Subject: Tropical ocean warming - are climate models wrong?
From: hugh@daflight.demon.co.uk (Hugh Easton)
Date: Wed, 18 Sep 96 23:20:57 GMT
For years, climatologists have been telling us that human-induced
"global warming" will mainly affect high latitudes. So far, there has
been no clear evidence of a large-scale temperature increase in either
the Arctic or Antarctica (or here in the U.K. for that matter!), a fact
which has led many sceptics to claim that global warming is a myth.
In a number of previous postings in this forum I have suggested a
possible explanation for the apparent lack of global warming: about 20
percent of heat from the sun arriving in the tropics is transported via
wind and ocean currents to mid and high latitudes. In addition to
producing an overall temperature increase, greenhouse gas (GHG)
emissions have adversely affected the heat transport process. The result
is a temperature increase in the tropics, and a strong cooling effect
(which has largely offset the effects of global warming) everywhere else.
This week's issue of Nature carries an article which appears to confirm
my theory in the strongest possible way. I challenge readers of these
newsgroups to find any other plausible explanation for these results:
Recent changes in tropical freezing heights and the role of sea
surface temperature (Nature vol 383 p152, 12 Sept 1996)
ABSTRACT
A widespread retreat of alpine glaciers and melting of tropical
ice-cap margins has been observed in recent decades, over which
time a general climate warming at lower altitudes has been
documented. Moreover, some ice-core records provide evidence
suggesting that mid-tropospheric temperatures in the tropics have
been greater in recent decades than at any time during the past
2,000-3,000 years. Here we examine the processes controlling
mountain glacier retreat by comparing high-altitude air-
temperature measurements for the past few decades, to the
temperature predicted by a model atmosphere forced by the
observed global pattern of sea surface temperature in a 19-year
simulation. The comparison strongly indicates that the observed
changes in freezing-level height (the altitude of the 0 C
isotherm) are related to a long-term (over decades) increase in
sea surface temperature in the tropics, and the consequent
enhancement of the tropical hydrological cycle. Although changes
in this cycle are likely to affect high-elevation hydrological
and ecological balances worldwide, tropical environments may be
particularly sensitive because the changes in tropical sea
surface temperature and humidity may be largest and most
systematic at low latitudes.
Fig. 4 in the article shows what appears to be a clear upward trend
in tropical ocean surface temperatures from the late 1970s onwards
(this also correlates well with temperature-related coral bleaching,
which has become increasingly frequent since the late '70s). The
authors go on to state that "the warmth recorded in the tropical oceans
may be at unprecedented level since the mid-Holocene period, 3,000 -
4,000 years ago". They do not say whether there was a warmer period
prior to this, or if that is simply the limit of how far back their ice
core data goes.
Those of you with a scientific background will be familiar with the
concept of the 95 percent confidence level. Basically, if the odds
against something happening by chance are less than 1 in 20, then the
result is accepted as real and not due to chance. Tropical ocean
temperatures within the last 20 years are higher than they have been
for approx. 4000 years, if not more. This gives odds of 1 in 200 (or
more) against it being due to chance. This would be accepted as an
overwhelmingly positive result in any laboratory experiment.
--
Hugh Easton
Subject: Re: Public-school indoctrination?
From: jmc@Steam.stanford.edu (John McCarthy)
Date: 19 Sep 1996 00:45:12 GMT
The environmentalist, political indoctrination at my son's school,
Lucille M. Nixon Elementary School, in the Palo Alto School District,
Palo Alto, California wasn't as bad as that described in the previous
message. The school had an outside organization, the Bay Area Action
Network, to come in and teach the children to make posters and recite
slogans. My son's part was to recite the slogan, "Full Circle Food
Cycle" as rapidly as possible. So far as I know, no named politicians
were described as bad guys.
In 1992 my son was six. His nanny told me that when told him, in
answer to his question, that she thought I was going to vote for Bush,
he cried. Somebody at school must have got to him, but maybe it was
just other kids. Stanford is a liberal place.
--
John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
*
He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.
http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/
Subject: Re: MTBers Trashing One of the Last Virgin Forests in Iowa!
From: Mike Vandeman
Date: Wed, 18 Sep 1996 16:49:32 -0700
S.J.Pratt wrote:
-
- Mike Vandeman writes:
-
- > My heritage is Dutch, but I can't see any reason to take a bike into the home
- > of wildlife.
-
- There is one utterly simple reason: to enjoy the wildlife. To actually get
- to see it. To breathe fresh air.
You can walk, can't you? No reason to rip up the trails & destroy everyone
else's experience, as well as drive out the wildlife that you came to see.
Alternatively we could create little
- sanctuaries of forestry, then put little video cameras in a few trees and
- broadcast it. Hell, that'd be just as good, surely? No, of course not.
- Yes, the forests are there - flora and fauna - to provide and maintain a
- well balanced ecological cycle. But they're also there to be enjoyed.
Says who? I don't think the wildlife would agree with you. From their point of view,
I am sure they would rather be left alone. That is why most of them leave as soon as
they see/hear us coming.
The
- fact that they were around long before us and our cities means not only
- that they must be preserved but that they are for us to use and enjoy.
You are begging the question. Who gave you the right to "use and enjoy"
them?
- By the way, if we are not Dutch, are we less likely to see a reason to
- take a bike into the home of wildlife?
Probably. The Dutch have destroyed most of their natural areas already, & are
ready to do the same to others'.
- > > My club sells stickers for 10 Guilders (about 5 dollars) that you stick to the
- > > frame of the bike. The sticker allows you to use the trail for the running year
- > > and the national parks service tells us were we're allowed to bike. All the
- > > money that selling stickers brings in goes to the national parks service. Our
- > > club (the mountainbikers themselves) maintain the trail.
- > > It's a great success for all of us.
- >
- > Except for the wildlife, who wish you would stay out altogether. Including the
- > ones that are extinct. Take their point of view for once!
-
- To my mind
Of what value is your mind, if you aren't willing to learn, e.g. by seeing things
from the point of view of wildlife.
this Dutch system is the ideal way to maintain forests which are
- used by groups such as mountain bikers. Those who use the trails pay to keep
- them maintained... it's simple and effective.
Effective in maintaining the trails, maybe, but not in keeping people out of
wildlife habitat. You are missing the point.
Anyone caught off limits gets
- a spot fine which can help pay for trail maintenance, which keeps people
- off of areas which are sensitive to erosion, and away from sectors of
- sensitive fauna habitat.
-
- You seem to nurture the idea that wildlife drops dead within half a mile
- of human intrusion: though I have no categorical evidence, I have absolute
- confidence that the existence of a network of well-maintained trails
- through a region of forestry has no effect on the wildlife within.
I know. But you have no knowledge to back up your belief, which is based on
complete ignorance of biology. You can find the information you need on my
web page.
- > > The Dutch philosophy is to make people use (but not abuse) the forests in order
- > > to gain respect for plants and animals.
- >
- > If you "use" them too much, they get destroyed. Aldo Leopold called that "loving
- > wilderness to death". You have already done that all over Europe!
-
- And if no-one uses them then no-one cares. There are minorities: you are in
- one, in that you care deeply about all areas of wildlife, however it is an
- undeniable (and perhaps unfortunate) fact that not all of society - far from
- it - is so inclined. People always protect their own, it is human, and
- animal, nature. If half the parks in my town were to be torn down, and half
- those in yours were to be torn down also, would the same people protest each
- action? Of course not, even though neither is less undesirable than the
> other.
Humans also are capable of compassion & altruism, or we would have NO parks.
If not, we might as well all commit suicide, because we are WORTHLESS.
- > > bicycles on the streets! But there's no better way of environmental
- > > transportation than using a bike.
- >
- > On the street, yes, but not in the wilderness! There, walking is far superior!
-
- This is questionable, surely? There is a suggestion here that hikers cause
- far less damage to the environment that bikers...
That missed the point. Nobody is trying to decide whether to allow hikers OR
bikers, but hikers alone, vs. hikers PLUS bikers. The former is obviously
preferable.
I would disagree. Firstly
> there is the effect of the numbers involved. There are far more hikers than
> cyclists in wild areas, and as a collective their effect is much more
> noticeable, especially where paths constrict, such as gates or junctions.
I see a lot more erosion damage from a few bikers, than from dozens of hikers.
Bikers also travel a lot farther & make a lot more noise.
> The presence of a flock of walkers must be as disturbing to any wildlife
> as a cyclist or two. In my experience, the only areas in which I have seen
> large numbers of riders is near urban areas -- areas where it would be
> almost laughable to suggest that a major detractor from the immediate
> environment's condition was the presence of cyclists.
Cyclists greatly increase the number of people who can access an area.
> Furthermore, there is little reason to suggest that even on a one-
> to-one basis the walker is 'far' superior. I agree that on the whole a
> hiker is less detrimental than a cyclist. However, largely because hiking
> is a more accessible activity (ie you don't need a bike) it attracts a
> higher proportion of 'part-time' hikers. There are any number of terms for
> the type, but call them what you will, there are those who go out with
> little regard for the countryside: they are often careless with their
> litter, leave gates open, allow their dogs to roam unleashed and so on.
> I recognise that of course this is far from being true of every walker;
> however my opinion is that the 'irresponsible minority' forms a higher
> propotion of hikers than it does cyclists; and again accounting for the
> larger number of hikers who use forests, the overall number concerned is
> far greater.
This is irrelevant. BOTH are harmful, as I have said many times, so we should
reduce the numbers of visitors, by not allowing biking. YOUR proposal is to
increase the number of people. That makes no sense, given the degree to which
you have already destroyed your environment, and are continuing to do so.
> > In my club
> > > (app. 250 members) no mountainbiker has ever killed an animal.
> >
> > Perhaps because you have already chased most of them away!
>
> Surely better than killing them?
>
> Please lay to rest the concept that wildlife cannot cope with intrusion;
> this is nonsense: the ecological systems involved are staggeringly complex
> and effective.
You need to learn something about biology! This is pure nonsense. Holland is
a good example of environmental destruction, including wildlife. How many species
have been driven extinct there? Find out, before you continue making no sense.
There can be few people who doubt that areas rich in wildlife
> are worth preserving; however there is no reason why we should feel forced
> to put it in a box and never touch it.
If that is what is needed in order to save it, yes we should!
If we never see it, touch it, smell
> it or experience it in any way then the only point of it being there is to
> filter the air.
So you believe that nature exists only to serve humans?!!! Why don't you make
this explicit? I thought such thinking went out with the "Flat Earthers".
In which case mountain bikes are of no significance and we
> should set up alt.rainforest.soc
>
> Nature is to be enjoyed.
>
> Stu
--
---
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
Subject: Groups Appeal Kansas Hazwaste Burning Permit
From: asagady@sojourn.com (Alexander Sagady)
Date: 19 Sep 1996 01:38:02 GMT
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Neil Carman, Sierra Club (512) 472-1767
Bill Craven, Kansas Sierra Club (913) 232-1555
Marty Sinclair, Oklahoma Sierra Club (405) 436-3752
John Pruden, National Citizens Alliance (517) 471-2747
Tom Blank, Assoc. for Responsible Thermal Treatment (202)842-3600
Frank Willis, Rollins Environmental Services (202) 842-3600
ENVIRONMENTAL GROUPS, LOCAL CITIZENS AND
INCINERATOR COMPANY COLLECTIVELY APPEAL EPA'S
FIRST FINAL PERMIT FOR A CEMENT KILN TO BURN
HAZARDOUS WASTE
EPA-Issued Final Permit Contradicts Administrator's Browner's
Recently Announced Policy for Tougher Standards to Protect
Children from Exposure to Toxic Substances
(Washington, D.C., September 17, 1996) -- Late yesterday, a
group of petitioners collectively filed an appeal before the
Environmental Appeals Board (EAB) seeking a review of EPA's
recently issued final permit for the Ash Grove Cement Company
(Chanute, Kansas) to burn hazardous waste.
The petitioners are the Kansas Sierra Club, Sierra Club's Lone
Star Chapter, National Citizens Alliance, the national Sierra
Club, Oklahoma Sierra Club, 22 local citizens in the Chanute
area, and Rollins Environmental Services, Inc.
In issuing the Ash Grove permit, EPA has contradicted
statements on new EPA policy made last week by EPA
Administrator Carol Browner with regard to the Agency's
commitment to protecting the health of children by focusing on
tough environmental protection standards in order to reduce the
potential risks of exposure to toxic substances.
The permit's operating conditions do not embody this policy of
reducing potential health risks to children. Furthermore, EPA
has acted against its Strategy for Waste Minimization and
Combustion whereby the Agency announced its intention to
have hazardous waste combustion facilities achieve low
emissions levels that protect human health and the
environment.
As an official statement, the petitioners strongly assert that, in
this first of its kind permit, EPA has made a decision to deviate
from clearly applicable regulations, policies and guidance
documents that govern hazardous waste combustion when it
issued the Ash Grove Cement permit.
The direct result of that deviation is that EPA has issued a
permit containing emissions limits and other controls which do
not adequately protect human health and the environment.
The petitioners believe that public participation has been
constrained by EPA's failure to provide access to numerous
documents that contained significant information which EPA
added to the administrative record to support its decision.
Congress gave the EPA Administrator expressed authority to
invoke stringent requirements on hazardous waste management
facilities to minimize threats to human health and the
environment. This is referred to as RCRA omnibus authority.
Carol Browner directed her staff to use omnibus authority to
protect human health and the environment. It appears that
Region 7, with this permit, has decided to ignore this and other
policy decisions by Administrator Browner.
Specifically, the emissions limits in this permit for lead,
mercury and particulate matter exceed what is envisioned in
this policy and present an unacceptable risk to human health
and environment. EPA's failure to establish acceptable and
protective emissions controls is the result of the Agency's
decision to rely on a risk assessment that did not properly
assess the environmental and health risks associated with the
Ash Grove facility.
The petitioners, therefore, request that the EAB challenge the
basis of the Ash Grove permit and remove the improper terms
and conditions found in the permit.
-30-
FOR A COPY OF THE APPEAL, CONTACT CHAD COUSER
AT (202)842-3600.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Summary of the Appeal Filed Collectively by the Petitioners
Regarding Ash Grove Cement's Final Permit to Burn Hazardous
Waste
On August 15, 1996, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) and the Kansas Department of Health and Environment
(KDHE) issued to Ash Grove Cement (Chanute, Kansas) a final
permit to burn hazardous waste. On September 16, 1996, the
petitioners listed in the appeal collectively filed for a review of
the permit by the Environmental Appeals Board (EAB). The
parties filed the appeal on the basis of the following errors and
flaws in the permit:
-- EPA failed to comply with the Waste Minimization and
National Combustion Strategy as put forth by
Administrator Browner. In terms of its effects on the
citizens and environment in the vicinity of the Ash Grove
facility and the precedents established by this permit for
future ones, EPA failed to follow clearly applicable
regulations, policies and guidance documents.
-- EPA's risk assessment is fatally flawed because it was not
conducted in compliance with either sound science or
applicable policies. EPA admitted that the risk
assessment did not comply with applicable guidelines.
Errors in the risk assessment include exclusion of a
number of toxic substances from the risk analysis; failure
to perform any site specific accident and transportation
risk analysis; and, exclusion of potential effects of
emissions related to the management of cement kiln dust
-- EPA did not perform a cumulative impacts analysis for
the emissions authorized in the permit. This contradicts
Administrator Browner's September 11, 1996
announcement that EPA will look at a "chemical's
cumulative effect as well as the impact of simultaneous
exposure to multiple pathways" when determining policy
so that risks to children's health may be reduced.
-- EPA'S risk assessment failed to address upset conditions.
No information was provided to indicate that EPA ever
examined the operating history of Ash Grove Cement to
determine the type and magnitude of upset conditions
that could occur.
-- EPA'S approval of the permit violates RCRA section 3005
(the "omnibus provision"). In this case, EPA has
sufficient facts to impose additional emission control
technology. Without such controls, Ash Grove's hazardous
waste permit is not sufficiently protective of human
health and the environment with regard to exposure to
cement kiln dust and emissions.
-- The permit fails to adequately limit potential metals
emissions. EPA did not have enough data to determine
that feed rate restrictions will reduce emissions.
Summary data does, however, show that Ash Grove
received wastes with high metals concentrations. An
analysis shows a correlation between high metals
concentrations in the waste feed and high metals
concentrations in cement kiln dust, which would produce
high metals emissions.
-- The waste analysis plan is inadequate.
-- The public has been deprived of an adequate opportunity
to review and evaluate the permit.
###
Subject: Re: Nuclear madness (Extremely safe nuclear power)
From: bbruhns@newshost.li.net (Bob Bruhns)
Date: 19 Sep 1996 00:03:04 GMT
By far, the bonehead NRC and those comic-book reactor managements
are the biggest nuclear safety problems in the USA. Certain military
installations are right up there, too. All technology issues are
secondary.
TMI was enough to permanently disqualify the entire industry in the
USA. Negligence on negligenge on disregard on utter unconcern.
They couldn't have sabotaged it more effectively. And the storage of
nuclear waste in the USA is horrible. Whatever doesn't leak out of
rusty, neglected containers, is used as airliner ballast, military
armor, or military armor-piercing artillery. Sure, that's safe.
It took the most incredible sequence of careless, incompetent
bungling to produce the disaster at TMI. And even afterward, control
operators of a nearby facility fell asleep at their posts - right in
front of NRC inspectors!
My point is that no matter how safe the engineers make the process,
idiot overseers can blow it up. It's the bungling nuclear industry
and NRC I don't trust. So far, I have not yet seen enough evidence
to change my opinion. And if the bungling extends to the protective
poisoning features in advanced fuel elements, or whatever other
technology may be used to mitigate the dangers of a LOCA, the result
will be the same. The same goes for waste storage. Because of this,
even as much as I like technology and electric power, I can not accept
nuclear power as safe.
Bob Bruhns, WA3WDR, bbruhns@li.net
Subject: Re: ancient forest reports report
From: sam maurer
Date: Wed, 18 Sep 1996 20:28:05 -0700
Murrilett Wonk wrote:
>
> Though by no means representing an exhaustive survey of all broadcast
> news media, here is an examination of some reporting on the struggle over
> Headwaters Grove and surrounding ancient forest habitat.
>
> Probably the very most atrocious sort of blather was heard over a CBS
> Radio national (top-of-the-hour) news summary, which referred to the
> protesters as trying to save "some redwood trees." The insultingly
> ignorant piece lasted not long at all, but found time for the last word
> to be had by tape of some anonymous supporter of Big Timber shouting
> about respecting private property. Maybe he never heard or just
> doesn't care about public property (Taxes) doled out hand over fist
> to bail out S&L;'s like the one Charles Hurwitz helped trash, costing Us
> $1.6bil.
>
> The San Francisco CBS Radio station has had a reporter on it, though,
> and as usual their perspective is much more objective than the sanitized
> national feeds. They also have had interviews with our senators:
> Boxer over the weekend for a half-hour in a boring all-issue campaigning
> talk, and Feinstein this morning in a brief treatment of the Headwaters
> battle. Depressingly, neither ventured into scientific or legal matters
> to any depth. Boxer expressed kind of a general concern, and suggested
> as one of the land-swap possibilities that some of the many decommissioned
> military real estate be traded. Feinstein talked about how she came to be
> involved in the ongoing highest-level negotiations. It turns out Louisiana
> Pacific approached HER over the summer, wanting to "expedite" things,
> apparently being keen enough to realize a Democrat as Far Right as DiFi
> would present the best opportunity to force any semblance of Left elements
> which exist to cave and fall in line behind the Less evil Party. Anyways,
> there were of course no specifics as to what exactly was covered by the
> agreement reached "in her office" to stay liquidation another fortnight.
> The reporter wanted to know about swap deal possibilities, but she couldn't
> comment on an ongoing legal fray. So then he asked about the three
> lawsuits against Hurwitz for his junk bonds shenanigans. Though the words
> "Debt for Nature" were never uttered this was clearly the issue, to which
> the Democrat said she couldn't respond, but did offer a twisted portrayal
> of attitudes: DiFi characterized any such sort of monetary offering as
> somehow fulfilling Hurwitz' wildest dreams. She stressed the separateness
> between the lawsuits that may well prove his criminality and the more
> pressing issue of his holding hostage the largest tract of the remaining
> 004% of ancient forest of its kind. If she thinks it's just what Charles
> wants, maybe she'd better re-read the first part of ecodefenders' rally cry:
> Debt for Nature. Jail for Hurwitz.
>
> ABC Radio news had a surprisingly balanced little report, though the most
> vital facts were largely overlooked, as expected in the Mainstream Media.
> This may have been one of the refreshing bits of coverage to include com-
> ment from the pertinent legal team (EPIC) though of course the allotted
> sound bite time was woefully inadequate for any explanation of the
> underlying criminality (or at the very least, immorality) of Maxxam Corp.
> However absurdly, this report shared with basically all others the
> omission of the actual reason as to just WHY the 4,000 have had to protest
> WHEN they did-- namely the Official end of the nesting season of an
> Endangered seabird as deemed by a court of Law. They allowed for an obscure
> reference to this, though, in the form of a few-second byte from Bonnie
> Raitt, "It's down to the wire now." I guess we're supposed to go now to
> our reference materials if we're concerned enough to want to know what that
> refers to. Well, us connected folks knew what she was talking about, but
> unfortunately the vast majority of the AM-radio consumers listening will have
> no idea about how appalling is the process that has forced folks to put
> their bodies in harm's way, that the People's interest might be served.
>
> Though not having the time to tune into much of the NPR news presentations
> on the subject, I did catch one of the the headline/summary reports a short
> time ago. Though it was typical in its use of dangerous generalizations and
> glossing over the most pertinent details, it was interesting that it provided
> this observer with the first instance of naming Don Henley as one of the
> Arrested. After hearing so many updates from many different news teams,
> practically all of them calling attention to the fact that celeb Bonnie
> Raitt took a stand for something crucial, it was strange to hear about
> Henley's presence not until now, seeing as he's by far the bigger record Seller.
> Perhaps they're wanting to keep perception of it as a sort of local Northern
> California matter, with Bonnie being from Mendocino (the neighboring county,
> now all but desertified by clearcuts.) She was probably also more vocal and
> visible, as it seems Henley could be able to draw even more attention if he
> went high profile, maybe with some singing too. (Seems like a good occasion
> for another Eagles reunion, actually.) Jackson Browne and others will be
> having a Fight the Rider sort of gig Oct. 7... hopefully that won't be just
> too late, because underway RIGHT NOW is the damage done. Either way, much
> thanks and gratitude go out to the Raitts and whoever can direct some
> notoriety and attention to this scandalous rape of our land.
>
> Pretty much exclusively, once again getting to the heart of the matter was
> Pacifica radio. Though only heard in 5 or 6 Big Cities, their "daily
> election show" is carried by many Pacifica "affiliates" as well--
> college, Public, and community stations-- many of whom might also carry the
> nightly half-hour Pacifica National News. Heard this morning was an
> interview with key activist/organizer Judi Bari, providing the environ-
> mentalist perspective on events in a far more complete manner than the
> ubiquitous soundbites heard elsewhere. She addressed how the Jobs angle
> is abused, while the multinationals of media continue to conveniently ignore
> how L-P went from a family-run operation famous for sustainable practices to
> a river-silting, cut-and-run clearcutting operation by nearly tripling its
> rate of cut upon Hurwitz' hostile take-over. This horrendous development
> was what provided Bari with very obvious reasons for loggers to organize as
> Laborers, since a new management with no cares about maintaining forests
> to fell likewise cares not about Jobs, but is obviously more interested in
> cashing out its Resources. Such evidence as the shipping of giant milling
> equipment to Mexico, where the Harvest from the next new front, Siberia
> would be logged, pounded another nail in the economy of the Northcoast. So
> Judi was actually making some headway, in the late 80's, organizing loggers
> who never previously had management so abusive of the locale and its people.
> In the interview, she was even allowed to go into this background a bit, and
> mention the attempt on her life which followed, as well as her lawsuit
> against the FBI regarding the investigation, which has won some preliminary
> battles.
> One intriguing story she had to report from Carlotta was that of dis-
> information being put out by Big Timber interests. Apparently they've been
> going to media accusing environmentalists of putting trip-wires and
> God-knows-what booby traps in the woods, but reporters have grown wise
> enough to ignore the claims. Looking back at these struggles historically,
> there's been constant flow of this crying wolf coming out of the monied
> interests in the logging communities. So this time they've resorted to
> printing up their own flyers and posting them on telephone poles, having
> failed to get their wild accusations printed even in their generally lap-dog
> Big Business local papers!
>
> Apologies if your eyeballs have been strained by now. Finally, though, one
> should be reminded of some of the most crucial info, practically all of
> which has been ignored by every report heard over the Networks (NPR, etc):
>
> -> September 15 was not chosen by the 4,000 activists. Legal
> protections have run out for the habitat, because the
> marbled murrelets are officially no longer nesting as
> of this date. Of course this decision assumes that
> the endangered bird doesn't need the biomass anymore
> because they're old enough to fly happily around now.
> No thought was given, apparently, to next year when
> they'll come back to nest, and the trees are gone.
>
> -> This is matter of saving the very last vestiges of this
> ancient habitat. The words "species", "biodiversity",
> and "ecology" are not to be found in these reports,
> a strong indicator of science illiteracy generally, perhaps.
> Numerous churches and synagogues have spoken out about
> the moral atrocity we are faced with, as our rubber-stamp
> Forest Services are about to allow the liquidation of
> pristine groves containing God's Creations as many as
> 2,000 years old. This century's generations are
> completing an arrogant annihilation, depriving next
> century's of untold natural potential. Someone posted
> a relevant factoid to the ca.environment newsgroup recently:
> 1% of the original Coho salmon remain. USA have consumed 99%
>
> -> Charles Hurwitz maneuvered himself into possession of this
> six-grove forest by way of dealings with Michael Millken
> during the 80's boom for financiers that followed
> Reagan's unregulation of the S&L;'s in 1982. He is now
> the target of THREE lawsuits by the FDIC, the OTS
> (Office of Thrift Supervision), and citizens litigating
> on behalf of the U.S. taxpayer. Also heard on a Pacifica
> news report, he intentionally falsified documents to
> procure loans. Any reporter or politician truly representing
> the public's right to know would be digging up and dis-
> tributing this dirt far and wide. Yet we have supposed
> "liberals" such as Feinstein telling us that linking pending
> proof of his criminality to present dealings is absolutely
> out of the question. Any polling of people given a summary
> of relevant facts would surely support Debt-for-Nature,
> whereby invasion of the 60000-acre habitat, in any form,
> must be suspended at least until the lawsuits can be heard.
>
> --
> "It ain't what you got... "
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: 2.6.1
>
> iQBpAwUAMj3V2BcOhfFUrvolAQE45AKaA2EOBKpyGNx8wTfPDt2hH3IrQ+wjgdl4
> UemtiJjhFYkxG3EWiL4bLVPXG08WaUCKAuOcUcBNd2nJ2N0jslpNiS+NHqMdhdYU
> pm4PWgsEvN9SEBBA
> =SdN/
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> --
> "what use is truth against all lies? when sacred pales before profane?"
After rading your interesting report and respond to it I find it
remarkable that we tent to loose our selves in unimportant little
detail's, We have the opportunity to make an international effort to
influence law-makers. lets not make the same mistake they make.
Further more we are talking only a tiny fraction of ancient forest.
The fact its that we destroy tropical rain forest at a rate of 75
million acres per year and drive 50'000 species of plants and animals
living in the forest in to extinction. And very little time left to make
a positive impact, so lets not get lost in details
exactly as the politicians we blame.
Subject: Re: Whaling Moratorium and U.S. National Security
From: CouncilOf3
Date: Wed, 18 Sep 1996 20:20:07 -0700
Hakan Thyr wrote:
>
> CouncilOf3 wrote:
> >
> > Doug Von Gausig wrote:
> > >
> > > CouncilOf3 wrote:
> > > (snip)
> > > > The next day I dropped my son off in front of the school. The three officers were
> > > > standing there drinking coffee, and about twenty feet away two students were taking
> > > > turns hitting on a joint. The cops were completely oblivious.
> > > >
> > > > The day after that I had to pick my son up early because he had a doctors appointment.
> > > > I went to his science class to let him know I had arrived. I watched outside the door
> > > > for awhile in utter horror as the teacher drew a picture of an atomic bomb on the
> > > > chalkboard and then proceeded to write "= George Bush and Dan Qualye" next to it. He
> > > > then brought out a globe and had the kids pass it around to each other while they
> > > > chanted "The earth is our mother". This is a common brainwashing technique. The walls
> > > > were plastered with pictures of whales and dolphins doing everyday human things;
> > > > shopping, driving cars, dressed up in suits, etc. On either side of the chalkboard
> > > > were maps of Japan and Norway - both had darts stuck in them...
> > > >
> > >
> > > For those of you in countries other than the US, who may believe what's
> > > been said, the forgoing is what we politely call "bullshit".
> >
> > So you were there, Doug? Everything I said here was the truth, the whole truth, and nothing
> > but the truth. This story is not unusual here in the states. Our public school system is
> > in utter shambles, and we can all thank our "enlightened" liberals and socialist teachers
> > unions.
> >
> > BTW, Doug, I don't like being called a liar, so GFY!
> >
> > --
> > Eo
>
> Would you mind telling us the name of the school, just for clarity?
James Lick Middle School - (415) 695-5675. Give 'em a call if you want a good laugh. Just
hope the person you reach can speak English...
Subject: Position Announcement: Env. Protection Director, The Conservancy of SW Florida
From: "David E. Guggenheim"
Date: Tue, 17 Sep 1996 10:41:39 -0400
POSITION ANNOUNCEMENT
Director of Environment Protection Unit,
The Conservancy of Southwest Florida
Overview
The Conservancy of Southwest Florida is a 5,000 member not-for-profit
conservation organization founded in Naples, Florida, in 1964. The
mission of The Conservancy is to conserve the biodiversity,
environmental quality, and natural resources of Southwest Florida's
native ecosystems for present and future generations. The purpose of
this position is to direct and provide the organization's research and
public policy by promoting the mission through local environmental
protection, land acquisition, conservation stewardship, and ecological
research activities.
Qualifications
-Strong commitment to the conservation of biodiversity, environmental
quality, and natural resources
-Ph.D. in ecology or related field, with experience in aquatic
ecology/hydrology and environmental policy
- Strong scientific background and experience in specialty area
- Hands-on experience in conservation of ecosystems and natural
resources at local and regional levels
- Demonstrated supervisory and team building skills to work
cooperatively with individuals of diverse interest and backgrounds
- Excellent written and oral communication skills; demonstrated ability
to communicate technical concepts to a broad range of audiences
- Strong organizational, team building, interpersonal, and leadership
abilities
- Willing to work variable hours and to travel locally and regionally as
necessary
-Demonstrated experience in writing and administering grants and
contracts
-Experience in development and management of budgets
Essential Responsibilities
-Reports to and is supervised by the President of The Conservancy
-Advise Conservancy President (and Board of Directors as requested) on
environmental issues and long-range conservation strategies.
-Design and direct all Environmental Protection Unit projects and
programs.
-Propose, prepare, and manage Unit budgets.
-Participate on local, regional, and state-wide natural resources
management committees as directed by the President.
-Coordinate and/or provide technical assistance to other agencies and
organizations involved in natural resources management and research
activities.
-Act as a staff scientist and technical resource in areas of
professional research and expertise.
-Develop grant applications which support The Conservancy#s visions,
goals, and objectives.
-Supervise Environmental Protection staff including hiring
recommendations, performance reviews, salary recommendations,
corrective action, and provide support to maintain a positive
relationship between EP staff and other units.
The above statements describe the general qualifications required to
perform the job and the general nature and level of
responsibilities---not a complete list of duties---additional duties may
be assigned by management.
To Apply: Send application letter highlighting relevant experience and
interest, curriculum vitae, writing sample, and three references to
Human Resources Manager, Dept. ISE, The Conservancy of Southwest Florida, 1450
Merrihue Drive, Naples, FL 34102. Salary: Commensurate with
qualifications and experience. Closing Date: October 10, 1996 or until
filled. Equal opportunity and drug-free employer.
**Please refer all questions and responses in writing to the above address. Please do not reply to this
posting. **
revised 9/9/96
Subject: Re: Solution to Vandeman.
From: memory@cts.com (M.M.)
Date: Thu, 19 Sep 1996 05:30:08 GMT
>I'm the one having most of the fun, here. It is instructive to all of our readers
>around the world that mountain bikers aren't intelligent enough to understand the
>difference between PacBell.com (a telephone company) and Pacbell.net (an Internet
>service provider). But go ahead, continue wasting your time and failing your own
>IQ test! Todd Ourston is the only one of you that is even capable of using words
>with more than one syllable, even if not honestly.
Yes Mike, you are having fun. I read many of your writings on your
website, to try to understand what would drive such hateful rhetoric.
Is your concern the enviroment, or do you really enjoy all of this
that much? Your story about losing your cat was actually pretty sad.
You may have a heart Mike, but you have no soul. You have an
opportunity to do some good while you are on the planet, but instead
you spew rhetoric based in emotion, not facts. You yourself claim that
the loss of your mother in a car accident drives your crusade against
roads. You advocate removal of roads, but don't offer an alternative.
Are you just venting your anger and hurt, or are you trying to make a
difference. You don't provide any proof that Mt. Biking warrants your
many writings against the sport, as opposed to the multitude of other
bad things that pollute the enviroment. This whole war against
Vanderman thing is really fascinating. You really get off on it. Why?
This is like looking at a bad car wreck on the side of the road. It's
really nasty, but i can't take my eyes off it.
Randy
Subject: Re: Tax Only Power Consumption
From: jftims@borg.com (Jim Tims)
Date: Thu, 19 Sep 1996 02:36:44 GMT
Dwight Zerkee :
:Another "unintended consequence" would be the movement of people to
:more temperate zones.
Or improving the insulation in their homes, replacing their worn out
furnaces with newer energy efficient models, etc., creating a home
heating/AC boom.
:I assume from the other postings that the tax being considered is one
:that is levied at the federal level in order to replace income taxes.
Yes. We want to rid ourselves of the IRS. So long as we are about
that task (a top drawer social upheaval, no matter how it's done!),
why not try to impart a little forethought into replacing it? The
national sales tax has been beat to death, people make bad arguments
for and against it, so I thought I'd try something a bit different.
Obviously, Henry George beat me to the idea of taxing monopolies by
almost a century, but I did think of it myself.
:As such, a single tax on energy consumption would place an unfair
:burden on those who live in colder climates...[etc.]
Energy Consumption per Capita by State, 1992, million btu:
1. Alaska 1040
2. Wyoming 908.1
3. Louisiana 831
4. Texas 560.7
.
33. Maine 299.6
34. District of Columbia 297.4
.
49. Florida 227.4
50. New Hampshire 218.9
51. New York 199.7
Climate does not appear to be the deciding factor in energy usage,
except possibly in the case of Alaska. I would guess Alaska could use
better insulation and some energy-efficient underground apartments.
:Since most rational beings try to reduce their tax burden, the more
:temperate states, such as Tennessee or Oregon, would experience an
:influx of people. This would increase unemployment rates in those
:states until the number of industries increase in the region.
Things of this sort already occur because of uneven state taxes on
both individuals and corporations.
:Corporate consumers would move eventually in order to find employees
:(which will demand lower wages than those who stayed behind) and
:reduce their own energy consumption due to heating/cooling loads.
This already happens for other reasons. Perhaps industries would
return to the neighborhoods they left in the north for the lower taxes
in the south.
:This could be offset by varying the consumption tax according to the
:mean consumption for the region. However, the need to adjust the tax
:in the pursuit of fairness among regions would increase the number of
:bureaucrats, economists,etc. on the public payroll.
Precisely the thing we are attempting to avoid. The tax is on energy.
If it's expensive to live in Alaska, so be it. As I understand it, it
already is. Higher local incomes cover higher regional costs, no
matter what their origin. Would you make the same argument for the
minimum wage, that a higher minimum wage be established for San
Francisco than for Alco, Arkansas?
dz.
Subject: Re: Tax Only Power Consumption
From: jftims@borg.com (Jim Tims)
Date: Thu, 19 Sep 1996 02:36:50 GMT
> Mason A. Clark wrote:
>>
>> In the spirit of Henry George, jftims@borg.com (Jim Tims) suggested:
>>>
>>>snip<<<
>> Henry George suggested taxing only real estate.
>>
> Actually, H.G. argued to ta only monopolies:
>
> "But the great class of taxes from which revenue may be derived without interference
> with production are taxes upon monopolies - for the profit of monopoly is in itself a
> tax levied upon production, and to tax it is simply to divert into the public coffers
> what production must in any event pay" -- Henry George, _Progress and Poverty_
>
> During his time the greatest monopoly was that of land (most people were engaged in the
> agricultural production), now the greatest monopoly (economic) profit arives from
> government granted licences, and most of it from the limited liability licence.
Could we now say that the greatest monopoly is the supply of energy?
Probably not. The oil companies have such an appearance of cutthroat
competition, it is difficult to define them as monopolies, for
example.
>> Others have suggested
>> taxing only purchases - by sales tax. Jim Tims would tax only power
>> consumption.
>>
A sales tax is my second choice. You seem to think an energy tax as
the sole source of internal government revenues is a stupid idea.
Probably so, but I'd like to know why, just to satisfy my own
curiosity, then I'll gladly discard the idea.
>> Is any think tank putting numbers on these and other alternatives?
>>
> I'm not a think tank, but my pamphlet demonstrates that a properly constructed limited
> liability licence fee can _CAUSE_ prodution.
>
>> What about *unintended consequences*?
One intended consequence is lowering demand for energy, and all that
that entails. If the assumption that reducing energy usage is wrong,
then a sales tax might be better. It is hard to imagine the
consequences being worse than the personal income tax, however, its
elimination being our primary consequence.
>>
>> I prefer the _intended_ consequences of causing optimum rate of economic growth.
Could you expand with a few examples?
--
jim tims
"And if you're a miner, when you're too tired and old and sick and stupid
to do your job properly, you have to go, whereas just the opposite applies
with the judges." Beyond the Fringe