Disc Jockey Bob Dumas Allegedly Advocates killing Bicycle Riders For Fun! - Page 3

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...perProblem.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/Ai...ndon_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.

On Mon, 03 Nov 2003 22:07:27 -0600, Kevan Smith <Kevan@mouse-potato.com> wrote:

He could do one, or he could do the other. Doing both simultaneously is asking a bit much, don't
you think?

--I don't think it matters. Species come and species go.--

And according to you, it doesn't much matter if *our* species goes. LOL! I could say something
crass, but I have more class than that.

>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.--

Straw man. Did I say that? I merely disputed what you said about humans not being able to effect
permanent changes.

>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?--

Straw man, again. Second time. See here is the deal. You are knee jerking against common sense
with arguments that make no sense, but you are jerking that knee so hard, you won't even take the
time to read.

>Does a bear **** in the woods?<
--Yes, and somehow, the forest survives. Go figure.--

About the only thing you don't rail against.

--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.--

That was me mentioning that I heard the same thing said when I was a youth.. It was once thought
that the lake's tolerance was unlimited. You say the air's tolerance is unlimited. You say it
doesn't matter since nature does bad things. I say it does matter because we can control what we
do. Simple.

--it doesn't have a way to release concentrated wholesale amounts of sewage into a lake.--

And I specifically pointed out the way that it does, by flood. Apparently you ignore what doesn't
jibe with your arguments.

--The greenhouse gases we release AREN'T concentrated--

Yes, they are. A million motors sitting a lights idling and you wouldn't call that a high
concentration? compared to what?

Are you saying that we can't control what we do? Or that we don't want to? Or that it doesn't
matter? Pick one. You keep shifting and back pedaling that it is hard to find the target.




"Rick Onanian" <spamsink@cox.net> wrote in message
news:d7sfqvs6dqoo9rododbdh8eckoh0ndhiae@4ax.com...
> 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/Ai..._London_Smog.h
tml
>
> 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

On Tue, 4 Nov 2003 15:41:43 -0500, David Kerber <ns_dkerber@ns_ids.net> wrote:

>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.

When we are talking a matter of a few degrees or tenths of degrees do you really think data
collected from early European explorers is going to be reliable enough to base any form of
policy on?

>Besides, surface temperatures are what matter for the purposes of human life.

Surface temperatures are typically gathered where there are humans, and those locations have become
more built-up over the past 100 years, which is why is appears that global warming is happening. If
the planet really was hotter balloon and satellite data would should it, but they don't.

> 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.

If the planet _is_ getting warmer, how are they going to prove it's the doing of humans and not a
naturally occuring phenomena?

"Global Warming" is nothing more than a crappy theory propped up by bad evidence solely for the
purpose of pushing a radical environmentalist agenda.

--

Scott Johnson "I made the best gains of my life when I dumped the "oh me so tired" crap and started
getting on with it for real." -Bryce Lane

On Tue, 04 Nov 2003 15:46:38 -0500, Rick Onanian <spamsink@cox.net> wrote:

>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.

Very true. It's more accurate to say that the surface temps claimed by GW advocates are completely
out of scale with balloon and satellite data.

Why? Because they're not affected by the Urban Heat Island effect.

--

Scott Johnson "I made the best gains of my life when I dumped the "oh me so tired" crap and started
getting on with it for real." -Bryce Lane

On Tue, 4 Nov 2003 20:32:47 -0500, "Eric Vey" <junk@ericvey.com> wrote:
>--I don't think it matters. Species come and species go.--
>
>And according to you, it doesn't much matter if *our* species goes. LOL!

What's funny about that?

>>Does a bear **** in the woods?<
>--Yes, and somehow, the forest survives. Go figure.--
>
>About the only thing you don't rail against.

Er...exactly what _do_ I "rail against"?

>--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.--
>
>That was me mentioning that I heard the same thing said when I was a youth.. It was once thought
>that the lake's tolerance was unlimited. You say the air's tolerance is unlimited. You say it
>doesn't matter since nature does bad things. I say it does matter because we can control what we
>do. Simple.

Where do I say that the air's tolerance is unlimited? Where do I say that it doesn't matter because
nature does bad things? You're fabricating. I said that our small contribution is a drop in the
bucket compared to nature's own contribution, and that's why it doesn't matter. Let's put it into
some numbers -- I don't know what the actual numbers are, but here's some exaggerated numbers,
using fake units, to demonstrate my point (which is the scale, not that the air can take any and
all amount of abuse): One volcanic eruption: 140,000 pumblits of greenhouse gases Sum total of
greenhouse gases from auto emissions: 100 pumblits You will attack that saying that the numbers are
wrong and the units make no sense. I agree. I'm not saying that the ratio is 1400:1, just that the
ratio is very strongly tipped in that direction -- so much so that what we do results in nearly
zero effect; the effects that we observe are caused by natural occurrences that generate much worse
stuff than us.

>--it doesn't have a way to release concentrated wholesale amounts of sewage into a lake.--
>
>And I specifically pointed out the way that it does, by flood. Apparently you ignore what doesn't
>jibe with your arguments.

Okay, let's take that at face value: Nature is going to destroy lakes. No, I don't believe that.

How is a flood going to release CONCENTRATED anything? A flood is a _whole_lot_of_water_, which is
DILUTING whatever it mixes with. Then, some of the flood, with some sewage mixed in (where did it
get that sewage?) ends up in the lake.

>--The greenhouse gases we release AREN'T concentrated--
>
>Yes, they are. A million motors sitting a lights idling and you wouldn't call that a high
>concentration? compared to what?

Well, I suppose that if the million idling motors are in one square mile, that's pretty
concentrated. They're not. They're spread all over the place. Maybe you don't know what
"concentrated" means.

>Are you saying that we can't control what we do? Or that we don't want to? Or that it doesn't
>matter? Pick one. You keep shifting and back pedaling that it is hard to find the target.

I do shift and back pedal. While fixed gear riders feel that it is wasteful to do so, I find that my
legs enjoy the rest and the reversal of direction.

In this discussion, however, I have neither shifted nor backpedalled. I've said it over and over,
and I'll say it again: Our contribution to the environment from auto emissions is so small, relative
to much larger natural occurrences, as to be meaningless.
--
Rick Onanian