OT: Solar farm with batteries, to power LA

side would win.

their food supplies from the world market, just as they are doing now with many food supplies which we have essentially cut them off from. At the sam e time we are increasing our debt by subsidizing our farmers. I wonder who is buying that debt and what the impact will be if they stop buying US deb t?

again the rate in the US and much lower than many areas of the world. So there is no reason to believe they will be starving in the future either.

about financial dominance. Khrushchev wasn't talking about bombs when he s aid, "We will bury you!" He just couldn't pull it off.

ountry?

That's Hong Kong, not China. China doesn't waste any time trying to look de mocratic - it's a one party state, and while the party does listen to the v oices of the population, it also pays attention to lots of other factors, a nd doesn't tolerate violent protest.

America doesn't pretend to be democratic. The voters are represented by ele cted politicians, but - as James Arthur points out - the founding tax evade rs equated democracy with mob rule, and took care that system produced the right sort of representatives.

Nixon and Spiro Agnew were forced to resign. Reagan got away with Contragat e, though Oliver North went to prison. Dubbya and Cheney never got charged with anything, though they lied through their teeth to get the US to invade Irak.

This isn't "policing".

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

Trader4 hasn't thought about the direct effects of letting off a lot of nuclear weapons, let alone the side effects.

The survivors would be more interested in staying alive than fighting any kind of war.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

The same higher temperatures that make more water evaporate from the oceans make more water evaporate from the land that the extra rain falls on.

Of course the land warms up more than the oceans, so the evaporation rate from the land is increased more than the evaporation rate from the oceans.

John Larkin didn't pay enough attention to his science lectures at Tulane, which do seem to have included some "creation science" if what he posts here about "intelligent design" is any kind of evidence.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

Then it wouldn't be called a war between China and the USA. It might perhaps look like the Vietnam War, or the Korean War.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

Get yourself a good bed to hide under.

percent increase, it's 103F fever, and one percent less, it's 94 degrees ch ill.

.

things worse, if it acidifies oceans worldwide (for instance). Because t hat would be a discomfort for an entire WORLD of lifeforms, not just an ind ividual.

John Larkin's solution is more like a pair of blinkers.

He gets his information about anthropogenic global warming from denialist p ropaganda websites, and is too gullible to notice that the people who pay f or those web-sites have a financial interests in being able to keep on digg ing up fossil carbon and selling it as fuel for as long as possible.

It's not in their long term financial interest either, but rich people do h ave an overriding interest in staying as rich as possible for as long as po ssible.

ceed

does make the point that people at the top of the tree seem to be more inte rested in staying at the top than they are in the state of the tree that th ey are at the top of.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

:

te:

ants

d to

her side would win.

t has settled we would still try to sail across the oceans in ships that ha ve no electronics to invade a country on the other side of the world?

Instead of being cryptic, what type of war are you talking about?

ing their food supplies from the world market, just as they are doing now w ith many food supplies which we have essentially cut them off from.

ppose you are going to tell me that China started the trade war?

Who started the war absolutely is relevant. Did anyone expect the Chinese to just take the crap dished out by Trump? Of course they were going to re taliate with the result of every lessening trade hurting both countries.

mers. I wonder who is buying that debt and what the impact will be if they stop buying US debt?

riffs

lated.

If it's not borrowed from the Chinese, it is taxed from US tax payers by pa ying the tarrifs. Which foot do you want to stand on? Either we are borro wing the money from the Chinese or we are taxing our own people, pick one.

w crops. How is that different from welfare or the various government pric e support programs that no one likes?

e

It was a TAX increase on the US!!! When you simplify it to "it brought in money" you are dissing the intelligence of the US tax payer.

ng

r

ough taxes.

Those things are not part of the current system. How can they be causing o ur increasing debt problem??? This is a Republican administration and the debt is increasing just as fast as it did under the previous administration where they were fighting the Great Recession.

d tax revenues rose, the opposite of what Trump is doing.

LOL! I like your criteria, it has to be a significant debt reduction in or der to be of any value. lol

So you are good with the continuing to increase the debt in order to save t he wealthy taxes? Doesn't seem to be working much. Signs are we are edgin g toward an economic slow down.

The stock market is a leading indicator of the economy (although not perfec t by any means) but it is *not* the economy. The internet bubble had nothi ng to do with the subsequent recession which actually happened some five ye ars later.

I like the way you connect the good times in Clinton's term to Bush, the se cond worst economic times in the country's history in the second half of Bu sh Jr.'s term to Clinton and I suspect you will attribute any good economic times which clearly started during Obama's term, to Trump? All good comes from Republicans and all bad comes from Democrats? Then you are going to be hating 2021.

overnment revenues don't increase. Then when the bubble bursts things will really go bad.

What you call "increase" others call stagnation. 2017 - $3.32 trillion, 20

18 - $3.33 trillion. These "increases" aren't even keeping up with inflati on.

So you wish to ignore the fact that present policies have hurt business and reduced revenues from what they otherwise should be???

Ok, I get it. You bury your head in the sand for what you don't wish to se e.

BTW, I'm willing to bet the spending you are talking about has nothing to d o with taxes anyway.

--

  Rick C. 

  +-+ Get 2,000 miles of free Supercharging 
  +-+ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

Nope, that'd be the bad-planner solution. I'm a h*mo sapiens.

"As ye sow, so shall ye reap" is a motto of my species; we look ahead and make future plans, and don't take kindly to air/water/temperature specifications being changed by the actions of others.

Parts we will use in our future plans are NOT to be respecified by third parties, sometimes a 'change without notice' for air composition is an intolerable offense.

Future by design, and no reason to hide. What species are you?

I'm sure all of those graphs are real.

I'm sure *none* of them have any relevance whatsoever to the simple point I made. I really don't see why you posted them.

The standard retail financial disclaimer "past performance is not a guide to future performance" also applies in other areas!

te:

rote:

plants

r.

ced to

's

ither side would win.

o

out has settled we would still try to sail across the oceans in ships that have no electronics to invade a country on the other side of the world?

Open a history book for examples of wars.

tting their food supplies from the world market, just as they are doing now with many food supplies which we have essentially cut them off from.

suppose you are going to tell me that China started the trade war?

No and I never implied that.

e to just take the crap dished out by Trump? Of course they were going to retaliate with the result of every lessening trade hurting both countries.

Well then, it was by their choice to retaliate, the specific form to retaliate, that had CHINA declining to purchase US food supplies. The US did not "cut them off", that's simply false.

armers. I wonder who is buying that debt and what the impact will be if th ey stop buying US debt?

tariffs

related.

Geez, again, one more time. The new tariffs Trump put on have generated TWICE the revenue as what was given to the farmers. You can't look at one side of the equation, ignore the other and falsely claim that somehow the money given to farmers is borrowed money.

want to stand on? Either we are borrowing the money from the Chinese or we are taxing our own people, pick one.

You don't "pick", you look at the actual facts. And the simple fact is that the new tariffs have generated twice the amount that was given to the farmers. So, it's pure BS that the money had to be borrowed. It's helping lessen borrowing, without the tariff money the govt would have had to borrow even more. Capiche?

row crops. How is that different from welfare or the various government pr ice support programs that no one likes?

ey

are

n money" you are dissing the intelligence of the US tax payer.

Try reading what I write instead of responding emotionally to the voices in your head. I did not say that US citizens and companies are not paying most of the new tariffs. Once again, I said that the money to the farmers, was not borrowed, the tariffs raised twice what the farmers have been given. So, the tariffs are actually allowed the US govt to borrow less, by about $30 bil so far. And that's not counting the other $32 bil given to the farmers. The tariffs have raised $60 bil.

ning

ear

hrough taxes.

,

our increasing debt problem???

Geez, again, I never said they were causing our debt problem. I simply said the crazy lib Democrats want to greatly add to the spending with $12K giveaways to all and free healthcare for illegal aliens.

st as it did under the previous administration where they were fighting the Great Recession.

Correct, with a but. It's not the WH that sets spending, it's a combined process that originates in the House. And both parties have been spending money like drunk sailors. One party has a bunch running for president that want to increase it drastically more, so of the two, I say they are worse.

and tax revenues rose, the opposite of what Trump is doing.

order to be of any value. lol

Well, that's true. If you were 250K in debt and you reduced it one time by $10, would you call that significant? Geez.

the wealthy taxes? Doesn't seem to be working much. Signs are we are edg ing toward an economic slow down.

The economy slowing has nothing to do with taxes being too low. Under even Keynesian economics, govt deficits, govt spending is STIMULATIVE. And this expansion has been going since 2009, it's now the longest on record. Expansions don't last forever. And no, I'm not good with increasing the national debt, which is why those stupid libs running for president are so shocking, calling for greatly increasing govt spending.

ect by any means) but it is *not* the economy.

I never said it was.

actually happened some five years later.

That's wrong on two counts. First, the recession started in Mar 2001, just two months after Bush took office. The internet stock bubble peaked about a year earlier. And of course the internet bubble had a lot to do with the economy, both propelling it up and then leading it into recession. You don't vaporize trillions in wealth without it having a negative effect. You think someone is as likely to go buy a new car, new house, spend money, give out raises when they think they are worth a lot less than they were a month ago and it now looks like that stock that was $300 is now $150 and looks headed even lower?

the second worst economic times in the country's history in the second half of Bush Jr.'s term to Clinton

Wrong again. I didn't connect the good times in Clinton's term to Bush, I connected it to Reagan ending confiscatory 70% tax rates. The rates in effect during Clinton's two terms were far closer to Reagan's rates, than they were to 70%. But then Clinton was one of the last Democrats that was reasonable, before the current crop of nutty libs fully took over.

and I suspect you will attribute any good economic times which clearly star ted during Obama's term, to Trump? All good comes from Republicans and all bad comes from Democrats? Then you are going to be hating 2021.

Well, you'd be wrong. I recognize that the economy has been improving pretty much in a straight line since 2009. I'm not like Trump, Hannity and most Republicans, comparing economic stats for 8 years of Obama with Trump and not admitting that OBama came into office in a severe economic decline, while Trump took office with a growing economy.

government revenues don't increase. Then when the bubble bursts things wi ll really go bad.

Yes, the libs who want to suck the life blood out of the economy and American taxpayers would call it that. Most of those Democrat nuts, with the possible exception of Biden, would call it that.

2017 - $3.32 trillion, 2018 - $3.33 trillion. These "increases" aren't ev en keeping up with inflation.

Nice try, but those numbers are wrong. Here is the actual US govt spending by year:

2016 3.85 tril 17 3.982 18 4.11 19 4.4 est That's up 14% in three years 20 4.6 est

Here, data from the latest CBO report just last month:

'The federal government?s revenue went up by 3% in the first 11 mon ths of the 2019 fiscal year. The increase was attributable to more money co ming in from individual income and payroll taxes, corporate taxes, and othe r sources such as customs duties revenue from President Trump?s tar iffs on imported goods from China.

In contrast, the total amount spent by the federal government went up by 7% in the first 11 months of the 2019 fiscal year. The higher spending was mo stly due to increases in spending on mandatory programs such as Social Secu rity, Medicare, and Medicaid. "

Got that? Revenue went up by 3%, more than the rate of inflation. Govt spending went up by 7%. There is your problem.

u

nd reduced revenues from what they otherwise should be???

What present policies have hurt businesses? Trump at least is friendly to businesses, unlike Democrats who think they are the evil empire.

see.

You're talking about yourself, not me.

do with taxes anyway.

No idea what you're talking about there and I suspect you don't know either.

That's stupid even for you. The Vietnam War and the Korean War were both called wars. You're the kind of trolling jerk where someone could say the oceans are full of salt water and you'd dispute that too, just to try to create an endless thread of BS.

I've been hearing how we'll all be dead in 10 or so years, for about

50 years now.

It sells books and wins elections, I suppose.

10 years from today seems to be the standard for doomsday. Like Free Beer Tomorrow.

A lot of people must be disappointed to still be alive.

for

homes. It

cept for

h air without heating it up or cooling it down as much.

are typically not inexpensive to install. In areas where water is plentif ul they are more practical when water based rather than installation in the ground.

. Huge

nclude such heat exchangers. I haven't seen where single family residentia l uses any sort of fresh air exchanges. Adding a system like this won't pr ovide any "savings" since the cost is not zero and with no system the cost is zero.

mes though. The claims of saving a lot in summer and winter are only true i f you run it to bring in fresh air and compare that to just bringing in out side air without a heat exchanger, eg opening windows with the heat or ac o n. If you compare using it to simply not using it, then it's an energy loss .

Just because some confused person, who doesn't know anything, introduced r ecovery ventilation under the topic of energy efficiency, doesn't mean it i s an efficiency issue. Ventilation is first and foremost a health issue.

You really need to change your handle to Whoey Loony.

ROTFL!! Seriously, I think you're on to something there. :-D

-- This message may be freely reproduced without limit or charge only via the Usenet protocol. Reproduction in whole or part through other protocols, whether for profit or not, is conditional upon a charge of GBP10.00 per reproduction. Publication in this manner via non-Usenet protocols constitutes acceptance of this condition.

Just like 2 years before a product takes off.

But none of your subsequent points have anything to do with the temperature dependence of precipitation vs evaporation.

It has to do with the general case of doomsday predictions; whatever happens must be bad. That appeals to some people, goodness knows why.

I'm struggling to deal with the promised California Perpetual Drought. Our big reservoir is at its lowest point of the year... 93% full. It might rain tomorrow, about a month early. Snow season starts soon. There wasn't going to be any more snow, either. I need new ski boots.

Why can't people look at the facts: things keep getting better.

Electronics, too. GaN rocks.

But not wars between the US and China, even though China was involved in the Korean War though its support for North Korea.

The stupidity here is all yours.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

f the

te)

ain.PNG?raw=1

That's because you never understood what was actually being said. "The Popu lation Bomb" did predict mass starvation, but not in the US population - it never said that the human population would die out, merely that it might c rash to an appreciably lower level.

It's certainly attention-getting.

John Larkin does seem to be the maximally superficial observer.

Why? Most doomsday books go to the trouble to spell out ways of avoiding do omsday, but John Larkin doesn't seem to have the attention span to get to t hose parts of the books.

He gets his emotional high from the doomsday prediction, then tunes out.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

As if Cursitor Doom could do "serious". He even more superficial than John Larkin, and probably even more gullible - though this is arguing precedence between a louse and flea.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney