Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
#4921
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
Unfortunately my memory is patchy about WHO (not the UN WHO...) made the
claims, but I seem to remember scare stories in my student days (the
seventies) about global cooling, some emanating from quite respectable
sources.
I just had a quick look at the Club of Rome website archive, but it doesn't
seem to have been them.
DAS
--
---
NB: To reply directly replace "nospam" with "schmetterling"
---
"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
news:bpldff$njr$20@puck.cc.emory.edu...
[..........]
> Lie. No group said that.
claims, but I seem to remember scare stories in my student days (the
seventies) about global cooling, some emanating from quite respectable
sources.
I just had a quick look at the Club of Rome website archive, but it doesn't
seem to have been them.
DAS
--
---
NB: To reply directly replace "nospam" with "schmetterling"
---
"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
news:bpldff$njr$20@puck.cc.emory.edu...
[..........]
> Lie. No group said that.
#4922
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
Nuclear power is not the answer, unfortunately. In Britain in the
fifties/sixties it was promoted as the ultimate source of cheap power, but
we have had nothing of the sort; it was just a chimera. The company that
was left with the nuclear power stations after privatisation needs large
state subsidies just to keep going. And we can't close it down because we
don't what to do with the nuclear materials. All European countries (except
maybe France) have put nuclear power on hold or have decided against it.
Not only can accidents happen in the west (Three Mile Island, among others),
there are huge issues of waste disposal. AFAIK, no waste from UK nuclear
reactors has been permanently stored anywhere. And when does nuclear
material with a half-life of centuries finally degrade into harmless
components?
I am not suggesting that wind power etc is an answer (the first opponents of
wind farms have made their presence felt, and who can blame them?), but
nuclear power is not, either.
DAS
--
---
NB: To reply directly replace "nospam" with "schmetterling"
---
"Bill Funk" <bfunk33@pipping.com> wrote in message
news:3np1sv414jbra53mffq0f4m0r9pjho31g9@4ax.com...
[........]
> 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.
>
> --
> Bill Funk
> replace "g" with "a"
fifties/sixties it was promoted as the ultimate source of cheap power, but
we have had nothing of the sort; it was just a chimera. The company that
was left with the nuclear power stations after privatisation needs large
state subsidies just to keep going. And we can't close it down because we
don't what to do with the nuclear materials. All European countries (except
maybe France) have put nuclear power on hold or have decided against it.
Not only can accidents happen in the west (Three Mile Island, among others),
there are huge issues of waste disposal. AFAIK, no waste from UK nuclear
reactors has been permanently stored anywhere. And when does nuclear
material with a half-life of centuries finally degrade into harmless
components?
I am not suggesting that wind power etc is an answer (the first opponents of
wind farms have made their presence felt, and who can blame them?), but
nuclear power is not, either.
DAS
--
---
NB: To reply directly replace "nospam" with "schmetterling"
---
"Bill Funk" <bfunk33@pipping.com> wrote in message
news:3np1sv414jbra53mffq0f4m0r9pjho31g9@4ax.com...
[........]
> 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.
>
> --
> Bill Funk
> replace "g" with "a"
#4923
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
Nuclear power is not the answer, unfortunately. In Britain in the
fifties/sixties it was promoted as the ultimate source of cheap power, but
we have had nothing of the sort; it was just a chimera. The company that
was left with the nuclear power stations after privatisation needs large
state subsidies just to keep going. And we can't close it down because we
don't what to do with the nuclear materials. All European countries (except
maybe France) have put nuclear power on hold or have decided against it.
Not only can accidents happen in the west (Three Mile Island, among others),
there are huge issues of waste disposal. AFAIK, no waste from UK nuclear
reactors has been permanently stored anywhere. And when does nuclear
material with a half-life of centuries finally degrade into harmless
components?
I am not suggesting that wind power etc is an answer (the first opponents of
wind farms have made their presence felt, and who can blame them?), but
nuclear power is not, either.
DAS
--
---
NB: To reply directly replace "nospam" with "schmetterling"
---
"Bill Funk" <bfunk33@pipping.com> wrote in message
news:3np1sv414jbra53mffq0f4m0r9pjho31g9@4ax.com...
[........]
> 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.
>
> --
> Bill Funk
> replace "g" with "a"
fifties/sixties it was promoted as the ultimate source of cheap power, but
we have had nothing of the sort; it was just a chimera. The company that
was left with the nuclear power stations after privatisation needs large
state subsidies just to keep going. And we can't close it down because we
don't what to do with the nuclear materials. All European countries (except
maybe France) have put nuclear power on hold or have decided against it.
Not only can accidents happen in the west (Three Mile Island, among others),
there are huge issues of waste disposal. AFAIK, no waste from UK nuclear
reactors has been permanently stored anywhere. And when does nuclear
material with a half-life of centuries finally degrade into harmless
components?
I am not suggesting that wind power etc is an answer (the first opponents of
wind farms have made their presence felt, and who can blame them?), but
nuclear power is not, either.
DAS
--
---
NB: To reply directly replace "nospam" with "schmetterling"
---
"Bill Funk" <bfunk33@pipping.com> wrote in message
news:3np1sv414jbra53mffq0f4m0r9pjho31g9@4ax.com...
[........]
> 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.
>
> --
> Bill Funk
> replace "g" with "a"
#4924
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
Nuclear power is not the answer, unfortunately. In Britain in the
fifties/sixties it was promoted as the ultimate source of cheap power, but
we have had nothing of the sort; it was just a chimera. The company that
was left with the nuclear power stations after privatisation needs large
state subsidies just to keep going. And we can't close it down because we
don't what to do with the nuclear materials. All European countries (except
maybe France) have put nuclear power on hold or have decided against it.
Not only can accidents happen in the west (Three Mile Island, among others),
there are huge issues of waste disposal. AFAIK, no waste from UK nuclear
reactors has been permanently stored anywhere. And when does nuclear
material with a half-life of centuries finally degrade into harmless
components?
I am not suggesting that wind power etc is an answer (the first opponents of
wind farms have made their presence felt, and who can blame them?), but
nuclear power is not, either.
DAS
--
---
NB: To reply directly replace "nospam" with "schmetterling"
---
"Bill Funk" <bfunk33@pipping.com> wrote in message
news:3np1sv414jbra53mffq0f4m0r9pjho31g9@4ax.com...
[........]
> 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.
>
> --
> Bill Funk
> replace "g" with "a"
fifties/sixties it was promoted as the ultimate source of cheap power, but
we have had nothing of the sort; it was just a chimera. The company that
was left with the nuclear power stations after privatisation needs large
state subsidies just to keep going. And we can't close it down because we
don't what to do with the nuclear materials. All European countries (except
maybe France) have put nuclear power on hold or have decided against it.
Not only can accidents happen in the west (Three Mile Island, among others),
there are huge issues of waste disposal. AFAIK, no waste from UK nuclear
reactors has been permanently stored anywhere. And when does nuclear
material with a half-life of centuries finally degrade into harmless
components?
I am not suggesting that wind power etc is an answer (the first opponents of
wind farms have made their presence felt, and who can blame them?), but
nuclear power is not, either.
DAS
--
---
NB: To reply directly replace "nospam" with "schmetterling"
---
"Bill Funk" <bfunk33@pipping.com> wrote in message
news:3np1sv414jbra53mffq0f4m0r9pjho31g9@4ax.com...
[........]
> 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.
>
> --
> Bill Funk
> replace "g" with "a"
#4925
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safetycan be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
On Mon, 24 Nov 2003, Dori Schmetterling wrote:
> I am not suggesting that wind power etc is an answer (the first
> opponents of wind farms have made their presence felt, and who can blame
> them?)
Me. I can blame them. Wind power is presently *the* best, cleanest answer
by far. The specious "bird cuisinart" claims are weak at best and serve
only to fuel supposition that forced austerity is the goal, rather than
the stated goal of reducing pollution and consumption of nonrenewable
fuels.
DS
> I am not suggesting that wind power etc is an answer (the first
> opponents of wind farms have made their presence felt, and who can blame
> them?)
Me. I can blame them. Wind power is presently *the* best, cleanest answer
by far. The specious "bird cuisinart" claims are weak at best and serve
only to fuel supposition that forced austerity is the goal, rather than
the stated goal of reducing pollution and consumption of nonrenewable
fuels.
DS
#4926
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safetycan be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
On Mon, 24 Nov 2003, Dori Schmetterling wrote:
> I am not suggesting that wind power etc is an answer (the first
> opponents of wind farms have made their presence felt, and who can blame
> them?)
Me. I can blame them. Wind power is presently *the* best, cleanest answer
by far. The specious "bird cuisinart" claims are weak at best and serve
only to fuel supposition that forced austerity is the goal, rather than
the stated goal of reducing pollution and consumption of nonrenewable
fuels.
DS
> I am not suggesting that wind power etc is an answer (the first
> opponents of wind farms have made their presence felt, and who can blame
> them?)
Me. I can blame them. Wind power is presently *the* best, cleanest answer
by far. The specious "bird cuisinart" claims are weak at best and serve
only to fuel supposition that forced austerity is the goal, rather than
the stated goal of reducing pollution and consumption of nonrenewable
fuels.
DS
#4927
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safetycan be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
On Mon, 24 Nov 2003, Dori Schmetterling wrote:
> I am not suggesting that wind power etc is an answer (the first
> opponents of wind farms have made their presence felt, and who can blame
> them?)
Me. I can blame them. Wind power is presently *the* best, cleanest answer
by far. The specious "bird cuisinart" claims are weak at best and serve
only to fuel supposition that forced austerity is the goal, rather than
the stated goal of reducing pollution and consumption of nonrenewable
fuels.
DS
> I am not suggesting that wind power etc is an answer (the first
> opponents of wind farms have made their presence felt, and who can blame
> them?)
Me. I can blame them. Wind power is presently *the* best, cleanest answer
by far. The specious "bird cuisinart" claims are weak at best and serve
only to fuel supposition that forced austerity is the goal, rather than
the stated goal of reducing pollution and consumption of nonrenewable
fuels.
DS
#4928
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safetycan be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
z wrote:
> Bill Funk <bfunk33@pipping.com> wrote in message news:<olesrvsl6emilb2rgfbes8n605i91jdluj@4ax.com>. ..
>
>>>>>>>To sum it up - even if global warming is true, I believe the cure is
>>
>> worse than
>>
>>>>>>>the disease. And furthermore, I think that even if it is true, the case
>>
>> is being
>>
>>>>>>>dramatically overstated.
>
>
> I've always wondered why 'conservatives' (to use the term loosely, as
> it correlates with most 'no global warming' folks) think that a
> billion dollars invested in developing new industries such as energy
> conservation and energy sources that do not involve combustion of
> fossil fuel is more wasteful and a drag on the economy than a billion
> dollars spent on trying to cope with the flooding of our coastal
> cities as the ocean rises.
>
Speaking as a conservative, I think that investing in energy efficiency
is a good thing in and of itself, and has its own merit. What I don't
support is government mandates that stress the economy by setting
impossible goals for a given technology state, use of excessive amounts
of tax dollars, and the scare tactic of claiming that coastal cities are
going to flood- because its far from proven that they are. I also
disapprove of liberals broad-brushing conservatives as being opposed to
everything that is environmentally sound- we aren't. We're just opposed
to environmental placebos like electric cars and solar cell farms- which
make good press but (so far) will cause more environmental harm than
good in the long run. Examples of things that aren't a waste of money
and effort? Hybrid cars, wind power, geothermal power, combined-cycle
solar power (capturing solar heat to drive turbines), co-generation
facilities.... quite a big list, actually.
> Bill Funk <bfunk33@pipping.com> wrote in message news:<olesrvsl6emilb2rgfbes8n605i91jdluj@4ax.com>. ..
>
>>>>>>>To sum it up - even if global warming is true, I believe the cure is
>>
>> worse than
>>
>>>>>>>the disease. And furthermore, I think that even if it is true, the case
>>
>> is being
>>
>>>>>>>dramatically overstated.
>
>
> I've always wondered why 'conservatives' (to use the term loosely, as
> it correlates with most 'no global warming' folks) think that a
> billion dollars invested in developing new industries such as energy
> conservation and energy sources that do not involve combustion of
> fossil fuel is more wasteful and a drag on the economy than a billion
> dollars spent on trying to cope with the flooding of our coastal
> cities as the ocean rises.
>
Speaking as a conservative, I think that investing in energy efficiency
is a good thing in and of itself, and has its own merit. What I don't
support is government mandates that stress the economy by setting
impossible goals for a given technology state, use of excessive amounts
of tax dollars, and the scare tactic of claiming that coastal cities are
going to flood- because its far from proven that they are. I also
disapprove of liberals broad-brushing conservatives as being opposed to
everything that is environmentally sound- we aren't. We're just opposed
to environmental placebos like electric cars and solar cell farms- which
make good press but (so far) will cause more environmental harm than
good in the long run. Examples of things that aren't a waste of money
and effort? Hybrid cars, wind power, geothermal power, combined-cycle
solar power (capturing solar heat to drive turbines), co-generation
facilities.... quite a big list, actually.
#4929
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safetycan be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
z wrote:
> Bill Funk <bfunk33@pipping.com> wrote in message news:<olesrvsl6emilb2rgfbes8n605i91jdluj@4ax.com>. ..
>
>>>>>>>To sum it up - even if global warming is true, I believe the cure is
>>
>> worse than
>>
>>>>>>>the disease. And furthermore, I think that even if it is true, the case
>>
>> is being
>>
>>>>>>>dramatically overstated.
>
>
> I've always wondered why 'conservatives' (to use the term loosely, as
> it correlates with most 'no global warming' folks) think that a
> billion dollars invested in developing new industries such as energy
> conservation and energy sources that do not involve combustion of
> fossil fuel is more wasteful and a drag on the economy than a billion
> dollars spent on trying to cope with the flooding of our coastal
> cities as the ocean rises.
>
Speaking as a conservative, I think that investing in energy efficiency
is a good thing in and of itself, and has its own merit. What I don't
support is government mandates that stress the economy by setting
impossible goals for a given technology state, use of excessive amounts
of tax dollars, and the scare tactic of claiming that coastal cities are
going to flood- because its far from proven that they are. I also
disapprove of liberals broad-brushing conservatives as being opposed to
everything that is environmentally sound- we aren't. We're just opposed
to environmental placebos like electric cars and solar cell farms- which
make good press but (so far) will cause more environmental harm than
good in the long run. Examples of things that aren't a waste of money
and effort? Hybrid cars, wind power, geothermal power, combined-cycle
solar power (capturing solar heat to drive turbines), co-generation
facilities.... quite a big list, actually.
> Bill Funk <bfunk33@pipping.com> wrote in message news:<olesrvsl6emilb2rgfbes8n605i91jdluj@4ax.com>. ..
>
>>>>>>>To sum it up - even if global warming is true, I believe the cure is
>>
>> worse than
>>
>>>>>>>the disease. And furthermore, I think that even if it is true, the case
>>
>> is being
>>
>>>>>>>dramatically overstated.
>
>
> I've always wondered why 'conservatives' (to use the term loosely, as
> it correlates with most 'no global warming' folks) think that a
> billion dollars invested in developing new industries such as energy
> conservation and energy sources that do not involve combustion of
> fossil fuel is more wasteful and a drag on the economy than a billion
> dollars spent on trying to cope with the flooding of our coastal
> cities as the ocean rises.
>
Speaking as a conservative, I think that investing in energy efficiency
is a good thing in and of itself, and has its own merit. What I don't
support is government mandates that stress the economy by setting
impossible goals for a given technology state, use of excessive amounts
of tax dollars, and the scare tactic of claiming that coastal cities are
going to flood- because its far from proven that they are. I also
disapprove of liberals broad-brushing conservatives as being opposed to
everything that is environmentally sound- we aren't. We're just opposed
to environmental placebos like electric cars and solar cell farms- which
make good press but (so far) will cause more environmental harm than
good in the long run. Examples of things that aren't a waste of money
and effort? Hybrid cars, wind power, geothermal power, combined-cycle
solar power (capturing solar heat to drive turbines), co-generation
facilities.... quite a big list, actually.
#4930
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safetycan be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
z wrote:
> Bill Funk <bfunk33@pipping.com> wrote in message news:<olesrvsl6emilb2rgfbes8n605i91jdluj@4ax.com>. ..
>
>>>>>>>To sum it up - even if global warming is true, I believe the cure is
>>
>> worse than
>>
>>>>>>>the disease. And furthermore, I think that even if it is true, the case
>>
>> is being
>>
>>>>>>>dramatically overstated.
>
>
> I've always wondered why 'conservatives' (to use the term loosely, as
> it correlates with most 'no global warming' folks) think that a
> billion dollars invested in developing new industries such as energy
> conservation and energy sources that do not involve combustion of
> fossil fuel is more wasteful and a drag on the economy than a billion
> dollars spent on trying to cope with the flooding of our coastal
> cities as the ocean rises.
>
Speaking as a conservative, I think that investing in energy efficiency
is a good thing in and of itself, and has its own merit. What I don't
support is government mandates that stress the economy by setting
impossible goals for a given technology state, use of excessive amounts
of tax dollars, and the scare tactic of claiming that coastal cities are
going to flood- because its far from proven that they are. I also
disapprove of liberals broad-brushing conservatives as being opposed to
everything that is environmentally sound- we aren't. We're just opposed
to environmental placebos like electric cars and solar cell farms- which
make good press but (so far) will cause more environmental harm than
good in the long run. Examples of things that aren't a waste of money
and effort? Hybrid cars, wind power, geothermal power, combined-cycle
solar power (capturing solar heat to drive turbines), co-generation
facilities.... quite a big list, actually.
> Bill Funk <bfunk33@pipping.com> wrote in message news:<olesrvsl6emilb2rgfbes8n605i91jdluj@4ax.com>. ..
>
>>>>>>>To sum it up - even if global warming is true, I believe the cure is
>>
>> worse than
>>
>>>>>>>the disease. And furthermore, I think that even if it is true, the case
>>
>> is being
>>
>>>>>>>dramatically overstated.
>
>
> I've always wondered why 'conservatives' (to use the term loosely, as
> it correlates with most 'no global warming' folks) think that a
> billion dollars invested in developing new industries such as energy
> conservation and energy sources that do not involve combustion of
> fossil fuel is more wasteful and a drag on the economy than a billion
> dollars spent on trying to cope with the flooding of our coastal
> cities as the ocean rises.
>
Speaking as a conservative, I think that investing in energy efficiency
is a good thing in and of itself, and has its own merit. What I don't
support is government mandates that stress the economy by setting
impossible goals for a given technology state, use of excessive amounts
of tax dollars, and the scare tactic of claiming that coastal cities are
going to flood- because its far from proven that they are. I also
disapprove of liberals broad-brushing conservatives as being opposed to
everything that is environmentally sound- we aren't. We're just opposed
to environmental placebos like electric cars and solar cell farms- which
make good press but (so far) will cause more environmental harm than
good in the long run. Examples of things that aren't a waste of money
and effort? Hybrid cars, wind power, geothermal power, combined-cycle
solar power (capturing solar heat to drive turbines), co-generation
facilities.... quite a big list, actually.