"Humans 'very likely' making earth warmer" is wrong

On Sat, Bill Baka wrote:

..........
With 9 billion people all competing for space and paving
over every thing in sight,

You need to get out more, except for a few places
like close to Manhattan, Los Angeles, Miami, etc., people
often get lost in the woods.

plus deforestation,

There are a lot more trees being planted than
cut down, the big deforestation period was the century
before coal was available at low cost.

plus the jet travel,
something will have to give.

Because of a lack of affordable energy, not
a lack of space. It was 30 F here this afternoon,
and driving past the cement plant, I turned off the
climate control in my car to prevent the white dust
on the road near the cement plant getting in the car,
and when I turned it back on, the air conditioning
came on for a minute, the sun was warming the
car, but it wasn't noticeable with automatic climate
control.

That makes me wonder, on a cold morning
I set the climate control for 78 F, could that be what
they are talking about on TV, I used to set it at 74.

It will either be starvation, war, or a
fast spreading new disease, but something WILL happen.

It always has, but the conditions that are a problem
today is almost total reliance on the commercial sector
for space heating, and in cold country, that can be a
big problem at any moment.

A least with a big house, when things get
really cold and there is no electric, oil, or natural gas,
one or two rooms might be enough wood to last
the rest of the winter when it will be warm enough
to start walking south. :-)

Joe Fischer

Bill Baka wrote:

Mark Hickey wrote:

I haven't (that's why I question such a nonsensical position as yours
- that 99.9% of the available farmland on earth will be used up by
buildings and roads). You still owe me a rough population figure that
would require such a misappropriation of resources (or a mea culpa
statement). ;-)

It had the desired effect, by affecting your response.

And still no answer about your basis for your 99.9% claim. C'mon
Bill, how hard can it be to say "oops, I was talking out my butt"?

About 9 billion
should be the absolute limit before people start going nuts from over
population. Read up on the Lemmings in England. Mass suicide due to
overcrowding. With 9 billion people all competing for space and paving
over every thing in sight, plus deforestation, plus the jet travel,
something will have to give. It will either be starvation, war, or a
fast spreading new disease, but something WILL happen. Humans are
indisputably the most destructive animals ever to inhabit this planet.
Just because we have bigger brains is no excuse for destroying an entire
planet.
Think about it.

I thought about it.

There are only two possibilities.

One, everyone in China just jumped off a cliff, or you don't have a
clue. Hmmmmm. Lessee now - well over 1 billion people live within
100km (62 miles) of the coastline in China. That would be roughly the
equivalent of a similar strip of land running from Maine to Texas.

Since I haven't heard reports of mass suicide in China, I can only
conclude that you're making this stuff up again. Y'know Bill, I'm
really starting to worry about any tenuous connection you're still
maintaining with reality - it seems to be slipping away with every
post. Better go get a big dose of reality somewhere quick before you
slip irreversibly into lala land.

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $795 ti frame

Mark Hickey wrote (of/to Iron Bill "Ernest T" Baka):

... I can only
conclude that you're making this stuff up again. Y'know Bill, I'm
really starting to worry about any tenuous connection you're still
maintaining with reality - it seems to be slipping away with every
post. Better go get a big dose of reality somewhere quick before you
slip irreversibly into lala land.

Having just watched "The Ring II" (it, like, totally sucked dude), I think
arguing with Bill Baka is like watching that stupid video tape. You know it
will make you nuts, but...

Bill "better you than me, Hickster" S.

Joe Fischer wrote:
On Sat, Bill Baka wrote:

..........
With 9 billion people all competing for space and paving
over every thing in sight,

You need to get out more, except for a few places
like close to Manhattan, Los Angeles, Miami, etc., people
often get lost in the woods.

plus deforestation,

There are a lot more trees being planted than
cut down, the big deforestation period was the century
before coal was available at low cost.

plus the jet travel,
something will have to give.

Because of a lack of affordable energy, not
a lack of space. It was 30 F here this afternoon,
and driving past the cement plant, I turned off the
climate control in my car to prevent the white dust
on the road near the cement plant getting in the car,
and when I turned it back on, the air conditioning
came on for a minute, the sun was warming the
car, but it wasn't noticeable with automatic climate
control.

That makes me wonder, on a cold morning
I set the climate control for 78 F, could that be what
they are talking about on TV, I used to set it at 74.

Nar, that's just you getting older.

Well know effect with nursing homes, the geriatrics
feel the cold much more than everyone else.

You see it with little kids in spades, they're happy to go
swimming at temperatures no sane adult will swim at.

Its basically changes to the metabolic rate.

It will either be starvation, war, or a fast spreading
new disease, but something WILL happen.

It always has, but the conditions that are a problem today is almost
total reliance on the commercial sector for space heating, and in
cold country, that can be a big problem at any moment.

Not really.

A least with a big house, when things get really cold and
there is no electric, oil, or natural gas, one or two rooms
might be enough wood to last the rest of the winter when
it will be warm enough to start walking south. :-)

You'd be a lot better warming yourself by whipping yourself.

Dont have to move then.

In article , dgk wrote:
On Thu, 08 Feb 2007 15:31:04 GMT, "no spam" wrote:

Poverty is almost always a result of bad choices. People choose to not work
in school. People choose to have kids when they know they can't afford
them. People choose to drop out of school. People choose to sell drugs to
make a fast buck. People choose to screw up their lives why should I be
FORCED to pay to "fix" their problems?

When I was a kid I attended PS 3 in the Bronx (NYC). In the middle of
second grade my parents scraped together enough money to move us to
Queens, and a better school district. They evaluated me and were going
to place me in the "slow" classes because I was already way behind
reading level. My parents talked them into putting me in the regular
classes and within a few months I was ahead of reading level and going
into the "gifted" classes.

My parents attended an open school night and the principal asked them
just what was going on in that school in the Bronx that I kid like me
was behind reading level. I don't know that they could answer the
question.

That was over 40 years ago. I suspect my life would be very different
if I wasn't lucky enough to get out of PS 3. Your argument that
poverty is almost always a result of bad choices is simplistic. It
takes a very special person to climb out of a crappy environment. It
happens, but lots of good people get stuck.

I have heard how things have a high rate of going wrong in public
schools where over 20% of the students are from families that have
generally been in poverty. I see one reason being popularity of "lowest
common denominator" cultural forces, and a related reason being popularity
of making bad choices when enough others do so.
There is such a thing as a "poverty culture". And children from such a
"poverty culture" have a high rate of not paying attention in class, not
doing homework, being disruptive, and cutting classes and outright truancy,
especially after 5th grade. This is highly because their parents do not
keep these kids on the straight-and-narrow and all-too-often do not
adequately value education but blame their poverty disproportionately on
factors other than lack of getting an available education.

- Don Klipstein )

Brent P wrote:

Of course I'm a flatlander here in IL, so those are about the biggest
downhills I've ever had to deal with. I would doubt an urban hill would
be worse, but all I've seen of San-Fran in person was from the air and the
airport, so I wouldn't know how bad the hills there are.

I drove down Lombard Street in the van. Manual brakes and steering,
auto trans in low. I was terrified that my right leg would give out
before we got to the bottom and my right leg was weak for the next day
or so. Google earth doesn't do it justice.

--
Cheers, Bev
===================================
New sig on order, watch this space.

Rod Speed wrote:
Joe Fischer wrote
Rod Speed wrote

And the results the catholic systemic schools get
shows that it aint really about money anyway.

It is when the liberal federal government sets the
requirements for redistribution of collected taxes.

No it isnt when those schools get much better
results with much less money per brat.

BUT -- the Catholic schools, like all private schools, are free to kick
out students who aren't willing to work or play by the rules. The
public schools have no such luxury -- they can kick kids out for weapons
violations and other similar hazards, but they have to accept the rest.

--
Cheers, Bev
===================================
New sig on order, watch this space.

Joshua Putnam wrote:

In article ,
says...

Chicago is in the east?

Probably to most people in the United States, weatherman geography
sounds out of touch with reality.

Though of course most people don't call it the east

With the exception of TV weatherpeople, hopefully most of us don't
use the term "midwest" when talking about Chicago's location.
Currently, apparently Merriam-Webster is calling Illinois "central"
United States.

because standard U.S. vocabulary was set when there were 13 states
and the rest of us were Territories.

Fortunately language isn't set in stone anymore. Language changes
continuously. The ability to adapt probably shows strength, and vice
versa.

Good luck and have fun.

On Feb 9, 2:46 pm, Bill Baka wrote:


Like the Bible is supposed to say is "God helps he who helps himself",

That's not in the Bible.

That's a Calvinist thing - the same Calvinist idea that those that
*have* are blessed, and that those who *have not* have some sort of
character flaw, or are sinful. Also things not supported by
Scripture.

Southern Baptists are pretty highly Calvinist.

E.P.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/...ge/default.stm

What more do you want?

This is particularly interesting:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6196804.stm