HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy)
Subject: Re: The Outer Limits
Reply-To: jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University
	<1992Dec17.173634.22098@watson.ibm.com>
Date: 17 Dec 92 21:39:42

In article <1992Dec17.173634.22098@watson.ibm.com> andrewt@watson.ibm.com (Andrew Taylor) writes:

   In article <JMC.92Dec16193832@SAIL.Stanford.EDU> jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU writes:
   >May I cite a biochemist, Bruce Ames, who says that humans ingest more than
   >4,000 times as much carcinogens (by the standard rodent test) from natural
   >sources as from all artificial sources.

   Which is irrelevant to your claim that a "society, not much more advanced
   technologically and not at all more advanced scientifically than ours" will
   be able to remove pollutants from the environment.  How, for example, do you
   propose to remove DDT and its breakdown products from the food web.

   Andrew Taylor

Ames's work is entirely relevant to his claim that the small quantities
of artificial chemical carcinogens ingested are insignficant compared
to the amounts of natural carcinogens ingested.
--
John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
*
He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.

Newsgroups: sci.environment
From: dean@vexcel.com (Dean Alaska)
Subject: Re: What about this, doomsters?
Organization: VEXCEL Corporation, Boulder CO
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 17:44:08 GMT

In article <JMC.92Dec10150952@SAIL.Stanford.EDU> jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU writes:
>from Science, Dec. 4, p. 1574
>
>excerpt from article entitled "How to Grow Oil in the Persian Gulf".
>
>Halophyte Enterprises, a company in Tucson, Arizona, set up to
>commercialize technology developed at the nearby University
>of Arizona's Environmental Research Laboratory (ERL), has sent
>a team to Jubail, Saudi Arabia.  There, it is planting _Salicornia
>beglovii_.  The seeds of this salt marsh plant yield not only
>edible oil but even protein meal for animal feed.  Gene Koch,
>Halophyte's president, say that "this 300-hectare [740 acre]
>farm will be the first commercial [crop] in the world to be
>irrigated with sea water."
>
>.
>.
>.
>
>The next revolution in agriculture is going to be seawater-based
>irrigation" predicts Carl Hodges, the retired
>director of ERL.  He believs not only that the project will
>prove economically profitable, but that the strategy
>could also help control global warming by covering barren
>coastal desrt with food crops that would soak up carbon
>dioxide.
>
>[food crops won't help the CO2 problem unless some of the carbon
>fixed by the crops is buried rather than re-oxidized - jmc
>opinion]

Sounds like it could be good.  Are we to assume that it will only
be planted in areas that are already salty?  Is their a chance it
will be used in coastal areas that have fresh-water ecologies,
which could cause havoc with the ecosystems?  On the one hand, I could
see this as a boon in reversing desertification and erosion in some
areas.  On the other hand, if a good cash crop were to be developed
that used salt-water irrigation I could envision hard currency-poor
countries converting large areas to this near their coasts and
ignoring possible huge consequences.  New technologies can have a
hugely beneficial impact _if used wisely_.  Unfortunately, such
long-term ecological wisdom doesn't seem to be a factor in World
Bank loan criteria (or for the market in general).
>--
>John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
>*
>He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.
>


-- 

		dingo in boulder	(dean@vexcel.com)
From: kennard@rocky1 (Darren Kennard)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Global Warming
Date: 16 Dec 1992 03:09:38 GMT
Organization: University of Saskatchewan
Reply-To: kennard@rocky1
NNTP-Posting-Host: rocky1.usask.ca


  We up in northern Canada actively protest nuclear power generation, 
as greenhouse gas created by coal power generation (Yes, that's how we
do it here folks) will warm up the atmosphere.  An by god it's fucking
cold up here. 
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Grouchy Grad Student of the Geological Engineering Persuasion
  " Always Use Your Willie Wisely "
From: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: What's Necessary?
Date: 16 Dec 1992 23:58:41 GMT
Organization: HST Wide Field/Planetary Camera
Distribution: world
Reply-To: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol1.gps.caltech.edu

In article <149180179@hpindda.cup.hp.com>, alanm@hpindda.cup.hp.com (Alan McGowen) writes:
=Nevertheless, the functioning of ecosystems results from all of the species
=that make them up, and in turn places selection pressures on each species. 
=Over time, the functioning becomes more efficient as a result of the 
=*coevolution* of the species in the ecosystem -- as a result of evolutionary 
=feedbacks among them.

Assuming, of course, that there are no important exogenous influences.  A
rather shaky assumption at best Alan.  Perhaps you could use a bit of education
in the non-biological sciences yourself.  Climatology, for example.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carl J Lydick | INTERnet: CARL@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU | NSI/HEPnet: SOL1::CARL

Disclaimer:  Hey, I understand VAXen and VMS.  That's what I get paid for.  My
understanding of astronomy is purely at the amateur level (or below).  So
unless what I'm saying is directly related to VAX/VMS, don't hold me or my
organization responsible for it.  If it IS related to VAX/VMS, you can try to
hold me responsible for it, but my organization had nothing to do with it.
From: 471-1@air.atmo.arizona.edu (E. Shane Jimerfield)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: Mt. Graham Telescope Project (was E-Link: Mt. Graham: UPitt Protest..)
Keywords: presedent
Date: 17 Dec 92 02:48:38 GMT
Organization: University of Arizona, Tucson


Just a spelling fix, for better understanding.

>OK, so you all think that it is just a matter of the Red Squirrel.
>Well let me say just a few things being a student at the U of
>Arizona. 
>What the scope project means to this student is:
>  1.) Budget cuts
>     The U of A has been cutting classes and library hours
>     every year since I started here 4 yrs ago. The project
>     that is not going to be worth a hill of shit to the
>     scientific community is costing the students and taxpayers
>     over $33 million.
>  2.) Violation of Apache sacred land.
>     The U of A in partnership with the Vatican has stated that
>     the beliefs of the environmentalists and Apaches are 'a kind
>     of religiosity to which I cannot subscribe and which must be
>     suppressed with all the force that we can muster.' Father
>     Coyne, Jesuit Priest, head of the Vatican Observatory and
>     is charge of the Vatican Telescope under construction on
>     Mt. Graham.
>  3.) A direct action to curb the ESA
>     The precedent set here will be used by others in the future to 
>     side step the Endangered Species Act.
>This project takes huge amounts of money out of education and dumps
>it into a pet project of the Vatican and U of A administrators, like
>President Pacheco.
>The name of one of the telescopes is Columbus... How appropriate that
>a violation of Native American Sacred Land be named Columbus. Also,
>to the best of my research, the U of A is the only University in the
>U.S. to bring legal action against Native Americans.
>
>Here is a little something that has been gnawing at me since Columbus
>Day, when there was a sit in non-violent demonstration at the U of A in
>protest to the Mt. Graham telescope project. Why did the arrests here,
>and not else where in the country, bring about a Grand Jury investigation?
>
>for more info on Mt. Graham contact:
>
>Friends of Mt. Graham
>PO Box 41822
>Tucson, AZ 85717-1822 USA
>
-- 
Take 'er easy.... Shane
.watch out for the lightning (a large-scale high-tension natural electric
discharge in the atmosphere)......!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
..informal... a sudden usually improbable stroke of fortune.......
From: tobis@skool.ssec.wisc.edu (Michael Tobis)
Subject: Re: Bad science
Organization: U of Wisconsin CS Dept
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 18:42:55 GMT

In article <1992Dec16.010132.9408@news.acns.nwu.edu>, len@math.nwu.edu (Len Evens) writes:
|> 
|> Along these lines, I was annoyed by an article in the Science section of
|> today's New York Times.   It was reporting on the success of climate
|> modeling programs in predicting some events in the past which presumably
|> give greater credence for predictions of global warming in the next
|> hundred years.   The article spent considerable time discussing just
|> why this partciular research was significant, and I won't dwell on that
|> here.  (You can read the article yourself.)  However, the author of
|> the article repeated the assertion that relatively sophisiticated
|> climate models are the only sources for predictions of possible global
|> warming. 

Well, I thought the article very interesting. I assume the sentence you
object to was "the authors have produced one of the first independent
tests of computer predictions that until now have been virtually the
only basis for assessing future warming". Note the weasel words 'one of'
and 'virtually'. But the criticism depends on the meaning of "assess".

The simple calculations require gross averaging of processes that probably
don't take too well to averaging: ocean circulation, convection, cloud.
Averaging these out leaves us with a basis for concern but not a very accurate
assessment of the size of the problem. So if that's what is meant by
assessment, it is a fair statement. The models claim much higher precision
than the global average radiative balance calculation. (note that this is
 an excellent opportunity to compare the meanings of precision and 
accuracy!)

The only other corroborations are the brief and noisy historical record, 
and an estimate of sensitivity from satellite measurements (Warren & Schneider,
J. Atmos. Sci. 36). If it were as simple as all that, the models wouldn't 
serve any useful purpose at all, and I could go back to candle dipping...

In this context, the Hoffert & Covey study in Nature
written up in Tuesday's NYT is good corroboration, coming nicely in the
middle of the IPCC sensitivities. Encouraging news for science, if not
for policy.

However, many reading the report may think that the substance rather than
the magnitude and timing of global greenhouse warming is at issue, so
for them the sentence may be misleading. But I certainly would be happy
if all science reporting was of the caliber of the Times. For those unfamiliar
with it, pick up the Times every Tuesday and look in the B section for
reports on recent results in the sciences. It's available almost everywhere
in North America, though finding a copy in Ottawa was a challenge when
I lived there.

mt

Newsgroups: sci.environment
From: dean@vexcel.com (Dean Alaska)
Subject: Re: intimidation
Organization: VEXCEL Corporation, Boulder CO
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 21:16:36 GMT

In article <427.38.uupcb@pcs.sj.ca.us> paul.burnett@pcs.sj.ca.us (Paul Burnett)  writes:
>TO: hwstock@snll-arpagw.llnl.gov
>
>SHW>In the process of earning our
>   >PhD's, we were trained to be quantitative and to be skeptical of
>   >one-sided, all-or-nothing arguments. Nowadays, we find that many of the
>   >most unsupportable arguments come from environmental groups
>
>Thank you for saying that - I've felt somewhat alone saying the same
>thing.  Many "environmentalists" I run into are so shallow and ignorant
>even on their favorite topic that their message is acceptable only to
>those who are even more ignorant.
>
>SHW>They tend to grossly oversimplify complex scientific problems
>
>...so they and their followers can wrap their small minds around them.
>
>SHW>I apologize for the long diatribe.
>
>No; it needed to be said - thank you.
>---
> . QMPro 1.0 41-8688 . ...from San Jose, CA
>                                                                                                           

[Begin sarcasm].

You know, I run into so many simplistic statements by anti-environmentalists
with unsupportable arguments about the "myth" of the ozone hole or
climate change.  They are shallow and ignorant of scientific information
but rant on and on about their favorite topic.  They continue with these
positions in the face of evidence because their followers love it (Rush
Limbaugh comes to mind) and are even more ignorant.  If only they would
learn the facts.  Their extremism hurts their entire movement and does
not serve any constructive purpose.

[End sarcasm]
-- 

		dingo in boulder	(dean@vexcel.com)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
From: andrewt@watson.ibm.com (Andrew Taylor)
Subject: Re: E-Link: Mt. Graham: UPitt Protest (Press Release)
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 22:58:49 GMT
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: IBM T.J. Watson Research Center

In article <77521@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM> mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson) writes:
>I am claiming, that like all government agencies, these decisions are based
>first and foremost on political considerations.  Scientific fact places a
>poor second or third in the decision making process.

The US Fish and Wildlife Service is no doubt susceptible to political 
pressure but in recent years this pressure is far more likely to have
prevented the application of the Endangered Species Act (ESA).  For example,
its claimed that political considerations delayed the listing of the
Northern Spotted Owl for several years.

Are you claiming that the ESA was incorrectly applied to the Mt Graham Red
Squirrel?  If not can you cite any cases where the ESA was applied in
contradiction of the scientific evidence?

Andrew Taylor
Newsgroups: sci.environment,sci.systems,sci.energy
From: claird@NeoSoft.com (Cameron Laird)
Subject: Re: soapbox preaching
Organization: NeoSoft Communications Services -- (713) 684-5900
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 03:43:42 GMT
Followup-To:  sci.energy

In article <BzD2IG.HxM@news.cso.uiuc.edu> levine@symcom.math.uiuc.edu (Lenore Levine) writes:
			.
			.
			.
>By the way, does/did Yugoslavia have any nuclear energy industry?
The former republic of Yugoslavia had
one plant, supplying about a twentieth
of the country's electricity.  That
was true in 1989.  I don't know where
the installation was.

I suggest follow-ups be to sci.energy.
-- 

Cameron Laird
claird@Neosoft.com (claird%Neosoft.com@uunet.uu.net)	+1 713 267 7966
claird@litwin.com (claird%litwin.com@uunet.uu.net)  	+1 713 996 8546
Newsgroups: sci.environment
From: Thomas Bjorkman <Thomas_Bjorkman@cornell.edu>
Subject: Re: VERY PROVOCATIVE QUESTION.
X-Xxdate: Fri, 11 Dec 92 15: 09:24 GMT
Nntp-Posting-User: tnb1@cornell.edu
Organization: Cornell University
X-Useragent: Nuntius v1.1.1d7
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 20:05:40 GMT

In article <1992Dec9.171206.25306@ncsa.uiuc.edu> Jeffrey L. Sue,
jsue@ncsa.uiuc.edu writes:
>Do you have scientific evidence that mankind is not vital to the
ecosystem?
>If the "top" of the food change is deemed to be vital, then we're at the
>very top - since we can/do make use of virtually all of the other
predators.

We are clearly not at the top of the food chain.  People very rarely eat
preadtors at all.  People who eat meat at all generally stick to
herbivores.  Like our fellow omnivores, like pigs, we are about in the
upper middle.  

It is normal for people to think that they are the best, or the "top",
but after you have been a biologist for a while, that impression wears
off.  The main exception seems to be biologists who get into medicine.
Newsgroups: sci.environment
From: jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy)
Subject: Re: SEAC
Reply-To: jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University
Date: 15 Dec 92 19:07:40

In article <1gl7r8INNi5m@charnel.ecst.csuchico.edu> rrees@OAVAX.CSUCHICO.EDU writes:

   A group of students I work with here at CSU, Chico are interested in linking
   up with other campus groups interested in environmental issues particularly
   as they pertain to University campuses.  Representatives of our Environmental
   Affairs Commission recently attended a SEAC conference in Berkeley and
   really got a lot out of it.  We have tried to communicate with the e-mail
   address for SEAC at Chapel Hill to no avail.  We really would like to share
   information with other campus on recycling, transportation, parking, 
   food service, recycled products, paper usage, Earth Day Programs, etc., etc.
   Any information or the establishment of an e-mail distribution system or ?
   would be appreciated.  Thanks.

It will be important for you to avoid forums where a variety of points
of view are represented.  Ask Alan McGowen for the names of mailing
lists whose contents are guaranteed pure.
--
John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
*
He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.
From: saarinen@sp1.csrd.uiuc.edu (Sirpa Saarinen)
Subject: Re: Rainforest Alliance, Who Are They ???
Organization: UIUC Center for Supercomputing Research and Development
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 92 20:23:53 GMT

mmm@cup.portal.com (Mark Robert Thorson) writes:

>Today I received a solicitation passed through my employer to contribute
>to the "Rainforest Alliance".  I have no idea who these people are.
>Do they assault legal industrial operations with pipe bombs studded with
>nails?  Do they infringe on people's property rights?  Do they oppose
>the most benign form (in the environmental impact sense) of producing
>electric power without contributing to the greenhouse effect or the
>production of chemical waste?  Who are these people?  I want to know !!!

I thought the Rainforest Alliance tried to work together with the rainforest
people and get them to make the rainforests "financially profitable" by 
collecting nuts and various chemicals from the trees and plants, without
cutting/burning the forest down for cattle ranchers and roads. 

I, personally, have never heard of them being "violent" and "active" in the 
way you describe above.  I am not even sure that they have a energy policy
view which would cause such action that you describe. Why assume that the
organization has negative traits? 

What is your opinion of the "Wise Use-movement(s)"? Aren't they more
despicable? Can I assume something bad about them?

very surprised,
Sirpa Saarinen
saarinen@csrd.uiuc.edu
From: unibright@gn.apc.org (Alan Pivett)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Help !!, Are Computers Green ?
Date: 15 Dec 92 20:57:00 GMT
Nf-ID: #N:gn:277800468:000:630
Nf-From: gn.UUCP!unibright    Dec 15 20:57:00 1992


I am currently studing a Bsc Computer Science degree at the University
of Brighton, and am writing a dissertation covering the following areas:

IT and the Environment.
Are computers as green as they seem?

with reference to :

1) CFC's and printed circuit boards.
2) Energy consumption of PC's and Mainframes.
3) Recycling paper,toner,batteries etc.

I am stuck in the area of shipping old computer systems to countries
which are less developed. Any help in this area would be extremly useful.

Thanks for any help.

Amanda Kibble.

PLEASE REPLY ON INTERNET OT JANET IF POSSIBLE! 
(ajk3@uk.ac.bton.unix and ajk3@uk.ac.bton.vms)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
From: dean@vexcel.com (Dean Alaska)
Subject: Re: intimidation
Organization: VEXCEL Corporation, Boulder CO
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 15:46:34 GMT

In article <389@snll-arpagw.llnl.gov> hwstock@snll-arpagw.llnl.gov (stockman harlan w) writes:
>>You know, I run into so many simplistic statements by anti-environmentalists
>>with unsupportable arguments about the "myth" of the ozone hole or
>>climate change.  They are shallow and ignorant of scientific information
>>but rant on and on about their favorite topic.  They continue with these
>>positions in the face of evidence because their followers love it (Rush
>>Limbaugh comes to mind) and are even more ignorant.  If only they would
>>learn the facts.  Their extremism hurts their entire movement and does
>>not serve any constructive purpose.
>
>Learn to distinguish "anti-environmentalists" from healthy
>skepticism and a desire for proof. Because someone does not kowtow to
>all your beliefs, does not mean that person is necessarily against you
>or out to get you.

I think that I do distinguish between skeptics and "anti-environmentalists".
My paragraph above was in response to those who save all of their
criticism for environmentalists who misrepresent a case but ignore
those who misrepresent in the other direction.
>
>For example, I believe in conservation, increased gas taxes, and all
>reasonable measures to reduce the buildup of combustion products in the
>atmosphere. At the same time, I believe that the atmospheric models that
>claim to "prove" global warming are highly suspect; they contain too
>many tunable parameters and are unable to meet the simplest test of a
>scientific theory -- they cannot make a testable prediction. General
>scientific principles make me fear global warming and make me want to
>take measures to prevent the process, since the expectation (in the
>sense of probability) is great.
>
>I believe in atmospheric change; that is precisely why I am skeptical of
>global warming models. There is so much unexplainable noise in the
>paleo-climate record, that I doubt many of the recent changes can be
>tied to man-made emissions with any confidence. Maybe we need to improve
>the global warming models; for my money, we should just practice
>conservation while we wait for data and theory to improve.

Recent comments in this group by climatologists show that the GCM's are
not the sole basis for the concerns about climate change.  You
suggest that we practive conservation while we "wait" for better
data and theory but many people would not consider this to be
waiting.  I would agree that conservation and efficiency are the
appropriate tactics based on current knowledge and that is what
most environmentalists are calling for now.

-- 
==============================================================================

	Dean Myerson	(dingo in boulder)	(dean@vexcel.com)
From: steinly@topaz.ucsc.edu (Steinn Sigurdsson)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: The Return of Nasty, Brutish and Sh
Date: 13 Dec 92 18:38:06
Organization: Lick Observatory/UCO
NNTP-Posting-Host: topaz.ucsc.edu
In-reply-to: alanm@igc.apc.org's message of 13 Dec 92 23:31:00 GMT

In article <1466601987@igc.apc.org> alanm@igc.apc.org (Alan McGowen) writes:


   As for his crack about the "big eco-words", I didn't make it up. 
   But, no I don't have a copy of the post in which he made it. I 
   don't archive most of my own posts. I archive none of his.

I addressed Alan's other points in a separate followup.

You are categorically lying about a statement you alleged I
made. Either provide some evidence that I made the statement
or retract your allegation, publicly.

I repeat, I have archived all posts I made to Usenet
and at no point have I made a statement such as Alan 
alleges.

*  Steinn Sigurdsson   			Lick Observatory      	*
*  steinly@lick.ucsc.edu		"standard disclaimer"  	*
*  Some people think they're really clever			*
*  Smash your head against the wall            Specials, 1979	*
From: paul.burnett@pcs.sj.ca.us (Paul Burnett)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Rammed Earth Construction
Date: 18 Dec 92 05:59:00 GMT
Reply-To: paul.burnett@pcs.sj.ca.us (Paul Burnett)
Organization: PCS-BBS - San Jose, CA - 408-270-4085

TO: Tagi@cup.portal.com

TMN>Please send email information regarding rammed earth construction, the
   >technology needed to accomplish it and any organizations which offer
   >instruction in its practice.

VITA - Volunteers In Technical Assistance, Schenectady, NY.  (At least
they _used_ to....)
---
 . QMPro 1.0 41-8688 . ...from San Jose, CA
                                                                                                                                                                      
Newsgroups: sci.environment,sci.systems