"Joe" <jo_ratner@NOSPAM.yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:buUwb.22175$Wy4.21772@newsread2.news.atl.eart hlink.net...
>
> "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.
>
>

Peace. Livelong, and Prosper.

 

"Joe" <jo_ratner@NOSPAM.yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:buUwb.22175$Wy4.21772@newsread2.news.atl.eart hlink.net...
>
> "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.
>
>

Peace. Livelong, and Prosper.

 

"Joe" <jo_ratner@NOSPAM.yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:buUwb.22175$Wy4.21772@newsread2.news.atl.eart hlink.net...
>
> "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.
>
>

Peace. Livelong, and Prosper.

 

On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 02:46:31 GMT, "Joe" <jo_ratner@NOSPAM.yahoo.com>
wrote:

>
>"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.
>
Yeah?
Then how did we learn to vulcanize rubber?

--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"

 

On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 02:46:31 GMT, "Joe" <jo_ratner@NOSPAM.yahoo.com>
wrote:

>
>"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.
>
Yeah?
Then how did we learn to vulcanize rubber?

--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"

 

On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 02:46:31 GMT, "Joe" <jo_ratner@NOSPAM.yahoo.com>
wrote:

>
>"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.
>
Yeah?
Then how did we learn to vulcanize rubber?

--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"

 

tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote in message news:<PjQwb.107728$Dw6.513759@attbi_s02>...
> In article <b5b4685f.0311251346.2762bc95@posting.google.com >, z wrote:
> > tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote in message news:<2x8wb.285619$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?

No, that doctrinaire, paranoid, leftover from the Cold War
circle-the-wagons blindly partisan shortsightedness, inflated by large
infusions of well engineered propaganda bankrolled by big money-making
machines pretending to be underdogs persecuted by some shadowy
all-powerful environmentalist cartel with evil intentions, will
unfortunately usually overrule questions of pure research and best
estimates of most-likely scenarios.

 

tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote in message news:<PjQwb.107728$Dw6.513759@attbi_s02>...
> In article <b5b4685f.0311251346.2762bc95@posting.google.com >, z wrote:
> > tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote in message news:<2x8wb.285619$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?

No, that doctrinaire, paranoid, leftover from the Cold War
circle-the-wagons blindly partisan shortsightedness, inflated by large
infusions of well engineered propaganda bankrolled by big money-making
machines pretending to be underdogs persecuted by some shadowy
all-powerful environmentalist cartel with evil intentions, will
unfortunately usually overrule questions of pure research and best
estimates of most-likely scenarios.

 

tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote in message news:<PjQwb.107728$Dw6.513759@attbi_s02>...
> In article <b5b4685f.0311251346.2762bc95@posting.google.com >, z wrote:
> > tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote in message news:<2x8wb.285619$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?

No, that doctrinaire, paranoid, leftover from the Cold War
circle-the-wagons blindly partisan shortsightedness, inflated by large
infusions of well engineered propaganda bankrolled by big money-making
machines pretending to be underdogs persecuted by some shadowy
all-powerful environmentalist cartel with evil intentions, will
unfortunately usually overrule questions of pure research and best
estimates of most-likely scenarios.

 

In article <b5b4685f.0311260646.46221fd1@posting.google.com >, z wrote:
> tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote in message news:<PjQwb.107728$Dw6.513759@attbi_s02>...
>> In article <b5b4685f.0311251346.2762bc95@posting.google.com >, z wrote:
>> > tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote in message news:<2x8wb.285619$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?
>
> No, that doctrinaire, paranoid, leftover from the Cold War
> circle-the-wagons blindly partisan shortsightedness, inflated by large
> infusions of well engineered propaganda bankrolled by big money-making
> machines pretending to be underdogs persecuted by some shadowy
> all-powerful environmentalist cartel with evil intentions, will
> unfortunately usually overrule questions of pure research and best
> estimates of most-likely scenarios.

You put down alot of words but say nothing. Why is CO2 released in
China less harmful than CO2 released in the USA?