Obama: What A Fucktard!!!!

[Januarius]

A Harvard study showed that, under the most optomistic scenario, a cap &
trade system would have gasoline running at $7 per gallon. Diesel,
heating oil, jet fuel, kerosene...how many problems would tripling the
price of these fuels cause? Economic collapse would be the least of our
worries if this benighted plan passes.
"To be forced to believe only one conclusion- that everything in the
universe happened by chance- would violate the very objectivity of
science itself."
Dr. Wernher von Braun

Obama is like a woman with an open checkbook. Every check gets used and
the bitch doesn't worry about the balance.

[r***@gmail.com]

A Harvard study showed that, under the most optomistic scenario, a cap &
trade system would have gasoline running at $7 per gallon. Diesel,
heating oil, jet fuel, kerosene...how many problems would tripling the
price of these fuels cause? Economic collapse would be the least of our
worries if this benighted plan passes.
"To be forced to believe only one conclusion- that everything in the
universe happened by chance- would violate the very objectivity of
science itself."
     Dr. Wernher von Braun

Obama is like a woman with an open checkbook.  Every check gets used and
the bitch doesn't worry about the balance.

btw, 10 years ago, did you think gas would be $4 a gal????

[Larry G]

Post by r***@gmail.com

A Harvard study showed that, under the most optomistic scenario, a cap &
trade system would have gasoline running at $7 per gallon. Diesel,
heating oil, jet fuel, kerosene...how many problems would tripling the
price of these fuels cause? Economic collapse would be the least of our
worries if this benighted plan passes.
"To be forced to believe only one conclusion- that everything in the
universe happened by chance- would violate the very objectivity of
science itself."
     Dr. Wernher von Braun

Obama is like a woman with an open checkbook.  Every check gets used and
the bitch doesn't worry about the balance.

btw, 10 years ago, did you think gas would be $4 a gal????

As I recall.. it was Bush with the checkbook for two wars, no?

we have the cost of gasoline verses collapse of the world scenario ALL
WRONG ANYHOW

what we should be looking at for a given country is the buying power
of their currency verses the cost of gasoline and if you did that
you'd find that many countries already pay FAR MORE than the
equivalent of $7 a gallon and in spite of the chicken-little warnings
of the collapse of civilization, many countries not only survive but
remain economically viable and competitive.

What you see instead in those countries is a lot more folks on
scooters and mini-cars, etc AND much less wanton wasteful usage of
fuels...

most countries in the industrialized world who compete against us use,
on average, 1/2 the per capita consumption and yet they still have
very productive economies.

[r***@gmail.com]

Post by Larry G

Post by r***@gmail.com

A Harvard study showed that, under the most optomistic scenario, a cap &
trade system would have gasoline running at $7 per gallon. Diesel,
heating oil, jet fuel, kerosene...how many problems would tripling the
price of these fuels cause? Economic collapse would be the least of our
worries if this benighted plan passes.
"To be forced to believe only one conclusion- that everything in the
universe happened by chance- would violate the very objectivity of
science itself."
     Dr. Wernher von Braun

Obama is like a woman with an open checkbook.  Every check gets used and
the bitch doesn't worry about the balance.

btw, 10 years ago, did you think gas would be $4 a gal????

As I recall.. it was Bush with the checkbook for two wars, no?

as well, GWB's close relationship with the House of Saud

Post by Larry G
we have the cost of gasoline verses collapse of the world scenario ALL
WRONG ANYHOW
what we should be looking at for a given country is the buying power
of their currency verses the cost of gasoline and if you did that
you'd find that many countries already pay FAR MORE than the
equivalent of $7 a gallon and in spite of the chicken-little warnings
of the collapse of civilization, many countries not only survive but
remain economically viable and competitive.
What you see instead in those countries is a lot more folks on
scooters and mini-cars, etc AND much less wanton wasteful usage of
fuels...
most countries in the industrialized world who compete against us use,
on average, 1/2 the per capita consumption and yet they still have
very productive economies.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

The USof A has lived for many, many years on cheap labor, cheap
energy, and cheap taxes

it is not sutainable

[Odo Ital]

Post by r***@gmail.com
The USof A has lived for many, many years on cheap labor, cheap
energy, and cheap taxes
it is not sutainable

Better start paying your taxes, then, boyo

[r***@gmail.com]

Post by Odo Ital

Post by r***@gmail.com
The USof A has lived for many, many years on cheap labor, cheap
energy, and cheap taxes
it is not sutainable

Better start paying your taxes, then, boyo

more serious evidence you are smoking crack

what makes you think I do not pay gas taxes????

come on crackhead tell us how I evade gas taxes

what is my secret??? we all want to know

we are all waiting for your answer

I am betting we do not hear from you

[mr [e-mail]]

Post by Larry G
most countries in the industrialized world who compete against us use,
on average, 1/2 the per capita consumption and yet they still have
very productive economies.

You fail to mention that these are very small socialist countries!

mr dude

[Larry G]

Post by mr ***@harvarduniversity.edu

Post by Larry G
most countries in the industrialized world who compete against us use,
on average, 1/2 the per capita consumption and yet they still have
very productive economies.

You fail to mention that these are very small socialist countries!
mr dude

virtually ALL of the other industrialized countries in the world -
dude.

we are the most prolifigate user of energy per capita - in the world
both electricity and fuel.

[mr [e-mail]]

Post by Larry G
virtually ALL of the other industrialized countries in the world -
dude.
we are the most prolifigate user of energy per capita - in the world
both electricity and fuel.

As we should be. We are the largest manufacturer and producer of goods
and services in the world (until the Chinese surpass us next year).

Compare the area and the population of the US to other countries:

The United States is the largest energy consumer in terms of total
use, using 100 quadrillion BTUs (105 exajoules, or 29 PWh) in 2005.
This is three times the consumption by the United States in 1950.[1]
As of 2006[update], the U.S. ranked fifteenth in energy consumption
per-capita after Canada and a number of small countries.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_in_the_United_States

My point is that the low-carbon footprints depend on the
infrastructure of life, and in that sense Europeans have an immediate
advantage. To live without a clothes dryer or AC in the United States
is considered tough and feels like a sacrifice. To do so in Rome —
where apartments all include a clothes-drying balcony or indoor rack,
and where buildings have thick walls and shutters to help you cope
with the heat — is the norm.

In many European countries, space has always been something of a
premium, forcing Europeans early on to live with greater awareness of
humans’ negative effects on the planet. In small countries like the
Netherlands, it’s hard to put garbage in distant landfills because you
tend to run into another city. In the U.S., open space is abundant and
often regarded as something to be developed. In Europe you cohabit
with it.

Also, in Europe, the construction of most cities preceded the
invention of cars. The centuries-old streets in London or Barcelona or
Rome simply can’t accommodate much traffic — it’s really a pain, but
you learn to live with it. In contrast, most American cities, think
Atlanta and Dallas, were designed for people with wheels.

mr dude

[r***@gmail.com]

In contrast, most American cities, think

Post by mr ***@harvarduniversity.edu
Atlanta and Dallas, were designed for people with wheels.
mr dude

you are a idiot, aren't you???

those are truly wonderful places to live, esp if you enjoy living in
an automobile most of your waking hours.

2+ hour a day commutes to an 8 hour job is the norm

is that what you want???

plus to go to the super mkt requires 20-30 minutes+ there and back

[Larry G]

Post by mr ***@harvarduniversity.edu

Post by Larry G
virtually ALL of the other industrialized countries in the world -
dude.
we are the most prolifigate user of energy per capita - in the world
both electricity and fuel.

As we should be. We are the largest manufacturer and producer of goods
and services in the world (until the Chinese surpass us next year).
The United States is the largest energy consumer in terms of total
use, using 100 quadrillion BTUs (105 exajoules, or 29 PWh) in 2005.
This is three times the consumption by the United States in 1950.[1]
As of 2006[update], the U.S. ranked fifteenth in energy consumption
per-capita after Canada and a number of small countries.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_in_the_United_States
My point is that the low-carbon footprints depend on the
infrastructure of life, and in that sense Europeans have an immediate
advantage. To live without a clothes dryer or AC in the United States
is considered tough and feels like a sacrifice. To do so in Rome —
where apartments all include a clothes-drying balcony or indoor rack,
and where buildings have thick walls and shutters to help you cope
with the heat — is the norm.
In many European countries, space has always been something of a
premium, forcing Europeans early on to live with greater awareness of
humans’ negative effects on the planet. In small countries like the
Netherlands, it’s hard to put garbage in distant landfills because you
tend to run into another city. In the U.S., open space is abundant and
often regarded as something to be developed. In Europe you cohabit
with it.
Also, in Europe, the construction of most cities preceded the
invention of cars. The centuries-old streets in London or Barcelona or
Rome simply can’t accommodate much traffic — it’s really a pain, but
you learn to live with it. In contrast, most American cities, think
Atlanta and Dallas, were designed for people with wheels.
mr dude

here's the wiki entry you need:

Loading Image...

GDP per capita vs. 'Economic Energy Efficiency' plotted for the top 40
national economies

no excuses here about how we "designed" our cities and such or how
Europe has less landfill space, etc

the bottom line is that we are big inefficient users of energy - and
it doesn't even benefit our life expectancy - where we rank lower than
29 other countries including Cuba.

What metric would you use to show how we actually do benefit from our
much higher consumption of energy?

Don't we use a lot of it moving 2 tons of steel around with one 200 lb
passenger?

Europe and Japan use tankless (on demand) water heaters. We use tanks
of water kept heated continuously.

Bottom Line - our "addiction" to oil is self-inflicted and the rest of
the world that has learned how to use it more frugally has little
sympathy for our "problems" other than to worry that we're going to
blow up the middle-east trying to protect our source.

[Dave Head]

On Thu, 1 Jul 2010 19:34:15 -0700 (PDT), Larry G

Post by Larry G

Post by mr ***@harvarduniversity.edu

Post by Larry G
virtually ALL of the other industrialized countries in the world -
dude.
we are the most prolifigate user of energy per capita - in the world
both electricity and fuel.

As we should be. We are the largest manufacturer and producer of goods
and services in the world (until the Chinese surpass us next year).
The United States is the largest energy consumer in terms of total
use, using 100 quadrillion BTUs (105 exajoules, or 29 PWh) in 2005.
This is three times the consumption by the United States in 1950.[1]
As of 2006[update], the U.S. ranked fifteenth in energy consumption
per-capita after Canada and a number of small countries.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_in_the_United_States
My point is that the low-carbon footprints depend on the
infrastructure of life, and in that sense Europeans have an immediate
advantage. To live without a clothes dryer or AC in the United States
is considered tough and feels like a sacrifice. To do so in Rome —
where apartments all include a clothes-drying balcony or indoor rack,
and where buildings have thick walls and shutters to help you cope
with the heat — is the norm.
In many European countries, space has always been something of a
premium, forcing Europeans early on to live with greater awareness of
humans’ negative effects on the planet. In small countries like the
Netherlands, it’s hard to put garbage in distant landfills because you
tend to run into another city. In the U.S., open space is abundant and
often regarded as something to be developed. In Europe you cohabit
with it.
Also, in Europe, the construction of most cities preceded the
invention of cars. The centuries-old streets in London or Barcelona or
Rome simply can’t accommodate much traffic — it’s really a pain, but
you learn to live with it. In contrast, most American cities, think
Atlanta and Dallas, were designed for people with wheels.
mr dude

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Gdp-energy-efficiency.jpg
GDP per capita vs. 'Economic Energy Efficiency' plotted for the top 40
national economies

Gosh, lookit that - the more efficient countries tend to be closer to
the equator. 'Spose that maybe they're not fighting low temps and
snow and stuff and using energy to clear the driveway and the roadways
and things like that?

Post by Larry G
no excuses here about how we "designed" our cities and such or how
Europe has less landfill space, etc
the bottom line is that we are big inefficient users of energy - and
it doesn't even benefit our life expectancy - where we rank lower than
29 other countries including Cuba.

And we're the most productive country on the planet, and that even
before we pass the Fair Tax and supercharge the economy.

Post by Larry G
What metric would you use to show how we actually do benefit from our
much higher consumption of energy?

Comfort. Productivity.

Post by Larry G
Don't we use a lot of it moving 2 tons of steel around with one 200 lb
passenger?

If the <explitive deleted> EPA wasn't working to lower the efficiency
of the ICE with pollution control equipment and the safety nazis
weren't attempting to force everyone to put kids up to 23 years old
into child safety seats that require a big, huge, heavy SUV or a van
with too much frontal area as well, rather than a car the size of an
MG-B of the 1960's, we might just use smaller cars and get better
mileage.

And, back to the EPA pinheads, 5 states have passed legislation
requiring impossibly tough emissions standards for diesel engined
cars, which is why we largely don't have 'em in the USA. Only VW and
Merceedes have decided to go ahead and sell in the 45 other states,
but if it weren't for these 5 states, we could all be driving small(er
- don't forget about the safety nazis requiring we drive tanks) diesel
engined cars, some of which get 68 mpg in Europe.

Post by Larry G
Europe and Japan use tankless (on demand) water heaters. We use tanks
of water kept heated continuously.

My NEXT house... after I retire. I HATE giving $$$ to the utility
companies. Going to be an "insulated concrete forms" house which is
almost "superinsulated" status, and that's going to get a geothermal
heat pump. That should fix the energy consumption costs...

Post by Larry G
Bottom Line - our "addiction" to oil is self-inflicted and the rest of
the world that has learned how to use it more frugally has little
sympathy for our "problems" other than to worry that we're going to
blow up the middle-east trying to protect our source.

We could do a lot, if it wasn't for our gov't being 'round the bend on
a few subjects like pollution and safety. I DON'T need a 3000 lb car
to go from point A to point B, but my Subaru WRX is that much. And,
the Subaru has gotten the highest awards for safety that there are.
But they are tanks, compared to what is possible if we can just
convert to not having accidents as a strategy for safety, rather than
building tanks...

[clouddreamer]

Post by Dave Head
We could do a lot, if it wasn't for our gov't being 'round the bend on
a few subjects like pollution and safety. I DON'T need a 3000 lb car
to go from point A to point B, but my Subaru WRX is that much. And,
the Subaru has gotten the highest awards for safety that there are.
But they are tanks, compared to what is possible if we can just
convert to not having accidents as a strategy for safety, rather than
building tanks...

But for the size of them, Subarus are very fuel efficient. My Forester
PZEV gets under 10L/100 km (and emits less GHG than a hybrid). I know of
a Ford Focus that can't get that gas mileage driving the same roads I do.

..

[Larry G]

Post by clouddreamer

Post by Dave Head
We could do a lot, if it wasn't for our gov't being 'round the bend on
a few subjects like pollution and safety.  I DON'T need a 3000 lb car
to go from point A to point B, but my Subaru WRX is that much.  And,
the Subaru has gotten the highest awards for safety that there are.
But they are tanks, compared to what is possible if we can just
convert to not having accidents as a strategy for safety, rather than
building tanks...

But for the size of them, Subarus are very fuel efficient. My Forester
PZEV gets under 10L/100 km (and emits less GHG than a hybrid). I know of
a Ford Focus that can't get that gas mileage driving the same roads I do.

but a Subaru would be a gas guzzler in Europe or Japan?

[Dave Head]

On Sat, 3 Jul 2010 15:12:48 -0700 (PDT), Larry G

Post by Larry G

Post by clouddreamer

Post by Dave Head
We could do a lot, if it wasn't for our gov't being 'round the bend on
a few subjects like pollution and safety.  I DON'T need a 3000 lb car
to go from point A to point B, but my Subaru WRX is that much.  And,
the Subaru has gotten the highest awards for safety that there are.
But they are tanks, compared to what is possible if we can just
convert to not having accidents as a strategy for safety, rather than
building tanks...

But for the size of them, Subarus are very fuel efficient. My Forester
PZEV gets under 10L/100 km (and emits less GHG than a hybrid). I know of
a Ford Focus that can't get that gas mileage driving the same roads I do.

but a Subaru would be a gas guzzler in Europe or Japan?

Sure. Because it has a gas engine, for one thing. Those guys use
diesel. Why don't we use diesel? Envirowackos again. The
envirowackos of 5 separate states have set pollution controls on
diesel cars so high they can't be met. So, only VW and Merceedes will
import diesels just to sell 'em in 45 states. Of course California is
one of the pinhead envirowacko states, so not selling them there is a
big deal. If it wasn't for the envirowackos, we could be driving
around in cars that get the 68 mpg that some of the European diesels
get.

And my Subaru would get WAY better mileage and be way faster if it
weighed 2000 lbs instead of 3000 lbs, but it has to be built like a
tank in order to survive crashes. Those are the safety nazis at work,
that won't let me buy the kind of car I want to buy.

[cloud dreamer]

Post by Dave Head
On Sat, 3 Jul 2010 15:12:48 -0700 (PDT), Larry G

Post by Larry G

Post by clouddreamer

Post by Dave Head
We could do a lot, if it wasn't for our gov't being 'round the bend on
a few subjects like pollution and safety. I DON'T need a 3000 lb car
to go from point A to point B, but my Subaru WRX is that much. And,
the Subaru has gotten the highest awards for safety that there are.
But they are tanks, compared to what is possible if we can just
convert to not having accidents as a strategy for safety, rather than
building tanks...

But for the size of them, Subarus are very fuel efficient. My Forester
PZEV gets under 10L/100 km (and emits less GHG than a hybrid). I know of
a Ford Focus that can't get that gas mileage driving the same roads I do.

but a Subaru would be a gas guzzler in Europe or Japan?

Sure. Because it has a gas engine, for one thing. Those guys use
diesel. Why don't we use diesel? Envirowackos again. The
envirowackos of 5 separate states have set pollution controls on
diesel cars so high they can't be met. So, only VW and Merceedes will
import diesels just to sell 'em in 45 states. Of course California is
one of the pinhead envirowacko states, so not selling them there is a
big deal. If it wasn't for the envirowackos, we could be driving
around in cars that get the 68 mpg that some of the European diesels
get.

The ultimate goal is to get off all gas and diesel, not substitute one
for another. There is only so much oil left, and climate change aside,
we have to start moving to alternatives now.

Common sense. Not something from an enviro-"wacko."

Post by Dave Head
And my Subaru would get WAY better mileage and be way faster if it
weighed 2000 lbs instead of 3000 lbs, but it has to be built like a
tank in order to survive crashes. Those are the safety nazis at work,
that won't let me buy the kind of car I want to buy.

I wrote off my Impreza a couple months ago. That "tank" rolled over and
I walked away without a scratch.

..

[mr [e-mail]]

Post by cloud dreamer
I wrote off my Impreza a couple months ago. That "tank" rolled over and
I walked away without a scratch.
  ..

Damn!!!!

Maybe next time (I hope)!

mr dude

[Dave Head]

On Sat, 03 Jul 2010 21:33:13 -0230, cloud dreamer

Post by cloud dreamer

Post by Dave Head
On Sat, 3 Jul 2010 15:12:48 -0700 (PDT), Larry G

Post by Larry G

Post by clouddreamer

Post by Dave Head
We could do a lot, if it wasn't for our gov't being 'round the bend on
a few subjects like pollution and safety. I DON'T need a 3000 lb car
to go from point A to point B, but my Subaru WRX is that much. And,
the Subaru has gotten the highest awards for safety that there are.
But they are tanks, compared to what is possible if we can just
convert to not having accidents as a strategy for safety, rather than
building tanks...

But for the size of them, Subarus are very fuel efficient. My Forester
PZEV gets under 10L/100 km (and emits less GHG than a hybrid). I know of
a Ford Focus that can't get that gas mileage driving the same roads I do.

but a Subaru would be a gas guzzler in Europe or Japan?

Sure. Because it has a gas engine, for one thing. Those guys use
diesel. Why don't we use diesel? Envirowackos again. The
envirowackos of 5 separate states have set pollution controls on
diesel cars so high they can't be met. So, only VW and Merceedes will
import diesels just to sell 'em in 45 states. Of course California is
one of the pinhead envirowacko states, so not selling them there is a
big deal. If it wasn't for the envirowackos, we could be driving
around in cars that get the 68 mpg that some of the European diesels
get.

The ultimate goal is to get off all gas and diesel, not substitute one
for another. There is only so much oil left, and climate change aside,
we have to start moving to alternatives now.

Yeah, that's the ultimate goal. There's plenty of oil - we haven't
even started to attempt to use the shale oil we have out west, which
is 3X the Saudi reserve.

But the real key is the electrification of transportation, which we
can do just as soon as somebody invents the magic battery that will
hold about 10X the amount of a Li Ion battery does now. People have
claimed at one time or another that they've done it, but then they
disappear, never to be heard from again apparently.

Post by cloud dreamer
Common sense. Not something from an enviro-"wacko."

What's wacko about the enviros is trying to shut down or failing to
promote the production of oil and gasoline before we have the magic
battery. They act like they have no understanding of science
whatsoever, and believe that if they interrupt the supply of oil, that
somehow, somewhere, the solution to this mess will spring up. It will
not. All that will happen will be the further economic destruction of
America as the gas prices go thru the roof, and we have no alternative
but to pay them. We can't afford $7 a gallon gas in a country almost
3000 miles wide and 1500 miles high. We'll just pauperize the vast
majority of citizens.

Post by cloud dreamer

Post by Dave Head
And my Subaru would get WAY better mileage and be way faster if it
weighed 2000 lbs instead of 3000 lbs, but it has to be built like a
tank in order to survive crashes. Those are the safety nazis at work,
that won't let me buy the kind of car I want to buy.

I wrote off my Impreza a couple months ago. That "tank" rolled over and
I walked away without a scratch.

My strategy is not to crash. I've been successful at it since 1963.
The key is being terrified of crashing, and paying attention to
everything. The latter was greatly enhanced by my beginnings racing a
go-kart when I was a kid. Lose focus when racing one of those, you
end up with someone else's wheel in your lap.

[Larry G]

Post by Dave Head
On Sat, 03 Jul 2010 21:33:13 -0230, cloud dreamer

Post by cloud dreamer

Post by Dave Head
On Sat, 3 Jul 2010 15:12:48 -0700 (PDT), Larry G

Post by Larry G

Post by clouddreamer

Post by Dave Head
We could do a lot, if it wasn't for our gov't being 'round the bend on
a few subjects like pollution and safety.  I DON'T need a 3000 lb car
to go from point A to point B, but my Subaru WRX is that much.  And,
the Subaru has gotten the highest awards for safety that there are.
But they are tanks, compared to what is possible if we can just
convert to not having accidents as a strategy for safety, rather than
building tanks...

But for the size of them, Subarus are very fuel efficient. My Forester
PZEV gets under 10L/100 km (and emits less GHG than a hybrid). I know of
a Ford Focus that can't get that gas mileage driving the same roads I do.

but a Subaru would be a gas guzzler in Europe or Japan?

Sure.  Because it has a gas engine, for one thing.  Those guys use
diesel.  Why don't we use diesel?  Envirowackos again.  The
envirowackos of 5 separate states have set pollution controls on
diesel cars so high they can't be met.  So, only VW and Merceedes will
import diesels just to sell 'em in 45 states.  Of course California is
one of the pinhead envirowacko states, so not selling them there is a
big deal.  If it wasn't for the envirowackos, we could be driving
around in cars that get the 68 mpg that some of the European diesels
get.

The ultimate goal is to get off all gas and diesel, not substitute one
for another. There is only so much oil left, and climate change aside,
we have to start moving to alternatives now.

Yeah, that's the ultimate goal.  There's plenty of oil - we haven't
even started to attempt to use the shale oil we have out west, which
is 3X the Saudi reserve.
But the real key is the electrification of transportation, which we
can do just as soon as somebody invents the magic battery that will
hold about 10X the amount of a Li Ion battery does now.  People have
claimed at one time or another that they've done it, but then they
disappear, never to be heard from again apparently.

Post by cloud dreamer
Common sense. Not something from an enviro-"wacko."

What's wacko about the enviros is trying to shut down or failing to
promote the production of oil and gasoline before we have the magic
battery.  They act like they have no understanding of science
whatsoever, and believe that if they interrupt the supply of oil, that
somehow, somewhere, the solution to this mess will spring up.  It will
not.  All that will happen will be the further economic destruction of
America as the gas prices go thru the roof, and we have no alternative
but to pay them.  We can't afford $7 a gallon gas in a country almost
3000 miles wide and 1500 miles high.  We'll just pauperize the vast
majority of citizens.

Post by cloud dreamer

Post by Dave Head
And my Subaru would get WAY better mileage and be way faster if it
weighed 2000 lbs instead of 3000 lbs, but it has to be built like a
tank in order to survive crashes.  Those are the safety nazis at work,
that won't let me buy the kind of car I want to buy.

I wrote off my Impreza a couple months ago. That "tank" rolled over and
I walked away without a scratch.

My strategy is not to crash.  I've been successful at it since 1963.
The key is being terrified of crashing, and paying attention to
everything.  The latter was greatly enhanced by my beginnings racing a
go-kart when I was a kid.  Lose focus when racing one of those, you
end up with someone else's wheel in your lap.

what the eniro-wackos ALSO say is that we use twice as much
electricity/fuel per capita as other people in the world including the
other industrialized countries and that if we didn't do anything else
in the way of regulations - but just conserved equivalently that we'd
have less pollution, be less dependent on foreign oil, and not be felt
to be running out of it - i.e. all the things that Europe and Japan do
that benefit them is less use.

I'm not advocating in favor or opposed - just pointing it out.

[Dave Head]

On Sun, 4 Jul 2010 03:15:43 -0700 (PDT), Larry G

Post by Larry G

Post by Dave Head
On Sat, 03 Jul 2010 21:33:13 -0230, cloud dreamer

Post by cloud dreamer

Post by Dave Head
On Sat, 3 Jul 2010 15:12:48 -0700 (PDT), Larry G

Post by Larry G

Post by clouddreamer

Post by Dave Head
We could do a lot, if it wasn't for our gov't being 'round the bend on
a few subjects like pollution and safety.  I DON'T need a 3000 lb car
to go from point A to point B, but my Subaru WRX is that much.  And,
the Subaru has gotten the highest awards for safety that there are.
But they are tanks, compared to what is possible if we can just
convert to not having accidents as a strategy for safety, rather than
building tanks...

But for the size of them, Subarus are very fuel efficient. My Forester
PZEV gets under 10L/100 km (and emits less GHG than a hybrid). I know of
a Ford Focus that can't get that gas mileage driving the same roads I do.

but a Subaru would be a gas guzzler in Europe or Japan?

Sure.  Because it has a gas engine, for one thing.  Those guys use
diesel.  Why don't we use diesel?  Envirowackos again.  The
envirowackos of 5 separate states have set pollution controls on
diesel cars so high they can't be met.  So, only VW and Merceedes will
import diesels just to sell 'em in 45 states.  Of course California is
one of the pinhead envirowacko states, so not selling them there is a
big deal.  If it wasn't for the envirowackos, we could be driving
around in cars that get the 68 mpg that some of the European diesels
get.

The ultimate goal is to get off all gas and diesel, not substitute one
for another. There is only so much oil left, and climate change aside,
we have to start moving to alternatives now.

Yeah, that's the ultimate goal.  There's plenty of oil - we haven't
even started to attempt to use the shale oil we have out west, which
is 3X the Saudi reserve.
But the real key is the electrification of transportation, which we
can do just as soon as somebody invents the magic battery that will
hold about 10X the amount of a Li Ion battery does now.  People have
claimed at one time or another that they've done it, but then they
disappear, never to be heard from again apparently.

Post by cloud dreamer
Common sense. Not something from an enviro-"wacko."

What's wacko about the enviros is trying to shut down or failing to
promote the production of oil and gasoline before we have the magic
battery.  They act like they have no understanding of science
whatsoever, and believe that if they interrupt the supply of oil, that
somehow, somewhere, the solution to this mess will spring up.  It will
not.  All that will happen will be the further economic destruction of
America as the gas prices go thru the roof, and we have no alternative
but to pay them.  We can't afford $7 a gallon gas in a country almost
3000 miles wide and 1500 miles high.  We'll just pauperize the vast
majority of citizens.

Post by cloud dreamer

Post by Dave Head
And my Subaru would get WAY better mileage and be way faster if it
weighed 2000 lbs instead of 3000 lbs, but it has to be built like a
tank in order to survive crashes.  Those are the safety nazis at work,
that won't let me buy the kind of car I want to buy.

I wrote off my Impreza a couple months ago. That "tank" rolled over and
I walked away without a scratch.

My strategy is not to crash.  I've been successful at it since 1963.
The key is being terrified of crashing, and paying attention to
everything.  The latter was greatly enhanced by my beginnings racing a
go-kart when I was a kid.  Lose focus when racing one of those, you
end up with someone else's wheel in your lap.

what the eniro-wackos ALSO say is that we use twice as much
electricity/fuel per capita as other people in the world including the
other industrialized countries and that if we didn't do anything else
in the way of regulations - but just conserved equivalently that we'd
have less pollution, be less dependent on foreign oil, and not be felt
to be running out of it - i.e. all the things that Europe and Japan do
that benefit them is less use.
I'm not advocating in favor or opposed - just pointing it out.

Well, that's just another reason that they are wackos. There's just
one way to use half the oil, and that's to stop that which is used for
recreation. Go to work, come home, stay there. Then, we might use
about half as much oil.

But of course the recreation industry is huge, and the resulting
collapse from that will just collapse the economy as well.

I saw a chart the other day of energy using that tracked it with
respect to worker productivity. America again had the most worker
productivity, and not the highest energy useage. The Canadians had
more energy useage. I had to observe in that discussion that the
least-energy-using countries were closer to the equator. Could it be
that heating houses, fighting the cold, removing snow from roads, etc.
could drive up overall useage of energy?

[Larry G]

Post by Dave Head
On Sun, 4 Jul 2010 03:15:43 -0700 (PDT), Larry G

Post by Larry G

Post by Dave Head
On Sat, 03 Jul 2010 21:33:13 -0230, cloud dreamer

Post by cloud dreamer

Post by Dave Head
On Sat, 3 Jul 2010 15:12:48 -0700 (PDT), Larry G

Post by Larry G

Post by clouddreamer

Post by Dave Head
We could do a lot, if it wasn't for our gov't being 'round the bend on
a few subjects like pollution and safety.  I DON'T need a 3000 lb car
to go from point A to point B, but my Subaru WRX is that much.  And,
the Subaru has gotten the highest awards for safety that there are.
But they are tanks, compared to what is possible if we can just
convert to not having accidents as a strategy for safety, rather than
building tanks...

But for the size of them, Subarus are very fuel efficient. My Forester
PZEV gets under 10L/100 km (and emits less GHG than a hybrid). I know of
a Ford Focus that can't get that gas mileage driving the same roads I do.

but a Subaru would be a gas guzzler in Europe or Japan?

Sure.  Because it has a gas engine, for one thing.  Those guys use
diesel.  Why don't we use diesel?  Envirowackos again.  The
envirowackos of 5 separate states have set pollution controls on
diesel cars so high they can't be met.  So, only VW and Merceedes will
import diesels just to sell 'em in 45 states.  Of course California is
one of the pinhead envirowacko states, so not selling them there is a
big deal.  If it wasn't for the envirowackos, we could be driving
around in cars that get the 68 mpg that some of the European diesels
get.

The ultimate goal is to get off all gas and diesel, not substitute one
for another. There is only so much oil left, and climate change aside,
we have to start moving to alternatives now.

Yeah, that's the ultimate goal.  There's plenty of oil - we haven't
even started to attempt to use the shale oil we have out west, which
is 3X the Saudi reserve.
But the real key is the electrification of transportation, which we
can do just as soon as somebody invents the magic battery that will
hold about 10X the amount of a Li Ion battery does now.  People have
claimed at one time or another that they've done it, but then they
disappear, never to be heard from again apparently.

Post by cloud dreamer
Common sense. Not something from an enviro-"wacko."

What's wacko about the enviros is trying to shut down or failing to
promote the production of oil and gasoline before we have the magic
battery.  They act like they have no understanding of science
whatsoever, and believe that if they interrupt the supply of oil, that
somehow, somewhere, the solution to this mess will spring up.  It will
not.  All that will happen will be the further economic destruction of
America as the gas prices go thru the roof, and we have no alternative
but to pay them.  We can't afford $7 a gallon gas in a country almost
3000 miles wide and 1500 miles high.  We'll just pauperize the vast
majority of citizens.

Post by cloud dreamer

Post by Dave Head
And my Subaru would get WAY better mileage and be way faster if it
weighed 2000 lbs instead of 3000 lbs, but it has to be built like a
tank in order to survive crashes.  Those are the safety nazis at work,
that won't let me buy the kind of car I want to buy.

I wrote off my Impreza a couple months ago. That "tank" rolled over and
I walked away without a scratch.

My strategy is not to crash.  I've been successful at it since 1963.
The key is being terrified of crashing, and paying attention to
everything.  The latter was greatly enhanced by my beginnings racing a
go-kart when I was a kid.  Lose focus when racing one of those, you
end up with someone else's wheel in your lap.

what the eniro-wackos ALSO say is that we use twice as much
electricity/fuel per capita as other people in the world including the
other industrialized countries and that if we didn't do anything else
in the way of regulations - but just conserved equivalently that we'd
have less pollution, be less dependent on foreign oil, and not be felt
to be running out of it - i.e. all the things that Europe and Japan do
that benefit them is less use.
I'm not advocating in favor or opposed - just pointing it out.

Well, that's just another reason that they are wackos.  There's just
one way to use half the oil, and that's to stop that which is used for
recreation.  Go to work, come home, stay there.  Then, we might use
about half as much oil.
But of course the recreation industry is huge, and the resulting
collapse from that will just collapse the economy as well.
I saw a chart the other day of energy using that tracked it with
respect to worker productivity.  America again had the most worker
productivity, and not the highest energy useage.    The Canadians had
more energy useage.  I had to observe in that discussion that the
least-energy-using countries were closer to the equator.  Could it be
that heating houses, fighting the cold, removing snow from roads, etc.
could drive up overall useage of energy?

re: recreation - are you talking about the Europeans who have 32hr
work weeks and take 6 weeks of vacation a year and still use 1/2 the
fuel that we do per capita?

Do you think in the U.S. that the air conditioners in the South that
run 8 or 9 months a year use more energy per capita that the other
countries at the same latitude around the world?

Do you think the other northern countries beyond Canada use more or
less energy per capita that U.S. folks who live well south of those
Countries?

I don't think there is an easy way to wiggle out of this. The facts
are troublesome things sometimes.

We ARE more productive but if you measure us in terms or productivity
per energy unit - we are not so good.

If the rest of the world used energy at the same per capita rate that
we do - how long would the world oil supplies last ? How long would
it be before the price of gasoline went to $5 or $10 a gallon or
higher?

Don't get me wrong - I'm not particularly sympathetic to the "we don't
like any kind of energy except solar" enviro-wackos... but OTOH -
their view that we are the most prolifigate consumers of energy in the
world by about twice as much per capita is true - right?

[Dave Head]

On Sun, 4 Jul 2010 06:28:05 -0700 (PDT), Larry G

Post by Larry G
re: recreation - are you talking about the Europeans who have 32hr
work weeks and take 6 weeks of vacation a year and still use 1/2 the
fuel that we do per capita?

Yeah - I dunno how they use that time, tho. Recreation, esp.
energy-intensive recreation? Remember they have good public
transport, transport that we can't build because the population
density here is too low to make it cheap enough for people to chooses
to ride.

Post by Larry G
Do you think in the U.S. that the air conditioners in the South that
run 8 or 9 months a year use more energy per capita that the other
countries at the same latitude around the world?

Yes, they use more energy. Similar-latitude people don't use that air
conditioning. Is that a great way not to use energy? Want to live in
Florida WITHOUT air conditioning? Me either. That's the choice that
the envirowackos want us to make, tho - give up air conditioning, give
up heating in northern homes. THey're idiots, of course. The south
is hell without air conditioning, and the north is unlivable without
some sort of home heat. We used to use other fuels. Now its
electricity, gas, and oil, mostly. Take those away, and the country
will be denuded of forest, because people will chop down trees and
burn those.

Post by Larry G
Do you think the other northern countries beyond Canada use more or
less energy per capita that U.S. folks who live well south of those
Countries?

I think they use less - You see pix of the Scandenavians with their
big sweaters on all the time. Dunno what temp they keep their places,
or how well insulated their houses are. Here, we could do a lot with
insulation, but not as much as if we used stone to build houses, which
we mostly don't. A new constructon method - insulated concrete forms
- is simulating building with stone like they do in some places in
Europe, but its not required, and is more expensive. Mostly, if
people can't get fuel to heat and cool, they're going to be miserable
and/or die prematurely.

Post by Larry G
I don't think there is an easy way to wiggle out of this. The facts
are troublesome things sometimes.

Yep. But we are good at manufacturing efficiency, and are using a lot
of our energy for that, too.

Post by Larry G
We ARE more productive but if you measure us in terms or productivity
per energy unit - we are not so good.

Takes a lot of energy to make steel, draw wire, lots of industrial
processes. We are still a big manufacturer, and will be until the
income tax chases ALL the industrial jobs overseas. Hey, I was
watching a TV program on possible armageddon from a EMP attack, which
would blow out many large electrical transformers. The program just
casually mentioned that we don't make transformers like those in this
country any more. That sucks. That's the stuff we need to turn
around. The income taxes are strangling our heavy industry, and we
need to get rid of them. We need industries like those, and it would
seem to be something that should be easy to automate - build those
transformers with even bigger machines, using people in the rare
places where they're required. After that, expenses should be mostly
from the taxes. Yeah, you have to do some things about pollution,
too, but I think that is true in Europe and even Japan now.

I wonder if we could impose a "pollution tax" on imports from places
that don't do pollution control.

Post by Larry G
If the rest of the world used energy at the same per capita rate that
we do - how long would the world oil supplies last ? How long would
it be before the price of gasoline went to $5 or $10 a gallon or
higher?

Dunno. We'd likely have to shut down our heavy industry to do better
right away. I don't think we want to go there.

Post by Larry G
Don't get me wrong - I'm not particularly sympathetic to the "we don't
like any kind of energy except solar" enviro-wackos... but OTOH -
their view that we are the most prolifigate consumers of energy in the
world by about twice as much per capita is true - right?

I don't know how much more it is, but I think that most things we can
do about it would result in immediate economic disaster. Those that
wouldn't create an economic disaster, such as stopping air
conditioning, would create hell on earth for a lot of people.

[Larry G]

Post by Dave Head
On Sun, 4 Jul 2010 06:28:05 -0700 (PDT), Larry G

Post by Larry G
re: recreation - are you talking about the Europeans who have 32hr
work weeks and take 6 weeks of vacation a year and still use 1/2 the
fuel that we do per capita?

Yeah - I dunno how they use that time, tho.   Recreation, esp.
energy-intensive recreation?  Remember they have good public
transport, transport that we can't build because the population
density here is too low to make it cheap enough for people to chooses
to ride.

Post by Larry G
Do you think in the U.S. that the air conditioners in the South that
run 8 or 9 months a year use more energy per capita that the other
countries at the same latitude around the world?

Yes, they use more energy.  Similar-latitude people don't use that air
conditioning.  Is that a great way not to use energy?  Want to live in
Florida WITHOUT air conditioning?  Me either.  That's the choice that
the envirowackos want us to make, tho - give up air conditioning, give
up heating in northern homes.  THey're idiots, of course.  The south
is hell without air conditioning, and the north is unlivable without
some sort of home heat.  We used to use other fuels.  Now its
electricity, gas, and oil, mostly.  Take those away, and the country
will be denuded of forest, because people will chop down trees and
burn those.

Post by Larry G
Do you think the other northern countries beyond Canada use more or
less energy per capita that U.S. folks who live well south of those
Countries?

I think they use less - You see pix of the Scandenavians with their
big sweaters on all the time.  Dunno what temp they keep their places,
or how well insulated their houses are.  Here, we could do a lot with
insulation, but not as much as if we used stone to build houses, which
we mostly don't.  A new constructon method - insulated concrete forms
- is simulating building with stone like they do in some places in
Europe, but its not required, and is more expensive.  Mostly, if
people can't get fuel to heat and cool, they're going to be miserable
and/or die prematurely.

Post by Larry G
I don't think there is an easy way to wiggle out of this. The facts
are troublesome things sometimes.

Yep.  But we are good at manufacturing efficiency, and are using a lot
of our energy for that, too.

Post by Larry G
We ARE more productive but if you measure us in terms or productivity
per energy unit - we are not so good.

Takes a lot of energy to make steel, draw wire, lots of industrial
processes.   We are still a big manufacturer, and will be until the
income tax chases ALL the industrial jobs overseas.  Hey, I was
watching a TV program on possible armageddon from a EMP attack, which
would blow out many large electrical transformers.  The program just
casually mentioned that we don't make transformers like those in this
country any more.  That sucks.  That's the stuff we need to turn
around.  The income taxes are strangling our heavy industry, and we
need to get rid of them.  We need industries like those, and it would
seem to be something that should be easy to automate - build those
transformers with even bigger machines, using people in the rare
places where they're required.   After that, expenses should be mostly
from the taxes.  Yeah, you have to do some things about pollution,
too, but I think that is true in Europe and even Japan now.
I wonder if we could impose a "pollution tax" on imports from places
that don't do pollution control.

Post by Larry G
If the rest of the world used energy at the same per capita rate that
we do - how long would the world oil supplies last ?  How long would
it be before the price of gasoline went to $5 or $10 a gallon or
higher?

Dunno.  We'd likely have to shut down our heavy industry to do better
right away.  I don't think we want to go  there.  

Post by Larry G
Don't get me wrong - I'm not particularly sympathetic to the "we don't
like any kind of energy except solar" enviro-wackos... but OTOH -
their view that we are the most prolifigate consumers of energy in the
world by about twice as much per capita is true - right?

I don't know how much more it is, but I think that most things we can
do about it would result in immediate economic disaster.  Those that
wouldn't create an economic disaster, such as stopping air
conditioning, would create hell on earth for a lot of people.

" The south
is hell without air conditioning, and the north is unlivable without
some sort of home heat. "

this is true around the world at those latitudes? How can other
countries not only live at those latitudes using less energy but have
longer life expectancies than us?

Do people at these other latitudes heat and cool 1000 square feet of
space per person like we do?

If they heat/cool 1/2 the space per person that we do, does that mean
they use 1/2 the energy we do without dying from heat or cold but
instead being just as comfortable as we are?

[Dave Head]

On Sun, 4 Jul 2010 08:57:50 -0700 (PDT), Larry G

Post by Larry G

Post by Dave Head
On Sun, 4 Jul 2010 06:28:05 -0700 (PDT), Larry G

Post by Larry G
re: recreation - are you talking about the Europeans who have 32hr
work weeks and take 6 weeks of vacation a year and still use 1/2 the
fuel that we do per capita?

Yeah - I dunno how they use that time, tho.   Recreation, esp.
energy-intensive recreation?  Remember they have good public
transport, transport that we can't build because the population
density here is too low to make it cheap enough for people to chooses
to ride.

Post by Larry G
Do you think in the U.S. that the air conditioners in the South that
run 8 or 9 months a year use more energy per capita that the other
countries at the same latitude around the world?

Yes, they use more energy.  Similar-latitude people don't use that air
conditioning.  Is that a great way not to use energy?  Want to live in
Florida WITHOUT air conditioning?  Me either.  That's the choice that
the envirowackos want us to make, tho - give up air conditioning, give
up heating in northern homes.  THey're idiots, of course.  The south
is hell without air conditioning, and the north is unlivable without
some sort of home heat.  We used to use other fuels.  Now its
electricity, gas, and oil, mostly.  Take those away, and the country
will be denuded of forest, because people will chop down trees and
burn those.

Post by Larry G
Do you think the other northern countries beyond Canada use more or
less energy per capita that U.S. folks who live well south of those
Countries?

I think they use less - You see pix of the Scandenavians with their
big sweaters on all the time.  Dunno what temp they keep their places,
or how well insulated their houses are.  Here, we could do a lot with
insulation, but not as much as if we used stone to build houses, which
we mostly don't.  A new constructon method - insulated concrete forms
- is simulating building with stone like they do in some places in
Europe, but its not required, and is more expensive.  Mostly, if
people can't get fuel to heat and cool, they're going to be miserable
and/or die prematurely.

Post by Larry G
I don't think there is an easy way to wiggle out of this. The facts
are troublesome things sometimes.

Yep.  But we are good at manufacturing efficiency, and are using a lot
of our energy for that, too.

Post by Larry G
We ARE more productive but if you measure us in terms or productivity
per energy unit - we are not so good.

Takes a lot of energy to make steel, draw wire, lots of industrial
processes.   We are still a big manufacturer, and will be until the
income tax chases ALL the industrial jobs overseas.  Hey, I was
watching a TV program on possible armageddon from a EMP attack, which
would blow out many large electrical transformers.  The program just
casually mentioned that we don't make transformers like those in this
country any more.  That sucks.  That's the stuff we need to turn
around.  The income taxes are strangling our heavy industry, and we
need to get rid of them.  We need industries like those, and it would
seem to be something that should be easy to automate - build those
transformers with even bigger machines, using people in the rare
places where they're required.   After that, expenses should be mostly
from the taxes.  Yeah, you have to do some things about pollution,
too, but I think that is true in Europe and even Japan now.
I wonder if we could impose a "pollution tax" on imports from places
that don't do pollution control.

Post by Larry G
If the rest of the world used energy at the same per capita rate that
we do - how long would the world oil supplies last ?  How long would
it be before the price of gasoline went to $5 or $10 a gallon or
higher?

Dunno.  We'd likely have to shut down our heavy industry to do better
right away.  I don't think we want to go  there.  

Post by Larry G
Don't get me wrong - I'm not particularly sympathetic to the "we don't
like any kind of energy except solar" enviro-wackos... but OTOH -
their view that we are the most prolifigate consumers of energy in the
world by about twice as much per capita is true - right?

I don't know how much more it is, but I think that most things we can
do about it would result in immediate economic disaster.  Those that
wouldn't create an economic disaster, such as stopping air
conditioning, would create hell on earth for a lot of people.

" The south
is hell without air conditioning, and the north is unlivable without
some sort of home heat. "
this is true around the world at those latitudes? How can other
countries not only live at those latitudes using less energy but have
longer life expectancies than us?

I believe it has been a priority to build fuel efficient everything in
Europe from the get-go. We, on the other hand, have historically had
cheap energy. Therefore, we build our places without a lot of the
energy-saving features found overseas. People in Medeterraean areas
build with a lot of stone - ever go into an unheated / uncooled
building that has no windows and is kept dark in the daytime on a hot
day? Its cool. I noticed that working on some volunteer fire radios
back in the 70's where the fire trucks were parked in a cement block
fire station that was kept dark and didn't have windows. Walk inside,
it was like air conditioning. Stuff like that.

But now that energy is getting expensive, and we're also hosed
economically, we don't have the money to do anything about our
buildings that are energy inefficient, but we need to.

Post by Larry G
Do people at these other latitudes heat and cool 1000 square feet of
space per person like we do?

I don't know what the size of their houses are.

Post by Larry G
If they heat/cool 1/2 the space per person that we do, does that mean
they use 1/2 the energy we do without dying from heat or cold but
instead being just as comfortable as we are?

Well, means they live less pleasantly than we do, doesn't it? If I
have to move from my 1700 sq. ft. house right now, to something that
is 1000 sq. ft., then I'm going to have to shed a whale of a lot of my
posessions. Some stuff can sit in an unheated / uncooled garage, but
other stuff would just get sold - my garages are already pretty big,
and making them bigger would be a bit over the top. And 1000 sq. ft.
for the big screen TVs, having a master bedroom, a guest bedroom, and
a den for the ham radio station (I made the mistake of putting the ham
station out in the garage in an intermittantly heated space - I almost
never use it for the hassle of getting the place up or down to a
pleasant temperature, and then everything in it is either hot or
cold-soaked, and that's no fun either) - and that would just be a
sucky living situation for me.

I'll build a house on retirement. I need to move somewhere close to
things in order to attain the ages of 70, 80, 90 and not be somewhere
out in the middle of nowhere, so if I can't drive for some reason, I
can maybe walk, or maybe they'll be buses. I'm 20 mlles out of town
now, and that's no place to be for a geezer. But anyway, its going to
be insulated concrete forms for both survivablilty (we could get a
hurricane here in Virginia) and for energy efficiency. Insulated
concrete forms, and a heat pump for heat/cool, as well as tankless
water heaters for that job, and I should be home free on paying big
bux for energy if BHO gets away with his project to install
cap-and-tax and multiply home electricity costs by maybe 7X.

But right now, most people are hosed with respect to energy
efficiency, and its too expensive to do something about it for them,
too. Gradually, people may do what I'm going to to, and build with
insulated concrete forms or some other really high-R construction, and
things will very gradually get better.

[Larry G]

Post by Dave Head
On Sun, 4 Jul 2010 08:57:50 -0700 (PDT), Larry G

Post by Larry G

Post by Dave Head
On Sun, 4 Jul 2010 06:28:05 -0700 (PDT), Larry G

Post by Larry G
re: recreation - are you talking about the Europeans who have 32hr
work weeks and take 6 weeks of vacation a year and still use 1/2 the
fuel that we do per capita?

Yeah - I dunno how they use that time, tho. Recreation, esp.
energy-intensive recreation? Remember they have good public
transport, transport that we can't build because the population
density here is too low to make it cheap enough for people to chooses
to ride.

Post by Larry G
Do you think in the U.S. that the air conditioners in the South that
run 8 or 9 months a year use more energy per capita that the other
countries at the same latitude around the world?

Yes, they use more energy. Similar-latitude people don't use that air
conditioning. Is that a great way not to use energy? Want to live in
Florida WITHOUT air conditioning? Me either. That's the choice that
the envirowackos want us to make, tho - give up air conditioning, give
up heating in northern homes. THey're idiots, of course. The south
is hell without air conditioning, and the north is unlivable without
some sort of home heat. We used to use other fuels. Now its
electricity, gas, and oil, mostly. Take those away, and the country
will be denuded of forest, because people will chop down trees and
burn those.

Post by Larry G
Do you think the other northern countries beyond Canada use more or
less energy per capita that U.S. folks who live well south of those
Countries?

I think they use less - You see pix of the Scandenavians with their
big sweaters on all the time. Dunno what temp they keep their places,
or how well insulated their houses are. Here, we could do a lot with
insulation, but not as much as if we used stone to build houses, which
we mostly don't. A new constructon method - insulated concrete forms
- is simulating building with stone like they do in some places in
Europe, but its not required, and is more expensive. Mostly, if
people can't get fuel to heat and cool, they're going to be miserable
and/or die prematurely.

Post by Larry G
I don't think there is an easy way to wiggle out of this. The facts
are troublesome things sometimes.

Yep. But we are good at manufacturing efficiency, and are using a lot
of our energy for that, too.

Post by Larry G
We ARE more productive but if you measure us in terms or productivity
per energy unit - we are not so good.

Takes a lot of energy to make steel, draw wire, lots of industrial
processes. We are still a big manufacturer, and will be until the
income tax chases ALL the industrial jobs overseas. Hey, I was
watching a TV program on possible armageddon from a EMP attack, which
would blow out many large electrical transformers. The program just
casually mentioned that we don't make transformers like those in this
country any more. That sucks. That's the stuff we need to turn
around. The income taxes are strangling our heavy industry, and we
need to get rid of them. We need industries like those, and it would
seem to be something that should be easy to automate - build those
transformers with even bigger machines, using people in the rare
places where they're required. After that, expenses should be mostly
from the taxes. Yeah, you have to do some things about pollution,
too, but I think that is true in Europe and even Japan now.
I wonder if we could impose a "pollution tax" on imports from places
that don't do pollution control.

Post by Larry G
If the rest of the world used energy at the same per capita rate that
we do - how long would the world oil supplies last ? How long would
it be before the price of gasoline went to $5 or $10 a gallon or
higher?

Dunno. We'd likely have to shut down our heavy industry to do better
right away. I don't think we want to go there.

Post by Larry G
Don't get me wrong - I'm not particularly sympathetic to the "we don't
like any kind of energy except solar" enviro-wackos... but OTOH -
their view that we are the most prolifigate consumers of energy in the
world by about twice as much per capita is true - right?

I don't know how much more it is, but I think that most things we can
do about it would result in immediate economic disaster. Those that
wouldn't create an economic disaster, such as stopping air
conditioning, would create hell on earth for a lot of people.

" The south
is hell without air conditioning, and the north is unlivable without
some sort of home heat. "
this is true around the world at those latitudes?  How can other
countries not only live at those latitudes using less energy but have
longer life expectancies than us?

I believe it has been a priority to build fuel efficient everything in
Europe from the get-go.  We, on the other hand, have historically had
cheap energy.  Therefore, we build our places without a lot of the
energy-saving features found overseas.  People in Medeterraean areas
build with a lot of stone - ever go into an unheated / uncooled
building that has no windows and is kept dark in the daytime on a hot
day?  Its cool.  I noticed that working on some volunteer fire radios
back in the 70's where the fire trucks were parked in a cement block
fire station that was kept dark and didn't have windows.  Walk inside,
it was like air conditioning.  Stuff like that.
But now that energy is getting expensive, and we're also hosed
economically, we don't have the money to do anything about our
buildings that are energy inefficient, but we need to.

Post by Larry G
Do people at these other latitudes heat and cool 1000 square feet of
space per person like we do?

I don't know what the size of their houses are.

Post by Larry G
If they heat/cool 1/2 the space per person that we do, does that mean
they use 1/2 the energy we do without dying from heat or cold but
instead being just as comfortable as we are?

Well, means they live less pleasantly than we do, doesn't it?  If I
have to move from my 1700 sq. ft. house right now, to something that
is 1000 sq. ft., then I'm going to have to shed a whale of a lot of my
posessions.  Some stuff can sit in an unheated / uncooled garage, but
other stuff would just get sold - my garages are already pretty big,
and making them bigger would be a bit over the top.  And 1000 sq. ft.
for the big screen TVs, having a master bedroom, a guest bedroom, and
a den for the ham radio station (I made the mistake of putting the ham
station out in the garage in an intermittantly heated space - I almost
never use it for the hassle of getting the place up or down to a
pleasant temperature, and then everything in it is either hot or
cold-soaked, and that's no fun either) - and that would just be a
sucky living situation for me.
I'll build a house on retirement.  I need to move somewhere close to
things in order to attain the ages of 70, 80, 90 and not be somewhere
out in the middle of nowhere, so if I can't drive for some reason, I
can maybe walk, or maybe they'll be buses.  I'm 20 mlles out of town
now, and that's no place to be for a geezer. But anyway, its going to
be insulated concrete forms for both survivablilty (we could get a
hurricane here in Virginia) and for energy efficiency.  Insulated
concrete forms, and a heat pump for heat/cool, as well as tankless
water heaters for that job, and I should be home free on paying big
bux for energy if BHO gets away with his project to install
cap-and-tax and multiply home electricity costs by maybe 7X.
But right now, most people are hosed with respect to energy
efficiency, and its too expensive to do something about it for them,
too.  Gradually, people may do what I'm going to to, and build with
insulated concrete forms or some other really high-R construction, and
things will very gradually get better.

so we have large size homes and suvs and we cannot afford to downsize
to become more energy efficient (just by virtue of using less
energy ..not buying more energy efficient)?

[Dave Head]

On Sun, 4 Jul 2010 11:02:14 -0700 (PDT), Larry G

Post by Larry G
so we have large size homes and suvs and we cannot afford to downsize
to become more energy efficient (just by virtue of using less
energy ..not buying more energy efficient)?

Using less energy on what we have now means freezing in the winter and
boiling in the summer, and NOT doing recreation. The former will just
make people sick, will kill some, and the latter will collapse the
recreation indsutry, and therefore the entire economy.

If we're going to save energy and not damage ourselves one way or the
other, we simply have to rebuild houses to be efficient. Except, we
can't afford that...

[3***@366.com]

Post by Dave Head
Using less energy on what we have now means freezing in the winter and
boiling in the summer,

Not necessarily. There are people who have built houses that
are cool in the summer, warm in the wiinter, and use so little
electricity they sell the surplus back to the electric company.
.


The former will just

[Dave Head]

Post by 3***@366.com

Post by Dave Head
Using less energy on what we have now means freezing in the winter and
boiling in the summer,

Not necessarily. There are people who have built houses that
are cool in the summer, warm in the wiinter, and use so little
electricity they sell the surplus back to the electric company.

Yes, they have. I'm planning to build one. But it will be after I
sell this one. That means this one will still be wasting energy with
someone else living in it. The only way to rapidly change how we're
wasting energy would be to knock down these houses such as my present
one and rebuild it to an energy efficient design. I don't have the
money to do that. Almost nobody can afford to do that.

Post by 3***@366.com
.
The former will just

[Dave Head]

On Sun, 4 Jul 2010 11:02:14 -0700 (PDT), Larry G

Post by Larry G

Post by Dave Head
On Sun, 4 Jul 2010 08:57:50 -0700 (PDT), Larry G

Post by Larry G

Post by Dave Head
On Sun, 4 Jul 2010 06:28:05 -0700 (PDT), Larry G

Post by Larry G
re: recreation - are you talking about the Europeans who have 32hr
work weeks and take 6 weeks of vacation a year and still use 1/2 the
fuel that we do per capita?

Yeah - I dunno how they use that time, tho. Recreation, esp.
energy-intensive recreation? Remember they have good public
transport, transport that we can't build because the population
density here is too low to make it cheap enough for people to chooses
to ride.

Post by Larry G
Do you think in the U.S. that the air conditioners in the South that
run 8 or 9 months a year use more energy per capita that the other
countries at the same latitude around the world?

Yes, they use more energy. Similar-latitude people don't use that air
conditioning. Is that a great way not to use energy? Want to live in
Florida WITHOUT air conditioning? Me either. That's the choice that
the envirowackos want us to make, tho - give up air conditioning, give
up heating in northern homes. THey're idiots, of course. The south
is hell without air conditioning, and the north is unlivable without
some sort of home heat. We used to use other fuels. Now its
electricity, gas, and oil, mostly. Take those away, and the country
will be denuded of forest, because people will chop down trees and
burn those.

Post by Larry G
Do you think the other northern countries beyond Canada use more or
less energy per capita that U.S. folks who live well south of those
Countries?

I think they use less - You see pix of the Scandenavians with their
big sweaters on all the time. Dunno what temp they keep their places,
or how well insulated their houses are. Here, we could do a lot with
insulation, but not as much as if we used stone to build houses, which
we mostly don't. A new constructon method - insulated concrete forms
- is simulating building with stone like they do in some places in
Europe, but its not required, and is more expensive. Mostly, if
people can't get fuel to heat and cool, they're going to be miserable
and/or die prematurely.

Post by Larry G
I don't think there is an easy way to wiggle out of this. The facts
are troublesome things sometimes.

Yep. But we are good at manufacturing efficiency, and are using a lot
of our energy for that, too.

Post by Larry G
We ARE more productive but if you measure us in terms or productivity
per energy unit - we are not so good.

Takes a lot of energy to make steel, draw wire, lots of industrial
processes. We are still a big manufacturer, and will be until the
income tax chases ALL the industrial jobs overseas. Hey, I was
watching a TV program on possible armageddon from a EMP attack, which
would blow out many large electrical transformers. The program just
casually mentioned that we don't make transformers like those in this
country any more. That sucks. That's the stuff we need to turn
around. The income taxes are strangling our heavy industry, and we
need to get rid of them. We need industries like those, and it would
seem to be something that should be easy to automate - build those
transformers with even bigger machines, using people in the rare
places where they're required. After that, expenses should be mostly
from the taxes. Yeah, you have to do some things about pollution,
too, but I think that is true in Europe and even Japan now.
I wonder if we could impose a "pollution tax" on imports from places
that don't do pollution control.

Post by Larry G
If the rest of the world used energy at the same per capita rate that
we do - how long would the world oil supplies last ? How long would
it be before the price of gasoline went to $5 or $10 a gallon or
higher?

Dunno. We'd likely have to shut down our heavy industry to do better
right away. I don't think we want to go there.

Post by Larry G
Don't get me wrong - I'm not particularly sympathetic to the "we don't
like any kind of energy except solar" enviro-wackos... but OTOH -
their view that we are the most prolifigate consumers of energy in the
world by about twice as much per capita is true - right?

I don't know how much more it is, but I think that most things we can
do about it would result in immediate economic disaster. Those that
wouldn't create an economic disaster, such as stopping air
conditioning, would create hell on earth for a lot of people.

" The south
is hell without air conditioning, and the north is unlivable without
some sort of home heat. "
this is true around the world at those latitudes?  How can other
countries not only live at those latitudes using less energy but have
longer life expectancies than us?

I believe it has been a priority to build fuel efficient everything in
Europe from the get-go.  We, on the other hand, have historically had
cheap energy.  Therefore, we build our places without a lot of the
energy-saving features found overseas.  People in Medeterraean areas
build with a lot of stone - ever go into an unheated / uncooled
building that has no windows and is kept dark in the daytime on a hot
day?  Its cool.  I noticed that working on some volunteer fire radios
back in the 70's where the fire trucks were parked in a cement block
fire station that was kept dark and didn't have windows.  Walk inside,
it was like air conditioning.  Stuff like that.
But now that energy is getting expensive, and we're also hosed
economically, we don't have the money to do anything about our
buildings that are energy inefficient, but we need to.

Post by Larry G
Do people at these other latitudes heat and cool 1000 square feet of
space per person like we do?

I don't know what the size of their houses are.

Post by Larry G
If they heat/cool 1/2 the space per person that we do, does that mean
they use 1/2 the energy we do without dying from heat or cold but
instead being just as comfortable as we are?

Well, means they live less pleasantly than we do, doesn't it?  If I
have to move from my 1700 sq. ft. house right now, to something that
is 1000 sq. ft., then I'm going to have to shed a whale of a lot of my
posessions.  Some stuff can sit in an unheated / uncooled garage, but
other stuff would just get sold - my garages are already pretty big,
and making them bigger would be a bit over the top.  And 1000 sq. ft.
for the big screen TVs, having a master bedroom, a guest bedroom, and
a den for the ham radio station (I made the mistake of putting the ham
station out in the garage in an intermittantly heated space - I almost
never use it for the hassle of getting the place up or down to a
pleasant temperature, and then everything in it is either hot or
cold-soaked, and that's no fun either) - and that would just be a
sucky living situation for me.
I'll build a house on retirement.  I need to move somewhere close to
things in order to attain the ages of 70, 80, 90 and not be somewhere
out in the middle of nowhere, so if I can't drive for some reason, I
can maybe walk, or maybe they'll be buses.  I'm 20 mlles out of town
now, and that's no place to be for a geezer. But anyway, its going to
be insulated concrete forms for both survivablilty (we could get a
hurricane here in Virginia) and for energy efficiency.  Insulated
concrete forms, and a heat pump for heat/cool, as well as tankless
water heaters for that job, and I should be home free on paying big
bux for energy if BHO gets away with his project to install
cap-and-tax and multiply home electricity costs by maybe 7X.
But right now, most people are hosed with respect to energy
efficiency, and its too expensive to do something about it for them,
too.  Gradually, people may do what I'm going to to, and build with
insulated concrete forms or some other really high-R construction, and
things will very gradually get better.

so we have large size homes and suvs and we cannot afford to downsize
to become more energy efficient (just by virtue of using less
energy ..not buying more energy efficient)?

Its very expensive to do, y'know? Building the sorts of places we
need to conserve energy rather than what we already have will cost
billions. We don't have those billions to spend on it. Could you
knock down your house (no fair selling it - that means its still being
used by someone) and build a smaller, more efficient one? I didn't
think so. Few people do.

[Otto Yamamoto]

Post by Dave Head
That's the choice that
the envirowackos want us to make, tho - give up air conditioning, give
up heating in northern homes.

[citation needed]

[bugo]

Post by Dave Head

Post by Larry G
If the rest of the world used energy at the same per capita rate that
we do - how long would the world oil supplies last ? How long would
it be before the price of gasoline went to $5 or $10 a gallon or
higher?

Dunno. We'd likely have to shut down our heavy industry to do better
right away. I don't think we want to go there.

What heavy industry is left. So many jobs have been shipped to foreign
countries. It's sad how our leaders have sold the country out in the name
of corporate greed.

[Dave Head]

Post by bugo

Post by Dave Head

Post by Larry G
If the rest of the world used energy at the same per capita rate that
we do - how long would the world oil supplies last ? How long would
it be before the price of gasoline went to $5 or $10 a gallon or
higher?

Dunno. We'd likely have to shut down our heavy industry to do better
right away. I don't think we want to go there.

What heavy industry is left. So many jobs have been shipped to foreign
countries. It's sad how our leaders have sold the country out in the name
of corporate greed.

Jobs have left because our tax structure makes American labor, despite
our highest-in-the-world productivity, still too expensive to use.
Nothing to do with greed. Has to do with economics. Use American
workers and go broke, 'cuz of the taxes. Use foreign workers, and you
can do business.

[Z***@yahoo.com]

Post by Dave Head
Jobs have left because our tax structure makes American labor, despite
our highest-in-the-world productivity, still too expensive to use.

Jobs have left because the previous administration gave tax incentives
for shipping jobs overseas.

Post by Dave Head
Nothing to do with greed. Has to do with economics. Use American
workers and go broke, 'cuz of the taxes. Use foreign workers, and you
can do business.

Why pay americans a living wage when you can ship the job to China
or another country and pay the employee $1.00 a day.

And in that country their government provides health care coverage.

[Dave Head]

Post by Z***@yahoo.com

Post by Dave Head
Jobs have left because our tax structure makes American labor, despite
our highest-in-the-world productivity, still too expensive to use.

Jobs have left because the previous administration gave tax incentives
for shipping jobs overseas.

Its not the previous administration, the income tax has been around
since 1913. That is what's making American workers too expensive.

Post by Z***@yahoo.com

Post by Dave Head
Nothing to do with greed. Has to do with economics. Use American
workers and go broke, 'cuz of the taxes. Use foreign workers, and you
can do business.

Why pay americans a living wage when you can ship the job to China
or another country and pay the employee $1.00 a day.

Well, because the American worker is the most productive worker on the
planet. It just too expensive to use him because the US income taxes
make it so.

Post by Z***@yahoo.com
And in that country their government provides health care coverage.

That is a little house of cards that is slowly collapsing. Eventually,
it will fail completely. The Canadians recently had to instutute more
cutbacks. Such a scheme is impossibly expensive in the end. It just
takes a really long time for everything to devolve to ashes.

[bugo]

Post by Dave Head

Post by bugo

Post by Dave Head

Post by Larry G
If the rest of the world used energy at the same per capita rate that
we do - how long would the world oil supplies last ? How long would
it be before the price of gasoline went to $5 or $10 a gallon or
higher?

Dunno. We'd likely have to shut down our heavy industry to do better
right away. I don't think we want to go there.

What heavy industry is left. So many jobs have been shipped to foreign
countries. It's sad how our leaders have sold the country out in the name
of corporate greed.

Jobs have left because our tax structure makes American labor, despite
our highest-in-the-world productivity, still too expensive to use.
Nothing to do with greed. Has to do with economics. Use American
workers and go broke, 'cuz of the taxes. Use foreign workers, and you
can do business.

It has everything to do with greed. Companies made plenty of money before
outsourcing started. They wanted more, and they destroyed our country in
the process.

[Dave Head]

Post by bugo

Post by Dave Head

Post by bugo

Post by Dave Head

Post by Larry G
If the rest of the world used energy at the same per capita rate that
we do - how long would the world oil supplies last ? How long would
it be before the price of gasoline went to $5 or $10 a gallon or
higher?

Dunno. We'd likely have to shut down our heavy industry to do better
right away. I don't think we want to go there.

What heavy industry is left. So many jobs have been shipped to foreign
countries. It's sad how our leaders have sold the country out in the name
of corporate greed.

Jobs have left because our tax structure makes American labor, despite
our highest-in-the-world productivity, still too expensive to use.
Nothing to do with greed. Has to do with economics. Use American
workers and go broke, 'cuz of the taxes. Use foreign workers, and you
can do business.

It has everything to do with greed. Companies made plenty of money before
outsourcing started. They wanted more, and they destroyed our country in
the process.

Its not greed, its business. The objective of business is to make the
most money possible. If that means you can make more money shipping
jobs overseas, that's what you do. Doing anything else would be
stupid. But it is the American income taxes that make shipping jobs
overseas to be cheaper than keeping them here. What we do is get rid
of the income taxes, and our jobs will stay put here in the USA,
others will come back.

[clouddreamer]

Post by Dave Head
On Sat, 03 Jul 2010 21:33:13 -0230, cloud dreamer

Post by cloud dreamer

Post by Dave Head
On Sat, 3 Jul 2010 15:12:48 -0700 (PDT), Larry G

Post by Larry G

Post by clouddreamer

Post by Dave Head
We could do a lot, if it wasn't for our gov't being 'round the bend on
a few subjects like pollution and safety. I DON'T need a 3000 lb car
to go from point A to point B, but my Subaru WRX is that much. And,
the Subaru has gotten the highest awards for safety that there are.
But they are tanks, compared to what is possible if we can just
convert to not having accidents as a strategy for safety, rather than
building tanks...

But for the size of them, Subarus are very fuel efficient. My Forester
PZEV gets under 10L/100 km (and emits less GHG than a hybrid). I know of
a Ford Focus that can't get that gas mileage driving the same roads I do.

but a Subaru would be a gas guzzler in Europe or Japan?

Sure. Because it has a gas engine, for one thing. Those guys use
diesel. Why don't we use diesel? Envirowackos again. The
envirowackos of 5 separate states have set pollution controls on
diesel cars so high they can't be met. So, only VW and Merceedes will
import diesels just to sell 'em in 45 states. Of course California is
one of the pinhead envirowacko states, so not selling them there is a
big deal. If it wasn't for the envirowackos, we could be driving
around in cars that get the 68 mpg that some of the European diesels
get.

The ultimate goal is to get off all gas and diesel, not substitute one
for another. There is only so much oil left, and climate change aside,
we have to start moving to alternatives now.

Yeah, that's the ultimate goal. There's plenty of oil - we haven't
even started to attempt to use the shale oil we have out west, which
is 3X the Saudi reserve.
But the real key is the electrification of transportation, which we
can do just as soon as somebody invents the magic battery that will
hold about 10X the amount of a Li Ion battery does now. People have
claimed at one time or another that they've done it, but then they
disappear, never to be heard from again apparently.

Post by cloud dreamer
Common sense. Not something from an enviro-"wacko."

What's wacko about the enviros is trying to shut down or failing to
promote the production of oil and gasoline before we have the magic
battery. They act like they have no understanding of science
whatsoever, and believe that if they interrupt the supply of oil, that
somehow, somewhere, the solution to this mess will spring up. It will
not. All that will happen will be the further economic destruction of
America as the gas prices go thru the roof, and we have no alternative
but to pay them. We can't afford $7 a gallon gas in a country almost
3000 miles wide and 1500 miles high. We'll just pauperize the vast
majority of citizens.

Post by cloud dreamer

Post by Dave Head
And my Subaru would get WAY better mileage and be way faster if it
weighed 2000 lbs instead of 3000 lbs, but it has to be built like a
tank in order to survive crashes. Those are the safety nazis at work,
that won't let me buy the kind of car I want to buy.

I wrote off my Impreza a couple months ago. That "tank" rolled over and
I walked away without a scratch.

My strategy is not to crash. I've been successful at it since 1963.
The key is being terrified of crashing, and paying attention to
everything. The latter was greatly enhanced by my beginnings racing a
go-kart when I was a kid. Lose focus when racing one of those, you
end up with someone else's wheel in your lap.

My strategy as well and helped me for 25+ years, but there's always a
time when a set of circumstances are just perfect for even the most
careful driver. Where black ice is involved, all the focus in the world
won't do squat for you.

My insurance agreed 100%.

..

[Dave Head]

On Sun, 04 Jul 2010 15:34:24 -0230, clouddreamer

Post by clouddreamer

Post by Dave Head
On Sat, 03 Jul 2010 21:33:13 -0230, cloud dreamer

Post by cloud dreamer

Post by Dave Head
On Sat, 3 Jul 2010 15:12:48 -0700 (PDT), Larry G

Post by Larry G

Post by clouddreamer

Post by Dave Head
We could do a lot, if it wasn't for our gov't being 'round the bend on
a few subjects like pollution and safety. I DON'T need a 3000 lb car
to go from point A to point B, but my Subaru WRX is that much. And,
the Subaru has gotten the highest awards for safety that there are.
But they are tanks, compared to what is possible if we can just
convert to not having accidents as a strategy for safety, rather than
building tanks...

But for the size of them, Subarus are very fuel efficient. My Forester
PZEV gets under 10L/100 km (and emits less GHG than a hybrid). I know of
a Ford Focus that can't get that gas mileage driving the same roads I do.

but a Subaru would be a gas guzzler in Europe or Japan?

Sure. Because it has a gas engine, for one thing. Those guys use
diesel. Why don't we use diesel? Envirowackos again. The
envirowackos of 5 separate states have set pollution controls on
diesel cars so high they can't be met. So, only VW and Merceedes will
import diesels just to sell 'em in 45 states. Of course California is
one of the pinhead envirowacko states, so not selling them there is a
big deal. If it wasn't for the envirowackos, we could be driving
around in cars that get the 68 mpg that some of the European diesels
get.

The ultimate goal is to get off all gas and diesel, not substitute one
for another. There is only so much oil left, and climate change aside,
we have to start moving to alternatives now.

Yeah, that's the ultimate goal. There's plenty of oil - we haven't
even started to attempt to use the shale oil we have out west, which
is 3X the Saudi reserve.
But the real key is the electrification of transportation, which we
can do just as soon as somebody invents the magic battery that will
hold about 10X the amount of a Li Ion battery does now. People have
claimed at one time or another that they've done it, but then they
disappear, never to be heard from again apparently.

Post by cloud dreamer
Common sense. Not something from an enviro-"wacko."

What's wacko about the enviros is trying to shut down or failing to
promote the production of oil and gasoline before we have the magic
battery. They act like they have no understanding of science
whatsoever, and believe that if they interrupt the supply of oil, that
somehow, somewhere, the solution to this mess will spring up. It will
not. All that will happen will be the further economic destruction of
America as the gas prices go thru the roof, and we have no alternative
but to pay them. We can't afford $7 a gallon gas in a country almost
3000 miles wide and 1500 miles high. We'll just pauperize the vast
majority of citizens.

Post by cloud dreamer

Post by Dave Head
And my Subaru would get WAY better mileage and be way faster if it
weighed 2000 lbs instead of 3000 lbs, but it has to be built like a
tank in order to survive crashes. Those are the safety nazis at work,
that won't let me buy the kind of car I want to buy.

I wrote off my Impreza a couple months ago. That "tank" rolled over and
I walked away without a scratch.

My strategy is not to crash. I've been successful at it since 1963.
The key is being terrified of crashing, and paying attention to
everything. The latter was greatly enhanced by my beginnings racing a
go-kart when I was a kid. Lose focus when racing one of those, you
end up with someone else's wheel in your lap.

My strategy as well and helped me for 25+ years, but there's always a
time when a set of circumstances are just perfect for even the most
careful driver. Where black ice is involved, all the focus in the world
won't do squat for you.
My insurance agreed 100%.

<G> Black ice is a bitch, no question.

[Jim Yanik]

Post by cloud dreamer
The ultimate goal is to get off all gas and diesel, not substitute one
for another. There is only so much oil left,

We haven't even discovered all the oil yet,besides pump it out.
The Earth is a pretty big place.

Post by cloud dreamer
and climate change aside,
we have to start moving to alternatives now.

YOU first. you show us how it's done.
Give up your auto,don't fly or take any train or bus that's petro-fueled.
either use an all-electric vehicle,bike or walk. No hybrids.
No natural gas vehicles,either,as that's a result of oil exploration and
drilling.


BTW,30 years from now,a US dollar will not be worth as much as it is today.

Heck,the way Comrade Obama is going,it won't be worth anything,or there
won't BE a USofA,and no "dollar".
It will either be pesos,Chinese yuan,or rubles.

[Matthew Russotto]

Post by Dave Head
On Sat, 3 Jul 2010 15:12:48 -0700 (PDT), Larry G

Post by Larry G

Post by clouddreamer

Post by Dave Head
We could do a lot, if it wasn't for our gov't being 'round the bend on
a few subjects like pollution and safety.  I DON'T need a 3000 lb car
to go from point A to point B, but my Subaru WRX is that much.  And,
the Subaru has gotten the highest awards for safety that there are.
But they are tanks, compared to what is possible if we can just
convert to not having accidents as a strategy for safety, rather than
building tanks...

But for the size of them, Subarus are very fuel efficient. My Forester
PZEV gets under 10L/100 km (and emits less GHG than a hybrid). I know of
a Ford Focus that can't get that gas mileage driving the same roads I do.

but a Subaru would be a gas guzzler in Europe or Japan?

Sure. Because it has a gas engine, for one thing. Those guys use
diesel. Why don't we use diesel? Envirowackos again.

No, because diesel sucks. True, envirowhackos have made diesel an
even harder sell recently, but diesel STILL sucks.

[Dave Head]

Post by Matthew Russotto

Post by Dave Head
On Sat, 3 Jul 2010 15:12:48 -0700 (PDT), Larry G

Post by Larry G

Post by clouddreamer

Post by Dave Head
We could do a lot, if it wasn't for our gov't being 'round the bend on
a few subjects like pollution and safety.  I DON'T need a 3000 lb car
to go from point A to point B, but my Subaru WRX is that much.  And,
the Subaru has gotten the highest awards for safety that there are.
But they are tanks, compared to what is possible if we can just
convert to not having accidents as a strategy for safety, rather than
building tanks...

But for the size of them, Subarus are very fuel efficient. My Forester
PZEV gets under 10L/100 km (and emits less GHG than a hybrid). I know of
a Ford Focus that can't get that gas mileage driving the same roads I do.

but a Subaru would be a gas guzzler in Europe or Japan?

Sure. Because it has a gas engine, for one thing. Those guys use
diesel. Why don't we use diesel? Envirowackos again.

No, because diesel sucks. True, envirowhackos have made diesel an
even harder sell recently, but diesel STILL sucks.

There's nothing wrong with diesels. The modern ones have been
deoderized, and they're torque-y. They've been made to run fast, and
win LeMans year after year, now. The winning of LeMans has been
finagled by allowing them much greater displacement, but the point is
that they can be made to run fast. And, if there are a few drawbacks
hiding someplace, 68 mpg is worth putting up with them.

[bugo]

Post by Dave Head

Post by Matthew Russotto

Post by Dave Head
On Sat, 3 Jul 2010 15:12:48 -0700 (PDT), Larry G

Post by Larry G

Post by clouddreamer

Post by Dave Head
We could do a lot, if it wasn't for our gov't being 'round the bend on
a few subjects like pollution and safety. I DON'T need a 3000 lb car
to go from point A to point B, but my Subaru WRX is that much. And,
the Subaru has gotten the highest awards for safety that there are.
But they are tanks, compared to what is possible if we can just
convert to not having accidents as a strategy for safety, rather than
building tanks...

But for the size of them, Subarus are very fuel efficient. My Forester
PZEV gets under 10L/100 km (and emits less GHG than a hybrid). I know of
a Ford Focus that can't get that gas mileage driving the same roads I do.

but a Subaru would be a gas guzzler in Europe or Japan?

Sure. Because it has a gas engine, for one thing. Those guys use
diesel. Why don't we use diesel? Envirowackos again.

No, because diesel sucks. True, envirowhackos have made diesel an
even harder sell recently, but diesel STILL sucks.

There's nothing wrong with diesels. The modern ones have been
deoderized, and they're torque-y. They've been made to run fast, and
win LeMans year after year, now. The winning of LeMans has been
finagled by allowing them much greater displacement, but the point is
that they can be made to run fast. And, if there are a few drawbacks
hiding someplace, 68 mpg is worth putting up with them.

They stink, and they make awful sounds. Other than that they're fine.

[Dave Head]

Post by bugo

Post by Dave Head

Post by Matthew Russotto

Post by Dave Head
On Sat, 3 Jul 2010 15:12:48 -0700 (PDT), Larry G

Post by Larry G

Post by clouddreamer

Post by Dave Head
We could do a lot, if it wasn't for our gov't being 'round the bend on
a few subjects like pollution and safety. I DON'T need a 3000 lb car
to go from point A to point B, but my Subaru WRX is that much. And,
the Subaru has gotten the highest awards for safety that there are.
But they are tanks, compared to what is possible if we can just
convert to not having accidents as a strategy for safety, rather than
building tanks...

But for the size of them, Subarus are very fuel efficient. My Forester
PZEV gets under 10L/100 km (and emits less GHG than a hybrid). I know of
a Ford Focus that can't get that gas mileage driving the same roads I do.

but a Subaru would be a gas guzzler in Europe or Japan?

Sure. Because it has a gas engine, for one thing. Those guys use
diesel. Why don't we use diesel? Envirowackos again.

No, because diesel sucks. True, envirowhackos have made diesel an
even harder sell recently, but diesel STILL sucks.

There's nothing wrong with diesels. The modern ones have been
deoderized, and they're torque-y. They've been made to run fast, and
win LeMans year after year, now. The winning of LeMans has been
finagled by allowing them much greater displacement, but the point is
that they can be made to run fast. And, if there are a few drawbacks
hiding someplace, 68 mpg is worth putting up with them.

They stink, and they make awful sounds. Other than that they're fine.

For 68 mpg, I think its OK.

[Clark F Morris]

Post by Dave Head

Post by Matthew Russotto

Post by Dave Head
On Sat, 3 Jul 2010 15:12:48 -0700 (PDT), Larry G

Post by Larry G

Post by clouddreamer

Post by Dave Head
We could do a lot, if it wasn't for our gov't being 'round the bend on
a few subjects like pollution and safety.  I DON'T need a 3000 lb car
to go from point A to point B, but my Subaru WRX is that much.  And,
the Subaru has gotten the highest awards for safety that there are.
But they are tanks, compared to what is possible if we can just
convert to not having accidents as a strategy for safety, rather than
building tanks...

But for the size of them, Subarus are very fuel efficient. My Forester
PZEV gets under 10L/100 km (and emits less GHG than a hybrid). I know of
a Ford Focus that can't get that gas mileage driving the same roads I do.

but a Subaru would be a gas guzzler in Europe or Japan?

Sure. Because it has a gas engine, for one thing. Those guys use
diesel. Why don't we use diesel? Envirowackos again.

No, because diesel sucks. True, envirowhackos have made diesel an
even harder sell recently, but diesel STILL sucks.

There's nothing wrong with diesels. The modern ones have been
deoderized, and they're torque-y. They've been made to run fast, and
win LeMans year after year, now. The winning of LeMans has been
finagled by allowing them much greater displacement, but the point is
that they can be made to run fast. And, if there are a few drawbacks
hiding someplace, 68 mpg is worth putting up with them.

While the particulate problem is vastly reduced with Euro IV and
whatever the USA EPA equivalent standard is, how does new diesel
compare with gas on nitric oxides, sulfur oxides and particulate
pollution. The latter is said to similar to asbestos in effect.

Clark Morris

[Floyd Rogers]

Post by Clark F Morris

Post by Dave Head

Post by Matthew Russotto

Post by Dave Head

Post by Larry G
but a Subaru would be a gas guzzler in Europe or Japan?

Sure. Because it has a gas engine, for one thing. Those guys use
diesel. Why don't we use diesel? Envirowackos again.

No, because diesel sucks. True, envirowhackos have made diesel an
even harder sell recently, but diesel STILL sucks.

There's nothing wrong with diesels. The modern ones have been
deoderized, and they're torque-y. They've been made to run fast, and
win LeMans year after year, now. The winning of LeMans has been
finagled by allowing them much greater displacement, but the point is
that they can be made to run fast. And, if there are a few drawbacks
hiding someplace, 68 mpg is worth putting up with them.

While the particulate problem is vastly reduced with Euro IV and
whatever the USA EPA equivalent standard is, how does new diesel
compare with gas on nitric oxides, sulfur oxides and particulate
pollution. The latter is said to similar to asbestos in effect.

The standards for diesel (cars) in the US is the same as gasoline
engines. The main reason that there was an empty year or so
in diesel cars was that there was a gap between upping the standards
and finishing the phase-in of ultra-low sulpher diesel (15 ppm - EU
is 10 ppm. Off-road diesel - heavy equipment/tractors/etc is now 200 ppm).
Sulpher is essentially the reason for soot/particulate matter in diesel
exhaust.

The selective catalyst reduction (SCR - using aqueous ammonia), along
with the particulate filter, reduces NOx, CO and HC to the same levels
as modern gasoline engines. The second-biggest problem was
actually getting the EPA to agree to having a source for ammonia
on-board - it requires the ECU to refuse to start the engine if the
tank is empty.

FloydR

[Larry G]

Post by Floyd Rogers

Post by Clark F Morris

Post by Dave Head

Post by Larry G
but a Subaru would be a gas guzzler in Europe or Japan?

Sure.  Because it has a gas engine, for one thing.  Those guys use
diesel.  Why don't we use diesel?  Envirowackos again.

No, because diesel sucks.  True, envirowhackos have made diesel an
even harder sell recently, but diesel STILL sucks.

There's nothing wrong with diesels.  The modern ones have been
deoderized, and they're torque-y.  They've been made to run fast, and
win LeMans year after year, now.  The winning of LeMans has been
finagled by allowing them much greater displacement, but the point is
that they can be made to run fast.   And, if there are a few drawbacks
hiding someplace, 68 mpg is worth putting up with them.

While the particulate problem is vastly reduced with Euro IV and
whatever the USA EPA equivalent standard is, how does new diesel
compare with gas on nitric oxides, sulfur oxides and particulate
pollution.  The latter is said to similar to asbestos in effect.

The standards for diesel (cars) in the US is the same as gasoline
engines.  The main reason that there was an empty year or so
in diesel cars was that there was a gap between upping the standards
and finishing the phase-in of ultra-low sulpher diesel (15 ppm - EU
is 10 ppm.  Off-road diesel - heavy equipment/tractors/etc is now 200 ppm).
Sulpher is essentially the reason for soot/particulate matter in diesel
exhaust.
The selective catalyst reduction (SCR - using aqueous ammonia), along
with the particulate filter, reduces NOx, CO and HC to the same levels
as modern gasoline engines.  The second-biggest problem was
actually getting the EPA to agree to having a source for ammonia
on-board - it requires the ECU to refuse to start the engine if the
tank is empty.

"

"The selective catalyst reduction (SCR - using aqueous ammonia),
along
with the particulate filter, reduces NOx, CO and HC to the same
levels
as modern gasoline engines. The second-biggest problem was
actually getting the EPA to agree to having a source for ammonia
on-board - it requires the ECU to refuse to start the engine if the
tank is empty. "

interesting info. What vehicles use this system and where do they get
their ammonia refills from?

[Rich Piehl]

Post by Larry G

Post by Floyd Rogers

Post by Clark F Morris

Post by Dave Head

Post by Matthew Russotto

Post by Dave Head

Post by Larry G
but a Subaru would be a gas guzzler in Europe or Japan?

Sure. Because it has a gas engine, for one thing. Those guys use
diesel. Why don't we use diesel? Envirowackos again.

No, because diesel sucks. True, envirowhackos have made diesel an
even harder sell recently, but diesel STILL sucks.

There's nothing wrong with diesels. The modern ones have been
deoderized, and they're torque-y. They've been made to run fast, and
win LeMans year after year, now. The winning of LeMans has been
finagled by allowing them much greater displacement, but the point is
that they can be made to run fast. And, if there are a few drawbacks
hiding someplace, 68 mpg is worth putting up with them.

While the particulate problem is vastly reduced with Euro IV and
whatever the USA EPA equivalent standard is, how does new diesel
compare with gas on nitric oxides, sulfur oxides and particulate
pollution. The latter is said to similar to asbestos in effect.

The standards for diesel (cars) in the US is the same as gasoline
engines. The main reason that there was an empty year or so
in diesel cars was that there was a gap between upping the standards
and finishing the phase-in of ultra-low sulpher diesel (15 ppm - EU
is 10 ppm. Off-road diesel - heavy equipment/tractors/etc is now 200 ppm).
Sulpher is essentially the reason for soot/particulate matter in diesel
exhaust.
The selective catalyst reduction (SCR - using aqueous ammonia), along
with the particulate filter, reduces NOx, CO and HC to the same levels
as modern gasoline engines. The second-biggest problem was
actually getting the EPA to agree to having a source for ammonia
on-board - it requires the ECU to refuse to start the engine if the
tank is empty.

"
"The selective catalyst reduction (SCR - using aqueous ammonia),
along
with the particulate filter, reduces NOx, CO and HC to the same levels
as modern gasoline engines. The second-biggest problem was
actually getting the EPA to agree to having a source for ammonia
on-board - it requires the ECU to refuse to start the engine if the
tank is empty. "
interesting info. What vehicles use this system and where do they get
their ammonia refills from?

So there's a car coming that isgoing to be carrying a quantity of
ammonia? What happens when containment is broken?

[Floyd Rogers]

Post by Dave Head
Sure. Because it has a gas engine, for one thing. Those guys use
diesel. Why don't we use diesel? Envirowackos again. The
envirowackos of 5 separate states have set pollution controls on
diesel cars so high they can't be met. So, only VW and Merceedes will
import diesels just to sell 'em in 45 states.

You're years behind the times. The FEDERAL govt - in fact Bush's
administration - has mandated those controls for the last 2-3 years.
All the European manufacturers have cars that meet those standards.

FloydR

[Dave Head]

On Sat, 3 Jul 2010 20:49:16 -0700, "Floyd Rogers"

Post by Floyd Rogers

Post by Dave Head
Sure. Because it has a gas engine, for one thing. Those guys use
diesel. Why don't we use diesel? Envirowackos again. The
envirowackos of 5 separate states have set pollution controls on
diesel cars so high they can't be met. So, only VW and Merceedes will
import diesels just to sell 'em in 45 states.

You're years behind the times. The FEDERAL govt - in fact Bush's
administration - has mandated those controls for the last 2-3 years.
All the European manufacturers have cars that meet those standards.
FloydR

I don't think so. These 5 states have passed something that is
unattainable, or is SO strict that to do so would require the filling
of a separate reservoir of chemicals, urea I think it was, to mix into
the exhaust to burn the supposed pollutants. I don't think the VW's
and Merceedes have this drawback. I think these 2 are separate
standards.

[Floyd Rogers]

Post by Dave Head
On Sat, 3 Jul 2010 20:49:16 -0700, "Floyd Rogers"

Post by Floyd Rogers

Post by Dave Head
Sure. Because it has a gas engine, for one thing. Those guys use
diesel. Why don't we use diesel? Envirowackos again. The
envirowackos of 5 separate states have set pollution controls on
diesel cars so high they can't be met. So, only VW and Merceedes will
import diesels just to sell 'em in 45 states.

You're years behind the times. The FEDERAL govt - in fact Bush's
administration - has mandated those controls for the last 2-3 years.
All the European manufacturers have cars that meet those standards.
FloydR

I don't think so. These 5 states have passed something that is
unattainable, or is SO strict that to do so would require the filling
of a separate reservoir of chemicals, urea I think it was, to mix into
the exhaust to burn the supposed pollutants. I don't think the VW's
and Merceedes have this drawback. I think these 2 are separate
standards.

Funny; I live in WA state and drive a 2010 BMW 335d that is
50-state certified. WA state is one of the *17* states that joined
the CARB combine, before the US EPA mandated the new
standards. I guess you just don't care to really learn anything,
else you would know this.

FloydR

[Dave Head]

On Sun, 4 Jul 2010 08:07:14 -0700, "Floyd Rogers"

Post by Floyd Rogers

Post by Dave Head
On Sat, 3 Jul 2010 20:49:16 -0700, "Floyd Rogers"

Post by Floyd Rogers

Post by Dave Head
Sure. Because it has a gas engine, for one thing. Those guys use
diesel. Why don't we use diesel? Envirowackos again. The
envirowackos of 5 separate states have set pollution controls on
diesel cars so high they can't be met. So, only VW and Merceedes will
import diesels just to sell 'em in 45 states.

You're years behind the times. The FEDERAL govt - in fact Bush's
administration - has mandated those controls for the last 2-3 years.
All the European manufacturers have cars that meet those standards.
FloydR

I don't think so. These 5 states have passed something that is
unattainable, or is SO strict that to do so would require the filling
of a separate reservoir of chemicals, urea I think it was, to mix into
the exhaust to burn the supposed pollutants. I don't think the VW's
and Merceedes have this drawback. I think these 2 are separate
standards.

Funny; I live in WA state and drive a 2010 BMW 335d that is
50-state certified. WA state is one of the *17* states that joined
the CARB combine, before the US EPA mandated the new
standards. I guess you just don't care to really learn anything,
else you would know this.
FloydR

OK, my info is old, admittedly. It wasn't the US EPA that had the
strictest standards at that time, it was 5 states that had standards
so strict that they couldn't be met except by a system consisting of a
reservoir that had to be recharged with urea periodically, and it was
thought to be prohibitive to import here for some reason. So, VW and
Merc were selling 'em in only 45 states.

I found an article about a new Honda engine that will surmount the
roadblock placed by the envirowackos in the various EPAs, so I expect
they will come up with something else to obstruct progress, but
meanwhile, it looks like the manufacturers are doing magic things and
winning for the time being.

Still, the nonsense HAS kept the diesel from attaining a prominant
position in the US transportation makeup, and I can't say whether what
they've done to these engines have robbed them of any of their
efficiency or not. But I'm fairly certain that if diesel cars show up
on the market here that will get the 68 mpg that the Eurocars get,
it'll sell.

Dave Head

[Otto Yamamoto]

Post by Dave Head
envirowackos

What's wrong with wanting cleanliness and efficiency?

[Larry G]

Post by Otto Yamamoto

Post by Dave Head
envirowackos

What's wrong with wanting cleanliness and efficiency?
--
Otto Yamamoto

It's clearly un-American and not our god-given destiny.

[Dave Head]

Post by Otto Yamamoto

Post by Dave Head
envirowackos

What's wrong with wanting cleanliness and efficiency?

Nothing. But envirowackos are willing to harm the country to pursue
it. That's wrong.

[N***@gmail.com]

Post by Dave Head

Post by Otto Yamamoto

Post by Dave Head
envirowackos

What's wrong with wanting cleanliness and efficiency?

Nothing. But envirowackos are willing to harm the country to pursue
it. That's wrong.

And capitalist wackos are willimg to trash the environment to make
a higher profit.

[Dave Head]

Post by N***@gmail.com

Post by Dave Head

Post by Otto Yamamoto

Post by Dave Head
envirowackos

What's wrong with wanting cleanliness and efficiency?

Nothing. But envirowackos are willing to harm the country to pursue
it. That's wrong.

And capitalist wackos are willimg to trash the environment to make
a higher profit.

Businesses need help in order to do things cleanly. If they try it
alone, the expense of doing it will make their product cost more and
they won't be able to sell it because someone else will make the same
thing without doing the cleaning and therefore more cheaply. You have
to have SOME laws to make this happen. The key is not to go so
overboard that it ends up making things worse than the pollution.

[Otto Yamamoto]

Nothing. But envirowackos are willing to harm the country to pursue it.
That's wrong.

I see. Define 'harm the country'.

[Dave Head]

Post by Otto Yamamoto

Nothing. But envirowackos are willing to harm the country to pursue it.
That's wrong.

I see. Define 'harm the country'.

Harm to the country is making things impossibly expensive so people
are thrown out of work because their businesses can't make any money.

Harm to the country is making products for sale in America so
expensive that it works a hardship on the people to acquire needed
goods. Cars are such an example, having become extremely expensive
with a large part of the expense being a very questionable pursuit of
ever more strict pollution standards.

Harm to the country is making diesel pollution standards so strict
that European diesels which dominate their car sales can't be sold
here. While they can buy cars that get 68 miles per gallon solely on
the strength of their more efficent engines, we have to continue to
use much less efficient gasoline because we are so "special" that we
have to have more stringent standards than the Europeans.

Harm to the country comes in may forms, all conceieved by extremists
who have as their main goal the attack of evil capitalism and simply
use the pollution scarecrow as a means to do it.

[Free Lunch]

Post by Dave Head

Post by Otto Yamamoto

Nothing. But envirowackos are willing to harm the country to pursue it.
That's wrong.

I see. Define 'harm the country'.

Harm to the country is making things impossibly expensive so people
are thrown out of work because their businesses can't make any money.
Harm to the country is making products for sale in America so
expensive that it works a hardship on the people to acquire needed
goods. Cars are such an example, having become extremely expensive
with a large part of the expense being a very questionable pursuit of
ever more strict pollution standards.

How many people are you willing to kill with pollution? Who has the
right to pollute their neighbors' air?

Post by Dave Head
Harm to the country is making diesel pollution standards so strict
that European diesels which dominate their car sales can't be sold
here. While they can buy cars that get 68 miles per gallon solely on
the strength of their more efficent engines, we have to continue to
use much less efficient gasoline because we are so "special" that we
have to have more stringent standards than the Europeans.
Harm to the country comes in may forms, all conceieved by extremists
who have as their main goal the attack of evil capitalism and simply
use the pollution scarecrow as a means to do it.

Have you ever bothered to learn anything about science?

[Floyd Rogers]

Post by Dave Head
...
Still, the nonsense HAS kept the diesel from attaining a prominant
position in the US transportation makeup, and I can't say whether what
they've done to these engines have robbed them of any of their
efficiency or not. But I'm fairly certain that if diesel cars show up
on the market here that will get the 68 mpg that the Eurocars get,
it'll sell.

Yeah, VW/Audi is there - they're selling a 2 liter diesel and get ~45
highway.
My BMW is an oddity, in some respects. BMW has trapped themselves
into this "performance/luxury" marketing thing, and haven't stressed
economy much (although their cars get pretty good mileage due to
the high-tech things in their engines.) If you ever want to see what
"performance diesel" is all about, find someone that has a 335d:
0-60 in 6 seconds or less, quarter mile in 14s or less.

Of course, the recent news is of a 320d going Dover, UK to
Munich and all the way back to Lille, FR - 1013 miles, 57.3 mpg -
on one tank:
http://www.windingroad.com/articles/news/the-merits-of-diesel-1000-miles-in-a-bmw-320d/

FloydR

[Larry G]

Post by Dave Head
On Sat, 3 Jul 2010 15:12:48 -0700 (PDT), Larry G

Post by Larry G

Post by clouddreamer

Post by Dave Head
We could do a lot, if it wasn't for our gov't being 'round the bend on
a few subjects like pollution and safety. I DON'T need a 3000 lb car
to go from point A to point B, but my Subaru WRX is that much. And,
the Subaru has gotten the highest awards for safety that there are.
But they are tanks, compared to what is possible if we can just
convert to not having accidents as a strategy for safety, rather than
building tanks...

But for the size of them, Subarus are very fuel efficient. My Forester
PZEV gets under 10L/100 km (and emits less GHG than a hybrid). I know of
a Ford Focus that can't get that gas mileage driving the same roads I do.

but a Subaru would be a gas guzzler in Europe or Japan?

Sure.  Because it has a gas engine, for one thing.  Those guys use
diesel.  Why don't we use diesel?  Envirowackos again.  The
envirowackos of 5 separate states have set pollution controls on
diesel cars so high they can't be met.  So, only VW and Merceedes will
import diesels just to sell 'em in 45 states.  Of course California is
one of the pinhead envirowacko states, so not selling them there is a
big deal.  If it wasn't for the envirowackos, we could be driving
around in cars that get the 68 mpg that some of the European diesels
get.
And my Subaru would get WAY better mileage and be way faster if it
weighed 2000 lbs instead of 3000 lbs, but it has to be built like a
tank in order to survive crashes.  Those are the safety nazis at work,
that won't let me buy the kind of car I want to buy.

Do Subarus in this country weigh more than Subarus in Europe/Japan? I
was under the impression that Europe used what is known as "clean"
diesel which we now have also but they pay between $5-$7 a gallon for
gasoline and so folks over there don't buy gas guzzling cars in the
first place and then they drive less than us especially back/forth to
work.

They use less fuel than we do per capita because it is much more
expensive - right?

[Dave Head]

On Sun, 4 Jul 2010 03:12:02 -0700 (PDT), Larry G

Post by Larry G

Post by Dave Head
On Sat, 3 Jul 2010 15:12:48 -0700 (PDT), Larry G

Post by Larry G

Post by clouddreamer

Post by Dave Head
We could do a lot, if it wasn't for our gov't being 'round the bend on
a few subjects like pollution and safety. I DON'T need a 3000 lb car
to go from point A to point B, but my Subaru WRX is that much. And,
the Subaru has gotten the highest awards for safety that there are.
But they are tanks, compared to what is possible if we can just
convert to not having accidents as a strategy for safety, rather than
building tanks...

But for the size of them, Subarus are very fuel efficient. My Forester
PZEV gets under 10L/100 km (and emits less GHG than a hybrid). I know of
a Ford Focus that can't get that gas mileage driving the same roads I do.

but a Subaru would be a gas guzzler in Europe or Japan?

Sure.  Because it has a gas engine, for one thing.  Those guys use
diesel.  Why don't we use diesel?  Envirowackos again.  The
envirowackos of 5 separate states have set pollution controls on
diesel cars so high they can't be met.  So, only VW and Merceedes will
import diesels just to sell 'em in 45 states.  Of course California is
one of the pinhead envirowacko states, so not selling them there is a
big deal.  If it wasn't for the envirowackos, we could be driving
around in cars that get the 68 mpg that some of the European diesels
get.
And my Subaru would get WAY better mileage and be way faster if it
weighed 2000 lbs instead of 3000 lbs, but it has to be built like a
tank in order to survive crashes.  Those are the safety nazis at work,
that won't let me buy the kind of car I want to buy.

Do Subarus in this country weigh more than Subarus in Europe/Japan?

I think a WRX is a WRX and they probably all weigh the same, not sure.
I think Japan and Europe have their own safety nazis that require the
building of tanks. You have to compare modern cars at 3000 lbs with
older cars that were built before all the safety nuttiness, and you
find them weighing 2000 lbs, 1800 lbs, 1500 lbs for some that were
trying to be light. And they got great fuel mileage. Hell, what was
it - Geo Metro? - 47 mpg. Howzzat for an around-town car? Try
finding something like that right now. But, it was very small, and
probably didn't crash well.

Post by Larry G
I
was under the impression that Europe used what is known as "clean"
diesel which we now have also but they pay between $5-$7 a gallon for
gasoline

Because they tax it to death....

Post by Larry G
and so folks over there don't buy gas guzzling cars in the
first place and then they drive less than us

Their countries are smaller. Sure they drive less. Also, they have
public transportation infrastructure that works. And, they have lower
crime rates, so exposing yourself to the public continuously on public
transport isn't as bad there as here. Here, its nice to have a car so
you don't have to interact with people, can't be sneaked up upon and
have your wallet ripped off as easily, and if physically threatened,
the car is a weapon.

Oh, and the public transport takes longer to get places than the car.
Try to take a bus to your house, it is winding back and forth, thru
neighborhood after neighborhood, going near all the houses, and that
can take a really long time. I've tried to ride buses in Indianapolis
- it took 3 hours just to get across town. 40 minutes tops in my car.
I was dropping my car of for some repairs, if I remember right. What
a trial that was. That was like 20 years ago, and I haven't ridden a
public bus since then. Hope never to have to.

Post by Larry G
especially back/forth to work.

They have trains, buses, etc. We don't. We live farther away from
work too, 'cuz hardly anybody can afford a house close to work in the
bigger cities. And the damned zoning keeps you from doing things like
living across the street from your work - ohmigosh, you might smell
the factory or hear the factory - can't have that. My original home
town, Fostoria, Ohio, has factories scattered all through it. People
live across the street from their work, and they're just happy about
it. But no, we're to delecate to build like that any more.

Post by Larry G
They use less fuel than we do per capita because it is much more
expensive - right?

That's one reason, along with their countries being smaller and the
public transportation being better which uses less fuel and, of
course, I don't think they get to do some of our fun stuff as much. I
mean, I hear Europeans some of em take skiing vacations. There's
people here that go skiing every weekend. For my own part, I'm going
to a road rally next weekend, its in St. Louis, and I'm driving there
from Virginia. 1000 miles there, 1000 miles back. In August, I'm
traveling to a rally in Tucson. 2200 miles there, 2200 miles back,
and more than that 'cuz I'm gonna go by way of Las Vegas. Would I do
that if the gas were $7. Probably not, but maybe. But $7 would wreck
the recreational industry, for sure.

[Larry G]

Post by Dave Head
On Sun, 4 Jul 2010 03:12:02 -0700 (PDT), Larry G

Post by Larry G

Post by Dave Head
On Sat, 3 Jul 2010 15:12:48 -0700 (PDT), Larry G

Post by Larry G

Post by clouddreamer

Post by Dave Head
We could do a lot, if it wasn't for our gov't being 'round the bend on
a few subjects like pollution and safety. I DON'T need a 3000 lb car
to go from point A to point B, but my Subaru WRX is that much. And,
the Subaru has gotten the highest awards for safety that there are.
But they are tanks, compared to what is possible if we can just
convert to not having accidents as a strategy for safety, rather than
building tanks...

But for the size of them, Subarus are very fuel efficient. My Forester
PZEV gets under 10L/100 km (and emits less GHG than a hybrid). I know of
a Ford Focus that can't get that gas mileage driving the same roads I do.

but a Subaru would be a gas guzzler in Europe or Japan?

Sure.  Because it has a gas engine, for one thing.  Those guys use
diesel.  Why don't we use diesel?  Envirowackos again.  The
envirowackos of 5 separate states have set pollution controls on
diesel cars so high they can't be met.  So, only VW and Merceedes will
import diesels just to sell 'em in 45 states.  Of course California is
one of the pinhead envirowacko states, so not selling them there is a
big deal.  If it wasn't for the envirowackos, we could be driving
around in cars that get the 68 mpg that some of the European diesels
get.
And my Subaru would get WAY better mileage and be way faster if it
weighed 2000 lbs instead of 3000 lbs, but it has to be built like a
tank in order to survive crashes.  Those are the safety nazis at work,
that won't let me buy the kind of car I want to buy.

Do Subarus in this country weigh more than Subarus in Europe/Japan?

I think a WRX is a WRX and they probably all weigh the same, not sure.
I think Japan and Europe have their own safety nazis that require the
building of tanks.  You have to compare modern cars at 3000 lbs with
older cars that were built before all the safety nuttiness, and you
find them weighing 2000 lbs, 1800 lbs, 1500 lbs for some that were
trying to be light.  And they got great fuel mileage.  Hell, what was
it - Geo Metro? - 47 mpg.  Howzzat for an around-town car?  Try
finding something like that right now.  But, it was very small, and
probably didn't crash well.

Post by Larry G
I
was under the impression that Europe used what is known as "clean"
diesel which we now have also but they pay between $5-$7 a gallon for
gasoline

Because they tax it to death....

Post by Larry G
and so folks over there don't buy gas guzzling cars in the
first place and then they drive less than us

Their countries are smaller.  Sure they drive less.  Also, they have
public transportation infrastructure that works.  And, they have lower
crime rates, so exposing yourself to the public continuously on public
transport isn't as bad there as here.  Here, its nice to have a car so
you don't have to interact with people, can't be sneaked up upon and
have your wallet ripped off as easily, and if physically threatened,
the car is a weapon.
Oh, and the public transport takes longer to get places than the car.
Try to take a bus to your house, it is winding back and forth, thru
neighborhood after neighborhood, going near all the houses, and that
can take a really long time.  I've tried to ride buses in Indianapolis
- it took 3 hours just to get across town.  40 minutes tops in my car.
I was dropping my car of for some repairs, if I remember right.  What
a trial that was.  That was like 20 years ago, and I haven't ridden a
public bus since then.  Hope never to have to.

Post by Larry G
especially back/forth to work.

They have trains, buses, etc.  We don't.  We live farther away from
work too, 'cuz hardly anybody can afford a house close to work in the
bigger cities.  And the damned zoning keeps you from doing things like
living across the street from your work - ohmigosh, you might smell
the factory or hear the factory - can't have that.  My original home
town, Fostoria, Ohio, has factories scattered all through it.  People
live across the street from their work, and they're just happy about
it.  But no, we're to delecate to build like that any more.

Post by Larry G
They use less fuel than we do per capita because it is much more
expensive - right?

That's one reason, along with their countries being smaller and the
public transportation being better which uses less fuel and, of
course, I don't think they get to do some of our fun stuff as much.  I
mean, I hear Europeans some of em take skiing vacations.  There's
people here that go skiing every weekend.  For my own part, I'm going
to a road rally next weekend, its in St. Louis, and I'm driving there
from Virginia.  1000 miles there, 1000 miles back.  In August, I'm
traveling to a rally in Tucson.  2200 miles there, 2200 miles back,
and more than that 'cuz I'm gonna go by way of Las Vegas.  Would I do
that if the gas were $7.  Probably not, but maybe.  But $7 would wreck
the recreational industry, for sure.

" eo Metro? - 47 mpg. Howzzat for an around-town car? Try
finding something like that right now. But, it was very small"

otherwise known as a world car and the most common version of personal
transportation .

$7 gas and the recreation industry... hey... they have RV's in other
countries - they're the size and functionality of the VW Camper
though....

why do they have trains and buses and we do not?

why do they not have to live far from work and we do?

and I love the reason given that because we are more crime-ridden, we
have to use more energy... now that's _some_ statement about a "more
productive" America...eh?

[Otto Yamamoto]

" eo Metro? - 47 mpg. Howzzat for an around-town car? Try finding
something like that right now. But, it was very small"
otherwise known as a world car and the most common version of personal
transportation .
$7 gas and the recreation industry... hey... they have RV's in other
countries - they're the size and functionality of the VW Camper
though....
why do they have trains and buses and we do not?
why do they not have to live far from work and we do?
and I love the reason given that because we are more crime-ridden, we
have to use more energy... now that's _some_ statement about a "more
productive" America...eh?

Envirowhacko Commie. You h8 america and our FREEDOM(V 2.0, which is free
of those nagging 'civil rights' bits).

[Dave Head]

On Sun, 4 Jul 2010 08:54:38 -0700 (PDT), Larry G

Post by Larry G
" eo Metro? - 47 mpg. Howzzat for an around-town car? Try
finding something like that right now. But, it was very small"

Yeah, but even that butt-ugly "Smart Car" is isn't that efficient - I
had already downloaded last year's Fuel Economy Guide from the Feds
and here's Smart:

smart fortwo convertible automatic 33/41
smart fortwo coupe automatic 33/41

Not really outstanding for what you give up in space and styling. Why
the hell did they make it so tall? Why not lay the driver down and
cut frontal area? I just don't get it. I might buy it if it was the
only car on the market.

Post by Larry G
otherwise known as a world car and the most common version of personal
transportation .

Sorry to hear that. The rest of the world is aesthetically
challenged, I'd say.

Post by Larry G
$7 gas and the recreation industry... hey... they have RV's in other
countries - they're the size and functionality of the VW Camper
though....

And Americans will feel abused if they have to do that, and likely
simply NOT do it. I sure wouldn't go anywhere long distance in a VW
camper of old - dunno what they look like now - and don't forget
Euopeans don't have as far to go generally as an American does when he
hits the road.

Post by Larry G
why do they have trains and buses and we do not?

We don't have the population density to support trains AND people
would rather drive because they can get there just about as fast
anyway. And its cheaper to drive, 'cuz we don't have the
infrastructure in most destinations we might take the train to, so we
have to rent a car just as soon as we step off the thing. Plus,
riding the bus is usually a "poor people" thing and there's lots of
criminals who mingle with the poor people, so you're less safe if
you're riding a bus than if you're that driving.

PLUS, if you try to take the train, when you drive to the station such
as DC's Union Station, the PARKING is out the wazoo expensive. And
the train is no cheaper than an airplane, BTW.

Post by Larry G
why do they not have to live far from work and we do?

Maybe they don't have a lot of pinheads that believe in "zoning".
Zoning is an egregious violation of property rights in my opinion, and
should not exist. And, in this case, is actually harmful to our
country.

Post by Larry G
and I love the reason given that because we are more crime-ridden, we
have to use more energy... now that's _some_ statement about a "more
productive" America...eh?

[Larry G]

Post by Dave Head
On Sun, 4 Jul 2010 08:54:38 -0700 (PDT), Larry G

" eo Metro? - 47 mpg.  Howzzat for an around-town car?  Try
finding something like that right now.  But, it was very small"

Yeah, but even that butt-ugly "Smart Car" is isn't that efficient - I
had already downloaded last year's Fuel Economy Guide from the Feds
smart fortwo convertible automatic 33/41
smart fortwo coupe automatic 33/41
Not really outstanding for what you give up in space and styling.  Why
the hell did they make it so tall?  Why not lay the driver down and
cut frontal area?  I just don't get it.  I might buy it if it was the
only car on the market.

otherwise known as a world car and the most common version of personal
transportation .

Sorry to hear that.  The rest of the world is aesthetically
challenged, I'd say.

$7 gas and the recreation industry... hey... they have RV's in other
countries - they're the size and functionality of the VW Camper
though....

And  Americans will feel abused if they have to do that, and likely
simply NOT do it.  I sure wouldn't go anywhere long distance in a VW
camper of old - dunno what they look like now - and don't forget
Euopeans don't have as far to go generally as an American does when he
hits the road.  

why do they have trains and buses and we do not?

We don't have the population density to support trains AND people
would rather drive because they can get there just about as fast
anyway.  And its cheaper to drive, 'cuz we don't have the
infrastructure in most destinations we might take the train to, so we
have to rent a car just as soon as we step off the thing.  Plus,
riding the bus is usually a "poor people" thing and there's lots of
criminals who mingle with the poor people, so you're less safe if
you're riding a bus than if you're that driving.
PLUS, if you try to take the train, when you drive to the station such
as DC's Union Station, the PARKING is out the wazoo expensive.  And
the train is no cheaper than an airplane, BTW.

why do they not have to live far from work and we do?

Maybe they don't have a lot of pinheads that believe in "zoning".
Zoning is an egregious violation of property rights in my opinion, and
should not exist.  And, in this case, is actually harmful to our
country.

and I love the reason given that because we are more crime-ridden, we
have to use more energy...  now that's _some_ statement about a "more
productive" America...eh?

just FYI - the "smart for 2" is not world car of the Chevy Geo Class.
There are at least a dozen cars of that size that that are roughly
twice as efficient as the smart for two - which is a big zero in
countries that require more efficiency. Cars that get 50 mpg with a
SOLO driver inside are twice as efficieint as SUVs with one guy
inside ... right?

we're expensing twice the energy to do what - move tonnage?

[Dave Head]

On Sun, 4 Jul 2010 11:06:12 -0700 (PDT), Larry G

Post by Larry G

Post by Dave Head
On Sun, 4 Jul 2010 08:54:38 -0700 (PDT), Larry G

" eo Metro? - 47 mpg.  Howzzat for an around-town car?  Try
finding something like that right now.  But, it was very small"

Yeah, but even that butt-ugly "Smart Car" is isn't that efficient - I
had already downloaded last year's Fuel Economy Guide from the Feds
smart fortwo convertible automatic 33/41
smart fortwo coupe automatic 33/41
Not really outstanding for what you give up in space and styling.  Why
the hell did they make it so tall?  Why not lay the driver down and
cut frontal area?  I just don't get it.  I might buy it if it was the
only car on the market.

otherwise known as a world car and the most common version of personal
transportation .

Sorry to hear that.  The rest of the world is aesthetically
challenged, I'd say.

$7 gas and the recreation industry... hey... they have RV's in other
countries - they're the size and functionality of the VW Camper
though....

And  Americans will feel abused if they have to do that, and likely
simply NOT do it.  I sure wouldn't go anywhere long distance in a VW
camper of old - dunno what they look like now - and don't forget
Euopeans don't have as far to go generally as an American does when he
hits the road.  

why do they have trains and buses and we do not?

We don't have the population density to support trains AND people
would rather drive because they can get there just about as fast
anyway.  And its cheaper to drive, 'cuz we don't have the
infrastructure in most destinations we might take the train to, so we
have to rent a car just as soon as we step off the thing.  Plus,
riding the bus is usually a "poor people" thing and there's lots of
criminals who mingle with the poor people, so you're less safe if
you're riding a bus than if you're that driving.
PLUS, if you try to take the train, when you drive to the station such
as DC's Union Station, the PARKING is out the wazoo expensive.  And
the train is no cheaper than an airplane, BTW.

why do they not have to live far from work and we do?

Maybe they don't have a lot of pinheads that believe in "zoning".
Zoning is an egregious violation of property rights in my opinion, and
should not exist.  And, in this case, is actually harmful to our
country.

and I love the reason given that because we are more crime-ridden, we
have to use more energy...  now that's _some_ statement about a "more
productive" America...eh?

just FYI - the "smart for 2" is not world car of the Chevy Geo Class.
There are at least a dozen cars of that size that that are roughly
twice as efficient as the smart for two - which is a big zero in
countries that require more efficiency. Cars that get 50 mpg with a
SOLO driver inside are twice as efficieint as SUVs with one guy
inside ... right?
we're expensing twice the energy to do what - move tonnage?

People generally have many jobs for their cars to do. Just getting to
work, they only need a rollerskate of a car that can get great
mileage. After work, they may need to take a pile of kids to little
league or transport 3 small kids that all need car seats. Car seats
are huge, and you don't put 3 of 'em in any sort of small car, esp.
since you can't put any in the front because of air bags. IOW, you
need a big van or SUV or something like that. So, that's what you
buy, and that's what you end up driving to work.

[Dave Head]

On Sat, 3 Jul 2010 15:12:48 -0700 (PDT), Larry G

Post by Larry G

Post by clouddreamer

Post by Dave Head
We could do a lot, if it wasn't for our gov't being 'round the bend on
a few subjects like pollution and safety.  I DON'T need a 3000 lb car
to go from point A to point B, but my Subaru WRX is that much.  And,
the Subaru has gotten the highest awards for safety that there are.
But they are tanks, compared to what is possible if we can just
convert to not having accidents as a strategy for safety, rather than
building tanks...

But for the size of them, Subarus are very fuel efficient. My Forester
PZEV gets under 10L/100 km (and emits less GHG than a hybrid). I know of
a Ford Focus that can't get that gas mileage driving the same roads I do.

but a Subaru would be a gas guzzler in Europe or Japan?

Yes.

[r***@gmail.com]

Post by mr ***@harvarduniversity.edu

Post by Larry G
most countries in the industrialized world who compete against us use,
on average, 1/2 the per capita consumption and yet they still have
very productive economies.

You fail to mention that these are very small socialist countries!
mr dude

did you major in lying?????

Britian, 85 million, France 65 milllion are "very small, socialist
countries!"


and the US of A has done so very, very well since 1990, hasn't it????

6 yrs of idiot repubs and 8 yrs of idiot GWB, aa it makes for a
diffcult repair job

and idiots like dum dum elkins want to go back to that idiocy

[mr [e-mail]]

Post by r***@gmail.com

Post by mr ***@harvarduniversity.edu

Post by Larry G
most countries in the industrialized world who compete against us use,
on average, 1/2 the per capita consumption and yet they still have
very productive economies.

You fail to mention that these are very small socialist countries!
mr dude

did you major in lying?????
Britian, 85 million, France 65 milllion are "very small, socialist
countries!"

You do realize that the US has over 300 million people don't you?

You do realize that the US is a vast territory?

European countries and US states. Here are some comparison numbers:

France (211,000 square miles) is between Texas (269,000 square miles)
and California (164,000 square miles) in size. Austria (32,000 square
miles) has almost exactly the same area as Maine.

mr dude (please compare France that covers only ONE of 50 states (57
if you Obama) to our entire country)

[r***@gmail.com]

Post by mr ***@harvarduniversity.edu

Post by r***@gmail.com

Post by mr ***@harvarduniversity.edu

Post by Larry G
most countries in the industrialized world who compete against us use,
on average, 1/2 the per capita consumption and yet they still have
very productive economies.

You fail to mention that these are very small socialist countries!
mr dude

did you major in lying?????
Britian, 85 million, France 65 milllion are "very small, socialist
countries!"

You do realize that the US has over 300 million people don't you?
You do realize that the US is a vast territory?
France (211,000 square miles) is between Texas (269,000 square miles)
and California (164,000 square miles) in size. Austria (32,000 square
miles) has almost exactly the same area as Maine.
mr dude (please compare France that covers only ONE of 50 states (57
if you Obama) to our entire country)- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

I guess English is not your native language as the above makes no
sense.

Apparently you enjoy having most of those 300 million people living in
poverty, and having limited access to transportation.

Apparently you enjoy having mass numbers of people, who cannot
drive, , or SHOULD NOT drive, or have no access to your prized
automobile, being without transport.

Between England and France they have half out population. Everyone
of their people have access to very reasonable and efficient
transportaton without driving.

Can you say that for ANY US state?

[Matthew Russotto]

Post by r***@gmail.com

Post by mr ***@harvarduniversity.edu

Post by r***@gmail.com

Post by mr ***@harvarduniversity.edu

most countries in the industrialized world who compete against us u=

se,

Post by mr ***@harvarduniversity.edu

Post by r***@gmail.com

Post by mr ***@harvarduniversity.edu

on average, 1/2 the per capita consumption and yet they still have
very productive economies.

You fail to mention that these are very small socialist countries!
mr dude

did you major in lying?????
Britian, 85 million, France 65 milllion are "very small, socialist
countries!"

You do realize that the US has over 300 million people don't you?
You do realize that the US is a vast territory?
France (211,000 square miles) is between Texas (269,000 square miles)
and California (164,000 square miles) in size. Austria (32,000 square
miles) has almost exactly the same area as Maine.
mr dude (please compare France that covers only ONE of 50 states (57
if you Obama) to our entire country)- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

I guess English is not your native language as the above makes no
sense.
Apparently you enjoy having most of those 300 million people living in
poverty, and having limited access to transportation.

In the US, even the poor have cars.

[Dave Head]

Post by Matthew Russotto

Post by r***@gmail.com

Post by mr ***@harvarduniversity.edu

Post by r***@gmail.com

Post by mr ***@harvarduniversity.edu

most countries in the industrialized world who compete against us u=

se,

Post by mr ***@harvarduniversity.edu

Post by r***@gmail.com

Post by mr ***@harvarduniversity.edu

on average, 1/2 the per capita consumption and yet they still have
very productive economies.

You fail to mention that these are very small socialist countries!
mr dude

did you major in lying?????
Britian, 85 million, France 65 milllion are "very small, socialist
countries!"

You do realize that the US has over 300 million people don't you?
You do realize that the US is a vast territory?
France (211,000 square miles) is between Texas (269,000 square miles)
and California (164,000 square miles) in size. Austria (32,000 square
miles) has almost exactly the same area as Maine.
mr dude (please compare France that covers only ONE of 50 states (57
if you Obama) to our entire country)- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

I guess English is not your native language as the above makes no
sense.
Apparently you enjoy having most of those 300 million people living in
poverty, and having limited access to transportation.

In the US, even the poor have cars.

Not true. There's people walking along the road out here in the
Virginia countryside all the time. They're too poor to have cars, and
walk really long distances to get to work. I'm always terrified that
I'll miss the fact that one of them is there, and hit them. They
sometimes dress in dark clothing and go walking at night, too, in the
same direction as traffic, too. Geeeezzzz....

[clouddreamer]

Post by Matthew Russotto
In the US, even the poor have cars.

Wow, what a narrow minded view.

..

[Dave Head]

On Sun, 04 Jul 2010 09:35:43 -0230, clouddreamer

Post by clouddreamer
We must change the way we live
Or the climate will do it for us.

Ain't you figured out yet that GW is a scam? I mean, how plain does
it have to get - there's been NO warming for the last 10 year, the
East Anglia University bunch's e-mails have exposed their bias and
attempt to suppress data that disagrees with what they're promoting,
and the GW's refusal to debate the topic at all. They claim that it
is settled science, but there are vast numbers of scientists that
question it. And then there's this video I really like:

http://www.kusi.com/home/78477082.html?video=pop&t=a

C'mon, wise up - this GW stuff is just a way to cart wheelbarrow loads
of money out of the USA to "do something" about the problem. Even
their own approaches such as the Kyoto treaty that failed miserably
because nobody lived up to it was supposedly only going to lower the
temperature by a few tenths of a degree by year 2100.

The only way to do this would be to nuke the planet and kill all the
people, but then there's no reason to save the planet, y'know?

[Harry K]

Post by Dave Head
On Sun, 04 Jul 2010 09:35:43 -0230, clouddreamer

Post by clouddreamer
We must change the way we live
       Or the climate will do it for us.

Ain't you figured out yet that GW is a scam?  I mean, how plain does
it have to get - there's been NO warming for the last 10 year, the
East Anglia University bunch's e-mails have exposed their bias and
attempt to suppress data that disagrees with what they're promoting,
and the GW's refusal to debate the topic at all.  They claim that it
is settled science, but there are vast numbers of scientists that
http://www.kusi.com/home/78477082.html?video=pop&t=a
C'mon, wise up - this GW stuff is just a way to cart wheelbarrow loads
of money out of the USA to "do something" about the problem.  Even
their own approaches such as the Kyoto treaty that failed miserably
because nobody lived up to it was supposedly only going to lower the
temperature by a few tenths of a degree by year 2100.
The only way to do this would be to nuke the planet and kill all the
people, but then there's no reason to save the planet, y'know?

And in spite of the denialists constant denials, the ice just keeps on
disappearing.

Harry K

[Dave Head]

On Sun, 4 Jul 2010 06:55:05 -0700 (PDT), Harry K

Post by Harry K

Post by Dave Head
On Sun, 04 Jul 2010 09:35:43 -0230, clouddreamer

Post by clouddreamer
We must change the way we live
       Or the climate will do it for us.

Ain't you figured out yet that GW is a scam?  I mean, how plain does
it have to get - there's been NO warming for the last 10 year, the
East Anglia University bunch's e-mails have exposed their bias and
attempt to suppress data that disagrees with what they're promoting,
and the GW's refusal to debate the topic at all.  They claim that it
is settled science, but there are vast numbers of scientists that
http://www.kusi.com/home/78477082.html?video=pop&t=a
C'mon, wise up - this GW stuff is just a way to cart wheelbarrow loads
of money out of the USA to "do something" about the problem.  Even
their own approaches such as the Kyoto treaty that failed miserably
because nobody lived up to it was supposedly only going to lower the
temperature by a few tenths of a degree by year 2100.
The only way to do this would be to nuke the planet and kill all the
people, but then there's no reason to save the planet, y'know?

And in spite of the denialists constant denials, the ice just keeps on
disappearing.
Harry K

Ya' mean like its been doing since the end of the last ice age? Sure.

Oh, wait - ice is thickening in the antarctic.

[Harry K]

Post by Dave Head
On Sun, 4 Jul 2010 06:55:05 -0700 (PDT), Harry K

Post by Harry K

Post by Dave Head
On Sun, 04 Jul 2010 09:35:43 -0230, clouddreamer

Post by clouddreamer
We must change the way we live
Or the climate will do it for us.

Ain't you figured out yet that GW is a scam? I mean, how plain does
it have to get - there's been NO warming for the last 10 year, the
East Anglia University bunch's e-mails have exposed their bias and
attempt to suppress data that disagrees with what they're promoting,
and the GW's refusal to debate the topic at all. They claim that it
is settled science, but there are vast numbers of scientists that
http://www.kusi.com/home/78477082.html?video=pop&t=a
C'mon, wise up - this GW stuff is just a way to cart wheelbarrow loads
of money out of the USA to "do something" about the problem. Even
their own approaches such as the Kyoto treaty that failed miserably
because nobody lived up to it was supposedly only going to lower the
temperature by a few tenths of a degree by year 2100.
The only way to do this would be to nuke the planet and kill all the
people, but then there's no reason to save the planet, y'know?

And in spite of the denialists constant denials, the ice just keeps on
disappearing.
Harry K

Ya' mean like its been doing since the end of the last ice age?  Sure.
Oh, wait - ice is thickening in the antarctic.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

Sorry but if you check it out, the ice is building up in one small
part of the continent. Whether the total ice down there is gaining,
loosing or remaining the same is not certain...or at least that was
the status several months ago when I checked out that denialist claim.

Harry K

[Larry G]

Post by Harry K

Post by Dave Head
On Sun, 04 Jul 2010 09:35:43 -0230, clouddreamer

Post by clouddreamer
We must change the way we live
       Or the climate will do it for us.

Ain't you figured out yet that GW is a scam?  I mean, how plain does
it have to get - there's been NO warming for the last 10 year, the
East Anglia University bunch's e-mails have exposed their bias and
attempt to suppress data that disagrees with what they're promoting,
and the GW's refusal to debate the topic at all.  They claim that it
is settled science, but there are vast numbers of scientists that
http://www.kusi.com/home/78477082.html?video=pop&t=a
C'mon, wise up - this GW stuff is just a way to cart wheelbarrow loads
of money out of the USA to "do something" about the problem.  Even
their own approaches such as the Kyoto treaty that failed miserably
because nobody lived up to it was supposedly only going to lower the
temperature by a few tenths of a degree by year 2100.
The only way to do this would be to nuke the planet and kill all the
people, but then there's no reason to save the planet, y'know?

And in spite of the denialists constant denials, the ice just keeps on
disappearing.
Harry K

well you know what the GW skeptics say... "stuff happens".

[Larry G]

Post by Dave Head
On Sun, 04 Jul 2010 09:35:43 -0230, clouddreamer

Post by clouddreamer
We must change the way we live
       Or the climate will do it for us.

Ain't you figured out yet that GW is a scam?  I mean, how plain does
it have to get - there's been NO warming for the last 10 year, the
East Anglia University bunch's e-mails have exposed their bias and
attempt to suppress data that disagrees with what they're promoting,
and the GW's refusal to debate the topic at all.  They claim that it
is settled science, but there are vast numbers of scientists that
http://www.kusi.com/home/78477082.html?video=pop&t=a
C'mon, wise up - this GW stuff is just a way to cart wheelbarrow loads
of money out of the USA to "do something" about the problem.  Even
their own approaches such as the Kyoto treaty that failed miserably
because nobody lived up to it was supposedly only going to lower the
temperature by a few tenths of a degree by year 2100.
The only way to do this would be to nuke the planet and kill all the
people, but then there's no reason to save the planet, y'know?

hmmm. do you think the ozone holes were scams also?

and GW.. if we require stricter pollution restrictions - won't that
create more jobs and at the same time save fuel making us even more
productive?

[Otto Yamamoto]

Post by Larry G
and GW.. if we require stricter pollution restrictions - won't that
create more jobs and at the same time save fuel making us even more
productive?

No, No, No. It's all a commie plot to take away our FREEDOM, Guns, Huge
Fucking SUVS, and make us all wear Dashikis and Fezzes and sandals made
from used tyres and celebrate diversity by treating everyone as if they
were human and yadda yadda yadda clang! honk! tweet!

Christ, you'd think you'd know the drill by now. BBL. I has to go out and
eat a 'liberal's' SPLEEN.

[Dave Head]

On Sun, 4 Jul 2010 09:00:19 -0700 (PDT), Larry G

Post by Larry G

Post by Dave Head
On Sun, 04 Jul 2010 09:35:43 -0230, clouddreamer

Post by clouddreamer
We must change the way we live
       Or the climate will do it for us.

Ain't you figured out yet that GW is a scam?  I mean, how plain does
it have to get - there's been NO warming for the last 10 year, the
East Anglia University bunch's e-mails have exposed their bias and
attempt to suppress data that disagrees with what they're promoting,
and the GW's refusal to debate the topic at all.  They claim that it
is settled science, but there are vast numbers of scientists that
http://www.kusi.com/home/78477082.html?video=pop&t=a
C'mon, wise up - this GW stuff is just a way to cart wheelbarrow loads
of money out of the USA to "do something" about the problem.  Even
their own approaches such as the Kyoto treaty that failed miserably
because nobody lived up to it was supposedly only going to lower the
temperature by a few tenths of a degree by year 2100.
The only way to do this would be to nuke the planet and kill all the
people, but then there's no reason to save the planet, y'know?

hmmm. do you think the ozone holes were scams also?
and GW.. if we require stricter pollution restrictions - won't that
create more jobs and at the same time save fuel making us even more
productive?

More pollution controls moves jobs overseas. Yeah, it creates lots of
jobs in Korea and China and India.

[John Lansford]

Post by Dave Head
On Sun, 4 Jul 2010 09:00:19 -0700 (PDT), Larry G

Post by Larry G

Post by Dave Head
On Sun, 04 Jul 2010 09:35:43 -0230, clouddreamer

Post by clouddreamer
We must change the way we live
       Or the climate will do it for us.

Ain't you figured out yet that GW is a scam?  I mean, how plain does
it have to get - there's been NO warming for the last 10 year, the
East Anglia University bunch's e-mails have exposed their bias and
attempt to suppress data that disagrees with what they're promoting,
and the GW's refusal to debate the topic at all.  They claim that it
is settled science, but there are vast numbers of scientists that
http://www.kusi.com/home/78477082.html?video=pop&t=a
C'mon, wise up - this GW stuff is just a way to cart wheelbarrow loads
of money out of the USA to "do something" about the problem.  Even
their own approaches such as the Kyoto treaty that failed miserably
because nobody lived up to it was supposedly only going to lower the
temperature by a few tenths of a degree by year 2100.
The only way to do this would be to nuke the planet and kill all the
people, but then there's no reason to save the planet, y'know?

hmmm. do you think the ozone holes were scams also?
and GW.. if we require stricter pollution restrictions - won't that
create more jobs and at the same time save fuel making us even more
productive?

More pollution controls moves jobs overseas. Yeah, it creates lots of
jobs in Korea and China and India.

I suppose we should eliminate all pollution controls, then. Why,
everyone would soon be employed and our economy running at full speed!

While we're at it, let's get rid of those annoying regulations on the
banking industry, oh, and the mining and oil exploration industries
too. That ought to work our really well and take care of our energy
problems!

(note; the above is sarcasm, for those too mentally dense to not
figure it out for themselves)

John Lansford, PE
--
John's Shop of Wood
http://wood.jlansford.net/

[Dave Head]

On Sun, 04 Jul 2010 13:55:15 -0400, John Lansford

Post by John Lansford

Post by Dave Head
On Sun, 4 Jul 2010 09:00:19 -0700 (PDT), Larry G

Post by Larry G

Post by Dave Head
On Sun, 04 Jul 2010 09:35:43 -0230, clouddreamer

Post by clouddreamer
We must change the way we live
       Or the climate will do it for us.

Ain't you figured out yet that GW is a scam?  I mean, how plain does
it have to get - there's been NO warming for the last 10 year, the
East Anglia University bunch's e-mails have exposed their bias and
attempt to suppress data that disagrees with what they're promoting,
and the GW's refusal to debate the topic at all.  They claim that it
is settled science, but there are vast numbers of scientists that
http://www.kusi.com/home/78477082.html?video=pop&t=a
C'mon, wise up - this GW stuff is just a way to cart wheelbarrow loads
of money out of the USA to "do something" about the problem.  Even
their own approaches such as the Kyoto treaty that failed miserably
because nobody lived up to it was supposedly only going to lower the
temperature by a few tenths of a degree by year 2100.
The only way to do this would be to nuke the planet and kill all the
people, but then there's no reason to save the planet, y'know?

hmmm. do you think the ozone holes were scams also?
and GW.. if we require stricter pollution restrictions - won't that
create more jobs and at the same time save fuel making us even more
productive?

More pollution controls moves jobs overseas. Yeah, it creates lots of
jobs in Korea and China and India.

I suppose we should eliminate all pollution controls, then. Why,
everyone would soon be employed and our economy running at full speed!

We should do what we have to, not what every extremist in the country
can think up.

[Free Lunch]

Post by Dave Head
On Sun, 04 Jul 2010 13:55:15 -0400, John Lansford

Post by John Lansford

Post by Dave Head
On Sun, 4 Jul 2010 09:00:19 -0700 (PDT), Larry G

Post by Larry G

Post by Dave Head
On Sun, 04 Jul 2010 09:35:43 -0230, clouddreamer

Post by clouddreamer
We must change the way we live
       Or the climate will do it for us.

Ain't you figured out yet that GW is a scam?  I mean, how plain does
it have to get - there's been NO warming for the last 10 year, the
East Anglia University bunch's e-mails have exposed their bias and
attempt to suppress data that disagrees with what they're promoting,
and the GW's refusal to debate the topic at all.  They claim that it
is settled science, but there are vast numbers of scientists that
http://www.kusi.com/home/78477082.html?video=pop&t=a
C'mon, wise up - this GW stuff is just a way to cart wheelbarrow loads
of money out of the USA to "do something" about the problem.  Even
their own approaches such as the Kyoto treaty that failed miserably
because nobody lived up to it was supposedly only going to lower the
temperature by a few tenths of a degree by year 2100.
The only way to do this would be to nuke the planet and kill all the
people, but then there's no reason to save the planet, y'know?

hmmm. do you think the ozone holes were scams also?
and GW.. if we require stricter pollution restrictions - won't that
create more jobs and at the same time save fuel making us even more
productive?

More pollution controls moves jobs overseas. Yeah, it creates lots of
jobs in Korea and China and India.

I suppose we should eliminate all pollution controls, then. Why,
everyone would soon be employed and our economy running at full speed!

We should do what we have to, not what every extremist in the country
can think up.

So, how many people should die from pollution?

[Larry G]

Post by Dave Head
On Sun, 4 Jul 2010 09:00:19 -0700 (PDT), Larry G

Post by Larry G

Post by Dave Head
On Sun, 04 Jul 2010 09:35:43 -0230, clouddreamer

Post by clouddreamer
We must change the way we live
       Or the climate will do it for us.

Ain't you figured out yet that GW is a scam?  I mean, how plain does
it have to get - there's been NO warming for the last 10 year, the
East Anglia University bunch's e-mails have exposed their bias and
attempt to suppress data that disagrees with what they're promoting,
and the GW's refusal to debate the topic at all.  They claim that it
is settled science, but there are vast numbers of scientists that
http://www.kusi.com/home/78477082.html?video=pop&t=a
C'mon, wise up - this GW stuff is just a way to cart wheelbarrow loads
of money out of the USA to "do something" about the problem.  Even
their own approaches such as the Kyoto treaty that failed miserably
because nobody lived up to it was supposedly only going to lower the
temperature by a few tenths of a degree by year 2100.
The only way to do this would be to nuke the planet and kill all the
people, but then there's no reason to save the planet, y'know?

hmmm. do you think the ozone holes were scams also?
and GW..   if we require stricter pollution restrictions - won't that
create more jobs and at the same time save fuel making us even more
productive?

More pollution controls moves jobs overseas.  Yeah, it creates lots of
jobs in Korea and China and India.

it might... I don't disagree with that.

but what does that have to do with worldwide agreement that the Ozone
holes are real and the same climate folks associated with GW claimed
the existence of the Ozone holes. Why do you believe them in one case
and think it's a scam in the second case ?

[Dave Head]

On Sun, 4 Jul 2010 11:08:40 -0700 (PDT), Larry G

Post by Larry G

Post by Dave Head
On Sun, 4 Jul 2010 09:00:19 -0700 (PDT), Larry G

Post by Larry G

Post by Dave Head
On Sun, 04 Jul 2010 09:35:43 -0230, clouddreamer

Post by clouddreamer
We must change the way we live
       Or the climate will do it for us.

Ain't you figured out yet that GW is a scam?  I mean, how plain does
it have to get - there's been NO warming for the last 10 year, the
East Anglia University bunch's e-mails have exposed their bias and
attempt to suppress data that disagrees with what they're promoting,
and the GW's refusal to debate the topic at all.  They claim that it
is settled science, but there are vast numbers of scientists that
http://www.kusi.com/home/78477082.html?video=pop&t=a
C'mon, wise up - this GW stuff is just a way to cart wheelbarrow loads
of money out of the USA to "do something" about the problem.  Even
their own approaches such as the Kyoto treaty that failed miserably
because nobody lived up to it was supposedly only going to lower the
temperature by a few tenths of a degree by year 2100.
The only way to do this would be to nuke the planet and kill all the
people, but then there's no reason to save the planet, y'know?

hmmm. do you think the ozone holes were scams also?
and GW..   if we require stricter pollution restrictions - won't that
create more jobs and at the same time save fuel making us even more
productive?

More pollution controls moves jobs overseas.  Yeah, it creates lots of
jobs in Korea and China and India.

it might... I don't disagree with that.
but what does that have to do with worldwide agreement that the Ozone
holes are real and the same climate folks associated with GW claimed
the existence of the Ozone holes. Why do you believe them in one case
and think it's a scam in the second case ?

The ozone hole had a doable cure, that wasn't designed to bankrupt the
free world.

Global warming is different in that the proponents will not discuss
their work, publish their research or debate the topic. They lie
their asses off to convince people that there is a consensus of
scientific opinion where there is not. Their approach of attacking
CO2 is doomed to failure and they know it, and they abhor
geo-engineering approaches that short-circuit their preferred,
impossibly-expensive approach of reducing CO2.

Proper scientific research is published with full information required
to allow independent researchers to duplicate your lab results. But
that isn't how the global warming proponents do things. They've even
claimed to have lost the original temperature data by erasing the
magnetic tapes it was on.

The whole thing stinks to high heaven in the halls of science. It's
great for a circus sideshow, but we shouldn't be spending more than
about $5 to get in and look, certainly not $50 TRILLION that we don't
have by the year 2050 to attack it.

We should attempt to adapt to it, or we should attempt to geo-engineer
the solution cheaply. If it turns out to be real, which is a very
valid question all by itself, we'll either adapt or we won't, or be
succesful with geoengineering or we won't. But we will NOT be
successful with $50 Trillion pipe dreams over the next 40 years. We
don't have the money and won't have the money. And if America tries
to do something along this line, we'll look around and find ourselves
the only ones, and the Chinese will still be digging coal and so will
the Indians.

[Larry G]

Post by Dave Head
On Sun, 4 Jul 2010 11:08:40 -0700 (PDT), Larry G

Post by Larry G

Post by Dave Head
On Sun, 4 Jul 2010 09:00:19 -0700 (PDT), Larry G

Post by Larry G

Post by Dave Head
On Sun, 04 Jul 2010 09:35:43 -0230, clouddreamer

Post by clouddreamer
We must change the way we live
       Or the climate will do it for us.

Ain't you figured out yet that GW is a scam?  I mean, how plain does
it have to get - there's been NO warming for the last 10 year, the
East Anglia University bunch's e-mails have exposed their bias and
attempt to suppress data that disagrees with what they're promoting,
and the GW's refusal to debate the topic at all.  They claim that it
is settled science, but there are vast numbers of scientists that
http://www.kusi.com/home/78477082.html?video=pop&t=a
C'mon, wise up - this GW stuff is just a way to cart wheelbarrow loads
of money out of the USA to "do something" about the problem.  Even
their own approaches such as the Kyoto treaty that failed miserably
because nobody lived up to it was supposedly only going to lower the
temperature by a few tenths of a degree by year 2100.
The only way to do this would be to nuke the planet and kill all the
people, but then there's no reason to save the planet, y'know?

hmmm. do you think the ozone holes were scams also?
and GW..   if we require stricter pollution restrictions - won't that
create more jobs and at the same time save fuel making us even more
productive?

More pollution controls moves jobs overseas.  Yeah, it creates lots of
jobs in Korea and China and India.

it might... I don't disagree with that.
but what does that have to do with worldwide agreement that the Ozone
holes are real and the same climate folks associated with GW claimed
the existence of the Ozone holes.  Why do you believe them in one case
and think it's a scam in the second case ?

The ozone hole had a doable cure, that wasn't designed to bankrupt the
free world.
Global warming is different in that the proponents will not discuss
their work, publish their research or debate the topic.  They lie
their asses off to convince people that there is a consensus of
scientific opinion where there is not.  Their approach of attacking
CO2 is doomed to failure and they know it, and they abhor
geo-engineering approaches that short-circuit their preferred,
impossibly-expensive approach of reducing CO2.  
Proper scientific research is published with full information required
to allow independent researchers to duplicate your lab results.  But
that isn't how the global warming proponents do things.  They've even
claimed to have lost the original temperature data by erasing the
magnetic tapes it was on.
The whole thing stinks to high heaven in the halls of science.  It's
great for a circus sideshow, but we shouldn't be spending more than
about $5 to get in and look, certainly not $50 TRILLION  that we don't
have by the year 2050 to attack it.
We should attempt to adapt to it, or we should attempt to geo-engineer
the solution cheaply.  If it turns out to be real, which is a very
valid question all by itself, we'll either adapt or we won't, or be
succesful with geoengineering or we won't.  But we will NOT be
successful with $50 Trillion pipe dreams over the next 40 years.  We
don't have the money and won't have the money.  And if America tries
to do something along this line, we'll look around and find ourselves
the only ones, and the Chinese will still be digging coal and so will
the Indians.

" The ozone hole had a doable cure, that wasn't designed to bankrupt
the
free world. "

the "cure" was not "designed" to be expensive nor cheap. It was what
it was. We had to do what was necessary to deal with it. If you
recall, there were people who also questioned it - as a threat and as
an economic disincentive.

Is GW different because the cost is so much more even though the
threat is no better or worse defined or "proveable"?

GW is a lot like the oil spill in my view. It was an infinitesimal
chance that we have a worst case scenario.. such that virtually
everyone wrote it off but now look what happens when a highly doubtful
but highly destructive scenario actually plays out.

If GW ...COULD BE ... 100 times worse than the Gulf oil spill... are
we still so sure that it's not worth us doing ANYTHING AT ALL about it
and instead conduct a partisan witch hunt of those we think "lied"
about it?

if you ever thought that scientists don't "color" their work then
you'd be a bigger rube than you ever should have been. There are
myriad ways to "present" data - since science began and when people
don't like the results or the implications of the results, the
scientists are attacked for not telling the truth.

Even time a NOAA scientist "predicts" a hurricane or a tsunami, he/she
is "presenting" data. This is why now you see 5 or 10 different
computer models showing different potential storm tracks for the same
storm.

And after the storm occurs - not a single one of the 5 or 10
"predictions" turn out to be "true" but do we consider all the
scientists and their hurricane models lying sacks of crap?

The folks who doubt GW are ignorant - plain and simple in my view.

They do not understand science nor how science really does work (and
not work) AND the don't like the terrible implications of GW if it
actually turns out to be as true as some scientists say it will be -
so they basically become "deniers"... much like their counterparts
back in medieval times...

I do not know if GW is any more real or false than I know if several
scientists with computer models are correct or not about a hurricane
track or a tsunami wave height or speed but I'd be downright ignorant
to say that because one of them "lied" about some of the assumptions
he used in his computer model that it proves that the whole lot of
them are liars and all of their work is wrong.

that's ignorant.

If we used the same framework that some folks are now using to deny
GW, we should trust virtually none of the other earth science that
that community of scientists also predict - like Ozone Holes or
Hurricane Tracks.

[Beam Me Up Scotty]

Post by Dave Head
On Sun, 4 Jul 2010 11:08:40 -0700 (PDT), Larry G

Post by Larry G

Post by Dave Head
On Sun, 4 Jul 2010 09:00:19 -0700 (PDT), Larry G

Post by Larry G

Post by Dave Head
On Sun, 04 Jul 2010 09:35:43 -0230, clouddreamer

Post by clouddreamer
We must change the way we live
Or the climate will do it for us.

Ain't you figured out yet that GW is a scam? I mean, how plain does
it have to get - there's been NO warming for the last 10 year, the
East Anglia University bunch's e-mails have exposed their bias and
attempt to suppress data that disagrees with what they're promoting,
and the GW's refusal to debate the topic at all. They claim that it
is settled science, but there are vast numbers of scientists that
http://www.kusi.com/home/78477082.html?video=pop&t=a
C'mon, wise up - this GW stuff is just a way to cart wheelbarrow loads
of money out of the USA to "do something" about the problem. Even
their own approaches such as the Kyoto treaty that failed miserably
because nobody lived up to it was supposedly only going to lower the
temperature by a few tenths of a degree by year 2100.
The only way to do this would be to nuke the planet and kill all the
people, but then there's no reason to save the planet, y'know?

hmmm. do you think the ozone holes were scams also?
and GW.. if we require stricter pollution restrictions - won't that
create more jobs and at the same time save fuel making us even more
productive?

More pollution controls moves jobs overseas. Yeah, it creates lots of
jobs in Korea and China and India.

it might... I don't disagree with that.
but what does that have to do with worldwide agreement that the Ozone
holes are real and the same climate folks associated with GW claimed
the existence of the Ozone holes. Why do you believe them in one case
and think it's a scam in the second case ?

is the Ozone hole fixed?

[Free Lunch]

Post by Dave Head
On Sun, 4 Jul 2010 11:08:40 -0700 (PDT), Larry G

Post by Larry G

Post by Dave Head
On Sun, 4 Jul 2010 09:00:19 -0700 (PDT), Larry G

Post by Larry G

Post by Dave Head
On Sun, 04 Jul 2010 09:35:43 -0230, clouddreamer

Post by clouddreamer
We must change the way we live
       Or the climate will do it for us.

Ain't you figured out yet that GW is a scam?  I mean, how plain does
it have to get - there's been NO warming for the last 10 year, the
East Anglia University bunch's e-mails have exposed their bias and
attempt to suppress data that disagrees with what they're promoting,
and the GW's refusal to debate the topic at all.  They claim that it
is settled science, but there are vast numbers of scientists that
http://www.kusi.com/home/78477082.html?video=pop&t=a
C'mon, wise up - this GW stuff is just a way to cart wheelbarrow loads
of money out of the USA to "do something" about the problem.  Even
their own approaches such as the Kyoto treaty that failed miserably
because nobody lived up to it was supposedly only going to lower the
temperature by a few tenths of a degree by year 2100.
The only way to do this would be to nuke the planet and kill all the
people, but then there's no reason to save the planet, y'know?

hmmm. do you think the ozone holes were scams also?
and GW..   if we require stricter pollution restrictions - won't that
create more jobs and at the same time save fuel making us even more
productive?

More pollution controls moves jobs overseas.  Yeah, it creates lots of
jobs in Korea and China and India.

it might... I don't disagree with that.
but what does that have to do with worldwide agreement that the Ozone
holes are real and the same climate folks associated with GW claimed
the existence of the Ozone holes. Why do you believe them in one case
and think it's a scam in the second case ?

The ozone hole had a doable cure, that wasn't designed to bankrupt the
free world.

So does dealing with carbon dioxide pollution.

Post by Dave Head
Global warming is different in that the proponents will not discuss
their work, publish their research or debate the topic.

Nonsense. The scientists who have been working on it have been
publishing for decades.

Post by Dave Head
They lie their asses off to convince people that there is a consensus of
scientific opinion where there is not. Their approach of attacking
CO2 is doomed to failure and they know it, and they abhor
geo-engineering approaches that short-circuit their preferred,
impossibly-expensive approach of reducing CO2.

Who is doing climate research who things that carbon dioxide is not
strongly affecting the climate?

Post by Dave Head
Proper scientific research is published with full information required
to allow independent researchers to duplicate your lab results. But
that isn't how the global warming proponents do things.

You have been lied to by the same folks who told you tobacco was safe.
They are lobbyists, not scientists, and they are being paid by the coal
and gas and oil industries. You are mistaken to believe their lies.

Post by Dave Head
They've even
claimed to have lost the original temperature data by erasing the
magnetic tapes it was on.

Nonsense.

Post by Dave Head
The whole thing stinks to high heaven in the halls of science. It's
great for a circus sideshow, but we shouldn't be spending more than
about $5 to get in and look, certainly not $50 TRILLION that we don't
have by the year 2050 to attack it.

More nonsense about the costs.

Post by Dave Head
We should attempt to adapt to it, or we should attempt to geo-engineer
the solution cheaply. If it turns out to be real, which is a very
valid question all by itself, we'll either adapt or we won't, or be
succesful with geoengineering or we won't. But we will NOT be
successful with $50 Trillion pipe dreams over the next 40 years. We
don't have the money and won't have the money. And if America tries
to do something along this line, we'll look around and find ourselves
the only ones, and the Chinese will still be digging coal and so will
the Indians.

Of course it is real.

No one expects to spend fifty trillion on the problem in the US,
however. We do need to change our profligate use of fossil fuels. We do
need to change our behavior. Don't listen to the lobbyists who want you
to destroy your grandchildren's future.

[Rich Piehl]

Post by Larry G

Post by Dave Head
On Sun, 04 Jul 2010 09:35:43 -0230, clouddreamer

Post by clouddreamer
We must change the way we live
Or the climate will do it for us.

Ain't you figured out yet that GW is a scam? I mean, how plain does
it have to get - there's been NO warming for the last 10 year, the
East Anglia University bunch's e-mails have exposed their bias and
attempt to suppress data that disagrees with what they're promoting,
and the GW's refusal to debate the topic at all. They claim that it
is settled science, but there are vast numbers of scientists that
http://www.kusi.com/home/78477082.html?video=pop&t=a
C'mon, wise up - this GW stuff is just a way to cart wheelbarrow loads
of money out of the USA to "do something" about the problem. Even
their own approaches such as the Kyoto treaty that failed miserably
because nobody lived up to it was supposedly only going to lower the
temperature by a few tenths of a degree by year 2100.
The only way to do this would be to nuke the planet and kill all the
people, but then there's no reason to save the planet, y'know?

hmmm. do you think the ozone holes were scams also?
and GW.. if we require stricter pollution restrictions - won't that
create more jobs and at the same time save fuel making us even more
productive?

Using Spain's results as a model that is an incorrect conclusion to reach

http://www.dispatch.com/live/content/editorials/stories/2009/06/24/will24.ART_ART_06-24-09_A11_MLE94UP.html?sid=101

Post by Larry G
Calzada says Spain's torrential spending -- no other nation has so aggressively supported production of electricity from renewable sources -- on wind farms and other forms of alternative energy has indeed created jobs. But Calzada's report concludes that they often are temporary and have received $752,000 to $800,000 each in subsidies -- wind industry jobs cost even more, $1.4 million each. And each new job entails the loss of 2.2 other jobs that are either lost or not created in other industries because of the political allocation of capital. Calzada says the creation of jobs in alternative energy has subtracted about 110,000 jobs from elsewhere in Spain's economy.

[Larry G]

Post by Rich Piehl

Post by Larry G

Post by Dave Head
On Sun, 04 Jul 2010 09:35:43 -0230, clouddreamer

Post by clouddreamer
We must change the way we live
        Or the climate will do it for us.

Ain't you figured out yet that GW is a scam?  I mean, how plain does
it have to get - there's been NO warming for the last 10 year, the
East Anglia University bunch's e-mails have exposed their bias and
attempt to suppress data that disagrees with what they're promoting,
and the GW's refusal to debate the topic at all.  They claim that it
is settled science, but there are vast numbers of scientists that
http://www.kusi.com/home/78477082.html?video=pop&t=a
C'mon, wise up - this GW stuff is just a way to cart wheelbarrow loads
of money out of the USA to "do something" about the problem.  Even
their own approaches such as the Kyoto treaty that failed miserably
because nobody lived up to it was supposedly only going to lower the
temperature by a few tenths of a degree by year 2100.
The only way to do this would be to nuke the planet and kill all the
people, but then there's no reason to save the planet, y'know?

hmmm. do you think the ozone holes were scams also?
and GW..   if we require stricter pollution restrictions - won't that
create more jobs and at the same time save fuel making us even more
productive?

Using Spain's results as a model that is an incorrect conclusion to reach
http://www.dispatch.com/live/content/editorials/stories/2009/06/24/wi...

Post by Larry G
Calzada says Spain's torrential spending -- no other nation has so aggressively supported production of electricity from renewable sources -- on wind farms and other forms of alternative energy has indeed created jobs. But Calzada's report concludes that they often are temporary and have received $752,000 to $800,000 each in subsidies -- wind industry jobs cost even more, $1.4 million each. And each new job entails the loss of 2.2 other jobs that are either lost or not created in other industries because of the political allocation of capital. Calzada says the creation of jobs in alternative energy has subtracted about 110,000 jobs from elsewhere in Spain's economy.

George Will???

here's a question for you. do you think spending govt money on body
armor, MRAPS and Predator drones - creates jobs?

do you think when they build anti-pollution equipment for coal-powered
plants and municipal wastewater treatment plants - provides jobs?

Would you agree that in both examples given that jobs are produced -
by spending money we don't have?

[A***@gmail.com]

Post by r***@gmail.com

A Harvard study showed that, under the most optomistic scenario, a cap &
trade system would have gasoline running at $7 per gallon.

Bear in mind when you add in the cost oil spill cleanup you're paying
more than $9 a gallon.

Post by r***@gmail.com

Obama is like a woman with an open checkbook.  Every check gets used and
the bitch doesn't worry about the balance.

He took lessaons from the Republicans under Bush.

Post by r***@gmail.com
btw, 10 years ago, did you think gas would be $4 a gal????

As a matter of fact after sitting in gas lines and through
gas crisis of the 70s I fully expectd gas to
be alot higher than $4 a gallon.

You have a war in the Middle east break out
and you could easily see $40 a gallon gas.

[Larry G]

Post by A***@gmail.com

Post by r***@gmail.com

A Harvard study showed that, under the most optomistic scenario, a cap &
trade system would have gasoline running at $7 per gallon.

Bear in mind when you add in the cost oil spill cleanup you're paying
more than $9 a gallon.

Post by r***@gmail.com

Obama is like a woman with an open checkbook.  Every check gets used and
the bitch doesn't worry about the balance.

He took lessaons from the Republicans under Bush.

Post by r***@gmail.com
btw, 10 years ago, did you think gas would be $4 a gal????

As a matter of fact after sitting in gas lines and through
gas crisis of the 70s I fully expectd gas to
be alot higher than $4 a gallon.
You have a war in the Middle east break out
and you could easily see $40 a gallon gas.

naw... the neocons will have us nuke the place for sure

[Ray OHara]

Post by A***@gmail.com

Post by r***@gmail.com

A Harvard study showed that, under the most optomistic scenario, a cap &
trade system would have gasoline running at $7 per gallon.

Bear in mind when you add in the cost oil spill cleanup you're paying
more than $9 a gallon.

Post by r***@gmail.com

Obama is like a woman with an open checkbook. Every check gets used and
the bitch doesn't worry about the balance.

He took lessaons from the Republicans under Bush.

Post by r***@gmail.com
btw, 10 years ago, did you think gas would be $4 a gal????

As a matter of fact after sitting in gas lines and through
gas crisis of the 70s I fully expectd gas to
be alot higher than $4 a gallon.
You have a war in the Middle east break out
and you could easily see $40 a gallon gas.

seeing as we've had a dozen wars in the Middle East your assertion seems a
bit odd.

[Larry G]

Post by A***@gmail.com

Post by r***@gmail.com

A Harvard study showed that, under the most optomistic scenario, a cap &
trade system would have gasoline running at $7 per gallon.

Bear in mind when you add in the cost oil spill cleanup you're paying
more than $9 a gallon.

Post by r***@gmail.com

Obama is like a woman with an open checkbook. Every check gets used and
the bitch doesn't worry about the balance.

He took lessaons from the Republicans under Bush.

Post by r***@gmail.com
btw, 10 years ago, did you think gas would be $4 a gal????

As a matter of fact after sitting in gas lines and through
gas crisis of the 70s I fully expectd gas to
be alot higher than $4 a gallon.
You have a war in the Middle east break out
and you could easily see $40 a gallon gas.

 seeing as we've had a dozen wars in the Middle East your assertion seems a
bit odd.

true - but when you fight those wars off budget... and not counting
that cost as part of what you are paying... then what?

[Ray OHara]

Post by Ray OHara

Post by A***@gmail.com

Post by r***@gmail.com

A Harvard study showed that, under the most optomistic scenario, a
cap
&
trade system would have gasoline running at $7 per gallon.

Bear in mind when you add in the cost oil spill cleanup you're paying
more than $9 a gallon.

Post by r***@gmail.com

Obama is like a woman with an open checkbook. Every check gets used and
the bitch doesn't worry about the balance.

He took lessaons from the Republicans under Bush.

Post by r***@gmail.com
btw, 10 years ago, did you think gas would be $4 a gal????

As a matter of fact after sitting in gas lines and through
gas crisis of the 70s I fully expectd gas to
be alot higher than $4 a gallon.
You have a war in the Middle east break out
and you could easily see $40 a gallon gas.

seeing as we've had a dozen wars in the Middle East your assertion seems a
bit odd.

true - but when you fight those wars off budget... and not counting
that cost as part of what you are paying... then what?


=========================================================================


moving the goal posts are we now.
typical.

[A***@gmail.com]

On Sat, 3 Jul 2010 11:59:32 -0400, "Ray OHara"

Post by Ray OHara

Post by A***@gmail.com
Bear in mind when you add in the cost oil spill cleanup you're paying
more than $9 a gallon.

Post by r***@gmail.com

Obama is like a woman with an open checkbook. Every check gets used and
the bitch doesn't worry about the balance.

He took lessaons from the Republicans under Bush.

Post by r***@gmail.com
btw, 10 years ago, did you think gas would be $4 a gal????

As a matter of fact after sitting in gas lines and through
gas crisis of the 70s I fully expectd gas to
be alot higher than $4 a gallon.
You have a war in the Middle east break out
and you could easily see $40 a gallon gas.

seeing as we've had a dozen wars in the Middle East your assertion seems a
bit odd.

Were you around in the 70s?

If all these various nations got togetther and really co-operated you
could easily see OPEC shut off the spigot forcing the prices
on the commodities market into the $40 a gallon range.

That price is set whethee we drill off the coast of the US of A or
not.

[r***@gmail.com]

Post by A***@gmail.com

Post by r***@gmail.com

A Harvard study showed that, under the most optomistic scenario, a cap &
trade system would have gasoline running at $7 per gallon.

Bear in mind when you add in the cost oil spill cleanup you're paying
more than $9 a gallon.

Post by r***@gmail.com

Obama is like a woman with an open checkbook. Every check gets used and
the bitch doesn't worry about the balance.

He took lessaons from the Republicans under Bush.

Post by r***@gmail.com
btw, 10 years ago, did you think gas would be $4 a gal????

As a matter of fact after sitting in gas lines and through
gas crisis of the 70s I fully expectd gas to
be alot higher than $4 a gallon.
You have a war in the Middle east break out
and you could easily see $40 a gallon gas.

 seeing as we've had a dozen wars in the Middle East your assertion seems a
bit odd.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

so, you are waiting for the next one when when Israel launches a nuke
to blow Iran off the map?????

[Larry G]

Post by r***@gmail.com

Post by A***@gmail.com

Post by r***@gmail.com

A Harvard study showed that, under the most optomistic scenario, a cap &
trade system would have gasoline running at $7 per gallon.

Bear in mind when you add in the cost oil spill cleanup you're paying
more than $9 a gallon.

Post by r***@gmail.com

Obama is like a woman with an open checkbook. Every check gets used and
the bitch doesn't worry about the balance.

He took lessaons from the Republicans under Bush.

Post by r***@gmail.com
btw, 10 years ago, did you think gas would be $4 a gal????

As a matter of fact after sitting in gas lines and through
gas crisis of the 70s I fully expectd gas to
be alot higher than $4 a gallon.
You have a war in the Middle east break out
and you could easily see $40 a gallon gas.

 seeing as we've had a dozen wars in the Middle East your assertion seems a
bit odd.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

so, you are waiting for the next one when when Israel launches a nuke
to blow Iran off the map?????

if that's would be the ONLY bad thing to happen ... but chances are
pretty good Israel would join them in rearranging the world as we know
it in the middle east.

some of the ideas about where oil comes from and who gets it - is less
than reality.

The oil in the middle east is not likely to be put on a tanker and
shipped to a place that already has a lot of closer oil available -
like the Gulf, Venezuela, Mexico, etc - especially when oil is sold on
the world market as a commodity and it is the seller of the oil
contracts that determines where he wants to buy it from the supplier
and ship it - which means if he sells it at a world commodity price -
he makes more profit - the closer he can find a supply to ship - for
less transportation costs.

The "loss" of Middle-East oil ( which more than likely is sold much
more regionally in that part of the world rather than halfway around
the world to where other supplies already exist ) would cause a
cascading effect were Europe and the regional users of Middle East
oil would then look farther away to get their supplies thus causing
more demand on the world market.

Still .. after everything is said and done - if this country used 1/2
of the oil it does now but changing the way we use it to be more like
other countries that use it at 1/2 the per capita rate that we do -
would dramatically lessen our dependence and more important - our
vulnerability to regional or world shortages.

Europe adds a dollar or two to the price of gasoline and then uses
that money to provide wide and deep transit especially for people to
get to and from work ...INSTEAD of the majority of them driving a gas
guzzler (by world standards) SOLO to/from work every day.

I do not know what percentage of our gasoline use is for solo to/from
home/work driving but I'm betting it's a significant percent and
likely one of the major differences in per capita use between this
country and those countries that use it at 1/2 the rate we do.

In other words, we have in this country the ability at the driver
level to do something to reduce our dependency on oil - by simply
carpooling, vanpooling, taking a commuter or intercity bus or other
forms of non-SOLO auto mobility.

It's not like it's something we are incapable of doing. We actually
did quite a bit of it in fact during the 1970's gas shortages.