OT: Environmentalists

Tom Kunich 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.

If not too busy doing this:

http://www.epa.gov/mercury/spills/index.htm#flourescent

On Sat, 7 Jun 2008 14:20:00 -0700, "Bill Sornson" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

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]>
wrote:

> 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

I forgot: facts have a liberal bias.

On Sat, 7 Jun 2008 14:20:00 -0700, "Bill Sornson" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

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]>
wrote:

> 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

I don't normally read Kunich, but it's interesting that he's as
innumerate as Sorni. Makes sense I guess.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

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.

Quoted message said:

Luke 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.

Bill Sornson 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.)

True but trite. Would anyone argue against that? All of the putative
'improvement' is less than a volcano event or Siberian forest fires or
even smaller countries' emissions. It's simply a thumb in the eye of The
Great Satan and nothing more.
--
Andrew Muzi
<www.yellowjersey.org/>
Open every day since 1 April, 1971
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Luke said:

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

Quoted message said:

Bill Sornson 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.)

Jay Beattie 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. 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.

Uh, we had a Manhattan Project.

We still are not allowed regular nuclear electricity generation like
France, Japan, etc.

Look to India, where rural areas cannot get electricity because some
local socialist politician always objects to a few meters' space for the
power lines. That is our future; endless bickering and dithering as the
country goes to hell.

This is not a technical problem.
--
Andrew Muzi
<www.yellowjersey.org/>
Open every day since 1 April, 1971
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

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

Quoted message said:

Tom Kunich 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.

If not too busy doing this:

http://www.epa.gov/mercury/spills/index.htm#flourescent

I wonder what these idiots think about when someone tells them that we used
mercurochrome as an antiseptic for half a century.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Tom Kunich 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:

"Bill Sornson" <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

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

If not too busy doing this:
http://www.epa.gov/mercury/spills/index.htm#flourescent

Tom Kunich said:

I wonder what these idiots think about when someone tells them that we
used mercurochrome as an antiseptic for half a century.

How about a couple million grammar-school-age boys (like me) who had a
small container of liquid mercury and played around with it often?
Metallic mercury is relatively inert - it's the active compounds which
are dangerous.

no common sense any more.
--
Andrew Muzi
<www.yellowjersey.org/>
Open every day since 1 April, 1971
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

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

Quoted message said:

Tom Kunich said:

I wonder what these idiots think about when someone tells them that we
used mercurochrome as an antiseptic for half a century.

How about a couple million grammar-school-age boys (like me) who had a
small container of liquid mercury and played around with it often?
Metallic mercury is relatively inert - it's the active compounds which are
dangerous.

no common sense any more.

This appears to be what happens when the education system is taken over by
the Marxists (who even told us they were going to do it) and then most
subjects are simply not taught any more.

At one time experience was valued. Now only education is valued and often it
demonstrates a sort of ignorance hard to understand by "normal" people. I
had to choose to hire between 15 college educated engineers and I couldn't
find ONE of them that actually could engineer anything.

On Sat, 07 Jun 2008 17:44:31 -0500, A Muzi <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Uh, we had a Manhattan Project.

We still are not allowed regular nuclear electricity generation like
France, Japan, etc.

Look to India, where rural areas cannot get electricity because some
local socialist politician always objects to a few meters' space for the
power lines. That is our future; endless bickering and dithering as the
country goes to hell.

This is not a technical problem.

Sure it is. We just need to include politicians with hairdressers,
realtors, and insurance agents when we respond to the critical world
problem that will mean the end of the world shortly, and requires us
to send our entire population to another undiscovered planet.

Pat

Email address works as is.

A Muzi said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

Bill Sornson 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.)

Jay Beattie 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. 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.

Uh, we had a Manhattan Project.

We still are not allowed regular nuclear electricity generation like
France, Japan, etc.

Look to India, where rural areas cannot get electricity because some
local socialist politician always objects to a few meters' space for
the power lines. That is our future; endless bickering and dithering
as the country goes to hell.

This is not a technical problem.

Bingo.

Amundo.

A Muzi said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Tom Kunich <cyclintom@yahoo.> wrote:
> 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:

Luke 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.

Bill Sornson 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.)

True but trite. Would anyone argue against that? All of the putative
'improvement' is less than a volcano event or Siberian forest fires or
even smaller countries' emissions. It's simply a thumb in the eye of
The Great Satan and nothing more.

True...but 45 trillion isn't trite....and only scratches the surface of the
true cost of giving in to this scam (back to OP).

You think $4.44 for gas is bad now; just wait till a "Cap & Trade" bill
actually passes -- as ALL THREE prez candidates favor.

BTW, when the Dems took contol of Congress in 2006, Nancy Pelosi said they
had a plan to lower gas prices. Anyone plan on asking her to reveal it?!?

BS (called)

Bill Sornson said:

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.

This kind of ignorance is astounding. The US has explored, drilled,
extracted and refined its own oil resources like no other country on
the planet.

On Sat, 7 Jun 2008 18:19:50 -0700, "Bill Sornson" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

BTW, when the Dems took contol of Congress in 2006, Nancy Pelosi said they
had a plan to lower gas prices. Anyone plan on asking her to reveal it?!?

I believe her plan begins with getting an administration filled with
oil executives out of office.

Quoted message said:

Bill Sornson said:

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.

This kind of ignorance is astounding. The US has explored, drilled,
extracted and refined its own oil resources like no other country on
the planet.

You once again exceed your own standards of cluelessness. Well done.

still just me said:

On Sat, 7 Jun 2008 18:19:50 -0700, "Bill Sornson" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

BTW, when the Dems took contol of Congress in 2006, Nancy Pelosi said they
had a plan to lower gas prices. Anyone plan on asking her to reveal it?!?

I believe her plan begins with getting an administration filled with
oil executives out of office.

POTM.

In the long run, oil prices will rise. They'll rise a little slower
w/o the Bush cabal in power. They'll rise a little faster with more
environmentally concerned politicians (some Democrats and maybe
McCain, though I think he's lying about his environmentalism
considering his voting record)) in power.

still just me said:

On Sat, 7 Jun 2008 18:19:50 -0700, "Bill Sornson" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

BTW, when the Dems took contol of Congress in 2006, Nancy Pelosi said they
had a plan to lower gas prices.  Anyone plan on asking her to reveal it?!?

I believe her plan begins with getting an administration filled with
oil executives out of office.

Increase the margin requirements for oil futures and increase taxes on
oil profits -- that would decrease speculation, at least in the
American market -- but I don't know if it would affect the global
price of oil. As for lowering the price at the pump, AFAIK, there is
no quick fix -- just like there is no quick fix to anything that
matters in this election cycle. Whoever wins is going to be screwed
unless the rapture ensues quickly or else some other miracle occurs. I
would like to think that American enginuity will keep us from slipping
in to the second world, but I am not so sure anymore. -- Jay Beattie.

in rec.bicycles.tech A Muzi said:

We still are not allowed regular nuclear electricity generation like
France, Japan, etc.

Nukes won't help us unless you're willing to accept the waste in your
backyard... and you shouldn't; your neighbors won't, I assure you; I
won't either. We should be thinking of using less power, not how can
we maintain our current consumption levels.

I see three options:

1) Let energy find its market clearing price.
2) Tax it heavily to drive the price up.
3) Ration it.

Energy has an artificially low cost in the US. Keeping it thus
encourages further consumption, not innovation and conservation.

Jones

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?

Everything from better urban planning to fuel efficiency requirements
to credits for new technology, etc., etc. All the same things we are
starting to do now. There was no reason in the world we needed to be
driving around in bazillion pound cars with wings when I was a kid ---
except that gas was cheap and we could. During that same time in
Europe, people paid more for gas -- a lot more -- which generated
money for mass transit infrastructure. Meanwhile, we were busy
tearing out our street cars, except in large cities like NY. In
Portland, for example, they tore out the street cars and electric
busses in the '50s -- and now the street cars are going back in. The
contractactors have to cope with the old rails that are covered under
a foot of asphalt. I sort of feel sorry for Carter because he harped
on energy independence and got pooh-poohed. On the other hand, he had
his "Carter Doctrine" that gave us the right to spank the Arabs to
protect our (their?) oil. Odd dude.

Quoted message said:

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.

Someone floats an idea, and like a reflex, you yammer about the person
not knowing anything. Is this some form of Tourrettes?

Quoted message said:

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?

There must be something superior to buring combustible liquids and
gasses. That is stone-wheel technology. And not withstanding the fact
that solar cells have been in development for 50 years, we have had
significant recent improvements -- improvements achieved with DOE
support. http://www.energy.gov/news/4503.htm . The DOE came from our
nu-ca-lar program -- and the same vigor that went in to the Manhattan
Project could go in to developing non-exploding energy technology. I
don't see why not, and really, there is only so long that we can get
by burning stuff. -- Jay Beattie.

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

Quoted message said:

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?

Everything from better urban planning to fuel efficiency requirements
to credits for new technology, etc., etc. All the same things we are
starting to do now.

How about jail sentences for people who use more gasoline than you believe
they should? Why is it that you fascists always manage to believe that your
view of the world is the right view and you need to punish everyone else
that doens't hold your view?

Quoted message said:

There was no reason in the world we needed to be
driving around in bazillion pound cars with wings when I was a kid ---
except that gas was cheap and we could.

And of course the small think that it took 70 years to develop the
industrial capability to make things with enough accuracy to make them as
efficient as they are today. Oh, that's right - you bozos who can't actually
do anything yourself believe that everyone else could do it back in the
1800's.

Quoted message said:

I sort of feel sorry for Carter because he harped
on energy independence and got pooh-poohed.

I notice you didn't actually quote Carter.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

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.

Someone floats an idea, and like a reflex, you yammer about the person
not knowing anything. Is this some form of Tourrettes?

The problem is that your ideas aren't backed by any real knowledge and you
think they are. Why is it that you don't realize that is a fools way of
doing things?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

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?

There must be something superior to buring combustible liquids and
gasses.

OK, what?

Quoted message said:

That is stone-wheel technology. And not withstanding the fact
that solar cells have been in development for 50 years, we have had
significant recent improvements -- improvements achieved with DOE
support. http://www.energy.gov/news/4503.htm .

No we HAVEN'T had any "recent improvements". The "improvements" have all
been microscopic in function and slight in economics. As I pointed out
before - solar cells cost more to produce than they generally return in
electricity in their lifetime. Why do you believe that to be somehow
superior to anything else?

Do you suppose PG & E's test solar generators in the Mojave Desert were just
kidding when they used steam generators instead of solar cells? Or perhaps
you want to believe that they're much dumber than you are?

Quoted message said:

The DOE came from our nu-ca-lar program --
and the same vigor that went in to the Manhattan Project
could go in to developing non-exploding energy technology.

Of course they've been trying to get funding for that for 40 years while
Democrats have been putting 20 times as much into their own pet projects
such as Harry Reid's $61 million Nevada "special transportation projects"
stuff etc.

And don't get the idea that I'm implying that Republicans aren't equally to
blame.

The point is: you don't have a clue what you're talking about and you yammer
on like that without every bothering to actually look into anything.

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

Quoted message said:

in rec.bicycles.tech A Muzi said:

We still are not allowed regular nuclear electricity generation like
France, Japan, etc.

Nukes won't help us unless you're willing to accept the waste in your
backyard.

What waste? By all means explain to us what "waste" a modern reactor has.

Quoted message said:

Energy has an artificially low cost in the US. Keeping it thus
encourages further consumption, not innovation and conservation.

That's pretty funny. What is your position that you would be able to even
guess at the cost vs. the price of energy production?

What are you going to have to say when your parents freeze to death because
they can't afford natural gas heating?