Subject: Re: Bicycling vs. riding the bus
From: Jack Dingler
Date: Tue, 10 Sep 1996 13:55:46 -0500
Petro wrote:
>
> Yeah he can, like HOW MUCH YOUR PRECIOUS ENVIROMENT is wrecked by the
> very bicycle you ride. Go wander around an aluminium smelter some day. Then
> tour a Tire Factory.
Does it really require more pollution to build and maintain a bicycle
than a car? I've seen other posts that suggest this. I'm not sure that
this makes sense from any angle. I've only ruined one bike so far.
With the loss of maybe 25 lbs of steel (Broke the frame). In
comparison, I've ruined several cars with the result of tons of
materials being reprocessed or gone to waste. This isn't even counting
new engines and transmissions, asbestos brake pads, bigger tires, lead
acid batteries, antifreeze wasted on the road, freon lost, spark plugs,
wires of all sorts, lead acid solder from radiators, catalytic
converters, used spark plugs, wasted gas, oil, oil filters.
I really don't want this post to take several pages so I'll end this
litany here.
Even considering personal economics alone, there is no comparison. I
save between $60 and $90 a month in gasoline simply by cycling to work
instead of driving. I also expect my car to break down less and require
less maintenance.
Of course my decision to use my bicycle should never infringe on
anyone's rights. It's your money. Spend it the way you like. I'm only
in the middle class income bracket, you may consider car expenses a
pittance of your income. I discovered that it was surpassing rent and
groceries for me. This much expense for a tool to improve my life?
Please... There are better ways.
Now I still have a car and will be driving it to Fort Worth to see
'Gatemouth' in concert this weekend. Sometimes a bicycle just isn't
practical. But when I started really paying attention to my personal
costs of driving an automobile, I decided that it wasn't practical for
me to drive to work anymore. This was my own decision and no one talked
me into it or twisted my arm. I'm just sick of meeting new mechanics
and giving them all of my money. You may enjoy shelling out large sums
of money for new cars or paying large sums for repairs. It's your money
and it's your rights we're talking about. Spend as you see fit.
> Ditch your bike, it's bad for the enviroment, start walking. Oh, and
> ditch any clothes you have that aren't made by hand from natural (and
> organically grown) materials. Polyesters are made from oil, and are
> bad for the enviroment.
Don't use natural materials, they require too much arable land. Just
come to Texas and see the cotton fields as an example. Then again, I'd
rather not see any more naked couch potatos than I need to. Where am I
going with this? :)
>
> : What a narrow minded dork !!!!!
> : What a fascist, nazi....
> : What an elitist pig.
>
> Look in the mirror prick. Oh, don't those are made with a chemical
> process that is bad for the emviroment. Sorry. Oh, and while you are
> at it, you are going to have to ditch your computer, it isn't exactly green
> ya' know.
Now quit polluting the Internet!
--
_ ___
/ \/ \ Jack Dingler | "You can disagree,
##=========(=)[| Irving, Tx | but please don't hold no grudge."
\_/\___/ JDingler@onramp.net | Clarence Gatemouth Brown
Subject: Re: Smog 2!!!!!
From: george@apan.org.zap-for-actual-email-address (George Byrd)
Date: Tue, 10 Sep 1996 17:17:20 GMT
In , Tue, 10 Sep 1996 10:13:11 -0700,
On "Re: Smog 2!!!!!",
> wrote:
>Bureacrats, and I have been one, have to groups to content with:
>1) the people at large, 2)the politico and the lobbiest that influence
>them. Both public outcry and money influence them, thats the way that
>the system is, it wrong to be that way. I've always strived to remove
>the politics from policy, but it is a hard task.
Any bureaucrat in a policymaking position should be compelled by law
to listen to *every* citizen (and prohibited from listening to any
corporoation) who will be affected by any proposed reg. That means
that the prez of XYZ corp'n can communicate for himself, but that his
personal economic interest must be made public.
A very tough law to enact, of course.
If this makes regulation impossible, and I doubt that it would in most
cases, then so be it.
How about a simple law (for the humor impaired it is offered in jest):
-----
Any government employee, civil service or appointed, who proposes
formally a regulation, or testifies before any legislative body, such
that the proposed regulation or the thrust of the testimony would
require:
1. an increase in the scope of authority of the employee or his
agency; or
2. an increase in the salary or benefits of any employee in the
agency; or
3. an increase in the number of employees in the employee's agency; or
4. any expenditure of funds upon any contractor with whom the employee
or his agency has had any private communication not on the public
record; or
5. any burden upon any citizen without incontrovertable scientific
proof of the compelling need for such burden,
shall be summarily dismissed, deprived of any and all accrued benefits
of employment; and
shall have his employment record marked as "dismissed for self-dealing
and malfeasance of office".
-----
> ... I think that it is a worthy goal to
>lobby your state rep over. Maybe the justice of the cause will prevail.
>But, as I've said many times before, use farmers get screwed.
But you seem to be also saying that people should not put real
pressure on the bureaucrats or legislators who do the screwing.
Why not go further than lobbying and organize to turn them out of
office for the outrage? They understand that. They don't understand
common sense pleas for human decency.
>Oh, we are on the same bandwith on these,,, let us learn as a society
>to bring all major social/technical discussion out to the people.
Better yet, *require* it by proper legislation.
> I
>truly believe that good people tried to set up the best plan that they
>could with smog 2, but they are just a few trying to regulate millions.
I truly doubt the good intentions of any bureaucrat.
In my lifetime I've worked for 2 state governments and a county (in
lowly positions), contractors to fed & state gov'ts, entirely private
companies, self-employed consultant, and private practice of law.
Like almost everyone else, I've even got government bureaucrats in my
family.
What I have learned is that
1. Bureaucrats who make the rules don't listen to the common sense and
humanity of either citizens or of their underlings; and
2. They let research contracts only to those contractors who will tell
them what they want to hear, and they will fire contractors or
underlings who tell the truth; and
3. Their self interest is the same as the self interest of "big
business", except that there are very few, if any, checks upon their
behavior.
>Without listening to the people affected, how can they know. Without
>you telling them, how can they know.
You can always tell a Harvard man... but you can't make him listen.
;^>
>
>> > I fear Microsoft more than I do the EPA.
>>
>> Bill Gates for President Ross Perot VP
>If Bill Gates was running the country, the 1996 elections would not be
>released until 1998.
Not bad! ;^>
>OS/2 rules!
Well...
George
--
Opinions above are NOT those of APAN, Inc.
Opinions above are NOT legal advice.
"Hain't we got all the fools in town on our side?
An' hain't that a big enough majority in any towm?"
<< Mark Twain, _Huckleberry_Finn_ >>
Subject: Re: Bicycling vs. riding the bus
From: khead@uoguelph.ca (K. Head)
Date: 9 Sep 1996 17:42:53 GMT
Dennis O'Connor~ (doconnor@sedona.intel.com) wrote:
(snip)
: But seriously, I have a minivan and a full-size pickup. I'm not
: a believer that cars are bad : just that old high-pollutin'
: cars are bad. As technology advances, cars become less and
: less poluting. Sure they still deplete fossil fuels, but
: that's not really ecologically significant.
The only problem with relying on technology to solve all our problems is
that, in the case of cars at least, our use of cars is increasing faster
than technological advancements can keep up with. Pollution is actually
increasing despite vast reductions in emmissions. It seems to me that
the only solution is to reduce using. On the other hand, if you believe
that a technology in itself can be bad, I guess that the best solution
would be to destroy as many cars as possible and as soon as possible (OK,
maybe we should recycle them...)
Kevin.
Let's say I got a gun, in my hand. 6 slugs, 6 points of view...
materialism.
Let's say I got a book, in my hand. 50,000 words, 50,000 translations...
idealism. (The Minutemen)
Subject: Re: Bicycling vs. riding the bus
From: khead@uoguelph.ca (K. Head)
Date: 9 Sep 1996 17:47:48 GMT
Petro (petro@suba.com) wrote:
(snip)
: I can't speak for Baltimore, I've never lived there, and to be honest
: I don't drive in Chicago (Biking is more economical, and the El/Bus is for
: when I can't ride), However, Chicago Drivers SUCK. These assholes don't
: CARE who else is on the road, and many of them DON'T slow down when the
: weather gets nasty. They use salt and cinders on the snow, so the metal
parts
: on your bike rust out, if it lasts that long.
The situation is the same in Montreal, but what can you do? I have been a
courier (learned how to survive), worked for activist groups, had
arguments with drivers, etc, etc...I don't like it, but I just think
that's life now....
Kevin.
Let's say I got a gun, in my hand. 6 slugs, 6 points of view...
materialism.
Let's say I got a book, in my hand. 50,000 words, 50,000 translations...
idealism. (The Minutemen)
Subject: Re: paid trolls, Re: Where is global warming when we need it?
From: richp@mnsinc.com (Rich Puchalsky)
Date: 10 Sep 1996 17:32:23 GMT
Sigurdsson has made three posts now trying to muddy the issues in this
little affair. Finally I decided to go back to the documentary evidence
and prepare a brief chronology of what really happened. It's below; it
conclusively proves that Sigurdsson really did make a mistake and that his
current justifications for why he didn't are incorrect.
For people who are going to skip this (i.e. most sane people :-) )
check out the little bit at the end, if you can do so easily while
skipping the rest. It's a comment that I came across by accident that seems
to sum up the whole situation.
Chronology
1. Nudds' tag-line
Nudds started using the quote below as a tag-line:
>>From: af329@freenet.hamilton.on.ca (Scott Nudds)
>>Message-ID: <4nparb$9nj@main.freenet.hamilton.on.ca>
>>--- Conspiratorialist Loonie --------------------------------------------
>
>>"But seriously...It is amazing that some call me paranoid when point out
>>that the political movement known as environmentalism is a trojan horse,
>>just the latest (and probably cleverest yet) name/disguise for
>>socialism, the latest (and undoubtedly most irresistible) excuse for the
>>unending expansion of state power." - John McCarthy May 15,96
McCarthy denied writing it. (In my opinion, it's so far from his usual style
that this could almost have been used as proof of misattribution by itself).
I should note right from the start that the quote actually originated
with Robert Marks, who started writing right after a McCarthy attribution
line:
>Subject: Re: Joel Kovel on Marxism & Ecology NYC 5-17
>From: Robert Marks
>Date: 1996/05/16
>Message-Id: <319B516C.702E@ingress.com>
>
>John McCarthy wrote:
>
> Your last name is just too perfect. ;-)
> But seriously...It is amazing that some call me paranoid when
>I point out that the political movement known as environmentalism is
>a trojan horse, just the latest (and probably cleverest yet) name/disguise
[etc]
But that didn't come out until much later.
2. Sigurdsson's denunciation
Steinn confidently pronounced that he had tracked down the quote:
>From: steinn@sandy.ast.cam.ac.uk (Steinn Sigurdsson)
>Date: 1996/05/27
>Message-Id:
>
>newsreader by looking at the style. Nudds' does seem to have
>difficulty with attributions, but he also claimed to have checked
>the archives - well, so did I, and the quote he uses in his .sig
>and attributed to McCarthy was posted by John Dulaney,
>jdulaney@nntp.best.com, in Message-ID <4ncud0$5th@nntp1.best.com>
>
Note that the quote was *not* from Dulaney. Sigurdsson continues
in another post that day:
>From: steinn@sandy.ast.cam.ac.uk (Steinn Sigurdsson)
>Date: 1996/05/27
>Message-Id:
>
>I looked it up on DejaNews because I wasn't going to plow
>through 1000+ old posts to find which random post Nudds misattributed to
>McCarthy - a key search of May 15 found the post in an instant.
>The post in unambiguously by Dulany, and it is not at any point
Of course the post was *not* unambiguously by Dulaney. Now, I wondered why
Sigurdsson was confused. Perhaps Dulaney's post had quoted that
material? So I went back and checked that message-id.
The quote exists nowhere in that post by Dulaney! It's not quoted; it's
not anywhere; it's not even in the thread that Dulaney's post was in, since
it was actually written later. I'm not going to quote that whole post just
to prove this point, but I'll give more of the header to make it easier for
people to find:
>Subject: Re: Joel Kovel on Marxism & Ecology NYC 5-17
>From: jdulaney@nntp.best.com (John Dulaney)
>Date: 1996/05/15
>Message-Id: <4ncud0$5th@nntp1.best.com>
So at this point, Sigurdsson was denouncing Nudds with
"proof" of his misquoting that amounted to -- nothing.
He was referring to a message and message-id that was completely
unconnected to this quote. Good thing for him that Nudds didn't
bother checking it.
It is my opinion that this more than qualifies as a "bungle".
3. Sigurdsson's correction
Next day, Sigurdsson corrected himself:
>From: steinn@sandy.ast.cam.ac.uk (Steinn Sigurdsson)
>Date: 1996/05/28
>Message-Id:
>
>John McCarthy did not write that, as he and I have both noted.
>You posted this as tagline repeatedly. The attribution is a forgery.
>
>The quote comes from Robert Marks (I mistakenly attributed
>it to John Dulaney earlier) - in Message ID <319B516C.702E@ingress.com>
>It looks like he was responding to jmc's response to Dulaney's post.
So a day later, for whatever reason Sigurdsson finally realized what
he'd done.
Now we come to the more recent part of this shoddy little episode:
4. My claim.
In a thread in which people were claiming that certain people posting
here were paid anti-environmentalists, I was arguing otherwise. I thought
that the Sigurdsson/Nudds episode was a good example of people making
mistakes and charging each other with malice, so I mentioned it:
> I have to disagree with Cameron here. As someone recently said to
> Sigurdsson after he bungled an attribution while shrilly
> denouncing Nudds for doing so, "Never attribute to malice that which
> can safely be explained by incompetence." (or some varient thereof).
(If anyone cares, this was actually said by:
>From: Bill Toman
>Message-Id: <31B75B8C.678@ix.netcom.com>
>
>Lordy, lordy. I haven't been following this thread, but I always go by
>a hueristic in life (and no, I didn't think of it myself):
>
>"Never ascribe to malice that which can be adequately explained by
>imcompetence."
)
5. Sigurdsson's denial
Sigurdsson promptly denied my claim above:
>Subject: Re: paid trolls, Re: Where is global warming when we need it?
>From: Steinn Sigurdsson
>Date: 1996/09/04
>Message-Id:
>
>
>Nudds had to work quite hard to earn the presumption of malice.
>I didn't "bungle an attribution" I showed that the attribution
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>Nudds claimed was false, and that as he stuck to it he was
>forging attributions by deleting header lines.
This underlined denial of Sigurdsson's impressed me as being a lie. I posted
the citation above where he had admitted his previous error; he proceeded
to all sorts of excuses and justifications.
6. Sigurdsson's justifications
This is a long and repetitive tangle, but here we go, all posts
are on sci.env in the "paid trolls" thread:
#1
Date: 06 Sep 1996 10:49:29 +0100
Message-Id:
>If you care to actually read what I said, I corrected
>my own attribution. All I was interested in when I
>searched DejaNews originally for this quote was in
>establishing if it was from jmc or not - it was trivially
>obvious it was not, from the first cite of it I found,
>which was the Dulaney post - I did not actually
No it wasn't trivially obvious, see above. The Dulaney post you
cited was and is a complete red herring.
>care whether Marks or Dulaney posted it, simply that
>Nudds had misattributed it. In both instances I also
>provided an explicit message-ID in case anyone actually
>cared.
The explicit message id pointed to a non-relevant post.
>As the thread showed, I also went back further up the
>thread to check the attribution and corrected my
>own mistake, but the first post established what
>I considered the relevant fact, the quote was not
Nope, it established nothing.
#2
Date: 06 Sep 1996 16:21:49 +0100
Message-ID:
>[sic] from the dates, the dulaney post is the one
>that Nudds quoted, later I went to the trouble of
>searching the actual origin of the quote, as discussed
>below. I renote my point: the issue originally was not
>who provided the quote Nudds attributed to jmc, but that
>it was not in fact originated by jmc.
Which Sigurdsson's bungled attribution failed to prove.
>Nudds posted a quote, with and attribution and a date.
>The date indicated he took the quote from Dulaney's post,
>looking at it later, Dulaney had in fact included it from an
>earlier post by Marks. I first pointed to the Dulaney post
>because I concluded that that was where Nudds took the quote
>from. The only connection jmc had with the whole issue is
Of course, the message id supplied was for a Dulaney post that
Nudds did *not* take the message from.
>The reason I took Nudds to task is because he was posting
>lies, misinformation and was singularly unpleasant about it,
>exceptionally so, even for Usenet. He is no longer a newbie
>and I no longer grant him that leeway, nor do I assume he is
>that incompetent.
Let this stand as my reason for this chronology if anyone wants one,
only replacing the word "Sigurdsson" for the word "Nudds".
#3
Date: 1996/09/09
Message-Id:
>Nudds bungled an attribution. I tracked down the
>post from which he took the attribution (based on the
>date Nudds quoted) and then, precisely because I was
>careful, I went back and tracked down where the quote
>actually came from. You did notice that it was I
>who immediately went and provided a separate post after
>I walked up the thread and found the original uncited
>post that provided the quote.
One day later = immediately ?
>Maybe you've become like Nudds and started using
>words like "bungle" in new and interesting ways.
See above.
>This is farcical. _I_ was the one who went back and tracked
>down the proper attribution in the first place, in spite of
Rather, the second place.
>Nudds' hopelessly poor attribution. If I had not cared for
>proper attribution I'd hardly have gone back and provided
>my own correction, anyone who cared could have gone to the
>Dulaney post and walked up the thread to see where the quoted
>text originated.
No.
>I tracked down both where Nudds took the quote from and where
>the quote actually originated.
Nope.
>The first was the priority,
>since it showed Nudds attribution was false. I did the second,
>precisely because I do care to get the correct attribution,
>even though for the actual purposes of the argument (that
>McCarthy had not made that statement) I had already done
>enough.
Nope.
Conclusion
I have proved my claim. Sigurdsson did indeed bungle an attribution
while denouncing Nudds for doing so. He may continue to try to explain
his denial of this fact from now till the death of Usenet, but that will
not change this fact. Since Sigurdsson knew full well what the facts
were in this case, I regard his denial as a self-serving lie. I could
actually care less that Sigurdsson once made an attribution mistake; but
his denial of this fact in the face of documented evidence to the contrary
shows an unusual level of mendacity.
Appendix
>From: steinn@sandy.ast.cam.ac.uk (Steinn Sigurdsson)
>Date: 1996/06/02
>Message-Id:
>
>If you want to go around citing something, then it
>is your responsibility to ensure the citation is accurate.
Quite right.
And what was McCarthy's view of this whole thing? Quite a sensible one IMO:
>From: jmc@Steam.stanford.edu (John McCarthy)
>Date: 1996/06/06
>Message-Id:
>
>Didn't the accusation of forgery involve Nudds ascribing something
>Dulaney wrote to me and putting a date on it. I regard it as a
>mistake occasioned by Nudds's carelessness. Nudds's recent quotations
>from me seem accurate, i.e. I remember having posted them. I am
>pleased that he is giving my views additional publicity.
Lastly, in my dejanews searches, I was searching on "paid trolls" within
sci.environment and was spooked a bit when the hit below came up. In tribute
and memorium:
>Subject: Re: Any science around here?
>From: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick)
>Date: 1995/09/07
>Message-Id: <42noe6$r2b@gap.cco.caltech.edu>
>
>In article <42moop$fe2@stc06.ctd.ornl.gov>, John Tauxe write
>s:
>=I am hoping that this is just a bad but temporary infestation of trolls.
>
>Well, it's been going on for at least four years. Doesn't seem temporary to
>me.
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>-
>Carl J Lydick | INTERnet: CARL@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU | NSI/HEPnet: SOL1::CARL
>
>Disclaimer: Hey, I understand VAXen and VMS. That's what I get paid for. My
>understanding of astronomy is purely at the amateur level (or below). So
>unless what I'm saying is directly related to VAX/VMS, don't hold me or my
>organization responsible for it. If it IS related to VAX/VMS, you can try to
>hold me responsible for it, but my organization had nothing to do with it.
Subject: Re: Fire response to timber industry
From: Ralph Maughan
Date: Tue, 10 Sep 1996 11:57:43 -0700
Terry Rudd wrote:
>
> Ralph Maughan (jjmrm@poky.srv.net) wrote:
> : Thanks for posting the stuff on the lies of the timber industry regarding this
> : summer's forest fire season.
>
>
>
> There is significant evidence that areas that have been clear cut are actually
> worse fire hazards than dry forest because of the large piles of branches and
> bark that are striped and just left about, during the logging process.
>
> Forest fires that pass through a healthy forest, leave a lot of living timber
> in their paths and are actually quite healthy because of the age diversity and
> species diversity wrought by periodic fire. Unhealthy forests will burn
> hotter and more thoroughly, such as what happened in Yellowstone, but usually
> some trees live and at least the soils have some chance of staying put because
> of the living roots systems. In clearcuts, little is left alive so when fire
> hits, the fuel is on the ground and concentrated. Since it is dead, it is
> most combustible and burns very hot and those piles can smolder for weeks.
> Fire in clearcuts leaves nothing to hold the soils and erosion is far worse
> than when a living forest burns.
I feel I should say a bit about the Yellowstone fires here.
The biggest of the fires that burned in Yellowstone in 1988 -- the North Fork fire --
began in a clearcut next to a road when a firewood cutter dropped his cigarette into the
slash pile. This was on the Targhee National Forest which is immediately adjacent to the
west boundary of the Park for many miles. I point this out because one of stated
purposes of clearcutting most of Island Park on the Targhee NF was to reduce the fire
risk. Roading the area was also supposed to make it so that fire fighting equipment
could arrive on the scene faster.
The North Fork fire quickly flared up and burned into the Park, eventually covering
about 500,000 acres before October snows allowed fire crews to control it.
I've spent a lot of time hiking in the Yellowstone Country since. Most of the Park has
regenerated with many lodgepole pine seedlings. Some of them now over 5 feet high.
There are billions of seedling. The higher elevation sites in the Park and especially
to its south in the Teton Wilderness were sub-alpine fir/Englemann spruce sites. Unlike
lodgepole pine, these trees are not regenerated by forest fire. Most of this country is
still grass/flowers amidst fire-killed spruce and fir, and it will remain so for a long
time.
The Yellowstone fires also missed a lot of trees within the perimeters of the fires.
Most of burned areas do not go on and on for miles with no green trees except seedlings
in sight (but some do).
In the 1994 fire season in Idaho when vast forest fires (in contrast to range fires)
burned, some of the hottest burns were in areas of the Boise National Forest that had
been recently "treated" (i.e., logged) for "forest health."
Ralph Maughan
Pocatello, Idaho
Subject: Re: Smog 2!!!!!
From: TL ADAMS
Date: Tue, 10 Sep 1996 15:51:15 -0700
George Byrd wrot
>
> Any bureaucrat in a policymaking position should be compelled by law
> to listen to *every* citizen (and prohibited from listening to any
> corporoation) who will be affected by any proposed reg. That means
> that the prez of XYZ corp'n can communicate for himself, but that his
> personal economic interest must be made public.
>
> A very tough law to enact, of course.
I thought that was the way it was,,, we had public hearings on all
proposed regulations. And regulations do have oversite from elected
officals, from my experience it was the political that screwed up common
sense, but we elected them so I guess we need to keep them in the loop.
We listened to the public, but we did a bad job of informing them. We
did/don't get the public, or regulated community informed at the early
stage. Of course, industry seems to show little cooperation in
achieving
consenses anymore, since the Republicans they've smelled blood and have
gotten obstructive. (personal opinion). But, some will work on
developing practical instead of the Government bad/ us good speal.
> How about a simple law (for the humor impaired it is offered in jest):
> -----
> Any government employee, civil service or appointed, who proposes
> formally a regulation, or testifies before any legislative body, such
> that the proposed regulation or the thrust of the testimony would
> require:
>
> 1. an increase in the scope of authority of the employee or his
> agency; or
> 2. an increase in the salary or benefits of any employee in the
> agency; or
> 3. an increase in the number of employees in the employee's agency; or
> 4. any expenditure of funds upon any contractor with whom the employee
> or his agency has had any private communication not on the public
> record; or
> 5. any burden upon any citizen without incontrovertable scientific
> proof of the compelling need for such burden,
Ah, one the the general bullshit lines, inconvertable scientific proof.
Cost benefit. Let us end the regulatory process by making it so hard
to propose regulation that we can't.
>
> shall be summarily dismissed, deprived of any and all accrued benefits
> of employment; and
> shall have his employment record marked as "dismissed for self-dealing
> and malfeasance of office".
> -----
>ll prevail.
> >But, as I've said many times before, use farmers get screwed.
>
> But you seem to be also saying that people should not put real
> pressure on the bureaucrats or legislators who do the screwing.
> Why not go further than lobbying and organize to turn them out of
> office for the outrage? They understand that. They don't understand
> common sense pleas for human decency.
Oh sure we did, I think much more of the decency of the government
employess than I do of big business. When I work for big business, I
killed people, I made them suffer and I took their lifes possesions from
them. (Epi/insurance) We denied the responsibillity of caring, and
placed no moral value on dignity, suffering or life. At least most
government employess that I know at least acknowledge these values.
Oh, farmers have always been screwed by everyone. The cities 'property
taxes' us to death, the subdivision developers drive us away, the
lawyers
sue us, the agribusiness steals by collusion, the democrates want to
make
smoking illegal, but the republicans want to remove the quota system,
ag extension offices and technical support. American companies want to
buy from overseas, pesticide and fertillizers companys rip us a new one
every seasons. One of the downsides of majority rule is when your the
minority. Us farmers are few, the cities are many. We lose.
Regulations that are meant for the majority sometimes hurt the
individual. Hellbells, I don't even have cable tv.
> Better yet, *require* it by proper legislation.
AH, but legislation is bad. No, we need more of a change in
vision. We all need to try to obtain a common goal, and strive to
achieve.
>
> > I
> >truly believe that good people tried to set up the best plan that they
> >could with smog 2, but they are just a few trying to regulate millions.
>
> >
> >> > I fear Microsoft more than I do the EPA.
> >>
> >> Bill Gates for President Ross Perot VP
>
> >If Bill Gates was running the country, the 1996 elections would not be
> >released until 1998.
And the abillity to vote for anyone except Citizen Bill would be an
undocumented nonfeature.
Subject: Re: Human vs. natural influences on the en
From: snark@swcp.com (snark@swcp.com)
Date: 10 Sep 1996 19:58:16 GMT
In article <5146j9$jjk@spool.cs.wisc.edu>,
Michael Tobis wrote:
>snark@swcp.com (snark@swcp.com) wrote:
>: In article <50nn5i$aqk@spool.cs.wisc.edu>,
>: Michael Tobis wrote:
>: >snark@swcp.com (snark@swcp.com) wrote:
>I think we must have a semantic problem.
Actually, you might be unintentionally generous here--it's quite
possible that I just don't understand something.
>We may assert that the world must
>necessarily be warmer than it would have been had no greenhouse gas
>emissions taken place. We acknowledge that the observational record is
>inconclusive on the still open question of how much, and the consequent
>questions like when, where and so what. This is because there are
>other phenomena causing climate to shift on comparable time scales.
My (admittedly limited) understanding is that, yes, we can say for
certain that anthropogenic CO2 emissions have and are contributing to
radiative forcing, but we are not sure how other factors interact with
this, and so we don't know for sure what the net effect is. We are
trying to build better models, but the measured effects show much less,
if any, enhanced warming than would be the case from a simple model of
extra CO2 just adding extra insulation for the IR.
>As a signal detection problem, the warming hasn't been detected. This
>doesn't prove it doesn't exist, any more than the failure of your radio
>to pick up WORT in Madison doesn't prove its nonexistence.
Yes--people seem to be saying that they are certain that WMNG is
contributing to the EM spectrum, even though they can't measure it. I
acknowledge that this is not, a prior, a necessarily contradictory claim.
>If you are claiming that "evidence for observed anthropogenic warming isn't
>entirely conclusive" you still have a leg to stand on, if no longer two. If
>you are claiming that "evidence for an anthropogenic component to the
>radiative balance, causing a warming effect with respect to the undisturbed
>system isn't entirely conlcusive" you are completely off base. We don't
>need observations to back this up, but of course we have observations
>by the truckload for this - any satellite temperature sounding of any
>planetary atmosphere relies in detail on the physics of radiative transfer.
>The warming phenomenon exists, whether we have observed it or not. In
>other words, we are "certain the effect is occurring", which is what
>you asked about.
Out of curiousity, then, in the following,
>: >===================================================================
>: >"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."
>: >===================================================================
why don't they say, "These increases *are* enhancing the greenhouse
effect, and *have resulted* on average in additional warming of the
Earth's surface."
Thanks!
>mt
snark
Subject: IES SEMINAR
From: amand@mail2.sas.upenn.edu (Arlene Mand)
Date: 10 Sep 1996 20:59:24 GMT
University of Pennsylvania
Institute for Environmental Studies
presents
Gary R. Brown & James N. Burnett-Herkes
President Project Engineer
RT Environmental Services, Inc.
********************************************
Brown Fields:
Land Recycling in Pennsylvania
********************************************
Abstract: To help deal with industrial Brown Fields issues and to
facilitate redevelopment of urban areas, Pennsylvania has become one of
the first states to develop a comprehensive Land Recycling Program. Under
ACT II, passed in July of 1995, for the first time liability releases are
available to help offset negative land values caused by the potential of
future Superfund cleanups at industrial sites. This program is
facilitating more rapid cleanup and reuse of urban land.
The speakers will address how Pennsylvania's new Land Recycling Program
Works, and will use as examples several Philadelphia area projects which
were the subjects of large scale land recycling programs. Presented will
be information on how lead and petroleum hydrocarbon issues were addressed
at each site, and, how environmental issues were resolved so that the
property sale could go forwards. Also addressed will be innovative
biological treatment techniques used to deal with petroleum contaminated
soils and groundwater, and how lead issues were addressed to minimize risk
to future site users.
Project Profiles will be presented for: (1) a lead-acid battery research
and development facility in suburban Philadelphia which was the subject of
a large-scale facility-decommissioning project as well lead in soil
remediation; (2) a Philadelphia port-facility project which included
removal of nine tanks, biological remediation of groundwater, and
lead-contaminated soils excavation and removal; and (3) a suburban
Philadelphia location which is the subject of biological remediation of
contaminated soils at former tank locations. The speakers will also
provide and review the Department of Environmental Protection's first year
Land Recycling Progress Report.
Date: Friday, September 27, 1996
Time: 12:15 pm - 1:45 pm
Place: Room 109, Steinberg Hall-Dietrich Hall
On Penn's campus: Locust Walk and 36th Streets
NO REGISTRATION REQUIRED
Direct questions to:
215-573-3164; amand@sas.upenn.edu
--
Institute for Environmental Studies | tel 215-573-3164
University of Pennsylvania | fax 215-573-9145
240 S. 33rd Street - 309 Hayden Hall | email amand@sas.upenn.edu
Philadelphia, PA 19104-6316 |
http://www.sas.upenn.edu/geology/ies.html
Subject: USDA proposes to lower organic standard
From: blazing@crl.com (Claire Gilbert)
Date: 10 Sep 1996 16:07:01 -0700
USDA proposes to lower organic standards*
The USDA (United States Department of Agriculture) is
attempting lower organic standards by allowing the use of food
additives and allowing processing that may decrease the integrity
of organic products.
They also have proposed to make it illegal for those in the
organic food industry to communicate about their higher standards.
The current organic standards of the United States are consistent
with those of Europe, Canada, South America, Asia, Austraila,
Mexico and India. What would happen if we were to lower our
standards?
If it is important to you that the current high standards set
forth by the organic food industry are maintained please let the
USDA know!
Write to: The Honorable Daniel Glickman, Secretary of
Agriculture, US Dept. of Agriculture, 14th St/Independence Ave. NW,
Washington, DC 20250. (Reference: MacroChef, Late Summer 1996)
*The above appeared on EcoNet, taken from newsgroup
alt.org.audubon. Permission to publish the above was not obtained,
believing the person who posted to alt.org.audubon intended it to
be widely distributed. ~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
*Blazing Tattles, September 96. Letters written to Blazing
Tattles in response to the above article may be quoted in future
issues unless writer explicitly requests otherwise. For informa-
tion about Blazing Tattles send inquiry to .
Blazing Tattles is at P.O. Box 1073, Half Moon Bay, CA 94019.
Subject: Re: Carbon in the Atmosphere
From: rmg3@access2.digex.net (Robert Grumbine)
Date: 10 Sep 1996 18:21:12 -0400
In article ,
John McCarthy wrote:
>
>Certainly we ought to figure out the consequences of actions to affect
>climate before we undertake them, but it is skipping a logical step to
>conclude from this that studies of what positive actions mankind might
>take should be postponed indefinitely. There will be plenty of delay
>and dithering before anything will actually be done.
>
>The first experiments with iron fertilization were disappointing, and
>many naysayers said, "Well, that ends that crackpot idea". A second
>experiment gave more positive results. However, Hannegan is probably
>right to have written "there was once interest". The lack of
>respectability for studying the effects of any intentional actions
>except prohibitions is a consequence of an irrational ideology
>prevalent in large parts of the scientific community. They have been
>impressed by literary babble about hubris.
I suppose this is progress. It used to be that Mr. McCarthy
complained that nobody ever looked at intentional engineering of
the climate. I have sent him several counterexamples over the
years. So now the complaint is the 'lack of respectability' for
studies of intentional engineering. As respectability is in the
eye of the beholder, he is quite safe on that ground.
Nonetheless, there has been a steady stream of papers on engineering
the climate system, and more ideas discussed in conference hallways.
For a unrespectable practice, there seem to be rather a lot of people
doing it unabashedly.
Of course, one of the major obstacles to making more progress and
increasing professional consideration of climate engineering are
some of Mr. McCarthy's ideological fellows. In particular, the people
who refuse to accept climate models as being sufficiently good to merit
even conservative responses to the predicted climate change. Well, if
the model isn't good enough to argue for conservative action based on
its prediction, it is surely (if we were honest) not good enough to
be a basis for climate engineering projects.
I know and could develop (and test) any number of proposals for
climate engineering. But, if the model isn't good enough to convince
an important group that in the absence of action, X will (probably)
occur, then it would not be honest to hand them a model that says
that action Y will (probably) prevent X.
So far, however, the Hoover Institute (among others) seem quite
happy to say that either the models aren't good enough to predict that
there will be climate change, or they argue that the climate change
will be good for us. What engineering proposal for climate control
would make any sense to propose to that group? They've already concluded
that nothing will happen or if it does, it will be good for us.
An engineer needs a desired outcome to obtain. Here, the group is
happy with any outcome.
--
Bob Grumbine rmg3@access.digex.net
Sagredo (Galileo Galilei) "You present these recondite matters with too much
evidence and ease; this great facility makes them less appreciated than they
would be had they been presented in a more abstruse manner." Two New Sciences
Subject: Re: Carbon in the Atmosphere
From: rparson@spot.Colorado.EDU (Robert Parson)
Date: 10 Sep 1996 20:50:09 GMT
In article <3230F86F.8CFAF25@math.nwu.edu>,
Leonard Evens wrote:
>You are putting the cart before the horse. Engineering is only possible
>in the presence of relatively mature science.
Actually, through most of history this has *not* been the case. There's
an oft-quoted saying whose author I forget, "Science owes more to the
steam engine than the steam engine owes to science." It refers to the
history of thermodynamics, a discipline that began as pure
engineering, was given a somewhat ad-hoc theoretical framework by
empirically-oriented scientist/engineers such as Carnot, Joule, and
Clapeyron, and then finally was incorporated into mainstream physics
by Clausius, Helmholtz, Kelvin and Gibbs. It is only in the 20th century
that basic science has definitely forged ahead of engineering: I
would mark the Manhattan Project as the decisive turning point.
I think McCarthy's observations about prevailing attitudes in
"Earth Systems Science" are in part correct, although as is his wont
he attributes to ideology what I attribute to individual temperament.
Roughly speaking, modern science has two goals, "understand nature"
and "control nature." What makes Western science so much more
powerful than its predecessors is the interplay between these two
programmes. Still, individuals tend more towards one style than towards
the other, and particular fields attract particular sorts of people.
Synthetic Organic chemists, for example, are primarily interested in
making new molecules, although they'll put up with a little Physical
Chemistry if it helps them to design a better synthetic strategy.
Physical Chemists are more interested in figuring out how chemical
reactions take place, although they may have to do a little synthesis
themselves now and then in the course of designing experiments to
test hypotheses about reaction mechanisms.
Fields like atmospheric chemistry, theoretical meteorology,
paleoclimatology, oceanography, and so forth tend to attract
the "let's see what's going on" type of scientist more than
the "let's see how we can make this do something useful" type.
It's interesting to note that one atmospheric chemist who has
been writing about global environmental engineering projects,
Ralph Cicerone at UC Irvine, got his Ph.D. in electrical engineering.
(It's not as strange a background as it might appear: much of
atmospheric chemistry originated in the need to understand the
propagation of electromagnetic waves in the ionosphere.)
McCarthy might find the following editorial interesting:
R. Cicerone, S. Elliot, and R. Turco, "Global Environmental
Engineering", _Nature_ _356_, 472, 1992.
------
Robert