Brent P

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?

Brent P

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?

David J. Allen

> > > 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.

There's the pot calling the kettle black! Don't tell me extremist
environmentalists don't view corporations with the same suspicion; with evil
intent, overflowing with greed; doing their best to stomp on the little
people and squeeze every last cent out of their pocket. Mr. Potter vs.
George; Scrooge vs. Tiny Tim; ...........Capt. Picard (we just want peace
and to just get along) vs. The Borg (monolithic all consuming entity) :-)

This environmentalist:scientist vs. capitalist:greedmonger comparison is
fantasy and wishful thinking.

David J. Allen

> > > 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.

There's the pot calling the kettle black! Don't tell me extremist
environmentalists don't view corporations with the same suspicion; with evil
intent, overflowing with greed; doing their best to stomp on the little
people and squeeze every last cent out of their pocket. Mr. Potter vs.
George; Scrooge vs. Tiny Tim; ...........Capt. Picard (we just want peace
and to just get along) vs. The Borg (monolithic all consuming entity) :-)

This environmentalist:scientist vs. capitalist:greedmonger comparison is
fantasy and wishful thinking.

David J. Allen

> > > 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.

There's the pot calling the kettle black! Don't tell me extremist
environmentalists don't view corporations with the same suspicion; with evil
intent, overflowing with greed; doing their best to stomp on the little
people and squeeze every last cent out of their pocket. Mr. Potter vs.
George; Scrooge vs. Tiny Tim; ...........Capt. Picard (we just want peace
and to just get along) vs. The Borg (monolithic all consuming entity) :-)

This environmentalist:scientist vs. capitalist:greedmonger comparison is
fantasy and wishful thinking.

Lloyd Parker

In article <qG3xb.234391$275.877138@attbi_s53>,
tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>In article <b5b4685f.0311260646.46221fd1@posting.google.com >, z wrote:
>> tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote in message
news:<PjQwb.107728$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?
>
>
Like asking why is oil consumed in the US more wasteful than oil consumed in
China? Ans -- because we consume more, and more per capita.

Lloyd Parker

In article <qG3xb.234391$275.877138@attbi_s53>,
tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>In article <b5b4685f.0311260646.46221fd1@posting.google.com >, z wrote:
>> tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote in message
news:<PjQwb.107728$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?
>
>
Like asking why is oil consumed in the US more wasteful than oil consumed in
China? Ans -- because we consume more, and more per capita.

Lloyd Parker

In article <qG3xb.234391$275.877138@attbi_s53>,
tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>In article <b5b4685f.0311260646.46221fd1@posting.google.com >, z wrote:
>> tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote in message
news:<PjQwb.107728$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?
>
>
Like asking why is oil consumed in the US more wasteful than oil consumed in
China? Ans -- because we consume more, and more per capita.

Lloyd Parker

In article <i94xb.28645$Gj.28428@twister.socal.rr.com>,
"David J. Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
>
>> > > 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.
>
>There's the pot calling the kettle black! Don't tell me extremist
>environmentalists don't view corporations with the same suspicion; with evil
>intent, overflowing with greed; doing their best to stomp on the little
>people and squeeze every last cent out of their pocket. Mr. Potter vs.
>George; Scrooge vs. Tiny Tim; ...........Capt. Picard (we just want peace
>and to just get along) vs. The Borg (monolithic all consuming entity) :-)
>
>This environmentalist:scientist vs. capitalist:greedmonger comparison is
>fantasy and wishful thinking.
>
>
Well, what have corporations done to dispell that view? They get
environmental laws repealed, they get exempted from environmental regulations,
they don't mind clear-cutting forests (even if they're endangered species
there) because it's less costly for them, they want to dump mining waste in
rivers, they kick at snowmobile restrictions in Yellowstone, etc. They send
jobs overseas and lay off workers while paying their execs millions and
dodging US taxes.

If more were like DuPont -- which had bought thousands of acres near the
Okeefenokee swamp for mining, but after environmental protests donated the
land instead for a nature preserve -- perhaps people would have a better view
of corporations.

Lloyd Parker

In article <i94xb.28645$Gj.28428@twister.socal.rr.com>,
"David J. Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
>
>> > > 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.
>
>There's the pot calling the kettle black! Don't tell me extremist
>environmentalists don't view corporations with the same suspicion; with evil
>intent, overflowing with greed; doing their best to stomp on the little
>people and squeeze every last cent out of their pocket. Mr. Potter vs.
>George; Scrooge vs. Tiny Tim; ...........Capt. Picard (we just want peace
>and to just get along) vs. The Borg (monolithic all consuming entity) :-)
>
>This environmentalist:scientist vs. capitalist:greedmonger comparison is
>fantasy and wishful thinking.
>
>
Well, what have corporations done to dispell that view? They get
environmental laws repealed, they get exempted from environmental regulations,
they don't mind clear-cutting forests (even if they're endangered species
there) because it's less costly for them, they want to dump mining waste in
rivers, they kick at snowmobile restrictions in Yellowstone, etc. They send
jobs overseas and lay off workers while paying their execs millions and
dodging US taxes.

If more were like DuPont -- which had bought thousands of acres near the
Okeefenokee swamp for mining, but after environmental protests donated the
land instead for a nature preserve -- perhaps people would have a better view
of corporations.