http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living?hl=en
misc.consumers.frugal-living@googlegroups.com
Today's topics:
* So you say there's no GW, how do you splurge energy? - 13 messages, 4
authors
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/2985ce62727ceb9f?hl=en
* Choosing Between Debt Settlement and Debt Consolidation - 1 messages, 1
author
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/d11c40975914c1ce?hl=en
* Pay mortage payment before due date? - 4 messages, 2 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/3228aec93fd86575?hl=en
* Save gas going to grocery store... - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/2e0c5d064352e033?hl=en
* Recruiting Successful Networking Moms - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/cf75aabdaa520cb8?hl=en
==============================================================================
TOPIC: So you say there's no GW, how do you splurge energy?
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/2985ce62727ceb9f?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 13 ==
Date: Sun, Feb 14 2010 11:23 pm
From: don@manx.misty.com (Don Klipstein)
In <8908100d-a18c-4880-833c-6f8e7f24a82f@a5g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>,
TheTibetanMonkey showing-the-path-of-enlightenment-in-the-jungle wrote:
>"Is GW real or are the Polar Bears disappearing into thin air?"
>
>Most of you can't ignore that Global Warming and endangered species
>are related, but not so clearly laid bear.
>
>I'm pretty sure we can have good signs of things to come with this...
>
>(I quote)
>
>Today's polar bears are facing the rapid loss of the sea-ice habitat
>that they rely on to hunt, breed, and, in some cases, to den. Last
>summer alone, the melt-off in the Arctic was equal to the size of
>Alaska, Texas, and the state of Washington combined=97a shrinkage that
>was not predicted to happen until 2040.
>
>...
>
>At the most recent meeting of the IUCN Polar Bear Specialist Group
>(Copenhagen, 2009), scientists reported that of the 19 subpopulations
>of polar bears, eight are declining, three are stable, one is
>increasing, and seven have insufficient data on which to base a
>decision.
1/3 of polar bear subpopulations having sufficient data are not declining,
and 1/12 of the ones having sufficient data are increasing, according to
the above.
And watch for the next 20 years showing almost half of the warming in
the 1975-2005 stretch to be due to a natural cycle (by likely having
global temperature refusing to rise even half the way it did in 1975-2005
stretch, if at all).
Furthermore, a goodly 30% of anthropogenic greenhouse gas effect
increase incurred so far is from greenhouse gases other than CO2 and which
we have largely stopped increasing atmospheric concentration of roughly a
decade ago (CFC 12 and 11, methane, some others).
Not that I doubt existence of anthropogenic global warming (AGW), there
is geting to be some evidence that it is about half as great as proposed
by most proponents of AGW's existence.
I would advise against proofs of existence of AGW to be considered
strong evidence that the *amount of AGW* that we are in for is the amount
predicted by proponents of existence of AGW.
- Don Klipstein (don@misty.com)
== 2 of 13 ==
Date: Mon, Feb 15 2010 6:03 am
From: jeff
Don Klipstein wrote:
> In <8908100d-a18c-4880-833c-6f8e7f24a82f@a5g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>,
> TheTibetanMonkey showing-the-path-of-enlightenment-in-the-jungle wrote:
<snip>
>>
>> At the most recent meeting of the IUCN Polar Bear Specialist Group
>> (Copenhagen, 2009), scientists reported that of the 19 subpopulations
>> of polar bears, eight are declining, three are stable, one is
>> increasing, and seven have insufficient data on which to base a
>> decision.
>
> 1/3 of polar bear subpopulations having sufficient data are not declining,
> and 1/12 of the ones having sufficient data are increasing, according to
> the above.
Of course, the problem is just where those populations are declining
and advancing.
>
> And watch for the next 20 years showing almost half of the warming in
> the 1975-2005 stretch to be due to a natural cycle (by likely having
> global temperature refusing to rise even half the way it did in 1975-2005
> stretch, if at all).
The trouble here is that all evidence is for acceleration, not a
decline. Last year was tied for the warmest in recent history and in the
southern hemisphere, dramatically the warmest ever.
> Furthermore, a goodly 30% of anthropogenic greenhouse gas effect
> increase incurred so far is from greenhouse gases other than CO2 and which
> we have largely stopped increasing atmospheric concentration of roughly a
> decade ago (CFC 12 and 11, methane, some others).
Of the above, only methane is significant. The trouble with CO2 is
the persistence, in the order of centuries. Although it seems almost
counter intuitive, methane is reabsorbed much much faster. It also is a
much smaller fraction and the levels are relatively stable. Most of the
CO2 we are pumping in ever increasing quantities will be there for a
very very long time.
>
> Not that I doubt existence of anthropogenic global warming (AGW), there
> is geting to be some evidence that it is about half as great as proposed
> by most proponents of AGW's existence.
>
> I would advise against proofs of existence of AGW to be considered
> strong evidence that the *amount of AGW* that we are in for is the amount
> predicted by proponents of existence of AGW.
The CO2 levels due to anthropogenic causes is 1/3 more than what it
would have been. It is impossible for that not to cause climate change,
the root physics are simple although climate interactions are complex.
The leading scientific deniers only argue that the interaction is
complex (which it is) and there must be some counter balancing actions.
Although they have little to no evidence of that.
The leading non scientific deniers argue that mother nature on her
own, such as volcanoes, can wrack much more severe climate change. The
trouble there is that all those changes are cyclic. In the meantime
there is an inexorable rise in CO2 which is not only not declining but
not going away.
The leading political deniers argue that we've been having very cold
weather and a little warming would be good. The problem here is they
make no distinction between climate and weather.
What happens elsewhere in the globe has a profound effect here. Look
at how Pacific Ocean interactions (el Nino) have such a profound effect
throughout the US.
Now, clearly what is happening at the poles due to global warming is
more dramatic than elsewhere. How can that not affect virtually every
other climate component? Ocean currents flow through wide circles and
what happens near the poles certainly is a major component.
It would be better if we didn't have some global warming proponents
making easy targets of themselves. It detracts from the reality and
gives the lunatic fringe faith that everything will just be alright. It
feeds into their dominant argument which is that of personal attack.
What man does has a lasting effect on climate. The growing evidence
is that this will be much more bad, than good. Whatever that increase
will be.
Jeff
>
> - Don Klipstein (don@misty.com)
== 3 of 13 ==
Date: Mon, Feb 15 2010 10:04 am
From: Cindy Hamilton
On Feb 14, 10:27 pm, TheTibetanMonkey showing-the-path-of-
enlightenment-in-the-jungle <nolionnoprob...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Perhaps you love to go SUVing, or go out in your cigarette boat, or
> you have more lights around your house than a top security prison, or
> perhaps you go around bullying cyclists or simply you vote for the
> candidate that says GW is anti-American propaganda.
Outdoor hot tub. We keep it warm all year round in Michigan.
No need to bully cyclists here. Most of them know their place.
== 4 of 13 ==
Date: Mon, Feb 15 2010 1:26 pm
From: TheTibetanMonkey showing-the-path-of-enlightenment-in-the-jungle
On Feb 14, 11:23 pm, d...@manx.misty.com (Don Klipstein) wrote:
> In <8908100d-a18c-4880-833c-6f8e7f24a...@a5g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>,
>
>
>
>
>
> TheTibetanMonkey showing-the-path-of-enlightenment-in-the-jungle wrote:
> >"Is GW real or are the Polar Bears disappearing into thin air?"
>
> >Most of you can't ignore that Global Warming and endangered species
> >are related, but not so clearly laid bear.
>
> >I'm pretty sure we can have good signs of things to come with this...
>
> >(I quote)
>
> >Today's polar bears are facing the rapid loss of the sea-ice habitat
> >that they rely on to hunt, breed, and, in some cases, to den. Last
> >summer alone, the melt-off in the Arctic was equal to the size of
> >Alaska, Texas, and the state of Washington combined=97a shrinkage that
> >was not predicted to happen until 2040.
>
> >...
>
> >At the most recent meeting of the IUCN Polar Bear Specialist Group
> >(Copenhagen, 2009), scientists reported that of the 19 subpopulations
> >of polar bears, eight are declining, three are stable, one is
> >increasing, and seven have insufficient data on which to base a
> >decision.
>
> 1/3 of polar bear subpopulations having sufficient data are not declining,
> and 1/12 of the ones having sufficient data are increasing, according to
> the above.
>
> And watch for the next 20 years showing almost half of the warming in
> the 1975-2005 stretch to be due to a natural cycle (by likely having
> global temperature refusing to rise even half the way it did in 1975-2005
> stretch, if at all).
> Furthermore, a goodly 30% of anthropogenic greenhouse gas effect
> increase incurred so far is from greenhouse gases other than CO2 and which
> we have largely stopped increasing atmospheric concentration of roughly a
> decade ago (CFC 12 and 11, methane, some others).
>
> Not that I doubt existence of anthropogenic global warming (AGW), there
> is geting to be some evidence that it is about half as great as proposed
> by most proponents of AGW's existence.
>
> I would advise against proofs of existence of AGW to be considered
> strong evidence that the *amount of AGW* that we are in for is the amount
> predicted by proponents of existence of AGW.
>
> - Don Klipstein (d...@misty.com)- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Then you use your COMMON SENSE and ride a bike or something, huh?
How about eating plain popcorn instead of so much meat? ;)
WOULD JESUS EAT POPCORN WITH BUTTER OR WITHOUT BUTTER?
I just discovered the universe of hot air popcorn, and I know the
Christians love waste, junk food and hot air, so HOW WOULD JESUS EAT
POPCORN?
I, the Wise Tibetan Monkey, preach and practice MODERATION and eat my
popcorn plain. WHAT WOULD JESUS THINK ABOUT ALL THAT CHRISTIAN WASTE?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Moderation is the Golden Rule of the jungle, but it's good to spice
things up!"
== 5 of 13 ==
Date: Mon, Feb 15 2010 1:36 pm
From: TheTibetanMonkey showing-the-path-of-enlightenment-in-the-jungle
On Feb 15, 6:03 am, jeff <jeff_th...@att.net> wrote:
> Don Klipstein wrote:
> > In <8908100d-a18c-4880-833c-6f8e7f24a...@a5g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>,
> > TheTibetanMonkey showing-the-path-of-enlightenment-in-the-jungle wrote:
> <snip>
>
> >> At the most recent meeting of the IUCN Polar Bear Specialist Group
> >> (Copenhagen, 2009), scientists reported that of the 19 subpopulations
> >> of polar bears, eight are declining, three are stable, one is
> >> increasing, and seven have insufficient data on which to base a
> >> decision.
>
> > 1/3 of polar bear subpopulations having sufficient data are not declining,
> > and 1/12 of the ones having sufficient data are increasing, according to
> > the above.
>
> Of course, the problem is just where those populations are declining
> and advancing.
>
>
>
> > And watch for the next 20 years showing almost half of the warming in
> > the 1975-2005 stretch to be due to a natural cycle (by likely having
> > global temperature refusing to rise even half the way it did in 1975-2005
> > stretch, if at all).
>
> The trouble here is that all evidence is for acceleration, not a
> decline. Last year was tied for the warmest in recent history and in the
> southern hemisphere, dramatically the warmest ever.
>
> > Furthermore, a goodly 30% of anthropogenic greenhouse gas effect
> > increase incurred so far is from greenhouse gases other than CO2 and which
> > we have largely stopped increasing atmospheric concentration of roughly a
> > decade ago (CFC 12 and 11, methane, some others).
>
> Of the above, only methane is significant. The trouble with CO2 is
> the persistence, in the order of centuries. Although it seems almost
> counter intuitive, methane is reabsorbed much much faster. It also is a
> much smaller fraction and the levels are relatively stable. Most of the
> CO2 we are pumping in ever increasing quantities will be there for a
> very very long time.
>
>
>
> > Not that I doubt existence of anthropogenic global warming (AGW), there
> > is geting to be some evidence that it is about half as great as proposed
> > by most proponents of AGW's existence.
>
> > I would advise against proofs of existence of AGW to be considered
> > strong evidence that the *amount of AGW* that we are in for is the amount
> > predicted by proponents of existence of AGW.
>
> The CO2 levels due to anthropogenic causes is 1/3 more than what it
> would have been. It is impossible for that not to cause climate change,
> the root physics are simple although climate interactions are complex.
>
> The leading scientific deniers only argue that the interaction is
> complex (which it is) and there must be some counter balancing actions.
> Although they have little to no evidence of that.
>
> The leading non scientific deniers argue that mother nature on her
> own, such as volcanoes, can wrack much more severe climate change. The
> trouble there is that all those changes are cyclic. In the meantime
> there is an inexorable rise in CO2 which is not only not declining but
> not going away.
>
> The leading political deniers argue that we've been having very cold
> weather and a little warming would be good. The problem here is they
> make no distinction between climate and weather.
>
> What happens elsewhere in the globe has a profound effect here. Look
> at how Pacific Ocean interactions (el Nino) have such a profound effect
> throughout the US.
>
> Now, clearly what is happening at the poles due to global warming is
> more dramatic than elsewhere. How can that not affect virtually every
> other climate component? Ocean currents flow through wide circles and
> what happens near the poles certainly is a major component.
>
> It would be better if we didn't have some global warming proponents
> making easy targets of themselves. It detracts from the reality and
> gives the lunatic fringe faith that everything will just be alright. It
> feeds into their dominant argument which is that of personal attack.
>
> What man does has a lasting effect on climate. The growing evidence
> is that this will be much more bad, than good. Whatever that increase
> will be.
>
> Jeff
>
>
>
>
>
> > - Don Klipstein (d...@misty.com)- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
There are two areas however where the damage is visible and
irrefutable: ENDANGERED SPECIES and DEFORESTATION, one tied to the
other. The problem is that the Christians don't know there's a WEB OF
LIFE, and they think they are entitled by God to be the TOP PREDATOR.
Here's a partial list...
http://www.worldwildlife.org/species/specieslist.html
== 6 of 13 ==
Date: Mon, Feb 15 2010 1:37 pm
From: TheTibetanMonkey showing-the-path-of-enlightenment-in-the-jungle
On Feb 15, 10:04 am, Cindy Hamilton <angelicapagane...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
> On Feb 14, 10:27 pm, TheTibetanMonkey showing-the-path-of-
>
> enlightenment-in-the-jungle <nolionnoprob...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Perhaps you love to go SUVing, or go out in your cigarette boat, or
> > you have more lights around your house than a top security prison, or
> > perhaps you go around bullying cyclists or simply you vote for the
> > candidate that says GW is anti-American propaganda.
>
> Outdoor hot tub. We keep it warm all year round in Michigan.
>
> No need to bully cyclists here. Most of them know their place.
Indoor bikes?
== 7 of 13 ==
Date: Mon, Feb 15 2010 5:40 pm
From: TheTibetanMonkey showing-the-path-of-enlightenment-in-the-jungle
On Feb 15, 1:26 pm, TheTibetanMonkey showing-the-path-of-enlightenment-
in-the-jungle <nolionnoprob...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Feb 14, 11:23 pm, d...@manx.misty.com (Don Klipstein) wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > In <8908100d-a18c-4880-833c-6f8e7f24a...@a5g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>,
>
> > TheTibetanMonkey showing-the-path-of-enlightenment-in-the-jungle wrote:
> > >"Is GW real or are the Polar Bears disappearing into thin air?"
>
> > >Most of you can't ignore that Global Warming and endangered species
> > >are related, but not so clearly laid bear.
>
> > >I'm pretty sure we can have good signs of things to come with this...
>
> > >(I quote)
>
> > >Today's polar bears are facing the rapid loss of the sea-ice habitat
> > >that they rely on to hunt, breed, and, in some cases, to den. Last
> > >summer alone, the melt-off in the Arctic was equal to the size of
> > >Alaska, Texas, and the state of Washington combined=97a shrinkage that
> > >was not predicted to happen until 2040.
>
> > >...
>
> > >At the most recent meeting of the IUCN Polar Bear Specialist Group
> > >(Copenhagen, 2009), scientists reported that of the 19 subpopulations
> > >of polar bears, eight are declining, three are stable, one is
> > >increasing, and seven have insufficient data on which to base a
> > >decision.
>
> > 1/3 of polar bear subpopulations having sufficient data are not declining,
> > and 1/12 of the ones having sufficient data are increasing, according to
> > the above.
>
> > And watch for the next 20 years showing almost half of the warming in
> > the 1975-2005 stretch to be due to a natural cycle (by likely having
> > global temperature refusing to rise even half the way it did in 1975-2005
> > stretch, if at all).
> > Furthermore, a goodly 30% of anthropogenic greenhouse gas effect
> > increase incurred so far is from greenhouse gases other than CO2 and which
> > we have largely stopped increasing atmospheric concentration of roughly a
> > decade ago (CFC 12 and 11, methane, some others).
>
> > Not that I doubt existence of anthropogenic global warming (AGW), there
> > is geting to be some evidence that it is about half as great as proposed
> > by most proponents of AGW's existence.
>
> > I would advise against proofs of existence of AGW to be considered
> > strong evidence that the *amount of AGW* that we are in for is the amount
> > predicted by proponents of existence of AGW.
>
> > - Don Klipstein (d...@misty.com)- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Then you use your COMMON SENSE and ride a bike or something, huh?
>
> How about eating plain popcorn instead of so much meat? ;)
>
> WOULD JESUS EAT POPCORN WITH BUTTER OR WITHOUT BUTTER?
>
> I just discovered the universe of hot air popcorn, and I know the
> Christians love waste, junk food and hot air, so HOW WOULD JESUS EAT
> POPCORN?
On Feb 15, 8:57 am, TheTibetanMonkey <comandante.ban...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
On Feb 15, 3:56 pm, furlan <magicus23REMOVE-T...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 15 Feb 2010 15:42:24 -0800, Mike Painter wrote:
> > "Flavacol
>
> Thanks for the heads up about this product. I have found it through
> Google and will be looking into it...
>
FLAVACOL contains:
Ingredients: Salt, artificial butter flavor, yellow #5 lake (E102) and
yellow #6 lake (110)
The spicy stuff is:
MORTON SEASON ALL... SEASONED SALT
Ingredients: Salt. spices (chili pepper, black pepper, celery seed),
onion, paprika, maltodextrin, garlic, silicon dioxide and annato
color.
I prefer my choice since it's more natural and still cheap. Great with
beer. No plastic butter necessary.
Actually since I propose an EPICUREAN REVOLUTION based on simple,
healthy foods, I propose the Popcorn Revolution for America. Back to
basics, right?
== 8 of 13 ==
Date: Mon, Feb 15 2010 6:48 pm
From: don@manx.misty.com (Don Klipstein)
In article <hlbk87$vq3$1@news.albasani.net>, jeff wrote:
>Don Klipstein wrote:
>> In <8908100d-a18c-4880-833c-6f8e7f24a82f@a5g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>,
>> TheTibetanMonkey showing-the-path-of-enlightenment-in-the-jungle wrote:
><snip>
>>>
>>> At the most recent meeting of the IUCN Polar Bear Specialist Group
>>> (Copenhagen, 2009), scientists reported that of the 19 subpopulations
>>> of polar bears, eight are declining, three are stable, one is
>>> increasing, and seven have insufficient data on which to base a
>>> decision.
>>
>> 1/3 of polar bear subpopulations having sufficient data are not declining,
>> and 1/12 of the ones having sufficient data are increasing, according to
>> the above.
>
> Of course, the problem is just where those populations are declining
>and advancing.
>>
>> And watch for the next 20 years showing almost half of the warming in
>> the 1975-2005 stretch to be due to a natural cycle (by likely having
>> global temperature refusing to rise even half the way it did in 1975-2005
>> stretch, if at all).
>
>The trouble here is that all evidence is for acceleration, not a
>decline. Last year was tied for the warmest in recent history and in the
>southern hemisphere, dramatically the warmest ever.
Make that "almost tied" in some words I have heard, and "tied for 2nd"
in my words:
+.57 degree C above 1951-1980 baseline in 2009
+.57 in 2007
+.63 in 2005
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt
That is the GISS index of global temperature anomaly, one of 5 major
ones. 3 of the other 4 have the warmest year being 1998 (big El Nino
spike).
>> Furthermore, a goodly 30% of anthropogenic greenhouse gas effect
>> increase incurred so far is from greenhouse gases other than CO2 and which
>> we have largely stopped increasing atmospheric concentration of roughly a
>> decade ago (CFC 12 and 11, methane, some others).
>
> Of the above, only methane is significant. The trouble with CO2 is
>the persistence, in the order of centuries. Although it seems almost
>counter intuitive, methane is reabsorbed much much faster. It also is a
>much smaller fraction and the levels are relatively stable. Most of the
>CO2 we are pumping in ever increasing quantities will be there for a
>very very long time.
That still does not change the fact that about 30% of anthropogenic
greenhouse gas effect we have incurred so far is from increases of
greenhouse gases whose atmospheric concentration we recently stalled,
not from CO2. And you note that the most significant one of these will
soon reverse unless mankind reverts to ways that produced it.
>> Not that I doubt existence of anthropogenic global warming (AGW), there
>> is geting to be some evidence that it is about half as great as proposed
>> by most proponents of AGW's existence.
>>
>> I would advise against proofs of existence of AGW to be considered
>> strong evidence that the *amount of AGW* that we are in for is the amount
>> predicted by proponents of existence of AGW.
>
> The CO2 levels due to anthropogenic causes is 1/3 more than what it
>would have been. It is impossible for that not to cause climate change,
>the root physics are simple although climate interactions are complex.
>
> The leading scientific deniers only argue that the interaction is
>complex (which it is) and there must be some counter balancing actions.
>Although they have little to no evidence of that.
>
> The leading non scientific deniers argue that mother nature on her
>own, such as volcanoes, can wrack much more severe climate change. The
>trouble there is that all those changes are cyclic. In the meantime
>there is an inexorable rise in CO2 which is not only not declining but
>not going away.
>
> The leading political deniers argue that we've been having very cold
>weather and a little warming would be good. The problem here is they
>make no distinction between climate and weather.
>
> What happens elsewhere in the globe has a profound effect here. Look
>at how Pacific Ocean interactions (el Nino) have such a profound effect
>throughout the US.
Such as the warm spikes in global temperature in 2009 and 1998.
> Now, clearly what is happening at the poles due to global warming is
>more dramatic than elsewhere. How can that not affect virtually every
>other climate component? Ocean currents flow through wide circles and
>what happens near the poles certainly is a major component.
>
> It would be better if we didn't have some global warming proponents
>making easy targets of themselves. It detracts from the reality and
>gives the lunatic fringe faith that everything will just be alright. It
>feeds into their dominant argument which is that of personal attack.
>
> What man does has a lasting effect on climate. The growing evidence
>is that this will be much more bad, than good. Whatever that increase
>will be.
Except that almost half the global temperature rise and likely a higher
percentage of Arctic temperature rise from mid 1970's to about 2005 is
looking like it was due to upswing of the Atlantic Multidecadal
Oscillation and a low frequency component of the Pacific Decadal
Oscillation. The AMO is noted to warm the Arctic disproportionately when
it runs "high", and it does have a significant effect on global
temperature. How significant is becoming more apparent as global
temperature has been nearly stagnant for close to a decade.
> Jeff
- Don Klipstein (don@misty.com)
== 9 of 13 ==
Date: Mon, Feb 15 2010 6:54 pm
From: don@manx.misty.com (Don Klipstein)
In <bfed90df-35e9-41f4-9f04-9a0b9bbeb7e4@y33g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
TheTibetanMonkey showing-the-path-of-enlightenment-in-the-jungle wrote:
>On Feb 14, 11:23 pm, d...@manx.misty.com (Don Klipstein) wrote:
>> In <8908100d-a18c-4880-833c-6f8e7f24a...@a5g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>,
>> TheTibetanMonkey showing-the-path-of-enlightenment-in-the-jungle wrote:
>> >"Is GW real or are the Polar Bears disappearing into thin air?"
>>
>> >Most of you can't ignore that Global Warming and endangered species
>> >are related, but not so clearly laid bear.
>>
>> >I'm pretty sure we can have good signs of things to come with this...
>>
>> >(I quote)
>>
>> >Today's polar bears are facing the rapid loss of the sea-ice habitat
>> >that they rely on to hunt, breed, and, in some cases, to den. Last
>> >summer alone, the melt-off in the Arctic was equal to the size of
>> >Alaska, Texas, and the state of Washington combined=97a shrinkage that
>> >was not predicted to happen until 2040.
>>
>> >...
>>
>> >At the most recent meeting of the IUCN Polar Bear Specialist Group
>> >(Copenhagen, 2009), scientists reported that of the 19 subpopulations
>> >of polar bears, eight are declining, three are stable, one is
>> >increasing, and seven have insufficient data on which to base a
>> >decision.
>>
>> 1/3 of polar bear subpopulations having sufficient data are not declining,
>> and 1/12 of the ones having sufficient data are increasing, according to
>> the above.
>>
>> And watch for the next 20 years showing almost half of the warming in
>> the 1975-2005 stretch to be due to a natural cycle (by likely having
>> global temperature refusing to rise even half the way it did in 1975-2005
>> stretch, if at all).
>> Furthermore, a goodly 30% of anthropogenic greenhouse gas effect
>> increase incurred so far is from greenhouse gases other than CO2 and which
>> we have largely stopped increasing atmospheric concentration of roughly a
>> decade ago (CFC 12 and 11, methane, some others).
>>
>> Not that I doubt existence of anthropogenic global warming (AGW), there
>> is geting to be some evidence that it is about half as great as proposed
>> by most proponents of AGW's existence.
>>
>> I would advise against proofs of existence of AGW to be considered
>> strong evidence that the *amount of AGW* that we are in for is the amount
>> predicted by proponents of existence of AGW.
>>
>> - Don Klipstein (d...@misty.com)- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
>Then you use your COMMON SENSE and ride a bike or something, huh?
If you don't know that ride bikes a goodly twice as much as I drive and
drive roughly 1/3 the national average miles per year, you don't know me
well!
>How about eating plain popcorn instead of so much meat? ;)
I do have percentage of calories from meat below national average.
You must not have been experiencing m.c.f.l. long if you don't know
by now how much I bike, how little I drive, and what I think of the
low-carb business.
- Don Klipstein (don@misty.com)
== 10 of 13 ==
Date: Mon, Feb 15 2010 7:40 pm
From: jeff
Don Klipstein wrote:
> In article <hlbk87$vq3$1@news.albasani.net>, jeff wrote:
>> Don Klipstein wrote:
>>> In <8908100d-a18c-4880-833c-6f8e7f24a82f@a5g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>,
>>> TheTibetanMonkey showing-the-path-of-enlightenment-in-the-jungle wrote:
>> <snip>
>>>> At the most recent meeting of the IUCN Polar Bear Specialist Group
>>>> (Copenhagen, 2009), scientists reported that of the 19 subpopulations
>>>> of polar bears, eight are declining, three are stable, one is
>>>> increasing, and seven have insufficient data on which to base a
>>>> decision.
>>> 1/3 of polar bear subpopulations having sufficient data are not declining,
>>> and 1/12 of the ones having sufficient data are increasing, according to
>>> the above.
>> Of course, the problem is just where those populations are declining
>> and advancing.
>>> And watch for the next 20 years showing almost half of the warming in
>>> the 1975-2005 stretch to be due to a natural cycle (by likely having
>>> global temperature refusing to rise even half the way it did in 1975-2005
>>> stretch, if at all).
>> The trouble here is that all evidence is for acceleration, not a
>> decline. Last year was tied for the warmest in recent history and in the
>> southern hemisphere, dramatically the warmest ever.
>
> Make that "almost tied" in some words I have heard, and "tied for 2nd"
> in my words:
>
> +.57 degree C above 1951-1980 baseline in 2009
> +.57 in 2007
> +.63 in 2005
>
> http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt
Thanks.
>
> That is the GISS index of global temperature anomaly, one of 5 major
> ones. 3 of the other 4 have the warmest year being 1998 (big El Nino
> spike).
>
>>> Furthermore, a goodly 30% of anthropogenic greenhouse gas effect
>>> increase incurred so far is from greenhouse gases other than CO2 and which
>>> we have largely stopped increasing atmospheric concentration of roughly a
>>> decade ago (CFC 12 and 11, methane, some others).
>> Of the above, only methane is significant. The trouble with CO2 is
>> the persistence, in the order of centuries. Although it seems almost
>> counter intuitive, methane is reabsorbed much much faster. It also is a
>> much smaller fraction and the levels are relatively stable. Most of the
>> CO2 we are pumping in ever increasing quantities will be there for a
>> very very long time.
>
> That still does not change the fact that about 30% of anthropogenic
> greenhouse gas effect we have incurred so far is from increases of
> greenhouse gases whose atmospheric concentration we recently stalled,
> not from CO2. And you note that the most significant one of these will
> soon reverse unless mankind reverts to ways that produced it.
I haven't seen methane trends, do you have a source?
>
>>> Not that I doubt existence of anthropogenic global warming (AGW), there
>>> is geting to be some evidence that it is about half as great as proposed
>>> by most proponents of AGW's existence.
>>>
>>> I would advise against proofs of existence of AGW to be considered
>>> strong evidence that the *amount of AGW* that we are in for is the amount
>>> predicted by proponents of existence of AGW.
>> The CO2 levels due to anthropogenic causes is 1/3 more than what it
>> would have been. It is impossible for that not to cause climate change,
>> the root physics are simple although climate interactions are complex.
>>
>> The leading scientific deniers only argue that the interaction is
>> complex (which it is) and there must be some counter balancing actions.
>> Although they have little to no evidence of that.
>>
>> The leading non scientific deniers argue that mother nature on her
>> own, such as volcanoes, can wrack much more severe climate change. The
>> trouble there is that all those changes are cyclic. In the meantime
>> there is an inexorable rise in CO2 which is not only not declining but
>> not going away.
>>
>> The leading political deniers argue that we've been having very cold
>> weather and a little warming would be good. The problem here is they
>> make no distinction between climate and weather.
>>
>> What happens elsewhere in the globe has a profound effect here. Look
>> at how Pacific Ocean interactions (el Nino) have such a profound effect
>> throughout the US.
>
> Such as the warm spikes in global temperature in 2009 and 1998.
Yes.
>
>> Now, clearly what is happening at the poles due to global warming is
>> more dramatic than elsewhere. How can that not affect virtually every
>> other climate component? Ocean currents flow through wide circles and
>> what happens near the poles certainly is a major component.
>>
>> It would be better if we didn't have some global warming proponents
>> making easy targets of themselves. It detracts from the reality and
>> gives the lunatic fringe faith that everything will just be alright. It
>> feeds into their dominant argument which is that of personal attack.
>>
>> What man does has a lasting effect on climate. The growing evidence
>> is that this will be much more bad, than good. Whatever that increase
>> will be.
>
> Except that almost half the global temperature rise and likely a higher
> percentage of Arctic temperature rise from mid 1970's to about 2005 is
> looking like it was due to upswing of the Atlantic Multidecadal
> Oscillation and a low frequency component of the Pacific Decadal
> Oscillation. The AMO is noted to warm the Arctic disproportionately when
> it runs "high", and it does have a significant effect on global
> temperature. How significant is becoming more apparent as global
> temperature has been nearly stagnant for close to a decade.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantic_multidecadal_oscillation
Seems to show it currently near it's median value and has been falling
for years. It's unlikely to have had much impact on Australia's record
warmth.
When you look beyond decades:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Instrumental_Temperature_Record.png
You see the underlying long term trend which tracks with CO2 levels.
I don't doubt that the overall warming may be less than predicted.
But it seems fairly clear that relatively low temperature changes have
profound effects on climate. If it wasn't for the extreme longevity of
CO2, I'd be more optimistic. After all we wouldn't be the first
civilization to have consumed it's way to collapse.
BTW, I've been seeing more and more LED light arrays for "designer"
lighting in the $25 or so range. To my eyes the better ones seem to have
acceptable color. Wonder how long to a price collapse? Just enquiring
because you are the resident lighting expert...
Jeff
>
>> Jeff
>
> - Don Klipstein (don@misty.com)
== 11 of 13 ==
Date: Mon, Feb 15 2010 8:24 pm
From: don@manx.misty.com (Don Klipstein)
In article <hld446$7h5$1@news.albasani.net>, jeff wrote:
>Don Klipstein wrote:
<With me severely snipping to edit for space>
>When you look beyond decades:
>
>http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Instrumental_Temperature_Record.png
>
> You see the underlying long term trend which tracks with CO2 levels.
I see that tracking with overall greenhouse gas levels, only about 70%
of which is CO2, and the other 30% is from methane, organochlorines, and
nitrous oxide - recently stopped increasing.
I also see the periodic component, correlating well with AMO.
And, I see a periodic component, largely Atlantic Multidecadal
Oscillation.
That shows up even better in the most-major other of the surface-based
three of the "Big 5" indices of global temperature - namely, HadCRUt3,
which goes back to 1850.
In Fact, Wikipedia used HadCRUt3 until only a couple years ago, then
switched to GISS.
HadCRUT3 global temperature, UK "Met Office" version, is available at:
http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcrut3/diagnostics/global/nh+sh/
> I don't doubt that the overall warming may be less than predicted.
>But it seems fairly clear that relatively low temperature changes have
>profound effects on climate. If it wasn't for the extreme longevity of
>CO2, I'd be more optimistic. After all we wouldn't be the first
>civilization to have consumed it's way to collapse.
>
> BTW, I've been seeing more and more LED light arrays for "designer"
>lighting in the $25 or so range. To my eyes the better ones seem to have
>acceptable color. Wonder how long to a price collapse? Just enquiring
>because you are the resident lighting expert...
It's going to be gradual. It appears to me that LED technology has
historically advanced at roughly 40% of the pace that computer technology
did since the late 1970's.
- Don Klipstein (don@misty.com)
== 12 of 13 ==
Date: Mon, Feb 15 2010 8:33 pm
From: TheTibetanMonkey showing-the-path-of-enlightenment-in-the-jungle
On Feb 15, 6:54 pm, d...@manx.misty.com (Don Klipstein) wrote:
> In <bfed90df-35e9-41f4-9f04-9a0b9bbeb...@y33g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
>
>
>
>
>
> TheTibetanMonkey showing-the-path-of-enlightenment-in-the-jungle wrote:
> >On Feb 14, 11:23 pm, d...@manx.misty.com (Don Klipstein) wrote:
> >> In <8908100d-a18c-4880-833c-6f8e7f24a...@a5g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>,
> >> TheTibetanMonkey showing-the-path-of-enlightenment-in-the-jungle wrote:
> >> >"Is GW real or are the Polar Bears disappearing into thin air?"
>
> >> >Most of you can't ignore that Global Warming and endangered species
> >> >are related, but not so clearly laid bear.
>
> >> >I'm pretty sure we can have good signs of things to come with this...
>
> >> >(I quote)
>
> >> >Today's polar bears are facing the rapid loss of the sea-ice habitat
> >> >that they rely on to hunt, breed, and, in some cases, to den. Last
> >> >summer alone, the melt-off in the Arctic was equal to the size of
> >> >Alaska, Texas, and the state of Washington combined=97a shrinkage that
> >> >was not predicted to happen until 2040.
>
> >> >...
>
> >> >At the most recent meeting of the IUCN Polar Bear Specialist Group
> >> >(Copenhagen, 2009), scientists reported that of the 19 subpopulations
> >> >of polar bears, eight are declining, three are stable, one is
> >> >increasing, and seven have insufficient data on which to base a
> >> >decision.
>
> >> 1/3 of polar bear subpopulations having sufficient data are not declining,
> >> and 1/12 of the ones having sufficient data are increasing, according to
> >> the above.
>
> >> And watch for the next 20 years showing almost half of the warming in
> >> the 1975-2005 stretch to be due to a natural cycle (by likely having
> >> global temperature refusing to rise even half the way it did in 1975-2005
> >> stretch, if at all).
> >> Furthermore, a goodly 30% of anthropogenic greenhouse gas effect
> >> increase incurred so far is from greenhouse gases other than CO2 and which
> >> we have largely stopped increasing atmospheric concentration of roughly a
> >> decade ago (CFC 12 and 11, methane, some others).
>
> >> Not that I doubt existence of anthropogenic global warming (AGW), there
> >> is geting to be some evidence that it is about half as great as proposed
> >> by most proponents of AGW's existence.
>
> >> I would advise against proofs of existence of AGW to be considered
> >> strong evidence that the *amount of AGW* that we are in for is the amount
> >> predicted by proponents of existence of AGW.
>
> >> - Don Klipstein (d...@misty.com)- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> - Show quoted text -
>
> >Then you use your COMMON SENSE and ride a bike or something, huh?
>
> If you don't know that ride bikes a goodly twice as much as I drive and
> drive roughly 1/3 the national average miles per year, you don't know me
> well!
>
> >How about eating plain popcorn instead of so much meat? ;)
>
> I do have percentage of calories from meat below national average.
> You must not have been experiencing m.c.f.l. long if you don't know
> by now how much I bike, how little I drive, and what I think of the
> low-carb business.
>
> - Don Klipstein (d...@misty.com)- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
> >> Not that I doubt existence of anthropogenic global warming (AGW), there
> >> is geting to be some evidence that it is about half as great as proposed
> >> by most proponents of AGW's existence.
You are saying here that we should doubt the full extent of the
problem. Say 0 is what the deniers say, and 10 is the max, then you
say a 5. What you do, nothing? We have reason enough to ride a bike
and eat plain popcorn, and if you already do... hey, CONGRATULATIONS!
Why aren't the rest of American joining the club? Fear of the road,
too much junk food around, too many deniers who say it doesn't make a
difference anyway?
== 13 of 13 ==
Date: Mon, Feb 15 2010 9:59 pm
From: don@manx.misty.com (Don Klipstein)
In <9f0f4b63-9a65-4782-87d7-5e9e57dd4408@g19g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>,
TheTibetanMonkey showing-the-path-of-enlightenment-in-the-jungle wrote:
>On Feb 15, 6:54 pm, d...@manx.misty.com (Don Klipstein) wrote:
>> In <bfed90df-35e9-41f4-9f04-9a0b9bbeb...@y33g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
>>
>> TheTibetanMonkey showing-the-path-of-enlightenment-in-the-jungle wrote:
>> >On Feb 14, 11:23 pm, d...@manx.misty.com (Don Klipstein) wrote:
>> >> In <8908100d-a18c-4880-833c-6f8e7f24a...@a5g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>,
>> >> TheTibetanMonkey showing-the-path-of-enlightenment-in-the-jungle wrote:
>> >> >"Is GW real or are the Polar Bears disappearing into thin air?"
>>
>> >> >Most of you can't ignore that Global Warming and endangered species
>> >> >are related, but not so clearly laid bear.
>>
>> >> >I'm pretty sure we can have good signs of things to come with this...
>>
>> >> >(I quote)
>>
>> >> >Today's polar bears are facing the rapid loss of the sea-ice habitat
>> >> >that they rely on to hunt, breed, and, in some cases, to den. Last
>> >> >summer alone, the melt-off in the Arctic was equal to the size of
>> >> >Alaska, Texas, and the state of Washington combined=97a shrinkage that
>> >> >was not predicted to happen until 2040.
>>
>> >> >...
>>
>> >> >At the most recent meeting of the IUCN Polar Bear Specialist Group
>> >> >(Copenhagen, 2009), scientists reported that of the 19 subpopulations
>> >> >of polar bears, eight are declining, three are stable, one is
>> >> >increasing, and seven have insufficient data on which to base a
>> >> >decision.
>>
>> >> 1/3 of polar bear subpopulations having sufficient data are not declining,
>> >> and 1/12 of the ones having sufficient data are increasing, according to
>> >> the above.
>>
>> >> And watch for the next 20 years showing almost half of the warming in
>> >> the 1975-2005 stretch to be due to a natural cycle (by likely having
>> >> global temperature refusing to rise even half the way it did in 1975-2005
>> >> stretch, if at all).
>> >> Furthermore, a goodly 30% of anthropogenic greenhouse gas effect
>> >> increase incurred so far is from greenhouse gases other than CO2 and which
>> >> we have largely stopped increasing atmospheric concentration of roughly a
>> >> decade ago (CFC 12 and 11, methane, some others).
>>
>> >> Not that I doubt existence of anthropogenic global warming (AGW), there
>> >> is geting to be some evidence that it is about half as great as proposed
>> >> by most proponents of AGW's existence.
>>
>> >> I would advise against proofs of existence of AGW to be considered
>> >> strong evidence that the *amount of AGW* that we are in for is the amount
>> >> predicted by proponents of existence of AGW.
>>
>> >> - Don Klipstein (d...@misty.com)- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> >> - Show quoted text -
>>
>> >Then you use your COMMON SENSE and ride a bike or something, huh?
>>
>> If you don't know that ride bikes a goodly twice as much as I drive and
>> drive roughly 1/3 the national average miles per year, you don't know me
>> well!
>>
>> >How about eating plain popcorn instead of so much meat? ;)
>>
>> I do have percentage of calories from meat below national average.
>> You must not have been experiencing m.c.f.l. long if you don't know
>> by now how much I bike, how little I drive, and what I think of the
>> low-carb business.
>>
>> - Don Klipstein (d...@misty.com)- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
>> >> Not that I doubt existence of anthropogenic global warming (AGW), there
>> >> is geting to be some evidence that it is about half as great as proposed
>> >> by most proponents of AGW's existence.
>
>You are saying here that we should doubt the full extent of the
>problem. Say 0 is what the deniers say, and 10 is the max, then you
>say a 5. What you do, nothing? We have reason enough to ride a bike
>and eat plain popcorn, and if you already do... hey, CONGRATULATIONS!
>
>Why aren't the rest of American joining the club? Fear of the road,
>too much junk food around, too many deniers who say it doesn't make a
>difference anyway?
As for scale of how much AGW I expect as a serious ameteur scientist,
I would say 4, maybe 5.
As for rest of America? I say mostly fear of the hard work like that
which Americans did when America was a rising high star. It appears to me
that American ingenuity has been used lately to make work to be someone
else's labor - preferably offshore or by low-pay illegal immigrants.
Also, I sense too many of my fellow Americans like to depend on
American medical innovation to "try to get away with" ulhealthful
lifestyles, mainly exercising too little, eating too much calorie content,
and eating too little of "veggies".
- Don Klipstein (don@misty.com)
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Choosing Between Debt Settlement and Debt Consolidation
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/d11c40975914c1ce?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, Feb 15 2010 12:24 am
From: jenneylist
Choosing Between Debt Settlement and Debt Consolidation
http://www.personalfinanceblog.co.cc/2010/02/choosing-between-debt-settlement-and.html
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Pay mortage payment before due date?
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/3228aec93fd86575?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 4 ==
Date: Mon, Feb 15 2010 12:58 am
From: "Rod Speed"
Malcom "Mal" Reynolds wrote:
> In article
> <7tr7qeFmjiU1@mid.individual.net>,
> "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Malcom "Mal" Reynolds wrote:
>>> In article
>>> <7tqr37FbenU1@mid.individual.net>,
>>> "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Malcom "Mal" Reynolds wrote:
>>>>> In article
>>>>> <7toeqrF8mjU1@mid.individual.net>,
>>>>> "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Malcom "Mal" Reynolds wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> In article
>>>>>>>>>>>>> <7tjajjFsk7U1@mid.individual.net>,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Malcom "Mal" Reynolds wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In article
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <7tj1laF8ivU1@mid.individual.net>,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
<reams of your puerile shit any 2 year old could leave for dead flushed where it belongs>
== 2 of 4 ==
Date: Mon, Feb 15 2010 11:22 am
From: "Malcom \"Mal\" Reynolds"
In article
<7tsh3jFlbgU1@mid.individual.net>,
"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com>
wrote:
> Malcom "Mal" Reynolds wrote:
> > In article
> > <7tr7qeFmjiU1@mid.individual.net>,
> > "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Malcom "Mal" Reynolds wrote:
> >>> In article
> >>> <7tqr37FbenU1@mid.individual.net>,
> >>> "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Malcom "Mal" Reynolds wrote:
> >>>>> In article
> >>>>> <7toeqrF8mjU1@mid.individual.net>,
> >>>>> "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com>
> >>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Malcom "Mal" Reynolds wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In article
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <7tj1laF8ivU1@mid.individual.net>,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> <reams of your puerile shit any 2 year old could leave for dead flushed
> where it belongs>
why is it that fools like you think
censoring responses makes you seem more
"intelligent" old fella
== 3 of 4 ==
Date: Mon, Feb 15 2010 2:34 pm
From: "Rod Speed"
Malcom "Mal" Reynolds wrote:
> In article
> <7tsh3jFlbgU1@mid.individual.net>,
> "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Malcom "Mal" Reynolds wrote:
>>> In article
>>> <7tr7qeFmjiU1@mid.individual.net>,
>>> "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Malcom "Mal" Reynolds wrote:
>>>>> In article
>>>>> <7tqr37FbenU1@mid.individual.net>,
>>>>> "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Malcom "Mal" Reynolds wrote:
>>>>>>> In article
>>>>>>> <7toeqrF8mjU1@mid.individual.net>,
>>>>>>> "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Malcom "Mal" Reynolds wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In article
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <7tj1laF8ivU1@mid.individual.net>,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
<reams of your puerile shit any 2 year old could leave for dead flushed where it belongs>
== 4 of 4 ==
Date: Mon, Feb 15 2010 9:48 pm
From: "Malcom \"Mal\" Reynolds"
In article
<7tu0fkFcjjU1@mid.individual.net>,
"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com>
wrote:
> Malcom "Mal" Reynolds wrote:
> > In article
> > <7tsh3jFlbgU1@mid.individual.net>,
> > "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Malcom "Mal" Reynolds wrote:
> >>> In article
> >>> <7tr7qeFmjiU1@mid.individual.net>,
> >>> "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Malcom "Mal" Reynolds wrote:
> >>>>> In article
> >>>>> <7tqr37FbenU1@mid.individual.net>,
> >>>>> "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com>
> >>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> Malcom "Mal" Reynolds wrote:
> >>>>>>> In article
> >>>>>>> <7toeqrF8mjU1@mid.individual.net>,
> >>>>>>> "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com>
> >>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> <reams of your puerile shit any 2 year old could leave for dead flushed
> where it belongs>
why is it that fools like you think
censoring responses makes you seem more
"intelligent" old fella
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Save gas going to grocery store...
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/2e0c5d064352e033?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, Feb 15 2010 10:42 am
From: Kalmia
On Feb 13, 3:08 pm, Michael Black <et...@ncf.ca> wrote:
> On Sat, 13 Feb 2010, Bill wrote:
> > I have two of everything...
>
> > Two ketchup, two mustard, two mayonnaise, two of each type of salad
> > dressings, etc.
>
> > If I run out of something, I grab the second and write that item on my
> > shopping list. I don't need to go to the store to get that item right now.
>
> > Other things I use more of I will have 3, 4, or more of.
>
> > Basically one months worth of everything. Each time I use something up, I
> > write it on the shopping list. But don't need to go to the store right then
> > to get it because I have extras.
>
> > So I only need to go to the store once a month.
>
> > Same with other things. If I can stock up on something, then I don't need to
> > go to the store as often. Saves on gas driving there. (In my case the store
> > is quite a distance away as I live in a rural area...)
>
> I've never driven in my life, so think of all the money I've saved that
> way.
>
> No, the way to do it is to track what you use, and buy when on sale. If
> the mustard is getting low, you know it's time to watch for it on sale,
> and you do it enough in advance so you will find it on sale before it runs
> out. That's not a great example, the difference isn't big between sale
> and regular price, but it is something I need right now.
>
> There are some things I'll never buy except on sale. Other things, I'll
> wait and buy even if they don't come on sale. It depends on the item.
> But when you know you will be using an item, far better to plan in
> advance and buy when it's on sale.
>
> Michael
Wouldn't you go nuts doing the tracking and then the watching for
sales? And what if you can never perfect this system? I like the
op's system - one working and one on hand, UNLESS it's something like
Tabasco which seems to last for ages. I think it must work fine for
him as far as staples go.
That said, seems I'm still always at the store for fresh produce,
meats, etc. plus I hate to plan meals too far ahead.
If you live close to a store or have one on the way home from a job
everyday, vs. having to make a 30 miles roundtrip, then I am sure
your shopping habits will differ a lot.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Recruiting Successful Networking Moms
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/cf75aabdaa520cb8?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, Feb 15 2010 6:29 pm
From: wyattm
We both know the power of MLM. The real key is to find programs that
we believe in their products and we are confident that will retain its
members so that it can be an industry leader for years to come. I've
found one that I truly believe in. In fact several internet
"heavyweights" have also bought into it. Reality-Networkers has a
link on its member page. TrafficSwarm has an active recruiting
account. These are just a few. The company is about to celebrate
their 3rd anniversary so they are definitely here to stay. They are
experiencing phenomenal growth and I want you to consider placing your
expertise with them as well.
What is the great product? It's a membership to discounts, coupons,
and cash back at over 175,000 locations and 600 online stores. One of
the great things about the program is that the savings a common family
will earn is more than the cost of membership.
Now the money …They have 5 ways to earn money. Everyone automatically
gets residual income on their first 5 levels regardless if you
personally enrolled them or not. Secondly, you get retail bonuses for
four generations. As if this wasn't enough, you also can cash in on
Infinity Bonuses, Generational Bonuses, and Bonus Pools. You can
qualify for the last three after personally enrolling 3 people.
Bottom line: You can be in pretty good money just after enrolling 3
people.
What about building a downline? That's even better. They use
VERTICAL ACCELERATION! You can achieve a great income with only one
leg. I started in late January 2010 and as of February 15, 2010 I
already have 170 paid members in my downline.
Now all I need are experienced networkers to help me. Please visit
http://wyattm.myworldmovie.com to watch a short video. You can pre-
enroll for free to test drive the system and watch the vertical
acceleration working for you.
Thanks for your time,
Mike Wyatt
==============================================================================
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "misc.consumers.frugal-living"
group.
To post to this group, visit http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living?hl=en
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to misc.consumers.frugal-living+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
To change the way you get mail from this group, visit:
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/subscribe?hl=en
To report abuse, send email explaining the problem to abuse@googlegroups.com
==============================================================================
Google Groups: http://groups.google.com/?hl=en
