Re: last week talked about oil shale; news release that talks about Canada oil sand
From: Rolf Martens (rolf.martens_at_mailbox.swipnet.se)
Date: 09/16/04
- Next message: Nth Complexity: "They emit photons? How ridiculous!"
- Previous message: Rolf Martens: "Re: last week talked about oil shale; news release that talks about Canada oil sand"
- In reply to: Jo Stein: "Re: last week talked about oil shale; news release that talks about Canada oil sand"
- Next in thread: Jo Stein: "Re: last week talked about oil shale; news release that talks about Canada oil sand"
- Reply: Jo Stein: "Re: last week talked about oil shale; news release that talks about Canada oil sand"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2004 10:27:27 +0200
In article <41485f30@news.broadpark.no>, jstein@broadpark.no says...
>
>
>On Wed, 15 Sep 2004 11:33:14 +0200, Rolf Martens
><rolf.martens@mailbox.swipnet.se> wrote in
><r%T1d.5324$LV3.7462@nntpserver.swip.net>:
>
>>If some people rally fear nuclear energy, then because
>>of the massive media anti-nuclear-energy scare campaign,
>>coupled also with certain arch-reactionary manipulations.
>>
>>Here in Sweden for instance, an "argumentation" with
>>"people's fear" was tried too. But obviously, it did
>>not succeed. In the end, the politicians were "forced to"
>>set up a "referendum" on nuclear power, in 1980. And
>>they "had to" put "the choice" to people only of "NO",
>>"NO" or "NO". (Sounds fantastic, but it's true.) This
>>showed too that in reality, they themselves very well
>>knew that a majority was *not* against nuclear energy,
>>quite on the contrary.
>>
>>In the USA there was an "opinion poll" on nuclear energy
>>in 1996. The result was 66% in favour, 34% against. (Probably,
>>the "pro" majority in reality was even bigger.) But one
>>interesting thing in this context is, that most of those
>>asked *thought* that there was "a majority against"
>>nuclear energy.
>>
>>All in all, that "fear on the part of ordinary people"
>>is another piece of reactionary bull***. In reality,
>>it's *the establishment* that hates nuclear energy.
>>Because it's "much too modern" for their outdated
>>social "order".
>
>People are stupid and do not understand science.
>They are stupid like you. I hope that you will read this book:
Please excuse me for pointing out:
On the contrary, people are smart. Not stupid, or
mendacious, like you. Ever heard of that saying by
Abraham Lincoln, "You can fool...(etc)"?
>http://www.wwnorton.com/catalog/fall03/005857.htm
>"David Goodstein, professor of physics at Caltech, explains the
>underlying scientific principles of the inevitable fossil fuel
>shortage we face. He outlines the drastic effects a fossil fuel
>shortage will bring down on us. And he shows that there is an
>important silver lining to the need to switch to other sources of
>energy, for when we have burned up all the available oil, the earth's
>climate will have moved toward a truly life-threatening state."
>
>The book is 126 pages, filled with good physics and it is written by a
>person that know the subject. Read it, and stop using language such as
>"reactionary bull***" when posting to this group.
Yes, there's plenty of reactionary propagandists
writing utter bull***, at the bidding of those people
who today rule the world. You're obviously one of them,
and it seems that this professor Goodstein is another.
Rolf M.
- Next message: Nth Complexity: "They emit photons? How ridiculous!"
- Previous message: Rolf Martens: "Re: last week talked about oil shale; news release that talks about Canada oil sand"
- In reply to: Jo Stein: "Re: last week talked about oil shale; news release that talks about Canada oil sand"
- Next in thread: Jo Stein: "Re: last week talked about oil shale; news release that talks about Canada oil sand"
- Reply: Jo Stein: "Re: last week talked about oil shale; news release that talks about Canada oil sand"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]