Isn't it better to be safe than sorry? This is afterall the only home>we have.>

Dan

I don't understand all the opposition to the idea that GW may be in> part caused by humans. It seems silly to me to resist the idea that we> should look for or use already available alternative energy sources or> curb our current way of life, because possibly the earth is just> heating up because of cyclical and natural changes.>

Isn't it better to be safe than sorry? This is afterall the only home> we have.

Matthew Hennig wrote:>> "Dan Bretta" <nudan92@yahoo.com>­ wrote in> news:1115868985.825­220.37170>> @g47g2000cwa.google­groups.com:>>

I guess it's easier for me to believe that the earth is getting warmer> when I can see brown clouds sitting on top of Denver and other large> cities than it is for me to believe that some dude walked on water.

But I still may opt for the deathbed conversion.

I don't understand all the opposition to the idea that Jesus may have > been real and right. It seems silly to me to resist the idea that we > should live morally and hold reverence toward God because possibly life > just came about randomly on its own.>

Isn't it better to be safe than sorry? This is afterall the only life > and afterlife we have.>

:> But I still may opt for the deathbed conversion.> :> :There is that.>

Bumper sticker I saw once read: Many people who plan to turn to God at > the 11th hour die at 10:30.>

Witty.>

"Dan Bretta" <nudan92@yahoo.com>­ wrote in news:1115868985.825­220.37170>@g47g2000c­wa.googlegroups.com:­>

Nonsense. We can always move under the sea. There'll be no frustrations, >just friendly crustaceans, under the sea.

"Dan Bretta" <nudan92@yahoo.com>­ wrote in news:1115870932.292­619.300960> @g44g2000cwa.google­groups.com:>

But to consider that its all human's fault when scientists studying this > issue are divided on the issue,

Mr. Furr is right, of course. How soon these kids> forget the Beatles.

I don't understand all the opposition to the idea that GW may be in> part caused by humans. It seems silly to me to resist the idea that we> should look for or use already available alternative energy sources or> curb our current way of life, because possibly the earth is just> heating up because of cyclical and natural changes.>

Isn't it better to be safe than sorry? This is afterall the only home> we have.>

Dan

Matthew Hennig wrote:>>

is there any opposition to this? Some don't believe in jesus. Some> do. But the people who don't believe in jesus don't provide> "opposition" in the sense that the people who don't believe in global> warming provide opposition. The two have nothing in common- with> Global warming and greenhouse gases and the environment you have> funding issues, policy issues, etc....areas where opposition is> actually important. With the Jesus issue you don't have any of these> issues.(unless Jesus took a position on global warming, and I doubt he> did)>

It seems silly to me to resist the idea that we>> should live morally and hold reverence toward God because possibly> life>> just came about randomly on its own.>>

I've never seen anyone "resist" that idea. I have seen people resist> that idea when it is used to make gov't policy. A big difference.

On Thu, 12 May 2005 09:47:42 -0400, Jeffrey Davis><res099c9@all­tel.net> wrote:

So friggin' what? Few people argue that the earth is not>getting warmer. The issue is the role of human activity in>that warming.

For the nuclear physicists in here, I'd like to gauge general opinion>on this project:>

I read about this in the Economist roughly 18 months ago. I don't know>that there's been any progress since then. The idea is extremely>interesti­ng though.

Interestingly, 1998 was the "warmest year on record", 2004 was not.> What, therefore, is the ubershort-term trend? Esp vis a vis CO2> output?

Interestingly, the hottest years on record are in the last decade.

Tony Lima wrote:>>The U.S. produces about 1/4 of total world output. I'd>>guess that we also produce quite a bit of CO2. Population>>and production are both relevant here. >

Yup - 20% co2 output iirc? I'd be curious to see emissions rated>against output.>

There are all sorts of ways to slice and dice the numbers - some>relevant, some not. Always interesting to look.

On Thu, 12 May 2005 19:04:05 -0500, Jon Russell><jonruss63t­cov@yahoo.com> wrote:>

Depends. You gonna include human emissions? What about>animal (cows and termites, among others)? - Tony

Jon Russell wrote:

No, it's my pleasure. I've had a hard time getting input on the>validity of the project because to be honest, a Democrat sees "nuclear">and cringes and a Republican sees "alternative fuel" and cringes. An>unjaundiced eye is always appreciated.

The part I find most intriguing is that the reactor could run on spent>fuel rods, which I believe would give us a chance to deplete part of>our nuclear waste facilities.

I haven't heard of it before, but (as expected,> I'm sure) I do have some opinions...>

One of things that strikes me is this: if a> country wants to breed weapons grade Plutonium, they> will be able to do it with an enriched Uranium> reactor. The Irans and NK's of the world just simply> won't build one of these new reactors if their goal is> to get the Plutonium. Also, we are making a case for> safeguarding the spent fuel. I can tell you this> unequivically: it would be very difficult to> steal/hold/transpor­t these rods as they are very, very> radioactive. Very. Also, nuclear waste as defined by> this article is a very small part of the volume of> waste that is generated. Every piece of gear in a> reactor plant, including all the water, is> radioactive. The fuel rods are small in comparison. > A more thorough burn-through of the fuel is one small> step in the right direction in terms of limiting> radioactivity. The real deal is fusion, but that is> many years away. Fuel cells in the meantime hold the> most promise, I think.