On Thu, 11 Aug 2005 14:44:25 +0100, "Steve Ralph"
<[Only registered users see links. ].uk> wrote:
Endless immigants and envious ignorance. . The USA provides
well more than its fair share of the global research in
environmetal research, data, advances and husbanding.
Have a look at these while the EU goes down the tubes: [Only registered users see links. ] [Only registered users see links. ] [Only registered users see links. ] and that does not include
the voluminous research and data from NASA.
IPCC Third Assessment Report: Climate Change 2001
Appendix 3 lists nearly 900 contributors and editors of which
32% are from the USA, 10% UK, 7% Germany and 3% France (!).
English problem? I think not -- this is the UN with its hordes of
The USA is responsible for: 30% of global GDP and perhaps 50% if
trade generated global GDP is factored in while only spewing out a
decresing 25% of emissions; and 50%+ of global research etc.
Juvenile penal envy bashing doesn't get results nor does trading
emissons reduce them by one iota. Kyoto is useless but no one is
stopping the signers from doing what they promised but themselves.
"H. Dziardziel" <firstname.lastname@example.org> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:[Only registered users see links. ]...
No, the tremendeous amount on money you place into military and mannned
projects is the cause that you have no money for infra structure shifts. You
willing to adapt your system. You are not willing to reduce your output on
And you want to hinder others from doing it, because the technology could
turn against you.
What shalls 90% of your science is unpublished military stuff - secret
science. The world
has nothing from it. Bull shit. And you have paid scientists who get their
money from oil industry, your president, Bush an earlier oil industrial with
connections. So your results are manipulated scientiffically in order to not
disturb your business. Thats the whole truth.
You misuse science for your commercial interests. You are the only country
the attempts on a reduction strategy for CO2. Why do you want to hinder it ?
it is not in your plan. It is against your business plans. Thats it. But the
disadvantage is for you, that a child understands it if it is explained and
that you have to walk about in the world with a rather bad feeling in you.
The last of course would not be if you would take part in the
Kyoto development process and share your knowledge with others. And of shure
you have also companies which produce solar cells, wind generators and other
energy saving stuff, these now having disadvantages because officially
ignored. Knowledge which is not shared
is fairly worth less.
So i ask why it was not possible for your armada of military scientists to
make a proposal
for a law not to use power supplies which can not be switched off. I think
they did not think it, because it is forbidden or unwished. The result: At
least 2 nuclear reactors could be switched off in the USA just by performing
technology improvements ! Known knowledge it is, which only has to be
transformed into laws.
But thinking is not allowed, buisness counts. More energy consumption = more
Thats the easy equation our economics run with (in Germany was the same but
changed now a little). And that of shure is wrong in the field of energy
consumption. When will you remark that the market does not regulate it from
The manned flights to Mars will bring no scientific benefit to the USA and
not to the world.
Take the money and reduce CO2. Then you have done something which is more
important for our common near future.
On Fri, 12 Aug 2005 09:37:27 +0200, "Josef Matz"
<[Only registered users see links. ]> wrote:
Obviously, in your Teutonically Luddite ardor for USA bashing,
you ignore even the little elementary facts I cited. Or, to
quote you with a bit of implied paraphrasing:
Essentially, you stated the EU and the world depends on the big
bad USA for its funding (for research etc). but, I repeat again
the obvious that no one but the Kyoto signers and groupies
were/are dragging their collective heels at implementing what they
promised to do -- however they can -- amongst themselves at any
time at all...
It took them until Feb 2005 to even finally sign on and that was
only after the USA announced its own plan in late 2004 So
another worthless bureacracy ala the UN and EU was born.
Admittedly, their emission trading is already brisk. In the
meantime, the US and its clear headed partners will continue to
truck on and find real solutions. Bye.
I strongly encourage you to do what I admit the US should do and is
doing- come up with a better energy source. The fact you're not doing it
makes you a bad person, right?
No, we may be the only country that hinders the attempt of other
countries to tell us what to do, but we do considerable work on our own
toward reducing the various air issues. If you wish to accuse someone of
not bothering to do anything about air pollution of various sorts,
Careful with them explanations, children often understand more than is
explained to them.. and you'll look stupid to a child.
Do some browsing on the internet, see who is building the homemade wind
generators- it's Americans, and they're spreading heaps of information
Look up free-piston Stirling generators- you'll find that the vast
majority of the work there is being done in the US. Magnetohydrodynamics
seems to have been mostly supported by the Russians, but it's not a
cure-all anyway, just another way to burn stuff. Look into thermoacustic
refrigeration, it's being developed by Americans and it has remarkable
Oh, and shut the **** up once you get done looking this stuff up. OK?
Sure, and once we turn the nuclear reactors off you'll be crying because
we didn't shut down those mean ol' CO2 producing coal plants. And look
at the greater emissons the little switches would cause, millions of
tons of CO2 for little switches that nobody turns off anyway.
Oh, you have a problem with profit.. Get used to it, it's how the world
works. Make a little of your own, then get back to us.
Huh? Don't worry about the market, as the price of fossil fuels goes up
it makes alternative energy more desireable. That's what you want,
right? I think I got that point from what you wrote.
What the **** business of yours if someone goes to Mars? You're sort of
a ****ing idiot, that's what's wrong with you- you think your opinion
about other people's assets makes you a good person, get a clue already-
you're ****ed up. Do you happen to be a disciple of Marx? You sound like
Grow up, get over your problem about what other people do with their own
stuff. You've got some serious political insecurity, you think other
people should spend their money as you see fit, you've got a problem
with profit, you accuse others of not being allowed to think while you
spew your cute litte feel-good bullshit that you learned from someone
else.. Piss off.
Well, tell me where you're from and we'll discuss the attitude of that
portion of the world. If you're from the US and feel that other
countries have some claim to what is ours, we'll have to disagree. If
you're from some other country then I guess you have your opinion but I
am compelled to discount it if you believe you have some claim to what
belongs to the people of the US.
People like the OP think they do good by crying about what could be, if
only someone else's money were spent to achieve the goal.. with no
comprehension of the facts of life. They would tax the rich to feed the
poor while encouraging the poor to not help themselves, because that
might add to the profits of the rich.
I'm not much of a fan of Ayn Rand, but I'll use her term for these
people- The Wreckers, those who don't understand anything but don't let
that fact affect their actions. They would take what is mine (and yours)
to give to someone else for their own personal benefit.
You can have 'em, I dislike them to a great degree.
"JohnM" <[Only registered users see links. ]> wrote in message
news:42fe6612$0$11001$[Only registered users see links. ] m...
I'm from the U.K. I hope I am realistic enough to realiise that people are
to change their ways just because climate scientists say we are heading up
at an ever increasing rate.
I deeply mistrust the current U.S administration. They play divide and
obfusticate the issues. Putting these matters in the hands of the energy
is to my mind tantamount to suicide.
We need the thermal diode (thermoelectric device with zero backflow of heat)
- this just could be on the way. *If* - very big **if** - it does become
to convert spare heat to e.m.f efficiently at room temperatures the fossil
will tumble off their dirty cliffs into well deserved oblivion.
But it's late, I'm full of beer, non illigitimae carborundum.
We'll all change our ways if there's an adequate economic influence, if
global warming turns out to actually be an issue then you can be sure
we'll be forced, financially, to find new ways of doing things. I've
been thinking about going underground, both winter and summer, that
might be a good start for all in the temperate climates.
The research on global warming has not yet been completed though, and if
it turns out that the belief that there's dangerous global warming is
mistaken it'd be good to not have done too much damage over it.
Deforestation concerns me more than global warming, political intrigue
also concerns me more. I'll not criticize anyone who is honestly
concerned about an issue, not until they tell me that what seems
important to them is my fault- I'll criticize then.
We agree very well on this issue. Let's keep in mind, that Blair guy is
involved in some of it too, they fed off each other with the Iraq issue.
Who is it over your way that draws the cartoons with Bush as a cowboy
monkey and Blair as his crazy dog- that's great stuff, I lost the link
Putting these matters in the hands of the energy
I think this is an accurate statement. More political intrigue, to me..
We're going to need the fossil fuel corporations for a while longer, for
lubricants if nothing else. And I don't believe that corporations are,
by definition, evil.. but when they are directing national policy then
things have gone too far.