Discussion:
Even Manhatten Project Wasn't "On the Fly" R&D
(too old to reply)
Bret Cahill
2008-07-04 18:07:46 UTC
Permalink
Not to diminish the bomb effort but at least they knew E=mc^2 three
decades before they started.

Now with peak oil everyone wants really fundamental research done "on
the wing."

They want "new mature" green industries yesterday.

I'm not saying that breakthroughs are impossible in this climate.
"When a man knows he's going to be hung in a fortnight, it
concentrates the mind wonderfully" applies to everyone.

I'm just saying that attitude makes me really really nervous.


Bret Cahill
Bob Eld
2008-07-04 19:24:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bret Cahill
Not to diminish the bomb effort but at least they knew E=mc^2 three
decades before they started.
Now with peak oil everyone wants really fundamental research done "on
the wing."
They want "new mature" green industries yesterday.
I'm not saying that breakthroughs are impossible in this climate.
"When a man knows he's going to be hung in a fortnight, it
concentrates the mind wonderfully" applies to everyone.
I'm just saying that attitude makes me really really nervous.
Bret Cahill
After the first oil shock we basically drilled our way out of it and didn't
complete the research necessary for alternatives. We started down that road
but set it aside as oil prices lowered and stabilized. The situation is
different now. We virtually can't drill our way out this time. If we do
again what we did in the 70's and put aside the necessary research and
development we will really be in trouble in a few years.

But, just because everyone wants instant mature "green industries," and that
they are far from developed yet does not mean we should put aside that
development. What we need is national leadership that understands this and
is more interested in funding and pushing the development of alternative
energy than waging war, for example. It's now a matter of national survival
much more important than any of the silly terrorism nonsense ever was.

It's now a matter of national security and survival. Most people seem to
realize this to some degree, so I think we will begin down the right road.
We must, however, guard against the naysayers and doom sayers who throw up
countless obstacles and irrational objections for this or that self serving
reason. We must stay focused on our ultimate goal of energy self
sufficiency.
Eeyore
2008-07-04 21:02:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bob Eld
Post by Bret Cahill
Not to diminish the bomb effort but at least they knew E=mc^2 three
decades before they started.
Now with peak oil everyone wants really fundamental research done "on
the wing."
They want "new mature" green industries yesterday.
I'm not saying that breakthroughs are impossible in this climate.
"When a man knows he's going to be hung in a fortnight, it
concentrates the mind wonderfully" applies to everyone.
I'm just saying that attitude makes me really really nervous.
Bret Cahill
After the first oil shock we basically drilled our way out of it and didn't
complete the research necessary for alternatives. We started down that road
but set it aside as oil prices lowered and stabilized. The situation is
different now. We virtually can't drill our way out this time. If we do
again what we did in the 70's and put aside the necessary research and
development we will really be in trouble in a few years.
But, just because everyone wants instant mature "green industries," and that
they are far from developed yet does not mean we should put aside that
development. What we need is national leadership that understands this and
is more interested in funding and pushing the development of alternative
energy than waging war, for example. It's now a matter of national survival
much more important than any of the silly terrorism nonsense ever was.
It's now a matter of national security and survival. Most people seem to
realize this to some degree, so I think we will begin down the right road.
We must, however, guard against the naysayers and doom sayers who throw up
countless obstacles and irrational objections for this or that self serving
reason. We must stay focused on our ultimate goal of energy self
sufficiency.
Using less of the stuff i.e NO SUVs would help a heck of a lot.

Graham
Bob Eld
2008-07-05 02:08:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Eeyore
Post by Bob Eld
Post by Bret Cahill
Not to diminish the bomb effort but at least they knew E=mc^2 three
decades before they started.
Now with peak oil everyone wants really fundamental research done "on
the wing."
They want "new mature" green industries yesterday.
I'm not saying that breakthroughs are impossible in this climate.
"When a man knows he's going to be hung in a fortnight, it
concentrates the mind wonderfully" applies to everyone.
I'm just saying that attitude makes me really really nervous.
Bret Cahill
After the first oil shock we basically drilled our way out of it and didn't
complete the research necessary for alternatives. We started down that road
but set it aside as oil prices lowered and stabilized. The situation is
different now. We virtually can't drill our way out this time. If we do
again what we did in the 70's and put aside the necessary research and
development we will really be in trouble in a few years.
But, just because everyone wants instant mature "green industries," and that
they are far from developed yet does not mean we should put aside that
development. What we need is national leadership that understands this and
is more interested in funding and pushing the development of alternative
energy than waging war, for example. It's now a matter of national survival
much more important than any of the silly terrorism nonsense ever was.
It's now a matter of national security and survival. Most people seem to
realize this to some degree, so I think we will begin down the right road.
We must, however, guard against the naysayers and doom sayers who throw up
countless obstacles and irrational objections for this or that self serving
reason. We must stay focused on our ultimate goal of energy self
sufficiency.
Using less of the stuff i.e NO SUVs would help a heck of a lot.
Graham
Naw, SUV's use an insignificant amount of the total US energy. The biggest
waster of transportation energy in the US is being stuck in non moving rush
hour traffic and the endless stop and go driving caused by the millions of
uncontrolled randomly operating traffic lights in the country. Traffic
engineers could save a huge amounts of energy by devising methods to reduce
stop and go driving and working to keep traffic moving wherever possible.

SUV sales in the US are way down and people are moving towards smaller fuel
efficient cars, hybrids and the like. But, it takes time and a great expense
to replace an entire fleet. It wont happen overnight nor should it.
Spaceman
2008-07-05 02:12:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bob Eld
Naw, SUV's use an insignificant amount of the total US energy. The
biggest waster of transportation energy in the US is being stuck in
non moving rush hour traffic and the endless stop and go driving
caused by the millions of uncontrolled randomly operating traffic
lights in the country. Traffic engineers could save a huge amounts of
energy by devising methods to reduce stop and go driving and working
to keep traffic moving wherever possible.
SUV sales in the US are way down and people are moving towards
smaller fuel efficient cars, hybrids and the like. But, it takes time
and a great expense to replace an entire fleet. It wont happen
overnight nor should it.
Did you know UPS saves millions of gallons of gas a year by never turning
left
at stoplights.
Waiting for the traffic just to turn left is a no-no.
They might have the opposite rule in some countries.
:)
--
James M Driscoll Jr
Spaceman
Day Brown
2008-07-06 21:57:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bob Eld
It's now a matter of national security and survival. Most people seem to
realize this to some degree, so I think we will begin down the right road.
We must, however, guard against the naysayers and doom sayers who throw up
countless obstacles and irrational objections for this or that self serving
reason. We must stay focused on our ultimate goal of energy self
sufficiency.
And if we dont stay focused? The number of catastrophic alternative
scenarios is large. Like a pending execution, its already concentrated
the minds of some who dont see the kind of leadership that will be
required to stabilize the situation.

I dont see that the warnings here of impending global financial systemic
breakdown are having any effect on the way sheeple think. If that's what
you call it. I do see increasing numbers moving into my neck of Ozark
woods, with new mcMansions and starter castles in view every time I
drive to town or wherever.

I dunno what to make of it Bob. The census bureau has a new class: the
"x-urbs", those who've moved out of urban areas to the rural fringe to
setup hobby farms with their retirement money. One clue is that high
tech California finished the last fiscal year with $3 billion deficit,
and low tech Arkansas ended with a $$919 million surplus.

There may be other states that have the leadership to transition to some
kind of alternative energy, ready to secede from the Union if the dollar
tanks because of the lack of federal leadership.

People thinking of survival are looking for communities that have a very
diverse local resource base to support them in case the corruption and
ineptitude of the federal system disintegrates. They are not waiting for
the media to convince the electorate what must be done or who needs to
do it.
Robert Cohen
2008-07-06 23:33:04 UTC
Permalink
Re: Partial solution can be quickly done in the interim to knock the #$
%^&* oil down

http://hometown.aol.com/__121b_jp62FVbkQiq65VmOdYqjhKor5EGWYhVZLB6sTLqP/Ciij9hJ31n6zA==

From: Robert Cohen (***@aol.com.spam.no)
Subject: Schmockems Razor: Traffic Jam
This is the only article in this thread
View: Original Format
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy
Date: 2003-01-20 18:38:02 PST


NEWS & EVENTS

'If You Hate It, Why is This Concept Dumb?'
A solution to our public-transportation woes

By Randall Osborne

Sick of traffic jams on the ozone-shrouded freeway into Atlanta? Tired
of the
backed-up clog on Pike Street heading through Lawrenceville? Robert
Cohen has
an idea.
I like it.

Cohen's partial solution to traffic woes is "obvious (at least to
me)," he
writes in a memo to county planners. But it hasn't been obvious to
everyone
else. Cohen, of Lawrenceville, is getting the word out. "Encouragement
of
reproduction in whole or part," he adds, fragmentally, to the two-page
document. "Not copyrighted."

His plan has a few hitches. Cohen admits that much, right off the bat.
For
example, to make it work, insurance companies would have to
"reconfigure" the
way they write liability policies. What's more, Atlanta and Fulton
County --
which have monopolized the taxi and limo market -- would have to ease
up a bit,
and ...

You're probably starting to figure it out.

Anyway, once we bring the insurance companies in line and bust up the
sweet
deal held in place by chauffers in Fulton County, we can move on to
Cohen's
plan. Summed up, in his words, it's this: "Fare-payin' passengers."

Old-timers will recall a bumper sticker along these lines, favored by
ruffian
hippies. The sticker bore a little rhyme that dealt with an anatomy
part and
with hemp, using slang vernacular for each and concluding that "nobody
rides
for free."

In Cohen's world, few people would. "We need to reconceptualize," he
writes. In
the memo, Cohen reconceptualizes like all get out.

"A major problem with facilitating the private vehicles carrying of
paying
passengers also has to do with crime potential," he writes. "One
solution might
be that potential paying passengers could carry picture ID (cards) and
these ID
(cards) could be scanned or checked via the vehicles' cellular
telephones. Such
a screening process would seemingly be of some expense, but it is a
technological possibility to utilize."

Under Cohen's plan, the driver would not be obliged to take anybody
with a
valid card. "There would be no requirement that a vehicle would carry
just
anybody who is unknown to the driver," he writes, which is a relief.
"In the
typical situations where the drivers and passengers are co-workers and/
or
neighbors (thus known to each other), then no screening is needed
anyway."

No, but you could still charge them. That's the beauty of the plan.
The
car-pool moocher would be a phenomenon of the past. Nobody rides for
free.

Exact amounts owed could be calculated. "Electronic taxi meters
themselves
should now hopefully be cheaper because of efficiencies in
electronics. Best
Buy, et. al., might sell and install the things. Or the vehicles'
odometers
could be utilized along with (the) wristwatch, and a simple formula
formulated."

Cohen's memo is more than practical advice. He throws in a few
opinions, too.
"The perimeter highway in DeKalb County is becoming increasingly
clogged," he
declares. "I currently favor an outer perimeter, possibly as a toll
road."

Mostly, though, Cohen wants to guide officials through the process of
clearing
up the roads. "The concept is to encourage more semi-public/semi-
private taxis,
so that not as many cars are needed. The incentive system could help
to solve
the transportation problem -- if institutions and laws could
appropriately be
reconfigured."

Ah, there's the rub. Cohen includes a series of questions in which he
rails at
conditions that he knows are bad. Very bad. "Is our society too crime-
prone for
this?" he asks, apparently in reference to the prospect of bogus ID
cards.
"Does the automotive industry want to sell less vehicles?" He seems to
know the
answer. "Isn't Gwinnett doomed to gridlock, no matter what? If you
hate it, why
is this concept dumb? Please critique."

I'm no traffic planner, so I'm hardly qualified to critique. Plus, the
memo
wasn't addressed to me. I only got a copy.

But, in the manner of a non-skeptic and optimist, I like Cohen's
solutions.
They suggest an earlier time of free enterprise, the pioneering
spirit, rugged
individualism and clean air -- not to mention ruffian hippies, who
(unlike
everyone else) were not altogether serious. It was a time when (unlike
today)
people didn't really mean it when they said: "Nobody rides for free."

| Gwinnett Loaf Home | Copyright 1997 by Creative Loafing | Published
Feb. 15,
1997 |



--------------------------------------------------------------------------
------
Google Home - Advertise with Us - Search Solutions - Services & Tools
- Jobs,
Press, & Help

©2003 Google


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Google Home - Advertise with Us - Business Solutions - Services &
Tools - Jobs, Press, & Help

©2003 Google




My Favorite Links
*** how to grow employment: 700 modular mini-factories





My Favorite Products

Free AOL! Try It Out Today!





Download AOL Instant Messenger



page created with 1-2-3 Publish
B***@peoplepc.com
2008-07-07 04:15:51 UTC
Permalink
A good idea. What it really needs is the right PR, not Martha Stewart
but someone just as socially correct / influential.

I do not deny I'm somewhat weak in that dept.

Anyway back to the issue. Motorists see me cycling in the 115 degree
heat out in the desert and pull over to offer me rides.

But once I've made up my mind to heat cycle, then I'm only being
polite when I accept.


Bret Cahill
Angelo Campanella
2008-07-13 03:38:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bob Eld
After the first oil shock we basically drilled our way out of it and didn't
complete the research necessary for alternatives.
Though not ideal, this proves at least one point. Given that drilling
out can besuccessful, we ought to do it again. But this time it
likelywill be only a qualified success. That fact alone is NO reason to
NOT do it. I don't think that anyone believes that it will be the RIGHT
answer this time. But at least we will have some economic relief. Right
now, we are the laughing stock of the world, first by botching the Iraq
war and peace. Second by trying our best to buy our way out of (or into)
oil dependence. The best we can hope for is a rapidly evolved hybrid
manufavturing capabily and enouh oil discoveries to ge somewaht comfortable.

The days are GONE when we used everdody else's oil at a discount. Now
the rest of the world's producers want top price. SUV owners: retire
that vehicle to just your Sunday drive to church .
Post by Bob Eld
We started down that road
but set it aside as oil prices lowered and stabilized. The situation is
different now. We virtually can't drill our way out this time. If we do
again what we did in the 70's and put aside the necessary research and
development we will really be in trouble in a few years.
Get on your state and federal representative. Why those silly twits
(all 500-odd of them) continue to defy drilling rights is a Nero like
mystery (fiddling while the US economy tanks).
Post by Bob Eld
But, just because everyone wants instant mature "green industries," and that
they are far from developed yet does not mean we should put aside that
development. What we need is national leadership that understands this and
is more interested in funding and pushing the development of alternative
energy than waging war, for example.
Hey, while you're at it, fund Rumplstilskin to restart his sinning flax
into gold project. What with all our new knowledge and lasers.... who
kknows???
Post by Bob Eld
It's now a matter of national survival
much more important than any of the silly terrorism nonsense ever was.
The "alternative energy" term is incomplete and a misnomer. It is not a
different energy that we need, but rather an alternative SOURCE for the
same energy, namely hydorcarbon fuel stock.
Post by Bob Eld
It's now a matter of national security and survival.
Agreed
Post by Bob Eld
Most people seem to
realize this to some degree, so I think we will begin down the right road.
Not if the Democrats get more power. They will TAX the existing fuels
and be done with it. Their entire platform is based on the fairy tales
of Global warming and the Green economy (never real, never achievable; a
permanent football as is Race, for insance).

"Alternative energy" will be no more successful than Johnson's war on
povery (still in progress after 40 years and thhere remains just as much
poverty than ever. Iraq looks like a clear win in comparison. A Pope
once said "The poor will always be with us". Now more true than ever.
Note that the poor do not disappear or die early; certainly never in
this country. They always seem to survive til the next handout...)
Post by Bob Eld
We must, however, guard against the naysayers and doom sayers who throw up
countless obstacles and irrational objections for this or that self serving
reason. We must stay focused on our ultimate goal of energy self
sufficiency.
That goal (alternative sources of hydrocarbon fuel) I accept as true
real and feasible. Let's all get to that task, sans politics.

Angelo Campanella
Benj
2008-07-13 07:09:59 UTC
Permalink
        That goal (alternative sources of hydrocarbon fuel) I accept as true
real and feasible. Let's all get to that task, sans politics.
Sans politics? Oh sure, THAT will be the day! Look! The very PROBLEM
is politics. Vested interests. People hoping to make big money with
scams (CO2), media fawning over really moronic "green people". and a
total ignoring of viable solutions.

There is a huge amount of coal. Liquification processes have been
around since the last century and worked well enough for Hitler to
keep WWII going much longer than anyone wanted. Electric cars run
essentially on coal. How much fuel is used by people going to work
each day? So why ignore electric cars just because they aren't full
replacements for gas cars yet? For work/shopping trips you've saved
that much oil!

There is less natural gas but still enough to give some breathing room
as coal problems are ironed out. My local gas company has run their
ENTIRE fleet of cars and trucks on natural gas for years. Works just
fine. No city blocks taken out by explosions. So what's the problem?
Even lower pollution than gasoline.

And for that matter my Geo metro gets 55 mpg on the highway and 45 in
the city. What in hell happened to that "Technology"? My guess is that
it's sort of like nobody knows how to make a decent mummy anymore
either.

The problem is politics. Everybody wants to "look" "green" even though
all they do is look moronic. You have people "inventing" all manner of
crap that even at a cursory glance is clear can't work. "Oh, once it
gets developed [means we spend,,,no WASTE a ton of tax money on it]
it'll work just fine!" Feh. How about we do this. We block some major
streams and rivers and back up the water and then use it to power
generators? Why not? I think I've just solved all our problems....
NOT.

So long as those with an agenda are controlling the media spew, we are
all in danger of a huge crash. Apparently those with this agenda and
their minions seem to think they don't live in the same country we
do.
DB
2008-07-13 07:34:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Angelo Campanella
Post by Bob Eld
After the first oil shock we basically drilled our way out of it and didn't
complete the research necessary for alternatives.
Though not ideal, this proves at least one point. Given that
drilling out can besuccessful, we ought to do it again.
<snip the rest of the same>

Nether of you get it. A thousand barrels a second. There are no
alternatives. Like whistling through the graveyard.....

You two, of course, scare me.....
Angelo Campanella
2008-07-13 15:22:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by DB
Post by Angelo Campanella
Post by Bob Eld
After the first oil shock we basically drilled our way out of it and didn't
complete the research necessary for alternatives.
Though not ideal, this proves at least one point. Given that
drilling out can besuccessful, we ought to do it again.
Nether of you get it. A thousand barrels a second. There are no
alternatives. Like whistling through the graveyard.....
Please clarify.

Do you mean that:

1,000 barrels a second is a doomsday rate of fuel consumption (bad)? or
such consuption cannot be replaced just by alternative fuels?
or
insisting on extending our consumpion of fossil fuels at all is bad?
or
something else?

Angelo Campanella
DB
2008-07-13 18:31:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Angelo Campanella
Post by DB
Post by Angelo Campanella
Post by Bob Eld
After the first oil shock we basically drilled our way out of it and didn't
complete the research necessary for alternatives.
Though not ideal, this proves at least one point. Given that
drilling out can besuccessful, we ought to do it again.
Nether of you get it. A thousand barrels a second. There are no
alternatives. Like whistling through the graveyard.....
Please clarify.
1,000 barrels a second is a doomsday rate of fuel consumption (bad)? or
such consuption cannot be replaced just by alternative fuels?
It can't be reasonably be replaced in the current paradym. There is
nothing to, as you put it, 'drill out'. Discoveries are running some 5
billion bl/year while consumption is currently 31 billion bl/year.

You can't drill for what isn't there.
Post by Angelo Campanella
insisting on extending our consumpion of fossil fuels at all is bad?
We can't extend what we don't have. Oil is not a limitless resource.
Post by Angelo Campanella
something else?
The big one is that we are heading for declines in production of massive
proportion compared to the growth in demand required to keep economies
from caving.
hanson
2008-07-13 19:00:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by DB
It can't be reasonably be replaced in the current paradym. There is
nothing to, as you put it, 'drill out'. Discoveries are running some 5
billion bl/year while consumption is currently 31 billion bl/year.
You can't drill for what isn't there.
"DB", the Dumb Bastard <***@some.net>
is a class 3 enviro, a little green idiot ....
who parrots the green party line because he doesn't have
sufficient education to think for himself, and that he has
no clue how badly the green shits are fucking him.
Here read again and try to grasp why 150'000 years of
buried carbon, in any desirable form, at the present
consumption rate, is *limitless* for normal people, who
are not damaged goods like you are...
Here it is again for your benefit and healing. Read the
Para that starts with: Initially, "they" say the earth had...:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.energy.renewable/msg/1f25c61fc45ad11b?hl=en
If you understand enough elementary chemistry, a light may
turn on in your head. If not then resign yourself to the fact
that you have fallen victim to the grand con that turned you
into damaged goods... ahahahaha... ahaha...ahahahanson
DB
2008-07-13 19:22:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by hanson
Post by DB
It can't be reasonably be replaced in the current paradym. There is
nothing to, as you put it, 'drill out'. Discoveries are running some 5
billion bl/year while consumption is currently 31 billion bl/year.
You can't drill for what isn't there.
is a class 3 enviro, a little green idiot ....
Christ hanson. Do you need a link to Uncle Al's sunshine?
hanson
2008-07-13 20:17:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by DB
Post by hanson
Post by DB
It can't be reasonably be replaced in the current paradym. There is
nothing to, as you put it, 'drill out'. Discoveries are running some 5
billion bl/year while consumption is currently 31 billion bl/year.
You can't drill for what isn't there.
is a class 3 enviro, a little green idiot ....
Christ hanson. Do you need a link to Uncle Al's sunshine?
hanson wrote
that's exactly how you, "DB" do argue, since you look up and
inside your own asshole... ahahahahahaha... wherein they,
the Green Turds and the Oil-boys, have painted their paradigm
for you to follow and parrot to make even more victims from the
machinations they perpetrated upon you and the peasantry.
Now since you are very slow on the uptake read here where it
says in:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.energy/msg/bb4dbe2a7fac0a34?hl=en
------- The C&CH politics ------- ....ahahaha... ahahanson
DB
2008-07-13 20:25:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by hanson
Post by DB
Post by hanson
Post by DB
It can't be reasonably be replaced in the current paradym. There is
nothing to, as you put it, 'drill out'. Discoveries are running some 5
billion bl/year while consumption is currently 31 billion bl/year.
You can't drill for what isn't there.
is a class 3 enviro, a little green idiot ....
Christ hanson. Do you need a link to Uncle Al's sunshine?
that's exactly how you, "DB" do argue
Nope. Not if you show some numbers to back your rehtoric.

Here, try this for starters:
http://lakeweb.blogspot.com/
http://www.theoildrum.com/
Post by hanson
Now since you are very slow on the uptake read here where it
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.energy/msg/bb4dbe2a7fac0a34?hl=en
But there is no content in this link.
hanson
2008-07-14 00:32:11 UTC
Permalink
"DB" <***@some.net> wrote in message news:kxtek.72186$***@fe087.usenetserver.com...
only arguments for argument's sake... hahahaha...
hanson wrote:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/7dec22d709f02903?hl=en
wherein it says:
"....thanks for the laughs and the money... ahahaha.."
and now again, Dan
... thanks for the MONEY... ahahahahanson
Rob Dekker
2008-07-19 06:16:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by hanson
Post by DB
It can't be reasonably be replaced in the current paradym. There is
nothing to, as you put it, 'drill out'. Discoveries are running some 5
billion bl/year while consumption is currently 31 billion bl/year.
You can't drill for what isn't there.
is a class 3 enviro, a little green idiot ....
who parrots the green party line because he doesn't have
sufficient education to think for himself, and that he has
no clue how badly the green shits are fucking him.
Here read again and try to grasp why 150'000 years of
buried carbon, in any desirable form, at the present
consumption rate, is *limitless* for normal people, who
are not damaged goods like you are...
Here it is again for your benefit and healing. Read the
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.energy.renewable/msg/1f25c61fc45ad11b?hl=
en
Post by hanson
If you understand enough elementary chemistry, a light may
turn on in your head. If not then resign yourself to the fact
that you have fallen victim to the grand con that turned you
into damaged goods... ahahahaha... ahaha...ahahahanson
Hanson,

Don't you have anything better to do than your record stuck on the 150,000
years of oil that we supposedly have ?
Ever heard of carbonates ? They are minerals that store carbon. Lots of it.
Oil (carbohydrates in general) is just an extremely rare occurance of carbon
that luckily survived the millions of years of terrestrial transformations.

It is time that you tell us WHERE we can find these carbohydrates that you
rave about, or simply stop repeating the same lie.
DB
2008-07-19 06:31:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rob Dekker
Hanson,
Don't you have anything better to do than your record stuck on the 150,000
years of oil that we supposedly have ?
Ever heard of carbonates ? They are minerals that store carbon. Lots of it.
Oil (carbohydrates in general) is just an extremely rare occurance of carbon
that luckily survived the millions of years of terrestrial transformations.
It is time that you tell us WHERE we can find these carbohydrates that you
rave about, or simply stop repeating the same lie.
Hanson:
BAWHAWHAWHAWHWAHAWHHAW.
z***@netscape.net
2008-07-19 10:13:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by hanson
Post by DB
It can't be reasonably be replaced in the current paradym. There is
nothing to, as you put it, 'drill out'. Discoveries are running some 5
billion bl/year while consumption is currently 31 billion bl/year.
You can't drill for what isn't there.
is a class 3 enviro, a little green idiot ....
who parrots the green party line because he doesn't have
sufficient education to think for himself, and that he has
 no clue how badly the green shits are fucking him.
Here read again and try to grasp why 150'000 years of
buried carbon, in any desirable form, at the present
consumption rate, is *limitless* for normal people, who
are not damaged goods like you are...
Here it is again for your benefit and healing.  Read the
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.energy.renewable/msg/1f25c61fc45ad...
en
Post by hanson
If you understand enough elementary chemistry, a light may
turn on in your head. If not then resign yourself to the fact
that you have fallen victim to the grand con that turned you
into damaged goods... ahahahaha... ahaha...ahahahanson
Hanson,
Don't you have anything better to do than your record stuck on the 150,000
years of oil that we supposedly have ?
Those issues still amaze many people.
Since digital systems, silicon graphics, A.I., WWW, Mars landers,
satellites, GPS, lasers,
PV Cells, HDTV, Tidal Enegy, Wind Energy, and Robots were mostly
invented because
of the cranks stuck on 150,000 years of anything: oil, nuclear,
gas, electric, elevators, or whatever.
Ever heard of carbonates ? They are minerals that store carbon. Lots of it.
Oil (carbohydrates in general) is just an extremely rare occurance of carbon
that luckily survived the millions of years of terrestrial transformations.
It is time that you tell us WHERE we can find these carbohydrates that you
rave about, or simply stop repeating the same lie.
- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Mike Jr.
2008-07-04 20:48:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bret Cahill
Not to diminish the bomb effort but at least they knew E=mc^2 three
decades before they started.
Now with peak oil everyone wants really fundamental research done "on
the wing."
They want "new mature" green industries yesterday.
I'm not saying that breakthroughs are impossible in this climate.
"When a man knows he's going to be hung in a fortnight, it
concentrates the mind wonderfully" applies to everyone.
I'm just saying that attitude makes me really really nervous.
Bret Cahill
Nuclear power has been around for how long?

How big are the US coal reserves? How long has coal liquefaction been
around?

The problem isn't technology, it is the lack of investment in what we
already know how to do.

--Mike Jr
Eeyore
2008-07-04 21:09:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mike Jr.
Post by Bret Cahill
Not to diminish the bomb effort but at least they knew E=mc^2 three
decades before they started.
Now with peak oil everyone wants really fundamental research done "on
the wing."
They want "new mature" green industries yesterday.
I'm not saying that breakthroughs are impossible in this climate.
"When a man knows he's going to be hung in a fortnight, it
concentrates the mind wonderfully" applies to everyone.
I'm just saying that attitude makes me really really nervous.
Bret Cahill
Nuclear power has been around for how long?
~ 52 years.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sellafield#Calder_Hall_nuclear_power_station

Graham
Bob Eld
2008-07-04 21:12:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mike Jr.
Post by Bret Cahill
Not to diminish the bomb effort but at least they knew E=mc^2 three
decades before they started.
Now with peak oil everyone wants really fundamental research done "on
the wing."
They want "new mature" green industries yesterday.
I'm not saying that breakthroughs are impossible in this climate.
"When a man knows he's going to be hung in a fortnight, it
concentrates the mind wonderfully" applies to everyone.
I'm just saying that attitude makes me really really nervous.
Bret Cahill
Nuclear power has been around for how long?
How big are the US coal reserves? How long has coal liquefaction been
around?
The problem isn't technology, it is the lack of investment in what we
already know how to do.
--Mike Jr
For good or for ill, it's more politics than investment that keeps us from
doing all we know how to do.

For sure we know how to do nuclear power but try to get one licensed these
days. That may change with energy costs so high, but the politics of it have
kept nuclear power off of the list since the 1970's.

We are still building coal fired plants but they are burping more and more
CO2 into the atmosphere and are under increasing scrutiny. If so called
"clean coal" ever really happens where the CO2 can be captured, then you
might see coal liquification and other processes added to the mix. Right now
the politics of coal are poison.

Bret is talking about green sources at reasonable prices that don't impact
food. Furthermore they need to be storable and convenient to use and should,
if possible, fuel existing equipment with little or no modification. It's a
tall order, that's why we need research.
Eeyore
2008-07-04 22:10:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bob Eld
For sure we know how to do nuclear power but try to get one licensed these
days.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Pressurized_Reactor

Two under construction. Finland and France.

Six on order in Asia.. Expect more.

Also
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AP1000

4 units planned to start construction this year in China and another 11 licences
sought in the USA.

Graham
Bob Eld
2008-07-05 02:13:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Eeyore
Post by Bob Eld
For sure we know how to do nuclear power but try to get one licensed these
days.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Pressurized_Reactor
Two under construction. Finland and France.
Six on order in Asia.. Expect more.
Also
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AP1000
4 units planned to start construction this year in China and another 11 licences
sought in the USA.
Graham
Good, we need it. What-da-ya-bet that it takes 10 years to get those US
licenses! Many in the US are antsy about nuclear power.
V for Vendicar
2008-07-14 04:52:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Eeyore
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Pressurized_Reactor
Two under construction. Finland and France.
Six on order in Asia.. Expect more.
And a couple in Iran.

Praise Gawd.

Only 200,000 more to build and then the entire world will be nuclear
powered.
Mike Jr.
2008-07-05 02:26:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bob Eld
Post by Mike Jr.
Post by Bret Cahill
Not to diminish the bomb effort but at least they knew E=mc^2 three
decades before they started.
Now with peak oil everyone wants really fundamental research done "on
the wing."
They want "new mature" green industries yesterday.
I'm not saying that breakthroughs are impossible in this climate.
"When a man knows he's going to be hung in a fortnight, it
concentrates the mind wonderfully" applies to everyone.
I'm just saying that attitude makes me really really nervous.
Bret Cahill
Nuclear power has been around for how long?
How big are the US coal reserves? How long has coal liquefaction been
around?
The problem isn't technology, it is the lack of investment in what we
already know how to do.
--Mike Jr
For good or for ill, it's more politics than investment that keeps us from
doing all we know how to do.
The politics is preventing the investment.
Post by Bob Eld
For sure we know how to do nuclear power but try to get one licensed these
days. That may change with energy costs so high, but the politics of it have
kept nuclear power off of the list since the 1970's.
We are still building coal fired plants but they are burping more and more
CO2 into the atmosphere and are under increasing scrutiny.
Check my recent appends in sci.physics. My investigation has led me
to conclude that CO2 AGW is physically not possible. That is, the
science behind AGW is deeply flawed. Therefore I see no reason for a
green energy policy.
Post by Bob Eld
If so called
"clean coal" ever really happens where the CO2 can be captured, then you
might see coal liquification and other processes added to the mix. Right now
the politics of coal are poison.
Bret is talking about green sources at reasonable prices that don't impact
food. Furthermore they need to be storable and convenient to use and should,
if possible, fuel existing equipment with little or no modification. It's a
tall order, that's why we need research.
The politics of green energy have led to high energy costs and mass
starvation, all to prevent a CO2 induced run away global warming which
can't happen because it violates the laws of physics.

BTW, your reply was very courteous and I appreciate it.

--Mike Jr
Eeyore
2008-07-05 03:33:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mike Jr.
Post by Bob Eld
Post by Mike Jr.
Post by Bret Cahill
Not to diminish the bomb effort but at least they knew E=mc^2 three
decades before they started.
Now with peak oil everyone wants really fundamental research done "on
the wing."
They want "new mature" green industries yesterday.
I'm not saying that breakthroughs are impossible in this climate.
"When a man knows he's going to be hung in a fortnight, it
concentrates the mind wonderfully" applies to everyone.
I'm just saying that attitude makes me really really nervous.
Bret Cahill
Nuclear power has been around for how long?
How big are the US coal reserves? How long has coal liquefaction been
around?
The problem isn't technology, it is the lack of investment in what we
already know how to do.
--Mike Jr
For good or for ill, it's more politics than investment that keeps us from
doing all we know how to do.
The politics is preventing the investment.
Post by Bob Eld
For sure we know how to do nuclear power but try to get one licensed these
days. That may change with energy costs so high, but the politics of it have
kept nuclear power off of the list since the 1970's.
We are still building coal fired plants but they are burping more and more
CO2 into the atmosphere and are under increasing scrutiny.
Check my recent appends in sci.physics. My investigation has led me
to conclude that CO2 AGW is physically not possible. That is, the
science behind AGW is deeply flawed. Therefore I see no reason for a
green energy policy.
Flawed is putting it mildly. Outright lies comes closer.
Post by Mike Jr.
Post by Bob Eld
If so called
"clean coal" ever really happens where the CO2 can be captured, then you
might see coal liquification and other processes added to the mix. Right now
the politics of coal are poison.
Bret is talking about green sources at reasonable prices that don't impact
food. Furthermore they need to be storable and convenient to use and should,
if possible, fuel existing equipment with little or no modification. It's a
tall order, that's why we need research.
The politics of green energy have led to high energy costs and mass
starvation, all to prevent a CO2 induced run away global warming which
can't happen because it violates the laws of physics.
I concur with all you say.

It's 'global power politics' and nothing else. The case for AGW is as weak as a
soggy sandwich.

Graham
Benj
2008-07-20 05:03:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bob Eld
For sure we know how to do nuclear power but try to get one licensed these
days. That may change with energy costs so high, but the politics of it have
kept nuclear power off of the list since the 1970's.
And the real problems is what to do with nuclear waste that lives
essentially forever.
My vote is to just build the plants and ship all the waste to
Alabama.
Post by Bob Eld
We are still building coal fired plants but they are burping more and more
CO2 into the atmosphere and are under increasing scrutiny.
Not the problem. CO2 is a POLITICAL problem, namely how to stop all
the lies about CO2 causing AGW. The REAL problem with coal is all the
OTHER nasty pollutants like heavy metals. Unfortunately the CO2
boondoggle has shunted money that SHOULD have desperately gone to the
coal pollutants problem into a non-problem where there is a political
agenda and big money to be made.
Check my recent appends in sci.physics.  My investigation has led me
to conclude that CO2 AGW is physically not possible.  That is, the
science behind AGW is deeply flawed.  Therefore I see no reason for a
green energy policy.
Well the "reason" is spelled "political agenda" It's funny that what
with a bunch of us screaming about CO2 AGW not being possible the AGW
crowd and now shifted gears to some bogus "feedback theory" to
explain how the impossible really is true. It would really be funny if
so much money and the fate of the world were not involved!
DB
2008-07-20 17:46:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Benj
Post by Bob Eld
For sure we know how to do nuclear power but try to get one licensed these
days. That may change with energy costs so high, but the politics of it have
kept nuclear power off of the list since the 1970's.
And the real problems is what to do with nuclear waste that lives
essentially forever.
The problem is political, not technical. It can be very safely vitrified
and dropped into the mariana trench.
Publius
2008-07-05 03:44:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bob Eld
What we need is national leadership that understands this and
is more interested in funding and pushing the development of alternative
energy than waging war, for example. It's now a matter of national
survival much more important than any of the silly terrorism nonsense
ever was.
And,
Post by Bob Eld
For good or for ill, it's more politics than investment that keeps us
from doing all we know how to do.
I assume that by "national leadership" you mean gummint, right? But gummint
entails politics, which you admit is, far from being a source of solutions,
an obstacle to them.

If you want to see solutions to the energy "crisis," you'd be well-advised
to insist that gummint keep its hands off. No practical means of producing
energy has ever been conceived or developed by gummints, or under the
"leadership" of gummints.
z***@netscape.net
2008-07-05 08:16:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mike Jr.
Post by Bret Cahill
Not to diminish the bomb effort but at least they knew E=mc^2 three
decades before they started.
Now with peak oil everyone wants really fundamental research done "on
the wing."
 They want "new mature" green industries yesterday.
I'm not saying that breakthroughs are impossible in this climate.
"When a man knows he's going to be hung in a fortnight, it
concentrates the mind wonderfully" applies to everyone.
I'm just saying that attitude makes me really really nervous.
Bret Cahill
Nuclear power has been around for how long?
It doesn't matter, as the coal idiots are often told.
Since the it's computers, lasers, satellites, A.I. and robots,
that are the dfference bewteen nuclear power and coal idiots.
Post by Mike Jr.
How big are the US coal reserves?  How long has coal liquefaction been
around?
The problem isn't technology, it is the lack of investment in what we
already know how to do.
--Mike Jr
V for Vendicar
2008-07-09 07:37:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mike Jr.
The problem isn't technology, it is the lack of investment in what we
already know how to do.
Yup, there is lots of coal. Eough to bring the Co2 level of the
atmosphere to levels that are lethal to most animal life.

Do you think you have a point?
Angelo Campanella
2008-07-13 03:46:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by V for Vendicar
Post by Mike Jr.
The problem isn't technology, it is the lack of investment in what we
already know how to do.
Yup, there is lots of coal. Eough to bring the Co2 level of the
atmosphere to levels that are lethal to most animal life.
Hey, have you heard that some scientists now believe that one of the
the causes of the slight temperature rise observed in recent years is
the REMOVAL of contaminatis and particulates (industrial smoke) from the
atmosphere via decades of EPA cleanups. The clear air is a better
insulator.

This agrees with the Krakatoa expplosion effect in the late 19th
century where so much dust and SO2 was ejected into the atmosphere that
observable cooling occurred for a year.

I also believe that the increasing carbon dioxide will act to some
extent like the smoke in that the CO2 (like SO2 may have done then)
will act to reduce the thermal insulation value of pure air. In
particular, in the upper atmosphere where CO2 is the only means to
radiate off heat at nght.

Whence colder winrers .

Angelo Campanella
V for Vendicar
2008-07-14 04:58:54 UTC
Permalink
Hey, have you heard that some scientists now believe that one of the the
causes of the slight temperature rise observed in recent years is the
REMOVAL of contaminatis and particulates (industrial smoke) from the
atmosphere via decades of EPA cleanups. The clear air is a better
insulator.
Well, lets see.. MMMM ya. It's only been in the scientific literature
for the last 50 years.

MMMMMMMMMOOOOOOOOOOOORRRRRRRRRRRROOOOOOOOOONNNNNNN
Benj
2008-07-13 06:52:47 UTC
Permalink
On Jul 9, 3:37 am, "V for Vendicar"
  Yup, there is lots of coal.  Eough to bring the Co2 level of the
atmosphere to levels that are lethal to most animal life.
We won't even have to wait for the coal so long as we keep letting the
Banksters burn the rain forests. Apparently they seem to think that
they are not oxygen breathing animals. Yeah, that's it. lets burn the
rain forests so we can grow corn for ethanol. (for a few years) That's
be "green" for sure.
Eeyore
2008-07-04 21:00:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bret Cahill
Not to diminish the bomb effort but at least they knew E=mc^2 three
decades before they started.
Now with peak oil everyone wants really fundamental research done "on
the wing."
They want "new mature" green industries yesterday.
I'm not saying that breakthroughs are impossible in this climate.
"When a man knows he's going to be hung in a fortnight, it
concentrates the mind wonderfully" applies to everyone.
I'm just saying that attitude makes me really really nervous.
It's the politicians and 'greens' that make ME nervous. Not a clue
between them.

Graham
z***@netscape.net
2008-07-04 21:35:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bret Cahill
Not to diminish the bomb effort but at least they knew E=mc^2 three
decades before they started.
But, even better, they knew there were neutrons three decades
before they started.
Since E=MC^2 also supposedly applies to supercomputers, if the
idiot relativers
could ever bring themselves to think about history rather simply
babbling about it.
Post by Bret Cahill
Now with peak oil everyone wants really fundamental research done "on
the wing."
 They want "new mature" green industries yesterday.
I'm not saying that breakthroughs are impossible in this climate.
"When a man knows he's going to be hung in a fortnight, it
concentrates the mind wonderfully" applies to everyone.
I'm just saying that attitude makes me really really nervous.
Bret Cahill
Uncle Al
2008-07-04 21:34:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by z***@netscape.net
Post by Bret Cahill
Not to diminish the bomb effort but at least they knew E=mc^2 three
decades before they started.
But, even better, they knew there were neutrons three decades
before they started.
Since E=MC^2 also supposedly applies to supercomputers, if the
idiot relativers
could ever bring themselves to think about history rather simply
babbling about it.
[snip crap]

Hey bozo - the Manhattan Project had more Jews/m^2 than a Nazi
concentration camp. The National Energy Crisis! has

Loading Image...
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2
z***@netscape.net
2008-07-04 23:22:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Uncle Al
Post by Bret Cahill
Not to diminish the bomb effort but at least they knew E=mc^2 three
decades before they started.
   But, even better, they knew there were neutrons three decades
before they started.
   Since E=MC^2 also supposedly applies to supercomputers, if the
idiot relativers
   could ever bring themselves to think about history rather simply
babbling about it.
[snip crap]
Hey bozo - the Manhattan Project had more Jews/m^2 than a Nazi
concentration camp.  The National Energy Crisis! has
It doesn't matter how many jews the moron Manhattan Project had.
We got GPS, we got Lasers, we got Space Shuttles, and we got
MIIRVs,
and we got Cruise Missiles, and we got adaptive A.I. and we got
Robots.
and we DVD+RW, and the moron Jews got Woody Alllen, New Dork
City
and a bunch of Russian retards.
Post by Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qualified.jpg
--
Uncle Alhttp://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
 (Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2
Eeyore
2008-07-05 02:13:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by z***@netscape.net
We got GPS, we got Lasers, we got Space Shuttles, and we got
MIIRVs,
and we got Cruise Missiles, and we got adaptive A.I. and we got
Robots.
and we DVD+RW,
Do you think any of those are unique to the USA ?

Hint : no they're not.

Graham
z***@netscape.net
2008-07-05 06:47:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Eeyore
   We got GPS, we got Lasers, we got Space Shuttles, and we got
MIIRVs,
   and we got Cruise Missiles, and we got adaptive A.I. and we got
Robots.
   and we DVD+RW,
Do you think any of those are unique to the USA ?
Noboby claimed any sort of uniqueness, only that we got
real LFA to go with the AI, DVD+RW, and Cruise Missiles and
Internet got stooges.
.
Post by Eeyore
Hint : no they're not.
Graham
Tom Potter
2008-07-07 02:02:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Uncle Al
Post by z***@netscape.net
Post by Bret Cahill
Not to diminish the bomb effort but at least they knew E=mc^2 three
decades before they started.
But, even better, they knew there were neutrons three decades
before they started.
Since E=MC^2 also supposedly applies to supercomputers, if the
idiot relativers
could ever bring themselves to think about history rather simply
babbling about it.
[snip crap]
Hey bozo - the Manhattan Project had more Jews/m^2 than a Nazi
concentration camp. The National Energy Crisis! has
Uncle Al makes a good point when he points out
that as Jews had massacred the Russian Royal Family
and co-opted the Russian government,
and were using Russia as a base
from where to instigate the Class Wars of the 1900's
Jews were not trusted by America's leadership,

so many Jewish scientists who were not trusted
were shipped to a remote, isolated New Mexico location
and assigned the simplest part of the Atomic Bomb program,

while the heavy work was done by people like
Fermi and Lawrence in places like New York, Chicago,
Hanford and Oak Ridge.

Some Jewish scientists who were not trusted, like Einstein,
were not given Secret Clearances and assigned to military projects,
perhaps because the FBI needed a few prominent Jews
who appeared to have access to military secrets
to roam with apparent freedom
so the FBI could spot potential spy networks.

Even then, as it turns out,
the best design for the trigger was put forward by
a non-Jewish explosive technician.

It is interesting to see that although America
took great pains to protect its' secrets,
that a few Jews like Fuchs and the Rosenbergs
still managed to pass along America's secrets
to the Jews who controlled the Russian government.

Thanks to my pal Uncle Al
for demonstrating another example of Institutionalized Revisionism.

--
Tom Potter

http://www.geocities.com/tdp1001/index.html
http://notsocrazyideas.blogspot.com
http://www.flickr.com/photos/tom-potter/
http://tdp1001.wiki.zoho.com
http://groups.msn.com/PotterPhotos
Tom Potter
2008-07-05 11:31:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Uncle Al
Post by z***@netscape.net
Post by Bret Cahill
Not to diminish the bomb effort but at least they knew E=mc^2 three
decades before they started.
But, even better, they knew there were neutrons three decades
before they started.
Since E=MC^2 also supposedly applies to supercomputers, if the
idiot relativers
could ever bring themselves to think about history rather simply
babbling about it.
[snip crap]
Hey bozo - the Manhattan Project had more Jews/m^2 than a Nazi
concentration camp. The National Energy Crisis! has
Uncle Al makes a good point when he points out
that as Jews had massacred the Russian Royal Family
and co-opted the Russian government,
and were using Russia as a base
from where to instigate the Class Wars of the 1900's
Jews were not trusted by America's leadership,

so many Jewish scientists who were not trusted
were shipped to a remote, isolated New Mexico location
and assigned the simplest part of the Atomic Bomb program,

while the heavy work was done by people like
Fermi and Lawrence in places like New York, Chicago,
Hanford and Oak Ridge.

Some Jewish scientists who were not trusted, like Einstein,
were not given Secret Clearances and assigned to military projects,
perhaps because the FBI needed a few prominent Jews
who appeared to have access to military secrets
to roam with apparent freedom
so the FBI could spot potential spy networks.

Even then, as it turns out,
the best design for the trigger was put forward by
a non-Jewish explosive technician.

It is interesting to see that although America
took great pains to protect its' secrets,
that a few Jews like Fuchs and the Rosenbergs
still managed to pass along America's secrets
to the Jews who controlled the Russian government.

Thanks to my pal Uncle Al
for demonstrating this example of Institutionalized Revisionism.
--
Tom Potter

http://www.geocities.com/tdp1001/index.html
http://notsocrazyideas.blogspot.com
http://www.flickr.com/photos/tom-potter/
http://tdp1001.wiki.zoho.com
http://groups.msn.com/PotterPhotos
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **
Spaceman
2008-07-10 02:43:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tom Potter
Post by Uncle Al
Post by z***@netscape.net
Post by Bret Cahill
Not to diminish the bomb effort but at least they knew E=mc^2 three
decades before they started.
But, even better, they knew there were neutrons three decades
before they started.
Since E=MC^2 also supposedly applies to supercomputers, if the
idiot relativers
could ever bring themselves to think about history rather simply
babbling about it.
[snip crap]
Hey bozo - the Manhattan Project had more Jews/m^2 than a Nazi
concentration camp. The National Energy Crisis! has
Uncle Al makes a good point when he points out
that as Jews had massacred the Russian Royal Family
and co-opted the Russian government,
and were using Russia as a base
from where to instigate the Class Wars of the 1900's
Jews were not trusted by America's leadership,
so many Jewish scientists who were not trusted
were shipped to a remote, isolated New Mexico location
and assigned the simplest part of the Atomic Bomb program,
while the heavy work was done by people like
Fermi and Lawrence in places like New York, Chicago,
Hanford and Oak Ridge.
Some Jewish scientists who were not trusted, like Einstein,
were not given Secret Clearances and assigned to military projects,
perhaps because the FBI needed a few prominent Jews
who appeared to have access to military secrets
to roam with apparent freedom
so the FBI could spot potential spy networks.
It was not the fact he was untrusted.
It was his sillyness about simultaneity.
His relativity of simultaneity was totally ignored
of course.. because.. it would not haved worked
if they did not ignore such bullshit about simulteniety not
being the same for everyone.
:)
Post by Tom Potter
Even then, as it turns out,
the best design for the trigger was put forward by
a non-Jewish explosive technician.
Yup
a simultaneous trigger.
Go figure..
a thing relativity thinks can't occur at all because of
two different observers will not see the simultaneous
flashes at the same times.
anyone thinking about what was seen instead of what actually
occurs.. were pushed to the lower levels.
:)
--
James M Driscoll Jr
Spaceman
Uncle Al
2008-07-04 21:30:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bret Cahill
Not to diminish the bomb effort but at least they knew E=mc^2 three
decades before they started.
Now with peak oil everyone wants really fundamental research done "on
the wing."
They want "new mature" green industries yesterday.
I'm not saying that breakthroughs are impossible in this climate.
"When a man knows he's going to be hung in a fortnight, it
concentrates the mind wonderfully" applies to everyone.
I'm just saying that attitude makes me really really nervous.
Bret Cahill
1) Go to the Colorado high desert.
2) Define a block of subterranean oil shale 100x100x100 m^3, about
2 million metric tonnes.
3) Mine out about 10%, then blast to fragment the chimney.
4) Light the top like a cigarette, blow in air, and put a drip pan
at the bottom.
5) As the top burns down on residual char the oil shale below
pyrolyzes and releases its hydrocarbon content.
6) A good week and a rich vein obtains about 0.27 million metric
tonnes of shale oil. That is about 1.9 million bbl of oil.
7) Declare bankruptcy.

Shale oil is rich with rock dust that wears away elbows and valves
like sand blasting. It is about 3% nitrogen and 20 ppm arsenic, the
perfect poison for reforming catalyst - nitrogen kills acidic zeolite,
arsenic kills noble metal catalysts. If you get all that fixed shale
oil is also heavily unsaturated, loaded with olefin. The hydrogen
needed for bond saturation will bankrupt you.

Oh yeah... oil shale is not shale, it is calcareous marlstone low rank
coal. The stuff left behind after burning is rich with lime. It will
run pH 14 groundwater pretty much forever - the solution to acid mine
drainage!

Ignite Colorado, truck the effluent to the National Petroleum Reserve,
end Colorado molybdenite mine acid effluent, save America! It's a
no-brainer. $10 billion ought to do it for starters. Hve prison
chain gangs do the preparative mining to keep costs down.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2
Immortalist
2008-07-05 06:24:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bret Cahill
"When a man knows he's going to be hung in a fortnight, it
concentrates the mind wonderfully" applies to everyone.
I'm just saying that attitude makes me really really nervous.
Culture of fear is a term that refers to a perceived prevalence of
fear and anxiety in public discourse and relationships, and how this
may affect the way people interact with one another as individuals and
as democratic agents.

Mean World Syndrome is a phenomenon whereby the violence-related
content of mass media convinces viewers that the world is more
dangerous than it actually is, and prompts a desire for more
protection than is warranted by any actual threat. Mean World Syndrome
is one of the main effects of Cultivation theory.

The term "risk society" is not intended to imply an increase of risk
in society, but rather a society that is organized in response to
risk. 'It is a society increasingly preoccupied with the future (and
also with safety), which generates the notion of risk' (Giddens 1999:
3) Risk can be defined in the risk society as a systematic way of
dealing with hazards and insecurities induced and introduced by
modernization itself (Beck 1992: 21).

While humans have always been subjected to a level of risk, modern
society is exposed to a particular type of risk that is the result of
the modernization process itself, altering social organization. There
are risks such as natural disasters that have always had negative
effects on human populations, but these are seen to be produced by non-
human forces. Modern risks, on the other hand, are the product of
human activity. These two different types of risk can be referred to
as external risks and manufactured risks (Giddens, 1999). A risk
society is predominantly concerned with manufactured risks. The marked
difference between the two is that there is a significant level of
human agency operating in the production and mitigation of
manufactured risks.

Media circus describes a news event where the media coverage is
perceived to be out of proportion to the event being covered, such as
the number of reporters at the scene, the amount of news media
published or broadcast, and the level of media hype. The term is meant
to critique the media by comparing it to a circus and, as such, is an
idiom and not an objective observation. Media hype, orgy and frenzy
are similar terms used in reference to a critique of news and
entertainment media.

Mass hysteria, also called collective hysteria, mass psychogenic
illness, or collective obsessional behavior, is the sociopsychological
phenomenon of the manifestation of the same or similar hysterical
symptoms by more than one person. A common manifestation of mass
hysteria occurs when a group of people believe they are suffering from
a similar disease or ailment.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Culture_of_fear
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mean_world_syndrome
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Risk_Society
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_hype
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_hysteria
Post by Bret Cahill
Bret Cahill
Bret Cahill
2008-07-05 15:57:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Immortalist
Mean World Syndrome is a phenomenon whereby the violence-related
content of mass media convinces viewers that the world is more
dangerous than it actually is, and prompts a desire for more
protection than is warranted by any actual threat. Mean World Syndrome
is one of the main effects of Cultivation theory.
Gush hyping "9/11 changed EEEEVERYthing," making all kids out to be
gang members and Hollywood movies on home invaders are just 3 of many
examples. They also engage in the converse conjugate as well,
"merely" omitting real concerns. Any demagoguery for a buck.

But it's not related to my concerns. The corp. whore media aren't
going around saying things like, "basic research takes more time than
what'll take to survive peak oil."


Bret Cahill
chazwin
2008-07-26 09:45:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bret Cahill
Not to diminish the bomb effort but at least they knew E=mc^2 three
decades before they started.
Now with peak oil everyone wants really fundamental research done "on
the wing."
They want "new mature" green industries yesterday.
I'm not saying that breakthroughs are impossible in this climate.
"When a man knows he's going to be hung in a fortnight, it
concentrates the mind wonderfully" applies to everyone.
I'm just saying that attitude makes me really really nervous.
Bret Cahill
Too little too late.
Let's face it, as a species, we ain't gonna make it!
We will either fuck the world up over some idiotic religious/
ideological argument and blow the shit out of each other, or we will
just wind down when the oil and other fossil fuels are used up. We can
always go back to hunting and gathering!
The most dangerous time for nuclear holocaust will be when the
resource gap will begin to tighten. The Western powers will find
increasing numbers of excuses to invade, destabilise and control the
dwindling resources. Within 30 years there will be US troops in a
radioactive Iran.
Day Brown
2008-07-26 14:09:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by chazwin
Too little too late.
Let's face it, as a species, we ain't gonna make it!
We will either fuck the world up over some idiotic religious/
ideological argument and blow the shit out of each other, or we will
just wind down when the oil and other fossil fuels are used up. We can
always go back to hunting and gathering!
The most dangerous time for nuclear holocaust will be when the
resource gap will begin to tighten. The Western powers will find
increasing numbers of excuses to invade, destabilise and control the
dwindling resources. Within 30 years there will be US troops in a
radioactive Iran.
You know why there are no Iranians on Star Trek?
Cause Star Trek is about the future.
As for the Jews?
That's the Ferengi.

But, right now, I'm about half way thru "Infidel" by Ayaan Hirsi Ali.
The Iranians have a lotta jackass company. And while the Africans,
Arabs, and other Moslems are outbreeding everyone else, we know that
booms tend to go to bust.

I've been having some fun telling Liberals that in a one-man/one-vote
system, they are outbreeding everyone else and will elect what passes
for leadership. The Serbs figured out that's what the Catholic Croats
and Albanian Muslims were up to, and found Malosevic, a true patriot, to
deal with it for them, and as Machiavelli said, taking the guilt for the
action away with him while they get to enjoy the fruits of the new
status quo; in this case, a relatively pure Serbia.

But what Ayaan shows us going on among the Muslim clerics in Africa and
Saudi Arabia looks a lot like what's going on with US Christian fundies.
And while these jackasses can get a lotta stupid sheeple behind them,
they cant really organize and kind of innovative responses to new or
unexpected challenges, such as the decline of oil production.

And yes, I spoze the most of the planet is headed for famine. But when
you look at the collapse of empires all thru history, you'll repeatedly
find some communities that figured out what was coming down, and made
the most of the opportunity to rid themselves of taxes that were no
longer doing them any good.

I might suggest also, that the nuke thing is, if you'll pardon the pun,
overblown. The power elites have a vested interest in scaring us about
nukes, but the fact is you havta take a nuke down off the shelf every 18
months to refine the lead out of it. (remember radioactive decay?) And
as we see with Katrina, the MPLS bridge, the fucked up way the wars are
being run, and similar kinds of ineptitude in Russia, I aint so sure
they can really organize enuf competent people to make nukes any more.

Not that I'd want to live in a city to see. But you dont have to. There
is ongoing investment in small towns and cities that have populations
that dont move around as much because all their kin live there. Employee
turnover is lower, and transnats have figured that out. Remember Blade
Runner? Critical infrastructure is quietly being moved out of the high
risk urban areas into rural obscurity. What else would you do about WMD?
chazwin
2008-07-26 15:52:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Day Brown
Post by chazwin
Too little too late.
Let's face it, as a species, we ain't gonna make it!
We will either fuck the world up over some idiotic religious/
ideological argument and blow the shit out of each other, or we will
just wind down when the oil and other fossil fuels are used up. We can
always go back to hunting and gathering!
The most dangerous time for nuclear holocaust will be when the
resource gap will begin to tighten. The Western powers will find
increasing numbers of excuses to invade, destabilise and control the
dwindling resources. Within 30 years there will be US troops in a
radioactive Iran.
You know why there are no Iranians on Star Trek?
Cause Star Trek is about the future.
As for the Jews?
That's the Ferengi.
Star Trek was devised when Russia was the great foe. Klingons
represented them, and by the time of Peristroika, Klingons were at
peace with the Feds. Perhaps you would like to account for the fact
that the Ferengi were unknon in the time of Kirk? Maybe the Jews
didn't exist either.
In any event there are plenty of candidates for the Iranians.
And I think it is easy to take this idea too far.
Post by Day Brown
But, right now, I'm about half way thru "Infidel" by Ayaan Hirsi Ali.
The Iranians have a lotta jackass company. And while the Africans,
Arabs, and other Moslems are outbreeding everyone else, we know that
booms tend to go to bust.
Look to your own shores for that, and see my thread on "Proud to be
American". The crack are begining to show and the credit crunch is
gonna change things in a big way. America's time may be coming to a
close. It will be accelerated if it keeps up the military pretence
that it simply cannot afford whilst it slips away from the top of the
standard of living index to become a "developing country".
The NeoCons have to realise that you have to spread money for the
economy to work; concentrating it at the top gives you a banana
repulblic.
Post by Day Brown
I've been having some fun telling Liberals that in a one-man/one-vote
system, they are outbreeding everyone else and will elect what passes
for leadership. The Serbs figured out that's what the Catholic Croats
and Albanian Muslims were up to, and found Malosevic, a true patriot, to
deal with it for them, and as Machiavelli said, taking the guilt for the
action away with him while they get to enjoy the fruits of the new
status quo; in this case, a relatively pure Serbia.
Irrelevant BS
Post by Day Brown
But what Ayaan shows us going on among the Muslim clerics in Africa and
Saudi Arabia looks a lot like what's going on with US Christian fundies.
And while these jackasses can get a lotta stupid sheeple behind them,
they cant really organize and kind of innovative responses to new or
unexpected challenges, such as the decline of oil production.
So what?
Post by Day Brown
And yes, I spoze the most of the planet is headed for famine. But when
you look at the collapse of empires all thru history, you'll repeatedly
find some communities that figured out what was coming down, and made
the most of the opportunity to rid themselves of taxes that were no
longer doing them any good.
Twat! Low tax is a recipe for economic disaster.
Post by Day Brown
I might suggest also, that the nuke thing is, if you'll pardon the pun,
overblown. The power elites have a vested interest in scaring us about
nukes, but the fact is you havta take a nuke down off the shelf every 18
months to refine the lead out of it. (remember radioactive decay?) And
as we see with Katrina, the MPLS bridge, the fucked up way the wars are
being run, and similar kinds of ineptitude in Russia, I aint so sure
they can really organize enuf competent people to make nukes any more.
Irrelevant BS
Post by Day Brown
Not that I'd want to live in a city to see. But you dont have to. There
is ongoing investment in small towns and cities that have populations
that dont move around as much because all their kin live there. Employee
turnover is lower, and transnats have figured that out. Remember Blade
Runner? Critical infrastructure is quietly being moved out of the high
risk urban areas into rural obscurity. What else would you do about WMD?
Irrelevant BS
V for Vendicar
2008-07-26 19:11:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by chazwin
Star Trek was devised when Russia was the great foe. Klingons
represented them, and by the time of Peristroika, Klingons were at
peace with the Feds. Perhaps you would like to account for the fact
that the Ferengi were unknon in the time of Kirk? Maybe the Jews
didn't exist either.
In any event there are plenty of candidates for the Iranians.
Well According to the KKKonservatives at the Wall Street Journal, Bush is
Batman.

Yup, the AmeriKKKan people are now so stupid, that even their business
leadership has to have
the world presented to them in Comic Book Form.

I know several people who managed various U.S. businesses, and they inform
me that without training
comic books, they could never train their Illiterate, Dysfunctional,
AmeriKKKan Employees..

You know. Here in the Socialist states - we can read technical manuals,
and don't need to have them
predigested into comic book form.

Ahahahahahahahaah
Day Brown
2008-07-29 03:07:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by chazwin
Post by Day Brown
You know why there are no Iranians on Star Trek?
Cause Star Trek is about the future.
As for the Jews?
That's the Ferengi.
Star Trek was devised when Russia was the great foe. Klingons
represented them, and by the time of Peristroika, Klingons were at
peace with the Feds. Perhaps you would like to account for the fact
that the Ferengi were unknon in the time of Kirk? Maybe the Jews
didn't exist either.
In any event there are plenty of candidates for the Iranians.
And I think it is easy to take this idea too far.
Damn Chaz, you took the fucking joke literally.
Post by chazwin
Post by Day Brown
But, right now, I'm about half way thru "Infidel" by Ayaan Hirsi Ali.
The Iranians have a lotta jackass company. And while the Africans,
Arabs, and other Moslems are outbreeding everyone else, we know that
booms tend to go to bust.
Look to your own shores for that, and see my thread on "Proud to be
American". The crack are begining to show and the credit crunch is
gonna change things in a big way. America's time may be coming to a
close. It will be accelerated if it keeps up the military pretence
that it simply cannot afford whilst it slips away from the top of the
standard of living index to become a "developing country".
The NeoCons have to realise that you have to spread money for the
economy to work; concentrating it at the top gives you a banana
repulblic.
The voice in her film on youtube is American, not British English. The
book, which among other things, shows the failure of Dutch liberalism,
which is far left of the American version, to deal effectively with
Islamic immigrants. The book, Infidel makes it clear to me that we need
to get away from partisan group think to see WTF is going on.
Post by chazwin
Post by Day Brown
I've been having some fun telling Liberals that in a one-man/one-vote
system, they are outbreeding everyone else and will elect what passes
for leadership. The Serbs figured out that's what the Catholic Croats
and Albanian Muslims were up to, and found Malosevic, a true patriot, to
deal with it for them, and as Machiavelli said, taking the guilt for the
action away with him while they get to enjoy the fruits of the new
status quo; in this case, a relatively pure Serbia.
Irrelevant BS
Read Milgram's studies on obedience. He showed how Americans will follow
orders just like Nazis did.
Post by chazwin
Post by Day Brown
But what Ayaan shows us going on among the Muslim clerics in Africa and
Saudi Arabia looks a lot like what's going on with US Christian fundies.
And while these jackasses can get a lotta stupid sheeple behind them,
they cant really organize and kind of innovative responses to new or
unexpected challenges, such as the decline of oil production.
So what?
So, while the climb to Hubbard's peak oil followed a smooth bell curve,
coming down off it will be precipitous. We need to invest less in golden
parachutes and figure out how to hang on while we endow innovation to
find a way to get down to some sustainable level of energy.
Post by chazwin
Post by Day Brown
And yes, I spoze the most of the planet is headed for famine. But when
you look at the collapse of empires all thru history, you'll repeatedly
find some communities that figured out what was coming down, and made
the most of the opportunity to rid themselves of taxes that were no
longer doing them any good.
Twat! Low tax is a recipe for economic disaster.
Denmark, Sweden, Holland, & Germany, to name a few, have high taxes,
but then high incomes. For middle class people. They dont reward the
power elites like the economies you admire. Somalia, Ethiopia, Kenya, et
al, have lower taxes than here if you like low taxes.
Post by chazwin
Post by Day Brown
I might suggest also, that the nuke thing is, if you'll pardon the pun,
overblown. The power elites have a vested interest in scaring us about
nukes, but the fact is you havta take a nuke down off the shelf every 18
months to refine the lead out of it. (remember radioactive decay?) And
as we see with Katrina, the MPLS bridge, the fucked up way the wars are
being run, and similar kinds of ineptitude in Russia, I aint so sure
they can really organize enuf competent people to make nukes any more.
Irrelevant BS
I see you've not had the time to read Gibbon or Machiavelli either. Did
Orwell slip your mind as well? Suffice to say that we have an unstable
situation, and determining what will be relevant determines success, or
even survival. When a situation is intractable, the usual reason is that
you dont really understand it.
Post by chazwin
Post by Day Brown
Not that I'd want to live in a city to see. But you dont have to. There
is ongoing investment in small towns and cities that have populations
that dont move around as much because all their kin live there. Employee
turnover is lower, and transnats have figured that out. Remember Blade
Runner? Critical infrastructure is quietly being moved out of the high
risk urban areas into rural obscurity. What else would you do about WMD?
Irrelevant BS
If you dont need to make investments or try to build a career, spoze so.
I see however, that NW Arkansas now has a net IMMIGRATION of
engineers and scientific professionals from California and other high
tech areas.
If you are young enuf to still have a future, it is relevant.
Tom Potter
2008-07-28 13:37:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by chazwin
Post by Bret Cahill
Not to diminish the bomb effort but at least they knew E=mc^2 three
decades before they started.
Now with peak oil everyone wants really fundamental research done "on
the wing."
 They want "new mature" green industries yesterday.
I'm not saying that breakthroughs are impossible in this climate.
"When a man knows he's going to be hung in a fortnight, it
concentrates the mind wonderfully" applies to everyone.
I'm just saying that attitude makes me really really nervous.
Bret Cahill
Too little too late.
Let's face it, as a species, we ain't gonna make it!
We will either fuck the world up over some idiotic religious/
ideological argument and blow the shit out of each other, or we will
just wind down when the oil and other fossil fuels are used up. We can
always go back to hunting and gathering!
The most dangerous time for nuclear holocaust will be when the
resource gap will begin to tighten. The Western powers will find
increasing numbers of excuses to invade, destabilise and control the
dwindling resources. Within 30 years there will be US troops in a
radioactive Iran.
Hydrogen is not the most abundant thing in the universe,
stupidity is.

It is clear that, like Bush,
most people are ignorant of the consequences
of instigating Iraq or Russia into a war.

It amazes me to see people in the media,
in government, in the military, and idiots posting
on the net, smugly talking about Invading Iran,
and having American troops waging war
with people all over the world.

The fact of the matter is,
if America attacked either Iran or Russia,
or if Iran or Russia seriously thought that
America was going to invade either of those nations,
they wouldn't sit still for a moment.

They would take out the oil shipping infrastructure
in the Persian Gulf, and America and Western Europe will
begin a rapid decline back into the stone age.

Also Russia would immediate shut off the natural gas
to Western Europe, and Argentina would cease shipping oil
to America.

The reason Germany lost WWII,
was because the Russian sabotaged their oil wells,
and Germany couldn't get enough oil
to support their military and factories.
The Germans couldn't get to the Middle East oil,
but made a effort in that direction to tie up
Allied troops to prevent them from doing so.

If the Persian Gulf oil shipping infrastructure were taken out,
America would be in far worse shape than Germany was,
because America's economy and military consumes far
more energy, and the people America wants to wage war against
are much farther away than Moscow was from Germany.

There is about 59 days of import protection
in the Strategic Petroleum Reserve,
and a maximum of 4.4 million barrels per day can be withdrawn.

Considering that America uses 20 million barrels per day,
it does not take a system engineer to comprehend
that if Iran and/or Russia destroys the oil shipping infrastructure
in the Persian Gulf America, will come to a screeching halt.

Perhaps one of these saber rattlers
to explain to me how to maintain America,
and wage a war that would be many times more
costly in oil, material, limbs, and lives,
than the Iraqi War.

No gas to wage the war.
No gas to rebuild the oil shipping infrastructure.
No gas for cars, trucks and buses.
No heating and cooling for your homes.
No electricity for your computers.
No gas to operate the farms, factories, and trucks.

In fact, if Saddam had considered what would happen to
him, his family and his country, he would have taken out
the oil infrastructure in Iraq, Kuwait, and the Persian Gulf.

The ONLY rational options in today's world,
are conservation and live and let live.

It is INSANITY to even consider
waging wars that consume large amounts of energy,
or wars that will force the enemy to disrupt the supply of energy.

About ten nations have the capability of
taking out the World's energy supply,
and make it impossible for a major war to be waged against them
or anyone, and after seeing what happened to Saddam,
there is no doubt that several of the nations would
use the "Dooms Day Strategy",
as they would have nothing to lose.

They would be bombed,
but not occupied.

--
Tom Potter

http://www.geocities.com/tdp1001/index.html
http://notsocrazyideas.blogspot.com
http://www.flickr.com/photos/tom-potter/
http://tdp1001.wiki.zoho.com
http://groups.msn.com/PotterPhotos
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/dingleberry.htm
Day Brown
2008-07-29 03:12:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tom Potter
Hydrogen is not the most abundant thing in the universe,
stupidity is.
Right; and if oil exports to Europe and America stopped, agribusiness
there would stop, and there'd be global famine everywhere else.

As for Europe and America, there's already an expansion in "organic"
farming and gardening that could be ramped up quickly to provide enuf
turnips to get everyone thru the winter while all the other regions you
mention fucking starved. Like so much of Africa is doing already.

Yeah, I know the rhetoric is way overblown.
Tom Potter
2008-07-26 14:53:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by chazwin
Post by Bret Cahill
Not to diminish the bomb effort but at least they knew E=mc^2 three
decades before they started.
Now with peak oil everyone wants really fundamental research done "on
the wing."
They want "new mature" green industries yesterday.
I'm not saying that breakthroughs are impossible in this climate.
"When a man knows he's going to be hung in a fortnight, it
concentrates the mind wonderfully" applies to everyone.
I'm just saying that attitude makes me really really nervous.
Bret Cahill
Too little too late.
Let's face it, as a species, we ain't gonna make it!
We will either fuck the world up over some idiotic religious/
ideological argument and blow the shit out of each other, or we will
just wind down when the oil and other fossil fuels are used up. We can
always go back to hunting and gathering!
The most dangerous time for nuclear holocaust will be when the
resource gap will begin to tighten. The Western powers will find
increasing numbers of excuses to invade, destabilise and control the
dwindling resources. Within 30 years there will be US troops in a
radioactive Iran.
Hydrogen is not the most abundant thing in the universe,
stupidity is.

It is clear that, like Bush,
most people are ignorant of the consequences
of instigating Iraq or Russia into a war.

It amazes me to see people in the media,
in government, in the military, and idiots posting
on the net, smugly talking about Invading Iran,
and having American troops waging war
with people all over the world.

The fact of the matter is,
if America attacked either Iran or Russia,
or if Iran or Russia seriously thought that
America was going to invade either of those nations,
they wouldn't sit still for a moment.

They would take out the oil shipping infrastructure
in the Persian Gulf, and America and Western Europe will
begin a rapid decline back into the stone age.

Also Russia would immediate shut off the natural gas
to Western Europe, and Argentina would cease shipping oil
to America.

The reason Germany lost WWII,
was because the Russian sabotaged their oil wells,
and Germany couldn't get enough oil
to support their military and factories.
The Germans couldn't get to the Middle East oil,
but made a effort in that direction to tie up
Allied troops to prevent them from doing so.

If the Persian Gulf oil shipping infrastructure were taken out,
America would be in far worse shape than Germany was,
because America's economy and military consumes far
more energy, and the people America wants to wage war against
are much farther away than Moscow was from Germany.

There is about 59 days of import protection
in the Strategic Petroleum Reserve,
and a maximum of 4.4 million barrels per day can be withdrawn.

Considering that America uses 20 million barrels per day,
it does not take a system engineer to comprehend
that if Iran and/or Russia destroys the oil shipping infrastructure
in the Persian Gulf America, will come to a screeching halt.

Perhaps one of these saber rattlers
to explain to me how to maintain America,
and wage a war that would be many times more
costly in oil, material, limbs, and lives,
than the Iraqi War.

No gas to wage the war.
No gas to rebuild the oil shipping infrastructure.
No gas for cars, trucks and buses.
No heating and cooling for your homes.
No electricity for your computers.
No gas to operate the farms, factories, and trucks.

In fact, if Saddam had considered what would happen to
him, his family and his country, he would have taken out
the oil infrastructure in Iraq, Kuwait, and the Persian Gulf.

The ONLY rational options in today's world,
are conservation and live and let live.

It is INSANITY to even consider
waging wars that consume large amounts of energy,
or wars that will force the enemy to disrupt the supply of energy.

About ten nations have the capability of
taking out the World's energy supply,
and make it impossible for a major war to be waged against them
or anyone, and after seeing what happened to Saddam,
there is no doubt that several of the nations would
use the "Dooms Day Strategy",
as they would have nothing to lose.

They would be bombed,
but not occupied.
--
Tom Potter

http://www.geocities.com/tdp1001/index.html
http://notsocrazyideas.blogspot.com
http://www.flickr.com/photos/tom-potter/
http://tdp1001.wiki.zoho.com
http://groups.msn.com/PotterPhotos
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/dingleberry.htm

** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **
Loading...