Re: Torch It, Scorch It

On 16 Apr 2007 11:20:33 -0700, tenwheels@xxxxxxxxx wrote:

On Apr 12, 12:00 pm, Aunt Nasty <ye_olde_muleskin...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Mon, 9 Apr 2007 12:38:59 -0400, "Daniel Hogg" <dho...@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"Aunt Nasty" <ye_olde_muleskin...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in messagenews:g18k13tk9ckj1og3iu2t8sne2q74cbl636@xxxxxxxxxx
On Sun, 8 Apr 2007 10:17:38 -0400, "Daniel Hogg" <dho...@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"Aunt Nasty" <ye_olde_muleskin...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in messagenews:dt6f13lk23ajh2h6l2ff0bk2g3e2ngcl5i@xxxxxxxxxx
On 29 Mar 2007 06:59:14 -0700, tenwhe...@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
Leaving aside undersea exploration, vast uninundated
tracts of Earth are un- and under-populated. The essential issue is
available fresh water, which is a problem with a simple solution that
we will adopt when we need the land.

So how do you propose to provide all that fresh - or, more
specifically, potable - water to all those people in all those
environments which are otherwise uninhabitable?

Water can be made potable by existing technology, so that's not a problem.

You'll need to tell these people:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1999/01/990106075344.htm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/static/in_depth/world/2000/world_wat...
http://electroniciraq.net/news/2916.shtml

You post irrelevant drivel

You're merely mistaken, or, worse, dishonest.

You might want to

You believe you'd be in a position to give me advice. Why?

seek help for that affliction you have

My doctor pals don't see any afflictions on me. Are you now
attempting to pretend to be a physician, moreover one who
could diagnose via usenet?

Now that's funny.

in always
referring to those who disagree with you, dishonest.

I refer to dishonesty as dishonesty. I don't consider any
person, per se, to be anything so restrictive in all aspects.

You are quite likely capable of avoiding fallacy, for one
example, and I hope that you do so more consistently.

It is actually totally relevant that "we have an increase in population,
but we do not have a corresponding increase in drinking water",
as stated in the first link. It's a fact, not 'drivel'.

It is actually totally relevant that "The world's supply of fresh water is
running out. Already one person in five has no access to safe drinking
water", as stated in the second link. It, too, is a fact, not 'drivel'.

The links you posted had nothing to do with the subject I mentioned:
to wit, "Water can be made potable by existing technology, so that's
not a problem."

Do you worship technology? Do you believe it will be
supported and implemented when those in charge will
prefer to make money stifling and undermining it?

It's still a problem, even when the technology exists, to
implement that technology effectively.

When you post relevant links ...

I did. You merely failed to discern the relevance.

Perhaps you're just too frightened to deal with the third link.

What sort of weird world ...

Why do you want Iraqi children to suffer and die because
they can't get potable water?

I'm genuinely curious, as is the world at large.

...tripe ...

Surely you can do better.

You say it's 'easy'. So why isn't it being done?

Lack of vision, I suppose.

You don't know?

Here's a hint: there's big money to be made in having
people desperate for basic resources.

Some countries are however adopting this
approach. France, IIRC, is beginning on this path.

A mere beginning still isn't 'no problem'.

I'm multilingual - English, Spanish and Nastyish.

Yet you don't understand when you're told, sweetly,
generously, and helpfully, that wars will be fought over
water supplies.

Plus, I don't have an agenda that colors everything.

You're merely unaware of that.

Now do I get to be Emperor?

Yes. Congratulations.

As my first act, it is henceforth wrong to suggest dishonesty when
disagreement fully explains the difference. Go sin no more.

You have no proof of guilt.

You merely have an unwarranted desire to criminalize
based on your superstitions.

You seem to be saying that you can't be bothered to do
the right thing for yourself unless everyone else does so
before you do.

Nah - you regularly confound opinions with your own malicious interpretation
of them.

Again, you are merely mistaken at best.

How quickly you progress! Congratulations.

Yet you're still so far behind, though I offer you assistance.


On Mon, 9 Apr 2007 12:38:59 -0400, "Daniel Hogg" <dhogg2@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

"Aunt Nasty" <ye_olde_muleskinner@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:g18k13tk9ckj1og3iu2t8sne2q74cbl636@xxxxxxxxxx
On Sun, 8 Apr 2007 10:17:38 -0400, "Daniel Hogg" <dhogg2@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"Aunt Nasty" <ye_olde_muleskinner@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:dt6f13lk23ajh2h6l2ff0bk2g3e2ngcl5i@xxxxxxxxxx
On 29 Mar 2007 06:59:14 -0700, tenwheels@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
Leaving aside undersea exploration, vast uninundated
tracts of Earth are un- and under-populated. The essential issue is
available fresh water, which is a problem with a simple solution that
we will adopt when we need the land.

So how do you propose to provide all that fresh - or, more
specifically, potable - water to all those people in all those
environments which are otherwise uninhabitable?

Water can be made potable by existing technology, so that's not a problem.

You'll need to tell these people:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1999/01/990106075344.htm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/static/in_depth/world/2000/world_water_crisis/default.stm
http://electroniciraq.net/news/2916.shtml

You post irrelevant drivel

You're merely mistaken, or, worse, dishonest.

It is actually totally relevant that "we have an increase in population,
but we do not have a corresponding increase in drinking water",
as stated in the first link. It's a fact, not 'drivel'.

It is actually totally relevant that "The world's supply of fresh water is
running out. Already one person in five has no access to safe drinking
water", as stated in the second link. It, too, is a fact, not 'drivel'.

Perhaps you're just too frightened to deal with the third link.

unrelated to the question.

Do you believe that people who are confronted with water shortages
will be amenable to the use of substantial gallonages for luxury livestock?

To remind you, the

You're merely mistaken, or, worse, dishonest.

I have been addressing potable water issues with the information I have
provided to you.

It is not my error, but yours, when you fail to discern the relevance.

issue was potable water

"Under pressure from certain special interests, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) has proposed new drinking water policy that could allow less affluent communities to
drink water that does not meet federal standards."

http://www.safe-drinking-water.org/

and whether existing technology can make unpotable
water, drinkable. It can, easily and there are millions, nay billions of
folks who drink such water every day. Including you. It is most certainly
not available to all, and that is a problem, but a problem with a simple
solution.

So solve it. What's holding you up?

You say it's 'easy'. So why isn't it being done?

The water problem is essentially one of too much in some places and not
enough in others. Rather than dam up rivers to control flooding, a better
alternative is to pipeline it away from flood zones to areas in need of it.
It's a network distribution model applied to water. Instead of dams and
levies, when the water exceeds acceptable levels, it would be drawn into
the pipeline system. No flood insurance needed. I can envision folks along
the Mississippi, the Ohio, the Missouri, etc. selling their abundant resource
to folks in Arizona and Chihuahua. The Sahara could be irrigated with
desalination plants in between the pipeline and the ocean.

Before you get excited about such things as Ohio River
(or Lake Erie) water, I suggest you pull up a beakerful and
consider what's in front of you.

They don't have water treatment plants in your village?

Have your tap water tested, thoroughly, then get back to us.

For years I helped build microprocessors to manage treatment plants.
If you believe they'd produce clean water, I have news for you.

http://www.nrdc.org/water/drinking/uscities/contents.asp?gclid=COHVu9OLvYsCFRmHgQodiEyCvg

I drink daily of
water that once was part of the Ohio.

Have it tested, then report the results.

http://www.inspect-ny.com/water/watrtest.htm

Ken was trying to claim, albeit without evidence, that it'd
put the USA into the stone age not to outpollute China.

Not really. His statement had more to do with continued economic
leadership for the US.

You mean the US that's bankrupt and sold off to China?

No, you misunderstand...

No, you're wrong. Read what was written.

It will not harm the USA to become less wasteful and more clean.

Why should developing nations, especially those which outnumber
us 4:1, receive a free pass at our expense? If pollution is a problem,
its source is irrelevant.

Why do you assume a 'free pass' or your 'expense' would be
involved with you diminishing your level of pollution?

Read the Kyoto Treaty language. Pay particular attention to the parts where
China's pollution output is undiminished while the US' is required. That's
a free pass in any language, including Nastyish.

Why would you imagine that?

There is no free pass. No one benefits in the long term from
polluting. You can't assume that you should continue to pollute
simply because someone else is doing so, either.

"Q. Are developing countries exempt from the Kyoto Protocol?

A. No. The Kyoto Protocol was negotiated and signed in accordance with the principles of
the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, the 1992 treaty signed by
George W. Bush's father and ratified by the Senate. The climate convention requires all
countries, including developing countries, to establish programs to address greenhouse gas
emissions and to report on progress. The 1992 treaty also requires developed countries
such as the United States to take the lead in limiting greenhouse gas emissions. In
particular, the 1992 treaty commits the United States and other developed countries to
establish programs designed to return greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels. Current
U.S. emissions are about 15 percent greater than they were in 1990.

Developed countries such as the United States, with only 25 percent of the world's
population, are responsible for more than 75 percent of the accumulated greenhouse gas
pollution in the atmosphere to date. Nonetheless, many developing countries - including
China, India, Mexico, Brazil and Argentina - have made progress in reducing the greenhouse
gas emission rates from their economies through improved transport, forestry and other
policies.[1] While U.S. carbon dioxide emissions continue to rise, emissions in China have
dropped more than 17 percent since 1997.[2]"

http://www.nrdc.org/globalWarming/akyotoqa.asp

See also:

http://www.enviroliteracy.org/article.php/278.html

There's no particular reason to enjoin
any nation from entering the 21st century, however doing so to our own
detriment is a self-defeating policy. Do you suppose China and India
would be so enthusiastic about the Kyoto Treaty if their emissions
were similarly limited? And it's a far larger problem given that
their populations dwarf that of the US.

The wastage of the US population dwarfs that of the rest of the world.

So far. The point which appears to have slipped through, is that when
populations 4-5 times the size of the US start polluting wildly, that
impact will be far greater than our's. Assuming, of course, that the
impact is genuine and not a rat hole to rip off the public, itself a
questionable proposition.

So shouldn't we show them how to avoid that mistake?

Sure - make me Emperor. <Joke alert, in case you took that seriously.>

First you'd have to tell me if .6 million Iraqi deaths would
constitute 'justice' for the victims/survivors of 9/11.

Of course not. They're mutually exclusive and indicative of the right wing
agenda. I have little to no tolerance for ideologically driven agendas, of
any stripe, left or right.

Thank you. I truly appreciate that.

Now do I get to be Emperor?

Yes. Congratulations.

For a serious answer though, you need to explain why it is acceptable that
other nations do what you condemn the US for doing. Take your time, I'll
wait.

Why do you assume it'd be found 'acceptable'?

Read the Kyoto Treaty language. It's available in English in case you
haven't bothered.

You make an unfounded assumption.

"The Kyoto agreement is consistent with the 1992 treaty principle that developed countries
should provide leadership in addressing global warming. Singling out China and India, as
the president has done, demonstrates the inequity in his claim of unfairness. Nearly half
the population of India lives on less than $1 per day; the death rate of Indian children
under 5 years is 13 times higher than in the United States; the average person in Indian
uses less electricity in a year than the average American uses every two weeks. Given that
developed countries have put 75 percent of accumulated greenhouse pollution in the
atmosphere and the disparity in living conditions between the United States and such
countries as China and India, it is morally bankrupt to argue that the United States
should refuse to take additional action until the world's poor countries take the same
action..."

http://www.nrdc.org/globalWarming/akyotoqa.asp

Meanwhile, I'll note you failed to answer the question. Perhaps you cannot.

Actually, you're mistaken: I've answered the question, but you
don't like or don't understand the answer, or both.

You seem to be saying that you can't be bothered to do
the right thing for yourself unless everyone else does so
before you do.

Nah - you regularly confound opinions with your own malicious interpretation
of them.

Again, you are merely mistaken at best.

Are you afraid of progressing into the future at all, much
less in the lead?

Do you really think your approach is one which will have success? How many
folks have you brought around to your way of thinking with such nonsense as
you regularly post?

You can't point out any nonsense I've posted, but you
can highlight your inability to make sense of reality.

On Sun, 8 Apr 2007 10:17:38 -0400, "Daniel Hogg" <dhogg2@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

"Aunt Nasty" <ye_olde_muleskinner@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:dt6f13lk23ajh2h6l2ff0bk2g3e2ngcl5i@xxxxxxxxxx
On 29 Mar 2007 06:59:14 -0700, tenwheels@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
Leaving aside undersea exploration, vast uninundated
tracts of Earth are un- and under-populated. The essential issue is
available fresh water, which is a problem with a simple solution that
we will adopt when we need the land.

So how do you propose to provide all that fresh - or, more
specifically, potable - water to all those people in all those
environments which are otherwise uninhabitable?

Water can be made potable by existing technology, so that's not a problem.

You'll need to tell these people:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1999/01/990106075344.htm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/static/in_depth/world/2000/world_water_crisis/default.stm
http://electroniciraq.net/news/2916.shtml

The water problem is essentially one of too much in some places and not
enough in others. Rather than dam up rivers to control flooding, a better
alternative is to pipeline it away from flood zones to areas in need of it.
It's a network distribution model applied to water. Instead of dams and
levies, when the water exceeds acceptable levels, it would be drawn into the
pipeline system. No flood insurance needed. I can envision folks along the
Mississippi, the Ohio, the Missouri, etc. selling their abundant resource to
folks in Arizona and Chihuahua. The Sahara could be irrigated with
desalination plants in between the pipeline and the ocean.

Before you get excited about such things as Ohio River
(or Lake Erie) water, I suggest you pull up a beakerful and
consider what's in front of you.

Ken was trying to claim, albeit without evidence, that it'd
put the USA into the stone age not to outpollute China.

Not really. His statement had more to do with continued economic leadership
for the US.

You mean the US that's bankrupt and sold off to China?

Why should developing nations, especially those which outnumber
us 4:1, receive a free pass at our expense? If pollution is a problem, its
source is irrelevant.

Why do you assume a 'free pass' or your 'expense' would be
involved with you diminishing your level of pollution?

There's no particular reason to enjoin
any nation from entering the 21st century, however doing so to our own
detriment is a self-defeating policy. Do you suppose China and India
would be so enthusiastic about the Kyoto Treaty if their emissions
were similarly limited? And it's a far larger problem given that
their populations dwarf that of the US.

The wastage of the US population dwarfs that of the rest of the world.

So far. The point which appears to have slipped through, is that when
populations 4-5 times the size of the US start polluting wildly, that
impact will be far greater than our's. Assuming, of course, that the
impact is genuine and not a rat hole to rip off the public, itself a
questionable proposition.

So shouldn't we show them how to avoid that mistake?

Sure - make me Emperor. <Joke alert, in case you took that seriously.>

First you'd have to tell me if .6 million Iraqi deaths would
constitute 'justice' for the victims/survivors of 9/11.

For a serious answer though, you need to explain why it is acceptable that
other nations do what you condemn the US for doing. Take your time, I'll
wait.

Why do you assume it'd be found 'acceptable'?

You seem to be saying that you can't be bothered to do
the right thing for yourself unless everyone else does so
before you do.

Are you afraid of progressing into the future at all, much
less in the lead?


On 29 Mar 2007 06:59:14 -0700, tenwheels@xxxxxxxxx wrote:

On Mar 28, 8:22 am, Aunt Nasty <ye_olde_muleskin...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 27 Mar 2007 10:00:41 -0700, tenwhe...@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
On Mar 27, 10:45 am, Aunt Nasty <ye_olde_muleskin...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 24 Mar 2007 12:44:32 GMT, Ken Brown <yeahri...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Stop thinking we, as lowly humans, can really do ANYTHING at all, short
of a major nuclear war, to make a dent on planet earth.

No one was describing denting the planet.

Human populations are known for destroying their surroundings
to such an extent that there are catastrophic losses to them as
a result.

Overall the species has prospered wildly.

Overpopulation isn't the same thing as prosperity.

Biologically speaking, it is.

No, actually, overpopulation is denoted, in at least some
lexicons, as too many individuals for the conditions.

"...when there are more people than can live on the earth in comfort, happiness and health
and still leave the world a fit place for future generations."

http://www.prb.org/Template.cfm?Section=PRB&template=/ContentManagement/ContentDisplay.cfm&ContentID=8099

The word prosperity means something other than what
occurs with overpopulation, because overpopulation
causes a failure to thrive.

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/prosperity

Catastrophic losses clearly
do not always yield catastrophe. And consider that 2/3 of the earth
remains unexplored.

Why do you believe that?

Because it's true. Undersea territory is the most unexploited
resource on the planet.

You make a good point about the resources there.

http://ethomas.web.wesleyan.edu/ees123/clathrate.htm

So humans will do as we've always done - either
move on, replace the resource or adapt.

Any species can become extinct.

Yup.

Some people don't want to hasten human extinction,
or increase human suffering, or do such things to other
species, either.

Humans are ruining their ecosystems for their
own habitation rather rapidly.

Not really.

You should learn more about it. Much of agriculture is
unsustainable, and the effects of pollution are significant.

http://www.scorecard.org/

Leaving aside undersea exploration, vast uninundated
tracts of Earth are un- and under-populated. The essential issue is
available fresh water, which is a problem with a simple solution that
we will adopt when we need the land.

So how do you propose to provide all that fresh - or, more
specifically, potable - water to all those people in all those
environments which are otherwise uninhabitable?

So how much of the earth do you believe you should burn so it won't burn?

Not my argument, and insofar as I understand, no one else's either.
Straw dogs blow away in the wind.

You must not have seen the part with the firefighters,
though you didn't miss much, there.

Besides, China and India are going to do more to screw everything up in
the next 20 years than we have done in the past 100 .. but are they
restricted? Nooo .. let's get the rich Americans and the West to live
in the stone age and walk around so they can "catch up".

What nonsense you spout. It boils down to your claim that anything
anyone else would do that's wrong would excuse your wrongdoing.

Not exactly Ken's argument.

You seem convinced that Ken can't type for himself adequately.

Nah - Ken is perfectly capable of posting. But you failed to properly
characterize his argument, and as you've made amply clear, you aren't
having a dialog but a public discourse, so it's fair game for anyone
to reply to your comment.

That'd all be irrelevant even if it weren't fallacious and false.

Ken was trying to claim, albeit without evidence, that it'd
put the USA into the stone age not to outpollute China.

He doesn't want to be environmentally wise because others are not.

You know this because...Aren't you the one who railed against being
psychoanalyzed recently?

Read what he wrote.

There's no particular reason to enjoin
any nation from entering the 21st century, however doing so to our own
detriment is a self-defeating policy. Do you suppose China and India
would be so enthusiastic about the Kyoto Treaty if their emissions
were similarly limited? And it's a far larger problem given that
their populations dwarf that of the US.

The wastage of the US population dwarfs that of the rest of the world.

So far. The point which appears to have slipped through, is that when
populations 4-5 times the size of the US start polluting wildly, that
impact will be far greater than our's. Assuming, of course, that the
impact is genuine and not a rat hole to rip off the public, itself a
questionable proposition.

So shouldn't we show them how to avoid that mistake?


On 27 Mar 2007 10:00:41 -0700, tenwheels@xxxxxxxxx wrote:

On Mar 27, 10:45 am, Aunt Nasty <ye_olde_muleskin...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 24 Mar 2007 12:44:32 GMT, Ken Brown <yeahri...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Stop thinking we, as lowly humans, can really do ANYTHING at all, short
of a major nuclear war, to make a dent on planet earth.

No one was describing denting the planet.

Human populations are known for destroying their surroundings
to such an extent that there are catastrophic losses to them as
a result.

Overall the species has prospered wildly.

Overpopulation isn't the same thing as prosperity.

Catastrophic losses clearly
do not always yield catastrophe. And consider that 2/3 of the earth
remains unexplored.

Why do you believe that?

So humans will do as we've always done - either
move on, replace the resource or adapt.

Any species can become extinct.

Humans are ruining their ecosystems for their
own habitation rather rapidly.

One good volcano does more to increae global warming (ha .. what a joke
phrase) thna all our vehicles.

So if the forest fire approaches your home, you want to light the drapes?

Destroying fuel that would feed the fire isn't a bad idea.

It is if you could put out the fire first instead.

The first
Forestry Service guy (don't recall his name right now) who burned out
a patch ahead of the coming fire was thought to be nuts until the fire
swept around the group, leaving them alive. It thereafter has become
protocol.

Mary Healey's article has the specifics.

So how much of the earth do you believe you should burn so it won't burn?

Besides, China and India are going to do more to screw everything up in
the next 20 years than we have done in the past 100 .. but are they
restricted? Nooo .. let's get the rich Americans and the West to live
in the stone age and walk around so they can "catch up".

What nonsense you spout. It boils down to your claim that anything
anyone else would do that's wrong would excuse your wrongdoing.

Not exactly Ken's argument.

You seem convinced that Ken can't type for himself adequately.

He doesn't want to be environmentally wise because others are not.

There's no particular reason to enjoin
any nation from entering the 21st century, however doing so to our own
detriment is a self-defeating policy. Do you suppose China and India
would be so enthusiastic about the Kyoto Treaty if their emissions
were similarly limited? And it's a far larger problem given that
their populations dwarf that of the US.

The wastage of the US population dwarfs that of the rest of the world.


On 24 Mar 2007 12:44:32 GMT, Ken Brown <yeahright@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Stop thinking we, as lowly humans, can really do ANYTHING at all, short
of a major nuclear war, to make a dent on planet earth.

No one was describing denting the planet.

Human populations are known for destroying their surroundings
to such an extent that there are catastrophic losses to them as
a result.

One good volcano does more to increae global warming (ha .. what a joke
phrase) thna all our vehicles.

So if the forest fire approaches your home, you want to light the drapes?

Besides, China and India are going to do more to screw everything up in
the next 20 years than we have done in the past 100 .. but are they
restricted? Nooo .. let's get the rich Americans and the West to live
in the stone age and walk around so they can "catch up".

What nonsense you spout. It boils down to your claim that anything
anyone else would do that's wrong would excuse your wrongdoing.

Don't fix non-problems .. spend my tax money doing something else ..

You like the way those billions are being wasted, along with a lot of oil,
on terrorizing the Iraqis?


"Of the original Herd of 100+ Horses, only 19 remain,
the rest having been killed during the bombing of Baghdad
when their Facility was struck by a Tomahawk cruise missile."

http://www.soquilicenter.org/arab.htm

You weren't threatened by any of your victims.
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Twenty questions for creationists
    ... What are the three greatest challenges to evolution, ... earth was 100% tropical even in the polar regions. ... see today because a water vapor canopy encircled the earth much like we see ... The entire point of teaching both evolution and creation side by side would ...
    (talk.origins)
  • 2012: The Year of the Black Water Dragon
    ... May the Water Dragon bestow the Chinese Five Blessings of harmony, ... 2012 The Year of the Dragon ... with water sitting on top of earth. ... wood, also conflicting elements. ...
    (alt.gathering.rainbow)
  • Re: The origin of water
    ... down with a splosh as the whole earth was covered in water. ... Earth existed as molecules of water in space and then the Earth while ... were accreting) so there wasn't really an Earth "flying around the Sun" ... mountains appearing as the water pushed down into crevices. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: The origin of water
    ... down with a splosh as the whole earth was covered in water. ... Earth existed as molecules of water in space and then the Earth while ... were accreting) so there wasn't really an Earth "flying around the Sun" ... a big reason Earth has that shape but that's not because of its weight, ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: The origin of water
    ... down with a splosh as the whole earth was covered in water. ... Earth existed as molecules of water in space and then the Earth while ... were accreting) so there wasn't really an Earth "flying around the Sun" ... your reasons for supporting them. ...
    (talk.origins)