Global Warming The debbil made me do it

Dan wrote in
:

On Mar 13, 6:22 pm, "Jay Honeck" wrote:
Again, to believe in your conspiracy theory, you have to believe
that virtually every practicing geo-scientist in the world is
cooking the books to perpetrate a massive hoax.

That is nuts.

Okay, I'll agree with that -- but I also agree with Jay Maynard that
there is a "bandwagon" here that is quite compelling to researchers
all over the world. And if you're not on it, you're not in the
money.

So, setting aside, for the moment, the debate over whether it's real
or not, I'm still waiting to hear from you what can realistically be
done by humans to "save the planet" from global climate change.

And I mean things that are real, not "switch to solar power" or
"build more wind mills" -- which are nice, warm-fuzzy things to do
that (unfortunately) have a negligible impact on our energy
production needs. No matter how much everyone wishes for it, we're
not going to escape our need for big-box power plants that run on
fossil or nuclear fuels -- at least not unless we're willing to
largely dismantle modern society.

And, since I don't know anyone who is willing to do that, I submit
that you're worrying about the wrong things. Assuming you buy the
theory in the first place, the earth is going to warm up, sea levels
are going to rise -- and the REAL debate isn't how to stop it, but
how will humans adapt to it? That is a more logical place to direct
our intellectual and financial efforts, IMHO.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Nuclear power is an energy generation option, but not politically
feasible in the US.


The US already has nuclear power.


Bertie

"Jay Maynard" wrote in message
...
On 2008-03-14, Roger wrote:
If we all just practiced conservation there would be no need for new
power plants and we could eliminate the need for importing crude to
use in auto fuel. That part is simple math. Raising the fleet
average to 30 MPG would be far more than sufficient to make us
independent of foreign oil for fuel.

That's not conservation, that's deprivation.

Raising the fleet average to 30 MPG would require replacing a large
portion
of the fleet with European-style econoboxes. Simple physics will tell you
that that's going to dramatically lower fleet safety, especially in light
of
the massive numbers of large commercial trucks that would still be needed
to
transport goods. (Getting rid of those would *really* wreck the economy in
short order.) There's also the minor matter of the mission profiles of
many
folks, who a European econobox simply won't fit.

And all of it done so that politicians and bureaucrats can run roughshod
over the people.

"Matt W. Barrow" wrote in
:


"Jay Maynard" wrote in message
...
On 2008-03-14, Roger wrote:
If we all just practiced conservation there would be no need for new
power plants and we could eliminate the need for importing crude to
use in auto fuel. That part is simple math. Raising the fleet
average to 30 MPG would be far more than sufficient to make us
independent of foreign oil for fuel.

That's not conservation, that's deprivation.

Raising the fleet average to 30 MPG would require replacing a large
portion
of the fleet with European-style econoboxes. Simple physics will tell
you that that's going to dramatically lower fleet safety, especially
in light of
the massive numbers of large commercial trucks that would still be
needed to
transport goods. (Getting rid of those would *really* wreck the
economy in short order.) There's also the minor matter of the mission
profiles of many
folks, who a European econobox simply won't fit.

And all of it done so that politicians and bureaucrats can run
roughshod over the people.




Yeh, they stay up nights planning ways to do that.

Got your shack in Montana yet?

Bertie

On Thu, 13 Mar 2008 09:39:17 -0700
mariposas rand mair fheal wasted precious
bandwith with:

In article 20080313091132.611bafbb@vector, §ñühw¤£f
wrote:

On Wed, 12 Mar 2008 13:20:22 -0700
mariposas rand mair fheal mair wasted precious
bandwith with:

In article a8ydnfuw3uDJpEXanZ2dnUVZ ,
(§ñühw¤£f) wrote:

mariposas rand mair fheal mair clouded the
waters of pure thought with:
In article
m.com,
Bill Ward wrote:

CO2 is the primary persistent greenhouse gas.

Water's been around at least as long, and there's a lot
more of it.

how long does water persist at above 100 percent relative
humidity

Why do you hate Jesus so much?

i dont
yes he was a punk
but he turned his life around
getting a education a job as a legal aide
supporting his child and wife

He faked his own death to get outta his failed marriage.

thats a shame
i missed the last season
i hear they ended by burning down the station
and the last scene with furillo walking through the debris

It was the one where Jesus opened a health club.

--
http://thinkprogress.org/2008/03/13/...ple-president/

"Matt W. Barrow" wrote in
:


"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
news:cOhCj.74411$yE1.5053@attbi_s21...
Again, to believe in your conspiracy theory, you have to believe
that virtually every practicing geo-scientist in the world is
cooking the books to perpetrate a massive hoax.

That is nuts.

Okay, I'll agree with that -- but I also agree with Jay Maynard that
there is a "bandwagon" here that is quite compelling to researchers
all over the world. And if you're not on it, you're not in the
money.

Actually, surveys indicate that while some "geo-scientists" agree, the
number are not nearly what Dan Luke would like to believe.

Also, the number of cases of fraud and deliberate misrepresentation
are all on the "shrill" side of the debate

Good for you. Admitting your a shrieker is the first step.


Bertie

On Fri, 14 Mar 2008 14:53:47 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip
wrote:

Newsgroups: rec.aviation.piloting,alt.usenet.kooks,alt.global-warming

Larry Dighera wrote in
:

On Fri, 14 Mar 2008 14:53:47 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip
wrote:

Newsgroups: rec.aviation.piloting,alt.usenet.kooks,alt.global-warming



the flonk and nose added.


Bertie

On Fri, 14 Mar 2008 19:59:34 +0000 (UTC), in alt.usenet.kooks, Bertie
the Bunyip bloviated:

Larry Dighera wrote in
:

On Fri, 14 Mar 2008 14:53:47 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip
wrote:

Newsgroups: rec.aviation.piloting,alt.usenet.kooks,alt.global-warming



the flonk and nose added.


Bertie

Why did you leave that fine froup alt.aratzio off your list.

On Mar 14, 10:57 am, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
Dan wrote :



On Mar 13, 6:22 pm, "Jay Honeck" wrote:
Again, to believe in your conspiracy theory, you have to believe
that virtually every practicing geo-scientist in the world is
cooking the books to perpetrate a massive hoax.

That is nuts.

Okay, I'll agree with that -- but I also agree with Jay Maynard that
there is a "bandwagon" here that is quite compelling to researchers
all over the world. And if you're not on it, you're not in the
money.

So, setting aside, for the moment, the debate over whether it's real
or not, I'm still waiting to hear from you what can realistically be
done by humans to "save the planet" from global climate change.

And I mean things that are real, not "switch to solar power" or
"build more wind mills" -- which are nice, warm-fuzzy things to do
that (unfortunately) have a negligible impact on our energy
production needs. No matter how much everyone wishes for it, we're
not going to escape our need for big-box power plants that run on
fossil or nuclear fuels -- at least not unless we're willing to
largely dismantle modern society.

And, since I don't know anyone who is willing to do that, I submit
that you're worrying about the wrong things. Assuming you buy the
theory in the first place, the earth is going to warm up, sea levels
are going to rise -- and the REAL debate isn't how to stop it, but
how will humans adapt to it? That is a more logical place to direct
our intellectual and financial efforts, IMHO.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Nuclear power is an energy generation option, but not politically
feasible in the US.

The US already has nuclear power.

Bertie

Just not enough of it.

"Dan" wrote:


The US already has nuclear power.

Bertie

Just not enough of it.

Indeed.

Times and technology have changed; time to ramp up nuclear infrastructure.

Still have to get past the NIMBY problem with the waste, though. And other
problems...

"There is a possible impediment to production of nuclear power plants, due to
a backlog at Japan Steel Works, the only factory in the world able to
manufacture the central part of a nuclear reactor's containment vessel in a
single piece, which reduces the risk of a radiation leak. The company can only
make four per year of the steel forgings, which contain radioactivity in a
nuclear reactor. It will double its capacity in the next two years, but still
will not be able to to meet current global ddemand promptly. Utilities across
the world are submitting orders years in advance of any actual need. Other
manufacturers are examining various options, including making the component
themselves, or finding ways to make a similar item using alternate methods. "

-Wikipedia