The moderation team has been following our discussion of global
warming.


When the topic arose, we considered it (marginally) related to ponds
and let it continue. We have been pleased that the general tone of
the discussion has been civil and respectful...qualities prized by so
many in this group!


As time has gone on, the thread has taken somewhat of a life of its
own and moved more off topic. We do not want to cut the topic off
and
we do not want to have rpm become filled with discussions of global
warming.


Accordingly, we are asking those making contributions to the
discussion of global warming to add their posts to the thread now
titled 'Ponders' discussion of global warming'. Civil posts about
global warming will be moderated as usual and passed on to the
thread. Uncivil posts and posts to other global warming threads will
be returned to their senders, who may modify them and add them to the
'Ponder's discussion of global warming' thread.


Thank you all for handling a potentially flame-filled topic in a
respectful manner.


Jim Hurley
Writing as administrative moderator for the rpm moderation team

When it was originally posted, it looked like spam trying to incite
arguments to me. I'm just ignoring it.


--
Gareee
(Gary Tabar Jr.)

On Thu, 29 Nov 2007 17:40:42 CST, "Gareee©"
wrote:

When it was originally posted, it looked like spam trying to incite
arguments to me. I'm just ignoring it.

Same here! I'm a bit surprised that so many people formerly from
rec.ponds responded.
--
Hal Middle Georgia, Zone 8
http://tinyurl.com/2fxzcb

On Thu, 29 Nov 2007 20:39:38 CST, wrote:


Jim,
An excellent decision/solution. Echo's of Solomon!

ron s

Not to nit-pick, but it wasn't the decision of one person, so not really a
Solomon moment. It was a consensus. ;-) ~ jan
------------
Zone 7a, SE Washington State
Ponds: www.jjspond.us

"Hal" wrote

On Thu, 29 Nov 2007 17:40:42 CST, "Gareee©"
wrote:

When it was originally posted, it looked like spam trying to incite
arguments to me. I'm just ignoring it.

Same here! I'm a bit surprised that so many people formerly from
rec.ponds responded.

Well, things are slow, it's that time of year, and people are bored.. LOL!

--
Gareee
(Gary Tabar Jr.)

Hal wrote:

On Thu, 29 Nov 2007 17:40:42 CST, "Gareee©"
wrote:

When it was originally posted, it looked like spam trying to incite
arguments to me. I'm just ignoring it.

Same here! I'm a bit surprised that so many people formerly from
rec.ponds responded.

Why? I didn't help start this group to avoid argument - I did it to avoid
purely destructive posts. As far as I'm concerned (and I know my attitude
is not held by all) people can argue as long as they want as long as they
don't get abusive.
--
derek

"Phyllis and Jim" wrote in message
...
The moderation team has been following our discussion of global
warming.


When the topic arose, we considered it (marginally) related to ponds
and let it continue. We have been pleased that the general tone of
the discussion has been civil and respectful...qualities prized by so
many in this group!


As time has gone on, the thread has taken somewhat of a life of its
own and moved more off topic. We do not want to cut the topic off
and
we do not want to have rpm become filled with discussions of global
warming.


Accordingly, we are asking those making contributions to the
discussion of global warming to add their posts to the thread now
titled 'Ponders' discussion of global warming'. Civil posts about
global warming will be moderated as usual and passed on to the
thread. Uncivil posts and posts to other global warming threads will
be returned to their senders, who may modify them and add them to the
'Ponder's discussion of global warming' thread.


Thank you all for handling a potentially flame-filled topic in a
respectful manner.


Jim Hurley
Writing as administrative moderator for the rpm moderation team


Oddly enough you decided to reject a post from the person who started it.
BTW: Peter Pan and I took the conversation to another group and had
absolutely no problem. Maybe you should relax a little and wait until the
conversation becomes an actual flame fest.

Jim

Hi Jim,

Thank you for your post about our asking folks to post about global
warming to the "Ponder's discussion of global warming' thread.

I am not sure to which post you are referring in your comment about a
rejected post. Let me provide you with some info about the steps I
took. Perhaps it will help.

The moderation team was happy about the general civil and respectful
tenor of the global warming discussion.

We noted, however, that it was generating additional OT threads. We
want to avoid having OT threads begin to fill the board and we did not
want to cut off the moved-OT thread with civil discussion that our
members were actively enjoying, so we decided to ask people to post to
just one global warming thread. Once the moderation team had decided,
I posted the 'Moderator announce:' post.

Then I initiated a new thread with the title "Ponder's discussion of
global warming".

Then I reviewed all of the posts in the moderation cue. Those about
global warming, I sent back to their authors with a reference to the
Moderator announcement and a suggestion that they resubmit their post
to the new thread.

In response to your post, I have just reviewed each of the rejected
posts to be sure they had the resubmit element. They do.

If the person who received the rejected post would like to follow up
on it, please invite them to send me a copy at , my
moderation address.

If we inadvertently rejected a civil post or if I somehow failed to
suggest that they resubmit, I would be glad to apologize to them and
would certainly want them to feel free to resubmit it to the "Ponder's
discussion..." thread.

I would be glad to hear from you directly at the
address if you would like to follow up further on you post.

Jim Hurley
Speaking for myself and not for the moderation team

Hi Derek,

Nice to hear from you. How are your fish doing? Our pond is cold
enough that only the mosquito fish are eating.

Jim

When it comes to Global warming, I only ask that you ask yourself a simple
question: According to all sources who believe the GW is caused by man, they
site catastrophic storms and damages to the planets as a result of the
earth warming. Now the planet has warmed less then .5 degrees in the past
100 years: (This is where common sense comes in) If your refrigerator rose
by .5 degrees, who the food in there go bad? So why is the planet in such
peril? Believe what you want about GW, personally I think GW is nothing
more then a way for Those who control the House and Senate to raise our
taxes on some trumped up bogus man made myth,
Thanks for the thread

In article ,
"Peter Pan" wrote:

When it comes to Global warming, I only ask that you ask yourself a simple
question: According to all sources who believe the GW is caused by man, they
site catastrophic storms and damages to the planets as a result of the
earth warming. Now the planet has warmed less then .5 degrees in the past
100 years: (This is where common sense comes in) If your refrigerator rose
by .5 degrees, who the food in there go bad? So why is the planet in such
peril? Believe what you want about GW, personally I think GW is nothing
more then a way for Those who control the House and Senate to raise our
taxes on some trumped up bogus man made myth,
Thanks for the thread

I've heard a lot of things said on the many sides of this
argument....but comparing the ecosystem inside my refrigerator to the
highly complex ecosystem of our Earth is not very sensible to me and
overly simplistic.

1000 years from now, or a million it won't matter what we do or do not do at
all.. the Earth will still be here, and we most likely will not.

If you look at things in the perspective of the age of the entire planet,
global warming as we've percieved it isn;t even a blip on the radar.

Peter Pan wrote:

the planet has warmed less then .5 degrees in the past
100 years: If your refrigerator rose
by .5 degrees, who the food in there go bad?
So why is the planet in such peril?

Here are the facts:

1) The planet is not a refrigerator.

2) The average temperature shift around the world is not .5 degrees but
1.4 degrees and it is rising at a much faster rate now. The scary part
is not what has happened but what will happen. Some Pacific islands are
already being evacuated because of the increase in sea level.*

2) If you increase the temperature of a block of ice from 31F to 33F you
have melted that block of ice.

3) That is what is happening, and glaciers are melting. Average
temperatures in Alaska, western Canada, and eastern Russia have risen at
twice the global average. Arctic ice is rapidly disappearing, and the
region may have its first completely ice-free summer by 2040 or earlier.

4) Mountain glaciers are disappearing also. Glaciers and mountain snows
are rapidly melting--for example, Montana's Glacier National Park now has
only 27 glaciers, versus 150 in 1910.

5) Coral reefs, which are highly sensitive to small changes in water
temperature, suffered the worst bleaching--or die-off in response to
stress--ever recorded in 1998, with some areas seeing bleach rates of 70
percent.

6) Industrialization, deforestation, and pollution have greatly
increased atmospheric concentrations of water vapor, carbon dioxide,
methane, and nitrous oxide, all greenhouse gases that help trap heat
near Earth's surface.

7) Humans are pouring carbon dioxide into the atmosphere much faster
than plants and oceans can absorb it.

8) Earth has indeed experienced warming and cooling cycles roughly every
hundred thousand years due to these orbital shifts, but such changes
have occurred over the span of several centuries. Today's changes have
taken place over the past hundred years or less.

9) Sea level can rise between 7 and 23 inches (18 to 59 centimeters) by
century's end. Rises of just 4 inches (10 centimeters) will flood many
South Seas islands and swamp large parts of Southeast Asia.

10) Some hundred million people live within 3 feet (1 meter) of mean sea
level, and much of the world's population is concentrated in vulnerable
coastal cities. In the U.S., Louisiana and Florida are especially at
risk. New Orleans was already devastated.

11) More than a million species face extinction from disappearing
habitat, changing ecosystems, and acidifying oceans.

12) At some point in the future, warming could become uncontrollable by
creating positive feedback. Rising temperatures release additional
greenhouse gases by unlocking methane in permafrost and undersea
deposits, freeing carbon trapped in sea ice, and causing increased
evaporation of water.

All experts expect the planet to survive just fine, but many life forms
will be lost forever. This is not about wildfires, heat waves, and
strong tropical storms, it is about survival of life as we know it.

If it was the life of one of our children, we would not think twice, but
it is the life of their space craft, earth. Don't put you head back in
the ground and deny our children and their children their home.

*
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n..._global_warmin
g.html
--
Pardon my spam deterrent; send email to
18,000 gallon (17'x 47'x 2-4') lily pond garden in Zone 6
Cheers, Steve Henning in Reading, PA USA

On Sun, 23 Dec 2007 13:31:54 CST, "Gareee©"
wrote:

1000 years from now, or a million it won't matter what we do or do not do at
all.. the Earth will still be here, and we most likely will not.

Assuming reincarnation isn't fact. ;-)

If you look at things in the perspective of the age of the entire planet,
global warming as we've percieved it isn;t even a blip on the radar.

You're probably very right. ~ jan
------------
Zone 7a, SE Washington State
Ponds: www.jjspond.us

Peter Pan wrote:

When it comes to Global warming, I only ask that you ask yourself a
simple question: According to all sources who believe the GW is caused by
man, they
site catastrophic storms and damages to the planets as a result of the
earth warming. Now the planet has warmed less then .5 degrees in the past
100 years: (This is where common sense comes in)

Do you know how many atomic bombs it would take to raise the temperature of
the planet by an average .5 degrees? That's (almost literally) a hell of a
lot of energy.
--
derek