Opinion:
I'm glad women are starting to hold high positions not only in gov't,
but also in our political parties.
It has been a long road since the days of Margaret Chase Smith of
Maine.
Choosing a women to run as your party's candidate for the 2nd highest
office is great, but it does not include the privilege of hiding
behind her skirts to avoid facing the issues.
"LipStick on a pig", as a vicious personal attack issue? Give me a
break.
Let's hear about some issues.
McCain states, "Were going to shake things up in Washington".
Okay, it's his party he wants to shake up, go for it, but that is an
internal Republican party housekeeping problem, not a proposal to
solve anything.
Maybe he knows something the rest of us don't, but so far haven't
heard anything but the same old time political mumbo jumbo attack
politics.
As I listen, "Where's the beef?", comes to mind.
When do we get a proposal to solve some of our problems?
I'd like to see something about any of the following:
* What is his proposal to address health care problems?
* What is proposal to address global warming issues?
* What is proposal to address alternate energy policies?
(Drill baby drill doesn't count. That's about like saying make more
buggy whips to make the cars go faster)
* What is proposal to address veteran's issues or do we just forget
about them? We owe them big time.
* What is his proposal to address fiscal problems?
* What is proposal to restore our position of leadership on the world
stage?
The list goes on (Iraq, etc), but a proposal on any of the above would
be refreshing.
The silence on the critical issues facing us from McCain to date is
deafening.
Based on his lack of response to date, one can only assume a
continuation of the last 8 years.
What am I missing?
What haven't I heard?
Lew
On Sep 14, 2:18=A0pm, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
> Fred the Red Shirt wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Sep 14, 11:38 am, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> ...
>
> >> That's nice as far as it goes - I even sort of agree with you - but
> >> there is a huge pragmatic elephant in the room. The oil companies have
> >> been so vilified by the left, the enviros, the press, the populists,
> >> and so on that they are constantly under PR and even regulatory
> >> assault. For example, Katrina took out key refining resources. The oil
> >> companies knew this was problem long ago, but had apparently given up
> >> building additional capacity because pretty much no one wanted a
> >> refinery built in their back yard. ...
>
> > You seem to suggest in increasing the supply of refined products
> > will reduce the cost when in fact the supply aready meets or exceeds
> > =A0the demand and MOST of the cost in the refined products is in
> > the raw material itself.
>
> > Excess refining capacity is excess cost that does not contribute
> > to the generation of additional revenue unless the company captures
> > more of the market. =A0A company with more refineries could not
> > do that because the petroleum contracts in place do not allow
> > them to buy more petroleum. =A0But even if one oil company did
> > expand its =A0production and capture more the market, then some
> > other would lose part of its share and decrease its product.
>
> > Production will NEVER significantly exceed demand for any
> > significant period of time.
>
> >> ...
> >> P.S. I want to be the first in line to picket the offices of Earth Fir=
st,
> >> =A0 =A0 =A0Green Peace, and the Sierra Club when these idiots finally =
figure
> >> =A0 =A0 =A0out that their push to hybrid created an enormous environme=
ntal
> >> =A0 =A0 =A0cleanup problem: The clean disposal of billions of lead-aci=
d batteries
> >> =A0 =A0 =A0that can no longer be recycled. =A0I'd like to wish the who=
le bunch
> >> =A0 =A0 =A0of those people the insanity that comes with ingestion of t=
oo much
> >> =A0 =A0 =A0lead, but ... how would we be able to tell the difference f=
rom their
> >> =A0 =A0 =A0mentality today?
> >> ...
>
> > Hybrids do no use lead-acid batteries.
>
> > Don't let that stop you from picketing.
>
> Really? =A0That surprises me. =A0Cars like the Prius use what? =A0Alkalin=
e
> cells? =A0Lithium-Ion? =A0(Lithium, BTW, not being particularly more
> earth friendly than Lead, and - IIRC - cannot be recyled/reused
> often/ever as compared to L-A.) =A0If you have references on this,
> I'd like to read them ...
> ..
Having just checked that, some do use lead--those are
recyclable.
Lead-acid batteries are being phased out in favor of the nickel
(nicad?) and lithium-ion batteries.
I'm not familiar with the lithium-ion technology though I am
pretty sure that lithium is much less toxic than lead and
nickel and not prone to biomultiplication.
--
FF
On Sep 13, 10:02=A0am, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
> Lew Hodgett wrote:
> >
>
>...
>
> > Drill baby drill was their solution.
>
> > There is no way for the USA to drill it's way out of this problem, it
> > is simply not going to happen.
>
> Nonsense. =A0"Drill" is a metaphor for more than just drilling.
Sure. And half of the continental shelf is, and has been open
to drilling for years, and most of that is not being utilized.
I see no reason to believe that opening up the remaining half
would lead to more drilling. It would lead to more speculation
I suppose.
>
> > is the other major problem it has created, global warming.
>
> You are entitled to your religious views but don't peddle them
> as facts. =A0...
>
>
>
> > Energy consumption and global warming are directly related.
>
> They are *correlated* and only along a fairly local/proximate
> time line. =A0*Causation* has never been established so far.
> If you can do the latter, you'll win a Nobel.
I have offered to explain the causative link to you, so long as
we restrict the conversion to science, and conduct it in a
civil manner.
That offer still stands.
--
FF
"Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "todd" wrote:
>
>> So which is it? Has McCain said nothing at all as you originally
>> asserted or has he said something, but you just don't agree with it?
>
> So far all I see is a continuation of the last 8 years and think it is
> pretty well documented how these ideas have worked.
>
> It is stuff straight out of G Bush's mouth.
>
> McCain indicates he wants to change things.
>
> I'm all for that, I'm waiting for McCain to tell me how he is different
> than Bush.
>
> Lew
Somehow I doubt that.
As for wanting change, what makes you think change from W's policies would
be a good thing? You, me, and the sum of the posters in this group do NOT
have the whole story. We are bound by what is reported in the papers and as
such have no real idea on exactly why a specific plan of action was taken.
It's convienent for us to comment on how bad the war in Iraq is, or how
terrible a certain economic plan is - but when it comes down to it we have
nothing better to offer. All we can do is vote what sounds good to us,
which is why I'm voting for Barr this time. But I won't let my
dissapointment with the current administration lead me to insult the
President or disrespect a serving Senator (not that I'm implying you've
done those things either) because even at their worst I could never do
better. If I have in the past insulted them, it was at my most immodest of
times.
On Sep 14, 11:51=A0am, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
> Fred the Red Shirt wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Sep 13, 10:02 am, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> Lew Hodgett wrote:
> >> ...
>
> >>> Drill baby drill was their solution.
> >>> There is no way for the USA to drill it's way out of this problem, it
> >>> is simply not going to happen.
> >> Nonsense. =A0"Drill" is a metaphor for more than just drilling.
>
> > Sure. =A0And half of the continental shelf is, and has been open
> > to drilling for years, and most of that is not being utilized.
> > =A0I see no reason to believe that opening up the remaining half
> > would lead to more drilling. =A0 It would lead to more speculation
> > I suppose.
>
> >>> is the other major problem it has created, global warming.
> >> You are entitled to your religious views but don't peddle them
> >> as facts. =A0...
>
> >>> Energy consumption and global warming are directly related.
> >> They are *correlated* and only along a fairly local/proximate
> >> time line. =A0*Causation* has never been established so far.
> >> If you can do the latter, you'll win a Nobel.
>
> > I have offered to explain the causative link to you, so long as
> > we restrict the conversion to science, and conduct it in a
> > civil manner.
>
> > That offer still stands.
> ...
>
> Why do you not have a Nobel then Fred?
>
That offer still stands.
--
FF
On Sep 13, 2:09=A0am, "Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Mark & Juanita" wrote:
> > =A0Why is it that the drastic energy price increases started after the
> > Democrats took control of the legislative branch? =A0If Bush and
> > Cheney were
> > so responsible, one would think those drastic increases would have
> > started
> > shortly after 2001.
They did.
It takes time to implement a plan.
http://www.pushhamburger.com/oil_history.htm
Prices dropped during 2000, stabilized during 2001 and began
rising in 2002.
Interestingly, the price of refined petroleum products began
rising as soon as Bush/Cheney took orifice, as if the companies
anticipated the rise in crude prices:
http://www.dallasfed.org/eyi/usecon/0508gas.html
They have started to go down now,
with the Democrats still controlling the Congress.
>
> The rapidly increasing energy prices are simply the manifestation of a
> long developing problem, namely the expanding worldwide demand for
> energy and it's impact on the world economy.
>
> Bush/Cheney, men with oil backgrounds, have returned to an oil
> person's mentality to address the problem.
>
> Using old ideas to address a new problem(s) is not the sign of a
> leader.
>
> Drill baby drill was their solution.
>
> There is no way for the USA to drill it's way out of this problem, it
> is simply not going to happen.
>
> We simply don't have enough oil that the oil industry is interested in
> extracting, to solve the problem.
Half of the continental shelf is currently open for exploration
and extraction, and has been for years. I don't see why the
Petroleum would be more inclined to explore an drill in the
remaining half. I suppose that would open up the market
for speculation, an 'industry' that neither produces nor
contributes anything value.
>
> BTW, still remember being interviewed by Mobil Oil upon graduation.
> Still remember him stating, Mobil didn't make any money on gasoline,
> but they did on everything else.
>
> That was a long time ago, but not much has changed.
>
> If you think about it that crude stream in south Texas that goes into
> plastics is worth a lot more than if it were gasoline. (Bought a 500
> lb drum of epoxy lately?)
>
> There has never been an energy policy put out by either party that
> addresses conservation and efficient use of a finite resource, oil.
> ...
Carter had one. But he never sold even his own party on
it. That's because it was a long term plan, planning for the
next generation. Which, BTW, IMHO is the only sort of plan
that could work without major political/social. economic
disruption.
Now that I mentioned his name, probably one or more persons
will feel obliged to tell us they think he was a terrible President,
but for completely different reasons, thus distracting the reader
from considering where we might be had we followed his lead
on energy issues.
--
FF
On Sep 13, 2:09=A0am, "Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> ...
>
> IMHO, McCain has sold his sole for the opportunity to run for
> President.
> ...
Left shoe or right?
--
FF
On Sep 11, 8:51=A0am, Phil Again <notwantspam_@_1-2-3-4-5.nospam> wrote:
> ...
>
>
> Example two: Am I the only person who thinks USA should outlaw the use of
> Oil and diesel fuel from being used as fuel at large Electrical power
> plants?
Hopefully. Large Power Plants use fuel oil almost exclusively
to ignite their primary fuel, coal. Outlawing it would make it
harder to get the coal burners started, which would lead to
environmental problems (unburnt coal in the fly ash) without
substantial savings of petroleum.
Oil and natural gas combined only account for about 10% of
the electricity generated in the US. Most of that is at smaller
facilities.
> And, should Taxpayers offer interest free loans to Utility plants
> to convert from Oil power plants to Nat Gas? Am I the only person who
> looks at electrical cars and asks "where and how is that electricity
> being generated?"
It sometimes seems to me that you and I are the only
*two* people who ask that question.
> =A0Is that electricity used by cars really all that
> pollution free?
Generally speaking the economies of scale make
pollution abatement at a large centralized power plant
more effective overall than at hundreds of thousands
of small engines.
I think.
--
FF
On Sep 14, 4:57=A0pm, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> ...
>
> Lead-Acid can be recycled up to a point, but at some point they
> are done. =A0Today, as best I know, they just get tossed at that point.
The whole car gets tossed at some point. Lead/Nickel/Cadmium in
the car may be the most critical disposal recycling issue.
>
> NiCad has the problem having Cadmium in them - another not very nice
> heavy metal.
>
The nickel; batteries in question appear to be Nickel-Zinc, not nicad.
The nickel is still an issue, but not as bad as cadmium or lead.
> I doubt LiIon have the energy density for a car, but perhaps they've
> come far enough to do that too. =A0In any case, you do have some
> problem with the remaining Li when things are done.
You can recycle it into thermonuclear weapons.
Seriously:
Lead, cadmium, and nickel are toxic heavy metals that
biomultiply in the food chain. Lithium is a 1-A metal, a
nutrient, an essential trace mineral. Of course you could
OD on it and chronic exposure to much higher than normal
levels in your diet would cause long term health problems
but it is huge improvement over the others. Low levels
of lithium contamination in the environment are about
as damaging as low level contamination with sodium,
potassium or calcium. The anion would probably merit
closer controls.
>
> The point is that all engineering is the art of tradeoff. =A0
My point is that facts matter.
Expressing concern over something that is not
happening, or concerns about disposal of a benign
material used to replace a very toxic one is not
condusive to a constructive discussion.
--
FF
[email protected] wrote:
> On Sep 14, 2:18 pm, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Fred the Red Shirt wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Sep 14, 11:38 am, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> ...
>>>> That's nice as far as it goes - I even sort of agree with you - but
>>>> there is a huge pragmatic elephant in the room. The oil companies have
>>>> been so vilified by the left, the enviros, the press, the populists,
>>>> and so on that they are constantly under PR and even regulatory
>>>> assault. For example, Katrina took out key refining resources. The oil
>>>> companies knew this was problem long ago, but had apparently given up
>>>> building additional capacity because pretty much no one wanted a
>>>> refinery built in their back yard. ...
>>> You seem to suggest in increasing the supply of refined products
>>> will reduce the cost when in fact the supply aready meets or exceeds
>>> the demand and MOST of the cost in the refined products is in
>>> the raw material itself.
>>> Excess refining capacity is excess cost that does not contribute
>>> to the generation of additional revenue unless the company captures
>>> more of the market. A company with more refineries could not
>>> do that because the petroleum contracts in place do not allow
>>> them to buy more petroleum. But even if one oil company did
>>> expand its production and capture more the market, then some
>>> other would lose part of its share and decrease its product.
>>> Production will NEVER significantly exceed demand for any
>>> significant period of time.
>>>> ...
>>>> P.S. I want to be the first in line to picket the offices of Earth First,
>>>> Green Peace, and the Sierra Club when these idiots finally figure
>>>> out that their push to hybrid created an enormous environmental
>>>> cleanup problem: The clean disposal of billions of lead-acid batteries
>>>> that can no longer be recycled. I'd like to wish the whole bunch
>>>> of those people the insanity that comes with ingestion of too much
>>>> lead, but ... how would we be able to tell the difference from their
>>>> mentality today?
>>>> ...
>>> Hybrids do no use lead-acid batteries.
>>> Don't let that stop you from picketing.
>> Really? That surprises me. Cars like the Prius use what? Alkaline
>> cells? Lithium-Ion? (Lithium, BTW, not being particularly more
>> earth friendly than Lead, and - IIRC - cannot be recyled/reused
>> often/ever as compared to L-A.) If you have references on this,
>> I'd like to read them ...
>> ..
>
> Having just checked that, some do use lead--those are
> recyclable.
>
> Lead-acid batteries are being phased out in favor of the nickel
> (nicad?) and lithium-ion batteries.
>
> I'm not familiar with the lithium-ion technology though I am
> pretty sure that lithium is much less toxic than lead and
> nickel and not prone to biomultiplication.
>
> --
>
> FF
Lead-Acid can be recycled up to a point, but at some point they
are done. Today, as best I know, they just get tossed at that point.
NiCad has the problem having Cadmium in them - another not very nice
heavy metal.
I doubt LiIon have the energy density for a car, but perhaps they've
come far enough to do that too. In any case, you do have some
problem with the remaining Li when things are done.
The point is that all engineering is the art of tradeoff. There
is no free lunch in science just as there is none in economics
(or personal relationships or work or ...). This doesn't stop
the chowderheaded environmentalist fanatics from finding magic
solutions (to often ill formed or even bogus problems) on some
regular basis...
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
"todd" wrote:
> So which is it? Has McCain said nothing at all as you originally
> asserted or has he said something, but you just don't agree with it?
So far all I see is a continuation of the last 8 years and think it is
pretty well documented how these ideas have worked.
It is stuff straight out of G Bush's mouth.
McCain indicates he wants to change things.
I'm all for that, I'm waiting for McCain to tell me how he is
different than Bush.
Lew
On Sep 12, 4:31=A0pm, Charlie Self <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Sep 11, 11:48=A0pm, "Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > "todd" wrote:
> > > So which is it? =A0Has McCain said nothing at all as you originally
> > > asserted or has he said something, but you just don't agree with it?
>
> > So far all I see is a continuation of the last 8 years and think it is
> > pretty well documented how these ideas have worked.
>
> > It is stuff straight out of G Bush's mouth.
>
> > McCain indicates he wants to change things.
>
> > I'm all for that, I'm waiting for McCain to tell me how he is
> > different than Bush.
>
> > Lew
>
> He's 9% different. He is 91% the same. At least that's how he's voted
> in the past 7-1/2 years.
I'd be happy to have the John McCain who ran in 2000.
I tend to think that his positions since have been:
1) Loyalty to the President who won the election and
to the direction his party has taken.
2) Deference to the decisions made by the commander-
in-chief during wartime.
3) Positioning himself to gain the support of the voters
who defeated him in favor of Bush in 2000.
(e.g. If you can't beat them, join them.)
So I don't know if he took the positions he did in
2000 to gain support of that part of the Republican
Party that could be swayed away from Bush, or if
those positions reflected his true principles and
he is only pandering now or, and this I consider to
be most likely he, like most politicians, has always
pandered and has no genuine loyalty to any, or
at most only a preciously small set, of principles.
It is all too easy to believe that a person who tells
me what I want to hear, actually believes it himself.
--
FF
On Sep 11, 11:23=A0am, Chris Friesen <[email protected]> wrote:
> Phil Again wrote:
> > Example two: Am I the only person who thinks USA should outlaw the use =
of
> > Oil and diesel fuel from being used as fuel at large Electrical power
> > plants? And, should Taxpayers offer interest free loans to Utility plan=
ts
> > to convert from Oil power plants to Nat Gas? Am I the only person who
> > looks at electrical cars and asks "where and how is that electricity
> > being generated?" =A0Is that electricity used by cars really all that
> > pollution free?
>
> Couple of comments. =A0First, I think demand for natural gas is increasin=
g
> faster than demand for oil. =A0It may be cheaper now (haven't checked
> prices for equal BTUs lately) but that may change in the not-so-distant
> future.
>
> Second, all else being equal larger fuel-burning motors are more
> efficient than smaller ones. =A0Also, electric motors can be very
> efficient. =A0Thus, one really big motor at a power plant burning oil to
> generate electricity to power electric cars could end up being more
> efficient overall than a bunch of gas-powered cars.
I think the big advantage of all electric cars, lies in the fact that
power generating stations are able to run on coal, reactors, wind and
hydro.
Those are all fuels which regular engines cannot use. The BTU's per
dollar from coal or nuclear sources are several magnitudes cheaper
than those fuels which we buy from foreign countries, then refine and
distribute through 'Big Oil'.
Those centralized power sources can be run relatively clean compared
to the alternatives. Nuclear is well proven source of electrical power
which can get us to be energy self sufficient.
But.... there is nothing for nothing. Capital investment in a nuke is
high, so is maintenance. The least of the problems lie in the area of
waste management. Throwing a bezillion tons of ash and oxides from
fossil fired stations into the atmosphere ain't no picnic either.
The biggest problem with nuclear power, is the ignorance of the
general public.
One good sized nuke, and a coast-to-coast electrified railroad system
will get a LOT of those stinking trucks off the roads, including their
rubber tires (Whic use a lot of carbon based products) and smelly
service stations <G>
>
> Also, some baseload power plants run at basically full capacity
> regardless of load. =A0Because of this, a certain amount of baseload
> generating capacity is "wasted" at night when power consumption drops.
> This power could be used to charge electric vehicles with minimal effect
> on overall demand.
Base-load power plants, like all others, can only generate the energy
that is consumed at that exact moment in time. You cannot, therefore,
waste output. You can, however, waste some efficiencies by running a
500 MW generator at 50 MW. Which is why there are smaller, more
nimble, and always less efficient 'peaking' stations which can cycle
much quicker and can be taken off line, and restarted with greater
ease that the big fellas. Those are usually coal or oil fired. The
real big guys create problems to the rest of the network by their
requirement for spinning reserve. IOW, the rest of the system has to
be able to instantly replace the energy lost by the biggest single
generator in the system. If there is an 850 MW generator dumping power
into a 10000 MW network, you'd need ...say.. 10 stations running 85 MW
below capacity.
That, incidentally, wouldn't be a bad policy to implement on oil
tankers. Force them to always sail with an empty hold, so if another
hold is punctured, you immediately start pumping the oil from the
damaged one into the empty one. That way, another seagull can survive
so it can get swatted out of the sky by the blade of a windmill
generator.
WILL you look at the time.....
On Sep 13, 4:50=A0pm, Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote:
> Lew Hodgett wrote:
> > "Mark & Juanita" wrote:
>
> >>Didn't take long to get to the first Democrat talking point.
>
> > <snip>
>
> >> =A0Dem talking points #2 and #3.
>
> >> =A0Gore talking point
>
> >> =A0Of course not. =A0Bush has been an object of hatred since December
> >> 2000,
> >> nothing he could have done would have changed that.
>
> > Name calling and attack seems to be your approach.
>
> =A0 This coming from the person who originated this particular discussion
> using such terms as "McBush", derision of our own people "our wasteful
> consumption", McCain has sold his sole [sic]. =A0
>
> > First two laws of debate:
>
> > 1)When you have the facts on your side, use them.
>
> > 2)When you don't, throw crap on the wall and see if you can get
> > something to stick.
>
> > Pretty obvious which of the above you have chosen.
>
> > Lew
>
> --
> If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough
Mark, there are so many holes in your boat, it no longer floats.
Your side had the opportunity of a lifetime to do some good around
this world of ours. Instead, greed drove your crew to drop the ball.
You lose.
Every time I see one of your posts, it reminds me of that famous
Python Knight: "come back here you coward!!"
On Sep 14, 12:42=A0pm, krw <[email protected]> wrote:
> In article <344df6a9-b7e6-448c-8275-cfec659f8d43
> @j22g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, [email protected] says...
>
>
>
> > On Sep 11, 8:51=A0am, Phil Again <notwantspam_@_1-2-3-4-5.nospam> wrote=
:
> > > ...
>
> > > Example two: Am I the only person who thinks USA should outlaw the us=
e of
> > > Oil and diesel fuel from being used as fuel at large Electrical power
> > > plants?
>
> > Hopefully. =A0Large Power Plants use fuel oil almost exclusively
> > =A0to ignite their primary fuel, coal. =A0 Outlawing it would make it
> > harder to get the coal burners started, which would lead to
> > environmental problems (unburnt coal in the fly ash) without
> > substantial savings of petroleum.
>
> > Oil and natural gas combined only account for about 10% of
> > the electricity generated in the US. =A0Most of that is at smaller
> > facilities.
Sorry, that should have been 20%.
>
> Mostly at "peaking" plants, AIUI. =A0Small/cheap plants needed for
> quick availability (on line in minutes) to offset peak loads. =A0It
> takes time to start a bioler or nuke.
> ..
Yes.
--
FF
Edwin Pawlowski wrote:
> "Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> IMHO, McCain has sold his sole for the opportunity to run for President.
>>
>> All he seems able to do is spit out the standard boiler plate party line.
>
> IMO, it was an easy sale. Bush made such a mess of things I think the
> Republicans figure they can't win this time around no matter what, so let
> McCain have his 15 minutes of fame. Why waste a "good" candidate?
>
> As much as I dislike Hillary, I figured she'd be the front runner. So did
> she and she let Obama get too good a start.
>
>
I think Hillary would be the Dems nominee if georgeous John Edwards
hadn't sucked up enough votes from her to let BO sneak through.
There's a good reason BO didn't pick Hil for veep as there isn't a
government paid position of food taster.
Fred the Red Shirt wrote:
> On Sep 14, 11:38 am, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
>> ...
>>
>> That's nice as far as it goes - I even sort of agree with you - but
>> there is a huge pragmatic elephant in the room. The oil companies have
>> been so vilified by the left, the enviros, the press, the populists,
>> and so on that they are constantly under PR and even regulatory
>> assault. For example, Katrina took out key refining resources. The oil
>> companies knew this was problem long ago, but had apparently given up
>> building additional capacity because pretty much no one wanted a
>> refinery built in their back yard. ...
>
> You seem to suggest in increasing the supply of refined products
> will reduce the cost when in fact the supply aready meets or exceeds
> the demand and MOST of the cost in the refined products is in
> the raw material itself.
>
> Excess refining capacity is excess cost that does not contribute
> to the generation of additional revenue unless the company captures
> more of the market. A company with more refineries could not
> do that because the petroleum contracts in place do not allow
> them to buy more petroleum. But even if one oil company did
> expand its production and capture more the market, then some
> other would lose part of its share and decrease its product.
>
> Production will NEVER significantly exceed demand for any
> significant period of time.
>
>> ...
>> P.S. I want to be the first in line to picket the offices of Earth First,
>> Green Peace, and the Sierra Club when these idiots finally figure
>> out that their push to hybrid created an enormous environmental
>> cleanup problem: The clean disposal of billions of lead-acid batteries
>> that can no longer be recycled. I'd like to wish the whole bunch
>> of those people the insanity that comes with ingestion of too much
>> lead, but ... how would we be able to tell the difference from their
>> mentality today?
>> ...
>
> Hybrids do no use lead-acid batteries.
>
> Don't let that stop you from picketing.
>
Really? That surprises me. Cars like the Prius use what? Alkaline
cells? Lithium-Ion? (Lithium, BTW, not being particularly more
earth friendly than Lead, and - IIRC - cannot be recyled/reused
often/ever as compared to L-A.) If you have references on this,
I'd like to read them ...
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
On Sep 11, 2:20=A0am, "Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> ...
>
> "LipStick on a pig", as a vicious personal attack issue? Give me a
> break.
> ...
>
No kidding. If actual people were the object of the pejorative,
then the pig is Bush and the pig with the lipstick is McCain.
Palin is no Cheney.
--
FF
Lew Hodgett wrote:
> "Mark & Juanita" wrote:
>
>>Didn't take long to get to the first Democrat talking point.
>
> <snip>
>
>> Dem talking points #2 and #3.
>
>> Gore talking point
>
>> Of course not. Bush has been an object of hatred since December
>> 2000,
>> nothing he could have done would have changed that.
>
> Name calling and attack seems to be your approach.
>
This coming from the person who originated this particular discussion
using such terms as "McBush", derision of our own people "our wasteful
consumption", McCain has sold his sole [sic].
> First two laws of debate:
>
> 1)When you have the facts on your side, use them.
>
> 2)When you don't, throw crap on the wall and see if you can get
> something to stick.
>
> Pretty obvious which of the above you have chosen.
>
> Lew
--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough
On Sep 11, 10:10=A0am, N Hurst <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Sep 11, 8:51=A0am, Phil Again <notwantspam_@_1-2-3-4-5.nospam> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Thu, 11 Sep 2008 06:20:32 +0000, Lew Hodgett wrote:
> > > Opinion:
>
> > > I'm glad women are starting to hold high positions not only in gov't,
> > > but also in our political parties.
>
> > > It has been a long road since the days of Margaret Chase Smith of Mai=
ne.
>
> > > Choosing a women to run as your party's candidate for the 2nd highest
> > > office is great, but it does not include the privilege of hiding behi=
nd
> > > her skirts to avoid facing the issues.
>
> > > "LipStick on a pig", as a vicious personal attack issue? Give me a
> > > break.
>
> > > Let's hear about some issues.
>
> > > McCain states, "Were going to shake things up in Washington".
>
> > > Okay, it's his party he wants to shake up, go for it, but that is an
> > > internal Republican party housekeeping problem, not a proposal to sol=
ve
> > > anything.
>
> > > Maybe he knows something the rest of us don't, but so far haven't hea=
rd
> > > anything but the same old time political mumbo jumbo attack politics.
>
> > > As I listen, "Where's the beef?", comes to mind.
>
> > > When do we get a proposal to solve some of our problems?
>
> > > I'd like to see something about any of the following:
>
> > > * What is his proposal to address health care problems?
>
> > > * What is proposal to address global warming issues?
>
> > > * What is proposal to address alternate energy policies? (Drill baby
> > > drill doesn't count. That's about like saying make more buggy whips t=
o
> > > make the cars go faster)
>
> > > * What is proposal to address veteran's issues or do we just forget
> > > about them? =A0We owe them big time.
>
> > > * What is his proposal to address fiscal problems?
>
> > > * What is proposal to restore our position of leadership on the world
> > > stage?
>
> > > The list goes on (Iraq, etc), but a proposal on any of the above woul=
d
> > > be refreshing.
>
> > > The silence on the critical issues facing us from McCain to date is
> > > deafening.
>
> > > Based on his lack of response to date, one can only assume a
> > > continuation of the last 8 years.
>
> > > What am I missing?
>
> > > What haven't I heard?
>
> > > Lew
>
> > I freely admit I could, and most probably am, wrong on this, but here i=
s
> > My Opinion:
>
> > Example two: Am I the only person who thinks USA should outlaw the use =
of
> > Oil and diesel fuel from being used as fuel at large Electrical power
> > plants? And, should Taxpayers offer interest free loans to Utility plan=
ts
> > to convert from Oil power plants to Nat Gas? Am I the only person who
> > looks at electrical cars and asks "where and how is that electricity
> > being generated?" =A0Is that electricity used by cars really all that
> > pollution free?
>
> The pure electric cars (i.e. plugin, not gas/electric hybrid) are
> going to be better for the environment because while yes, the large
> power generators at the power company do create pollution, they're
> generally more regulated and much more efficient than either the gas/
> electric hybrid or the gas only car, or pretty much any internal
> combustion engine.
>
> Think about it this way... you could run your house by firing up a 2kW
> portable generator. But you know those things aren't as good as the
> power company, because you don't run your house on those portable
> generators unless you have to. They're prone to failure, are expensive
> to operate (i.e. keeping fuel in them and repairing them when they
> break), are inefficient, and are annoying to have on all the time.
>
> So while an electric car is indeed causing pollution, it's going to be
> overall less because of the economies of scale involved. For a small
> generator to power the car, it might generate X tons of pollution,
> whereas a power company to provide the same power, the pollution might
> only be 50% of X, which is a better deal for everyone involved.
>
> -Nathan- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
This seems to make sense and I'd guess that you are correct. But it's
one of those things that could be counterintuitive. I'd like to see
some data or at least a technical analysis. In that analysis, it would
be very interesting to know the NET effect in environmental impact. I
agree the the net is probably positive regarding electric cars, but I
have no idea whether it's a large or small improvement once you factor
in the "environmental cost" of generating the electricity.
Let's face it, popular culture is becoming very obsessed with being
"green" and the consumer industry has jumped on the bandwagon to milk
our sentiment for every possible $$. The upside is that it has raised
awareness. That's good, but it's not good if the economic load to "go
green" is MUCH larger than the REAL benefit to the environment. I'm
not saying that it's not worth it, I'm saying that I don't have enough
FACTUAL data to form a conclusion.
The bottom line is, these this are more complicated that they appear.
Certain factions seem to feel that no cost is too high. I would ask
them this: "Would you spend $1,000,000 to save an entire species of
animal? Most of us would answer "yes".
Okay then, what about one individual animal. Fewer would say "yes".
What about a tree, or a small plant. Is $1,000,000 worth it?
Food for thought...
Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> writes:
> Didn't take long to get to the first Democrat talking point. This one is
> one of the most patently absurd ones that should make people laugh in
> derision. The idea that solving a shortage is supply can't be solved by
> increasing supply -- what a concept.
Sigh.... It's not *simply* drilling more holes. If it were that
simple, it would have been done years ago.
They have to develop *new techniques* to extract the oil.
One involves pumping compressed chemicals into shale to extract the
oil. There is a strong push to do this. And to make it easier, the
government has created loopholes in the EPA laws to allow this. The
trouble is, the process is secret, and the oil companies won't say
what the chemicals are that they use.
And in one case, the shale is right near the aquafer in
NYC. Essentially there are concerns that the unnamed chemicals will
contaminate the drinking water of New York City.
On Sep 11, 12:58=A0pm, Chris Friesen <[email protected]> wrote:
> Robatoy wrote:
> > Base-load power plants, like all others, can only generate the energy
> > that is consumed at that exact moment in time. You cannot, therefore,
> > waste output. You can, however, waste some efficiencies by running a
> > 500 MW generator at 50 MW.
>
> Yep. =A0I didn't say the power was wasted, just the generating capacity.
> (And as you say, some inefficiency is introduced.)
>
> Since the capacity exists already, a certain amount of additional
> off-peak power usage could be accommodated without any need to increase
> generating capacity.
>
Load smoothing is always a good idea. A 500 MW generator idling a 200
MW while it waits for everybody to turn on their toasters in the
morning, could be sitting a 400 MW and then all the toasters would
come on needing that 300 MW that now no longer exists. The only way to
do that, would be to have the ability to start knocking off car
chargers (for instance), remotely, as the demand for toast increases.
In today's wired society, I can't see that being such a tall order.
Have the power company control when you can charge or not...OR.. make
people pay big for those KW/h during peak hours. (An option you can
sell <G>)
Fred the Red Shirt wrote:
<SNIP>
>>>>> Energy consumption and global warming are directly related.
>>>> They are *correlated* and only along a fairly local/proximate
>>>> time line. *Causation* has never been established so far.
>>>> If you can do the latter, you'll win a Nobel.
>>> I have offered to explain the causative link to you, so long as
>>> we restrict the conversion to science, and conduct it in a
>>> civil manner.
>>> That offer still stands.
>> ...
>>
>> Why do you not have a Nobel then Fred?
>>
>
> That offer still stands.
Fred, if it were that simple or obvious, it would have been
demonstrated and verified by the scientific method long ago.
It's not that simple. Is there some reason to believe in
an anthropogenic contribution to warming? Possibly. But
it's not as cut and dried as you like. You want to take
a shot at making the case ... be my guest.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
On Sep 11, 8:51=A0am, Phil Again <notwantspam_@_1-2-3-4-5.nospam> wrote:
You will have to trust me on this, it is easier to explain (in 15
second
bites) lipstick quotes than it is to explain causes of 11 retail
banking
failures in one or two regions and none in rest of country.
Example two: Am I the only person who thinks USA should outlaw the use
of
Oil and diesel fuel from being used as fuel at large Electrical power
plants? And, should Taxpayers offer interest free loans to Utility
plants
to convert from Oil power plants to Nat Gas? Am I the only person who
looks at electrical cars and asks "where and how is that electricity
being generated?" Is that electricity used by cars really all that
pollution free?
Even Palin can't explain the Fannie Mae deal in 15 seconds or two
days!
As to the electrical power plant thing, yes, but.
"BUT" we are not now using oil to generate electricity at more than a
handful of locations.
Nearly 80% of our transportation infrastructure, however, depends upon
oil.
We impose a tax ($0.50/gallon) on imported Ethanol. THis needs to be
eliminated.
We require an FM radio in all vehicles sold in the US, but do not
require they be "multi-fuel" capable (adds about $120 to the
production cost).
We lease oil reserves (on and off shore) without adding "explore it or
lose it" language to the leases.
(80% of the leases controled by Oil Corps sit idle as we
speak)
OPEC has a big say in US energy production.
They decide what they will produce and, thus, influence the
price per bbl at will.
They added two new producing nations to OPEC without
increasing output by a single barrel.
Thus, effectively reducing world supplies!
Republicans (including self-styled Mavericks) have regularly opposed
CAFE standards intended to reduce US demand
Our fleet used to include millions of propane-fueled vehicles - many
sit in junk-yards today. These could be converted to Picken's NG, no?
If we can build propane cars and trucks, we can build NG cars
and trucks
Every converted vehicle reduces US demand and puts pressure
on OPEC
Republicans (including self-styled Mavericks) have regularly opposed
significant incentives for personal Hybrid purchases
You might get $2,000.00 if you bought a Prius, but it would
cost you five grand more than a Hyundai
They supported a four-year recaprure on the purchase of a
Hummer for small business amounting to nearly forty-grand
worth of incentives to put those monsters in every real
estate office in the land.
Big Oil wants to lease the rest of the sites before drilling on what
they have under lease now. Why is that?
Control. If they can lease it all, they control all drilling
in the US and thus
they can have their own little OPEC.
There will be no competition possble - no maverick upstart
company could lease a site and start drilling
as there would be no more leases available.
In fairness, the Republicans are good businessmen - savvy folks who
know how to keep America's oil companies profitable.
Folks who know better than I how to keep them earning big bucks and
protect their future earnings. Folks who may have tunnel vision.
Folks who may not see the the health, safety and well-being of our
citizens as a higher value than protecting Capitalist perogatives.
They are working these schemes for our own good ;)
.
"Rod & Betty Jo" wrote:
> Which ideas are these?
Pick one. energy, the economy, fiscal policy, arrogant foreign policy,
the list goes on.
>What exactly didn't work?
You're a big boy, you can do your own home work.
> Why? What makes you think McCain isn't his own man?......If any main
> stream politician beats to his own drummer, surely McCain does.
The man has sold his soul to get this opportunity.
The McCain of 2000 is not the McCain of 2008, he has transformed
himself into McBush of 2000-2008, which is a damn shame/
Lew
"Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:BzCyk.32$1a2.12@trnddc04...
>
> "Rod & Betty Jo" wrote:
>
>> Which ideas are these?
>
> Pick one. energy, the economy, fiscal policy, arrogant foreign policy, the
> list goes on.
So many to choose from but still unable to present even a token specific
......
>>What exactly didn't work?
>
> You're a big boy, you can do your own home work.
Again apparently unable and unwilling to demonstrate even one tiny example
of a specific example of your point. Obviously you feel there is no purpose
in presenting a simple fact when broad strokes of empty allegations will do.
>> Why? What makes you think McCain isn't his own man?......If any main
>> stream politician beats to his own drummer, surely McCain does.
>
> The man has sold his soul to get this opportunity.
>
> The McCain of 2000 is not the McCain of 2008, he has transformed himself
> into McBush of 2000-2008, which is a damn shame/
> Lew
Only in your own mind.....your confusing empty Obama campaign rhetoric with
thinking for yourself. If I'm wrong I'd still be happy to hear anything that
proves such silly allegations. Rod
"Mark & Juanita" wrote:
> Why is it that the drastic energy price increases started after the
> Democrats took control of the legislative branch? If Bush and
> Cheney were
> so responsible, one would think those drastic increases would have
> started
> shortly after 2001.
The rapidly increasing energy prices are simply the manifestation of a
long developing problem, namely the expanding worldwide demand for
energy and it's impact on the world economy.
Bush/Cheney, men with oil backgrounds, have returned to an oil
person's mentality to address the problem.
Using old ideas to address a new problem(s) is not the sign of a
leader.
Drill baby drill was their solution.
There is no way for the USA to drill it's way out of this problem, it
is simply not going to happen.
We simply don't have enough oil that the oil industry is interested in
extracting, to solve the problem.
BTW, still remember being interviewed by Mobil Oil upon graduation.
Still remember him stating, Mobil didn't make any money on gasoline,
but they did on everything else.
That was a long time ago, but not much has changed.
If you think about it that crude stream in south Texas that goes into
plastics is worth a lot more than if it were gasoline. (Bought a 500
lb drum of epoxy lately?)
There has never been an energy policy put out by either party that
addresses conservation and efficient use of a finite resource, oil.
Coupled with our wasteful consumption (25% of the world's output by 4%
of the population), is the other major problem it has created, global
warming.
Energy consumption and global warming are directly related.
The rampant clearing of the rain forests in Indonesia and Brazil are
another part of the equation since those trees no longer exist to
convert CO2 back to O2.
IMHO, THIS IS THE MAJOR problem that the world will resolve in the 1st
half of the 21st century.
We either address the renewable energy/global warming problem(s) or we
will get our clocks cleaned.
If we do it the right way, the USA will develop the technologies, make
a lot of money in the process, and continue to enjoy our standard of
living.
I have seen nothing in the last 8 years that indicates to me that
Bush/Cheney have a clue what is going on.
IMHO, McCain has sold his sole for the opportunity to run for
President.
All he seems able to do is spit out the standard boiler plate party
line.
Times are changing, they need a serious update.
He may very well have some new ideas, but he hasn't presented them.
Lew
In article <344df6a9-b7e6-448c-8275-cfec659f8d43
@j22g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, [email protected] says...
> On Sep 11, 8:51=A0am, Phil Again <notwantspam_@_1-2-3-4-5.nospam> wrote:
> > ...
> >
> >
> > Example two: Am I the only person who thinks USA should outlaw the use =
of
> > Oil and diesel fuel from being used as fuel at large Electrical power
> > plants?
>=20
> Hopefully. Large Power Plants use fuel oil almost exclusively
> to ignite their primary fuel, coal. Outlawing it would make it
> harder to get the coal burners started, which would lead to
> environmental problems (unburnt coal in the fly ash) without
> substantial savings of petroleum.
>=20
> Oil and natural gas combined only account for about 10% of
> the electricity generated in the US. Most of that is at smaller
> facilities.
Mostly at "peaking" plants, AIUI. Small/cheap plants needed for=20
quick availability (on line in minutes) to offset peak loads. It=20
takes time to start a bioler or nuke.
> > And, should Taxpayers offer interest free loans to Utility plants
> > to convert from Oil power plants to Nat Gas? Am I the only person who
> > looks at electrical cars and asks "where and how is that electricity
> > being generated?"
>=20
> It sometimes seems to me that you and I are the only
> *two* people who ask that question.
What about; where are the batteries going to come from? Oil has a=20
pretty impressive energy content.
> > =A0Is that electricity used by cars really all that
> > pollution free?
>=20
> Generally speaking the economies of scale make
> pollution abatement at a large centralized power plant
> more effective overall than at hundreds of thousands
> of small engines.
>=20
> I think.
Automobile engines are pretty clean, these days. If it's CO2 that=20
is the worry (stupid), nothing short of caves will help. Indeed, =20
that's the point of the eco-nazis.=20
--=20
Keith
"Mark & Juanita" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Fred the Red Shirt wrote:
>
>> On Sep 14, 7:45 pm, Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> Fred the Red Shirt wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> > On Sep 13, 2:09 am, "Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> >> "Mark & Juanita" wrote:
>>> >> > Why is it that the drastic energy price increases started after the
>>> >> > Democrats took control of the legislative branch? If Bush and
>>> >> > Cheney were
>>> >> > so responsible, one would think those drastic increases would have
>>> >> > started
>>> >> > shortly after 2001.
>>>
>>> > They did.
>>>
>>> > It takes time to implement a plan.
>>>
>>> >http://www.pushhamburger.com/oil_history.htm
>>>
>>> > Prices dropped during 2000, stabilized during 2001 and began
>>> > rising in 2002.
>>>
>>> Note the word above, "drastically". Even using your link, there were a
>>> number of world events that drove the price of crude up, but not as
>>> drastically as we've seen in the past 2 years.
>>>
>>
>> Well that depends on what standard you have for 'drastic'.
>>
>
> Let's keep it simple for you Fred. Were gasoline prices at or above $4
> per gallon before or after the 2006 election?
>
>
>>>
>>>
>>> > Interestingly, the price of refined petroleum products began
>>> > rising as soon as Bush/Cheney took orifice, as if the companies
>>> > anticipated the rise in crude prices:
>>>
>>> >http://www.dallasfed.org/eyi/usecon/0508gas.html
>>>
>>> Again, from your link, refined prices started going up in 1999 *before*
>>> Bush and Cheney were even elected or for that matter nominated, are you
>>> saying that the market was prescient?
>>
>> That's odd.
>>
>> When I look at that plot it shows the prices dropping
>> throughout 2001. I sort of inferred that changes
>> post-2001 were independent of the ups and downs
>> that preceded it.
>>
>
> But Fred, in the paragraph above to which I was responding, you asserted
> that the price of refined petroleum products began rising as soon as
> Bush/Cheney took office, "as if the companies anticipated the rise in
> crude
> prices". IIRC, they took office in 2001, now you are asserting that the
> plot shows the prices dropping throughout 2001. Prices started rising
> after 2001 due some rather significant world events.
>
>> But maybe you should look at the plot from 1869
>> to 2004. Then you could give the Republicans credit
>> for the drastic drop that started around 1869 and
>> then point to the rise from 1979 -81 and blame
>> today's prices on Carter.
>
> ... and it is comments like these with which you have attained the title
> of master debater.
>
> /I'm done, I've got better things to do with my time.
>
> --
> If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough
What you people forget in your criticisms is that things i.e. gas prices
didn't go down the pooper until the democrats took control of both houses of
Congress. Why don't you liberals admit that??? Since they took control
everything has stalled and went down the drain. The democratic controlled
Congress now has less that a ten percent approval rating. Are you liberals
proud of that record? The lowest approval rating in history.
"Edwin Pawlowski" wrote:
> IMO, it was an easy sale. Bush made such a mess of things I think
> the Republicans figure they can't win this time around no matter
> what, so let McCain have his 15 minutes of fame. Why waste a "good"
> candidate?
As far as I can see, it was the survival of one old white guy with old
white guy ideas over a bunch of other old white guys with old white
guy ideas.
SFWIW, I qualify as one of those old white guys, so save you're knee
jerk responses to "old white guy"
The republican party has allowed itself to be taken over by a group of
hard line radicals whose only modus operandi seems to be confortation.
If nothing else, the last 8 years have proven the fallacy of that
approach.
It has also caused me to distance myself from them even though I've
been a registered Republican most of my voting life.
> As much as I dislike Hillary, I figured she'd be the front runner.
> So did she and she let Obama get too good a start.
As much as I am convinced that Hillary is truly dedicated to the
issues she supports, especially the social issues, she failed to
recognise the sense of unrest at the grass roots level that is taking
place in the country.
The majority of the people have been screwed into the wall without
vasoline or even a kiss and they are ticked.
And yes, I'm one of them.
She failed to translate out of the last centuries politics and it cost
her.
Lew
Paul Franklin wrote:
> State taxes are also levied per gallon, and sales taxes are not levied
> on gasoline or other fuels. Government has not gotten any increased
> revenue out of the rise in fuel prices. On the contrary, their cost
> for fuel for government vehicles, and especially for the military
> fighting in Iraq and elsewhere has gone up just nearly as much (some
> cases more) than that of ordinary US citizens.
New York State imposes a 4% sales tax on gasoline with my county adding
another 4.75% sales tax to the cost of each gallon. Most states apply
sales tax to fuels.
See:
http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/245.html
--
Jack Novak
Buffalo, NY - USA
[email protected]
Lew Hodgett wrote:
> "Rod & Betty Jo" wrote:
>
>> Again apparently unable and unwilling to demonstrate even one tiny
>> example of a specific example of your point.
>
> Time out.
>
> I made a statement, you chose to challenge it.
>
> No problem; however, the burden of proof of your challenge is in your
> court, not mine.
>
> Lew
You apparently misconstrued my intent...I did not intend nor did I
particularly challenge any of your statements..... but rather I simply asked
for the basis of your general sweeping rhetorical comments. If you have no
foundation fell free to enjoy your time out. Rod
Lew Hodgett wrote:
> So far all I see is a continuation of the last 8 years and think it is
> pretty well documented how these ideas have worked.
Which ideas are these? What exactly didn't work?
> It is stuff straight out of G Bush's mouth.
>
> McCain indicates he wants to change things.
>
> I'm all for that, I'm waiting for McCain to tell me how he is
> different than Bush.
>
> Lew
Why? What makes you think McCain isn't his own man?......If any main stream
politician beats to his own drummer, surely McCain does. Rod
Lew Hodgett wrote:
> "Mark & Juanita" wrote:
>
>> Why is it that the drastic energy price increases started after the
>> Democrats took control of the legislative branch? If Bush and
>> Cheney were
>> so responsible, one would think those drastic increases would have
>> started
>> shortly after 2001.
>
> The rapidly increasing energy prices are simply the manifestation of a
> long developing problem, namely the expanding worldwide demand for
> energy and it's impact on the world economy.
>
> Bush/Cheney, men with oil backgrounds, have returned to an oil
> person's mentality to address the problem.
>
> Using old ideas to address a new problem(s) is not the sign of a
> leader.
>
> Drill baby drill was their solution.
>
> There is no way for the USA to drill it's way out of this problem, it
> is simply not going to happen.
>
Didn't take long to get to the first Democrat talking point. This one is
one of the most patently absurd ones that should make people laugh in
derision. The idea that solving a shortage is supply can't be solved by
increasing supply -- what a concept.
> We simply don't have enough oil that the oil industry is interested in
> extracting, to solve the problem.
>
Not interested in extracting? ... or not yet profitable?
> BTW, still remember being interviewed by Mobil Oil upon graduation.
> Still remember him stating, Mobil didn't make any money on gasoline,
> but they did on everything else.
>
> That was a long time ago, but not much has changed.
>
> If you think about it that crude stream in south Texas that goes into
> plastics is worth a lot more than if it were gasoline. (Bought a 500
> lb drum of epoxy lately?)
>
... and a greater supply of crude is not going to help this, how?
> There has never been an energy policy put out by either party that
> addresses conservation and efficient use of a finite resource, oil.
>
Back to the politics of austerity. A more correct statement is the fact
that we can't conserve our way out of this problem either. At least not
while maintaining a viable, vibrant economy.
> Coupled with our wasteful consumption (25% of the world's output by 4%
> of the population), is the other major problem it has created, global
> warming.
>
Dem talking points #2 and #3. While using that amount of energy, we also
have used it to produce a significant amount of the world's food (until the
politicians meddled in that arena) and a significant amount of the world's
economy. It's not because we are using those things that other parts of
the world are in poverty. Global warming? Since 1998, average
temperatures have fallen, the idea of man-made global warming is laughable
yet significant time and energy have had to be devoted to debunking this
myth.
> Energy consumption and global warming are directly related.
>
> The rampant clearing of the rain forests in Indonesia and Brazil are
> another part of the equation since those trees no longer exist to
> convert CO2 back to O2.
>
Different problem
> IMHO, THIS IS THE MAJOR problem that the world will resolve in the 1st
> half of the 21st century.
>
Gore talking point
> We either address the renewable energy/global warming problem(s) or we
> will get our clocks cleaned.
>
> If we do it the right way, the USA will develop the technologies, make
> a lot of money in the process, and continue to enjoy our standard of
> living.
>
If renewable energy is viable, it will be cost competitive without
artificial means --that includes both subsidies and the ridiculous idea of
the carbon tax scheme.
> I have seen nothing in the last 8 years that indicates to me that
> Bush/Cheney have a clue what is going on.
>
Of course not. Bush has been an object of hatred since December 2000,
nothing he could have done would have changed that.
--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough
"Eigenvector" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> What
> specifically have YOU experienced in the last 8 years that has led you
> to believe Bush to be incompetent? I certainly wouldn't call someone
> incompetent unless I had first hand experience to back it up. Just
> because all my friends call someone a loser doesn't mean I'm going to.
>
> Personally I've done far better under Bush than I have under Clinton,
> although I personally have no issues with Clinton years of service
> either.
What I experienced personally is that my brother in law refused to come
to the US to help celebrate our 40th anniversary, because of Bush's
policies.
What I experienced is disgust that a President could lie to the country
(either totally wilfully or through incompetence to get the facts) and
involve us in a war that was not necesary. I have always had total
disgust for the piece of shit who ruled Iraq, but there was no evidence
of WoMD or of collaboration with Al Quaeda. Most importantly, that war
was started with a lack of sufficient assets and a lack of access. It
was started without an adequate plan for governing of the occupied
territory, without a plan to police the people or to bring the different
factions and tribes together. Remember, what we call Iraq is just some
lines on a map drawb after WWI. Lastly, after occupying the area, there
was no effort to secure weapons and ammunition left behind the Iraq armed
forces, which were disbanded and left to the designs of individuals. And
finally, the much ballyhooed (sp?) rebuilding of Iraq has hardly begun,
if it has at all. Iraq was a wellfunctioning country as far as economics
was concerned. Now it is a total shambles. And I (and you) have to pay
for it!!!
And yes, indeed I have not suffered severe financial hardships, but my
work has been rather much impeded for lack of funds. The NIH budget has
gone down in real terms, and now it is being wasted in part because
salaries are being continued, but real work is much slowed because of the
need to write more and more grant applications. These are being denied
simply because they are first submissions or frst resubmissions, there
may be a chance of funding for second or third resubmissions.
</end of rant>
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
Phil Again wrote:
> Example two: Am I the only person who thinks USA should outlaw the use of
> Oil and diesel fuel from being used as fuel at large Electrical power
> plants? And, should Taxpayers offer interest free loans to Utility plants
> to convert from Oil power plants to Nat Gas? Am I the only person who
> looks at electrical cars and asks "where and how is that electricity
> being generated?" Is that electricity used by cars really all that
> pollution free?
Couple of comments. First, I think demand for natural gas is increasing
faster than demand for oil. It may be cheaper now (haven't checked
prices for equal BTUs lately) but that may change in the not-so-distant
future.
Second, all else being equal larger fuel-burning motors are more
efficient than smaller ones. Also, electric motors can be very
efficient. Thus, one really big motor at a power plant burning oil to
generate electricity to power electric cars could end up being more
efficient overall than a bunch of gas-powered cars.
Also, some baseload power plants run at basically full capacity
regardless of load. Because of this, a certain amount of baseload
generating capacity is "wasted" at night when power consumption drops.
This power could be used to charge electric vehicles with minimal effect
on overall demand.
Chris
Fred the Red Shirt wrote:
> On Sep 14, 7:45Â pm, Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Fred the Red Shirt wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Sep 13, 2:09Â am, "Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >> "Mark & Juanita" wrote:
>> >> > Why is it that the drastic energy price increases started after the
>> >> > Democrats took control of the legislative branch? Â If Bush and
>> >> > Cheney were
>> >> > so responsible, one would think those drastic increases would have
>> >> > started
>> >> > shortly after 2001.
>>
>> > They did.
>>
>> > It takes time to implement a plan.
>>
>> >http://www.pushhamburger.com/oil_history.htm
>>
>> > Prices dropped during 2000, stabilized during 2001 and began
>> > rising in 2002.
>>
>> Note the word above, "drastically". Â Even using your link, there were a
>> number of world events that drove the price of crude up, but not as
>> drastically as we've seen in the past 2 years.
>>
>
> Well that depends on what standard you have for 'drastic'.
>
Let's keep it simple for you Fred. Were gasoline prices at or above $4
per gallon before or after the 2006 election?
>>
>>
>> > Interestingly, the price of refined petroleum products began
>> > rising as soon as Bush/Cheney took orifice, as if the companies
>> > anticipated the rise in crude prices:
>>
>> >http://www.dallasfed.org/eyi/usecon/0508gas.html
>>
>> Again, from your link, refined prices started going up in 1999 *before*
>> Bush and Cheney were even elected or for that matter nominated, are you
>> saying that the market was prescient?
>
> That's odd.
>
> When I look at that plot it shows the prices dropping
> throughout 2001. I sort of inferred that changes
> post-2001 were independent of the ups and downs
> that preceded it.
>
But Fred, in the paragraph above to which I was responding, you asserted
that the price of refined petroleum products began rising as soon as
Bush/Cheney took office, "as if the companies anticipated the rise in crude
prices". IIRC, they took office in 2001, now you are asserting that the
plot shows the prices dropping throughout 2001. Prices started rising
after 2001 due some rather significant world events.
> But maybe you should look at the plot from 1869
> to 2004. Then you could give the Republicans credit
> for the drastic drop that started around 1869 and
> then point to the rise from 1979 -81 and blame
> today's prices on Carter.
... and it is comments like these with which you have attained the title
of master debater.
/I'm done, I've got better things to do with my time.
--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough
On Sep 14, 1:36=A0pm, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> ...
>
> >>>> They are *correlated* and only along a fairly local/proximate
> >>>> time line. =A0*Causation* has never been established so far.
> >>>> If you can do the latter, you'll win a Nobel.
> >>> I have offered to explain the causative link to you, so long as
> >>> we restrict the conversion to science, and conduct it in a
> >>> civil manner.
> >>> That offer still stands.
> >> ...
>
> Fred, if it were that simple or obvious, it would have been
> demonstrated and verified by the scientific method long ago.
It was.
> It's not that simple.
No, it is that simple.
> =A0Is there some reason to believe in
> an anthropogenic contribution to warming? =A0Possibly. But
> it's not as cut and dried as you like. =A0
What is not cut an dried are numerous OTHER factors
that affect climate.
> You want to take
> a shot at making the case ... be my guest.
>
--
FF
Lew Hodgett wrote:
> "todd" wrote:
>
>> So which is it? Has McCain said nothing at all as you originally
>> asserted or has he said something, but you just don't agree with it?
>
> So far all I see is a continuation of the last 8 years and think it is
> pretty well documented how these ideas have worked.
>
> It is stuff straight out of G Bush's mouth.
>
> McCain indicates he wants to change things.
>
> I'm all for that, I'm waiting for McCain to tell me how he is
> different than Bush.
>
> Lew
>
>
He won't wait 8 years to cross in Pakistan in pursuit of the bad guys.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
On Sep 14, 7:45=A0pm, Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote:
> Fred the Red Shirt wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Sep 13, 2:09=A0am, "Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> "Mark & Juanita" wrote:
> >> > Why is it that the drastic energy price increases started after the
> >> > Democrats took control of the legislative branch? =A0If Bush and
> >> > Cheney were
> >> > so responsible, one would think those drastic increases would have
> >> > started
> >> > shortly after 2001.
>
> > They did.
>
> > It takes time to implement a plan.
>
> >http://www.pushhamburger.com/oil_history.htm
>
> > Prices dropped during 2000, stabilized during 2001 and began
> > rising in 2002.
>
> =A0 Note the word above, "drastically". =A0Even using your link, there we=
re a
> number of world events that drove the price of crude up, but not as
> drastically as we've seen in the past 2 years.
>
Well that depends on what standard you have for 'drastic'.
>
>
> > Interestingly, the price of refined petroleum products began
> > rising as soon as Bush/Cheney took orifice, as if the companies
> > anticipated the rise in crude prices:
>
> >http://www.dallasfed.org/eyi/usecon/0508gas.html
>
> =A0 Again, from your link, refined prices started going up in 1999 *befor=
e*
> Bush and Cheney were even elected or for that matter nominated, are you
> saying that the market was prescient? =A0
That's odd.
When I look at that plot it shows the prices dropping
throughout 2001. I sort of inferred that changes
post-2001 were independent of the ups and downs
that preceded it.
But maybe you should look at the plot from 1869
to 2004. Then you could give the Republicans credit
for the drastic drop that started around 1869 and
then point to the rise from 1979 -81 and blame
today's prices on Carter.
--
FF
On Sep 14, 11:38=A0am, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> ...
>
> That's nice as far as it goes - I even sort of agree with you - but
> there is a huge pragmatic elephant in the room. The oil companies have
> been so vilified by the left, the enviros, the press, the populists,
> and so on that they are constantly under PR and even regulatory
> assault. For example, Katrina took out key refining resources. The oil
> companies knew this was problem long ago, but had apparently given up
> building additional capacity because pretty much no one wanted a
> refinery built in their back yard. ...
You seem to suggest in increasing the supply of refined products
will reduce the cost when in fact the supply aready meets or exceeds
the demand and MOST of the cost in the refined products is in
the raw material itself.
Excess refining capacity is excess cost that does not contribute
to the generation of additional revenue unless the company captures
more of the market. A company with more refineries could not
do that because the petroleum contracts in place do not allow
them to buy more petroleum. But even if one oil company did
expand its production and capture more the market, then some
other would lose part of its share and decrease its product.
Production will NEVER significantly exceed demand for any
significant period of time.
> ...
> P.S. I want to be the first in line to picket the offices of Earth First,
> =A0 =A0 =A0Green Peace, and the Sierra Club when these idiots finally fig=
ure
> =A0 =A0 =A0out that their push to hybrid created an enormous environmenta=
l
> =A0 =A0 =A0cleanup problem: The clean disposal of billions of lead-acid b=
atteries
> =A0 =A0 =A0that can no longer be recycled. =A0I'd like to wish the whole =
bunch
> =A0 =A0 =A0of those people the insanity that comes with ingestion of too =
much
> =A0 =A0 =A0lead, but ... how would we be able to tell the difference from=
their
> =A0 =A0 =A0mentality today?
> ...
Hybrids do no use lead-acid batteries.
Don't let that stop you from picketing.
--
FF
"Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:o5xyk.7$3e1.3@trnddc02...
>
> "Eigenvector" wrote:
>
>> Somehow I doubt that.
>
> Interesting observation, what makes you say that?
>
>> As for wanting change, what makes you think change from W's policies
>> would be a good thing?
>
> The last 8 years would be a pretty good indication.
<SNIP>
> Lew
>
Since this appears to be the cornerstone of your argument. What
specifically have YOU experienced in the last 8 years that has led you to
believe Bush to be incompetent? I certainly wouldn't call someone
incompetent unless I had first hand experience to back it up. Just because
all my friends call someone a loser doesn't mean I'm going to.
Personally I've done far better under Bush than I have under Clinton,
although I personally have no issues with Clinton years of service either.
On Sep 14, 5:02=A0pm, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
> > On Sep 14, 2:33 pm, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> Fred the Red Shirt wrote:> On Sep 14, 1:36 pm, Tim Daneliuk <tun...@tu=
ndraware.com> wrote:
>
> >> <SNIP>
>
> >>>> =A0Is there some reason to believe in
> >>>> an anthropogenic contribution to warming? =A0Possibly. But
> >>>> it's not as cut and dried as you like. =A0
> >>> What is not cut an dried are numerous OTHER factors
> >>> that affect climate.
> >>>> You want to take
> >>>> a shot at making the case ... be my guest.
> >> Let's keep in mind here, BTW, that the central question here
> >> is NOT, "Are humans significantly contributing to global
> >> warmiing?" =A0That question is only of interest if you worship
> >> the earth and think humans are pox upon it. =A0The questions
> >> of interest are:
>
> > I disagree.
>
> > I offered to explain the causative relationship between changes
> > in atmospheric carbon dioxide and global temperature change.
>
> > I did not offer to engage in a wide ranging discussion of other
> > aspects of the issue, reagardless of where your principle interests
> > lie, though I may be happy to do so once we have dispensed
> > with the fundamentals.
>
> >> 1) Is GW happening at any remarkable or unusual rate?
>
> >> 2) Is GW - to the extent it is and will happen - even a danger
> >> =A0 =A0to mankind?
>
> >> 3) Whatever causes GW - if it is a threat to humanity - can mankind
> >> =A0 =A0do anything meaningful to ameliorate either its severity or
> >> =A0 =A0consequences?
>
> >> At the moment, the best knowledge we've got *suggests* (does not prove=
,
> >> and may change) these answers:
>
> >> 1) Hard to know because quality historic data is not abundant. =A0Ther=
e
> >> =A0 =A0does seem to be some slightly higher than usual GW trends, but
> >> =A0 =A0how bad they are depends on how long a timeline you use. =A0If =
you
> >> =A0 =A0you pick your timeline carefully, you can prove nearly any prop=
osition
> >> =A0 =A0you like.
>
> >> 2) Unclear. More people die prematurely in overly cold than overly war=
m
> >> =A0 =A0climates as a rule. =A0 Water rising in the ocean could
> >> =A0 =A0contribute to lowland flooding which does affect a lot of the p=
opulation
> >> =A0 =A0of the planet. =A0However, the *rate* at which this is likely t=
o happen -
> >> =A0 =A0if it happens at all - has been vastly overstated by those deep=
scientific
> >> =A0 =A0sages like Al Gore and the rest of his drone followers.
>
> >> 3) If GW is happening, and it's happening in dangerous bad amounts
> >> =A0 =A0(whatever is causing it), it is almost certainly NOT the case t=
hat
> >> =A0 =A0mankind has the resources to do all that much about. =A0In this
> >> =A0 =A0worst case scenario, we'd be far better off to do what humans d=
o
> >> =A0 =A0best: adapt. =A0The odds of adapting effectively, are far, far =
better
> >> =A0 =A0than the arrogant presumption that if we just go green enough,
> >> =A0 =A0deny ourselves the very things that have made mankind so succes=
sful
> >> =A0 =A0(energy, transportation, wealth, markets ...) we can "save the =
planet".
>
> >> Like I keep saying the GW scaremongers like Peace Prize Boy are princi=
pally
> >> animated by a horrible combination of earth worshiping pantheism and
> >> socialist/Marxist political ideology. =A0They are not credible witness=
es
> >> to the questions or their remediation.
>
> >> The scientists are clearly much more relevant in this discussion, but
> >> they too have agendas. =A0Science itself is fairly dispassionate, but
> >> the people who do science are not. =A0They are driven by their desire
> >> for funding and, at the moment, the funding is tilting towards the
> >> GW boogeman. =A0Meanwhile, we have many reasons to continue to questio=
n
> >> the doomsayers:
>
> > Perhaps you didn't understand.
>
> > I offered to explain that causative relationship so long as
> > we restrict the conversion to science, and conduct it in a
> > civil manner.
>
> > E.g., if we are to have this discussion, we will not be using
> > language such as scaremongers, =A0Peace Prize Boy, earth
> > worshiping pantheism, socialist/Marxist political ideology,
> > boogeman, doomsayers, arrogant presumption, deep
> > scientific =A0sages, and =A0drone followers because those
> > and similar terms are not condusive to scientific understanding
> > or fivil discussion, indeed they are used to prevent any
> > such discussion from taking place.
>
> ...
>
> I'm fascinated to hear your explanation of causality. =A0Because ...
> if you actually have one that holds up, you will have done something
> the finest scientists on the planet have yet to do and you will
> be famous.
That is incorrect.
>
> As to the surrounding socio-political discussion. You may wish
> to limit yourself to science for purpose of trying to show
> causality ... and I will listen honestly. =A0 But you need to
> be honest and acknowledge that this is *not* the conversation
> taking place in the larger culture.
Indeed, that is a major problem.
> =A0The larger discussion is
> *all* about the social, political, ideological, and theological
> and almost entirely absent any real science. =A0Witness for
> instance, almost any of Gore's pontifications.
No.
Was I unclear? Socio/Political/Religious/Ideologial
considerations can be separated from the scientific
discussion. IMHO, only persons who do not under-
stand, or wish to understand, or perhaps more accurately,
do not wish OTHERS to understand the science, who
insist on redirecting and scientific discussion away
from science and into the Socio/Political/Religious/Ideologial
arena.
=A0
> He takes a
> small kernel of science, distorts it, extrapolates wildly
> and then aggrandizes himself by becoming the instrument of
> our salvation. =A0It's all very High Church.
>
> As I say, we can have the science chat, but it almost
> doesn't matter - that's not the discussion that actually
> matters at the moment...
> ...
I think you may want to reconsider that last. Don't
facts always matter?
THIS (above) is not the start of that discussion. Barring
adverse circumstances, I will start it soon.
---
FF
On Sep 11, 8:51=A0am, Phil Again <notwantspam_@_1-2-3-4-5.nospam> wrote:
> On Thu, 11 Sep 2008 06:20:32 +0000, Lew Hodgett wrote:
> > Opinion:
>
> > I'm glad women are starting to hold high positions not only in gov't,
> > but also in our political parties.
>
> > It has been a long road since the days of Margaret Chase Smith of Maine=
.
>
> > Choosing a women to run as your party's candidate for the 2nd highest
> > office is great, but it does not include the privilege of hiding behind
> > her skirts to avoid facing the issues.
>
> > "LipStick on a pig", as a vicious personal attack issue? Give me a
> > break.
>
> > Let's hear about some issues.
>
> > McCain states, "Were going to shake things up in Washington".
>
> > Okay, it's his party he wants to shake up, go for it, but that is an
> > internal Republican party housekeeping problem, not a proposal to solve
> > anything.
>
> > Maybe he knows something the rest of us don't, but so far haven't heard
> > anything but the same old time political mumbo jumbo attack politics.
>
> > As I listen, "Where's the beef?", comes to mind.
>
> > When do we get a proposal to solve some of our problems?
>
> > I'd like to see something about any of the following:
>
> > * What is his proposal to address health care problems?
>
> > * What is proposal to address global warming issues?
>
> > * What is proposal to address alternate energy policies? (Drill baby
> > drill doesn't count. That's about like saying make more buggy whips to
> > make the cars go faster)
>
> > * What is proposal to address veteran's issues or do we just forget
> > about them? =A0We owe them big time.
>
> > * What is his proposal to address fiscal problems?
>
> > * What is proposal to restore our position of leadership on the world
> > stage?
>
> > The list goes on (Iraq, etc), but a proposal on any of the above would
> > be refreshing.
>
> > The silence on the critical issues facing us from McCain to date is
> > deafening.
>
> > Based on his lack of response to date, one can only assume a
> > continuation of the last 8 years.
>
> > What am I missing?
>
> > What haven't I heard?
>
> > Lew
>
> I freely admit I could, and most probably am, wrong on this, but here is
> My Opinion:
>
> Example two: Am I the only person who thinks USA should outlaw the use of
> Oil and diesel fuel from being used as fuel at large Electrical power
> plants? And, should Taxpayers offer interest free loans to Utility plants
> to convert from Oil power plants to Nat Gas? Am I the only person who
> looks at electrical cars and asks "where and how is that electricity
> being generated?" =A0Is that electricity used by cars really all that
> pollution free?
>
The pure electric cars (i.e. plugin, not gas/electric hybrid) are
going to be better for the environment because while yes, the large
power generators at the power company do create pollution, they're
generally more regulated and much more efficient than either the gas/
electric hybrid or the gas only car, or pretty much any internal
combustion engine.
Think about it this way... you could run your house by firing up a 2kW
portable generator. But you know those things aren't as good as the
power company, because you don't run your house on those portable
generators unless you have to. They're prone to failure, are expensive
to operate (i.e. keeping fuel in them and repairing them when they
break), are inefficient, and are annoying to have on all the time.
So while an electric car is indeed causing pollution, it's going to be
overall less because of the economies of scale involved. For a small
generator to power the car, it might generate X tons of pollution,
whereas a power company to provide the same power, the pollution might
only be 50% of X, which is a better deal for everyone involved.
-Nathan
On Sep 12, 12:50=A0pm, "Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Eigenvector" wrote:
> > Somehow I doubt that.
>
> Interesting observation, what makes you say that?
>
> > As for wanting change, what makes you think change from W's policies
> > would be a good thing?
>
> The last 8 years would be a pretty good indication.
>
> >You, me, and the sum of the posters in this group do NOT have the
> >whole story. =A0We are bound by what is reported in the papers and as
> >such have no real idea on exactly why a specific plan of action was
> >taken.
>
> Nobody ever accused the current adminstration of playing straight with
> the American people.
>
> > It's convienent for us to comment on how bad the war in Iraq is, or
> > how terrible a certain economic plan is - but when it comes down to
> > it we have nothing better to offer.
>
> I certainly hope so.
>
> Think that is why we are having an election.
>
> It won't take much too exceed what is in place.
>
> >All we can do is vote what sounds good to us, which is why I'm voting
> >for Barr this time.
>
> If that is what your research indicates you should do, then by all
> means do it.
>
> > But I won't let my dissapointment with the current administration
> > lead me to insult the President or disrespect a serving Senator
> > (not that I'm implying you've done those things either) because even
> > at their worst I could never do better. =A0If I have in the past
> > insulted them, it was at my most immodest of times.
>
> What does disrespect have to do with incompetence?
>
> Lew
I guess some people feel that recognizing an incompetent leader is
disrespectful.
I'm not at all sure Bush-Cheney is incompetent. They've done very well
for family and friends, and very poorly for the country because of
that. IMO, Bush should be impeached and tried as a traitor. Cheney,
too.
On Sep 11, 11:48=A0pm, "Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "todd" wrote:
> > So which is it? =A0Has McCain said nothing at all as you originally
> > asserted or has he said something, but you just don't agree with it?
>
> So far all I see is a continuation of the last 8 years and think it is
> pretty well documented how these ideas have worked.
>
> It is stuff straight out of G Bush's mouth.
>
> McCain indicates he wants to change things.
>
> I'm all for that, I'm waiting for McCain to tell me how he is
> different than Bush.
>
> Lew
He's 9% different. He is 91% the same. At least that's how he's voted
in the past 7-1/2 years.
Fred the Red Shirt wrote:
> On Sep 13, 2:09 am, "Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> ...
>>
>> IMHO, McCain has sold his sole for the opportunity to run for
>> President.
>> ...
>
> Left shoe or right?
>
> --
>
> FF
Does that make him a heel?
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
On Sep 11, 8:11=A0pm, "todd" <[email protected]> wrote:
you could read McCain's web site for answers to your questions. =A0But
I know it's more fun to pretend that McCain has said nothing about the
above.
Yes, but, when he goes on National Television or at stump speeches he
and Palin do so well, they do not talk about these things in any
meaningful way.
They complain about "the Liberal Media" construing their words, but -
when they have the opportunity to speak directly to the people in a
live broadcast, they obfuscate like all hell and talk about scary
Muslims wanting to blow us up and how great our troops are doing in
the tough situation they put them in.
Yes, some can go to the web site and pour over self-serving statements
designed to give the appearance of change and effective planning for a
better future, But when we tune in to hear about it first hand, our
hear then respond to serious questioners, we get pablum.
On Sep 14, 2:33=A0pm, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
> Fred the Red Shirt wrote:> On Sep 14, 1:36 pm, Tim Daneliuk <tun...@tundr=
aware.com> wrote:
>
> <SNIP>
>
> >> =A0Is there some reason to believe in
> >> an anthropogenic contribution to warming? =A0Possibly. But
> >> it's not as cut and dried as you like. =A0
>
> > What is not cut an dried are numerous OTHER factors
> > that affect climate.
>
> >> You want to take
> >> a shot at making the case ... be my guest.
>
> Let's keep in mind here, BTW, that the central question here
> is NOT, "Are humans significantly contributing to global
> warmiing?" =A0That question is only of interest if you worship
> the earth and think humans are pox upon it. =A0The questions
> of interest are:
I disagree.
I offered to explain the causative relationship between changes
in atmospheric carbon dioxide and global temperature change.
I did not offer to engage in a wide ranging discussion of other
aspects of the issue, reagardless of where your principle interests
lie, though I may be happy to do so once we have dispensed
with the fundamentals.
>
> 1) Is GW happening at any remarkable or unusual rate?
>
> 2) Is GW - to the extent it is and will happen - even a danger
> =A0 =A0to mankind?
>
> 3) Whatever causes GW - if it is a threat to humanity - can mankind
> =A0 =A0do anything meaningful to ameliorate either its severity or
> =A0 =A0consequences?
>
> At the moment, the best knowledge we've got *suggests* (does not prove,
> and may change) these answers:
>
> 1) Hard to know because quality historic data is not abundant. =A0There
> =A0 =A0does seem to be some slightly higher than usual GW trends, but
> =A0 =A0how bad they are depends on how long a timeline you use. =A0If you
> =A0 =A0you pick your timeline carefully, you can prove nearly any proposi=
tion
> =A0 =A0you like.
>
> 2) Unclear. More people die prematurely in overly cold than overly warm
> =A0 =A0climates as a rule. =A0 Water rising in the ocean could
> =A0 =A0contribute to lowland flooding which does affect a lot of the popu=
lation
> =A0 =A0of the planet. =A0However, the *rate* at which this is likely to h=
appen -
> =A0 =A0if it happens at all - has been vastly overstated by those deep sc=
ientific
> =A0 =A0sages like Al Gore and the rest of his drone followers.
>
> 3) If GW is happening, and it's happening in dangerous bad amounts
> =A0 =A0(whatever is causing it), it is almost certainly NOT the case that
> =A0 =A0mankind has the resources to do all that much about. =A0In this
> =A0 =A0worst case scenario, we'd be far better off to do what humans do
> =A0 =A0best: adapt. =A0The odds of adapting effectively, are far, far bet=
ter
> =A0 =A0than the arrogant presumption that if we just go green enough,
> =A0 =A0deny ourselves the very things that have made mankind so successfu=
l
> =A0 =A0(energy, transportation, wealth, markets ...) we can "save the pla=
net".
>
> Like I keep saying the GW scaremongers like Peace Prize Boy are principal=
ly
> animated by a horrible combination of earth worshiping pantheism and
> socialist/Marxist political ideology. =A0They are not credible witnesses
> to the questions or their remediation.
>
> The scientists are clearly much more relevant in this discussion, but
> they too have agendas. =A0Science itself is fairly dispassionate, but
> the people who do science are not. =A0They are driven by their desire
> for funding and, at the moment, the funding is tilting towards the
> GW boogeman. =A0Meanwhile, we have many reasons to continue to question
> the doomsayers:
>
Perhaps you didn't understand.
I offered to explain that causative relationship so long as
we restrict the conversion to science, and conduct it in a
civil manner.
E.g., if we are to have this discussion, we will not be using
language such as scaremongers, Peace Prize Boy, earth
worshiping pantheism, socialist/Marxist political ideology,
boogeman, doomsayers, arrogant presumption, deep
scientific sages, and drone followers because those
and similar terms are not condusive to scientific understanding
or fivil discussion, indeed they are used to prevent any
such discussion from taking place.
--
FF
Fred the Red Shirt wrote:
> On Sep 14, 11:38 am, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
>> ...
>>
>> That's nice as far as it goes - I even sort of agree with you - but
>> there is a huge pragmatic elephant in the room. The oil companies have
>> been so vilified by the left, the enviros, the press, the populists,
>> and so on that they are constantly under PR and even regulatory
>> assault. For example, Katrina took out key refining resources. The oil
>> companies knew this was problem long ago, but had apparently given up
>> building additional capacity because pretty much no one wanted a
>> refinery built in their back yard. ...
>
> You seem to suggest in increasing the supply of refined products
> will reduce the cost when in fact the supply aready meets or exceeds
> the demand and MOST of the cost in the refined products is in
> the raw material itself.
>
> Excess refining capacity is excess cost that does not contribute
> to the generation of additional revenue unless the company captures
> more of the market. A company with more refineries could not
> do that because the petroleum contracts in place do not allow
> them to buy more petroleum. But even if one oil company did
> expand its production and capture more the market, then some
> other would lose part of its share and decrease its product.
>
> Production will NEVER significantly exceed demand for any
> significant period of time.
>
>> ...
>> P.S. I want to be the first in line to picket the offices of Earth First,
>> Green Peace, and the Sierra Club when these idiots finally figure
>> out that their push to hybrid created an enormous environmental
>> cleanup problem: The clean disposal of billions of lead-acid batteries
>> that can no longer be recycled. I'd like to wish the whole bunch
>> of those people the insanity that comes with ingestion of too much
>> lead, but ... how would we be able to tell the difference from their
>> mentality today?
>> ...
>
> Hybrids do no use lead-acid batteries.
>
> Don't let that stop you from picketing.
>
> --
>
> FF
Let the industry shut down one of the refineries for maintenance and see
what happens. Look at Texas right now. The industry down there is almost
completely off line due to IKE. Prices are going through the roof.
Supply almost exactly equals demand with little for storage.
DN
On Sep 11, 8:11=A0pm, "todd" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>...
>
> I know you don't really want to know, or you would have looked already, b=
ut
> you could read McCain's web site for answers to your questions. =A0But I =
know
> it's more fun to pretend that McCain has said nothing about the above.
>
That was good opportunity to post a link to said site.
Ditto if you reply to this.
--
FF
On Sep 14, 12:14=A0am, Doug Winterburn <[email protected]> wrote:
[snip]
>
> There's a good reason BO didn't pick Hil for veep as there isn't a
> government paid position of food taster.
http://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o290/Robatoy/Disdain.jpg
Fred the Red Shirt wrote:
> On Sep 13, 2:09Â am, "Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> "Mark & Juanita" wrote:
>> > Why is it that the drastic energy price increases started after the
>> > Democrats took control of the legislative branch? Â If Bush and
>> > Cheney were
>> > so responsible, one would think those drastic increases would have
>> > started
>> > shortly after 2001.
>
> They did.
>
> It takes time to implement a plan.
>
> http://www.pushhamburger.com/oil_history.htm
>
> Prices dropped during 2000, stabilized during 2001 and began
> rising in 2002.
Note the word above, "drastically". Even using your link, there were a
number of world events that drove the price of crude up, but not as
drastically as we've seen in the past 2 years.
>
> Interestingly, the price of refined petroleum products began
> rising as soon as Bush/Cheney took orifice, as if the companies
> anticipated the rise in crude prices:
>
> http://www.dallasfed.org/eyi/usecon/0508gas.html
>
Again, from your link, refined prices started going up in 1999 *before*
Bush and Cheney were even elected or for that matter nominated, are you
saying that the market was prescient? The prices didn't start rising until
2002.
>
> They have started to go down now,
> with the Democrats still controlling the Congress.
>
The information in your link stops at 2006. This is the first year that
prices have played with $4 per gallon levels. The fact that prices are
coming down right now is due to a couple of factors 1) the summer driving
season is ending and prices traditionally come down following that event,
and 2) the market could not sustain the levels of price that were seen
throughout the summer. Even so, gas prices are still at their highest
levels ever following the post-summer season.
--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough
Paul Franklin wrote:
> On Sat, 13 Sep 2008 09:02:07 -0500, Tim Daneliuk
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> As (gas) prices
>> rose, the greatest "windfall" was experienced by government
>> taxation entities.
>
> <snip>
>
> The federal gasoline tax and most if not all state gas taxes are per
> gallon, not percentage. Gas tax revenue has declined since prices
> have risen dramatically because folks are using less gasoline and
> diesel.
>
> We are foolish to consider using whatever reserves of US oil we have
> now. Far better to wait until we've used up all the rest of the
> world's oil, and then we will have some left. Why it's the strategic
> reserve in grand style! (Not really my point of view, but makes more
> sense than most of the opinions being floated out there.)
>
> Of course the oil companies want more offshore leases now, even though
> they aren't drilling the ones they have now and don't have the crews
> and equipment to drill them all anyway. They can get the leases for a
> song now, compared to what they will cost them in 10 or 20 years when
> they will start to get serious about using them.
>
> Paul F.
What about the local and state taxing bodies? The sales taxes in various
flavors that are levied are certainly not per gallon, but a percentage.
The government has gotten far more out of this blip in gas prices
than have the eeeeeevil oil companies. Oh, and if those aforementioned
oil companies are not profitable, just who do you propose will:
a) Get new oil for consumption (The TSA, perhaps?)
b) Repair the consequent damage done to institutional investments
like 401Ks and union retirements funds -funds that depend in part
to a solvent and profitable oil industry.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
Robatoy wrote:
> Base-load power plants, like all others, can only generate the energy
> that is consumed at that exact moment in time. You cannot, therefore,
> waste output. You can, however, waste some efficiencies by running a
> 500 MW generator at 50 MW.
Yep. I didn't say the power was wasted, just the generating capacity.
(And as you say, some inefficiency is introduced.)
Since the capacity exists already, a certain amount of additional
off-peak power usage could be accommodated without any need to increase
generating capacity.
Chris
Rod & Betty Jo wrote:
> Tim Daneliuk wrote:
>> I doubt LiIon have the energy density for a car, but perhaps
>> they've
>> come far enough to do that too. In any case, you do have some
>> problem with the remaining Li when things are done.
>>
>
>
> The Chevy Volt (Electric car) scheduled for late 2010 release will
> use a LiIon battery pack (currently under extensive testing). The
> battery pack has a expected life of 10 years and a battery cost of
> $10,000. The car has a 40-50 mile range (under the typical work day
> commute) with a onboard gas powered generator for a overall 600 mile
> range.... The car is a interesting concept that if successful will
> likely turn the auto industry on its ear. Rod
Tim really needs to get out from under his rock once in a while.
Lithium ion has very high energy density, which is why they are being
used in laptops and other applications where a lot of power is needed
in a small space. Meanwhile, you can lease a fuel-cell Honda right
now, today, and drive it home (assuming that they haven't already
leased them all out).
As for "a problem with the remaining Li", I'd like to see a statement
from a reputable source (read something other than Tim's bunghole) of
the nature of that "problem".
--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
On Sat, 13 Sep 2008 22:47:01 -0500, Tim Daneliuk
<[email protected]> wrote:
>Paul Franklin wrote:
>> On Sat, 13 Sep 2008 09:02:07 -0500, Tim Daneliuk
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>> As (gas) prices
>>> rose, the greatest "windfall" was experienced by government
>>> taxation entities.
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>> The federal gasoline tax and most if not all state gas taxes are per
>> gallon, not percentage. Gas tax revenue has declined since prices
>> have risen dramatically because folks are using less gasoline and
>> diesel.
>>
>> We are foolish to consider using whatever reserves of US oil we have
>> now. Far better to wait until we've used up all the rest of the
>> world's oil, and then we will have some left. Why it's the strategic
>> reserve in grand style! (Not really my point of view, but makes more
>> sense than most of the opinions being floated out there.)
>>
>> Of course the oil companies want more offshore leases now, even though
>> they aren't drilling the ones they have now and don't have the crews
>> and equipment to drill them all anyway. They can get the leases for a
>> song now, compared to what they will cost them in 10 or 20 years when
>> they will start to get serious about using them.
>>
>> Paul F.
>
>What about the local and state taxing bodies? The sales taxes in various
>flavors that are levied are certainly not per gallon, but a percentage.
>The government has gotten far more out of this blip in gas prices
>than have the eeeeeevil oil companies. Oh, and if those aforementioned
>oil companies are not profitable, just who do you propose will:
>
>a) Get new oil for consumption (The TSA, perhaps?)
>b) Repair the consequent damage done to institutional investments
> like 401Ks and union retirements funds -funds that depend in part
> to a solvent and profitable oil industry.
State taxes are also levied per gallon, and sales taxes are not levied
on gasoline or other fuels. Government has not gotten any increased
revenue out of the rise in fuel prices. On the contrary, their cost
for fuel for government vehicles, and especially for the military
fighting in Iraq and elsewhere has gone up just nearly as much (some
cases more) than that of ordinary US citizens.
Most people, myself included, do not begrudge the oil companies a
healthy profit. It is the American way and the companies and their
investors deserve it provided the companies are well run. If they were
to take the lead and plow a significant portion of their increased
revenue back into their business by supporting R&D for alternative
fuels, they would be demonstrating good business savvy. They would be
doing the right thing to grow their business long term and thus ensure
their stockholders good long term value, And they would gain the
respect and support of US citizens who understand they are acting to
advance both corporate and US interests.
But they haven't done this to any real degree. Now, no one expects
the local pizza shop to worry about what's right for the US when they
make their business plans and decide what to do with their profits.
But Oil is a natural resource and of fundamental national importance.
The failure (so far) of the oil business to acknowledge this and take
action is why there is appropriate outrage from many citizens at their
failure to demonstrate leadership.
Certainly there is no really short term replacement for Oil as a
transportation fuel. But failing to actively and aggressively seek
alternatives for the future is (IMO) a worse failing than drilling
everywhere we can right now in an attempt to increase supply for a
short while to temper prices.
Paul F.
> Second, all else being equal larger fuel-burning motors are more
> efficient than smaller ones. Also, electric motors can be very
> efficient. Thus, one really big motor at a power plant burning oil to
> generate electricity to power electric cars could end up being more
> efficient overall than a bunch of gas-powered cars.
>
>
Crossed wires here, I was addressing the steam turbine electrical
generation plants that use oil burners to create the steam.
Phil
Paul Franklin wrote:
<SNIP>
> Certainly there is no really short term replacement for Oil as a
> transportation fuel. But failing to actively and aggressively seek
> alternatives for the future is (IMO) a worse failing than drilling
> everywhere we can right now in an attempt to increase supply for a
> short while to temper prices.
>
> Paul F.
That's nice as far as it goes - I even sort of agree with you - but
there is a huge pragmatic elephant in the room. The oil companies have
been so vilified by the left, the enviros, the press, the populists,
and so on that they are constantly under PR and even regulatory
assault. For example, Katrina took out key refining resources. The oil
companies knew this was problem long ago, but had apparently given up
building additional capacity because pretty much no one wanted a
refinery built in their back yard. We cannot have it both ways. Either
the oil companies must be profitable without constantly having to
defend themselves from every drooling cause in the country, or they
will take what they have, sit on it and make no significant new
capital investments.
As to their "responsibility" to pursue alternative fuels - I rather
think that the market will solve this problem if allowed to. There
isn't an "alternative" out there today that is currently economically
rational. In order to see investment in things like hydrogen, there is
going to have to be a reason for someone to do it - the belief that it
will show a return on investment within some reasonable time.
But our genius politicians and populist sheeple leaders use government
to distort the price of oil to try and keep prices "fair". I their
every wheezing we hear how the big eeeeeeevil oil companies are making
too much money so the government needs to "step in" by dropping fuel
taxes, increasing regulation, and so forth. When the price of
something is artificially depressed, there is less and less motivation
for someone to find its alternative.
"Laissez Faire", I say - let the *market* set the price. The reason,
of course, the Usual Suspects don't want to let this happen is because:
1) It takes the slimy politicians out of the equation thereby further
exposing how unimportant they are.
2) A good many of the screech owls in the environmentalist left who
whine about the lack of oil in the future, don't really believe it.
They are terrified that - under real market conditions - there would
be increased economic incentives to drill, refine, and explore more
efficiently, thereby keeping crude and gasoline as energy staples
at reasonable prices. They want to use government force to do
what is economically irrational at the moment - make a huge forward
investment in alternative technologies - many of which have no
real future.
P.S. I want to be the first in line to picket the offices of Earth First,
Green Peace, and the Sierra Club when these idiots finally figure
out that their push to hybrid created an enormous environmental
cleanup problem: The clean disposal of billions of lead-acid batteries
that can no longer be recycled. I'd like to wish the whole bunch
of those people the insanity that comes with ingestion of too much
lead, but ... how would we be able to tell the difference from their
mentality today?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
On Sat, 13 Sep 2008 09:02:07 -0500, Tim Daneliuk
<[email protected]> wrote:
<snip>
As (gas) prices
>rose, the greatest "windfall" was experienced by government
>taxation entities.
<snip>
The federal gasoline tax and most if not all state gas taxes are per
gallon, not percentage. Gas tax revenue has declined since prices
have risen dramatically because folks are using less gasoline and
diesel.
We are foolish to consider using whatever reserves of US oil we have
now. Far better to wait until we've used up all the rest of the
world's oil, and then we will have some left. Why it's the strategic
reserve in grand style! (Not really my point of view, but makes more
sense than most of the opinions being floated out there.)
Of course the oil companies want more offshore leases now, even though
they aren't drilling the ones they have now and don't have the crews
and equipment to drill them all anyway. They can get the leases for a
song now, compared to what they will cost them in 10 or 20 years when
they will start to get serious about using them.
Paul F.
Tim Daneliuk wrote:
> I doubt LiIon have the energy density for a car, but perhaps they've
> come far enough to do that too. In any case, you do have some
> problem with the remaining Li when things are done.
>
The Chevy Volt (Electric car) scheduled for late 2010 release will use a
LiIon battery pack (currently under extensive testing). The battery pack has
a expected life of 10 years and a battery cost of $10,000. The car has a
40-50 mile range (under the typical work day commute) with a onboard gas
powered generator for a overall 600 mile range.... The car is a interesting
concept that if successful will likely turn the auto industry on its ear.
Rod
"todd" wrote:
> I know you don't really want to know, or you would have looked
> already, but you could read McCain's web site for answers to your
> questions. But I know it's more fun to pretend that McCain has said
> nothing about the above.
As a matter of fact, have looked at the McCain_Palin web.
As far as I can tell, it is the standard regurgitation the
Replublicans have been spewing the last 8 years that hasn't worked.
They need a serious update.
Lew
On Sun, 14 Sep 2008 13:19:43 GMT, Nova <[email protected]> wrote:
>Paul Franklin wrote:
>
>
>> State taxes are also levied per gallon, and sales taxes are not levied
>> on gasoline or other fuels. Government has not gotten any increased
>> revenue out of the rise in fuel prices. On the contrary, their cost
>> for fuel for government vehicles, and especially for the military
>> fighting in Iraq and elsewhere has gone up just nearly as much (some
>> cases more) than that of ordinary US citizens.
>
>New York State imposes a 4% sales tax on gasoline with my county adding
>another 4.75% sales tax to the cost of each gallon. Most states apply
>sales tax to fuels.
>
>See:
>
>http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/245.html
Thanks for the correction. You're correct that there are a few states
that apply sales tax to fuels. But your link just lists general state
sales tax rates (and gas, alcohol, and cigarette tax rates).
The link below lists states that have state and/or local taxes that
are levied on gasoline or diesel. It's from 2002, but at that time
there were only 5 states with state sales taxes on fuel, and 6 states
that have some local sales taxes on fuels (Georgia has both). With
the exception of those, federal, state and local governments fuel
taxes are per gallon. So the federal government and 45 state
governments have not seen any tax revenue increase due to the rise in
gasoline/diesel prices.
http://www.house.leg.state.mn.us/hrd/pubs/gastax.pdf
Paul F.
"Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:QM2yk.1008$Wd.61@trnddc01...
> Opinion:
>
> I'm glad women are starting to hold high positions not only in gov't, but
> also in our political parties.
>
> It has been a long road since the days of Margaret Chase Smith of Maine.
>
> Choosing a women to run as your party's candidate for the 2nd highest
> office is great, but it does not include the privilege of hiding behind
> her skirts to avoid facing the issues.
>
> "LipStick on a pig", as a vicious personal attack issue? Give me a break.
>
> Let's hear about some issues.
>
> McCain states, "Were going to shake things up in Washington".
>
> Okay, it's his party he wants to shake up, go for it, but that is an
> internal Republican party housekeeping problem, not a proposal to solve
> anything.
>
> Maybe he knows something the rest of us don't, but so far haven't heard
> anything but the same old time political mumbo jumbo attack politics.
>
> As I listen, "Where's the beef?", comes to mind.
>
> When do we get a proposal to solve some of our problems?
>
> I'd like to see something about any of the following:
>
> * What is his proposal to address health care problems?
>
> * What is proposal to address global warming issues?
>
> * What is proposal to address alternate energy policies?
> (Drill baby drill doesn't count. That's about like saying make more buggy
> whips to make the cars go faster)
>
> * What is proposal to address veteran's issues or do we just forget about
> them? We owe them big time.
>
> * What is his proposal to address fiscal problems?
>
> * What is proposal to restore our position of leadership on the world
> stage?
>
> The list goes on (Iraq, etc), but a proposal on any of the above would be
> refreshing.
>
> The silence on the critical issues facing us from McCain to date is
> deafening.
>
> Based on his lack of response to date, one can only assume a continuation
> of the last 8 years.
>
> What am I missing?
>
> What haven't I heard?
>
> Lew
I know you don't really want to know, or you would have looked already, but
you could read McCain's web site for answers to your questions. But I know
it's more fun to pretend that McCain has said nothing about the above.
todd
"Mark & Juanita" wrote:
>Didn't take long to get to the first Democrat talking point.
<snip>
> Dem talking points #2 and #3.
> Gore talking point
> Of course not. Bush has been an object of hatred since December
> 2000,
> nothing he could have done would have changed that.
Name calling and attack seems to be your approach.
First two laws of debate:
1)When you have the facts on your side, use them.
2)When you don't, throw crap on the wall and see if you can get
something to stick.
Pretty obvious which of the above you have chosen.
Lew
Fred the Red Shirt wrote:
> On Sep 13, 10:02 am, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Lew Hodgett wrote:
>> ...
>>
>>> Drill baby drill was their solution.
>>> There is no way for the USA to drill it's way out of this problem, it
>>> is simply not going to happen.
>> Nonsense. "Drill" is a metaphor for more than just drilling.
>
> Sure. And half of the continental shelf is, and has been open
> to drilling for years, and most of that is not being utilized.
> I see no reason to believe that opening up the remaining half
> would lead to more drilling. It would lead to more speculation
> I suppose.
>
>
>>> is the other major problem it has created, global warming.
>> You are entitled to your religious views but don't peddle them
>> as facts. ...
>>
>>
>>
>>> Energy consumption and global warming are directly related.
>> They are *correlated* and only along a fairly local/proximate
>> time line. *Causation* has never been established so far.
>> If you can do the latter, you'll win a Nobel.
>
> I have offered to explain the causative link to you, so long as
> we restrict the conversion to science, and conduct it in a
> civil manner.
>
> That offer still stands.
>
> --
>
> FF
Why do you not have a Nobel then Fred?
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
[email protected] wrote:
> On Sep 14, 2:33 pm, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Fred the Red Shirt wrote:> On Sep 14, 1:36 pm, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> <SNIP>
>>
>>>> Is there some reason to believe in
>>>> an anthropogenic contribution to warming? Possibly. But
>>>> it's not as cut and dried as you like.
>>> What is not cut an dried are numerous OTHER factors
>>> that affect climate.
>>>> You want to take
>>>> a shot at making the case ... be my guest.
>> Let's keep in mind here, BTW, that the central question here
>> is NOT, "Are humans significantly contributing to global
>> warmiing?" That question is only of interest if you worship
>> the earth and think humans are pox upon it. The questions
>> of interest are:
>
> I disagree.
>
> I offered to explain the causative relationship between changes
> in atmospheric carbon dioxide and global temperature change.
>
> I did not offer to engage in a wide ranging discussion of other
> aspects of the issue, reagardless of where your principle interests
> lie, though I may be happy to do so once we have dispensed
> with the fundamentals.
>
>> 1) Is GW happening at any remarkable or unusual rate?
>>
>> 2) Is GW - to the extent it is and will happen - even a danger
>> to mankind?
>>
>> 3) Whatever causes GW - if it is a threat to humanity - can mankind
>> do anything meaningful to ameliorate either its severity or
>> consequences?
>>
>> At the moment, the best knowledge we've got *suggests* (does not prove,
>> and may change) these answers:
>>
>> 1) Hard to know because quality historic data is not abundant. There
>> does seem to be some slightly higher than usual GW trends, but
>> how bad they are depends on how long a timeline you use. If you
>> you pick your timeline carefully, you can prove nearly any proposition
>> you like.
>>
>> 2) Unclear. More people die prematurely in overly cold than overly warm
>> climates as a rule. Water rising in the ocean could
>> contribute to lowland flooding which does affect a lot of the population
>> of the planet. However, the *rate* at which this is likely to happen -
>> if it happens at all - has been vastly overstated by those deep scientific
>> sages like Al Gore and the rest of his drone followers.
>>
>> 3) If GW is happening, and it's happening in dangerous bad amounts
>> (whatever is causing it), it is almost certainly NOT the case that
>> mankind has the resources to do all that much about. In this
>> worst case scenario, we'd be far better off to do what humans do
>> best: adapt. The odds of adapting effectively, are far, far better
>> than the arrogant presumption that if we just go green enough,
>> deny ourselves the very things that have made mankind so successful
>> (energy, transportation, wealth, markets ...) we can "save the planet".
>>
>> Like I keep saying the GW scaremongers like Peace Prize Boy are principally
>> animated by a horrible combination of earth worshiping pantheism and
>> socialist/Marxist political ideology. They are not credible witnesses
>> to the questions or their remediation.
>>
>> The scientists are clearly much more relevant in this discussion, but
>> they too have agendas. Science itself is fairly dispassionate, but
>> the people who do science are not. They are driven by their desire
>> for funding and, at the moment, the funding is tilting towards the
>> GW boogeman. Meanwhile, we have many reasons to continue to question
>> the doomsayers:
>>
>
> Perhaps you didn't understand.
>
> I offered to explain that causative relationship so long as
> we restrict the conversion to science, and conduct it in a
> civil manner.
>
> E.g., if we are to have this discussion, we will not be using
> language such as scaremongers, Peace Prize Boy, earth
> worshiping pantheism, socialist/Marxist political ideology,
> boogeman, doomsayers, arrogant presumption, deep
> scientific sages, and drone followers because those
> and similar terms are not condusive to scientific understanding
> or fivil discussion, indeed they are used to prevent any
> such discussion from taking place.
>
> --
>
> FF
>
>
I'm fascinated to hear your explanation of causality. Because ...
if you actually have one that holds up, you will have done something
the finest scientists on the planet have yet to do and you will
be famous.
As to the surrounding socio-political discussion. You may wish
to limit yourself to science for purpose of trying to show
causality ... and I will listen honestly. But you need to
be honest and acknowledge that this is *not* the conversation
taking place in the larger culture. The larger discussion is
*all* about the social, political, ideological, and theological
and almost entirely absent any real science. Witness for
instance, almost any of Gore's pontifications. He takes a
small kernel of science, distorts it, extrapolates wildly
and then aggrandizes himself by becoming the instrument of
our salvation. It's all very High Church.
As I say, we can have the science chat, but it almost
doesn't matter - that's not the discussion that actually
matters at the moment...
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
"Eigenvector" wrote:
> Somehow I doubt that.
Interesting observation, what makes you say that?
> As for wanting change, what makes you think change from W's policies
> would be a good thing?
The last 8 years would be a pretty good indication.
>You, me, and the sum of the posters in this group do NOT have the
>whole story. We are bound by what is reported in the papers and as
>such have no real idea on exactly why a specific plan of action was
>taken.
Nobody ever accused the current adminstration of playing straight with
the American people.
> It's convienent for us to comment on how bad the war in Iraq is, or
> how terrible a certain economic plan is - but when it comes down to
> it we have nothing better to offer.
I certainly hope so.
Think that is why we are having an election.
It won't take much too exceed what is in place.
>All we can do is vote what sounds good to us, which is why I'm voting
>for Barr this time.
If that is what your research indicates you should do, then by all
means do it.
> But I won't let my dissapointment with the current administration
> lead me to insult the President or disrespect a serving Senator
> (not that I'm implying you've done those things either) because even
> at their worst I could never do better. If I have in the past
> insulted them, it was at my most immodest of times.
What does disrespect have to do with incompetence?
Lew
>"Fred the Red Shirt" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:fc754fb7-f85b-4e41-88f9-edfd395227ae@m44g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
>On Sep 11, 8:11 pm, "todd" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>...
>>
>> I know you don't really want to know, or you would have looked already,
>> but
>> you could read McCain's web site for answers to your questions. But I
>> know
>> it's more fun to pretend that McCain has said nothing about the above.
>>
>That was good opportunity to post a link to said site.
>
>Ditto if you reply to this.
>FF
I'll give you a hint. The website has the name "johnmccain" in it. The
rest is left as a exercise for the reader.
todd
Lew Hodgett wrote:
>
> "Rod & Betty Jo" wrote:
>
>> Which ideas are these?
>
> Pick one. energy,
OK, Alex, I'll take energy for 200 please.
Why is it that the drastic energy price increases started after the
Democrats took control of the legislative branch? If Bush and Cheney were
so responsible, one would think those drastic increases would have started
shortly after 2001.
--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough
"Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:kLiyk.1054$Wd.222@trnddc01...
>
> "todd" wrote:
>
>
>> I know you don't really want to know, or you would have looked already,
>> but you could read McCain's web site for answers to your questions. But
>> I know it's more fun to pretend that McCain has said nothing about the
>> above.
>
> As a matter of fact, have looked at the McCain_Palin web.
>
> As far as I can tell, it is the standard regurgitation the Replublicans
> have been spewing the last 8 years that hasn't worked.
>
> They need a serious update.
>
> Lew
So which is it? Has McCain said nothing at all as you originally asserted
or has he said something, but you just don't agree with it? I know...it's
*sooo* hard keeping all of the liberal propaganda straight. Turn to page
184 of the playbook for your next response.
todd
Fred the Red Shirt wrote:
> On Sep 14, 1:36 pm, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
<SNIP>
>> Is there some reason to believe in
>> an anthropogenic contribution to warming? Possibly. But
>> it's not as cut and dried as you like.
>
> What is not cut an dried are numerous OTHER factors
> that affect climate.
>
>> You want to take
>> a shot at making the case ... be my guest.
>>
Let's keep in mind here, BTW, that the central question here
is NOT, "Are humans significantly contributing to global
warmiing?" That question is only of interest if you worship
the earth and think humans are pox upon it. The questions
of interest are:
1) Is GW happening at any remarkable or unusual rate?
2) Is GW - to the extent it is and will happen - even a danger
to mankind?
3) Whatever causes GW - if it is a threat to humanity - can mankind
do anything meaningful to ameliorate either its severity or
consequences?
At the moment, the best knowledge we've got *suggests* (does not prove,
and may change) these answers:
1) Hard to know because quality historic data is not abundant. There
does seem to be some slightly higher than usual GW trends, but
how bad they are depends on how long a timeline you use. If you
you pick your timeline carefully, you can prove nearly any proposition
you like.
2) Unclear. More people die prematurely in overly cold than overly warm
climates as a rule. Water rising in the ocean could
contribute to lowland flooding which does affect a lot of the population
of the planet. However, the *rate* at which this is likely to happen -
if it happens at all - has been vastly overstated by those deep scientific
sages like Al Gore and the rest of his drone followers.
3) If GW is happening, and it's happening in dangerous bad amounts
(whatever is causing it), it is almost certainly NOT the case that
mankind has the resources to do all that much about. In this
worst case scenario, we'd be far better off to do what humans do
best: adapt. The odds of adapting effectively, are far, far better
than the arrogant presumption that if we just go green enough,
deny ourselves the very things that have made mankind so successful
(energy, transportation, wealth, markets ...) we can "save the planet".
Like I keep saying the GW scaremongers like Peace Prize Boy are principally
animated by a horrible combination of earth worshiping pantheism and
socialist/Marxist political ideology. They are not credible witnesses
to the questions or their remediation.
The scientists are clearly much more relevant in this discussion, but
they too have agendas. Science itself is fairly dispassionate, but
the people who do science are not. They are driven by their desire
for funding and, at the moment, the funding is tilting towards the
GW boogeman. Meanwhile, we have many reasons to continue to question
the doomsayers:
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=9619
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
Lew Hodgett wrote:
> "Mark & Juanita" wrote:
>
>> Why is it that the drastic energy price increases started after the
>> Democrats took control of the legislative branch? If Bush and
>> Cheney were
>> so responsible, one would think those drastic increases would have
>> started
>> shortly after 2001.
>
> The rapidly increasing energy prices are simply the manifestation of a
> long developing problem, namely the expanding worldwide demand for
> energy and it's impact on the world economy.
>
> Bush/Cheney, men with oil backgrounds, have returned to an oil
> person's mentality to address the problem.
Ohhhh, I am getting excited. It's a Bush=Satan line of
reasoning - one of the traditional forms of formal proof
will follow now doubt.
>
> Using old ideas to address a new problem(s) is not the sign of a
> leader.
Assuming it is the job of the government to resolve this issue
is the sign of collectivism.
>
> Drill baby drill was their solution.
>
> There is no way for the USA to drill it's way out of this problem, it
> is simply not going to happen.
>
Nonsense. "Drill" is a metaphor for more than just drilling. There
are all manner of related hyrdrocarbon based fuels that come into
play such as CNG, shale oil, and so forth. The earth worshiping
pantheists (aka environmentalists that flunked science) have so
polluted the culture with their foolishness that people go
around mindlessly repeating "we can't drill our way out of this
problem." We *have* to be drilling, now and in the future to
maintain a consistent energy supply. Over time, we may migrate
to other forms of energy, but for the foreseeable future, transportation
depends on drilling.
> We simply don't have enough oil that the oil industry is interested in
> extracting, to solve the problem.
Again, total nonsense. We don't have enough oil of interest to
the big eeeeeeeevillll oil companies *when the force of government
is used to artificially distort the price of the product*. In the
face of higher fuel prices the collectivist politicians screamed
that the oil companies were making too much money and should pay
a "windfall" tax - this despite of the fact that government
at all levels extracts more in taxes per dollar of gasoline than
the big eeeeeeeeevill oil companies make in profit. As prices
rose, the greatest "windfall" was experienced by government
taxation entities. In that face of that kind of Hugo Chavez
mentality here in the West, I don't blame the oil companies for
being unenthusiastic about making multi-billion dollar capital
investments.
>
> BTW, still remember being interviewed by Mobil Oil upon graduation.
> Still remember him stating, Mobil didn't make any money on gasoline,
> but they did on everything else.
>
> That was a long time ago, but not much has changed.
>
> If you think about it that crude stream in south Texas that goes into
> plastics is worth a lot more than if it were gasoline. (Bought a 500
> lb drum of epoxy lately?)
>
> There has never been an energy policy put out by either party that
> addresses conservation and efficient use of a finite resource, oil.
*All* resources are "finite". Markets cause those resources to flow
efficiently to the places with greatest scarcity. Government
"policy" distorts this process and makes it less efficient.
I don't want people who cannot make the TSA effective deciding
energy policy. If you think the airport screen process is well
executed, by all means, demand more government action in areas
like energy, healthcare, and education. Perhaps we can reduce
all three of those to the level of the mindless drones counting
shampoo bottles on the conveyor belt.
>
> Coupled with our wasteful consumption (25% of the world's output by 4%
> of the population),
Because that 4% is also the world's most *productive*. It is that 4%
the developed the very process of extracting and refining oil to make
energy portable. That 4% industrialized the world, created modern
science, technology, transportation, and medicine. But collectivists
don't like that. They want everything to be "equal". If we listen to
them today, we will all be equally *poor*.
This is the same moronic argument used to attack the rich, "Well only
1% of the planet has 98% of the wealth" or some such stupidity. But
there is a *reason* for this situation. Human progress requires
*concentration of assets* (aka "capital formation") whether those
assets are energy, money, or skill. When you see assets concentrated,
you should celebrate it - it is the primary vector for human
advancement - advancement that benefits *all* of humanity, not just
those with the concentrated assets. Sub-Saharan Africans have access
to some level of life-saving drugs today because of wealth concentrated
in the West. Tens of millions of people live better lives today because
of the wealth of Bill Gates, Larry Ellison, Scott McNeilly, and Steve
Jobs. Many other examples abound, but collectivists love to whine
about the concentration of assets like it is a horrible thing.
> is the other major problem it has created, global warming.
You are entitled to your religious views but don't peddle them
as facts. With all the howling from earth worshiping pantheists
there is still *no* demonstration of causation between human
action and the very mild warming currently observed. There is
certainly correlation (to the degree that clean data are even
available) and there may in fact be an anthropogenic component
to global warming, but "it has created global warming" is a vastly
overstated assertion and at some levels - flatly wrong.
"Global warming" was taking place on- and off, long before there
was any use of carbon fuels on planet earth (by humans). If there
is any anthropogenic component to global warming, it is additive
to natural processes, not a sole cause in and of itself.
>
> Energy consumption and global warming are directly related.
They are *correlated* and only along a fairly local/proximate
time line. *Causation* has never been established so far.
If you can do the latter, you'll win a Nobel.
>
> The rampant clearing of the rain forests in Indonesia and Brazil are
> another part of the equation since those trees no longer exist to
> convert CO2 back to O2.
So it is theorized. However, it is also clear that he interactions
between the components of the biosphere are so complex that an
"explanation" like yours above is laughably oversimplified. It may
well be that this is a huge problem. It may also be that there
are natural feedback processes that ameliorate this to some or
even a large extent. The best mathematicians and scientists on
the planet don't remotely understand this, but you're sure that
it's a problem.
>
> IMHO, THIS IS THE MAJOR problem that the world will resolve in the 1st
> half of the 21st century.
Finally, you admit this is your *opinion*.
>
> We either address the renewable energy/global warming problem(s) or we
> will get our clocks cleaned.
Sure. When do I buy a prayer mat and kneel next to you in your
pantheism?
>
> If we do it the right way, the USA will develop the technologies, make
> a lot of money in the process, and continue to enjoy our standard of
> living.
>
> I have seen nothing in the last 8 years that indicates to me that
> Bush/Cheney have a clue what is going on.
Now we get to the heart of it. It's W's fault!!!!!! Please
take a moment to wipe the drool from your chin.
>
> IMHO, McCain has sold his sole for the opportunity to run for
> President.
>
> All he seems able to do is spit out the standard boiler plate party
> line.
And you have done nothing more than "spit out" standard environmentalist
dogma absent even the slightest indication that you understand
the subtlety and nuance of any of the issue.
>
> Times are changing, they need a serious update.
>
> He may very well have some new ideas, but he hasn't presented them.
>
> Lew
>
>
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
On Thu, 11 Sep 2008 06:20:32 +0000, Lew Hodgett wrote:
> Opinion:
>
> I'm glad women are starting to hold high positions not only in gov't,
> but also in our political parties.
>
> It has been a long road since the days of Margaret Chase Smith of Maine.
>
> Choosing a women to run as your party's candidate for the 2nd highest
> office is great, but it does not include the privilege of hiding behind
> her skirts to avoid facing the issues.
>
> "LipStick on a pig", as a vicious personal attack issue? Give me a
> break.
>
> Let's hear about some issues.
>
> McCain states, "Were going to shake things up in Washington".
>
> Okay, it's his party he wants to shake up, go for it, but that is an
> internal Republican party housekeeping problem, not a proposal to solve
> anything.
>
> Maybe he knows something the rest of us don't, but so far haven't heard
> anything but the same old time political mumbo jumbo attack politics.
>
> As I listen, "Where's the beef?", comes to mind.
>
> When do we get a proposal to solve some of our problems?
>
> I'd like to see something about any of the following:
>
> * What is his proposal to address health care problems?
>
> * What is proposal to address global warming issues?
>
> * What is proposal to address alternate energy policies? (Drill baby
> drill doesn't count. That's about like saying make more buggy whips to
> make the cars go faster)
>
> * What is proposal to address veteran's issues or do we just forget
> about them? We owe them big time.
>
> * What is his proposal to address fiscal problems?
>
> * What is proposal to restore our position of leadership on the world
> stage?
>
> The list goes on (Iraq, etc), but a proposal on any of the above would
> be refreshing.
>
> The silence on the critical issues facing us from McCain to date is
> deafening.
>
> Based on his lack of response to date, one can only assume a
> continuation of the last 8 years.
>
> What am I missing?
>
> What haven't I heard?
>
> Lew
I freely admit I could, and most probably am, wrong on this, but here is
My Opinion:
The people who read and participate in this NG, and other woodworking web
based forums, are literate (they can read and write, compose paragraphs,
etc.) can use technology like computers, and know how to think through a
sequence of steps in using tools (hand and power) to accomplish a goal.
In short, they have disciplined their minds to invest their time into
projects that are *delayed* gratification by the nature of taking more
than an hour to complete; and then delay it even longer when they start
the finishing process.
However, mews-readers on TV and Cable, on the other hand, don't want to
devote more than 15 seconds to economic theory. How can a person, any
person, explain economic theory on blue collar job expansions by private
enterprises in 15 seconds. Therefore, it comes down to what will fill
that 15 seconds TV has allocated to a discussion of political economics:
Spending money to fund Community Colleges across the country to expand
teaching small business start-up, or fill that time with "Lipstick?"
You will have to trust me on this, it is easier to explain (in 15 second
bites) lipstick quotes than it is to explain causes of 11 retail banking
failures in one or two regions and none in rest of country.
Example two: Am I the only person who thinks USA should outlaw the use of
Oil and diesel fuel from being used as fuel at large Electrical power
plants? And, should Taxpayers offer interest free loans to Utility plants
to convert from Oil power plants to Nat Gas? Am I the only person who
looks at electrical cars and asks "where and how is that electricity
being generated?" Is that electricity used by cars really all that
pollution free?
Again, I could be wrong here. It sometimes is not the politician's but
the News-readers time limit on a subject; they don't want the audience to
switch channels, do they?
Again, IMHO, and I may be wrong.
"Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> IMHO, McCain has sold his sole for the opportunity to run for President.
>
> All he seems able to do is spit out the standard boiler plate party line.
IMO, it was an easy sale. Bush made such a mess of things I think the
Republicans figure they can't win this time around no matter what, so let
McCain have his 15 minutes of fame. Why waste a "good" candidate?
As much as I dislike Hillary, I figured she'd be the front runner. So did
she and she let Obama get too good a start.