HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: cls@truffula.sj.ca.us (Cameron L. Spitzer)
Subject: Re: George F. Will on Gore's environmental book
Organization: Save the Humans!
Date: Fri, 04 Sep 92 05:53:05 GMT
Summary: straight from the White House machine
Keywords: Gore, environment, George Will

In article <67603@hydra.gatech.EDU> gt7122b@prism.gatech.EDU (R. Mandock) writes:
>
>"Al Gore's Environmentalism a Caricature of Contemporary Liberalism"
>                        by George F. Will
>                       The Atlanta Journal

And a zillion other papers.  Will is the most widely syndicated columnist
in the USA, with twice as many placements as his closest competitor.  

>...  Clearly Al Gore's book "Earth in the 
>Balance" is wastebasket-worthy.

And so on.  George Will has become the most reliable spokesperson
for the Bush Administration in all the mass media.  Lee Atwater once
boasted that his greatest accomplishment was placing fax machines in
the offices of the nation's fifty most widely read "journalists"
so that the Reagan White House could more easily and thoroughly
determine what the story of the day would be.  Will got the first one.
It's no surprise the thing's still working.

To better understand how this kind of thing happens, take a look at
_Unreliable Sources: A Guide to Detecting Bias in News Media_ by
Martin E. Lee and Norman Solomon, ISBN 0-8184-0561-9, or a few issues of
_EXTRA!_, the journal (ISSN 0895-2310) of the non-profit Fairness and
Accuracy in Reporting.  They're at 130 West 25th Street, New York,
NY 10001  (212)633-6700.

Senator Gore's _Earth in the Balance_ begins with an overview of the
current threats to human survival as understood by the scientific
community.  After spending a few pages slamming the Deep Ecologists it
proceeds into a thoughtful analysis of modern culture as a
dysfunctional system.  Hardly the superficial whining of a mainstream
liberal.  Not a typical campaign book either.  Take a look and decide
for yourself if Will's misrepresented it.


Cameron Spitzer in San Jose, Ca.   cls@truffula.sj.ca.us
From: benkei@cs.utexas.edu (William Kent Richards)
Newsgroups: talk.environment
Subject: Re: CO2 (was Re: ages Environmental Show Trials)
Date: 29 Aug 1992 15:12:34 -0500
Organization: U Texas Dept of Computer Sciences, Austin TX
NNTP-Posting-Host: nada.cs.utexas.edu

In article <l9icl9INNerh@utkcs2.cs.utk.edu> de5@ORNL.GOV (Dave Sill) writes:
>In article <3626@execu.execu.com>, mike@execu.execu.com (Mike McCants) writes:
>>
>>The balance between the sources of new atmospheric CO2 and possible
>>"sinks" for that new CO2 is so far out of balance that even drastic
>>changes cannot make much difference over the next 50 years.

Actually, this is a myth.  It is scientifically proven that at
present, there are 250 billion tons of excess CO2 between sea level
and 15,000 ft.  Algae are the most efficient consumers of CO2 on the
planet, and consume 1500x more CO2 than the average tree per square
meter of surface area.  Using this information it has been calculated
that if we created 400,000 square miles of algae ponds on the surface
of the Earth today, in 7.5 years the CO2/O2 balance would be restored
to the level that existed in the year 1900 (assuming current CO2
production of 6.6 billion tons/year).  We have information regarding a
company which sells home algae pond kits, and is interested in helping
create the 400,000 sq. mi. needed to restore the balance.  If you want
information, you can e-mail me (benkei@cs.utexas.edu) or call me
(Kent) at 512/445-7941 (USA, voice mail).

You can also get a video explaining this in greater detail.  The
video, and the research, is done by a Harvard trained
chemist/environmental scientist.  If you want a copy, let me know.
It's called: "The Race to Save Our Common Home."  I'll need a little
money to cover the cost of making the copy and shipment (about $8-10
US total).  It's well worth it!  Help spread the word!  Once you see
the video, you'll know that a total solution is possible and feasible.
The comments below become moot.

>>Therefore a more gradual approach can certainly be dismissed as hopelessly
>>ineffectual.

>Yes, but an inadequate plan is better than none at all.  If we can't get a full
>solution, we might have to settle for a partial solution.  While we argue for
>the full solution we need to be doing *something*.
-- 

Kent Richards                         "Practice random acts of kindness
benkei@cs.utexas.edu                   and senseless beauty"
From: jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy)
Subject: Re: Population Growth and the Bet that Paul Ehrlich Lost
Reply-To: jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University
	<JMC.92Aug20232000@SAIL.Stanford.EDU> <25113@castle.ed.ac.uk>
	<JMC.92Aug23114207@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
Date: 23 Aug 92 15:04:13

It occurs to me to add that if James Hammerton is worried about
exploiting low paid workers, he should make sure he only uses copper
imported from the U.S.  The $514 per week average pay of an American
copper miner in 1989 was probably more than almost anyone in the
Edinburgh AI Laboratory received.

--
John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
*
He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.
From: gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
Newsgroups: talk.environment
Subject: Re: Population Growth and the Bet that Paul Ehrlich Lost
Date: 25 Aug 92 18:27:12 GMT
Reply-To: gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman)
Organization: Gannett Technologies Group

In article <1992Aug20.164348.27858@vexcel.com> dean@vexcel.com (dean alaska) writes:
>
>Commodities will be stably priced because they are produced by cheaper and
>cheaper labor and because fewer and fewer people will be in the market to
>buy them.  More poeple will go without.

There's a fallacy here. Just as poor people drop out of the consumer market,
they also drop out of the labor market when wages drop below subsistence,
except in slave labor camps. Therefore there is an effective floor to
labor costs. 

In the textile industry, the productivity of power looms is such that 
hand woven cloth is now viewed as a luxury item commanding higher 
price. So cheap labor is not a multiplier that can force down the price
of goods indefinitely. Indeed, hand labor can command higher prices
than mechanized production in some cases. Tomato farmers worked
with Universities and equipment makers to get tomatos that work with
mechanical harvesters, and have longer shelf lives. The result has been 
cheaper tomatos, though with tougher skins and inferior taste. Meanwhile, 
a different industry of vine ripened, hand picked tomatos that command 
a premium price has arisen. Since these tomatos have a short shelf life,
most are produced near their markets and not in the vegetable belt of
California with it's cheap migrant labor. Mechanization resulted in both 
lower prices, and more employment at higher wages. Two products where once 
there was one.

Gary
From: de5@ORNL.GOV (Dave Sill)
Newsgroups: talk.environment
Subject: Re: CO2 (was Re: ages Environmental Show Trials)
Date: 26 Aug 92 14:51:15 GMT
Organization: Oak Ridge National Lab, Oak Ridge, TN
NNTP-Posting-Host: de5.ctd.ornl.gov

In article <3631@execu.execu.com>, mike@execu.execu.com (Mike McCants) writes:
>
>I disagree.  "Doing something" that is obviously inadequate is a waste of
>resources in my opinion.

Only if one *knows* it's inadequate, and in this case we don't: the
don't-worry-be-happy crowd says we don't need to do anything--so maybe a less
than all-out effort *would* be enough.  And again, even if it does turn out to
be inadequate, we'll be in a better position: we won't have been compounding the
problem, we'll already have taken some steps toward reducing CO2 emissions so
reducing to required level won't be as drastic, and we'll have learned a good
deal about *how* to reduce CO2 emissions and where further cuts can be made.  If
we wait until we know exactly what needs to be done, it *may* be too late--and
we won't get a second chance.

>Far better to use the resources "constructively".

As I've shown above, that *would* be a constructive use of resources.

>Perhaps the government could spend some money trying to educate "the
>voters" on the subject of why nuclear power plants are the best short-term
>solution.

Ideally, yes, I'd rather see nuke plants being built than fossil fuel burning 
plants.  But we'll still have the latter for some time, plus millions of cars,
homes burning oil/coal/gas, etc. so we still need to reduce CO2 emissions.

-- 
Dave Sill (de5@ornl.gov)	   For every Bill Joy there is a Kirk McKusick.
Martin Marietta Energy Systems     For every Bill Gates there is a Richard
Workstation Support                Stallman.                     --Paul Graham
Xref: sparky talk.environment:3538 alt.activism:15890 alt.save.the.earth:1134
From: dean@vexcel.com (Dean Alaska)
Subject: Re: George F. Will on Gore's environmental book
Organization: VEXCEL Corporation, Boulder, CO
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 14:38:48 GMT

In article <JMC.92Sep3231335@SAIL.Stanford.EDU> jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU writes:
>Thanks for posting Will's review of Gore's book.  But what shall I now
>do with the copy of the book I paid $22.95 for?  Oh well, there's a
>rather nice picture on the back jacket of the nice Senator in a nice
>shirt sitting in front of a nice tree.  Perhaps some nice person
>will tell us what I have missed by putting off reading the book
>and reading Goldstein's _Classical Mechanics_ instead.
>
>--
>John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
>*
>He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.

All the reviews I have seen of this book say radically different things
about it.  I guess I will have to read it.  Maybe John McCarthy will
sell me his for half price if he doesn't want it.  ???
-- 

		dingo in boulder	(dean@vexcel.com)
From: gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
Newsgroups: talk.environment
Subject: Re: CO2 (was Re: ages Environmental Show Trials)
Date: 27 Aug 92 04:41:32 GMT
Reply-To: gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman)
Organization: Gannett Technologies Group

In article <l9nf2qINNmol@utkcs2.cs.utk.edu> de5@ORNL.GOV (Dave Sill) writes:
>In article <1992Aug25.172051.2299@ke4zv.uucp>, gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman) writes:
>>In article <l9icl9INNerh@utkcs2.cs.utk.edu> de5@ORNL.GOV (Dave Sill) writes:
>>>
>>>Yes, but an inadequate plan is better than none at all.  If we can't get a full
>>>solution, we might have to settle for a partial solution.  While we argue for
>>>the full solution we need to be doing *something*.
>>
>>Ack! The activist's cry, "Don't just stand there, do *something*. Even
>>if it's wrong, even if it's harmful, even if just standing there is the
>>best choice, *do* something. We must make *progress*, even if we are 
>>progressing in the retrograde direction."
>
>That's not what I said, and the dire consequences of action you predict are not
>likely in this case.  I propose taking reasonable (e.g., agreeable to a
>majority of the experts and officials) measures to reduce emissions.  Such
>measures would have relatively little negative impact because they aren't aimed
>at reducing emissions drastically.
>
>>If an action promises certain, but perhaps small, negative consequences,
>>and promises very uncertain, but perhaps larger, positive consequences,
>>it is often wise to refrain from that action until the probabilities
>>are better understood.
>
>If we're fairly certain of the direction we will have to head eventually, isn't
>it wise to at least *not* head in the opposite direction now, given the choice?

Look, I'm the guy who sits over in sci.energy saying that oil is stored
biomass, biomass is stored solar energy, solar energy is nuclear energy,
why don't we cut out the middlemen? I'm the fellow who's been saying
that CO2 levels are a function of production and consumption and that
the two should be brought back in balance for the long term health of
the environment. But I'm also the guy who comes over here and says we
can't be rash in our actions. Steps have to be economically sound so
that we don't inadvertently damage the world *today* more than we help
it *tommorrow*. Economics is called the dismal science because it's
macro models are so poor that tossing a coin is often more reliable.
We don't know enough to say that big changes won't cause large scale
harm somewhere else. By comparison to the economic modelers, long
range climate modelers are Las Vegas crap shooters with a system
they just *know* will beat the house. Until we have more *facts*
on which to base our actions, our best course is to wait and watch
making only those changes that micro economics, a considerably
better set of models, says make business sense.

Gary
From: dscharfe@dptspd.sat.datapoint.com (David Scharfe)
Newsgroups: talk.environment
Subject: Re: George F. Will on Gore's environmental book
Keywords: Gore, environment, George Will
Date: 4 Sep 92 15:38:02 GMT
Organization: Datapoint Corporation, San Antonio, TX

In article <67603@hydra.gatech.EDU> gt7122b@prism.gatech.EDU (R. Mandock) writes:
>
>"Al Gore's Environmentalism a Caricature of Contemporary Liberalism"
>
>                        by George F. Will
>                       The Atlanta Journal
>                           3 Sept 1992
>
> [a whole bunch deleted]
>
>the facts of environmental progress more heartening than he admits.  His
>book, a jumble of dubious 1990s science and worse 1960s philosophy is a 
>powerful reason not to elect its author to high office in the executive
>branch where impressionable people will be bombarded by bad ideas in search
>of big budgets.
>     

Since Mr. Will doesn't want Bush elected (as least I certainly got 
that impression reading his editorial about the actions of the Bush
campaign), and here states Gore should perhaps not be, is he going 
to endorse Perot, Marrou, or someone else :^) ??

Dave
Newsgroups: talk.environment
From: prb@chinet.chi.il.us (Paul Botts)
Subject: GREAT LAKES INFO available
Organization: Chinet - Public Access UNIX
Date: Sun, 23 Aug 1992 21:19:47 GMT

THE GREAT LAKES INFORMATION SERVICE is now available for ftp!

Fact Sheets about various Great Lakes topics and issues, along with two
years worth of new stories from the Great Lakes Reporter, can be found
via anonymous ftp at nic.cic.net, in the subdirectory
/pub/great-lakes/cgl (where you'll find a readme.txt file which explains
and lists what's available in what subdirectory).

Topics covered by Fact Sheets include Great Lakes water diversion, water
quality, waterfront development, pollution prevention, regional and
international agreements such as the Great Lakes Water QUality
Agreement, and the effects of global warming on the Lakes.
There are Fact SHeets on many of the 43 Great Lakes Areas of Concern,
which are the worst toxic hotspots as designated by the two federal
governments.

The Great Lakes Reporter, a regional newsmagazine published by The
Center for the Great Lakes, covers news, trends, and issues relating the
environment of the Great Lakes ecosystem and the economy of the region,
especially when they interact. You will find every major story that has 
appeared in the Reporter since the start of 1990, listed by subject area
with headlines for easy access and searching. Typical topics include
coverage of the historic regional public meetings held in Traverse City
in October 1991; trends in various key economic sectors around the
Lakes; analysis of current water quality planning and activities by
governments, industry and citizen's groups around the region; waterfront
development aroound the Lakes; "invader" species such as the zebra
mussel; the state and future of the Great Lakes' fishery; the status of
proposals to divert Great Lakes water, and so forth.

The Reporter is a part of the Great Lakes Information Service, a public
service of The Center for the Great Lakes. This ftp access is the first
step in a long-range plan to put the Information Service "on-line"; more
Fact Sheets on more topics will be added, Reporter stories will be
continuously added as they are published, and existing Fact Sheets are
periodically updated by Center researchers.

For more information, or to receive this material by U.S. Mail, send
email to prb@chinet.chi.il.us. The Information Service also responds to
requests for information from researchers, inlcuding searches of our
library, and picking the brains of our brilliant, experienced and modest
staff. Call 312-263-0785 and ask for Paul Botts or Noah Eiger; be sure
and tell us where you heard of us, so we know whether this method of
making the service known is working!
From: mike@execu.execu.com (Mike McCants)
Newsgroups: talk.environment
Subject: Re: CO2 (was Re: ages Environmental Show Trials)
Date: 26 Aug 92 23:09:55 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Comshare, Inc. Austin Development Center

In article <l9nhjuINNmol@utkcs2.cs.utk.edu> de5@ORNL.GOV (Dave Sill) writes:
>Nonsense.  The potential for catastrophe is greatest if we perturb the carbon
>cycle.  Business as usual isn't, in this respect, safe.

We have already perturbed the carbon cycle.  We continue to perturb the
carbon cycle.  Do you want to stop perturbing the carbon cycle?  Do you
want to reduce US CO2 emissions by 90%?  Next year? 2002?  2092?

>I don't care whose models are used.  We can't pump CO2 into the atmosphere
>forever without negative impact.

That's an interesting hypothesis.  How long is "forever"?  Do you want
to claim that another 100 years at the current rate would be catastrophic?
How can you convince us of this?

>I think you're wrong.  I don't think the risk of that is very high, but I do
>think its *possible* that a sudden climate change could introduce unexpected
>catastrophic results.

Is 100 years "sudden"?  Do you expect the Antarctic ice shelf to fall into
the ocean - raising its level 5 feet?  What "unexpected" catastrophic
results are you expecting?

Will "the big one" hit California within 100 years?

Will another asteroid clobber us before "forever" comes?

Will a hostile power throw a few H bombs at us within the next 100 years?

>  And I certainly think such unexpected catastrophies are
>more likely when humans meddle with things than when they don't.

Hurricanes and earthquakes and asteroids are "expected" catastrophies -
so they don't count?  Which is more expensive: a $10 billion hurricane
or $10 billion "wasted" slowing the CO2 rise by 6 months?

Was Malthus right or wrong?  Is there a coming catastrophe "expected" by
"Malthusians" and unexpected by the rest of us?

>  My basis for
>this belief comes from the fact that, in the millions of years prior to
>substantial environmental impact from unnatural causes, such catastrophes didn't
>happen.

Only "expected" catastrophies happened?  The dinosaurs were going to
die because their plants would die due to lack of CO2 - but the asteroid
got them first?  The CO2 level has fluctuated a lot.  The Earth's
temperature has fluctuated a lot.  What catastrophes didn't happen?

>  Plus, throughout my life I've seen numerous cases of human blundering
>causing unexpected results in smaller, much better understood systems.

This "example" is not very specific.  I'm willing to admit that human
blunders have caused unpleasant results.  The discovery of penicillin
for example.  [Oops - a little slip there.]  Gunpowder?  Nuclear fission?
Fusion?  Thinking the world was smaller than it was?  How is there
a relation between the "cases of human blundering" that you seem to
be referring to and the current global economy that is largely based
on fossil fuels?  Is the use of fossil fuels a human blunder that
needs to be corrected no matter what the cost?

Newsgroups: talk.environment
From: mst4298@zeus.tamu.edu (Mitchell S Todd)
Subject: Re: BUSH Administration Hushes Auto Efficiency Studies
Followup-To: talk.environment
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: Applied Upyerstemmatey Corp
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 22:22:00 GMT

In article <ATAYLOR.92Sep1185744@gauss.nmsu.edu>, ataylor@nmsu.edu (Nosy) writes...
>In article <1992Sep1.114235.3663@ornl.gov> de5@ORNL.GOV (Dave Sill) writes:

><   But what's wrong with CAFE?  

>	It kills people. Lighter-weight cars are not as 
>	crashworthy; more people are injured and/or killed
>	in auto crashes in lighter-weight cars. 

>	Don't take my word for it, check with the Department
>	of Transportation.

	Sounds more like Click and Clack, the tappet brothers ;->
	
	Actually, heavier cars are not necessarily the most crash 
	worthy. For a time in the mid '80s the Pontiac Fiero was
	supposed to be the most crashworthy car in the 30mph
	head on collision test, despite the car's light weight,
	and the lack of either eingine or transmission is the nose.
	Of course, if the lighter car has an airbag system and the
	heavier one doesn't...

                                |  
		              \ | /	 
                               \|/
_________________________   ---(0)---   ______________________________________
\__                      \___/~/|\~\___/                              _______/
  \__ mst4298@zeus.tamu.edu / / | \ \\ 	      Ambiguity is the      ______////
    \__ Mitchell S Todd    /    |    \\   Devil's tetherball     ______////
      \___________________/           \\____________________________////
         \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\/_____________\\\///////////////////////////
                           /////\\\\\\\\\\\
Newsgroups: talk.environment
Subject: DRAGSTRIP POLLUTION?
From: nyoung@desire.wright.edu
Date: 23 Aug 92 21:32:08 EST
Organization: Wright State University 

I am a member of a coalition fighting the local zoning
board decision to put a drag strip within a mile of my
house.
  We need information on water aand air pollution at drag
strip sites, including ground water pollution. if there
are any studies on noise from dragsters, we could use that too.
  That this drag strip will be built within a mile of a populated
area, over a major aquifer and on land which was possibly once
wetlands (and is now near wetlands) seems to have no bearing on
the case. The county government is looking at the project as 
something to bring development to the area, along with jobs.
  We see it as a source of noise, air and water pollution,
with concommitant influx of undesireable elements, lose of
property values and the beginning of the end for our community.
  Any help you can offer will be greatly appreciated by my
neighbors.

Nils R. B. Young
126 W. Main Street
Medway, OH 45341
(513) 849-0113


Newsgroups: talk.environment
From: dean@vexcel.com (Dean Alaska)
Subject: Re: Population Growth and the Bet that Paul Ehrlich Lost
Organization: VEXCEL Corporation, Boulder, CO
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 23:28:19 GMT

In article <1992Aug26.175905.9079@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman) writes:
>In article <1992Aug25.232846.29091@vexcel.com> dean@vexcel.com (Dean Myerson) writes:
>
>Unlikely. Textile inputs, cotton, flax, and synthetics, are dominated
>by mechanised systems of production. They aren't just "labor saving"
>devices. They are incredible productivity multipliers. Let's look at
>open pit mining as an example of what I mean. One man with a box of
>dynamite can do in milliseconds what it would take a thousand men 
>with picks a week to do. There's no way that you could pay the men
>with picks little enough to overcome the productivity advantage of
>the man with the box of dynamite.
>
>Gary

But a man with a box of dynamite might be more productive than huge
earth moving machines under certain circumstances.  The idea does not
assume _no_ capital costs, just a decrease from a current level.
-- 

		dingo in boulder	(dean@vexcel.com)
From: jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy)
Subject: Re: Population Growth and the Bet that Paul Ehrlich Lost
Reply-To: jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University
	<1992Aug26.175905.9079@ke4zv.uucp> <1992Aug26.232819.23904@vexcel.com>
Date: 26 Aug 92 17:14:29

More advanced societies have lower capital costs relative to output
than less advanced societies.  In 1970 the U.S. required an
investment of 1.6 dollars for every dollar of annual output.  The ratio
for the Soviet Union was 2.6 and for Iran was 3.2.  Sorry not to
have more recent information.
--
John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
*
He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.