E6 Chemicals and Septic Systems...

The theory that I most recently heard is that global warming will change
weather patterns such that an ice age (or at least much colder weather
patterns) will occur, but not worldwide, primarily over northwestern Europe
and maybe northern North America as well. Temperatures would still rise
elsewhere. Can't remember where I heard it, but it's interesting...



"John Garand" wrote in message
...
ON Mon, 23 Feb 2004 16:58:21 -0500, "Brook Halvorson"
b.rookATNOSPAMcorvidcreations.com WROTE:

I realize this is a lighthearted joke, but I agree with PSsquare, and
have
trouble appreciating humor when it comes to environmental degradation. I
especially take offense because I love winter, and I can't stand the
thought
of being just stuck with just one season, warm weather, all year long ;-)

Have hope. The latest unproven theory from the global warming front
is that it will result in an ice age. This seems logical, as the
early proponents of global warming were warning of an ice age about 2
decades before they discovered global warming. This new theory nicely
eliminates being "dinged" for that bit of turn around, as has occurred
with some minor frequency.

But then, the Max Planc Institute, Woods Hole, etc. seem to have some
problems with the "new" theory as it rests on erroneous assumptions in
older (less "mature") computer programs for forecasting. But hey, if
Fortune magazine's editors find the ice age theory compelling, what do
people from the Max Planc Institute's meteorology department know?




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet
News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000
Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption
=---

"PSsquare" wrote in message . ..
Don't know the answer to your question directly, but I don't think that
you really need to know. Maybe it is more important to consider what it will
cost to pump your septic versus the cost to transport the waste chemicals to
where they can go through a waste treatment plant. Since it cost me over
$1200 when I had to pump the septic last year, I decided that I can carry a
few liters from my darkroom to a treatment system every few weeks at
practically nil expense. It did not seem worth risking harming the septic
action. (I also don't dump chlorine bleach into the septic. Bleach is a
highly effective antibacterial agent and the septic is a bacterial digester
after all.)

There is a parallel in the excessively extended debate over global warming.
It is two by two matrix. The first dimension is:

Global warming is real or not real.

The second dimension is:

We take action or we don't.

There are four combinations. The most dangerous outcome is that it is real
and we do nothing. Man loses. The other three outcomes provide for the
survival of man. I can't see any cost savings that is worth the plausible
extermination of mankind.

That's what I see as the intelligent way to consider it.

PSsquare




Too much b&w thinking. (pardon the pun)

There's another scenario to consider (and perhaps others I'm not aware
of):

Global warming is a natural phenomenon. Any geologist can tell you
abou the
(oft-ignored) Little Ice Age form about 1200 to 1850.

But now they talk about the last 10,000 years, with human development
and
expansion, being a period of constant global warming. What a sham.
We've all been taught that the last great Ice Age ended about 10,000
years ago. So if an ice age ends, what happens? The earth gets
warmer.
Sheesh. What a manipulative piece of propaganda.

The issue is not whether Global Warming exists, but who controls the
Global Warming political rhetoric and to what end? (Hint: They're
Marxists who
continue to tout Sustainable Development and anything else that would
eliminate
economic growth in a capitalistic/free system. That's those who
control the rhetoric, not the poor souls who've swallowed it. They're
just sheep. Albeit well-intentioned sheep, but sheep none-the-less.)

Collin (please don't flame me) Brendemuehl

They're just sheep. Albeit well-intentioned sheep, but sheep
none-the-less.

Collin (please don't flame me) Brendemuehl


Well, not that I'm one to flame, but how can you tell us not to flame you
when you call environmentalists "sheep"? That's flaming to me, and it's
hypocritical to tell one group not to flame you when you flame them.

You're also defining those that consider global warming to be real as
marxists. I think that's a bit of B&W thinking myself. The majority of the
people in this world would like to see a growing capitalist/free market
system where they could get rich, but I would wager that most of them would
not want it to come at the cost of our planet's environment. Okay, that's
the bleeding heart in me, I'm prone to thinking that the well being of the
world and it's people (the common good) is something which everyone wants,
which clearly it isn't. But, what point is there to getting rich in this
world if we can't live in it?

I have read studies, by geologists (no, they don't all think the same and
have the same conclusions), that studied samples of ice in polar regions.
Samples of ice that have been drilled down, in a continuous core, tens to
hundreds to thousands of feet (I don't know how deep) tell those that study
them a lot about the climate over the years, decades, centuries, millenia.
These samples show, over the millenia, as you say, ice age after ice age, at
varying intervals, with varying cycles of climate in between. Some of these
studies also show that, since the industrial revolution, the mean
temperature of the Earth's atmosphere has risen faster than it ever has
before. Rhetoric or science? I've never met a scientist whose lifetime
goal is, through his or her professional research, to create rhetoric to
influence economic systems.

Hope this adds a little color to the picture...

Brook



Collin Brendemuehl" wrote in message
m...
"PSsquare" wrote in message
. ..
Don't know the answer to your question directly, but I don't think
that
you really need to know. Maybe it is more important to consider what it
will
cost to pump your septic versus the cost to transport the waste
chemicals to
where they can go through a waste treatment plant. Since it cost me
over
$1200 when I had to pump the septic last year, I decided that I can
carry a
few liters from my darkroom to a treatment system every few weeks at
practically nil expense. It did not seem worth risking harming the
septic
action. (I also don't dump chlorine bleach into the septic. Bleach is a
highly effective antibacterial agent and the septic is a bacterial
digester
after all.)

There is a parallel in the excessively extended debate over global
warming.
It is two by two matrix. The first dimension is:

Global warming is real or not real.

The second dimension is:

We take action or we don't.

There are four combinations. The most dangerous outcome is that it is
real
and we do nothing. Man loses. The other three outcomes provide for the
survival of man. I can't see any cost savings that is worth the
plausible
extermination of mankind.

That's what I see as the intelligent way to consider it.

PSsquare




Too much b&w thinking. (pardon the pun)

There's another scenario to consider (and perhaps others I'm not aware
of):

Global warming is a natural phenomenon. Any geologist can tell you
abou the
(oft-ignored) Little Ice Age form about 1200 to 1850.

But now they talk about the last 10,000 years, with human development
and
expansion, being a period of constant global warming. What a sham.
We've all been taught that the last great Ice Age ended about 10,000
years ago. So if an ice age ends, what happens? The earth gets
warmer.
Sheesh. What a manipulative piece of propaganda.

The issue is not whether Global Warming exists, but who controls the
Global Warming political rhetoric and to what end? (Hint: They're
Marxists who
continue to tout Sustainable Development and anything else that would
eliminate
economic growth in a capitalistic/free system. That's those who
control the rhetoric, not the poor souls who've swallowed it. They're
just sheep. Albeit well-intentioned sheep, but sheep none-the-less.)

Collin (please don't flame me) Brendemuehl

(jjs) wrote in
:

gasoline to hit $5.00 a gallon tomorrow
and remain expensive forever.

That'd be cheaper than most users pay in the UK.


The UK pay 80 pence per litre, that's about 1.48 USD per litre.

one US gallon is 3.786 litres.

So 1.48 * 3.768 = 5.57 USD per gallon.

Edwin Petree wrote:
(jjs) wrote in
:

gasoline to hit $5.00 a gallon tomorrow
and remain expensive forever.

That'd be cheaper than most users pay in the UK.


Things are a lot closer in the UK. I bet some people in the US commute a
distance equal to London to the Scottish border.

Nick

Nick Zentena wrote in
:

Edwin Petree wrote:
(jjs) wrote in
:

gasoline to hit $5.00 a gallon tomorrow
and remain expensive forever.

That'd be cheaper than most users pay in the UK.


Things are a lot closer in the UK. I bet some people in the US
commute a distance equal to London to the Scottish border.

Commute? Every day? People do that in the UK, but they'd use trains
(about 5 hours) or planes.

ON Fri, 27 Feb 2004 18:15:56 -0500, "Brook Halvorson"
b.rookATNOSPAMcorvidcreations.com WROTE:

They're just sheep. Albeit well-intentioned sheep, but sheep
none-the-less.

Collin (please don't flame me) Brendemuehl


Well, not that I'm one to flame, but how can you tell us not to flame you
when you call environmentalists "sheep"? That's flaming to me, and it's
hypocritical to tell one group not to flame you when you flame them.

Your statement presupposes that only people who are, or consider
themselves to be, environmentalists subscribe to the theory of global
warming. There are a number of people who think there is a large
segment of any given population who are "sheep" (i.e. following the
lead wherever they are led without any particular thought about the
direction).


You're also defining those that consider global warming to be real as
marxists. I think that's a bit of B&W thinking myself. The majority of the
people in this world would like to see a growing capitalist/free market
system where they could get rich, but I would wager that most of them would
not want it to come at the cost of our planet's environment. Okay, that's
the bleeding heart in me, I'm prone to thinking that the well being of the
world and it's people (the common good) is something which everyone wants,
which clearly it isn't. But, what point is there to getting rich in this
world if we can't live in it?

He stated, IIRC, that (he believes) those who control the political
rhetoric of global warming are Marxists. Unless you believe every
person who considers the theory to be proven scientific fact is
controlling the political rhetoric, you couldn't possibly include
"all" in the "Marxist" designation.

And that is a nice twist in rhetoric. You are, in essence, stating
that you believe those who consider the global warming theory to be
just that, a yet to be proven theory, to be opposed to "...the well
being of the world and it's people (the common good)...". You might
consider that there are some people who simply prefer to have
scientific proof, or at least 95% or greater agreement among qualified
scientists that the computer projections on which the theory is based
are correct, prior to taking actions which may result in very
significant economic damage to the global economy.

I have read studies, by geologists (no, they don't all think the same and
have the same conclusions), that studied samples of ice in polar regions.
Samples of ice that have been drilled down, in a continuous core, tens to
hundreds to thousands of feet (I don't know how deep) tell those that study
them a lot about the climate over the years, decades, centuries, millenia.
These samples show, over the millenia, as you say, ice age after ice age, at
varying intervals, with varying cycles of climate in between. Some of these
studies also show that, since the industrial revolution, the mean
temperature of the Earth's atmosphere has risen faster than it ever has
before. Rhetoric or science? I've never met a scientist whose lifetime
goal is, through his or her professional research, to create rhetoric to
influence economic systems.


In science a differentiation is often easy. Has the data, and
results, been peer reviewed or simply presented in non-scientific
media. Often today the peer review process is short circuited, either
by design or by the general media's desire for a hot headline (pardon
the pun). The computer projection on which the UN's position and
recommendations, and the Kyoto Accord are based has recently (within
the past year or two) been subjected to true peer review (i.e.
replicated by two Canadian [IIRC] scientists). The reviewers found,
in replicating the study, that data had been erroneously entered
(human data entry error) and left out (listed in the study as
non-existent when it did exist - strangely this latter data tended to
skew the results toward global warming if eliminated). The reviewers
also found (IIRC)some errors in coding the computer program (code
entry errors). I personally don't find most of these errors to be
unusual, humans are involved and I'm not aware of any scientific work
performed in academe which doesn't involve the use of students for
mundane work like data entry. Not all the students so employed will
have a burning desire to ensure absolutely no errors have been made.
After the discovered errors were repaired, the results were
significantly different, showing normative values. But of course the
reviewer's replicated study has been subjected to criticism - so we
are left with either waiting for further study or accepting the
earlier results on faith.

Hope this adds a little color to the picture...

And color is what E-6 is all about - so now we're back on topic! :-)

Brook



----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

Guys,

Why don't you both start a different newsgroup?

Call it:

rec.off.topic

Go there to engage in this silliness. You will have, apparently, enough
company.

PSsquare



"John Garand" wrote in message
...
ON Fri, 27 Feb 2004 18:15:56 -0500, "Brook Halvorson"
b.rookATNOSPAMcorvidcreations.com WROTE:

They're just sheep. Albeit well-intentioned sheep, but sheep
none-the-less.

Collin (please don't flame me) Brendemuehl


Well, not that I'm one to flame, but how can you tell us not to flame you
when you call environmentalists "sheep"? That's flaming to me, and it's
hypocritical to tell one group not to flame you when you flame them.

Your statement presupposes that only people who are, or consider
themselves to be, environmentalists subscribe to the theory of global
warming. There are a number of people who think there is a large
segment of any given population who are "sheep" (i.e. following the
lead wherever they are led without any particular thought about the
direction).


You're also defining those that consider global warming to be real as
marxists. I think that's a bit of B&W thinking myself. The majority of
the
people in this world would like to see a growing capitalist/free market
system where they could get rich, but I would wager that most of them
would
not want it to come at the cost of our planet's environment. Okay,
that's
the bleeding heart in me, I'm prone to thinking that the well being of
the
world and it's people (the common good) is something which everyone
wants,
which clearly it isn't. But, what point is there to getting rich in this
world if we can't live in it?

He stated, IIRC, that (he believes) those who control the political
rhetoric of global warming are Marxists. Unless you believe every
person who considers the theory to be proven scientific fact is
controlling the political rhetoric, you couldn't possibly include
"all" in the "Marxist" designation.

And that is a nice twist in rhetoric. You are, in essence, stating
that you believe those who consider the global warming theory to be
just that, a yet to be proven theory, to be opposed to "...the well
being of the world and it's people (the common good)...". You might
consider that there are some people who simply prefer to have
scientific proof, or at least 95% or greater agreement among qualified
scientists that the computer projections on which the theory is based
are correct, prior to taking actions which may result in very
significant economic damage to the global economy.

I have read studies, by geologists (no, they don't all think the same and
have the same conclusions), that studied samples of ice in polar regions.
Samples of ice that have been drilled down, in a continuous core, tens to
hundreds to thousands of feet (I don't know how deep) tell those that
study
them a lot about the climate over the years, decades, centuries,
millenia.
These samples show, over the millenia, as you say, ice age after ice age,
at
varying intervals, with varying cycles of climate in between. Some of
these
studies also show that, since the industrial revolution, the mean
temperature of the Earth's atmosphere has risen faster than it ever has
before. Rhetoric or science? I've never met a scientist whose lifetime
goal is, through his or her professional research, to create rhetoric to
influence economic systems.


In science a differentiation is often easy. Has the data, and
results, been peer reviewed or simply presented in non-scientific
media. Often today the peer review process is short circuited, either
by design or by the general media's desire for a hot headline (pardon
the pun). The computer projection on which the UN's position and
recommendations, and the Kyoto Accord are based has recently (within
the past year or two) been subjected to true peer review (i.e.
replicated by two Canadian [IIRC] scientists). The reviewers found,
in replicating the study, that data had been erroneously entered
(human data entry error) and left out (listed in the study as
non-existent when it did exist - strangely this latter data tended to
skew the results toward global warming if eliminated). The reviewers
also found (IIRC)some errors in coding the computer program (code
entry errors). I personally don't find most of these errors to be
unusual, humans are involved and I'm not aware of any scientific work
performed in academe which doesn't involve the use of students for
mundane work like data entry. Not all the students so employed will
have a burning desire to ensure absolutely no errors have been made.
After the discovered errors were repaired, the results were
significantly different, showing normative values. But of course the
reviewer's replicated study has been subjected to criticism - so we
are left with either waiting for further study or accepting the
earlier results on faith.

Hope this adds a little color to the picture...

And color is what E-6 is all about - so now we're back on topic! :-)

Brook



----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet
News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000
Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption
=---