Happy New Year!!!

"DRS" wrote in message
...
What is gained by aiming to reduce carbon emissions per person, whilst
simultaneously increasing the total emissions, (the current Australian
model) that's what I want to know?

Australia's current model is to reduce total carbon emissions 5-15% below
2000 levels by 2020 and 60% below 2000 levels by 2050. See
http://www.climatechange.gov.au/whit...ary/index.html.

And is the rate of population increase mentioned every time they quote
carbon levels per person? No.
So yes the "aim" is to reduce total levels, but taxpayers are asked to
simultaneously subsidise population increase whilst paying carbon taxes to
reduce carbon emissions. Obviously the concept of contradiction or fairness
is not a consideration.

MrT.

On Mon, 5 Jan 2009 18:00:48 -0800, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2009-01-05 14:49:52 -0800, Alan Browne
said:

Savageduck wrote:
On 2009-01-01 11:37:19 -0800, Alan Browne
said:


Best Wishes for a Happy New Year to all of you, even those (or
especially those) in my killfile.

Happy Shooting. That's the goal!

I'll be away for a few days, but should be sending in my SI shots on
Sunday afternoon. Hope to see your shots there!

http://www.pbase.com/shootin/bw_redux

Happy New Year Alan.

I was just perusing the SI BW submissions and caught your FLW design
window. As a fan of FLW design at all levels I was wondering where you
found that example. I know that there have been knock off copies of
"Prairie School" windows and furniture made over the years, but your
example has an air of originality about it.

It was at a friend's country place in eastern Quebec near the VT
border. It certainly seemed like a high quality piece measuring about
12" high. I moved it from one window to another to get a mostly white
BG.

Here is a color version:

http://www.aliasimages.com/images/Window.jpg

What I esp. noted was the darker pieces of glass in some of the panes.

A very fine piece.
I suspect this might be a copy as most remain in situ, where copies are
sold in hanging frames. If it is original your friend should value it
as it would be priceless. (That might be a a little over stated.)
Here is where you can take a look at some of the originals:
http://www.buffaloah.com/a/jewett/125/marint/index.html

Thanks for reminding me, Savage. I've been looking for a short road
trip to take some photographs, so I think I'll drive over to Lakeland
Wednesday. The campus at Florida Southern has some Wright-designed
buildings. I haven't been there for years. Last time I was there
they were re-doing the Wright fountain. I'll see if there's something
photographable there.


--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

"Alan Browne" wrote in message
...
J. Clarke wrote:

Perhapd the entire planet is _changing_ but that does not mean that it is
_being_ changed. As for "trust those smarter than you are", who would
that be, _you_? Al Gore? A bunch of climatologists who actually
_believe_ what comes out of their computers without any kind of
validation other than that it fits one very short dataset?

It's not about "beliefs" (that's for faith), it's about factual data.

He must mean the average temperature of the world's 100 largest cities over
the last 20 years or so......:^)

"DRS" wrote in message
...
"Bill Graham" wrote in message

"DRS" wrote in message
...

[...]

Your instincts are no match for the science. We know why the
climate is changing this time and human activity is the cause.

Well, if your Guru's say so.........But I prefer to think for
myself.....Sorry I wasn't brought up in your religion.

Behind the independent thinker facade you're simply unable or unwilling to
deal with the reality of evidence-based science.

You mean like the average temperature of the world's 100 largest cities over
the last 20 years or so?

"Mr.T" MrT@home wrote in message
u...

"DRS" wrote in message
...
We know why the climate is
changing this time and human activity is the cause.

And yet NO-ONE proposes a reduction in the number of humans, or even a cut
in the rate of population increase.
Go figure.
Obviously it is only necessary to be *seen* to be doing something by the
totally ignorant.
Those with more than one child have no right at all to feel smug IMO.

MrT.


I would like to propose the elimination of all the liberals....Will that
reduce the human footprint?

"Mr.T" MrT@home wrote in message
...

"Bill Graham" wrote in message
...
To me, anything you believe, "on faith" becomes a religion by definition.
And that's true of Global Warming, too. (Which is why I capitalize it.)

Fair enough, when taken to that extreme *everything* is religion. The Sun
may even rise in the west tomorrow. But some things are safer bets than
others!

MrT.


No. I can demonstrate that the sun will rise in the East tomorrow with the
help of Newton's laws......I do not need any faith for this.

"Bill Graham" wrote in message

"DRS" wrote in message
...
"Bill Graham" wrote in message

"DRS" wrote in message
...

[...]

Your instincts are no match for the science. We know why the
climate is changing this time and human activity is the cause.

Well, if your Guru's say so.........But I prefer to think for
myself.....Sorry I wasn't brought up in your religion.

Behind the independent thinker facade you're simply unable or
unwilling to deal with the reality of evidence-based science.

You mean like the average temperature of the world's 100 largest
cities over the last 20 years or so?

Urban Heat Island Modelling alone cannot explain the changes in the global
average temperature.

"Bill Graham" wrote in message
news
"Mr.T" MrT@home wrote in message
u...
"DRS" wrote in message
...
We know why the climate is
changing this time and human activity is the cause.

And yet NO-ONE proposes a reduction in the number of humans, or even
a cut in the rate of population increase.
Go figure.
Obviously it is only necessary to be *seen* to be doing something by
the totally ignorant.
Those with more than one child have no right at all to feel smug IMO.

I would like to propose the elimination of all the liberals....Will
that reduce the human footprint?

Of course it would, as would eliminating all the hide-bound reactionaries
who will do anything except heed the science.

DRS wrote:
"Bill Graham" wrote in message
news
"Mr.T" MrT@home wrote in message
u...
"DRS" wrote in message
...
We know why the climate is
changing this time and human activity is the cause.

And yet NO-ONE proposes a reduction in the number of humans, or
even
a cut in the rate of population increase.
Go figure.
Obviously it is only necessary to be *seen* to be doing something
by
the totally ignorant.
Those with more than one child have no right at all to feel smug
IMO.

I would like to propose the elimination of all the liberals....Will
that reduce the human footprint?

Of course it would, as would eliminating all the hide-bound
reactionaries who will do anything except heed the science.

So under which category would you be eliminated?

--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

"DRS" wrote in message
...
"Bill Graham" wrote in message

"DRS" wrote in message
...
"Bill Graham" wrote in message

"DRS" wrote in message
...

[...]

Your instincts are no match for the science. We know why the
climate is changing this time and human activity is the cause.

Well, if your Guru's say so.........But I prefer to think for
myself.....Sorry I wasn't brought up in your religion.

Behind the independent thinker facade you're simply unable or
unwilling to deal with the reality of evidence-based science.

You mean like the average temperature of the world's 100 largest
cities over the last 20 years or so?

Urban Heat Island Modelling alone cannot explain the changes in the global
average temperature.

True, and I don't expect it to. But what I expect is the inverse....The
global warming model should be able to explain the urban heat island
changes. As well as a few other things that it seems to have trouble with.