OT: One more for the deniers

Re: OT: One more for the deniers

J.P. wrote:
> On Thu, 15 May 2008 11:00:14 -0500, "Elvis Kabong"
> <ampscience@tuneland . com > wrote:
>
>> "J.P." <jpasano@hotmail . com > wrote in message
>> news:gnmk24l2r140bvh9dsgqtfvlj1gkr5735e@4ax . com ...
>>>> REBATE08COn Tue, 13 May 2008 17:23:01 -0700 (PDT), Keep Believing In Lies
>>>> <lordkoos@hotmail . com > wrote:
>>>> World Carbon Dioxide Levels Highest for 650,000 Years, Says US Report
>>>> By David Adam The Guardian UK
>>> EVERY TIME I read some horseshit such as this I know it is total crap!
>>> Anyone see why? These stupid mutherfuckers haven't lived long enough
>>> to do research on nearly 3/4 of a million years of ANY FUCKING THING!
>>> The end. Next thing you know some ignorant cocksucker will be on PBS
>>> trying to sell the flowers made dinosaurs line of crap.And the carbon
>>> dating thing goes outta whack after a few thousand years also.
>>> Millions of years my ass! Mulay shit!
>> Ok, let's assume the threat of extreme climate shifting (global
>> warming) is just a myth, a hoax or something us humans
>> cannot prevent.
>> But what's so fucking wrong with trying to make Earth a better place?
>> What's so wrong with trying to use cleaner, more efficient renewable
>> forms of energy? What's wrong with not destroying the fucking planet
>> by chopping off the tops of mountains and polluting the valleys and the
>> water in the valleys and leaving the devistation without any attempt
>> to reforestation? What's wrong with not polluting the air with more and
>> more carbon oxides? What's wrong with trying to save the oxygen
>> producing plankton that is being killed off from the fresh water melting
>> of the poles? What's wrong with conservation of the natural resources?
>> What's wrong with not clear-cutting old growth forests?
>> What's wrong with not polluting the air and water and
>> ground on Earth?
>> What's wrong with trying to clean up the stinkin' by-products
>> instead of releasing them into the air or water sources?
>> What's wrong with less dependence on foreign oil?
>> What's wrong with trying to improve the quality of life for everyone?
>> Where's the harm in any of this?
>>
> I used to live in Houston and work in refineries..I am all for
> it...but don't try to "sell it" with bafoon shit. I do not need to be
> "convinced" and making up bullshit data makes me feel it is just
> another money scam. Show me the work! Fuck the talk and charities and
> green groups. They are just spitting in the dirt and telling people
> it's raining...if you have to lie about it then it is bullshit!
> Go live next door to Mobile in Pasadena like I did. I raised so
> much hell that they bought the whole neighborhood. They even made a
> movie called "Rush" in my hood right before that. Three blocks from my
> house. Woke up many nights with flaming 5 pound balls of plastic
> raining down on the neighborhood. Called hazardous chemical firemen
> out on Christmas morning because they were releasing propylene gas and
> it was gagging the old lady who was several months pg. I imagine I
> have done as much bitching about toxic chemicals as anyone you know.
> And I got results...so back off Bozos...put up or shut up..

1) Slavery was the Deal With The Devil Murika made to be.
2) Industrialization was the cure for slavery.
3) Industry runs on cheap energy.
4) High-production industry increases carrying capacity for humans.

We don't get a Get Out Of Hell Free card - it is a system of tradeoffs,
and we pays our money and takes our chances.

--
Les Cargill

Re: OT: One more for the deniers

Elvis Kabong wrote:
> "J.P." <jpasano@hotmail . com > wrote in message
> news:gnmk24l2r140bvh9dsgqtfvlj1gkr5735e@4ax . com ...
>>> REBATE08COn Tue, 13 May 2008 17:23:01 -0700 (PDT), Keep Believing In Lies
>>> <lordkoos@hotmail . com > wrote:
>>> World Carbon Dioxide Levels Highest for 650,000 Years, Says US Report
>>> By David Adam The Guardian UK
>> EVERY TIME I read some horseshit such as this I know it is total crap!
>> Anyone see why? These stupid mutherfuckers haven't lived long enough
>> to do research on nearly 3/4 of a million years of ANY FUCKING THING!
>> The end. Next thing you know some ignorant cocksucker will be on PBS
>> trying to sell the flowers made dinosaurs line of crap.And the carbon
>> dating thing goes outta whack after a few thousand years also.
>> Millions of years my ass! Mulay shit!
>
> Ok, let's assume the threat of extreme climate shifting (global
> warming) is just a myth, a hoax or something us humans
> cannot prevent.
> But what's so fucking wrong with trying to make Earth a better place?
> What's so wrong with trying to use cleaner, more efficient renewable
> forms of energy? What's wrong with not destroying the fucking planet
> by chopping off the tops of mountains and polluting the valleys and the
> water in the valleys and leaving the devistation without any attempt
> to reforestation? What's wrong with not polluting the air with more and
> more carbon oxides? What's wrong with trying to save the oxygen
> producing plankton that is being killed off from the fresh water melting
> of the poles? What's wrong with conservation of the natural resources?
> What's wrong with not clear-cutting old growth forests?
> What's wrong with not polluting the air and water and
> ground on Earth?
> What's wrong with trying to clean up the stinkin' by-products
> instead of releasing them into the air or water sources?
> What's wrong with less dependence on foreign oil?
> What's wrong with trying to improve the quality of life for everyone?
> Where's the harm in any of this?
>
>
ANS:

When you're a hay8r, you live in rural areas and love 'country' music,
-but you despise the Green movement.

Doesn't that make *perfect* sense? :-)

...they're a little 'confused' like that...mvm

P.S. Advice- never engage in a dialect w/ them, they're here for
entertainment and to be made fun of. If there were something at
risk, or important, one would need to sit down at the negotiating table
with these nutters and talk, -but there isn't. They're .00000000001
of anything...apply wit and have fun.

Re: OT: One more for the deniers

Elvis Kabong wrote:
> "J.P." <jpasano@hotmail . com > wrote in message
> news:gnmk24l2r140bvh9dsgqtfvlj1gkr5735e@4ax . com ...
>>> REBATE08COn Tue, 13 May 2008 17:23:01 -0700 (PDT), Keep Believing In Lies
>>> <lordkoos@hotmail . com > wrote:
>>> World Carbon Dioxide Levels Highest for 650,000 Years, Says US Report
>>> By David Adam The Guardian UK
>> EVERY TIME I read some horseshit such as this I know it is total crap!
>> Anyone see why? These stupid mutherfuckers haven't lived long enough
>> to do research on nearly 3/4 of a million years of ANY FUCKING THING!
>> The end. Next thing you know some ignorant cocksucker will be on PBS
>> trying to sell the flowers made dinosaurs line of crap.And the carbon
>> dating thing goes outta whack after a few thousand years also.
>> Millions of years my ass! Mulay shit!
>
> Ok, let's assume the threat of extreme climate shifting (global
> warming) is just a myth, a hoax or something us humans
> cannot prevent.
> But what's so fucking wrong with trying to make Earth a better place?

Define "better" in a categorical and irrefutable manner. Which
version of Earth's climate is best?

Let's assume that you do as the tree-huggers do, and assume a
roughly 1790 climate is optimum. What was Earths population of humans in
1790? About one-tenth of today's population.


> What's so wrong with trying to use cleaner, more efficient renewable
> forms of energy?

Where are they? Are they more economically efficient that oil? After all
the US uses a lot of oil to create mass quantities of bulk food products
that the rest of the world depends on.

Maybe this is Bad (indeed, it can be quite bad ) but *today*, if
we change that, lots of people will die. But that's okay, right?

> What's wrong with not destroying the fucking planet
> by chopping off the tops of mountains and polluting the valleys and the
> water in the valleys and leaving the devistation without any attempt
> to reforestation?

What's wrong *with* it? Which version of Earths ecosystem is the 'best'
one? Defend your belief .... somehow.

I have been utterly and totally brainwashed by Boy Scout training -
leave it better than you found it - but that's only valid on
certain parts of the planet. You can go tell a Chinese peasant who
is dislocated from farmland his family/tribe has worked for millenia
that he is no longer welcome on the planet. We'll watch.

What were all those people in "Deliverance" so upset about Oh yeah.
All their land was gonna be lake bottom.

What event occurred in the United States between roughly 1929 and
1941? What were the roots of it? What did it mean and symbolize?

> What's wrong with not polluting the air with more and
> more carbon oxides? What's wrong with trying to save the oxygen
> producing plankton that is being killed off from the fresh water melting
> of the poles? What's wrong with conservation of the natural resources?
> What's wrong with not clear-cutting old growth forests?
> What's wrong with not polluting the air and water and
> ground on Earth?
> What's wrong with trying to clean up the stinkin' by-products
> instead of releasing them into the air or water sources?

So other than hand-wavey Star Trek techno-magic, how is this
to all be accomplished? Have you ever dealt with the California
Air Resources Board? I have.

> What's wrong with less dependence on foreign oil?
> What's wrong with trying to improve the quality of life for everyone?

That's easy. Just have 9 of ten people kill themselves.

> Where's the harm in any of this?
>
>

Oh goodness....think it *all* the way through. *All* the way. Start
with Disc 1 of "Connections" by James Burke....

--
Les Cargill

Re: OT: One more for the deniers


"Les Cargill" <lcargill@cfl.rr . com > wrote in message
news:482cb8f1$0$7070$4c368faf@roadrunner . com ...
> Elvis Kabong wrote:
>> "J.P." <jpasano@hotmail . com > wrote in message
>> news:gnmk24l2r140bvh9dsgqtfvlj1gkr5735e@4ax . com ...
>>>> REBATE08COn Tue, 13 May 2008 17:23:01 -0700 (PDT), Keep Believing In
>>>> Lies <lordkoos@hotmail . com > wrote:
>>>> World Carbon Dioxide Levels Highest for 650,000 Years, Says US Report
>>>> By David Adam The Guardian UK
>>> EVERY TIME I read some horseshit such as this I know it is total crap!
>>> Anyone see why? These stupid mutherfuckers haven't lived long enough
>>> to do research on nearly 3/4 of a million years of ANY FUCKING THING!
>>> The end. Next thing you know some ignorant cocksucker will be on PBS
>>> trying to sell the flowers made dinosaurs line of crap.And the carbon
>>> dating thing goes outta whack after a few thousand years also.
>>> Millions of years my ass! Mulay shit!
>>
>> Ok, let's assume the threat of extreme climate shifting (global
>> warming) is just a myth, a hoax or something us humans
>> cannot prevent.
>> But what's so fucking wrong with trying to make Earth a better place?
>
> Define "better" in a categorical and irrefutable manner. Which
> version of Earth's climate is best?

Less fucked up by humans mucking about as retards without
respect for the balances and symbiosic relationships in nature
who could care less if they if it all gets out of whack. Then
there's that wonderful attitude of who cares about what our
descendents inherit - let them deal with it. Or better
yet, the *Rapurists* attitude and resulting actions: go ahead
and let the Earth get fucked up. We'll be leaving the Earth
before it gets too uninhabital anyway.

> Let's assume that you do as the tree-huggers do, and assume a
> roughly 1790 climate is optimum. What was Earths population of humans in
> 1790? About one-tenth of today's population.

And your point?

>> What's so wrong with trying to use cleaner, more efficient renewable
>> forms of energy?
>
> Where are they? Are they more economically efficient that oil? After all
> the US uses a lot of oil to create mass quantities of bulk food products
> that the rest of the world depends on.

If the anti-drug histeria didn't exist, we could at least be growing
hemp (which grows a lot faster than trees) for paper instead
of chopping trees for toilet paper for one thing. What about
more solar and wind power usages? In the long run, it pays
for itself and beyond.

> Maybe this is Bad (indeed, it can be quite bad ) but *today*, if
> we change that, lots of people will die. But that's okay, right?

I see what you're getting at, but how about this one?
What fucking good is it if you don't have to pay
*any* fucking taxes and not have to give a shit if every
oxygen producting plantlife is chopped down and almost all
of the oxygen in the atmosphere is depleted but you
can't fucking breathe or the air is so fucking polluted
you can't breathe, but you get own a fleet of SUVs
from all of those wonderful tax breaks?

>> What's wrong with not destroying the fucking planet
>> by chopping off the tops of mountains and polluting the valleys and the
>> water in the valleys and leaving the devistation without any attempt
>> to reforestation?
>
> What's wrong *with* it? Which version of Earths ecosystem is the 'best'
> one? Defend your belief .... somehow.

Oh that would be the one like the nouveau rich in China insisting
on eating delicacies like shark fins so the fishermen continually
net sharks, cut off their fins, then throw their bodies into the
ocean. That's a real wise approach, wouldn't you say?

> I have been utterly and totally brainwashed by Boy Scout training - leave
> it better than you found it - but that's only valid on
> certain parts of the planet. You can go tell a Chinese peasant who
> is dislocated from farmland his family/tribe has worked for millenia
> that he is no longer welcome on the planet. We'll watch.

Why would I tell *any* farmer such a thing?

> What were all those people in "Deliverance" so upset about Oh yeah.
> All their land was gonna be lake bottom.
>
> What event occurred in the United States between roughly 1929 and
> 1941? What were the roots of it? What did it mean and symbolize?

But they acted as if resources were infinite. I'm suggesting rationality
and practicality with *finite* resources.

>> What's wrong with not polluting the air with more and
>> more carbon oxides? What's wrong with trying to save the oxygen
>> producing plankton that is being killed off from the fresh water melting
>> of the poles? What's wrong with conservation of the natural resources?
>> What's wrong with not clear-cutting old growth forests?
>> What's wrong with not polluting the air and water and
>> ground on Earth?
>> What's wrong with trying to clean up the stinkin' by-products
>> instead of releasing them into the air or water sources?
>
> So other than hand-wavey Star Trek techno-magic, how is this
> to all be accomplished? Have you ever dealt with the California
> Air Resources Board? I have.

More people need to go green and demand the changes.

>> What's wrong with less dependence on foreign oil?
>> What's wrong with trying to improve the quality of life for everyone?
>
> That's easy. Just have 9 of ten people kill themselves.

Ok, I'm aware that the ever growing population and longer
life expectancies are putting more of demand on recources,
but that means we need to be even MORE wiser, efficient
and less wasteful with the finite resources.

>> Where's the harm in any of this?
>>
>>
>
> Oh goodness....think it *all* the way through. *All* the way. Start
> with Disc 1 of "Connections" by James Burke....

Are you referring to the very first original series when he was much
younger and zipping around place to place for every development
stage or the much more slower paced remake of the original series
(which BTW, I thought was boring compared to the original)?
I don't own them, but I've seen them both and prefer the original
series. And from having seen it and how one by-product became
another's useful component in the advancement of technologies
and so on, I can't believe no one has yet found a way to use and
simutaneously render nuclear fission waste harmless by now instead
of trying to sweep it under the rug by burying it.

Ed



> --
> Les Cargill

Re: OT: One more for the deniers

Elvis Kabong wrote:
> "Les Cargill" <lcargill@cfl.rr . com > wrote in message
> news:482cb8f1$0$7070$4c368faf@roadrunner . com ...
>> Elvis Kabong wrote:
>>> "J.P." <jpasano@hotmail . com > wrote in message
>>> news:gnmk24l2r140bvh9dsgqtfvlj1gkr5735e@4ax . com ...
>>>>> REBATE08COn Tue, 13 May 2008 17:23:01 -0700 (PDT), Keep Believing In
>>>>> Lies <lordkoos@hotmail . com > wrote:
>>>>> World Carbon Dioxide Levels Highest for 650,000 Years, Says US Report
>>>>> By David Adam The Guardian UK
>>>> EVERY TIME I read some horseshit such as this I know it is total crap!
>>>> Anyone see why? These stupid mutherfuckers haven't lived long enough
>>>> to do research on nearly 3/4 of a million years of ANY FUCKING THING!
>>>> The end. Next thing you know some ignorant cocksucker will be on PBS
>>>> trying to sell the flowers made dinosaurs line of crap.And the carbon
>>>> dating thing goes outta whack after a few thousand years also.
>>>> Millions of years my ass! Mulay shit!
>>> Ok, let's assume the threat of extreme climate shifting (global
>>> warming) is just a myth, a hoax or something us humans
>>> cannot prevent.
>>> But what's so fucking wrong with trying to make Earth a better place?
>> Define "better" in a categorical and irrefutable manner. Which
>> version of Earth's climate is best?
>
> Less fucked up by humans mucking about as retards without
> respect for the balances and symbiosic relationships in nature
> who could care less if they if it all gets out of whack. Then
> there's that wonderful attitude of who cares about what our
> descendents inherit - let them deal with it.

We will all do things that have long term effects. We can try to
mitigate them as best we can, but we'll muck it up.

I'd love to see a comprehensive boondoggle for more advanced
forms of energy be established, but ... once you get beyond a certain
number of people on the planet, it's gonna be ugly no matter what
tech is in use.

And the answer to "we need fewer people!" is always "you first."

> Or better
> yet, the *Rapurists* attitude and resulting actions: go ahead
> and let the Earth get fucked up. We'll be leaving the Earth
> before it gets too uninhabital anyway.
>

Okay then. My point is that I am not sure anybody can state
clearly what the optimum state of the atmosphere should be.

The ... director? of NASA made this point and got his "speaking
in public ticket" pulled, but that doesn't make it untrue.

>> Let's assume that you do as the tree-huggers do, and assume a
>> roughly 1790 climate is optimum. What was Earths population of humans in
>> 1790? About one-tenth of today's population.
>
> And your point?
>

We have many mouths to feed. Absent fossil fuel technology, the
planet can support roughly a pre-technological population. About
one tenth of the people alive today.

>>> What's so wrong with trying to use cleaner, more efficient renewable
>>> forms of energy?
>> Where are they? Are they more economically efficient that oil? After all
>> the US uses a lot of oil to create mass quantities of bulk food products
>> that the rest of the world depends on.
>
> If the anti-drug histeria didn't exist, we could at least be growing
> hemp (which grows a lot faster than trees) for paper instead
> of chopping trees for toilet paper for one thing. What about
> more solar and wind power usages? In the long run, it pays
> for itself and beyond.
>

Hemp is a great fiber crop, no doubt. Solar and wind are out there, but
we go through... about 20 million barrels a day. That's quite a lot.
One barrel is roughly 1700 kWh. 34,000,000 kWh, IOW. One 25 foot wind
turbine produces about 2 MW - 50 MW per day. But that energy isn't very
moveable. You'd have to start with 680,000 (divided by efficiency
) to replace oil imports.


>> Maybe this is Bad (indeed, it can be quite bad ) but *today*, if
>> we change that, lots of people will die. But that's okay, right?
>
> I see what you're getting at, but how about this one?
> What fucking good is it if you don't have to pay
> *any* fucking taxes and not have to give a shit if every
> oxygen producting plantlife is chopped down and almost all
> of the oxygen in the atmosphere is depleted but you
> can't fucking breathe or the air is so fucking polluted
> you can't breathe, but you get own a fleet of SUVs
> from all of those wonderful tax breaks?
>

One thing has little to do with the other.

>>> What's wrong with not destroying the fucking planet
>>> by chopping off the tops of mountains and polluting the valleys and the
>>> water in the valleys and leaving the devistation without any attempt
>>> to reforestation?
>> What's wrong *with* it? Which version of Earths ecosystem is the 'best'
>> one? Defend your belief .... somehow.
>
> Oh that would be the one like the nouveau rich in China insisting
> on eating delicacies like shark fins so the fishermen continually
> net sharks, cut off their fins, then throw their bodies into the
> ocean. That's a real wise approach, wouldn't you say?
>

I dunno. What's the perfect number of sharks to have? There
were mountains of buffalo bones in Cody, Wyoming.

>> I have been utterly and totally brainwashed by Boy Scout training - leave
>> it better than you found it - but that's only valid on
>> certain parts of the planet. You can go tell a Chinese peasant who
>> is dislocated from farmland his family/tribe has worked for millenia
>> that he is no longer welcome on the planet. We'll watch.
>
> Why would I tell *any* farmer such a thing?
>

Because when we cut energy consumption to cut food production, he's
probably gonna feel it. If not directly, then indirectly as
prices rise to accommodate reduced production.

Did you know that really reliable food sources were not a "taken
for granted" thing until the Great Plains were farmed, very late
19th, early 20th Century?

You and I never have to think about where food comes from, for the
first time really in the history of our species.

>> What were all those people in "Deliverance" so upset about Oh yeah.
>> All their land was gonna be lake bottom.
>>
>> What event occurred in the United States between roughly 1929 and
>> 1941? What were the roots of it? What did it mean and symbolize?
>
> But they acted as if resources were infinite. I'm suggesting rationality
> and practicality with *finite* resources.
>

I understand. They didn't actually *know* what the limits were. Truth
be told, we don't much, either.

>>> What's wrong with not polluting the air with more and
>>> more carbon oxides? What's wrong with trying to save the oxygen
>>> producing plankton that is being killed off from the fresh water melting
>>> of the poles? What's wrong with conservation of the natural resources?
>>> What's wrong with not clear-cutting old growth forests?
>>> What's wrong with not polluting the air and water and
>>> ground on Earth?
>>> What's wrong with trying to clean up the stinkin' by-products
>>> instead of releasing them into the air or water sources?
>> So other than hand-wavey Star Trek techno-magic, how is this
>> to all be accomplished? Have you ever dealt with the California
>> Air Resources Board? I have.
>
> More people need to go green and demand the changes.
>

But they really can't. Most people are one paycheck away from living
in a van down by the river. And that's the lucky ones.

>>> What's wrong with less dependence on foreign oil?
>>> What's wrong with trying to improve the quality of life for everyone?
>> That's easy. Just have 9 of ten people kill themselves.
>
> Ok, I'm aware that the ever growing population and longer
> life expectancies are putting more of demand on recources,
> but that means we need to be even MORE wiser, efficient
> and less wasteful with the finite resources.
>

I agree. But we can only move so fast.

>>> Where's the harm in any of this?
>>>
>>>
>> Oh goodness....think it *all* the way through. *All* the way. Start
>> with Disc 1 of "Connections" by James Burke....
>
> Are you referring to the very first original series when he was much
> younger and zipping around place to place for every development
> stage or the much more slower paced remake of the original series
> (which BTW, I thought was boring compared to the original)?

I am pretty sure it's the first one - "what do you do if the lights go
out - and stay out." How do you survive? Well... you don't.

> I don't own them, but I've seen them both and prefer the original
> series. And from having seen it and how one by-product became
> another's useful component in the advancement of technologies
> and so on, I can't believe no one has yet found a way to use and
> simutaneously render nuclear fission waste harmless by now instead
> of trying to sweep it under the rug by burying it.
>

The energy densities are mind-boggling. Containment is awaiting
some major genius-breakthrough. If at all. It's been 70 years away
for 70 years.

> Ed
>
>
>
>> --
>> Les Cargill
>
>

--
Les Cargill

Re: OT: One more for the deniers


"Les Cargill" <lcargill@cfl.rr . com > wrote in message
news:482d0ec9$0$31737$4c368faf@roadrunner . com ...
> Elvis Kabong wrote:
>> "Les Cargill" <lcargill@cfl.rr . com > wrote in message
>> news:482cb8f1$0$7070$4c368faf@roadrunner . com ...
>>> Elvis Kabong wrote:
>>>> "J.P." <jpasano@hotmail . com > wrote in message
>>>> news:gnmk24l2r140bvh9dsgqtfvlj1gkr5735e@4ax . com ...
>>>>>> REBATE08COn Tue, 13 May 2008 17:23:01 -0700 (PDT), Keep Believing In
>>>>>> Lies <lordkoos@hotmail . com > wrote:
>>>>>> World Carbon Dioxide Levels Highest for 650,000 Years, Says US Report
>>>>>> By David Adam The Guardian UK
>>>>> EVERY TIME I read some horseshit such as this I know it is total crap!
>>>>> Anyone see why? These stupid mutherfuckers haven't lived long enough
>>>>> to do research on nearly 3/4 of a million years of ANY FUCKING THING!
>>>>> The end. Next thing you know some ignorant cocksucker will be on PBS
>>>>> trying to sell the flowers made dinosaurs line of crap.And the carbon
>>>>> dating thing goes outta whack after a few thousand years also.
>>>>> Millions of years my ass! Mulay shit!
>>>> Ok, let's assume the threat of extreme climate shifting (global
>>>> warming) is just a myth, a hoax or something us humans
>>>> cannot prevent.
>>>> But what's so fucking wrong with trying to make Earth a better place?
>>> Define "better" in a categorical and irrefutable manner. Which
>>> version of Earth's climate is best?
>>
>> Less fucked up by humans mucking about as retards without
>> respect for the balances and symbiosic relationships in nature
>> who could care less if they if it all gets out of whack. Then
>> there's that wonderful attitude of who cares about what our
>> descendents inherit - let them deal with it.
>
> We will all do things that have long term effects. We can try to mitigate
> them as best we can, but we'll muck it up.
>
> I'd love to see a comprehensive boondoggle for more advanced
> forms of energy be established, but ... once you get beyond a certain
> number of people on the planet, it's gonna be ugly no matter what
> tech is in use.
>
> And the answer to "we need fewer people!" is always "you first."
>
>> Or better
>> yet, the *Rapurists* attitude and resulting actions: go ahead
>> and let the Earth get fucked up. We'll be leaving the Earth
>> before it gets too uninhabital anyway.
>>
>
> Okay then. My point is that I am not sure anybody can state
> clearly what the optimum state of the atmosphere should be.
>
> The ... director? of NASA made this point and got his "speaking
> in public ticket" pulled, but that doesn't make it untrue.
>
>>> Let's assume that you do as the tree-huggers do, and assume a
>>> roughly 1790 climate is optimum. What was Earths population of humans in
>>> 1790? About one-tenth of today's population.
>>
>> And your point?
>>
>
> We have many mouths to feed. Absent fossil fuel technology, the
> planet can support roughly a pre-technological population. About
> one tenth of the people alive today.
>
>>>> What's so wrong with trying to use cleaner, more efficient renewable
>>>> forms of energy?
>>> Where are they? Are they more economically efficient that oil? After all
>>> the US uses a lot of oil to create mass quantities of bulk food products
>>> that the rest of the world depends on.
>>
>> If the anti-drug histeria didn't exist, we could at least be growing
>> hemp (which grows a lot faster than trees) for paper instead
>> of chopping trees for toilet paper for one thing. What about
>> more solar and wind power usages? In the long run, it pays
>> for itself and beyond.
>>
>
> Hemp is a great fiber crop, no doubt. Solar and wind are out there, but
> we go through... about 20 million barrels a day. That's quite a lot.
> One barrel is roughly 1700 kWh. 34,000,000 kWh, IOW. One 25 foot wind
> turbine produces about 2 MW - 50 MW per day. But that energy isn't very
> moveable. You'd have to start with 680,000 (divided by efficiency
> ) to replace oil imports.
>
>
>>> Maybe this is Bad (indeed, it can be quite bad ) but *today*, if
>>> we change that, lots of people will die. But that's okay, right?
>>
>> I see what you're getting at, but how about this one?
>> What fucking good is it if you don't have to pay
>> *any* fucking taxes and not have to give a shit if every
>> oxygen producting plantlife is chopped down and almost all
>> of the oxygen in the atmosphere is depleted but you
>> can't fucking breathe or the air is so fucking polluted
>> you can't breathe, but you get own a fleet of SUVs
>> from all of those wonderful tax breaks?
>>
>
> One thing has little to do with the other.
>
>>>> What's wrong with not destroying the fucking planet
>>>> by chopping off the tops of mountains and polluting the valleys and the
>>>> water in the valleys and leaving the devistation without any attempt
>>>> to reforestation?
>>> What's wrong *with* it? Which version of Earths ecosystem is the 'best'
>>> one? Defend your belief .... somehow.
>>
>> Oh that would be the one like the nouveau rich in China insisting
>> on eating delicacies like shark fins so the fishermen continually
>> net sharks, cut off their fins, then throw their bodies into the
>> ocean. That's a real wise approach, wouldn't you say?
>>
>
> I dunno. What's the perfect number of sharks to have? There
> were mountains of buffalo bones in Cody, Wyoming.
>
>>> I have been utterly and totally brainwashed by Boy Scout training -
>>> leave it better than you found it - but that's only valid on
>>> certain parts of the planet. You can go tell a Chinese peasant who
>>> is dislocated from farmland his family/tribe has worked for millenia
>>> that he is no longer welcome on the planet. We'll watch.
>>
>> Why would I tell *any* farmer such a thing?
>>
>
> Because when we cut energy consumption to cut food production, he's
> probably gonna feel it. If not directly, then indirectly as
> prices rise to accommodate reduced production.
>
> Did you know that really reliable food sources were not a "taken
> for granted" thing until the Great Plains were farmed, very late
> 19th, early 20th Century?
>
> You and I never have to think about where food comes from, for the
> first time really in the history of our species.
>
>>> What were all those people in "Deliverance" so upset about Oh yeah.
>>> All their land was gonna be lake bottom.
>>>
>>> What event occurred in the United States between roughly 1929 and
>>> 1941? What were the roots of it? What did it mean and symbolize?
>>
>> But they acted as if resources were infinite. I'm suggesting rationality
>> and practicality with *finite* resources.
>>
>
> I understand. They didn't actually *know* what the limits were. Truth
> be told, we don't much, either.
>
>>>> What's wrong with not polluting the air with more and
>>>> more carbon oxides? What's wrong with trying to save the oxygen
>>>> producing plankton that is being killed off from the fresh water
>>>> melting
>>>> of the poles? What's wrong with conservation of the natural resources?
>>>> What's wrong with not clear-cutting old growth forests?
>>>> What's wrong with not polluting the air and water and
>>>> ground on Earth?
>>>> What's wrong with trying to clean up the stinkin' by-products
>>>> instead of releasing them into the air or water sources?
>>> So other than hand-wavey Star Trek techno-magic, how is this
>>> to all be accomplished? Have you ever dealt with the California
>>> Air Resources Board? I have.
>>
>> More people need to go green and demand the changes.
>>
>
> But they really can't. Most people are one paycheck away from living
> in a van down by the river. And that's the lucky ones.
>
>>>> What's wrong with less dependence on foreign oil?
>>>> What's wrong with trying to improve the quality of life for everyone?
>>> That's easy. Just have 9 of ten people kill themselves.
>>
>> Ok, I'm aware that the ever growing population and longer
>> life expectancies are putting more of demand on recources,
>> but that means we need to be even MORE wiser, efficient
>> and less wasteful with the finite resources.
>>
>
> I agree. But we can only move so fast.
>
>>>> Where's the harm in any of this?
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Oh goodness....think it *all* the way through. *All* the way. Start
>>> with Disc 1 of "Connections" by James Burke....
>>
>> Are you referring to the very first original series when he was much
>> younger and zipping around place to place for every development
>> stage or the much more slower paced remake of the original series
>> (which BTW, I thought was boring compared to the original)?
>
> I am pretty sure it's the first one - "what do you do if the lights go
> out - and stay out." How do you survive? Well... you don't.
>
>> I don't own them, but I've seen them both and prefer the original
>> series. And from having seen it and how one by-product became
>> another's useful component in the advancement of technologies
>> and so on, I can't believe no one has yet found a way to use and
>> simutaneously render nuclear fission waste harmless by now instead
>> of trying to sweep it under the rug by burying it.
>>
>
> The energy densities are mind-boggling. Containment is awaiting
> some major genius-breakthrough. If at all. It's been 70 years away
> for 70 years.
>
>> Ed
>>
>>
>>
>>> --
>>> Les Cargill
>>
>>
>
> --
> Les Cargill

Excellent responses Les.

BTW, I have another show my brother and I used to watch
in the 80s but I can't recall the name. It was all about
new and modern efficient technologies being developed
in Australia. Most of the devices featured on the show
every week had elegant simplicity, were very common
sensible and ingenious. And every week we saw it
together we'd always ask the same question: "Where
can we buy this stuff?" There were never any ads
on TV or newspapers or magazines for them
and not in any of the catalogs of all sorts we'd
get in the mail. We didn't have the internet
back then either, yet we would have gladly
bought some of those products to reduce
energy consumption.

I used to do a lot of photo darkroom work
for photo art. In the darkroom, the main objective
is to use your time as wisely and efficiently as
possible. I like that kind of challenge. I incorporate
that same objective even and especially today
with my energy uses. Not only has utility rates
gone up from the rising price of oil, our
privatized utility company is making all of its
customers pay for the Katrina damages.

BTW, did you see another recent post of mine
about some author I'd seen on CSPAN talking
about his book and stating how by the time
the oil supply completely runs out, alternative
energy technologies will simply not be in
place to replace it and what the results
will be like? I'll cut and paste it below:

He said that since the US and China are burning up the oil
at such a rapid rate during this state of depletion, that
alternative technology will simply not be in place to easily
shift to when the oil runs completely out.

He went on to say that traveling long distances will cease
to exist for the most part since energy will be so bleedin'
expensive. Corporate farms in California will cease to
exist because it will become cost inefficient to transport
its produce all around the country. In fact, more and more
people will get into gardening, and that there will
be so many people defying city zoning laws by "illegally"
working in their homes or property that the city authorities
won't be able to do a damned thing about it.

You can also expect more people riding bicycles or horse-
drawn carriages and people simply walking here and there.

Does this mean I will kneejerk and get rid of my gasoline
powered vehicle? Does this mean I will dump all of my
electrical and electronic gear? No! But even if this is a
bogus threat, I suggest that everyone invest in buying
as many hand tools as one can accumulate *anyway*.
After all, you never know, but it's not unlikely that one
day you will have to repair or build something for someone
in exchange for food.

Re: OT: One more for the deniers

Elvis Kabong wrote:
> "Les Cargill" <lcargill@cfl.rr . com > wrote in message
> news:482d0ec9$0$31737$4c368faf@roadrunner . com ...
<snip>
> BTW, I have another show my brother and I used to watch
> in the 80s but I can't recall the name. It was all about
> new and modern efficient technologies being developed
> in Australia.

Doesn't ring a bell. Sorry.

> Most of the devices featured on the show
> every week had elegant simplicity, were very common
> sensible and ingenious. And every week we saw it
> together we'd always ask the same question: "Where
> can we buy this stuff?" There were never any ads
> on TV or newspapers or magazines for them
> and not in any of the catalogs of all sorts we'd
> get in the mail. We didn't have the internet
> back then either, yet we would have gladly
> bought some of those products to reduce
> energy consumption.
>

In the '80s, oil prices were being artificially
pushed down by political means. Several of
my former cow-orkers came from alt. energy
stuff. They have stories...

> I used to do a lot of photo darkroom work
> for photo art. In the darkroom, the main objective
> is to use your time as wisely and efficiently as
> possible. I like that kind of challenge. I incorporate
> that same objective even and especially today
> with my energy uses. Not only has utility rates
> gone up from the rising price of oil, our
> privatized utility company is making all of its
> customers pay for the Katrina damages.
>

Same here (Fla).

> BTW, did you see another recent post of mine
> about some author I'd seen on CSPAN talking
> about his book and stating how by the time
> the oil supply completely runs out, alternative
> energy technologies will simply not be in
> place to replace it and what the results
> will be like? I'll cut and paste it below:
>
> He said that since the US and China are burning up the oil
> at such a rapid rate during this state of depletion, that
> alternative technology will simply not be in place to easily
> shift to when the oil runs completely out.
>

There are things we can do, but it's gonna take the *will*
to do them. The longer we put it off, the more
autocratic the solutions will be.

> He went on to say that traveling long distances will cease
> to exist for the most part since energy will be so bleedin'
> expensive.

Railroads. Coal is abundant for decades; trains are large enough
to use coal well - if nothing else, by generating electricity.


> Corporate farms in California will cease to
> exist because it will become cost inefficient to transport
> its produce all around the country.


There's also salt accumulation and the significant subsidies to
Ca. farmers. Jimmy Carter threatened to make the
Central Valley farmers pay for water ( they are actually supposed
to, but don't ) and they largely financed Ronald Reagan to make
that go away...

> In fact, more and more
> people will get into gardening, and that there will
> be so many people defying city zoning laws by "illegally"
> working in their homes or property that the city authorities
> won't be able to do a damned thing about it.
>

I see that now, but I have inlaws on acreages. They put up a lot
of food. They raise cattle.

> You can also expect more people riding bicycles or horse-
> drawn carriages and people simply walking here and there.
>

Sure. I am seriously thinking about a new kind of neighborhood store.
You essentially pay them a little more because they are closer. You can
order stuff through them by Internet, ala Amazon. For a fee, they deliver.

> Does this mean I will kneejerk and get rid of my gasoline
> powered vehicle? Does this mean I will dump all of my
> electrical and electronic gear? No! But even if this is a
> bogus threat, I suggest that everyone invest in buying
> as many hand tools as one can accumulate *anyway*.
> After all, you never know, but it's not unlikely that one
> day you will have to repair or build something for someone
> in exchange for food.
>
>

Could be. I wont' go *that* far - it's not too
much of a stretch to charge 12VDC batteries with solar
and use an inverter for drills and saws.

--
Les Cargill

Re: OT: One more for the deniers

Keep Believing In Lies wrote:
> World Carbon Dioxide Levels Highest for 650,000 Years, Says US Report
> By David Adam
> The Guardian UK
>
> Tuesday 13 May 2008
>
> Rise in chief greenhouse gas worse than feared. Earth may be
> losing ability to absorb CO2, say scientists.
>
> The concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has reached
> a record high, according to the latest figures, renewing fears that
> climate change could begin to slide out of control.
>
> Scientists at the Mauna Loa observatory in Hawaii say that CO2
> levels in the atmosphere now stand at 387 parts per million (ppm), up
> almost 40% since the industrial revolution and the highest for at
> least the last 650,000 years.
>
> The figures, published by the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric
> Administration on its website, also confirm that carbon dioxide, the
> chief greenhouse gas, is accumulating in the atmosphere faster than
> expected. The annual mean growth rate for 2007 was 2.14ppm - the
> fourth year in the last six to see an annual rise greater than 2ppm.
> From 1970 to 2000, the concentration rose by about 1.5ppm each year,
> but since 2000 the annual rise has leapt to an average 2.1ppm.
>
> Scientists say the shift could indicate that the Earth is losing
> its natural ability to soak up billions of tonnes of CO2 each year.
> Climate models assume that about half our future emissions will be
> reabsorbed by forests and oceans, but the new figures confirm this may
> be too optimistic. If more of our carbon pollution stays in the
> atmosphere, it means emissions will have to be cut by more than is
> currently projected to prevent dangerous levels of global warming.
>
> Martin Parry, co-chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
> Change's working group on impacts, said: "Despite all the talk, the
> situation is getting worse. Levels of greenhouse gases continue to
> rise in the atmosphere and the rate of that rise is accelerating. We
> are already seeing the impacts of climate change and the scale of
> those impacts will also accelerate, until we decide to do something
> about it."
>
> Perched some 11,000ft up a volcano, the Mauna Loa observatory has
> been measuring carbon dioxide in the atmosphere since 1958. It is
> regarded as producing among the most reliable data sets because of its
> remote location, far from any possible source of the gas that could
> confuse the sensors.
>
> Over the decades, the Mauna Loa readings, made famous in Al Gore's
> documentary An Inconvenient Truth, show the CO2 level rising and
> falling each year as foliage across the northern hemisphere blooms in
> spring and recedes in autumn. But they also show an upward trend as
> human emissions pour into the atmosphere, and each spring, the total
> CO2 level creeps above the previous year's high to set a new record.
>
> Robin Oakley, head of Greenpeace's climate change campaign, said:
> "We're now witnessing a key moment in the climate change story, and
> it's not good news. The last time the atmosphere was this choked with
> CO2 humans were yet to evolve as a species. To even consider building
> new runways and coal-fired power stations at this juncture in history
> is an unpardonable folly, but Gordon Brown seems determined to stumble
> forward regardless with his ill-conceived plans in the face of the
> science and widespread public opposition."
>
> A study last year suggested that the recent surge in atmospheric
> CO2 levels was down to three processes: growth in the world economy,
> heavy use of coal in China, and a weakening of natural "sinks",
> forests, seas and soils that absorb carbon. The scientists said the
> increase was 35% larger than they expected.
>
> They said about half of the carbon surge was down to the Chinese
> reliance on coal, which has forced up the carbon intensity of the
> overall world economy since 2000, reversing a trend of increasing
> energy efficiency since the 1970s.

* w w w .usatoday . com /weather/climate/globalwarming/2007-02-01-ipcc-report_x.htm

* w w w .foxnews . com /story/0,2933,249659,00.html

The toxic online hay8rz cabal lives to refute this sort of thing, not
because it's factual, but because the subject provides them with hay8
fuel for attempting to "get a reaction" from those they randomly label
as "left" or "liberal".