"Wayne.B" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 12 Apr 2006 12:19:01 -0400, "Jeff Rigby"
wrote:

Republican. Bush is implementing mercury emission standards but he is
SLOWLY implementing them. I'm not happy about that.


When the monkey's staff refused to reveal the attendees at his so-called
"energy task force" meetings, did you find that odd, and write to his
sitters to complain?
Nope, I understood that the people who attended the meeting did so only if
their names were not released. They requested this because they did not
want
to become embroiled in political battles.

Interesting discussion, wrong group.

"It's all about boats."

OK, boating relatedFDA has recommended that pregnant women or women who
may become pregnant limit their intake of shark or swordfish to one meal per
month because of mercury contamination. It's not as critical for adult men
but we should all be concerned with mercury contamination.

I don't know about you but fishing is boating related.

"Jeff Rigby" wrote in message
. ..

"Wayne.B" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 12 Apr 2006 12:19:01 -0400, "Jeff Rigby"
wrote:

Republican. Bush is implementing mercury emission standards but he is
SLOWLY implementing them. I'm not happy about that.


When the monkey's staff refused to reveal the attendees at his
so-called
"energy task force" meetings, did you find that odd, and write to his
sitters to complain?
Nope, I understood that the people who attended the meeting did so only
if
their names were not released. They requested this because they did not
want
to become embroiled in political battles.

Interesting discussion, wrong group.

"It's all about boats."

OK, boating relatedFDA has recommended that pregnant women or women who
may become pregnant limit their intake of shark or swordfish to one meal
per month because of mercury contamination. It's not as critical for
adult men but we should all be concerned with mercury contamination.

I don't know about you but fishing is boating related.


"has recommended"?? That's been known for almost 20 years.

Black Dog wrote:
Doug Kanter wrote:
"Black Dog" wrote in message
news
basskisser wrote:

Black Dog wrote:


I have seen almost NO science about climate change. Even in journals
like Nature, climatology has become polluted by politics.


Perhaps you should read some!


I get Nature's email alerts and abstracts. I would love to "read some"
science - if it was there. Like I said - I see no science, just politics.


I take it you've read everything ever published on the subject. Right?


Sure, I'm doing my PhD on climate change. No, of course I haven't. But
what I have read (and I am a geologist by training, so I have read a few
excruciatingly boring journals on earth-science type topics) contains
mostly bad science and much more bad politics.

such as? Do you really think that, when a single electric generating
plant spews 13 million tons of CO2 into the atmosphere yearly,
compounded by all of the plants in the world, that that can have
nothing but a detrimental affect on the environment???

"basskisser" wrote in message
oups.com...

Black Dog wrote:
Doug Kanter wrote:
"Black Dog" wrote in message
news
basskisser wrote:

Black Dog wrote:


I have seen almost NO science about climate change. Even in journals
like Nature, climatology has become polluted by politics.


Perhaps you should read some!


I get Nature's email alerts and abstracts. I would love to "read some"
science - if it was there. Like I said - I see no science, just
politics.


I take it you've read everything ever published on the subject. Right?


Sure, I'm doing my PhD on climate change. No, of course I haven't. But
what I have read (and I am a geologist by training, so I have read a few
excruciatingly boring journals on earth-science type topics) contains
mostly bad science and much more bad politics.

such as? Do you really think that, when a single electric generating
plant spews 13 million tons of CO2 into the atmosphere yearly,
compounded by all of the plants in the world, that that can have
nothing but a detrimental affect on the environment???



Just curious...........how does that compare to what Mt. St. Helens spewed
into the atmosphere when it erupted?

How does that compare to the constant volcanic eruptions occurring
throughout the history of the earth, well before man was even here?

I am not trying to argue with you......I would just like to know. ;-)

" JimH" jimh_osudad@yahooDOT comREMOVETHIS wrote in message
...

"basskisser" wrote in message
oups.com...

Black Dog wrote:
Doug Kanter wrote:
"Black Dog" wrote in message
news
basskisser wrote:

Black Dog wrote:


I have seen almost NO science about climate change. Even in
journals
like Nature, climatology has become polluted by politics.


Perhaps you should read some!


I get Nature's email alerts and abstracts. I would love to "read some"
science - if it was there. Like I said - I see no science, just
politics.


I take it you've read everything ever published on the subject. Right?


Sure, I'm doing my PhD on climate change. No, of course I haven't. But
what I have read (and I am a geologist by training, so I have read a few
excruciatingly boring journals on earth-science type topics) contains
mostly bad science and much more bad politics.

such as? Do you really think that, when a single electric generating
plant spews 13 million tons of CO2 into the atmosphere yearly,
compounded by all of the plants in the world, that that can have
nothing but a detrimental affect on the environment???



Just curious...........how does that compare to what Mt. St. Helens spewed
into the atmosphere when it erupted?

How does that compare to the constant volcanic eruptions occurring
throughout the history of the earth, well before man was even here?

I am not trying to argue with you......I would just like to know. ;-)


BTW, your figures are off:
http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electri...t/co2emiss.pdf

"basskisser" wrote in message
oups.com...

Black Dog wrote:
Doug Kanter wrote:
"Black Dog" wrote in message
news
basskisser wrote:

Black Dog wrote:


I have seen almost NO science about climate change. Even in journals
like Nature, climatology has become polluted by politics.


Perhaps you should read some!


I get Nature's email alerts and abstracts. I would love to "read some"
science - if it was there. Like I said - I see no science, just
politics.


I take it you've read everything ever published on the subject. Right?


Sure, I'm doing my PhD on climate change. No, of course I haven't. But
what I have read (and I am a geologist by training, so I have read a few
excruciatingly boring journals on earth-science type topics) contains
mostly bad science and much more bad politics.

such as? Do you really think that, when a single electric generating
plant spews 13 million tons of CO2 into the atmosphere yearly,
compounded by all of the plants in the world, that that can have
nothing but a detrimental affect on the environment???



Can I play "the stupid card" here? Here we go: duh drool "CO2 is a
natural thing. Plants make it. It can't be a bad thing regardless of
quantity".

Mercury, too.

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...

"Jeff Rigby" wrote in message
...

"DSK" wrote in message
...
Nope, I understood that the people who attended the meeting did so
only if their names were not released.

Well, that's not an option.

The U.S. government has NO right to keep secrets from U.S. citizens,
with a few noteworthy exceptions.

It is NOT legal, under the Constitution, to declare a policy or policy
meeting or policy-makers names secret, just as a matter of personal
preference.

It is an option and has been upheld as a right of the executive branch.


Jeff Rigby wrote:
If you can't get the planners for our energy suppliers to come talk
with you unless their names are withheld from the press then what do
you do.

Get other planners who will. Do you think there isn't a long long list
of people, some of whom are not necessarily motivated by profit over
patriotism, who would like to give high-level advice on national energy
policy?

One of the problems we have is that there aren't any others. There are
too few home grown energy suppliers in this country, many of our top
suppliers especially in the N.E. are owned by foreign companies who don't
want us energy independent. That limits the list to a select few energy
suppliers.

Again, the names and content of the meeting were kept secret because of
the partisan politics being played in this country. Look at your
reaction for instance...


Jeff, the problem is that the reasons for the secrecy were so obvious.
And, the secrecy benefited nobody except the participants. You may also be
assuming that I and others have a problem with secrecy in general, but
that's not true. When it benefits the country as a whole, I agree with it.
But, in this instance, it clearly did not.


Bull**** as to only Republicans being secret.about their meetings. How
about Hillary and Clinton's health plan meetings. SECRET! Even a Federal
Judge slammed them over it.

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...

"basskisser" wrote in message
oups.com...

Black Dog wrote:
Doug Kanter wrote:
"Black Dog" wrote in message
news
basskisser wrote:

Black Dog wrote:


I have seen almost NO science about climate change. Even in
journals
like Nature, climatology has become polluted by politics.


Perhaps you should read some!


I get Nature's email alerts and abstracts. I would love to "read some"
science - if it was there. Like I said - I see no science, just
politics.


I take it you've read everything ever published on the subject. Right?


Sure, I'm doing my PhD on climate change. No, of course I haven't. But
what I have read (and I am a geologist by training, so I have read a few
excruciatingly boring journals on earth-science type topics) contains
mostly bad science and much more bad politics.

such as? Do you really think that, when a single electric generating
plant spews 13 million tons of CO2 into the atmosphere yearly,
compounded by all of the plants in the world, that that can have
nothing but a detrimental affect on the environment???



Can I play "the stupid card" here? Here we go: duh drool "CO2 is a
natural thing. Plants make it. It can't be a bad thing regardless of
quantity".

Mercury, too.


Lead and Mercury are two elements where any amount in the body is considered
bad.

"CalifBill" wrote in message
nk.net...

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...

"Jeff Rigby" wrote in message
...

"DSK" wrote in message
...
Nope, I understood that the people who attended the meeting did so
only if their names were not released.

Well, that's not an option.

The U.S. government has NO right to keep secrets from U.S. citizens,
with a few noteworthy exceptions.

It is NOT legal, under the Constitution, to declare a policy or policy
meeting or policy-makers names secret, just as a matter of personal
preference.

It is an option and has been upheld as a right of the executive branch.


Jeff Rigby wrote:
If you can't get the planners for our energy suppliers to come talk
with you unless their names are withheld from the press then what do
you do.

Get other planners who will. Do you think there isn't a long long list
of people, some of whom are not necessarily motivated by profit over
patriotism, who would like to give high-level advice on national energy
policy?

One of the problems we have is that there aren't any others. There are
too few home grown energy suppliers in this country, many of our top
suppliers especially in the N.E. are owned by foreign companies who
don't want us energy independent. That limits the list to a select few
energy suppliers.

Again, the names and content of the meeting were kept secret because of
the partisan politics being played in this country. Look at your
reaction for instance...


Jeff, the problem is that the reasons for the secrecy were so obvious.
And, the secrecy benefited nobody except the participants. You may also
be assuming that I and others have a problem with secrecy in general, but
that's not true. When it benefits the country as a whole, I agree with
it. But, in this instance, it clearly did not.


Bull**** as to only Republicans being secret.about their meetings. How
about Hillary and Clinton's health plan meetings. SECRET! Even a Federal
Judge slammed them over it.

Well, that's wrong, too. I wonder why a federal judge didn't slam your
president over HIS secret meetings. Do you wonder?

"CalifBill" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...

"basskisser" wrote in message
oups.com...

Black Dog wrote:
Doug Kanter wrote:
"Black Dog" wrote in message
news
basskisser wrote:

Black Dog wrote:


I have seen almost NO science about climate change. Even in
journals
like Nature, climatology has become polluted by politics.


Perhaps you should read some!


I get Nature's email alerts and abstracts. I would love to "read
some"
science - if it was there. Like I said - I see no science, just
politics.


I take it you've read everything ever published on the subject.
Right?


Sure, I'm doing my PhD on climate change. No, of course I haven't.
But
what I have read (and I am a geologist by training, so I have read a
few
excruciatingly boring journals on earth-science type topics) contains
mostly bad science and much more bad politics.

such as? Do you really think that, when a single electric generating
plant spews 13 million tons of CO2 into the atmosphere yearly,
compounded by all of the plants in the world, that that can have
nothing but a detrimental affect on the environment???



Can I play "the stupid card" here? Here we go: duh drool "CO2 is a
natural thing. Plants make it. It can't be a bad thing regardless of
quantity".

Mercury, too.


Lead and Mercury are two elements where any amount in the body is
considered bad.


Like I said... :-)