Subject: Re: Major problem with climate predictions
From: jgordes@mail.snet.net (Joel N. Gordes)
Date: Tue, 19 Nov 1996 13:31:13 GMT
Raymond D'Antuono wrote:
>Mike Asher wrote:
>>
>> charliew wrote:
>> >
>> > Science done properly takes time and patience. To date,
>> > many posters seem to have indicated that they do not have
>> > the patience to fully test the current climate theories.
>> >
>>
>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.
>One thing I believe is certain, however, is that at the rate we are
>realeasing CO2 into the atmosphere, there will be a change in climate
>eventually. 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.
>The workings of the atmosphere, short-term patterns and their long-term
>consequences, or climate patterns, are the epitome of chaos theory. And
>although no one really knows the precise long-term effects of the rising
>CO2 concentration, I would imagine that the balance will be altered in
>some way that will eventually be noticeable, and I believe that there is
>a chance that if we do not curb CO2 emissions that climates may change
>for the worse.
>Now the current thinking of defenders of the status-quo is something like
>this - until there is undeniable proof of a catastrophe ahead, we will
>keep going about our business. But think of it this way: If you took
>your child to an amusement park, and you suddenly heard that there was a
>five percent chance that the roller coaster that he had ridden many times
>before could jump the track at any time, sending all those aboard to a
>potentially violent death, would you even consider letting your child
>ride on that roller coaster again? You wouldn't even have a chance to
>consider it, since the authorities would have shut it down already! So
>why are we willing to play russian roulette with our environment?
>> What disturbs me more than their lack of solid reasoning, charlie, is their
>> apparent *desire* to believe in the worst, to believe man is nothing more
>What disturbs me is the russian roulette attitude of the defenders of the
>status-quo. Unfortunately, there is so much money involved in the
>current energy production technologies that even if undeniable evidence
>were produced, the fat cats would still do their damndest to ensure that
>they went to their graves filthy rich despite the untold suffering
>they would pass on future generations. (Oh, I'm sorry, I think I just
>fired a shot at capitalism!)
>Ray D'Antuono
>"Tell him about the twinkie."
Readers may be interested in the following statement made by some of
the leading reinsurers on climate change under UN auspices. Yes, they
are capitalist--probably more than the subsidy seeking oil and coal
companies--and see where (last section after the words "We insist
that") they call for "early, substantial reductions in greenhouse gas
emissions." Business is not in lockstep on this issue as some might
have us believe. The insurers are concerned with the probability of
risk that this might present and in that framework, they do not
believe that they can be wrong in the other direction. Therefore,
they see early precautionary actions in their own economic interests.
For them absence of certainty is not absence of risk--a key point to
remember. This is not a "liberal/conservative" issue either. More on
that some other time.
UNEP Insurance Initiative
Position Paper on Climate Change - 9th July 1996
(1) PREAMBLE
1.1 The property insurance industry is the financial sector most
likely to be directly affected by climate change, since it is
vulnerable to variability in the frequency and severity of extreme
weather events. Life insurance and pension fund investment portfolios
are also likely to be affected.
1.2 The cost of such events could escalate dramatically as a
consequence of the increased greenhouse effect due to human
activities. The resultant climate change may alter the frequency
and/or severity of extreme weather events and/or their regional
distribution. The exact influence is not yet known, due to the
limitations of today’s understanding of the climate system. It is
clear, though, that even small shifts of regional climate zones
and/or storm patterns carry the potential of increased property
damage, exacerbated by inadequate planning and construction in certain
areas.
1.3 The implication of climate change for other lines of insurance
cannot be assessed with confidence but cannot be ignored. Changes in
human health (e.g. spreading of diseases) may affect the life
insurance and pension industries. Returns on long-term investments
and capital projects may be affected by mitigation measures that alter
the economics of whole industries - for example, shifting from carbon
fuels to renewable sources. The economics of selected regions, such
as coastal zones and islands, may be disadvantaged.
1.4 Through its experience in managing the risk of natural
catastrophes, the insurance sector can help to improve the response to
property damage from extreme events by co-operating (sic) with the
relevant authorities.
1.5 It is anticipated that structural changes in energy-intensive
industries in response to measures to control greenhouse gas emissions
will result in opportunities and challenges for the investment
community, including for example alternative energy, efficiency
programmes (sic), and public transit systems. However, without
political initiatives, market forces alone may not result in the
efficient use of investment potential.
(2) CONCLUSIONS
2.1 Based on the current status of climate research and on their
experience as insurers and reinsurers, the member companies of
the UNEP-Insurance Industry Initiative conclude that:
2.1.1 Human activity is already affecting climate on a global scale,
e.g. through the enhanced greenhouse effect. According to IPCC “the
balance of evidence suggests a discernible human influence on global
climate.”
2.1.2 Man made climate change will lead to shifts in atmospheric and
oceanic circulation patterns. This will probably increase the
likelihood of extreme weather events in certain areas. Such effects
carry the risk of dramatically increased property damage, with serious
implications for property insurers and reinsurers.
2.1.3 Potentially there could be large implications for investment
activities as society plans for, and adapts to, the new climate egime.
2.2 We are convinced that:
2.2.1 In dealing with climate change risks it is important to
recognize the precautionary principle, in that it is not possible to
quantify anticipated economic and social impacts of climate change
fully before taking action. Research is needed to reduce uncertainty
but cannot eliminate it entirely.
2.2.2 In the case of climate change risks, the most efficient
precautionary measure is a substantial reduction of greenhouse gas
emissions with respect to a “business as usual” scenario of
greenhouse gas emissions.
2.2.3 The problem of climate change can be counteracted only by the
joint efforts of governments, political and social institutions,
industrial and commercial enterprise [including insurers and
reinsurers], and of all individuals. This requires an enhanced level
of public discussion and international political agreement.
2.3 We insist that:
2.3.1 In accordance with the precautionary principle, the
negotiations for the Framework Convention on Climate Change must
achieve early, substantial reductions in greenhouse gas emissions.
2.3.2 The Framework Convention on Climate Change should urgently try
to establish what concentration level and rate of greenhouse gases is
likely to be “dangerous”, through further scientific research.
2.3.3 Mechanisms be created for direct inputs of NGOs [including
business NGOs] to the negotiations, and for communicating the issues
and decisions to all stakeholders.
2.3.4 The position of the insurance and reinsurance sector be
represented when discussing or negotiating possible solutions.
2.3.5 A transparent framework of political, social and economic
measures be established to promote sustainable development, taking
into account the risks of climate change, and considerations of equity
between emerging, transitional and mature economies, an over time.
Sincerely
Joel n. Gordes
Subject: something approaching a religion
From: Jay Hanson
Date: Sat, 23 Nov 1996 07:27:02 -1000
George Antony Ph 93818 wrote:
> >BTW, even your SE is defective because you left out the laws
> >of thermodynamics. In fact, we are on a one-way trip -- and
> >running out of energy.
>
> As for running out of energy, this has been debated a lot and
> you have failed to convince about this claimed axiom.
This is typical of economists: Where the theory conflicts
with reality, they reject reality for the theory.
Jay
--------------------------------------------------------
Lester Thurow says that free-market theory extends far
beyond the realm of conventional economics: "It is,
in short . . . also a political philosophy, often
becoming something approaching a religion."
"No other discipline attempts to make the world act
as it thinks the world should act. But of course
what Homo sapiens does and what Homo oeconomicus
should do are often quite different. That, however,
does not make the basic model wrong, as it would
in every other discipline. It just means that
actions must be taken to bend Homo sapiens into
conformity with Homo oeconomicus. So, instead
of adjusting theory to reality, reality is
adjusted to theory."
Subject: Re: Environmentalists responsibility for human deaths (was Re: Major problem wi
From: TL ADAMS
Date: 23 Nov 1996 17:44:36 GMT
dietz@interaccess.com (Paul F. Dietz) wrote:
>
> TL ADAMS wrote:
>
> >gdy52150@prairie.lakes.com (gdy52150@prairie.lakes.com) wrote:
> >>
>
> >>
> >> The real problem here, from a health risk is not the relative amounts
> >> of U or Pu; but rather the relative amounts of the radiation from the
> >> source. Pu has a much shorter half life and hence much less is Pu is
> >> required for a given level of risk.
>
> >Which is why the nukeheads always like to bring out his little gem
> >whenever that want to muddy the waters.
>
> >Geez, if your going to compare, at least look at curries instead of
> >pounds.
>
> Let's see: Pu239 has roughly 200,000x the alpha activity of U238.
> (Some other isotopes more, in particular Pu238.) The top meter of the
> earth's crust contains about 4 billion tons of uranium, as does the
> ocean. We haven't released anywhere near 40,000 tons of plutonium
> into the general environment. We certainly don't (at least in the
> West) release, into the general environment, from nuclear power
> production, the Pu equivalent of the uranium in coal ash.
>
> Also look at transport. Uranium is more mobile in the environment
> than plutonium, due to the solubility of complexes of the uranyl ion
> (this is why the uranium concentration in the oceans is as high as it
> is.)
But mon ami, looking at transport, the fact that uranyl salts are more
soluble is one of the reasons that the Pu risk is greater. Given the
short travel path of alpha particles, is not one meter of soil or
one meter of ocean water enought to absorb the particle. No, your
primary risk vector for Pu is fine particle deposition in the lung,
with other enderdermic membrane following closely. The fact that
uranyl salts are more soluble, means that they have less of an exposure
route than Pu.
Of course, the other big expousure route is having a Russian sattelite
fall on your head. Not quite sure where that figures in your standard
risk calculations. ((((GRIN))))
Damn those ruskies, now its just going to be that much harder for
us to use radiothermal generators on planetary probes. Good thing
we got Gallieo off before this.
My point was not to compare the the risks of coal vs nuclear, I only
want to demand intellectual honesty. When you discuss Pound vs. Pound,
you are making a false statement. One cannot win an arguement with
falsehood.
Subject: IronEx II and GCI
From: B.Hamilton@irl.cri.nz (Bruce Hamilton)
Date: Sat, 23 Nov 1996 16:46:00 GMT
There have been some interesting discussions on the IronEx II
results reported in the 10 October 1996 Nature, but it's worth
remembering that the failure of the experiment to demonstrate
the recycling of iron within the biota of the surface layer
( which was predicted ), probably severely reduces the feasibility
of iron fertilization as a techniques to offset atmospheric
CO2 from fossil fuels. Note that this experiment did not actually
provide a sink for CO2, it temporarily attenuated a known source
of atmospheric CO2.
Also, as B.W.Frost pointed out in his commentary piece, that
complete alleviation of iron limitation in the HNLC regions
would have only a small effect on future global atmospheric CO2
levels. One would also have to wonder whether the possible
historical sources of iron ( atmospheric dust, upwelling currents
from below ) to such depleted surface layers also provides other
micronutrients ( zinc, silicate ) which could become limiting,
especially as IronEx II bottle experiments showed that silicate
additions could have increased production slightly more.
It would seem that a lot more research needs to be performed
before there is evidence than iron fertilization of certain
HNLC areas could be used to offset our continued high emission
of fossil fuel carbon, especially as the concentration of that
potent atmospheric sulfate particle precursor, dimethyl sulfide,
increased by more than three times in the bloom.
The same issue of Nature has a brief News item on the Global
Climate Coalition. Remember them?. They were the group that
claimed the IPCC scientists distorted conclusions so as to
emphasise the role of human activities on climate change.
Well it seems their public stroppiness has caused disquiet
amongst some of their corporate funders, and two ( BP America,
and the Arizona Public Service Company ) are pulling out of
the group. BP has said that it will remain a member of the
International Climate Change Partnership, which their
spokesman described as "a more moderate and conciliatory" body.
They were contributing $2,500 each as general members, whereas
the board members pay $20,000 annually. The president of GCC
( also a vice president of American Petroleum Institute)
shrugged off the defections saying they had 8 - 10 new board
members. However, I note that down here, such confrontational
public comments from the GCC don't seem to be appearing in the
news. If companies like BP get out, how long before the API
itself, along with other entities, realise that sometimes they
can be standing in the wrong group of the several available
on their side of the fence.
Bruce Hamilton
Subject: Re: Most enviromentally-friendly way to dispose of a body after death?
From: TL ADAMS
Date: 23 Nov 1996 18:11:26 GMT
jscanlon@linex.com (Jim Scanlon) wrote:
>
> In article <56vscq$atj@service3.uky.edu>, TL ADAMS
> wrote:
>
>
> > Last I checked, we were still doing this.[placint the dead on elevated
> platforms] Although, it tends to be
> > more mamimals than birds that consume the bodies. Flies, are the
> > primary fate.
> >
> > Which explains why we have some dietary restriction against the consumption
> > of animals that consumed our kin.
>
> I was not aware that this was still a common practice among Native
> Americans (which I assume Adams is referring to). How common is it today ?
> I am also curious as to what mammals get up on to the raised platforms. I
> understood that the Parsi collected the clean bones and interred them in
> an honored place. Would this still be possible if mammals got to the
> bodies ?
>
> But I am wondering how "environmentally friendly" this methond is if it
> results in food tabboos thereby limiting sources of protein in a hunting
> sociey. I am ignorant as to how and why this practice arose in the past,
> and if it makes sense today, under vastly different conditions.
In the days of the old blood, this was one of the more common ways
of honouring the dead. Cremation was also used. With a woodfire, most
of the bones would last. Latter the bones would be placed
into a shallow grave too complete the journy.
How common is this today, I have no idea. Its not something that the
different clans of the nations talk alot about. I think it would be
hard to do in NY state, but you might get away with it more in Canada.
You might post in one of the NA newsgroups and ask.
In the old days, our food soures were primarily the crops of the
three sisters, corn, beans, and squash. Contrary to the crap floating
in this newsgroup, it wasn't all hunters and gathers in the old days.
We were primarily farmers, with fixed locations. The hunting of deer,
bear and small game was a small portion of our calories, although
it makes for better story telling than a good corn harvest. We may
have gotten the occasional moose and elk, the ghosts (bison) were
hunted by the insanely brave (or shortly dead), and bison would be
trapped by fire and stealth.
With the system of trade, agriculture, and cultivation, who needs
to eat possum. Nasty little thing, those opossums. And I have eaten
alot of things in my days, went of a 3 month walk after my beloved
died, and when you are hungry you will eat alot of things. But never,
did I ever once think about eating a buzzard (turkey vulture)
I think Apache also did there dead this way.
Subject: Re: Christianity and indifference to nature (was Re: Major problem with getting philosophical late at night)
From: yuku@io.org (Yuri Kuchinsky)
Date: 23 Nov 1996 17:35:30 GMT
Mike sent this to me by e-mail, but he gave me his permisssion to post my
reply in the newsgroups:
On Thu, 21 Nov 1996, Mike Pelletier wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Nov 1996, Yuri Kuchinsky wrote:
> > > >The Old Testament is an exremely complex document that contains a
number > > > >of historical strata. On some very early levels, it is
indeed pro-Nature. > > > >But it was edited in later periods by
patriarchal editors who introduced > > > >many anti-Nature ideas. The
prime problem is patriarchalism -- and > > > >anti-sex and anti-body
bias. This document must be understood and > > > >interpreted correctly.
> Your assertion that it was edited -- could you point me to some
> documentation of that assertion, and some more details? Who were the
> editors, and when was it edited?
Mike,
These are the basic questions that deal with the history of composition of
the OT. Any University-level text-book will look at these questions. If
you want a quick introduction, I suggest looking at the many articles in
the Enc. Brit. that deal with these issues (such as "biblical
literature").
Briefly, the editing was done over a long period of time, from about the
7th century bce until the Roman times. The crucial turning point was about
625 bce, the reforms of King Josiah. These reforms are described in the 2
Kings 22ff. The passage talks about "a book of the Law" that was
"discovered" in the Temple. Clearly this indicates some changes in the OT
at that time.
Before that, the Hebrew religion included Nature-worship, and also some
form of a female Deity.
> What are some examples of the
> anti-nature, anti-sex, and anti-body biases?
Do you really need me to itemise all of these? It is enough to say that
women are portrayed as "Gateways to Hell". Body must be covered. And
Nature is seen as dangerous and seductive.
> I'm curious as to what the
> basis of this notion actually is, since the Dead Sea Scrolls contain a
> book of Isahah that from what I understand is virtually identical to
> today's.
This is correct. The DSS come to us from Roman/Hellenistic times. By that
time the text of Isaiah was substantially fixed. Yet, there're many
variant versions, e.g. the Greek Septuagint, the Samaritan, the
Babylonian, and the Palestinian. Some of them overlap.
[Mike previously:]
> > > I'd be curious as to your take on the web page:
> > >
> > > http://www.shamash.org/judaica/acad/ecoantis.html
> > >
> > > This posits that the "Old Testament" is not the source of an
> > > anti-nature sentiment, but rather the divorce of Christianity from
> > > Judaism and the "original sin" interpretation of Genesis in Paul's
> > > doctrine.
[Yuri previously:]
> > This doesn't say all that much new to me. Are you saying that the NT is
> > more anti-Nature than the OT? This may be the case. But I wasn't even
> > talking about NT in my post... The patriarchalism of the OT is not in
> > question to me.
I will take a look when I have time.
[Mike previously:]
> I'm curious because the topic of the article is a discussion about the
> topic you mention in the first paragraph. I'm not a scholar, and I'd be
> interested in a scholarly take on the article.
All the best,
Yuri.
** Yuri Kuchinsky in Toronto **
-- a webpage like any other... http://www.io.org/~yuku --
Most of the evils of life arise from man's being
unable to sit still in a room || B. Pascal
Subject: Re: Major problem with climate predictions (fwd)
From: "D. Braun"
Date: Sat, 23 Nov 1996 11:27:27 -0800
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Sat, 23 Nov 1996 10:21:22 -0800 (PST)
From: "D. Braun"
To: Mike Asher
Subject: Re: Major problem with climate predictions
On Sat, 23 Nov 1996, Mike Asher wrote:
> D. Braun wrote:
> >
> > Interesting. Speaking in the third person about yourself like Bob Dole.
> > BTW, you wouldn't know much about peer-reviewed work if it bit you on the
> > ass.
>
> Must you now add fabrication to insult and slander? I ask- make it
> demand-- you prove this little lie.
>
> In regards to peer-reviewed work, I've posted over fifty such items in the
> past two months. Can't recall that you have ever done so, but if you will,
> I will be happy to comment on it. However, I refuse to do anything until
> you back up or apologize for your above statement.
50? Really. One post I commented on, in which you provided references,
consisted of cites to the Oregonian and some periodicals which I really
doubt were peer-reviewed. "Peer review" is not simply fact checking,
proof reading, and acceptance by an editor on the basis of topical merit.
Peers review entails several scientists, known in their field, reading
and critiquing a paper that has been submitted to a scientific journal.
This process weeds out work which is poor in statistical analysis,
redundant and not a contribution to the field, or faked or plagiarized.
This goes beyond the writing quality, which is assumed to be up to
accepted standards; obviously, something that is written unintelligibly
would be tossed without much comment. A good paper which is too long might
be sent back so that it can be parsed or abbreviated.
Apology? Get real. BTW, I have published a reference to carbon
balance twice, in regard to primary forests. Look for the posts.
Here is the one I posted twice:
Sollins, P., C. C. Grier, F. M. McCorison, K. Cromack, Jr., R. Fogel, and
R. L. Fredrickson. 1980. The internal element cycles of an old-growth
Douglas-fir ecosystem in Western Washington. Ecological Monographs.
50(3): 261-85
And here is another goody:
Harmon, M. E., J. E. Franklin, F. J. Swanson, P. Sollins, S. V. Gregory,
J. D. Lattin, N. H. Anderson, S. P. Cline, N. G. Aumen, J. R. Sedell, G.
W. Lienkaemper, K. Cromack, Jr., and K. W. Cummins. 1986. Ecology of
course woody debris in temperate ecosystems. Advances in Ecological
Research. 15: 133-302.
And a compendium of knowledge on old-growth forest ecology for the
genuinely interested lay-person:
Norse, E. A. 1990. Ancient Forests of the Pacific Northwest. Island
Press, Washington, D.C. 327 p.
I can't blame you if you are not excited about reading about rotting wood;
however, making sweeping dismissals of my point on carbon storage in
primary forests is just stupid, because of your lack of knowledge on the
matter. It would be smarter to question my post, and ask for information
instead. However, you appear to feel satisfied with second-hand propaganda
that you pick up somewhere. I did indeed read the above.
Dave Braun
>
> -
> Mike Asher
> masher@tusc.net
>
> "Unionism seldom, if ever, uses such power as it has to insure better work;
> almost always it devotes a large part of that power to safeguarding bad
> work."
> - H. L. Mencken
>
>
>
Subject: Re: White Supremacists - email no-vote to new ng.
From: matuli_a@marlin.navsea.navy.mil (Alex Matulich 03T1)
Date: 23 Nov 1996 19:32:12 GMT
In article <328B8070.188B@easynet.co.uk>, sdef! wrote:
> Please take a moment to read this -- it concerns a vote for a white
> supremacist Usenet newsgroup. If you have a moment, I would urge you
> to vote NO, according to the instructions below, and to forward this
This is stupid. I'd much rather they moved off to their own group so I
won't have to read their stuff.
A YES vote would make more sense, ESPECIALLY to those who don't want to
see neo-Nazi articles.
> A group of NEO-NAZIS are trying to form a newsgroup on
> Usenet called "rec.music.white-power", so that they can get their
> message of hate out to young people using the Internet.
So? We have newsgroups for just about anything, including bestiality,
pedophilia, a variety of religious cults, and homosexuals. And in the
"big eight" heirarchy, too. A neo-nazi group doesn't sound any more
threatening than those others. You don't like it, don't read it.
> Send e-mail (posts to newsgroups are invalid) to:
> music-vote@sub-rosa.com
> Your mail message, to be accepted by the counting computer, must
> contain only the following statement with no signature:
>
I vote XXX on rec.music.white-power
Where XXX is YES or NO.
--
"These are MY words, not my employer's" /|
-- Alex Matulich -- __. __=#|| ___ _o--
matuli_a@marlin.navsea.navy.mil ____##_/_____|==###===###____
\____________________________\
Subject: Re: Entropy (was Re: the economist/elephant joke)
From: rparson@spot.Colorado.EDU (Robert Parson)
Date: 23 Nov 1996 20:24:10 GMT
In article <32951410.55B9@ix.netcom.com>, wrote:
>
>Of course the car would rust. That doesn't mean that you're incorrect
>since you're not, but at any practical scale even in a perfectly
>isolated room, I think it can be shown that the probability that a
>certain number of metal and oxygen atoms will combine to create an
>oxide is much higher than the probability that sufficient energy will
>become available to the oxide to decompose it.
That is true at constant temperature, but constant temperature implies
a mechanism for removing the heat of reaction. If all you have is
iron and oxygen, perfectly insulated, the reaction will not go to
completion, it will go to a state of maximum entropy of the system
which will be closer to the reactants than to the products since the
standard entropy change for the reaction is negative.
Of course this has nothing to do with corrosion of iron in the real
world, but this sort of problem does arise in gas phase reactions at very
low pressures, such as you might find in the upper atmosphere.
A simple association reaction such as O + O_2 -> O_3 cannot
proceed by two-body collisions since such collisions do not provide
any mechanism for removing the reaction exoergicity - simply put, the
O and the O_2 won't stick. Instead, the reaction proceeds via
three-body collisions, such as O + O_2 + N_2 -> O_3 + N_2, with the
N_2 carrying off the excess energy. The rate of the reaction thus
depends upon the pressure of the background gas, and becomes very
very slow at high altitudes, e.g. in the thermosphere.
Subject: Protest Headwaters Police Brutality
From: sananda@northcoast.com
Date: 23 Nov 1996 22:56:12 GMT
GLOBAL CALL
PROTEST HEADWATERS POLICE BRUTALITY:
BOYCOTT EUREKA!
In defence of the Headwaters Forest wherein hundreds of homeless
live, and in protest against California Senate Bill 39, drafted by State
Sen. Mike Thompson to run hundreds of homeless out of Humboldt County,
the American Homeless Society called for a worldwide tourist boycott of
Eureka, California, September 15, 1996.
Since September, numerous incidents and complaints of police brutality
have been lodged against the local sheriff's department and its deputized
logger vigilantes, who harass, brutalize and "arrest" environmentalists
that protest destruction of the sacred forest. WE URGE ALL CITIZENS OF
THE WORLD TO BOYCOTT EUREKA, AND TO REGISTER YOUR INTERNET PROTEST BY
REDIRECTING THIS MESSAGE TO THE BELOW E-MAIL ADDRESSES, WITH YOUR
PERSONAL WORDS OF SUPPORT FOR THE GLOBAL BOYCOTT:
Senator.Thompson@sen.ca.gov,sananda@northcoast.com
Eureka , located about 10 miles north of the Headwaters Forest Area,
is the county seat of Humboldt County (CA) where thousands of
environmentalists converged, Sept. 15. Over 1,000 environmentalist have
been arrested for protesting the planned destruction of the old growth
forest, since then, and the homeless are also being harassed, jailed and
run out in droves, by local, state and federal authorities, for the crime
of "being homeless."
SB 39 is designed to force hundreds of homeless off the South Spit
peninsula, on the ground that they are an "environmental hazard," while
Lousiana-Pacific, Simpson and other major logging interests are permitted
to pollute the land, air and sea on the North Spit, directly across the
Humboldt Harbor channel. The legislative intent of this anti-homeless
legislation is to appease the multimillion-dollar tourist industry, which
is receiving tens of millions of dollars from state and federal grants
along with private investment, to develop Humboldt Harbor into a major
port o' call for global tourism and trade.
There are thousands of homeless already in the wilderness areas of
Northern California, and thousands more are expected, as President Clinton's
welfare deformation legislation takes effect in the next few months. The
American Homeless Society believes the only way to save the Headwaters---and
to help the homeless and other species endangered therein---is to kick
Eureka where it hurts the most, i.e., in the pocketbook.
All individuals and organizations concerned about the assault on our
last standing old growth forests, the police brutality against
environmentalists and the homeless, are urged to support this
international boycott of Eureka.
RECENT PLIGHT OF EUREKA HOMELESS (FROM EUREKA TIMES-STANDARD NEWSPAPER STORIES)
*******1989******
Dec 1989---Homeless ordered off Table Bluff Road
********1990*********
Feb1990---Pacific Lumber complains about the homeless on their property
Apr 90---Eureka homeless protest police and Eureka Rescue Mission
mistreatment
Jul 90---Attorney for homeless seeks the dismissal of Capt. Bill Honsal
(EPD) from County's homeless task force.
Nov 90---Humboldt County Coalition for Food & Housing accuses police of
harassing the poor and homeless in Eureka's Old Town---Denied.
Dec 90---Board of Supervisors asked to open Eureka's National Guard
Armory for emergency homeless shelter---Denied.
*******1991********
Feb 1991---DOUGLAS MITCHELL AND GEORGE REDNER (BOTH HOMELESS) MURDERED
IN EUREKA
Apr 91---"Mystery death" of Alfred Maharry, homeless in Eureka
Nov 91---Eureka Rescue Mission denied right to expand its operations to
shelter more homeless
Dec 91---Eureka City Council rejects Rescue Mission's plan to add needed
beds for homeless men
*******1992******
Jan 1992---County proposal to expand Eureka Rescue Mission met with
threats by City to dump library
Mar 92---Eureka City Schools plans to destroy four classrooms it couldn't
give to homeless task force
May 92---Bank of America gives 15 trailers only to families made homeless
by earthquake
Jun 92---County attempts to evict homeless from South Spit
Jul 92---Eviction put on hold for South Spit homeless
Oct 92---Area residents ask county supervisors to evict Clam Beach
homeless
Nov 92---Sam Stanson asks board of supervisors to protect the homeless
on his Clam Beach property
Dec 92---Officials deny that Eureka police and firefighters are harassing
local homeless
Dec 92---Terry Farmer (DA) declares Clam Beach homeless community "illegal"
******1993******
Mar 1993---County Counsel seeks welfare cuts for homeless
Mar 93---County shuns funds for new homeless shelter
Nov 93---Eureka housing plan ignores homeless
Dec 93---Eureka fights Rescue Mission expansion in court
*******Jump to 1995******
Jan 1995---State rejects Eureka housing plan for failure to deal with
growing homeless problem
Jan 95---GRAND JURY scolds Eurek for failure to deal with homeless
problem
Feb 95---Eureka housing plan again rejected for failure to deal with
homeless problem
Apr 95---Eureka police roust homeless from city, after T-Street shelter
closure and no place else to sleep
Apr 95---Homeless woman, Leslie Jean Deines, murdered in Eureka
--
Posted using Reference.COM http://www.reference.com
Browse, Search and Post Usenet and Mailing list Archive and Catalog.
InReference, Inc. accepts no responsibility for the content of this posting.
Subject: Re: The Netherlands Fallacy (was: Christianity and indifference to nature)
From: jmc@Steam.stanford.edu (John McCarthy)
Date: 23 Nov 1996 23:27:47 GMT
In article <329b4e6a.3241711@news.midtown.net> alnev@midtown.net (A.J.) writes:
>
> Matt Regan (Mregan26@student.manhattan.edu) wrote:
>
> >> I though this would be a serious little quabble on the position of
> >> christianity and ecology,but then you had to go to bashing the pope.
> >> For all you overpopulation wack-jobs out there I tell you this, drive
> >> 25 minutes outside of NY City (where I live, and then talk about
> >> overpopulation to all of the trees surrounding you.
>
> You clearly don't understand what overpopulation is. Forests near
> urban areas are just lands that haven't been *directly* impacted by
> growth. (Note that forests in the Eastern U.S. are mere remnants of
> the coverage that once existed).
>
> It takes a land area *thousands* of times larger than New York
> City to support its inhabitants. This land is scattered all around
> the U.S. and around the world. The fact that you can drive to the
> Adirondacks or Catskills only means that those particular areas
> have not succumbed to the farming and industry cities rely on.
> Their geographic proximity to the city is incidental.
>
> If you cut off all imports to New York City, it would fall apart in a
> single day. Same goes for Japan, which is often touted as a
> successful example of high population density. The Netherlands is
> another example of a large population that appears to thrive in a
> small area, but is entirely dependent on distant resources. Paul
> Ehrlich and John Holdren coined the term "The Netherlands Fallacy"
> to describe this false perception.
Alnev J. is a bit gullible.
1. The Eastern U.S. has a substantial fraction of the amount of forest
it had 200 years ago. Most likely, considerably more than half. A
good part of that is second growth on abandoned farmland, but that
isn't pure enough for extremists to count. They consider it
contaminated by human activity.
2. "Thousands" is an exaggeration. New York City occupies 308.9 square
miles. (Most environmentalists are two lazy to look anything up.)
http://www.census.gov/statab/freq/95s0046.txt. "Thousands" suggests
at least 3,000. This gives a million square miles, 1/3 the area of
the U.S., but New York City has about 3 percent of the
U.S. population, and much of the land area of the U.S. can't be
regarded as supporting anything.
3. It would take a week for New York to fall apart if cut off.
4. Japan is quite another matter. It was cut off during WWII and
heavily bombed, and its population was not starving - yet. An
invasion was considered necessary until the atomic bomb saved the day.
5. Ehrlich and Holdren are great at making up slogans but not so good
on facts. There was a major error in thermodynamics in _Population,
Resources and Environment_. When it was pointed out, Ehrlich referred
me to Holdren who just got angry, saying "Of course, there are inverted
pyramids". Holdren is a physicist.
6. As the Netherlands, it is the second largest food exporter in the
world (after the U.S.). This is in dollars. It is also a large food
importer.
--
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: something approaching a religion
From: JJP
Date: 23 Nov 1996 23:17:29 GMT
> Lester Thurow says that free-market theory extends far
> beyond the realm of conventional economics: "It is,
> in short . . . also a political philosophy, often
> becoming something approaching a religion."
>
>"No other discipline attempts to make the world act
> as it thinks the world should act. But of course
> what Homo sapiens does and what Homo oeconomicus
> should do are often quite different. That, however,
> does not make the basic model wrong, as it would
> in every other discipline. It just means that
> actions must be taken to bend Homo sapiens into
> conformity with Homo oeconomicus. So, instead
> of adjusting theory to reality, reality is
> adjusted to theory."
Neoclassical economics explains the behavior of markets and the actions
of economic agents quite well. Unfortunately the actions of markets are
much like the other processes of nature, unforgiving. This doesn't fit
into the personal philosophies of those who favor the use of government
to modify the world into a 'kinder gentler' kind of economics. Thurow
(author of 'Zero Sum Society') is one of the leaders of the soft-hearted
set.
This is all quite well and fine, but softening the consequences of an
economic agent has an efficiency cost, one which this country is bearing
to a very large degree. I, for one, am not interested in softening the
consequences of markets. It has a short term 'humanitarian' benefit but
the long term consequences are to cripple the entire economy and create
a segment of society that feel that they have a 'right' to governmental
support from lifes consequences.
Economics is not 'zero sum', or even constant sum. Economics is the
means by which resources are distributed in a society, and consequences
(negative or positive) provide the incentive for excellence.
Subject: Re: Economists on ecology (Re: GOODBY MIKE!)
From: JJP
Date: 23 Nov 1996 23:09:32 GMT
Markets account for not only current levels of supply and demand, but
also for future levels. Anticipated prices (resulting from supply and
demand relationships in the future) cause producers and consumers to
defer production/consumption decisions.
For example, if there is an anticipated shortage of natural gas in the
future, at current price levels, it is known that prices will be bid up
to again clear the market (supply = demand). Suppliers of natural gas
will hold product off the market to obtain those elevated prices in the
future.
Making extrapolations based upon current known supplies, prices, usage
rates, technology etc. and then assuming that the market can't respond
over time to changes is bad economics.
This is exactly what led Thomas Malthus to predict that the human
population would be reduced to cannibalism as a result of overpopulation
and the burden on the natural resources. He failed to account for
markets, future technology and a myriad of other factors. Obviously he
was wrong, but a century later environmentalists are still promoting the
'sky is falling' theory using the same false methodology,
Subject: Re: Ecological Economics and Entropy
From: sync@inforamp.net (J McGinnis)
Date: 24 Nov 1996 00:26:43 GMT
On 22 Nov 1996 06:57:43 GMT, jmc@Steam.stanford.edu (John McCarthy)
wrote:
>Since China produced 465 million tons of grain last year, a prediction
>that they will import 43 million tons in 2010 is precise to the point
>of absurdity. The year to year fluctuations in production are of that
>order of magnitude.
The estimated figure of 43m tonnes is considerable, as the entire
amount of grain traded internationally each year is around 200m
tonnes. As with any study of this type, a figure such as this
represents average long term needs outside of these fluctuations.
You bring up an important point though: if these fluctuations were to
stop being balanced from year to year, it would not likely be for the
better. Improvements in production yields are made slowly and are
quantifiable, natural and manmade disasters are not.
>Two additional data points.
>
>1. The Chinese agriculture minister insisted that China was a net
>exporter of food this year and denies that China will become a net
>importer in the next century.
I am familiar with the comments made by the Chinese minister in Rome
and elsewhere, and the fact is they are 100% rhetoric. Only those who
weren't concerned in the first place took them as fact.
IFPRI undertook their study because some people need more than
rhetorical statements, (because they saw how possible it was for China
to quickly start buying ALL grain offered on international markets). I
didn't state that the estimates given were precise, I said they were
'conservative'; there are others who believe they could end up being
much higher.
There are also some - myself included - that believe they could be
lower. In fact that they must be. Achieving this self-sufficiency as
well as addressing many other ecological, (and social), problems are
glaring arguments for the continued need for a level of socialism in
China. And elsewhere.
>2. The 1996 November Scientific American has an article about a 3 year
>tour of Chinese provinces and hundreds of interviews with Chinese
>peasants. The conclusion is that China's production of food could
>increase a lot if there were low tech investments in terracing, in
>drainage and in irrigation, and that the peasants would make these
>investments if they had security of tenure in land, i.e. if the local
>officials couldn't reassign it. The peasants want land tenure to be
>inheritable.
IFPRI took into consideration the exceptional measures that are being
taken by the Chinese to improve yields, (i.e. the investments to which
this article refers to, and not all 'low tech'), as well as expected
trade and market reforms.
>I notice that McGinnis forgot about substantiating his statement that
>the number of people facing starvation has doubled since 1989. That
>is not in accordance with anything said at the recent food conferences
>in Washington and Rome - even by Lester Brown.
I guess 550 million in 1989 increasing to 840 million in 1996 doesn't
qualify as 'almost double', but hell, you can only expect so much
progress in 7 years (sic). At least I recognize there is a problem,
and make an effort to do something about it, (I don't just follow this
stuff so I can debate about it on usenet).
I notice that McCarthy forgot about my call to admit he doesn't care
that people are starving in our times of 'plenty'.
>Perhaps McGinnis was just saying what would fit his moralistic pose.
I'm ashamed.
Jason McGinnis
Subject: Re: The Limits To Growth
From: sync@inforamp.net (J McGinnis)
Date: 24 Nov 1996 00:27:18 GMT
On 22 Nov 96 10:57:39 -0500, "Don Dale" wrote:
>Ken Purchase wrote,
>
>>I have to say that I agree with the theory that there isn't enough food,
>at
>>least not enough quality food to keep up with population growth. Sure we
>do
>>have hydroponics and we also have new chemicals and pesticides that make
>>things grow bigger, faster and with less interference, and we also have
>cancer
>>rates which are increasing as a result.
>
>Mr. Purchase,
>
> Congratulations! You win the post-hoc-ergo-propter-hoc prize of the
>week! This, of course, makes you eligible for the grand prize, which is a
>week's stay in the Michael Lerner Center for the Logically Challenged. We
>also have some lovely parting gifts for you...
>
>Don
The statements by Mr. Purchase are a perfectly logical example of the
logical system accepted by environmentalists, biologists, etc. used to
determine impacts and relationships within an environment, called Life
Cycle Analysis. LCA's are the only logical way to determine the true
benefits and problems of a system or product.
I won't deign to offer you a prize for your closed-mindedness, but I
do offer this prescription: replace your daily viewing of Baywatch and
Melrose Place with no less than 2 hours of a non-commercial medium of
your choice. Handing down judgement on usenet doesn't count.
Jason McGinnis
Subject: Re: Environmentalists responsibility for human deaths (was Re: Major problem wi
From: TL ADAMS
Date: 24 Nov 1996 01:38:55 GMT
dietz@interaccess.com (Paul F. Dietz) wrote:
>
> TL ADAMS wrote:
>
>
> > The fact that
> >uranyl salts are more soluble, means that they have less of an exposure
> >route than Pu.
>
> The solubility of uranium means a larger exposure from drinking water
> or from food.
You're overlooking the dilution effect. A PM10 particle from one of
the atmospheric test is still your primary route of exposure.
> Dose from uranium will, in any case, be dominated by decay products,
> not by uranium itself. Radium is very soluble, the inhalation
> exposure from natural radon is also much larger than that from
> plutonium (I don't see the EPA advocating folks ventilate their
> basements to reduce Pu exposure.)
Ah, your wandering off topic here. Radon is the suspected primary
cause of lung cancer. Ya, so, Exposure is not from Uranimum daughters
that were released in coal, coal has nothing to do with it. That radon
would be here if it were or were not in coal pm10.
But were you aware, that natural gas pipeline are hot. Radon gas
decays, the daugher product will be in ion form, and react and/or
bond with the surface of the pipe. Bit of a disposal problem.
>
> Radium in phosphate fertilizer, according to the IAEA, contributes
> each year, globally, the equivalent of about 1/2 of the total global
> dose from the Chernobyl accident.
>
> Paul
But, you're cheating a little here again. A small number of individuals
are getting very high doses from chernobyl, phosphate radium is diffused
across half the planets land surface. Maybe less than that, as phosphate
fertil. stays primarily on agricultural land, (oh sure, ingestion is
a vector, not a large one).
>
>
>
Subject: Re: Economists on ecology (Re: GOODBY MIKE!)
From: mfriesel@ix.netcom.com
Date: Sat, 23 Nov 1996 18:01:18 -0700
JJP wrote:
>
> Markets account for not only current levels of supply and demand, but
> also for future levels. Anticipated prices (resulting from supply and
> demand relationships in the future) cause producers and consumers to
> defer production/consumption decisions.
>
> For example, if there is an anticipated shortage of natural gas in the
> future, at current price levels, it is known that prices will be bid up
> to again clear the market (supply = demand). Suppliers of natural gas
> will hold product off the market to obtain those elevated prices in the
> future.
I note:
So you claim that suppliers will create a shortage to drive prices upward to those
expected from anticipated shortages. When this can occur it is hardly a free
market, since in your scenario suppliers have the option of witholding product
without needing to fear a loss of revenue through the actions of competition. In
a free market suppliers lack the ability to manipulate the market in this manner.
You continue, although at this point it's already pointless to do so:
>
> Making extrapolations based upon current known supplies, prices, usage
> rates, technology etc. and then assuming that the market can't respond
> over time to changes is bad economics.
I note:
You may note that expecting the market to change in a timely manner is another
matter entirely. In many cases the inability of a market to respond in a timely
manner makes its ability to respond 'over time' rather a pointless distinction,
and consideration of such a failure may in fact be good economics contrary to your
assertion.
You continue, heaven only knows why:
>
> This is exactly what led Thomas Malthus to predict that the human
> population would be reduced to cannibalism as a result of overpopulation
> and the burden on the natural resources.
I reply:
Why on earth people keep trying to revive the corpse of Malthus is beyond me.
Your argument has to stand on its own merits. You seem to have two problems in
your presentation already, and Malthus certainly won't help you with either.
You continue:
> He failed to account for
> markets, future technology and a myriad of other factors. Obviously he
> was wrong,
I reply:
I'm going to ignore this, for what I think is a very good reason.
Still, you go on:
> but a century later environmentalists are still promoting the
> 'sky is falling' theory using the same false methodology,
I note:
I suspect that a great deal of the more extreme environmentalist response,
assuming it arises somewhere other than from the anti-environmentalists who seem
intent on establishing the perception of extreme statements as mainstream
environmentalist thinking, is a reaction to self-styled pro-free market
pro-capitalist forces who keep shouting, at the top of their voice through any
media they can access, imperitives typified by 'YOU shoot yourself! YOU shoot
yourself!' - so that both before and after the lemmings are dead your type can
live very nicely on the procedes of the sale of their property and futures thank
you very much.
