Brandon Sommerville

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.

The Ancient One

"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
news:bq81fo$dhn$1@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> 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.

The Ancient One

"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
news:bq81fo$dhn$1@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> 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.

The Ancient One

"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
news:bq81fo$dhn$1@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> 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.

The Ancient One

"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
news:bq81fo$dhn$1@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> 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.

No, that would be like asking why is it better to burn that oil in China
instead of the USA. As usual Lloyd you don't even know what the question
was.

The Ancient One

"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
news:bq81fo$dhn$1@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> 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.

No, that would be like asking why is it better to burn that oil in China
instead of the USA. As usual Lloyd you don't even know what the question
was.

The Ancient One

"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
news:bq81fo$dhn$1@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> 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.

No, that would be like asking why is it better to burn that oil in China
instead of the USA. As usual Lloyd you don't even know what the question
was.

The Ancient One

"z" <gzuckier@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:b5b4685f.0311281108.4532612b@posting.google.c om...
> 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?

No, there would be more of it do to less stringent controls, only the
location would be different. Hardly rocket science here.

> 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.

Totally different analogy, you must be a student of Lloyds.

The Ancient One

"z" <gzuckier@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:b5b4685f.0311281108.4532612b@posting.google.c om...
> 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?

No, there would be more of it do to less stringent controls, only the
location would be different. Hardly rocket science here.

> 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.

Totally different analogy, you must be a student of Lloyds.

The Ancient One

"z" <gzuckier@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:b5b4685f.0311281108.4532612b@posting.google.c om...
> 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?

No, there would be more of it do to less stringent controls, only the
location would be different. Hardly rocket science here.

> 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.

Totally different analogy, you must be a student of Lloyds.