Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
#2851
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
Dori Schmetterling wrote:
> And who said that the five days preceding were 'days' as we know them...?
> Wasn't time a bit different in the first microseconds of Big Bang? Or maybe
> Fred Hoyle was right and then where do we start?
Its not the start that worries me....
Ed
#2852
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
No, No, No Lloyd, it was in USA Today, not exactly a bastion of right-wing
propaganda last time we looked.
"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> ill-informed and typically
arrogant, wrote in message news:bnr4q5$kba$9@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> In article <Cj0ob.59593$Fm2.41498@attbi_s04>,
> tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>
> Another fool who believes what he reads on right-wing web sites:
>
> >In article <bnpmk701sae@enews3.newsguy.com>, Gerald G. McGeorge wrote:
> >
> >> Ironically, there's a piece in today's USA Today regarding the key
research
> >> green have used since the 80's to promote the CO2 / global warming
theory.
> >> In a nutshell, the green's much-heralded research which concluded that
> >> global temps had increased at a dramatic, unprecedented rate over the
> second
> >> half of the 20th century has been challenged and proven faulty, that in
> >> reality the climate cycle over that period of time was NOT abnormal.
> >
> >I think I've found the paper mentioned in the article:
> >http://www.multi-science.co.uk/ee_openaccess.htm
> >http://www.multi-science.co.uk/mcintyre_02.pdf
> >
> >
propaganda last time we looked.
"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> ill-informed and typically
arrogant, wrote in message news:bnr4q5$kba$9@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> In article <Cj0ob.59593$Fm2.41498@attbi_s04>,
> tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>
> Another fool who believes what he reads on right-wing web sites:
>
> >In article <bnpmk701sae@enews3.newsguy.com>, Gerald G. McGeorge wrote:
> >
> >> Ironically, there's a piece in today's USA Today regarding the key
research
> >> green have used since the 80's to promote the CO2 / global warming
theory.
> >> In a nutshell, the green's much-heralded research which concluded that
> >> global temps had increased at a dramatic, unprecedented rate over the
> second
> >> half of the 20th century has been challenged and proven faulty, that in
> >> reality the climate cycle over that period of time was NOT abnormal.
> >
> >I think I've found the paper mentioned in the article:
> >http://www.multi-science.co.uk/ee_openaccess.htm
> >http://www.multi-science.co.uk/mcintyre_02.pdf
> >
> >
#2853
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
No, No, No Lloyd, it was in USA Today, not exactly a bastion of right-wing
propaganda last time we looked.
"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> ill-informed and typically
arrogant, wrote in message news:bnr4q5$kba$9@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> In article <Cj0ob.59593$Fm2.41498@attbi_s04>,
> tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>
> Another fool who believes what he reads on right-wing web sites:
>
> >In article <bnpmk701sae@enews3.newsguy.com>, Gerald G. McGeorge wrote:
> >
> >> Ironically, there's a piece in today's USA Today regarding the key
research
> >> green have used since the 80's to promote the CO2 / global warming
theory.
> >> In a nutshell, the green's much-heralded research which concluded that
> >> global temps had increased at a dramatic, unprecedented rate over the
> second
> >> half of the 20th century has been challenged and proven faulty, that in
> >> reality the climate cycle over that period of time was NOT abnormal.
> >
> >I think I've found the paper mentioned in the article:
> >http://www.multi-science.co.uk/ee_openaccess.htm
> >http://www.multi-science.co.uk/mcintyre_02.pdf
> >
> >
propaganda last time we looked.
"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> ill-informed and typically
arrogant, wrote in message news:bnr4q5$kba$9@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> In article <Cj0ob.59593$Fm2.41498@attbi_s04>,
> tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>
> Another fool who believes what he reads on right-wing web sites:
>
> >In article <bnpmk701sae@enews3.newsguy.com>, Gerald G. McGeorge wrote:
> >
> >> Ironically, there's a piece in today's USA Today regarding the key
research
> >> green have used since the 80's to promote the CO2 / global warming
theory.
> >> In a nutshell, the green's much-heralded research which concluded that
> >> global temps had increased at a dramatic, unprecedented rate over the
> second
> >> half of the 20th century has been challenged and proven faulty, that in
> >> reality the climate cycle over that period of time was NOT abnormal.
> >
> >I think I've found the paper mentioned in the article:
> >http://www.multi-science.co.uk/ee_openaccess.htm
> >http://www.multi-science.co.uk/mcintyre_02.pdf
> >
> >
#2854
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
No, No, No Lloyd, it was in USA Today, not exactly a bastion of right-wing
propaganda last time we looked.
"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> ill-informed and typically
arrogant, wrote in message news:bnr4q5$kba$9@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> In article <Cj0ob.59593$Fm2.41498@attbi_s04>,
> tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>
> Another fool who believes what he reads on right-wing web sites:
>
> >In article <bnpmk701sae@enews3.newsguy.com>, Gerald G. McGeorge wrote:
> >
> >> Ironically, there's a piece in today's USA Today regarding the key
research
> >> green have used since the 80's to promote the CO2 / global warming
theory.
> >> In a nutshell, the green's much-heralded research which concluded that
> >> global temps had increased at a dramatic, unprecedented rate over the
> second
> >> half of the 20th century has been challenged and proven faulty, that in
> >> reality the climate cycle over that period of time was NOT abnormal.
> >
> >I think I've found the paper mentioned in the article:
> >http://www.multi-science.co.uk/ee_openaccess.htm
> >http://www.multi-science.co.uk/mcintyre_02.pdf
> >
> >
propaganda last time we looked.
"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> ill-informed and typically
arrogant, wrote in message news:bnr4q5$kba$9@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> In article <Cj0ob.59593$Fm2.41498@attbi_s04>,
> tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>
> Another fool who believes what he reads on right-wing web sites:
>
> >In article <bnpmk701sae@enews3.newsguy.com>, Gerald G. McGeorge wrote:
> >
> >> Ironically, there's a piece in today's USA Today regarding the key
research
> >> green have used since the 80's to promote the CO2 / global warming
theory.
> >> In a nutshell, the green's much-heralded research which concluded that
> >> global temps had increased at a dramatic, unprecedented rate over the
> second
> >> half of the 20th century has been challenged and proven faulty, that in
> >> reality the climate cycle over that period of time was NOT abnormal.
> >
> >I think I've found the paper mentioned in the article:
> >http://www.multi-science.co.uk/ee_openaccess.htm
> >http://www.multi-science.co.uk/mcintyre_02.pdf
> >
> >
#2855
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
We repeatedly ask YOU to provide some science and you can't. Other than to
spout mantras from the green playbook you're clueless...PROVE YOUR POSITION!
"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
news:bnr4sc$kba$11@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> In article <bnq6np06dk@enews1.newsguy.com>,
> "Gerald G. McGeorge" <gmcgeorge@frontier.net> wrote:
> >> Your welcome. I remember it very well myself. I've mentioned it to
Lloyd
> >before, he always said I was lying, there was no proof any scientist had
> >made such a claim. This article proves LP wrong again, it names names,
even
> >National Academy of Sciences and NOAA. And as expected, not a word From
> >Lloyd about it. He must really hate being proven wrong on every
statement
> >he makes. ;-) >
>
> Try reading some science. USA Today is your source for science? LOL!
>
> >
> >LOL! I remember this "new ice age" scam well, I was in Collee at the time
> >and all the Socialist faculty were flapping their gloom & doom gums about
> >it, claiming if we didn't all stsrt driving VWs we'd all freeze to death
> >come 1990.Typical hogwash, sure glad you posted the link.
> >
> >BTW, read today's USA Today. It has a prominent piece on how the gas
(bag)
> >theorists pet study from the '80's has been proven faulty and that theris
no
> >evidence global average temps of the second half of the 20th century were
> >anything but perfectly normal. (Notice how quiet Lloyd's been today?)
> >
> >
spout mantras from the green playbook you're clueless...PROVE YOUR POSITION!
"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
news:bnr4sc$kba$11@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> In article <bnq6np06dk@enews1.newsguy.com>,
> "Gerald G. McGeorge" <gmcgeorge@frontier.net> wrote:
> >> Your welcome. I remember it very well myself. I've mentioned it to
Lloyd
> >before, he always said I was lying, there was no proof any scientist had
> >made such a claim. This article proves LP wrong again, it names names,
even
> >National Academy of Sciences and NOAA. And as expected, not a word From
> >Lloyd about it. He must really hate being proven wrong on every
statement
> >he makes. ;-) >
>
> Try reading some science. USA Today is your source for science? LOL!
>
> >
> >LOL! I remember this "new ice age" scam well, I was in Collee at the time
> >and all the Socialist faculty were flapping their gloom & doom gums about
> >it, claiming if we didn't all stsrt driving VWs we'd all freeze to death
> >come 1990.Typical hogwash, sure glad you posted the link.
> >
> >BTW, read today's USA Today. It has a prominent piece on how the gas
(bag)
> >theorists pet study from the '80's has been proven faulty and that theris
no
> >evidence global average temps of the second half of the 20th century were
> >anything but perfectly normal. (Notice how quiet Lloyd's been today?)
> >
> >
#2856
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
We repeatedly ask YOU to provide some science and you can't. Other than to
spout mantras from the green playbook you're clueless...PROVE YOUR POSITION!
"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
news:bnr4sc$kba$11@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> In article <bnq6np06dk@enews1.newsguy.com>,
> "Gerald G. McGeorge" <gmcgeorge@frontier.net> wrote:
> >> Your welcome. I remember it very well myself. I've mentioned it to
Lloyd
> >before, he always said I was lying, there was no proof any scientist had
> >made such a claim. This article proves LP wrong again, it names names,
even
> >National Academy of Sciences and NOAA. And as expected, not a word From
> >Lloyd about it. He must really hate being proven wrong on every
statement
> >he makes. ;-) >
>
> Try reading some science. USA Today is your source for science? LOL!
>
> >
> >LOL! I remember this "new ice age" scam well, I was in Collee at the time
> >and all the Socialist faculty were flapping their gloom & doom gums about
> >it, claiming if we didn't all stsrt driving VWs we'd all freeze to death
> >come 1990.Typical hogwash, sure glad you posted the link.
> >
> >BTW, read today's USA Today. It has a prominent piece on how the gas
(bag)
> >theorists pet study from the '80's has been proven faulty and that theris
no
> >evidence global average temps of the second half of the 20th century were
> >anything but perfectly normal. (Notice how quiet Lloyd's been today?)
> >
> >
spout mantras from the green playbook you're clueless...PROVE YOUR POSITION!
"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
news:bnr4sc$kba$11@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> In article <bnq6np06dk@enews1.newsguy.com>,
> "Gerald G. McGeorge" <gmcgeorge@frontier.net> wrote:
> >> Your welcome. I remember it very well myself. I've mentioned it to
Lloyd
> >before, he always said I was lying, there was no proof any scientist had
> >made such a claim. This article proves LP wrong again, it names names,
even
> >National Academy of Sciences and NOAA. And as expected, not a word From
> >Lloyd about it. He must really hate being proven wrong on every
statement
> >he makes. ;-) >
>
> Try reading some science. USA Today is your source for science? LOL!
>
> >
> >LOL! I remember this "new ice age" scam well, I was in Collee at the time
> >and all the Socialist faculty were flapping their gloom & doom gums about
> >it, claiming if we didn't all stsrt driving VWs we'd all freeze to death
> >come 1990.Typical hogwash, sure glad you posted the link.
> >
> >BTW, read today's USA Today. It has a prominent piece on how the gas
(bag)
> >theorists pet study from the '80's has been proven faulty and that theris
no
> >evidence global average temps of the second half of the 20th century were
> >anything but perfectly normal. (Notice how quiet Lloyd's been today?)
> >
> >
#2857
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
We repeatedly ask YOU to provide some science and you can't. Other than to
spout mantras from the green playbook you're clueless...PROVE YOUR POSITION!
"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
news:bnr4sc$kba$11@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> In article <bnq6np06dk@enews1.newsguy.com>,
> "Gerald G. McGeorge" <gmcgeorge@frontier.net> wrote:
> >> Your welcome. I remember it very well myself. I've mentioned it to
Lloyd
> >before, he always said I was lying, there was no proof any scientist had
> >made such a claim. This article proves LP wrong again, it names names,
even
> >National Academy of Sciences and NOAA. And as expected, not a word From
> >Lloyd about it. He must really hate being proven wrong on every
statement
> >he makes. ;-) >
>
> Try reading some science. USA Today is your source for science? LOL!
>
> >
> >LOL! I remember this "new ice age" scam well, I was in Collee at the time
> >and all the Socialist faculty were flapping their gloom & doom gums about
> >it, claiming if we didn't all stsrt driving VWs we'd all freeze to death
> >come 1990.Typical hogwash, sure glad you posted the link.
> >
> >BTW, read today's USA Today. It has a prominent piece on how the gas
(bag)
> >theorists pet study from the '80's has been proven faulty and that theris
no
> >evidence global average temps of the second half of the 20th century were
> >anything but perfectly normal. (Notice how quiet Lloyd's been today?)
> >
> >
spout mantras from the green playbook you're clueless...PROVE YOUR POSITION!
"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
news:bnr4sc$kba$11@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> In article <bnq6np06dk@enews1.newsguy.com>,
> "Gerald G. McGeorge" <gmcgeorge@frontier.net> wrote:
> >> Your welcome. I remember it very well myself. I've mentioned it to
Lloyd
> >before, he always said I was lying, there was no proof any scientist had
> >made such a claim. This article proves LP wrong again, it names names,
even
> >National Academy of Sciences and NOAA. And as expected, not a word From
> >Lloyd about it. He must really hate being proven wrong on every
statement
> >he makes. ;-) >
>
> Try reading some science. USA Today is your source for science? LOL!
>
> >
> >LOL! I remember this "new ice age" scam well, I was in Collee at the time
> >and all the Socialist faculty were flapping their gloom & doom gums about
> >it, claiming if we didn't all stsrt driving VWs we'd all freeze to death
> >come 1990.Typical hogwash, sure glad you posted the link.
> >
> >BTW, read today's USA Today. It has a prominent piece on how the gas
(bag)
> >theorists pet study from the '80's has been proven faulty and that theris
no
> >evidence global average temps of the second half of the 20th century were
> >anything but perfectly normal. (Notice how quiet Lloyd's been today?)
> >
> >
#2858
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
> On this topic I think that taping these sources would just result in their
depletion and return to foreign sources once dry. I think it should be a
national defense priority to leave this oil in the ground until it's really
needed. >
Probably, unless it was tied to a comprehensive conservation program, but
we'll likely never see thatbecause both sides would have to compromise.
> You are scraping the surface on a bigger aspect of the political
environmental movement. It's essentially anti-energy. What I have seen is
that massive clean energy proposals are fought on environmental grounds.
Because once they are scaled up there are *some* environmental effects.
Generally the ugliness of them is the primary objection. The end result is
staying with coal and other fossil fueled plants, the status-quo. <
Right, and it's incredible how much could be done without the obstructionist
tctics of radical greens, their trial lawyer buddies, non-profit scam
artists, etc. as I said we've had decades to develop alternative sources and
every proposal is killed before it can move forward. Europeans have
continually refined nuclear power over that period of time while we've sat
around blocking development. The only two nuclear accidents occured with
aging old-tech operations, particularly the Russian site. Yet technology
exixts to not only make it safer, it can provide an immediate stop-gap to
the greens fears of drilling, etc.
My favorite hy[pocritical green stance is their drive to de-commision the
glen canyon dam, drain Lake Powell and tear it down. Naturally this would
destry the town of Page, AZ, remove a perfectly clean source of energy and
recreation for millions in the Southwest. Why? So they can walk in the old
slot canyons under the lake and look at the petroglyphs on the walls of the
canyon, like there aren;t thousands of otehr places around the area that
provide the same assests. No, these are the most obstinate, selfich people
on the face ofth Earth and they deserve all the derision that comes their
way. It's always "no, no, no", but they have no alternative solutions other
than to live in a cave somewhere.
> > When greens get off their anti-society high horses and start working for
> > real conservation maybe then there can be some discourse. All I know is
that
> > for over 30 years the same zealots have been waving their arms and
flapping
> > their gums yet have not proposed a single realistic solution. As it is
now,
> > no one can drill, mine, cut, dam, etc. All venues are off and the greens
> > can't propose a single alternative save go live in yurt by the river
> > somewhere and live on sprouts. Give me a break!
>
> I'd really wish they focus their efforts on getting 19th century mineral
> laws updated so the US tax payer wasn't taken for a ride by elected
> officals and their buddies. But that's another story.
>
> Much of the time I wish we could get another president like TR with
> regards to conservation. As it sits we seem to get ones that try to
> make a good image to the greens while profiting from enviromentally
> damaging businesses (Al Gore) to the sort of situation where the
> environment is damaged and the US taxpayer gets ripped off. (typical
> republican policies)
depletion and return to foreign sources once dry. I think it should be a
national defense priority to leave this oil in the ground until it's really
needed. >
Probably, unless it was tied to a comprehensive conservation program, but
we'll likely never see thatbecause both sides would have to compromise.
> You are scraping the surface on a bigger aspect of the political
environmental movement. It's essentially anti-energy. What I have seen is
that massive clean energy proposals are fought on environmental grounds.
Because once they are scaled up there are *some* environmental effects.
Generally the ugliness of them is the primary objection. The end result is
staying with coal and other fossil fueled plants, the status-quo. <
Right, and it's incredible how much could be done without the obstructionist
tctics of radical greens, their trial lawyer buddies, non-profit scam
artists, etc. as I said we've had decades to develop alternative sources and
every proposal is killed before it can move forward. Europeans have
continually refined nuclear power over that period of time while we've sat
around blocking development. The only two nuclear accidents occured with
aging old-tech operations, particularly the Russian site. Yet technology
exixts to not only make it safer, it can provide an immediate stop-gap to
the greens fears of drilling, etc.
My favorite hy[pocritical green stance is their drive to de-commision the
glen canyon dam, drain Lake Powell and tear it down. Naturally this would
destry the town of Page, AZ, remove a perfectly clean source of energy and
recreation for millions in the Southwest. Why? So they can walk in the old
slot canyons under the lake and look at the petroglyphs on the walls of the
canyon, like there aren;t thousands of otehr places around the area that
provide the same assests. No, these are the most obstinate, selfich people
on the face ofth Earth and they deserve all the derision that comes their
way. It's always "no, no, no", but they have no alternative solutions other
than to live in a cave somewhere.
> > When greens get off their anti-society high horses and start working for
> > real conservation maybe then there can be some discourse. All I know is
that
> > for over 30 years the same zealots have been waving their arms and
flapping
> > their gums yet have not proposed a single realistic solution. As it is
now,
> > no one can drill, mine, cut, dam, etc. All venues are off and the greens
> > can't propose a single alternative save go live in yurt by the river
> > somewhere and live on sprouts. Give me a break!
>
> I'd really wish they focus their efforts on getting 19th century mineral
> laws updated so the US tax payer wasn't taken for a ride by elected
> officals and their buddies. But that's another story.
>
> Much of the time I wish we could get another president like TR with
> regards to conservation. As it sits we seem to get ones that try to
> make a good image to the greens while profiting from enviromentally
> damaging businesses (Al Gore) to the sort of situation where the
> environment is damaged and the US taxpayer gets ripped off. (typical
> republican policies)
#2859
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
> On this topic I think that taping these sources would just result in their
depletion and return to foreign sources once dry. I think it should be a
national defense priority to leave this oil in the ground until it's really
needed. >
Probably, unless it was tied to a comprehensive conservation program, but
we'll likely never see thatbecause both sides would have to compromise.
> You are scraping the surface on a bigger aspect of the political
environmental movement. It's essentially anti-energy. What I have seen is
that massive clean energy proposals are fought on environmental grounds.
Because once they are scaled up there are *some* environmental effects.
Generally the ugliness of them is the primary objection. The end result is
staying with coal and other fossil fueled plants, the status-quo. <
Right, and it's incredible how much could be done without the obstructionist
tctics of radical greens, their trial lawyer buddies, non-profit scam
artists, etc. as I said we've had decades to develop alternative sources and
every proposal is killed before it can move forward. Europeans have
continually refined nuclear power over that period of time while we've sat
around blocking development. The only two nuclear accidents occured with
aging old-tech operations, particularly the Russian site. Yet technology
exixts to not only make it safer, it can provide an immediate stop-gap to
the greens fears of drilling, etc.
My favorite hy[pocritical green stance is their drive to de-commision the
glen canyon dam, drain Lake Powell and tear it down. Naturally this would
destry the town of Page, AZ, remove a perfectly clean source of energy and
recreation for millions in the Southwest. Why? So they can walk in the old
slot canyons under the lake and look at the petroglyphs on the walls of the
canyon, like there aren;t thousands of otehr places around the area that
provide the same assests. No, these are the most obstinate, selfich people
on the face ofth Earth and they deserve all the derision that comes their
way. It's always "no, no, no", but they have no alternative solutions other
than to live in a cave somewhere.
> > When greens get off their anti-society high horses and start working for
> > real conservation maybe then there can be some discourse. All I know is
that
> > for over 30 years the same zealots have been waving their arms and
flapping
> > their gums yet have not proposed a single realistic solution. As it is
now,
> > no one can drill, mine, cut, dam, etc. All venues are off and the greens
> > can't propose a single alternative save go live in yurt by the river
> > somewhere and live on sprouts. Give me a break!
>
> I'd really wish they focus their efforts on getting 19th century mineral
> laws updated so the US tax payer wasn't taken for a ride by elected
> officals and their buddies. But that's another story.
>
> Much of the time I wish we could get another president like TR with
> regards to conservation. As it sits we seem to get ones that try to
> make a good image to the greens while profiting from enviromentally
> damaging businesses (Al Gore) to the sort of situation where the
> environment is damaged and the US taxpayer gets ripped off. (typical
> republican policies)
depletion and return to foreign sources once dry. I think it should be a
national defense priority to leave this oil in the ground until it's really
needed. >
Probably, unless it was tied to a comprehensive conservation program, but
we'll likely never see thatbecause both sides would have to compromise.
> You are scraping the surface on a bigger aspect of the political
environmental movement. It's essentially anti-energy. What I have seen is
that massive clean energy proposals are fought on environmental grounds.
Because once they are scaled up there are *some* environmental effects.
Generally the ugliness of them is the primary objection. The end result is
staying with coal and other fossil fueled plants, the status-quo. <
Right, and it's incredible how much could be done without the obstructionist
tctics of radical greens, their trial lawyer buddies, non-profit scam
artists, etc. as I said we've had decades to develop alternative sources and
every proposal is killed before it can move forward. Europeans have
continually refined nuclear power over that period of time while we've sat
around blocking development. The only two nuclear accidents occured with
aging old-tech operations, particularly the Russian site. Yet technology
exixts to not only make it safer, it can provide an immediate stop-gap to
the greens fears of drilling, etc.
My favorite hy[pocritical green stance is their drive to de-commision the
glen canyon dam, drain Lake Powell and tear it down. Naturally this would
destry the town of Page, AZ, remove a perfectly clean source of energy and
recreation for millions in the Southwest. Why? So they can walk in the old
slot canyons under the lake and look at the petroglyphs on the walls of the
canyon, like there aren;t thousands of otehr places around the area that
provide the same assests. No, these are the most obstinate, selfich people
on the face ofth Earth and they deserve all the derision that comes their
way. It's always "no, no, no", but they have no alternative solutions other
than to live in a cave somewhere.
> > When greens get off their anti-society high horses and start working for
> > real conservation maybe then there can be some discourse. All I know is
that
> > for over 30 years the same zealots have been waving their arms and
flapping
> > their gums yet have not proposed a single realistic solution. As it is
now,
> > no one can drill, mine, cut, dam, etc. All venues are off and the greens
> > can't propose a single alternative save go live in yurt by the river
> > somewhere and live on sprouts. Give me a break!
>
> I'd really wish they focus their efforts on getting 19th century mineral
> laws updated so the US tax payer wasn't taken for a ride by elected
> officals and their buddies. But that's another story.
>
> Much of the time I wish we could get another president like TR with
> regards to conservation. As it sits we seem to get ones that try to
> make a good image to the greens while profiting from enviromentally
> damaging businesses (Al Gore) to the sort of situation where the
> environment is damaged and the US taxpayer gets ripped off. (typical
> republican policies)
#2860
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
> On this topic I think that taping these sources would just result in their
depletion and return to foreign sources once dry. I think it should be a
national defense priority to leave this oil in the ground until it's really
needed. >
Probably, unless it was tied to a comprehensive conservation program, but
we'll likely never see thatbecause both sides would have to compromise.
> You are scraping the surface on a bigger aspect of the political
environmental movement. It's essentially anti-energy. What I have seen is
that massive clean energy proposals are fought on environmental grounds.
Because once they are scaled up there are *some* environmental effects.
Generally the ugliness of them is the primary objection. The end result is
staying with coal and other fossil fueled plants, the status-quo. <
Right, and it's incredible how much could be done without the obstructionist
tctics of radical greens, their trial lawyer buddies, non-profit scam
artists, etc. as I said we've had decades to develop alternative sources and
every proposal is killed before it can move forward. Europeans have
continually refined nuclear power over that period of time while we've sat
around blocking development. The only two nuclear accidents occured with
aging old-tech operations, particularly the Russian site. Yet technology
exixts to not only make it safer, it can provide an immediate stop-gap to
the greens fears of drilling, etc.
My favorite hy[pocritical green stance is their drive to de-commision the
glen canyon dam, drain Lake Powell and tear it down. Naturally this would
destry the town of Page, AZ, remove a perfectly clean source of energy and
recreation for millions in the Southwest. Why? So they can walk in the old
slot canyons under the lake and look at the petroglyphs on the walls of the
canyon, like there aren;t thousands of otehr places around the area that
provide the same assests. No, these are the most obstinate, selfich people
on the face ofth Earth and they deserve all the derision that comes their
way. It's always "no, no, no", but they have no alternative solutions other
than to live in a cave somewhere.
> > When greens get off their anti-society high horses and start working for
> > real conservation maybe then there can be some discourse. All I know is
that
> > for over 30 years the same zealots have been waving their arms and
flapping
> > their gums yet have not proposed a single realistic solution. As it is
now,
> > no one can drill, mine, cut, dam, etc. All venues are off and the greens
> > can't propose a single alternative save go live in yurt by the river
> > somewhere and live on sprouts. Give me a break!
>
> I'd really wish they focus their efforts on getting 19th century mineral
> laws updated so the US tax payer wasn't taken for a ride by elected
> officals and their buddies. But that's another story.
>
> Much of the time I wish we could get another president like TR with
> regards to conservation. As it sits we seem to get ones that try to
> make a good image to the greens while profiting from enviromentally
> damaging businesses (Al Gore) to the sort of situation where the
> environment is damaged and the US taxpayer gets ripped off. (typical
> republican policies)
depletion and return to foreign sources once dry. I think it should be a
national defense priority to leave this oil in the ground until it's really
needed. >
Probably, unless it was tied to a comprehensive conservation program, but
we'll likely never see thatbecause both sides would have to compromise.
> You are scraping the surface on a bigger aspect of the political
environmental movement. It's essentially anti-energy. What I have seen is
that massive clean energy proposals are fought on environmental grounds.
Because once they are scaled up there are *some* environmental effects.
Generally the ugliness of them is the primary objection. The end result is
staying with coal and other fossil fueled plants, the status-quo. <
Right, and it's incredible how much could be done without the obstructionist
tctics of radical greens, their trial lawyer buddies, non-profit scam
artists, etc. as I said we've had decades to develop alternative sources and
every proposal is killed before it can move forward. Europeans have
continually refined nuclear power over that period of time while we've sat
around blocking development. The only two nuclear accidents occured with
aging old-tech operations, particularly the Russian site. Yet technology
exixts to not only make it safer, it can provide an immediate stop-gap to
the greens fears of drilling, etc.
My favorite hy[pocritical green stance is their drive to de-commision the
glen canyon dam, drain Lake Powell and tear it down. Naturally this would
destry the town of Page, AZ, remove a perfectly clean source of energy and
recreation for millions in the Southwest. Why? So they can walk in the old
slot canyons under the lake and look at the petroglyphs on the walls of the
canyon, like there aren;t thousands of otehr places around the area that
provide the same assests. No, these are the most obstinate, selfich people
on the face ofth Earth and they deserve all the derision that comes their
way. It's always "no, no, no", but they have no alternative solutions other
than to live in a cave somewhere.
> > When greens get off their anti-society high horses and start working for
> > real conservation maybe then there can be some discourse. All I know is
that
> > for over 30 years the same zealots have been waving their arms and
flapping
> > their gums yet have not proposed a single realistic solution. As it is
now,
> > no one can drill, mine, cut, dam, etc. All venues are off and the greens
> > can't propose a single alternative save go live in yurt by the river
> > somewhere and live on sprouts. Give me a break!
>
> I'd really wish they focus their efforts on getting 19th century mineral
> laws updated so the US tax payer wasn't taken for a ride by elected
> officals and their buddies. But that's another story.
>
> Much of the time I wish we could get another president like TR with
> regards to conservation. As it sits we seem to get ones that try to
> make a good image to the greens while profiting from enviromentally
> damaging businesses (Al Gore) to the sort of situation where the
> environment is damaged and the US taxpayer gets ripped off. (typical
> republican policies)