Newsgroup sci.environment 103356

Directory

In article <510rep$4s4@mserv1.dl.ac.uk>,
   pho@mserv1.dl.ac.uk (Pete Owens) wrote:
>In article 005@pm0-47.hal-pc.org, charliew@hal-pc.org 
(charliew) writes:
>>In article <50pk5q$1ig@mserv1.dl.ac.uk>,
>>   pho@mserv1.dl.ac.uk (Pete Owens) wrote:
>>(BIG CUT)
>>
>>>No but you are going further in that you refuse to accept
>>>that they will be as bad as the scientists are predicting.
>>>If you want to argue that the change *might* not be as
>>>bad as predicted it is equally valid to argue that the
>>>change *might* be worse. The greater the uncertainty
>>>the greater the level of action becomes appropriate. 
>>
>>I don't see it this way.  The greater the risk, the greater 
>>the level of action required.
>
>Absolutely.
>
>>  Big uncertainty bothers me a lot less than big risk.
>
>It effectively amounts to the same thing.
NOW, I see why you chaps are so irritated with me.  I see 
that you equate uncertainty with risk.  What a pity.  You are 
certain to lead miserable lives, because many activities 
involve substantially more uncertainty than risk.
It is absolutely clear to me now why you think that I am 
totally irrational.  If I had the same belief system that you 
do, I would also think that I am totally irrational.
Please bear with me here, as I like learning about people as 
much as I like debating the scientific issues.  Is it common 
practice for most people to equate uncertainty with risk, or 
is this an assumption of environmentalists?  OR, are we just 
dealing with cultural differences here, as I am a U.S. 
resident?
For the record, if it can be demonstrated that we are dealing 
with a high risk problem, you guys will have to get out of my 
way to avoid being run over as I try to help fix this 
problem.  I never meant to imply that I intended to ignore a 
high risk situation.

In article <3234E6BB.6E47@pacbell.net>, Mike Vandeman  writes:
> Andrew Taylor wrote:
> > I expect species diversity is actually quite a useful estimator of
> > diversity at at least some other levels.
> 
> I can't see how such a crude measure could be useful. It is like
> trying to measure population by counting houses.
Which is actually a pretty good way to get a decent 1st order estimate
of population.
--John

In article <3234EA51.38C1@pacbell.net>, Mike Vandeman  writes:
> Mountain bikers love to make it seem as though this is a
> discrimination issue.  It isn't: hikers & bikers are subject to
> EXACTLY THE SAME RULES! The issue is not hiking vs. biking, but
> hiking only, vs. hiking PLUS biking. Obviously, the latter has more
> impact, and therefore should not be allowed.
Mike, I think you would be hard put to find that mountain bikers have
more environmental impact than hikers outside of two impacts which are
mostly of concern to humans:
	1.  Increased trail erosion on trails not specifically
	    designed to handle mountain bikes.
	2.  Biker/hiker/equestrian conflicts.
So I think you QED needs a little more D.  Try again.
--John

John M. Sully wrote:
- 
- In article <32319AAB.79A4@pacbell.net>, Mike Vandeman  writes:
- > I guess you read an introductory book and took it as gospel, like
- > most people.  If you would THINK a little, you would see how absurd
- > your statement is: Where do you think new genes come from? God? They
- > are created by mutations, like radiation & chemical "accidents". And
- > a new gene exists, most likely, in a single individual. Therefore,
- > killing an individual can destroy biodiversity.
- 
- Sure, I'll grant you that point at some minimum level.  But random
- mutation is a far less important source of viable genetic diversity
- than the natural variation which occurs within a species -- those
- genes which are already successful. 
"Important" is a value judgment, and a poor one. It is exactly that random
mutation that gave rise to humans & most major evolutionary changes! I did
not say it was likely or common, only that it exists & therefore mountain
biking, by killing individuals, CAN reduce biodiversity. Just because one
cause is less prevalent than another, it doesn't mean we should IGNORE it!
 I seem to recall that some
> research has been done which shows that random mutations which are
> heritable often have negative consequences and quickly die out.  A far
> more important source of genetic variation within a species is
> hybridization with closely allied species.  This is especially true in
> the plant kingdom although recent research has shown that it is much
> more important than previously thought in birds and other vertebrates.
> See "The Beak of the Finch" for details on this work.  In fact, I
> suggest that you read this book so that you have some idea of what
> evolution looks like in the real world. 
Say what? How do you think we got here? By something outside the real world?
 It really is a fascinating
> book.
> 
> > _Ghost Bears_ is a nice book, if a bit florid. A nice INTRODUCTION
> > to biodiversity, but rather incomplete.
> 
> Actually, I thought that the initial portion of it was quite strong,
> but that he spent far too much time discussing political rather than
> scientific issues.  I just brought it up because it had the clearest
> definition of "effective population" and the implications of that
> term which I've seen.
I am not addressing population, but individuals. Easier to understand.
> > It's not silly to the burrowing animals crushed by them, e.g. toads
> > that bury their eggs in creek sand (see _Vanishing Frogs_).
> 
> Creek sand and trails are two different things. 
Not when trails cross creeks!
 A report was
> published last spring which indicated that a large number of native
> frog species had vanished from the park.  The researchers did not
> blame the mere presence of people for the decline.  They indicated
> that several factors are probably involved, the most important of
> which is introduced predator species.  Another factor which has
> been implicated in declining frog populations include increased
> UV due to declines in atmospheric ozone, although the research on
> this appears to be a bit shakey.
I know, but I am not talking about what is most "important". I am just
addressing the effects of mountain bikers.
> Isn't Pleasonton and/or San Ramon right in the middle of the habitat
> for this snake?  And just how are the population(s) doing?  Be
> specific please.
Specifically, terrible. But parks are supposed to be more concerned with
wildlife.
> Is there any real evidence (and a single kill is not real evidence) of
> human presence (the presence of people, not development) being a
> significant factor in the listed status of the species? 
As I said, bikers regularly kill them. That is "significant", since they are
threatened.
 Or is it
> really habitat destruction because of the development in Alameda
> County and environs?
> 
> > I see VERY FEW species whenever I hike, and most of those run away
> > as fast as they can. Almost NO species can coexist with human
> > populations, relative to the total number that were there before we
> > came. And most of those are nocturnal.
> 
> You must not be looking.  I will grant you that few species can
> coexist with urbanized development, habitat fragmentation caused by
> extractive industry or destruction of forage caused by introduced
> species.  But I can walk out my door in heavily urbanized Santa Cruz
> and see opossums and racoons, great blue herons, and several passerine
> species (LGB's or LBB's for the technically inclined :-)). 
All of those are common species. Berkeley has the same, but fewer. What about all
the species that were driven out? Like the grizzly.
 Like it or not, humans are part of the landscape and
> small furry animals have been running from humans on this continent
> since the first indians crossed the Bering Straight 12,000 years ago.
> Deal with it.
I am. By opposing it.
---
I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8 years
fighting auto dependence and road construction.)
http://www.imaja.com/change/environment/mvarticles

In article <5124v5$p9k@corn.cso.niu.edu>, 
system@niuhep.physics.niu.edu wrote:
>charliew@hal-pc.org (charliew) writes:
>>
>>Excuse me, but when I go outside and look around, I very 
>>seldom see serious air pollution.  I almost never hear of 
>>serious water pollution, unless it is caused by some city 
>>government that can't manage to deal with its sewage 
>>treatment plants effectively.
>
>>I have two questions 
>>regarding this issue:
>>
>>1) How much personal freedom are we willing to give up to 
>>satisfy the various bureaucracies?
>
>You do realize that the reason you don't see serious air or 
water
>pollution is precisely because of the 
"corporate/state*/personal freedoms"
>that we gave up in the 60s and 70s.
Indeed I do realize this.  I posed my question to make people 
think of where we should "draw the line".  Zero emissions is 
not possible, and regulations that force manufacturing out of 
this country is not wise.
>
>>2) Why do people continue moving into areas of pollution 
and 
>>high population density, only to complain that pollution 
>>exists there?
>
>Because there are jobs there?
>
There will not be jobs there for long if the U.S. enviro 
bureaucracies continue to insist on ever increasing levels of 
regulation.  I, for one, am willing to tolerate a small 
amount of "pollution" for a lucrative job.  Thus, the same 
question: where do we want to draw the line?
>*state, as in United States, just an aside to our non-U.S. 
readers.
>                     ^^^^^^
>
Pardon me.  I will stay with U.S. or USA in the future.
>Robert
>
>Morphis@physics.niu.edu
>
>Real Men change diapers
I guess you just called me a "real man" - I've changed my 
share of diapers.  It's not so bad if you're fast!

In article <3234E7FB.16AD@pacbell.net>, Mike Vandeman  writes:
> Rick A. Hopkins wrote:  
> > The cheetah/bottle neck hypothesis and the Pleistocene overkill
> > hypothesis are both somewhat controversial and hotly debated.
> 
> Too bad a lot of the opposition to the Pleistocene overkill
> hypothesis is for political, not scientific reasons. Like the
> "harmless mountain biking" hypothesis.
The Pleistocene overkill hypothesis does have a lot of political
opposition.  My guess is this is mainly because Native Americans are
sainted by the environmental movement when in truth they deserve no
such status.  My best understanding of the current argument of those
who support the overkill hypothesis is that it was a contributing
factor but not a primary cause of the mass extinctions.
I also heard an interesting story on NPR a few months ago.  In it a
biologist in New Mexico hypothesised that the sudden disappearence of
the Anasazi was due to collapse of the ecosystem due to
overexploitation of the pinyon pine.  Quite interesting and quite
politically incorrect.
--John

In article <51264u$p9k@corn.cso.niu.edu>, 
system@niuhep.physics.niu.edu wrote:
> charliew@hal-pc.org (charliew) writes:
>
>>Let's get TOTALLY real here.  There is plenty of blame to 
>>spread around.  Yes, private corporations run slick ad 
>>campaigns that tend to distort the facts somewhat.  
>
>You mean like cigarette companies?  And the makers of
>the super absorbant tampon?
>
>>However, 
>>you will not find many politicians who do not do the same 
>>thing, and you will not find many environmental groups 
(e.g., 
>>Green Peace) who have not also used this tactic to push 
their 
>>own agendas.  Implying that private corporations are 
somehow 
>>"evil" by their choice of tactics is a very naive stance.
>
>ok, dishonest.  They are evil in what facts they choose to
>cover up.
>
>>To suggest that corporations are somehow derelict in their 
duty 
>>by not pursuing goals in addition to this, particularly 
goals 
>>that may reduce profitability, 
>
>you mean like obeying laws?  Not killing people?
>
>Is Business Evil?  Naw, but some people who run business are 
..
>well lets say completely without ethics or morals.
I think you would have a difficult time proving this.  In 
addition, if you said this about specific individuals, you 
would open yourself up to a "slander" lawsuit.  Drawing broad 
generalizations about corporations based on sound bites in 
the press is not doing justice to anyone.

Retanoj!
     Nun en Tajvano, jam multaj rubejoj (granda loko por meti
rubajhojn de urboj) plenighas.  Multaj fiuloj portas rubajhojn
al apudaj urboj au gubernioj.  Eble, oni devas konstrui
brulejojn.  Oni devas ankau instigi recikladon.
     Iu en Tajvana novajhgrupo scivolemas pri Japanio.
Ankau Japanio estas malgranda lando kun multe da homoj.
Kiel Japanio traktas rubajhojn?  Ekzemple, chu en
Japanio estas tiaj manghejoj (restoracietoj), en kiuj oni
uzas "forjhetatajn" telerojn (el papero au poli-fenil-eteno)
kaj manghobastonetojn (el bambuo)?
                                        Qiyao
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Zhong* Qiyao (s-ro) (~{VSFtR"~}) 
Zhibang (Yanfa), Yanxin 3 Lu 1 Hao, Xinzhu, Tajvano, TW-300-77
Gregoria 1996-09-05, Nordekvinoksa 1996-06-17, jhau, 08:00 (UTC+0800)
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Path: voyager.iii.org.tw!news
From: Zhong Qiyao 
Newsgroups: soc.culture.esperanto,alt.talk.esperanto
Subject: (verdverd) repreno kaj refabrikado en Germanio
Date: Wed, 28 Aug 1996 11:22:37 -0800
Organization: Zhibang Gongsi (Yanfa Chu), Xinzhu, Taiwan
Lines: 17
Distribution: inet
Message-ID: <32249C7D.37F7@accton.com.tw>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 203.70.236.91
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.0 (Win16; I)
CC: verdverd@tichy.ch.uj.edu.pl
Xref: voyager.iii.org.tw soc.culture.esperanto:6453 alt.talk.esperanto:157
Mi legis de jhurnalo en Tajvano, ke en Germanio, oni tre
zorgas pri naturmediismo, kaj rekolektas, reprenas, kaj refabrikas
materialojn.  Oni havas en la kuirejo kelkajn rubujojn.  Por
valoraj materaloj, oni reprenas, kaj ne jhetas kiel rubajho.
     Chu iu povas diri?  Bv., respondu kaj al "esperanto-l@netcom.com"
kaj "verdverd@tichy.ch.uj.edu.pl".
					Qiyao
(Se la unua linio ne komencas per kvin spacetoj, estas "vermo" de
la molvaro "Retpejzagho 2.0".)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Zhong* Qiyao (s-ro) (~{VSFtR"~}) 
Zhibang (Yanfa), Yanxin 3 Lu 1 Hao, Xinzhu, Tajvano, TW-300-77
Gregoria 1996-08-27, Nordekvinoksa 1996-06-09, mer, 08:00 (UTC+0800)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Path: 
voyager.iii.org.tw!spring.edu.tw!serv.hinet.net!news.wildstar.net!news.ececs.uc.edu!news.kei.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!usenet.eel.ufl.edu!warwick!lyra.csx.cam.ac.uk!cl.cam.ac.uk!etg10
From: etg10@cl.cam.ac.uk (Edmund Grimley-Evans)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.esperanto,alt.talk.esperanto
Subject: Re: (verdverd) repreno kaj refabrikado en Germanio
Date: 28 Aug 1996 15:15:11 GMT
Organization: U of Cambridge Computer Lab, UK
Lines: 29
Distribution: inet
Message-ID: <501npv$14p@lyra.csx.cam.ac.uk>
References: <32249C7D.37F7@accton.com.tw>
NNTP-Posting-Host: nene.cl.cam.ac.uk
X-newsreader: xrn 7.04-beta-11
Xref: voyager.iii.org.tw soc.culture.esperanto:6477 alt.talk.esperanto:158
|> Mi legis de jhurnalo en Tajvano, ke en Germanio, oni tre
|> zorgas pri naturmediismo, kaj rekolektas, reprenas, kaj refabrikas
|> materialojn.  Oni havas en la kuirejo kelkajn rubujojn.  Por
|> valoraj materaloj, oni reprenas, kaj ne jhetas kiel rubajho.
...
|> (Se la unua linio ne komencas per kvin spacetoj, estas "vermo" de
|> la molvaro "Retpejzagho 2.0".)
Efektive la kvin spacetoj malaperis. Eble la venontan fojon vi
substituu la kvin signojn  V E R M O, kiuj eble estos malpli
malaperemaj. Konantoj de via aparta stilo de rettipografio certe
ne surprizi^gos pro la stranga "VERMO" ...
Eble mi respondu anka^u pri la temo:
Jes, la germanoj estas multe pli reciklemaj ol ekzemple la britoj.
Mi mem kolektas aparte ^ciujn papera^jojn, metala^jojn kaj vitra^jojn
por porti ilin al kolektujoj, sed mi sentas min preska^u sola en mia
agado. Aliaj homoj ofte prezentas la plej stultajn argumentojn por
ne fari tion, ekzemple ke estas tro da laboro porti la malplenajn
skatolojn al la kolektujo. Tamen ili kapablas porti la plenajn
skatolojn de la vendejo, kaj ofte estas kolektujo apud la vendejo,
do e^c ne temas pri aparta ekskurso.
Edmundo
---------------------------------------------------
aqtunk! aqtunk! - tiu mesaxgo enhavas retorikajxojn
			    -- frankeli arna^uda^ha
Path: 
voyager.iii.org.tw!nctuccca.edu.tw!news.edu.tw!news.sprintlink.net!news-stk-3.sprintlink.net!news.fibr.net!nntp04.primenet.com!nntp.primenet.com!newspump.sol.net!spool.mu.edu!newshub.tc.umn.edu!fu-berlin.de!zrz.TU-Berlin.DE!suncom.rz.hu-berlin.de!news
From: sebastiano hartviga 
Newsgroups: soc.culture.esperanto,alt.talk.esperanto
Subject: Re: (verdverd) repreno kaj refabrikado en Germanio
Date: Fri, 30 Aug 96 02:47:28 PDT
Organization: Humboldt Universitaet zu Berlin
Lines: 34
Distribution: inet
Message-ID: 
References: <32249C7D.37F7@accton.com.tw>  <501npv$14p@lyra.csx.cam.ac.uk>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ppp42.rz.hu-berlin.de
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
X-Newsreader: NEWTNews & Chameleon -- TCP/IP for MS Windows from NetManage
Xref: voyager.iii.org.tw soc.culture.esperanto:6492 alt.talk.esperanto:159
edmundo tajpis interalie:
> |> Mi legis de jhurnalo en Tajvano, ke en Germanio, oni tre
> |> zorgas pri naturmediismo, kaj rekolektas, reprenas, kaj refabrikas
> |> materialojn.  Oni havas en la kuirejo kelkajn rubujojn.  Por
> |> valoraj materaloj, oni reprenas, kaj ne jhetas kiel rubajho.
> Jes, la germanoj estas multe pli reciklemaj ol ekzemple la britoj.
> Mi mem kolektas aparte ^ciujn papera^jojn, metala^jojn kaj vitra^jojn
> por porti ilin al kolektujoj, sed mi sentas min preska^u sola en mia
> agado. Aliaj homoj ofte prezentas la plej stultajn argumentojn por
> ne fari tion, ekzemple ke estas tro da laboro porti la malplenajn
> skatolojn al la kolektujo. Tamen ili kapablas porti la plenajn
> skatolojn de la vendejo, kaj ofte estas kolektujo apud la vendejo,
> do e^c ne temas pri aparta ekskurso.
en germanio la registaro enkondukis tiel nomatan "duales system", duvojan 
sistemon. per la realigo estas sharghita nova tiucele fondita firmao: "duales 
system deutschland". (la firmao preskau bankrotis.)
la duvoja sistemo funkcias tiamaniere: la pakajhojn de varoj, sur kiuj estas 
presita la enblemo de la "duales system deutschland" vi rajtas jheti en tiun 
rubujon, la pakajhojn, kiuj ne surhavas, vi jhetu en tiun chi rubujon. la 
rajton, ke la unuopaj produktistoj povas meti la enblemon sur sian pakajhon, 
la "d(uales) s(ystem) d(eutschland)" donas kontrau pago. poste la "d.s.d." 
pagas al rubfirmaoj, ke ili dismetu la diversajn specojn de rubo kaj eble 
reuzu, kion eblas reuzi.
la registaro fiksis kvantojn por diversaj rubspecoj, kiu difinas, kiom da rubo 
devas reuzighi. kutime la "d.s.d." ne sukcesas plenumi tiujn.
sebastiano
m.b.p.b.
Path: 
voyager.iii.org.tw!spring.edu.tw!serv.hinet.net!news.wildstar.net!cancer.vividnet.com!hunter.premier.net!news-res.gsl.net!news.gsl.net!uwm.edu!math.ohio-state.edu!howland.erols.net!panix!news.panix.com!not-for-mail
From: rcpj@panix.com (Pierre Jelenc)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.esperanto,alt.talk.esperanto
Subject: Re: (verdverd) repreno kaj refabrikado en Germanio
Date: 29 Aug 1996 22:54:24 -0400
Organization: PANIX Public Access Internet and Unix, NYC
Lines: 42
Distribution: inet
Message-ID: <505l50$nv5@panix2.panix.com>
References: <32249C7D.37F7@accton.com.tw> <501npv$14p@lyra.csx.cam.ac.uk> 

NNTP-Posting-Host: panix2.panix.com
Xref: voyager.iii.org.tw soc.culture.esperanto:6498 alt.talk.esperanto:161
sebastiano hartviga   writes:
> 
> edmundo tajpis interalie:
> 
> > |> Mi legis de jhurnalo en Tajvano, ke en Germanio, oni tre
> > |> zorgas pri naturmediismo, kaj rekolektas, reprenas, kaj refabrikas
> > |> materialojn.  Oni havas en la kuirejo kelkajn rubujojn.  Por
> > |> valoraj materaloj, oni reprenas, kaj ne jhetas kiel rubajho.
> 
> > Jes, la germanoj estas multe pli reciklemaj ol ekzemple la britoj.
> > Mi mem kolektas aparte ^ciujn papera^jojn, metala^jojn kaj vitra^jojn
> > por porti ilin al kolektujoj, sed mi sentas min preska^u sola en mia
> > agado. Aliaj homoj ofte prezentas la plej stultajn argumentojn por
> > ne fari tion, ekzemple ke estas tro da laboro porti la malplenajn
> > skatolojn al la kolektujo. Tamen ili kapablas porti la plenajn
> > skatolojn de la vendejo, kaj ofte estas kolektujo apud la vendejo,
> > do e^c ne temas pri aparta ekskurso.
> 
> en germanio la registaro enkondukis tiel nomatan "duales system", duvojan 
> sistemon. per la realigo estas sharghita nova tiucele fondita firmao: "duales 
> system deutschland". (la firmao preskau bankrotis.)
> la duvoja sistemo funkcias tiamaniere: la pakajhojn de varoj, sur kiuj estas 
> presita la enblemo de la "duales system deutschland" vi rajtas jheti en tiun 
> rubujon, la pakajhojn, kiuj ne surhavas, vi jhetu en tiun chi rubujon. la 
> rajton, ke la unuopaj produktistoj povas meti la enblemon sur sian pakajhon, 
> la "d(uales) s(ystem) d(eutschland)" donas kontrau pago. poste la "d.s.d." 
> pagas al rubfirmaoj, ke ili dismetu la diversajn specojn de rubo kaj eble 
> reuzu, kion eblas reuzi.
> 
> la registaro fiksis kvantojn por diversaj rubspecoj, kiu difinas, kiom da rubo 
> devas reuzighi. kutime la "d.s.d." ne sukcesas plenumi tiujn.
Kia komplika afero! ^Ci tie en Nov-Jorko oni for^jetas aparte vitra^jojn,
plasta^jojn, papera^jojn, kaj ^generalajn ruba^jojn, kaj la urbaj (por
privatuloj) kaj privataj (por komercistoj) rubkompanioj traktas ilin.
Pierre
-- 
Pierre Jelenc              Know what's weird? Day by day nothing seems to
rcpj@panix.com             change, but pretty soon everything is different.
pierre@nycbeer.org                                         Calvin & Hobbes 
		   http://www.columbia.edu/~pcj1/
Path: 
voyager.iii.org.tw!spring.edu.tw!serv.hinet.net!news.wildstar.net!news.ececs.uc.edu!news.kei.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!panix!news.panix.com!not-for-mail
From: rcpj@panix.com (Pierre Jelenc)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.esperanto,alt.talk.esperanto
Subject: Re: (verdverd) repreno kaj refabrikado en Germanio
Date: 30 Aug 1996 10:11:30 -0400
Organization: PANIX Public Access Internet and Unix, NYC
Lines: 21
Distribution: inet
Message-ID: <506sqi$7fo@panix2.panix.com>
References: <32249C7D.37F7@accton.com.tw> 
 <505l50$nv5@panix2.panix.com> 
<506gad$hc8@lyra.csx.cam.ac.uk>
NNTP-Posting-Host: panix2.panix.com
Xref: voyager.iii.org.tw soc.culture.esperanto:6514 alt.talk.esperanto:162
Edmund Grimley-Evans  writes:
> 
> Sed kia proporcio de la reciklebla^joj recikli^gas? Eble la
> novjorkanoj estas ege malegoismaj kaj mediemaj, tamen, se necesas
> instigi al malpli kunlaborema popolo apartigi sian rubon, simpla
> metodo estas pagigi la homojn pro la neapartigita rubo.
Teorie estas monpunoj kontra^u tiuj, kiuj ne apartigas la recikla^jojn.
Praktike oni uzas ilin nur ^ce apartamentdomegoj kontra^u la posedanto a^u
de^jorantto, kies respondeco estas certigi, ke la lo^gantoj obeas. En mia
lo^gejo, ni havas apartajn ujojn por papero, rubo, kaj miksitaj vitro,
metalo, kaj plasto; la de^jorantoj apartigas tiujn en specialajn sakojn
poste (sed temas pri granda domo kun pli ol 200 apartamentoj kaj pluraj
plentempaj de^jorantoj).
Pierre
-- 
Pierre Jelenc              Know what's weird? Day by day nothing seems to
rcpj@panix.com             change, but pretty soon everything is different.
pierre@nycbeer.org                                         Calvin & Hobbes 
		   http://www.columbia.edu/~pcj1/
Path: 
voyager.iii.org.tw!spring.edu.tw!serv.hinet.net!news.wildstar.net!news.ececs.uc.edu!news.kei.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in3.uu.net!nntp.inet.fi!news.funet.fi!news.helsinki.fi!news
From: Jouko Lindstedt 
Newsgroups: soc.culture.esperanto,alt.talk.esperanto
Subject: Re: (verdverd) repreno kaj refabrikado en Germanio
Date: 29 Aug 1996 13:42:50 GMT
Organization: Universitato de Helsinko, Departemento pri Slavistiko kaj Baltologio
Lines: 21
Distribution: inet
Message-ID: <5046oq$c7s@oravannahka.Helsinki.FI>
References: <32249C7D.37F7@accton.com.tw>
NNTP-Posting-Host: kyrillos.pc.helsinki.fi
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Mozilla 1.22 (Windows; I; 16bit)
To: zhong@accton.com.tw
Xref: voyager.iii.org.tw soc.culture.esperanto:6515 alt.talk.esperanto:163
Zhong Qiyao  demandis:
>Mi legis de jhurnalo en Tajvano, ke en Germanio, oni tre
>zorgas pri naturmediismo, kaj rekolektas, reprenas, kaj refabrikas
>materialojn.  Oni havas en la kuirejo kelkajn rubujojn.  Por
>valoraj materaloj, oni reprenas, kaj ne jhetas kiel rubajho.
>
>     Chu iu povas diri?  Bv., respondu kaj al "esperanto-l@netcom.com"
>kaj "verdverd@tichy.ch.uj.edu.pl".
En la urboj de Finnlando, oni en hejmoj kutime apartigas almenaux la 
ordinaran rubon, la paperan rubon kaj la "biologian" (organikan, 
malkomponeblan, putreman) rubon. En pluraj lokoj ankaux la vitrajxojn kaj 
la kartonajn skatolojn, tial ke iuj hejmoj (kiel la nia) efektive uzas 
kvin diversajn rubujojn.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Jouko Lindstedt
http://www.helsinki.fi/~jslindst/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Path: 
voyager.iii.org.tw!spring.edu.tw!serv.hinet.net!news.wildstar.net!cancer.vividnet.com!hunter.premier.net!news-res.gsl.net!news.gsl.net!portc01.blue.aol.com!newsxfer2.itd.umich.edu!tank.news.pipex.net!pipex!usenet2.news.uk.psi.net!uknet!usenet1.news.uk.psi.net!uknet!uknet!lyra.csx.cam.ac.uk!cl.cam.ac.uk!etg10
From: etg10@cl.cam.ac.uk (Edmund Grimley-Evans)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.esperanto,alt.talk.esperanto
Subject: Re: (verdverd) repreno kaj refabrikado en Germanio
Date: 30 Aug 1996 10:38:05 GMT
Organization: U of Cambridge Computer Lab, UK
Lines: 29
Distribution: inet
Message-ID: <506gad$hc8@lyra.csx.cam.ac.uk>
References: <32249C7D.37F7@accton.com.tw> <501npv$14p@lyra.csx.cam.ac.uk> 
 <505l50$nv5@panix2.panix.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: nene.cl.cam.ac.uk
X-newsreader: xrn 7.04-beta-11
Xref: voyager.iii.org.tw soc.culture.esperanto:6517 alt.talk.esperanto:164
|> > en germanio la registaro enkondukis tiel nomatan "duales system",
...
|> > la registaro fiksis kvantojn por diversaj rubspecoj, kiu difinas, kiom da rubo 
|> > devas reuzighi. kutime la "d.s.d." ne sukcesas plenumi tiujn.
|> 
|> Kia komplika afero!
Nu, germanoj ... ^Goju, ke oni ne pagas al "Beamte" individue
stampi ^ciun for^jeta^jon ...
|>  ^Ci tie en Nov-Jorko oni for^jetas aparte vitra^jojn,
|> plasta^jojn, papera^jojn, kaj ^generalajn ruba^jojn, kaj la urbaj (por
|> privatuloj) kaj privataj (por komercistoj) rubkompanioj traktas ilin.
Sed kia proporcio de la reciklebla^joj recikli^gas? Eble la
novjorkanoj estas ege malegoismaj kaj mediemaj, tamen, se necesas
instigi al malpli kunlaborema popolo apartigi sian rubon, simpla
metodo estas pagigi la homojn pro la neapartigita rubo. Mi
a^udis, ke tio okazas en Japanio. (La raporto temis pri tio, ke
oni devis etikedi siajn rubosakojn per siaj nomo kaj adreso, por
la fakturado, kaj tio ^sajnis iom dama^gi la privatecon. Nu
eble per presita etiketo kun strekokodo, tamen principe oni
povas eltrovi, kiu for^jetis kion.)
Edmundo
----------------------------------------------------------------------
iu napokapo estas akcidente misnominta la diskutejon "esperanto", chu?
						       -- PEJNO Simono
Path: 
voyager.iii.org.tw!spring.edu.tw!serv.hinet.net!news.wildstar.net!cancer.vividnet.com!hunter.premier.net!news.uoregon.edu!newsfeed.orst.edu!newshub.tc.umn.edu!fu-berlin.de!zrz.TU-Berlin.DE!suncom.rz.hu-berlin.de!news
From: sebastiano hartviga 
Newsgroups: soc.culture.esperanto,alt.talk.esperanto
Subject: Re: (verdverd) repreno kaj refabrikado en Germanio
Date: Sat, 31 Aug 96 21:51:00 PDT
Organization: Humboldt Universitaet zu Berlin
Lines: 12
Distribution: inet
Message-ID: 
References: <32249C7D.37F7@accton.com.tw> 
 <505l50$nv5@panix2.panix.com> 
<506gad$hc8@lyra.csx.cam.ac.uk>  <506sqi$7fo@panix2.panix.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ppp61.rz.hu-berlin.de
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
X-Newsreader: NEWTNews & Chameleon -- TCP/IP for MS Windows from NetManage
Xref: voyager.iii.org.tw soc.culture.esperanto:6552 alt.talk.esperanto:166
pierre jelenc tajpis interalie:
> Teorie estas monpunoj kontra^u tiuj, kiuj ne apartigas la recikla^jojn.
> Praktike oni uzas ilin nur ^ce apartamentdomegoj kontra^u la posedanto a^u
> de^jorantto, kies respondeco estas certigi, ke la lo^gantoj obeas.
kiel oni p(r)ovas obeigi la loghantojn?
sebastiano
m.b.p.b.
Path: 
voyager.iii.org.tw!spring.edu.tw!serv.hinet.net!news.wildstar.net!news.sdsmt.edu!news.mid.net!mr.net!news-out.microserve.net!news-in.microserve.net!news.sgi.com!sdd.hp.com!usc!howland.erols.net!newsfeed.internetmci.com!panix!news.panix.com!not-for-mail
From: rcpj@panix.com (Pierre Jelenc)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.esperanto,alt.talk.esperanto
Subject: Re: (verdverd) repreno kaj refabrikado en Germanio
Date: 31 Aug 1996 23:18:09 -0400
Organization: PANIX Public Access Internet and Unix, NYC
Lines: 20
Distribution: inet
Message-ID: <50av9h$r3b@panix2.panix.com>
References: <32249C7D.37F7@accton.com.tw> <506gad$hc8@lyra.csx.cam.ac.uk> 
<506sqi$7fo@panix2.panix.com> 
NNTP-Posting-Host: panix2.panix.com
Xref: voyager.iii.org.tw soc.culture.esperanto:6571 alt.talk.esperanto:167
sebastiano hartviga   writes:
> 
> pierre jelenc tajpis interalie:
> 
> > Teorie estas monpunoj kontra^u tiuj, kiuj ne apartigas la recikla^jojn.
> > Praktike oni uzas ilin nur ^ce apartamentdomegoj kontra^u la posedanto a^u
> > de^jorantto, kies respondeco estas certigi, ke la lo^gantoj obeas.
> 
> kiel oni p(r)ovas obeigi la loghantojn?
^Ce ni, per afi^soj kaj glukartoj por la kuirejomuro. ^Sajne tio funkcias
sufi^ce bone. Ver^sajne se la lo^gantoj ne volas obei, oni povas procesi
kontra^u ili, e^c elpeli ilin. Estas ja le^ga devigo.
Pierre
-- 
Pierre Jelenc              Know what's weird? Day by day nothing seems to
rcpj@panix.com             change, but pretty soon everything is different.
pierre@nycbeer.org                                         Calvin & Hobbes 
		   http://www.columbia.edu/~pcj1/

In article <3234E080.62C1@west.darkside.com>,
   TL ADAMS  wrote:
>system@niuhep.physics.niu.edu sagely related:
>
>> 
>> >To suggest that corporations are somehow derelict in 
their duty
>> >by not pursuing goals in addition to this, particularly 
goals
>> >that may reduce profitability,
>> 
>> you mean like obeying laws?  Not killing people?
>> 
>> Is Business Evil?  Naw, but some people who run business 
are ...
>> well lets say completely without ethics or morals.
>
>But I content that there is a more subtle evil abounding.  
Most
>individuals who work for corporate america seem to believe 
that morals
>and ethics have no place in the scheme of things.  That the 
maxing of 
>profit is justification for any kind of action, or inaction. 
Let's not get into character assasination here.  There are 
MANY invididuals in corporations who are moral and ethical, 
and who want to do the right thing.  However, there are also 
time, money, political, etc., constraints preventing them 
from doing what they think is "right".  This doesn't make 
them guilty of anything.  Drawing the conclusion that 
everyone who works for a corporation somehow has the same set 
of values and morals as that corporation is ludicrous.  There 
have been several times when I have been very upset over the 
way that some things have gone.  However, it was not within 
my power to change those things.  So what should I have done 
about it?  Quit?  Phone in a story to the press?  Sue?  The 
sad conclusion that I have come to is that these corporations 
would just hire someone in my place who wasn't so 
"sensitive".  Thus, for problems this "diffuse", there is 
often nothing that can be done about them.
 It scares
>me.  The Republican rhetoric is very scary with its greed 
good/ moral
>responsibillity bad.  One of the reason that I'v not voted 
for a 
>Republican since Goldwater.  (Joking, it was Nixon).
I doubt that you can draw such sweeping generalizations here, 
either.  Granted, Reagan seemed to think that greed was the 
greatest thing since sliced bread.  However, I doubt that all 
Republicans think this way.
>
>I would try to teach that one can not make a virture out of 
a sin
>(greed).  Conversely, unmanaged compassion (welfare) without 
objective
>is also evil.
>
It's a shame, but appeals to compassion tend to alienate me. 
Many problems require tough decisions to solve, and 
compassion often tends to make these problems worse.  Anyone 
who has raised children knows about the conflict between 
compassion and doing the "correct parental thing".
>Of course, being a ignorant heathern savage, I do not use 
the word evil
>in the same manner that you would take it for.  I tend to 
use the work
>when I mean out-of-balance, corrupted(?), not a peace.
>> 
>> Morphis@physics.niu.edu
>> 
>> Real Men change diapers
>
>But perverts wear them.
>
>Really mannly men change the diapers of other men's 
children.
Hey, I think you are getting "carried away" here.  I have a 
difficult enough time changing my own children's diapers!

In article <3233AD4A.6A4C@stockholm.mail.telia.com>,
   Lars Carlzon  
wrote:
>Take rec.arts.books out of your headers, please!
>
>Lars
Question: Why would you think that a usenet posting could 
change someone's religious views?

In article <512uro$d66@nntp1.best.com>, george@apan.org.zap-for-actual-email-address writes:
> I asked a question, phrased starkly and in the extreme to illustrate
> the point clearly.  Essentially it was why should all vehicles be held
> to the same emissions requirements as those in the worst air pollution
> locales, whose problems are due to local topography and
> overpopulation.
And the answer to your question was: they aren't.  For example, in LA
cars will have to submit to the dynomometer test -- LA doesn't meet
the air quality standards.  In San Francisco we'll still be in the
"probe up the tailpipe" mode because we *do* meet the air quality
standards.  So the *state (as in state you live in) set* standards and
test methods are what govern this and each state is free to handle the
problem in their own way as long as they meet the clean air standards.
Hell in California programs are set on an AQMD by AQMD basis.  I
suppose you could get a bit more local than that, but not a whole heck
of a lot for a problem which is capable of spanning vast political
boundries.
So, I have to say, the answer to you question is moot because it
didn't really apply to the real situation.  Get your head out of a
speaker blasting KSFO and learn the reality of the situation.
> And I also am convinced that recent CARB & EPA actions are not just
> "ham handed", but were also done in relative secret, with a great
> probability of pure & simple venality on the part of revolving door
> bureaucrats and sweetheart contractors.  It is frankly dismaying to
> find that people support such in the name of environmentalism.
Look, this stuff was hardly done "in relative secret".  The
negotiations which lead to the compromise were splattered all over the
papers in early 1995.  If you had paid attention you would have known
what was coming and you could have complained about it then.
I'll address the issue of sweetheart contractors in another post.
--John

Mike Vandeman wrote:
> 
> Tien D. Do wrote:
> > and now you said you are fighting "auto dependence". As I said stop taking
> > those polluting buses and start riding bicycle, it is an environmental
> > friendly means of transportation. Don't be a part of the problem that you're
> > trying to solve.
> 
> Bikes have a couple of disadvantages: I can't read & bicycle at the same
> time, as I can ride the bus & read; and 20 miles is a bit far to bike
> to work. Otherwise, I do bike quite a bit.
True.  I spent a summer biking 12 miles to and from work each day 
a few years ago, and it does take alot out of you.  However, short 
rides of 4 or 5 miles to and from work which I do now barely leave
me with a sweat, and the time to make the trip is about half what
taking the street car and subway would, factoring in time waiting for
transfers.  
						M

Mike Vandeman wrote:
> 
> Dale wrote:
> > mtb and hiking access
> > need to be considered on roughly the same level as each other, and if it
> > is appropriate to ban one group then an equitible policy would also place
> > similar restrictions on the other group.
> 
> Mountain bikers love to make it seem as though this is a discrimination issue.
> It isn't: hikers & bikers are subject to EXACTLY THE SAME RULES! The issue is
> not hiking vs. biking, but hiking only, vs. hiking PLUS biking. Obviously, the
> latter has more impact, and therefore should not be allowed.
This statement raises so many issues it is hard to know where to start.  :-)
For a start you appear to be drawing some arbitary line in the sand - you seem to 
be saying "it's ok to allow some adverse impact but as soon as it goes over the 
arbitary threshold then we find some simplistic solution".  What would you 
suggest that we do if the hiking reached a level which took the impact over your 
threshold?  A simplistic solution fitting your model would be to take an action 
such as banning all male hikers (after all, they are heavier than female hikers, 
and thus have more of an impact).
If all these methods of accessing the places in question are legitimate then any 
of these simplistic solutions are discriminatory despite what you say.  There are 
much more appropriate (non-discriminatory) means for restricting access when 
levels of access are having significant adverse impacts - one method used in 
Australia is a voucher system.  If hiking and biking have similar impacts, why 
shouldn't the person with the voucher be able to choose which form of transport 
is appropriate in the circumstances?
I would also suggest that many of the remote areas under question have had hiking 
AND biking access for most of this century until the biking was banned - it is 
just that the numbers of bikes tended to be fairly small.  People have been 
accessing wilderness areas on bikes for much longer than mountain bikes have been 
around (just ask Jobst!).
So the real issue is that the numbers of people have gone up (irrespective of 
their mode of transport) and that is what is having more impact - not the fact 
that bikers have suddenly turned up in these places.  A solution which 
simplistically just bans the bikes is disciminatory as noted above (unless it can 
be shown that in the particular circumstances the bikes will have significantly 
more impact than the hikers).  This will be even more so if we still allow other 
forms of transport (such as horses) which clearly have a substantially greater 
impact than bikes.
This now gets back to a question of what level of access should be allowed - this 
would have to be dependent on the place in question (rather than an arbitary 
statement which says that if it has more impact it should not be allowed).  This 
question will also need to be answered in a cultural and social context.  For 
example, there will be some countries that will have to choose between having 
unspoilt wilderness areas or feeding the population.
Increasingly, people in affluent western countries are placing some value on 
having relatively unspoilt wilderness areas but economic factors such as logging 
industries are reducing these at an alarming rate - clearfelling a patch of 
wilderness has much more impact than allowing biking access  :-( yet we seem to 
be trapped into debating trivial issues such as biking access and not logging 
practices.
But this is also creating catch 22 type of situations - the more people value 
having wilderness areas, the more likely they are to be set aside, but it also 
means that more people want to access these areas which compromises their 
wilderness values.  Does anyone else see ecotourism as an oxymoron?
Dale

Robert Horvatich (rhorvati@ae0119.pd8.ford.com) wrote:
: Mike Vandeman wrote:
: But you support your employer that chose to do so.
: By living close to your employer the benefits of reduced time and
: consumption of natural resources for transnportation are cumulative over
: the years you are employed there.  You are an ideal example of do
: gooders that only see what they want to see failing to recognize the big
: picture and finding the right combinations of ideals and compromises.
: email:                           |"You can't take life too seriously,
: rhorvati@ae0119.pd8.ford.com     | you don't get out alive." Buggs Bunny
                     ^^^^^
    Hey Bob? Why are you supporting _YOUR_ employer? 
--
Postmodernism is the refusal to think--Ron Carrier            petro@suba.com 
Deconstruction is the refusal to believe that anyone else can either.
Revolution and War are not murder unless you lose. This is a basic tenet 
of civilization.--Jim Choate on the cpunks list.

tobis@skool.ssec.wisc.edu (Michael Tobis) wrote:
>Steinn Sigurdsson (steinn@sandy.ast.cam.ac.uk) wrote:
>: Leonard Evens  writes:
>
>
>: > I've already resonded on this particular point.   The fact that inclding
>: > aerosols in models gives much closer agreement with observations
>: > suggests that the IPCC's estimates of temperature sensitivity to CO_2
>: > doubling have been accurate.  See my previous posting for a more
>
>: To be precise, without the aerosols included, the correlation
>: between climate models and the historical record was _zero_.
>
>Can you back this up? It doesn't correspond to my impression - 
>observed warming is largest in high latitude continental interiors,
>especially those closer to the Pacific than to the Atlantic. This
>would seem to offer some nonzero correlation with prediction. 
>
>What's being correlated - global mean temperature or its distribution
>or what? The correlation would seem to be positive in either case, even
>without aerosol included. This is not to claim high statistical significance 
>for the correlation, but as some people seem unable to grasp, the lack of
>statistical significance of evidence supporting a hypothesis is very different 
>from statistical significance against it.
>
>mt
>
This brings up an issue that I have been struggling with in my attempts to
understand the debate on climate change.  I can not fully grasp the
meaningfulness of "average" global temperature.  Where I live, the temperature
has a diurnal variability of roughly 25degC and a seasonal variability of
about 50degC.  The local flora and fauna are well adapted to these extremes.
My simplistic question is: What difference would a 2.5degC change make?
Especially when averaged over a time period of a century?  This equates to 100
generations for annual flora, and several (perhaps tens) of generations of
fauna.  Granted these are fast on an evolutionary scale, but we are not
talking about evolution, but rather adaptation.  In my mind, the distinction
is important, because life forms on earth are enormously adaptable to
short-term changes in habitat.  
It just seems to me that the changes that are being predicted are uncertain
and probably insignificant in the Grand Scheme of Things.
Please feel free to set me straight if there is some data that I am not aware
of.
Regards,
dewey@televar.com

TL ADAMS  wrote:
[snip]
>Oh, we're not talking the low sulfur diesel fuel standard, are we?
>That would be a nationwide standard that does apply everywhere.  I agree
>that ones a pain, but Acid rain is a nationwide problem.  Beside, when
>did us farmers ever get a fair deal from government or the speculators.
>My grandfathers rode in the black patch burley wars against US Tobbacco,
>Inc at the start of this Century, things aint gotten much better.
>
>Send more details
Ahh, but acid rain is of little concern to folks on the west coast.  You see,
most of their emmissions blow to the east, where it rains out on other poor
souls.  It is _not_ a "nationwide problem."  A problem, yes, but definitely
not nationwide.
dewey@televar.com

In article 96Sep7134311@Steam.stanford.edu, jmc@Steam.stanford.edu (John McCarthy) writes:
>In article <50shpf$ntd@netnews.upenn.edu> baron@cattell.psych.upenn.edu (Jonathan Baron) writes:
>   > Another interpretation is that the carbon expenditures involved
>   > in CONSTRUCTING nuclear power plants are sufficiently great as to
>   > make the environmental benefits of nuclear power negligible...
>This particular bit of wishful thinking was not included in the
>argument for the anti-nuclear inclusion.  However, elementary
>accounting shows that it is wrong.  The construction cost of a nuclear
>power plant includes the price of all the energy that went into it.
Given that the last-completed Sizewell plant here in the UK cost more than
2 billion GBP and the entire industry was flogged off for ?1.4 billion?, ie at the very
most the last plant had a value of negative 600 million, your hand-waving arguments
rather suggest that JB's arguments have some force...
---
William M Connolley | wmc@bas.ac.uk | http://www.nbs.ac.uk/public/icd/wmc/
Climate Modeller, British Antarctic Survey | Disclaimer: I speak for myself 

In article rp4@sloth.swcp.com, snark@swcp.com (snark@swcp.com) writes:
>In article <510nat$4s4@mserv1.dl.ac.uk>,
>Pete Owens  wrote:
>
>
>>All that is being said is that the effect of global warming so
>>far is only just on the limits of observability over
>>the natural variability. That is very different from 
>>saying it isn't occuring.
>
>Agreed.  It is also very different than saying that all of the 
>scientists are certain that anthropogenic warming is occuring, which is 
>what you were contending.
Which is what all the scientists are saying.
Any who dispute it would need to start rewriting basic physics. 
---
Pete Owens
P.Owens@dl.ac.uk 

Bryan Hannegan  writes:
> there was once interest in iron fertilization of the open oceans in an 
> attempt to enhance oceanic removal of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. 
Ocean fertilization experiments are continuing, the 1995
series produced some interesting results. In addition to
"pure science" carbon cycle experiments there is increasing
experimentation with fertilization to increase fishing yield.
Since the latter are likely to proceed regardless, the former
can also be considered applicable to them.

wmc@unixa.nerc-keyworth.ac.uk (William Connolley) writes:
> In article 96Sep7134311@Steam.stanford.edu, jmc@Steam.stanford.edu (John McCarthy) writes:
> >In article <50shpf$ntd@netnews.upenn.edu> baron@cattell.psych.upenn.edu (Jonathan Baron) writes:
> 
> >   > Another interpretation is that the carbon expenditures involved
> >   > in CONSTRUCTING nuclear power plants are sufficiently great as to
> >   > make the environmental benefits of nuclear power negligible...
> 
> >This particular bit of wishful thinking was not included in the
> >argument for the anti-nuclear inclusion.  However, elementary
> >accounting shows that it is wrong.  The construction cost of a nuclear
> >power plant includes the price of all the energy that went into it.
> 
> Given that the last-completed Sizewell plant here in the UK cost more than
> 2 billion GBP and the entire industry was flogged off for ?1.4 billion?, ie at the very
> most the last plant had a value of negative 600 million, your hand-waving arguments
> rather suggest that JB's arguments have some force...
Come on. The nuclear electric sell off included a debt burden,
and far more significantly an unknown future liability
burden - I understand the UK never set up waste disposal
fund cause it was all going to come out of general revenue.
That's why they couldn't sell the magnox reactors.
You might also note railtrack was sold off for less than
the cost of laying a single new track (the new King's Cross 
connection) - doesn't mean the rail construction costs didn't
reflect the energy cost of building them, it reflects debt,
future burden, and just how buddy-buddy the tories are with
some people.

In article 009@pm1-66.hal-pc.org, charliew@hal-pc.org (charliew) writes:
>In article <510nat$4s4@mserv1.dl.ac.uk>,
>   pho@mserv1.dl.ac.uk (Pete Owens) wrote:
>>In article 7ib@sloth.swcp.com, snark@swcp.com 
>(snark@swcp.com) writes:
>>>In article <50nn5i$aqk@spool.cs.wisc.edu>,
>>>Michael Tobis  wrote:
>>>>snark@swcp.com (snark@swcp.com) wrote:
>>>>: In article <50mbkf$p92@mserv1.dl.ac.uk>,
>>>>: Pete Owens  wrote:
>>>
>>>>: If you wish to misread the Report, you are free to do 
>so.  Please show 
>>>>: me quotes from the Report that say that all of the 
>scientists are 
>>>>: certain that anthropogenic warming is occuring.  I.e., 
>back up your 
>>>>: claim: 
>>>
>>>>:           >They are certain the effect is occurring. 
>>>
>>>>I quote the lead paragraphs of the original (1990) IPCC 
>report:
>>>
>>>>==========================================================
>=========
>>>>"We are certain of the following:
>>>
>>>>	*  there is a natural greenhouse effect which already
>>>>	keeps the world warmer than it would otherwise be
>>>
>>>>	*  emissions resulting from human activities are
>>>>	substantially increasing the atmospheric 
>concentrations
>>>>	of the greenhouse gases ... These increases will
>>>>	enhance the greenhouse effect, resulting on average
>>>>	in additional warming of the Earth's surface." 
>>>>==========================================================
>=========
>>>
>>>>Period. No caveats or qualifiers.
>>>
>>>>Is that clear enough, O Snark?
>>>
>>>Indeed, but it does not make your point.  It is clear that 
>the 
>>>scientists are certain anthropogenic warming will occur.  
>It 
>>>does not say that all of the scientists are certain that 
>anthropogenic 
>>>warming is occuring now, which is what was claimed.
>>
>>Its not going to suddenly start happening one morning.
>>If it is going to happen in the future then it *must* 
>already
>>be happening today if on a smaller scale.
>>
>>>I'm not trying to be obtuse here, and I have no particular 
>>>disagreement with most of what you and others are saying, 
>Michael; I'm 
>>>just trying to understand precisely what is being said.
>>
>>All that is being said is that the effect of global warming 
>so
>>far is only just on the limits of observability over
>>the natural variability. That is very different from 
>>saying it isn't occuring.
>>
>
>Gee whiz, Pete.  Why does it cause you so much concern when I 
>say that at present, I can't tell if it's occurring or not?
Because that is a complete misrepresentation of the science.
Snark is trying to create the impresion that because
we can only just observe the phenomenon on a global
scale  that there may be some doubt as to whether it
is occuring when there is no doubt whatsoever.
>I would think that this is just a rewording of your 
>statements in this posting, but you seem to strongly 
>disagree.  Oh, I think I "get it".  You're assuming that it 
>is occurring, but you're afraid that the lack of evidence 
>will make you look silly in the mean time.
Nom I can see that the debate of observability is being
exploited by people such as yourself (who should know
better) to give the impression that the problem is
not real.
>Don't sweat it.  
>I'm sure that if you have the patience to wait, you will be 
>proven correct.
I would prefer to be proven wrong.
---
Pete Owens
P.Owens@dl.ac.uk 

In article p9k@corn.cso.niu.edu, system@niuhep.physics.niu.edu () writes:
>pho@mserv1.dl.ac.uk (Pete Owens) writes:
>>In article e7a@news.co.intel.com, bbauer@co.intel.com (Blaine D. Bauer) writes:
>>>>
>>>This sort of assumes that no one will EVER own a house. Selling a house is
>>>expensive & can be damned frustrating (I know from experience).
>>
>>Rather like commuting then - but not as time consuming.
>
>spoken as a person who has clearly never sold a house :)
>(at least not in the U.S.A.)
No actually, speaking as one who chose to move house to
reduce an 18 mile round trip cycle commute to an 8 mile
one.
---
Pete Owens
P.Owens@dl.ac.uk 

Jhon sully Have you ever looked up your last name in the dicktionary It
definition fits you. I dont give a shit if you ate your horses 4 time a
year I think you should give up your car. You make me sick sitting in
traffic every day Mountain View has a terrible smog problem and you keep
driving. People like you make me sick its always someone elses money that
can fix the problem or pay the tax. You don't know shit about aboout SB501
do you. Can you say unlimited repair for a gross puluter. Even if that
vehicle is being used 4 time a year. I always regestered and smoged 
this truck legal by taking it to a referee and doing the required amount of
repair. Fraudulent cretificate Fuck you.
Don't even acuse me. Its in my garage. You can't have my truck the 1st
vehicle I owened and learned to drive in.
They can have my truck when the smog Kopps can pry the keys from my cold
dead fingers. Junk it and give the smog credit to CARB I'll bury it first. 
Waite till you go to sell your car and find nobody is interested in paying
top dollar for a used car. I will be waiting 
for you to log back on and whine about 20k for 5 year use. Or maybe smog
three you can drive 2 years. How are you going to like when the smog laws
are changed for your car. Drop dead just get off of my cloud. There are too
many 
cars in Ca. why don't you junk yours its a voluntary program. Hell you
might get $450 to put towards a EV.
Or better yet quit brething my air.
John M. Sully  wrote in article
<512v6h$9kk@gazette.engr.sgi.com>...
> 
> In article
<01bb9ec3$ac678f60$9f04eea5@598136622worldnet.att.net.204.127.129.1>,
"fred"  writes:
> 
> Besides the fact that this sentence dosen't parse too well, it would help
> if you could spell.  The name is Quentin Kopp.
> 
> Fred, you know what I say to to you and your old truck?  Eat me.  The
> law hasn't changed that much -- besides, I used to haul hay for horses
> and I did it a lot more than 4 times a year...
> 
> So, just how did you get your gross polluter truck registered?  Or did
> you just not register it?  Did you pay somebody to give you a
> fraudulent smog certificate?  Come on, tell us.  We want to know.
> 
> I don't know where you came up with your data, but the research I have
> read, done at the University of Utah and accessible through the EPA
> WWW site, showed that cars in the "gross polluter" category accounted
> for about 1/2 of all vehicle emissions.  This from a portion of the
> fleet which was accounted for by 15% - 20% of the vehicles.
> 
> So you are going to have to scrap your old truck because it isn't
> worth it to fix it.  Tough.  The regulations give you one to two years
> to drive the old heap and save up enough money to buy something which
> will meet the regs.  When you have close to enough money you'll be
> able to sell your heap to the voluntary vehicle scraping program and
> get another $450 or so for it.  Whine, whine, whine.  If you'd kept
> the junker up and registerable under the current regs you probably
> wouldn't be faced with this problem, or you would at most be faced
> with the $450 maximum repair limit.
> 
> 
> I think this is an easy strawman to hang the blame on.  Sure rapid
> accelleration raises emissions, but it is usually only engaged in for
> very short periods of time and so adds little to the overall output of
> the vehicle.  The study which I read (referred to above) was quite
> surprised by this result, but I would guess that it shouldn't be that
> surprising.  I see many late model vehicles on the road everyday which
> are poorly maintained and belch black or blue (sometimes both) smoke.
> I suppose what they found was the fact that emissions aren't related
> to vehicle age so much as to vehicle maintenence.  Big deal, any
> mechanic chould have told you that.
> 
> --John
> 
> 

charliew@hal-pc.org (charliew) writes:
>system@niuhep.physics.niu.edu wrote:
>>charliew@hal-pc.org (charliew) writes:
>>You do realize that the reason you don't see serious air or water
>>pollution is precisely because of the "corporate/state*/personal freedoms"
>>that we gave up in the 60s and 70s.
>
>Indeed I do realize this.  I posed my question to make people 
>think of where we should "draw the line".  Zero emissions is 
>not possible, and regulations that force manufacturing out of 
>this country is not wise.
fair enuf
>>Real Men change diapers
>
>I guess you just called me a "real man" - I've changed my 
>share of diapers. 
glad to hear it.
Robert
Morphis@physics.niu.edu
Real Men change diapers