Urgent note for Mikey McBugEater

[George M. Middius]

The global warmingists are ganging up on you, Mickey. CNN is reporting a
story about glaciers melting.

"Glaciers are shrinking at record rates and many could disappear within
decades, the U.N. Environment Program said Sunday."

Why did the U.N. join the greenies and the ecofreaks to rattle your cage?
What's their ultimate goal? We know it's all hollow propaganda that's been
completely discredited by one out of every six climatologists.

Here, read the whole story and explain it to us:
http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/weather/03/16/un.climate.ap/index.html

[Clyde Slick]

On 16 Mar, 17:55, George M. Middius <cmndr _ george @ comcast . net>
wrote:
> The global warmingists are ganging up on you, Mickey. CNN is reporting a
> story about glaciers melting.
>
> "Glaciers are shrinking at record rates and many could disappear within
> decades, the U.N. Environment Program said Sunday."
>
> Why did the U.N. join the greenies and the ecofreaks to rattle your cage?
> What's their ultimate goal? We know it's all hollow propaganda that's been
> completely discredited by one out of every six climatologists.
>
> Here, read the whole story and explain it to us:http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/weather/03/16/un.climate.ap/index.html

I read a story about soem disturbing GW report, just last week. the
scientist said we have to stop ALL carbon emissions
within the next ten years, or earth is totally
doomed. I just don't know how we are going to keep the cows form
farting.
as wind is the only non global warming source of power, maybe we can
"at least"
mitigate this factor by installing mini fans on each cows anus.

[George M. Middius]

Clyde Slick said:

> > The global warmingists are ganging up on you, Mickey. CNN is reporting a
> > story about glaciers melting.
> >
> > "Glaciers are shrinking at record rates and many could disappear within
> > decades, the U.N. Environment Program said Sunday."
> >
> > Why did the U.N. join the greenies and the ecofreaks to rattle your cage?
> > What's their ultimate goal? We know it's all hollow propaganda that's been
> > completely discredited by one out of every six climatologists.

> > Here, read the whole story and explain it to us:

> > http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/weather/03/16/un.climate.ap/index.html

> I read a story about soem disturbing GW report, just last week. the
> scientist said we have to stop ALL carbon emissions within the next ten years,
> or earth is totally doomed. I just don't know how we are going to keep the cows form farting.

You just said "keep the cows form farting." Why aren't you ashamed?

> as wind is the only non global warming source of power, maybe we can
> "at least" mitigate this factor by installing mini fans on each cows anus.

We can do without the cows.

You forgot hydro and solar. Also, the latest technology at gas- and
coal-fired power plants is able to capture CO2 emissions and inter them.

Anyway, I wasn't looking for a debate about the issue. I just wanted to
see duh-Mikey blow a gasket.

[Clyde Slick]

On 16 Mar, 18:18, George M. Middius <cmndr _ george @ comcast . net>
wrote:

>
> Anyway, I wasn't looking for a debate about the issue. I just wanted to
> see duh-Mikey blow a gasket.

Best plan for that would be to find out where he lives and widen the
road in front of his houe.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Mar 16, 5:07*pm, Clyde Slick > wrote:
> On 16 Mar, 17:55, George M. Middius <cmndr _ *george @ comcast . net>
> wrote:
>
> > The global warmingists are ganging up on you, Mickey. CNN is reporting a
> > story about glaciers melting.
>
> > "Glaciers are shrinking at record rates and many could disappear within
> > decades, the U.N. Environment Program said Sunday."
>
> > Why did the U.N. join the greenies and the ecofreaks to rattle your cage?
> > What's their ultimate goal? We know it's all hollow propaganda that's been
> > completely discredited by one out of every six climatologists.
>
> > Here, read the whole story and explain it to us:http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/weather/03/16/un.climate.ap/index.html
>
> I read a story about soem disturbing GW report, just last week. the
> scientist said we have to stop ALL carbon emissions
> within the next ten years, or earth is totally
> doomed. I just don't know how we are going to keep the cows form
> farting.

That's methane. I suppose you could light the farts and get carbon.

> as wind is the only non global warming source of power, maybe we can
> "at least"
> mitigate this factor by installing mini fans on each cows anus.

As long as you do not suggest this for dogs, as it would interfere
with 2pid's "hobby".

[Trevor Wilson[_2_]]

"George M. Middius" <cmndr _ george @ comcast . net> wrote in message
...
>
>
> Clyde Slick said:
>
>> > The global warmingists are ganging up on you, Mickey. CNN is reporting
>> > a
>> > story about glaciers melting.
>> >
>> > "Glaciers are shrinking at record rates and many could disappear within
>> > decades, the U.N. Environment Program said Sunday."
>> >
>> > Why did the U.N. join the greenies and the ecofreaks to rattle your
>> > cage?
>> > What's their ultimate goal? We know it's all hollow propaganda that's
>> > been
>> > completely discredited by one out of every six climatologists.
>
>> > Here, read the whole story and explain it to us:
>
>> > http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/weather/03/16/un.climate.ap/index.html
>
>> I read a story about soem disturbing GW report, just last week. the
>> scientist said we have to stop ALL carbon emissions within the next ten
>> years,
>> or earth is totally doomed. I just don't know how we are going to keep
>> the cows form farting.
>
> You just said "keep the cows form farting." Why aren't you ashamed?
>
>> as wind is the only non global warming source of power, maybe we can
>> "at least" mitigate this factor by installing mini fans on each cows
>> anus.
>
> We can do without the cows.

**Indeed and, I suspect, the cows can do very nicely without us.

>
> You forgot hydro and solar. Also, the latest technology at gas- and
> coal-fired power plants is able to capture CO2 emissions and inter them.

**Yep. Don't forget the big one: Geo-thermal energy. An excellent,
non-polluting source of BASE LOAD power. The technology is well known and
proven. Comparably priced to a nuke, without the pollution and huge
de-commissioning costs.

>
> Anyway, I wasn't looking for a debate about the issue. I just wanted to
> see duh-Mikey blow a gasket.

**He'll just find some obscure reference from some scientist who studies
biology and is prepared to put his name to some bogus information supplied
by the fossil fuel industry. He'll manage to ignore the reality of the
situation though. Kinda like Dubya.

Trevor Wilson

[George M. Middius]

Trevor Wilson said:

> > You forgot hydro and solar. Also, the latest technology at gas- and
> > coal-fired power plants is able to capture CO2 emissions and inter them.
>
> **Yep. Don't forget the big one: Geo-thermal energy. An excellent,
> non-polluting source of BASE LOAD power. The technology is well known and
> proven. Comparably priced to a nuke, without the pollution and huge
> de-commissioning costs.

This is true but only up to a point. The number of sites with accessible
(i.e. economically viable) geothermal energy is very small. In most
places, the superheated water needed to spin turbines is so far
underground that the startup costs are formidable. When the landscape
changes, and economies adjust to higher energy cost, geothermal will move
up in prominence.

There's still nuclear fusion, too. Hydrogen fusion is in the pipeline in a
couple places. And helium fusion is beckoning from the Moon.

> > Anyway, I wasn't looking for a debate about the issue. I just wanted to
> > see duh-Mikey blow a gasket.
>
> **He'll just find some obscure reference from some scientist who studies
> biology and is prepared to put his name to some bogus information supplied
> by the fossil fuel industry. He'll manage to ignore the reality of the
> situation though. Kinda like Dubya.

You're not a fan of the Bug Eater? Too bad.

Meanwhile, it's worth noting that the Krooborg is still unable to
rationalize the idiotic babbling on his chruch's web site.

[Clyde Slick]

On 16 Mar, 23:35, George M. Middius <cmndr _ george @ comcast . net>
wrote:

> There's still nuclear fusion, too.

Talk about a danger to the environment.
Never mind safety issues and security, but the waste will just keep
piling up.
of course, we can just ship it into deep space.
No worse than Krueger at the beach, ****ting into the ocean.

[Trevor Wilson[_2_]]

"George M. Middius" <cmndr _ george @ comcast . net> wrote in message
...
>
>
> Trevor Wilson said:
>
>> > You forgot hydro and solar. Also, the latest technology at gas- and
>> > coal-fired power plants is able to capture CO2 emissions and inter
>> > them.
>>
>> **Yep. Don't forget the big one: Geo-thermal energy. An excellent,
>> non-polluting source of BASE LOAD power. The technology is well known and
>> proven. Comparably priced to a nuke, without the pollution and huge
>> de-commissioning costs.
>
> This is true but only up to a point. The number of sites with accessible
> (i.e. economically viable) geothermal energy is very small. In most
> places, the superheated water needed to spin turbines is so far
> underground that the startup costs are formidable. When the landscape
> changes, and economies adjust to higher energy cost, geothermal will move
> up in prominence.

**I am not familiar with the costs and issues in the US. It is viable here
in Australia. The major impediment is entrenched special interest groups.
Unfortunately, one of those groups is the coal mining union (and other
associated unions). Given our present government is union friendly, I expect
little to change. Ironically, the previous government was big business
friendly and nothing changed, due to the demands from the coal mining
interests, transport interests and others. There is a great deal to gain by
maintaining the status quo. There's a lot to lose too.

>
> There's still nuclear fusion, too. Hydrogen fusion is in the pipeline in a
> couple places. And helium fusion is beckoning from the Moon.

**Fusion is 20 years away. Fusion has always been 20 years away.

>
>> > Anyway, I wasn't looking for a debate about the issue. I just wanted to
>> > see duh-Mikey blow a gasket.
>>
>> **He'll just find some obscure reference from some scientist who studies
>> biology and is prepared to put his name to some bogus information
>> supplied
>> by the fossil fuel industry. He'll manage to ignore the reality of the
>> situation though. Kinda like Dubya.
>
> You're not a fan of the Bug Eater? Too bad.

**Not so much. I don't know Mikey. I have no respect for his ideas.

>
> Meanwhile, it's worth noting that the Krooborg is still unable to
> rationalize the idiotic babbling on his chruch's web site.

**I still want to know how Arny rationalises his ideas on the supernatural
with his professed belief in science. The two are mutually incompatible.

Trevor Wilson

[Trevor Wilson[_2_]]

"Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
...
> On 16 Mar, 23:35, George M. Middius <cmndr _ george @ comcast . net>
> wrote:
>
>> There's still nuclear fusion, too.
>
> Talk about a danger to the environment.

**Nope. Fusion is MUCH cleaner than fission. Not only are byproducts
relatively benign, but fusion requires energy input for sustained operation.
Fission does not. With a (theoretical) fusion reactor, if you want it to
stop operating, you flick a switch. Fission reactors cannot easily be shut
down.

> Never mind safety issues and security, but the waste will just keep
> piling up.

**Not with fusion. Most of the by-products are not dangerous. The only one
which is has a half life of 12 years. Fission reactors produce by-products
with half lives in the oder of tens of thousands of years.

> of course, we can just ship it into deep space.
> No worse than Krueger at the beach, ****ting into the ocean.

**Here's a starter for you:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fusion_reactor

Trevor Wilson

[Clyde Slick]

On 17 Mar, 00:02, "Trevor Wilson" >
wrote:
> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message

> >> There's still nuclear fusion, too.
>
> > Talk about a danger to the environment.
>
> **Nope. Fusion is MUCH cleaner than fission. Not only are byproducts
> relatively benign, but fusion requires energy input for sustained operation.
> Fission does not. With a (theoretical) fusion reactor, if you want it to
> stop operating, you flick a switch. Fission reactors cannot easily be shut
> down.
>

My apologies for my not reading carefully.
I missed the word fusion, thought you were talking about fission.
However, IWILL NOT APOLGIXE FOR MY BAD TYPNIG AND
REFUSAL TO US EA SPELLCHECKER!!!!!

[George M. Middius]

Clyde Slick said:

> > There's still nuclear fusion, too.
>
> Talk about a danger to the environment.
> Never mind safety issues and security, but the waste will just keep
> piling up.

What waste would that be? Extra helium?

[George M. Middius]

Clyde Slick said:

> My apologies for my not reading carefully.
> I missed the word fusion, thought you were talking about fission.
> However, IWILL NOT APOLGIXE FOR MY BAD TYPNIG AND
> REFUSAL TO US EA SPELLCHECKER!!!!!

Maybe we can get Witlessmongrel to apologize for you. After all, you've
done it often enough for him.

[Clyde Slick]

On 17 Mar, 00:36, George M. Middius <cmndr _ george @ comcast . net>
wrote:
> Clyde Slick said:
>
> > My apologies for my not reading carefully.
> > I missed the word fusion, thought you were talking about fission.
> > However, IWILL NOT APOLGIXE FOR MY BAD TYPNIG AND
> > REFUSAL TO US EA SPELLCHECKER!!!!!
>
> Maybe we can get Witlessmongrel to apologize for you. After all, you've
> done it often enough for him.

He doesn't need to apologize for me, but it woud be nice
if he would edit my ;posts for me.

[George M. Middius]

Clyde Slick said:

> > > My apologies for my not reading carefully.
> > > I missed the word fusion, thought you were talking about fission.
> > > However, IWILL NOT APOLGIXE FOR MY BAD TYPNIG AND
> > > REFUSAL TO US EA SPELLCHECKER!!!!!
> >
> > Maybe we can get Witlessmongrel to apologize for you. After all, you've
> > done it often enough for him.
>
> He doesn't need to apologize for me, but it woud be nice
> if he would edit my ;posts for me.

It's bad enough you seem to be typing with prosthetic hooks. Do you want
to appear to be a moron as well?

[Clyde Slick]

On 17 Mar, 00:35, George M. Middius <cmndr _ george @ comcast . net>
wrote:
> Clyde Slick said:
>
> > > There's still nuclear fusion, too.
>
> > Talk about a danger to the environment.
> > Never mind safety issues and security, but the waste will just keep
> > piling up.
>
> What waste would that be? Extra helium?

Send it to Grosse Pointe Woods.
I thinl we should invite Krueger to round 2 of the great debate.
We can give him another free mooch, if he agrees to debate
while sucking helium.
this time, the pc projector will work, so he can read his charts.

[Clyde Slick]

On 17 Mar, 00:47, George M. Middius <cmndr _ george @ comcast . net>
wrote:
> Clyde Slick said:
>
> > > > My apologies for my not reading carefully.
> > > > I missed the word fusion, thought you were talking about fission.
> > > > However, IWILL NOT APOLGIXE FOR MY BAD TYPNIG AND
> > > > REFUSAL TO US EA SPELLCHECKER!!!!!
>
> > > Maybe we can get Witlessmongrel to apologize for you. After all, you've
> > > done it often enough for him.
>
> > He doesn't need to apologize for me, but it woud be nice
> > if he would edit my ;posts for me.
>
> It's bad enough you seem to be typing with prosthetic hooks. Do you want
> to appear to be a moron as well?

I meant for typing, of course.
I can wirte my own verbage.
"At least" it will have some clarity.
Engineers can't write.

[Clyde Slick]

On 17 Mar, 00:47, George M. Middius <cmndr _ george @ comcast . net>
wrote:
> Clyde Slick said:
>
> > > > My apologies for my not reading carefully.
> > > > I missed the word fusion, thought you were talking about fission.
> > > > However, IWILL NOT APOLGIXE FOR MY BAD TYPNIG AND
> > > > REFUSAL TO US EA SPELLCHECKER!!!!!
>
> > > Maybe we can get Witlessmongrel to apologize for you. After all, you've
> > > done it often enough for him.
>
> > He doesn't need to apologize for me, but it woud be nice
> > if he would edit my ;posts for me.
>
> It's bad enough you seem to be typing with prosthetic hooks. Do you want
> to appear to be a moron as well?

http://www.bhigr.com/store/files/product_images/detailed/d_78.jpg

[George M. Middius]

Clyde Slick said:

> > It's bad enough you seem to be typing with prosthetic hooks. Do you want
> > to appear to be a moron as well?
>
> I meant for typing, of course.
> I can wirte my own verbage.
> "At least" it will have some clarity.
> Engineers can't write.

You're being kind to Scottie.