From rab at jurislex.com  Tue Dec  1 13:09:03 2009
From: rab at jurislex.com (Bob Browning)
Date: Tue, 01 Dec 2009 13:09:03 -0800
Subject: [Grovenet] Seven Answers to Climate Contrarian Nonsense: Scientific
	American
Message-ID: <4B1585EF.2050801@jurislex.com>

An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/attachments/20091201/fa229e43/attachment.html 

From phoenixacup at gmail.com  Tue Dec  1 13:59:06 2009
From: phoenixacup at gmail.com (Jane Burch-Pesses)
Date: Tue, 1 Dec 2009 13:59:06 -0800
Subject: [Grovenet] Seven Answers to Climate Contrarian Nonsense:
	Scientific American
In-Reply-To: <4B1585EF.2050801@jurislex.com>
References: <4B1585EF.2050801@jurislex.com>
Message-ID: <d6eeab3d0912011359o13cfa0c7ya68443ac5ac1d3a2@mail.gmail.com>

Thanks, Bob!

Jane B-P

On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 1:09 PM, Bob Browning <rab at jurislex.com> wrote:

>  Something to think about as you review the recent "news" about the
> "made-up crises" re: global warming. And, once again, remember that weather
> (what is happening today and yesterday and tomorrow) is not the same as
> climate (the aggregate of what has happened over a relatively long time) ! !
> !
>
> bob
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
> http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=seven-answers-to-climate-contrarian-nonsense&print=true
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> GroveNet mailing list
> GroveNet at rdrop.com
> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet
>
>


-- 
Phoenix Acupuncture and Chinese Medicine
Home of the TAO (Team Against Obesity)
www.phoenix-acupuncture.net

From allnutt at verizon.net  Tue Dec  1 20:08:25 2009
From: allnutt at verizon.net (Katie Allnutt)
Date: Tue, 01 Dec 2009 20:08:25 -0800
Subject: [Grovenet] Seven Answers to Climate Contrarian Nonsense:
 Scientific American
In-Reply-To: <4B1585EF.2050801@jurislex.com>
References: <4B1585EF.2050801@jurislex.com>
Message-ID: <9FED9887-4472-4FFE-B6E4-2EDE381BECC4@verizon.net>

Too bad real science doesn't come in neat tidy sound bites. Thanks  
for the article.

Katie

On Dec 1, 2009, at 1:09 PM, Bob Browning wrote:

> Something to think about as you review the recent "news" about the  
> "made-up crises" re: global warming. And, once again, remember that  
> weather (what is happening today and yesterday and tomorrow) is not  
> the same as climate (the aggregate of what has happened over a  
> relatively long time) ! ! !
>
> bob
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++
> http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=seven-answers-to- 
> climate-contrarian-nonsense&print=true
>
> _______________________________________________
> GroveNet mailing list
> GroveNet at rdrop.com
> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet


From phoenixacup at gmail.com  Wed Dec  2 10:01:39 2009
From: phoenixacup at gmail.com (Jane Burch-Pesses)
Date: Wed, 2 Dec 2009 10:01:39 -0800
Subject: [Grovenet] Seven Answers to Climate Contrarian Nonsense:
	Scientific American
In-Reply-To: <9FED9887-4472-4FFE-B6E4-2EDE381BECC4@verizon.net>
References: <4B1585EF.2050801@jurislex.com>
	<9FED9887-4472-4FFE-B6E4-2EDE381BECC4@verizon.net>
Message-ID: <d6eeab3d0912021001r3ed30865j87bf1ebf2d072469@mail.gmail.com>

Katie,

That is the problem isn't it?  Real life (the important stuff) is so complex
that one needs a really good education to understand it, yet school funding
is the first thing cut, sometimes.  (Gee, my foot really hurts.  Maybe I
should stop shooting it.)

Jane B-P

On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 8:08 PM, Katie Allnutt <allnutt at verizon.net> wrote:

> Too bad real science doesn't come in neat tidy sound bites. Thanks
> for the article.
>
> Katie
>
> On Dec 1, 2009, at 1:09 PM, Bob Browning wrote:
>
> > Something to think about as you review the recent "news" about the
> > "made-up crises" re: global warming. And, once again, remember that
> > weather (what is happening today and yesterday and tomorrow) is not
> > the same as climate (the aggregate of what has happened over a
> > relatively long time) ! ! !
> >
> > bob
> > ++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=seven-answers-to-
> > climate-contrarian-nonsense&print=true
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > GroveNet mailing list
> > GroveNet at rdrop.com
> > http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet
>
> _______________________________________________
> GroveNet mailing list
> GroveNet at rdrop.com
> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet
>



-- 
Phoenix Acupuncture and Chinese Medicine
Home of the TAO (Team Against Obesity)
www.phoenix-acupuncture.net

From steelem at pacificu.edu  Wed Dec  2 10:50:31 2009
From: steelem at pacificu.edu (Steele, Mike)
Date: Wed, 2 Dec 2009 10:50:31 -0800
Subject: [Grovenet] Seven Answers to Climate Contrarian
	Nonsense:	Scientific American
In-Reply-To: <d6eeab3d0912021001r3ed30865j87bf1ebf2d072469@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4B1585EF.2050801@jurislex.com>
	<9FED9887-4472-4FFE-B6E4-2EDE381BECC4@verizon.net>
	<d6eeab3d0912021001r3ed30865j87bf1ebf2d072469@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <8D94A946E17E9941AE94FC3AE11CAB7E03CBD84927@everest.ad.pacificu.edu>

I saw a good bumper sticker yesterday:  

"The less you know, the more you believe."

--Mike

-----Original Message-----
From: grovenet-bounces at rdrop.com [mailto:grovenet-bounces at rdrop.com] On Behalf Of Jane Burch-Pesses
Sent: Wednesday, December 02, 2009 10:02 AM
To: Forest Grove local interests list
Subject: Re: [Grovenet] Seven Answers to Climate Contrarian Nonsense: Scientific American

Katie,

That is the problem isn't it?  Real life (the important stuff) is so complex
that one needs a really good education to understand it, yet school funding
is the first thing cut, sometimes.  (Gee, my foot really hurts.  Maybe I
should stop shooting it.)

Jane B-P

On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 8:08 PM, Katie Allnutt <allnutt at verizon.net> wrote:

> Too bad real science doesn't come in neat tidy sound bites. Thanks
> for the article.
>
> Katie
>
> On Dec 1, 2009, at 1:09 PM, Bob Browning wrote:
>
> > Something to think about as you review the recent "news" about the
> > "made-up crises" re: global warming. And, once again, remember that
> > weather (what is happening today and yesterday and tomorrow) is not
> > the same as climate (the aggregate of what has happened over a
> > relatively long time) ! ! !
> >
> > bob
> > ++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=seven-answers-to-
> > climate-contrarian-nonsense&print=true
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > GroveNet mailing list
> > GroveNet at rdrop.com
> > http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet
>
> _______________________________________________
> GroveNet mailing list
> GroveNet at rdrop.com
> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet
>



-- 
Phoenix Acupuncture and Chinese Medicine
Home of the TAO (Team Against Obesity)
www.phoenix-acupuncture.net
_______________________________________________
GroveNet mailing list
GroveNet at rdrop.com
http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet


From feralcattamer at yahoo.com  Wed Dec  2 11:06:33 2009
From: feralcattamer at yahoo.com (Holly T.)
Date: Wed, 2 Dec 2009 11:06:33 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [Grovenet] Seven Answers to Climate Contrarian Nonsense:
	Scientific American
In-Reply-To: <8D94A946E17E9941AE94FC3AE11CAB7E03CBD84927@everest.ad.pacificu.edu>
References: <4B1585EF.2050801@jurislex.com>
	<9FED9887-4472-4FFE-B6E4-2EDE381BECC4@verizon.net>
	<d6eeab3d0912021001r3ed30865j87bf1ebf2d072469@mail.gmail.com>
	<8D94A946E17E9941AE94FC3AE11CAB7E03CBD84927@everest.ad.pacificu.edu>
Message-ID: <696105.15173.qm@web56106.mail.re3.yahoo.com>

Excellent!  This will become my new mantra.

Holly




________________________________
From: "Steele, Mike" <steelem at pacificu.edu>
To: Forest Grove local interests list <grovenet at rdrop.com>
Sent: Wed, December 2, 2009 10:50:31 AM
Subject: Re: [Grovenet] Seven Answers to Climate Contrarian Nonsense: Scientific American

I saw a good bumper sticker yesterday:  

"The less you know, the more you believe."

--Mike

-----Original Message-----
From: grovenet-bounces at rdrop.com [mailto:grovenet-bounces at rdrop.com] On Behalf Of Jane Burch-Pesses
Sent: Wednesday, December 02, 2009 10:02 AM
To: Forest Grove local interests list
Subject: Re: [Grovenet] Seven Answers to Climate Contrarian Nonsense: Scientific American

Katie,

That is the problem isn't it?  Real life (the important stuff) is so complex
that one needs a really good education to understand it, yet school funding
is the first thing cut, sometimes.  (Gee, my foot really hurts.  Maybe I
should stop shooting it.)

Jane B-P

On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 8:08 PM, Katie Allnutt <allnutt at verizon.net> wrote:

> Too bad real science doesn't come in neat tidy sound bites. Thanks
> for the article.
>
> Katie
>
> On Dec 1, 2009, at 1:09 PM, Bob Browning wrote:
>
> > Something to think about as you review the recent "news" about the
> > "made-up crises" re: global warming. And, once again, remember that
> > weather (what is happening today and yesterday and tomorrow) is not
> > the same as climate (the aggregate of what has happened over a
> > relatively long time) ! ! !
> >
> > bob
> > ++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=seven-answers-to-
> > climate-contrarian-nonsense&print=true
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > GroveNet mailing list
> > GroveNet at rdrop.com
> > http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet
>
> _______________________________________________
> GroveNet mailing list
> GroveNet at rdrop.com
> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet
>



-- 
Phoenix Acupuncture and Chinese Medicine
Home of the TAO (Team Against Obesity)
www.phoenix-acupuncture.net
_______________________________________________
GroveNet mailing list
GroveNet at rdrop.com
http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet

_______________________________________________
GroveNet mailing list
GroveNet at rdrop.com
http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet



      

From feralcattamer at yahoo.com  Wed Dec  2 11:05:06 2009
From: feralcattamer at yahoo.com (Holly T.)
Date: Wed, 2 Dec 2009 11:05:06 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [Grovenet] Seven Answers to Climate Contrarian Nonsense:
	Scientific American
In-Reply-To: <d6eeab3d0912021001r3ed30865j87bf1ebf2d072469@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4B1585EF.2050801@jurislex.com>
	<9FED9887-4472-4FFE-B6E4-2EDE381BECC4@verizon.net>
	<d6eeab3d0912021001r3ed30865j87bf1ebf2d072469@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <853936.80971.qm@web56101.mail.re3.yahoo.com>

Yes, it's a shame that people can snow the masses with lies and misinterpretations about complex issues like climate change simply because they provide simpler, more dumbed-down explanations. If it fits in a sound bite or on a "cute"-sounding bumper sticker, it will adhere itself to the psyches of Americans far better than scientific facts that are spelled out in detailed terms that require more than a 10-minute attention span. "Drill Baby Drill" is a classic example of this. You can provide the masses with a well-written, well-thought-out article about the technical reasons for climate change and few people will read it or even understand it if they did. But, you give them a "catchy" phrase like "Drill Baby Drill" and you'll see large numbers of people chanting it.

But, what do you expect from a society that largely gets its intellectual nourishment from mind-numbing, idiotic sit-coms and "reality" TV? Every time I turn on the TV (which is seldom), I am shocked by how much worse the programming has become since I last watched. Even the nightly news has become more and more filled with sensationalism and sound bites -- particularly the local news, which is not that far removed from cheap yellow journalism these days IMHO. You don't notice it as much if you watch all the time. But try NOT watching for about six months (and reading the New York Times and/or books instead). I'm betting you'll be surprised by the deterioration in programming quality, not to mention the fact that you'll be far better informed about important issues such as climate change as well as world and local events. Who knows, if enough people stopped watching TV (and buying the products of the sponsors), maybe programming would improve as well.

Holly




________________________________
From: Jane Burch-Pesses <phoenixacup at gmail.com>
To: Forest Grove local interests list <grovenet at rdrop.com>
Sent: Wed, December 2, 2009 10:01:39 AM
Subject: Re: [Grovenet] Seven Answers to Climate Contrarian Nonsense: Scientific American

Katie,

That is the problem isn't it?  Real life (the important stuff) is so complex
that one needs a really good education to understand it, yet school funding
is the first thing cut, sometimes.  (Gee, my foot really hurts.  Maybe I
should stop shooting it.)

Jane B-P

On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 8:08 PM, Katie Allnutt <allnutt at verizon.net> wrote:

> Too bad real science doesn't come in neat tidy sound bites. Thanks
> for the article.
>
> Katie
>
> On Dec 1, 2009, at 1:09 PM, Bob Browning wrote:
>
> > Something to think about as you review the recent "news" about the
> > "made-up crises" re: global warming. And, once again, remember that
> > weather (what is happening today and yesterday and tomorrow) is not
> > the same as climate (the aggregate of what has happened over a
> > relatively long time) ! ! !
> >
> > bob
> > ++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=seven-answers-to-
> > climate-contrarian-nonsense&print=true
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > GroveNet mailing list
> > GroveNet at rdrop.com
> > http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet
>
> _______________________________________________
> GroveNet mailing list
> GroveNet at rdrop.com
> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet
>



-- 
Phoenix Acupuncture and Chinese Medicine
Home of the TAO (Team Against Obesity)
www.phoenix-acupuncture.net
_______________________________________________
GroveNet mailing list
GroveNet at rdrop.com
http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet



      

From edavie at verizon.net  Wed Dec  2 12:17:41 2009
From: edavie at verizon.net (Ed Davie)
Date: Wed, 02 Dec 2009 12:17:41 -0800
Subject: [Grovenet] Seven Answers to Climate Contrarian
 Nonsense:Scientific American
References: <4B1585EF.2050801@jurislex.com>
	<9FED9887-4472-4FFE-B6E4-2EDE381BECC4@verizon.net>
	<d6eeab3d0912021001r3ed30865j87bf1ebf2d072469@mail.gmail.com>
	<853936.80971.qm@web56101.mail.re3.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <DD217DCBA8D74CC28CC1C3AC3530BA54@700x>

Gee ... I wouldn't know since I haven't watched it in several years now!
Ed

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Holly T." <feralcattamer at yahoo.com>
To: "Forest Grove local interests list" <grovenet at rdrop.com>
Sent: Wednesday, December 02, 2009 11:05 AM
Subject: Re: [Grovenet] Seven Answers to Climate Contrarian Nonsense:Scientific American


> Yes, it's a shame that people can snow the masses with lies and misinterpretations about complex issues like climate change simply because they provide simpler, more dumbed-down explanations. If it fits in a sound bite or on a "cute"-sounding bumper sticker, it will adhere itself to the psyches of Americans far better than scientific facts that are spelled out in detailed terms that require more than a 10-minute attention span. "Drill Baby Drill" is a classic example of this. You can provide the masses with a well-written, well-thought-out article about the technical reasons for climate change and few people will read it or even understand it if they did. But, you give them a "catchy" phrase like "Drill Baby Drill" and you'll see large numbers of people chanting it.
> 
> But, what do you expect from a society that largely gets its intellectual nourishment from mind-numbing, idiotic sit-coms and "reality" TV? Every time I turn on the TV (which is seldom), I am shocked by how much worse the programming has become since I last watched. Even the nightly news has become more and more filled with sensationalism and sound bites -- particularly the local news, which is not that far removed from cheap yellow journalism these days IMHO. You don't notice it as much if you watch all the time. But try NOT watching for about six months (and reading the New York Times and/or books instead). I'm betting you'll be surprised by the deterioration in programming quality, not to mention the fact that you'll be far better informed about important issues such as climate change as well as world and local events. Who knows, if enough people stopped watching TV (and buying the products of the sponsors), maybe programming would improve as well.
> 
> Holly
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ________________________________
> From: Jane Burch-Pesses <phoenixacup at gmail.com>
> To: Forest Grove local interests list <grovenet at rdrop.com>
> Sent: Wed, December 2, 2009 10:01:39 AM
> Subject: Re: [Grovenet] Seven Answers to Climate Contrarian Nonsense: Scientific American
> 
> Katie,
> 
> That is the problem isn't it?  Real life (the important stuff) is so complex
> that one needs a really good education to understand it, yet school funding
> is the first thing cut, sometimes.  (Gee, my foot really hurts.  Maybe I
> should stop shooting it.)
> 
> Jane B-P
> 
> On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 8:08 PM, Katie Allnutt <allnutt at verizon.net> wrote:
> 
>> Too bad real science doesn't come in neat tidy sound bites. Thanks
>> for the article.
>>
>> Katie
>>
>> On Dec 1, 2009, at 1:09 PM, Bob Browning wrote:
>>
>> > Something to think about as you review the recent "news" about the
>> > "made-up crises" re: global warming. And, once again, remember that
>> > weather (what is happening today and yesterday and tomorrow) is not
>> > the same as climate (the aggregate of what has happened over a
>> > relatively long time) ! ! !
>> >
>> > bob
>> > ++++++++++++++++++++++++
>> > http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=seven-answers-to-
>> > climate-contrarian-nonsense&print=true
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > GroveNet mailing list
>> > GroveNet at rdrop.com
>> > http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> GroveNet mailing list
>> GroveNet at rdrop.com
>> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet
>>
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Phoenix Acupuncture and Chinese Medicine
> Home of the TAO (Team Against Obesity)
> www.phoenix-acupuncture.net
> _______________________________________________
> GroveNet mailing list
> GroveNet at rdrop.com
> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet
> 
> 
> 
>      
> _______________________________________________
> GroveNet mailing list
> GroveNet at rdrop.com
> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet
>

From nospam03 at comcast.net  Wed Dec  2 11:54:20 2009
From: nospam03 at comcast.net (NoSpam)
Date: Wed, 2 Dec 2009 11:54:20 -0800
Subject: [Grovenet] Seven Answers to Climate
	Contrarian	Nonsense:	Scientific American
In-Reply-To: <8D94A946E17E9941AE94FC3AE11CAB7E03CBD84927@everest.ad.pacificu.edu>
References: <4B1585EF.2050801@jurislex.com>	<9FED9887-4472-4FFE-B6E4-2EDE381BECC4@verizon.net>	<d6eeab3d0912021001r3ed30865j87bf1ebf2d072469@mail.gmail.com>
	<8D94A946E17E9941AE94FC3AE11CAB7E03CBD84927@everest.ad.pacificu.edu>
Message-ID: <000c01ca7389$3d92dff0$b8b89fd0$@net>

This would apply to both sides of the issue.
If the data was fudged, it means we know very little.
If it wasn't, the same.

At work yesterday, my assistant was using the new chainsaw for a few hours.
Then he noticed wording that said that the oil mixture needed to be 40/1 in
the fuel.
He panicked and thought things were all screwed up. 
I asked one simple question. "What mix did we put in?"
He didn't know.
Then I asked, "Why be so upset until we research our supplies to see that we
did the right or wrong mix?"

We have used possibly inaccurate data to decide international policy. Should
we continue down the same course?

I say we shift this from "save the world." To "Makes Economic sense."

-----Original Message-----
From: grovenet-bounces at rdrop.com [mailto:grovenet-bounces at rdrop.com] On
Behalf Of Steele, Mike
Sent: Wednesday, December 02, 2009 10:51 AM
To: Forest Grove local interests list
Subject: Re: [Grovenet] Seven Answers to Climate Contrarian Nonsense:
Scientific American

I saw a good bumper sticker yesterday:  

"The less you know, the more you believe."

--Mike

-----Original Message-----
From: grovenet-bounces at rdrop.com [mailto:grovenet-bounces at rdrop.com] On
Behalf Of Jane Burch-Pesses
Sent: Wednesday, December 02, 2009 10:02 AM
To: Forest Grove local interests list
Subject: Re: [Grovenet] Seven Answers to Climate Contrarian Nonsense:
Scientific American

Katie,

That is the problem isn't it?  Real life (the important stuff) is so complex
that one needs a really good education to understand it, yet school funding
is the first thing cut, sometimes.  (Gee, my foot really hurts.  Maybe I
should stop shooting it.)

Jane B-P

On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 8:08 PM, Katie Allnutt <allnutt at verizon.net> wrote:

> Too bad real science doesn't come in neat tidy sound bites. Thanks
> for the article.
>
> Katie
>
> On Dec 1, 2009, at 1:09 PM, Bob Browning wrote:
>
> > Something to think about as you review the recent "news" about the
> > "made-up crises" re: global warming. And, once again, remember that
> > weather (what is happening today and yesterday and tomorrow) is not
> > the same as climate (the aggregate of what has happened over a
> > relatively long time) ! ! !
> >
> > bob
> > ++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=seven-answers-to-
> > climate-contrarian-nonsense&print=true
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > GroveNet mailing list
> > GroveNet at rdrop.com
> > http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet
>
> _______________________________________________
> GroveNet mailing list
> GroveNet at rdrop.com
> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet
>



-- 
Phoenix Acupuncture and Chinese Medicine
Home of the TAO (Team Against Obesity)
www.phoenix-acupuncture.net
_______________________________________________
GroveNet mailing list
GroveNet at rdrop.com
http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet

_______________________________________________
GroveNet mailing list
GroveNet at rdrop.com
http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet


From jbcoops at yahoo.com  Wed Dec  2 13:20:29 2009
From: jbcoops at yahoo.com (Jeff Cooper)
Date: Wed, 2 Dec 2009 13:20:29 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [Grovenet] Seven Answers to Climate Contrarian
	Nonsense:Scientific American
In-Reply-To: <DD217DCBA8D74CC28CC1C3AC3530BA54@700x>
Message-ID: <962847.30477.qm@web55005.mail.re4.yahoo.com>

Climate isn't the biggest issue... population is.? In the good old days we could just have a war or famine or pestilence or plague to wipe out 1/4 to 1/2 of the world's population... not considered politically viable options anymore.? Trouble is Earth will have close to 10 billion people by 2050.? My recommendation is global enforced celibacy or homosexuality and an accelerated condos on the moon program.



      

From admin at jeffhowden.com  Wed Dec  2 12:50:19 2009
From: admin at jeffhowden.com (Jeff Howden)
Date: Wed, 2 Dec 2009 12:50:19 -0800
Subject: [Grovenet] Seven Answers to Climate
	Contrarian	Nonsense:	Scientific American
In-Reply-To: <000c01ca7389$3d92dff0$b8b89fd0$@net>
References: <4B1585EF.2050801@jurislex.com>	<9FED9887-4472-4FFE-B6E4-2EDE381BECC4@verizon.net>	<d6eeab3d0912021001r3ed30865j87bf1ebf2d072469@mail.gmail.com>
	<8D94A946E17E9941AE94FC3AE11CAB7E03CBD84927@everest.ad.pacificu.edu>
	<000c01ca7389$3d92dff0$b8b89fd0$@net>
Message-ID: <018b01ca7391$116b0940$34411bc0$@com>

> I say we shift this from "save the world." To "Makes Economic sense."

Doing things based on what "makes economic sense" is what has had the issue
of climate change in the backseat for so long.  Continuing down that
fruitless path may yield riches today, but at what cost for future
generations?

Jeff


From feralcattamer at yahoo.com  Wed Dec  2 13:48:09 2009
From: feralcattamer at yahoo.com (Holly T.)
Date: Wed, 2 Dec 2009 13:48:09 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [Grovenet] Seven Answers to Climate Contrarian
	Nonsense:Scientific American
In-Reply-To: <962847.30477.qm@web55005.mail.re4.yahoo.com>
References: <962847.30477.qm@web55005.mail.re4.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <10044.64862.qm@web56102.mail.re3.yahoo.com>

Even at their most horrific, wars and famines never wiped out even 1/4 of the world's population. But, I agree:  Population control is one of those hot topics that American politicians never want to touch, but it's really the only long-term, viable answer for reversing global warming. But, as long as you have people thinking that it's their god-given right to "go forth and multiply" and "have dominion over the earth," nothing will change until war, pestilence, and environmental toxins do their part to take us out. The frog will continue to sit in the beaker of slowly boiling water until such time that it overtakes him.

Radical environmentalist, Derrick Jensen, advocates "taking down civilization" to reverse the problem of global warming because he wisely believes that humankind will not willingly take the steps necessary to reverse the problem. You know, doing little civilly disobedient things such as blowing up hydroelectric dams, etc. But, I think even taking out all the hydroelectric dams in the world would not do nearly enough to reverse the problem. It would take much more than that to motivate humankind to live sustainably.

Also, most of the world's great religions are patriarchical in nature and are, as a result, way too far removed from the Earth-honoring teachings of indigenous people who lived sustainably according to the teachings of goddess-based teachings. These indigenous people were taught the immorality of taking too much from the Earth and not giving back. They lived sustainably whereas we do not because our moral teachings have taught us that it's okay to pillage the planet and take whatever we want. It's these very patriarchal teachings that give people cause to think it's okay to have big families today. So, how can you expect nations that base their entire moral philosophies on patriarchical-take-what-you-want teachings to even consider living sustainably? They have god on their side; so why should they even consider limiting the number of children they have?

I think that besides limiting population, a radical change in moral teachings needs to take place. Otherwise, how will humankind (and thousands of other animals and plant species) stand a chance? How can a change in moral teachings take place? I don't have any answers for that one. Breaking through the power structures of the world's patriarchal religions would be harder than threading a camel through the eye of a needle at this point in history. 

Holly




________________________________
From: Jeff Cooper <jbcoops at yahoo.com>
To: Ed Davie <edavie at verizon.net>; Forest Grove local interests list <grovenet at rdrop.com>
Sent: Wed, December 2, 2009 1:20:29 PM
Subject: Re: [Grovenet] Seven Answers to Climate Contrarian Nonsense:Scientific American

Climate isn't the biggest issue... population is.  In the good old days we could just have a war or famine or pestilence or plague to wipe out 1/4 to 1/2 of the world's population... not considered politically viable options anymore.  Trouble is Earth will have close to 10 billion people by 2050.  My recommendation is global enforced celibacy or homosexuality and an accelerated condos on the moon program.



      
_______________________________________________
GroveNet mailing list
GroveNet at rdrop.com
http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet



      

From phoenixacup at gmail.com  Wed Dec  2 12:43:14 2009
From: phoenixacup at gmail.com (Jane Burch-Pesses)
Date: Wed, 2 Dec 2009 12:43:14 -0800
Subject: [Grovenet] Seven Answers to Climate Contrarian Nonsense:
	Scientific American
In-Reply-To: <853936.80971.qm@web56101.mail.re3.yahoo.com>
References: <4B1585EF.2050801@jurislex.com>
	<9FED9887-4472-4FFE-B6E4-2EDE381BECC4@verizon.net>
	<d6eeab3d0912021001r3ed30865j87bf1ebf2d072469@mail.gmail.com>
	<853936.80971.qm@web56101.mail.re3.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <d6eeab3d0912021243h5f3ba715o874e57f5c0e60ebe@mail.gmail.com>

So, Holly, want to take action on that?  Have you heard of TV Turnoff Week?
If I recall correctly, it is in April.  They have a list of 100 things you
can do instead of watch TV.  A small group of folks in Forest Grove could
have a lot of fun and bring attention to a serious issue by taking action on
TV Turnoff Week.

TV Turnoff Week, anyone?

Jane B-P

On Wed, Dec 2, 2009 at 11:05 AM, Holly T. <feralcattamer at yahoo.com> wrote:

> Yes, it's a shame that people can snow the masses with lies and
> misinterpretations about complex issues like climate change simply because
> they provide simpler, more dumbed-down explanations. If it fits in a sound
> bite or on a "cute"-sounding bumper sticker, it will adhere itself to the
> psyches of Americans far better than scientific facts that are spelled out
> in detailed terms that require more than a 10-minute attention span. "Drill
> Baby Drill" is a classic example of this. You can provide the masses with a
> well-written, well-thought-out article about the technical reasons for
> climate change and few people will read it or even understand it if they
> did. But, you give them a "catchy" phrase like "Drill Baby Drill" and you'll
> see large numbers of people chanting it.
>
> But, what do you expect from a society that largely gets its intellectual
> nourishment from mind-numbing, idiotic sit-coms and "reality" TV? Every time
> I turn on the TV (which is seldom), I am shocked by how much worse the
> programming has become since I last watched. Even the nightly news has
> become more and more filled with sensationalism and sound bites --
> particularly the local news, which is not that far removed from cheap yellow
> journalism these days IMHO. You don't notice it as much if you watch all the
> time. But try NOT watching for about six months (and reading the New York
> Times and/or books instead). I'm betting you'll be surprised by the
> deterioration in programming quality, not to mention the fact that you'll be
> far better informed about important issues such as climate change as well as
> world and local events. Who knows, if enough people stopped watching TV (and
> buying the products of the sponsors), maybe programming would improve as
> well.
>
> Holly
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Jane Burch-Pesses <phoenixacup at gmail.com>
> To: Forest Grove local interests list <grovenet at rdrop.com>
> Sent: Wed, December 2, 2009 10:01:39 AM
> Subject: Re: [Grovenet] Seven Answers to Climate Contrarian Nonsense:
> Scientific American
>
> Katie,
>
> That is the problem isn't it?  Real life (the important stuff) is so
> complex
> that one needs a really good education to understand it, yet school funding
> is the first thing cut, sometimes.  (Gee, my foot really hurts.  Maybe I
> should stop shooting it.)
>
> Jane B-P
>
> On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 8:08 PM, Katie Allnutt <allnutt at verizon.net> wrote:
>
> > Too bad real science doesn't come in neat tidy sound bites. Thanks
> > for the article.
> >
> > Katie
> >
> > On Dec 1, 2009, at 1:09 PM, Bob Browning wrote:
> >
> > > Something to think about as you review the recent "news" about the
> > > "made-up crises" re: global warming. And, once again, remember that
> > > weather (what is happening today and yesterday and tomorrow) is not
> > > the same as climate (the aggregate of what has happened over a
> > > relatively long time) ! ! !
> > >
> > > bob
> > > ++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > > http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=seven-answers-to-
> > > climate-contrarian-nonsense&print=true
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > GroveNet mailing list
> > > GroveNet at rdrop.com
> > > http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > GroveNet mailing list
> > GroveNet at rdrop.com
> > http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Phoenix Acupuncture and Chinese Medicine
> Home of the TAO (Team Against Obesity)
> www.phoenix-acupuncture.net
> _______________________________________________
> GroveNet mailing list
> GroveNet at rdrop.com
> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> GroveNet mailing list
> GroveNet at rdrop.com
> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet
>



-- 
Phoenix Acupuncture and Chinese Medicine
Home of the TAO (Team Against Obesity)
www.phoenix-acupuncture.net

From feralcattamer at yahoo.com  Wed Dec  2 14:37:36 2009
From: feralcattamer at yahoo.com (Holly T.)
Date: Wed, 2 Dec 2009 14:37:36 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [Grovenet] Seven Answers to Climate Contrarian Nonsense:
	Scientific American
In-Reply-To: <d6eeab3d0912021243h5f3ba715o874e57f5c0e60ebe@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4B1585EF.2050801@jurislex.com>
	<9FED9887-4472-4FFE-B6E4-2EDE381BECC4@verizon.net>
	<d6eeab3d0912021001r3ed30865j87bf1ebf2d072469@mail.gmail.com>
	<853936.80971.qm@web56101.mail.re3.yahoo.com>
	<d6eeab3d0912021243h5f3ba715o874e57f5c0e60ebe@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <659928.95852.qm@web56104.mail.re3.yahoo.com>

Sounds good to me!  It's not like we'd be missing much.

Holly




________________________________
From: Jane Burch-Pesses <phoenixacup at gmail.com>
To: Forest Grove local interests list <grovenet at rdrop.com>
Sent: Wed, December 2, 2009 12:43:14 PM
Subject: Re: [Grovenet] Seven Answers to Climate Contrarian Nonsense: Scientific American

So, Holly, want to take action on that?  Have you heard of TV Turnoff Week?
If I recall correctly, it is in April.  They have a list of 100 things you
can do instead of watch TV.  A small group of folks in Forest Grove could
have a lot of fun and bring attention to a serious issue by taking action on
TV Turnoff Week.

TV Turnoff Week, anyone?

Jane B-P

On Wed, Dec 2, 2009 at 11:05 AM, Holly T. <feralcattamer at yahoo.com> wrote:

> Yes, it's a shame that people can snow the masses with lies and
> misinterpretations about complex issues like climate change simply because
> they provide simpler, more dumbed-down explanations. If it fits in a sound
> bite or on a "cute"-sounding bumper sticker, it will adhere itself to the
> psyches of Americans far better than scientific facts that are spelled out
> in detailed terms that require more than a 10-minute attention span. "Drill
> Baby Drill" is a classic example of this. You can provide the masses with a
> well-written, well-thought-out article about the technical reasons for
> climate change and few people will read it or even understand it if they
> did. But, you give them a "catchy" phrase like "Drill Baby Drill" and you'll
> see large numbers of people chanting it.
>
> But, what do you expect from a society that largely gets its intellectual
> nourishment from mind-numbing, idiotic sit-coms and "reality" TV? Every time
> I turn on the TV (which is seldom), I am shocked by how much worse the
> programming has become since I last watched. Even the nightly news has
> become more and more filled with sensationalism and sound bites --
> particularly the local news, which is not that far removed from cheap yellow
> journalism these days IMHO. You don't notice it as much if you watch all the
> time. But try NOT watching for about six months (and reading the New York
> Times and/or books instead). I'm betting you'll be surprised by the
> deterioration in programming quality, not to mention the fact that you'll be
> far better informed about important issues such as climate change as well as
> world and local events. Who knows, if enough people stopped watching TV (and
> buying the products of the sponsors), maybe programming would improve as
> well.
>
> Holly
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Jane Burch-Pesses <phoenixacup at gmail.com>
> To: Forest Grove local interests list <grovenet at rdrop.com>
> Sent: Wed, December 2, 2009 10:01:39 AM
> Subject: Re: [Grovenet] Seven Answers to Climate Contrarian Nonsense:
> Scientific American
>
> Katie,
>
> That is the problem isn't it?  Real life (the important stuff) is so
> complex
> that one needs a really good education to understand it, yet school funding
> is the first thing cut, sometimes.  (Gee, my foot really hurts.  Maybe I
> should stop shooting it.)
>
> Jane B-P
>
> On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 8:08 PM, Katie Allnutt <allnutt at verizon.net> wrote:
>
> > Too bad real science doesn't come in neat tidy sound bites. Thanks
> > for the article.
> >
> > Katie
> >
> > On Dec 1, 2009, at 1:09 PM, Bob Browning wrote:
> >
> > > Something to think about as you review the recent "news" about the
> > > "made-up crises" re: global warming. And, once again, remember that
> > > weather (what is happening today and yesterday and tomorrow) is not
> > > the same as climate (the aggregate of what has happened over a
> > > relatively long time) ! ! !
> > >
> > > bob
> > > ++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > > http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=seven-answers-to-
> > > climate-contrarian-nonsense&print=true
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > GroveNet mailing list
> > > GroveNet at rdrop.com
> > > http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > GroveNet mailing list
> > GroveNet at rdrop.com
> > http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Phoenix Acupuncture and Chinese Medicine
> Home of the TAO (Team Against Obesity)
> www.phoenix-acupuncture.net
> _______________________________________________
> GroveNet mailing list
> GroveNet at rdrop.com
> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> GroveNet mailing list
> GroveNet at rdrop.com
> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet
>



-- 
Phoenix Acupuncture and Chinese Medicine
Home of the TAO (Team Against Obesity)
www.phoenix-acupuncture.net
_______________________________________________
GroveNet mailing list
GroveNet at rdrop.com
http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet



      

From edavie at verizon.net  Wed Dec  2 16:25:37 2009
From: edavie at verizon.net (Ed Davie)
Date: Wed, 02 Dec 2009 16:25:37 -0800
Subject: [Grovenet] Seven Answers to Climate Contrarian
 Nonsense:Scientific American
References: <4B1585EF.2050801@jurislex.com>
	<9FED9887-4472-4FFE-B6E4-2EDE381BECC4@verizon.net>
	<d6eeab3d0912021001r3ed30865j87bf1ebf2d072469@mail.gmail.com>
	<853936.80971.qm@web56101.mail.re3.yahoo.com>
	<d6eeab3d0912021243h5f3ba715o874e57f5c0e60ebe@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <3A4D0467CC2C49D8BEFD63EDC2232059@700x>

As I said, I turned mine off several years ago! Don't miss it at all and I've read a lot of books since then.
Ed

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Jane Burch-Pesses" <phoenixacup at gmail.com>
To: "Forest Grove local interests list" <grovenet at rdrop.com>
Sent: Wednesday, December 02, 2009 12:43 PM
Subject: Re: [Grovenet] Seven Answers to Climate Contrarian Nonsense:Scientific American


> So, Holly, want to take action on that?  Have you heard of TV Turnoff Week?
> If I recall correctly, it is in April.  They have a list of 100 things you
> can do instead of watch TV.  A small group of folks in Forest Grove could
> have a lot of fun and bring attention to a serious issue by taking action on
> TV Turnoff Week.
> 
> TV Turnoff Week, anyone?
> 
> Jane B-P
> 
> On Wed, Dec 2, 2009 at 11:05 AM, Holly T. <feralcattamer at yahoo.com> wrote:
> 
>> Yes, it's a shame that people can snow the masses with lies and
>> misinterpretations about complex issues like climate change simply because
>> they provide simpler, more dumbed-down explanations. If it fits in a sound
>> bite or on a "cute"-sounding bumper sticker, it will adhere itself to the
>> psyches of Americans far better than scientific facts that are spelled out
>> in detailed terms that require more than a 10-minute attention span. "Drill
>> Baby Drill" is a classic example of this. You can provide the masses with a
>> well-written, well-thought-out article about the technical reasons for
>> climate change and few people will read it or even understand it if they
>> did. But, you give them a "catchy" phrase like "Drill Baby Drill" and you'll
>> see large numbers of people chanting it.
>>
>> But, what do you expect from a society that largely gets its intellectual
>> nourishment from mind-numbing, idiotic sit-coms and "reality" TV? Every time
>> I turn on the TV (which is seldom), I am shocked by how much worse the
>> programming has become since I last watched. Even the nightly news has
>> become more and more filled with sensationalism and sound bites --
>> particularly the local news, which is not that far removed from cheap yellow
>> journalism these days IMHO. You don't notice it as much if you watch all the
>> time. But try NOT watching for about six months (and reading the New York
>> Times and/or books instead). I'm betting you'll be surprised by the
>> deterioration in programming quality, not to mention the fact that you'll be
>> far better informed about important issues such as climate change as well as
>> world and local events. Who knows, if enough people stopped watching TV (and
>> buying the products of the sponsors), maybe programming would improve as
>> well.
>>
>> Holly
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ________________________________
>> From: Jane Burch-Pesses <phoenixacup at gmail.com>
>> To: Forest Grove local interests list <grovenet at rdrop.com>
>> Sent: Wed, December 2, 2009 10:01:39 AM
>> Subject: Re: [Grovenet] Seven Answers to Climate Contrarian Nonsense:
>> Scientific American
>>
>> Katie,
>>
>> That is the problem isn't it?  Real life (the important stuff) is so
>> complex
>> that one needs a really good education to understand it, yet school funding
>> is the first thing cut, sometimes.  (Gee, my foot really hurts.  Maybe I
>> should stop shooting it.)
>>
>> Jane B-P
>>
>> On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 8:08 PM, Katie Allnutt <allnutt at verizon.net> wrote:
>>
>> > Too bad real science doesn't come in neat tidy sound bites. Thanks
>> > for the article.
>> >
>> > Katie
>> >
>> > On Dec 1, 2009, at 1:09 PM, Bob Browning wrote:
>> >
>> > > Something to think about as you review the recent "news" about the
>> > > "made-up crises" re: global warming. And, once again, remember that
>> > > weather (what is happening today and yesterday and tomorrow) is not
>> > > the same as climate (the aggregate of what has happened over a
>> > > relatively long time) ! ! !
>> > >
>> > > bob
>> > > ++++++++++++++++++++++++
>> > > http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=seven-answers-to-
>> > > climate-contrarian-nonsense&print=true
>> > >
>> > > _______________________________________________
>> > > GroveNet mailing list
>> > > GroveNet at rdrop.com
>> > > http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > GroveNet mailing list
>> > GroveNet at rdrop.com
>> > http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Phoenix Acupuncture and Chinese Medicine
>> Home of the TAO (Team Against Obesity)
>> www.phoenix-acupuncture.net
>> _______________________________________________
>> GroveNet mailing list
>> GroveNet at rdrop.com
>> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> GroveNet mailing list
>> GroveNet at rdrop.com
>> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet
>>
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Phoenix Acupuncture and Chinese Medicine
> Home of the TAO (Team Against Obesity)
> www.phoenix-acupuncture.net
> _______________________________________________
> GroveNet mailing list
> GroveNet at rdrop.com
> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet
>

From OleHossTreeFarm at webtv.net  Wed Dec  2 16:35:38 2009
From: OleHossTreeFarm at webtv.net (Alan Domenghini aka an OleHoss)
Date: Wed, 2 Dec 2009 16:35:38 -0800
Subject: [Grovenet] Seven Answers to Climate
	Contrarian	Nonsense:Scientific American
In-Reply-To: "Ed Davie" <edavie@verizon.net>'s message of Wed,
	02 Dec 2009 16:25:37 -0800
Message-ID: <24725-4B1707DA-194@storefull-3172.bay.webtv.net>

Ed....
Unfortunately,  if I turn my Tv off I can not use the internet.
However, I do manage to read a book once in awhile, for I belong to a
book club.

~A~ :?)
------
Mr Ed said...  
As I said, I turned mine off several years ago! Don't miss it at all and
I've read a lot of books since then.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/attachments/20091202/e98899dc/attachment.html 

From nospam03 at comcast.net  Wed Dec  2 16:50:15 2009
From: nospam03 at comcast.net (NoSpam)
Date: Wed, 2 Dec 2009 16:50:15 -0800
Subject: [Grovenet] Seven Answers to Climate
	Contrarian	Nonsense:Scientific American
In-Reply-To: <10044.64862.qm@web56102.mail.re3.yahoo.com>
References: <962847.30477.qm@web55005.mail.re4.yahoo.com>
	<10044.64862.qm@web56102.mail.re3.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <000b01ca73b2$94574280$bd05c780$@net>

The citizens of most countries in the west have decreased their populations.
Our growth has been mostly in the immigrant population. That is how the
Hispanic population has grown so much in the US, and why estimates show it
to grow in the future.
What do you suggest?

-----Original Message-----
From: grovenet-bounces at rdrop.com [mailto:grovenet-bounces at rdrop.com] On
Behalf Of Holly T.
Sent: Wednesday, December 02, 2009 1:48 PM
To: Forest Grove local interests list
Subject: Re: [Grovenet] Seven Answers to Climate Contrarian
Nonsense:Scientific American

Even at their most horrific, wars and famines never wiped out even 1/4 of
the world's population. But, I agree:  Population control is one of those
hot topics that American politicians never want to touch, but it's really
the only long-term, viable answer for reversing global warming. But, as long
as you have people thinking that it's their god-given right to "go forth and
multiply" and "have dominion over the earth," nothing will change until war,
pestilence, and environmental toxins do their part to take us out. The frog
will continue to sit in the beaker of slowly boiling water until such time
that it overtakes him.

Radical environmentalist, Derrick Jensen, advocates "taking down
civilization" to reverse the problem of global warming because he wisely
believes that humankind will not willingly take the steps necessary to
reverse the problem. You know, doing little civilly disobedient things such
as blowing up hydroelectric dams, etc. But, I think even taking out all the
hydroelectric dams in the world would not do nearly enough to reverse the
problem. It would take much more than that to motivate humankind to live
sustainably.

Also, most of the world's great religions are patriarchical in nature and
are, as a result, way too far removed from the Earth-honoring teachings of
indigenous people who lived sustainably according to the teachings of
goddess-based teachings. These indigenous people were taught the immorality
of taking too much from the Earth and not giving back. They lived
sustainably whereas we do not because our moral teachings have taught us
that it's okay to pillage the planet and take whatever we want. It's these
very patriarchal teachings that give people cause to think it's okay to have
big families today. So, how can you expect nations that base their entire
moral philosophies on patriarchical-take-what-you-want teachings to even
consider living sustainably? They have god on their side; so why should they
even consider limiting the number of children they have?

I think that besides limiting population, a radical change in moral
teachings needs to take place. Otherwise, how will humankind (and thousands
of other animals and plant species) stand a chance? How can a change in
moral teachings take place? I don't have any answers for that one. Breaking
through the power structures of the world's patriarchal religions would be
harder than threading a camel through the eye of a needle at this point in
history. 

Holly




________________________________
From: Jeff Cooper <jbcoops at yahoo.com>
To: Ed Davie <edavie at verizon.net>; Forest Grove local interests list
<grovenet at rdrop.com>
Sent: Wed, December 2, 2009 1:20:29 PM
Subject: Re: [Grovenet] Seven Answers to Climate Contrarian
Nonsense:Scientific American

Climate isn't the biggest issue... population is.  In the good old days we
could just have a war or famine or pestilence or plague to wipe out 1/4 to
1/2 of the world's population... not considered politically viable options
anymore.  Trouble is Earth will have close to 10 billion people by 2050.  My
recommendation is global enforced celibacy or homosexuality and an
accelerated condos on the moon program.



      
_______________________________________________
GroveNet mailing list
GroveNet at rdrop.com
http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet



      
_______________________________________________
GroveNet mailing list
GroveNet at rdrop.com
http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet


From nospam03 at comcast.net  Wed Dec  2 16:50:15 2009
From: nospam03 at comcast.net (NoSpam)
Date: Wed, 2 Dec 2009 16:50:15 -0800
Subject: [Grovenet] Seven Answers to
	Climate	Contrarian	Nonsense:	Scientific American
In-Reply-To: <018b01ca7391$116b0940$34411bc0$@com>
References: <4B1585EF.2050801@jurislex.com>	<9FED9887-4472-4FFE-B6E4-2EDE381BECC4@verizon.net>	<d6eeab3d0912021001r3ed30865j87bf1ebf2d072469@mail.gmail.com>	<8D94A946E17E9941AE94FC3AE11CAB7E03CBD84927@everest.ad.pacificu.edu>	<000c01ca7389$3d92dff0$b8b89fd0$@net>
	<018b01ca7391$116b0940$34411bc0$@com>
Message-ID: <001201ca73b2$9500a1e0$bf01e5a0$@net>

Maybe I was too simple. Getting off oil is a good thing. Use coal to make
carbon based materials. Use solar, geo, wind and other good ideas for energy
source. Gets us out of Middle East Politics, hopefully. 
The sales pitch for Gore's hedge fund is just too much for me. Of course you
saw the infomercial he did? It got an Academy Award.

-----Original Message-----
From: grovenet-bounces at rdrop.com [mailto:grovenet-bounces at rdrop.com] On
Behalf Of Jeff Howden
Sent: Wednesday, December 02, 2009 12:50 PM
To: 'Forest Grove local interests list'
Subject: Re: [Grovenet] Seven Answers to Climate Contrarian Nonsense:
Scientific American

> I say we shift this from "save the world." To "Makes Economic sense."

Doing things based on what "makes economic sense" is what has had the issue
of climate change in the backseat for so long.  Continuing down that
fruitless path may yield riches today, but at what cost for future
generations?

Jeff

_______________________________________________
GroveNet mailing list
GroveNet at rdrop.com
http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet


From nospam03 at comcast.net  Wed Dec  2 16:50:15 2009
From: nospam03 at comcast.net (NoSpam)
Date: Wed, 2 Dec 2009 16:50:15 -0800
Subject: [Grovenet] Seven Answers to Climate
	Contrarian	Nonsense:Scientific American
In-Reply-To: <962847.30477.qm@web55005.mail.re4.yahoo.com>
References: <DD217DCBA8D74CC28CC1C3AC3530BA54@700x>
	<962847.30477.qm@web55005.mail.re4.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <001301ca73b2$95566300$c0032900$@net>

A quick solution would be to end health care for the baby boomers. They are
old and not as productive as younger folks. This will thin the herd, maybe
enough to get this population bubble through the system.

-----Original Message-----
From: grovenet-bounces at rdrop.com [mailto:grovenet-bounces at rdrop.com] On
Behalf Of Jeff Cooper
Sent: Wednesday, December 02, 2009 1:20 PM
To: Ed Davie; Forest Grove local interests list
Subject: Re: [Grovenet] Seven Answers to Climate Contrarian
Nonsense:Scientific American

Climate isn't the biggest issue... population is.? In the good old days we
could just have a war or famine or pestilence or plague to wipe out 1/4 to
1/2 of the world's population... not considered politically viable options
anymore.? Trouble is Earth will have close to 10 billion people by 2050.? My
recommendation is global enforced celibacy or homosexuality and an
accelerated condos on the moon program.



      
_______________________________________________
GroveNet mailing list
GroveNet at rdrop.com
http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet



From admin at jeffhowden.com  Wed Dec  2 17:08:50 2009
From: admin at jeffhowden.com (Jeff Howden)
Date: Wed, 2 Dec 2009 17:08:50 -0800
Subject: [Grovenet] Seven Answers to
	Climate	Contrarian	Nonsense:	Scientific American
In-Reply-To: <001201ca73b2$9500a1e0$bf01e5a0$@net>
References: <4B1585EF.2050801@jurislex.com>	<9FED9887-4472-4FFE-B6E4-2EDE381BECC4@verizon.net>	<d6eeab3d0912021001r3ed30865j87bf1ebf2d072469@mail.gmail.com>	<8D94A946E17E9941AE94FC3AE11CAB7E03CBD84927@everest.ad.pacificu.edu>	<000c01ca7389$3d92dff0$b8b89fd0$@net>
	<018b01ca7391$116b0940$34411bc0$@com>
	<001201ca73b2$9500a1e0$bf01e5a0$@net>
Message-ID: <01ad01ca73b5$2ee20680$8ca61380$@com>

> From: NoSpam [mailto:nospam03 at comcast.net]
> 
> Maybe I was too simple. Getting off oil is a good thing.

Unfortunately, the argument of "makes economic sense" isn't a credible one
for getting off oil as there aren't other means of generating energy as
efficiently (though not as dirty) as oil based fuel systems.  Alternative
forms of energy only become economically viable if a) the price of crude
goes back up to $150ish/barrel and/or b) the cost of
collecting/storing/consuming the alternative energy sources goes down which
at this point is purely a victim of economies of scale.

Jeff


From feralcattamer at yahoo.com  Wed Dec  2 17:37:21 2009
From: feralcattamer at yahoo.com (Holly T.)
Date: Wed, 2 Dec 2009 17:37:21 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [Grovenet] Seven Answers to Climate Contrarian
	Nonsense:Scientific American
In-Reply-To: <000b01ca73b2$94574280$bd05c780$@net>
References: <962847.30477.qm@web55005.mail.re4.yahoo.com>
	<10044.64862.qm@web56102.mail.re3.yahoo.com>
	<000b01ca73b2$94574280$bd05c780$@net>
Message-ID: <461163.7356.qm@web56107.mail.re3.yahoo.com>

I don't think we can point our fingers at any specific group of people. Statistics show that if you educate women, they have fewer children. It's as simple (and complex) as that. Even in countries like India, China, Afghanistan, etc. where people, just one generation ago, commonly had huge families.

So, education of women in particular is the gentle way. But, I don't think it's enough. Even with education, I think the problem of overpopulation will continue to proliferate until governments have no choice but to limit the number of children that people are allowed to have as per China. 

How many of us are willing to say?:  Hey, "I don't want to have more than one child." Or, "I'd be okay if I had no grandchildren." It's a hard choice but one that will increasingly have to be made by future generations. Assuming there will be that many future generations that remain on the planet that is.

Honestly, I'd love to be optimistic about the Earth's future. But, I'm not. It seems to me that we have two choices:  We can make hay while the sun shines and forget about solving an impossible problem (i.e., ignore the problem and consume and pollute with reckless abandon) or we can take measures that will prolong the inevitable destruction of our planet. Many experts believe it's already too late to turn things around. I tend to believe them. But, I tend to believe that we must do our best to turn things around so that the planet will be inhabitable for as long as possible. 

I used to think that my generation was unfortunate because we had to worry about nuclear attacks. But, our worries were nothing compared to those of our children who have to be concerned about not only nuclear attacks and accidents but global warming as well. In previous eras, people never concerned themselves with such things. Of course they sometimes had to deal with wars and pestilence, but they must've never questioned whether the planet would remain inhabitable over the long haul. It's a horrible legacy that we're passing on in the name of civilization.

Holly




________________________________
From: NoSpam <nospam03 at comcast.net>
To: Forest Grove local interests list <grovenet at rdrop.com>
Sent: Wed, December 2, 2009 4:50:15 PM
Subject: Re: [Grovenet] Seven Answers to Climate Contrarian Nonsense:Scientific American

The citizens of most countries in the west have decreased their populations.
Our growth has been mostly in the immigrant population. That is how the
Hispanic population has grown so much in the US, and why estimates show it
to grow in the future.
What do you suggest?

-----Original Message-----
From: grovenet-bounces at rdrop.com [mailto:grovenet-bounces at rdrop.com] On
Behalf Of Holly T.
Sent: Wednesday, December 02, 2009 1:48 PM
To: Forest Grove local interests list
Subject: Re: [Grovenet] Seven Answers to Climate Contrarian
Nonsense:Scientific American

Even at their most horrific, wars and famines never wiped out even 1/4 of
the world's population. But, I agree:  Population control is one of those
hot topics that American politicians never want to touch, but it's really
the only long-term, viable answer for reversing global warming. But, as long
as you have people thinking that it's their god-given right to "go forth and
multiply" and "have dominion over the earth," nothing will change until war,
pestilence, and environmental toxins do their part to take us out. The frog
will continue to sit in the beaker of slowly boiling water until such time
that it overtakes him.

Radical environmentalist, Derrick Jensen, advocates "taking down
civilization" to reverse the problem of global warming because he wisely
believes that humankind will not willingly take the steps necessary to
reverse the problem. You know, doing little civilly disobedient things such
as blowing up hydroelectric dams, etc. But, I think even taking out all the
hydroelectric dams in the world would not do nearly enough to reverse the
problem. It would take much more than that to motivate humankind to live
sustainably.

Also, most of the world's great religions are patriarchical in nature and
are, as a result, way too far removed from the Earth-honoring teachings of
indigenous people who lived sustainably according to the teachings of
goddess-based teachings. These indigenous people were taught the immorality
of taking too much from the Earth and not giving back. They lived
sustainably whereas we do not because our moral teachings have taught us
that it's okay to pillage the planet and take whatever we want. It's these
very patriarchal teachings that give people cause to think it's okay to have
big families today. So, how can you expect nations that base their entire
moral philosophies on patriarchical-take-what-you-want teachings to even
consider living sustainably? They have god on their side; so why should they
even consider limiting the number of children they have?

I think that besides limiting population, a radical change in moral
teachings needs to take place. Otherwise, how will humankind (and thousands
of other animals and plant species) stand a chance? How can a change in
moral teachings take place? I don't have any answers for that one. Breaking
through the power structures of the world's patriarchal religions would be
harder than threading a camel through the eye of a needle at this point in
history. 

Holly




________________________________
From: Jeff Cooper <jbcoops at yahoo.com>
To: Ed Davie <edavie at verizon.net>; Forest Grove local interests list
<grovenet at rdrop.com>
Sent: Wed, December 2, 2009 1:20:29 PM
Subject: Re: [Grovenet] Seven Answers to Climate Contrarian
Nonsense:Scientific American

Climate isn't the biggest issue... population is.  In the good old days we
could just have a war or famine or pestilence or plague to wipe out 1/4 to
1/2 of the world's population... not considered politically viable options
anymore.  Trouble is Earth will have close to 10 billion people by 2050.  My
recommendation is global enforced celibacy or homosexuality and an
accelerated condos on the moon program.



      
_______________________________________________
GroveNet mailing list
GroveNet at rdrop.com
http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet



      
_______________________________________________
GroveNet mailing list
GroveNet at rdrop.com
http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet

_______________________________________________
GroveNet mailing list
GroveNet at rdrop.com
http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet



      

From phoenixacup at gmail.com  Thu Dec  3 10:32:49 2009
From: phoenixacup at gmail.com (Jane Burch-Pesses)
Date: Thu, 3 Dec 2009 10:32:49 -0800
Subject: [Grovenet] Seven Answers to Climate Contrarian Nonsense:
	Scientific American
In-Reply-To: <659928.95852.qm@web56104.mail.re3.yahoo.com>
References: <4B1585EF.2050801@jurislex.com>
	<9FED9887-4472-4FFE-B6E4-2EDE381BECC4@verizon.net>
	<d6eeab3d0912021001r3ed30865j87bf1ebf2d072469@mail.gmail.com>
	<853936.80971.qm@web56101.mail.re3.yahoo.com>
	<d6eeab3d0912021243h5f3ba715o874e57f5c0e60ebe@mail.gmail.com>
	<659928.95852.qm@web56104.mail.re3.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <d6eeab3d0912031032qd303c40q2432678a7f2b72b9@mail.gmail.com>

So, the web site is www.tvturnoff.org.  In 2009 there were 2 TV turnoff
weeks, one in April and one in Sept.  Alternate events can be scheduled like
game nights and scavenger hunts.

There's also a really cute quote from an elementary school kid who said that
he really didn't like TV Turnoff week except that he noticed that his grades
improved and he was in a good mood.

We could approach the schools.  The teachers might like to get involved.

Health care practitioners (like me) might like to get involved.

Anyone else want to get involved?

Jane B-P

On Wed, Dec 2, 2009 at 2:37 PM, Holly T. <feralcattamer at yahoo.com> wrote:

> Sounds good to me!  It's not like we'd be missing much.
>
> Holly
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Jane Burch-Pesses <phoenixacup at gmail.com>
> To: Forest Grove local interests list <grovenet at rdrop.com>
> Sent: Wed, December 2, 2009 12:43:14 PM
> Subject: Re: [Grovenet] Seven Answers to Climate Contrarian Nonsense:
> Scientific American
>
> So, Holly, want to take action on that?  Have you heard of TV Turnoff Week?
> If I recall correctly, it is in April.  They have a list of 100 things you
> can do instead of watch TV.  A small group of folks in Forest Grove could
> have a lot of fun and bring attention to a serious issue by taking action
> on
> TV Turnoff Week.
>
> TV Turnoff Week, anyone?
>
> Jane B-P
>
> On Wed, Dec 2, 2009 at 11:05 AM, Holly T. <feralcattamer at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Yes, it's a shame that people can snow the masses with lies and
> > misinterpretations about complex issues like climate change simply
> because
> > they provide simpler, more dumbed-down explanations. If it fits in a
> sound
> > bite or on a "cute"-sounding bumper sticker, it will adhere itself to the
> > psyches of Americans far better than scientific facts that are spelled
> out
> > in detailed terms that require more than a 10-minute attention span.
> "Drill
> > Baby Drill" is a classic example of this. You can provide the masses with
> a
> > well-written, well-thought-out article about the technical reasons for
> > climate change and few people will read it or even understand it if they
> > did. But, you give them a "catchy" phrase like "Drill Baby Drill" and
> you'll
> > see large numbers of people chanting it.
> >
> > But, what do you expect from a society that largely gets its intellectual
> > nourishment from mind-numbing, idiotic sit-coms and "reality" TV? Every
> time
> > I turn on the TV (which is seldom), I am shocked by how much worse the
> > programming has become since I last watched. Even the nightly news has
> > become more and more filled with sensationalism and sound bites --
> > particularly the local news, which is not that far removed from cheap
> yellow
> > journalism these days IMHO. You don't notice it as much if you watch all
> the
> > time. But try NOT watching for about six months (and reading the New York
> > Times and/or books instead). I'm betting you'll be surprised by the
> > deterioration in programming quality, not to mention the fact that you'll
> be
> > far better informed about important issues such as climate change as well
> as
> > world and local events. Who knows, if enough people stopped watching TV
> (and
> > buying the products of the sponsors), maybe programming would improve as
> > well.
> >
> > Holly
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: Jane Burch-Pesses <phoenixacup at gmail.com>
> > To: Forest Grove local interests list <grovenet at rdrop.com>
> > Sent: Wed, December 2, 2009 10:01:39 AM
> > Subject: Re: [Grovenet] Seven Answers to Climate Contrarian Nonsense:
> > Scientific American
> >
> > Katie,
> >
> > That is the problem isn't it?  Real life (the important stuff) is so
> > complex
> > that one needs a really good education to understand it, yet school
> funding
> > is the first thing cut, sometimes.  (Gee, my foot really hurts.  Maybe I
> > should stop shooting it.)
> >
> > Jane B-P
> >
> > On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 8:08 PM, Katie Allnutt <allnutt at verizon.net>
> wrote:
> >
> > > Too bad real science doesn't come in neat tidy sound bites. Thanks
> > > for the article.
> > >
> > > Katie
> > >
> > > On Dec 1, 2009, at 1:09 PM, Bob Browning wrote:
> > >
> > > > Something to think about as you review the recent "news" about the
> > > > "made-up crises" re: global warming. And, once again, remember that
> > > > weather (what is happening today and yesterday and tomorrow) is not
> > > > the same as climate (the aggregate of what has happened over a
> > > > relatively long time) ! ! !
> > > >
> > > > bob
> > > > ++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > > > http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=seven-answers-to-
> > > > climate-contrarian-nonsense&print=true
> > > >
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > GroveNet mailing list
> > > > GroveNet at rdrop.com
> > > > http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > GroveNet mailing list
> > > GroveNet at rdrop.com
> > > http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Phoenix Acupuncture and Chinese Medicine
> > Home of the TAO (Team Against Obesity)
> > www.phoenix-acupuncture.net
> > _______________________________________________
> > GroveNet mailing list
> > GroveNet at rdrop.com
> > http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > GroveNet mailing list
> > GroveNet at rdrop.com
> > http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Phoenix Acupuncture and Chinese Medicine
> Home of the TAO (Team Against Obesity)
> www.phoenix-acupuncture.net
> _______________________________________________
> GroveNet mailing list
> GroveNet at rdrop.com
> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> GroveNet mailing list
> GroveNet at rdrop.com
> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet
>



-- 
Phoenix Acupuncture and Chinese Medicine
Home of the TAO (Team Against Obesity)
www.phoenix-acupuncture.net

From gduncangates at yahoo.com  Sun Dec  6 13:21:45 2009
From: gduncangates at yahoo.com (Gary Duncan-Gates)
Date: Sun, 6 Dec 2009 13:21:45 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [Grovenet] Seven Answers to Climate Contrarian Nonsense:
	Scientific American
In-Reply-To: <853936.80971.qm@web56101.mail.re3.yahoo.com>
References: <4B1585EF.2050801@jurislex.com>
	<9FED9887-4472-4FFE-B6E4-2EDE381BECC4@verizon.net>
	<d6eeab3d0912021001r3ed30865j87bf1ebf2d072469@mail.gmail.com>
	<853936.80971.qm@web56101.mail.re3.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <973967.13147.qm@web46310.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>

Perhaps even more interesting is that the sensationalistic, dumbed-down evening news programs that you eschew are the ones propagating the Global Warming Hysteria, and ignoring the ClimateGate scandal.  NBC touts its "Green Week" every year, which seems like an opportunity for celebrities to get even more self-righteous and parent corporation GE to encourage everyone to buy new appliances.

The truly discouraging aspect to the Climate Change Debate is that there isn't one.  Science is supposed to be about making hypotheses and objectively analyzing them; the Greens immediately denigrate anyone with an opposing viewpoint, claiming that they must have been bought and paid for by the oil companies or big business.  (That won't happen to me on this forum, will it?) This dogma has so infiltrated higher education and government that funding and grants (life's blood for many scientists) is only available to those who adhere to the party line.  The ClimateGate scandal is significant because it shows that scientists are fallible - even if they are on your side.  


Gary 


________________________________
From: Holly T. <feralcattamer at yahoo.com>
To: Forest Grove local interests list <grovenet at rdrop.com>
Sent: Wed, December 2, 2009 11:05:06 AM
Subject: Re: [Grovenet] Seven Answers to Climate Contrarian Nonsense: Scientific American

Yes, it's a shame that people can snow the masses with lies and misinterpretations about complex issues like climate change simply because they provide simpler, more dumbed-down explanations. If it fits in a sound bite or on a "cute"-sounding bumper sticker, it will adhere itself to the psyches of Americans far better than scientific facts that are spelled out in detailed terms that require more than a 10-minute attention span. "Drill Baby Drill" is a classic example of this. You can provide the masses with a well-written, well-thought-out article about the technical reasons for climate change and few people will read it or even understand it if they did. But, you give them a "catchy" phrase like "Drill Baby Drill" and you'll see large numbers of people chanting it.

But, what do you expect from a society that largely gets its intellectual nourishment from mind-numbing, idiotic sit-coms and "reality" TV? Every time I turn on the TV (which is seldom), I am shocked by how much worse the programming has become since I last watched. Even the nightly news has become more and more filled with sensationalism and sound bites -- particularly the local news, which is not that far removed from cheap yellow journalism these days IMHO. You don't notice it as much if you watch all the time. But try NOT watching for about six months (and reading the New York Times and/or books instead). I'm betting you'll be surprised by the deterioration in programming quality, not to mention the fact that you'll be far better informed about important issues such as climate change as well as world and local events. Who knows, if enough people stopped watching TV (and buying the products of the sponsors), maybe programming would improve as well.

Holly




________________________________
From: Jane Burch-Pesses <phoenixacup at gmail.com>
To: Forest Grove local interests list <grovenet at rdrop.com>
Sent: Wed, December 2, 2009 10:01:39 AM
Subject: Re: [Grovenet] Seven Answers to Climate Contrarian Nonsense: Scientific American

Katie,

That is the problem isn't it?  Real life (the important stuff) is so complex
that one needs a really good education to understand it, yet school funding
is the first thing cut, sometimes.  (Gee, my foot really hurts.  Maybe I
should stop shooting it.)

Jane B-P

On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 8:08 PM, Katie Allnutt <allnutt at verizon.net> wrote:

> Too bad real science doesn't come in neat tidy sound bites. Thanks
> for the article.
>
> Katie
>
> On Dec 1, 2009, at 1:09 PM, Bob Browning wrote:
>
> > Something to think about as you review the recent "news" about the
> > "made-up crises" re: global warming. And, once again, remember that
> > weather (what is happening today and yesterday and tomorrow) is not
> > the same as climate (the aggregate of what has happened over a
> > relatively long time) ! ! !
> >
> > bob
> > ++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=seven-answers-to-
> > climate-contrarian-nonsense&print=true
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > GroveNet mailing list
> > GroveNet at rdrop.com
> > http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet
>
> _______________________________________________
> GroveNet mailing list
> GroveNet at rdrop.com
> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet
>



-- 
Phoenix Acupuncture and Chinese Medicine
Home of the TAO (Team Against Obesity)
www.phoenix-acupuncture.net
_______________________________________________
GroveNet mailing list
GroveNet at rdrop.com
http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet



      
_______________________________________________
GroveNet mailing list
GroveNet at rdrop.com
http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet



      

From gduncangates at yahoo.com  Sun Dec  6 13:25:48 2009
From: gduncangates at yahoo.com (Gary Duncan-Gates)
Date: Sun, 6 Dec 2009 13:25:48 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [Grovenet] Seven Answers to Climate Contrarian
	Nonsense:Scientific American
In-Reply-To: <10044.64862.qm@web56102.mail.re3.yahoo.com>
References: <962847.30477.qm@web55005.mail.re4.yahoo.com>
	<10044.64862.qm@web56102.mail.re3.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <377343.75641.qm@web46301.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>

Problem is, Environmentalism is as much a religion to its adherents as the traditional religions are to the folks you speak of.  They are just as zealous, just as dangerous, and just as delusional. 

Gary




________________________________
From: Holly T. <feralcattamer at yahoo.com>
To: Forest Grove local interests list <grovenet at rdrop.com>
Sent: Wed, December 2, 2009 1:48:09 PM
Subject: Re: [Grovenet] Seven Answers to Climate Contrarian Nonsense:Scientific American

Even at their most horrific, wars and famines never wiped out even 1/4 of the world's population. But, I agree:  Population control is one of those hot topics that American politicians never want to touch, but it's really the only long-term, viable answer for reversing global warming. But, as long as you have people thinking that it's their god-given right to "go forth and multiply" and "have dominion over the earth," nothing will change until war, pestilence, and environmental toxins do their part to take us out. The frog will continue to sit in the beaker of slowly boiling water until such time that it overtakes him.

Radical environmentalist, Derrick Jensen, advocates "taking down civilization" to reverse the problem of global warming because he wisely believes that humankind will not willingly take the steps necessary to reverse the problem. You know, doing little civilly disobedient things such as blowing up hydroelectric dams, etc. But, I think even taking out all the hydroelectric dams in the world would not do nearly enough to reverse the problem. It would take much more than that to motivate humankind to live sustainably.

Also, most of the world's great religions are patriarchical in nature and are, as a result, way too far removed from the Earth-honoring teachings of indigenous people who lived sustainably according to the teachings of goddess-based teachings. These indigenous people were taught the immorality of taking too much from the Earth and not giving back. They lived sustainably whereas we do not because our moral teachings have taught us that it's okay to pillage the planet and take whatever we want. It's these very patriarchal teachings that give people cause to think it's okay to have big families today. So, how can you expect nations that base their entire moral philosophies on patriarchical-take-what-you-want teachings to even consider living sustainably? They have god on their side; so why should they even consider limiting the number of children they have?

I think that besides limiting population, a radical change in moral teachings needs to take place. Otherwise, how will humankind (and thousands of other animals and plant species) stand a chance? How can a change in moral teachings take place? I don't have any answers for that one. Breaking through the power structures of the world's patriarchal religions would be harder than threading a camel through the eye of a needle at this point in history. 

Holly




________________________________
From: Jeff Cooper <jbcoops at yahoo.com>
To: Ed Davie <edavie at verizon.net>; Forest Grove local interests list <grovenet at rdrop.com>
Sent: Wed, December 2, 2009 1:20:29 PM
Subject: Re: [Grovenet] Seven Answers to Climate Contrarian Nonsense:Scientific American

Climate isn't the biggest issue... population is.  In the good old days we could just have a war or famine or pestilence or plague to wipe out 1/4 to 1/2 of the world's population... not considered politically viable options anymore.  Trouble is Earth will have close to 10 billion people by 2050.  My recommendation is global enforced celibacy or homosexuality and an accelerated condos on the moon program.



      
_______________________________________________
GroveNet mailing list
GroveNet at rdrop.com
http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet



      
_______________________________________________
GroveNet mailing list
GroveNet at rdrop.com
http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet



      

From edavie at verizon.net  Sun Dec  6 16:21:26 2009
From: edavie at verizon.net (Ed Davie)
Date: Sun, 06 Dec 2009 16:21:26 -0800
Subject: [Grovenet] Seven Answers to Climate
 Contrarian	Nonsense:Scientific American
References: <962847.30477.qm@web55005.mail.re4.yahoo.com>
	<10044.64862.qm@web56102.mail.re3.yahoo.com>
	<377343.75641.qm@web46301.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <05D1E688446C49F8AD4C5DB637E76823@700x>

Gary, I think you are wrong!
Ed

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That Climate Change E-Mail 
Published: December 5, 2009 
The theft of thousands of private e-mail messages and files from computer servers at a leading British climate research center has been a political windfall for skeptics who claim the documents prove that mainstream scientists have conspired to overstate the case for human influence on climate change.

Times Topics: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
They are using the e-mail to blast the Obama administration's climate policies. And they clearly hope that the e-mail will undermine negotiations for a new climate change treaty that begin in Copenhagen this week. 

No one should be misled by all the noise. The e-mail messages represent years' worth of exchanges among prominent American and British climatologists. Some are mean-spirited, others intemperate. But they don't change the underlying scientific facts about climate change. 

One describes climate skeptics as "idiots," another describes papers written by climate contrarians as "garbage" and "fraud." Still another suggests that the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, whose 2007 report concluded that humans were the dominant force behind global warming, should pay no attention to contrarian opinions. 

Another quotes an exasperated Phil Jones - director of the climate center at the University of East Anglia, from which the e-mail was stolen - as expressing the hope that climate change would occur "regardless of the consequences" so "the science could be proved right." 

However, most of the e-mail messages - judging by those that have seen the light of day - appear to deal with the painstaking and difficult task of reconstructing historical temperatures, and the problems scientists encounter along the way. Despite what the skeptics say, they demonstrate just how rigorously scientists have worked to figure out whether global warming is real and the true role that human activities play. 

The controversy isn't over. James Inhofe, the Senate's leading skeptic, has asked for an inquiry into what some are calling "Climategate." And on Friday, Rajendra Pachauri, chairman of the United Nations' intergovernmental panel, announced that he would conduct his own investigation. 

It is important that scientists behave professionally and openly. It is also important not to let one set of purloined e-mail messages undermine the science and the clear case for action, in Washington and in Copenhagen.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Gary Duncan-Gates" <gduncangates at yahoo.com>
To: "Forest Grove local interests list" <grovenet at rdrop.com>
Sent: Sunday, December 06, 2009 1:25 PM
Subject: Re: [Grovenet] Seven Answers to Climate Contrarian Nonsense:Scientific American


> Problem is, Environmentalism is as much a religion to its adherents as the traditional religions are to the folks you speak of.  They are just as zealous, just as dangerous, and just as delusional. 
> 
> Gary
> 
> 
> 

From waltw at teleport.com  Sun Dec  6 17:38:53 2009
From: waltw at teleport.com (Walt Wentz)
Date: Sun, 6 Dec 2009 17:38:53 -0800
Subject: [Grovenet] Seven Answers to Climate Contrarian
	Nonsense:Scientific American
In-Reply-To: <377343.75641.qm@web46301.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
References: <962847.30477.qm@web55005.mail.re4.yahoo.com>
	<10044.64862.qm@web56102.mail.re3.yahoo.com>
	<377343.75641.qm@web46301.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <33AEBD8E-5D6E-4EE0-8902-E077FBB91A08@teleport.com>

Eh? Define "delusional" when ice caps are melting, sea levels are  
rising, deserts are expanding and species are disappearing at a  
faster rate than at any time in geologic history. Or do anti- 
environmentalists not believe in geology either?
Walt

On Dec 6, 2009, at 1:25 PM, Gary Duncan-Gates wrote:

> Problem is, Environmentalism is as much a religion to its adherents  
> as the traditional religions are to the folks you speak of.  They  
> are just as zealous, just as dangerous, and just as delusional.
>
> Gary
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Holly T. <feralcattamer at yahoo.com>
> To: Forest Grove local interests list <grovenet at rdrop.com>
> Sent: Wed, December 2, 2009 1:48:09 PM
> Subject: Re: [Grovenet] Seven Answers to Climate Contrarian  
> Nonsense:Scientific American
>
> Even at their most horrific, wars and famines never wiped out even  
> 1/4 of the world's population. But, I agree:  Population control is  
> one of those hot topics that American politicians never want to  
> touch, but it's really the only long-term, viable answer for  
> reversing global warming. But, as long as you have people thinking  
> that it's their god-given right to "go forth and multiply" and  
> "have dominion over the earth," nothing will change until war,  
> pestilence, and environmental toxins do their part to take us out.  
> The frog will continue to sit in the beaker of slowly boiling water  
> until such time that it overtakes him.
>
> Radical environmentalist, Derrick Jensen, advocates "taking down  
> civilization" to reverse the problem of global warming because he  
> wisely believes that humankind will not willingly take the steps  
> necessary to reverse the problem. You know, doing little civilly  
> disobedient things such as blowing up hydroelectric dams, etc. But,  
> I think even taking out all the hydroelectric dams in the world  
> would not do nearly enough to reverse the problem. It would take  
> much more than that to motivate humankind to live sustainably.
>
> Also, most of the world's great religions are patriarchical in  
> nature and are, as a result, way too far removed from the Earth- 
> honoring teachings of indigenous people who lived sustainably  
> according to the teachings of goddess-based teachings. These  
> indigenous people were taught the immorality of taking too much  
> from the Earth and not giving back. They lived sustainably whereas  
> we do not because our moral teachings have taught us that it's okay  
> to pillage the planet and take whatever we want. It's these very  
> patriarchal teachings that give people cause to think it's okay to  
> have big families today. So, how can you expect nations that base  
> their entire moral philosophies on patriarchical-take-what-you-want  
> teachings to even consider living sustainably? They have god on  
> their side; so why should they even consider limiting the number of  
> children they have?
>
> I think that besides limiting population, a radical change in moral  
> teachings needs to take place. Otherwise, how will humankind (and  
> thousands of other animals and plant species) stand a chance? How  
> can a change in moral teachings take place? I don't have any  
> answers for that one. Breaking through the power structures of the  
> world's patriarchal religions would be harder than threading a  
> camel through the eye of a needle at this point in history.
>
> Holly
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Jeff Cooper <jbcoops at yahoo.com>
> To: Ed Davie <edavie at verizon.net>; Forest Grove local interests  
> list <grovenet at rdrop.com>
> Sent: Wed, December 2, 2009 1:20:29 PM
> Subject: Re: [Grovenet] Seven Answers to Climate Contrarian  
> Nonsense:Scientific American
>
> Climate isn't the biggest issue... population is.  In the good old  
> days we could just have a war or famine or pestilence or plague to  
> wipe out 1/4 to 1/2 of the world's population... not considered  
> politically viable options anymore.  Trouble is Earth will have  
> close to 10 billion people by 2050.  My recommendation is global  
> enforced celibacy or homosexuality and an accelerated condos on the  
> moon program.
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> GroveNet mailing list
> GroveNet at rdrop.com
> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> GroveNet mailing list
> GroveNet at rdrop.com
> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> GroveNet mailing list
> GroveNet at rdrop.com
> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet


From feralcattamer at yahoo.com  Sun Dec  6 23:01:28 2009
From: feralcattamer at yahoo.com (Holly T.)
Date: Sun, 6 Dec 2009 23:01:28 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [Grovenet] Seven Answers to Climate Contrarian
	Nonsense:Scientific American
Message-ID: <460820.74787.qm@web56108.mail.re3.yahoo.com>

So...uh Gary...would you say that our revered scientists at NASA...those same folks who have been sending us photos from outer space that show, in living color, the rapid recession of our polar ice caps...would you consider them to be "unscientific and delusional"? 

Please go to http://climate.nasa.gov/ and click the Climate Time Machine link near the right side of NASA's Eyes on the Earth page. You can then select between four categories:  Sea Ice, Sea Level, Co2 Emissions, and Average Global Temperature. Sliders are provided near the bottom of each resulting screen. By running each slider across the page, you'll be able to see how our planet has been changed over the years by global warming. And guess what! Things are looking significantly worse in all four categories as you move the sliders to the right. 

Unless, of course, you don't believe what our country's best-and-brightest aerospace scientists are telling us. Unless you think that NASA is part of this huge, diabolical scandal called "Climate Gate".

If you have better sources than NASA to support your belief that global warming is a hoax, please share them.

Holly




________________________________
From: Walt Wentz <waltw at teleport.com>
To: Forest Grove local interests list <grovenet at rdrop.com>
Sent: Sun, December 6, 2009 5:38:53 PM
Subject: Re: [Grovenet] Seven Answers to Climate Contrarian Nonsense:Scientific American

Eh? Define "delusional" when ice caps are melting, sea levels are  
rising, deserts are expanding and species are disappearing at a  
faster rate than at any time in geologic history. Or do anti- 
environmentalists not believe in geology either?
Walt

On Dec 6, 2009, at 1:25 PM, Gary Duncan-Gates wrote:

> Problem is, Environmentalism is as much a religion to its adherents  
> as the traditional religions are to the folks you speak of.  They  
> are just as zealous, just as dangerous, and just as delusional.
>
> Gary
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Holly T. <feralcattamer at yahoo.com>
> To: Forest Grove local interests list <grovenet at rdrop.com>
> Sent: Wed, December 2, 2009 1:48:09 PM
> Subject: Re: [Grovenet] Seven Answers to Climate Contrarian  
> Nonsense:Scientific American
>
> Even at their most horrific, wars and famines never wiped out even  
> 1/4 of the world's population. But, I agree:  Population control is  
> one of those hot topics that American politicians never want to  
> touch, but it's really the only long-term, viable answer for  
> reversing global warming. But, as long as you have people thinking  
> that it's their god-given right to "go forth and multiply" and  
> "have dominion over the earth," nothing will change until war,  
> pestilence, and environmental toxins do their part to take us out.  
> The frog will continue to sit in the beaker of slowly boiling water  
> until such time that it overtakes him.
>
> Radical environmentalist, Derrick Jensen, advocates "taking down  
> civilization" to reverse the problem of global warming because he  
> wisely believes that humankind will not willingly take the steps  
> necessary to reverse the problem. You know, doing little civilly  
> disobedient things such as blowing up hydroelectric dams, etc. But,  
> I think even taking out all the hydroelectric dams in the world  
> would not do nearly enough to reverse the problem. It would take  
> much more than that to motivate humankind to live sustainably.
>
> Also, most of the world's great religions are patriarchical in  
> nature and are, as a result, way too far removed from the Earth- 
> honoring teachings of indigenous people who lived sustainably  
> according to the teachings of goddess-based teachings. These  
> indigenous people were taught the immorality of taking too much  
> from the Earth and not giving back. They lived sustainably whereas  
> we do not because our moral teachings have taught us that it's okay  
> to pillage the planet and take whatever we want. It's these very  
> patriarchal teachings that give people cause to think it's okay to  
> have big families today. So, how can you expect nations that base  
> their entire moral philosophies on patriarchical-take-what-you-want  
> teachings to even consider living sustainably? They have god on  
> their side; so why should they even consider limiting the number of  
> children they have?
>
> I think that besides limiting population, a radical change in moral  
> teachings needs to take place. Otherwise, how will humankind (and  
> thousands of other animals and plant species) stand a chance? How  
> can a change in moral teachings take place? I don't have any  
> answers for that one. Breaking through the power structures of the  
> world's patriarchal religions would be harder than threading a  
> camel through the eye of a needle at this point in history.
>
> Holly
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Jeff Cooper <jbcoops at yahoo.com>
> To: Ed Davie <edavie at verizon.net>; Forest Grove local interests  
> list <grovenet at rdrop.com>
> Sent: Wed, December 2, 2009 1:20:29 PM
> Subject: Re: [Grovenet] Seven Answers to Climate Contrarian  
> Nonsense:Scientific American
>
> Climate isn't the biggest issue... population is.  In the good old  
> days we could just have a war or famine or pestilence or plague to  
> wipe out 1/4 to 1/2 of the world's population... not considered  
> politically viable options anymore.  Trouble is Earth will have  
> close to 10 billion people by 2050.  My recommendation is global  
> enforced celibacy or homosexuality and an accelerated condos on the  
> moon program.
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> GroveNet mailing list
> GroveNet at rdrop.com
> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> GroveNet mailing list
> GroveNet at rdrop.com
> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> GroveNet mailing list
> GroveNet at rdrop.com
> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet

_______________________________________________
GroveNet mailing list
GroveNet at rdrop.com
http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet



      

From admin at ronhowden.com  Sun Dec  6 23:23:27 2009
From: admin at ronhowden.com (Ron Howden)
Date: Sun, 6 Dec 2009 23:23:27 -0800
Subject: [Grovenet] Seven Answers to Climate Contrarian
	Nonsense:Scientific American
In-Reply-To: <460820.74787.qm@web56108.mail.re3.yahoo.com>
References: <460820.74787.qm@web56108.mail.re3.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <019c01ca770e$2cfe6f00$86fb4d00$@com>

People only see what they want to see. This applies to all sides of any
argument. When the other person disagrees with us we often resort to name
calling of one kind or another.

Ron H.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

-----Original Message-----
From: grovenet-bounces at rdrop.com [mailto:grovenet-bounces at rdrop.com] On
Behalf Of Holly T.
Sent: Sunday, December 06, 2009 11:01 PM
To: Forest Grove local interests list
Subject: Re: [Grovenet] Seven Answers to Climate Contrarian
Nonsense:Scientific American

So...uh Gary...would you say that our revered scientists at NASA...those
same folks who have been sending us photos from outer space that show, in
living color, the rapid recession of our polar ice caps...would you consider
them to be "unscientific and delusional"? 

Please go to http://climate.nasa.gov/ and click the Climate Time Machine
link near the right side of NASA's Eyes on the Earth page. You can then
select between four categories:  Sea Ice, Sea Level, Co2 Emissions, and
Average Global Temperature. Sliders are provided near the bottom of each
resulting screen. By running each slider across the page, you'll be able to
see how our planet has been changed over the years by global warming. And
guess what! Things are looking significantly worse in all four categories as
you move the sliders to the right. 

Unless, of course, you don't believe what our country's best-and-brightest
aerospace scientists are telling us. Unless you think that NASA is part of
this huge, diabolical scandal called "Climate Gate".

If you have better sources than NASA to support your belief that global
warming is a hoax, please share them.

Holly


________________________________
From: Walt Wentz <waltw at teleport.com>
To: Forest Grove local interests list <grovenet at rdrop.com>
Sent: Sun, December 6, 2009 5:38:53 PM
Subject: Re: [Grovenet] Seven Answers to Climate Contrarian
Nonsense:Scientific American

Eh? Define "delusional" when ice caps are melting, sea levels are  
rising, deserts are expanding and species are disappearing at a  
faster rate than at any time in geologic history. Or do anti- 
environmentalists not believe in geology either?
Walt

On Dec 6, 2009, at 1:25 PM, Gary Duncan-Gates wrote:

> Problem is, Environmentalism is as much a religion to its adherents  
> as the traditional religions are to the folks you speak of.  They  
> are just as zealous, just as dangerous, and just as delusional.
>
> Gary



From NoSpam03 at comcast.net  Sun Dec  6 23:46:18 2009
From: NoSpam03 at comcast.net (Steven)
Date: Sun, 6 Dec 2009 23:46:18 -0800
Subject: [Grovenet] Seven Answers to Climate
	Contrarian	Nonsense:Scientific American
In-Reply-To: <019c01ca770e$2cfe6f00$86fb4d00$@com>
References: <460820.74787.qm@web56108.mail.re3.yahoo.com>
	<019c01ca770e$2cfe6f00$86fb4d00$@com>
Message-ID: <000001ca7711$5d3fc490$17bf4db0$@net>

The hoax is that tax dollars given to Gore's hedge fund will alter any of
these parameters.

-----Original Message-----
From: grovenet-bounces at rdrop.com [mailto:grovenet-bounces at rdrop.com] On
Behalf Of Ron Howden
Sent: Sunday, December 06, 2009 11:23 PM
To: 'Forest Grove local interests list'
Subject: Re: [Grovenet] Seven Answers to Climate Contrarian
Nonsense:Scientific American

People only see what they want to see. This applies to all sides of any
argument. When the other person disagrees with us we often resort to name
calling of one kind or another.

Ron H.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

-----Original Message-----
From: grovenet-bounces at rdrop.com [mailto:grovenet-bounces at rdrop.com] On
Behalf Of Holly T.
Sent: Sunday, December 06, 2009 11:01 PM
To: Forest Grove local interests list
Subject: Re: [Grovenet] Seven Answers to Climate Contrarian
Nonsense:Scientific American

So...uh Gary...would you say that our revered scientists at NASA...those
same folks who have been sending us photos from outer space that show, in
living color, the rapid recession of our polar ice caps...would you consider
them to be "unscientific and delusional"? 

Please go to http://climate.nasa.gov/ and click the Climate Time Machine
link near the right side of NASA's Eyes on the Earth page. You can then
select between four categories:  Sea Ice, Sea Level, Co2 Emissions, and
Average Global Temperature. Sliders are provided near the bottom of each
resulting screen. By running each slider across the page, you'll be able to
see how our planet has been changed over the years by global warming. And
guess what! Things are looking significantly worse in all four categories as
you move the sliders to the right. 

Unless, of course, you don't believe what our country's best-and-brightest
aerospace scientists are telling us. Unless you think that NASA is part of
this huge, diabolical scandal called "Climate Gate".

If you have better sources than NASA to support your belief that global
warming is a hoax, please share them.

Holly


________________________________
From: Walt Wentz <waltw at teleport.com>
To: Forest Grove local interests list <grovenet at rdrop.com>
Sent: Sun, December 6, 2009 5:38:53 PM
Subject: Re: [Grovenet] Seven Answers to Climate Contrarian
Nonsense:Scientific American

Eh? Define "delusional" when ice caps are melting, sea levels are  
rising, deserts are expanding and species are disappearing at a  
faster rate than at any time in geologic history. Or do anti- 
environmentalists not believe in geology either?
Walt

On Dec 6, 2009, at 1:25 PM, Gary Duncan-Gates wrote:

> Problem is, Environmentalism is as much a religion to its adherents  
> as the traditional religions are to the folks you speak of.  They  
> are just as zealous, just as dangerous, and just as delusional.
>
> Gary


_______________________________________________
GroveNet mailing list
GroveNet at rdrop.com
http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet


From jo.david at verizon.net  Mon Dec  7 00:57:56 2009
From: jo.david at verizon.net (David Morelli)
Date: Mon, 07 Dec 2009 00:57:56 -0800
Subject: [Grovenet] Seven Answers to
 Climate	Contrarian	Nonsense:Scientific American
In-Reply-To: <000001ca7711$5d3fc490$17bf4db0$@net>
References: <460820.74787.qm@web56108.mail.re3.yahoo.com>
	<019c01ca770e$2cfe6f00$86fb4d00$@com>
	<000001ca7711$5d3fc490$17bf4db0$@net>
Message-ID: <85AAFA42-0BB8-42C1-9138-71EDEBD00763@verizon.net>

I may be coming in late on this, so fill me in.

We seem to have a climate change in the works.  There may be multiple factors at work, human action included.  Whether we are 100% or 20% of the cause, why contribute to the problem?

I appreciate that burning cheap fuels is good for those who sell and use cheap fuels.  How is it good for our children, grand-children and great grand-children?  

How does Al Gore's financial standing affect the science?  If Warren Buffet figures he can make money promoting rail service, that doesn't mean it has no merit.  So, if Al Gore is investing in something that reduces CO2 emissions, what is the problem?  

If you have a problem with the proposed "cap and trade", well so do I.  It should be a straight charge on pollution starting at 0.1 gram of discharge, and money charge ought to be sufficient to pay for 100% the clean up.  Collect and clean your own process, or pay whatever the market charges to have someone else clean it.  That would be an free market economic solution to this problem.  Instead we have certain groups who want to Socialize the expense associated with energy use.

David

On Dec 6, 2009, at 11:46 PM, Steven wrote:

> The hoax is that tax dollars given to Gore's hedge fund will alter any of
> these parameters.


From rab at jurislex.com  Mon Dec  7 09:38:30 2009
From: rab at jurislex.com (Bob Browning)
Date: Mon, 07 Dec 2009 09:38:30 -0800
Subject: [Grovenet] Seven Answers to Climate
 Contrarian	Nonsense:Scientific American
In-Reply-To: <377343.75641.qm@web46301.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
References: <962847.30477.qm@web55005.mail.re4.yahoo.com>	<10044.64862.qm@web56102.mail.re3.yahoo.com>
	<377343.75641.qm@web46301.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <4B1D3D96.4000508@jurislex.com>

An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/attachments/20091207/1dbb3557/attachment.html 

From edavie at verizon.net  Mon Dec  7 09:47:50 2009
From: edavie at verizon.net (Ed Davie)
Date: Mon, 07 Dec 2009 09:47:50 -0800
Subject: [Grovenet] Seven Answers to Climate
 Contrarian	Nonsense:Scientific American
References: <460820.74787.qm@web56108.mail.re3.yahoo.com>
	<019c01ca770e$2cfe6f00$86fb4d00$@com>
Message-ID: <7897C014A53B4B00839CD06C500D29DB@700x>

Interesting. I haven't seen any name calling, yet!
Ed

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Ron Howden" <admin at ronhowden.com>
To: "'Forest Grove local interests list'" <grovenet at rdrop.com>
Sent: Sunday, December 06, 2009 11:23 PM
Subject: Re: [Grovenet] Seven Answers to Climate Contrarian Nonsense:Scientific American


> People only see what they want to see. This applies to all sides of any
> argument. When the other person disagrees with us we often resort to name
> calling of one kind or another.
> 
> Ron H.
> 
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: grovenet-bounces at rdrop.com [mailto:grovenet-bounces at rdrop.com] On
> Behalf Of Holly T.
> Sent: Sunday, December 06, 2009 11:01 PM
> To: Forest Grove local interests list
> Subject: Re: [Grovenet] Seven Answers to Climate Contrarian
> Nonsense:Scientific American
> 
> So...uh Gary...would you say that our revered scientists at NASA...those
> same folks who have been sending us photos from outer space that show, in
> living color, the rapid recession of our polar ice caps...would you consider
> them to be "unscientific and delusional"? 
> 
> Please go to http://climate.nasa.gov/ and click the Climate Time Machine
> link near the right side of NASA's Eyes on the Earth page. You can then
> select between four categories:  Sea Ice, Sea Level, Co2 Emissions, and
> Average Global Temperature. Sliders are provided near the bottom of each
> resulting screen. By running each slider across the page, you'll be able to
> see how our planet has been changed over the years by global warming. And
> guess what! Things are looking significantly worse in all four categories as
> you move the sliders to the right. 
> 
> Unless, of course, you don't believe what our country's best-and-brightest
> aerospace scientists are telling us. Unless you think that NASA is part of
> this huge, diabolical scandal called "Climate Gate".
> 
> If you have better sources than NASA to support your belief that global
> warming is a hoax, please share them.
> 
> Holly
> 
> 
> ________________________________
> From: Walt Wentz <waltw at teleport.com>
> To: Forest Grove local interests list <grovenet at rdrop.com>
> Sent: Sun, December 6, 2009 5:38:53 PM
> Subject: Re: [Grovenet] Seven Answers to Climate Contrarian
> Nonsense:Scientific American
> 
> Eh? Define "delusional" when ice caps are melting, sea levels are  
> rising, deserts are expanding and species are disappearing at a  
> faster rate than at any time in geologic history. Or do anti- 
> environmentalists not believe in geology either?
> Walt
> 
> On Dec 6, 2009, at 1:25 PM, Gary Duncan-Gates wrote:
> 
>> Problem is, Environmentalism is as much a religion to its adherents  
>> as the traditional religions are to the folks you speak of.  They  
>> are just as zealous, just as dangerous, and just as delusional.
>>
>> Gary
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> GroveNet mailing list
> GroveNet at rdrop.com
> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet
>

From NoSpam03 at comcast.net  Mon Dec  7 09:49:12 2009
From: NoSpam03 at comcast.net (Steven)
Date: Mon, 7 Dec 2009 09:49:12 -0800
Subject: [Grovenet] Seven Answers to
	Climate	Contrarian	Nonsense:Scientific American
In-Reply-To: <85AAFA42-0BB8-42C1-9138-71EDEBD00763@verizon.net>
References: <460820.74787.qm@web56108.mail.re3.yahoo.com>	<019c01ca770e$2cfe6f00$86fb4d00$@com>	<000001ca7711$5d3fc490$17bf4db0$@net>
	<85AAFA42-0BB8-42C1-9138-71EDEBD00763@verizon.net>
Message-ID: <002d01ca7765$969af3a0$c3d0dae0$@net>

Here is an interesting article about the latest email news.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/12/understanding_climategates_hid.html

If Warren Buffett came out with an infomercial telling you how other forms
of travel will destroy the world. Lobbied the UN to ban other forms of
travel...I would be opposed to that too.
In fact Warren has spoken out for higher taxes. Why? His business model is
based on tax avoidance. More taxes that are avoided makes him more profit.

What if the human cause were 0.5%? While living cleaner is a great goal,
creating an Enron for CO2 is not.

Glaciers shrinking? Do we have any pictures dating back to around 1000? That
was the last warm period. Maybe the glaciers grew in the little ice age? I
don't know. It is hard to look at the last 30 years as the end all
especially with the errors in data that have been shown over and over by the
global non-alarmists.

-----Original Message-----
From: grovenet-bounces at rdrop.com [mailto:grovenet-bounces at rdrop.com] On
Behalf Of David Morelli
Sent: Monday, December 07, 2009 12:58 AM
To: Forest Grove local interests list
Subject: Re: [Grovenet] Seven Answers to Climate Contrarian
Nonsense:Scientific American

I may be coming in late on this, so fill me in.

We seem to have a climate change in the works.  There may be multiple
factors at work, human action included.  Whether we are 100% or 20% of the
cause, why contribute to the problem?

I appreciate that burning cheap fuels is good for those who sell and use
cheap fuels.  How is it good for our children, grand-children and great
grand-children?  

How does Al Gore's financial standing affect the science?  If Warren
Buffet figures he can make money promoting rail service, that doesn't mean
it has no merit.  So, if Al Gore is investing in something that reduces
CO2 emissions, what is the problem?  

If you have a problem with the proposed "cap and trade", well so do I.  It
should be a straight charge on pollution starting at 0.1 gram of
discharge, and money charge ought to be sufficient to pay for 100% the
clean up.  Collect and clean your own process, or pay whatever the market
charges to have someone else clean it.  That would be an free market
economic solution to this problem.  Instead we have certain groups who
want to Socialize the expense associated with energy use.

David

On Dec 6, 2009, at 11:46 PM, Steven wrote:

> The hoax is that tax dollars given to Gore's hedge fund will alter any
of
> these parameters.

_______________________________________________
GroveNet mailing list
GroveNet at rdrop.com
http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet


From OleHossTreeFarm at webtv.net  Mon Dec  7 11:18:50 2009
From: OleHossTreeFarm at webtv.net (Alan Domenghini aka an OleHoss)
Date: Mon, 7 Dec 2009 11:18:50 -0800
Subject: [Grovenet] HO-HO-HO
Message-ID: <15046-4B1D551A-4819@storefull-3171.bay.webtv.net>

http://community-2.webtv.net/OleHossTreeFarm/HOHOHO/


From obrzl at verizon.net  Mon Dec  7 12:52:42 2009
From: obrzl at verizon.net (mark oberzil)
Date: Mon, 7 Dec 2009 12:52:42 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [Grovenet] Will Big Business Save the Earth?
Message-ID: <878540.7457.qm@web84202.mail.re3.yahoo.com>


See if you can open this:
?


?




#yiv489660646 footer {
font-family:arial, helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:10px;color:#000000;}
#yiv489660646 td.footer {
font-family:arial, helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:10px;color:#000000;}
#yiv489660646 a.footer {
font-family:arial, helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:10px;color:#000066;}
#yiv489660646 font.emailHeader {
font-family:arial, helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:13px;color:#CC6633;font-weight:bold;padding-bottom:4px;}
#yiv489660646 bgc1 {
background-color:#F5F4F4;}
#yiv489660646 td.bgc1 {
background-color:#F5F4F4;}
#yiv489660646 bgc2 {
background-color:#F8F8F8;}
#yiv489660646 td.bgc2 {
background-color:#F8F8F8;}
#yiv489660646 {
font-family:arial, helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;}
#yiv489660646 td.bodycopy {
font-family:arial, helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;}
#yiv489660646 a.bodycopy {
font-family:arial, helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;color:#000066;}
#yiv489660646 small {
font-family:arial, helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:11px;}
#yiv489660646 td.small {
font-family:arial, helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:11px;}
#yiv489660646 a.small {
font-family:arial, helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:11px;color:#000066;}
#yiv489660646 advertisement {
font-family:arial, helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:9px;color:#999999;}
#yiv489660646 td.advertisement {
font-family:arial, helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:9px;color:#999999;}
#yiv489660646 a.advertisement {
font-family:arial, helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:9px;color:#000066;}
#yiv489660646 contextadbg {
border-top:1px solid #BFBFBF;border-bottom:1px solid #BFBFBF;margin-bottom:3px;}
#yiv489660646 contextadheader {
font-family:arial, helvetica, sans-serif;color:#98BC61;font-size:11px;font-weight:bold;}
#yiv489660646 contextaddisclaimer {
font-family:arial, helvetica, sans-serif;color:#999999;font-size:10px;padding-bottom:8px;}
#yiv489660646 contextadtext {
font-family:arial, helvetica, sans-serif;color:#000000;font-size:11px;padding-top:8px;padding-bottom:8px;padding-left:11px;padding-right:11px;margin-bottom:3px;}
#yiv489660646 contextAdMiscText {
font-family:arial, helvetica, sans-serif;color:#000000;font-size:11px;padding-left:11px;padding-right:11px;}





 




 

   

 



This page was sent to you by:? hopeano at verizon.net 

OPINION ? | December 06, 2009 
Op-Ed Contributor:? Will Big Business Save the Earth? 
By JARED DIAMOND 
Major U.S. companies are now a force for environmental progress. 






 










Advertisement






Fantastic Mr. Fox directed by Wes Anderson, featuring the voices of George Clooney and Meryl Streep. 
Now Playing. 
Click here to view trailer

 







 

Copyright 2009 ?The New York Times Company | Privacy Policy 
?

  

From admin at jeffhowden.com  Mon Dec  7 12:57:24 2009
From: admin at jeffhowden.com (Jeff Howden)
Date: Mon, 7 Dec 2009 12:57:24 -0800
Subject: [Grovenet] Will Big Business Save the Earth?
In-Reply-To: <878540.7457.qm@web84202.mail.re3.yahoo.com>
References: <878540.7457.qm@web84202.mail.re3.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <00fc01ca777f$e220e900$a662bb00$@com>

Try this URL instead:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/06/opinion/06diamond.html

Jeff Howden


From a_tom_51 at juno.com  Mon Dec  7 14:51:53 2009
From: a_tom_51 at juno.com (a_tom_51 at juno.com)
Date: Mon, 7 Dec 2009 22:51:53 GMT
Subject: [Grovenet] Seven Answers to Climate Contrarian
	Nonsense:Scientific	 American
Message-ID: <20091207.145153.10073.0@webmail04.vgs.untd.com>

A revered scientist at NASA may be a very smart person but is probably at NASA because they have advanced knowledge in a very specific area It does not mean that they are knowledgeable in the field of human caused climate change

 It is too bad that climate change has become a political issue. It pretty much blows any scientific objectivity out of consideration. 
Tom Alexander
 
 
____________________________________________________________
Water Heater
Some like it hot. Click now for a reliable new water heater!
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2141/c?cp=xyC9t1yaCjtFbiCMocs1NQAAJ1CORKrrSABr_kse746cCp3FAAYAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAADNAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAGIAAAAAA=

From osubuckeye59 at yahoo.com  Mon Dec  7 15:41:01 2009
From: osubuckeye59 at yahoo.com (Allen Warren)
Date: Mon, 7 Dec 2009 15:41:01 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [Grovenet] rental housing availability?
Message-ID: <477967.7329.qm@web112110.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>

I have a friend at work who's looking at Forest Grove for a place to live, specifically, looking for a home to rent.  Specifics:
    3 bedroom
    2 bath
    2 car garage (desired, not required)
    small back yard

Not looking for immediate tenancy, as in doesn't need it by January 1.

 
Allen Warren



      

From NoSpam03 at comcast.net  Mon Dec  7 17:08:56 2009
From: NoSpam03 at comcast.net (Steven)
Date: Mon, 7 Dec 2009 17:08:56 -0800
Subject: [Grovenet] rental housing availability?
In-Reply-To: <477967.7329.qm@web112110.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
References: <477967.7329.qm@web112110.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <002901ca77a3$0b0e46a0$212ad3e0$@net>

3,1,1 is my best offer.


-----Original Message-----
From: grovenet-bounces at rdrop.com [mailto:grovenet-bounces at rdrop.com] On
Behalf Of Allen Warren
Sent: Monday, December 07, 2009 3:41 PM
To: Forest Grove local interests list
Subject: [Grovenet] rental housing availability?

I have a friend at work who's looking at Forest Grove for a place to live,
specifically, looking for a home to rent.  Specifics:
    3 bedroom
    2 bath
    2 car garage (desired, not required)
    small back yard

Not looking for immediate tenancy, as in doesn't need it by January 1.

 
Allen Warren



      
_______________________________________________
GroveNet mailing list
GroveNet at rdrop.com
http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet


From jo.david at verizon.net  Mon Dec  7 23:24:34 2009
From: jo.david at verizon.net (David Morelli)
Date: Mon, 07 Dec 2009 23:24:34 -0800
Subject: [Grovenet] Seven Answers to Climate
 Contrarian	Nonsense:Scientific American
In-Reply-To: <019c01ca770e$2cfe6f00$86fb4d00$@com>
References: <460820.74787.qm@web56108.mail.re3.yahoo.com>
	<019c01ca770e$2cfe6f00$86fb4d00$@com>
Message-ID: <AE27BE47-F913-4F6B-A7F3-9DEAEE1CB9EF@verizon.net>

We can all remain civil.  My idea of name calling is, "Hey, Dave, we got some food here.  Hungry?" <smile>

When I was in the service we ran two different Phosphates in the Steam Generators to control pH.  One phosphate actually controlled the pH, while the other restored the first phosphate as it was consumed.  Together they held the pH where we needed it, even when there were wide variations in other system parameters.  Until the system depleted the phosphate.  Then the pH would go "gunny sack" all at once.  That is the nature of a buffered system, there a small linear change over a wide variety of conditions until the buffer agents are exhausted.  Then the system sees a huge change over a very small change in input.

Our environment is a buffered system in many respects, mechanical, chemical, biological and social.  For example the soil be firm enough to walk upon over a wide variety of wet and dry conditions.  Until it saturates, then the whole hill side can slide away.   The family may hold together over a wide variety of stresses until a threshold is reached and someone grabs a gun.  

The situation may be like an audio amplifier.  It does what it is supposed to do, and you can dial in the desired increase in sound level.  Unless a positive feed back loop starts.

There is concern that we are approaching the limits of the environmental buffering associated with atmospheric CO2, and that when that boundary is crossed, we leave the area of negative feedback and enter one of positive feed back.

David


On Dec 6, 2009, at 11:23 PM, Ron Howden wrote:

> People only see what they want to see. This applies to all sides of any
> argument. When the other person disagrees with us we often resort to name
> calling of one kind or another.
> 
> Ron H.


From jo.david at verizon.net  Mon Dec  7 23:31:02 2009
From: jo.david at verizon.net (David Morelli)
Date: Mon, 07 Dec 2009 23:31:02 -0800
Subject: [Grovenet] Seven Answers to Climate
 Contrarian	Nonsense:Scientific American
In-Reply-To: <4B1D3D96.4000508@jurislex.com>
References: <962847.30477.qm@web55005.mail.re4.yahoo.com>
	<10044.64862.qm@web56102.mail.re3.yahoo.com>
	<377343.75641.qm@web46301.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
	<4B1D3D96.4000508@jurislex.com>
Message-ID: <367BBACF-C582-465C-8BB6-8241F3DCB70F@verizon.net>

Bob, I don't know about the zealot part.  A lawyer who wants a jury trial just so that they can convince twelve people might be a zealot.

But I am quite willing to believe that you could be delusional.  <smile>

David


On Dec 7, 2009, at 9:38 AM, Bob Browning wrote:

> Talk about cynical. I guess because I recycle and am pretty adamant about it given the limited land area for land fills, so that makes me a delusional zealot? Great!! And more power to all of you who share my concerns!!
> 
> bob "put your can over here, please" browning

From gduncangates at yahoo.com  Tue Dec  8 07:27:37 2009
From: gduncangates at yahoo.com (Gary Duncan-Gates)
Date: Tue, 8 Dec 2009 07:27:37 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [Grovenet] Seven Answers to Climate Contrarian
	Nonsense:Scientific American
In-Reply-To: <460820.74787.qm@web56108.mail.re3.yahoo.com>
References: <460820.74787.qm@web56108.mail.re3.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <816620.74623.qm@web46313.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>

We could get into a tinkling contest, each of us claiming that we have more and better scientists to back up our claims.  And the truth is, we still probably could not convince one another of anything.  The opposing viewpoints are out there; if you are truly interested and truly objective, you will seek them.  

My post focused on the decided lack of discussion of this matter and the effort by some to hinder any debate.  New data is coming in every day, yet most people don't get to hear it, or reject it out of hand, because their minds are made up.  Al Gore said the debate is over.

Some people are never exposed to other ideas, either because the major news outlets avoid those stories (gloom and doom and armageddon get better ratings), or they eschew stories that contradict their preconceived ideas.  Sometimes the information is kept from them, as in the case of ClimateGate.

Scientists are human, and science, while being full of facts, is still subject to interpretation.  That's why you get a second opinion when a doctor advises surgery.  Scientists can make mistakes, they can be dishonest and disingenuous, and they can be subject to manipulation.  

And when they tell a story that blames our prosperity for all of the ills in the world, some people are preprogrammed to believe it.

Gary    




________________________________
From: Holly T. <feralcattamer at yahoo.com>
To: Forest Grove local interests list <grovenet at rdrop.com>
Sent: Sun, December 6, 2009 11:01:28 PM
Subject: Re: [Grovenet] Seven Answers to Climate Contrarian Nonsense:Scientific American

So...uh Gary...would you say that our revered scientists at NASA...those same folks who have been sending us photos from outer space that show, in living color, the rapid recession of our polar ice caps...would you consider them to be "unscientific and delusional"? 

Please go to http://climate.nasa.gov/ and click the Climate Time Machine link near the right side of NASA's Eyes on the Earth page. You can then select between four categories:  Sea Ice, Sea Level, Co2 Emissions, and Average Global Temperature. Sliders are provided near the bottom of each resulting screen. By running each slider across the page, you'll be able to see how our planet has been changed over the years by global warming. And guess what! Things are looking significantly worse in all four categories as you move the sliders to the right. 

Unless, of course, you don't believe what our country's best-and-brightest aerospace scientists are telling us. Unless you think that NASA is part of this huge, diabolical scandal called "Climate Gate".

If you have better sources than NASA to support your belief that global warming is a hoax, please share them.

Holly




________________________________
From: Walt Wentz <waltw at teleport.com>
To: Forest Grove local interests list <grovenet at rdrop.com>
Sent: Sun, December 6, 2009 5:38:53 PM
Subject: Re: [Grovenet] Seven Answers to Climate Contrarian Nonsense:Scientific American

Eh? Define "delusional" when ice caps are melting, sea levels are  
rising, deserts are expanding and species are disappearing at a  
faster rate than at any time in geologic history. Or do anti- 
environmentalists not believe in geology either?
Walt

On Dec 6, 2009, at 1:25 PM, Gary Duncan-Gates wrote:

> Problem is, Environmentalism is as much a religion to its adherents  
> as the traditional religions are to the folks you speak of.  They  
> are just as zealous, just as dangerous, and just as delusional.
>
> Gary
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Holly T. <feralcattamer at yahoo.com>
> To: Forest Grove local interests list <grovenet at rdrop.com>
> Sent: Wed, December 2, 2009 1:48:09 PM
> Subject: Re: [Grovenet] Seven Answers to Climate Contrarian  
> Nonsense:Scientific American
>
> Even at their most horrific, wars and famines never wiped out even  
> 1/4 of the world's population. But, I agree:  Population control is  
> one of those hot topics that American politicians never want to  
> touch, but it's really the only long-term, viable answer for  
> reversing global warming. But, as long as you have people thinking  
> that it's their god-given right to "go forth and multiply" and  
> "have dominion over the earth," nothing will change until war,  
> pestilence, and environmental toxins do their part to take us out.  
> The frog will continue to sit in the beaker of slowly boiling water  
> until such time that it overtakes him.
>
> Radical environmentalist, Derrick Jensen, advocates "taking down  
> civilization" to reverse the problem of global warming because he  
> wisely believes that humankind will not willingly take the steps  
> necessary to reverse the problem. You know, doing little civilly  
> disobedient things such as blowing up hydroelectric dams, etc. But,  
> I think even taking out all the hydroelectric dams in the world  
> would not do nearly enough to reverse the problem. It would take  
> much more than that to motivate humankind to live sustainably.
>
> Also, most of the world's great religions are patriarchical in  
> nature and are, as a result, way too far removed from the Earth- 
> honoring teachings of indigenous people who lived sustainably  
> according to the teachings of goddess-based teachings. These  
> indigenous people were taught the immorality of taking too much  
> from the Earth and not giving back. They lived sustainably whereas  
> we do not because our moral teachings have taught us that it's okay  
> to pillage the planet and take whatever we want. It's these very  
> patriarchal teachings that give people cause to think it's okay to  
> have big families today. So, how can you expect nations that base  
> their entire moral philosophies on patriarchical-take-what-you-want  
> teachings to even consider living sustainably? They have god on  
> their side; so why should they even consider limiting the number of  
> children they have?
>
> I think that besides limiting population, a radical change in moral  
> teachings needs to take place. Otherwise, how will humankind (and  
> thousands of other animals and plant species) stand a chance? How  
> can a change in moral teachings take place? I don't have any  
> answers for that one. Breaking through the power structures of the  
> world's patriarchal religions would be harder than threading a  
> camel through the eye of a needle at this point in history.
>
> Holly
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Jeff Cooper <jbcoops at yahoo.com>
> To: Ed Davie <edavie at verizon.net>; Forest Grove local interests  
> list <grovenet at rdrop.com>
> Sent: Wed, December 2, 2009 1:20:29 PM
> Subject: Re: [Grovenet] Seven Answers to Climate Contrarian  
> Nonsense:Scientific American
>
> Climate isn't the biggest issue... population is.  In the good old  
> days we could just have a war or famine or pestilence or plague to  
> wipe out 1/4 to 1/2 of the world's population... not considered  
> politically viable options anymore.  Trouble is Earth will have  
> close to 10 billion people by 2050.  My recommendation is global  
> enforced celibacy or homosexuality and an accelerated condos on the  
> moon program.
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> GroveNet mailing list
> GroveNet at rdrop.com
> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> GroveNet mailing list
> GroveNet at rdrop.com
> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> GroveNet mailing list
> GroveNet at rdrop.com
> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet

_______________________________________________
GroveNet mailing list
GroveNet at rdrop.com
http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet



      
_______________________________________________
GroveNet mailing list
GroveNet at rdrop.com
http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet



      

From gduncangates at yahoo.com  Tue Dec  8 07:30:19 2009
From: gduncangates at yahoo.com (Gary Duncan-Gates)
Date: Tue, 8 Dec 2009 07:30:19 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [Grovenet] Seven Answers to Climate Contrarian
	Nonsense:Scientific American
In-Reply-To: <4B1D3D96.4000508@jurislex.com>
References: <962847.30477.qm@web55005.mail.re4.yahoo.com>
	<10044.64862.qm@web56102.mail.re3.yahoo.com>
	<377343.75641.qm@web46301.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
	<4B1D3D96.4000508@jurislex.com>
Message-ID: <44280.37340.qm@web46303.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>

I don't know, Bob.  Have you blown up a log truck to try to halt deforestation?  I recycle, too.  I would like to think there is some middle ground between those two actions.  Do you differentiate between yourself and the ELF?

Gary




________________________________
From: Bob Browning <rab at jurislex.com>
To: Forest Grove local interests list <grovenet at rdrop.com>
Sent: Mon, December 7, 2009 9:38:30 AM
Subject: Re: [Grovenet] Seven Answers to Climate Contrarian Nonsense:Scientific American

 Talk about cynical. I guess because I recycle and am
pretty adamant about it given the limited land area for land fills, so
that makes me a delusional zealot? Great!! And more power to all of you
who share my concerns!!

bob "put your can over here, please" browning
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Gary Duncan-Gates wrote: 
Problem is, Environmentalism is as much a religion to its adherents as the traditional religions are to the folks you speak of.  They are just as zealous, just as dangerous, and just as delusional. 
>
>Gary
>
>________________________________
>From: Holly T. <feralcattamer at yahoo.com>
>To: Forest Grove local interests list <grovenet at rdrop.com>
>Sent: Wed, December 2, 2009 1:48:09 PM
>Subject: Re: [Grovenet] Seven Answers to Climate Contrarian Nonsense:Scientific American
>
>Even at their most horrific, wars and famines never wiped out even 1/4 of the world's population. But, I agree:  Population control is one of those hot topics that American politicians never want to touch, but it's really the only long-term, viable answer for reversing global warming. But, as long as you have people thinking that it's their god-given right to "go forth and multiply" and "have dominion over the earth," nothing will change until war, pestilence, and environmental toxins do their part to take us out. The frog will continue to sit in the beaker of slowly boiling water until such time that it overtakes him.
>
><snip>



      

From gduncangates at yahoo.com  Tue Dec  8 07:42:18 2009
From: gduncangates at yahoo.com (Gary Duncan-Gates)
Date: Tue, 8 Dec 2009 07:42:18 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [Grovenet] Seven Answers to Climate Contrarian
	Nonsense:Scientific American
In-Reply-To: <AE27BE47-F913-4F6B-A7F3-9DEAEE1CB9EF@verizon.net>
References: <460820.74787.qm@web56108.mail.re3.yahoo.com>
	<019c01ca770e$2cfe6f00$86fb4d00$@com>
	<AE27BE47-F913-4F6B-A7F3-9DEAEE1CB9EF@verizon.net>
Message-ID: <302711.17525.qm@web46302.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>

David - 

It is my understanding that humans only contribute 3% of the atmospheric CO2. The remainder comes from volcanoes, forest fires and decomposing vegetation. If that is true, if 7 billion people and 10,000 years of human evolution only make up 3% of the CO2, how can we have any effect on the climate?

And the follow up question, if CO2 is as bad as they say, aren't we doomed already?  Are we just one volcanic eruption away from annihilation?

Gary




________________________________
From: David Morelli <jo.david at verizon.net>
To: ron at ronhowden.com; Forest Grove local interests list <grovenet at rdrop.com>
Sent: Mon, December 7, 2009 11:24:34 PM
Subject: Re: [Grovenet] Seven Answers to Climate Contrarian Nonsense:Scientific American

We can all remain civil.  My idea of name calling is, "Hey, Dave, we got some food here.  Hungry?" <smile>

When I was in the service we ran two different Phosphates in the Steam Generators to control pH.  One phosphate actually controlled the pH, while the other restored the first phosphate as it was consumed.  Together they held the pH where we needed it, even when there were wide variations in other system parameters.  Until the system depleted the phosphate.  Then the pH would go "gunny sack" all at once.  That is the nature of a buffered system, there a small linear change over a wide variety of conditions until the buffer agents are exhausted.  Then the system sees a huge change over a very small change in input.

Our environment is a buffered system in many respects, mechanical, chemical, biological and social.  For example the soil be firm enough to walk upon over a wide variety of wet and dry conditions.  Until it saturates, then the whole hill side can slide away.   The family may hold together over a wide variety of stresses until a threshold is reached and someone grabs a gun.  

The situation may be like an audio amplifier.  It does what it is supposed to do, and you can dial in the desired increase in sound level.  Unless a positive feed back loop starts.

There is concern that we are approaching the limits of the environmental buffering associated with atmospheric CO2, and that when that boundary is crossed, we leave the area of negative feedback and enter one of positive feed back.

David


On Dec 6, 2009, at 11:23 PM, Ron Howden wrote:

> People only see what they want to see. This applies to all sides of any
> argument. When the other person disagrees with us we often resort to name
> calling of one kind or another.
> 
> Ron H.

_______________________________________________
GroveNet mailing list
GroveNet at rdrop.com
http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet



      

From chopwoodcarrywater at verizon.net  Tue Dec  8 08:44:37 2009
From: chopwoodcarrywater at verizon.net (Julie Larson)
Date: Tue, 08 Dec 2009 08:44:37 -0800
Subject: [Grovenet] rental housing availability?
In-Reply-To: <477967.7329.qm@web112110.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
References: <477967.7329.qm@web112110.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <00d201ca7825$bb1c7d50$315577f0$@net>

I have a fabulous place for rent, Allen, that would exactly fit the bill. I
will send you a copy of the Craig's List ad.

-----Original Message-----
From: grovenet-bounces at rdrop.com [mailto:grovenet-bounces at rdrop.com] On
Behalf Of Allen Warren
Sent: Monday, December 07, 2009 3:41 PM
To: Forest Grove local interests list
Subject: [Grovenet] rental housing availability?

I have a friend at work who's looking at Forest Grove for a place to live,
specifically, looking for a home to rent.  Specifics:
    3 bedroom
    2 bath
    2 car garage (desired, not required)
    small back yard

Not looking for immediate tenancy, as in doesn't need it by January 1.

 
Allen Warren



      
_______________________________________________
GroveNet mailing list
GroveNet at rdrop.com
http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet



From waltw at teleport.com  Tue Dec  8 10:17:28 2009
From: waltw at teleport.com (Walt Wentz)
Date: Tue, 8 Dec 2009 10:17:28 -0800
Subject: [Grovenet] Seven Answers to Climate Contrarian
	Nonsense:Scientific American
In-Reply-To: <44280.37340.qm@web46303.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
References: <962847.30477.qm@web55005.mail.re4.yahoo.com>
	<10044.64862.qm@web56102.mail.re3.yahoo.com>
	<377343.75641.qm@web46301.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
	<4B1D3D96.4000508@jurislex.com>
	<44280.37340.qm@web46303.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <74710968-AF5F-4437-9852-84F0424F11ED@teleport.com>

Political Debate 101, Chapter 2, "Guilt by Association, and Other  
Handy Non-Sequiturs."

On Dec 8, 2009, at 7:30 AM, Gary Duncan-Gates wrote:

> I don't know, Bob.  Have you blown up a log truck to try to halt  
> deforestation?  I recycle, too.  I would like to think there is  
> some middle ground between those two actions.  Do you differentiate  
> between yourself and the ELF?
>
> Gary
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Bob Browning <rab at jurislex.com>
> To: Forest Grove local interests list <grovenet at rdrop.com>
> Sent: Mon, December 7, 2009 9:38:30 AM
> Subject: Re: [Grovenet] Seven Answers to Climate Contrarian  
> Nonsense:Scientific American
>
>  Talk about cynical. I guess because I recycle and am
> pretty adamant about it given the limited land area for land fills, so
> that makes me a delusional zealot? Great!! And more power to all of  
> you
> who share my concerns!!
>
> bob "put your can over here, please" browning
> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> Gary Duncan-Gates wrote:
> Problem is, Environmentalism is as much a religion to its adherents  
> as the traditional religions are to the folks you speak of.  They  
> are just as zealous, just as dangerous, and just as delusional.
>>
>> Gary
>>
>> ________________________________
>> From: Holly T. <feralcattamer at yahoo.com>
>> To: Forest Grove local interests list <grovenet at rdrop.com>
>> Sent: Wed, December 2, 2009 1:48:09 PM
>> Subject: Re: [Grovenet] Seven Answers to Climate Contrarian  
>> Nonsense:Scientific American
>>
>> Even at their most horrific, wars and famines never wiped out even  
>> 1/4 of the world's population. But, I agree:  Population control  
>> is one of those hot topics that American politicians never want to  
>> touch, but it's really the only long-term, viable answer for  
>> reversing global warming. But, as long as you have people thinking  
>> that it's their god-given right to "go forth and multiply" and  
>> "have dominion over the earth," nothing will change until war,  
>> pestilence, and environmental toxins do their part to take us out.  
>> The frog will continue to sit in the beaker of slowly boiling  
>> water until such time that it overtakes him.
>>
>> <snip>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> GroveNet mailing list
> GroveNet at rdrop.com
> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet


From waltw at teleport.com  Tue Dec  8 10:13:30 2009
From: waltw at teleport.com (Walt Wentz)
Date: Tue, 8 Dec 2009 10:13:30 -0800
Subject: [Grovenet] Seven Answers to Climate Contrarian
	Nonsense:Scientific American
In-Reply-To: <816620.74623.qm@web46313.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
References: <460820.74787.qm@web56108.mail.re3.yahoo.com>
	<816620.74623.qm@web46313.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <ED2B6900-758E-404A-8349-FBBBA8C9725B@teleport.com>

Gary, as you note:
>
>
> Some people are never exposed to other ideas, either because the  
> major news outlets avoid those stories (gloom and doom and  
> armageddon get better ratings), or they eschew stories that  
> contradict their preconceived ideas.

Excellent comment, as far as it goes. You might also have added, "and  
they also eschew stories which undermine their comfort, threaten  
their profits, contradict their religious faith or open unfamiliar  
and therefore frightening lines of thought."

> Sometimes the information is kept from them, as in the case of  
> ClimateGate.

Uh-- how exactly does "Climategate" keep information from the public?  
It was a huge mass of stolen private correspondence, the vast  
majority of it serious discussion and general agreement on the scope  
of the problem...  while a few scientists, on the spur of the moment,  
made angry, impatient or disparaging remarks about the work of  
others. And those few snide or angry or prima-donna comments have  
been carefully sifted out of the great mass of general agreement, and  
trumpeted as "proof" that the entire scientific community is engaged  
in a vast conspiracy to defraud the world's population. Tell me,  
which scenario seems more plausible? That a huge, worldwide community  
of climate scientists are engaged in a vast conspiracy? Or that a few  
very wealthy  industries are determined, at whatever cost, to protect  
their profits by nitpicking, sidetracking, stalling and ridiculing  
any serious consideration of the problem?
>
> Scientists are human, and science, while being full of facts, is  
> still subject to interpretation.  That's why you get a second  
> opinion when a doctor advises surgery.  Scientists can make  
> mistakes, they can be dishonest and disingenuous, and they can be  
> subject to manipulation.

Note, there is a considerable difference between "(Some) scientists  
CAN be..." and "(Most) scientists ARE....,"
>
> And when they tell a story that blames our prosperity for all of  
> the ills in the world, some people are preprogrammed to believe it.

And conversely, many are preprogrammed to automatically reject it,  
because it threatens their prosperity... and their personal comfort,  
profits, faith or mental inertia.
Walt
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Holly T. <feralcattamer at yahoo.com>
> To: Forest Grove local interests list <grovenet at rdrop.com>
> Sent: Sun, December 6, 2009 11:01:28 PM
> Subject: Re: [Grovenet] Seven Answers to Climate Contrarian  
> Nonsense:Scientific American
>
> So...uh Gary...would you say that our revered scientists at  
> NASA...those same folks who have been sending us photos from outer  
> space that show, in living color, the rapid recession of our polar  
> ice caps...would you consider them to be "unscientific and  
> delusional"?
>
> Please go to http://climate.nasa.gov/ and click the Climate Time  
> Machine link near the right side of NASA's Eyes on the Earth page.  
> You can then select between four categories:  Sea Ice, Sea Level,  
> Co2 Emissions, and Average Global Temperature. Sliders are provided  
> near the bottom of each resulting screen. By running each slider  
> across the page, you'll be able to see how our planet has been  
> changed over the years by global warming. And guess what! Things  
> are looking significantly worse in all four categories as you move  
> the sliders to the right.
>
> Unless, of course, you don't believe what our country's best-and- 
> brightest aerospace scientists are telling us. Unless you think  
> that NASA is part of this huge, diabolical scandal called "Climate  
> Gate".
>
> If you have better sources than NASA to support your belief that  
> global warming is a hoax, please share them.
>
> Holly
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Walt Wentz <waltw at teleport.com>
> To: Forest Grove local interests list <grovenet at rdrop.com>
> Sent: Sun, December 6, 2009 5:38:53 PM
> Subject: Re: [Grovenet] Seven Answers to Climate Contrarian  
> Nonsense:Scientific American
>
> Eh? Define "delusional" when ice caps are melting, sea levels are
> rising, deserts are expanding and species are disappearing at a
> faster rate than at any time in geologic history. Or do anti-
> environmentalists not believe in geology either?
> Walt
>
> On Dec 6, 2009, at 1:25 PM, Gary Duncan-Gates wrote:
>
>> Problem is, Environmentalism is as much a religion to its adherents
>> as the traditional religions are to the folks you speak of.  They
>> are just as zealous, just as dangerous, and just as delusional.
>>
>> Gary
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ________________________________
>> From: Holly T. <feralcattamer at yahoo.com>
>> To: Forest Grove local interests list <grovenet at rdrop.com>
>> Sent: Wed, December 2, 2009 1:48:09 PM
>> Subject: Re: [Grovenet] Seven Answers to Climate Contrarian
>> Nonsense:Scientific American
>>
>> Even at their most horrific, wars and famines never wiped out even
>> 1/4 of the world's population. But, I agree:  Population control is
>> one of those hot topics that American politicians never want to
>> touch, but it's really the only long-term, viable answer for
>> reversing global warming. But, as long as you have people thinking
>> that it's their god-given right to "go forth and multiply" and
>> "have dominion over the earth," nothing will change until war,
>> pestilence, and environmental toxins do their part to take us out.
>> The frog will continue to sit in the beaker of slowly boiling water
>> until such time that it overtakes him.
>>
>> Radical environmentalist, Derrick Jensen, advocates "taking down
>> civilization" to reverse the problem of global warming because he
>> wisely believes that humankind will not willingly take the steps
>> necessary to reverse the problem. You know, doing little civilly
>> disobedient things such as blowing up hydroelectric dams, etc. But,
>> I think even taking out all the hydroelectric dams in the world
>> would not do nearly enough to reverse the problem. It would take
>> much more than that to motivate humankind to live sustainably.
>>
>> Also, most of the world's great religions are patriarchical in
>> nature and are, as a result, way too far removed from the Earth-
>> honoring teachings of indigenous people who lived sustainably
>> according to the teachings of goddess-based teachings. These
>> indigenous people were taught the immorality of taking too much
>> from the Earth and not giving back. They lived sustainably whereas
>> we do not because our moral teachings have taught us that it's okay
>> to pillage the planet and take whatever we want. It's these very
>> patriarchal teachings that give people cause to think it's okay to
>> have big families today. So, how can you expect nations that base
>> their entire moral philosophies on patriarchical-take-what-you-want
>> teachings to even consider living sustainably? They have god on
>> their side; so why should they even consider limiting the number of
>> children they have?
>>
>> I think that besides limiting population, a radical change in moral
>> teachings needs to take place. Otherwise, how will humankind (and
>> thousands of other animals and plant species) stand a chance? How
>> can a change in moral teachings take place? I don't have any
>> answers for that one. Breaking through the power structures of the
>> world's patriarchal religions would be harder than threading a
>> camel through the eye of a needle at this point in history.
>>
>> Holly
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ________________________________
>> From: Jeff Cooper <jbcoops at yahoo.com>
>> To: Ed Davie <edavie at verizon.net>; Forest Grove local interests
>> list <grovenet at rdrop.com>
>> Sent: Wed, December 2, 2009 1:20:29 PM
>> Subject: Re: [Grovenet] Seven Answers to Climate Contrarian
>> Nonsense:Scientific American
>>
>> Climate isn't the biggest issue... population is.  In the good old
>> days we could just have a war or famine or pestilence or plague to
>> wipe out 1/4 to 1/2 of the world's population... not considered
>> politically viable options anymore.  Trouble is Earth will have
>> close to 10 billion people by 2050.  My recommendation is global
>> enforced celibacy or homosexuality and an accelerated condos on the
>> moon program.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> GroveNet mailing list
>> GroveNet at rdrop.com
>> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> GroveNet mailing list
>> GroveNet at rdrop.com
>> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> GroveNet mailing list
>> GroveNet at rdrop.com
>> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet
>
> _______________________________________________
> GroveNet mailing list
> GroveNet at rdrop.com
> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> GroveNet mailing list
> GroveNet at rdrop.com
> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> GroveNet mailing list
> GroveNet at rdrop.com
> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet


From rab at jurislex.com  Tue Dec  8 10:40:29 2009
From: rab at jurislex.com (Bob Browning)
Date: Tue, 08 Dec 2009 10:40:29 -0800
Subject: [Grovenet] Seven Answers to Climate
 Contrarian	Nonsense:Scientific American
In-Reply-To: <ED2B6900-758E-404A-8349-FBBBA8C9725B@teleport.com>
References: <460820.74787.qm@web56108.mail.re3.yahoo.com>	<816620.74623.qm@web46313.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
	<ED2B6900-758E-404A-8349-FBBBA8C9725B@teleport.com>
Message-ID: <4B1E9D9D.9060309@jurislex.com>

An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/attachments/20091208/5eee2fd4/attachment.html 

From rab at jurislex.com  Tue Dec  8 11:15:03 2009
From: rab at jurislex.com (Bob Browning)
Date: Tue, 08 Dec 2009 11:15:03 -0800
Subject: [Grovenet] Seven Answers to Climate
 Contrarian	Nonsense:Scientific American
In-Reply-To: <302711.17525.qm@web46302.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
References: <460820.74787.qm@web56108.mail.re3.yahoo.com>	<019c01ca770e$2cfe6f00$86fb4d00$@com>	<AE27BE47-F913-4F6B-A7F3-9DEAEE1CB9EF@verizon.net>
	<302711.17525.qm@web46302.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <4B1EA5B7.1010008@jurislex.com>

An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/attachments/20091208/b3d4a7e6/attachment.html 

From allnutt at verizon.net  Tue Dec  8 11:55:45 2009
From: allnutt at verizon.net (Katie Allnutt)
Date: Tue, 08 Dec 2009 11:55:45 -0800
Subject: [Grovenet] Seven Answers to Climate
 Contrarian	Nonsense:Scientific American
In-Reply-To: <302711.17525.qm@web46302.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
References: <460820.74787.qm@web56108.mail.re3.yahoo.com>
	<019c01ca770e$2cfe6f00$86fb4d00$@com>
	<AE27BE47-F913-4F6B-A7F3-9DEAEE1CB9EF@verizon.net>
	<302711.17525.qm@web46302.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <842DD714-F077-44F8-A9E4-36E14325F741@verizon.net>

You may be confusing the human component of CO2 contribution. We  
contribute in multiple ways.  We breathe and eat and digest our food  
which contributes CO2 and that is negligible. But we drive and burn  
coal in electric plants and produce plastic toys, and send up rockets  
into space and we bomb buildings and we have fireplaces in our houses  
and the list goes on and on.
The stuff that I have read says that many studies have tried to  
determine from ice cores and tree rings and other studies whether the  
carbon that has been released over the eons has been from volcanoes,  
humans, burning fossil fuels, etc based on which isotope of carbon is  
in the samples studied.

The good news is no, we are not one volcanic eruption away from  
annihilation and all the grovenuts here in this discussion are not  
going to die from horrific conditions.  We have it easy and we can be  
as greedy as we want with energy consumption and not really worry.   
The people who need to be concerned are our grandchildren and the  
generation after that. We'll all be dead when the truly bad  
consequences come around.

The bad news is that our grandchildren who are currently born know us  
and know our names. And they will be telling their grandchildren what  
we did or did not do in our own time. So we will not be anonymous  to  
the generation that truly has to deal with our mess. The onus is on  
us to get it right or work toward getting it right.
I tell my kids about their great grandmother who worked for the  
rights of women to vote. My daughter is excited to vote for the first  
time soon. "Ganny's" action had an impact on my daughter even though  
they never met.
What will my great grandchildren hear about my philosophy on global  
warming? There is plenty of evidence that we can make a difference  
that significantly impacts their lives.

And the funny thing really is that it will not impact us all that  
much to make a positive difference. If we invest in solar energy and  
insulation in housing, we will all still live comfortably and people  
will have jobs in the new energy paradigm.

Katie


On Dec 8, 2009, at 7:42 AM, Gary Duncan-Gates wrote:

> David -
>
> It is my understanding that humans only contribute 3% of the  
> atmospheric CO2. The remainder comes from volcanoes, forest fires  
> and decomposing vegetation. If that is true, if 7 billion people  
> and 10,000 years of human evolution only make up 3% of the CO2, how  
> can we have any effect on the climate?
>
> And the follow up question, if CO2 is as bad as they say, aren't we  
> doomed already?  Are we just one volcanic eruption away from  
> annihilation?
>
> Gary
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: David Morelli <jo.david at verizon.net>
> To: ron at ronhowden.com; Forest Grove local interests list  
> <grovenet at rdrop.com>
> Sent: Mon, December 7, 2009 11:24:34 PM
> Subject: Re: [Grovenet] Seven Answers to Climate Contrarian  
> Nonsense:Scientific American
>
> We can all remain civil.  My idea of name calling is, "Hey, Dave,  
> we got some food here.  Hungry?" <smile>
>
> When I was in the service we ran two different Phosphates in the  
> Steam Generators to control pH.  One phosphate actually controlled  
> the pH, while the other restored the first phosphate as it was  
> consumed.  Together they held the pH where we needed it, even when  
> there were wide variations in other system parameters.  Until the  
> system depleted the phosphate.  Then the pH would go "gunny sack"  
> all at once.  That is the nature of a buffered system, there a  
> small linear change over a wide variety of conditions until the  
> buffer agents are exhausted.  Then the system sees a huge change  
> over a very small change in input.
>
> Our environment is a buffered system in many respects, mechanical,  
> chemical, biological and social.  For example the soil be firm  
> enough to walk upon over a wide variety of wet and dry conditions.   
> Until it saturates, then the whole hill side can slide away.   The  
> family may hold together over a wide variety of stresses until a  
> threshold is reached and someone grabs a gun.
>
> The situation may be like an audio amplifier.  It does what it is  
> supposed to do, and you can dial in the desired increase in sound  
> level.  Unless a positive feed back loop starts.
>
> There is concern that we are approaching the limits of the  
> environmental buffering associated with atmospheric CO2, and that  
> when that boundary is crossed, we leave the area of negative  
> feedback and enter one of positive feed back.
>
> David
>
>
> On Dec 6, 2009, at 11:23 PM, Ron Howden wrote:
>
>> People only see what they want to see. This applies to all sides  
>> of any
>> argument. When the other person disagrees with us we often resort  
>> to name
>> calling of one kind or another.
>>
>> Ron H.
>
> _______________________________________________
> GroveNet mailing list
> GroveNet at rdrop.com
> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> GroveNet mailing list
> GroveNet at rdrop.com
> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet


From feralcattamer at yahoo.com  Tue Dec  8 13:20:49 2009
From: feralcattamer at yahoo.com (Holly T.)
Date: Tue, 8 Dec 2009 13:20:49 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [Grovenet] Seven Answers to Climate Contrarian
	Nonsense:Scientific American
In-Reply-To: <816620.74623.qm@web46313.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
References: <460820.74787.qm@web56108.mail.re3.yahoo.com>
	<816620.74623.qm@web46313.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <999567.74366.qm@web56102.mail.re3.yahoo.com>

>From what I have learned about Al Gore and his teachings, Gary, I think he wants the debate about global warming to be over simply because he believes there is so incredibly so much work to be done to reverse the problem. If we're all sitting around debating the problem, we won't be working together towards finding solutions. Solutions that are rapidly slipping out of our fingers.

I agree with Al Gore:  The whole climate change debate seems a waste of precious time to me. I'm convinced about the problem. In fact, I'm so convinced about the problem that I fear it may very well be too late to reverse things. I fear for my children because I see with my own eyes how our planet has changed in just my lifetime. Water systems are compromised the world over. Lakes and rivers are poisoned. There are more cancer deaths today than ever before (Where did that come from if not from the effects of environmental toxins?). People are suffering from more life-threatening, environmentally caused diseases than ever before. There are just so many more people! Every time I drive to the Coast, I am mortified by the huge swaths of clear cutting of once-beautiful forests that grew along the way. Everywhere I look, there are strip malls where there once was open space.

As you have pointed out, some reports indicate that CO2 emissions are responsible for 3 percent of greenhouse gas emissions. However, what those reports fail to tell you is that CO2 emissions are accumulative and last in the earth's atmosphere for anywhere from dozens of years to centuries. Plus, CO2 emissions, according to the EPA, have been increasing by 3 percent per year since the year 2000. So, CO2 emissions will eventually become a big problem for the planet. Methane gas, at present, is the 's worst culprit as far as greenhouse gas emissions are concerned, accounting for 31 percent. So, cutting down on red meat consumption and eating more fresh veggies is probably one of the best environmental measures (as well as health measures) that any of us can take -- even in the short run.

Check out this article posted on Earth Save's site about the importance of cutting out animal products from your diet:  http://www.earthsave.org/globalwarming.htm

I bet many if not most of us would have an easier time cutting back on our meat consumption than we would cutting back on using our cars.

And, don't get me wrong. I grew up on a farm and was brought up eating hand-raised beef. So, cutting back on meat has been a challenge for me. But, concern for my health and the environment have helped me to cut way back on my meat consumption. I don't consider myself a vegetarian, but I have cut back to eating meat to about 2-3 days a week, and I almost never eat beef or pork. If we all cut demand for meat in half, it would improve our health (because we'd be eating less meat, more veggies, and less already-repared and fast food) AND it would cut down on greenhouse gas emissions to boot. Sounds like a win-win proposition to me.

Holly




________________________________
From: Gary Duncan-Gates <gduncangates at yahoo.com>
To: Forest Grove local interests list <grovenet at rdrop.com>
Sent: Tue, December 8, 2009 7:27:37 AM
Subject: Re: [Grovenet] Seven Answers to Climate Contrarian Nonsense:Scientific American

We could get into a tinkling contest, each of us claiming that we have more and better scientists to back up our claims.  And the truth is, we still probably could not convince one another of anything.  The opposing viewpoints are out there; if you are truly interested and truly objective, you will seek them.  

My post focused on the decided lack of discussion of this matter and the effort by some to hinder any debate.  New data is coming in every day, yet most people don't get to hear it, or reject it out of hand, because their minds are made up.  Al Gore said the debate is over.

Some people are never exposed to other ideas, either because the major news outlets avoid those stories (gloom and doom and armageddon get better ratings), or they eschew stories that contradict their preconceived ideas.  Sometimes the information is kept from them, as in the case of ClimateGate.

Scientists are human, and science, while being full of facts, is still subject to interpretation.  That's why you get a second opinion when a doctor advises surgery.  Scientists can make mistakes, they can be dishonest and disingenuous, and they can be subject to manipulation.  

And when they tell a story that blames our prosperity for all of the ills in the world, some people are preprogrammed to believe it.

Gary    




________________________________
From: Holly T. <feralcattamer at yahoo.com>
To: Forest Grove local interests list <grovenet at rdrop.com>
Sent: Sun, December 6, 2009 11:01:28 PM
Subject: Re: [Grovenet] Seven Answers to Climate Contrarian Nonsense:Scientific American

So...uh Gary...would you say that our revered scientists at NASA...those same folks who have been sending us photos from outer space that show, in living color, the rapid recession of our polar ice caps...would you consider them to be "unscientific and delusional"? 

Please go to http://climate.nasa.gov/ and click the Climate Time Machine link near the right side of NASA's Eyes on the Earth page. You can then select between four categories:  Sea Ice, Sea Level, Co2 Emissions, and Average Global Temperature. Sliders are provided near the bottom of each resulting screen. By running each slider across the page, you'll be able to see how our planet has been changed over the years by global warming. And guess what! Things are looking significantly worse in all four categories as you move the sliders to the right. 

Unless, of course, you don't believe what our country's best-and-brightest aerospace scientists are telling us. Unless you think that NASA is part of this huge, diabolical scandal called "Climate Gate".

If you have better sources than NASA to support your belief that global warming is a hoax, please share them.

Holly




________________________________
From: Walt Wentz <waltw at teleport.com>
To: Forest Grove local interests list <grovenet at rdrop.com>
Sent: Sun, December 6, 2009 5:38:53 PM
Subject: Re: [Grovenet] Seven Answers to Climate Contrarian Nonsense:Scientific American

Eh? Define "delusional" when ice caps are melting, sea levels are  
rising, deserts are expanding and species are disappearing at a  
faster rate than at any time in geologic history. Or do anti- 
environmentalists not believe in geology either?
Walt

On Dec 6, 2009, at 1:25 PM, Gary Duncan-Gates wrote:

> Problem is, Environmentalism is as much a religion to its adherents  
> as the traditional religions are to the folks you speak of.  They  
> are just as zealous, just as dangerous, and just as delusional.
>
> Gary
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Holly T. <feralcattamer at yahoo.com>
> To: Forest Grove local interests list <grovenet at rdrop.com>
> Sent: Wed, December 2, 2009 1:48:09 PM
> Subject: Re: [Grovenet] Seven Answers to Climate Contrarian  
> Nonsense:Scientific American
>
> Even at their most horrific, wars and famines never wiped out even  
> 1/4 of the world's population. But, I agree:  Population control is  
> one of those hot topics that American politicians never want to  
> touch, but it's really the only long-term, viable answer for  
> reversing global warming. But, as long as you have people thinking  
> that it's their god-given right to "go forth and multiply" and  
> "have dominion over the earth," nothing will change until war,  
> pestilence, and environmental toxins do their part to take us out.  
> The frog will continue to sit in the beaker of slowly boiling water  
> until such time that it overtakes him.
>
> Radical environmentalist, Derrick Jensen, advocates "taking down  
> civilization" to reverse the problem of global warming because he  
> wisely believes that humankind will not willingly take the steps  
> necessary to reverse the problem. You know, doing little civilly  
> disobedient things such as blowing up hydroelectric dams, etc. But,  
> I think even taking out all the hydroelectric dams in the world  
> would not do nearly enough to reverse the problem. It would take  
> much more than that to motivate humankind to live sustainably.
>
> Also, most of the world's great religions are patriarchical in  
> nature and are, as a result, way too far removed from the Earth- 
> honoring teachings of indigenous people who lived sustainably  
> according to the teachings of goddess-based teachings. These  
> indigenous people were taught the immorality of taking too much  
> from the Earth and not giving back. They lived sustainably whereas  
> we do not because our moral teachings have taught us that it's okay  
> to pillage the planet and take whatever we want. It's these very  
> patriarchal teachings that give people cause to think it's okay to  
> have big families today. So, how can you expect nations that base  
> their entire moral philosophies on patriarchical-take-what-you-want  
> teachings to even consider living sustainably? They have god on  
> their side; so why should they even consider limiting the number of  
> children they have?
>
> I think that besides limiting population, a radical change in moral  
> teachings needs to take place. Otherwise, how will humankind (and  
> thousands of other animals and plant species) stand a chance? How  
> can a change in moral teachings take place? I don't have any  
> answers for that one. Breaking through the power structures of the  
> world's patriarchal religions would be harder than threading a  
> camel through the eye of a needle at this point in history.
>
> Holly
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Jeff Cooper <jbcoops at yahoo.com>
> To: Ed Davie <edavie at verizon.net>; Forest Grove local interests  
> list <grovenet at rdrop.com>
> Sent: Wed, December 2, 2009 1:20:29 PM
> Subject: Re: [Grovenet] Seven Answers to Climate Contrarian  
> Nonsense:Scientific American
>
> Climate isn't the biggest issue... population is.  In the good old  
> days we could just have a war or famine or pestilence or plague to  
> wipe out 1/4 to 1/2 of the world's population... not considered  
> politically viable options anymore.  Trouble is Earth will have  
> close to 10 billion people by 2050.  My recommendation is global  
> enforced celibacy or homosexuality and an accelerated condos on the  
> moon program.
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> GroveNet mailing list
> GroveNet at rdrop.com
> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> GroveNet mailing list
> GroveNet at rdrop.com
> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> GroveNet mailing list
> GroveNet at rdrop.com
> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet

_______________________________________________
GroveNet mailing list
GroveNet at rdrop.com
http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet



      
_______________________________________________
GroveNet mailing list
GroveNet at rdrop.com
http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet



      
_______________________________________________
GroveNet mailing list
GroveNet at rdrop.com
http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet



      

From feralcattamer at yahoo.com  Tue Dec  8 14:52:15 2009
From: feralcattamer at yahoo.com (Holly T.)
Date: Tue, 8 Dec 2009 14:52:15 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [Grovenet] Seven Answers to Climate Contrarian
	Nonsense:Scientific American
In-Reply-To: <4B1EA5B7.1010008@jurislex.com>
References: <460820.74787.qm@web56108.mail.re3.yahoo.com>
	<019c01ca770e$2cfe6f00$86fb4d00$@com>
	<AE27BE47-F913-4F6B-A7F3-9DEAEE1CB9EF@verizon.net>
	<302711.17525.qm@web46302.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
	<4B1EA5B7.1010008@jurislex.com>
Message-ID: <112560.35705.qm@web56103.mail.re3.yahoo.com>

Actually, Bob, as much as I hate to admit it, it appears Gary's correct about the 3 percent figure if you look at Earth Save's 2005 article: http://www.earthsave.org/globalwarming.htm

But, as I pointed out in my previous email, what the naysayers neglect to mention is that CO2 emissions are accumulative, lasting in the Earth's atmosphere for anywhere from dozens of years to centuries. And, CO2 emissions have been increasing by 3 percent per year since 2000 and they began increasing with the onset of industrialization. So, even though they account for far less greenhouse gas emissions than do, say aerosols, CO2 emissions will eventually become a big problem for the planet. And, if we wait to cut CO2 emissions until they do become a problem, then we have decades and centuries to wait for those emissions to stop being a problem. I was never good at math in school, but it just stands to reason that if CO2 emissions are increasing by 3 percent every year, eventually this is gonna be a big problem -- one that cannot reverse for dozens to hundreds of years even if we somehow magically stop emitting CO2. Am I wrong here?

A far bigger problem for the planet, at present, is methane gas, however, which accounts for 31 percent of all greenhouse gas emissions. That fact (along with the well-documented health risks of eating hormone- and antibiotic-laden red meat) is why you won't see me spending much time in the meat department at Safeway these days. When I do very rarely eat red meat, it's leaner, hormone- and antibiotic-free buffalo meat that I purchase from L-Bar-T. Mostly, I eat vegetarian meals with the occasional chicken or fish entree added a couple times per week, if at all. It's hard for me to give up red meat because I was raised on a farm where we at grain-fed beef nearly every night. So, I think if I can cut back on my red meat intake, anyone can. I recommend doing it slowly. Skip eating meat one day a week and work your way up. If you can't cut it out entirely, cut back to half as much per week. You'll feel better, your long-term health risks will be reduced,
 your cholesterol and heart disease risk will lower dramatically, you'll be able to keep your weight down better if you substitute veggies for the red meat, you'll be spending less money at the grocery store, and you'll be helping to reduce climate change. Sounds like a no-brainer to me.

I say we should all do our part to reverse global warming by sharing some yummy vegetarian recipes with each other so that we'll be less tempted to eat red meat -- recipes so wonderfully good that you'll never miss the meat. I have a few. Anyone care to share?

Holly (munching on an intensely yummy fresh carrot pulled from one of my raised garden beds just before the cold snap hit The Grove, making me wonder why they don't call it Global Colding rather than Global Warming.  That is, until I remember what my environmentalist friends have told me about the fact that Global Warming actually causes "wildly fluctuating changes in weather patterns where temperatures are colder, warmer, windier, and rainier than usual" rather than just "warming")

*************************************

From: Bob Browning <rab at jurislex.com>

To: Forest Grove local interests list <grovenet at rdrop.com>
Sent: Tue, December 8, 2009 11:15:03 AM
Subject: Re: [Grovenet] Seven Answers to Climate Contrarian Nonsense:Scientific American

Do you have a cite for the 3% figure, since I have not
been able to find anything so low.

bob "enquiring minds would like to know" browning
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Gary Duncan-Gates wrote: 
David - 
>
>It is my understanding that humans only contribute 3% of the atmospheric CO2. The remainder comes from volcanoes, forest fires and decomposing vegetation. If that is true, if 7 billion people and 10,000 years of human evolution only make up 3% of the CO2, how can we have any effect on the climate?
>
>And the follow up question, if CO2 is as bad as they say, aren't we doomed already?  Are we just one volcanic eruption away from annihilation?
>
>Gary



      

From rab at jurislex.com  Tue Dec  8 15:03:46 2009
From: rab at jurislex.com (Bob Browning)
Date: Tue, 08 Dec 2009 15:03:46 -0800
Subject: [Grovenet] Seven Answers to Climate
 Contrarian	Nonsense:Scientific American
In-Reply-To: <112560.35705.qm@web56103.mail.re3.yahoo.com>
References: <460820.74787.qm@web56108.mail.re3.yahoo.com>	<019c01ca770e$2cfe6f00$86fb4d00$@com>	<AE27BE47-F913-4F6B-A7F3-9DEAEE1CB9EF@verizon.net>	<302711.17525.qm@web46302.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>	<4B1EA5B7.1010008@jurislex.com>
	<112560.35705.qm@web56103.mail.re3.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <4B1EDB52.4090902@jurislex.com>

An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/attachments/20091208/fbc0d41f/attachment.html 

From feralcattamer at yahoo.com  Tue Dec  8 15:36:49 2009
From: feralcattamer at yahoo.com (Holly T.)
Date: Tue, 8 Dec 2009 15:36:49 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [Grovenet] Seven Answers to Climate Contrarian
	Nonsense:Scientific American
In-Reply-To: <4B1EDB52.4090902@jurislex.com>
References: <460820.74787.qm@web56108.mail.re3.yahoo.com>
	<019c01ca770e$2cfe6f00$86fb4d00$@com>
	<AE27BE47-F913-4F6B-A7F3-9DEAEE1CB9EF@verizon.net>
	<302711.17525.qm@web46302.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
	<4B1EA5B7.1010008@jurislex.com>
	<112560.35705.qm@web56103.mail.re3.yahoo.com>
	<4B1EDB52.4090902@jurislex.com>
Message-ID: <476260.3617.qm@web56103.mail.re3.yahoo.com>

Glad you asked, Bob.

Here is a very-easy-to-read Website put out by the US Energy Information Administration (EIA) showing much higher CO2 emissions than the previous article I sent you. This site says that energy-related CO2 emissions, resulting from combustion
of petroleum, coal, and natural gas, represented 81 percent of the total U.S.
human-caused (anthropogenic) greenhouse gas emissions in 2007. The same site indicates that methane gas accounts for 10 percent of the total US emissions. 

The following page shows, among other things, a graph indicating anthropogenic CO2 emissions from 1751 to 2004. The climb has been dramatic since the onset of industrialization that began 150 years ago:

http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/energyexplained/index.cfm?page=environment_how_ghg_affect_climate

This page shows the breakdown of greenhouse gas emissions:

http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/energyexplained/index.cfm?page=environment_where_ghg_come_from

This page contains information about projected future CO2 emissions. The picture is not at all rosy:

http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/energyexplained/index.cfm?page=environment_outlook_for_emissions

To learn more about the EIA and their qualifications, go to:

http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/abouteia/mission_overview.cfm

They seem, to me, to be immanently qualified to convey this data.

Sorry Gary. I'm even further convinced that CO2 emissions are a huge threat to the future of the planet.

Holly




________________________________
From: Bob Browning <rab at jurislex.com>
To: Forest Grove local interests list <grovenet at rdrop.com>
Sent: Tue, December 8, 2009 3:03:46 PM
Subject: Re: [Grovenet] Seven Answers to Climate Contrarian Nonsense:Scientific American

Sorry, Holly, still not a good enough cite for me. How
about some scholarship to go with the statements ? ! ? !

bob "just the facts, ma'am" browning

PS: If correct, why do you hate to admit it ? ? ?
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Holly T. wrote: 
Actually, Bob, as much as I hate to admit it, it appears Gary's correct about the 3 percent figure if you look at Earth Save's 2005 article: http://www.earthsave.org/globalwarming.htm
>
><snip>



      

From feralcattamer at yahoo.com  Tue Dec  8 15:40:40 2009
From: feralcattamer at yahoo.com (Holly T.)
Date: Tue, 8 Dec 2009 15:40:40 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [Grovenet] Fw: CounterThink cartoon: The carbon trading fiasco
Message-ID: <959386.21824.qm@web56107.mail.re3.yahoo.com>

Interestingly enough, this just landed in my Inbox.

Somebody needs to teach that guy the financial benefits of becoming more environmentally responsible.

Holly


________________________________


      

From NoSpam03 at comcast.net  Tue Dec  8 20:45:18 2009
From: NoSpam03 at comcast.net (Steven)
Date: Tue, 8 Dec 2009 20:45:18 -0800
Subject: [Grovenet] Seven Answers to Climate
	Contrarian	Nonsense:Scientific American
In-Reply-To: <112560.35705.qm@web56103.mail.re3.yahoo.com>
References: <460820.74787.qm@web56108.mail.re3.yahoo.com>	<019c01ca770e$2cfe6f00$86fb4d00$@com>	<AE27BE47-F913-4F6B-A7F3-9DEAEE1CB9EF@verizon.net>	<302711.17525.qm@web46302.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>	<4B1EA5B7.1010008@jurislex.com>
	<112560.35705.qm@web56103.mail.re3.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <004a01ca788a$6b46c320$41d44960$@net>

You are changing the subject. Methane gas isn't being discussed with Cap and
trade and Copenhagen.
Do I get browning points for not eating red meat for months at a time? 
Sounds like you really need to get with it, Holly. Even us conservatives are
ahead of you.

-----Original Message-----
From: grovenet-bounces at rdrop.com [mailto:grovenet-bounces at rdrop.com] On
Behalf Of Holly T.
Sent: Tuesday, December 08, 2009 2:52 PM
To: Forest Grove local interests list
Subject: Re: [Grovenet] Seven Answers to Climate Contrarian
Nonsense:Scientific American

Actually, Bob, as much as I hate to admit it, it appears Gary's correct
about the 3 percent figure if you look at Earth Save's 2005 article:
http://www.earthsave.org/globalwarming.htm

But, as I pointed out in my previous email, what the naysayers neglect to
mention is that CO2 emissions are accumulative, lasting in the Earth's
atmosphere for anywhere from dozens of years to centuries. And, CO2
emissions have been increasing by 3 percent per year since 2000 and they
began increasing with the onset of industrialization. So, even though they
account for far less greenhouse gas emissions than do, say aerosols, CO2
emissions will eventually become a big problem for the planet. And, if we
wait to cut CO2 emissions until they do become a problem, then we have
decades and centuries to wait for those emissions to stop being a problem.
I was never good at math in school, but it just stands to reason that if
CO2 emissions are increasing by 3 percent every year, eventually this is
gonna be a big problem -- one that cannot reverse for dozens to hundreds
of years even if we somehow magically stop emitting CO2. Am I wrong here?

A far bigger problem for the planet, at present, is methane gas, however,
which accounts for 31 percent of all greenhouse gas emissions. That fact
(along with the well-documented health risks of eating hormone- and
antibiotic-laden red meat) is why you won't see me spending much time in
the meat department at Safeway these days. When I do very rarely eat red
meat, it's leaner, hormone- and antibiotic-free buffalo meat that I
purchase from L-Bar-T. Mostly, I eat vegetarian meals with the occasional
chicken or fish entree added a couple times per week, if at all. It's hard
for me to give up red meat because I was raised on a farm where we at
grain-fed beef nearly every night. So, I think if I can cut back on my red
meat intake, anyone can. I recommend doing it slowly. Skip eating meat one
day a week and work your way up. If you can't cut it out entirely, cut
back to half as much per week. You'll feel better, your long-term health
risks will be reduced,
 your cholesterol and heart disease risk will lower dramatically, you'll
be able to keep your weight down better if you substitute veggies for the
red meat, you'll be spending less money at the grocery store, and you'll
be helping to reduce climate change. Sounds like a no-brainer to me.

I say we should all do our part to reverse global warming by sharing some
yummy vegetarian recipes with each other so that we'll be less tempted to
eat red meat -- recipes so wonderfully good that you'll never miss the
meat. I have a few. Anyone care to share?

Holly (munching on an intensely yummy fresh carrot pulled from one of my
raised garden beds just before the cold snap hit The Grove, making me
wonder why they don't call it Global Colding rather than Global Warming.
That is, until I remember what my environmentalist friends have told me
about the fact that Global Warming actually causes "wildly fluctuating
changes in weather patterns where temperatures are colder, warmer,
windier, and rainier than usual" rather than just "warming")

*************************************

From: Bob Browning <rab at jurislex.com>

To: Forest Grove local interests list <grovenet at rdrop.com>
Sent: Tue, December 8, 2009 11:15:03 AM
Subject: Re: [Grovenet] Seven Answers to Climate Contrarian
Nonsense:Scientific American

Do you have a cite for the 3% figure, since I have not
been able to find anything so low.

bob "enquiring minds would like to know" browning
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Gary Duncan-Gates wrote: 
David - 
>
>It is my understanding that humans only contribute 3% of the atmospheric
CO2. The remainder comes from volcanoes, forest fires and decomposing
vegetation. If that is true, if 7 billion people and 10,000 years of human
evolution only make up 3% of the CO2, how can we have any effect on the
climate?
>
>And the follow up question, if CO2 is as bad as they say, aren't we
doomed already?  Are we just one volcanic eruption away from annihilation?
>
>Gary



      
_______________________________________________
GroveNet mailing list
GroveNet at rdrop.com
http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet


From feralcattamer at yahoo.com  Tue Dec  8 21:55:39 2009
From: feralcattamer at yahoo.com (Holly T.)
Date: Tue, 8 Dec 2009 21:55:39 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [Grovenet] Seven Answers to Climate Contrarian
	Nonsense:Scientific American
In-Reply-To: <004a01ca788a$6b46c320$41d44960$@net>
References: <460820.74787.qm@web56108.mail.re3.yahoo.com>
	<019c01ca770e$2cfe6f00$86fb4d00$@com>
	<AE27BE47-F913-4F6B-A7F3-9DEAEE1CB9EF@verizon.net>
	<302711.17525.qm@web46302.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
	<4B1EA5B7.1010008@jurislex.com>
	<112560.35705.qm@web56103.mail.re3.yahoo.com>
	<004a01ca788a$6b46c320$41d44960$@net>
Message-ID: <526629.15345.qm@web56104.mail.re3.yahoo.com>

I wasn't discussing Cap and Trade and Copenhagen, Stephen. I was discussing whether Global Warning is real or not, how much human-caused (anthropogenic) CO2 emissions contribute to global warming, and whether other emissions (namely methane) are more harmful to life on this planet than CO2.

Did you read my subsequent message below in response to Bob's request for a better source regarding the percentage of CO2 emissions in the Earth's atmosphere? I believe the data shown on the US Energy Information Administration pages I provided give solid, credible evidence that global warming is real, and that CO2 and other greenhouse gases (such as methane, for example) are negatively affecting climate patterns on a world-wide scale.

Bottom line:  It's data like this that gives cause for visionaries like Al Gore to insist that climate change is no longer up for debate. Such debate is a complete waste of time. Such debate clouds the issue and takes time, resources, and human energy away from getting down to the important business of reversing climate change. Worst of all, such debate has a tendency to sway public opinion in directions that are counter-productive. We need people to unite about the need for climate change and reduction of greenhouse emissions. We need people to demand that their politicians take quick, decisive actions that will help reverse global warming before it become irreversible.

I actually don't give a rip whether the problem of methane emissions is being discussed in Copenhagen or not. I'd like for it to be, but that's not the point. Methane emission is a serious environmental problem with an extremely simple solution that certainly needs addressing. According to a 2006 United Nations report, cattle rearing and all that goes into it (and out of it -- phew!) accounts for more greenhouse gases than our entire transportation system combined. And, the cattle industry accounts for 37 per cent of all anthropogenic methane, and is 23 times more warming than CO2. So, one very important way that people can do their part to reduce global warming (while simultaneously improving their health) is to cut back on their consumption of red meat. If you don't believe me, check out:  http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=20772&Cr=global&Cr1=warming

Without a doubt, reducing our beef consumption would be a very sensible way that most of us could help to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Conversely, another way would be to encourage all conservative climate change naysayers to eat as much beef as they possibly can. Stuff their mouths full of it and slather on the butter and gravy while they're at it until it's coming out of their ears. Then, through natural selection, large numbers of them will die off from heart disease, stroke, and cancer and there'll be fewer of them standing in the way of dealing responsibly with climate change. Problem is, I don't believe we have enough time to wait around for that to happen.

Holly

************************************************************


Glad you asked, Bob.

Here is a very-easy-to-read Website put out by the US Energy Information Administration (EIA) showing much higher CO2 emissions than the previous article I sent you. This site says that energy-related CO2 emissions, resulting from combustion
of petroleum, coal, and natural gas, represented 81 percent of the total U.S.
human-caused (anthropogenic) greenhouse gas emissions in 2007. The same site indicates that methane gas accounts for 10 percent of the total US emissions. 

The
following page shows, among other things, a graph indicating
anthropogenic CO2 emissions from 1751 to 2004. The climb has been
dramatic since the onset of industrialization that began 150 years ago:

http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/energyexplained/index.cfm?page=environment_how_ghg_affect_climate

This page shows the breakdown of greenhouse gas emissions:

http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/energyexplained/index.cfm?page=environment_where_ghg_come_from

This page contains information about projected future CO2 emissions. The picture is not at all rosy:

http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/energyexplained/index.cfm?page=environment_outlook_for_emissions

To learn more about the EIA and their qualifications, go to:

http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/abouteia/mission_overview.cfm

They seem, to me, to be immanently qualified to convey this data.

Sorry Gary. I'm even further convinced that CO2 emissions are a huge threat to the future of the planet.

Holly






________________________________
From: Steven <NoSpam03 at comcast.net>
To: Forest Grove local interests list <grovenet at rdrop.com>
Sent: Tue, December 8, 2009 8:45:18 PM
Subject: Re: [Grovenet] Seven Answers to Climate Contrarian Nonsense:Scientific American

You are changing the subject. Methane gas isn't being discussed with Cap and
trade and Copenhagen.
Do I get browning points for not eating red meat for months at a time? 
Sounds like you really need to get with it, Holly. Even us conservatives are
ahead of you.

-----Original Message-----
From: grovenet-bounces at rdrop.com [mailto:grovenet-bounces at rdrop.com] On
Behalf Of Holly T.
Sent: Tuesday, December 08, 2009 2:52 PM
To: Forest Grove local interests list
Subject: Re: [Grovenet] Seven Answers to Climate Contrarian
Nonsense:Scientific American

Actually, Bob, as much as I hate to admit it, it appears Gary's correct
about the 3 percent figure if you look at Earth Save's 2005 article:
http://www.earthsave.org/globalwarming.htm

But, as I pointed out in my previous email, what the naysayers neglect to
mention is that CO2 emissions are accumulative, lasting in the Earth's
atmosphere for anywhere from dozens of years to centuries. And, CO2
emissions have been increasing by 3 percent per year since 2000 and they
began increasing with the onset of industrialization. So, even though they
account for far less greenhouse gas emissions than do, say aerosols, CO2
emissions will eventually become a big problem for the planet. And, if we
wait to cut CO2 emissions until they do become a problem, then we have
decades and centuries to wait for those emissions to stop being a problem.
I was never good at math in school, but it just stands to reason that if
CO2 emissions are increasing by 3 percent every year, eventually this is
gonna be a big problem -- one that cannot reverse for dozens to hundreds
of years even if we somehow magically stop emitting CO2. Am I wrong here?

A far bigger problem for the planet, at present, is methane gas, however,
which accounts for 31 percent of all greenhouse gas emissions. That fact
(along with the well-documented health risks of eating hormone- and
antibiotic-laden red meat) is why you won't see me spending much time in
the meat department at Safeway these days. When I do very rarely eat red
meat, it's leaner, hormone- and antibiotic-free buffalo meat that I
purchase from L-Bar-T. Mostly, I eat vegetarian meals with the occasional
chicken or fish entree added a couple times per week, if at all. It's hard
for me to give up red meat because I was raised on a farm where we at
grain-fed beef nearly every night. So, I think if I can cut back on my red
meat intake, anyone can. I recommend doing it slowly. Skip eating meat one
day a week and work your way up. If you can't cut it out entirely, cut
back to half as much per week. You'll feel better, your long-term health
risks will be reduced,
your cholesterol and heart disease risk will lower dramatically, you'll
be able to keep your weight down better if you substitute veggies for the
red meat, you'll be spending less money at the grocery store, and you'll
be helping to reduce climate change. Sounds like a no-brainer to me.

I say we should all do our part to reverse global warming by sharing some
yummy vegetarian recipes with each other so that we'll be less tempted to
eat red meat -- recipes so wonderfully good that you'll never miss the
meat. I have a few. Anyone care to share?

Holly (munching on an intensely yummy fresh carrot pulled from one of my
raised garden beds just before the cold snap hit The Grove, making me
wonder why they don't call it Global Colding rather than Global Warming.
That is, until I remember what my environmentalist friends have told me
about the fact that Global Warming actually causes "wildly fluctuating
changes in weather patterns where temperatures are colder, warmer,
windier, and rainier than usual" rather than just "warming")

*************************************

From: Bob Browning <rab at jurislex.com>

To: Forest Grove local interests list <grovenet at rdrop.com>
Sent: Tue, December 8, 2009 11:15:03 AM
Subject: Re: [Grovenet] Seven Answers to Climate Contrarian
Nonsense:Scientific American

Do you have a cite for the 3% figure, since I have not
been able to find anything so low.

bob "enquiring minds would like to know" browning
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Gary Duncan-Gates wrote: 
David - 
>
>It is my understanding that humans only contribute 3% of the atmospheric
CO2. The remainder comes from volcanoes, forest fires and decomposing
vegetation. If that is true, if 7 billion people and 10,000 years of human
evolution only make up 3% of the CO2, how can we have any effect on the
climate?
>
>And the follow up question, if CO2 is as bad as they say, aren't we
doomed already?  Are we just one volcanic eruption away from annihilation?
>
>Gary



      
_______________________________________________
GroveNet mailing list
GroveNet at rdrop.com
http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet

_______________________________________________
GroveNet mailing list
GroveNet at rdrop.com
http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet



      

From jo.david at verizon.net  Tue Dec  8 21:55:47 2009
From: jo.david at verizon.net (David Morelli)
Date: Tue, 08 Dec 2009 21:55:47 -0800
Subject: [Grovenet] Seven Answers to Climate
 Contrarian	Nonsense:Scientific American
In-Reply-To: <302711.17525.qm@web46302.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
References: <460820.74787.qm@web56108.mail.re3.yahoo.com>
	<019c01ca770e$2cfe6f00$86fb4d00$@com>
	<AE27BE47-F913-4F6B-A7F3-9DEAEE1CB9EF@verizon.net>
	<302711.17525.qm@web46302.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <6AB675BF-C5D6-46AC-8D40-B2B14C508687@verizon.net>

Gary,

The carbon released by decomposing vegetation got there when the vegetation was growing and will be taken up by growing vegetation if the land continues to support vegetation.  Desertification and development is removing land from this function.  Irrigation is replacing some of the loss, but it diverts water from other native vegetation.

The carbon released by natural forest fires  got there and will be removed by tree growth, if the land continues to support growing trees.

The carbon released by slash and burn agriculture isn't going to be removed by tree growth, because the land is being cleared.  The 100-300 year carbon sink of the trees is going to be replaced by grassland and plants with a much shorter cycle time and significantly less storage capacity.  And the grassland is frequently used to raise cattle and other methane producing animals.  That is human action and it does contribute to the CO2 buildup.

The volcanic eruptions are running on their typical cycle, which means they are not varying the carbon added per decade.  We need something to remove the excess carbon, and the features that have historically provided this function may continue to do it, if they remain in place after human activity.  If we damage the ocean systems or change the circulation patterns we can expect a change in the ability to remove carbon.  

That leaves the carbon that was sequestered for a few million years in coal, gas, tar and petroleum deposits.  We extract and burn a lot of that stuff.  The biosystems did not evolve to deal with that level of production, so we can reasonably expect that it will shift the equilibrium points for various systems.  But, here is the rub.  There may not be an equilibrium point near the current values.  There may be a large scale feed back loop that accentuates the problems and makes the system uninhabitable for our particular life form.  The movie image is the rope that starts to fray and one-by-one the individual strands break.  With each "pop" the load droops lower and lower.  We do know that, at some point, the remaining strands cannot support the load.  So, we know that the rope is going to break and the load will drop.  That is great drama in a movie, especially as the hero comes at the last minute to save the person hanging on the rope.  Bad news.  We are the person on the rope, and there are no space aliens coming to rescue us.  We can shed some weight quickly to reduce the load on the rope, and then we can try to climb hand-over-hand up past the weak section of rope.  Or we can whistle and wait for the rope to break, and hope that we survive the fall.

Long ago, blue green algae got carried away converting CO2 to free oxygen.  It passed the equilibrium point and we ended up with an Oxygen dependent biosystem.

Good for us, but not a "given" condition on this planet.  We could push the system back to something more favorable to algae, or over to the Sulfur dependent life forms near the "black smokers".

David


On Dec 8, 2009, at 7:42 AM, Gary Duncan-Gates wrote:

> David - 
> 
> It is my understanding that humans only contribute 3% of the atmospheric CO2. The remainder comes from volcanoes, forest fires and decomposing vegetation. If that is true, if 7 billion people and 10,000 years of human evolution only make up 3% of the CO2, how can we have any effect on the climate?
> 
> And the follow up question, if CO2 is as bad as they say, aren't we doomed already?  Are we just one volcanic eruption away from annihilation?
> 
> Gary



From waltw at teleport.com  Tue Dec  8 23:01:57 2009
From: waltw at teleport.com (Walt Wentz)
Date: Tue, 8 Dec 2009 23:01:57 -0800
Subject: [Grovenet] Seven Answers to Climate Contrarian
	Nonsense:Scientific American
In-Reply-To: <526629.15345.qm@web56104.mail.re3.yahoo.com>
References: <460820.74787.qm@web56108.mail.re3.yahoo.com>
	<019c01ca770e$2cfe6f00$86fb4d00$@com>
	<AE27BE47-F913-4F6B-A7F3-9DEAEE1CB9EF@verizon.net>
	<302711.17525.qm@web46302.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
	<4B1EA5B7.1010008@jurislex.com>
	<112560.35705.qm@web56103.mail.re3.yahoo.com>
	<004a01ca788a$6b46c320$41d44960$@net>
	<526629.15345.qm@web56104.mail.re3.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <5EB454A6-2D4D-4452-8ABC-48630E65346D@teleport.com>

Funny suggestion for leveling the playing field, Holly... if more  
naysayers could be encouraged to put their money where their mouth is  
(and vice versa), methane generation would see a sharp spike and then  
a rapid drop as the beef market died off, so to speak... problem is,  
us old healthy people produce more methane than young healthy  
people... a sad fact... just ask any old person.
WW
On Dec 8, 2009, at 9:55 PM, Holly T. wrote:

> I wasn't discussing Cap and Trade and Copenhagen, Stephen. I was  
> discussing whether Global Warning is real or not, how much human- 
> caused (anthropogenic) CO2 emissions contribute to global warming,  
> and whether other emissions (namely methane) are more harmful to  
> life on this planet than CO2.
>
> Did you read my subsequent message below in response to Bob's  
> request for a better source regarding the percentage of CO2  
> emissions in the Earth's atmosphere? I believe the data shown on  
> the US Energy Information Administration pages I provided give  
> solid, credible evidence that global warming is real, and that CO2  
> and other greenhouse gases (such as methane, for example) are  
> negatively affecting climate patterns on a world-wide scale.
>
> Bottom line:  It's data like this that gives cause for visionaries  
> like Al Gore to insist that climate change is no longer up for  
> debate. Such debate is a complete waste of time. Such debate clouds  
> the issue and takes time, resources, and human energy away from  
> getting down to the important business of reversing climate change.  
> Worst of all, such debate has a tendency to sway public opinion in  
> directions that are counter-productive. We need people to unite  
> about the need for climate change and reduction of greenhouse  
> emissions. We need people to demand that their politicians take  
> quick, decisive actions that will help reverse global warming  
> before it become irreversible.
>
> I actually don't give a rip whether the problem of methane  
> emissions is being discussed in Copenhagen or not. I'd like for it  
> to be, but that's not the point. Methane emission is a serious  
> environmental problem with an extremely simple solution that  
> certainly needs addressing. According to a 2006 United Nations  
> report, cattle rearing and all that goes into it (and out of it --  
> phew!) accounts for more greenhouse gases than our entire  
> transportation system combined. And, the cattle industry accounts  
> for 37 per cent of all anthropogenic methane, and is 23 times more  
> warming than CO2. So, one very important way that people can do  
> their part to reduce global warming (while simultaneously improving  
> their health) is to cut back on their consumption of red meat. If  
> you don't believe me, check out:  http://www.un.org/apps/news/ 
> story.asp?NewsID=20772&Cr=global&Cr1=warming
>
> Without a doubt, reducing our beef consumption would be a very  
> sensible way that most of us could help to reduce greenhouse gas  
> emissions. Conversely, another way would be to encourage all  
> conservative climate change naysayers to eat as much beef as they  
> possibly can. Stuff their mouths full of it and slather on the  
> butter and gravy while they're at it until it's coming out of their  
> ears. Then, through natural selection, large numbers of them will  
> die off from heart disease, stroke, and cancer and there'll be  
> fewer of them standing in the way of dealing responsibly with  
> climate change. Problem is, I don't believe we have enough time to  
> wait around for that to happen.
>
> Holly
>
> ************************************************************
>
>
> Glad you asked, Bob.
>
> Here is a very-easy-to-read Website put out by the US Energy  
> Information Administration (EIA) showing much higher CO2 emissions  
> than the previous article I sent you. This site says that energy- 
> related CO2 emissions, resulting from combustion
> of petroleum, coal, and natural gas, represented 81 percent of the  
> total U.S.
> human-caused (anthropogenic) greenhouse gas emissions in 2007. The  
> same site indicates that methane gas accounts for 10 percent of the  
> total US emissions.
>
> The
> following page shows, among other things, a graph indicating
> anthropogenic CO2 emissions from 1751 to 2004. The climb has been
> dramatic since the onset of industrialization that began 150 years  
> ago:
>
> http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/energyexplained/index.cfm? 
> page=environment_how_ghg_affect_climate
>
> This page shows the breakdown of greenhouse gas emissions:
>
> http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/energyexplained/index.cfm? 
> page=environment_where_ghg_come_from
>
> This page contains information about projected future CO2  
> emissions. The picture is not at all rosy:
>
> http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/energyexplained/index.cfm? 
> page=environment_outlook_for_emissions
>
> To learn more about the EIA and their qualifications, go to:
>
> http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/abouteia/mission_overview.cfm
>
> They seem, to me, to be immanently qualified to convey this data.
>
> Sorry Gary. I'm even further convinced that CO2 emissions are a  
> huge threat to the future of the planet.
>
> Holly
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Steven <NoSpam03 at comcast.net>
> To: Forest Grove local interests list <grovenet at rdrop.com>
> Sent: Tue, December 8, 2009 8:45:18 PM
> Subject: Re: [Grovenet] Seven Answers to Climate Contrarian  
> Nonsense:Scientific American
>
> You are changing the subject. Methane gas isn't being discussed  
> with Cap and
> trade and Copenhagen.
> Do I get browning points for not eating red meat for months at a time?
> Sounds like you really need to get with it, Holly. Even us  
> conservatives are
> ahead of you.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: grovenet-bounces at rdrop.com [mailto:grovenet- 
> bounces at rdrop.com] On
> Behalf Of Holly T.
> Sent: Tuesday, December 08, 2009 2:52 PM
> To: Forest Grove local interests list
> Subject: Re: [Grovenet] Seven Answers to Climate Contrarian
> Nonsense:Scientific American
>
> Actually, Bob, as much as I hate to admit it, it appears Gary's  
> correct
> about the 3 percent figure if you look at Earth Save's 2005 article:
> http://www.earthsave.org/globalwarming.htm
>
> But, as I pointed out in my previous email, what the naysayers  
> neglect to
> mention is that CO2 emissions are accumulative, lasting in the Earth's
> atmosphere for anywhere from dozens of years to centuries. And, CO2
> emissions have been increasing by 3 percent per year since 2000 and  
> they
> began increasing with the onset of industrialization. So, even  
> though they
> account for far less greenhouse gas emissions than do, say  
> aerosols, CO2
> emissions will eventually become a big problem for the planet. And,  
> if we
> wait to cut CO2 emissions until they do become a problem, then we have
> decades and centuries to wait for those emissions to stop being a  
> problem.
> I was never good at math in school, but it just stands to reason  
> that if
> CO2 emissions are increasing by 3 percent every year, eventually  
> this is
> gonna be a big problem -- one that cannot reverse for dozens to  
> hundreds
> of years even if we somehow magically stop emitting CO2. Am I wrong  
> here?
>
> A far bigger problem for the planet, at present, is methane gas,  
> however,
> which accounts for 31 percent of all greenhouse gas emissions. That  
> fact
> (along with the well-documented health risks of eating hormone- and
> antibiotic-laden red meat) is why you won't see me spending much  
> time in
> the meat department at Safeway these days. When I do very rarely  
> eat red
> meat, it's leaner, hormone- and antibiotic-free buffalo meat that I
> purchase from L-Bar-T. Mostly, I eat vegetarian meals with the  
> occasional
> chicken or fish entree added a couple times per week, if at all.  
> It's hard
> for me to give up red meat because I was raised on a farm where we at
> grain-fed beef nearly every night. So, I think if I can cut back on  
> my red
> meat intake, anyone can. I recommend doing it slowly. Skip eating  
> meat one
> day a week and work your way up. If you can't cut it out entirely, cut
> back to half as much per week. You'll feel better, your long-term  
> health
> risks will be reduced,
> your cholesterol and heart disease risk will lower dramatically,  
> you'll
> be able to keep your weight down better if you substitute veggies  
> for the
> red meat, you'll be spending less money at the grocery store, and  
> you'll
> be helping to reduce climate change. Sounds like a no-brainer to me.
>
> I say we should all do our part to reverse global warming by  
> sharing some
> yummy vegetarian recipes with each other so that we'll be less  
> tempted to
> eat red meat -- recipes so wonderfully good that you'll never miss the
> meat. I have a few. Anyone care to share?
>
> Holly (munching on an intensely yummy fresh carrot pulled from one  
> of my
> raised garden beds just before the cold snap hit The Grove, making me
> wonder why they don't call it Global Colding rather than Global  
> Warming.
> That is, until I remember what my environmentalist friends have  
> told me
> about the fact that Global Warming actually causes "wildly fluctuating
> changes in weather patterns where temperatures are colder, warmer,
> windier, and rainier than usual" rather than just "warming")
>
> *************************************
>
> From: Bob Browning <rab at jurislex.com>
>
> To: Forest Grove local interests list <grovenet at rdrop.com>
> Sent: Tue, December 8, 2009 11:15:03 AM
> Subject: Re: [Grovenet] Seven Answers to Climate Contrarian
> Nonsense:Scientific American
>
> Do you have a cite for the 3% figure, since I have not
> been able to find anything so low.
>
> bob "enquiring minds would like to know" browning
> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> Gary Duncan-Gates wrote:
> David -
>>
>> It is my understanding that humans only contribute 3% of the  
>> atmospheric
> CO2. The remainder comes from volcanoes, forest fires and decomposing
> vegetation. If that is true, if 7 billion people and 10,000 years  
> of human
> evolution only make up 3% of the CO2, how can we have any effect on  
> the
> climate?
>>
>> And the follow up question, if CO2 is as bad as they say, aren't we
> doomed already?  Are we just one volcanic eruption away from  
> annihilation?
>>
>> Gary
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> GroveNet mailing list
> GroveNet at rdrop.com
> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet
>
> _______________________________________________
> GroveNet mailing list
> GroveNet at rdrop.com
> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> GroveNet mailing list
> GroveNet at rdrop.com
> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet


From feralcattamer at yahoo.com  Wed Dec  9 12:02:48 2009
From: feralcattamer at yahoo.com (Holly T.)
Date: Wed, 9 Dec 2009 12:02:48 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [Grovenet] Seven Answers to Climate Contrarian
	Nonsense:Scientific American
In-Reply-To: <5EB454A6-2D4D-4452-8ABC-48630E65346D@teleport.com>
References: <460820.74787.qm@web56108.mail.re3.yahoo.com>
	<019c01ca770e$2cfe6f00$86fb4d00$@com>
	<AE27BE47-F913-4F6B-A7F3-9DEAEE1CB9EF@verizon.net>
	<302711.17525.qm@web46302.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
	<4B1EA5B7.1010008@jurislex.com>
	<112560.35705.qm@web56103.mail.re3.yahoo.com>
	<004a01ca788a$6b46c320$41d44960$@net>
	<526629.15345.qm@web56104.mail.re3.yahoo.com>
	<5EB454A6-2D4D-4452-8ABC-48630E65346D@teleport.com>
Message-ID: <438691.80561.qm@web56107.mail.re3.yahoo.com>

Yeah, well, there's always Beano! I can just see it now:  Beano for Climate Change!

Which made me wonder:  Has anyone every tried giving Beano to cows?

A quick Google search showed me that a Japanese scientist has done just that. 

http://solveclimate.com/blog/20080131/japanese-patent-beano-cows-cut-methane-emissions

My next question is:  Why aren't beef and dairy farmers, the world over, feeding this to their herds?

Must come down to the old money thing...

Holly




________________________________
From: Walt Wentz <waltw at teleport.com>
To: Forest Grove local interests list <grovenet at rdrop.com>
Sent: Tue, December 8, 2009 11:01:57 PM
Subject: Re: [Grovenet] Seven Answers to Climate Contrarian Nonsense:Scientific American

Funny suggestion for leveling the playing field, Holly... if more  
naysayers could be encouraged to put their money where their mouth is  
(and vice versa), methane generation would see a sharp spike and then  
a rapid drop as the beef market died off, so to speak... problem is,  
us old healthy people produce more methane than young healthy  
people... a sad fact... just ask any old person.
WW
On Dec 8, 2009, at 9:55 PM, Holly T. wrote:

> I wasn't discussing Cap and Trade and Copenhagen, Stephen. I was  
> discussing whether Global Warning is real or not, how much human- 
> caused (anthropogenic) CO2 emissions contribute to global warming,  
> and whether other emissions (namely methane) are more harmful to  
> life on this planet than CO2.
>
> Did you read my subsequent message below in response to Bob's  
> request for a better source regarding the percentage of CO2  
> emissions in the Earth's atmosphere? I believe the data shown on  
> the US Energy Information Administration pages I provided give  
> solid, credible evidence that global warming is real, and that CO2  
> and other greenhouse gases (such as methane, for example) are  
> negatively affecting climate patterns on a world-wide scale.
>
> Bottom line:  It's data like this that gives cause for visionaries  
> like Al Gore to insist that climate change is no longer up for  
> debate. Such debate is a complete waste of time. Such debate clouds  
> the issue and takes time, resources, and human energy away from  
> getting down to the important business of reversing climate change.  
> Worst of all, such debate has a tendency to sway public opinion in  
> directions that are counter-productive. We need people to unite  
> about the need for climate change and reduction of greenhouse  
> emissions. We need people to demand that their politicians take  
> quick, decisive actions that will help reverse global warming  
> before it become irreversible.
>
> I actually don't give a rip whether the problem of methane  
> emissions is being discussed in Copenhagen or not. I'd like for it  
> to be, but that's not the point. Methane emission is a serious  
> environmental problem with an extremely simple solution that  
> certainly needs addressing. According to a 2006 United Nations  
> report, cattle rearing and all that goes into it (and out of it --  
> phew!) accounts for more greenhouse gases than our entire  
> transportation system combined. And, the cattle industry accounts  
> for 37 per cent of all anthropogenic methane, and is 23 times more  
> warming than CO2. So, one very important way that people can do  
> their part to reduce global warming (while simultaneously improving  
> their health) is to cut back on their consumption of red meat. If  
> you don't believe me, check out:  http://www.un.org/apps/news/ 
> story.asp?NewsID=20772&Cr=global&Cr1=warming
>
> Without a doubt, reducing our beef consumption would be a very  
> sensible way that most of us could help to reduce greenhouse gas  
> emissions. Conversely, another way would be to encourage all  
> conservative climate change naysayers to eat as much beef as they  
> possibly can. Stuff their mouths full of it and slather on the  
> butter and gravy while they're at it until it's coming out of their  
> ears. Then, through natural selection, large numbers of them will  
> die off from heart disease, stroke, and cancer and there'll be  
> fewer of them standing in the way of dealing responsibly with  
> climate change. Problem is, I don't believe we have enough time to  
> wait around for that to happen.
>
> Holly
>
> ************************************************************
>
>
> Glad you asked, Bob.
>
> Here is a very-easy-to-read Website put out by the US Energy  
> Information Administration (EIA) showing much higher CO2 emissions  
> than the previous article I sent you. This site says that energy- 
> related CO2 emissions, resulting from combustion
> of petroleum, coal, and natural gas, represented 81 percent of the  
> total U.S.
> human-caused (anthropogenic) greenhouse gas emissions in 2007. The  
> same site indicates that methane gas accounts for 10 percent of the  
> total US emissions.
>
> The
> following page shows, among other things, a graph indicating
> anthropogenic CO2 emissions from 1751 to 2004. The climb has been
> dramatic since the onset of industrialization that began 150 years  
> ago:
>
> http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/energyexplained/index.cfm? 
> page=environment_how_ghg_affect_climate
>
> This page shows the breakdown of greenhouse gas emissions:
>
> http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/energyexplained/index.cfm? 
> page=environment_where_ghg_come_from
>
> This page contains information about projected future CO2  
> emissions. The picture is not at all rosy:
>
> http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/energyexplained/index.cfm? 
> page=environment_outlook_for_emissions
>
> To learn more about the EIA and their qualifications, go to:
>
> http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/abouteia/mission_overview.cfm
>
> They seem, to me, to be immanently qualified to convey this data.
>
> Sorry Gary. I'm even further convinced that CO2 emissions are a  
> huge threat to the future of the planet.
>
> Holly
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Steven <NoSpam03 at comcast.net>
> To: Forest Grove local interests list <grovenet at rdrop.com>
> Sent: Tue, December 8, 2009 8:45:18 PM
> Subject: Re: [Grovenet] Seven Answers to Climate Contrarian  
> Nonsense:Scientific American
>
> You are changing the subject. Methane gas isn't being discussed  
> with Cap and
> trade and Copenhagen.
> Do I get browning points for not eating red meat for months at a time?
> Sounds like you really need to get with it, Holly. Even us  
> conservatives are
> ahead of you.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: grovenet-bounces at rdrop.com [mailto:grovenet- 
> bounces at rdrop.com] On
> Behalf Of Holly T.
> Sent: Tuesday, December 08, 2009 2:52 PM
> To: Forest Grove local interests list
> Subject: Re: [Grovenet] Seven Answers to Climate Contrarian
> Nonsense:Scientific American
>
> Actually, Bob, as much as I hate to admit it, it appears Gary's  
> correct
> about the 3 percent figure if you look at Earth Save's 2005 article:
> http://www.earthsave.org/globalwarming.htm
>
> But, as I pointed out in my previous email, what the naysayers  
> neglect to
> mention is that CO2 emissions are accumulative, lasting in the Earth's
> atmosphere for anywhere from dozens of years to centuries. And, CO2
> emissions have been increasing by 3 percent per year since 2000 and  
> they
> began increasing with the onset of industrialization. So, even  
> though they
> account for far less greenhouse gas emissions than do, say  
> aerosols, CO2
> emissions will eventually become a big problem for the planet. And,  
> if we
> wait to cut CO2 emissions until they do become a problem, then we have
> decades and centuries to wait for those emissions to stop being a  
> problem.
> I was never good at math in school, but it just stands to reason  
> that if
> CO2 emissions are increasing by 3 percent every year, eventually  
> this is
> gonna be a big problem -- one that cannot reverse for dozens to  
> hundreds
> of years even if we somehow magically stop emitting CO2. Am I wrong  
> here?
>
> A far bigger problem for the planet, at present, is methane gas,  
> however,
> which accounts for 31 percent of all greenhouse gas emissions. That  
> fact
> (along with the well-documented health risks of eating hormone- and
> antibiotic-laden red meat) is why you won't see me spending much  
> time in
> the meat department at Safeway these days. When I do very rarely  
> eat red
> meat, it's leaner, hormone- and antibiotic-free buffalo meat that I
> purchase from L-Bar-T. Mostly, I eat vegetarian meals with the  
> occasional
> chicken or fish entree added a couple times per week, if at all.  
> It's hard
> for me to give up red meat because I was raised on a farm where we at
> grain-fed beef nearly every night. So, I think if I can cut back on  
> my red
> meat intake, anyone can. I recommend doing it slowly. Skip eating  
> meat one
> day a week and work your way up. If you can't cut it out entirely, cut
> back to half as much per week. You'll feel better, your long-term  
> health
> risks will be reduced,
> your cholesterol and heart disease risk will lower dramatically,  
> you'll
> be able to keep your weight down better if you substitute veggies  
> for the
> red meat, you'll be spending less money at the grocery store, and  
> you'll
> be helping to reduce climate change. Sounds like a no-brainer to me.
>
> I say we should all do our part to reverse global warming by  
> sharing some
> yummy vegetarian recipes with each other so that we'll be less  
> tempted to
> eat red meat -- recipes so wonderfully good that you'll never miss the
> meat. I have a few. Anyone care to share?
>
> Holly (munching on an intensely yummy fresh carrot pulled from one  
> of my
> raised garden beds just before the cold snap hit The Grove, making me
> wonder why they don't call it Global Colding rather than Global  
> Warming.
> That is, until I remember what my environmentalist friends have  
> told me
> about the fact that Global Warming actually causes "wildly fluctuating
> changes in weather patterns where temperatures are colder, warmer,
> windier, and rainier than usual" rather than just "warming")
>
> *************************************
>
> From: Bob Browning <rab at jurislex.com>
>
> To: Forest Grove local interests list <grovenet at rdrop.com>
> Sent: Tue, December 8, 2009 11:15:03 AM
> Subject: Re: [Grovenet] Seven Answers to Climate Contrarian
> Nonsense:Scientific American
>
> Do you have a cite for the 3% figure, since I have not
> been able to find anything so low.
>
> bob "enquiring minds would like to know" browning
> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> Gary Duncan-Gates wrote:
> David -
>>
>> It is my understanding that humans only contribute 3% of the  
>> atmospheric
> CO2. The remainder comes from volcanoes, forest fires and decomposing
> vegetation. If that is true, if 7 billion people and 10,000 years  
> of human
> evolution only make up 3% of the CO2, how can we have any effect on  
> the
> climate?
>>
>> And the follow up question, if CO2 is as bad as they say, aren't we
> doomed already?  Are we just one volcanic eruption away from  
> annihilation?
>>
>> Gary
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> GroveNet mailing list
> GroveNet at rdrop.com
> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet
>
> _______________________________________________
> GroveNet mailing list
> GroveNet at rdrop.com
> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> GroveNet mailing list
> GroveNet at rdrop.com
> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet

_______________________________________________
GroveNet mailing list
GroveNet at rdrop.com
http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet



      

From khourym at verizon.net  Wed Dec  9 17:54:52 2009
From: khourym at verizon.net (Martha Khoury)
Date: Wed, 09 Dec 2009 17:54:52 -0800
Subject: [Grovenet] Free Brownie skort
Message-ID: <2D2AD08A-6EBE-4F9D-8E61-263766CEC561@verizon.net>

Any Brownies out there need a size small (6-8ish) skort?
contact me at khourym at verizon.net

From OleHossTreeFarm at webtv.net  Thu Dec 10 07:48:45 2009
From: OleHossTreeFarm at webtv.net (Alan Domenghini aka an OleHoss)
Date: Thu, 10 Dec 2009 07:48:45 -0800
Subject: [Grovenet] burrr.....
Message-ID: <29193-4B21185D-819@storefull-3172.bay.webtv.net>

14* at 0700....

Ten Day Forecast ....
http://www.weather.com/weather/tenday/97106

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/attachments/20091210/3d930033/attachment.html 

From OleHossTreeFarm at webtv.net  Thu Dec 10 07:53:00 2009
From: OleHossTreeFarm at webtv.net (Alan Domenghini aka an OleHoss)
Date: Thu, 10 Dec 2009 07:53:00 -0800
Subject: [Grovenet] Safeway - coupons
Message-ID: <29188-4B21195C-1537@storefull-3172.bay.webtv.net>

Webtv is even Safeway Friendly

http://www.safeway.com/ifl/grocery/Coupons

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/attachments/20091210/9d4df32e/attachment.html 
-------------- next part --------------
http://www.safeway.com/ifl/grocery/Coupons

From jo.david at verizon.net  Thu Dec 10 12:14:14 2009
From: jo.david at verizon.net (David Morelli)
Date: Thu, 10 Dec 2009 12:14:14 -0800
Subject: [Grovenet] Seven Answers to Climate
 Contrarian	Nonsense:Scientific American
In-Reply-To: <816620.74623.qm@web46313.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
References: <460820.74787.qm@web56108.mail.re3.yahoo.com>
	<816620.74623.qm@web46313.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <7062D395-194D-4682-8E1D-7ED103D7E272@verizon.net>

There is a very long discussion of the history of the scientific side of the CO2-global warming question at

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm

It discusses and describes the various theories and tests that were done by those who found a connection and those who doubt a connection.

My take on the history and review is as follows.  Over geologic time frames the earth receives more or less heat from the sun in a recognized cycle.  This causes the global temperature to rise or fall slightly.  As the temperature changes in these cycles there is more or less white ice to reflect sunlight.  Light reflected by the white ice preserved by colder temperatures feeds back to create less heat absorption.  CO2 falls as there is less plant life so that is a feed back to reduce temperature further.  When the oceans and soils freeze sufficiently the uptake of atmospheric CO2 drops to almost zero.  The production of CO2 by volcanic activity remains roughly constant and it continues to add CO2 which starts to accumulate in the atmosphere.  As the CO2 rises an equilibrium is reached to stop further cooling.  When the sun increases its heat output the higher levels of CO2 allow the earth to capture the additional heat and the white ice is melted exposing dark soil and ocean.  The additional dark absorbs more heat and a feed back loop causes the earth to warm.  

This is the geological cycle.  CO2 level follows temperature, and mitigates the effect of solar changes.  The current problem with CO2 production is that we have reversed the cause and effect.  Now CO2 level is driving temperature changes.  We continue to get the volcanic CO2, and we have higher CO2 from human activity so we can expect the equilibrium locations to shift to a higher temperature band.

How high?  The earth has seen ferns growing in anartic regions and sea levels much higher than current levels.  We could be going back there.  That doesn't do much for our agricultural base.

David
 
On Dec 8, 2009, at 7:27 AM, Gary Duncan-Gates wrote:

> We could get into a tinkling contest, each of us claiming that we have more and better scientists to back up our claims.  And the truth is, we still probably could not convince one another of anything.  The opposing viewpoints are out there; if you are truly interested and truly objective, you will seek them.  ...
> 
> And when they tell a story that blames our prosperity for all of the ills in the world, some people are preprogrammed to believe it.
> 
> Gary    


From jo.david at verizon.net  Thu Dec 10 12:17:02 2009
From: jo.david at verizon.net (David Morelli)
Date: Thu, 10 Dec 2009 12:17:02 -0800
Subject: [Grovenet] burrr.....
In-Reply-To: <29193-4B21185D-819@storefull-3172.bay.webtv.net>
References: <29193-4B21185D-819@storefull-3172.bay.webtv.net>
Message-ID: <F1363F82-6C2A-4E83-A574-F01A2184252F@verizon.net>

The garage meter says 10*F, and I believe it.
David

On Dec 10, 2009, at 7:48 AM, Alan Domenghini aka an OleHoss wrote:

> 14* at 0700....
> 
> Ten Day Forecast ....
> http://www.weather.com/weather/tenday/97106
> 
>  
> _______________________________________________
> GroveNet mailing list
> GroveNet at rdrop.com
> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet
> 


From edavie at verizon.net  Thu Dec 10 12:20:48 2009
From: edavie at verizon.net (Ed Davie)
Date: Thu, 10 Dec 2009 12:20:48 -0800
Subject: [Grovenet] burrr.....
References: <29193-4B21185D-819@storefull-3172.bay.webtv.net>
	<F1363F82-6C2A-4E83-A574-F01A2184252F@verizon.net>
Message-ID: <5C84BC3613AC491BA9F0ACA14B59A37E@700x>

Currently 32 at Joseph Gale Elementary Sc.
Ed

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "David Morelli" <jo.david at verizon.net>
To: "Forest Grove local interests list" <grovenet at rdrop.com>
Sent: Thursday, December 10, 2009 12:17 PM
Subject: Re: [Grovenet] burrr.....


> The garage meter says 10*F, and I believe it.
> David
> 
> On Dec 10, 2009, at 7:48 AM, Alan Domenghini aka an OleHoss wrote:
> 
>> 14* at 0700....
>> 
>> Ten Day Forecast ....
>> http://www.weather.com/weather/tenday/97106
>> 
>>  
>> _______________________________________________
>> GroveNet mailing list
>> GroveNet at rdrop.com
>> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet
>> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> GroveNet mailing list
> GroveNet at rdrop.com
> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet
>

From rab at jurislex.com  Thu Dec 10 11:08:18 2009
From: rab at jurislex.com (Bob Browning)
Date: Thu, 10 Dec 2009 11:08:18 -0800
Subject: [Grovenet] burrr.....
In-Reply-To: <29193-4B21185D-819@storefull-3172.bay.webtv.net>
References: <29193-4B21185D-819@storefull-3172.bay.webtv.net>
Message-ID: <4B214722.3020005@jurislex.com>

An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/attachments/20091210/2b75a4c5/attachment.html 

From jo.david at verizon.net  Thu Dec 10 12:29:00 2009
From: jo.david at verizon.net (David Morelli)
Date: Thu, 10 Dec 2009 12:29:00 -0800
Subject: [Grovenet] Giving Tree
Message-ID: <29EC5D32-0B05-4489-A46A-2354AC1C705E@verizon.net>

There is still time to visit the Tip Top Day Spa and Boutique on Pacific Avenue to choose a "giving tree" ornament.  

Each ornament displays a request for a gift, to be collected and given to a member of a local family.

No surprises, you can choose the request that you prefer to provide.

David



From jo.david at verizon.net  Thu Dec 10 12:33:12 2009
From: jo.david at verizon.net (David Morelli)
Date: Thu, 10 Dec 2009 12:33:12 -0800
Subject: [Grovenet] burrr.....
In-Reply-To: <4B214722.3020005@jurislex.com>
References: <29193-4B21185D-819@storefull-3172.bay.webtv.net>
	<4B214722.3020005@jurislex.com>
Message-ID: <9F558C49-A5C2-4205-B5F4-002F734AE296@verizon.net>

Amazing!  I would have figured that hot air produced higher temperatures.  Perhaps, something to do with a vacuum creating low pressures? <smile>

David

On Dec 10, 2009, at 11:08 AM, Bob Browning wrote:

> ... so we usually get the coldest temperatures in the Forest Grove area.
> 
> bob "double brrrr!!" browning

From OleHossTreeFarm at webtv.net  Thu Dec 10 13:27:58 2009
From: OleHossTreeFarm at webtv.net (Alan Domenghini aka an OleHoss)
Date: Thu, 10 Dec 2009 13:27:58 -0800
Subject: [Grovenet] burrr.....
In-Reply-To: Bob Browning <rab@jurislex.com>'s message of Thu, 10 Dec 2009
	11:08:18 -0800
Message-ID: <29189-4B2167DE-1775@storefull-3172.bay.webtv.net>


Now if I were a wuss as you say, why the heck am I wasting my time
trying to convince any-one otherwise?

~A~ :?(

the judge wrote..
What a wuss!!? It was 10 degrees on our back deck this morning. And
with the breeze, I will guess about a wind chill of 7 or 8 degrees!?
We are the lowest home near Talisman Park on the west side of Forest
Grove (down in the hole!!), so we usually get the coldest temperatures
in the Forest Grove area.
bob "double brrrr!!" browning
=======

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/attachments/20091210/ffdaf80b/attachment.html 

From a_tom_51 at juno.com  Thu Dec 10 18:48:38 2009
From: a_tom_51 at juno.com (a_tom_51 at juno.com)
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 2009 02:48:38 GMT
Subject: [Grovenet] burrr.....
Message-ID: <20091210.184838.22319.0@webmail11.vgs.untd.com>

It must have something to do with ice water in the veins (grin)

Tom Alexander



Amazing!  I would have figured that hot air produced higher temperatures.  Perhaps, something to do with a vacuum creating low pressures? <smile>

David

On Dec 10, 2009, at 11:08 AM, Bob Browning wrote:

> ... so we usually get the coldest temperatures in the Forest Grove area.
> 
> bob "double brrrr!!" browning
_______________________________________________
GroveNet mailing list
GroveNet at rdrop.com
http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet


____________________________________________________________
Diet Help
Cheap Diet Help Tips. Click here.
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2141/c?cp=3kG4ifU0mAPsajH2DNUBYgAAJ1CORKrrSABr_kse746cCp3FAAYAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAADNAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAYQAAAAAA=


From Jamsm at aol.com  Thu Dec 10 21:10:01 2009
From: Jamsm at aol.com (Jamsm at aol.com)
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 2009 00:10:01 EST
Subject: [Grovenet] Seven Answers to Climate Contrarian
	Nonsense:Scientific American
Message-ID: <d1e.51a6a997.38532e29@aol.com>

You state > "How high?  The earth has seen ferns growing in  Antarctic 
regions and sea levels much higher than current levels.  We could  be going back 
there.  That doesn't do much for our agricultural  base."
 
Wow, just think of the possibilities with access to millions of acres  of 
fresh extremely rich soil that has very long days of sunlight capable of  
growing food plants of sizes you have never seen before - available at either  
pole!   A fantastic source of food for the growing population of  the world. 
 I would love to buy up a few hundred acres of that land to  pass on to my 
descendents.
 
The liberals are always spewing doom and gloom - they are the masters of  
fear mongering!  Why not look at the better side of things instead of  
dwelling on what you 'think' is bad.  The earth has gone through many  cycles and 
will continue to do so irregardless of man's attempts to change  it.  
 
As for being safe from a the effects of volcanoes - all we need is a super  
volcano to erupt and  you will  have more CO2 and other  contaminants in 
the atmosphere than you ever dreamt of.   Hint:  Yellowstone is overdue and 
there are probably many super  volcanoes that we are unaware of.   We could 
also have a  significant impact from new volcanos.  Sample: a 'sudden' ground  
swelling has developed in the area of the Three Sisters - that most  pay no 
attention to.  I believe it is a fourth sister in the early makings  and 
will probably come into being with a sudden awakening; of course USGS claims  
there is no immediate threat. (go read at     www.USGS.gov     for more 
volcanic activity that is looking  to go active at some future date.)
 
http://vulcan.wr.usgs.gov/Volcanoes/Sisters/WestUplift/ground_uplift_may2001
.html
 
http://vulcan.wr.usgs.gov/Volcanoes/Sisters/WestUplift/framework.html
 
 
The Grouch. <an old nick name from H.S.> :) 
 
 
 
 
In a message dated 12/10/2009 3:14:45 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,  
jo.david at verizon.net writes:

There is  a very long discussion of the history of the scientific side of 
the CO2-global  warming question  at

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm

It discusses and  describes the various theories and tests that were done 
by those who found a  connection and those who doubt a connection.

My take on the history and  review is as follows.  Over geologic time 
frames the earth receives more  or less heat from the sun in a recognized cycle.  
This causes the global  temperature to rise or fall slightly.  As the 
temperature changes in  these cycles there is more or less white ice to reflect 
sunlight.  Light  reflected by the white ice preserved by colder temperatures 
feeds back to  create less heat absorption.  CO2 falls as there is less 
plant life so  that is a feed back to reduce temperature further.  When the 
oceans and  soils freeze sufficiently the uptake of atmospheric CO2 drops to 
almost  zero.  The production of CO2 by volcanic activity remains roughly  
constant and it continues to add CO2 which starts to accumulate in the  
atmosphere.  As the CO2 rises an equilibrium is reached to stop further  cooling.  
When the sun increases its heat output the higher levels of CO2  allow the 
earth to capture the additional heat and the white ice is melted  exposing 
dark soil and ocean
.  The additional dark absorbs more heat  and a feed back loop causes the 
earth to warm.  

This is the  geological cycle.  CO2 level follows temperature, and 
mitigates the  effect of solar changes.  The current problem with CO2 production is 
that  we have reversed the cause and effect.  Now CO2 level is driving  
temperature changes.  We continue to get the volcanic CO2, and we have  higher 
CO2 from human activity so we can expect the equilibrium locations to  shift 
to a higher temperature band.

How high?  The earth has seen  ferns growing in anartic regions and sea 
levels much higher than current  levels.  We could be going back there.  That 
doesn't do much for our  agricultural base.

David

On Dec 8, 2009, at 7:27 AM, Gary  Duncan-Gates wrote:

> We could get into a tinkling contest, each of  us claiming that we have 
more and better scientists to back up our  claims.  And the truth is, we 
still probably could not convince one  another of anything.  The opposing 
viewpoints are out there; if you are  truly interested and truly objective, you 
will seek them.  ...
>  
> And when they tell a story that blames our prosperity for all of the  
ills in the world, some people are preprogrammed to believe it.
>  
> Gary     

_______________________________________________
GroveNet mailing  list
GroveNet at rdrop.com
http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet



From waltw at teleport.com  Thu Dec 10 22:31:40 2009
From: waltw at teleport.com (Walt Wentz)
Date: Thu, 10 Dec 2009 22:31:40 -0800
Subject: [Grovenet] Seven Answers to Climate Contrarian
	Nonsense:Scientific American
In-Reply-To: <d1e.51a6a997.38532e29@aol.com>
References: <d1e.51a6a997.38532e29@aol.com>
Message-ID: <F40DF3FF-9EBB-4509-B00D-25339D993438@teleport.com>

Ahem... There's just one LEETLE problem with all those millions of  
acres of "fertile" land in the extreme northern latitudes: It is  
mostly permafrost. Which is currently melting. Which contains  
uncounted centuries' worth of frozen plant material. Think gigantic  
peat bogs in a continent-sized Kelvinator, with the plug pulled out.  
So, what happens to that much frozen plant material when it finally  
thaws out? It rots, and releases methane and CO2 in amounts that  
would make the mere three centuries of the Industrial Revolution look  
like a cow's burp.
You think your descendants would be in any position to cultivate that  
land after it turns tropical? Lotsa luck!
I don't think "Liberals" are so much addicted to "gloom and doom" as  
they are to able to see the problems that are staring everybody in  
the face, and to demand answers and action on those obvious problems.  
If you want "gloom and doom," just listen to "Conservatives" when an  
intelligent black man is elected President of the United States, and  
begins drawing the public's attention to obvious challenges... among  
them, global climate change.
(Note, I put "Liberal" and "Conservative" in quotes because the  
original meaning of those words has been systematically distorted  
over the past 50 years until their own mothers wouldn't recognize them).
Walt

On Dec 10, 2009, at 9:10 PM, Jamsm at aol.com wrote:

> You state > "How high?  The earth has seen ferns growing in  Antarctic
> regions and sea levels much higher than current levels.  We could   
> be going back
> there.  That doesn't do much for our agricultural  base."
>
> Wow, just think of the possibilities with access to millions of  
> acres  of
> fresh extremely rich soil that has very long days of sunlight  
> capable of
> growing food plants of sizes you have never seen before - available  
> at either
> pole!   A fantastic source of food for the growing population of   
> the world.
>  I would love to buy up a few hundred acres of that land to  pass  
> on to my
> descendents.
>
> The liberals are always spewing doom and gloom - they are the  
> masters of
> fear mongering!  Why not look at the better side of things instead of
> dwelling on what you 'think' is bad.  The earth has gone through  
> many  cycles and
> will continue to do so irregardless of man's attempts to change  it.
>
> As for being safe from a the effects of volcanoes - all we need is  
> a super
> volcano to erupt and  you will  have more CO2 and other   
> contaminants in
> the atmosphere than you ever dreamt of.   Hint:  Yellowstone is  
> overdue and
> there are probably many super  volcanoes that we are unaware of.    
> We could
> also have a  significant impact from new volcanos.  Sample: a  
> 'sudden' ground
> swelling has developed in the area of the Three Sisters - that  
> most  pay no
> attention to.  I believe it is a fourth sister in the early  
> makings  and
> will probably come into being with a sudden awakening; of course  
> USGS claims
> there is no immediate threat. (go read at     www.USGS.gov     for  
> more
> volcanic activity that is looking  to go active at some future date.)
>
> http://vulcan.wr.usgs.gov/Volcanoes/Sisters/WestUplift/ 
> ground_uplift_may2001
> .html
>
> http://vulcan.wr.usgs.gov/Volcanoes/Sisters/WestUplift/framework.html
>
>
> The Grouch. <an old nick name from H.S.> :)
>
>
>
>
> In a message dated 12/10/2009 3:14:45 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
> jo.david at verizon.net writes:
>
> There is  a very long discussion of the history of the scientific  
> side of
> the CO2-global  warming question  at
>
> http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm
>
> It discusses and  describes the various theories and tests that  
> were done
> by those who found a  connection and those who doubt a connection.
>
> My take on the history and  review is as follows.  Over geologic time
> frames the earth receives more  or less heat from the sun in a  
> recognized cycle.
> This causes the global  temperature to rise or fall slightly.  As the
> temperature changes in  these cycles there is more or less white  
> ice to reflect
> sunlight.  Light  reflected by the white ice preserved by colder  
> temperatures
> feeds back to  create less heat absorption.  CO2 falls as there is  
> less
> plant life so  that is a feed back to reduce temperature further.   
> When the
> oceans and  soils freeze sufficiently the uptake of atmospheric CO2  
> drops to
> almost  zero.  The production of CO2 by volcanic activity remains  
> roughly
> constant and it continues to add CO2 which starts to accumulate in the
> atmosphere.  As the CO2 rises an equilibrium is reached to stop  
> further  cooling.
> When the sun increases its heat output the higher levels of CO2   
> allow the
> earth to capture the additional heat and the white ice is melted   
> exposing
> dark soil and ocean
> .  The additional dark absorbs more heat  and a feed back loop  
> causes the
> earth to warm.
>
> This is the  geological cycle.  CO2 level follows temperature, and
> mitigates the  effect of solar changes.  The current problem with  
> CO2 production is
> that  we have reversed the cause and effect.  Now CO2 level is driving
> temperature changes.  We continue to get the volcanic CO2, and we  
> have  higher
> CO2 from human activity so we can expect the equilibrium locations  
> to  shift
> to a higher temperature band.
>
> How high?  The earth has seen  ferns growing in anartic regions and  
> sea
> levels much higher than current  levels.  We could be going back  
> there.  That
> doesn't do much for our  agricultural base.
>
> David
>
> On Dec 8, 2009, at 7:27 AM, Gary  Duncan-Gates wrote:
>
>> We could get into a tinkling contest, each of  us claiming that we  
>> have
> more and better scientists to back up our  claims.  And the truth  
> is, we
> still probably could not convince one  another of anything.  The  
> opposing
> viewpoints are out there; if you are  truly interested and truly  
> objective, you
> will seek them.  ...
>>
>> And when they tell a story that blames our prosperity for all of the
> ills in the world, some people are preprogrammed to believe it.
>>
>> Gary
>
> _______________________________________________
> GroveNet mailing  list
> GroveNet at rdrop.com
> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> GroveNet mailing list
> GroveNet at rdrop.com
> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet


From Jamsm at aol.com  Fri Dec 11 06:55:08 2009
From: Jamsm at aol.com (Jamsm at aol.com)
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 2009 09:55:08 EST
Subject: [Grovenet] Seven Answers to Climate Contrarian
	Nonsense:Scientific American
Message-ID: <c25.6cd48fbc.3853b74c@aol.com>

 
No 'little' problem at all!  
When that vegetation has decomposed what do you  have? SUPER RICH SOIL ! 
Yup ? always have got to look at the bad side.  Really, I suggest looking 
for the good in things for a change. Start asking  yourself what good can 
come from this. And as far as the global-warming goes.  Yes it is real! Did man 
cause it? NO! Can man change it ? probably not - he may  attempt to, but in 
so doing will likely make things worse for man. 

I can see a future where we get power for heat,  transportation, etc. and 
the electronic type devices of today are from/performed  by devices which 
consumes water and CO2 or consumes Carbon rich material (coal?)  and Oxygen. We 
might be able to create a completely balanced system that  performs our 
desired tasks. When this occurs we better have a significantly  improved 
understanding of weather and nature over what we do now! {I am sorry -  I digress 
- suspect many of you have no idea what technology I just alluded  to.} 

Educated 'smart' president? (lower case p was  intentional) 
Huh? Show me the proof! Being charismatic and  being a good public speaker 
does not make one smart. He is more like a puppet  that is big bag of hot 
air that is full of "it." 
He is as corrupt as you can get (as are many of  the politicians that are 
in office today - and the past.) Check your 'facts'  [look beyond the liberal 
news and that "guy's" excuse web site] - that man was  involved with 
helping create the financial problems we have today. Then he put  the very people 
he was assisting in charge of the 'hen' house. How many more  trillions will 
he and his cronies spend before he gets removed from office. I  prey to God 
that the U.S. survives the madness that has taken over Washington  D.C. as 
a democracy that will uphold God's will and will learn from the errors  of 
the current administration's direction. 

Think about this: "It Takes one to know one." The  doom-n-gloom liberals 
have repeatedly been the leader in the name calling of the  conservatives. Per 
just this board I have repeatedly read where: if you are  conservative or 
Republican then you are assumed under-educated or unintelligent,  etc.; if 
you are progressive, Democrat, etc. then you are assumed smart. Check  the 
various postings on the bulletin-boards scattered around the web; you will  
find most of the name calling is performed by the liberals. The overwhelming  
number of the racist remarks are performed by the liberal leaning postings.  
Also, the liberal/progressive postings are more likely to have more 
misspelled  words with poor grammar than any others! By the way, just to let you 
know ?  having a degree does not imply that you are 'smart'; it only means that 
you  successfully completed a set of courses and have been exposed to 
certain  material ? albeit the material may be in error. I have met many 
'educated'  people with degrees (some with multiple) whom have ZERO common sense and 
don't  understand how 'something' can work a given way because it 
'violates' what they  were taught. I have heard this (or similar) many times, ?How 
did you do that?  That isn't possible to do!? But, there they are staring at 
the functional  result. 

?The Grouch? 
In a message dated 12/11/2009 1:32:10  A.M. Eastern Standard Time, 
waltw at teleport.com writes:
 
Ahem...  There's just one LEETLE problem with all those millions of  
acres of  "fertile" land in the extreme northern latitudes: It is  
mostly  permafrost. Which is currently melting. Which contains  
uncounted  centuries' worth of frozen plant material. Think gigantic  
peat bogs  in a continent-sized Kelvinator, with the plug pulled out.  
So, what  happens to that much frozen plant material when it finally  
thaws  out? It rots, and releases methane and CO2 in amounts that  
would  make the mere three centuries of the Industrial Revolution look  
like  a cow's burp.
You think your descendants would be in any position to  cultivate that  
land after it turns tropical? Lotsa luck!
I don't  think "Liberals" are so much addicted to "gloom and doom" as  
they  are to able to see the problems that are staring everybody in  
the  face, and to demand answers and action on those obvious problems.  
If  you want "gloom and doom," just listen to "Conservatives" when an   
intelligent black man is elected President of the United States, and   
begins drawing the public's attention to obvious challenges... among   
them, global climate change.
(Note, I put "Liberal" and "Conservative"  in quotes because the  
original meaning of those words has been  systematically distorted  
over the past 50 years until their own  mothers wouldn't recognize them).
Walt

On Dec 10, 2009, at 9:10 PM,  Jamsm at aol.com wrote:

> You state > "How high?  The earth has  seen ferns growing in  Antarctic
> regions and sea levels much  higher than current levels.  We could   
> be going  back
> there.  That doesn't do much for our agricultural   base."
>
> Wow, just think of the possibilities with access to  millions of  
> acres  of
> fresh extremely rich soil  that has very long days of sunlight  
> capable of
> growing  food plants of sizes you have never seen before - available  
> at  either
> pole!   A fantastic source of food for the growing  population of   
> the world.
>  I would love to  buy up a few hundred acres of that land to  pass  
> on to  my
> descendents.
>
> The liberals are always spewing doom  and gloom - they are the  
> masters of
> fear  mongering!  Why not look at the better side of things instead of
>  dwelling on what you 'think' is bad.  The earth has gone through   
> many  cycles and
> will continue to do so irregardless of  man's attempts to change  it.
>
> As for being safe from a  the effects of volcanoes - all we need is  
> a super
>  volcano to erupt and  you will  have more CO2 and other    
> contaminants in
> the atmosphere than you ever dreamt  of.   Hint:  Yellowstone is  
> overdue and
>  there are probably many super  volcanoes that we are unaware of.   
> We could
> also have a  significant impact from new  volcanos.  Sample: a  
> 'sudden' ground
> swelling has  developed in the area of the Three Sisters - that  
> most   pay no
> attention to.  I believe it is a fourth sister in the  early  
> makings  and
> will probably come into being  with a sudden awakening; of course  
> USGS claims
> there is  no immediate threat. (go read at     www.USGS.gov   for  
> more
> volcanic activity that is  looking  to go active at some future date.)
>
>  http://vulcan.wr.usgs.gov/Volcanoes/Sisters/WestUplift/ 
>  ground_uplift_may2001
> .html
>
>  http://vulcan.wr.usgs.gov/Volcanoes/Sisters/WestUplift/framework.html
>
>
>  The Grouch. <an old nick name from H.S.>  :)
>
>
>
>
> In a message dated 12/10/2009  3:14:45 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
> jo.david at verizon.net  writes:
>
> There is  a very long discussion of the history  of the scientific  
> side of
> the CO2-global  warming  question  at
>
>  http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm
>
> It discusses  and  describes the various theories and tests that  
> were  done
> by those who found a  connection and those who doubt a  connection.
>
> My take on the history and  review is as  follows.  Over geologic time
> frames the earth receives more   or less heat from the sun in a  
> recognized cycle.
> This  causes the global  temperature to rise or fall slightly.  As  the
> temperature changes in  these cycles there is more or less  white  
> ice to reflect
> sunlight.  Light   reflected by the white ice preserved by colder  
>  temperatures
> feeds back to  create less heat absorption.   CO2 falls as there is  
> less
> plant life so  that is  a feed back to reduce temperature further.   
> When  the
> oceans and  soils freeze sufficiently the uptake of  atmospheric CO2  
> drops to
> almost  zero.  The  production of CO2 by volcanic activity remains  
> roughly
>  constant and it continues to add CO2 which starts to accumulate in the
>  atmosphere.  As the CO2 rises an equilibrium is reached to stop   
> further  cooling.
> When the sun increases its heat output  the higher levels of CO2   
> allow the
> earth to  capture the additional heat and the white ice is melted   
>  exposing
> dark soil and ocean
> .  The additional dark  absorbs more heat  and a feed back loop  
> causes the
>  earth to warm.
>
> This is the  geological cycle.  CO2  level follows temperature, and
> mitigates the  effect of solar  changes.  The current problem with  
> CO2 production  is
> that  we have reversed the cause and effect.  Now CO2  level is driving
> temperature changes.  We continue to get the  volcanic CO2, and we  
> have  higher
> CO2 from human  activity so we can expect the equilibrium locations  
> to   shift
> to a higher temperature band.
>
> How high?   The earth has seen  ferns growing in anartic regions and  
>  sea
> levels much higher than current  levels.  We could be  going back  
> there.  That
> doesn't do much for  our  agricultural base.
>
> David
>
> On Dec 8,  2009, at 7:27 AM, Gary  Duncan-Gates wrote:
>
>> We could  get into a tinkling contest, each of  us claiming that we   
>> have
> more and better scientists to back up our   claims.  And the truth  
> is, we
> still probably could  not convince one  another of anything.  The  
>  opposing
> viewpoints are out there; if you are  truly interested  and truly  
> objective, you
> will seek them.   ...
>>
>> And when they tell a story that blames our  prosperity for all of the
> ills in the world, some people are  preprogrammed to believe it.
>>
>>  Gary




From gduncangates at yahoo.com  Fri Dec 11 07:02:01 2009
From: gduncangates at yahoo.com (Gary Duncan-Gates)
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 2009 07:02:01 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [Grovenet] Seven Answers to Climate Contrarian
	Nonsense:Scientific American
In-Reply-To: <ED2B6900-758E-404A-8349-FBBBA8C9725B@teleport.com>
References: <460820.74787.qm@web56108.mail.re3.yahoo.com>
	<816620.74623.qm@web46313.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
	<ED2B6900-758E-404A-8349-FBBBA8C9725B@teleport.com>
Message-ID: <987918.12535.qm@web46315.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>

Well, it didn't seem very plausible to me that a former vice president, Democrat, at that, with no formal training in science, would be able to exploit his fame and position and good will afforded him after the 2000 election debacle, to scare the bejeezus out of the world with his environmental apocalypse theories (hang on, here is the significant part) to propel his own earnings into the stratosphere.  But it happened.

Gary




________________________________
From: Walt Wentz <waltw at teleport.com>
To: Forest Grove local interests list <grovenet at rdrop.com>
Sent: Tue, December 8, 2009 10:13:30 AM
Subject: Re: [Grovenet] Seven Answers to Climate Contrarian Nonsense:Scientific American

Tell me,  
which scenario seems more plausible? That a huge, worldwide community  
of climate scientists are engaged in a vast conspiracy? Or that a few  
very wealthy  industries are determined, at whatever cost, to protect  
their profits by nitpicking, sidetracking, stalling and ridiculing  
any serious consideration of the problem?

And conversely, many are preprogrammed to automatically reject it,  
because it threatens their prosperity... and their personal comfort,  
profits, faith or mental inertia.
Walt
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Holly T. <feralcattamer at yahoo.com>
> To: Forest Grove local interests list <grovenet at rdrop.com>
> Sent: Sun, December 6, 2009 11:01:28 PM
> Subject: Re: [Grovenet] Seven Answers to Climate Contrarian  
> Nonsense:Scientific American
>
> So...uh Gary...would you say that our revered scientists at  
> NASA...those same folks who have been sending us photos from outer  
> space that show, in living color, the rapid recession of our polar  
> ice caps...would you consider them to be "unscientific and  
> delusional"?
>
> Please go to http://climate.nasa.gov/ and click the Climate Time  
> Machine link near the right side of NASA's Eyes on the Earth page.  
> You can then select between four categories:  Sea Ice, Sea Level,  
> Co2 Emissions, and Average Global Temperature. Sliders are provided  
> near the bottom of each resulting screen. By running each slider  
> across the page, you'll be able to see how our planet has been  
> changed over the years by global warming. And guess what! Things  
> are looking significantly worse in all four categories as you move  
> the sliders to the right.
>
> Unless, of course, you don't believe what our country's best-and- 
> brightest aerospace scientists are telling us. Unless you think  
> that NASA is part of this huge, diabolical scandal called "Climate  
> Gate".
>
> If you have better sources than NASA to support your belief that  
> global warming is a hoax, please share them.
>
> Holly
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Walt Wentz <waltw at teleport.com>
> To: Forest Grove local interests list <grovenet at rdrop.com>
> Sent: Sun, December 6, 2009 5:38:53 PM
> Subject: Re: [Grovenet] Seven Answers to Climate Contrarian  
> Nonsense:Scientific American
>
> Eh? Define "delusional" when ice caps are melting, sea levels are
> rising, deserts are expanding and species are disappearing at a
> faster rate than at any time in geologic history. Or do anti-
> environmentalists not believe in geology either?
> Walt
>
> On Dec 6, 2009, at 1:25 PM, Gary Duncan-Gates wrote:
>
>> Problem is, Environmentalism is as much a religion to its adherents
>> as the traditional religions are to the folks you speak of.  They
>> are just as zealous, just as dangerous, and just as delusional.
>>
>> Gary
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ________________________________
>> From: Holly T. <feralcattamer at yahoo.com>
>> To: Forest Grove local interests list <grovenet at rdrop.com>
>> Sent: Wed, December 2, 2009 1:48:09 PM
>> Subject: Re: [Grovenet] Seven Answers to Climate Contrarian
>> Nonsense:Scientific American
>>
>> Even at their most horrific, wars and famines never wiped out even
>> 1/4 of the world's population. But, I agree:  Population control is
>> one of those hot topics that American politicians never want to
>> touch, but it's really the only long-term, viable answer for
>> reversing global warming. But, as long as you have people thinking
>> that it's their god-given right to "go forth and multiply" and
>> "have dominion over the earth," nothing will change until war,
>> pestilence, and environmental toxins do their part to take us out.
>> The frog will continue to sit in the beaker of slowly boiling water
>> until such time that it overtakes him.
>>
>> Radical environmentalist, Derrick Jensen, advocates "taking down
>> civilization" to reverse the problem of global warming because he
>> wisely believes that humankind will not willingly take the steps
>> necessary to reverse the problem. You know, doing little civilly
>> disobedient things such as blowing up hydroelectric dams, etc. But,
>> I think even taking out all the hydroelectric dams in the world
>> would not do nearly enough to reverse the problem. It would take
>> much more than that to motivate humankind to live sustainably.
>>
>> Also, most of the world's great religions are patriarchical in
>> nature and are, as a result, way too far removed from the Earth-
>> honoring teachings of indigenous people who lived sustainably
>> according to the teachings of goddess-based teachings. These
>> indigenous people were taught the immorality of taking too much
>> from the Earth and not giving back. They lived sustainably whereas
>> we do not because our moral teachings have taught us that it's okay
>> to pillage the planet and take whatever we want. It's these very
>> patriarchal teachings that give people cause to think it's okay to
>> have big families today. So, how can you expect nations that base
>> their entire moral philosophies on patriarchical-take-what-you-want
>> teachings to even consider living sustainably? They have god on
>> their side; so why should they even consider limiting the number of
>> children they have?
>>
>> I think that besides limiting population, a radical change in moral
>> teachings needs to take place. Otherwise, how will humankind (and
>> thousands of other animals and plant species) stand a chance? How
>> can a change in moral teachings take place? I don't have any
>> answers for that one. Breaking through the power structures of the
>> world's patriarchal religions would be harder than threading a
>> camel through the eye of a needle at this point in history.
>>
>> Holly
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ________________________________
>> From: Jeff Cooper <jbcoops at yahoo.com>
>> To: Ed Davie <edavie at verizon.net>; Forest Grove local interests
>> list <grovenet at rdrop.com>
>> Sent: Wed, December 2, 2009 1:20:29 PM
>> Subject: Re: [Grovenet] Seven Answers to Climate Contrarian
>> Nonsense:Scientific American
>>
>> Climate isn't the biggest issue... population is.  In the good old
>> days we could just have a war or famine or pestilence or plague to
>> wipe out 1/4 to 1/2 of the world's population... not considered
>> politically viable options anymore.  Trouble is Earth will have
>> close to 10 billion people by 2050.  My recommendation is global
>> enforced celibacy or homosexuality and an accelerated condos on the
>> moon program.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> GroveNet mailing list
>> GroveNet at rdrop.com
>> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> GroveNet mailing list
>> GroveNet at rdrop.com
>> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> GroveNet mailing list
>> GroveNet at rdrop.com
>> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet
>
> _______________________________________________
> GroveNet mailing list
> GroveNet at rdrop.com
> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> GroveNet mailing list
> GroveNet at rdrop.com
> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> GroveNet mailing list
> GroveNet at rdrop.com
> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet

_______________________________________________
GroveNet mailing list
GroveNet at rdrop.com
http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet



      

From gduncangates at yahoo.com  Fri Dec 11 07:03:33 2009
From: gduncangates at yahoo.com (Gary Duncan-Gates)
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 2009 07:03:33 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [Grovenet] Seven Answers to Climate Contrarian
	Nonsense:Scientific American
In-Reply-To: <999567.74366.qm@web56102.mail.re3.yahoo.com>
References: <460820.74787.qm@web56108.mail.re3.yahoo.com>
	<816620.74623.qm@web46313.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
	<999567.74366.qm@web56102.mail.re3.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <612447.62192.qm@web46314.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>

Look, you seem like a nice person, but you are a True Believer.  You have been civil in this discussion, and that is all I asked for.  We won't see eye to eye on this issue, but I wish you well.  Also, lighten up a bit - it's going to be ok.

Gary




________________________________
From: Holly T. <feralcattamer at yahoo.com>
To: Forest Grove local interests list <grovenet at rdrop.com>
Sent: Tue, December 8, 2009 1:20:49 PM
Subject: Re: [Grovenet] Seven Answers to Climate Contrarian Nonsense:Scientific American

>From what I have learned about Al Gore and his teachings, Gary, I think he wants the debate about global warming to be over simply because he believes there is so incredibly so much work to be done to reverse the problem. If we're all sitting around debating the problem, we won't be working together towards finding solutions. Solutions that are rapidly slipping out of our fingers.

I agree with Al Gore:  The whole climate change debate seems a waste of precious time to me. I'm convinced about the problem. In fact, I'm so convinced about the problem that I fear it may very well be too late to reverse things. I fear for my children because I see with my own eyes how our planet has changed in just my lifetime. Water systems are compromised the world over. Lakes and rivers are poisoned. There are more cancer deaths today than ever before (Where did that come from if not from the effects of environmental toxins?). People are suffering from more life-threatening, environmentally caused diseases than ever before. There are just so many more people! Every time I drive to the Coast, I am mortified by the huge swaths of clear cutting of once-beautiful forests that grew along the way. Everywhere I look, there are strip malls where there once was open space.

As you have pointed out, some reports indicate that CO2 emissions are responsible for 3 percent of greenhouse gas emissions. However, what those reports fail to tell you is that CO2 emissions are accumulative and last in the earth's atmosphere for anywhere from dozens of years to centuries. Plus, CO2 emissions, according to the EPA, have been increasing by 3 percent per year since the year 2000. So, CO2 emissions will eventually become a big problem for the planet. Methane gas, at present, is the 's worst culprit as far as greenhouse gas emissions are concerned, accounting for 31 percent. So, cutting down on red meat consumption and eating more fresh veggies is probably one of the best environmental measures (as well as health measures) that any of us can take -- even in the short run.

Check out this article posted on Earth Save's site about the importance of cutting out animal products from your diet:  http://www.earthsave.org/globalwarming.htm

I bet many if not most of us would have an easier time cutting back on our meat consumption than we would cutting back on using our cars.

And, don't get me wrong. I grew up on a farm and was brought up eating hand-raised beef. So, cutting back on meat has been a challenge for me. But, concern for my health and the environment have helped me to cut way back on my meat consumption. I don't consider myself a vegetarian, but I have cut back to eating meat to about 2-3 days a week, and I almost never eat beef or pork. If we all cut demand for meat in half, it would improve our health (because we'd be eating less meat, more veggies, and less already-repared and fast food) AND it would cut down on greenhouse gas emissions to boot. Sounds like a win-win proposition to me.

Holly




________________________________
From: Gary Duncan-Gates <gduncangates at yahoo.com>
To: Forest Grove local interests list <grovenet at rdrop.com>
Sent: Tue, December 8, 2009 7:27:37 AM
Subject: Re: [Grovenet] Seven Answers to Climate Contrarian Nonsense:Scientific American

We could get into a tinkling contest, each of us claiming that we have more and better scientists to back up our claims.  And the truth is, we still probably could not convince one another of anything.  The opposing viewpoints are out there; if you are truly interested and truly objective, you will seek them.  

My post focused on the decided lack of discussion of this matter and the effort by some to hinder any debate.  New data is coming in every day, yet most people don't get to hear it, or reject it out of hand, because their minds are made up.  Al Gore said the debate is over.

Some people are never exposed to other ideas, either because the major news outlets avoid those stories (gloom and doom and armageddon get better ratings), or they eschew stories that contradict their preconceived ideas.  Sometimes the information is kept from them, as in the case of ClimateGate.

Scientists are human, and science, while being full of facts, is still subject to interpretation.  That's why you get a second opinion when a doctor advises surgery.  Scientists can make mistakes, they can be dishonest and disingenuous, and they can be subject to manipulation.  

And when they tell a story that blames our prosperity for all of the ills in the world, some people are preprogrammed to believe it.

Gary    




________________________________
From: Holly T. <feralcattamer at yahoo.com>
To: Forest Grove local interests list <grovenet at rdrop.com>
Sent: Sun, December 6, 2009 11:01:28 PM
Subject: Re: [Grovenet] Seven Answers to Climate Contrarian Nonsense:Scientific American

So...uh Gary...would you say that our revered scientists at NASA...those same folks who have been sending us photos from outer space that show, in living color, the rapid recession of our polar ice caps...would you consider them to be "unscientific and delusional"? 

Please go to http://climate.nasa.gov/ and click the Climate Time Machine link near the right side of NASA's Eyes on the Earth page. You can then select between four categories:  Sea Ice, Sea Level, Co2 Emissions, and Average Global Temperature. Sliders are provided near the bottom of each resulting screen. By running each slider across the page, you'll be able to see how our planet has been changed over the years by global warming. And guess what! Things are looking significantly worse in all four categories as you move the sliders to the right. 

Unless, of course, you don't believe what our country's best-and-brightest aerospace scientists are telling us. Unless you think that NASA is part of this huge, diabolical scandal called "Climate Gate".

If you have better sources than NASA to support your belief that global warming is a hoax, please share them.

Holly




________________________________
From: Walt Wentz <waltw at teleport.com>
To: Forest Grove local interests list <grovenet at rdrop.com>
Sent: Sun, December 6, 2009 5:38:53 PM
Subject: Re: [Grovenet] Seven Answers to Climate Contrarian Nonsense:Scientific American

Eh? Define "delusional" when ice caps are melting, sea levels are  
rising, deserts are expanding and species are disappearing at a  
faster rate than at any time in geologic history. Or do anti- 
environmentalists not believe in geology either?
Walt

On Dec 6, 2009, at 1:25 PM, Gary Duncan-Gates wrote:

> Problem is, Environmentalism is as much a religion to its adherents  
> as the traditional religions are to the folks you speak of.  They  
> are just as zealous, just as dangerous, and just as delusional.
>
> Gary
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Holly T. <feralcattamer at yahoo.com>
> To: Forest Grove local interests list <grovenet at rdrop.com>
> Sent: Wed, December 2, 2009 1:48:09 PM
> Subject: Re: [Grovenet] Seven Answers to Climate Contrarian  
> Nonsense:Scientific American
>
> Even at their most horrific, wars and famines never wiped out even  
> 1/4 of the world's population. But, I agree:  Population control is  
> one of those hot topics that American politicians never want to  
> touch, but it's really the only long-term, viable answer for  
> reversing global warming. But, as long as you have people thinking  
> that it's their god-given right to "go forth and multiply" and  
> "have dominion over the earth," nothing will change until war,  
> pestilence, and environmental toxins do their part to take us out.  
> The frog will continue to sit in the beaker of slowly boiling water  
> until such time that it overtakes him.
>
> Radical environmentalist, Derrick Jensen, advocates "taking down  
> civilization" to reverse the problem of global warming because he  
> wisely believes that humankind will not willingly take the steps  
> necessary to reverse the problem. You know, doing little civilly  
> disobedient things such as blowing up hydroelectric dams, etc. But,  
> I think even taking out all the hydroelectric dams in the world  
> would not do nearly enough to reverse the problem. It would take  
> much more than that to motivate humankind to live sustainably.
>
> Also, most of the world's great religions are patriarchical in  
> nature and are, as a result, way too far removed from the Earth- 
> honoring teachings of indigenous people who lived sustainably  
> according to the teachings of goddess-based teachings. These  
> indigenous people were taught the immorality of taking too much  
> from the Earth and not giving back. They lived sustainably whereas  
> we do not because our moral teachings have taught us that it's okay  
> to pillage the planet and take whatever we want. It's these very  
> patriarchal teachings that give people cause to think it's okay to  
> have big families today. So, how can you expect nations that base  
> their entire moral philosophies on patriarchical-take-what-you-want  
> teachings to even consider living sustainably? They have god on  
> their side; so why should they even consider limiting the number of  
> children they have?
>
> I think that besides limiting population, a radical change in moral  
> teachings needs to take place. Otherwise, how will humankind (and  
> thousands of other animals and plant species) stand a chance? How  
> can a change in moral teachings take place? I don't have any  
> answers for that one. Breaking through the power structures of the  
> world's patriarchal religions would be harder than threading a  
> camel through the eye of a needle at this point in history.
>
> Holly
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Jeff Cooper <jbcoops at yahoo.com>
> To: Ed Davie <edavie at verizon.net>; Forest Grove local interests  
> list <grovenet at rdrop.com>
> Sent: Wed, December 2, 2009 1:20:29 PM
> Subject: Re: [Grovenet] Seven Answers to Climate Contrarian  
> Nonsense:Scientific American
>
> Climate isn't the biggest issue... population is.  In the good old  
> days we could just have a war or famine or pestilence or plague to  
> wipe out 1/4 to 1/2 of the world's population... not considered  
> politically viable options anymore.  Trouble is Earth will have  
> close to 10 billion people by 2050.  My recommendation is global  
> enforced celibacy or homosexuality and an accelerated condos on the  
> moon program.
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> GroveNet mailing list
> GroveNet at rdrop.com
> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> GroveNet mailing list
> GroveNet at rdrop.com
> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> GroveNet mailing list
> GroveNet at rdrop.com
> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet

_______________________________________________
GroveNet mailing list
GroveNet at rdrop.com
http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet



      
_______________________________________________
GroveNet mailing list
GroveNet at rdrop.com
http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet



      
_______________________________________________
GroveNet mailing list
GroveNet at rdrop.com
http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet



      
_______________________________________________
GroveNet mailing list
GroveNet at rdrop.com
http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet



      

From gduncangates at yahoo.com  Fri Dec 11 07:15:43 2009
From: gduncangates at yahoo.com (Gary Duncan-Gates)
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 2009 07:15:43 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [Grovenet] Seven Answers to Climate Contrarian
	Nonsense:Scientific American
In-Reply-To: <74710968-AF5F-4437-9852-84F0424F11ED@teleport.com>
References: <962847.30477.qm@web55005.mail.re4.yahoo.com>
	<10044.64862.qm@web56102.mail.re3.yahoo.com>
	<377343.75641.qm@web46301.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
	<4B1D3D96.4000508@jurislex.com>
	<44280.37340.qm@web46303.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
	<74710968-AF5F-4437-9852-84F0424F11ED@teleport.com>
Message-ID: <348128.75162.qm@web46316.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>

I would like to point out that Mr. Browning took this conversation down that path by asking if I considered him a zealot, in effect, citing himself as a Straw Man.  I cited the ELF as an example of environmentalist zealots, and gave him an opportunity to distance himself from them, and maybe explain his position.  Instead, he and Mr. Wentz would rather avoid the real issue and attack me.  

While I understand that it is easier for you to hate your opponents if you paint them as one-dimensional caricatures, and maybe you get to share a smug chuckle with some of your "teammates", I believe that most people are more complex than that. 

Until we can get past all the ideological posturing, and start understanding one another on the person level, our capacity for overcoming all challenges is greatly hindered.

Gary




________________________________
From: Walt Wentz <waltw at teleport.com>
To: Forest Grove local interests list <grovenet at rdrop.com>
Sent: Tue, December 8, 2009 10:17:28 AM
Subject: Re: [Grovenet] Seven Answers to Climate Contrarian Nonsense:Scientific American

Political Debate 101, Chapter 2, "Guilt by Association, and Other  
Handy Non-Sequiturs."

On Dec 8, 2009, at 7:30 AM, Gary Duncan-Gates wrote:

> I don't know, Bob.  Have you blown up a log truck to try to halt  
> deforestation?  I recycle, too.  I would like to think there is  
> some middle ground between those two actions.  Do you differentiate  
> between yourself and the ELF?
>
> Gary
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Bob Browning <rab at jurislex.com>
> To: Forest Grove local interests list <grovenet at rdrop.com>
> Sent: Mon, December 7, 2009 9:38:30 AM
> Subject: Re: [Grovenet] Seven Answers to Climate Contrarian  
> Nonsense:Scientific American
>
>  Talk about cynical. I guess because I recycle and am
> pretty adamant about it given the limited land area for land fills, so
> that makes me a delusional zealot? Great!! And more power to all of  
> you
> who share my concerns!!
>
> bob "put your can over here, please" browning
> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> Gary Duncan-Gates wrote:
> Problem is, Environmentalism is as much a religion to its adherents  
> as the traditional religions are to the folks you speak of.  They  
> are just as zealous, just as dangerous, and just as delusional.
>>
>> Gary
>>
>> ________________________________
>> From: Holly T. <feralcattamer at yahoo.com>
>> To: Forest Grove local interests list <grovenet at rdrop.com>
>> Sent: Wed, December 2, 2009 1:48:09 PM
>> Subject: Re: [Grovenet] Seven Answers to Climate Contrarian  
>> Nonsense:Scientific American
>>
>> Even at their most horrific, wars and famines never wiped out even  
>> 1/4 of the world's population. But, I agree:  Population control  
>> is one of those hot topics that American politicians never want to  
>> touch, but it's really the only long-term, viable answer for  
>> reversing global warming. But, as long as you have people thinking  
>> that it's their god-given right to "go forth and multiply" and  
>> "have dominion over the earth," nothing will change until war,  
>> pestilence, and environmental toxins do their part to take us out.  
>> The frog will continue to sit in the beaker of slowly boiling  
>> water until such time that it overtakes him.
>>
>> <snip>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> GroveNet mailing list
> GroveNet at rdrop.com
> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet

_______________________________________________
GroveNet mailing list
GroveNet at rdrop.com
http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet



      

From gduncangates at yahoo.com  Fri Dec 11 07:17:52 2009
From: gduncangates at yahoo.com (Gary Duncan-Gates)
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 2009 07:17:52 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [Grovenet] Seven Answers to Climate Contrarian
	Nonsense:Scientific American
In-Reply-To: <F40DF3FF-9EBB-4509-B00D-25339D993438@teleport.com>
References: <d1e.51a6a997.38532e29@aol.com>
	<F40DF3FF-9EBB-4509-B00D-25339D993438@teleport.com>
Message-ID: <811659.41991.qm@web46308.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>

Mr. Wentz - 

What on Earth does the president's race have to do with this discussion?

Gary




________________________________
From: Walt Wentz <waltw at teleport.com>
To: Forest Grove local interests list <grovenet at rdrop.com>
Sent: Thu, December 10, 2009 10:31:40 PM
Subject: Re: [Grovenet] Seven Answers to Climate Contrarian Nonsense:Scientific American


I don't think "Liberals" are so much addicted to "gloom and doom" as  
they are to able to see the problems that are staring everybody in  
the face, and to demand answers and action on those obvious problems.  
If you want "gloom and doom," just listen to "Conservatives" when an  
intelligent black man is elected President of the United States, and  
begins drawing the public's attention to obvious challenges... among  
them, global climate change.
(Note, I put "Liberal" and "Conservative" in quotes because the  
original meaning of those words has been systematically distorted  
over the past 50 years until their own mothers wouldn't recognize them).
Walt


      

From edavie at verizon.net  Fri Dec 11 11:06:49 2009
From: edavie at verizon.net (Ed Davie)
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 2009 11:06:49 -0800
Subject: [Grovenet] Seven Answers to Climate
 Contrarian	Nonsense:Scientific American
References: <c25.6cd48fbc.3853b74c@aol.com>
Message-ID: <3141941FEEE647748EA0A16EE2EA1614@700x>

If we survived the last 8 years of "conservative" rule, we will certainly survive 4 or more years of "liberal" rule!
Ed

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

----- Original Message ----- 
From: <Jamsm at aol.com>
To: <grovenet at rdrop.com>
Sent: Friday, December 11, 2009 6:55 AM
Subject: Re: [Grovenet] Seven Answers to Climate Contrarian Nonsense:Scientific American


> 
> No 'little' problem at all!  
> When that vegetation has decomposed what do you  have? SUPER RICH SOIL ! 
> Yup ? always have got to look at the bad side.  Really, I suggest looking 
> for the good in things for a change. Start asking  yourself what good can 
> come from this. And as far as the global-warming goes.  Yes it is real! Did man 
> cause it? NO! Can man change it ? probably not - he may  attempt to, but in 
> so doing will likely make things worse for man. 
> 
> I can see a future where we get power for heat,  transportation, etc. and 
> the electronic type devices of today are from/performed  by devices which 
> consumes water and CO2 or consumes Carbon rich material (coal?)  and Oxygen. We 
> might be able to create a completely balanced system that  performs our 
> desired tasks. When this occurs we better have a significantly  improved 
> understanding of weather and nature over what we do now! {I am sorry -  I digress 
> - suspect many of you have no idea what technology I just alluded  to.} 
> 
> Educated 'smart' president? (lower case p was  intentional) 
> Huh? Show me the proof! Being charismatic and  being a good public speaker 
> does not make one smart. He is more like a puppet  that is big bag of hot 
> air that is full of "it." 
> He is as corrupt as you can get (as are many of  the politicians that are 
> in office today - and the past.) Check your 'facts'  [look beyond the liberal 
> news and that "guy's" excuse web site] - that man was  involved with 
> helping create the financial problems we have today. Then he put  the very people 
> he was assisting in charge of the 'hen' house. How many more  trillions will 
> he and his cronies spend before he gets removed from office. I  prey to God 
> that the U.S. survives the madness that has taken over Washington  D.C. as 
> a democracy that will uphold God's will and will learn from the errors  of 
> the current administration's direction. 
> 
> Think about this: "It Takes one to know one." The  doom-n-gloom liberals 
> have repeatedly been the leader in the name calling of the  conservatives. Per 
> just this board I have repeatedly read where: if you are  conservative or 
> Republican then you are assumed under-educated or unintelligent,  etc.; if 
> you are progressive, Democrat, etc. then you are assumed smart. Check  the 
> various postings on the bulletin-boards scattered around the web; you will  
> find most of the name calling is performed by the liberals. The overwhelming  
> number of the racist remarks are performed by the liberal leaning postings.  
> Also, the liberal/progressive postings are more likely to have more 
> misspelled  words with poor grammar than any others! By the way, just to let you 
> know ?  having a degree does not imply that you are 'smart'; it only means that 
> you  successfully completed a set of courses and have been exposed to 
> certain  material ? albeit the material may be in error. I have met many 
> 'educated'  people with degrees (some with multiple) whom have ZERO common sense and 
> don't  understand how 'something' can work a given way because it 
> 'violates' what they  were taught. I have heard this (or similar) many times, ?How 
> did you do that?  That isn't possible to do!? But, there they are staring at 
> the functional  result. 
> 
> ?The Grouch? 
> In a message dated 12/11/2009 1:32:10  A.M. Eastern Standard Time, 
> waltw at teleport.com writes:
> 
> Ahem...  There's just one LEETLE problem with all those millions of  
> acres of  "fertile" land in the extreme northern latitudes: It is  
> mostly  permafrost. Which is currently melting. Which contains  
> uncounted  centuries' worth of frozen plant material. Think gigantic  
> peat bogs  in a continent-sized Kelvinator, with the plug pulled out.  
> So, what  happens to that much frozen plant material when it finally  
> thaws  out? It rots, and releases methane and CO2 in amounts that  
> would  make the mere three centuries of the Industrial Revolution look  
> like  a cow's burp.
> You think your descendants would be in any position to  cultivate that  
> land after it turns tropical? Lotsa luck!
> I don't  think "Liberals" are so much addicted to "gloom and doom" as  
> they  are to able to see the problems that are staring everybody in  
> the  face, and to demand answers and action on those obvious problems.  
> If  you want "gloom and doom," just listen to "Conservatives" when an   
> intelligent black man is elected President of the United States, and   
> begins drawing the public's attention to obvious challenges... among   
> them, global climate change.
> (Note, I put "Liberal" and "Conservative"  in quotes because the  
> original meaning of those words has been  systematically distorted  
> over the past 50 years until their own  mothers wouldn't recognize them).
> Walt
> 
> On Dec 10, 2009, at 9:10 PM,  Jamsm at aol.com wrote:
> 
>> You state > "How high?  The earth has  seen ferns growing in  Antarctic
>> regions and sea levels much  higher than current levels.  We could   
>> be going  back
>> there.  That doesn't do much for our agricultural   base."
>>
>> Wow, just think of the possibilities with access to  millions of  
>> acres  of
>> fresh extremely rich soil  that has very long days of sunlight  
>> capable of
>> growing  food plants of sizes you have never seen before - available  
>> at  either
>> pole!   A fantastic source of food for the growing  population of   
>> the world.
>>  I would love to  buy up a few hundred acres of that land to  pass  
>> on to  my
>> descendents.
>>
>> The liberals are always spewing doom  and gloom - they are the  
>> masters of
>> fear  mongering!  Why not look at the better side of things instead of
>>  dwelling on what you 'think' is bad.  The earth has gone through   
>> many  cycles and
>> will continue to do so irregardless of  man's attempts to change  it.
>>
>> As for being safe from a  the effects of volcanoes - all we need is  
>> a super
>>  volcano to erupt and  you will  have more CO2 and other    
>> contaminants in
>> the atmosphere than you ever dreamt  of.   Hint:  Yellowstone is  
>> overdue and
>>  there are probably many super  volcanoes that we are unaware of.   
>> We could
>> also have a  significant impact from new  volcanos.  Sample: a  
>> 'sudden' ground
>> swelling has  developed in the area of the Three Sisters - that  
>> most   pay no
>> attention to.  I believe it is a fourth sister in the  early  
>> makings  and
>> will probably come into being  with a sudden awakening; of course  
>> USGS claims
>> there is  no immediate threat. (go read at     www.USGS.gov   for  
>> more
>> volcanic activity that is  looking  to go active at some future date.)
>>
>>  http://vulcan.wr.usgs.gov/Volcanoes/Sisters/WestUplift/ 
>>  ground_uplift_may2001
>> .html
>>
>>  http://vulcan.wr.usgs.gov/Volcanoes/Sisters/WestUplift/framework.html
>>
>>
>>  The Grouch. <an old nick name from H.S.>  :)
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> In a message dated 12/10/2009  3:14:45 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
>> jo.david at verizon.net  writes:
>>
>> There is  a very long discussion of the history  of the scientific  
>> side of
>> the CO2-global  warming  question  at
>>
>>  http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm
>>
>> It discusses  and  describes the various theories and tests that  
>> were  done
>> by those who found a  connection and those who doubt a  connection.
>>
>> My take on the history and  review is as  follows.  Over geologic time
>> frames the earth receives more   or less heat from the sun in a  
>> recognized cycle.
>> This  causes the global  temperature to rise or fall slightly.  As  the
>> temperature changes in  these cycles there is more or less  white  
>> ice to reflect
>> sunlight.  Light   reflected by the white ice preserved by colder  
>>  temperatures
>> feeds back to  create less heat absorption.   CO2 falls as there is  
>> less
>> plant life so  that is  a feed back to reduce temperature further.   
>> When  the
>> oceans and  soils freeze sufficiently the uptake of  atmospheric CO2  
>> drops to
>> almost  zero.  The  production of CO2 by volcanic activity remains  
>> roughly
>>  constant and it continues to add CO2 which starts to accumulate in the
>>  atmosphere.  As the CO2 rises an equilibrium is reached to stop   
>> further  cooling.
>> When the sun increases its heat output  the higher levels of CO2   
>> allow the
>> earth to  capture the additional heat and the white ice is melted   
>>  exposing
>> dark soil and ocean
>> .  The additional dark  absorbs more heat  and a feed back loop  
>> causes the
>>  earth to warm.
>>
>> This is the  geological cycle.  CO2  level follows temperature, and
>> mitigates the  effect of solar  changes.  The current problem with  
>> CO2 production  is
>> that  we have reversed the cause and effect.  Now CO2  level is driving
>> temperature changes.  We continue to get the  volcanic CO2, and we  
>> have  higher
>> CO2 from human  activity so we can expect the equilibrium locations  
>> to   shift
>> to a higher temperature band.
>>
>> How high?   The earth has seen  ferns growing in anartic regions and  
>>  sea
>> levels much higher than current  levels.  We could be  going back  
>> there.  That
>> doesn't do much for  our  agricultural base.
>>
>> David
>>
>> On Dec 8,  2009, at 7:27 AM, Gary  Duncan-Gates wrote:
>>
>>> We could  get into a tinkling contest, each of  us claiming that we   
>>> have
>> more and better scientists to back up our   claims.  And the truth  
>> is, we
>> still probably could  not convince one  another of anything.  The  
>>  opposing
>> viewpoints are out there; if you are  truly interested  and truly  
>> objective, you
>> will seek them.   ...
>>>
>>> And when they tell a story that blames our  prosperity for all of the
>> ills in the world, some people are  preprogrammed to believe it.
>>>
>>>  Gary
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> GroveNet mailing list
> GroveNet at rdrop.com
> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet
>

From waltw at teleport.com  Fri Dec 11 11:49:24 2009
From: waltw at teleport.com (Walt Wentz)
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 2009 11:49:24 -0800
Subject: [Grovenet] Seven Answers to Climate Contrarian
	Nonsense:Scientific American
In-Reply-To: <c25.6cd48fbc.3853b74c@aol.com>
References: <c25.6cd48fbc.3853b74c@aol.com>
Message-ID: <BE92B152-8CEA-4ACB-88F9-820E0050DAD8@teleport.com>


On Dec 11, 2009, at 6:55 AM, Jamsm at aol.com wrote:

>
> No 'little' problem at all!
> When that vegetation has decomposed what do you  have? SUPER RICH SOIL

  What you get when all that soil IS IN PROCESS of decomposing is a  
FLOOD of methane and CO2 that will drive the global temperature up  
far more than currently predicted!
> !
> Yup ? always have got to look at the bad side.  Really, I suggest  
> looking
> for the good in things for a change. Start asking  yourself what  
> good can
> come from this. And as far as the global-warming goes.  Yes it is  
> real! Did man
> cause it? NO! Can man change it ? probably not - he may  attempt  
> to, but in
> so doing will likely make things worse for man.

There is no "good side" or "bad side" to scientific facts. Scientists  
observe what is happening, and analyze the causes. Sometimes they can  
clarify the means by which humans can change the outcome of observed  
processes. But "seeing the good side" won't change  those processes,  
if you just keep burning fossil fuels, stripping forests and out- 
breeding the carrying capacity of the planet. If we ignore the  
science and just play the Pollyanna game, we'll end up a bunch of  
parboiled Pollyannas.
>
> I can see a future where we get power for heat,  transportation,  
> etc. and
> the electronic type devices of today are from/performed  by devices  
> which
> consumes water and CO2 or consumes Carbon rich material (coal?)   
> and Oxygen. We
> might be able to create a completely balanced system that  performs  
> our
> desired tasks. When this occurs we better have a significantly   
> improved
> understanding of weather and nature over what we do now! {I am  
> sorry -  I digress
> - suspect many of you have no idea what technology I just alluded   
> to.}

Well, yeah, that would be very nice. Energy cells, which convert any  
hydrocarbon gas into electricity, have been demonstrated... but they  
are labor-intensive, require very pure feedstocks and expensive  
components. Solar power could turn desert regions into power  
plants... but you'd need national distribution and power storage  
systems much larger and better than we have now. Ocean power could  
energize our coasts... but you'd need literally hundreds of thousands  
of power buoys in prime ocean locations, and as the sea level rises  
you'd have to scramble to keep moving the systems. Of course, some  
English guy is postulating that we can draw "Energy from the Void,"   
although so far, no convincing demonstration has been presented. This  
seems, therefore, to be an argument from inertia-- "don't bother  
trying to save ourselves, because Something Will Always Come Along  
Right in the Nick of Time."
Just try to have a discussion on overpopulation with a devout  
Catholic sometime.

>
> Educated 'smart' president? (lower case p was  intentional)
> Huh? Show me the proof! Being charismatic and  being a good public  
> speaker
> does not make one smart. He is more like a puppet  that is big bag  
> of hot
> air that is full of "it."

Now, there's an example of rigorous scientific analysis for you!  
(this is sarcasm, by the way). How can parroting the hate-filled  
rhetoric of the far right advance any discussion?
You think you can point out any far-right contender to equal his  
academic record? Imagine you could find a Constitutional scholar in  
the ranks of fanatics, opportunists and time-servers? Assemble a  
winning political team that could defeat an entrenched big-money  
interests that have ruled a nation for decades? If so, fly right to  
it. I kinda doubt that Rush Limbaugh will fill the bill, however.   
Sarah Palin, maybe? Whew! The mind boggles.

> He is as corrupt as you can get (as are many of  the politicians  
> that are
> in office today - and the past.) Check your 'facts'  [look beyond  
> the liberal
> news and that "guy's" excuse web site] - that man was  involved with
> helping create the financial problems we have today. Then he put   
> the very people
> he was assisting in charge of the 'hen' house. How many more   
> trillions will
> he and his cronies spend before he gets removed from office. I   
> prey to God
> that the U.S. survives the madness that has taken over Washington   
> D.C. as
> a democracy that will uphold God's will and will learn from the  
> errors  of
> the current administration's direction.

Eh? there's an interesting spin... I rather thought the trillions  
started going down the rat hole in the previous administration... the  
spiraling debts for the boondoggle war in Iraq, the bank payoffs, the  
sweetheart deals to corrupt contractors, the government meddling with  
science. The bit about "God's will" is a tip-off, however. Which God  
are you referring to? And what exactly is his will? That blacks  
should stay in their place, that yell-radio hosts should dictate  
national policy and that if any country defies American corporations,  
we should "invade them, kill their leaders and convert them to  
Christianity?" Or the God of a certain famous Secretary of Interior  
who asserted that it doesn't matter if we destroy the environment  
that sustains us, because "Jesus is coming back soon anyway?"
>
> Think about this: "It Takes one to know one." The  doom-n-gloom  
> liberals
> have repeatedly been the leader in the name calling of the   
> conservatives. Per
> just this board I have repeatedly read where: if you are   
> conservative or
> Republican then you are assumed under-educated or unintelligent,   
> etc.; if
> you are progressive, Democrat, etc. then you are assumed smart.  
> Check  the
> various postings on the bulletin-boards scattered around the web;  
> you will
> find most of the name calling is performed by the liberals.

Truly? note your gracious little display above... did that come out  
of a vacuum? All the components are well-used and wearyingly  
familiar. You see them repeated and re-repeated until they become  
articles of faith, with no more discussion or debate allowed than for  
declaring that the Devil is a villain.

> The overwhelming
> number of the racist remarks are performed by the liberal leaning  
> postings.

Racist? As in saying racism is stupid, or that particular races are  
stupid?

> Also, the liberal/progressive postings are more likely to have more
> misspelled  words with poor grammar than any others! By the way,  
> just to let you
> know ?  having a degree does not imply that you are 'smart'; it  
> only means that
> you  successfully completed a set of courses and have been exposed to
> certain  material ? albeit the material may be in error. I have met  
> many
> 'educated'  people with degrees (some with multiple) whom have ZERO  
> common sense and
> don't  understand how 'something' can work a given way because it
> 'violates' what they  were taught. I have heard this (or similar)  
> many times, ?How
> did you do that?  That isn't possible to do!? But, there they are  
> staring at
> the functional  result.

Oddly, I have noticed exactly the opposite phenomenon... which would  
seem to buttress my contention that the poor old abused words  
"Liberal" and "Conservative" have become so confused and ambiguous in  
meaning that they ought to be retired, and replaced with terms more  
precise, honest and adapted to rational debate.
WW
>
> ?The Grouch?
> In a message dated 12/11/2009 1:32:10  A.M. Eastern Standard Time,
> waltw at teleport.com writes:
>
> Ahem...  There's just one LEETLE problem with all those millions of
> acres of  "fertile" land in the extreme northern latitudes: It is
> mostly  permafrost. Which is currently melting. Which contains
> uncounted  centuries' worth of frozen plant material. Think gigantic
> peat bogs  in a continent-sized Kelvinator, with the plug pulled out.
> So, what  happens to that much frozen plant material when it finally
> thaws  out? It rots, and releases methane and CO2 in amounts that
> would  make the mere three centuries of the Industrial Revolution look
> like  a cow's burp.
> You think your descendants would be in any position to  cultivate that
> land after it turns tropical? Lotsa luck!
> I don't  think "Liberals" are so much addicted to "gloom and doom" as
> they  are to able to see the problems that are staring everybody in
> the  face, and to demand answers and action on those obvious problems.
> If  you want "gloom and doom," just listen to "Conservatives" when an
> intelligent black man is elected President of the United States, and
> begins drawing the public's attention to obvious challenges... among
> them, global climate change.
> (Note, I put "Liberal" and "Conservative"  in quotes because the
> original meaning of those words has been  systematically distorted
> over the past 50 years until their own  mothers wouldn't recognize  
> them).
> Walt
>
> On Dec 10, 2009, at 9:10 PM,  Jamsm at aol.com wrote:
>
>> You state > "How high?  The earth has  seen ferns growing in   
>> Antarctic
>> regions and sea levels much  higher than current levels.  We could
>> be going  back
>> there.  That doesn't do much for our agricultural   base."
>>
>> Wow, just think of the possibilities with access to  millions of
>> acres  of
>> fresh extremely rich soil  that has very long days of sunlight
>> capable of
>> growing  food plants of sizes you have never seen before - available
>> at  either
>> pole!   A fantastic source of food for the growing  population of
>> the world.
>>  I would love to  buy up a few hundred acres of that land to  pass
>> on to  my
>> descendents.
>>
>> The liberals are always spewing doom  and gloom - they are the
>> masters of
>> fear  mongering!  Why not look at the better side of things  
>> instead of
>>  dwelling on what you 'think' is bad.  The earth has gone through
>> many  cycles and
>> will continue to do so irregardless of  man's attempts to change  it.
>>
>> As for being safe from a  the effects of volcanoes - all we need is
>> a super
>>  volcano to erupt and  you will  have more CO2 and other
>> contaminants in
>> the atmosphere than you ever dreamt  of.   Hint:  Yellowstone is
>> overdue and
>>  there are probably many super  volcanoes that we are unaware of.
>> We could
>> also have a  significant impact from new  volcanos.  Sample: a
>> 'sudden' ground
>> swelling has  developed in the area of the Three Sisters - that
>> most   pay no
>> attention to.  I believe it is a fourth sister in the  early
>> makings  and
>> will probably come into being  with a sudden awakening; of course
>> USGS claims
>> there is  no immediate threat. (go read at     www.USGS.gov   for
>> more
>> volcanic activity that is  looking  to go active at some future  
>> date.)
>>
>>  http://vulcan.wr.usgs.gov/Volcanoes/Sisters/WestUplift/
>>  ground_uplift_may2001
>> .html
>>
>>  http://vulcan.wr.usgs.gov/Volcanoes/Sisters/WestUplift/ 
>> framework.html
>>
>>
>>  The Grouch. <an old nick name from H.S.>  :)
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> In a message dated 12/10/2009  3:14:45 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
>> jo.david at verizon.net  writes:
>>
>> There is  a very long discussion of the history  of the scientific
>> side of
>> the CO2-global  warming  question  at
>>
>>  http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm
>>
>> It discusses  and  describes the various theories and tests that
>> were  done
>> by those who found a  connection and those who doubt a  connection.
>>
>> My take on the history and  review is as  follows.  Over geologic  
>> time
>> frames the earth receives more   or less heat from the sun in a
>> recognized cycle.
>> This  causes the global  temperature to rise or fall slightly.   
>> As  the
>> temperature changes in  these cycles there is more or less  white
>> ice to reflect
>> sunlight.  Light   reflected by the white ice preserved by colder
>>  temperatures
>> feeds back to  create less heat absorption.   CO2 falls as there is
>> less
>> plant life so  that is  a feed back to reduce temperature further.
>> When  the
>> oceans and  soils freeze sufficiently the uptake of  atmospheric CO2
>> drops to
>> almost  zero.  The  production of CO2 by volcanic activity remains
>> roughly
>>  constant and it continues to add CO2 which starts to accumulate  
>> in the
>>  atmosphere.  As the CO2 rises an equilibrium is reached to stop
>> further  cooling.
>> When the sun increases its heat output  the higher levels of CO2
>> allow the
>> earth to  capture the additional heat and the white ice is melted
>>  exposing
>> dark soil and ocean
>> .  The additional dark  absorbs more heat  and a feed back loop
>> causes the
>>  earth to warm.
>>
>> This is the  geological cycle.  CO2  level follows temperature, and
>> mitigates the  effect of solar  changes.  The current problem with
>> CO2 production  is
>> that  we have reversed the cause and effect.  Now CO2  level is  
>> driving
>> temperature changes.  We continue to get the  volcanic CO2, and we
>> have  higher
>> CO2 from human  activity so we can expect the equilibrium locations
>> to   shift
>> to a higher temperature band.
>>
>> How high?   The earth has seen  ferns growing in anartic regions and
>>  sea
>> levels much higher than current  levels.  We could be  going back
>> there.  That
>> doesn't do much for  our  agricultural base.
>>
>> David
>>
>> On Dec 8,  2009, at 7:27 AM, Gary  Duncan-Gates wrote:
>>
>>> We could  get into a tinkling contest, each of  us claiming that we
>>> have
>> more and better scientists to back up our   claims.  And the truth
>> is, we
>> still probably could  not convince one  another of anything.  The
>>  opposing
>> viewpoints are out there; if you are  truly interested  and truly
>> objective, you
>> will seek them.   ...
>>>
>>> And when they tell a story that blames our  prosperity for all of  
>>> the
>> ills in the world, some people are  preprogrammed to believe it.
>>>
>>>  Gary
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> GroveNet mailing list
> GroveNet at rdrop.com
> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet



From waltw at teleport.com  Fri Dec 11 11:55:34 2009
From: waltw at teleport.com (Walt Wentz)
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 2009 11:55:34 -0800
Subject: [Grovenet] Seven Answers to Climate Contrarian
	Nonsense:Scientific American
In-Reply-To: <987918.12535.qm@web46315.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
References: <460820.74787.qm@web56108.mail.re3.yahoo.com>
	<816620.74623.qm@web46313.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
	<ED2B6900-758E-404A-8349-FBBBA8C9725B@teleport.com>
	<987918.12535.qm@web46315.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <60D6B57F-5D47-43C8-82D5-FB04D1B70891@teleport.com>

Um... Did Gary Hart actually generate any of the science he cites?  
No, he merely opened his eyes and ears to what the scientists were  
saying, and went out on a limb to insist that they knew what they  
were talking about. How many other people would have had the nerve,  
the resources, or the persistence, to travel the world to popularize  
facts so unpalatable to the big-money, big-energy industries who want  
to just keep raking in the cash while humanity cooks in its own juices?

> Well, it didn't seem very plausible to me that a former vice  
> president, Democrat, at that, with no formal training in science,  
> would be able to exploit his fame and position and good will  
> afforded him after the 2000 election debacle, to scare the bejeezus  
> out of the world with his environmental apocalypse theories (hang  
> on, here is the significant part) to propel his own earnings into  
> the stratosphere.  But it happened.
>
> Gary
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Walt Wentz <waltw at teleport.com>
> To: Forest Grove local interests list <grovenet at rdrop.com>
> Sent: Tue, December 8, 2009 10:13:30 AM
> Subject: Re: [Grovenet] Seven Answers to Climate Contrarian  
> Nonsense:Scientific American
>
> Tell me,
> which scenario seems more plausible? That a huge, worldwide community
> of climate scientists are engaged in a vast conspiracy? Or that a few
> very wealthy  industries are determined, at whatever cost, to protect
> their profits by nitpicking, sidetracking, stalling and ridiculing
> any serious consideration of the problem?
>
> And conversely, many are preprogrammed to automatically reject it,
> because it threatens their prosperity... and their personal comfort,
> profits, faith or mental inertia.
> Walt
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ________________________________
>> From: Holly T. <feralcattamer at yahoo.com>
>> To: Forest Grove local interests list <grovenet at rdrop.com>
>> Sent: Sun, December 6, 2009 11:01:28 PM
>> Subject: Re: [Grovenet] Seven Answers to Climate Contrarian
>> Nonsense:Scientific American
>>
>> So...uh Gary...would you say that our revered scientists at
>> NASA...those same folks who have been sending us photos from outer
>> space that show, in living color, the rapid recession of our polar
>> ice caps...would you consider them to be "unscientific and
>> delusional"?
>>
>> Please go to http://climate.nasa.gov/ and click the Climate Time
>> Machine link near the right side of NASA's Eyes on the Earth page.
>> You can then select between four categories:  Sea Ice, Sea Level,
>> Co2 Emissions, and Average Global Temperature. Sliders are provided
>> near the bottom of each resulting screen. By running each slider
>> across the page, you'll be able to see how our planet has been
>> changed over the years by global warming. And guess what! Things
>> are looking significantly worse in all four categories as you move
>> the sliders to the right.
>>
>> Unless, of course, you don't believe what our country's best-and-
>> brightest aerospace scientists are telling us. Unless you think
>> that NASA is part of this huge, diabolical scandal called "Climate
>> Gate".
>>
>> If you have better sources than NASA to support your belief that
>> global warming is a hoax, please share them.
>>
>> Holly
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ________________________________
>> From: Walt Wentz <waltw at teleport.com>
>> To: Forest Grove local interests list <grovenet at rdrop.com>
>> Sent: Sun, December 6, 2009 5:38:53 PM
>> Subject: Re: [Grovenet] Seven Answers to Climate Contrarian
>> Nonsense:Scientific American
>>
>> Eh? Define "delusional" when ice caps are melting, sea levels are
>> rising, deserts are expanding and species are disappearing at a
>> faster rate than at any time in geologic history. Or do anti-
>> environmentalists not believe in geology either?
>> Walt
>>
>> On Dec 6, 2009, at 1:25 PM, Gary Duncan-Gates wrote:
>>
>>> Problem is, Environmentalism is as much a religion to its adherents
>>> as the traditional religions are to the folks you speak of.  They
>>> are just as zealous, just as dangerous, and just as delusional.
>>>
>>> Gary
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ________________________________
>>> From: Holly T. <feralcattamer at yahoo.com>
>>> To: Forest Grove local interests list <grovenet at rdrop.com>
>>> Sent: Wed, December 2, 2009 1:48:09 PM
>>> Subject: Re: [Grovenet] Seven Answers to Climate Contrarian
>>> Nonsense:Scientific American
>>>
>>> Even at their most horrific, wars and famines never wiped out even
>>> 1/4 of the world's population. But, I agree:  Population control is
>>> one of those hot topics that American politicians never want to
>>> touch, but it's really the only long-term, viable answer for
>>> reversing global warming. But, as long as you have people thinking
>>> that it's their god-given right to "go forth and multiply" and
>>> "have dominion over the earth," nothing will change until war,
>>> pestilence, and environmental toxins do their part to take us out.
>>> The frog will continue to sit in the beaker of slowly boiling water
>>> until such time that it overtakes him.
>>>
>>> Radical environmentalist, Derrick Jensen, advocates "taking down
>>> civilization" to reverse the problem of global warming because he
>>> wisely believes that humankind will not willingly take the steps
>>> necessary to reverse the problem. You know, doing little civilly
>>> disobedient things such as blowing up hydroelectric dams, etc. But,
>>> I think even taking out all the hydroelectric dams in the world
>>> would not do nearly enough to reverse the problem. It would take
>>> much more than that to motivate humankind to live sustainably.
>>>
>>> Also, most of the world's great religions are patriarchical in
>>> nature and are, as a result, way too far removed from the Earth-
>>> honoring teachings of indigenous people who lived sustainably
>>> according to the teachings of goddess-based teachings. These
>>> indigenous people were taught the immorality of taking too much
>>> from the Earth and not giving back. They lived sustainably whereas
>>> we do not because our moral teachings have taught us that it's okay
>>> to pillage the planet and take whatever we want. It's these very
>>> patriarchal teachings that give people cause to think it's okay to
>>> have big families today. So, how can you expect nations that base
>>> their entire moral philosophies on patriarchical-take-what-you-want
>>> teachings to even consider living sustainably? They have god on
>>> their side; so why should they even consider limiting the number of
>>> children they have?
>>>
>>> I think that besides limiting population, a radical change in moral
>>> teachings needs to take place. Otherwise, how will humankind (and
>>> thousands of other animals and plant species) stand a chance? How
>>> can a change in moral teachings take place? I don't have any
>>> answers for that one. Breaking through the power structures of the
>>> world's patriarchal religions would be harder than threading a
>>> camel through the eye of a needle at this point in history.
>>>
>>> Holly
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ________________________________
>>> From: Jeff Cooper <jbcoops at yahoo.com>
>>> To: Ed Davie <edavie at verizon.net>; Forest Grove local interests
>>> list <grovenet at rdrop.com>
>>> Sent: Wed, December 2, 2009 1:20:29 PM
>>> Subject: Re: [Grovenet] Seven Answers to Climate Contrarian
>>> Nonsense:Scientific American
>>>
>>> Climate isn't the biggest issue... population is.  In the good old
>>> days we could just have a war or famine or pestilence or plague to
>>> wipe out 1/4 to 1/2 of the world's population... not considered
>>> politically viable options anymore.  Trouble is Earth will have
>>> close to 10 billion people by 2050.  My recommendation is global
>>> enforced celibacy or homosexuality and an accelerated condos on the
>>> moon program.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> GroveNet mailing list
>>> GroveNet at rdrop.com
>>> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> GroveNet mailing list
>>> GroveNet at rdrop.com
>>> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> GroveNet mailing list
>>> GroveNet at rdrop.com
>>> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> GroveNet mailing list
>> GroveNet at rdrop.com
>> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> GroveNet mailing list
>> GroveNet at rdrop.com
>> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> GroveNet mailing list
>> GroveNet at rdrop.com
>> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet
>
> _______________________________________________
> GroveNet mailing list
> GroveNet at rdrop.com
> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> GroveNet mailing list
> GroveNet at rdrop.com
> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet


From rab at jurislex.com  Fri Dec 11 12:14:04 2009
From: rab at jurislex.com (Bob Browning)
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 2009 12:14:04 -0800
Subject: [Grovenet] Seven Answers to Climate
 Contrarian	Nonsense:Scientific American
In-Reply-To: <348128.75162.qm@web46316.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
References: <962847.30477.qm@web55005.mail.re4.yahoo.com>	<10044.64862.qm@web56102.mail.re3.yahoo.com>	<377343.75641.qm@web46301.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>	<4B1D3D96.4000508@jurislex.com>	<44280.37340.qm@web46303.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>	<74710968-AF5F-4437-9852-84F0424F11ED@teleport.com>
	<348128.75162.qm@web46316.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <4B22A80C.50505@jurislex.com>

An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/attachments/20091211/13d437df/attachment.html 

From waltw at teleport.com  Fri Dec 11 12:15:55 2009
From: waltw at teleport.com (Walt Wentz)
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 2009 12:15:55 -0800
Subject: [Grovenet] Seven Answers to Climate Contrarian
	Nonsense:Scientific American
In-Reply-To: <348128.75162.qm@web46316.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
References: <962847.30477.qm@web55005.mail.re4.yahoo.com>
	<10044.64862.qm@web56102.mail.re3.yahoo.com>
	<377343.75641.qm@web46301.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
	<4B1D3D96.4000508@jurislex.com>
	<44280.37340.qm@web46303.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
	<74710968-AF5F-4437-9852-84F0424F11ED@teleport.com>
	<348128.75162.qm@web46316.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <703960A2-1B6A-4F34-AFF0-EC59E2213A19@teleport.com>

Fine, then, let's bypass the tired old dichotomy of "Liberal/ 
Conservative" and get down to cases. Does a problem in fact exist? If  
so, what can be done about it? Does one have to be a trained  
scientist in every field related to the problem to even be allowed to  
discuss it? If we can discuss it, then shouldn't the sources of the  
facts we cite be recognized authorities in the appropriate fields? If  
scientists themselves can sometimes descend to ridiculing or name- 
calling (cf. the pumped-up furore over "Climategate,") shouldn't we  
all adhere to to the rigorous demands of the scientific method,  
rather than nitpicking, cherry-picking the evidence and playing  
debating games? I went to the University of Oregon during the Silly  
Sixties, and so got a firsthand view of every variety of Word Games  
disguised as political debate. It was frustrating, tiresome and  
eventually petered out to both sides yelling defiance from the  
unassailable ramparts of their own Absolute Truth About Everything.  
The truly inquiring mind was left with the sour suspicion that honest  
debate was being deliberately sidetracked by those afraid to think--  
or to let others think.

On Dec 11, 2009, at 7:15 AM, Gary Duncan-Gates wrote:

> I would like to point out that Mr. Browning took this conversation  
> down that path by asking if I considered him a zealot, in effect,  
> citing himself as a Straw Man.  I cited the ELF as an example of  
> environmentalist zealots, and gave him an opportunity to distance  
> himself from them, and maybe explain his position.  Instead, he and  
> Mr. Wentz would rather avoid the real issue and attack me.
>
> While I understand that it is easier for you to hate your opponents  
> if you paint them as one-dimensional caricatures, and maybe you get  
> to share a smug chuckle with some of your "teammates", I believe  
> that most people are more complex than that.
>
> Until we can get past all the ideological posturing, and start  
> understanding one another on the person level, our capacity for  
> overcoming all challenges is greatly hindered.
>
> Gary
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Walt Wentz <waltw at teleport.com>
> To: Forest Grove local interests list <grovenet at rdrop.com>
> Sent: Tue, December 8, 2009 10:17:28 AM
> Subject: Re: [Grovenet] Seven Answers to Climate Contrarian  
> Nonsense:Scientific American
>
> Political Debate 101, Chapter 2, "Guilt by Association, and Other
> Handy Non-Sequiturs."
>
> On Dec 8, 2009, at 7:30 AM, Gary Duncan-Gates wrote:
>
>> I don't know, Bob.  Have you blown up a log truck to try to halt
>> deforestation?  I recycle, too.  I would like to think there is
>> some middle ground between those two actions.  Do you differentiate
>> between yourself and the ELF?
>>
>> Gary
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ________________________________
>> From: Bob Browning <rab at jurislex.com>
>> To: Forest Grove local interests list <grovenet at rdrop.com>
>> Sent: Mon, December 7, 2009 9:38:30 AM
>> Subject: Re: [Grovenet] Seven Answers to Climate Contrarian
>> Nonsense:Scientific American
>>
>>  Talk about cynical. I guess because I recycle and am
>> pretty adamant about it given the limited land area for land  
>> fills, so
>> that makes me a delusional zealot? Great!! And more power to all of
>> you
>> who share my concerns!!
>>
>> bob "put your can over here, please" browning
>> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>> Gary Duncan-Gates wrote:
>> Problem is, Environmentalism is as much a religion to its adherents
>> as the traditional religions are to the folks you speak of.  They
>> are just as zealous, just as dangerous, and just as delusional.
>>>
>>> Gary
>>>
>>> ________________________________
>>> From: Holly T. <feralcattamer at yahoo.com>
>>> To: Forest Grove local interests list <grovenet at rdrop.com>
>>> Sent: Wed, December 2, 2009 1:48:09 PM
>>> Subject: Re: [Grovenet] Seven Answers to Climate Contrarian
>>> Nonsense:Scientific American
>>>
>>> Even at their most horrific, wars and famines never wiped out even
>>> 1/4 of the world's population. But, I agree:  Population control
>>> is one of those hot topics that American politicians never want to
>>> touch, but it's really the only long-term, viable answer for
>>> reversing global warming. But, as long as you have people thinking
>>> that it's their god-given right to "go forth and multiply" and
>>> "have dominion over the earth," nothing will change until war,
>>> pestilence, and environmental toxins do their part to take us out.
>>> The frog will continue to sit in the beaker of slowly boiling
>>> water until such time that it overtakes him.
>>>
>>> <snip>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> GroveNet mailing list
>> GroveNet at rdrop.com
>> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet
>
> _______________________________________________
> GroveNet mailing list
> GroveNet at rdrop.com
> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> GroveNet mailing list
> GroveNet at rdrop.com
> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet


From waltw at teleport.com  Fri Dec 11 12:22:56 2009
From: waltw at teleport.com (Walt Wentz)
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 2009 12:22:56 -0800
Subject: [Grovenet] Seven Answers to Climate Contrarian
	Nonsense:Scientific American
In-Reply-To: <811659.41991.qm@web46308.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
References: <d1e.51a6a997.38532e29@aol.com>
	<F40DF3FF-9EBB-4509-B00D-25339D993438@teleport.com>
	<811659.41991.qm@web46308.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <3EA3313B-CA5C-4B4D-8320-68A7D17B69D4@teleport.com>

My question exactly! Why the hysterical, visceral hatred of the  
President intruding into every discussion of national policy? His  
policies aren't really all that different from those of his  
predecessors in office... Socialism isn't really about to kill your  
Grandma...  real-life authorities aren't replacing the place-holders  
in many important offices... so why this frantic right-wing outburst  
at every mention of his name? Could it be... could it possibly be...  
RACISM? (insert the vocalization of "The Church Lady," from the old  
Saturday Night Live).

On Dec 11, 2009, at 7:17 AM, Gary Duncan-Gates wrote:

> Mr. Wentz -
>
> What on Earth does the president's race have to do with this  
> discussion?
>
> Gary
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Walt Wentz <waltw at teleport.com>
> To: Forest Grove local interests list <grovenet at rdrop.com>
> Sent: Thu, December 10, 2009 10:31:40 PM
> Subject: Re: [Grovenet] Seven Answers to Climate Contrarian  
> Nonsense:Scientific American
>
>
> I don't think "Liberals" are so much addicted to "gloom and doom" as
> they are to able to see the problems that are staring everybody in
> the face, and to demand answers and action on those obvious problems.
> If you want "gloom and doom," just listen to "Conservatives" when an
> intelligent black man is elected President of the United States, and
> begins drawing the public's attention to obvious challenges... among
> them, global climate change.
> (Note, I put "Liberal" and "Conservative" in quotes because the
> original meaning of those words has been systematically distorted
> over the past 50 years until their own mothers wouldn't recognize  
> them).
> Walt
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> GroveNet mailing list
> GroveNet at rdrop.com
> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet


From feralcattamer at yahoo.com  Fri Dec 11 13:43:08 2009
From: feralcattamer at yahoo.com (Holly T.)
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 2009 13:43:08 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [Grovenet] Seven Answers to Climate Contrarian
	Nonsense:Scientific American
In-Reply-To: <3EA3313B-CA5C-4B4D-8320-68A7D17B69D4@teleport.com>
References: <d1e.51a6a997.38532e29@aol.com>
	<F40DF3FF-9EBB-4509-B00D-25339D993438@teleport.com>
	<811659.41991.qm@web46308.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
	<3EA3313B-CA5C-4B4D-8320-68A7D17B69D4@teleport.com>
Message-ID: <256162.8556.qm@web56107.mail.re3.yahoo.com>

Here, here, Walt!

Actually, I voted and campaigned door-to-door and on telephone banks for Obama. My political viewpoints probably fall even to the left of Michael Moore. But, I'm very angry with our president.

I'm angry that he hasn't pulled us out of our insane and illegal wars in Iraq and Afghanistan like I'd hoped he would, and he now wants to add $3 trillion to escalate the war in Afghanistan, killing more people on both sides, and shoving our country even further toward financial ruin. He, has placed far greater emphasis on health care reform than on getting America back to work (I can live without healthcare reform (probably if I stay healthy), but I cannot survive indefinitely without work. Getting America back to work seems like a hugely more important priority to me. Put Americans back to work and THEN reform healthcare once our economy is thriving again, okay?! The Obama Administration seems to JUST NOW be talking about doing something about jobs creation after nearly a year of skirting the issue. Most of the new measures that Obama seems to want to put into place for jobs creation don't seem that different to me from what's already being done. It
 all seems like just lip service to me. I want to see much more aggressive measures taken. I want to see results. Granted, Obama inherited this Judas of an economy from the Dems, but I'd like to see his administration do a far better job than they have toward putting FIVE MILLION Americas back to work. I think it's inexcusable that jobs creation hasn't been Obama's number one priority since the moment he took office.

When I mention my concerns to my fellow Dems, they just look at me with eyes opened wide like I've left the fold and tell me to, "Give him time." But, I do not make excuses for Obama like they do. I worked hard to get him elected and I expect the CHANGE that he promised. And, the sooner the better.

So, not all of us Dems are blindly supporting President Obama. Some of us are actually very angry with him -- even if it's for different reasons than those shared by many Republicans. But, in my case, my anger towards him most certainly has nothing to do with the color of his skin. I think it's positively awesome that our country finally has a president of Afro-American descent. It's about time. 

Holly




________________________________
From: Walt Wentz <waltw at teleport.com>
To: Forest Grove local interests list <grovenet at rdrop.com>
Sent: Fri, December 11, 2009 12:22:56 PM
Subject: Re: [Grovenet] Seven Answers to Climate Contrarian Nonsense:Scientific American

My question exactly! Why the hysterical, visceral hatred of the  
President intruding into every discussion of national policy? His  
policies aren't really all that different from those of his  
predecessors in office... Socialism isn't really about to kill your  
Grandma...  real-life authorities aren't replacing the place-holders  
in many important offices... so why this frantic right-wing outburst  
at every mention of his name? Could it be... could it possibly be...  
RACISM? (insert the vocalization of "The Church Lady," from the old  
Saturday Night Live).

On Dec 11, 2009, at 7:17 AM, Gary Duncan-Gates wrote:

> Mr. Wentz -
>
> What on Earth does the president's race have to do with this  
> discussion?
>
> Gary
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Walt Wentz <waltw at teleport.com>
> To: Forest Grove local interests list <grovenet at rdrop.com>
> Sent: Thu, December 10, 2009 10:31:40 PM
> Subject: Re: [Grovenet] Seven Answers to Climate Contrarian  
> Nonsense:Scientific American
>
>
> I don't think "Liberals" are so much addicted to "gloom and doom" as
> they are to able to see the problems that are staring everybody in
> the face, and to demand answers and action on those obvious problems.
> If you want "gloom and doom," just listen to "Conservatives" when an
> intelligent black man is elected President of the United States, and
> begins drawing the public's attention to obvious challenges... among
> them, global climate change.
> (Note, I put "Liberal" and "Conservative" in quotes because the
> original meaning of those words has been systematically distorted
> over the past 50 years until their own mothers wouldn't recognize  
> them).
> Walt
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> GroveNet mailing list
> GroveNet at rdrop.com
> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet

_______________________________________________
GroveNet mailing list
GroveNet at rdrop.com
http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet



      

From jschrag at fgnewstimes.com  Fri Dec 11 14:13:13 2009
From: jschrag at fgnewstimes.com (jschrag at fgnewstimes.com)
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 2009 14:13:13 -0800
Subject: [Grovenet] Seven Answers to Climate
	Contrarian	Nonsense:Scientific American
In-Reply-To: <256162.8556.qm@web56107.mail.re3.yahoo.com>
References: <d1e.51a6a997.38532e29@aol.com>
	<F40DF3FF-9EBB-4509-B00D-25339D993438@teleport.com>
	<811659.41991.qm@web46308.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
	<3EA3313B-CA5C-4B4D-8320-68A7D17B69D4@teleport.com>
	<256162.8556.qm@web56107.mail.re3.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <B6FAD9BDBBF5244BBDD2924075EECBCA412C1EAA@PMG-EXCHANGE.pmg.pamplincom.com>

I'm going to stay out of this fracas, but will plug Russ Dondero's column in this week's paper, which I found to be very thoughtful (unlike some of the recent posts on this forum).  I don't agree with everything Russ says here, but I do appreciate his ability to make his points without insinuating that those who don't share them are idiots.

http://www.forestgrovenewstimes.com/opinion/story.php?story_id=126047932997409200


John Schrag
Editor & Publisher 
News-Times
Forest Grove, Oregon
503-357-3181
?
Voted the "best small newspaper in Oregon" 2006, 2007, 2008
?
?
?
?
?


-----Original Message-----
From: grovenet-bounces at rdrop.com [mailto:grovenet-bounces at rdrop.com] On Behalf Of Holly T.
Sent: Friday, December 11, 2009 1:43 PM
To: Forest Grove local interests list
Subject: Re: [Grovenet] Seven Answers to Climate Contrarian Nonsense:Scientific American

Here, here, Walt!

Actually, I voted and campaigned door-to-door and on telephone banks for Obama. My political viewpoints probably fall even to the left of Michael Moore. But, I'm very angry with our president.

I'm angry that he hasn't pulled us out of our insane and illegal wars in Iraq and Afghanistan like I'd hoped he would, and he now wants to add $3 trillion to escalate the war in Afghanistan, killing more people on both sides, and shoving our country even further toward financial ruin. He, has placed far greater emphasis on health care reform than on getting America back to work (I can live without healthcare reform (probably if I stay healthy), but I cannot survive indefinitely without work. Getting America back to work seems like a hugely more important priority to me. Put Americans back to work and THEN reform healthcare once our economy is thriving again, okay?! The Obama Administration seems to JUST NOW be talking about doing something about jobs creation after nearly a year of skirting the issue. Most of the new measures that Obama seems to want to put into place for jobs creation don't seem that different to me from what's already being done. It
 all seems like just lip service to me. I want to see much more aggressive measures taken. I want to see results. Granted, Obama inherited this Judas of an economy from the Dems, but I'd like to see his administration do a far better job than they have toward putting FIVE MILLION Americas back to work. I think it's inexcusable that jobs creation hasn't been Obama's number one priority since the moment he took office.

When I mention my concerns to my fellow Dems, they just look at me with eyes opened wide like I've left the fold and tell me to, "Give him time." But, I do not make excuses for Obama like they do. I worked hard to get him elected and I expect the CHANGE that he promised. And, the sooner the better.

So, not all of us Dems are blindly supporting President Obama. Some of us are actually very angry with him -- even if it's for different reasons than those shared by many Republicans. But, in my case, my anger towards him most certainly has nothing to do with the color of his skin. I think it's positively awesome that our country finally has a president of Afro-American descent. It's about time. 

Holly




________________________________
From: Walt Wentz <waltw at teleport.com>
To: Forest Grove local interests list <grovenet at rdrop.com>
Sent: Fri, December 11, 2009 12:22:56 PM
Subject: Re: [Grovenet] Seven Answers to Climate Contrarian Nonsense:Scientific American

My question exactly! Why the hysterical, visceral hatred of the  
President intruding into every discussion of national policy? His  
policies aren't really all that different from those of his  
predecessors in office... Socialism isn't really about to kill your  
Grandma...  real-life authorities aren't replacing the place-holders  
in many important offices... so why this frantic right-wing outburst  
at every mention of his name? Could it be... could it possibly be...  
RACISM? (insert the vocalization of "The Church Lady," from the old  
Saturday Night Live).

On Dec 11, 2009, at 7:17 AM, Gary Duncan-Gates wrote:

> Mr. Wentz -
>
> What on Earth does the president's race have to do with this  
> discussion?
>
> Gary
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Walt Wentz <waltw at teleport.com>
> To: Forest Grove local interests list <grovenet at rdrop.com>
> Sent: Thu, December 10, 2009 10:31:40 PM
> Subject: Re: [Grovenet] Seven Answers to Climate Contrarian  
> Nonsense:Scientific American
>
>
> I don't think "Liberals" are so much addicted to "gloom and doom" as
> they are to able to see the problems that are staring everybody in
> the face, and to demand answers and action on those obvious problems.
> If you want "gloom and doom," just listen to "Conservatives" when an
> intelligent black man is elected President of the United States, and
> begins drawing the public's attention to obvious challenges... among
> them, global climate change.
> (Note, I put "Liberal" and "Conservative" in quotes because the
> original meaning of those words has been systematically distorted
> over the past 50 years until their own mothers wouldn't recognize  
> them).
> Walt
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> GroveNet mailing list
> GroveNet at rdrop.com
> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet

_______________________________________________
GroveNet mailing list
GroveNet at rdrop.com
http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet



      
_______________________________________________
GroveNet mailing list
GroveNet at rdrop.com
http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet


From waltw at teleport.com  Fri Dec 11 14:22:56 2009
From: waltw at teleport.com (Walt Wentz)
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 2009 14:22:56 -0800
Subject: [Grovenet] Seven Answers to Climate
	Contrarian	Nonsense:Scientific American
In-Reply-To: <B6FAD9BDBBF5244BBDD2924075EECBCA412C1EAA@PMG-EXCHANGE.pmg.pamplincom.com>
References: <d1e.51a6a997.38532e29@aol.com>
	<F40DF3FF-9EBB-4509-B00D-25339D993438@teleport.com>
	<811659.41991.qm@web46308.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
	<3EA3313B-CA5C-4B4D-8320-68A7D17B69D4@teleport.com>
	<256162.8556.qm@web56107.mail.re3.yahoo.com>
	<B6FAD9BDBBF5244BBDD2924075EECBCA412C1EAA@PMG-EXCHANGE.pmg.pamplincom.com>
Message-ID: <534C2D8E-06C0-44D0-9A01-7A3D2B5F12DB@teleport.com>

Right. Dondero's column was a a clear and cogent restatement of what  
should be obvious to anyone who follows the news.

On Dec 11, 2009, at 2:13 PM, <jschrag at fgnewstimes.com> wrote:

> I'm going to stay out of this fracas, but will plug Russ Dondero's  
> column in this week's paper, which I found to be very thoughtful  
> (unlike some of the recent posts on this forum).  I don't agree  
> with everything Russ says here, but I do appreciate his ability to  
> make his points without insinuating that those who don't share them  
> are idiots.
>
> http://www.forestgrovenewstimes.com/opinion/story.php? 
> story_id=126047932997409200
>
>
> John Schrag
> Editor & Publisher
> News-Times
> Forest Grove, Oregon
> 503-357-3181
>
> Voted the "best small newspaper in Oregon" 2006, 2007, 2008
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: grovenet-bounces at rdrop.com [mailto:grovenet- 
> bounces at rdrop.com] On Behalf Of Holly T.
> Sent: Friday, December 11, 2009 1:43 PM
> To: Forest Grove local interests list
> Subject: Re: [Grovenet] Seven Answers to Climate Contrarian  
> Nonsense:Scientific American
>
> Here, here, Walt!
>
> Actually, I voted and campaigned door-to-door and on telephone  
> banks for Obama. My political viewpoints probably fall even to the  
> left of Michael Moore. But, I'm very angry with our president.
>
> I'm angry that he hasn't pulled us out of our insane and illegal  
> wars in Iraq and Afghanistan like I'd hoped he would, and he now  
> wants to add $3 trillion to escalate the war in Afghanistan,  
> killing more people on both sides, and shoving our country even  
> further toward financial ruin. He, has placed far greater emphasis  
> on health care reform than on getting America back to work (I can  
> live without healthcare reform (probably if I stay healthy), but I  
> cannot survive indefinitely without work. Getting America back to  
> work seems like a hugely more important priority to me. Put  
> Americans back to work and THEN reform healthcare once our economy  
> is thriving again, okay?! The Obama Administration seems to JUST  
> NOW be talking about doing something about jobs creation after  
> nearly a year of skirting the issue. Most of the new measures that  
> Obama seems to want to put into place for jobs creation don't seem  
> that different to me from what's already being done. It
>  all seems like just lip service to me. I want to see much more  
> aggressive measures taken. I want to see results. Granted, Obama  
> inherited this Judas of an economy from the Dems, but I'd like to  
> see his administration do a far better job than they have toward  
> putting FIVE MILLION Americas back to work. I think it's  
> inexcusable that jobs creation hasn't been Obama's number one  
> priority since the moment he took office.
>
> When I mention my concerns to my fellow Dems, they just look at me  
> with eyes opened wide like I've left the fold and tell me to, "Give  
> him time." But, I do not make excuses for Obama like they do. I  
> worked hard to get him elected and I expect the CHANGE that he  
> promised. And, the sooner the better.
>
> So, not all of us Dems are blindly supporting President Obama. Some  
> of us are actually very angry with him -- even if it's for  
> different reasons than those shared by many Republicans. But, in my  
> case, my anger towards him most certainly has nothing to do with  
> the color of his skin. I think it's positively awesome that our  
> country finally has a president of Afro-American descent. It's  
> about time.
>
> Holly
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Walt Wentz <waltw at teleport.com>
> To: Forest Grove local interests list <grovenet at rdrop.com>
> Sent: Fri, December 11, 2009 12:22:56 PM
> Subject: Re: [Grovenet] Seven Answers to Climate Contrarian  
> Nonsense:Scientific American
>
> My question exactly! Why the hysterical, visceral hatred of the
> President intruding into every discussion of national policy? His
> policies aren't really all that different from those of his
> predecessors in office... Socialism isn't really about to kill your
> Grandma...  real-life authorities aren't replacing the place-holders
> in many important offices... so why this frantic right-wing outburst
> at every mention of his name? Could it be... could it possibly be...
> RACISM? (insert the vocalization of "The Church Lady," from the old
> Saturday Night Live).
>
> On Dec 11, 2009, at 7:17 AM, Gary Duncan-Gates wrote:
>
>> Mr. Wentz -
>>
>> What on Earth does the president's race have to do with this
>> discussion?
>>
>> Gary
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ________________________________
>> From: Walt Wentz <waltw at teleport.com>
>> To: Forest Grove local interests list <grovenet at rdrop.com>
>> Sent: Thu, December 10, 2009 10:31:40 PM
>> Subject: Re: [Grovenet] Seven Answers to Climate Contrarian
>> Nonsense:Scientific American
>>
>>
>> I don't think "Liberals" are so much addicted to "gloom and doom" as
>> they are to able to see the problems that are staring everybody in
>> the face, and to demand answers and action on those obvious problems.
>> If you want "gloom and doom," just listen to "Conservatives" when an
>> intelligent black man is elected President of the United States, and
>> begins drawing the public's attention to obvious challenges... among
>> them, global climate change.
>> (Note, I put "Liberal" and "Conservative" in quotes because the
>> original meaning of those words has been systematically distorted
>> over the past 50 years until their own mothers wouldn't recognize
>> them).
>> Walt
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> GroveNet mailing list
>> GroveNet at rdrop.com
>> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet
>
> _______________________________________________
> GroveNet mailing list
> GroveNet at rdrop.com
> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> GroveNet mailing list
> GroveNet at rdrop.com
> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet
>
> _______________________________________________
> GroveNet mailing list
> GroveNet at rdrop.com
> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet


From jo.david at verizon.net  Fri Dec 11 21:23:57 2009
From: jo.david at verizon.net (David Morelli)
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 2009 21:23:57 -0800
Subject: [Grovenet] Seven Answers to Climate
 Contrarian	Nonsense:Scientific American
In-Reply-To: <d1e.51a6a997.38532e29@aol.com>
References: <d1e.51a6a997.38532e29@aol.com>
Message-ID: <5C9CB46B-274B-4518-9B3E-AE7FC4F33266@verizon.net>

What actually happens when the permafrost is thawed?  That question has been investigated and the reports are in.
Minor thaw- minor change ( little CO2 release )
Moderate thaw - positive improvement as new plant growth takes up CO2 while plants reestablish themselves.  Then the CO2 uptake declines.
Heavy thaw - CO2 release in excess of uptake.
http://www.nps.gov/dena/naturescience/upload/Permafrost-Schuur-2009.pdf

CO2 release has been studied and the results have been published.  For one example:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v459/n7246/full/nature08031.html

I would offer that the permafrost may be less fertile than you expect.  Bracken Ferns were notable to early farmers as indicating poor soil.  
http://www.bioquest.org/NumbersCount/utk_2009/Ferns-are-everywhere.pdf

Also, the presence of bogs usually indicates poor drainage.  Thawed tundra is not amenable to mechanized agriculture.  The permafrost becomes deep mud when warmed above freezing and doesn't support vehicles or heavy feet.  

The situation where the permafrost thaws means that the average temperature is above freezing.  That does not translate into a serious growing season for food crops sufficient to off set the losses elsewhere.

---------------------------------

Regarding the monster volcano.  The data indicates that volcanoes produce 145-255 million tons of CO2 per year.  If your super volcano was ten times that it would be 2.5 billion tons.  Presume that the super volcano released in one year the same CO2 as a full century of volcanic activity, that would be one hundred times the annual average, and it would be 25 billion tons of CO2 released in one year.  That would be a big hit.  I don't know if any known volcanic event is close to that scale.  25 billion tons of CO2!

Human activity dumps more than 27 billion tons of CO2 per year, from fossil fuels and cement production.  Every year.  And the amount is growing.

Because carbon fuels and concrete are sold on the open market, the tons of carbon that is used as fuel can be counted and the tons of CO2 released by concrete production can be counted.
http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/hazards/gas/index.php#reference
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/emis/overview.html

If you accept that a super volcano could damage the environment by dumping a century's worth of CO2 into the atmosphere in one year, why not accept that humans who dump a larger volume of CO2 into the atmosphere - every year - are really doing damage?

BTW, the US burns enough coal per year to introduce more than 2 billion tons of CO2.  That single human activity is as great as the average annual contribution from volcanoes.

------------------------------

In 1896 Svante Arrhenius started to consider the possibility that human burning of fossil fuels could affect the temperature of our atmosphere.  
The question about human action causing global warming is 113 years old.

Noah was 480 when he was told to build an ark, and 600 when the deluge destroyed civilization.
The opportunity to build an ark ( and save a remnant) only lasted 120 years.

----------------------------------

You are an optimist who is in opposition to the "doom and gloom" crowd.  Okay.

Perhaps the "doom and gloom" title should go to those who say that moving to a sustainable energy system will crush our economy and destroy our standard of living.

That is the fear, isn't it?.  Loss of jobs, loss of status, fewer toys, less meat, less exotic foods, less travel, colder homes, darker caves, etc. 

It isn't about returning to the stone age, like the doom and gloom crowd wails.  Rather, we could work less and consume less while enjoying the benefits of modern technology while using 1950's level of energy consumption.  

I invite you to consider: U.S. worker productivity has increased 2-4% per year for the last 50 years.  So why do we still work 40 hours per week instead of 20?  We have doubled our fuel efficiency, so why is per capital fuel consumption rising?  We have doubled the efficiency of our home heating systems, so why do we consume more energy?

That is optimism.

David




> You state > "How high?  The earth has seen ferns growing in  Antarctic 
> regions and sea levels much higher than current levels.  We could  be going back 
> there.  That doesn't do much for our agricultural  base."
> 
> Wow, just think of the possibilities with access to millions of acres  of 
> fresh extremely rich soil that has very long days of sunlight capable of  
> growing food plants of sizes you have never seen before - available at either  
> pole!   A fantastic source of food for the growing population of  the world. 
> I would love to buy up a few hundred acres of that land to  pass on to my 
> descendants.
> 
> The liberals are always spewing doom and gloom - they are the masters of  
> fear mongering!  Why not look at the better side of things instead of  
> dwelling on what you 'think' is bad.  The earth has gone through many  cycles and 
> will continue to do so irregardless of man's attempts to change  it.  
> 
> As for being safe from a the effects of volcanoes - all we need is a super  
> volcano to erupt and  you will  have more CO2 and other  contaminants in 
> the atmosphere than you ever dreamt of.   Hint:  Yellowstone is overdue and 
> there are probably many super  volcanoes that we are unaware of.   We could 
> also have a  significant impact from new volcanos.  Sample: a 'sudden' ground  
> swelling has developed in the area of the Three Sisters - that most  pay no 
> attention to.  I believe it is a fourth sister in the early makings  and 
> will probably come into being with a sudden awakening; of course USGS claims  
> there is no immediate threat. (go read at     www.USGS.gov     for more 
> volcanic activity that is looking  to go active at some future date.)
> 
> http://vulcan.wr.usgs.gov/Volcanoes/Sisters/WestUplift/ground_uplift_may2001
> .html
> 
> http://vulcan.wr.usgs.gov/Volcanoes/Sisters/WestUplift/framework.html
> 
> 
> The Grouch. <an old nick name from H.S.> :) 


From jo.david at verizon.net  Fri Dec 11 21:57:10 2009
From: jo.david at verizon.net (David Morelli)
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 2009 21:57:10 -0800
Subject: [Grovenet] Seven Answers to Climate
 Contrarian	Nonsense:Scientific American
In-Reply-To: <c25.6cd48fbc.3853b74c@aol.com>
References: <c25.6cd48fbc.3853b74c@aol.com>
Message-ID: <4DABBD51-BEB2-4294-9A75-B1BDC1828648@verizon.net>


On Dec 11, 2009, at 6:55 AM, Jamsm at aol.com wrote:

> 
> I can see a future where we get power for heat,  transportation, etc. and the electronic type devices of today are from/performed  by devices which consumes water and CO2

When the input is H2O or CO2, the output must be a chemical that has lower total energy.  My physics classes used the term "exothermic" to refer to a chemical process that released energy.  And the amount of heat released could be calculated from the energy level of the constituent materials and the resultant material.  So you could burn H20 with Iron
4 Fe + 3 O2 + 6H2O --> 4Fe(OH)3  (from one source)

The problem is that it is low quality heat, slow, and you need pure Iron.  It is more energy expensive to produce the Iron fuel, than the resulting energy production.

> or consumes Carbon rich material (coal?)  and Oxygen.

C + O2 --> CO2   When the source of the carbon is coal ( or petroleum ) this is the source of our problem.    

> We might be able to create a completely balanced system that  performs our desired tasks.

If the carbon was produced from some process that could do,
(atmospheric) CO2  ->  C + O2 (released) 
using solar energy, then it would be sustainable and carbon neutral.  Of course the carbon would then serve as a "battery" that stores the solar energy in a concentrated form.
We have working examples of this process.  It is called photosynthesis and it produces cellulose, lignin, sugars and proteins.  The expense is in collecting and concentrating the Carbon materials, and in removing the contaminants from the fuel.  e.g. if you have burned wood, you know about creosote, smoke and ash.  Or, if you want a liquid fuel, you need to ferment the mash.  It isn't big science and it isn't readily exploited by big industry, so it isn't well funded research.  Instead the research dollars go to coal gasification and corn fuels because the coal companies and corn companies have more clout.

> When this occurs we better have a significantly  improved understanding of weather and nature over what we do now! {I am sorry -  I digress - suspect many of you have no idea what technology I just alluded  to.} 

BTW, it was 10*F the other morning and my furnace had to work to keep the house warm.  Last summer, we had to work to keep the house cool.  If our home designs had sufficient thermal mass to store heat, we could collect excess heat in Summer to provide heat in Winter, while using the Winter cold to keep Summer pleasant.  That is really low tech.

David

From jo.david at verizon.net  Fri Dec 11 22:06:07 2009
From: jo.david at verizon.net (David Morelli)
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 2009 22:06:07 -0800
Subject: [Grovenet] Seven Answers to Climate
 Contrarian	Nonsense:Scientific American
In-Reply-To: <987918.12535.qm@web46315.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
References: <460820.74787.qm@web56108.mail.re3.yahoo.com>
	<816620.74623.qm@web46313.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
	<ED2B6900-758E-404A-8349-FBBBA8C9725B@teleport.com>
	<987918.12535.qm@web46315.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <23FC3BE2-0A9F-48D1-A9F2-01581FA106C0@verizon.net>

"the 2000 election debacle"?

I would like to believe that you are saying that "it is a shame that he lost", but somehow I doubt that is your meaning.

David

On Dec 11, 2009, at 7:02 AM, Gary Duncan-Gates wrote:

> Well, it didn't seem very plausible to me that a former vice president, Democrat, at that, with no formal training in science, would be able to exploit his fame and position and good will afforded him after the 2000 election debacle, to scare the bejeezus out of the world with his environmental apocalypse theories (hang on, here is the significant part) to propel his own earnings into the stratosphere.  But it happened.
> 
> Gary


From NoSpam03 at comcast.net  Sat Dec 12 11:15:18 2009
From: NoSpam03 at comcast.net (Steven)
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 2009 11:15:18 -0800
Subject: [Grovenet] Seven Answers to Climate
	Contrarian	Nonsense:Scientific American
In-Reply-To: <4DABBD51-BEB2-4294-9A75-B1BDC1828648@verizon.net>
References: <c25.6cd48fbc.3853b74c@aol.com>
	<4DABBD51-BEB2-4294-9A75-B1BDC1828648@verizon.net>
Message-ID: <000601ca7b5f$7bc3f5b0$734be110$@net>

They are working on a CMOS chip which will convert water to H2 and O without
other conversions. A phosphate heavy water works best.
We currently have Heat Pumps which produce heat in winter and cool in
summer. They've been around for 50 years and getting better. Simply gain
from the difference of the ground down a couple of feet to air temp.

Some of the issues from these things are their affect on the environment. We
need water to survive. If we break water for energy storage, what will we
drink? I guess we can rely on the rising ocean levels to use for this?

Reports are that the wind turbines are killing bats. Their bodies are
damaged by the pressure variances around the blades.

Making ethanol created a shortage of feed corn. Solar panels don't allow
native vegetation or animals to survive as they did. An issue if we placed
large areas of the southwest in solar.

What issues might come from warming our subsoil or groundwater by these
temperature sinks? 

The only real solution someone pointed out here is to decrease population.
We need to do this now, not later. We can accomplish this by government
regulating the health system so as to decrease the population of the non
productive. This will work much faster than birth control. I wonder how much
carbon is released from a cremation?

I find it funny that Climate Contrarians are considered by some to be not
listening to the data. Yet it is the Global Warming Alarmists that are
relying on old data. 

-----Original Message-----
From: grovenet-bounces at rdrop.com [mailto:grovenet-bounces at rdrop.com] On
Behalf Of David Morelli
Sent: Friday, December 11, 2009 9:57 PM
To: Forest Grove local interests list
Subject: Re: [Grovenet] Seven Answers to Climate Contrarian
Nonsense:Scientific American


On Dec 11, 2009, at 6:55 AM, Jamsm at aol.com wrote:

> 
> I can see a future where we get power for heat,  transportation, etc.
and the electronic type devices of today are from/performed  by devices
which consumes water and CO2

When the input is H2O or CO2, the output must be a chemical that has lower
total energy.  My physics classes used the term "exothermic" to refer to a
chemical process that released energy.  And the amount of heat released
could be calculated from the energy level of the constituent materials and
the resultant material.  So you could burn H20 with Iron
4 Fe + 3 O2 + 6H2O --> 4Fe(OH)3  (from one source)

The problem is that it is low quality heat, slow, and you need pure Iron.
It is more energy expensive to produce the Iron fuel, than the resulting
energy production.

> or consumes Carbon rich material (coal?)  and Oxygen.

C + O2 --> CO2   When the source of the carbon is coal ( or petroleum )
this is the source of our problem.    

> We might be able to create a completely balanced system that  performs
our desired tasks.

If the carbon was produced from some process that could do,
(atmospheric) CO2  ->  C + O2 (released) 
using solar energy, then it would be sustainable and carbon neutral.  Of
course the carbon would then serve as a "battery" that stores the solar
energy in a concentrated form.
We have working examples of this process.  It is called photosynthesis and
it produces cellulose, lignin, sugars and proteins.  The expense is in
collecting and concentrating the Carbon materials, and in removing the
contaminants from the fuel.  e.g. if you have burned wood, you know about
creosote, smoke and ash.  Or, if you want a liquid fuel, you need to
ferment the mash.  It isn't big science and it isn't readily exploited by
big industry, so it isn't well funded research.  Instead the research
dollars go to coal gasification and corn fuels because the coal companies
and corn companies have more clout.

> When this occurs we better have a significantly  improved understanding
of weather and nature over what we do now! {I am sorry -  I digress -
suspect many of you have no idea what technology I just alluded  to.} 

BTW, it was 10*F the other morning and my furnace had to work to keep the
house warm.  Last summer, we had to work to keep the house cool.  If our
home designs had sufficient thermal mass to store heat, we could collect
excess heat in Summer to provide heat in Winter, while using the Winter
cold to keep Summer pleasant.  That is really low tech.

David
_______________________________________________
GroveNet mailing list
GroveNet at rdrop.com
http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet


From NoSpam03 at comcast.net  Sat Dec 12 11:15:24 2009
From: NoSpam03 at comcast.net (Steven)
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 2009 11:15:24 -0800
Subject: [Grovenet] Seven Answers to Climate
	Contrarian	Nonsense:Scientific American
In-Reply-To: <5C9CB46B-274B-4518-9B3E-AE7FC4F33266@verizon.net>
References: <d1e.51a6a997.38532e29@aol.com>
	<5C9CB46B-274B-4518-9B3E-AE7FC4F33266@verizon.net>
Message-ID: <000701ca7b5f$8987ac00$9c970400$@net>

But did you know that cement absorbs CO2? As it turns to limestone over the
years, it takes in what was expended in creating it.
http://www.tececo.com/sustainability.carbon_cycles_sinks.php
-----Original Message-----
Because carbon fuels and concrete are sold on the open market, the tons of
carbon that is used as fuel can be counted and the tons of CO2 released by
concrete production can be counted.
http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/hazards/gas/index.php#reference
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/emis/overview.html

If you accept that a super volcano could damage the environment by dumping
a century's worth of CO2 into the atmosphere in one year, why not accept
that humans who dump a larger volume of CO2 into the atmosphere - every
year - are really doing damage?

BTW, the US burns enough coal per year to introduce more than 2 billion
tons of CO2.  That single human activity is as great as the average annual
contribution from volcanoes.

------------------------------

In 1896 Svante Arrhenius started to consider the possibility that human
burning of fossil fuels could affect the temperature of our atmosphere.  
The question about human action causing global warming is 113 years old.

Noah was 480 when he was told to build an ark, and 600 when the deluge
destroyed civilization.
The opportunity to build an ark ( and save a remnant) only lasted 120
years.

----------------------------------

You are an optimist who is in opposition to the "doom and gloom" crowd.
Okay.

Perhaps the "doom and gloom" title should go to those who say that moving
to a sustainable energy system will crush our economy and destroy our
standard of living.

That is the fear, isn't it?.  Loss of jobs, loss of status, fewer toys,
less meat, less exotic foods, less travel, colder homes, darker caves,
etc. 

It isn't about returning to the stone age, like the doom and gloom crowd
wails.  Rather, we could work less and consume less while enjoying the
benefits of modern technology while using 1950's level of energy
consumption.  

I invite you to consider: U.S. worker productivity has increased 2-4% per
year for the last 50 years.  So why do we still work 40 hours per week
instead of 20?  We have doubled our fuel efficiency, so why is per capital
fuel consumption rising?  We have doubled the efficiency of our home
heating systems, so why do we consume more energy?

That is optimism.

David




> You state > "How high?  The earth has seen ferns growing in  Antarctic 
> regions and sea levels much higher than current levels.  We could  be
going back 
> there.  That doesn't do much for our agricultural  base."
> 
> Wow, just think of the possibilities with access to millions of acres
of 
> fresh extremely rich soil that has very long days of sunlight capable of

> growing food plants of sizes you have never seen before - available at
either  
> pole!   A fantastic source of food for the growing population of  the
world. 
> I would love to buy up a few hundred acres of that land to  pass on to
my 
> descendants.
> 
> The liberals are always spewing doom and gloom - they are the masters of

> fear mongering!  Why not look at the better side of things instead of  
> dwelling on what you 'think' is bad.  The earth has gone through many
cycles and 
> will continue to do so irregardless of man's attempts to change  it.  
> 
> As for being safe from a the effects of volcanoes - all we need is a
super  
> volcano to erupt and  you will  have more CO2 and other  contaminants in

> the atmosphere than you ever dreamt of.   Hint:  Yellowstone is overdue
and 
> there are probably many super  volcanoes that we are unaware of.   We
could 
> also have a  significant impact from new volcanos.  Sample: a 'sudden'
ground  
> swelling has developed in the area of the Three Sisters - that most  pay
no 
> attention to.  I believe it is a fourth sister in the early makings  and

> will probably come into being with a sudden awakening; of course USGS
claims  
> there is no immediate threat. (go read at     www.USGS.gov     for more 
> volcanic activity that is looking  to go active at some future date.)
> 
>
http://vulcan.wr.usgs.gov/Volcanoes/Sisters/WestUplift/ground_uplift_may20
01
> .html
> 
> http://vulcan.wr.usgs.gov/Volcanoes/Sisters/WestUplift/framework.html
> 
> 
> The Grouch. <an old nick name from H.S.> :) 

_______________________________________________
GroveNet mailing list
GroveNet at rdrop.com
http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet


From jo.david at verizon.net  Sat Dec 12 22:40:46 2009
From: jo.david at verizon.net (David Morelli)
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 2009 22:40:46 -0800
Subject: [Grovenet] Seven Answers to
 Climate	Contrarian	Nonsense:Scientific American
In-Reply-To: <000701ca7b5f$8987ac00$9c970400$@net>
References: <d1e.51a6a997.38532e29@aol.com>
	<5C9CB46B-274B-4518-9B3E-AE7FC4F33266@verizon.net>
	<000701ca7b5f$8987ac00$9c970400$@net>
Message-ID: <9E65E52A-664E-4CA3-937D-8B7BEE1466E9@verizon.net>

In the between time, the CO2 is in the atmosphere.  So, how long is it in the air before the uptake?  Since cement continues to harden for (decades?) it would appear to be awhile.

The referenced site made the observation that,
"From our studies of the carbon cycle and carbon equation we concluded we need to put about 23 billion tonnes of magnesium carbonate away annually to solve the problem of global warming. It follows that if magnesite or for that matter any carbonate that was man made was our building material of choice and we could make it without releases we would have the problem of global warming well on the way to being solved!"

Good idea to solve two problems at the same time.  

The energy cost and extraction cost currently exceed the cost for typical Portland cement.  Also they need a source for the magnesium oxide (marble stone) which must be extracted and separated, and a method of extracting CO2 from the atmosphere.  

The cost of cement will need to rise before the proposed solution becomes viable.  That is not an objection to the suggestion, just an observation on a prerequisite condition for its success.

David

On Dec 12, 2009, at 11:15 AM, Steven wrote:

> But did you know that cement absorbs CO2? As it turns to limestone over the years, it takes in what was expended in creating it.
> http://www.tececo.com/sustainability.carbon_cycles_sinks.php

From waltw at teleport.com  Sat Dec 12 23:34:07 2009
From: waltw at teleport.com (Walt Wentz)
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 2009 23:34:07 -0800
Subject: [Grovenet] Seven Answers to
	Climate	Contrarian	Nonsense:Scientific American
In-Reply-To: <9E65E52A-664E-4CA3-937D-8B7BEE1466E9@verizon.net>
References: <d1e.51a6a997.38532e29@aol.com>
	<5C9CB46B-274B-4518-9B3E-AE7FC4F33266@verizon.net>
	<000701ca7b5f$8987ac00$9c970400$@net>
	<9E65E52A-664E-4CA3-937D-8B7BEE1466E9@verizon.net>
Message-ID: <0F203C68-CEDD-4927-92BE-78667234DB9C@teleport.com>

As for old cement taking up CO2 as it decays... Considering that  
Europe is full of ancient Roman cement that is still going strong,  
how many centuries would we have to wait for our modern cement to  
disintegrate? The ongoing climate change is due to start accelerating  
in a matter of just a century or two, an eye-blink of geologic time.  
If our scattered descendants were sitting around eating bugs and  
nettles to survive, one wonders how much they would be encouraged by  
the thought that in just a few more centuries, the concrete in the  
ruins of our Seven-Elevens and Walmarts and freeway overpasses would  
begin to decay, resorbing some of the tremendous volumes of CO2  
generated in its manufacture.

On Dec 12, 2009, at 10:40 PM, David Morelli wrote:

> In the between time, the CO2 is in the atmosphere.  So, how long is  
> it in the air before the uptake?  Since cement continues to harden  
> for (decades?) it would appear to be awhile.
>
> The referenced site made the observation that,
> "From our studies of the carbon cycle and carbon equation we  
> concluded we need to put about 23 billion tonnes of magnesium  
> carbonate away annually to solve the problem of global warming. It  
> follows that if magnesite or for that matter any carbonate that was  
> man made was our building material of choice and we could make it  
> without releases we would have the problem of global warming well  
> on the way to being solved!"
>
> Good idea to solve two problems at the same time.
>
> The energy cost and extraction cost currently exceed the cost for  
> typical Portland cement.  Also they need a source for the magnesium  
> oxide (marble stone) which must be extracted and separated, and a  
> method of extracting CO2 from the atmosphere.
>
> The cost of cement will need to rise before the proposed solution  
> becomes viable.  That is not an objection to the suggestion, just  
> an observation on a prerequisite condition for its success.
>
> David
>
> On Dec 12, 2009, at 11:15 AM, Steven wrote:
>
>> But did you know that cement absorbs CO2? As it turns to limestone  
>> over the years, it takes in what was expended in creating it.
>> http://www.tececo.com/sustainability.carbon_cycles_sinks.php
> _______________________________________________
> GroveNet mailing list
> GroveNet at rdrop.com
> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet


From jo.david at verizon.net  Sat Dec 12 23:42:10 2009
From: jo.david at verizon.net (David Morelli)
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 2009 23:42:10 -0800
Subject: [Grovenet] Seven Answers to
 Climate	Contrarian	Nonsense:Scientific American
In-Reply-To: <000601ca7b5f$7bc3f5b0$734be110$@net>
References: <c25.6cd48fbc.3853b74c@aol.com>
	<4DABBD51-BEB2-4294-9A75-B1BDC1828648@verizon.net>
	<000601ca7b5f$7bc3f5b0$734be110$@net>
Message-ID: <80A78D0B-B6B3-4937-9968-504A5E22CE33@verizon.net>


On Dec 12, 2009, at 11:15 AM, Steven wrote:

> They are working on a CMOS chip which will convert water to H2 and O without other conversions. A phosphate heavy water works best.
Okay.  The energy delivered by burning H2 with O2 to produce H2O just happens to be the energy necessary to separate H20 into H2 and O2.  It means that hydrogen that is produced from water is an energy storage, not an energy source.  A clean burning fuel certainly, but we still need an energy source to create the hydrogen.

I think it is interesting that it plants can use solar energy to do some of the energy work for us.  Methanol (CH3OH) releases hydrogen at a lower energy input than water.  However it also releases carbon monoxide and oxygen, which then need to be combined into CO2, or the CO needs more energy to break into carbon and oxygen.

> We currently have Heat Pumps which produce heat in winter and cool in summer. They've been around for 50 years and getting better. Simply gain from the difference of the ground down a couple of feet to air temp.
Yes.  They are more efficient than electric or gas heat.  I suggest that they are less efficient than high thermal mass and passive solar.  But, definitely better than baseboard heaters.

> Some of the issues from these things are their affect on the environment. We need water to survive. If we break water for energy storage, what will we drink? I guess we can rely on the rising ocean levels to use for this?
If you break water for energy storage (fuel), you could condense the vapor.  In theory, it should be pure distilled water.  In practice, it may contain other compounds created by the combustion temperatures on the other elements available in the atmosphere.  For example, combining hydrogen and nitrogen produces ammonia.  I don't know if this is an issue at the temperatures in a combustion engine or not.
> 
> Reports are that the wind turbines are killing bats. Their bodies are damaged by the pressure variances around the blades.
> 
> Making ethanol created a shortage of feed corn.
Corn ethanol is a loser anyway.  The energy inputs to create the corn, ferment the mash, and distill the alcohol is less than the energy value of the ethanol.  Perhaps, by creating a market for fuel alcohol there will be other sources that become available and economically viable.

> Solar panels don't allow native vegetation or animals to survive as they did. An issue if we placed large areas of the southwest in solar.
The simplest solar panel is well designed windows.  They can collect heat and provide light.    Or, if you really want electricity, the surface area of the house roofs in the states that receive sunlight is sufficient to collect the necessary energy without disturbing the desert animals or vegetation.
> 
> What issues might come from warming our subsoil or groundwater by these temperature sinks? 
The soil used would have a temperature of 70*F rather than 50*F, and it would affect subsurface temperatures to a radius of 8-12 feet.  There would be a heat flux caused by heat loss to those soils.  It likely would be similar to the heat flux from a home heated by any source.  There might be some local effect because the collector would need to capture more solar energy in summer than typical.  I don't know if anyone has done a heat balance comparing annual heat storage to a similar sized structure that uses air conditioning and a heat pump.
> 
> The only real solution someone pointed out here is to decrease population.  We need to do this now, not later. We can accomplish this by government regulating the health system so as to decrease the population of the non productive. This will work much faster than birth control.
You may be confusing the deaths that come from those who die because they cannot pay for medical services  with the proposal to expand the population that has some form of health insurance.  That could be due to a common misconception that "health insurance" is somehow the same as "health care".  It isn't.  Health insurance is typically an economic activity that makes money for health insurance administrators, sales people, board members, and possibly investors by paying less for the sickness and accident expenses covered by their policies than they take in from premiums.

> I wonder how much carbon is released from a cremation?
30 pounds of carbon from the body, 5-100 pounds from the box, and about 285 kiloWatt hours of gas or 15kWh of electricity on average per cremation to burn them.
> 
> I find it funny that Climate Contrarians are considered by some to be not listening to the data. Yet it is the Global Warming Alarmists that are relying on old data. 
What data?  The climate change due to human activity is a century old theory that has been supported by the most recent data.

From jo.david at verizon.net  Sat Dec 12 23:46:06 2009
From: jo.david at verizon.net (David Morelli)
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 2009 23:46:06 -0800
Subject: [Grovenet] Seven Answers
 to	Climate	Contrarian	Nonsense:Scientific American
In-Reply-To: <0F203C68-CEDD-4927-92BE-78667234DB9C@teleport.com>
References: <d1e.51a6a997.38532e29@aol.com>
	<5C9CB46B-274B-4518-9B3E-AE7FC4F33266@verizon.net>
	<000701ca7b5f$8987ac00$9c970400$@net>
	<9E65E52A-664E-4CA3-937D-8B7BEE1466E9@verizon.net>
	<0F203C68-CEDD-4927-92BE-78667234DB9C@teleport.com>
Message-ID: <D9B99DE5-18AE-4C33-A46A-1239BE3399CF@verizon.net>

I was thinking that cement takes up CO2 as it hardens.  I could be wrong of course.

David

On Dec 12, 2009, at 11:34 PM, Walt Wentz wrote:

> As for old cement taking up CO2 as it decays... 


From jo.david at verizon.net  Sun Dec 13 00:13:15 2009
From: jo.david at verizon.net (David Morelli)
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 2009 00:13:15 -0800
Subject: [Grovenet] Seven Answers to Climate	Contrarian	Nonsense:
 Scientific American
In-Reply-To: <000c01ca7389$3d92dff0$b8b89fd0$@net>
References: <4B1585EF.2050801@jurislex.com>
	<9FED9887-4472-4FFE-B6E4-2EDE381BECC4@verizon.net>
	<d6eeab3d0912021001r3ed30865j87bf1ebf2d072469@mail.gmail.com>
	<8D94A946E17E9941AE94FC3AE11CAB7E03CBD84927@everest.ad.pacificu.edu>
	<000c01ca7389$3d92dff0$b8b89fd0$@net>
Message-ID: <2864AF33-DBB7-41A7-B771-08853F49C559@verizon.net>


On Dec 2, 2009, at 11:54 AM, NoSpam wrote:

> ...
> At work yesterday, my assistant was using the new chainsaw for a few hours.
> Then he noticed wording that said that the oil mixture needed to be 40/1 in the fuel.
> He panicked and thought things were all screwed up. 
> I asked one simple question. "What mix did we put in?"
> He didn't know.
> Then I asked, "Why be so upset until we research our supplies to see that we did the right or wrong mix?"

So, did anyone actually check the supplies?  Or, did you let let it go  without the followup?

If people are using new two-stroke engines without the necessary lubricant they can shorten the lifetime of the engine.  If your training and procedures allow that sort of behavior, you are the only one affected.  And chain saw engines may be cheap to you.

We have looked at the research, the outcome does affect us, and the earth is not cheap to replace.

> ...
> I say we shift this from "save the world." To "Makes Economic sense."

If Economics is your personal religion, and it is the highest and only yardstick for moral decisions, that might be a good mantra.  

For example, with replacements available for a few dollars at the Animal Shelter, it makes no economic sense to take any pet to the vet for any treatment.  

I tend to limit economic sense to economic issues.  The free market is an economic arena.  The planet Earth is more than that.

David



From ocollaugh at comcast.net  Sun Dec 13 10:57:18 2009
From: ocollaugh at comcast.net (donkelly)
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 2009 18:57:18 +0000 (UTC)
Subject: [Grovenet] Seven Answers
	to	Climate	Contrarian	Nonsense:Scientific American
In-Reply-To: <D9B99DE5-18AE-4C33-A46A-1239BE3399CF@verizon.net>
Message-ID: <361748189.676901260730638043.JavaMail.root@sz0024a.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net>

CO2, far from being a dangerous "greenhouse gas" is vital to support all life on earth. It is everywhere or we would all be dead. Even the oceans could not exist without CO2.

So what really degrades the ozone layer, and the answer is solid prooven science.

H2SO4 is the answer. Look it up on Google Ozone H2SO4 (sulphuric acid)

donkelly
IBSSG

----- Original Message -----
From: David Morelli <jo.david at verizon.net>
To: Forest Grove local interests list <grovenet at rdrop.com>
Sent: Sun, 13 Dec 2009 07:46:06 +0000 (UTC)
Subject: Re: [Grovenet] Seven Answers to	Climate	Contrarian	Nonsense:Scientific American

I was thinking that cement takes up CO2 as it hardens.  I could be wrong of course.

David

On Dec 12, 2009, at 11:34 PM, Walt Wentz wrote:

> As for old cement taking up CO2 as it decays... 

_______________________________________________
GroveNet mailing list
GroveNet at rdrop.com
http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet


From ebgenly at yahoo.com  Sun Dec 13 11:58:24 2009
From: ebgenly at yahoo.com (Elisabeth Genly)
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 2009 11:58:24 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [Grovenet] Please: Empty food containers Sunday 12/13
Message-ID: <742331.5180.qm@web38007.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

Hello, 


If you are in Forest Grove, can you help out?

Tomorrow, I am doing a nutrition/label reading class for the 4th,
5th, and 6th graders at the Forest Grove Community School, and I have
realized I don't have nearly enough boxes/cans/bags/jars for the kids to
practice with. 


Today, I need empty containers from all varieties of:
* breads
* breakfast cereals
* pastas
* crackers
* snack bars & cookies
* juices/fruit punches
* energy drinks

If you have a few of these, please reply privately.  I'll gladly come pick them up later today.  Thank you!  I could buy a bunch of stuff from the Dollar Store, but if some of you could supply empties, that would be great!

Thanks,
Beth


      

From NoSpam03 at comcast.net  Sun Dec 13 12:27:21 2009
From: NoSpam03 at comcast.net (Steven)
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 2009 12:27:21 -0800
Subject: [Grovenet] Seven Answers to
	Climate	Contrarian	Nonsense:Scientific American
In-Reply-To: <9E65E52A-664E-4CA3-937D-8B7BEE1466E9@verizon.net>
References: <d1e.51a6a997.38532e29@aol.com>	<5C9CB46B-274B-4518-9B3E-AE7FC4F33266@verizon.net>	<000701ca7b5f$8987ac00$9c970400$@net>
	<9E65E52A-664E-4CA3-937D-8B7BEE1466E9@verizon.net>
Message-ID: <008701ca7c32$acf33730$06d9a590$@net>

I guess I used the wrong word. Aging vs decay. 
Cement takes in Co2 as it turns to limestone.

-----Original Message-----
From: grovenet-bounces at rdrop.com [mailto:grovenet-bounces at rdrop.com] On
Behalf Of David Morelli
Sent: Saturday, December 12, 2009 10:41 PM
To: Forest Grove local interests list
Subject: Re: [Grovenet] Seven Answers to Climate Contrarian
Nonsense:Scientific American

In the between time, the CO2 is in the atmosphere.  So, how long is it in
the air before the uptake?  Since cement continues to harden for
(decades?) it would appear to be awhile.

The referenced site made the observation that,
"From our studies of the carbon cycle and carbon equation we concluded we
need to put about 23 billion tonnes of magnesium carbonate away annually
to solve the problem of global warming. It follows that if magnesite or
for that matter any carbonate that was man made was our building material
of choice and we could make it without releases we would have the problem
of global warming well on the way to being solved!"

Good idea to solve two problems at the same time.  

The energy cost and extraction cost currently exceed the cost for typical
Portland cement.  Also they need a source for the magnesium oxide (marble
stone) which must be extracted and separated, and a method of extracting
CO2 from the atmosphere.  

The cost of cement will need to rise before the proposed solution becomes
viable.  That is not an objection to the suggestion, just an observation
on a prerequisite condition for its success.

David

On Dec 12, 2009, at 11:15 AM, Steven wrote:

> But did you know that cement absorbs CO2? As it turns to limestone over
the years, it takes in what was expended in creating it.
> http://www.tececo.com/sustainability.carbon_cycles_sinks.php
_______________________________________________
GroveNet mailing list
GroveNet at rdrop.com
http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet


From ebgenly at yahoo.com  Sun Dec 13 17:12:04 2009
From: ebgenly at yahoo.com (Elisabeth Genly)
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 2009 17:12:04 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [Grovenet] Please: Empty food containers Sunday 12/13
Message-ID: <427319.45235.qm@web38005.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

I got a ton of stuff from this request, thanks everyone, I am all set!
Beth

 
Beth Genly, RN, CNM
Wellness Consultant

www.livelyhealth.com
503-267-4482 Cell
503-274-9100 Voice Messages & Fax
?and feel free to leave your comments on my blog: www.bethgenly.com

	* Do you feel a gap between what you should eat and what you do eat? 

	* Could eating a rainbow of fruits and vegetables every day help you feel and look better?  
  


 


 





________________________________
From: Elisabeth Genly <ebgenly at yahoo.com>
To: Grovenet <grovenet at rdrop.com>
Sent: Sun, December 13, 2009 11:58:24 AM
Subject: Please: Empty food containers Sunday 12/13


Hello, 


If you are in Forest Grove, can you help out?

Tomorrow, I am doing a nutrition/label reading class for the 4th,
5th, and 6th graders at the Forest Grove Community School, and I have
realized I don't have nearly enough boxes/cans/bags/jars for the kids to
practice with. 


Today, I need empty containers from all varieties of:
* breads
* breakfast cereals
* pastas
* crackers
* snack bars & cookies
* juices/fruit punches
* energy drinks

If you have a few of these, please reply privately.  I'll gladly come pick them up later today.  Thank you!  I could buy a bunch of stuff from the Dollar Store, but if some of you could supply empties, that would be great!

Thanks,
Beth 



      

From waltw at teleport.com  Sun Dec 13 17:59:21 2009
From: waltw at teleport.com (Walt Wentz)
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 2009 17:59:21 -0800
Subject: [Grovenet] Seven Answers
	to	Climate	Contrarian	Nonsense:Scientific American
In-Reply-To: <361748189.676901260730638043.JavaMail.root@sz0024a.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net>
References: <361748189.676901260730638043.JavaMail.root@sz0024a.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net>
Message-ID: <FAF2A6A5-3ECF-410D-BF82-B8A309F4ED2F@teleport.com>

CO2 in balance with other gases in the atmosphere is essential to  
life as it has evolved on earth. So is Oxygen. Too much of either  
will throw the system out of whack.
I don't know that anyone on this group has accused CO2 of destroying  
the ozone layer.  CO2 is simply a heat-trapping gas, which  
contributes to global climate change. The ozone layer is another  
problem entirely. It protects us from dangerous levels of UV  
radiation, and is being degraded by various man-made chemicals, such  
as freon, and yes, sulphuric acid.
On Dec 13, 2009, at 10:57 AM, donkelly wrote:

> CO2, far from being a dangerous "greenhouse gas" is vital to  
> support all life on earth. It is everywhere or we would all be  
> dead. Even the oceans could not exist without CO2.
>
> So what really degrades the ozone layer, and the answer is solid  
> prooven science.
>
> H2SO4 is the answer. Look it up on Google Ozone H2SO4 (sulphuric acid)
>
> donkelly
> IBSSG
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: David Morelli <jo.david at verizon.net>
> To: Forest Grove local interests list <grovenet at rdrop.com>
> Sent: Sun, 13 Dec 2009 07:46:06 +0000 (UTC)
> Subject: Re: [Grovenet] Seven Answers to	Climate	Contrarian	 
> Nonsense:Scientific American
>
> I was thinking that cement takes up CO2 as it hardens.  I could be  
> wrong of course.
>
> David
>
> On Dec 12, 2009, at 11:34 PM, Walt Wentz wrote:
>
>> As for old cement taking up CO2 as it decays...
>
> _______________________________________________
> GroveNet mailing list
> GroveNet at rdrop.com
> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet
>
> _______________________________________________
> GroveNet mailing list
> GroveNet at rdrop.com
> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet


From waltw at teleport.com  Sun Dec 13 18:03:03 2009
From: waltw at teleport.com (Walt Wentz)
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 2009 18:03:03 -0800
Subject: [Grovenet] Seven Answers to
	Climate	Contrarian	Nonsense:Scientific American
In-Reply-To: <008701ca7c32$acf33730$06d9a590$@net>
References: <d1e.51a6a997.38532e29@aol.com>	<5C9CB46B-274B-4518-9B3E-AE7FC4F33266@verizon.net>	<000701ca7b5f$8987ac00$9c970400$@net>
	<9E65E52A-664E-4CA3-937D-8B7BEE1466E9@verizon.net>
	<008701ca7c32$acf33730$06d9a590$@net>
Message-ID: <E42B8768-EBAD-4500-83FC-5EB861B53F0A@teleport.com>

OK, I didn't know that. How long does the process take?
Walt

On Dec 13, 2009, at 12:27 PM, Steven wrote:

> I guess I used the wrong word. Aging vs decay.
> Cement takes in Co2 as it turns to limestone.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: grovenet-bounces at rdrop.com [mailto:grovenet- 
> bounces at rdrop.com] On
> Behalf Of David Morelli
> Sent: Saturday, December 12, 2009 10:41 PM
> To: Forest Grove local interests list
> Subject: Re: [Grovenet] Seven Answers to Climate Contrarian
> Nonsense:Scientific American
>
> In the between time, the CO2 is in the atmosphere.  So, how long is  
> it in
> the air before the uptake?  Since cement continues to harden for
> (decades?) it would appear to be awhile.
>
> The referenced site made the observation that,
> "From our studies of the carbon cycle and carbon equation we  
> concluded we
> need to put about 23 billion tonnes of magnesium carbonate away  
> annually
> to solve the problem of global warming. It follows that if  
> magnesite or
> for that matter any carbonate that was man made was our building  
> material
> of choice and we could make it without releases we would have the  
> problem
> of global warming well on the way to being solved!"
>
> Good idea to solve two problems at the same time.
>
> The energy cost and extraction cost currently exceed the cost for  
> typical
> Portland cement.  Also they need a source for the magnesium oxide  
> (marble
> stone) which must be extracted and separated, and a method of  
> extracting
> CO2 from the atmosphere.
>
> The cost of cement will need to rise before the proposed solution  
> becomes
> viable.  That is not an objection to the suggestion, just an  
> observation
> on a prerequisite condition for its success.
>
> David
>
> On Dec 12, 2009, at 11:15 AM, Steven wrote:
>
>> But did you know that cement absorbs CO2? As it turns to limestone  
>> over
> the years, it takes in what was expended in creating it.
>> http://www.tececo.com/sustainability.carbon_cycles_sinks.php
> _______________________________________________
> GroveNet mailing list
> GroveNet at rdrop.com
> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet
>
> _______________________________________________
> GroveNet mailing list
> GroveNet at rdrop.com
> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet


From NoSpam03 at comcast.net  Mon Dec 14 08:24:21 2009
From: NoSpam03 at comcast.net (Steven)
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2009 08:24:21 -0800
Subject: [Grovenet] Seven
	Answers	to	Climate	Contrarian	Nonsense:Scientific American
In-Reply-To: <FAF2A6A5-3ECF-410D-BF82-B8A309F4ED2F@teleport.com>
References: <361748189.676901260730638043.JavaMail.root@sz0024a.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net>
	<FAF2A6A5-3ECF-410D-BF82-B8A309F4ED2F@teleport.com>
Message-ID: <000c01ca7cd9$eb4d2750$c1e775f0$@net>

Some scientists point to CO2 as being a trailing indicator rather than a
leading indicator.
We can not control the sun's output. At it warms the earth, plants grow,
tundra melts, ocean temps rise. All releasing CO2. 

-----Original Message-----
From: grovenet-bounces at rdrop.com [mailto:grovenet-bounces at rdrop.com] On
Behalf Of Walt Wentz
Sent: Sunday, December 13, 2009 5:59 PM
To: Forest Grove local interests list
Subject: Re: [Grovenet] Seven Answers to Climate Contrarian
Nonsense:Scientific American

CO2 in balance with other gases in the atmosphere is essential to  
life as it has evolved on earth. So is Oxygen. Too much of either  
will throw the system out of whack.
I don't know that anyone on this group has accused CO2 of destroying  
the ozone layer.  CO2 is simply a heat-trapping gas, which  
contributes to global climate change. The ozone layer is another  
problem entirely. It protects us from dangerous levels of UV  
radiation, and is being degraded by various man-made chemicals, such  
as freon, and yes, sulphuric acid.
On Dec 13, 2009, at 10:57 AM, donkelly wrote:

> CO2, far from being a dangerous "greenhouse gas" is vital to  
> support all life on earth. It is everywhere or we would all be  
> dead. Even the oceans could not exist without CO2.
>
> So what really degrades the ozone layer, and the answer is solid  
> prooven science.
>
> H2SO4 is the answer. Look it up on Google Ozone H2SO4 (sulphuric acid)
>
> donkelly
> IBSSG
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: David Morelli <jo.david at verizon.net>
> To: Forest Grove local interests list <grovenet at rdrop.com>
> Sent: Sun, 13 Dec 2009 07:46:06 +0000 (UTC)
> Subject: Re: [Grovenet] Seven Answers to	Climate	Contrarian	 
> Nonsense:Scientific American
>
> I was thinking that cement takes up CO2 as it hardens.  I could be  
> wrong of course.
>
> David
>
> On Dec 12, 2009, at 11:34 PM, Walt Wentz wrote:
>
>> As for old cement taking up CO2 as it decays...
>
> _______________________________________________
> GroveNet mailing list
> GroveNet at rdrop.com
> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet
>
> _______________________________________________
> GroveNet mailing list
> GroveNet at rdrop.com
> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet

_______________________________________________
GroveNet mailing list
GroveNet at rdrop.com
http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet


From waltw at teleport.com  Mon Dec 14 09:23:04 2009
From: waltw at teleport.com (Walt Wentz)
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2009 09:23:04 -0800
Subject: [Grovenet] Seven
	Answers	to	Climate	Contrarian	Nonsense:Scientific American
In-Reply-To: <000c01ca7cd9$eb4d2750$c1e775f0$@net>
References: <361748189.676901260730638043.JavaMail.root@sz0024a.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net>
	<FAF2A6A5-3ECF-410D-BF82-B8A309F4ED2F@teleport.com>
	<000c01ca7cd9$eb4d2750$c1e775f0$@net>
Message-ID: <DCBD3985-73D8-4EB9-902F-CAF93205BADE@teleport.com>

The sun's output changes, but does not seem to oscillate all that  
wildly. We've had satellites studying the sun for some years, deep  
ice cores from polar regions,. fossil records of climate  
fluctuations, etc., all of which seem to indicate that the drifting  
of the continents, vulcanism/asteroid strikes, precession of the  
poles and changes of atmospheric content would account for climate  
change more easily than solar oscillations.
It has also been suggested we are just going through another  
"interglacial" right now. Possible, but do interglacial periods  
really have such a rapid onset?
BUT-- If mankind is churning out more CO2 in a year than even  
volcanoes are, and has been doing so for more than a century, then it  
seems a bit naive to deny that much extra "heat blanket" gas will  
drive a climate change.

On Dec 14, 2009, at 8:24 AM, Steven wrote:

> Some scientists point to CO2 as being a trailing indicator rather  
> than a
> leading indicator.
> We can not control the sun's output. At it warms the earth, plants  
> grow,
> tundra melts, ocean temps rise. All releasing CO2.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: grovenet-bounces at rdrop.com [mailto:grovenet- 
> bounces at rdrop.com] On
> Behalf Of Walt Wentz
> Sent: Sunday, December 13, 2009 5:59 PM
> To: Forest Grove local interests list
> Subject: Re: [Grovenet] Seven Answers to Climate Contrarian
> Nonsense:Scientific American
>
> CO2 in balance with other gases in the atmosphere is essential to
> life as it has evolved on earth. So is Oxygen. Too much of either
> will throw the system out of whack.
> I don't know that anyone on this group has accused CO2 of destroying
> the ozone layer.  CO2 is simply a heat-trapping gas, which
> contributes to global climate change. The ozone layer is another
> problem entirely. It protects us from dangerous levels of UV
> radiation, and is being degraded by various man-made chemicals, such
> as freon, and yes, sulphuric acid.
> On Dec 13, 2009, at 10:57 AM, donkelly wrote:
>
>> CO2, far from being a dangerous "greenhouse gas" is vital to
>> support all life on earth. It is everywhere or we would all be
>> dead. Even the oceans could not exist without CO2.
>>
>> So what really degrades the ozone layer, and the answer is solid
>> prooven science.
>>
>> H2SO4 is the answer. Look it up on Google Ozone H2SO4 (sulphuric  
>> acid)
>>
>> donkelly
>> IBSSG
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: David Morelli <jo.david at verizon.net>
>> To: Forest Grove local interests list <grovenet at rdrop.com>
>> Sent: Sun, 13 Dec 2009 07:46:06 +0000 (UTC)
>> Subject: Re: [Grovenet] Seven Answers to	Climate	Contrarian	
>> Nonsense:Scientific American
>>
>> I was thinking that cement takes up CO2 as it hardens.  I could be
>> wrong of course.
>>
>> David
>>
>> On Dec 12, 2009, at 11:34 PM, Walt Wentz wrote:
>>
>>> As for old cement taking up CO2 as it decays...
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> GroveNet mailing list
>> GroveNet at rdrop.com
>> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> GroveNet mailing list
>> GroveNet at rdrop.com
>> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet
>
> _______________________________________________
> GroveNet mailing list
> GroveNet at rdrop.com
> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet
>
> _______________________________________________
> GroveNet mailing list
> GroveNet at rdrop.com
> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet


From ocollaugh at comcast.net  Mon Dec 14 10:49:01 2009
From: ocollaugh at comcast.net (donkelly)
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2009 18:49:01 +0000 (UTC)
Subject: [Grovenet] Seven
	Answers	to	Climate	Contrarian	Nonsense:Scientific American
In-Reply-To: <000c01ca7cd9$eb4d2750$c1e775f0$@net>
Message-ID: <1277168360.1028911260816541205.JavaMail.root@sz0024a.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net>

All true Steven, et al....opportunities to improve our atmosphere to the extent that we can.

Going green has a multitude of good attributes.

But climatology also provides an opportunity for fraud. The driving engine of fraud is money.

al-gore-getting-rich-spreading-global-warming-hysteria-media-s-help

Reliably reported is that Al Gore's riches have grown from 1 million dollers in 2002, to 100 million dollers in 2008.

I am convinced that we the people can work to limit the release of harmful "green house" gasses, those that polute the atmosphers while doing nothing to keep us alive, or the globe in general, healthy.

So tons of bucks are spent on things we can do less than 1% or 2% about.

Real Carbon scientists are working on converting excess CO2 into fuel.
They say they can convert CO2 into gasolene for example.

So various ways we can help beg the question, if Al Gore is willing to waste trillions of dollers in wasted efforts, why instead isn't he willing to spend one trillion dollers in possible efforts, like turning CO2 into useful products?

It seems like a no brainer to me.

donkelly
  
----- Original Message -----
From: Steven <NoSpam03 at comcast.net>
To: 'Forest Grove local interests list' <grovenet at rdrop.com>
Sent: Mon, 14 Dec 2009 16:24:21 +0000 (UTC)
Subject: Re: [Grovenet] Seven Answers	to	Climate	Contrarian	Nonsense:Scientific American

Some scientists point to CO2 as being a trailing indicator rather than a
leading indicator.
We can not control the sun's output. At it warms the earth, plants grow,
tundra melts, ocean temps rise. All releasing CO2. 

-----Original Message-----
From: grovenet-bounces at rdrop.com [mailto:grovenet-bounces at rdrop.com] On
Behalf Of Walt Wentz
Sent: Sunday, December 13, 2009 5:59 PM
To: Forest Grove local interests list
Subject: Re: [Grovenet] Seven Answers to Climate Contrarian
Nonsense:Scientific American

CO2 in balance with other gases in the atmosphere is essential to  
life as it has evolved on earth. So is Oxygen. Too much of either  
will throw the system out of whack.
I don't know that anyone on this group has accused CO2 of destroying  
the ozone layer.  CO2 is simply a heat-trapping gas, which  
contributes to global climate change. The ozone layer is another  
problem entirely. It protects us from dangerous levels of UV  
radiation, and is being degraded by various man-made chemicals, such  
as freon, and yes, sulphuric acid.
On Dec 13, 2009, at 10:57 AM, donkelly wrote:

> CO2, far from being a dangerous "greenhouse gas" is vital to  
> support all life on earth. It is everywhere or we would all be  
> dead. Even the oceans could not exist without CO2.
>
> So what really degrades the ozone layer, and the answer is solid  
> prooven science.
>
> H2SO4 is the answer. Look it up on Google Ozone H2SO4 (sulphuric acid)
>
> donkelly
> IBSSG
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: David Morelli <jo.david at verizon.net>
> To: Forest Grove local interests list <grovenet at rdrop.com>
> Sent: Sun, 13 Dec 2009 07:46:06 +0000 (UTC)
> Subject: Re: [Grovenet] Seven Answers to	Climate	Contrarian	 
> Nonsense:Scientific American
>
> I was thinking that cement takes up CO2 as it hardens.  I could be  
> wrong of course.
>
> David
>
> On Dec 12, 2009, at 11:34 PM, Walt Wentz wrote:
>
>> As for old cement taking up CO2 as it decays...
>
> _______________________________________________
> GroveNet mailing list
> GroveNet at rdrop.com
> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet
>
> _______________________________________________
> GroveNet mailing list
> GroveNet at rdrop.com
> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet

_______________________________________________
GroveNet mailing list
GroveNet at rdrop.com
http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet

_______________________________________________
GroveNet mailing list
GroveNet at rdrop.com
http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet


From waltw at teleport.com  Mon Dec 14 11:21:07 2009
From: waltw at teleport.com (Walt Wentz)
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2009 11:21:07 -0800
Subject: [Grovenet] Seven
	Answers	to	Climate	Contrarian	Nonsense:Scientific American
In-Reply-To: <1277168360.1028911260816541205.JavaMail.root@sz0024a.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net>
References: <1277168360.1028911260816541205.JavaMail.root@sz0024a.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net>
Message-ID: <C87A12DA-970A-4B61-946D-3AEB2BB94126@teleport.com>

So, Al Gore is now leading a gigantic financial swindle, which has  
somehow taken in most of the climate scientists of the world? Any  
proof? Any solid sources? Or is this just another distraction cooked  
up by the right-wing stink tanks, and discreetly leaked into the  
blogosphere?
If "tons of bucks are spent" trying to slow down mankind's influence  
on climate change (only one or two percent? Where do those figures  
come from?), then wouldn't a lot of those tons of bucks also be  
EARNED, by people creating or modifying the necessary infrastructure?  
People who are now sitting unemployed, being spoon-fed a steady diet  
of distractions and excuses, while nothing is being done about either  
their economy OR their environment?
Turning CO2 into fuel-- interesting idea. But again, any sources? Any  
proof? Who are these "real" (as opposed to unreal) carbon scientists?
Inquiring minds want to know....
Walt


On Dec 14, 2009, at 10:49 AM, donkelly wrote:

> All true Steven, et al....opportunities to improve our atmosphere  
> to the extent that we can.
>
> Going green has a multitude of good attributes.
>
> But climatology also provides an opportunity for fraud. The driving  
> engine of fraud is money.
>
> al-gore-getting-rich-spreading-global-warming-hysteria-media-s-help
>
> Reliably reported is that Al Gore's riches have grown from 1  
> million dollers in 2002, to 100 million dollers in 2008.
>
> I am convinced that we the people can work to limit the release of  
> harmful "green house" gasses, those that polute the atmosphers  
> while doing nothing to keep us alive, or the globe in general,  
> healthy.
>
> So tons of bucks are spent on things we can do less than 1% or 2%  
> about.
>
> Real Carbon scientists are working on converting excess CO2 into fuel.
> They say they can convert CO2 into gasolene for example.
>
> So various ways we can help beg the question, if Al Gore is willing  
> to waste trillions of dollers in wasted efforts, why instead isn't  
> he willing to spend one trillion dollers in possible efforts, like  
> turning CO2 into useful products?
>
> It seems like a no brainer to me.
>
> donkelly
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Steven <NoSpam03 at comcast.net>
> To: 'Forest Grove local interests list' <grovenet at rdrop.com>
> Sent: Mon, 14 Dec 2009 16:24:21 +0000 (UTC)
> Subject: Re: [Grovenet] Seven Answers	to	Climate	Contrarian	 
> Nonsense:Scientific American
>
> Some scientists point to CO2 as being a trailing indicator rather  
> than a
> leading indicator.
> We can not control the sun's output. At it warms the earth, plants  
> grow,
> tundra melts, ocean temps rise. All releasing CO2.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: grovenet-bounces at rdrop.com [mailto:grovenet- 
> bounces at rdrop.com] On
> Behalf Of Walt Wentz
> Sent: Sunday, December 13, 2009 5:59 PM
> To: Forest Grove local interests list
> Subject: Re: [Grovenet] Seven Answers to Climate Contrarian
> Nonsense:Scientific American
>
> CO2 in balance with other gases in the atmosphere is essential to
> life as it has evolved on earth. So is Oxygen. Too much of either
> will throw the system out of whack.
> I don't know that anyone on this group has accused CO2 of destroying
> the ozone layer.  CO2 is simply a heat-trapping gas, which
> contributes to global climate change. The ozone layer is another
> problem entirely. It protects us from dangerous levels of UV
> radiation, and is being degraded by various man-made chemicals, such
> as freon, and yes, sulphuric acid.
> On Dec 13, 2009, at 10:57 AM, donkelly wrote:
>
>> CO2, far from being a dangerous "greenhouse gas" is vital to
>> support all life on earth. It is everywhere or we would all be
>> dead. Even the oceans could not exist without CO2.
>>
>> So what really degrades the ozone layer, and the answer is solid
>> prooven science.
>>
>> H2SO4 is the answer. Look it up on Google Ozone H2SO4 (sulphuric  
>> acid)
>>
>> donkelly
>> IBSSG
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: David Morelli <jo.david at verizon.net>
>> To: Forest Grove local interests list <grovenet at rdrop.com>
>> Sent: Sun, 13 Dec 2009 07:46:06 +0000 (UTC)
>> Subject: Re: [Grovenet] Seven Answers to	Climate	Contrarian	
>> Nonsense:Scientific American
>>
>> I was thinking that cement takes up CO2 as it hardens.  I could be
>> wrong of course.
>>
>> David
>>
>> On Dec 12, 2009, at 11:34 PM, Walt Wentz wrote:
>>
>>> As for old cement taking up CO2 as it decays...
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> GroveNet mailing list
>> GroveNet at rdrop.com
>> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> GroveNet mailing list
>> GroveNet at rdrop.com
>> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet
>
> _______________________________________________
> GroveNet mailing list
> GroveNet at rdrop.com
> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet
>
> _______________________________________________
> GroveNet mailing list
> GroveNet at rdrop.com
> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet
>
> _______________________________________________
> GroveNet mailing list
> GroveNet at rdrop.com
> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet


From ocollaugh at comcast.net  Mon Dec 14 11:39:15 2009
From: ocollaugh at comcast.net (donkelly)
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2009 19:39:15 +0000 (UTC)
Subject: [Grovenet] Seven
	Answers	to	Climate	Contrarian	Nonsense:Scientific American
In-Reply-To: <C87A12DA-970A-4B61-946D-3AEB2BB94126@teleport.com>
Message-ID: <1226566394.1055241260819555924.JavaMail.root@sz0024a.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net>

There are quite a few reliable sources in science review collections.

One recently cropped up on conversion of CO2 into fuel.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/12/091210162222.htm?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:%20sciencedaily%20(ScienceDaily:%20Latest%20Science%20News)

I have seen none of this in the nation media whom seem to be supporting the fraud.

don

----- Original Message -----
From: Walt Wentz <waltw at teleport.com>
To: Forest Grove local interests list <grovenet at rdrop.com>
Sent: Mon, 14 Dec 2009 19:21:07 +0000 (UTC)
Subject: Re: [Grovenet] Seven Answers	to	Climate	Contrarian	Nonsense:Scientific American

So, Al Gore is now leading a gigantic financial swindle, which has  
somehow taken in most of the climate scientists of the world? Any  
proof? Any solid sources? Or is this just another distraction cooked  
up by the right-wing stink tanks, and discreetly leaked into the  
blogosphere?
If "tons of bucks are spent" trying to slow down mankind's influence  
on climate change (only one or two percent? Where do those figures  
come from?), then wouldn't a lot of those tons of bucks also be  
EARNED, by people creating or modifying the necessary infrastructure?  
People who are now sitting unemployed, being spoon-fed a steady diet  
of distractions and excuses, while nothing is being done about either  
their economy OR their environment?
Turning CO2 into fuel-- interesting idea. But again, any sources? Any  
proof? Who are these "real" (as opposed to unreal) carbon scientists?
Inquiring minds want to know....
Walt


On Dec 14, 2009, at 10:49 AM, donkelly wrote:

> All true Steven, et al....opportunities to improve our atmosphere  
> to the extent that we can.
>
> Going green has a multitude of good attributes.
>
> But climatology also provides an opportunity for fraud. The driving  
> engine of fraud is money.
>
> al-gore-getting-rich-spreading-global-warming-hysteria-media-s-help
>
> Reliably reported is that Al Gore's riches have grown from 1  
> million dollers in 2002, to 100 million dollers in 2008.
>
> I am convinced that we the people can work to limit the release of  
> harmful "green house" gasses, those that polute the atmosphers  
> while doing nothing to keep us alive, or the globe in general,  
> healthy.
>
> So tons of bucks are spent on things we can do less than 1% or 2%  
> about.
>
> Real Carbon scientists are working on converting excess CO2 into fuel.
> They say they can convert CO2 into gasolene for example.
>
> So various ways we can help beg the question, if Al Gore is willing  
> to waste trillions of dollers in wasted efforts, why instead isn't  
> he willing to spend one trillion dollers in possible efforts, like  
> turning CO2 into useful products?
>
> It seems like a no brainer to me.
>
> donkelly
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Steven <NoSpam03 at comcast.net>
> To: 'Forest Grove local interests list' <grovenet at rdrop.com>
> Sent: Mon, 14 Dec 2009 16:24:21 +0000 (UTC)
> Subject: Re: [Grovenet] Seven Answers	to	Climate	Contrarian	 
> Nonsense:Scientific American
>
> Some scientists point to CO2 as being a trailing indicator rather  
> than a
> leading indicator.
> We can not control the sun's output. At it warms the earth, plants  
> grow,
> tundra melts, ocean temps rise. All releasing CO2.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: grovenet-bounces at rdrop.com [mailto:grovenet- 
> bounces at rdrop.com] On
> Behalf Of Walt Wentz
> Sent: Sunday, December 13, 2009 5:59 PM
> To: Forest Grove local interests list
> Subject: Re: [Grovenet] Seven Answers to Climate Contrarian
> Nonsense:Scientific American
>
> CO2 in balance with other gases in the atmosphere is essential to
> life as it has evolved on earth. So is Oxygen. Too much of either
> will throw the system out of whack.
> I don't know that anyone on this group has accused CO2 of destroying
> the ozone layer.  CO2 is simply a heat-trapping gas, which
> contributes to global climate change. The ozone layer is another
> problem entirely. It protects us from dangerous levels of UV
> radiation, and is being degraded by various man-made chemicals, such
> as freon, and yes, sulphuric acid.
> On Dec 13, 2009, at 10:57 AM, donkelly wrote:
>
>> CO2, far from being a dangerous "greenhouse gas" is vital to
>> support all life on earth. It is everywhere or we would all be
>> dead. Even the oceans could not exist without CO2.
>>
>> So what really degrades the ozone layer, and the answer is solid
>> prooven science.
>>
>> H2SO4 is the answer. Look it up on Google Ozone H2SO4 (sulphuric  
>> acid)
>>
>> donkelly
>> IBSSG
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: David Morelli <jo.david at verizon.net>
>> To: Forest Grove local interests list <grovenet at rdrop.com>
>> Sent: Sun, 13 Dec 2009 07:46:06 +0000 (UTC)
>> Subject: Re: [Grovenet] Seven Answers to	Climate	Contrarian	
>> Nonsense:Scientific American
>>
>> I was thinking that cement takes up CO2 as it hardens.  I could be
>> wrong of course.
>>
>> David
>>
>> On Dec 12, 2009, at 11:34 PM, Walt Wentz wrote:
>>
>>> As for old cement taking up CO2 as it decays...
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> GroveNet mailing list
>> GroveNet at rdrop.com
>> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> GroveNet mailing list
>> GroveNet at rdrop.com
>> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet
>
> _______________________________________________
> GroveNet mailing list
> GroveNet at rdrop.com
> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet
>
> _______________________________________________
> GroveNet mailing list
> GroveNet at rdrop.com
> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet
>
> _______________________________________________
> GroveNet mailing list
> GroveNet at rdrop.com
> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet

_______________________________________________
GroveNet mailing list
GroveNet at rdrop.com
http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet


From PBTFG at aol.com  Mon Dec 14 17:44:00 2009
From: PBTFG at aol.com (PBTFG at aol.com)
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2009 20:44:00 EST
Subject: [Grovenet] All is right with the world
Message-ID: <c1f.7362a2bd.385843e0@aol.com>

Enough of global warming, and Tiger Woods, and Bill O'Reilly being tiked at 
 "Law and Order".  The good news, the real good news is two fold.
  First, Jake Locker will return for his senior year at the University  of 
Washington.  There is a God.
  Second, the Mariners are this close (holding thumb and forefinger an  
eighth of an inch apart) to acquiring Cliff Lee.  He's the guy who did such  a 
great job against the hated Yankees in the World Series, and one the Cy 
Young  Award in Cleveland a year ago.  Can you say Western Division title?  
Go Dawgs, Go M's
Pete Truax

From g-g-steele at comcast.net  Mon Dec 14 18:02:29 2009
From: g-g-steele at comcast.net (Geri)
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2009 18:02:29 -0800
Subject: [Grovenet] All is right with the world
References: <c1f.7362a2bd.385843e0@aol.com>
Message-ID: <08AA1D84172E4BE79090CAE5456C1529@gerianehzkfhvy>

Hey, thanks for the good news here, Mayor!

 :)  Geri

----- Original Message ----- 
From: <PBTFG at aol.com>
To: <grovenet at rdrop.com>
Sent: Monday, December 14, 2009 5:44 PM
Subject: [Grovenet] All is right with the world


> Enough of global warming, and Tiger Woods, and Bill O'Reilly being tiked at 
> "Law and Order".  The good news, the real good news is two fold.
>  First, Jake Locker will return for his senior year at the University  of 
> Washington.  There is a God.
>  Second, the Mariners are this close (holding thumb and forefinger an  
> eighth of an inch apart) to acquiring Cliff Lee.  He's the guy who did such  a 
> great job against the hated Yankees in the World Series, and one the Cy 
> Young  Award in Cleveland a year ago.  Can you say Western Division title?  
> Go Dawgs, Go M's
> Pete Truax
> _______________________________________________
> GroveNet mailing list
> GroveNet at rdrop.com
> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet
>


From mbliss at agora.rdrop.com  Mon Dec 14 20:43:35 2009
From: mbliss at agora.rdrop.com (Meredith Bliss)
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2009 20:43:35 -0800
Subject: [Grovenet] =?iso-8859-1?q?=5BSPAM=3F=5D_Re=3A__Seven_Answers=09to?=
	=?iso-8859-1?q?=09Climate=09Contrarian=09Nonsense=3AScientific_Ame?=
	=?iso-8859-1?q?rican?=
In-Reply-To: <1226566394.1055241260819555924.JavaMail.root@sz0024a.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net>
References: <1226566394.1055241260819555924.JavaMail.root@sz0024a.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net>
Message-ID: <200912142043.35184.mbliss@agora.rdrop.com>

May I suggest looking up "carbon cycle" in an elementary biology textbook? 
You'll find plenty of examples of turning carbon dioxide into fuel there. If 
you want a plant that turns carbon dioxide into something other than simple 
carbohydrates, of course, you'll have to look a bit further. I doubt that 
you'll find any that can produce something you could put in your gas tank, if 
that's what you're looking for.

On Monday 14 December 2009 11:39:15 am donkelly wrote:
> There are quite a few reliable sources in science review collections.
>
> One recently cropped up on conversion of CO2 into fuel.
>
> http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/12/091210162222.htm?utm_source=fe
>edburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:%20sciencedaily%20(ScienceDaily:%
>20Latest%20Science%20News)
>
> I have seen none of this in the nation media whom seem to be supporting the
> fraud.
>
> don
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Walt Wentz <waltw at teleport.com>
> To: Forest Grove local interests list <grovenet at rdrop.com>
> Sent: Mon, 14 Dec 2009 19:21:07 +0000 (UTC)
> Subject: Re: [Grovenet] Seven
> Answers	to	Climate	Contrarian	Nonsense:Scientific American
>
> So, Al Gore is now leading a gigantic financial swindle, which has
> somehow taken in most of the climate scientists of the world? Any
> proof? Any solid sources? Or is this just another distraction cooked
> up by the right-wing stink tanks, and discreetly leaked into the
> blogosphere?
> If "tons of bucks are spent" trying to slow down mankind's influence
> on climate change (only one or two percent? Where do those figures
> come from?), then wouldn't a lot of those tons of bucks also be
> EARNED, by people creating or modifying the necessary infrastructure?
> People who are now sitting unemployed, being spoon-fed a steady diet
> of distractions and excuses, while nothing is being done about either
> their economy OR their environment?
> Turning CO2 into fuel-- interesting idea. But again, any sources? Any
> proof? Who are these "real" (as opposed to unreal) carbon scientists?
> Inquiring minds want to know....
> Walt
>
> On Dec 14, 2009, at 10:49 AM, donkelly wrote:
> > All true Steven, et al....opportunities to improve our atmosphere
> > to the extent that we can.
> >
> > Going green has a multitude of good attributes.
> >
> > But climatology also provides an opportunity for fraud. The driving
> > engine of fraud is money.
> >
> > al-gore-getting-rich-spreading-global-warming-hysteria-media-s-help
> >
> > Reliably reported is that Al Gore's riches have grown from 1
> > million dollers in 2002, to 100 million dollers in 2008.
> >
> > I am convinced that we the people can work to limit the release of
> > harmful "green house" gasses, those that polute the atmosphers
> > while doing nothing to keep us alive, or the globe in general,
> > healthy.
> >
> > So tons of bucks are spent on things we can do less than 1% or 2%
> > about.
> >
> > Real Carbon scientists are working on converting excess CO2 into fuel.
> > They say they can convert CO2 into gasolene for example.
> >
> > So various ways we can help beg the question, if Al Gore is willing
> > to waste trillions of dollers in wasted efforts, why instead isn't
> > he willing to spend one trillion dollers in possible efforts, like
> > turning CO2 into useful products?
> >
> > It seems like a no brainer to me.
> >
> > donkelly


-- 
----------------------------------------
Just happy to be here, but speaking 
only for myself!
Meredith Bliss --- www.rdrop.com/~mbliss
----------------------------------------

From jo.david at verizon.net  Mon Dec 14 21:00:20 2009
From: jo.david at verizon.net (David Morelli)
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2009 21:00:20 -0800
Subject: [Grovenet]
 Seven	Answers	to	Climate	Contrarian	Nonsense:Scientific American
In-Reply-To: <000c01ca7cd9$eb4d2750$c1e775f0$@net>
References: <361748189.676901260730638043.JavaMail.root@sz0024a.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net>
	<FAF2A6A5-3ECF-410D-BF82-B8A309F4ED2F@teleport.com>
	<000c01ca7cd9$eb4d2750$c1e775f0$@net>
Message-ID: <BD1CF8C2-EAA2-4CA8-AC40-3FC9B6D90CB7@verizon.net>

CO2 is a trailing indicator to the effects of rising heat in the atmosphere due to solar cycles.  That is known and accepted by both sides of this discussion.  We don't disagree on that.

We also know that 27 Billion tons of CO2 are added to the biosphere every year, *over and above*, the CO2 added by solar cycles.  

That extra carbon dioxide multiplies the solar effect.

David



On Dec 14, 2009, at 8:24 AM, Steven wrote:

> Some scientists point to CO2 as being a trailing indicator rather than a leading indicator.
> We can not control the sun's output. At it warms the earth, plants grow, tundra melts, ocean temps rise. All releasing CO2. 


From jo.david at verizon.net  Mon Dec 14 21:36:18 2009
From: jo.david at verizon.net (David Morelli)
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2009 21:36:18 -0800
Subject: [Grovenet]
 Seven	Answers	to	Climate	Contrarian	Nonsense:Scientific American
In-Reply-To: <1277168360.1028911260816541205.JavaMail.root@sz0024a.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net>
References: <1277168360.1028911260816541205.JavaMail.root@sz0024a.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net>
Message-ID: <E71067F6-123E-41BE-B6A7-D0F9C84B8AAF@verizon.net>


On Dec 14, 2009, at 10:49 AM, donkelly wrote:

> All true Steven, et al....opportunities to improve our atmosphere to the extent that we can.
> 
> Going green has a multitude of good attributes.
> 
> But climatology also provides an opportunity for fraud. The driving engine of fraud is money.
> 
> al-gore-getting-rich-spreading-global-warming-hysteria-media-s-help
> 
> Reliably reported is that Al Gore's riches have grown from 1 million dollers in 2002, to 100 million dollers in 2008.
> 

Yes, the driving engine of fraud is money.  The CEO of Exxon Mobil is expected to receive $23.9 Millions as compensation (salary, bonus & shares).  That is one person in one company.  There is a lot of money at risk, should the world reduce their consumption of fossil fuels.  Do you believe that he could possibly have an interest in the outcome of this discussion?


> I am convinced that we the people can work to limit the release of harmful "green house" gasses, those that polute the atmosphers while doing nothing to keep us alive, or the globe in general, healthy.

Water is necessary for life.  Salt is necessary for life.  Too much salt in the water makes it unsuitable for human consumption.  So, how much salt can I add to your drinking water before you start to object?
> 
> So tons of bucks are spent on things we can do less than 1% or 2% about.
> 
> Real Carbon scientists are working on converting excess CO2 into fuel.  They say they can convert CO2 into gasolene for example.

The problem isn't converting CO2 to fuel.  I can do that in my back yard, by planting a tree.  The problem is collecting the CO2 out of the atmosphere and finding an energy source to run the process.  We could plant and grow "CO2 sequestration" farms, then we have to find a source of water.  I suggest that we plant mangrove and cyprus along the gulf coast to replace the trees that have been lost over the last decade.  I suggest that we restore the Amazon and Indonesian rain forests.  But, that is not sufficient.  Reducing our per capita energy consumption to 1950 levels might be sufficient.  Find someone who lived in 1950 and have them tell you how terrible the living conditions were.
> 
> So various ways we can help beg the question, if Al Gore is willing to waste trillions of dollers in wasted efforts, why instead isn't he willing to spend one trillion dollers in possible efforts, like turning CO2 into useful products?
> 
> It seems like a no brainer to me.
> 
> donkelly

The issue is "density".  At the exhaust of a power plant the CO2 is concentrated.  It needs to be captured and processed there.  Unfortunately, all of the processes that turn CO2 into useful products at a rate that keeps pace with the ability of power plants to create CO2 require more energy than the plant produces.  Once the CO2 is diluted in the atmosphere, it is more expensive to collect and process in terms of energy, land and money.  

David

From jo.david at verizon.net  Mon Dec 14 21:47:09 2009
From: jo.david at verizon.net (David Morelli)
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2009 21:47:09 -0800
Subject: [Grovenet]
 Seven	Answers	to	Climate	Contrarian	Nonsense:Scientific American
In-Reply-To: <C87A12DA-970A-4B61-946D-3AEB2BB94126@teleport.com>
References: <1277168360.1028911260816541205.JavaMail.root@sz0024a.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net>
	<C87A12DA-970A-4B61-946D-3AEB2BB94126@teleport.com>
Message-ID: <BD926579-FF9D-4B8B-9F2B-314C11E513EE@verizon.net>

Walt,
I can turn CO2 into fuel.  Plant a tree or plant.  Wait for it to grow.  Harvest it and burn it.

There are a variety of technologies, and a variety of plants.  That isn't the question.

There are limits on the process based upon the available energy to drive the conversion, the land requirements to collect an process the CO2, and the time necessary for the process to run to completion.  

The proponents of "turning CO2 into fuel" need to provide some realistic estimates on "tons of CO2 collected/year/$"  

We need to get to 27 Billion tons/year at a price of $0.10/pound more or less.  Otherwise you cannot sell the product that is created.

David

On Dec 14, 2009, at 11:21 AM, Walt Wentz wrote:

> ...
> Turning CO2 into fuel-- interesting idea. But again, any sources? Any  proof? Who are these "real" (as opposed to unreal) carbon scientists?
> Inquiring minds want to know....
> Walt


From waltw at teleport.com  Mon Dec 14 22:10:10 2009
From: waltw at teleport.com (Walt Wentz)
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2009 22:10:10 -0800
Subject: [Grovenet] Seven
	Answers	to	Climate	Contrarian	Nonsense:Scientific American
In-Reply-To: <1226566394.1055241260819555924.JavaMail.root@sz0024a.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net>
References: <1226566394.1055241260819555924.JavaMail.root@sz0024a.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net>
Message-ID: <B6EC300E-A7A9-4723-833F-4E0BA12A80E1@teleport.com>

OK, this is interesting!
If this process can be made practical through economies of scale,  
providing a reasonable ratio of working surface and sunlight adjacent  
to major existing CO2 sources, it would certainly help. I strongly  
suspect, however, that there will be no "one" answer to the CO2  
problem, or to the power supply problem. A lot of innovative  
approaches will have to be tried at once, because some will  
inevitably fail to get off the ground for unforeseen reasons.
I wonder, however.... if this process produces a fuel that can be  
used like gasoline, might it not just exacerbate the problem,  
converting single-point, large CO2 emissions into many diffused  
sources of CO2 as the fuel is burned in car engines? Might be better  
to run the resultant gas directly through fuel cells to produce  
electricity, instead. The main waste product there would be water vapor.
On Dec 14, 2009, at 11:39 AM, donkelly wrote:

> http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/12/091210162222.htm? 
> utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:% 
> 20sciencedaily%20(ScienceDaily:%20Latest%20Science%20News)


From waltw at teleport.com  Mon Dec 14 22:16:52 2009
From: waltw at teleport.com (Walt Wentz)
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2009 22:16:52 -0800
Subject: [Grovenet]
	Seven	Answers	to	Climate	Contrarian	Nonsense:Scientific American
In-Reply-To: <BD926579-FF9D-4B8B-9F2B-314C11E513EE@verizon.net>
References: <1277168360.1028911260816541205.JavaMail.root@sz0024a.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net>
	<C87A12DA-970A-4B61-946D-3AEB2BB94126@teleport.com>
	<BD926579-FF9D-4B8B-9F2B-314C11E513EE@verizon.net>
Message-ID: <BFD19AF9-9814-423F-B24A-F24CA284F1FC@teleport.com>

Yep.
Unless a process can't be made practicable through economies of  
scale, you are just fiddling around the edges of the problem.   
Sujppose those modified bacterial require acres of water surface, and  
hours of sunlight, for ever liter of gas they produce? We need some  
facts and figures to see whether this will ever be more than a  
scientific curiosity.
Although i burn firewood myself, it is with some regret, knowing that  
it generates gases and particulates that were harmless enough in  
thinly-populated pioneer days, but aggreggate into a serious concern  
when thousands of woodstoves and fireplaces are in use.

On Dec 14, 2009, at 9:47 PM, David Morelli wrote:

> Walt,
> I can turn CO2 into fuel.  Plant a tree or plant.  Wait for it to  
> grow.  Harvest it and burn it.
>
> There are a variety of technologies, and a variety of plants.  That  
> isn't the question.
>
> There are limits on the process based upon the available energy to  
> drive the conversion, the land requirements to collect an process  
> the CO2, and the time necessary for the process to run to completion.
>
> The proponents of "turning CO2 into fuel" need to provide some  
> realistic estimates on "tons of CO2 collected/year/$"
>
> We need to get to 27 Billion tons/year at a price of $0.10/pound  
> more or less.  Otherwise you cannot sell the product that is created.
>
> David
>
> On Dec 14, 2009, at 11:21 AM, Walt Wentz wrote:
>
>> ...
>> Turning CO2 into fuel-- interesting idea. But again, any sources?  
>> Any  proof? Who are these "real" (as opposed to unreal) carbon  
>> scientists?
>> Inquiring minds want to know....
>> Walt
>
> _______________________________________________
> GroveNet mailing list
> GroveNet at rdrop.com
> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet


From NoSpam03 at comcast.net  Tue Dec 15 07:12:29 2009
From: NoSpam03 at comcast.net (Steven)
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2009 07:12:29 -0800
Subject: [Grovenet]
	Seven	Answers	to	Climate	Contrarian	Nonsense:Scientific American
In-Reply-To: <BFD19AF9-9814-423F-B24A-F24CA284F1FC@teleport.com>
References: <1277168360.1028911260816541205.JavaMail.root@sz0024a.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net>	<C87A12DA-970A-4B61-946D-3AEB2BB94126@teleport.com>	<BD926579-FF9D-4B8B-9F2B-314C11E513EE@verizon.net>
	<BFD19AF9-9814-423F-B24A-F24CA284F1FC@teleport.com>
Message-ID: <003201ca7d99$0554eb00$0ffec100$@net>

Why?
Are you waiting to be taxed to stop?
Just like Holly eating meat. What is this with you guys? You want to force
others to stop what you won't even do on your own.

-----Original Message-----
From: grovenet-bounces at rdrop.com [mailto:grovenet-bounces at rdrop.com] On
Behalf Of Walt Wentz
Sent: Monday, December 14, 2009 10:17 PM
To: Forest Grove local interests list
Subject: Re: [Grovenet] Seven Answers to Climate Contrarian
Nonsense:Scientific American

Yep.
Unless a process can't be made practicable through economies of  
scale, you are just fiddling around the edges of the problem.   
Sujppose those modified bacterial require acres of water surface, and  
hours of sunlight, for ever liter of gas they produce? We need some  
facts and figures to see whether this will ever be more than a  
scientific curiosity.
Although i burn firewood myself, it is with some regret, knowing that  
it generates gases and particulates that were harmless enough in  
thinly-populated pioneer days, but aggreggate into a serious concern  
when thousands of woodstoves and fireplaces are in use.


From OleHossTreeFarm at webtv.net  Tue Dec 15 08:38:08 2009
From: OleHossTreeFarm at webtv.net (Alan Domenghini aka an OleHoss)
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2009 08:38:08 -0800
Subject: [Grovenet] A Hosstlye Rainy Day
Message-ID: <29124-4B27BB70-9404@storefull-3173.bay.webtv.net>

Hi This Greeting Is Just For You - Rainy Monday :- 

First the cold, and now the rain to thaw things out.  1.50 inches over
night
   
Oh well., such is life in NW Oregon

~A~:?) glad I've got good drainage~ Hoss


http://exclusives.250free.com/html6/rainy.html

http://community-2.webtv.net/OleHossTreeFarm/RainUpDate/

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/attachments/20091215/0cbaa5b3/attachment.html 

From allnutt at verizon.net  Tue Dec 15 09:29:33 2009
From: allnutt at verizon.net (Katie Allnutt)
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2009 09:29:33 -0800
Subject: [Grovenet]
 Seven	Answers	to	Climate	Contrarian	Nonsense:Scientific American
In-Reply-To: <003201ca7d99$0554eb00$0ffec100$@net>
References: <1277168360.1028911260816541205.JavaMail.root@sz0024a.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net>
	<C87A12DA-970A-4B61-946D-3AEB2BB94126@teleport.com>
	<BD926579-FF9D-4B8B-9F2B-314C11E513EE@verizon.net>
	<BFD19AF9-9814-423F-B24A-F24CA284F1FC@teleport.com>
	<003201ca7d99$0554eb00$0ffec100$@net>
Message-ID: <7ECBE2EF-A405-477E-9119-74097E2404BF@verizon.net>

Aren't you missing the forest for the trees Steven?
Walt wants to save the world with you still in it.
But he can't do it alone.  If he could, he is the kind of guy who would.


Katie



On Dec 15, 2009, at 7:12 AM, Steven wrote:

> Why?
> Are you waiting to be taxed to stop?
> Just like Holly eating meat. What is this with you guys? You want  
> to force
> others to stop what you won't even do on your own.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: grovenet-bounces at rdrop.com [mailto:grovenet- 
> bounces at rdrop.com] On
> Behalf Of Walt Wentz
> Sent: Monday, December 14, 2009 10:17 PM
> To: Forest Grove local interests list
> Subject: Re: [Grovenet] Seven Answers to Climate Contrarian
> Nonsense:Scientific American
>
> Yep.
> Unless a process can't be made practicable through economies of
> scale, you are just fiddling around the edges of the problem.
> Sujppose those modified bacterial require acres of water surface, and
> hours of sunlight, for ever liter of gas they produce? We need some
> facts and figures to see whether this will ever be more than a
> scientific curiosity.
> Although i burn firewood myself, it is with some regret, knowing that
> it generates gases and particulates that were harmless enough in
> thinly-populated pioneer days, but aggreggate into a serious concern
> when thousands of woodstoves and fireplaces are in use.
>
> _______________________________________________
> GroveNet mailing list
> GroveNet at rdrop.com
> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet


From NoSpam03 at comcast.net  Tue Dec 15 09:49:36 2009
From: NoSpam03 at comcast.net (Steven)
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2009 09:49:36 -0800
Subject: [Grovenet]
	Seven	Answers	to	Climate	Contrarian	Nonsense:Scientific American
In-Reply-To: <7ECBE2EF-A405-477E-9119-74097E2404BF@verizon.net>
References: <1277168360.1028911260816541205.JavaMail.root@sz0024a.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net>	<C87A12DA-970A-4B61-946D-3AEB2BB94126@teleport.com>	<BD926579-FF9D-4B8B-9F2B-314C11E513EE@verizon.net>	<BFD19AF9-9814-423F-B24A-F24CA284F1FC@teleport.com>	<003201ca7d99$0554eb00$0ffec100$@net>
	<7ECBE2EF-A405-477E-9119-74097E2404BF@verizon.net>
Message-ID: <001e01ca7dae$f82b28c0$e8817a40$@net>

No, I don't see it that way. Walk the walk, talk the talk.


-----Original Message-----
From: grovenet-bounces at rdrop.com [mailto:grovenet-bounces at rdrop.com] On
Behalf Of Katie Allnutt
Sent: Tuesday, December 15, 2009 9:30 AM
To: Forest Grove local interests list
Subject: Re: [Grovenet] Seven Answers to Climate Contrarian
Nonsense:Scientific American

Aren't you missing the forest for the trees Steven?
Walt wants to save the world with you still in it.
But he can't do it alone.  If he could, he is the kind of guy who would.


Katie



On Dec 15, 2009, at 7:12 AM, Steven wrote:

> Why?
> Are you waiting to be taxed to stop?
> Just like Holly eating meat. What is this with you guys? You want  
> to force
> others to stop what you won't even do on your own.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: grovenet-bounces at rdrop.com [mailto:grovenet- 
> bounces at rdrop.com] On
> Behalf Of Walt Wentz
> Sent: Monday, December 14, 2009 10:17 PM
> To: Forest Grove local interests list
> Subject: Re: [Grovenet] Seven Answers to Climate Contrarian
> Nonsense:Scientific American
>
> Yep.
> Unless a process can't be made practicable through economies of
> scale, you are just fiddling around the edges of the problem.
> Sujppose those modified bacterial require acres of water surface, and
> hours of sunlight, for ever liter of gas they produce? We need some
> facts and figures to see whether this will ever be more than a
> scientific curiosity.
> Although i burn firewood myself, it is with some regret, knowing that
> it generates gases and particulates that were harmless enough in
> thinly-populated pioneer days, but aggreggate into a serious concern
> when thousands of woodstoves and fireplaces are in use.
>
> _______________________________________________
> GroveNet mailing list
> GroveNet at rdrop.com
> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet

_______________________________________________
GroveNet mailing list
GroveNet at rdrop.com
http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet


From waltw at teleport.com  Tue Dec 15 10:02:12 2009
From: waltw at teleport.com (Walt Wentz)
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2009 10:02:12 -0800
Subject: [Grovenet]
	Seven	Answers	to	Climate	Contrarian	Nonsense:Scientific American
In-Reply-To: <003201ca7d99$0554eb00$0ffec100$@net>
References: <1277168360.1028911260816541205.JavaMail.root@sz0024a.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net>	<C87A12DA-970A-4B61-946D-3AEB2BB94126@teleport.com>	<BD926579-FF9D-4B8B-9F2B-314C11E513EE@verizon.net>
	<BFD19AF9-9814-423F-B24A-F24CA284F1FC@teleport.com>
	<003201ca7d99$0554eb00$0ffec100$@net>
Message-ID: <DB108911-A783-458C-BAF2-B809134456D2@teleport.com>

So the evil Tax Man is gonna Come And Get Me for burning wood?  
Phffffttt, not bloody likely.
People burn wood due to an increasingly common disease called  
lacomunny... When you've got an old house that, despite weatherizing,  
cannot be upgraded to heat-tight status and the crawl space is too  
narrow to install heat-pump ducting, while gas heat is going to  
become increasingly expensive and the heat loss makes resistance  
heating just too damn inefficient, you revert to the skills you  
learned in childhood-- namely, you burn wood. And not green wood, or  
treated wood, or painted wood, or particleboard or plywood or trash,  
just standard tree wood or clean recycled lumber that has been cut  
and split  and stored under shelter for at least a year. And you burn  
it in the most efficient way, resulting in maximum heat for  
(regrettable) but minimum pollution.
The tax guys are finally catching on they have to go where the money  
is-- meaning that our beloved corporations, that have henceforth  
gotten away with $10 a year in state taxes, may now (oh, horrors!) be  
required to pay $150 a year. (Oh, agony, agonnnneeee! To hear them  
howl about it, you'd  swear they were going to have to fire all their  
employees, murder their family, set fire to their factory and commit  
hara-kiri on top of the blazing pyre-- and then move to Mongolia.)
As for private infrastructure improvement, both the city and the  
state long ago discovered that the carrot works much better than the  
stick. Hence the popular weatherization programs, which pay for  
themselves in reduced expenses.

On Dec 15, 2009, at 7:12 AM, Steven wrote:

> Why?
> Are you waiting to be taxed to stop?
> Just like Holly eating meat. What is this with you guys? You want  
> to force
> others to stop what you won't even do on your own.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: grovenet-bounces at rdrop.com [mailto:grovenet- 
> bounces at rdrop.com] On
> Behalf Of Walt Wentz
> Sent: Monday, December 14, 2009 10:17 PM
> To: Forest Grove local interests list
> Subject: Re: [Grovenet] Seven Answers to Climate Contrarian
> Nonsense:Scientific American
>
> Yep.
> Unless a process can't be made practicable through economies of
> scale, you are just fiddling around the edges of the problem.
> Sujppose those modified bacterial require acres of water surface, and
> hours of sunlight, for ever liter of gas they produce? We need some
> facts and figures to see whether this will ever be more than a
> scientific curiosity.
> Although i burn firewood myself, it is with some regret, knowing that
> it generates gases and particulates that were harmless enough in
> thinly-populated pioneer days, but aggreggate into a serious concern
> when thousands of woodstoves and fireplaces are in use.
>
> _______________________________________________
> GroveNet mailing list
> GroveNet at rdrop.com
> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet


From allnutt at verizon.net  Tue Dec 15 10:12:28 2009
From: allnutt at verizon.net (Katie Allnutt)
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2009 10:12:28 -0800
Subject: [Grovenet]
 Seven	Answers	to	Climate	Contrarian	Nonsense:Scientific American
In-Reply-To: <001e01ca7dae$f82b28c0$e8817a40$@net>
References: <1277168360.1028911260816541205.JavaMail.root@sz0024a.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net>
	<C87A12DA-970A-4B61-946D-3AEB2BB94126@teleport.com>
	<BD926579-FF9D-4B8B-9F2B-314C11E513EE@verizon.net>
	<BFD19AF9-9814-423F-B24A-F24CA284F1FC@teleport.com>
	<003201ca7d99$0554eb00$0ffec100$@net>
	<7ECBE2EF-A405-477E-9119-74097E2404BF@verizon.net>
	<001e01ca7dae$f82b28c0$e8817a40$@net>
Message-ID: <E5E12FE0-A7B5-4730-89B5-69018E4B7D5F@verizon.net>

It comes across as you wanting
Walt to cut back on all forms of heat
until it makes up for others who don't want to do anything.
He is walking the walk.

Katie


On Dec 15, 2009, at 9:49 AM, Steven wrote:

> No, I don't see it that way. Walk the walk, talk the talk.
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: grovenet-bounces at rdrop.com [mailto:grovenet- 
> bounces at rdrop.com] On
> Behalf Of Katie Allnutt
> Sent: Tuesday, December 15, 2009 9:30 AM
> To: Forest Grove local interests list
> Subject: Re: [Grovenet] Seven Answers to Climate Contrarian
> Nonsense:Scientific American
>
> Aren't you missing the forest for the trees Steven?
> Walt wants to save the world with you still in it.
> But he can't do it alone.  If he could, he is the kind of guy who  
> would.
>
>
> Katie
>
>
>
> On Dec 15, 2009, at 7:12 AM, Steven wrote:
>
>> Why?
>> Are you waiting to be taxed to stop?
>> Just like Holly eating meat. What is this with you guys? You want
>> to force
>> others to stop what you won't even do on your own.
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: grovenet-bounces at rdrop.com [mailto:grovenet-
>> bounces at rdrop.com] On
>> Behalf Of Walt Wentz
>> Sent: Monday, December 14, 2009 10:17 PM
>> To: Forest Grove local interests list
>> Subject: Re: [Grovenet] Seven Answers to Climate Contrarian
>> Nonsense:Scientific American
>>
>> Yep.
>> Unless a process can't be made practicable through economies of
>> scale, you are just fiddling around the edges of the problem.
>> Sujppose those modified bacterial require acres of water surface, and
>> hours of sunlight, for ever liter of gas they produce? We need some
>> facts and figures to see whether this will ever be more than a
>> scientific curiosity.
>> Although i burn firewood myself, it is with some regret, knowing that
>> it generates gases and particulates that were harmless enough in
>> thinly-populated pioneer days, but aggreggate into a serious concern
>> when thousands of woodstoves and fireplaces are in use.
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> GroveNet mailing list
>> GroveNet at rdrop.com
>> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet
>
> _______________________________________________
> GroveNet mailing list
> GroveNet at rdrop.com
> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet
>
> _______________________________________________
> GroveNet mailing list
> GroveNet at rdrop.com
> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet


From NoSpam03 at comcast.net  Tue Dec 15 10:35:31 2009
From: NoSpam03 at comcast.net (Steven)
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2009 10:35:31 -0800
Subject: [Grovenet]
	Seven	Answers	to	Climate	Contrarian	Nonsense:Scientific American
In-Reply-To: <E5E12FE0-A7B5-4730-89B5-69018E4B7D5F@verizon.net>
References: <1277168360.1028911260816541205.JavaMail.root@sz0024a.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net>	<C87A12DA-970A-4B61-946D-3AEB2BB94126@teleport.com>	<BD926579-FF9D-4B8B-9F2B-314C11E513EE@verizon.net>	<BFD19AF9-9814-423F-B24A-F24CA284F1FC@teleport.com>	<003201ca7d99$0554eb00$0ffec100$@net>	<7ECBE2EF-A405-477E-9119-74097E2404BF@verizon.net>	<001e01ca7dae$f82b28c0$e8817a40$@net>
	<E5E12FE0-A7B5-4730-89B5-69018E4B7D5F@verizon.net>
Message-ID: <001901ca7db5$675c8670$36159350$@net>

Wood pollutes. Clark County is going to outlaw heating homes with wood.
He lives in an inefficient home. It is the same as driving a big 1973 Caddy
round town.
He even says that he prefers the inefficiencies to spending money on solving
his problem.

The answers to keeping our planet clean come from each and every one of us.
Isn't that why we celebrate earth day each year? Isn't that why we recycle?

OK, so I'm giving Walt a hard time a bit here. Burning wood isn't releasing
old carbon, so it isn't as bad for that. But it is like Al Gore flying round
on his private jet to promote carbon swapping.
-----Original Message-----
From: grovenet-bounces at rdrop.com [mailto:grovenet-bounces at rdrop.com] On
Behalf Of Katie Allnutt
Sent: Tuesday, December 15, 2009 10:12 AM
To: Forest Grove local interests list
Subject: Re: [Grovenet] Seven Answers to Climate Contrarian
Nonsense:Scientific American

It comes across as you wanting
Walt to cut back on all forms of heat
until it makes up for others who don't want to do anything.
He is walking the walk.

Katie

tinfo/grovenet


From waltw at teleport.com  Tue Dec 15 10:12:04 2009
From: waltw at teleport.com (Walt Wentz)
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2009 10:12:04 -0800
Subject: [Grovenet]
	Seven	Answers	to	Climate	Contrarian	Nonsense:Scientific American
In-Reply-To: <001e01ca7dae$f82b28c0$e8817a40$@net>
References: <1277168360.1028911260816541205.JavaMail.root@sz0024a.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net>	<C87A12DA-970A-4B61-946D-3AEB2BB94126@teleport.com>	<BD926579-FF9D-4B8B-9F2B-314C11E513EE@verizon.net>	<BFD19AF9-9814-423F-B24A-F24CA284F1FC@teleport.com>	<003201ca7d99$0554eb00$0ffec100$@net>
	<7ECBE2EF-A405-477E-9119-74097E2404BF@verizon.net>
	<001e01ca7dae$f82b28c0$e8817a40$@net>
Message-ID: <4787977A-7C20-41BB-A832-4103EA1DD07F@teleport.com>

What is the carbon footprint of an efficient wood stove as compared  
to a gas-guzzling SUV, or a mini-mansion heated by electricity, or a  
houseful of cheap plastic Wal-Mart crap imported all the way from  
China, or a family that includes six kids and a dog? If we all  
decided to live consciously and deliberately, thoughtfully  
considering our options, I think we'd find the problems of pollution,  
climate change and resource depletion would shrink remarkably.
On Dec 15, 2009, at 9:49 AM, Steven wrote:

> No, I don't see it that way. Walk the walk, talk the talk.
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: grovenet-bounces at rdrop.com [mailto:grovenet- 
> bounces at rdrop.com] On
> Behalf Of Katie Allnutt
> Sent: Tuesday, December 15, 2009 9:30 AM
> To: Forest Grove local interests list
> Subject: Re: [Grovenet] Seven Answers to Climate Contrarian
> Nonsense:Scientific American
>
> Aren't you missing the forest for the trees Steven?
> Walt wants to save the world with you still in it.
> But he can't do it alone.  If he could, he is the kind of guy who  
> would.
>
>
> Katie
>
>
>
> On Dec 15, 2009, at 7:12 AM, Steven wrote:
>
>> Why?
>> Are you waiting to be taxed to stop?
>> Just like Holly eating meat. What is this with you guys? You want
>> to force
>> others to stop what you won't even do on your own.
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: grovenet-bounces at rdrop.com [mailto:grovenet-
>> bounces at rdrop.com] On
>> Behalf Of Walt Wentz
>> Sent: Monday, December 14, 2009 10:17 PM
>> To: Forest Grove local interests list
>> Subject: Re: [Grovenet] Seven Answers to Climate Contrarian
>> Nonsense:Scientific American
>>
>> Yep.
>> Unless a process can't be made practicable through economies of
>> scale, you are just fiddling around the edges of the problem.
>> Sujppose those modified bacterial require acres of water surface, and
>> hours of sunlight, for ever liter of gas they produce? We need some
>> facts and figures to see whether this will ever be more than a
>> scientific curiosity.
>> Although i burn firewood myself, it is with some regret, knowing that
>> it generates gases and particulates that were harmless enough in
>> thinly-populated pioneer days, but aggreggate into a serious concern
>> when thousands of woodstoves and fireplaces are in use.
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> GroveNet mailing list
>> GroveNet at rdrop.com
>> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet
>
> _______________________________________________
> GroveNet mailing list
> GroveNet at rdrop.com
> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet
>
> _______________________________________________
> GroveNet mailing list
> GroveNet at rdrop.com
> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet


From edavie at verizon.net  Tue Dec 15 11:27:35 2009
From: edavie at verizon.net (Ed Davie)
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2009 11:27:35 -0800
Subject: [Grovenet] Rain
Message-ID: <D790E76E88BC41A9BD87150C0107431E@700x>

In an attempt to get something important on grovenet, I am reporting 1.48" of rain in the last 24 hours!.
Ed

From OleHossTreeFarm at webtv.net  Tue Dec 15 12:01:36 2009
From: OleHossTreeFarm at webtv.net (Alan Domenghini aka an OleHoss)
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2009 12:01:36 -0800
Subject: [Grovenet] Rain
In-Reply-To: "Ed Davie" <edavie@verizon.net>'s message of Tue,
	15 Dec 2009 11:27:35 -0800
Message-ID: <27521-4B27EB20-2154@storefull-3171.bay.webtv.net>

Mr Ed ...
You are right, for rain is far more important than seven answers of
anything, at least for this time of year.

Besides this global warming/climate issue .. amounts to closing the barn
door when the cows have been already gone for 100 years or more.  To
little to late wouldn't you say? 

ANOTHER RAIN UP DATE below .. http://tinyurl.com/2b4z3r
... and without getting wet, I'd venture to say it is an even 2 inches
by now.
~A~ :?) 



From allnutt at verizon.net  Tue Dec 15 12:06:29 2009
From: allnutt at verizon.net (Katie Allnutt)
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2009 12:06:29 -0800
Subject: [Grovenet] Rain
In-Reply-To: <D790E76E88BC41A9BD87150C0107431E@700x>
References: <D790E76E88BC41A9BD87150C0107431E@700x>
Message-ID: <A4E668F7-7AA5-4396-A9B6-C712ABAAC302@verizon.net>

After all those dry days, yes! Rain is important.  With water,  
especially clean drinkable water, one of the resources that will be  
redistributed with shifts in climate systems we have to be thankful  
for what we have.

Katie
And bees too. We may not be able to agree on much on grovenet but I'm  
betting we can agree that water and our hard working pollinators are  
terribly important.



On Dec 15, 2009, at 11:27 AM, Ed Davie wrote:

> In an attempt to get something important on grovenet, I am  
> reporting 1.48" of rain in the last 24 hours!.
> Ed
> _______________________________________________
> GroveNet mailing list
> GroveNet at rdrop.com
> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet


From g-g-steele at comcast.net  Tue Dec 15 12:37:37 2009
From: g-g-steele at comcast.net (Geri)
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2009 12:37:37 -0800
Subject: [Grovenet] Rain
References: <D790E76E88BC41A9BD87150C0107431E@700x>
	<A4E668F7-7AA5-4396-A9B6-C712ABAAC302@verizon.net>
Message-ID: <6CAD996F42824F939FC48AD943C9E750@gerianehzkfhvy>

Yes, Katie!

And am glad <so far> our precipitation here isn't all snow like last year, while folks are trying, in addition to their usual commutes, to prepare for holidays and visit loved ones, etc.

Geri

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Katie Allnutt" <allnutt at verizon.net>
To: "Ed Davie" <edavie at verizon.net>; "Forest Grove local interests list" <grovenet at rdrop.com>
Sent: Tuesday, December 15, 2009 12:06 PM
Subject: Re: [Grovenet] Rain


> After all those dry days, yes! Rain is important.  With water,  
> especially clean drinkable water, one of the resources that will be  
> redistributed with shifts in climate systems we have to be thankful  
> for what we have.
> 
> Katie
> And bees too. We may not be able to agree on much on grovenet but I'm  
> betting we can agree that water and our hard working pollinators are  
> terribly important.
> 
> 
> 
> On Dec 15, 2009, at 11:27 AM, Ed Davie wrote:
> 
>> In an attempt to get something important on grovenet, I am  
>> reporting 1.48" of rain in the last 24 hours!.
>> Ed
>> _______________________________________________
>> GroveNet mailing list
>> GroveNet at rdrop.com
>> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet
> 
> _______________________________________________
> GroveNet mailing list
> GroveNet at rdrop.com
> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet
>


From admin at jeffhowden.com  Tue Dec 15 12:54:10 2009
From: admin at jeffhowden.com (Jeff Howden)
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2009 12:54:10 -0800
Subject: [Grovenet]
	Seven	Answers	to	Climate	Contrarian	Nonsense:Scientific American
In-Reply-To: <001901ca7db5$675c8670$36159350$@net>
References: <1277168360.1028911260816541205.JavaMail.root@sz0024a.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net>	<C87A12DA-970A-4B61-946D-3AEB2BB94126@teleport.com>	<BD926579-FF9D-4B8B-9F2B-314C11E513EE@verizon.net>	<BFD19AF9-9814-423F-B24A-F24CA284F1FC@teleport.com>	<003201ca7d99$0554eb00$0ffec100$@net>	<7ECBE2EF-A405-477E-9119-74097E2404BF@verizon.net>	<001e01ca7dae$f82b28c0$e8817a40$@net>
	<E5E12FE0-A7B5-4730-89B5-69018E4B7D5F@verizon.net>
	<001901ca7db5$675c8670$36159350$@net>
Message-ID: <078a01ca7dc8$c252fbf0$46f8f3d0$@com>

Steven,

><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
> From: Steven
> 
> Wood pollutes. Clark County is going to outlaw heating homes with
> wood. [...]
><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><

Care to cite your source?

The closest I could find was a stage 2 burn ban that was just put in effect.
A ban is *not* the same as outlawing something.  Further, those without
other adequate means of heating their home are exempt.

http://www.swcleanair.org/nr_burn_ban_Dec10_2009.html

Jeff


From waltw at teleport.com  Tue Dec 15 22:52:27 2009
From: waltw at teleport.com (Walt Wentz)
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2009 22:52:27 -0800
Subject: [Grovenet] A Canadian's take...
In-Reply-To: <E5E12FE0-A7B5-4730-89B5-69018E4B7D5F@verizon.net>
References: <1277168360.1028911260816541205.JavaMail.root@sz0024a.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net>
	<C87A12DA-970A-4B61-946D-3AEB2BB94126@teleport.com>
	<BD926579-FF9D-4B8B-9F2B-314C11E513EE@verizon.net>
	<BFD19AF9-9814-423F-B24A-F24CA284F1FC@teleport.com>
	<003201ca7d99$0554eb00$0ffec100$@net>
	<7ECBE2EF-A405-477E-9119-74097E2404BF@verizon.net>
	<001e01ca7dae$f82b28c0$e8817a40$@net>
	<E5E12FE0-A7B5-4730-89B5-69018E4B7D5F@verizon.net>
Message-ID: <4F3587FD-1663-42D6-B710-EAB5B86E0B97@teleport.com>

>> And we thought some of US were discouraged... below is a Canadian  
>> friend's response to the Copenhagen talks.
>
>> I posted these snippety comments tonight on the CBC's website, in  
>> response to a news item that reports that the Tory government  
>> wants to back out of caps on the tar sands development.
>>
>> http://www.cbc.ca/politics/story/2009/12/15/prentice-oil-sands.html
>>
>>
>> ----------------------------------------
>>
>> "Oh, yes," a Canadian spokesman just returned from Copenhagen is  
>> reported to have said.  "We'll do EVERYTHING in our power to cut  
>> emissions and forestall global warming."
>>
>> "Would you do anything to injure the oil interests of Alberta?" he  
>> was asked.
>>
>> "Oh horrors!  Not THAT.  Anything else, but slow down the  
>> profiteering of multinational corporations exploiting the province  
>> of Alberta like some hapless third-world nation in the 1960s --  
>> NEVER!  It's a matter of provincial jurisdiction, and the right of  
>> Albertans to make a decent living by *allegedly* emitting harmful  
>> CO2."
>>
>> So while the rest of us in the country are going around the house,  
>> stooping behind furniture to unplug appliances and TVs that have  
>> LED time displays or instant-on features, so we can save some  
>> insignificant iota of energy, millions of barrels of oil are  
>> burned every hour to extract slightly more oil from the sands of  
>> Northern Alberta, and fed to the rapacious oil-guzzling monster  
>> living to our south.
>>
>> Is that all "doing our part" to save modern civilization from  
>> future catastrophe amounts to?  Doing NOTHING?  That's what  
>> exempting the tar sands from controls is.  Doing NOTHING.  What  
>> our government does best...
>>
>>
>> --------------------------------------
>>
>> Ultimately, neither filling in the tar sands nor unplugging our  
>> microwave may do any good at this point.  Looking at some figures  
>> from yesterday on this site, I realized that if the United States  
>> disappeared tomorrow, and stopped emitting CO2 altogether, in  
>> about ten years China's alarming economic growth would have  
>> replaced America's emissions completely.  That country already  
>> emits more than the US, despite the guilt trip they're trying to  
>> lay on the West.  Even if China does reduce its carbon  
>> *intensity,* that growth and replacement is inevitable.  And  
>> that's just China stepping up to bat.  There's also India and  
>> Indonesia and every other nation that wants to have heated  
>> swimming pools and traffic jams of SUVs from one end of their mega- 
>> cities to the other. Does it even matter what the United States  
>> does anymore, let alone Canada?  Hell... buy a large gas-guzzling  
>> pick-up truck you don't need.  Leave your TV on all night, even  
>> though you don't watch it.  Put up your Christmas lights and be  
>> damned!  It doesn't matter.  We've screwed up, people.  It's too  
>> late.  Whatever is going to happen now is just going to happen.
>>
>> And the bottom line is that Planet Earth cannot support 6 billion  
>> people in ANY degree of luxury.  The attempt to force it may very  
>> well doom us all.
>

From jo.david at verizon.net  Wed Dec 16 00:23:32 2009
From: jo.david at verizon.net (David Morelli)
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2009 00:23:32 -0800
Subject: [Grovenet]
 Seven	Answers	to	Climate	Contrarian	Nonsense:Scientific American
In-Reply-To: <B6EC300E-A7A9-4723-833F-4E0BA12A80E1@teleport.com>
References: <1226566394.1055241260819555924.JavaMail.root@sz0024a.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net>
	<B6EC300E-A7A9-4723-833F-4E0BA12A80E1@teleport.com>
Message-ID: <7604608B-F6A9-4DE4-990B-9BA2E72AE5E7@verizon.net>

Walt,

Carbon produces CO2 when burned.  Hydrogen produces H20 when burned.  Nitrogen produces NOx.  etc.

Therefore, if a process creates a fuel from CO2, burning that fuel will release the CO2.  If all of our carbon fuels came from processes that took CO2 out of today's atmosphere, burning the fuels would not contribute to global warming.  I think that would be a good thing.

Technological change takes decades to implement.  We need to do things today that buy enough time to get solutions in place when they finally become available.
David

On Dec 14, 2009, at 10:10 PM, Walt Wentz wrote:

> .... if this process produces a fuel that can be  used like gasoline, might it not just exacerbate the problem,  converting single-point, large CO2 emissions into many diffused  
> sources of CO2 as the fuel is burned in car engines? Might be better to run the resultant gas directly through fuel cells to produce electricity, instead. The main waste product there would be water vapor.
> On Dec 14, 2009, at 11:39 AM, donkelly wrote:
> 
>> http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/12/091210162222.htm? 
>> utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:% 
>> 20sciencedaily%20(ScienceDaily:%20Latest%20Science%20News)


From jo.david at verizon.net  Wed Dec 16 01:06:13 2009
From: jo.david at verizon.net (David Morelli)
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2009 01:06:13 -0800
Subject: [Grovenet]
 Seven	Answers	to	Climate	Contrarian	Nonsense:Scientific American
In-Reply-To: <1226566394.1055241260819555924.JavaMail.root@sz0024a.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net>
References: <1226566394.1055241260819555924.JavaMail.root@sz0024a.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net>
Message-ID: <1D359BB5-3851-4053-A7E1-66667961BE39@verizon.net>

"We are continuing to improve the rate and yield of the production," Liao said. "Other obstacles include the efficiency of light distribution and reduction of bioreactor cost. We are working on solutions to these problems."

Premium coal goes for around $.027 per pound.  Industrial fuel oil goes for about $.27 per pound.  If they are going to get their process on the market that is the target price range per pound of product.

It is not a question of "are there ways of making fuel from CO2"?  The question has to be, "can we create the fuel at a price that will replace fossil fuels"?

That means, either the cost of the replacement fuel has to decline to less than coal or petroleum, or the cost of coal and petroleum must rise to more than the replacement fuel.  Technology, subsidy, taxes, or scarcity must affect the prices.

David

On Dec 14, 2009, at 11:39 AM, donkelly wrote:

> There are quite a few reliable sources in science review collections.
> 
> One recently cropped up on conversion of CO2 into fuel.
> 
> http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/12/091210162222.htm?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:%20sciencedaily%20(ScienceDaily:%20Latest%20Science%20News)
> 
> I have seen none of this in the nation media whom seem to be supporting the fraud.
> 
> don

From waltw at teleport.com  Wed Dec 16 11:40:43 2009
From: waltw at teleport.com (Walt Wentz)
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2009 11:40:43 -0800
Subject: [Grovenet]
	Seven	Answers	to	Climate	Contrarian	Nonsense:Scientific American
In-Reply-To: <7604608B-F6A9-4DE4-990B-9BA2E72AE5E7@verizon.net>
References: <1226566394.1055241260819555924.JavaMail.root@sz0024a.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net>
	<B6EC300E-A7A9-4723-833F-4E0BA12A80E1@teleport.com>
	<7604608B-F6A9-4DE4-990B-9BA2E72AE5E7@verizon.net>
Message-ID: <BDFE29E1-7BC2-4FA9-BF41-DF3787969248@teleport.com>

Whup! You're right there, Dave. I misremembered "hydrocarbon" as the  
fuel for fuel cells, where in fact they require hydrogen. Naturally  
that carbon in hydrocarbon has to go someplace.
WW
On Dec 16, 2009, at 12:23 AM, David Morelli wrote:

> Walt,
>
> Carbon produces CO2 when burned.  Hydrogen produces H20 when  
> burned.  Nitrogen produces NOx.  etc.
>
> Therefore, if a process creates a fuel from CO2, burning that fuel  
> will release the CO2.  If all of our carbon fuels came from  
> processes that took CO2 out of today's atmosphere, burning the  
> fuels would not contribute to global warming.  I think that would  
> be a good thing.
>
> Technological change takes decades to implement.  We need to do  
> things today that buy enough time to get solutions in place when  
> they finally become available.
> David
>
> On Dec 14, 2009, at 10:10 PM, Walt Wentz wrote:
>
>> .... if this process produces a fuel that can be  used like  
>> gasoline, might it not just exacerbate the problem,  converting  
>> single-point, large CO2 emissions into many diffused
>> sources of CO2 as the fuel is burned in car engines? Might be  
>> better to run the resultant gas directly through fuel cells to  
>> produce electricity, instead. The main waste product there would  
>> be water vapor.
>> On Dec 14, 2009, at 11:39 AM, donkelly wrote:
>>
>>> http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/12/091210162222.htm?
>>> utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:%
>>> 20sciencedaily%20(ScienceDaily:%20Latest%20Science%20News)
>
> _______________________________________________
> GroveNet mailing list
> GroveNet at rdrop.com
> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet


From OleHossTreeFarm at webtv.net  Thu Dec 17 14:00:08 2009
From: OleHossTreeFarm at webtv.net (Alan Domenghini aka an OleHoss)
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 2009 14:00:08 -0800
Subject: [Grovenet] fog lights
Message-ID: <371-4B2AA9E8-857@storefull-3172.bay.webtv.net>

I sure hope Santa has his lead reindeers nose all polished up! 




http://community-2.webtv.net/OleHossTreeFarm/RainUpDate/

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/attachments/20091217/1a8e9933/attachment.html 

From edavie at verizon.net  Thu Dec 17 15:53:17 2009
From: edavie at verizon.net (Ed Davie)
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 2009 15:53:17 -0800
Subject: [Grovenet] fog lights
References: <371-4B2AA9E8-857@storefull-3172.bay.webtv.net>
Message-ID: <D9A1A1A1458B4BAB8CE39F1C7FC07C31@700x>

3.5 inches for the month!
Ed

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Alan Domenghini aka an OleHoss 
  To: GroveNet at rdrop.com 
  Sent: Thursday, December 17, 2009 2:00 PM
  Subject: [Grovenet] fog lights


  I sure hope Santa has his lead reindeers nose all polished up! 




  http://community-2.webtv.net/OleHossTreeFarm/RainUpDate/




------------------------------------------------------------------------------


   



  Rain Up Date 
  Anti Virus 



------------------------------------------------------------------------------


  _______________________________________________
  GroveNet mailing list
  GroveNet at rdrop.com
  http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet

From OleHossTreeFarm at webtv.net  Fri Dec 18 08:42:35 2009
From: OleHossTreeFarm at webtv.net (Alan Domenghini aka an OleHoss)
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2009 08:42:35 -0800
Subject: [Grovenet] A Hosstyle Foggy Greeting For You
Message-ID: <6023-4B2BB0FB-3413@storefull-3173.bay.webtv.net>

Not quite as bad as yesterday, and don't if there is such a word as
"FOG-OUT " but there ought to be.
by the bye ... Garfield says ......
http://exclusives.250free.com/html3/garmorn.html

~A~:?)

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/attachments/20091218/9a963445/attachment.html 

From a_tom_51 at juno.com  Fri Dec 18 17:10:24 2009
From: a_tom_51 at juno.com (a_tom_51 at juno.com)
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 2009 01:10:24 GMT
Subject: [Grovenet] Carbon, say what???
Message-ID: <20091218.171024.11209.0@webmail24.vgs.untd.com>

I thought that the now common use of the word "carbon" referred to what we used to call carbon dioxide (C02). Now Walt mentioned burning carbon and the result being C02. 
I do know that organic chemistry is the study of molecules that are mainly made of carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen. This is easily confused with the expression of "organic foods" which I believe is supposed to mean that only "natural" things are used instead of man made chemicals (ironically many from organic chemistry). So, what is now commonly meant by the word "carbon?"  Does anybody really know or is the definition a developing thing?

Tom Alexander






 
____________________________________________________________
Weight Loss Program
Best Weight Loss Program - Click Here!
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2141/c?cp=IyL-l8Zscc6rba-n_WE3NgAAJ1CORKrrSABr_kse746cCp3FAAYAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAADNAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAEUgAAAAA=

From edavie at verizon.net  Fri Dec 18 17:31:27 2009
From: edavie at verizon.net (Ed Davie)
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2009 17:31:27 -0800
Subject: [Grovenet] Carbon, say what???
References: <20091218.171024.11209.0@webmail24.vgs.untd.com>
Message-ID: <953B6D252E45412F9B68DDA0F7D7DDB1@700x>

As far as I am concerned, it is one of the elements.
I get very perturbed when it is used in any other context!
Ed

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

----- Original Message ----- 
From: <a_tom_51 at juno.com>
To: <grovenet at rdrop.com>
Sent: Friday, December 18, 2009 5:10 PM
Subject: [Grovenet] Carbon, say what???


>I thought that the now common use of the word "carbon" referred to what we used to call carbon dioxide (C02). Now Walt mentioned burning carbon and the result being C02. 
> I do know that organic chemistry is the study of molecules that are mainly made of carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen. This is easily confused with the expression of "organic foods" which I believe is supposed to mean that only "natural" things are used instead of man made chemicals (ironically many from organic chemistry). So, what is now commonly meant by the word "carbon?"  Does anybody really know or is the definition a developing thing?
> 
> Tom Alexander
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> Weight Loss Program
> Best Weight Loss Program - Click Here!
> http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2141/c?cp=IyL-l8Zscc6rba-n_WE3NgAAJ1CORKrrSABr_kse746cCp3FAAYAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAADNAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAEUgAAAAA=
> _______________________________________________
> GroveNet mailing list
> GroveNet at rdrop.com
> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet
>

From OleHossTreeFarm at webtv.net  Fri Dec 18 17:40:26 2009
From: OleHossTreeFarm at webtv.net (Alan Domenghini aka an OleHoss)
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2009 17:40:26 -0800
Subject: [Grovenet] Carbon, say what???
In-Reply-To: "Ed Davie" <edavie@verizon.net>'s message of Fri,
	18 Dec 2009 17:31:27 -0800
Message-ID: <365-4B2C2F0A-4900@storefull-3172.bay.webtv.net>

Okay Mr Ed.  then explain  a carbon copy

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/attachments/20091218/9942fa71/attachment.html 

From waltw at teleport.com  Fri Dec 18 17:43:19 2009
From: waltw at teleport.com (Walt Wentz)
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2009 17:43:19 -0800
Subject: [Grovenet] Carbon, say what???
In-Reply-To: <953B6D252E45412F9B68DDA0F7D7DDB1@700x>
References: <20091218.171024.11209.0@webmail24.vgs.untd.com>
	<953B6D252E45412F9B68DDA0F7D7DDB1@700x>
Message-ID: <1DC799C7-9459-4AA6-ACFC-FB64C226E1C1@teleport.com>

"Carbon footprint" is the journalistic slang used for carbon dioxide  
emissions, etc. Does seem a bit misleading at that. And although  
"pure" carbon (coal and charcoal, but not diamond) can be burned and  
produce carbon dioxide, so will any hydrocarbon fuel. So making a  
hydrocarbon fuel out of recovered CO2 will just result in cycling the  
CO2 back into the air when that "clean" fuel is burned.
On Dec 18, 2009, at 5:31 PM, Ed Davie wrote:

> As far as I am concerned, it is one of the elements.
> I get very perturbed when it is used in any other context!
> Ed
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 
> ----------
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <a_tom_51 at juno.com>
> To: <grovenet at rdrop.com>
> Sent: Friday, December 18, 2009 5:10 PM
> Subject: [Grovenet] Carbon, say what???
>
>
>> I thought that the now common use of the word "carbon" referred to  
>> what we used to call carbon dioxide (C02). Now Walt mentioned  
>> burning carbon and the result being C02.
>> I do know that organic chemistry is the study of molecules that  
>> are mainly made of carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen. This is easily  
>> confused with the expression of "organic foods" which I believe is  
>> supposed to mean that only "natural" things are used instead of  
>> man made chemicals (ironically many from organic chemistry). So,  
>> what is now commonly meant by the word "carbon?"  Does anybody  
>> really know or is the definition a developing thing?
>>
>> Tom Alexander
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> Weight Loss Program
>> Best Weight Loss Program - Click Here!
>> http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2141/c?cp=IyL-l8Zscc6rba- 
>> n_WE3NgAAJ1CORKrrSABr_kse746cCp3FAAYAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAADNAAAAAAAAAAAA 
>> AAAAAAAEUgAAAAA=
>> _______________________________________________
>> GroveNet mailing list
>> GroveNet at rdrop.com
>> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet
>>
> _______________________________________________
> GroveNet mailing list
> GroveNet at rdrop.com
> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet


From OleHossTreeFarm at webtv.net  Sun Dec 20 10:26:13 2009
From: OleHossTreeFarm at webtv.net (Alan Domenghini aka an OleHoss)
Date: Sun, 20 Dec 2009 10:26:13 -0800
Subject: [Grovenet] Countdown to Christmas
Message-ID: <6022-4B2E6C45-7513@storefull-3173.bay.webtv.net>

Good day my friends.

Not that you need any reminders, however, I am afraid this is the only
white xmas scene we shall see this year!

by the bye ... I have not got around to add to the rain up-date, but
near as I can tell, there has only been about .06 since my last count,
give or take.
I have been real busy setting up an account that will only have my
Hosstales.
I have submitted one of them to Readers Digest, and who knows if they
except it, I could real be a published writer, fancy that!

~A~:?)

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/attachments/20091220/4866cab3/attachment.html 
-------------- next part --------------
http://www.auburn.edu/~vestmon/xmas_cnt.htm

From OleHossTreeFarm at webtv.net  Sun Dec 20 14:48:01 2009
From: OleHossTreeFarm at webtv.net (Alan Domenghini aka an OleHoss)
Date: Sun, 20 Dec 2009 14:48:01 -0800
Subject: [Grovenet] Big John
Message-ID: <6029-4B2EA9A1-1509@storefull-3173.bay.webtv.net>

Here is the rough copy of the tale I've been working...

Feel free to make any comments, however, please post them directly.
Remember, I am still a struggling author.

http://tinyurl.com/yef33ew

~A~:?)



From edavie at verizon.net  Sun Dec 20 15:31:53 2009
From: edavie at verizon.net (Ed Davie)
Date: Sun, 20 Dec 2009 15:31:53 -0800
Subject: [Grovenet] Big John
References: <6029-4B2EA9A1-1509@storefull-3173.bay.webtv.net>
Message-ID: <489641E54F1E43DA92E32255D39D2139@700x>

Says, web page cannot be found.
Ed

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Alan Domenghini aka an OleHoss" <OleHossTreeFarm at webtv.net>
To: <GroveNet at rdrop.com>
Sent: Sunday, December 20, 2009 2:48 PM
Subject: [Grovenet] Big John


Here is the rough copy of the tale I've been working...

Feel free to make any comments, however, please post them directly.
Remember, I am still a struggling author.

http://tinyurl.com/yef33ew

~A~:<)


_______________________________________________
GroveNet mailing list
GroveNet at rdrop.com
http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet

From OleHossTreeFarm at webtv.net  Sun Dec 20 15:39:31 2009
From: OleHossTreeFarm at webtv.net (Alan Domenghini aka an OleHoss)
Date: Sun, 20 Dec 2009 15:39:31 -0800
Subject: [Grovenet] Big John
In-Reply-To: "Ed Davie" <edavie@verizon.net>'s message of Sun,
	20 Dec 2009 15:31:53 -0800
Message-ID: <16500-4B2EB5B3-1735@storefull-3171.bay.webtv.net>

try it again


From edavie at verizon.net  Sun Dec 20 15:45:40 2009
From: edavie at verizon.net (Ed Davie)
Date: Sun, 20 Dec 2009 15:45:40 -0800
Subject: [Grovenet] Big John
References: <6029-4B2EA9A1-1509@storefull-3173.bay.webtv.net>
	<489641E54F1E43DA92E32255D39D2139@700x>
Message-ID: <E26336A8320648EE80D8BE482F36441C@700x>

It works but just says under construction!
Ed


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Ed Davie" <edavie at verizon.net>
To: "Forest Grove local interests list" <grovenet at rdrop.com>
Sent: Sunday, December 20, 2009 3:31 PM
Subject: Re: [Grovenet] Big John


> Says, web page cannot be found.
> Ed
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Alan Domenghini aka an OleHoss" <OleHossTreeFarm at webtv.net>
> To: <GroveNet at rdrop.com>
> Sent: Sunday, December 20, 2009 2:48 PM
> Subject: [Grovenet] Big John
>
>
> Here is the rough copy of the tale I've been working...
>
> Feel free to make any comments, however, please post them directly.
> Remember, I am still a struggling author.
>
> http://tinyurl.com/yef33ew
>
> ~A~:<)
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> GroveNet mailing list
> GroveNet at rdrop.com
> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet
> _______________________________________________
> GroveNet mailing list
> GroveNet at rdrop.com
> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet
> 



From OleHossTreeFarm at webtv.net  Sun Dec 20 15:53:59 2009
From: OleHossTreeFarm at webtv.net (Alan Domenghini aka an OleHoss)
Date: Sun, 20 Dec 2009 15:53:59 -0800
Subject: [Grovenet] Big John
In-Reply-To: "Ed Davie" <edavie@verizon.net>'s message of Sun,
	20 Dec 2009 15:45:40 -0800
Message-ID: <363-4B2EB917-9829@storefull-3172.bay.webtv.net>

Now try this one 
http://tinyurl.com/ybes5z5 


From OleHossTreeFarm at webtv.net  Sun Dec 20 16:01:36 2009
From: OleHossTreeFarm at webtv.net (Alan Domenghini aka an OleHoss)
Date: Sun, 20 Dec 2009 16:01:36 -0800
Subject: [Grovenet] even though I've been a bit naughty was Big John
In-Reply-To: "Ed Davie" <edavie@verizon.net>'s message of Sun,
	20 Dec 2009 15:31:53 -0800
Message-ID: <369-4B2EBAE0-3405@storefull-3172.bay.webtv.net>

Ed.
Santa is going to bring me a computer ...
The address will be AlanDomenghini at msn.com
I have kept msn/webtv, for I still can use both my webv site and msn for
$21 for unlimited use.
msn will be used only for on lie school, so as to keep the spam to a
minimum, until I get msn figured out.


From edavie at verizon.net  Sun Dec 20 21:11:55 2009
From: edavie at verizon.net (Ed Davie)
Date: Sun, 20 Dec 2009 21:11:55 -0800
Subject: [Grovenet] Big John
References: <6029-4B2EA9A1-1509@storefull-3173.bay.webtv.net>
Message-ID: <85E704D732C04B8CAD392A37042D746E@700x>

Alan, I lost it. and this still doesn't work.
Ed

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Alan Domenghini aka an OleHoss" <OleHossTreeFarm at webtv.net>
To: <GroveNet at rdrop.com>
Sent: Sunday, December 20, 2009 2:48 PM
Subject: [Grovenet] Big John


Here is the rough copy of the tale I've been working...

Feel free to make any comments, however, please post them directly.
Remember, I am still a struggling author.

http://tinyurl.com/yef33ew

~A~:<)


_______________________________________________
GroveNet mailing list
GroveNet at rdrop.com
http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet

From OleHossTreeFarm at webtv.net  Sun Dec 20 21:40:22 2009
From: OleHossTreeFarm at webtv.net (Alan Domenghini aka an OleHoss)
Date: Sun, 20 Dec 2009 21:40:22 -0800
Subject: [Grovenet] keep the suggestions coming
Message-ID: <16497-4B2F0A46-4183@storefull-3171.bay.webtv.net>

My writing style has most always been real simple to make my tales easy
to read.
It's seems I did better while in collage some 15 years ago, give or
take.  But as they say there is always room for improvement.  I'll soon
get the hang of it again.  think maybe I'll stop using the tinyurls
also. 

http://community-2.webtv.net/olehosstales/BigJohn0/


From whatsupy2k at yahoo.com  Tue Dec 22 14:39:24 2009
From: whatsupy2k at yahoo.com (Vickie Madeoneup)
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 2009 14:39:24 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [Grovenet] anyone have a barking collar  youcould loan?
In-Reply-To: <1256892576.24194.47.camel@Netty>
References: <1256892576.24194.47.camel@Netty>
Message-ID: <693299.62391.qm@web112406.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>

My little dog has started a barking marathon every time she is outside. I am concerned the neighbors will start complaining.

I have heard of collars that spray but I am open to try any loans or suggestions.

Thanks GroveNetters, I hope you all have a wonderful holiday

Vickie
please contact me directly
whatsupy2k at yahoo.com



      

From waltw at teleport.com  Tue Dec 22 20:08:53 2009
From: waltw at teleport.com (Walt Wentz)
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 2009 20:08:53 -0800
Subject: [Grovenet] anyone have a barking collar  youcould loan?
In-Reply-To: <693299.62391.qm@web112406.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
References: <1256892576.24194.47.camel@Netty>
	<693299.62391.qm@web112406.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <22B204D6-E6F3-4855-B974-EDA2DB04FE09@teleport.com>


On Dec 22, 2009, at 2:39 PM, Vickie Madeoneup wrote:

> My little dog has started a barking marathon every time she is  
> outside. I am concerned the neighbors will start complaining.
>
> I have heard of collars that spray but I am open to try any loans  
> or suggestions.
>
> Thanks GroveNetters, I hope you all have a wonderful holiday
>
> Vickie
> please contact me directly
> whatsupy2k at yahoo.com
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> GroveNet mailing list
> GroveNet at rdrop.com
> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet


From waltw at teleport.com  Tue Dec 22 20:14:49 2009
From: waltw at teleport.com (Walt Wentz)
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 2009 20:14:49 -0800
Subject: [Grovenet] anyone have a barking collar  youcould loan?
In-Reply-To: <693299.62391.qm@web112406.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
References: <1256892576.24194.47.camel@Netty>
	<693299.62391.qm@web112406.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <729EB1C8-6E22-446B-BA99-38D335C10AB9@teleport.com>

There are two types of barking collars, one which sprays lemon oil  
into the air, and one which delivers a mild shock on the third bark,  
gradually increasing in intensity with each succeeding bark. Although  
it may sound cruel at first, the dogs quickly learn to avoid barking  
beyond the set limit.
Having a neighbor with two barking dogs, and who resolutely defends  
their right to free screech, I greatly admire your consideration for  
the neighbors!
There are some hyper breeds, such as Jack Russell terriers, which  
bark instinctively and incessantly. If you start when they are young,  
however, all can be trained.
Walt
On Dec 22, 2009, at 2:39 PM, Vickie Madeoneup wrote:

> My little dog has started a barking marathon every time she is  
> outside. I am concerned the neighbors will start complaining.
>
> I have heard of collars that spray but I am open to try any loans  
> or suggestions.
>
> Thanks GroveNetters, I hope you all have a wonderful holiday
>
> Vickie
> please contact me directly
> whatsupy2k at yahoo.com
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> GroveNet mailing list
> GroveNet at rdrop.com
> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet


From k.wilke at mac.com  Tue Dec 22 21:42:45 2009
From: k.wilke at mac.com (Kurt Wilke)
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 2009 21:42:45 -0800
Subject: [Grovenet] anyone have a barking collar  youcould loan?
In-Reply-To: <729EB1C8-6E22-446B-BA99-38D335C10AB9@teleport.com>
References: <1256892576.24194.47.camel@Netty>
	<693299.62391.qm@web112406.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
	<729EB1C8-6E22-446B-BA99-38D335C10AB9@teleport.com>
Message-ID: <6854F90B-05B1-42FC-87FE-DD72340335A0@mac.com>

Walt:

There are noise laws. I had a neighbor who continued to allow their  
dog to bark and bark. I called the police and Bonnie Hays Animal  
shelter. They let the owner know that they would be fined if they  
didn't take care of controlling their dogs.  It doesn't matter if the  
dog is barking at night or the day time.

This might be something you would want to consider.

Kurt

On Dec 22, 2009, at 8:14 PM, Walt Wentz wrote:

> There are two types of barking collars, one which sprays lemon oil
> into the air, and one which delivers a mild shock on the third bark,
> gradually increasing in intensity with each succeeding bark. Although
> it may sound cruel at first, the dogs quickly learn to avoid barking
> beyond the set limit.
> Having a neighbor with two barking dogs, and who resolutely defends
> their right to free screech, I greatly admire your consideration for
> the neighbors!
> There are some hyper breeds, such as Jack Russell terriers, which
> bark instinctively and incessantly. If you start when they are young,
> however, all can be trained.
> Walt
> On Dec 22, 2009, at 2:39 PM, Vickie Madeoneup wrote:
>
>> My little dog has started a barking marathon every time she is
>> outside. I am concerned the neighbors will start complaining.
>>
>> I have heard of collars that spray but I am open to try any loans
>> or suggestions.
>>
>> Thanks GroveNetters, I hope you all have a wonderful holiday
>>
>> Vickie
>> please contact me directly
>> whatsupy2k at yahoo.com
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> GroveNet mailing list
>> GroveNet at rdrop.com
>> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet
>
> _______________________________________________
> GroveNet mailing list
> GroveNet at rdrop.com
> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet


From jo.david at verizon.net  Tue Dec 22 22:23:43 2009
From: jo.david at verizon.net (David Morelli)
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 2009 22:23:43 -0800
Subject: [Grovenet] Proposals for Yew Street
Message-ID: <8F931253-6E0D-4C52-8EF4-20B19047C8AD@verizon.net>

The Yew Street / T.V. Highway intersection is a problem intersection, it has high traffic accidents and long delays for people trying to cross.  It qualifies for a traffic light.

ODOT doesn't want a traffic light there, even with the additional traffic that will accompany the new Wal*Mart in the block between Yew and 4th.  All of the West bound traffic from Wal*Mart will be on T.V. Highway (Adair Street) through that intersection.

The city of Forest Grove is reviewing that area and has multiple alternatives before them.

My personal favorite involves placing a traffic light on Yew that is timed to the light at 4th so that the West bound traffic that comes through the green light at 4th also gets a green light at Yew Street.  And the East bound traffic that gets a green light at Mountain View Lane gets a green light at Yew Street.  The pedestrians going to Wal*Mart and the vehicles driving on Yew Street get a traffic signal to improve their chances of avoiding an accident.

ODOT doesn't like traffic lights on Highway 8, timed or not.  So, city staff and their consultant have proposed that, in the short term, Yew Street will be one-way North bound between Pacific and Adair.  Cars that want to go to Cornelius from Yew Street must turn West and go by way of a U-turn at the Mountain View Lane light.  Trucks must go West on 25th to Quince Street, South on Highway 47 to Pacific Avenue, and then East to Cornelius.

In the long term, they propose that Mountain View Lane should go through the Mobile Home park to connect with Yew Street behind Doherty Ford.  That suggestion isn't funded, so it won't happen anytime soon.

If I can get the attachment to work, I will provide a picture of the alternatives.

David

From waltw at teleport.com  Tue Dec 22 22:52:34 2009
From: waltw at teleport.com (Walt Wentz)
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 2009 22:52:34 -0800
Subject: [Grovenet] anyone have a barking collar  youcould loan?
In-Reply-To: <6854F90B-05B1-42FC-87FE-DD72340335A0@mac.com>
References: <1256892576.24194.47.camel@Netty>
	<693299.62391.qm@web112406.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
	<729EB1C8-6E22-446B-BA99-38D335C10AB9@teleport.com>
	<6854F90B-05B1-42FC-87FE-DD72340335A0@mac.com>
Message-ID: <F0486C5E-B5FA-4CD2-8776-3F1E7394947E@teleport.com>

Hi Kurt:
I tried-- didn't work in my case. The neighbor merely got angry that  
somebody had reported his motor-mouthed mutts.  And, since he made it  
apparent he could make it unpleasant if that person kept reporting, I  
said the hell with it. Fortunately, my own increasing deafness makes  
it less of an irritant. I don't know about the other neighbors, however.
Walt
On Dec 22, 2009, at 9:42 PM, Kurt Wilke wrote:

> Walt:
>
> There are noise laws. I had a neighbor who continued to allow their
> dog to bark and bark. I called the police and Bonnie Hays Animal
> shelter. They let the owner know that they would be fined if they
> didn't take care of controlling their dogs.  It doesn't matter if the
> dog is barking at night or the day time.
>
> This might be something you would want to consider.
>
> Kurt
>
> On Dec 22, 2009, at 8:14 PM, Walt Wentz wrote:
>
>> There are two types of barking collars, one which sprays lemon oil
>> into the air, and one which delivers a mild shock on the third bark,
>> gradually increasing in intensity with each succeeding bark. Although
>> it may sound cruel at first, the dogs quickly learn to avoid barking
>> beyond the set limit.
>> Having a neighbor with two barking dogs, and who resolutely defends
>> their right to free screech, I greatly admire your consideration for
>> the neighbors!
>> There are some hyper breeds, such as Jack Russell terriers, which
>> bark instinctively and incessantly. If you start when they are young,
>> however, all can be trained.
>> Walt
>> On Dec 22, 2009, at 2:39 PM, Vickie Madeoneup wrote:
>>
>>> My little dog has started a barking marathon every time she is
>>> outside. I am concerned the neighbors will start complaining.
>>>
>>> I have heard of collars that spray but I am open to try any loans
>>> or suggestions.
>>>
>>> Thanks GroveNetters, I hope you all have a wonderful holiday
>>>
>>> Vickie
>>> please contact me directly
>>> whatsupy2k at yahoo.com
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> GroveNet mailing list
>>> GroveNet at rdrop.com
>>> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> GroveNet mailing list
>> GroveNet at rdrop.com
>> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet
>
> _______________________________________________
> GroveNet mailing list
> GroveNet at rdrop.com
> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet


From g-g-steele at comcast.net  Wed Dec 23 04:50:37 2009
From: g-g-steele at comcast.net (Geri)
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 2009 04:50:37 -0800
Subject: [Grovenet] Proposals for Yew Street
References: <8F931253-6E0D-4C52-8EF4-20B19047C8AD@verizon.net>
Message-ID: <E7F95E2DC53C4243B9C1688B06577B41@gerianehzkfhvy>

David said: "ODOT doesn't like traffic lights on Highway 8...." 

I would never have guessed -- there are so many of them!!

David, your fave alternative sounds most sensible and direct to me, by far.


Geri

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "David Morelli" <jo.david at verizon.net>
To: "grovenet" <grovenet at rdrop.com>
Sent: Tuesday, December 22, 2009 10:23 PM
Subject: [Grovenet] Proposals for Yew Street


The Yew Street / T.V. Highway intersection is a problem intersection, it has high traffic accidents and long delays for people trying to cross.  It qualifies for a traffic light.

ODOT doesn't want a traffic light there, even with the additional traffic that will accompany the new Wal*Mart in the block between Yew and 4th.  All of the West bound traffic from Wal*Mart will be on T.V. Highway (Adair Street) through that intersection.

The city of Forest Grove is reviewing that area and has multiple alternatives before them.

My personal favorite involves placing a traffic light on Yew that is timed to the light at 4th so that the West bound traffic that comes through the green light at 4th also gets a green light at Yew Street.  And the East bound traffic that gets a green light at Mountain View Lane gets a green light at Yew Street.  The pedestrians going to Wal*Mart and the vehicles driving on Yew Street get a traffic signal to improve their chances of avoiding an accident.

ODOT doesn't like traffic lights on Highway 8, timed or not.  So, city staff and their consultant have proposed that, in the short term, Yew Street will be one-way North bound between Pacific and Adair.  Cars that want to go to Cornelius from Yew Street must turn West and go by way of a U-turn at the Mountain View Lane light.  Trucks must go West on 25th to Quince Street, South on Highway 47 to Pacific Avenue, and then East to Cornelius.

In the long term, they propose that Mountain View Lane should go through the Mobile Home park to connect with Yew Street behind Doherty Ford.  That suggestion isn't funded, so it won't happen anytime soon.

If I can get the attachment to work, I will provide a picture of the alternatives.

David


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


> _______________________________________________
> GroveNet mailing list
> GroveNet at rdrop.com
> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet
>


From rab at jurislex.com  Wed Dec 23 10:01:28 2009
From: rab at jurislex.com (Bob Browning)
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 2009 10:01:28 -0800
Subject: [Grovenet] Just a little information on fairness . . .
Message-ID: <4B325AF8.1090500@jurislex.com>

An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/attachments/20091223/3ed05709/attachment.html 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: gfx_ooemailban_650.gif
Type: image/gif
Size: 6336 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : /pipermail/attachments/20091223/3ed05709/attachment.gif 

From rab at jurislex.com  Wed Dec 23 10:11:20 2009
From: rab at jurislex.com (Bob Browning)
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 2009 10:11:20 -0800
Subject: [Grovenet] TechRepublic Blogs: 10 email scams to watch out for
Message-ID: <4B325D48.5010904@jurislex.com>

An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/attachments/20091223/99c0ecfb/attachment.html 

From kevin97116 at yahoo.com  Wed Dec 23 12:29:45 2009
From: kevin97116 at yahoo.com (Kevin)
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 2009 12:29:45 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [Grovenet] Onward Oregon 66 & 67
In-Reply-To: <mailman.14.1261598408.44602.grovenet@rdrop.com>
References: <mailman.14.1261598408.44602.grovenet@rdrop.com>
Message-ID: <120419.64442.qm@web50306.mail.re2.yahoo.com>

Bob, while I lean towards supporting these measures can you explain how they effect, positively or negatively, local fire protection?

Thanks,
Kevin

Bob forwarded:
".... cuts to schools,
decreased police and fire protection, and reduced health care for the
poor and elderly."



      

From rab at jurislex.com  Wed Dec 23 12:46:03 2009
From: rab at jurislex.com (Bob Browning)
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 2009 12:46:03 -0800
Subject: [Grovenet] Onward Oregon 66 & 67
In-Reply-To: <120419.64442.qm@web50306.mail.re2.yahoo.com>
References: <mailman.14.1261598408.44602.grovenet@rdrop.com>
	<120419.64442.qm@web50306.mail.re2.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <4B32818B.60106@jurislex.com>

An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/attachments/20091223/9778c64a/attachment.html 

From jo.david at verizon.net  Wed Dec 23 13:40:39 2009
From: jo.david at verizon.net (David Morelli)
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 2009 13:40:39 -0800
Subject: [Grovenet] Onward Oregon 66 & 67
In-Reply-To: <4B32818B.60106@jurislex.com>
References: <mailman.14.1261598408.44602.grovenet@rdrop.com>
	<120419.64442.qm@web50306.mail.re2.yahoo.com>
	<4B32818B.60106@jurislex.com>
Message-ID: <CAF41C1D-7D22-45E5-834B-01F8A796217C@verizon.net>

David who?

I am generally ignorant on the subject of fire department funding, and we all *know* that I never speak from ignorance.  <smile>

My understanding is that the rural districts get most of their money from property taxes and the city districts are funded from the general fund.  Except for special districts or special assessments.  State revenue sharing.  Timber fire suppression funding.  And everything else.

We do have FD people on grovenet, they may have something that isn't a guess.

David

On Dec 23, 2009, at 12:46 PM, Bob Browning wrote:

> Good question, but I don't know the answer. David, are you out there?
> 
> bob 
> 
> Kevin wrote:
>> 
>> Bob, while I lean towards supporting these measures can you explain how they effect, positively or negatively, local fire protection?
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> Kevin
>> 
>> Bob forwarded:
>> ".... cuts to schools,
>> decreased police and fire protection, and reduced health care for the
>> poor and elderly."
> 
> _______________________________________________
> GroveNet mailing list
> GroveNet at rdrop.com
> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet


From NoSpam03 at comcast.net  Wed Dec 23 13:42:32 2009
From: NoSpam03 at comcast.net (Steven)
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 2009 13:42:32 -0800
Subject: [Grovenet] Just a little information on fairness . . .
In-Reply-To: <4B325AF8.1090500@jurislex.com>
References: <4B325AF8.1090500@jurislex.com>
Message-ID: <006901ca8418$d61125d0$82337170$@net>

I'll just hit the first one since I don't have time to read it all. 

Who is to say it is not true. The decision is up to the business involved.

Cut the Myth crap, and discuss the issues. Business will pass on their
expenses. People making more money will choose to live in other states. 

The state should learn to live within their budget. If we trusted our
leaders, we would have allowed a sales tax years ago. But we don't. Merry
Christmas

 

From: grovenet-bounces at rdrop.com [mailto:grovenet-bounces at rdrop.com] On
Behalf Of Bob Browning
Sent: Wednesday, December 23, 2009 10:01 AM
To: Grovenet
Subject: [Grovenet] Just a little information on fairness . . .

 

 <http://www.onwardoregon.org> 


 5 Top Myths About Measures 66 and 67

With about a month to go before the special election on Measures 66 and 67,
the misconceptions are flying!  Are you confused? 

Well, here at Onward Oregon we wanted to shed a little light on the reality
of these revenue measures.  So to clear up some common misconceptions about
Measures 66 and 67, here are our 5 top myths about Measures 66 and 67.

 Myth #1:  Additional corporate taxes will cost Oregon jobs 

Reality:  Under the current corporate tax system, two thirds of Oregon
businesses pay only $10 per year in taxes, a level that hasn't changed since
well before World War II.  Under the new system, 88 percent of Oregon
businesses still will pay only $150 per year in taxes.  Even those
businesses that will have to pay tax on gross sales will not be hard hit - a
business generating $1 million in sales will write the Oregon Department of
Revenue a check for only $500.  No business will cut jobs because its tax
bill goes up by $140 or even $500.  In fact, we need Measures 66 and 67 to
save jobs in Oregon - teachers, state troopers, and home health care workers
all risk losing their jobs if these measures fail.

 Myth #2:  Oregon won't be able to attract new businesses because of the new
taxes.

 Reality:  Even with the new tax provisions, Oregon corporate taxes will
remain among the lowest in the country.  Oregon will still be a very
attractive place to do business - even with the new tax measures, Oregon
will rank 48th in the nation in corporate taxation, and will still have the
lowest taxes on the West Coast.  Washington's Business and Occupation tax,
for example, is almost 5 times higher than Oregon's new corporate minimum
tax.  And, Oregon's new corporate taxes are structured specifically to
protect small business, so we'll keep the dynamic businesses we have and
maintain an environment that will encourage new businesses to grow here. 

 Myth #3:  The new measures will increase taxes on most Oregonians, and we
just can't afford it.

 Reality:  Hardly any Oregonians will be affected by personal income tax
increases.  The changes in personal income taxes only affect individuals
making more than $125,000 and households making more than $250,000 per year.
That means that almost 98 percent of Oregonians will see no change in their
personal income taxes.  Even those folks who do see an increase won't be
bearing much of a burden - the increase applies only to income above
$125,000 for individuals or $250,000 for families.  If your family has
taxable income of $260,000, your taxes will only go up by $180 for 2011.
And more good news, that amount will be cut in half in 2012. 

Myth #4:  If Measures 66 and 67 fail, it's really no big deal. 

 Reality:  If Measures 66 and 67 don't pass, a lot of Oregonians will pay
the price in lost state services.  94 percent of Oregon's budget goes to
vital services - education, healthcare, public safety, and human services.
Most Oregonians will be hit hard if the changes the Legislature made are
reversed - through cuts to schools, decreased police and fire protection,
and reduced health care for the poor and elderly.  300,000 Oregonians will
also be affected in another way.  The measures include a tax break for
people receiving unemployment benefits.  If Measures 66 and 67 fail, these
unemployed, struggling Oregonians will lose a critical tax break they need.
Voters have a chance to decide who they think deserves a break - and who can
pay a little bit more.

Myth #5:  The Legislature just passed these tax measures because it couldn't
do the heavy lifting necessary to cut the State budget.

Reality:  The Legislature made every reasonable cut to State program budgets
BEFORE deciding to enact revenue measures.  The 2009 Legislature faced a
huge problem - the State budget had a deficit of $4 billion.  The first
thing the Legislature did was make cuts; in fact, they addressed half the
deficit with cuts of nearly $2 billion!  They also took advantage of another
$1 billion in Federal stimulus money and tapped $255 million in reserve
funds.  Which left a gap of around $800 million to be filled with tax
increases.  So when someone says we need to reduce spending before we raise
taxes, you can tell them: We did.  The Legislature cut spending by more than
twice the amount added in these tax measures.

Between now and January 26, we'll be bringing you more information on these
important measures.  Vote Yes for Measures 66 and 67!  And tell your friends
and family to vote yes, too.

Onward,

The
<http://www.kintera.org/TR.asp?a=geJNIONsFeJKJ4K&s=ksLRKWNAJdKWK9PUE&m=klJUJ
hO0KlJ7E>  Team at Onward Oregon





Mailing Address:
Onward Oregon
333 SE 2nd Av
Portland, OR 97035 
US 

Contact Name: Lenny Dee
Telephone Number: 503-233-3018

 

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/gif
Size: 6336 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : /pipermail/attachments/20091223/c93025f0/attachment.gif 

From waltw at teleport.com  Wed Dec 23 23:26:44 2009
From: waltw at teleport.com (Walt Wentz)
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 2009 23:26:44 -0800
Subject: [Grovenet] Just a little information on fairness . . .
In-Reply-To: <006901ca8418$d61125d0$82337170$@net>
References: <4B325AF8.1090500@jurislex.com>
	<006901ca8418$d61125d0$82337170$@net>
Message-ID: <C5F2B6B1-1B61-4070-8A9C-35ED60B2BE2B@teleport.com>


On Dec 23, 2009, at 1:42 PM, Steven wrote:

> I'll just hit the first one since I don't have time to read it all.

No time to read one page on the most important issues facing the  
state at the moment? What, is your house on fire?
>
> Who is to say it is not true. The decision is up to the business  
> involved.
>
> Cut the Myth crap, and discuss the issues.

Ah, but the Myths ARE an issue. The Myths being promulgated by the  
corporate and banking Astroturf movement (STOP JOB-KILLING TAXES! ALL  
BUSINESSES WILL FLEE THE STATE! THE SUPER-RICH WILL MOVE TO NEW  
JERSEY! WE'LL ALL BE MURDERED IN OUR BEDS!) are supposed to keep us  
distracted from the real problem, which is that some of the state's  
essential services (e.g. schools) are running on empty, while  
Oregon's corporate taxes are among the very lowest in the nation, and  
our wealthy people (a tiny minority) apparently live here because  
they like the place, not because of our modest taxes.

> Business will pass on their
> expenses.

Um, gee... $150 in corporate taxes divided among, say, 5,000  
customers will be how much? And even if said corporation earns $1  
million in the state, lessee... that's a backbreaking additional  tax  
of $500. $500 for $1 million? I'd go for that deal myself. And is a  
million-dollar company likely to fire employees because of that  
enormous total tax load of $650? Not unless they have an employee who  
works for only $650 a year. (Which they would dearly love, no doubt,  
but we aren't quite there yet).

> People making more money will choose to live in other states.

Well, there's always Washington, which has no income tax. I don't  
notice any mad stampede of Oregon millionaires headed north-- but  
then we probably don't have enough Oregon millionaires to make up a  
decent flock, let alone a herd. And, as you might say, the decision  
is up to the millionaire involved.
>
> The state should learn to live within their budget. If we trusted our
> leaders, we would have allowed a sales tax years ago.

But Washington did pass a sales tax, and now we have Washingtonians  
coming to Oregon to shop, because we don't have one.

Merry Christmas to all, indeed.... and hopes of a merrier one next year.
Walt
>
>
>
> From: grovenet-bounces at rdrop.com [mailto:grovenet- 
> bounces at rdrop.com] On
> Behalf Of Bob Browning
> Sent: Wednesday, December 23, 2009 10:01 AM
> To: Grovenet
> Subject: [Grovenet] Just a little information on fairness . . .
>
>
>
>  <http://www.onwardoregon.org>
>
>
>  5 Top Myths About Measures 66 and 67
>
> With about a month to go before the special election on Measures 66  
> and 67,
> the misconceptions are flying!  Are you confused?
>
> Well, here at Onward Oregon we wanted to shed a little light on the  
> reality
> of these revenue measures.  So to clear up some common  
> misconceptions about
> Measures 66 and 67, here are our 5 top myths about Measures 66 and 67.
>
>  Myth #1:  Additional corporate taxes will cost Oregon jobs
>
> Reality:  Under the current corporate tax system, two thirds of Oregon
> businesses pay only $10 per year in taxes, a level that hasn't  
> changed since
> well before World War II.  Under the new system, 88 percent of Oregon
> businesses still will pay only $150 per year in taxes.  Even those
> businesses that will have to pay tax on gross sales will not be  
> hard hit - a
> business generating $1 million in sales will write the Oregon  
> Department of
> Revenue a check for only $500.  No business will cut jobs because  
> its tax
> bill goes up by $140 or even $500.  In fact, we need Measures 66  
> and 67 to
> save jobs in Oregon - teachers, state troopers, and home health  
> care workers
> all risk losing their jobs if these measures fail.
>
>  Myth #2:  Oregon won't be able to attract new businesses because  
> of the new
> taxes.
>
>  Reality:  Even with the new tax provisions, Oregon corporate taxes  
> will
> remain among the lowest in the country.  Oregon will still be a very
> attractive place to do business - even with the new tax measures,  
> Oregon
> will rank 48th in the nation in corporate taxation, and will still  
> have the
> lowest taxes on the West Coast.  Washington's Business and  
> Occupation tax,
> for example, is almost 5 times higher than Oregon's new corporate  
> minimum
> tax.  And, Oregon's new corporate taxes are structured specifically to
> protect small business, so we'll keep the dynamic businesses we  
> have and
> maintain an environment that will encourage new businesses to grow  
> here.
>
>  Myth #3:  The new measures will increase taxes on most Oregonians,  
> and we
> just can't afford it.
>
>  Reality:  Hardly any Oregonians will be affected by personal  
> income tax
> increases.  The changes in personal income taxes only affect  
> individuals
> making more than $125,000 and households making more than $250,000  
> per year.
> That means that almost 98 percent of Oregonians will see no change  
> in their
> personal income taxes.  Even those folks who do see an increase  
> won't be
> bearing much of a burden - the increase applies only to income above
> $125,000 for individuals or $250,000 for families.  If your family has
> taxable income of $260,000, your taxes will only go up by $180 for  
> 2011.
> And more good news, that amount will be cut in half in 2012.
>
> Myth #4:  If Measures 66 and 67 fail, it's really no big deal.
>
>  Reality:  If Measures 66 and 67 don't pass, a lot of Oregonians  
> will pay
> the price in lost state services.  94 percent of Oregon's budget  
> goes to
> vital services - education, healthcare, public safety, and human  
> services.
> Most Oregonians will be hit hard if the changes the Legislature  
> made are
> reversed - through cuts to schools, decreased police and fire  
> protection,
> and reduced health care for the poor and elderly.  300,000  
> Oregonians will
> also be affected in another way.  The measures include a tax break for
> people receiving unemployment benefits.  If Measures 66 and 67  
> fail, these
> unemployed, struggling Oregonians will lose a critical tax break  
> they need.
> Voters have a chance to decide who they think deserves a break -  
> and who can
> pay a little bit more.
>
> Myth #5:  The Legislature just passed these tax measures because it  
> couldn't
> do the heavy lifting necessary to cut the State budget.
>
> Reality:  The Legislature made every reasonable cut to State  
> program budgets
> BEFORE deciding to enact revenue measures.  The 2009 Legislature  
> faced a
> huge problem - the State budget had a deficit of $4 billion.  The  
> first
> thing the Legislature did was make cuts; in fact, they addressed  
> half the
> deficit with cuts of nearly $2 billion!  They also took advantage  
> of another
> $1 billion in Federal stimulus money and tapped $255 million in  
> reserve
> funds.  Which left a gap of around $800 million to be filled with tax
> increases.  So when someone says we need to reduce spending before  
> we raise
> taxes, you can tell them: We did.  The Legislature cut spending by  
> more than
> twice the amount added in these tax measures.
>
> Between now and January 26, we'll be bringing you more information  
> on these
> important measures.  Vote Yes for Measures 66 and 67!  And tell  
> your friends
> and family to vote yes, too.
>
> Onward,
>
> The
> <http://www.kintera.org/TR.asp? 
> a=geJNIONsFeJKJ4K&s=ksLRKWNAJdKWK9PUE&m=klJUJ
> hO0KlJ7E>  Team at Onward Oregon
>
>
>
>
>
> Mailing Address:
> Onward Oregon
> 333 SE 2nd Av
> Portland, OR 97035
> US
>
> Contact Name: Lenny Dee
> Telephone Number: 503-233-3018
>
>
>
> <image001.gif>_______________________________________________
> GroveNet mailing list
> GroveNet at rdrop.com
> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet


From ocollaugh at comcast.net  Thu Dec 24 00:22:17 2009
From: ocollaugh at comcast.net (donkelly)
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 2009 08:22:17 +0000 (UTC)
Subject: [Grovenet] Rain
In-Reply-To: <6CAD996F42824F939FC48AD943C9E750@gerianehzkfhvy>
Message-ID: <421538931.4513691261642937218.JavaMail.root@sz0024a.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net>

Seems like less rain than we got here ten years ago. I remember when the water on Council Creek was over the bridge in Hillsboro and we coudn't get to work. An the ice storm of Dec 6, 1994 shut roads down for many people for several days. Snow/Ice on Base line last winter was exceptional of course.
That was unfun to drive.

don
----- Original Message -----
From: Geri <g-g-steele at comcast.net>
To: Forest Grove local interests list <grovenet at rdrop.com>
Sent: Tue, 15 Dec 2009 20:37:37 +0000 (UTC)
Subject: Re: [Grovenet] Rain

Yes, Katie!

And am glad <so far> our precipitation here isn't all snow like last year, while folks are trying, in addition to their usual commutes, to prepare for holidays and visit loved ones, etc.

Geri

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Katie Allnutt" <allnutt at verizon.net>
To: "Ed Davie" <edavie at verizon.net>; "Forest Grove local interests list" <grovenet at rdrop.com>
Sent: Tuesday, December 15, 2009 12:06 PM
Subject: Re: [Grovenet] Rain


> After all those dry days, yes! Rain is important.  With water,  
> especially clean drinkable water, one of the resources that will be  
> redistributed with shifts in climate systems we have to be thankful  
> for what we have.
> 
> Katie
> And bees too. We may not be able to agree on much on grovenet but I'm  
> betting we can agree that water and our hard working pollinators are  
> terribly important.
> 
> 
> 
> On Dec 15, 2009, at 11:27 AM, Ed Davie wrote:
> 
>> In an attempt to get something important on grovenet, I am  
>> reporting 1.48" of rain in the last 24 hours!.
>> Ed
>> _______________________________________________
>> GroveNet mailing list
>> GroveNet at rdrop.com
>> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet
> 
> _______________________________________________
> GroveNet mailing list
> GroveNet at rdrop.com
> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet
>

_______________________________________________
GroveNet mailing list
GroveNet at rdrop.com
http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet


From oldredwagon at verizon.net  Thu Dec 24 03:55:26 2009
From: oldredwagon at verizon.net (Marian Cakarnis)
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 2009 03:55:26 -0800
Subject: [Grovenet] Just a little information on fairness . . .
In-Reply-To: <C5F2B6B1-1B61-4070-8A9C-35ED60B2BE2B@teleport.com>
References: <4B325AF8.1090500@jurislex.com>
	<006901ca8418$d61125d0$82337170$@net>
	<C5F2B6B1-1B61-4070-8A9C-35ED60B2BE2B@teleport.com>
Message-ID: <48B5268CD3C54769841CF53BF67D3DC7@JeffVAIO>

Thanks for putting so many of my thoughts to words!
Marian

--------------------------------------------------
From: "Walt Wentz" <waltw at teleport.com>
Sent: Wednesday, December 23, 2009 11:26 PM
To: "Forest Grove local interests list" <grovenet at rdrop.com>
Subject: Re: [Grovenet] Just a little information on fairness . . .

> 
> On Dec 23, 2009, at 1:42 PM, Steven wrote:
> 
>> I'll just hit the first one since I don't have time to read it all.
> 
> No time to read one page on the most important issues facing the  
> state at the moment? What, is your house on fire?
>>
>> Who is to say it is not true. The decision is up to the business  
>> involved.
>>
>> Cut the Myth crap, and discuss the issues.
> 
> Ah, but the Myths ARE an issue. The Myths being promulgated by the  
> corporate and banking Astroturf movement (STOP JOB-KILLING TAXES! ALL  
> BUSINESSES WILL FLEE THE STATE! THE SUPER-RICH WILL MOVE TO NEW  
> JERSEY! WE'LL ALL BE MURDERED IN OUR BEDS!) are supposed to keep us  
> distracted from the real problem, which is that some of the state's  
> essential services (e.g. schools) are running on empty, while  
> Oregon's corporate taxes are among the very lowest in the nation, and  
> our wealthy people (a tiny minority) apparently live here because  
> they like the place, not because of our modest taxes.
> 
>> Business will pass on their
>> expenses.
> 
> Um, gee... $150 in corporate taxes divided among, say, 5,000  
> customers will be how much? And even if said corporation earns $1  
> million in the state, lessee... that's a backbreaking additional  tax  
> of $500. $500 for $1 million? I'd go for that deal myself. And is a  
> million-dollar company likely to fire employees because of that  
> enormous total tax load of $650? Not unless they have an employee who  
> works for only $650 a year. (Which they would dearly love, no doubt,  
> but we aren't quite there yet).
> 
>> People making more money will choose to live in other states.
> 
> Well, there's always Washington, which has no income tax. I don't  
> notice any mad stampede of Oregon millionaires headed north-- but  
> then we probably don't have enough Oregon millionaires to make up a  
> decent flock, let alone a herd. And, as you might say, the decision  
> is up to the millionaire involved.
>>
>> The state should learn to live within their budget. If we trusted our
>> leaders, we would have allowed a sales tax years ago.
> 
> But Washington did pass a sales tax, and now we have Washingtonians  
> coming to Oregon to shop, because we don't have one.
> 
> Merry Christmas to all, indeed.... and hopes of a merrier one next year.
> Walt
>>
>>
>>
>> From: grovenet-bounces at rdrop.com [mailto:grovenet- 
>> bounces at rdrop.com] On
>> Behalf Of Bob Browning
>> Sent: Wednesday, December 23, 2009 10:01 AM
>> To: Grovenet
>> Subject: [Grovenet] Just a little information on fairness . . .
>>
>>
>>
>>  <http://www.onwardoregon.org>
>>
>>
>>  5 Top Myths About Measures 66 and 67
>>
>> With about a month to go before the special election on Measures 66  
>> and 67,
>> the misconceptions are flying!  Are you confused?
>>
>> Well, here at Onward Oregon we wanted to shed a little light on the  
>> reality
>> of these revenue measures.  So to clear up some common  
>> misconceptions about
>> Measures 66 and 67, here are our 5 top myths about Measures 66 and 67.
>>
>>  Myth #1:  Additional corporate taxes will cost Oregon jobs
>>
>> Reality:  Under the current corporate tax system, two thirds of Oregon
>> businesses pay only $10 per year in taxes, a level that hasn't  
>> changed since
>> well before World War II.  Under the new system, 88 percent of Oregon
>> businesses still will pay only $150 per year in taxes.  Even those
>> businesses that will have to pay tax on gross sales will not be  
>> hard hit - a
>> business generating $1 million in sales will write the Oregon  
>> Department of
>> Revenue a check for only $500.  No business will cut jobs because  
>> its tax
>> bill goes up by $140 or even $500.  In fact, we need Measures 66  
>> and 67 to
>> save jobs in Oregon - teachers, state troopers, and home health  
>> care workers
>> all risk losing their jobs if these measures fail.
>>
>>  Myth #2:  Oregon won't be able to attract new businesses because  
>> of the new
>> taxes.
>>
>>  Reality:  Even with the new tax provisions, Oregon corporate taxes  
>> will
>> remain among the lowest in the country.  Oregon will still be a very
>> attractive place to do business - even with the new tax measures,  
>> Oregon
>> will rank 48th in the nation in corporate taxation, and will still  
>> have the
>> lowest taxes on the West Coast.  Washington's Business and  
>> Occupation tax,
>> for example, is almost 5 times higher than Oregon's new corporate  
>> minimum
>> tax.  And, Oregon's new corporate taxes are structured specifically to
>> protect small business, so we'll keep the dynamic businesses we  
>> have and
>> maintain an environment that will encourage new businesses to grow  
>> here.
>>
>>  Myth #3:  The new measures will increase taxes on most Oregonians,  
>> and we
>> just can't afford it.
>>
>>  Reality:  Hardly any Oregonians will be affected by personal  
>> income tax
>> increases.  The changes in personal income taxes only affect  
>> individuals
>> making more than $125,000 and households making more than $250,000  
>> per year.
>> That means that almost 98 percent of Oregonians will see no change  
>> in their
>> personal income taxes.  Even those folks who do see an increase  
>> won't be
>> bearing much of a burden - the increase applies only to income above
>> $125,000 for individuals or $250,000 for families.  If your family has
>> taxable income of $260,000, your taxes will only go up by $180 for  
>> 2011.
>> And more good news, that amount will be cut in half in 2012.
>>
>> Myth #4:  If Measures 66 and 67 fail, it's really no big deal.
>>
>>  Reality:  If Measures 66 and 67 don't pass, a lot of Oregonians  
>> will pay
>> the price in lost state services.  94 percent of Oregon's budget  
>> goes to
>> vital services - education, healthcare, public safety, and human  
>> services.
>> Most Oregonians will be hit hard if the changes the Legislature  
>> made are
>> reversed - through cuts to schools, decreased police and fire  
>> protection,
>> and reduced health care for the poor and elderly.  300,000  
>> Oregonians will
>> also be affected in another way.  The measures include a tax break for
>> people receiving unemployment benefits.  If Measures 66 and 67  
>> fail, these
>> unemployed, struggling Oregonians will lose a critical tax break  
>> they need.
>> Voters have a chance to decide who they think deserves a break -  
>> and who can
>> pay a little bit more.
>>
>> Myth #5:  The Legislature just passed these tax measures because it  
>> couldn't
>> do the heavy lifting necessary to cut the State budget.
>>
>> Reality:  The Legislature made every reasonable cut to State  
>> program budgets
>> BEFORE deciding to enact revenue measures.  The 2009 Legislature  
>> faced a
>> huge problem - the State budget had a deficit of $4 billion.  The  
>> first
>> thing the Legislature did was make cuts; in fact, they addressed  
>> half the
>> deficit with cuts of nearly $2 billion!  They also took advantage  
>> of another
>> $1 billion in Federal stimulus money and tapped $255 million in  
>> reserve
>> funds.  Which left a gap of around $800 million to be filled with tax
>> increases.  So when someone says we need to reduce spending before  
>> we raise
>> taxes, you can tell them: We did.  The Legislature cut spending by  
>> more than
>> twice the amount added in these tax measures.
>>
>> Between now and January 26, we'll be bringing you more information  
>> on these
>> important measures.  Vote Yes for Measures 66 and 67!  And tell  
>> your friends
>> and family to vote yes, too.
>>
>> Onward,
>>
>> The
>> <http://www.kintera.org/TR.asp? 
>> a=geJNIONsFeJKJ4K&s=ksLRKWNAJdKWK9PUE&m=klJUJ
>> hO0KlJ7E>  Team at Onward Oregon
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Mailing Address:
>> Onward Oregon
>> 333 SE 2nd Av
>> Portland, OR 97035
>> US
>>
>> Contact Name: Lenny Dee
>> Telephone Number: 503-233-3018
>>
>>
>>
>> <image001.gif>_______________________________________________
>> GroveNet mailing list
>> GroveNet at rdrop.com
>> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet
> 
> _______________________________________________
> GroveNet mailing list
> GroveNet at rdrop.com
> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet
> 

From allnutt at verizon.net  Thu Dec 24 12:00:32 2009
From: allnutt at verizon.net (Katie Allnutt)
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 2009 12:00:32 -0800
Subject: [Grovenet] Just a little information on fairness . . .
In-Reply-To: <006901ca8418$d61125d0$82337170$@net>
References: <4B325AF8.1090500@jurislex.com>
	<006901ca8418$d61125d0$82337170$@net>
Message-ID: <0414582C-ECAC-42EA-BB5E-32F1C046ECF4@verizon.net>

Sorry to disagree Steven, but businesses will not necessarily pass on  
their expenses.
First they get to deduct their state taxes from their income so they  
won't have to pass on all of it, second if they are in a competitive  
marketplace and they are not the price leader, they may choose to  
absorb the cost instead of passing up market share to someone else  
who is lower cost. And third they always have the option of reducing  
their dividend or CEO bonuses instead of passing it on to consumers.  
There are options. Taxes are merely a business expense along with  
electricity and taking out the trash. It is simplistic to think that  
every month a companies electric bill goes up the cost  automatically  
results in higher prices.

The state does live within its budget. That is why Oregon has already  
made cuts and will make more if this does not pass.  And I'm really  
confused about your trusting the leaders connection to sales tax.  
There is no logic there. How does our trust in their ability to spend  
income tax money differ form trust to spend sales tax money? These  
are people that we scrutinize and elect. We seem to be able to avoid  
convicted racketeers even when they run.

Merry Christmas to you too.

On Dec 23, 2009, at 1:42 PM, Steven wrote:

> I'll just hit the first one since I don't have time to read it all.
>
> Who is to say it is not true. The decision is up to the business  
> involved.
>
> Cut the Myth crap, and discuss the issues. Business will pass on their
> expenses. People making more money will choose to live in other  
> states.
>
> The state should learn to live within their budget. If we trusted our
> leaders, we would have allowed a sales tax years ago. But we don't.  
> Merry
> Christmas
>
>
>
> From: grovenet-bounces at rdrop.com [mailto:grovenet- 
> bounces at rdrop.com] On
> Behalf Of Bob Browning
> Sent: Wednesday, December 23, 2009 10:01 AM
> To: Grovenet
> Subject: [Grovenet] Just a little information on fairness . . .
>
>
>
>  <http://www.onwardoregon.org>
>
>
>  5 Top Myths About Measures 66 and 67
>
> With about a month to go before the special election on Measures 66  
> and 67,
> the misconceptions are flying!  Are you confused?
>
> Well, here at Onward Oregon we wanted to shed a little light on the  
> reality
> of these revenue measures.  So to clear up some common  
> misconceptions about
> Measures 66 and 67, here are our 5 top myths about Measures 66 and 67.
>
>  Myth #1:  Additional corporate taxes will cost Oregon jobs
>
> Reality:  Under the current corporate tax system, two thirds of Oregon
> businesses pay only $10 per year in taxes, a level that hasn't  
> changed since
> well before World War II.  Under the new system, 88 percent of Oregon
> businesses still will pay only $150 per year in taxes.  Even those
> businesses that will have to pay tax on gross sales will not be  
> hard hit - a
> business generating $1 million in sales will write the Oregon  
> Department of
> Revenue a check for only $500.  No business will cut jobs because  
> its tax
> bill goes up by $140 or even $500.  In fact, we need Measures 66  
> and 67 to
> save jobs in Oregon - teachers, state troopers, and home health  
> care workers
> all risk losing their jobs if these measures fail.
>
>  Myth #2:  Oregon won't be able to attract new businesses because  
> of the new
> taxes.
>
>  Reality:  Even with the new tax provisions, Oregon corporate taxes  
> will
> remain among the lowest in the country.  Oregon will still be a very
> attractive place to do business - even with the new tax measures,  
> Oregon
> will rank 48th in the nation in corporate taxation, and will still  
> have the
> lowest taxes on the West Coast.  Washington's Business and  
> Occupation tax,
> for example, is almost 5 times higher than Oregon's new corporate  
> minimum
> tax.  And, Oregon's new corporate taxes are structured specifically to
> protect small business, so we'll keep the dynamic businesses we  
> have and
> maintain an environment that will encourage new businesses to grow  
> here.
>
>  Myth #3:  The new measures will increase taxes on most Oregonians,  
> and we
> just can't afford it.
>
>  Reality:  Hardly any Oregonians will be affected by personal  
> income tax
> increases.  The changes in personal income taxes only affect  
> individuals
> making more than $125,000 and households making more than $250,000  
> per year.
> That means that almost 98 percent of Oregonians will see no change  
> in their
> personal income taxes.  Even those folks who do see an increase  
> won't be
> bearing much of a burden - the increase applies only to income above
> $125,000 for individuals or $250,000 for families.  If your family has
> taxable income of $260,000, your taxes will only go up by $180 for  
> 2011.
> And more good news, that amount will be cut in half in 2012.
>
> Myth #4:  If Measures 66 and 67 fail, it's really no big deal.
>
>  Reality:  If Measures 66 and 67 don't pass, a lot of Oregonians  
> will pay
> the price in lost state services.  94 percent of Oregon's budget  
> goes to
> vital services - education, healthcare, public safety, and human  
> services.
> Most Oregonians will be hit hard if the changes the Legislature  
> made are
> reversed - through cuts to schools, decreased police and fire  
> protection,
> and reduced health care for the poor and elderly.  300,000  
> Oregonians will
> also be affected in another way.  The measures include a tax break for
> people receiving unemployment benefits.  If Measures 66 and 67  
> fail, these
> unemployed, struggling Oregonians will lose a critical tax break  
> they need.
> Voters have a chance to decide who they think deserves a break -  
> and who can
> pay a little bit more.
>
> Myth #5:  The Legislature just passed these tax measures because it  
> couldn't
> do the heavy lifting necessary to cut the State budget.
>
> Reality:  The Legislature made every reasonable cut to State  
> program budgets
> BEFORE deciding to enact revenue measures.  The 2009 Legislature  
> faced a
> huge problem - the State budget had a deficit of $4 billion.  The  
> first
> thing the Legislature did was make cuts; in fact, they addressed  
> half the
> deficit with cuts of nearly $2 billion!  They also took advantage  
> of another
> $1 billion in Federal stimulus money and tapped $255 million in  
> reserve
> funds.  Which left a gap of around $800 million to be filled with tax
> increases.  So when someone says we need to reduce spending before  
> we raise
> taxes, you can tell them: We did.  The Legislature cut spending by  
> more than
> twice the amount added in these tax measures.
>
> Between now and January 26, we'll be bringing you more information  
> on these
> important measures.  Vote Yes for Measures 66 and 67!  And tell  
> your friends
> and family to vote yes, too.
>
> Onward,
>
> The
> <http://www.kintera.org/TR.asp? 
> a=geJNIONsFeJKJ4K&s=ksLRKWNAJdKWK9PUE&m=klJUJ
> hO0KlJ7E>  Team at Onward Oregon
>
>
>
>
>
> Mailing Address:
> Onward Oregon
> 333 SE 2nd Av
> Portland, OR 97035
> US
>
> Contact Name: Lenny Dee
> Telephone Number: 503-233-3018
>
>
>
> <image001.gif>_______________________________________________
> GroveNet mailing list
> GroveNet at rdrop.com
> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet


From OleHossTreeFarm at webtv.net  Sat Dec 26 09:56:39 2009
From: OleHossTreeFarm at webtv.net (Alan Domenghini aka an OleHoss)
Date: Sat, 26 Dec 2009 09:56:39 -0800
Subject: [Grovenet] calling Woodchuck
Message-ID: <4109-4B364E57-519@storefull-3172.bay.webtv.net>

chuck... A formoer grove net person  wants to know if your still
repairing computers on the side?
Mr.  David Ross .. (503) 357-5160

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/attachments/20091226/d7e9f51a/attachment.html 

From ocollaugh at comcast.net  Sat Dec 26 10:22:46 2009
From: ocollaugh at comcast.net (donkelly)
Date: Sat, 26 Dec 2009 18:22:46 +0000 (UTC)
Subject: [Grovenet] calling Woodchuck
In-Reply-To: <4109-4B364E57-519@storefull-3172.bay.webtv.net>
Message-ID: <1181659540.4892831261851766410.JavaMail.root@sz0024a.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net>

Same request here. We need a local computer GURU.

donkelly

----- Original Message -----
From: Alan Domenghini aka an OleHoss <OleHossTreeFarm at webtv.net>
To: GroveNet at rdrop.com
Sent: Sat, 26 Dec 2009 17:56:39 +0000 (UTC)
Subject: [Grovenet] calling Woodchuck

chuck... A formoer grove net person  wants to know if your still
repairing computers on the side?
Mr.  David Ross .. (503) 357-5160



From chuck at grovenet.net  Sat Dec 26 10:56:58 2009
From: chuck at grovenet.net (chuck)
Date: Sat, 26 Dec 2009 10:56:58 -0800
Subject: [Grovenet] calling Woodchuck
In-Reply-To: <1181659540.4892831261851766410.JavaMail.root@sz0024a.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net>
References: <1181659540.4892831261851766410.JavaMail.root@sz0024a.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net>
Message-ID: <4B365C7A.8000607@grovenet.net>

donkelly wrote:
> Same request here. We need a local computer GURU.
>
> donkelly
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Alan Domenghini aka an OleHoss <OleHossTreeFarm at webtv.net>
> To: GroveNet at rdrop.com
> Sent: Sat, 26 Dec 2009 17:56:39 +0000 (UTC)
> Subject: [Grovenet] calling Woodchuck
>
> chuck... A formoer grove net person  wants to know if your still
> repairing computers on the side?
> Mr.  David Ross .. (503) 357-5160
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> GroveNet mailing list
> GroveNet at rdrop.com
> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet
>
>   
Hey everyone. 

I'm still around. 

My work schedule is kinda wacky - but I usually have Monday's and 
Tuesday's free.

I'll call Mr Ross.  Thanks for the info.

chuck

From allnutt at verizon.net  Sat Dec 26 13:23:25 2009
From: allnutt at verizon.net (Katie Allnutt)
Date: Sat, 26 Dec 2009 13:23:25 -0800
Subject: [Grovenet] Proposals for Yew Street
In-Reply-To: <8F931253-6E0D-4C52-8EF4-20B19047C8AD@verizon.net>
References: <8F931253-6E0D-4C52-8EF4-20B19047C8AD@verizon.net>
Message-ID: <92CBD883-E6CA-496E-A798-63493EC8A84D@verizon.net>

While a light would be a good solution I guess the 2nd best is the  
one way for going north on Yew between the two streets.  But it still  
won't make the pedestrians much safer because the traffic on TV hwy  
will still move very fast there and with the slight curve in the road  
they will still be hard to see. If they don't put in a light,  
hopefully they will at least consider putting in a curb to delineate  
when you are in the street and when you are on the side of the road.

Katie

On Dec 22, 2009, at 10:23 PM, David Morelli wrote:

> The Yew Street / T.V. Highway intersection is a problem  
> intersection, it has high traffic accidents and long delays for  
> people trying to cross.  It qualifies for a traffic light.
>
> ODOT doesn't want a traffic light there, even with the additional  
> traffic that will accompany the new Wal*Mart in the block between  
> Yew and 4th.  All of the West bound traffic from Wal*Mart will be  
> on T.V. Highway (Adair Street) through that intersection.
>
> The city of Forest Grove is reviewing that area and has multiple  
> alternatives before them.
>
> My personal favorite involves placing a traffic light on Yew that  
> is timed to the light at 4th so that the West bound traffic that  
> comes through the green light at 4th also gets a green light at Yew  
> Street.  And the East bound traffic that gets a green light at  
> Mountain View Lane gets a green light at Yew Street.  The  
> pedestrians going to Wal*Mart and the vehicles driving on Yew  
> Street get a traffic signal to improve their chances of avoiding an  
> accident.
>
> ODOT doesn't like traffic lights on Highway 8, timed or not.  So,  
> city staff and their consultant have proposed that, in the short  
> term, Yew Street will be one-way North bound between Pacific and  
> Adair.  Cars that want to go to Cornelius from Yew Street must turn  
> West and go by way of a U-turn at the Mountain View Lane light.   
> Trucks must go West on 25th to Quince Street, South on Highway 47  
> to Pacific Avenue, and then East to Cornelius.
>
> In the long term, they propose that Mountain View Lane should go  
> through the Mobile Home park to connect with Yew Street behind  
> Doherty Ford.  That suggestion isn't funded, so it won't happen  
> anytime soon.
>
> If I can get the attachment to work, I will provide a picture of  
> the alternatives.
>
> David_______________________________________________
> GroveNet mailing list
> GroveNet at rdrop.com
> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet


From jo.david at verizon.net  Sun Dec 27 21:32:25 2009
From: jo.david at verizon.net (David Morelli)
Date: Sun, 27 Dec 2009 21:32:25 -0800
Subject: [Grovenet] Proposals for Yew Street
In-Reply-To: <92CBD883-E6CA-496E-A798-63493EC8A84D@verizon.net>
References: <8F931253-6E0D-4C52-8EF4-20B19047C8AD@verizon.net>
	<92CBD883-E6CA-496E-A798-63493EC8A84D@verizon.net>
Message-ID: <8108CA38-DCF5-4356-83B2-92D09426309F@verizon.net>

I have two problems with the City's second option.

The curve will continue to prevent a good view of pedestrians and North bound traffic for the traffic in the right hand lane.  There is no visual indication to the traffic in the right lane, that traffic is slowing/stopping in the left lane for pedestrians in the street.  They could be slowing to enter the Quickie-Mart.   Bump-bump, oops.   And the new traffic from Wal*Mart will eliminate many of the gaps that the auto traffic may have now.

The industrial park has trucks that deliver products, and this proposal adds traffic to Hwy 47 that is generated by warehouses on/near Yew St.  The trucks go down 25th to add to the problems at the light of Hwy 47 and Pacific Avenue.

David
 
On Dec 26, 2009, at 1:23 PM, Katie Allnutt wrote:

> While a light would be a good solution I guess the 2nd best is the  
> one way for going north on Yew between the two streets.  But it still  
> won't make the pedestrians much safer because the traffic on TV hwy  
> will still move very fast there and with the slight curve in the road  
> they will still be hard to see. If they don't put in a light,  
> hopefully they will at least consider putting in a curb to delineate  
> when you are in the street and when you are on the side of the road.
> 
> Katie
> 
> On Dec 22, 2009, at 10:23 PM, David Morelli wrote:
> 
>> The Yew Street / T.V. Highway intersection is a problem  
>> intersection, it has high traffic accidents and long delays for  
>> people trying to cross.  It qualifies for a traffic light.
>> 
>> ODOT doesn't want a traffic light there, even with the additional  
>> traffic that will accompany the new Wal*Mart in the block between  
>> Yew and 4th.  All of the West bound traffic from Wal*Mart will be  
>> on T.V. Highway (Adair Street) through that intersection.
>> 
>> The city of Forest Grove is reviewing that area and has multiple  
>> alternatives before them.
>> 
>> My personal favorite involves placing a traffic light on Yew that  
>> is timed to the light at 4th so that the West bound traffic that  
>> comes through the green light at 4th also gets a green light at Yew  
>> Street.  And the East bound traffic that gets a green light at  
>> Mountain View Lane gets a green light at Yew Street.  The  
>> pedestrians going to Wal*Mart and the vehicles driving on Yew  
>> Street get a traffic signal to improve their chances of avoiding an  
>> accident.
>> 
>> ODOT doesn't like traffic lights on Highway 8, timed or not.  So,  
>> city staff and their consultant have proposed that, in the short  
>> term, Yew Street will be one-way North bound between Pacific and  
>> Adair.  Cars that want to go to Cornelius from Yew Street must turn  
>> West and go by way of a U-turn at the Mountain View Lane light.   
>> Trucks must go West on 25th to Quince Street, South on Highway 47  
>> to Pacific Avenue, and then East to Cornelius.
>> 
>> In the long term, they propose that Mountain View Lane should go  
>> through the Mobile Home park to connect with Yew Street behind  
>> Doherty Ford.  That suggestion isn't funded, so it won't happen  
>> anytime soon.
>> 
>> If I can get the attachment to work, I will provide a picture of  
>> the alternatives.
>> 
>> David_______________________________________________
>> GroveNet mailing list
>> GroveNet at rdrop.com
>> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet
> 
> _______________________________________________
> GroveNet mailing list
> GroveNet at rdrop.com
> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet



From NoSpam03 at comcast.net  Sun Dec 27 21:45:39 2009
From: NoSpam03 at comcast.net (Steven)
Date: Sun, 27 Dec 2009 21:45:39 -0800
Subject: [Grovenet] Proposals for Yew Street
In-Reply-To: <8108CA38-DCF5-4356-83B2-92D09426309F@verizon.net>
References: <8F931253-6E0D-4C52-8EF4-20B19047C8AD@verizon.net>	<92CBD883-E6CA-496E-A798-63493EC8A84D@verizon.net>
	<8108CA38-DCF5-4356-83B2-92D09426309F@verizon.net>
Message-ID: <003f01ca8780$fd13d720$f73b8560$@net>

How about a major rebuild. Take out the single road. Make it two streets
from Yew to Hawthorne.

-----Original Message-----
From: grovenet-bounces at rdrop.com [mailto:grovenet-bounces at rdrop.com] On
Behalf Of David Morelli
Sent: Sunday, December 27, 2009 9:32 PM
To: Forest Grove local interests list
Subject: Re: [Grovenet] Proposals for Yew Street

I have two problems with the City's second option.
/listinfo/grovenet


From allnutt at verizon.net  Sun Dec 27 21:50:39 2009
From: allnutt at verizon.net (Katie Allnutt)
Date: Sun, 27 Dec 2009 21:50:39 -0800
Subject: [Grovenet] Proposals for Yew Street
In-Reply-To: <003f01ca8780$fd13d720$f73b8560$@net>
References: <8F931253-6E0D-4C52-8EF4-20B19047C8AD@verizon.net>
	<92CBD883-E6CA-496E-A798-63493EC8A84D@verizon.net>
	<8108CA38-DCF5-4356-83B2-92D09426309F@verizon.net>
	<003f01ca8780$fd13d720$f73b8560$@net>
Message-ID: <94BDF5B0-8B41-4450-BEA4-C26DAC6832A7@verizon.net>

Who is going to pay?  One reason Walmart is in Cornelius is so they  
didn't have to pay for any of the traffic improvements to fix the  
problems created in FG.  The big dogs at corporate headquarters know  
how to socialize the impact costs of their buildings to maximize the  
private profits.  They  have made it an art form.

Katie



On Dec 27, 2009, at 9:45 PM, Steven wrote:

> How about a major rebuild. Take out the single road. Make it two  
> streets
> from Yew to Hawthorne.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: grovenet-bounces at rdrop.com [mailto:grovenet- 
> bounces at rdrop.com] On
> Behalf Of David Morelli
> Sent: Sunday, December 27, 2009 9:32 PM
> To: Forest Grove local interests list
> Subject: Re: [Grovenet] Proposals for Yew Street
>
> I have two problems with the City's second option.
> /listinfo/grovenet
>
> _______________________________________________
> GroveNet mailing list
> GroveNet at rdrop.com
> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet


From jo.david at verizon.net  Sun Dec 27 21:51:30 2009
From: jo.david at verizon.net (David Morelli)
Date: Sun, 27 Dec 2009 21:51:30 -0800
Subject: [Grovenet] Proposals for Yew Street
In-Reply-To: <003f01ca8780$fd13d720$f73b8560$@net>
References: <8F931253-6E0D-4C52-8EF4-20B19047C8AD@verizon.net>
	<92CBD883-E6CA-496E-A798-63493EC8A84D@verizon.net>
	<8108CA38-DCF5-4356-83B2-92D09426309F@verizon.net>
	<003f01ca8780$fd13d720$f73b8560$@net>
Message-ID: <E3DFAE6F-7C94-4F25-B84B-CD48BC161602@verizon.net>

Are you referring to 19th & Pacific as the "two streets"?

David

On Dec 27, 2009, at 9:45 PM, Steven wrote:

> How about a major rebuild. Take out the single road. Make it two streets
> from Yew to Hawthorne.

From jo.david at verizon.net  Sun Dec 27 21:57:42 2009
From: jo.david at verizon.net (David Morelli)
Date: Sun, 27 Dec 2009 21:57:42 -0800
Subject: [Grovenet] Proposals for Yew Street
In-Reply-To: <94BDF5B0-8B41-4450-BEA4-C26DAC6832A7@verizon.net>
References: <8F931253-6E0D-4C52-8EF4-20B19047C8AD@verizon.net>
	<92CBD883-E6CA-496E-A798-63493EC8A84D@verizon.net>
	<8108CA38-DCF5-4356-83B2-92D09426309F@verizon.net>
	<003f01ca8780$fd13d720$f73b8560$@net>
	<94BDF5B0-8B41-4450-BEA4-C26DAC6832A7@verizon.net>
Message-ID: <071F9109-718A-4B06-B981-E6545FAF66E0@verizon.net>

Katie,

I was present for some of the hearing on the Wal*Mart project.  Their traffic consulting firm submitted a report to ODOT that said that the intersection of Yew and Adair did not qualify for a signal warrant.  ODOT accepted the report, because ODOT had a test that was different than the Federal standard required in Oregon State law.  

The traffic data provided by the consultant DID support a warrant for a signal, they just didn't bother to mention it.  The accident data in ODOT files DID support a different warrant for a signal, they just didn't bother to look at it.

So, there may be a Walmart corporate push to socialize their impact costs, but the Kittleson Company and ODOT were in bed with them on it.

David

On Dec 27, 2009, at 9:50 PM, Katie Allnutt wrote:

> Who is going to pay?  One reason Walmart is in Cornelius is so they  didn't have to pay for any of the traffic improvements to fix the  problems created in FG.  The big dogs at corporate headquarters know  how to socialize the impact costs of their buildings to maximize the  private profits.  They  have made it an art form.
> 
> Katie


From jo.david at verizon.net  Sun Dec 27 22:25:05 2009
From: jo.david at verizon.net (David Morelli)
Date: Sun, 27 Dec 2009 22:25:05 -0800
Subject: [Grovenet] Proposals for Yew Street
In-Reply-To: <E3DFAE6F-7C94-4F25-B84B-CD48BC161602@verizon.net>
References: <8F931253-6E0D-4C52-8EF4-20B19047C8AD@verizon.net>
	<92CBD883-E6CA-496E-A798-63493EC8A84D@verizon.net>
	<8108CA38-DCF5-4356-83B2-92D09426309F@verizon.net>
	<003f01ca8780$fd13d720$f73b8560$@net>
	<E3DFAE6F-7C94-4F25-B84B-CD48BC161602@verizon.net>
Message-ID: <807B818C-87B0-4A60-AEF0-24AA16422CF0@verizon.net>

A major rebuild from Yew to Hawthorne would be an expensive project for the section between Mountainview Lane and Yew.  The right of way (ROW) is occupied by one house and a business/shopping center.  The balance of the ROW between Hawthorne and Mountainview Lane is already in streets or unoccupied.

The section between Oak and Hwy 47 would need to be built to street standards.  The Albertson's project proposed to do much of that expense, and if the 19th extension was built to local street width it would likely be a fair requirement for the development to pay the full cost, including the new light at 19th / Hwy 47.  The current ROW from Hwy 47 to Mountainview Lane would support two travel lanes, one bike lane and parking on one side.  The alignment for a pure one-way couplet would go through the shopping center, a house, and the Prime Time parking lot.  If the ROW had been planned when that area was developed, it would be less traumatic changes today.

Even if it was done, it would not resolve the safety issues for Yew Street.  It is child's play to time the signals on a one-way couplet, so placing a signal on Yew/Adair does not need to impact traffic flow or capacity.  And since Adair is one-way street today, there is no reason that it could not be timed from Walgreens to Yew Street today.  Okay, one reason; ODOT doesn't want it timed.

The signal at Yew/Adair would have been an expense for the Walmart development, and they were obligated to pay at least part of the cost of a signal when the project was approved.  But, because ODOT didn't require a signal, the money wasn't applied to a traffic light at Yew, it was put into the pot of money to pay for adding a new left turn lane at Hwy 47.

I have proposed extending 19th & Pacific as a one-way couplet to the East.  Besides pushing it through existing businesses, I offered three options that would use existing ROW at Hwy 47, existing ROW at Mountainview Lane, or new ROW at the Haggan project site.  The Haggan site has the least impact on existing businesses and homes with the greatest expansion of highway capacity.

ODOT doesn't appear to be interested in discussing those options either.  Nor, city staff and the consultant.  They want to make T.V. Highway wider with a bigger intersection at Hwy 47.

I want to go with a one-way couplet and sell the unused ROW to businesses to expand their operations.

David

On Dec 27, 2009, at 9:51 PM, David Morelli wrote:

> Are you referring to 19th & Pacific as the "two streets"?
> 
> David
> 
> On Dec 27, 2009, at 9:45 PM, Steven wrote:
> 
>> How about a major rebuild. Take out the single road. Make it two streets from Yew to Hawthorne.



From NoSpam03 at comcast.net  Mon Dec 28 08:39:06 2009
From: NoSpam03 at comcast.net (Steven)
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 2009 08:39:06 -0800
Subject: [Grovenet] Proposals for Yew Street
In-Reply-To: <E3DFAE6F-7C94-4F25-B84B-CD48BC161602@verizon.net>
References: <8F931253-6E0D-4C52-8EF4-20B19047C8AD@verizon.net>	<92CBD883-E6CA-496E-A798-63493EC8A84D@verizon.net>	<8108CA38-DCF5-4356-83B2-92D09426309F@verizon.net>	<003f01ca8780$fd13d720$f73b8560$@net>
	<E3DFAE6F-7C94-4F25-B84B-CD48BC161602@verizon.net>
Message-ID: <000301ca87dc$467c5a30$d3750e90$@net>

Yes. I'd think between 47 and Yew would be the area where the blocks could
be pushed north a bit.
Just a thought. It would involve lots of moved real estate. But I wonder why
the road turns instead of following 19th. Yet it has always been that way.

-----Original Message-----
From: grovenet-bounces at rdrop.com [mailto:grovenet-bounces at rdrop.com] On
Behalf Of David Morelli
Sent: Sunday, December 27, 2009 9:52 PM
To: Forest Grove local interests list
Subject: Re: [Grovenet] Proposals for Yew Street

Are you referring to 19th & Pacific as the "two streets"?

David

On Dec 27, 2009, at 9:45 PM, Steven wrote:

> How about a major rebuild. Take out the single road. Make it two streets
> from Yew to Hawthorne.
_______________________________________________
GroveNet mailing list
GroveNet at rdrop.com
http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet


From jo.david at verizon.net  Mon Dec 28 21:06:36 2009
From: jo.david at verizon.net (David Morelli)
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 2009 21:06:36 -0800
Subject: [Grovenet] Proposals for Yew Street
In-Reply-To: <000301ca87dc$467c5a30$d3750e90$@net>
References: <8F931253-6E0D-4C52-8EF4-20B19047C8AD@verizon.net>
	<92CBD883-E6CA-496E-A798-63493EC8A84D@verizon.net>
	<8108CA38-DCF5-4356-83B2-92D09426309F@verizon.net>
	<003f01ca8780$fd13d720$f73b8560$@net>
	<E3DFAE6F-7C94-4F25-B84B-CD48BC161602@verizon.net>
	<000301ca87dc$467c5a30$d3750e90$@net>
Message-ID: <B4898F23-F833-4CD2-91E3-1122FACA0A82@verizon.net>

The current alignment of Pacific and 19th allows sufficient room between them for healthy development of commercial establishments, and it is zoned for that use.  By making them into a one-way couplet the businesses could have access to both directions of traffic and yet have a large build able area.  Over time the landowners on the South side of 19th might be served by allowing higher density zoning.

While I would prefer that the couplet ran the full distance from 47 and Yew, I do not advocate extending 19th through Mountainview Center because it would involve the destruction of existing working businesses.  It is possible to end the couplet at Mountainview Lane, but that would have a crossover with 90 degree turns at the 19th/Mountainview and Mountainview/Pacific intersections.    It is also possible to reduce the couplet with a crossover at Hwy. 47 with a pair of 90 degree turns in the 19th/47 and 47/Pacific intersections.  

I would suggest a compromise by having the couplet use the old Ace location for a crossover with generous radius curves, and then with two way traffic from there to Mountainview Lane.

The gooseneck on 19th at Mountainview Lane is awkward, but I suspect necessary to give sufficient distance between the intersection and the railroad crossing.

Any of those alternatives would give better capacity from the available land than the ODOT suggestion to expand the current intersection.

David

On Dec 28, 2009, at 8:39 AM, Steven wrote:

> Yes. I'd think between 47 and Yew would be the area where the blocks could be pushed north a bit.
> Just a thought. It would involve lots of moved real estate. But I wonder why the road turns instead of following 19th. Yet it has always been that way.


From OleHossTreeFarm at webtv.net  Tue Dec 29 11:09:04 2009
From: OleHossTreeFarm at webtv.net (Alan Domenghini aka an OleHoss)
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 2009 11:09:04 -0800
Subject: [Grovenet] 2010
Message-ID: <27567-4B3A53D0-589@storefull-3173.bay.webtv.net>

http://community-2.webtv.net/OleHossTreeFarm/2010/

in any case ... HaPpY NeW YeAr

~A~ :?)

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/attachments/20091229/89f1206a/attachment.html 

From chuck at grovenet.net  Tue Dec 29 11:35:33 2009
From: chuck at grovenet.net (chuck)
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 2009 11:35:33 -0800
Subject: [Grovenet] 2010
In-Reply-To: <27567-4B3A53D0-589@storefull-3173.bay.webtv.net>
References: <27567-4B3A53D0-589@storefull-3173.bay.webtv.net>
Message-ID: <4B3A5A05.9090108@grovenet.net>

Alan Domenghini aka an OleHoss wrote:
> http://community-2.webtv.net/OleHossTreeFarm/2010/
>
> in any case ... HaPpY NeW YeAr
>
> ~A~ :?)
>
>   
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Click for Banks, Oregon Forecast
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> GroveNet mailing list
> GroveNet at rdrop.com
> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet
>   
Niiiiice kitty.......

From rab at jurislex.com  Wed Dec 30 11:00:32 2009
From: rab at jurislex.com (Bob Browning)
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 2009 11:00:32 -0800
Subject: [Grovenet] Pew Forum: How Religious Is Your State?
Message-ID: <4B3BA350.7020001@jurislex.com>

An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/attachments/20091230/1b63465a/attachment.html 

From rab at jurislex.com  Wed Dec 30 11:20:32 2009
From: rab at jurislex.com (Bob Browning)
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 2009 11:20:32 -0800
Subject: [Grovenet] [Fwd: Pew Forum: How Religious Is Your State?]
Message-ID: <4B3BA800.2040307@jurislex.com>

An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/attachments/20091230/a7c722de/attachment.html 
-------------- next part --------------
An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: Attached Message Part
Url: /pipermail/attachments/20091230/a7c722de/attachment.ksh 

From jo.david at verizon.net  Wed Dec 30 11:58:15 2009
From: jo.david at verizon.net (David Morelli)
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 2009 11:58:15 -0800
Subject: [Grovenet] [Fwd: Pew Forum: How Religious Is Your State?]
In-Reply-To: <4B3BA800.2040307@jurislex.com>
References: <4B3BA800.2040307@jurislex.com>
Message-ID: <20493216-67EC-41E3-BB8D-28AB269C1F7D@verizon.net>

Bob,

Perhaps, a better correlative question is:

"In the final judgement, will we be judged by our faith, or by our treatment of the least among us?"

David


On Dec 30, 2009, at 11:20 AM, Bob Browning wrote:

> And note that, of all of the states above the national average, all but NC, IN, VA, FL, and MD/DC  (5 out of 21) voted for McCain/Palin, while in the bottom 25 of the listed states, only AK, MT/WY, AZ, and ND/SD voted for McCain/Palin. Thus, one might conclude that, based on gross analysis, importance of religion in one's life is probably the single most important correlative of whether one is likely to vote R or D!!

From rab at jurislex.com  Wed Dec 30 13:36:21 2009
From: rab at jurislex.com (Bob Browning)
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 2009 13:36:21 -0800
Subject: [Grovenet] [Fwd: Pew Forum: How Religious Is Your State?]
In-Reply-To: <20493216-67EC-41E3-BB8D-28AB269C1F7D@verizon.net>
References: <4B3BA800.2040307@jurislex.com>
	<20493216-67EC-41E3-BB8D-28AB269C1F7D@verizon.net>
Message-ID: <4B3BC7D5.2030707@jurislex.com>

An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/attachments/20091230/1b3e8a43/attachment.html