Dear Obama, American is BANKRUPT. Forget the climate scam.

On 2/25/10 4:46 AM, wrote:
On Feb 24, 8:36 pm, First
wrote:
On Wed, 24 Feb 2010 16:55:00 -0800 (PST), wrote:
On Feb 24, 8:24 am, First
wrote:
On Wed, 24 Feb 2010 03:13:06 -0800 (PST), wrote:
On Feb 23, 11:40 pm, First
wrote:

But I'm doing my part. Right now I'm using no fossil fuel whatsoever
to heat my home this evening. Just threw another big log on the fire.
All nice and toasty without burning a bit of electricity, gas or oil.

Do you harvest the wood from your own property?

Here and from neighbors property with their full permission.
Doesn't really make any difference as long as it's done legally.

How many acres of woodlot do you and your neighbor have? How many
cords due you use per year?

In all seriousness, I live on a 200 acre wooded lot. Haven't had to
cut down a tree in years. For no other reason than I'm lazy, the
trees I cut and split are already on the ground from storms or
whatever natural event. So I'm not killing **** other than a few
cockroaches and termites. Of course the older rotten trees lie where
they are. The ones I get are typically already well seasoned as I
find what has come down from the last years winter so they burn good.
And quite a bit of my firewood comes from large limbs that have broken
and fallen. Often I find limbs that are 4 to 6 inches in diameter so
all I have to do is cut them up into sections and don't have to split
anything. So I have supplemental heat as well as clear paths to use
for hunting. Right now I have enough deer in the freezer to last
until next season, around 800 pounds.
Oh yeah, and one turkey that my nephew hit when he missed a deer he
was shooting at. Go figure.
Almost forgot, I go through up to 6 cords per typical winter and as
few as 3 depending on how bad or mild it is. I only have a fire going
for a few hours at night and all day on the weekends and holidays.
Not a big fan of leaving a fire going when at work or asleep.

So all we need to do is find 200 acres of wooded land for each family,
so that they can all stop using fossil fuel to keep warm in the
winter!


A global population of about 200 million max would be ideal.

On Feb 25, 10:38 am, Sam Wormley wrote:
On 2/25/10 4:46 AM, wrote:



On Feb 24, 8:36 pm, First
wrote:
On Wed, 24 Feb 2010 16:55:00 -0800 (PST), wrote:
On Feb 24, 8:24 am, First
wrote:
On Wed, 24 Feb 2010 03:13:06 -0800 (PST), wrote:
On Feb 23, 11:40 pm, First
wrote:

But I'm doing my part. Right now I'm using no fossil fuel whatsoever
to heat my home this evening. Just threw another big log on the fire.
All nice and toasty without burning a bit of electricity, gas or oil.

Do you harvest the wood from your own property?

Here and from neighbors property with their full permission.
Doesn't really make any difference as long as it's done legally.

How many acres of woodlot do you and your neighbor have? How many
cords due you use per year?

In all seriousness, I live on a 200 acre wooded lot. Haven't had to
cut down a tree in years. For no other reason than I'm lazy, the
trees I cut and split are already on the ground from storms or
whatever natural event. So I'm not killing **** other than a few
cockroaches and termites. Of course the older rotten trees lie where
they are. The ones I get are typically already well seasoned as I
find what has come down from the last years winter so they burn good.
And quite a bit of my firewood comes from large limbs that have broken
and fallen. Often I find limbs that are 4 to 6 inches in diameter so
all I have to do is cut them up into sections and don't have to split
anything. So I have supplemental heat as well as clear paths to use
for hunting. Right now I have enough deer in the freezer to last
until next season, around 800 pounds.
Oh yeah, and one turkey that my nephew hit when he missed a deer he
was shooting at. Go figure.
Almost forgot, I go through up to 6 cords per typical winter and as
few as 3 depending on how bad or mild it is. I only have a fire going
for a few hours at night and all day on the weekends and holidays.
Not a big fan of leaving a fire going when at work or asleep.

So all we need to do is find 200 acres of wooded land for each family,
so that they can all stop using fossil fuel to keep warm in the
winter!

A global population of about 200 million max would be ideal.

So why are you still here?

On 2/26/10 5:12 AM, wrote:
On Feb 25, 10:38 am, Sam wrote:


A global population of about 200 million max would be ideal.

So why are you still here?


Why to pride you with some science, silly!

On Feb 26, 9:45 am, Sam Wormley wrote:
On 2/26/10 5:12 AM, wrote:

On Feb 25, 10:38 am, Sam wrote:

A global population of about 200 million max would be ideal.

So why are you still here?

Why to pride you with some science, silly!

If by science you mean all of that AGW stuff, we get enough of that
from the media.

Were the world to have a population of only 200 million people, we
might expect the following:

Iowa, population = 88,000
US, population = 9,000,000
NYC, population = 530,000 (metro)
China, population = 39,000,000

If Iowa is too crowded for you why don't you move to Wyoming, Alaska
or even Siberia?

On Feb 24, 9:38*am, "Cat_in_awe" wrote:

The government cannot 'stimulate demand', they can only manipulate
production. If people don't want CFLs, they don't. Only by subsidising CFLs
and artificially driving the price down will more people buy them, but only
because the supply has been manipulated by government interference in the
market. *'Growth' is supply, not demand. *And this goverment stimulated
'growth' can only be accomplished by destroying something else.

People want and purchase what is locally useful to them.

Because they are in competition with others around them, it isn't easy
to be self-sacrificing and voluntarily use a more expensive carbon-
free way to power your car if other people are not doing so. Thus, not
many people will do it, absent government interference.

Purchasing choices have costs that don't show up in the price tag.
These are called "externalities", and internalizing the externalities,
so that the results of millions of individual choices that make sense
directly for the individuals involved aren't destructive for everyone,
is part of the proper job of government.

John Savard

On Sat, 27 Feb 2010 04:05:08 -0800 (PST), wrote:

On Feb 26, 9:45 am, Sam Wormley wrote:
On 2/26/10 5:12 AM, wrote:

On Feb 25, 10:38 am, Sam wrote:

A global population of about 200 million max would be ideal.

So why are you still here?

Why to pride you with some science, silly!

If by science you mean all of that AGW stuff, we get enough of that
from the media.


Finally last night ABC news showed a girl
looking at the snow on the east coast, and
saying, 4 feet of Global Warming, oh, we are
all gonna fry. :-)

Were the world to have a population of only 200 million people, we
might expect the following:

Iowa, population = 88,000
US, population = 9,000,000
NYC, population = 530,000 (metro)
China, population = 39,000,000

If Iowa is too crowded for you why don't you move to Wyoming, Alaska
or even Siberia?


The AGW idiots must not watch the news
in places outside Manhattan, they apparently
don't realize people are getting lost within
a few miles of smaller towns.

There is so much empty land in the US
it is mind boggling, Canada and Australia
must be really deserted.