In article ,
"David Hare-Scott" wrote:

Dan L. wrote:

Hmmm ....

I have questions.

Carbon dioxide CO2 is that the gas we humans exhale (Good)?

Yes, it is essential that we do so, the same with other animals.

Do not plants take in CO2 and keep the carbon and release oxygen O2
(Good)?

Yes. Put very simply animals and plants consume each other's by products,
it's a good system.

Do not cars exhale carbon monoxide CO (Bad)?

Only small amounts, mainly they burn hydrocarbons (petrol, diesel) with
oxygen to give carbon dioxide. The CO2 has the major greenhouse effect
compared to CO.

I am not sure but comparing machines to living things different?

You can compare living and non-living things in their contribution or
consumption of greenhouse gasses (well any gasses really) in the atmosphere.
Rather than say one is 'good' and the other 'bad' you need to look at the
numbers and evaluate the net effect. Which isn't at all easy.
Net effect of balance and stability = things go much as they are
Net effect of imbalance and instability = rapid change = collapse human
society as we know it.

Is CO2 a green house gas also?

Yes indeed. So is methane which is more significant per molecule, it is
produced by bogs, ruminants (cattle) and coal mines amongst many things.

If so should we limit the growth of the human population to save the
planet also?


In the long term this is an essential part of the solution because we have
many effects on the earth other than greenhouse gasses, many resources that
we need are running out and many pollutants that we make, including
greenhouse gasses, are harming the environment. You can reduce the rate of
using up resources and generating pollutants per head but unless you do
something about the number of heads too you are only delaying the date of
collapse as you cannot reach stability.

Those who suggest that there is no need to limit human population (say
because of technological advances) will find that it is limited for them, or
for their descedants, nontheless. It will be limted by the Four Horsemen.

My chemistry is week. However, this "Nathan Fiala" is an economist
not a chemist or biologist. After all, Does any economist of this
world know what they are saying, let alone how this world operates?


You do have to wonder.

David

Ahhh David
I do love your postings, they have always been direct to the point and
your insight has alway been clear. Also I tend to agree with you.

Enjoy Life ... Dan

--
Garden in Zone 5 South East Michigan.

In article ,
"Dan L." wrote:

In article ,
Bill wrote:

In article ,
"Dan L." wrote:

In article
,
Billy wrote:

In article ,
"Dan L." wrote:

In article
,
Billy wrote:

The Greenhouse Hamburger

February 2009 Scientific American


Most of us are aware that our cars, our coal-generated electric
power
and even our cement factories adversely affect the environment.
Until
recently, however, the foods we eat had gotten a pass in the
discussion.
Yet according to a 2006 report by the United Nations Food and
Agriculture Organization (FAO), our diets and, specifically, the
meat
in
them cause more greenhouse gases‹carbon dioxide (CO2), methane,
nitrous
oxide, and the like‹to spew into the atmosphere than either
transportation or industry. (Greenhouse gases trap solar energy,
thereby
warming the earth's surface. Because gases vary in greenhouse
potency,
every greenhouse gas is usually expressed as an amount of CO2 with
the
same global-warming potential.)

The FAO report found that current production levels of meat
contribute
between 14 and 22 percent of the 36 billion tons of
"CO2-equiva-lent"
greenhouse gases the world produces every year. It turns out that
producing half a pound of hamburger for someone's lunch‹a patty of
meat
the size of two decks of cards‹releases as much greenhouse gas into
the
atmosphere as driving a 3,000-pound car nearly 10 miles.

In truth, every food we consume, vegetables and fruits included,
incurs
hidden environmental costs: transportation, refrigeration and fuel
for
farming, as well as methane emissions from plants and animals, all
lead
to a buildup of atmospheric greenhouse gases. Take asparagus: in a
report prepared for the city of Seattle, Daniel J. Morgan of the
University of Washington and his co-workers found that growing just
half
a pound of the vegetable in Peru emits greenhouse gases equivalent
to
1.2 ounces of CO2‹as a result of applying insecticide and
fertilizer,
pumping water and running heavy, gas-guzzling farm equipment. To
refrigerate and transport the vegetable to an American dinner table
generates another two ounces of C02-equivalent greenhouse gases,
for
a
total CO2 equivalent of 3.2 ounces

But that is nothing compared to beef. In 1999 Susan Subak, an
ecological
economist then at the University of East Anglia in England, found
that,
depending on the production method, cows emit between 2.5 and 4.7
ounces
of methane for each pound of beef they produce. Because methane
has,
roughly 23 times the global-warming potential of CO2, those
emissions
are the equivalent of releasing between 3.6 and 6.8 pounds of CO2
into
the atmosphere for each pound of beef produced.

Raising animals also requires a large amount of feed per unit of
body
weight. In 2003 Lucas Reijnders of the University of Amsterdam and
Sam
Sorer of Loma Linda University estimated that producing a pound of
beef
protein for the table requires more than 10 pounds of plant
protein‹with
all the emissions of greenhouse gases that grain farming entails.
Finally, farms for raising animals produce numerous wastes that
give
rise to greenhouse gases.

Taking such factors into account, Subak calculated that producing a
pound of beef in a feedlot, or concentrated animal feeding
operation
(CAFO) system, generates the equivalent of 14.8 pounds of CO2‹pound
for
pound, more than 36 times the C02-equivalent greenhouse gas emitted
by
producing asparagus. Even other common meats cannot match the
impact
of
beef; I estimate that producing a pound of pork generates the
equivalent
of 3.8 pounds of CO2; a pound of chicken generates 1.1 pounds of
CO2-equivalent greenhouse gases. And the economically efficient
CAFO
system, though certainly not the cleanest production method in
terms
of
CO2-equivalent greenhouse emissions. is far better than most: the
FAO
data I noted earlier imply that the world average emissions from
producing a pound of beef are several times the CAFO amount.

Solutions?

What can be done? Improving waste management and farming practices
would
certainly reduce the 'carbon footprint" of beef production.
Methane-capturing systems, for instance, can put cows' waste to use
in
generating electricity. But those systems remain too costly to be
commercially viable.

Individuals, too, can reduce the effects of food production on
planetary
climate. To some degree, after all, our diets are a choice. By
choosing
more wisely, we can make a difference. Eating locally produced food
for
instance, can reduce the need for transport‹though food
inefficiently
shipped in small batches on trucks from nearby farms can turn out
to
save surprisingly little in greenhouse emissions. And in the U.S.
and
the rest of the developed world, people could eat less meat,
particularly beef.

The graphics on the following pages quantify the links between beef
production and green-house gases in sobering detail. The take-home
lesson is clear: we ought to give careful thought to diet and its
consequences for the planet if we are serious about limiting the
emissions of green-house gases.
-------

Nathan Fiala is a doctoral candidate in economics at the University
of
California, Irvine, focusing on the environmental impact of
dietary
habits. He also runs evaluations of development projects for the
the
World Bank in Washington, D.C. In his spare time he enjoys
independent
movies and sailing. In his study of the environmental impact of
meat
production on which this article is based was recently published in
the
journal of Ecological Economics.

Hmmm ....

I have questions.

Carbon dioxide CO2 is that the gas we humans exhale (Good)?
Come from oxidized organic material in our diets. If we didn't get rid
of it, our blood would acidify and we would die.
Do not plants take in CO2 and keep the carbon and release oxygen O2
(Good)?
The carbon cycle is where animals and plants keep handing the carbon
back and forth. The plants use the CO2 to make sugar, which is turned
into wood.
Do not cars exhale carbon monoxide CO (Bad)?
CO raises the amount of methane and ozone in the atmosphere.
I am not sure but comparing machines to living things different?
We got to look at the sources of greenhouse gases, mechanical and
organic.
Is CO2 a green house gas also?
Oh, ja sure, ya bet'cha.
If so should we limit the growth of the human population to save the
planet also?
A sterling idea, if you want to save the planet and it's bio-diversity.
Instead of suppressing gay marriages, maybe we should encourage them as
a way to reduce population growth ;O)

My chemistry is weak. However, this "Nathan Fiala" is an economist
not
a
chemist or biologist. After all, Does any economist of this world
know
what they are saying, let alone how this world operates?
He's just adding up the numbers. Good ideas are where you find them.
Tell everyone you meet not to fart, because if they do, the terrorists
win ;O)

Just wondering ........ Dan

So the human/animal and plant relationship is strong. So we, as
gardeners can grow more plants which will help our environment. Then the
natural Carbon dioxide CO2 can be countered with more plants.

Tax the hell out of fossil fuels and tax breaks and subsidies for clean
energy (if such a thing exist). As far as I know there nothing that can
counter carbon monoxide CO.

As for population growth, I lean towards economic means, the more kids
you have, the higher your taxes for the rest of the parents lives.
I do like the phrase "Good ideas are where you find them".
However, One persons "good idea" maybe a "bad idea" to others.
I am sure the person who just had 8 kids on top of 6 more kids will hate
my tax idea of raising taxes on the more kids parents have (In her case
"the more kids ONE have").

As for gay marriages or singles, should they be allowed to have kids;
cloning, adoption or envitro? I say yes, if they have the money and
raise their taxes! Single people that never had kids, pay little to no
taxes.

One note: Taking the Master Gardener class this winter, has to be one of
the best decisions I made in the last few years. Learning allot about
gardening and most of it is in the area in which I live within. The
massive book alone was worth the money, It has to be the best book on
gardening I have ever read.

Enjoy Life ....

Sort of reminds me of 1500 Italy nobility or there about. Seems they
thought the world was close to ending and upped to be childless. They
self imposed extinction.

I have 5 kids. My brother 2 children and my sister 2. My wife has two
brothers and one sister. One brother has 1 and other brother has 2 and
sister has none.

So my 5 kids vs.

My brother 2
My sister 1 due to car accident
Wife brother has 1
Wife brother has 2
Wife sister 0

So it is 5 to 6 in favor of propagation.

Only if it was just math.

My 35 and youngest 25 are not married and have no children and time and
economics seem more effective than planned parenthood. I really do not
think I will be a grandparent.

I want grand kids. So far just one grandchild but not in my line.

Kiss off )

Bill

Nothing finer in life than stirring up a hornets nest

I expected most people would hate the tax idea. After all who wants to
be taxed? The true answer to over population is that most people will
have to suffer starvation and die in poverty. Like every one else, we
live in a selfish world, not to give up anything for the betterment of
the world. It is basic Darwinism, survival of the fittest.

Enjoy Life ... Dan

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population

--
Garden in shade zone 5 S Jersey USA

In article
,
Billy wrote:

In article ,
"Dan L." wrote:
One note: Taking the Master Gardener class this winter, has to be one of
the best decisions I made in the last few years. Learning allot about
gardening and most of it is in the area in which I live within. The
massive book alone was worth the money, It has to be the best book on
gardening I have ever read.

Care to share any of your learning? What was the cost?

Cost $250, this includes the 800+ page local book, 12 four hour classes
and try to volunteer 40 hours of public garden service to the community.

Classes; Plant Science, Soils, Vegetable Culture, Plant Diagnostics,
Flowers, Woody Ornamentals, Backyard Fruits, Lawn, Household Pest,
Indoor plants, Composting/Water Quality, Plant Health Care and
Volunteerism.

The best part the information is mostly local. So far, I am half way. I
learned a little about; Botany, taking soil samples, when and how to
prune, fertilizers (Good and Bad), tools and their uses and care and
what grows well here. Also tends provide local sources for garden
supplies. The course also cover organic methods and chemicals methods.

A very enjoyable and informative course. I should have taken this course
years ago. Also includes first year membership into the local Master
Gardener club. Looking forward to attending my first meeting next week.

Hoping to start germinating this week end.
Next month for me.

I do believe I read somewhere here, you (Billy) also attend Master
Garden meetings?

Enjoy Life ... Dan

--
Garden in Zone 5 South East Michigan.

In article , "Aluckyguess"
wrote:

"David Hare-Scott" wrote in message
...
Dan L. wrote:

Hmmm ....

I have questions.

Carbon dioxide CO2 is that the gas we humans exhale (Good)?

Yes, it is essential that we do so, the same with other animals.

Do not plants take in CO2 and keep the carbon and release oxygen O2
(Good)?

Yes. Put very simply animals and plants consume each other's by products,
it's a good system.

Do not cars exhale carbon monoxide CO (Bad)?

Only small amounts, mainly they burn hydrocarbons (petrol, diesel) with
oxygen to give carbon dioxide. The CO2 has the major greenhouse effect
compared to CO.

I am not sure but comparing machines to living things different?

You can compare living and non-living things in their contribution or
consumption of greenhouse gasses (well any gasses really) in the
atmosphere. Rather than say one is 'good' and the other 'bad' you need to
look at the numbers and evaluate the net effect. Which isn't at all easy.
Net effect of balance and stability = things go much as they are
Net effect of imbalance and instability = rapid change = collapse human
society as we know it.

Is CO2 a green house gas also?

Yes indeed. So is methane which is more significant per molecule, it is
produced by bogs, ruminants (cattle) and coal mines amongst many things.

If so should we limit the growth of the human population to save the
planet also?


In the long term this is an essential part of the solution because we have
many effects on the earth other than greenhouse gasses, many resources
that we need are running out and many pollutants that we make, including
greenhouse gasses, are harming the environment. You can reduce the rate
of using up resources and generating pollutants per head but unless you do
something about the number of heads too you are only delaying the date of
collapse as you cannot reach stability.

Those who suggest that there is no need to limit human population (say
because of technological advances) will find that it is limited for them,
or for their descedants, nontheless. It will be limted by the Four
Horsemen.

My chemistry is week. However, this "Nathan Fiala" is an economist
not a chemist or biologist. After all, Does any economist of this
world know what they are saying, let alone how this world operates?


You do have to wonder.

David

We can not damage the earth, we can only damage ourselves. The planet will
heal itself its just a matter of time.


I totally disagree with that statement. Humans can most certainly damage
the Earth! I believe it is possible with modern technology to slam the
moon into the Earth and say "bye bye Earth". Other methods may be
possible as well. Now where did I put that ice-nine? (A Kurt Vonnegut
Fan).

Enjoy Life ... Dan

--
Garden in Zone 5 South East Michigan.

Aluckyguess wrote:
If so should we limit the growth of the human population to save the
planet also?


In the long term this is an essential part of the solution because
we have many effects on the earth other than greenhouse gasses, many
resources that we need are running out and many pollutants that we
make, including greenhouse gasses, are harming the environment. You
can reduce the rate of using up resources and generating pollutants
per head but unless you do something about the number of heads too
you are only delaying the date of collapse as you cannot reach
stability. Those who suggest that there is no need to limit human
population
(say because of technological advances) will find that it is limited
for them, or for their descedants, nontheless. It will be limted by
the Four Horsemen.

My chemistry is week. However, this "Nathan Fiala" is an economist
not a chemist or biologist. After all, Does any economist of this
world know what they are saying, let alone how this world operates?


You do have to wonder.

David

We can not damage the earth, we can only damage ourselves. The planet
will heal itself its just a matter of time.

Is producing pollution that affects other organisms and climate not harming
the earth? Is the human-caused extinction of species not harming the earth?

How long would you be prepared to wait for the eco-system to re-balance?
What do you think would be happening to humanity while you wait?

David

In article ,
"Dan L." wrote:

In article
,
Billy wrote:

In article ,
"Dan L." wrote:
One note: Taking the Master Gardener class this winter, has to be one of
the best decisions I made in the last few years. Learning allot about
gardening and most of it is in the area in which I live within. The
massive book alone was worth the money, It has to be the best book on
gardening I have ever read.

Care to share any of your learning? What was the cost?

Cost $250, this includes the 800+ page local book, 12 four hour classes
and try to volunteer 40 hours of public garden service to the community.

Classes; Plant Science, Soils, Vegetable Culture, Plant Diagnostics,
Flowers, Woody Ornamentals, Backyard Fruits, Lawn, Household Pest,
Indoor plants, Composting/Water Quality, Plant Health Care and
Volunteerism.

The best part the information is mostly local. So far, I am half way. I
learned a little about; Botany, taking soil samples, when and how to
prune, fertilizers (Good and Bad), tools and their uses and care and
what grows well here. Also tends provide local sources for garden
supplies. The course also cover organic methods and chemicals methods.

A very enjoyable and informative course. I should have taken this course
years ago. Also includes first year membership into the local Master
Gardener club. Looking forward to attending my first meeting next week.

Hoping to start germinating this week end.
Next month for me.

I do believe I read somewhere here, you (Billy) also attend Master
Garden meetings?

Enjoy Life ... Dan

I've not had the pleasure of attending Master Gardeners classes but they
are a phone call away if I want their input on some question.
Unfortunately, they are 0 for 2 so far. 1) What would grow well with
potatoes and blueberries both of which like a low pH (4.5 - 5.5)? I got
a list of plants and their pH requirements but nothing else seems to go
this low. 2) My second question had to do with the potential of soil
contamination from fish emulsion (mercury, PCBs, DDT, PBDEs, and
dioxins).

It sounds as if you are taking interesting and practical classes, good
for you :O)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Co-operation_(evolution)

Here in northern California, spring is gone and winter has returned.
Predicted to be overcast and rainy until the 27 of February.
--

Billy
Kleptocrats Behind Bars
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7843430.stm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9KVTf...ef=patrick.net

"David Hare-Scott" wrote in message
...
Aluckyguess wrote:
If so should we limit the growth of the human population to save the
planet also?


In the long term this is an essential part of the solution because
we have many effects on the earth other than greenhouse gasses, many
resources that we need are running out and many pollutants that we
make, including greenhouse gasses, are harming the environment. You
can reduce the rate of using up resources and generating pollutants
per head but unless you do something about the number of heads too
you are only delaying the date of collapse as you cannot reach
stability. Those who suggest that there is no need to limit human
population
(say because of technological advances) will find that it is limited
for them, or for their descedants, nontheless. It will be limted by
the Four Horsemen.

My chemistry is week. However, this "Nathan Fiala" is an economist
not a chemist or biologist. After all, Does any economist of this
world know what they are saying, let alone how this world operates?


You do have to wonder.

David

We can not damage the earth, we can only damage ourselves. The planet
will heal itself its just a matter of time.

Is producing pollution that affects other organisms and climate not
harming the earth? Is the human-caused extinction of species not harming
the earth?

Nope

How long would you be prepared to wait for the eco-system to re-balance?
What do you think would be happening to humanity while you wait?

What is balance? What about the ice age. There were dinosaurs when they went
did that balance things.
You don't understand the big picture. We are insignificant, just a small
spec in time.
Humans will come and we will go.

Why do you think our eco-system is out of balance, Al gore?
This whole global warming thing is a crock. We should put money into more
important things.

Aluckyguess wrote:
"David Hare-Scott" wrote in message
...
Aluckyguess wrote:
If so should we limit the growth of the human population to save
the planet also?


In the long term this is an essential part of the solution because
we have many effects on the earth other than greenhouse gasses,
many resources that we need are running out and many pollutants
that we make, including greenhouse gasses, are harming the
environment. You can reduce the rate of using up resources and
generating pollutants per head but unless you do something about
the number of heads too you are only delaying the date of collapse
as you cannot reach stability. Those who suggest that there is no
need to limit human population
(say because of technological advances) will find that it is
limited for them, or for their descedants, nontheless. It will be
limted by the Four Horsemen.

My chemistry is week. However, this "Nathan Fiala" is an economist
not a chemist or biologist. After all, Does any economist of this
world know what they are saying, let alone how this world
operates?

You do have to wonder.

David

We can not damage the earth, we can only damage ourselves. The
planet will heal itself its just a matter of time.

Is producing pollution that affects other organisms and climate not
harming the earth? Is the human-caused extinction of species not
harming the earth?

Nope

Your definition of "harm" is so odd that I doubt we can have much
conversation about it.


How long would you be prepared to wait for the eco-system to
re-balance? What do you think would be happening to humanity while
you wait?

What is balance? What about the ice age. There were dinosaurs when
they went did that balance things.

Sure there are non man-made changes in the environment, some take place over
millions of years, this is no reason to assume that man-made ones don't
exist or will never be significant.

You don't understand the big picture. We are insignificant, just a
small spec in time.

Well the facts simply don't support that. The numbers of humans and our
capacity to effect change in the environment are now such that we can and
will influence the future of the planet. But if you cannot see that
destroying species (just as one example) is harmful we are not even on the
same page about exhausting resources, large scale pollution and
over-population.

Humans will come and we will go.

If we take up your philosophy obscenely large numbers will have a fine
chance of going - and right soon. Why are you so fatalistic?


Why do you think our eco-system is out of balance, Al gore?

From the evidence that I see from many sources, Gore is just one speaker,
the issue does not hinge on the veracity of Gore or if you like him or his
politics. I don't follow him or anybody faithfully. There is much more to
this than climate change although that is a big issue.

This whole global warming thing is a crock. We should put money into
more important things.

Tell me who told you that global warming was a crock and why do you believe
them?

Even if climate change wasn't happening it would still be worth developing
renewable energy sources as the current ones are going to become impossibly
expensive fairly soon. If you think that there are more important things to
spend money on than securing stable and affordable energy sources into the
future please say what they are.

David

In article ,
"Aluckyguess" wrote:

"David Hare-Scott" wrote in message
...
Aluckyguess wrote:
If so should we limit the growth of the human population to save the
planet also?


In the long term this is an essential part of the solution because
we have many effects on the earth other than greenhouse gasses, many
resources that we need are running out and many pollutants that we
make, including greenhouse gasses, are harming the environment. You
can reduce the rate of using up resources and generating pollutants
per head but unless you do something about the number of heads too
you are only delaying the date of collapse as you cannot reach
stability. Those who suggest that there is no need to limit human
population
(say because of technological advances) will find that it is limited
for them, or for their descedants, nontheless. It will be limted by
the Four Horsemen.

My chemistry is week. However, this "Nathan Fiala" is an economist
not a chemist or biologist. After all, Does any economist of this
world know what they are saying, let alone how this world operates?


You do have to wonder.

David

We can not damage the earth, we can only damage ourselves. The planet
will heal itself its just a matter of time.

Is producing pollution that affects other organisms and climate not
harming the earth? Is the human-caused extinction of species not harming
the earth?

Nope

How long would you be prepared to wait for the eco-system to re-balance?
What do you think would be happening to humanity while you wait?

What is balance? What about the ice age. There were dinosaurs when they went
did that balance things.
You don't understand the big picture. We are insignificant, just a small
spec in time.
Humans will come and we will go.

Why do you think our eco-system is out of balance, Al gore?
This whole global warming thing is a crock. We should put money into more
important things.

What important things could the "insignificant, small
spec in time" invest in?

To the best of my knowledge, we are the only species that thinks and
communicates conceptually (symbolically, if you will). Maybe not the
jewel in the crown of bio-diversity but still not something to be
squandered by being herded over the edge of our own grave and into
extinction. If global warming is a "crock" and we resist it, we may look
silly. If global warming is real and we do nothing, we could be history.
What would you bet on, silly or gone?

In my travels, most of the people that I have met, just want to get
along. This attitude seems lost on governments, all of which seem to be
run by people with a sense of entitlement.
--

Billy
Kleptocrats Behind Bars
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7843430.stm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9KVTf...ef=patrick.net

"David Hare-Scott" wrote in message
...
Aluckyguess wrote:
If so should we limit the growth of the human population to save the
planet also?


In the long term this is an essential part of the solution because
we have many effects on the earth other than greenhouse gasses, many
resources that we need are running out and many pollutants that we
make, including greenhouse gasses, are harming the environment. You
can reduce the rate of using up resources and generating pollutants
per head but unless you do something about the number of heads too
you are only delaying the date of collapse as you cannot reach
stability. Those who suggest that there is no need to limit human
population
(say because of technological advances) will find that it is limited
for them, or for their descedants, nontheless. It will be limted by
the Four Horsemen.

My chemistry is week. However, this "Nathan Fiala" is an economist
not a chemist or biologist. After all, Does any economist of this
world know what they are saying, let alone how this world operates?


You do have to wonder.

David

We can not damage the earth, we can only damage ourselves. The planet
will heal itself its just a matter of time.

Is producing pollution that affects other organisms and climate not
harming the earth? Is the human-caused extinction of species not harming
the earth?

What about before humans? Nature has no mercy. Only the strong survive.


How long would you be prepared to wait for the eco-system to re-balance?
What do you think would be happening to humanity while you wait?

We cant be throwing nuclear waste around that would be terrible. I just feel
this global warming thing is bull. Temperatures change. We will have a ice
age
and they will blame it on global warming. Were does all that money go?.
We have to pay some lead
fee, its like 500.00 a year. I dont use lead but there might be some in
something we use.
Were does that money go.
I guess Im just tired of all the wastefull spending and lies.

On Feb 11, 12:18*am, Billy wrote:
In article ,
*dave a wrote:

Billy wrote:
The Greenhouse Hamburger

February 2009 Scientific American

Wouldn't it be more appropriate to mention the article and then post a
link to it? *Copying and reposting an entire article without permission
is a violation of the author's and publisher's rights. *Besides, it's
good netiquette.

True, true, but I didn't make the graphs available, those that make the
best argument. So you'll either have to buy the magazine, which is on
your news racks as we communicate or borrow it from your local library.
In any event, it gives you information that you can act on. You want a
planet that your descendants can live on? Right?

And what kind of anally retentive type goes around telling people how
they should communicate?

Very close relatives to those who tell people how they should eat.

cheers

oz, taking my protein in a convenient way

On Feb 13, 5:55*pm, "Dan L." wrote:
In article , "Aluckyguess"
wrote:



"David Hare-Scott" wrote in message
...
Dan L. wrote:

Hmmm ....

I have questions.

Carbon dioxide CO2 is that the gas we humans exhale (Good)?

Yes, it is essential that we do so, the same with other animals.

Do not plants take in CO2 and keep the carbon and release oxygen O2
(Good)?

Yes. *Put very simply animals and plants consume each other's by products,
it's a good system.

Do not cars exhale carbon monoxide CO (Bad)?

Only small amounts, mainly they burn hydrocarbons (petrol, diesel) with
oxygen to give carbon dioxide. *The CO2 has the major greenhouse effect
compared to CO.

I am not sure but comparing machines to living things different?

You can compare living and non-living things in their contribution or
consumption of greenhouse gasses (well any gasses really) in the
atmosphere. Rather than say one is 'good' and the other 'bad' you need to
look at the numbers and evaluate the net effect. *Which isn't at all easy.
Net effect of balance and stability = things go much as they are
Net effect of imbalance and instability = rapid change = collapse human
society as we know it.

Is CO2 a green house gas also?

Yes indeed. *So is methane which is more significant per molecule, it is
produced by bogs, ruminants (cattle) and coal mines amongst many things.

If so should we limit the growth of the human population to save the
planet also?

In the long term this is an essential part of the solution because we have
many effects on the earth other than greenhouse gasses, many resources
that we need are running out and many pollutants that we make, including
greenhouse gasses, are harming the environment. *You can reduce the rate
of using up resources and generating pollutants per head but unless you do
something about the number of heads too you are only delaying the date of
collapse as you cannot reach stability.

Those who suggest that there is no need to limit human population (say
because of technological advances) will find that it is limited for them,
or for their descedants, nontheless. *It will be limted by the Four
Horsemen.

My chemistry is week. However, this "Nathan Fiala" is an economist
not a chemist or biologist. After all, Does any economist of this
world know what they are saying, let alone how this world operates?

You do have to wonder.

David

We can not damage the earth, we can only damage ourselves. The planet will
heal itself its just a matter of time.

I totally disagree with that statement. Humans can most certainly damage
the Earth! I believe it is possible with modern technology to slam the
moon into the Earth and say "bye bye Earth".

And I believe in the Easter Bunny.

(A Kurt VonnegutFan).

That helps explain it.

cheers

oz, a Heinlein guy

On Feb 13, 6:26*pm, "David Hare-Scott" wrote:
Aluckyguess wrote:
If so should we limit the growth of the human population to save the
planet also?

In the long term this is an essential part of the solution because
we have many effects on the earth other than greenhouse gasses, many
resources that we need are running out and many pollutants that we
make, including greenhouse gasses, are harming the environment. *You
can reduce the rate of using up resources and generating pollutants
per head but unless you do something about the number of heads too
you are only delaying the date of collapse as you cannot reach
stability. Those who suggest that there is no need to limit human
population
(say because of technological advances) will find that it is limited
for them, or for their descedants, nontheless. *It will be limted by
the Four Horsemen.

My chemistry is week. However, this "Nathan Fiala" is an economist
not a chemist or biologist. After all, Does any economist of this
world know what they are saying, let alone how this world operates?

You do have to wonder.

David

We can not damage the earth, we can only damage ourselves. The planet
will heal itself its just a matter of time.

Is producing pollution that affects other organisms and climate not harming
the earth?

Depends on how you define "harm" -- from the Earth's point of view.

*Is the human-caused extinction of species not harming the earth?

Depends:
Mosquitoes? Dinosaurs? Smallpox bacteria? Poodles? Carp?
Kudzu, Crabgrass, Neighbors' kids?

How long would you be prepared to wait for the eco-system to re-balance?

As long as it takes.

What do you think would be happening to humanity while you wait?

Doesn't matter.

cheers

oz, non-polluting where possible -- by MY definition, of course.
Yours may vary.

"MajorOz" wrote in message
...
On Feb 13, 6:26 pm, "David Hare-Scott" wrote:
Aluckyguess wrote:
If so should we limit the growth of the human population to save the
planet also?

In the long term this is an essential part of the solution because
we have many effects on the earth other than greenhouse gasses, many
resources that we need are running out and many pollutants that we
make, including greenhouse gasses, are harming the environment. You
can reduce the rate of using up resources and generating pollutants
per head but unless you do something about the number of heads too
you are only delaying the date of collapse as you cannot reach
stability. Those who suggest that there is no need to limit human
population
(say because of technological advances) will find that it is limited
for them, or for their descedants, nontheless. It will be limted by
the Four Horsemen.

My chemistry is week. However, this "Nathan Fiala" is an economist
not a chemist or biologist. After all, Does any economist of this
world know what they are saying, let alone how this world operates?

You do have to wonder.

David

We can not damage the earth, we can only damage ourselves. The planet
will heal itself its just a matter of time.

Is producing pollution that affects other organisms and climate not
harming
the earth?

Depends on how you define "harm" -- from the Earth's point of view.

Is the human-caused extinction of species not harming the earth?

Depends:
Mosquitoes? Dinosaurs? Smallpox bacteria? Poodles? Carp?
Kudzu, Crabgrass, Neighbors' kids?

How long would you be prepared to wait for the eco-system to re-balance?

As long as it takes.

What do you think would be happening to humanity while you wait?

Doesn't matter.

cheers

oz, non-polluting where possible -- by MY definition, of course.
Yours may vary.

Very nice

In article
,
MajorOz wrote:

On Feb 13, 5:55*pm, "Dan L." wrote:
In article , "Aluckyguess"
wrote:

We can not damage the earth, we can only damage ourselves. The planet
will
heal itself its just a matter of time.

I totally disagree with that statement. Humans can most certainly damage
the Earth! I believe it is possible with modern technology to slam the
moon into the Earth and say "bye bye Earth".

And I believe in the Easter Bunny.

The reason for extreme concept is that I have a good idea how
Aluckyguess thinks. To Aluckyguess humans cannot damage or even destroy
the earth itself, even if they want to. He or She is correct that humans
are just a tic in time for this planet. The planet itself will continue
with or without humans. Unless we humans turn the Earth into another
asteroid belt.

However my position is, lets do what ever we can to help this plant and
the human race survive (preferably in comfort) as long as possible.

oz, a Heinlein guy
Heinlein does indeed out rank Kurt Vonnegut. I do like them both.

In Vonnegut's book "Cats Cradle" a humorist book and a Hugo award runner
up, ice-nine was a product that solidified the earths water supply, thus
ending all life on earth.

When it comes to global warming and other topics, it is often useless
and futile to argue with a person of a strong religious belief. Because
in the end their argument will eventually come down to this "God will
fix it someday".

Enjoy Life ... Dan

--
Garden in Zone 5 South East Michigan.