"I suspect I follow the same media as you do and far as I can tell this is not what they present. However it is true in many cases the news reporters don't have a firm understanding of the issues as well. It's always good to do a little research on your own and try reading a newpaper, instead of watching TV."
The media is something that I don't follow anymore. My percption of the media has changed significantly. You make a good point here without even noticing, TV news takes most of its information from New York times. los Angelos (which make newspapers) etc.... they rely on it and pick information that will cause the greatest stir upon the nation. So I rather not pick up a newpaper either.
"Nuclear power has it's downsides, besides generating radioactive waste, and the difficulties of choosing sites to build plants and waste disposal facilities. This difficulty due to the perception of nuclear power as dangerous by the general public."
Definetely, I agree.
"Nuclear waste can remain hazardous for billions of years, there is no place to safely dispose of it time span. In other words it might be dug up thousands of years from now and create an environmental catastrophe. Some people do see the larger picture, even if tens of thousands of years seems like it's too far in the future for you to be concerned."
Thousands of years, perhaps, some people see the bigger picture and say its the differance between a 10 billion years and 9.99 billion years.
"Another concern is another byproduct of nuclear reactors, plutonium. This is behind the U.S. effort to curb and control nuclear technology in Iran and North Korea."
They have already devloped it or very close to devloping it. Russia has so much nuclear bombs they don't know what to do with it. So they sell it.
"In the end we know it's proven and shown to be safe, however it is a human invention. Improvements happen when accidents occur. Three mile island lead to new designs and safety measures, such as Fast Breeder Nuclear Reactors. But there is no guarantee that nothing will go wrong. We must remain cautious."
Ofcourse, you make a good point here.
"You had mentioned that these facilities required expertise, which third world countries were you interested in building facilities in? Can we be certain that nuclear material will not be removed for the purposes of creating dirty bombs?"
There is currently nuclear material being smuggled around the world, it is being circulated this very moment, so the dirty bombs are out, the question is, when will they use it and in what neat package will they wrap it up in.
"The Kyoto agreement was created for the media to make money?"
Ofcourse, but you misinterpret what I'm saying. It is not that the kyoto agreement is for the media to make money on, it is for them to scare the public about Global warming. They are presenting the facts about what the environmental activists have told them, they like those types of stories, they pick and choose what they like and present it, fact or no fact. This is how the media makes money, the media works to present the most outrageous and most fearful stories they can get they're hands on to increase television ratings, they make money that way, you know, it is a business. But the fact is they are presenting all the facts in a one sided liberal mindset. Just like someone who would present evolution pretending they have all the facts, but they are skewed, same goes for some of the Creationist/ID arguements, but when you start taking bits and pieces of information from both sides, things start making sense, in this case BIAS is not existent. The media, whether you would like to believe in or not, is completely left wing tilted, unless they are forced otherwise and also depending on what stories they present will influence they're decision on how to present it.
"The major issue with the agreement is that the proposed cutbacks are too drastic for a nation which realeases comparatively vast amounts of greenhouse gasses. It's an issue of sovereignty and of economy. The United States has enjoyed cheaper oil than the rest of the world and has taken advantage of it. This nation cannot afford to cut back to the levels of other nations without taking an economic hit. It's not about the facts of global warming, it's about the fact that the United States doesn't want to pay other nations for the right's to produce greenhouse gasses as the nation adjusts to the protocol."
I don't know exactly what you are saying here, perhaps taking information from your liberal media friends is not the best idea. You talk about oil cutback to levels of other nations without taking an economic hit, that is exactly what kyoto protocol will do. America will cutback on its oil and development, industries which rely on oil must adjust to other technologies, this will cause the economy to take an economic hit. So Kyoto is based on the fact of Global Warming, why do they not show the real facts behind it then? Calling it human induced when even scientists admit it is a natural change in climate. Melting Glaciers shown on the news or the movie: The Day after tommorw, one word for you; politics, liberal politics at its best.
"If you were told that an asteroid might hit the earth would you wait till they were more certain? Or would you consider doing something about it now? As you can see it depends on the individual, people have different opinions and interests, that doesn't mean there is some hidden agenda or mass conspiracy."
Remember Y2K in the year 2000. Thats exactly what people did, they purchased lots of supplies, food, flashlights and accessories for storage. They considered doing something just in case something happened. They put the scare in place, and people reacted how people always react when they rely on completely flawed information.This is the brainwashing that goes on because of the media, the media is ofcourse controlled by other forces, perhaps the devil, but most likely the people in power of corporations, the government and activists who probably are the devil themselves if they wish to let people suffer and die in 3rd world countries. You can look at it this way too, perhaps they are doing the right thing and neutralizing the supposed crowded up human population on earth which is not crowded as much as people would like to be. They are killing them off to save natural resources in the long run, I guess that could be a good thing, do you? Are we running out of resources, oil perhaps? Have we dug up most of our oil? Are we running out of oil like the media wants us to think. Is the problem in fact the technology, we can surely drill much deeper then we currently are. As far as I'm concerned, we have'nt yet drilled deep enough to approach nebula.
People have opinions far left for my judgement. It is so obvious that half the articles on the internet, more than half the stories in the news, and half the movies shown on the bigscreen are purely politically charged to send a hidden message to the public.
"Sometimes it's best to stick to the story, reading these kinds of things is a form of brain washing."
Once again, what am I reading wrong and your reading right. I'm not against Global Warming, but I am against the facts presented in the Kyoto protocol about Globabl warming. Your reading something that makes sense to you, and I am simply approaching it a different way, saying there is something wrong here and why do we keep hearing the same claims without getting a differant interpretation on it.
"Sorry the United states does not have only one driver and can do multiple things at once. Why is the National Deficit not a flat tire? What about the war in Iraq? Are you saying that cutting back fuel emmisions will bring the countries foreign policy measures to a screeching halt? I don't think so."
Yes, I think so. The war on Iraq is the war-- in Iraq, it is not the war in the states, except perhaps politically. Not a screeching halt, I did not say that, I said a halt, you can interpret that as screeching if you like, you can think of it as an unnoticeable one, you won't notice it because your too busy
"Are you repeating someone else's opinion, because this doesn't make sence. In every policy making decision one has to weigh out the pro's and cons. "
Yes, when working with the wrong facts (Kyoto), you must weigh out your decision with the wrong facts by applying the pros and cons of decision with the wrong facts in the first place.
" The progress of economy is not always the ideal way to go, or is it? Every case is a separate issue, you don't lump people into a group, let's say environmentalists, and then declare them the enemy. You need to listen to all sides. Think about New Orleans, environmentalists have been warning for years that development of wetlands will lessen the buffering capabilities of the coastal areas to tropical storms."
No, well the environmentalists are also recieving the wrong facts from other environmentailists that have been brainwashed to brainwash other environmentalists.
"Malaria never dissapeared only controlled. But the spraying became less and less effective."
Present the facts that spraying DDT became less and less effective.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/quer ... t=Abstract
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.h ... A9629C8B63
http://www.who.int/inf-pr-2000/en/note2000-15.html
"I am talking about the standard of living for the people in those countries in which the govenrnment cannot support them."
"lol
Better do some research, there was never a malaria problem in North America."
I never said there was a Malaria problem here in North America, that was a question to you. You answered my sarcasm which was directed to opposing your thought tha Malaria can be controlled here in the US, but can't be controlled in other countries? Malaria is relatively unheard of here in America if you ask the average joe. That is not the case in 3rd world countries. They control it here, therefore it does not exist.
"Are you just now learning all of these things? I thought you were an electrical engineer? AZT is in fact a toxic drug, however you seem to have been brain washed again. And understanding of the Auto Immune Deficiency Syndrome leads to the realization that it is not AIDS which kills you but the oppurtunistic diseases which take advantage of the ravaged immune system AIDS causes. AZT has many severe side effects, but the one effect it does have is slow down AIDS and its destruction of the immune system. Remember no immune system and the simplest thing can kill you. Either way you feel bad but withought AZT, the annual flu spells death."
What does this have to do with computers? Absolutely nothing. I know AZT is a toxic drug, thats what I meant. Explain then why some people live till they're 80 years old with HIV without getting AIDs. Why do people exposed to long-term OTC prescription drugs usually die faster than someone who is treated by natural means or someone who doesn't take any drugs at all?
If AZT were banned would you be asking that it be used in third world countries because it's cheap and effective?
Is AZT cheap and effective, or is it expensive? Think about that
Malaria is quite frankly a bigger problem than AIDs because more people have died from malaria than AIDs. This is why people here in America, with combination of AZT and other harmful drugs die quicker.
Total capacity is the big problem, and wind doesn't really help with that, because it's not constant. There are some countries in Europe who are almost past that threshold, and their power grid is pretty unstable.
