Politics | The Environmentalist Thread


Previous 10 | Next 10 
To: Peter Dierks who wrote (25359)10/2/2009 2:03:00 PM
From: TimF of 35607
 

Not "or", "and".

We would be effectively subsidizing the industry and the foreign consumers in the absence of high tariffs, and (assuming the tariffs don't cause the trade to largely disappear) we'd be subsidizing the industry and the foreign governments.

That's a bit of an oversimplification. To an extent we could be subsidizing all three groups at the same time, and exactly where the effective benefit goes isn't always easy to figure out, and would depend on competition and price elasticities, for example if there was no competition, and demand didn't change much with the price change, then the subsidy would in effect fall mostly or totally on the producers, and the tariffs mostly or totally on the consumers, but since these fuels can be produced anywhere and since ordinary gasoline or diesel is a substitute product that particular combination of hypotheticals probably doesn't hold.

Share Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read

To: HPilot who wrote (25364)10/2/2009 2:35:38 PM
From: longnshort of 35607
 
burn your leaves again and throw your old tires on the fire.

Share Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (1)

To: longnshort who wrote (25370)10/2/2009 2:40:56 PM
From: HPilot of 35607
 
That's a smelly one.

Share Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read

To: Brumar89 who wrote (25365)10/2/2009 3:05:41 PM
From: Peter Dierks of 35607
 
I was curious so did a search of Warfie's psuedo Environmentalist thread:
siliconinvestor.com

Surprise, no results.

Share Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (1)

To: Maurice Winn who wrote (25345)10/2/2009 3:06:28 PM
From: alanrs of 35607
 
I commend your restraint. The phrase "ugly American" has some roots in reality. Pearls before swine.

ARS

Share Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read

To: Peter Dierks who wrote (25372)10/2/2009 3:26:51 PM
From: Brumar89 of 35607
 
Definitely not a surprise there.

Share Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read

To: Wharf Rat who wrote (25363)10/2/2009 7:09:38 PM
From: Maurice Winn of 35607
 
Wharfie, when people read your sort of commentary, they are not persuaded that you are the bringer of truth, reason and good intentions. It's obvious that there are darker forces at work. You say more about you than you do about me.

Instead of burbling on about 20cm of sea level rise over 100 years, telling people to wring their hands in dread, you would have been more useful to point out the far more important issue of instantaneous sea level.

Homeopathic amounts of CO2 are obviously not much of a problem at all. After 100 years of constant CO2 increase from almost nothing to not very much more, the climate hasn't changed.

Plants have done an amazing job of stripping what little CO2 there is left in the air. At even 280 ppm, they managed to scavenge enough to keep going - though they had to battle with lots of leaves, getting as high as possible, using water as carefully as they could, to make use of the minimal CO2 available.

It is much nicer for them now with 380 ppm and it will be better still at 450 ppm. It will be like a blue asthmatic getting a dose of oxygen.

Did you need years of training to be so obnoxious or did it come naturally?

Mqurice

Share Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (1)

To: FUBHO who wrote (25362)10/2/2009 7:20:13 PM
From: Maurice Winn of 35607
 
Yes, that's quite a wave waiting to happen. They don't understand wave mechanisms but that's irrelevant really. <With the leading wave in front and crests pushing it on behind, it would sustain the power for the nine-hour journey to the American east coast. >

One of my favourite things at engineering school was the Airy wave theory which describes wave action.

As the wave travels from the source, which in that instance is a point source, more or less, its amplitude reduces. So the wave wouldn't still be 100s of metres high when it arrived at New York. You can do tests of how much waves shrink as they propagate from a point source by dropping pebbles in a pond and watching closely. The energy in a wave at the point source is the same as the energy in the wave after it has spread out to a big circle, so at any point, the size of the wave is much less.

The article goes on to do a rough estimate of the size of the wave by the time it spread out across the Atlantic to Florida etc.

It would be a lot worse than the wave from global warming.

Mqurice

Share Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (1)

To: Brumar89 who wrote (25358)10/2/2009 8:43:33 PM
From: Wharf Rat of 35607
 
It's not "I both understand yer data and can analyze it better than you can".
It's "We have assembled a 7000 year record of rings from Sequoiadendron giganteum, extending back to when the Earth was 3 days old. Blah blah blah, blah blah blah, graph, table table, another graph analysis of dirt under our fingernails table chart voila, there has been no change in temperatures since The Flood; therefore the hockey stick doesn't exist. "

Share Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (1)

To: Maurice Winn who wrote (25375)10/3/2009 9:14:04 AM
From: Wharf Rat of 35607
 
It's not good to coddle crazy people. If Kaddifi was lucky enuf to have me around,he wouldn't have gone all crazy at the UN.
Count yer blessings.

Share Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read
Previous 10 | Next 10 

Copyright © 1995-2013 Knight Sac Media. All rights reserved.