dependence on fossil fuel ... dramatically.
>
>How? By mandating reduced usage? By putting down a bet on sunbeams?
>Virtually ALL of the imported oil goes to the transportation sector. The
>ONLY way to reduce that importation is to grossly limit movement of people,
>goods, and supplies.

Says you.

Alternative fuel sources -- hydrogen highway, to cite but one
possibility.

>> It's a finite commodity controlled by unstable regimes.
>
>No, it's not finite in the sense we're running out. Every year the known
>reserves of petroleum increase.

Until when? Are we making more?

No. So ... it's finite. Why must we run a nation in 365 day cycles.
Why not get ahead of a problem ... even once ... without throwing
blood and treasure at it?

>Of the top 15 countries exporting oil to the U.S. (Canada, Mexico, Saudi
>Arabia, Nigeria, Venezuela, Iraq, Angola, Algeria, etc.), only one
>(Venezuela) can be said to be controlled by an unstable regime.

Nice re-phrase/twist/manipulation.

I always wonder if the people who engage in this sort of tactic,
online, would do so at the corner coffee shop, face to face. I tend
to doubt it. It's cheap, and I'd surely call you on it.

And am.

Who sits on the largest % of the known oil reserves in the world?

>> Its pollution causes big respiratory issues and decreased
>> productivity.
>
>Um, respiratory issues true, but pollution today is lower than it ever has
>been; certainly lower than in 1975, even lower than it was in 1850 London.
>An argument can be made that advances in technology (powered by energy) now
>allow those with respiratory problems, such as asthma, to lead lives of
>chronic, but manageable, difficulty, but live nevertheless, rather than
>dying off pretty quickly with an acute problem.

Would it or would it not be reduced further with clean, renewable
energy sources, rather than huge reliance on fossil fuels??

'Nother manipulation/dodge on your part.

>In addition, you're not going to produce much steel with a water-wheel or
>donkeys trudging in a circle.

Hm. I'm skeptical that fossil fuels and wter wheels/donkeys are the
only two options. Nice black/white argument.

>> The protection OF it leads to wars and death -- physical AND economic.
>
>Huh? Are you saying that war is a BAD thing? That's just plain nuts. War, in
>general, is a Good Thing (tm) - at least wars pursued by us.
>
>>
>> There are SO MANY valid reasons to pursue this course (reducing our
>> dependence on it) that it's functionally irrelevant whether or not it
>> has any bearing on global climate.
>
>Well, let's have some of these valid reasons, then.

Sigh. You'll never see what you look away from.

Confirmation bias. It's rife on this ng.

MJ

Mark & Juanita

in reply to "CW" on 08/01/2010 9:49 AM

08/01/2010 10:40 PM

wrote:

> Al Gore has stated that he bought carbon credits to offset the energy
> consumption of his house. Near as I know, there is no requirement (yet) to
> buy these carbon credits, no issuing agency and, near as I know, no
> regulation as to what they are or where the money goes. It would appear
> that, under the circumstances, anybody with a printer and a little design
> skill could print up a few million of these things and get rich selling
> them to those that feel that throwing their money away somehow offsets
> their sins against the environment with the only real result being adding
> to the wealth of the issuing company. Kind of like a televangelist. "Send
> me your money and God will love you for it". The only "love" in the
> business is the televangelist "loving" the fact that people are so
> gullible as to send him their money.


It's better than that. He bought the carbon offsets from an eco-company
that he happens to own. i.e., he paid himself. Kind of like you putting
$20 in the nightstand to pay for spending the night in your own bed.


--

There is never a situation where having more rounds is a disadvantage

Rob Leatham

DB

Dave Balderstone

in reply to Mark & Juanita on 08/01/2010 10:40 PM

09/01/2010 3:34 PM

In article <[email protected]>, Revivul
<[email protected]> wrote:

> Thanks for ignoring the IMPORTANT point: clean renewables: use all you
> want.

When available.

<http://coastobs.pol.ac.uk/cobs/met/hilbre/getimage.php?code=5&span=1>

I know someone who works for Ontario Hydro, or whatever it's called
these days. He laughs at wind and solar. It's far too unreliable to be
anything but peripheral.

He's explained to me how the grid actually works. There are times when
the utility has to fire up ginormous electric motors to use the EXCESS
power flowing into the grid to keep things balanced.

I don't claim to understand enough to make pronouncements on electric
utility policy, but I understand enough to know that 99.9% of people
making pronouncements don't have a friggin' clue about the subject.

You included.

Ra

Revivul

in reply to Mark & Juanita on 08/01/2010 10:40 PM

11/01/2010 8:57 AM

On Mon, 11 Jan 2010 15:48:40 GMT, notbob <[email protected]> wrote:

>On 2010-01-11, Revivul <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> I *thrive* on valid and intelligent challenges to *my* beliefs.
>
>Have you considered cashing yerself in fer carbon credits?
>
>nb

Thanks for proving my point.

LJ

Larry Jaques

in reply to Mark & Juanita on 08/01/2010 10:40 PM

11/01/2010 8:21 AM

On Sun, 10 Jan 2010 21:27:08 -0600, the infamous Dave Balderstone
<dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca> scrawled the following:

>In article <[email protected]>, Lew Hodgett
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> >> Confirmation bias. It's rife on this ng.
>> >
>> > So, what have you made from wood lately?
>> -----------------------------------------------
>> When you have facts, use them.
>>
>> When you don't, throw crap on the wall and hope it sticks.
>>
>> A classic case of crap on the wall.
>
>We've seen them come and go, here on the wreck. Remember "The Man in
>the Doorway" a few years back?
>
>I don't recall who summed that one up, but the line was classic:
>
>"There's someone filling a much needed gap."

I recall tmitd (doesn't deserve caps) but don't recall the saying. I
_like_ it! I just wish everyone would stop replying to the trolls, no
matter how on-topic it might be. Most are just hot button presses and
don't need to be addressed.

I'd sleep better at night if only spamming, stupidity, and trolling
were _painful_...

--============================================--
Growing old is mandatory; growing up is optional.
---
http://diversify.com/handypouches.html ToolyRoo(tm)
and Possum(tm) Handy Pouches NOW AVAILABLE!

Ra

Revivul

in reply to Mark & Juanita on 08/01/2010 10:40 PM

09/01/2010 11:01 PM

On Sat, 09 Jan 2010 22:04:23 -0700, Mark & Juanita
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Revivul wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 09 Jan 2010 13:31:02 -0600, dpb <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>Revivul wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 09 Jan 2010 13:16:27 -0600, Swingman <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 1/9/2010 12:04 PM, Revivul wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Reduce our dependence on fossil fuel ... dramatically.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It's a finite commodity controlled by unstable regimes.
>>>>> Despite constant scare rhetoric, there is more than enough provable
>>>>> reserves in, and off, NA to last well into the next century providing
>>>>> the envirowackos would STFU.
>>>>
>>>> I presume you don't mean that the reserves are INfinite, right?
>>>>
>>>> Costs? Costs to explore, reach, refine, and deliver to the pump? I've
>>>> heard that $0.10/gallon increase sucks $17BN out of the economy. What
>>>> can you tell me about the costs to the consumer of all this
>>>> incremental reserve?
>>>...
>>>It's still far cheaper at present than most any alternative--that's why
>>>the alternatives are only present when there are artificial price
>>>supports or regulatory limitations.
>>>
>>>If would simply let market forces work, alternatives will appear as they
>>>become economically viable automagically.
>>
>> I don't believe we have "let market forces work" since the days of
>> Adam Smith.
>>
>
> ... and right there you show an ignorance of how the world really works and
>the balancing effects of market forces. When one points to problems that
>have occurred throughout recent history, you can pretty much always find a
>statist intervention that has served as the causitive agent for the disaster
>that then is blamed on a market run amok (cf Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and the
>CRA -- mandating loans to people with no chance of paying them back).
>
> Even in non-capitalist societies, market forces (that people will almost
>always act in their own best interest) still always work, but to the
>detriment of the people in those societies. In those societies, the forces
>are at their root, survival in that society. So, in a society where the
>oddball sticks out and is likely to get hammered down hard, those who would
>be innovators keep their ideas to themselves to avoid that fate. Where
>everyone gets paid the same, someone who would be motivated to succeed and
>excel will throttle back their effort to the group average since there is no
>value to attempting to excel.
>
> Adam Smith did not invent the capitalist society or free market, he merely
>observed the benefits of such a society because it is fundamentally tied to
>the human spirit and basic human motivations.
>
> Government should exist to make sure the playing field is not corrupted
>and to curb dishonest people, not to attempt to guarantee outcomes.
>
>> Thankfully.
>
> There are lots of societies across the world that practice the kind of
>control you appear to adore -- I suggest you look at joining one of them

One day, perhaps you'll do me the honor of explaining just what "kind
of control" it is that I adore.

More straw men. Lovely.

Ra

Revivul

in reply to Mark & Juanita on 08/01/2010 10:40 PM

11/01/2010 8:57 AM

On Mon, 11 Jan 2010 09:47:24 -0600, Swingman <[email protected]> wrote:

>On 1/11/2010 9:38 AM, Revivul wrote:
>
>> Confirmation bias* is an inherently evil and destructive thing.
>>
>> So are the other dodges, argumentative tricks and manipulations, and
>> logical fallacies that are bandied about on this ng when ANY OT thread
>> comes up -- particularly in response to information or positions that
>> don't jibe with the popular ones, here.
>
>Rachel, Rachel? Is that you, Rachel Maddow? We didn't know YOU were a
>woodworker!!

Thanks for proving my point.

nn

notbob

in reply to Mark & Juanita on 08/01/2010 10:40 PM

11/01/2010 4:02 PM

On 2010-01-11, Revivul <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Mon, 11 Jan 2010 15:48:40 GMT, notbob <[email protected]> wrote:

>>On 2010-01-11, Revivul <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> I *thrive* on valid and intelligent challenges to *my* beliefs.
>>
>>Have you considered cashing yerself in fer carbon credits?
>>
>>nb
>
> Thanks for proving my point.

What point? I gave up halfway thru yer mastubatory blather.

nb

Hh

"HeyBub"

in reply to Mark & Juanita on 08/01/2010 10:40 PM

10/01/2010 6:02 PM

Revivul wrote:
> On Sat, 09 Jan 2010 22:04:23 -0700, Mark & Juanita
>>
>> There are lots of societies across the world that practice the kind
>> of control you appear to adore -- I suggest you look at joining one
>> of them
>
> One day, perhaps you'll do me the honor of explaining just what "kind
> of control" it is that I adore.
>
> More straw men. Lovely.

Well, you did say: "Reduce our dependence on fossil fuel ... dramatically,"
and the presumption is that you want that eventuality enforced or encouraged
by the government.

To me, there seems three ways to accomplish that which you adore:

* A cheaper alternative to fossile fules is found,
* Government imposes rationing or subsidies of some kind,
* Government imposes a return to living off gathered nuts and berries.

I'd rather prefer the first.


sD

[email protected] (Doug Miller)

in reply to Mark & Juanita on 08/01/2010 10:40 PM

09/01/2010 11:37 PM

In article <[email protected]>, Revivul <[email protected]> wrote:
>On Sat, 09 Jan 2010 20:30:56 GMT, [email protected] (Doug Miller)
>wrote:
>
>>In article <[email protected]>, Revivul
>><[email protected]> wrote:
>>>On Sat, 09 Jan 2010 19:39:29 GMT, [email protected] (Doug Miller)
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>In article <[email protected]>, Revivul
>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>On Sat, 09 Jan 2010 13:16:27 -0600, Swingman <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Noble sentiment ... now let us know when YOU have your electricity
>>>>>>permanently turned off and have sold your car(s), never to be used by
>>>>>>you again, have built your own shelter, made your own clothes, and
>>>>>>killed all the food to feed your family, and no, no ... you can't start
>>>>>>a fire to stay warm, or cook... that's bad for the environment.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Once you've established all the above as fact, come back and we'll be
>>>>>>follow suit, I promise.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Otherwise, can you spell "hypocrite"? To wit: "a person who acts in
>>>>>>contradiction to his or her stated beliefs or feelings".
>>>>>
>>>>>Thanks. I presume you insist that Bill Gates live in his car before
>>>>>he tries to address the poverty issue?
>>>>>
>>>>>Somebody needs a course in logic ... and ... it isn't me ;-)
>>>>
>>>>Oh, yes, it is -- because Bill Gates is doing that voluntarily, and not
>>>>attempting to force anyone else to do the same.
>>>
>>>No. The answer is simpler than that.
>>>
>>>One doesn't have to live in a cave to suggest that we should reduce
>>>our dependence on fossil fuels, primarily by moving toward cleaner
>>>renewables.
>>
>>Have you given up your car yet?
>
>Mostly, but ... that's just all/nothing logic again.
>
>>>Gore switched to a HUGE % renewables to power his mansion.
>>
>>Uh-huh. Sure. Last I checked, he was still using an order of magnitude more
>>resources than the average American -- while telling the *rest* of us to
>>reduce *our* consumption.
>
>Thanks for ignoring the IMPORTANT point: clean renewables: use all you
>want.

Actually, I got the important point, which you missed: the hypocrisy of
someone who uses an order of magnitude more energy than the average person,
telling the average people they need to reduce *their* consumption while doing
nothing to reduce his own.

Sorry that was so hard for you that I had to explain it twice.

Remainder snipped, as I have no desire to explain *all* of it twice.

sD

[email protected] (Doug Miller)

in reply to Mark & Juanita on 08/01/2010 10:40 PM

11/01/2010 4:06 PM

In article <[email protected]>, notbob <[email protected]> wrote:
>On 2010-01-11, Revivul <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On Mon, 11 Jan 2010 15:48:40 GMT, notbob <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>>On 2010-01-11, Revivul <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I *thrive* on valid and intelligent challenges to *my* beliefs.
>>>
>>>Have you considered cashing yerself in fer carbon credits?
>>>
>>>nb
>>
>> Thanks for proving my point.
>
>What point? I gave up halfway thru yer mastubatory blather.
>
PDFTFT!

Ra

Revivul

in reply to Mark & Juanita on 08/01/2010 10:40 PM

09/01/2010 2:23 PM

On Sat, 09 Jan 2010 20:30:56 GMT, [email protected] (Doug Miller)
wrote:

>In article <[email protected]>, Revivul
><[email protected]> wrote:
>>On Sat, 09 Jan 2010 19:39:29 GMT, [email protected] (Doug Miller)
>>wrote:
>>
>>>In article <[email protected]>, Revivul
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>On Sat, 09 Jan 2010 13:16:27 -0600, Swingman <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>Noble sentiment ... now let us know when YOU have your electricity
>>>>>permanently turned off and have sold your car(s), never to be used by
>>>>>you again, have built your own shelter, made your own clothes, and
>>>>>killed all the food to feed your family, and no, no ... you can't start
>>>>>a fire to stay warm, or cook... that's bad for the environment.
>>>>>
>>>>>Once you've established all the above as fact, come back and we'll be
>>>>>follow suit, I promise.
>>>>>
>>>>>Otherwise, can you spell "hypocrite"? To wit: "a person who acts in
>>>>>contradiction to his or her stated beliefs or feelings".
>>>>
>>>>Thanks. I presume you insist that Bill Gates live in his car before
>>>>he tries to address the poverty issue?
>>>>
>>>>Somebody needs a course in logic ... and ... it isn't me ;-)
>>>
>>>Oh, yes, it is -- because Bill Gates is doing that voluntarily, and not
>>>attempting to force anyone else to do the same.
>>
>>No. The answer is simpler than that.
>>
>>One doesn't have to live in a cave to suggest that we should reduce
>>our dependence on fossil fuels, primarily by moving toward cleaner
>>renewables.
>
>Have you given up your car yet?

Mostly, but ... that's just all/nothing logic again.

>>Gore switched to a HUGE % renewables to power his mansion.
>
>Uh-huh. Sure. Last I checked, he was still using an order of magnitude more
>resources than the average American -- while telling the *rest* of us to
>reduce *our* consumption.

Thanks for ignoring the IMPORTANT point: clean renewables: use all you
want.

>>I, too,
>>buy my electricity from a wind farm.
>
>What, they've hooked up a turbine to Gore's mouth?

You folks really should get out more. Google "confirmation bias."
This ng tends to be a re-run of Limbaugh's radio shows.

>>That does NOT make me, or Gore, hypocrites -- repitition
>>notwithstanding.
>
>No, it's Gore's enormous use of energy, while telling everyone else to reduce
>theirs, that makes him a hypocrite.

Ibid.

>And it's you telling other people to reduce dependence on fossil fuels, while
>you still drive a car, that makes you a hypocrite.

Ibid.

>>The notion of reduced greenhouse gasses doesn't depend on
>>cave-dwellers. It depends on cleaner, renewable sources of energy.
>
>Get back to me after you've switched to a bicycle for transportation.

Ibid.

>>>>If all you're capable of is black/white, all/nothing, either/or
>>>>arguments ... it's genuinely better NOT to put ANY argument forward
>>>>.... lest ... you look ... silly.
>>>
>>>Pot, kettle,...
>>
>>
>>I missed my black/white argument. I'd be ever so grateful if you'd
>>point it out to me.
>
>I was referring to looking silly.

Ibid.

You're being ridiculous. You're using a straw man argument -- arguing
against an argument of your OWN creation.

That's very silly.

Ra

Revivul

in reply to "CW" on 08/01/2010 9:49 AM

09/01/2010 11:01 AM

On Sat, 09 Jan 2010 11:51:45 -0600, dpb <[email protected]> wrote:

>Revivul wrote:
>...
>
>> It's possible that some people would rather we do the right thing for
>> the wrong reasons than not at all.
>
>There's no certainty that making decisions on faulty and/or incomplete
>data and/or hypotheses is at all "the right thing". Action taken under
>such could turn out to be precisely the wrong thing at worst or totally
>ineffectual.


And yet ... we do it all the time.

Ll

"Leon"

in reply to "CW" on 08/01/2010 9:49 AM

08/01/2010 8:59 PM


"Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Too late, dude ... Leon gave me this a couple of years ago in honor of Big
> Al and his Nobel bauble:
>
> http://e-woodshop.net/files/proud-brazilianholder.pdf
>
> Like Uriah Heep, I was indeed humbled by the honor ... :)
>


Awwww. You remembered..... wiping something from my eye.... Not a tear.
;~)

DW

Doug Winterburn

in reply to "CW" on 08/01/2010 9:49 AM

08/01/2010 11:05 AM

CW wrote:
> Al Gore has stated that he bought carbon credits to offset the energy
> consumption of his house. Near as I know, there is no requirement (yet)
> to buy these carbon credits, no issuing agency and, near as I know, no
> regulation as to what they are or where the money goes. It would appear
> that, under the circumstances, anybody with a printer and a little
> design skill could print up a few million of these things and get rich
> selling them to those that feel that throwing their money away somehow
> offsets their sins against the environment with the only real result
> being adding to the wealth of the issuing company. Kind of like a
> televangelist. "Send me your money and God will love you for it". The
> only "love" in the business is the televangelist "loving" the fact that
> people are so gullible as to send him their money.

Why pay?

http://freecarbonoffsets.com/

Hh

"HeyBub"

in reply to "CW" on 08/01/2010 9:49 AM

10/01/2010 6:25 PM

Revivul wrote:
>>
>> So what, exactly, is "the right thing"? According to Copenhagen
>> it's paying trillions of dollars of tribute to the world's largest
>> polluter.
>
> Reduce our dependence on fossil fuel ... dramatically.

How? By mandating reduced usage? By putting down a bet on sunbeams?
Virtually ALL of the imported oil goes to the transportation sector. The
ONLY way to reduce that importation is to grossly limit movement of people,
goods, and supplies.

>
> It's a finite commodity controlled by unstable regimes.

No, it's not finite in the sense we're running out. Every year the known
reserves of petroleum increase.

Of the top 15 countries exporting oil to the U.S. (Canada, Mexico, Saudi
Arabia, Nigeria, Venezuela, Iraq, Angola, Algeria, etc.), only one
(Venezuela) can be said to be controlled by an unstable regime.

>
> Its pollution causes big respiratory issues and decreased
> productivity.

Um, respiratory issues true, but pollution today is lower than it ever has
been; certainly lower than in 1975, even lower than it was in 1850 London.
An argument can be made that advances in technology (powered by energy) now
allow those with respiratory problems, such as asthma, to lead lives of
chronic, but manageable, difficulty, but live nevertheless, rather than
dying off pretty quickly with an acute problem.

In addition, you're not going to produce much steel with a water-wheel or
donkeys trudging in a circle.

>
> The protection OF it leads to wars and death -- physical AND economic.

Huh? Are you saying that war is a BAD thing? That's just plain nuts. War, in
general, is a Good Thing (tm) - at least wars pursued by us.

>
> There are SO MANY valid reasons to pursue this course (reducing our
> dependence on it) that it's functionally irrelevant whether or not it
> has any bearing on global climate.

Well, let's have some of these valid reasons, then.


Cc

"CW"

in reply to "CW" on 08/01/2010 9:49 AM

08/01/2010 10:33 PM


"Mark & Juanita" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> wrote:
>
>> Al Gore has stated that he bought carbon credits to offset the energy
>> consumption of his house. Near as I know, there is no requirement (yet)
>> to
>> buy these carbon credits, no issuing agency and, near as I know, no
>> regulation as to what they are or where the money goes. It would appear
>> that, under the circumstances, anybody with a printer and a little design
>> skill could print up a few million of these things and get rich selling
>> them to those that feel that throwing their money away somehow offsets
>> their sins against the environment with the only real result being adding
>> to the wealth of the issuing company. Kind of like a televangelist. "Send
>> me your money and God will love you for it". The only "love" in the
>> business is the televangelist "loving" the fact that people are so
>> gullible as to send him their money.
>
>
> It's better than that. He bought the carbon offsets from an eco-company
> that he happens to own. i.e., he paid himself. Kind of like you putting
> $20 in the nightstand to pay for spending the night in your own bed.
>
>
> --
It's beyond me why his supporters dont see him for what he is.

LM

"Lee Michaels"

in reply to "CW" on 08/01/2010 10:33 PM

09/01/2010 8:05 PM


"Revivul" wrote
>
> You cannot understand -- or you could readily explain -- the
> difference between fossil fuels and renewables.
>
> Your argument is similar to calling me a hypocrite for the 5,500 miles
> I make each year.
>
> Except that ... I make them on my bicycle.
>
You should be congratulated. This kind of arrogance and hostility rarely
makes me respond so quickly. You have just cycled your way into my killfile.

How many carbon credits do I get for killfiling a greenie?

Think of all the bandwidth and bits I am saving!


LM

"Lee Michaels"

in reply to "CW" on 08/01/2010 10:33 PM

09/01/2010 9:35 PM


"Doug Miller" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>, Revivul
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>On Sat, 09 Jan 2010 23:37:25 GMT, [email protected] (Doug Miller)
>>wrote:
>>
>>>In article <[email protected]>, Revivul
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>On Sat, 09 Jan 2010 20:30:56 GMT, [email protected] (Doug Miller)
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>In article <[email protected]>, Revivul
>>>>><[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>On Sat, 09 Jan 2010 19:39:29 GMT, [email protected] (Doug Miller)
>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>In article <[email protected]>, Revivul
>>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>On Sat, 09 Jan 2010 13:16:27 -0600, Swingman <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Noble sentiment ... now let us know when YOU have your electricity
>>>>>>>>>permanently turned off and have sold your car(s), never to be used
>>>>>>>>>by
>>>>>>>>>you again, have built your own shelter, made your own clothes, and
>>>>>>>>>killed all the food to feed your family, and no, no ... you can't
>>>>>>>>>start
>>>>>>>>>a fire to stay warm, or cook... that's bad for the environment.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Once you've established all the above as fact, come back and we'll
>>>>>>>>>be
>>>>>>>>>follow suit, I promise.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Otherwise, can you spell "hypocrite"? To wit: "a person who acts in
>>>>>>>>>contradiction to his or her stated beliefs or feelings".
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Thanks. I presume you insist that Bill Gates live in his car before
>>>>>>>>he tries to address the poverty issue?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Somebody needs a course in logic ... and ... it isn't me ;-)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Oh, yes, it is -- because Bill Gates is doing that voluntarily, and
>>>>>>>not
>>>>>>>attempting to force anyone else to do the same.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>No. The answer is simpler than that.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>One doesn't have to live in a cave to suggest that we should reduce
>>>>>>our dependence on fossil fuels, primarily by moving toward cleaner
>>>>>>renewables.
>>>>>
>>>>>Have you given up your car yet?
>>>>
>>>>Mostly, but ... that's just all/nothing logic again.
>>>>
>>>>>>Gore switched to a HUGE % renewables to power his mansion.
>>>>>
>>>>>Uh-huh. Sure. Last I checked, he was still using an order of magnitude
>>>>>more
>>>>>resources than the average American -- while telling the *rest* of us
>>>>>to
>>>>>reduce *our* consumption.
>>>>
>>>>Thanks for ignoring the IMPORTANT point: clean renewables: use all you
>>>>want.
>>>
>>>Actually, I got the important point, which you missed: the hypocrisy of
>>>someone who uses an order of magnitude more energy than the average
>>>person,
>>>telling the average people they need to reduce *their* consumption while
>>>doing
>>>nothing to reduce his own.
>>>
>>>Sorry that was so hard for you that I had to explain it twice.
>>>
>>>Remainder snipped, as I have no desire to explain *all* of it twice.
>>
>>Ability, actually. Desire is a secondary impediment.
>>
>>You cannot understand -- or you could readily explain -- the
>>difference between fossil fuels and renewables.
>
> And you persist in missing the point.
>
> After three times around, I can only assume it's intentional.
>
> <plonk>
>
Obviously a troll.

Did you see his e-mail addy?


kk

krw

in reply to "CW" on 08/01/2010 10:33 PM

09/01/2010 7:53 PM

On Sat, 9 Jan 2010 17:41:41 -0800, "Lew Hodgett"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>
>"Doug Miller" wrote:
>
>> No, it's Gore's enormous use of energy, while telling everyone else
>> to reduce
>> theirs, that makes him a hypocrite.
>
>I take it you have seen one of Gore's electricity bills.

They're no state secret.

>Are you sworn to secrecy or could you share the info with us?

Try Google. $30K/yr in electricity AND another $30K/yr in natural gas
is accounts for a tad more CO2 than I use.

http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/story?section=news/national_world&id=5072659

Ra

Revivul

in reply to "CW" on 08/01/2010 10:33 PM

11/01/2010 9:05 AM

On Mon, 11 Jan 2010 16:02:40 GMT, notbob <[email protected]> wrote:

>On 2010-01-11, Revivul <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On Mon, 11 Jan 2010 15:48:40 GMT, notbob <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>>On 2010-01-11, Revivul <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I *thrive* on valid and intelligent challenges to *my* beliefs.
>>>
>>>Have you considered cashing yerself in fer carbon credits?
>>>
>>>nb
>>
>> Thanks for proving my point.
>
>What point? I gave up halfway thru yer mastubatory blather.
>
>nb

And ... thanks for proving it just that much more thoroughly.

nn

notbob

in reply to "CW" on 08/01/2010 10:33 PM

11/01/2010 9:10 PM

On 2010-01-11, Revivul <[email protected]> wrote:

> In effect, you (pl) are saying that ... if you don't see the world in
> the exact same way as "We" do, then you're a troll.
>
> There IS no better proof for my point than that.

The perfect example of a troll is the continous repetition of a tedious
statement that annoys rather than intrigues.

> Amazing.

text-book

nb

Ra

Revivul

in reply to "CW" on 08/01/2010 10:33 PM

11/01/2010 9:27 AM

On Mon, 11 Jan 2010 08:21:01 -0800, Larry Jaques
<novalidaddress@di\/ersify.com> wrote:

>On Sun, 10 Jan 2010 21:27:08 -0600, the infamous Dave Balderstone
><dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca> scrawled the following:
>
>>In article <[email protected]>, Lew Hodgett
>><[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> >> Confirmation bias. It's rife on this ng.
>>> >
>>> > So, what have you made from wood lately?
>>> -----------------------------------------------
>>> When you have facts, use them.
>>>
>>> When you don't, throw crap on the wall and hope it sticks.
>>>
>>> A classic case of crap on the wall.
>>
>>We've seen them come and go, here on the wreck. Remember "The Man in
>>the Doorway" a few years back?
>>
>>I don't recall who summed that one up, but the line was classic:
>>
>>"There's someone filling a much needed gap."
>
>I recall tmitd (doesn't deserve caps) but don't recall the saying. I
>_like_ it! I just wish everyone would stop replying to the trolls, no
>matter how on-topic it might be. Most are just hot button presses and
>don't need to be addressed.

How does holding a different opinion constitute a troll.

In effect, you (pl) are saying that ... if you don't see the world in
the exact same way as "We" do, then you're a troll.

There IS no better proof for my point than that.

Amazing.

Sk

Swingman

in reply to "CW" on 08/01/2010 10:33 PM

09/01/2010 7:18 PM

On 1/9/2010 6:51 PM, Revivul wrote:

> Your argument is similar to calling me a hypocrite for the 5,500 miles
> I make each year.
>
> Except that ... I make them on my bicycle.

Considering the sheer amount of non-renewable resources used in
manufacturing all those millions of Lance Armstrong wannabe outfits ...

Let me guess, your bicycle is a wooden Flintstone model, with stone
wheels. :)

Just kidding you ... you seem like a nice enough guy and your heart is
obviously in the right place, if a bit idealistic.

That will improve with age ... good luck to you. :)

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/22/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)

Ra

Revivul

in reply to "CW" on 08/01/2010 10:33 PM

09/01/2010 5:51 PM

On Sat, 09 Jan 2010 23:37:25 GMT, [email protected] (Doug Miller)
wrote:

>In article <[email protected]>, Revivul <[email protected]> wrote:
>>On Sat, 09 Jan 2010 20:30:56 GMT, [email protected] (Doug Miller)
>>wrote:
>>
>>>In article <[email protected]>, Revivul
>>><[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>On Sat, 09 Jan 2010 19:39:29 GMT, [email protected] (Doug Miller)
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>In article <[email protected]>, Revivul
>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>On Sat, 09 Jan 2010 13:16:27 -0600, Swingman <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Noble sentiment ... now let us know when YOU have your electricity
>>>>>>>permanently turned off and have sold your car(s), never to be used by
>>>>>>>you again, have built your own shelter, made your own clothes, and
>>>>>>>killed all the food to feed your family, and no, no ... you can't start
>>>>>>>a fire to stay warm, or cook... that's bad for the environment.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Once you've established all the above as fact, come back and we'll be
>>>>>>>follow suit, I promise.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Otherwise, can you spell "hypocrite"? To wit: "a person who acts in
>>>>>>>contradiction to his or her stated beliefs or feelings".
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Thanks. I presume you insist that Bill Gates live in his car before
>>>>>>he tries to address the poverty issue?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Somebody needs a course in logic ... and ... it isn't me ;-)
>>>>>
>>>>>Oh, yes, it is -- because Bill Gates is doing that voluntarily, and not
>>>>>attempting to force anyone else to do the same.
>>>>
>>>>No. The answer is simpler than that.
>>>>
>>>>One doesn't have to live in a cave to suggest that we should reduce
>>>>our dependence on fossil fuels, primarily by moving toward cleaner
>>>>renewables.
>>>
>>>Have you given up your car yet?
>>
>>Mostly, but ... that's just all/nothing logic again.
>>
>>>>Gore switched to a HUGE % renewables to power his mansion.
>>>
>>>Uh-huh. Sure. Last I checked, he was still using an order of magnitude more
>>>resources than the average American -- while telling the *rest* of us to
>>>reduce *our* consumption.
>>
>>Thanks for ignoring the IMPORTANT point: clean renewables: use all you
>>want.
>
>Actually, I got the important point, which you missed: the hypocrisy of
>someone who uses an order of magnitude more energy than the average person,
>telling the average people they need to reduce *their* consumption while doing
>nothing to reduce his own.
>
>Sorry that was so hard for you that I had to explain it twice.
>
>Remainder snipped, as I have no desire to explain *all* of it twice.

Ability, actually. Desire is a secondary impediment.

You cannot understand -- or you could readily explain -- the
difference between fossil fuels and renewables.

Your argument is similar to calling me a hypocrite for the 5,500 miles
I make each year.

Except that ... I make them on my bicycle.

The fact that you don't *understand* the difference .... means only
that: you don't understand it.

But the difference is enormous.

sD

[email protected] (Doug Miller)

in reply to "CW" on 08/01/2010 10:33 PM

10/01/2010 1:16 AM

In article <[email protected]>, Revivul <[email protected]> wrote:
>On Sat, 09 Jan 2010 23:37:25 GMT, [email protected] (Doug Miller)
>wrote:
>
>>In article <[email protected]>, Revivul
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>On Sat, 09 Jan 2010 20:30:56 GMT, [email protected] (Doug Miller)
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>In article <[email protected]>, Revivul
>>>><[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>On Sat, 09 Jan 2010 19:39:29 GMT, [email protected] (Doug Miller)
>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>In article <[email protected]>, Revivul
>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>On Sat, 09 Jan 2010 13:16:27 -0600, Swingman <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Noble sentiment ... now let us know when YOU have your electricity
>>>>>>>>permanently turned off and have sold your car(s), never to be used by
>>>>>>>>you again, have built your own shelter, made your own clothes, and
>>>>>>>>killed all the food to feed your family, and no, no ... you can't start
>>>>>>>>a fire to stay warm, or cook... that's bad for the environment.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Once you've established all the above as fact, come back and we'll be
>>>>>>>>follow suit, I promise.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Otherwise, can you spell "hypocrite"? To wit: "a person who acts in
>>>>>>>>contradiction to his or her stated beliefs or feelings".
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Thanks. I presume you insist that Bill Gates live in his car before
>>>>>>>he tries to address the poverty issue?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Somebody needs a course in logic ... and ... it isn't me ;-)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Oh, yes, it is -- because Bill Gates is doing that voluntarily, and not
>>>>>>attempting to force anyone else to do the same.
>>>>>
>>>>>No. The answer is simpler than that.
>>>>>
>>>>>One doesn't have to live in a cave to suggest that we should reduce
>>>>>our dependence on fossil fuels, primarily by moving toward cleaner
>>>>>renewables.
>>>>
>>>>Have you given up your car yet?
>>>
>>>Mostly, but ... that's just all/nothing logic again.
>>>
>>>>>Gore switched to a HUGE % renewables to power his mansion.
>>>>
>>>>Uh-huh. Sure. Last I checked, he was still using an order of magnitude more
>>>>resources than the average American -- while telling the *rest* of us to
>>>>reduce *our* consumption.
>>>
>>>Thanks for ignoring the IMPORTANT point: clean renewables: use all you
>>>want.
>>
>>Actually, I got the important point, which you missed: the hypocrisy of
>>someone who uses an order of magnitude more energy than the average person,
>>telling the average people they need to reduce *their* consumption while doing
>>nothing to reduce his own.
>>
>>Sorry that was so hard for you that I had to explain it twice.
>>
>>Remainder snipped, as I have no desire to explain *all* of it twice.
>
>Ability, actually. Desire is a secondary impediment.
>
>You cannot understand -- or you could readily explain -- the
>difference between fossil fuels and renewables.

And you persist in missing the point.

After three times around, I can only assume it's intentional.

<plonk>

Sk

Swingman

in reply to "CW" on 08/01/2010 9:49 AM

09/01/2010 1:32 PM

On 1/9/2010 1:21 PM, Revivul wrote:
> On Sat, 09 Jan 2010 13:16:27 -0600, Swingman<[email protected]> wrote:

>>> Its pollution causes big respiratory issues and decreased
>>> productivity.
>>>
>>> The protection OF it leads to wars and death -- physical AND economic.
>>
>> Noble sentiment ... now let us know when YOU have your electricity
>> permanently turned off and have sold your car(s), never to be used by
>> you again, have built your own shelter, made your own clothes, and
>> killed all the food to feed your family, and no, no ... you can't start
>> a fire to stay warm, or cook... that's bad for the environment.
>>
>> Once you've established all the above as fact, come back and we'll be
>> follow suit, I promise.
>>
>> Otherwise, can you spell "hypocrite"? To wit: "a person who acts in
>> contradiction to his or her stated beliefs or feelings".
>
> Thanks. I presume you insist that Bill Gates live in his car before
> he tries to address the poverty issue?
>
> Somebody needs a course in logic ... and ... it isn't me ;-)
>
> If all you're capable of is black/white, all/nothing, either/or
> arguments ... it's genuinely better NOT to put ANY argument forward
> ... lest ... you look ... silly.

As I said, you talk a good game, but until YOU actually stop talking and
start doing you are still nothing but a "hypocrite".

See above ...

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/22/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)

Cc

"CW"

in reply to "CW" on 08/01/2010 9:49 AM

08/01/2010 10:09 AM


"Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:70795e38-44d4-4d95-a064-382b6b1dd62a@u37g2000vbc.googlegroups.com...
On Jan 8, 12:49 pm, "CW" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Al Gore has stated that he bought carbon credits to offset the energy
> consumption of his house. Near as I know, there is no requirement (yet) to
> buy these carbon credits, no issuing agency and, near as I know, no
> regulation as to what they are or where the money goes. It would appear
> that, under the circumstances, anybody with a printer and a little design
> skill could print up a few million of these things and get rich selling
> them
> to those that feel that throwing their money away somehow offsets their
> sins
> against the environment with the only real result being adding to the
> wealth
> of the issuing company. Kind of like a televangelist. "Send me your money
> and God will love you for it". The only "love" in the business is the
> televangelist "loving" the fact that people are so gullible as to send him
> their money.

>Great idea! Then use all that collected money to buy a 50-foot boat
>with twin V-12 Lambourghini enigines....

I was thinking of expanding my Harley collection.

Cc

"CW"

in reply to "CW" on 08/01/2010 9:49 AM

08/01/2010 10:58 AM


"Doug Winterburn" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> CW wrote:
>> Al Gore has stated that he bought carbon credits to offset the energy
>> consumption of his house. Near as I know, there is no requirement (yet)
>> to buy these carbon credits, no issuing agency and, near as I know, no
>> regulation as to what they are or where the money goes. It would appear
>> that, under the circumstances, anybody with a printer and a little design
>> skill could print up a few million of these things and get rich selling
>> them to those that feel that throwing their money away somehow offsets
>> their sins against the environment with the only real result being adding
>> to the wealth of the issuing company. Kind of like a televangelist. "Send
>> me your money and God will love you for it". The only "love" in the
>> business is the televangelist "loving" the fact that people are so
>> gullible as to send him their money.
>
> Why pay?
>
> http://freecarbonoffsets.com/

Seeing as someone is giving them away, I guess I'll just have to go back to
printing money. People will give you lots of stuff for that.

Sk

Swingman

in reply to "CW" on 08/01/2010 9:49 AM

08/01/2010 12:04 PM

On 1/8/2010 11:49 AM, CW wrote:
> Al Gore has stated that he bought carbon credits to offset the energy
> consumption of his house. Near as I know, there is no requirement (yet)
> to buy these carbon credits, no issuing agency and, near as I know, no
> regulation as to what they are or where the money goes. It would appear
> that, under the circumstances, anybody with a printer and a little
> design skill could print up a few million of these things and get rich
> selling them to those that feel that throwing their money away somehow
> offsets their sins against the environment with the only real result
> being adding to the wealth of the issuing company. Kind of like a
> televangelist. "Send me your money and God will love you for it". The
> only "love" in the business is the televangelist "loving" the fact that
> people are so gullible as to send him their money.

Too late, dude ... Leon gave me this a couple of years ago in honor of
Big Al and his Nobel bauble:

http://e-woodshop.net/files/proud-brazilianholder.pdf

Like Uriah Heep, I was indeed humbled by the honor ... :)

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/22/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)

MJ

Mark & Juanita

in reply to "CW" on 08/01/2010 9:49 AM

09/01/2010 10:04 PM

Revivul wrote:

> On Sat, 09 Jan 2010 13:31:02 -0600, dpb <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Revivul wrote:
>>> On Sat, 09 Jan 2010 13:16:27 -0600, Swingman <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 1/9/2010 12:04 PM, Revivul wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Reduce our dependence on fossil fuel ... dramatically.
>>>>>
>>>>> It's a finite commodity controlled by unstable regimes.
>>>> Despite constant scare rhetoric, there is more than enough provable
>>>> reserves in, and off, NA to last well into the next century providing
>>>> the envirowackos would STFU.
>>>
>>> I presume you don't mean that the reserves are INfinite, right?
>>>
>>> Costs? Costs to explore, reach, refine, and deliver to the pump? I've
>>> heard that $0.10/gallon increase sucks $17BN out of the economy. What
>>> can you tell me about the costs to the consumer of all this
>>> incremental reserve?
>>...
>>It's still far cheaper at present than most any alternative--that's why
>>the alternatives are only present when there are artificial price
>>supports or regulatory limitations.
>>
>>If would simply let market forces work, alternatives will appear as they
>>become economically viable automagically.
>
> I don't believe we have "let market forces work" since the days of
> Adam Smith.
>

... and right there you show an ignorance of how the world really works and
the balancing effects of market forces. When one points to problems that
have occurred throughout recent history, you can pretty much always find a
statist intervention that has served as the causitive agent for the disaster
that then is blamed on a market run amok (cf Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and the
CRA -- mandating loans to people with no chance of paying them back).

Even in non-capitalist societies, market forces (that people will almost
always act in their own best interest) still always work, but to the
detriment of the people in those societies. In those societies, the forces
are at their root, survival in that society. So, in a society where the
oddball sticks out and is likely to get hammered down hard, those who would
be innovators keep their ideas to themselves to avoid that fate. Where
everyone gets paid the same, someone who would be motivated to succeed and
excel will throttle back their effort to the group average since there is no
value to attempting to excel.

Adam Smith did not invent the capitalist society or free market, he merely
observed the benefits of such a society because it is fundamentally tied to
the human spirit and basic human motivations.

Government should exist to make sure the playing field is not corrupted
and to curb dishonest people, not to attempt to guarantee outcomes.

> Thankfully.

There are lots of societies across the world that practice the kind of
control you appear to adore -- I suggest you look at joining one of them

--

There is never a situation where having more rounds is a disadvantage

Rob Leatham

MJ

Mark & Juanita

in reply to "CW" on 08/01/2010 9:49 AM

09/01/2010 9:49 PM

Revivul wrote:

> On Sat, 09 Jan 2010 12:58:51 -0600, dpb <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Revivul wrote:
>>> On Sat, 09 Jan 2010 11:51:45 -0600, dpb <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Revivul wrote:
>>>> ...
>>>>
>>>>> It's possible that some people would rather we do the right thing for
>>>>> the wrong reasons than not at all.
>>>> There's no certainty that making decisions on faulty and/or incomplete
>>>> data and/or hypotheses is at all "the right thing". Action taken under
>>>> such could turn out to be precisely the wrong thing at worst or totally
>>>> ineffectual.
>>>
>>>
>>> And yet ... we do it all the time.
>>
>>So you're advocating continuing to do so?
>
> I know that you cannot always wait until you have 100% information
> before acting, so ... yes ... absolutely.
>
> If you stop to think about it, you'd understand how far we have come,
> as a civilization, by having a certain willingness to make peace with
> uncertainty, and to act, nonetheless.

So, in your opinion, the complete dismantling of civilization in the
industrialized world and impoverishing its citizens all for the purpose of
averting a hypothetical disaster bolstered by shoddy science with
questionable assumptions and promoted by people in an establishment
dependent upon grants for which the results are expected to support the
hypothetical disaster (or no future grants will occur) is OK with you?

Heaven help us all


--

There is never a situation where having more rounds is a disadvantage

Rob Leatham

Ra

Revivul

in reply to "CW" on 08/01/2010 9:49 AM

09/01/2010 12:21 PM

On Sat, 09 Jan 2010 13:16:27 -0600, Swingman <[email protected]> wrote:

>On 1/9/2010 12:04 PM, Revivul wrote:
>
>> Reduce our dependence on fossil fuel ... dramatically.
>>
>> It's a finite commodity controlled by unstable regimes.
>
>Despite constant scare rhetoric, there is more than enough provable
>reserves in, and off, NA to last well into the next century providing
>the envirowackos would STFU.

I presume you don't mean that the reserves are INfinite, right?

Costs? Costs to explore, reach, refine, and deliver to the pump? I've
heard that $0.10/gallon increase sucks $17BN out of the economy. What
can you tell me about the costs to the consumer of all this
incremental reserve?


>> Its pollution causes big respiratory issues and decreased
>> productivity.
>>
>> The protection OF it leads to wars and death -- physical AND economic.
>
>Noble sentiment ... now let us know when YOU have your electricity
>permanently turned off and have sold your car(s), never to be used by
>you again, have built your own shelter, made your own clothes, and
>killed all the food to feed your family, and no, no ... you can't start
>a fire to stay warm, or cook... that's bad for the environment.
>
>Once you've established all the above as fact, come back and we'll be
>follow suit, I promise.
>
>Otherwise, can you spell "hypocrite"? To wit: "a person who acts in
>contradiction to his or her stated beliefs or feelings".

Thanks. I presume you insist that Bill Gates live in his car before
he tries to address the poverty issue?

Somebody needs a course in logic ... and ... it isn't me ;-)

If all you're capable of is black/white, all/nothing, either/or
arguments ... it's genuinely better NOT to put ANY argument forward
... lest ... you look ... silly.

Ra

Revivul

in reply to "CW" on 08/01/2010 9:49 AM

09/01/2010 1:03 PM

On Sat, 09 Jan 2010 13:32:16 -0600, Swingman <[email protected]> wrote:

>On 1/9/2010 1:21 PM, Revivul wrote:
>> On Sat, 09 Jan 2010 13:16:27 -0600, Swingman<[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>>> Its pollution causes big respiratory issues and decreased
>>>> productivity.
>>>>
>>>> The protection OF it leads to wars and death -- physical AND economic.
>>>
>>> Noble sentiment ... now let us know when YOU have your electricity
>>> permanently turned off and have sold your car(s), never to be used by
>>> you again, have built your own shelter, made your own clothes, and
>>> killed all the food to feed your family, and no, no ... you can't start
>>> a fire to stay warm, or cook... that's bad for the environment.
>>>
>>> Once you've established all the above as fact, come back and we'll be
>>> follow suit, I promise.
>>>
>>> Otherwise, can you spell "hypocrite"? To wit: "a person who acts in
>>> contradiction to his or her stated beliefs or feelings".
>>
>> Thanks. I presume you insist that Bill Gates live in his car before
>> he tries to address the poverty issue?
>>
>> Somebody needs a course in logic ... and ... it isn't me ;-)
>>
>> If all you're capable of is black/white, all/nothing, either/or
>> arguments ... it's genuinely better NOT to put ANY argument forward
>> ... lest ... you look ... silly.
>
>As I said, you talk a good game, but until YOU actually stop talking and
>start doing you are still nothing but a "hypocrite".
>
>See above ...


I'll try your method, too:

Thanks. I presume you insist that Bill Gates live in his car before
he tries to address the poverty issue?

Your turn.

Ra

Revivul

in reply to "CW" on 08/01/2010 9:49 AM

09/01/2010 1:02 PM

On Sat, 09 Jan 2010 13:31:02 -0600, dpb <[email protected]> wrote:

>Revivul wrote:
>> On Sat, 09 Jan 2010 13:16:27 -0600, Swingman <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> On 1/9/2010 12:04 PM, Revivul wrote:
>>>
>>>> Reduce our dependence on fossil fuel ... dramatically.
>>>>
>>>> It's a finite commodity controlled by unstable regimes.
>>> Despite constant scare rhetoric, there is more than enough provable
>>> reserves in, and off, NA to last well into the next century providing
>>> the envirowackos would STFU.
>>
>> I presume you don't mean that the reserves are INfinite, right?
>>
>> Costs? Costs to explore, reach, refine, and deliver to the pump? I've
>> heard that $0.10/gallon increase sucks $17BN out of the economy. What
>> can you tell me about the costs to the consumer of all this
>> incremental reserve?
>...
>It's still far cheaper at present than most any alternative--that's why
>the alternatives are only present when there are artificial price
>supports or regulatory limitations.
>
>If would simply let market forces work, alternatives will appear as they
>become economically viable automagically.

I don't believe we have "let market forces work" since the days of
Adam Smith.

Thankfully.

MJ

Mark & Juanita

in reply to "CW" on 08/01/2010 9:49 AM

11/01/2010 9:49 PM

Morris Dovey wrote:

> On 1/9/2010 1:34 PM, dpb wrote:
>> Revivul wrote:
>
>>> If you stop to think about it, you'd understand how far we have come,
>>> as a civilization, by having a certain willingness to make peace with
>>> uncertainty, and to act, nonetheless.
>>
>> But it makes no sense to act impulsively in a contrarian mode to simply
>> respond to questionable hypotheses; particularly when the action
>> proposed is one-sided and doesn't address the contributors to present
>> problems that have no intention whatsoever of reigning in their
>> development and expansion and are doing so w/ technology that is, for
>> the most part, 30 years or so behind that of the more developed nations
>> wrt abatement.
>
> Not to be overmuch a contrarian, but I've been thankful for all the help
> and support I've received here in my attempts to do exactly what I think
> you're saying makes no sense...
>
> ...although a bit less uncertainty would certainly be welcome. :)
>

Morris, you appear to be addressing this problem in the way that fits a
market-based model. You are working to develop a technology that can win
both its technical merits and pay for itself in a reasonable time frame. I
don't think that fits the same mindset as we see from other elements that
espouse development and deployment of these alternate technologies that can
only be made cost-effective via the application of large subsidies. That
only results in market distortion, not development of viable technology.
Completely different animal.

--

There is never a situation where having more rounds is a disadvantage

Rob Leatham

MJ

Mark & Juanita

in reply to "CW" on 08/01/2010 9:49 AM

11/01/2010 9:45 PM

Revivul wrote:

... snip of long diatribe detailing how the rest of us are a bunch of rubes
because we don't agree with his much more nuanced, intellectual position.
The fact that we have cited facts, pointed to documented intellectual
dishonesty on the part of researchers and other foundational elements
doesn't matter, we are all just reinforcing our biases.

i.e., if we all just agreed with his position, there would no longer be
evidence of confirmation bias in this group.



--

There is never a situation where having more rounds is a disadvantage

Rob Leatham

LL

"LDosser"

in reply to "CW" on 08/01/2010 9:49 AM

09/01/2010 1:51 AM

"Mark & Juanita" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> wrote:
>
>> Al Gore has stated that he bought carbon credits to offset the energy
>> consumption of his house. Near as I know, there is no requirement (yet)
>> to
>> buy these carbon credits, no issuing agency and, near as I know, no
>> regulation as to what they are or where the money goes. It would appear
>> that, under the circumstances, anybody with a printer and a little design
>> skill could print up a few million of these things and get rich selling
>> them to those that feel that throwing their money away somehow offsets
>> their sins against the environment with the only real result being adding
>> to the wealth of the issuing company. Kind of like a televangelist. "Send
>> me your money and God will love you for it". The only "love" in the
>> business is the televangelist "loving" the fact that people are so
>> gullible as to send him their money.
>
>
> It's better than that. He bought the carbon offsets from an eco-company
> that he happens to own. i.e., he paid himself. Kind of like you putting
> $20 in the nightstand to pay for spending the night in your own bed.
>


As long as you don't put it in the wife's nightstand ...

JC

"J. Clarke"

in reply to "CW" on 08/01/2010 9:49 AM

09/01/2010 12:23 PM

Revivul wrote:
> On Fri, 8 Jan 2010 22:33:40 -0800, "CW" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>>
>> "Mark & Juanita" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Al Gore has stated that he bought carbon credits to offset the
>>>> energy consumption of his house. Near as I know, there is no
>>>> requirement (yet) to
>>>> buy these carbon credits, no issuing agency and, near as I know, no
>>>> regulation as to what they are or where the money goes. It would
>>>> appear that, under the circumstances, anybody with a printer and a
>>>> little design skill could print up a few million of these things
>>>> and get rich selling them to those that feel that throwing their
>>>> money away somehow offsets their sins against the environment with
>>>> the only real result being adding to the wealth of the issuing
>>>> company. Kind of like a televangelist. "Send me your money and God
>>>> will love you for it". The only "love" in the business is the
>>>> televangelist "loving" the fact that people are so gullible as to
>>>> send him their money.
>>>
>>>
>>> It's better than that. He bought the carbon offsets from an
>>> eco-company that he happens to own. i.e., he paid himself. Kind
>>> of like you putting $20 in the nightstand to pay for spending the
>>> night in your own bed.
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>> It's beyond me why his supporters dont see him for what he is.
>
> It's possible that some people would rather we do the right thing for
> the wrong reasons than not at all.

So what, exactly, is "the right thing"? According to Copenhagen it's paying
trillions of dollars of tribute to the world's largest polluter.

Ra

Revivul

in reply to "J. Clarke" on 09/01/2010 12:23 PM

09/01/2010 11:01 PM

On Sat, 9 Jan 2010 20:05:29 -0500, "Lee Michaels"
<leemichaels*nadaspam*@comcast.net> wrote:

>
>"Revivul" wrote
>>
>> You cannot understand -- or you could readily explain -- the
>> difference between fossil fuels and renewables.
>>
>> Your argument is similar to calling me a hypocrite for the 5,500 miles
>> I make each year.
>>
>> Except that ... I make them on my bicycle.
>>
>You should be congratulated. This kind of arrogance and hostility rarely
>makes me respond so quickly. You have just cycled your way into my killfile.
>
>How many carbon credits do I get for killfiling a greenie?
>
>Think of all the bandwidth and bits I am saving!

YOU weren't even capable of understanding WHY I posted that.

Wow!!

Ra

Revivul

in reply to "J. Clarke" on 09/01/2010 12:23 PM

09/01/2010 11:05 PM

On Sun, 10 Jan 2010 01:16:29 GMT, [email protected] (Doug Miller)
wrote:

>In article <[email protected]>, Revivul <[email protected]> wrote:
>>On Sat, 09 Jan 2010 23:37:25 GMT, [email protected] (Doug Miller)
>>wrote:
>>
>>>In article <[email protected]>, Revivul
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>On Sat, 09 Jan 2010 20:30:56 GMT, [email protected] (Doug Miller)
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>In article <[email protected]>, Revivul
>>>>><[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>On Sat, 09 Jan 2010 19:39:29 GMT, [email protected] (Doug Miller)
>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>In article <[email protected]>, Revivul
>>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>On Sat, 09 Jan 2010 13:16:27 -0600, Swingman <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Noble sentiment ... now let us know when YOU have your electricity
>>>>>>>>>permanently turned off and have sold your car(s), never to be used by
>>>>>>>>>you again, have built your own shelter, made your own clothes, and
>>>>>>>>>killed all the food to feed your family, and no, no ... you can't start
>>>>>>>>>a fire to stay warm, or cook... that's bad for the environment.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Once you've established all the above as fact, come back and we'll be
>>>>>>>>>follow suit, I promise.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Otherwise, can you spell "hypocrite"? To wit: "a person who acts in
>>>>>>>>>contradiction to his or her stated beliefs or feelings".
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Thanks. I presume you insist that Bill Gates live in his car before
>>>>>>>>he tries to address the poverty issue?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Somebody needs a course in logic ... and ... it isn't me ;-)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Oh, yes, it is -- because Bill Gates is doing that voluntarily, and not
>>>>>>>attempting to force anyone else to do the same.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>No. The answer is simpler than that.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>One doesn't have to live in a cave to suggest that we should reduce
>>>>>>our dependence on fossil fuels, primarily by moving toward cleaner
>>>>>>renewables.
>>>>>
>>>>>Have you given up your car yet?
>>>>
>>>>Mostly, but ... that's just all/nothing logic again.
>>>>
>>>>>>Gore switched to a HUGE % renewables to power his mansion.
>>>>>
>>>>>Uh-huh. Sure. Last I checked, he was still using an order of magnitude more
>>>>>resources than the average American -- while telling the *rest* of us to
>>>>>reduce *our* consumption.
>>>>
>>>>Thanks for ignoring the IMPORTANT point: clean renewables: use all you
>>>>want.
>>>
>>>Actually, I got the important point, which you missed: the hypocrisy of
>>>someone who uses an order of magnitude more energy than the average person,
>>>telling the average people they need to reduce *their* consumption while doing
>>>nothing to reduce his own.
>>>
>>>Sorry that was so hard for you that I had to explain it twice.
>>>
>>>Remainder snipped, as I have no desire to explain *all* of it twice.
>>
>>Ability, actually. Desire is a secondary impediment.
>>
>>You cannot understand -- or you could readily explain -- the
>>difference between fossil fuels and renewables.
>
>And you persist in missing the point.
>
>After three times around, I can only assume it's intentional.
>
><plonk>

Ouch.

You're point is irrelevant. You attack others, but don't understand
the argument they're making, so ... you make up a position and ascribe
it to them.

But you're wrong.

After three times around, I can only assume it's intentional.

But ... while plonking is a coward's way out ... posting to let others
know that you chose to do it ... more so :-)

dn

dpb

in reply to "CW" on 08/01/2010 9:49 AM

09/01/2010 11:51 AM

Revivul wrote:
...

> It's possible that some people would rather we do the right thing for
> the wrong reasons than not at all.

There's no certainty that making decisions on faulty and/or incomplete
data and/or hypotheses is at all "the right thing". Action taken under
such could turn out to be precisely the wrong thing at worst or totally
ineffectual.

--

dn

dpb

in reply to "CW" on 08/01/2010 9:49 AM

09/01/2010 12:58 PM

Revivul wrote:
> On Sat, 09 Jan 2010 11:51:45 -0600, dpb <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Revivul wrote:
>> ...
>>
>>> It's possible that some people would rather we do the right thing for
>>> the wrong reasons than not at all.
>> There's no certainty that making decisions on faulty and/or incomplete
>> data and/or hypotheses is at all "the right thing". Action taken under
>> such could turn out to be precisely the wrong thing at worst or totally
>> ineffectual.
>
>
> And yet ... we do it all the time.

So you're advocating continuing to do so?

--

dn

dpb

in reply to "CW" on 08/01/2010 9:49 AM

09/01/2010 1:31 PM

Revivul wrote:
> On Sat, 09 Jan 2010 13:16:27 -0600, Swingman <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> On 1/9/2010 12:04 PM, Revivul wrote:
>>
>>> Reduce our dependence on fossil fuel ... dramatically.
>>>
>>> It's a finite commodity controlled by unstable regimes.
>> Despite constant scare rhetoric, there is more than enough provable
>> reserves in, and off, NA to last well into the next century providing
>> the envirowackos would STFU.
>
> I presume you don't mean that the reserves are INfinite, right?
>
> Costs? Costs to explore, reach, refine, and deliver to the pump? I've
> heard that $0.10/gallon increase sucks $17BN out of the economy. What
> can you tell me about the costs to the consumer of all this
> incremental reserve?
...
It's still far cheaper at present than most any alternative--that's why
the alternatives are only present when there are artificial price
supports or regulatory limitations.

If would simply let market forces work, alternatives will appear as they
become economically viable automagically.

--

dn

dpb

in reply to "CW" on 08/01/2010 9:49 AM

09/01/2010 1:34 PM

Revivul wrote:
> On Sat, 09 Jan 2010 12:58:51 -0600, dpb <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Revivul wrote:
>>> On Sat, 09 Jan 2010 11:51:45 -0600, dpb <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Revivul wrote:
>>>> ...
>>>>
>>>>> It's possible that some people would rather we do the right thing for
>>>>> the wrong reasons than not at all.
>>>> There's no certainty that making decisions on faulty and/or incomplete
>>>> data and/or hypotheses is at all "the right thing". Action taken under
>>>> such could turn out to be precisely the wrong thing at worst or totally
>>>> ineffectual.
>>>
>>> And yet ... we do it all the time.
>> So you're advocating continuing to do so?
>
> I know that you cannot always wait until you have 100% information
> before acting, so ... yes ... absolutely.
>
> If you stop to think about it, you'd understand how far we have come,
> as a civilization, by having a certain willingness to make peace with
> uncertainty, and to act, nonetheless.

But it makes no sense to act impulsively in a contrarian mode to simply
respond to questionable hypotheses; particularly when the action
proposed is one-sided and doesn't address the contributors to present
problems that have no intention whatsoever of reigning in their
development and expansion and are doing so w/ technology that is, for
the most part, 30 years or so behind that of the more developed nations
wrt abatement.

--

sD

[email protected] (Doug Miller)

in reply to "CW" on 08/01/2010 9:49 AM

09/01/2010 7:39 PM

In article <[email protected]>, Revivul <[email protected]> wrote:
>On Sat, 09 Jan 2010 13:16:27 -0600, Swingman <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>Noble sentiment ... now let us know when YOU have your electricity
>>permanently turned off and have sold your car(s), never to be used by
>>you again, have built your own shelter, made your own clothes, and
>>killed all the food to feed your family, and no, no ... you can't start
>>a fire to stay warm, or cook... that's bad for the environment.
>>
>>Once you've established all the above as fact, come back and we'll be
>>follow suit, I promise.
>>
>>Otherwise, can you spell "hypocrite"? To wit: "a person who acts in
>>contradiction to his or her stated beliefs or feelings".
>
>Thanks. I presume you insist that Bill Gates live in his car before
>he tries to address the poverty issue?
>
>Somebody needs a course in logic ... and ... it isn't me ;-)

Oh, yes, it is -- because Bill Gates is doing that voluntarily, and not
attempting to force anyone else to do the same.
>
>If all you're capable of is black/white, all/nothing, either/or
>arguments ... it's genuinely better NOT to put ANY argument forward
>.... lest ... you look ... silly.

Pot, kettle,...

sD

[email protected] (Doug Miller)

in reply to "CW" on 08/01/2010 9:49 AM

09/01/2010 8:30 PM

In article <[email protected]>, Revivul
<[email protected]> wrote:
>On Sat, 09 Jan 2010 19:39:29 GMT, [email protected] (Doug Miller)
>wrote:
>
>>In article <[email protected]>, Revivul
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>On Sat, 09 Jan 2010 13:16:27 -0600, Swingman <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>Noble sentiment ... now let us know when YOU have your electricity
>>>>permanently turned off and have sold your car(s), never to be used by
>>>>you again, have built your own shelter, made your own clothes, and
>>>>killed all the food to feed your family, and no, no ... you can't start
>>>>a fire to stay warm, or cook... that's bad for the environment.
>>>>
>>>>Once you've established all the above as fact, come back and we'll be
>>>>follow suit, I promise.
>>>>
>>>>Otherwise, can you spell "hypocrite"? To wit: "a person who acts in
>>>>contradiction to his or her stated beliefs or feelings".
>>>
>>>Thanks. I presume you insist that Bill Gates live in his car before
>>>he tries to address the poverty issue?
>>>
>>>Somebody needs a course in logic ... and ... it isn't me ;-)
>>
>>Oh, yes, it is -- because Bill Gates is doing that voluntarily, and not
>>attempting to force anyone else to do the same.
>
>No. The answer is simpler than that.
>
>One doesn't have to live in a cave to suggest that we should reduce
>our dependence on fossil fuels, primarily by moving toward cleaner
>renewables.

Have you given up your car yet?
>
>Gore switched to a HUGE % renewables to power his mansion.

Uh-huh. Sure. Last I checked, he was still using an order of magnitude more
resources than the average American -- while telling the *rest* of us to
reduce *our* consumption.

>I, too,
>buy my electricity from a wind farm.

What, they've hooked up a turbine to Gore's mouth?
>
>That does NOT make me, or Gore, hypocrites -- repitition
>notwithstanding.

No, it's Gore's enormous use of energy, while telling everyone else to reduce
theirs, that makes him a hypocrite.

And it's you telling other people to reduce dependence on fossil fuels, while
you still drive a car, that makes you a hypocrite.
>
>The notion of reduced greenhouse gasses doesn't depend on
>cave-dwellers. It depends on cleaner, renewable sources of energy.

Get back to me after you've switched to a bicycle for transportation.
>
>>>If all you're capable of is black/white, all/nothing, either/or
>>>arguments ... it's genuinely better NOT to put ANY argument forward
>>>.... lest ... you look ... silly.
>>
>>Pot, kettle,...
>
>
>I missed my black/white argument. I'd be ever so grateful if you'd
>point it out to me.

I was referring to looking silly.

MD

Morris Dovey

in reply to "CW" on 08/01/2010 9:49 AM

11/01/2010 3:30 PM

On 1/9/2010 1:34 PM, dpb wrote:
> Revivul wrote:

>> If you stop to think about it, you'd understand how far we have come,
>> as a civilization, by having a certain willingness to make peace with
>> uncertainty, and to act, nonetheless.
>
> But it makes no sense to act impulsively in a contrarian mode to simply
> respond to questionable hypotheses; particularly when the action
> proposed is one-sided and doesn't address the contributors to present
> problems that have no intention whatsoever of reigning in their
> development and expansion and are doing so w/ technology that is, for
> the most part, 30 years or so behind that of the more developed nations
> wrt abatement.

Not to be overmuch a contrarian, but I've been thankful for all the help
and support I've received here in my attempts to do exactly what I think
you're saying makes no sense...

...although a bit less uncertainty would certainly be welcome. :)

--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/

MD

Morris Dovey

in reply to "CW" on 08/01/2010 9:49 AM

12/01/2010 4:15 AM

On 1/11/2010 10:49 PM, Mark & Juanita wrote:

> Morris, you appear to be addressing this problem in the way that fits
> a market-based model. You are working to develop a technology that
> can win both its technical merits and pay for itself in a reasonable
> time frame.

That's *exactly* the basis for my work - concisely stated, thank you.

> I don't think that fits the same mindset as we see from other
> elements that espouse development and deployment of these alternate
> technologies that can only be made cost-effective via the application
> of large subsidies.

This doesn't match up with reality /quite/ so exactly as your leading
statement - not because you're wrong but because subjectivity works
against conciseness...

My little project _has_ required "large" subsidies - not large on a
national scale, but very large to me. I've subsidized the development
with materials, tooling, shop space, and man-years of effort. Others
have provided (and continue to provide) subsidies in the form of
essential scientific and engineering consulting/advice. A while back I
went through the very objective exercise of tallying the dollar value of
these subsidies and the total was scary/impressive.

There is surely at least a temptation to characterize that amount as
"R&D investment", rather than "development subsidies", yes?

[ investment: n. The act of investing; laying out money or capital in an
enterprise with the expectation of profit ]

The correct answer is "No, it's development subsidies". The enterprise
may last as long as two more years, and expense exceeds revenue by a
factor greater than four - and the probability that the enterprise will
produce a positive dollar ROI in that time is realistically so close to
zero as to make no difference.

> That only results in market distortion, not
> development of viable technology. Completely different animal.



--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/

MD

Morris Dovey

in reply to "CW" on 08/01/2010 9:49 AM

12/01/2010 5:11 AM

On 1/11/2010 10:49 PM, Mark & Juanita wrote:

> Morris, you appear to be addressing this problem in the way that fits
> a market-based model. You are working to develop a technology that
> can win both its technical merits and pay for itself in a reasonable
> time frame.

That's *exactly* the basis for my work - concisely stated, thank you.

> I don't think that fits the same mindset as we see from other
> elements that espouse development and deployment of these alternate
> technologies that can only be made cost-effective via the application
> of large subsidies.

This doesn't match up with reality /quite/ so exactly as your leading
statement - not because you're wrong but because subjectivity works
against conciseness...

My little project _has_ required "large" subsidies - not large on a
national scale, but very large to me. I've subsidized the development
with materials, tooling, shop space, and man-years of effort. Others
have provided (and continue to provide) subsidies in the form of
essential scientific and engineering consulting/advice. A while back I
went through the very objective exercise of tallying the dollar value of
these subsidies and the total was scary/impressive.

There is surely at least a temptation to characterize that amount as
"R&D investment", rather than "development subsidies", yes?

[ investment: n. The act of investing; laying out money or capital in an
enterprise with the expectation of profit ]

The correct answer is "No, it's development subsidies". The enterprise
may last as long as two more years, and expense still exceeds revenue by
a factor greater than four - and the probability that the enterprise
will produce a positive ROI in that time is realistically so close to
zero as to make no difference.

> That only results in market distortion, not development of viable
> technology. Completely different animal.

[oops - hit wrong button, please disregard any earlier copy]

Now let's apply the subjective warp: My *intent* is to /produce/ a
long-term downward market distortion exactly _by_ demonstrating that a
technology that had historically produced poor results could be improved
upon and /made/ viable. The final step is to extend longevity
expectations to the century mark - and, once again, I have every
expectation of success (and of not being around to see the actuality).

Profitability (a positive ROI) would have been a Good Thing, but I'm not
displeased to have achieved the criteria you set forth in your opening
two sentences. :)

/My/ conclusion is that the "goodness" of subsidies is necessarily
outcome-based, which invokes the concept of "wisdom" - to which I lay no
claim.

--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/

Ra

Revivul

in reply to "CW" on 08/01/2010 9:49 AM

09/01/2010 1:07 PM

On Sat, 09 Jan 2010 19:39:29 GMT, [email protected] (Doug Miller)
wrote:

>In article <[email protected]>, Revivul <[email protected]> wrote:
>>On Sat, 09 Jan 2010 13:16:27 -0600, Swingman <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>Noble sentiment ... now let us know when YOU have your electricity
>>>permanently turned off and have sold your car(s), never to be used by
>>>you again, have built your own shelter, made your own clothes, and
>>>killed all the food to feed your family, and no, no ... you can't start
>>>a fire to stay warm, or cook... that's bad for the environment.
>>>
>>>Once you've established all the above as fact, come back and we'll be
>>>follow suit, I promise.
>>>
>>>Otherwise, can you spell "hypocrite"? To wit: "a person who acts in
>>>contradiction to his or her stated beliefs or feelings".
>>
>>Thanks. I presume you insist that Bill Gates live in his car before
>>he tries to address the poverty issue?
>>
>>Somebody needs a course in logic ... and ... it isn't me ;-)
>
>Oh, yes, it is -- because Bill Gates is doing that voluntarily, and not
>attempting to force anyone else to do the same.

No. The answer is simpler than that.

One doesn't have to live in a cave to suggest that we should reduce
our dependence on fossil fuels, primarily by moving toward cleaner
renewables.

Gore switched to a HUGE % renewables to power his mansion. I, too,
buy my electricity from a wind farm.

That does NOT make me, or Gore, hypocrites -- repitition
notwithstanding.

The notion of reduced greenhouse gasses doesn't depend on
cave-dwellers. It depends on cleaner, renewable sources of energy.

>>If all you're capable of is black/white, all/nothing, either/or
>>arguments ... it's genuinely better NOT to put ANY argument forward
>>.... lest ... you look ... silly.
>
>Pot, kettle,...


I missed my black/white argument. I'd be ever so grateful if you'd
point it out to me.

Ra

Revivul

in reply to "CW" on 08/01/2010 9:49 AM

09/01/2010 8:50 AM

On Fri, 8 Jan 2010 22:33:40 -0800, "CW" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>
>"Mark & Juanita" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Al Gore has stated that he bought carbon credits to offset the energy
>>> consumption of his house. Near as I know, there is no requirement (yet)
>>> to
>>> buy these carbon credits, no issuing agency and, near as I know, no
>>> regulation as to what they are or where the money goes. It would appear
>>> that, under the circumstances, anybody with a printer and a little design
>>> skill could print up a few million of these things and get rich selling
>>> them to those that feel that throwing their money away somehow offsets
>>> their sins against the environment with the only real result being adding
>>> to the wealth of the issuing company. Kind of like a televangelist. "Send
>>> me your money and God will love you for it". The only "love" in the
>>> business is the televangelist "loving" the fact that people are so
>>> gullible as to send him their money.
>>
>>
>> It's better than that. He bought the carbon offsets from an eco-company
>> that he happens to own. i.e., he paid himself. Kind of like you putting
>> $20 in the nightstand to pay for spending the night in your own bed.
>>
>>
>> --
>It's beyond me why his supporters dont see him for what he is.

It's possible that some people would rather we do the right thing for
the wrong reasons than not at all.

Ra

Revivul

in reply to Revivul on 09/01/2010 8:50 AM

11/01/2010 9:07 AM

On Mon, 11 Jan 2010 16:06:37 GMT, [email protected] (Doug Miller)
wrote:

>In article <[email protected]>, notbob <[email protected]> wrote:
>>On 2010-01-11, Revivul <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> On Mon, 11 Jan 2010 15:48:40 GMT, notbob <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>>On 2010-01-11, Revivul <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I *thrive* on valid and intelligent challenges to *my* beliefs.
>>>>
>>>>Have you considered cashing yerself in fer carbon credits?
>>>>
>>>>nb
>>>
>>> Thanks for proving my point.
>>
>>What point? I gave up halfway thru yer mastubatory blather.
>>
>PDFTFT!


Hm.

And how, exactly, do I constitute a "troll?"

Apparently, it's one who holds a different opinion, huh?

Thanks for ... proving my point.

Ra

Revivul

in reply to Revivul on 09/01/2010 8:50 AM

09/01/2010 5:49 PM

On Sat, 09 Jan 2010 15:34:23 -0600, Dave Balderstone
<dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca> wrote:

>In article <[email protected]>, Revivul
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Thanks for ignoring the IMPORTANT point: clean renewables: use all you
>> want.
>
>When available.
>
><http://coastobs.pol.ac.uk/cobs/met/hilbre/getimage.php?code=5&span=1>
>
>I know someone who works for Ontario Hydro, or whatever it's called
>these days. He laughs at wind and solar. It's far too unreliable to be
>anything but peripheral.
>
>He's explained to me how the grid actually works. There are times when
>the utility has to fire up ginormous electric motors to use the EXCESS
>power flowing into the grid to keep things balanced.
>
>I don't claim to understand enough to make pronouncements on electric
>utility policy, but I understand enough to know that 99.9% of people
>making pronouncements don't have a friggin' clue about the subject.
>
>You included.

I'm sorry, but ... can somebody tell me when we finished building the
infrastructure for a diversified renewable power supply?

I don't recall us really even starting.....

Please tell me where my facts are in error. It's childish and wrong
to say that ... I ... like 99.9% of people ... don't have a friggin'
clue about the subject.

I'll wait.

Ra

Revivul

in reply to Revivul on 09/01/2010 8:50 AM

10/01/2010 6:08 PM

On Sun, 10 Jan 2010 18:02:49 -0600, "HeyBub" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>Revivul wrote:
>> On Sat, 09 Jan 2010 22:04:23 -0700, Mark & Juanita
>>>
>>> There are lots of societies across the world that practice the kind
>>> of control you appear to adore -- I suggest you look at joining one
>>> of them
>>
>> One day, perhaps you'll do me the honor of explaining just what "kind
>> of control" it is that I adore.
>>
>> More straw men. Lovely.
>
>Well, you did say: "Reduce our dependence on fossil fuel ... dramatically,"
>and the presumption is that you want that eventuality enforced or encouraged
>by the government.
>
>To me, there seems three ways to accomplish that which you adore:
>
>* A cheaper alternative to fossile fules is found,
>* Government imposes rationing or subsidies of some kind,
>* Government imposes a return to living off gathered nuts and berries.
>
>I'd rather prefer the first.

Why, how, by whom, with what capital??

The thousands upon thousands upon thousand of pages Tax Code is chock
full of social engineering elements.

So ... OUR government -- in that regard -- practices the "kind of
control" that 'Mark & Juanita' overtly decried.

I'll presume he/she/they actually DID know that. How could anybody
NOT? I presume he/she/they will now seek to relocate (to ... ???).

Wars predicated on other causes, but ... suspiciously centered in
oil-rich nations ... are de facto oil subsidies, no?

What's wrong with subsidies to switch us OFF OF fossil fuels ... asap
... instead/in addition??

I'm genuinely interested in an other-than-ideological argument.

As a former VP of a couple of NYSE-traded companies ... smart CEOs and
execs get AHEAD of things like this. The more consolidated the
control of finite oil resources IS, the more victimized by
other-than-market-based pricing we will be.

Anybody that's watched Big Oil in recent decades ... knows that's
already starting.

So ... why not??

No troll. Sorry. Just the anomalous poster, here, that doesn't think
... the way so many of you do ... and ... comes to his positions
through listening to LOTS of valid argument ... not just the ones that
appeal most to my closely-held positions ;-)

Hh

"HeyBub"

in reply to "CW" on 08/01/2010 9:49 AM

09/01/2010 11:39 AM

CW wrote:
> Al Gore has stated that he bought carbon credits to offset the energy
> consumption of his house. Near as I know, there is no requirement
> (yet) to buy these carbon credits, no issuing agency and, near as I
> know, no regulation as to what they are or where the money goes. It
> would appear that, under the circumstances, anybody with a printer
> and a little design skill could print up a few million of these
> things and get rich selling them to those that feel that throwing
> their money away somehow offsets their sins against the environment
> with the only real result being adding to the wealth of the issuing
> company. Kind of like a televangelist. "Send me your money and God
> will love you for it". The only "love" in the business is the
> televangelist "loving" the fact that people are so gullible as to
> send him their money.

I don't know if you can get carbon credits (although there should be some
way), but for $18 you can plant a tree in Israel via the Jewish National
Fund
http://www.jnf.org/support/tree-planting-center/

I've seen the JNF's work. The line of demarcation between a JNF planted area
and a wasteland is as vivid as the boundary between Fangorn Forest and
Orc-land.

Still,

The Jew says to the Arab: "Why are you upset? This used to be a desert, now
it's a forest!"

The Arab thinks: "Yeah, but it was MY desert, now it's YOUR forest!"

It's for the squirrels.

Sk

Swingman

in reply to "CW" on 08/01/2010 9:49 AM

09/01/2010 1:16 PM

On 1/9/2010 12:04 PM, Revivul wrote:

> Reduce our dependence on fossil fuel ... dramatically.
>
> It's a finite commodity controlled by unstable regimes.

Despite constant scare rhetoric, there is more than enough provable
reserves in, and off, NA to last well into the next century providing
the envirowackos would STFU.

> Its pollution causes big respiratory issues and decreased
> productivity.
>
> The protection OF it leads to wars and death -- physical AND economic.

Noble sentiment ... now let us know when YOU have your electricity
permanently turned off and have sold your car(s), never to be used by
you again, have built your own shelter, made your own clothes, and
killed all the food to feed your family, and no, no ... you can't start
a fire to stay warm, or cook... that's bad for the environment.

Once you've established all the above as fact, come back and we'll be
follow suit, I promise.

Otherwise, can you spell "hypocrite"? To wit: "a person who acts in
contradiction to his or her stated beliefs or feelings".

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/22/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)

Ra

Revivul

in reply to Swingman on 09/01/2010 1:16 PM

09/01/2010 11:03 PM

On Sat, 9 Jan 2010 21:35:05 -0500, "Lee Michaels"
<leemichaels*nadaspam*@comcast.net> wrote:

>
>"Doug Miller" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> In article <[email protected]>, Revivul
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>On Sat, 09 Jan 2010 23:37:25 GMT, [email protected] (Doug Miller)
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>In article <[email protected]>, Revivul
>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>On Sat, 09 Jan 2010 20:30:56 GMT, [email protected] (Doug Miller)
>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>In article <[email protected]>, Revivul
>>>>>><[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>On Sat, 09 Jan 2010 19:39:29 GMT, [email protected] (Doug Miller)
>>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>In article <[email protected]>, Revivul
>>>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>On Sat, 09 Jan 2010 13:16:27 -0600, Swingman <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Noble sentiment ... now let us know when YOU have your electricity
>>>>>>>>>>permanently turned off and have sold your car(s), never to be used
>>>>>>>>>>by
>>>>>>>>>>you again, have built your own shelter, made your own clothes, and
>>>>>>>>>>killed all the food to feed your family, and no, no ... you can't
>>>>>>>>>>start
>>>>>>>>>>a fire to stay warm, or cook... that's bad for the environment.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Once you've established all the above as fact, come back and we'll
>>>>>>>>>>be
>>>>>>>>>>follow suit, I promise.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Otherwise, can you spell "hypocrite"? To wit: "a person who acts in
>>>>>>>>>>contradiction to his or her stated beliefs or feelings".
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Thanks. I presume you insist that Bill Gates live in his car before
>>>>>>>>>he tries to address the poverty issue?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Somebody needs a course in logic ... and ... it isn't me ;-)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Oh, yes, it is -- because Bill Gates is doing that voluntarily, and
>>>>>>>>not
>>>>>>>>attempting to force anyone else to do the same.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>No. The answer is simpler than that.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>One doesn't have to live in a cave to suggest that we should reduce
>>>>>>>our dependence on fossil fuels, primarily by moving toward cleaner
>>>>>>>renewables.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Have you given up your car yet?
>>>>>
>>>>>Mostly, but ... that's just all/nothing logic again.
>>>>>
>>>>>>>Gore switched to a HUGE % renewables to power his mansion.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Uh-huh. Sure. Last I checked, he was still using an order of magnitude
>>>>>>more
>>>>>>resources than the average American -- while telling the *rest* of us
>>>>>>to
>>>>>>reduce *our* consumption.
>>>>>
>>>>>Thanks for ignoring the IMPORTANT point: clean renewables: use all you
>>>>>want.
>>>>
>>>>Actually, I got the important point, which you missed: the hypocrisy of
>>>>someone who uses an order of magnitude more energy than the average
>>>>person,
>>>>telling the average people they need to reduce *their* consumption while
>>>>doing
>>>>nothing to reduce his own.
>>>>
>>>>Sorry that was so hard for you that I had to explain it twice.
>>>>
>>>>Remainder snipped, as I have no desire to explain *all* of it twice.
>>>
>>>Ability, actually. Desire is a secondary impediment.
>>>
>>>You cannot understand -- or you could readily explain -- the
>>>difference between fossil fuels and renewables.
>>
>> And you persist in missing the point.
>>
>> After three times around, I can only assume it's intentional.
>>
>> <plonk>
>>
>Obviously a troll.
>
>Did you see his e-mail addy?

You might also judge me a troll if you heard how silly my middle name
is.

Sometimes, it's better to address the arguments that somebody makes
(as distinct from the arguments that you wish he HAD made -- the
obvious practice of some/many on this ng).

Unless you can't.

LJ

Larry Jaques

in reply to "CW" on 08/01/2010 9:49 AM

08/01/2010 8:24 PM

On Fri, 8 Jan 2010 09:51:43 -0800 (PST), the infamous
"[email protected]" <[email protected]> scrawled the following:

>On Jan 8, 11:49 am, "CW" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Al Gore has stated that he bought carbon credits to offset the energy
>> consumption of his house. Near as I know, there is no requirement (yet) to
>> buy these carbon credits, no issuing agency and, near as I know, no
>> regulation as to what they are or where the money goes. It would appear
>> that, under the circumstances, anybody with a printer and a little design
>> skill could print up a few million of these things and get rich selling them
>> to those that feel that throwing their money away somehow offsets their sins
>> against the environment with the only real result being adding to the wealth
>> of the issuing company. Kind of like a televangelist. "Send me your money
>> and God will love you for it". The only "love" in the business is the
>> televangelist "loving" the fact that people are so gullible as to send him
>> their money.
>
>It's even better when you buy the carbon credits from yourself. Even
>a televangelist doesn't benefit from sending himself money.

FugAlGore.

I paid $3 for 247,619,423.6 carbon credits. That's the quantity I
figure I've saved since 1970.

www.FreeCarbonOffsets.com has the templates. Mine's framed and on
the wall.

--
We rightly care about the environment. But our neurotic obsession
with carbon betrays an inability to distinguish between pollution
and the stuff of life itself. --Bret Stephens, WSJ 1/5/10

LJ

Larry Jaques

in reply to "CW" on 08/01/2010 9:49 AM

09/01/2010 6:25 PM

On Sat, 9 Jan 2010 12:23:08 -0500, the infamous "J. Clarke"
<[email protected]> scrawled the following:

>Revivul wrote:
>> On Fri, 8 Jan 2010 22:33:40 -0800, "CW" <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> "Mark & Juanita" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Al Gore has stated that he bought carbon credits to offset the
>>>>> energy consumption of his house. Near as I know, there is no
>>>>> requirement (yet) to
>>>>> buy these carbon credits, no issuing agency and, near as I know, no
>>>>> regulation as to what they are or where the money goes. It would
>>>>> appear that, under the circumstances, anybody with a printer and a
>>>>> little design skill could print up a few million of these things
>>>>> and get rich selling them to those that feel that throwing their
>>>>> money away somehow offsets their sins against the environment with
>>>>> the only real result being adding to the wealth of the issuing
>>>>> company. Kind of like a televangelist. "Send me your money and God
>>>>> will love you for it". The only "love" in the business is the
>>>>> televangelist "loving" the fact that people are so gullible as to
>>>>> send him their money.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It's better than that. He bought the carbon offsets from an
>>>> eco-company that he happens to own. i.e., he paid himself. Kind
>>>> of like you putting $20 in the nightstand to pay for spending the
>>>> night in your own bed.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>> It's beyond me why his supporters dont see him for what he is.
>>
>> It's possible that some people would rather we do the right thing for
>> the wrong reasons than not at all.
>
>So what, exactly, is "the right thing"? According to Copenhagen it's paying
>trillions of dollars of tribute to the world's largest polluter.

At the cost of how many lives? The "right thing" directly translates
into murder, just as the ban on DDT did, and just as methanol is
starting to do right now.

Yeah, "the right thing"...

--============================================--
Growing old is mandatory; growing up is optional.
---
http://diversify.com/handypouches.html ToolyRoo(tm)
and Possum(tm) Handy Pouches NOW AVAILABLE!

Ra

Revivul

in reply to "CW" on 08/01/2010 9:49 AM

09/01/2010 12:22 PM

On Sat, 09 Jan 2010 12:58:51 -0600, dpb <[email protected]> wrote:

>Revivul wrote:
>> On Sat, 09 Jan 2010 11:51:45 -0600, dpb <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> Revivul wrote:
>>> ...
>>>
>>>> It's possible that some people would rather we do the right thing for
>>>> the wrong reasons than not at all.
>>> There's no certainty that making decisions on faulty and/or incomplete
>>> data and/or hypotheses is at all "the right thing". Action taken under
>>> such could turn out to be precisely the wrong thing at worst or totally
>>> ineffectual.
>>
>>
>> And yet ... we do it all the time.
>
>So you're advocating continuing to do so?

I know that you cannot always wait until you have 100% information
before acting, so ... yes ... absolutely.

If you stop to think about it, you'd understand how far we have come,
as a civilization, by having a certain willingness to make peace with
uncertainty, and to act, nonetheless.

Ra

Revivul

in reply to "CW" on 08/01/2010 9:49 AM

09/01/2010 11:04 AM

On Sat, 9 Jan 2010 12:23:08 -0500, "J. Clarke"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Revivul wrote:
>> On Fri, 8 Jan 2010 22:33:40 -0800, "CW" <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> "Mark & Juanita" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Al Gore has stated that he bought carbon credits to offset the
>>>>> energy consumption of his house. Near as I know, there is no
>>>>> requirement (yet) to
>>>>> buy these carbon credits, no issuing agency and, near as I know, no
>>>>> regulation as to what they are or where the money goes. It would
>>>>> appear that, under the circumstances, anybody with a printer and a
>>>>> little design skill could print up a few million of these things
>>>>> and get rich selling them to those that feel that throwing their
>>>>> money away somehow offsets their sins against the environment with
>>>>> the only real result being adding to the wealth of the issuing
>>>>> company. Kind of like a televangelist. "Send me your money and God
>>>>> will love you for it". The only "love" in the business is the
>>>>> televangelist "loving" the fact that people are so gullible as to
>>>>> send him their money.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It's better than that. He bought the carbon offsets from an
>>>> eco-company that he happens to own. i.e., he paid himself. Kind
>>>> of like you putting $20 in the nightstand to pay for spending the
>>>> night in your own bed.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>> It's beyond me why his supporters dont see him for what he is.
>>
>> It's possible that some people would rather we do the right thing for
>> the wrong reasons than not at all.
>
>So what, exactly, is "the right thing"? According to Copenhagen it's paying
>trillions of dollars of tribute to the world's largest polluter.

Reduce our dependence on fossil fuel ... dramatically.

It's a finite commodity controlled by unstable regimes.

Its pollution causes big respiratory issues and decreased
productivity.

The protection OF it leads to wars and death -- physical AND economic.

There are SO MANY valid reasons to pursue this course (reducing our
dependence on it) that it's functionally irrelevant whether or not it
has any bearing on global climate.

If it does ... it's just gravy.

Ra

Revivul

in reply to "CW" on 08/01/2010 9:49 AM

11/01/2010 8:38 AM

On Sun, 10 Jan 2010 19:21:08 -0600, Swingman <[email protected]> wrote:

>On 1/10/2010 7:14 PM, Revivul wrote:
>
>
>> Confirmation bias. It's rife on this ng.
>
>Note the NAME of the forum you have taken upon yourself in which to post
>your ideology, then try posting some actual "woodworking" content and
>you may well be surprised ...

I'm stuck.

It *seems* that what *you're* saying is that woodworkers (of which I
am one) are illogical, irrational, intellectually dishonest, and both
narrow- and closed- minded.

But that shouldn't be right.

If I've mis-interpreted, please elaborate.

SURELY you don't ALL think that Freud dado sets are incredible and
wonderful, but the only an absolute *idiot* would *ever* consider
using a Forrest Dado King.

Surely, there are those who like the PM66 and those who like the
Unisaw.

Surely, there are those who like power tools, and the occasional
neanderthal who prefers old-world hand tools.

Surely this is NOT the monolithic group that you convey. In my time
as a woodworker, it's abundantly clear to me that this is a pursuit
that requires *great* mental agility, clear-thinking, and a logical
approach.

Right?

Confirmation bias* is an inherently evil and destructive thing.

So are the other dodges, argumentative tricks and manipulations, and
logical fallacies that are bandied about on this ng when ANY OT thread
comes up -- particularly in response to information or positions that
don't jibe with the popular ones, here.

Why?

Why not have a discussion directly and honestly ... about ... whatever
the topic is, provided you'd care to engage?

My take? Fear and insecurity.

People tend to be wildly uncomfortable with not knowing. THINKING
that they know, then, provides great comfort.

Whereas admitting credible information, and then considering it, is
just too unsettling for many people.

And that's a damned shame.

I *thrive* on valid and intelligent challenges to *my* beliefs.

WTF is the point of listening to a bunch of people who think as I
already do? I'm plenty intellectually secure. I don't need that
reinforcement.

----

I think I erred, yesterday, in combining my bench top mortiser WITH my
router table for making my mortises. I used the 3/8" straight bit to
'clean up' after the mortiser.

That left me with *slightly* rounded upper and lower boundaries that
required a bit of rasp work. I think that's what caused the wood to
split: they were just short of full-width. I didn't do the rasp work
perfectly.

I also think that *does* mean it's a do-over ... from a big ol' slab
of rough hewn wood that I had to fully dimension before cutting these
legs.

More mulch for the yard, then .... ;-)

----

*http://www.skepdic.com/confirmbias.html

Sk

Swingman

in reply to "CW" on 08/01/2010 9:49 AM

10/01/2010 7:21 PM

On 1/10/2010 7:14 PM, Revivul wrote:


> Confirmation bias. It's rife on this ng.

Note the NAME of the forum you have taken upon yourself in which to post
your ideology, then try posting some actual "woodworking" content and
you may well be surprised ...

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/22/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)

nn

notbob

in reply to "CW" on 08/01/2010 9:49 AM

11/01/2010 3:48 PM

On 2010-01-11, Revivul <[email protected]> wrote:

> I *thrive* on valid and intelligent challenges to *my* beliefs.

Have you considered cashing yerself in fer carbon credits?

nb


You’ve reached the end of replies