Capt. JG wrote:
"Red" wrote in message
...
Capt. JG wrote:
NOAA must be wrong....

http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html
The web page opens with;
"This page is based on a brief synopsis of the 2001 report by the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and the National Research
Council's 2001 report Climate Change Science:"

This is very old information. New and better information comes out all the
time as science improves and as scientists study other previously
unstudied areas. The most recent info coming out suggests what I have
written.

Red


Yeah, things have gotten worse.


And black is white.

Actually, global cooling is a hell of a lot scarier than global warming.
Gordon

"Gordon" wrote in message
...
Capt. JG wrote:
"Red" wrote in message
...
Capt. JG wrote:
NOAA must be wrong....

http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html
The web page opens with;
"This page is based on a brief synopsis of the 2001 report by the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and the National Research
Council's 2001 report Climate Change Science:"

This is very old information. New and better information comes out all
the time as science improves and as scientists study other previously
unstudied areas. The most recent info coming out suggests what I have
written.

Red


Yeah, things have gotten worse.


And black is white.

Actually, global cooling is a hell of a lot scarier than global warming.
Gordon


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 @@
www.sailnow.com

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

"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

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

"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

"Capt. JG" wrote in
:

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).



There's two solutions already available to cure both the fuel production
problem and the waste storage, long term, killing another huge problem
for the USA in the process, literally!

Fuel production can be cut way back if we let them build the BREEDER
REACTORS that create their own fuel....instead of buying it from big
ENERGY companies own by the politicians and bankers. Problem solved....

I have a great solution for waste storage......

We confiscate a 1-mile-wide swath of land from the Mexican border inland
inside the USA from Brownsville, TX to the Pacific Ocean. We dig a
series of containment pits 1/2 mile wide with no gaps except for very
narrow border crossing points that can be defended from the invasion.
Fuel has already been glassified, which keeps it from eroding away, not
much of a problem in the DESERT along the Mexican border anyways. We
truck all the current waste to the pits and simply dump it in, creating
a radioactive no-mans-land to protect the country from its current
invasion of illegals. Anyone crossing into the country except in fast-
moving vehicles at the tiny gaps simply receives his/her lethal dose of
radiation and dies in the pits to remind the rest of them what will
happen to them if they cross that border! The gaps won't require more
than cursory monitoring, either, because they are so long and so narrow
that you MUST be moving in a vehicle over 70 MPH to limit your dose to
something tolerable. Anyone walking through that gap is DEAD MEAT. Two
problems taken care of PERMANENTLY....We can even take down the fence.

-----------------------------------------------------

BTW, I'm 100 miles, exactly, east of one of our less-than-safe Nuke
stations, Vogtl, on the Savannah River just inside Georgia Power. I've
created somewhat of a stir in the Emergency Services bureaucracies,
here, asking why there is no automatic alarm, for instance, on the NOAA
weather transmitter for nuclear accidents at Vogtl or our Nuclear
Weapons dump in Goose Creek, SC...or our Nuclear Weapons airplane
loading facility less than a mile from my house on the river. The blank
look on their faces is priceless. They have no intention of setting off
any alarms to warn Charleston if we're about to be irradiated to
death....in line with FEMA's plans to enslave us all....

ed


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.


I love the nuclear arguments. The NIMBYs' scream no. The safety crowd
says no. The what do you do with the waste crowd says no.

And all the time there are scores of nuclear warships in or near
every major US port.
Gordon

"Gordon" wrote in message
...
ed


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.


I love the nuclear arguments. The NIMBYs' scream no. The safety crowd
says no. The what do you do with the waste crowd says no.

And all the time there are scores of nuclear warships in or near every
major US port.
Gordon


Fortunately, they don't dump their waste in ports. I like New Zealand's
policy (not sure if it's changed). They don't allow NPowered ships in their
ports.


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

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...

And all the time there are scores of nuclear warships in or near every
major US port.
Gordon


Fortunately, they don't dump their waste in ports. I like New Zealand's
policy (not sure if it's changed). They don't allow NPowered ships in
their ports.


NZ banned nuclear ships and weapons from their waters. At one time this
meant every US Navy warship was banned from NZ waters. How could a naval
reactor dump any nuclear waste at all? They are self contained 2 stage
systems.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Zea...ntrol_Act_1987

What is so hilarious is that the SUN IS NUCLEAR POWERED (fusion and fisiion)
and the WASTE PRODUCTS of these reactions are SPEWED AT THE EARTH and HEAT
the EARTH. Exposure to the sun is over 1000 times more deadly than the
exposure to working nuclear power plants.

Over 10,000 Americans a year die from the effects sun exposu

http://healthlink.mcw.edu/article/1028043646.html

World wide we're looking at about 100,000 deaths annually, that makes about
a million people per decade. The atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima killed
about 150,000. 30-40 were killed at Chernobyl.

Solar power - the most deadly form of energy!

Kills more than gas, oil, coal and nuclear combined!!

The sun is also heating the earth, the earth is getting hotter to the point
of killing all life!!

It would take one heck of a lot of atomic bombs to wipe out all life. There
have been well over 1,000 atmospheric nuclear bomb tests since 1945 and the
earth's population is still growing unchecked!!

http://www.brookings.edu/FP/PROJECTS/NUCWCOST/TESTS.GIF

Solar power - the most deadly form of energy!

Jakob