Subject: Re: Major problem with climate predictions
From: charliew@hal-pc.org (charliew)
Date: Wed, 20 Nov 96 00:17:20 GMT
In article <3291EC2B.4A69@ix.netcom.com>,
mfriesel@ix.netcom.com wrote:
>Raymond D'Antuono wrote:
>.....
>> I'm sorry that I missed the original post titled "Major
problem with
>> climate predictions", for I would love to have seen the
post that started
>> this thread, and to know what the original poster thought
was the major
>> problem with climate predictions. Here are my thoughts
on the matter.
>>
>> The major problem with climate predictions, in my
opinion, is that it is
>> nearly impossible to say, with any certainty, what the
precise effect of
>> increasing the CO2 concentration in our atmosphere will
be. The workings
>> of our atmosphere are so chaotic, the balance of the
physics and
>> chemistry involved so precise, that no current model can
truly predict
>> what will happen; rather, only offer a guess based on
simplifications
>> used to bring the equations involved within our reach.
>
>I note:
>
>Although a simpler system, the same may be said of the
stock market.
>It is not necessary to completely understand a system to
establish a
>set of descriptive equations which increase your
probability of gain
>and decrease your probability of loss. One such system
used in the
>market is a short-term/longer-term price average pair
coupled to a
>decision rule to prompt buy or sell. If the short-term
average rises
>above the long-term, you buy and if the market takes off
you make lots
>of money. If the short-term average drops below the
long-term, you
>sell and if the bottom drops out you're in the clear. Only
general
>knowledge of how the market operates is necessary to use
this
>beneficially, and no knowledge of market forces is
necessary. More
>important to success is your ability to implement it.
So, are you one of the people who uses this plan?
Subject: Re: Global oil production could peak in as little as four years!
From: mfriesel@ix.netcom.com
Date: Tue, 19 Nov 1996 18:03:56 -0700
In article <328A7837.103@ix.netcom.com> mfriesel@ix.netcom.com writes:
>
> >Nahh, it's a design problem, and it's much easier, just for example,
> >to design a home solar panel that doesn't require you to get on the
> >roof. You won't get management of these complex powerplants to change
> >their habits either, nor the tendency of their masters to look at
> >short-term profit at the expense of safety.
>
> Where do you propose to put this solar panel? You perhaps forgot
> that many people live in places where they don't have acres of back
> yard to put the panels.
>
> At my place, the choice is on the roof, or in the shade.
>
I guess I'll play the role of architectural engineer if you like.
Please ship me yourhouse design plan. I'll work out the best solution
for your particular situation, and make recommendations using current
technology for ~ $5k. But note that when the rest of the post is
included, you'll see that what I'm saying is that I consider it much
easier to design a safer solar panel than to accomplish the other
engineering marvels they propose with a straight face.
If you desing a panel that will swing down for servicing, they'll
start talking about getting bopped in the head or how it will be
impossible to stop leakage, or anything else they can think of to show
that safer solar power can never be accomplished. Those who only
support certain kinds of technology are as much anti-technologists as
those who oppose any technology, and are far more damaging in the long
run.
Subject: Coeur d'Alene Mines Corporation announcement on the Golden Cross Mine
From: Steve Stakiw
Date: Tue, 19 Nov 1996 14:03:30 -0800
Coeur d'Alene Mines Corporation
To our local communities
I am pleased to be able to give the assurance that Golden Cross Mine
will continue operating until at least the end of 1997. This follows
a decision by the local council in favor of a crest raise, coupled
with a positive engineering evaluation of the multi-million dollar
remedial works programme being carried out at the mine.
As you are no doubt aware, Coeur has spent nearly $20 million this
year in remedying the situation at Golden Cross. The success of our
remediation programme is underlined by the fact that the tailings dam
performed outstandingly, despite experiencing the wettest winter in
the last 15 years.
We have also spent a considerable amount of time determining the best
course of action for the company in New Zealand - for the benefit of
our employees, the local community and our shareholders.
Now, with the consents for the crest raise, and the endorsement of
the remediation programme by an independent team of local and
international experts, we are able confidently to continue mining at
Golden Cross.
This means:
the families of employees will continue to receive an income.
work will continue for local sub-contractors.
the region will continue to benefit from the $30 million worth
of goods and services purchased by the mine annually.
we remain committed to safe and sustainable mining practices,
and to reclamation of the area at the end of life-of-mine.
Coeur has always operated Golden Cross to the highest engineering and
environmental standards and we will continue to do so. And, as we have
undertaken all along, when we do eventually cease operations we will
do so in an environmentally responsible manner.
Coeur has a hard-won reputation for being a good corporate citizen of
the communities in which we live and operate. We will continue to work
with you through the community consultative committee, local iwi,
regulatory authorities, employee representatives and local businesses.
With regard to the suit filed by anti-mining activists seeking to
invalidate the permit to raise the crest of the tailings dam, the
company will defend its position.
As always, we will keep you informed of developments at the mine.
Please feel free, at any time, to talk to our Community Relations
Manager, Joe Nelson, or our Environmental Manger, Rob Gwilym, who
are both based here at Golden Cross.
Finally, I would like to take this opportunity of thanking all of you
who have given us your encouragement and support during this uncertain
time.
We look forward to continuing to work with you.
Richard Weston
Vice President & General Manager
Coeur Golden Cross
For more information contact:
Anthony R. Ebersole
Director of Investor Relations
Coeur d'Alene Mines Corporation
505 Front Street, P.O. Box I
Coeur d'Alene, Idaho 83816-0316
Telephone: 208.667.3511
Facsimile: 208.667.2213
E-mail: tebersol@dmi.net
WWW site: http://www.coeur.com
Subject: Re: Air pollution stats needed
From: Lotto Lai
Date: Wed, 20 Nov 1996 10:30:50 +0800
Vandit Kalia wrote:
>
> Hi,
> Can anyone help me locate a source for obtaining air pollution
> stats for around 20 cities around the world? I am looking for some
> measure of air quality that would include particulates, smog, etc. in the
> air.
>
> Thanks,
> Vandit
>
> --
> ========================================================================> Vandit Kalia, now webbed at http://www.seas.upenn.edu/~vkalia/home.html
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------> "With the first link, a chain is forged. The first speech censured, the
> first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, chains us all
> irrevocably"
Hello,
You can find information from 'OECD Environmental Data' in
University Library. Many countries and cities are included. Air
pollution parameter are included SOx, SO2, NOx, VOC, particulates,etc.
I ++
LO/\O
Lotto@sky.com.hk
Subject: Re: Major problem with climate predictions
From: C369801@mizzou1.missouri.edu (Walker on Earth)
Date: Tue, 19 Nov 96 19:36:46 CST
In article <3291b899.82447214@nntp.st.usm.edu>
brshears@whale.st.usm.edu (Harold Brashears) writes:
>C369801@mizzou1.missouri.edu (Walker on Earth) wrote for all to see:
>>
>>Did you believe cigarette smoking was linked to several varieties
>>of cancer before 1996? I know I did. Yet, according to you, I
>>would have been in error, since all that was proven was a statist-
>>ical correlation.
>
>There must have been something trimmed from this before you got it, as
>I would not place that spin on it at all. This is a simple statement
>of a logical truth. Only because event A occurs, and then thing B
>occurs, is not proof that event A caused thing B.
>
>With smoking, there is an awful lot of good reason to believe that
>cigarettes caused cancer. My grandfather (yes, that long ago)
>referred to them as coffin nails, long before there was overwhelming
>statistical evidence.
Statistical. Yes. _Precisely_. Were you aware that tobacco companies
have argued successfully for years that statistical studies have
only shown a _correlation_ between smoking and cancer? In fact, it
was not until 1996 that a causal link between smoking and cancer
was demonstrated. True, many people, perhaps even your grandfather,
accepted those studies as evidence that smoking _causes_ cancer;
I know I did. Are you prepared to argue that we were all wrong
to do so? If not, why do you hold tobacco emissions to different
evidentiary standards than industrial ones when considering
adverse consequences?
>>Well? Did you, or did you not believe that cigarettes caused
>>cancer before, say, January of this year?
Perhaps you were unaware of the nature of the studies conducted to
determine the possible risks of smoking, so I'll ask again: did
you believe on the basis of those studies that cigarettes caused
lung cancer prior to 1996, the year a causal link between the
two was first demonstrated?
My point is the obvious one, that while technically correlation can
seldom be used to prove causation, nevertheless as a practical exped-
iency we use it to do so every day - and our unjustified conclusions
prove to be right often enough to justify this logically unsound
practice when the appropriate caveats are applied.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
"He deserves death."
"Deserves it! I daresay he does. Many that live deserve death. And some
that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be too eager
to deal out death in judgement. For even the very wise cannot see all
ends."
Subject: Re: Nuclear Safety disinformation (was Re: Dangerous Solar)
From: jmc@Steam.stanford.edu (John McCarthy)
Date: 20 Nov 1996 00:52:02 GMT
In article <56t9mt$o78$1@newsy.ifm.liu.se> redin@lysator.liu.se (Magnus Redin) writes:
masonc@ix.netcom.com (Mason A. Clark) writes:
>
> > That's nonsense, that last sentence. The U.S. has two problems: the
> > great American Desert separating east and west and capitalistic low
> > prices of air fair. After all, the U.S. invented air travel (didn't
> > it xxx?). It is the environmentalists who would like to see more
> > train service. Trains are energy efficient and low in pollution.
>
> Jet aeroplanes travels at about 900 km/h, an old train about 150 km/h
> and the best trains can make 300 km/h on new tracs. Three times a long
> travel time for trains but its much quicker to get on a train then to
> chech in for a flight and trains are more comfortable. (I evened out
> the figuers somewhat to get them easy to compare. )
>
> Unfortunatly it would cost HUGE ammounts of money to lay new, straight
> and electrified double tracs between the US coasts. And you cant move
> the tracs when the demand changes. Large airports do have the same
> problem but they are cheap compared with laying large ammounts of
> railtrack. A network of high speed railtracs is an investment
> comparable to when the highway system was built. I suspect it is hard
> to get enough intrested customers to make such an investment. :-(
Moreover, I don't always (or even most of the time) fly coast to
coast. What about the non-stop flights that exist from San Jose, CA
to Austin, TX, Boise, Idaho and the forty (guess) other American
destinations reachable from San Francisco and San Jose nonstop.
Enthusiasts have been babbling about replacing planes by trains for 30
years, but I have never seen a proposal for a complete system that
would allow me to calculate how much the trips I have made would have
been lengthened in this Utopia.
--
John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/
During the last years of the Second Millenium, the Earthmen complained
a lot.
Subject: Chemicals-Decreased Fertility Link
From: GOLEM
Date: Tue, 19 Nov 1996 20:32:16 -0500
###### # # ####### # # #####
# # ## # # # # # # #
# # # # # # # # # #
###### ##### # # # ##### # # # #####
# # # # # # # # #
# # ## # # # # # #
# # # ####### ## ## #####
[*********PNEWS CONFERENCES************]
/* Written 12:26 AM Nov 12, 1996 by twn in igc:twn.features */
/* ---------- "Chemicals-Decreased Fertility Link" ---------- */
REPORT LINKS CHEMICALS AND DECREASED FERTILITY
The suspicion of a link between the deteriorating reproductive
health of humans and wildlife and the increasing number and
complexity of synthetic chemicals in the environment, has been
boosted by a recent report by Friends of the Earth Scotland on
hormone disrupting chemicals.
By Linda Cook
A recent report by FoE [Friends of the Earth] Scotland on
hormone disrupting chemicals (HDCs) supports the link made in
recent years between a decline in the reproductive health of
wildlife and humans and an increase in the number and complexity of
synthetic chemicals in the environment. It also includes the
results of FoE Scotland's own investigations into HDC levels in the
Scottish environment and recommends specific government action.
More than 50 groups of chemicals have been shown to have
hormone disrupting effects. These include alkyphenol ethoxylates
(APEs), dioxins, furans, PCBs, organochlorine pesticides,
phthalates and bisphenol-A. Household commodities containing such
chemicals include some hair-care products, detergents and food
items (particularly infant formula). The report emphasises that
areas where there is clear cause for concern include exposure to
bisphenol-A from dental sealants (often used for children) and APE
levels in industrial and sewage effluent.
Human reproductive health is being increasingly threatened by
cancers and abnormalities, with, for example, an estimated 45%
reduction in sperm counts between 1945 and 1990 and an increase in
the incidence of hormone-sensitive cancers of the breast, uterus,
prostrate and testes. Observations of wildlife also show
reproductive failures, increased deformities of the reproductive
organs and behavioural abnormalities in new-born mammals, birds and
fish. Meanwhile, around 1,000 new chemicals have been introduced
onto the market each year since the 1940s.
The link between these trends is the endocrine system, the
mechanism which uses hormones to control bodily functions including
growth and reproduction. HDCs are capable of acting like hormones,
or of disrupting the normal system of hormone activity. It seems
likely that the potential long-term effects of HDC exposure will be
severe: some studies already indicate learning difficulties in
children, and animal research points to attention deficits, reduced
stress tolerance and increased aggression.
The FoE Scotland report cites numerous examples of tests
carried out since the 1930s and 1940s that give evidence of this
link. During the 1940s, 1950s and 1960s, for example, the chemical
DES, which mimics oestrogen in the body, was administered to 5
million pregnant women. Side-effects came to light only a
generation later, when the so-called DES daughters suffered
clusters of exremely rare cancers, in particular vaginal cancer,
and DES sons reported elevated rates of testicular cancer and
fertility problems. Also, male roosters treated with DDT in the
1950s to kill insects underwent feminisation. In the 1970s, it was
shown how DDT and other synthetic chemicals could disrupt the
sexual development of birds.
FoE Scotland found it difficult to obtain useful information
on current levels of HDCs in Scotland. Certain areas of industry,
in particular food manufacturers, were 'either ignorant or
dismissive of the issues' and 'even those who replied are, of
course, under no obligation to tell the truth.' The report
concludes with recommendations to the government. Although the
government committed itself to 'action to limit the use of
potentially dangerous materials or the spread of potentially
dangerous pollutants, even where scientific knowledge is not
conclusive' in its Sustainable Development Strategy, it has so far
maintained that there is not enough evidence to merit action.
But apparently swift action is possible. Some food
manufacturers have already opted for materials free of phthalates,
and APEs are subject to a total ban in Switzerland. FoE Scotland
has called on their government not only to step up its research
efforts, but also to replace HDCs, set safety levels, screen other
chemicals and provide information to the consumer. As the report
points out, 'further research is necessary, but there is already
sufficient information known to take precautionary action now - not
in 5 or 10 years time when another generation will have been
exposed to these chemicals and wildlife will have been further
disrupted.' - Third World Network Features
-ends-
About the writer: Linda Cook is with Friends of the Earth
International.
This article first appeared in Link, July/August 1996.
When reproducing this feature, please credit Third World Network
Features and (if applicable) the cooperating magazine or agency
involved in the article, and give the byline. Please send us
cuttings.
For more information, please contact:
Third World Network
228, Macalister Road, 10400 Penang, Malaysia.
Email: twn@igc.apc.org; twnpen@twn.po.my
Tel: (+604)2293511,2293612 & 2293713;
Fax: (+604)2298106 & 2264505
1525/96
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
PNEWS CONFERENCES provide "progressive" views with an
emphasis on justice, humanitarian positions and TRUTH. There is a
growing cancer on the InterNET which distorts the truth and spreads
vicious false propaganda about Jews and Israel. PNEWS provides a platform
to confront those lies. PNEWS is an educational forum and depository for
articles and essays from across the political spectrum since no specific
"wing" has a monopoly on the truth. PNEWS conforms to the
precepts of oppositionalism and duality of opinion.
To subscribe to PNEWS-L [1500+ subscribers], send request to:
"SUBSCRIBE PNEWS-L "
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
To subscribe to PAIN-L, all aspects of chronic pain; physical & political,
HEALTH & health-politics for physicians and patients and all
interested parties. Everyone is confronted with pain at one time or
another in their lives. This is an educational forum, NOT a chat
conference for endless banter. The primarily criteria for PAIN is to
correctly inform. [1100+ subscribers]
SEND:"SUBSCRIBE PAIN-L " to: .
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
Nominations are now being accepted for FLAMING ASSHOLISM'S HALL-OF-SHAME:
Vote or nominate your favorite ASSHOLE - SEE: "NO GIMPS ALLOWED!"
Have a gripe against someone. Nominate them for the "Hall-Of-Shame."
http://www.applicom.com/pnews/
**************************************************************************
"Of course fascists should have free speech. But first cut out their
tongues." [Harvey "Joe six-pack" Rossetti]
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
The "REAL" world is full of "real pain," not "PC" bullshit. -HR-
**************************************
DON'T LET THE BASTARDS GRIND YOU DOWN!
THE POSTMAN
Subject: What if it's "Use nuclear or give up cars"?
From: jmc@Steam.stanford.edu (John McCarthy)
Date: 20 Nov 1996 04:00:02 GMT
If greenhouse warming proves to be harmful, these may turn out to be
the alternative. Many politicians and scientists, who recognize the
benefits of nuclear energy, are keeping their mouths shut, because
they don't want to tangle with fanatics like the members of
Greenpeace.
Should they be faced with the above choice, they will consider that
the political consequences of not providing energy for individual
transportation will be severe. The countries that use nuclear energy
would have a big advantage over those that refuse it.
My point isn't that this will happen, although it probably will. The
point is rather that politicians and scientists are not faced with the
stark choice yet, and what they say now does not predict what they
will do when and if they are faced with it.
--
John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/
During the last years of the Second Millenium, the Earthmen complained
a lot.
Subject: Re: Major problem with climate predictions
From: "Mike Asher"
Date: 19 Nov 1996 19:22:21 GMT
Raymond D'Antuono wrote:
>.. Anyone familiar with chaos theory knows that just merely a
> small change on a minute scale can have an impact on the entire system.
> If I understand correctly, it was the first computer model for weather
> forecasting that gave birth to the chaos theory, as it was observed that
> minute changes to the initial conditions of the model produced entirely
> different results in the long-term forecast.
Simply because a chaotic system refuses to converge, does not mean that its
behaviour is unbounded. In short, a butterfly flapping its wings in China
may well cause rain two weeks later in Iowa.....but it won't raise average
world rainfall by two inches.
--
Mike Asher
masher@tusc.net
"The powers in charge keep us in a perpetual state of fear - - keep us in a
continuous stampede of patriotic fervor -- with the cry of grave national
emergency... Always there has been some terrible evil to gobble us up if we
did not blindly rally behind it by furnishing the exorbitant sums demanded.
Yet, in retrospect, these disasters seem never to have happened, seem never
to have been quite real."
-General Douglas MacArthur, 1957.
Subject: Re: Heidelberg Appeal
From: mfriesel@ix.netcom.com
Date: Tue, 19 Nov 1996 19:01:05 -0700
I remark:
Perfectly resonable. I'd have little difficulty signing this, as well
as the previous document. It is not an anti-environmentalist document
that I can see, and even (I think given the general nature of most of
the document a little inconsistently) specifically mentions
overpopulation, starvation, and disease as problems. It also
indicates rather directly that we should listen to scientists
regarding scientific issues, so you anti-global warming
anti-preservation people who aren't scientists, keep your fingers off
the keyboard and try to learn something for a change instead of trying
to dictate your nonsense to people who know better.
I would note that the greatest impediment to scientific and industrial
progress, and economic and social development, is the trickle down,
budget axing, debt-driven, service economy ideology of the right-wing
which has shut-down and re-oriented scientific research to the extent
that scientists are little more than product engineers, has impeded
economic progress to the extent that prison building, gambling and
medical treatment constitute major growth industries, and has impeded
social progress to the point that the social instruments put in place
to relieve the poor and support the aged are under continual attack.
Progress is indeed a loaded word with more than one meaning, and I
suspect was meant to be so in the context of this appeal. Thanks for
posting, John.
John McCarthy wrote:
>
> Heidelberg Appeal
>
> The Heidelberg Appeal was publicly released at the 1992 Earth Summit in
> Rio de Janeiro. By the end of the 1992 summit, 425 scientists and other
> intellectual leaders had signed the appeal. Since then, word of mouth has
> prompted hundreds more scientists to lend their support. Today, more than
> 2,700 signatories, including dozens of Nobel Prize winners, from 102
> countries have signed it.
>
> We want to make our full contribution to the preservation of our
> common heritage, the Earth.
>
> We are, however, worried at the dawn of the twenty-first century, at
> the emergence of an irrational ideology which is opposed to scientific
> and industrial progress and impedes economic and social development.
>
> We contend that a Natural State, sometimes idealized by movements with
> a tendency to look toward the past, does not exist and has probably
> never existed since man's first appearance in the biosphere, insofar
> as humanity has always progressed by increasingly harnessing Nature to
> its needs and not the reverse. We fully subscribe to the objectives of
> a scientific ecology for a universe whose resources must be taken
> stock of, monitored and preserved.
>
> But we herewith demand that this stock-taking, monitoring and
> preservation be founded on scientific criteria and not on irrational
> pre-conceptions.
>
> We stress that many essential human activities are carried out either
> by manipulating hazardous substances or in their proximity, and that
> progress and development have always involved increasing control over
> hostile forces, to the benefit of mankind.
>
> We therefore consider that scientific ecology is no more than an
> extension of this continual progress toward the improved life of
> future generations. We intend to assert science's responsibility and
> duties toward society as a whole.
>
> We do, however, forewarn the authorities in charge of our planet's
> destiny against decisions which are supported by pseudoscientific
> arguments or false and nonrelevant data.
>
> We draw everybody's attention to the absolute necessity of helping
> poor countries attain a level of sustainable development which matches
> that of the rest of the planet, protecting them from troubles and
> dangers stemming from developed nations, and avoiding their
> entanglement in a web of unrealistic obligations which would
> compromise both their independence and their dignity.
>
> The greatest evils which stalk our Earth are ignorance and oppression,
> and not Science, Technology, and Industry whose instruments, when
> adequately managed, are indispensable tools of a future shaped by
> Humanity, by itself and for itself, overcoming major problems like
> overpopulation, starvation and worldwide diseases.
>
> --
> John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
> http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/
> During the last years of the Second Millenium, the Earthmen complained
> a lot.
Subject: Ecological "footprint"
From: kfoster@rainbow.rmii.com (Kurt Foster)
Date: 19 Nov 1996 19:45:30 GMT
Here are some statistics from 1991 regarding our "ecological
footprint" in the United States, as indicated in a pamphlet put out by the
mining industry:
Annual per capita use of sand, gravel, cement -- 19,700 pounds
Annual per capita use of metals -- 1,300 pounds
Annual per capita use of phosphate rock -- 384+ pounds
The sand, gravel and cement are for roads, buildings etc; the metals are
for everything from I-beams to light bulb filaments. The pamphlet says
that 95% of the phosphate rock [365 pounds per person per year] is used
for food, and "Because it is put in the ground, it can't be recycled,
so it must be mined".
There's also a "pie chart" indicating land use in the United States. It
includes the following figures:
Cities and Transportation -- 6.4%
Cropland -- 18.6%
Grazed land -- 23.4%
So, according to the mining industry, 48.4% of the land in the United
States is being used for human residence, transportation and food
production. The pamphlet also says that our highways cover 49,500 square
miles, and gives some figures that imply this alone is at least 1.3% of the
total land area in the United States. Granted, we export a lot of food,
but still, the above figures seem to indicate that our "footprint" is a lot
bigger than the area occupied by our cities.
Oh, yes, the land use chart also gives:
Forest Land -- 23.9%
Parks, Wildlife Refuges -- 14.8%
The pamphlet doesn't give the land area used for mining "fuel
minerals" (coal, oil, gas). The remaining slices of the pie are
Mines -- < .3%
Other -- 12.6%
Of course, the pamphlet doesn't mention that things it points out as
covering much more area than the "non-fuel mineral" mines (e.g. cities and
highways), are made from what comes OUT of those mines...
Subject: Re: Major problem with climate predictions
From: ozone@primenet.com (John Moore)
Date: 19 Nov 1996 22:22:08 -0700
On 18 Nov 1996 19:51:35 GMT, jbh@ILP.Physik.Uni-Essen.DE (Joshua B.
Halpern) wrote:
>John Moore (ozone@primenet.com) wrote:
>: Today our defense spending is the lowest (GDP%) since before WW-I. Our
>: readiness is very poor, leaving us unable to even refight the Gulf
>: War.
>
>After about a decade when it was at historic highs.
I don't think you were paying attention. It was NOT at historic highs
by any reasonable measure. Sure it was high in dollars (since
inflation reduced the value of dollars). But measured as a percentage
of GDP it was much smaller. As a percentage of government spending,
even lower.
>Thus, I would say that the current situation is much closer to
>that which obtained through most of US history viz a viz the
>relative size of military budgets. Given other problems, IMHO
>it is about the right size, although I would agree that there
>should be some shifting of priorities (more supplies, less new
>weapon systems, etc.)
Well, I would disagree, because I think our profile in the world, and
associated responsibilities, is higher than ever before, we need a
military with some clout.
When you also consider that our dependence on vulnerable foreign
countries is at an all time high, we have a need to be able to protect
our interests.
If North Korea and Iran ever got together (and they are buddies) and
triggered a two front war - Iran grabs Saudi Arabia and NK attacks
South Korea, we would be in a world of hurt.
Subject: Re: Major problem with climate predictions
From: mfriesel@ix.netcom.com
Date: Tue, 19 Nov 1996 21:39:31 -0700
charliew wrote:
>
....
>
> It may be particularly relevant. Someone who could tolerate
> the uncertainty of the stock market, yet got "excited" about
> the uncertainty of the climate, would make me question his
> thinking patterns. I find the possibility of losing large
> sums of money a bit stressful.
I reply:
Well, you asked me if >I< used this plan, which I don't consider
particularly relevant since neither the stock market nor the climate
excites me in that oh-so-special way. I don't have any money to
invest, or have you forgotten that I'm long-term unemployed and not on
the roles? Climatology is a science, and I know what science is as
well as anyone. The stock market is the stock market - part control
and part randomness, driven by greed and fear as a statistician I know
would say. Regardless of what system is dealt with what really
excites me is working mathematical tools that describe and predict
behavior. The difference between climatology and the stock market is
that proper climatological tools, once discovered, remain useful. The
stock market, in contrast, is a game where the properly-timed breaking
of rules can make a fortume, hence the tendency over time is to make
prediction tools unreliable.
Subject: Re: Major problem with climate predictions
From: mfriesel@ix.netcom.com
Date: Tue, 19 Nov 1996 13:38:21 -0700
Adam Ierymenko wrote:
>
...
>
> Oh, yeah. We can sustain this level of spending forever. Bill Clinton
> poops 10000 dollar bills, so no cuts are necessary.
>
> Of course, we could just raise taxes. We already pay 40%. We should pay more.
> We should not be allowed to greedily keep 60% of what we earn.
I reply:
Ok, if that's what you want -but I think you're dealing on such a
simple-minded level that you really have no grasp of the issues. What
government spending is being attacked? Primarily those programs which
provide some return to the general public are being set up as
wasteful, over budget, misused, etc. etc. Whether they really are
this way is a secondary issue, difficult to determine, and if it is
determined that they are wasteful the reason for it may be as well
intentional mismanagement to create an excuse for cutting them, theft
due to lack of or improper oversight at the country's top level of
management. The proferred solution is to simply cut them out. What
programs are not being attacked or are actually being proposed for
more spending? Well, the deficit is being pretty much ignored despite
occassional mumbling to the contrary and represents a huge and
continual drain on the treasury -it's really just free money for the
lending institutions for which the public gets >nothing< in return
(hence as far as the country is concerned is pure and unadulterated
waste), additional tax cuts for businesses are being pushed, the
military just had a big heap of money thrown at it.
As far as I'm concerned the government exists primarily for the good
of the general public, but the wealthy and powerful feel otherwise and
work continually to change the way government works in order to get
more money from it for themselves. The only way to make sure
government works properly is to make sure that when government
overspends or runs public benefit programs wastefully, it is the rich
- those with the power and money - who pay for it. If welfare is run
wastefully, it should come out of the hides of the wealthy and this
includes Congressmen of any political party - and their sole recourse
for relief from continual personal financial drain - real losses -
should be to have the programs run effectively. The wealthy alone
have the resources, power, and leisure time to identify and impose
corrections to these programs. They should >not< be allowed to
undermine or eliminate existing public benefit programs whether
research, conservation and preservation of public resources, welfare,
medicare - right across the board. What we have now is all returns by
government to the public are being cancelled and sent off to pad the
bank accounts of the rich.
