Page 66 of 111 FirstFirst ... 1656616263646566676869707176 ... LastLast
Results 1,301 to 1,320 of 2209
  1. #1301  
    Quote Originally Posted by gojeda View Post
    Because the greenies, who are generally very good at complaining, but not so good at offering solutions, generally eschew nuclear power based on (in their minds) prohibitive environmental concerns.
    I thought it was more rhetoric...just wanted to be sure.

    I don't believe our failure to build nuclear plants at the same rate as others was necessarily the fault of one party - they're both to blame. But then again, while the matter of safety has improved greatly (thanks to the guinea pigs living near Three Mile and Chernobyl) the issue of the high cost and the whole matter of waste management are still problematic. Put in the proper context I think nuclear power was the victim of a perfect storm to some degree. Three Mile, Chernobyl, the nuclear arms race, and cheaper fossil fuel all played a role in creating a sense that "we don't need" nuclear power.
  2. #1302  
    Quote Originally Posted by moderateinny View Post
    The latest government Arctic report card is now available http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/reportcard/index.html

    It's not pretty.
    The name of this thread is "Global Warming, True/False, Blame?" - it would seem this report merits some discussion. Or am I to assume based on the last few postings that the momentum of this thread is now aimed squarely at the wonderments of fossil fuels and the dismay that we didn't exploit nuclear energy in this country?
  3. gojeda's Avatar
    Posts
    93 Posts
    Global Posts
    104 Global Posts
    #1303  
    Quote Originally Posted by moderateinny View Post
    I don't believe our failure to build nuclear plants at the same rate as others was necessarily the fault of one party - they're both to blame.
    Well you clearly have a partisan mentality. My statement, however, was directed to the Greenies and NIMBYs who have waged a very successful campaign of FUD to kill many energy initiatives - one of them being nuclear energy.

    The enviromental lobby, for better or for worse, is super powerful in this country - some say as powerful as the oil lobby. Based on the near hysteria and phobia directed at nuclear energy, I'd say the characterization is about right.
  4. #1304  
    Quote Originally Posted by gojeda View Post
    Well you clearly have a partisan mentality.
    Spoken by a true partisan himself. Only you could see my comments that the blame is equally shared by both parties (read: non-partisan) as partisan.

    My statement, however, was directed to the Greenies and NIMBYs who have waged a very successful campaign of FUD to kill many energy initiatives - one of them being nuclear energy.
    Three Mile and Chernobyl were the product of "Greenies and NIMBYs" FUD? Really? Sure they campaigned against it and played a role in its demise, but somebody else played a role in giving them the ammo. The point is that it is silly to solely blame a bunch of Birkenstock wearing liberals (as you like to call them....amongst other things) for the energy crisis we are in.

    The enviromental lobby, for better or for worse, is super powerful in this country - some say as powerful as the oil lobby. Based on the near hysteria and phobia directed at nuclear energy, I'd say the characterization is about right.
    Well I'd say the characterization is extreme or another one of your half truths.

    Aside from that, what does the oil industry gain from an increased use in nuclear power? Just trying to figure out if your concerns about the missed opportunity to build more nuclear plants is geniune or simply more piling on the Dems because it feels good, no matter how poorly supported your argument is?
  5. #1305  
    Hey Woof, nice to see you around! I see you are now in Las Vegas now? Anyway, best wishes to you and your family! Concerning global warming and my comment, you are right, I cant speak for everyone, and its a choice everyone needs to make themselves. But only a foolish person would let a work of complete fiction like State of Fear influence their decision. And I know you are better than that Woof . And if you have a personal bias against Al Gore, go ahead and ignore him too. But what I find it hard to understand why anyone would reject out of hand the recommendations of the most reputable and respected scientific journals and organizations in the United States on this issue.
    http://www.aaas.org/news/press_room/climate_change/
    http://www.nature.com/nature/journal...l/445567a.html
  6. gojeda's Avatar
    Posts
    93 Posts
    Global Posts
    104 Global Posts
    #1306  
    Quote Originally Posted by moderateinny View Post
    Spoken by a true partisan himself. Only you could see my comments that the blame is equally shared by both parties (read: non-partisan) as partisan.
    The record shows that you are a liberal that runs away from the term. Nothing new there.

    Three Mile and Chernobyl were the product of "Greenies and NIMBYs" FUD? Really?
    Chernobyl was the result of poor Russian design that is not used in this country (something which, of course, a greenie would never tell you).

    The Mile Island results in no deaths, no injuries, and no damage to the nearby community. Upgrades to plants since then have made the same accident practically unrepeatable.

    ...again, all facts that the greenie and NIMBYs would never tell anyone.

    Sure they campaigned against it and played a role in its demise, but somebody else played a role in giving them the ammo. The point is that it is silly to solely blame a bunch of Birkenstock wearing liberals (as you like to call them....amongst other things) for the energy crisis we are in.
    I never said they were soley to blame, but they were instrumental, perhaps more than anyone, in getting the country into the energy issues we face today.

    Aside from that, what does the oil industry gain from an increased use in nuclear power?
    Nothing....I merely raise the comment that the envirowhacko lobby is just as strong, if not stronger, than the oil lobby. I was not trying to draw a correlation between oil and nuclear interests.

    Just trying to figure out if your concerns about the missed opportunity to build more nuclear plants is geniune or simply more piling on the Dems because it feels good, no matter how poorly supported your argument is?
    Yea - the envirowhackos never had anything to do with the fact that we haven't put a nuclear plant online since 1997.

    Surely you can come up with a better excuse Modboy.
  7. #1307  
    Quote Originally Posted by gojeda View Post
    The record shows that you are a liberal that runs away from the term. Nothing new there.
    If you mean liberal as compared to your oil soaked paramilitary-like neoconservatism - guilty as charged. Otherwise, you're barking up that tree again?

    Chernobyl was the result of poor Russian design that is not used in this country (something which, of course, a greenie would never tell you).

    The Mile Island results in no deaths, no injuries, and no damage to the nearby community. Upgrades to plants since then have made the same accident practically unrepeatable.

    ...again, all facts that the greenie and NIMBYs would never tell anyone.
    Not sure I dispute any of that. But you seem to be continuing to imply that the "greenies and the NIMBYs were entirely to blame for public perception of what happened with either of those events. Again, they surely had something to do with it but I think there was plenty of folks on both sides of the isle that were concerned about the safety of nuclear power.

    I never said they were soley to blame, but they were instrumental, perhaps more than anyone, in getting the country into the energy issues we face today.
    Cry me a river...aren't you guys raking in record setting billions in profits these days? Seems to me they didn't influence things enough because if they had we may not be as reliant on oil from companies like yours.

    Nothing....I merely raise the comment that the envirowhacko lobby is just as strong, if not stronger, than the oil lobby. I was not trying to draw a correlation between oil and nuclear interests.
    That would be one weak argument.

    Yea - the envirowhackos never had anything to do with the fact that we haven't put a nuclear plant online since 1997.
    I used the term half-truth, meaning, you're half right about environmentalist (and half is being generous). So where in that statement did you come away with "never had anything to do with...?"

    Surely you can come up with a better excuse Modboy.
    Are you drinking that oil you're drilling? What "excuse" are you referring to?

    Feel free to share your oil-stained views on the Arctic report from one of your former employers. BTW - did they figure out you were a neocon or did you leave because there were too many sane people working there that knew global warming was a real threat? And by former employers I don't mean Exxon or Amocco.

    Last edited by moderateinny; 10/18/2007 at 02:48 PM.
  8. gojeda's Avatar
    Posts
    93 Posts
    Global Posts
    104 Global Posts
    #1308  
    Quote Originally Posted by moderateinny View Post
    If you mean liberal as compared to your oil soaked paramilitary-like neoconservatism - guilty as charged. Otherwise, you're barking up that tree again?



    Not sure I dispute any of that. But you seem to be continuing to imply that the "greenies and the NIMBYs were entirely to blame for public perception of what happened with either of those events. Again, they surely had something to do with it but I think there was plenty of folks on both sides of the isle that were concerned about the safety of nuclear power.
    Feel free to cite which groups, outside of NIMBYs and Greenies, that have been at the forefront on the fight against nuclear power.

    Don't strain youself there.


    Cry me a river...aren't you guys raking in record setting billions in profits these days? Seems to me they didn't influence things enough because if they had we may not be as reliant on oil from companies like yours.
    Which is why I said from the outset that your bretheren, the Greenies and the NIMBYs, are quite the whiners, but offer little else.

    That would be one weak argument.
    Feel free to attempt to discredit it. I have already provided one proof as to the power of the envirowhacko lobby.

    Feel free to share your oil-stained views on the Arctic report from one of your former employers. BTW - did they figure out you were a neocon or did you leave because there were too many sane people working there that knew global warming was a real threat? And by former employers I don't mean Exxon or Amocco.
    Booooring....

    Can't you come up with anything more original?
  9. #1309  
    I'm glad we can all agree:

    Global warming (in terms of human effect on climate) is a myth and peretuates a fear mongering and special interest machine.

    - Pollution is a problem that needs to be addressed.

    - Nuke power is good power and would solve most energy independence issues.
  10. #1310  
    Quote Originally Posted by mikec View Post
    I'm glad we can all agree:

    Global warming (in terms of human effect on climate) is a myth and peretuates a fear mongering and special interest machine.

    - Pollution is a problem that needs to be addressed.

    - Nuke power is good power and would solve most energy independence issues.
    Nice flame bait mikec. Shame really...I had high hopes for you.
  11. #1311  
    Quote Originally Posted by whmurray View Post
    Of course, this means that we are smarter economically than our political rhetoric would suggest. The rhetoric about "energy independence" is silly. While we do not want to be in a position where we cannot meet our own needs if absolutely necessary, when consuming a finite resource, one clearly wants to hoard ones own (whether one does that in the ground or in a tank) while using everyone else's. True energy independence is to be the last man standing.

    One reason that we import is that the cost of extraction is lower elsewhere than here. When oil was relatively plentiful and the cost of extraction was a major part of the market price, importing made sense for that reason. Today the market price contains transportation, political risk, and a huge scarcity premium.

    Oil now plays a role in international trade that gold once did, that is to balance a nation's imports and exports with the value of its currency. As we continue to import, mostly oil, the value of our currency falls. (Note that only the price of oil imports is rising in dollars while the price of manufactured goods falls, even in otherwise cheap dollars.)
    Isn't it true that the 2 hijacked flights on 9/11 that went into Manhatten had to pass over 2 nuclear reactors on their way? I wonder how many more deaths might have been the result if they had really been declaring 'war' on us. Hhhmmm . . . .
  12. #1312  
    High hopes for me? Well, maybe I will have a point of contrition and change my ways.

    Wasn't a flame, just the facts.
  13. #1313  
    Quote Originally Posted by lifes2short View Post
    Isn't it true that the 2 hijacked flights on 9/11 that went into Manhatten had to pass over 2 nuclear reactors on their way? I wonder how many more deaths might have been the result if they had really been declaring 'war' on us. Hhhmmm . . . .
    Our media has taught us that we are entitled to a "risk free" world and that whenever anything goes wrong it is because of some villian. In fact the world is very risky place. Many of the risks we can influence, usually at the expense of some other risk.

    For example, tens of thousands of people die every year as the result of earthquakes. Most of them do not die as the result of the earth moving but because the structures that they built to protect them from wind, cold, and rain fall down on them and kill or injure them. For generations the Japanese built very light homes that would not hurt them in an earthquake but at an increased risk of fire.

    Many of the risks become cultural and institutionalized so as to resist any change. NIMBY is an example of cultural resistance to change. It also illustrates that changes may serve some at the expense of others.

    We sort these things out over generations using politics and economics. To the extent that anyone is to blame when we suffer the consequences of our decisions, the blame is collective and there is plenty of it to go around. Both politics and economics are messy processes.

    In this thread, we are engaged in politics. I am here to learn. I put forward my tentative conclusions to test them, to see if they persuade others, to see if there are flaws that I have not recognized, and to elicit the knowledge of others. I do not delude myself that I am engaged in an easy process. I do not delude myself that the positions that I choose are not influenced more by my local and personal interests than by the collective good. I particpate in the belief that the collective process and the collective choices are superior to those that might be chosen by the most benevolent and altruistic individual. I participate in the belief that, as messy as it is, there is no better way to do it.

    I admit to being fearful of "true believers" who are so convinced of their own moral superiority that they are willing to impose their choices on others by force. I am here to persuade and to be persuaded.

    Everyone else participating here is my peer. They are entitled to my respect. While they may be ignorant, biased, or foolish, they are no more so than I.
    Each brings valuable knowledge and experience.
  14. #1314  
    Quote Originally Posted by whmurray View Post
    [...] I particpate in the belief that the collective process and the collective choices are superior to those that might be chosen by the most benevolent and altruistic individual. [...]
    Out of curiosity, why do you believe this is so? While I think there are cases where it is, I would never think it universally so (probably not even close).
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  15. #1315  
    Quote Originally Posted by whmurray View Post
    Our media has taught us that we are entitled to a "risk free" world and that whenever anything goes wrong it is because of some villian. In fact the world is very risky place. Many of the risks we can influence, usually at the expense of some other risk.

    For example, tens of thousands of people die every year as the result of earthquakes. Most of them do not die as the result of the earth moving but because the structures that they built to protect them from wind, cold, and rain fall down on them and kill or injure them. For generations the Japanese built very light homes that would not hurt them in an earthquake but at an increased risk of fire.

    Many of the risks become cultural and institutionalized so as to resist any change. NIMBY is an example of cultural resistance to change. It also illustrates that changes may serve some at the expense of others.

    We sort these things out over generations using politics and economics. To the extent that anyone is to blame when we suffer the consequences of our decisions, the blame is collective and there is plenty of it to go around. Both politics and economics are messy processes.

    In this thread, we are engaged in politics. I am here to learn. I put forward my tentative conclusions to test them, to see if they persuade others, to see if there are flaws that I have not recognized, and to elicit the knowledge of others. I do not delude myself that I am engaged in an easy process. I do not delude myself that the positions that I choose are not influenced more by my local and personal interests than by the collective good. I particpate in the belief that the collective process and the collective choices are superior to those that might be chosen by the most benevolent and altruistic individual. I participate in the belief that, as messy as it is, there is no better way to do it.

    I admit to being fearful of "true believers" who are so convinced of their own moral superiority that they are willing to impose their choices on others by force. I am here to persuade and to be persuaded.

    Everyone else participating here is my peer. They are entitled to my respect. While they may be ignorant, biased, or foolish, they are no more so than I.
    Each brings valuable knowledge and experience.
    While I genuinely appreciate the well-considered response, the reason I asked is out of my belief that there may be some who are not aware of the very risks you allude to and therefore may supply them with more consideration for their respective points of view. Thanks.
  16. #1316  
    Quote Originally Posted by Toby View Post
    Out of curiosity, why do you believe this is so? While I think there are cases where it is, I would never think it universally so (probably not even close).
    First, we have scientific data that suggests that the more people involved, the more accurate the decision.

    Second, Winston Churchill told me so.

    Third, because the consequences will be so painful, that everyone must have skin in the game.

    Finally, we are talking about very complex issues, lots of variables, no simple solutions, that will take a long time to implement. A majority must be committed to the solution.
  17. #1317  
    Quote Originally Posted by whmurray View Post
    First, we have scientific data that suggests that the more people involved, the more accurate the decision.
    Link? Also, upon what basis are we judging 'superior' or 'accurate'? I'm just asking because your statement seemed more general than just limiting it to politics. If you're limiting it only to politics, I think superior is a bit of a stretch, but seems less tenuous.
    Second, Winston Churchill told me so.
    I suppose if we're limiting it to the least worst form of government that might be useful.
    Third, because the consequences will be so painful, that everyone must have skin in the game.
    It seems we're not really talking about quality of decisions then, but rather enforceability.
    Finally, we are talking about very complex issues, lots of variables, no simple solutions, that will take a long time to implement. A majority must be committed to the solution.
    I was not limiting my question to the case at hand, though.
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  18. #1318  
    Quote Originally Posted by Toby View Post
    ........It seems we're not really talking about quality of decisions then, but rather enforceability...........
    We can persuade or coerce. The governing class prefers coercion; that is what they do. Those of us among the governed obviously prefer "gentle persuasion."

    However, the more people who must cooperate to achieve a result and the longer that it takes, the more limited is coercion as a method. What can now be called "the great experiment in Communism" took too long. One saw that planning from the top was also limited; it simply could not deal with the complexity. Good intentions and wisdom are not enough.
  19. #1319  
    Quote Originally Posted by lifes2short View Post
    Isn't it true that the 2 hijacked flights on 9/11 that went into Manhatten had to pass over 2 nuclear reactors on their way? I wonder how many more deaths might have been the result if they had really been declaring 'war' on us. Hhhmmm . . . .
    I'm in shock (shock, I tell you! ) that no one has been mentally curious to look into this. Should all concerned merely assume that it matters not in a time of war?

    Those who continually express their hatred for "Islamofascism", from their many rants about suicide bombers killing as many "infidels" as possible in order for them to ascend to Paradise and collect their high rewards, this scenario must be highly palpable. Yet, they've never considered the human toll in American lives at risk? Seems a bit odd.
  20. #1320  
    Quote Originally Posted by cellmatrix View Post
    Hey Woof, nice to see you around! I see you are now in Las Vegas now? Anyway, best wishes to you and your family! Concerning global warming and my comment, you are right, I cant speak for everyone, and its a choice everyone needs to make themselves. But only a foolish person would let a work of complete fiction like State of Fear influence their decision. And I know you are better than that Woof . And if you have a personal bias against Al Gore, go ahead and ignore him too. But what I find it hard to understand why anyone would reject out of hand the recommendations of the most reputable and respected scientific journals and organizations in the United States on this issue.
    http://www.aaas.org/news/press_room/climate_change/
    http://www.nature.com/nature/journal...l/445567a.html
    Yep moved to LV in July.

    I was not suggesting that State of Fear provided a good or bad viewpoint on global warming. I suggested it because of the premise tat the media tries to make us afraid regardless of the subject matter. Also there was some good info cited in the book regarding global warming. Of course it contradicts your viewpoint so I understand your "complete fiction" comment.

    As to Al Gore. His personal record on the global warming is very contradictory to his public stance. Kills his credibility IMO. Kind of like Michael Vick doing a PSA for the Humane Society.

Posting Permissions