Signs of a Warming World? Drought Threatens 121,000 in South China

[john fernbach]

Drought leaves 121,000 short of drinking water in Hainan

Ministry of Water Resources, People’s Republic of China – March 21,
2007
http://www.mwr.gov.cn/english/20070321/82911.asp

At least 121,000 people in south China's Hainan Province are suffering
from a shortage of drinking water caused by a drought which has began
in the winter.

The provincial meteorological department forecast that the lack of
rain would continue in the next two months and a severe drought would
occur in the province's southern and western regions.

The prolonged drought had also resulted in a shortage of 800 million
cu m of water for agricultural production, affecting 223,333 ha of
farmland, said sources from the provincial bureau of agriculture.

Xing Qiongyao, an official in charge of agriculture with Ledong, a
county in southern Hainan, said the county had 9,333 ha of paddy rice
fields, but farmers could only cultivate 2,000 ha because of a lack of
water.

"Farmers have managed to grow drought-resistant crops such as sweet
potatoes, maize and peanuts or melons on 5,333 ha," said Xing. "The
remainder has to be left idle."

The water shortage has also affected power generation at Daguangba and
Niululing hydropower stations, two main power producers on the
island.
Many areas have been forced to adopt measures such as restrictions on
power usage. In Haikou, the provincial capital, power supply
departments have imposed temporary blackouts at large stores, hotels
and industrial manufacturers, as well as at civilian homes.

Hainan, with a mainly subtropical climate, has been a center for out-
of-season agricultural production in China. The province also relies
on tourism for revenue.
Source：Xinhua

 

[Neolibertarian]

In article <1174496332.493874.244710@l75g2000hse.googlegroups.com>,
"john fernbach" <fernbach1948@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Drought leaves 121,000 short of drinking water in Hainan
>
> Ministry of Water Resources, Peopleﾕs Republic of China ﾐ March 21,
> 2007
> http://www.mwr.gov.cn/english/20070321/82911.asp
>
> At least 121,000 people in south China's Hainan Province are suffering
> from a shortage of drinking water caused by a drought which has began
> in the winter.
>
> The provincial meteorological department forecast that the lack of
> rain would continue in the next two months and a severe drought would
> occur in the province's southern and western regions.
>
> The prolonged drought had also resulted in a shortage of 800 million
> cu m of water for agricultural production, affecting 223,333 ha of
> farmland, said sources from the provincial bureau of agriculture.
>
> Xing Qiongyao, an official in charge of agriculture with Ledong, a
> county in southern Hainan, said the county had 9,333 ha of paddy rice
> fields, but farmers could only cultivate 2,000 ha because of a lack of
> water.
>
> "Farmers have managed to grow drought-resistant crops such as sweet
> potatoes, maize and peanuts or melons on 5,333 ha," said Xing. "The
> remainder has to be left idle."
>
> The water shortage has also affected power generation at Daguangba and
> Niululing hydropower stations, two main power producers on the
> island.
> Many areas have been forced to adopt measures such as restrictions on
> power usage. In Haikou, the provincial capital, power supply
> departments have imposed temporary blackouts at large stores, hotels
> and industrial manufacturers, as well as at civilian homes.
>
> Hainan, with a mainly subtropical climate, has been a center for out-
> of-season agricultural production in China. The province also relies
> on tourism for revenue.
> Source：Xinhua

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4505516.stm

--
NeoLibertarian

"Both oligarch and tyrant mistrust the people,
and therefore deprive them of their arms."
---Aristotle

 

[john fernbach]

Neolibertarian wrote:
>
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4505516.stm
>
> --
> NeoLibertarian
>
> "Both oligarch and tyrant mistrust the people,
> and therefore deprive them of their arms."
> ---Aristotle- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Neolibertarian -- thanks for the Interesting link to the BBC story on
human evolution perhaps having been shaped by an ancient climate
disaster affecting Africa.

Have you seen today's BBC online, with the article on climate change
(along with many
other factors) apparently being a cause of the ongoing disappearance
of Lake Chad?

I don't remember the exact figures, but in 40 years Lake Chad has gone
from something
like 25,000 hectares in extent to around 500 hectares. The lake may
disappear
completely in the relatively near future if current trends continue,
the BBC reports
the experts saying.

Reader responses to the article, however, say it's not only
global climate change at fault: local government corruption, dam
building
upstream, bad water policies etc. also are involved in the disaster.

 

[Neolibertarian]

In article <1174500220.031930.118170@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>,
"john fernbach" <fernbach1948@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Neolibertarian wrote:
> >
> > http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4505516.stm
> >
> > --
> > NeoLibertarian
> >
> > "Both oligarch and tyrant mistrust the people,
> > and therefore deprive them of their arms."
> > ---Aristotle- Hide quoted text -
> >
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Neolibertarian -- thanks for the Interesting link to the BBC story on
> human evolution perhaps having been shaped by an ancient climate
> disaster affecting Africa.

Yes, it's especially interesting that during an ice age, there could
also be a devastating localized drought.

--
NeoLibertarian

"Both oligarch and tyrant mistrust the people,
and therefore deprive them of their arms."
---Aristotle

 

[raylopez99]

Water, water, everywhere but not one drop to drink! - Cooleridge.

Hey John Fernbach you f ing wino! Worried about running out of (holy)
H2O are u? LOL.

You'd be interested perhaps in a scholarly article in the latest issue
of Science which found (tentatively) that the more air pollution there
is (like over China), the less water falls in that polluted region.
Why? One hypothesis is that if there are too many cloud seeding
particulates in the air (from air pollution), then rain drops have a
lesser chance of coalescing and forming into big drops of water that
will fall to earth--so it actually rains less with lots of pollution
in the air.

Further research is needed, as always; surely you agree, eh you
socialist psycho fiend / friend!?

Your fiend/friend,

RL


john fernbach wrote:
> Drought leaves 121,000 short of drinking water in Hainan
>
> Ministry of Water Resources, People's Republic of China - March 21,
> 2007
> http://www.mwr.gov.cn/english/20070321/82911.asp
>
> At least 121,000 people in south China's Hainan Province are suffering
> from a shortage of drinking water caused by a drought which has began
> in the winter.
>

 

[john fernbach]

On Mar 21, 8:33 pm, "raylopez99" <raylope...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Water, water, everywhere but not one drop to drink! - Cooleridge.
>
> Hey John Fernbach you f ing wino! Worried about running out of (holy)
> H2O are u? LOL.
>
> You'd be interested perhaps in a scholarly article in the latest issue
> of Science which found (tentatively) that the more air pollution there
> is (like over China), the less water falls in that polluted region.
> Why? One hypothesis is that if there are too many cloud seeding
> particulates in the air (from air pollution), then rain drops have a
> lesser chance of coalescing and forming into big drops of water that
> will fall to earth--so it actually rains less with lots of pollution
> in the air.
>
> Further research is needed, as always; surely you agree, eh you
> socialist psycho fiend / friend!?
>
> Your fiend/friend,
>
> RL
>
>
>
> john fernbach wrote:
> > Drought leaves 121,000 short of drinking water in Hainan
>
> > Ministry of Water Resources, People's Republic of China - March 21,
> > 2007
> >http://www.mwr.gov.cn/english/20070321/82911.asp
>
> > At least 121,000 people in south China's Hainan Province are suffering
> > from a shortage of drinking water caused by a drought which has began
> > in the winter.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

I'm not actually a wino and I'm not really that psychotic, although I
generally
do disagree with you on politics and economics. As to whether
I'm a "fiend" or not, that's a matter of opinion.

So what's with the invective, Ray?
Because it doesn't prove **** about climate, one way or another.

If I remember rightly, you used to call me "hobo" in these posts,
again with no justication at all. Just a little verbal fillip you put
into
your posts to distract the reader's attention from their intellectual
barrenness.

The article you cite about the effects of particulate air pollution on
rainfall patterns in
China is pretty interesting, though. It would seem to suggest-
though it probably
doesn't prove -- that the current Chinese drought is partly caused by
the air
pollution, and not SOLELY by changes in the usual monsoon season
triggered
by the El Nino effect and/or the warming of the climate through CO2
buildup.

However, there's nothing to keep several factors from affecting the
Chinese
drought at once. Say, particulate air pollution, AND "greenhouse"
warming, AND
El Nino, AND the famous butterfly effect heralded by Chaos Theory.

 

[raylopez99]

On Mar 22, 3:08 pm, "john fernbach" <fernbach1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Further research is needed, as always; surely you agree, eh you
> > socialist psycho fiend / friend!?
>
>
> If I remember rightly, you used to call me "hobo" in these posts,
> again with no justication at all. Just a little verbal fillip you put
> into your posts to distract the reader's attention from their intellectual
> barrenness.

No, it was spice to get people to reply. My posts get replies
[explictive deleted]

>
> The article you cite about the effects of particulate air pollution on
> rainfall patterns in China is pretty interesting, though. It would seem to suggest-
> though it probably doesn't prove -- that the current Chinese drought is partly caused by
> the air pollution, and not SOLELY by changes in the usual monsoon season
> triggered by the El Nino effect and/or the warming of the climate through CO2
> buildup.
>
> However, there's nothing to keep several factors from affecting the
> Chinese drought at once. Say, particulate air pollution, AND "greenhouse"
> warming, AND El Nino, AND the famous butterfly effect heralded by Chaos Theory.

Doesn't that argue for more research rather than rashly looking to
drastically cut CO2 emissions? I think so.

Further research is needed, on that we can all agree.

Best,

RL

 

[john fernbach]

On Mar 23, 10:10 am, "raylopez99" <raylope...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> Doesn't that argue for more research rather than rashly looking to
> drastically cut CO2 emissions? I think so.
>
> Further research is needed, on that we can all agree.
>
> Best,
>
> RL

RL - As is often the case, you're confusing two different ideas in
your comments.

"Further research is needed" -- hell yes. It's need on this, and on
many other environmental questions and economic questions. "Further
research is needed" among other things just to keep the researchers
profitably employed, so they don't have to make new kinds of weapons
for the US or Russia or Al Qaeda, or whoever.

"Rather than RASHLY looking to DRASTICALLY cut CO2 emissions" --
Here's your spin, isnt' it, Ray?

Should we RASHLY cut CO2 emissions -- or should we RASHLY continue to
emit millions of tons of extra carbon into the atmosphere -- should we
RASHLY invade Iraq again, or RASHLY leave -- no, probably we
shouldn't RASHLY do any of those things. But in some cases, we have
to choose one path or another,
and while we shouldn't choose RASHLY, we do have to choose.

Do most AGW researchers think we have enough information now to call
for very significant
reducations in fossil fuel use and CO2 emissions, on the other hand?

That's a different question. And the answer to the question is yes.

They think we DRASTICALLY need to cut CO2 emissions because it would
be acting RASHLY
not to do so. At least that's the consensus among the AGW
researchers I've read.

- Worst -

AF

 

[raylopez99]

On Mar 23, 8:45 am, "john fernbach" <fernbach1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> They think we DRASTICALLY need to cut CO2 emissions because it would
> be acting RASHLY
> not to do so. At least that's the consensus among the AGW
> researchers I've read.
>
> - Worst -
>
> AF

You need to read more you toothless hobo.

RL

 

[john fernbach]

RL - You sleek fat cat, you --

You don't think it would be RASH to read too much while we're trying
to cope with what AGWers are calling an imminent threat to the planet?

The old intellectual game of "paralysis by analysis," or fiddling
while Rome burns?
----------------------------------------------
And while we're speaking about actly rashly or cautiously, would you
agree on
the wisdom of at least holding world fossil fuel production constant
--
no immediate reductions in CO2 emissions, but no more additions,
either --
while the scientists hash out the details of what's happening?

Presumably the world's expansion of oil and coal production could
resume
again after a brief hiatus, assuming that we eventually find that
the droughts, hurricanes, wildfires, and glacier melting were all just
a false alarm.

Best -
JF The Toothless Hobo
..

 

[Bill Ward]

On Sun, 25 Mar 2007 20:33:41 -0700, john fernbach wrote:

> RL - You sleek fat cat, you --
>
> You don't think it would be RASH to read too much while we're trying to
> cope with what AGWers are calling an imminent threat to the planet?
>
> The old intellectual game of "paralysis by analysis," or fiddling while
> Rome burns?
> ---------------------------------------------- And while we're speaking
> about actly rashly or cautiously, would you agree on
> the wisdom of at least holding world fossil fuel production constant --
> no immediate reductions in CO2 emissions, but no more additions, either --
> while the scientists hash out the details of what's happening?
>
> Presumably the world's expansion of oil and coal production could resume
> again after a brief hiatus, assuming that we eventually find that the
> droughts, hurricanes, wildfires, and glacier melting were all just a false
> alarm.

Not if the interruption stops the exponential increase in technology.

Moore's law is our best bet for the future, not Gore's law.

 

[Carbon Criminal Polluters]

....

 

[john fernbach]

On Mar 26, 2:11 am, Bill Ward <b...@REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 25 Mar 2007 20:33:41 -0700, john fernbach wrote:
> > RL - You sleek fat cat, you --
>
> > You don't think it would be RASH to read too much while we're trying to
> > cope with what AGWers are calling an imminent threat to the planet?
>
> > The old intellectual game of "paralysis by analysis," or fiddling while
> > Rome burns?
> > ---------------------------------------------- And while we're speaking
> > about actly rashly or cautiously, would you agree on
> > the wisdom of at least holding world fossil fuel production constant --
> > no immediate reductions in CO2 emissions, but no more additions, either --
> > while the scientists hash out the details of what's happening?
>
> > Presumably the world's expansion of oil and coal production could resume
> > again after a brief hiatus, assuming that we eventually find that the
> > droughts, hurricanes, wildfires, and glacier melting were all just a false
> > alarm.
>
> Not if the interruption stops the exponential increase in technology.
>
> Moore's law is our best bet for the future, not Gore's law.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Excuse me, Bill W - but does "Moore's law" apply to coal and oil
production, now?
I don't think so.

Everyone in the high tech field knows that it applies to the computing
power of microchips.

But nobody respectable is trying to make a case that coal burning, for
example, is doubling in efficiency every 2 years. Or that Exxon-Mobil
is getting twice as many BTUs out of a barrel of oil each two years.

Or are you making the case here that there's no real difference
between oil & coal & microchips, since they're all brought to us by
"free market" capitalism?

 

[Bill Ward]

On Mon, 26 Mar 2007 11:11:06 -0700, john fernbach wrote:

> On Mar 26, 2:11 am, Bill Ward <b...@REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote:
>> On Sun, 25 Mar 2007 20:33:41 -0700, john fernbach wrote:
>> > RL - You sleek fat cat, you --
>>
>> > You don't think it would be RASH to read too much while we're trying
>> > to cope with what AGWers are calling an imminent threat to the planet?
>>
>> > The old intellectual game of "paralysis by analysis," or fiddling
>> > while Rome burns?
>> > ---------------------------------------------- And while we're
>> > speaking about actly rashly or cautiously, would you agree on the
>> > wisdom of at least holding world fossil fuel production constant -- no
>> > immediate reductions in CO2 emissions, but no more additions, either
>> > -- while the scientists hash out the details of what's happening?
>>
>> > Presumably the world's expansion of oil and coal production could
>> > resume again after a brief hiatus, assuming that we eventually find
>> > that the droughts, hurricanes, wildfires, and glacier melting were all
>> > just a false alarm.
>>
>> Not if the interruption stops the exponential increase in technology.
>>
>> Moore's law is our best bet for the future, not Gore's law.- Hide quoted
>> text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> Excuse me, Bill W - but does "Moore's law" apply to coal and oil
> production, now?
> I don't think so.
>
> Everyone in the high tech field knows that it applies to the computing
> power of microchips.
>
> But nobody respectable is trying to make a case that coal burning, for
> example, is doubling in efficiency every 2 years. Or that Exxon-Mobil is
> getting twice as many BTUs out of a barrel of oil each two years.
>
> Or are you making the case here that there's no real difference between
> oil & coal & microchips, since they're all brought to us by "free market"
> capitalism?

No, that's all yours, John. I was referring to the exponential advances
in technology that many apparently take for granted, versus the stagnation
that neo-Luddites are trying to impose.

Semiconductors and the concomitant information revolution act as a
multiplier on human effort. If we continue to put our resources into
technological advances, we can work through our energy requirements by
increasing efficiency of existing sources and developing more
non-alternative sources of energy.

If we instead squander our resources on bogus AGW repellent, Dan
Bloomquist will be right, and we'll wind up killing each other off
fighting over energy. That's why Gore, his AGW Chicken Littles, and the
faithful parrot squad are so dangerous. There's more at stake than just
the few gigadollars they're trying to get out of us.

 

[john fernbach]

On Mar 26, 4:16 pm, Bill Ward <b...@REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 26 Mar 2007 11:11:06 -0700, john fernbach wrote:
> > On Mar 26, 2:11 am, Bill Ward <b...@REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote:
> >> On Sun, 25 Mar 2007 20:33:41 -0700, john fernbach wrote:
> >> > RL - You sleek fat cat, you --
>
> >> > You don't think it would be RASH to read too much while we're trying
> >> > to cope with what AGWers are calling an imminent threat to the planet?
>
> >> > The old intellectual game of "paralysis by analysis," or fiddling
> >> > while Rome burns?
> >> > ---------------------------------------------- And while we're
> >> > speaking about actly rashly or cautiously, would you agree on the
> >> > wisdom of at least holding world fossil fuel production constant -- no
> >> > immediate reductions in CO2 emissions, but no more additions, either
> >> > -- while the scientists hash out the details of what's happening?
>
> >> > Presumably the world's expansion of oil and coal production could
> >> > resume again after a brief hiatus, assuming that we eventually find
> >> > that the droughts, hurricanes, wildfires, and glacier melting were all
> >> > just a false alarm.
>
> >> Not if the interruption stops the exponential increase in technology.
>
> >> Moore's law is our best bet for the future, not Gore's law.- Hide quoted
> >> text -
>
> >> - Show quoted text -
>
> > Excuse me, Bill W - but does "Moore's law" apply to coal and oil
> > production, now?
> > I don't think so.
>
> > Everyone in the high tech field knows that it applies to the computing
> > power of microchips.
>
> > But nobody respectable is trying to make a case that coal burning, for
> > example, is doubling in efficiency every 2 years. Or that Exxon-Mobil is
> > getting twice as many BTUs out of a barrel of oil each two years.
>
> > Or are you making the case here that there's no real difference between
> > oil & coal & microchips, since they're all brought to us by "free market"
> > capitalism?
>
> No, that's all yours, John. I was referring to the exponential advances
> in technology that many apparently take for granted, versus the stagnation
> that neo-Luddites are trying to impose.
>
> Semiconductors and the concomitant information revolution act as a
> multiplier on human effort. If we continue to put our resources into
> technological advances, we can work through our energy requirements by
> increasing efficiency of existing sources and developing more
> non-alternative sources of energy.

Fine - let's do it. In the meantime, let's also endorse the Kyoto
Treaty and follow the EU's example in terms of committing the country
to a massive reduction in CO2 emissions over the next generation.

As I point out below, we can afford to do both. More information
revolution, AND curbs on carbon emissions,
AND the development of better energy efficiency.
>
> If we instead squander our resources on bogus AGW repellent, Dan
> Bloomquist will be right, and we'll wind up killing each other off
> fighting over energy. That's why Gore, his AGW Chicken Littles, and the
> faithful parrot squad are so dangerous. There's more at stake than just
> the few gigadollars they're trying to get out of us.-

Two Replies:

1, "Oh, bullshit." It's good (supposedly) to plow more money into
high-tech electronics; THEREFORE it must be bad to put any money into
alternative kinds of energy development, and the conversion of our
civilization to a less energy-wasting mode of operation?

No - dumb argument.

"It's good to enhance our computing power; THEREFORE we can't afford
to keep the polar icecaps from melting and killer droughts and heat
waves from sweeping across California and a goodly chunk of
the Midwest?"

No. Dumb argument. Wrong.

In a nation as rich as the USA is at the moment, in a society where Al
Gore can afford to maintain his notorious 10,000 square-foot mansion,
in a world where Wall Street fatcats are frantically bidding up the
price of fine art around the world, and investing huge sums in
possible dangerous derivative funds, because they don't have enough
other places to put their money, we can afford BOTH continuing
development of electronics AND the development of a new energy economy
to curb global warming.

Frankly, we can probably afford to do both of these things while also
waging a remarkably
stupid and self-destructive war in Iraq, too. Which of course we're
doing, at the cost of what --
$100 billion or more each year, or is it a lot more than that?

And we will still have more than enough money left over for the big
players among us to spend millions if not billions of dollars each
year on the burgeoning casino industry. Which of course, we're also
doing.

This country can apparently afford the insane Iraq war. And it's
supporting a remarkably healthy and rapidly expanding casino
industry. And it's investing huge sums in the construction of new
"mini-mansions" in the residential housing field, so that the average
American family now has about 2,000 sq feet of space vs. the 500 sq.
feet or so that they enjoyed 30 years ago.

And millions of Americans are now living in two-car or three-car
families, vs. the one car or nothing families that their parents and
grandparents had. And there's so much money going into the
derivatives markets and into private leveraged buyouts of major
corporations that the business writers at Fortune, Business Week and
so forth are starting to worry about it ..

And you're implicitly crying poverty, suggesting that we can't afford
to get the cash together
to develop alternative energy sources.

I mean - get real.

2. Unless we assume that the nation's rich people are in fact quite
poor, and that the annual surveys of high-income folks by FORBES and
FORTUNE are bogus, so that Wall Street and main street are really as
starved for investment capital as you imply, your whole invocation of
Moore's law is just a "non-sequitur," innit?

I mean, you make some perfectly logical points about technological
innovation and Moore's Law and all, but they don't have ****all to do
with our civilization reducing its "carbon footprint" to cope with
greenhouse warming and climate change.

You've just written, "2 + 2 = 4," and "technology may be good," and
drawn the conclusion: "Therefore Gore is a jerk, and climate change
is not a problem."

This is not intellectually honest, Bill. And it's not a very
interesting lie, either. It's just a non-sequitur. Another damned
red herring. Which isn't to say that you're necessarily wrong about
some of the social and economic advances we may get, and to some
degree already are getting, out of the World Wide Web and the whole
Silicon Valley trip.

 

[raylopez99]

On Mar 26, 1:36 pm, "john fernbach" <fernbach1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Mar 26, 4:16 pm, Bill Ward <b...@REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote:
>

You're talking out of your arse once again you toothless hobo.

You are confusing the few investment bankers conspicuous consumption
with what society can or cannot do. Investment bankers are a tiny
minority fool.

Bill Ward is right (see the Wiki entry on 'the singularity') and you,
you bum, are wrong.

Read Bjorn Lomborg's book "GLobal Crisis, Global Solutions" which
discusses triage and prioritizing scarce resources, and then get back
to us.

No, you CANNOT 'do both' you wino. There's no 'all of the above' in
the real world--choosing 'paper and plastic' has consequences, not
like at the grocery store where it seems you can do both for free
(BTW, if you live outside the USA, you'll soon learn that you cannot
'choose both' paper and plastic bags cost-free since they charge you
for the bags). Quit spinning facts out of your arse you Commie.
Read, then comment, 'tard. Wishful thinking only wins arguments in
Usenet, not in the real world, hobo-breath.

RL

 

[Bill Ward]

On Mon, 26 Mar 2007 13:36:45 -0700, john fernbach wrote:

> On Mar 26, 4:16 pm, Bill Ward <b...@REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, 26 Mar 2007 11:11:06 -0700, john fernbach wrote:
>> > On Mar 26, 2:11 am, Bill Ward <b...@REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote:
>> >> On Sun, 25 Mar 2007 20:33:41 -0700, john fernbach wrote:
>> >> > RL - You sleek fat cat, you --
>>
>> >> > You don't think it would be RASH to read too much while we're
>> >> > trying to cope with what AGWers are calling an imminent threat to
>> >> > the planet?
>>
>> >> > The old intellectual game of "paralysis by analysis," or fiddling
>> >> > while Rome burns?
>> >> > ---------------------------------------------- And while we're
>> >> > speaking about actly rashly or cautiously, would you agree on the
>> >> > wisdom of at least holding world fossil fuel production constant --
>> >> > no immediate reductions in CO2 emissions, but no more additions,
>> >> > either -- while the scientists hash out the details of what's
>> >> > happening?
>>
>> >> > Presumably the world's expansion of oil and coal production could
>> >> > resume again after a brief hiatus, assuming that we eventually find
>> >> > that the droughts, hurricanes, wildfires, and glacier melting were
>> >> > all just a false alarm.
>>
>> >> Not if the interruption stops the exponential increase in technology.
>>
>> >> Moore's law is our best bet for the future, not Gore's law.- Hide
>> >> quoted text -
>>
>> >> - Show quoted text -
>>
>> > Excuse me, Bill W - but does "Moore's law" apply to coal and oil
>> > production, now?
>> > I don't think so.
>>
>> > Everyone in the high tech field knows that it applies to the computing
>> > power of microchips.
>>
>> > But nobody respectable is trying to make a case that coal burning, for
>> > example, is doubling in efficiency every 2 years. Or that Exxon-Mobil
>> > is getting twice as many BTUs out of a barrel of oil each two years.
>>
>> > Or are you making the case here that there's no real difference
>> > between oil & coal & microchips, since they're all brought to us by
>> > "free market" capitalism?
>>
>> No, that's all yours, John. I was referring to the exponential advances
>> in technology that many apparently take for granted, versus the
>> stagnation that neo-Luddites are trying to impose.
>>
>> Semiconductors and the concomitant information revolution act as a
>> multiplier on human effort. If we continue to put our resources into
>> technological advances, we can work through our energy requirements by
>> increasing efficiency of existing sources and developing more
>> non-alternative sources of energy.
>
> Fine - let's do it. In the meantime, let's also endorse the Kyoto Treaty
> and follow the EU's example in terms of committing the country to a
> massive reduction in CO2 emissions over the next generation.
>
> As I point out below, we can afford to do both. More information
> revolution, AND curbs on carbon emissions, AND the development of better
> energy efficiency.

That's the nice thing about socialism. You can afford anything - just let
"rich people" pay for it.

>> If we instead squander our resources on bogus AGW repellent, Dan
>> Bloomquist will be right, and we'll wind up killing each other off
>> fighting over energy. That's why Gore, his AGW Chicken Littles, and
>> the faithful parrot squad are so dangerous. There's more at stake than
>> just the few gigadollars they're trying to get out of us.
>
> Two Replies:
>
> 1, "Oh, bullshit." It's good (supposedly) to plow more money into
> high-tech electronics; THEREFORE it must be bad to put any money into
> alternative kinds of energy development, and the conversion of our
> civilization to a less energy-wasting mode of operation?
>
> No - dumb argument.
>
> "It's good to enhance our computing power; THEREFORE we can't afford to
> keep the polar icecaps from melting and killer droughts and heat waves
> from sweeping across California and a goodly chunk of the Midwest?"

You forgot the snarks and boojums.

> No. Dumb argument. Wrong.
>
> In a nation as rich as the USA is at the moment, in a society where Al
> Gore can afford to maintain his notorious 10,000 square-foot mansion, in
> a world where Wall Street fatcats are frantically bidding up the price
> of fine art around the world, and investing huge sums in possible
> dangerous derivative funds, because they don't have enough other places
> to put their money, we can afford BOTH continuing development of
> electronics AND the development of a new energy economy to curb global
> warming.
>
> Frankly, we can probably afford to do both of these things while also
> waging a remarkably stupid and self-destructive war in Iraq, too.
> Which of course we're doing, at the cost of what -- $100 billion or more
> each year, or is it a lot more than that?
>
> And we will still have more than enough money left over for the big
> players among us to spend millions if not billions of dollars each year
> on the burgeoning casino industry. Which of course, we're also doing.
>
> This country can apparently afford the insane Iraq war. And it's
> supporting a remarkably healthy and rapidly expanding casino industry.
> And it's investing huge sums in the construction of new "mini-mansions"
> in the residential housing field, so that the average American family
> now has about 2,000 sq feet of space vs. the 500 sq. feet or so that
> they enjoyed 30 years ago.
>
> And millions of Americans are now living in two-car or three-car
> families, vs. the one car or nothing families that their parents and
> grandparents had. And there's so much money going into the derivatives
> markets and into private leveraged buyouts of major corporations that
> the business writers at Fortune, Business Week and so forth are starting
> to worry about it ..
>
> And you're implicitly crying poverty, suggesting that we can't afford to
> get the cash together to develop alternative energy sources.

Like all socialists, you are always ready to spend rich people's money
the way you think it should be spent. What do you do when you run out of
"rich" people? It's generally not good strategy for a parasite to kill
its host.

> I mean - get real.
>
> 2. Unless we assume that the nation's rich people are in fact quite
> poor, and that the annual surveys of high-income folks by FORBES and
> FORTUNE are bogus, so that Wall Street and main street are really as
> starved for investment capital as you imply, your whole invocation of
> Moore's law is just a "non-sequitur," innit?
>
> I mean, you make some perfectly logical points about technological
> innovation and Moore's Law and all, but they don't have ****all to do
> with our civilization reducing its "carbon footprint" to cope with
> greenhouse warming and climate change.

Get back to me when you have more than just scary prophesies.

> You've just written, "2 + 2 = 4," and "technology may be good," and
> drawn the conclusion: "Therefore Gore is a jerk, and climate change is
> not a problem."

That's your logic, John, not mine. Get a grip.

> This is not intellectually honest, Bill. And it's not a very
> interesting lie, either. It's just a non-sequitur. Another damned red
> herring.

You are right, of course. But you said it, I didn't. And, BTW, you left
out "strawman", unless you intended "red herring" to cover it.

>Which isn't to say that you're necessarily wrong about some of
>the social and economic advances we may get, and to some degree already
>are getting, out of the World Wide Web and the whole Silicon Valley trip.

If it weren't for silicon valley, you wouldn't have nearly as many rich
people to fleece.

Also, John, no offense intended, but you do get a tad long winded. I'd
appreciate it if you could densify your thought processes a bit. By
that I mean spending more time thinking and less time writing.

 

[Joe Fischer]

On 26 Mar 2007 "john fernbach" <fernbach1948@yahoo.com> wrote:

>Fine - let's do it. In the meantime, let's also endorse the Kyoto
>Treaty and follow the EU's example in terms of committing the country
>to a massive reduction in CO2 emissions over the next generation.

What was it you said you are, a democratic socialist?

The present approach to the "problem"
has socialist ideas in the assignment of carbon allowances
on some basis of worldwide ownership of all parts of
the planet, like the same carbon emission allowance
per capita, is that right?

And it has socialist approaches to the mitigation
of the problem, effectively taking control of all carbon
emissions, and not allowing them to be used without
an allowance or purchased credits, or traded credits,
bartering is the same as buying.

So why do somebody complain if I say
it wreaks of socialism all the way through?

Does a tribesman and his family in the
sprawling African plains subsisting on a small herd
of animals and a little agriculture need the same,
or deserve the same carbon allowance as the
owner of an airline or trucking company or
ship company that transports people or supplies
all over the world to people like the African tribesman?

Does a family of eight, six of them small
children under the age of 16 need or deserve the
same number of carbon allowances as eight single
people who have elected to have no children to
help the world reduce population.

And do the carbon allowances cover the
carbon in the methane produced by the animal herd?

This is getting silly, isn't it?

I see a good thing in some warming, even
the people get into the self regulating controls of the
planet, this week I have used almost no fossil fuel
to heat my house, and that almost eliminated my
carbon emissions for space heating.

See how self regulating processes work?

A little more warming, and maybe the
reduction in fuel needed for space heating will
reduce more warming. Maybe the socialists
won't have to put me in jail for exceeding my
carbon allowance.

Joe Fischer

 

[john fernbach]

On Mar 26, 7:53 pm, Bill Ward <b...@REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 26 Mar 2007 13:36:45 -0700, john fernbach wrote:
> > On Mar 26, 4:16 pm, Bill Ward <b...@REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote:
> >> On Mon, 26 Mar 2007 11:11:06 -0700, john fernbach wrote:
> >> > On Mar 26, 2:11 am, Bill Ward <b...@REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote:
> >> >> On Sun, 25 Mar 2007 20:33:41 -0700, john fernbach wrote:
> >> >> > RL - You sleek fat cat, you --
>
> >> >> > You don't think it would be RASH to read too much while we're
> >> >> > trying to cope with what AGWers are calling an imminent threat to
> >> >> > the planet?
>
> >> >> > The old intellectual game of "paralysis by analysis," or fiddling
> >> >> > while Rome burns?
> >> >> > ---------------------------------------------- And while we're
> >> >> > speaking about actly rashly or cautiously, would you agree on the
> >> >> > wisdom of at least holding world fossil fuel production constant --
> >> >> > no immediate reductions in CO2 emissions, but no more additions,
> >> >> > either -- while the scientists hash out the details of what's
> >> >> > happening?
>
> >> >> > Presumably the world's expansion of oil and coal production could
> >> >> > resume again after a brief hiatus, assuming that we eventually find
> >> >> > that the droughts, hurricanes, wildfires, and glacier melting were
> >> >> > all just a false alarm.
>
> >> >> Not if the interruption stops the exponential increase in technology.
>
> >> >> Moore's law is our best bet for the future, not Gore's law.- Hide
> >> >> quoted text -
>
> >> >> - Show quoted text -
>
> >> > Excuse me, Bill W - but does "Moore's law" apply to coal and oil
> >> > production, now?
> >> > I don't think so.
>
> >> > Everyone in the high tech field knows that it applies to the computing
> >> > power of microchips.
>
> >> > But nobody respectable is trying to make a case that coal burning, for
> >> > example, is doubling in efficiency every 2 years. Or that Exxon-Mobil
> >> > is getting twice as many BTUs out of a barrel of oil each two years.
>
> >> > Or are you making the case here that there's no real difference
> >> > between oil & coal & microchips, since they're all brought to us by
> >> > "free market" capitalism?
>
> >> No, that's all yours, John. I was referring to the exponential advances
> >> in technology that many apparently take for granted, versus the
> >> stagnation that neo-Luddites are trying to impose.
>
> >> Semiconductors and the concomitant information revolution act as a
> >> multiplier on human effort. If we continue to put our resources into
> >> technological advances, we can work through our energy requirements by
> >> increasing efficiency of existing sources and developing more
> >> non-alternative sources of energy.
>
> > Fine - let's do it. In the meantime, let's also endorse the Kyoto Treaty
> > and follow the EU's example in terms of committing the country to a
> > massive reduction in CO2 emissions over the next generation.
>
> > As I point out below, we can afford to do both. More information
> > revolution, AND curbs on carbon emissions, AND the development of better
> > energy efficiency.
>
> That's the nice thing about socialism. You can afford anything - just let
> "rich people" pay for it.
>
>
>
>
>
> >> If we instead squander our resources on bogus AGW repellent, Dan
> >> Bloomquist will be right, and we'll wind up killing each other off
> >> fighting over energy. That's why Gore, his AGW Chicken Littles, and
> >> the faithful parrot squad are so dangerous. There's more at stake than
> >> just the few gigadollars they're trying to get out of us.
>
> > Two Replies:
>
> > 1, "Oh, bullshit." It's good (supposedly) to plow more money into
> > high-tech electronics; THEREFORE it must be bad to put any money into
> > alternative kinds of energy development, and the conversion of our
> > civilization to a less energy-wasting mode of operation?
>
> > No - dumb argument.
>
> > "It's good to enhance our computing power; THEREFORE we can't afford to
> > keep the polar icecaps from melting and killer droughts and heat waves
> > from sweeping across California and a goodly chunk of the Midwest?"
>
> You forgot the snarks and boojums.
>
>
>
>
>
> > No. Dumb argument. Wrong.
>
> > In a nation as rich as the USA is at the moment, in a society where Al
> > Gore can afford to maintain his notorious 10,000 square-foot mansion, in
> > a world where Wall Street fatcats are frantically bidding up the price
> > of fine art around the world, and investing huge sums in possible
> > dangerous derivative funds, because they don't have enough other places
> > to put their money, we can afford BOTH continuing development of
> > electronics AND the development of a new energy economy to curb global
> > warming.
>
> > Frankly, we can probably afford to do both of these things while also
> > waging a remarkably stupid and self-destructive war in Iraq, too.
> > Which of course we're doing, at the cost of what -- $100 billion or more
> > each year, or is it a lot more than that?
>
> > And we will still have more than enough money left over for the big
> > players among us to spend millions if not billions of dollars each year
> > on the burgeoning casino industry. Which of course, we're also doing.
>
> > This country can apparently afford the insane Iraq war. And it's
> > supporting a remarkably healthy and rapidly expanding casino industry.
> > And it's investing huge sums in the construction of new "mini-mansions"
> > in the residential housing field, so that the average American family
> > now has about 2,000 sq feet of space vs. the 500 sq. feet or so that
> > they enjoyed 30 years ago.
>
> > And millions of Americans are now living in two-car or three-car
> > families, vs. the one car or nothing families that their parents and
> > grandparents had. And there's so much money going into the derivatives
> > markets and into private leveraged buyouts of major corporations that
> > the business writers at Fortune, Business Week and so forth are starting
> > to worry about it ..
>
> > And you're implicitly crying poverty, suggesting that we can't afford to
> > get the cash together to develop alternative energy sources.
>
> Like all socialists, you are always ready to spend rich people's money
> the way you think it should be spent. What do you do when you run out of
> "rich" people? It's generally not good strategy for a parasite to kill
> its host.

I think if you read recent issues of FORTUNE, BUSINESS WEEK, the Wall
Street Journal,
the Economist and so on, you'll find that a lot of the rich people are
looking
forward to spending their own money on the development of earth-
friendly energy
technologies.

Admittedly, some rich people do prefer to invest in pork belly
futures, or Matisse
and Picasso prints, or celebrity memorabilia of the kind that
Sotheby's likes to sell.
And enough rich people are investing in the derivatives funds on Wall
Street
that Wall Street is starting to get worried about it, because it's not
completely clear
that the derivatives market is propped up by anything more substantial
than
air -- air, and greed, and hope.

So yeah, as environmentalist -- NOT as a socialist -- I'd encourage
the US government to
use its laws and its power of the purse to create a new place for
bored rich people to
park their money, a place where they could earn ungodly profits on
energy technologies
that are good for the planet, instead of having to bet on whether gold
and silver prices
are going to go up or down next year.

But this is not "socialist" of me, Binky. If I were talking about
"socialist" solutions, I'd
talk about expropriating the rich, not providing them with an
environmentally friendly
investment outlet.
>
> > I mean - get real.
>
> > 2. Unless we assume that the nation's rich people are in fact quite
> > poor, and that the annual surveys of high-income folks by FORBES and
> > FORTUNE are bogus, so that Wall Street and main street are really as
> > starved for investment capital as you imply, your whole invocation of
> > Moore's law is just a "non-sequitur," innit?
>
> > I mean, you make some perfectly logical points about technological
> > innovation and Moore's Law and all, but they don't have ****all to do
> > with our civilization reducing its "carbon footprint" to cope with
> > greenhouse warming and climate change.
>
> Get back to me when you have more than just scary prophesies.

Well - we know that you don't believe in the AGW science, as
exemplified by
the IPCC reports, the research done by the National Academy of
Sciences, etc. etc.

But you're the one making scary prophesies, I think. Prophesies about
the
terrible dangers of "wasting" money on addressing AGW while there's
all of
this high-tech information age development we should be funding.
>
> > You've just written, "2 + 2 = 4," and "technology may be good," and
> > drawn the conclusion: "Therefore Gore is a jerk, and climate change is
> > not a problem."
>
> That's your logic, John, not mine. Get a grip.
--------------------------
No - that's your logic, Bill. Assuming you have any logic. You've
just
cited "Moore's Law," which does exist and is important, as a supposed
reason why the US can't afford to fix CO2 emissions causing
global climate change.

Hey - why stop at citing Moore's Law? You could try to drag
in the Ten Commandments, the Analects of Confucius,
Boyle's Law, and Harvey's historic discoveries about the circulation
of the blood in the body. They'd be approximately as relevant as
Moore's Law.
>
> > This is not intellectually honest, Bill. And it's not a very
> > interesting lie, either. It's just a non-sequitur. Another damned red
> > herring.
>
> You are right, of course. But you said it, I didn't. And, BTW, you left
> out "strawman", unless you intended "red herring" to cover it.
>
> >Which isn't to say that you're necessarily wrong about some of
> >the social and economic advances we may get, and to some degree already
> >are getting, out of the World Wide Web and the whole Silicon Valley trip.
>
> If it weren't for silicon valley, you wouldn't have nearly as many rich
> people to fleece.
------------------------------------------------------
If it weren't for Silicon Valley, which didn't exist 30 years ago,
millions
of Americans wouldn't have nearly as good places to invest their
money.

American capitalism basically built Silicon Valley -- well, the genius
of the
people working there had an immense amount to do with it, but American
capital investment coupled with an entirely new market for computers]
and computer software built Silicon Valley into an economic powerhouse
in just about a single human generation.

American capitalism and American ingenuity can do the same thing with
new energy technologies and new energy habits to curb global climate
change --
IF Americans choose for this to happen.

But there will have to be some government involvment, some government
regulation
and steering of the market forces involved. And there will have to be
some
government action to cushion the harsh impact of the change on people
whose
profits and wages and dividends now depend on the existing fossil fuel
complex.

With market capitalization of -- just a rough calculation gives you
approximately $1.5 trillion,
which is probably a conservative estimate -- today's fossil fuel
companies (oil and coal
producers mostly) are naturally going to fight like hell against the
transition to
a greener energy economy.

In time-honored fashion, the aging dinosaurs are going to try to
portray new energy
technologies as impractical; they're going to accuse everyone involved
in fostering
these new carbon-free energy sources as fools, charlatans or
"traitors," and they're
going to wrap themselves in the flag of "free enteprise" and American
patriotism
as a way of making themselves immune to criticism, immune to change.

We can see this happening already, of course -- witness your
statements about
"socialists," which do apply to me, I'm proud to say. But which don't
have zip to
do with most of the American politicians and American business leaders
who
are now increasingly pushing for new ways of generating and using
energy.

> Also, John, no offense intended, but you do get a tad long winded.

Oh, gosh. I am so sorry.

Actually I have tried to "densify" my thinking until I'm as "dense" as
the Fossil
Fuel Denialists in here -- in fact I'm aiming for the density of
neutron star, which still would leave me short of the density achieved
by Bawana and Keith Rage, the would-be environmentalist killer.

But I keep being expansive despite myself. I'll try to be better in
the future, honest!

How about if I just chanted mantras in here:

Like "Al Gore!" "Al Gore!" "Al Gore!"

Or "Freemarketfreemarketfreemarketfreemarket .."

If you do this often enough, I'm told, you enter into an indescribable
mystical
state where mere scientific questions seem to disappear, and you
recognize that human suffering is just an illusion, because everything
is magically at one, and beautiful.

I'd
> appreciate it if you could densify your thought processes a bit. By
> that I mean spending more time thinking and less time writing.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

 

[john fernbach]

Joe - I'm a little worn out trying to argue with three of you guys at
once,
but just briefly, you're mischaraterizing the idea of carbon dioxide
"cap and trade" schemes.

As a democratic socialist, I'd nationalize the big energy companies
if I had my way - the big energy companies, and the banks,
and probably Microsoft and the auto companies and a lot of the rest
of the US economy.

Then in hopes of creating a new kind
of socialism that actually worked, and that gave ordinary people
economic opportunity instead of Stalinist dictatorship, I might
try to break up these huge corporations into smaller cooperative
enterprises, with their workers and consumers in control.

Probably some of the old capitalist executives would be kept on to
run these new socialized or cooperatized enterprises, and
in the context of a more or less competitive market -- kind of
the way the Yugoslav economy was supposed to have been
run in the late 1970s.

But in the interests of empowering working
people and consumers, the new "socialist" CEOs would have
to be elected, and not just elected by private shareholders.
They'd be elected by groups of "stakeholders" in each enterprise,
so that quasi-public ownership would be combined with
"free market' competion, which would be combined with
"Economic democracy" as opposed to capitalist or Stalinist
autocracy.

But that's my democratic socialist vision - and if you hate it, well,
okay. Maybe you're right.

But the idea of a "cap and trade" program for carbon dioxide emissions
is NOT "socialist."

It's basically capitalist, and as "market oriented" as basically
captialist-minded
environmentalists can make it.

The idea is to plug an obvious flaw in the market, its inability to
handle "economic
externalities" (like greenhouse warming, which is currently not
reflected in
the prices we pay for energy) and also the "tragedy of the commons,"
the obvious
problem with control and responsibility that arises from everyone
depending
on a commonly held resource like the earth's atmosphere, and private
individuals
having a competitive incentive to wreck it for profit.

By "socializing" the atmosphere, the enviros who are promoting Can N
Trade systems would
essentially bring some economic responsibility, some "ownership" if
you will to what
has been traditionally seen as just a dumping ground that everyone
owned, and no one
was responsible for.

Then the "trade" part of the cap n trade system would "marketize" the
emissions of
CO2, breaking greenhouse gas pollution up into units that could be
bought and sold, and
that presumably would be reduced in the most "market friendly"
fashion.

As a leftist, I actually can see some potential problems with this.
But this is not basically
"socialist" in thrust. In a sense, it's kind of like the white
settlers of the old American West,
after they had robbed the Natives of their former lands, deciding to
criss cross the open
ranges with barbed wire, rather than leaving the range open for
everyone to exploit at will.

By putting caps on total CO2 emissions, and by setting up a system
whereby permits to emit CO2 can be bought and sold, we'd kind of be
putting some barbed wire boundaries down in the atmosphere, and making
individuals and communities responsible for damaging it, instead of
letting it be changed and/or polluted in a kind of anarchic free for
all.

If you're primarily a libertarian who is fearful of socialists like
me, you probably should be looking positively on the "cap and trade"
plans. It's ultimately pretty compatible with a view of the world
that's centered on the buying and trading and ownership of private
property.

If you're simply fronting for a big energy company who wants to keep
pouring as much CO2 as you like into the air and the hell with the
potential consequences, of course,
you're likely to feel differently about anyone who wants to limit that
-- whether they're "capitalist" or "socialist" or "other."


On Mar 26, 8:59 pm, Joe Fischer <j...@BigScreenComputers.com> wrote:
> On 26 Mar 2007 "john fernbach" <fernbach1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >Fine - let's do it. In the meantime, let's also endorse the Kyoto
> >Treaty and follow the EU's example in terms of committing the country
> >to a massive reduction in CO2 emissions over the next generation.
>
> What was it you said you are, a democratic socialist?
>
> The present approach to the "problem"
> has socialist ideas in the assignment of carbon allowances
> on some basis of worldwide ownership of all parts of
> the planet, like the same carbon emission allowance
> per capita, is that right?
>
> And it has socialist approaches to the mitigation
> of the problem, effectively taking control of all carbon
> emissions, and not allowing them to be used without
> an allowance or purchased credits, or traded credits,
> bartering is the same as buying.
>
> So why do somebody complain if I say
> it wreaks of socialism all the way through?
>
> Does a tribesman and his family in the
> sprawling African plains subsisting on a small herd
> of animals and a little agriculture need the same,
> or deserve the same carbon allowance as the
> owner of an airline or trucking company or
> ship company that transports people or supplies
> all over the world to people like the African tribesman?
>
> Does a family of eight, six of them small
> children under the age of 16 need or deserve the
> same number of carbon allowances as eight single
> people who have elected to have no children to
> help the world reduce population.
>
> And do the carbon allowances cover the
> carbon in the methane produced by the animal herd?
>
> This is getting silly, isn't it?
>
> I see a good thing in some warming, even
> the people get into the self regulating controls of the
> planet, this week I have used almost no fossil fuel
> to heat my house, and that almost eliminated my
> carbon emissions for space heating.
>
> See how self regulating processes work?
>
> A little more warming, and maybe the
> reduction in fuel needed for space heating will
> reduce more warming. Maybe the socialists
> won't have to put me in jail for exceeding my
> carbon allowance.
>
> Joe Fischer