Newsgroup sci.environment 103546

Directory

Shaun Patrick Darragh wrote:
> (cut) Do you know of a web site or clearing house for this sort of 
information?
>(cut)
> I am also interested in broad forestry - ecology issues, particularly as 
an example of "multiple and sequential land use".  If there is a regular 
newsgroup for this could someone please advise.  One of the most 
interesting intellectual frameworks I have come across on this is Pacific 
Spirit - The forest reborn, Patrick Moore (1995) Terra Bella Publishers 
Canada ISBN 1-896171-07-9.  Obviously it needs reinterpretation for my 
range of environments, particularly the forests of the Western Australian 
south west.  But I was interested on Moore's recent Australian visit that 
his approach pointed out flaws in both extremes of the debate, and is 
therefore probably more representative of reality.
Just a couple of points from other postings:
- one pointed out the loss of carbon on the site; the most obvious 
destination is forest products, which have various lives until the carbon 
re-enters the atmosphere.
- another commented on the effect of fire in the residual material; the 
impact can be controlled by windrowing on the contour; this has lots of 
benefits - wildlife habitat, seed, soil and water trap and shelter, makes 
mechanical replanting easier, and reduces the affected area if a fire 
does go through.

Excellent idea that I have been pursuing from the other end.  I am a 
member of two professional societies and I work for an industry 
association as an environmental professional.  I have been trying to 
develop a system where an environmental topic or issue is nominated, and 
anyone with something to say can do so - obviously like a newsgroup so 
far - then 'someone' would compile all the messages as a position paper.
I am already that 'someone' for several local issues that would benefit 
from wider input.  Others could act as the 'someone' where they were 
directly involved, or where they would gain benefit e.g. in development 
of their academic career.
Costing is an issue, but what price is the community paying for 
duplicated effort because of the slowness of the current system in 
identifying who is working on what, particularly when some people are 
giving outdated advice.  And in the broadest sense, what price science?
But overall a good concept.

On Wed, 11 Sep 1996 07:24:48 -0700, Mike Vandeman 
wrote:
> The number of people is most of the problem, but not all. Each biker also
> does a lot more damage to the trail and travels a lot farther. They also greatly
> degrade the experience of other users, just like drivers on scenic roads: when
> you are the only car on the road, you look like a car ad; but when LOTS of cars
> are there, no one has a good time (except the car & oil & asphalt companies).
> Thus, to maximize the number of people who can enjoy an area, it is best to
> require them all to WALK!
Oh, so that's what it's all about, huh, Mikey?  You are concerned with
MAXIMIZING the number of PEOPLE who can enjoy an area.  You are
concerned with limiting TRAIL damage.  Damn, I guess you're just one of
those self-interested, destructive, careless human destroyers of
wildlife habitat that you so despise.  What happened to your great
concern for wildlife, which you have offered as an excuse for your
opposition to mountain biking?
If I recall correctly, it was only a few days ago that you were giving
us a line of crap about your great concern for wildlife, which you
presume to significantly and adversely impacted by the mere presence of
humans (such as yourself), regardless of their mode of locomotion.
But,as usual, you have allowed your hypocrisy to shine on through.  Nice
job!  Thanks for yet another laugh.   You make me feel like a king,
Mikey--with my very own court jester.
> 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.)
Suggestion: help yourself, stay home.
Todd Ourston
Marin County, California
--
 "How Greatly does cycling enoble one's spirit, heart and frame
 of mind!  When the cyclist roams freely on his steely steed in 
 the godly world of Nature . . . his heart rises and he bewonders
 the splendor of Creation."  (Wilhelm Wolf, 1890)

On Tue, 10 Sep 1996 21:45:46 -0700, Mike Vandeman 
wrote:
> You should pass SLOWLY (I.E., SAFELY) AND QUIETLY. I hike to be away from
> people yelling.
Not that I advocate such behavior, but according to your "reasoning"
wouldn't it be better for wildlife if mountain bikers didn't pass hikers
slowly and safely?  That would make it less attractive for some people
(hikers such as yourself) to invade wildlife habitat via trails, which,
in case you have forgotten, Mikey, was once your rationale for opposing
mountain biking.  Try to remember--I think it was about a day or two ago
that you firmly held that position.  Now it seems you are only
interested in promoting your own hiking pleasure without so much as a
whine or snivel about your  destructive impact on wildlife,
biodiversity, life on Earth, and everything else you claim to be at
stake because some people get around on trails on two wheels instead of
two feet.
SHEESH! (tm)
Thanks for yet another laugh, Mikey.  Keep 'em comin'.
For comic relief visit:
> http://www.imaja.com/change/environment/mvarticles
Todd Ourston
Marin County, California
--
 "How Greatly does cycling enoble one's spirit, heart and frame
 of mind!  When the cyclist roams freely on his steely steed in 
 the godly world of Nature . . . his heart rises and he bewonders
 the splendor of Creation."  (Wilhelm Wolf, 1890)

On Wed, 11 Sep 1996 07:30:12 -0700, Mike Vandeman 
wrote:
> There you go again, lying through your teeth. Bikers are NOT excluded from trail
> use! They are just not allowed to bring a bike along! Where did you learn how to
> think?
OK, Mikey, wow us with your superior intellect.  What is a mountain
biker and how are they distinct from hikers?
--
Todd Ourston
Marin County, California

On Wed, 11 Sep 1996 12:09:22 -0700, Mike Vandeman 
wrote:
> I am a mathematician. Biologists are generally much fuzzier in their thinking
> and work.
Give us a break, Mikey.  You are computer technician.  Although you may
hold a degree in mathematics, you convincingly foreclosed any hope you
may have had of claiming to be a mathematician a couple of years ago
when you failed to grasp the basic relationship of risk and return as it
pertains to finance.  As you may recall, you made an ass of yourself by
arguing that diversified investment portfolios are merely clever
marketing ploys pushed by Wall Street that offer no intrinsic benefits
to the investor.  Even after I and several others explained that
diversification allows one to reduce the cumulative risk of one's
portfolios without reducing its expected return or raising its price,
you completely failed to understand why this was desirable, let alone
why it was possible.
> Rick A. Hopkins wrote:
>   He also notes that just because mutation rate is
> > “random” it does not mean it is unpredictable.  Certain kinds of
> > mutations are more likely to happen than others (e.g., in humans see
> > down syndrome and PKU).   Therefore, a mutation (that is not lethal) is
> > more likely to harm an organisms fitness than help it.  Also,
> > evolutionary process work on the present, so mutations have to be at
> > least only slightly maladaptive or neutral or they are likely to
> > quickly disappear.  Chance is used in evolutionary theory to describe
> > “sampling error” or as Ernst Mayer discusses the “founder effect”.  If
> > a small numbers of individuals separates from a larger population, its
> > genetic material may differ significantly from the  parent population.
> > Chance has a much greater role in small populations than larger ones.
> 
> That is mathematical nonsense!
No, Mikey, it is the same basic statistical property you failed to grasp
a couple of years ago.  Small populations are less diverse and thus less
likely to cancel out the overall effect of random variations in
individual members of the population.  Get a clue.  You can start by
picking up an entry level statistical text.  If you get through that,
you might even work your way up to some complicated state transition
theory that even one as obtuse as yourself should be able to apply to
ecological principles such as biological succession--if you can ever
master the basic quantitative models.
>   We must keep in mind that the overall genetic variability of a
> > species or group of species will not change by the random removal of a
> > few individuals (regardless of what method “natural process” or human
> > induced).
> 
> You are speaking STATISTICALLY, not truthfully. There is a difference.
OK, Mikey, I'm up for another laugh.  Please demonstrate your mastery of
statistics and philosophy by explaing that difference and how you know
it exists.
>   Since you are so math oriented develop a model using
> > empirically driven data (plenty to choose from in the lit) and create
> > some sampling schemes (Monte Carlo, bootstrapping, etc.) and see what %
> > of the population (assume a common species and then a rare species)
> > would have to be removed to statistically alter the average
> > hetereozygosity or genetic variability of a population.
> 
> This is irrelevant. I never said anything about any average. All I said is
> that killing individuals can (CAN) reduce biodiversity, which you have just
> shown to be a true statement!
By the same token, it can be shown that failing to remove (dominant)
individuals from an ecosystem can reduce later levels of biodiversity.
So what's your point?
>   As the works
> > of the above authors (Mayer, Sober, Nei, and many many others - these
> > are some of the giants of the field) will suggest a lot.
> 
> They may be giants in biology, but obviously not in math, unless you misunderstood
> them. Don't confuse statistics with facts! (Ever notice that elections don't
> go the way the statistics predict?)
Nope, not unless there is some significant sampling error.  Usually the
forecasts of significant differences in voter preferences are matched by
the eventual election results.  But that isn't really germane to your
argument about biodiversity, which hinges on standard deviations rather
than differences between means that are the focus of fence-strattling
politicians.
> > What about the loss of that all most important gene.  A mountain biker
> > runs over a Pacific treefrog (extremely abundant in the Bay Area and
> > California) or 15 or 20 for that matter (and I certainly do not
> > advocate riding over frogs or any other wildlife for that matter).
> 
> I never said anything about probability, because it is irrelevant. I just
> said it CAN reduce biodiversity! Running a red light is frequently harmless,
> but it doesn't make it a good practice!
Huh?  Uh, Mikey, are you trying to impress us with your firm grasp of
quantitative concepts again?  If so, would mind explaing what this has
to do with biodiversity? . . . Or anything at all?
> > What is the probability that they removed a most unique individual.
> > The above already illustrates that the average heterozygosity of the
> > population will not change in any measurable way and hence the genetic
> > variability will remain the same (assuming that they did cause a
> > population crash or sig decline- a highly unlikely event).
> 
> Again, you are talking about statistics, which is akin to gambling, not science.
What he is talking about is at the root of many branches of science,
including several in the areas of physics, chemistry, and, yup!,
biology.
> That is why we don't risk our LIVES on statistics. Accidents do happen, even
> though they are unlikely!!!!
Mike, if you had even a clue about how humans manage life threatening
risks, you would know that there is ample evidence that we do risk our
lives based on our apparent calculation of statistics.  That's why
people such as yourself ride the bus with confidence even though it has
been proven that one can get killed doing so--the odds of that happening
seem to be quite low.
> 
>   Again,
> > based on just a couple of authors (many more citations exists - keep in
> > mind these authors are not involved in the politics of biodiversity)no
> > more likely than would occur from natural causes.  If the population
> > does not change, that means the mortality of the individuals was
> > compensated for by any number of ways (greater juvenile survival, adult
> > survival, etc.).  Again set up a sampling scheme and you will find that
> > due to the low occurrence of neutral or beneficial mutations, who knows
> > what individual contains these genes.  Only if the population is
> > significantly effected is the loss of unique genetic material likely or
> > even remotely possible.
> 
> No, it has nothing to do with population! Unique genetic material is lost
> when the individual carrying it dies before reproducing & passing it on.
> QED
Uh, where does "unique" genetic material come from?  Where is it given
that it cannot arise from that source more than once?
QED yourself.
>  
> > Hunting, provides an unique example of the complexity of the problem.
> > On average hunted populations are younger than unhunted populations
> > (for obvious reasons).  Hence, a greater number of individuals actually
> > breed and therefore, a greater number of individuals contribute genes
> > to future generations.  While the average genetic variability is not
> > likely to change, it is quite possible that unique genes have a greater
> > (albeit probably not that much greater) chance of being preserved.
> 
> Not if the animal is shot!
But the odds that a unique animal will be shot among a population of
animals that share more common traits is low.  Unless there is something
about that unique animal that makes it more vulnerable to being shot,
the chances are that one of the more common animals, which are
presumably in competition with (read threatening the life of) the uniqu
animal will be killed.  Thus, it is possible, perhaps even likely, that
the life of a unique animal will be promoted rather than threatened by
hunting.
> > You have a rather intellectually dishonest way of treating this
> > important subject.  You very shrewdly say that corporate scientist,
> > agency scientist, and most academics (since they generally receive the
> > bulk of their funding from corporations or agencies) are likely to be
> > dishonest.  In other words with one fell swoop of your pen you have
> > provided yourself with a “legitimate” (not) way of disregarding anyone
> > you disagree with. 
> 
> I didn't create them. They did that all by themselves.
Ah, just like gods, eh, Mikey?  In any case, we do you continue to
attack these unnamed scientists instead of meeting the challenge of
their theories and findings?
> 
>  I suspect you measure scientific honesty not on the
> > quality of the research or the questions posed but rather on the
> > percentage of times these biologist agree with you.   
> 
> Now you are just being cynical, and attacking ME, rather than the issue, a
> typical mountain biker response! I guess you really must be an MTBer! :)
I guess you must be one, too, Mikey?  Ain't it about time you came out
of the closet instead of attacking your own kind to cover up your
identity? 
--
Todd Ourston
Marin County, California

On Mon, 09 Sep 1996 21:55:35 -0700, Mike Vandeman 
wrote:
> Say what? How do you think we got here? By something outside the real world?
That's most plausible explanation for your existance I believe I have
heard, Mikey.  My other favorite theory is that you are the unfinished
work of a struggling Artificial Intelligence grad. student who set loose
his software on the internet for a laugh.  (And a good lagh it has
been!)
--
Todd Ourston
Marin County, California

Is that a front lightbulb or a rear lightbulb?
John

In <3236FE4D.1527@tcsi.com>, scott steves  writes:
>Mike Vandeman wrote:
>
>> I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
>> humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? 
>What? Enlisting the aid of evil mountain bikers? Is it possible that
>Mike is doing a total 180 and accepting mountain bikers as a (possibly
>allied) user group, with all the vallidity of his crunchy granola hiker
>buddies? Kinda hard to believe...
Don't worry, he just figures if he puts that on evey one of his numerous posts, he'll
find the one person that thinks like him, then he'll have 2 people.  That should be 
enough for a protest permit, off to Washington he and his buddy go.
Of course, if there was a rec.finatic.nature.nuts, then he would have somewhere
to post and be "on topic".

richp@mnsinc.com (Rich Puchalsky) writes:
> outright contradiction of the evidence.  What is most annoying about
> Sigurdsson is his willingness to misrepresent, as when he claims that
> his opponents hold positions that they have explicitly denied holding.
It is difficult sometimes to reconcile what some posters claim
to hold to, generally in terms of "motherhood&apple-pie;" 
platitudes, when they simultaneously act in apparent contradiction
to their claims. You know, its like everyone is in favour
of free speech, its just that some people then turn around
and carefully rationalise or excuse attacks on freedom of speech
when they don't like the target - not that they're against
it in principle of course, its just that this particular
instance wasn't _really_ an attempt to restrain speech.
In many of these cases I don't even think the "opponents" [sic]
are "lying" - I honestly think some people either internally gloss over
or simply don't notice the inconsistency between their claimed 
positions, and what they actually do. I can also see that the
people who have this forcibly drawn to their attention might
be peeved in the process. 
> His self-righteousness while doing this is rather off-putting as well.
Ah, poor baby. This is funny coming from the author of the
attacks on economics as a discipline, CBA use in public policy
and WGIII chapter 6.  You really so see the world through
your own reflection Puchalsky.
> I accept that our flamewars are rather boring to everyone else.  At this
> stage, I don't really see much chance of changing the situation.  Perhaps
> a killfile that kills any post that has both Sigurdsson *and* Puchalsky
> in it would solve the situation from everyone else's point of view.

There is a lot of debate about the practicality and desirability of 
electric vehicles at the moment. Zero emission vehicles would obviously 
be a good thing in many ways if only people could be persuaded to use 
them. This is difficult becuase of problems of range, performance, cost 
and availability.
However, if certain areas of say, inner cities, were designated as 
emission free vehicle zones, it would instantly create a demand for such 
vehicles. Furthermore the demand would most likely come from people with 
the cash to pay for the vehicles, and who would welcome the lack of 
competition for road and parking space (I'm thinking here of business 
districts).
It would overnight make those areas much pleasanter, without seriously 
impacting on business (assuming reasonable notice was give - say a year). 
It would have ty be a permanent restriction, to protect people's 
investments.
Electric vehicles are at their best in urban areas - smaller mileages, 
more stop/start etc. Bicycles are also emission free!
Has this idea been put forward before? I haven't heard of it.

Mike Vandeman wrote:
> THEY don't, but YOU do (defending your mountain biking).
Mike - your at it again with your straw men - Rick never once said that he was a 
mountain biker.  All he said was that your comments about mountain bikers were less 
than justified.  There is a big difference, but I guess that your comprehension 
skills are less than perfect (you have demonstrated over and over again that you 
have misinterpreted was written in posts and the references you quote).
> That is mathematical nonsense!
Is that all you can say - even though you claim to be a mathematician, this is far 
from a mathematical statement and proves nothing.
> You are speaking STATISTICALLY, not truthfully. There is a difference.
And what is the difference?  If we want to get philosophical, any concept of truth 
in relation to the real world (as distinct from mathematics) is based on 
observation.  Funny that stats plays an important part in this.
> This is irrelevant. I never said anything about any average. All I said is
> that killing individuals can (CAN) reduce biodiversity, which you have just
> shown to be a true statement!
Now we are getting to the nub of things - I agree that something with an 
infinitesimal probability CAN happen.  Perhaps when you say "can" in future you 
should quanitify this so we know that it is more than the smallest of chances.
> Again, you are talking about statistics, which is akin to gambling, not science.
> That is why we don't risk our LIVES on statistics. Accidents do happen, even
> though they are unlikely!!!!
I'm sorry, but you are clearly wrong on this one.  Every day people ride in cars, on 
bikes, or (in your case) on busses.  Statistically you have a certain chance of 
getting killed in an accident but this chance is relatively small and they are aware 
(roughly) of how small the odds are.  In other words, people are risking their lives 
every day on statistics.
> Nonsense. I know about everything you have discussed here. I just understand
> it better than you.
What an outrageous claim - you have not even got close to demonstrating this.
> I prefer judo. Guess we are culturally incompatible. Hey, thanks for the
> lecture & references. Nice to know I haven't missed anything in my study of
> biology.
This cultural imcompatibility would suggest that you have missed an aweful lot in 
your study of biology.
Dale

It seems to me that all the discussions about global warming and risk/
uncertainty come down to the following: doubling atm. CO2 is like playing
Russian Roulette with the earth.
When you play Russian Roulette you may get an empty cartridge or you may
get a bullet, and similarly when CO2 doubles we may get only a small
amount of warming or we may get a lot.  The effects of a lot of warming
could be serious, including sea-level rise (flooded coastlines) and more
extreme weather events.  Scientists are trying to find out whether the next
cartridge contains a blank or a bullet (what the effects of CO2 doubling
will be), and are suggesting that until we know better we don't pull the
trigger (i.e. we reduce CO2 emmissions).
It seems pretty sensible to me!
Toby Tyrrell.
T.Tyrrell@soc.soton.ac.uk

charliew (charliew@hal-pc.org) wrote:
: Just WHO runs a corporation, pray tell?  I haven't been able 
: to "absolutely" figure this one out yet, and I have been 
: working for corporations for close to two decades now.
charliew, you're been posting in sci.env quite a bit lately.  Frankly,
the quality of what you write is very low.  Like this little bit; after
two decades you can't figure out a rather clear typical corporate
hierarchy?
As with all of your demands to be able to "absolutely" figure out something,
this demand for absolute knowledge serves only as a way of pretending
that we don't know anything, so that we can be encouraged to take no action
about anything.
: than I did in the reply above.  I have noted in recent years 
: that the people who "bitch" the loudest about these 
: inequities are some of the same people who benefit the most 
: from the side effects of the businesses they condemn.  I 
Let's see, Mr. Troll, people outside of business benefit from side effects
(products) of business; people inside benefit from those products *as well
as* the direct benefit of getting a salary.  People who don't work for
a business don't benefit "the most" from products; they benefit to 
approximately the same degree as corporate employees, and corporate
employees have an overall higher benefit due to their salaries.
Any more miracles of logic you'd like to assert?
: expect that Robert has been in too many "liberal" classrooms, 
: where the prof (who also never worked for a private company) 
: was spouting a bunch of b.s. that came out of some Harvard 
: MBA's book (who also never worked for a private company).  I 
: can't say for sure, but if this is true, it is getting to be 
: the equivalent of intellectual incest.
Anti-intellectualism at its finest.  I find the idea of any "MBA book"
condemning corporatism wholesale as vastly amusing.  Does charliew think
that Marxists write "MBA books"?  And I wonder when every know-nothing
in America decided that Harvard was the source of all evil, by the way?
Milloy with his "junk science" page tried the same thing, so it must
be a common preoccupation among dittohead types.
And just to forestall the wholly predictable response from charliew,
I don't work at or go to a university or other educational institution,
and I've never gone to Harvard.
--
sci.environment FAQs & critiques - http://www.mnsinc.com/richp/sci_env.html

Joseph Bartlo wrote:
> 
> < a degree.  I was referring to direct solar energy
> incident to horizontal rather than normal.  I can
> send my sunrise/sunset FORTRAN program by e-mail
> if anyone is interested, or adjust the program to
> specify times exceeding a specific threshold of
> direct normal solar energy.
> 
> Joseph

hatunen@netcom.com (DaveHatunen) writes:
> No. Most hydroelectric turbines work on the principle of using
> momentum change in the water to turn the turbine. The idea of using
> velocity to produce energy is an astounding breakthrough, especially
> since even the principle of conservation of units is flouted, with
> length/time being converted to force*length.
If only velocity matterd a ping-pong ball flying in 30 km/h would
contain as much energy as a car going 30 km/h. 
What you claim does not follow basic physics. Bounce a couple of balls
of different weights, turn a dynamo by hand, read a few basic
textbooks, perform a couple simple school experiments, THINK BY
YOURSELF and figure out why both mass and velocity (giving momentum)
matters. 
Regards,
--
--
Magnus Redin  Lysator Academic Computer Society  redin@lysator.liu.se
Mail: Magnus Redin, Björnkärrsgatan 11 B 20, 584 36 LINKöPING, SWEDEN
Phone: Sweden (0)13 260046 (answering machine)  and  (0)13 214600

system@niuhep.physics.niu.edu wrote:
> 
> I think people should create a "Fuck you and this job" savings account
> for when major ethical/moral/??? conflicts arise.  However, it is difficult
> for me to fault somebody who has informed his superiours of a problem
> (in writing so they won't forget about it) and but doesn't quit when
> the problem isn't dealt with.  The higher up the food chain you are
> the more personal responsibility you have.
Oh, your right on the "Fuck you and this job" savings account.  I am
unable to understand the low saving rate of most of my fellow employees
over the years.  
Although trite, the phrase wage slave springs to mind.  Maybe being
raised to an clan of farmers/orcharders I learned that shit happens, and
a little extra cash in the bank
removes alot of pain.  I'd also found that those of us with a little
extra green in the mean can be more free in our opinions.
> 
> OTOH as much as I sympathize with tobacco farmers I really think the only
> moral choice for them is to either try to grow something else or sell
> the farm.  (Lordy, am I glad this isn't x-posted to sci.agriculture)
I have a blind spot about burley, it is after all, one of the seven holy
plants of
the Iroquois.  Practically, it has so many advantages for our
climate/financial/ and regulatory situation.  But, its going away.  Time
to do something else.
> 
> What burned my boat was the rationalization that one of my relatives
> engaged in for not objecting to Abbott's activities, "well, it reduces
> the population over there and that is a useful thing."
Have heard the same statement made about the overseas sell of coffin
nails, cigs that is.  I don't know, how do you teach them that every
human life has value and worthy of respect.  Its the same mind set that
allowed my kin and clan to be treated like cattle,
or less than animals.  
> 
> When pushed to change Abbott basically said no for a long time until
> a boycott and other pressure finally changed their mind.
> 
> Peace,
> 
> Robert
> 
> Morphis@physics.niu.edu
> 
> Real Men change diapers

Richard Bossard babbled:
> 
>
>                      ^^^
> Spoken from a person whom had probably never held a real job in a real
> business. Nonsense like the above is easy to spout off when you loaf in a .edu
> la-la-land. If it weren't for all those "evil" businesses out there, you
> wouldn't have a chair to sit on, a building to sit on it in, or a computer to
> type your drivvle on. Everything you use and own was produced by one of those
> "evil" businessmen. Leave .edu land and sample the real world for a change.
Been there, done that.  Collected coup, killed them and took their ears.
Hell, if it weren't for a corrupt businessman selling a defective condom
to your father, you would have never been born.

Mike V. wrote:
 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.
Nathan T. wrote:
 Mike, how about just biking and no hiking/biking....if we are not
 discriminated against why did you automatically choose to exclude bikers
 from trail use...?
Mike V. wrote:
 There you go again, lying through your teeth. Bikers are NOT excluded
 from trail use! They are just not allowed to bring a bike along! Where
 did you learn how to think?
In reply to Mike's last response, Nathan T. wrote:
 Mike, dont play word games with me.  Listen to what you are saying.
 "Bikers are not excluded from trail use! They are just not allowed to
 bring abike along!"  Mike, what do you think bikers do?  We bike.  So it
 would be pointless.  So dont flip my words around and play a little
 semantics game with me.  I really hope you just wrote that last reply
 with tongue in cheek, because if you didnt, you really look like quite
 the idiot.

> > "EXACTLY THE SAME RULES" ... hmmm .... If that were true we could ride
> > our bikes with the hikers in the same Wilderness areas that are host to
> > the herds of flatulating cows, petroluem belching mining equipment and
> > the Paul Bunyuns with the two-stroke chainsaws who hack at our old
> > growth forests ...
> 
> I guess you are purposely pretending not to understand. Both hikers & bikers
> are allowed to hike, & neither is allowed to bring a bike along, so the rules
> for them are IDENTICAL.
My God mike, are you some kind of moron?  "Both hikers & bikers are
allowed to hike, & neither is allowed to bring a bike along, so the
rules for them are IDENTICAL."  Are YOU pretending not to understand?

Robert Parson wrote:
> 
>  While I though Moore's article was pretty sloppy - my opinion of it
>  is roughly the same as Ray Pierrehumbert's - I cannot see how
>  it (which I assume is representative of his testimony) could be
>  construed as "perjury". Alger Hiss and Oliver North lied to Congress.
>  I see no evidence that Moore engaged in deliberate lying.
> 
>  This group is getting worse with time.
While I do not seek to denegrate this newsgroup anymore than the current
level of postings suggest as a level of standards, I do have a certain
antipathy for the work of people such as Mr. Moore and Mr. McCarthy. In
particular the cloaking of personal credo with a dash of science and
calling it expert opinion or some kind of math that makes sense.  In my
mind it is a disservice to laypeople, and is nothing short of false and
misleading information.
We dance around various topics of personal credos when we discuss actual
science on this newsgroup.  In this case in particular, I consider it
a technical (not subjective) opinion that Mr. Moore misused science and 
applicable research to make his point, not caring that the research, and 
those people he quoted in much of the research suggest that the problems 
associated with global warming are as bad or worse than any benefits that 
could be realized.  He also avoided any research or material that pointed 
to myriad problems that would be associated with global warming.
Am I going to go over the all over again, no.  I've already seen with 
ample evidence and in McCarthy's own words that he/they will not be held
to rigorous standards when discussing topics.  But is it perjury?
In my opinion, and as objectively as possible, yes it was.  I believe he
knew that the information he proferred was not technically correct and was 
furthering the goals of his organization and its funding partners by
testifying on information he was not in a technical position, or with
ANY help of scientific or technical personnel, to even moderately critique
or analyze.
But everybody already knows my opinion, and we have discussed this at 
length before.  But I was pointing out that McCarthy feels that the
Hoover Institution lacks technical expertise and/or assistance, and
that science and technology are more important than policy - which
actually says quite a bit if anybody bothers to think about it.
Sorry for the digression - somebody was talking about carbon in the
atmosphere - you know, real science. :<)
Sam McClintock
sammcc@nando.net

DaveHatunen  wrote:
>...Most hydroelectric turbines work on the principle of using momentum
>change in the water to turn the turbine.
I don't know much about hydro, Dave, but I've always thought that what
mattered here is that so many pounds of water moved from a higher place
to a lower place, at the same velocity or less, and that slowing the
water down didn't contribute much to the power produced. 
>The idea of using velocity to produce energy is an astounding breakthrough,
Seems like this is normally done more with wind than water, but recall
those river-based tethered Bosnian floating paddlewheel generators?
>especially since even the principle of conservation of units is flouted,
>with length/time being converted to force*length.
I'm not so sure science has failed us here :-)
Nick

In article <5173bd$krp@hermes.rdrop.com>, francis@agora.rdrop.com (Francis Malinosky-Rummell) writes:
>reuth@h2opower.com wrote:
>: A new technology has been developed that allows existing 
>: hydroelectric
>: facilities worldwide to now increase their power output of their
>: existing facilities by a minimum of 25% upwards to 100% power 
>: increase.
>
>: This new technology uses a component known as a thrust tube. 
>: The tube uses velocity of water as its means of turning a turbine
>:  that is hooked to a generator to produce power.
>
>Isn't that how all hydroelectrics work now?
>
There are currently three types of turbines:
Kaplan for low head 
Francis for medium head up to 750m
Pelton for high head 750m to 2000m
Kaplan and Francis turbines are pressure driven and have efficiencies in excess of 95%.
In a Pelton turbine, the pressure is converted to velocity, and the efficiency
is about 92% 
It is thus impossible to increase the power output of existing facilities by
more than 5 to 8%.  There is no more energy to extract. 
Arne Hoeg

In article <517gan$9hk_003@news.lm.com>, rbossard@nauticom.net (Richard Bossard) writes:
>In article <51264u$p9k@corn.cso.niu.edu>, system@niuhep.physics.niu.edu wrote:
>> charliew@hal-pc.org (charliew) writes:
>>
>>Is Business Evil?  Naw, but some people who run business are ...
>>well lets say completely without ethics or morals.
>>
>>Robert
>>
>>Morphis@physics.niu.edu
>                     ^^^
>Spoken from a person whom had probably never held a real job in a real 
>business. 
If you had bothered to read on in the thread you would have
found a refutation of your thesis.
>Nonsense like the above is easy to spout off when you loaf in a .edu 
>la-la-land. 
"Loaf"?  Hey, I have a LOT of freedom, including the freedom to 
post on non-work-related news groups and the freedom to work
a 20 hour weekend to avoid disrupting my users (my choice not my
bosses)  I don't get paid as much as I would in private industry
but that is my choice.
> Everything you use and own was produced by one of those 
>"evil" businessmen. 
No, some of those things are made by very ethical and honest
people.
>Rick
Robert
Morphis@physics.niu.edu
Real Men change diapers

Almost every academic professional society has considered this issue
and many started experiments in the area.
One minor surprise is that some experiments (AIP) found it *more* expensive
to publish a web journal at the same quality as a printed journal,
probably because the screen QC tools aren't as good as for print,
and publishers have to expand their personal to use the new technology.
This may just be a transient phenomena.
Another issue is citations for tenure and promotion.
Academic societies filter out some of the worse papers through peer review.
More important they an index number- publication, volser, page- to be
used in that ever important chain-of-reference.
Furthermore someone has to archive the papers for future accessibility.
For print journals that has mainly been academic libraries.
For electronic journals that may be the academic socities and publishers
themselves with copy sites in approproiate institutions.