If Global Warming is a sham
Frank J. Regan
An old joke goes: There was a king known for being extremely spare
with his words. One day his army and an enemy king’s army confronted each
other on a field of battle. The enemy king said, "If you and your army cross
this river, there will be a great battle, and if there is this battle, you
and your army will be crushed. If that happens my army shall imprison you,
kill your officers, and render your people without protection. If that
happens I shall then take over your castle and become the new leader of all
this land. The reticent king, sitting calmly on his horse, merely said,
"If."
Floating around the media presently are several notions as to why
some scientists, who have concluded that our actions are causing our planet
to warm up, have got it wrong. Burning fossil fuels and allowing our farm
animals’s waste to build up over the last two hundred years may not be
affecting our climate at all. If Earth is several billions years old, and
if we’ve only known about global warming for just the past twenty years, we’
re basing our fears on a fantastically small percent of our planet’s
history. (Though, isn’t that like saying general and special relativity can’
t be an accurate model of the way the universe works because Einstein only
discovered it a few decades ago? Or, your doctor can’t diagnose cancer in a
two hour examination, if you’ve been around for over forty years?)
Anyway, what if the earth's temperature is supposed to fluctuate
and always has? Ice ages came and went without any help from man, didn't
they?. What if our ozone layer naturally thickens and thins? What if our
refrigerators, cars, homes, industries and even our barnyard animals don’t
have anything to do with global warming? And if true, so what if we just
ignore the possibility that the green house gases from a billion or so
vehicles are having any affect on our climate? What if we ditch the Clean
Air Act and forget about the Kyoto Protocol completely and leave industry
alone? Can we really be sure that it is our actions that will cause global
warming, even if it comes?
If we just go on about our usual business and if just allow
anything we want, including man-made green house gasses to accumulate in our
atmosphere, it may turn out that even if our planet does warm up, and the
melting ice on the polar caps does raise our oceans, and millions of acres
of land, including some countries, get submerged, and deserts form where
there were none, it's quite possible that it's not our fault..
What if after years and years of testing, of public alarmistism, of
holding back companies, what if we found that we could not have done
anything about the effects that a slight rise in our planet’s overall
temperature would wreak on our lives? What if after all is said and done,
nothing we did or didn't do would have made any difference? Then all the
noise in the media has been for nothing and all the scientists who've been
using studies to prove our post-industrial behavior is destroying our planet
are wrong. If all this clamor over global warming is a sham, then we can
ignore it all.
IF!
http://www.frontiernet.net/~astrox/global warming.shtml
--
Frank J. Regan
Visit: Green Solitaire: http://www.frontiernet.net/~astrox/index.shtml
byoung
Let's make pot legal then! Life's too short to oppress ourselves.
Carl R. Lindstrom
What IF you are wrong in your wild gamble that burning up the fossil
accumulation (that has taken place for millions of years) in just a few
decades, doesn't has any affect on the climate...are you going to face your
grandchildren and say: I blew it - your problem . Maybe you don't have
children or care about them
Harold Lindaberry
IMO a lot less " Iffy " question is IF there is a rapid 30 % reduction in
fuel consumption and the world wide economy goes into a depression that makes
the one in the 30's look like " the Golden Days of Camelot " what will you
tell your children then ?
In the 30's I was told if we keep using oil at their rate it will all be
gone in 25 years, in the 40's in college there were those saying the same thing
and the consumption rate has steadily increased and here it is almost 2000 and
depletion still is 25 years away. My old ecology prof. said he doubted that
the consumption was even coming close to the deposition rate and he didn't
think anyone had a clue as to what the actual reserves were. IMO I think he was
right certainly the 2/3 rds. under the ocean have yet to be touched. Since most
fossil fuels are laid down under aquatic situations and the oceans are the
biggest aquatic situation and where most of the fossil fuels were and are being
laid down we should better investigate what the deposition level is before we
holler " wolf to many times ".
I don't know whether you were around for the 30's event but perhaps you
were around when OPEC cut production 10% and saw what happened and coal was
around to take up the some of the slack. You cut all fossil fuel consumption by
30 % just stand back and watch what happens. As far as global warming goes that
will be the least of you and your children's worries. This " stop the world and
let me off " attitude serves no purpose other than stir up the pot.
If fossil fuels are being utilized beyond deposition and / or potential
recovery rates what is your solution to the problem and how do you propose
implementing it ? Population control, nuclear power, hydroelectric, wind,
geothermal, solar, renewable energy resources, banning cars, tractors, trucks,
banning, computers, space research. IMO the approach of " Stop the world I want
to get off " is not a very productive course to take but we need more concrete
facts on where we are before we can know which is the best direction to direct
our efforts.
Harold Lindaberry
visit OXGORE website at http://www.epix.net/~harlind
RESEARCH GOES WHERE RESEARCH LEADS
.
Steve Hemphill
Harold Lindaberry wrote:
>
> IMO a lot less " Iffy " question is IF there is a rapid 30 % reduction in
> fuel consumption and the world wide economy goes into a depression that makes
> the one in the 30's look like " the Golden Days of Camelot " what will you
> tell your children then ?
AND basic physics says cutting fossil fuel production by 30% wouldn't
stop global warming anyway.
So then IF global warming is a problem, we would have two, and be much
less ready to tackle specific situations.
--
Steve Hemphill
Jemez Engineering
http://www.rt66.com/~hemphill
Climate Change:
http://www.rt66.com/~hemphill/nino.html
Headed for Holocene Max:
http://www.gcrio.org/CONSEQUENCES/winter96/geoclimate.html
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Tax Bads, not Goods.
http://www.monitor.net/rachel/r570.html
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
webmaster@localhost
abuse@localhost
root@localhost
postmaster@localhost
Richard Flynn
It does seem relatively certain that any short term decrease in consumption of
carbon based fuels will have a significant effect on the price of oil and coal on
the open market. The world currently has a surplus of oil as can be seen by the
historically low prices for a barrel of oil. I haven't seen a current quote on oil
prices for the last several weeks but in the April time frame world oil prices were
at their all time low level (adjusted for inflation). Certainly overall gasoline
prices have not risen in the last 15 years.
Even if global warming is occuring due to increased CO2 emisions, and based on the
evidence presented this seems possible to likely, there may be little that the
people of the world can do without causing a worse environmental disaster. Even a
minimal decrease in living conditions in some second and third world countries
might lead to wide scale war. India has demonstrated to the world that she has the
capability and will to make and detonate nuclear weapons. Is it really a long step
from here to the Indian government saying: "My people are starving, if the world
will not give us what we need we will take it by force" Even a small scale nuclear
exchange between India and Pakistan would probably eliminate world wide concerns
about global warming for quite a while.
Real decreases in CO2 emisions will come when the actual cost of the raw materials
begins to rise. Because there is a glut of carbon based fuels on the market a
carbon tax will only serve to force down the well head price of oil driving oil
producing countries like Mexico into even deeper financial chaos. At least in the
US the consumption of gasoline and oil based products is pretty elastic and people
respond to price increases by reducing the number of miles driven and the number of
kilowatt hours used. If you don't believe that this is true look at the level of
state and federal taxes on a gallon of gasoline now vs 1980. In North Carolina the
state has added taxes since then and the US government has added several pennies a
gallon. Gasoline prices went up for a while but shortly came down as the oil
companies tried to maintain their sales by cutting the wholesale price of a gallon
of gasoline.
I am not sure what if anything needs to be done or can be done about CO2 levels due
to carbon combustion. If there are significant climate changes then the problem
may be self correcting, large numbers of people will die due to famine, flooding,
etc. I can't for the life of me figure out what freely elected democratic
governments can do and not make overall world wide environmenta problems worse.
Just my $.02.
Harold Lindaberry wrote:
> IMO a lot less " Iffy " question is IF there is a rapid 30 % reduction in
> fuel consumption and the world wide economy goes into a depression that makes
> the one in the 30's look like " the Golden Days of Camelot " what will you
> tell your children then ?
Oz
In article <355C9727...@mindspring.com>, Richard Flynn
<rfl...@mindspring.com> writes
>I am not sure what if anything needs to be done or can be done about CO2 levels
>due
>to carbon combustion.
IT would help if a significant amount of developed world electricity
came from non-carbon energy sources. Some selective subsidy would work
quite well here. It's not going to happen fast.
>If there are significant climate changes then the problem
>may be self correcting,
I don't remember ever seeing how long it would take to remove the carbon
from the atmosphere. I would guess that we are talking centuries. In any
case we are due for an ice age any time now, so some small CO2 elevation
may not be a bad thing.
>large numbers of people will die due to famine,
>flooding,
>etc.
Indeed so.
>I can't for the life of me figure out what freely elected democratic
>governments can do and not make overall world wide environmenta problems worse.
Try to maximise non-C energy sources and encourage a smaller world
population.
--
Oz
Harold Lindaberry
Just a note under optimum conditions water hyacinth in sewage stabilization
ponds will produce 96 tons dry weight per acre per year, I expect byyoung should
check that out but of course the seeds probably taste as good. Some algae cultures
with excess added CO2 is even higher.
Harold Lindaberry
visit OXGORE website at http://www.epix.net/~harlind
RESEARCH GOES WHERE RESEARCH LEADS
Oz wrote:
> In article <355C9727...@mindspring.com>, Richard Flynn
> <rfl...@mindspring.com> writes
>
> >I am not sure what if anything needs to be done or can be done about CO2 levels
> >due
> >to carbon combustion.
>
> IT would help if a significant amount of developed world electricity
> came from non-carbon energy sources. Some selective subsidy would work
> quite well here. It's not going to happen fast.
>
> >If there are significant climate changes then the problem
> >may be self correcting,
>
> I don't remember ever seeing how long it would take to remove the carbon
> from the atmosphere. I would guess that we are talking centuries. In any
> case we are due for an ice age any time now, so some small CO2 elevation
> may not be a bad thing.
>
> >large numbers of people will die due to famine,
> >flooding,
> >etc.
>
> Indeed so.
>
> >I can't for the life of me figure out what freely elected democratic
> >governments can do and not make overall world wide environmenta problems worse.
>
Thomas Palm
Harold Lindaberry wrote:
>
> Just a note under optimum conditions water hyacinth in sewage stabilization
> ponds will produce 96 tons dry weight per acre per year, I expect byyoung should
> check that out but of course the seeds probably taste as good. Some algae cultures
> with excess added CO2 is even higher.
Great, now just explain where we should store all those hyacints so
that they do not decompose and release the carbon again. If you
plan on some human controlled project you might also add an
explaination as to why we shouldn't burn this biomass rather than
oil/coal to get energy.
--
Thomas Palm
Harold Lindaberry
Thomas Palm wrote:
I DIDN'T SAY WE SHOULDN'T in fact it might be a good plan if a means could be
devised. A possible good research project. That was the point of my comment 1 square
mile would yield 61,440 tons of carbon to burn or whatever, if a suitable method
couldn't be found for burning it might be able to be recycles back in to useable plant
nutrients where we could grow crops that are of more use to mans uses. A good project
might be to grind it pump it to a covered anaerobic situation filer out the solids
return the liquid portion to the original site for recycling and utilize the methane
generated from the solid portion. There are probably lots of other possibilities and
organisms that offer similar opportunities. The main point of the post was to
demonstrate that IMO man doesn't need to running around with the" chicken little little
syndrome about the energy problem ". And in any event it offers a good means of getting
rid of shit
>
>
> --
> Thomas Palm
Harold Lindaberry
The main point as I said before there are high yielding potential renewable energy
sources and if one doesn't have enough sewage available it would be a simple matter to
to utilize nutrient solutions instead.
Harold Lindaberry
visit OXGORE website at http://www.epix.net/~harlind
RESEARCH GOES WHERE RESEARCH LEADS
Thomas Palm wrote:
> Harold Lindaberry wrote:
> >
> > Just a note under optimum conditions water hyacinth in sewage stabilization
> > ponds will produce 96 tons dry weight per acre per year, I expect byyoung should
> > check that out but of course the seeds probably taste as good. Some algae cultures
> > with excess added CO2 is even higher.
>
> Great, now just explain where we should store all those hyacints so
> that they do not decompose and release the carbon again. If you
> plan on some human controlled project you might also add an
> explaination as to why we shouldn't burn this biomass rather than
> oil/coal to get energy.
>
> --
> Thomas Palm
Scott Nudds
Harold Lindaberry wrote:
: IMO a lot less " Iffy " question is IF there is a rapid 30 % reduction
: in fuel consumption and the world wide economy goes into a depression
: that makes the one in the 30's look like "the Golden Days of Camelot"
: what will you tell your children then ?
Doomsters like Lindaberry insist that man cannot be whined off of oil.
If this is true, then the death of society he predicts will occur 50-100
years from today when oil reserves are finally depleted.
Every time some action is required to limit man's impact on the
environment Chicken Littles like Lindaberry begin to manufacture stories
concerning the devastation that will occur should the steps were taken.
Many of these anti-environmental doomsters insisted that the cost of
the CFC phase out would be 2 trillion dollars as an example.
I haven't noticed any change in my lifestyle as a result of the
phase out.
They are cowards who will say anything to keep the money - and in this
case, the oil flowing.
--
<---->
Oz
In article <6joq44$l...@james.hwcn.org>, Scott Nudds
<af...@james.hwcn.org> writes
>Harold Lindaberry wrote:
>: IMO a lot less " Iffy " question is IF there is a rapid 30 % reduction
>: in fuel consumption and the world wide economy goes into a depression
>: that makes the one in the 30's look like "the Golden Days of Camelot"
>: what will you tell your children then ?
>
> Doomsters like Lindaberry insist that man cannot be whined off of oil.
Hmmm. I don't think he said that. He just pointed out that to reduce oil
consumption by 30%, certainly in a short period of time, would lead to
very unpleasant economic consequences unless it was done very carefully
and relatively slowly. No real argument about that from realistic
people.
>If this is true, then the death of society he predicts will occur 50-100
>years from today when oil reserves are finally depleted.
Yup, that's about long enough to make most of the change. Coal for
several centuries will still be available even then.
> Every time some action is required to limit man's impact on the
>environment Chicken Littles like Lindaberry begin to manufacture stories
>concerning the devastation that will occur should the steps were taken.
Nope, just pointing out that there is no free lunch. How are YOU going
to replace oil as an energy source? Wind, tidal, hydro, biomass, nuclear
or a combination? How long will this take to achieve on a realistic
timescale?
> Many of these anti-environmental doomsters insisted that the cost of
>the CFC phase out would be 2 trillion dollars as an example.
Less that $1 per head. Sounds about right.
> I haven't noticed any change in my lifestyle as a result of the
>phase out.
I doubt your fridge has been changed over yet.
> They are cowards who will say anything to keep the money - and in this
>case, the oil flowing.
Sigh. I doubt that Harold worries too much about it. It's really a
problem for generations after his. He might point out that doing so is
not trivial, which it isn't.
--
Oz
byoung
Scott Nudds wrote:
>
> Harold Lindaberry wrote:
> : IMO a lot less " Iffy " question is IF there is a rapid 30 % reduction
> : in fuel consumption and the world wide economy goes into a depression
> : that makes the one in the 30's look like "the Golden Days of Camelot"
> : what will you tell your children then ?
>
> Doomsters like Lindaberry insist that man cannot be whined off of oil.
> years from today when oil reserves are finally depleted.
>
> environment Chicken Littles like Lindaberry begin to manufacture stories
> concerning the devastation that will occur should the steps were taken.
>
> the CFC phase out would be 2 trillion dollars as an example.
>
> phase out.
>
> case, the oil flowing.
>
Yeah. How many nay-sayers have money invested in oil stocks or work for
chemical companies that process oil byproducts? Conflict of interests.
I guess it depends upon the color of your eyeglasses.
Depression my ass, what about hemp? We haven't needed oil for all these
thousands of years. If our precious economy absolutely requires that we
burn oil, I'd say we were a tad too dependent on the stuff in the first
place, to say nothing of the ecology of said dependency.
Oz
In article <3561C2...@pacifier.com>, byoung <byo...@pacifier.com>
writes
>Depression my ass, what about hemp? We haven't needed oil for all these
>thousands of years.
Do you know any social history at all? Just consider the pre-oil UK, say
pre WW2 and consider the standard of living then. That society was coal
powered. Go back pre coal and you would be surprised at how utterly
impoverished the average person was. That's the society that 'didn't
need oil for thousands of years'. You wouldn't like it, believe me.
>If our precious economy absolutely requires that we
>burn oil, I'd say we were a tad too dependent on the stuff in the first
>place, to say nothing of the ecology of said dependency.
So, what and how are you to replace it with? Words are cheap (just as
well for you).
--
Oz
byoung
Oz wrote:
>
> In article <3561C2...@pacifier.com>, byoung <byo...@pacifier.com>
> writes
>
> >Depression my ass, what about hemp? We haven't needed oil for all these
> >thousands of years.
>
> Do you know any social history at all? Just consider the pre-oil UK, say
> pre WW2 and consider the standard of living then. That society was coal
> powered. Go back pre coal and you would be surprised at how utterly
> impoverished the average person was. That's the society that 'didn't
> need oil for thousands of years'. You wouldn't like it, believe me.
>
Pre-oil would have been in the 1800s, would it have not?
So using coal brought everyone out of poverty? How do you figure? It
was the oil barons and mining companies that controlled the situation.
Just as earls and dukes controlled all the land and peasants back in the
day. How do you know it wasn't the petroleum industry that created all
the poverty in the first place?
And why should I believe you that I "wouldn't like it"? You weren't
alive back then, how would you know? Do you know what it's like to live
in poverty? I'd like to know how you can even say that the "average
person" was impoverished with any certainty (not that I actually dispute
the claim). And even so, what does that have to do with coal and oil?
> >If our precious economy absolutely requires that we
> >burn oil, I'd say we were a tad too dependent on the stuff in the first
> >place, to say nothing of the ecology of said dependency.
>
> So, what and how are you to replace it with?
Hemp will do it all. Bring it on.
> Words are cheap (just as well for you).
What's that supposed to mean? Aren't your words just as cheap?
>
> --
> Oz
b
Harold Lindaberry
Thanks Oz I made up my mind I wouldn't respond to Scott Nutts (oops )
Nudds. Anyone who thinks fossil fuels were generated by volcanoes doesn't
have a grasp on what is.
Harold Lindaberry
visit OXGORE website at http://www.epix.net/~harlind
RESEARCH GOES WHERE RESEARCH LEADS
Oz wrote:
> In article <6joq44$l...@james.hwcn.org>, Scott Nudds
> <af...@james.hwcn.org> writes
>
> >Harold Lindaberry wrote:
> >: IMO a lot less " Iffy " question is IF there is a rapid 30 % reduction
> >: in fuel consumption and the world wide economy goes into a depression
> >: that makes the one in the 30's look like "the Golden Days of Camelot"
> >: what will you tell your children then ?
> >
> > Doomsters like Lindaberry insist that man cannot be whined off of oil.
>
> Hmmm. I don't think he said that. He just pointed out that to reduce oil
> consumption by 30%, certainly in a short period of time, would lead to
> very unpleasant economic consequences unless it was done very carefully
> and relatively slowly. No real argument about that from realistic
> people.
>
> >If this is true, then the death of society he predicts will occur 50-100
> >years from today when oil reserves are finally depleted.
>
> Yup, that's about long enough to make most of the change. Coal for
> several centuries will still be available even then.
>
> > Every time some action is required to limit man's impact on the
> >environment Chicken Littles like Lindaberry begin to manufacture stories
> >concerning the devastation that will occur should the steps were taken.
>
> Nope, just pointing out that there is no free lunch. How are YOU going
> to replace oil as an energy source? Wind, tidal, hydro, biomass, nuclear
> or a combination? How long will this take to achieve on a realistic
> timescale?
>
> > Many of these anti-environmental doomsters insisted that the cost of
> >the CFC phase out would be 2 trillion dollars as an example.
>
> Less that $1 per head. Sounds about right.
>
> > I haven't noticed any change in my lifestyle as a result of the
> >phase out.
>
> I doubt your fridge has been changed over yet.
>
> > They are cowards who will say anything to keep the money - and in this
> >case, the oil flowing.
>
Oz
In article <3561EC...@pacifier.com>, byoung <byo...@pacifier.com>
writes
>Oz wrote:
>>
>> In article <3561C2...@pacifier.com>, byoung <byo...@pacifier.com>
>> writes
>>
>> >Depression my ass, what about hemp? We haven't needed oil for all these
>> >thousands of years.
>>
>> Do you know any social history at all? Just consider the pre-oil UK, say
>> pre WW2 and consider the standard of living then. That society was coal
>> powered. Go back pre coal and you would be surprised at how utterly
>> impoverished the average person was. That's the society that 'didn't
>> need oil for thousands of years'. You wouldn't like it, believe me.
>>
>
>Pre-oil would have been in the 1800s, would it have not?
Not primarily in the UK, of course. Houses were lit by town gas and
automobiles were essentially non-existant until after WW1 (and pretty
non-existant after WW1). Some kerosine would have been used in country
areas for lamps, but the quantities would have been small.
>So using coal brought everyone out of poverty? How do you figure?
The UK, which was the most powerful and wealthy country in the 1800's by
far, was coal powered. Although it's population by the mid 1800's was
poor and overworked by modern standards, it had by far the highest
average standard of living in the world.
>It
>was the oil barons and mining companies that controlled the situation.
Perhaps in the US, but at that time the US was a hick country of no
great importance other than to provide cheap food and cottob for the UK
from it's peasant farms and ranches.
>Just as earls and dukes controlled all the land and peasants back in the
>day. How do you know it wasn't the petroleum industry that created all
>the poverty in the first place?
Cos I know some history, which you clearly do not.
>And why should I believe you that I "wouldn't like it"? You weren't
>alive back then, how would you know?
Because, even well before the 1800's, Brits could read and write.
>Do you know what it's like to live
>in poverty?
Know? You mean experience? I haven't. Nobody in the UK has really
experienced it for many decades. There are plenty of written accounts of
the time, real examples in the third world today, and anybody who can
visualise and worked in some of the situations they worked at should
have little problem appreciating it.
You wouldn't like it.
>I'd like to know how you can even say that the "average
>person" was impoverished with any certainty (not that I actually dispute
>the claim).
British records go back a long way. My house was built in 1802, and is
rather modern for this village the oldest of which is certainly pre
1300's.
>And even so, what does that have to do with coal and oil?
Dear god, another uneducated american. Power was primarily manpower in
those days. Do you understand what that means?
>> >If our precious economy absolutely requires that we
>> >burn oil, I'd say we were a tad too dependent on the stuff in the first
>> >place, to say nothing of the ecology of said dependency.
>>
>> So, what and how are you to replace it with?
>
>Hemp will do it all. Bring it on.
If you are to continue being moronic, I shall cease to bother to educate
you.
>> Words are cheap (just as well for you).
>
>What's that supposed to mean? Aren't your words just as cheap?
That you say all sorts of rubbish, but have no realistic ideas
whatsoever and learn nothing.
--
Oz
Scott Nudds
Harold Lindaberry wrote:
: IMO a lot less " Iffy " question is IF there is a rapid 30 % reduction
: in fuel consumption and the world wide economy goes into a depression
: that makes the one in the 30's look like "the Golden Days of Camelot"
: what will you tell your children then ?
Doomsters like Lindaberry insist that man cannot be whined off of oil.
If this is true, then the death of society he predicts will occur 50-100
years from today when oil reserves are finally depleted.
Every time some action is required to limit man's impact on the
environment Chicken Littles like Lindaberry begin to manufacture stories
concerning the devastation that will occur should the steps were taken.
Many of these anti-environmental doomsters insisted that the cost of
the CFC phase out would be 2 trillion dollars as an example.
I haven't noticed any change in my lifestyle as a result of the
phase out.
They are cowards who will say anything to keep the money - and in this
case, the oil flowing.
--
<---->
byoung
Oz wrote:
>
> In article <3561EC...@pacifier.com>, byoung <byo...@pacifier.com>
> writes
> >Oz wrote:
> >>
> >> In article <3561C2...@pacifier.com>, byoung <byo...@pacifier.com>
> >> writes
> >>
> >> >Depression my ass, what about hemp? We haven't needed oil for all these
> >> >thousands of years.
> >>
> >> Do you know any social history at all? Just consider the pre-oil UK, say
> >> pre WW2 and consider the standard of living then. That society was coal
> >> powered. Go back pre coal and you would be surprised at how utterly
> >> impoverished the average person was. That's the society that 'didn't
> >> need oil for thousands of years'. You wouldn't like it, believe me.
> >>
> >
> >Pre-oil would have been in the 1800s, would it have not?
>
> Not primarily in the UK, of course. Houses were lit by town gas and
> automobiles were essentially non-existant until after WW1 (and pretty
> non-existant after WW1). Some kerosine would have been used in country
> areas for lamps, but the quantities would have been small.
>
> >So using coal brought everyone out of poverty? How do you figure?
>
> The UK, which was the most powerful and wealthy country in the 1800's by
> far, was coal powered. Although it's population by the mid 1800's was
> poor and overworked by modern standards, it had by far the highest
> average standard of living in the world.
Oops, I was using (crude) oil and coal interchangably, my bad. Pre-coal
was the 1800s, pre-oil was around WWII when refining was invented,
correct?
>
> >It
> >was the oil barons and mining companies that controlled the situation.
>
> Perhaps in the US, but at that time the US was a hick country of no
> great importance other than to provide cheap food and cottob for the UK
> from it's peasant farms and ranches.
I see how it is.
>
> >Just as earls and dukes controlled all the land and peasants back in the
> >day. How do you know it wasn't the petroleum industry that created all
> >the poverty in the first place?
>
> Cos I know some history, which you clearly do not.
Do you mean "'Cause"?
>
> >And why should I believe you that I "wouldn't like it"? You weren't
> >alive back then, how would you know?
>
> Because, even well before the 1800's, Brits could read and write.
C'mon now, that's not the whole truth. Wasn't it only the ruling class
and the rich that could read and write? Or did you have public
education back then?
>
> >Do you know what it's like to live
> >in poverty?
>
> Know? You mean experience? I haven't. Nobody in the UK has really
> experienced it for many decades. There are plenty of written accounts of
> the time, real examples in the third world today, and anybody who can
> visualise and worked in some of the situations they worked at should
> have little problem appreciating it.
Like coal miners? Actually, let's take the extreme end: homeless
people. Many WANT to be homeless. Explain that.
>
> You wouldn't like it.
How would you know? For all you know, I would stake out my own acre of
land and grow hemp. Fuck the rest of the world (until they start
dropping bombs or dumping waste into MY streams, then I MUST care).
How's that grab ya?
Being free from possessions is just that.
>
> >I'd like to know how you can even say that the "average
> >person" was impoverished with any certainty (not that I actually dispute
> >the claim).
>
> British records go back a long way. My house was built in 1802, and is
> rather modern for this village the oldest of which is certainly pre
> 1300's.
Uh, ok....I take it your house is rather modest?
>
> >And even so, what does that have to do with coal and oil?
>
> Dear god, another uneducated american. Power was primarily manpower in
> those days. Do you understand what that means?
Dear God, another pompous Brit. By the way, the United States is only a
small part of "America". So calling me an "american" is vague, except
by the generalizations of those living in Mother England. (We're just
the bratty kid who wouldn't step in line. Now we do it to ourselves.
Full circle.)
"Power was manpower" means people only worked for what would have
benefitted them directly, no? Bring on the coal and the laziness.
Breathe deep and enjoy your upper respiratory disease.
>
> >> >If our precious economy absolutely requires that we
> >> >burn oil, I'd say we were a tad too dependent on the stuff in the first
> >> >place, to say nothing of the ecology of said dependency.
> >>
> >> So, what and how are you to replace it with?
> >
> >Hemp will do it all. Bring it on.
>
> If you are to continue being moronic, I shall cease to bother to educate
> you.
Pfft.
>
> >> Words are cheap (just as well for you).
> >
> >What's that supposed to mean? Aren't your words just as cheap?
>
> That you say all sorts of rubbish, but have no realistic ideas
> whatsoever and learn nothing.
I "learn nothing"? Are you referring to the fact that I don't accept
your own "rubbish" as gospel? What are you, my schoolmaster? Am I in
the Ivy League now? Should I be impressed?
>
> --
> Oz
b
Oz
In article <6jsu8l$jn7$1...@news1.epix.net>, Harold Lindaberry
<har...@epix.net> writes
> Thanks Oz I made up my mind I wouldn't respond to Scott Nutts (oops )
>Nudds. Anyone who thinks fossil fuels were generated by volcanoes doesn't
>have a grasp on what is.
Does he? You're kidding. I didn't read the long and rambling tirade that
stared this thread off, perhaps I should have it may have been a laugh.
Hmmm. My son's doing his GCSE's at the moment (age 16). Do you think I
should print it out to illustrate to him why an education is useful?
I am sure he wouldn't want to look stupid posting a load of claptrap
that exposes his ignorance.
--
Oz
Harold Lindaberry
The real frightening thing, I understand he's a school teacher.
Harold Lindaberry
visit OXGORE website at http://www.epix.net/~harlind
RESEARCH GOES WHERE RESEARCH LEADS
Oz
In article <356215...@pacifier.com>, byoung <byo...@pacifier.com>
writes
>Oz wrote:
>> >It
>> >was the oil barons and mining companies that controlled the situation.
Where? In the UK in the 1800's? No. Far too many mines, miners and mine
owners then.
>> >And why should I believe you that I "wouldn't like it"? You weren't
>> >alive back then, how would you know?
>>
>> Because, even well before the 1800's, Brits could read and write.
>
>C'mon now, that's not the whole truth. Wasn't it only the ruling class
>and the rich that could read and write?
And the 'middle' classes, and the 'upper lower' classes. I forget when
compulsory education to 12 came in for all (mid 1800's?), but long
before that a significant part of the population were literate.
>Or did you have public
>education back then?
Some. Church and 'poor' schools certainly existed where poor children
could get an education they could afford.
>> >Do you know what it's like to live
>> >in poverty?
>>
>> Know? You mean experience? I haven't. Nobody in the UK has really
>> experienced it for many decades. There are plenty of written accounts of
>> the time, real examples in the third world today, and anybody who can
>> visualise and worked in some of the situations they worked at should
>> have little problem appreciating it.
>
>Like coal miners? Actually, let's take the extreme end: homeless
>people. Many WANT to be homeless. Explain that.
Why should I want to explain it? Do you want to live in a cardboard box
and be permanently hungry? Have you ever been hungry for a few weeks?
>How would you know? For all you know, I would stake out my own acre of
>land and grow hemp.
I cannot believe you do not have adequate funds to buy an acre in the
US. You should be able to manage that for a few $1000.
>Fuck the rest of the world (until they start
>dropping bombs or dumping waste into MY streams, then I MUST care).
>How's that grab ya?
Yeah. Eat hemp, dress with hemp and you don't even listen to those that
have grown it. Real smart.
>Being free from possessions is just that.
Join a monastery.
>> >I'd like to know how you can even say that the "average
>> >person" was impoverished with any certainty (not that I actually dispute
>> >the claim).
>>
>> British records go back a long way. My house was built in 1802, and is
>> rather modern for this village the oldest of which is certainly pre
>> 1300's.
>
>Uh, ok....I take it your house is rather modest?
Moderate.
>"Power was manpower" means people only worked for what would have
>benefitted them directly, no?
No, it means they humped sacks about, hoed by hand, walked behind the
horses, used simple spinning and weaving tools, swept with brooms and so
on. 12 hrs a day 6 days a week.
>Bring on the coal and the laziness.
>Breathe deep and enjoy your upper respiratory disease.
There was no charge for that, or the multitude of other occupational
diseases with no sick pay and no retirement benefit. You got it.
>> >> >If our precious economy absolutely requires that we
>> >> >burn oil, I'd say we were a tad too dependent on the stuff in the first
>> >> >place, to say nothing of the ecology of said dependency.
>> >>
>> >> So, what and how are you to replace it with?
>> >
>> >Hemp will do it all. Bring it on.
>>
>> If you are to continue being moronic, I shall cease to bother to educate
>> you.
>
>Pfft.
So, you have no idea how to replace it. As I thought.
>I "learn nothing"? Are you referring to the fact that I don't accept
>your own "rubbish" as gospel?
You could go check it out in a book, even better in several.
>What are you, my schoolmaster? Am I in
>the Ivy League now? Should I be impressed?
No, you should be embarrased by your ignorance and lack of ideas.
--
Oz
Oz
In article <6jt90g$6br$1...@news1.epix.net>, Harold Lindaberry
<har...@epix.net> writes
> The real frightening thing, I understand he's a school teacher.
Yes, I couldn't agree more. However I have to say that here the UK is
probably no better than the US. The (London) Times did some surveys of
primary school teachers (ie teaching to age 11) a few years ago. The
results on the maths and science side were staggeringly apalling. I
forget the exact figure but something like 80% thought the sun went
round the earth for example.
One thing is for sure, our National Curriculum, regular testing and
**publication of the results** for all schools in the UK has improved
standards no end.
>
>Oz wrote:
>> > Thanks Oz I made up my mind I wouldn't respond to Scott Nutts (oops )
>> >Nudds. Anyone who thinks fossil fuels were generated by volcanoes doesn't
>> >have a grasp on what is.
>>
>> Does he? You're kidding. I didn't read the long and rambling tirade that
>> stared this thread off, perhaps I should have it may have been a laugh.
--
Oz
Harold Lindaberry
Oz wrote:
> In article <6jt90g$6br$1...@news1.epix.net>, Harold Lindaberry
> <har...@epix.net> writes
>
> > The real frightening thing, I understand he's a school teacher.
>
> Yes, I couldn't agree more. However I have to say that here the UK is
> probably no better than the US. The (London) Times did some surveys of
> primary school teachers (ie teaching to age 11) a few years ago. The
> results on the maths and science side were staggeringly apalling. I
> forget the exact figure but something like 80% thought the sun went
> round the earth for example.
Oops you mean it doesn't ? !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Harold Lindaberry
visit OXGORE website at http://www.epix.net/~harlind
RESEARCH GOES WHERE RESEARCH LEADS
>
>
Tracy Aquilla
In Article <6juak8$9m0$1...@news1.epix.net>, Harold Lindaberry
<har...@epix.net> wrote:
>Oz wrote:
>>
>> > The real frightening thing, I understand he's a school teacher.
>>
>> Yes, I couldn't agree more. However I have to say that here the UK is
>> probably no better than the US. The (London) Times did some surveys of
>> primary school teachers (ie teaching to age 11) a few years ago. The
>> results on the maths and science side were staggeringly apalling. I
>> forget the exact figure but something like 80% thought the sun went
>> round the earth for example.
>
> Oops you mean it doesn't ? !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Of course not. It revolves around hemp! ;-)
Richard Flynn
Oz wrote:
> In article <356215...@pacifier.com>, byoung <byo...@pacifier.com>
> writes
> >Oz wrote:
>
> >> >It
> >> >was the oil barons and mining companies that controlled the situation.
>
> Where? In the UK in the 1800's? No. Far too many mines, miners and mine
> owners then.
>
> >> >And why should I believe you that I "wouldn't like it"? You weren't
> >> >alive back then, how would you know?
>
The most interesting thing about the people that long for the good old days of
agrarian culture and the simple farm life haven't a clue as to what that really
means. Prior to WWII in the United States a significant portion of the population
lived on subsistance farms. Life was hard. Look at some of the pictures that
came from the Great Depression showing men harnessing themselves to a plow and
trying to till enough acerage to insure enough calories for themselves and their
family over the next year. Try to imagine what an early frost meant to people
living on such farms. Even in the early part of the 20th century people died from
malnutritions (note I didn't say starvation). Although some people might really
prefer this life to their current situation the overwhelming majority would not.
> >>
> >> Because, even well before the 1800's, Brits could read and write.
> >
> >C'mon now, that's not the whole truth. Wasn't it only the ruling class
> >and the rich that could read and write?
>
> And the 'middle' classes, and the 'upper lower' classes. I forget when
> compulsory education to 12 came in for all (mid 1800's?), but long
> before that a significant part of the population were literate.
>
> >Or did you have public
> >education back then?
>
> Some. Church and 'poor' schools certainly existed where poor children
> could get an education they could afford.
>
> >> >Do you know what it's like to live
> >> >in poverty?
> >>
> >> Know? You mean experience? I haven't. Nobody in the UK has really
> >> experienced it for many decades. There are plenty of written accounts of
> >> the time, real examples in the third world today, and anybody who can
> >> visualise and worked in some of the situations they worked at should
> >> have little problem appreciating it.
>
The situation in the US is much the same. Although there are people living in
poverty in the US in most cases it is a relative thing. With the exception of
those people that are mentally ill or have a substance abuse problems most people
have sufficient resources to have a place to live and food on the table. When
public housing is wired for cable TV you know that there is disposable income
there.
> >
> >Like coal miners? Actually, let's take the extreme end: homeless
> >people. Many WANT to be homeless. Explain that.
>
> Why should I want to explain it? Do you want to live in a cardboard box
> and be permanently hungry? Have you ever been hungry for a few weeks?
>
> >How would you know? For all you know, I would stake out my own acre of
> >land and grow hemp.
>
> I cannot believe you do not have adequate funds to buy an acre in the
> US. You should be able to manage that for a few $1000.
>
> >Fuck the rest of the world (until they start
> >dropping bombs or dumping waste into MY streams, then I MUST care).
> >How's that grab ya?
>
> Yeah. Eat hemp, dress with hemp and you don't even listen to those that
> have grown it. Real smart.
>
I would love for the US to drop restrictions on the growth of hemp for no other
reason than to shut the hemp fanatics up. I'm not going to hold my breath waiting
for indestructable clothing made from hemp, gasoline made from hemp, paper made
from hemp etc. though.
> >Being free from possessions is just that.
>
Almost by definition anyone posting to this group or reading these messages is
sitting in an airconditioned room, at a computer plugged into the wall with a
telephone line attached. Leading the simple life requires that someone somewhere
do some amazingly complicated things.
byoung
touche
byoung
Oz wrote:
>
> In article <356215...@pacifier.com>, byoung <byo...@pacifier.com>
> writes
> >Oz wrote:
>
> >> >It
> >> >was the oil barons and mining companies that controlled the situation.
>
> Where? In the UK in the 1800's? No. Far too many mines, miners and mine
> owners then.
Not that many mine owners, now where there!
> >How would you know? For all you know, I would stake out my own acre of
> >land and grow hemp.
>
> I cannot believe you do not have adequate funds to buy an acre in the
> US. You should be able to manage that for a few $1000.
Oh yeah, I'll be buying some land. I'll supplement my power bill by
growing hemp "on the back one".
>
> >Fuck the rest of the world (until they start
> >dropping bombs or dumping waste into MY streams, then I MUST care).
> >How's that grab ya?
>
> Yeah. Eat hemp, dress with hemp and you don't even listen to those that
> have grown it. Real smart.
You haven't grown it! Why should I listen to you? And besides, my
resource materials come directly from experienced farmers.
>
> >Being free from possessions is just that.
>
> Join a monastery.
Hmmm, interesting concept. Will I get to choose my sacraments? ;-)
> >"Power was manpower" means people only worked for what would have
> >benefitted them directly, no?
>
> No, it means they humped sacks about, hoed by hand, walked behind the
> horses, used simple spinning and weaving tools, swept with brooms and so
> on. 12 hrs a day 6 days a week.
How much can you bench press? How far can you run? What is your
threshold of pain? Could you weave a blanket? What else are you going
to do with your time? Waste you days on newsgroups? Get out and
breathe! But don't get me wrong, I'm not saying we have to go back to
the old days of obnoxiously hard labor. I'm just saying that I believe
there is a better way than with oil. Oil is too readily available. It
makes things TOO easy. Hemp keeps us modest and honest.
>
> >Bring on the coal and the laziness.
> >Breathe deep and enjoy your upper respiratory disease.
>
> There was no charge for that, or the multitude of other occupational
> diseases with no sick pay and no retirement benefit. You got it.
Oh, I got it alright. Back then the excuse was, legitimately,
ignorance. Today it's all about money and laziness. Exxon dumps
benzene and toluene into the marshes in Louisianna. The locals have
upper respiratory illnesses as a result. The head of Exxon plead
ignorance when asked by the reporter about the dumping. As though he
didn't even know it was happening! And the state legislature turned
down the suit to stop them from dumping it; they were getting some
kickback I bet.
>
> >> >> >If our precious economy absolutely requires that we
> >> >> >burn oil, I'd say we were a tad too dependent on the stuff in the first
> >> >> >place, to say nothing of the ecology of said dependency.
> >> >>
> >> >> So, what and how are you to replace it with?
> >> >
> >> >Hemp will do it all. Bring it on.
> >>
> >> If you are to continue being moronic, I shall cease to bother to educate
> >> you.
> >
> >Pfft.
>
> So, you have no idea how to replace it. As I thought.
Uses for oil: fuel, fiber, chemical feedstocks for pharmaceuticals,
plastics
Uses for hemp: fuel, fiber, a superior natural pharmaceutical, plastics
All the upholstery in cars (and homes and offices) is made of artificial
fabrics made from oil that could be made with hemp; no technological
breakthrough required, just use a different raw material. Even the
dashboard is made of oil, and yes, could also be made from hemp. You
know that "new car smell"? Oil. Cars are a resource sink. What
happened to the one-car family?
Indirect displacements of oil:
Steel and aluminum take all sorts of energy to refine/smelt. There are
lots 'o nasty byproducts of ore refining. Henry Ford made a car body
out of hemp and sisal back in the '30s that weighed 1/2 as much, and had
10 times the impact strength of the steel equivalent. And no
byproducts. All the energy that goes to make steel comes from some
resource such as coal. Most of the energy that made the fiber body was
provided by the sun.
Oil is the source of many of the chemicals used in agriculture and
paper-making. Not needed. Hemp fiber last longer than cotton (a big
chemical user); you don't need to replace it as often. Hemp paper
recycles longer than tree paper and doesn't require the processing
chemicals. Hemp suppresses weeds so well that the next rotated crop may
not even need weed killer.
H-E-M-P, to spell it out for you. :-)
> >What are you, my schoolmaster? Am I in
> >the Ivy League now? Should I be impressed?
>
> No, you should be embarrased by your ignorance and lack of ideas.
Who's ignorance? And I'm full of ideas. Cynics call them "pipe
dreams".
>
> --
> Oz
b
Oz
In article <356341...@pacifier.com>, byoung <byo...@pacifier.com>
writes
>Oz wrote:
>>
>> In article <356215...@pacifier.com>, byoung <byo...@pacifier.com>
>> writes
>> >Oz wrote:
>>
>> >> >It
>> >> >was the oil barons and mining companies that controlled the situation.
>>
>> Where? In the UK in the 1800's? No. Far too many mines, miners and mine
>> owners then.
>
>Not that many mine owners, now where there!
Hundreds if not thousands. I would regard that as enough to maintain a
free competitive market.
>> >How would you know? For all you know, I would stake out my own acre of
>> >land and grow hemp.
>>
>> I cannot believe you do not have adequate funds to buy an acre in the
>> US. You should be able to manage that for a few $1000.
>
>Oh yeah, I'll be buying some land. I'll supplement my power bill by
>growing hemp "on the back one".
When? Sometime soon?
>> >Fuck the rest of the world (until they start
>> >dropping bombs or dumping waste into MY streams, then I MUST care).
>> >How's that grab ya?
>>
>> Yeah. Eat hemp, dress with hemp and you don't even listen to those that
>> have grown it. Real smart.
>
>You haven't grown it! Why should I listen to you? And besides, my
>resource materials come directly from experienced farmers.
So do mine. We get regular articles about how to grow it commercially in
our farming press. It's pretty useless.
>> >"Power was manpower" means people only worked for what would have
>> >benefitted them directly, no?
>>
>> No, it means they humped sacks about, hoed by hand, walked behind the
>> horses, used simple spinning and weaving tools, swept with brooms and so
>> on. 12 hrs a day 6 days a week.
>
>How much can you bench press?
Can, or could? Anyhow having carried my share of 2cwt maize sacks up
ladders into lofts on my back I don't really see the point in anyone
else having to.
>How far can you run? What is your
>threshold of pain? Could you weave a blanket?
Sure.
>What else are you going
>to do with your time? Waste you days on newsgroups? Get out and
>breathe! But don't get me wrong, I'm not saying we have to go back to
>the old days of obnoxiously hard labor.
So how are you to avoid that?
>I'm just saying that I believe
>there is a better way than with oil. Oil is too readily available. It
>makes things TOO easy. Hemp keeps us modest and honest.
So I guess wind, hydro, tidal, biomass et al are not your solution.
Well, what else do you propose?
>> >Bring on the coal and the laziness.
>> >Breathe deep and enjoy your upper respiratory disease.
>>
>> There was no charge for that, or the multitude of other occupational
>> diseases with no sick pay and no retirement benefit. You got it.
>
>Oh, I got it alright. Back then the excuse was, legitimately,
>ignorance. Today it's all about money and laziness.
Have you considered that it may be YOUR money and laziness?
>> >> >> >If our precious economy absolutely requires that we
>> >> >> >burn oil, I'd say we were a tad too dependent on the stuff in the
>first
>> >> >> >place, to say nothing of the ecology of said dependency.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> So, what and how are you to replace it with?
>> >> >
>> >> >Hemp will do it all. Bring it on.
>> >>
>> >> If you are to continue being moronic, I shall cease to bother to educate
>> >> you.
>> >
>> >Pfft.
>>
>> So, you have no idea how to replace it. As I thought.
>
>Uses for oil: fuel, fiber, chemical feedstocks for pharmaceuticals,
>plastics
>Uses for hemp: fuel, fiber, a superior natural pharmaceutical, plastics
You are being infantile again.
I'll talk with you when you grow up.
Goodbye.
--
Oz
byoung
Oz wrote:
>
> In article <356341...@pacifier.com>, byoung <byo...@pacifier.com>
> writes
> >Oz wrote:
> >>
> >> In article <356215...@pacifier.com>, byoung <byo...@pacifier.com>
> >> writes
> >> >Oz wrote:
> >>
> >> >> >It
> >> >> >was the oil barons and mining companies that controlled the situation.
> >>
> >> Where? In the UK in the 1800's? No. Far too many mines, miners and mine
> >> owners then.
> >
> >Not that many mine owners, now where there!
>
> free competitive market.
Hundreds or thousands of mines, or mine owners?
>
> >> >How would you know? For all you know, I would stake out my own acre of
> >> >land and grow hemp.
> >>
> >> I cannot believe you do not have adequate funds to buy an acre in the
> >> US. You should be able to manage that for a few $1000.
> >
> >Oh yeah, I'll be buying some land. I'll supplement my power bill by
> >growing hemp "on the back one".
>
> When? Sometime soon?
Not until hemp is legalized obviously. Actually, it may be a good idea
to get some land now. I wonder if land prices will rise once hemp is
liberated.
>
> >> >Fuck the rest of the world (until they start
> >> >dropping bombs or dumping waste into MY streams, then I MUST care).
> >> >How's that grab ya?
> >>
> >> Yeah. Eat hemp, dress with hemp and you don't even listen to those that
> >> have grown it. Real smart.
> >
> >You haven't grown it! Why should I listen to you? And besides, my
> >resource materials come directly from experienced farmers.
>
> So do mine. We get regular articles about how to grow it commercially in
> our farming press. It's pretty useless.
Now you're talking out of your ass! You better tell those Kentucky
farmers that their wasting their time suing the US government! "C'mon
guys, hemp is useless and you know it! You just want to legalize pot!
I see you! You're not fooling me!" Pfft.
>
> >> >"Power was manpower" means people only worked for what would have
> >> >benefitted them directly, no?
> >>
> >> No, it means they humped sacks about, hoed by hand, walked behind the
> >> horses, used simple spinning and weaving tools, swept with brooms and so
> >> on. 12 hrs a day 6 days a week.
> >
> >How much can you bench press?
>
> Can, or could? Anyhow having carried my share of 2cwt maize sacks up
> ladders into lofts on my back I don't really see the point in anyone
> else having to.
Right, we have machines to do it now. No complaints. I say make
prisoners harvest community hemp crops manually! I heard it's a
back-breaker.
>
> >How far can you run? What is your
> >threshold of pain? Could you weave a blanket?
>
> Sure.
>
> >What else are you going
> >to do with your time? Waste you days on newsgroups? Get out and
> >breathe! But don't get me wrong, I'm not saying we have to go back to
> >the old days of obnoxiously hard labor.
>
> So how are you to avoid that?
You can still drive a truck or combine, for example, you just fuel it
with ethanol instead of gasoline or deisel. It's just a difference
source for the same technology.
>
> >I'm just saying that I believe
> >there is a better way than with oil. Oil is too readily available. It
> >makes things TOO easy. Hemp keeps us modest and honest.
>
> So I guess wind, hydro, tidal, biomass et al are not your solution.
> Well, what else do you propose?
I'm not sure how you arrived at that conclusion....
Wind - a good supplement, but inherently unreliable and not available
everywhere.
Hydro - well, if we can understand the ecological impacts fully, hydro
may not be so bad. I'm not sure how well fish ladders work. But the
on-off flow resulting from the dam may not be such a great idea for an
ecosystem that developed under continuous flow conditions. Hydro is
mainly for powering the energy-glutten aluminum smelters along the
Columbia River anyway. Well, we don't necessarily need all that
aluminum refining. I say we heavily tax virgin aluminum production and
tag on a deposit for aluminum cans (about $0.25 each, just to be sure
consumers are adequately motivated). It takes about 20% the energy to
remelt as it does to smelt bauxite. Then we don't need the dams except
mostly to irrigate the hemp crops. I'll stop there for now.
Tidal - only for coastal states. nah, screws up beaches.
Biomass - Ding, ding, ding! We have a winner. Hemp grows everywhere.
>
> >> >Bring on the coal and the laziness.
> >> >Breathe deep and enjoy your upper respiratory disease.
> >>
> >> There was no charge for that, or the multitude of other occupational
> >> diseases with no sick pay and no retirement benefit. You got it.
> >
> >Oh, I got it alright. Back then the excuse was, legitimately,
> >ignorance. Today it's all about money and laziness.
>
> Have you considered that it may be YOUR money and laziness?
Not mine alone. We're all victims of circumstance.
> >> >> >> So, what and how are you to replace it with?
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Hemp will do it all. Bring it on.
> >> >>
> >> >> If you are to continue being moronic, I shall cease to bother to educate
> >> >> you.
> >> >
> >> >Pfft.
> >>
> >> So, you have no idea how to replace it. As I thought.
> >
> >Uses for oil: fuel, fiber, chemical feedstocks for pharmaceuticals,
> >plastics
> >Uses for hemp: fuel, fiber, a superior natural pharmaceutical, plastics
>
> You are being infantile again.
Now why would you say that? Was it the reference to the "superior
natural pharmaceutical" that made you cringe?
> I'll talk with you when you grow up.
>
> Goodbye.
We'll see.
>
> --
> Oz
b
Scott Nudds
Oz <O...@upthorpe.demon.co.uk> wrote:
: I don't remember ever seeing how long it would take to remove the carbon
: from the atmosphere. I would guess that we are talking centuries. In any
: case we are due for an ice age any time now, so some small CO2 elevation
: may not be a bad thing.
Indeed. And in 100,000 years, should we need to add CO2 to compensate
for observed cooling ward off the next ice age, I suggest we do it.
Adding CO2 now is very much like heating your home in summer to
compensate for the cold of winter.
"It has not been proven that nicotine is addictive, the same with
cigarettes causing emphysema [and other diseases]." (Limbaugh - Radio
show, 4/29/94)
"People can't hurt the Earth!" - Rush Limbaugh
--
<---->
Scott Nudds
Harold Lindaberry wrote:
: I DIDN'T SAY WE SHOULDN'T in fact it might be a good plan if a
: means could be devised. A possible good research project. That was the
: point of my comment 1 square mile would yield 61,440 tons of carbon to
: burn or whatever, if a suitable method couldn't be found for burning
: it might be able to be recycles back in to useable plant nutrients
: where we could grow crops that are of more use to mans uses. A good
: project might be to grind it pump it to a covered anaerobic situation
: for recycling and utilize the methane generated from the solid
: portion. There are probably lots of other possibilities and organisms
: that offer similar opportunities. The main point of the post was to
: demonstrate that IMO man doesn't need to running around with the"
: chicken little little syndrome about the energy problem ". And in any
: event it offers a good means of getting rid of shit
What Lindaberry is referring to here is the biomass solution for
energy production - a form of capturing solar energy. For decades,
environmentalists have argued in favour of biomass as part of the
solution to the energy problem.
Perhaps Lindaberry for decades hasn't been paying attention to what
environmentalists have been proposing.
Who knows, he might find many more areas where he is in harmony with
environmentalists, but right now he simply doesn't know it.
I've always thought one should know one's friends, and know one's foes
even better.
"It is a historic fact, recurrent enough to be called an economic law,
that capitalism, which builds up great civilizations, also wrecks them
if persisted in beyond a certain point. It is easy to demonstrate on
paper that civilization can be saved and immensely developed by, at the
right moment, discarding capitalism and changing the private property
profiteering state into the common property distributive state." - -
Socialism - George Bernard Shaw - 1926
--
<---->
Oz
In article <6k0n9k$h...@james.hwcn.org>, Scott Nudds
<af...@james.hwcn.org> writes
>Oz <O...@upthorpe.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>: I don't remember ever seeing how long it would take to remove the carbon
>: from the atmosphere. I would guess that we are talking centuries. In any
>: case we are due for an ice age any time now, so some small CO2 elevation
>: may not be a bad thing.
>
> Indeed. And in 100,000 years, should we need to add CO2 to compensate
>for observed cooling ward off the next ice age, I suggest we do it.
Eh? The next ice age is due NOW, not in 100,000 years!
>
> Adding CO2 now is very much like heating your home in summer to
>compensate for the cold of winter.
No, more like getting the heating ready after an indian summer perhaps?
Anyhow, one thing is for sure and that is that we are not going (in fact
are not) to reduce CO2 emissions so as to reduce atmospheric CO2 levels
any time soon. To do this a massive expenditure in renewable and nuclear
power would be in full swing as we speak. It isn't.
IMHO it should be starting but let's face facts, the increase in energy
from renewable sources is minute. IN the UK mostly because of opposition
from environmentalists!
--
Oz
Oz
In article <6k0n9l$h...@james.hwcn.org>, Scott Nudds
<af...@james.hwcn.org> writes
> What Lindaberry is referring to here is the biomass solution for
>energy production - a form of capturing solar energy. For decades,
>environmentalists have argued in favour of biomass as part of the
>solution to the energy problem.
Straw powered power station for E. Anglia, UK, dropped because of
opposition from local environmentalists.
It's the many-headed hydra again.
--
Oz
Harold Lindaberry
I shouldn't do this as I said no more replies to Nudds by me but once more
won't hurt I guess as he doesn't seem to go away anyway.
Scott Nudds wrote:
> Harold Lindaberry wrote:
> : I DIDN'T SAY WE SHOULDN'T in fact it might be a good plan if a
> : means could be devised. A possible good research project. That was the
> : point of my comment 1 square mile would yield 61,440 tons of carbon to
> : burn or whatever, if a suitable method couldn't be found for burning
> : it might be able to be recycles back in to useable plant nutrients
> : where we could grow crops that are of more use to mans uses. A good
> : project might be to grind it pump it to a covered anaerobic situation
> : filer out the solids return the liquid portion to the original site
> : for recycling and utilize the methane generated from the solid
> : portion. There are probably lots of other possibilities and organisms
> : that offer similar opportunities. The main point of the post was to
> : demonstrate that IMO man doesn't need to running around with the"
> : chicken little little syndrome about the energy problem ". And in any
> : event it offers a good means of getting rid of shit
>
> What Lindaberry is referring to here is the biomass solution for
> energy production - a form of capturing solar energy. For decades,
> environmentalists have argued in favour of biomass as part of the
> solution to the energy problem.
Where the hell do you think the energy stored in fossil fuels came from
? Oh yes I remember volcanoes. I'm for the environment and ecology just not
ecofreaks.
>
>
> Perhaps Lindaberry for decades hasn't been paying attention to what
> environmentalists have been proposing.
I was paying attention long before you were borne / hatched or whatever.
>
>
> Who knows, he might find many more areas where he is in harmony with
> environmentalists, but right now he simply doesn't know it.
>
> I've always thought one should know one's friends, and know one's foes
> even better.
>
> "It is a historic fact, recurrent enough to be called an economic law,
> that capitalism, which builds up great civilizations, also wrecks them
> if persisted in beyond a certain point. It is easy to demonstrate on
> paper that civilization can be saved and immensely developed by, at the
> right moment, discarding capitalism and changing the private property
> profiteering state into the common property distributive state." - -
> Socialism - George Bernard Shaw - 1926
Yea I think they call that communism, it might work in a world of
perfectly motivated individuals, but as it turns out there are too many
people who would prefer to sit on their ass and let the other guy do the
work ie. welfare relief etc. while they reap the benefits. Also there is a
tendency for people to want to sit and write poetry and leave the shit jobs
to someone else. So it is required that there be an a government agency to
delegate out the crappy jobs Without incentives for hard work and or
productivity and the idea that one can get away from the shit jobs the whole
concept goes down the tube. Harold Lindaberry 1998.
Harold Lindaberry
visit OXGORE website at http://www.epix.net/~harlind
RESEARCH GOES WHERE RESEARCH LEADS
>
>
> --
> <---->
byoung
> >energy production - a form of capturing solar energy. For decades,
> >environmentalists have argued in favour of biomass as part of the
> >solution to the energy problem.
>
> opposition from local environmentalists.
>
> It's the many-headed hydra again.
>
> --
> Oz
I know! That's so annoying! I hear people complain about burning
grassclippings and I'm thinking "it's just biomass!". Biomass--known
effluents (except for heavy metals from fertilizers-zing), closes the
CO2 loop, zero impact! As long as you grow as much biomass next year as
you burned this year, you should be ok, right? And if you're worried
about the smoke and soot, scrub it.
Oz
>"It is a historic fact, recurrent enough to be called an economic law,
>that capitalism, which builds up great civilizations, also wrecks them
>if persisted in beyond a certain point.
Hmmm. I can't actually think of a single example. Certainly
civilisations have collapsed, but I'm not sure that any of them would be
called 'capitalist', most were feudal.
>It is easy to demonstrate on
>paper
Particularly if you ignore inconvenient aspects of humanity,
>that civilization can be saved and immensely developed by, at the
>right moment, discarding capitalism and changing the private property
>profiteering state into the common property distributive state." - -
>Socialism - George Bernard Shaw - 1926
Actually this is called communism these days. A structure that has been
proven to utterly fail very much faster than capitalism and usually
comes complete with dictatorships and a police state and severe
curtailment of private freedoms. It is also worth noting that it has
managed to produce by far the worst cases of pollution humanity has ever
managed to achieve. I am sure Nudds would be happy under such a state
since he would almost certainly be provided with free accommodation in a
scenic and remote area combined with payment free obligate labour known
in Russia as a 'Gulag'.
--
Oz
bigted
On Wed, 20 May 1998 06:40:52 +0100, Oz <O...@upthorpe.demon.co.uk>
wrote:
>In article <6jt90g$6br$1...@news1.epix.net>, Harold Lindaberry
><har...@epix.net> writes
>
>> The real frightening thing, I understand he's a school teacher.
>
>Yes, I couldn't agree more. However I have to say that here the UK is
>probably no better than the US. The (London) Times did some surveys of
>primary school teachers (ie teaching to age 11) a few years ago. The
>results on the maths and science side were staggeringly apalling. I
>forget the exact figure but something like 80% thought the sun went
>round the earth for example.
>
>One thing is for sure, our National Curriculum, regular testing and
>**publication of the results** for all schools in the UK has improved
>standards no end.
This sounds excessively cheery. Can you back that up?
======================================================================
To email me replace XX with @ in environXXbigted.dircon.co.uk Please
e-mail me a copy of any reply to this message. ICQ#:8738657
======================================================================
Oz
In article <3564873c...@news.dircon.co.uk>, leave.it.out@guv.?
writes
>>One thing is for sure, our National Curriculum, regular testing and
>>**publication of the results** for all schools in the UK has improved
>>standards no end.
>
>This sounds excessively cheery. Can you back that up?
Come off it, you are from the UK and cannot fail to have read the
reports in the press.
Furthermore my sister, who was utterly against the NC and who is a
teacher, says that is the case too. I suppose I will have to await the
next publication of the results, and the historic data, in order to
'prove' it though. They are usually available in the Autumn.
--
Oz
Scott Nudds
Scott Nudds writes
: > Doomsters like Lindaberry insist that man cannot be weined off of oil.
Oz wrote:
: Hmmm. I don't think he said that. He just pointed out that to reduce oil
: consumption by 30%, certainly in a short period of time, would lead to
: very unpleasant economic consequences unless it was done very carefully
: and relatively slowly.
Implicit in his message was that the results of the proposed
reductions must be disaster. He set no time scale, implying that all
time scales will result in doom.
Such doomstering is often used to argue for inaction. Such arguments
can only delay the inevitable. As a result, the prognostications of
doom by these denialists do nothing but increase the probability of what
they fear most.
Their objections are emotion - driven by fear - and not rational.
OZ wrote:
: Nope, just pointing out that there is no free lunch. How are YOU going
: to replace oil as an energy source? Wind, tidal, hydro, biomass, nuclear
: or a combination? How long will this take to achieve on a realistic
: timescale?
A combination of course - heavy on improved efficiency and solar,
geothermal, wind, nuclear etc...
The transition can begin tomorrow. Its just a matter of policy. My
guess is that it would take close to 100 years to be mostly complete.
Hence the need to start yesterday.
: > Many of these anti-environmental doomsters insisted that the cost of
: >the CFC phase out would be 2 trillion dollars as an example.
OZ wrote:
: Less that $1 per head. Sounds about right.
250 million then in the U.S. 10,000 times less than the estimate of
the doomsters.
: > I haven't noticed any change in my lifestyle as a result of the
: >phase out.
OZ wrote:
: I doubt your fridge has been changed over yet.
Changed back in the early 80's.
: > They are cowards who will say anything to keep the money - and in this
: >case, the oil flowing.
OZ wrote:
: Sigh. I doubt that Harold worries too much about it. It's really a
: problem for generations after his.
Conservatives always seem to be mortgaging their children's future to
pay for their current lifestyle.
Leaving their children a 5 trillion debt isn't enough I guess.
--
<---->
Scott Nudds
Harold Lindaberry <har...@epix.net> wrote:
: Anyone who thinks fossil fuels were generated by volcanoes doesn't
: have a grasp on what is.
Agreed. Who is Lindaberry claiming believes that fossil fuels are
generated by volcanoes? Honesty demands tht if he can't support this
slander he should retract it.
--
<---->
Oz
In article <6k6a6c$2...@james.hwcn.org>, Scott Nudds
<af...@james.hwcn.org> writes
>Scott Nudds writes
>: > Doomsters like Lindaberry insist that man cannot be weined off of oil.
>
>Oz wrote:
>: Hmmm. I don't think he said that. He just pointed out that to reduce oil
>: consumption by 30%, certainly in a short period of time, would lead to
>: very unpleasant economic consequences unless it was done very carefully
>: and relatively slowly.
>
> Implicit in his message was that the results of the proposed
>reductions must be disaster. He set no time scale, implying that all
>time scales will result in doom.
Did you ask him of his timescale? As you did not your assumptions are
meaningless since you have no idea of what timescale he would consider
reasonable. In short you are, in a rather weasely way, putting words he
did not say into his mouth.
> Such doomstering is often used to argue for inaction. Such arguments
>can only delay the inevitable. As a result, the prognostications of
>doom by these denialists do nothing but increase the probability of what
>they fear most.
Could you write this in an understandable way.
> Their objections are emotion - driven by fear - and not rational.
What objections to what?
>OZ wrote:
>: Nope, just pointing out that there is no free lunch. How are YOU going
>: to replace oil as an energy source? Wind, tidal, hydro, biomass, nuclear
>: or a combination? How long will this take to achieve on a realistic
>: timescale?
>
> A combination of course - heavy on improved efficiency and solar,
>geothermal, wind, nuclear etc...
>
> The transition can begin tomorrow. Its just a matter of policy.
I think you mean govt grants. So speak to your elected governments.
>My
>guess is that it would take close to 100 years to be mostly complete.
Oh no, nothing like. Probably 30-70 depending on grants.
>Hence the need to start yesterday.
There is enough time, but it's running out. For the US the first thing
ought to be a swinging tax on petrol and oils. This might be politically
tricky.
>: > Many of these anti-environmental doomsters insisted that the cost of
>: >the CFC phase out would be 2 trillion dollars as an example.
>
>OZ wrote:
>: Less that $1 per head. Sounds about right.
>
> 250 million then in the U.S. 10,000 times less than the estimate of
>the doomsters.
Ooops, I slipped a few zero's. That's $300 per head of human population.
Hmm, probably not far out taken over a decade or so.
>: > I haven't noticed any change in my lifestyle as a result of the
>: >phase out.
>
>OZ wrote:
>: I doubt your fridge has been changed over yet.
>
> Changed back in the early 80's.
Was it that long ago that CFC's were banned?
>OZ wrote:
>: Sigh. I doubt that Harold worries too much about it. It's really a
>: problem for generations after his.
>
> Conservatives always seem to be mortgaging their children's future to
>pay for their current lifestyle.
BUT Harold is not. I guess he has grandchildren (or could have). It's
the 30-50 year olds that have the responsibility now.
> Leaving their children a 5 trillion debt isn't enough I guess.
Nope, I expect it will be bigger over the next 50 years. Perhaps you
can't afford all those fuel subsidies now. Oh dear.
--
Oz
Scott Nudds
: Scott Nudds wrote:
: > What Lindaberry is referring to here is the biomass solution for
: > energy production - a form of capturing solar energy. For decades,
: > environmentalists have argued in favour of biomass as part of the
: > solution to the energy problem.
Harold Lindaberry <har...@epix.net> wrote:
: Where the hell do you think the energy stored in fossil fuels came
: from? Oh yes I remember volcanoes.
I'm sorry Mr. Lindaberry, the energy stored in fossil fuels does not
come from volcanoes.
What makes you think such a silly thing.
You know, I once saw a loonie claim that all of the worlds oil fields
were connected together and a large oil fire could cause a global scale
conflagration.
We see some very strange ideas coming from you people.
Scott Nudds wrote:
: > Perhaps Lindaberry for decades hasn't been paying attention to what
: > environmentalists have been proposing.
Harold Lindaberry <har...@epix.net> wrote:
: I was paying attention long before you were borne / hatched or whatever.
Then you must be a very old fart.
: > "It is a historic fact, recurrent enough to be called an economic law,
: > that capitalism, which builds up great civilizations, also wrecks them
: > if persisted in beyond a certain point. It is easy to demonstrate on
: > paper that civilization can be saved and immensely developed by, at the
: > right moment, discarding capitalism and changing the private property
: > profiteering state into the common property distributive state." - -
: > Socialism - George Bernard Shaw - 1926
Harold Lindaberry <har...@epix.net> wrote:
: Yea I think they call that communism, it might work in a world of
: perfectly motivated individuals, but as it turns out there are too many
: people who would prefer to sit on their ass and let the other guy do the
: work ie. welfare relief etc. while they reap the benefits.
I would propose that refusal to work not be allowed under such a
system. I would also propose that regulations be created such that
capitalism is restrained from destroying civilization.
Harold Lindaberry <har...@epix.net> wrote:
: Also there is a tendency for people to want to sit and write poetry
: and leave the shit jobs to someone else.
Machines now do most of them, and will continue to do more of them.
The problem with our modern economy is that about 80% of the work done
is unproductive work.
If all work were productive, then Joe Average would work only 1 day a
week for the same wage.
Harold Lindaberry <har...@epix.net> wrote:
: Without incentives for hard work and or
: productivity and the idea that one can get away from the shit jobs the whole
: concept goes down the tube. Harold Lindaberry 1998.
Do you think George Bernard Shaw was motivated? Some are more
civilized than others.
--
<---->
Scott Nudds
Oz wrote:
: >One thing is for sure, our National Curriculum, regular testing and
: >**publication of the results** for all schools in the UK has improved
: >standards no end.
I would be more impressed if they had improved education rather than
just standards.
--
<---->
Scott Nudds
Oz wrote:
: Eh? The next ice age is due NOW, not in 100,000 years!
It is? What time? I need to catch a train to Denver.
Oz wrote:
: Anyhow, one thing is for sure and that is that we are not going (in fact
: are not) to reduce CO2 emissions so as to reduce atmospheric CO2 levels
: any time soon. To do this a massive expenditure in renewable and nuclear
: power would be in full swing as we speak. It isn't.
This is true. And the reason we should start improving the efficiency
of energy consumption yesterday. It's going to take a while to build
the infrastructure for the future solar based economy.
Oz wrote:
: IMHO it should be starting but let's face facts, the increase in energy
: from renewable sources is minute. IN the UK mostly because of opposition
: from environmentalists!
Which environmentalists are opposed to the generation of renewable
energy in the U.K.?
ECONOMIST SEES RENEWABLES CHIPPING AWAY AT FOSSIL - May 16, 96
Renewable energy, "once . . . the province of mad scientists and
dreamers," is increasingly becoming an economically competitive reality,
according to the October 7 issue of the British magazine The Economist,
and wind energy "is within nudging distance of price equality with
fossil fuels."
In a lengthy article entitled "The Future of Energy," The Economist
provides an overview of what it calls "a battle . . . on the fringes of
the mighty $1-trillion-a-year fossil-fuel industry that could force it
into retreat early in the coming century."
Although, thanks to greatly improved prospecting techniques, it no
longer seems likely that fossil fuels will be exhausted any time soon,
there are still some major reasons to be concerned about their
long-term viability, according to the article:
o Price shock vulnerability: "[U]nlike the fear that fossil fuels are
running out, this one has some basis. The price of a fossil fuel
can go up quite a lot if demand grows faster than supply, even
though eventually the price rise encourages producers to increase
output." World oil reserves are increasingly concentrated in the
Persian Gulf nations, and unless other countries take aggressive
action to find new supplies, the Organization of Petroleum
Exporting Countries (OPEC), which shocked the world with an oil
embargo in 1973, could again become strong enough to manipulate
energy markets.
o Global climate change: "[M]any scientists . . . say with increasing
vehemence that the use of fossil fuels could change the world's
climate." This and other environmental problems with fossil fuels,
the article says, could eventually prompt a major shift that is
most likely to benefit wind and solar power. Nuclear and hydro,
the two currently dominant alternatives to fossil, are discounted
because of safety, cost, and environmental concerns. By contrast,
the article continues, "[W]ind, sun and wave power seem on the
whole far more green than their rivals.
"Unlike nuclear power, they pose no risk of environmental
catastrophe. And, unlike hydro schemes, they do not need much
space. According to World Bank calculations, solar power could, in
theory, supply between five and 10 times the present electricity
demand of all the developing countries while covering less land
than today's hydro schemes."
o Falling costs of renewables: According to projections by Shell
Oil, new forms of renewable energy could supply up to half of
global energy needs by the year 2060, the article says. Wind is
nearly competitive now, thanks to improvements in technology over
the past two decades, and even solar photovoltaic (PV) cells, which
remain quite expensive, are more competitive than they seem because
of low distribution costs: "Extending electricity grids from
fossil-fuel plants to new consumers can be hugely expensive. PV
modules can be simply stuck on homes." In countries where the
utility transmission system is rudimentary, PVs can be an
attractive alternative.
Renewables also enjoy some other advantages, the article notes, in
particular smallness of size and speed of construction: "Wind plants . .
. can take less than a year to build; nuclear plants often need a decade
or more." And because of their modest size compared to nuclear plants,
renewables are less subject to financially ruinous cost overruns and
less risky in times of changing electricity demand.
The article foresees a bleak future for nuclear and hydro, even
though governments in industrial countries spend more than half of their
energy research and development (R&D) budgets on nuclear and less than
10 percent on renewables. While hydro projects can be inexpensive,
"politicians too often indulge their taste for grandiosity in plans for
giant dams that take budget-busting ages to build," and nuclear power
"is uncompetitive almost everywhere." Adds the article, "Nuclear power
and big hydroelectric dams are wrong for many poor countries for the
same reasons that make renewables right. They come in capital-intensive
lumps; they are slow to construct; and they need to be attached to a
grid system."
--
<---->
Scott Nudds
Oz wrote:
: Actually this is called communism these days. A structure that has been
: proven to utterly fail very much faster than capitalism and usually
: comes complete with dictatorships and a police state and severe
: curtailment of private freedoms.
I wouldn't be so quick to jump to such a conclusion. Communism is
going to be around for ever as an ideal for a rational society. People
like structure. People like order. Society can not exist without it. And
as the world's population continues to increase the interaction between
people will continue the trend to greater socialization. The same trend
will continue as man increases his mental facalties and as people
realize that cooperation produces better results than conflict.
Oz wrote:
: It is also worth noting that it has managed to produce by far the
: worst cases of pollution humanity has ever managed to achieve.
Sorry bubb. This is not a result of communism. It's a result of a
closed society. You see precisely the same problem's all over the world
where the public are prevented from monitoring what is going on.
Hanford and Rocky Flats are wonderful American examples.
Oz wrote:
: I am sure Nudds would be happy under such a state
: since he would almost certainly be provided with free accommodation in a
: scenic and remote area combined with payment free obligate labour known
: in Russia as a 'Gulag'.
Gulag, Schmulag.... The fact is, for at least the last 20 years there
have more Americans in prison than there ever were in the Russian prison
system.
American's don't like to hear about the murders in their prison for
profit system. They avert their gaze rather than read stories about
U.S. prison guards arranging for and betting on human cockfights, on
prison grounds. They don't know about the coerced labour in American
prisons. And of course if there is physical abuse of prisoners in the
American system then the criminals deserve it because they are the scum
of the earth, while all Russian prisoners are Freedom fighters opposing
a totalitarian regime.
U.S. PRISON POPULATION EXPLODES - Jan 19, 98
-------------------------------
- AP -
WASHINGTON -- The U.S. prison population rose nearly 6% last year, from
1.6 million to more than 1.7 million, figures show.
That puts one in every 155 U.S. residents in jail as of midyear 1997,
federal figures show.
However, the jump was slightly smaller than those recorded in earlier
years. From 1990 to 1997, the number rose an average of 6.5% annually.
The number of prisoners behind bars in state and federal institutions
grew in 1997 by 55,198, or 4.7%. That was also less than the annual
average increase, which has stood 7.7% since 1990.
But the figures for prisoners in local jails rose by more than the
average.
From July 1 to June 30, the number of inmates in local jails grew by
48,587, or 9.4%, the report said.
...
"On a per-capita basis, the United States is first its rate of
incarceration and locks up its citizens at a rate 5-10 times that of
most industrialized nations," it said.
--
<---->
Oz
In article <6kaqot$f...@james.hwcn.org>, Scott Nudds
<af...@james.hwcn.org> writes
>Oz wrote:
>: IMHO it should be starting but let's face facts, the increase in energy
>: from renewable sources is minute. IN the UK mostly because of opposition
>: from environmentalists!
>
> Which environmentalists are opposed to the generation of renewable
>energy in the U.K.?
It really isn't a requirement to post reams you have cut from somewhere.
Most of them when it comes down to it. They opposed the recent planning
permission for windpower in Norfolk for example. They are against the
severn tidal barrage etc tec.
> Renewables also enjoy some other advantages, the article notes, in
>particular smallness of size and speed of construction
But currently they are very uneconomic. Costs of +30% to +100% seem
about typical for plants proposed at the present time. There is some
help from the government and also some legal requirements.
--
Oz
Oz
In article <6kaqou$f...@james.hwcn.org>, Scott Nudds
<af...@james.hwcn.org> writes
>Oz wrote:
>: Actually this is called communism these days. A structure that has been
>: proven to utterly fail very much faster than capitalism and usually
>: comes complete with dictatorships and a police state and severe
>: curtailment of private freedoms.
>
> I wouldn't be so quick to jump to such a conclusion. Communism is
>going to be around for ever as an ideal for a rational society. People
>like structure. People like order. Society can not exist without it. And
>as the world's population continues to increase the interaction between
>people will continue the trend to greater socialization. The same trend
>will continue as man increases his mental facalties and as people
>realize that cooperation produces better results than conflict.
Nice idea, proven to be a failure. Current industrial-social structures
certainly allow people to co-operate and normally results in very little
conflict so your premise is in fact incorrect.
>Oz wrote:
>: It is also worth noting that it has managed to produce by far the
>: worst cases of pollution humanity has ever managed to achieve.
>
> Sorry bubb. This is not a result of communism. It's a result of a
>closed society. You see precisely the same problem's all over the world
>where the public are prevented from monitoring what is going on.
It is the result of communism, period.
>Oz wrote:
>: I am sure Nudds would be happy under such a state
>: since he would almost certainly be provided with free accommodation in a
>: scenic and remote area combined with payment free obligate labour known
>: in Russia as a 'Gulag'.
>
> Gulag, Schmulag.... The fact is, for at least the last 20 years there
>have more Americans in prison than there ever were in the Russian prison
>system.
I would ask our US friends to confirm or deny that. Mind you most of
those in the gulags were described as 'workers', 'insane' or 'political
devients'.
--
Oz
Oz
In article <6kaqoh$f...@james.hwcn.org>, Scott Nudds
<af...@james.hwcn.org> writes
Eh? So improved standards (ie better academic results) is not improved
education?
--
Oz
Harold Lindaberry
Right On. For every pound of CO2 dropped out of the active ecocycle as fossil fuels
or carbonates is one less pound available to plant and animal life on the planet.
Harold Lindaberry
visit OXGORE website at http://www.epix.net/~harlind
RESEARCH GOES WHERE RESEARCH LEADS
D Lawrence wrote:
> > Carl R. Lindstrom wrote:
> >
> > > What IF you are wrong in your wild gamble that burning up the fossil
> > > accumulation (that has taken place for millions of years) in just a few
> > > decades, doesn't has any affect on the climate...are you going to face your
> > > grandchildren and say: I blew it - your problem . Maybe you don't have
> > > children or care about them
>
> Have you considered the fact that maybe the burning of fossil fuels is
> in essance a form of recycling? After all this carbon has been trapped
> and held in a state that plants couldn't use it. The release of this
> carbon could be a boost to world wide plant growth.
Sam McClintock
D Lawrence wrote:
> Have you considered the fact that maybe the burning of fossil fuels is
> in essance a form of recycling? After all this carbon has been trapped
> and held in a state that plants couldn't use it. The release of this
> carbon could be a boost to world wide plant growth.
The ultimate in denialism regarding global warming potential: First it was
"Global warming is not happening" . . .then to "global may be happening, but it
won't get worse" . . . then to, "but if it happens, it will benefit nature and
humanity." Lord forbid that the someodd thousands of scientists, graduate
students, and government researchers who study this problem may actually be doing
good work. Hey and if all else fails, hire a couple of climatologists with an
extra $100k per year stipend to cast doubt on the whole issue. Sounds more like
the tobacco lobby at work than a discussion of science.
Let's try this a different way - when humans generate CO2, it is through several
different mechanisms. The predominant artificial ones are the burning of fossil
fuels and the destruction of savannahs and forests through burning to make the land
"user-friendly." These two activities are considered to be the unbalancing act in
global CO2 concentrations, which have been rising for over a hundred years. In
both of these cases, the production of CO2 is accompanied by the destruction of
large parts of the biomes in question and the release of quite literally millions
of ton (metric or English units) of other pollution that is *not* CO2 - SO2, NOx,
VOCs, etc. etc. etc. So any impact in increased growth of plants from increased
levels of CO2 is offset by all the other activities associated with the production
of that extra CO2.
Sam McClintock
please reply to mac at ensanity dot com
. . . In order to critique the research, you must READ the research.
Tracy Aquilla
In Article <356AB861...@nospam.net>, Sam McClintock
<mac-n...@nospam.net> wrote:
>D Lawrence wrote:
>
>> Have you considered the fact that maybe the burning of fossil fuels is
>> in essance a form of recycling? After all this carbon has been trapped
>> and held in a state that plants couldn't use it. The release of this
>> carbon could be a boost to world wide plant growth.
>
> The ultimate in denialism regarding global warming potential: First it was
>"Global warming is not happening" . . .then to "global may be happening, but it
Well, according to the actual data, over this century, the 'global
temperature' has increased approximately 0.5 degrees C, plus or minus 3
degrees C. So in reality, the global temperature might have risen as much as
+3.5C, or it might have decreased by as much as -2.5C. There is no way to
tell yet which, or how much it has fluctuated between those bounds. Honest
scientists who have reviewed the actual data admit that these data are
clearly inconclusive.
The public has simply been deceived by a massive campaign against the use of
fossil fuels that has been going on for the last couple of decades.
>won't get worse" . . . then to, "but if it happens, it will benefit nature and
>humanity."
The most reasonable prediction is that it would probably have some desirable
and some undesirable effects.
>Lord forbid that the someodd thousands of scientists, graduate
>students, and government researchers who study this problem may actually be
>doing good work.
Some are, some are not. No different than any other area of research.
>Hey and if all else fails, hire a couple of climatologists with an
>extra $100k per year stipend to cast doubt on the whole issue.
See the numbers for the well-placed source of that doubt.
>Sounds more like
>the tobacco lobby at work than a discussion of science.
The science in this case is very weak. From a statistical analysis, the
effect measured so far is insignificant.
>global CO2 concentrations, which have been rising for over a hundred years.
The global CO2 concentration has been increasing for many millions of years,
not just the last 100. This is what allowed for the evolution of green plants.
>So any impact in increased growth of plants from increased
>levels of CO2 is offset by all the other activities associated with the
>production of that extra CO2.
What evidence supports your assertion?
Tracy
Thomas Palm
Tracy Aquilla wrote:
> The global CO2 concentration has been increasing for many millions of years,
> not just the last 100. This is what allowed for the evolution of green plants.
Actually the really longterm trend of CO2 is downward. As the infamous
paper by Robinson explains the CO2 rate was about 20 times higher
than today 500 million years ago. (of course, Robinson never mentions
how extremely far ago it was that high.)
I would say that it was evolution of plants that reduced CO2 rather
than vice versa. A gradually hotter sun combined with feedback
processes, organic and inorganic, tending to keep the temperature
constant should also have helped reducing CO2.
In more recent times CO2 has been going up and down with low values
during ice ages and high inbetween. Not as high as we are heading
towards now, however.
--
Thomas Palm
Sam McClintock
Tracy Aquilla wrote:
> tell yet which, or how much it has fluctuated between those bounds. Honest
> scientists who have reviewed the actual data admit that these data are
> clearly inconclusive.
This is actually a lot funnier than you meant it to be. Most of the serious
academically qualified naysayers (doubt global warming will be a problem) agree that
global warming has occured. The Marshall Institute actually leaves a quote by
Christy saying that the earth has warmed and that man is responsible for at least
part of the problem *on their web site* (which could have been easily edited). So
it appears that most scientists that actually work around these issues - even those
who proclaim the problem to be minimal - believe the data is correct and that the
earth is warming up a little.
> >won't get worse" . . . then to, "but if it happens, it will benefit nature and
> >humanity."
>
> The most reasonable prediction is that it would probably have some desirable
> and some undesirable effects.
This is correct. Which one will happen to you? To the person living in the
Pacific? To the person living in Central Africa? It is a gamble we are talking
about.
> >Lord forbid that the someodd thousands of scientists, graduate
> >students, and government researchers who study this problem may actually be
> >doing good work.
>
> Some are, some are not. No different than any other area of research.
This is correct, same percentage of liars and cheaters in this group as with any
other subgroup of the human population. Which means *most* of them are doing good
work. Your point is . . .
> >Hey and if all else fails, hire a couple of climatologists with an
> >extra $100k per year stipend to cast doubt on the whole issue.
>
> See the numbers for the well-placed source of that doubt.
?????? Dr. Balling himself admitted to receiving over $700k over a five year span
by fossil fuel consortiums and think tanks to write papers critical of global
warming - this is addition to his university salary. When a university professor
gets a grant funding research from the govt - he does not add this to his salary -
the money goes to pay for grad students, equipment, you know - research. The
difference in funding is quite blatant and clearly favors those who represent the
power industries - not actual research.
> The global CO2 concentration has been increasing for many millions of years,
> not just the last 100. This is what allowed for the evolution of green plants.
CO2 goes up and goes down, but we have more CO2 in the atmosphere now than we have
had for at least 160,000 years (glacial/ice record limits). And as far as we can
tell, we are increasing the CO2 concentration far faster than is normally
experienced in a natural system of variability.
Oz
In article <6ke7b8$fb4$1...@news1.epix.net>, Harold Lindaberry
<har...@epix.net> writes
>Right On. For every pound of CO2 dropped out of the active ecocycle as fossil
>fuels
>or carbonates is one less pound available to plant and animal life on the
>planet.
Also of passing interest is the suggestion from the fossil record that
the amount of oxygen in the atmosphere was significantly higher during
the long warm periods than it is today. One of the proposed mechanisms
for oxygen removal is indeed the formation of massive deposits of
carbonates removing vast tonnages of carbon and oxygen from the
ecosystem. The reduced carbon dioxide levels of course reduced the
dissolution of those massive carbonates resulting in faster creation of
carbonates than their destruction.
Kind of interesting, eh?
--
Oz
Oz
In article <356AB861...@nospam.net>, Sam McClintock <mac-
nos...@nospam.net> writes
>release of quite literally millions
>of ton (metric or English units) of other pollution that is *not* CO2 - SO2,
A valuable plant nutrient commonly in short supply
>NOx,
a vital plant nutrient almost always in limiting supply
>VOCs,
Wots a voc?
> etc. etc. etc. So any impact in increased growth of plants from increased
>levels of CO2 is offset by all the other activities associated with the
>production
>of that extra CO2.
Hang on, you have just quoted a bunch of vital plant nutrients normally
in short supply. How does this typically reduce plant growth?
--
Oz
Oz
In article <356ACF2F...@nospam.net>, Sam McClintock <mac-
nos...@nospam.net> writes
>believe the data is correct and that the
>earth is warming up a little.
Indeed they do believe that the earth is warming slightly, but they
can't yet *prove* it. However you will note that some governments are
already responding by trying to reduce CO2 emissions.
--
Oz
Tracy Aquilla
In Article <356ACF2F...@nospam.net>, Sam McClintock
<mac-n...@nospam.net> wrote:
>Tracy Aquilla wrote:
>
>> tell yet which, or how much it has fluctuated between those bounds. Honest
>> scientists who have reviewed the actual data admit that these data are
>> clearly inconclusive.
>
those
the
>earth is warming up a little.
The data may certainly be 'correct', however, an increase of 0.5 +/- 3
degrees is not conclusive evidence of warming; it is equally likely that the
global temperature has decreased, based on the available data, thus these
data are inconclusive. As a scientist, I find it interesting that these
figures generally do not make it into the sensational media reports of
global warming.
>> >Lord forbid that the someodd thousands of scientists, graduate
>> >students, and government researchers who study this problem may actually be
>> >doing good work.
>>
>> Some are, some are not. No different than any other area of research.
>
>This is correct, same percentage of liars and cheaters in this group as with
>Your point is . . .
It's right up there: some research is 'good work', some not-so-good. But the
problem is not with the quality of the published research. The problem is
that the available data do not provide the necessary evidence to allow one
to conclude that the global temperature has increased.
>> >Hey and if all else fails, hire a couple of climatologists with an
>> >extra $100k per year stipend to cast doubt on the whole issue.
>>
>> See the numbers for the well-placed source of that doubt.
>
>?????? Dr. Balling himself admitted to receiving over $700k over a five year
Focus on the data, instead of the source of one person's income.
>. . . In order to critique the research, you must READ the research.
None was cited in the post to which I responded, so I did not critique any
of the research.
Tracy
Sam McClintock
Tracy Aquilla wrote:
> The data may certainly be 'correct', however, an increase of 0.5 +/- 3
> degrees is not conclusive evidence of warming; it is equally likely that the
> global temperature has decreased, based on the available data, thus these
> data are inconclusive. As a scientist, I find it interesting that these
> figures generally do not make it into the sensational media reports of
> global warming.
As a scientist, you should realize that a) the inaccuracy of the temperature is no
+/- 3 degree (C or F), and b) almost all the other scientists who study this issue,
including those who critique the current research findings, do consider the data
conclusive and that the temperature has risen. It is *not* probable that the
surface has cooled given the overwhelming body of evidence to the contrary.
> problem is not with the quality of the published research. The problem is
> that the available data do not provide the necessary evidence to allow one
> to conclude that the global temperature has increased.
Again, almost all scientists who actually work in this field disagree.
> Focus on the data, instead of the source of one person's income.
I agree whole-heartedly. You commented, I returned the comment.
> None was cited in the post to which I responded, so I did not critique any
> of the research.
It is my tag line - it just means if you are going to call the data false, you
should generally have some idea of where the data came from and why it is
considered false instead of just proclaiming it so. It really helps a discussion
if those who disagree would point to the specific research or report one disagrees
with. So far, everybody *and I mean everybody* has failed to cough up any actual
research or data set that can be pointed to and debated. People just say the data
is wrong and expect that to be a great starting point . . . one has to wonder.
Sam McClintock
please reply to mac at ensanity dot com
. . . In order to critique the research, you must READ the research.
Tracy Aquilla
In Article <356B19CE...@nospam.net>, Sam McClintock
<mac-n...@nospam.net> wrote:
>Tracy Aquilla wrote:
>
>> The data may certainly be 'correct', however, an increase of 0.5 +/- 3
>> degrees is not conclusive evidence of warming; it is equally likely that the
>> global temperature has decreased, based on the available data, thus these
>> data are inconclusive. As a scientist, I find it interesting that these
>> figures generally do not make it into the sensational media reports of
>> global warming.
>
>As a scientist, you should realize that a) the inaccuracy of the temperature is
>no +/- 3 degree (C or F), and
Well then, perhaps you can tell us what you think actually _is_ the rate of
error in those measurements? While you're at it, maybe you can explain why
the rate of error is never included in the media reports (AFAIK). If the
data were conclusive and statistically significant, I would expect people to
be quoting the statistics, but they don't. I wonder why?
I must admit that the last time I carefully reviewed the raw data was in
1996, shortly after the 1995 IPCC report was released (and I have not yet
located those data in my personal files). Can anyone point to a website that
has the raw data, preferably complete with the rate of error? Perhaps I am
wrong, but I really don't think so.
Can someone please provide substantive input in this regard?
>b) almost all the other scientists who study this issue,
>including those who critique the current research findings, do consider the
>data conclusive and that the temperature has risen.
Maybe you can quote a scientist or two who claim that the data are
_conclusive_ of global warming?
For many years, computer models of global climate change have predicted
increases which have simply not been realized in the real world. There is no
reason to believe that current models are any more accurate, since such
models have proven inaccurate to date (i.e. the predictions have been
inaccurate, according to actual climate data).
Furthermore, the IPCC keeps increasing the time-scale for predicted warming,
and decreasing the magnitude of these predicted increases, precisely due to
the fact that their previous predictions have been inaccurate to date
(because the models are inaccurate, and the actual climate data keep
disproving their predictions).
Note that in this case, I assert that the models are inaccurate, not the data.
>It is *not* probable that the surface has cooled given the overwhelming body of
>evidence to the contrary.
What evidence? Fairly recent data (last 30 years or so) indicate that
aerosols have caused significant cooling in many large areas of the globe
(e.g. northeastern USA). More recent, realistic models of global climate
change involve a mosaic pattern of warming and cooling, rather than overall
warming. Many papers to this effect have been published over the last few years.
Furthermore, the only reliable measurements of _global climate_ come from
satellites, and have only been available since about 1979. These data show
no warming trend at all (actually, they show a slight cooling trend).
>> problem is not with the quality of the published research. The problem is
>> that the available data do not provide the necessary evidence to allow one
>> to conclude that the global temperature has increased.
>
>Again, almost all scientists who actually work in this field disagree.
This issue is batted about almost weekly in the journal Science. There
certainly does not appear to be any consensus among atmospheric scientists.
Even a most cursory review of the scientific literature should make this
quite clear.
>> Focus on the data, instead of the source of one person's income.
>
>I agree whole-heartedly. You commented, I returned the comment.
I posted actual numbers. You have yet to post any data whatsoever. Many
people apparently accept global warming as being real, without even
attempting to analyze the available data. Bias perhaps?
>> None was cited in the post to which I responded, so I did not critique any
>> of the research.
>
>So far, everybody *and I mean everybody* has failed to cough up any actual
>research or data set that can be pointed to and debated.
Including you! You could start with the 1995 report prepared by the United
Nations-sponsored Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Based on
your reading of the report, how much do you think the global tempreature has
increased in the last 100 years; the last 50 years? And what is the error?
>People just say the data
>is wrong and expect that to be a great starting point . . . one has to wonder.
I have never implied that the "data is wrong" (the word "data" is plural,
BTW - data _are_, not data _is_). If you would actually point to some data,
I might comment on them.
A few years ago, Charles D. Keeling of the Scripps Institute of Oceanography
in La Jolla, CA provided data which demonstrate that the concentration of
atmospheric CO2 fluctuates significantly, pointing to natural climate
fluctuations that significantly alter the ability of the oceans and the land
surface to absorb CO2.
Here's a quote from the article:
"Environmental factors appear to have imposed larger changes on the rate of
rise of atmospheric CO2 than did changes in fossil fuel combustion rates,
suggesting uncertainty in projecting future increases in atmospheric CO2
solely on the basis of anticipated rates of industrial activity."
(Interannual extremes in the rate of rise of atmospheric carbon dioxide
since 1980. Nature 375:666-670, 1995.).
This is quite interesting, particularly when one considers that although the
global temperature appears to have warmed by about 0.3-0.6 (+/- 3) degrees C
over the last 100 years, there has been essentially no warming over the last
50 years, when supposedly about 80% of the total so-called greenhouse gases
were emitted. Just another fact that doesn't make into the sensational media
reports. I wonder why? More bias perhaps?
Tracy
Khnu...@aol.com
In article <356B19CE...@nospam.net>,
Sam McClintock <mac-n...@nospam.net> wrote:
>
> Tracy Aquilla wrote:
>
> > The data may certainly be 'correct', however, an increase of 0.5 +/- 3
> > degrees is not conclusive evidence of warming; it is equally likely that
the
> > global temperature has decreased, based on the available data, thus these
> > data are inconclusive. As a scientist, I find it interesting that these
> > figures generally do not make it into the sensational media reports of
> > global warming.
>
> As a scientist, you should realize that a) the inaccuracy of the temperature
is no
issue,
> including those who critique the current research findings, do consider the
data
the
> surface has cooled given the overwhelming body of evidence to the contrary.
>
> > that the available data do not provide the necessary evidence to allow one
> > to conclude that the global temperature has increased.
>
> Again, almost all scientists who actually work in this field disagree.
>
>
> I agree whole-heartedly. You commented, I returned the comment.
>
> > of the research.
>
you
> should generally have some idea of where the data came from and why it is
> considered false instead of just proclaiming it so. It really helps a
discussion
> if those who disagree would point to the specific research or report one
disagrees
actual
> research or data set that can be pointed to and debated. People just say
the data
> is wrong and expect that to be a great starting point . . . one has to
wonder.
>
> please reply to mac at ensanity dot com
>
> . . . In order to critique the research, you must READ the research.
>
>
Hmmm....typical really, when considering such myths as global warming. There
is no question
whether global land masses have heated. But making claims that “. People
just say the data
is wrong and expect that to be a great starting point” just goes to show the
arrogance
and evasion by the alarmists. A little searching into paleoclimatology will
show that global warming
trends have happened many times over the last several hundred-thousand years,
especially
during the interglacial periods. So, it’s not about “proving” your data
wrong, or faulty. But
rather how can you make such grand sweeping claims that there is a greenhouse
effect. I
would love to plot an ascii graph showing the warming trends of the last few
hundred thousand
years, as the data shows we are at the appropriate time and trend for the
begginning of
a re-glaciation period (so much for global “warming”).
The arrogance comes from believing that “smart old us with our hydrogen bombs
and
stripped toothpaste” (I love that line-can’t say it’s mine) somehow know all
about the
world and the environment based on a few decades of numbers, at the best. The
Earth’s been
here for how many MILLIONS of years? Geologically from Ice Caps and the like,
we know
that there have been many glacial periods in the last several HUNDRED THOUSAND
years,
BUT we proclaim boldly of the evils of autos and industry as the “reasons” for
maybe a one
hundred year old trend, at the most.
It’s this kind of arrogance that environmental consultants, the EPA, and
Universities
strive on to maintain the chicken little mentality, and the funding to
continue their agendas.
So, it’s not about proving you wrong, but why do you arrogantly proclaim a
puny DECADES
worth of “Data” for a planet that’s been spinning for MILLIONS of years as
“the Truth”.
Oh...I know....when the next budget/consultant contract needs to be decided...
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
byoung
Oz wrote:
>
> In article <6kaqou$f...@james.hwcn.org>, Scott Nudds
> <af...@james.hwcn.org> writes
> >Oz wrote:
> >: Actually this is called communism these days. A structure that has been
> >: proven to utterly fail very much faster than capitalism and usually
> >: comes complete with dictatorships and a police state and severe
> >: curtailment of private freedoms.
> >
> > I wouldn't be so quick to jump to such a conclusion. Communism is
> >going to be around for ever as an ideal for a rational society. People
> >like structure. People like order. Society can not exist without it. And
> >as the world's population continues to increase the interaction between
> >people will continue the trend to greater socialization. The same trend
> >will continue as man increases his mental facalties and as people
> >realize that cooperation produces better results than conflict.
>
> Nice idea, proven to be a failure. Current industrial-social structures
> certainly allow people to co-operate and normally results in very little
> conflict so your premise is in fact incorrect.
Social structures that worship the dollar do only one thing: stratify
society into "the rich" and "the poor". A society based upon industry
does not necessarily have to be motivated by something as meaningless
and fundamentally valueless as currency (it's only paper). Is everyone
a killer at heart?
>
> >Oz wrote:
> >: It is also worth noting that it has managed to produce by far the
> >: worst cases of pollution humanity has ever managed to achieve.
> >
> > Sorry bubb. This is not a result of communism. It's a result of a
> >closed society. You see precisely the same problem's all over the world
> >where the public are prevented from monitoring what is going on.
>
> It is the result of communism, period.
Nah. Circumstantial at best. More likely we can blame in on the
Americans and their oil trade and requisite hemp conspiracy. I mean
afterall, it's the oil that's doing the polluting, not the communists.
And of course as far as nukes, as Scott mentioned, Hanford is a case in
point. It was that silly Cold War and the threatening rhetoric from
BOTH SIDES that propogated the stockpiling. We were in such a hurry to
outrun the opponent and
***create jobs*** that we kind of neglected the inherently dangerous
waste products. Heck, we could be using some of it to generate power
but they absolutely refuse to pull their heads out of their asses.
Not to mention that plenty of non-communism countries (US and Britain)
have polluted environments as well (the gradient of impact to the
environment is perhaps only an indication of how efficiently the
different social structures were at using the fuel, but oil polluted
every country in which it is used). If every country were to impose
restrictions on crude oil refining (eg-all byproducts must find a use,
no heavy metals or sulfur impurities in consumer products), I don't
think communism would sustain because many of those byproducts are
useless (at least on the scale of their production), so without a
market, it would be work without benefit. Therefore, the communists
couldn't keep up because they couldn't afford all of the non-value-added
work. You need hemp farms to make a communism work (read: hemp is
clean).
Final note: ever heard of Joseph McCarthy? Perhaps "communism" is being
used as a scapegoat?
>
> >Oz wrote:
> >: I am sure Nudds would be happy under such a state
> >: since he would almost certainly be provided with free accommodation in a
> >: scenic and remote area combined with payment free obligate labour known
> >: in Russia as a 'Gulag'.
> >
> > Gulag, Schmulag.... The fact is, for at least the last 20 years there
> >have more Americans in prison than there ever were in the Russian prison
> >system.
>
> I would ask our US friends to confirm or deny that. Mind you most of
> those in the gulags were described as 'workers', 'insane' or 'political
> devients'.
>
The US currently has the highest incarceration rate in the world. I
don't know how long it has been the highest. It has everything to do
with our drug laws.
> --
> Oz
b
byoung
Oz wrote in an article currently expired:
>
> In article <6kaqou$f...@james.hwcn.org>, Scott Nudds
> <af...@james.hwcn.org> writes
> >Oz wrote:
> >: Actually this is called communism these days. A structure that has been
> >: proven to utterly fail very much faster than capitalism and usually
> >: comes complete with dictatorships and a police state and severe
> >: curtailment of private freedoms.
> >
The American (and British, and most any other country bullied by the US)
drug laws have done exactly that (and, no, we aren't communists last
time I checked). Actually, the British probably weren't bullied,
they're just being stupid like so many other countries. Of course,
"economic sanctions" tend to be the weapon choice for the US. I imagine
that's why the Brits are ahead of the US in ending the dumbshit war;
they don't want the egg on their face once the curtain falls.
Corruption has less to do with the chosen social structure than it has
to do with the inherent tendency of humans to become complaissant and
stop paying attention, as well as the nature of humans to want to
control their surroundings and consequently eachother. By the time
enough people have awaken to the idiocy and corruption, it's too late to
take the power back, and you have revolution. I wonder if we (the US)
will be able to recover without revolution. Perhaps that is the best
that Democracy will do; it won't keep it from happening, but we'll be
able to correct our mistakes before it all falls apart.
William L. Hinman
So, perhaps I missed something, but I haven't seen you provide any paths to actual
research or data sets. When you do, I will start paying attention to your argument.
Amy Plowman
It is relevant!
Last week Paignton Zoo Environmental Park hosted the 5th International
Zoo Design Symposium. Designers, horticulurists, curators, engineers,
researchers etc representing zoos, botanical gardens, wildlife parks and
environmental parks from all over the world submitted papers on all
aspects of zoo design from animal enrichment to creating a swamp.
Peruse the titles at http://paigntonzoo.demon.co.uk/NEWSFLASH.HTM
Feel free to email us for info or to register interest in a copy of the
proceedings. Have a look at the rest of the pages as well!
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr Amy Plowman Tel: 01803 697514
Paignton Zoo Fax: 01803 523457
Totnes Road http://www.paigntonzoo.demon.co.uk
Paignton
Devon TQ4 7EU
Company no. 792877 VAT no. 141 2910 06 Charity no. 300923
Tom
Sam McClintock wrote:
> The ultimate in denialism regarding global warming potential: First it was
> "Global warming is not happening" . . .then to "global may be happening, but it
> won't get worse" . . . then to, "but if it happens, it will benefit nature and
> humanity." Lord forbid that the someodd thousands of scientists, graduate
> students, and government researchers who study this problem may actually be doing
> good work. Hey and if all else fails, hire a couple of climatologists with an
> extra $100k per year stipend to cast doubt on the whole issue. Sounds more like
> the tobacco lobby at work than a discussion of science.
>
> Let's try this a different way - when humans generate CO2, it is through several
> different mechanisms. The predominant artificial ones are the burning of fossil
> fuels and the destruction of savannahs and forests through burning to make the land
> "user-friendly." These two activities are considered to be the unbalancing act in
> global CO2 concentrations, which have been rising for over a hundred years.
Okay, then what happened during the 16th century when global
temperatures were _higher_ than they are now? Might it be
just natural variations in solar radiation and _not_
our interference? Heck, why don't you go read the books from
the 1970's that panic about global _cooling_?
-Tom the Melaniephile
Scott Nudds
: >Oz wrote:
: >: >One thing is for sure, our National Curriculum, regular testing and
: >: >**publication of the results** for all schools in the UK has improved
: >: >standards no end.
Scott Nudds
: > I would be more impressed if they had improved education rather than
: >just standards.
Oz wrote:
: Eh? So improved standards (ie better academic results) is not improved
: education?
No.. Improved standards <> improved results. A standard is a means
against which results are compared. Not the results themselves. An
improved standard would be a standard that facilitates more accurate or
more appropriate comparison, and has no affect on the quality of
students, but simply their measure.
--
<---->
Scott Nudds
Scott Nudds wrote:
: > Which environmentalists are opposed to the generation of renewable
: >energy in the U.K.?
Oz wrote:
: It really isn't a requirement to post reams you have cut from somewhere.
Yes.
Oz wrote:
: Most of them when it comes down to it. They opposed the recent planning
: permission for windpower in Norfolk for example. They are against the
: severn tidal barrage etc tec.
Please provide references and specific names.
: > Renewables also enjoy some other advantages, the article notes, in
: >particular smallness of size and speed of construction
Oz wrote:
: But currently they are very uneconomic. Costs of +30% to +100% seem
: about typical for plants proposed at the present time. There is some
: help from the government and also some legal requirements.
They are particularly uneconomic compared to non-renewable resources,
where the hidden costs of non-renewable resources are not included.
My guess is that American society would take $75 per barrel oil in its
stride. It would probably only double the price of gasoline, and this
would make it about what many Europeans pay. It is the next factor of
two that would force large changes. - John McCarthy 1995/12/17
--
<---->
Scott Nudds
Sam McClintock writes
: >believe the data is correct and that the
: >earth is warming up a little.
Oz wrote:
: Indeed they do believe that the earth is warming slightly, but they
: can't yet *prove* it.
Proof doesn't exist in the sciences Oz. Proof exists only in
mathematics.
I find it amazing how many times this simple fact must be restated to
denialists.
"What most scientists fail to realize, observes sociologist Susan Carol
Losh of Florida State University in Tallahassee, is how many people
seriously misunderstand or consciously reject many of the basic precepts
and findings of science. In the United States, she observes, their
numbers are large and growing -- currently approaching half the
population." - When Science and Beliefs collide" - Science News -
(p.360-361)
Oz wrote:
: However you will note that some governments are
: already responding by trying to reduce CO2 emissions.
Very good news.
"Is there any common ground? Of all people, Michaels insists there could
be. "When it comes to it, the modellers and the sceptics are not so far
apart," he says. Indeed, if pressed, Michaels, Lindzen, Spencer and
other sceptics suggest a doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere would raise
average temperatures by between 1 and 1.5 'C. And 1.5 'C is the bottom
end of the modellers' range of predictions." - NEW SCIENTIST: 19 July
1997
--
<---->
Scott Nudds
Oz <O...@upthorpe.demon.co.uk> wrote:
: Nice idea, proven to be a failure. Current industrial-social structures
: certainly allow people to co-operate and normally results in very little
: conflict so your premise is in fact incorrect.
Just socialism under a different name. Do you really think a
conglomerate consisting of 1 million people is any different than a
state consisting of 1 million people?
If you do, you are naive.
: >Oz wrote:
: >: It is also worth noting that it has managed to produce by far the
: >: worst cases of pollution humanity has ever managed to achieve.
: > Sorry bubb. This is not a result of communism. It's a result of a
: >closed society. You see precisely the same problem's all over the world
: >where the public are prevented from monitoring what is going on.
: >Oz wrote:
: It is the result of communism, period.
Childish nonsense. Corruption exists where the light of day is not
allowed to fall. You see this just as much in the back room tactics of
Congress and the U.S. military as you do in Communist nations.
Hanford, Rocky Flats, the testing of Radioactive materials on
unsuspecting Americans by the U.S. military, the testing of biological
agents on unsuspecting Americans by the U.S. military, etc. etc. etc.
How many trillions of examples from your own country do you need?
Scott Nudds wrote:
: > Gulag, Schmulag.... The fact is, for at least the last 20 years there
: >have more Americans in prison than there ever were in the Russian prison
: >system.
: >Oz wrote:
: I would ask our US friends to confirm or deny that.
Don't you read Libertarian publications? They wouldn't lie now would
they?
U.S. PRISON POPULATION EXPLODES - Jan 19, 98
-------------------------------
- AP -
WASHINGTON -- The U.S. prison population rose nearly 6% last year, from
1.6 million to more than 1.7 million, figures show.
That puts one in every 155 U.S. residents in jail as of midyear 1997,
federal figures show.
...
--
<---->
Scott Nudds
Tracy Aquilla wrote:
: The data may certainly be 'correct', however, an increase of 0.5 +/- 3
: degrees is not conclusive evidence of warming; it is equally likely that the
: global temperature has decreased, based on the available data, thus these
: data are inconclusive
What a shame for you the error is not +/- 3'C. You are talking
nonsense.
Shame on you.
--
<---->
Tracy Aquilla
In Article <6km1a8$1...@james.hwcn.org>, af...@james.hwcn.org (Scott Nudds)
wrote:
I note you have not provided any other number. What do you think it is then?
I suppose you think there is no error in temperature measurements over the
last 100 years? Now that is nonsense!
Tracy Aquilla
In Article <6km1a9$1...@james.hwcn.org>, af...@james.hwcn.org (Scott Nudds)
wrote:
>Tracy Aquilla wrote:
>: This issue is batted about almost weekly in the journal Science. There
>: certainly does not appear to be any consensus among atmospheric scientists.
>: Even a most cursory review of the scientific literature should make this
>: quite clear.
>
If there were a consensus, there wouldn't be such argument over the issue.
Anyone who actually reads the literature can see there is no consensus.
>Tracy Aquilla wrote:
>: I posted actual numbers. You have yet to post any data whatsoever. Many
>: people apparently accept global warming as being real, without even
>: attempting to analyze the available data. Bias perhaps?
>
[sniped graph]
Where are the data? You simply drew a graph. And where are the error bars on
your graph?
>Tracy Aquilla wrote:
>: "Environmental factors appear to have imposed larger changes on the rate of
>: rise of atmospheric CO2 than did changes in fossil fuel combustion rates,
>: suggesting uncertainty in projecting future increases in atmospheric CO2
>: solely on the basis of anticipated rates of industrial activity."
>: (Interannual extremes in the rate of rise of atmospheric carbon dioxide
>: since 1980. Nature 375:666-670, 1995.).
>
> Over what time period is he talking about? 500 years? 1000? 2 years?
Why don't you just read the article and learn?
>Tracy Aquilla wrote:
>: This is quite interesting, particularly when one considers that although the
>: global temperature appears to have warmed by about 0.3-0.6 (+/- 3) degrees C
>: over the last 100 years, there has been essentially no warming over the last
>: 50 years, when supposedly about 80% of the total so-called greenhouse gases
>: were emitted. Just another fact that doesn't make into the sensational media
>: reports. I wonder why? More bias perhaps?
>
> Yet more Rubbish from Aquilla:
>Fully 1/3rd of the observed warming has been in the last 50 years.
Oh? Well, even if you are correct, clearly most of the temperature increase
occurred well before 80% of the greenhouse gas emissions. The correlation
between CO2 and temperature isn't good.
>Natural cycles will make the temperature curve wander up and down.
Yes. Welcome to earth!
>The trend of the median is what we are interested in.
Well, you might be interested in trends and medians, but scientists who know
better are more interested in statistically significant data. I haven't seen
any yet.
> You on the take Aquilla?
That's Dr. Aquilla to you. :-] You simply can't support your argument, so
you try to attack your opponent personally instead. Thanks for playing anyway.
Tracy
Oz
In article <6km196$1...@james.hwcn.org>, Scott Nudds
<af...@james.hwcn.org> writes
> No.. Improved standards <> improved results. A standard is a means
>against which results are compared. Not the results themselves.
Oh, I see, perhaps a tad pedantic for this discussion. Of course I was
referring to the 'improved results showing an increased standard of
achievement', but I didn't think this much elaboration was required
given the context.
>An
>improved standard would be a standard that facilitates more accurate or
>more appropriate comparison, and has no affect on the quality of
>students, but simply their measure.
In this case their achievement was of a higher standard of result. In
other words they have achieved better results than previous years for a
number of years consecutively. This is a good thing.
--
Oz
Oz
In article <6km1a8$1...@james.hwcn.org>, Scott Nudds
<af...@james.hwcn.org> writes
>Tracy Aquilla wrote:
>: The data may certainly be 'correct', however, an increase of 0.5 +/- 3
>: degrees is not conclusive evidence of warming; it is equally likely that the
>: global temperature has decreased, based on the available data, thus these
>: data are inconclusive
>
> What a shame for you the error is not +/- 3'C. You are talking
>nonsense.
That's the sort of figure I have seen quoted. At the lower end in fact.
--
Oz
Oz
In article <6km1a7$1...@james.hwcn.org>, Scott Nudds
<af...@james.hwcn.org> writes
>Oz <O...@upthorpe.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>: Nice idea, proven to be a failure. Current industrial-social structures
>: certainly allow people to co-operate and normally results in very little
>: conflict so your premise is in fact incorrect.
>
> Just socialism under a different name. Do you really think a
>conglomerate consisting of 1 million people is any different than a
>state consisting of 1 million people?
>
> If you do, you are naive.
I do.
>: >Oz wrote:
>: >: It is also worth noting that it has managed to produce by far the
>: >: worst cases of pollution humanity has ever managed to achieve.
>
>: > Sorry bubb. This is not a result of communism. It's a result of a
>: >closed society. You see precisely the same problem's all over the world
>: >where the public are prevented from monitoring what is going on.
>
>: >Oz wrote:
>: It is the result of communism, period.
>
> Childish nonsense. Corruption exists where the light of day is not
>allowed to fall. You see this just as much in the back room tactics of
>Congress and the U.S. military as you do in Communist nations.
I see you are not allowing the well documented facts about communist
societies to cloud your judgement again. It's quite simply a fact that
the communist states presised over the worst ecodisasters humans have
ever achieved.
> How many trillions of examples from your own country do you need?
Give me a hundred really juicy ones from the last 20 years, that'll do.
Then we can compare it to the last 20 years of communism.
[NB Readers please note if any sensible reply is forthcoming to this]
>Scott Nudds wrote:
>: > Gulag, Schmulag.... The fact is, for at least the last 20 years there
>: >have more Americans in prison than there ever were in the Russian prison
>: >system.
>WASHINGTON -- The U.S. prison population rose nearly 6% last year, from
>1.6 million to more than 1.7 million, figures show.
>
>That puts one in every 155 U.S. residents in jail as of midyear 1997,
>federal figures show.
Goodness. How many at peak in the gulags? Wasn't it 20M?
--
Oz
Oz
In article <6km1a9$1...@james.hwcn.org>, Scott Nudds
<af...@james.hwcn.org> writes
>Tracy Aquilla wrote:
>: Furthermore, the only reliable measurements of _global climate_ come from
>: satellites, and have only been available since about 1979. These data show
>: no warming trend at all (actually, they show a slight cooling trend).
>
>times must this fact be stated?
Obviously quite a lot, because they can. There are holes in the IR
spectrum you know.
>Tracy Aquilla wrote:
>: This issue is batted about almost weekly in the journal Science. There
>: certainly does not appear to be any consensus among atmospheric scientists.
>: Even a most cursory review of the scientific literature should make this
>: quite clear.
>
> Yet more Rubbish from Aquilla.
Oh dear, poor old Nudds can't answer that, because it's the case at
present.
>"The idea of man-made climate change used to be a minority view. Now new
>research into the history of climate science traces the story of how the
>minority won over the majority." - Ehsan Masood - Nature Magazine
>Science Update 1997
What has been achieved is the realisation that it is a plasible argument
and that first indications show that it has some substance and cannot be
rejected out of hand. This certainly does not mean that there is any
concensus right now, the jury is still out.
Personally I think we should all take note and start to plan, but this
certainly does NOT mean that it has been proved.
--
Oz
Oz
In article <6km19a$1...@james.hwcn.org>, Scott Nudds
<af...@james.hwcn.org> writes
>Sam McClintock writes
>: >believe the data is correct and that the
>: >earth is warming up a little.
>
>Oz wrote:
>: Indeed they do believe that the earth is warming slightly, but they
>: can't yet *prove* it.
>
> Proof doesn't exist in the sciences Oz. Proof exists only in
>mathematics.
They can't achieve the normally considered confidence limits. My you are
being pedantic today.
> I find it amazing how many times this simple fact must be restated to
>denialists.
So clearly there is no proof of CO" warming the globe and so what are
you worrying about?
Snip of they usual mindless quotes.
Well done. Nudds has again achieved a content-free posting, thus wasting
valuable electrons again.
--
Oz
Oz
In article <6km197$1...@james.hwcn.org>, Scott Nudds
<af...@james.hwcn.org> writes
>
>Oz wrote:
>: Most of them when it comes down to it. They opposed the recent planning
>: permission for windpower in Norfolk for example. They are against the
>: severn tidal barrage etc tec.
>
> Please provide references and specific names.
I did earlier. Look it up in dejanews. Alternatively since it was in the
Times you could look it up there. The oppositioon to the severn tiday
barrage was all over the TV and papers a few years ago, as an
environmentalist you could hardly have missed it.
>: > Renewables also enjoy some other advantages, the article notes, in
>: >particular smallness of size and speed of construction
>
>Oz wrote:
>: But currently they are very uneconomic. Costs of +30% to +100% seem
>: about typical for plants proposed at the present time. There is some
>: help from the government and also some legal requirements.
>
> They are particularly uneconomic compared to non-renewable resources,
>where the hidden costs of non-renewable resources are not included.
Which are?
--
Oz
Michael Tobis
Tracy Aquilla (taqu...@erols.com) wrote:
: This is quite interesting, particularly when one considers that although the
: global temperature appears to have warmed by about 0.3-0.6 (+/- 3) degrees C
: over the last 100 years, there has been essentially no warming over the last
: 50 years, when supposedly about 80% of the total so-called greenhouse gases
: were emitted. Just another fact that doesn't make into the sensational media
: reports. I wonder why? More bias perhaps?
Your assertion is not correct, though it was at least sort-of-correct about a
decade ago. What you need to say is that 1990 was not significantly warmer
than 1940. The year 1940 must be the first end point because it was an
anomalously warm year. The year 1990 must be the end point because it
precedes the rapid warming of the present decade. Nevertheless, the assertion
was disingenuous even in 1990, because it traded sensible statistical
techniques for a naive connecting of end points. But it's not even true in
that misleading sense any more. 1997 was considerably warmer than 1947.
I don't defend the media reports which give the misapprehension of two
fiercely opposed camps in climatology. Nothing of the kind is occurring.
There is a spectrum of opinion, with IPCC quite responsibly presenting
the median. The US press treats the IPCC and the dozen or so paid advocates
of the "skeptic" camp equally, although this latter group is clearly at
a far fringe (at best) of the informed range of opinion. Plausible worst
cases don't usually enter the discussion at all, even though from a cost-
benefit point of view these scenarios ought to be given extra weight.
"Consensus" may be a bit too strong a word, but an effort to portray
the situation as a battle between two camps is grotesque propaganda.
One of the camps is simply a fabrication of less responsible elements
in a few directly affected industries. The effectiveness to date of their
campaign is sobering. Fortunately, many affected corporations, notably
Sun Oil and British Petroleum, are now behaving responsibly, and most
are at least withdrawing from the disinformation campaign.
mt
Tracy Aquilla
In Article <6kne2i$k...@spool.cs.wisc.edu>, to...@scram.ssec.wisc.edu
(Michael Tobis) wrote:
>Tracy Aquilla (taqu...@erols.com) wrote:
>
>: This is quite interesting, particularly when one considers that although the
>: global temperature appears to have warmed by about 0.3-0.6 (+/- 3) degrees C
>: over the last 100 years, there has been essentially no warming over the last
>: 50 years, when supposedly about 80% of the total so-called greenhouse gases
>: were emitted. Just another fact that doesn't make into the sensational media
>: reports. I wonder why? More bias perhaps?
>
>Your assertion is not correct,
Which one (I see at least four in the above paragraph)?
>1997 was considerably warmer than 1947.
Well that is simply meaningless. Two single points don't even make a trend.
>I don't defend the media reports which give the misapprehension of two
>fiercely opposed camps in climatology. Nothing of the kind is occurring.
The media reports don't give any such impression at all. The media reports
all conclude the same thing - that the temperature is getting warmer.
>There is a spectrum of opinion, with IPCC quite responsibly presenting
>the median. The US press treats the IPCC and the dozen or so paid advocates
>of the "skeptic" camp equally, although this latter group is clearly at
Perhaps you can cite a single media report which gives equal time to the
"skeptic camp"? I have never seen one.
>"Consensus" may be a bit too strong a word, but an effort to portray
>the situation as a battle between two camps is grotesque propaganda.
I haven't seen any such media reports, and I don't subscribe to either
'camp', because I haven't seen any data from which one can conclude anything
at a level of confidence normally accepted by scientists as being
significant. The data are inconclusive because there is no statistical
significance to the alleged global temperature increase.
I note you have not pointed to any data yet, let alone any statistical
analysis of them. Repetition of the same old unsupported conclusion does not
make it true.
Tracy
E.C.Apling
Scott Nudds wrote in message <6km1aa$1...@james.hwcn.org>...
>Khnu...@aol.com wrote:
>: Hmmm....typical really, when considering such myths as global warming.
>: There is no question whether global land masses have heated. But
>: making claims that “. People just say the data is wrong and expect
>: that to be a great starting point” just goes to show the arrogance and
>: evasion by the alarmists. A little searching into paleoclimatology
>: will show that global warming trends have happened many times over the
>: last several hundred-thousand years, especially during the
>: interglacial periods. So, it’s not about “proving” your data wrong,
>: or faulty. But rather how can you make such grand sweeping claims
>: that there is a greenhouse effect.
>
> Dimwits often doubt if there is a greenhouse effect, but the fact
>that the earth is not locked in a perpetual ice age, tells us that
>thinking people there is one.
>
> What does this fact tell denialist Khnum?
>
> Dimwits often doubt if the globe has warmed, but direct measurement
>tells us that it has.
>
> Global Average Temp over time
> -----------------------------
>
>15.2| TEMP = Hansen Temperature Index ..
> | .
> | .
> | ..
> | .... .
> ^ | .. ..... .
> | | .. ...
> T | ..
> E | ..
> M | .
> P | .... .
> | .. ..
> | .. .
>14.6| ... 1940 1970
> |-|-------------------|--------|------|--
> 1872 Year -> 1994
>
>
al
How the hell do you reckon they measured "global" temperatures in 1872 -
or 1940 even? Realistic data only go back about 20 years from NOW.
Paddy
ma...@jach.hawaii.edu
In article <6kpb30$7b3$4...@plutonium.btinternet.com>, "E.C.Apling" <E.C.A...@btinternet.com> writes:
>>14.6| ... 1940 1970
>> |-|-------------------|--------|------|--
>> 1872 Year -> 1994
>or 1940 even? Realistic data only go back about 20 years from NOW.
That's one way of looking at it. Another way of looking at it is using
other data, like tree rings and snow fall data and such, which go much
further back. Why aren't they posting those? Answer: because the temperature
has always fluctuated, even before there were people ...
Selective data ...
Maren
Khnu...@aol.com
In article <6km1aa$1...@james.hwcn.org>,
af...@james.hwcn.org (Scott Nudds) wrote:
>Dimwits often doubt if there is a greenhouse effect, but the fact
>that the earth is not locked in a perpetual ice age, tells us that
>thinking people there is one.
>What does this fact tell denialist Khnum?
>Dimwits often doubt if the globe has warmed, but direct measurement
>tells us that it has.
Hey Nudds, how about the global temperature
in 1459 ad? 1025ad? 2000bce? 3500bce?
8500bce? 10500bce? 25000bce? 100,000bce?
150,000bce? 250000bce? 500,000bce?
> What does this data tell denialist Khnum?
Tells me nothing considering the chain of event of the
life of the Earth is MILLIONS of years old.
>Please do. How do you conclude that the observed warming trend shows
>that we are at the appropriate time for the beginning of a new ice-age?
Study Geology and Paleoclimatology. Find out for yourself.
> If it is, then the climate is significantly more sensitive than
>claimed, and we should obviously stop driving it into warmer regimes
>lest we bring on a new ice age.
The climate isn’t “more sensative than claimed”. That’s an assumption
on your point to further prove your illogic. It would make sense that
the climate is less sensative, and less responsive to the activities of
humans.
Sorry. I know we like to think were special, but in this case were not.
>Yes, it's such arrogance to think that after years of life, one can
>predict the death of another by the inspection of .05 seconds in the
>flight of a bullet.
What the hell does this mean?
>You've drank tens of thousands of liters of water in your lifetime.
>How can anyone proclaim boldly that breathing just a half liter of water
>can cause death? Or proclaim that just a few thousandth of a liter of
>water injected in the right location can cause immediate death?
What? I said nothing about liters of water? Where did you get this from?
How does this relate to making grandiouse, self serving theories about
a few decades of global temperature recording? When you have something
substantial to post in response to my statement, let me know.
>Arrogance... Such arrogance...
>And now the Conservative attacks Government and University Science.
>If people like Khunm ever get control of government how many books
>will they burn? How much politically incorrect science will they banish?
Once again, Im not conservative, and don’t intend on gaining “control”
of the govt and burn books. What’s this about? What are you,
a liberal/Leftist Rush Limbaugh? Do you treat
everyone who questions you this way? This behavior
really doesn't reflect well on the thinking liberals out
there.
John Sheridan
Unfortunately, the discussion on a reasonable, but unproven, theory has degenerated to
the point that it is almost purely "Cargo Cult Science". There are not adequate data to
support either side of the arguement. Ice core samples from the poles, while pretty good
stuff for local observations, indicate nothing about global temperatures. In the 16th
century, accurate instruments did not exist and no set of observations adequately cover
the globe to give any reasonable conclusion about global temperatures.
If I were to make a limited observation, I could accurately state that it is much warmer
than previous years here in Wisconsin right now. As to whether or not this is from
global warming... I was in Oregon last week and it was unseasonably cold. Perhaps that
is evidence of global cooling.
Paul
Scott Nudds <af...@james.hwcn.org> wrote in article
<6km197$1...@james.hwcn.org>...
>
> My guess is that American society would take $75 per barrel oil in its
> stride. It would probably only double the price of gasoline, and this
> would make it about what many Europeans pay. It is the next factor of
> two that would force large changes. - John McCarthy 1995/12/17
We did that once back in the '70s-'80s. Caused a nice little recession that
it took a decade to get out of.... Much like the Aisian problems of today,
ecconomic problems in the USA are often felt around the globe, so I hope
I'm not jumping into a territorial argument here... ;)
--->Paul
Paul
----------
> From: Scott Nudds <af...@james.hwcn.org>
> Newsgroups: sci.environment.waste; sci.bio.ecology; sci.agriculture;
sci.environment
> Subject: Re: If Global Warming is a sham
> Date: Friday, May 29, 1998 5:06 AM
>
> Khnu...@aol.com wrote:
>
> : The Earth's been here for how many MILLIONS of years? Geologically
> : from Ice Caps and the like, we know that there have been many glacial
> : periods in the last several HUNDRED THOUSAND years, BUT we proclaim
> : boldly of the evils of autos and industry as the "reasons" for maybe a
> : one hundred year old trend, at the most.
>
> You've drank tens of thousands of liters of water in your lifetime.
> How can anyone proclaim boldly that breathing just a half liter of water
> can cause death? Or proclaim that just a few thousandth of a liter of
> water injected in the right location can cause immediate death?
>
Scott, I was enjoying the exchange, but you lost me on this one. We've done
a lot of 'experimentation', and found out that, after thousands & thousands
have died by inhaling water, and thousands and thousands have lived by
drinking water, that it can be proved that drinking water is good for you,
breathing it is bad for you. Living & dying, it just doesn't matter where
the water comes from.
Very weak records going back 500 years, and evidence of temps over the
millennia, and some closer study over the past 30 years of complex global
trends & cycles that last decades & centuries. This is the global warming
effect? There are many natural sources for various things that we think
might cause global warming, as there are many man-made sources we need to
study to see if we are adding to a heat trend. That is, if you are trying
to tell us that humans are the _cause_ of any heat trend.
How can you ever compare those 2? You have a very, very poor grasp of
science if you think you stated anything of any import on this one!
>
> "What most scientists fail to realize, observes sociologist Susan Carol
> Losh of Florida State University in Tallahassee, is how many people
> seriously misunderstand or consciously reject many of the basic precepts
> and findings of science. In the United States, she observes, their
> numbers are large and growing -- currently approaching half the
> population." - When Science and Beliefs collide" - Science News -
> (p.360-361)
Scott, I think you need to study those words, instead of quoting them. You
lost out on this in a big way.
I read just the other day, that catalytic converters on cars have actually
_increased_ the types of gases & such that might add to the possible
man-made effects of global warming. We must be careful, Scott, to not run
around like Chicken-Little. Sometimes people do listen to us and act. When
they do, you should be very sure of what you are talking about.
Global warming is something we should be studying. Releasing all those
stored hydrocarbons in a century, and topography changes could certainly
have a bad effect on our climates. But we must do so with science, and
study. Wishing for the worst, as it appears you are doing, will not help
anyone, including this planet.
--->Paul
Phil Hays
John Sheridan wrote:
>
> Unfortunately, the discussion on a reasonable, but
> unproven, theory has degenerated to
> the point that it is almost purely "Cargo Cult Science".
> There are not adequate data to
> support either side of the arguement. Ice core samples
> from the poles, while pretty good
> stuff for local observations, indicate nothing about
> global temperatures.
Which is why ice cores from the tropics are so interesting.
Start with Science 7-July-1995 page 46. And others. Try a search
engine or a good library. You might like it.
Not to fail to mention tree rings and coral cores from the tropics and
midlatitudes.
The bottom line from these samples is that it's fairly clear that the
1990's are the warmest decade in the past few hundred years. It's a
reasonable bet that the 1990's are the warmest decade in the past few
thousand years. Five thousand to nine thousand was probably warmer.
> In the 16th
> century, accurate instruments did not exist and no
> set of observations adequately cover
> the globe to give any reasonable conclusion about
> global temperatures.
Right. But by the 17th century, there were accurate instruments.
Science 7-April-1995 page 59.
The important discussion is not around the constant denial of climate
change, but the far more important question of "what do we do about
it?" If the political debate in the US becomes stuck on denial vs
reality, the denialists will lose, and lose bad.
--
Phil Hays
"Irritatingly, science claims to set limits on what
we can do, even in principal." Carl Sagan
Tracy Aquilla
In Article <3574F6...@sprynet.com>, Phil Hays <pdh...@sprynet.com> wrote:
>John Sheridan wrote:
>
>The bottom line from these samples is that it's fairly clear that the
>1990's are the warmest decade in the past few hundred years. It's a
>reasonable bet that the 1990's are the warmest decade in the past few
>thousand years.
Trends can be meaningless if they are not shown to be statistically
significant and the underlying data accurate. What can one rationally
conclude from a trend that indicates an increase of 0.5 +/- 3 degrees C?
Perhaps a short-term trend, but is it significant? And in which direction is
the trend, really, up or down? As a scientist, I prefer to observe the data
on which 'scientific' conclusions are based, to determine for myself whether
the conclusions are warranted. In this case, the data are inconclusive.
>The important discussion is not around the constant denial of climate
>change, but the far more important question of "what do we do about
>it?" If the political debate in the US becomes stuck on denial vs
>reality, the denialists will lose, and lose bad.
If the climate debate remains political, instead of focusing on science,
then we will certainly lose bad.
Tracy
John Sheridan
Phil,
I agree that there is compelling evidence to warrant further study. There
are many good reasons to control the emissions of Greenhouse gases and
uncontrolled use of fossil fuels. The theoretical basis for global
warming and much of the effort at investigation is good science. The
conclusions proffessed by many on either side of the arguement are not.
Widespread measurements of ocean temperatures didn't really start until
around 1800 when the Royal Navy routinely made observations during
cruises. Ocean temperatures are a much better measure than atmospheric
temperatures. At any rate, less than 200 years of temperature
measurements are hardly even useful when discussing trends on a geologic
time-scale. It is like measuring temperature changes in water between
20.0 and 20.5 degrees C and drawing conclusions about liquid state
densities at -201.4 and +242.8 degrees C (Pardon my inadeqauate treatment
of significant digits and precision and accuracy, but it makes the point).
"Cargo cult science" is a term that I borrowed from Richard Feynman. He
spoke about bad science calling it that. The reference is to the Cargo
Cults of the South Pacific. Native populations in places where the US
Navy and Army Air Corps operated airfields during WWII observed how the
fields were operated and noted that this caused airplanes to land and
unload cargoes of really nice things. They concluded that if they
duplicate the conditions (i.e. marked level airstrip, man in hut wearing
headphones...) that this would cause airplanes with valuable cargo to
land. These cults persist to this day. The point is that we shouldn't
draw conclusions when the data don't warrant them.
Thank you for the reference to the articles. I will read them and perhaps
become enlightened.
John
Phil Hays wrote:
> John Sheridan wrote:
> >
> > Unfortunately, the discussion on a reasonable, but
> > unproven, theory has degenerated to
> > the point that it is almost purely "Cargo Cult Science".
> > There are not adequate data to
> > support either side of the arguement. Ice core samples
> > from the poles, while pretty good
> > stuff for local observations, indicate nothing about
> > global temperatures.
>
> Which is why ice cores from the tropics are so interesting.
> Start with Science 7-July-1995 page 46. And others. Try a search
> engine or a good library. You might like it.
>
> Not to fail to mention tree rings and coral cores from the tropics and
> midlatitudes.
>
> The bottom line from these samples is that it's fairly clear that the
> 1990's are the warmest decade in the past few hundred years. It's a
> reasonable bet that the 1990's are the warmest decade in the past few
> thousand years. Five thousand to nine thousand was probably warmer.
>
> > In the 16th
> > century, accurate instruments did not exist and no
> > set of observations adequately cover
> > the globe to give any reasonable conclusion about
> > global temperatures.
>
> Right. But by the 17th century, there were accurate instruments.
> Science 7-April-1995 page 59.
>
> The important discussion is not around the constant denial of climate
> change, but the far more important question of "what do we do about
> it?" If the political debate in the US becomes stuck on denial vs
> reality, the denialists will lose, and lose bad.
>
John Sheridan
Tracy,
Science costs money, therefore, it is political. Money comes from governments
and corporations that have an interest in the conclusions.
John
Tracy Aquilla wrote:
> In Article <3574F6...@sprynet.com>, Phil Hays <pdh...@sprynet.com> wrote:
> >John Sheridan wrote:
> >
> >The bottom line from these samples is that it's fairly clear that the
> >1990's are the warmest decade in the past few hundred years. It's a
> >reasonable bet that the 1990's are the warmest decade in the past few
> >thousand years.
>
> Trends can be meaningless if they are not shown to be statistically
> significant and the underlying data accurate. What can one rationally
> conclude from a trend that indicates an increase of 0.5 +/- 3 degrees C?
> Perhaps a short-term trend, but is it significant? And in which direction is
> the trend, really, up or down? As a scientist, I prefer to observe the data
> on which 'scientific' conclusions are based, to determine for myself whether
> the conclusions are warranted. In this case, the data are inconclusive.
>
> >The important discussion is not around the constant denial of climate
> >change, but the far more important question of "what do we do about
> >it?" If the political debate in the US becomes stuck on denial vs
> >reality, the denialists will lose, and lose bad.
>
Steve Hemphill
John Sheridan wrote:
>
> Phil,
>
> I agree that there is compelling evidence to warrant further study. There
> are many good reasons to control the emissions of Greenhouse gases and
> uncontrolled use of fossil fuels. The theoretical basis for global
> warming and much of the effort at investigation is good science. The
> conclusions proffessed by many on either side of the arguement are not.
global warming is bad.
<snip>
> > The bottom line from these samples is that it's fairly clear that the
> > 1990's are the warmest decade in the past few hundred years. It's a
> > reasonable bet that the 1990's are the warmest decade in the past few
> > thousand years. Five thousand to nine thousand was probably warmer.
And mankind thrived then, true?
> > The important discussion is not around the constant denial of climate
> > change, but the far more important question of "what do we do about
> > it?" If the political debate in the US becomes stuck on denial vs
> > reality, the denialists will lose, and lose bad.
Denial is a funny thing, first some denied climate change was
happening (That camp is basically shut down).
Now others deny we may have actually stumbled back into a favorable
climate, due to a combination of:
1. Mistakenly grouping all anthropogenic factors including CO2
production together with real pollution from fossil fuel burning, and
2. Enhancement of that ignorance from real polluters saying "why
should we stop polluting, look at how much CO2's being put in the
environment, we're just a small part of that".
--
Steve Hemphill
Jemez Engineering
http://www.rt66.com/~hemphill
Climate Change:
http://www.rt66.com/~hemphill/nino.html
Headed for Holocene Max:
http://www.gcrio.org/CONSEQUENCES/winter96/geoclimate.html
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Tax Bads, not Goods.
http://www.monitor.net/rachel/r570.html
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
webmaster@localhost
abuse@localhost
root@localhost
postmaster@localhost
Paul
Phil Hays <pdh...@sprynet.com> wrote in article
<3574F6...@sprynet.com>...
>
> The important discussion is not around the constant denial of climate
> change, but the far more important question of "what do we do about
> it?" If the political debate in the US becomes stuck on denial vs
> reality, the denialists will lose, and lose bad.
>
> --
> Phil Hays
> "Irritatingly, science claims to set limits on what
> we can do, even in principal." Carl Sagan
>
To fix something, we have to know what is broken & how it got broke. To be
able to answer your question, "What do we do about it?" first we need to
know what 'it' is, if 'it' exists, and if we indeed are the cause of 'it'.
Few here are in denial - they are looking for sound, factual conformation
of 'it'. Once we understand 'it', then and only then can we discuss your
question.
In a global ecosystem, only a fool would claim to totally understand 'it'
and have all the answers at this point in time. If you want to discuss
'it', then it would seem reasonable for you to toss in a few questions
about 'it' yourself, rather than the assumption from your side that the sky
is falling in in 5 years and everything is horrid and everything is my
fault. How about a reality check?
That's all 'my side' is asking for.
-->Paul
Scott Nudds
Scott Nudds writes:
: > No.. Improved standards <> improved results. A standard is a means
: >against which results are compared. Not the results themselves.
Oz wrote:
: Oh, I see, perhaps a tad pedantic for this discussion. Of course I was
: referring to the 'improved results showing an increased standard of
: achievement', but I didn't think this much elaboration was required
: given the context.
Then you should have said improved results. Now are those improved
results the result of improved test scores or improved education?
Oz wrote:
: In this case their achievement was of a higher standard of result. In
: other words they have achieved better results than previous years for a
: number of years consecutively. This is a good thing.
More often than not, it's an irrelevant thing... Resulting from a
desire to improve test scores rather than the production of a superior
student.
In any case, you have not made yours.
Your error has been corrected. Please continue.
--
<---->
Scott Nudds
Tom <Tric...@wyld.net> wrote:
: Heck, why don't you go read the books from the 1970's that panic about
: global _cooling_?
Are you referring to books that sold along side of Chariots of the
Gods? Or are you referring to science texts?
The idea that there was a global cooling scare perpetrated by the
worlds scientists is a myth, popularized by ditto head parrots who are
ignorant of recent history and even more ignorant of science.
--
<---->
Scott Nudds
Tracy Aquilla wrote:
: >: The data may certainly be 'correct', however, an increase of 0.5 +/- 3
: >: degrees is not conclusive evidence of warming; it is equally likely that
: >: the global temperature has decreased, based on the available data, thus
: >: these data are inconclusive
Scott Nudss wrote:
: > What a shame for you the error is not +/- 3'C. You are talking
: >nonsense.
Tracy Aquilla wrote:
: I note you have not provided any other number. What do you think it is then?
: I suppose you think there is no error in temperature measurements over the
: last 100 years? Now that is nonsense!
The standard error for global temperature estimates from 1880 to
present is approximately .15'C.
"The overall global contribution of ocean and land instrumental biases
to uncertainties in decadal averages is expected to have remained within
±0.15°C since the 1880s. However, further quantification is
desirable. Note that the statement by Folland et al. [1992] that global
warming has been between 0.3°C and 0.6°C since the nineteenth
century reflected a subjective assessment of the combined effects of
instrumental biases and sampling errors. Our results are consistent with
that estimate." - D.E. Parker, P.D. Jones, C.K. Folland and A. Bevan-
Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research
"Our results essentially confirm the earlier works of Jones [1988],
Jones and Kelly [1983], Jones et al. [1986a, b], Jones and Briffa
[1992], Hansen and Lebedef [1987, 1988], Vinnikov et al. [1987, 1990],
and Bottomley et al. [1990] as updated and combined in the IPCC reports
[Folland et al., 1990, 1992]. The fact of global warming in the past
century is beyond dispute even though the precise amount is certainly
not. On theoretical grounds a likely contributory cause of the warming
is the rise in greenhouse-gas concentrations, but despite some
similarities between the most recent oceanic surface temperature
anomalies and those modelled by Manabe et al. [1991, 1992] and Meehl et
a1.[1993], it is definitely premature to ascribe all or most of the
warming to this particular cause [Houghton et al., 1992]." - D.E.
Parker, P.D. Jones, C.K. Folland and A. Bevan- Hadley Centre for Climate
Prediction and Research
--
<---->
Scott Nudds
Scott Nudds writes
: >Tracy Aquilla wrote:
: >: Furthermore, the only reliable measurements of _global climate_ come from
: >: satellites, and have only been available since about 1979. These data
: >: show no warming trend at all (actually, they show a slight cooling
: >: trend).
Scott Nudds wrote:
: > More Rubbish. Satellites don't measure surface temperature. How
: > many times must this fact be stated?
"Claims that the satellite temperature record implies that global
warming is not happening or will not be significant may continue to be
effective rhetoric for skeptics and vested interests, but they have no
scientific foundation." - Dr. Daniel A. Lashof - Senior Scientist, NRDC
Oz wrote:
: Obviously quite a lot, because they can. There are holes in the IR
: spectrum you know.
"The satellite-derived temperature record begins less than 20 years ago,
in 1979, a year that was substantially warmer than the 1950-1980 mean.
It measures an average temperature from the surface to about 20,000 feet
high in the atmosphere." - Dr. Daniel A. Lashof - Senior Scientist, NRDC
: >Tracy Aquilla wrote:
: >: This issue is batted about almost weekly in the journal Science. There
: >: certainly does not appear to be any consensus among atmospheric
: >: Even a most cursory review of the scientific literature should make this
: >: quite clear.
Scott Nudds wrote:
: > Yet more Rubbish from Aquilla.
Oz wrote:
: Oh dear, poor old Nudds can't answer that, because it's the case at
: present.
"The idea of man-made climate change used to be a minority view. Now new
research into the history of climate science traces the story of how the
minority won over the majority." - Ehsan Masood - Nature Magazine
Science Update 1997
Oz wrote:
: Personally I think we should all take note and start to plan, but this
: certainly does NOT mean that it has been proved.
Proof exists only in mathematics Oz. Science never offer's proof.
Never has. Never will.
Your requirement for proof can therefore never be met by science and
therefore constitutes nothing more than an irrational objection on
political/philosophical grounds.
I prefer reality.
--
<---->
Scott Nudds
: >Oz wrote:
: >: Indeed they do believe that the earth is warming slightly, but they
: >: can't yet *prove* it.
Scott Nudds wrote:
: > Proof doesn't exist in the sciences Oz. Proof exists only in
: >mathematics.
Oz wrote:
: They can't achieve the normally considered confidence limits. My you are
: being pedantic today.
"The overall global contribution of ocean and land instrumental biases
to uncertainties in decadal averages is expected to have remained within
+/- 0.15 'C since the 1880s. However, further quantification is
desirable. Note that the statement by Folland et al. [1992] that global
warming has been between 0.3'C and 0.6'C since the nineteenth century
reflected a subjective assessment of the combined effects of
instrumental biases and sampling errors. Our results are consistent with
that estimate." - D.E. Parker, P.D. Jones, C.K. Folland and A. Bevan-
Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research
"Our results essentially confirm the earlier works of Jones [1988],
Jones and Kelly [1983], Jones et al. [1986a, b], Jones and Briffa
[1992], Hansen and Lebedef [1987, 1988], Vinnikov et al. [1987, 1990],
and Bottomley et al. [1990] as updated and combined in the IPCC reports
[Folland et al., 1990, 1992]. The fact of global warming in the past
century is beyond dispute even though the precise amount is certainly
not. On theoretical grounds a likely contributory cause of the warming
is the rise in greenhouse-gas concentrations, but despite some
similarities between the most recent oceanic surface temperature
anomalies and those modelled by Manabe et al. [1991, 1992] and Meehl et
a1.[1993], it is definitely premature to ascribe all or most of the
warming to this particular cause [Houghton et al., 1992]." - D.E.
Parker, P.D. Jones, C.K. Folland and A. Bevan- Hadley Centre for Climate
Prediction and Research
Oz wrote:
: So clearly there is no proof of CO" warming the globe and so what are
: you worrying about?
Proof doesn't exist in the sciences Oz. Proof exists only in
mathematics.
"What most scientists fail to realize, observes sociologist Susan Carol
Losh of Florida State University in Tallahassee, is how many people
seriously misunderstand or consciously reject many of the basic precepts
and findings of science. In the United States, she observes, their
numbers are large and growing -- currently approaching half the
population." - When Science and Beliefs collide" - Science News -
(p.360-361)
--
<---->
Scott Nudds
: >Oz wrote:
: >: Most of them when it comes down to it. They opposed the recent planning
: >: permission for windpower in Norfolk for example. They are against the
: >: severn tidal barrage etc tec.
Scott Nudds wrote:
: > Please provide references and specific names.
Oz wrote:
: I did earlier. Look it up in dejanews. Alternatively since it was in the
: Times you could look it up there. The oppositioon to the severn tiday
: barrage was all over the TV and papers a few years ago, as an
: environmentalist you could hardly have missed it.
What a shame you had no proof then. Just supposition. Do you have
any better evidence today to backup your conspiracy theory?
--
<---->