Subject: Re: This is impossible
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Date: 23 Jan 1997 18:26:30 GMT
casanova@crosslink.net (Bob Casanova) writes:
>On 22 Jan 1997 17:56:18 GMT, in sci.skeptic, nyikos@math.scarolina.edu
>(Peter Nyikos) wrote:
>
>>
>>Richard Dawkins has written at length about the odds and how little
>>we know about them in _The Blind Watchmaker_, but he is a far
>>less logical person than Crick and suffers a disastrous lapse
>>in logic when he claims that if life arose only once in the
>>universe, it had to be on earth.
>I think you missed the obvious point to this quote, since it's
>essentially self-fulfilling. Since we *know* that life exists here,
>*if* it only arose once it was (and therefore "had to be") here. Or do
>you think I've missed a deeper implied meaning?
Yes, it is inherent in the word "arose". Yes, it is generally believed
that life *evolved* on Earth from the first prokaryotes. But those
first prokaryotes were already very much alive, and the issue
here is whether they *arose* on Earth, i.e. emerged from a prebiotic
soup here rather than being transported here from elsewhere to take
advantage of our rich prebiotic soup. There is PLENTY of reason
for taking this possibility seriously, given our current ignorance
of how the protein synthesis mechanism could possibly have arisen
in a few million years.
And that is one of the premises in Francis Crick's _Life Itself_.
I strongly recommend Crick's book to you; his theory makes a lot more
sense than either the spore theory of Arrhenius or the "space garbage"
theory that enjoyed a vogue in the 1960's.
Peter Nyikos -- standard disclaimer --
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics
University of South Carolina
Columbia, SC 29208
Subject: Re: phenol from biomass
From: costeng@faroc.com.au (Cost Engineering PL)
Date: Thu, 23 Jan 1997 16:27:11 GMT
"\"Uncle Al\" Schwartz" <#UncleAl0@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
insanely stupid,
>inefficient, and expensive (Environmentally correct) uniformly
>crappy. Horrors. (Envronmentalists hate good engineering - it makes them look like
>fools. Small effort, that.)
>(expensive and crappy), or fat-free
>milk - another gift from the Pleasure Police! Rape of the
>Earth!
>Environmentalism is that philosophy and dialectic opposed to progress in
>its every form.
>(Hey, >South< Dakota, how 'bout that Green House incineration of the
>Earth and your
>-87 degree F wind chill factors! Hey Europe, is it COLD enough for
>you? Hey California Central Valley, how 'bout that Green House
>desiccation of all arable land, and your new inland sea?)
Gee, Uncle Al... does the word "ulcer" mean anything to you?
Cheery-cheery bye-bye, sweetcakes...
Subject: Re: Reintroducing the grizzly to Califoania
From: Jim
Date: Thu, 23 Jan 1997 15:31:19 -0700
Gary S. Turk wrote:
>
> Sorry, I was under the impression that humans are in the same
> natural process as any other living and breathing thing. Are you so
> arrogant as to think that perhaps humans shouldn't exist anymore so
> those poor little animals can have their choice of state? You mention
> in a previous post that "they were here first". Where is here? God
> created man, who then was given the job of naming each animal when they
> were created. Man was also to have dominion over those creatures. If
> I read your posts correctly, you seem to propose getting rid of humans.
> That would include you. If you really think that is the answer, why
> are you still alive. Why didn't you put enough stock into your own
> beliefs to be the first to de-exist in the interest of your animal
> buddies? When you point out that I don't even live here, you aren't
> seeing your own big picture. You don't just want grizzlies in
> California, you want all humans to leave the earth and leave the dumb
> animals alone on "their" planet. So, who needs to wake up and smell
> the coffee?
Humans aren't really the same because we can choose what role we wish to
play in nature. We have the ability to restrain ourselves and say
"Perhaps destroying nature is not the best thing." The same cannot be
said of animals, so it is invalid to say "so those poor little animals
can have their choice of state?" And yes, unless you are a literal
creationist, animals were here first. And your reference to "dumb
animals" shows that you have little regard for any creatures other than
man, and nothing else.
Subject: Re: This is impossible
From: casanova@crosslink.net (Bob Casanova)
Date: Thu, 23 Jan 1997 22:32:48 GMT
On 23 Jan 1997 18:26:30 GMT, in sci.skeptic, nyikos@math.scarolina.edu
(Peter Nyikos) wrote:
>casanova@crosslink.net (Bob Casanova) writes:
>
>>On 22 Jan 1997 17:56:18 GMT, in sci.skeptic, nyikos@math.scarolina.edu
>>(Peter Nyikos) wrote:
>
>>
>
>>>
>>>Richard Dawkins has written at length about the odds and how little
>>>we know about them in _The Blind Watchmaker_, but he is a far
>>>less logical person than Crick and suffers a disastrous lapse
>>>in logic when he claims that if life arose only once in the
>>>universe, it had to be on earth.
>
>>I think you missed the obvious point to this quote, since it's
>>essentially self-fulfilling. Since we *know* that life exists here,
>>*if* it only arose once it was (and therefore "had to be") here. Or do
>>you think I've missed a deeper implied meaning?
>
>Yes, it is inherent in the word "arose". Yes, it is generally believed
>that life *evolved* on Earth from the first prokaryotes. But those
>first prokaryotes were already very much alive, and the issue
>here is whether they *arose* on Earth, i.e. emerged from a prebiotic
>soup here rather than being transported here from elsewhere to take
>advantage of our rich prebiotic soup. There is PLENTY of reason
>for taking this possibility seriously, given our current ignorance
>of how the protein synthesis mechanism could possibly have arisen
>in a few million years.
Assuming, of course, that the entire period from the Earth's formation
until the first known traces of life (a billion years, give or take a
few million) wasn't conducive to biogenesis; a period which we know
less than perfectly.
>
>And that is one of the premises in Francis Crick's _Life Itself_.
>I strongly recommend Crick's book to you; his theory makes a lot more
>sense than either the spore theory of Arrhenius or the "space garbage"
>theory that enjoyed a vogue in the 1960's.
Thanks for the response; I see (not for the first time) that I need to
do some more serious reading.
>
>Peter Nyikos -- standard disclaimer --
>Professor, Dept. of Mathematics
>University of South Carolina
>Columbia, SC 29208
>
>
(Note followups, if any)
Bob C.
"No one's life, liberty or property is safe while
the legislature is in session." - Mark Twain
Subject: Re: Global warming/climate change: a new appoach
From: tobis@scram.ssec.wisc.edu (Michael Tobis)
Date: 23 Jan 1997 21:23:26 GMT
Dan Evens (dan.evens@hydro.on.ca) wrote:
: Hugh Easton wrote:
: > One of the possible effects - not necessarily the worst - of a large
: > increase in global temperatures is the breakup of the Antarctic ice cap.
: What global temperature increase would be required for this?
Obviously, no *global* change in particular is necessary. How much
temperature increase would be required at the fringe of Antarctica is
another matter. Even how much temperature change locally is still the
wrong question - the right question is how much temperature change
for how long. It isn't entirely clear that the West Antarctic glacier
isn't unstable *already*, but the time scale of the natural background cooling
might have sufficed to keep it intact. Since we are now almost certainly
(despite various specious arguments) overriding this cooling, the loss of
a large chunk of Antarctic ice is entirely plausible.
On the other hand, it appears to be implausible on the time scales
of interest to political types - if this happens it's likely to take
a few centuries. In the next century, there will likely be some serious coastal
flooding from thermal expansion, and some possible additional term, probably
but not certainly exacerbating, from glacial melt, but the glaciologists are
now fairly confident that the collapse of the ice sheet is not imminent.
Is the fact that the plausible consequence is centuries in the future make
that consequence irrelevant to the policy question? Personally, I think not.
I find it striking that as human capacity increases exponentially, the
time frame which is regarded as consequential seems to be shrinking
rather than growing.
Regarding the correlation between CO2 and temperature over the glacial
cycle, it's not news. It's well established, in fact, and is illustrated
in an alarming (but in my opinion appropriate) way in VP Gore's book
"Earth in the Balance".
There are caveats, though.
We know with virtual certainty that the glacial cycle is synchronized
to long-period variations in the earth's orbit. Accordingly, the increase in
CO2 must have been triggerred in some way by those variations, almost certainly
through a mechanism involving temperature increases. Furthermore, there are
indications in the record that some periods of temperature increase preceded
the comparable CO2 rise slightly. (More precisely, had a slight phase lead -
the periods of increase do overlap.)
From this, we may conclude that Mr. Easton's claims of *imminent* large
temperature rise are overdrawn. However, it is a serious mistake to conclude
that the paleoclimate evidence weighs in on the side of very small greenhouse
gas sensitivity.
The main reason for this is that the solar forcing alone is unable to account
for the temperature variation of the glacial cycle absent a greenhouse effect forcing.
(Similar comments may be made for the still warmer epochs of the more distant past,
which correlate with high CO2 periods). This is true both for simple back-of-envelope
type calculations as well as for full GCM calculations.
The obvious conclusion is that some sort of temperature-mediated biogeochemical
feedback exacerbates the orbitally forced glacial cycle. Until we identify this
mechanism, it isn't clear whether it will operate if the warming is trigerred
by greenhouse forcing without the astronomical component. Perhaps the higher
concentrations of CO2 will shift the equilibrium such that this feedback mechanism
is slowed or even reversed, but perhaps not. If the feedback remains operational,
our long range predictions of the CO2 trajectory may be serious underestimates,
and matters may be worse than anticipated.
In a similar vein, the rather robust recent conclusion that expected greenhouse
warming has been masked by anthropogenic aerosol cooling is taken as reassuring,
but should not be. Since the lifetime of aerosol is so much shorter than that
of CO2, this is warming deferred, not warming avoided. It is true that the
global temperature trajectory anticipated in the next century is less steep
than that predicted a few years back. It is important to emphasize that this
is NOT because of serious miscalculation of greenhouse gas sensitivity but
rather because of neglect of aerosol sensitivity. This in turn indicates
that the change in climate patterns (aerosol forcing being local) may be more
rapid than the shallower temperature trajectory would indicate.
More important, I think, and more interesting as a moral and intellectual
question, is the fact that all these streams of evidence are pointing to
a certain sluggishness of the system in responding to human input rather than
a lower sensitivity. That is, the imminence of severe problems is rather
less than we may have thought, but the long term severity is, if anything,
looking worse than ever.
The first published 400 year prediction, based on a coupled model with, to
be sure, serious flaws (specifically ocean surface flux "corrections" which
really give too many degrees of freedom to tune the model) nevertheless
is worthy of some consideration. (Manabe & Stouffer, 1993. See references below.)
The solution to the flux correction problem is mostly in getting computational
resources commensurate with the magnitude of the issue - coupled models simply
take vastly longer to equilibrate than uncoupled ones, and none has been run
long enough to do this. It seems likely that we will be free of the infamous
flux corrections (or the unforced climate drift they correct for) in a few years.
If our best information continues to show that we are condemning our distant
desecendants to a radically disrupted environment, while the next generation
or two may get off relatively lightly, what would be the appropriate response?
I'd be interested in hearing from those who don't believe that this is what
the evidence shows, as well. If the evidence *did* show this, how would you
recommend responding?
Oh, and by the way, if the evidence *did* show this, how would you expect
fossil fuel interests to respond?
mt
References:
Paleoclimatology / Thomas J. Crowley and Gerald R. North. -- New
York : Oxford University Press ; Oxford [England] : Clarendon
Press, c1991.
Climate change 1995 : the science of climate change / edited by
J.T. Houghton ... [et al.] ; production editor, J.A. Lakeman. --
Cambridge ; New York, NY, USA : Cambridge University Press, 1996.
Earth in the balance : ecology and the human spirit / Al Gore. --
Boston : Houghton Mifflin, 1992.
Global physical climatology / Dennis L. Hartmann. -- San Diego :
Academic Press, 1994.
Physics of climate / Jose P. Peixoto, Abraham H. Oort. -- New York
: American Institute of Physics, c1992.
S. Manabe & R. Stouffer, 1993: "Century-scale effects of increased atmospheric
CO2 on the ocean-atmosphere system" _Nature_ V 364 pp 215 ff.
Subject: Re: disappearing water?
From: daddio-1@ix.netcom.com(Gary S. Turk)
Date: 23 Jan 1997 20:58:10 GMT
In <5c6n4f$ju8@cobra.Minn.Net> Johnny writes:
>
>I read somewhere that the world's water supply is
>disappearing "at an alarming rate". Is this true or just
>some conservation scare tactic?
>
Water evaporates, it rains or snows, the water is back. Where
could it possibly be dissappearing too? You drink it, you urinate,
it's still water. You die, you dry out, it's still there. What
appears to be disappearing into the ground, is still subject to
evaporation.
There may be some water now that is too contaminated to be of use,
but it could be filtered. A theory that water is disappearing, using
receding shorelines or river course changes as evidence, would be hard
to prove. A recent program on treasure hunting showed a family digging
up a sunken paddlewheel boat a full mile from the current river course.
The water did not disappear, it moved it's course. Things like silt
deposit, or soils moved during flooding would explain the course
change, but the water did not disappear.
Unless someone could prove that there is a hole in the atmosphere
that the water is escaping through, then I doubt proving this
disappearing water will be possible.
This is an opinion, and requires no response.
Subject: Re: Space Colonies ( was Re: The Limits To Growth)
From: jim blair
Date: Thu, 23 Jan 1997 17:59:36 -0800
Thomas L. Billings wrote:
The average mass density in Space is about 1 atom of hydrogen per cubic
centimeter. The inner solar system does have a higher density, but that
is many orders of magnitude short of being dense enough that it would
destructively interfere with a mirror in Space over any normal
maintenance cycle.
. Lasers
are EXCELLENT for moving energy in Space over long distances. The size
and configuration of the optics have already been calculated by people
like Dr. Bob Forward. Do a library search on his non-fiction books
about the future, physics, and space industry for more detail on this.
etc on the technical possibilities.
Hi,
Good points. Of course there is great potential in space. But this whole
discussion is leaving out the psychological aspect of the exploration of
the universe. See my web page file "To Save the Earth, Go to Mars!"
--
,,,,,,,
_______________ooo___( O O )___ooo_______________
(_)
jim blair (jeblair@facstaff.wisc.edu) For a good time call
http://www.geocities.com/capitolhill/4834
Subject: Re: Nuclear Power in Australia? Why not?
From: mikep@valhalla.comshare.com (Michael Pelletier)
Date: 23 Jan 1997 14:33:25 -0500
In article <32E6E72E.5BAB@ix.netcom.com>,
Mark Friesel wrote:
>
>Thanks again! I wonder if Tchernobyl stock went up thanks to cost
>savings from the design. Maybe if they'd laid off a few operators and
>other personel... 8^).
If only they'd *had* stock, a board of directors, and shareholders to
answer to, instead of a monolithic, oppressive, command-and-control
communist economy, the disaster probably never would have happened.
Rest in pieces, Soviet Union. Good riddance.
-Mike Pelletier.
Subject: FEBRUARY CHMM DINNER MEETING
From: thcg@mailzone.com (THE HINSDALE CONSULTING GROUP)
Date: Fri, 24 Jan 1997 02:15:12 GMT
**CHMM LECTURE SERIES**
"THE ENVIRONMENTAL INTERNET"
The Internet has experienced geometric growth since its 1969
U.S. Department of Defense birth to now include a vast array of
powerful and low cost research, communications, and business
development tools for the worldwide environmental products and
services marketplace.
Mark Reider of The Hinsdale Consulting Group will present a
one-hour seminar where you will learn:
-What and where the Internet is.
-How to perform technical and business
environmental industry research.
-How to use the Internet to grow your business.
-The fundamentals of Internet communications.
OUR SPEAKER
Mark Reider is the Managing Director of The Hinsdale Consulting
Group, a Chicago-based acquisitions, sales/marketing, and
training consultancy specializing in helping client companies
achieve competitive advantage by developing and implementing
strategies to more efficiently manage their investments in
business acquisitions and sales processes, information
systems technologies, and sales personnel. He is the founder
and former President of the Chicago Chapter of the Professional
Environmental Marketing Association. He is a chemical engineer
with over 20 years of experience and has held management
positions in process R & D, engineering, operations, and
sales/marketing within the environmental products/services and
chemicals manufacturing industries.
WHEN: Thursday, February 6th
5:30 to 6:30 P.M.
Registration /Networking
6:30 to 8:30 P.M.
Dinner and Program
WHERE: Maggiano's Restaurant
240 Oak Brook Center
Oak Brook, Illinois
(630) 368-0300
COST: $25.00 Members with Reservations
$35.00 Non-Members and At-The-Door
# # #
Subject: Re: disappearing water?
From: jmc@Steam.stanford.edu (John McCarthy)
Date: 24 Jan 1997 01:23:59 GMT
In article <5c8jd2$il9@dfw-ixnews6.ix.netcom.com> daddio-1@ix.netcom.com(Gary S. Turk) writes:
> In <5c6n4f$ju8@cobra.Minn.Net> Johnny writes:
> >
> >I read somewhere that the world's water supply is
> >disappearing "at an alarming rate". Is this true or just
> >some conservation scare tactic?
> >
>
> Water evaporates, it rains or snows, the water is back. Where
> could it possibly be dissappearing too? You drink it, you urinate,
> it's still water. You die, you dry out, it's still there. What
> appears to be disappearing into the ground, is still subject to
> evaporation.
> There may be some water now that is too contaminated to be of use,
> but it could be filtered. A theory that water is disappearing, using
> receding shorelines or river course changes as evidence, would be hard
> to prove. A recent program on treasure hunting showed a family digging
> up a sunken paddlewheel boat a full mile from the current river course.
> The water did not disappear, it moved it's course. Things like silt
> deposit, or soils moved during flooding would explain the course
> change, but the water did not disappear.
> Unless someone could prove that there is a hole in the atmosphere
> that the water is escaping through, then I doubt proving this
> disappearing water will be possible.
> This is an opinion, and requires no response.
>
See my http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/water.html for a
discussion of the water problem. Because of the enormous volumes of
water that are used, water is not a world-wide commodity; water
problems are local. Some places have problems, others don't. In no
place are the water problems insuperable.
--
John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/
He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.
Subject: False accusations (was Re: Vatican immorality)
From: jayne@mmalt.guild.org (Jayne Kulikauskas)
Date: Thu, 23 Jan 1997 13:49:22 EST
bg364@torfree.net (Yuri Kuchinsky) writes:
> Friend,
>
> All of these issues you raise have been discussed back and forth in these
> ngs by Jayne, I, and others. You're not saying anything new here. The
> specific discussion between Jayne and I is about something else.
It may be more accurate to say that there are two discussions, the
topic Yuri is trying to discuss and the topic that I am trying to
discuss. :-)
Yuri seems interested in talking about alleged Vatican immorality,
blaming the Vatican for all the problems in the world and calling
Catholics names.
I have been trying to talk about Yuri's absense of evidence for
attributing evil motives to the Vatican. I'm not even trying to
defend that the Vatican position on family planning is right. I just
want to point out that it is not motivated by hatred of Nature, desire
to create hardship for the poor, or a wish to destroy the world.
> I would simply like her to reveal her biases in this discussion, and she's
> already doing this nicely in another thread she started in reply.
The "bias" that Yuri keeps trying to establish about me is that I am
Roman Catholic. He claims that this makes me a robot to Vatican
teaching. I am not, however, a robot. I am capable of independent
thought. I do not feel that the Vatican is above criticism. There are
areas in which I disagree with actions and attitudes that I perceive
in the Vatican. I feel that it is my duty as a loyal Catholic to work
and pray for renewal and reform of my Church and do my best to do so.
However, the Vatican teaching on family planning is not one of the
areas in which I disagree.
Yuri is correct that I really do bring a bias to this discussion, but
it is not as a RC, but as a user of the Ovulation Method. I and my
husband choose to use this method so obviously I am biased towards it.
Just because of my personality, I would not be comfortable using an
artifical method and made the decision to use a natural method even
before I became a Catholic.
Let me reveal my bias. Unlike Yuri, I do not view Nature as something
"out there" being threatened by the existence of humanity. I view
myself as part of Nature. I could no more put synthetic hormones into
my bloodstream than I could dump chemicals into a river. The thought
of either is emotionally repugnant. I always avoid using synthetic
medications and seek natural alternatives. I prefer a chiropractor to
a prescription, a midwife to an obstetrician, and doing Tai Chi to
taking tranquilizers.
Of course, this attitude affects how I approach questions of family
planning. I have no doubts that the Ovulation Method is the best one
for me, so, of course, I take umbrage when Yuri refuses it to take it
seriously as an option. Based on my personal experience using this
method and understanding of Third World conditions, I think it a
particularly appropriate method for there.
When Yuri claims that the only possible motive for the Vatican to
promote natural methods is a desire to create overpopulation and its
ensuing evils, he is talking about a method that I use and am well
satisfied with. Admittedly, I personally have used it for spacing a
large family, but I have friends who have used it for planning
families of two or three children, so I have reason to believe that it
also works for small families. Yuri's claims fly in the face of my
personal experience so I am biased towards thinking he is foolish and
ill-informed.
Really, Yuri, I would have been happy to reveal this bias at any time.
You didn't have to extract it from me by questions.
> The real question is, What about compassion towards the suffering poor and
> towards Nature that is being destroyed in our time. My point is that
> Jayne, and her beloved Vatican, lack this compassion as they try to
> discourage the poor and suffering masses living in overpopulated countries
> from using contraception. Simple.
Several times I have suggested to Yuri that each of us can take small
concrete steps to help people in developing countries. For example, I
have mentioned buying products from outlets that return the profits to
the workers rather than wealthy landowners. I have written about child
sponsorship programs. Yuri has never seriously responded to these
suggestions. Apparently he feels the only way to help the poor is to
refer to the Vatican as a "cult of death". I, on the other hand,
practice the things I have suggested. Judge for yourselves. Which of
us seems to be lacking in compassion for the poor?
Jayne
Subject: Re: No Taxes Belize Trust
From: "P. Marks"
Date: Fri, 24 Jan 1997 00:18:01 +0000
On 19 Jan 1997, Robin R. Krasichynski wrote:
> On Fri, 17 Jan 1997 20:00:43 -0800 EXECUTIVE FUNDING GROUP Ltd, said ...
> >
> >Offshore Trust
>
> Welcome to the world of responsible Canadian citizens. Welcome to those
> who scream about taxes being too high, so they will take their money out
> of the system, and put it somewhere where it isn't taxed, but they will continue
> to use the roads, the sewers, the schools, the court system, and so on - they
> just don't want to pay for it.
>
> Corporate welfare pimps - Theft from the Canadian taxpayer - Theft of services
> by these trust fund holders and their families - if you go and live in Belize fine.
> But as long as you live in Canada, as long as you drive on the roads, use the
> toilets, the water supply, the police and fire services, the hospitals, the schools,
> as long as your mother or father needs a nursing home, collects CPP, or your
> kids attend university or you attended university - quit being such cheating shysters
> and pay your bloody taxes, just like the people who don't have enough money to buy
> themselves into being thieves.
>
>
>
I see so "essential government services" have to cost about 50% of income
(all the spending of federal, provincial and local government).
And if you do not approve of such things as government roads you should
not use them? Like people in a concentration camp should refuse their
rations? "If you do not approve of the camp you should not accept the
rations - why did you have to live in Europe anyway, you could have left -
we never wanted you here.....".
And the statist argument thus proves that taxation is in fact the payment
for services (just like a market) that property is theft and theft is
property - and that black is white, and rain is dry.
Paul Marks.
Subject: Re: Green House effect (WAS Re: phenol from biomass)
From: Peter Hernes
Date: Thu, 23 Jan 1997 18:46:49 -0800
> > My impression from what I have read is that the relation between
> > enhanced greenhouse warming and cyclic phenomena like El Nino is still
> > an open question with some work suggesting there may be such a relation.
> > If anyone knows anything more definitive, I would very much like to know
> > about it, since it seems to me to be a fairly crucial point since El
> > Nino, it seems fairly clear, has a dramatic effect on climate.
> >
> But I DO want to point out that many of the problems in reaching
> consensus opinions on environmental issues result from inexact use and
> understanding of words. I may be wrong, gr, but it is my opinion tha El
> Nino has little if any global CLIMATIC effect. However it does have a
> large effect on WEATHER patterns and therefor on LOCAL "climates." I
> think this difference is as important as ozone depletion vs/ climate
> change.gr
So, how are you defining global climate? If all local weather patterns
are changed, is that a global climate change even though the average
global climate may be unchanged? What if, say, half the globe experiences
a local weather change (and hence a climate change since climate is
average weather) for six months to four years. Some would argue that El
Nino's have at least that strong an effect. Does a climate change have to
be permanent for it to count? You can start the ball rolling toward
better consensus by giving some definitions.gr
_____________________________________________________________________
Peter J. Hernes Tel. (206) 543-2155
University of Washington Fax (206) 543-0275
School of Oceanography
Box 357940
Seattle, WA 98195 pjhernes@u.washington.edu
Subject: Re: This is impossible
From: Wolfkin
Date: Thu, 23 Jan 1997 20:40:46 -0500
Leonard Evens wrote:
>
> John D. Gwinner wrote:
> >
> > William R. Penrose wrote in article
> > ...
> > > In article <5bsc70$f1d@csu-b.csuohio.edu> drake.79@osu.edu (Macarthur
> > Drake) writes:
> > >
> >
> > > The first man on the moon was supposed to be the event of the century.
> > While
> > > exciting at the time, its net effect on my life has been a lot less than
> > my
> > > dog throwing up on the living room rug, my grand-daughter's birthday, or
> > even
> > > the OJ trial. Same goes for "life" on Mars.
> > >
> >
> > Oh, I gotta disagree. Although this also brings up arguments about space
> > spin-off's, I think everyone understands Transistors, IC's, satcomm, and
> > other space technologies as being useful.
> >
> > Nobody thought Columbus was very smart either. Aren't you glad he tried?
> >
>
> This is a very interesting question. Columbus differed with the more
> knowledgeable geographers and navigational scientists of his time about
> the size of Asia and/or the circumference of the Earth. He was wrong,
> and they were right, but he was lucky that there was a previously
> unknown (except to the Vikings) continent between Europe and Asia to
> the east. One can conjecture about what would have happened had
> he failed. It is fairly clear that eventually Europeans would
> have found the `New World', which I remind you had already been found
> many thousands of years earlier by other members of our species. (There
> were even at least three highly developed civilizations on the North and
> South American continents.) Probably the most significant barrier to
> such voyages of discovery was the inability to determine longitude.
> This was solved by a combination of astronomical techniques and the
> development of highly accurate clocks. It seems likely that by the
> eighteenth century Eruopeans would have made the same discovery if not
> earlier. But the Inca, Mayan, and other societies might have developed
> further in the interim, and it is not clear what the result would have
> been. I suspect that many Europeans would have migrated to the
> Americas but it might have been under very different circumstances. The
> institution of African slavery might not have become established in the
> Western hemisphere. Someone could easily write an alternate history of
> such a world, and perhaps it has been done. Since many of us wouldn't
> be alive in the alternate world, the majority of us might not approve,
> but it is not clear it wouldn't be just as good (or bad) a world as the
> one we have.
> > Some people look forward, most people look at their shoes.
> >
> > == John ==
>
> --
> Leonard Evens len@math.nwu.edu 491-5537
> Department of Mathematics, Norwthwestern University
> Evanston Illinois
Have you read Orson Scott Card's _Pastwatch: The Redemption of
Christopher
Columbus_? While I disagree with very nearly the whole book, from
Card's
moral assumptions to the 'pastwatching" machine, it *is* very well
written,
and worth your time, if you can read OSC.
Wolfkin.
Subject: Re: Global warming/climate change: a new appoach
From: Dan Evens
Date: Wed, 22 Jan 1997 16:43:20 -0500
Hugh Easton wrote:
> If, instead of relating to CO2 level and global temperature, the Vostok
> ice core data set showed the level of a chemical in the diet and the
> incidence of cancer, I do not think there would be much argument that the
> chemical is carcinogenic. Or that it should be banned if a substantial
> percentage of the human race were shown to be at risk from it.
Leaving aside the question of exactly what the Vostok data acutally
shows, there is a problem with this.
The notion that a chemical causes cancer is not going to be accepted
solely on the basis of a statistical correlation between that
chemical and cancer cases. For example, some chemicals are indicators
that cancer is present rather than cancer causing agents. What is
required is a mechanism for the cancer production and experiments
to verify that this mechanism exists and operates in humans. Such
are quite amazingly well documented and verified for a variety of
chemicals in that these chemicals produce DNA damage of exactly
the type which tends to lead to cancer. Such evidence constitutes
the proverbial smoking gun, and such evidence is strengthed by
correlations between chemical exposure and cancer rates.
In the absence of such mechanisms, one might well be lead to
believe that it was holding the paper ciggs were wrapped in
that produced the cancer. Or uncrinkling that silly plastic
wrap on every package. Or reading the health warning. Or
standing in front of vending machines. Or any number of other
things that are correlated with cancer because they are
correlated with ciggarettes. Without a mechanism, cause and
effect are difficult to unravel.
Suppose that your data shows CO2 levels are driven by temperature
rather than the other way around. You mention losing correlations
if you shift the data by 1000 years. Suppose the CO2 levels are
trailing temperature rather than leading it. Maybe various activity
of organisms that occurs at higher temperatures produces it.
Maybe CO2 does not dissolve in oceans as readily at higher temps.
Maybe the process of CO2 forming calcium carbonate does not work
as fast at higher temperatures because CO2 does not dissolve as
readily.
Or maybe the two are accidentally correlated. Maybe ocean currents
get messed up at some temperature threshold, and CO2 deposits on
ocean floors get turned off.
Good science would require a mechanism to explain a correlation
before it was considered evidence of anything. The slight
insulation effect of CO2 is clearly not, in and of itself by
itself, enough to account for the temperature differences
projected.
--
Standard disclaimers apply.
I don't buy from people who advertise by e-mail.
I don't buy from their ISPs.
Dan Evens
Subject: Re: Reintroducing the grizzly to Califoania
From: daddio-1@ix.netcom.com(Gary S. Turk)
Date: 24 Jan 1997 02:02:33 GMT
In <32E7E6B6.582C@xmission.com> Jim writes:
>
>Gary S. Turk wrote:
>>
>> Sorry, I was under the impression that humans are in the same
>> natural process as any other living and breathing thing. Are you so
>> arrogant as to think that perhaps humans shouldn't exist anymore so
>> those poor little animals can have their choice of state? You
mention
>> in a previous post that "they were here first". Where is here? God
>> created man, who then was given the job of naming each animal when
they
>> were created. Man was also to have dominion over those creatures.
If
>> I read your posts correctly, you seem to propose getting rid of
humans.
>> That would include you. If you really think that is the answer, why
>> are you still alive. Why didn't you put enough stock into your own
>> beliefs to be the first to de-exist in the interest of your animal
>> buddies? When you point out that I don't even live here, you aren't
>> seeing your own big picture. You don't just want grizzlies in
>> California, you want all humans to leave the earth and leave the
dumb
>> animals alone on "their" planet. So, who needs to wake up and smell
>> the coffee?
>
>Humans aren't really the same because we can choose what role we wish
to
>play in nature. We have the ability to restrain ourselves and say
>"Perhaps destroying nature is not the best thing." The same cannot be
>said of animals, so it is invalid to say "so those poor little animals
>can have their choice of state?" And yes, unless you are a literal
>creationist, animals were here first. And your reference to "dumb
>animals" shows that you have little regard for any creatures other
than
>man, and nothing else.
Wrong. Dumb refers to the inability to speak. Perhaps if the
animals could speak, they would let us know if your theory that they
do not have an ability to reason. I really don't think animals are
stupid. I also do not believe that man slaughtered the grizzly bear in
the first place. I think that when you move into an area, you protect
what is yours. That may have been livestock, or family, but regardless
of what the reason was, bears were shot. I don't recall a large number
of people in history wearing bearskin clothing. Now get realistic for
a moment. It is inevitable that man is coing to continue to take space
as needed. Some will have more than others. Point being, some other
creature is going to fade away as the room becomes more scarce. I
don't think there are any measures that can be taken to stop this,
short of sterilizing all humans and letting the species Homo Sapien do
the fading. I am not for this at all. This is why I don't put a lot
of stock in those people who suggest that "we", that is, humans, should
step aside and let the animals have the space. If you don't agree, and
you believe that somehow the animals should have the earth and humans
should go, then go ahead and de-exist yourself. By the way, if I am a
"literal creationist", and I'm right, where will that leave those who
fell for the evolution theory?
Subject: Re: Green House effect (WAS Re: phenol from biomass)
From: Peter Hernes
Date: Thu, 23 Jan 1997 18:33:26 -0800
> Jim wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> > "The Green House Effect is a pile of Environmentalist progandistic swill
> > fit to feed to spotted owls" How have you come to that conclusion? Are
> > you at all aware of the mainstream position in current science that is
> > held by global warming? To say that global warming is only an idea in
> > environmental circles is absurd. It is a sound prediction based on known
> > fact. I will never cease to be amazed by the ability of ordinary people
> > with biases to come out and state that they know best how the earth
> > works, and all that research can be dispensed with.
>
> Inescapable global cooling in the 1970s enjoyed the same irrefutable
> support.
> What comes next, inescapable global nothing? There's damn little grant
> money in it.
People used to think irrefutably that the earth was at the center of
universe. Now they don't. They used to think that the earth was flat.
Now they don't. They used to think that atomic radiation was safe.
Now they don't. It's called a paradigm shift -- it's how science works.
For every scientific "fact" that you take for granted, you can find
people who believed they had irrefutable evidence that your fact is
wrong. You probably used to believe in Santa Claus. Why? Because you
had irrefutable evidence -- presents under the tree. Maybe we should take
everything that YOU say for granted because you were wrong on that one!
That would be silly, of course, because you sure as he!! know your
chemistry. Same thing here -- the global cooling ideas of the 70's
look pretty ridiculous right now, but that's part of how science grows.
Throw out bold ideas, and then try to prove or disprove them. That one
has been disproved, so get over it and move on.
_____________________________________________________________________
Peter J. Hernes Tel. (206) 543-2155
University of Washington Fax (206) 543-0275
School of Oceanography
Box 357940
Seattle, WA 98195 pjhernes@u.washington.edu
Subject: Reintroducing the grizzly to California
From: Mike Vandeman
Date: Thu, 23 Jan 1997 20:58:41 -0800
At 03:55 PM 1/18/97 -0800, you wrote:
> I really begin to wonder if there really is such a thing as
>evolution. Perhaps there is more to the creation attitude than meets
>the eye. If the grizzly bear was meant to be in California, then why
>isn't it? Isn't the theory of evolution that if something is strong
>enough to survive, it will?
No, that idea was thrown out long ago! Many species survive not because
they are the "fittest", but because of an accident.
This bear is a mighty animal, and surely
>survival of the fittest would have kept it whereever it wanted to be.
>Obviously, much like the many Californians leaving that state for other
>states, the grizzly decided not to stay.
No, it loved it here, especially when we brought livestock. That was when
it started to really multiply! We slaughtered every last one, the last
one in
Sequoia National Park in 1924. There is not a single organism in the
worls that
can stand up to humans, with their oil, guns, nuclear power, etc. It
doesn't
mean they aren't "fit" to survive.
> Why then, do you feel it is your duty to force this animal back
>into the state it left? Sometimes I wonder why animal rights activists
>and enviromentalists even want to be considered closely related on the
>political spectrum, when they are bumping heads trying to do and undo
>everything that happens through natural selection.
Killing off the grizzly was "natural selection"? You don't know much
about
CA history, do you?
> When and if a species becomes endangered or even extinct, it is
>through a natural process. Evolutionists believe that if that grizzly
>wanted to be in California, then it would evolve into such a powerful
>being that nothing would stand in it's way. Seeing that this isn't
>happening, I doubt the theory of evolution, and I doubt that the
>grizzly even wants to be in your state. Leave the poor guy alone. You
>would totally destroy his life by tearing him from his current
>environment to selfishly move him to one of your choosing. How do you
>justify that? You would have to rob some other state of their
>inheritance of the grizzly habitat to move the bear to California.
>When does this madness end? Why can't we let nature take it's course
>without butting in to engineer our own desired evolutions?
> This is an opinion, and doesn't really require e response.
If we let nature take its course, we would have left the grizzly alone &
let it live in CA! I am just bringing it back to where it was before we
got here. The Indians lived with it. We were too selfish. You talk as if
you have an unselfish concern for the grizzly, but actually, you are the
selfish one. You don't even live here, and yet you want to dictate what
we do here! Crawl back under your rock.
---
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: Re: Nuclear Power in Australia? Why not?
From: khorsell@ee.latrobe.edu.au (Kym Horsell)
Date: 24 Jan 1997 14:48:26 +1100
In article <01bc068e$13dffba0$LocalHost@gfet.vision.net.au>,
Greig Ebeling wrote:
>
>Kym Horsell wrote in article
><5bk7g1$98@laplace.ee.latrobe.edu.au>...
>> I was interested in the "release" of some not-so-secret information
>> about US nuclear testing of the 50s. Particularly the case of the missle
>> that was programmed to take off from one Pacific Island and strike a
>nearby
>> island. Seems the launch site was switched to the other island but
>> a leak developed in the chain of command and no-one told the nav system.
>> Up she went. Down she came... neatly zeroed in
>> over the launch site.. with a few people scrambling to avoid the effects
>> of the blast when they realised the little problem.
>
>I believe the subject of discussion was re nuclear power, not nuclear
>weapons.
No -- the subject of discussion was "safety", "risk", "risk management",
etc al, and how certain bodies being so well-aware of how a
particular kind of technology is regarded by the general public
that they conduct their affairs so safely there won't be an accident in
1000 gy or some such. For a moment we might forget -- in all that hyperbole --
that people run these things and they can make the dumbest errors
and (when we actually look at the record) actually have done so.
(Of course, we don't make the gamblers' error of then arguing there is
less likelihood of this happening in the past, do we)?
--
R. Kym Horsell
KHorsell@EE.Latrobe.EDU.AU kym@CS.Binghamton.EDU
http://WWW.EE.LaTrobe.EDU.AU/~khorsell http://CS.Binghamton.EDU/~kym
Subject: Re: need for wilderness
From: the ROYster-Meister
Date: Thu, 23 Jan 1997 16:06:01 -0800
On Sat, 18 Jan 1997, Emanuel Roth wrote:
> My opinion:
>
> Society as a whole needs an escape from their urban lifestyle. It is a
> necessity to have an uninhibited forest or coastline so that generations
> to come can enjoy the beauty of, and otherwise understand nature. One
> needs a peaceful retreat of their own in this smog filled, gigantic
> wasteland we call our home.
I like the word "uninhibited". Right there is a big reason for
needing wilderness: it's a place people can go and be uninhibited
(without lots of fancy toys to do it). Leave all the trappings and false
behavior of (so-called) civilization behind, shed all your masks and fake
fronts, and just be you. It's a lot easier to do out where everything
else is just being what it is.
> These past few summers I was fortunate enough to have the chance of a
> lifetime and be one with nature. At first there was much regret as I
> began to think of all the things we take for granted such as a shower,
> toilet, bed, car, and heating and air-conditioning systems. Although it
> was only a short time after that I began to realize that one could live
> easily and comfortably in a fresh air environment without such
> Anecessities.@ Soon after, I settled down in my new niche and listened
> to what nature had to say. The waterfalls, glaciers, peaks,
> landscapes, wildlife, canyons, hills, meadows, and valleys were all so
> beautiful that even a picture of such areas is reason enough to love and
> support the natural world. I will undergo many other experiences in the
> wilderness for years to come.
>
I also like being able to sit here and know that all the
waterfalls and glaciers and ponds and peaks and woods and wildlife are
out there whether I or anyone else is there or not. They are their own
reason for being; they do not require man to enjoy them to have value.
> With all the burdens and hardships plaguing our inner-cities and even in
> our suburbs, there needs to be an emergency exit where one could run
> away and forget everything that is wounding our minds, bodies, and
> souls. There are three possible escape routes in life: Resort to drugs,
> violence, or nature. Two of the above cause massive damage the person
> and the people that know him, the other earns him respect and
> intellect. It is sad to say that when an individual decides either
> drugs or violence this person brings innocent people down with him. I
> chose the great outdoors as my escape route and have taken people down
> with me, but for the better not the worse.
>
Along with this, I'd say that a friend's definition of the
largest a city should be is right on. He says a city is too big when an
ordinary, physically fit person can't jog out of it to a place where one
doesn't have to wear clothes -- i.e. wilderness or close to it, without
crowds of people. So at root, our society needs these escape elements
because there are too many of us, so we take up all this room and there
isn't enuf for nature and being natural.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-- the ROYster-meister + wilsonr@Peak.org --
one of God's >peculiar< people
"But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, God's peculiar people."
-- the Apostle Peter (KJV)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Reintroducing the grizzly to California
From: Mike Vandeman
Date: Thu, 23 Jan 1997 20:47:10 -0800
At 10:26 AM 1/18/97 -0500, you wrote:
>Why do you call it a "reintroduction?" It was NEVER introduced into CA in
>the first place, so you can not introduce it again, i.e. reintroduce it?
What word would you prefer? It was "introduced" here at some time in the past,
or it would never have been here.
>I personally think it would be bad, mostly from a public relation
>standpoint. Grizzlies require too large a range.
Public relations for what? The point is to preserve wildlife, not to make
people feel good. You seem to think that people's needs come above all else.
Too large for whom? For what? It would not just be for THEM. It would also
provide safe (from humans) habitat for countless other species that don't
have human-free habitat now.
There would be too many
>human encounters, and there would be calls for their elimination. We are
>seeing this with the Mountain Lions already. Where would we put them?
>Even the most remote areas in CA are teeming with people.
That is exactly the point! They would have to be GIVEN habitat that is off-
limits to all humans & their livestock, so that there would not be conflicts.
It is much
>better that we remind people that the animal on our state flag has been
>extirpated from our state.
Better for whom? For what?
We can do BOTH. But the latter does nothing to protect wildlife in the
future. What you are saying is that it is okay to murder someone, as long as
we point out that it was a bad thing! Talk about a double standard! The message
you are giving is that murdering humans is wrong, but murdering wildlife is
okay.
>The negative publicity on the wolf introductions in Wyoming is a good
>example. Introducing grizzlies in CA would be a nightmare.
What negative publicity? You are saying that certain wildlife have no right to
live here. Such arrogance! If anyone has no right to live here, it is us.
Grizzlies were here first. What are you teaching about biology? That wildlife is
here only for the benefit of humans? What about rattlesnakes & black widows &
poison oak? Should we exterminate them too, because they are an irritant for
people?
Please explain why humans have a right to all the land in the state, but the
wildlife who lived here first have NO right to live here? (In order to live
here, they must have viable habitat, which means being left alone.)
>Walter H. Sakai
>Professor of Biology
>Santa Monica College---
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
