Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
In article <bpqk2t02hk6@enews1.newsguy.com>, Jerry McG wrote:
> Given the current geo-political situation, particularly wrt the middle east,
> if the so-called "replacement technologies" were in any way viable on a
> large scale they'd be deployed on a fast track.
No, they wouldn't. There is too much money in the status-quo and US
government is about money. I wish the primary goal was telling the oil
producing countries to stick it up their behind because the US doesn't
need oil imports any more, but that doesn't make the forces that be money.
Of course, if corporations were long sighted instead of short sighted
they would make themselves the dominate forces in the new technologies
having the captial to do the development.
In other words, if stupidity wasn't the most powerful force on the planet
you'd be right and that's the way it should be done.
> Radical environmentalists
> have made it virtually impossible to expand usage of current clean
> technologies, such as hydroelectric and insist wind and solar are the
> answer. Yet no one will accept massive deployment of wind turbines nor is
> space available to deploy huge solar collectors.
Yes, no energy generation is clean and pretty enough, also keeping us
with the status quo.
> Fact is wind & solar are incredibly expensive and inefficient,
Wind is efficient. As efficient or more than any other means of turning
a generator. The question with wind is having it there to turn the
generator. But with correct deployment of turbines this could be
overcome.
> Given the current geo-political situation, particularly wrt the middle east,
> if the so-called "replacement technologies" were in any way viable on a
> large scale they'd be deployed on a fast track.
No, they wouldn't. There is too much money in the status-quo and US
government is about money. I wish the primary goal was telling the oil
producing countries to stick it up their behind because the US doesn't
need oil imports any more, but that doesn't make the forces that be money.
Of course, if corporations were long sighted instead of short sighted
they would make themselves the dominate forces in the new technologies
having the captial to do the development.
In other words, if stupidity wasn't the most powerful force on the planet
you'd be right and that's the way it should be done.
> Radical environmentalists
> have made it virtually impossible to expand usage of current clean
> technologies, such as hydroelectric and insist wind and solar are the
> answer. Yet no one will accept massive deployment of wind turbines nor is
> space available to deploy huge solar collectors.
Yes, no energy generation is clean and pretty enough, also keeping us
with the status quo.
> Fact is wind & solar are incredibly expensive and inefficient,
Wind is efficient. As efficient or more than any other means of turning
a generator. The question with wind is having it there to turn the
generator. But with correct deployment of turbines this could be
overcome.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
In article <bpqk2t02hk6@enews1.newsguy.com>, Jerry McG wrote:
> Given the current geo-political situation, particularly wrt the middle east,
> if the so-called "replacement technologies" were in any way viable on a
> large scale they'd be deployed on a fast track.
No, they wouldn't. There is too much money in the status-quo and US
government is about money. I wish the primary goal was telling the oil
producing countries to stick it up their behind because the US doesn't
need oil imports any more, but that doesn't make the forces that be money.
Of course, if corporations were long sighted instead of short sighted
they would make themselves the dominate forces in the new technologies
having the captial to do the development.
In other words, if stupidity wasn't the most powerful force on the planet
you'd be right and that's the way it should be done.
> Radical environmentalists
> have made it virtually impossible to expand usage of current clean
> technologies, such as hydroelectric and insist wind and solar are the
> answer. Yet no one will accept massive deployment of wind turbines nor is
> space available to deploy huge solar collectors.
Yes, no energy generation is clean and pretty enough, also keeping us
with the status quo.
> Fact is wind & solar are incredibly expensive and inefficient,
Wind is efficient. As efficient or more than any other means of turning
a generator. The question with wind is having it there to turn the
generator. But with correct deployment of turbines this could be
overcome.
> Given the current geo-political situation, particularly wrt the middle east,
> if the so-called "replacement technologies" were in any way viable on a
> large scale they'd be deployed on a fast track.
No, they wouldn't. There is too much money in the status-quo and US
government is about money. I wish the primary goal was telling the oil
producing countries to stick it up their behind because the US doesn't
need oil imports any more, but that doesn't make the forces that be money.
Of course, if corporations were long sighted instead of short sighted
they would make themselves the dominate forces in the new technologies
having the captial to do the development.
In other words, if stupidity wasn't the most powerful force on the planet
you'd be right and that's the way it should be done.
> Radical environmentalists
> have made it virtually impossible to expand usage of current clean
> technologies, such as hydroelectric and insist wind and solar are the
> answer. Yet no one will accept massive deployment of wind turbines nor is
> space available to deploy huge solar collectors.
Yes, no energy generation is clean and pretty enough, also keeping us
with the status quo.
> Fact is wind & solar are incredibly expensive and inefficient,
Wind is efficient. As efficient or more than any other means of turning
a generator. The question with wind is having it there to turn the
generator. But with correct deployment of turbines this could be
overcome.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
In article <bpqk2t02hk6@enews1.newsguy.com>, Jerry McG wrote:
> Given the current geo-political situation, particularly wrt the middle east,
> if the so-called "replacement technologies" were in any way viable on a
> large scale they'd be deployed on a fast track.
No, they wouldn't. There is too much money in the status-quo and US
government is about money. I wish the primary goal was telling the oil
producing countries to stick it up their behind because the US doesn't
need oil imports any more, but that doesn't make the forces that be money.
Of course, if corporations were long sighted instead of short sighted
they would make themselves the dominate forces in the new technologies
having the captial to do the development.
In other words, if stupidity wasn't the most powerful force on the planet
you'd be right and that's the way it should be done.
> Radical environmentalists
> have made it virtually impossible to expand usage of current clean
> technologies, such as hydroelectric and insist wind and solar are the
> answer. Yet no one will accept massive deployment of wind turbines nor is
> space available to deploy huge solar collectors.
Yes, no energy generation is clean and pretty enough, also keeping us
with the status quo.
> Fact is wind & solar are incredibly expensive and inefficient,
Wind is efficient. As efficient or more than any other means of turning
a generator. The question with wind is having it there to turn the
generator. But with correct deployment of turbines this could be
overcome.
> Given the current geo-political situation, particularly wrt the middle east,
> if the so-called "replacement technologies" were in any way viable on a
> large scale they'd be deployed on a fast track.
No, they wouldn't. There is too much money in the status-quo and US
government is about money. I wish the primary goal was telling the oil
producing countries to stick it up their behind because the US doesn't
need oil imports any more, but that doesn't make the forces that be money.
Of course, if corporations were long sighted instead of short sighted
they would make themselves the dominate forces in the new technologies
having the captial to do the development.
In other words, if stupidity wasn't the most powerful force on the planet
you'd be right and that's the way it should be done.
> Radical environmentalists
> have made it virtually impossible to expand usage of current clean
> technologies, such as hydroelectric and insist wind and solar are the
> answer. Yet no one will accept massive deployment of wind turbines nor is
> space available to deploy huge solar collectors.
Yes, no energy generation is clean and pretty enough, also keeping us
with the status quo.
> Fact is wind & solar are incredibly expensive and inefficient,
Wind is efficient. As efficient or more than any other means of turning
a generator. The question with wind is having it there to turn the
generator. But with correct deployment of turbines this could be
overcome.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
In article <3np1sv414jbra53mffq0f4m0r9pjho31g9@4ax.com>, Bill Funk wrote:
> Nuclear works, is economically feasible, and is safe (it's the people
> who screw up, not the technology).
> Of course, the ecos don't want it, either.
And that's what I find puzzling. If CO2 is such an important problem,
the what-we-can-do-today answer is state of the art nuclear power. (not
stone age state run without protection like the old soviet plants)
We are told consistantly that CO2 is a problem, but somehow the
solutions always boil down to telling people how they have to live,
bring wealth to the 3rd world, and other political and social issues
rather than *SOLVING* the stated problem of too much CO2 being released
and meeting energy demands / increasing energy efficency.
> Nuclear works, is economically feasible, and is safe (it's the people
> who screw up, not the technology).
> Of course, the ecos don't want it, either.
And that's what I find puzzling. If CO2 is such an important problem,
the what-we-can-do-today answer is state of the art nuclear power. (not
stone age state run without protection like the old soviet plants)
We are told consistantly that CO2 is a problem, but somehow the
solutions always boil down to telling people how they have to live,
bring wealth to the 3rd world, and other political and social issues
rather than *SOLVING* the stated problem of too much CO2 being released
and meeting energy demands / increasing energy efficency.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
In article <3np1sv414jbra53mffq0f4m0r9pjho31g9@4ax.com>, Bill Funk wrote:
> Nuclear works, is economically feasible, and is safe (it's the people
> who screw up, not the technology).
> Of course, the ecos don't want it, either.
And that's what I find puzzling. If CO2 is such an important problem,
the what-we-can-do-today answer is state of the art nuclear power. (not
stone age state run without protection like the old soviet plants)
We are told consistantly that CO2 is a problem, but somehow the
solutions always boil down to telling people how they have to live,
bring wealth to the 3rd world, and other political and social issues
rather than *SOLVING* the stated problem of too much CO2 being released
and meeting energy demands / increasing energy efficency.
> Nuclear works, is economically feasible, and is safe (it's the people
> who screw up, not the technology).
> Of course, the ecos don't want it, either.
And that's what I find puzzling. If CO2 is such an important problem,
the what-we-can-do-today answer is state of the art nuclear power. (not
stone age state run without protection like the old soviet plants)
We are told consistantly that CO2 is a problem, but somehow the
solutions always boil down to telling people how they have to live,
bring wealth to the 3rd world, and other political and social issues
rather than *SOLVING* the stated problem of too much CO2 being released
and meeting energy demands / increasing energy efficency.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
In article <3np1sv414jbra53mffq0f4m0r9pjho31g9@4ax.com>, Bill Funk wrote:
> Nuclear works, is economically feasible, and is safe (it's the people
> who screw up, not the technology).
> Of course, the ecos don't want it, either.
And that's what I find puzzling. If CO2 is such an important problem,
the what-we-can-do-today answer is state of the art nuclear power. (not
stone age state run without protection like the old soviet plants)
We are told consistantly that CO2 is a problem, but somehow the
solutions always boil down to telling people how they have to live,
bring wealth to the 3rd world, and other political and social issues
rather than *SOLVING* the stated problem of too much CO2 being released
and meeting energy demands / increasing energy efficency.
> Nuclear works, is economically feasible, and is safe (it's the people
> who screw up, not the technology).
> Of course, the ecos don't want it, either.
And that's what I find puzzling. If CO2 is such an important problem,
the what-we-can-do-today answer is state of the art nuclear power. (not
stone age state run without protection like the old soviet plants)
We are told consistantly that CO2 is a problem, but somehow the
solutions always boil down to telling people how they have to live,
bring wealth to the 3rd world, and other political and social issues
rather than *SOLVING* the stated problem of too much CO2 being released
and meeting energy demands / increasing energy efficency.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
In article <3F7065DE.E4845B3@mindspring.com>, C. E. White wrote:
> Well that is debatable and has been. Supposedly the Japanese were
> willing to surrender as long as we guaranteed to not depose the Emperor.
There was an attempt to overthrow the emperor and fight on once it was
learned the emperor was going to surrender.
> Well that is debatable and has been. Supposedly the Japanese were
> willing to surrender as long as we guaranteed to not depose the Emperor.
There was an attempt to overthrow the emperor and fight on once it was
learned the emperor was going to surrender.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
In article <3F7065DE.E4845B3@mindspring.com>, C. E. White wrote:
> Well that is debatable and has been. Supposedly the Japanese were
> willing to surrender as long as we guaranteed to not depose the Emperor.
There was an attempt to overthrow the emperor and fight on once it was
learned the emperor was going to surrender.
> Well that is debatable and has been. Supposedly the Japanese were
> willing to surrender as long as we guaranteed to not depose the Emperor.
There was an attempt to overthrow the emperor and fight on once it was
learned the emperor was going to surrender.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
In article <3F7065DE.E4845B3@mindspring.com>, C. E. White wrote:
> Well that is debatable and has been. Supposedly the Japanese were
> willing to surrender as long as we guaranteed to not depose the Emperor.
There was an attempt to overthrow the emperor and fight on once it was
learned the emperor was going to surrender.
> Well that is debatable and has been. Supposedly the Japanese were
> willing to surrender as long as we guaranteed to not depose the Emperor.
There was an attempt to overthrow the emperor and fight on once it was
learned the emperor was going to surrender.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety canbe misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
Bill Funk wrote:
> Nuclear works, is economically feasible, and is safe (it's the people
> who screw up, not the technology).
> Of course, the ecos don't want it, either.
It is hard to figure out what the wackos want. The only thing I am sure
that will work is population control and a reduction in the total number
of humans on the planet.
I have no respect for most of the high profile environmentalist. They
preach conservation while flying around in private jets and riding to
events in limos. It often seems that they feel everyone else needs to
conserve. I'd love to match up the Sierra Club membership list with the
vehicle registration lists to see how many Sierra Club members are
driving SUVs.
Ed