OT: Environmentalists

"Tim McNamara" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

Tom Kunich' cyclintom@yahoo. com said:

Well, a report by the Paris-based International Energy Agency is
saying that all we need to combat global warming is for every
American family to be taxed $600,000 and that will be enough. For
now.

Hopefully EVERY American environmentalist will gladly step up to the
plate and pay his share starting right now.

So, what, Tom, do you think we should "stay the course?" Did you have
some other planet to move to at some point? Or are you depending on
some miraculous divine intervention?

If it weren't for man this planet would be a paradise.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Tom Kunich' cyclintom@yahoo. com said:

Well, a report by the Paris-based International Energy Agency is
saying that all we need to combat global warming is for every
American family to be taxed $600,000 and that will be enough. For
now.
Hopefully EVERY American environmentalist will gladly step up to the
plate and pay his share starting right now.

Quoted message said:

"Tim McNamara" <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

So, what, Tom, do you think we should "stay the course?" Did you have
some other planet to move to at some point? Or are you depending on
some miraculous divine intervention?

Tom Kunich said:

If it weren't for man this planet would be a paradise.

Ah, "nature". You must mean bloody claw and fang.
--
Andrew Muzi
<www.yellowjersey.org/>
Open every day since 1 April, 1971
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

Tom Kunich said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Well, a report by the Paris-based International Energy Agency is
saying that all we need to combat global warming is for every
American family to be taxed $600,000 and that will be enough. For
now.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Hopefully EVERY American environmentalist will gladly step up to
the plate and pay his share starting right now.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

So, what, Tom, do you think we should "stay the course?" Did you
have some other planet to move to at some point? Or are you
depending on some miraculous divine intervention?

Quoted message said:

If it weren't for man this planet would be a paradise.

In that line, the earth has about 10x the human population than what
it can endure long term. If you want to see the power humans have
extracted from fossiles and blown away into earth atmosphere, this web
site give an indication how uch of the habitable land is under
enormous stress.

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/image/0011/earthlights_dmsp_big.jpg

Do-gooders are working hard to bring African population density up to
the brighter places on this map.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Powder_River_Basin

Jobst Brandt

Tom Kunich said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Well, a report by the Paris-based International Energy Agency is
saying that all we need to combat global warming is for every
American family to be taxed $600,000 and that will be enough. For
now.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Hopefully EVERY American environmentalist will gladly step up to
the plate and pay his share starting right now.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

So, what, Tom, do you think we should "stay the course?" Did you
have some other planet to move to at some point? Or are you
depending on some miraculous divine intervention?

Quoted message said:

If it weren't for man this planet would be a paradise.

In that line, the earth has about 10x the human population than
support long term. For a view of the power humans have extracted from
fossils and blown away into earth atmosphere, this web site gives an
indication how much of the habitable land is under population stress.

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/image/0011/earthlights_dmsp_big.jpg

Do-gooders are working hard to bring African population density up to
the brighter places on this map.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Powder_River_Basin

Jobst Brandt

In article <[email hidden]>, Tom Kunich

cyclintom@yahoo. said:

Well, a report by the Paris-based International Energy Agency is saying that
all we need to combat global warming is for every American family to be
taxed $600,000 and that will be enough. For now.

Hopefully EVERY American environmentalist will gladly step up to the plate
and pay his share starting right now.

Of course, the American Way is to buy a solution and charge the expense
to someone else. Regardless the free ride's over nda this time there's
no passing the buck.

Luke said:

In article <[email hidden]>, Tom

Kunich cyclintom@yahoo. said:

Well, a report by the Paris-based International Energy Agency is
saying that all we need to combat global warming is for every
American family to be taxed $600,000 and that will be enough. For
now.

Hopefully EVERY American environmentalist will gladly step up to the
plate and pay his share starting right now.

Of course, the American Way is to buy a solution and charge the
expense to someone else. Regardless the free ride's over nda this
time there's no passing the buck.

Of course, you've got it completely wrong. China and India ain't playing
(paying), so even the US coughs up the $45 /trillion/ it won't solve a
thing. (Except to cripple the US economy, of course, which is the REAL
agenda in play.)

HTH (BKIW)

"Luke" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>, Tom Kunich

cyclintom@yahoo. said:

Well, a report by the Paris-based International Energy Agency is saying
that
all we need to combat global warming is for every American family to be
taxed $600,000 and that will be enough. For now.

As soon as France pays off their WW2 war depts., that would probably be
$600,000 per person in France by now.

Bill Sornson said:

Luke said:

In article <[email hidden]>, Tom
Kunich <cyclintom@yahoo.> wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Well, a report by the Paris-based International Energy Agency is
saying that all we need to combat global warming is for every
American family to be taxed $600,000 and that will be enough. For
now.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Hopefully EVERY American environmentalist will gladly step up to the
plate and pay his share starting right now.

Quoted message said:

Of course, the American Way is to buy a solution and charge the
expense to someone else. Regardless the free ride's over nda this
time there's no passing the buck.

Of course, you've got it completely wrong.  China and India ain't playing
(paying), so even the US coughs up the $45 /trillion/ it won't solve a
thing.  (Except to cripple the US economy, of course, which is the REAL
agenda in play.)

Reliance on fossil fuels has crippled our economy. If we had reduced
our reliance on oil and petrochemicals fifty years ago, we would be
better off economically and environmentally. We need something like a
Manhattan Project to develop new energy technology -- which we could
do for under 45 trillion, maybe. Come up with a highly efficient
solar cell and license the technology to pay off the debt. Sure, this
would be government in the private sector -- but that worked fine for
the TVA and BPA and other energy production efforts. Investing in
infrastructure creates jobs and would also stimulate the economy --
more than a bogus $150 tax rebate. -- Jay Beattie.

On Sat, 7 Jun 2008 08:43:09 -0700, "Bill Sornson" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Except to cripple the US economy, of course, which is the REAL
agenda in play.)

Cripple? Ha.

In article <[email hidden]>, Bill Sornson

Quoted message said:

Luke said:

In article <[email hidden]>, Tom

Kunich cyclintom@yahoo. said:

Well, a report by the Paris-based International Energy Agency is
saying that all we need to combat global warming is for every
American family to be taxed $600,000 and that will be enough. For
now.

Hopefully EVERY American environmentalist will gladly step up to the
plate and pay his share starting right now.

Of course, the American Way is to buy a solution and charge the
expense to someone else. Regardless the free ride's over nda this
time there's no passing the buck.

Of course, you've got it completely wrong. China and India ain't playing
(paying), so even the US coughs up the $45 /trillion/ it won't solve a
thing. (Except to cripple the US economy, of course, which is the REAL
agenda in play.)

HTH (BKIW)

Why fault the "developing" world for flattering the West by imitation?
Really they're complimenting the Industrialized World by embracing the
same methods and sensibilities that served us so well as we embarked
down the road to prosperity.

That's their real crime: they're acting like us.

They want what we do; and are using our methods to get it. That it's
not feasible r

Quoted message said:

Jay Beattie said:

Bill Sornson said:

Luke said:

In article <[email hidden]>, Tom
Kunich <cyclintom@yahoo.> wrote:

Quoted message said:

> Well, a report by the Paris-based International Energy Agency is
> saying that all we need to combat global warming is for every
> American family to be taxed $600,000 and that will be enough. For
> now.

Quoted message said:

> Hopefully EVERY American environmentalist will gladly step up to
> the plate and pay his share starting right now.

Quoted message said:

Of course, the American Way is to buy a solution and charge the
expense to someone else. Regardless the free ride's over nda this
time there's no passing the buck.

Of course, you've got it completely wrong. China and India ain't
playing (paying), so even the US coughs up the $45 /trillion/ it
won't solve a thing. (Except to cripple the US economy, of course,
which is the REAL agenda in play.)

Reliance on fossil fuels has crippled our economy. If we had reduced
our reliance on oil and petrochemicals fifty years ago, we would be
better off economically and environmentally.

You left out the word "foreign", repeatedly. If the US had explored,
drilled, extracted, and refined its /own/ oil resources -- while also
looking to create/invent alternative technologies -- AND built clean, green
and safe nuclear plants -- then not only would our economy not be "crippled"
(which it's not now even with all the efforts to make it so), it would be
BOOMING. It's the only country on earth that's not using its own resources
to meet its needs for energy.

Quoted message said:

We need something like a
Manhattan Project to develop new energy technology -- which we could
do for under 45 trillion, maybe.

The 45 tril isn't intended for that; it's intended to line the pockets of
U.N.-like frauds and scammers. (Hint: check into Al Gore's interests in
these "carbon credits and offsets" companies. He's making millions, and
soon it will be billions.)

Quoted message said:

Come up with a highly efficient
solar cell and license the technology to pay off the debt. Sure, this
would be government in the private sector -- but that worked fine for
the TVA and BPA and other energy production efforts. Investing in
infrastructure creates jobs and would also stimulate the economy --
more than a bogus $150 tax rebate. -- Jay Beattie.

When there's promise, investors and entrepreneurs will /flood/ new sectors
with money. True of energy, bio-tech, pharmaceutical, you name it.
Government will just regulate it to death and keep it from ever emerging
full scale.

On Sat, 7 Jun 2008 12:05:47 -0700, "Bill Sornson" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

It's the only country on earth that's not using its own resources
to meet its needs for energy.

You're very mistaken about this. Not surprising considering how
little you read and *what* you read..

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/ene_imp_net_of_ene_use-energy-imports-net-of-use

John Forrest Tomlinson said:

On Sat, 7 Jun 2008 12:05:47 -0700, "Bill Sornson" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

It's the only country on earth that's not using its own resources
to meet its needs for energy.

You're very mistaken about this. Not surprising considering how
little you read and *what* you read..

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/ene_imp_net_of_ene_use-energy-imports-net-of-use

PS - I actually agree with Bill's sentiment that the US should be
looking to reduce it's reliance on energy imports. Though not is
desire that we trash the environment to do so.

"Bill Sornson" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Of course, you've got it completely wrong. China and India ain't playing
(paying), so even the US coughs up the $45 /trillion/ it won't solve a
thing. (Except to cripple the US economy, of course, which is the REAL
agenda in play.)

OK Bill, no fair understanding what's really happening. You're supposed to
be as stupid as a Democrat.

"Jay Beattie" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Reliance on fossil fuels has crippled our economy. If we had reduced
our reliance on oil and petrochemicals fifty years ago, we would be
better off economically and environmentally.

By all means perhaps you can explain how we could have done that?

Quoted message said:

We need something like a
Manhattan Project to develop new energy technology -- which we could
do for under 45 trillion, maybe. Come up with a highly efficient
solar cell and license the technology to pay off the debt.

I see your degree in physics is doing you some good after all. Oh, that's
right - apparently you know nothing about what you're writing but aren't
afraid to write it.

Jay, all kidding aside - solar cells only work about 30 - 40% of the time.
They've been IN DEVELOPMENT for 50 years. What makes you think that they
could be more than marginally improved?

Are you aware that it costs more energy to manufacture than they can
generate in their useful lifetime?

"John Forrest Tomlinson" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

On Sat, 7 Jun 2008 12:05:47 -0700, "Bill Sornson" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

It's the only country on earth that's not using its own resources
to meet its needs for energy.

You're very mistaken about this. Not surprising considering how
little you read and *what* you read..

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/ene_imp_net_of_ene_use-energy-imports-net-of-use

Yeah, that's a really accurate gauge alright - for instance, Norway
generates 7 "killowatts" of power. And they have 11 cubic feet of natural
gas in reserve.

Tom Kunich' cyclintom@yahoo. com said:

"Jay Beattie" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Reliance on fossil fuels has crippled our economy. If we had reduced
our reliance on oil and petrochemicals fifty years ago, we would be
better off economically and environmentally.

By all means perhaps you can explain how we could have done that?

Ride bikes.

Tom Kunich said:

"John Forrest Tomlinson" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

On Sat, 7 Jun 2008 12:05:47 -0700, "Bill Sornson" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

It's the only country on earth that's not using its own resources
to meet its needs for energy.

You're very mistaken about this. Not surprising considering how
little you read and *what* you read..

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/ene_imp_net_of_ene_use-energy-imports-net-of-use

Yeah, that's a really accurate gauge alright - for instance, Norway
generates 7 "killowatts" of power. And they have 11 cubic feet of
natural gas in reserve.

ROTFL

Tom Kunich said:

"Bill Sornson" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Of course, you've got it completely wrong. China and India ain't
playing (paying), so even {if} the US coughs up the $45 /trillion/ it
won't solve a thing. (Except to cripple the US economy, of course,
which is the REAL agenda in play.)

Quoted message said:

OK Bill, no fair understanding what's really happening. You're
supposed to be as stupid as a Democrat.

ITYMTS stupid /and/ dishonest.

Bill "full disclosure" S.