The Boners Tell us about the Age Enlightenment (More stuff ya can't make up)
Mort Zuckerman
lPick...@cdc.gov, Durlan...@yale.edu, Aa...@columbia.edu,
gary_w...@nymc.edu, scientifi...@ostp.gov,
pkru...@princeton.edu, Stanle...@fiu.edu,
emcsw...@niaid.nih.gov, afa...@niaid.nih.gov,
Spin...@yahoogroups.com, kshe...@calea.org, fit...@gmail.com,
patrick.f...@usdoj.gov, model...@sbcglobal.net,
jdr...@nejm.org, let...@courant.com, Jgerb...@cdc.gov,
michae...@po.state.ct.us, con...@po.state.ct.us, executive-
edi...@nytimes.com, managin...@nytimes.com, news-
ti...@nytimes.com, biz...@nytimes.com, for...@nytimes.com,
nati...@nytimes.com, dv...@cdc.gov, brigidc...@optonline.net,
tr...@hotmail.com, illino...@aol.com, jle...@courant.com,
tinaj...@yahoo.com, jhorn...@fff.org, thomas...@usdoj.gov,
thoma...@po.state.ct.us, kur...@washpost.com,
georg...@washpost.com, p...@allegorypress.com,
commissi...@po.state.ct.us, brans...@comcast.net,
vts...@comcast.net, o...@po.state.ct.us, freet...@charter.net,
scott....@po.state.ct.us, govern...@po.state.ct.us,
attorney...@po.state.ct.us, randall...@usdoj.gov,
Robert....@yale.edu, edi...@greenwich-post.com,
harol...@yale.edu, sedm...@nswbc.org, rrmcg...@aol.com,
fr...@nytimes.com, dpr...@stmartin.edu, saint....@sbcglobal.net
Cc: fra...@ucia.gov, dr-ahma...@president.ir,
eugener...@washpost.com, afa...@niaid.nih.gov,
bmi...@newstimes.com, tr...@hotmail.com, rast...@aol.com,
billc...@gmail.com, amcg...@rms-law.com, rjmu...@aol.com,
paulcrai...@yahoo.com, criminal...@usdoj.gov,
karla.d...@usdoj.gov, christophe...@usdoj.gov,
richar...@yale.edu, harol...@yale.edu, james.p...@yale.edu,
inq...@aldf.com, ly...@idsociety.org, meganm...@theatlantic.com
Subject: The Boners Tell us about the Age Enlightenment (More stuff ya
can't make up)
Date: May 17, 2010 8:10 PM
ARTICLE BELOW by SKULL and BONERS, Inc.
-----------------------------------------
No, seriously.
I would like to hear about the Enlightenment,
and how that helped this'n here psychiatrist do
the right thing when abused by Allen Steere:
http://www.actionlyme.org/080830_NOBLE_BLUMENTHAL_FIKRIG.htm
CHAPTER 27, The PHILOSOPHY of the UNEXPLAINED Dr Michael A. Schwartz
http://www.actionlyme.org/AAPP_STEERE.htm
and Dr. Allen Steere- unusual encounter that did not have the logical
outcome...
I would like to hear about the
Pee-Pee Enlightenment, and how
that helped Michael Schwartz
found the "Association for the
Advancement of Philosophy and
Psychiatry"... and then did worse
than nothing about how the rest
of us were abused by Allen Steere.
I am sure it will be a "WON-DER-FUL"
penis story, to go with the DCF's
pedophilia story:
http://www.actionlyme.org/andersonpenisbiter.htm
I wish I could think of a word
for it, really. How about
the Anthro-peecene? After all,
"Sex Cures All Diseases," according
to this same gang:
http://www.actionlyme.org/PHILLIPS_JE_PERVERT.htm
Sex even cures diseases in other people!!!
That's why when UConn aksed for 605
http://www.actionlyme.org/UCONN_NO_HOSPITAL.htm
million dollars for their new hospital
it was meant to be a great discount! for
the people of Corrupticut, because the
Sleep-Working Hoes uh duh DCF only charge
$56,000 a year:
http://www.actionlyme.org/080924.htm
KMDickson
http://www.actionlyme.org
======================
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2010/05/17-12
Published on Monday, May 17, 2010 by Yale Environment 360
The Anthropocene Debate: Marking Humanity’s Impact
by Elizabeth Kolbert
The Holocene - or "wholly recent" epoch - is what geologists call the
11,000 years or so since the end of the last ice age. As epochs go,
the Holocene is barely out of diapers; its immediate predecessor, the
Pleistocene, lasted more than two million years, while many earlier
epochs, like the Eocene, went on for more than 20 million years.
Still, the Holocene may be done for. People have become such a driving
force on the planet that many geologists argue a new epoch -
informally dubbed the Anthropocene - has begun.
In a recent paper titled "The New World of the Anthropocene," which
appeared in the journal Environmental Science and Technology, a group
of geologists listed more than a half dozen human-driven processes
that are likely to leave a lasting mark on the planet - lasting here
understood to mean likely to leave traces that will last tens of
millions of years. These include: habitat destruction and the
introduction of invasive species, which are causing widespread
extinctions; ocean acidification, which is changing the chemical
makeup of the seas; and urbanization, which is vastly increasing rates
of sedimentation and erosion.
Human activity, the group wrote, is altering the planet "on a scale
comparable with some of the major events of the ancient past. Some of
these changes are now seen as permanent, even on a geological time-
scale."
Prompted by the group's paper, the Independent of London last month
conducted a straw poll of the members of the International Commission
on Stratigraphy, the official keeper of the geological time scale.
Half the commission members surveyed said they thought the case for a
new epoch was already strong enough to consider a formal designation.
"Human activities, particularly since the onset of the industrial
revolution, are clearly having a major impact on the Earth," Barry
Richards of the Geological Survey of Canada told the newspaper. "We
are leaving a clear and unique record."
The term "Anthropocene" was coined a decade ago by Paul Crutzen, one
of the three chemists who shared the 1995 Nobel Prize for discovering
the effects of ozone-depleting compounds. In a paper published in
2000, Crutzen and Eugene Stoermer, a professor at the University of
Michigan, noted that many forms of human activity now dwarf their
natural counterparts; for instance, more nitrogen today is fixed
synthetically than is fixed by all the world's plants, on land and in
the ocean. Considering this, the pair wrote in the newsletter of the
International Geosphere-Biosphere Programme, "it seems to us more than
appropriate to emphasize the central role of mankind in geology and
ecology by proposing to use the term ‘anthropocene' for the current
geological epoch." Two years later, Crutzen restated the argument in
an article in Nature titled "Geology of Mankind."
The Anthropocene, Crutzen wrote, "could be said to have started in the
latter part of the eighteenth century, when analyses of air trapped in
polar ice showed the beginning of growing global concentrations of
carbon dioxide and methane."
Soon, the term soon began popping up in other scientific publications.
"Riverine quality of the Anthropocene," was the title of a 2002 paper
in the journal Aquatic Sciences.
"Soils and sediments in the anthropocene," read the title of a 2004
editorial in the Journal of Soils and Sediments.
Jan Zalasiewicz, a geologist at the Britain's University of Leicester,
found the spread of the concept intriguing. "I noticed that Paul
Crutzen's term was appearing in the serious literature, in papers in
Science and such like, without inverted commas and without a sense of
irony," he recalled in a recent interview. At the time, Zalasiewicz
was the head of the stratigraphic commission of the Geological Society
of London. At luncheon meeting of the society, he asked his fellow
stratigraphers what they thought of the idea.
"We simply discussed it," he said. "And to my surprise, because these
are technical geologists, a majority of us thought that there was
something to this term."
In 2008, Zalasiewicz and 20 other British geologists published an
article in GSA Today, the magazine of the Geological Society of
America, that asked: "Are we now living in the Anthropocene?" The
answer, the group concluded, was probably yes: "Sufficient evidence
has emerged of stratigraphically significant change (both elapsed and
imminent) for recognition of the Anthropocene... as a new geological
epoch to be considered for formalization." (An epoch, in geological
terms, is a relatively short span of time; a period, like the
Cretaceous, can last for tens of millions of years, and an era, like
the Mesozoic, for hundreds of millions.) The group pointed to changes
in sedimentation rates, in ocean chemistry, in the climate, and in the
global distribution of plants and animals as phenomena that would all
leave lasting traces. Increasing carbon dioxide levels in the
atmosphere, the group wrote, are predicted to lead to "global
temperatures not encountered since the Tertiary," the period that
ended 2.6 million years ago.
Zalasiewicz now heads of the Anthropocene Working Group of the
International Commission on Stratigraphy, which is looking into
whether a new epoch should be officially designated, and if so, how.
Traditionally, the boundaries between geological time periods have
been established on the basis of changes in the fossil record - by,
for example, the appearance of one type of commonly preserved organism
or the disappearance of another. The process of naming the various
periods and their various subsets is often quite contentious; for
years, geologists have debated whether the Quaternary - the geological
period that includes both the Holocene and its predecessor, the
Pleistocene - ought to exist, or if the term ought to be abolished, in
which case the Holocene and Pleistocene would become epochs of the
Neogene, which began some 23 million years ago. (Just last year, the
International Commission on Stratigraphy decided to keep the
Quaternary, but to push back its boundary by almost a million years.)
In recent decades, the ICS has been trying to standardize the
geological time scale by choosing a rock sequence in a particular
place to serve as a marker. Thus, for example, the marker for the
Calabrian stage of the Pleistocene can be found at 39.0385°N
17.1348°E, which is in the toe of the boot of Italy.
Since there is no rock record yet of the Anthropocene, its boundary
would obviously have to be marked in a different way. The epoch could
be said simply to have begun at a certain date, say 1800. Or its onset
could be correlated to the first atomic tests, in the 1940s, which
left behind a permanent record in the form of radioactive isotopes.
One argument against the idea that a new human-dominated epoch has
recently begun is that humans have been changing the planet for a long
time already, indeed practically since the start of the Holocene.
People have been farming for 8,000 or 9,000 years, and some scientists
- most notably William Ruddiman, of the University of Virginia - have
proposed that this development already represents an impact on a
geological scale. Alternatively, it could be argued that the
Anthropocene has not yet arrived because human impacts on the planet
are destined to be even greater 50 or a hundred years from now.
"We're still now debating whether we've actually got to the event
horizon, because potentially what's going to happen in the 21st
century could be even more significant," observed Mark Williams, a
member of the Anthropocene Working Group who is also a geologist at
the University of Leicester.
In general, Williams said, the reaction that the working group had
received to its efforts so far has been positive. "Most of the
geologists and stratigraphers that we've spoken with think it's a very
good idea in that they agree that the degree of change is very
significant."
Zalasiewicz said that even if new epoch is not formally designated,
the exercise of considering it was still useful. "Really it's a piece
of science," he said. "We're trying to get some handle on the scale of
contemporary change in its very largest context."
© 2010 Yale Environment 360
Elizabeth Kolbert, who conducted this interview for Yale Environment
360, has been a staff writer for the New Yorker since 1999. Her 2005
New Yorker series on global warming, “The Climate of Man,” won a
National Magazine Award and was extended into a book, Field Notes from
a Catastrophe, which was published in 2006. Prior to joining the staff
of the New Yorker, she was a political reporter for the New York
Times. In her most recent article for Yale Environment 360, she
reported on a new study that found the pace of global warming is
outstripping the most recent projections of the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change.
"[Real] scientists are *fiercely* independent. That's the good
news."-- NIH's Top Fool, Anthony Fauci
Dan Sullivan
Dennis
> Wacko Kathleen writes
No pun intended, I'm sure. :-)
Why does she post here, anyway? Why would she consider Lyme's
disease a naval matter?
Greegor
> Why does she post here, anyway?
> Why would she consider Lyme [ ] s disease a naval matter?
Is Bethesda?
Dennis
>> Why does she post here, anyway?
>> Why would she consider Lyme [ ] s disease a naval matter?
>
> Is Bethesda?
Yes, to some extent. Is that where she is?
Dennis
Jack Linthicum
One of her early targets, Bethesda Naval Hospital.