|
Failed to pass inspection.
wrote in message ... On Fri, 18 Jun 2010 18:08:06 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: We still do not know how this Euro thing is going to work out. Bear in mind, more than half of our foreign owned debt is from European sources. If they lose the ability to buy our paper, that paper will be harder to sell, hence the auction will be higher I think that's at least a plausible argument. I think the European Union is here to stay, but it might scale back. It really depends on if the Greeks will accept reforms that will suit the Germans (basically scaling back their lifestyle). If that part fails, the rest is in jeopardy. If the Germans and Brits pulled out of the EU, it would fall apart. I think they will accept them... every indication they will. Were the Brits ever really part of the EU? :) |
Failed to pass inspection.
wrote in message ... On Fri, 18 Jun 2010 18:11:59 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: wrote in message . .. On Fri, 18 Jun 2010 14:22:40 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: You said "Nobody was "regulating" the industry before or after (unfortunately).Reagan was after and Carter was before". I couldn't take it any other way. If Bush started MMS he must have been trying to build the framework for regulation. (like you say the health care bill did) The reality is, there were always people at Interior who were regulating drilling. All they did when they "created" MMS was put a different logo on their stationary and put a new political appointee in charge of them. The job down in the trenches never really changes that much if you are a GSer doing the actual work. Reagan/Watt started MMS... look it up. Bush just filled it to the brim with cronies of big oil. You miss my point. In DC these things are just assemblies of things that are already there as a rule. If they "change" something, usually the only thing that changes is the sign on the door. It will still be the same people doing the work. In regulation, it is always a group of cronies from the industry being regulated. That is why Obama has the same people trying to fix the financial mess who caused it in the first place. I'd like to know who you think could sort out the financial mess other than the people who are familiar with the problems. But, I know what you mean... it's like getting a car thief to design an anti-theft device. That's fine, as long as they don't use it to their own advantage. Again, you want it both ways. You agree Wall street people are the ones who should regulate Wall street but you think it is wrong to have oil people regulating the oil industry. No. I think that both former WS people and former Oil people should be involved in it, since they probably have the technical expertise, but ultimately sensible regulations need to be implemented that take some decisions out of the hands of insiders. Not saying it's easy, but there are reformers available in both industries who are honest and have the public good in mind. How could people who have no background in oil, actually know enough to regulate it. We are seeing some of that in action with the Obama administration and this cleanup. I still like my idea of turning the whole cleanup to Clinton and GW, working together and letting Obama run the country. The synergy of the two of them and their contacts would be a lot more effective than the Chicago mob who are running it now. They have declared they are brothers now anyway. There's no "Chicago mob" running anything. Interesting idea, but I don't think Bush has the time, given his heavy Facebook schedule. :) |
Failed to pass inspection.
wrote in message ... On Sat, 19 Jun 2010 10:05:27 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: wrote in message . .. On Fri, 18 Jun 2010 18:02:34 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: I was only addressing the Al Gore solution to the problem he defined. Personally I only have one observation. I an not sure if it is more arrogant to think man caused global warming or that man can stop global warming. We better just make plans to live in a warmer world. That is where we should be spending our money. Al Gore's solution may be one piece of the solution. Human beings are absolutely the cause of adverse climate change. I don't know if we have the ability to fix it, but we have to try. You're talking about dooming millions to extreme hardship if not death. There are no legitimate solutions that will fix that problem without fixing the underlying cause. "Human induced climate change" is the part that you do get disagreement about among scientists. The predominance do agree it is getting warmer but that support starts dropping off when you start assessing blame on why. The CO2 trend is 8000 years old, more closely tied to agriculture than anything else.. In that regard, it is more closely related to population than industrialization. I suppose if we reduced the population to the 1900 levels, we *might* reduce CO2 to 1900 levels. The "predominance" agree it's human caused. You can quote all the numbers you want, but that's a fact. You are going to have to cite that ... and not from, Al Gore. My "8000 years ago" number is from an article in Scientific American about tracking CO2. In that regard, man may be causing the CO2 buildup but it still tracks population growth and the rise of agriculture as much as any other metric. It is an 8000 year trend. Buying carbon credits from Al Gore is not going to do anything about that. It will just create another phony bubble market like the CDOs that will probably pop I do have a little skepticism about "published reports" because professors publish to get grants and there are no grants to prove man didn't cause global warming. Read all about it.. http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/americ...vey/index.html If you don't believe "published reports," what possible reports would you believe? Unpublished ones? How is someone supposed to do anything if they don't let others know?? It's very difficult to prove a negative. You create a hypothesis, then you test that hypothesis. If it holds up, you publish and others test it. That's how things get done in the scientific world. |
Failed to pass inspection.
wrote in message ... On Sat, 19 Jun 2010 11:18:05 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: wrote in message . .. On Fri, 18 Jun 2010 18:07:11 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: I do not have a problem with him helping the Bin Laden family to get home. I had a problem with him stopping the other 50 million families from getting home. I think the whole post 9-11 policy is over-reaction. Oh... like the shoe-bomber-take-my-shoes-off bs. I hate that. Who wants to put your feet on God-knows what. Blech. I agree. We really over-reacted, and we gave up too much. In that sense, he accomplished quite a bit. The terrorists have won in my opinion. As a nation, we are certainly terrorized enough to be giving up our freedom. Nah. They might have "won" a battle, but the war over our constitution has been going on for 200 years. A bunch of people living in caves aren't powerful enough to win. Tell me again while you are submitting to an electronic strip search at the airport or when you have to jump through the hoops to renew your driver's license after your state passes "real ID" Women take a worse beating than men in that, like having to produce certified copies of all of their marriage licenses and divorce decrees. All I seem to need is my DD214. Electronic strip search? You mean a metal detector or some screening where my identity remains hidden unless something is discovered? I have no problem with that. Not sure what country you're talking about, but I've never heard of anyone having to produce divorce papers to renew a license. |
Failed to pass inspection.
wrote in message ... On Sat, 19 Jun 2010 11:19:03 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: It really depends on if the Greeks will accept reforms that will suit the Germans (basically scaling back their lifestyle). If that part fails, the rest is in jeopardy. If the Germans and Brits pulled out of the EU, it would fall apart. I think they will accept them... every indication they will. Were the Brits ever really part of the EU? :) They are part of the EU, they just have not adopted the Euro. I was, ummm... joking. |
Failed to pass inspection.
On 6/19/10 6:30 PM, nom=de=plume wrote:
wrote in message ... On Sat, 19 Jun 2010 10:05:27 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: wrote in message ... On Fri, 18 Jun 2010 18:02:34 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: I was only addressing the Al Gore solution to the problem he defined. Personally I only have one observation. I an not sure if it is more arrogant to think man caused global warming or that man can stop global warming. We better just make plans to live in a warmer world. That is where we should be spending our money. Al Gore's solution may be one piece of the solution. Human beings are absolutely the cause of adverse climate change. I don't know if we have the ability to fix it, but we have to try. You're talking about dooming millions to extreme hardship if not death. There are no legitimate solutions that will fix that problem without fixing the underlying cause. "Human induced climate change" is the part that you do get disagreement about among scientists. The predominance do agree it is getting warmer but that support starts dropping off when you start assessing blame on why. The CO2 trend is 8000 years old, more closely tied to agriculture than anything else.. In that regard, it is more closely related to population than industrialization. I suppose if we reduced the population to the 1900 levels, we *might* reduce CO2 to 1900 levels. The "predominance" agree it's human caused. You can quote all the numbers you want, but that's a fact. You are going to have to cite that ... and not from, Al Gore. My "8000 years ago" number is from an article in Scientific American about tracking CO2. In that regard, man may be causing the CO2 buildup but it still tracks population growth and the rise of agriculture as much as any other metric. It is an 8000 year trend. Buying carbon credits from Al Gore is not going to do anything about that. It will just create another phony bubble market like the CDOs that will probably pop I do have a little skepticism about "published reports" because professors publish to get grants and there are no grants to prove man didn't cause global warming. Read all about it.. http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/americ...vey/index.html If you don't believe "published reports," what possible reports would you believe? The ones on fox news? |
Failed to pass inspection.
wrote in message ... On Sat, 19 Jun 2010 11:22:44 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: wrote in message . .. On Fri, 18 Jun 2010 18:11:59 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: wrote in message m... On Fri, 18 Jun 2010 14:22:40 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: You said "Nobody was "regulating" the industry before or after (unfortunately).Reagan was after and Carter was before". I couldn't take it any other way. If Bush started MMS he must have been trying to build the framework for regulation. (like you say the health care bill did) The reality is, there were always people at Interior who were regulating drilling. All they did when they "created" MMS was put a different logo on their stationary and put a new political appointee in charge of them. The job down in the trenches never really changes that much if you are a GSer doing the actual work. Reagan/Watt started MMS... look it up. Bush just filled it to the brim with cronies of big oil. You miss my point. In DC these things are just assemblies of things that are already there as a rule. If they "change" something, usually the only thing that changes is the sign on the door. It will still be the same people doing the work. In regulation, it is always a group of cronies from the industry being regulated. That is why Obama has the same people trying to fix the financial mess who caused it in the first place. I'd like to know who you think could sort out the financial mess other than the people who are familiar with the problems. But, I know what you mean... it's like getting a car thief to design an anti-theft device. That's fine, as long as they don't use it to their own advantage. Again, you want it both ways. You agree Wall street people are the ones who should regulate Wall street but you think it is wrong to have oil people regulating the oil industry. No. I think that both former WS people and former Oil people should be involved in it, since they probably have the technical expertise, but ultimately sensible regulations need to be implemented that take some decisions out of the hands of insiders. Not saying it's easy, but there are reformers available in both industries who are honest and have the public good in mind. Dreamer Well, that's how it's supposed to work. It works like that for many things, although not perfectly. If you're expecting perfection, that's the dream part. How could people who have no background in oil, actually know enough to regulate it. We are seeing some of that in action with the Obama administration and this cleanup. I still like my idea of turning the whole cleanup to Clinton and GW, working together and letting Obama run the country. The synergy of the two of them and their contacts would be a lot more effective than the Chicago mob who are running it now. They have declared they are brothers now anyway. There's no "Chicago mob" running anything. Interesting idea, but I don't think Bush has the time, given his heavy Facebook schedule. :) I suppose there is nothing in Obama's plate now Not sure I understand. The administration is working round the clock on many, many issues. The White House never sleeps, and probably hasn't for decades. |
Failed to pass inspection.
|
Failed to pass inspection.
|
Failed to pass inspection.
wrote in message ... On Sat, 19 Jun 2010 15:30:49 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: wrote in message . .. On Sat, 19 Jun 2010 10:05:27 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: wrote in message m... On Fri, 18 Jun 2010 18:02:34 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: I was only addressing the Al Gore solution to the problem he defined. Personally I only have one observation. I an not sure if it is more arrogant to think man caused global warming or that man can stop global warming. We better just make plans to live in a warmer world. That is where we should be spending our money. Al Gore's solution may be one piece of the solution. Human beings are absolutely the cause of adverse climate change. I don't know if we have the ability to fix it, but we have to try. You're talking about dooming millions to extreme hardship if not death. There are no legitimate solutions that will fix that problem without fixing the underlying cause. "Human induced climate change" is the part that you do get disagreement about among scientists. The predominance do agree it is getting warmer but that support starts dropping off when you start assessing blame on why. The CO2 trend is 8000 years old, more closely tied to agriculture than anything else.. In that regard, it is more closely related to population than industrialization. I suppose if we reduced the population to the 1900 levels, we *might* reduce CO2 to 1900 levels. The "predominance" agree it's human caused. You can quote all the numbers you want, but that's a fact. You are going to have to cite that ... and not from, Al Gore. My "8000 years ago" number is from an article in Scientific American about tracking CO2. In that regard, man may be causing the CO2 buildup but it still tracks population growth and the rise of agriculture as much as any other metric. It is an 8000 year trend. Buying carbon credits from Al Gore is not going to do anything about that. It will just create another phony bubble market like the CDOs that will probably pop I do have a little skepticism about "published reports" because professors publish to get grants and there are no grants to prove man didn't cause global warming. Read all about it.. http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/americ...vey/index.html If you don't believe "published reports," what possible reports would you believe? Unpublished ones? How is someone supposed to do anything if they don't let others know?? It's very difficult to prove a negative. You create a hypothesis, then you test that hypothesis. If it holds up, you publish and others test it. That's how things get done in the scientific world. They didn't ask the second half of the question. "Is this human activity the mere fact that we are here?" I said this tracks POPULATION as closely as anything else. I suppose if we scrubbed five billion off the world population we could actually reduce CO2 levels to what it was in 1800 when there were only a billion of us but it might take 40-50 years to see it happen after we were gone. (forests and grassland taking the farms and cities back) Human population is directly correlated with activity. We could scrub 5 billion, and certainly population is a serious issue, but that's not much of a solution. We need to find a way to live that doesn't damage our environment that will ultimately result in scrubbing millions due to disaster. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:05 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com