Facebook
RSS
![[mccookgazette.com]](http://www.mccookgazette.com/images/nameplate31.png)
|
|
Mostly Cloudy ~ Feels like: 17°F Tuesday, Feb. 14, 2012 |
|
Don't Hoax Me BroPosted Saturday, April 25, 2009, at 1:20 PM
Let's look back, shall we, to Earth Day 1970. Thirty nine years ago. Take a look at some of the things "scientists" and other crazies were saying back then. As reported by Senator Gaylord Nelson, "Sr. S. Dillion Ripley, secretary of the Smithsonian Institution, believes that in 25 years, somewhere between 75 and 80 percent of all the species of living animals will be extinct." Don't hoax me bro. Environmentalism is a wacky religion. George Wald, Harvard Biologist, reported in 1970 "Civilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken..." Don't hoax me bro. Environmentalism is not about the environment friends, it is about control. Get ready for hideous taxation on energy coming your way soon by a greedy government. Saving the planet has nothing to do with it. Lining greedy government pockets, and controlling and reducing your lives is the goal. Folks, stop letting these misfits spread their gloom and doom. It is silly to listen to these people. Life Magazine, 1970, "Scientists have solid experimental and theoretical evidence to support the follow predictions: In a decade, urban dwellers will have to wear gas masks to survive air pollution. By 1985 air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching earth by one half..." One more, that is all I can stand for now. Paul Ehrlich, Stanford University biologist, in 1970 said: "Population will inevitably and completely outstrip whatever small increases in food supplies we make. The death rate will increase until at least 100-200 million people per year will be starving during the next ten years." Amazingly stupid. Yet, today, we have the same chicken Little's, on leftist Viagra running amuk with dire predictions. Also amazing that these folks have any credibility at all. A testament to telling a lie so much that it becomes reality. I have scores more nutty predictions these Earth worshippers made in 1970, but why bore you? They are all wrong. They have been wrong at every turn. AND friends are you going to pay for this hysteria. You have already been paying for it in loss of manufacturing capabilities, damage to industry, and bloated government agencies bent on crippling business. Before you on the left get weird, I know we need regulations. I argue we need responsible and sensible regulation, not hysterical leftist tyranny. Stop it with the Global Warming Hoax. Comments Showing comments in chronological order [Show most recent comments first] |
Hot topics Risking My Life Is The Bravest Thing You Do(77 ~ 12:03 PM, Oct 30)
Hayseed
Paybacks and Nuttiness
I Am Ready For REFORM!
Lib Kicker
|
Email link
Read comments (10)
Blog archive
![[Feed icon]](http://www.mccookgazette.com/images/icons/feed-icon-14x14.png){kind=icon}
G5,
You make a good point about nuclear power in relation to the conservation of energy. We ought to do more and better with it. There is plenty of research that supports this technology, and several European (and Third World) countries are ahead of us (and more progressive) in their efficient energy use.
Res Just
G5,
For once I agree with you. We should explore nuclear energy.
But to this comment:
"The fact is, nuclear power, or even a detonated bomb, is not nearly as dangerous as the exagerations from the anti-nuclear people claim."
I have not worked in nuclear study, but if this is true why are babies in chernobyl still being born with deformities? And why are the nuclear ratings in Hiroshima still high?
I will agree that nuclear technology is far less dangerous than many anti-nuclear people claim. There are many dangers with nuclear power, but many of them can be mitigated with extensive oversight.
My main complaints about nuclear power are unrelated to the danger.
1) It's not forward-sighted. Atomic power is not the future. At least not nuclear fission reactors. Scientists in both Japan and France are getting closer and closer to creating a workable fusion reactor. Minimal radiation and a much higher potential power output would make fusion a preferable method of power. Nuclear power plants must operate a minimum of 25 years. Why invest so heavily in a technology that will likely become obsolete in the next decade?
Clean energy IS forward-sighted. Given the facts that clean energy is free, abundant, and largely safe, it is more likely to become a widespread power-source in the future. Invest in the future.
2) Economics. America is having a rough time economically. It was a quick fall, but it's going to be a long hard walk to get back to the top. We need a new energy source that we can monetize and export. Nuclear technology doesn't fit the bill because other countries have better nuclear energy technology. Also, exporting nuclear technology is tricky. We aren't likely to export a great deal of nuclear technology for national security reasons. The technology used to process uranium for energy is too close to the technology used to weaponize it. We don't have the same issue selling solar panels and wind technology.
Think about it. In the next century, much of the undeveloped world is going to industrialize. China is likely to explode with industrialization, as well as India. Not to mention other third-world countries who will be looking to expand their infrastructure.
What will all of these countries need? Lots and lots of energy. Someone needs to sell it to them. Right now, the only countries capable of delivering that much energy are Arabic countries and Old-soviet states.
If we invest into solar/wind/etc, WE can be the ones to sell that energy. WE can deal with countries like China and India to supply them with the technology to power their new industrialized economies. I'd rather they buy from US than Saudi Arabia. We get money infused into OUR economy, we create stronger trade ties with important and powerful countries, AND we drastically cut down on global pollution and global warming.
I know the rebuttal is, we need power NOW! We need to use ALL of the resources on hand. Green, Oil, AND nuclear. But every dollar spent on oil and nuclear means less spent on green energy research. Green energy technology is in its INFANCY. We have the opportunity to expand into that field and dominate it with our technology. America has the most advanced research institutions in the world. If we put our focus on green technology, we can beat the rest of the world to it. We can corner the market. And the rest of the world will be playing catch-up for a century. When the oil runs out, who do we want to be holding all of the cards?
Jhat,
These are all good arguments, and I agree with you wholeheartedly about green energy technology. My physicist colleagues at Lucerne in Switzerland are very close to some phenomenal changes in nuclear fusion that will revolutionize power and energy. I don't think this is a dead-end road. Why not have a two-pronged (or more) approach? It seems to be short-sighted as well as potentially handicapping for the United States to not explore more than one approach to the energy dilemmas we currently face.
I also think that Third World countries have the right to develop energy resources for their well-being. While I agree that it makes a lot of business sense for the US to sell its knowledge and technology, we've lived for too long in a world where we continually exploit nations that are striving to gain a foot-hold in the technology and information market place. Perhaps there's a better happy medium than a Green type of colonization world-wide. India for instance used to produce 5000 species of rice. The United States has patents on 5 of those and when that happened, the Indians were legally not allowed to produce rice without adhering to US patent laws. As a result, the poorest people of India who had produced varieties of rice for generations lost not only access to their own rice but their livelihood as well. The market place is about profit, and I'm not against that, but good trade and successful business includes other responsibilities. I'm all for being a world power with amazing promise and possibility, but not a the cost of people's lives. And, yea...we should rely very little on oil and BIG cars.
Res Just.
I disagree that so-called green energy technology is in it's infancy. I also disagree that every dollar spent on coal, oil or nuclear takes money away from so-called green technology.
The truth is the other way around. Way too much time and money is spent on all these liberal pet projects, that it steal time and effort from what we know to work.
It's another one of these straw dogs the left uses. Take all the money our government has wasted on pet liberal projects, and we could have been energy dependant by now.
That is the Lefts tactic, to waste time in foolish efforts to box us into a corner.
Once again, I must continue to point out, that the modern day environmentalists movements are about control. The Worlds' Communists have found a home in the Environmental movement and it's religious fervor.
Communists work best when they have propaganda and of course, little sheep voters who swallow all the hogwash spewed by these Communists disguised as "Friends of the Earth."
Their basic ploy is to put it to us this way: You cannot dare object to harsh laws, and restrictions on freedom, when the Earth itself is at stake.
The Earth is not at stake. Wacko leftism is at stake, and environmentalism is merely a stake in the heart of freedom. OH, and yes, a great way to fleece the voters. A good way for other countries around the world to fleece the taxpayers as well through the vile and worthless United Nations.
Wow, I've never seen anyone draw such a weird line from supporting green energy to communism before. It must be interesting to be inside your head Sam.
But as far as being energy independent. We simply don't have enough oil for long term energy independence. I know, I know. "How do you know until we look!!!!". There have been many estimates made as to how much oil is in our off-shore reserves. But none of the estimates I've seen come close to giving us long-term independence from all foreign oil. Yes, they would give us a temporary break, but it's still a pittance compared to what the Middle-East is sitting on. Additionally, Oil WILL run out one day. It likely won't be for awhile (or may not be for a very long while), but it is a FINITE resource. There will come a point at which there is no more oil. That isn't alarmism. That is simply a fact. We can't let the world get to that point without any viable alternatives.
And green energy IS in it's infancy.
Technologically speaking:
The newest solar cells are aiming for 30-60% efficiency. Seems like there is alot of room to go there. Windmills are further along, but there is still room to improve efficiency and reliability. And scientists work daily to create new organisms that can be used for more efficient biofuels. There is alot of room for all of these technologies (and more) to grow. To become more effective and, more importantly, cheaper to produce.
But it's also in it's infancy speaking about it's adoption rate. There aren't many large scale solar or wind energy plants in the US. It's simply more expensive than the cheaper alternative (oil). Additionally, our energy grid needs a 21st century overhaul to handle power transmission from these sources.
And I know, you'll point out that the liberal "bloated frog" Ted Kennedy killed the wind farm off the coast of Massachusetts. This may come as a shock to you, not all liberals think the same. Many of us are not happy with that decision. (I'd even venture as far to say MOST of us are).
To paraphrase a joke Bill Maher made recently. "We talk on our digital cellular phones that relay communications across satellites in space, while we read our GPS which pinpoints our exact location on the planet, while we drive our cars. Our cars which still run on black goop we pump out of the ground".
G5, I'm aware there is alot of "black goop", which is why I said it will take us awhile to run out. I'm not trying to say today, or tomorrow, or even this century. But the fact remains that it is a finite resource that will run out one day in the indeterminate future. Some scientists project we have hundreds of years, others predict only a few decades. And as countries like China and India industrialize, we use it faster and faster. It is not infinite like solar/wind energy.
(Solar and Wind are not TECHNICALLY infinite, but we have larger problems to worry about if we run out of solar energy)
I think there is alot of the "black goop" left, unforturnately, most of the oil in the US will never be refined into fuel. It is heavy, dirty, high sulfur road taffy that can not be distilled to the point that it can be used for a lubricant or a fuel. That doesnt mean that we will run out of the good stuff any time soon, that just means that the US never had that much good stuff to begin with. I think it is a good investment to research alternatives to fossil fuels. What is the harm in avoiding a crisis before it happens? Nuclear energy, wind energy, biofuels all create jobs and provide something of value to us and future generations.
"...reprobates like Bill Maher, who lives up to his ethnic heritage by doing the least work to make the most money."
Wow. I shouldn't jump to conclusions, but that reeks of anti-Semitism.
I guess I shouldn't be surprised given the source.
"for reprobates like Bill Maher, who lives up to his ethnic heritage by doing the least work to make the most money."
I am truly entertained. Generally someone who claims, "there is only one race" is someone who is not discriminatory.
But G5 is an innovator of sorts. He uses that statement so he can say whatever he wants about ethnic groups he wants, yet he not be called a "racist".
So let me get this right: Muslims, Blacks, Hispanics, now Jews. Am I missing anyone? I have an idea that would bring back the good ole days of America.
How about we take all of the people that fall into those groups and we put them in big fenced areas. Might as well throw all other brown people in there too, because we know they're all the same really. And now with those guys out of the way America will have no problems. The economy will bounce back, no crime, everyone will have a job. It will be great.
Uh oh, I forgot about the white liberals, well those camps will be overcrowded so we can just put everyone who voted on obama on a boat and ship them back to europe.
Then things would be great right G5? A colorless utopia. Awesome.