Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
#4851
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety canbe misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
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.
It is hard to figure out what the wackos want. The only thing I am sure
that will work is population control and a reduction in the total number
of humans on the planet.
I have no respect for most of the high profile environmentalist. They
preach conservation while flying around in private jets and riding to
events in limos. It often seems that they feel everyone else needs to
conserve. I'd love to match up the Sierra Club membership list with the
vehicle registration lists to see how many Sierra Club members are
driving SUVs.
Ed
#4852
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety canbe misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
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.
It is hard to figure out what the wackos want. The only thing I am sure
that will work is population control and a reduction in the total number
of humans on the planet.
I have no respect for most of the high profile environmentalist. They
preach conservation while flying around in private jets and riding to
events in limos. It often seems that they feel everyone else needs to
conserve. I'd love to match up the Sierra Club membership list with the
vehicle registration lists to see how many Sierra Club members are
driving SUVs.
Ed
#4853
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
In article <2x8wb.285619$Tr4.884523@attbi_s03>,
Brent P <tetraethyllead@yahoo.com> wrote:
>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.
You already know the answer to that. They don't WANT the problem (if
there is one) solved technologically. If you try to bring a
technological solution up, they'll pull out the precautionary
principle and demand you prove, a priori, that the new technology has
no bad side effects. They want to use CO2 (or whatever the bugaboo of
the week is) as a means of forcing austerity on people.
--
Matthew T. Russotto mrussotto@speakeasy.net
"Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice, and moderation in pursuit
of justice is no virtue." But extreme restriction of liberty in pursuit of
a modicum of security is a very expensive vice.
Brent P <tetraethyllead@yahoo.com> wrote:
>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.
You already know the answer to that. They don't WANT the problem (if
there is one) solved technologically. If you try to bring a
technological solution up, they'll pull out the precautionary
principle and demand you prove, a priori, that the new technology has
no bad side effects. They want to use CO2 (or whatever the bugaboo of
the week is) as a means of forcing austerity on people.
--
Matthew T. Russotto mrussotto@speakeasy.net
"Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice, and moderation in pursuit
of justice is no virtue." But extreme restriction of liberty in pursuit of
a modicum of security is a very expensive vice.
#4854
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
In article <2x8wb.285619$Tr4.884523@attbi_s03>,
Brent P <tetraethyllead@yahoo.com> wrote:
>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.
You already know the answer to that. They don't WANT the problem (if
there is one) solved technologically. If you try to bring a
technological solution up, they'll pull out the precautionary
principle and demand you prove, a priori, that the new technology has
no bad side effects. They want to use CO2 (or whatever the bugaboo of
the week is) as a means of forcing austerity on people.
--
Matthew T. Russotto mrussotto@speakeasy.net
"Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice, and moderation in pursuit
of justice is no virtue." But extreme restriction of liberty in pursuit of
a modicum of security is a very expensive vice.
Brent P <tetraethyllead@yahoo.com> wrote:
>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.
You already know the answer to that. They don't WANT the problem (if
there is one) solved technologically. If you try to bring a
technological solution up, they'll pull out the precautionary
principle and demand you prove, a priori, that the new technology has
no bad side effects. They want to use CO2 (or whatever the bugaboo of
the week is) as a means of forcing austerity on people.
--
Matthew T. Russotto mrussotto@speakeasy.net
"Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice, and moderation in pursuit
of justice is no virtue." But extreme restriction of liberty in pursuit of
a modicum of security is a very expensive vice.
#4855
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
In article <2x8wb.285619$Tr4.884523@attbi_s03>,
Brent P <tetraethyllead@yahoo.com> wrote:
>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.
You already know the answer to that. They don't WANT the problem (if
there is one) solved technologically. If you try to bring a
technological solution up, they'll pull out the precautionary
principle and demand you prove, a priori, that the new technology has
no bad side effects. They want to use CO2 (or whatever the bugaboo of
the week is) as a means of forcing austerity on people.
--
Matthew T. Russotto mrussotto@speakeasy.net
"Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice, and moderation in pursuit
of justice is no virtue." But extreme restriction of liberty in pursuit of
a modicum of security is a very expensive vice.
Brent P <tetraethyllead@yahoo.com> wrote:
>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.
You already know the answer to that. They don't WANT the problem (if
there is one) solved technologically. If you try to bring a
technological solution up, they'll pull out the precautionary
principle and demand you prove, a priori, that the new technology has
no bad side effects. They want to use CO2 (or whatever the bugaboo of
the week is) as a means of forcing austerity on people.
--
Matthew T. Russotto mrussotto@speakeasy.net
"Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice, and moderation in pursuit
of justice is no virtue." But extreme restriction of liberty in pursuit of
a modicum of security is a very expensive vice.
#4856
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety canbe misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
On 23 Nov 2003 12:33 PM, C. E. White posted the following:
> conserve. I'd love to match up the Sierra Club membership list with
> the vehicle registration lists to see how many Sierra Club members are
> driving SUVs.
I'd love to match up the Sierra Club membership list with one of those
MOAB bombs the air force has. Those people destroyed my little town.
----------------------------------------------------
Del Rawlins- del@_kills_spammers_rawlinsbrothers.org
Remove _kills_spammers_ to reply via email.
Unofficial Bearhawk FAQ website:
http://www.rawlinsbrothers.org/bhfaq/
> conserve. I'd love to match up the Sierra Club membership list with
> the vehicle registration lists to see how many Sierra Club members are
> driving SUVs.
I'd love to match up the Sierra Club membership list with one of those
MOAB bombs the air force has. Those people destroyed my little town.
----------------------------------------------------
Del Rawlins- del@_kills_spammers_rawlinsbrothers.org
Remove _kills_spammers_ to reply via email.
Unofficial Bearhawk FAQ website:
http://www.rawlinsbrothers.org/bhfaq/
#4857
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety canbe misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
On 23 Nov 2003 12:33 PM, C. E. White posted the following:
> conserve. I'd love to match up the Sierra Club membership list with
> the vehicle registration lists to see how many Sierra Club members are
> driving SUVs.
I'd love to match up the Sierra Club membership list with one of those
MOAB bombs the air force has. Those people destroyed my little town.
----------------------------------------------------
Del Rawlins- del@_kills_spammers_rawlinsbrothers.org
Remove _kills_spammers_ to reply via email.
Unofficial Bearhawk FAQ website:
http://www.rawlinsbrothers.org/bhfaq/
> conserve. I'd love to match up the Sierra Club membership list with
> the vehicle registration lists to see how many Sierra Club members are
> driving SUVs.
I'd love to match up the Sierra Club membership list with one of those
MOAB bombs the air force has. Those people destroyed my little town.
----------------------------------------------------
Del Rawlins- del@_kills_spammers_rawlinsbrothers.org
Remove _kills_spammers_ to reply via email.
Unofficial Bearhawk FAQ website:
http://www.rawlinsbrothers.org/bhfaq/
#4858
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety canbe misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
On 23 Nov 2003 12:33 PM, C. E. White posted the following:
> conserve. I'd love to match up the Sierra Club membership list with
> the vehicle registration lists to see how many Sierra Club members are
> driving SUVs.
I'd love to match up the Sierra Club membership list with one of those
MOAB bombs the air force has. Those people destroyed my little town.
----------------------------------------------------
Del Rawlins- del@_kills_spammers_rawlinsbrothers.org
Remove _kills_spammers_ to reply via email.
Unofficial Bearhawk FAQ website:
http://www.rawlinsbrothers.org/bhfaq/
> conserve. I'd love to match up the Sierra Club membership list with
> the vehicle registration lists to see how many Sierra Club members are
> driving SUVs.
I'd love to match up the Sierra Club membership list with one of those
MOAB bombs the air force has. Those people destroyed my little town.
----------------------------------------------------
Del Rawlins- del@_kills_spammers_rawlinsbrothers.org
Remove _kills_spammers_ to reply via email.
Unofficial Bearhawk FAQ website:
http://www.rawlinsbrothers.org/bhfaq/
#4859
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
"C. E. White" <cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:3F6FC1B5.3CE31525@mindspring.com...
>
>
> Matt Osborn wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, 19 Nov 2003 06:34:55 GMT, "Benjamin Lee"
> > <benmlee@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> >
> > >While we are finger pointing, the US was also quite aggressive in using
the
> > >first nuclear bomb.
> >
> > Not really. More lives were lost in the Battle of Okinowa than in
> > Hiroshima and Nagaski combined.
>
> For that matter the fire raids in Tokyo destroyed more property and
> killed more people than the nuclear attacks.
>
> However, I think the use of the atom bomb was probably an unfortunate
> mistake. I doubut the poeple who made the decision understood the
> magnitude of what they did.
>
> Ed
How so? I'm curious to hear the argument for it being a mistake. Where
might we be today had those 2 bombs not been dropped?
#4860
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
"C. E. White" <cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:3F6FC1B5.3CE31525@mindspring.com...
>
>
> Matt Osborn wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, 19 Nov 2003 06:34:55 GMT, "Benjamin Lee"
> > <benmlee@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> >
> > >While we are finger pointing, the US was also quite aggressive in using
the
> > >first nuclear bomb.
> >
> > Not really. More lives were lost in the Battle of Okinowa than in
> > Hiroshima and Nagaski combined.
>
> For that matter the fire raids in Tokyo destroyed more property and
> killed more people than the nuclear attacks.
>
> However, I think the use of the atom bomb was probably an unfortunate
> mistake. I doubut the poeple who made the decision understood the
> magnitude of what they did.
>
> Ed
How so? I'm curious to hear the argument for it being a mistake. Where
might we be today had those 2 bombs not been dropped?