View Full Version : Disc Jockey Bob Dumas Allegedly Advocates killing Bicycle Riders For Fun!
>First off: NO CHORAL MUSIC.
I like choral music.
--
_______________________ALL AMIGA IN MY MIND_______________________ ------------------"Buddy Holly,
the Texas Elvis"------------------
__________306.350.357.38>>cwhitman@texastwr.utaustin.edu__________
On Mon, 3 Nov 2003 22:09:59 -0500, "Eric Vey" <junk@ericvey.com> wrote:
>--Natural occurrences, such as the eruption of Mt. Pinatubo--
>
>A Rush fan. Can I ask a stupid question?
Actually, while I understand that Rush has said that, I do not listen to Rush.
>Does it matter how much naturally occurring events cause things to happen as much as it does what
>we cause? We can't affect what Mt Pinatubo does, but we can affect what we do . . .
The point was that we are insignificant. We are NOT powerful enough to change anything, even by
carelessly abusing.
The most we could possibly do is exterminate ourselves, and let the earth go on without us, probably
better for everybody anyway. I'm not convinced that we could even do that, except by massive war.
>I am a grey hair and I remember when the same argument of Mt Pinatubo was used about the poor
>condition of the sewage treatment plants all across the country -- when it was pointed out that
>they would regularly dump raw sewage out into a lake, the powers that be said, "What little that we
>contribute to the lake's demise is small . . . our few hundred thousand gallons would be diluted by
>the millions of gallons in that
That lake doesn't have a natural source of similar sewage; the analogy is broken.
>lake." Same argument was used for the ocean. And litterbugs use the same rational "This one little
>can means beans in the big picture. All those acres of land, so my can doesn't matter."
That land doesn't have a natural source of similar sewage; the analogy is broken. Besides,
The point wasn't only that our contribution is insignificant compared to the amount of air in which
it is diluted, but more importantly, that it is insignificant compared to magnitudally (is that a
word?) larger contributions from nature.
>While we can't control nature, we can control ourselves. It is poor form to admit that we can't or
>that it doesn't matter.
Why does it matter if we do a small amount of something that nature does on such a huge scale?
--
Rick Onanian
>"Rick Onanian" <spamsink@cox.net> wrote in message
>news:itsdqvkav50hh7em2088f50l8eehvi6nnn@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 03 Nov 2003 12:15:53 -0600, Kevan Smith <Kevan@mouse-potato.com> wrote:
>> >bumper sticker on your nazi ****wagon telling you that it's ruining
>our air and
>>
>> Kevan, you are quite proud of the human race, aren't you? You believe that we can have such a
>> profound effect in such a short time -- ruining out air in about 100 years. Here's a piece of a
>> post I've previously made on this subject:
>>
>> -=- Natural occurrences, such as the eruption of Mt. Pinatubo (more widely known for it's
>> temporary cooling effect caused by ash and dust in the air), have spewed forth more greenhouse
>> gases than mankind has ever caused. Additionally, Mt. Pinatubo's eruption resulted in
>> "Unprecedented size of 1993 Antarctic ozone hole by lofting ozone destroying species into the
>> stratosphere", according to http://www.atmos.umd.edu/~bruce/m1239702.html as well as rapid
>> climate fluctuations caused by the temporary cooling effect. All of these things, both warming
>> and cooling, are part of the natural system of Earth. This planet will survive and prosper no
>> matter what we do to it, and it will absorb most of what we do without becoming unbearable. The
>> biggest problem we pose is our overpopulation, and that will likely reach critical mass and
>> result in major dying off sooner or later...whether by disease or war/violence. -=-
>>
>> >guzzling a scarce resource is an expression of that interest.
>>
>> Err...what difference does it make to you if we use up our dinosaur juice? Then we'll all be
>> forced to do what YOU think is right -- give up automobiles for bikes.
>> --
>> Rick Onanian
On Mon, 03 Nov 2003 22:07:27 -0600, Kevan Smith <Kevan@mouse-potato.com> wrote:
>On Mon, 03 Nov 2003 21:36:54 -0500, Rick Onanian <spamsink@cox.net> from The Esoteric c0wz
>Society wrote:
>>Kevan, you are quite proud of the human race, aren't you? You
>
>I ride on city streets with those SUVs, their tailpipes a few feet from my face. The SUV in front
>of me might not be ruining _your_ air, but it sure is making
Ah, I see we have here one of your more intelligent posts. I'd suggest not drafting the "nazi
****wagons", or even riding on roads with less automotive traffic. Oh, wait, you live deep in the
city. Well, good luck with all that...looks like you'll have to take a dinosaur-juice-powered
vehicle out to the country so you can have some nice roads to ride.
It sure is nice out here where we depend on our polluting "nazi ****wagons" but somehow manage to
breathe clean air.
--
Rick Onanian
In article <8s3fqv0jcbjnm70oj1fgvtrg9o4346495d@4ax.com>, spamsink@cox.net says...
> On Mon, 3 Nov 2003 22:09:59 -0500, "Eric Vey" <junk@ericvey.com> wrote:
> >--Natural occurrences, such as the eruption of Mt. Pinatubo--
> >
> >A Rush fan. Can I ask a stupid question?
>
> Actually, while I understand that Rush has said that, I do not listen to Rush.
Oh, you mean Rush Limbaugh? I thought you were talking Geddy Lee and the boys <GGG>.
> >Does it matter how much naturally occurring events cause things to happen as much as it does what
> >we cause? We can't affect what Mt Pinatubo does, but we can affect what we do . . .
>
> The point was that we are insignificant. We are NOT powerful enough to change anything, even by
> carelessly abusing.
Individually, no. Collectively, we certainly are!
> The most we could possibly do is exterminate ourselves, and let the earth go on without us,
> probably better for everybody anyway. I'm not convinced that we could even do that, except by
> massive war.
Massive nuclear war could disrupt the earth's ecology for at least several thousand years, if not
destroy it completely.
> >I am a grey hair and I remember when the same argument of Mt Pinatubo was used about the poor
> >condition of the sewage treatment plants all across the country -- when it was pointed out that
> >they would regularly dump raw sewage out into a lake, the powers that be said, "What little that
> >we contribute to the lake's demise is small . . . our few hundred thousand gallons would be
> >diluted by the millions of gallons in that
>
> That lake doesn't have a natural source of similar sewage; the analogy is broken.
>
> >lake." Same argument was used for the ocean. And litterbugs use the same rational "This one
> >little can means beans in the big picture. All those acres of land, so my can doesn't matter."
>
> That land doesn't have a natural source of similar sewage; the analogy is broken. Besides,
>
> The point wasn't only that our contribution is insignificant compared to the amount of air in
> which it is diluted, but more importantly, that it is insignificant compared to magnitudally (is
> that a word?) larger contributions from nature.
Nature has had millions of years to adapt to its own sources of pullution and disruption. The 200
years or so that humans have been doing this are not enough time for things to adapt.
> >While we can't control nature, we can control ourselves. It is poor form to admit that we can't
> >or that it doesn't matter.
>
> Why does it matter if we do a small amount of something that nature does on such a huge scale?
Volcano's are episodic; there are long periods of time between that kind of eruption, and there is a
lot of time for natural processes to clean things up.
>
> --
> Rick Onanian
--
Dave Kerber Fight spam: remove the ns_ from the return address before replying!
REAL programmers write self-modifying code.
"Eric S. Sande" <esande@erols.com> wrote in message news:3FA7675C.EEA90244@erols.com...
> >First off: NO CHORAL MUSIC.
>
> I like choral music.
Me too. I'm also fond of opera. Then again, I'm the big advocate of singing on the bike, too.
--
Warm Regards,
Claire Petersky Please replace earthlink for mouse-potato and .net for .com
Home of the meditative cyclist: http://home.earthlink.net/~cpetersky/Welcome.htm
Books just wanna be FREE! See what I mean at: http://bookcrossing.com/friend/Cpetersky
On Tue, 04 Nov 2003 08:15:42 -0500, Rick Onanian <spamsink@cox.net> from The Esoteric c0wz
Society wrote:
>It sure is nice out here where we depend on our polluting "nazi ****wagons" but somehow manage to
>breathe clean air.
Are you sure your air is "clean?" How do you know? How many carcinogens spewed by cars and factories
and other man-made sources are you willing to inhale and still call your air clean?
--
real e-mail addy: kevansmith23 at yahoo dot com How do you explain Wayne Newton's POWER over
millions? It's th' MOUSTACHE ... Have you ever noticed th' way it radiates SINCERITY, HONESTY &
WARMTH? It's a MOUSTACHE you want to take HOME and introduce to NANCY SINATRA!
gOn Tue, 04 Nov 2003 03:46:20 -0500, "Eric S. Sande" <esande@erols.com> from Realtime Limited wrote:
>>First off: NO CHORAL MUSIC.
>
>I like choral music.
Then listen on Sunday mornings when we schedule the stuff. It doesn't do well in weekday ratings,
and I'm on weekdays.
--
real e-mail addy: kevansmith23 at yahoo dot com Yow! I just went below the poverty line!
--We are NOT powerful enough to change anything, even by carelessly abusing.--
I am sorry, but you deny reality. We routinely cause whole species to become extinct. They taught
this to you in Primary School, did you forget? Did you forget how the Dodo bird and the passenger
pigeon became extinct? Perhaps you think it doesn't matter. "Insignificant" -- we will revisit
that word.
--The most we could possibly do is exterminate ourselves--
Possibly do? See above. "Extinct" means "never coming back -- ever." A permanent change.
--and let the earth go on without us, probably better for everybody anyway--
Oh, a fatalist. Listen, do me a favor, will ya? If you are going to kill yourself, don't do anything
that kills me, too. Thanks!
--That land doesn't have a natural source of similar sewage; the analogy is broken.--
I will explain this in basic terms since you seem to think that humans don't have the power to
affect nature.
Does a bear **** in the woods?
If your complaint is that nature usually does not concentrate things the way we do, then you are
adding to the idea that we affect nature in deleterious (defined as: harmful often in a subtle or
unexpected) ways.
Nature, in general, does not concentrate populations the way we do unless they are nomadic. Nature,
in general, does not take something that is generally beneficial as a fertilizer and concentrate it
to the point of toxicity. When nature does things like that, it is in the news (disasters) or
pointed out as unusual on TV nature shows, such as the walrus rooks.
But your complaint that nature has no natural source like the sewage treatment plant fails as well.
Floods, do indeed concentrate toxic wastes and cause them to flow into lakes and rivers. Generally,
an unusual occurrence, floods naturally pollute the water. An unusual, unavoidable event, unlike
the daily doses from the sewage treatment plants. The argument was w-a-y back then in the olden
days I remember, "We won't hurt the lake (or river) because we aren't adding enough to hurt it. How
could we pollute the whole (lake/river/ocean)?" Some people believed it, generally the people that
believe that milk comes from the store, water comes from the tap and garbage disappears when taken
to the curb.
--that it is insignificant compared to magnitudally (is that a word?) larger contributions
from nature.--
An old argument as I have tried to demonstrate. What exactly would you call "significant" anyway?
I suppose that when they break out the masks in Mexico City and Japan due to auto smog, you would
say that is insignificant because it is really a thermal inversion causing the trouble. I suppose
that when only the lakes downwind of coal plants suddenly turn acidic, while others that are not
downwind, (but in the same area) don't, it is by co-incidence. But the number of acidic lakes is
insignificant. What's a few lakes anyway? We have so many.
Oops. I forgot. We couldn't have done those things. What was it you said? "We are NOT powerful
enough to change anything, even by carelessly abusing."
When fish are killed over and over in a lake due to pollution, we should ignore it? Many people when
I was growing up did just that. If they ack'd there was a problem (hard to ignore the smell of the
rotting fish), they said it was too expensive to do anything about it.
Those events have absolutely nothing to do with Mt Pinatubo, and are not naturally occurring events.
At the turn of the last century, London was choking on smog and people couldn't hang clothes out to
dry without them coming in sooty, yet there are no volcanoes near there. What caused the smog? Now
the air is clear. How did that happen? By inaction?
__Ooops__ I forgot that you slept in school. Here:
http://www.doc.mmu.ac.uk/aric/eae/Air_Quality/Older/Great_London_Smog.html
I have no doubt that when the internal combustion engine was invented, no thought was given to air
pollution. It caused very little pollution, neither did 50,000 engines, or even 500,000, but when
the number gets into the hundreds of millions, well . . .
I have no doubt that people thought that dumping raw sewage into a lake would not cause it to become
a large cesspool, and it didn't while the town's population was in the hundreds. Thousands of people
and hundreds of thousands people are another matter.
It didn't take many years at all to see the fish being killed, nor the air clouding up in Los
Angeles. At that point, the question is no longer "What is happening", but "What do we do about it."
Your argument is to do nothing since bad things are naturally occurring events anyway. I have
pointed out many things we have done. To point out that nature does things that are not good for us,
denies the reality that we can exacerbate those bad things. In particular, our population super
concentrates things and anything that is super concentrated, becomes toxic.
We can control this. . . . We should control this.
"Rick Onanian" <spamsink@cox.net> wrote in message
news:8s3fqv0jcbjnm70oj1fgvtrg9o4346495d@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 3 Nov 2003 22:09:59 -0500, "Eric Vey" <junk@ericvey.com> wrote:
> >--Natural occurrences, such as the eruption of Mt. Pinatubo--
> >
> >A Rush fan. Can I ask a stupid question?
>
> Actually, while I understand that Rush has said that, I do not listen to Rush.
>
> >Does it matter how much naturally occurring events cause things to happen as much as it does what
> >we cause? We can't affect what Mt Pinatubo does, but we can affect what we do . . .
>
> The point was that we are insignificant. We are NOT powerful enough to change anything, even by
> carelessly abusing.
>
> The most we could possibly do is exterminate ourselves, and let the earth go on without us,
> probably better for everybody anyway. I'm not convinced that we could even do that, except by
> massive war.
>
> >I am a grey hair and I remember when the same argument of Mt Pinatubo was used about the poor
> >condition of the sewage treatment plants all across the country -- when it was pointed out that
> >they would
regularly
> >dump raw sewage out into a lake, the powers that be said, "What
little
> >that we contribute to the lake's demise is small . . . our few
hundred
> >thousand gallons would be diluted by the millions of gallons in that
>
> That lake doesn't have a natural source of similar sewage; the analogy is broken.
>
> >lake." Same argument was used for the ocean. And litterbugs use the
same
> >rational "This one little can means beans in the big picture. All
those
> >acres of land, so my can doesn't matter."
>
> That land doesn't have a natural source of similar sewage; the analogy is broken. Besides,
>
> The point wasn't only that our contribution is insignificant compared to the amount of air in
> which it is diluted, but more importantly, that it is insignificant compared to magnitudally (is
> that a word?) larger contributions from nature.
>
> >While we can't control nature, we can control ourselves. It is poor
form
> >to admit that we can't or that it doesn't matter.
>
> Why does it matter if we do a small amount of something that nature does on such a huge scale?
>
> --
> Rick Onanian
>
> >"Rick Onanian" <spamsink@cox.net> wrote in message
> >news:itsdqvkav50hh7em2088f50l8eehvi6nnn@4ax.com...
> >> On Mon, 03 Nov 2003 12:15:53 -0600, Kevan Smith <Kevan@mouse-potato.com> wrote:
> >> >bumper sticker on your nazi ****wagon telling you that it's
ruining
> >our air and
> >>
> >> Kevan, you are quite proud of the human race, aren't you? You believe that we can have such a
> >> profound effect in such a short
time
> >> -- ruining out air in about 100 years. Here's a piece of a post I've previously made on this
> >> subject:
> >>
> >> -=- Natural occurrences, such as the eruption of Mt. Pinatubo (more widely known for it's
> >> temporary cooling effect caused by ash and dust in the air), have spewed forth more greenhouse
> >> gases than mankind has ever caused. Additionally, Mt. Pinatubo's eruption resulted in
> >> "Unprecedented size of 1993 Antarctic ozone hole by lofting ozone destroying species into the
> >> stratosphere", according to http://www.atmos.umd.edu/~bruce/m1239702.html as well as rapid
> >> climate fluctuations caused by the temporary cooling effect. All of these things, both warming
> >> and cooling, are part of the natural system of Earth. This planet will survive and prosper no
> >> matter what we do to it, and it will absorb most of what we do without becoming unbearable. The
> >> biggest problem we pose is our overpopulation, and that will likely reach critical mass and
> >> result in major dying off sooner or later...whether by disease or war/violence. -=-
> >>
> >> >guzzling a scarce resource is an expression of that interest.
> >>
> >> Err...what difference does it make to you if we use up our dinosaur juice? Then we'll all be
> >> forced to do what YOU think is right -- give up automobiles for bikes.
> >> --
> >> Rick Onanian
Kevan Smith <Kevan@mouse-potato.com> wrote:
: Third: Don't ask for money like that until pledge drive.
four: set up a paypal account.
five: ask for money in more affordable chunks. $40 and i won't post for a day. $2/hr. payable
by paypal.
i'll write ya a web front-end for scheduling if you're interested. special rbm rates (pro bono).
--
david reuteler reuteler@visi.com
"Claire Petersky" <cpetersky@mouse-potato.com> wrote in news:RIPpb.103953$Fm2.88721@attbi_s04:
> Then again, I'm the big advocate of singing on the bike, too.
>
Humm, so am I...my buddy isn't though.
In article <itsdqvkav50hh7em2088f50l8eehvi6nnn@4ax.com>,
Rick Onanian <spamsink@cox.net> writes:
> All of these things, both warming and cooling, are part of the natural system of Earth. This
> planet will survive and prosper no matter what we do to it, and it will absorb most of what we do
> without becoming unbearable.
Kewl! A Global Warming thread. We haven't had one of those in years. That trumps even Critical
Mass threads.
AIUI, Global Warming is a fact. So is a correlation between increasing human-produced &
reintroduced greenhouse gases, and rising global temperatures. The dispute is whether the
correlation is causal or coincidental, and if causal, what to do (or not do) about it. I guess it's
all academic now anyways, since the Kyoto Accord is just an ineffectual gesture without both the
USA and Russia on-board.
Meanwhile, global warming is already exacting its toll, as Mountain Pine Beetles, whose populations
are (were) normally attenuated by winter freezes, destroy vast areas of harvestable trees -- which
incidentally also perform as atmospheric carbon sinks. Then we have recent forest & brush fires on
unprecedented scales also taking carbon sinks out of the picture. And shrinking polar ice caps
result in less refectivity and greater absorption of solar radiation. It seems the Global Warming
phenomenon tends to be self-sustaining. Scary, eh?
cheers, Tom
--
-- Powered by FreeBSD Above address is just a spam midden. I'm really at: tkeats [curlicue] vcn
[point] bc [point] ca
On Tue, 4 Nov 2003 11:27:42 -0800, tomk2003@hotmail.com (Tom Keats) wrote:
>AIUI, Global Warming is a fact.
Except that balloon and satellite data show no evidence of it, only unreliable surface readings
affected by the Urban Heat Island effect.
Not to mention that Global Warming advocates feel free to make up, omit, substitute or purposely
misanalyze surface temperature and tree ring data to fit their agenda:
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/paleo/EandEPaperProblem.pdf
--
Scott Johnson "Here's an idea of how you can change global events: quit smoking pot long enough to
register to vote!" -ddt
In article <eju8ob.vv3.ln@bud.garden.local>, tomk2003@hotmail.com says...
> In article <itsdqvkav50hh7em2088f50l8eehvi6nnn@4ax.com>, Rick Onanian <spamsink@cox.net> writes:
>
> > All of these things, both warming and cooling, are part of the natural system of Earth. This
> > planet will survive and prosper no matter what we do to it, and it will absorb most of what we
> > do without becoming unbearable.
>
>
> Kewl! A Global Warming thread. We haven't had one of those in years. That trumps even Critical
> Mass threads.
>
> AIUI, Global Warming is a fact. So is a correlation between increasing human-produced &
> reintroduced greenhouse gases, and rising global temperatures. The dispute is whether the
> correlation is causal or coincidental, and if causal, what to do (or not do) about it. I guess
> it's all academic now anyways, since the Kyoto Accord is just an ineffectual gesture without both
> the USA and Russia on-board.
>
> Meanwhile, global warming is already exacting its toll, as Mountain Pine Beetles, whose
> populations are (were) normally attenuated by winter freezes, destroy vast areas of harvestable
> trees -- which incidentally also perform as atmospheric carbon sinks. Then we have recent forest &
> brush fires on unprecedented scales also taking carbon sinks out of the picture. And shrinking
Not necessarily; once the new growth starts up on the burned-out areas, it will pull carbon out of
the air in a hurry, because the rate of change of plant mass (much of which is carbon) in a forest
during the regrowth phase after a fire is quite high compared to the equilibrium conditions in a
mature forest.
> polar ice caps result in less refectivity and greater absorption of solar radiation. It seems the
> Global Warming phenomenon tends to be self-sustaining.
Again, not necessarily, because warmer air in cold areas tends to increase cloudiness because of the
increased moisture in the air. Additional clouds tend to reflect sunlight back into space. The full
consequences of this feedback loop are still not well-understood, though, because clouds also cause
a "blanket" effect, which tends to hold heat in near the ground.
> Scary, eh?
Overall, yes, because we don't understand it well enough to predict what is going to happen, or what
is causing it.
> cheers, Tom
Or is it "fears"? <Grin>
--
Dave Kerber Fight spam: remove the ns_ from the return address before replying!
REAL programmers write self-modifying code.
On Tue, 04 Nov 2003 09:56:46 -0600, Kevan Smith <Kevan@mouse-potato.com> wrote:
>On Tue, 04 Nov 2003 08:15:42 -0500, Rick Onanian <spamsink@cox.net> from The Esoteric c0wz
>Society wrote:
>>It sure is nice out here where we depend on our polluting "nazi ****wagons" but somehow manage to
>>breathe clean air.
>
>Are you sure your air is "clean?" How do you know? How many carcinogens spewed by cars and
>factories and other man-made sources are you willing to inhale and still call your air clean?
I know by this standard:
> The SUV in front of me might not be ruining _your_ air, but it sure
By your standard, I'm breathing clean air.
--
Rick Onanian
On Tue, 4 Nov 2003 13:07:24 -0500, "Eric Vey" <junk@ericvey.com> wrote:
>--We are NOT powerful enough to change anything, even by carelessly abusing.--
>
>I am sorry, but you deny reality. We routinely cause whole species to become extinct. They taught
>this to you in Primary School, did you forget? Did you forget how the Dodo bird and the passenger
>pigeon became extinct? Perhaps you think it doesn't matter. "Insignificant" -- we will revisit
>that word.
I don't think it matters. Species come and species go. What difference does it make if a particular
species lost 10% of it's time on earth due to an early termination by us? The rest adapt to their
environment.
>--The most we could possibly do is exterminate ourselves--
>
>Possibly do? See above. "Extinct" means "never coming back -- ever." A permanent change.
So? If we were gone, then by your standards, Earth would be far better off.
>--and let the earth go on without us, probably better for everybody anyway--
>
>Oh, a fatalist. Listen, do me a favor, will ya? If you are going to kill yourself, don't do
>anything that kills me, too. Thanks!
But I thought that we pollute and destroy our environment? In that case, wouldn't Earth benefit from
our extinction?
>--That land doesn't have a natural source of similar sewage; the analogy is broken.--
>
>I will explain this in basic terms since you seem to think that humans don't have the power to
>affect nature.
>
>Does a bear **** in the woods?
Yes, and somehow, the forest survives. Go figure.
>If your complaint is that nature usually does not concentrate things the way we do, then you are
>adding to the idea that we affect nature in deleterious (defined as: harmful often in a subtle or
>unexpected) ways.
No complaint at all. After I compared greenhouse gases released by human devices to volcanic
eruptions, somebody else made the analogy to dumping raw sewage into a lake. I then said that
the analogy is invalid because while nature has a way of releasing concentrated wholesale
amounts of greenhouse gases, it doesn't have a way to release concentrated wholesale amounts of
sewage into a lake.
>But your complaint that nature has no natural source like the sewage treatment plant fails as well.
It wasn't a complaint, just the invalidation of said analogy. Here, you haven't discredited my
invalidation of the analogy. In fact, now that I think about it, there's a whole other thing wrong
with the analogy: The greenhouse gases we release AREN'T concentrated. The greenhouse gases
released by the eruptions are concentrated. The sewage released into a lake IS concentrated. The
bear ****ting in the woods is NOT concentrated. Sounds like our greenhouse gases are no worse than
the bear ****ting in the woods, and the volcanic eruption is very much like the raw sewage dumped
into the lake.
>Floods, do indeed concentrate toxic wastes and cause them to flow into
No, they release concentrated waste. Said waste certainly isn't produced by nature; if it is, then
it's quite natural for it to end up in lakes and rivers after floods. Either way, it certainly
doesn't end up in the concentration of the analogy of piping raw sewage into a lake and thereby
destroying it.
>lakes and rivers. Generally, an unusual occurrence, floods naturally pollute the water. An unusual,
>unavoidable event, unlike the daily doses from the sewage treatment plants. The argument was w-a-y
>back then in
Actually, said daily doses would have bypassed the treatment plant; else we wouldn't call them
_raw_ sewage.
>--that it is insignificant compared to magnitudally (is that a word?) larger contributions from
>nature.--
>
>An old argument as I have tried to demonstrate. What exactly would you call "significant" anyway?
Oh, I don't know...say, enough to make a difference. Certainly more than a minute fraction of what
nature produces without us.
>I suppose that when they break out the masks in Mexico City and Japan due to auto smog, you would
>say that is insignificant because it is really a thermal inversion causing the trouble. I suppose
>that when only
No, I would say it's because they live in high-density cities. That's where the air is bad. That's
only one of many reasons why I don't live in such a place.
>the lakes downwind of coal plants suddenly turn acidic, while others that are not downwind, (but in
>the same area) don't, it is by co-incidence. But the number of acidic lakes is insignificant.
>What's a few lakes anyway? We have so many.
>
>Oops. I forgot. We couldn't have done those things. What was it you said? "We are NOT powerful
>enough to change anything, even by carelessly abusing."
Okay, by over-focusing my statement, you have been able to invalidate it. Amend it to: We are NOT
powerful enough to change the whole world, even by carelessly abusing. Now, add to it: ...until our
overpopulation gets even worse.
>When fish are killed over and over in a lake due to pollution, we should ignore it? Many people
>when I was growing up did just that. If they ack'd there was a problem (hard to ignore the smell of
>the rotting fish), they said it was too expensive to do anything about it.
When we are having an obvious specific effect, we should certainly do something about it. However,
we don't have such an effect on the world's air, especially relative to natural occurrences that do.
>Those events have absolutely nothing to do with Mt Pinatubo, and are not naturally occurring
>events. At the turn of the last century, London was choking on smog and people couldn't hang
>clothes out to dry without them coming in sooty, yet there are no volcanoes near there. What caused
>the smog? Now the air is clear. How did that happen? By inaction?
Volcanic eruptions affect the air globally. Try doing that with fossil fuel emissions.
>__Ooops__ I forgot that you slept in school. Here:
>http://www.doc.mmu.ac.uk/aric/eae/Air_Quality/Older/Great_London_Smog.html
This portion of this thread is about fossil-fuel-combustion vehicles causing air pollution. My
comments expanded that to global total pollution. All you can do is point out specific locations,
all in dense cities. It sounds to me like we must eliminate cities; it is obvious from that link
that even WITHOUT cars, cities dirty their air so badly that if it's not dispersed to the rest of
us, then the people in the city die from poison air.
>I have no doubt that when the internal combustion engine was invented, no thought was given to air
>pollution. It caused very little pollution, neither did 50,000 engines, or even 500,000, but when
>the number gets into the hundreds of millions, well . . .
Indeed, when it was invented, the phrase "air pollution" probably didn't even exist. Since then, it
has been considered so incredibly much that modern internal combustion engines run very
cleanly...unless you're Kevan on a bike drafting an SUV.
>I have no doubt that people thought that dumping raw sewage into a lake would not cause it to
>become a large cesspool, and it didn't while the town's population was in the hundreds. Thousands
>of people and hundreds of thousands people are another matter.
That's why sewage treatment plants are built. What do you suggest we do with millions of people
living in a few square miles? Let them **** on the carpet? Insist that each one put it in a paper
baggie and bicycle it out at least two hundred miles in a government-assigned direction?
Unfortunately, where people concentrate, human waste concentrates. When the concentration is low (a
few hundred people ****ting in Lake Erie), they only dirty their section of the lake. If all of
Detroit dumps it's untreated sewage into Lake Erie, then Lake Erie would be screwed.
>It didn't take many years at all to see the fish being killed, nor the air clouding up in Los
>Angeles. At that point, the question is no longer "What is happening", but "What do we do
>about it."
Personally, I'd move out of LA.
>Your argument is to do nothing since bad things are naturally occurring
No, my argument is that if what we're doing is minuscule compared to what nature is doing to itself,
then we can't make a difference anyway.
>events anyway. I have pointed out many things we have done. To point out
Yes, but when somebody says that fossil-fuel-combustion vehicles are destroying the global air, then
by their standards, we should be devoting even more resources to stopping volcanic eruptions, which
destroy the global air more strongly by orders of magnitude.
>that nature does things that are not good for us, denies the reality that we can exacerbate those
>bad things. In particular, our population
We aren't exacerbating global air quality with our motor vehicles. We are completely destroying city
air quality, with the combination of many sources of air pollution in cities.
>super concentrates things and anything that is super concentrated, becomes toxic.
Actually, it's concentration of our population that's the problem. Nature cleanses the air and water
quite well when we're less concentrated.
>We can control this. . . . We should control this.
We can certainly control raw sewage dumping. That's why there are currently no less than two brand
new sewage treatment plants up for bid in Eastern Mass, as well as many upgrades and contracts that
have already been won (and so aren't listed in any bid news). BTW, how would specialized
construction workers get to the new sewage treatment plant under construction before sunrise every
day without personal motor vehicles?
--
Rick Onanian
In article <btufqvg1l06ggipq5c7a3nhlq3qqbg4u9a@4ax.com>, scottjohnson@iamacrackho.kc.rr.com says...
> On Tue, 4 Nov 2003 11:27:42 -0800, tomk2003@hotmail.com (Tom Keats) wrote:
>
>
> >AIUI, Global Warming is a fact.
>
> Except that balloon and satellite data show no evidence of it, only unreliable surface readings
> affected by the Urban Heat Island effect.
Not true. There are many other sources of temperature data as well. Many of the early European
explorers took ocean water temperatures, and they have been rising just like atmospheric temps. Ice
core temperatures from the antarctic and Greenland ice caps and trapped air chemistry from the same
ice caps also support the same conclusion.
Besides, surface temperatures are what matter for the purposes of human life. No legitimate climate
scientist I've read about disputes the conclusion that global temperatures have risen significantly
over the last 200 to 400 years, nor do they generally disagree that the rate of warming has
accelerated over the last 100 years or so. The fight is about what is causing it, and whether we can
or should try to do anything about it.
....
I looked at the reference you linked to here, but don't have time to review it enough detail
to comment.
--
Dave Kerber Fight spam: remove the ns_ from the return address before replying!
REAL programmers write self-modifying code.
On Tue, 04 Nov 2003 14:26:47 -0500, Top Sirloin <scottjohnson@iamacrackho.kc.rr.com> wrote:
>On Tue, 4 Nov 2003 11:27:42 -0800, tomk2003@hotmail.com (Tom Keats) wrote:
>>AIUI, Global Warming is a fact.
>
>Except that balloon and satellite data show no evidence of it, only unreliable
As well, global warming (and cooling) can be detected much further back than the existence of homo
sapiens. It's part of the natural cycle...unless somebody thinks that human fossil fuel emissions
are what caused the last ice age to end.
--
Rick Onanian
On Tue, 04 Nov 2003 14:44:08 -0500, Rick Onanian <spamsink@cox.net> from The Esoteric c0wz
Society wrote:
>On Tue, 04 Nov 2003 09:56:46 -0600, Kevan Smith <Kevan@mouse-potato.com> wrote:
>>On Tue, 04 Nov 2003 08:15:42 -0500, Rick Onanian <spamsink@cox.net> from The Esoteric c0wz
>>Society wrote:
>>>It sure is nice out here where we depend on our polluting "nazi ****wagons" but somehow manage to
>>>breathe clean air.
>>
>>Are you sure your air is "clean?" How do you know? How many carcinogens spewed by cars and
>>factories and other man-made sources are you willing to inhale and still call your air clean?
>
>I know by this standard:
>> The SUV in front of me might not be ruining _your_ air, but it sure
>
>By your standard, I'm breathing clean air.
That's not my standard.
My standard for "clean air" isn't scientific, so I won't attempt to define it. However, if you live
in a rural area where crops are grown, I bet that they spray the crops with pesticides and
herbicides. That's in the air you breathe, and my non-scientific standard says that means your air
is not as clean as you think.
What do federal standards say clean air is? That might be a good starting point for discussion. How
does you air compare to that standard?
--
real e-mail addy: kevansmith23 at yahoo dot com I'm meditating on the FORMALDEHYDE and the ASBESTOS
leaking into my PERSONAL SPACE!!
On 04 Nov 2003 17:58:27 GMT, David Reuteler <reuteler@visi.com> from VISI.com wrote:
>Kevan Smith <Kevan@mouse-potato.com> wrote:
>: Third: Don't ask for money like that until pledge drive.
>
>four: set up a paypal account.
>
>five: ask for money in more affordable chunks. $40 and i won't post for a day. $2/hr. payable
>by paypal.
>
>i'll write ya a web front-end for scheduling if you're interested. special rbm rates (pro bono).
I could use the extra money. Go for it.
--
real e-mail addy: kevansmith23 at yahoo dot com Catsup and Mustard all over the place! It's the
Human Hamburger!
In article <npbgqvofks2f6441dhkbqjk5e4m59opphc@4ax.com>, Kevan@mouse- potato.com says...
> On Tue, 04 Nov 2003 14:44:08 -0500, Rick Onanian <spamsink@cox.net> from The Esoteric c0wz
> Society wrote:
>
> >On Tue, 04 Nov 2003 09:56:46 -0600, Kevan Smith <Kevan@mouse-potato.com> wrote:
> >>On Tue, 04 Nov 2003 08:15:42 -0500, Rick Onanian <spamsink@cox.net> from The Esoteric c0wz
> >>Society wrote:
> >>>It sure is nice out here where we depend on our polluting "nazi ****wagons" but somehow manage
> >>>to breathe clean air.
> >>
> >>Are you sure your air is "clean?" How do you know? How many carcinogens spewed by cars and
> >>factories and other man-made sources are you willing to inhale and still call your air clean?
> >
> >I know by this standard:
> >> The SUV in front of me might not be ruining _your_ air, but it sure
> >
> >By your standard, I'm breathing clean air.
>
> That's not my standard.
>
> My standard for "clean air" isn't scientific, so I won't attempt to define it. However, if you
> live in a rural area where crops are grown, I bet that they spray the crops with pesticides and
> herbicides. That's in the air you breathe, and my non-scientific standard says that means your air
> is not as clean as you think.
*cides do not stay airborne for long; they would be wasted if they did. Besides, there is very
little in the way of crop farming where lives (which is only a few miles from where I live). Most of
the undeveloped countryside is covered with trees.
> What do federal standards say clean air is? That might be a good starting point for discussion.
> How does you air compare to that standard?
Plenty of ozone on a hot, humid summer day, and NOx on any day when the winds are blowing from NYC.
Other than that, it's pretty good.
--
Dave Kerber Fight spam: remove the ns_ from the return address before replying!
REAL programmers write self-modifying code.
vBulletin, Copyright ©2000-2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Search Engine Friendly URLs by
vBSEO 3.3.0
