Kyoto Hypocracy - The Real Issue

[Mark A]

The real issue at Kyoto (which the media will not explain to Americans) is
that there are basically two choices:

1. Decrease the rate of increase in CO2 emissions with energy conservation,
or
2. Reduce CO2 emissions by converting to nuclear power plants

The only way the Europeans and Japanese are able to even think about
implementing the Kyoto accord is because they have made a wholesale switch
to nuclear energy. During the last 30 years there have been hundreds of new
nuclear power plants built (most notably in countries like France and
Japan), while none (zero) have been built in the US.

But the environmentalists in the US who insist we must comply with Kyoto are
the same ones who oppose nuclear power plants. This is the hypocrisy.

The Kyoto treaty has nothing to do with whether one believes in global
warming. It has to do with whether one believes in nuclear energy for the
primary means to produce electricity.

[Eeyore]

Mark A wrote:

> The real issue at Kyoto (which the media will not explain to Americans) is
> that there are basically two choices:
>
> 1. Decrease the rate of increase in CO2 emissions with energy conservation,
> or

Decreasing the rate of increase of atmospheric CO2 won't help us at all if the
AGWists are right.


> 2. Reduce CO2 emissions by converting to nuclear power plants

Would have to be a massive conversion. Certainly tinkering at the edges with
windpower and solar is a drop in the ocean and near worthless.


> The only way the Europeans and Japanese are able to even think about
> implementing the Kyoto accord is because they have made a wholesale switch
> to nuclear energy.

I agree.


> During the last 30 years there have been hundreds of new
> nuclear power plants built (most notably in countries like France and
> Japan), while none (zero) have been built in the US.

Finland is building one right now AIUI. Some countries are starting to think
about re-evalauting their bans on nuclear. Interestingly Italian energy company
(damn I forget the name now) is investing in new French nuclear generation since
nuclear plants are banned in Italy itself !

Framatome (Areva as it is now) is probably the leader reactor builder worldwide
in fact.


> But the environmentalists in the US who insist we must comply with Kyoto are
> the same ones who oppose nuclear power plants. This is the hypocrisy.
>
> The Kyoto treaty has nothing to do with whether one believes in global
> warming. It has to do with whether one believes in nuclear energy for the
> primary means to produce electricity.

I'm sure that wasn't the intent of those drafting it.

Graham

[Mark A]

"Eeyore" > wrote in message
...
>> The Kyoto treaty has nothing to do with whether one believes in global
>> warming. It has to do with whether one believes in nuclear energy for the
>> primary means to produce electricity.
>
> I'm sure that wasn't the intent of those drafting it.
>
> Graham

It was the intent of certain nations who have heavily invested in nuclear,
notably France, to gain economic advantage over the US by damaging the US
economy. People in France are suffering from very high unemployment and they
are rioting in the streets over jobs and economic issues. French exports
(and jobs) are dwindling due to the strong Euro and weak US Dollar. The
French government is not naive about these issues, nor are they benevolent
about their desire to improve their own economy at the expense of the US.
The do intend to use Kyoto to accomplish that.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Dec 14, 11:45 am, "Mark A" > wrote:
> "Eeyore" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> >> The Kyoto treaty has nothing to do with whether one believes in global
> >> warming. It has to do with whether one believes in nuclear energy for the
> >> primary means to produce electricity.
>
> > I'm sure that wasn't the intent of those drafting it.
>
> > Graham
>
> It was the intent of certain nations who have heavily invested in nuclear,
> notably France, to gain economic advantage over the US by damaging the US
> economy. People in France are suffering from very high unemployment and they
> are rioting in the streets over jobs and economic issues. French exports
> (and jobs) are dwindling due to the strong Euro and weak US Dollar. The
> French government is not naive about these issues, nor are they benevolent
> about their desire to improve their own economy at the expense of the US.
> The do intend to use Kyoto to accomplish that.

This is the biggest conspiracy in like, forever! And it's all the
French!

This is even bigger than the cover up about who actually killed JFK.

[Eeyore]

Mark A wrote:

> People in France are suffering from very high unemployment and they
> are rioting in the streets over jobs and economic issues.

Not actually true. I guess you must be American. Your news media is hardly
reknowned for accurate reporting of overseas issues.

You're thinking I suspect of young French Muslim kids who are suffering from
certain 'social exclsusion' issues allegedly. How much of this might be
self-impsoed is probably worthy of debate in its own right.

The general French population is doing OK.

Unemployment in France at 8% is higher than the USA at 4.7% but hardly 'very
high'.

Graham

[Eeyore]

Mark A wrote:

> It was the intent of certain nations who have heavily invested in nuclear,
> notably France, to gain economic advantage over the US by damaging the US
> economy.

I rather think NOT.

France has had a deep commitment to nuclear electricity for many decades.
They're simply reaping the benefits of staying the path.

Silly USA for giving up on nuclear. You're also 'reaping the benefits' of your
actions.

Graham

[George M. Middius]

Mark A said:

> It was the intent of certain nations who have heavily invested in nuclear,
> notably France, to gain economic advantage over the US by damaging the US
> economy.

Oh, right. That was their motivation. Uh-huh. Sure. Absolutely.

[Mark A]

"George M. Middius" <cmndr _ george @ comcast . net> wrote in message
...
>
>
> Mark A said:
>
>> It was the intent of certain nations who have heavily invested in
>> nuclear,
>> notably France, to gain economic advantage over the US by damaging the US
>> economy.
>
> Oh, right. That was their motivation. Uh-huh. Sure. Absolutely.

Yes. If you prefer to put it in a more benign light, the French have spent
billions on nuclear energy and they expect to reap the rewards for that.

If they were seriously interested in only environmental issues, do you think
they would have built so many nuclear power plants, and via Kyoto,
encouraging everyone else to do the same?

[Mark A]

"Eeyore" > wrote in message
...
> Not actually true. I guess you must be American. Your news media is hardly
> reknowned for accurate reporting of overseas issues.
>
> You're thinking I suspect of young French Muslim kids who are suffering
> from
> certain 'social exclsusion' issues allegedly. How much of this might be
> self-impsoed is probably worthy of debate in its own right.
>
> The general French population is doing OK.
>
> Unemployment in France at 8% is higher than the USA at 4.7% but hardly
> 'very
> high'.
>
> Graham

In general the French are OK? You must be kidding me if you think 8%
unemployment is not high.

Yes the Muslims are rioting, but so are the students and socialists who want
guaranteed jobs for life. I guess your news media doesn't tell you what is
going on in France.

[Mark A]

"François Yves Le Gal" > wrote in message
...
> Yeah; sure; whatever you say. Oh, you majored in burger flippin' at Jerk
> in
> the Box. I see that you're an expert.

No I majored in political science with an emphasis in foreign relations. All
nations act in their self interest, all of the time. France is hardly an
exception.

This Kyoto smokescreen about "environmental concerns" should be transparent
to anyone with brains. Proliferating the earth with nuclear power plants is
not exactly what most environmentalists would call a good idea. There is no
way anyone can achieve the Kyoto reductions without nuclear power plants.

[George M. Middius]

Mark A said:

> > Oh, right. That was their motivation. Uh-huh. Sure. Absolutely.

> Yes. If you prefer to put it in a more benign light, the French have spent
> billions on nuclear energy and they expect to reap the rewards for that.

Congratulations on remembering to take your anti-psychotic meds.

> If they were seriously interested in only environmental issues, do you think
> they would have built so many nuclear power plants, and via Kyoto,
> encouraging everyone else to do the same?

Uh-oh. It's wearing off already.

[George M. Middius]

Mark A said:

> No I majored in political science with an emphasis in foreign relations. All

I think you majored in Redneck Jingoism with an emphasis in Paranoid
Raving.

> nations act in their self interest, all of the time. France is hardly an
> exception.

A non-psychotic political scientist might conceive that one country's
"self interest" is not necessarily congruent with a plan to undercut
some other country's economy. Happy trails, crazy man.

[Mark A]

"George M. Middius" <cmndr _ george @ comcast . net> wrote in message
...
>> If they were seriously interested in only environmental issues, do you
>> think
>> they would have built so many nuclear power plants, and via Kyoto,
>> encouraging everyone else to do the same?
>
> Uh-oh. It's wearing off already.

Personally, I have nothing against nuclear power plants, but I have never
met an environmentalist who agreed.

[Mark A]

"George M. Middius" <cmndr _ george @ comcast . net> wrote in message
...
> A non-psychotic political scientist might conceive that one country's
> "self interest" is not necessarily congruent with a plan to undercut
> some other country's economy. Happy trails, crazy man.

I don't know about "one country's self interest" but in the case of France
it is definitely the case.

[Trevor Wilson[_2_]]

"Mark A" > wrote in message
. ..
> "François Yves Le Gal" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Yeah; sure; whatever you say. Oh, you majored in burger flippin' at Jerk
>> in
>> the Box. I see that you're an expert.
>
> No I majored in political science with an emphasis in foreign relations.
> All nations act in their self interest, all of the time. France is hardly
> an exception.

**True. France is not trying to destroy the US economy. The French
government is rightly concerned about the effects of global warming. Global
warming will cause problems for France (and everyone else).

>
> This Kyoto smokescreen about "environmental concerns" should be
> transparent to anyone with brains. Proliferating the earth with nuclear
> power plants is not exactly what most environmentalists would call a good
> idea. There is no way anyone can achieve the Kyoto reductions without
> nuclear power plants.

**Nonsense. Building nukes is one, short term, solution. There are other,
more prosaic, practical and environmentally benign methods.

Trevor Wilson

[dizzy]

Mark A wrote:

>It was the intent of certain nations who have heavily invested in nuclear,
>notably France, to gain economic advantage over the US by damaging the US
>economy. People in France are suffering from very high unemployment and they
>are rioting in the streets over jobs and economic issues. French exports
>(and jobs) are dwindling due to the strong Euro and weak US Dollar. The
>French government is not naive about these issues, nor are they benevolent
>about their desire to improve their own economy at the expense of the US.
>The do intend to use Kyoto to accomplish that.

Kook.

[Mark A]

"Trevor Wilson" > wrote in message
...
> **True. France is not trying to destroy the US economy. The French
> government is rightly concerned about the effects of global warming.
> Global warming will cause problems for France (and everyone else).

France wants to destroy everyone else's economy else France. Pretty much the
same as every other country in the world. Maybe destroy is the wrong word,
perhaps "beat the hell out of them" is a better description.

[Eeyore]

Mark A wrote:

> "George M. Middius" wrote
> > Mark A said:
> >
> >> It was the intent of certain nations who have heavily invested in
> >> nuclear,
> >> notably France, to gain economic advantage over the US by damaging the US
> >> economy.
> >
> > Oh, right. That was their motivation. Uh-huh. Sure. Absolutely.
>
> Yes. If you prefer to put it in a more benign light, the French have spent
> billions on nuclear energy and they expect to reap the rewards for that.

A sensible business decision as it turns out.

The main reason for it though AIUI was France's relative shortage of domestic
fossil fuel resources.

Graham

[Trevor Wilson[_2_]]

"Mark A" > wrote in message
. ..
> "Trevor Wilson" > wrote in message
> ...
>> **True. France is not trying to destroy the US economy. The French
>> government is rightly concerned about the effects of global warming.
>> Global warming will cause problems for France (and everyone else).
>
> France wants to destroy everyone else's economy else France. Pretty much
> the same as every other country in the world. Maybe destroy is the wrong
> word, perhaps "beat the hell out of them" is a better description.

**Nonsense.

Trevor Wilson

[Eeyore]

Mark A wrote:

> "Eeyore" wrote
>
> > Not actually true. I guess you must be American. Your news media is hardly
> > reknowned for accurate reporting of overseas issues.
> >
> > You're thinking I suspect of young French Muslim kids who are suffering
> > from certain 'social exclsusion' issues allegedly. How much of this might be
>
> > self-impsoed is probably worthy of debate in its own right.
> >
> > The general French population is doing OK.
> >
> > Unemployment in France at 8% is higher than the USA at 4.7% but hardly
> > 'very high'.
>
>
> In general the French are OK? You must be kidding me if you think 8%
> unemployment is not high.

You said VERY high. I certainly don't think 8% is VERY high.


> Yes the Muslims are rioting, but so are the students and socialists who want
> guaranteed jobs for life. I guess your news media doesn't tell you what is
> going on in France.

The French have a national trait of demonstrating at the drop of a hat. That
doesn't mean their society is about to fall apart, it's simply what they do.
Quality of life in France is excellent.

Graham

[Eeyore]

Mark A wrote:

> Proliferating the earth

I think you need to consult a dictionary about usage there old chap.


> with nuclear power plants is not exactly what most environmentalists would
> call a good idea.

Are you trying to suggest that 'what most environmentalist think are good ideas'
should be our benchmark !! ??

Graham

[Eeyore]

Mark A wrote:

> "George M. Middius" <cmndr _ george @ comcast . net> wrote
>
> >> If they were seriously interested in only environmental issues, do you
> >> think
> >> they would have built so many nuclear power plants, and via Kyoto,
> >> encouraging everyone else to do the same?
> >
> > Uh-oh. It's wearing off already.
>
> Personally, I have nothing against nuclear power plants, but I have never
> met an environmentalist who agreed.

Patrick Moore.

http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Greenpeace_founder_supports_nuclear_energy

An article supporting nuclear energy written by Patrick Moore appeared in the
Washington Post Outlook section yesterday. Moore was a co-founder of
Greenpeace who currently co-chairs an industry-funded initiative, the Clean
and Safe Energy Coalition, which supports increased use of nuclear energy.

Moore says that his views have changed since founding Greenpeace, and he now
believes that using nuclear energy can help counteract catastrophic climate
change from burning fossil fuels. Says Moore, "The 600-plus coal-fired plants
emit nearly 2 billion tons of CO2 annually -- the equivalent of the exhaust
from about 300 million automobiles." Moore also cites reports from the Clean
Air Council that coal plants are responsible for 64 percent of sulfur dioxide
emissions, 26 percent of nitrous oxides and 33 percent of mercury emissions.

"Meanwhile, the 103 nuclear plants operating in the United States effectively
avoid the release of 700 million tons of CO2 emissions annually," says Moore.
"Nuclear energy is the only large-scale, cost-effective energy source that
can reduce these emissions while continuing to satisfy a growing demand for
power. And these days it can do so safely."

Graham

[Eeyore]

Trevor Wilson wrote:

> "Mark A" wrote
> > "François Yves Le Gal" wrote
> >
> >> Yeah; sure; whatever you say. Oh, you majored in burger flippin' at Jerk
> >> in the Box. I see that you're an expert.
> >
> > No I majored in political science with an emphasis in foreign relations.
> > All nations act in their self interest, all of the time. France is hardly
> > an exception.
>
> **True. France is not trying to destroy the US economy. The French
> government is rightly concerned about the effects of global warming. Global
> warming will cause problems for France (and everyone else).
>
> >
> > This Kyoto smokescreen about "environmental concerns" should be
> > transparent to anyone with brains. Proliferating the earth with nuclear
> > power plants is not exactly what most environmentalists would call a good
> > idea. There is no way anyone can achieve the Kyoto reductions without
> > nuclear power plants.
>
> **Nonsense. Building nukes is one, short term, solution. There are other,
> more prosaic, practical and environmentally benign methods.

Energy efficiency being the big one which sadly often gets overlooked and
rarely merits any serious attention. Quite bizarre.

Reducing how much you use is almost invariably more cost effective than burning
or generating more too.

Graham

[Eeyore]

Mark A wrote:

> France wants to destroy everyone else's economy

You're a crackhead.

Graham

[Mark A]

"Eeyore" > wrote in message
...
>
> You said VERY high. I certainly don't think 8% is VERY high.

If the US unemployment rate rose 70% to 8% overall, I think they would
consider that to be very high. I think there would be rioting in the streets
in the US, just like in France.

> The French have a national trait of demonstrating at the drop of a hat.
> That
> doesn't mean their society is about to fall apart, it's simply what they
> do.
> Quality of life in France is excellent.
>
> Graham

If you have a job, yes the quality of life is fine. But who wants to open a
business in France when it is practically illegal to have layoffs. The high
value of the Euro makes things worse as imports rise and exports fall.
France is on a downward spiral.

[Trevor Wilson[_2_]]

"Eeyore" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Trevor Wilson wrote:
>
>> "Mark A" wrote
>> > "François Yves Le Gal" wrote
>> >
>> >> Yeah; sure; whatever you say. Oh, you majored in burger flippin' at
>> >> Jerk
>> >> in the Box. I see that you're an expert.
>> >
>> > No I majored in political science with an emphasis in foreign
>> > relations.
>> > All nations act in their self interest, all of the time. France is
>> > hardly
>> > an exception.
>>
>> **True. France is not trying to destroy the US economy. The French
>> government is rightly concerned about the effects of global warming.
>> Global
>> warming will cause problems for France (and everyone else).
>>
>> >
>> > This Kyoto smokescreen about "environmental concerns" should be
>> > transparent to anyone with brains. Proliferating the earth with nuclear
>> > power plants is not exactly what most environmentalists would call a
>> > good
>> > idea. There is no way anyone can achieve the Kyoto reductions without
>> > nuclear power plants.
>>
>> **Nonsense. Building nukes is one, short term, solution. There are other,
>> more prosaic, practical and environmentally benign methods.
>
> Energy efficiency being the big one which sadly often gets overlooked and
> rarely merits any serious attention. Quite bizarre.

**Indeed. Worse, no one mentions the fact that easily available uranium will
run out in much less than 100 years. Throium makes far more sense. Less
polluting too. Of course, geo-thermal energy makes far more sense than any
competing source.

>
> Reducing how much you use is almost invariably more cost effective than
> burning
> or generating more too.
>

**Of course.

Trevor Wilson

[Mark A]

"Eeyore" > wrote in message
...
> Are you trying to suggest that 'what most environmentalist think are good
> ideas'
> should be our benchmark !! ??
>
> Graham

No, the title of this thread is the Kyoto Hypocrisy. The environmentalists
thinks that reducing CO2 emissions is important, but I never met any ardent
environmentalist who was willing to go nuclear to achieve that end. And
nuclear is the only way a country could possibly comply with Kyoto, unless
there was a serious economic depression.

So the environmental criticize the US for not signing Kyoto, but they don't
seem to say anything about the countries rapidly building nuclear plants
(which they at least despise).

[Mark A]

"Eeyore" > wrote in message
...
> Patrick Moore.
>
> http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Greenpeace_founder_supports_nuclear_energy
>
> An article supporting nuclear energy written by Patrick Moore appeared in
> the
> Washington Post Outlook section yesterday. Moore was a co-founder of
> Greenpeace who currently co-chairs an industry-funded initiative, the
> Clean
> and Safe Energy Coalition, which supports increased use of nuclear energy.
>
> Moore says that his views have changed since founding Greenpeace, and he
> now
> believes that using nuclear energy can help counteract catastrophic
> climate
> change from burning fossil fuels. Says Moore, "The 600-plus coal-fired
> plants
> emit nearly 2 billion tons of CO2 annually -- the equivalent of the
> exhaust
> from about 300 million automobiles." Moore also cites reports from the
> Clean
> Air Council that coal plants are responsible for 64 percent of sulfur
> dioxide
> emissions, 26 percent of nitrous oxides and 33 percent of mercury
> emissions.
>
> "Meanwhile, the 103 nuclear plants operating in the United States
> effectively
> avoid the release of 700 million tons of CO2 emissions annually," says
> Moore.
> "Nuclear energy is the only large-scale, cost-effective energy source that
> can reduce these emissions while continuing to satisfy a growing demand
> for
> power. And these days it can do so safely."
>
> Graham

He is in the extreme minority. No new nuclear plants have been started in
the US for over 30 years. The Democrats in Congress will not even allow a
bill to pass regarding the safe disposal of nuclear waste.

[George M. Middius]

Poopie has a poopiphany.

> > France wants to destroy everyone else's economy

> You're a crackhead.

You're a Kroopologist.

[Eeyore]

Mark A wrote:

> "Eeyore" wrote
> >
> > You said VERY high. I certainly don't think 8% is VERY high.
>
> If the US unemployment rate rose 70% to 8% overall, I think they would
> consider that to be very high. I think there would be rioting in the streets
> in the US, just like in France.

When do you think there was last 'rioting in the streets' ?

It's quite clear that despite your claims to be educated, you're completely out
of touch with reality.


> > The French have a national trait of demonstrating at the drop of a hat.
> > That doesn't mean their society is about to fall apart, it's simply what
> they
> > do.
> > Quality of life in France is excellent.
>
>
> If you have a job, yes the quality of life is fine. But who wants to open a
> business in France when it is practically illegal to have layoffs. The high
> value of the Euro makes things worse as imports rise and exports fall.
> France is on a downward spiral.

Oh right. They're in a bad way because the currency is worth so much ! LOL

Graham

[Eeyore]

Mark A wrote:

> He [Patrick Moore] is in the extreme minority. No new nuclear plants have been
> started in
> the US for over 30 years. The Democrats in Congress will not even allow a
> bill to pass regarding the safe disposal of nuclear waste.

You're fixating about the USA as all Americans seem to do, thinking you're the
only important place on the planet.

Let me tell you that plans for new nuclear generation are afoot just about
everywhere else. I suggest you put your own house in order and stop whining
about the French being successful.

Graham

[Eeyore]

"George M. Middius" wrote:

> Poopie has a poopiphany.
>
> > > France wants to destroy everyone else's economy
>
> > You're a crackhead.
>
> You're a Kroopologist.

You're a fathead.

[Trevor Wilson[_2_]]

"Mark A" > wrote in message
. ..
> "Eeyore" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Are you trying to suggest that 'what most environmentalist think are good
>> ideas'
>> should be our benchmark !! ??
>>
>> Graham
>
> No, the title of this thread is the Kyoto Hypocrisy. The environmentalists
> thinks that reducing CO2 emissions is important, but I never met any
> ardent environmentalist who was willing to go nuclear to achieve that end.
> And nuclear is the only way a country could possibly comply with Kyoto,
> unless there was a serious economic depression.

**Bull****.

>
> So the environmental criticize the US for not signing Kyoto, but they
> don't seem to say anything about the countries rapidly building nuclear
> plants (which they at least despise).

**Bull****. You guilty of making far too many assumptions.

Trevor Wilson

[Mark A]

"François Yves Le Gal" > wrote in message
...
> Wow. Now i understand why all US foreign policies have been dismal
> failures.

Oh really! Like the foreign policy of France that:

- Had to be rescued by the US in World War I
- Unfairly punished Germany after WWI which led to rise of Adolf Hitler and
caused WWII
- Had to be rescued again by the US in WWII
- French Colonialism in Vietnam and elsewhere in Indochina brutalizes people
for 100 years until the only nationalists still alive are the Communists who
eventually take over Vietnam.
- Colonized the Middle East to make it the mess it is today
- French Colonialism Algeria and killed 2 million Algerians before the
French gave up and left
- etc, etc

Is that the foreign policy you are talking about?

[Eeyore]

Mark A wrote:

> "François Yves Le Gal" > wrote
>
> > Wow. Now i understand why all US foreign policies have been dismal
> > failures.
>
> Oh really! Like the foreign policy of France that:
>
> - Had to be rescued by the US in World War I

By the time the US entered WW1, it was already merely a matter of time before
Germany surrendered.

Graham

[Mark A]

"Eeyore" > wrote in message
...
> By the time the US entered WW1, it was already merely a matter of time
> before
> Germany surrendered.
>
> Graham

No one buys your revisionist history.

[George M. Middius]

Poopie said:

> > If the US unemployment rate rose 70% to 8% overall, I think they would
> > consider that to be very high. I think there would be rioting in the streets
> > in the US, just like in France.

> When do you think there was last 'rioting in the streets' ?

In the U.S., that occurred in 1992, and it had nothing to do with
unemployment.

Poopie, you're not the brightest bulb in the box, but even you should
know better than to trying having a serious exchange with a whack job.

[George M. Middius]

Poopie weighs in wi' the dozens.

> > Poopie has a poopiphany.
> >
> > > > France wants to destroy everyone else's economy
> >
> > > You're a crackhead.
> >
> > You're a Kroopologist.
>
> You're a fathead.

You're still a Kroopologist. Game, set, match.

[Andre Jute]

On Dec 15, 3:00 pm, George M. Middius <cmndr _ george @ comcast .
net> wrote:
> Poopie weighs in wi' the dozens.
>
> > > Poopie has a poopiphany.
>
> > > > > France wants to destroy everyone else's economy
>
> > > > You're a crackhead.
>
> > > You're a Kroopologist.
>
> > You're a fathead.
>
> You're still a Kroopologist. Game, set, match.

Is this what passes for deep thought among the "engineers" these days?

For the money wasted to no good purpose if Kyoto were implemented,
every hungry person in the world can be fed, given basic health care,
clean water and a primary education, which in turn will take him out
of the slough of self-perpetuating poverty. But you guys merely see it
as an opportunity to sling dull abuse at each other.

I'm ashamed to have you on a conference I contribute to.

Andre Jute
Thumbs well clear of the bricks

[Mark A]

"George M. Middius" <cmndr _ george @ comcast . net> wrote in message
...
>
> Poopie, you're not the brightest bulb in the box, but even you should
> know better than to trying having a serious exchange with a whack job.

You are very adept at throwing garbage and name-calling instead of rational
argument, but considering that this rao and you have been here a long time,
I am not surprised.

[George M. Middius]

Mark A said:

> > Poopie, you're not the brightest bulb in the box, but even you should
> > know better than to trying having a serious exchange with a whack job.

> You are very adept at throwing garbage and name-calling instead of rational
> argument

Thank you for the compliment, Mr. Whacko.

[Peter Wieck]

On Dec 15, 11:31 am, Andre Jute > wrote:

> I'm ashamed to have you on a conference I contribute to.

Is *THAT* what you call it? Coulda fooled me.

And you are far more of a fool if you believe your little food/
healthcare/education crap. It is a brutal, ugly, unhappy fact that 20%
of the world lives as it does requires that the other 80% lives as it
does. It is certainly possible to do everything you state - for a few
months. After which point all the available resources to that end
would be entirely exhausted. The concept of piping clean water from
southern New York (in considerable surplus at this point) to North
Africa (in similar-quantity deficit) does boggle the mind some. And
ground water is a VERY limited resource. Either that or shift
populations. We haven't gotten around to protein, electricity,
fertilizers, delivery systems, educational materials, and on and on.

It is an unhappy reality that Freedom and Democracy (with capital
letters) are luxuries of the very rich, extremely recent developments
in human history, incredibly fragile concepts, and mightily
threatened. Democracy in any meaningful way did not even exist in the
US until 1920 (women finally got the vote) and some would say 1965
(The Voting Rights Act). That is how "recent" its practice - and how
soon we forget.

Now, of course, you could "equalize" said resources across the board.
Thereby raising the 80% and reducing the 20% - after the initial
infrastructure problems are addressed. The difficulty there is getting
that 20% to go along with it, and getting the 80% to accept so little
(both in increase and in hope). So, that something is possible in
concept does not make it possible within the limits of human nature.

This sort of mindless feel-good tripe puts me in mind of those who
wish to exploit the oil reserves in the Alaskan wilderness (AKA:
ANWR). There are billions of barrels of oil in the ground there - no
argument. And they are readily exploitable with present technology.
However:

a) It would take ~10 years and ~$12 billion dollars to do so.
b) After which the entirety of the reserves would last the US (at
present consumption levels) approximately nineteen (19) months based
on USDOE Estimates.
c) Double that if you will by assuming reduced consumption.

All sorts of happy lip-service may be paid to all sorts of hack/
crackpot ideas. But the bottom line does not alter one whit. Whether
it is by man-made efforts, natural cycles, accident or divine design
and intervention, the world *is* changing such that our grandchildren
will live very different lives than we have - they will have no choice
at all in the matter. We have essentially two choices - we leave them
something to build on, or we leave them nothing much at all but the
consequences of our greed.

Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA

[John Byrns]

In article
>,
Peter Wieck > wrote:

> All sorts of happy lip-service may be paid to all sorts of hack/
> crackpot ideas. But the bottom line does not alter one whit. Whether
> it is by man-made efforts, natural cycles, accident or divine design
> and intervention, the world *is* changing such that our grandchildren
> will live very different lives than we have - they will have no choice
> at all in the matter. We have essentially two choices - we leave them
> something to build on, or we leave them nothing much at all but the
> consequences of our greed.

But your grandchildren are presumably part of the 20%, say you "leave
them something to build on", what do you plan on doing for the other 80%?


Regards,

John Byrns

--
Surf my web pages at, http://fmamradios.com/

[Peter Wieck]

On Dec 15, 5:53 pm, John Byrns > wrote:

> But your grandchildren are presumably part of the 20%, say you "leave
> them something to build on", what do you plan on doing for the other 80%?

John:

I will recognize that they exist, that they are are part of the reason
that me and mine are part of the 20%. And I will do my level best to
see to it that my grandchildren are well educated, understand that
they will only remain as part of the 20% if they are smarter, faster,
better educated, more productive, more thoughtful, and worthy of that
position.

What I will not do is deny the position that my family has made for
itself nor the cost to the rest of the world that it should remain
so.

Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA

[Eeyore]

Andre Jute wrote:

> For the money wasted to no good purpose if Kyoto were implemented,
> every hungry person in the world can be fed, given basic health care,
> clean water and a primary education, which in turn will take him out
> of the slough of self-perpetuating poverty.

Goodness.

Occasioanally you do actually make some sense.

Mind you, you might need to get rid of a few African dictators to do much
for the darker parts of that blighted continent.

Graham

[Stephen[_2_]]

"Peter Wieck" > wrote in message
...
> On Dec 15, 11:31 am, Andre Jute > wrote:
>
> > I'm ashamed to have you on a conference I contribute to.
>
> Is *THAT* what you call it? Coulda fooled me.
>
> And you are far more of a fool if you believe your little food/
> healthcare/education crap. It is a brutal, ugly, unhappy fact that 20%
> of the world lives as it does requires that the other 80% lives as it
> does. It is certainly possible to do everything you state - for a few
> months. After which point all the available resources to that end
> would be entirely exhausted. The concept of piping clean water from
> southern New York (in considerable surplus at this point) to North
> Africa (in similar-quantity deficit) does boggle the mind some. And
> ground water is a VERY limited resource. Either that or shift
> populations. We haven't gotten around to protein, electricity,
> fertilizers, delivery systems, educational materials, and on and on.
>
> It is an unhappy reality that Freedom and Democracy (with capital
> letters) are luxuries of the very rich, extremely recent developments
> in human history, incredibly fragile concepts, and mightily
> threatened. Democracy in any meaningful way did not even exist in the
> US until 1920 (women finally got the vote) and some would say 1965
> (The Voting Rights Act). That is how "recent" its practice - and how
> soon we forget.
>
> Now, of course, you could "equalize" said resources across the board.
> Thereby raising the 80% and reducing the 20% - after the initial
> infrastructure problems are addressed. The difficulty there is getting
> that 20% to go along with it, and getting the 80% to accept so little
> (both in increase and in hope). So, that something is possible in
> concept does not make it possible within the limits of human nature.
>
> This sort of mindless feel-good tripe puts me in mind of those who
> wish to exploit the oil reserves in the Alaskan wilderness (AKA:
> ANWR). There are billions of barrels of oil in the ground there - no
> argument. And they are readily exploitable with present technology.
> However:
>
> a) It would take ~10 years and ~$12 billion dollars to do so.
> b) After which the entirety of the reserves would last the US (at
> present consumption levels) approximately nineteen (19) months based
> on USDOE Estimates.
> c) Double that if you will by assuming reduced consumption.
>
> All sorts of happy lip-service may be paid to all sorts of hack/
> crackpot ideas. But the bottom line does not alter one whit. Whether
> it is by man-made efforts, natural cycles, accident or divine design
> and intervention, the world *is* changing such that our grandchildren
> will live very different lives than we have - they will have no choice
> at all in the matter. We have essentially two choices - we leave them
> something to build on, or we leave them nothing much at all but the
> consequences of our greed.
>
> Peter Wieck
> Wyncote, PA

I told you to stop berating people or I'll tell them about a 13 year old boy
who got lost in the woods.

S

[[email protected]]

On Jan 29, 1:38*am, "Stephen" > wrote:

> I told you to stop berating people or I'll tell them about a 13 year old boy
> who got lost in the woods.


Pillock:

DO tell. Please.

Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA