Calif Bill wrote:
"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.



They NEED to be regulated.

JustWait wrote:
In article ,
says...
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.

No, we just trust different scientists than you do. It is insulting when
you consider there are as many on our side as yours when you really look
at the numbers honestly. So you saying my head is buried is as bad as me
suggesting yours is.. Neither are, we both have read up on it, and have
simply come to opposing points of view.. Besides insulting me and the
folks on my side is why we all have Harry plonked... ewwwwwww..


The difference is this. I've based my belief on science. I've studied
both sides. I haven't however, based my belief on what one political
party says.

CalifBill wrote:
"Don White" wrote in message
...
"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.

How much waste do you think they have to store?


He's dumb. Doesn't understand the concept apparently. He's probably
thinking that a nuke plant spits out spent rods like a Wile E. Coyote
fireworks factory!

Keith Nuttle wrote:
H the K wrote:
JustWait wrote:
In article ,
says...
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:


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.

No, we just trust different scientists than you do. It is insulting
when you consider there are as many on our side as yours when you
really look at the numbers honestly. So you saying my head is buried
is as bad as me suggesting yours is.. Neither are, we both have read
up on it, and have simply come to opposing points of view.. Besides
insulting me and the folks on my side is why we all have Harry
plonked... ewwwwwww..



What the foch would you know about global warming or anything else?
You're a moron.

"What the foch would you know about global warming or anything else?
You're a moron."

A beautifully example of a liberal argument. and they wonder why people
have problems with liberal thinking.

There's the typical ALL liberals think alike speak.
Does that mean that ALL conservatives think and act alike also?

In article ,
says...

JustWait wrote:
In article ,
says...
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.

No, we just trust different scientists than you do. It is insulting when
you consider there are as many on our side as yours when you really look
at the numbers honestly. So you saying my head is buried is as bad as me
suggesting yours is.. Neither are, we both have read up on it, and have
simply come to opposing points of view.. Besides insulting me and the
folks on my side is why we all have Harry plonked... ewwwwwww..


The difference is this. I've based my belief on science. I've studied
both sides. I haven't however, based my belief on what one political
party says.

I have based my belief on science too. I guess I am out of this one..

--
Wafa free since 2009

JustWait wrote:
In article ,
says...
JustWait wrote:
In article ,
says...
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.
No, we just trust different scientists than you do. It is insulting when
you consider there are as many on our side as yours when you really look
at the numbers honestly. So you saying my head is buried is as bad as me
suggesting yours is.. Neither are, we both have read up on it, and have
simply come to opposing points of view.. Besides insulting me and the
folks on my side is why we all have Harry plonked... ewwwwwww..

The difference is this. I've based my belief on science. I've studied
both sides. I haven't however, based my belief on what one political
party says.

I have based my belief on science too. I guess I am out of this one..


Scientology, maybe. Not science.

thunder wrote:
On Wed, 12 Aug 2009 08:18:12 -0400, Keith Nuttle wrote:


If the government had gotten behind a program to extract the energy out
of nuclear waste rather than bury it, we would have a clean, reliable,
continuously available, energy source with no concern about storing the
waste as there would be none.

The government? I thought "Free Market" was the Conservative mantra.
The program to recover the energy from nuclear waste will require
significant expenditure for the research and development. The only
organization with that kind of money is the government. With nuclear
energy it is basically a simple separation process to get the energy
components from nuclear waste. The engineering process will cost.

For the billions of dollars and significant effort that the government
spent in the last 40 years killing and avoiding nuclear energy, we could
have had a recovery process and had no energy problem today. Yet the
government is continuing to bury its head in the sand and promoting the
gimmicky sources of electricity like windmills, and other fanciful ideas
that will not work in the long run.

Do you resent the government spending money for cancer research? This
is an example of a major research project, that is beyond the scope of
private industry. While there have been some progress in this very
complex system, it is still not understood today.

I don't have to ask I know you are against space research, but this is
an example of a government program that has done good. There is not one
segment of society, today, that is not using something that came out of
that research. My wife and thousands of other people would be blind
today if the government had not spent research money developing lasers,
and the systems to guide (target) them.

On Wed, 12 Aug 2009 11:31:10 -0400, Keith Nuttle wrote:


For the billions of dollars and significant effort that the government
spent in the last 40 years killing and avoiding nuclear energy, we could
have had a recovery process and had no energy problem today. Yet the
government is continuing to bury its head in the sand and promoting the
gimmicky sources of electricity like windmills, and other fanciful ideas
that will not work in the long run.

Oh please, the government hasn't killed nuclear energy, the economics of
nuclear energy killed it. Nuclear energy, if you include the capital
costs, is expensive. However, with carbon sequestration and other "clean
coal" costs, nuclear energy is becoming cost competitive. You do know,
31 new nuclear plants are in the pipeline, don't you? Doesn't say much
for your theory that the government is killing nuclear energy, does it?

http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-lice...iles/expected-
new-rx-applications.pdf

"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 12 Aug 2009 11:31:10 -0400, Keith Nuttle wrote:


For the billions of dollars and significant effort that the government
spent in the last 40 years killing and avoiding nuclear energy, we could
have had a recovery process and had no energy problem today. Yet the
government is continuing to bury its head in the sand and promoting the
gimmicky sources of electricity like windmills, and other fanciful ideas
that will not work in the long run.

Oh please, the government hasn't killed nuclear energy, the economics of
nuclear energy killed it. Nuclear energy, if you include the capital
costs, is expensive. However, with carbon sequestration and other "clean
coal" costs, nuclear energy is becoming cost competitive. You do know,
31 new nuclear plants are in the pipeline, don't you? Doesn't say much
for your theory that the government is killing nuclear energy, does it?

http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-lice...iles/expected-
new-rx-applications.pdf

The capitol costs are out of whack because of the government rules. 15-20
years to get all the approvals and build. Then you have to get a license to
run the plant. Can not get a license until after construction is finished.
One of the killers for Seabrook (i think that is the one). Cumo opposed the
license and the rate payers are still paying for a finished nuke plant that
never operated. Also a reason rates are inflated with nuclear.

"NotNow" wrote in message
...
Calif Bill wrote:
"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.

They NEED to be regulated.

Yes, but the regulations prevent building. When there are 1-200 different
agencies that have to give approval, and then the enviro lawsuits without
merit. These all lead to uneconomical plants.