Linux-Advocacy Digest #170, Volume #29 Mon, 18 Sep 00 02:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: Malloy digest, volume 2451800 ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: [OT] Global warming. (was Public v. Private Schools) (Jason Bowen)
Re: [OT] Public v. Private Schools (Bob Germer)
Re: [OT] Global warming. (was Public v. Private Schools) (Jason Bowen)
Re: [OT] Public v. Private Schools (Jason Bowen)
Re: [OT] Public v. Private Schools (Jason Bowen)
Re: [OT] Global warming. (was Public v. Private Schools) (Jason Bowen)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Malloy digest, volume 2451800
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2000 05:40:23 GMT
Marty writes:
> Dave "Fozzy" Tholen wrote:
Where did that come from, Marty?
>> Marty writes:
>>> Dave "Fozzy" Tholen wrote:
>> Where did that come from, Marty?
> The previous attribution in this thread.
You didn't explain where that previous attribution came from, Marty.
>>>> Marty writes:
>>>>> Dave "Fozzy" Tholen wrote:
>>>> Where did that come from, Marty?
>>> The previous attribution in this thread.
>> You didn't explain where that previous attribution came from, Marty.
> You never asked.
Incorrect, given that I've been asking all along, but you've relied
on illogical circular responses.
>>> I was just being consistent.
>> You were just being evasive, Marty.
> Did you expect me to read your mind?
Unnecessary, Marty.
>>>>>> Marty writes:
>>>>>>>>> Dave "Fozzy" Tholen wrote:
>>>>>>>> Where did that come from, Marty?
>>>>>>> The previous attribution in this thread.
>>>>>> You didn't explain whee that one came from, Marty.
>>>>> Of what relevance is "whee" that one came from?
>>>> Typical evasion.
>>> On your part.
>> Incorrect, Marty.
> Classic pontification.
How ironic.
>>> I cannot address your inquiry until you clear up what it was
>>> that you meant.
>> You're erroneously presupposing that I wasn't clear, Marty,
>> using it as an excuse to continue your evasiveness.
> I see you're expecting me to read your mind again.
Incorrect, Marty.
> Why not just correct your error and remove the ambiguity?
What alleged error, Marty?
> How ironic, coming from someone complaining about alleged
> "evasiveness".
Where is the alleged irony, Marty?
>>>>>>> I was just being consistent.
>>>>>> Consistent with the lack of an explanation, Marty.
>>>>> Still having reading comprehension problems, I see.
>>>> You see incorrectly again, Marty.
>>> You're erroneously presupposing that I was seeing incorrectly before.
>> Incorrect, Marty, given that I identified your consistent lack of an
>> explanation.
> That doesn't say anything good about your reading comprehension.
It doesn't say anything bad about it, Marty.
>>>>>>>>>> Marty writes:
>>>>>>>>>>> Dave "Fozzy" Tholen wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Where did that come from, Marty?
>>>>>>>>> Your lack of culture never ceases to astound.
>>>>>>>> I see that you didn't answer my question.
>>>>>>> Incorrect.
>>>>>> Tyopical pontification.
>>>>> What is allegedly "tyopical" about it?
>>>> Typical evasion.
>>> On your part.
>> Incorrect, Marty.
> Classic pontification.
How ironic.
>>> I see you failed to answer the question again.
>> How ironic.
> How can I answer a question containing a made-up word?
I see you failed to answer the question again.
>>>>>>>> No surprise there.
>>>>>>> No surprise that you would ignore the answer I presented.
>>>>>> What alleged answer, Marty?
>>>>> See above.
>>>> Where is the alleged answer above, Marty?
>>> Haven't you been paying attention?
>> Yes, which is why I know there isn't an answer above, Marty.
> Obviously not, considering the answer above.
What alleged answer, Marty?
>>>>>>>>>>>> Marty writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jim "our-very-own-twice-elected-KOTM" Stuyck writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why not pick a more unique name, like "Fozzy" or "Kermit"?
>>>>>>>>>>>> Stuyck wanted to be addressed by his title, Marty. I'm simply
>>>>>>>>>>>> following his lead, and he hasn't used either of those.
>>>>>>>>>>> I'd like to be addressed by you as "Fozzy".
>>>>>>>>>> Why?
>>>>>>>>> Because that is what I would like.
>>>>>>>> Why?
>>>>>>> Because I would like that.
>>>>>> Why?
>>>>> Because I would find that to my pleasing.
>>>> Why?
>>> Because it would be something that I would appreciate.
>> Why?
> Because I would find it enjoyable.
Why?
>>>>>>>>>>> Are you now going to follow my lead?
>>>>>>>>>> Perhaps.
>>>>>>>>> Aren't you sure?
>>>>>>>> I have no idea what your "lead" truly is,
>>>>>>> Not surprising.
>>>>>> Because of your inconsistency, Marty.
>>>>> What alleged "inconsistency"?
>>>> The inconsistency of your "leads", Marty.
>>> You're erroneously presupposing inconsistency of my "leads", Dave.
>> Incorrect, Marty.
> Even more classic pontification.
How ironic.
>>>>> I see you failed to note my consistent use of
>>>>> the attribution in this thread.
>>>> The key words here are "in this thread". It's the other threads
>>>> that demonstrate your inconsistency, Marty.
>>> I see you are having trouble sticking to this thread for your argument.
>>> No surprise there.
>> I see that you are not looking at other threads to avoid admitting to
>> inconsistency. No surprise there.
> I see that you are still having trouble sticking to this thread for your
> argument. No surprise there.
I see that you are not looking at other threads to avoid admitting to
inconsistency. No surprise there.
>>>>>>>> Marty, given that you are so inconsistent.
>>>>>>> Incorrect, given that I've used the attribution consistently in
>>>>>>> this thread.
>>>>>> What do you consider "this thread" to be, Marty?
>>>>> The postings in which I have used the attribution "Dave 'Fozzy'
>>>>> Tholen" and your responses to such postings.
>>>> Classic illogical circular reasoning.
>>> Not at all. The above specified precisely and exactly what I consider
>>> "this thread".
>> Considering "this thread" to be "this thread" is classic illogical
>> circular reasoning, Marty.
> That depends on your definition of the first "this thread".
No it doesn't, Marty.
>>> It can be narrowed down to a finite number of postings which were
>>> precisely the ones to which I was referring.
>> All threads have a finite number of postings, Marty, but they don't all
>> have the same subject line.
> Of what relevance is this remark?
The same as yours, Marty.
>>> There's nothing illogical about being self-referential when we are
>>> still contributing to what I consider "this thread".
>> There is something illogical about using circular reasoning, Marty.
> Glad I haven't done such a thing.
Incorrect, Marty.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jason Bowen)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: [OT] Global warming. (was Public v. Private Schools)
Date: 18 Sep 2000 05:32:23 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>JS/PL wrote:
>>
>> "Joseph T. Adams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>>
>> > (c) The extent to which human activity alters global CO2 levels
>> > is not known, but it is reasonable to believe that several of
>> > our activities (deforestation, water pollution, and burning
>> > of fossil fuels, probably in that order) have a measurable and
>> > detrimental impact.
>>
>> What if the higher CO2 levels increase the amount of plant life on land and
>> in the oceans and the warming increases the amount of fresh water?
>> Maybe global warming is a good thing. The sooner it kicks in the better :-)
>
>Actually...that's EXACTLY what the polar icecap record shows...
>
>Global warming PRECEDES rises in C02 levels...
>
>Warming produces more abundant plant life, which quickly suck up the
>C02...stabilizing the temp.
>
>It's a VERY strong negative-feedback system.
Oh if it were all that simple. You know I talked about a set of
observations and some known facts. I didn't make an real predictions.
You have your belief system and you don't actually have an experiment to
point to that would support your belief, just a belief but spout it like
truth. That fact is that CO2 levels are higher than they have been in
600k years and climbing. High CO2 levels don't result in more plant life,
you're not going to have a forest sprout up on barren land. We are
modifying the atmosphere and should pay attention to it. I don't know
about you but I don't feel like waking up some day going, "damn how about
that, my ideas were wrong but I was too fucking arrogant to think that
there might be another answer". The fact is that we know about
Milankovich cycles and can see atmospheric conditions from past natural
happenings. We are modifying things though and to say, "oh fuck it, it's
all good as long as I am fine right now" is sheer ignorance.
>
>-- >Aaron R. Kulkis
>Unix Systems Engineer
>ICQ # 3056642
>
>H: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
> premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
> you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
> you are lazy, stupid people"
>
>I: Loren Petrich's 2-week stubborn refusal to respond to the
> challenge to describe even one philosophical difference
> between himself and the communists demonstrates that, in fact,
> Loren Petrich is a COMMUNIST ***hole
>
>A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
>
>B: Jet Silverman plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a
> method of sidetracking discussions which are headed in a
> direction that she doesn't like.
>
>C: Jet Silverman claims to have killfiled me.
>
>D: Jet Silverman now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
> ...despite (D) above.
>
>E: Jet is not worthy of the time to compose a response until
> their behavior improves.
>
>F: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
> adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
>
>G: Knackos...you're a retard.
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
From: Bob Germer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: [OT] Public v. Private Schools
Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2000 05:47:15 GMT
On 09/18/2000 at 05:12 AM,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jason Bowen) said:
> >> You're analogy was very poor. There is proof that CFC's are by-products
> >> of certain aerosols, simple chemistry shows that. CFS's also destroy
> >> O3, plenty of proof for that.
> >
> >There you go again. Stating as fact disputed theory. You are the type of
> >asshole who persecuted Copernicus because he said the earth and planets
> >revolved around the sun.
> Sorry asshole that is fact. Your really need to learn that, take
> chem101.
What is a fact? There is no proof outside the laboratory in controlled
experiments that CFC's destroy ozone. There are THEORIES, but not a single
FACT. I learned 50 years ago that if I cannot observe, measure, and
eliminate any other possible explanation for my measurements and
observations, that I have not proven my theory.
When it comes to Ozone holes, there are other equally plausible
explanations which likewise cannot be proven.
> >
> >> I don't know about Joe, but I am no
> >> liberal, pretty conservative actually. I just am not facist and know
> >> not to dismiss something that might hurt one of my beliefs.
> >
> >You are indeed a facist of the worst order. You would impose your beliefs
> >based on controversial theory on all the world. That, sir is facism.
> I'm no facist, I'm not the one crying out that nothing is proven so my
> way is right, that would be you. To set in your ways to look at other
> possibilities. I haven't claimed anything other than observations that
> need to be looked at. You'd rather dismiss them and unimportant, can't
> have your beliefs being shaken.
You advocate actions based on your theories which would impact on me and
my liberties. That makes you the fascist.
> >
> >> You are too
> >> small of a person to do such a thing and are more of a facist than a
> >> conservative.
> >
> >No, sir, I am a conservative who believes firmly that he who governs least
> >governs best. I also believe that government should stay the hell out of
> >citizens' lives, livelihood, and pocket.
> I'm sure that you vote republicrat too. You tried to have an authority
> keep me quiet for speaking my mind. You are a facist.
I never heard of repulicrats. What are they?
--
==============================================================================================
Bob Germer from Mount Holly, NJ - E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Proudly running OS/2 Warp 4.0 w/ FixPack 14
MR/2 Ice 2.20 Registration Number 67
Finishing in 2nd place makes you first loser
=============================================================================================
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jason Bowen)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: [OT] Global warming. (was Public v. Private Schools)
Date: 18 Sep 2000 05:41:59 GMT
In article <39c5a7c7$3$obot$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Bob Germer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On 09/18/2000 at 01:41 AM,
> "Joseph T. Adams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Bob Germer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> : The PGA Tour didn't exist until this century. Maybe it's responsible. You
>> : have not proof that CFC's caused the change. No one knows what causes the
>> : changes, and your theory is as full of holes as claiming the PGA tour did
>> : it.
>
>> I'm skeptical of junk science and most of the ways it is misused by
>> people with political agendas, but I think that on this particular
>> issue, the evidence is sufficient to justify serious concern over human
>> activities that may unnecessarily contribute to global warming.
>
>If you look hard enough at the studies which make these claims, virtually
>all of them are funded by large corporations or "think tanks" funded by
>large corporations. Large corporations have an agenda. Another source of
>funding is econut organizations whose sole reason for existence is to bilk
>money by instilling fear in non-scientists.
And your beliefs are supported by bodies that you support? Goes both
ways. So why aren't they instilling fear in you since you have shown
little or no knowledge in any of the sciences? Listening to those that
support your beliefs perhaps? You know you make me think of all those
people complaining about gas price. I don't feel sorry for people so
dependant on a inelastic good, it's their own damn fault for not looking
to other things.
>
>> From my admittedly secondhand and layperson's reading of the evidence,
>> I've drawn the following conclusions. I welcome correction if any of
>> these points are mistaken.
>
>> (a) To the extent that CO2 levels can be measured over time, they
>> appear to be higher now and in the past century than they had
>> been previously.
>
>In point of fact, there exists in North America a CO2 shortfall! Are you
>aware that there are nearly 80% more trees growing in the US than in 1492?
>Are you aware that we have irrigated more than 10% of the desert areas of
>the US which now comsume CO2?
And yet they levels are rising dispite this.
>
>> (b) Both computer models, and empirical measurements taken over
>> time, suggest a strong correlation between CO2
>> levels and global mean temperatures. This correlation can't
>> be proven since there's no way to do a controlled experiment.
>> But a lot of circumstantial evidence exists.
>
>There are many reputable, independent scientists who dispute this theory.
>The answers won't really be known for a couple of hundred centuries.
So I say we wait, good fucking plan.
>
>> (c) The extent to which human activity alters global CO2 levels
>> is not known, but it is reasonable to believe that several of
>> our activities (deforestation, water pollution, and burning
>> of fossil fuels, probably in that order) have a measurable and
>> detrimental impact.
>
>In that ANYTHING which happens has some effect, the theory has apparent
>merit. But look at one indisputable FACT. A small, Category 1 hurricane
>has more energy than all the atomic weapons in the world combined!
>Deforestation of the rain forests is the latest "Chicken Little" mantra.
>Look who is raising it. Liberal fools extracting money from the
>uneducated.
Look whose talking, somebody with little knowledge to back himself up
except for "well known scientist".
>
>> (d) It is not proven to my satisfaction that human activity
>> contributed substantially to global warming, but it seems
>> almost certain that it has contributed at least a little.
>> Only the amount of impact is still in question, not its
>> existence.
>
>Again, everything from a snail farting to a hydrogen bomb blast has an
>effect. However, when man doesn't have enough bombs to equal the power of
>a small hurricane, how much effect can our other activities really have?
That is such poor logic. Learn a little. Talk a chem/physics sequence.
Take thermodynamics.
>
>> (e) Because of the detrimental potential impact of global
>> warming if it continues at its present rates, or accelerates,
>> it is reasonable for influential leaders and groups within
>> our society to:
>
>> (1) continue to study and try to find ways to measure, predict,
>> and understand the amount and nature of the impact;
>
>That much is resonable provided that the funding for such studies does not
>come from politically active lobbying groups, that the funding is not
>raised by the devious means used by the econuts.
And again your ideas are supported by those you support? What is your
point Bob?
>
>> (2) do whatever is consistent with liberty and fundamental human
>> rights to discourage activities that are suspected or
>> known to contribute to global warming; and
>
>Once something is KNOWN and PROVEN to have a SIGNIFICANT effect, that
>would be reasonable. However, we are millenia from KNOWING and PROVING
>SIGNIFICANT impact.
Well you know I think we should follow the teachings of Socrates and
Aristotle that fucking Newtong guy was crazy and Hawking even crazier
than him. You are advocating not looking at new ways of thinking. I'm
not suprised.
> >> (3) try to learn how to reverse the increase ofglobal CO2
>> levels if this can be done without causing worse problems.
>
>Remember, today's "scientific" actions are tomorrow's junk science. Back
>in the 1850's doctors told us that bathing was bad. They told us that
>alcohol was good (actually they likely were right on this score). Back in
>the 1940's and 1950's we were told that we must eat lots of red meat,
>drink lots of milk, etc. Today we are told the opposite.
And lot's of ideas were right too? Like shooting yourself in the foot?
Christ man you are discrediting yourself. Your ideas can just as easily
be considered wrong but you don't want that possiblity, everybody else is
just a liar.
>
>> Ignoring the problem is not a good option, nor is exaggerating it, nor
>> is pretending to fully understand it when it seems clear to me that as
>> yet we don't.
>
>The problem is not ignoring the potential problems. The problem is that
>well funded special interest groups are using our ignorance to scare
>idiots to provide them with billions of dollars of funds used primarily to
>1) raise more funds, 2) elect idiots who will enact their "reforms" into
>law so they can impose their wills on the masses.
Conspiracy, I knew it came to this. Facists always believe that somebody
is after them, that's what makes them so right.
>
>> It also would be unwise to ignore the fact that poor and developing
>> countries will be the most impacted by rapid global warming and also by
>> any draconian steps that might be necessary to combat it. This is one
>> of the very few problems in the world that have a truly global scope.
>> It may require a solution that likewise is global in scope. Given that
>> the very idea of "world government" is a cure that's even worse than the
>> disease, I think it's pretty safe to say that the solution will require
>> consensus and cooperation, rather than one group of (most likely
>> wealthy) nations dictating to the poor nations, and possibly even to the
>> poor within the wealthy nations.
>
>It's not going to happen in this century, and I'll be damned if I intend
>to cut my nose off to benefit those who won't help themselves.
I belief that the wolf family is one of the most perfect family units.
We'd do good to follow them.
>
>>
>
>--
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Bob Germer from Mount Holly, NJ - E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Proudly running OS/2 Warp 4.0 w/ FixPack 14
>MR/2 Ice 2.20 Registration Number 67
>Finishing in 2nd place makes you first loser
>---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jason Bowen)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: [OT] Public v. Private Schools
Date: 18 Sep 2000 05:50:13 GMT
In article <39c5a835$4$obot$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Bob Germer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On 09/18/2000 at 05:07 AM,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jason Bowen) said:
>
>> >> I have proof for the levels of CFC's leveling off, any study on cfc's
>> >> proves it and lo and behold it coincides with the banning of the said
>> >> products.
>> >
>> >You are a liar. You have some measurements which MAY POSSIBLY indicate
>> >that. However, only several centuriy's worth of measurement can prove it.
>
>> Like I said they are theories and you are to ignorant to look at them
>> because you have a belief system that you don't want to challenge. You
>> are a hollow shell of a man.
>
>No, you did not say they were theories. You said you had PROOF. You do
>NOT!
Yeah I have facts. CO2 is higher than it has been in 600k years. CFC's
are man made. What theory did I claim to be fact? Didn't think you could
provide that.
>
>I have read those theories as well as equally eminent counter theories
>which blow them to hell.
>
Do enlighten us then. I bet they come from people that support your views
too right? All I have said is that we are doing several verifiable things
to the atmosphere. It is easy to measure CO2 and CFC levels. Where they
are taking us is up for debate. Well it is to those that don't have such
a facist way of thinking.
>
>--
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Bob Germer from Mount Holly, NJ - E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Proudly running OS/2 Warp 4.0 w/ FixPack 14
>MR/2 Ice 2.20 Registration Number 67
>Finishing in 2nd place makes you first loser
>---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jason Bowen)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: [OT] Public v. Private Schools
Date: 18 Sep 2000 05:47:21 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Jason Bowen wrote:
>>
>> In article <39c5a0bf$1$obot$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> Bob Germer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >On 09/18/2000 at 01:48 AM,
>> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jason Bowen) said:
>> >
>> >> I have proof for the levels of CFC's leveling off, any study on cfc's
>> >> proves it and lo and behold it coincides with the banning of the said
>> >> products.
>> >
>> >You are a liar. You have some measurements which MAY POSSIBLY indicate
>> >that. However, only several centuriy's worth of measurement can prove it.
>>
>> Like I said they are theories and you are to ignorant to look at them
>> because you have a belief system that you don't want to challenge. You
>> are a hollow shell of a man.
>
>SIT DOWN and SHUT THE FUCK UP...you control-freak asshole.
I'm saying here are some ideas to think about and you'd rather just think
you own way. Your the asshole. Who is wanting to control? You're
fucking scared of thinking that maybe something might be different.
>
>
>--
>Aaron R. Kulkis
>Unix Systems Engineer
>ICQ # 3056642
>
>H: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
> premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
> you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
> you are lazy, stupid people"
>
>I: Loren Petrich's 2-week stubborn refusal to respond to the
> challenge to describe even one philosophical difference
> between himself and the communists demonstrates that, in fact,
> Loren Petrich is a COMMUNIST ***hole
>
>A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
>
>B: Jet Silverman plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a
> method of sidetracking discussions which are headed in a
> direction that she doesn't like.
>
>C: Jet Silverman claims to have killfiled me.
>
>D: Jet Silverman now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
> ...despite (D) above.
>
>E: Jet is not worthy of the time to compose a response until
> their behavior improves.
>
>F: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
> adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
>
>G: Knackos...you're a retard.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jason Bowen)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: [OT] Global warming. (was Public v. Private Schools)
Date: 18 Sep 2000 05:44:18 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Jason Bowen wrote:
>>
>> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> JS/PL <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >
>> >"Joseph T. Adams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >
>> >> (c) The extent to which human activity alters global CO2 levels
>> >> is not known, but it is reasonable to believe that several of
>> >> our activities (deforestation, water pollution, and burning
>> >> of fossil fuels, probably in that order) have a measurable and
>> >> detrimental impact.
>> >
>> >What if the higher CO2 levels increase the amount of plant life on land and
>> >in the oceans and the warming increases the amount of fresh water?
>> >Maybe global warming is a good thing. The sooner it kicks in the better :-)
>>
>> Here is funny thing, North America has a CO2 deficit. We consume more
>> fossil fuels than anyone but we have increased vegitation to the point of
>> actually taking more than we put into the air. One thing that is bad
>> about warming is that the oceans are a major source of heat on the planet.
>> They are almost perfect black bodies, meaning they absorb almost all the
>> heat they receive. The ocean currents moderate temperatures in the higher
>> latitudes, the solar radiation at those latitudes doesn't have the same
>> affect it does in the lower ones. Dense salty water is formed at the high
>> latitudes, the salt is forced of of the ice making the water denser. The
>> denser water goes to the bottom where it slowly makes it way south to
>> upwell at the lower latitudes. Of course the water moving south is
>> replaced on currents moving north. If the ice caps melt this flow will
>> stop and contrary to what you may think, it could start another ice age.
>> Funny how that works heh? Samples from the ice caps show this happening
>> many times in the past.
>
>So, in other words, it is a VERY strong negative-feedback system which
>is self-sustaining, even after catastrophic aberrations.
>
>Corrallary: Your fears are much ado about nothing.
Did you read what I wrote? I don't think you did. We have more
vegitation because we plant it. We also fight fires. High CO2 doesn't
cause more plant life. Did you read the part about starting an ice age?
Ice sheets have come halfway down Canada in a decade because the deep
water formation stopped.
> > >--
>Aaron R. Kulkis
>Unix Systems Engineer
>ICQ # 3056642
>
>H: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
> premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
> you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
> you are lazy, stupid people"
>
>I: Loren Petrich's 2-week stubborn refusal to respond to the
> challenge to describe even one philosophical difference
> between himself and the communists demonstrates that, in fact,
> Loren Petrich is a COMMUNIST ***hole
>
>A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
>
>B: Jet Silverman plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a
> method of sidetracking discussions which are headed in a
> direction that she doesn't like.
>
>C: Jet Silverman claims to have killfiled me.
>
>D: Jet Silverman now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
> ...despite (D) above.
>
>E: Jet is not worthy of the time to compose a response until
> their behavior improves.
>
>F: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
> adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
>
>G: Knackos...you're a retard.
------------------------------
** FOR YOUR REFERENCE **
The service address, to which questions about the list itself and requests
to be added to or deleted from it should be directed, is:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You can send mail to the entire list (and comp.os.linux.advocacy) via:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Linux may be obtained via one of these FTP sites:
ftp.funet.fi pub/Linux
tsx-11.mit.edu pub/linux
sunsite.unc.edu pub/Linux
End of Linux-Advocacy Digest
******************************
