A Cycling & bikes forum. CycleBanter.com

Go Back   Home » CycleBanter.com forum » rec.bicycles » Racing
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

What - Intelligent Thought?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #31  
Old February 12th 07, 05:53 PM posted to rec.bicycles.racing
Donald Munro
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,811
Default What - Intelligent Thought?

Curtis L. Russell wrote:
Ten barrels to make one - who did our math? Kind of reminds me of the
new ESPN commercial, the 'talking out of your ass' one.


Surely you mean ass-hat.

Ads
  #32  
Old February 12th 07, 06:23 PM posted to rec.bicycles.racing
Curtis L. Russell
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 993
Default What - Intelligent Thought?

On Mon, 12 Feb 2007 18:53:53 +0200, Donald Munro
wrote:

Curtis L. Russell wrote:
Ten barrels to make one - who did our math? Kind of reminds me of the
new ESPN commercial, the 'talking out of your ass' one.


Surely you mean ass-hat.


BTW, I have to admit, I don't understand the purpose of the
commercial, except to reinforce to current viewers that they should
keep watching ESPN. I haven't seen it aired anywhere else and to a
generally non-sport person like my wife (she basically knows cycling,
ACC basketball and a bit of ACC football), the references make no
sense. As far as she is concerned (AFASIC), yeah, the Spurs, whoever
they are, don't have a chance this year, in whatever sport they play.

They did mention Lance and marathoning, though.

Me, I watch to see people bludgeoned unconscious in hockey games.
Cycling could use more of that stuff.

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...
  #33  
Old February 12th 07, 10:31 PM posted to rec.bicycles.racing
Tom Kunich
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,456
Default What - Intelligent Thought?

"Curtis L. Russell" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 12 Feb 2007 16:12:23 GMT, "Tom Kunich" cyclintom@yahoo. com
wrote:


Here's a clue Henry - if you don't understand what you're talking about
perhaps you ought to study the subject beyond a wikipedia entry.


I guess that's why an article in today's online WSJ says that
wind-driven turbines (and geothermal generation) are both close to
being economically viable even without subsidies and that with
economies of larger scale production of the turbines and a reduction
in the current financing penalty paid on both, they both may be viable
in the near future - without subsidies.


Then by all means why don't you invest in them.

Ten barrels to make one - who did our math? Kind of reminds me of the
new ESPN commercial, the 'talking out of your ass' one.


Do you even understand what a wind turbine is? Can you spend one minute
explaining what they're composed of, what goes in to making one? What are
the maintenance schedules? How long before they're obsolete? How much energy
they return?

I really think you ought to put your life savings into wind turbines because
the WSJ said they're "close" to being "economically viable" even "without
subsidies".


  #34  
Old February 12th 07, 10:33 PM posted to rec.bicycles.racing
Tom Kunich
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,456
Default What - Intelligent Thought?

"Mike Jacoubowsky" wrote in message
t...
Nahh, I'm pretty sure that the Liberals would much rather just kill off
2/3rds of the world's population. That way their homes in the Marin
Redwoods would remain unchanged.


Collateral damage is a terrible thing. But what the heck does this have to
do with bicycle racing?


The same sort of collateral damage is occurring in bike racing - wild
imaginations making drugs more important than anything else. Let's face it
Mike, when the whack jobs are in control of everything, the whole world is
whacky.



  #35  
Old February 12th 07, 10:57 PM posted to rec.bicycles.racing
William Asher
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,930
Default What - Intelligent Thought?

Tom Kunich wrote:

snip

Tom:

I just read in Nature the full 4th report is out, Nature lists 600 authors,
representatives from 113 governments, and 620 expert reviewers. So the
1500 number wasn't all that far off. Also, it didn't take them all that
long to reconcile the executive summary with the full report.

http://www.nature.com/news/2007/0701...070129-15.html

Interestingly, that link will redirect to:
http://www.evilaliens.org/ConquerEar...ation/USAMustB
eDestroyed.html

you will also want to read

http://www.evilaliens.org/ConquerEar...ation/UseHuman
sAsFood.html

--
Bill Asher
  #36  
Old February 12th 07, 11:07 PM posted to rec.bicycles.racing
Tom Kunich
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,456
Default What - Intelligent Thought?

wrote in message
ups.com...
On Feb 11, 11:41 pm, "Tom Kunich" cyclintom@yahoo. com wrote:

Nahh, I'm pretty sure that the Liberals would much rather just kill off
2/3rds of the world's population. That way their homes in the Marin
Redwoods
would remain unchanged.


it however does not say that "trying to hold down CO2 emission would
end up costing millions or even billions of lives". that part is
invented by you.


Do you really think so? The USA provides about 60% of the surplus food in
the world. Most of the conveniently arable land in the world is now under
cultivation. While we could expand farming it becomes considerably more
expensive and because the farmed areas are marginal they become far more
sensitive to climatic variations.

In another location I did the math that showed that we presently grown about
16% of the corn and soybeans that would be required to TOTALLY replace oil
use in this country. And at the present rates of energy use growth it would
be a much smaller percentage before we could even switch production over.

If we were to remove the entire corn and soybean output from our food
production it would almost wipe out our surplus food production. Entire
areas of Africa and Asia that are presently being supported by the surplus
food in the world would be without food so that white middle class Americans
could feel like they're saving the world.

Do you suppose those people would quietly starve to death? Digging deep into
your own intellect what would YOU think would be the result of cutting off
the food supply to massive areas of the world?

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0070123-2.html

"To reach this goal, we must increase the supply of alternative fuels, by
setting a mandatory fuels standard to require 35 billion gallons of
renewable and alternative fuels in 2017 -- and that is nearly five times the
current target. (Applause.) At the same time, we need to reform and
modernize fuel economy standards for cars the way we did for light trucks --
and conserve up to 8.5 billion more gallons of gasoline by 2017."

Here's a little analysis of that - the US presently uses approximately 9
million barrels of oil PER DAY. The cracking process is pretty efficient but
let's say that a 44 gallon barrel of oil will only make 30 gallons of
gasoline. That means that each day the US uses about 270 million gallons of
gasoline a day. Let's round that off to 300 million since we're really
conservative with the efficiency of conversion.

This means that we're using 110 billion gallons of gasoline a year. Also
we're using some billion tons of coal every single year.

You see that number up there? The 35 billion gallons? That's pure bull****
since that would be some one third of present day gasoline usage and as I
pointed out we don't grow that much corn. Of course they're talking about
using "sawgrass" since it grows more efficiently. Well, that's the present
story. Because, you see, it doesn't grow more efficiently. Grass is water
and energy intensive. While it grows very rapidly when conditions are good,
it strips most of the energy out of the ground and continuous plantings of
it would soon deplete the soil making the land it is growing on pretty
worthless.

But exactly how difficult is THAT to figure out? Where would the energy in
the grass come from? The carbohydrates would require a lot of fertilizers
and water since grass has a lot of surface area to plant mass.

What's more, we already know that presently there IS NO bacteria capable of
converting grass to ethanol with anything like efficiency. The word is that
they would have to completely redesign the bacteria for these purposes from
the ground up. And we have absolutely no idea how to do such a thing. So
we're looking at least a ten year project just to design the bacteria that
will convert sawgrass to ethanol and then any farmer would tell you that the
marginal areas they're talking about for growing sawgrass would soon be
depleted and untenable.

Photovoltaics never return their production costs in energy generation.

The only sources of energy which is clean and efficient is nuclear energy.
We are in great need of about a thousand nuclear generators over the USA and
then we'd be in a position to cut oil and coal use by a lot.

But the bottom line is this - if you expect to use the US surplus of food to
replace our present use of fuels then you had better be ready for a world
war. And it won't be a nice small clean war.


  #37  
Old February 12th 07, 11:18 PM posted to rec.bicycles.racing
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 657
Default What - Intelligent Thought?

On Feb 12, 4:31 pm, "Tom Kunich" cyclintom@yahoo. com wrote:
"Curtis L. Russell" wrote in messagenews:h351t2lmlh32t4gbchhrpqvv31mqmh7v97@4ax .com...

On Mon, 12 Feb 2007 16:12:23 GMT, "Tom Kunich" cyclintom@yahoo. com
wrote:


Here's a clue Henry - if you don't understand what you're talking about
perhaps you ought to study the subject beyond a wikipedia entry.


I guess that's why an article in today's online WSJ says that
wind-driven turbines (and geothermal generation) are both close to
being economically viable even without subsidies and that with
economies of larger scale production of the turbines and a reduction
in the current financing penalty paid on both, they both may be viable
in the near future - without subsidies.


Then by all means why don't you invest in them.

Ten barrels to make one - who did our math? Kind of reminds me of the
new ESPN commercial, the 'talking out of your ass' one.


Do you even understand what a wind turbine is? Can you spend one minute
explaining what they're composed of, what goes in to making one? What are
the maintenance schedules? How long before they're obsolete? How much energy
they return?

I really think you ought to put your life savings into wind turbines because
the WSJ said they're "close" to being "economically viable" even "without
subsidies".


dumbass,

you could've made the same claim about the canadian oil industry. it
crept along for years on massive govt. subsidies ...until the time was
right. now it's booming. of course it pollutes like a mother****er.

in ontario it's relatively easy for a schmoe to get into the wind
energy game. if you can get the permit to build one you can run your
meter backwards :

http://greenbreeze.ca/energyfaqs.html

and perhaps even sell energy :

http://greenbreeze.ca/energystandard.html

but i agree, i'd like to see where people (including you) put their
money. that is a better test of what they really believe (of course
they can still be wrong).

lately, energy shortages, and extreme temperature events (hot or cold)
have been making traditional energy companies rich, so that's where
i'd put my money.




  #38  
Old February 12th 07, 11:25 PM posted to rec.bicycles.racing
Tom Kunich
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,456
Default What - Intelligent Thought?

"Paul Cassel" wrote in message
. ..
Tom Kunich wrote:
At the basis of the global warming hysteria is the idea that man is
causing it and that therefore man is evil.


No. The basis of the concern is that the contribution man makes is
accelerating the warming. Nobody thinks that man alone is the sole cause
of this.


Paul, the earth started warming about 1880 long before man had any input
into the situation. It seemed to peak about 1940 and started back down at
the point when man's increasing use of energy was at it's highest growth. By
1970 the hysterics were claiming Global Cooling would kill the majority of
mankind.

I cited a New York Times article from 1932 telling the world how we were
going to burn up and drown by the 21st century. The article actually said
that.

Then another article was published in 1970 proclaiming that we were about to
enter an ice age. The New York Times has only shown consistency in one
area - leftist political propaganda.

Shortly after the greenies were screaming about the coming ice age the
temperature started back up again. And lo and behold but now WE'RE the cause
of the heating.

There is one point I've been trying to make here and elsewhe The earth
isn't something that is easily effected by man. While I'm certain that we're
having some effects, most of them are highly localized and the sum of them
is buried in the noise of natural climatic variation.

While man probably is having the sum zero effect on climate change he most
certainly could have a serious effect if he starts fiddling with the
climate. One suggestion is that we build a more efficient carbon fixing
plankton and release it into the oceans. While the amount of carbon in the
atmosphere CAN'T rise too much (it will level off around 400 ppm) cutting
too much CO2 out of the atmosphere COULD be done and would have some very
serious consequences.



  #39  
Old February 12th 07, 11:26 PM posted to rec.bicycles.racing
Tom Kunich
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,456
Default What - Intelligent Thought?

"Jim Flom" wrote in message
news:g%%zh.63335$Oa.38502@edtnps82...
"Tom Kunich" cyclintom@yahoo. com wrote in message
k.net...
At the basis of the global warming hysteria is the idea that man is
causing


Caught your limit on that one, Tom.


But I have an unlimited license.....


  #40  
Old February 12th 07, 11:32 PM posted to rec.bicycles.racing
Bill C
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,199
Default What - Intelligent Thought?

On Feb 12, 11:48 am, Curtis L. Russell
wrote:
On Mon, 12 Feb 2007 16:12:23 GMT, "Tom Kunich" cyclintom@yahoo. com
wrote:



Here's a clue Henry - if you don't understand what you're talking about
perhaps you ought to study the subject beyond a wikipedia entry.


I guess that's why an article in today's online WSJ says that
wind-driven turbines (and geothermal generation) are both close to
being economically viable even without subsidies and that with
economies of larger scale production of the turbines and a reduction
in the current financing penalty paid on both, they both may be viable
in the near future - without subsidies.

Ten barrels to make one - who did our math? Kind of reminds me of the
new ESPN commercial, the 'talking out of your ass' one.

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...


Hey Curtis WTF do those wild eyed communists at the WSJ know. They
don't know **** and are just anti-capitalist, anti-American propaganda
purveyors. They never research anything with anyone other than liberal
commie plotters.
Neither do those damned Germans who suck at engineering and never get
anything right. That's why they use windpower everywhere. Only people
with no understanding of engineering would go there.
Bill C

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Anybody care to say something intelligent about Landis' web defense ? [email protected] Racing 21 October 14th 06 02:15 PM
[totally OT] NYT Article about Intelligent Design Ernst Noch Racing 63 September 1st 05 06:25 PM
Intelligent comment Mikefule Unicycling 25 July 21st 05 03:05 AM
more intelligent computers Miles General 7 December 8th 04 01:52 AM
The Neanderthals: More Intelligent than Mountain Bikers! Mike Vandeman Mountain Biking 7 September 30th 03 04:55 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:26 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 CycleBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.