Vegan (alt.food.vegan) This newsgroup exists to share ideas and issues of concern among vegans. We are always happy to share our recipes- perhaps especially with omnivores who are simply curious- or even better, accomodating a vegan guest for a meal!

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #31 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 13-08-2005, 10:25 PM
usual suspect
 
Posts: n/a
Default

pearl wrote:
Support your troops - http://www.americasupportsyou.mil/ .


I have, and I do.

As for your reliance on the Essene sect and their nutty beliefs (the
Talmud is as hard on them as it is on Christians), remember the following:

Most of the Essenes rejected marriage, not on account of any
wrong in it but because they did not trust women and desired
peace and harmony.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05546a.htm

And why should anyone trust you? You've even shaved your head to seduce
at least one violent skinhead:

That's why I'm gettin a divorce.Beware of the Chelsea THAT
SHAVES only to lure a skinhead into her llair. Then she shows
her true colours. It's a rainbow with cute little furry
creatures you want to take a bat to.
http://tinyurl.com/ldgg

Regardless of your dubious "romantic pursuits," the Essenes are one of
the most misrepresented groups in history.

Many scholars believe that the community at Qumran that
allegedly produced the Dead Sea Scrolls was an offshoot of the
Essenes; however, this theory has been disputed by Norman Golb
and other scholars.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Essenes

snip

  #32 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 13-08-2005, 10:42 PM
usual suspect
 
Posts: n/a
Default

See James Strut prated:
then you're not,


No matter what I called myself, I never was. I've never embraced animal
rights. My politics are on the Right side of the mainstream, i.e.,


WAY far to the right...


How so, and on what issue(s)?

exaggerate facts to your advantage,


Examples? Of course not. You never offer examples, you just cast
aspersions.


It hardly needs to be substantiated.


I asked for examples and suggested you would offer none. I was right.
You only cast aspersions.

[Excerpted from above]


(Speaking of girlfriends, have you found a new one or is the old one
still at the end of a rope trying to figure out why you're such a
dickhead?)

What were you saying


So you're between women then.


Why do you want to know -


So I can remind you of your posts in other newsgroups about your failed
love life, and how that failure is of your doing or not doing. It's a
shame she had to try to diagnose you herself. Poor girl.
  #33 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 13-08-2005, 11:04 PM
usual suspect
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Bumbling Bob wrote:

...

You're an idiot - an inattentive idiot.


I'm very attentive.

You're confusing "attentive" for "obsessive."

For someone that has an eating disorder, OCD is a way of control
over the person's body and therefore, life. The OCD controls
what kind of food goes in, what shape the food is, the color,
the weight, the amount, what the person does in other areas of
life, and so on. By completing the compulsions, the person once
again feels "safe" or protected... until they have to perform
another task again. Often the two problems - OCD and eating
disorders - are linked through the problem of perfectionism.
It's been said that the compulsive actions are a response to
always feeling that nothing the person does is good enough
(whether it has been or not) which has led them to over
compensate for things.
http://tinyurl.com/8vkpu

Your desire to be a vegan is a pathetic, meaningless gesture to
control your own life. Or in your case, to have a life.

No, many scientists (you're right not all, jut most) believe in
global warming.


No, you're WRONG. What part of EVENLY do you not comprehend in EVENLY
DIVIDED? Scientists have NOT reached a consensus on the relationship
between human activities and global warming.


Show me a set of proclaimed independent scientific organizations which
are evenly divided.


Survey Shows Climatologists Are Split on Global Warming
A survey of climatologists from more than 20 nations has
revealed scientists are evenly split on whether humans are
responsible for changes in global climate. The findings refute a
widely reported study by a California “Gender and Science”
professor who claimed that, based on her personal examination of
928 scientific papers on the issue, every single one reached the
conclusion that global warming is real and primarily caused by
humans.
http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=17181

Surveys have shown scientists split on the issue of whether
global warming theory has been adequately proven...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scienti...climate_change

...
Being a vegan is healthy, (if you eat right),


So is being an omnivore under that qualification, dumb ass. So is ANY
diet under that qualification.

better environmentally,


Ipse dixit. Monoculture cropping is hardly environmentally-friendly.
It's one of the chief causes of soil erosion, dummy.

and doesn't support the meat manufacturing industry.


Meat isn't manufactured. Livestock production is a valid part of
agriculture.

More animals become extinct in the last 10 years, than the last 200.


Ipse dixit, and entirely irrelevant to the issue at hand.
  #34 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 14-08-2005, 01:08 AM
pearl
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"usual suspect" wrote in message .. .
pearl wrote:
Support your troops - http://www.americasupportsyou.mil/ .


Your unethical edit is noted. Was- http://www.troopsoutnow.org/ .

You have no credibility whatsoever, 'usual suspect'.

I have, and I do.


Sending them to Iraq? Try: http://tbrnews.org/Archives/a1760.htm .

When are you going?

As for your reliance on the Essene sect and their nutty beliefs (the
Talmud is as hard on them as it is on Christians), remember the following:

Most of the Essenes rejected marriage, not on account of any
wrong in it but because they did not trust women and desired
peace and harmony.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05546a.htm


The Catholic Encyclopedia. ROTFL!

What's that topic got to do with anything? Ahh.. predictably,
leading into a slur based on HEARSAY, I see. Get lost, troll.

..


  #35 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 14-08-2005, 02:41 AM
Abner Hale
 
Posts: n/a
Default


pearl wrote:
"usual suspect" wrote in message .. .
pearl wrote:
Support your troops - http://www.americasupportsyou.mil/ .


Your unethical edit is noted. Was- http://www.troopsoutnow.org/ .

You have no credibility whatsoever, 'usual suspect'.


Coming from a drooling Irish foot-rubbing **** who believes in "Inner
Earth Beings," that's downright hilarious.

snip



  #36 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 14-08-2005, 03:34 AM
usual suspect
 
Posts: n/a
Default

pearl wrote:
Support your troops - http://www.americasupportsyou.mil/ .


Your unethical edit is noted.


It wasn't unethical. The link I provided allows people to support the
troops. The one you had is to Internation Action Center and World
Workers Party (same organization, same office, same phone numbers,
etc.), which is an "orthodox Stalinist" organization -- a group hostile
to the troops.

With [Ramsey] Clark's name-recognition and homespun, avuncular
image, WWP had the opportunity to form a new front group to win
over naive liberals. This was the International Action Center
(IAC), which remains the top vehicle for Clark's ego and WWP's
play for hegemony over the fragmented remnants of the left.
http://shadow.autono.net/sin001/clark.htm


See also:
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles...le.asp?ID=3181

Was- http://www.americasupportsyou.mil/ .


I won't allow you to get away with suggesting your communist front
supports the troops. They never have. They never will. They're kooks way
out on the fringe, which is why you're so attracted to them.

You have no credibility whatsoever, 'usual suspect'.


Just because I don't believe in "veganism," "inner earth beings,"
"hollow earth" based on a goofy patent for a MANUFACTURED globe,
helium-inflated number(s) for feed:beef, rain forest destruction,
Brazil's exports (based on *Argentina's* trade), Stolen French flying
saucers, Zapper and Hulda Clark's quackery, Foot massage (as cure-all),
Astrology, Numerology, Alien abduction, bestiality (she thinks it's okay
to have sex with animals), Leprechauns, Channeling, Polar fountains as
proof of a hollow earth, Sun gazing, Drinking urine as a cure-all,
Chemtrails, AIDS and ebola conspiracy theory, Crop circles, sexual
arousal by violent ex-convicts, participation in the skinhead
subculture, the validity of online IQ tests (even multiple attempts),
crackpot 9-11 conspiracy theories, Jeff Rense is a valid source for
"news", or have an uncanny inability to distinguish between hearsay and
evidence doesn't mean I lack credibility, loony Lesley.
  #37 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 14-08-2005, 04:55 AM
Scented Nectar
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"usual suspect" wrote in message
...
Car-less Orthorexic Skanky wrote:


Still fishing. I was car-less in
2003. What does that say about
this year? Or last year? Or next
year?

...

You're an idiot - an inattentive idiot.

I'm very attentive.

You're confusing "attentive" for "obsessive."

For someone that has an eating disorder, OCD is a way of control

I don't have an eating disorder.

Yes, you do.


You follow quackery.


I avoid you. You, otoh, have yet to come down firmly against
reflexology. You want to sit on the fence because of one person's
anecdotes despite the studies which show it to be quackery.


You follow quackery. I'm not a
follower of reflexology but have
heard people give me good
first hand reports so I keep an
open mind. It might work for
real or it might be a placebo.
I don't know. I do know that
orthorexia, especially how
described in one of those
links you posted, was way
too wacky and did not describe
any vegan I know, either on or
off the net.

That page does not describe
me.

It does. To a T.


over the person's body and therefore, life. The OCD controls
what kind of food goes in, what shape the food is, the color,
the weight, the amount, what the person does in other areas of
life, and so on. By completing the compulsions, the person once
again feels "safe" or protected... until they have to perform
another task again. Often the two problems - OCD and eating
disorders - are linked through the problem of perfectionism.
It's been said that the compulsive actions are a response to
always feeling that nothing the person does is good enough
(whether it has been or not) which has led them to over
compensate for things.
http://tinyurl.com/8vkpu

Your desire to be a vegan is a pathetic, meaningless gesture to

control
your own life. Or in your case, to have a life.

I have more of a life

No, you don't. You're a home-bound agoraphobic pot-head. Your
*existence* -- it's not a life -- a feeble attempt to escape from life.


I love my life.


You love avoiding reality. Someday you'll have to face up to reality.


It's my reality I love. The above
is just you wanting to insult again.
Figures.

I'm surprised that at 42 or 43 you still haven't. Do you live with your
parents and are they still a bit overprotective of their fragile 42 or
43 year-old baby?


Still fishing, huh?


--
SN
http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/



  #38 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 14-08-2005, 05:19 AM
Beach Runner
 
Posts: n/a
Default



usual suspect wrote:

Bumbling Bob wrote:


...

You're an idiot - an inattentive idiot.



I'm very attentive.


You're confusing "attentive" for "obsessive."

For someone that has an eating disorder, OCD is a way of control
over the person's body and therefore, life. The OCD controls
what kind of food goes in, what shape the food is, the color,
the weight, the amount, what the person does in other areas of
life, and so on. By completing the compulsions, the person once
again feels "safe" or protected... until they have to perform
another task again. Often the two problems - OCD and eating
disorders - are linked through the problem of perfectionism.
It's been said that the compulsive actions are a response to
always feeling that nothing the person does is good enough
(whether it has been or not) which has led them to over
compensate for things.
http://tinyurl.com/8vkpu

Your desire to be a vegan is a pathetic, meaningless gesture to
control your own life. Or in your case, to have a life.


No, many scientists (you're right not all, jut most) believe in
global warming.


No, you're WRONG. What part of EVENLY do you not comprehend in EVENLY
DIVIDED? Scientists have NOT reached a consensus on the relationship
between human activities and global warming.



Show me a set of proclaimed independent scientific organizations which
are evenly divided.



Survey Shows Climatologists Are Split on Global Warming
A survey of climatologists from more than 20 nations has
revealed scientists are evenly split on whether humans are
responsible for changes in global climate. The findings refute a
widely reported study by a California “Gender and Science”
professor who claimed that, based on her personal examination of
928 scientific papers on the issue, every single one reached the
conclusion that global warming is real and primarily caused by
humans.
http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=17181


Thank you for the article. It is not research. No numbers are raised
and the issues are not addressed

Surveys have shown scientists split on the issue of whether
global warming theory has been adequately proven...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scienti...climate_change

...


A much better article.
It is filled with quotes such as
he American Meteorological Society (AMS) statement adopted by their
council in 2003 said:

and no, I will not proofread all this. It is mostly cut and pasted from
YOUR sources.


There is now clear evidence that the mean annual temperature at the
Earth's surface, averaged over the entire globe, has been increasing in
the past 200 years. There is also clear evidence that the abundance of
greenhouse gases in the atmosphere has increased over the same period.
In the past decade, significant progress has been made toward a better
understanding of the climate system and toward improved projections of
long-term climate change... The report by the IPCC stated that the
global mean temperature is projected to increase by 1.4°C-5.8°C in the
next 100 years... Human activities have become a major source of
environmental change. Of great urgency are the climate consequences of
the increasing atmospheric abundance of greenhouse gases... Because
greenhouse gases continue to increase, we are, in effect, conducting a
global climate experiment, neither planned nor controlled, the results
of which may present unprecedented challenges to our wisdom and
foresight as well as have significant impacts on our natural and
societal systems. It is a long-term problem that requires a long-term
perspective. Important decisions confront current and future national
and world leaders. [5]

and
Surveys have shown scientists split on the issue of whether global
warming theory has been adequately proven, but with a majority agreeing
that global warming will occur in future if human behavior does not change.

or
....a response of a value of 1 indicates a strong level of agreement with
the statement of certainty that global warming is already underway or
will occur without modification to human behavior... the mean response
for the entire sample was 3.3 indicating a slight tendency towards the
position that global warming has indeed been detected and is
underway.... Regarding global warming as being a possible future event,
there is a higher expression of confidence as indicated by the mean of 2.6.

Gallup, 1992

According to a 1991 Gallup poll of 400 members of the American
Geophysical Union and the American Meteorological Society, 60% thought
global average temperatures had increased, 25% did not know, and 15% did
not think so. 66% were of the opinion that human-induced greenhouse
warming was occurring, 24% did now know, and 10% did not agree. Of this
66%, 63% (or 41% of the total) said the current evidence substantiates
the phenomenon, 32% said it doesn't and 5% didn't know. The poll was
conducted for the Center for Science, Technology and Media


Now who funds of your next unbiased sample
Citizens for a Sound Economy
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Citizens for a Sound Economy (CSE) is a conservative political group
operating in the United States, whose self-described mission is "to
fight for less government, lower taxes, and less regulation."

The group produces more than 100 policy papers each year, delivering
them to many congressional offices, sending out thousands of pieces of
mail, and getting coverage of its viewpoints in thousands of news
articles around the nation. The group's representatives have appeared on
hundreds of radio and television shows and published hundreds op-ed
articles arguing that "environmental conservation requires a commonsense
approach that limits the scope of government," acid rain is a "so-called
threat [that] is largely nonexistent," and global warming is "a verdict
in search of evidence."
[edit]

Funding

The CSE has a related funding arm, the Citizens for a Sound Economy
Foundation (CSEF). According to internal documents leaked to the
Washington Post, 85 percent of CSE's 1998 revenues of CSE's $16.2
million came not from its 250,000 members, but from contributions of
$250,000 and up from large corporations.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Between 1985 and 2001, CSE received $15,993,712 in 104 separate grants
from only twelve foundations:

* Castle Rock Foundation
* Earhart Foundation
* JM Foundation
* Koch Family Foundations (David H. Koch Foundation, Charles G.
Koch Foundation, Claude R. Lambe Foundation)
* John M. Olin Foundation
* Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation
* Philip M. McKenna Foundation, Inc.
* Scaife Foundations (Scaife Family, Sarah Mellon Scaife, Carthage)

Other CSE funders (not included in above funding total) have included:

* Archer Daniels Midland
* DaimlerChrysler
* Enron
* General Electric
* Koch Industries
* F.M. Kirby Foundation
* Philip Morris
* U.S. West


Clearly not unbiased groups.


Even within that group 60% thought global average temperatures had
increased,

Gallup, 1992

According to a 1991 Gallup poll of 400 members of the American
Geophysical Union and the American Meteorological Society, 60% thought
global average temperatures had increased, 25% did not know, and 15% did
not think so. 66% were of the opinion that human-induced greenhouse
warming was occurring, 24% did now know, and 10% did not agree. Of this
66%, 63% (or 41% of the total) said the current evidence substantiates
the phenomenon, 32% said it doesn't and 5% didn't know. The poll was
conducted for the Center for Science, Technology and Media

Survey of US state climatologists

In 1997, a survey was conducted by Citizens for a Sound Economy, an
organization that lobbies against the adoption of policy measures to
slow global warming. It claimed that 36 of America's 48 official state
climatologists participated in the survey. Unfortunately neither the
original survey questions nor the complete responses are available, only
a press release describing it. The survey is reported to have found that
by a margin of 44% to 17%, state climatologists believe that global
warming is largely a natural phenomenon. The survey further found that
58% of the climatologists disagreed with then President Clinton's


Here is your only positive statistic, from a heavily biased sample


assertion that "the overwhelming balance of evidence and scientific
opinion is that it is no longer a theory, but now fact, that global
warming is for real", while only 36% agreed with the assertion.
Eighty-nine percent of the climatologists agreed that "current science
is unable to isolate and measure variations in global temperatures
caused only by man-made factors," and 61 percent said that the
historical data do not indicate "that fluctuations in global temperatures

PCC Third Assessment Report: Climate Change 2001

The most recent IPCC report is Climate Change 2001, the Third Assessment
Report (TAR).

The TAR consists of four reports, three of them from the Working Groups:

* Working Group I: The Scientific Basis [28]
* Working Group II: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability [29]
* Working Group III: Mitigation [30]
* Synthesis Report [31]

The "headlines" from the summary for policymakers[32] in The Scientific
Basis we

1. An increasing body of observations gives a collective picture of
a warming world and other changes in the climate system (The global
average surface temperature has increased over the 20th century by about
0.6°C; Temperatures have risen during the past four decades in the
lowest 8 kilometres of the atmosphere; Snow cover and ice extent have
decreased)
2. Emissions of greenhouse gases and aerosols due to human
activities continue to alter the atmosphere in ways that are expected to
affect the climate (Anthropogenic aerosols are short-lived and mostly
produce negative radiative forcing; Natural factors have made small
contributions to radiative forcing over the past century) are
attributable to human influences such as burning fossil fuels."


Being a vegan is healthy, (if you eat right),



So is being an omnivore under that qualification, dumb ass. So is ANY
diet under that qualification.

better environmentally,



Ipse dixit. Monoculture cropping is hardly environmentally-friendly.
It's one of the chief causes of soil erosion, dummy.

and doesn't support the meat manufacturing industry.



Meat isn't manufactured. Livestock production is a valid part of
agriculture.

More animals become extinct in the last 10 years, than the last 200.



Ipse dixit, and entirely irrelevant to the issue at hand.


PCC Second Assessment Report: Climate Change 1995

Climate Change 1995, the IPCC Second Assessment Report (SAR) was
finished in 1996. It is split into four parts:

* A synthesis to help interpret UNFCCC article 2.
* The Science of Climate Change (WG I)
* Impacts, Adaptations and Mitigation of Climate Change (WG II)
* Economic and Social Dimensions of Climate Change (WG III)

Each of the last three parts was completed by a separate working group,
and each has a Summary for Policymakers (SfP) that represents a
consensus of national representatives. The SfP of the WG I report
contains headings:

1. Greenhouse gas concentrations have continued to increase
2. Anthropogenic aerosols tend to produce negative radiative forcings
3. Climate has changed over the past century (air temperature has
increased by between 0.3 and 0.6 °C since the late 19th century; this
estimate has not significantly changed since the 1990 report).
4. The balance of evidence suggests a discernible human influence on
global climate (considerable progress since the 1990 report in
distinguishing between natural and anthropogenic influences on climate,
because of: including aerosols; coupled models; pattern-based studies)
5. Climate is expected to continue to change in the future
(increasing realism of simulations increases confidence; important
uncertainties remain but are taken into account in the range of model
projections)
6. There are still many uncertainties (estimates of future emissions
and biogeochemical cycling; models; instrume

lobal warming is a term used to describe the increase over time of the
average temperature of the Earth's atmosphere and oceans.

The scientific opinion on climate change, as expressed by the UN
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and endorsed by the
national science academies of the G8 nations, is that the average global
temperature has risen 0.6 ± 0.2°C since the late 19th century, and that
"most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to
human activities", most prominently the emission of greenhouse gases
such as carbon dioxide (CO2). A small minority of qualified scientists
contest the view that humanity's actions have played a significant role
in increasing recent temperatures. Uncertainties do exist regarding how
much climate change should be expected in the future, and a hotly
contested political and public debate exists over what actions, if any,
should be taken in light of global warming.

Over the past century or so the global (land and sea) temperature has
increased by 0.6 ± 0.2°C [4]. The effects of global warming are
increasingly visible. At the same time, atmospheric carbon dioxide has
increased from around 280 parts per million in 1800 to around 315 in
1958 and 367 in 2000. Other greenhouse gas emissions have also
increased. Future CO2 levels cannot be predicted with any precision,
since they depend on uncertain economic, sociological and technological
developments. The IPCC SRES gives a wide range of future CO2 scenarios
[5], ranging from about 400 to 1000 ppmv by 2100.

Climate models, driven by estimates of increasing carbon dioxide and to
a lesser extent by generally decreasing sulphate aerosols, predict that
temperatures will increase (with a range of 1.4°C to 5.8°C for change
between 1990 and 2100 [6]). Much of this uncertainty results from not
knowing future CO2 emissions, but there is also uncertainty about the
accuracy of climate models. Climate commitment studies predict that even
if levels of greenhouse gases and solar activity were to remain
constant, the global climate is committed to 0.5°C of warming over the
next one hundred years due to the lag in warming caused by the oceans.

Although the scientific consensus is clear on the general conclusions -
enough to persuade the governments of more than 150 countries to ratify
the Kyoto Protocol - there are issues about just how much greenhouse gas
emissions warm the planet. Uncertainties remain and are emphasized by
politicians, corporations, and others questioning the costs needed to
mitigate global warming; however, businesses likely to benefit from
Kyoto provisions are accepting global warming as real and that action is
needed. The scientific consensus is questioned by a small minority of
scientists and peer reviewed articles.

Causes of global warming

See main articles: attribution of recent climate change, scientific
opinion on climate change

The climate system varies both through natural, "internal" processes as
well as in response to variations in external "forcing" from both human
and non-human causes, including changes in the Earth's orbit around the
Sun (Milankovitch cycles), solar activity, and volcanic emissions as
well as greenhouse gases. See Climate change for further discussion of
these forcing processes. Climatologists accept that the earth has warmed
recently. Somewhat more controversial is what may have caused this
change. See attribution of recent climate change for further discussion.

Atmospheric scientists know that adding carbon dioxide (CO2) to an
atmosphere, with no other changes, will tend to make a planet's surface
warmer (this is known as "climate forcing", or the Callendar effect).
Indeed, greenhouse gases create a natural greenhouse effect without
which temperatures on Earth would be 30°C lower, and the Earth
uninhabitable. It is therefore not correct to say that there is a debate
between those who "believe in" and "oppose" the theory that adding CO2
to the Earth's atmosphere will result in warmer surface temperatures on
Earth, on average. Rather, the debate is about what the net effect of
the addition of CO2 will be, and whether changes in water vapor, clouds,
the biosphere and various other climate factors will cancel out its
warming effect. The observed warming of the Earth over the past 50 years
appears to be at odds with the skeptics' theory that climate feedbacks
will cancel out the warming.
[edit]

Greenhouse gas emissions
Carbon dioxide during the last 400,000 years and the rapid rise since
the Industrial Revolution
Enlarge
Carbon dioxide during the last 400,000 years and the rapid rise since
the Industrial Revolution

Coal-burning power plants, automobile exhausts, factory smokestacks, and
other waste vents of the human environment contribute about 22 billion
tons of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases into the earth's
atmosphere each year. About half of human emissions has remained in the
atmosphere. The atmospheric concentration of CO2 has increased by 31%
above pre-industrial levels since 1750. This is considerably higher than
at any time during the last 420,000 years, the period for which reliable
data has been extracted from ice cores. From less direct geological
evidence it is believed that CO2 values this high were last attained 40
million years ago. About three-quarters of the anthropogenic emissions
of CO2 to the atmosphere during the past 20 years is due to fossil fuel
burning. The rest is predominantly due to land-use change, especially
deforestation [8].

The longest continuous instrumental measurement of CO2 mixing ratios
began in 1958 at Mauna Loa. Since then, the annually averaged value has
increased monotonically from 315 ppm (see the Keeling Curve). The
concentration reached 376ppm in 2003. South Pole records show similar
growth [9]. The monthly measurements display small seasonal oscillations

Scientists have studied this issue with computer models of the climate
(see below). These models are accepted by the scientific community as
being valid only after it has been shown that they do a good job of
simulating known climate variations, such as the difference between
summer and winter, the North Atlantic Oscillation, or El Niño. All
climate models that pass these tests also predict that the net effect of
adding CO2 will be a warmer climate in the future. The amount of
predicted warming varies by model, however, which probably reflects the
way different models depict clouds differently.

As noted above, climate models have been used by the IPCC to anticipate
a warming of 1.4°C to 5.8°C between 1990 and 2100 [16]. They have also
been used to help determine the causes of recent climate change by
comparing the observed changes to those that the models predict from
various natural and human derived forcing factors.

The most recent climate models can produce a good match to observations
of global temperature changes over the last century. These models do not
unambiguously attribute the warming that occurred from approximately
1910 to 1945 to either natural variation or human effects; however, they
suggest that the warming since 1975 is dominated by man-made greenhouse
gas emissions. Adding simulation of the ability of the environment to
sink carbon dioxide suggested that rising fossil fuel emissions would
decrease absorption from the atmosphere, amplifying climate warming
beyond previous predictions, although "Globally, the amplification is
small at the end of the 21st century in this model because of its low
transient climate response and the near-cancellation between large
regional changes in the hydrologic and ecosystem responses."[17].

Another suggested mechanism whereby a warming trend may be amplified
involves the thawing of tundra, which can release the potent greenhouse
gas, methane, that is trapped in large quantities in permafrost and ice
clathrates [18].

Uncertainties in the representation of clouds are a dominant source of
uncertainty in existing models, despite clear progress in modeling of
clouds [19]. There is also an ongoing discussion as to whether climate
models are neglecting important indirect and feedback effects of solar
variability. Further, all such models are limited by available
computational power, so that they may overlook changes related to small
scale processes and weather (e.g. storm systems, hurricanes). However,
despite these and other limitations, the IPCC considers climate models
"to be suitable tools to provide useful projections of future climates"
[20].
[edit]

Issues

Effects

Main article: Effects of global warming

The predicted effects of global warming are many and various, both for
the environment and for human life. The primary effect of global warming
is increasing carbon dioxide and increasing global average temperature.
From this flow a variety of secondary effects, including sea level
rise, impacts on agriculture, reductions in the ozone layer (see below),
increased extreme weather, and the spread of disease. In some cases, the
effects may already be being experienced, although it is generally
difficult to attribute specific natural phenomena to long-term global
warming.

The extent and likelihood of these consequences is a matter of
considerable controversy. A summary of possible effects and our current
understanding can be found in the report of the IPCC Working Group II.[29]
[edit]

Effects on ecosystems

Secondary evidence of global warming — lessened snow cover, rising sea
levels, weather changes — provides examples of consequences of global
warming that may influence not only human activities but also the
ecosystems. Increasing global temperature means that ecosystems may
change; some species may be forced out of their habitats (possibly to
extinction) because of changing conditions, while others may flourish.
Few of the terrestrial ecoregions on Earth could expect to be unaffected.

Spread of disease

It has been claimed that global warming will probably extend the
favourable zones for vectors conveying infectious diseases such as
malaria. An example of this may be the recent extension to the north
Mediterranean region of bluetongue disease in domesticated ruminants
associated with mite bites. Despite the disappearance of malaria in most
temperate regions, the indigenous mosquitoes that transmitted it were
never eliminated and remain common in some areas. Thus, although
temperature is important in the transmission dynamics of malaria, many
other factors are influential.[30]

Main article: Mitigation of global warming

"Mitigation of global warming" covers all actions aimed at reducing the
extent or likelihood of global warming. The world's primary
international agreement on combating climate change is the Kyoto
Protocol. Various other strategies include development of new
technologies, renewable energy, biodiesel, electric cars (and hybrids),
and fuel cells, Energy conservation, carbon taxes and carbon
sequestration schemes.

Adaption stategies accept some warming as a given and focus on
preventing or reducing undesirable consequences: for example defending
against rising sea levels or ensuring food security.

Because human activity is strongly correlated with global warming, and
is asserted to be the main cause, it is interesting to develop
consideration about the possible (psycho) sociological reactions
independently of the political arena with the topic of sociological
considerations about greenhouse gases.

from
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/conten.../306/5702/1686
PCC is not alone in its conclusions. In recent years, all major
scientific bodies in the United States whose members' expertise bears
directly on the matter have issued similar statements. For example, the
National Academy of Sciences report, Climate Change Science: An Analysis
of Some Key Questions, begins: "Greenhouse gases are accumulating in
Earth's atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air
temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise" [p. 1 in (5)].
The report explicitly asks whether the IPCC assessment is a fair summary
of professional scientific thinking, and answers yes: "The IPCC's
conclusion that most of the observed warming of the last 50 years is
likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations
accurately reflects the current thinking of the scientific community on
this issue" [p. 3 in (5)].

Others agree. The American Meteorological Society (6), the American
Geophysical Union (7), and the American Association for the Advancement
of Science (AAAS) all have issued statements in recent years concluding
that the evidence for human modification of climate is compelling (8).

The drafting of such reports and statements involves many opportunities
for comment, criticism, and revision, and it is not likely that they
would diverge greatly from the opinions of the societies' members.
Nevertheless, they might downplay legitimate dissenting opinions. That
hypothesis was tested by analyzing 928 abstracts, published in refereed
scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, and listed in the ISI
database with the keywords "climate change" (9).

The 928 papers were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of
the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals,
methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position.
Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either
explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with
methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic
climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the
consensus position.

Admittedly, authors evaluating impacts, developing methods, or studying
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
paleoclimatic change might believe that current climate change is
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
natural. However, none of these papers argued that point.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
This analysis shows that scientists publishing in the peer-reviewed
literature agree with IPCC, the National Academy of Sciences, and the
public statements of their professional societies. Politicians,
economists, journalists, and others may have the impression of
confusion, disagreement, or discord among climate scientists, but that
impression is incorrect.

The scientific consensus might, of course, be wrong. If the history of
science teaches anything, it is humility, and no one can be faulted for
failing to act on what is not known. But our grandchildren will surely
blame us if they find that we understood the reality of anthropogenic
climate change and failed to do anything about it.

Many details about climate interactions are not well understood, and
there are ample grounds for continued research to provide a better basis
for understanding climate dynamics. The question of what to do about
climate change is also still open. But there is a scientific consensus
on the reality of anthropogenic climate change.
Climate scientists have repeatedly tried to make this clear. It is time
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
for the rest of us to listen.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^


Well, your postings show mostly a belief in global warming caused by
greenhouse gases. A few scientists dissagree, but are hardly evenly split.

They suggest that greenhouse gasses from human activity must be acted
upon with potential devestating consequences.


Global warming is real. We certainly don't understand all the factors
but all you did is prove my point. The potentials are devestating.
Your West Coast of Florida may well be under water.


BTW, I didn't move to Florida on my own. I was recruited and twice I
said no. Finally gave in when the package was too good.

Later I took a telecommuting job.

I also sat in on all the Vision 2000 planning meetings. The
population's number 1 point was to protect the ocean front from
development. Instead, they built high density condoes up and down the
beach. I argue for controlled growth, low density planned communities.
Instead all you see are high density buidings going up. It is
interesting that developers sit on the zoning boards.

If you want to keep Florida a great place, zone it properly, not let it
become on big massive urban sprawl. Buy the right of ways for public
tansportation now. Even if you don't build it yet. Ever been on I95
South. There can be no arguement that trains should not run up the
Eastern Corridor. The tracks are already there.

And the massive use of sprinkler systems will cause salt water
intrusion. The major crop grown in the US is grass. Our incredible
fertile land is being wasted. Of course, the grass is not native to
Florida, requires truckloads of chemicals which enter our bio system.

Could we possibly agree that the future of Florida must be protected and
planned?




BTW. I want to congratulate you on making your own juice. And most of
your writing is excellent with minor mistakes that people would ignore
if you didn't take such delight in pointing out minor typos or other
minor mistakes in cutting and pasting.

All I can wonder is why you spend so much time fighting here, making a
fool of yourself.

You obviously have some real potential. Why not use it for good?



  #39 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 14-08-2005, 05:39 AM
usual suspect
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Car-less Orthorexic Skanky wrote:

Still fishing.


Not fishing. It's already established.

I was car-less in 2003.


You still are.

...
I'm surprised that at 42 or 43 you still haven't. Do you live with your
parents and are they still a bit overprotective of their fragile 42 or
43 year-old baby?


Still fishing, huh?


I'm not fishing. I have a very strong hunch, though.
  #40 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 14-08-2005, 05:46 AM
usual suspect
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Bumbling Bob wrote:
BTW. I want to congratulate you on making your own juice.


What I put in my body is my own business, not yours. So **** off.

And most of your writing is excellent


All of it is when compared against yours.

All I can wonder is why you spend so much time fighting here,


1. I want to make sure people aren't deluded by the lies people like you
spread about diet, health, nutrition, the conditions in which animals
are raised, etc., so I'm here to add some balance.
2. I enjoy discussing these issues.
3. I'm amused by goofy twits like you and Skanky.

You obviously have some real potential.


It's more than potential, dummy.

Why not use it for good?


I believe I am. Why do you see things only in terms of "people who agree
with me are good, people who disagree with me are bad"?


  #41 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 14-08-2005, 07:43 AM
Beach Runner
 
Posts: n/a
Default



Rudy Canoza wrote:



It doesn't take much to give you
a case of the freak-outs, does it.



No "freak-outs". I like pointing out how goddamned stupid you are.
It's fun.

if his joy is hurting other people, than he is sick.
  #42 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 14-08-2005, 07:44 AM
Dutch
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"usual suspect" wrote

1. I want to make sure people aren't deluded by the lies people like you
spread about diet, health, nutrition, the conditions in which animals are
raised, etc., so I'm here to add some balance.


Quite so, "veganism" is one of the most insidious ideas in modern culture.
Due to it's benign reputation, people find themselves ensconced in it's
dogma before they know what hit them. The same people who would never fall
victim to one of the more obvious cults are easy prey for extreme ARAs who
use veganism to promote their agenda.


  #43 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 14-08-2005, 08:24 AM
Dutch
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Beach Runner" wrote


Rudy Canoza wrote:



It doesn't take much to give you
a case of the freak-outs, does it.



No "freak-outs". I like pointing out how goddamned stupid you are. It's
fun.

if his joy is hurting other people, than he is sick.


If you can take constructive criticism then it can help you, immensely,
otherwise, sticks and stones...


  #44 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 14-08-2005, 11:17 AM
pearl
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"usual suspect" wrote in message . ..
pearl wrote:
Support your troops - http://www.americasupportsyou.mil/ .


Your unethical edit is noted.


It wasn't unethical.


You altered my post. You've no credibility.

Go 'support your troops', murderous troll.

snip usual defamatory BS



  #45 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 14-08-2005, 11:25 AM
pearl
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Abner Hale" wrote in message oups.com...

pearl wrote:
"usual suspect" wrote in message .. .
pearl wrote:
Support your troops - http://www.americasupportsyou.mil/ .


Your unethical edit is noted. Was- http://www.troopsoutnow.org/ .

You have no credibility whatsoever, 'usual suspect'.


Coming from a drooling Irish foot-rubbing **** who believes in "Inner
Earth Beings," that's downright hilarious.


Coming from a drooling meat-eating ignoramus, that's priceless!

[http://www.reflexology-research.com/Abstracts.html

http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homep...p5/inner4.htm]

snip





Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Tonight's Dinner Fare & Christmas Meals ~patches~ General Cooking 0 18-12-2005 11:13 PM
Fair Fare Melba's Jammin' Preserving 9 09-09-2005 02:04 AM
Dinner Party Fare Donna Rose General Cooking 11 05-07-2004 08:06 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:50 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2019 FoodBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Food and drink"

 

Copyright © 2017