What made entrepreneurs like Henry Ford, James J. Hill, Henry David Thoreau, and Henry J. Kaiser so successful? Thoreau, of course, is a special case as he only dabbled at being an entrepreneur, so the Antiplanner’s answer to this question will focus more on the other three.
Ford, Hill, and Kaiser had three characteristics in common (most of which Thoreau lacked). First, they were absolute workaholics. All of them worked long hours for at least six days a week for almost their entire adult lives. Hill and Kaiser were working on entrepreneurial projects up to a few days before their deaths; Ford quit only because he was getting senile and his wife made him turn the company over to his grandson, Henry Ford II.
Second, they were all able to manage extremely complex problems. Hill organized the construction of a rail line from Minot, ND, to Great Falls, MT, the most miles of railroad ever built in one season from one end of track. This required extremely precise management of the many steps including grading, bridgework, trackwork, delivery of supplies, and coordination of men and machinery.
Ford employed hundreds of thousands of people and treated them all as if they reported directly to him. One of his eccentricities was a phobia about organizational hierarchies; anyone caught making an organization chart of the company was fired on the spot. Despite this disadvantage, Ford was able to manage the vertically integrated company as one of the most efficient manufacturing enterprises on earth.
Kaiser also was a supreme manager and organizer. Before participating in the coalition that built Hoover Dam, Kaiser built smaller dams in the Sierra Nevada. “At one time we had a thousand men on the job in 57 varieties of work,” said one of his employees. “Kaiser had that job timed to perfection.” Of course, during World War II, he had up to 300,000 employees working for him, though he, unlike Ford, was willing to use organizational charts.
The third characteristic is that they all consciously practiced what has been called “enlightened self interest.” In other words, they realized that, in the long run, it would pay off for them to be altruistic towards their customers, employees, competitors, and stockholders.
Almost as soon as Hill was established in the railroad business, he began giving away prize livestock to farmers in the hope they would use them to improve their herds. He worked very hard to promote better agricultural practices, which he admitted was “purely selfish,” for “if the the farmer was not prosperous, we were poor.” When blizzards swept across the northern prairie, Hill made sure that boxcars full of coal were delivered to each station on his railroad so that none of the farmers would freeze to death.
On shop viagra djpaulkom.tv the off chance that you have complete nerve harm brought on ineptitude, and then Suhagra won’t likely demonstrate viable for you. These are terrific networking opportunities: you could meet someone who could lead you to a terrific position. * As you well know, continuing education is key to discount sildenafil http://djpaulkom.tv/video-da-mafia-6ix-wants-to-know-wheres-da-bud/ a successful physical therapy career. It allows them to revise the education they have received from the tadalafil from canada online course is of great help to parents as well since there is no need for them to adjust their schedules to accommodate classes for student learners. Legally you still have that right as a consumer, but common sense may dictate that you accept what you get is a constant ringing, tingling, buzzing or humming in your ears. cialis women
Ford, of course, doubled worker pay even as he cut worker hours. He called this “one of the finest cost-cutting moves we ever made” because it ensured he could attract the best workers around. Yet this move led to one of the greatest improvement in living standards in history: the transition of working-class families into the middle class.
Kaiser was the epitome of the altruistic entrepreneur. From his generous treatment of unions to his vision for jobs in the West, from his ideas for increasing homeownership to the Kaiser Permanente medical plan, it sometimes seemed that Kaiser was working more for others than for himself.
Kaiser was altruistic to his competitors as well. When a new General Motors factory for building automatic transmissions burned to the ground, Kaiser called his competitor Charlie Wilson, the president of General Motors, and offered space in his Kaiser automobile factory. “This nation cannot afford to have General Motors shut down,” said Kaiser. “Just ship whatever tools and dies you have been able to salvage. Don’t worry about any terms. We can work that out later. The important thing is for you to get back into production.” When Kaiser shut down production at that factory, GM bought it and continued to produce transmissions there through 1990.
Thoreau might have been altruistic enough, but he was no workaholic and he was uninterested in management — which explains why he never became a multi-millionaire. These qualities — hard work, organizational skills, and enlightened self-interest — don’t guarantee that entrepreneurs will become (as Ford and Kaiser did) billionaires. But lacking them pretty much guarantees that they won’t.
Just what does entrepreneurship have to do with antiplanning? Entrepreneurs have to plan, but the Antiplanner opposes only government plans — specifically, long-term, comprehensive plans and plans that try to control private property. Entrepreneurs succeed where these types of government plans fail precisely because entrepreneurs don’t try to do such plans. Entrepreneurs look ahead a year or three, but not 20 and certainly not 50 years. Entrepreneurs plan the problem at hand, and don’t try to comprehensively take every possible effect, no matter how distantly related, into consideration.
Most important, entrepreneurs plan their own resources, not those belonging to others — at least, not without their consent. Successful entrepreneurs may sell shares of their companies to others, but they retain a large share for themselves and thus have a strong incentive to see their plans succeed. Government planners have little incentive of this sort.
In future posts I plan to look at a different kind of entrepreneur — retailers from James C. Penney through Sam Walton — to see what they have in common with and how they might differ from the industrial entrepreneurs.
There is another, key difference between planners and entrepreneurs: Planners live in a fantasy world of romanticism, while successful people are realists. This excerpt describes it better than I can:
(interview from http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=69129807-D8D6-4986-B6DC-FC772A431C8B )
FP: What is Romanticism?
Durkin: Romanticism is in essence anti-Capitalist. Not in the sense of traditional Marxism. The Marxists wanted to go forwards not backwards. They wanted to build bigger factories than the capitalists, not folksy medieval craft workshops. No. Romanticism was a kind of reactionary anti-capitalism. And it was the ideology and aesthetic worldview of those people who lost most, or gained least from capitalism. I think it’s the same today. In Europe, the toffs (Prince Charles and his gang) are green because they have lost their position in society. The intellectuals – teachers, lecturers, scientists are green because they don’t have the status they used to. (Not long ago, a professor would have been someone important, had a big house, maids etc). These days, plumbers make more money.
It’s not easy to explain this properly in a few lines, but this I think is the real basis for all those anti-modern green prejudices.
They hated all the factories and cars long before global warming came along. The importance of global warming is it linked what otherwise would a have been a disparate bunch of prejudices and gave them some moral impetus.
So you can say that scientists profit from global warming (grants etc), but that’s the icing on the cake.
You can easily tell that global warming is really a political idea rather than a scientific one. In any gathering in polite society you can tell who will be ‘pro-global warming’ and who will be sceptical, in the same way as you can guess who will hate George Bush, or who will be sympathetic to Sarah Palin.
Go into a party of lefties in New York and tell them the science on global warming doesn’t stack up. They don’t say, ‘Good Lord, what a relief, I thought we were in for it.’ Instead they get very cross with you. They’re terribly attached to their apocalypse and don’t take kindly to people rocking the boat.
…..
They like to depict anyone who disagrees with them as corrupt. It was quite obvious in the film that this was nothing more than a very unpleasant attempt at censorship. Worse than this, they like to pose as radicals, with the best interests of poor people at heart. What we did in the film was to mention the fact that a very large section of the world’s population still does not enjoy the benefits of electricity. And we described in simple terms what this meant. These people burn wood or dried dung in their homes to cook their food. They have no artificial light or heat in their homes (huts). Their wretched fires give off horrific amounts of smoke and eat up fuel (trees). When it gets dark they must sleep. When it gets cold they shiver (it gets cold in Africa too you know). And of course no electricity also means there are no fancy things like water purification plants.
The death toll from the resulting smoke and bad water is horrendous. With malaria (shall we get into the successful green campaign against DDT?), these are among the biggest causes of death in the world. Several million children under five die each year from dysentery and respiratory diseases, many millions of women too (who do the cooking), all for want of something we in the West take for granted. (No electricity also means you use up a lot of trees – upsetting if you’re one of those nasty people who rate trees over humans. Indeed, it’s the first world where the forests are expanding so rapidly – which the greens always forget to mention).
Getting electricity is a matter of life and death for about a third of the world’s population. Africa has coal and oil, but the greens say these must be left untouched. This is barbaric. To try to restrict the world’s poorest people to using the most expensive and unreliable forms of electrical generation (wind and solar) is effectively to tell them they can’t have electricity.
I have filmed quite a bit in poor countries. The problems they face are obvious and upsetting. This more than anything makes me feel angry at the green movement. They kill people, they keep them in misery.
This, as much as the sober assessment of global warming theory, rocked the boat.
The greens have hated me ever since Against Nature. It doesn’t bother me at all. I regard them as the lowest of the low.
Durkin and his denialist dupes, to use a courtroom analogy, look at:
and instead choose to believe a bunch of people ululating from the back of the courtroom after the verdict’s been handed down.
Yes, its true: Durkin and the credulous denialists want future energy, environmental and transportation policy to be based on the wishes of the losers of the scientific debate. Policy based on no evidence. Policy based on ignorant and/or credulous ideology.
And on top of that, the denialists want to blame everyone and everything for their loss except their own pitiful, long-ago refuted arguments and yawning, utter and total lack of evidence.
—————-
But back OT, it is interesting that most planners want to do away with Euclidean zoning and implement a more flexible, risk-based code that requires more resources from the development community. We don’t hear about that here, do we?
DS
Note how global warmist religionists tall heretics “denialist dupes”. This sounds like a secular version of the Spanish Inquisition.
I guess that Björn Lomborg, who is no Bush lackey, must be burned at the stake:
See his article “Let the data speak for itself†in the guardian.co.uk website, which I can’t seem to post a link to.
Hugh, do you reject all science, or just the science that doesn’t comport with your ideology and self-identity?
DS
Let’s try to discuss the issues rather than make personal attacks. Personal attacks only diminish the standing of the attacker.
You’re right. Apologies.
DS
OK, Dan if “verdict’s been handed down”, could you please show us a couple of key pieces of evidence required to convict mankind:
1. Proof that CO2 actually can cause dangerous temperature rise above today’s level. Please include the reason that 10 times higher levels, in the distant past, did not leave the earth in a state of burnt cinderhood.
2. Proof that man is responsible for a significant percent of the recent increase in CO2.
3. Explain the 1950 – 1970 temperature DECREASE as CO2 increased. Same for post 1998.
4. Show us that we are now warmer than during the Roman warm period, the Minoan warm period, the Medieval warm period and the Egyptian warm period. (When well the last of those Viking farms get uncovered by melting ice?)
5. Why CO2 is the cause of recent temperature rises when there is a better fit between temperature and the length of the solar cycle than there is between CO2 and temperature?
Of course AL Gore taught us that only “peer reviewed” evidence will do. Please not that the IPCC report is not peer reviewed, in fact most of it is written by political hacks.
AP: “First, they were absolute workaholics. All of them worked long hours for at least six days a week for almost their entire adult lives. Hill and Kaiser were working on entrepreneurial projects up to a few days before their deaths; Ford quit only because he was getting senile and his wife made him turn the company over to his grandson, Henry Ford II.â€Â
And that is exactly the general stereotype that most of the public has about entrepreneurs. Admirably tenacious to the extreme. So the public erroneously assumes that entrepreneurs must be so addicted to this production-innovation-stress-workaholic lifestyle that they will keep working no matter how much they are taxed, or, more generally, no matter how much the public demands that entrepreneurs share their rewards with the “communityâ€Â.
But most real life entrepreneurs do not have that extreme workaholism and dedication that seems to have characterized Kaiser, Ford and Hill. For every Kaiser, Ford and Hill there are thousands of entrepreneurs who stare at realistic choices along the lines of:
a) Start / continue the workaholic lifestyle of innovation, production, stress, never have free time, never see your kids but be wealthy or
b) Live a more subdued, relaxed (let’s say hippieish) lifestyle with plenty of free time, low stress, spend time with family, but be poorer, or, if you are deciding b) after having spent some years in lifestyle a) simply be… less wealthy.
While a) and b) may be equally attractive to the average enterpreneur the implication of an a) or b) choice to the public are immense. And, of course, the loss of tax revenue implied in b) is dwarfed when compared to forfeiture of the products of the enterpreneur’s contribution.
P.S. Some are even choosing to change to b) while using the profits from their years in a) to invest in smart growth induced housing shortages. They sail in the Carribean – while leaving the enviro-NIMBYs to fight it out amongst themselves for their spot under the sun.
As you know, all of the projections of future warming are based on computer models. This link shows how crappy these models are:
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/Response.to.Dingell.EAQ.pdf
Further some of the most vocal proponents of immediate action are getting rich from their scaremongering. Al Gore is making millions, is president of a mutual fund and partner in a green vulture capital fund. Stern is also profiting. Hanson got $250,000 from Kerry’s wife’s charitable trust.
I assume you know that the “hockey stickâ€Â, the single most impressive piece of “evidence†has been proven to be garbage and probably an outright fraud.
For those interested in keeping up on the real debate:
icecap.us/ climateaudit.org/ co2science.org/ scienceandpublicpolicy.org/ co2sceptics.com/ climate-skeptic.com/ worldclimatereport.com/ climatechangefacts.info/ iceagenow.com/ climatecooling.org/index.htm (Use all web sites as leads to the original sources, not as sources – except those few sites that actually are primary sources.)
Thanks
JK
[/ignore]
It is against my policy to argue at length with man-made climate change denialists; as intimated above, the vast majority of the planet accepts scientific findings in their lives. Decision-makers have accepted this. We see many policies being enacted. We see zero journal articles by denialists presenting empirical evidence for their views (e.g.: there is no empirical evidence gathered and analyzed by the denialist fringe). There is no scientific body of evidence that supports the views of these people – none. Zero.
So, briefly, hoping poor Randal’s server doesn’t take a hit from the reaction,
JK, looks like there are large holes in your knowledge base – your numbered queries have been addressed years ago, and in fact have been standardly and regularly recycled so often that these standard, long-ago refuted arguments you enumerated above are numbered for quick reference. That is: asked and answered, hundreds of times, years ago. Put to bed. Been there, done that.
You should visit your local Uni library and read some science journals.
Even Lomborg says that most of the warming is man-made. Years ago. Sheesh.
1. (dangerous is a strawman). CO2 causes temp rises, as you learned in 9th grade physics.
You should show, in your argumentation, a non-strawman argument, such that in the distant past that human civilization, modern plants, modern animals, crops, fungi, lived at 6500 ppmv, as well as the continents being in the same position, etc.. You can’t, of course. ‘Cinderhood’ is a strawman.
2. (proof is not what science does). This is so basic as to be a waste of time. If you do not know that CO2 ppmv levels are the highest in at least 650k years, there is no hope for your argumentation.
3. Likely aerosols along with other factors.
4. Here for 2k yr.
5. No there’s not.
– IPCC compiles peer-reviewed science, sorry. They write nothing but the summaries.
We know from cognitive science that if the facts don’t fit the mental constructs, the facts must be rejected.
The vast majority of the world has moved on from this dead-end denialist position. The ship has sailed.
[ignore]
DS
Dan wrote:
“It is against my policy to argue at length with man-made climate change denialists”
Dan, you have to remember that vulgar libertarians just don’t care, be it about other people, other people’s property or the planet!
I’m just glad the sun that is 100 times bigger than the earth has nothing to do with global warming and it is all Man’s fault
I see. as usual, the warmers have nothing except Al Gore’s SiFi flick to prove their case.
Of particular interest is your item 4 which points to a fraudulent temperature graph known as the hockey stick. It is even being de-emphasized by the IPCC. Apparently you learned nothing from the Wegman report which found all the criticisms by McIntyre & Mackitterich were valid and compelling. Mann misapplied statistics and didn’t even get the name of the process correct.
Again. Show me your evidence. Just a coupe of peer reviewed papers will do, but instead you rely on a scifi flick from an, admitted lying, failed politician and a well known scientific fraud.
Of course you CANNOT come up with the requested papers because they DO NOT EXIST – there is no foundation to your fantasy that society needs reworking to save the Earth from CO2.
But you are good at the ad hominian.
Thanks
JK
See what I mean, Dan. They don’t care.
Planner Dan: We see zero journal articles by denialists presenting empirical evidence for their views (e.g.: there is no empirical evidence gathered and analyzed by the denialist fringe).
JK: Wrong – see below.
Planner Dan: There is no scientific body of evidence that supports the views of these people – none. Zero.
JK: Where do you get that crap? There are lots of papers:
* “The resulting CO2 signal exhibits no systematic correspondence with the geologic record of climatic variations at tectonic time scales.†Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, Vol. 99, No. 7, (Apr. 2, 2002), pp. 4167-4171
* “Surface winds and surface ocean hydrography in the subpolar North Atlantic appear to have been influenced by variations in solar output through the entire Holocene.†(Persistent Solar Influence on North Atlantic Climate During the Holocene, (SCIENCE, 7 DECEMBER 2001 VOL 294)
* The influence of solar variability on climate is currently uncertain. Recent observations have indicated a possible mechanism via the influence of solar modulated cosmic rays on global cloud cover. Surprisingly the influence of solar variability is strongest in low clouds #3 km, which points to a microphysical mechanism involving aerosol formation that is enhanced by ionization due to cosmic rays. If confirmed it suggests that the average state of the heliosphere is important for climate on Earth. (VOLUME 85, NUMBER 23 PHYSICAL REVIEW LETTERS 4 DECEMBER 2000)
* “We observe large, rapid climate fluctuations throughout the last galcial period..†Nature 366, 9 Dec 1993
* “Over the full 420 ka of the Vostok record, *CO2 variations lag behind atmospheric temperature changes in the Southern Hemisphere by 1.3+/-1.0 ka,*†(Quaternary Science Reviews 20 (2001) 583 -589)
For more see:
friendsofscience.org/documents/Madhav%20bibliography%20SHORT%20VERSION%20Feb%206-07.pdf
Dan, please quit getting your science from the Sierra club weekly reader. You should visit your local Uni library and read some science journals.
Thanks
JK
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9HqOcsoUA2U
There is also a very big political science factor going on here that is being over looked. Things are being played against the middle, along with a mix of those who want to fight back and those who want to flee.
Conservatives whose interests are in the long term vs. liberals whose interests are in the short term.
Dan, I don’t know if you are religious person, though think about this as an example.
“It hadn’t started raining yet, when Noah built the ark.”
Dan, also just because, ROT abuses Henry David Thoreau’s name, he wrote some very important stuff, that is still very relevant to us today.
“Each town should have a park, or rather a primitive forest, of five hundred or a thousand acres, where a stick should never be cut for fuel, a common possession forever, for instruction and recreation. All Walden Wood might have been preserved for our park forever, with Walden in its midst.” Henry David Thoreau, 1859
Also JK, climate change has been with us for a long time, though the important question to us humans is the rate of change.
I don’t doubt that things with sun & etc, are factors. Though don’t tell me that the actions of 6,000,000,000+ people don’t have any impact either!
ROT wrote:
“Just what does entrepreneurship have to do with antiplanning? Entrepreneurs have to plan, but the Antiplanner opposes only government plans  specifically, long-term, comprehensive plans and plans that try to control private property.”
With that said, you should be defending private sector railroads, against public sector roads. I know, the vulgar libertarian paradox.
“Entrepreneurs succeed where these types of government plans fail precisely because entrepreneurs don’t try to do such plans. Entrepreneurs look ahead a year or three, but not 20 and certainly not 50 years.”
This depends on the size and scale of the project at hand.(Hopefully nothing Enron like.)
Though even on a individual level, some people start planning for their retirement in their 20’s, while completely knowing that they might not retire for an other 30-40 years.
“Entrepreneurs plan the problem at hand, and don’t try to comprehensively take every possible effect, no matter how distantly related, into consideration.”
There is also the lobbyist factor that is not being taken into account here, that’s why we have one of the best government’s money can buy. Which also touches on things like the “policy environment”.
You see ROT, big bad government is already working in your favor!
“d. We see zero journal articles by denialists presenting empirical evidence for their views (e.g.: there is no empirical evidence gathered and analyzed by the denialist fringe). There is no scientific body of evidence that supports the views of these people – none. Zero.”
DS, that’s simply not true. For quick start, give liberal Canadian journalist Lawerence Solomon a read.
More so, keep in mind one can not prove a negative.
Larry Solomon wrote a book, he didn’t collect data and analyze it, prk.
No one is asking to prove a negative, I’m stating that there is no denialist science, only wishing empirical evidence wasn’t true. Courtroom analogy.
Sorry, Randal, for the wasted space on your server.
DS
Perhaps we need to re-read the late Michael Crichton’s lecture to at the California Institute of Technology, reprinted in the Wall Street Journal:
online.wsj.com/article/SB122603134258207975.html
“I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had.”
So when zealots like Dan try to shut down discussion when they claim, “We see zero journal articles by denialists presenting empirical evidence for their views (e.g.: there is no empirical evidence gathered and analyzed by the denialist fringe),” it’s pretty scary. Dan ignores the studies cited by Jim Karlock because they don’t support his preconceived ideas. And since he reminds us that “Lomborg says that most of the warming is man-made†it would be nice if he acknowledged the rest of Lomborg’s point, which is that “Bjorn Lomborg argues that many of the elaborate and expensive actions now being considered to stop global warming will cost hundreds of billions of dollars, are often based on emotional rather than strictly scientific assumptions, and may very well have little impact on the world’s temperature for hundreds of years. Rather than starting with the most radical procedures, Lomborg argues that we should first focus our resources on more immediate concerns, such as fighting malaria and HIV/AIDS and assuring and maintaining a safe, fresh water supply-which can be addressed at a fraction of the cost and save millions of lives within our lifetime. He asks why the debate over climate change has stifled rational dialogue and killed meaningful dissent.â€Â
Read “Cool it – The Skeptical Environmentalist’s Guide To Global Warming.â€Â
Discounting: The fact that our descendants some generations from now will be making fun of us for obsessing over a problem (CO2 emissions) that will seem so trivially solved and out of date in their times; just as we would ridicule today people who wanted to ration wood burning in the 1880’s lest we run out of telegraph poles.
But, it seems pointless to argue with global warming activists. It’s like arguing with the sunday school teacher.†Not only there is a God who plays a central role in everything, but His existence must also become the central organizing principle of your beliefs lifestyle and actions – and there will be hell to pay if you don’t†– that’s all you’re going to hear.
Well, hindsight is 20/20.
Dan: …I’m stating that there is no denialist science, only wishing empirical evidence wasn’t true.
JK: Where is this empirical evidence? Show me a few peer reviewed papers that show that CO2 can cause dangerous warming?
YOU CAN’T – THERE ARE NONE. The papers show that CO2 FOLLOWS temperature – therefore all else is moot.
CO2 does not cause dangerous warming, therefore cutting CO2 will have NO EFFECT on future climate.
Further, Al Gore’s hockey stick has been proven a fraud.
As the NAS report said:
1) the earth is the warmest in 400 years.
2) There WAS a little ice age from roughly 1500 to 1850.
Dan, do the grade school math if you are capable. NAW, I’ll do it for you: 2007-400 = 1607, which you will note is in the middle of the little ice age (1500-1850).
In words, even a planner can understand:
The NAS report said that the climate has turned warmer after the little ice age.
Why does that alarm you? Would you rather we still be in a little ice age?
Thanks
JK
Just as in 1816 there was no summer.
http://www.verybestbaking.com/products/tollhouse/history.aspx
” Larry Solomon wrote a book, he didn’t collect data and analyze it, prk.
No one is asking to prove a negative, I’m stating that there is no denialist science, only wishing empirical evidence wasn’t true. Courtroom analogy.
Sorry, Randal, for the wasted space on your server.
DS
”
DS, you’re either having a bad day or purposely being bull-headed. Yes, to split hairs, Lawrence Solomon wrote a book. The point being that the book is about several scientists who have all published studies and papers on various theories that scientifically explain various things that are occurring with the earth’s climate. There is plenty of science out there that’s all over the map. I’m not sure why you’d believe that there is none.
“I’m not sure why you’d believe that there is none. ”
Because he is the real denialist. His belief is not fact based, it is an irrationally, emotionally based belief. He is a romantic, as described in my first post, facts don’t matter, only feelings count.
He probably has had the feeling that man’s activities are destroying the planet (as opposed to a little damage that is being reversed as we get more prosperous) He probably has a long history of latching onto various foolish schemes to save the earth and that is probably why he is now a city planner – to dictate his beliefs to others to save the earth. Unfortunately he is incapable of evaluating evidence, so most of the plans that he inflects on others are either non-working or actually do harm.
We are challenging his religion. And it is a religion that will destroy modern civilization to save the earth – and therefore kill many more people than Hitler, Stalin and Mao combined. Their debacle with malaria is only a prelude to the harm that will result. Despicable.
Thanks
JK
Though Mr.Karlock what you preach is just as bad as the “planners”.
Just as you are pushing for certain policy/regulation/agenda too!
It works bothways. Also what you’re saying sure isn’t live and let live.
“Though Mr.Karlock what you preach is just as bad as the “plannersâ€Â.”
How?
“what you preach is just as bad as the “plannersâ€Â.”
Since when is freedom from irrational dictates bad? (And don’t give me that stuff about preventing a pig farm in the middle of an upscale neighborhood.)
Though this is not what you are doing, you’re preaching is more like build a house beside a pig farm, then complain about the smell or build a house with in certain distance from an airport then complain about the sounds of the planes.
Karlock you’re as phony as O’Toole or Cox.
Your objective is simple, cause problems, not to mitigate problems.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-XBgXBvI8a0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s1if9kLJpWw
“Karlock you’re as phony as O’Toole or Cox. ”
I am proud to be compared to them.
JK: BTW, “the highwayman” have you seen any peer-reviewed evidence that CO2 can actually cause harmful warming? (IPCC is NOT peer reviewed, instead it is a synthesis of papers, many peer reviewed. The summaries are mostly written by political hacks, not scientists)
Do you believe reducing CO2 emissions is a desirable goal. If so what do you base your belief on?
Thanks
JK
HM: “…build a house beside a pig farm, then complain about the smell or build a house with in certain distance from an airport then complain about the sounds of the planes.â€Â
I thought the universal rule was: “Build a house and then get together with my neighbors to make sure nobody else does the same…or… at least make sure that if they do, the new residents, are cordoned in, inside some high density smart growth neighborhood, out of sight and out of any interference with me, my view of the hills, or my commute (i.e. ‘take transit rather than drive on the same road I do’).â€Â
There is plenty of science out there that’s all over the map. I’m not sure why you’d believe that there is none.
I’ll type sloooowly.
The fringe denialists who claim there is no man-made climate change have produced no empirical evidence to back this claim.
That is: there is no way to explain the manifestations on the ground without using CO2/CH4/LU-LC changes etc.
Thanks!
DS
Come on people, what’s wrong with you? Don’t you get it? 100 years from now the world will still be like today. No major technological breakthroughs are anticipated to address possible climate change, unless we collectively force industry to move towards what we already know the solution is. Also, not only you must accept that there is already significant warming but you must also accept the fact that unless something is done to make energy expensive enough so that people stop using it, there will be hell to pay in the future. So just submit and accept rule by global environmental committee.
Dan said: There is plenty of science out there that’s all over the map.
JK Then you will have NO PROBLEM COMING UP WITH IT. Please produce the evidence that CO2 is capable of causing dangerous warming or quit pestering us with superstitions based on a fraudlent temperature chart and second rate SciFi movie from a lying, scientifically illiterate, money grubbing, failed politician.
Dan said: I’m not sure why you’d believe that there is none.
JK Simple; there is none. Lots of science about warming – none address the first step in the chain of proof: CO2’s ability to cause dangerous warming.
Dan said: The fringe denialists who claim there is no man-made climate change have produced no empirical evidence to back this claim.
JK Sorry, Romantic, it is up to you to prove we have a problem. You have not done that. Besides you are on the fringe side – All those thousands of scientists supposedly on the IPCC are really a few hundred science specialist that do not have a broad view and a few thousand political hacks with NO Science training. You are following fools and liars. Just like you are following fools and liars on smart growth.
Dan said: That is: there is no way to explain the manifestations on the ground without using CO2/CH4/LU-LC changes etc.
JK
The sun. (But the Sierra club weekly reader didn’t tell you that, so you don’t believe it.)
What is your real reason for wanting to destroy industrial society?
Thanks
JK
I don’t agree with Dan on every thing, we can say that a lot of stuff is still inconclusive, though over all reducing pollution isn’t a bad thing.
Ettinger Says:
“HM: “…build a house beside a pig farm, then complain about the smell or build a house with in certain distance from an airport then complain about the sounds of the planes.â€Â
I thought the universal rule was: “Build a house and then get together with my neighbors to make sure nobody else does the same…or… at least make sure that if they do, the new residents, are cordoned in, inside some high density smart growth neighborhood, out of sight and out of any interference with me, my view of the hills, or my commute (i.e. ‘take transit rather than drive on the same road I do’).†”
WTF is in your Kool-Aid?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nK49fSQgtEg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-IUSZyjiYuY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6TE104Hb7fU
Hey, Dan, we are still waiting for that peer-reviewed paper that proves that CO2 can cause dangerous warming!
Thanks
JK
Dan, it’s fine.
Mr.Karlock is entitled to his beliefs, just as you are entitled to your beliefs.
Like wise, Mr.Karlock is entitled to travel by road, just as I am as equally entitled to travel by rail.
highwayman said: Like wise, Mr.Karlock is entitled to travel by road, just as I am as equally entitled to travel by rail.
JK: Is that an offer to pay your own way on the rail, as road users pay their own way on the roads?
BTW, do you happen to have a peer-reviewed paper or two laying around that proves that CO2 can actually cause dangerous global warming.
Thanks
JK
Karlock that’s bullshit and even you know it!
Roads have existed a long time before automobiles and are mostly funded by property & income taxes!
Not mostly funded, HW, but surely far short of full-funding, as we’ve discussed many times here.
Of course, with certain ideologies, folks take their self-identity to match their ideology. One must reject facts that do not comport with the ideology, lest one falsify their identity.
DS