"it's me, Jim" "j i wrote in message
...
J. Leo wrote:
On Sun, 09 Aug 2009 20:37:19 -0400, D wrote:

Don White wrote:
"J. Leo" wrote in message
...
"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.

Good Lord Johnny...since the US is the worst offender.... you have to
be the ones to turn this around.
Everyone else will do their part as time passes.

Dummy, Mexico is a haven for companies that have production that doesn't
meet US EPA standards.

Don, it's very hard to believe you are calling someone else a dummy.

If we were to lead the way, then we should be building nuclear
reactors as fast as we can.

Wake up. Get back on the tit.
--
John H

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

Donny is stuck on his island and his only information comes from socialist
Government run Canuckistani TV And newspapers. Oh I forgot Krausie of
course. He's a great source for Donny.

As if your information was any better during the eight dark years of Dubyas'
reign.
WMD indeed...~~ snerk ~~

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.

On Tue, 11 Aug 2009 13:31:18 -0400, 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/


Until I hear they have started building nuclear plants to prevent man
made global warrming, I will accept it for what it is, politics.
--
John H

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

Just John II wrote:
On Tue, 11 Aug 2009 13:31:18 -0400, 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/


Until I hear they have started building nuclear plants to prevent man
made global warrming, I will accept it for what it is, politics.
--
John H

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

What is politics is the conservatives sticking their collective heads in
the sand when it comes to global warming.

On Tue, 11 Aug 2009 14:36:20 -0400, NotNow wrote:

Just John II wrote:
On Tue, 11 Aug 2009 13:31:18 -0400, 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/


Until I hear they have started building nuclear plants to prevent man
made global warrming, I will accept it for what it is, politics.
--
John H

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

What is politics is the conservatives sticking their collective heads in
the sand when it comes to global warming.

Until I hear the liberals have started pushing for the building of
nuclear plants to prevent man made global warrming, I will accept it
for what it is, politics.
--
John H

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

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.

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.

On Tue, 11 Aug 2009 16:39:17 -0400, NotNow wrote:

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.

Now just convince the liberals in power to get on the bandwagon. It's
*really* hard to think they take manmade global warming seriously when
they don't give a high priority to the best treatment available.

Makes it sound like they just want your money.
--
John H

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

"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.

"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??