Newsgroup sci.environment 109775

Directory

johnie boore min erupts in shit once again
ozone@primenet.com (John Moore) wrote:
>On 14 Nov 1996 19:52:02 GMT, api@axiom.access.one.net (Adam Ierymenko)
>wrote:
>>In article <56ecvi$tjh@news2.lakes.com>,
>>	gdy52150@prairie.lakes.com (gdy52150@prairie.lakes.com) writes:
>>>nice try at being a spin doc but you failed. As this past season was
>>>proof as the first huuricane of the season proved.Going back to the
>>>beginning of the century there are only 3 other cases of a hurricane
>>>hitting the mainland that early. But the fact of the matter is
>>>hurricanes are not the only storms to be considered.Looking back over
>>>the past year for this location(so. Minnesota) we had record cold and
>>>hight temps last winter, july brought a record rainfall 8 inches in 24
>>>hrs,record high and low temps in oct along with 2 torandos in Oct a
>>>very highly unusal event.
>>
>>Correlation does not equal causation.  You must prove that increased CO2
>>concentrations have led to this weather, rather than it just being a natural
>>strange weather pattern.  Strange weather patterns have occurred before there
>>was this much fossil-fuel burning going on.
>First you have to prove that the *climate* is significantly different,
>which he failed to do.
hey stupid do you know anything about the global warming theory. The
answer is of course not, but that won't keep you from shooting your
mouth off and make an ass of yourself in the process.
   Every on of those events are statistically significant.
>To do that you have to show that the weather is unusual in a
>statistically significant manner
.
 just stated that above. Now moron do you realize that a rainfall of 3
inches is statistically significant.
>He failed to do that.
no the only one that failed is poor little johnie
>Obviously there was one more breakdown in our educational system (a
>very common one) which is in understanding statistical reasoning and
>why it is important.
yup you are a damn good example of that. Absolutely no science/math
background

Yuri Kuchinsky  wrote:
> 
> : It would also be my guess that at the turn of the century there were
> : 800 million hungry out of a population of a billion.
> 
> How do you know this? The number of hungry people on the planet is now 
> greater than ever!
> 
The FAO figures you quote indicate "malnourished" people.  FAO classifies
people with sufficient caloric intake, but with a diet 'insufficiently
varied' as malnourished as well.   Still a problem, of course, but please
define it properly.
In Medieval times, 90+% of the population was chronically malnourished.  A
man was deemed well off if he ate meat once a week.  Most children suffered
from rickets and other defiency conditions.  Many castles and manor homes
tossed trenchers (crusts of bread) and other dinner-table scraps to hungry
people who clustered outside, who fought bitterly for line rights.  Often,
a government official would, upon their yearly visit to a village, find
that starvation and disease had wiped out the entire populace sometime in
the past year, with none the wiser.
Beer was widely consumed, by children and adults, as water was too
dangerous to drink.  When you did drink river water, you were taught to
"strain" it between your teeth to remove the larger creatures found
naturally in it.
Even the wealthy had their problems.  Food poisoning was endemic, fruits
and vegetables were unknown out of season, seafood was impossible unless
you lived near the coast, and at thirty-five, you needed soft food as your
teeth had all rotted out...unless an abcessed tooth killed you, as was
quite common.
This is the true world of 'organic' farming, biomass power, and
deindustrialization many environmentalists would have us return to.  I'd
prefer to work out our problems and stay here.
--
Mike Asher
masher@tusc.net
"We must make this an insecure an uninhabitable place for capitalists and
their projects.  This is the best contribution we can make towards
protecting the earth."
   - Environmental organization 'Ecotage', Earth First! offshoot.