Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
#5031
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:<qG3xb.234391$275.877138@attbi_s53>...
> In article <b5b4685f.0311260646.46221fd1@posting.google.com >, z wrote:
> > tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote in message news:<PjQwb.107728$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?
Cause there's less of it?
It's like the guy with the huge boombox on wheels car stereo
complaining it's unfair he has to keep it down when his neighbor
doesn't have to muffle his 2 inch wind chimes. After all, it's all
noise.
> 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?
Cause there's less of it?
It's like the guy with the huge boombox on wheels car stereo
complaining it's unfair he has to keep it down when his neighbor
doesn't have to muffle his 2 inch wind chimes. After all, it's all
noise.
#5032
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:<qG3xb.234391$275.877138@attbi_s53>...
> In article <b5b4685f.0311260646.46221fd1@posting.google.com >, z wrote:
> > tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote in message news:<PjQwb.107728$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?
Cause there's less of it?
It's like the guy with the huge boombox on wheels car stereo
complaining it's unfair he has to keep it down when his neighbor
doesn't have to muffle his 2 inch wind chimes. After all, it's all
noise.
> 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?
Cause there's less of it?
It's like the guy with the huge boombox on wheels car stereo
complaining it's unfair he has to keep it down when his neighbor
doesn't have to muffle his 2 inch wind chimes. After all, it's all
noise.
#5033
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:<qG3xb.234391$275.877138@attbi_s53>...
> In article <b5b4685f.0311260646.46221fd1@posting.google.com >, z wrote:
> > tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote in message news:<PjQwb.107728$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?
Cause there's less of it?
It's like the guy with the huge boombox on wheels car stereo
complaining it's unfair he has to keep it down when his neighbor
doesn't have to muffle his 2 inch wind chimes. After all, it's all
noise.
> 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?
Cause there's less of it?
It's like the guy with the huge boombox on wheels car stereo
complaining it's unfair he has to keep it down when his neighbor
doesn't have to muffle his 2 inch wind chimes. After all, it's all
noise.
#5034
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:<qG3xb.234391$275.877138@attbi_s53>...
> In article <b5b4685f.0311260646.46221fd1@posting.google.com >, z wrote:
> > tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote in message news:<PjQwb.107728$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?
Cause there's less of it?
It's like the guy with the huge boombox on wheels car stereo
complaining it's unfair he has to keep it down when his neighbor
doesn't have to muffle his 2 inch wind chimes. After all, it's all
noise.
> 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?
Cause there's less of it?
It's like the guy with the huge boombox on wheels car stereo
complaining it's unfair he has to keep it down when his neighbor
doesn't have to muffle his 2 inch wind chimes. After all, it's all
noise.
#5035
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:<qG3xb.234391$275.877138@attbi_s53>...
> In article <b5b4685f.0311260646.46221fd1@posting.google.com >, z wrote:
> > tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote in message news:<PjQwb.107728$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?
Cause there's less of it?
It's like the guy with the huge boombox on wheels car stereo
complaining it's unfair he has to keep it down when his neighbor
doesn't have to muffle his 2 inch wind chimes. After all, it's all
noise.
> 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?
Cause there's less of it?
It's like the guy with the huge boombox on wheels car stereo
complaining it's unfair he has to keep it down when his neighbor
doesn't have to muffle his 2 inch wind chimes. After all, it's all
noise.
#5036
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
"David J. Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote in message news:<i94xb.28645$Gj.28428@twister.socal.rr.com>.. .
> > > > 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.
???
But that's what corporations do. Particularly for-profit. What is your
impression, that people go into climatology research because they
hunger for power and money, and that corporations plan their actions
based on what would best improve the lives of the 6 billion humans
plodding around on the planet?
> > > > 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.
???
But that's what corporations do. Particularly for-profit. What is your
impression, that people go into climatology research because they
hunger for power and money, and that corporations plan their actions
based on what would best improve the lives of the 6 billion humans
plodding around on the planet?
#5037
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
"David J. Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote in message news:<i94xb.28645$Gj.28428@twister.socal.rr.com>.. .
> > > > 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.
???
But that's what corporations do. Particularly for-profit. What is your
impression, that people go into climatology research because they
hunger for power and money, and that corporations plan their actions
based on what would best improve the lives of the 6 billion humans
plodding around on the planet?
> > > > 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.
???
But that's what corporations do. Particularly for-profit. What is your
impression, that people go into climatology research because they
hunger for power and money, and that corporations plan their actions
based on what would best improve the lives of the 6 billion humans
plodding around on the planet?
#5038
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
"David J. Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote in message news:<i94xb.28645$Gj.28428@twister.socal.rr.com>.. .
> > > > 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.
???
But that's what corporations do. Particularly for-profit. What is your
impression, that people go into climatology research because they
hunger for power and money, and that corporations plan their actions
based on what would best improve the lives of the 6 billion humans
plodding around on the planet?
> > > > 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.
???
But that's what corporations do. Particularly for-profit. What is your
impression, that people go into climatology research because they
hunger for power and money, and that corporations plan their actions
based on what would best improve the lives of the 6 billion humans
plodding around on the planet?
#5039
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
On 28 Nov 2003 11:05:34 -0800, gzuckier@yahoo.com (z) wrote:
>tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote in message news:<qG3xb.234391$275.877138@attbi_s53>...
>> In article <b5b4685f.0311260646.46221fd1@posting.google.com >, z wrote:
>> You put down alot of words but say nothing. Why is CO2 released in
>> China less harmful than CO2 released in the USA?
>
>Cause there's less of it?
>It's like the guy with the huge boombox on wheels car stereo
>complaining it's unfair he has to keep it down when his neighbor
>doesn't have to muffle his 2 inch wind chimes. After all, it's all
>noise.
Not quite the same. If noise released is the problem, how is it
better to release the same noise in a different location?
--
Brandon Sommerville
remove ".gov" to e-mail
Definition of "Lottery":
Millions of stupid people contributing
to make one stupid person look smart.
>tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote in message news:<qG3xb.234391$275.877138@attbi_s53>...
>> In article <b5b4685f.0311260646.46221fd1@posting.google.com >, z wrote:
>> You put down alot of words but say nothing. Why is CO2 released in
>> China less harmful than CO2 released in the USA?
>
>Cause there's less of it?
>It's like the guy with the huge boombox on wheels car stereo
>complaining it's unfair he has to keep it down when his neighbor
>doesn't have to muffle his 2 inch wind chimes. After all, it's all
>noise.
Not quite the same. If noise released is the problem, how is it
better to release the same noise in a different location?
--
Brandon Sommerville
remove ".gov" to e-mail
Definition of "Lottery":
Millions of stupid people contributing
to make one stupid person look smart.
#5040
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
On 28 Nov 2003 11:05:34 -0800, gzuckier@yahoo.com (z) wrote:
>tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote in message news:<qG3xb.234391$275.877138@attbi_s53>...
>> In article <b5b4685f.0311260646.46221fd1@posting.google.com >, z wrote:
>> You put down alot of words but say nothing. Why is CO2 released in
>> China less harmful than CO2 released in the USA?
>
>Cause there's less of it?
>It's like the guy with the huge boombox on wheels car stereo
>complaining it's unfair he has to keep it down when his neighbor
>doesn't have to muffle his 2 inch wind chimes. After all, it's all
>noise.
Not quite the same. If noise released is the problem, how is it
better to release the same noise in a different location?
--
Brandon Sommerville
remove ".gov" to e-mail
Definition of "Lottery":
Millions of stupid people contributing
to make one stupid person look smart.
>tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote in message news:<qG3xb.234391$275.877138@attbi_s53>...
>> In article <b5b4685f.0311260646.46221fd1@posting.google.com >, z wrote:
>> You put down alot of words but say nothing. Why is CO2 released in
>> China less harmful than CO2 released in the USA?
>
>Cause there's less of it?
>It's like the guy with the huge boombox on wheels car stereo
>complaining it's unfair he has to keep it down when his neighbor
>doesn't have to muffle his 2 inch wind chimes. After all, it's all
>noise.
Not quite the same. If noise released is the problem, how is it
better to release the same noise in a different location?
--
Brandon Sommerville
remove ".gov" to e-mail
Definition of "Lottery":
Millions of stupid people contributing
to make one stupid person look smart.