Emissions Testing
 

"Molesworth" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Capt. JG" wrote:

"Molesworth" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Red wrote:

Capt. JG wrote:
NOAA must be wrong....

The head of Nasa came under fire for stating he didn't believe the GW
hoax. NOAA has a political appointee as its head.

I think we're better off not knowing one way or the other. No-one in
ages past cared a hoot about it. Practically the world can't/won't do
anything about it anyway, so que sera sera.

I refuse to even worry about it.

--
Molesworth - who will be dead in 20 years anyway.


Do you have kids, grandkids, friends who have them? Not saying you should
worry, but a bit of action is appropriate.

Most of this planet are populated by third world countries who are
trying to become first worlders. Good for them. But they are ignoring
any conservation practices in their rush for this status. Parts of
Russia are uninhabitable for the next 1000 years due to indiscriminate
pollution. I imagine the same goes for China. I know India ignores any
kind of restraint on its production. Conservators are outnumbered at
least 1000 to 1 (guesswork) probably more.

Even if I wanted to help, it ain't gonna.

It has to be a global attempt or nothing at all.

My 2c

--
Molesworth


Interesting map... of course, the Sierra Club must be lying...

http://www.sierraclub.org/globalwarming/maps/map2.pdf


--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

Emissions Testing
 

Capt. JG lamented:
It's a huge problem that we're just starting to fully comprehend.
There's no
doubt about GW and human behavior causing it. There are really two
choices..
we can continue to pollute the environment and hope for the best, or
we can
as quickly as economically and politically possible stop polluting and
hope
for the best.

Bart can claim that Al Gore is a liar all he wants, but that's not
going to
change the observable facts or the opinions of the experts.


-- "j" ganz @@

Jon,
You can stick your head in the sand all you want and only read
selected 'research' that agrees with your conclusion, but since this
subject has begun generating gov't funding there are now so many
researchers and scientists that disagree with Rev. Al and have come up
with so much new research that completely trashes his unproven theories.
Pollution *is* a big problem, no one is disagreeing with you on that,
and I would certainly like to see everyone pitch in to correct that
(more on that later). But it is *not* causing global warming or cooling.
If you look at all the avaiable research, not just the word of Rev. Al
and his paid band of bandits, you would see the 'light' - for one thing
sun spot activity and how that relates to earth's temp changes (which
btw, is also matched on Mars - want to try explaining that one with Rev.
Al's theories on how America pollutes Mars?) going both up, as well as
down. Larry has already pointed out numerous times where you can get
data on CO2 and how it does *not* follow the path Rev. Al's paid
bandit's theories, but instead is a *result of* temp changes.
Haven't you noticed by now how each time the global atmosphere doesn't
do what the "experts" predicted, that they immediately scramble to come
up with a new name and a new theory to try to explain away their
mistakes and to try and scam the public once more?
I know I am never going to change your mind with facts, (people who are
religious fanatics are never persuaded by facts) but you are doing
yourself and America a disservice by hiding your head and yelling 'the
sky is falling' instead of finding out the truth for yourself by looking
at ALL the available data.

BTW who is Bart - I haven't seen any posts by anyone with that name
through my server.

Red

Emissions Testing
 

On Sun, 2 Mar 2008 17:13:43 -0800, "Capt. JG"
wrote:

I believe we need to lead by example. Either that or we have to invade
Bermuda.

I've already done that.

:-)

Emissions Testing
 

Capt. JG wrote:
It's a huge problem that we're just starting to fully comprehend.
There's no
doubt about GW and human behavior causing it. There are really two
choices..
we can continue to pollute the environment and hope for the best, or we can
as quickly as economically and politically possible stop polluting and hope
for the best.

-- "j" ganz @@

Ok Jon,
One thing you *can* do to eliminate a very large amount of both air and
ground/water pollution including carbon emmissions, mercury, and CO2, is
to get your legislators to start supporting Nuclear energy. We still
burn an enormous amount of coal (and oil and esp. natural gas) in our
electrical generating plants, and coal is *the* most polluting substance
we can use for that purpose. Burning a carload of coal (about 20 tons)
will provide about 20 minutes of electricity in the average 1000
megawatt powerplant (that's the average turnover). Think about how much
coal that adds up to - we now burn about 1 billion tons of coal in the
U.S. to produce electricity. That alone produces 40 percent of all our
'greenhouse' gasses.

So why do we burn coal and not uranium? Ask your Patron Saint Against
America, Jimmy "I am an Idiot" Carter why he outlawed recycling spent
nuclear material. Just about all the countries that use nuc reactors are
now involved or are getting involved in recycling. And why? you might
ask... Because it drives the cost of generating electricity way down and
produces less waste and the waste generated is way less harmful and can
be reused by hospitals and industry. Ask why your (mostly Dem's - that's
the facts, you can look it up) legislators why they are always against
building more reactors when the rest of the developed world is
scrambling to open more (and yet they claim they want us off forign
oil). Ask them why the operating reactors here are generating so much
money that Connecticut's Governor has proposed a Windfall Tax on their
huge profits. You want cheap electricity? Get more reactors into the
competition. You want electric cars? Get more reactors online.
We build the world's safest reactors. Even the biggest nuc disaster in
the U.S., TMI (a human error accident no longer possible with the new
technology), leaked the same amount of radiation equal to a chest x-ray.
And that facility was old technology, the 4 new ones proposed
(vigorously opposed by your legislators) are state of the art, with many
more new-tech failsafe and safety items designed in.
So you want to bring up Chernoble? Ok, they had a meltdown of the carbon
rod seperators in theirs. We have never used that stupid technology, nor
would we have two teams of reactor operators fighting over the reactor
useage and actually cause the disaster to happen.
There is only one steel company now who can make the containment vessel,
a company in Japan. Not only have we lost that capapbility because of
our legislator's stupidity and greed (along with the jobs of course),
but that japanese company is backordered for at least four years with
foriegn orders. If (all) our idiot legislators cared about our well
being they would change that and we could re-claim the state of the art
manufacturing facilities and the jobs that go with them. But then, if
they didn't care more about their own careers more than us we would have
none of these issues now including the oil issue (we would be drilling
where the other countries are now going to do it off our coast).

So Jon, here's a challenge - get your legislators to give you a real
answer where they stand and what they are going to do - not their
bull**** answer meant to blow you off to get rid of pesky people who
dare to ask real questions. Pressure and pester them until you get them
to give this country what we really need - clean, cheap, safe energy.
BTW, the price of oil will plummet sharply if we changed over to nuc's
to generate all our power, so maybe you can get your pocketbook to call
your legislators.

Are you up for it?

Red

Emissions Testing
 

Larry wrote:
...and one of the biggest *******s ever to come out of the town,
John D Rockefeller, who starved millions for money.

Unfortunately, Larry, there's still one of 'em in congress today - but
were just finding out a few factoids about him and Osama Obama and some
kind of shady deals - stay tuned...

Red

Emissions Testing
 

Capt. JG sent a link to a Democrap fundraising front:
Interesting map... of course, the Sierra Club must be lying...

http://www.sierraclub.org/globalwarming/maps/map2.pdf


-- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com

I won't even bother to read what that organization has to say about
anything. Their past performance suggests they are totally incapable of
telling the truth. They are a political party fundraising front, and
nothing more. Just to be fair, I don't read anything from political
fundraising fronts from either side.

Red

Emissions Testing
 

"Red" wrote in message
...
Capt. JG sent a link to a Democrap fundraising front:
Interesting map... of course, the Sierra Club must be lying...

http://www.sierraclub.org/globalwarming/maps/map2.pdf


-- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com

I won't even bother to read what that organization has to say about
anything. Their past performance suggests they are totally incapable of
telling the truth. They are a political party fundraising front, and
nothing more. Just to be fair, I don't read anything from political
fundraising fronts from either side.

Red


Of course you won't. Nothing like having a mind that is completely closed!


--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

Emissions Testing
 

"Red" wrote in message
...
Capt. JG lamented:
It's a huge problem that we're just starting to fully comprehend. There's
no
doubt about GW and human behavior causing it. There are really two
choices..
we can continue to pollute the environment and hope for the best, or
we can
as quickly as economically and politically possible stop polluting and
hope
for the best.

Bart can claim that Al Gore is a liar all he wants, but that's not going
to
change the observable facts or the opinions of the experts.


-- "j" ganz @@

Jon,
You can stick your head in the sand all you want and only read


pot, kettle, black.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

Emissions Testing
 

"Red" wrote in message
...
Capt. JG wrote:
It's a huge problem that we're just starting to fully comprehend. There's
no
doubt about GW and human behavior causing it. There are really two
choices..
we can continue to pollute the environment and hope for the best, or we
can
as quickly as economically and politically possible stop polluting and
hope
for the best.

-- "j" ganz @@

Ok Jon,
One thing you *can* do to eliminate a very large amount of both air and
ground/water pollution including carbon emmissions, mercury, and CO2, is
to get your legislators to start supporting Nuclear energy. We still burn
an enormous amount of coal (and oil and esp. natural gas) in our
electrical generating plants, and coal is *the* most polluting substance
we can use for that purpose. Burning a carload of coal (about 20 tons)
will provide about 20 minutes of electricity in the average 1000 megawatt
powerplant (that's the average turnover). Think about how much coal that
adds up to - we now burn about 1 billion tons of coal in the U.S. to
produce electricity. That alone produces 40 percent of all our
'greenhouse' gasses.

So why do we burn coal and not uranium? Ask your Patron Saint Against
America, Jimmy "I am an Idiot" Carter why he outlawed recycling spent
nuclear material. Just about all the countries that use nuc reactors are
now involved or are getting involved in recycling. And why? you might
ask... Because it drives the cost of generating electricity way down and
produces less waste and the waste generated is way less harmful and can be
reused by hospitals and industry. Ask why your (mostly Dem's - that's the
facts, you can look it up) legislators why they are always against
building more reactors when the rest of the developed world is scrambling
to open more (and yet they claim they want us off forign oil). Ask them
why the operating reactors here are generating so much money that
Connecticut's Governor has proposed a Windfall Tax on their huge profits.
You want cheap electricity? Get more reactors into the competition. You
want electric cars? Get more reactors online.
We build the world's safest reactors. Even the biggest nuc disaster in the
U.S., TMI (a human error accident no longer possible with the new
technology), leaked the same amount of radiation equal to a chest x-ray.
And that facility was old technology, the 4 new ones proposed (vigorously
opposed by your legislators) are state of the art, with many more new-tech
failsafe and safety items designed in.
So you want to bring up Chernoble? Ok, they had a meltdown of the carbon
rod seperators in theirs. We have never used that stupid technology, nor
would we have two teams of reactor operators fighting over the reactor
useage and actually cause the disaster to happen.
There is only one steel company now who can make the containment vessel, a
company in Japan. Not only have we lost that capapbility because of our
legislator's stupidity and greed (along with the jobs of course), but that
japanese company is backordered for at least four years with foriegn
orders. If (all) our idiot legislators cared about our well being they
would change that and we could re-claim the state of the art manufacturing
facilities and the jobs that go with them. But then, if they didn't care
more about their own careers more than us we would have none of these
issues now including the oil issue (we would be drilling where the other
countries are now going to do it off our coast).

So Jon, here's a challenge - get your legislators to give you a real
answer where they stand and what they are going to do - not their bull****
answer meant to blow you off to get rid of pesky people who dare to ask
real questions. Pressure and pester them until you get them to give this
country what we really need - clean, cheap, safe energy.
BTW, the price of oil will plummet sharply if we changed over to nuc's to
generate all our power, so maybe you can get your pocketbook to call your
legislators.

Are you up for it?

Red


Actually, I did support nukular energy until I realized that's actually much
more polluting as far as carbon goes. Lots of people, including me, forgot
about all the mining, refining, processing required. It's not a panacea, and
it's only clean at the end of the process (not really though if you think
about the long-term storage requirements for the spent fuel rods).

I would certainly support fusion, but that's still many decades away.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

Emissions Testing
 

"Red" wrote in message
...
Larry wrote:
...and one of the biggest *******s ever to come out of the town,
John D Rockefeller, who starved millions for money.

Unfortunately, Larry, there's still one of 'em in congress today - but
were just finding out a few factoids about him and Osama Obama and some
kind of shady deals - stay tuned...

Red


Well, that's the typical right-wingnut thing.... put someone down because of
their name, race, gender, whatever, rather than actually have something
constructive to say. Typical and disgusting.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com