By Andrew Bridges, .c The Assiciated Press.
SAN FRANCISCO (Dec. 8) - The northernmost reaches of the Earth are warming, reducing the sea ice across the Arctic Ocean, melting the ice sheet in Greenland and spreading shrubs into the Alaskan tundra, scientists said Saturday.
Taken individually, the changes only suggest the region's climate is undergoing a warming trend. Together, they provide dramatic evidence the change is real, a panel of scientists said during at a meeting of the American Geophysical Union.
``If you look at all the data sets together, they do provide compelling evidence something is changing over a great area,'' said Larry Hinzman, of the University of Alaska, Fairbanks.
Natural variability may be behind the changes, but human activity might also be to blame, scientists said.
A new five-year research plan presented this week by scientists and government officials meeting in Washington, D.C., asserts that people clearly are agents of environmental change, though it is still unclear how much human activity contributes.
President Bush wants industry to voluntarily cut smokestack and tailpipe emissions of carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping gases that scientists believe are leading to a global rise in temperatures.
Evidence of the rise can be seen across the Arctic already, scientists said Saturday.
Greenland is experiencing a warm spell unseen since the 1930s. Satellite data show the greatest area of melt across its mammoth ice sheet in 24 years of measurements occurred this year.
Since 1979, the melt area has grown by 16 percent and is affecting higher and higher elevations.
Across the Arctic Ocean, the floating mantle of ice that covers it throughout much of the year shrank to record levels this summer, said Mark Serreze, also of the University of Colorado. In September, sea ice extent was 4 percent lower that that seen in any previous September since monitoring began in 1978.
Changes in Arctic atmospheric and marine circulation patterns are partly responsible, but depletion of the ozone layer due to pollution may also play a role, Serreze said.
On land, too, scientists note changes that suggest temperatures are rising. Shrubs are pushing farther northward, growing in areas of tundra that were void of trees as little as 50 years ago, said F. Stuart Chapin III of the University of Alaska, Fairbanks.
``The real question is, is this recent trend unusual, is this recent trend cause for concern that we are having an effect? The answer seems to be yes,'' Serreze said.
12/08/02 09:02 EST
Copyright 2002 The Associated Press. The information contained in the AP news report may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or otherwise distributed without the prior written authority of The Associated Press. All active hyperlinks have been inserted by AOL.
quote:These "scientists" state that back in the thirties, Greenland experienced these same temps yet there was much less polution than there is today and the ozone had no hole. Proves to me that this is a natural cycle and all the chicken little enviro's are gonna milk this thing for all it's worth. The recording of temperatures has only been going on for 30 years or less. Stands to reason that a record melt year should pop up every now and then. These are my own opinions though. The answer is right there in front of you. What do you think?
Originally posted by Fireballsocal:
Greenland is experiencing a warm spell unseen since the 1930s. Satellite data show the greatest area of melt across its mammoth ice sheet in 24 years of measurements occurred this year.
Since 1979, the melt area has grown by 16 percent and is affecting higher and higher elevations.
Across the Arctic Ocean, the floating mantle of ice that covers it throughout much of the year shrank to record levels this summer, said Mark Serreze, also of the University of Colorado. In September, sea ice extent was 4 percent lower that that seen in any previous September since monitoring began in 1978.
Changes in Arctic atmospheric and marine circulation patterns are partly responsible, but depletion of the ozone layer due to pollution may also play a role, Serreze said.
``The real question is, is this recent trend unusual, is this recent trend cause for concern that we are having an effect?
My last recollection (No, I wasn't alive for the last global glaciation!) is that Earth is in a period of interglacial, just one of the cyclical warming periods which precedes the return of global glacier formation. The last Ice Age retreated 25,000 years ago, a bit before industrialization or SUVs.
Four of these periods have come and gone. No "scientists", environmentalists, or liberal politicians witnessed any of the past three interglacier periods, so we do not know what caused it precisely. A safe bet would be that people did not. So why blame humanity on this go round? Convenience? Political Agendas? Certainly.
We have 50,000 to 100,000 years to go before we know if the Ice Age will again return, by whatever drives such an event. You can also bet, that when the glaciers return, scientists, environmentalists and liberal politicians will ***** about that too.
Four of these periods have come and gone. No "scientists", environmentalists, or liberal politicians witnessed any of the past three interglacier periods, so we do not know what caused it precisely. A safe bet would be that people did not. So why blame humanity on this go round? Convenience? Political Agendas? Certainly.
We have 50,000 to 100,000 years to go before we know if the Ice Age will again return, by whatever drives such an event. You can also bet, that when the glaciers return, scientists, environmentalists and liberal politicians will ***** about that too.
Three websites for anyone who would like to do any additional reading on this subject.
http://www.nsf.gov/
http://www.noaa.gov/
http://www.onr.navy.mil/
http://www.nsf.gov/
http://www.noaa.gov/
http://www.onr.navy.mil/
Does this mean all the commies in frisco will
drown?
drown?
quote:And by that time, any notion of "global warming" will be long and conveniently forgotten. "Global cooling" will be blamed on cars ("greenhouse gases block the sunlight") or cattle ("methane from cow farts is remarkably similar to Freon. We all know how cold that stuff is!") or whatever else is produced by activities that the scientific hand-wringers are looking down their noses at X-thousand years from now.
Originally posted by Omnivore:
We have 50,000 to 100,000 years to go before we know if the Ice Age will again return, by whatever drives such an event. You can also bet, that when the glaciers return, scientists, environmentalists and liberal politicians will ***** about that too.
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Quote from Dick...
Does this mean all the commies in frisco will
drown?
You have uncovered an interesting notion about "Global Warming" noise. Since Human Migration, in order to follow food sources or avoid adverse conditions,is not possible due to coastal/waterway proximate urbanization; the very people who will suffer the most from a continued warming trend are city dwellers. The antithesis of the environmentalist.
Thus, the people who couldn't tell a Douglas Fir from a telephone pole, are probably making the most noise about the potential effects of a global interglacial warming trend. They don't give a damn about nature, they just want to keep above water! If they still lived in tents, they would just move a bit further up the beach.
Conversely, you would think the environmentalists would hope for serious warming. Drown about a third of humanity and starve about half of the remainder. A lot less SUVs, heck a lot less of everything humanity does to upset the eco-folks.
But then it's never really about the environment, after all. It's about the power that comes from donations from those same urbanites that fuel environmentalists' lawyers and liberal politicians. The groups get larger, buy more victories, continue to scare the skyscraper crowd, who send more money, ad infinitum.
I just hope when we all get issued our eco-slave camp smocks that our environmental masters pick a color other than green. I look like crap in green.
Does this mean all the commies in frisco will
drown?
You have uncovered an interesting notion about "Global Warming" noise. Since Human Migration, in order to follow food sources or avoid adverse conditions,is not possible due to coastal/waterway proximate urbanization; the very people who will suffer the most from a continued warming trend are city dwellers. The antithesis of the environmentalist.
Thus, the people who couldn't tell a Douglas Fir from a telephone pole, are probably making the most noise about the potential effects of a global interglacial warming trend. They don't give a damn about nature, they just want to keep above water! If they still lived in tents, they would just move a bit further up the beach.
Conversely, you would think the environmentalists would hope for serious warming. Drown about a third of humanity and starve about half of the remainder. A lot less SUVs, heck a lot less of everything humanity does to upset the eco-folks.
But then it's never really about the environment, after all. It's about the power that comes from donations from those same urbanites that fuel environmentalists' lawyers and liberal politicians. The groups get larger, buy more victories, continue to scare the skyscraper crowd, who send more money, ad infinitum.
I just hope when we all get issued our eco-slave camp smocks that our environmental masters pick a color other than green. I look like crap in green.
quote:that's not the way enviros think. it does, however, reflect on the way YOU think.
you would think the environmentalists would hope for serious warming. Drown about a third of humanity and starve about half of the remainder. A lot less SUVs, heck a lot less of everything humanity does to upset the eco-folks.
granted, scientists have wavered in their predictions about the effects of massive amounts of carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere as by=products of oil combustion.
Who are we to second-guess them? They seem to be in agreement that SOMETHING is going to happen. Does it make sense to ignore the warnings?
quote:THEY are second guessing each other. Why can't we do the same?
Originally posted by Bluesky:
Who are we to second-guess them? They seem to be in agreement that SOMETHING is going to happen. Does it make sense to ignore the warnings?
THEY are not all in agreement.
Some of THEM might sleep with aluminum foil on their heads.
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/200...t-gww020702.php
"Though significant uncertainty remains regarding the amount of global warming that will occur over the next century or two, scientists agree that the trend will continue for the next hundred years even if fossil fuel consumption is dramatically reduced."
http://www.cnn.com/EARTH/9710/06/warming.explainer/
"The majority of climate scientists agree that the Earth is heating up, and that people are partly to blame."
http://www.panda.org/resources/publication...eet/preface.htm
"Scientists agree that there is a significant warming trend and they are concerned by the rate of warming."
"Though significant uncertainty remains regarding the amount of global warming that will occur over the next century or two, scientists agree that the trend will continue for the next hundred years even if fossil fuel consumption is dramatically reduced."
http://www.cnn.com/EARTH/9710/06/warming.explainer/
"The majority of climate scientists agree that the Earth is heating up, and that people are partly to blame."
http://www.panda.org/resources/publication...eet/preface.htm
"Scientists agree that there is a significant warming trend and they are concerned by the rate of warming."
Old ladies in Laughlin agree on which nickel machines
pay off regularly.
Not ALL old ladys in Laughlin, but at least two or three.
pay off regularly.
Not ALL old ladys in Laughlin, but at least two or three.
Bluesky:
that's not the way enviros think. it does, however, reflect on the way YOU think.
granted, scientists have wavered in their predictions about the effects of massive amounts of carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere as by=products of oil combustion.
Who are we to second-guess them? They seem to be in agreement that SOMETHING is going to happen. Does it make sense to ignore the warnings?
___________________________________________________________________________________
Yes, I do believe that environmentalists hold humanity at fault for all that is happening to make the global environment one tenth of one degree Centigrade, one tree, one owl, one fish, one inch of beach, one Pierson's Milk Vetch, and one gallon of rainfall different than the perfect world environmentalists have fixed in their agenda. That somehow any change, no matter how natural and recurring, is the fault of humanity because we can, if we desired, make all these changes through our massive population and technology.
Why is it so far-fetched that environmentalists would love to see a massive and immediate reduction in humanity and a disruption of culture and technological applications?
Because it is not far-fetched. Enviros just don't say it out loud as long as they need those contributions swelling the bank accounts. I don't get money from people I openly disdain and I do tread lightly around those from whom I do receive money. Why is this so impossible to believe of the enviros?
I'm not ignoring the warnings. But I also know that change is inevitable and that good planning, preparation and flexibility will easily overcome the slight change that occurs in my and my progeny's lifetimes. There is no beachfront property in my estate.
that's not the way enviros think. it does, however, reflect on the way YOU think.
granted, scientists have wavered in their predictions about the effects of massive amounts of carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere as by=products of oil combustion.
Who are we to second-guess them? They seem to be in agreement that SOMETHING is going to happen. Does it make sense to ignore the warnings?
___________________________________________________________________________________
Yes, I do believe that environmentalists hold humanity at fault for all that is happening to make the global environment one tenth of one degree Centigrade, one tree, one owl, one fish, one inch of beach, one Pierson's Milk Vetch, and one gallon of rainfall different than the perfect world environmentalists have fixed in their agenda. That somehow any change, no matter how natural and recurring, is the fault of humanity because we can, if we desired, make all these changes through our massive population and technology.
Why is it so far-fetched that environmentalists would love to see a massive and immediate reduction in humanity and a disruption of culture and technological applications?
Because it is not far-fetched. Enviros just don't say it out loud as long as they need those contributions swelling the bank accounts. I don't get money from people I openly disdain and I do tread lightly around those from whom I do receive money. Why is this so impossible to believe of the enviros?
I'm not ignoring the warnings. But I also know that change is inevitable and that good planning, preparation and flexibility will easily overcome the slight change that occurs in my and my progeny's lifetimes. There is no beachfront property in my estate.
quote:What you don't understand is that environmentalists are pro-human life. That's why we are concerned about our human environment and the threats to it. To want to solve the problem by eliminating human life is antithetical to our world view.
Why is it so far-fetched that environmentalists would love to see a massive and immediate reduction in humanity and a disruption of culture and technological applications?
Your accusation sounds more in line with resource extractors who long for the good old days when limited numbers of people meant they could chop trees, mine the earth and drive anywhere they wanted and no one would notice or complain.
quote:Not all.
Originally posted by Bluesky:
What you don't understand is that environmentalists are pro-human life.
I welcome the warming trend!!! I'm tired of freezing my ass off while trying to sleep in the "Dunevan"...
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
Vor
Vor
Yeah, environmentalists sure sound pro-human to me. But maybe we should let their ringleaders speak for themselves:
quote:
"If radical environmentalists were to invent a disease to bring human populations back to sanity, it would probably be something like AIDS. It [AIDS] has the potential to end industrialism, which is the main force behind the environmental crises."
-Earth First! newsletter
quote:
"We in the Green movement, aspire to a cultural model in which the killing of a forest will be considered more contemptible and more criminal than the sale of 6-year-old children to Asian brothels."
-Carl Amery, Green Party of West Germany
quote:
"I got the impression that instead of going out to shoot birds, I should go out and shoot the kids who shoot birds."
-Paul Watson, founder of Greenpeace and Sea Shepherd
quote:
"The planet is about to break out with fever, indeed it may already have, and we [human beings] are the disease. We should be at war with ourselves and our lifestyles."
-Thomas Lovejoy, tropical biologist and assistant secretary of the Smithsonian Institution
quote:
"Phasing out the human race will solve every problem on earth, social and environmental."
Dave Forman, founder of Earth First, and presently a member of the Board of Directors for the Sierra Club
Or back on track about global warming:
quote:
15,000 scientists dispute theory of global warming.
In addition to the Heidelburg Appeal described below, there is another group of scientists that has formed the Petition Project, headed by Frederick Seitz (Past President, National Academy of Sciences, U.S.A., and currently President Emeritus, Rockefeller University) The petition (read the entire Report, Letter, and Signatories) states:
Global Warming Petition
We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December, 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.
There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.Not all scientists agree on global warming
You’ve seen mention of a petition signed by 2,000 scientists and several Nobel laureates saying that they believe global warming exists and poses a significant danger. But were you told about the Heidelburg Appeal to Heads of States and Governments, which stated just the opposite, and was signed by more than 4,000 scientists and over 70 Nobel laureates? It states that our decisions need to be based on “scientific criteria and not on irrational preconceptions”. Signatures are still being collected by Michel Salomon, 10, Ave. de Messine, 75008 Paris, France (fax: 33-1-42 98 00 59). Portions of the appeal were printed in the Wall Street Journal on June 1, 1992, p. A12. One interesting article that references the appeal is entitled Challenging America’s Inverted Health Priorities, by Dr. Elizabeth M. Whelan, president of the American Council on Science and Health, which offers many sane counterpoints to fear-mongering.
quote:
Bill Clinton and Al Gore had an honest scientist fired for wanting to properly research global warming
William Happer, then of the Department of Energy, wanted to perform a proper survey of how much ultraviolet radiation was reaching the Earth, to see if the ozone hole was really a problem. Nobody had yet performed such a study, and claims of increased ultraviolet radiation were based on theory. At this suggestion, he was fired by Katie McGintey.
quote:http://www.pushback.com/environment/fraudu...nvironment.html
Environmentalists brag about using fraudulent science
According to Dr. Wattenburg, Steven Schneider of Stanford University once bragged that even though one doesn’t have good science to support one’s conclusions, it’s better to scare the masses for the sake of the Earth and lie to them than it is to not say anything. You can read the in DISCOVER magazine, Oct 1989, pg. 47. In part, it reads:
On the one hand, as scientists, we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but…. On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people we’d like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climatic change. To do that we need to get some broadbased support, to capture the public’s imagination…. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have…. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.
quote:though taken out of context, you can't argue with the logic
Phasing out the human race will solve every problem on earth, social and environmental
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
quote:we are.
The planet is about to break out with fever, indeed it may already have, and we [human beings] are the disease. We should be at war with ourselves and our lifestyles."
quote:I think Watson could tell the difference and I think you can too.
I got the impression that instead of going out to shoot birds, I should go out and shoot the kids who shoot birds."
quote:what can I say? He's a German
We in the Green movement, aspire to a cultural model in which the killing of a forest will be considered more contemptible and more criminal than the sale of 6-year-old children to Asian brothels."
quote:this is pure bull****! AIDS has the potential to rid the world of poor people of color and gay men. Racist industrialists and homophobes should be blamed, not conservationists.
"If radical environmentalists were to invent a disease to bring human populations back to sanity, it would probably be something like AIDS. It [AIDS] has the potential to end industrialism, which is the main force behind the environmental crises."
jhitesma has reached a new low with this parade of edited quotations
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
Jason, isn't that the pot calling the kettle black?
Sounds more like someone finally admitting their true beliefs to me....I can't think of anything I could say to make BS look worse than what he says himself.
Face it Blu, your associating with people that for all intensive purposes want to eliminate the humane race. The fact that you can defend some of these statements is deplorable! As a species we are not perfect, but to call for the elimination of the species, that sounds like the babble of the insane! If the "leaders" of "GREEN INC." feel that strongly about the annihilation of the human race, why not start with themselves? When you advocate the killing of six year old children, everything else you support or represent loses any meaning! I for one find it sickening that you find the life of a weed (PMV) more important than that of a child! How very sad that your "movement" has sank to the depth that it has. It's to bad that the general public isn't informed on the philosophy of GENOCIDE that "GREEN INC." is proposing! I'm sure it would help in the fund raising department.
![[Angry Fire]](graemlins/angryfire.gif)
LIVE FREE OR DIE!
LIVE FREE OR DIE!
We should at least compliment the radical greens for being honest. But then, why not. They do not solicit donations from millions of their fellow humans and, at the same time, publicly wish they all a painful death.
The radicals get their money under the table from the mainstream groups, to do the dirty work, the true agenda. The mainstream group hug, free-to-be-you-and-me groups then have clean hands when they accept your money, all the while secretly wishing you were dead. But hopefully not until the check clears.
Of course, it's not much of a reach to begin to consider what the radicals would do, with the right amount of funding, than just more wishing.
Ok, we have the theory of global warming. if you buy into the theory, than there is no other culprit than man. Not just one man, but six billion. Sure the population seems to work on the current model, if all remains equal, i.e. lifestyles and population size.
But then the billions of members of emerging nations want to live like Americans. As seen on TV! The energy, the stuff, the freedom, food, etc. So what is the environmentalist answer?
Change American lifestyles! Reduce our manner of living to that of the emerging nations, the teeming billions who watch Baywatch and Remington Steele. Except it is too late. Because, unlike Americans who have grown, during this last century, sensitive to their environment and resources, the rest of the world has not. Please spare me the example of Europe, with every square inch sculpted like some theme park. Wilderness left Europe lifetimes ago.
Menahwile: destruction of nature, outside of the United States, continues at record pace. Safety is not an issue, even for nuclear power. Just because you or I switch to a Yugo, doesn't mean some tribal member in Kenya doesn't still yearn for a Lincoln Navigator. In fact, now he wants one more, to be alone on the top of the material food chain.
More like he will be buried under it, dead of that continental scourge, AIDS. Score one more for the wishful thinking of Environmentalists.
From jhitesma:
"If radical environmentalists were to invent a disease to bring human populations back to sanity, it would probably be something like AIDS. It [AIDS] has the potential to end industrialism, which is the main force behind the environmental crises."
-Earth First! newsletter
The radicals get their money under the table from the mainstream groups, to do the dirty work, the true agenda. The mainstream group hug, free-to-be-you-and-me groups then have clean hands when they accept your money, all the while secretly wishing you were dead. But hopefully not until the check clears.
Of course, it's not much of a reach to begin to consider what the radicals would do, with the right amount of funding, than just more wishing.
Ok, we have the theory of global warming. if you buy into the theory, than there is no other culprit than man. Not just one man, but six billion. Sure the population seems to work on the current model, if all remains equal, i.e. lifestyles and population size.
But then the billions of members of emerging nations want to live like Americans. As seen on TV! The energy, the stuff, the freedom, food, etc. So what is the environmentalist answer?
Change American lifestyles! Reduce our manner of living to that of the emerging nations, the teeming billions who watch Baywatch and Remington Steele. Except it is too late. Because, unlike Americans who have grown, during this last century, sensitive to their environment and resources, the rest of the world has not. Please spare me the example of Europe, with every square inch sculpted like some theme park. Wilderness left Europe lifetimes ago.
Menahwile: destruction of nature, outside of the United States, continues at record pace. Safety is not an issue, even for nuclear power. Just because you or I switch to a Yugo, doesn't mean some tribal member in Kenya doesn't still yearn for a Lincoln Navigator. In fact, now he wants one more, to be alone on the top of the material food chain.
More like he will be buried under it, dead of that continental scourge, AIDS. Score one more for the wishful thinking of Environmentalists.
From jhitesma:
"If radical environmentalists were to invent a disease to bring human populations back to sanity, it would probably be something like AIDS. It [AIDS] has the potential to end industrialism, which is the main force behind the environmental crises."
-Earth First! newsletter
So now we should kill ourselves? Christ, they do ask for a lot don't they... ![[Uhoh]](graemlins/uhoh.gif)
quote:what can I say? He's a German
We in the Green movement, aspire to a cultural model in which the killing of a forest will be considered more contemptible and more criminal than the sale of 6-year-old children to Asian brothels."
so thats ur whole defense on that one he is german
quote:this is pure bull****! AIDS has the potential to rid the world of poor people of color and gay men. Racist industrialists and homophobes should be blamed, not conservationists.
"If radical environmentalists were to invent a disease to bring human populations back to sanity, it would probably be something like AIDS. It [AIDS] has the potential to end industrialism, which is the main force behind the environmental crises."
and aids only effects poor colored people and gays thats about on of the most narrowminded opions i have ever heard
![[Skull]](graemlins/skull.gif)
here's hitesma's reference.
http://www.pushback.com/environment/Heidel...burgAppeal.html
The enviro answer is simple
1. "Smart growth" of urban areas
2. alternative energy.
can you argue with those options?
http://www.inca.is/
http://www.panda.org/news_facts/newsroom/f...fm?uNewsID=2688
http://www.germany-tourism.de/e/6399.html
lots of protected wilderness in Europe
is this the paradigm that should support our plush lifestyles? And we deny responsibility for our impacts on EVERYBODY'S earth?
[ 12-11-2002, 06:04 PM: Message edited by: Bluesky ]
http://www.pushback.com/environment/Heidel...burgAppeal.html
quote:notice there's no signatures, nor any mention of global warming.
Heidelburg Appeal to Heads of States and Governments
The undersigned members of the international scientific and intellectual community share the objectives of the “Earth Summit,” to be held at Rio de Janeiro under the auspices of the United Nations, and support the principles of the following declaration.
We want to make our full contribution to the preservation of our common heritage, the Earth.
We are however worried, at the dawn of the twenty-first century, at the emergence of an irrational ideology which is opposed to scientific and industrial progress and impedes economic and social development.
We contend that a natural State, sometimes idealized by movements with a tendency to look toward the past, does not exist and has probably never existed since man’s first appearance in the biosphere, insofar as humanity has always progressed by increasingly harnessing Nature to its needs and not the reverse.
We fully subscribe to the objectives of a scientific ecology for the universe, whose resources must be taken stock of, monitored and preserved.
But we herewith demand that this stock-taking, monitoring and preservation be founded on scientific criteria and not on irrational preconceptions.
We stress that many essential human activities are carried out either by manipulating hazardous substances or in their proximity, and that progress and development have always involved increasing control over hostile forces, to the benefit of mankind.
We therefore consider that scientific ecology is no more than an extension of this continual progress toward the improved life of future generations.
We intend to assert science’s responsibility and duties toward society as a whole.
We do however forewarn the authorities in charge of our planet’s destiny against decisions which are supported by pseudo-scientific arguments or false and nonrelevant data.
We draw everybody’s attention to the absolute necessity of helping poor countries attain a level of sustainable development which matches that of the rest of the planet, protecting them from troubles and dangers stemming from developed nations, and avoiding their entanglement in a web of unrealistic obligations which would compromise both their integrity and their dignity.
The greatest evils which stalk our Earth are ignorance and oppression, and not Science, Technology and Industry whose instruments, when adequately managed, are indispensable tools of a future shaped by Humanity, by itself and for itself, overcoming major problems like overpopulation, starvation and world-wise diseases.
quote:can you prove it?
The radicals get their money under the table from the mainstream groups,
quote:as a propagandist you get an A for great sounding lies!
So what is the environmentalist answer?
Change American lifestyles! Reduce our manner of living to that of the emerging nations,
The enviro answer is simple
1. "Smart growth" of urban areas
2. alternative energy.
can you argue with those options?
quote:http://shadow.apd.hu/Network/Ourparks/Biebrza/Nature
Wilderness left Europe lifetimes ago.
http://www.inca.is/
http://www.panda.org/news_facts/newsroom/f...fm?uNewsID=2688
http://www.germany-tourism.de/e/6399.html
lots of protected wilderness in Europe
quote:done by American Corporations that have relocated to foreign countries where, backed by US puppet gov'ts they can have full control over the natural environment and the cheap labor afforded by their underfed, undereducated and underrepresented people.
Menahwile: destruction of nature, outside of the United States, continues at record pace.
is this the paradigm that should support our plush lifestyles? And we deny responsibility for our impacts on EVERYBODY'S earth?
[ 12-11-2002, 06:04 PM: Message edited by: Bluesky ]
Do you have a job? ![[Confused]](confused.gif)
So if everyone in the world farted at the same time, would that be global warming?
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The radicals get their money under the table from the mainstream groups,
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bluesky:
can you prove it?
__________________________________________________________________
All Earth First has to do is crack open their bank books to me and let me follow their membership around to watch the cash get passed over. The fact that leadership of radical groups comes and goes from the Mainstream groups is enough proof for me. Only the naive can't imagine that the function of the radical violent groups is to do the work that the mainstream groups want done, but want clean hands. Taking direction is closely followed by secret funding.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So what is the environmentalist answer?
Change American lifestyles! Reduce our manner of living to that of the emerging nations,
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bluesky:
as a propagandist you get an A for great sounding lies!
The enviro answer is simple
1. "Smart growth" of urban areas
2. alternative energy.
Bluesky:can you argue with those options?
All day long.
Smart growth means living 10 people for every 2000 feet of floor space in skyscraper high density housing. Sounds like a prison to me. San Diego is already abandoning it's village concept, introduced just 3 months ago, without a brick being moved or a dollar spent. People want space.
Alernative energy also pollutes. It's physics. If you take energy from a naturally intended conclusion: solar energy that should have warmed the soil or wind that should have passed over the mountains; then the gathered energy for human use does not fulfill it's natural function.
Alternative energy is just a way to rob the earth of it's naturally designed allotment. I would rather take my energy from the inert reserves in the dark and deep recesses of the mantle than divert it from the surface. I live on the surface and so does nature. Alternative energy can recharge my D cells but not run refrigeration.
The best alternative energy is nuclear, most hated by the enviros. They would rather tout the inefficient and wasteful alternatives; which they know, in the end, will not get far in providing any true alternative.
Then the enviros can through up their hands and shout "see, there is just too many people, bring on the plagues!!"
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wilderness left Europe lifetimes ago.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bluesky:
http://shadow.apd.hu/Network/Ourparks/Biebrza/Nature
http://www.inca.is/
http://www.panda.org/news_facts/newsroom/f...fm?uNewsID=2688
http://www.germany-tourism.de/e/6399.html
lots of protected wilderness in Europe
Growing up in Europe I know that there is no old growth and all the forests are just tree farms. Their wilderness areas are just "urban parks", flimsy imitations of true wilderness and designed to instill a false sense of "back to nature" in an otherwise impacted urban continent. The burgermeister knows the exact count of every animal in his "forest". It's a joke, although a very pretty and well manicured one.
BTW: Japan, another theme park from end-to-end.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Meanwhile: destruction of nature, outside of the United States, continues at record pace.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bluesky:
done by American Corporations that have relocated to foreign countries where, backed by US puppet gov'ts they can have full control over the natural environment and the cheap labor afforded by their underfed, undereducated and underrepresented people.
is this the paradigm that should support our plush lifestyles? And we deny responsibility for our impacts on EVERYBODY'S earth?
__________________________________________________________________________________
So Chernobyl is America's fault? China's atomic bomb testing is actually an American corporate exercise?
I do have an announcement to the unwashed masses outside of America. Rebel!! Kill your despotic leaders and then (in the spirit of freedom loving examples all over the globe for the last 200 years.......set up your own democratic corporations and chew up your own countries for profit!!
Face it: everybody wants the brass ring. by your own statement, it's all over but the yelling.
There would have to be a great less humanity to create the balance needed to create and retain the planet envisioned by enviros. Man would have to be reduced to less than nature's equal; a state that has not existed in more than 5000 years, when population size and lack of technology still made man's very existance tenuous. Since technology exists in all our heads and in massive records, almost the complete elimination of humanity and it's tools would ensure the natural state desired by the Enviros.
Again, a thank you to jhitesma:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"If radical environmentalists were to invent a disease to bring human populations back to sanity, it would probably be something like AIDS. It [AIDS] has the potential to end industrialism, which is the main force behind the environmental crises."
-Earth First! newsletter
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The radicals get their money under the table from the mainstream groups,
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bluesky:
can you prove it?
__________________________________________________________________
All Earth First has to do is crack open their bank books to me and let me follow their membership around to watch the cash get passed over. The fact that leadership of radical groups comes and goes from the Mainstream groups is enough proof for me. Only the naive can't imagine that the function of the radical violent groups is to do the work that the mainstream groups want done, but want clean hands. Taking direction is closely followed by secret funding.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So what is the environmentalist answer?
Change American lifestyles! Reduce our manner of living to that of the emerging nations,
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bluesky:
as a propagandist you get an A for great sounding lies!
The enviro answer is simple
1. "Smart growth" of urban areas
2. alternative energy.
Bluesky:can you argue with those options?
All day long.
Smart growth means living 10 people for every 2000 feet of floor space in skyscraper high density housing. Sounds like a prison to me. San Diego is already abandoning it's village concept, introduced just 3 months ago, without a brick being moved or a dollar spent. People want space.
Alernative energy also pollutes. It's physics. If you take energy from a naturally intended conclusion: solar energy that should have warmed the soil or wind that should have passed over the mountains; then the gathered energy for human use does not fulfill it's natural function.
Alternative energy is just a way to rob the earth of it's naturally designed allotment. I would rather take my energy from the inert reserves in the dark and deep recesses of the mantle than divert it from the surface. I live on the surface and so does nature. Alternative energy can recharge my D cells but not run refrigeration.
The best alternative energy is nuclear, most hated by the enviros. They would rather tout the inefficient and wasteful alternatives; which they know, in the end, will not get far in providing any true alternative.
Then the enviros can through up their hands and shout "see, there is just too many people, bring on the plagues!!"
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wilderness left Europe lifetimes ago.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bluesky:
http://shadow.apd.hu/Network/Ourparks/Biebrza/Nature
http://www.inca.is/
http://www.panda.org/news_facts/newsroom/f...fm?uNewsID=2688
http://www.germany-tourism.de/e/6399.html
lots of protected wilderness in Europe
Growing up in Europe I know that there is no old growth and all the forests are just tree farms. Their wilderness areas are just "urban parks", flimsy imitations of true wilderness and designed to instill a false sense of "back to nature" in an otherwise impacted urban continent. The burgermeister knows the exact count of every animal in his "forest". It's a joke, although a very pretty and well manicured one.
BTW: Japan, another theme park from end-to-end.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Meanwhile: destruction of nature, outside of the United States, continues at record pace.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bluesky:
done by American Corporations that have relocated to foreign countries where, backed by US puppet gov'ts they can have full control over the natural environment and the cheap labor afforded by their underfed, undereducated and underrepresented people.
is this the paradigm that should support our plush lifestyles? And we deny responsibility for our impacts on EVERYBODY'S earth?
__________________________________________________________________________________
So Chernobyl is America's fault? China's atomic bomb testing is actually an American corporate exercise?
I do have an announcement to the unwashed masses outside of America. Rebel!! Kill your despotic leaders and then (in the spirit of freedom loving examples all over the globe for the last 200 years.......set up your own democratic corporations and chew up your own countries for profit!!
Face it: everybody wants the brass ring. by your own statement, it's all over but the yelling.
There would have to be a great less humanity to create the balance needed to create and retain the planet envisioned by enviros. Man would have to be reduced to less than nature's equal; a state that has not existed in more than 5000 years, when population size and lack of technology still made man's very existance tenuous. Since technology exists in all our heads and in massive records, almost the complete elimination of humanity and it's tools would ensure the natural state desired by the Enviros.
Again, a thank you to jhitesma:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"If radical environmentalists were to invent a disease to bring human populations back to sanity, it would probably be something like AIDS. It [AIDS] has the potential to end industrialism, which is the main force behind the environmental crises."
-Earth First! newsletter
quote:is that what they call "circumstantial evidence"? This is not admissible in a court of law because it's based on conjecture. Why should we give it lip service here?
All Earth First has to do is crack open their bank books to me and let me follow their membership around to watch the cash get passed over. The fact that leadership of radical groups comes and goes from the Mainstream groups is enough proof for me. Only the naive can't imagine that the function of the radical violent groups is to do the work that the mainstream groups want done, but want clean hands. Taking direction is closely followed by secret funding.
here's a link to some info about "smart growth". Looks like there's a variety of living spaces available. Check out the "resources and links" button and see some of the planned communities. "Aldea de Santa Fe" looks like a winner and cheap too--$80,000 for a new home!http://www.dpz.com/
quote:huh? please explain. Wind farms may pollute your view, but they don't pollute the air! Solar panels can now be made with minimal impact to the natural environment.
Alernative energy also pollutes.
http://www.inform.umd.edu/News/Diamondback...0/24/news6.html
http://www.fi.edu/guide/hughes/renewables.html
quote:what a crock! Omni--do you drive a recreational vehicle?
If you take energy from a naturally intended conclusion: solar energy that should have warmed the soil or wind that should have passed over the mountains; then the gathered energy for human use does not fulfill it's natural function.
Alternative energy is just a way to rob the earth of it's naturally designed allotment. I would rather take my energy from the inert reserves in the dark and deep recesses of the mantle than divert it from the surface. I live on the surface and so does nature.
quote:do your homework
Alternative energy can recharge my D cells but not run refrigeration.
http://www.backwoodssolar.com/Catalogpages...2/refriger2.htm
http://www.earthship.org/news/wmview.php?ArtID=76
As Michael Reynolds has pointed out, we heat our homes to shield ourselves from winter's frigid blast, and then spend more energy cooling a refrigerator inside the home. Somebody smart should figure out a way to use the natural cold outside to keep food cold inside. Reynolds offers such a solution in one of his Earthship designs.
quote:anyone considering nuclear without mentioning the dilemma of disposal of spent rods is irresponsible.
The best alternative energy is nuclear, most hated by the enviros. They would rather tout the inefficient and wasteful alternatives; which they know, in the end, will not get far in providing any true alternative.
quote:what you saw cannot account for all the land in Europe. My friends spent some weeks in the Basque region of Spain climbing some awesome mountains which still had old growth forests.
Growing up in Europe I know that there is no old growth and all the forests are just tree farms.
We'll leave he spent rods in your backyard. Now this is the third time I have asked...What do you do for a living Bluesky? How do you fund your lucrative cut-n-paste lifestyle?
Dust
your profile says you're a professional killer. You've stated that you're drunk much of the time. Why should I tell you anything about me?
regarding Omni's assertion that alternative power can't exist at the earth's surface==here's a story of a guy who put panels on his roof and runs much of his auto dealership from the power produced there.
http://www.californiasolarcenter.org/solar...0021210-12.html
Monrovia Car Dealership Going Solar
source: press release 2002.12.02
(Monrovia, CA) - Peter Hoffman, president of Sierra Autocars, will turn on the auto dealership's solar power station at a ceremony on Tuesday, December 17, 2002
"I have personally been interested in solar energy systems for a long time," said Hoffman. "Now, for the first time since I've been looking at it, tapping the sun for electricity makes economic sense." Mr. Hoffman is referring to the large rebate from Southern California Edison Company, which offset half of the price of the 50-kilowatt photovoltaic array, and to the state and federal tax incentives for renewable energy. "Plus," added Hoffman, "it's good for the environment, contributes in a small way to a solution to California's electricity crisis, looks good on the roof and, I'm told it will generate enough clean, solar power to offset approximately 82 tons of carbon dioxide from conventional power plants. We'll also be less vulnerable to future increase in electricity rates."
3 Phases Solar has filled the roofs over Sierra's Honda and Chevrolet service bays in the dealership's Monrovia facility with beautiful blue Sharp photovoltaic modules. These modules should generate approximately 10% of Sierra's electricity needs. Prior to this installation, Sierra had already reduced its electricity use by over 20% through conservation effort over the last couple of years. The solar system will produce power in the middle of the day when electricity is the most expensive to buy.
"For residents of Los Angeles, the financial picture is even better," said Herb Mendelsohn, account executive with 3 Phases Solar. "The LA DWP has joined forces with The Gas Company to offer rebates of up to 92% of the cost of a solar system. I am surprised that any business person can afford not to go solar."
Sierra Autocars is a family-owned automobile dealership offering Honda, Chevrolet, Pontiac, Buick, Subaru and Isuzu new and used vehicles. Peter Hoffman represents the third generation of Hoffmans in the automobile business. The Sierra group also includes Saturn of Monrovia, Saturn of Alhambra, Sierra Acura of Alhambra and Saturn of Baldwin Park.
The power-up ceremony is Tuesday, December 17 at 11:00am at Sierra Autocars. 1450 S. Shamrock Ave. in Monrovia
[ 12-13-2002, 01:38 PM: Message edited by: Bluesky ]
your profile says you're a professional killer. You've stated that you're drunk much of the time. Why should I tell you anything about me?
regarding Omni's assertion that alternative power can't exist at the earth's surface==here's a story of a guy who put panels on his roof and runs much of his auto dealership from the power produced there.
http://www.californiasolarcenter.org/solar...0021210-12.html
Monrovia Car Dealership Going Solar
source: press release 2002.12.02
(Monrovia, CA) - Peter Hoffman, president of Sierra Autocars, will turn on the auto dealership's solar power station at a ceremony on Tuesday, December 17, 2002
"I have personally been interested in solar energy systems for a long time," said Hoffman. "Now, for the first time since I've been looking at it, tapping the sun for electricity makes economic sense." Mr. Hoffman is referring to the large rebate from Southern California Edison Company, which offset half of the price of the 50-kilowatt photovoltaic array, and to the state and federal tax incentives for renewable energy. "Plus," added Hoffman, "it's good for the environment, contributes in a small way to a solution to California's electricity crisis, looks good on the roof and, I'm told it will generate enough clean, solar power to offset approximately 82 tons of carbon dioxide from conventional power plants. We'll also be less vulnerable to future increase in electricity rates."
3 Phases Solar has filled the roofs over Sierra's Honda and Chevrolet service bays in the dealership's Monrovia facility with beautiful blue Sharp photovoltaic modules. These modules should generate approximately 10% of Sierra's electricity needs. Prior to this installation, Sierra had already reduced its electricity use by over 20% through conservation effort over the last couple of years. The solar system will produce power in the middle of the day when electricity is the most expensive to buy.
"For residents of Los Angeles, the financial picture is even better," said Herb Mendelsohn, account executive with 3 Phases Solar. "The LA DWP has joined forces with The Gas Company to offer rebates of up to 92% of the cost of a solar system. I am surprised that any business person can afford not to go solar."
Sierra Autocars is a family-owned automobile dealership offering Honda, Chevrolet, Pontiac, Buick, Subaru and Isuzu new and used vehicles. Peter Hoffman represents the third generation of Hoffmans in the automobile business. The Sierra group also includes Saturn of Monrovia, Saturn of Alhambra, Sierra Acura of Alhambra and Saturn of Baldwin Park.
The power-up ceremony is Tuesday, December 17 at 11:00am at Sierra Autocars. 1450 S. Shamrock Ave. in Monrovia
[ 12-13-2002, 01:38 PM: Message edited by: Bluesky ]
Thanks Blu, I'm in the market for a used Yukon XL and they are right down the freeway from me.
Now I'll be able to drive a big SUV and help the environment at the same time.
Now I'll be able to drive a big SUV and help the environment at the same time.
Yes Commander Cabbage, this is private Blusky reporting for duty. Yes sir, I under stand. You want me to irritate the OHV community to the point of no return. Yes sir! I will do it or die trying! Yes sir, if captured I will not reveal my sources in the "GREEN INC." corporate army! I will not answer any relative questions and will only repeat the party agenda. OHV'er bad-can you prove it-and why should I answer a question of anyone below me and my type(ECO-ZEALOT). Yes sir, I understand sir, Thank you sir, Long live "GREEN INC." sir! This is private Blusky signing off. I will return to this frequency next week at the designated time. ![[Disturbed]](graemlins/disturbed.gif)
LIVE FREE OR DIE!
LIVE FREE OR DIE!
yes Commandante Lechuga
Yes I will try to educate users of off-highway vehicles about the consequences of riding in natural areas!
No I will not take offense at personal attacks, since I'm just a name on screen anyway!
This is Bluesky signing off and wishing everyone a great day!
Yes I will try to educate users of off-highway vehicles about the consequences of riding in natural areas!
No I will not take offense at personal attacks, since I'm just a name on screen anyway!
This is Bluesky signing off and wishing everyone a great day!
If you take energy from a naturally intended conclusion: solar energy that should have warmed the soil or wind that should have passed over the mountains; then the gathered energy for human use does not fulfill it's natural function.
Alternative energy is just a way to rob the earth of it's naturally designed allotment. I would rather take my energy from the inert reserves in the dark and deep recesses of the mantle than divert it from the surface. I live on the surface and so does nature.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bluesky:
what a crock! Omni--do you drive a recreational vehicle?
___________________________________________________________________
I'm not sure it I spelled this out. If something does not happen, that should have, the consequences of the initial act is altered or absent. If the wind is diminished, and, yes, using the breath of this planet to drive a windmill slows the wind as it performs this extra task, then the initial N-A-T-U-R-A-L intention of the wind is changed. The moisture it would have carried a bit further, falls shorter, the seeds, dust, and pollution that it dissipates further, now remain closer to the sources, and how about the BIRDS THAT ARE KILLED BY THE WINDMILLS.
Why is the environmental way always HEAVENLY and PERFECT, while the current proven methods are monstrous and corrupt? Particulary when the environmental way is quaint and untried on any kind of mass basis?
From your quote:
3 Phases Solar has filled the roofs over Sierra's Honda and Chevrolet service bays in the dealership's Monrovia facility with beautiful blue Sharp photovoltaic modules. These modules should generate approximately 10% of Sierra's electricity needs.
__________________________________________________________________________
Whoppee!!! 10 whole per cent!!! Stop the presses. If the a-hole car dealers would just turn off all their massive lot lighting at night, they would save 30% or more. What a waste, America sleeps and every car lot in the country burns tens of thousands of watts per hour. If the jerk-off tree hugging car dealer wants to REALLY HELP THE ENVIRONMENT, he should quit selling cars and make hand woven hemp neck ties.
I priced photovoltaic for my home, the return on investment is 20 years. I can conserve and still be comfortable, getting a much better rate of return.
Conservation beats alternative energy every time. I just turn off the lights when I leave a room and keep my house down around 65 degress. But no, the environmentalists are assuring us that we will get all the power we want to waste, if we just go solar and wind. Solar and wind have be, continue to be, and will be for a long time, nothing more than a small novelty item at the environmental toy store.
I have always stressed that the Earth is carrying too many people. However, I do not wish them all dead, like Earth First! Creating energy, in any manner, will pollute and deplete resources in countless ways, if we try to answer everyone's energy demands and the pool of users continues to grow.
Alernative energy requires surface space, growing food requires surface space, housing and transportation requires surface space, the propagation of most living things requires surface space and the very seasons and weather require surface space. Your energy methods gobble natural forces and natural space.
Meanwhile, environmentalists have not spent much effort on alternative transmission and a Condor got recently toasted on a power transmission line.
What is alternative energy, as it exists right now? Just a way for environmentalists to get snotty when comparing their "PURE" method to the classic ways. It's Cute!!! It's New!!! It's High Tech!!! And conservation is so boring.
Basically, your way is a crock.
P.S. my RV has no powered drive but I tow it with a HUGE Chevy Tahoe and the largest engine I could buy. Maybe I should stick photovoltaic cells all over the roof and hood to power the door locks?
Alternative energy is just a way to rob the earth of it's naturally designed allotment. I would rather take my energy from the inert reserves in the dark and deep recesses of the mantle than divert it from the surface. I live on the surface and so does nature.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bluesky:
what a crock! Omni--do you drive a recreational vehicle?
___________________________________________________________________
I'm not sure it I spelled this out. If something does not happen, that should have, the consequences of the initial act is altered or absent. If the wind is diminished, and, yes, using the breath of this planet to drive a windmill slows the wind as it performs this extra task, then the initial N-A-T-U-R-A-L intention of the wind is changed. The moisture it would have carried a bit further, falls shorter, the seeds, dust, and pollution that it dissipates further, now remain closer to the sources, and how about the BIRDS THAT ARE KILLED BY THE WINDMILLS.
Why is the environmental way always HEAVENLY and PERFECT, while the current proven methods are monstrous and corrupt? Particulary when the environmental way is quaint and untried on any kind of mass basis?
From your quote:
3 Phases Solar has filled the roofs over Sierra's Honda and Chevrolet service bays in the dealership's Monrovia facility with beautiful blue Sharp photovoltaic modules. These modules should generate approximately 10% of Sierra's electricity needs.
__________________________________________________________________________
Whoppee!!! 10 whole per cent!!! Stop the presses. If the a-hole car dealers would just turn off all their massive lot lighting at night, they would save 30% or more. What a waste, America sleeps and every car lot in the country burns tens of thousands of watts per hour. If the jerk-off tree hugging car dealer wants to REALLY HELP THE ENVIRONMENT, he should quit selling cars and make hand woven hemp neck ties.
I priced photovoltaic for my home, the return on investment is 20 years. I can conserve and still be comfortable, getting a much better rate of return.
Conservation beats alternative energy every time. I just turn off the lights when I leave a room and keep my house down around 65 degress. But no, the environmentalists are assuring us that we will get all the power we want to waste, if we just go solar and wind. Solar and wind have be, continue to be, and will be for a long time, nothing more than a small novelty item at the environmental toy store.
I have always stressed that the Earth is carrying too many people. However, I do not wish them all dead, like Earth First! Creating energy, in any manner, will pollute and deplete resources in countless ways, if we try to answer everyone's energy demands and the pool of users continues to grow.
Alernative energy requires surface space, growing food requires surface space, housing and transportation requires surface space, the propagation of most living things requires surface space and the very seasons and weather require surface space. Your energy methods gobble natural forces and natural space.
Meanwhile, environmentalists have not spent much effort on alternative transmission and a Condor got recently toasted on a power transmission line.
What is alternative energy, as it exists right now? Just a way for environmentalists to get snotty when comparing their "PURE" method to the classic ways. It's Cute!!! It's New!!! It's High Tech!!! And conservation is so boring.
Basically, your way is a crock.
P.S. my RV has no powered drive but I tow it with a HUGE Chevy Tahoe and the largest engine I could buy. Maybe I should stick photovoltaic cells all over the roof and hood to power the door locks?
quote:I love you, man!
Originally posted by Omnivore:
P.S. my RV has no powered drive but I tow it with a HUGE Chevy Tahoe and the largest engine I could buy. Maybe I should stick photovoltaic cells all over the roof and hood to power the door locks?
![[Beer]](graemlins/beer.gif)
quote:you're really grabbing at straws to support this logic. Here's my rebuttal:
If the wind is diminished, and, yes, using the breath of this planet to drive a windmill slows the wind as it performs this extra task,
1. petroleum is a limited resource
2. petroleum combustion produces noxious pollution.
3. petroleum mining, processing and transportation require massive instrusions on the earth's surface.
Wind generators use a FREE resource. One that is encountered in LOTS of places. New windmills have longer helices and travel slower, ending the threats to birds. Haven't you seen the new windmills as you pull your RV through Banning Pass?
quote:10 percent of a car dealership. tools, lights, etc--can you even imagine the power requirements of a car dealership?
Whoppee!!! 10 whole per cent!!!
We're really talking about running a home on solar. You install the panels on the roof, not impacting anymore new land surface. Transmission lines are not necessary as you're just running the power to yourself.
the biggest power consumers are heating and cooling. There are solar ovens and solar water heating options available as well as passive solar designs to make your house use less power. We've been through the refrigerator show. the last hurdle is running your 5 ton air conditioner. For this you need more power than a roof full of panels could support,though ammonia-cycle cooling driven by solar heat and pushed by low power fans might be a possible solution.
Other problems in the future might include the scarcity of fresh water.
the Earthship has a design that recycles grey water to be used as indoor plant irrigation. The roof acts as a catch basin for rainfall and there's a cistern in the basement.
With all of the concern over our impacts on the earth brought on by our mere survival--should we be impacting more surface land by motorized rec in sensitive areas?
quote:Can you see Blu getting snotty in the 1981 Datsun?
What is alternative energy, as it exists right now? Just a way for environmentalists to get snotty when comparing their "PURE" method to the classic ways. It's Cute!!! It's New!!! It's High Tech!!! And conservation is so boring
![[Cheese]](graemlins/cheese.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Spin]](graemlins/spin2.gif)
![[Face Lick]](graemlins/facelick.gif)
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
LIVE FREE OR DIE!
If the wind is diminished, and, yes, using the breath of this planet to drive a windmill slows the wind as it performs this extra task,
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bluesky:
you're really grabbing at straws to support this logic. Here's my rebuttal:
1. petroleum is a limited resource
2. petroleum combustion produces noxious pollution.
3. petroleum mining, processing and transportation require massive instrusions on the earth's surface.
Wind generators use a FREE resource. One that is encountered in LOTS of places. New windmills have longer helices and travel slower, ending the threats to birds. Haven't you seen the new windmills as you pull your RV through Banning Pass?
_______________________________________________________________________________________
Fossil fuels have been so far stated as being an UNLIMITED resource. New fields are found everyday and technology to extract from previously difficult sources, such as oil shale, is being perfected. Yes, limited in the sense of the confines of the planet, but then so is wind and solar energy confined to the planet, hence also "limited" in your definition.
Besides, I would think you would love to have fossil fuels run out, what other purpose do they perform then taking up space deep below ground. Almost as if these resources were intended to be discovered and used by some industrious species.
Previous quotes on this board state that fossil fuel pollution is being controlled and is lessening compared to previous recent times. In fact, more natural pollution stories keep appearing in the press, such as African and Asian dust storms and the Eastern Sierra's Owens Lake.
Once mining or drilling has tapped a reserve, law requires reclaimation. This takes time, but there are examples of mining operations that have been returned to a natural state. It takes a relatively short time, by the geological clock. But, unfortunately, not long enough for environmentalists.
Which makes me wonder. Why do environmentalists thrill at the natural states that took EONS to create, but get angry when some occurance of industry, progress, or growth isn't cleaned up by the next press time? My theory is that environmentalists do not actually appreciate the time and events that occured to create today's nature. If they did, they would have to accept change and the evolution of nature, probably to something they can't put on a calendar or a coffee table book.
I have seen the windmills, new and old, from local to the Bay Area and I once contracted with U.S. Windpower (I believe now bankrupt) in Livermoore, so I am familiar with the technologies. Remember, transmission lines and maintenance roads are issues. Windmills suffer from a lot of down time and, guess what, breezeless days. In fact, mill technology only allows production in a range of wind speed. So on a high wind day, when you are smug about thoughts of high production, the mill farms are shut down to prevent damage to the mills. Just like solar power doesn't work all that well at night. Visual pollution is also a form of pollution and wind mills just do not rival a Douglas Fir.
Which begs a question. How long before wind mill farms and solar arrays start to require clear cuts and terrain development, just like fossil fuel production does. But there is no hope of reclaimation, because the mill farms and the arrays are permanent, the oil wells and the coal mines are not. Current alternative energy production is a novelty and production is trivial compared to the demand scope. So placing the windmills in the trees or solar panels on the roofs of high density housing just makes good press. See how neat, clean and free is alternative energy! Try filling a significant measure of demand and the operations will be more ugly and permanent than any fossil fuel operation. Meanwhile, the transmission lines are killing the Condor.
Home energy production most often is merely routed into the meter and "sold" back to the power company. Therefore, the alternative energy does not replace much and is really a source of income. Therefore, most alternative energy proponents are actually profiteers and growth promoters.
Alternatives just perpetuate waste and growth. Simple conservation and population control, how boring!, are the only true answers. But such programs require voluntary participation of the masses. Which means providing example and education, not lawsuits, penalties, and legislation. But example and education takes time, maybe generations. Environmentalists work from a clock based on court sessions and media deadlines.
The beaten dog rarely learns a new trick. And when he does, it is performed without enthusiasm.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bluesky:
you're really grabbing at straws to support this logic. Here's my rebuttal:
1. petroleum is a limited resource
2. petroleum combustion produces noxious pollution.
3. petroleum mining, processing and transportation require massive instrusions on the earth's surface.
Wind generators use a FREE resource. One that is encountered in LOTS of places. New windmills have longer helices and travel slower, ending the threats to birds. Haven't you seen the new windmills as you pull your RV through Banning Pass?
_______________________________________________________________________________________
Fossil fuels have been so far stated as being an UNLIMITED resource. New fields are found everyday and technology to extract from previously difficult sources, such as oil shale, is being perfected. Yes, limited in the sense of the confines of the planet, but then so is wind and solar energy confined to the planet, hence also "limited" in your definition.
Besides, I would think you would love to have fossil fuels run out, what other purpose do they perform then taking up space deep below ground. Almost as if these resources were intended to be discovered and used by some industrious species.
Previous quotes on this board state that fossil fuel pollution is being controlled and is lessening compared to previous recent times. In fact, more natural pollution stories keep appearing in the press, such as African and Asian dust storms and the Eastern Sierra's Owens Lake.
Once mining or drilling has tapped a reserve, law requires reclaimation. This takes time, but there are examples of mining operations that have been returned to a natural state. It takes a relatively short time, by the geological clock. But, unfortunately, not long enough for environmentalists.
Which makes me wonder. Why do environmentalists thrill at the natural states that took EONS to create, but get angry when some occurance of industry, progress, or growth isn't cleaned up by the next press time? My theory is that environmentalists do not actually appreciate the time and events that occured to create today's nature. If they did, they would have to accept change and the evolution of nature, probably to something they can't put on a calendar or a coffee table book.
I have seen the windmills, new and old, from local to the Bay Area and I once contracted with U.S. Windpower (I believe now bankrupt) in Livermoore, so I am familiar with the technologies. Remember, transmission lines and maintenance roads are issues. Windmills suffer from a lot of down time and, guess what, breezeless days. In fact, mill technology only allows production in a range of wind speed. So on a high wind day, when you are smug about thoughts of high production, the mill farms are shut down to prevent damage to the mills. Just like solar power doesn't work all that well at night. Visual pollution is also a form of pollution and wind mills just do not rival a Douglas Fir.
Which begs a question. How long before wind mill farms and solar arrays start to require clear cuts and terrain development, just like fossil fuel production does. But there is no hope of reclaimation, because the mill farms and the arrays are permanent, the oil wells and the coal mines are not. Current alternative energy production is a novelty and production is trivial compared to the demand scope. So placing the windmills in the trees or solar panels on the roofs of high density housing just makes good press. See how neat, clean and free is alternative energy! Try filling a significant measure of demand and the operations will be more ugly and permanent than any fossil fuel operation. Meanwhile, the transmission lines are killing the Condor.
Home energy production most often is merely routed into the meter and "sold" back to the power company. Therefore, the alternative energy does not replace much and is really a source of income. Therefore, most alternative energy proponents are actually profiteers and growth promoters.
Alternatives just perpetuate waste and growth. Simple conservation and population control, how boring!, are the only true answers. But such programs require voluntary participation of the masses. Which means providing example and education, not lawsuits, penalties, and legislation. But example and education takes time, maybe generations. Environmentalists work from a clock based on court sessions and media deadlines.
The beaten dog rarely learns a new trick. And when he does, it is performed without enthusiasm.
quote:the potential for homeowners to power their homes from panels on their roofs is valid in all areas. check out homepower.com and read some of their articles about home-grown solutions to power needs. Of course conservation plays a large part.
Home energy production most often is merely routed into the meter and "sold" back to the power company. Therefore, the alternative energy does not replace much and is really a source of income.
quote:these are the result of impacts caused by man, not "natural disturbances"
, more natural pollution stories keep appearing in the press, such as African and Asian dust storms and the Eastern Sierra's Owens Lake.
quote:1. they're negatively affecting our air and our atmosphere.
Besides, I would think you would love to have fossil fuels run out, what other purpose do they perform then taking up space deep below ground. Almost as if these resources were intended to be discovered and used by some industrious species.
2. Let's save them for the next evolution of industrial beings (after we've moved on to other galaxies or maybe blown ourselves up--have you read/seen Wells's "Time Machine"?)
quote:now that's a spin
Fossil fuels have been so far stated as being an UNLIMITED resource.
quote:you're saying that petroleum products are unlimited but wind and sun are limited.
but then so is wind and solar energy confined to the planet, hence also "limited" in your definition.
It's easy to throw stones when you don't have solar cells on your own roof that may get dammaged.
I have a very good friend who lives in an all solar house, with a propane powered fridge (one refill on his tank a year usually does the trick), wood heat from his own trees on his own land, and grows and hunts most of his own food on his own land.
Heck he's even got a freaking composting toilet and won't use any detergents because his shower and kitchen sink drain into his creek. The few times he really needs anything more than a mild natural soap he uses the communal laundry his neighbors and him share.
He let one of southern Ohios biggest enivro leaders live there for a winter. When he came back he found his home almost completely unlivable due to the guys inability to live the lifestyle he pushed on others. Because he refused to cut any wood for the stove and make woodchips for the composting toilet he practically runied both and let all the pipes freeze because he couldn't heat the house enough. Without woodchips the composting toilet started to stink and he sprayed it with lysol to cover it up - which killed the bacteria that made it work and made the problem worse. He burned pressure treated lumber, plastic, and other trash in the wood burning stove that heated the house.
He basically trashed the place because he had no clue that living the way he preached was so damn difficult to pull of in reality.
It's also interesting how the noise of OHV's is often cited as one of the biggest problems with them by people who advocate windmills for power production. Guess BS has never driven past palm springs with his windows down. I sure don't want that in my yard and it's a permanant blight on the landscape. There's a guy here in Yuma who lives in an RV next to the Colorado and has a wind generator for power. You can hear that thing for a mile in either direction when canoeing down the river. Not something I want to live with constantly. At least OHV's seldom stick around long enough to be heard for more than a few seconds.
So BS. Since you know how much better solar is care to explain the details of your system to us? Or since we've been over this before should I bring up the way APS deals with solar in AZ again? It's a very good story that exposes how environmentalism is more about $$$ and feeling good than actually making a difference. But I know you've heard it several times before already.
I have a very good friend who lives in an all solar house, with a propane powered fridge (one refill on his tank a year usually does the trick), wood heat from his own trees on his own land, and grows and hunts most of his own food on his own land.
Heck he's even got a freaking composting toilet and won't use any detergents because his shower and kitchen sink drain into his creek. The few times he really needs anything more than a mild natural soap he uses the communal laundry his neighbors and him share.
He let one of southern Ohios biggest enivro leaders live there for a winter. When he came back he found his home almost completely unlivable due to the guys inability to live the lifestyle he pushed on others. Because he refused to cut any wood for the stove and make woodchips for the composting toilet he practically runied both and let all the pipes freeze because he couldn't heat the house enough. Without woodchips the composting toilet started to stink and he sprayed it with lysol to cover it up - which killed the bacteria that made it work and made the problem worse. He burned pressure treated lumber, plastic, and other trash in the wood burning stove that heated the house.
He basically trashed the place because he had no clue that living the way he preached was so damn difficult to pull of in reality.
It's also interesting how the noise of OHV's is often cited as one of the biggest problems with them by people who advocate windmills for power production. Guess BS has never driven past palm springs with his windows down. I sure don't want that in my yard and it's a permanant blight on the landscape. There's a guy here in Yuma who lives in an RV next to the Colorado and has a wind generator for power. You can hear that thing for a mile in either direction when canoeing down the river. Not something I want to live with constantly. At least OHV's seldom stick around long enough to be heard for more than a few seconds.
So BS. Since you know how much better solar is care to explain the details of your system to us? Or since we've been over this before should I bring up the way APS deals with solar in AZ again? It's a very good story that exposes how environmentalism is more about $$$ and feeling good than actually making a difference. But I know you've heard it several times before already.
your friend's eco-guest made a mess of his living routine so all ecos are hypocrites!
that's about the depth of reasoning I have come to expect from you hitesma.
as far as wind generators in Banning Pass. Seeing as they're next to the interstate, I wouldn't expect the noise to be too much of a bother. In fact, you could put an off-road park in and around the towers if you were willing to lose the habitat.
that's about the depth of reasoning I have come to expect from you hitesma.
as far as wind generators in Banning Pass. Seeing as they're next to the interstate, I wouldn't expect the noise to be too much of a bother. In fact, you could put an off-road park in and around the towers if you were willing to lose the habitat.
but then so is wind and solar energy confined to the planet, hence also "limited" in your definition.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bluesky:
you're saying that petroleum products are unlimited but wind and sun are limited.
________________________________________________________________________________________
Since petroleum doesn't seem to have any other purpose and is being used, as needed, and the supply seems to be capable of current function well into the future, yes, for practical purposes, unlimited.
Prior to wind mills and solar energy production, I will propose that all the wind and solar energy available to the planet was being completely used, by the very same planet. Every scrap had some function, because, over the eons, the planet was adapted by that same energy. Conforming to each other.
When we suck up solar energy for human use and prevent it used for natural functions, i.e. photosynthesis, atmospheric heating, ground heating, etc., then the natural processes will want for that energy. The Sun doesn't crank out any "extra" amount to make up for our "new" purpose and still fulfill natural intent. A fixed amount arrives here over time and, up until now, has been used for natural purposes. Now it will not be.
Nature will have to adapt. But environmentalists do not propose to do it over eons and allow the planet to adapt. They want it done now.
The very same people who do not like change or forced adaptation of nature.
It's a math problem. Yes, the supply is unlimited. But the delivery is not. It's a function of time. If you have enough wind mills and solar arrays using significant amounts of the energy as it arrives, over time, the originally intended functions will go wanting.
The plan is to run wind mills whenever there is wind FOREVER and as many as the space will allow. Remember they are perfect and perfect systems should be allows to proliferate. And they are being put where the wind is as opposed to where the wind is not. The wind just goes to where it has always gone, dumb is it's purpose. If it gets used to light Las Vegas instead of delivering rain to the valleys, it doesn't care.
Same for solar, the arrays reflect light and heat directly back into the atmosphere, similar to the ice caps. Build enough arrays, you affect weather. But even more likely, what happens under the arrays? Perpetual gloom. A completely different environment for the life forms present and probably deadly. Less heat, more moisture, much less light.
Limited, unlimited. Perfect, harmful. Safe, dangerous. The truth lies somewhere in between on both approaches to energy production.
Time, area, physics, energy, natural laws. Try as you might, they cannot be changed by lawsuits, press releases or political influence.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bluesky:
you're saying that petroleum products are unlimited but wind and sun are limited.
________________________________________________________________________________________
Since petroleum doesn't seem to have any other purpose and is being used, as needed, and the supply seems to be capable of current function well into the future, yes, for practical purposes, unlimited.
Prior to wind mills and solar energy production, I will propose that all the wind and solar energy available to the planet was being completely used, by the very same planet. Every scrap had some function, because, over the eons, the planet was adapted by that same energy. Conforming to each other.
When we suck up solar energy for human use and prevent it used for natural functions, i.e. photosynthesis, atmospheric heating, ground heating, etc., then the natural processes will want for that energy. The Sun doesn't crank out any "extra" amount to make up for our "new" purpose and still fulfill natural intent. A fixed amount arrives here over time and, up until now, has been used for natural purposes. Now it will not be.
Nature will have to adapt. But environmentalists do not propose to do it over eons and allow the planet to adapt. They want it done now.
The very same people who do not like change or forced adaptation of nature.
It's a math problem. Yes, the supply is unlimited. But the delivery is not. It's a function of time. If you have enough wind mills and solar arrays using significant amounts of the energy as it arrives, over time, the originally intended functions will go wanting.
The plan is to run wind mills whenever there is wind FOREVER and as many as the space will allow. Remember they are perfect and perfect systems should be allows to proliferate. And they are being put where the wind is as opposed to where the wind is not. The wind just goes to where it has always gone, dumb is it's purpose. If it gets used to light Las Vegas instead of delivering rain to the valleys, it doesn't care.
Same for solar, the arrays reflect light and heat directly back into the atmosphere, similar to the ice caps. Build enough arrays, you affect weather. But even more likely, what happens under the arrays? Perpetual gloom. A completely different environment for the life forms present and probably deadly. Less heat, more moisture, much less light.
Limited, unlimited. Perfect, harmful. Safe, dangerous. The truth lies somewhere in between on both approaches to energy production.
Time, area, physics, energy, natural laws. Try as you might, they cannot be changed by lawsuits, press releases or political influence.
It's just your own level of reasoning tossed back at you BS - but apparantly that's more than you can comprehend so I'll make it simple:
Just because a few OHV users ride illegally they all must ride illegally.
And you still haven't figured out that some of us only use OHV's so we can actually get out and enjoy places are are peacefull and quiet. This morning I had a great time sitting on top of a dune enjoying nothing more than the cold morning air the sand streatching out in front of me as far as I can and the sound of the wind blowing across the face of a giant dune. It's not something I could have experienced on a day like today with the assistance of an OHV.
I'm still waiting for your experiences with solar since you're so convinced it's a great alternative. As usualy you're the expert on everything you've been spoon feed by the greens even if you wouldn't last two weeks actually using the technology.
Just because a few OHV users ride illegally they all must ride illegally.
And you still haven't figured out that some of us only use OHV's so we can actually get out and enjoy places are are peacefull and quiet. This morning I had a great time sitting on top of a dune enjoying nothing more than the cold morning air the sand streatching out in front of me as far as I can and the sound of the wind blowing across the face of a giant dune. It's not something I could have experienced on a day like today with the assistance of an OHV.
I'm still waiting for your experiences with solar since you're so convinced it's a great alternative. As usualy you're the expert on everything you've been spoon feed by the greens even if you wouldn't last two weeks actually using the technology.
Eco-living vs. eco-hype.
So all these many, many thousands that send in their checks, buy the cute animal calendars and the coffee table books, where is their attainable life style changes?
Why don't we hear about these many, many thousands:
Going off the grid
Growing their own food
Recycling their water and waste
Using human power to travel and transport and...
Not propagating?
Because they want the power of their eco lobbies to force enough of everyone else to:
Pay more for the same, maybe thus using less
Eat tofu or go hungry
Use inefficient time-consuming public transport
Live in cramped urban housing
Get taxed out-of-existance for more rules and regs
and......THE NUMBER 1 FAVORITE.....
PREVENT ANY FORM OF POPULAR RECREATION!
Why don't they practice what they preach? Get their bought-and-paid-for politicians to ease up on all the stupid laws that prevent conservation such as innovative plumbing, home schooling, single income families, and dwelling designs?
Where are all the single family gardens? Every time I see one of these "community" gardens start up, in a few months, it's weeds and abandoned tools.
Solar heating apparatus that are just rotting on surburban roofs.
Sure there is a odd ball or two living in a yurt in the Rockies, but the wholesale change didn't happen, the sixties came and went leaving only a resistant strain of gonorrhea for the memories.
The grass roots effort has failed. So the enviro groups stopped trying to create examples and started suing, threatening, and pushing repressive laws. It is so much easier to write that check and leave all the lights burning. The lawyers and politicians will make someone else live in the dark.
So all these many, many thousands that send in their checks, buy the cute animal calendars and the coffee table books, where is their attainable life style changes?
Why don't we hear about these many, many thousands:
Going off the grid
Growing their own food
Recycling their water and waste
Using human power to travel and transport and...
Not propagating?
Because they want the power of their eco lobbies to force enough of everyone else to:
Pay more for the same, maybe thus using less
Eat tofu or go hungry
Use inefficient time-consuming public transport
Live in cramped urban housing
Get taxed out-of-existance for more rules and regs
and......THE NUMBER 1 FAVORITE.....
PREVENT ANY FORM OF POPULAR RECREATION!
Why don't they practice what they preach? Get their bought-and-paid-for politicians to ease up on all the stupid laws that prevent conservation such as innovative plumbing, home schooling, single income families, and dwelling designs?
Where are all the single family gardens? Every time I see one of these "community" gardens start up, in a few months, it's weeds and abandoned tools.
Solar heating apparatus that are just rotting on surburban roofs.
Sure there is a odd ball or two living in a yurt in the Rockies, but the wholesale change didn't happen, the sixties came and went leaving only a resistant strain of gonorrhea for the memories.
The grass roots effort has failed. So the enviro groups stopped trying to create examples and started suing, threatening, and pushing repressive laws. It is so much easier to write that check and leave all the lights burning. The lawyers and politicians will make someone else live in the dark.
yeah Omni, I get it. You really are saying that petroleum reserves are unlimited and wind and solar are limited!!
I'd like to invite you to be the guest speaker at our next greenie convocation
As far as innovative home designs, Michael Reynolds of the "earthship" designs has successfully gotten the plans approved by the Building and Safety office in the TAOS area. Are you aware of this?
I was not aware that there is bureacratic resistance to home schooling--is there?
single income families discriminated against? You mean by the power structure that raises taxes on middle income folks but gives back billions to the rich? that's what one-issue voting will get you!
[ 12-15-2002, 07:04 AM: Message edited by: Bluesky ]
I'd like to invite you to be the guest speaker at our next greenie convocation
quote:I don't see where CBD has come out against Disneyland or dance clubs or bowling alleys...
....THE NUMBER 1 FAVORITE.....
PREVENT ANY FORM OF POPULAR RECREATION!
quote:can you be more specific?
Get their bought-and-paid-for politicians to ease up on all the stupid laws that prevent conservation such as innovative plumbing, home schooling, single income families, and dwelling designs?
As far as innovative home designs, Michael Reynolds of the "earthship" designs has successfully gotten the plans approved by the Building and Safety office in the TAOS area. Are you aware of this?
I was not aware that there is bureacratic resistance to home schooling--is there?
single income families discriminated against? You mean by the power structure that raises taxes on middle income folks but gives back billions to the rich? that's what one-issue voting will get you!
quote:how long did you sit there?
This morning I had a great time sitting on top of a dune enjoying nothing more than the cold morning air the sand streatching out in front of me as far as I can and the sound of the wind blowing across the face of a giant dune. It's not something I could have experienced on a day like today with the assistance of an OHV.
[ 12-15-2002, 07:04 AM: Message edited by: Bluesky ]
I bet he sat there until he had to go back to work.
Not that it matters but I really have no clue how long I sat there, I don't wear a watch anymore and the GPS was tucked away since I knew the area well.
It was long enough to watch the shadows on some mini dunes go from long and well defined to nearly non-existant.
It was long enough to watch the wind erase the tracks of my paddles tires but not long enough to erase the tracks of my boots (I mean I didn't have all week to just sit there.)
It was long enough to actually feel the stress of life drop away and be carried off on the wind as I became spiritually refreshed and prepared for another week of life on this planet.
But if you want a count in minutes or hours I really can't help you.
It was long enough to watch the shadows on some mini dunes go from long and well defined to nearly non-existant.
It was long enough to watch the wind erase the tracks of my paddles tires but not long enough to erase the tracks of my boots (I mean I didn't have all week to just sit there.)
It was long enough to actually feel the stress of life drop away and be carried off on the wind as I became spiritually refreshed and prepared for another week of life on this planet.
But if you want a count in minutes or hours I really can't help you.
quote:Of course when taken out of context as BS is so fond of doing anything can make sense.
Originally posted by Bluesky:
here's hitesma's reference.
http://www.pushback.com/environment/Heidel...burgAppeal.html
notice there's no signatures, nor any mention of global warming.
Perhaps he missed this part of the introduction of that article (which he must have read to find the link he posted which helpfully bypasses the introduction to this piece)
quote:Since signatures are still being collected I would not expect to see a partial list on a site quoting the original.
signed by more than 4,000 scientists and over 70 Nobel laureates? It states that our decisions need to be based on “scientific criteria and not on irrational preconceptions”. Signatures are still being collected by Michel Salomon, 10, Ave. de Messine, 75008 Paris, France (fax: 33-1-42 98 00 59)
He also handily overlooked the other article on that site about 15,000 scientists disputing Global warming all of whom are listed:
http://www.sitewave.net/PPROJECT/pproject.htm
But let's focus on the 4,000 on the Appeal still collecting signatures and forget about the 15,000 who have already stood up to say enough is enough to bad science.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.