On Sat, 11 Jun 2022 04:05:03 +0100, rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote:

> On 06/10/2022 04:48 PM, Commander Kinsey wrote:
>> On Fri, 10 Jun 2022 03:51:56 +0100, rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 06/09/2022 11:06 AM, John Larkin wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 8 Jun 2022 22:16:57 -0600, rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 06/08/2022 01:49 PM, Commander Kinsey wrote:
>>>>>> On Tue, 07 Jun 2022 06:27:09 +0100, rbowman <bowman@montana.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 06/06/2022 11:07 AM, Ed Lee wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Sunday, June 5, 2022 at 11:09:47 PM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Monday, June 6, 2022 at 7:39:50 AM UTC+2, Ricky wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, June 5, 2022 at 10:26:08 PM UTC-4, Ed Lee wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Gas price was still cheap in 2019, around $3. It's $8 today and
>>>>>>>>>>> unlikely to fall back again. So, less of the stuff should be
>>>>>>>>>>> burning up.
>>>>>>>>>> Of course the price of gas won't stay at $8 a gallon. If nothing
>>>>>>>>>> else, over the next few years, the amount consumed will drop 10%
>>>>>>>>>> because of BEVs and that will continue to make permanent decreases
>>>>>>>>>> in the price of oil and gasoline.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> There is an enviromental argument for taxing it more heavily, so
>>>>>>>>> less of it gets burnt. As more renewable energy becomes availalble,
>>>>>>>>> taxing fossil carbon will put less of crimp on the economy as a
>>>>>>>>> whole, so it probably will happen, but the fossil carbon extraction
>>>>>>>>> industry won't like it.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Not sure if it really make sense to ship LNG to Europe. We (US) got
>>>>>>>> more than enough and Europe need more of it. For $8 NG, it costs
>>>>>>>> around $3 to liquidify, $6 to ship and $2 to gasify. It makes zero
>>>>>>>> economical sense, but only political sense.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It's not an overnight solution either. The last I knew Germany was
>>>>>>> light
>>>>>>> on LNG terminals that could easily be wired into the existing
>>>>>>> pipelines
>>>>>>> for distribution. I see it as the US trying to sweet talk them into
>>>>>>> something that really isn't to their advantage. The Ukraine fiasco
>>>>>>> is a
>>>>>>> good excuse for dropping the pipeline that would be the obvious
>>>>>>> answer.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Fuck the Ukrainians, buy cheap Russian gas!
>>>>>
>>>>> That seems to be slowly occurring to the Europeans.
>>>>
>>>> India is amping up coal production and imports to generate power, and
>>>> buying Russian oil to refine and export to countries that won't drill
>>>> or refine themselves.
>>>>
>>>> The market works.
>>>>
>>> https://www.nasdaq.com/articles/exclusive-india-seen-facing-wider-coal-shortages-worsening-power-outage-risks-0
>>>
>>>
>>> The market or desperation?
>>
>> They need to stop reproducing so fast.
>
> The problem was almost solved by famine in the '60s and '70s but then
> the high yield crops of the Green Revolution allowed the population to
> increase merrily. Standard population dynamics. Yeast in nice sugary
> grape juice reproduce until they turn all the food into alcohol and die.

I got 50 litres of that through there.

On Sat, 11 Jun 2022 04:09:04 +0100, rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote:

> On 06/10/2022 06:21 PM, John Larkin wrote:
>> On Fri, 10 Jun 2022 23:48:25 +0100, "Commander Kinsey"
>> <CK1@nospam.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, 10 Jun 2022 03:51:56 +0100, rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 06/09/2022 11:06 AM, John Larkin wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, 8 Jun 2022 22:16:57 -0600, rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 06/08/2022 01:49 PM, Commander Kinsey wrote:
>>>>>>> On Tue, 07 Jun 2022 06:27:09 +0100, rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 06/06/2022 11:07 AM, Ed Lee wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, June 5, 2022 at 11:09:47 PM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, June 6, 2022 at 7:39:50 AM UTC+2, Ricky wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, June 5, 2022 at 10:26:08 PM UTC-4, Ed Lee wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Gas price was still cheap in 2019, around $3. It's $8 today and
>>>>>>>>>>>> unlikely to fall back again. So, less of the stuff should be
>>>>>>>>>>>> burning up.
>>>>>>>>>>> Of course the price of gas won't stay at $8 a gallon. If nothing
>>>>>>>>>>> else, over the next few years, the amount consumed will drop 10%
>>>>>>>>>>> because of BEVs and that will continue to make permanent decreases
>>>>>>>>>>> in the price of oil and gasoline.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> There is an enviromental argument for taxing it more heavily, so
>>>>>>>>>> less of it gets burnt. As more renewable energy becomes availalble,
>>>>>>>>>> taxing fossil carbon will put less of crimp on the economy as a
>>>>>>>>>> whole, so it probably will happen, but the fossil carbon extraction
>>>>>>>>>> industry won't like it.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Not sure if it really make sense to ship LNG to Europe. We (US) got
>>>>>>>>> more than enough and Europe need more of it. For $8 NG, it costs
>>>>>>>>> around $3 to liquidify, $6 to ship and $2 to gasify. It makes zero
>>>>>>>>> economical sense, but only political sense.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It's not an overnight solution either. The last I knew Germany was light
>>>>>>>> on LNG terminals that could easily be wired into the existing pipelines
>>>>>>>> for distribution. I see it as the US trying to sweet talk them into
>>>>>>>> something that really isn't to their advantage. The Ukraine fiasco is a
>>>>>>>> good excuse for dropping the pipeline that would be the obvious answer.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Fuck the Ukrainians, buy cheap Russian gas!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That seems to be slowly occurring to the Europeans.
>>>>>
>>>>> India is amping up coal production and imports to generate power, and
>>>>> buying Russian oil to refine and export to countries that won't drill
>>>>> or refine themselves.
>>>>>
>>>>> The market works.
>>>>>
>>>> https://www.nasdaq.com/articles/exclusive-india-seen-facing-wider-coal-shortages-worsening-power-outage-risks-0
>>>>
>>>> The market or desperation?
>>>
>>> They need to stop reproducing so fast.
>>
>> https://www.news18.com/news/india/indias-birth-and-fertility-rates-have-fallen-more-than-chinas-data-shows-3967391.html
>>
>> The whole world is trending towards negative population growth.
>>
>> 2 billion would be a good number.
>>
>
> 10 million in the US would be good... Even the 160 million of 1950 would
> be better than 330 million and growing. Double the population ain't
> double the fun.

Now compare your density to the UK. I meant how many people not how stupid you are :-)

On Sat, 11 Jun 2022 04:21:14 +0100, rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote:

> On 06/10/2022 04:49 PM, Commander Kinsey wrote:
>> On Fri, 10 Jun 2022 03:59:31 +0100, rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 06/09/2022 04:51 PM, Commander Kinsey wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 09 Jun 2022 05:09:39 +0100, rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 06/08/2022 01:45 PM, Commander Kinsey wrote:
>>>>>> On Sun, 05 Jun 2022 21:48:10 +0100, rbowman <bowman@montana.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 06/05/2022 05:21 AM, Commander Kinsey wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Sun, 05 Jun 2022 02:13:06 +0100, rbowman <bowman@montana.com>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 06/04/2022 03:40 PM, Phil Hobbs wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> rbowman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 06/04/2022 01:00 AM, Commander Kinsey wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 04 Jun 2022 05:06:15 +0100, rbowman <bowman@montana..com>
>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 06/03/2022 12:04 PM, John Larkin wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 2 Jun 2022 22:06:25 -0600, rbowman
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <bowman@montana.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 06/02/2022 02:18 PM, ke...@kjwdesigns.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, 31 May 2022 at 21:55:55 UTC-7, Commander Kinsey
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You said "minors" meaning young people, nothing about
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mining.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> OCD fuckwit. I actually spelt it like that for a laugh,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> making
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fun
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of our fucked up language. Anyway minors are more fun than
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> miners.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Unusual sense of humour.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> How are we supposed to know what you mean?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It could mean either in the context of the conversation..
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And most Lithium is "mined" using brine extraction, it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> does
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> involve digging holes.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://champ4mt.com/the-dangers-of-lithium-mining-and-how-to-do-something-about-it.html
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> kw
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Then there are the minor miners:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://allthatsinteresting.com/child-miners#27
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Oil and gas are great. Once you drill a well, the stuff just
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> comes up
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and flows into a pipeline. No dust, no miners, no crushers, no
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> chemicals, no trucks, no tailings. Nobody even needs to be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Fracking needs a little more attention, but the action is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> still
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> deep
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> underground.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I always get a kick out of those grasshoppers out in the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> middle of
>>>>>>>>>>>>> nowhere doing there thing. I get even a bigger kick out of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> ones you
>>>>>>>>>>>>> stumble over in the middle of Anaheim. iirc there were a
>>>>>>>>>>>>> couple off
>>>>>>>>>>>>> State College north of Ball.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I take it you mean a https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kcykqOwDvyc
>>>>>>>>>>>> and not
>>>>>>>>>>>> a https://youtu.be/NfJQx8ZEr54?t=50 or a
>>>>>>>>>>>> https://youtu.be/yMFqyabMJTo
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Yup. The other part of it is the flares. You'd be driving through
>>>>>>>>>>> Wyoming at night in the middle of nowhere and there would be
>>>>>>>>>>> flares
>>>>>>>>>>> miles off the road. Rather eerie.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I don't know if the still burn the gas off oil wells, gorbal
>>>>>>>>>>> warming
>>>>>>>>>>> and all, you know.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> A lot of stranded gas is now liquefied using thermoacoustic
>>>>>>>>>> fridges
>>>>>>>>>> powered by a much smaller amount of gas. IIRC the yield is
>>>>>>>>>> something
>>>>>>>>>> like 70%, which is a big win.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> After a little reading the volume dropped off for a while but has
>>>>>>>>> picked
>>>>>>>>> up again.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> https://www.naturalgasintel.com/permian-methane-flaring-venting-said-still-stubbornly-high/
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> That article claims
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> EDF said other satellite data indicates Permian operators sent 280
>>>>>>>>> Bcf
>>>>>>>>> of gas worth about $420 million up their flare stacks in 2019,
>>>>>>>>> which
>>>>>>>>> was
>>>>>>>>> “more than enough to supply every home in Texas.”
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It wouldn't have helped the infrastructure problems but it's ironic
>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>> during the Big Freeze last year the varmints in the Permian were
>>>>>>>>> warm
>>>>>>>>> and cozy.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Who, what, or where, is the Permian?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The Permian basin in West Texas and eastern New Mexico.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=30952
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> As someone pointed out flaring the gas is seen as the lesser of two
>>>>>>> evils, since the gas is mostly methane which is seen as a bigger
>>>>>>> problem
>>>>>>> than CO2. There are plenty of leaks so you get the best of both
>>>>>>> worlds,
>>>>>>> methane and CO2.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What's that place with a permanent fire they can't put out?
>>>>>
>>>>> https://www.treehugger.com/the-centralia-fire-has-been-burning-underground-for-over-50-years-5204217
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Centralia is the most famous but not the only one.
>>>>
>>>> I was thinking of one on the surface, burning methane over a large
>>>> circular hole.
>>>>
>>>> The one you mention is odd, why hasn't it run out of fuel yet?
>>>
>>> It's a big coal vein?
>>
>> Must be a limit on the air to let it burn. Otherwise it doesn't matter
>> how big it is, it would all burn out in a few days, just all at once.
>>
>> Actually, can't they put it out by blocking all entrances of air?
>
>
> If they could find them all. The mines are a 3D lattice of tunnels many
> of which were never documented.

On 06/10/2022 08:34 PM, Commander Kinsey wrote:
> On Sat, 11 Jun 2022 03:20:04 +0100, rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote:
>
>> On 06/10/2022 05:52 PM, Commander Kinsey wrote:
>>> On Fri, 10 Jun 2022 16:34:33 +0100, whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Thursday, June 9, 2022 at 5:49:04 PM UTC-7, Commander Kinsey wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, 10 Jun 2022 01:09:36 +0100, whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> > On Thursday, June 9, 2022 at 4:54:26 PM UTC-7, Commander Kinsey
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> >> If it's the prediction we need, we should concentrate on
>>>>> predicting the weather instead of going all doom and gloom about it.
>>>>> With or without your so called global warming, we have unpredictable
>>>>> weather.
>>>>
>>>>> > Extreme weather comes with climate change, and extremes aren't as
>>>>> predictable
>>>>> > as averages, certainly not in year-by-year time scales.
>>>>
>>>>> Bullshit. Just learn to predict better. We have more powerful
>>>>> computers now.
>>>>
>>>> False; it's onset-of-chaos that determines events like hurricanes; the
>>>> math was first
>>>> worked out for astronomical work by George Airy, and it applies to a
>>>> wide variety of
>>>> cause-and-effect situations. Sometimes called 'catastrophe theory'.
>>>
>>> Chaos is only chaos with limited computing power.
>>>
>>>>> And since we can't predict the extremes, how are we able to predict
>>>>> there will be extremes? We can't. So shut up.
>>>>
>>>> Why do want rational dialog to cease? So you can mutter nonsense to
>>>> yourself
>>>> undisturbed? Chaotic systems have statistical properties
>>>> (temperature is one of them)
>>>> that ARE predictable, though details underlying those properties
>>>> (Brownian motion)
>>>> are not.
>>>
>>> Oh dear. So you can predict some bits and not others. Yet.
>>
>> It's the swerve...
>>
>> https://www.epicswerve.com/
>
> Wat da fuq? https://youtu.be/mwq-T2CrJRU?t=68

A little Epicurus.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epicurus

For someone from 300 BC he had some interesting ideas.

On 06/10/2022 09:42 PM, Commander Kinsey wrote:
> On Sat, 11 Jun 2022 04:09:04 +0100, rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote:
>
>> On 06/10/2022 06:21 PM, John Larkin wrote:
>>> On Fri, 10 Jun 2022 23:48:25 +0100, "Commander Kinsey"
>>> <CK1@nospam.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Fri, 10 Jun 2022 03:51:56 +0100, rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 06/09/2022 11:06 AM, John Larkin wrote:
>>>>>> On Wed, 8 Jun 2022 22:16:57 -0600, rbowman <bowman@montana.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 06/08/2022 01:49 PM, Commander Kinsey wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Tue, 07 Jun 2022 06:27:09 +0100, rbowman <bowman@montana.com>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 06/06/2022 11:07 AM, Ed Lee wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, June 5, 2022 at 11:09:47 PM UTC-7,
>>>>>>>>>> bill....@ieee.org wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, June 6, 2022 at 7:39:50 AM UTC+2, Ricky wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, June 5, 2022 at 10:26:08 PM UTC-4, Ed Lee wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Gas price was still cheap in 2019, around $3. It's $8 today
>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>> unlikely to fall back again. So, less of the stuff should be
>>>>>>>>>>>>> burning up.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Of course the price of gas won't stay at $8 a gallon. If
>>>>>>>>>>>> nothing
>>>>>>>>>>>> else, over the next few years, the amount consumed will drop
>>>>>>>>>>>> 10%
>>>>>>>>>>>> because of BEVs and that will continue to make permanent
>>>>>>>>>>>> decreases
>>>>>>>>>>>> in the price of oil and gasoline.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> There is an enviromental argument for taxing it more heavily, so
>>>>>>>>>>> less of it gets burnt. As more renewable energy becomes
>>>>>>>>>>> availalble,
>>>>>>>>>>> taxing fossil carbon will put less of crimp on the economy as a
>>>>>>>>>>> whole, so it probably will happen, but the fossil carbon
>>>>>>>>>>> extraction
>>>>>>>>>>> industry won't like it.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Not sure if it really make sense to ship LNG to Europe. We
>>>>>>>>>> (US) got
>>>>>>>>>> more than enough and Europe need more of it. For $8 NG, it costs
>>>>>>>>>> around $3 to liquidify, $6 to ship and $2 to gasify. It makes
>>>>>>>>>> zero
>>>>>>>>>> economical sense, but only political sense.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It's not an overnight solution either. The last I knew Germany
>>>>>>>>> was light
>>>>>>>>> on LNG terminals that could easily be wired into the existing
>>>>>>>>> pipelines
>>>>>>>>> for distribution. I see it as the US trying to sweet talk them
>>>>>>>>> into
>>>>>>>>> something that really isn't to their advantage. The Ukraine
>>>>>>>>> fiasco is a
>>>>>>>>> good excuse for dropping the pipeline that would be the obvious
>>>>>>>>> answer.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Fuck the Ukrainians, buy cheap Russian gas!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That seems to be slowly occurring to the Europeans.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> India is amping up coal production and imports to generate power, and
>>>>>> buying Russian oil to refine and export to countries that won't drill
>>>>>> or refine themselves.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The market works.
>>>>>>
>>>>> https://www.nasdaq.com/articles/exclusive-india-seen-facing-wider-coal-shortages-worsening-power-outage-risks-0
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The market or desperation?
>>>>
>>>> They need to stop reproducing so fast.
>>>
>>> https://www.news18.com/news/india/indias-birth-and-fertility-rates-have-fallen-more-than-chinas-data-shows-3967391.html
>>>
>>>
>>> The whole world is trending towards negative population growth.
>>>
>>> 2 billion would be a good number.
>>>
>>
>> 10 million in the US would be good... Even the 160 million of 1950 would
>> be better than 330 million and growing. Double the population ain't
>> double the fun.
>
> Now compare your density to the UK. I meant how many people not how
> stupid you are :-)

68 million in 93 thousand square miles. You must be falling over each
other. This state is 147 thousand square miles with slightly over 1
million. You could drop the entire UK into the eastern part of the state
where there's not much besides prairie dogs and antelope.

At 700 people per square mile there are few American states thatcome close.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/183588/population-density-in-the-federal-states-of-the-us/

On Sat, 11 Jun 2022 07:08:59 +0100, rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote:

> On 06/10/2022 09:42 PM, Commander Kinsey wrote:
>> On Sat, 11 Jun 2022 04:09:04 +0100, rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 06/10/2022 06:21 PM, John Larkin wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 10 Jun 2022 23:48:25 +0100, "Commander Kinsey"
>>>> <CK1@nospam.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, 10 Jun 2022 03:51:56 +0100, rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 06/09/2022 11:06 AM, John Larkin wrote:
>>>>>>> On Wed, 8 Jun 2022 22:16:57 -0600, rbowman <bowman@montana.com>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 06/08/2022 01:49 PM, Commander Kinsey wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 07 Jun 2022 06:27:09 +0100, rbowman <bowman@montana.com>
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 06/06/2022 11:07 AM, Ed Lee wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, June 5, 2022 at 11:09:47 PM UTC-7,
>>>>>>>>>>> bill....@ieee.org wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, June 6, 2022 at 7:39:50 AM UTC+2, Ricky wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, June 5, 2022 at 10:26:08 PM UTC-4, Ed Lee wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Gas price was still cheap in 2019, around $3. It's $8 today
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> unlikely to fall back again. So, less of the stuff should be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> burning up.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Of course the price of gas won't stay at $8 a gallon. If
>>>>>>>>>>>>> nothing
>>>>>>>>>>>>> else, over the next few years, the amount consumed will drop
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 10%
>>>>>>>>>>>>> because of BEVs and that will continue to make permanent
>>>>>>>>>>>>> decreases
>>>>>>>>>>>>> in the price of oil and gasoline.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> There is an enviromental argument for taxing it more heavily, so
>>>>>>>>>>>> less of it gets burnt. As more renewable energy becomes
>>>>>>>>>>>> availalble,
>>>>>>>>>>>> taxing fossil carbon will put less of crimp on the economy as a
>>>>>>>>>>>> whole, so it probably will happen, but the fossil carbon
>>>>>>>>>>>> extraction
>>>>>>>>>>>> industry won't like it.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Not sure if it really make sense to ship LNG to Europe. We
>>>>>>>>>>> (US) got
>>>>>>>>>>> more than enough and Europe need more of it. For $8 NG, it costs
>>>>>>>>>>> around $3 to liquidify, $6 to ship and $2 to gasify. It makes
>>>>>>>>>>> zero
>>>>>>>>>>> economical sense, but only political sense.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> It's not an overnight solution either. The last I knew Germany
>>>>>>>>>> was light
>>>>>>>>>> on LNG terminals that could easily be wired into the existing
>>>>>>>>>> pipelines
>>>>>>>>>> for distribution. I see it as the US trying to sweet talk them
>>>>>>>>>> into
>>>>>>>>>> something that really isn't to their advantage. The Ukraine
>>>>>>>>>> fiasco is a
>>>>>>>>>> good excuse for dropping the pipeline that would be the obvious
>>>>>>>>>> answer.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Fuck the Ukrainians, buy cheap Russian gas!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> That seems to be slowly occurring to the Europeans.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> India is amping up coal production and imports to generate power, and
>>>>>>> buying Russian oil to refine and export to countries that won't drill
>>>>>>> or refine themselves.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The market works.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://www.nasdaq.com/articles/exclusive-india-seen-facing-wider-coal-shortages-worsening-power-outage-risks-0
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The market or desperation?
>>>>>
>>>>> They need to stop reproducing so fast.
>>>>
>>>> https://www.news18.com/news/india/indias-birth-and-fertility-rates-have-fallen-more-than-chinas-data-shows-3967391.html
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The whole world is trending towards negative population growth.
>>>>
>>>> 2 billion would be a good number.
>>>>
>>>
>>> 10 million in the US would be good... Even the 160 million of 1950 would
>>> be better than 330 million and growing. Double the population ain't
>>> double the fun.
>>
>> Now compare your density to the UK. I meant how many people not how
>> stupid you are :-)
>
> 68 million in 93 thousand square miles. You must be falling over each
> other. This state is 147 thousand square miles with slightly over 1
> million. You could drop the entire UK into the eastern part of the state
> where there's not much besides prairie dogs and antelope.
>
> At 700 people per square mile there are few American states thatcome close.
>
> https://www.statista.com/statistics/183588/population-density-in-the-federal-states-of-the-us/

Yip, the UK is so overloaded it will soon sink. It's not global warming, it's weight!

On Friday, June 10, 2022 at 5:23:16 PM UTC-7, Commander Kinsey wrote:
> On Sat, 11 Jun 2022 01:11:58 +0100, John Larkin <jlarkin@highland_atwork_technology.com> wrote:
>
> > On Sat, 11 Jun 2022 00:52:08 +0100, "Commander Kinsey"
> > <C...@nospam.com> wrote:

> >> Chaos is only chaos with limited computing power.

> > Wrong. No computer can compute the future states of a chaotic system.
> > Ignoring details like knowing current states and math precision,
> > quantum mechanics will scramble things.

> We can be more and more accurate with more power and more understanding.
> > One cosmic ray could change next winter too.

More accurate? More accurate than... what?
What does 'more and more' mean? Do you really mean to extrapolate some kind
of trend, starting with zero knowledge of current state of the art?

> Now that's something the alarmists don't understand, the change of climate is natural.

Poor listening skills, guy: SOME state information is hidden, not ALL (and long-term climate
bits are covered by conservation of energy, which is NOT a 'chaotic theory' in any sense).

Alarmists, like Nazis and the monster in your closet, aren't an important feature of reality.

On Friday, June 10, 2022 at 7:17:46 PM UTC-7, rbowman wrote:
> On 06/10/2022 08:38 AM, whit3rd wrote:
> > On Thursday, June 9, 2022 at 7:33:14 PM UTC-7, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
> >> On Thu, 9 Jun 2022 16:13:39 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com>
> >> wrote:

> >>> ... in real news, India is a signatory to the Paris accords, which commits them to:
> >>>
> >>> "substantially reduce global greenhouse gas emissions to limit
> >>> the global temperature increase in this century ..."
> >
> >> Hilarious. "How many armies does the IPCC have?"
> >
> > Many signatories to the Paris accords have armies; the IPCC is a UN committee,
> > not a sovereign state with military assets. The question is absurd, not hilarious.
> >
> > Any of the signatories might declare war over a treaty violation.
> >
> For the history challenged:
>
> https://wordhistories.net/2019/08/23/how-many-divisions-pope/
>
> Whether Stalin may or may not have uttered the phrase the IPCC can be
> summed up in an inelegant phrase an acquaintance used: 'alligator mouth,
> paper asshole, and no fire insurance'.

I wouldn't take advice from an alligator, asshole, or fire insurer, on climate
effects; the IPCC is suited to its purpose. Words from Stalin are... a quaint detour through history.

On 06/11/2022 05:40 PM, Commander Kinsey wrote:
> On Sat, 11 Jun 2022 07:08:59 +0100, rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote:
>
>> On 06/10/2022 09:42 PM, Commander Kinsey wrote:
>>> On Sat, 11 Jun 2022 04:09:04 +0100, rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 06/10/2022 06:21 PM, John Larkin wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, 10 Jun 2022 23:48:25 +0100, "Commander Kinsey"
>>>>> <CK1@nospam.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Fri, 10 Jun 2022 03:51:56 +0100, rbowman <bowman@montana.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 06/09/2022 11:06 AM, John Larkin wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Wed, 8 Jun 2022 22:16:57 -0600, rbowman <bowman@montana.com>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 06/08/2022 01:49 PM, Commander Kinsey wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 07 Jun 2022 06:27:09 +0100, rbowman <bowman@montana.com>
>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On 06/06/2022 11:07 AM, Ed Lee wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, June 5, 2022 at 11:09:47 PM UTC-7,
>>>>>>>>>>>> bill....@ieee.org wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, June 6, 2022 at 7:39:50 AM UTC+2, Ricky wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, June 5, 2022 at 10:26:08 PM UTC-4, Ed Lee wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Gas price was still cheap in 2019, around $3. It's $8 today
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> unlikely to fall back again. So, less of the stuff should be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> burning up.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Of course the price of gas won't stay at $8 a gallon. If
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nothing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> else, over the next few years, the amount consumed will drop
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 10%
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> because of BEVs and that will continue to make permanent
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> decreases
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in the price of oil and gasoline.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> There is an enviromental argument for taxing it more
>>>>>>>>>>>>> heavily, so
>>>>>>>>>>>>> less of it gets burnt. As more renewable energy becomes
>>>>>>>>>>>>> availalble,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> taxing fossil carbon will put less of crimp on the economy
>>>>>>>>>>>>> as a
>>>>>>>>>>>>> whole, so it probably will happen, but the fossil carbon
>>>>>>>>>>>>> extraction
>>>>>>>>>>>>> industry won't like it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Not sure if it really make sense to ship LNG to Europe. We
>>>>>>>>>>>> (US) got
>>>>>>>>>>>> more than enough and Europe need more of it. For $8 NG, it
>>>>>>>>>>>> costs
>>>>>>>>>>>> around $3 to liquidify, $6 to ship and $2 to gasify. It makes
>>>>>>>>>>>> zero
>>>>>>>>>>>> economical sense, but only political sense.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> It's not an overnight solution either. The last I knew Germany
>>>>>>>>>>> was light
>>>>>>>>>>> on LNG terminals that could easily be wired into the existing
>>>>>>>>>>> pipelines
>>>>>>>>>>> for distribution. I see it as the US trying to sweet talk them
>>>>>>>>>>> into
>>>>>>>>>>> something that really isn't to their advantage. The Ukraine
>>>>>>>>>>> fiasco is a
>>>>>>>>>>> good excuse for dropping the pipeline that would be the obvious
>>>>>>>>>>> answer.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Fuck the Ukrainians, buy cheap Russian gas!
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> That seems to be slowly occurring to the Europeans.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> India is amping up coal production and imports to generate
>>>>>>>> power, and
>>>>>>>> buying Russian oil to refine and export to countries that won't
>>>>>>>> drill
>>>>>>>> or refine themselves.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The market works.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://www.nasdaq.com/articles/exclusive-india-seen-facing-wider-coal-shortages-worsening-power-outage-risks-0
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The market or desperation?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> They need to stop reproducing so fast.
>>>>>
>>>>> https://www.news18.com/news/india/indias-birth-and-fertility-rates-have-fallen-more-than-chinas-data-shows-3967391.html
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The whole world is trending towards negative population growth.
>>>>>
>>>>> 2 billion would be a good number.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 10 million in the US would be good... Even the 160 million of 1950
>>>> would
>>>> be better than 330 million and growing. Double the population ain't
>>>> double the fun.
>>>
>>> Now compare your density to the UK. I meant how many people not how
>>> stupid you are :-)
>>
>> 68 million in 93 thousand square miles. You must be falling over each
>> other. This state is 147 thousand square miles with slightly over 1
>> million. You could drop the entire UK into the eastern part of the state
>> where there's not much besides prairie dogs and antelope.
>>
>> At 700 people per square mile there are few American states thatcome
>> close.
>>
>> https://www.statista.com/statistics/183588/population-density-in-the-federal-states-of-the-us/
>>
>
> Yip, the UK is so overloaded it will soon sink. It's not global
> warming, it's weight!

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/hank-johnson-worries-guam-could-capsize-after-marine-buildup/

He said he was joking but given the quality of our politicians you never
can tell. At least you didn't make Boris walk the gangplank to lighten
the load. I do like the idea of sending excess baggage to Rwanda though.
Where, exactly, is Rwanda again?

On Sun, 12 Jun 2022 05:24:39 +0100, rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote:

> On 06/11/2022 05:40 PM, Commander Kinsey wrote:
>> On Sat, 11 Jun 2022 07:08:59 +0100, rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 06/10/2022 09:42 PM, Commander Kinsey wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 11 Jun 2022 04:09:04 +0100, rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 06/10/2022 06:21 PM, John Larkin wrote:
>>>>>> On Fri, 10 Jun 2022 23:48:25 +0100, "Commander Kinsey"
>>>>>> <CK1@nospam.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Fri, 10 Jun 2022 03:51:56 +0100, rbowman <bowman@montana.com>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 06/09/2022 11:06 AM, John Larkin wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 8 Jun 2022 22:16:57 -0600, rbowman <bowman@montana.com>
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 06/08/2022 01:49 PM, Commander Kinsey wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 07 Jun 2022 06:27:09 +0100, rbowman <bowman@montana.com>
>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 06/06/2022 11:07 AM, Ed Lee wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, June 5, 2022 at 11:09:47 PM UTC-7,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> bill....@ieee.org wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, June 6, 2022 at 7:39:50 AM UTC+2, Ricky wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, June 5, 2022 at 10:26:08 PM UTC-4, Ed Lee wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Gas price was still cheap in 2019, around $3. It's $8 today
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> unlikely to fall back again. So, less of the stuff should be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> burning up.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Of course the price of gas won't stay at $8 a gallon. If
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nothing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> else, over the next few years, the amount consumed will drop
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 10%
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> because of BEVs and that will continue to make permanent
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> decreases
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in the price of oil and gasoline.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There is an enviromental argument for taxing it more
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> heavily, so
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> less of it gets burnt. As more renewable energy becomes
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> availalble,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> taxing fossil carbon will put less of crimp on the economy
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> whole, so it probably will happen, but the fossil carbon
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> extraction
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> industry won't like it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Not sure if it really make sense to ship LNG to Europe. We
>>>>>>>>>>>>> (US) got
>>>>>>>>>>>>> more than enough and Europe need more of it. For $8 NG, it
>>>>>>>>>>>>> costs
>>>>>>>>>>>>> around $3 to liquidify, $6 to ship and $2 to gasify. It makes
>>>>>>>>>>>>> zero
>>>>>>>>>>>>> economical sense, but only political sense.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> It's not an overnight solution either. The last I knew Germany
>>>>>>>>>>>> was light
>>>>>>>>>>>> on LNG terminals that could easily be wired into the existing
>>>>>>>>>>>> pipelines
>>>>>>>>>>>> for distribution. I see it as the US trying to sweet talk them
>>>>>>>>>>>> into
>>>>>>>>>>>> something that really isn't to their advantage. The Ukraine
>>>>>>>>>>>> fiasco is a
>>>>>>>>>>>> good excuse for dropping the pipeline that would be the obvious
>>>>>>>>>>>> answer.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Fuck the Ukrainians, buy cheap Russian gas!
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> That seems to be slowly occurring to the Europeans.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> India is amping up coal production and imports to generate
>>>>>>>>> power, and
>>>>>>>>> buying Russian oil to refine and export to countries that won't
>>>>>>>>> drill
>>>>>>>>> or refine themselves.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The market works.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> https://www.nasdaq.com/articles/exclusive-india-seen-facing-wider-coal-shortages-worsening-power-outage-risks-0
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The market or desperation?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> They need to stop reproducing so fast.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://www.news18.com/news/india/indias-birth-and-fertility-rates-have-fallen-more-than-chinas-data-shows-3967391.html
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The whole world is trending towards negative population growth.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 2 billion would be a good number.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 10 million in the US would be good... Even the 160 million of 1950
>>>>> would
>>>>> be better than 330 million and growing. Double the population ain't
>>>>> double the fun.
>>>>
>>>> Now compare your density to the UK. I meant how many people not how
>>>> stupid you are :-)
>>>
>>> 68 million in 93 thousand square miles. You must be falling over each
>>> other. This state is 147 thousand square miles with slightly over 1
>>> million. You could drop the entire UK into the eastern part of the state
>>> where there's not much besides prairie dogs and antelope.
>>>
>>> At 700 people per square mile there are few American states thatcome
>>> close.
>>>
>>> https://www.statista.com/statistics/183588/population-density-in-the-federal-states-of-the-us/
>>>
>>
>> Yip, the UK is so overloaded it will soon sink. It's not global
>> warming, it's weight!
>
>
> https://www.cbsnews.com/news/hank-johnson-worries-guam-could-capsize-after-marine-buildup/
>
> He said he was joking but given the quality of our politicians you never
> can tell. At least you didn't make Boris walk the gangplank to lighten
> the load. I do like the idea of sending excess baggage to Rwanda though.
> Where, exactly, is Rwanda again?

I hope you're joking. Most yanks don't know where their own country is.
https://youtu.be/kRh1zXFKC_o

On Friday, June 10, 2022 at 10:33:40 AM UTC-7, John Larkin wrote:
> On Thu, 9 Jun 2022 17:56:44 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >On Thursday, June 9, 2022 at 5:23:23 PM UTC-7, John Larkin wrote:
> >
> >> CO2 is greening the planet. Warm is good, cold kills.
> >
> >The planet has been green for centuries, and it wasn't CO2
> >that did it.

> How would you like it if your food was 300 PPM nutrients?

I'd be upset if iodine were that high (and if it were too low, I'd have a goiter).
Plants routinely drop leaves and get zero CO2 for months at a time, they seem to be OK with that.

>
> Earth was running out of CO2; plants were faced with starvation.

Nonsense. CO2 is belched from volcanoes, and the carbon becomes carbonate
minerals or plankton/ocean-bottom ooze while the oxygen builds up to breathable levels.

Life evolved for the oxygen and CO2 atmospheric levels we had a century ago.

> Luckily, humans came along and liberated some of that sequestered
> carbon.

Dimwit alert! It's not the carbon in the soil that matters, it's the CO2 in the atmosphere that is
out of control.

Warm is why I have heaters. Cold is why I have refrigerators. Neither is 'good', but being able to
control temperature IS good. Greenhouse gasses put heating out of control on a global scale.
I'm calling that bad, and I've got real criteria to judge by.

> In the great glory days of evolution, CO2 was 5000 PPM or so.

Fantasies again; greatness in those days included a complete absence of
bombast from John Larkin.

On 06/12/2022 12:38 AM, Commander Kinsey wrote:
> On Sun, 12 Jun 2022 05:24:39 +0100, rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote:
>
>> On 06/11/2022 05:40 PM, Commander Kinsey wrote:
>>> On Sat, 11 Jun 2022 07:08:59 +0100, rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 06/10/2022 09:42 PM, Commander Kinsey wrote:
>>>>> On Sat, 11 Jun 2022 04:09:04 +0100, rbowman <bowman@montana.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 06/10/2022 06:21 PM, John Larkin wrote:
>>>>>>> On Fri, 10 Jun 2022 23:48:25 +0100, "Commander Kinsey"
>>>>>>> <CK1@nospam.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Fri, 10 Jun 2022 03:51:56 +0100, rbowman <bowman@montana.com>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 06/09/2022 11:06 AM, John Larkin wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 8 Jun 2022 22:16:57 -0600, rbowman <bowman@montana.com>
>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On 06/08/2022 01:49 PM, Commander Kinsey wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 07 Jun 2022 06:27:09 +0100, rbowman
>>>>>>>>>>>> <bowman@montana.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 06/06/2022 11:07 AM, Ed Lee wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, June 5, 2022 at 11:09:47 PM UTC-7,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bill....@ieee.org wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, June 6, 2022 at 7:39:50 AM UTC+2, Ricky wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, June 5, 2022 at 10:26:08 PM UTC-4, Ed Lee wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Gas price was still cheap in 2019, around $3. It's $8
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> today
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> unlikely to fall back again. So, less of the stuff
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> burning up.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Of course the price of gas won't stay at $8 a gallon. If
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nothing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> else, over the next few years, the amount consumed will
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> drop
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 10%
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> because of BEVs and that will continue to make permanent
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> decreases
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in the price of oil and gasoline.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There is an enviromental argument for taxing it more
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> heavily, so
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> less of it gets burnt. As more renewable energy becomes
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> availalble,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> taxing fossil carbon will put less of crimp on the economy
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> whole, so it probably will happen, but the fossil carbon
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> extraction
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> industry won't like it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Not sure if it really make sense to ship LNG to Europe. We
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (US) got
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> more than enough and Europe need more of it. For $8 NG, it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> costs
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> around $3 to liquidify, $6 to ship and $2 to gasify. It makes
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> zero
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> economical sense, but only political sense.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> It's not an overnight solution either. The last I knew Germany
>>>>>>>>>>>>> was light
>>>>>>>>>>>>> on LNG terminals that could easily be wired into the existing
>>>>>>>>>>>>> pipelines
>>>>>>>>>>>>> for distribution. I see it as the US trying to sweet talk them
>>>>>>>>>>>>> into
>>>>>>>>>>>>> something that really isn't to their advantage. The Ukraine
>>>>>>>>>>>>> fiasco is a
>>>>>>>>>>>>> good excuse for dropping the pipeline that would be the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> obvious
>>>>>>>>>>>>> answer.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Fuck the Ukrainians, buy cheap Russian gas!
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> That seems to be slowly occurring to the Europeans.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> India is amping up coal production and imports to generate
>>>>>>>>>> power, and
>>>>>>>>>> buying Russian oil to refine and export to countries that won't
>>>>>>>>>> drill
>>>>>>>>>> or refine themselves.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The market works.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> https://www.nasdaq.com/articles/exclusive-india-seen-facing-wider-coal-shortages-worsening-power-outage-risks-0
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The market or desperation?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> They need to stop reproducing so fast.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://www.news18.com/news/india/indias-birth-and-fertility-rates-have-fallen-more-than-chinas-data-shows-3967391.html
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The whole world is trending towards negative population growth.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 2 billion would be a good number.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 10 million in the US would be good... Even the 160 million of 1950
>>>>>> would
>>>>>> be better than 330 million and growing. Double the population ain't
>>>>>> double the fun.
>>>>>
>>>>> Now compare your density to the UK. I meant how many people not how
>>>>> stupid you are :-)
>>>>
>>>> 68 million in 93 thousand square miles. You must be falling over each
>>>> other. This state is 147 thousand square miles with slightly over 1
>>>> million. You could drop the entire UK into the eastern part of the
>>>> state
>>>> where there's not much besides prairie dogs and antelope.
>>>>
>>>> At 700 people per square mile there are few American states thatcome
>>>> close.
>>>>
>>>> https://www.statista.com/statistics/183588/population-density-in-the-federal-states-of-the-us/
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Yip, the UK is so overloaded it will soon sink. It's not global
>>> warming, it's weight!
>>
>>
>> https://www.cbsnews.com/news/hank-johnson-worries-guam-could-capsize-after-marine-buildup/
>>
>>
>> He said he was joking but given the quality of our politicians you never
>> can tell. At least you didn't make Boris walk the gangplank to lighten
>> the load. I do like the idea of sending excess baggage to Rwanda though.
>> Where, exactly, is Rwanda again?
>
> I hope you're joking. Most yanks don't know where their own country is.
> https://youtu.be/kRh1zXFKC_o

On Sun, 12 Jun 2022 19:51:19 +0100, rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote:

> On 06/12/2022 12:38 AM, Commander Kinsey wrote:
>> On Sun, 12 Jun 2022 05:24:39 +0100, rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 06/11/2022 05:40 PM, Commander Kinsey wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 11 Jun 2022 07:08:59 +0100, rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 06/10/2022 09:42 PM, Commander Kinsey wrote:
>>>>>> On Sat, 11 Jun 2022 04:09:04 +0100, rbowman <bowman@montana.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 06/10/2022 06:21 PM, John Larkin wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Fri, 10 Jun 2022 23:48:25 +0100, "Commander Kinsey"
>>>>>>>> <CK1@nospam.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 10 Jun 2022 03:51:56 +0100, rbowman <bowman@montana.com>
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 06/09/2022 11:06 AM, John Larkin wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 8 Jun 2022 22:16:57 -0600, rbowman <bowman@montana.com>
>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 06/08/2022 01:49 PM, Commander Kinsey wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 07 Jun 2022 06:27:09 +0100, rbowman
>>>>>>>>>>>>> <bowman@montana.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 06/06/2022 11:07 AM, Ed Lee wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, June 5, 2022 at 11:09:47 PM UTC-7,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bill....@ieee.org wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, June 6, 2022 at 7:39:50 AM UTC+2, Ricky wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, June 5, 2022 at 10:26:08 PM UTC-4, Ed Lee wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Gas price was still cheap in 2019, around $3. It's $8
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> today
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> unlikely to fall back again. So, less of the stuff
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> burning up.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Of course the price of gas won't stay at $8 a gallon. If
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nothing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> else, over the next few years, the amount consumed will
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> drop
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 10%
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> because of BEVs and that will continue to make permanent
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> decreases
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in the price of oil and gasoline.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There is an enviromental argument for taxing it more
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> heavily, so
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> less of it gets burnt. As more renewable energy becomes
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> availalble,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> taxing fossil carbon will put less of crimp on the economy
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> whole, so it probably will happen, but the fossil carbon
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> extraction
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> industry won't like it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Not sure if it really make sense to ship LNG to Europe. We
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (US) got
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> more than enough and Europe need more of it. For $8 NG, it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> costs
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> around $3 to liquidify, $6 to ship and $2 to gasify. It makes
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> zero
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> economical sense, but only political sense.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It's not an overnight solution either. The last I knew Germany
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> was light
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on LNG terminals that could easily be wired into the existing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pipelines
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for distribution. I see it as the US trying to sweet talk them
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> into
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> something that really isn't to their advantage. The Ukraine
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fiasco is a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> good excuse for dropping the pipeline that would be the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> obvious
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> answer.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Fuck the Ukrainians, buy cheap Russian gas!
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> That seems to be slowly occurring to the Europeans.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> India is amping up coal production and imports to generate
>>>>>>>>>>> power, and
>>>>>>>>>>> buying Russian oil to refine and export to countries that won't
>>>>>>>>>>> drill
>>>>>>>>>>> or refine themselves.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The market works.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> https://www.nasdaq.com/articles/exclusive-india-seen-facing-wider-coal-shortages-worsening-power-outage-risks-0
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The market or desperation?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> They need to stop reproducing so fast.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> https://www.news18.com/news/india/indias-birth-and-fertility-rates-have-fallen-more-than-chinas-data-shows-3967391.html
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The whole world is trending towards negative population growth.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 2 billion would be a good number.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 10 million in the US would be good... Even the 160 million of 1950
>>>>>>> would
>>>>>>> be better than 330 million and growing. Double the population ain't
>>>>>>> double the fun.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Now compare your density to the UK. I meant how many people not how
>>>>>> stupid you are :-)
>>>>>
>>>>> 68 million in 93 thousand square miles. You must be falling over each
>>>>> other. This state is 147 thousand square miles with slightly over 1
>>>>> million. You could drop the entire UK into the eastern part of the
>>>>> state
>>>>> where there's not much besides prairie dogs and antelope.
>>>>>
>>>>> At 700 people per square mile there are few American states thatcome
>>>>> close.
>>>>>
>>>>> https://www.statista.com/statistics/183588/population-density-in-the-federal-states-of-the-us/
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Yip, the UK is so overloaded it will soon sink. It's not global
>>>> warming, it's weight!
>>>
>>>
>>> https://www.cbsnews.com/news/hank-johnson-worries-guam-could-capsize-after-marine-buildup/
>>>
>>>
>>> He said he was joking but given the quality of our politicians you never
>>> can tell. At least you didn't make Boris walk the gangplank to lighten
>>> the load. I do like the idea of sending excess baggage to Rwanda though.
>>> Where, exactly, is Rwanda again?
>>
>> I hope you're joking. Most yanks don't know where their own country is.
>> https://youtu.be/kRh1zXFKC_o
>
> I'll admit on being hazy on Africa. First, most of the countries there
> have changed since my school days. Second, who really gives a damn?

On 06/12/2022 08:38 PM, Commander Kinsey wrote:
> On Sun, 12 Jun 2022 19:51:19 +0100, rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote:
>
>> On 06/12/2022 12:38 AM, Commander Kinsey wrote:
>>> On Sun, 12 Jun 2022 05:24:39 +0100, rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 06/11/2022 05:40 PM, Commander Kinsey wrote:
>>>>> On Sat, 11 Jun 2022 07:08:59 +0100, rbowman <bowman@montana.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 06/10/2022 09:42 PM, Commander Kinsey wrote:
>>>>>>> On Sat, 11 Jun 2022 04:09:04 +0100, rbowman <bowman@montana.com>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 06/10/2022 06:21 PM, John Larkin wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 10 Jun 2022 23:48:25 +0100, "Commander Kinsey"
>>>>>>>>> <CK1@nospam.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 10 Jun 2022 03:51:56 +0100, rbowman <bowman@montana.com>
>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On 06/09/2022 11:06 AM, John Larkin wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 8 Jun 2022 22:16:57 -0600, rbowman <bowman@montana.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 06/08/2022 01:49 PM, Commander Kinsey wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 07 Jun 2022 06:27:09 +0100, rbowman
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <bowman@montana.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 06/06/2022 11:07 AM, Ed Lee wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, June 5, 2022 at 11:09:47 PM UTC-7,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bill....@ieee.org wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, June 6, 2022 at 7:39:50 AM UTC+2, Ricky wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, June 5, 2022 at 10:26:08 PM UTC-4, Ed Lee
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Gas price was still cheap in 2019, around $3. It's $8
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> today
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> unlikely to fall back again. So, less of the stuff
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> burning up.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Of course the price of gas won't stay at $8 a gallon. If
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nothing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> else, over the next few years, the amount consumed will
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> drop
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 10%
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> because of BEVs and that will continue to make permanent
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> decreases
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in the price of oil and gasoline.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There is an enviromental argument for taxing it more
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> heavily, so
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> less of it gets burnt. As more renewable energy becomes
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> availalble,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> taxing fossil carbon will put less of crimp on the economy
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> whole, so it probably will happen, but the fossil carbon
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> extraction
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> industry won't like it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Not sure if it really make sense to ship LNG to Europe. We
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (US) got
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> more than enough and Europe need more of it. For $8 NG, it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> costs
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> around $3 to liquidify, $6 to ship and $2 to gasify. It
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> makes
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> zero
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> economical sense, but only political sense.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It's not an overnight solution either. The last I knew
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Germany
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> was light
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on LNG terminals that could easily be wired into the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> existing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pipelines
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for distribution. I see it as the US trying to sweet talk
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> them
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> into
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> something that really isn't to their advantage. The Ukraine
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fiasco is a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> good excuse for dropping the pipeline that would be the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> obvious
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> answer.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Fuck the Ukrainians, buy cheap Russian gas!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> That seems to be slowly occurring to the Europeans.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> India is amping up coal production and imports to generate
>>>>>>>>>>>> power, and
>>>>>>>>>>>> buying Russian oil to refine and export to countries that won't
>>>>>>>>>>>> drill
>>>>>>>>>>>> or refine themselves.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> The market works.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.nasdaq.com/articles/exclusive-india-seen-facing-wider-coal-shortages-worsening-power-outage-risks-0
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The market or desperation?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> They need to stop reproducing so fast.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> https://www.news18.com/news/india/indias-birth-and-fertility-rates-have-fallen-more-than-chinas-data-shows-3967391.html
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The whole world is trending towards negative population growth.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 2 billion would be a good number.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 10 million in the US would be good... Even the 160 million of 1950
>>>>>>>> would
>>>>>>>> be better than 330 million and growing. Double the population ain't
>>>>>>>> double the fun.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Now compare your density to the UK. I meant how many people not how
>>>>>>> stupid you are :-)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 68 million in 93 thousand square miles. You must be falling over each
>>>>>> other. This state is 147 thousand square miles with slightly over 1
>>>>>> million. You could drop the entire UK into the eastern part of the
>>>>>> state
>>>>>> where there's not much besides prairie dogs and antelope.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> At 700 people per square mile there are few American states thatcome
>>>>>> close.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://www.statista.com/statistics/183588/population-density-in-the-federal-states-of-the-us/
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Yip, the UK is so overloaded it will soon sink. It's not global
>>>>> warming, it's weight!
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> https://www.cbsnews.com/news/hank-johnson-worries-guam-could-capsize-after-marine-buildup/
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> He said he was joking but given the quality of our politicians you
>>>> never
>>>> can tell. At least you didn't make Boris walk the gangplank to lighten
>>>> the load. I do like the idea of sending excess baggage to Rwanda
>>>> though.
>>>> Where, exactly, is Rwanda again?
>>>
>>> I hope you're joking. Most yanks don't know where their own country is.
>>> https://youtu.be/kRh1zXFKC_o
>>
>> I'll admit on being hazy on Africa. First, most of the countries there
>> have changed since my school days. Second, who really gives a damn?
>
> Agreed, although the guy who thought South Africa was in the West....
>
> And really, name ANY country, and they don't think of er.... America?

On Mon, 13 Jun 2022 06:53:50 +0100, rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote:

> On 06/12/2022 08:38 PM, Commander Kinsey wrote:
>> On Sun, 12 Jun 2022 19:51:19 +0100, rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 06/12/2022 12:38 AM, Commander Kinsey wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 12 Jun 2022 05:24:39 +0100, rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 06/11/2022 05:40 PM, Commander Kinsey wrote:
>>>>>> On Sat, 11 Jun 2022 07:08:59 +0100, rbowman <bowman@montana.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 06/10/2022 09:42 PM, Commander Kinsey wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Sat, 11 Jun 2022 04:09:04 +0100, rbowman <bowman@montana.com>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 06/10/2022 06:21 PM, John Larkin wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 10 Jun 2022 23:48:25 +0100, "Commander Kinsey"
>>>>>>>>>> <CK1@nospam.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 10 Jun 2022 03:51:56 +0100, rbowman <bowman@montana.com>
>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 06/09/2022 11:06 AM, John Larkin wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 8 Jun 2022 22:16:57 -0600, rbowman <bowman@montana.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 06/08/2022 01:49 PM, Commander Kinsey wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 07 Jun 2022 06:27:09 +0100, rbowman
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <bowman@montana.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 06/06/2022 11:07 AM, Ed Lee wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, June 5, 2022 at 11:09:47 PM UTC-7,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bill....@ieee.org wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, June 6, 2022 at 7:39:50 AM UTC+2, Ricky wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, June 5, 2022 at 10:26:08 PM UTC-4, Ed Lee
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Gas price was still cheap in 2019, around $3. It's $8
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> today
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> unlikely to fall back again. So, less of the stuff
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> burning up.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Of course the price of gas won't stay at $8 a gallon. If
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nothing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> else, over the next few years, the amount consumed will
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> drop
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 10%
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> because of BEVs and that will continue to make permanent
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> decreases
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in the price of oil and gasoline.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There is an enviromental argument for taxing it more
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> heavily, so
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> less of it gets burnt. As more renewable energy becomes
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> availalble,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> taxing fossil carbon will put less of crimp on the economy
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> whole, so it probably will happen, but the fossil carbon
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> extraction
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> industry won't like it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Not sure if it really make sense to ship LNG to Europe. We
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (US) got
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> more than enough and Europe need more of it. For $8 NG, it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> costs
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> around $3 to liquidify, $6 to ship and $2 to gasify. It
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> makes
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> zero
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> economical sense, but only political sense.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It's not an overnight solution either. The last I knew
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Germany
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> was light
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on LNG terminals that could easily be wired into the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> existing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pipelines
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for distribution. I see it as the US trying to sweet talk
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> them
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> into
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> something that really isn't to their advantage. The Ukraine
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fiasco is a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> good excuse for dropping the pipeline that would be the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> obvious
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> answer.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Fuck the Ukrainians, buy cheap Russian gas!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That seems to be slowly occurring to the Europeans.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> India is amping up coal production and imports to generate
>>>>>>>>>>>>> power, and
>>>>>>>>>>>>> buying Russian oil to refine and export to countries that won't
>>>>>>>>>>>>> drill
>>>>>>>>>>>>> or refine themselves.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> The market works.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.nasdaq.com/articles/exclusive-india-seen-facing-wider-coal-shortages-worsening-power-outage-risks-0
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> The market or desperation?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> They need to stop reproducing so fast.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> https://www.news18.com/news/india/indias-birth-and-fertility-rates-have-fallen-more-than-chinas-data-shows-3967391.html
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The whole world is trending towards negative population growth.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> 2 billion would be a good number.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 10 million in the US would be good... Even the 160 million of 1950
>>>>>>>>> would
>>>>>>>>> be better than 330 million and growing. Double the population ain't
>>>>>>>>> double the fun.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Now compare your density to the UK. I meant how many people not how
>>>>>>>> stupid you are :-)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 68 million in 93 thousand square miles. You must be falling over each
>>>>>>> other. This state is 147 thousand square miles with slightly over 1
>>>>>>> million. You could drop the entire UK into the eastern part of the
>>>>>>> state
>>>>>>> where there's not much besides prairie dogs and antelope.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> At 700 people per square mile there are few American states thatcome
>>>>>>> close.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://www.statista.com/statistics/183588/population-density-in-the-federal-states-of-the-us/
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yip, the UK is so overloaded it will soon sink. It's not global
>>>>>> warming, it's weight!
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> https://www.cbsnews.com/news/hank-johnson-worries-guam-could-capsize-after-marine-buildup/
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> He said he was joking but given the quality of our politicians you
>>>>> never
>>>>> can tell. At least you didn't make Boris walk the gangplank to lighten
>>>>> the load. I do like the idea of sending excess baggage to Rwanda
>>>>> though.
>>>>> Where, exactly, is Rwanda again?
>>>>
>>>> I hope you're joking. Most yanks don't know where their own country is.
>>>> https://youtu.be/kRh1zXFKC_o
>>>
>>> I'll admit on being hazy on Africa. First, most of the countries there
>>> have changed since my school days. Second, who really gives a damn?
>>
>> Agreed, although the guy who thought South Africa was in the West....
>>
>> And really, name ANY country, and they don't think of er.... America?
>
> There was a certain degree of unbelievability... Most US residents can
> find the US on a map. The states are another story. Other than out
> congress critters I doubt many in DC could find Montana on a map -- and
> we like it that way.

On Sat, 11 Jun 2022 03:07:15 +0100, whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Friday, June 10, 2022 at 4:52:17 PM UTC-7, Commander Kinsey wrote:
>> On Fri, 10 Jun 2022 16:34:33 +0100, whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > On Thursday, June 9, 2022 at 5:49:04 PM UTC-7, Commander Kinsey wrote:
>> >> On Fri, 10 Jun 2022 01:09:36 +0100, whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> >> > Extreme weather comes with climate change, and extremes aren't as predictable
>> >> > as averages, certainly not in year-by-year time scales.
>> >
>> >> Bullshit. Just learn to predict better. We have more powerful computers now.
>
> No BS here; the uncertainty principle of quantum mechanics means that unpredictibility
> is an absolute feature of our universe.

Until we find otherwise. Remember, it used to be thought we couldn't travel over about 40mph without damaging our bodies.

On Fri, 10 Jun 2022 17:20:16 +0100, <jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com> wrote:

> On Fri, 10 Jun 2022 07:38:03 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On Thursday, June 9, 2022 at 7:33:14 PM UTC-7, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
>>> On Thu, 9 Jun 2022 16:13:39 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>> >On Thursday, June 9, 2022 at 10:06:22 AM UTC-7, John Larkin wrote:
>>> >
>>> >> India is amping up coal production and imports to generate power, and ...
>>> >
>>> >... in real news, India is a signatory to the Paris accords, which commits them to:
>>> >
>>> > "substantially reduce global greenhouse gas emissions to limit
>>> >the global temperature increase in this century ..."
>>
>>> Hilarious. "How many armies does the IPCC have?"
>>
>> Many signatories to the Paris accords have armies; the IPCC is a UN committee,
>> not a sovereign state with military assets. The question is absurd, not hilarious.
>>
>> Any of the signatories might declare war over a treaty violation.
>
> Now THAT is hilarious! Will China attack India, or the reverse,
> because the other is burning too much coal? Will they use nukes?
>
> Will Germany attack Australia for selling all that coal?
>
> Funnier and funnier.

Indeed, we're not even attacking Russia for using cluster bombs. We're just tutting, that's all "civilised" countries do nowadays.

On Sun, 12 Jun 2022 02:11:46 +0100, whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Friday, June 10, 2022 at 7:17:46 PM UTC-7, rbowman wrote:
>> On 06/10/2022 08:38 AM, whit3rd wrote:
>> > On Thursday, June 9, 2022 at 7:33:14 PM UTC-7, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
>> >> On Thu, 9 Jun 2022 16:13:39 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com>
>> >> wrote:
>
>> >>> ... in real news, India is a signatory to the Paris accords, which commits them to:
>> >>>
>> >>> "substantially reduce global greenhouse gas emissions to limit
>> >>> the global temperature increase in this century ..."
>> >
>> >> Hilarious. "How many armies does the IPCC have?"
>> >
>> > Many signatories to the Paris accords have armies; the IPCC is a UN committee,
>> > not a sovereign state with military assets. The question is absurd, not hilarious.
>> >
>> > Any of the signatories might declare war over a treaty violation.
>> >
>> For the history challenged:
>>
>> https://wordhistories.net/2019/08/23/how-many-divisions-pope/
>>
>> Whether Stalin may or may not have uttered the phrase the IPCC can be
>> summed up in an inelegant phrase an acquaintance used: 'alligator mouth,
>> paper asshole, and no fire insurance'.
>
> I wouldn't take advice from an alligator, asshole, or fire insurer, on climate
> effects

I wouldn't take advice on anyone on climate effects when I can see with my own two eyes that nothing is changing.

On Monday, June 13, 2022 at 8:56:43 PM UTC-7, Commander Kinsey wrote:
> On Sun, 12 Jun 2022 02:11:46 +0100, whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Friday, June 10, 2022 at 7:17:46 PM UTC-7, rbowman wrote:
> >> On 06/10/2022 08:38 AM, whit3rd wrote:
> >> > On Thursday, June 9, 2022 at 7:33:14 PM UTC-7, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

> >> >> Hilarious. "How many armies does the IPCC have?"

> >> > Many signatories to the Paris accords have armies; the IPCC is a UN committee,
> >> > not a sovereign state with military assets. The question is absurd, not hilarious.

> >> > Any of the signatories might declare war over a treaty violation.

> >> Whether Stalin may or may not have uttered the phrase the IPCC can be
> >> summed up in an inelegant phrase an acquaintance used: 'alligator mouth,
> >> paper asshole, and no fire insurance'.

> > I wouldn't take advice from an alligator, asshole, or fire insurer, on climate
> > effects

> I wouldn't take advice on anyone on climate effects when I can see with my own two eyes that nothing is changing.

When was that? You can fire up Google Earth today, and examine a polar icecap through a decade or
three, if you cared to do so. The appearances were subtle three decades ago, but not nowadays.

Unwillingness to consult with experts is not a good social skill.

On Monday, June 13, 2022 at 8:54:37 PM UTC-7, Commander Kinsey wrote:
> On Sat, 11 Jun 2022 03:07:15 +0100, whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > No BS here; the uncertainty principle of quantum mechanics means that unpredictibility
> > is an absolute feature of our universe.

> Until we find otherwise. Remember, it used to be thought we couldn't travel over about 40mph without damaging our bodies.

No, I don't remember any such thing. Barney Olds didn't believe that, certainly!
I'm not gonna rely on anything less than the best info available, and I'd advise you to do likewise.

On Sat, 11 Jun 2022 03:08:48 +0100, whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Friday, June 10, 2022 at 4:53:34 PM UTC-7, Commander Kinsey wrote:
>
>> And just why is the gasoline so expensive? Because of greenies like you.
>
> Hey! Leave my friend Kermit out of this!

Kermit loses to a GIRL!
https://youtu.be/hZ4CNyjjt3Y

On Sun, 12 Jun 2022 02:04:51 +0100, whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Friday, June 10, 2022 at 5:23:16 PM UTC-7, Commander Kinsey wrote:
>> On Sat, 11 Jun 2022 01:11:58 +0100, John Larkin <jlarkin@highland_atwork_technology.com> wrote:
>>
>> > On Sat, 11 Jun 2022 00:52:08 +0100, "Commander Kinsey"
>> > <C...@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>> >> Chaos is only chaos with limited computing power.
>
>> > Wrong. No computer can compute the future states of a chaotic system.
>> > Ignoring details like knowing current states and math precision,
>> > quantum mechanics will scramble things.
>
>> We can be more and more accurate with more power and more understanding.
>> > One cosmic ray could change next winter too.
>
> More accurate? More accurate than... what?

Than previously.

> What does 'more and more' mean?

Continuously increasing.

> Do you really mean to extrapolate some kind
> of trend, starting with zero knowledge of current state of the art?

What is this zero knowledge you speak of?

>> Now that's something the alarmists don't understand, the change of climate is natural.
>
> Poor listening skills, guy: SOME state information is hidden, not ALL (and long-term climate
> bits are covered by conservation of energy, which is NOT a 'chaotic theory' in any sense).

Oh how convenient, the things you need for your theory can be detected.

> Alarmists, like Nazis and the monster in your closet, aren't an important feature of reality.

The alarmists I refer to are people like you, screwing up the world with shit like carbon credits.

On Fri, 10 Jun 2022 19:23:09 +0100, Ricky <gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Friday, June 10, 2022 at 1:33:40 PM UTC-4, John Larkin wrote:
>> On Thu, 9 Jun 2022 17:56:44 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> >On Thursday, June 9, 2022 at 5:23:23 PM UTC-7, John Larkin wrote:
>> >
>> >> CO2 is greening the planet. Warm is good, cold kills.
>> >
>> >The planet has been green for centuries, and it wasn't CO2
>> >that did it.
>> >
>> How would you like it if your food was 300 PPM nutrients?
>>
>> Earth was running out of CO2; plants were faced with starvation.
>> Luckily, humans came along and liberated some of that sequestered
>> carbon. Let's keep at it.
>>
>> In the great glory days of evolution, CO2 was 5000 PPM or so.
>> >Warm is not 'good'; good and evil are very broad concepts,
>> Dying of cold is not a very abstract concept. Neither is malnutrition.
>
> I think he is getting worse. It's probably an age issue.

What on earth makes you disagree with any of the points made by John above?

On Sun, 12 Jun 2022 08:55:29 +0100, whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Friday, June 10, 2022 at 10:33:40 AM UTC-7, John Larkin wrote:
>> On Thu, 9 Jun 2022 17:56:44 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> >On Thursday, June 9, 2022 at 5:23:23 PM UTC-7, John Larkin wrote:
>> >
>> >> CO2 is greening the planet. Warm is good, cold kills.
>> >
>> >The planet has been green for centuries, and it wasn't CO2
>> >that did it.
>
>> How would you like it if your food was 300 PPM nutrients?
>
> I'd be upset if iodine were that high (and if it were too low, I'd have a goiter).
> Plants routinely drop leaves and get zero CO2 for months at a time, they seem to be OK with that.

And you'd survive on low oxygen and a lack of food too, you wouldn't produce much meat on you though. We prefer our crops to thrive. That requires CO2.

>> Earth was running out of CO2; plants were faced with starvation.
>
> Nonsense. CO2 is belched from volcanoes, and the carbon becomes carbonate
> minerals or plankton/ocean-bottom ooze while the oxygen builds up to breathable levels.
>
> Life evolved for the oxygen and CO2 atmospheric levels we had a century ago.

But plants could do so much better if they could breathe more easily.

>> Luckily, humans came along and liberated some of that sequestered
>> carbon.
>
> Dimwit alert! It's not the carbon in the soil that matters, it's the CO2 in the atmosphere that is
> out of control.

WTF? We're moving it from the soil to the air, where it used to be before it was moved from the air to the soil.

> Warm is why I have heaters. Cold is why I have refrigerators. Neither is 'good', but being able to
> control temperature IS good. Greenhouse gasses put heating out of control on a global scale.
> I'm calling that bad, and I've got real criteria to judge by.

Oooh a whole centigrade or two!

>> In the great glory days of evolution, CO2 was 5000 PPM or so.
>
> Fantasies again; greatness in those days included a complete absence of
> bombast from John Larkin.

No, a scientific fact.

On Wed, 15 Jun 2022 07:36:48 +0100, "Commander Kinsey"
<CK1@nospam.com> wrote:

>On Fri, 10 Jun 2022 19:23:09 +0100, Ricky <gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Friday, June 10, 2022 at 1:33:40 PM UTC-4, John Larkin wrote:
>>> On Thu, 9 Jun 2022 17:56:44 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>> >On Thursday, June 9, 2022 at 5:23:23 PM UTC-7, John Larkin wrote:
>>> >
>>> >> CO2 is greening the planet. Warm is good, cold kills.
>>> >
>>> >The planet has been green for centuries, and it wasn't CO2
>>> >that did it.
>>> >
>>> How would you like it if your food was 300 PPM nutrients?
>>>
>>> Earth was running out of CO2; plants were faced with starvation.
>>> Luckily, humans came along and liberated some of that sequestered
>>> carbon. Let's keep at it.
>>>
>>> In the great glory days of evolution, CO2 was 5000 PPM or so.
>>> >Warm is not 'good'; good and evil are very broad concepts,
>>> Dying of cold is not a very abstract concept. Neither is malnutrition.
>>
>> I think he is getting worse. It's probably an age issue.
>
>What on earth makes you disagree with any of the points made by John above?

Problem is, there's just not enough thinking going around these days.

--

Anybody can count to one.

- Robert Widlar