So much for global warming . . .
 

"KLC Lewis" wrote in message
et...

"Wilbur Hubbard" wrote in message
anews.com...

"KLC Lewis" wrote in message
et...

wrote in message
...
On Fri, 9 Jan 2009 10:18:51 -0800, "Capt. JG"
wrote:

"Dave" wrote in message
om...
On Fri, 09 Jan 2009 07:52:42 -0500, hpeer said:

AIG Adopts Policy on Climate Change

And we all know how good AIG is at making economic decisions. g


So because they made bad decisions in one segment of their business,
that's
supposed to mean that they're incompetent in others?

Pop quiz: In the past 20 years, who made more money, AIG or Dave and
Karen?


If AIG had actually made money, it wouldn't have needed bailing out by
the Federal Gummit. Here's someone else who actually did make a bundle:
Bernie Madoff. Yup, he made so much more money than me that we're not
even in the same financial galaxy. On the other hand, I can look at
myself in the mirror, even if I end up asking people if they want to
supersize their order.


You must know Joe of "Red Cloud" infamy?

He's a fry cook at Mickey D's. Had to go begging for his job back after
his coffee import trip sunk after he prematurely abandoned ship.

Now he has dreams of supersizing a boat to carry and sink an entire
container of coffee.

Too bad he doesn't work on his paucity of sailing know-how instead.


Wilbur Hubbard


My first job, while in High School, was working at Burger King. I'm not
back to that level yet, but the way things are going, "One never knows, do
one?"


I'm not worried. I've made my millions and have invested wisely - as in
offshore numbered accounts paying a guaranteed reasonable interest. The
other day Donald Trump's attorney approached me for a loan.

Wilbur Hubbard

So much for global warming . . .
 

Dave wrote:
On Thu, 08 Jan 2009 21:39:43 -0500, Marty said:

A typical wind farm will run from $500 million to $2 billion, you think
tree huggers are providing the capital for these?
So I take it you believe there is no need for the guvmint to spend taxpayer
money subsidizing these installations?
So I take it you believe there is no need for the guvmint to use
taxpayer money to prevent Union Carbide from dumping as much toxic waste
in the environment as they feel like.

??????
Come on, Marty. I know you're more rational than to post such a
non-sequitur. Do you believe those wind farms offer enough profit so as not
to require the taxpayers to shovel tax money at them?


Why not? You post them all the time.

Anyway, yes, they offer enough profit; although it's for thoroughly
idiotic reasons. One reason, though somewhat minor is that some
environmentalists are foolish enough to pay a premium for "green"
energy. More important are heavy industries who find that it's great to
capitalize these projects and use the resultant carbon credits to offset
their own pollution and thereby not have to invest heavily in other
reduction technology. Profit is a powerful motivator.

They do make money otherwise, do a little work with Google and see why
Texas has so much installed wind plant.

Even given that, I'd rather the guvmint subsidize clean energy than AIG.

Not that I really like either.


Cheers
Martin

So much for global warming . . .
 

Dave wrote:
On Fri, 09 Jan 2009 11:57:10 -0500, said:

Doing any upgrades on GF
this winter?

Nah. Mostly maintenance. Disassembled the boom to reattach a block on the
outhaul car, replace the depth sounder because the display finally gave up
the ghost, replace the pump in the FW system, etc., etc.


My pump starting acting up this year too!

Cheers
Martin

So much for global warming . . .
 

"Marty" wrote in message
...
Dave wrote:
On Thu, 08 Jan 2009 21:39:43 -0500, Marty said:

A typical wind farm will run from $500 million to $2 billion, you
think tree huggers are providing the capital for these?
So I take it you believe there is no need for the guvmint to spend
taxpayer
money subsidizing these installations?
So I take it you believe there is no need for the guvmint to use
taxpayer money to prevent Union Carbide from dumping as much toxic waste
in the environment as they feel like.

??????
Come on, Marty. I know you're more rational than to post such a
non-sequitur. Do you believe those wind farms offer enough profit so as
not
to require the taxpayers to shovel tax money at them?


Why not? You post them all the time.

Anyway, yes, they offer enough profit; although it's for thoroughly
idiotic reasons. One reason, though somewhat minor is that some
environmentalists are foolish enough to pay a premium for "green" energy.
More important are heavy industries who find that it's great to capitalize
these projects and use the resultant carbon credits to offset their own
pollution and thereby not have to invest heavily in other reduction
technology. Profit is a powerful motivator.

They do make money otherwise, do a little work with Google and see why
Texas has so much installed wind plant.

Even given that, I'd rather the guvmint subsidize clean energy than AIG.

Not that I really like either.


Cheers
Martin



I guess I'm one of those "environmentalists," since I do pay extra every
month for clean energy.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

So much for global warming . . .
 

Capt. JG wrote:
"Marty" wrote in message
...
Dave wrote:
On Thu, 08 Jan 2009 21:39:43 -0500, Marty said:

A typical wind farm will run from $500 million to $2 billion, you
think tree huggers are providing the capital for these?
So I take it you believe there is no need for the guvmint to spend
taxpayer
money subsidizing these installations?
So I take it you believe there is no need for the guvmint to use
taxpayer money to prevent Union Carbide from dumping as much toxic waste
in the environment as they feel like.
??????
Come on, Marty. I know you're more rational than to post such a
non-sequitur. Do you believe those wind farms offer enough profit so as
not
to require the taxpayers to shovel tax money at them?

Why not? You post them all the time.

Anyway, yes, they offer enough profit; although it's for thoroughly
idiotic reasons. One reason, though somewhat minor is that some
environmentalists are foolish enough to pay a premium for "green" energy.
More important are heavy industries who find that it's great to capitalize
these projects and use the resultant carbon credits to offset their own
pollution and thereby not have to invest heavily in other reduction
technology. Profit is a powerful motivator.

They do make money otherwise, do a little work with Google and see why
Texas has so much installed wind plant.

Even given that, I'd rather the guvmint subsidize clean energy than AIG.

Not that I really like either.


Cheers
Martin



I guess I'm one of those "environmentalists," since I do pay extra every
month for clean energy.



Jon, I'm almost anathema to environmentalists, I believe that nuclear is
a very clean way to go, and I don't have to pay a premium for it.
More than half of Ontario's installed capacity, (some 30,000 Megawatts)
is nuclear. Of course I think that the CANDU reactor is particulary
attractive; doesn't need enriched fuel, can be used to burn weapons
grade plutonium and thereby dispose of the stuff, is inherently safe,
(the coolant is also the moderator, loose coolant, the reaction stops)......


Cheers
Martin

So much for global warming . . .
 

"Marty" wrote in message
...
Capt. JG wrote:
"Marty" wrote in message
...
Dave wrote:
On Thu, 08 Jan 2009 21:39:43 -0500, Marty said:

A typical wind farm will run from $500 million to $2 billion, you
think tree huggers are providing the capital for these?
So I take it you believe there is no need for the guvmint to spend
taxpayer
money subsidizing these installations?
So I take it you believe there is no need for the guvmint to use
taxpayer money to prevent Union Carbide from dumping as much toxic
waste in the environment as they feel like.
??????
Come on, Marty. I know you're more rational than to post such a
non-sequitur. Do you believe those wind farms offer enough profit so as
not
to require the taxpayers to shovel tax money at them?

Why not? You post them all the time.

Anyway, yes, they offer enough profit; although it's for thoroughly
idiotic reasons. One reason, though somewhat minor is that some
environmentalists are foolish enough to pay a premium for "green"
energy. More important are heavy industries who find that it's great to
capitalize these projects and use the resultant carbon credits to offset
their own pollution and thereby not have to invest heavily in other
reduction technology. Profit is a powerful motivator.

They do make money otherwise, do a little work with Google and see why
Texas has so much installed wind plant.

Even given that, I'd rather the guvmint subsidize clean energy than AIG.

Not that I really like either.


Cheers
Martin



I guess I'm one of those "environmentalists," since I do pay extra every
month for clean energy.



Jon, I'm almost anathema to environmentalists, I believe that nuclear is a
very clean way to go, and I don't have to pay a premium for it. More than
half of Ontario's installed capacity, (some 30,000 Megawatts) is nuclear.
Of course I think that the CANDU reactor is particulary attractive;
doesn't need enriched fuel, can be used to burn weapons grade plutonium
and thereby dispose of the stuff, is inherently safe, (the coolant is also
the moderator, loose coolant, the reaction stops)......


Cheers
Martin


There are lots of environmentalists who have rethought the nuclear option
for energy. At one point, I thought it a good option (and perhaps it is). My
main concern with that option is the environmental cost of mining the
uranium, which seems to be pretty destructive.


--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

So much for global warming . . .
 

On Fri, 9 Jan 2009 22:55:41 -0800, "Capt. JG"
wrote:

There are lots of environmentalists who have rethought the nuclear option
for energy. At one point, I thought it a good option (and perhaps it is). My
main concern with that option is the environmental cost of mining the
uranium, which seems to be pretty destructive.

Compared to coal? The thing about Wyoming coal is that the land isn't
particularly valuable. Not enough rain.

Casady

So much for global warming . . .
 

"Richard Casady" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 9 Jan 2009 22:55:41 -0800, "Capt. JG"
wrote:

There are lots of environmentalists who have rethought the nuclear option
for energy. At one point, I thought it a good option (and perhaps it is).
My
main concern with that option is the environmental cost of mining the
uranium, which seems to be pretty destructive.

Compared to coal? The thing about Wyoming coal is that the land isn't
particularly valuable. Not enough rain.

Casady


No... didn't mean to imply that. I believe they use pit and shaft mining.
I'd prefer it over coal for sure.

http://www.cvmbs.colostate.edu/erhs/...ining_info.htm

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

So much for global warming . . .
 

Capt. JG wrote:
"Marty" wrote in message
...
Capt. JG wrote:
"Marty" wrote in message
...
Dave wrote:
On Thu, 08 Jan 2009 21:39:43 -0500, Marty said:

A typical wind farm will run from $500 million to $2 billion, you
think tree huggers are providing the capital for these?
So I take it you believe there is no need for the guvmint to spend
taxpayer
money subsidizing these installations?
So I take it you believe there is no need for the guvmint to use
taxpayer money to prevent Union Carbide from dumping as much toxic
waste in the environment as they feel like.
??????
Come on, Marty. I know you're more rational than to post such a
non-sequitur. Do you believe those wind farms offer enough profit so as
not
to require the taxpayers to shovel tax money at them?
Why not? You post them all the time.

Anyway, yes, they offer enough profit; although it's for thoroughly
idiotic reasons. One reason, though somewhat minor is that some
environmentalists are foolish enough to pay a premium for "green"
energy. More important are heavy industries who find that it's great to
capitalize these projects and use the resultant carbon credits to offset
their own pollution and thereby not have to invest heavily in other
reduction technology. Profit is a powerful motivator.

They do make money otherwise, do a little work with Google and see why
Texas has so much installed wind plant.

Even given that, I'd rather the guvmint subsidize clean energy than AIG.

Not that I really like either.


Cheers
Martin


I guess I'm one of those "environmentalists," since I do pay extra every
month for clean energy.


Jon, I'm almost anathema to environmentalists, I believe that nuclear is a
very clean way to go, and I don't have to pay a premium for it. More than
half of Ontario's installed capacity, (some 30,000 Megawatts) is nuclear.
Of course I think that the CANDU reactor is particulary attractive;
doesn't need enriched fuel, can be used to burn weapons grade plutonium
and thereby dispose of the stuff, is inherently safe, (the coolant is also
the moderator, loose coolant, the reaction stops)......


Cheers
Martin


There are lots of environmentalists who have rethought the nuclear option
for energy. At one point, I thought it a good option (and perhaps it is). My
main concern with that option is the environmental cost of mining the
uranium, which seems to be pretty destructive.

Compare it to coal mining. Actually burning coal releases more
radioactive nucleotides into the atmosphere than any reactor. Compare
the mining to pipeline breakages, tanker groundings, and the mess that
drilling can produce.

Cheers
Martin

So much for global warming . . .
 

On Jan 9, 11:01*am, Dave wrote:
On Fri, 9 Jan 2009 10:19:49 -0800 (PST), Two meter troll
said:

while you conservitives

Um...you're making yourself look silly. I think you should go back and read
a few of Marty's posts before calling him that particular name.

I dont really give a flying fig he used a general term as did I.

the old greenies dont pay taxes argument is and always was BS.