"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 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.

On Feb 16, 11:16*am, "Dan L." wrote:
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".

Thass true. But, thank FSM, there aren't any of those on this board.

cheers

oz...."The meek will indeed inherit the Earth, because everybody worth
a shit will have, long since, left for the stars"

In article ,
"Dan L." wrote:

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.

It seems you've fallen in with the "Rapture" crowd. It seems odd that
the biosphere is given such short shrift, since it has been part of the
planet for the last 4.5 billion years. So losing it or a significant
portion of it can be construed as damage, especially when you consider
that there may only be a billion years left to recover before solar
heating does us in (the "editorial" us). Shame to lose it really, when
you consider that the ol' girl (Earth) could still be beautiful and put
off the inevitable for awhile longer, except for those
"who-ever-has-the-most-toys-when-s/he-dies-wins" idiots. We owe this
twisted vision to John Calvin. It is to be the reward of the "select".
But what can you do in a country where more people believe in the
"Virgin Birth" than evolution?
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...F936A2575BC0A9
659C8B63 Conversely, heaven for me is in my garden, or at my table, or
playing spoons with my sweety on a cold winter's night. Be careful
of the lunatics, when they think they see a profit, people get trampled.
--

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

In article
,
Billy wrote:

In article ,
"Dan L." wrote:

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.

It seems you've fallen in with the "Rapture" crowd. It seems odd that
the biosphere is given such short shrift, since it has been part of the
planet for the last 4.5 billion years. So losing it or a significant
portion of it can be construed as damage, especially when you consider
that there may only be a billion years left to recover before solar
heating does us in (the "editorial" us). Shame to lose it really, when
you consider that the ol' girl (Earth) could still be beautiful and put
off the inevitable for awhile longer, except for those
"who-ever-has-the-most-toys-when-s/he-dies-wins" idiots. We owe this
twisted vision to John Calvin. It is to be the reward of the "select".
But what can you do in a country where more people believe in the
"Virgin Birth" than evolution?
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...F936A2575BC0A9
659C8B63 Conversely, heaven for me is in my garden, or at my table, or
playing spoons with my sweety on a cold winter's night. Be careful
of the lunatics, when they think they see a profit, people get trampled.

I am not in with the "Rapture" crowd. Have you forgotten one our past
discussions. I am an atheist. I will agree that my garden is the closest
thing on Earth that is a conceptual Heaven. Let's all pray, on my knees.

Our lord and savior Charles Darwin that is in the great compost pile. I
will sacrifice bugs on my alter in his name. I will also praise the
Saints J. I. Rodale and Sir Albert Howard of organic gardening. I will
send all weeds to live forever in the pit of burning hell. I will also
spurn the blasphemers that praise the use of chemical fertilizers and
herbicides. We will all meet again in the great compost piles of
recycled life on our blessed Earth.

Amen

Be careful of ANY lunatics, whether they seek a profit or not

Mphf ha h ho heh ahhh ha ... Dan

--
Garden in Zone 5 South East Michigan.

In article ,
"Dan L." wrote:

In article
,
Billy wrote:

In article ,
"Dan L." wrote:

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.

It seems you've fallen in with the "Rapture" crowd. It seems odd that
the biosphere is given such short shrift, since it has been part of the
planet for the last 4.5 billion years. So losing it or a significant
portion of it can be construed as damage, especially when you consider
that there may only be a billion years left to recover before solar
heating does us in (the "editorial" us). Shame to lose it really, when
you consider that the ol' girl (Earth) could still be beautiful and put
off the inevitable for awhile longer, except for those
"who-ever-has-the-most-toys-when-s/he-dies-wins" idiots. We owe this
twisted vision to John Calvin. It is to be the reward of the "select".
But what can you do in a country where more people believe in the
"Virgin Birth" than evolution?
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...F936A2575BC0A9
659C8B63 Conversely, heaven for me is in my garden, or at my table, or
playing spoons with my sweety on a cold winter's night. Be careful
of the lunatics, when they think they see a profit, people get trampled.

I am not in with the "Rapture" crowd. Have you forgotten one our past
discussions. I am an atheist. I will agree that my garden is the closest
thing on Earth that is a conceptual Heaven. Let's all pray, on my knees.

Our lord and savior Charles Darwin that is in the great compost pile. I
will sacrifice bugs on my alter in his name. I will also praise the
Saints J. I. Rodale and Sir Albert Howard of organic gardening. I will
send all weeds to live forever in the pit of burning hell. I will also
spurn the blasphemers that praise the use of chemical fertilizers and
herbicides. We will all meet again in the great compost piles of
recycled life on our blessed Earth.

Amen

Be careful of ANY lunatics, whether they seek a profit or not

Mphf ha h ho heh ahhh ha ... Dan

Got to admire your enthusiasm. Want to turn around so that I can
cinch-up your buckle a little bit more? ;O)
--

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