Prev: weight
Next: Relativity: Einstein's lost frame
From: kdthrge on 17 Apr 2007 21:39
The proponents of AGW, are now demanding to have laws passed to
mandate 80% reduction in CO2 emissions by 2050.
They confuse this issue purposefully with the conservation of energy
and the dimished emissions from cutbacks in the use of energy.

But an 80% reduction in energy use, is clearly not possible without
the deliberate genocide of much of the population.

The alternative of rebuilding power plants is so expensive as to
require the bulk of the gross national product and indeed beyond the
cost of even the total estimated US wealth of 30 trillion dollars.

This drive to eliminate CO2 emissions, will require the expenditure of
considerable amount of fuel, if only in the construction of new plants
which also require considerable concrete which is responsible for 5%
of anthropogenic CO2 as it is.

Nuclear power plants may not need carbon based fuels to operate. But
they are very expensive to build and it is very expensive and
dangerous to deal with the spent fuel, besides the danger of accident.

It is impossible to modify existing power plants to restrict CO2.
A plant so designed, uses much more fuel, nearly twice as much, to
deliver the same energy to the consumer.

An 80% reduction in emissions will require a 50% increase in the use
of fuel. Otherwise, the essential services of the population will have
to be averted.

The plan of the caps and trade to make energy more expensive and the
price of energy traded on an open market is sheer ludicrous insantity.
In electrical production, it can only lead to emission reduction by
the direct strangulation from the essential use of electrictiy. The
price of electrictiy will rise, and the same CO2 will go into the air
for each kilowatt hour.

Those who wish to claim success in europe with this system which
punishes the productive and rewards the unproductive, have no actual
understanding of the situation. A better perspective would be what
happened in California when the fraud was presented and enacted of the
benefits of deregulation of electrical production. This only led to
the corruption that directly and deliberately frauded the state of
California, and caused the widespead brownouts and effect on the
economy.

The governer of California was deposed for this. And now the people of
California have done the same thing by allowing their politicians to
enact the same sort of fraud and forthcoming extortion from the
essential needs for electrical power. Perhaps these politicians are
expecting to be safely in the grave, before retribution for their
actions can be exacted.

These proponents of this insane control of energy and reduction in CO2
which in truth has absolutely no effect on global warming, should also
present actual mathematics on the actual reduction in global CO2 that
could be incurred.

The fact of CO2 emissions, is that without the halt of the burning of
the tropical forest which convert CO2 to oxygen, this 80% reduction in
US emissions will have absolutely no effect upon global CO2 increase.

Those proposing and supporting this form of genocide, by calling for
80% reduction in emissions, should be made aware of the critical facts
and the crime of which they are complicite.

Deatherage

From: kdthrge on 17 Apr 2007 21:41


The proponents of AGW, are now demanding to have laws passed to
mandate 80% reduction in CO2 emissions by 2050.
They confuse this issue purposefully with the conservation of energy
and the dimished emissions from cutbacks in the use of energy.

But an 80% reduction in energy use, is clearly not possible without
the deliberate genocide of much of the population.

The alternative of rebuilding power plants is so expensive as to
require the bulk of the gross national product and indeed beyond the
cost of even the total estimated US wealth of 30 trillion dollars.

This drive to eliminate CO2 emissions, will require the expenditure of
considerable amount of fuel, if only in the construction of new plants
which also require considerable concrete which is responsible for 5%
of anthropogenic CO2 as it is.

Nuclear power plants may not need carbon based fuels to operate. But
they are very expensive to build and it is very expensive and
dangerous to deal with the spent fuel, besides the danger of accident.

It is impossible to modify existing power plants to restrict CO2.
A plant so designed, uses much more fuel, nearly twice as much, to
deliver the same energy to the consumer.

An 80% reduction in emissions will require a 50% increase in the use
of fuel. Otherwise, the essential services of the population will have
to be averted.

The plan of the caps and trade to make energy more expensive and the
price of energy traded on an open market is sheer ludicrous insantity.
In electrical production, it can only lead to emission reduction by
the direct strangulation from the essential use of electrictiy. The
price of electrictiy will rise, and the same CO2 will go into the air
for each kilowatt hour.

Those who wish to claim success in europe with this system which
punishes the productive and rewards the unproductive, have no actual
understanding of the situation. A better perspective would be what
happened in California when the fraud was presented and enacted of the
benefits of deregulation of electrical production. This only led to
the corruption that directly and deliberately frauded the state of
California, and caused the widespead brownouts and effect on the
economy.

The governer of California was deposed for this. And now the people of
California have done the same thing by allowing their politicians to
enact the same sort of fraud and forthcoming extortion from the
essential needs for electrical power. Perhaps these politicians are
expecting to be safely in the grave, before retribution for their
actions can be exacted.

These proponents of this insane control of energy and reduction in CO2
which in truth has absolutely no effect on global warming, should also
present actual mathematics on the actual reduction in global CO2 that
could be incurred.

The fact of CO2 emissions, is that without the halt of the burning of
the tropical forest which convert CO2 to oxygen, this 80% reduction in
US emissions will have absolutely no effect upon global CO2 increase.

Those proposing and supporting this form of genocide, by calling for
80% reduction in emissions, should be made aware of the critical facts
and the crime of which they are complicite.

Deatherage


From: Roger Coppock on 17 Apr 2007 21:43
Tthis article is a large list of unsupported statements.
No one who calls himself a 'skeptic' should buy a word
of it.


On Apr 17, 6:39 pm, kdth...(a)yahoo.com wrote:
> The proponents of AGW, are now demanding to have laws passed to
> mandate 80% reduction in CO2 emissions by 2050.
> They confuse this issue purposefully with the conservation of energy
> and the dimished emissions from cutbacks in the use of energy.
>
> But an 80% reduction in energy use, is clearly not possible without
> the deliberate genocide of much of the population.
>
> The alternative of rebuilding power plants is so expensive as to
> require the bulk of the gross national product and indeed beyond the
> cost of even the total estimated US wealth of 30 trillion dollars.
>
> This drive to eliminate CO2 emissions, will require the expenditure of
> considerable amount of fuel, if only in the construction of new plants
> which also require considerable concrete which is responsible for 5%
> of anthropogenic CO2 as it is.
>
> Nuclear power plants may not need carbon based fuels to operate. But
> they are very expensive to build and it is very expensive and
> dangerous to deal with the spent fuel, besides the danger of accident.
>
> It is impossible to modify existing power plants to restrict CO2.
> A plant so designed, uses much more fuel, nearly twice as much, to
> deliver the same energy to the consumer.
>
> An 80% reduction in emissions will require a 50% increase in the use
> of fuel. Otherwise, the essential services of the population will have
> to be averted.
>
> The plan of the caps and trade to make energy more expensive and the
> price of energy traded on an open market is sheer ludicrous insantity.
> In electrical production, it can only lead to emission reduction by
> the direct strangulation from the essential use of electrictiy. The
> price of electrictiy will rise, and the same CO2 will go into the air
> for each kilowatt hour.
>
> Those who wish to claim success in europe with this system which
> punishes the productive and rewards the unproductive, have no actual
> understanding of the situation. A better perspective would be what
> happened in California when the fraud was presented and enacted of the
> benefits of deregulation of electrical production. This only led to
> the corruption that directly and deliberately frauded the state of
> California, and caused the widespead brownouts and effect on the
> economy.
>
> The governer of California was deposed for this. And now the people of
> California have done the same thing by allowing their politicians to
> enact the same sort of fraud and forthcoming extortion from the
> essential needs for electrical power. Perhaps these politicians are
> expecting to be safely in the grave, before retribution for their
> actions can be exacted.
>
> These proponents of this insane control of energy and reduction in CO2
> which in truth has absolutely no effect on global warming, should also
> present actual mathematics on the actual reduction in global CO2 that
> could be incurred.
>
> The fact of CO2 emissions, is that without the halt of the burning of
> the tropical forest which convert CO2 to oxygen, this 80% reduction in
> US emissions will have absolutely no effect upon global CO2 increase.
>
> Those proposing and supporting this form of genocide, by calling for
> 80% reduction in emissions, should be made aware of the critical facts
> and the crime of which they are complicite.
>
> Deatherage


From: kdthrge on 17 Apr 2007 23:57
On Apr 17, 7:43 pm, Roger Coppock <rcopp...(a)adnc.com> wrote:
> Tthis article is a large list of unsupported statements.
> No one who calls himself a 'skeptic' should buy a word
> of it.

So if I say that just the CO2 from the burning of the trees in the
tropics is 1/4 of all anthropogenic CO2 or 1/3 as much as all the CO2
from industrialization, is that false???

If I point out that in the natural cycle, plants recycle around 440
billion tons per yr, while the CO2 from all of human sources is about
20 billiion without the 7 billion tons from the burning of the trees,
is that unsupported??

Everything absorbs CO2, such as the ocean which absorbs 200 billion
tons annually
http://www.radix.net/~bobg/faqs/scq.CO2rise.html

Nature would entirely absorb man's input as it does that from
volcanoes if it weren't for the reduction of the conversion of the
dense jungle of the rainforest.

Since industrialization, 20% of the worlds forests have been lost.
Most important of the worlds forest is the Amazon. This dense jungle
converts 20% of the worlds oxygen from CO2. Some estimate this at 50%.

Tthese are facts you can ignore, Roger, as you insist that other
people endure depravation and suffering and death in your mad idea
that the CO2 from the fuels they use to live is heating the
atmosphere, and your conscious intent to destroy their economy.

So display the correct figures in comprehensible array for all of this
CO2 you are so devastatedly concerned with.

Good luck in hell, as you ignore these pertinent and accurate facts.

Deatherage

From: nuny on 18 Apr 2007 03:13
On Apr 17, 8:57 pm, kdth...(a)yahoo.com wrote:
> On Apr 17, 7:43 pm, Roger Coppock <rcopp...(a)adnc.com> wrote:
>
> > Tthis article is a large list of unsupported statements.
> > No one who calls himself a 'skeptic' should buy a word
> > of it.
>
> So if I say that just the CO2 from the burning of the trees in the
> tropics is 1/4 of all anthropogenic CO2 or 1/3 as much as all the CO2
> from industrialization, is that false???
>
> If I point out that in the natural cycle, plants recycle around 440
> billion tons per yr, while the CO2 from all of human sources is about
> 20 billiion without the 7 billion tons from the burning of the trees,
> is that unsupported??
>
> Everything absorbs CO2, such as the ocean which absorbs 200 billion
> tons annuallyhttp://www.radix.net/~bobg/faqs/scq.CO2rise.html
>
> Nature would entirely absorb man's input as it does that from
> volcanoes if it weren't for the reduction of the conversion of the
> dense jungle of the rainforest.
>
> Since industrialization, 20% of the worlds forests have been lost.
> Most important of the worlds forest is the Amazon. This dense jungle
> converts 20% of the worlds oxygen from CO2. Some estimate this at 50%.
>
> Tthese are facts you can ignore, Roger, as you insist that other
> people endure depravation and suffering and death in your mad idea
> that the CO2 from the fuels they use to live is heating the
> atmosphere, and your conscious intent to destroy their economy.
>
> So display the correct figures in comprehensible array for all of this
> CO2 you are so devastatedly concerned with.
>
> Good luck in hell, as you ignore these pertinent and accurate facts.

Put Google Earth on your desktop and find these "destroyed
Rainforests", then point them out to me.

Besides which, oceanic surface plankton transpire a hell of a lot
more than any piddling little forest.

Oh, and please explain why so many other planets and moons in the
solar system are warming much more than Earth is. Are all of them
subject to "natural" fluctuations _except_ Earth? That's just silly.

IOW how about you stop sockpuppeting for George Soros et. al. and do
some thinking on your own?


Mark L. Fergerson

 |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6
Prev: weight
Next: Relativity: Einstein's lost frame