HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: SCHLOERER@rzmain.rz.uni-ulm.de (Jan Schloerer)
Subject: Re: Gallup Poll on Global Warming
Organization: University of Ulm, Germany
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 15:34:00 GMT
X-News-Reader: VMS NEWS 1.24

In article  <KETIL.92Sep10162105@due.ii.uib.no>
            ketil@due.ii.uib.no   (Ketil M. Malde)   writes :


> In article <1992Sep9.191832.18599@wega.rz.uni-ulm.de>
>    SCHLOERER@rzmain.rz.uni-ulm.de (Jan Schloerer) writes:
>
>>  *  Global mean surface air temperature has increased by 0.3 to
>>     0.6 oC over the last 100 years.

I am flattered.  Unfortunately, I am not the author of that statement.
You seem to confuse me with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
(IPCC)  or, rather, with its 'climate' Working Group I ,  which includes
hundreds of the most respected climatologists and meteorologists from
a large number of countries.


> Keep in mind that these measurements are very difficult to get, places
> where temperature was measured 100 years ago may be different from the
> sites used today, cities have grown (causing more local heat) etc. etc.

These and other difficulties  -  e.g., incomplete spatial coverage,
changes in observing schedules and practices  -  have been investigated
in painstaking detail by just those people who finally concluded that
global mean surface air temperature has increased by about 0.3 to 0.6 oC
since around 1890  [IPCC 1990, chapter 7.4;  IPCC 1992, chapter C3.1].
For instance, the so called "urban heat island" effect you are referring
to is not likely to exceed 0.1 oC per 100 years (average for land
surface temperatures) and has been taken into account in the estimate.


There is little doubt left that climate will change in  _some_  way:
you can't change the earth's radiative balance for nothing.  The open
question is how much, how swiftly and with what regional twists climate
will change, and whether and at what cost we, our agriculture, forests
and ecosystems can adapt to that change (e.g., trees cannot 'run'
arbitrarily quickly).  Even with the ongoing research accelerated into
a crash programme, it is by no means certain that nature will show her
cards to us, before we are committed to considerably more serious
climate change than we are now.  See, for instance, Richard Kerr's
article in Science 256 (22 May 1992), 1138-1140 (in particular p 1140).
As Gregory Frazier has put it in another reply to your post:
A nice poker problem.


Jan Schloerer          schloerer@rzmain.rz.uni-ulm.de
Klinische Dokumentation           Uni Ulm
Postfach 3880     DW-7900 Ulm     Germany
From: bj368@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Mike E. Romano)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Solar Fuel Alcohol
Date: 11 Sep 1992 04:55:32 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu


I am sorry I do not have editing so I cannot quote previous
posting under this heading.
I would like to emphasize the original point concerning
alcohol production:  
Alcohol has been produced for millennia using a variety
of methods.
Alcohol is much cleaner burning than gasoline.
Alcohol can be produced as a renewable resource here in
the U.S.; petroleum once mined does not "reappear."

The non-environmentalists need to begin looking at the
major costs connecting with the status quo, petroleum
and nuclear industries.

That is, the total cost of pollution to human health
and nature by a given fuel in a given area.
This cost MUST be added to the superficial costs of
that fuel.
Otherwise the cost and evaluation discussions are near
sighted.

On the discussion of how much energy is required to pro
duce one calorie of food: I have done some reading in
this area but the point which is often not understood
by the non-environmentalist is that the energy equation

must take into account ALL the materials used to produce
say, the crop of corn.
That would be the total energy, human, mechanical and
material extraction for the modern pesticides for 
example, the $100,000 dual wheeled tractor, and so
orth and then compare that total energy to the
energy of a Malaysian or Chinese farmer working
a rice field to produce the same one calorie of
energy.
The traditional, natural farmer produces food at a
much lower total cost than the modern mass production
farmer.
-- 
            Mike Romano     Univ. Calif. Berkeley
From: jgacker@neptune.gsfc.nasa.gov (James G. Acker)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Global warming/cooling
Date: 11 Sep 92 20:57:32 GMT
Organization: Computer Science, Indiana University
Content-Type: text
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4dev PL73]
Content-Length: 749


	Build-up of polar ice caps (primarily Greenland and Antarctica)
is predicted in many GCM's as a consequence of global warming.  Such
observations have been made for Antarctica.  I can go downstairs and 
ask the researcher who made the measurements if you want more information.
The build-up is due to increased water vapor in the atmosphere, leading
to greater precipitation.

	If "Earth in the Balance" is any indication, Gore knows at 
least one climate scientist.  He quotes directly from Bob Watson, the 
main voice at NASA for the IPCC report.  Considering it's just a 
short walk, I'd guess he's met him, too.  I currently have the book in my
car, which I feel guilty driving after reading it!

	Jim Acker
	jgacker@neptune.gsfc.nasa.gov
From: Tom Gray <tgray@igc.apc.org>
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Date: 09 Sep 92 17:41 PDT
Subject: --Warming Threat to Economy
Nf-ID: #N:cdp:1466601760:000:2990
Nf-From: cdp.UUCP!tgray    Sep  9 17:41:00 1992


From: Tom Gray <tgray>
Subject: --Warming Threat to Economy

/* Written  5:28 pm  Sep  9, 1992 by tgray in cdp:en.energy */
/* ---------- "--Warming Threat to Economy" ---------- */
IIE STUDY SEES LONG-TERM
DANGERS IN GLOBAL WARMING

Global warming from carbon dioxide and other "greenhouse gases"
poses a serious long-term threat to the U.S. and global economies,
according to a recent report from the Institute for International
Economics (IIE), a Washington, DC-based group.

According to IIE's William Cline, global warming by a predicted 2.5
degrees Celsius (C) by the year 2050 will reduce U.S. gross
domestic product (GDP) by about one percent, or $60 billion. 
However, Cline noted, global warming is cumulative and irreversible
and is projected to reach 5.7 degrees C by the year 2100 and 10-18
degrees C by 2300.  The impact of the latter figure would be a drop
of six to 20 percent of GDP.

Based on these figures, Cline said, a longer time frame should be
used in considering the consequences and costs of the greenhouse
effect.

The study proposed a two-phased approach to curb warming.  The
first phase would include:

(1) an international treaty to stabilize carbon dioxide emissions
at 1990 levels by the year 2000, as several industrial countries
have already pledged;

(2) a steadily increasing carbon tax, which would reach $40/ton by
2000; and

(3) removal of all existing subsidies which encourage carbon
emissions, such as subsidies for coal and electricity use.

If the current scientific consensus is confirmed by the end of the
decade, Cline said, a second phase should begin, that would include
higher and more uniform carbon taxes or a carbon dioxide emissions
trading system (see "CO2 Emissions Trading May Be Wave of Future,
Experts Believe," Wind Energy Weekly #498, May 11, 1992, p. 4).  An
agreement similar to the 1987 Montreal protocol on
chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), which provides for economic sanctions
against countries who fail to abide by agreed-upon limits for CFC
production, would also be part of the second phase.

===============================

The American Wind Energy Association (AWEA) has authorized me to offer
an electronic edition of its newsletter, _Wind Energy Weekly_, from
which the above article is excerpted, at no cost.

For those of you who have not previously seen excerpts from back issues
on Usenet or Bitnet, the _Weekly_ reports on the outlook for renewable
energy, energy-related environmental issues, and renewable energy
legislation in addition to wind industry trade news.  The electronic
edition normally runs about 10kb in length.

If you would like a free electronic subscription, send me an e-mail
request.  Please include information on your position, organization,
and reason for interest in the publication.

*******************************************************************
Tom Gray                                 EcoNet/PeaceNet: tgray@igc
Internet/Bitnet: tgray@igc.apc.org    UUCP: uunet!pyramid!cdp!tgray
From: Nick_Janow@mindlink.bc.ca (Nick Janow)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: The Human Niche
Date: 10 Sep 92 20:10:56 GMT
Organization: MIND LINK! - British Columbia, Canada
Distribution: world

tpalm@nada.kth.se (Thomas Palm) writes:

> After all can anyone give a rational argument showing the value of music or
> art or for that matter working eight hours a day to afford it when one could
> work much less and still survive quite well?

Yes, I expect that there have been studies which can place a dollar figure on
the value of music and art for the general population.  Perhaps the studies
show that people who spend x hours a week appreciating art are y % more
productive and are z % healthier.

> It would replace one luxury: large consumption of non-essential items with
> another: a cleaner environment. While this may seem arbitrary I tried to
> point out that it probably would increase our chance of survival.

Actually, it may be that exploiting the environment even more than at present
would increase the chances of survival for the human race.  Sucking oil and
other minerals and chewing up the forests, with no thought to minimizing
environmental damage could support large scale space development, the riches
from which would then pay for turning the damaged Earth into an even better
paradise.  Saving the environment at the cost of technological advancement
could destroy the human race, since someone is likely to go for the technology,
and then control the others.  You can't make technological possibilities go
away.  Genetic engineering and nuclear energy are possibilities, and someone
may apply them, under control or not.

--

Nick_Janow@mindlink.bc.ca
From: Nick_Janow@mindlink.bc.ca (Nick Janow)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: The Human Niche
Date: 11 Sep 92 20:14:32 GMT
Organization: MIND LINK! - British Columbia, Canada

tpalm@nada.kth.se (Thomas Palm) writes:

> As long as you go for imaginary references you can "prove" anything, and what
> about more risky interests such as mountain climbing or boxing?

You asked for a "rational argument", not a referenced counterargument.  I think
my argument was rational; whether it is valid could probably be argued for
years by statisticians and other experts.

> Why do you see an opposition between technical development and environmental
> protection? There is a large difference between developing a new technology
> and immediately starting large scale use, i.e. builing one car is development
> while building the 100,000,001 is consumption. I rather see it the other way:
> if we are going to save the environment we need lots of new technology. Going
> for a low consumption lifestyle may actually leave more resources for
> science.

The opposition I saw was a result of messages posted before on this topic.
There is a frequent call for "nature, not technology".  Most R&D is done with
the expectation of future profit.  Who would pay the R&D costs for developing
anti-lock braking systems for cars if only 200 rather than 2,000,000 were going
to be made and sold?

A perfect zero-population-growth society ("...Imagine no possessions...") could
possibly support intensive R&D with no expectation of profit, but such a world
really is hard to imagine.

--

Nick_Janow@mindlink.bc.ca
From: gemmellj@merrimack.edu
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: "Paper Or Plastic?"
Date: 8 Sep 92 18:06:35 GMT
Followup-To: sci.environment
Distribution: na
Organization: Merrimack College, No. Andover, MA, USA

In article <53056@dime.cs.umass.edu>, kim@.cs.umass.edu writes:
> An FAQ?
> 
> Which is better for the environment, paper grocery bags or plastic ones?
> 
> I'm a novice environmentalist.
By all means, paper is better!!!!!
From: esprit@netcom.com (Alan F. Perry)
Subject: Re: car subsidies -- German statistics (long)
Date: Mon, 07 Sep 92 21:38:05 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 


[ Listing ofnegative impact of the automobile in ex-W. Germany and implied ]
[ anti-automobile arguments deleted.                                       ]

Don't try to generalize this to the U.S.  Germany is smaller than the U.S.
and has a more comprehensive rail/public transit network.  I lived in
Germany for a year and only used my car for entertainment purposes; I
took the U-Bahn (subway) and walked almost everywhere.  Image trying to
do that in most cities in the U.S.

Even with Germany's great public transit system, I know several people who
do business all over the country (Germany being the size of Texas with large
numbers of no-speed-limit Autobahn makes the country even smaller) and they
can only get the best use of their time by car.  (I tried to argue otherwise
to them, but they had perfectly valid points.)  Maybe when they put speed
limits on all of the Autobahn (God forbid!), public transit might get an
advantage again.

On the other hand, the tax code does seem to encourage using a car over taking
the U-Bahn.

alan

Newsgroups: sci.environment
From: dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz)
Subject: Re: Solar Fuel Alcohol (Was Re: Mary Jane has a great Biomass)
Organization: Computer Science Department University of Rochester
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 16:25:50 GMT

In article <KETIL.92Sep10164009@due.ii.uib.no> ketil@ii.uib.no writes:

> One could also consider the energy spent to the energy gained. Or in
> other words, how many calories of energy do you consume to get grain
> that contain 1 calorie.
>
> I *think* the numbers are about thirtysomething calories spent in the
> US, and about one in ....Indonesia?  Per cal. of food produced, of
> course.
>
> This might be a better argument for the 'old way' if energy
> consumption is an issue. And it is, isn't it?


I believe the number is about 1 for 1 in the US.  Also, an equal
amount of energy is used to *cook* the food, so unless you plan to
have everyone eat raw food, significant energy inputs are required.

In 3rd world countries, energy used in cooking far exceeds that used
to grow the food.

	Paul F. Dietz
	dietz@cs.rochester.edu
Newsgroups: sci.environment
From: jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy)
Subject: smoke detector eaters cartel
Reply-To: jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University
Date: 5 Sep 92 11:38:49

It seems to me that Jym Dyer is unlikely to come up with enough money
to get us to eat the smoke detector radioactive sources.  The difference
between the $10 he is willing to pay and the $2.5k that the cheapest
of us wants is too large.  However, if you can't lick 'em, join 'em.

Here's the idea.

General Electric has the money to pay, and Jym Dyer has expressed his
desire to annoy General Electric.  Moreover, Jym Dyer belongs to
organizations that have good abilities to get publicity and also have
lawyers.

One of his organizations should base a campaign on the argument that
if General Electric sincerely believed in the safety of their smoke
detectors, they would put up the $5k needed to get John McCarthy to
eat one.

Actually $5k is only a part of the money that can be made from this
business plan.  The actual arrangements for the eating, the press
conferences, the TV tie-ins, etc. would be made under contract from GE
by Dyer-McCarthy Associates, Inc. with John De Armond as a consultant.
--
John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
*
He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.

Newsgroups: sci.environment
From: ketil@due.ii.uib.no (Ketil M. Malde)
Subject: Re: Solar Fuel Alcohol (Was Re: Mary Jane has a great Biomass)
Reply-To: ketil@ii.uib.no
Organization: student of computer science at the University of Bergen, Norway
Date: 10 Sep 92 16:40:09

In article <1992Sep10.094034.10712@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman) writes:

   >How was corn grown through all those ages before the age
   >Dow, etc.?

   It was grown at much lower planting density, with one year in four
   crop rotation, heavy use of animal manures, and lots of hand labor. 
   The yield in a good year, 60 bushels/acre, was about 1/4th the yield 
   of a field planted with modern methods in only an average year, 240
   bushels/acre. The labor input to modern corn growing is about 2 manhours 
   per acre per year. In the past, the labor input was about 35 manhours 
   per acre per year.

   In 1900, one farmer fed 5 off farm people in the US. Today 1 farmer 
   feeds 43 urbanites.

One could also consider the energy spent to the energy gained. Or in
other words, how many calories of energy do you consume to get grain
that contain 1 calorie.

I *think* the numbers are about thirtysomething calories spent in the
US, and about one in ....Indonesia?  Per cal. of food produced, of
course.

This might be a better argument for the 'old way' if energy
consumption is an issue. And it is, isn't it?


--
 = Ketil Malde                     In real life:  ketil@ii.uib.no =
 = Nuke the whales!                    Honk if you love unicorns! =
From: egreen@east.sun.com (Ed Green - Pixel Cruncher)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: "Paper Or Plastic?"
Date: 9 Sep 1992 14:16:04 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, RTP, NC
Distribution: world
Reply-To: egreen@east.sun.com
NNTP-Posting-Host: laser.east.sun.com

In article 53056@dime.cs.umass.edu, kim@.cs.umass.edu () writes:
>
>Which is better for the environment, paper grocery bags or plastic ones?

Neither.  Buy a cloth sack with handles and take it to the store with you.

---
Ed Green, former Ninjaite |I was drinking last night with a biker,
  Ed.Green@East.Sun.COM   |and I showed him a picture of you.  I said,
DoD #0111  (919)460-8302  |"Go on, get to know her, you'll like her!"
 (The Grateful Dead) -->  |It seemed like the least I could do...
From: philg@bozo.uucp (Phil Geller)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: Gallup Poll on Global Warming
Date: 9 Sep 92 05:04:57 GMT
Organization: Network Equipment Technologies

In article <15344@umd5.umd.edu> bwilliam@oyster.smcm.edu (Bill Williams) writes:
>...
>BTW, I'd love to have the reference on that "Gallup Poll."  I didn't know
>Gallup polled small specific groups (like "climatologists").
>___________________________________

I'm still trying to track down the original report.  George Will apparently
lifted his information from a March 16, 1992 review of "Earth in the Balance",
by Ronald Bailey (Cato Institute), that appeared in National Review.
The relevant section from that review...

"But what is the evidence?  Climate records, though spotty, do indicate that
Earth has warmed by less than 1[degrees] F. over the last century.  In his
book, Gore implies that 98 per cent of atmospheric scientists agree that
catastrophic greenhouse warming has begun.  However, a recent Gallup poll
conducted for the Institute for Science, Technology, and Media found that of
those scientists actively involved in global climate research, 53 per cent do
not believe huma 0induced global warming has occurred and 30 per cent don't
know, leaving only 17 per cent who think human-induced global warming
occurred--far short of 98 per cent."

I've had no luck in trying to identify where the Institute for Science, 
Technology, and Media is.  Perhaps someone out there has better resources
than I to track this down.

By the way, the author of the book review, Ronald Bailey, is writing a
book on apocalyptic environmentalism for St. Martin's Press.  That
should add some grist to this newsgroup.  


-- 
Phil Geller				Email: philg@net.com
Network Equipment Technologies 		Phone: (415) 780-4363
800 Saginaw Drive 			Fax:   (415) 780-5001
Redwood City, CA 94063
From: tobis@meteor.wisc.edu (Michael Tobis)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: Gallup Poll on Global Warming
Date: 8 Sep 92 20:41:46 GMT
Organization: University of Wisconsin, Meteorology and Space Science

I received the following correction in email from Jan S. (whose last name
I will not attempt to spell from memory):

> >> Recent experimental results
> >> confirm this simple theoretical result. (Raman & Ramanathan, Nature
> >> v 342 p 358, e.g.)
>    
> You mean   Raval & Ramanathan, Nature 342, p. 758.

Yes thanks.

mt
From: magnus@lglsun.epfl.ch (Magnus Kempe)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Diminishing "undernutrition" in developing regions
Date: 7 Sep 92 08:55:03 GMT
Organization: Ecole Polytechnique Federale de Lausanne

OK, let's complete the table with absolute numbers...

In article <18dfhlINN4j4@hal.com>, howard@titan.hal.com (Howard Gayle) writes:
: 
: Period   Total population      Chronically undernourished
:		(10^6)			(%)	(10^6)
: ------------------------------------------------------------------
: 1969-71	2 609			36	  939
: 1979-81	3 262			26	  848
: 1988-90	3 938			20	  788

No doom, then.  Those who like to blindly project statistics into the
future, should hope for an increasing population of the dev. countries,
as it would clearly lead to the eradication of famine (almost arbitrary
estimate:  add 600 million people every decade and within a little over
one century everything will be OK).

Are the countries who moved between 1969 and 1990 from developing to
semi-industrial or industrial status still included in the count?  If
not, the statistics would be even more positive...

Now, if only the marxist guerrilla and tribal warfare would stop in
Africa and if only India abandonned socialism... The problem is not
food or technology.  The problem is the absence of political
freedom--and the consequent destruction of all economic, productive
activity.


WRT the environment: man's productive activity has the inherent
tendency to improve his environment... if the standard of value is
man's life--but of course not if one values germs over man's life.

-- 
Magnus Kempe            "I have sworn ... eternal hostility to every form of
magnus@lglsun.epfl.ch    tyranny over the mind of man."  -- Thomas Jefferson
Newsgroups: sci.environment
From: burke@tss.com (Jim Burke)
Subject: Re: "Paper Or Plastic?"
Reply-To: burke@tss.com (Jim Burke)
Organization: Teknekron Software Systems. Inc.
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 19:40:03 GMT

In article <53056@dime.cs.umass.edu>, kim@.cs.umass.edu writes:

|> Which is better for the environment, paper grocery bags or plastic ones?
|> 
|> I'm a novice environmentalist.

Plastic!!!  Paper bags kill trees, and paper does not decompose
like it is supposed to in a land fill anyway.  Plus, you can use them
for garbage bags instead of "Hefty" trash bags so you save yourself a
couple of bucks to boot, not to mention the wasted cardboard packaging
the Hefty bags come on.

No, wait, it's paper!!!  Paper is a wood product so eventually it will 
decompose and enrich the earth.  And plastic consumes petro-chemicals and
polutes the air when burned and it never goes away.

Hell, who knows now-a-days?

-- 

	Jim Burke	"Life is uncertain - eat dessert first!"
	Teknekron Software Systems		... burke@tss.com
  	phone:(415) 617-2432			... uunet!tekbspa!burke
Newsgroups: sci.environment