COVID-19 RESOURCES
LIT CAMS (200 Free Tokens)ADULT TOYSVOD MOVIES

The Greatest Scientic Fraud of All Time

irksomesauce said:
BTW: since you pride yourself on thinking yourself so knowledgeable, are you going to correct neci's stupidity, or you going to let her slide, too, just because you like her rag's stink better than you do trysail?
Click to expand...
I have no idea what you're talking about.

irksomesauce said:
I didn't come close to even inferring the Bible is copyrighted. But you do know many versions of it that are published, both in book form and digitally on the internet, are fully covered by copyright law, right?

Where do you imagine the poster c&p'd his from?

trysail at least had the courtesy to cite where he stole his more than 5 paragraphs from.

See how it goes, trysail? Same crime, you get deleted and the other doesn't, and the ones attacking you will defend the other for doing the exact same thing.

The cunts on this Board don't like what you post, trysail. That's all it's about.
Click to expand...
How do you know he didn't just open his bible and transcribe those passages?

To accuse someone of a violation of a law you should have at least a little evidence they did.
And for someone to be found guilty of violating that law.
How far would do you think you'd get in the bible quote case?
 
Last edited:
Liar said:
No, I'm implying that The Greatest Scientific Fraud Of All Time™ is, at worst, a pretty mediocre one in terms of dividends. There are many more lucurative ways to apply their skills and clout, if scruples weren't in the equation.
Click to expand...


There has been a colossal diversion and misallocation of limited resources due to what is, in fact, an unproved conjecture. This has occurred as a result of public policies put in place on the basis of that conjecture. Most of those diverted and misallocated funds end up in the pockets of those who have used this pseudoscience to stampede the credulous and the gullible.

Spain was all but bankrupted by the ridiculous over-investment in dubious forms of wind-generated energy.

German consumers pay 3× more for their electricity than the average U.S. ratepayer.

California residents pay 1½× more for their electricity than the average U.S. consumer.

New England residents pay much more for their electricity than average.

Guess why? Who do you think is skimming off the difference?



​
 
Last edited:
trysail said:


There has been a colossal diversion and misallocation of limited resources due to what is, in fact, an unproved conjecture. This has occurred as a result of public policies put in place on the basis of a that conjecture. Most of those diverted and misallocated funds ends up in the pockets of those who have used this pseudoscience to stampede the credulous and the gullible.

Spain was all but bankrupted by the ridiculous over-investment in dubious forms of wind-generated energy.

German consumers pay 3× more for their electricity than the average U.S. ratepayer.

California residents pay 1½× more for their electricity than the average U.S. consumer.

New England residents pay much more for their electricity than average.

Guess why? Who do you think is skimming off the difference?



​
Click to expand...
Forbes article I linked yesterday quotes US Chamber of Congress numbers that environmental regulation cost the US economy alone 1.75 trillion dollars per year.

Just one example of someone working both sides of the street was when Blood and Gore invested money in a startup produced more efficient switching equipment which then became suddenly popular with utilities because EPA regs required adapting for such incremental gains.

In the long run that might well be of benefit to the utilities and their consumers because more efficient power grids mean more efficient delivery and more electricity available for their consumers. But if it didn't make sense on the numbers before the government regs then it doesn't make sense yet.
 
Last edited:
Speaking of cashing in on alternative energy....Vestas stock looks like a pretty good buy right now if you are willing to gamble on Trump being pro-wind.

I was checking them out this last fall in Denmark.
 
Conager said:
Forbes article I linked yesterday quotes US Chamber of Congress numbers that environmental regulation cost the US economy alone 1.75 trillion dollars per year.
Click to expand...
And the Forbes article is wrong, assuming it was referring to the Chamber of Commerce study I linked to and quoted that said otherwise.

I don't know for certain that it's the same as I can't read anything on the Forbes web site because I use ad-blocking software and don't have a subscription to Forbes.

But I suspect they are one in the same as the exact $1.75T amount is in both.
 
about_average said:
And the Forbes article is wrong, assuming it was referring to the Chamber of Commerce study I linked to and quoted that said otherwise.

I don't know for certain that it's the same as I can't read anything on the Forbes web site because I use ad-blocking software and don't have a subscription to Forbes.

But I suspect they are one in the same as the exact $1.75T amount is in both.
Click to expand...

that does seem rather high if we are talking specifically only environmental regulations. If we're talking about entire Regulatory and tax preparation and every other kind of Regulation poison on business I think it's probably about right or low.

I didn't catch your chamber of commerce link if you still haven't had any I would be interested in reading that
 
Lancecastor said:
Speaking of cashing in on alternative energy....Vestas stock looks like a pretty good buy right now if you are willing to gamble on Trump being pro-wind.

I was checking them out this last fall in Denmark.
Click to expand...

Trump srikes me as a whichever way the wind blows sort of blow hard I don't know how much actual research he is likely to do before tweeting out an executive action. But that's an interesting tip.

I'm going to assume that Trump is not going to be a get down in the weeds guy and understand numbers the way of Paul Ryan would. But let's assume for the sake of discussion it is energy secretary is and looks at the actual cost benefit of wind. I don't think it's justifiable but I don't know if what my understanding of that is actually correct if the cost per kilowatt-hour is becoming more reasonable AZ more units are in production it might make sense. So I say it's a good play if the numbers are at least close to not being a net economic drain. I don't think it has to pay for itself entirely to be attractive to a trumpet ministration but I think it can't be a huge sinkhole

That's a funny voice to text error trumpet ministration it sounds like something that would happen during a Bill Clinton administration.
 
Conager said:
No, I think you very much outdid your self. In this country, the Democrat strategy of divide and conquer according to how much someone makes was a plan formulated to defeat Mitt Romney. Democrats the way they tend to do, were still banging that drum to their detriment with a candidate who easily could afford gold-plated toilets and limousines with money she got directly for influence-peddling and giving speeches at Goldman Sachs.

Here you Frodo and Spider-Man are all trying to imply that highly paid grant recipients and employess of grant recipients are not highly paid because they don't have gold plated toilets.

They aren't in the 1% but they certainly are in the top half of earners by a large margin. Median income in this country has been flat not so for people in government jobs and Academia which is essentially supported with government guaranteed, loaned money that's realistically, never going to be paid back. Median income in the US is $51,000. That's per household. I don't have the number handy but more than half certainly of us households contained two earners that means the actual median wage is somewhere in the neighborhood of 25K a year. There's not a grant researcher in the US that's being paid anything close to that.
Click to expand...
Faulty memory and lousy math skills. Another day with Conager.

That strategy wasn't formulated to defeat Romney. It's been around for decades. "Follow the money" was memed by Republicans in the Whitewater case in the 1990's.

With a median income of $51,000 per household annually, in order to get to the neighborhood of $25,000 annual median wage, you need all households to have at least two earners, and some would need three.
 
trysail said:


There has been a colossal diversion and misallocation of limited resources due to what is, in fact, an unproved conjecture. This has occurred as a result of public policies put in place on the basis of that conjecture. Most of those diverted and misallocated funds ends up in the pockets of those who have used this pseudoscience to stampede the credulous and the gullible.

Spain was all but bankrupted by the ridiculous over-investment in dubious forms of wind-generated energy.

German consumers pay 3× more for their electricity than the average U.S. ratepayer.

California residents pay 1½× more for their electricity than the average U.S. consumer.

New England residents pay much more for their electricity than average.

Guess why? Who do you think is skimming off the difference?



​
Click to expand...
In California's case, it's caused by all those greedy contractors who build and maintain the complex infrastructure needed to distribute electricity across a mountainous state straddling a fault line.
 
phrodeau said:
In California's case, it's caused by all those greedy contractors who build and maintain the complex infrastructure needed to distribute electricity across a mountainous state straddling a fault line.
Click to expand...

Cite?
 
Conager said:
that does seem rather high if we are talking specifically only environmental regulations. If we're talking about entire Regulatory and tax preparation and every other kind of Regulation poison on business I think it's probably about right or low.

I didn't catch your chamber of commerce link if you still haven't had any I would be interested in reading that
Click to expand...
This is what I posted
The report that that number comes from states clearly that is only looking at the costs imposed by the regulations. It gives no consideration to the benefits.
Government regulations pervade modern life in America and other nations with
few exceptions. Regulations are needed to provide the rules and structure for societies
to properly function. This research, while mindful of this fact, does not consider the
benefits of federal regulations, but looks at the overall costs imposed by them. Little
stock is taken of the cumulative effects.
Click to expand...
https://www.sba.gov/sites/default/files/The Impact of Regulatory Costs on Small Firms (Full).pdf
Click to expand...
I have no knowledge of any studies showing the $$ benefit of all those regulations but obviously if they are $1.75t +, then they are obviously a good ting.
 
about_average said:
This is what I posted
I have no knowledge of any studies showing the $$ benefit of all those regulations but obviously if they are $1.75t +, then they are obviously a good ting.
Click to expand...

Okay I can vaguely see where there might be some wiggle room in the numbers but I cannot imagine a lot of regulations which we might all agree or find specific income enhancing benefits to accompany else why wouldn't they do it anyway?

A specific example that I can see that would support your idea was on that blood and gore story. Utilities upgrading their power grid switching equipment so costly Shirley saves them some money down the road.

I know I know don't call you surely blame voice to text.

when I saw the number I thought it was a misprint if it really is the tabulated cost of all environmental regulations.

I can't really think of any broad classes of regulations that tend to benefit industry I would think that's why industry would be opposed to them is because they cost more than they benefit. If you're saying though that the number is somewhere south of that because it's not a dollar-for-dollar loss I would have to probably agree wit that
 
phrodeau said:
https://ocw.mit.edu/courses/earth-a...ces/12-001-introduction-to-geology-fall-2013/
Click to expand...

You're going to have to Google for confirmation bias a little harder than that. Nothing in that field at all addresses what the associated costs would be for running power lines.

Most Californians live near the coast nowhere near mountainous regions the power plants similarly are cited. Explain.

there is by the way Federal money available to run power lines out to rural communities which I'm sure all of the California utilities take advantage of.
 
Conager said:
You're going to have to Google for confirmation bias a little harder than that. Nothing in that field at all addresses what the associated costs would be for running power lines.

Most Californians live near the coast nowhere near mountainous regions the power plants similarly are cited. Explain.

there is by the way Federal money available to run power lines out to rural communities which I'm sure all of the California utilities take advantage of.
Click to expand...
It's because of some of the pesky regulations. There are regulations in place to lessen the chance of widespread blackouts in the event of an earthquake in an earthquake prone state. Those costs are, of course, passed on to consumers.
The benefits to society and the economy are pretty obvious.

As for the USCOC study, there are broad groups of regulations that may be a net cost to industry, but are a benefit to society and the GDP.
 
about_average said:
It's because of some of the pesky regulations. There are regulations in place to lessen the chance of widespread blackouts in the event of an earthquake in an earthquake prone state. Those costs are, of course, passed on to consumers.
The benefits to society and the economy are pretty obvious.

As for the USCOC study, there are broad groups of regulations that may be a net cost to industry, but are a benefit to society and the GDP.
Click to expand...

Well yes and no. At some point you get into the broken windows fallacy we could just as easily decide to create some tomahawk missiles and running on over to the Mideast and wipe out some huts with it our GDP went up arguably but the wealth of our nation did not increase $1.

I'm now thinking about your earlier comment from an accounting perspective I wonder if that's the point they're trying to make that every time you mandate somebody put a carbon scrubber on their smokestacks someone's got to build that and that raises the GDP by that same amount and they're right about that of course.

I just maintain that if such a thing turns out to be unnecessary we haven't actually accomplished anything. We could have a regulation that said all smokestacks have to be painted green. We could even mandate how often it had to be painted and how many mills thick and had to be. This would benefit the green paint industry and the painters union but is not actuallu a capital improvement that would enable the owners of those smokestacks to create more actual wealth for the nation.

There is a reason that it is a matter of federal law that before any proposed regulation is enacted, the cost to business is is accounted for and disclosed I'm sure that industry groups do what they can to maximize reporting of any harm that may come from a regulation and minimizing any offsets for the government to play accounting games is just wrong. Currently under the Obama Administration they are saying that $4o of societal benefits for every ton CO2 that is prevented from being released. That's specious.
 
Conager said:
No, I think you very much outdid your self. In this country, the Democrat strategy of divide and conquer according to how much someone makes was a plan formulated to defeat Mitt Romney. Democrats the way they tend to do, were still banging that drum to their detriment with a candidate who easily could afford gold-plated toilets and limousines with money she got directly for influence-peddling and giving speeches at Goldman Sachs.

Here you Frodo and Spider-Man are all trying to imply that highly paid grant recipients and employess of grant recipients are not highly paid because they don't have gold plated toilets.

They aren't in the 1% but they certainly are in the top half of earners by a large margin. Median income in this country has been flat not so for people in government jobs and Academia which is essentially supported with government guaranteed, loaned money that's realistically, never going to be paid back. Median income in the US is $51,000. That's per household. I don't have the number handy but more than half certainly of us households contained two earners that means the actual median wage is somewhere in the neighborhood of 25K a year. There's not a grant researcher in the US that's being paid anything close to that.
Click to expand...

Wow. All I did was ask Trysail for clarification and I got assigned a position. I don't know why Qunager needs to have a discussion if he already knows what everyone thinks.
 
California's TAC charge is 3 cents per KWH which, presumedly covers the cost to transmit electricity from generation to consumption. The bulk of the higher costs that California consumers pay is generation not transmission.
 
SgtSpiderMan said:
Wow. All I did was ask Trysail for clarification and I got assigned a position. I don't know why Qunager needs to have a discussion if he already knows what everyone thinks.
Click to expand...

As you well know, you have to be "assigned" a position because you absolutely refuse to take one.

Asking snide questions for "clarification" that have a readilly apparent agenda and telegraph your position assigns you a position. These positions that are "assigned" to you are not random, nor are the ascription.
 
Conager said:
As you well know, you have to be "assigned" a position because you absolutely refuse to take one.

Asking snide questions for "clarification" that have a readilly apparent agenda and telegraph your position assigns you a position. These positions that are "assigned" to you are not random, nor are the ascription.
Click to expand...

So you have to assign me a position, but you're not assigning me a position. Gee, when you make a point so clearly why would anyone need clarification on that?
 
Conager said:
California's TAC charge is 3 cents per KWH which, presumedly covers the cost to transmit electricity from generation to consumption. The bulk of the higher costs that California consumers pay is generation not transmission.
Click to expand...
And according to this they are overcharging for the TAC. http://www.clean-coalition.org/our-work/tac/

As for the generation, the regulations I was referring to include the generation plants (you don't want them collapsing during an earthquake), so that cost is passed on down the line as well.
 
SgtSpiderMan said:
So you have to assign me a position, but you're not assigning me a position. Gee, when you make a point so clearly why would anyone need clarification on that?
Click to expand...

Was that a rhetorical question or were you trying to make a point?
 
about_average said:
And according to this they are overcharging for the TAC. http://www.clean-coalition.org/our-work/tac/

As for the generation, the regulations I was referring to include the generation plants (you don't want them collapsing during an earthquake), so that cost is passed on down the line as well.
Click to expand...

Yeah I was somewhat aware of the controversy on the TAC in the argument goes if I'm generating power on my rooftop be used by me or my immediate Neighbours why am I paying for transmission lines to Nevada.

Those extra cost for construction can easily be discerned by simply looking at the cost of construction for every other thing in earthquake-prone zones. The fact remains that California's refusal to build cheap to build cheap to operate coal or oil or gas-fired plants in favor of buying electricity from their neighbors or buying overpriced green energy is the larger Factor.
 
irksomesauce said:
Are you claiming "it wasn't" you who reported his post, or that "it wasn't" you who deleted his post?

Do you now have post deleting power on the General Board, because I do not see your name listed under Moderator for the General Board.

trysail, I was going to post to you that you know only one person holds the power to delete any posts on the GB, but maybe I am simply not aware of the changes which would have had to been made if that's no longer true.
Click to expand...

both

i'm not a mod here or anywhere on lit, though i used to be one before giving it up years ago
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

B
Non-social man wonders where to go to meet the right kind of woman...
Replies
11
Views
445
StrangerDuJour
S
F
Richard Lewis, who mined life and neuroses for dark comedy, dies at 76
Replies
0
Views
80
FL30
F
Stewart_Pidd
How would you spend your last bit of time on Earth?
Replies
13
Views
275
thør
thør
VelvetGentleman
Looking for the title of an old porn flick (bonus anectode within)
Replies
4
Views
1K
VelvetGentleman
VelvetGentleman
Bigtitsbitch1000x
Boobies part 1
Replies
19
Views
3K
Bigtitsbitch1000x
Bigtitsbitch1000x
Back
Top