Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Fw: No rain

Expand Messages
  • foryeshua1@juno.com
    Mike, I tried to send this to you last week but didn t have the right address in my book. I have a follow up of another email which was a further answer to
    Message 1 of 19 , Oct 23, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      Mike, I tried to send this to you last week but didn't have the right
      address in my book. I have a follow up of another email which was a
      further answer to his response if you want it. Walter
      --------- Forwarded message ----------
      From: foryeshua1@...
      To: taylor@...
      Cc: gary@...,methanehydrateclub@...,bakalarm@...
      Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2002 22:22:00 -0700
      Subject: No rain

      George,
      I believe that I wrote you about this problem at the end of last
      Winter. I had observed that it looked like an opening of the
      Willamette Valley had occurred which made it more of a conductor of the
      SE. The wall that we had first observed in the ocean off the Oregon
      Pacific coast had been dealt with by insulating with dirt bombed down
      over the SE conducting volcanic leaking spots between the subducting
      Pacific plate and the overriding American plate edge, which was caused by
      a speeding up of the spin of the earth caused by something that was done
      earlier.
      In that Email I detailed the possibility of going into the
      Pacific and covering with dirt each and every venting spot that was
      leaking across the Northern Pacific basin. If the Pacific Northwest is
      going to get rain this Winter, this may have to be done. Another
      treatment that may do the job is to return the shape of the earth to a
      slower rotating speed. This would cause the subducting Pacific plate to
      squeeze together a little, if it is done carefully and with right design.
      To return the shape of the Northern Hemisphere to what it was, it is
      necessary to remove the poles that have been put into place around the
      circle of the Arctic. Before this is being done it will be necessary to
      prepare an SE discharge pole in the center of the North pole, as well as
      one on the South Pole. This pole must be carefully designed to help us
      handle ice that will form around it on each pole. These poles must be
      switched to be able to control the amount of SE that will flow through
      them, so that the speed of the rotation of the earth can be exactly
      controlled. If this is done, then the speed can be controlled perfectly,
      and slowly adjusted so we know what is happening and how much is
      happening to the speed of rotation, earth shape, and munching of
      subducting plates.
      If we carefully munch the spread open Pacific plate and the
      spread open edge of the American plate under the Willamette Valley and
      Pacific plate subducting under the American plate, by slowing the
      rotation of the earth, then we can return normal Jet stream paths over
      the Pacific Northwest. If we do not then prepare for a very dry Winter.
      If we choose to do this without putting the controlling North and
      South switched poles, by slowing the rotation by trying to further
      control the rotation and pole shifting possibilities with other
      electrodes away from the centers of geographic North and South Poles, we
      may cause great earthquakes, possibly pole shifts which can bring
      unexpected changes in the world's shape and rotating speed without
      control. A pole shift will give us a new place for the poles to exert
      their best rotating vectors of speed. Which automatically calls for a
      reshaping of the entire earth along the new rotation lines from the new
      North to the New South pole positions around a new equator line in the
      center. The shifting of the Americas from Europe was caused by these
      types of changes of pole rotation positions, as the North pole shifted
      from places near American to places near Russia, over the three ice ages.
      BTW this work needs to be done by the best minds working
      together to forsee any affect which may occur and what might be done to
      soften them, or keep them from happening. Half baked ideas shot from the
      hip of some brilliant person will not be good enough. Good night.
      Walter
    • Mike Doran
      There is a TS in the E. Pac. Another ENSO related Linda? http://weather.unisys.com/hurricane/e_pacific/2002/KENNA/ No. It s true that there has been good
      Message 2 of 19 , Oct 23, 2002
      • 0 Attachment
        There is a TS in the E. Pac. Another ENSO related Linda?


        http://weather.unisys.com/hurricane/e_pacific/2002/KENNA/



        No.

        It's true that there has been good flaring this summer from double
        peak of the flaring cycle BUT that doesn't mean that the biological
        conditions, nor other factors, either favor suppression or El Nino
        like patterned behavior in E. Pac storms. Take a look at this from
        the last El Nino:

        http://weather.unisys.com/hurricane/e_pacific/1997H/index.html

        There of course was Linda but this storm moved almost straight west
        and this makes sense from the standpoint of both a positively charged
        W. Pac and warm SSTs in the region. But the warm SSTs this time are
        certainly a source of EMF but it is directed almost straight north.
        This is interesting because what happens if oceans from a Linda are
        cooled from the path it took, the counter current is cooler for less
        induction against cirrus going back. In this instance, however, you
        have a Doran wave and another storm and a positive SOI that is going
        to induct against cirrus in some of the oceans warmest SSTs, meaning
        that you have maximum cooling.

        Meanwhile, the Colorado basin and the coast of California continues
        to be VERY Gaia poor as much in contrast as the GOM is Gaia rich.

        W/ another earth directed CME, I have to talk about a false skeptic
        on climate a little. I hope other posters understand I attempt to be
        apolitical, although it comes out political:

        http://www.aei.org/ra/raglas0105.htm

        <tt>"Glassman: If there was global warming before the 20th
        century . . . what caused it?

        Baliunas: When the sun's magnetism is strong, the sun's energy output
        is higher and the Earth is warmer. . . . We measured that carefully
        over the last 20 years with satellites from the Earth, and we
        measured it indirectly going back 400 years, 1,000 years, and 10,000
        years.

        Glassman: Now, have you actually correlated the activity of the sun,
        this magnetism that you're talking about, with the rise of
        temperatures on Earth?

        Baliunas: Yes, the correlation is very strong. For the temperature
        records going back on Earth, we can reconstruct the Northern
        Hemisphere about 250 years or so. And the ups and downs of
        temperature match almost exactly the ups and downs and change in
        magnetism, and so, the energy output of the sun. . . .

        Glassman: Has there been solar activity over the last hundred years
        that would correlate with the temperature on Earth?

        Baliunas: Yes, it correlates almost exactly with the temperature on
        Earth. The sun is as magnetically active as it's been in our direct
        telescope records of the sun since the days of Galileo. So the
        magnetism of the sun has been rising gradually, and it was especially
        sharp early in the 20th century, coincident with this rise in
        temperature on the Earth.

        . . .

        Baliunas: The science altogether is unsettled, but we know for sure
        that the models that make the predictions into the future are
        exaggerating the warmth. . . . The fact that we stop emitting carbon
        dioxide will do nothing to change the course of the
        climate. . . . "</tt>

        ++++++++++++++

        This argument has been one in coming now from the right for years. I
        was first introduced to her from reading the speech text from a
        Republican fundraiser that was attended by Chuck Habel of Nebraska,
        who is a carbon clubber and a RWN.

        The last statement Baliunas makes is as purely political as it gets.
        Her message is simple. Sun causes chaotic changes, has so in the
        past, and we don't know any better--burn fossil fuels. Her ignorance
        is literally the most dangerous dogma in the world, in my view.

        The fallacy of her own argument can be seen in its own context. She
        argues that the temperature of the earth has changed very little over
        the past 100 years BUT then says that there are these changes that
        come from the sun's variability--so what is it, chaos or modulation?
        Now, I agree that the sun causes EMF changes and changes the way
        clouds behave. And I also agree that CO2 as a GHG forcing is minimal
        compared to clouds--particularly cirrus. BUT, what she has failed to
        consider is how EMFs might be modulated by the biosphere, of which
        CO2 is a huge player, and how those EMFs impact the very proxy she
        studies. The solar people are some of the worst propagaters of dogma
        right now, because they rely on observational data that could be
        distorted by clouds which would occur in a low ocean surface
        temperature setting as in during the LIA. What isn't discussed is,
        for instance how the Keeling Whorf data connect up tidal changes that
        match perfectly w/ the LIA and how Maunder Min only partially matches
        the proxy data, and how Keeling Whorf would impact hydrates.

        It is very much the difference between taking asperin and being in a
        cold room when at issue is your body temperature. This woman is NOT a
        biologist, and the RWNs have picked her to be their carbon
        club 'skeptic' because cynics before her have been vilified in the
        press--and rightfully so. (To be even handed, "warmers" have not been
        treated to good skeptcism, so that both sides beat each other's
        strawmen). These people are no more qualified to talk about climate
        then anyone, because they lack the education in cloud behavior, EMFs,
        and biology, where the largest dampening occurs, from a mathematical
        standpoint, occurs.

        I am going to continue to post, probably for the next 50 years on
        this, and my message is very dangerous to the fascists. My view is
        that this is such a huge political issue w/ wars for oil and
        Hubbert's peak that eventually the anti fascists will pick it up and
        drop their CO2 is a GHG argument for a more biological position.

        My view is also that RWNs tend to be young earth creationists and
        biologically retarded. That explains why their form of Christainity
        does not reflect Christ, or the money changers would be whipped out
        of the temple of God and you would be worrying about taking that SUV
        out of your eye and not worry about Bible literacy of those who
        really have the teachings of Christ in their hearts.


        The truth on this issue is that as the observational tools have
        become more complex, my EMF cirrus biology model has explained things
        much better. EG why w/ high CME flaring we don't have a full blown El
        Nino despite what people like Sallie are saying. Or how a warmer
        ocean inducts better against cirrus in the Southern Ocean due to the
        direction of current and how that has spelled cold anomaly SSTs, when
        post Mt. Pinatubo, post flaring cycle bottom the cooler oceans
        produced the very warm anomalies for the 1997-8 500 year El Nino. So
        there is the real time issues that destroy these cynics, the false
        skeptic fascist carbon clubbers. But better, this theory has the DNA
        evidence that allows the long term analysis that the false skeptics
        complain is not there.

        And nothing points to EMFs, cirrus and the biosphere better then
        tropical storm activity and behavior. The Doran waves along the
        equatorial Pacific and then north to Texas and further north is a
        great example.
      • Mike Doran
        Problem w/ the SE theory is the capacitive quality of the insulative values of the air and the conductive quality of the clouds and oceans and ionosphere. EMF
        Message 3 of 19 , Oct 23, 2002
        • 0 Attachment
          Problem w/ the SE theory is the capacitive quality of the insulative
          values of the air and the conductive quality of the clouds and oceans
          and ionosphere. EMF is defined by this circuitry over the EMF of the
          sun.
        • David
          ... Help me out. What s an RWN?? Anyway, I think she makes some very good points. Sunspot counts, and therefore solar energy output, have been quite well
          Message 4 of 19 , Oct 24, 2002
          • 0 Attachment
            >
            > This argument has been one in coming now from the right for years.
            > I
            > was first introduced to her from reading the speech text from a
            > Republican fundraiser that was attended by Chuck Habel of Nebraska,
            > who is a carbon clubber and a RWN.

            Help me out. What's an RWN??

            Anyway, I think she makes some very good points. Sunspot counts, and
            therefore solar energy output, have been quite well cataloged since
            Galileo first put two lenses together in a tube. The Maunder minimum
            was also quite well documented, and matched up with the Little Ice
            Age very well. To me, there can be no doubt that Earth climate is
            influenced by solar activity. Its just common sense!

            There are changes that come from the sun's variability. She is spot
            on about their being a high period of solar magnetic activity in the
            early 20th century. Beginning soon after 1900, there was a steady
            increase in the sunspot counts of the solar cycle peaks, the highest
            point coming around 1960. The activity has stayed pretty high since
            then, and this solar cycle looks like it is following the trend.

            By the way, I'd buy somebody a steak dinner at Outback if they could
            tell me what went on in the sun to make the Maunder Minimum happen.
            It came on quite suddenly! But, I digress...

            I would not be so presumptious to say that greenhouse gas release has
            no effect. I also believe that methane released from hydrates can
            have a very big effect. It seems like I read somewhere that a
            massive methane release from hydrates around Scandanavia may have
            played in instrumental part in ending the last full-blown ice age, or
            at least ending it sooner that it might otherwise have been.

            However, I do firmly believe that our climate is tied directly to
            solar energy output (ie. magnetic activity), and I think Baliunas
            raises some excellent points. To a large extent, our climate is
            going to do what it is going to do, no matter what humans do. The
            South Pole was once covered with forests, folks, and that's AFTER it
            drifted into the position it is in now.
          • mike
            ... Right wing nut. Look. Chuck Hagel, Republican Senator from Nebraska, holds a fundraiser. Invites big shareholders from the Big Three, BP Amoco, Texico, big
            Message 5 of 19 , Oct 24, 2002
            • 0 Attachment
              > Help me out. What's an RWN??<BR>

              Right wing nut.

              Look. Chuck Hagel, Republican Senator from Nebraska, holds a fundraiser.
              Invites big shareholders from the Big Three, BP Amoco, Texico, big coal
              interests and so forth. Then he invites Sallie to speak. Now, where is
              the juice from the left? My view is this isn't just "passionate"
              conservatism but fascism, the politics of the pure corporative state.
              It's right wing with insanity.

              Sure there is junk science on both sides of the climate debate. CO2 is
              not a significant forcing as a green house gas. But that doesn't stop it
              from affecting cloud behavior through the biosphere's EMF modulation of
              clouds. I will discuss the substance of this all day long. What ISN'T
              occurring is a substantive discussion because of the narrow kens and the
              selling out. Plain and simple. Sallie speaking w/out a biological
              context, without discussing the modulation by the biosphere is criminal
              in its misleading implications here, in my view.

              Let me give you an example. During the Younger Dryas the Mississippi was
              diverted to the St. Lawrence Seaway--away from the Mississippi and the
              GOM. A thousand years of cold followed. Now, here is a simple but good
              question. Assuming the Gaia aspects I have been discussing in detail,
              isn't it a reasonable view that it took that long for the biosphere in
              the N. Atlantic to become able to bring feedbacks that enhanced cirrus,
              and hence resulted in warming? Therefore, there is WAY more going on
              then solar insOlation here. WAY more. To examine this problem under the
              ASSUMPTION that the chaotic inputs meet no feedbacks from the biosphere
              is STUPID!! And this is exactly what Sallie is doing, without an
              education in anything resembling the biological sciences, just as she is
              a paid WHORE to say the things she does. The only one in the group of
              Lindzen, Singer and Christy that isn't really a whore is Christy, and he
              is a minister with zero biology in his background. Nothing. What I like
              about Christy is he focused the GHG impact to clouds--which is where the
              debate really should be.

              I have grown enough to understand that when I engage someone to teach
              them about Gaia and the math and science involved and they are blind to
              it, there generally are cultural reasons for it. Those reasons are often
              predisposed political views--and sometimes they are fighteningly extreme.
              I tell them to take the SUV out of their own eyes before they accuse me
              of being political, because they may discover that true LWNs (left wing
              nuts) propose that CO2 is a green house gas of significant forcing, and
              follow global warming models based on this. I don't

              I agree that the sun and its EMF varies weather/climate. We have been
              documenting this for two years now. And this is AWESOME science. The SOI
              went WAY positive and I wish I knew what the current solar wind was
              because it started to trend that way then the TS in the E Pac formed and
              then you indicated a earth directed CME was coming so that would have
              enhanced those storms and where they were located brought the SOI down
              purely by their locations whereas generally the CME brings the SOI neg as
              it distributes cirrus enhancement uniformly and not by coriolis, which
              favors warmer waters to the west. Anyway, this gets to the biology
              involved as it is so Gaia poor in the GOC and coastal SW US that this
              hurricane, which is now a CAT 4, is moving north and not west! Hence,
              the SOI gets a different meaning due to the biosphere in a small scale,
              and, of course, when that hurricane creates cooling waters and they gyre
              around in a different pattern, the induction back is going to vary by
              temperature as well, impacting things down the road. Linda, for
              instance, resulted in cooling waters that would have inducted AGAINST
              cirrus, warming waters in El Nino 1,2! This storm won't move west like
              Linda.

              Maunder only came during a small portion of the LIA cycle, which Keeling
              Whorf more fully describes. Indeed, some of the things I have been
              talking about with a Stephen MacDonald over at TWC bb on the tropics have
              to do with short term moon earth gravitational issues that allow, IMHO,
              electrified particles to move differently and organize and pattern
              relative to the gravitational fields. That said, even those signals are
              at the fancy of the modulation of the biosphere, because otherwise the
              noise from the signal would not be noticed.

              Which brings us seamlessly to Antarctica and forests existing there.
              Clearly there is more going on then solar insOlation--and EMFs will vary
              the behavior of cirrus and their IR values. If the oceans were warmer as
              described, and the earth's EMF were such that cirrus where enhanced by
              the circumpolar, we easily could see a different climate there! As it
              stands now, the land is EMF insulated by snow, and the waters too cold to
              conduct much, and they move in the direction that reduces cirrus, not
              enhances them.

              My view is the sun is fairly constant compared to the variability built
              into insOlation changes, and especially from the forcing from biology
              modulated EMFs.

              -----Original Message-----
              From: "David" <b1blancer1@...>
              To: methanehydrateclub@yahoogroups.com
              Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2002 16:57:34 -0000
              Subject: [Methane Hydrate Club] Re: Do we have a Linda in the E. Pac?

              > <html><body>
              >
              >
              > <tt>
              > > <BR>
              > > This argument has been one in coming now from the right for years.
              > <BR>
              > > I <BR>
              > > was first introduced to her from reading the speech text from a
              > <BR>
              > > Republican fundraiser that was attended by Chuck Habel of
              > Nebraska, <BR>
              > > who is a carbon clubber and a RWN. <BR>
              > <BR>
              > Help me out.  What's an RWN??<BR>
              > <BR>
              > Anyway, I think she makes some very good points.  Sunspot counts,
              > and <BR>
              > therefore solar energy output, have been quite well cataloged since
              > <BR>
              > Galileo first put two lenses together in a tube.  The Maunder
              > minimum <BR>
              > was also quite well documented, and matched up with the Little Ice <BR>
              > Age very well.  To me, there can be no doubt that Earth climate is
              > <BR>
              > influenced by solar activity.  Its just common sense!<BR>
              > <BR>
              > There are changes that come from the sun's variability.  She is
              > spot <BR>
              > on about their being a high period of solar magnetic activity in the
              > <BR>
              > early 20th century.  Beginning soon after 1900, there was a steady
              > <BR>
              > increase in the sunspot counts of the solar cycle peaks, the highest
              > <BR>
              > point coming around 1960.  The activity has stayed pretty high
              > since <BR>
              > then, and this solar cycle looks like it is following the trend.<BR>
              > <BR>
              > By the way, I'd buy somebody a steak dinner at Outback if they could
              > <BR>
              > tell me what went on in the sun to make the Maunder Minimum
              > happen.  <BR>
              > It came on quite suddenly!  But, I digress...<BR>
              > <BR>
              > I would not be so presumptious to say that greenhouse gas release has
              > <BR>
              > no effect.  I also believe that methane released from hydrates can
              > <BR>
              > have a very big effect.  It seems like I read somewhere that a
              > <BR>
              > massive methane release from hydrates around Scandanavia may have <BR>
              > played in instrumental part in ending the last full-blown ice age, or
              > <BR>
              > at least ending it sooner that it might otherwise have been.<BR>
              > <BR>
              > However, I do firmly believe that our climate is tied directly to <BR>
              > solar energy output (ie. magnetic activity), and I think Baliunas <BR>
              > raises some excellent points.  To a large extent, our climate is
              > <BR>
              > going to do what it is going to do, no matter what humans do.  The
              > <BR>
              > South Pole was once covered with forests, folks, and that's AFTER it
              > <BR>
              > drifted into the position it is in now.<BR>
              > <BR>
              > </tt>
              >
              > <br>
              >
              > <!-- |**|begin egp html banner|**| -->
              >
              > <table border=0 cellspacing=0 cellpadding=2>
              > <tr bgcolor=#FFFFCC>
              > <td align=center><font size="-1" color=#003399><b>Yahoo! Groups
              > Sponsor</b></font></td>
              > </tr>
              > <tr bgcolor=#FFFFFF>
              > <td align=center width=470><TABLE WIDTH=300 HEIGHT=250 border=0
              > cellpadding=0 cellspacing=0><tr><td align=center><font face=arial
              > size=-2>ADVERTISEMENT</font><br>
              > <TR>
              > <TD>
              > <a
              > href="http://rd.yahoo.com/M=212804.2460941.3878106.2273195/D=egroupweb/
              > S=1705083601:HM/A=810373/R=0/*http://geocities.yahoo.com/ps/info?.refer
              > =blrecs" target=_top><IMG
              > SRC="http://us.a1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/a/ya/yahoo_geocities/lrec2b_1_01
              > .jpg" WIDTH=185 HEIGHT=250 BORDER=0></a></TR></TD>
              > <TD>
              > <a
              > href="http://rd.yahoo.com/M=212804.2460941.3878106.2273195/D=egroupweb/
              > S=1705083601:HM/A=810373/R=1/*http://geocities.yahoo.com/ps/info?.refer
              > =blrecs" target=_top><IMG
              > SRC="http://us.a1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/a/ya/yahoo_geocities/lrec2d_2_02
              > .gif" WIDTH=115 HEIGHT=250 BORDER=0></TD>
              > </TR></a>
              > </TABLE></td>
              > </tr>
              > <tr><td><img alt="" width=1 height=1
              > src="http://us.adserver.yahoo.com/l?M=212804.2460941.3878106.2273195/D=
              > egroupmail/S=:HM/A=810373/rand=798498330"></td></tr>
              > </table>
              >
              > <!-- |**|end egp html banner|**| -->
              >
              >
              > <br>
              > <tt>
              > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:<BR>
              > methanehydrateclub-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com<BR>
              > <BR>
              > </tt>
              > <br>
              >
              > <br>
              > <tt>Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the <a
              > href="http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/">Yahoo! Terms of
              > Service</a>.</tt>
              > </br>
              >
              > </body></html>
              >
            • David
              ... fundraiser. ... Hey, its his fundraiser! Is he not free to invite or not invite whomever he chooses? Would you criticize a liberal senator because he
              Message 6 of 19 , Oct 27, 2002
              • 0 Attachment
                --- In methanehydrateclub@y..., "mike" <mike@u...> wrote:
                > > Help me out. What's an RWN??<BR>
                >
                > Right wing nut.
                >
                > Look. Chuck Hagel, Republican Senator from Nebraska, holds a
                fundraiser.
                > Invites big shareholders from the Big Three, BP Amoco, Texico, big coal
                > interests and so forth. Then he invites Sallie to speak. Now, where is
                > the juice from the left? My view is this isn't just "passionate"
                > conservatism but fascism, the politics of the pure corporative state.
                > It's right wing with insanity.

                Hey, its his fundraiser! Is he not free to invite or not invite
                whomever he chooses? Would you criticize a liberal senator because he
                didn't invite Sallie?


                > Let me give you an example. During the Younger Dryas the
                Mississippi was
                > diverted to the St. Lawrence Seaway--away from the Mississippi and the
                > GOM. A thousand years of cold followed.

                Forgive my ignorance, but what's Younger Dryas?

                > And this is exactly what Sallie is doing, without an
                > education in anything resembling the biological sciences, just as
                she is
                > a paid WHORE to say the things she does.

                Now I don't think that's quite fair, to resort to name calling just
                because you don't agree with her view of climate! Where is it written
                that a scientist cannot have conservative political affiliations?
                Goodness knows they're plenty of them who don't hesitate to espouse
                the liberal adgenda.




                > My view is the sun is fairly constant compared to the variability built
                > into insOlation changes, and especially from the forcing from biology
                > modulated EMFs.
                >

                Ah, now here is where our fundemetal disagreement lies. I maintain
                that the sun is not nearly as constant as you think it is. I will not
                argue the point that there is a bioligal feedback component to the
                climate. I agree with you that there is! However, my view is that
                the sun, and its variations, is a much powerful influence.
              • Mike Doran
                ... big coal ... where is ... state. ... he ... The left doesn t look at the result before the science. The right has made up its mind about climate and looks
                Message 7 of 19 , Oct 27, 2002
                • 0 Attachment
                  --- In methanehydrateclub@y..., "David" <b1blancer1@e...> wrote:
                  > --- In methanehydrateclub@y..., "mike" <mike@u...> wrote:
                  > > > Help me out. What's an RWN??<BR>
                  > >
                  > > Right wing nut.
                  > >
                  > > Look. Chuck Hagel, Republican Senator from Nebraska, holds a
                  > fundraiser.
                  > > Invites big shareholders from the Big Three, BP Amoco, Texico,
                  big coal
                  > > interests and so forth. Then he invites Sallie to speak. Now,
                  where is
                  > > the juice from the left? My view is this isn't just "passionate"
                  > > conservatism but fascism, the politics of the pure corporative
                  state.
                  > > It's right wing with insanity.
                  >
                  > Hey, its his fundraiser! Is he not free to invite or not invite
                  > whomever he chooses? Would you criticize a liberal senator because
                  he
                  > didn't invite Sallie?

                  The left doesn't look at the result before the science. The right
                  has made up its mind about climate and looks specifically for
                  scientists who push a view that suggests that burning fossil fuels is
                  okay. It makes science more political then it should be. I don't
                  think it goes both ways to the extent that there is whoring. Even if
                  you suggest that the insurance lobby supports the left why should
                  they care about climate change if there is nothing to it?



                  >
                  > > Let me give you an example. During the Younger Dryas the
                  > Mississippi was
                  > > diverted to the St. Lawrence Seaway--away from the Mississippi
                  and the
                  > > GOM. A thousand years of cold followed.
                  >
                  > Forgive my ignorance, but what's Younger Dryas?


                  This is a good link:

                  http://earth.agu.org/revgeophys/mayews01/node6.html


                  >
                  > > And this is exactly what Sallie is doing, without an
                  > > education in anything resembling the biological sciences, just as
                  > she is
                  > > a paid WHORE to say the things she does.
                  >
                  > Now I don't think that's quite fair, to resort to name calling just
                  > because you don't agree with her view of climate! Where is it
                  written
                  > that a scientist cannot have conservative political affiliations?
                  > Goodness knows they're plenty of them who don't hesitate to espouse
                  > the liberal adgenda.

                  Sallie is to Rush Dumbo is to RWN radio as to the "scientific"
                  discussion of climate. She is political first, and then waves her
                  credentials and does great harm to the truth.


                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > > My view is the sun is fairly constant compared to the variability
                  built
                  > > into insOlation changes, and especially from the forcing from
                  biology
                  > > modulated EMFs.
                  > >
                  >
                  > Ah, now here is where our fundemetal disagreement lies. I maintain
                  > that the sun is not nearly as constant as you think it is.

                  The problem is that there is proof of what I am talking about in the
                  genetics of all living things. Why doesn't a plant have brains, for
                  instance? Why have some things evolved away from complexity in
                  evolving?

                  Perhaps the comparision is not fair. If we were to get into a
                  discussion about what is more important, the room temperature or your
                  body temperature, an engineer and someone like me indirectly involved
                  in the health sciences may have different views. We may be on the
                  same page if the discussion is about the room on fire. Some day, the
                  sun will go red and hot and we better have that space craft
                  built . . . BUT for now even if EMF and insOlation and radiation were
                  to go to someplace unexpected, the surface of the oceans heat up and
                  become really EMF conductive and tons of snow are dumped in the
                  colder regions--at least that is what Bob Johnson is saying. So
                  there may be mechanical feedbacks, too, but at the end of the day
                  even of the room is on fire, you can always leave the room, but if
                  your body is on fire, or cold as a stone . . .


                  I will not
                  > argue the point that there is a bioligal feedback component to the
                  > climate. I agree with you that there is! However, my view is that
                  > the sun, and its variations, is a much powerful influence.

                  Only in the short term.
                • David
                  ... Oh come ON now! The left is perfect? Pul-leeeeze! The left is just as likely to have a pilotical adgenda. ... Thanks for the information! I appreciate
                  Message 8 of 19 , Oct 31, 2002
                  • 0 Attachment
                    > The left doesn't look at the result before the science. The right
                    > has made up its mind about climate and looks specifically for
                    > scientists who push a view that suggests that burning fossil fuels is
                    > okay. It makes science more political then it should be. I don't
                    > think it goes both ways to the extent that there is whoring. Even if
                    > you suggest that the insurance lobby supports the left why should
                    > they care about climate change if there is nothing to it?

                    Oh come ON now! The left is perfect? Pul-leeeeze! The left is just
                    as likely to have a pilotical adgenda.


                    > This is a good link:
                    >
                    > http://earth.agu.org/revgeophys/mayews01/node6.html

                    Thanks for the information! I appreciate it.

                    > Sallie is to Rush Dumbo is to RWN radio as to the "scientific"
                    > discussion of climate. She is political first, and then waves her
                    > credentials and does great harm to the truth.
                    >

                    She expresses her opinion, just like any other scientist. Doesn't she
                    have that right?

                    > I will not
                    > > argue the point that there is a bioligal feedback component to the
                    > > climate. I agree with you that there is! However, my view is that
                    > > the sun, and its variations, is a much powerful influence.
                    >
                    > Only in the short term.

                    I must disagree. The long term effects of solar activity will be much
                    more pronounced. The shortest cycle we know of is 11 years, which
                    looks like it is part of about a 100 year cycle. Who knows what
                    cycles may be unfolding over hundreds or thousands of years? It is a
                    known fact that stars like our sun can very their energy outputs
                    rather dramatically. How can that not have a profound effect?
                  • mike
                    The ... What is that agenda in reference to climate? ... She does so at fundraisers sponsered by huge multi billion dollar corporations. She supports bad
                    Message 9 of 19 , Nov 1, 2002
                    • 0 Attachment
                      The
                      > left is just<BR>
                      > as likely to have a pilotical adgenda.<BR>

                      What is that agenda in reference to climate?


                      > <BR>
                      > <BR>
                      > > This is a good link:<BR>
                      > > <BR>
                      > > <a
                      > href="http://earth.agu.org/revgeophys/mayews01/node6.html">http://earth
                      > .agu.org/revgeophys/mayews01/node6.html</a><BR>
                      > <BR>
                      > Thanks for the information!  I appreciate it.<BR>
                      > <BR>
                      > > Sallie is to Rush Dumbo is to RWN radio as to the
                      > "scientific" <BR>
                      > > discussion of climate.  She is political first, and then
                      > waves her <BR>
                      > > credentials and does great harm to the truth.<BR>
                      > > <BR>
                      > <BR>
                      > She expresses her opinion, just like any other scientist.  Doesn't
                      > she<BR>
                      > have that right?<BR>
                      > <BR>

                      She does so at fundraisers sponsered by huge multi billion dollar
                      corporations. She supports bad science and the machinary behind road
                      fascism.



                      > >   I will not<BR>
                      > > > argue the point that there is a bioligal feedback component
                      > to the<BR>
                      > > > climate.  I agree with you that there is!  However,
                      > my view is that<BR>
                      > > > the sun, and its variations, is a much powerful
                      > influence.<BR>
                      > > <BR>
                      > > Only in the short term.<BR>
                      > <BR>
                      > I must disagree.  The long term effects of solar activity will be
                      > much<BR>
                      > more pronounced.  The shortest cycle we know of is 11 years,
                      > which<BR>
                      > looks like it is part of about a 100 year cycle.  Who knows
                      > what<BR>
                      > cycles may be unfolding over hundreds or thousands of years?



                      Well, here is an example which shows from a biological standpoint the
                      human activity is a large anomaly even over huge timescales:

                      http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?
                      tmpl=story2&cid=570&ncid=570&e=2&u=/nm/20021031/sc_nm/science_plants_dc_1
                      World Plants Near Extinction Close to 50 Pct.-Study
                      Thu Oct 31, 2:21 PM ET
                      By Christopher Doering

                      WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The percentage of the world's plants threatened
                      with extinction is much larger than commonly believed, and could be as
                      high as 47 percent if tropical species are included, researchers said on
                      Thursday.


                      AP Photo



                      The study, published in the November issue of Science, challenges earlier
                      research that estimated the number of species in danger of extinction was
                      about 13 percent.


                      Previous studies of extinct plants underestimated the numbers because
                      they failed to include many plants growing in tropical countries such as
                      Ecuador and Colombia.


                      Plants are becoming extinct for many reasons, including global warming
                      (news - web sites) and human encroachment into area habitats, said Peter
                      Jorgensen, a researcher at the Missouri Botanical Gardens in St. Louis
                      who coauthored the new study.


                      For example, scientists discovered a single collection of the passion
                      flower, a light purple flower found only in southern Ecuador, during the
                      1970s, Jorgensen said. But recent trips to the region have found the
                      species has since disappeared.


                      Jorgensen reviewed data from 189 countries and territories and determined
                      that between 310,000 and 422,000 plants -- or 22 to 47 percent -- could
                      be threatened.


                      In previous studies "if you can't evaluate a species you basically don't
                      include it," Jorgensen said in a telephone interview.


                      "Still, we don't know enough ... to go out and do something active on the
                      ground to save them," he said. "Just because there are more of them
                      doesn't mean it's easier."


                      Identifying threatened species is a crucial step toward developing better
                      management plans to protect them, but Jorgensen conceded it will take a
                      large amount of money to develop such projects.


                      Maintaining a global database of threatened plants would cost an
                      estimated $12.1 million annually, the researchers said.


                      The vast majority of plants that are threatened in tropical areas are
                      those located with a wide variety of plant life or where habitat loss is
                      rapidly occurring.

                      As a model for their research, Jorgensen and his coauthor, Nigel Pitman
                      from Duke University, analyzed more than 4,000 species that are native to
                      Ecuador.

                      After sifting through data and determining those that could be on the
                      verge of extinction -- such as plants with small populations or which are
                      located only in a small geographical area -- they determined that 83
                      percent of all plants in the country are threatened.

                      The findings for Ecuador are important, Jorgensen said, because the
                      country has one of the most complete databases of plant species. Such
                      results also can be applied to neighboring countries such as Peru and
                      Colombia where data are scarce.

                      "We know so little about plants in tropical regions," said
                      Jorgensen. "And what really bothers me is we have to guess so much
                      because we don't have enough manpower to go through all the countries."














                        It
                      > is a<BR>
                      > known fact that stars like our sun can very their energy outputs<BR>
                      > rather dramatically.  How can that not have a profound effect?<BR>
                      > <BR>
                      > </tt>
                      >
                      > <br>
                      >
                      > <!-- |**|begin egp html banner|**| -->
                      >
                      > <table border=0 cellspacing=0 cellpadding=2>
                      > <tr bgcolor=#FFFFCC>
                      > <td align=center><font size="-1" color=#003399><b>Yahoo! Groups
                      > Sponsor</b></font></td>
                      > </tr>
                      > <tr bgcolor=#FFFFFF>
                      > <td align=center width=470><TABLE WIDTH=300 HEIGHT=250 border=0
                      > cellpadding=0 cellspacing=0><tr><td align=center><font face=arial
                      > size=-2>ADVERTISEMENT</font><br>
                      > <TR>
                      > <TD>
                      > <a
                      > href="http://rd.yahoo.com/M=212804.2460941.3878106.2273195/D=egroupweb/
                      > S=1705083601:HM/A=810373/R=0/*http://geocities.yahoo.com/ps/info?.refer
                      > =blrecs" target=_top><IMG
                      > SRC="http://us.a1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/a/ya/yahoo_geocities/lrec2b_1_01
                      > .jpg" WIDTH=185 HEIGHT=250 BORDER=0></a></TR></TD>
                      > <TD>
                      > <a
                      > href="http://rd.yahoo.com/M=212804.2460941.3878106.2273195/D=egroupweb/
                      > S=1705083601:HM/A=810373/R=1/*http://geocities.yahoo.com/ps/info?.refer
                      > =blrecs" target=_top><IMG
                      > SRC="http://us.a1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/a/ya/yahoo_geocities/lrec2d_2_02
                      > .gif" WIDTH=115 HEIGHT=250 BORDER=0></TD>
                      > </TR></a>
                      > </TABLE></td>
                      > </tr>
                      > <tr><td><img alt="" width=1 height=1
                      > src="http://us.adserver.yahoo.com/l?M=212804.2460941.3878106.2273195/D=
                      > egroupmail/S=:HM/A=810373/rand=865687049"></td></tr>
                      > </table>
                      >
                      > <!-- |**|end egp html banner|**| -->
                      >
                      >
                      > <br>
                      > <tt>
                      > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:<BR>
                      > methanehydrateclub-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com<BR>
                      > <BR>
                      > </tt>
                      > <br>
                      >
                      > <br>
                      > <tt>Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the <a
                      > href="http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/">Yahoo! Terms of
                      > Service</a>.</tt>
                      > </br>
                      >
                      > </body></html>
                      >
                    • Mike Doran
                      Why haven t we been told who was selling American Airlines and United Airlines stock short at 285 times the regular rate of such trade in the few days before
                      Message 10 of 19 , Nov 1, 2002
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Why haven't we been told who was selling American Airlines and United
                        Airlines stock short at 285 times the regular rate of such trade in
                        the few days before 9/11? There's that SEC working overtime for us,
                        huh?

                        Maybe Harvey Pitt is trying to blackmail his way into that cabinet
                        post and pay raise. Not doing his job is probably way more important
                        and valuable to the high and mighty?

                        Yes it is about class and area based transfers of wealth:

                        "...the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office revised its long-term
                        forecasts, citing Bush's millionaire tax cut as the largest single
                        factor in shrinking the projected 10-year budget surplus from $5.6
                        trillion to $1.6 trillion—a $4 trillion downswing." See:
                        http://www.aflcio.org/news/2002/0131_cbo.htm

                        The parties are now defined clearly by population densities and road
                        fascism. Low density populations benefit directly from free use of
                        roads to come into areas of high density and use the infrastructure,
                        whereas high density areas don't use the roads as much per person,
                        nor have the same property tax basis. It allows the rich to become
                        richer and it is reflected in all of the data. This results in
                        unfairness in public education, welfare, and so forth by population
                        density. The voting reflects policies favoring that the transfers of
                        wealth continue. To blame it on welfare is a rationalization of the
                        low density areas continuing these subsidies. Wars for oil is a
                        perfect example. Climate change is another subsidy that everyone will
                        pay for the low density areas to continue their lifestyles.

                        These subsidies are stupid for a number of basic reasons. One is it
                        cant be sustained. Two we just saw with Wellstone's death--climate
                        instability from Doran waves. We will see more chaotic occurances in
                        the future, in my view. Three is droughts that test the hydrology
                        infrastructure and our ability to produce food to feed a growing
                        population. Four is Hubbert's peak. See http://www.hubbertpeak.com/
                        Five is wars for oil.

                        http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/100102_bush_advisors.html
                        Bush Advisers Planned Iraq War Since 1990s
                        "Oct. 1, 2002, 17:00 PDT (FTW) -- The George W. Bush Administration's
                        intentions of removing Saddam Hussein from power are not a recent
                        development by any stretch of the imagination. Top White House
                        officials affiliated with conservative think tanks and past
                        administrations have been developing strategies for removing the
                        Iraqi leader since the 1990s."
                        Joe Taglieri, FTW Staff
                      • David
                        ... Everybody has their own ideas of how they d like to see things done, scientists included. ... road ... Road fascism?? Now there s a term I will admit I
                        Message 11 of 19 , Nov 6, 2002
                        • 0 Attachment
                          > What is that agenda in reference to climate?
                          >
                          Everybody has their own ideas of how they'd like to see things done,
                          scientists included.

                          > She does so at fundraisers sponsered by huge multi billion dollar
                          > corporations. She supports bad science and the machinary behind
                          road
                          > fascism.

                          Road fascism?? Now there's a term I will admit I have never heard
                          before. Please explain that to me!
                        • Mike Doran
                          ... Well, there are about 4 million miles of roads in the US. And no one is charged to use them. There is a gas tax, but it covers only about 1/3 of the costs
                          Message 12 of 19 , Nov 6, 2002
                          • 0 Attachment
                            > Road fascism?? Now there's a term I will admit I have never heard
                            > before. Please explain that to me!

                            Well, there are about 4 million miles of roads in the US.

                            And no one is charged to use them.

                            There is a gas tax, but it covers only about 1/3 of the costs of new
                            roads and repair. The rest comes out of the general fund. Of
                            course, the tax doesn't touch our defense spending for wars for oil
                            and so forth.

                            The roads are not just land but improvements. Those improvements are
                            expensive. And since the gas tax only covers 1/3 of the costs, much
                            comes out of the general taxpayers funds. It is socialist/fascist--
                            not a free market deal. Now, even though, for instance, the 1998
                            Highway Bill was 219 billion, the largest ever by a factor of 4 and
                            that is just the Feds, it doesn't really capture the lay out of
                            capital over at least a hundred years on our road system. And, most
                            importantly, does not figure what are roads are worth as a system.

                            It should further be pointed out that cost and value for use are two
                            completely different things. Example. You own a home. If you tell
                            me I can live in the home for my pro rata share of 1/3 the cost of a
                            new room and repairs to the living room--but nothing more AND there
                            are to be 100 people living their, my pro rata share is small. And
                            your house is full.

                            This is the reason for gridlock, and for SUVs and rising gas milage
                            despite better technology. It is the simple fact that roads are a
                            HIGHLY subsidized part of our lives--far and away the
                            largest "government" asset. We think nothing of the fact that our
                            culture is dominated by roads now.

                            But it is a subsidy with social force. In 1960, like I said, 60
                            percent of the US was city or small town. That is 1960 Census data.
                            The most recent Census data has it at 60% in the burbs now. Recent
                            studies show US citizens drive TWICE as much in just the past 10
                            years. Our families are more apt to break up, and interestingly,
                            women are less happy then they were in the 1970s when we drove less.
                            I think men don't mind the drive as much but women are killed
                            socially by their greater inability to be central figures in
                            the "household" any more because of the greater and greater amount of
                            time American families spred from their homes.

                            Low density growth is the result, and it causes rot in the cities and
                            small towns. The tax base decreases, social services like education
                            are diminished. It is true that there is growth in the new burbs,
                            but that growth is not planned nor will it be prepared to deal with
                            the longer term issues like Hubbert's peak. And it is a growth
                            pattern that cannot be sustained.

                            My thing with this subsidy and transfer of wealth is that the roads
                            as a monopoly is actaully a much larger subsidy then one would think
                            at first blush. That is because the whole system has incredible
                            economic meaning, from truckers to commuters who live in a rich area
                            and work in a high density, poor area, further causing class
                            differences between wealthy and poor, between thos living in low
                            density areas and those living in high density areas. I think the
                            whole system is worth about 10 trillion dollars, so even to provide
                            roads at tolls with simple interest at mind would lead to 1 trillion
                            in tolls, which comes done to thousands per American. This kind of
                            cost reflection would drive down driving. We wouldn't as a culture
                            be as apt to build large homes in the middle of no where and drive
                            from them in 4,000 pound SUVs to return a 5 ounce video. This is an
                            incredibly wasteful use of energy.

                            Fascism is the only way to describe the politics of these roads--why
                            we would want to continue a subsidy that is so short sighted from and
                            ecological and economic standpoint.
                          • David
                            ... Of course I m charged to use them! I pay a registration fee for my car, I pay a road maintenance fee when I pay my property taxes, and I pay gasoline tax,
                            Message 13 of 19 , Nov 7, 2002
                            • 0 Attachment
                              --- In methanehydrateclub@y..., "Mike Doran" <mike@u...> wrote:
                              >
                              > > Road fascism?? Now there's a term I will admit I have never heard
                              > > before. Please explain that to me!
                              >
                              > Well, there are about 4 million miles of roads in the US.
                              >
                              > And no one is charged to use them.
                              >

                              Of course I'm charged to use them! I pay a registration fee for my
                              car, I pay a road maintenance fee when I pay my property taxes, and I
                              pay gasoline tax, all of which go to road building and maintencance.


                              >
                              > But it is a subsidy with social force. In 1960, like I said, 60
                              > percent of the US was city or small town. That is 1960 Census data.
                              > The most recent Census data has it at 60% in the burbs now. Recent
                              > studies show US citizens drive TWICE as much in just the past 10
                              > years. Our families are more apt to break up, and interestingly,
                              > women are less happy then they were in the 1970s when we drove less.
                              > I think men don't mind the drive as much but women are killed
                              > socially by their greater inability to be central figures in
                              > the "household" any more because of the greater and greater amount of
                              > time American families spred from their homes.

                              So where does that put me? I work out of town during the week, and I
                              drive 400 miles to get home on the weekends (although I should be able
                              to start flying very soon, thank goodness). I live just outside of
                              the city limits of a small town (30,000 people). Am I causing rot in
                              the cities? Should I have to pay thousands in road user fees? Would
                              you keep me from getting home to my wife?

                              >
                              > Low density growth is the result, and it causes rot in the cities and
                              > small towns. The tax base decreases, social services like education
                              > are diminished. It is true that there is growth in the new burbs,
                              > but that growth is not planned nor will it be prepared to deal with
                              > the longer term issues like Hubbert's peak. And it is a growth
                              > pattern that cannot be sustained.

                              Shall we play the chicken-and-the egg thing? People went to the
                              suburbs because of the fact that the big cities were already in
                              serious decline. People wanted lower crime rates, lower taxes, and
                              better schools for their children. Why is any of that bad?
                            • Mike Doran
                              ... heard ... I ... You only pay for about 1/3 of the cost of them through those taxes. But this differs from a use fee. While it is true to some degree that
                              Message 14 of 19 , Nov 8, 2002
                              • 0 Attachment
                                --- In methanehydrateclub@y..., "David" <b1blancer1@e...> wrote:
                                > --- In methanehydrateclub@y..., "Mike Doran" <mike@u...> wrote:
                                > >
                                > > > Road fascism?? Now there's a term I will admit I have never
                                heard
                                > > > before. Please explain that to me!
                                > >
                                > > Well, there are about 4 million miles of roads in the US.
                                > >
                                > > And no one is charged to use them.
                                > >
                                >
                                > Of course I'm charged to use them! I pay a registration fee for my
                                > car, I pay a road maintenance fee when I pay my property taxes, and
                                I
                                > pay gasoline tax, all of which go to road building and maintencance.
                                >
                                >

                                You only pay for about 1/3 of the cost of them through those taxes.
                                But this differs from a use fee. While it is true to some degree
                                that the more you drive the more gas tax you pay, if you break it
                                down the cents you pay for gas is insignificant compared to how large
                                the subsidy is for using a government asset for free.


                                > >
                                > > But it is a subsidy with social force. In 1960, like I said, 60
                                > > percent of the US was city or small town. That is 1960 Census
                                data.
                                > > The most recent Census data has it at 60% in the burbs now.
                                Recent
                                > > studies show US citizens drive TWICE as much in just the past 10
                                > > years. Our families are more apt to break up, and interestingly,
                                > > women are less happy then they were in the 1970s when we drove
                                less.
                                > > I think men don't mind the drive as much but women are killed
                                > > socially by their greater inability to be central figures in
                                > > the "household" any more because of the greater and greater
                                amount of
                                > > time American families spred from their homes.
                                >
                                > So where does that put me? I work out of town during the week, and
                                I
                                > drive 400 miles to get home on the weekends (although I should be
                                able
                                > to start flying very soon, thank goodness). I live just outside of
                                > the city limits of a small town (30,000 people). Am I causing rot
                                in
                                > the cities? Should I have to pay thousands in road user fees?

                                Without question the subsidy allows you to have the job you have and
                                live where you live. You know, I was studying a rare tornado that
                                occurred in Salt Lake City in 1999 and looking at first why tornadoes
                                were rare there and why one occurred. Turns out that there are
                                mountains and the Great Salt Lake, which may have some EMF
                                characteristics that inhibits tornadoes. In any event, what I
                                learned is that south of the City are 20 small towns--that today have
                                sprawed into a seemless web of suburbia. It is like that across the
                                US.


                                Would
                                > you keep me from getting home to my wife?
                                >

                                That is an unfair question. The better question I will have you
                                answer. Do you think free food in the Soviet Union was a good idea?


                                > >
                                > > Low density growth is the result, and it causes rot in the cities
                                and
                                > > small towns. The tax base decreases, social services like
                                education
                                > > are diminished. It is true that there is growth in the new
                                burbs,
                                > > but that growth is not planned nor will it be prepared to deal
                                with
                                > > the longer term issues like Hubbert's peak. And it is a growth
                                > > pattern that cannot be sustained.
                                >
                                > Shall we play the chicken-and-the egg thing? People went to the
                                > suburbs because of the fact that the big cities were already in
                                > serious decline. People wanted lower crime rates, lower taxes, and
                                > better schools for their children. Why is any of that bad?

                                Because it comes from the subsidy with the cost of making it worse
                                for those who do live in higher density areas. And it isn't
                                sustainable--indeed already the economy is feeling it and we haven't
                                had the impact of Hubbert's peak or serious climate change from our
                                activity . . . yet. And mostly because there IS a social cost to
                                road fascism.

                                BTW, if roads were tolled you could eliminate other taxes. Sure it
                                would discourage driving, but do you honestly think it makes any
                                sense to drive a 4,000 pound SUV to return that 5 ounce video?
                                Really?
                              • David
                                ... And its a good thing too, or I would be unemployed. Been there, done that, couldn t afford the t-shirt. ... Uhhh, you lost me. What does that have to do
                                Message 15 of 19 , Nov 8, 2002
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  > Without question the subsidy allows you to have the job you have and
                                  > live where you live.

                                  And its a good thing too, or I would be unemployed. Been there, done
                                  that, couldn't afford the t-shirt.


                                  > Would
                                  > > you keep me from getting home to my wife?
                                  > >
                                  >
                                  > That is an unfair question. The better question I will have you
                                  > answer. Do you think free food in the Soviet Union was a good idea?
                                  >

                                  Uhhh, you lost me. What does that have to do with roads?


                                  > Because it comes from the subsidy with the cost of making it worse
                                  > for those who do live in higher density areas. And it isn't
                                  > sustainable--indeed already the economy is feeling it and we haven't
                                  > had the impact of Hubbert's peak or serious climate change from our
                                  > activity . . . yet. And mostly because there IS a social cost to
                                  > road fascism.

                                  Well, I live in the largest city in my part of the state! It really
                                  isn't big enough to have suburbs, so I guess that's not a good
                                  example. So, let's take where I am working, which is in the
                                  Washington, DC area. There are definitely a LOT of suburbs here. In
                                  fact, I stay in one suburb (Chantilly, VA), and work in another
                                  (Reston, VA). So what would you have us do? Every leave the suburb
                                  towns and move to DC proper? That would be impossible! There's no
                                  way there would be enough housing to hold all the people, never mind
                                  the fact that many of the jobs are in the suburbs as well. You're
                                  assuming that everybody commutes to the "big city" to work. That
                                  isn't always the case.
                                  >
                                  > BTW, if roads were tolled you could eliminate other taxes.

                                  Yeah, you would eliminate a lot of driving. You would also eliminate
                                  people's ability to get to their jobs, schools, etc.

                                  >but do you honestly think it makes any
                                  > sense to drive a 4,000 pound SUV to return that 5 ounce video?
                                  > Really?

                                  No, of course it doesn't make sense to drive that way. No argument there.
                                • Mike Doran
                                  ... and ... done ... Sadly, as Hubbert s peak digs in to this economy based on cheap fossil fuels and MASSIVE subsidies that encourages driving powered on that
                                  Message 16 of 19 , Nov 9, 2002
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    --- In methanehydrateclub@y..., "David" <b1blancer1@e...> wrote:
                                    >
                                    > > Without question the subsidy allows you to have the job you have
                                    and
                                    > > live where you live.
                                    >
                                    > And its a good thing too, or I would be unemployed. Been there,
                                    done
                                    > that, couldn't afford the t-shirt.
                                    >

                                    Sadly, as Hubbert's peak digs in to this economy based on cheap
                                    fossil fuels and MASSIVE subsidies that encourages driving powered on
                                    that cheap fuel, I don't think you or I understand the meaning of
                                    unemployment.

                                    >
                                    > > Would
                                    > > > you keep me from getting home to my wife?
                                    > > >
                                    > >
                                    > > That is an unfair question. The better question I will have you
                                    > > answer. Do you think free food in the Soviet Union was a good
                                    idea?
                                    > >
                                    >
                                    > Uhhh, you lost me. What does that have to do with roads?
                                    >

                                    The free food socialism--or subsidy based farming, did not work.
                                    Lines for food were long (gridlock) and soon the food was gone. A
                                    black market evolved (pols on the dole from big oil like Bush for
                                    wars for oil, more roads, etc). A lack of market leads to
                                    corruption.

                                    >
                                    > > Because it comes from the subsidy with the cost of making it
                                    worse
                                    > > for those who do live in higher density areas. And it isn't
                                    > > sustainable--indeed already the economy is feeling it and we
                                    haven't
                                    > > had the impact of Hubbert's peak or serious climate change from
                                    our
                                    > > activity . . . yet. And mostly because there IS a social cost to
                                    > > road fascism.
                                    >
                                    > Well, I live in the largest city in my part of the state! It really
                                    > isn't big enough to have suburbs, so I guess that's not a good
                                    > example. So, let's take where I am working, which is in the
                                    > Washington, DC area. There are definitely a LOT of suburbs here.
                                    In
                                    > fact, I stay in one suburb (Chantilly, VA), and work in another
                                    > (Reston, VA). So what would you have us do? Every leave the suburb
                                    > towns and move to DC proper? That would be impossible! There's no
                                    > way there would be enough housing to hold all the people, never mind
                                    > the fact that many of the jobs are in the suburbs as well. You're
                                    > assuming that everybody commutes to the "big city" to work. That
                                    > isn't always the case.

                                    Certainly you have captured the reason the economy is now slowing.
                                    We have reached the end of the subsidy in terms of wealth transfers
                                    from high density areas to low. Look at it this way. In the Soviet
                                    Union, there were probably some people who could not afford food. To
                                    them, free food was good. And to the farmer who was paid to grow the
                                    food for the government, that was work for them as well. But with
                                    the whole market false, soon supply and demand was all messed up and
                                    you had bread lines, shortages, cheaters on the supply side, and a
                                    black market for farming, and inefficiecies growing the food for a
                                    false market. With road fascism, we are starting to see that suburbs
                                    are growing so fast that they lack infrastructure that towns have,
                                    like sidewalks, water, fire, and even nearby healthcare. The suburbs
                                    are starting to lack infrastucture AND, here is the most critical
                                    point, what infrastructure they do have is based soley on the
                                    assumption of cheap fossil fuels. The economic consequences are
                                    frightening, because we now largely have a false market that faces
                                    shortages on the assumptions upon which it is based. If any kind of
                                    political or economy monopoly occurs with the supplying nations of
                                    oil, it could get even worse.


                                    > >
                                    > > BTW, if roads were tolled you could eliminate other taxes.
                                    >
                                    > Yeah, you would eliminate a lot of driving. You would also
                                    eliminate
                                    > people's ability to get to their jobs, schools, etc.
                                    >

                                    See above. The question isn't whether this is a hard choice, but
                                    whether to make the choice with planning and with time so that its
                                    impace isn't devistating. Sometimes false market problems are solved
                                    with more false markets. EG subsidizing the heck out of renewables.
                                    But for the suburban power in governemnt to take the position that
                                    they are the power that is against false markets, against the
                                    government involved in their lives is a LIE--just like his daddy,
                                    read my lips. Big lie. Effective lie, really. The roads ARE
                                    government, its largest part. To not regulate them, incorporate them
                                    in a regulated market economy is short sighted and wrong.

                                    > >but do you honestly think it makes any
                                    > > sense to drive a 4,000 pound SUV to return that 5 ounce video?
                                    > > Really?
                                    >
                                    > No, of course it doesn't make sense to drive that way. No argument
                                    there.

                                    Tolls and other solutions to address the false market won't eliminate
                                    all driving or cause job losses everywhere, but rather will prevent
                                    this kind of madness and help us face the future shortages and market
                                    as we near Hubbert's peak. To go the other way, as the Bush
                                    administration is doing, to sell out to these special interests of
                                    big oil, is to put the fire out with gasoline. Very scary.

                                    BTW, Dave, don't take this personal. I think you are really cool.
                                  • David
                                    ... Well, I think it depends on how well planned the suburbs are. Many of them do have the infrastructure you mention. Speaking of subsidies, how about the
                                    Message 17 of 19 , Nov 11, 2002
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      > Certainly you have captured the reason the economy is now slowing.
                                      > We have reached the end of the subsidy in terms of wealth transfers
                                      > from high density areas to low. Look at it this way. In the Soviet
                                      > Union, there were probably some people who could not afford food. To
                                      > them, free food was good. And to the farmer who was paid to grow the
                                      > food for the government, that was work for them as well. But with
                                      > the whole market false, soon supply and demand was all messed up and
                                      > you had bread lines, shortages, cheaters on the supply side, and a
                                      > black market for farming, and inefficiecies growing the food for a
                                      > false market. With road fascism, we are starting to see that suburbs
                                      > are growing so fast that they lack infrastructure that towns have,
                                      > like sidewalks, water, fire, and even nearby healthcare.

                                      Well, I think it depends on how well planned the suburbs are. Many of
                                      them do have the infrastructure you mention. Speaking of subsidies,
                                      how about the ones that pay the farmers NOT to grow certain crops in
                                      order to keep the prices artificially high?! ARGH!!

                                      > The suburbs
                                      > are starting to lack infrastucture AND, here is the most critical
                                      > point, what infrastructure they do have is based soley on the
                                      > assumption of cheap fossil fuels. The economic consequences are
                                      > frightening, because we now largely have a false market that faces
                                      > shortages on the assumptions upon which it is based. If any kind of
                                      > political or economy monopoly occurs with the supplying nations of
                                      > oil, it could get even worse.

                                      I do agree with you here to a large extent. Part of the US interest
                                      in the Middle East centers around oil. No doubt about that. We've
                                      gotten ourselves into a position where we don't have a choice. Its
                                      either keep that cheap oil coming in or risk economic collapse. The
                                      sad thing is that the US has enough oil reserves to be self-sufficient
                                      on oil if all oil-bearing regions were opened to exploration. We've
                                      got a large number of capped-off oil wells, too. Its cheaper to
                                      import oil than it is to pump our own out of the ground.

                                      > Tolls and other solutions to address the false market won't eliminate
                                      > all driving or cause job losses everywhere, but rather will prevent
                                      > this kind of madness and help us face the future shortages and market
                                      > as we near Hubbert's peak. To go the other way, as the Bush
                                      > administration is doing, to sell out to these special interests of
                                      > big oil, is to put the fire out with gasoline. Very scary.

                                      I disagree. If you start putting tolls in the amount of thousands of
                                      dollars per person per year on roads, it will have a devastating
                                      effect. How can the average person even afford to get to work, let
                                      alone anything else??

                                      >
                                      > BTW, Dave, don't take this personal. I think you are really cool.

                                      Thanks! Don't worry, I'm not taking it personally!
                                    • Mike Doran
                                      The wealth transfers from rich to poor come directly BUSH-CHENEY: THE FIRST 20 MONTHS Inauguration Day Now Change Dow Jones 10.587 7.986 Down 32.5%
                                      Message 18 of 19 , Nov 11, 2002
                                      • 0 Attachment
                                        The wealth transfers from rich to poor come directly

                                        BUSH-CHENEY: THE FIRST 20 MONTHS
                                        Inauguration Day Now Change
                                        Dow Jones 10.587 7.986 Down 32.5%
                                        Unemployment Rate 4.2 5.7 Up 36%
                                        Budget $281b Surplus $157b Deficit Squandered
                                        Jobs 111.7 million 109.6 million Loss of 2.1 Million

                                        or indirectly through population density and the investment in roads.
                                        The problem is we are reaching the point where even on cheap fuel the
                                        economy can have sustained growth.

                                        I am one who thinks our addiction to cheap oil with tolls over time
                                        would NOT hurt the economy as much as you think but concentrate it
                                        and change its character to infact make us LESS dependant on a
                                        foriegn resource. A false market leads to a number of problems, the
                                        least of which, as we discuss here, is changes to biological
                                        feedbacks.

                                        Speaking of which--check out this link:


                                        http://www.spc.noaa.gov/climo/reports/yesterday_prt.html

                                        The severe weather matched the strike activity and really kicked in
                                        as the front went above the Gaia active GOM. Now the strike activity
                                        is along the Atlantic coast and I'll bet you are getting strikes.

                                        Indeed, the solar activity matched well with that trough and the Gaia
                                        conditions and the positive SOI . . .
                                        --- In methanehydrateclub@y..., "David" <b1blancer1@e...> wrote:
                                        >
                                        > > Certainly you have captured the reason the economy is now
                                        slowing.
                                        > > We have reached the end of the subsidy in terms of wealth
                                        transfers
                                        > > from high density areas to low. Look at it this way. In the
                                        Soviet
                                        > > Union, there were probably some people who could not afford
                                        food. To
                                        > > them, free food was good. And to the farmer who was paid to grow
                                        the
                                        > > food for the government, that was work for them as well. But
                                        with
                                        > > the whole market false, soon supply and demand was all messed up
                                        and
                                        > > you had bread lines, shortages, cheaters on the supply side, and
                                        a
                                        > > black market for farming, and inefficiecies growing the food for
                                        a
                                        > > false market. With road fascism, we are starting to see that
                                        suburbs
                                        > > are growing so fast that they lack infrastructure that towns
                                        have,
                                        > > like sidewalks, water, fire, and even nearby healthcare.
                                        >
                                        > Well, I think it depends on how well planned the suburbs are. Many
                                        of
                                        > them do have the infrastructure you mention. Speaking of subsidies,
                                        > how about the ones that pay the farmers NOT to grow certain crops in
                                        > order to keep the prices artificially high?! ARGH!!
                                        >
                                        > > The suburbs
                                        > > are starting to lack infrastucture AND, here is the most critical
                                        > > point, what infrastructure they do have is based soley on the
                                        > > assumption of cheap fossil fuels. The economic consequences are
                                        > > frightening, because we now largely have a false market that
                                        faces
                                        > > shortages on the assumptions upon which it is based. If any kind
                                        of
                                        > > political or economy monopoly occurs with the supplying nations
                                        of
                                        > > oil, it could get even worse.
                                        >
                                        > I do agree with you here to a large extent. Part of the US interest
                                        > in the Middle East centers around oil. No doubt about that. We've
                                        > gotten ourselves into a position where we don't have a choice. Its
                                        > either keep that cheap oil coming in or risk economic collapse. The
                                        > sad thing is that the US has enough oil reserves to be self-
                                        sufficient
                                        > on oil if all oil-bearing regions were opened to exploration. We've
                                        > got a large number of capped-off oil wells, too. Its cheaper to
                                        > import oil than it is to pump our own out of the ground.
                                        >
                                        > > Tolls and other solutions to address the false market won't
                                        eliminate
                                        > > all driving or cause job losses everywhere, but rather will
                                        prevent
                                        > > this kind of madness and help us face the future shortages and
                                        market
                                        > > as we near Hubbert's peak. To go the other way, as the Bush
                                        > > administration is doing, to sell out to these special interests
                                        of
                                        > > big oil, is to put the fire out with gasoline. Very scary.
                                        >
                                        > I disagree. If you start putting tolls in the amount of thousands
                                        of
                                        > dollars per person per year on roads, it will have a devastating
                                        > effect. How can the average person even afford to get to work, let
                                        > alone anything else??
                                        >
                                        > >
                                        > > BTW, Dave, don't take this personal. I think you are really cool.
                                        >
                                        > Thanks! Don't worry, I'm not taking it personally!
                                      • David
                                        ... And for this, please send your thank-you letter to Clinton/Gore. The recession (or whatever you want to call it) was already in full stride when Bush took
                                        Message 19 of 19 , Nov 11, 2002
                                        • 0 Attachment
                                          --- In methanehydrateclub@y..., "Mike Doran" <mike@u...> wrote:
                                          > The wealth transfers from rich to poor come directly
                                          >
                                          > BUSH-CHENEY: THE FIRST 20 MONTHS
                                          > Inauguration Day Now Change
                                          > Dow Jones 10.587 7.986 Down 32.5%
                                          > Unemployment Rate 4.2 5.7 Up 36%
                                          > Budget $281b Surplus $157b Deficit Squandered
                                          > Jobs 111.7 million 109.6 million Loss of 2.1 Million

                                          And for this, please send your thank-you letter to Clinton/Gore. The
                                          recession (or whatever you want to call it) was already in full
                                          stride when Bush took office. The "surplus" never existed anywhere
                                          except on paper, and it was based on sustaining a certain economic
                                          growth rate. Again, another wonderful Clinton/Gore trick.

                                          > http://www.spc.noaa.gov/climo/reports/yesterday_prt.html
                                          >
                                          > The severe weather matched the strike activity and really kicked in
                                          > as the front went above the Gaia active GOM. Now the strike
                                          activity
                                          > is along the Atlantic coast and I'll bet you are getting strikes.
                                          >
                                          > Indeed, the solar activity matched well with that trough and the
                                          Gaia
                                          > conditions and the positive SOI . . .

                                          If you mean by "strikes" severe weather, we sure got it. According
                                          to CNN, more than 50 tornados touched down throughout the east. 35
                                          killed, and a bunch more unaccounted for. Nasty.
                                        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.