Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
#4971
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
Bill Funk <bfunk33@pipping.com> wrote in message news:<3np1sv414jbra53mffq0f4m0r9pjho31g9@4ax.com>. ..
> On Sun, 23 Nov 2003 08:31:46 -0700, "Jerry McG"
> <gmcgeorge.REMOVE@frontier.net> wrote:
>
> >> It's not a case of developing new energy technologies. I really wish it
> >were that simple. The fact is that such money (and more) is currently being
> >used to develop new energy technologies, and has been for a long time, yet
> >these technologies always seem to remain "just a few years" away. What is
> >constantly being advised is a (much) lowered use of fossil fuels, with no
> >actual replacement technologies available. Obviously, this will cause a
> >major change in almost every aspect of our lifestyles.<
> >
> >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. 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.
> >
> >Fact is wind & solar are incredibly expensive and inefficient, and
> >replacement of the internal combustion engine with fuel cells is not even in
> >the Model-T stages of development. Therefore, unless humanity is willing to
> >accept a massive economic upheaval conversion a slow conversion using bridge
> >technologies such as hybrids is the only viable path to follow. Naturally
> >the fanciful enviros will whine....
> >
> 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.
Well, since we agree that people screw it up by making mistakes and
errors of judgement in the design or operation, I'll certainly listen
if you can come up with a way to have nuclear power implemented by
somebody other than people. However, I should warn you that training
chimps to run the plants will not be acceptable either. I was thinking
more of Vorlons or maybe Vulcans.
> On Sun, 23 Nov 2003 08:31:46 -0700, "Jerry McG"
> <gmcgeorge.REMOVE@frontier.net> wrote:
>
> >> It's not a case of developing new energy technologies. I really wish it
> >were that simple. The fact is that such money (and more) is currently being
> >used to develop new energy technologies, and has been for a long time, yet
> >these technologies always seem to remain "just a few years" away. What is
> >constantly being advised is a (much) lowered use of fossil fuels, with no
> >actual replacement technologies available. Obviously, this will cause a
> >major change in almost every aspect of our lifestyles.<
> >
> >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. 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.
> >
> >Fact is wind & solar are incredibly expensive and inefficient, and
> >replacement of the internal combustion engine with fuel cells is not even in
> >the Model-T stages of development. Therefore, unless humanity is willing to
> >accept a massive economic upheaval conversion a slow conversion using bridge
> >technologies such as hybrids is the only viable path to follow. Naturally
> >the fanciful enviros will whine....
> >
> 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.
Well, since we agree that people screw it up by making mistakes and
errors of judgement in the design or operation, I'll certainly listen
if you can come up with a way to have nuclear power implemented by
somebody other than people. However, I should warn you that training
chimps to run the plants will not be acceptable either. I was thinking
more of Vorlons or maybe Vulcans.
#4972
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
Bill Funk <bfunk33@pipping.com> wrote in message news:<3np1sv414jbra53mffq0f4m0r9pjho31g9@4ax.com>. ..
> On Sun, 23 Nov 2003 08:31:46 -0700, "Jerry McG"
> <gmcgeorge.REMOVE@frontier.net> wrote:
>
> >> It's not a case of developing new energy technologies. I really wish it
> >were that simple. The fact is that such money (and more) is currently being
> >used to develop new energy technologies, and has been for a long time, yet
> >these technologies always seem to remain "just a few years" away. What is
> >constantly being advised is a (much) lowered use of fossil fuels, with no
> >actual replacement technologies available. Obviously, this will cause a
> >major change in almost every aspect of our lifestyles.<
> >
> >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. 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.
> >
> >Fact is wind & solar are incredibly expensive and inefficient, and
> >replacement of the internal combustion engine with fuel cells is not even in
> >the Model-T stages of development. Therefore, unless humanity is willing to
> >accept a massive economic upheaval conversion a slow conversion using bridge
> >technologies such as hybrids is the only viable path to follow. Naturally
> >the fanciful enviros will whine....
> >
> 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.
Well, since we agree that people screw it up by making mistakes and
errors of judgement in the design or operation, I'll certainly listen
if you can come up with a way to have nuclear power implemented by
somebody other than people. However, I should warn you that training
chimps to run the plants will not be acceptable either. I was thinking
more of Vorlons or maybe Vulcans.
> On Sun, 23 Nov 2003 08:31:46 -0700, "Jerry McG"
> <gmcgeorge.REMOVE@frontier.net> wrote:
>
> >> It's not a case of developing new energy technologies. I really wish it
> >were that simple. The fact is that such money (and more) is currently being
> >used to develop new energy technologies, and has been for a long time, yet
> >these technologies always seem to remain "just a few years" away. What is
> >constantly being advised is a (much) lowered use of fossil fuels, with no
> >actual replacement technologies available. Obviously, this will cause a
> >major change in almost every aspect of our lifestyles.<
> >
> >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. 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.
> >
> >Fact is wind & solar are incredibly expensive and inefficient, and
> >replacement of the internal combustion engine with fuel cells is not even in
> >the Model-T stages of development. Therefore, unless humanity is willing to
> >accept a massive economic upheaval conversion a slow conversion using bridge
> >technologies such as hybrids is the only viable path to follow. Naturally
> >the fanciful enviros will whine....
> >
> 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.
Well, since we agree that people screw it up by making mistakes and
errors of judgement in the design or operation, I'll certainly listen
if you can come up with a way to have nuclear power implemented by
somebody other than people. However, I should warn you that training
chimps to run the plants will not be acceptable either. I was thinking
more of Vorlons or maybe Vulcans.
#4973
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote in message news:<2x8wb.285619$Tr4.884523@attbi_s03>...
> 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.
Yes, having seen that allowing large corporations remarkably free rein
to seek, extract, and sell unreplenishable fossil fuel energy sources
through a centralized structure in order to maximize corporate
profitability, which also creates a monetary penalty for the
corporations to concentrate on fuel efficiency, environmentalism, or
safety; clearly the way to go is to transition to another
unreplenishable source to be sought, extracted, and sold through a
centralized structure run by large corporations with a monetary
penalty for concentration on fuel efficiency, environmentalism, or
safety.
> 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.
Yes, having seen that allowing large corporations remarkably free rein
to seek, extract, and sell unreplenishable fossil fuel energy sources
through a centralized structure in order to maximize corporate
profitability, which also creates a monetary penalty for the
corporations to concentrate on fuel efficiency, environmentalism, or
safety; clearly the way to go is to transition to another
unreplenishable source to be sought, extracted, and sold through a
centralized structure run by large corporations with a monetary
penalty for concentration on fuel efficiency, environmentalism, or
safety.
#4974
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote in message news:<2x8wb.285619$Tr4.884523@attbi_s03>...
> 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.
Yes, having seen that allowing large corporations remarkably free rein
to seek, extract, and sell unreplenishable fossil fuel energy sources
through a centralized structure in order to maximize corporate
profitability, which also creates a monetary penalty for the
corporations to concentrate on fuel efficiency, environmentalism, or
safety; clearly the way to go is to transition to another
unreplenishable source to be sought, extracted, and sold through a
centralized structure run by large corporations with a monetary
penalty for concentration on fuel efficiency, environmentalism, or
safety.
> 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.
Yes, having seen that allowing large corporations remarkably free rein
to seek, extract, and sell unreplenishable fossil fuel energy sources
through a centralized structure in order to maximize corporate
profitability, which also creates a monetary penalty for the
corporations to concentrate on fuel efficiency, environmentalism, or
safety; clearly the way to go is to transition to another
unreplenishable source to be sought, extracted, and sold through a
centralized structure run by large corporations with a monetary
penalty for concentration on fuel efficiency, environmentalism, or
safety.
#4975
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote in message news:<2x8wb.285619$Tr4.884523@attbi_s03>...
> 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.
Yes, having seen that allowing large corporations remarkably free rein
to seek, extract, and sell unreplenishable fossil fuel energy sources
through a centralized structure in order to maximize corporate
profitability, which also creates a monetary penalty for the
corporations to concentrate on fuel efficiency, environmentalism, or
safety; clearly the way to go is to transition to another
unreplenishable source to be sought, extracted, and sold through a
centralized structure run by large corporations with a monetary
penalty for concentration on fuel efficiency, environmentalism, or
safety.
> 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.
Yes, having seen that allowing large corporations remarkably free rein
to seek, extract, and sell unreplenishable fossil fuel energy sources
through a centralized structure in order to maximize corporate
profitability, which also creates a monetary penalty for the
corporations to concentrate on fuel efficiency, environmentalism, or
safety; clearly the way to go is to transition to another
unreplenishable source to be sought, extracted, and sold through a
centralized structure run by large corporations with a monetary
penalty for concentration on fuel efficiency, environmentalism, or
safety.
#4976
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
In article <b5b4685f.0311251346.2762bc95@posting.google.com >, z wrote:
> tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote in message news:<2x8wb.285619$Tr4.884523@attbi_s03>...
>> 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.
> Yes, having seen that allowing large corporations remarkably free rein
> to seek, extract, and sell unreplenishable fossil fuel energy sources
> through a centralized structure in order to maximize corporate
> profitability, which also creates a monetary penalty for the
> corporations to concentrate on fuel efficiency, environmentalism, or
> safety; clearly the way to go is to transition to another
> unreplenishable source to be sought, extracted, and sold through a
> centralized structure run by large corporations with a monetary
> penalty for concentration on fuel efficiency, environmentalism, or
> safety.
What's your point? That the concept of global warming via CO2 is
nothing more than a method/excuse to punish corporations?
> tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote in message news:<2x8wb.285619$Tr4.884523@attbi_s03>...
>> In article <3np1sv414jbra53mffq0f4m0r9pjho31g9@4ax.com>, Bill Funk wrote:
>>
>> > Nuclear works, is economically feasible, and is safe (it's the people
>> > who screw up, not the technology).
>> > Of course, the ecos don't want it, either.
>>
>> And that's what I find puzzling. If CO2 is such an important problem,
>> the what-we-can-do-today answer is state of the art nuclear power. (not
>> stone age state run without protection like the old soviet plants)
>>
>> We are told consistantly that CO2 is a problem, but somehow the
>> solutions always boil down to telling people how they have to live,
>> bring wealth to the 3rd world, and other political and social issues
>> rather than *SOLVING* the stated problem of too much CO2 being released
>> and meeting energy demands / increasing energy efficency.
> Yes, having seen that allowing large corporations remarkably free rein
> to seek, extract, and sell unreplenishable fossil fuel energy sources
> through a centralized structure in order to maximize corporate
> profitability, which also creates a monetary penalty for the
> corporations to concentrate on fuel efficiency, environmentalism, or
> safety; clearly the way to go is to transition to another
> unreplenishable source to be sought, extracted, and sold through a
> centralized structure run by large corporations with a monetary
> penalty for concentration on fuel efficiency, environmentalism, or
> safety.
What's your point? That the concept of global warming via CO2 is
nothing more than a method/excuse to punish corporations?
#4977
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
In article <b5b4685f.0311251346.2762bc95@posting.google.com >, z wrote:
> tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote in message news:<2x8wb.285619$Tr4.884523@attbi_s03>...
>> 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.
> Yes, having seen that allowing large corporations remarkably free rein
> to seek, extract, and sell unreplenishable fossil fuel energy sources
> through a centralized structure in order to maximize corporate
> profitability, which also creates a monetary penalty for the
> corporations to concentrate on fuel efficiency, environmentalism, or
> safety; clearly the way to go is to transition to another
> unreplenishable source to be sought, extracted, and sold through a
> centralized structure run by large corporations with a monetary
> penalty for concentration on fuel efficiency, environmentalism, or
> safety.
What's your point? That the concept of global warming via CO2 is
nothing more than a method/excuse to punish corporations?
> tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote in message news:<2x8wb.285619$Tr4.884523@attbi_s03>...
>> In article <3np1sv414jbra53mffq0f4m0r9pjho31g9@4ax.com>, Bill Funk wrote:
>>
>> > Nuclear works, is economically feasible, and is safe (it's the people
>> > who screw up, not the technology).
>> > Of course, the ecos don't want it, either.
>>
>> And that's what I find puzzling. If CO2 is such an important problem,
>> the what-we-can-do-today answer is state of the art nuclear power. (not
>> stone age state run without protection like the old soviet plants)
>>
>> We are told consistantly that CO2 is a problem, but somehow the
>> solutions always boil down to telling people how they have to live,
>> bring wealth to the 3rd world, and other political and social issues
>> rather than *SOLVING* the stated problem of too much CO2 being released
>> and meeting energy demands / increasing energy efficency.
> Yes, having seen that allowing large corporations remarkably free rein
> to seek, extract, and sell unreplenishable fossil fuel energy sources
> through a centralized structure in order to maximize corporate
> profitability, which also creates a monetary penalty for the
> corporations to concentrate on fuel efficiency, environmentalism, or
> safety; clearly the way to go is to transition to another
> unreplenishable source to be sought, extracted, and sold through a
> centralized structure run by large corporations with a monetary
> penalty for concentration on fuel efficiency, environmentalism, or
> safety.
What's your point? That the concept of global warming via CO2 is
nothing more than a method/excuse to punish corporations?
#4978
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
In article <b5b4685f.0311251346.2762bc95@posting.google.com >, z wrote:
> tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote in message news:<2x8wb.285619$Tr4.884523@attbi_s03>...
>> 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.
> Yes, having seen that allowing large corporations remarkably free rein
> to seek, extract, and sell unreplenishable fossil fuel energy sources
> through a centralized structure in order to maximize corporate
> profitability, which also creates a monetary penalty for the
> corporations to concentrate on fuel efficiency, environmentalism, or
> safety; clearly the way to go is to transition to another
> unreplenishable source to be sought, extracted, and sold through a
> centralized structure run by large corporations with a monetary
> penalty for concentration on fuel efficiency, environmentalism, or
> safety.
What's your point? That the concept of global warming via CO2 is
nothing more than a method/excuse to punish corporations?
> tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote in message news:<2x8wb.285619$Tr4.884523@attbi_s03>...
>> 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.
> Yes, having seen that allowing large corporations remarkably free rein
> to seek, extract, and sell unreplenishable fossil fuel energy sources
> through a centralized structure in order to maximize corporate
> profitability, which also creates a monetary penalty for the
> corporations to concentrate on fuel efficiency, environmentalism, or
> safety; clearly the way to go is to transition to another
> unreplenishable source to be sought, extracted, and sold through a
> centralized structure run by large corporations with a monetary
> penalty for concentration on fuel efficiency, environmentalism, or
> safety.
What's your point? That the concept of global warming via CO2 is
nothing more than a method/excuse to punish corporations?
#4979
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
On 25 Nov 2003 13:40:27 -0800, gzuckier@yahoo.com (z) wrote:
>Bill Funk <bfunk33@pipping.com> wrote in message news:<3np1sv414jbra53mffq0f4m0r9pjho31g9@4ax.com>. ..
>> On Sun, 23 Nov 2003 08:31:46 -0700, "Jerry McG"
>> <gmcgeorge.REMOVE@frontier.net> wrote:
>>
>> >> It's not a case of developing new energy technologies. I really wish it
>> >were that simple. The fact is that such money (and more) is currently being
>> >used to develop new energy technologies, and has been for a long time, yet
>> >these technologies always seem to remain "just a few years" away. What is
>> >constantly being advised is a (much) lowered use of fossil fuels, with no
>> >actual replacement technologies available. Obviously, this will cause a
>> >major change in almost every aspect of our lifestyles.<
>> >
>> >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. 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.
>> >
>> >Fact is wind & solar are incredibly expensive and inefficient, and
>> >replacement of the internal combustion engine with fuel cells is not even in
>> >the Model-T stages of development. Therefore, unless humanity is willing to
>> >accept a massive economic upheaval conversion a slow conversion using bridge
>> >technologies such as hybrids is the only viable path to follow. Naturally
>> >the fanciful enviros will whine....
>> >
>> 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.
>
>Well, since we agree that people screw it up by making mistakes and
>errors of judgement in the design or operation, I'll certainly listen
>if you can come up with a way to have nuclear power implemented by
>somebody other than people. However, I should warn you that training
>chimps to run the plants will not be acceptable either. I was thinking
>more of Vorlons or maybe Vulcans.
That would work! :-)
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"
>Bill Funk <bfunk33@pipping.com> wrote in message news:<3np1sv414jbra53mffq0f4m0r9pjho31g9@4ax.com>. ..
>> On Sun, 23 Nov 2003 08:31:46 -0700, "Jerry McG"
>> <gmcgeorge.REMOVE@frontier.net> wrote:
>>
>> >> It's not a case of developing new energy technologies. I really wish it
>> >were that simple. The fact is that such money (and more) is currently being
>> >used to develop new energy technologies, and has been for a long time, yet
>> >these technologies always seem to remain "just a few years" away. What is
>> >constantly being advised is a (much) lowered use of fossil fuels, with no
>> >actual replacement technologies available. Obviously, this will cause a
>> >major change in almost every aspect of our lifestyles.<
>> >
>> >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. 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.
>> >
>> >Fact is wind & solar are incredibly expensive and inefficient, and
>> >replacement of the internal combustion engine with fuel cells is not even in
>> >the Model-T stages of development. Therefore, unless humanity is willing to
>> >accept a massive economic upheaval conversion a slow conversion using bridge
>> >technologies such as hybrids is the only viable path to follow. Naturally
>> >the fanciful enviros will whine....
>> >
>> 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.
>
>Well, since we agree that people screw it up by making mistakes and
>errors of judgement in the design or operation, I'll certainly listen
>if you can come up with a way to have nuclear power implemented by
>somebody other than people. However, I should warn you that training
>chimps to run the plants will not be acceptable either. I was thinking
>more of Vorlons or maybe Vulcans.
That would work! :-)
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"
#4980
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
On 25 Nov 2003 13:40:27 -0800, gzuckier@yahoo.com (z) wrote:
>Bill Funk <bfunk33@pipping.com> wrote in message news:<3np1sv414jbra53mffq0f4m0r9pjho31g9@4ax.com>. ..
>> On Sun, 23 Nov 2003 08:31:46 -0700, "Jerry McG"
>> <gmcgeorge.REMOVE@frontier.net> wrote:
>>
>> >> It's not a case of developing new energy technologies. I really wish it
>> >were that simple. The fact is that such money (and more) is currently being
>> >used to develop new energy technologies, and has been for a long time, yet
>> >these technologies always seem to remain "just a few years" away. What is
>> >constantly being advised is a (much) lowered use of fossil fuels, with no
>> >actual replacement technologies available. Obviously, this will cause a
>> >major change in almost every aspect of our lifestyles.<
>> >
>> >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. 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.
>> >
>> >Fact is wind & solar are incredibly expensive and inefficient, and
>> >replacement of the internal combustion engine with fuel cells is not even in
>> >the Model-T stages of development. Therefore, unless humanity is willing to
>> >accept a massive economic upheaval conversion a slow conversion using bridge
>> >technologies such as hybrids is the only viable path to follow. Naturally
>> >the fanciful enviros will whine....
>> >
>> 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.
>
>Well, since we agree that people screw it up by making mistakes and
>errors of judgement in the design or operation, I'll certainly listen
>if you can come up with a way to have nuclear power implemented by
>somebody other than people. However, I should warn you that training
>chimps to run the plants will not be acceptable either. I was thinking
>more of Vorlons or maybe Vulcans.
That would work! :-)
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"
>Bill Funk <bfunk33@pipping.com> wrote in message news:<3np1sv414jbra53mffq0f4m0r9pjho31g9@4ax.com>. ..
>> On Sun, 23 Nov 2003 08:31:46 -0700, "Jerry McG"
>> <gmcgeorge.REMOVE@frontier.net> wrote:
>>
>> >> It's not a case of developing new energy technologies. I really wish it
>> >were that simple. The fact is that such money (and more) is currently being
>> >used to develop new energy technologies, and has been for a long time, yet
>> >these technologies always seem to remain "just a few years" away. What is
>> >constantly being advised is a (much) lowered use of fossil fuels, with no
>> >actual replacement technologies available. Obviously, this will cause a
>> >major change in almost every aspect of our lifestyles.<
>> >
>> >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. 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.
>> >
>> >Fact is wind & solar are incredibly expensive and inefficient, and
>> >replacement of the internal combustion engine with fuel cells is not even in
>> >the Model-T stages of development. Therefore, unless humanity is willing to
>> >accept a massive economic upheaval conversion a slow conversion using bridge
>> >technologies such as hybrids is the only viable path to follow. Naturally
>> >the fanciful enviros will whine....
>> >
>> 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.
>
>Well, since we agree that people screw it up by making mistakes and
>errors of judgement in the design or operation, I'll certainly listen
>if you can come up with a way to have nuclear power implemented by
>somebody other than people. However, I should warn you that training
>chimps to run the plants will not be acceptable either. I was thinking
>more of Vorlons or maybe Vulcans.
That would work! :-)
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"