Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
#4981
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"
#4982
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
"z" <gzuckier@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:b5b4685f.0311251340.15762cff@posting.google.c om...
> 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.
I would trust the Vulcans over the Vorlons. They aren't as advanced, but
they are more trustworthy. ;-)
#4983
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
"z" <gzuckier@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:b5b4685f.0311251340.15762cff@posting.google.c om...
> 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.
I would trust the Vulcans over the Vorlons. They aren't as advanced, but
they are more trustworthy. ;-)
#4984
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
"z" <gzuckier@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:b5b4685f.0311251340.15762cff@posting.google.c om...
> 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.
I would trust the Vulcans over the Vorlons. They aren't as advanced, but
they are more trustworthy. ;-)
#4985
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
> > >
> > > 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.
> > >
> >
> > You've got conservatives all wrong then. Part of the reason
conservatives
> > tend towards opposing the global warming crowd is who that crowd is and
what
> > their aims are. Headline environmentalism has transformed over the last
> > decade or so into an extremist and anti-capitalist point of view.
Whatever
> > the facts are regarding global warming, the extreme view pulls into it's
> > agenda the shift of power from capitalism towards socialism.
>
> And I suppose that if the 'environmentalists' advised against jumping
> off the roof, the good conservatives would all dutifully line up to do so?
> The trouble with this whole mess is the media/public's propensity to
> cast *everything* into a contest between two equivalently valid
> opponents, pick one on the basis of some emotional impulse.
> Environmentalism vs. corporatism, prolife vs prochoice, evolutionism
> vs creationism, proBush vs. proSaddam, all are treated the same as the
> choice of RedSox vs. Yankees. In fact, contrary to the news headlines
> the other week, the decision to drop enforcement of the Clean Air laws
> is not a 'blow to environmentalists'; it is, in fact, a blow to all
> air-breathing organisms in the US.
>
You're right in that these arguments turn into contests where the issue gets
lost and everyone is talking past each other. The fact is that, usually,
both sides have a legitimate argument. Abortion is a good example of right
to life and right to privacy. Both are legitimate rights! For me, I'd be
happy if both sides recognized both rights and then worked to find common
ground by working together instead of against each other.
That approach applies to environmentalism too. Corporations sometimes seem
happy to repeal all regulation all together, but then environmentalists take
the extreme view from the other side by working to stop development in it's
tracks. I have a relative who works as an environmental consultant for a
company that developers hire to guide them through the environmental
regulations on local/state/federal levels. She told me that EVERY SINGLE
development that a developer engages in anywhere in the state (CA) is
challenged and fought every step of the way by environmental groups.
I suppose this is good in one sense; checks and balances prevent extremist
outcomes. I think the end result has been reasonable enough. The US has
strict anti-pollution laws and still has strong a economy. Unfortunately,
the acrimony forces expensive legal fights and onerous and expensive
regulatory processes. The irony for the anti-corporate environmentalists is
that it is only the large corporations that can afford to fight these
battles. The little ones go bankrupt or never get started.
> > We have a fossil fueled based economy. Someday it will change and thank
> > goodness for it too, but, God willing, it won't be on the extremist
> > environmentalist schedule or terms.
>
> Yes, as the decisions made regarding fish harvesting limits were not
> made on the 'extremist environmentalist' (aka scientist) schedule or
> terms, instead splitting the difference between the numbers the
> scientists said were the max that would not seriously deplete the
> fishery stocks, and the numbers the fishing industry said were
> necessary economically. That's the American way, isn't it; compromist
> between the two sides. And the result is, of course, that the
> fisheries are now overfished, and the industry is in worse shape than
> it would have been if the scientists' recommendations had been
> followed in the first place.
Extreme environmentalism has no more claim to science than Jim Jones or
David Koresh did to God's priesthood.. It sees things from a narrow point
of view. So narrow as to be, itself, the source of it's own demise if left
unchecked.
#4986
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
> > >
> > > 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.
> > >
> >
> > You've got conservatives all wrong then. Part of the reason
conservatives
> > tend towards opposing the global warming crowd is who that crowd is and
what
> > their aims are. Headline environmentalism has transformed over the last
> > decade or so into an extremist and anti-capitalist point of view.
Whatever
> > the facts are regarding global warming, the extreme view pulls into it's
> > agenda the shift of power from capitalism towards socialism.
>
> And I suppose that if the 'environmentalists' advised against jumping
> off the roof, the good conservatives would all dutifully line up to do so?
> The trouble with this whole mess is the media/public's propensity to
> cast *everything* into a contest between two equivalently valid
> opponents, pick one on the basis of some emotional impulse.
> Environmentalism vs. corporatism, prolife vs prochoice, evolutionism
> vs creationism, proBush vs. proSaddam, all are treated the same as the
> choice of RedSox vs. Yankees. In fact, contrary to the news headlines
> the other week, the decision to drop enforcement of the Clean Air laws
> is not a 'blow to environmentalists'; it is, in fact, a blow to all
> air-breathing organisms in the US.
>
You're right in that these arguments turn into contests where the issue gets
lost and everyone is talking past each other. The fact is that, usually,
both sides have a legitimate argument. Abortion is a good example of right
to life and right to privacy. Both are legitimate rights! For me, I'd be
happy if both sides recognized both rights and then worked to find common
ground by working together instead of against each other.
That approach applies to environmentalism too. Corporations sometimes seem
happy to repeal all regulation all together, but then environmentalists take
the extreme view from the other side by working to stop development in it's
tracks. I have a relative who works as an environmental consultant for a
company that developers hire to guide them through the environmental
regulations on local/state/federal levels. She told me that EVERY SINGLE
development that a developer engages in anywhere in the state (CA) is
challenged and fought every step of the way by environmental groups.
I suppose this is good in one sense; checks and balances prevent extremist
outcomes. I think the end result has been reasonable enough. The US has
strict anti-pollution laws and still has strong a economy. Unfortunately,
the acrimony forces expensive legal fights and onerous and expensive
regulatory processes. The irony for the anti-corporate environmentalists is
that it is only the large corporations that can afford to fight these
battles. The little ones go bankrupt or never get started.
> > We have a fossil fueled based economy. Someday it will change and thank
> > goodness for it too, but, God willing, it won't be on the extremist
> > environmentalist schedule or terms.
>
> Yes, as the decisions made regarding fish harvesting limits were not
> made on the 'extremist environmentalist' (aka scientist) schedule or
> terms, instead splitting the difference between the numbers the
> scientists said were the max that would not seriously deplete the
> fishery stocks, and the numbers the fishing industry said were
> necessary economically. That's the American way, isn't it; compromist
> between the two sides. And the result is, of course, that the
> fisheries are now overfished, and the industry is in worse shape than
> it would have been if the scientists' recommendations had been
> followed in the first place.
Extreme environmentalism has no more claim to science than Jim Jones or
David Koresh did to God's priesthood.. It sees things from a narrow point
of view. So narrow as to be, itself, the source of it's own demise if left
unchecked.
#4987
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
> > >
> > > 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.
> > >
> >
> > You've got conservatives all wrong then. Part of the reason
conservatives
> > tend towards opposing the global warming crowd is who that crowd is and
what
> > their aims are. Headline environmentalism has transformed over the last
> > decade or so into an extremist and anti-capitalist point of view.
Whatever
> > the facts are regarding global warming, the extreme view pulls into it's
> > agenda the shift of power from capitalism towards socialism.
>
> And I suppose that if the 'environmentalists' advised against jumping
> off the roof, the good conservatives would all dutifully line up to do so?
> The trouble with this whole mess is the media/public's propensity to
> cast *everything* into a contest between two equivalently valid
> opponents, pick one on the basis of some emotional impulse.
> Environmentalism vs. corporatism, prolife vs prochoice, evolutionism
> vs creationism, proBush vs. proSaddam, all are treated the same as the
> choice of RedSox vs. Yankees. In fact, contrary to the news headlines
> the other week, the decision to drop enforcement of the Clean Air laws
> is not a 'blow to environmentalists'; it is, in fact, a blow to all
> air-breathing organisms in the US.
>
You're right in that these arguments turn into contests where the issue gets
lost and everyone is talking past each other. The fact is that, usually,
both sides have a legitimate argument. Abortion is a good example of right
to life and right to privacy. Both are legitimate rights! For me, I'd be
happy if both sides recognized both rights and then worked to find common
ground by working together instead of against each other.
That approach applies to environmentalism too. Corporations sometimes seem
happy to repeal all regulation all together, but then environmentalists take
the extreme view from the other side by working to stop development in it's
tracks. I have a relative who works as an environmental consultant for a
company that developers hire to guide them through the environmental
regulations on local/state/federal levels. She told me that EVERY SINGLE
development that a developer engages in anywhere in the state (CA) is
challenged and fought every step of the way by environmental groups.
I suppose this is good in one sense; checks and balances prevent extremist
outcomes. I think the end result has been reasonable enough. The US has
strict anti-pollution laws and still has strong a economy. Unfortunately,
the acrimony forces expensive legal fights and onerous and expensive
regulatory processes. The irony for the anti-corporate environmentalists is
that it is only the large corporations that can afford to fight these
battles. The little ones go bankrupt or never get started.
> > We have a fossil fueled based economy. Someday it will change and thank
> > goodness for it too, but, God willing, it won't be on the extremist
> > environmentalist schedule or terms.
>
> Yes, as the decisions made regarding fish harvesting limits were not
> made on the 'extremist environmentalist' (aka scientist) schedule or
> terms, instead splitting the difference between the numbers the
> scientists said were the max that would not seriously deplete the
> fishery stocks, and the numbers the fishing industry said were
> necessary economically. That's the American way, isn't it; compromist
> between the two sides. And the result is, of course, that the
> fisheries are now overfished, and the industry is in worse shape than
> it would have been if the scientists' recommendations had been
> followed in the first place.
Extreme environmentalism has no more claim to science than Jim Jones or
David Koresh did to God's priesthood.. It sees things from a narrow point
of view. So narrow as to be, itself, the source of it's own demise if left
unchecked.
#4988
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
"The Ancient One" <onlytheone@thetopknows.com> wrote in message
news:vs7oc9q4rr3ve0@corp.supernews.com...
>
<snip>
> > 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.
>
> I would trust the Vulcans over the Vorlons. They aren't as advanced, but
> they are more trustworthy. ;-)
>
Come on, everyone knows that Vulcans are not real.
#4989
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
"The Ancient One" <onlytheone@thetopknows.com> wrote in message
news:vs7oc9q4rr3ve0@corp.supernews.com...
>
<snip>
> > 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.
>
> I would trust the Vulcans over the Vorlons. They aren't as advanced, but
> they are more trustworthy. ;-)
>
Come on, everyone knows that Vulcans are not real.
#4990
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
"The Ancient One" <onlytheone@thetopknows.com> wrote in message
news:vs7oc9q4rr3ve0@corp.supernews.com...
>
<snip>
> > 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.
>
> I would trust the Vulcans over the Vorlons. They aren't as advanced, but
> they are more trustworthy. ;-)
>
Come on, everyone knows that Vulcans are not real.