OT: Environmentalists

Bill Sornson

A Muzi wrote:
>>> Tom Kunich <cyclintom@yahoo.> wrote:
>>>> Well, a report by the Paris-based International Energy Agency is
>>>> saying that all we need to combat global warming is for every
>>>> American family to be taxed $600,000 and that will be enough. For
>>>> now.
>>>> Hopefully EVERY American environmentalist will gladly step up to
>>>> the plate and pay his share starting right now.
>
>> Luke wrote:
>>> Of course, the American Way is to buy a solution and charge the
>>> expense to someone else. Regardless the free ride's over nda this
>>> time there's no passing the buck.
>
> Bill Sornson wrote:
>> Of course, you've got it completely wrong. China and India ain't
>> playing (paying), so even the US coughs up the $45 /trillion/ it
>> won't solve a thing. (Except to cripple the US economy, of course,
>> which is the REAL agenda in play.)
>
> True but trite. Would anyone argue against that? All of the putative
> 'improvement' is less than a volcano event or Siberian forest fires or
> even smaller countries' emissions. It's simply a thumb in the eye of
> The Great Satan and nothing more.

True...but 45 trillion isn't trite....and only scratches the surface of the
true cost of giving in to this scam (back to OP).

You think $4.44 for gas is bad now; just wait till a "Cap & Trade" bill
actually passes -- as ALL THREE prez candidates favor.

BTW, when the Dems took contol of Congress in 2006, Nancy Pelosi said they
had a plan to lower gas prices. Anyone plan on asking her to reveal it?!?

BS (called)

r15757@aol.com

On Jun 7, 1:05 pm, "Bill Sornson" <as...@ask.me> wrote:


> You left out the word "foreign", repeatedly. If the US had explored,
> drilled, extracted, and refined its /own/ oil resources -- while also
> looking to create/invent alternative technologies -- AND built clean, green
> and safe nuclear plants -- then not only would our economy not be "crippled"
> (which it's not now even with all the efforts to make it so), it would be
> BOOMING. It's the only country on earth that's not using its own resources
> to meet its needs for energy.

This kind of ignorance is astounding. The US has explored, drilled,
extracted and refined its own oil resources like no other country on
the planet.

still just me

On Sat, 7 Jun 2008 18:19:50 -0700, "Bill Sornson" <askme@ask.me>
wrote:

>BTW, when the Dems took contol of Congress in 2006, Nancy Pelosi said they
>had a plan to lower gas prices. Anyone plan on asking her to reveal it?!?

I believe her plan begins with getting an administration filled with
oil executives out of office.

Bill Sornson

r15757@aol.com wrote:
> On Jun 7, 1:05 pm, "Bill Sornson" <as...@ask.me> wrote:
>
>
>> You left out the word "foreign", repeatedly. If the US had explored,
>> drilled, extracted, and refined its /own/ oil resources -- while also
>> looking to create/invent alternative technologies -- AND built
>> clean, green and safe nuclear plants -- then not only would our
>> economy not be "crippled" (which it's not now even with all the
>> efforts to make it so), it would be BOOMING. It's the only country
>> on earth that's not using its own resources to meet its needs for
>> energy.
>
> This kind of ignorance is astounding. The US has explored, drilled,
> extracted and refined its own oil resources like no other country on
> the planet.

You once again exceed your own standards of cluelessness. Well done.

John Forrest Tomlinson

On Sun, 08 Jun 2008 05:10:47 GMT, still just me
<wheeledBobNOSPAM@yahoo.com> wrote:

>On Sat, 7 Jun 2008 18:19:50 -0700, "Bill Sornson" <askme@ask.me>
>wrote:
>
>>BTW, when the Dems took contol of Congress in 2006, Nancy Pelosi said they
>>had a plan to lower gas prices. Anyone plan on asking her to reveal it?!?
>
>I believe her plan begins with getting an administration filled with
>oil executives out of office.

POTM.

In the long run, oil prices will rise. They'll rise a little slower
w/o the Bush cabal in power. They'll rise a little faster with more
environmentally concerned politicians (some Democrats and maybe
McCain, though I think he's lying about his environmentalism
considering his voting record)) in power.

Jay Beattie

On Jun 7, 10:10*pm, still just me <wheeledBobNOS...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 7 Jun 2008 18:19:50 -0700, "Bill Sornson" <as...@ask.me>
> wrote:
>
> >BTW, when the Dems took contol of Congress in 2006, Nancy Pelosi said they
> >had a plan to lower gas prices. *Anyone plan on asking her to reveal it?!?
>
> I believe her plan begins with getting an administration filled with
> oil executives out of office.

Increase the margin requirements for oil futures and increase taxes on
oil profits -- that would decrease speculation, at least in the
American market -- but I don't know if it would affect the global
price of oil. As for lowering the price at the pump, AFAIK, there is
no quick fix -- just like there is no quick fix to anything that
matters in this election cycle. Whoever wins is going to be screwed
unless the rapture ensues quickly or else some other miracle occurs. I
would like to think that American enginuity will keep us from slipping
in to the second world, but I am not so sure anymore. -- Jay Beattie.

!Jones

On Sat, 07 Jun 2008 17:44:31 -0500, in rec.bicycles.tech A Muzi
<am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:

>We still are not allowed regular nuclear electricity generation like
>France, Japan, etc.

Nukes won't help us unless you're willing to accept the waste in your
backyard... and you shouldn't; your neighbors won't, I assure you; I
won't either. We should be thinking of using less power, not how can
we maintain our current consumption levels.

I see three options:

1) Let energy find its market clearing price.
2) Tax it heavily to drive the price up.
3) Ration it.

Energy has an artificially low cost in the US. Keeping it thus
encourages further consumption, not innovation and conservation.

Jones

Jay Beattie

On Jun 7, 12:58*pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
> "Jay Beattie" <jbeat...@lindsayhart.com> wrote in message
>
> news:bb2765ff-90b1-41bc-a459-9c3c69b5e27d@w4g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > Reliance on fossil fuels has crippled our economy. *If we had reduced
> > our reliance on oil and petrochemicals fifty years ago, we would be
> > better off economically and environmentally.
>
> By all means perhaps you can explain how we could have done that?

Everything from better urban planning to fuel efficiency requirements
to credits for new technology, etc., etc. All the same things we are
starting to do now. There was no reason in the world we needed to be
driving around in bazillion pound cars with wings when I was a kid ---
except that gas was cheap and we could. During that same time in
Europe, people paid more for gas -- a lot more -- which generated
money for mass transit infrastructure. Meanwhile, we were busy
tearing out our street cars, except in large cities like NY. In
Portland, for example, they tore out the street cars and electric
busses in the '50s -- and now the street cars are going back in. The
contractactors have to cope with the old rails that are covered under
a foot of asphalt. I sort of feel sorry for Carter because he harped
on energy independence and got pooh-poohed. On the other hand, he had
his "Carter Doctrine" that gave us the right to spank the Arabs to
protect our (their?) oil. Odd dude.
>
> > We need something like a
> > Manhattan Project to develop new energy technology -- which we could
> > do for under 45 trillion, maybe. *Come up with a highly efficient
> > solar cell and license the technology to pay off the debt.
>
> I see your degree in physics is doing you some good after all. Oh, that's
> right - apparently you know nothing about what you're writing but aren't
> afraid to write it.

Someone floats an idea, and like a reflex, you yammer about the person
not knowing anything. Is this some form of Tourrettes?
>
> Jay, all kidding aside - solar cells only work about 30 - 40% of the time.
> They've been IN DEVELOPMENT for 50 years. What makes you think that they
> could be more than marginally improved?

There must be something superior to buring combustible liquids and
gasses. That is stone-wheel technology. And not withstanding the fact
that solar cells have been in development for 50 years, we have had
significant recent improvements -- improvements achieved with DOE
support. http://www.energy.gov/news/4503.htm . The DOE came from our
nu-ca-lar program -- and the same vigor that went in to the Manhattan
Project could go in to developing non-exploding energy technology. I
don't see why not, and really, there is only so long that we can get
by burning stuff. -- Jay Beattie.

Tom Kunich

"Jay Beattie" <jbeattie@lindsayhart.com> wrote in message
news:82ebb803-6148-43e5-9adc-c025d336a6f7@g16g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
> On Jun 7, 12:58 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
> > "Jay Beattie" <jbeat...@lindsayhart.com> wrote in message
> >
> > news:bb2765ff-90b1-41bc-a459-9c3c69b5e27d@w4g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
> > > Reliance on fossil fuels has crippled our economy. If we had reduced
> > > our reliance on oil and petrochemicals fifty years ago, we would be
> > > better off economically and environmentally.
> >
> > By all means perhaps you can explain how we could have done that?
>
> Everything from better urban planning to fuel efficiency requirements
> to credits for new technology, etc., etc. All the same things we are
> starting to do now.

How about jail sentences for people who use more gasoline than you believe
they should? Why is it that you fascists always manage to believe that your
view of the world is the right view and you need to punish everyone else
that doens't hold your view?

> There was no reason in the world we needed to be
> driving around in bazillion pound cars with wings when I was a kid ---
> except that gas was cheap and we could.

And of course the small think that it took 70 years to develop the
industrial capability to make things with enough accuracy to make them as
efficient as they are today. Oh, that's right - you bozos who can't actually
do anything yourself believe that everyone else could do it back in the
1800's.

> I sort of feel sorry for Carter because he harped
> on energy independence and got pooh-poohed.

I notice you didn't actually quote Carter.

> > I see your degree in physics is doing you some good after all. Oh,
> > that's
> > right - apparently you know nothing about what you're writing but aren't
> > afraid to write it.
>
> Someone floats an idea, and like a reflex, you yammer about the person
> not knowing anything. Is this some form of Tourrettes?

The problem is that your ideas aren't backed by any real knowledge and you
think they are. Why is it that you don't realize that is a fools way of
doing things?

> > Jay, all kidding aside - solar cells only work about 30 - 40% of the
> > time.
> > They've been IN DEVELOPMENT for 50 years. What makes you think that they
> > could be more than marginally improved?
>
> There must be something superior to buring combustible liquids and
> gasses.

OK, what?

> That is stone-wheel technology. And not withstanding the fact
> that solar cells have been in development for 50 years, we have had
> significant recent improvements -- improvements achieved with DOE
> support. http://www.energy.gov/news/4503.htm .

No we HAVEN'T had any "recent improvements". The "improvements" have all
been microscopic in function and slight in economics. As I pointed out
before - solar cells cost more to produce than they generally return in
electricity in their lifetime. Why do you believe that to be somehow
superior to anything else?

Do you suppose PG & E's test solar generators in the Mojave Desert were just
kidding when they used steam generators instead of solar cells? Or perhaps
you want to believe that they're much dumber than you are?

> The DOE came from our nu-ca-lar program --
> and the same vigor that went in to the Manhattan Project
> could go in to developing non-exploding energy technology.

Of course they've been trying to get funding for that for 40 years while
Democrats have been putting 20 times as much into their own pet projects
such as Harry Reid's $61 million Nevada "special transportation projects"
stuff etc.

And don't get the idea that I'm implying that Republicans aren't equally to
blame.

The point is: you don't have a clue what you're talking about and you yammer
on like that without every bothering to actually look into anything.

Tom Kunich

"!Jones" <hi@there.org> wrote in message
news:bm1o4494d8an3qhq6nvl98vhfl8lpfqkeq@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 07 Jun 2008 17:44:31 -0500, in rec.bicycles.tech A Muzi
> <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>
>>We still are not allowed regular nuclear electricity generation like
>>France, Japan, etc.
>
> Nukes won't help us unless you're willing to accept the waste in your
> backyard.

What waste? By all means explain to us what "waste" a modern reactor has.

> Energy has an artificially low cost in the US. Keeping it thus
> encourages further consumption, not innovation and conservation.

That's pretty funny. What is your position that you would be able to even
guess at the cost vs. the price of energy production?

What are you going to have to say when your parents freeze to death because
they can't afford natural gas heating?

Jay Beattie

On Jun 8, 12:45*pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
> "Jay Beattie" <jbeat...@lindsayhart.com> wrote in message
>
> news:82ebb803-6148-43e5-9adc-c025d336a6f7@g16g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
>
> > On Jun 7, 12:58 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
> > > "Jay Beattie" <jbeat...@lindsayhart.com> wrote in message
>
> > >news:bb2765ff-90b1-41bc-a459-9c3c69b5e27d@w4g2000prd.googlegroups.com....
> > > > Reliance on fossil fuels has crippled our economy. If we had reduced
> > > > our reliance on oil and petrochemicals fifty years ago, we would be
> > > > better off economically and environmentally.
>
> > > By all means perhaps you can explain how we could have done that?
>
> > Everything from better urban planning to fuel efficiency requirements
> > to credits for new technology, etc., etc. *All the same things we are
> > starting to do now.
>
> How about jail sentences for people who use more gasoline than you believe
> they should? Why is it that you fascists always manage to believe that your
> view of the world is the right view and you need to punish everyone else
> that doens't hold your view?
>
> > There was no reason in the world we needed to be
> > driving around in bazillion pound cars with wings when I was a kid ---
> > except that gas was cheap and we could.
>
> And of course the small think that it took 70 years to develop the
> industrial capability to make things with enough accuracy to make them as
> efficient as they are today. Oh, that's right - you bozos who can't actually
> do anything yourself believe that everyone else could do it back in the
> 1800's.

What are you getting at? While Detroit was making giant, gas guzzling
tanks, Germany, France, Italy and Japan were making compacts. And
what do you mean that I can't do anything myself? How would you
know? As a matter of fact, I do everything myself -- I even know how
to plaster. You try getting a nice sanded finish!
>
> > I sort of feel sorry for Carter because he harped
> > on energy independence and got pooh-poohed.
>
> I notice you didn't actually quote Carter.
>
> > > I see your degree in physics is doing you some good after all. Oh,
> > > that's
> > > right - apparently you know nothing about what you're writing but aren't
> > > afraid to write it.
>
> > Someone floats an idea, and like a reflex, you yammer about the person
> > not knowing anything. *Is this some form of Tourrettes?
>
> The problem is that your ideas aren't backed by any real knowledge and you
> think they are. Why is it that you don't realize that is a fools way of
> doing things?

What, to you, is real knowledge? A PhD in solar technology? You're
not going to get that on this NG. And the fact is that many fools, as
you put it, were responsible for huge technological advances. Kennedy
and Rosevelt come to mind --- both created programs that invented
dramatic new technology. All they had was a vision -- although
Rosevelt had a note from Einstein about the potential for a fission
bomb. And Kennedy was chasing the Russians in to space, but in any
event, both made the effort to advance the state of the art and didn't
sit on their thumbs listening to naysayers.


> > > Jay, all kidding aside - solar cells only work about 30 - 40% of the
> > > time.
> > > They've been IN DEVELOPMENT for 50 years. What makes you think that they
> > > could be more than marginally improved?
>
> > There must be something superior to buring combustible liquids and
> > gasses.
>
> OK, what?
>
> > That is stone-wheel technology. *And not withstanding the fact
> > that solar cells have been in development for 50 years, we have had
> > significant recent improvements -- improvements achieved with DOE
> > support.http://www.energy.gov/news/4503.htm.
>
> No we HAVEN'T had any "recent improvements". The "improvements" have all
> been microscopic in function and slight in economics. As I pointed out
> before - solar cells cost more to produce than they generally return in
> electricity in their lifetime. Why do you believe that to be somehow
> superior to anything else?

More than doubling the efficiency of the common solar cell is a
significant improvement, unless "significant" means something
different to you. Cost of production will decrease as production
increases -- which it will because of the cost of oil. The whack-o
environmentalists also will help drive demand and production.

>
> Do you suppose PG & E's test solar generators in the Mojave Desert were just
> kidding when they used steam generators instead of solar cells? Or perhaps
> you want to believe that they're much dumber than you are?

Man, what is it with you -- of course you use the most efficient
technology. If you can boil water with sunlight, then boil the
f****** water. Make steam. Turn turbines. That ain't gonna happen
in the PNW. We do have Bonneville -- built by FDR along with the
other communists with musical support from Woody Guthrie . Or was FDR
a fascists? He did ration gas -- among other things.
>
> > *The DOE came from our nu-ca-lar program --
> > and the same vigor that went in to the Manhattan Project
> > could go in to developing non-exploding energy technology.
>
> Of course they've been trying to get funding for that for 40 years while
> Democrats have been putting 20 times as much into their own pet projects
> such as Harry Reid's $61 million Nevada "special transportation projects"
> stuff etc.
>
> And don't get the idea that I'm implying that Republicans aren't equally to
> blame.
>
> The point is: you don't have a clue what you're talking about and you yammer
> on like that without every bothering to actually look into anything.

Then educate us, Thomas, please. All I hear from you is nay. If you
have something better than the status quo, please share it with us.
The status quo obviously is not working, so I only want to hear if you
have a plan. -- Jay Beattie.

Bill Sornson

Tom Kunich wrote:

> What are you going to have to say when your parents freeze to death
> because they can't afford natural gas heating?

That a Republican was in office? (Because when a Dem is, you won't hear
about poor Mom 'n Dad.)

Tom Kunich

"Jay Beattie" <jbeattie@lindsayhart.com> wrote in message
news:da005bc0-1674-4d28-a47f-7a9767ecc20a@s21g2000prm.googlegroups.com...
> What are you getting at? While Detroit was making giant, gas guzzling
> tanks, Germany, France, Italy and Japan were making compacts. And
> what do you mean that I can't do anything myself? How would you
> know? As a matter of fact, I do everything myself -- I even know how
> to plaster. You try getting a nice sanded finish!

What is it that you think is incorrect about Detroit making what people
WANTED to buy? Remember - at that time Chevron had people going around to
all of the schools telling kids that oil and hence gasoline wasn't going to
last forever. I had one of those guys in my 4th grade class in 1953 or so.

I should appologize for getting carried away with my writing style when I'm
arguing with you. My point is that virtually ALL of those telling us about
how bad people have been are those who don't actually know anything about
the circumstances behind things. For instance - it took a lot of years to
develop thin-wall casting technology and then another decade to develop
reliable aluminum engine blocks and the like. These things simply don't
happen overnight and progress HAS been going on my entire life. Just because
you think it should have been faster doesn't mean that it could have.

> What, to you, is real knowledge? A PhD in solar technology?

Look, my brother was the chief electrician for US Windpower in the Altamont
Pass area. All of those windmills which started installation in 1982 could
put out a great deal of power once in awhile but the fact remained that they
couldn't pay for themselves and provide a profit without subsidies from the
government. Solar power is about the same problem.

Pretending that something is better doesn't make it that way.


> And the fact is that many fools, as
> you put it, were responsible for huge technological advances. Kennedy
> and Rosevelt come to mind --- both created programs that invented
> dramatic new technology.

OK - what was that "new" technology again?

> > The point is: you don't have a clue what you're talking about and you
> > yammer
> > on like that without every bothering to actually look into anything.
>
> Then educate us, Thomas, please. All I hear from you is nay. If you
> have something better than the status quo, please share it with us.
> The status quo obviously is not working, so I only want to hear if you
> have a plan.

Why do you think that you could even understand what is happening around you
if you can even see it now?

1) Coal to diesel oil is an old and reliable process invented by the Germans
in WW II. It hasn't been used because it costs about $40/bbl to produce. But
gee - at $130 a barrel it would be cheaper to use the Fischer-Tropsch
process of generating diesel freeing up some 30% more oil for conversion to
gasoline. Not to mention home heating oil in the winter.

2) Even though you're being convinced by other Fascists that business is
evil, it is NORMAL PEOPLE who have invented and continue to insist on zoning
laws that lock housing farther and farther away from businesses. That
requires more and more commuting and more fuel usage.

3) Even with fuel at over $4 a gallon I'm being passed on the freeway by
large SUVs driving at 80+ mph. And they're being driven by mothers with
children inside. Meanwhile the cops are pulling people over and citing them
for not wearing seatbelts. The mental illness of society is easy to see.

I could go on but why? You ain't going to be affected in the least.

Bill Sornson

Bill Sornson wrote:
> Tom Kunich wrote:
>
>> What are you going to have to say when your parents freeze to death
>> because they can't afford natural gas heating?

> That a Republican was in office? (Because when a Dem is, you won't
> hear about poor Mom 'n Dad.)

PS: Just like you didn't hear much about all those people (nearly all
minorities) who died of heat stroke in 1998* Chicago. Where were the news
crews and helicoptors covering THAT little national disgrace?

*the warmest year in recent history, btw. Earth's been /cooling/ since
then.