On Mon, 14 Dec 2009 10:57:21 -0700, the infamous Mark & Juanita
scrawled the following:

HeyBub wrote:

Larry Blanchard wrote:
On Sun, 13 Dec 2009 21:59:30 -0600, Dave Balderstone wrote:

In article , Larry
Blanchard wrote:

Well, I'll give you that there isn't absolute proof, but then there
never is. But "hardly plausible" doesn't fly. The overwhelming
majority (80-90%?) of experts *in the field* say that our activities
are having an effect.

The problem arises when one considers that the data those experts are
using has been filtered through a handful of people, and there is
very strong evidence that they manipulated that data for political
and financial reasons.


Care to list that "handful" of people?


Michael Mann, Phil Jones, Hanson at NASA, Keith Briffa, and a few others
at East Anglia, NASA, and NOAA.

Willing complicity by the media: Seth Borenstein of AP:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/1...just-too-damn-
cozy-with-the-people-he-covers-time-for-ap-to-do-somethig-about-it/

Then, when asked for the raw numbers their manipulated data came
from, the response is "Oh, the dog ate it."

Cite, please.


"The Dog Ate It"

"SCIENTISTS at the University of East Anglia (UEA) have admitted throwing
away much of the raw temperature data on which their predictions of global
warming are based. "
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle6936328.ece


Refusal to release data they DO have:

"I'm getting hassled by a couple of people to release the CRU station
temperature data. Don't any of you three tell anybody that the UK has a
Freedom of Information Act!" [Phil Jones, head of CRU]
http://donklephant.com/2009/11/29/cl...-britains-foi/


And absolutely fudging of data:

"Why does NIWA's graph show strong warming, but graphing their own raw
data looks
completely different? Their graph shows warming, but the actual
temperature readings show
none whatsoever!"
http://www.climatescience.org.nz/ima...arming_nz2.pdf


In the words of Thomas Dolby, "Consensus!"

Whut up wi dat? Can't googlit. Cite?


By the way, not just New Zealand, Australia as well:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/08/the-smoking-gun-at-darwin-zero/

Holy ****, Batman! This is proof that there is man-made global
warming! The only catch is that it does not exist in reality,
IT EXISTS ONLY IN THE CHARTS MADE BY ALARMISTS!

I disagreed entirely with Willis' second paragraph. --snip--
"The second question, the integrity of the data, is different. People
say “Yes, they destroyed emails, and hid from Freedom of information
Acts, and messed with proxies, and fought to keep other scientists’
papers out of the journals … but that doesn’t affect the data, the
data is still good.” Which sounds reasonable. --snip--
That is totally unreasonable to me.

Yeah, the coinkidink that GISS (c/o James Hansen, rabid alarmist)
adjustments exactly match GHCN adjustments is amazing. I doubt they
ever talked about it, don't you? kaff,kaff Could Hansen have said
"Hey, here's code for a nifty formula for calculating adjustments
which will save you 90 hours of research." to GHCN? It wouldn't
surprise me.

Senor Blanchard and other alarmists are probably ****ting bricks about
this now. I'm truly happy to se the truth finally make its way out
from under the coverup. Will the Nobel Committee ask Bama and Algore
to return their trophies (and monies)? Will Hansen be shot (as a
traitor, of course) for starting all of this crap back in '88? bseg

Tune in next week for the exciting drawn-out-fight/conclusion!

--
Every day above ground is a Good Day(tm).
-----------

On Tue, 15 Dec 2009 14:56:18 -0800, Larry Jaques wrote:

Senor Blanchard and other alarmists are probably ****ting bricks about
this now.

Not really. If I'm wrong it'll,just balance out the time I was right
about (the lack of) those WMD in Iraq :-).

--
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw

wrote:

On Mon, 14 Dec 2009 10:57:21 -0700, the infamous Mark & Juanita
scrawled the following:

.... snip



In the words of Thomas Dolby, "Consensus!"

Whut up wi dat? Can't googlit. Cite?


Just corrupting an old 1980's hit by Thomas Dolby, "Blinded by Science".
Primary refrain throughout the song is the single word, "SCIENCE!".
Replacing that with the refrain, "CONSENSUS!" seems apropos.

--

There is never a situation where having more rounds is a disadvantage

Rob Leatham

On Tue, 15 Dec 2009 22:57:01 -0600, the infamous Larry Blanchard
scrawled the following:

On Tue, 15 Dec 2009 14:56:18 -0800, Larry Jaques wrote:

Senor Blanchard and other alarmists are probably ****ting bricks about
this now.

Not really. If I'm wrong it'll,just balance out the time I was right
about (the lack of) those WMD in Iraq :-).

g

--
Every day above ground is a Good Day(tm).
-----------

On Tue, 15 Dec 2009 22:57:04 -0700, the infamous Mark & Juanita
scrawled the following:

wrote:

On Mon, 14 Dec 2009 10:57:21 -0700, the infamous Mark & Juanita
scrawled the following:

... snip



In the words of Thomas Dolby, "Consensus!"

Whut up wi dat? Can't googlit. Cite?


Just corrupting an old 1980's hit by Thomas Dolby, "Blinded by Science".
Primary refrain throughout the song is the single word, "SCIENCE!".
Replacing that with the refrain, "CONSENSUS!" seems apropos.

Whew, what a stretch! But OK. I grok it in its entirety now. That was
a fun and catchy song. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2IlHgbOWj4o
Note the Warrington hammah he used. This is On Topic at last!

There's a link there to The Fixx "One Thing Leads To Another"
And how about Oingo Boingo's "It's A Dead Man's Party"?
Most Excellent, Dude!

--
Every day above ground is a Good Day(tm).
-----------

On 2009-12-16, Larry Jaques novalidaddress@di wrote:

And how about Oingo Boingo's "It's A Dead Man's Party"?

which is not too far removed from Zombie Jamboree and has to be within
a few thousand degrees of All Around My Hat.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3zzwbYyvWiU


Every day above ground is a Good Day(tm).

Amen

nb

On 12/12/2009 5:21 AM HeyBub spake thus:

charlie b wrote:

It's not the population growth that's the problem - it's the
consumption of non-renuable resources or the resources that are
renewable - but not at a rate need that is - and it'll be water -
that you can drink - that we should be concerned about.

Almost all water is previously USED water. Whatever it was used for is just
temporary. Water, like energy cannot really be destroyed - it's just being
used somewhere.

As for water shortages, the fix is usually quite simple to describe: the
areas susceptible to drought should quit growing water-intensive foods. They
should import water-intensive food from areas where water is abundant. For
example, it makes no sense to grow rice in the Sudan.

Right; just as it makes little or no sense to grow cotton in Arizona.

*Cotton* in Arid-zona???!??


--
I am a Canadian who was born and raised in The Netherlands. I live on
Planet Earth on a spot of land called Canada. We have noisy neighbours.

- harvested from Usenet

On 12/16/2009 02:05 PM, David Nebenzahl wrote:

Right; just as it makes little or no sense to grow cotton in Arizona.

*Cotton* in Arid-zona???!??

Yep. My wife is a geologist and thinks that anyone buying property in
Arizona is nuts due to the water issues.

She also has little sympathy for people buying houses near the San
Andreas fault in California, and building on the edges of cliffs in
Vancouver. (And then they wonder why their houses fall into the ocean...)

Chris

David Nebenzahl wrote:

On 12/12/2009 5:21 AM HeyBub spake thus:

charlie b wrote:

It's not the population growth that's the problem - it's the
consumption of non-renuable resources or the resources that are
renewable - but not at a rate need that is - and it'll be water -
that you can drink - that we should be concerned about.

Almost all water is previously USED water. Whatever it was used for is
just temporary. Water, like energy cannot really be destroyed - it's just
being used somewhere.

As for water shortages, the fix is usually quite simple to describe: the
areas susceptible to drought should quit growing water-intensive foods.
They should import water-intensive food from areas where water is
abundant. For example, it makes no sense to grow rice in the Sudan.

Right; just as it makes little or no sense to grow cotton in Arizona.

*Cotton* in Arid-zona???!??


Umm, yeah. You get to schedule the rainfall, there is very little danger
of destruction by hail or other natural disasters. Yields are good and
growing season is near ideal -- cotton loves hot.





--

There is never a situation where having more rounds is a disadvantage

Rob Leatham

"Chris Friesen" wrote in message
...
On 12/16/2009 02:05 PM, David Nebenzahl wrote:

Right; just as it makes little or no sense to grow cotton in Arizona.

*Cotton* in Arid-zona???!??

Yep. My wife is a geologist and thinks that anyone buying property in
Arizona is nuts due to the water issues.

She also has little sympathy for people buying houses near the San
Andreas fault in California, and building on the edges of cliffs in
Vancouver. (And then they wonder why their houses fall into the ocean...)

Chris


Houses built on cliffs should be reclassified as mobile homes. You now
they're going to move eventually.

In article ,
says...
On Tue, 15 Dec 2009 14:56:18 -0800, Larry Jaques wrote:

Senor Blanchard and other alarmists are probably ****ting bricks about
this now.

Not really. If I'm wrong it'll,just balance out the time I was right
about (the lack of) those WMD in Iraq :-).

So was I... but I still figure that going with the idea of global
warming and reducing carbon footprint, consumption, etc. is the best
idea.

In an dramatic oversimplification:

If you are wrong and we do little to nothing, the consequences are
catastrophic. We lose.

If you are right and we do everything to avert global warming, we
continue to live and have cleaner technologies in place driven by the
idea of global warming. In short, we win.

If you are wrong and we do what's needed to mitigate the issue and we
manage to do so, we win.

I am self-interested enough to believe that the benefits presented by
the latter two, roughly stated cases outweigh the liabilities of the
former.

On Wed, 16 Dec 2009 22:55:32 -0800, "CW"
wrote:


"Chris Friesen" wrote in message
...
On 12/16/2009 02:05 PM, David Nebenzahl wrote:

Right; just as it makes little or no sense to grow cotton in Arizona.

*Cotton* in Arid-zona???!??

Yep. My wife is a geologist and thinks that anyone buying property in
Arizona is nuts due to the water issues.

She also has little sympathy for people buying houses near the San
Andreas fault in California, and building on the edges of cliffs in
Vancouver. (And then they wonder why their houses fall into the ocean...)

Chris


Houses built on cliffs should be reclassified as mobile homes. You now
they're going to move eventually.

Yeas ago (duh!) in one of Johnny Carson's monologs he said that
California was the only state in the Union where one had to have an
operator's license to own a home... earthquakes, mudslides ... motion
with hand sliding down hill

On 12/16/2009 9:46 PM Mark & Juanita spake thus:

David Nebenzahl wrote:

On 12/12/2009 5:21 AM HeyBub spake thus:

charlie b wrote:

It's not the population growth that's the problem - it's the
consumption of non-renuable resources or the resources that are
renewable - but not at a rate need that is - and it'll be water -
that you can drink - that we should be concerned about.

Almost all water is previously USED water. Whatever it was used for is
just temporary. Water, like energy cannot really be destroyed - it's just
being used somewhere.

As for water shortages, the fix is usually quite simple to describe: the
areas susceptible to drought should quit growing water-intensive foods.
They should import water-intensive food from areas where water is
abundant. For example, it makes no sense to grow rice in the Sudan.

Right; just as it makes little or no sense to grow cotton in Arizona.

*Cotton* in Arid-zona???!??

Umm, yeah. You get to schedule the rainfall, there is very little danger
of destruction by hail or other natural disasters. Yields are good and
growing season is near ideal -- cotton loves hot.

Well, yeah, cotton loves hot (can you say "Egypt"?), but what they say
about Arizona is it's a place so dry the trees follow the dogs around.
Growing cotton there just doesn't make a whole lot of sense.


--
I am a Canadian who was born and raised in The Netherlands. I live on
Planet Earth on a spot of land called Canada. We have noisy neighbours.

- harvested from Usenet

phorbin wrote:

In article ,
says...
On Tue, 15 Dec 2009 14:56:18 -0800, Larry Jaques wrote:

Senor Blanchard and other alarmists are probably ****ting bricks about
this now.

Not really. If I'm wrong it'll,just balance out the time I was right
about (the lack of) those WMD in Iraq :-).

So was I... but I still figure that going with the idea of global
warming and reducing carbon footprint, consumption, etc. is the best
idea.

In an dramatic oversimplification:

If you are wrong and we do little to nothing, the consequences are
catastrophic. We lose.


So, you think that a couple of degree increase in global average
temperature will be that catastrophic? Despite historical evidence that it
has been warmer (Greenland being farmed, Great Britain with vineyards) and
colder (little ice age) by similar amounts? Just what temperature do you
believe is the "ideal" average temperature for the world to be set at?



If you are right and we do everything to avert global warming, we
continue to live and have cleaner technologies in place driven by the
idea of global warming. In short, we win.


No, we don't just continue to live and have cleaner technologies where we
win. If this cap and tax gets passed, the majority of peoples' lifestyles
take a dramatic turn downward, the only people who prosper will the
governments with the huge tax increases and those selling carbon indulgences
(i.e. Al Gore). Electric bills will skyrocket, gas prices will soar. The
trillions of $ this will suck out of the economy will cause devastating
consequences for generations. It is very likely that people on the lower
ends of the economic scale are going to die because of this -- they won't be
able to afford to heat their homes -- developing nations will be told that
they should remain in poverty and not grow and again, people will die, just
as they are with the current DDT ban.. ... and all for what? To avert a
0.1 C change (per one of the global warmist's estimates), even being
generous and giving his estimate an order of magnitude bump to 1 C, that is
an awful lot of personal freedom and prosperity to surrender for not much,
if any, gain. You think China and India will go along with this nonsense?
If not, we have just surrendered the rest of our economy and wealth to
become a second-class power to them.


If you are wrong and we do what's needed to mitigate the issue and we
manage to do so, we win.

So you are willing to surrender your future prosperity based upon some
very flawed models and cooked books?



I am self-interested enough to believe that the benefits presented by
the latter two, roughly stated cases outweigh the liabilities of the
former.

You aren't looking very deeply at what those liabilities of the former are
ultimately going to cost.




--

There is never a situation where having more rounds is a disadvantage

Rob Leatham

"Mark & Juanita" wrote in message
m...
If you are right and we do everything to avert global warming, we
continue to live and have cleaner technologies in place driven by the
idea of global warming. In short, we win.


No, we don't just continue to live and have cleaner technologies where we
win. If this cap and tax gets passed, the majority of peoples' lifestyles
take a dramatic turn downward, the only people who prosper will the
governments with the huge tax increases and those selling carbon
indulgences
(i.e. Al Gore). Electric bills will skyrocket, gas prices will soar. The
trillions of $ this will suck out of the economy will cause devastating
consequences for generations. It is very likely that people on the lower
ends of the economic scale are going to die because of this -- they won't
be
able to afford to heat their homes -- developing nations will be told that
they should remain in poverty and not grow and again, people will die,
just
as they are with the current DDT ban.. ... and all for what? To avert a
0.1 C change (per one of the global warmist's estimates), even being
generous and giving his estimate an order of magnitude bump to 1 C, that
is
an awful lot of personal freedom and prosperity to surrender for not much,
if any, gain. You think China and India will go along with this nonsense?

Of course not and they won't be asked to. The claim is these are "developing
countries" and should'nt be burdaned with such a thing. The main target is
the US as we are the biggest poluters. Maybe so as compared to, say,
Germany. A quick look at any map and it should be obvious to any intelligent
person why that is.

"CW" wrote in message
m...

"Mark & Juanita" wrote in message
m...
If you are right and we do everything to avert global warming, we
continue to live and have cleaner technologies in place driven by the
idea of global warming. In short, we win.


No, we don't just continue to live and have cleaner technologies where
we
win. If this cap and tax gets passed, the majority of peoples'
lifestyles
take a dramatic turn downward, the only people who prosper will the
governments with the huge tax increases and those selling carbon
indulgences
(i.e. Al Gore). Electric bills will skyrocket, gas prices will soar.
The
trillions of $ this will suck out of the economy will cause devastating
consequences for generations. It is very likely that people on the lower
ends of the economic scale are going to die because of this -- they won't
be
able to afford to heat their homes -- developing nations will be told
that
they should remain in poverty and not grow and again, people will die,
just
as they are with the current DDT ban.. ... and all for what? To avert a
0.1 C change (per one of the global warmist's estimates), even being
generous and giving his estimate an order of magnitude bump to 1 C, that
is
an awful lot of personal freedom and prosperity to surrender for not
much,
if any, gain. You think China and India will go along with this
nonsense?

Of course not and they won't be asked to. The claim is these are
"developing countries" and should'nt be burdaned with such a thing. The
main target is the US as we are the biggest poluters. Maybe so as compared
to, say, Germany. A quick look at any map and it should be obvious to any
intelligent person why that is.


The Chinese passed us a couple years back. Like we were standing still.
Indians may be gaining.

On Thu, 17 Dec 2009 06:22:06 -0500, the infamous phorbin
scrawled the following:

In article ,
says...
On Tue, 15 Dec 2009 14:56:18 -0800, Larry Jaques wrote:

Senor Blanchard and other alarmists are probably ****ting bricks about
this now.

Not really. If I'm wrong it'll,just balance out the time I was right
about (the lack of) those WMD in Iraq :-).

So was I... but I still figure that going with the idea of global
warming and reducing carbon footprint, consumption, etc. is the best
idea.

Did the leaks from CRU change your mind at all? (see sig)


In an dramatic oversimplification:

If you are wrong and we do little to nothing, the consequences are
catastrophic. We lose.

If you force these extreme conditions on us, tens of thousands of
people will die, STARTING THIS YEAR. And that's whether you're right
or wrong.


If you are right and we do everything to avert global warming, we
continue to live and have cleaner technologies in place driven by the
idea of global warming. In short, we win.

Every industry is updating with the latest technology as their old
technology becomes too expensive to maintain or when it breaks, or
when they decide that it's better to do so. We are having cleaner
technology installed every day, despite your alarms. You're just
forcing them faster, and at the cost of lives. How do you feel about
that, phorbin?

If you are wrong and we do what's needed to mitigate the issue and we
manage to do so, we win.

The largest problem is that everything which has been suggested so far
comes far short of actually doing much to "fix" the Earth's natural
warming cycles. Combined, they're a multi-trillion dollar waste of
money for _possibly_ 1 degree C change. And that's IF the suggestions
work. For example, when Oregon switched over to oxygenated gas
(ethanol), my gas consumption went up FIFTEEN percent. It has recently
been proven that the creation of ethanol gas takes 15% more energy
than the creation of gasoline, and the price of food corn went up by
much larger amounts. Now I'm getting worse gas mileage and spending
more money to go the same amount of miles, several dozen people have
died from not being able to afford the extra price of corn, more money
is being wasted to produce ethanol, shysters are lining up to get
gov't subsidies for ethanol procuction, and the environment is no
better off for all of this. If anything, it's worse. Is this what you
call "mitigation", phorbin? Want to hear more horror stories? It's
never ending. Global warming is just another wealth-redistribution
scam. Ask Algore. After the Climategate scam, he couldn't even face
the folks at the ball in Copenhagen and he cancelled his speech there.
That is NOT a coincidence.

Feh!



I am self-interested enough to believe that the benefits presented by
the latter two, roughly stated cases outweigh the liabilities of the
former.

You're not starving in a 3rd world country, though, are you? Those
folks beg to differ with your self-interest.


--
Indifference to evidence: Climate alarmists have become brilliantly
adept at changing their terms to suit their convenience. So it's
"global warming" when there's a heat wave, but it's "climate change"
when there's a cold snap. The earth has registered no discernable
warming in the past 10 years: Very well then, they say, natural
variability must be the cause. But as for the warming that did occur
in the 1980s and 1990s, that plainly was evidence of man-made warming.
Am I missing something here? --Brett Stephens, WSJ Opinion 12/09/09

On Dec 18, 12:32*am, Mark & Juanita wrote:
phorbin wrote:
In article ,
says...
On Tue, 15 Dec 2009 14:56:18 -0800, Larry Jaques wrote:

Senor Blanchard and other alarmists are probably ****ting bricks about
this now.

Not really. *If I'm wrong it'll,just balance out the time I was right
about (the lack of) those WMD in Iraq :-).

So was I... but I still figure that going with the idea of global
warming and reducing carbon footprint, consumption, etc. is the best
idea.

In an dramatic oversimplification:

If you are wrong and we do little to nothing, the consequences are
catastrophic. We lose.

* So, you think that a couple of degree increase in global average
temperature will be that catastrophic? *Despite historical evidence that it
has been warmer (Greenland being farmed, Great Britain with vineyards) and
colder (little ice age) by similar amounts? *Just what temperature do you
believe is the "ideal" average temperature for the world to be set at?

If you are right and we do everything to avert global warming, we
continue to live and have cleaner technologies in place driven by the
idea of global warming. In short, we win.

* No, we don't just continue to live and have cleaner technologies where we
win. *If this cap and tax gets passed, the majority of peoples' lifestyles
take a dramatic turn downward, the only people who prosper will the
governments with the huge tax increases and those selling carbon indulgences
(i.e. Al Gore). *Electric bills will skyrocket, gas prices will soar. *The
trillions of $ this will suck out of the economy will cause devastating
consequences for generations. *It is very likely that people on the lower
ends of the economic scale are going to die because of this -- they won't be
able to afford to heat their homes -- developing nations will be told that
they should remain in poverty and not grow and again, people will die, just
as they are with the current DDT ban.. *... and all for what? *To avert a
0.1 C change (per one of the global warmist's estimates), even being
generous and giving his estimate an order of magnitude bump to 1 C, that is
an awful lot of personal freedom and prosperity to surrender for not much,
if any, gain. *You think China and India will go along with this nonsense? *
If not, we have just surrendered the rest of our economy and wealth to
become a second-class power to them.

If you are wrong and we do what's needed to mitigate the issue and we
manage to do so, we win.

* So you are willing to surrender your future prosperity based upon some
very flawed models and cooked books? *

I am self-interested enough to believe that the benefits presented by
the latter two, roughly stated cases outweigh the liabilities of the
former.

* You aren't looking very deeply at what those liabilities of the former are
ultimately going to cost. *



Phew...wow....*taking deep breath* The end-times must be nigh as I
find myself agreeing with Mark here.

On 12/17/2009 06:07 PM, David Nebenzahl wrote:
On 12/16/2009 9:46 PM Mark & Juanita spake thus:

David Nebenzahl wrote:

On 12/12/2009 5:21 AM HeyBub spake thus:

charlie b wrote:

It's not the population growth that's the problem - it's the
consumption of non-renuable resources or the resources that are
renewable - but not at a rate need that is - and it'll be water -
that you can drink - that we should be concerned about.

Almost all water is previously USED water. Whatever it was used for is
just temporary. Water, like energy cannot really be destroyed - it's
just
being used somewhere.

As for water shortages, the fix is usually quite simple to describe:
the
areas susceptible to drought should quit growing water-intensive foods.
They should import water-intensive food from areas where water is
abundant. For example, it makes no sense to grow rice in the Sudan.

Right; just as it makes little or no sense to grow cotton in Arizona.

*Cotton* in Arid-zona???!??
Umm, yeah. You get to schedule the rainfall, there is very little
danger of destruction by hail or other natural disasters. Yields are
good and growing season is near ideal -- cotton loves hot.

Well, yeah, cotton loves hot (can you say "Egypt"?), but what they say
about Arizona is it's a place so dry the trees follow the dogs around.
Growing cotton there just doesn't make a whole lot of sense.


It would be a waste to not use the water after the investment made in this:

http://www.cap-az.com/

The cotton grown here in AZ is pretty good stuff:

http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-pima-cotton.htm

On 12/18/2009 7:48 AM Doug Winterburn spake thus:

On 12/17/2009 06:07 PM, David Nebenzahl wrote:

On 12/16/2009 9:46 PM Mark & Juanita spake thus:

Umm, yeah. You get to schedule the rainfall, there is very little
danger of destruction by hail or other natural disasters. Yields are
good and growing season is near ideal -- cotton loves hot.

Well, yeah, cotton loves hot (can you say "Egypt"?), but what they say
about Arizona is it's a place so dry the trees follow the dogs around.
Growing cotton there just doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

It would be a waste to not use the water after the investment made in this:

http://www.cap-az.com/

The CAP is a misbegotten project that should never have been built in
the first place. See Marc Reisner's /Cadillac Desert/ for a full
explanation.

The cotton grown here in AZ is pretty good stuff:

http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-pima-cotton.htm

Well, yeah; even has its own well-known name (Pima cotton). Still a bad
idea.


--
I am a Canadian who was born and raised in The Netherlands. I live on
Planet Earth on a spot of land called Canada. We have noisy neighbours.

- harvested from Usenet

David Nebenzahl wrote:
On 12/18/2009 7:48 AM Doug Winterburn spake thus:

On 12/17/2009 06:07 PM, David Nebenzahl wrote:

On 12/16/2009 9:46 PM Mark & Juanita spake thus:

Umm, yeah. You get to schedule the rainfall, there is very little
danger of destruction by hail or other natural disasters. Yields
are good and growing season is near ideal -- cotton loves hot.

Well, yeah, cotton loves hot (can you say "Egypt"?), but what they
say about Arizona is it's a place so dry the trees follow the dogs
around. Growing cotton there just doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

It would be a waste to not use the water after the investment made
in this: http://www.cap-az.com/

The CAP is a misbegotten project that should never have been built in
the first place. See Marc Reisner's /Cadillac Desert/ for a full
explanation.

The cotton grown here in AZ is pretty good stuff:

http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-pima-cotton.htm

Well, yeah; even has its own well-known name (Pima cotton). Still a
bad idea.

i blame those damn pima indians, who started growing it here centuries ago,
who got it from the incas in peru.

regards,
charlie
cave creek, az

LDosser wrote:


The Chinese passed us a couple years back. Like we were standing
still. Indians may be gaining.

Passed us in what way? Just the INCREASE in our GDP for the past five years
is greater than the ENTIRE GDP of China.

phorbin wrote:

In an dramatic oversimplification:

If you are wrong and we do little to nothing, the consequences are
catastrophic. We lose.

If you are right and we do everything to avert global warming, we
continue to live and have cleaner technologies in place driven by the
idea of global warming. In short, we win.

If you are wrong and we do what's needed to mitigate the issue and we
manage to do so, we win.

I am self-interested enough to believe that the benefits presented by
the latter two, roughly stated cases outweigh the liabilities of the
former.

That's the famous argument put forth by Pascal to encourage belief in God.
If there is no god, the cost of believing is small. If there IS a god, the
rewards are immense.

In the environment case, it's just the reverse. If there IS global warming,
the result of doing nothing is almost inconsequential (and may even be
beneficial). If there is NO anthropogenic global warming, the cost of
averting it is astronomical. The worst of both worlds is to reduce the human
condition to one that is deprived, brutal, and short and STILL end up with
global warming.

"HeyBub" wrote in message
...
LDosser wrote:


The Chinese passed us a couple years back. Like we were standing
still. Indians may be gaining.

Passed us in what way? Just the INCREASE in our GDP for the past five
years is greater than the ENTIRE GDP of China.


Pollution. They are now Number One

HeyBub wrote:
LDosser wrote:


The Chinese passed us a couple years back. Like we were standing
still. Indians may be gaining.

Passed us in what way? Just the INCREASE in our GDP for the past five
years
is greater than the ENTIRE GDP of China.

Consult a list of the GDPs of nations and economic zones.
There's one in wikipedia.

The U.S.'s GPD is listed as being about 14.2 trillion dollars,
China about 4.2 trillion, pretty close to that of Japan's at
4.9 trillion. This is pretty could performance for a country
that's only recently begun industrializing and really
participating on the world stage economically.

Interestingly, the CIA factbook now lists the European Union
as having a larger GDP than the U.S., some 18 trillion dollars.

On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 23:47:00 -0600, HeyBub wrote:

If there IS global
warming, the result of doing nothing is almost inconsequential (and may
even be beneficial).

sigh.

--
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw

Greg Neill wrote:

HeyBub wrote:
LDosser wrote:


The Chinese passed us a couple years back. Like we were standing
still. Indians may be gaining.

Passed us in what way? Just the INCREASE in our GDP for the past five
years
is greater than the ENTIRE GDP of China.

Consult a list of the GDPs of nations and economic zones.
There's one in wikipedia.

The U.S.'s GPD is listed as being about 14.2 trillion dollars,
China about 4.2 trillion, pretty close to that of Japan's at
4.9 trillion. This is pretty could performance for a country
that's only recently begun industrializing and really
participating on the world stage economically.

Interestingly, the CIA factbook now lists the European Union
as having a larger GDP than the U.S., some 18 trillion dollars.

That's because the EU is an agglomeration of multiple countries. Would be
like combining all of South American countries or if the US, Canada, and
Mexico combined their GDP's. The EU is not yet a full-fledged country on
its own, though it is attempting to do so -- it really will depend upon
whether France, Great Britain, Italy, and other large European countries are
willing to surrender their sovereignty to a larger governing body.
--

There is never a situation where having more rounds is a disadvantage

Rob Leatham

Mark & Juanita wrote:
Greg Neill wrote:

HeyBub wrote:
LDosser wrote:


The Chinese passed us a couple years back. Like we were standing
still. Indians may be gaining.

Passed us in what way? Just the INCREASE in our GDP for the past five
years
is greater than the ENTIRE GDP of China.

Consult a list of the GDPs of nations and economic zones.
There's one in wikipedia.

The U.S.'s GPD is listed as being about 14.2 trillion dollars,
China about 4.2 trillion, pretty close to that of Japan's at
4.9 trillion. This is pretty could performance for a country
that's only recently begun industrializing and really
participating on the world stage economically.

Interestingly, the CIA factbook now lists the European Union
as having a larger GDP than the U.S., some 18 trillion dollars.

That's because the EU is an agglomeration of multiple countries. Would
be
like combining all of South American countries or if the US, Canada, and
Mexico combined their GDP's. The EU is not yet a full-fledged country on
its own, though it is attempting to do so -- it really will depend upon
whether France, Great Britain, Italy, and other large European countries
are
willing to surrender their sovereignty to a larger governing body.

The comparison is between economic blocks. As you say, the
EU's common market makes it behave almost like a single entity,
much as the individual U.S. states' economies comprise the U.S.'s
overall economy.

If you take a close look at the U.S., you can see that the
individual states have not 'surrendered' all of their
autonomy either. They have their own economies and sets
of laws, but bow to the Fed for certain cross-jursdictional
matters. Canada is the same way with its Provinces.

Larry Blanchard wrote:
On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 23:47:00 -0600, HeyBub wrote:

If there IS global
warming, the result of doing nothing is almost inconsequential (and
may even be beneficial).

sigh.

Actually, according to the IPCC report he's pretty close to the mark. The
alarmists give this vision of coastal cities being hundreds of feet under
water and radically changed coastlines and "another Venus" and the like but
that's not what the IPCC Is asserting is going to happen. Instead they're
saying things like it will rain more in one area and less in another (and
it's _very_ questionable whether their models are accurate at that level of
detail even if they do have the broad outline right, which in itself is
debatable) and that sort of thing.

Greg Neill wrote:

Mark & Juanita wrote:
Greg Neill wrote:

HeyBub wrote:
LDosser wrote:


The Chinese passed us a couple years back. Like we were standing
still. Indians may be gaining.

Passed us in what way? Just the INCREASE in our GDP for the past five
years
is greater than the ENTIRE GDP of China.

Consult a list of the GDPs of nations and economic zones.
There's one in wikipedia.

The U.S.'s GPD is listed as being about 14.2 trillion dollars,
China about 4.2 trillion, pretty close to that of Japan's at
4.9 trillion. This is pretty could performance for a country
that's only recently begun industrializing and really
participating on the world stage economically.

Interestingly, the CIA factbook now lists the European Union
as having a larger GDP than the U.S., some 18 trillion dollars.

That's because the EU is an agglomeration of multiple countries. Would
be
like combining all of South American countries or if the US, Canada, and
Mexico combined their GDP's. The EU is not yet a full-fledged country on
its own, though it is attempting to do so -- it really will depend upon
whether France, Great Britain, Italy, and other large European countries
are
willing to surrender their sovereignty to a larger governing body.

The comparison is between economic blocks. As you say, the
EU's common market makes it behave almost like a single entity,
much as the individual U.S. states' economies comprise the U.S.'s
overall economy.


It's quite a stretch to compare the EU's member nations to the equivalent
of US states.


If you take a close look at the U.S., you can see that the
individual states have not 'surrendered' all of their
autonomy either. They have their own economies and sets
of laws, but bow to the Fed for certain cross-jursdictional
matters. Canada is the same way with its Provinces.

Again, there is a significant difference between the member nations of the
EU vs. the states that comprise the US federal Republic. Each of the EU
member nations has regions or states within each member nation as well --
Germany has Saxony, Prussia, etc. Great Britain has England, Ireland,
Scotland, Wales, etc. Those would be a closer analogy to the US make-up.


--

There is never a situation where having more rounds is a disadvantage

Rob Leatham

Mark & Juanita wrote:
Greg Neill wrote:

Mark & Juanita wrote:
Greg Neill wrote:

HeyBub wrote:
LDosser wrote:


The Chinese passed us a couple years back. Like we were standing
still. Indians may be gaining.

Passed us in what way? Just the INCREASE in our GDP for the past five
years
is greater than the ENTIRE GDP of China.

Consult a list of the GDPs of nations and economic zones.
There's one in wikipedia.

The U.S.'s GPD is listed as being about 14.2 trillion dollars,
China about 4.2 trillion, pretty close to that of Japan's at
4.9 trillion. This is pretty could performance for a country
that's only recently begun industrializing and really
participating on the world stage economically.

Interestingly, the CIA factbook now lists the European Union
as having a larger GDP than the U.S., some 18 trillion dollars.

That's because the EU is an agglomeration of multiple countries.
Would be
like combining all of South American countries or if the US, Canada, and
Mexico combined their GDP's. The EU is not yet a full-fledged country
on
its own, though it is attempting to do so -- it really will depend upon
whether France, Great Britain, Italy, and other large European countries
are
willing to surrender their sovereignty to a larger governing body.

The comparison is between economic blocks. As you say, the
EU's common market makes it behave almost like a single entity,
much as the individual U.S. states' economies comprise the U.S.'s
overall economy.


It's quite a stretch to compare the EU's member nations to the
equivalent
of US states.

Not when viewed as economic blocks with mutual goals and a
shared currency.



If you take a close look at the U.S., you can see that the
individual states have not 'surrendered' all of their
autonomy either. They have their own economies and sets
of laws, but bow to the Fed for certain cross-jursdictional
matters. Canada is the same way with its Provinces.

Again, there is a significant difference between the member nations of
the
EU vs. the states that comprise the US federal Republic. Each of the EU
member nations has regions or states within each member nation as well --
Germany has Saxony, Prussia, etc. Great Britain has England, Ireland,
Scotland, Wales, etc. Those would be a closer analogy to the US make-up.

I think your'e looking for differences that aren't germaine
to the argument. You can argue similar differences between,
say, Louisianna and California. They are each comprised of
counties, elect their own governments, have representatives
at the 'national' level, etc., They act in concert for
national interests affecting the agglomeration (the U.S.A).

The point is, the EU taken as an economic block now surpasses
the U.S. in GDP. This is one of the reasons why, for example,
OPEC is looking to allow oil trading in Euros as well as U.S.
dollars, the throughts of which horrifies the U.S. bankers.
The Euro is backed by a total economy at least on a par with
that of the U.S.

"Dave Balderstone" wrote in message
news:191220091008164969%dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderst one.ca...
In article , LDosser
wrote:

"HeyBub" wrote in message
...
LDosser wrote:


The Chinese passed us a couple years back. Like we were standing
still. Indians may be gaining.

Passed us in what way? Just the INCREASE in our GDP for the past five
years is greater than the ENTIRE GDP of China.


Pollution. They are now Number One


The images here are horrific:

http://www.chinahush.com/2009/10/21/...ution-in-china
/


Stomach turning!! A vision of Hell. Dickens never saw anything this bad.

On Sat, 19 Dec 2009 22:13:18 -0800, the infamous "LDosser"
scrawled the following:

"Dave Balderstone" wrote in message
news:191220091008164969%dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalders tone.ca...
In article , LDosser
wrote:

"HeyBub" wrote in message
...
LDosser wrote:


The Chinese passed us a couple years back. Like we were standing
still. Indians may be gaining.

Passed us in what way? Just the INCREASE in our GDP for the past five
years is greater than the ENTIRE GDP of China.


Pollution. They are now Number One


The images here are horrific:

http://www.chinahush.com/2009/10/21/...ution-in-china
/


Stomach turning!! A vision of Hell.

From what I remember in high school, those pics could have been from
the USA 40 years ago. We've come a long way, baby.


Dickens never saw anything this bad.

I'll have to call "Bull****" on that one, Lobby. Dickens _lived_ it.

London's back yards were open pools of **** where everyone tossed
their chamber pot sewage every morning. It finally seeped down and
contaminated all their wells. Why do you suppose there were all those
outbreaks of cholera and everyone could drink only beer or ale?

http://www.epa.gov/history/topics/perspect/london.htm
(I can't believe I'm quoting these libtards.)

http://ourwardfamily.com/victorian_london.htm
"The Victorian city of London was a city of startling contrasts. New
building and affluent development went hand in hand with horribly
overcrowded slums where people lived in the worst conditions
imaginable. The population surged during the 19th century, from about
1 million in 1800 to over 6 million a century later. This growth far
exceeded London's ability to look after the basic needs of its
citizens.

A combination of coal-fired stoves and poor sanitation made the air
heavy and foul-smelling. Immense amounts of raw sewage was dumped
straight into the Thames River. Even royals were not immune from the
stench of London - when Queen Victoria occupied Buckingham Palace her
apartments were ventilated through the common sewers, a fact that was
not disclosed until some 40 years later.

Upon this scene entered an unlikely hero, an engineer named Joseph
Bazalgette. Bazalgette was responsible for the building of over 2100
km of tunnels and pipes to divert sewage outside the city. This made a
drastic impact on the death rate, and outbreaks of cholera dropped
dramatically after Bazlgette's work was finished. For an encore,
Bazalgette was also responsible for the design of the Embankment, and
the Battersea, Hammersmith, and Albert Bridges."

http://ourwardfamily.com/children_of...0and%20disease
"Victorian children were very close to death and suffering. In the
1830s almost half the funerals in London were for children under ten
years old. Many people died from infections and diseases that we would
rarely die of today, such as measles and scarlet fever. Children often
experienced the death of a parent, brother or sister. If one of their
parents died, wealthy children were expected to go into mourning and
wear black clothing for up to a year. They may also have worn mourning
jewellery such as a bracelet of plaited hair removed from the head of
a dead relative.

Poor children were more likely to suffer from death and disease. Many
lived in dirty, crowded conditions and shared living accommodation
with other families. They often lived in homes without heat where the
only furniture was a heap of rags and straw. The lack of nutritious
food, toilet facilities and the poor quality of drinking water
resulted in serious cases of diarrhea, typhoid and other infections.
Raw sewage in the drinking water and the stench of the River Thames
also made people feel almost constantly sick. Many people could not
afford to visit a doctor or pay for medicines. Although the Great
Ormond Street Hospital for sick children was founded in 1852, most
sick children continued to be cared for at home in dirty and crowded
conditions. Babies were especially likely to become ill and up to half
of all poor children born in London died in their first year."

Do some more research, Lobby. It will make you very happy, indeed, to
live in this era vs. the grueling Victorian one. No more gruel today,
either!

--
This episode raises disturbing questions about scientific standards,
at least in highly political areas such as global warming. Still,
it's remarkable to see how quickly corrective information can now
spread. After years of ignored freedom-of-information requests and
stonewalling, all it took was disclosure to change the debate. Even
the most influential scientists must prove their case in the court
of public opinion—a court that, thanks to the Web, is one where
eventually all views get a hearing. --Gordon Crovitz, WSJ 12/9/09

Larry Jaques wrote:

I'll have to call "Bull****" on that one, Lobby. Dickens _lived_ it.

Nay, kind sir, wrong species!

Be reminded that the major mode of transportation in London in those day
was equine, not bovine. And, if you've ever had to clean out a horse
stall twice in 12 hours ... well, you do the math.

Judging from the comments herein it is obvious that "horse ****"
operates under the Theory of Conservation of Energy, the amount remains
constant, albeit in a different form.


--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/22/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)

LDosser wrote:

"Dave Balderstone" wrote in message
news:191220091008164969%dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderst one.ca...
In article , LDosser
wrote:

"HeyBub" wrote in message
...
LDosser wrote:


The Chinese passed us a couple years back. Like we were standing
still. Indians may be gaining.

Passed us in what way? Just the INCREASE in our GDP for the past five
years is greater than the ENTIRE GDP of China.


Pollution. They are now Number One


The images here are horrific:

http://www.chinahush.com/2009/10/21/...ution-in-china
/


Stomach turning!! A vision of Hell. Dickens never saw anything this bad.

Hard to tell if that is universally real or just another media-induced
hype. Time and other media outlet photographers can embellish stories into
the surreal. OTOH, if that is universally real, then we really don't have
much to fear long-term from China as that kind of local destruction will
lead to killing themselves off from within. That kind of thing falls into
the "poop in your own bathtub" realm of environmental destruction; something
that is real, demonstrable, and controllable. It is also something
completely unsustainable long-term.

--

There is never a situation where having more rounds is a disadvantage

Rob Leatham

"Dave Balderstone" wrote in message
news:201220090212437086%dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderst one.ca...
In article , LDosser
wrote:

"Dave Balderstone" wrote in message
news:191220091008164969%dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderst one.ca...
In article , LDosser
wrote:

"HeyBub" wrote in message
...
LDosser wrote:


The Chinese passed us a couple years back. Like we were standing
still. Indians may be gaining.

Passed us in what way? Just the INCREASE in our GDP for the past
five
years is greater than the ENTIRE GDP of China.


Pollution. They are now Number One


The images here are horrific:

http://www.chinahush.com/2009/10/21/...ution-in-china
/


Stomach turning!! A vision of Hell. Dickens never saw anything this bad.

The world of Dickens only had "normal" poisons available. We have many
more.

If only the UN control freaks were actually interested in cleaning up
the poisonous **** being poured onto the planet, mostly in the
so-called "developing world" rather than simply stealing wealth from
the people (read: taxpayers in "western" countries) who actually CREATE
the wealth... In the guise of "Carbon".

But the issue isn't about a healthy planet. It's about a wealthy
uberclass that gets to dictate how well we will live.

THAT'S what the HopenChangen conference was all about (oops, I'm
Canadian, I should have said "Aboot").

And as a Canadian, I'm damned proud that the greentards castigated my
country at that farce of a UN event. The Canadian government has the
balls to say "We're not going to destroy our economy to please the
likes of Chavez and Mugabe."

Sweet.


Unfortunately we sent an empty Suit.

"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 19 Dec 2009 22:13:18 -0800, the infamous "LDosser"
scrawled the following:

"Dave Balderstone" wrote in message
news:191220091008164969%dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalder stone.ca...
In article , LDosser
wrote:

"HeyBub" wrote in message
...
LDosser wrote:


The Chinese passed us a couple years back. Like we were standing
still. Indians may be gaining.

Passed us in what way? Just the INCREASE in our GDP for the past five
years is greater than the ENTIRE GDP of China.


Pollution. They are now Number One


The images here are horrific:

http://www.chinahush.com/2009/10/21/...ution-in-china
/


Stomach turning!! A vision of Hell.

From what I remember in high school, those pics could have been from
the USA 40 years ago. We've come a long way, baby.


Dickens never saw anything this bad.

I'll have to call "Bull****" on that one, Lobby. Dickens _lived_ it.

London's back yards were open pools of **** where everyone tossed
their chamber pot sewage every morning. It finally seeped down and
contaminated all their wells. Why do you suppose there were all those
outbreaks of cholera and everyone could drink only beer or ale?

http://www.epa.gov/history/topics/perspect/london.htm
(I can't believe I'm quoting these libtards.)

http://ourwardfamily.com/victorian_london.htm
"The Victorian city of London was a city of startling contrasts. New
building and affluent development went hand in hand with horribly
overcrowded slums where people lived in the worst conditions
imaginable. The population surged during the 19th century, from about
1 million in 1800 to over 6 million a century later. This growth far
exceeded London's ability to look after the basic needs of its
citizens.

A combination of coal-fired stoves and poor sanitation made the air
heavy and foul-smelling. Immense amounts of raw sewage was dumped
straight into the Thames River. Even royals were not immune from the
stench of London - when Queen Victoria occupied Buckingham Palace her
apartments were ventilated through the common sewers, a fact that was
not disclosed until some 40 years later.

Upon this scene entered an unlikely hero, an engineer named Joseph
Bazalgette. Bazalgette was responsible for the building of over 2100
km of tunnels and pipes to divert sewage outside the city. This made a
drastic impact on the death rate, and outbreaks of cholera dropped
dramatically after Bazlgette's work was finished. For an encore,
Bazalgette was also responsible for the design of the Embankment, and
the Battersea, Hammersmith, and Albert Bridges."

http://ourwardfamily.com/children_of...0and%20disease
"Victorian children were very close to death and suffering. In the
1830s almost half the funerals in London were for children under ten
years old. Many people died from infections and diseases that we would
rarely die of today, such as measles and scarlet fever. Children often
experienced the death of a parent, brother or sister. If one of their
parents died, wealthy children were expected to go into mourning and
wear black clothing for up to a year. They may also have worn mourning
jewellery such as a bracelet of plaited hair removed from the head of
a dead relative.

Poor children were more likely to suffer from death and disease. Many
lived in dirty, crowded conditions and shared living accommodation
with other families. They often lived in homes without heat where the
only furniture was a heap of rags and straw. The lack of nutritious
food, toilet facilities and the poor quality of drinking water
resulted in serious cases of diarrhea, typhoid and other infections.
Raw sewage in the drinking water and the stench of the River Thames
also made people feel almost constantly sick. Many people could not
afford to visit a doctor or pay for medicines. Although the Great
Ormond Street Hospital for sick children was founded in 1852, most
sick children continued to be cared for at home in dirty and crowded
conditions. Babies were especially likely to become ill and up to half
of all poor children born in London died in their first year."

Do some more research, Lobby. It will make you very happy, indeed, to
live in this era vs. the grueling Victorian one. No more gruel today,
either!

--
This episode raises disturbing questions about scientific standards,
at least in highly political areas such as global warming. Still,
it's remarkable to see how quickly corrective information can now
spread. After years of ignored freedom-of-information requests and
stonewalling, all it took was disclosure to change the debate. Even
the most influential scientists must prove their case in the court
of public opinion-a court that, thanks to the Web, is one where
eventually all views get a hearing. --Gordon Crovitz, WSJ 12/9/09

"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 19 Dec 2009 22:13:18 -0800, the infamous "LDosser"
scrawled the following:

"Dave Balderstone" wrote in message
news:191220091008164969%dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalder stone.ca...
In article , LDosser
wrote:

"HeyBub" wrote in message
...
LDosser wrote:


The Chinese passed us a couple years back. Like we were standing
still. Indians may be gaining.

Passed us in what way? Just the INCREASE in our GDP for the past five
years is greater than the ENTIRE GDP of China.


Pollution. They are now Number One


The images here are horrific:

http://www.chinahush.com/2009/10/21/...ution-in-china
/


Stomach turning!! A vision of Hell.

From what I remember in high school, those pics could have been from
the USA 40 years ago. We've come a long way, baby.

Not even close!! And I lived it. Not even when the last fish died in Lake
Erie. Not when the Cuyahoga RIVER went on fire. Not close at all. What high
school you go to?



Dickens never saw anything this bad.

I'll have to call "Bull****" on that one, Lobby. Dickens _lived_ it.

London's back yards were open pools of **** where everyone tossed
their chamber pot sewage every morning. It finally seeped down and
contaminated all their wells. Why do you suppose there were all those
outbreaks of cholera and everyone could drink only beer or ale?

I'll see your Bull**** and raise it. In Dickens' time the **** was not
flowing downhill to the Continent. In Dickens time it affected a few
hundred thousand people in mainly European cities. In China it is Billions
and the crap blows across the Pacific and flows into the Pacific. Dickens
would have fainted dead away.

FWIW, I lived in a Glasgow tenement in the late 1940s-early 1950s, so I've
seen some of Dickens up 'close' and personal. Coal fires. Some with no
bathrooms. Back "Green" pretty close to what you described for London. Smog
so damn thick every other kid had asthma. Parents all smoking 50 a day. But,
hey, we had Public Transportation.

"Mark & Juanita" wrote in message
...
LDosser wrote:

"Dave Balderstone" wrote in message
news:191220091008164969%dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderst one.ca...
In article , LDosser
wrote:

"HeyBub" wrote in message
...
LDosser wrote:


The Chinese passed us a couple years back. Like we were standing
still. Indians may be gaining.

Passed us in what way? Just the INCREASE in our GDP for the past five
years is greater than the ENTIRE GDP of China.


Pollution. They are now Number One


The images here are horrific:

http://www.chinahush.com/2009/10/21/...ution-in-china
/


Stomach turning!! A vision of Hell. Dickens never saw anything this bad.

Hard to tell if that is universally real or just another media-induced
hype. Time and other media outlet photographers can embellish stories into
the surreal. OTOH, if that is universally real, then we really don't have
much to fear long-term from China as that kind of local destruction will
lead to killing themselves off from within. That kind of thing falls into
the "poop in your own bathtub" realm of environmental destruction;
something
that is real, demonstrable, and controllable. It is also something
completely unsustainable long-term.


Unfortunately those of us on the left coast share the tub with them and the
rest of the Northern Hemisphere breathes their air

On Sun, 20 Dec 2009 22:15:42 -0800, LDosser wrote:

Forgot to mention we Still had horse**** in the streets of Glasgow in
the 1940-1950. Milk and coal were still delivered by horse cart and the
'rag and bone man' would come round with a horse cart now and then. Plus
police patrols on horse back.

Same thing in Louisville KY. Except the junk man had a mule instead of a
horse. Getting to ride on the junk wagon and hold the reins was a big
thrill for me when I was 7 or 8. Of course, just like the milk horse,
the mule knew the route by heart. I don't remember how coal came, but
ice also came by horse.

--
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw