Re: My Honda Paint Job is Lookin BAAD -- Help (Hachiroku?)

"Learning Richard" <learningrichard@gmail.com> wrote in
news:1118783273.215157.307680@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:

[color=blue]
> Then why did the EPA recently pass a new ban on the release of
> nitrogen-based fertilizer runoff into the Chesapeake Bay? No proof?[/color]



That is a local problem that has no global implications. Again: Property
rights would easily fix this.

[color=blue]
>
> Explain why there were 50 miles of healthy wetlands buffering New
> Orleans from the Gulf as recently as 100 years ago, whereas now there
> are only 20 miles of much weakened wetlands?[/color]


Because things change over the years. No lake, no river and no swamp was
the same in 1800 as it was in 1900. Just like it's not the same now as it
was in 1900. The world is a dynamic place, always changing. It did so for
eons before man ever showed up and it is doing so now.

How many fossils do we find in mountains that used to be on sea bottoms?

[color=blue]
>
> Why are families who have fished and crabbed the Chesapeake, some for
> 5 generations or more, having to sell their boats and equipment
> because of drastically reduced harvests?[/color]


Possible reasons:
1) Overfishing
2) Fertilizer runoff
3) Shallower water
4) pH balance different
5) Too warm for native species

Remember that 99% of all known species were extinct before man ever
appeared.

[color=blue]
>
> Why were Maryland and Virginia recently discussing the importation of
> Chinese Clams to the bay to restore the decimated population?
>
> Why is Bush pushing for exploration of the ANWAR for new oil sources?[/color]


Because the US government wants to reduce the percentage of importation of
foreign oil. It's a politically attractive option. However, he hasn't said
how he's going to allow new refineries to be built. Any new oil from ANWR
will have a tough time getting refined into fuels.

Are you aware that due to the inability to build new refineries, that much
more refined gas is travelling by tanker to US shores than ten years ago?

[color=blue]
>
> Why is it that the spring ice thaw in the Northern Hemisphere occurs 9
> days earlier than it did 150 years ago, and the fall freeze now
> typically starts 10 days later?[/color]


We've been coming out of the Little Ice Age since about 1700, remember?

[color=blue]
>
> Why are the five hottest years in the past 150 years 1998, 2002, 2003,
> 2001, and 1997?
>
> Why is it that since 1978, Arctic sea ice area has shrunk by some 9
> percent per decade, and thinned as well?[/color]



False. Arctic ice is NOT thinning or retreating.
Michael Crichton: State of Fear.

He may be just a "novelist", but his data are valid, from credible sources.

[color=blue]
>
> Did you know that the most important greenhouse gas is not CO2, but
> water vapor?[/color]


That's what I said. And they aren't testing cars for water vapor.

[color=blue]
>
> When Montana's Glacier National Park was created in 1910 it held some
> 150 glaciers. Why is it that now fewer than 30, greatly shrunken
> glaciers, remain?[/color]


Because we're coming out of the Little Ice Age. Warming is expected.


<snip pretty positve reports>


Boy, it sounds like there are a lot of benefits to warming, aren't there?

[color=blue]
>
> Why is it that since the 1860s, increased industrialization and
> shrinking forests have helped raise the atmosphere's CO2 level by
> almost 100 parts per million-and Northern Hemisphere temperatures
> have followed suit?[/color]


First off, forested acreage has INCREASED since 1920.

Secondly, CO2 makes up 0.03% of the atmosphere. That's 300ppm. CO2 varies
from 300 to 600ppm. Apparently plants can absorb up to 1500ppm under ideal
conditions, but once they die and decay, this CO2 is released back into the
air. Plants are net ZERO consumers and producers of CO2.

According to some Googling,
In 1854 it was 260ppm
In 1860 it was 280ppm.
By 1890 it was 295ppm.

The world was still very rural in the 1890s. Where did the increase come
from? Also, I'm finding considerable variance, from 210ppm to 600ppm in the
CO2 content of the atmosphere. I suspect no one has any exact knowledge.

Water vapor is 9,000ppm.
Nitrogen is 78,000ppm.
Compare that to your 300ppm of CO2.


<snip>

[color=blue]
>
> Trends show that by the end of this century, melting of the Greenland
> ice sheet could raise sea levels by about 23 feet.[/color]


It's not melting.
Michael Crichton: State of Fear

[color=blue]
> I say lets take
> the cautious, responsible route.[/color]


You have no way of knowing if you're being "responsible" or simply
oppressive.


--
TeGGeR®

On Tue, 14 Jun 2005 16:01:27 -0700, Learning Richard wrote:
[color=blue]
>
>[/color]

<SNIPPED>

But, what does all this have to do with baad paint?

You COULD always stretch it to Acid Rain.

Hachiroku wrote:[color=blue]
> On Tue, 14 Jun 2005 16:01:27 -0700, Learning Richard wrote:
>[color=green]
> >
> >[/color]
>
> <SNIPPED>
>
> But, what does all this have to do with baad paint?
>
> You COULD always stretch it to Acid Rain.
>[/color]

Well there ya go then

TeGGeR® wrote:[color=blue]
> "Learning Richard" <learningrichard@gmail.com> wrote in
> news:1118790087.173040.21620@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:
>
> .[color=green]
> >
> > But, have you heard what the Smithfield companies have done to the
> > Pagan River in southeastern Virginia -- and are still doing?[/color]
>
>
> If the river were privately owned, like they are in Britain, it would be
> trivially easy to (as they do in Britain) take the company to court for
> simple trespassing. They would have to clean up the mess or be garnisheed
> by the courts for the costs of doing it. That's the way the Brits do it.
> It's cheap, non-intrusive, and quite effective.
>
> Perhaps Massachusetts could cede propery owners the shoreline (which they
> currently do not own), along with maybe 100ft out from shore. Clear title
> to thsi area would allow property owners to sue for trespass in the case of
> pollution, and also to petition the court to have their costs awaded to the
> defendant.
>
>
>[color=green]
> > Have you
> > heard about the dirty deals made in Eastern Europe by the Smithfield
> > companies? Some areas in Poland are so noxious that all of the folks
> > who live there have moved away.[/color]
>
>
> You want pollution? Communist Europe was the worst by far. Your Polish
> friends have short memories.
>
> We were in Czechosolvakia in 1974. All the trucks dumped their exhaust at
> ground level. No stacks. All the trucks spewed this ghastly, solid black
> fume that was difficult to see through. There was nothing like it here,
> even before there were any emissions controls at all.
>
> And for a good, solid read about Communist Europe and the environmental
> horrors of Socialism, I suggest P.J. O'Rourke's "All the Trouble in the
> World", specifically the chapter entitled "Ecology", parts VIII through X.
>[/color]

Maybe Pope John Paul was correct in his belief that Capitalism and
Communism are two sides of the same coin

"Learning Richard" <learningrichard@gmail.com> wrote in
news:1118801232.388274.111260@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com:

[color=blue]
> Maybe Pope John Paul was correct in his belief that Capitalism and
> Communism are two sides of the same coin[/color]


Maybe so. Communism subsumed the many for the sake of the few. The American
system was set up to prevent that, and up to about 1965 was actually mostly
that way, with the exception of things like eminent domain.

The erosion of American liberty has continued apace since WW1, doing its
greatest damage under Wilson, Roosevelt II, Johnson, Reagan with his "drug
war", and now Bush with his inability to see what his employees are doing
to the country.

Oh, for another Grover Cleveland...

--
TeGGeR®

"Learning Richard" <learningrichard@gmail.com> wrote in
news:1118801687.222258.195720@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
[color=blue]
>
>
> TeGGeR® wrote:[/color]
[color=blue][color=green]
>> We were in Czechosolvakia in 1974. All the trucks dumped their
>> exhaust at ground level. No stacks. All the trucks spewed this
>> ghastly, solid black fume that was difficult to see through. There
>> was nothing like it here, even before there were any emissions
>> controls at all.
>>[/color]
>
> heh... don't be so sure bout that. I was cruising up the BW parkway
> just this evening behind a Commuter Bus that was spewing solid black
> smoke onto the road.
>
>[/color]


You have NO idea. Communist Europe was astonishingly filthy, unlike
anything here except the worst of American slums.

--
TeGGeR®

Little richard must have some legal training. Like a good lawyer
he asked a lot of questions. A good lawyer like a politician
always asks negative question, to which they already know the
answer. The real answer of course is always the opposite of
which they would have one believe.

There is an ever growing number of true earth scientists and
climatolagists that now attribute climate change, over long
periods of time, to be the result of a convergence of several
factors. Factors that are far beyond the control of man or his
activities.

I.E. the severity and frequency of sun flares. The irregular
positioning of the earth as it revolves around the sun and the
number and severity of vocalic eruptions as the result of
changing movements of tectonic plates. When tectonic plates move
dramatically at times, the points under the ocean where they
expand, have a marked effect on ocean temperatures. As we all
know heat rises and warner water warms the air ala El Niño

As more information over longer periods of time and more space
based temperature records on earth are recorded those factors are
proving to be more indicative of earth temperature history.
Current computer models that have been used to predict future
temperature fluctuations would not have allow for the most recent
ice age just 35,000 years ago. Record for the first Antarctic
expedition clearly show the sea levels are NOT higher than 75
years ago but are actually lower. Current thinking does not
account for ice fields that are THICKENING, not thinning. The
earth temperature was much higher during the 165 million years
the dinosaurs roamed the earth. Current archeological digs show
higher temperatures existed during the dark ages when the
activities of man declined and population of the earth was
dropping to the point man almost became extinct. They show
rising pollution in the 14 century when man did little more than
burn wood to cook, and keep warm. Of course man can do things to
help reduce the effect of his activities but to thing we can
dramatically affect the forces of nature is rather presumptuous
at best


mike hunt