HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: dean@vexcel.com (Dean Alaska)
Subject: Re: free Beyond the Limits program
Organization: VEXCEL Corporation, Boulder CO
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 16:24:00 GMT

In article <JMC.92Dec13145900@SAIL.Stanford.EDU> jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU writes:
>I don't like to continue these ever lengthening dialogs postings so
>I'll just comment on the last thing Dingo says.
>
>     In the more recent book, _Beyond the Limits, the authors
>     claim that the published results from the first book closely
>     match the historical experience since then, which is about
>     nas good a validation as is available now.  >
>
>I don't know what this claim means.  _Limits to Growth_ had no
>scales on the axes of its graphs, so we don't know whether the
>predicted catastrophes were supposed to have occurred by now.
>Perhaps they are referring to some scales they kept secret from
>the public.
>--
>John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
>*
>He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.
>

As was pointed out in a discussion on this subject a few months ago, 
all x-axes in their plots extend from 1900 to 2100.  This was explained
in the book, though each of the numerous plots did not include the
axis labels.  
-- 

		dingo in boulder	(dean@vexcel.com)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
From: dean@vexcel.com (Dean Alaska)
Subject: Re: Carrying Capacity and Sanity
Organization: VEXCEL Corporation, Boulder CO
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 20:32:26 GMT

In article <1466601983@igc.apc.org> alanm@igc.apc.org (Alan McGowen) writes:
>
>
>I do describe the choice in "stark terms", Dean, because I believe that
>this is the best way to get the largest number of readers to think
>about it. A little controversial language isn't a bad thing on UseNet.
>
>The *ideal* way to increase readership is to be interesting and 
>entertaining. But if you are too lazy/busy/harried/tired or temporarily
>brain-dead, the second best way to do it is to be controversial. Take
>it from the mass media :-)
>
>Alan

This may be true of the population in general (unfortunately), but it is
not true of those with a scientific perspective.  On the other hand,
considering the incredibly long-winded responses to the various
Greenpeace press releases, maybe you are right.  Its also a good
question as to whether this gets them thinking _constructively_.
-- 

		dingo in boulder	(dean@vexcel.com)
From: alanm@hpindda.cup.hp.com (Alan McGowen)
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 19:35:18 GMT
Subject: Re: What about this, doomsters?
Organization: HP Information Networks, Cupertino, CA
Newsgroups: sci.environment

>/ hpindda:sci.environment / jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy) /  3:09 pm  Dec 10, 1992 /
>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."

It's a good thing these plants weren't rendered extinct by wetlands
development, isn't it? Plenty of salt-marsh species are in trouble
worldwide. How many more of them might make useful crops?

How many salt-tolerent plants in the world's rapidly disappearing mangrove 
forests might also have commercial potential? How many that had it are already 
extinct?

------------
Alan McGowen
From: hank@netcom.com (Hank Roberts)
Subject: Re: Frogs and amphibians
Date: Sun, 03 May 92 00:40:28 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)

Paul Cass asked for references.
I can offer only these from a recent San Francsico Chronicle article by
a Chron science writer named Charles Petit:

International Union for the Conservation of Nature, Declining Amphibian Task
   Force, has a newsletter titled FrogLog (paid for by the Napa Valley, CA
   Frog's Leap Winery

David Wake, U.Cal, herpetologist, is chairman of the new task force
James Vial, Oregon State U. Corvallis, coordinates it (headquarters at
OSUC)

"Science" August 1991 article by J.H.K. Pechman of Georgia U. is cited.

Peter Morin of Rutgers is listed as doubting that there is any net loss,
saying that "Maybe there are places right around the corner that are full of
frogs."  [Personal aside: I looked, but there's a 7-11 on the site now :-) ]

John Wright, Curator of herpetology at LA Museum of Natural History is quoted
"There is a series of declines among the amphibians that cannot be explained
by the usual means.  These are not just declines but appear to be absolute
losses. They are not just dropping down, they are in a catastrophe."

Further note from memory: amphibians have more total body exposure to
polluted rainwater and groundwater than terrestrial species, living at
the edge of shallow water. That's one likely mechanism of exposure to
trouble.

--
    Gary S. Trujillo                            gst@gnosys.svle.ma.us
Somerville, Massachusetts              {wjh12,bu.edu,spdcc,ima,cdp}!gnosys!gst
From: hsgibbon@unix.amherst.edu (HENRY SANFORD GIBBONS)
Subject: frogs in decline?
Organization: Amherst College
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL7]
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 04:31:45 GMT

I just read in the New York Times Magazine that many herpetologists studying
frog populations over the last ten years or so have witnessed their subjects
dying off at an alarming rate.  This phenomenon is not confined to certain
sensitive areas but is widespread and includes several common species as well.
One of the prime culprits in this observed decline seems to be a disease 
called "red-leg" which is caused by a bacterium normally ubiquitous in water,
but harmful only upon collapse of the immune system of amphibians, much like
AIDS-related illnesses.  Biologists interviewed in that article mentioned
environmental factors such as acidification, increased UV exposure, intro-
duction of foreign organisms, and other factors as culprits in this decline.
The article makes some comparison to canaries in a mineshaft, but also 
mentions that we don't yet know enough about the population dynamics of these
organisms to be able to make an accurate judgment.

I was wondering if anyone out there has had any experience in this field and
can shed some light on this subject.  Any replies would be appreciated.
Either e-mail or post them to the net.  Thank you very much!

Sandy Gibbons

HSGIBBON@AMHUX3.AMHERST.EDU
HSGIBBONS@AMHERST.EDU
Newsgroups: sci.environment
From: dean@vexcel.com (Dean Alaska)
Subject: Re: Development policies
Organization: VEXCEL Corporation, Boulder CO
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 16:23:49 GMT

In article <JMC.92Dec15225022@SAIL.Stanford.EDU> jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU writes:
>If a comparative advantage disappears, then a country relying on it
>must change what it produces.  Note, however, that Israeli agriculture
>also relies on high value exports, and Israel also has shortages of
>water.  The Green Revolution in general has worked to the disadvantage
>of countries relying on agricultural exports, because countries that
>formerly imported have become self-sufficient.  The European Common
>Market has also worked to the disadvantage of non-European agriculture.
>
>Evidently the World Bank isn't always right.  Is it always wrong?

I may post some critiques of the concept of comparative advantage later.
The World Bank may not always be wrong, however it is wrong to universally
apply one development model to all countries.  It seems that some of its
calculations are in fundamental contradiction with well-known economic
relationships.
>--
>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: env-link+@andrew.cmu.edu (Student Enviro-Link)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: E-Link: Mt. Graham: UPitt Protest (Press Release)
Date: 11 Dec 92 08:28:01 GMT
Article-I.D.: andrew.wf_Bqlu00iUz43IfR8
	<1992Dec10.215914.89492@watson.ibm.com>
Organization: Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA

>In article <STEINLY.92Dec10105729@topaz.ucsc.edu>
steinly@topaz.ucsc.edu (Stein
>n Sigurdsson) writes:
>> I'd go so far as to argue that not only does in not threaten the squirrels
>> in any way, it is actually one of the best protections the Mt Graham
>> ecosystem could get as it precludes other damaging developments proposed
>> for the mountain.
> 
>Clearly the safest outcome for the squirrel is for Mt Graham to be made a
>conservation area and the observatory be put on another mountain.  Its
>possible that the observatory (with appropriate precautions) will not endanger
>the suirrel, but I'd like to see expert opinion on this.  Impact is tricky to
>judge in small eco-systems like this as subtle effects can produce
catastrophe.
> 
>Andrew Taylor

Actually, from the numerous environmental impact statements that have
been done for the project (both independent and university studies) have
shown that the project will directly impact the prime habitat of the Mt.
Graham Red Squirrel.  Here is why:

The roads that are being built to the sites are (naturally) along the
flattest routes possible.  These flat areas are the food gathering sites
for the squirrels.  The pine cones and other food do not roll down the
steep slopes to either side.  If you look at the geography of the
mountain, you will see that the top of it is a knife-edge type ridge
with very steep slopes to either side.  The roads and sites have to be
built on flat (or semi-flat) areas, and the proposed and existing
building sites for roads and structures occupy an estimated 80% of the
squirrels' feeding grounds.

The telescopes themselves are not all that bad, unfortunately this is a
COMPLEX of telescopes (radio, optical, etc) that take up quite a surface
area on the top of the mountain. Please don't think that this is "just a
telescope" and that there can be no damage.  Also, when you factor in
the impact of the project, remember the miles and miles of roads that
need to go to and from the site.  

These roads also leave lots of open spaces across which the squirrels
need to travel.  This keeps them wide open for predatory attacks.  If
the project were to be abandoned, the best thing that could happen is
that trees would be felled across the road, and the entire mountain
would be abandoned.

Also, somebody had made the statement, "A telescope is better than what
other projects were planned for the mountain."  Praytell, what other
projects have been proposed?  (besides of course a nature preserve)

Just some thoughts,
Josh Knauer
Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh
Western PA Area Coordinator for SEAC
Xref: sparky sci.environment:13547 ca.environment:1082
From: tylerh@cco.caltech.edu (Tyler R. Holcomb)
Newsgroups: sci.environment,ca.environment
Subject: Re: Natural Gas? ("structural impediments")
Date: 15 Dec 1992 19:43:32 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
NNTP-Posting-Host: punisher.caltech.edu

ladasky@netcom.com (John J. Ladasky II) writes:

>	I was listening to Clinton's "economic summit" on the radio this
>morning.  There seemed to be as much pleading by business representatives
>for their specific industries as there were expressions of concern about
>problems as a whole.  A representative of the natural-gas industry recited
>a laundry list of the supposed benefits of natural gas, and claimed that
>structrual impediments (my words) had prevented natural gas from growing 
>as it should have during the 1980's (something I hardly doubt).

I wish to address the "side point" of "structural impediments."
I am not sure about the last half od the 80's, but for the
first 1/2, natural gas *did* face ludicrous structural impediments
in the form of Federal and State regulations.   This is becuase
both the widespread use of coal or natural gas (NG) require
extensive federal and state permitting, (pipelines, mining permits,
approval of power plant designs, etc), and the bureacracies that
perform these permittings are ultimately answerable to politicians -
whose interestes are usually not driven by engineering economics.

Coal generally comes from poorer states dependent on coal mining
(kentucky, West Virginia), while gas comes from places that
usually also have oil (Texas, Louisiana, Oklahoma, Canada, California).
Thus, coal usually wins politically over natural gas (but
not oil), and eastern coal wins over
western coal.  This eastern coal lobby is so strong that for most of
the cold war, the US army was required to use American coal
at it's European bases:  your tax dollars shipped coal across the
atlantic *to* major coal producing areas so the eastern coal lobby
could keep it's miners employed.   Indeed,  this is one of
the problems in fighting acid rain:  western coal (e.g. wyoming) tends
to be lower in sulfur and other "bad stuff"  than eastern coals.
Thus, a direct and simple method for cutting  SO emissions
is to put eastern coal miners out of work.  This was part of
the reason the latest clear air act  was so politically difficult.  Indeed,
many Eatern power plants (e.g. Ohio) are *required* to
use Eastern coal by their regulating authorities even
though these companies have stated that they can meet their
enviromental targets more cheaply by switching to other
sources. 

Thus, when a natural gas excutive pleads his special
interest, we enviromentalists may have more interest than
meets the eye.
-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tyler Holcomb   *   "Remember, one treats others with courtesy and repsect *
tylerh@juliet   *   not because they are gentlemen or gentlewomen, but     *
  caltech.edu   *   because you are."  - paraphrased from Garth Henrichs   *
Newsgroups: sci.environment
From: ds@scammell.ecos.tne.oz.au (Dale Smithyman)
Subject: Re: frogs in decline?
Organization: Telecom Australia, Information Technology Development
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 20:50:15 GMT

In article <Bz8F8y.K1u@unix.amherst.edu> hsgibbon@unix.amherst.edu (HENRY SANFORD GIBBONS) writes:
>I just read in the New York Times Magazine that many herpetologists studying
>frog populations over the last ten years or so have witnessed their subjects
>dying off at an alarming rate.  This phenomenon is not confined to certain

Australia, or at least Victoria now has the Frogwatch program started up
to try to keep track of frogs and their habitats. It has a very good frog
identitfication book and tape of frog calls. Identification using this kit is
quite easy. There are also identification forms to send in showing the frogs
in your area.

		Dale


-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dale Smithyman		ds@scammell.ecos.tne.oz.au
The views expressed here are not necessarily the same as those of my employer
(bless his unbleached cotton socks).
Newsgroups: sci.environment
From: jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy)
Subject: Re: Population growth and cultural destruction (Re: Nasty ...)
Reply-To: jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University
	<JMC.92Dec11180555@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
	<1992Dec13.202328.21968@vexcel.com>
Date: 13 Dec 92 22:05:36

I have a few comments on Dingo's posting.

1. He asks

     How useful is the kerosene stove to a population for which
     kerosene may get too expensive?  How many of the local
     design swould be in use if the kerosene stove had not been
     available?  How much local intiative was used to design a
     stove thousands of miles away?  Do you believe local people
     wer at all involved in its marketing?  Why?

Evidently kerosine wasn't too expensive at the time or 10,000 wouldn't
have been purchased.  The country, Kenya I think, is large enough so
that even 10,000 is a small part of the market.  For this reason I
doubt it is the reason why only 250 of the "appropriate" stoves were
built.  I assume the kerosine stove was not designed specially for the
African market but represents some importer deciding that here was a
product he could sell.  Such products were made for the American
market by Sears-Roebuck for many decades and sold all over that part
of the world that was developed enough to have a commercial system.
Now the Far East can do it better.  Local initiative is probably
best invested in commercial activity with engineering coming later.
Such engineering talent as is available is most likely to go into
civil engineering which has to be local.


It doesn't matter why the Soviet Union never allowed foreign
countries to develop sales and service networks within their
own country.  In fact they didn't even allow Soviet computer
manufacturers to develop service networks.  I remember some
disk files delivered to Novosibirsk that were never made to
connect to the system that was supposed to use them.  The main
point is that a lot of technology is transferred by salesmen
and their technical support.
--
John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
*
He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.

Newsgroups: sci.environment
From: jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy)
Subject: Re: toxic spill remediation
Reply-To: jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University
	<JMC.92Dec17214441@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
	<1992Dec18.173928.1@cubldr.colorado.edu>
Date: 19 Dec 92 00:30:05

I was not being ironic.  I was pleased with what Robert Parson wrote.  I
am also pleased with the additional facts you provided and the
arithmetic you did.  I shall store them away and hope I can retrieve
them when needed.  They surely will be needed the next time the issue
is raise by people new to the newsgroup or who just forget.
--
John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
*
He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.
From: hwstock@snll-arpagw.llnl.gov (stockman harlan w)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: intimidation
Date: 16 Dec 92 14:54:51 GMT
Organization: Sandia National Labs, Livermore, CA

>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.

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.
Xref: sparky sci.environment:13560 talk.environment:5038
From: paul.burnett@pcs.sj.ca.us (Paul Burnett) 
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: E-Link: Mt. Graham: U
Date: 12 Dec 92 06:53:00 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: PCS-BBS - San Jose, CA - 408-270-4085
Reply-To: paul.burnett@pcs.sj.ca.us (Paul Burnett) 

TO: steinly@topaz.ucsc.edu

SS>That still leaves the somewhat non-trivial question as to
  >whether the construction of the observatory poses any danger
  >to the squirrel population. I'd go so far as to argue that not
  >only does in not threaten the squirrels in any way, it is actually
  >one of the best protections the Mt Graham ecosystem could get as
  >it precludes other damaging developments proposed for the mountain.

SS>*  Steinn Sigurdsson                         Lick Observatory        *

Good one.  I've been thinking along these lines, too.  I notice lots of
squirrels when I go up to Lick...would you say the squirrel population
is _more_ or _less_ today than it might have been had the observatory
not been built?  I would surmise that with the increased feeding
opportunities with the staff and tourists, and the increased habitat
because of all the building foundations and such, the Mount Hamilton
sub-species of the California Ground Squirrel has prospered by having
an observatory in the neighborhood.  <MHO, of course>

---
 . QMPro 1.0 41-8688 . ...from San Jose, CA
                                                           
Newsgroups: sci.environment,talk.environment
From: jgacker@news.gsfc.nasa.gov (James G. Acker)
Subject: Re: bionic bogeyman
Organization: Goddard Space Flight Center
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 20:36:50 GMT

William A Bacon (techie@cellar.org) wrote:
: 
:          BIONIC BIGEYMAN
: On October 25th, Environmental Protectin Agency Officials isued a series of 
: regulations designedto combat the acid rain problem they claim is devastating 
: lakes, streams and forests in the northeastern United States and SOuth 
: Eastern Canada. Their main target is sulfur dioxide emissions from over 100 

	{remainder of worthless conservative propaganda mercifully deleted}

	It has been conclusively proven that the massive forest dieback
in Czechoslovakia (late '70's)
was due to the highly acidic precipitation and dry
deposition the forests were exposed to, both from West Germany and
Eastern Europe.  For references consult papers by Tomas Paces (\/ over
the "c").
	The effects of acid rain on lakes with a low-acid neutralizing
capacity bedrock have been well documented.  The fish die.


	Jim Acker
	jgacker@neptune.gsfc.nasa.gov


The stupid article was written by:
: John F. McManus
: President of the John Birch Society

	and posted by one of his accomplices.


Newsgroups: sci.environment