FPGA Central

On 12/1/2009 2:51 PM, Steve Pope wrote:
> Eric Jacobsen<eric.jacobsen@ieee.org> wrote:
>
>> On 12/1/2009 12:40 PM, Steve Pope wrote:
>
>>> Um, sorry, posting links to Wall Street Journal articles is
>>> injecting politics into. Don't blame me.
>
>> I strongly disagree. That seems akin to me of the logical fallacy of
>> "poisoning the well": The WSJ is conservative, therefore this article
>> must be right wing and therefore unreliable!
>
> No. The politics here is that of driving the debate, to get
> people to think that polluters by default should proceed unimpeded
> unless some unreasonable bar be met regarding proof of global
> warming. The WSJ pieces is 100% politics aimed at this end.
>
>> Prof. Lindzen is a well-respected researcher at MIT and has been in the
>> "skeptical" camp for a long time. Perhaps WSJ is one of the few venues
>> where he can publish. I suggest people assess the content of the
>> article rather than any perceived reputation of the publisher.
>
> I respect your opinion but disagree with your perception of
> what is going on.
>
> Steve

Yeah, we're gonna disagree on this one, but that's fine.

--
Eric Jacobsen
Minister of Algorithms
Abineau Communications
http://www.abineau.com

On Dec 1, 2:40*pm, spop...@speedymail.org (Steve Pope) wrote:
> Rune Allnor *<all...@tele.ntnu.no> wrote:
>
> >On 1 Des, 19:21, spop...@speedymail.org (Steve Pope) wrote:
> >> Don't buy it! *Don't let them control the debate.
> >Keep the politics out of this.
>
> Um, sorry, posting links to Wall Street Journal articles is
> injecting politics into. *Don't blame me.
>
> >In plain English: The climate models aren't good enough.
>
> "Aren't good enough" for what purpose? *What standard of
> proof is needed to make a political decision to implement
> more pollution controls?

The whole point of the global warming debate is whether CO2 is
pollution. Why not use the word "CO2" instead of pollution. I, for
one, do not view CO2 as pollution.
The CO2 controls (which you seem to think is clever to call pollution
controls) that seem to be desired by the GW folks, are really economic
controls and individual liberty controls.

>*Ultimately this is a political
> decision, isn't it?
>
> >The argument has nothing to do with politics.
>
> Sure it does.
>
> Steve

brent <bulegoge@columbus.rr.com> wrote:

>On Dec 1, 2:40*pm, spop...@speedymail.org (Steve Pope) wrote:

>> Rune Allnor *<all...@tele.ntnu.no> wrote:

>> The climate models aren't good enough.

>> "Aren't good enough" for what purpose? *What standard of
>> proof is needed to make a political decision to implement
>> more pollution controls?

>The whole point of the global warming debate is whether CO2 is
>pollution. Why not use the word "CO2" instead of pollution. I, for
>one, do not view CO2 as pollution.
>The CO2 controls (which you seem to think is clever to call pollution
>controls) that seem to be desired by the GW folks, are really economic
>controls and individual liberty controls.

This is simply the pro-pollution way of wording things.

Your "liberty" to emit CO2 does not have priority over my "liberty"
to live in a world without excess CO2. The "individual liberty"
argument is bogus. It's a question of what policy will be pursued.
We as a society decide what amount of CO2 to emit. Liberty has
nothing to do with it. It's a policy decision, that's all.


Steve

brent wrote:
> On Dec 1, 2:40 pm, spop...@speedymail.org (Steve Pope) wrote:
>> Rune Allnor <all...@tele.ntnu.no> wrote:
>>
>>> On 1 Des, 19:21, spop...@speedymail.org (Steve Pope) wrote:
>>>> Don't buy it! Don't let them control the debate.
>>> Keep the politics out of this.
>> Um, sorry, posting links to Wall Street Journal articles is
>> injecting politics into. Don't blame me.
>>
>>> In plain English: The climate models aren't good enough.
>> "Aren't good enough" for what purpose? What standard of
>> proof is needed to make a political decision to implement
>> more pollution controls?
>
> The whole point of the global warming debate is whether CO2 is
> pollution. Why not use the word "CO2" instead of pollution. I, for
> one, do not view CO2 as pollution.
> The CO2 controls (which you seem to think is clever to call pollution
> controls) that seem to be desired by the GW folks, are really economic
> controls and individual liberty controls.

Rules against pissing in our well also limit our liberty. Are they a bad
thing?

>> Ultimately this is a political
>> decision, isn't it?
>>
>>> The argument has nothing to do with politics.
>> Sure it does.
>>
>> Steve

Jerry
--
Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯

On Dec 1, 9:16*pm, Jerry Avins <j...@ieee.org> wrote:
> brent wrote:
> > On Dec 1, 2:40 pm, spop...@speedymail.org (Steve Pope) wrote:
> >> Rune Allnor *<all...@tele.ntnu.no> wrote:
>
> >>> On 1 Des, 19:21, spop...@speedymail.org (Steve Pope) wrote:
> >>>> Don't buy it! *Don't let them control the debate.
> >>> Keep the politics out of this.
> >> Um, sorry, posting links to Wall Street Journal articles is
> >> injecting politics into. *Don't blame me.
>
> >>> In plain English: The climate models aren't good enough.
> >> "Aren't good enough" for what purpose? *What standard of
> >> proof is needed to make a political decision to implement
> >> more pollution controls?
>
> > The whole point of the global warming debate is whether CO2 is
> > pollution. *Why not use the word "CO2" instead of pollution. *I, for
> > one, do not view CO2 as pollution.
> > The CO2 controls (which you seem to think is clever to call pollution
> > controls) that seem to be desired by the GW folks, are really economic
> > controls and individual liberty controls.
>
> Rules against pissing in our well also limit our liberty. Are they a bad
> thing?
>
> >> *Ultimately this is a political
> >> decision, isn't it?
>
> >>> The argument has nothing to do with politics.
> >> Sure it does.
>
> >> Steve
>
> Jerry
> --
> Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get.
> ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
When do you plan to stop driving your automobile or stop using
electricity? Please do not try to tell me that you use a
"responsible" amount. You are a dirty gross polluting - piss in the
well- human being if you are emitting CO2. I am simply taking your
point to its logical conclusion.

On Dec 1, 9:11*pm, spop...@speedymail.org (Steve Pope) wrote:
> brent *<buleg...@columbus.rr.com> wrote:
> >On Dec 1, 2:40*pm, spop...@speedymail.org (Steve Pope) wrote:
> >> Rune Allnor *<all...@tele.ntnu.no> wrote:
> >> The climate models aren't good enough.
> >> "Aren't good enough" for what purpose? *What standard of
> >> proof is needed to make a political decision to implement
> >> more pollution controls?
> >The whole point of the global warming debate is whether CO2 is
> >pollution. *Why not use the word "CO2" instead of pollution. *I, for
> >one, do not view CO2 as pollution.
> >The CO2 controls (which you seem to think is clever to call pollution
> >controls) that seem to be desired by the GW folks, are really economic
> >controls and individual liberty controls.
>
> This is simply the pro-pollution way of wording things.
>
> Your "liberty" to emit CO2 does not have priority over my "liberty"
> to live in a world without excess CO2. *The "individual liberty"
> argument is bogus. *It's a question of what policy will be pursued.
> We as a society decide what amount of CO2 to emit. *Liberty has
> nothing to do with it. *It's a policy decision, that's all.
>
> Steve

I strongly disagree with you. My liberty to emit CO2 is something I
exercise every single day of my life.

I still have the liberty to drive my automobile and log onto my
computer and heat my home. And I will support a policy to destroy any
policy that tries to take away my right to emit CO2.

You still have the liberty to emit CO2 and I suspect do so every
day.

The argument over whether you have a right to live in a world without
excess CO2 is no different than the argument about whether one has a
right to live in a society free of homo***uals. You have created a
bogyman that is not considered a boogyman by very many people.

brent wrote:
> On Dec 1, 9:16 pm, Jerry Avins <j...@ieee.org> wrote:
>> brent wrote:
>>> On Dec 1, 2:40 pm, spop...@speedymail.org (Steve Pope) wrote:
>>>> Rune Allnor <all...@tele.ntnu.no> wrote:
>>>>> On 1 Des, 19:21, spop...@speedymail.org (Steve Pope) wrote:
>>>>>> Don't buy it! Don't let them control the debate.
>>>>> Keep the politics out of this.
>>>> Um, sorry, posting links to Wall Street Journal articles is
>>>> injecting politics into. Don't blame me.
>>>>> In plain English: The climate models aren't good enough.
>>>> "Aren't good enough" for what purpose? What standard of
>>>> proof is needed to make a political decision to implement
>>>> more pollution controls?
>>> The whole point of the global warming debate is whether CO2 is
>>> pollution. Why not use the word "CO2" instead of pollution. I, for
>>> one, do not view CO2 as pollution.
>>> The CO2 controls (which you seem to think is clever to call pollution
>>> controls) that seem to be desired by the GW folks, are really economic
>>> controls and individual liberty controls.
>> Rules against pissing in our well also limit our liberty. Are they a bad
>> thing?
>>
>>>> Ultimately this is a political
>>>> decision, isn't it?
>>>>> The argument has nothing to do with politics.
>>>> Sure it does.
>>>> Steve
>> Jerry
>> --
>> Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get.
>> ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
> When do you plan to stop driving your automobile or stop using
> electricity? Please do not try to tell me that you use a
> "responsible" amount. You are a dirty gross polluting - piss in the
> well- human being if you are emitting CO2. I am simply taking your
> point to its logical conclusion.

I breathe. I fart. I limit my driving and use a car that logs 35 mpg
highway with the AC on. I could do worse.

Jerry
--
Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯

On Dec 1, 9:35*pm, Jerry Avins <j...@ieee.org> wrote:
> brent wrote:
> > On Dec 1, 9:16 pm, Jerry Avins <j...@ieee.org> wrote:
> >> brent wrote:
> >>> On Dec 1, 2:40 pm, spop...@speedymail.org (Steve Pope) wrote:
> >>>> Rune Allnor *<all...@tele.ntnu.no> wrote:
> >>>>> On 1 Des, 19:21, spop...@speedymail.org (Steve Pope) wrote:
> >>>>>> Don't buy it! *Don't let them control the debate.
> >>>>> Keep the politics out of this.
> >>>> Um, sorry, posting links to Wall Street Journal articles is
> >>>> injecting politics into. *Don't blame me.
> >>>>> In plain English: The climate models aren't good enough.
> >>>> "Aren't good enough" for what purpose? *What standard of
> >>>> proof is needed to make a political decision to implement
> >>>> more pollution controls?
> >>> The whole point of the global warming debate is whether CO2 is
> >>> pollution. *Why not use the word "CO2" instead of pollution. *I, for
> >>> one, do not view CO2 as pollution.
> >>> The CO2 controls (which you seem to think is clever to call pollution
> >>> controls) that seem to be desired by the GW folks, are really economic
> >>> controls and individual liberty controls.
> >> Rules against pissing in our well also limit our liberty. Are they a bad
> >> thing?
>
> >>>> *Ultimately this is a political
> >>>> decision, isn't it?
> >>>>> The argument has nothing to do with politics.
> >>>> Sure it does.
> >>>> Steve
> >> Jerry
> >> --
> >> Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get..
> >> ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
> > When do you plan to stop driving your automobile or stop using
> > electricity? *Please do not try to tell me that you use a
> > "responsible" amount. *You are a dirty gross polluting - piss in the
> > well- human being if you are emitting CO2. *I am simply taking your
> > point to its logical conclusion.
>
> I breathe. I fart. I limit my driving and use a car that logs 35 mpg
> highway with the AC on. I could do worse.
>
> Jerry
> --
> Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get.
> ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
So you are pissing in the well to. But your pissing is a little more
righteous than my pissing?

You also log onto your computer, you heat your home, you buy products
that require energy to produce. You buy food which was likely
harvested by oil powered farm equipment. If you recycle your garbage
you are contributing to CO2 pollution more than I do because I do not
summons a special filthy CO2 belching truck to come to my house once a
week to pick up three tin cans and a milk jug.

brent <bulegoge@columbus.rr.com> wrote:

> When do you plan to stop driving your automobile or stop
> using electricity?

I don't drive an automobile.

>Please do not try to tell me that you use a
>"responsible" amount.

Why, because it shoots down your argument, which is flimsy in
the first place?

>You are a dirty gross polluting - piss in the
>well- human being if you are emitting CO2. I am simply taking your
>point to its logical conclusion.

You're grasping at straws.

Steve

On Tue, 01 Dec 2009 18:07:13 -0800, brent wrote:

> On Dec 1, 2:40Â*pm, spop...@speedymail.org (Steve Pope) wrote:
>> Rune Allnor Â*<all...@tele.ntnu.no> wrote:
>>
>> >On 1 Des, 19:21, spop...@speedymail.org (Steve Pope) wrote:
>> >> Don't buy it! Â*Don't let them control the debate.
>> >Keep the politics out of this.
>>
>> Um, sorry, posting links to Wall Street Journal articles is injecting
>> politics into. Â*Don't blame me.
>>
>> >In plain English: The climate models aren't good enough.
>>
>> "Aren't good enough" for what purpose? Â*What standard of proof is
>> needed to make a political decision to implement more pollution
>> controls?
>
> The whole point of the global warming debate is whether CO2 is
> pollution. Why not use the word "CO2" instead of pollution. I, for
> one, do not view CO2 as pollution.
> The CO2 controls (which you seem to think is clever to call pollution
> controls) that seem to be desired by the GW folks, are really economic
> controls and individual liberty controls.

False logic. Why not use the word "urine" instead of pollution? What if
I didn't view urine as pollution? Urine controls (which you probably
want to call pollution controls) are really economic controls and
individual liberty controls.

So either you don't mind if I come over to your house and pee on your
carpet, or your whole argument is specious.

--
www.wescottdesign.com

Interesting thread but it is way offtopic so I will drop out now.
I promise.

Steve

Steve Pope <spope33@speedymail.org> wrote:
> Interesting thread but it is way offtopic so I will drop out now.
> I promise.

The analysis of sampled climate data might be on topic here.

The political ramifications of that data may not be.

I have previously posted about our economic system, which is
in many ways a positive feedback system where stability is
important. It might be an analog signal processing problem,
but there is not comp.asp and they usually seem appropriate here.

-- glen

On 2 Des, 07:44, spop...@speedymail.org (Steve Pope) wrote:
> Interesting thread but it is way offtopic so I will drop out now.
> I promise.

- Data analysis is on topic wrt comp.dsp.
- The use of computational models is on topic wrt comp.dsp.
- The quality and suitability of the computational models
used in model-based data analysis is on topic wrt comp.dsp.
- The consequenses of using inferior model-based data analyis
tools is on topic wrt comp.dsp.
- The (in)competence of analysts and decision makers who
dabble with model-based data analysis, is on topic wrt
comp.dsp.

The only OT stuff I can find, is the attempts to blame one
side in the debate as being governed by politics as opposed
to science.

Rune

glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> wrote:

>Steve Pope <spope33@speedymail.org> wrote:

>> Interesting thread but it is way offtopic so I will drop out now.
>> I promise.

>The analysis of sampled climate data might be on topic here.

>The political ramifications of that data may not be.

*headdesk*

Steve

Rune Allnor <allnor@tele.ntnu.no> wrote:

> - Data analysis is on topic wrt comp.dsp.
> - The use of computational models is on topic wrt comp.dsp.
> - The quality and suitability of the computational models
> used in model-based data analysis is on topic wrt comp.dsp.
> - The consequenses of using inferior model-based data analyis
> tools is on topic wrt comp.dsp.
> - The (in)competence of analysts and decision makers who
> dabble with model-based data analysis, is on topic wrt
> comp.dsp.

Technically, I would say that only the second one is on topic.
The lack of comp.asp allows for the first. (That is, data analysis
could be either analog or digital.) The third is probably close
enough for most. The fourth and fifth might be commonly discussed
here, but that doesn't mean that they are on topic.

> The only OT stuff I can find, is the attempts to blame one
> side in the debate as being governed by politics as opposed
> to science.

-- glen

On 2 Des, 19:45, glen herrmannsfeldt <g...@ugcs.caltech.edu> wrote:
> Rune Allnor <all...@tele.ntnu.no> wrote:
> > - Data analysis is on topic wrt comp.dsp.
> > - The use of computational models is on topic wrt comp.dsp.
> > - The quality and suitability of the computational models
> > *used in model-based data analysis is on topic wrt comp.dsp.
> > - The consequenses of using inferior model-based data analyis
> > *tools is on topic wrt comp.dsp.
> > - The (in)competence of analysts and decision makers who
> > *dabble with model-based data analysis, is on topic wrt
> > *comp.dsp.
>
> Technically, I would say that only the second one is on topic.
> The lack of comp.asp allows for the first. *(That is, data analysis
> could be either analog or digital.)

Most data analysis under the realm DSP treat digitized
data that somehow originate in an analog domain.

> *The third is probably close
> enough for most.

DSP is stuffed with models like AR, ARMA, sum-of-sines,
LTI... The whole subject of DSP have to do with knowing
the properties of the different models, and choosing
which one to use.

>*The fourth and fifth might be commonly discussed
> here, but that doesn't mean that they are on topic.

Those are trivial corollaries from the item immediately
above, about knowing what models (not) to use, and why.

Rune

On 12/1/2009 7:11 PM, Steve Pope wrote:
> brent<bulegoge@columbus.rr.com> wrote:
>
>> On Dec 1, 2:40 pm, spop...@speedymail.org (Steve Pope) wrote:
>
>>> Rune Allnor<all...@tele.ntnu.no> wrote:
>
>>> The climate models aren't good enough.
>
>>> "Aren't good enough" for what purpose? What standard of
>>> proof is needed to make a political decision to implement
>>> more pollution controls?
>
>> The whole point of the global warming debate is whether CO2 is
>> pollution. Why not use the word "CO2" instead of pollution. I, for
>> one, do not view CO2 as pollution.
>> The CO2 controls (which you seem to think is clever to call pollution
>> controls) that seem to be desired by the GW folks, are really economic
>> controls and individual liberty controls.
>
> This is simply the pro-pollution way of wording things.
>
> Your "liberty" to emit CO2 does not have priority over my "liberty"
> to live in a world without excess CO2. The "individual liberty"
> argument is bogus. It's a question of what policy will be pursued.
> We as a society decide what amount of CO2 to emit. Liberty has
> nothing to do with it. It's a policy decision, that's all.
>
>
> Steve

In the earth's past history, long before industrialization, atmospheric
CO2 levels were far higher than they are now. From that standpoint
we've a long, long way to go until there is an "excess" of CO2.

When human-caused CO2 emission rates get comparable to historical
emission rates of natural sources like volcanoes, fires, animals, etc.,
I might start to get worried. Until then I'll worry about NOx
emissions, which appear to be far more harmful and can more readily be
blamed on human activity. Why CO2 is being used as a distraction is a
question that has been on my mind for a long time.

--
Eric Jacobsen
Minister of Algorithms
Abineau Communications
http://www.abineau.com

Eric Jacobsen <eric.jacobsen@ieee.org> wrote:
(snip)

> In the earth's past history, long before industrialization, atmospheric
> CO2 levels were far higher than they are now. From that standpoint
> we've a long, long way to go until there is an "excess" of CO2.

> When human-caused CO2 emission rates get comparable to historical
> emission rates of natural sources like volcanoes, fires, animals, etc.,
> I might start to get worried. Until then I'll worry about NOx
> emissions, which appear to be far more harmful and can more readily be
> blamed on human activity. Why CO2 is being used as a distraction is a
> question that has been on my mind for a long time.

CO2 has a long life in the atmosphere. Many other gases have a higher
greenhouse effect, but stay up for a shorter time. The more reactive
they are, the faster they turn into something else. NOx are fairly
reactive and many are water soluble, cause for acid rain. So, short
term NOx is important, which is why California worries about it.

The CO2 time constant for equilibrium between atmosphere and ocean
is about 1000 years. It is a dynamic equilibrium, with much going
in and much coming out every year, which complicates the calculation
of the rate of increase in the atmosphere.

It is easy to think that a little CO2 won't do much, but about four
tanks of gas in your car produces a ton of CO2. Tons per person
per year. Billions of cars, billions of tons. Then add power
plants, billions of tons more.

-- glen

On 2 Des, 22:46, glen herrmannsfeldt <g...@ugcs.caltech.edu> wrote:

> It is easy to think that a little CO2 won't do much, but about four
> tanks of gas in your car produces a ton of CO2. *Tons per person
> per year. *Billions of cars, billions of tons. *Then add power
> plants, billions of tons more.

Sure. The numbers are big. But so are the numbers they
are compared to. Once people start talking about livestock
being responsible for 20-30% of nation-wide emissions of
greenhouse gasses, these numbers start to come into
perspective: There are far fewer large mammals in the world
today than only a couple of centuries ago. These emissions
are lost in the balance, and counter significant parts
of the CO2 emissions.

And, as always: Until the impacts of a variable sun on the
variations in climate are fully understood and accounted for,
any statement relating to CO2 or other gasses and climate
variations, is purely speculative.

Rune

On 12/2/2009 3:13 PM, Rune Allnor wrote:
> On 2 Des, 22:46, glen herrmannsfeldt<g...@ugcs.caltech.edu> wrote:
>
>> It is easy to think that a little CO2 won't do much, but about four
>> tanks of gas in your car produces a ton of CO2. Tons per person
>> per year. Billions of cars, billions of tons. Then add power
>> plants, billions of tons more.
>
> Sure. The numbers are big. But so are the numbers they
> are compared to. Once people start talking about livestock
> being responsible for 20-30% of nation-wide emissions of
> greenhouse gasses, these numbers start to come into
> perspective: There are far fewer large mammals in the world
> today than only a couple of centuries ago. These emissions
> are lost in the balance, and counter significant parts
> of the CO2 emissions.

Plus the comparison to other natural sources like volcanoes, forest
fires, etc., and how those compare today to past history for typical
contributions of CO2 emissions. Depending on who you listen to, the
eruption in Alaska this year, if accounted for, would swamp the US
economy in a cap-and-trade scheme for CO2 emissions.

It makes little sense to me to regulate CO2 emissions, especially in a
wealth-redistribution scheme like cap and trade, that are small compared
to natural sources.

> And, as always: Until the impacts of a variable sun on the
> variations in climate are fully understood and accounted for,
> any statement relating to CO2 or other gasses and climate
> variations, is purely speculative.
>
> Rune

I agree with this point as well.

I'm not claiming that we should be ignorant of or discount the effects
we may be having on the planet, but we should be careful to really put
our efforts where it will have a genuine benefit. I'm seeing a lot of
evidence that the focus is on the wrong things, and the motivation for
keeping the focus where it is appears to me to be largely economic and
political and has not much to do with ecological concerns.

--
Eric Jacobsen
Minister of Algorithms
Abineau Communications
http://www.abineau.com

On 2 Des, 23:57, Eric Jacobsen <eric.jacob...@ieee.org> wrote:
> On 12/2/2009 3:13 PM, Rune Allnor wrote:
>
> > There are far fewer large mammals in the world
> > today than only a couple of centuries ago. These emissions
> > are lost in the balance, and counter significant parts
> > of the CO2 emissions.
>
> Plus the comparison to other natural sources like volcanoes, forest
> fires, etc., and how those compare today to past history for typical
> contributions of CO2 emissions. *

Forest fires are, contrary to popular belief, an integral
part of the nature, and not the disasters people like to
believe them to be: A lot of plants and creatures depend on
wildfires to proliferate and even reproduce. The problem
with the wildfires in the western US and eastern Australia
is not that it burns - tehre have always been wildfires - but
that those areas have been heavily populated by people.
People only setteled in these areas over the past couple
of centuries.

Rune

On Tue, 01 Dec 2009 20:15:20 +0000, glen herrmannsfeldt wrote:

> Unless big changes
> are made very soon, there is a 100% probability that there won't be
> anyone around in 10,000 years to care about nuclear waste.

That's a much stronger statement than anything I've read on the subject
to date. Are you sure you believe it? What scenario do you see arising
inside of 10,000 years that is incompatible with human life?

10,000 years isn't all that long, in the grand scheme of things. Humans
have been arguing about things for vastly longer than that. I doubt that
they'll be stopping any time soon.

Cheers,

--
Andrew

On Tue, 01 Dec 2009 20:15:20 +0000, glen herrmannsfeldt wrote:

> So is the will to do something about
> population growth, which is the real problem.

Population growth was a very big deal when I was growing up in the 70's,
and I agree that it is clearly "the real problem" now. Why do you
suppose that it isn't getting the air-time (or the hand-wringing),
compared to the finely debatable point that is?

Cheers,

--
Andrew

Andrew Reilly wrote:
> On Tue, 01 Dec 2009 20:15:20 +0000, glen herrmannsfeldt wrote:
>
>> So is the will to do something about
>> population growth, which is the real problem.
>
> Population growth was a very big deal when I was growing up in the 70's,
> and I agree that it is clearly "the real problem" now. Why do you
> suppose that it isn't getting the air-time (or the hand-wringing),
> compared to the finely debatable point that is?

Because any proposal to address the problem runs afoul of powerful
religious interests. To my mind, interference with voluntary family
planning by a public figure removes any moral authority that the person
might otherwise have.

Jerry
--
Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯

Andrew Reilly <areilly---@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
> On Tue, 01 Dec 2009 20:15:20 +0000, glen herrmannsfeldt wrote:

>> Unless big changes
>> are made very soon, there is a 100% probability that there won't be
>> anyone around in 10,000 years to care about nuclear waste.

> That's a much stronger statement than anything I've read on the subject
> to date. Are you sure you believe it? What scenario do you see arising
> inside of 10,000 years that is incompatible with human life?

> 10,000 years isn't all that long, in the grand scheme of things. Humans
> have been arguing about things for vastly longer than that. I doubt that
> they'll be stopping any time soon.

Exponential growth.

-- glen