Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
#4931
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
The problem with wind is it can't generate enough energy to replace fossil
fuels, nevermind the birds. It can only supplement fossil fuels.
There currently isn't any "answer" to replacing fossil fuels, except
nuclear, to generate the kind of energy the world requires. Wind, solar,
bio-mass, hydro, conservation are all great but aren't sufficient.
If we could just make nuclear "safe-enough" in terms of preventing accidents
and disposing of the waste, it can produce sufficient energy to power
growing economies without spewing exhaust into the air.
"Daniel J. Stern" <dastern@engin.umich> wrote in message
news:Pine.SOL.4.44.0311241303330.17586-100000@alumni.engin.umich.edu...
> 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
>
fuels, nevermind the birds. It can only supplement fossil fuels.
There currently isn't any "answer" to replacing fossil fuels, except
nuclear, to generate the kind of energy the world requires. Wind, solar,
bio-mass, hydro, conservation are all great but aren't sufficient.
If we could just make nuclear "safe-enough" in terms of preventing accidents
and disposing of the waste, it can produce sufficient energy to power
growing economies without spewing exhaust into the air.
"Daniel J. Stern" <dastern@engin.umich> wrote in message
news:Pine.SOL.4.44.0311241303330.17586-100000@alumni.engin.umich.edu...
> 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
>
#4932
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
The problem with wind is it can't generate enough energy to replace fossil
fuels, nevermind the birds. It can only supplement fossil fuels.
There currently isn't any "answer" to replacing fossil fuels, except
nuclear, to generate the kind of energy the world requires. Wind, solar,
bio-mass, hydro, conservation are all great but aren't sufficient.
If we could just make nuclear "safe-enough" in terms of preventing accidents
and disposing of the waste, it can produce sufficient energy to power
growing economies without spewing exhaust into the air.
"Daniel J. Stern" <dastern@engin.umich> wrote in message
news:Pine.SOL.4.44.0311241303330.17586-100000@alumni.engin.umich.edu...
> 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
>
fuels, nevermind the birds. It can only supplement fossil fuels.
There currently isn't any "answer" to replacing fossil fuels, except
nuclear, to generate the kind of energy the world requires. Wind, solar,
bio-mass, hydro, conservation are all great but aren't sufficient.
If we could just make nuclear "safe-enough" in terms of preventing accidents
and disposing of the waste, it can produce sufficient energy to power
growing economies without spewing exhaust into the air.
"Daniel J. Stern" <dastern@engin.umich> wrote in message
news:Pine.SOL.4.44.0311241303330.17586-100000@alumni.engin.umich.edu...
> 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
>
#4933
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
The problem with wind is it can't generate enough energy to replace fossil
fuels, nevermind the birds. It can only supplement fossil fuels.
There currently isn't any "answer" to replacing fossil fuels, except
nuclear, to generate the kind of energy the world requires. Wind, solar,
bio-mass, hydro, conservation are all great but aren't sufficient.
If we could just make nuclear "safe-enough" in terms of preventing accidents
and disposing of the waste, it can produce sufficient energy to power
growing economies without spewing exhaust into the air.
"Daniel J. Stern" <dastern@engin.umich> wrote in message
news:Pine.SOL.4.44.0311241303330.17586-100000@alumni.engin.umich.edu...
> 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
>
fuels, nevermind the birds. It can only supplement fossil fuels.
There currently isn't any "answer" to replacing fossil fuels, except
nuclear, to generate the kind of energy the world requires. Wind, solar,
bio-mass, hydro, conservation are all great but aren't sufficient.
If we could just make nuclear "safe-enough" in terms of preventing accidents
and disposing of the waste, it can produce sufficient energy to power
growing economies without spewing exhaust into the air.
"Daniel J. Stern" <dastern@engin.umich> wrote in message
news:Pine.SOL.4.44.0311241303330.17586-100000@alumni.engin.umich.edu...
> 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
>
#4934
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
In article <3fc2409e$0$7007$cc9e4d1f@news.dial.pipex.com>, Dori Schmetterling wrote:
> 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?
So you base your fears on 1/4 century or older technology.
If CO2 is as big of a problem as we are told it is, radioactive waste
is but a tiny fraction as bad. If CO2 is really that bad, then nukes
are one way to go to a less damaging source of energy. Coal plants
actually spew more radioactive materials than nuclear plants.
> 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.
With the those politically on the left and environmentialists opposing
large scale wind farms proposed by various developers who see wind
turbines as a money maker that can provide clean energy they show their
true stripes. They want to control how people live, and abundant clean
energy threatens that goal.
> 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?
So you base your fears on 1/4 century or older technology.
If CO2 is as big of a problem as we are told it is, radioactive waste
is but a tiny fraction as bad. If CO2 is really that bad, then nukes
are one way to go to a less damaging source of energy. Coal plants
actually spew more radioactive materials than nuclear plants.
> 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.
With the those politically on the left and environmentialists opposing
large scale wind farms proposed by various developers who see wind
turbines as a money maker that can provide clean energy they show their
true stripes. They want to control how people live, and abundant clean
energy threatens that goal.
#4935
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
In article <3fc2409e$0$7007$cc9e4d1f@news.dial.pipex.com>, Dori Schmetterling wrote:
> 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?
So you base your fears on 1/4 century or older technology.
If CO2 is as big of a problem as we are told it is, radioactive waste
is but a tiny fraction as bad. If CO2 is really that bad, then nukes
are one way to go to a less damaging source of energy. Coal plants
actually spew more radioactive materials than nuclear plants.
> 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.
With the those politically on the left and environmentialists opposing
large scale wind farms proposed by various developers who see wind
turbines as a money maker that can provide clean energy they show their
true stripes. They want to control how people live, and abundant clean
energy threatens that goal.
> 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?
So you base your fears on 1/4 century or older technology.
If CO2 is as big of a problem as we are told it is, radioactive waste
is but a tiny fraction as bad. If CO2 is really that bad, then nukes
are one way to go to a less damaging source of energy. Coal plants
actually spew more radioactive materials than nuclear plants.
> 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.
With the those politically on the left and environmentialists opposing
large scale wind farms proposed by various developers who see wind
turbines as a money maker that can provide clean energy they show their
true stripes. They want to control how people live, and abundant clean
energy threatens that goal.
#4936
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
In article <3fc2409e$0$7007$cc9e4d1f@news.dial.pipex.com>, Dori Schmetterling wrote:
> 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?
So you base your fears on 1/4 century or older technology.
If CO2 is as big of a problem as we are told it is, radioactive waste
is but a tiny fraction as bad. If CO2 is really that bad, then nukes
are one way to go to a less damaging source of energy. Coal plants
actually spew more radioactive materials than nuclear plants.
> 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.
With the those politically on the left and environmentialists opposing
large scale wind farms proposed by various developers who see wind
turbines as a money maker that can provide clean energy they show their
true stripes. They want to control how people live, and abundant clean
energy threatens that goal.
> 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?
So you base your fears on 1/4 century or older technology.
If CO2 is as big of a problem as we are told it is, radioactive waste
is but a tiny fraction as bad. If CO2 is really that bad, then nukes
are one way to go to a less damaging source of energy. Coal plants
actually spew more radioactive materials than nuclear plants.
> 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.
With the those politically on the left and environmentialists opposing
large scale wind farms proposed by various developers who see wind
turbines as a money maker that can provide clean energy they show their
true stripes. They want to control how people live, and abundant clean
energy threatens that goal.
#4937
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
In article <lQuwb.8682$t01.1922@twister.socal.rr.com>, David J. Allen wrote:
> The problem with wind is it can't generate enough energy to replace fossil
> fuels, nevermind the birds. It can only supplement fossil fuels.
Properly placed large scale wind farms can take some of that load or
in the very least make enough energy so that new fossil fuel plants
need not built.
> The problem with wind is it can't generate enough energy to replace fossil
> fuels, nevermind the birds. It can only supplement fossil fuels.
Properly placed large scale wind farms can take some of that load or
in the very least make enough energy so that new fossil fuel plants
need not built.
#4938
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
In article <lQuwb.8682$t01.1922@twister.socal.rr.com>, David J. Allen wrote:
> The problem with wind is it can't generate enough energy to replace fossil
> fuels, nevermind the birds. It can only supplement fossil fuels.
Properly placed large scale wind farms can take some of that load or
in the very least make enough energy so that new fossil fuel plants
need not built.
> The problem with wind is it can't generate enough energy to replace fossil
> fuels, nevermind the birds. It can only supplement fossil fuels.
Properly placed large scale wind farms can take some of that load or
in the very least make enough energy so that new fossil fuel plants
need not built.
#4939
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
In article <lQuwb.8682$t01.1922@twister.socal.rr.com>, David J. Allen wrote:
> The problem with wind is it can't generate enough energy to replace fossil
> fuels, nevermind the birds. It can only supplement fossil fuels.
Properly placed large scale wind farms can take some of that load or
in the very least make enough energy so that new fossil fuel plants
need not built.
> The problem with wind is it can't generate enough energy to replace fossil
> fuels, nevermind the birds. It can only supplement fossil fuels.
Properly placed large scale wind farms can take some of that load or
in the very least make enough energy so that new fossil fuel plants
need not built.
#4940
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
news:bpt48s$h0v$2@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> In article <vrvbrp3s87ief3@corp.supernews.com>,
> "Douglas A. Shrader" <dshrader@nospam.com> wrote:
> >
> >"z" <gzuckier@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >news:b5b4685f.0311220808.37daf112@posting.google. com...
> >> "C. E. White" <cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> >news:<3FBD08A4.14331320@mindspring.com>...
> >> > Lloyd Parker wrote:
> >> >
> >> > > >Fact: we don't *know* why there were warming periods in the past.
> >> > >
> >> > > Irrelevant. We know why there's one now.
> >> >
> >> > No we don't!
> >> >
> >> > Some scientist believe the reason is an increase in the atmospheric
> >concentration
> >> > of CO2. They may be right or not. Your agreement with their belief
does
> >not prove
> >> > it. Citing papers, even peer reviewed papers, still doesn't prove
> >anything. The
> >> > global climate is a very complicated system with lots of inputs.
Looking
> >at one
> >> > input and one change and declaring they are cause and effect is BS.
As a
> >> > scientist you should know this. The scientist doing climate research
> >don't even
> >> > have really good data on the solar constant for more than the last
few
> >years.
> >> > They are estimating historic temperatures from sketchy data or trying
to
> >infere
> >> > it from effects that they believe are related to the temperature. The
> >errors
> >> > associated with these measurement are much greater than the changes
they
> >are
> >> > claiming. It is junk science. They decided on the conclusion and then
> >groomed the
> >> > data to fit it. Anyone that doesn't agree with the establishment is
> >treated as a
> >> > loon.
> >>
> >> The IPCC model of climate change is hardly "Looking at one input and
> >> one change and declaring they are cause and effect". In fact, all
> >> inputs we currently know of as affecting climate are considered, and
> >> the best estimate of their effects are calculated, complete with
> >> confidence limits. What makes you think otherwise? What are you
> >> reading that says it was "Looking at one input and one change and
> >> declaring they are cause and effect"? What makes you say they "decided
> >> on the conclusion and then groomed the data to fit it"? Was there some
> >> kind of big meeting where environmentalists or liberals or the
> >> climatology establishment or somebody decided that we should screw the
> >> economy and the best way to do so was to pretend there was global
> >> warming? Isn't it a bit more likely that the energy industries et al
> >> have an axe to grind regarding preventing any restrictions on their
> >> operation?
> >> And there are plenty of scientists who disagree with the establishment
> >> who are no treated as loons, in addition to the actual loons.
> >
> >I believe they are wrong.
>
> And your data is where?
Hiya LP. Now you know it would be a waste of my time to tell you, because
you don't have the brains to understand it anyway, if you did you wouldn't
ask such a stupid question, you would have already read all the Data, not
just what your left wing wackos say.
>
>
> >They discount solar influence when IMHO it is a
> >far more likely cause.
>
> No, they've studied it and found it cannot explain all the current
warming.
Who is this mysterious 'we" that pops up in every post you make. Don't
bother answering, it would just be another of your lies.
>
>
> > WE know solar output is variable, we know how great a
> >temperature change can result from moderate changes in solar heating
(think
> >seasons), and anyone who dismisses Solar influence as a major force
behind
> >global warming (Hi LP) is, IMHO, in denial.
> >
> >