|
Emissions Testing
In some areas of the country cars undergo rigorous emissions testing - good
for the environment, good for people and delaying the inevitable onslaught of global warming. Why aren't boats tested annually? They burn much more fuel than a car. In fact, boat exhaust has hurt people on the water: http://havasumagazine.com/carbonmonoxide.htm Even killed: http://www.scma.com/news/dec03.pdf And is common: http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/410537_3 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/en... ndexed=google http://www.dbw.ca.gov/PressRoom/2003/030606CO.aspx Pollution from boats is extreme: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...toryId=5186090 The EPA wants to do something: http://www.planetark.com/dailynewsst...te=30-Jun-2004 But the special interests of the boating lobby ($$$manufacturers$$$) are working with payola to keep profits high at the expense of boater's health. Is it unreasonable to require and annual emission test and follow up remediation for every boat? I believe boaters should be responsible for their carbon footprint as well as their impact on other's health. A great thing would be a buy back of 2 cycle engines, similar to the buy back of guns. |
Emissions Testing
Phil Abuster wrote:
In some areas of the country cars undergo rigorous emissions testing - good for the environment, good for people and delaying the inevitable onslaught of global warming. Why aren't boats tested annually? They burn much more fuel than a car. In fact, boat exhaust has hurt people on the water: http://havasumagazine.com/carbonmonoxide.htm Even killed: http://www.scma.com/news/dec03.pdf And is common: http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/410537_3 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/en...6&cmd=showdeta ilview&indexed=google http://www.dbw.ca.gov/PressRoom/2003/030606CO.aspx Pollution from boats is extreme: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...toryId=5186090 The EPA wants to do something: http://www.planetark.com/dailynewsst...ate=30-Jun-200 4 But the special interests of the boating lobby ($$$manufacturers$$$) are working with payola to keep profits high at the expense of boater's health. Is it unreasonable to require and annual emission test and follow up remediation for every boat? I believe boaters should be responsible for their carbon footprint as well as their impact on other's health. A great thing would be a buy back of 2 cycle engines, similar to the buy back of guns. Be like the French. Don't use the engine. Sail everywhere, including docking and anchoring. Believe me, they do! Dennis. |
Emissions Testing
"Phil Abuster" wrote
A great thing would be a buy back of 2 cycle engines, similar to the buy back of guns. You can take my little Yamaha, when you pry the tiller from my cold dead hand... |
Emissions Testing
"Ernest Scribbler" wrote in message
et... "Phil Abuster" wrote A great thing would be a buy back of 2 cycle engines, similar to the buy back of guns. You can take my little Yamaha, when you pry the tiller from my cold dead hand... Hahaha... good one! Actually, while it's probably true that boat engines (I'm thinking diesels in sailboats mostly) are not great for the environment, they're not used nearly as much as car engines. -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com |
Emissions Testing
On Fri, 29 Feb 2008 12:27:05 -0500, Ernest Scribbler wrote:
"Phil Abuster" wrote A great thing would be a buy back of 2 cycle engines, similar to the buy back of guns. You can take my little Yamaha, when you pry the tiller from my cold dead hand... Ladies and Gentlemen...Mr. Charlton Heston! |
Emissions Testing
"Phil Abuster" wrote in message ... In some areas of the country cars undergo rigorous emissions testing - good for the environment, good for people and delaying the inevitable onslaught of global warming. Why aren't boats tested annually? They burn much more fuel than a car. In fact, boat exhaust has hurt people on the water: http://havasumagazine.com/carbonmonoxide.htm Even killed: http://www.scma.com/news/dec03.pdf And is common: http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/410537_3 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/en... ndexed=google http://www.dbw.ca.gov/PressRoom/2003/030606CO.aspx Pollution from boats is extreme: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...toryId=5186090 The EPA wants to do something: http://www.planetark.com/dailynewsst...te=30-Jun-2004 But the special interests of the boating lobby ($$$manufacturers$$$) are working with payola to keep profits high at the expense of boater's health. Is it unreasonable to require and annual emission test and follow up remediation for every boat? I believe boaters should be responsible for their carbon footprint as well as their impact on other's health. A great thing would be a buy back of 2 cycle engines, similar to the buy back of guns. While all your assumptions are incorrect.. If they were correct, wouldn't the sailboat owner get a rebate? |
Emissions Testing
"Phil Abuster" wrote in news:1m6400.pqt.19.1
@news.alt.net: A great thing would be a buy back of 2 cycle engines, similar to the buy back of guns. Phil, Phil....open up, bud! Go to the nearest lake that has had 2-stroke engines running 15:1 gas/motor oil mixture running in them for over a hundred years. Look out across the water very carefully and see if you detect any kind of floating oil slicks from those old Western Auto Wizards or Evinrude Sportwins that are STILL fishing in them! Those old motors were GREASY with oil anyplace the gas-oil mix touched! What? You say you don't see anything? It looks like a lake some town **** into after the government bureaucrats forced the town to install an approved EPA sewage plant to replace everybody's septic tanks and dry wells they **** into since the PIlgrims stepped off the rowboats on the far shore over there! There's no 3 foot thick oil slick completely choking off the lake because it EVAPORATED WITH THE GAS I spilled into it since I was 8 (1954)! The damned lake was teeming with FISH until the damned EPA showed up! Now, it has so many algae blooms eating the **** the sewage plants pour into it, the fish all died! Here's the report from MY HOMETOWN: http://www.citizenscampaign.org/campaigns/owasco.htm When I was polluting the lake with my 2-stroke Elto 1-horse covered in Quaker State, we used to DRINK THE LAKE! NOT ANYMORE! |
Emissions Testing
"Phil Abuster" wrote in news:1m6400.pqt.19.1
@news.alt.net: A great thing would be a buy back of 2 cycle engines, similar to the buy back of guns. http://www.co.cayuga.ny.us/wqma/owasco/owasco2000.pdf Here's the "report". Look at the color picture on the cover of the pdf file. In the lower right corner, right where the lake takes a 90 degree turn in its SE corner, is the little community of SE On Owasco at the end of a little dirt road. That's where I was raised from the time I was a year old....(c; It was a great place to be from.... This is a picture taken around the ONE day summer Central New York has every year, almost....(c; The town in Moravia. Dates way back before it was a country. |
Emissions Testing
On Feb 29, 7:12 am, "Phil Abuster" wrote:
In some areas of the country cars undergo rigorous emissions testing - good for the environment, good for people and delaying the inevitable onslaught of global warming. Why aren't boats tested annually? They burn much more fuel than a car. Because there are vastly more cars than there are boats. Boats make a tiny percentage of harmful emissions. Even if you totally eliminate boat emissions you will not have made any significant impact on the environment. Any competent computer programmer or anyone who passed algebra can tell you why it is silly to spend resources on optimizations that only effect a small portion a problem. Also, of course, your assertion that boats "burn much more fuel than a car" is silly. Some boats do compared to some cars, some don't, but as a class boats burn an insignificant amount compared to cars do as a group. Finally, are you sure the environmental cost of testing is less than the cost of doing nothing? -- Tom. |
Emissions Testing
"Larry" wrote in message ... "Phil Abuster" wrote in news:1m6400.pqt.19.1 @news.alt.net: A great thing would be a buy back of 2 cycle engines, similar to the buy back of guns. Phil, Phil....open up, bud! Go to the nearest lake that has had 2-stroke engines running 15:1 gas/motor oil mixture running in them for over a hundred years. Look out across the water very carefully and see if you detect any kind of floating oil slicks from those old Western Auto Wizards or Evinrude Sportwins that are STILL fishing in them! Those old motors were GREASY with oil anyplace the gas-oil mix touched! What? You say you don't see anything? It looks like a lake some town **** into after the government bureaucrats forced the town to install an approved EPA sewage plant to replace everybody's septic tanks and dry wells they **** into since the PIlgrims stepped off the rowboats on the far shore over there! There's no 3 foot thick oil slick completely choking off the lake because it EVAPORATED WITH THE GAS I spilled into it since I was 8 (1954)! The damned lake was teeming with FISH until the damned EPA showed up! Now, it has so many algae blooms eating the **** the sewage plants pour into it, the fish all died! Here's the report from MY HOMETOWN: http://www.citizenscampaign.org/campaigns/owasco.htm When I was polluting the lake with my 2-stroke Elto 1-horse covered in Quaker State, we used to DRINK THE LAKE! NOT ANYMORE! Larry, You have excellent points. The thing that gets rid of the oil on lakes are microbes. The same type of thing that eats all the rubber that wears off car tires on the roads. Ever notice that there are not mounds of rubber on the side of roads? http://microbes.wonderchem.com/ Sewage comes in several levels of treatment. If they put the equivalent of rainwater (with a dash of grain alcohol) back into the lake there would be no problem. These sewage treatment plants are also pumping human hormones (mostly estrogen) into the water supply and turning males into girly men: http://www.ehponline.org/docs/2007/10443/abstract.html This is the most monstrous conspiracy since the fluoridation of water: http://www.holisticmed.com/fluoride/ The introduction of hormones into the water, certainly without the knowledge or permission of the individual smacks of government trampling of individual rights. We must have pure water in our lakes to drink, but that is no longer to be, so I suggest drinking only rainwater to protect the purity and essence of our natural bodily fluids. When you look past the government rhetoric (we are here to help!) you almost always find the government makes things worse! Yet the majority clamor for more government intervention, which I find so difficult to understand. |
Emissions Testing
On Fri, 29 Feb 2008 10:12:47 -0700, "Phil Abuster"
wrote: Is it unreasonable to require and annual emission test and follow up remediation for every boat? Yes, terrible idea. You must sail a small boat with no engine. |
Emissions Testing
"Phil Abuster" wrote in
: The introduction of hormones into the water, certainly without the knowledge or permission of the individual smacks of government trampling of individual rights. We must have pure water in our lakes to drink, but that is no longer to be, so I suggest drinking only rainwater to protect the purity and essence of our natural bodily fluids. When you look past the government rhetoric (we are here to help!) you almost always find the government makes things worse! Yet the majority clamor for more government intervention, which I find so difficult to understand. Knowing what "they" are pumping into public water supplies, I distill all my drinking water, here. http://www.waterwise.com/ I started distilling because our water makes painful kidney stones. Then, I sent a sample to a lab with no note of where it came from. The results were quite frightening. |
Emissions Testing
Phil Abuster whined:
...for the environment, good for people and delaying the inevitable onslaught of global warming. Got news for ya Phil, the earth's average temp went DOWN over the last year - by the same amount it went up over the last 100 or so years. Many countries are seeing the coldest winter and more snow than they've seen in 50 or more years. The Arctic ice is an average 18" thicker this year than this time last year. And despite what Sierra Club and other Eco Terrorists want you to believe the polar bear population has not declined at all - this according to the Canadian scientists who were *actually up there* studying them (Vs.*studying* them from a living room in Santa Barbara or Bev Hills). "Global Warming" is Reverend Al Gore's money market account. This in no way means I am against cleaning up pollution - on the contrary. I just do not worship at the feet of the global warming high priest nor do I accept that all the earth's (or Mars') pollution comes from America or use any of that for an excuse to do what's right anyway. Red |
Emissions Testing
"Red" wrote in message
... Phil Abuster whined: ...for the environment, good for people and delaying the inevitable onslaught of global warming. Got news for ya Phil, the earth's average temp went DOWN over the last year - by the same amount it went up over the last 100 or so years. Many countries are seeing the coldest winter and more snow than they've seen in 50 or more years. The Arctic ice is an average 18" thicker this year than this time last year. And despite what Sierra Club and other Eco Terrorists want you to believe the polar bear population has not declined at all - this according to the Canadian scientists who were *actually up there* studying them (Vs.*studying* them from a living room in Santa Barbara or Bev Hills). "Global Warming" is Reverend Al Gore's money market account. This in no way means I am against cleaning up pollution - on the contrary. I just do not worship at the feet of the global warming high priest nor do I accept that all the earth's (or Mars') pollution comes from America or use any of that for an excuse to do what's right anyway. Red NOAA must be wrong.... http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com |
Emissions Testing
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. Red |
Emissions Testing
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 |
Emissions Testing
"Red" wrote in message
... 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. Red Yeah. A Republican. I guess you should tell them to shut down their website. FYI, Al Gore isn't running for office this year. -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com |
Emissions Testing
"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. -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com |
Emissions Testing
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 |
Emissions Testing
"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 |
Emissions Testing
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. |
Emissions Testing
"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. -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com |
Emissions Testing
Red wrote in :
Vs.*studying* them from a living room in Santa Barbara or Bev Hills). Of course, we COULD chain them all together, put them on a boomer sub, break through the ice and feed them TO the polar bears, doing our part to save the polar bears from starvation.....and us from the propaganda. Would that be too selfish?...(c; ------------------------------------------------------ Somewhere here I have a picture taken from the sail of a boomer that's sticking up through the ice. They got unlucky and surfaced right in the middle of a pack of polar bears.....who are, in the picture, all waiting for the sailors to come out on the ice to play.....(c; More polar bears showed up later before the Navy gave up trying to set up the mission weather stuff and dove back under the ice. Too funny.... |
Emissions Testing
"Larry" wrote in message
... Red wrote in : Vs.*studying* them from a living room in Santa Barbara or Bev Hills). Of course, we COULD chain them all together, put them on a boomer sub, break through the ice and feed them TO the polar bears, doing our part to save the polar bears from starvation.....and us from the propaganda. Would that be too selfish?...(c; ------------------------------------------------------ Somewhere here I have a picture taken from the sail of a boomer that's sticking up through the ice. They got unlucky and surfaced right in the middle of a pack of polar bears.....who are, in the picture, all waiting for the sailors to come out on the ice to play.....(c; More polar bears showed up later before the Navy gave up trying to set up the mission weather stuff and dove back under the ice. Too funny.... I have that picture... not sure where I found it. -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com |
Emissions Testing
Gordon wrote in
: Actually, global cooling is a hell of a lot scarier than global warming. Gordon But, not if you're a President in the OIL BUSINESS like the VP is too.... The only people threatened by global warming are waterfront millionaires and energy companies. Global warming, if it were true, would solve our food problem because the expansion of the growing season and tropical conditions that can create vast crops INCREASES with temperature! The world starves to death in ICE AGES! It's 67F in Charleston. Global Warm me another 10 degrees, please....thanks. |
Emissions Testing
"Larry" wrote in message
... Gordon wrote in : Actually, global cooling is a hell of a lot scarier than global warming. Gordon But, not if you're a President in the OIL BUSINESS like the VP is too.... The only people threatened by global warming are waterfront millionaires and energy companies. Global warming, if it were true, would solve our food problem because the expansion of the growing season and tropical conditions that can create vast crops INCREASES with temperature! The world starves to death in ICE AGES! It's 67F in Charleston. Global Warm me another 10 degrees, please....thanks. You need to do a bit more research about GWing before you say stuff like this... it's not just about the increase in temp. It's about variability and extremes. In addition, if you think what happened in New Orleans was bad, wait until we get a rise in the ocean. Of course, I am in favor of it for sailing purposes only. LOL -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com |
Emissions Testing
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 |
Emissions Testing
It's 67F in Charleston. Global Warm me another 10 degrees, please....thanks. Hell, that's middle of the summer here! Gordon |
Emissions Testing
Gordon wrote in news:13smeld6t3hrl88
@corp.supernews.com: It's 67F in Charleston. Global Warm me another 10 degrees, please....thanks. Hell, that's middle of the summer here! Gordon When I call back to my hometown on Owasco Lake in upstate NY, I always ask, "What day was Summer last year?"....(c; I never realized how miserable upstate NY was until the Navy sent me to Charleston. We just accepted the cold and rain and slush and snow up to your ass as "normal". I tell everyone here it's a great place to be FROM. It's pretty in the fall when the leaves get that first blast of Canada Dry....if you're a VISITOR. When my parents got old in Orangeburg, SC, where Smith-Corona transferred my dad down from Groton, NY, in the same freezing valley as Moravia, from SCM's Groton sweatshop, they had this crazy idea to move "back home" to be near my Grandmother, instead of her having to come to SC for the winter. It was a terrible mistake, of course, and they all like to froze to death wintering over. They moved back the following Spring and would get mad at me if I brought up the whole scheme, which was kinda fun for a few years afterwards when some other scatterbrained idea entered their drifting minds. Everybody's gone, now and my mind is the one that's drifting..... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moravia...29%2C_New_York We Moravians always feel guilty and apologize for the rotten President Fillmore and one of the biggest *******s ever to come out of the town, John D Rockefeller, who starved millions for money. I don't know why Wikipedia makes so much of either of them. The state punishes us by naming roads and the state park after them so we don't forget our sordid past..... It really WAS a nice place to grow up as a kid before the greedy politicians let the state buy a farm and turn it into a PRISON CAMP for career criminals..... Idiots..... The rich people on the lake had 40hp Scott-A****ers or 50hp Kiekauffer Mercury outboards. My grandfather had a Scott. It spent most of its time in the shop trying to figure out how to get such a simple motor to run more than 5 hours MTBF. |
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 I believe we need to lead by example. Either that or we have to invade Bermuda. -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com |
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 |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:11 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com