What great lines...
 

Don White wrote:
"Just John II" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 11 Aug 2009 21:09:24 -0300, "Don White"
wrote:

"Calif Bill" wrote in message
...
"NotNow" wrote in message
...
Keith Nuttle wrote:
NotNow wrote:
Just John II wrote:
On Sun, 09 Aug 2009 14:26:52 -0400, Keith Nuttle
wrote:

J. Leo wrote:
"But a growing number of policy makers say that the world's rising
temperatures, surging seas and melting glaciers are a direct
threat
to
the national interest.

If the United States does not lead the world in reducing
fossil-fuel
consumption and thus emissions of global warming gases, proponents
of
this view say, a series of global environmental, social, political
and
possibly military crises loom that the nation will urgently have
to
address."

One must wonder why the United States must be the 'leader'. Why
not
Germany, or France, or even Canada? Does the prevention of all
these
global crises depend solely on the leadership of the USA?

And, suppose no one of consequence follows.

Full article at:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/09/sc..._r=1&th&emc=th

Oh wait, John Kerry is involved. Now I understand.
--
John H

All decisions, even those made by liberals, are the result of
binary
thinking.
If these people who keep saying there is global warming actually
believed the entire earth was warming, and it was going to create a
global catastrophe, they would be 100% behind nuclear power. There
are no green house gases from a nuclear power plant.

Until I hear they have started building nuclear plants to prevent
global warming I will accept it for what it is, politics.
I agree with this post.
--
John H

All decisions, even those made by liberals, are the result of binary
thinking.
So if they start building nuclear power plants you'll instantly
believe
it's really happening????

http://www.ajc.com/business/southern-102043.html

http://www.altdotenergy.com/2009/01/...t-for-florida/

There are some people who believe the only long term economical
solution
for the energy deficiency is nuclear power. Duke Power in Eastern
Carolina has also started the permit process to build several new
additions to existing nuclear plants. However before they can build
they must negotiate the many regulations that were designed to kill
the
nuclear industry. (On topic: One of the best fishing and sailing
lakes
in the Raleigh area is the 4000 acre Harris lake that is the part of
the
cooling system for the Sharon Harris nuclear plant. )

The THEY I was talking about are obama, pelosi, gore and other who
continual say we have global warming but will not support the nuclear
energy industry. Even the Cap and trade tax bill which is suppose to
be
in response to global warming gives no significant support for nuclear
energy.

I didn't know the U.S. government was in the nuclear power plant
building
industry. I'm quite liberal in my views, and I'm all for nuclear power.
Funny how I can do that, huh? I don't goose step to any party.
The Federal Government is in the Non building nuclear power plant
business. The regulations make it so.
Just where would you geniuses store all the spent radioactive materials
generated by these plants for the next 10 thousand years??

Hey genius, you folks are the ones saying we're all going to drown in
this century from global warming.

In 10 thousand years, we could probably figure out what to do with
what little waste actually comes from today's nuclear power
technology. Do some reading.

Or, get back on the tit and stfu.
--
John H


In your case, it would be 'get back on the dick and stfu'.



Are you dumber than your son, Donnie? That was...pathetic.

What great lines...
 

NotNow wrote:
D wrote:
Don White wrote:
"Calif Bill" wrote in message
...
"NotNow" wrote in message
...
Keith Nuttle wrote:
NotNow wrote:
Just John II wrote:
On Sun, 09 Aug 2009 14:26:52 -0400, Keith Nuttle
wrote:

J. Leo wrote:
"But a growing number of policy makers say that the world's
rising
temperatures, surging seas and melting glaciers are a direct
threat to
the national interest.

If the United States does not lead the world in reducing
fossil-fuel
consumption and thus emissions of global warming gases,
proponents of
this view say, a series of global environmental, social,
political and
possibly military crises loom that the nation will urgently
have to
address."

One must wonder why the United States must be the 'leader'.
Why not
Germany, or France, or even Canada? Does the prevention of all
these
global crises depend solely on the leadership of the USA?

And, suppose no one of consequence follows.

Full article at:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/09/sc..._r=1&th&emc=th


Oh wait, John Kerry is involved. Now I understand.
--
John H

All decisions, even those made by liberals, are the result of
binary thinking.
If these people who keep saying there is global warming
actually believed the entire earth was warming, and it was
going to create a global catastrophe, they would be 100% behind
nuclear power. There are no green house gases from a nuclear
power plant.

Until I hear they have started building nuclear plants to
prevent global warming I will accept it for what it is, politics.
I agree with this post.
--
John H

All decisions, even those made by liberals, are the result of
binary thinking.
So if they start building nuclear power plants you'll instantly
believe it's really happening????

http://www.ajc.com/business/southern-102043.html

http://www.altdotenergy.com/2009/01/...t-for-florida/


There are some people who believe the only long term economical
solution for the energy deficiency is nuclear power. Duke Power
in Eastern Carolina has also started the permit process to build
several new additions to existing nuclear plants. However before
they can build they must negotiate the many regulations that were
designed to kill the nuclear industry. (On topic: One of the best
fishing and sailing lakes in the Raleigh area is the 4000 acre
Harris lake that is the part of the cooling system for the Sharon
Harris nuclear plant. )

The THEY I was talking about are obama, pelosi, gore and other who
continual say we have global warming but will not support the
nuclear energy industry. Even the Cap and trade tax bill which is
suppose to be in response to global warming gives no significant
support for nuclear energy.

I didn't know the U.S. government was in the nuclear power plant
building industry. I'm quite liberal in my views, and I'm all for
nuclear power. Funny how I can do that, huh? I don't goose step to
any party.
The Federal Government is in the Non building nuclear power plant
business. The regulations make it so.

Just where would you geniuses store all the spent radioactive
materials generated by these plants for the next 10 thousand years??


Halifax can't get any worse.

Our resident idiot makes it sound like there will be tons and tons of
waste daily. And the idiot also doesn't realize that coal and oil power
plants make many more tons of pollutants daily than a nuke plant would.
It's just that the conventional plants spew it into the air, where
according to some, it does no damage.

Yep. And nuclear waste degrades in storage. It takes a *long* time,
but no harm is done.

What great lines...
 

Don White wrote:
"NotNow" wrote in message
...
D wrote:
Don White wrote:
"Calif Bill" wrote in message
...
"NotNow" wrote in message
...
Keith Nuttle wrote:
NotNow wrote:
Just John II wrote:
On Sun, 09 Aug 2009 14:26:52 -0400, Keith Nuttle
wrote:

J. Leo wrote:
"But a growing number of policy makers say that the world's
rising
temperatures, surging seas and melting glaciers are a direct
threat to
the national interest.

If the United States does not lead the world in reducing
fossil-fuel
consumption and thus emissions of global warming gases,
proponents of
this view say, a series of global environmental, social,
political and
possibly military crises loom that the nation will urgently have
to
address."

One must wonder why the United States must be the 'leader'. Why
not
Germany, or France, or even Canada? Does the prevention of all
these
global crises depend solely on the leadership of the USA?

And, suppose no one of consequence follows.

Full article at:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/09/sc..._r=1&th&emc=th

Oh wait, John Kerry is involved. Now I understand.
--
John H

All decisions, even those made by liberals, are the result of
binary thinking.
If these people who keep saying there is global warming actually
believed the entire earth was warming, and it was going to create
a global catastrophe, they would be 100% behind nuclear power.
There are no green house gases from a nuclear power plant.

Until I hear they have started building nuclear plants to prevent
global warming I will accept it for what it is, politics.
I agree with this post.
--
John H

All decisions, even those made by liberals, are the result of
binary thinking.
So if they start building nuclear power plants you'll instantly
believe it's really happening????

http://www.ajc.com/business/southern-102043.html

http://www.altdotenergy.com/2009/01/...t-for-florida/

There are some people who believe the only long term economical
solution for the energy deficiency is nuclear power. Duke Power in
Eastern Carolina has also started the permit process to build several
new additions to existing nuclear plants. However before they can
build they must negotiate the many regulations that were designed to
kill the nuclear industry. (On topic: One of the best fishing and
sailing lakes in the Raleigh area is the 4000 acre Harris lake that
is the part of the cooling system for the Sharon Harris nuclear
plant. )

The THEY I was talking about are obama, pelosi, gore and other who
continual say we have global warming but will not support the nuclear
energy industry. Even the Cap and trade tax bill which is suppose to
be in response to global warming gives no significant support for
nuclear energy.

I didn't know the U.S. government was in the nuclear power plant
building industry. I'm quite liberal in my views, and I'm all for
nuclear power. Funny how I can do that, huh? I don't goose step to any
party.
The Federal Government is in the Non building nuclear power plant
business. The regulations make it so.
Just where would you geniuses store all the spent radioactive materials
generated by these plants for the next 10 thousand years??

Halifax can't get any worse.
Our resident idiot makes it sound like there will be tons and tons of
waste daily. And the idiot also doesn't realize that coal and oil power
plants make many more tons of pollutants daily than a nuke plant would.
It's just that the conventional plants spew it into the air, where
according to some, it does no damage.

You simple minded moron.
Can't remember Three Mile Island?
http://www.lutins.org/nukes.html



Donnie calling someone else "simple minded"? Now *THAT'S* funny!

What great lines...
 

JLH wrote:
On Thu, 13 Aug 2009 10:29:15 -0300, "Don White"
wrote:

"NotNow" wrote in message
...
D wrote:
Don White wrote:
"Calif Bill" wrote in message
...
"NotNow" wrote in message
...
Keith Nuttle wrote:
NotNow wrote:
Just John II wrote:
On Sun, 09 Aug 2009 14:26:52 -0400, Keith Nuttle
wrote:

J. Leo wrote:
"But a growing number of policy makers say that the world's
rising
temperatures, surging seas and melting glaciers are a direct
threat to
the national interest.

If the United States does not lead the world in reducing
fossil-fuel
consumption and thus emissions of global warming gases,
proponents of
this view say, a series of global environmental, social,
political and
possibly military crises loom that the nation will urgently have
to
address."

One must wonder why the United States must be the 'leader'. Why
not
Germany, or France, or even Canada? Does the prevention of all
these
global crises depend solely on the leadership of the USA?

And, suppose no one of consequence follows.

Full article at:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/09/sc..._r=1&th&emc=th

Oh wait, John Kerry is involved. Now I understand.
--
John H

All decisions, even those made by liberals, are the result of
binary thinking.
If these people who keep saying there is global warming actually
believed the entire earth was warming, and it was going to create
a global catastrophe, they would be 100% behind nuclear power.
There are no green house gases from a nuclear power plant.

Until I hear they have started building nuclear plants to prevent
global warming I will accept it for what it is, politics.
I agree with this post.
--
John H

All decisions, even those made by liberals, are the result of
binary thinking.
So if they start building nuclear power plants you'll instantly
believe it's really happening????

http://www.ajc.com/business/southern-102043.html

http://www.altdotenergy.com/2009/01/...t-for-florida/

There are some people who believe the only long term economical
solution for the energy deficiency is nuclear power. Duke Power in
Eastern Carolina has also started the permit process to build several
new additions to existing nuclear plants. However before they can
build they must negotiate the many regulations that were designed to
kill the nuclear industry. (On topic: One of the best fishing and
sailing lakes in the Raleigh area is the 4000 acre Harris lake that
is the part of the cooling system for the Sharon Harris nuclear
plant. )

The THEY I was talking about are obama, pelosi, gore and other who
continual say we have global warming but will not support the nuclear
energy industry. Even the Cap and trade tax bill which is suppose to
be in response to global warming gives no significant support for
nuclear energy.

I didn't know the U.S. government was in the nuclear power plant
building industry. I'm quite liberal in my views, and I'm all for
nuclear power. Funny how I can do that, huh? I don't goose step to any
party.
The Federal Government is in the Non building nuclear power plant
business. The regulations make it so.
Just where would you geniuses store all the spent radioactive materials
generated by these plants for the next 10 thousand years??

Halifax can't get any worse.
Our resident idiot makes it sound like there will be tons and tons of
waste daily. And the idiot also doesn't realize that coal and oil power
plants make many more tons of pollutants daily than a nuke plant would.
It's just that the conventional plants spew it into the air, where
according to some, it does no damage.
You simple minded moron.
Can't remember Three Mile Island?
http://www.lutins.org/nukes.html


Hee, hee.

Donnie is calling someone 'simple-minded'.

The Three Mile Island incident occurred thirty years ago. Do you not
think technology has improved in thirty years?

Think about it, we could just replicate French reactors.

*YOU* should *never* call names reflecting on the intelligence of
others.

Get back on the tit, Donnie. Harry misses you.
--
John H


I agree with this post.

What great lines...
 

"D 1" wrote in message
...
Don White wrote:
"Just John II" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 11 Aug 2009 21:09:24 -0300, "Don White"
wrote:

"Calif Bill" wrote in message
...
"NotNow" wrote in message
...
Keith Nuttle wrote:
NotNow wrote:
Just John II wrote:
On Sun, 09 Aug 2009 14:26:52 -0400, Keith Nuttle
wrote:

J. Leo wrote:
"But a growing number of policy makers say that the world's
rising
temperatures, surging seas and melting glaciers are a direct
threat
to
the national interest.

If the United States does not lead the world in reducing
fossil-fuel
consumption and thus emissions of global warming gases,
proponents
of
this view say, a series of global environmental, social,
political
and
possibly military crises loom that the nation will urgently have
to
address."

One must wonder why the United States must be the 'leader'. Why
not
Germany, or France, or even Canada? Does the prevention of all
these
global crises depend solely on the leadership of the USA?

And, suppose no one of consequence follows.

Full article at:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/09/sc..._r=1&th&emc=th

Oh wait, John Kerry is involved. Now I understand.
--
John H

All decisions, even those made by liberals, are the result of
binary
thinking.
If these people who keep saying there is global warming actually
believed the entire earth was warming, and it was going to create
a
global catastrophe, they would be 100% behind nuclear power.
There
are no green house gases from a nuclear power plant.

Until I hear they have started building nuclear plants to prevent
global warming I will accept it for what it is, politics.
I agree with this post.
--
John H

All decisions, even those made by liberals, are the result of
binary
thinking.
So if they start building nuclear power plants you'll instantly
believe
it's really happening????

http://www.ajc.com/business/southern-102043.html

http://www.altdotenergy.com/2009/01/...t-for-florida/

There are some people who believe the only long term economical
solution
for the energy deficiency is nuclear power. Duke Power in Eastern
Carolina has also started the permit process to build several new
additions to existing nuclear plants. However before they can build
they must negotiate the many regulations that were designed to kill
the
nuclear industry. (On topic: One of the best fishing and sailing
lakes
in the Raleigh area is the 4000 acre Harris lake that is the part of
the
cooling system for the Sharon Harris nuclear plant. )

The THEY I was talking about are obama, pelosi, gore and other who
continual say we have global warming but will not support the
nuclear
energy industry. Even the Cap and trade tax bill which is suppose
to be
in response to global warming gives no significant support for
nuclear
energy.

I didn't know the U.S. government was in the nuclear power plant
building
industry. I'm quite liberal in my views, and I'm all for nuclear
power.
Funny how I can do that, huh? I don't goose step to any party.
The Federal Government is in the Non building nuclear power plant
business. The regulations make it so.
Just where would you geniuses store all the spent radioactive materials
generated by these plants for the next 10 thousand years??

Hey genius, you folks are the ones saying we're all going to drown in
this century from global warming.

In 10 thousand years, we could probably figure out what to do with
what little waste actually comes from today's nuclear power
technology. Do some reading.

Or, get back on the tit and stfu.
--
John H


In your case, it would be 'get back on the dick and stfu'.

Are you dumber than your son, Donnie? That was...pathetic.

Above goes double for you.

What great lines...
 

On Thu, 13 Aug 2009 20:56:14 -0400, wrote:

On Thu, 13 Aug 2009 17:00:21 -0400, JLH
wrote:

Al Gore made a movie showing lots of places getting flooded very soon.
Did you not see it?

Here, watch this. It may show Florida being sunk, along with New York
City.

As a person who lives on the water in Florida and is very cognizant of
the water level. 2 feet (about 100 year's worth by some of the worst
projections) won't even get it over my dock unless it is a full moon
high tide and that is nowhere near the yard or the house.
Even if they are wrong by 10 feet and it floods my house in 2109, I
really don't care anyway and neither will my grand children. The
oldest would have been 94.


This "flood Florida" stuff is just bull****. New York City may be in
worse trouble

OMG(osh), you have completely destroyed my confidence in Al Gore and
most of the other liberal 'Global Warming' Chicken Littles.

http://z.about.com/d/politicalhumor/...g_chickens.jpg
--
John H

All decisions, even those made by liberals, are the result of binary thinking.

What great lines...
 

JLH wrote:
On Thu, 13 Aug 2009 10:29:15 -0300, "Don White"
wrote:

"NotNow" wrote in message
...
D wrote:
Don White wrote:
"Calif Bill" wrote in message
...
"NotNow" wrote in message
...
Keith Nuttle wrote:
NotNow wrote:
Just John II wrote:
On Sun, 09 Aug 2009 14:26:52 -0400, Keith Nuttle
wrote:

J. Leo wrote:
"But a growing number of policy makers say that the world's
rising
temperatures, surging seas and melting glaciers are a direct
threat to
the national interest.

If the United States does not lead the world in reducing
fossil-fuel
consumption and thus emissions of global warming gases,
proponents of
this view say, a series of global environmental, social,
political and
possibly military crises loom that the nation will urgently have
to
address."

One must wonder why the United States must be the 'leader'. Why
not
Germany, or France, or even Canada? Does the prevention of all
these
global crises depend solely on the leadership of the USA?

And, suppose no one of consequence follows.

Full article at:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/09/sc..._r=1&th&emc=th

Oh wait, John Kerry is involved. Now I understand.
--
John H

All decisions, even those made by liberals, are the result of
binary thinking.
If these people who keep saying there is global warming actually
believed the entire earth was warming, and it was going to create
a global catastrophe, they would be 100% behind nuclear power.
There are no green house gases from a nuclear power plant.

Until I hear they have started building nuclear plants to prevent
global warming I will accept it for what it is, politics.
I agree with this post.
--
John H

All decisions, even those made by liberals, are the result of
binary thinking.
So if they start building nuclear power plants you'll instantly
believe it's really happening????

http://www.ajc.com/business/southern-102043.html

http://www.altdotenergy.com/2009/01/...t-for-florida/

There are some people who believe the only long term economical
solution for the energy deficiency is nuclear power. Duke Power in
Eastern Carolina has also started the permit process to build several
new additions to existing nuclear plants. However before they can
build they must negotiate the many regulations that were designed to
kill the nuclear industry. (On topic: One of the best fishing and
sailing lakes in the Raleigh area is the 4000 acre Harris lake that
is the part of the cooling system for the Sharon Harris nuclear
plant. )

The THEY I was talking about are obama, pelosi, gore and other who
continual say we have global warming but will not support the nuclear
energy industry. Even the Cap and trade tax bill which is suppose to
be in response to global warming gives no significant support for
nuclear energy.

I didn't know the U.S. government was in the nuclear power plant
building industry. I'm quite liberal in my views, and I'm all for
nuclear power. Funny how I can do that, huh? I don't goose step to any
party.
The Federal Government is in the Non building nuclear power plant
business. The regulations make it so.
Just where would you geniuses store all the spent radioactive materials
generated by these plants for the next 10 thousand years??

Halifax can't get any worse.
Our resident idiot makes it sound like there will be tons and tons of
waste daily. And the idiot also doesn't realize that coal and oil power
plants make many more tons of pollutants daily than a nuke plant would.
It's just that the conventional plants spew it into the air, where
according to some, it does no damage.
You simple minded moron.
Can't remember Three Mile Island?
http://www.lutins.org/nukes.html


Hee, hee.

Donnie is calling someone 'simple-minded'.

The Three Mile Island incident occurred thirty years ago. Do you not
think technology has improved in thirty years?

Think about it, we could just replicate French reactors.

*YOU* should *never* call names reflecting on the intelligence of
others.

Get back on the tit, Donnie. Harry misses you.
--
John H

All decisions, even those made by liberals, are the result of binary thinking.

What's hilarious is his idiotic blather started about waste from nuke
plants, meaning spent fuel rods. After being told here, and maybe
actually learning a little to find out there just isn't much waste
involved, he changed it to another idiotic diatribe about TMI!!!

What great lines...
 

JLH wrote:
On Thu, 13 Aug 2009 09:12:11 -0400, NotNow wrote:

Just John II wrote:
On Tue, 11 Aug 2009 21:09:24 -0300, "Don White"
wrote:

"Calif Bill" wrote in message
...
"NotNow" wrote in message
...
Keith Nuttle wrote:
NotNow wrote:
Just John II wrote:
On Sun, 09 Aug 2009 14:26:52 -0400, Keith Nuttle
wrote:

J. Leo wrote:
"But a growing number of policy makers say that the world's rising
temperatures, surging seas and melting glaciers are a direct threat
to
the national interest.

If the United States does not lead the world in reducing fossil-fuel
consumption and thus emissions of global warming gases, proponents
of
this view say, a series of global environmental, social, political
and
possibly military crises loom that the nation will urgently have to
address."

One must wonder why the United States must be the 'leader'. Why not
Germany, or France, or even Canada? Does the prevention of all these
global crises depend solely on the leadership of the USA?

And, suppose no one of consequence follows.

Full article at:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/09/sc..._r=1&th&emc=th

Oh wait, John Kerry is involved. Now I understand.
--
John H

All decisions, even those made by liberals, are the result of binary
thinking.
If these people who keep saying there is global warming actually
believed the entire earth was warming, and it was going to create a
global catastrophe, they would be 100% behind nuclear power. There
are no green house gases from a nuclear power plant.

Until I hear they have started building nuclear plants to prevent
global warming I will accept it for what it is, politics.
I agree with this post.
--
John H

All decisions, even those made by liberals, are the result of binary
thinking.
So if they start building nuclear power plants you'll instantly believe
it's really happening????

http://www.ajc.com/business/southern-102043.html

http://www.altdotenergy.com/2009/01/...t-for-florida/

There are some people who believe the only long term economical solution
for the energy deficiency is nuclear power. Duke Power in Eastern
Carolina has also started the permit process to build several new
additions to existing nuclear plants. However before they can build
they must negotiate the many regulations that were designed to kill the
nuclear industry. (On topic: One of the best fishing and sailing lakes
in the Raleigh area is the 4000 acre Harris lake that is the part of the
cooling system for the Sharon Harris nuclear plant. )

The THEY I was talking about are obama, pelosi, gore and other who
continual say we have global warming but will not support the nuclear
energy industry. Even the Cap and trade tax bill which is suppose to be
in response to global warming gives no significant support for nuclear
energy.

I didn't know the U.S. government was in the nuclear power plant building
industry. I'm quite liberal in my views, and I'm all for nuclear power.
Funny how I can do that, huh? I don't goose step to any party.
The Federal Government is in the Non building nuclear power plant
business. The regulations make it so.
Just where would you geniuses store all the spent radioactive materials
generated by these plants for the next 10 thousand years??

Hey genius, you folks are the ones saying we're all going to drown in
this century from global warming.

John, who said that?

In 10 thousand years, we could probably figure out what to do with
what little waste actually comes from today's nuclear power
technology. Do some reading.
A lot less waste than we are generating with coal and oil fired power
plants!
Or, get back on the tit and stfu.
--
There you go!!! That way he wouldn't look like such an idiot!

Al Gore made a movie showing lots of places getting flooded very soon.
Did you not see it?

Here, watch this. It may show Florida being sunk, along with New York
City.
--
John H

All decisions, even those made by liberals, are the result of binary thinking.

And did he say "we're all going to drown in this century from global
warming"? I must have missed that part.

What great lines...
 

D 1 wrote:
Don White wrote:
"Just John II" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 11 Aug 2009 21:09:24 -0300, "Don White"
wrote:

"Calif Bill" wrote in message
...
"NotNow" wrote in message
...
Keith Nuttle wrote:
NotNow wrote:
Just John II wrote:
On Sun, 09 Aug 2009 14:26:52 -0400, Keith Nuttle
wrote:

J. Leo wrote:
"But a growing number of policy makers say that the world's
rising
temperatures, surging seas and melting glaciers are a direct
threat
to
the national interest.

If the United States does not lead the world in reducing
fossil-fuel
consumption and thus emissions of global warming gases,
proponents
of
this view say, a series of global environmental, social,
political
and
possibly military crises loom that the nation will urgently
have to
address."

One must wonder why the United States must be the 'leader'.
Why not
Germany, or France, or even Canada? Does the prevention of
all these
global crises depend solely on the leadership of the USA?

And, suppose no one of consequence follows.

Full article at:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/09/sc..._r=1&th&emc=th


Oh wait, John Kerry is involved. Now I understand.
--
John H

All decisions, even those made by liberals, are the result of
binary
thinking.
If these people who keep saying there is global warming actually
believed the entire earth was warming, and it was going to
create a
global catastrophe, they would be 100% behind nuclear power.
There
are no green house gases from a nuclear power plant.

Until I hear they have started building nuclear plants to prevent
global warming I will accept it for what it is, politics.
I agree with this post.
--
John H

All decisions, even those made by liberals, are the result of
binary
thinking.
So if they start building nuclear power plants you'll instantly
believe
it's really happening????

http://www.ajc.com/business/southern-102043.html

http://www.altdotenergy.com/2009/01/...t-for-florida/


There are some people who believe the only long term economical
solution
for the energy deficiency is nuclear power. Duke Power in Eastern
Carolina has also started the permit process to build several new
additions to existing nuclear plants. However before they can build
they must negotiate the many regulations that were designed to
kill the
nuclear industry. (On topic: One of the best fishing and sailing
lakes
in the Raleigh area is the 4000 acre Harris lake that is the part
of the
cooling system for the Sharon Harris nuclear plant. )

The THEY I was talking about are obama, pelosi, gore and other who
continual say we have global warming but will not support the
nuclear
energy industry. Even the Cap and trade tax bill which is
suppose to be
in response to global warming gives no significant support for
nuclear
energy.

I didn't know the U.S. government was in the nuclear power plant
building
industry. I'm quite liberal in my views, and I'm all for nuclear
power.
Funny how I can do that, huh? I don't goose step to any party.
The Federal Government is in the Non building nuclear power plant
business. The regulations make it so.
Just where would you geniuses store all the spent radioactive materials
generated by these plants for the next 10 thousand years??

Hey genius, you folks are the ones saying we're all going to drown in
this century from global warming.

In 10 thousand years, we could probably figure out what to do with
what little waste actually comes from today's nuclear power
technology. Do some reading.

Or, get back on the tit and stfu.
--
John H


In your case, it would be 'get back on the dick and stfu'.


Are you dumber than your son, Donnie? That was...pathetic.

I don't know if that's possible with anything more than a brain stem!

What great lines...
 

D 1 wrote:
NotNow wrote:
D wrote:
Don White wrote:
"Calif Bill" wrote in message
...
"NotNow" wrote in message
...
Keith Nuttle wrote:
NotNow wrote:
Just John II wrote:
On Sun, 09 Aug 2009 14:26:52 -0400, Keith Nuttle
wrote:

J. Leo wrote:
"But a growing number of policy makers say that the world's
rising
temperatures, surging seas and melting glaciers are a direct
threat to
the national interest.

If the United States does not lead the world in reducing
fossil-fuel
consumption and thus emissions of global warming gases,
proponents of
this view say, a series of global environmental, social,
political and
possibly military crises loom that the nation will urgently
have to
address."

One must wonder why the United States must be the 'leader'.
Why not
Germany, or France, or even Canada? Does the prevention of
all these
global crises depend solely on the leadership of the USA?

And, suppose no one of consequence follows.

Full article at:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/09/sc..._r=1&th&emc=th


Oh wait, John Kerry is involved. Now I understand.
--
John H

All decisions, even those made by liberals, are the result of
binary thinking.
If these people who keep saying there is global warming
actually believed the entire earth was warming, and it was
going to create a global catastrophe, they would be 100%
behind nuclear power. There are no green house gases from a
nuclear power plant.

Until I hear they have started building nuclear plants to
prevent global warming I will accept it for what it is, politics.
I agree with this post.
--
John H

All decisions, even those made by liberals, are the result of
binary thinking.
So if they start building nuclear power plants you'll instantly
believe it's really happening????

http://www.ajc.com/business/southern-102043.html

http://www.altdotenergy.com/2009/01/...t-for-florida/


There are some people who believe the only long term economical
solution for the energy deficiency is nuclear power. Duke Power
in Eastern Carolina has also started the permit process to build
several new additions to existing nuclear plants. However before
they can build they must negotiate the many regulations that were
designed to kill the nuclear industry. (On topic: One of the
best fishing and sailing lakes in the Raleigh area is the 4000
acre Harris lake that is the part of the cooling system for the
Sharon Harris nuclear plant. )

The THEY I was talking about are obama, pelosi, gore and other
who continual say we have global warming but will not support the
nuclear energy industry. Even the Cap and trade tax bill which
is suppose to be in response to global warming gives no
significant support for nuclear energy.

I didn't know the U.S. government was in the nuclear power plant
building industry. I'm quite liberal in my views, and I'm all for
nuclear power. Funny how I can do that, huh? I don't goose step to
any party.
The Federal Government is in the Non building nuclear power plant
business. The regulations make it so.

Just where would you geniuses store all the spent radioactive
materials generated by these plants for the next 10 thousand years??


Halifax can't get any worse.

Our resident idiot makes it sound like there will be tons and tons of
waste daily. And the idiot also doesn't realize that coal and oil
power plants make many more tons of pollutants daily than a nuke plant
would. It's just that the conventional plants spew it into the air,
where according to some, it does no damage.

Yep. And nuclear waste degrades in storage. It takes a *long* time,
but no harm is done.

And there's places in the mountains out west where you can dig up dirt
that is more radioactive than the spent rods you are putting in it!