Newsgroup sci.energy 55958

Directory

In Article <568pgk$4fn@grissom.powerup.com.au>, gakp@powerup.com.au (Karen
or George) wrote:
>In article <3287C1C8.278A@ilhawaii.net>, jhanson@ilhawaii.net says...
>>
>>For Immediate Release
>>
>>          Contact: Lisa Magnino at press@islandpress.com
>>---------------------------------------------------------------
>
>[hard-sell spiel deleted]
>
>>Betrayal of Science and Reason: How Anti-Environmental Rhetoric
>>Threatens Our Future
>>By Paul R. Ehrlich and Anne H. Ehrlich
>>Shearwater Books/Island Press
>>Publication Date: October 21, 1996
>>320 pages, Appendices, index
>>Hardcover: $24.95 ISBN: 1-55963-483-9
>>
>>Members of the press: please send two tearsheets of any mention of this
>>title to our Washington address: Island Press 1718 Connecticut Ave., NW,
>>Suite 300. Washington, DC 20009. When providing ordering information,
>>please use the following: Island Press, Box 7, Dept. 2PR, Covelo, CA
>>95428;
>>800/828-1302.
>
>Surely, this is commercial advertising that is supposed to be a no-no
>in discussion groups.  Besides, it has no relevance for sci.econ, so it
>constitutes a double violation of netiquette.
>
>George Antony
You expected less? Isn't making money the point of writing the book?

Moore says:
> 
> Gee, I don't remember ever not paying taxes on interest, but you might
> be right. So? I thought you socialists dudes wanted to tax everything
> in sight :-)
I reply:
There had been no tax on savings interest.  What you remember doesn't 
concern me.   By the way, if you want to start playing with labels, I 
can do it, too.
JM says:
> 
> Duh
I note:
More than a single simple concept at a time and JM's brain stops.
He continues...
> 
> I want it lowered. It has cost me a lot of money, especially when I
> received gains in uncontrolled lumps and then was taxed at brackets
> higher than my normal income would indicate. But that's personal.
I note:
All of my replies are personal.
JM says:
> 
> Have you ever wondered why almost every other first world country has
> ZERO capital gains tax rate?
I reply:
No.
After proving he did not wonder either, JM says:
> 
> Furthermore,  why would you want to raise the tax rate on savings
> (capital gains taxes are taxes on savings for most people)? It is
> alreadly over 50% for the average personr, who leaves money in capital
> investments for a long time, because of the failure to index for
> inflation. Fortunately for the economy, most person don't realize
> this, or they would invest everything in tax free bonds or some such.
> 
> So why do you want to penalize capital? It is employed to do
> productive things.
I reply:
Well, there are three reasons:  a) the same people who taxed my S&L; 
savings interest want to reduce capital gains, so to hell with them.  
Actually, the remainding two aren't that important.
JM says:
> 
> No, I never said the proportion of income paid by the wealthy dropped.
I reply:
You said the tax rate dropped.  The conclusion above is obvious.
JM says:
> 
> But frankly, I think it should. As one gets more skilled and higher
> paid, one's taxes paid go up exponentially (with the exception of a
> social security pedestal). This is fair???
I reply:
Skill and pay, taken in the general sense, are not correlated.  Your 
assertion is a myth.
JM says:
> 
> I think taxes ought to be a government fee... the same per person.
> 
> But for the less radical, maybe a person consumes more government
> resources if they have a higher income (not true, but let's pretend),
> then maybe they should pay a flat rate rather than a flat fee.
> 
> What the heck is wrong with that?
I reply:
I think it's essential to prevent the runaway concentration of wealth.  
An economy limiting the distribution of wealth to a sigmoidal curve 
seems like a good solution, where steps are taken to ensure that the 
wealthier members of society  are those who contribute the most to it.  
The maximum accumulatable wealth can be tied to the median wealth, and 
there can still be a minimum achievable by anyone for the asking.
The difficulty in implementing such a system comes from the wealthy 
themselves, and other unfortunate results of our current system which 
will take more time to explain than I have right now, even to someone 
who's brain does not slip a cog like yours did above.
JM says:
> 
> I think you simply want to punish the rich for being rich, regardless
> of the iimpact on everyone else.
I reply:
Punish?  Hardly, since this seems to imply a form of negative 
reinforcement intended to induce a behavioral change.  I'm just 
looking for a constructive outlet for my violent tendencies, and the 
policies implemented by the wealthy have attracted my attention.  
Pretty simple, really.
JM continues...
 That would be the result of the
> policies you have pushed, on those few times when you made suggestions
> rather than just pick at capitalism from a lofty pedestal.
I reply:
Hardly.  But you seem unable to understand even simple arguments, so 
most of what I say goes completely over your head.  The impression 
you're left with is no more than you're capable of understanding.  You 
seem to forget the inconsistencies in your position about what 
capitalism is, what the free market is, and your defense of monopolies 
and inheritance, among others.
JM says:
> 
> 
> I thought we were talking about responsibility here. But if that is
> true, then it makes no difference what Reagan proposed... it is
> everyones fault.
I reply:
Then you have no objectiong to my attacking the most evident source of 
the problem, and the one most accessible to public response?  I'm 
happy to hear that.
JM continues..
> 
> >Ross Perot obtained $3B from the state of California and $1B from the
> >state of Nevada.  I may be able to find my source, but it's been
> >awhile so you can disagree with me all you want with relative
> >impunity.
> 
> That means his company received the fees, which is far different than
> Ross personally ending up with all the money.
I reply:
No, what I said was that Ross Perot obtained the money.  How much they 
paid to the company is anyone's guess, but the statement I made can be 
checked.
JM says:
> Ross had all sorts of
> costs, after all. He was a tough businessman, and maybe he shaved some
> edges here or there, but I haven't seen that in this discussion. So
> please explain, again, what is wrong with Ross Perot's company, or any
> other company, getting a bunch of money from the government for doing
> something that, at the time, NO ONE ELSE including the government,
> could do?
I reply:
You're making a number of errors above.  First, you interpreted my 
statement regarding Perot's money as assuming it went to the business 
rather than to his personal forture, second, you seem to think shaving 
edges was an essential element of the discussion we've had which it is 
not; third, you think no one else could do the same job Perot did for 
less;  Fourth, you think the government has the right to make an 
indiviual wealthy using public funds.  All of these are incorrect.  
JM continues...
> 
> Medixxx was a mandate on the states that did not give them time to set
> up the capability to administer it. Ross, through very skilled
> management, very hard work, and some luck, was able to do it. For
> this, he is being attacked?
I reply:
I wasn't attacking Perot in particular.  I was attacking incompetent 
administration that permits businessmen to become exceptionally 
wealthy through entitlement programs at the expense of the general 
public.  I was attacking your fabricated characterization of welfare 
queens.  I was attacking your tendency to promote capitalism and 
free-markets on the one hand, while defending the characteristics 
these lead to in practice of piracy, abuse of the system, and the 
incompetence which allows it in practically the same breath.
JM continues:
> 
> I have reasons to not like HR Perot, but that isn't one of them.
I note:
I have no reason to dislike Perot, except that he is not a responsible 
member of my society.
JM says:
 As an
> ex employee I was planning on suing him (reasons not to be discussed,
> obviously), and was told to forget it - he could use his money to
> crush me financially. That was unpleasant.
> 
> But he has done some very good things (I have seen the american flag
> in his office signed by all the POWs who returned from Vietnam).
> 
JM says:
> 
> I never said they mismanaged in favor of the poor.
Do I need to dredge up your comments about people taking advantage of 
welfare, or do you remember now?
JM says:
> 
> But you fail to appreciate the magnitude of these efforts.
I reply:
I doubt it.
JM:
 And the
> profits were for work from MANY state governments, and other
> businesses, and the billionaireness came from a stock market which
> valued his company quite highly. It seems to me that you are just
> slinging mud, without the information necessary to justify it.
I reply:
Quite the contrary, you are wholly unwilling to accept any information 
which threatens your opinion.

Jim Wright  wrote:
>"Mike Asher"  wrote:.
>
>> Competition and predators decrease,
>>while food supply increases.  Larger, slower-breeding fish will decline in
>>demand as lower-priced, more efficient species dominate the market.
>
>That's an interesting application of economic ideology to biological 
>systems.  There was a guy named Lysenko who tried the same thing in the
>USSR with disappointing results. 
Demonstrating that Wright would like to impress us with name dropping,
but in fact knows nothing about Lysenko.  Lysenko's fallacies were
two, "his "vernalization" nonsense, a variety of Lamarkian
evolutionism, and his convenient and conventional public Marxism.
Neither has anything to do with what Asher quite accurately says about
the response of consumers to the change in relative prices of various
fish in the market.  
"Application of economic ideology to biological systems" is also not
an accurate characterisation of Lysenko's mistakes, although it is
certainly the case that like any Soviet careerist he dressed his toys
in Marxist clothing.  I suspect that Wright's way of describing
Lysenko has its own roots in American right-wing propaganda.  The
amount of garbage that got (and gets) taught in American schools in
order to bring children to hate and fear Russia and Cuba is the wonder
of the rest of the world.
                                      -dlj.

l.mcfadden@mail.utexas.edu (Loretta McFadden) wrote:
>Why are you ignoring the real reason farmland is declining in this country
>(ie: being covered in suburpia) - because so much of it has lost it's
>value as farmland, thanks to the ignorant short-term strip-mining approach
>of petro-chemical farming? 
Betsy,
This simply isn't true.  The land being covered by suburbia is not
worn out and useless; it is among the best farmland we have, because
we naturally build cities where the land is good.  It is being pulled
out of farming because it is more useful as roads and housing.
>                          Hey - even the popular press (GASP) has heard
>the news. Much of the best farmland in this country eroded into the ocean
>years ago.
And we'll pull it out of the Gulf of Mexico the same way the Dutch
pull it out of the North Sea, the very moment it becomes worthwhile to
do so.
                                       -dlj.

Steinn Sigurdsson (steinn@sandy.ast.cam.ac.uk) wrote:
: ssusin@emily11.Berkeley.EDU (Scott Susin) writes:
: > These figures are from the Consumer Price Index, so it's the price
: > of fish in supermarkets in US metro areas.  It's a weighted average
: > of all types of fish, and includes products like canned tuna.
: > Also, I could have been clearer about how I calculated these figures.  
: > From 1970-1995, overall inflation was 393%, while the price of fish
: > rose 548%.  I quoted 548/393 = 1.4, or a 40% higher relative price.
: Those will then include a different bunch of fish
: in the initial and final figures. Eg in the 80's significant
: amount fresh fish was airlifted to restaurants on the East
: Coast, at a considerable premium, a practise that would
: have been unthinkable in 1970.
The fact that the basket of fish changes implies that the
price change is _understated_.  If people hadn't compensated
for the price increase by switching to cheaper fish,
the index would have increased by more than 40%.
Also, the index I quoted doesn't include restaurant food
(that's why I described it as "the price of fish in
supermarkets").
: Penetration of ocean fish to markets in the central US
: increased, as did market penetration of prepared fish,
: both practises involve higher cost retail in exchange
: for consumer convenience.
I doubt that this effects the CPI.  I think you're 
confusing the price level with price changes.
: A number of different species of fish were introduced to
: US markets in that interval, some "exotics" that again
: commanded a premium price.
You misunderstand how new goods are introduced into the CPI.
Expensive new varieties of fish won't increase the index,
unless they are also _increasing_ in price rapidly.
: Finally, exchange rates fluctuated in the interval, 
: and a fair chunk of US consumption is imported.
This is totally irrelevant.  The CPI people check out
the price of fish in retail establishments, and 
don't make any distinction between domestic and
imported.
: BTW, there has been substantial technological improvement
: in fist cathcing. This has been dampened both by high
: capital cost of replacing equipment, and, more significantly,
: very high subsidies of inefficient fisheries by many nations.
--
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Scott Susin                                   "Time makes more converts than   
Department of Economics                        Reason"                      
U.C. Berkeley                                  Thomas Paine, _Common_Sense_

masonc@ix.netcom.com (Mason A. Clark) wrote:
>4.  The acidity of the "no limits" posters is not buffered by 
>     the fact that the worriers may have some points and may, by 
>     their anti-Pollyanna program be a major factor in postponing
>     the time of reckoning.
Mason,
This is perfectly plausible, but is not in fact true.  Us acid tongued
ones are the people who are in fact creating useful and usable
mechanisms or reckoning -- cost benefit analysis, international
treaties, arrests on the high seas, etc. etc.  There is of course more
to be done, and we're doing it.
The people you quite conservatively call Pollyannas are doing nothing
useful; if anything they harm the cause they claim to support,
bringing legislation, regulation, and negotiation into disrepute by
demanding laws and rules which are harmful and impotent.  The
Environmental Protection Agency in its first flush of ukases is an
example of such laws and rules, and it is only now, 20 years later,
that the agency is becoming practical enough to do more good than
harm.
                                -dlj.

Jay Hanson  wrote:
>In other words, if humans are greedy, stupid and violent
>now, then science must assume that they will remain so.
And if, stupid and violent though we be, more of us live better every
year, and our reserves of resources continually increase, then things
look pretty good for the future, don't they.
>Conversely, if humans actually DO manage to somehow
>change their behavior for the better, then carrying
>capacity goes up.  For example, Earth might be able
>to support 6 billion Amish.
Your problem with the Amish is that they don't watch television, and
keep themselves is seventeenth century ignorance of technology.  If
you had six billion Amish right now, you'd have 18 billion Amish to
feed in twenty years. The economic, technical and social breakdown
would really be Armageddon of some sort.  
Indeed Amish society is hitting major crisis right now, with appalling
levels of violent and financial crime, disaffection, and family
breakdown among the young.  
                                      -dlj.
                              -dlj.

Harold Brashears wrote:
> 
> 
> You are correct.  Interest on savings has always been taxable in the
> US (though at times, I think variable percentages have been
> deductible).
I reply:
Prior to 1981 it was unnecessary for me to report interest on my S&L; 
savings.  You figure it out.

Jay Hanson  wrote:
>My posts are not indended for our four-footed-friends.
Jay, 
You owe jw -- and everybody else in this newsgroup -- an apology.  You
have no right to post this level of insult in this space.  You have
gone out of bounds.
                                 -dlj.

ssusin@emily11.Berkeley.EDU (Scott Susin) wrote:
>:  > >     Here are some more figures:
>:  > >     % change in price, 1970-1993 (Producer Price Index)
>:  > 
>:  > >     Finished Goods:   317%
>:  > >     Chicken:          178%
>:  > >     Fish:             528%
>:  > 
>
>The producer price index for "finished goods" is a reasonable measure 
>of constant dollars.  The price of fish has increased by 66% relative
>to other goods.  
50%.  (100+528)/(100+317) = 1.5059952, it sez here.  Of course that's
no big deal if you don't eat much fish, compared to say the amount of
car you drive.
>This is consistent with the theory that it's getting harder to
>increase the supply of fish, or even maintain it at a constant 
>level.
True.  But it's also consistent with the fact that when you dress your
catfish in Louisiana hoity-toit, and sell it anywhere north of the
Mason and Dixon, you get a 528% price increase, even if you grew it in
the sluice of your hog barn.
                                -dlj.

Environmental Tradeshow
On-Line
Exhibitor Information Page
The Environmental Tradeshow On-Line is an ongoing experiment to harness the power of the Internet to bring buyers and sellers together as well as to discover the new Environmental Solutions and Services being developed worldwide.
The Environmental Tradeshow On-Line brings together a cross section of Products, Technologies, Solutions, Service Companies and Consultants to the Environmental Marketplace. It is our mission to bring these suppliers together with the Professionals and Industries striving to deal with Environmental Issues.
In this, our first show, we will have 50 exhibitors in each of three categories:
Environmental Products and Technologies 
Environmental Service Companies 
Environmental Consultants 
The Tradeshow will run for 3 months and will then begin again to give new exhibitors a chance to come in.
We will be showing a list of exhibitors, with ad copy describing each company, Their name or Graphic logo will be a link to their homepage on the Internet .
The Product and Services List will show a grouping of graphic buttons with headings that will take you to a table listing of those products and services. Again ad copy will describe each product or service and a link will take you directly to the web page that demonstrates each.
Our Hospitality Suite will be a multimedia Presentation site for those companies wishing to present their products in a more powerful way. Animation, movie clips, Audio Presentations , etc,
The Message Center will give you a chance to leave a comment or chat with others that are viewing the site at that moment, you can even leave messages for others to pick up later.
Our Conference Center will post a schedule of On line Live Conferences covering various Environmental Topics, where you can ask questions on the conference topic that will be answered by your host at that particular conference.
Plans even include a Coffee Shop/Rest Area where you can link to entertainment sites featuring Art, Light shows , movie clips and music. It give attendees a chance to grab a cup of coffee and kick back and relax for a few minutes.
We will begin advertising the show on November, 15, 1996. The show will start December 1, 1996 and run until February 28, 1997. The show will be advertised through a number of Environmental Maillists and Newsgroups as well as over 100 Search Engines and News Releases to the various groups on the internet inter6ested in new happenings and methods of using the World Wide Web. We have already generated an exciting amount of interest on just three of the mailists where I sent a note regarding exhibitors.
Costs:
Our charges for the Tradeshow are based on the following categories of exhibitors:
Products and Technologies		 	$ 200.00
Service Companies 					$ 100.00
Consultants 						$   75.00
These are total costs for the three months.
Special Offers:
Since this is our first show we are offering free web page development to those companies who do not have a presence on the Internet now. We will design and host up to 7 pages for the cost of the Tradeshow Booth alone. We will continue to host your web pages at our site for $ 20.00 per month and will register your site with 20 major search engines, if you wish. All leads can be sent to you by fax if you do not have an email account or we can set one up for you. Domain Name Registration is also available.
Rotating AD Banner Space is available at $ 50.00 for the duration of the show. Size and placing of the Banners are still being determined.
Interested parties may send me an email to get further information on the show or phone me directly.
Raymond Mills
National Sales Coordinating Center
1-404-765-0842 Fax or phone
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
This article was posted to Usenet via the Posting Service at Deja News:
http://www.dejanews.com/           [Search, Post, and Read Usenet News]

John Moore wrote:
> 
> What difference does intent make? Is the purpose of the economic
> system to assure that producers are of noble intent?
> 
I reply:
All of the difference.  As for the second part, it seems beside the 
point.  The discussion concerned voluntary interaction.
JM:
> I think it is. But let's say it is not. I challenge you and others on
> this issue to define an alternative. I have seen a lot of very
> abstract capitalism bashing by people who are unwilling (even when I
> have challenged them) to provide an alternative.
I reply:
There is a certain minimum in resources beyond which an individual 
should not be able to go unless he intends to.
JM:
> 
> The price is not "set by the owner." The owner is coerced (to use your
> wierd terminology) by both the producers of the food, the consumers,
> and his stockholders. You may feel coerced if EVERY supermarket is
> owned by a single company, but that only happens in small areas where
> efficiency requires it.
I reply:
I said nothing about why the owner of a market set his price.  GO 
review what I said earlier about a social system in this regard.
More JM:
> Pirates use force... which is true coercion. Loan sharks may, in which
> case they engage in coercion. But the supermarket owner does NOT use
> any force whatsoever, so where is the coercion? I think you are
> confusing freedom from coercion (culturally considered a right) with
> choice (which is most definitely not a right, culturally or legally).
I reply:
The coercion arised because a) the owner sets a price on his goods, 
and b) members of society are forced to pay this price in the absense 
of alternatives.  We've discussed alternatives to paying for food 
already, but this is only one example.  The issue is siginificantly 
different than, say buying a pair of Nikes which is very much simply a 
voluntary purchase.

jmc@Steam.stanford.edu (John McCarthy) wrote:
>One consequence of the economists' disdain for technology, more
>broadly a disdain for specifics, is that it is apparently impossible
>to get input-output matrices for the American economy these days.  If
>someone knows where they might be available, please let me know.
They are available on punchcards, with a COBOL program to read them.
I/O matrices aren't really fashionable for economic analysis anymore,
because they don't really give the sort of detail needed to model
substitution and technological change.  The data used to construct
them is used to calibrate more sophisticated models, but even these
are regarded skeptically.  They are usually too highly aggregated, and
often (like most macroeconomic data) not even internally consistent
without a bit of massaging.  They are your basic grainy
black-and-white snapshot in a high-resolution, 3-D, 32-bit color
world.
Craig
Note that my email address in this message header is incorrect,
to foil email spammers.  If replying to me use my real email address:
mohn@are.berkeley.edu 

NC ORGANIZATIONS SPONSOR EVENT TO SUPPORT INDUSTRY
On January 15-16, 1997, The Environmental, Energy, and Plant
Engineering Expo will be held in Raleigh.  This event will bring
together industry, state agencies, educators, and professional
organizations to examine environmental and energy issues faced by
business and industry in North Carolina.  Sponsors of this event are;
  Association of Facility Engineers
  The Manufacturers and Chemical Industry Council of NC
  North Carolina State University
  NC Environmental Technologies Consortium
  Wake County Local Emergency Planning Committee
60 vendors from around the region are expected to display their
products during the 2-day expo.  Over 50 educational programs will be
presented during the Expo.  Topics range from Environmental
Technologies to Emergency Planning.  The Expo and all educational
programs will be free to participants. Several presentations will
offer Continuing Education Unit (CEU) credit and Professional
Development Hour (PDH) credit to pre-registrants. 
 Contact:Beth Quick
        Continuing and Professional Education
        North Carolina State University
        Phone: 919-515-8177   Fax: 919-515-7614
        E-Mail CPE@NCSU.edu
For more information visit our web page for the Expo
http://www2.ncsu.edu/cpe/529.htm

On Mon, 11 Nov 1996, Extremely Right wrote:
> In article <563ien$98g@dfw-ixnews7.ix.netcom.com>, jwas@ix.netcom.com(jw) wrote:
> 
> > I notice that Helen Chenoweth, the freshman representative
> > from Idaho, so demonized in the green usenet groups, has been
> > re-elected.
> > 
> 
> > Pay it back, with interest, Helen.
> > You are stronger now, not a freshman
> > any more. Your party is bound to increase its
> > majority substantially in 1998, a midyear always 
> > works that way. You are almost sure to be re-elected.
> > 
> > This is the time for some healthy triumphalism.
> > Rub it in, let them know you feel their
> > pain. Your enemies are the enemies 
> > of mankind. Give'em hell.
> 
> I second the motion with interest... ###8up
Do you also believe that a shrimp is a mammal, salmon come from Safeway,
and that the UN has already taken over the National Parks? 
		Dave Braun
> 
> 

mfriesel@ix.netcom.com writes:
>David Lloyd-Jones wrote:
>> 
>> Solar energy means every house in the land having a water heater on
>> the roof.  This means every handyman and Mister Goodwrench wannabe
>> climbing on the roof to fix leaks, clean off the rotten leaves, and
>> chase the squirrels out of the piping.
>> 
>> The deaths from people falling off roofs will dwarf the casualties
>> from nuclear power, Chernobyl included.
>> 
>>                              -dlj.
>> 
> Replies like this won't do much for your credibility.
Isent Davids point correct?
It is dangerous to climb around on roofs, check any nearby statistics.
Regards,
--
--
Magnus Redin  Lysator Academic Computer Society  redin@lysator.liu.se
Mail: Magnus Redin, Björnkärrsgatan 11 B 20, 584 36 LINKöPING, SWEDEN
Phone: Sweden (0)13 260046 (answering machine)  and  (0)13 214600

[Posted to sci.energy]
mfriesel@ix.netcom.com wrote:
>David Lloyd-Jones wrote:
>> 
>> Solar energy means every house in the land having a water heater on
>> the roof.  This means every handyman and Mister Goodwrench wannabe
>> climbing on the roof to fix leaks, clean off the rotten leaves, and
>> chase the squirrels out of the piping.
>> 
>> The deaths from people falling off roofs will dwarf the casualties
>> from nuclear power, Chernobyl included.
>> 
>>                              -dlj.
>> 
>Replies like this won't do much for your credibility.
Actually, since the death toll for Chernobyk will brobaby never exceed
a few hundred, Mr. Lloyd-Jones is quite likely correct.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
| Patrick Reid                  | e-mail: pjreid@nbnet.nb.ca         |
| ALARA Research, Incorporated  | Voice:  (506) 674-9099             |
| Saint John, NB, Canada        | Fax:    (506) 674-9197             |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------|
| - - - - - Opinions expressed here are mine and mine alone: - - - - |
| - - - - - - - - - -don't blame them on anyone else - - - - - - - - |
----------------------------------------------------------------------

brshears@whale.st.usm.edu (Harold Brashears) wrote:
>bds@ipp-garching.mpg.de (Bruce Scott TOK ) wrote for all to see:
>>John McCarthy (jmc@Steam.stanford.edu) wrote:
>[edited]
>>: The Canadian Northwest Territories had a population of 35,000 not too
>>: many years ago.  You can be a hunter-gatherer there if you can take
>>: it.
>>
>>: I should think this population density would be low enough for
>>: J.D. Weiner also.
>>
>>Try that in the US and you will find that all the land is owned, and you
>>will be in the tank for tresspassing.
>"All the land is owned"?  In the US, no more than in Canada.  MOst of
>Nevada is public land (some 80%, last I looked).  The same is true for
>most Western states.
"Public land" has been reduced to a euphemism for federally owned
government land. Try homesteading on this "public" land, and you
will still be in the tank for tresspassing.
>Large parts of the West are rarely seen by anyone, and you would be
>free to make your living on it if you can.  Your biggest problem would
>be game laws.
Rarely seen, yes. Unowned, no. Besides, this land is available
because it is the least habitable land in the country. Even the
oases of fertile valleys are sandwiched between rugged, almost
impassable mountains, making trade difficult, and subject to
harsh vagarities of weather.
>"Freedom is the by-product of economic surplus."
>                           -----Aneurin Bevan (1962).
Actually, I thought economic surplus was a by-product of freedom.
It is, if anything, the lure for tyranny, as there is no point
exploiting people who do not produce a surplus for you to
expropriate.
                                         Dan Sullivan
The only time my education was interrupted was when I was in school.
                                         --George Bernard Shaw

On 12 Nov 1996 20:37:33 GMT, dlj@inforamp.net (David Lloyd-Jones) wrote:
> Jay Hanson  wrote:
> 
> >My posts are not indended for our four-footed-friends.
> 
> Jay, 
> 
> You owe jw -- and everybody else in this newsgroup -- an apology.  You
> have no right to post this level of insult in this space.  You have
> gone out of bounds.
>  
>                                  -dlj.
From dlj, the master of insult: this?   Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha
>  
> 
>  
> 
---------------------------------------
Mason A Clark      masonc@ix.netcom.com
  www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/3210    
or:    www.netcom.com/~masonc (maybe)
Political-Economics, Comets, Weather
The Healing Wisdom of Dr. P.P.Quimby
---------------------------------

Magnus writes:
> 
> Isn't David's point correct?
> It is dangerous to climb around on roofs, check any nearby statistics.
> 
I reply:
For someone who believes that modern technology and market response to 
need are the cures for so many social ills, it amazes me to think that 
he and you lack faith in the ability of some bright engineer to create 
implementable solar technology with a reduced risk factor if there is 
demand for it.  If there is no demand for safety, where is the 
problem?

Anonymous wrote:
> 
> Barry Merriman wrote:
> >
> > Gas is less that $1 a gallon in LA these days. Check it out at:
> >
> > http://www.math.ucla.edu/~barry/gasprices/99cents.html
> >
> > --
> > Barry Merriman
> > Research Scientist, UCSD Fusion Energy Research Program
> > Asst. Prof., UCLA Dept. of Math
> > Internet email: barry@math.ucla.edu
> 
> About a year or a few years ago in a few stations in the south St. Louis
> area the price of gas went down to $0.79 per gallon on a relatively
> consistant basis.  On the average it is now up to $1.10 or so.
In Virginia, Regular is going for about $1.24 and Mid-grade about $1.34
Cheers,
-- 
William R. Stewart
http://www.patriot.net/users/wstewart/first.htm
Member American Solar Energy Society
Member Electrical Vehicle Association of America
"The truth will set you free:  - J.C.

Jose Lourenco wrote:
> 
> I need some information on thermal energy storage products for HVAC
> systems. Suppliers, info sources, etc.
[forwarded to sci.engr.heat-vent-ac]
Check the last 12 months of ASHRAE's professional journal; there were a
number of thermal storage devices there, such as off-peak ice storage
for daytime AC.
Cheers,
-- 
William R. Stewart
http://www.patriot.net/users/wstewart/first.htm
Member American Solar Energy Society
Member Electrical Vehicle Association of America
"The truth will set you free:  - J.C.

Bob Falkiner wrote:
> 
> Harry - I think you've missed the point of these postings....
No, Harry was right on track.  
> New cars are clean, and tend to stay clean because of the computerized
> controls.
'Clean' is a misnomer here; all internal combustion engines pollute. 
New cars will always get dirtier due to wear and tear, regardless of
computerized controls.  The sensors themselves wear or become coated
with dust, exhaust particulate, etc, and drift away from their initial
calibrations.
> Old cars are dirty, and tend to get dirtier with age without computer
> controls.
Oversimplification.
> 2 cycle engines are very dirty and tend to get very very dirty
Lawnmowers tend to be 4 cycle.  If your argument is based on 2 cycle
lawnmowers, then you really don't have an argument.
> so.... if you own a brand new car and an old lawn mower, they are now
> about equivalent in the overall pollution equation.
Sorry, your premises are unsupported and do not logically result in the
conclusion above.
> or  ... if you own an old van delivering things 10 hours per day, it is
> the equivalent of about 5000 new cars in a typical commuter driving
> cycle.
Extreme oversimplification.  Many older vehicles are cleaner than cars
one and two years old.
> This is just one of many consumer beliefs that will have to be accepted
> as the typical automobile becomes so clean that it removes itself from
> the urban pollution equation. 
It sounds like you are most interested in building a perception than
anything else.  Try presenting empirical data next time.
Cheers,
-- 
William R. Stewart
http://www.patriot.net/users/wstewart/first.htm
Member American Solar Energy Society
Member Electrical Vehicle Association of America
"The truth will set you free:  - J.C.
"Troll:
     A deliberately disrupting, confused and incorrect
     post (or one posting trolls) to a Usenet group to
     generate a flurry of responses from people called 
     "billygoats" trying to set the record straight.
     Other trollers enter the fray adding more and more
     misinformation so that the thread eventually dies of
     strangulation.  Trolls/trollers cannot be affected
     by facts or logic."    - bashford@psnw.com

On 11 Nov 1996 07:15:07 GMT, jwas@ix.netcom.com(jw) wrote:
>Four hands can do *more than twice* the work of two hands -
>for many, many reasons. One of them is division of labor;
>another is economy of scale; still another is
>that *two heads are better than one*.
We *already* have economies of scale!  The problem now is a surplus 
of menial jobs and falling real wages as too many people try to share
the same pie.  You think we can increase the scale of the economy
indefinitely, and are ignorant of the physical limits that prevent it.
>>Growth-addiction never allows us 
>>to stop and breathe (as a society), and it prevents us from truly
>>refining the quality of our economy, since so much effort is put into
>>growing it.  It's like Sisyphus forever pushing the stone up the hill.
>
>Growth or no growth, daily bread has to be always produced
>again. This fact of life is not at all due to growth.
>Getting up, brushing your teeth are also among
>such cyclical, Sysiphus-like tasks. If you feel tragic about
>it, perhaps writing a tragedy would help.
You completely missed my point, and I am getting tired of repeating
it.  Of course brushing one's teeth is not a Sysiphusian task, but I
wasn't talking about economic *maintenance*, which any idiot knows
must continue.  I was talking about economic SCALE, i.e. our struggle
to accommodate 90 million more people annually, and the fact that 
no one has shown any intrinsic value in it.
>> If you inherited a pristine desert island, would your first order of business 
>>be to pack it with as many people as possible so you could "live better?"  
>
>Of course! This is what _Robinson Crusoe_ is all about:
>yearning for company. First he is all alone, going half-crazy,
>but surviving by prayer and hard work;
>then Man Friday appears; then
>others; then return to civilization follows - and
>each step makes life more worthwhile.
I am talking about *specific* numbers.  If the island was five square
miles in size, it could be argued that a few hundred people might make
life more pleasant there, but a few THOUSAND people would just be an
added burden, and an *endlessly growing* number of people would be an
impossibility.  What part of this don't you understand?
>(As I recall, Crusoe's real-life prototype, Alexander Selkirk,
>actually went mad from loneliness.)
>
>>How is the Earth any different except for the scale?
>
>Same thing. The more the merrier. 
Define "more."   Would 50 people living is a house create a "merrier"
situation than 5 people living in the same house?  Would 5,000 people
living on a small island be preferable to 500 people?  Don't you
understand the basic concepts of scale and limits?  
Read up on the legacy of Easter Island, which was destroyed 
because they removed all the trees to build shelters and roll their
statues.  It is a  documented case of an ecological catastrophe 
caused by overpopulation.  I imagine you'll claim they "improved"
Easter Island by clearing all those nasty trees .  Check out:
 http://www.netaxs.com/~trance/rapanui.html
>>As for more people doing a job better, how well would a team of 90
>>baseball players do, vs. 9?  The old adage "too many cooks in the
>>kitchen" comes to mind.
>
>But more kitchens can be built - a restaurant - a chain of restaurants.
I was talking about the FINITE confines of a baseball field.  I ask
you again, on a finite baseball field, how would 90 players be more
efficient than 9?  If that's too complicated a question, answer this
one:  Would 100 cooks be more efficient in a 20 x 20 ft. restaurant
kitchen than 10 cooks?   And NO, this kitchen cannot be expanded,
just as the Earth cannot be expanded.
>>  Every time a fly ball was hit, a dozen
>>players would collide trying to catch it, and most of the players
>>would not have anything to do except yield to the better ones. 
>
>Then split into many teams; or invent a new game.
Again, I was talking about the FINITE confines of a baseball field.
Why do I have to explain this?  A baseball field is finite and the
Earth is finite.  We have no reason to make a baseball field larger,
and the Earth has been the same size for billions of years.  How 
much clearer do I need to make this?
>>A team (and an economy) will cease to function unless it respects 
>>the physical limits of the playing field.
>
>One can do better than respect the physical limits:
>expand  them. People choose their
>playing fields - and make their playing fields -
>and their games, too.
OK, explain how we can "expand" the Earth itself.  And answer 
my "trillions of people" question while you're at it.  I feel like I'm
debating a pull-string doll that repeats the same nonsense 
over and over and over.
- A.J.

Scott Susin wrote:
-> : (Since the supply of land suitable for agriculture is
-> :  decreasing, perhaps their assumption of fixed yield is
-> :   wasn't such a bad one.)
-> 
-> Actually, US food production is steadily increasing (as is
-> the world's), even on a per capita basis.  If we're doing
-> this despite farming less land, as Jay claims, then the
-> Limits to Growth assumption is doubly wrong.
I am afraid your mind is a bit simple:  "if it hasn't
 happened yet, it can't".  Think about it a while.
-> Why is a 1968 number being used in a book published in the 1990s? 
Among
-> the many problems with using old figures is the fact that there have
-> been important advances in measuring the production of consumer goods
-> per capita over the last few decades.
If you are really interested in this model, you can
run it yourself.   http://www.unh.edu/ipssr/BTL.html
Jay

==============================================================================
Please post this EVERYWHERE.
(also-please remove any source addresses before passing it on it is important
that this cannot be traced to any one source)
Hard copies out soon.
==============================================================================
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------"SEA EMPRESS" TEXACO OIL TANKER DISASTER---------------
------------------------------------ONE YEAR ON-------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------10,000 SEABIRDS DEAD---------------------------
--------------------------------FISH NUMBERS HALVED---------------------------
-------------------------------ECOSYSTEMS DESTROYED---------------------------
----------------------TOTAL SPENT BY TEXACO ON CLEAN-UP: #ZERO----------------
---------------------------------NO PROSECUTIONS------------------------------
-------------------------------NOT EVEN AN APOLOGY----------------------------
                              THE TIME HAS COME TO
                                      _SHUT_
                                      _DOWN_
                                  MILFORD-HAVEN
14TH/15TH FEBRUARY 1997-FIRST ANNIVERSARY OF THE SEA EMPRESS HOLOCAUST.
MASSIVE DIRECT ACTION AGAINST THE OIL INDUSTRY AND MILFORD HAVEN PORT AUTHORITY.
JAIL THE GUILTY- STOP THE COVER-UP- STOP ORIMULSION- CRUSH THE OIL PARASITES.
------------------------------Earth First! Profits Last!----------------------
MORE INFO NEARER THE TIME. START ORGANISING NOW. GET READY. MAKE THIS THE ONE.
                                   Lest We Forget.
===============================================================================
-- 
!!!!! - IMPORTANT - !!!!!
please change 'avage' to 'savage' in the address before replying.
http://www.hrc.wmin.ac.uk/campaigns/earthfirst.html
South Downs EF!,  Prior House      
6, Tilbury Place, Brighton BN2 2GY,  UK

Steve E Hanser wrote:
> 
> I was wanting to ask what is the most efficient energy source available
> today which is also relatively safe for the environment?
Most efficient in which respect?
 - Uses the least fuel per BTU generated?
 - Takes into consideration transportation, mining, exploration?
 - Takes into consideration the hidden costs of pollution and climate
disruption?
Solar and wind energy systems require fuel to construct (as do all other
energy generation technologies) but don't use any fuel during operation,
don't require fuel transportation, mining/extraction, or exploration,
don't pollute, and don't create CO2.
Cheers,
-- 
William R. Stewart
http://www.patriot.net/users/wstewart/first.htm
Member American Solar Energy Society
Member Electrical Vehicle Association of America
"The truth will set you free:  - J.C.

TL ADAMS (coltom@west.darkside.com) wrote:
: conover@tiac.net (Harry H Conover) wrote:
: 
: There is no point trying to educate you, facts when presented are
: ignored.  Truths when given are corrupted.
I see.  You were presented with the Truth by Divine Mandate, and anyone
questioning your Truths with technological discussions is an obvious
not believe and infidel.
I believe we now have you calibrated...
: 
: Having lived in L.A. (Culver City and Topanga Canyon, near the place 
: where Top. and Old Topanga splits, not far from Rocco's Pizza), I can
: state that the use of two cycle engines are very common.  Can you say
: leaf blower, 
Can you say lawn mower, which is what this thread centers on?  
Nearly all lawn mowers are powered by 4-cycle engines.  Those 
powered by 2-cycle engines are in the definite minority, and
generally of the bargain basement variety.
: 
: > : 
: > : Power plants add almost none of the VOC burden to Ozone production. 
: > : Not only are they a small source, most are located far enough away from
: > : urban sources to not take part in the VOC ozone equation.  (NOx is another
: > : matter)
Perpaps, but what about their other emissions?  (And why are you so 
pre-occupied with Ozone?)  Until recently, it wasn't even a major topic
in the discussion of atmospheric pollution.  Ever today, it is largely
only a niche consideration in very localize and VERY urbanized problem
areas.
: > 
: > What you're really saying is that since these are not near you, you 
: > really don't care that they pollute someone else...someone far away from
: > the populated urban areas.
: > 
: 
: Ozone is formed when VOC and NOx and sunlight forms some rather complicated
: chemistry.  Without a high concentration of all three, you don't get
: unacceptable levels of ozone.  It is ozone we are talking about,
: bozo.
The please exclude 98% of the USA, which are not seriously affected by
Ozone, from your proposals and discussions.
:
: NOx, SO2 and acid rain is another matter.
: 
Exactly, and where the action (except for mega-urban stinkholes) where
the focus is, and should be.
: > : 
: > : Small commercial engines are another matter.  They are run in peak ozone
: > : forming season, they are run in the ozone formation area.  If you've
: > : ever lived in an ozone non-attainment area you would know that one of
: > : the pleads that is issued is for citizens to avoid lawn equipment usuage
: > : during ozone action days.  
: > 
: > On the other hand, I would argue that such areas are so densely populated,
: > few residents really need a power mower.  
: >
: > : 
: > : Whats been required for new lawnmowers is pretty low tech stuff.  I've
: > : heard that the estimate is $25-50 dollars for a new system.  About
: > : the cost of the chainbreak on my stihl chainsaw.  A basic lawnmower 
: > : cost about $125, 
: > 
: > Funny, I can remember when the same thing was said about automobiles.
: > Anti-pollution adders for a car were estimated by their proponents as
: > costing roughly $125 (catalytic converter and blower).  As it turns
: > out, pollution control devices on a modern car cost roughly the price
: > of an engine.
: > 
: 
: Oh please, the manufactur cost of an engine is not greater than the 
: the manufactor cost of pollution control devices.
Then why not give us a basic rundown of these devices and your estimate
of their costs?  Somehow, I seriously doubt that you could even name them.
: Your arguement
: is so spurious to be laughable.  A new $20,000 car, it purchased by buying 
: repair or replacement parts, costs of S150,000 (source Click and Clack,
: NPR)  Don't spout bullshit here 
What has this discussion to do with anything?  I am stating that the 
cost of pollution control features to a new car (by the manufacturer)
is equal to the cost of the engine.
If you wish to challenge this truth, please posts some facts, not just
blather on about the retail cost of replacement parts.
: 
: > What can one conclude from estimates of this quality?  I conclude
: > that the proponents of such systems, by putting forth estimates of
: > such poor quality, label themselves as either technically incompetent
: > or simply liars.  Your choice.
: > 
: Yes, I agree that the above statement describes YOU very well.
I am at least presenting the facts.  You are presention nothing but
your emotional, religious beliefs.
: 
: Don't say that air quality in the South Coast Basin (L.A.), has not
: improved immensely over the last thirty years.  Any resident, or
: former resident will call you a damn liar for that statement.
Perhaps it takes a visitor to tell you that the air there still
stinks and is unheathful.  If you call that success, I hate to see
what it would take for you to describe it as a failure.
: 
: The CAA has brought attainment to many areas of the country.  It has
: improved the air in all non-atttainment areas.
God, motherhood, apple pie!
Try injecting some thought and reason into any following posts.
                                           Harry C.

> 	A new book by the Ehrlichs is certainly nothing to get excited about. 
After all, most of the other books by these false prophets were misguided
and mostly wrong, so why would this one be any different.  The sad thing
is that these holdovers from the 60's cultural revolution are desperately
trying to find some remnant of their doom and gloom prophecies that the
public will accept.  People of their ilk who call themselves scientists
like the wackos at Natural Resources Defense Council and at Greenpeace are
determined to disrupt progress in food production and distribution so that
their predictions of "Famine 1975" will come true at some time in the
future, even if they are off by over two decades already.  Global cooling
predictions of the first Earth Day in 1970 have now become global warming
predictions, and most of the gibberish about other crises are about as
true and believable as Saddam Hussein's predictions of global disaster
before the Gulf war.  These people are at the end of their rope.  Let them
hang with it!
Don L. Ranck   B.S.,  Agricultural Education & Science, with Distinction
                       The Pennsylvania State University, 1970
                       Five years in development work in Northeast Brazil,
'71-'75 
                       Twenty years farming in Lancaster County,
Pennsylvania
dranck@cpcnet.com

brshears@whale.st.usm.edu (Harold Brashears) wrote:
>"sdef!"  wrote for all to see:
>[edited]
>>I remember reading in a properly refernced Womens Environmental Network briefing on 
>>chlorine that originally it was an unwanted byproduct of the extraction of sodium for 
>>weapons among other things. 
>I have no idea what elemental sodium would be used for in weapons
>production.  Does someone have a clue?
>I am pretty sure it is not required more conventional weapons, what
>could be a use for unconventional (like nuclear) weapons?
not really sure on a specific use in weapons. But considering Na2CO3,
NaHCO3 and NaOH are three compunds that would be listed in the top 25
to 50 industrial chemicals, I don't find it surprising. Since most
involves preperation for water electrolysis with Cl2 as a secondary
product.
>Regards, Harold
>-------
>"Freedom is the by-product of economic surplus."
>                           -----Aneurin Bevan (1962).

Patrick Reid wrote:
> 
> [Posted to sci.energy]
> mfriesel@ix.netcom.com wrote:
> 
> >David Lloyd-Jones wrote:
> >>
> >> Solar energy means every house in the land having a water heater on
> >> the roof.  This means every handyman and Mister Goodwrench wannabe
> >> climbing on the roof to fix leaks, clean off the rotten leaves, and
> >> chase the squirrels out of the piping.
> >>
> >> The deaths from people falling off roofs will dwarf the casualties
> >> from nuclear power, Chernobyl included.
> >>
> >>                              -dlj.
> >>
> >Replies like this won't do much for your credibility.
> 
> Actually, since the death toll for Chernobyk will brobaby never exceed
> a few hundred, Mr. Lloyd-Jones is quite likely correct.
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> | Patrick Reid                  | e-mail: pjreid@nbnet.nb.ca         |
> | ALARA Research, Incorporated  | Voice:  (506) 674-9099             |
> | Saint John, NB, Canada        | Fax:    (506) 674-9197             |
> |--------------------------------------------------------------------|
> | - - - - - Opinions expressed here are mine and mine alone: - - - - |
> | - - - - - - - - - -don't blame them on anyone else - - - - - - - - |
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------

    I'm interested in the progress made with battery powered cars.  Anybody 
know where I can find some info. on it?
    Thanks for your help.
					Charlotte Scott  
-- 
Charlotte M Scott
cscott@iastate.edu

In article <567ap7$ckj@news.inforamp.net>,
David Lloyd-Jones  wrote:
>jmc@Steam.stanford.edu (John McCarthy) wrote:
>
>>I have no objection to solar energy, but I see it as enough more
>>expensive than nuclear energy that I don't expect it to become the
>>major source unless world-wide ideologically motivated stupidity comes
>>to dominate.
> 
>Solar energy means every house in the land having a water heater on
>the roof.  This means every handyman and Mister Goodwrench wannabe
>climbing on the roof to fix leaks, clean off the rotten leaves, and
>chase the squirrels out of the piping.
> 
>The deaths from people falling off roofs will dwarf the casualties
>from nuclear power, Chernobyl included.
> 
>                             -dlj.
> 
>

brshears@whale.st.usm.edu (Harold Brashears) wrote:
>gdy52150@prairie.lakes.com (gdy52150@prairie.lakes.com) wrote for all
>to see:
>[deleted]
>>
>>unbelieveable. I haven't seen so much inventive chemsties since I was
>>a TA for a freshmen lab. By the way Beer's law for absorption is a log
>>function. Secondly the very nature of ozone(highly reactive) means
>>that any ozone produced in the lower atmo. reacts immediately and is
>>destroyed in the process.
>I am  not sure what you mean "immediately".  As a former Los Angeles
fair perhaps a better word would have been transient or short
term(week or month)
>resident, I recall that ozone is a serious health problem and was even
>occasionally reported in the TV News.  I have the thought that, if it
>was destroyed in what I define as "immediately", it would not have
>been such a problem.
partially correct. Ozone reacts with the hydrocarbons producing smog
was one of the removal reactions that I was refering to in my earlier
post. Now which is more harmful; the onreacted ozone or the smog fromn
the ozone reaction. Both are no good.
>Regards, Harold
>-------
>"Freedom is the by-product of economic surplus."
>                           -----Aneurin Bevan (1962).

brshears@whale.st.usm.edu (Harold Brashears) wrote:
>felton@phoenix.princeton.edu (phil. Felton) wrote for all to see:
>>In article , jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU wrote:
>>
>>> Why do you ascribe the Reagan era debts to Reagan and not to the
>>> Democratic congresses of the era - as we admirers of Reagan do?
>>
>>Would David Stockman's (Reagan's 1st director of the Federal Budget Office)
>>deliberate falsifying of the budget predictions be a reason?  
>First, I am delighted to see that Reagan's appointee has become a new
>guru of government finance.  I believe it was the MBO (management and
>Budget Office), by the way, not the Federal Budget Office.
>Second, I am interested if you have seen a director of the President's
>Management and Budget office who has *not* falsified budget
>predictions.  The office has always been highly politicized.  It has
thank you for admitting supply side eco. was nothing more than a pile
of shit.
>not been my impression that any of the people who occupied this office
>has ever told the whole truth about the economy.  I am a little
>surprised that anyone would advance the idea that this is even
>possible.
>[deleted]
>Regards, Harold
>-------
>"Freedom is the by-product of economic surplus."
>                           -----Aneurin Bevan (1962).

On Tue, 12 Nov 1996, Don Ranck wrote:
> > 	A new book by the Ehrlichs is certainly nothing to get excited about. 
> After all, most of the other books by these false prophets were misguided
> and mostly wrong, so why would this one be any different.  The sad thing
> is that these holdovers from the 60's cultural revolution are desperately
> trying to find some remnant of their doom and gloom prophecies that the
> public will accept.  People of their ilk who call themselves scientists
> like the wackos at Natural Resources Defense Council and at Greenpeace are
> determined to disrupt progress in food production and distribution so that
> their predictions of "Famine 1975" will come true at some time in the
> future, even if they are off by over two decades already.  Global cooling
> predictions of the first Earth Day in 1970 have now become global warming
> predictions, and most of the gibberish about other crises are about as
> true and believable as Saddam Hussein's predictions of global disaster
> before the Gulf war.  These people are at the end of their rope.  Let them
> hang with it!
An entertaining polemic, but where is the criticism of the new book on its
merits? I guess entertaining polemics are the best you can do (note tht I
haven't said who I'm laughing at).
		Dave Braun
> 
> Don L. Ranck   B.S.,  Agricultural Education & Science, with Distinction
>                        The Pennsylvania State University, 1970
>                        Five years in development work in Northeast Brazil,
> '71-'75 
>                        Twenty years farming in Lancaster County,
> Pennsylvania
> dranck@cpcnet.com
> 
> 
> 

In article <563ien$98g@dfw-ixnews7.ix.netcom.com>,
jw  wrote:
>The re-elected non-greens are like
>that grizzly. If they caved in *now*, that would 
>be cowardly and unwise, it would only encourage 
>the eco-nazis. 
They caved in last year on their agenda.   Or did you somehow
fail to note that the much-touted rewrite of the ESA never happened?
Nor the rewrite of NEPA and the NFMA that these folks promised would
lead to harvest levels in our National Forests not seen in a decade?
That the bill to make grazing the primary use of BLM rangeland (as
opposed to a use held on a theoretically equal footing with wildlife
and recreation as is now the case under the doctrine of multiple use)
never hit the floor, despite being written?
And now Bill has the line-item veto, baby!
>Your enemies are the enemies 
>of mankind. Give'em hell.
Yeah, us greenie black-helicopter pilots are a real plague, aren't
we?
--
- Don Baccus, Portland OR 
  Nature photos, site guides, and other goodies at:
          http://www.xxxpdx.com/~dhogaza

In article <01bbd002$ef605340$89d0d6cc@masher>,
Mike Asher  wrote:
>Same tactic Scott Nudds used, accuse me of fabrication.  However, the
>sources for all of Ehrlich's predictions and claims are given at the bottom
>of the post.
No, none of the references in the list at the end of you post contains
anything like any of the 3 claims you made.  Have you even read these
references?
I repeat, I believe all 3 of the claims are fabrications.    I doubt they
are yours, I expect you are just parroting someone else's fabrications.
Just are you were for malaria, DDT, asbestos etc...
To refresh your memory your claims were:
>Paul Ehrlich is a fraud and a charlatan.  He wouldn't know a scientific
>method if it bit him on the rump.   Every claim and prediction he's ever
>made has turned out to be 180 degrees out of whack.  But you like him
>because he spouts what you want to hear.   One of my favorite Ehrlich
>predictions is the one claiming US population would shrink to 22 million by
>1999 (that's three years from now).  Of course, that was after he predicted
>the starvation of 3 billion people worldwide by 1980.  And isn't he the one
>who also predicted that residual DDT (whether or not we stopped use) would
>kill all the algae in the sea, and deprive us of 40% of our oxygen?
And the (irrelevant) references you provided were:
Holdren, ]. P., and P. R. Ehrlich. 1974. Human population and the global
environment. Am. Sci. 62:282-292. 
Ehrlich, P. R., and H. A. Mooney. 1983. Extinction, substitution, and
ecosystem services. BioScience 33(4):248-254.
Ehrlich, P. R. 1986. The Machinery of Nature. Simon and Schuster.
Daily, G.C. and P.R. Ehrlich. "Population, sustainability, and Earth's
carrying capacity: a framework for estimating population sizes and
lifestyles that could be sustained without undermining future generations."
BioScience 42: 761-71.
Meffe, G. K., A. H. Ehrlich, et al. (1993). "Human population control: The
missing agenda," Conservation Biology 7(1): 1-3.
Andrew Taylor

Nick Eyre (nick@eyrenenv.demon.co.uk) wrote:
: In article <55l2h7$bu0@valhalla.comshare.com>, Mike Pelletier
: >
: >In order for there to be "emissions" from a nuclear power plant, the
: >radiological hazard would have to be "emitted" into the environment, 
: >and this only happened once in the entire history of US commercial
: >nuclear power, and it caused no measurable health effects.
: >
: >So I think it's fair to say nuclear plants have "zero" emissions.
: 
: Nonsense.  All nuclear plants have routine emissions.  Go learn your
: facts before talking such nonsense.
Well Nick, I'm sure you will enlighten us with the total dose comittments 
due to "routine emissions" (I agree that plants do have such emissions) from 
nuclear power plants.  Since you're from the UK, I'll accept UK/European 
statistics.  I'm sure you have learned the facts and wouldn't post 
nonsense, right?  
tooie