Science > Physics > The consumption of energy needed for CO2 emission reduction
| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"" |
| Date: |
17 Apr 2007 08:39:10 PM |
| Object: |
The consumption of energy needed for CO2 emission reduction |
The proponents of AGW, are now demanding to have laws passed to
mandate 80% reduction in CO2 emissions by 2050.
They confuse this issue purposefully with the conservation of energy
and the dimished emissions from cutbacks in the use of energy.
But an 80% reduction in energy use, is clearly not possible without
the deliberate genocide of much of the population.
The alternative of rebuilding power plants is so expensive as to
require the bulk of the gross national product and indeed beyond the
cost of even the total estimated US wealth of 30 trillion dollars.
This drive to eliminate CO2 emissions, will require the expenditure of
considerable amount of fuel, if only in the construction of new plants
which also require considerable concrete which is responsible for 5%
of anthropogenic CO2 as it is.
Nuclear power plants may not need carbon based fuels to operate. But
they are very expensive to build and it is very expensive and
dangerous to deal with the spent fuel, besides the danger of accident.
It is impossible to modify existing power plants to restrict CO2.
A plant so designed, uses much more fuel, nearly twice as much, to
deliver the same energy to the consumer.
An 80% reduction in emissions will require a 50% increase in the use
of fuel. Otherwise, the essential services of the population will have
to be averted.
The plan of the caps and trade to make energy more expensive and the
price of energy traded on an open market is sheer ludicrous insantity.
In electrical production, it can only lead to emission reduction by
the direct strangulation from the essential use of electrictiy. The
price of electrictiy will rise, and the same CO2 will go into the air
for each kilowatt hour.
Those who wish to claim success in europe with this system which
punishes the productive and rewards the unproductive, have no actual
understanding of the situation. A better perspective would be what
happened in California when the fraud was presented and enacted of the
benefits of deregulation of electrical production. This only led to
the corruption that directly and deliberately frauded the state of
California, and caused the widespead brownouts and effect on the
economy.
The governer of California was deposed for this. And now the people of
California have done the same thing by allowing their politicians to
enact the same sort of fraud and forthcoming extortion from the
essential needs for electrical power. Perhaps these politicians are
expecting to be safely in the grave, before retribution for their
actions can be exacted.
These proponents of this insane control of energy and reduction in CO2
which in truth has absolutely no effect on global warming, should also
present actual mathematics on the actual reduction in global CO2 that
could be incurred.
The fact of CO2 emissions, is that without the halt of the burning of
the tropical forest which convert CO2 to oxygen, this 80% reduction in
US emissions will have absolutely no effect upon global CO2 increase.
Those proposing and supporting this form of genocide, by calling for
80% reduction in emissions, should be made aware of the critical facts
and the crime of which they are complicite.
Deatherage
.
|
|
| User: "mike3" |
|
| Title: Re: The consumption of energy needed for CO2 emission reduction |
19 Apr 2007 03:36:57 AM |
|
|
On Apr 17, 7:39 pm, wrote:
The proponents of AGW, are now demanding to have laws passed to
mandate 80% reduction in CO2 emissions by 2050.
They confuse this issue purposefully with the conservation of energy
and the dimished emissions from cutbacks in the use of energy.
But an 80% reduction in energy use, is clearly not possible without
the deliberate genocide of much of the population.
It is possible if we were to get our individual energy use down
far enough.
The alternative of rebuilding power plants is so expensive as to
require the bulk of the gross national product and indeed beyond the
cost of even the total estimated US wealth of 30 trillion dollars.
This drive to eliminate CO2 emissions, will require the expenditure of
considerable amount of fuel, if only in the construction of new plants
which also require considerable concrete which is responsible for 5%
of anthropogenic CO2 as it is.
Nuclear power plants may not need carbon based fuels to operate. But
they are very expensive to build and it is very expensive and
dangerous to deal with the spent fuel, besides the danger of accident.
It is impossible to modify existing power plants to restrict CO2.
A plant so designed, uses much more fuel, nearly twice as much, to
deliver the same energy to the consumer.
An 80% reduction in emissions will require a 50% increase in the use
of fuel. Otherwise, the essential services of the population will have
to be averted.
The plan of the caps and trade to make energy more expensive and the
price of energy traded on an open market is sheer ludicrous insantity.
In electrical production, it can only lead to emission reduction by
the direct strangulation from the essential use of electrictiy. The
price of electrictiy will rise, and the same CO2 will go into the air
for each kilowatt hour.
Those who wish to claim success in europe with this system which
punishes the productive and rewards the unproductive, have no actual
understanding of the situation. A better perspective would be what
happened in California when the fraud was presented and enacted of the
benefits of deregulation of electrical production. This only led to
the corruption that directly and deliberately frauded the state of
California, and caused the widespead brownouts and effect on the
economy.
The governer of California was deposed for this. And now the people of
California have done the same thing by allowing their politicians to
enact the same sort of fraud and forthcoming extortion from the
essential needs for electrical power. Perhaps these politicians are
expecting to be safely in the grave, before retribution for their
actions can be exacted.
These proponents of this insane control of energy and reduction in CO2
which in truth has absolutely no effect on global warming, should also
present actual mathematics on the actual reduction in global CO2 that
could be incurred.
The fact of CO2 emissions, is that without the halt of the burning of
the tropical forest which convert CO2 to oxygen, this 80% reduction in
US emissions will have absolutely no effect upon global CO2 increase.
Those proposing and supporting this form of genocide, by calling for
80% reduction in emissions, should be made aware of the critical facts
and the crime of which they are complicite.
Deatherage
I do not support genocide. You support a straw man.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: The consumption of energy needed for CO2 emission reduction |
19 Apr 2007 07:49:47 PM |
|
|
On Apr 19, 2:36 am, mike3 <mike4...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Apr 17, 7:39 pm, wrote:
The proponents of AGW, are now demanding to have laws passed to
mandate 80% reduction in CO2 emissions by 2050.
They confuse this issue purposefully with the conservation of energy
and the dimished emissions from cutbacks in the use of energy.
;> > But an 80% reduction in energy use, is clearly not possible
without
'> > the deliberate genocide of much of the population.
;> It is possible if we were to get our individual energy use down far
enough.
That is a very cute collection of words. Mostly we use energy for our
essential needs. Your imagined centralized organization of material
and authority for your idealized result would be nothing more than a
modern Stalin 5 year plan. And it is entirely analogous to the insane
parnoias and mandates that the Chinese went through in the early years
of communism. Such as when they decided the sparrows were eating all
the grain, and they went on a national program to kill the sparrows.
Get a real life and quit your overblown Simms video game for other
peoples lives. Even to just make electricity more expensive would kill
a certain number of old people who could not afford air conditioning.
If you tolerate this from of genocide, you are a skunk of AGW. Your
own fate should be the same.
You have no idea how difficult it is to run a profitable business. You
have no idea how difficult it is to be a working person, and pay your
bills for the essentials of life without being driven into poverty by
some idiots with shortsitedness and long little fingers they want to
get up everybodies butt., and nothing but dogmatic slogans which they
put off to be science, for their insane contemplations of reality.
The 80% reduction target is complete insanity and way beyond the
genocide level for emissions reductions.
Deatherage
.
|
|
|
| User: "Flush the Exxon Turds" |
|
| Title: The cost of dirty power is only beginning to hit us |
19 Apr 2007 08:01:04 PM |
|
|
The cost of dirty power is only beginning to hit us
http://thechronicleherald.ca/Business/638099.html
By PETER MOREIRA Business Columnist
The energy debate in Nova Scotia uncomfortably brings to mind Alfred
Hitchcock's "bomb theory" in creating suspense.
The great English film director said that the way to create suspense
is to let the audience know there is a bomb under the characters'
seats, but not let the characters themselves know.
The idea is that while the characters go about life's trivia -
discussing baseball or riding on a bus - the audience squirms with the
knowledge that they're about to blow up.
So OK, it would be a bit hysterical to say we Nova Scotians are
sitting on an economic time bomb we don't know about. But some day
soon the whole issue of carbon dioxide emissions is going to blow up,
and the economic fallout could be severe.
When will it happen? Dunno.
How severe will the effects be? Dunno that either.
In fact, one of the problems with writing about energy and the
environment is there are too many unknowns - political, environmental,
economic, scientific. But it is pretty safe to say that Nova Scotia is
not ready for an economic worst-case scenario.
Before we go any further, let me say categorically that this is not an
argument against imposing economic penalties for carbon dioxide
emissions. It's obvious we need them. It's obvious that they're coming
one day.
And it is also clear that a system of cap emissions will only be
effective if it inflicts enough pain on some producers and end-users
to make them change the way they do things.
The Harper government has yet to come up with an emission cap system,
but with the other four major parties committed to one, it's a
certainty it's on the way.
My bet is we will soon end up with the type of "cap and trade" system.
Let's suppose two Canadian power companies produce 1,000 megawatts of
power a year. Toxic Atmosphere Inc. produces power by burning coal,
and therefore produces 10 megatons of greenhouse gases.
Environmental Angels Corp. owns mainly hydroelectric power plants,
producing three megatons of greenhouse gases.
Let's say the federal government decrees that it will tax a 1,000-
megawatt producer $1 million annually for each megaton of greenhouse
gases it produces over eight megatons. And the producer gets a credit
for each megaton less than eight that it produces.
So Toxic Atmosphere is whacked with a $2-million annual tax, right?
Well it would, except Environmental Angels can sell it two megatons of
credits - let's say for a negotiated $1.5 million.
That means that Toxic Atmosphere's customers are going to have to pay
more each year to pay for these emission credits, and Environmental
Angels will either be able to hand the benefits on to its customers,
or invest in new technology that will lower its emissions further.
I've made up all these numbers, but there are hard numbers to show
that right now Nova Scotia (and New Brunswick and P.E.I.) are a hell
of a lot closer to Toxic Atmosphere Inc. than Environmental Angels.
According to CIBC World Markets, Nova Scotia now produces 60 per cent
of its power from coal, the type of fuel that produces the most
greenhouse gases. Only Alberta (74 per cent) and Saskatchewan (63 per
cent) exceed that figure.
Nova Scotia produces a further 30 per cent of its power by burning
petroleum, the second dirtiest fuel.
CIBC believes the provinces most vulnerable to economic penalties in
an emission cap system are, in order, P.E.I., Saskatchewan, Alberta,
Nova Scotia and New Brunswick. Because they receive 88 per cent or
more of their power from hydroelectricity, the best off would be
Quebec, Manitoba, British Columbia and Newfoundland.
Right now, Nova Scotia is respond-ing to the threat mainly by
developing wind farms and researching tidal power. In six years, wind
power and other renewable energy should account for 10 per cent of our
power.
Coal will still be the backbone of our system, and we could get
hammered under effective emission caps.
Nova Scotia Power Corp. would no doubt be the bad guy once fingers
start pointing, but the bottom line is that the higher costs would be
passed on to its customers - you and me.
The provincial government has already begun to lobby Ottawa, asking
for some type of subsidy as the coal- and oil-dependent provinces
diversify to greener energy sources.
Other than Alberta, which can afford the pain, the provinces that will
suffer most are those with minimal federal clout, so it's difficult to
be optimistic about federal subsidies.
So what should we do, given that we know there is this bomb under our
seats. The first step would be for the electricity utilities in Nova
Scotia, New Brunswick and P.E.I. to merge their transmission systems.
This would make their renewable energy more reliable (maybe the wind
is blowing in Cape Breton, but not Northern New Brunswick) and provide
green producers a bigger market. But it would require co-operation
among the Maritime governments, something they are dreadful at doing.
The other theoretical advantage of a regional grid is that
Newfoundland and Labrador - that Saudi Arabia of hydroelectric power -
could eventually run a cable under the Gulf of St. Lawrence and tap
into that grid for the three Maritime provinces.
Then we consumers could pay utilities that are benefiting from
emission cap trading, rather than those who are suffering. That could
help defuse the bomb.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Surfer" |
|
| Title: Re: The cost of dirty power is only beginning to hit us |
20 Apr 2007 01:49:58 AM |
|
|
On 19 Apr 2007 18:01:04 -0700, Flush the Exxon Turds
<Excrement.Covered.Exxon.-.@Exxon-Turds.info> wrote:
The cost of dirty power is only beginning to hit us
http://thechronicleherald.ca/Business/638099.html
Australian farms bite dust in mother of all droughts
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,21588496-601,00.html
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Lloyd" |
|
| Title: Re: The consumption of energy needed for CO2 emission reduction |
18 Apr 2007 01:27:48 PM |
|
|
On Apr 17, 9:39 pm, wrote:
The proponents of AGW, are now demanding to have laws passed to
mandate 80% reduction in CO2 emissions by 2050.
And a repeal of the Second Law of Thermodynamics too.
http://www.theonion.com/content/node/28308
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: The consumption of energy needed for CO2 emission reduction |
19 Apr 2007 07:31:42 PM |
|
|
On Apr 18, 12:27 pm, Lloyd <lpar...@emory.edu> wrote:
On Apr 17, 9:39 pm, wrote:
The proponents of AGW, are now demanding to have laws passed to
mandate 80% reduction in CO2 emissions by 2050.
And a repeal of the Second Law of Thermodynamics too.
You are such a classic propagandist. Play on the antagonism of the
petulant minds that likewise enjoy your superstition, and you can
enjoy your communal hatred and insanity, together. Why don't you head
on down to the rally and chant your hate slogans?
What the hell do you know about the 2nd Law of thermodynamics? This
means very little without the concept of entropy. You obviously know
nothing of either.
Suppose you consider a column of air 1 meter sq., from sea level to 6
kilometers. At 6 kilometers the air pressure is 1/2. The temperature
at this altitude is about -30F. Suppose the air at the surface is 90F.
What is the entropy of the entire column of air for 1degC??
What is the entropy of the bottom cubic meter??
What is the entropy of the top cubic meter for 1degC??
So what is the entropy difference for the top cubic meter, to acheive
the state of the lowest cubic meter??
If grenhouse gases supposedly stop radiation that would otherwise
leave the system and not be absorbed into the heat, what temperature
must the top half of the column reach in order to have the energy to
increase the temperature of the bottom half by 1degC?
How can you justify your theory of radiative forcing by any
mathematics which in any way are from actual thermodynamics of heat??
The surface of the earth receives a quantity of direct radiation. The
surface is in a state of practicle equilibrium, since temperatures and
averages are not radically changing.
Therefore, each day, the surface must lose equivelent energy that it
recieves. Practically, the earth absorbs more than it radiates to
40deg latitude. Above this latitude it radiates more than it recieves.
But the point is, each day this equivelence in Joules is lost from the
surface, and must transpire and leave the atmosphere. Even to change
this rate of loss by 7Wm-2 over the entire surface of the earth ,
would increase the temperature of the atmosphere 1degC in about 17
days according to the heat capacity of the atmosphere.
So if you consider the fourth power law of temperature to energy, and
the entropy of the air at sea level for 1degC, how can you in any way
justify the concept of radiative forcing to the top of the
troposphere?
You only attribute the false concept of radiative forcing to this
altitude, because if the CO2 affected temperatures, it could be
detected in direct experiments within very short distances from the
surface. Of course with your theoretical ideas, you can claim a
process of radiative forcing which you cannot demonstrate in the
laboratory by any means.
Also, each cubic meter of air has a specific entropy.
This must be fulfilled with actual quantity of energy in calories or
Joules. The mystical power of CO2 that is claimed but cannot be
demonstrated in the laboratory is fraud.
But you know what is really funny, Lloyd??
My analyses of this here is very rough, this is not my profession. If
your analyses of this is not perfect, you are guilty of heinous crime.
To late to bone up, chump.
hahahahHAHAHAHhahahHhahahahHHAHAHAHAH
HAhahahcrackpotlloydhahahahahcrackpotlloydhahahahahah
Deatherage
CO2Phobia is a pyschological disease. Seek professional help and buy
an air conditioner.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Flush the Exxon Turds" |
|
| Title: Energy Producers Capture Speedier Wind |
19 Apr 2007 07:34:00 PM |
|
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/19/AR2007041901957.html
Energy Producers Capture Speedier Wind
The Associated Press
Thursday, April 19, 2007; 6:01 PM
COLUMBUS, Ohio -- New technology is allowing energy producers to
capture speedier wind that environmental activists say has the
potential to provide 20 percent of the state's electricity within 10
years.
What's new is a taller windmill that can catch gusts that are faster
than those closer to the ground. The tallest ones have been about 250
feet, but now proponents envision windmills whose bases are about 330
feet tall.
Four windmills in northwest Ohio provide part of Bowling Green's
energy supply, the only municipality in the state to use electricity
from wind. Only eight states that use wind power make less than Ohio
seven-megawatt capacity produced Bowling Green, according to the U.S.
Department of Energy. Texas' windmills produce 2,768 megawatts to lead
the nation.
Ohio lags, in part, because the state is one of only 12 that have no
standards set for the use of renewable energy sources. However, new
Gov. Ted Strickland has said development of those sources is a
priority and House Speaker Jon Husted has created the House
Alternative Energy Committee to study the issue.
Environment Ohio, which promotes the use of alternatives to coal and
natural gas to produce electricity, and the U.S. Department of Energy
presented at agency's new wind map Thursday that shows speeds clocked
at that height of taller windmills. According to the map, vast areas
of northern and western Ohio have winds strong enough to make wind
power profitable. Promoters consider winds of about 17 mph strong
enough to produce energy.
"The map shows Ohio is considerably more windy than previous
research," said Dennis Elliot, a principal scientist with the U.S.
Department of Energy's National Renewable Energy Laboratory.
The map excludes areas where wind harvesting could be impractical or
harm the environment, including near airports and on Lake Erie.
Some Ohio-based power companies are investing in wind energy in states
with laws requiring a set percentage of renewable energy
"We urge Ohio's leaders to commit to getting 10 to 20 percent of
Ohio's energy from wind in the next decade," said Amy Bomberg,
spokeswoman for Environment Ohio,
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: The consumption of energy needed for CO2 emission reduction |
17 Apr 2007 08:41:12 PM |
|
|
The proponents of AGW, are now demanding to have laws passed to
mandate 80% reduction in CO2 emissions by 2050.
They confuse this issue purposefully with the conservation of energy
and the dimished emissions from cutbacks in the use of energy.
But an 80% reduction in energy use, is clearly not possible without
the deliberate genocide of much of the population.
The alternative of rebuilding power plants is so expensive as to
require the bulk of the gross national product and indeed beyond the
cost of even the total estimated US wealth of 30 trillion dollars.
This drive to eliminate CO2 emissions, will require the expenditure of
considerable amount of fuel, if only in the construction of new plants
which also require considerable concrete which is responsible for 5%
of anthropogenic CO2 as it is.
Nuclear power plants may not need carbon based fuels to operate. But
they are very expensive to build and it is very expensive and
dangerous to deal with the spent fuel, besides the danger of accident.
It is impossible to modify existing power plants to restrict CO2.
A plant so designed, uses much more fuel, nearly twice as much, to
deliver the same energy to the consumer.
An 80% reduction in emissions will require a 50% increase in the use
of fuel. Otherwise, the essential services of the population will have
to be averted.
The plan of the caps and trade to make energy more expensive and the
price of energy traded on an open market is sheer ludicrous insantity.
In electrical production, it can only lead to emission reduction by
the direct strangulation from the essential use of electrictiy. The
price of electrictiy will rise, and the same CO2 will go into the air
for each kilowatt hour.
Those who wish to claim success in europe with this system which
punishes the productive and rewards the unproductive, have no actual
understanding of the situation. A better perspective would be what
happened in California when the fraud was presented and enacted of the
benefits of deregulation of electrical production. This only led to
the corruption that directly and deliberately frauded the state of
California, and caused the widespead brownouts and effect on the
economy.
The governer of California was deposed for this. And now the people of
California have done the same thing by allowing their politicians to
enact the same sort of fraud and forthcoming extortion from the
essential needs for electrical power. Perhaps these politicians are
expecting to be safely in the grave, before retribution for their
actions can be exacted.
These proponents of this insane control of energy and reduction in CO2
which in truth has absolutely no effect on global warming, should also
present actual mathematics on the actual reduction in global CO2 that
could be incurred.
The fact of CO2 emissions, is that without the halt of the burning of
the tropical forest which convert CO2 to oxygen, this 80% reduction in
US emissions will have absolutely no effect upon global CO2 increase.
Those proposing and supporting this form of genocide, by calling for
80% reduction in emissions, should be made aware of the critical facts
and the crime of which they are complicite.
Deatherage
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Roger Coppock" |
|
| Title: Re: The consumption of energy needed for CO2 emission reduction |
17 Apr 2007 08:43:38 PM |
|
|
Tthis article is a large list of unsupported statements.
No one who calls himself a 'skeptic' should buy a word
of it.
On Apr 17, 6:39 pm, wrote:
The proponents of AGW, are now demanding to have laws passed to
mandate 80% reduction in CO2 emissions by 2050.
They confuse this issue purposefully with the conservation of energy
and the dimished emissions from cutbacks in the use of energy.
But an 80% reduction in energy use, is clearly not possible without
the deliberate genocide of much of the population.
The alternative of rebuilding power plants is so expensive as to
require the bulk of the gross national product and indeed beyond the
cost of even the total estimated US wealth of 30 trillion dollars.
This drive to eliminate CO2 emissions, will require the expenditure of
considerable amount of fuel, if only in the construction of new plants
which also require considerable concrete which is responsible for 5%
of anthropogenic CO2 as it is.
Nuclear power plants may not need carbon based fuels to operate. But
they are very expensive to build and it is very expensive and
dangerous to deal with the spent fuel, besides the danger of accident.
It is impossible to modify existing power plants to restrict CO2.
A plant so designed, uses much more fuel, nearly twice as much, to
deliver the same energy to the consumer.
An 80% reduction in emissions will require a 50% increase in the use
of fuel. Otherwise, the essential services of the population will have
to be averted.
The plan of the caps and trade to make energy more expensive and the
price of energy traded on an open market is sheer ludicrous insantity.
In electrical production, it can only lead to emission reduction by
the direct strangulation from the essential use of electrictiy. The
price of electrictiy will rise, and the same CO2 will go into the air
for each kilowatt hour.
Those who wish to claim success in europe with this system which
punishes the productive and rewards the unproductive, have no actual
understanding of the situation. A better perspective would be what
happened in California when the fraud was presented and enacted of the
benefits of deregulation of electrical production. This only led to
the corruption that directly and deliberately frauded the state of
California, and caused the widespead brownouts and effect on the
economy.
The governer of California was deposed for this. And now the people of
California have done the same thing by allowing their politicians to
enact the same sort of fraud and forthcoming extortion from the
essential needs for electrical power. Perhaps these politicians are
expecting to be safely in the grave, before retribution for their
actions can be exacted.
These proponents of this insane control of energy and reduction in CO2
which in truth has absolutely no effect on global warming, should also
present actual mathematics on the actual reduction in global CO2 that
could be incurred.
The fact of CO2 emissions, is that without the halt of the burning of
the tropical forest which convert CO2 to oxygen, this 80% reduction in
US emissions will have absolutely no effect upon global CO2 increase.
Those proposing and supporting this form of genocide, by calling for
80% reduction in emissions, should be made aware of the critical facts
and the crime of which they are complicite.
Deatherage
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: The consumption of energy needed for CO2 emission reduction |
17 Apr 2007 10:57:10 PM |
|
|
On Apr 17, 7:43 pm, Roger Coppock <rcopp...@adnc.com> wrote:
Tthis article is a large list of unsupported statements.
No one who calls himself a 'skeptic' should buy a word
of it.
So if I say that just the CO2 from the burning of the trees in the
tropics is 1/4 of all anthropogenic CO2 or 1/3 as much as all the CO2
from industrialization, is that false???
If I point out that in the natural cycle, plants recycle around 440
billion tons per yr, while the CO2 from all of human sources is about
20 billiion without the 7 billion tons from the burning of the trees,
is that unsupported??
Everything absorbs CO2, such as the ocean which absorbs 200 billion
tons annually
http://www.radix.net/~bobg/faqs/scq.CO2rise.html
Nature would entirely absorb man's input as it does that from
volcanoes if it weren't for the reduction of the conversion of the
dense jungle of the rainforest.
Since industrialization, 20% of the worlds forests have been lost.
Most important of the worlds forest is the Amazon. This dense jungle
converts 20% of the worlds oxygen from CO2. Some estimate this at 50%.
Tthese are facts you can ignore, Roger, as you insist that other
people endure depravation and suffering and death in your mad idea
that the CO2 from the fuels they use to live is heating the
atmosphere, and your conscious intent to destroy their economy.
So display the correct figures in comprehensible array for all of this
CO2 you are so devastatedly concerned with.
Good luck in hell, as you ignore these pertinent and accurate facts.
Deatherage
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: The consumption of energy needed for CO2 emission reduction |
18 Apr 2007 02:13:23 AM |
|
|
On Apr 17, 8:57 pm, wrote:
On Apr 17, 7:43 pm, Roger Coppock <rcopp...@adnc.com> wrote:
Tthis article is a large list of unsupported statements.
No one who calls himself a 'skeptic' should buy a word
of it.
So if I say that just the CO2 from the burning of the trees in the
tropics is 1/4 of all anthropogenic CO2 or 1/3 as much as all the CO2
from industrialization, is that false???
If I point out that in the natural cycle, plants recycle around 440
billion tons per yr, while the CO2 from all of human sources is about
20 billiion without the 7 billion tons from the burning of the trees,
is that unsupported??
Everything absorbs CO2, such as the ocean which absorbs 200 billion
tons annuallyhttp://www.radix.net/~bobg/faqs/scq.CO2rise.html
Nature would entirely absorb man's input as it does that from
volcanoes if it weren't for the reduction of the conversion of the
dense jungle of the rainforest.
Since industrialization, 20% of the worlds forests have been lost.
Most important of the worlds forest is the Amazon. This dense jungle
converts 20% of the worlds oxygen from CO2. Some estimate this at 50%.
Tthese are facts you can ignore, Roger, as you insist that other
people endure depravation and suffering and death in your mad idea
that the CO2 from the fuels they use to live is heating the
atmosphere, and your conscious intent to destroy their economy.
So display the correct figures in comprehensible array for all of this
CO2 you are so devastatedly concerned with.
Good luck in hell, as you ignore these pertinent and accurate facts.
Put Google Earth on your desktop and find these "destroyed
Rainforests", then point them out to me.
Besides which, oceanic surface plankton transpire a hell of a lot
more than any piddling little forest.
Oh, and please explain why so many other planets and moons in the
solar system are warming much more than Earth is. Are all of them
subject to "natural" fluctuations _except_ Earth? That's just silly.
IOW how about you stop sockpuppeting for George Soros et. al. and do
some thinking on your own?
Mark L. Fergerson
.
|
|
|
| User: "Eric Gisse" |
|
| Title: Re: The consumption of energy needed for CO2 emission reduction |
18 Apr 2007 03:59:03 AM |
|
|
On Apr 17, 11:13 pm, "n...@bid.nes" <Alien8...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Apr 17, 8:57 pm, wrote:
On Apr 17, 7:43 pm, Roger Coppock <rcopp...@adnc.com> wrote:
Tthis article is a large list of unsupported statements.
No one who calls himself a 'skeptic' should buy a word
of it.
So if I say that just the CO2 from the burning of the trees in the
tropics is 1/4 of all anthropogenic CO2 or 1/3 as much as all the CO2
from industrialization, is that false???
If I point out that in the natural cycle, plants recycle around 440
billion tons per yr, while the CO2 from all of human sources is about
20 billiion without the 7 billion tons from the burning of the trees,
is that unsupported??
Everything absorbs CO2, such as the ocean which absorbs 200 billion
tons annuallyhttp://www.radix.net/~bobg/faqs/scq.CO2rise.html
Nature would entirely absorb man's input as it does that from
volcanoes if it weren't for the reduction of the conversion of the
dense jungle of the rainforest.
Since industrialization, 20% of the worlds forests have been lost.
Most important of the worlds forest is the Amazon. This dense jungle
converts 20% of the worlds oxygen from CO2. Some estimate this at 50%.
Tthese are facts you can ignore, Roger, as you insist that other
people endure depravation and suffering and death in your mad idea
that the CO2 from the fuels they use to live is heating the
atmosphere, and your conscious intent to destroy their economy.
So display the correct figures in comprehensible array for all of this
CO2 you are so devastatedly concerned with.
Good luck in hell, as you ignore these pertinent and accurate facts.
Put Google Earth on your desktop and find these "destroyed
Rainforests", then point them out to me.
Besides which, oceanic surface plankton transpire a hell of a lot
more than any piddling little forest.
Oh, and please explain why so many other planets and moons in the
solar system are warming much more than Earth is. Are all of them
subject to "natural" fluctuations _except_ Earth? That's just silly.
Caarreeefull.
IOW how about you stop sockpuppeting for George Soros et. al. and do
some thinking on your own?
Mark L. Fergerson
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Flush the Exxon Turds" |
|
| Title: Re: Excrement-covered Mark L. Fergerson: no pride, no shame, no brain. Ignore. |
18 Apr 2007 02:25:21 AM |
|
|
On Apr 18, 12:13 am, "n...@bid.nes" <Alien8...@gmail.com> wrote:
Oh, and please explain why so many other planets and moons in the
solar system are warming much more than Earth is. Are all of them
subject to "natural" fluctuations _except_ Earth? That's just silly.
Mark L. Fergerson
Stop Lying About Global Warming... On Mars, on Jupiter, on Pluto, on
Subjects you know NOTHING About...
Jupiter Got hit by an asteroid/comet larger than the Alveraz asteroid
that
killed off the dinosaurs 65,000,000 years ago. When the Alverez
Asteroid
struck it hit at an angle towards the North American Continent. A
divot
the size of a mountain was ejected to space and fell as a second set
of
burning meteorites. 90% of all living things died. The forests all
burned
worldwide. Sunlight was blotted out for decades. North America was
sterilized and not colonized by large living things for more than
3,000,000 years.
The Shoemaker-Levy Asteroid/comet that hit Jupiter in 1994 was much
bigger. The multiple explosions were larger than the size of planet
Earth.
The after effects will not die away for 100,000s of years.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comet_Shoemaker-Levy_9
"... The first impact occurred at 20:15 UTC on July 16, 1994, when
fragment A of the nucleus slammed into Jupiter's southern hemisphere
at a
speed of about 60 km/s. Instruments on Galileo detected a fireball
which
reached a peak temperature of about 24,000 K, compared to the typical
Jovian cloudtop temperature of about 130 K, before expanding and
cooling
rapidly to about 1500 K after 40 s. The plume from the fireball
quickly
reached a height of over 3,000 km [3]. A few minutes after the impact
fireball was detected, Galileo measured renewed heating, probably due
to
ejected material falling back onto the planet. Earth-based observers
detected the fireball rising over the limb of the planet shortly after
the
initial impact [4].
Astronomers had expected to see the fireballs from the impacts, but
did
not have any idea in advance how visible the atmospheric effects of
the
impacts would be from Earth. Observers soon saw a huge dark spot after
the
first impact. The spot was visible even in very small telescopes, and
was
about 6,000 km (one Earth radius) across. This and subsequent dark
spots
were thought to have been caused by debris from the impacts, and were
markedly asymmetric, forming crescent shapes in front of the direction
of
impact.
Over the next 6 days, 21 discrete impacts were observed, with the
largest
coming on July 18 at 07:34 UTC when fragment G struck Jupiter. This
impact
created a giant dark spot over 12,000 km across, and was estimated to
have
released an energy equivalent to 6,000,000 megatons of TNT (750 times
the
world's nuclear arsenal). Two impacts 12 hours apart on July 19
created
impact marks of similar size to that caused by fragment G, and impacts
continued until July 22, when fragment W struck the planet. ..."
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0306450887/104-8494141-1649537?v=glance&n=283155
Impact Jupiter: The Crash of Comet Shoemaker-Levy 9 (Hardcover)
by David H. Levy
# Hardcover: 290 pages
# Publisher: Plenum Publishing Corporation (September 1995)
# Language: English
# ISBN: 0306450887
"... On a cloudy winter night in 1993, Levy and his friends and fellow
skywatchers Gene and Carolyn Shoemaker discovered the oddly shaped
comet
that, just six months later, crashed into Jupiter and provided
earthlings
with a spectacular and sobering demonstration of nature's might. As
Levy,
popular author of numerous books, including The Quest for Comets
(1994),
chronicles the entire fascinating Shoemaker-Levy 9 saga, we're struck
by
how radically science has been changed by computer technology. We're
now
capable of the instantaneous transmission of information and images
not
only from anywhere on earth, but, with the advent of mobile robotic
observers such as the Hubble Space Telescope, from far out in the
galaxy.
Hubble captured one astonishing picture after another of the comet
fragments hurtling toward Jupiter, the plumes their impacts sent
spraying
up into space, and the "wounds" sustained by the gas giant. Millions
of
people watched the glorious demise of Shoemaker-Levy 9 both on
television
and on the Internet, and Levy's delight in the technology that made
this
media hype possible, and in his own moments in the spotlight, is
palpable
in his fast-paced, informatively descriptive account. Donna
Seaman ..."
Jupiter got hit by a big mother asteroid, the explosions themselves
were
as big as the Earth, just recently. When something much less than that
happened last time on Earth it burned down the world and changed the
climate for millions of years. It nearly killed much of higher life on
land, and finished off the dinosaurs. Jupiter's climate will be
purturbed
for hundreds of thousands of years, swamping out all other possible
natural variations.
The sun radiation intensity (warming) has been very very little. The
reports of "global warming" on Mars and Pluto as proof that the Sun is
at
fault for Global Warming on Earth fail to account for why thirty other
worlds and moons are not warming. If the sun is the main reason, then
ALL
the planets have to show warming.
If the sun was at fault it would be far worse for mankind, as we could
do
SOMETHING about man-made warming, but we can do NOTHING about solar
warming. It's a good thing that the records going back 100 years show
very
little variation in solar radiation.
On the other hand Mars and Pluto have more "greenhouse gases" than
Earth
does. If a tiny bit of extra sunlight causes major warming on Mars
with an
atmosphere mostly made of CO2 than we should learn from that to keep
CO2
levels from increasing in our air.
Neither Mars nor Pluto have thick protective gas envelopes to stop
many
high energy radiation particles from penetrating to surface like Earth
does -- one cannot compare these worlds as if they would react
identically
to Earth to any input changes. It is equivilent to science frauds to
make
definitive statements about other planets with so little actual data.
Nobody has visited these worlds, and instruments have only recently
started building the records of facts of things we may be somewhat
sure of
about some of the other planets.
http://home.case.edu/~sjr16/advanced/mars.html
As can be seen in the table below, Mars' atmosphere is much less than
Earth's and Venus', and it exerts a pressure of only 0.000636 bars at
the
surface. Its composition is nearly all CO2; the rest is
approximately:
* CO2: 95.32%
* N2: 2.7%
* Ar: 1.6%
* O2: 0.13%
* CO: 0.08%
* H2O: 0.021%
* NO: 0.01%
* Ne: 0.00025%
* HDO: 0.000085%
* Kr: 0.00003%
* Xe: 0.000008%
http://zebu.uoregon.edu/~soper/Mars/atmosphere.html
Atmosphere of Mars
Not such a bad place to visit, and you couldn't live there.
Mars has a thin atmosphere:
Here is a comparison of the atmospheric composition of Earth and Venus
and
Mars. I list the number of molecules per m2 of surface area of the
planet
in each planet's atmosphere relative to the total number of molecules
per
m2 in Earth's atmosphere.
Earth Venus Mars
N2 0.79 2 3 x 10-4
O2 0.20 < 0.001 10-7
Ar 0.01 0.005 2 x 10-4
CO2 0.0003 64 0.009
H2O ~ 0.02 ~ 0.01 ~10-6
Total 1.00 90 0.01
--------------------------
H2O 3 km 0.5 mm small
liquid
+ vapor
(A technical note: This is based on a pressure ratio of 0.0056/1,
a surface gravity ratio of 0.38/1.0, and a mass per molecule
ratio of 1.5/1.0 for Mars/Earth.)
Note that Mars has more carbon dioxide in its atmosphere than does
Earth,
but Mars has a lot less of everything else.
http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/P/Pluto.html#atmosphere
Atmosphere
Pluto has very thin atmosphere with a surface pressure 100,000 times
less
than that on Earth. It is composed of 98% nitrogen and small amounts
of
methane and carbon monoxide - much like the atmosphere of Neptune's
moon
Triton.
Pluto's atmosphere gradually freezes and collects on the surface as
the
planet moves away from the Sun. Yet, interestingly, observations have
shown that between 1989, when Pluto was at perihelion, and 2002, the
atmospheric pressure increased threefold. The explanation probably has
to
do with the fact that materials take time to warm up and cool off,
which
is why the hottest part of the day on Earth, for example, is usually
around 2 or 3 p.m. rather than local noon, when sunlight is the most
intense. The fact that Pluto's atmosphere is still building up rather
than
freezing out, as many scientists expected, is good news from the
standpoint of what the New Horizons probe, launched toward Pluto in
2006,
might learn of the ninth world.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: The consumption of energy needed for CO2 emission reduction |
18 Apr 2007 06:54:17 AM |
|
|
On Apr 18, 1:13 am, "n...@bid.nes" <Alien8...@gmail.com> wrote:
l> Put Google Earth on your desktop and find these "destroyed
l> Rainforests", then point them out to me.
l>
Besides which, oceanic surface plankton transpire a hell of a lot
more than any piddling little forest.
Oh, and please explain why so many other planets and moons in the
solar system are warming much more than Earth is. Are all of them
subject to "natural" fluctuations _except_ Earth? That's just silly.
IOW how about you stop sockpuppeting for George Soros et. al. and do
some thinking on your own?
CO2 causes no warming of the earth. This is absolutely junk science. I
apologize for even arguing about CO2. But it is a point that one can
show the fraud of this entire movement of AGW. They will not give even
an accurate evaluation of CO2 in the natural environment, as they
likewise fudge and falsify each point of their theory.
CO2 abatement is very energy costly. They hide these facts also, as it
is a point of their propaganda to associate CO2 reduction to energy
conservation, which are completely contradictory in reality.
It is a very clear fact that 1/4 of all anthropogenic CO2 is from
simple burning of the trees in the tropics. This is renamed 'change of
tropical land use', to hide this fact. This is a cumulative loss of
the important conversion of CO2 to oxygen and is primarily responsible
for the increasing concentrations of CO2.
This is 1/3 as much as that from fossil fuels and cement. At every
point the theory of anthropogenic causes of global warming is a
fraudulent theory, and this fraud should be revealed. It is utterly
ridiculous to attempt the reductions they propose and this would be
utter suicide for our economy and the free enterprise which we rely
upon for a healthy economy.
The Bush administration fought the recent case in the sumpreme court,
on the grounds that CO2 is a grenhouse gas but is not pollution. The
court had to rule that it is harmful. This is all about a law that was
imposed in 1970. The burden of proof should be met that shows CO2 to
affect the climate, which it has not.
This attempt to gain control over our free use of energy is a crime of
the highest proportions and is invalid science. At some point, it must
be challenged directly. Hopefully, before these insane fanatics are
given any credibility with their determination to gain control over
our economy and use of energy.
Kent Deatherage
.
|
|
|
| User: "Big Glob" |
|
| Title: Re: The consumption of energy needed for CO2 emission reduction |
18 Apr 2007 01:16:25 PM |
|
|
On 18 Apr 2007 04:54:17 -0700, wrote:
On Apr 18, 1:13 am, "n...@bid.nes" <Alien8...@gmail.com> wrote:
l> Put Google Earth on your desktop and find these "destroyed
l> Rainforests", then point them out to me.
l>
Besides which, oceanic surface plankton transpire a hell of a lot
more than any piddling little forest.
Oh, and please explain why so many other planets and moons in the
solar system are warming much more than Earth is. Are all of them
subject to "natural" fluctuations _except_ Earth? That's just silly.
IOW how about you stop sockpuppeting for George Soros et. al. and do
some thinking on your own?
CO2 causes no warming of the earth. This is absolutely junk science. I
apologize for even arguing about CO2. But it is a point that one can
show the fraud of this entire movement of AGW. They will not give even
an accurate evaluation of CO2 in the natural environment, as they
likewise fudge and falsify each point of their theory.
The scientific data on all greenhouse gases is
available on a number of edu and gov sites, but the
Goofy Whackos inconveniently ignore truth.
CO2 abatement is very energy costly. They hide these facts also, as it
is a point of their propaganda to associate CO2 reduction to energy
conservation, which are completely contradictory in reality.
Tearing down and building all new has been a
common agenda of the far left for long before the AGW
hoax was thought up, they fail to appreciate the value
and amount of work, materials and energy required
to rebuild.
This is evident in all aspects of the economy,
from low income federally funded apartment buildings
that tenants trash within 10 years which the liberal
lawmakers have torn down and rebuilt instead of
training maintenance men to keep them in condition;
to public transport, where they rationalize having
right of way and equipment worth thousands of times
what personal vehicles cost to carry the same number
of people.
It is a very clear fact that 1/4 of all anthropogenic CO2 is from
simple burning of the trees in the tropics. This is renamed 'change of
tropical land use', to hide this fact. This is a cumulative loss of
the important conversion of CO2 to oxygen and is primarily responsible
for the increasing concentrations of CO2.
Perhaps few realize the scope of saving and
converting, trees away from population centers are
a wonderful example of capital as organic machinery
that does things no man made machine can do.
This is 1/3 as much as that from fossil fuels and cement. At every
point the theory of anthropogenic causes of global warming is a
fraudulent theory, and this fraud should be revealed. It is utterly
ridiculous to attempt the reductions they propose and this would be
utter suicide for our economy and the free enterprise which we rely
upon for a healthy economy.
Talk in a world wide newsgroup may appear more
significant than it really is, the leftist shouting from OZ
has no bearing on the rest of the world, like the old
joke, everybody knows it's down there, but nobody
cares.
All of Europe has been far left at one time or
another and would likely be fighting each other
still/again except that technology has made war
very uneconomical.
Most of the old leftists know the failures, it
must be the dumb or the young that propose the
extreme government actions that are not at all
realistic, they don't know enough to know what
is possible and what is not.
The Bush administration fought the recent case in the sumpreme court,
on the grounds that CO2 is a grenhouse gas but is not pollution. The
court had to rule that it is harmful. This is all about a law that was
imposed in 1970. The burden of proof should be met that shows CO2 to
affect the climate, which it has not.
That's ok, any government can sign treaties and pass
laws and goals of any percentage reduction in 2050, that is
so far in the future that none of the people in government will
be alive or active.
This attempt to gain control over our free use of energy is a crime of
the highest proportions and is invalid science. At some point, it must
be challenged directly. Hopefully, before these insane fanatics are
given any credibility with their determination to gain control over
our economy and use of energy.
Kent Deatherage
The Goofy Whacko movement will just fade away,
with some laughing and others angry, depending on the
fate nature will deal them.
The smart money will simply take the middle road,
no matter what the climate change, if any, there won't be
enough effect to change any investment or project.
Chances are the struggle by most countries to
develop alternate sources of energy because of shortages
and not CO2 emissions, will have more of an effect than
any treaty, law, or the stupid graft scheme called carbon
credits.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: The consumption of energy needed for CO2 emission reduction |
18 Apr 2007 04:32:10 PM |
|
|
In article <pan.2007.04.18.18.07.41.853195@REMOVETHISix.netcom.com>, Bill Ward <bward@REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> writes:
On Wed, 18 Apr 2007 09:16:25 -0900, Big Glob wrote:
On 18 Apr 2007 04:54:17 -0700, wrote:
On Apr 18, 1:13 am, "n...@bid.nes" <Alien8...@gmail.com> wrote: l> Put
Google Earth on your desktop and find these "destroyed l> Rainforests",
then point them out to me. l>
Besides which, oceanic surface plankton transpire a hell of a lot
more than any piddling little forest.
Oh, and please explain why so many other planets and moons in the
solar system are warming much more than Earth is. Are all of them
subject to "natural" fluctuations _except_ Earth? That's just silly.
IOW how about you stop sockpuppeting for George Soros et. al. and do
some thinking on your own?
CO2 causes no warming of the earth. This is absolutely junk science. I
apologize for even arguing about CO2. But it is a point that one can show
the fraud of this entire movement of AGW. They will not give even an
accurate evaluation of CO2 in the natural environment, as they likewise
fudge and falsify each point of their theory.
The scientific data on all greenhouse gases is
available on a number of edu and gov sites, but the Goofy Whackos
inconveniently ignore truth.
CO2 abatement is very energy costly. They hide these facts also, as it is
a point of their propaganda to associate CO2 reduction to energy
conservation, which are completely contradictory in reality.
Tearing down and building all new has been a
common agenda of the far left for long before the AGW hoax was thought up,
they fail to appreciate the value and amount of work, materials and energy
required to rebuild.
This is evident in all aspects of the economy,
from low income federally funded apartment buildings that tenants trash
within 10 years which the liberal lawmakers have torn down and rebuilt
instead of training maintenance men to keep them in condition;
to public transport, where they rationalize having
right of way and equipment worth thousands of times what personal vehicles
cost to carry the same number of people.
Cost is no object when you're spending someone else's money. Leftists
always know how to spend your money better than you do, so they feel
obligated to take it from you for your own good. But they always say
they'll take it only from the rich, which is defined as everyone who
makes more money than you do, and split the loot with you, if you'll vote
for them.
Well, that's the basic operating principle of democracy, you buy votes
using voters money.
Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: The consumption of energy needed for CO2 emission reduction |
18 Apr 2007 05:57:56 PM |
|
|
In article <pan.2007.04.18.21.44.45.514073@REMOVETHISix.netcom.com>, Bill Ward <bward@REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> writes:
On Wed, 18 Apr 2007 21:32:10 +0000, mmeron wrote:
In article <pan.2007.04.18.18.07.41.853195@REMOVETHISix.netcom.com>, Bill
Ward <bward@REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> writes:
On Wed, 18 Apr 2007 09:16:25 -0900, Big Glob wrote:
On 18 Apr 2007 04:54:17 -0700, wrote:
On Apr 18, 1:13 am, "n...@bid.nes" <Alien8...@gmail.com> wrote: l>
Put Google Earth on your desktop and find these "destroyed l>
Rainforests", then point them out to me. l>
Besides which, oceanic surface plankton transpire a hell of a lot
more than any piddling little forest.
Oh, and please explain why so many other planets and moons in the
solar system are warming much more than Earth is. Are all of them
subject to "natural" fluctuations _except_ Earth? That's just silly.
IOW how about you stop sockpuppeting for George Soros et. al. and
do
some thinking on your own?
CO2 causes no warming of the earth. This is absolutely junk science. I
apologize for even arguing about CO2. But it is a point that one can
show the fraud of this entire movement of AGW. They will not give even
an accurate evaluation of CO2 in the natural environment, as they
likewise fudge and falsify each point of their theory.
The scientific data on all greenhouse gases is
available on a number of edu and gov sites, but the Goofy Whackos
inconveniently ignore truth.
CO2 abatement is very energy costly. They hide these facts also, as it
is a point of their propaganda to associate CO2 reduction to energy
conservation, which are completely contradictory in reality.
Tearing down and building all new has been a
common agenda of the far left for long before the AGW hoax was thought
up, they fail to appreciate the value and amount of work, materials and
energy required to rebuild.
This is evident in all aspects of the economy,
from low income federally funded apartment buildings that tenants trash
within 10 years which the liberal lawmakers have torn down and rebuilt
instead of training maintenance men to keep them in condition;
to public transport, where they rationalize having
right of way and equipment worth thousands of times what personal
vehicles cost to carry the same number of people.
Cost is no object when you're spending someone else's money. Leftists
always know how to spend your money better than you do, so they feel
obligated to take it from you for your own good. But they always say
they'll take it only from the rich, which is defined as everyone who
makes more money than you do, and split the loot with you, if you'll vote
for them.
Well, that's the basic operating principle of democracy, you buy votes
using voters money.
Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
Did you ever stop to wonder why politicians spend millions of dollars
to get elected to a job that will never pay that much salary? My hunch
is that the government has too much power, and they're selling it off to
the highest bidder.
Well, of course they do, that's inevitable. What we've is a simple
case of "gradient flow" (lets get some physics into it).
In old fashioned government systems, such as feudalism, absolute
monarchy and the like, the situation was quite simple and natural, the
people who had most of the wealth also had most of the power.
Straightforward. Now, with democracy we're trying to achieve the
impossible and decouple wealth and power. Well, it doesn't really
work. What we manage to achieve is to create a gradient of wealth and
of power. On one side we've a group of people who (to begin with)
have great power but little wealth while on the other side we've the
opposite. Once the gradients are established, you get flow, where
wealth flows one way and power the other, meaning those in power trade
some of this power in exchange for some of the wealth.
When a flow like this becomes exaggerated, you get, naturally, calls
for more regulation. But, in the words of Mencken (at least I think
those are his words), "where buying and selling is regulated, the first
thing bought and sold are the regulators".
Mind you, while I'm not a naive idealist I'm not totally cynical
either and I do recognize that there are people who get into the power
structure not to enrich themselves but in order to effect "some change
in the world". However:
1) They are a minority.
2) Once they find themselves within the system they're mostly forced
to play by its rules.
3) If they're really sincere, they can be very dangerous. Throughout
history people who sincerely believed in their mission caused way more
damage than plain crooks.
Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: The consumption of energy needed for CO2 emission reduction |
18 Apr 2007 07:06:20 PM |
|
|
In article <pan.2007.04.18.23.40.15.840224@REMOVETHISix.netcom.com>, Bill Ward <bward@REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> writes:
On Wed, 18 Apr 2007 22:57:56 +0000, mmeron wrote:
In article <pan.2007.04.18.21.44.45.514073@REMOVETHISix.netcom.com>, Bill
Ward <bward@REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> writes:
On Wed, 18 Apr 2007 21:32:10 +0000, mmeron wrote:
In article <pan.2007.04.18.18.07.41.853195@REMOVETHISix.netcom.com>,
Bill Ward <bward@REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> writes:
On Wed, 18 Apr 2007 09:16:25 -0900, Big Glob wrote:
On 18 Apr 2007 04:54:17 -0700, wrote:
On Apr 18, 1:13 am, "n...@bid.nes" <Alien8...@gmail.com> wrote: l>
Put Google Earth on your desktop and find these "destroyed l>
Rainforests", then point them out to me. l>
Besides which, oceanic surface plankton transpire a hell of a lot
more than any piddling little forest.
Oh, and please explain why so many other planets and moons in the
solar system are warming much more than Earth is. Are all of them
subject to "natural" fluctuations _except_ Earth? That's just
silly.
IOW how about you stop sockpuppeting for George Soros et. al. and
do
some thinking on your own?
CO2 causes no warming of the earth. This is absolutely junk science.
I apologize for even arguing about CO2. But it is a point that one
can show the fraud of this entire movement of AGW. They will not give
even an accurate evaluation of CO2 in the natural environment, as
they likewise fudge and falsify each point of their theory.
The scientific data on all greenhouse gases is
available on a number of edu and gov sites, but the Goofy Whackos
inconveniently ignore truth.
CO2 abatement is very energy costly. They hide these facts also, as
it is a point of their propaganda to associate CO2 reduction to
energy conservation, which are completely contradictory in reality.
Tearing down and building all new has been a
common agenda of the far left for long before the AGW hoax was
thought up, they fail to appreciate the value and amount of work,
materials and energy required to rebuild.
This is evident in all aspects of the economy,
from low income federally funded apartment buildings that tenants
trash within 10 years which the liberal lawmakers have torn down and
rebuilt instead of training maintenance men to keep them in
condition;
to public transport, where they rationalize having
right of way and equipment worth thousands of times what personal
vehicles cost to carry the same number of people.
Cost is no object when you're spending someone else's money. Leftists
always know how to spend your money better than you do, so they feel
obligated to take it from you for your own good. But they always say
they'll take it only from the rich, which is defined as everyone who
makes more money than you do, and split the loot with you, if you'll
vote for them.
Well, that's the basic operating principle of democracy, you buy votes
using voters money.
Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the
same"
Did you ever stop to wonder why politicians spend millions of dollars to
get elected to a job that will never pay that much salary? My hunch is
that the government has too much power, and they're selling it off to the
highest bidder.
Well, of course they do, that's inevitable. What we've is a simple case
of "gradient flow" (lets get some physics into it).
In old fashioned government systems, such as feudalism, absolute monarchy
and the like, the situation was quite simple and natural, the people who
had most of the wealth also had most of the power. Straightforward. Now,
with democracy we're trying to achieve the impossible and decouple wealth
and power. Well, it doesn't really work. What we manage to achieve is to
create a gradient of wealth and of power. On one side we've a group of
people who (to begin with) have great power but little wealth while on the
other side we've the opposite. Once the gradients are established, you
get flow, where wealth flows one way and power the other, meaning those in
power trade some of this power in exchange for some of the wealth.
When a flow like this becomes exaggerated, you get, naturally, calls for
more regulation. But, in the words of Mencken (at least I think those are
his words), "where buying and selling is regulated, the first thing bought
and sold are the regulators".
Mind you, while I'm not a naive idealist I'm not totally cynical either
and I do recognize that there are people who get into the power structure
not to enrich themselves but in order to effect "some change in the
world". However:
1) They are a minority.
2) Once they find themselves within the system they're mostly forced to
play by its rules.
3) If they're really sincere, they can be very dangerous. Throughout
history people who sincerely believed in their mission caused way more
damage than plain crooks.
Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
Well put, Mati. I've sometimes wondered if we should choose our political
representatives randomly like we do juries. And anyone who sincerely
wanted the job would be automatically disqualified. Stochastocracy,
anyone?
I think the idea has merit, especially the part about automatic
disqualification of those who seek the job. Beyond this, two
observations:
1) There is a fable by the French writer La Fontaine, where you've a
wounded soldier lying on the battlefield, awaiting treatment. In the
meantime his friend sits down next to him and, trying to comfort him,
tries to chase the flies away from his wounds. "Leave them alone"
says the wounded soldier, "they are quite gorged already. If you
chase them away they'll be replaced by new ones who'll be hungry".
So, while it sounds counterintuitive to some, I would argue that
you'll get a less corrupt government if membership will be limited to
wealthy people, in fact just to "old wealth" (second generation at
least) since they're not hungry anymore.
There is a common public belief that if we elect people "more like
us", i.e. like the general public, then they'll be more sypathetic to
our problems. sounds nice but empirical evidence doesn't appear to
support it.
2) All else aside, the more we ask the government to control and
regulate, the more corruption we'll get. Mencken's point and it is
inevitable.
Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: The consumption of energy needed for CO2 emission reduction |
19 Apr 2007 03:17:44 AM |
|
|
In article <pan.2007.04.19.07.55.56.794808@REMOVETHISix.netcom.com>, Bill Ward <bward@REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> writes:
On Thu, 19 Apr 2007 00:06:20 +0000, mmeron wrote:
In article <pan.2007.04.18.23.40.15.840224@REMOVETHISix.netcom.com>, Bill
Ward <bward@REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> writes:
On Wed, 18 Apr 2007 22:57:56 +0000, mmeron wrote:
In article <pan.2007.04.18.21.44.45.514073@REMOVETHISix.netcom.com>,
Bill Ward <bward@REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> writes:
On Wed, 18 Apr 2007 21:32:10 +0000, mmeron wrote:
In article <pan.2007.04.18.18.07.41.853195@REMOVETHISix.netcom.com>,
Bill Ward <bward@REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> writes:
<snip>
Cost is no object when you're spending someone else's money.
Leftists always know how to spend your money better than you do, so
they feel obligated to take it from you for your own good. But they
always say they'll take it only from the rich, which is defined as
everyone who makes more money than you do, and split the loot with
you, if you'll vote for them.
Well, that's the basic operating principle of democracy, you buy
votes using voters money.
Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the
same"
Did you ever stop to wonder why politicians spend millions of dollars
to get elected to a job that will never pay that much salary? My
hunch is that the government has too much power, and they're selling it
off to the highest bidder.
Well, of course they do, that's inevitable. What we've is a simple
case of "gradient flow" (lets get some physics into it).
In old fashioned government systems, such as feudalism, absolute
monarchy and the like, the situation was quite simple and natural, the
people who had most of the wealth also had most of the power.
Straightforward. Now, with democracy we're trying to achieve the
impossible and decouple wealth and power. Well, it doesn't really
work. What we manage to achieve is to create a gradient of wealth and
of power. On one side we've a group of people who (to begin with) have
great power but little wealth while on the other side we've the
opposite. Once the gradients are established, you get flow, where
wealth flows one way and power the other, meaning those in power trade
some of this power in exchange for some of the wealth.
When a flow like this becomes exaggerated, you get, naturally, calls
for more regulation. But, in the words of Mencken (at least I think
those are his words), "where buying and selling is regulated, the first
thing bought and sold are the regulators".
Mind you, while I'm not a naive idealist I'm not totally cynical either
and I do recognize that there are people who get into the power
structure not to enrich themselves but in order to effect "some change
in the world". However:
1) They are a minority.
2) Once they find themselves within the system they're mostly forced
to play by its rules.
3) If they're really sincere, they can be very dangerous. Throughout
history people who sincerely believed in their mission caused way more
damage than plain crooks.
Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the
same"
Well put, Mati. I've sometimes wondered if we should choose our
political representatives randomly like we do juries. And anyone who
sincerely wanted the job would be automatically disqualified.
Stochastocracy, anyone?
I think the idea has merit, especially the part about automatic
disqualification of those who seek the job. Beyond this, two
observations:
1) There is a fable by the French writer La Fontaine, where you've a
wounded soldier lying on the battlefield, awaiting treatment. In the
meantime his friend sits down next to him and, trying to comfort him,
tries to chase the flies away from his wounds. "Leave them alone" says
the wounded soldier, "they are quite gorged already. If you chase them
away they'll be replaced by new ones who'll be hungry". So, while it
sounds counterintuitive to some, I would argue that you'll get a less
corrupt government if membership will be limited to wealthy people, in
fact just to "old wealth" (second generation at least) since they're not
hungry anymore.
There is a common public belief that if we elect people "more like us",
i.e. like the general public, then they'll be more sympathetic to our
problems. sounds nice but empirical evidence doesn't appear to support
it.
2) All else aside, the more we ask the government to control and
regulate, the more corruption we'll get. Mencken's point and it is
inevitable.
Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
On point one, we're pretty much already restricted to those who
can either afford to run, or have enough well connected friends who can
fund them.
Yes, quite true.
I don't personally think campaign funding reform is ever going
to work, but maybe just being explicit as you say would work.
Will be honest, at the very least. And as for campaign funding reform,
well, how can it be expected to work. Decoupling money from power,
yeah, sure:-) Might as well consider decoupling sex from interpersonal
relationships.
About the best that could be done for campaign funding reform would be
to remove all donation limitations but require, in law, strict and
complete disclosure of all donations, whether monetary or in kind.
Again, it'll be more honest, along the lines of "I know that the
candidates are on the take, but I want to know who theyy're taking
from".
On point two, if the government doesn't have a power, politicians can't
sell it.
Yes, exactly.
Maybe we should revisit the Interstate Commerce issue, and give
the excess powers back to the States, or to the people.
Would be nice and I would be for it. But, I don't believe that it is
doable. The problem (well, one of the problems) with government
programs is that they act like drugs, creating dependency. After a
generation (and more) of government giveaways of all sorts, there is a
huge population of "addicts" in existance who'll fight tooth and nail
against any attempt to take away their favorite drug (sorry, program).
So I see no democratic way of turning the clock back until the whole
structure collapses under its own weight (i.e. the government reaches
the point where it can no longer honor its obligations). And when
this happens, it is not going to be pretty.
You're no fun to argue with, Mati - we agree too much.
Well, yeah (heck, I'm doing this again, agreeing with you:-)) But
don't worry, you'll find plenty of opposition around here. As for
rational and articulate opposition, that may be another story.
Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: The consumption of energy needed for CO2 emission reduction |
19 Apr 2007 03:55:19 AM |
|
|
In article <pan.2007.04.19.08.47.53.678317@REMOVETHISix.netcom.com>, Bill Ward <bward@REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> writes:
On Thu, 19 Apr 2007 08:17:44 +0000, mmeron wrote:
In article <pan.2007.04.19.07.55.56.794808@REMOVETHISix.netcom.com>, Bill
Ward <bward@REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> writes:
On Thu, 19 Apr 2007 00:06:20 +0000, mmeron wrote:
In article <pan.2007.04.18.23.40.15.840224@REMOVETHISix.netcom.com>,
Bill Ward <bward@REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> writes:
On Wed, 18 Apr 2007 22:57:56 +0000, mmeron wrote:
In article <pan.2007.04.18.21.44.45.514073@REMOVETHISix.netcom.com>,
Bill Ward <bward@REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> writes:
On Wed, 18 Apr 2007 21:32:10 +0000, mmeron wrote:
In article
<pan.2007.04.18.18.07.41.853195@REMOVETHISix.netcom.com>, Bill Ward
<bward@REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> writes:
<snip>
Cost is no object when you're spending someone else's money.
Leftists always know how to spend your money better than you do, so
they feel obligated to take it from you for your own good. But
they always say they'll take it only from the rich, which is
defined as everyone who makes more money than you do, and split the
loot with you, if you'll vote for them.
Well, that's the basic operating principle of democracy, you buy
votes using voters money.
Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the
same"
Did you ever stop to wonder why politicians spend millions of dollars
to get elected to a job that will never pay that much salary? My
hunch is that the government has too much power, and they're selling
it off to the highest bidder.
Well, of course they do, that's inevitable. What we've is a simple
case of "gradient flow" (lets get some physics into it).
In old fashioned government systems, such as feudalism, absolute
monarchy and the like, the situation was quite simple and natural,
the people who had most of the wealth also had most of the power.
Straightforward. Now, with democracy we're trying to achieve the
impossible and decouple wealth and power. Well, it doesn't really
work. What we manage to achieve is to create a gradient of wealth
and of power. On one side we've a group of people who (to begin
with) have great power but little wealth while on the other side
we've the opposite. Once the gradients are established, you get
flow, where wealth flows one way and power the other, meaning those
in power trade some of this power in exchange for some of the wealth.
When a flow like this becomes exaggerated, you get, naturally, calls
for more regulation. But, in the words of Mencken (at least I think
those are his words), "where buying and selling is regulated, the
first thing bought and sold are the regulators".
Mind you, while I'm not a naive idealist I'm not totally cynical
either and I do recognize that there are people who get into the
power structure not to enrich themselves but in order to effect "some
change in the world". However:
1) They are a minority.
2) Once they find themselves within the system they're mostly forced
to play by its rules.
3) If they're really sincere, they can be very dangerous.
Throughout history people who sincerely believed in their mission
caused way more damage than plain crooks.
Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the
same"
Well put, Mati. I've sometimes wondered if we should choose our
political representatives randomly like we do juries. And anyone who
sincerely wanted the job would be automatically disqualified.
Stochastocracy, anyone?
I think the idea has merit, especially the part about automatic
disqualification of those who seek the job. Beyond this, two
observations:
1) There is a fable by the French writer La Fontaine, where you've a
wounded soldier lying on the battlefield, awaiting treatment. In the
meantime his friend sits down next to him and, trying to comfort him,
tries to chase the flies away from his wounds. "Leave them alone" says
the wounded soldier, "they are quite gorged already. If you chase them
away they'll be replaced by new ones who'll be hungry". So, while it
sounds counterintuitive to some, I would argue that you'll get a less
corrupt government if membership will be limited to wealthy people, in
fact just to "old wealth" (second generation at least) since they're
not hungry anymore.
There is a common public belief that if we elect people "more like us",
i.e. like the general public, then they'll be more sympathetic to our
problems. sounds nice but empirical evidence doesn't appear to support
it.
2) All else aside, the more we ask the government to control and
regulate, the more corruption we'll get. Mencken's point and it is
inevitable.
Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the
same"
On point one, we're pretty much already restricted to those who can
either afford to run, or have enough well connected friends who can fund
them.
Yes, quite true.
I don't personally think campaign funding reform is ever going
to work, but maybe just being explicit as you say would work.
Will be honest, at the very least. And as for campaign funding reform,
well, how can it be expected to work. Decoupling money from power, yeah,
sure:-) Might as well consider decoupling sex from interpersonal
relationships.
About the best that could be done for campaign funding reform would be to
remove all donation limitations but require, in law, strict and complete
disclosure of all donations, whether monetary or in kind. Again, it'll be
more honest, along the lines of "I know that the candidates are on the
take, but I want to know who theyy're taking from".
On point two, if the government doesn't have a power, politicians can't
sell it.
Yes, exactly.
Maybe we should revisit the Interstate Commerce issue, and give
the excess powers back to the States, or to the people.
Would be nice and I would be for it. But, I don't believe that it is
doable. The problem (well, one of the problems) with government programs
is that they act like drugs, creating dependency. After a generation (and
more) of government giveaways of all sorts, there is a huge population of
"addicts" in existance who'll fight tooth and nail against any attempt to
take away their favorite drug (sorry, program). So I see no democratic way
of turning the clock back until the whole structure collapses under its
own weight (i.e. the government reaches the point where it can no longer
honor its obligations). And when this happens, it is not going to be
pretty.
You're no fun to argue with, Mati - we agree too much.
Well, yeah (heck, I'm doing this again, agreeing with you:-)) But don't
worry, you'll find plenty of opposition around here. As for rational and
articulate opposition, that may be another story.
Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
Yeah, some of them are pretty comical, though.
A good old fashioned freak show may be low brow, but it does have
entertainment value, for sure.
Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bill Ward" |
|
| Title: Re: The consumption of energy needed for CO2 emission reduction |
19 Apr 2007 03:47:56 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 19 Apr 2007 08:17:44 +0000, mmeron wrote:
In article <pan.2007.04.19.07.55.56.794808@REMOVETHISix.netcom.com>, Bill
Ward <bward@REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> writes:
On Thu, 19 Apr 2007 00:06:20 +0000, mmeron wrote:
In article <pan.2007.04.18.23.40.15.840224@REMOVETHISix.netcom.com>,
Bill Ward <bward@REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> writes:
On Wed, 18 Apr 2007 22:57:56 +0000, mmeron wrote:
In article <pan.2007.04.18.21.44.45.514073@REMOVETHISix.netcom.com>,
Bill Ward <bward@REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> writes:
On Wed, 18 Apr 2007 21:32:10 +0000, mmeron wrote:
In article
<pan.2007.04.18.18.07.41.853195@REMOVETHISix.netcom.com>, Bill Ward
<bward@REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> writes:
<snip>
Cost is no object when you're spending someone else's money.
Leftists always know how to spend your money better than you do, so
they feel obligated to take it from you for your own good. But
they always say they'll take it only from the rich, which is
defined as everyone who makes more money than you do, and split the
loot with you, if you'll vote for them.
Well, that's the basic operating principle of democracy, you buy
votes using voters money.
Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the
same"
Did you ever stop to wonder why politicians spend millions of dollars
to get elected to a job that will never pay that much salary? My
hunch is that the government has too much power, and they're selling
it off to the highest bidder.
Well, of course they do, that's inevitable. What we've is a simple
case of "gradient flow" (lets get some physics into it).
In old fashioned government systems, such as feudalism, absolute
monarchy and the like, the situation was quite simple and natural,
the people who had most of the wealth also had most of the power.
Straightforward. Now, with democracy we're trying to achieve the
impossible and decouple wealth and power. Well, it doesn't really
work. What we manage to achieve is to create a gradient of wealth
and of power. On one side we've a group of people who (to begin
with) have great power but little wealth while on the other side
we've the opposite. Once the gradients are established, you get
flow, where wealth flows one way and power the other, meaning those
in power trade some of this power in exchange for some of the wealth.
When a flow like this becomes exaggerated, you get, naturally, calls
for more regulation. But, in the words of Mencken (at least I think
those are his words), "where buying and selling is regulated, the
first thing bought and sold are the regulators".
Mind you, while I'm not a naive ideal | | | | | | | | | | |
