Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote:
People will argue that consumers cannot afford the additional hit to their
pocket books. I think this misses the point, since they're already bearing
the price in other, less obvious ways, including monetarily.
Exactly. We often end up paying more
Isn't the academic view just amazing? When confronted with malaise about
Bangladesh treading water in decades to come, they go all 'chapter and verse'
with specifics - yet, when asked about paying the bills, they drift off into
magic and mysticism. Somehow it will get paid for. Thank you,
Chris Zell chrisz...@wetmtv.com wrote:
It is reported that thousands of wind turbines in the US are idle or
broken . . .
Where is this reported? Wind turbines cost $1.3 to $2 million each. I think
it is highly unlikely the power companies leave billions of dollars of
resources idle for lack
You are right, Chris, mankind is being confronted by a growing list of
basic problems. Deciding which one is the most important is hard. All
of them have the potential to cause massive pain and suffering. What
is worse, the nature of the problem is too technical and complex for
most
I wrote:
It works both ways. Wind turbines cover lost production from coal and
nuclear plants when they are down for maintenance.
Also, wind is sometimes more reliable and slower to vary than fossil fuel.
See:
http://www.awea.org/learnabout/utility/Wind-Integration-and-Reliability.cfm
Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
What is worse, the nature of the problem is too technical and complex for
most people to understand.
In the past, all problems were too complex for anyone to understand. In
1700 people did not even know that oxygen exists, and yet they ran giant
On Jan 31, 2013, at 8:57 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
What is worse, the nature of the problem is too technical and
complex for most people to understand.
In the past, all problems were too complex for anyone to understand.
In 1700 people did not
Current headline at BusinessInsider : 80% of French Think Their Country Is
Bankrupt.
Clearly, these suffering people would benefit from more global warming
solutions. Likewise the growing number of Spanish people now living on the
street. Or the British people who are burning second hand
Chris Zell chrisz...@wetmtv.com wrote:
Clearly, these suffering people would benefit from more global warming
solutions. Likewise the growing number of Spanish people now living on the
street. Or the British people who are burning second hand books to keep
warm.
I doubt they are burning
metro.co.uk Jan 5, 2013, Pensioners burn books to stay warm.
So, the investment in alternative energy would create more jobs? Like
polishing mirrors? Or do your robots do that after the coal miners/ railroad
workers/utility boiler feeders go on the dole?
Dismissing Wall Street opinion on
Chris Zell chrisz...@wetmtv.com wrote:
Dismissing Wall Street opinion on alternative energy investment leaves me
a bit speechless - as the very manifestation of the mindset condemned in
others at the start of this thread. Goes full circle, I guess.
Business investment is not an exact
On Jan 31, 2013, at 8:54, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
Take the mortgage melt down in 2008 and following, do you think any
intelligence was used by the financial industry. Yet these people almost
collapsed the financial system of the West, which has led to the present
I have played the Market ( profitably). I never gamble or play poker. Even
Malkiel in his Random Walk thesis considered that there could be exceptions
(closed end funds, for example).
Cold Fusion is an effect that needs to be a practical product and large
companies might hate the idea,
Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote:
Some of the world's smartest minds worked together to produce the
financial collapse. They had an implicit faith in the assurances of
free-market ideology and laissez-faire . . .
What they lacked was simple common sense and concrete incentives to
On Jan 31, 2013, at 1:50 PM, Eric Walker wrote:
On Jan 31, 2013, at 8:54, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
Take the mortgage melt down in 2008 and following, do you think
any intelligence was used by the financial industry. Yet these
people almost collapsed the financial system
Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
Some of the world's smartest minds worked together to produce the
financial collapse. . . .
Does what you describe not represent stupid behavior?
Yes! It is both smart and stupid, at the same time. Most wars are like that.
People who are
I make a distinction between intelligence and stupidly. The human
mind has many features that can exist at the same time, as you note.
For example, a person can be insane yet brilliant. A person can be
stupid yet a savant. Society has no ability to make a distinction. As
a result,
It wasn't the free market that failed with the mortgage meltdown. It was
the federal reserve and the federal government which together created a
moral hazard. Peter Schiff had it right, back in 2006. Artificially low
interest rates promote consumption and distract from savings.
You can run this through Google translate here:
http://translate.google.com
Insert the URL into the box at the top of the screen:
http://www.nhk.or.jp/gendai/kiroku/detail_3301.html
The Google Chrome on-line translate does not seem to be working.
- Jed
That is frightening.
Now get this, there really *is* a conspiracy to cover up climate change:
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/exclusive-billionaires-secretly-fund-attacks-on-climate-science-8466312.html
Remarkable!
that now have
and will soon have nuclear weapons. This is truly frightening.
Dave
-Original Message-
From: Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Wed, Jan 30, 2013 10:25 am
Subject: Re: [Vo]:NHK: ocean levels may rise 9 m by 2100
You can run
Huh, no. We are dead serious that this is a likely scenario. Much more
likely than a nuclear war.
2013/1/30 David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com
Guys, I am confident that you realize that this is just a fairy tale.
--
Daniel Rocha - RJ
danieldi...@gmail.com
.
Dave
-Original Message-
From: Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com
To: John Milstone vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Wed, Jan 30, 2013 11:16 am
Subject: Re: [Vo]:NHK: ocean levels may rise 9 m by 2100
Huh, no. We are dead serious that this is a likely scenario. Much more likely
than
The consequences of this sea level rise are not that bad. All the coastal
cities around the world will need to be moved upland a bit. This will
generate plenty of construction jobs.
It’s time for a new start anyway. We need to get rid of all that old art
and architecture.
Sarcasm intended:
There's already been one nuclear war. It was a bit one-sided.
I forgot about that one! That might be considered a nuclear end of war.
Dave
-Original Message-
From: Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Wed, Jan 30, 2013 12:16 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:NHK: ocean levels may rise 9 m by 2100
There's already been one
, 2013 9:16 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:NHK: ocean levels may rise 9 m by 2100
There's already been one nuclear war. It was a bit one-sided.
David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:
If the level is going to rise by that amount, then I would expect to see a
meter rise every decade, which is not happening.
That is nonsense. That is a completely unwarranted assumption. You need to
read the papers.
That is a bit like saying that if a
]:NHK: ocean levels may rise 9 m by 2100
David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:
If the level is going to rise by that amount, then I would expect to see a
meter rise every decade, which is not happening.
That is nonsense. That is a completely unwarranted assumption. You need to read
David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:
So, when will we begin to see these effects to such a degree that it will
become obvious?
Most experts say the changes are obvious now. And irrefutable. Perhaps you
disagree. I tend to believe experts who have done hands-on research, based
on my
side of this
discussion, but I know that you would be ahead to open your mind just a tiny
bit.
Dave
-Original Message-
From: Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Wed, Jan 30, 2013 2:16 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:NHK: ocean levels may rise 9 m by 2100
Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Wed, Jan 30, 2013 2:16 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:NHK: ocean levels may rise 9 m by 2100
David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:
So, when will we begin to see these effects to such a degree that it
will become obvious?
Most experts
Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
I believe, like many other people, that if the main caused is CO2
production, we are too late to stop the process or even to slow it down.
What makes you think that? We could stop using fossil fuel in 20 years. If
we had started serious efforts in
The problem is potentially a run-away warming due to melting of the
permafrost. There are tons of CO2 sequestered there.
David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:
So far I have only heard strong sounds emitted by the groups seeking
immediate action who conveniently leave out information that runs counter
to their beliefs.
I disagree. The people studying this problem, such as Prof. Dutton of F.U.,
strike me as
[mailto:stor...@ix.netcom.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2013 12:22 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Cc: Edmund Storms
Subject: Re: [Vo]:NHK: ocean levels may rise 9 m by 2100
Dave, I hate to get involved in another debate war, but the climate change
issue is too important to ignore. The ice is melting
Jed, it is too late because no practical way exists to stop burning
fossil fuels. The demand for energy is rising too rapidly, especially
in China. It is impossible to satisfy this demand without burning
coal, natural gas, and oil. The other sources of power are being
developed as fast as
David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:
Jed, it makes little difference whether or not you believe me. We each
have our opinions that differ.
Yes, but my opinion is shared by nearly every expert, so it carries more
weight than yours. And by the way this is NOT a Fallacious Appeal to
@eskimo.com
Cc: Edmund Storms
Subject: Re: [Vo]:NHK: ocean levels may rise 9 m by 2100
Jed, it is too late because no practical way exists to stop burning fossil
fuels. The demand for energy is rising too rapidly, especially in China. It
is impossible to satisfy this demand without burning coal
Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
Jed, it is too late because no practical way exists to stop burning fossil
fuels.
I am sorry but this is nonsense. The Chinese are presently building 30
nuclear power reactors, and they are installing roughly that much wind
power. If the U.S.,
:* Wednesday, January 30, 2013 12:22 PM
*To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
*Cc:* Edmund Storms
*Subject:* Re: [Vo]:NHK: ocean levels may rise 9 m by 2100
** **
Dave, I hate to get involved in another debate war, but the climate change
issue is too important to ignore. The ice is melting world-wide
jedrothw...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Wed, Jan 30, 2013 2:16 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:NHK: ocean levels may rise 9 m by 2100
David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:
So, when will we begin to see these effects to such a degree that it will
become obvious
It doesn't have to melt, just slide off into the drink.
Hoyt Stearns
Scottsdale, Arizona US
From: David Roberson [mailto:dlrober...@aol.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2013 12:08 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:NHK: ocean levels may rise 9 m by 2100
Why would you think
No, Jed, it is not nonsense. It is simply a difference of opinion.
Yes, the Chinese are working hard to get energy. Meanwhile the
Japanese are burning more fossil fuel because they are afraid of
fission power, which we all should be. The issue is not what we might
do or could do if we
homeowners think they are entitled to govt aid when they were too
stupid to just move.
-Mark
From: Edmund Storms [mailto:stor...@ix.netcom.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2013 12:22 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Cc: Edmund Storms
Subject: Re: [Vo]:NHK: ocean levels may rise 9 m by 2100
Dave, I
I live at 860 feet, should I be worried?
Dave
-Original Message-
From: MarkI-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.net
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Wed, Jan 30, 2013 4:09 pm
Subject: RE: [Vo]:NHK: ocean levels may rise 9 m by 2100
Ed said,
“People had better start thinking
David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:
I consider a quick action to be dangerous at this time and might well put
many others in peril due to inefficiency.
What danger?!? There is not ONE action proposed to combat global warming
that would be dangerous. Most of the changes would be
Message-
From: Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Cc: Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com
Sent: Wed, Jan 30, 2013 4:30 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:NHK: ocean levels may rise 9 m by 2100
You don't. You build dikes and pump out the water, aka Holland. But you start
-Original Message-
From: Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Cc: Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com
Sent: Wed, Jan 30, 2013 4:30 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:NHK: ocean levels may rise 9 m by 2100
You don't. You build dikes and pump out the water, aka Holland. But
you
On 01/30/2013 04:47 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
What danger?!? There is not ONE action proposed to combat global
warming that would be dangerous. Most of the changes would be
beneficial in their own right, even if turns out global warming is not
happening. What objection can you have to electric
on anyone. More
often they just sweep the landscape.
- Original Message -
From: Edmund Storms
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Cc: Edmund Storms
Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2013 4:19 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:NHK: ocean levels may rise 9 m by 2100
Yes and we can see this being
Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
No, Jed, it is not nonsense. It is simply a difference of opinion. Yes, the
Chinese are working hard to get energy. Meanwhile the Japanese are burning
more fossil fuel because they are afraid of fission power, which we all
should be.
If they become
Craig cchayniepub...@gmail.com wrote:
The danger is in the inefficiency. Electric cars and wind energy, is not
present in the numbers you envision, because they are more expensive
than proven internal combustion engines and fossil fuel.
I do not think so. Take for example, the cost of oil.
The danger involved, for one thing, is the waste of vital capital in pursuit of
solutions that aren't real.
If we get Cold Fusion or A Really Good Battery, well and good, problem solved.
If not, wind, solar and nukes aren't going to replace oil. I am appalled at
academics who propose
Randy wuller rwul...@freeark.com wrote:
I also think it is self evident that we likely have NO idea what the world
will be like in 87 years, what advances will have been achieved, what world
economics will look like or the state of energy production.
Actually, you would be surprised how
: Wednesday, January 30, 2013 3:09 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: RE: [Vo]:NHK: ocean levels may rise 9 m by 2100
The danger involved, for one thing, is the waste of vital capital in pursuit
of solutions that aren't real.
SNIP
On Jan 30, 2013, at 3:45 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
No, Jed, it is not nonsense. It is simply a difference of opinion.
Yes, the Chinese are working hard to get energy. Meanwhile the
Japanese are burning more fossil fuel because they are afraid of
Chris Zell chrisz...@wetmtv.com wrote:
**
The danger involved, for one thing, is the waste of vital capital in
pursuit of solutions that aren't real.
If not, wind, solar and nukes aren't going to replace oil.
As I said, wind and nukes are cheaper than oil when you include the price
of
Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
As for Japan, they are going back to nuclear power because they do not
like living with rolling blackouts and high energy cost.
They have not had any rolling blackouts, as far as I know.
As you note, wind is out. Solar is not sufficient and not
Antarctica is getting colder.
There has been no statistically significant global warming for 15 years
despite CO2 going up 10%
Wu et al., 2010 determined that the GIA commonly assumed for Greenland
was way too high and that the 2002-2008 ice loss rate was 104 Gt/yr
rather than the oft cited
Craig cchayniepub...@gmail.com wrote:
Only a free market can assess all the risks and costs, and provide the best
product at the cheapest price.
I am all in favor of capitalism, but it does not always assess all risks
and costs successfully. Like any institution, it fails. People are
imperfect
I think the Earth's core is converting enthalpy to entropy and helping to
cool us.
Stewart
Darkmattersalot.com
On Wednesday, January 30, 2013, a.ashfield wrote:
Antarctica is getting colder.
There has been no statistically significant global warming for 15 years
despite CO2 going up 10%
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Cc: Edmund Storms
Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2013 4:19 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:NHK: ocean levels may rise 9 m by 2100
Yes and we can see this being implemented in the movie Water
World. Meanwhile, people have to be encouraged to move to higher
ground. Rather than
On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 6:14 PM, MarkI-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.net wrote:
I’m curious… of all the Vorts, who thankfully are discussing this issue in a
respectable manner (so far), how many of you know what percent of the
atmosphere is CO2? Be honest now… before you take 20 secs to look it
-Original Message-
From: Terry Blanton [mailto:hohlr...@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2013 4:25 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:NHK: ocean levels may rise 9 m by 2100
On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 6:14 PM, MarkI-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.net
wrote:
I'm curious. of all
On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 12:53 PM, MarkI-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.netwrote:
If you’re smart, sell the place now while beachfront property is valuable…
when your house is underwater it won’t be worth much!
I live in the East Bay, across a bridge from San Francisco. A group of us
were
On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 3:26 PM, Craig cchayniepub...@gmail.com wrote:
But all costs need to be included in the product.
If externalities were included in the price of things like petroleum use, I
think you might see a dramatic change in consumer and industrial use of
such resources. But
67 matches
Mail list logo
