(OT) : The Great Mother Earth Is Having Hot-and-Cold Flashes{Going Through Menopause}
 

On Sep 20, 3:21*pm, John Smith wrote:
On 9/20/2010 11:54 AM, dave wrote:

* ...

No. I don't give a **** about saving animals. It's about keeping the
Earth habitable for my spawn. It's about making a small difference
instead of cursing the darkness. It's about me being part of the
solution, rather than whining about people who care.

Worry about the government taxing your children into indebted servitude
which will last past their lifetimes ... then sweat the small stuff ...

Regards,
JS

That's gonna happen anyway, unless the government defaults. At this
point in time, with an accumulated $13T debt, there ain't a lot of
choice. If you don't raise taxes, it only staves off the inevitable.

(OT) : The Great Mother Earth Is Having Hot-and-Cold Flashes{Going Through Menopause}
 

On Sep 20, 3:18*pm, John Smith wrote:
On 9/20/2010 8:20 AM, bpnjensen wrote:

...
That's what I do ;-)

So wha power brokers, exactly, are benefitting from Dave's choices?

The ones consuming daves portion, of course ...

Regards,
JS

I give up. You lost me, unless you are talking about the people who
deal in the alternatives he chooses instead - which are quite arguably
not very "powerful."

(OT) : The Great Mother Earth Is Having Hot-and-Cold Flashes{Going Through Menopause}
 

On 9/20/2010 11:45 AM, dave wrote:

...
How about you give up meat 3 times a week?

I have a nephew with a large cattle ranch in the foothills of California
.... we get our beef at close to cost ... indeed, most xmases, guess what
the present is?

Regards,
JS

(OT) : The Great Mother Earth Is Having Hot-and-Cold Flashes{Going Through Menopause}
 

Generally speaking, I agree with a lot of your posts. However, I think
on this one, you are missing a few points, so I will to try and politely
address them.

On 9/19/2010 3:54 PM, Joe from Kokomo wrote:

Well, it's not energy [from volcanoes] per se. It's the gaseous
droplets and particulate matter ejected into the air by volcanoes.

Absolute FACT #1: Carbon dioxide IS a "greenhouse" gas (lets solar
heat in but won't let it escape).

On 9/19/2010 7:31 PM, John Smith wrote:

Actually, cO2 is rather benign and not any real thing to worry
about.

I don't know about "benign"; above a certain percentage, carbon dioxide
will kill you...but that wasn't my point.

The point IS that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and as more and more CO2 is
introduced to the atmosphere, more and more solar energy is captured,
thus raising the earth's temperature.

On 9/19/2010 7:31 PM, John Smith wrote:

Anyone growing marijuana or aquarium plants, and supplying them with
excess cO2, knows the voracious appetite of plants for carbon
dioxide. The effect of adding more cO2 is very dramatic on plant
growth. When we finally find another fuel source, the plants will
clean up this problem very quickly. All life on this planet is carbon
based, carbon is a nutrient, not a poison.

Again, no one said CO2 is a poison per se (even though it -will- kill
you above a certain concentration).

The problem with your plant theory is at least two fold:

1) More and more green areas are being "developed" (paved over).

2) The rain forests are disappearing at an alarming rate.

If your plant theory is such a miracle cure (and "cleaning up the
problem very quickly"), why do the ice samples show CO2 is INCREASING at
such a rapid rate? All those plants that were going to save us must be
loafing. ;-)

On 9/19/2010 7:31 PM, John Smith wrote:

However, there is one detrimental effect of cO2. It is dissolving in
the oceans which provide a natural buffering (absorbing) medium. This
is causing a slight rise in the acidity of the oceans, and
particularly near shorelines, and this is detrimental on the shells
of mussels, clams, etc. There are probably other problems with the
excess cO2 that I am not aware of, as this is not a great matter of
concern to me.

You are correct...and there -are- other problems that -should- be of
concern to you (Law of Unintended Consequences). Bottom line is we (the
world population) cannot just keep pumping bazillions of tons of CO2
into the atmosphere, year after year, and not expect to have negative
consequences.

On 9/19/2010 7:31 PM, John Smith wrote:

More nuclear plants would be a good answer, until we find the next
energy source, however, there is even more opposition to the use of
nuclear power plants than coal/oil fired plants. One thing is for
sure, nuclear will only be a temporary solution when we run out of
oil/coal, as this is in limited supply also.

I almost agree with you, but unfortunately, with your nuclear power
solution, you overlook two critical issues:

1) Nuclear fuel is extremely energy intensive to produce. Takes a lot of
time and power to run those centrifuges...and due to fear of nuclear
proliferation, breeder reactors may not be on the horizon any time soon.

2) We have to live with and safely store the waste from the nuclear
power plants for a while, like say, 50,000 years or so.

Regards,
Joe

(OT) : The Great Mother Earth Is Having Hot-and-Cold Flashes{Going Through Menopause}
 

On 9/20/2010 5:25 PM, Joe from Kokomo wrote:

...
Regards,
Joe

Well, yeah, you have to stop destroying the plants, at sometime, if you
want them to start harvesting the cO2. However, there is a problem
which has not gained widespread attention yet. Algae blooms, due to the
lack of enough foliage on land to absorb the nutrients, and the
nutrients are hitting waterways, are becoming common and threatening to
some aquatic life. This will be the "next problem" someone wants to be
paid to fix ... it never ends ... but, anyway, the algae will be after
that cO2, if nothing else is.

Regards,
JS

(OT) : The Great Mother Earth Is Having Hot-and-Cold Flashes{Going Through Menopause}
 

On Sep 19, 11:16*pm, John Smith wrote:
On 9/19/2010 8:09 PM, wrote:

...
Robinson Crusoe . * Survival *and total independence from world's
economic cycles ! .

Survival this time, most likely, will be prying the cold dead fingers
off a gold bar of one of the rich elite which has just been terminated.

Or, in the opposite direction, stealing a tomato from someones garden in
the darkest portion of the night ...

Or, trading a few rounds of ammo for a can of stew ...

Regards,
JS

(OT) : Say "YES" to an American CO2 Enrichment Tax {Re-GreeningAmerican & Investing in the USA}
 

On Sep 20, 10:08*am, dave wrote:
John Smith wrote:
'Special Dave',rated by the rich and
powerful. Watching people sacrifice the future of their children, and
indenturing their children in indebted servitude to pay for the
lifestyles of the rich and famous seems like the ultimate form of child
abuse I can imagine.

Tell it to the people who cut taxes and went to war. They ran up a
trillion and a half dollars more debt from 2001-2009. They did it "off
budget" meaning that when the real cost was merged with the general
fund, we were suddenly an extra trillion in the hole.

If you think Obama's a big spender, what do you think of Bush?

Don't forget St. Ronald and papa Bush .

(OT) : The Great Mother Earth Is Having Hot-and-Cold Flashes{Going Through Menopause}
 

On Sep 20, 9:41*am, John Smith wrote:
On 9/20/2010 7:01 AM, dave wrote:

...
How about we quit eating meat? That's the fastest, most effective means
of making a big difference.

That begins an interesting thought. *How, we Americans, greatly extended
our lifespans, health and well being from grazing humongous amounts of
beef and having the American diet centered around this excellent source
of protein.

Now that the rich find that the population is too expensive to feed a
diet of beef to, they wish to convert us over to a diet of rice, veges
and tofu. *Some idiots will actually begin touting this as desirable!
If you ever doubt the lack of intelligence in a good portion of the
population, you just gave a good example of a reminder ...

You go eat that chit ... leaves more steak for me!

Regards,
JS

BTW, Schicklgruber was a vegetarian, not a well publicized fact !

(OT) : The Great Mother Earth Is Having Hot-and-Cold Flashes{Going Through Menopause}
 

On Sep 20, 5:25*pm, Joe from Kokomo wrote:
Generally speaking, I agree with a lot of your posts. However, I think
on this one, you are missing a few points, so I will to try and politely
address them.

On 9/19/2010 3:54 PM, Joe from Kokomo wrote:
Well, it's not energy [from volcanoes] per se. It's the gaseous
droplets and particulate matter ejected into the air by volcanoes.

Absolute FACT #1: Carbon dioxide IS a "greenhouse" gas (lets solar
heat in but won't let it escape).

On 9/19/2010 7:31 PM, John Smith wrote:

Actually, cO2 is rather benign and not any real thing to worry
about.

I don't know about "benign"; above a certain percentage, carbon dioxide
will kill you...but that wasn't my point.

The point IS that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and as more and more CO2 is
introduced to the atmosphere, more and more solar energy is captured,
thus raising the earth's temperature.

On 9/19/2010 7:31 PM, John Smith wrote:

Anyone growing marijuana or aquarium plants, and supplying them with
excess cO2, knows the voracious appetite of plants for carbon
dioxide. The effect of adding more cO2 is very dramatic on plant
growth. When we finally find another fuel source, the plants will
clean up this problem very quickly. All life on this planet is carbon
based, carbon is a nutrient, not a poison.

Again, no one said CO2 is a poison per se (even though it -will- kill
you above a certain concentration).

The problem with your plant theory is at least two fold:

1) More and more green areas are being "developed" (paved over).

2) The rain forests are disappearing at an alarming rate.

If your plant theory is such a miracle cure (and "cleaning up the
problem very quickly"), why do the ice samples show CO2 is INCREASING at
such a rapid rate? All those plants that were going to save us must be
loafing. * ;-)

On 9/19/2010 7:31 PM, John Smith wrote:

However, there is one detrimental effect of cO2. It is dissolving in
the oceans which provide a natural buffering (absorbing) medium. This
is causing a slight rise in the acidity of the oceans, and
particularly near shorelines, and this is detrimental on the shells
of mussels, clams, etc. There are probably other problems with the
excess cO2 that I am not aware of, as this is not a great matter of
concern to me.

You are correct...and there -are- other problems that -should- be of
concern to you (Law of Unintended Consequences). Bottom line is we (the
world population) cannot just keep pumping bazillions of tons of CO2
into the atmosphere, year after year, and not expect to have negative
consequences.

On 9/19/2010 7:31 PM, John Smith wrote:

More nuclear plants would be a good answer, until we find the next
energy source, however, there is even more opposition to the use of
nuclear power plants than coal/oil fired plants. One thing is for
sure, nuclear will only be a temporary solution when we run out of
oil/coal, as this is in limited supply also.

I almost agree with you, but unfortunately, with your nuclear power
solution, you overlook two critical issues:

1) Nuclear fuel is extremely energy intensive to produce. Takes a lot of
time and power to run those centrifuges...and due to fear of nuclear
proliferation, breeder reactors may not be on the horizon any time soon.

2) We have to live with and safely store the waste from the nuclear
power plants for a while, like say, 50,000 years or so.

Regards,
Joe

Luckily, there is Thorium nuclear. A SUPERB alternative to ordinary U
or Pu fission, very plentiful fuel (about 1,000 years' worth), much
shorter-lived waste ( a couple hundred vs a couple hundred thou),
technology already there, India & France among others will have these
online in a couple of years, a great stopgap until we can move onward
to efficient solar and/or Fusion.

All we have to do overcome the immense influence of the fossil fuel
industry and we Americans, too, could advance into the 21st century...

(OT) : The Great Mother Earth Is Having Hot-and-Cold Flashes{Going Through Menopause}
 

On Sep 20, 5:18*pm, Joe from Kokomo wrote:
On Sep 19, 3:54 pm, Joe from *wrote:

- Think hundreds of millions of Chinese and Indians
- trading in their bicycles for cars. * :-(

On 9/19/2010 8:14 PM, RHF wrote:

So are you advocating Stopping China and India
from Industrializing any more . . . or just having
the USA and Europe De-Industrialize ?

Nowhere did I say either of those things. Just putting up a red flag
about what is looming on the horizon. Please don't blame the messenger.

1) It WILL happen as India and China's middle class grows.

2) Thanks to the world press reporting on how horribly bad China's
pollution was during the Beijing Olympics, I don't have a warm fuzzy
feeling that the Chinese (or Indians) will be able to handle the
pollution from millions of additional autos.

They already cannot. Life REALLY sucks in China's cities.