GTAVercetti

rushmc

And this just out!

another prediction fails.....
From Anthony Watts

Quote

According to a new study in Nature, the Northern Hemisphere has experienced considerably larger variations in precipitation during the past twelve centuries than in the twentieth century. Researchers from Sweden, Germany, and Switzerland have found that climate models overestimated the increase in wet and dry extremes as temperatures increased during the twentieth century. The new results will enable us to improve the accuracy of climate models and to better predict future precipitation changes.

From AFP:

Predictions of unprecedented rainfall extremes in the 20th century driven by global warming turned out wrong, a study said Wednesday, casting doubt on methods used to project future trends. A massive trawl of Northern Hemisphere rainfall data for the last 1,200 years revealed there had been more dramatic wet-dry weather extremes in earlier, cooler centuries before humans set off fossil fuel-driven global warming.
.

Talk about cherry-picking. I just looked that guy up. Not really what I would call a "hard-science" source.

How about the actual report? Or peer-reviews?

rushmc

***Kallend: I don't think you know what you are arguing about. It certainly has nothing to do with the title of the thread.

Rush: which is been my point. That I stated above

And that, ladies and gentlemen, is the ultimate RushMC post.

"Don't you guys get it? I don't know what I am arguing about, and it has nothing to do with what's being discussed anyway! You guys are so dense."

And here we have a typical billvon cherry pick thread twist

If you care to look up thread you will see I did not bring up the 3/5s person issue
Wendy did

Then kallend destroys his own position (in his argument with me) and now you twist it

MEH

Move along I guess
Nothing new here............

Reading your posts is like trying to understand the magnet poetry your drunk friend made on your refrigerator but he only had half of the words of the set and most of those are in Sanskrit.

rushmc

Given a casual sex situation

An abortion is abdicating responsibly

From your moral standpoint.

For people who don't believe casual sex is a sin and still believe that things can happen, it is not. Unless you are practicing absolute abstinence, pregnancy can occur. Sometimes it is smart to not complete gestation because the child would have a potentially worse life than not having one.

You have no idea what is going on through the mind of a woman who makes the heavy decision to abort or the repercussions she might feel within herself about for years to come. So get off your high horse about what is responsibly (sic).

Fucking black and white thought. I just can't understand it.

Pro-life people don't care at all about the child really. Cause once that thing is born, fuck it, right? No safety net, nothing. Welfare, lunch programs, whatever. Not a chance in a conservative, pro-life world. Pretty much let a kid get a shit life because his parents had an accident. You only care while it is in the womb. George Carlin got that so right, it hurts.

Also, your typing is shit. You are like EE Cummings without the talent.

rushmc

We are not talking about smoking

the numbers regarding coal fired plants as most of them operate to day is a WAG as best

People write numbers in something they call a report and people like you buy

I get that

Luckily, science does not give one shit what you think.

ryoder

******>Nothing behind the numbers

Other than science.

Well, that is where you lost me, bill. What has science ever proven or done for me?

"What have the Romans ever done for us?"

The aqueduct..and sanitation...roads (obviously)...

billvon

>Nothing behind the numbers

Other than science.

Well, that is where you lost me, bill. What has science ever proven or done for me?

turtlespeed

***So do you think drinking and fucking should be illegal just like drinking and driving?

Absolutely not, I think you should have to take responsibility for your actions.

Do you think that people should be free to do as they wish with no consequences, no matter what they do?

An abortion is taking responsibility. Just not taking it in a way YOU agree with.

Action: had sex
Consequence: got pregnant
Responsibility to consequence:

1) determine that you would not be able to care for a child and abort
2) have child and raise it
3) have child and give it up.

By your logic though, giving it up is also not an options because you are pushing the consequence of a child onto someone else.

JerryBaumchen

Hi turtle,

Quote

How many abortions have you been involved with as the father of the (whatever buzzword you chose for the) unborn baby?

I have never. I also have never killed anyone. But that does not mean I cannot have views/opinions on capital punishment.

Just another wasteful posting by you; along with most of yours.

Jerry Baumchen

With the greeting every message and your name at the bottom, your posts are so cordial, even when they are slamming someone.

Love it.

rehmwa

14, 12 year old, whatever - I only got about 7 seconds into the video though. perhaps there's more?

I didn't even bother to turn the sound on.

turtlespeed

Please - Please - PLEASE - try to edit your posts - it makes you look ignorant.

Which "is" being my point?

Yeah - I get it - but damn.

I make mistakes too - I am on a tablet - even Normiss hates those - but PLEASE . . Try.

When this happens, rush, you know you got some freaking issues.

ryoder

***

Oh, it was definitely a rug. But now that you mention it, I did shave the llamas and use their wool as a bathmat.

Terrible idea.

Perv.

That may be true.

But then you also sent me a PM asking to come over and check them out, so there's that.

brenthutch

Just what is " energy innovation conception". When was it conceived? Is it still gestating?

Yup. conception is definitely does not mean beginning in that sentence. The context in no way infers that definition.

Ya got me.

turtlespeed

***"But you don't think it might also have been because we found burning something for heat easier than trying to harness the current tech to store wind power? "

Easier=cheaper=More economical

"I can't keep repeating myself with facts about how subsidies have been used since energy innovation conception in America when you have a fundamentally different view of those facts."

I don't even know what that means

It means - he is saying stuff that RushMC says all the time.

You don't understand it, so you are wrong.

Rush just doesn't utilize his vocabulary of larger words when he does it.

Solo - what he is saying is "whoosh"

Wrong again, turtle. Wrong again. but that is par for course for you isn't it?

I have been repeating facts over and over. Rush spouts opinion, usually one time.

Subsidies have always been used in energy innovation = fact. From its inception oil gained government assistance.

Subsidies were used to find better ways to frack = fact. Natural gas companies got money to explore ways to frack better as well as access to land and tax benefits for doing so.

Subsidies will continue to be used to make strides in energy = opinion predicated on past fact.

It is only the alternative subsidies that seem to be his problem with this.

I am just tired of saying it and having it ignored. I am not saying it is going over his head. I am saying he is being willfully obtuse about it. I think he understand it quite well.

Feel free to peruse this article from the super-biased Chemical & Enginering News: http://cen.acs.org/articles/89/i51/Long-History-US-Energy-Subsidies.html

Here are some little tidbits for you:

Quote

Pfund and Healey favor government investments in energy, and their research supports the view that over the years new transitional energy sources have spurred U.S. economic growth and innovation. But their study, “What Would Jefferson Do? The Historical Role of Federal Subsidies in Shaping America’s Energy Future,” also finds that federal support of renewable energy falls short of the aid the federal government has given to oil, gas, coal, and nuclear energy when they were new. In fact, they say, backing for renewable energy is trivial in size.

or

Quote

... trace U.S. government energy incentives back to 1789, when leaders of the new nation slapped a tariff on the sale of British coal slipped into U.S. ports as ship ballast.

But I am sure we can gloss over all that.

jakee

***Look.

I was drunk. I blacked out. When I woke up, I had bought the rug.

I also bought 2 llamas, a signed edition of Chicago Bears Super Bowl Shuffle, 48 copies of The Star Wars Christmas Special, and 100 cans of Surge.

It was a rough weekend.

Ok, let's get to the bottom of this thing: did you actually buy the rug or had you just shaved the Llamas?

Oh, it was definitely a rug. But now that you mention it, I did shave the llamas and use their wool as a bathmat.

Terrible idea.

brenthutch

A few points:
R&D spending is less than 10% of the total so >90% is NOT going to R&D ( that's math)
Solar power predates petroleum by decades
Wind power predates petroleum by centuries
(And we didn't switch from wind power to coal power because we ran out of wind and ships and trains did no switch from coal to oil because we ran out of coal. It's called economics, learn about it)
To use your analogy, one can spend billions of dollars trying to change a platypus into a fish, and given the state of genetic engineering, you might be able to in fifty years. But don't you think there are better ways to spend our limited resources.

You think we switch from wind to coal simply because of economics? Certainly is was cheaper to just burn coal. But you don't think it might also have been because we found burning something for heat easier than trying to harness the current tech to store wind power?

Tax expenditure subsidies do not just happen because you are paying taxes. They are predicated on HOW you incurred the tax:

Quote

"Tax expenditures. These are largely provisions found in the Internal Revenue Code (IRC, or Tax Code)—Title 26 of the United States Code—that reduce the tax liability of firms or individuals who take specified actions that affect energy production, distribution, transmission, consumption, or conservation. "

Yeah, that last bit? That would cover monies going towards R&D, improvements in process, infrastructure, etc. Not all subsidies for such things come directly from a grant.

Again, You don't have a realistic view of reality. I can't keep repeating myself with facts about how subsidies have been used since energy innovation conception in America when you have a fundamentally different view of those facts.

Not all

I dunno
I think that
you have it all
locked up.

rushmc

***Like I said, you don't understand the meaning of the word.
Thanks for confirming it though.

Talk about smugness.....

Sheesh

No no, rush. I am the smug one, remember?

brenthutch

You keep using this "pay in, get back personally" idea. Again, that is not how taxes work.

And you refer to direct investment alone. Why?

The government considers tax expenditures as subsidies. Why do you not? Never mind. I know the answer. In any case, petroleum and natural gas alone received 2.34 billion in subsidies in 2013 for TOTAL subsidies and support.



Renewables- 13.23 billion in total subsidies and support. And they need this support because they don't work. I realize that many progressives consider failure a virtue, I do not.

I see.

So, the problem is that you don't understand what research and development is. Or the timelines that development can take on new things.

I should have guess that when you said that if oil reached an untenable price, we would just switch right over to alternatives. Like magic. POOF! All the infrastructure to support cheap alternative sources would just be there.

By your definition, you seem to think we should always go from concept to finished product in about 5 seconds.

How long did it take to get from ENIAC to the tiny personal computer of today? Hint, it was not 5 seconds. Or 5 years. Or 50 years.

I won't even bother to get into the fact that it is people who agree with you that prevent alternatives from taking hold. We got oil right now, so why bother?

I get it. You like the status quo.

It is too bad that since the dawn of time, the status quo of the world has always changed. Constantly. So much so that status quo really loses all meaning.

turtlespeed

***Which would have fuck all to do with anything, not to mention the proper screening upon entry into the facility.

Really? If some woman with "something" in her hand is trying to accost your wife, do you pull her away?

You mean the thing that looks like a phone? That a reporter might have in this age to, oh I don't know, record sound? Or that nearly anyone might have in their hand these days?

You are digging.

Let me know if you find a jar of coins. I buried them when I was 5 and never found them again.

turtlespeed

The government refers to whatever is left on your paycheck that you put in the bank on Friday as "Uncollected taxes" too - so . . . I'm not really interested in what the government CONSIDERS much of anything.

Oh? Is that in an official document somewhere?

otherwise....I am not really interested in your opinions on what are facts.

The government calls tax breaks subsidies. Therefore, they are subsidies according to the definition. You may not like, but there it is.

You can call a fish a mongoose for all I care. It is still a fish by definition.

brenthutch

Here are my numbers from the US Energy Information Administration
2013
Direct investment in:
natural gas and petroleum- 62 million

Bio-mass- 332 million
Geo-thermal- 312 million
Hydro-197 million
Solar- 2.9 BILLION
Wind- 4.3 BILLION

Balance the $62 million they got against the tens of billions they pay in taxes and you will get an idea of what I am talking about.

A classic makers v takers

You keep using this "pay in, get back personally" idea. Again, that is not how taxes work.

And you refer to direct investment alone. Why?

The government considers tax expenditures as subsidies. Why do you not? Never mind. I know the answer. In any case, petroleum and natural gas alone received 2.34 billion in subsidies in 2013 for TOTAL subsidies and support.

Could these alternatives also be getting more because they are much newer and less established and therefore require more support to get rolling?

No, that could not be it. Silly of me.

turtlespeed

So you are saying we had oil subsidies on July 6, 1776. Riiiiight.

You might want to check the calandar - it was 1913.

Yup. You are right. Clearly I meant oil subsidies and not subsidies of any form in my above post. OF COURSE I was referring to oil subsidies.

You know, before oil was being used.

Yup. That is definitely what my intent was. you got me.

jakee

***Honestly, who the fuck buys a carpet made out of cashmere?

This guy. GTAVercetti. That's who.

Cashmere rug!?

We can't be friends anymore

Look.

I was drunk. I blacked out. When I woke up, I had bought the rug.

I also bought 2 llamas, a signed edition of Chicago Bears Super Bowl Shuffle, 48 copies of The Star Wars Christmas Special, and 100 cans of Surge.

It was a rough weekend.

turtlespeed

******Just to be clear, I do believe government has a role to play, in infrastructure and basic research. However I don't belive a bureaucrat should decide what I drive, what kind of light bulbs I should use and what I feed my family.

You may want them to have a smaller role but they don't. Never have, never will. You have no basis of real data to give as example to your ideal society because it has never existed. Kinda like pure communism.

You can look at the EIA site for a breakdown on subsidies. They all get it. Of course, I don't think that includes cheap land, greased-palms, and other nice "government" help.

Here is a question: Do you want to get rid of all regulations for cars, energy, and food?

Never have? Surely you jest!

Did you used to have to wear a seatbelt?
You do now. Good or bad - that was one way government intruded.

What the hell are you talking about? You think because they didn't in ONE area that negates the idea that they did not influence in other ways? You honestly think that just because seat belts were allowed, that is a sign that government did not have influence in other areas? That they were not providing deals, aid, and influence to help shape the country from inception? That is what I meant by never.

By your measure, we should go back to before we had a government when there was no interference at all. Everything should be allowed because we are not allowed to make new rules based on new data and information.

The last time we had a small government was about 2 days after the US was formed.

You picked up on me saying never. And you are correct. Absolutes are a poor choice. But I would have thought you could have inferred actual intent instead of being pedantic.

I clearly forgot where I was.

brenthutch

***

But all of those regulations are telling you what you can and can't do. Didn't you just say you don't want that?

Or are you drawing the line of what the government can restrict where YOU want it to be because of what you believe?

Yes I arrive at my positions after thoughtful consideration and analysis of the facts.

Obviously you take a different approach.

I think you are confusing facts with opinions and anecdotes. Please let me know what facts you are basing your position on.

I have repeatedly informed you are the fact that government has always intruded whether that be through regulation or subsidies. It goes to show that they will probably continue this. The history of subsidies is a fact. Not an opinion. The numbers are recorded. Even your baby natural gas received huge tax subsidies.

Certainly, there are outliers; nothing is absolute, but the greater majority of innovations have been supported in some way by government help.

So I have no idea where you can get any facts that prove your idea that less government intervention in innovation (here we are talking about energy) is better. Because you don't have enough examples to back it up.