Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
David J. Allen
"z" <gzuc...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:b5b4685f.03120...@posting.google.com...
> "David J. Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote in message
news:<lQuwb.8682$t01....@twister.socal.rr.com>...
> > The problem with wind is it can't generate enough energy to replace
fossil
> > fuels, nevermind the birds. It can only supplement fossil fuels.
>
> But 'supplementing' means replacing fossil fuels; just not replacing
> 100% of fossil fuels. If we 'supplement' fossil fuels with wind power,
> hydropower, solar power, cogeneration, etc. wherever such technologies
> are appropriate, we will replace a large fraction of our fossil fuel
> use.
>
No argument there!
> >
> > There currently isn't any "answer" to replacing fossil fuels, except
> > nuclear, to generate the kind of energy the world requires. Wind,
solar,
> > bio-mass, hydro, conservation are all great but aren't sufficient.
> >
> > If we could just make nuclear "safe-enough" in terms of preventing
accidents
> > and disposing of the waste, it can produce sufficient energy to power
> > growing economies without spewing exhaust into the air.
>
> But nuclear resembles fossil fuels in being centralized in production
> and delivery, nonrenewable, dangerous to labor and environment both to
> mine, and requiring a lot of effort to keep some very unfortunate
> byproducts from finding their way into my body. What works OK for a
> top-down heirarchical autocracy with absolute responsibility at each
> level, like the US Navy nuclear sub fleet, probably will not fly in
> the world of competing for lowest price and biggest corporate
> dividends.
>
> What is largely needed is a decentralization of power generation as
> much as possible; instead of replacing big oil-fired generators that
> produce electricity that gets run across the country to heat up your
> water with big solar collectors that produce electricity that gets run
> across the country to heat up your water, replace them with solar
> collectors on your roof that heat up your water as much as possible,
> and supplement that with electricity or fuel burning or whatever where
> necessary.
>
I would agree if the economies of scale didn't make that prohibitively
expensive. I'd love to have solar on my roof and be that much more
independent from the local (and expensive) power company. But it would cost
$40k to put a system on my roof and the major components would need
replacement by the time the load was paid off.
> Of course, that is not going to make the power corporations happy,
> since they all know that you make more money selling razor blades than
> selling razors, and you make more money selling electricity than
> selling solar roof panels. And that in trun will make politicians
> unhappy, since little solar panel companies are not in the habit of
> making big campaign donations the way big energy companies do.
> >
Bill Putney
> I would agree if the economies of scale didn't make that prohibitively
> expensive. I'd love to have solar on my roof and be that much more
> independent from the local (and expensive) power company. But it would cost
> $40k to put a system on my roof and the major components would need
> replacement by the time the load was paid off.
You could subsidize it with tax money and ignore the cost of money over
time and pretend that those things don't represent real costs - then you
could justify it and feel like you were saving the wrold.
Bill Putney
(to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with "x")
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
David J. Allen
"Lloyd Parker" <lpa...@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
news:bqq95b$ikt$1...@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> >> None of them has the jurisdiction to interpret the US constitution.
> >>
> >
> >You're hopeless Lloyd. Rights reserved to the states and to the people
can
> >be decided upon by the states and the people. No interpretation of the
US
> >constitution is required for those to be decided upon.
>
> Who decides if a right is reserved to the states or to the people? Since
it's
> in the US constitution, the federal courts must.
>
People and states just do what they do. They don't need a ruling or
permission from the federal government. If someone disagrees they can sue
in federal court. That's what I mean.
> >> >The arguments for and against Sodomy laws and Adultery laws each have
merit.
> >>
> >> Sure, so did those against integration. To bigots.
> >
> >There you go again. You just can't accept pro/con argument based on
> >principle.
> >
>
> I didn't realize there were pro arguments for discrimination and bigotry.
>
For a "scientist", you fail to honor your profession. You *should* know
better. Generic discrimination only comes labeled as "bad" in your strange
world. As far as bigotry goes, it's only in that strange world that
adultery is a civil right.
> >>
> >> >Government intrusion in personal matters is a matter of great concern
to be
> >> >sure. Yet, the effect of adultery on families, children, cost to
society is
> >> >huge.
> >>
> >> Are you saying you cannot commit adultery except by sodomy? And even
if so,
> >> why was sodomy between unmarried people illegal? In fact, most of the
sodomy
> >> laws were only enforced for gays (thus unmarried people).
> >>
> >
> >No, sodomy was not part of my comment above. It was all about adultery.
>
> Why, in a discussion about gays? They can't marry, so they can't commit
> adultery.
>
Well, for gays they can have all the sex they want and it won't be adultery.
Doesn't change the fact that people saw a social benefit to outlawing
adultery with real pro/con sides to such a debate.
> >
> >I don't know. I imagine local governments were anxious that their cities
> >and towns not become a gathering place for gays.
>
> And if they decided this about, say, Jews?
>
If you paid attention you would have noticed that I didn't make a judgment
on anti-sodomy laws in that statement. Just an observation.
Frankly, I don't understand sodomy law history. So I guessed. I suspect
they were based on a couple of notions. Communities were more homogenous in
our history and the application of natural law as opposed to civil law made
sense in those communities. Before applications of the 14th amendment had a
chance to take effect, individual states and communites were free to
discriminate in any number of ways to protect their way of life.
I don't see much of a pro in a pro/con argument on anti-sodomy laws.
Perhaps a states rights argument.
Lloyd Parker
"David J. Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
>
>"Lloyd Parker" <lpa...@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
>news:bqq95b$ikt$1...@puck.cc.emory.edu...
>
>> >> None of them has the jurisdiction to interpret the US constitution.
>> >>
>> >
>> >You're hopeless Lloyd. Rights reserved to the states and to the people
>can
>> >be decided upon by the states and the people. No interpretation of the
>US
>> >constitution is required for those to be decided upon.
>>
>> Who decides if a right is reserved to the states or to the people? Since
>it's
>> in the US constitution, the federal courts must.
>>
>
>People and states just do what they do. They don't need a ruling or
>permission from the federal government. If someone disagrees they can sue
>in federal court. That's what I mean.
And that's how, for example, the sodomy laws just recently got overturned.
That's how the MA supreme court overturned their state's marriage law.
Bill Putney
Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
> In article <SX4Ab.172$ng6...@twister.socal.rr.com>,
> "David J. Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
> >People and states just do what they do. They don't need a ruling or
> >permission from the federal government. If someone disagrees they can sue
> >in federal court. That's what I mean.
>
> And that's how, for example, the sodomy laws just recently got overturned.
> That's how the MA supreme court overturned their state's marriage law.
And that's how they'll attempt to go to the next logical steps, which
they always claim they have no intention of doing, and then when the
previous step is accomplished, they peel the next layer off the onion.
And that's why the liberals are going to lose next year's elections big
time. Called "backlash".
Bill Putney
"David J. Allen" wrote:
>
> ...Frankly, I don't understand sodomy law history. So I guessed. I suspect
> they were based on a couple of notions. Communities were more homogenous in
> our history
But did they allow homogeneous couples to get married? (sorry -
couldn't resist the play on words)