"Humans 'very likely' making earth warmer" is wrong - Page 36 - Cycling Mob: Road Cycling, Mountain Biking and More

02-06-2007, 04:23 PM

Bill Z. wrote:
> Bill Baka <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> writes:
>
>
> As I said, it will change dramatically once the cost drops, and
> we have made a lot of progress. We just aren't quite there yet.
>
>> That could happen if we stay in Iraq long enough to really piss off
>> the other Arab countries.
>
> You might want to look at how rapidly the price per kilowatt hour
> has been improving for photovoltaic cells and their installation.
>
And that is with minimal research.
Just think what would happen with proper funding.
Take all those Play station and cell phone engineers and let them work
on energy problems.
It COULD happen if it weren't for the profiteering ways of Capitalism.
I'm not knocking Democracy, just the politicians who ignore important
facts to get re-elected.
Bill Baka

02-06-2007, 04:26 PM

Bernd Felsche wrote:
> Bill Baka <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> writes:
>> Joe Fischer wrote:
>>> On Mon, 05 Feb 2007 18:53:04 -0800, The Real Bev
>>> <bashley101+[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote:
>
>>>> Which makes it seem kind of silly to think that what we do matters at
>>>> all on the geological timescale. It matters to us and the people we
>>>> know and the people (our great-great-grandchildren) we might know, but
>>>> the rest might as well be Martians. How much do you worry about Mars
>>>> and the Martians?
>
>>> Hey, watch it, I am a Martian.
>
>> Just think if they dig deep enough to find a long buried city on Mars,
>> indicating that they wiped themselves out. I wonder how we would take it?
>> What if they dug up a 'Human' skeleton?
>
> Joe would sue for desecration of a burial place; that's what!
>
> When are you going to be done writing your Fantasy-SciFi?

Since the Earth is documented at being 4.6 billion years old what makes
you so certain that Mars didn't have life a billion years ago??
It ain't over 'til it's over.
I think that is one of Yogi Berra's famous comments.
Bill Baka

02-06-2007, 04:26 PM

Bill Baka <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> writes:
>Fred G. Mackey wrote:
>> The Real Bev wrote:
>>> Bill Baka wrote:

>>>> Not to the point of 6 billion people. If we mess the planet up
>>>> enough then it will be very hard to produce food for even a few
>>>> million. No food ==== no people.

>>> Why do we NEED 6 billion people?

>> We don't, but until you start considering forced abortions,
>> genocide and euthenasia, there's not much we can do about the
>> population.

>> Are those options acceptable to you?

>I would prefer to limit the baby factories somehow, whether trough
>education or, if need be, by a fertility inhibitor in the food.

Other people are livestock?

>Now the choice would be food and no children or children and starve.

Survival instincts run contrary to "logic". Survival instincts have
"worked" for millions of years.

>>> Repeat: why do we need 6 billion people? I think we were a lot
>>> better off when we had far fewer people, maybe it could be that
>>> way again.

>> Nice idea, but who would you kill?

>See above. Just let them die off from old age or whatever.

Those people are no less human than if you knew them.
Are you able to stand in front of somebody you know and tell them
that they are surplus to requirements?

>> I've never been to Bangladesh, but New Orleans is (yes, it STILL
>> is) a wonderful place. A tragedy occurred there, but remember
>> that nearly 300,000 people were killed in Asia as a result of the
>> tsunami a couple of years ago. Katrina pales in comparison to
>> that. Should we just extreminate everyone in SE Asia?

>> Or should we be more passive about it - refuse to trade with them,
>> refuse to offer aid when disaster strikes?

>Offer free food with the above mentioned fertility inhibitor.

You suggest genocide to "save the world". It's probably rude of me
to point that out; but I'll do it nonetheless because I don't have
the patience to say it more "nicely".
--
/"\ Bernd Felsche - Innovative Reckoning, Perth, Western Australia
\ / ASCII ribbon campaign | "If we let things terrify us,
X against HTML mail | life will not be worth living."
/ \ and postings | Lucius Annaeus Seneca, c. 4BC - 65AD.

02-06-2007, 04:33 PM

Neil Brooks wrote:
> gamer wrote:
>
>> So that's why a Lamborghini gets essentially the same mileage as a
>> Civic on the interstate.
>>
>> Thanks for the insight.
>
> Actually, the Insight gets significantly =better= mileage than either of
> those:
>
> [Only registered and activated users can see links. ]
>
> You're welcome.

That is a car that actually designed to run at the engines optimum
efficiency point or close to it. Since a small car like that only takes
about 8 to 10 HP to make highway speeds it is a fairly simple thing to
achieve 60 MPG. The problem is that car makers can't sell that many
super efficient cars because people still associate land yachts with an
exhibition of 'Status'.
Bill Baka

02-06-2007, 04:38 PM

Bernd Felsche wrote:
> Bill Baka <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> writes:
>> Fred G. Mackey wrote:
>>> The Real Bev wrote:
>>>> Bill Baka wrote:
>
>>>>> Not to the point of 6 billion people. If we mess the planet up
>>>>> enough then it will be very hard to produce food for even a few
>>>>> million. No food ==== no people.
>
>>>> Why do we NEED 6 billion people?
>
>>> We don't, but until you start considering forced abortions,
>>> genocide and euthenasia, there's not much we can do about the
>>> population.
>
>>> Are those options acceptable to you?
>
>> I would prefer to limit the baby factories somehow, whether trough
>> education or, if need be, by a fertility inhibitor in the food.
>
> Other people are livestock?

People are people and "Think" they rule the planet. Too bad we have poor
ruling skills.
>
>> Now the choice would be food and no children or children and starve.
>
> Survival instincts run contrary to "logic". Survival instincts have
> "worked" for millions of years.

Pre-technology. We were just co-existing animals until about 10,000
years ago.
>
>>>> Repeat: why do we need 6 billion people? I think we were a lot
>>>> better off when we had far fewer people, maybe it could be that
>>>> way again.
>
>>> Nice idea, but who would you kill?
>
>> See above. Just let them die off from old age or whatever.
>
> Those people are no less human than if you knew them.
> Are you able to stand in front of somebody you know and tell them
> that they are surplus to requirements?

Let them live, just not procreate.
>
>>> I've never been to Bangladesh, but New Orleans is (yes, it STILL
>>> is) a wonderful place. A tragedy occurred there, but remember
>>> that nearly 300,000 people were killed in Asia as a result of the
>>> tsunami a couple of years ago. Katrina pales in comparison to
>>> that. Should we just extreminate everyone in SE Asia?
>
>>> Or should we be more passive about it - refuse to trade with them,
>>> refuse to offer aid when disaster strikes?
>
>> Offer free food with the above mentioned fertility inhibitor.
>
> You suggest genocide to "save the world". It's probably rude of me
> to point that out; but I'll do it nonetheless because I don't have
> the patience to say it more "nicely".

Not genocide but limited fertility. That way they could enjoy sex and
not have children who are doomed to starvation at 2 years old.
Have you not seen the pictures of the children who are doomed at birth?
Bill Baka

02-06-2007, 05:01 PM

"Fred G. Mackey" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> writes:

>Katrina was never the problem. The problem was that the levees broke.
>If you missed that fact, then there's no hope for your understanding of
>the situation.

A significant contributor to the flooding was the "green" lobby; in
conjunction with funding cuts that turned Katrina into a disaster.
Cuts and political pressure to "preserve the environment" meant that
the civil works that were needed to protect the area weren't done.
It saved a few hundred million dollars; and the preserved
environment produced Katrina.

Katrina was not of unprecedented magnitude. Galveston was destroyed
in 1900. [Only registered and activated users can see links. ]
--
/"\ Bernd Felsche - Innovative Reckoning, Perth, Western Australia
\ / ASCII ribbon campaign | "If we let things terrify us,
X against HTML mail | life will not be worth living."
/ \ and postings | Lucius Annaeus Seneca, c. 4BC - 65AD.

02-06-2007, 05:25 PM

Wayne Pein wrote:
> The Real Bev wrote:
>
>> Every arterial road should be designed to move traffic as quickly as
>> possible. Anything less wastes time and gasoline.
>
> There is no free lunch on speed. Speed on an arterial means longer waits
> trying to enter the arterial. If you examine the average travel speed
> (accounting for stops) on most roads you will find it to be quite slow.
> There is only the illusion of speed between stop lights.

Depends on the road, doesn't it?

I don't think it's possible to convince you that it's really rude, as
well as inefficient, for one person to inconvenience perhaps hundreds of
people out of some self-righteous sense of superiority and I'm no longer
going to try.

--
Cheers, Bev
===================================
New sig on order, watch this space.

02-06-2007, 05:26 PM

Bill Baka <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote
> Mark Hickey wrote
>> Bill Baka <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote
>>> Mark Hickey wrote
>>>> Bill Baka <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote

>>>>> If we mess the planet up enough then it will be very hard to produce food for even a few
>>>>> million. No food ==== no people.

>>>> Errrr, perhaps you could explain the science behind that. Considering that we're using only a
>>>> portion of the available land to produce plenty of food for a few BILLION people, I'm having a
>>>> bit of a problem seeing how we're going to take 99.9% of the available land out of production.
>>>> Or maybe "only' 99% gone with a 10% yield for what remains?

>>>> I think we've found our new Chicken Little, folks... ;-)

>>> Ahhh, Mark, you need to go back to school and work on your math. We will probably hit about 9
>>> billion before someone in power realizes that "growth" is not a good thing.

>> The population of the earth will top out at 9 to 10 billion,
>> according to the projections. With the wealth and prosperity that the third world is starting to
>> get via globalization comes the desire to do things other than make babies, apparently.

>>> As far as available land, what kind of crop can you
>> plant in the Himalayas? All that land going to waste.

>> You didn't answer my question. You predicted that 99.9% of the
>> world's food-producing capability was going to go away. I'm still
>> curious what your thought process was on that one. And I've been in the Himalayas - they grow
>> plenty (including poppies and pot).

> That wasn't a question that really deserved an answer.

Never ever could bull**** its way out of a wet paper bag.

Corse it required an answer.

> It should be obvious that more people will build more buildings and thus there will be less land
> available.

And even someone as stupid as you should be able to use
google earth and noticed that even with an increase from 6B
to 10B, there is still plenty of land suitable for growing food on.

> The oceans are getting over fished so that resource will soon run out.

Just another of your pathetic little pig ignorant fantasys.

> Do you expect we will farm the moon or something?

Wont need to, you pathetic excuse for a bull**** artist.

02-06-2007, 05:30 PM

Bill Baka <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote
> Rod Speed wrote
>> dgk <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote
>>> Fred G. Mackey <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote

>>>> We don't, but until you start considering forced abortions, genocide and euthenasia, there's
>>>> not much we can do about the population.

>>>> Are those options acceptable to you?

>>> How about doing away with tax breaks for more than one child per
>>> person? No deductions. Maybe we stop "family" insurance plans and
>>> charge for each kid. Folks with 4 kids pay more than folks with 1.

>> None of those things have much effect countrywide.

> Yes they would.

Have fun explaining how come its never worked yet.

> People notice taxes pretty quickly.

They clearly dont when its never worked yet.

And they get to give the politicians that do what they dont
like tax wise the bums rush at the ballot box anyway.

02-06-2007, 05:32 PM

Bill Baka <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote:
> dgk wrote:
>> On Mon, 05 Feb 2007 21:13:46 -0700, "Fred G. Mackey"
>> <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote:
>>
>>> We don't, but until you start considering forced abortions,
>>> genocide and euthenasia, there's not much we can do about the
>>> population. Are those options acceptable to you?
>>>
>>>
>> How about doing away with tax breaks for more than one child per
>> person? No deductions. Maybe we stop "family" insurance plans and
>> charge for each kid. Folks with 4 kids pay more than folks with 1.
>>
>>
> I put that up as a method about every 6 months. Why should a childless
> couple have to pay for new schools and overcrowding when the idiots
> who have 5--10 kids get the big tax breaks? 2 kids is the break even
> point so that should be where tax breaks for kids stops at. The third kid
> should put you at the 1 kid tax point, and 4 puts you down to no
> kids, 5 puts you at no kids and 6 puts you at single. 7 or more
> should be taxed like negative deductions.
> That would stop it if any government official had the nards to propose it.

No it wouldnt, any govt stupid enough to try that would get the bums rush at
the next election, guaranteed, they know that and that is why they aint that stupid.