Who was the guy who kept putting his hardiness zone in his .sig? It's
all changed now:

http://planthardiness.ars.usda.gov/PHZMWeb/Default.aspx

On Feb 3, 10:08*am, spamtrap1888 > wrote:
> Who was the guy who kept putting his hardiness zone in his .sig? It's
> all changed now:
>
> http://planthardiness.ars.usda.gov/PHZMWeb/Default.aspx

yes....moving North as everything warms up.

According to one kook in this area, the shift is a manifestation of a vast United Nations conspiracy to convince people that the earth is warming. There was an article about this latest birther-grade kookiness in yesterday's NYTimes: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/04/us...g-un-plot.html

Jerry
--
Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get.

On Fri, 10 Feb 2012 17:00:32 +0000 (UTC), Doug Freyburger
> wrote:

> Human impact *has* accelerated it - lower degree of certainty but still true.

The way I understand it, the concern isn't that it happens - the
concern is that humans have affected the rate and to what degree
they're affecting it.

--
Food is an important part of a balanced diet.

On Feb 3, 10:08*am, spamtrap1888 > wrote:
> Who was the guy who kept putting his hardiness zone in his .sig? It's
> all changed now:
>
> http://planthardiness.ars.usda.gov/PHZMWeb/Default.aspx

OK I have to answer my own question: It was Nad R who put his USDA
Zone in his .sig.

On Sat, 11 Feb 2012 15:34:33 -0800, Leonard Blaisdell
> wrote:


>It's fashionable among environmentalist circles to blame humanity for
>"all" of the earth's ills. It just ain't so.
>
>leo

And exactly what "environmentalist circles" make such a claim?

Boron

In article >,
Boron Elgar > wrote:

> >It's fashionable among environmentalist circles to blame humanity for
> >"all" of the earth's ills. It just ain't so.
> >
> >leo
>
> And exactly what "environmentalist circles" make such a claim?

Damn hyperbole! I should have said "some". I painted myself into a
corner.
In general, these people live it:
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eco-terrorism>
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radical_environmentalism>
Oh, and here's one:
<http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/archive/ldn/2007/may/07050812>.
These cites took ten minutes to look up, and I picked the choicest. Are
you saying some environmentalists don't blame humanity? Are you saying
there isn't an environmental movement that loathes humanity in general?
Are you telling me that you didn't know that?

leo

On Sat, 11 Feb 2012 18:14:10 -0800, Leonard Blaisdell
> wrote:

>In article >,
> Boron Elgar > wrote:
>
>> >It's fashionable among environmentalist circles to blame humanity for
>> >"all" of the earth's ills. It just ain't so.
>> >
>> >leo
>>
>> And exactly what "environmentalist circles" make such a claim?
>
>Damn hyperbole! I should have said "some". I painted myself into a
>corner.
>In general, these people live it:
><http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eco-terrorism>
><http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radical_environmentalism>
>Oh, and here's one:
><http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/archive/ldn/2007/may/07050812>.
>These cites took ten minutes to look up, and I picked the choicest. Are
>you saying some environmentalists don't blame humanity? Are you saying
>there isn't an environmental movement that loathes humanity in general?
>Are you telling me that you didn't know that?
>
>leo

I am telling you that you took the ravings of lunatic fringe groups
and implied they were mainstream environmental stances.

So I am telling you that what you stated originally is bullshit.

In article >,
Boron Elgar > wrote:


> I am telling you that you took the ravings of lunatic fringe groups
> and implied they were mainstream environmental stances.
>
> So I am telling you that what you stated originally is bullshit.

I already retracted that. Read my last post. Too broad a brush and all
that. But they're out there and they are environmentalists first and
foremost. There aren't just a few. They push their views in
environmental circles.
What are your views on "humanity as parasites"? I happen to agree with
that view in the broadest sense. This political crap can be fun, but
mostly I keep it in check.

leo <Coolidge Republican>

sf wrote:
>
> On Fri, 10 Feb 2012 17:00:32 +0000 (UTC), Doug Freyburger
> > wrote:
>
> > Human impact *has* accelerated it - lower degree of certainty but still true.
>
> The way I understand it, the concern isn't that it happens - the
> concern is that humans have affected the rate and to what degree
> they're affecting it.

The carbon input to the atmosphere from human activities
is about 300 times smaller than the input from wildfires.

http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/tuned.htm

In article >,
Leonard Blaisdell > wrote:
>In article >,
> Boron Elgar > wrote:
>
>> >It's fashionable among environmentalist circles to blame humanity for
>> >"all" of the earth's ills. It just ain't so.
>> >
>> >leo
>>
>> And exactly what "environmentalist circles" make such a claim?
>
>Damn hyperbole! I should have said "some". I painted myself into a
>corner.
>In general, these people live it:
><http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eco-terrorism>
><http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radical_environmentalism>
>Oh, and here's one:
><http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/archive/ldn/2007/may/07050812>.

>These cites took ten minutes to look up, and I picked the choicest.

Look up "Green Scare".



Steve

On Sat, 11 Feb 2012 19:34:24 -0800, Mark Thorson >
wrote:

> sf wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, 10 Feb 2012 17:00:32 +0000 (UTC), Doug Freyburger
> > > wrote:
> >
> > > Human impact *has* accelerated it - lower degree of certainty but still true.
> >
> > The way I understand it, the concern isn't that it happens - the
> > concern is that humans have affected the rate and to what degree
> > they're affecting it.
>
> The carbon input to the atmosphere from human activities
> is about 300 times smaller than the input from wildfires.
>
> http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/tuned.htm

Your site did not minimize the effect humans are having on global
warming either. We aren't the cause, we are speeding up the process.

--
Food is an important part of a balanced diet.

On Feb 11, 9:34*pm, Mark Thorson > wrote:
> sf wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 10 Feb 2012 17:00:32 +0000 (UTC), Doug Freyburger
> > > wrote:
>
> > > Human impact *has* accelerated it - lower degree of certainty but still true.
>
> > The way I understand it, the concern isn't that it happens - the
> > concern is that humans have affected the rate and to what degree
> > they're affecting it.
>
> The carbon input to the atmosphere from human activities
> is about 300 times smaller than the input from wildfires.
>
> http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/tuned.htm

But the carbon from wildfires is carbon that was recently in the
atmosphere anyway. Burning fossil fuels introduces carbon that had
been sequestered in the ground for millions of years.

--Bryan

sf wrote:

>>>> Human impact *has* accelerated it - lower degree of certainty but still true.
>>>
>>> The way I understand it, the concern isn't that it happens - the
>>> concern is that humans have affected the rate and to what degree
>>> they're affecting it.
>>
>> The carbon input to the atmosphere from human activities
>> is about 300 times smaller than the input from wildfires.
>>
>> http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/tuned.htm
>
> Your site did not minimize the effect humans are having on global
> warming either. We aren't the cause, we are speeding up the process.

Regardless of whether humans caused or are speeding global warming, it
seems obvious that the question we ought to be asking is what can we do
about it, if anything. Finger-pointing is a waste of time.

Bob

On Feb 11, 9:08*pm, Leonard Blaisdell >
wrote:

>
> leo <Coolidge Republican>

I consider myself a Rooseveltian, both Roosevelts. The Harding-
Coolidge-Hoover presidencies concentrated wealth in the hand of the
few, the stock speculators. The golden age for the USA economy was
Truman-Eisenhower-Kennedy-Johnson-and yes, Nixon. Nixon, for all his
personal flaws, worked constructively with Democratic Congresses, and
while the economy soured under Nixon, it was mostly because of the
petroleum crisis. GW Bush was a disaster because of tax cuts for the
wealthiest, and an unnecessary war that wasn't paid for by rescinding
those tax cuts, even if only temporarily. "Voodoo, trickle down"
policies were the biggest fraud ever put over on working class
Americans. I called it "Tinkle Down," and thought that was clever,
but I put that term into a search engine (I think, Northern Light) and
found that someone else had used that same phrase years before.
The balance that existed between workers and owners during the Truman
and Eisenhower years eroded into a new oligarchy. Extreme Leftism
leads to, "We pretend to work, and they pretend to pay us." Extreme
Rightism leads to Robber Baronism and the company store. At both
extremes, working people lose.

--Bryan

In article
>,
Bryan > wrote:

>"We pretend to work, and they pretend to pay us." Extreme
> Rightism leads to Robber Baronism and the company store. At both
> extremes, working people lose.

Seriously Bryan, I'm a Coolidge Republican. I believe the country would
be much stronger if there had never been any federal safety nets for the
individual. That brings me to Coolidge. Issues we face today would be
completely different than what we are facing. Family, church, neighbors
and community would be much stronger IMO. I doubt that'd be a bad thing.
My wife grew up in a company town and I worked summer jobs in one. There
were company stores in both. Mining, dontcha know.
Query me about "my" SS and Medicare. I dare you.

[OBFood] Hmm... soup and a sandwich?

never political leo

Bryan > wrote:

>But the carbon from wildfires is carbon that was recently in the
>atmosphere anyway. Burning fossil fuels introduces carbon that had
>been sequestered in the ground for millions of years.

+1.


S.

Bob Terwilliger wrote:
>
> Regardless of whether humans caused or are speeding global warming, it
> seems obvious that the question we ought to be asking is what can we do
> about it, if anything. Finger-pointing is a waste of time.

If global warming is a bad thing in the first place that is. That point
seems ignored.

Doug Freyburger > wrote in
:

>> Regardless of whether humans caused or are speeding global
>> warming, it seems obvious that the question we ought to be
>> asking is what can we do about it, if anything.
>> Finger-pointing is a waste of time.
>
> If global warming is a bad thing in the first place that is.
> That point seems ignored.

Well sure. We could always make hay with desertification of
currently fertile areas and the reduction of the size of cattle
not to mention the changes in human size and overall reduction of
food supplies. And that's just the tip of what used to be the
iceberg.

Flooding of low-lying areas, malnutrition, increase in diseases,
ground-level ozone, loss of drinking water supplies, extreme
weather events, just to name a few.

Some irreversible effects are already starting to show up. The
melting of the polar ice is one such phenomenon, another is the
increase in violent storm activity and volcanic activity.

"Hundreds of studies have documented responses of ecosystems,
plants, and animals to the climate changes that have already
occurred. For example, in the Northern Hemisphere, species are
almost uniformly moving their ranges northward and up in
elevation in search of cooler temperatures. Humans are very
likely causing changes in regional temperatures to which plants
and animals are responding."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_global_warming

This is not ideological rants. It is science.

--

If this is going to be a Christian nation that doesn’t
help the poor, either we’ve got to pretend that Jesus
was just as selfish as we are, or we’ve got to acknowledge
that He commanded us to love the poor and serve the needy
without condition, and then admit that we just don’t
want to do it.

Stephen Colbert (via videcormeum)

On Feb 12, 5:06*pm, Michel Boucher > wrote:
> Doug Freyburger > wrote :
>
> >> Regardless of whether humans caused or are speeding global
> >> warming, it seems obvious that the question we ought to be
> >> asking is what can we do about it, if anything.
> >> Finger-pointing is a waste of time.
>
> > If global warming is a bad thing in the first place that is.
> > That point seems ignored.

Rapid changes in climate lead to loss of diversity of life and the
beauty of the natural world.
>
> Well sure. *We could always make hay with desertification of
> currently fertile areas and the reduction of the size of cattle
> not to mention the changes in human size and overall reduction of
> food supplies. *And that's just the tip of what used to be the
> iceberg.
>
> Flooding of low-lying areas, malnutrition, increase in diseases,
> ground-level ozone, loss of drinking water supplies, extreme
> weather events, just to name a few.
>
> Some irreversible effects are already starting to show up. *The
> melting of the polar ice is one such phenomenon, another is the
> increase in violent storm activity and volcanic activity.
>
> "Hundreds of studies have documented responses of ecosystems,
> plants, and animals to the climate changes that have already
> occurred. For example, in the Northern Hemisphere, species are
> almost uniformly moving their ranges northward and up in
> elevation in search of cooler temperatures. Humans are very
> likely causing changes in regional temperatures to which plants
> and animals are responding."
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_global_warming
>
> This is not ideological rants. *It is science.
>
The planet is overpopulated, and I agree with what you wrote, except
for the "volcanic activity" part. Please explain.

--Bryan

On Feb 12, 4:47*pm, Doug Freyburger > wrote:
> Bob Terwilliger wrote:
>
> > Regardless of whether humans caused or are speeding global warming, it
> > seems obvious that the question we ought to be asking is what can we do
> > about it, if anything. Finger-pointing is a waste of time.
>
> If global warming is a bad thing in the first place that is. *That point
> seems ignored.

There's a bunch of glaciers I foolishly passed up the chance to see,
back in the 60s.

On Feb 12, 5:06*pm, Michel Boucher > wrote:
> Doug Freyburger > wrote :
>
> >> Regardless of whether humans caused or are speeding global
> >> warming, it seems obvious that the question we ought to be
> >> asking is what can we do about it, if anything.
> >> Finger-pointing is a waste of time.
>
> > If global warming is a bad thing in the first place that is.
> > That point seems ignored.
>
> Well sure. *We could always make hay with desertification of
> currently fertile areas and the reduction of the size of cattle
> not to mention the changes in human size and overall reduction of
> food supplies. *And that's just the tip of what used to be the
> iceberg.
>
> Flooding of low-lying areas, malnutrition, increase in diseases,
> ground-level ozone, loss of drinking water supplies, extreme
> weather events, just to name a few.

You'd love to have an orange grove behind the house, right? Save on
the long trip to Florida every winter.

Michel Boucher wrote:
> Doug Freyburger > wrote:
>
>> If global warming is a bad thing in the first place that is.
>> That point seems ignored.
>
> Well sure. We could always make hay with desertification of
> currently fertile areas and the reduction of the size of cattle
> not to mention the changes in human size and overall reduction of
> food supplies. And that's just the tip of what used to be the
> iceberg.

Reduce tundra around what used to be the arctic, increase desert around
the equator. Not a large net change in amount of arable land. As usual
you are asserting that all change is bad without actually dealing with
the fact that change happens anyways. A shift in the location or arable
land is only bad to the folks near the edges of the growing deserts.
It's a good thing for folks at the northern edge who see their climates
improve.

> Some irreversible effects are already starting to show up. The
> melting of the polar ice is one such phenomenon, another is the
> increase in violent storm activity and volcanic activity.

This is the nonsense part. We still haven't reached the warmth of when
the Norse colonized cattle ranches on Greenland but it's irreversible.
And humans have caused increased volcanic activity. That would be a no.
Global warming as absolutely happened. There is some percentage of
human input. There is also a lot of nonsense by both the insisters and
the deniers.

> "Hundreds of studies have documented responses of ecosystems,
> plants, and animals to the climate changes that have already
> occurred. For example, in the Northern Hemisphere, species are
> almost uniformly moving their ranges northward and up in
> elevation in search of cooler temperatures. Humans are very
> likely causing changes in regional temperatures to which plants
> and animals are responding."

So they are moving. Correct. You still aren't getting the point. What
is lost to deserts near the equator is gaining from the tundra near the
poles. A large change in location that is not a large change in the
total.

Folks still aren't addressing why change is automatically bad. So far
the reactions I've gotten are that yes change is in fact bad. I've read
enough history to know otherwise. Climate change brings large changes
in civilization which across time have been improvements. We live in
interesting times. Shrug, so it has always been.

Doug Freyburger > wrote in
:

>> Well sure. We could always make hay with desertification of
>> currently fertile areas and the reduction of the size of
>> cattle not to mention the changes in human size and overall
>> reduction of food supplies. And that's just the tip of what
>> used to be the iceberg.
>
> Reduce tundra around what used to be the arctic, increase
> desert around the equator. Not a large net change in amount
> of arable land. As usual you are asserting that all change is
> bad without actually dealing with the fact that change happens
> anyways.

Of course change happens but this is the first time a major shift
in temperature will have occurred where human activity (CFCs,
pollution, nuclear waste, tobacco smoke etc.) will have
contributed to it. So you can't claim to know that because the
planet recovered in the past it will recover in exactly the same
way (if at all) in future.

An example: A long time ago, I worked for a Member of Parliament
(I'm not proud of that but let's go on). He was visited by a
former press buddy who now flacked for Atomic Energy of Canada
Ltd. (AECL). The flack was going on about how radiation from
nuclear waste was X% (a small number) of the radiation emitting
from the sun every day, so it wasn't dangerous. I pointed out
that the sun's radiation is something that is part of the
environment and has been for billions of years and that now,
nuclear wsate is ADDING X amount into the environment which has
never been there before. This creates an imbalance which may
result in positive feedback, causing disastrous local or even
planetary changes. Positive feedback, in environmental terms is
not a good situation because it means the environment affected
will NOT recover.

I'm not asserting anything, I'm saying this is what is happening.
You choose to be blind to that. It's your choice but realize
that I do not feel in any way obligated to sacrifice my
children's future to your blinkered nonsense.

At worst, if there is no ill effect, it cannot do any harm to
reduce pollution and emissions in the atmosphere that are, we
already know, harmful to human life.

So, choose to fix the problem or yammer on about big oil's
position, I don't care. But when the time comes that people who
supported big oil's agenda are sentenced to death by a population
which has had enough of being manipulated, you will not be able
to say: "No one told me. I didn't know!"

--

If this is going to be a Christian nation that doesn’t
help the poor, either we’ve got to pretend that Jesus
was just as selfish as we are, or we’ve got to acknowledge
that He commanded us to love the poor and serve the needy
without condition, and then admit that we just don’t
want to do it.

Stephen Colbert (via videcormeum)

Doug Freyburger > writes:

> Michel Boucher wrote:
>> Doug Freyburger > wrote:
>>
>>> If global warming is a bad thing in the first place that is.
>>> That point seems ignored.
>>
>> Well sure. We could always make hay with desertification of
>> currently fertile areas and the reduction of the size of cattle
>> not to mention the changes in human size and overall reduction of
>> food supplies. And that's just the tip of what used to be the
>> iceberg.
>
> Reduce tundra around what used to be the arctic, increase desert around
> the equator. Not a large net change in amount of arable land. As usual
> you are asserting that all change is bad without actually dealing with
> the fact that change happens anyways. A shift in the location or arable
> land is only bad to the folks near the edges of the growing deserts.
> It's a good thing for folks at the northern edge who see their climates
> improve.

Except that there *isn't* much population in the tundra, for example.
And hence there isn't much infrastructure -- roads, rail lines, and
things relevant to commercial agriculture. Grain elevators. Equipment
dealers and repair places.

And I'm not at all sure that the tundra, with a warmer climate, is good
agricultural land. Most of northern Minnesota, while far from tundra,
is still not terribly good agricultural land. And, just incidentally,
really heavily infested with lakes and rivers...which makes putting in
the infrastructure to support commercial farming (roads and rail lines
especially) MUCH more expensive.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, ; http://dd-b.net/
Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
Dragaera: http://dragaera.info

David Dyer-Bennet > wrote in
:

> Doug Freyburger > writes:
>
>> Michel Boucher wrote:
>>> Doug Freyburger > wrote:
>>>
>>>> If global warming is a bad thing in the first place that
>>>> is. That point seems ignored.
>>>
>>> Well sure. We could always make hay with desertification of
>>> currently fertile areas and the reduction of the size of
>>> cattle not to mention the changes in human size and overall
>>> reduction of food supplies. And that's just the tip of what
>>> used to be the iceberg.
>>
>> Reduce tundra around what used to be the arctic, increase
>> desert around the equator. Not a large net change in amount
>> of arable land. As usual you are asserting that all change
>> is bad without actually dealing with the fact that change
>> happens anyways. A shift in the location or arable land is
>> only bad to the folks near the edges of the growing deserts.
>> It's a good thing for folks at the northern edge who see
>> their climates improve.
>
> Except that there *isn't* much population in the tundra, for
> example. And hence there isn't much infrastructure -- roads,
> rail lines, and things relevant to commercial agriculture.
> Grain elevators. Equipment dealers and repair places.
>
> And I'm not at all sure that the tundra, with a warmer
> climate, is good agricultural land. Most of northern
> Minnesota, while far from tundra, is still not terribly good
> agricultural land. And, just incidentally, really heavily
> infested with lakes and rivers...which makes putting in the
> infrastructure to support commercial farming (roads and rail
> lines especially) MUCH more expensive.

Tsk tsk...introducing real life issues into an otherwise unreal
argument is bound to screw the guy up.

Aw. What the heck. Have at it :-)

--

If this is going to be a Christian nation that doesn’t
help the poor, either we’ve got to pretend that Jesus
was just as selfish as we are, or we’ve got to acknowledge
that He commanded us to love the poor and serve the needy
without condition, and then admit that we just don’t
want to do it.

Stephen Colbert (via videcormeum)

On 13/02/2012 3:56 PM, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:

>> Reduce tundra around what used to be the arctic, increase desert around
>> the equator. Not a large net change in amount of arable land. As usual
>> you are asserting that all change is bad without actually dealing with
>> the fact that change happens anyways. A shift in the location or arable
>> land is only bad to the folks near the edges of the growing deserts.
>> It's a good thing for folks at the northern edge who see their climates
>> improve.
>
> Except that there *isn't* much population in the tundra, for example.
> And hence there isn't much infrastructure -- roads, rail lines, and
> things relevant to commercial agriculture. Grain elevators. Equipment
> dealers and repair places.
>
> And I'm not at all sure that the tundra, with a warmer climate, is good
> agricultural land. Most of northern Minnesota, while far from tundra,
> is still not terribly good agricultural land. And, just incidentally,
> really heavily infested with lakes and rivers...which makes putting in
> the infrastructure to support commercial farming (roads and rail lines
> especially) MUCH more expensive.

I used to have a boss who was from northern Ontario and he had a
terrific description for most of northern Canada...... moose pasture. It
is rocky hills and marshland. Most of it sits on rock. Thanks to all
that water, by the time it warms up enough to take off a layer of
clothing you have to put it back on to protect you from the mosquitoes
and black flies who fly in swarms big enough to pick you up and carry
you away.

There are is a vast area over which there are no roads. It is not just
because there is nowhere to go. It is too expensive. they are going to
be blasting rock hills or putting in gravel fill for elevation and
drainage. Hence we use ice roads. Wait until the lakes and rivers
freeze up, which is about 3-4 months of the year. Jut about everything
that northern communities and construction or mining projects needs for
the year has to be shopped during the ice road season.

On Sat, 11 Feb 2012 23:39:00 -0800, Leonard Blaisdell
> wrote:

>In article
>,
> Bryan > wrote:
>
>>"We pretend to work, and they pretend to pay us." Extreme
>> Rightism leads to Robber Baronism and the company store. At both
>> extremes, working people lose.
>
>Seriously Bryan, I'm a Coolidge Republican. I believe the country would
>be much stronger if there had never been any federal safety nets for the
>individual. That brings me to Coolidge. Issues we face today would be
>completely different than what we are facing. Family, church, neighbors
>and community would be much stronger IMO. I doubt that'd be a bad thing.

So what countries have done this?

Boron

On Monday, February 13, 2012 12:28:05 PM UTC-5, Doug Freyburger wrote:

...

> Folks still aren't addressing why change is automatically bad. So far
> the reactions I've gotten are that yes change is in fact bad. I've read
> enough history to know otherwise. Climate change brings large changes
> in civilization which across time have been improvements. We live in
> interesting times. Shrug, so it has always been.

Change is bad -- at least annoying -- because we have adapted to the way things are. There are now mosquitoes in Quito, Ecuador for the first time since the city was founded. Dengue fever is steadily marching north, along with the hardiness zones. To quote John Maynard Keynes, "In the long term, we're all dead" Is that how you see it?

Jerry
--
There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to
one who is striking at the root. — Henry David Thoreau.

In article >,
Boron Elgar > wrote:

> On Sat, 11 Feb 2012 23:39:00 -0800, Leonard Blaisdell
> > wrote:

> >Seriously Bryan, I'm a Coolidge Republican. I believe the country would
> >be much stronger if there had never been any federal safety nets for the
> >individual. That brings me to Coolidge. Issues we face today would be
> >completely different than what we are facing. Family, church, neighbors
> >and community would be much stronger IMO. I doubt that'd be a bad thing.
>
> So what countries have done this?

Mostly we did it until 1964. Look to previously failed or drastically
modified socialist states in Asia now. They're what's currently
happening. They're going all capitalist on the world's butt.
I retire now from this political thread. I feel like I'm shoveling coal
on the Titanic. But never fear. I'll be back! Whoosh!

never political leo

On Mon, 13 Feb 2012 15:20:14 -0800, Leonard Blaisdell
> wrote:

>In article >,
> Boron Elgar > wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 11 Feb 2012 23:39:00 -0800, Leonard Blaisdell
>> > wrote:
>
>> >Seriously Bryan, I'm a Coolidge Republican. I believe the country would
>> >be much stronger if there had never been any federal safety nets for the
>> >individual. That brings me to Coolidge. Issues we face today would be
>> >completely different than what we are facing. Family, church, neighbors
>> >and community would be much stronger IMO. I doubt that'd be a bad thing.
>>
>> So what countries have done this?
>
>Mostly we did it until 1964.


1964? Coolidge Republican? Hey, I hope you never wind up on Jeopardy.

The Social Security Act was passed in 1935 in the US. Other US social
welfare programs came into being around then, too. Why, even
Wiki-o-the-Moment has enough social program history to make you look
goofy.

>Look to previously failed or drastically
>modified socialist states in Asia now.

I didn't ask your opinion of "failed" states. I am not interested in
your opinions about them. I asked you to point to an example of a
country without federal safety nets that would be considered stronger
because of their lack of these nets. You know...one where "family,
church, neighbors and community would be much stronger." Try and come
up with one among the G20, why don't you...

And lets go beyond the G20...say, how is the lack of federal safety
net workin' out for you in places like Somalia?

>They're what's currently
>happening. They're going all capitalist on the world's butt.
>I retire now from this political thread. I feel like I'm shoveling coal
>on the Titanic. But never fear. I'll be back! Whoosh!
>
You are indeed shoveling, but I think the term you are looking for is
"shit," not coal.

You like to make sweeping FoxNews sorts of sweeping false statements,
then when challenged, try to weasel your way out of it by backpedaling
and lack of facts.

Boron

Doug Freyburger > wrote in
:

> Explain why change, just plain change, is automatically
> bad. Human caused or not change has happened across history
> and it has not automatically been bad.

Every systemic change is like a revolution. It may not be bad in
the moral sense, but it doubleplus ungood in the survival sense for
many if not all species, including mankind.

If the refusal to admit that the current warming will not result in
drastic changes to the surface of the planet is like the person who
is falling from the top of a building. After a while, he relaxes
because none of the horrible things he would expect have happened,
and except for the fact that he has little time to live, he could
treat it as a joke or some sort of leftist plot to discourage
people from jumping off buil...

--

If this is going to be a Christian nation that doesn’t
help the poor, either we’ve got to pretend that Jesus
was just as selfish as we are, or we’ve got to acknowledge
that He commanded us to love the poor and serve the needy
without condition, and then admit that we just don’t
want to do it.

Stephen Colbert (via videcormeum)

Michel Boucher wrote:
> Doug Freyburger > wrote:
>
>> Explain why change, just plain change, is automatically
>> bad. Human caused or not change has happened across history
>> and it has not automatically been bad.
>
> Every systemic change is like a revolution. It may not be bad in
> the moral sense, but it doubleplus ungood in the survival sense for
> many if not all species, including mankind.

Plenty of species have been migrating north. Here in Chicago metro it
is clear that humans are among those species because I can now see
advertising in Spanish. So a switch in advertising from English to
Spanish equals extinction? Got it. To English only companies maybe.

> If the refusal to admit that the current warming will not result in
> drastic changes to the surface of the planet is like the person who
> is falling from the top of a building. After a while, he relaxes
> because none of the horrible things he would expect have happened,
> and except for the fact that he has little time to live, he could
> treat it as a joke or some sort of leftist plot to discourage
> people from jumping off buil...

Still not explaining why a net move of arable land north with very
little net change in the amount of arable land is automatically bad.
Bad for people who own real estate in Florida, sure. Bad for people who
live near the growing deserts, sure. Bad for people living in the north
where currently marginal land near the tundra is becoming better, not so
much. Bad for some good for others does *not* equal just plain bad and
does *not* equal extinction. Humans are causing the extinction of a lot
of species in other ways, including blocked migrations.

Jerry Avins wrote:
> Doug Freyburger wrote:
>
>> Folks still aren't addressing why change is automatically bad. So far
>> the reactions I've gotten are that yes change is in fact bad. I've read
>> enough history to know otherwise. Climate change brings large changes
>> in civilization which across time have been improvements. We live in
>> interesting times. Shrug, so it has always been.
>
> Change is bad -- at least annoying -- because we have adapted to the
> way things are. There are now mosquitoes in Quito, Ecuador for the
> first time since the city was founded. Dengue fever is steadily
> marching north, along with the hardiness zones. To quote John Maynard
> Keynes, "In the long term, we're all dead" Is that how you see it?

What I see is land in the north where there have never been roads is now
becoming valuable enough that roads are being built. Local gross
positive. What I see is land in the south where there have been roads
for millennia is now becoming dry enough that farming becomes less and
less profitable. Local gross negative. What I see is adding that local
gross positive and that local gross negative is very close to a net zero.

Sure, I get that for certain people it sucks. I also get that for other
certain people it's nice. History has always worked that way. Focusing
exclusively on the negatives is narrow minded. Sure enough political
activism thrives on narrow minded approaches. We're going extinct
because a lot of people in Canada and Russia who used to eek out a
living are now doing better! Everyone panic! Not.

When people ignore vast areas of the world and then come to conclusions
I see that they are narrow minded. So I question their methods and
their motivations.

So there are givens -

There is a local gross negative for some. There is a local gross
positive for others. No one has reported the net as other than close
to zero.

And the conclusion -

People are still not addressing the fact that the net is very close to
zero. Thus people are still not addressing why change, just plain ever
present change, is automatically bad. Bad for some does not equal net
bad for everyone. Bad for some certainly doesn't mean good for no one.

And there's an action plan -

I do not intend to retire in Florida. I do intend to retire north of
where I expect the snow line to move to. I do expect to learn more
Spanish because the migrations will continue. And I expect people to
complain because if something's bad for anyone they personally will
claim it's bad for everyone. But that's not how the net effect works.

Doug Freyburger > wrote in
:

>> Every systemic change is like a revolution. It may not be
>> bad in the moral sense, but it doubleplus ungood in the
>> survival sense for many if not all species, including
>> mankind.
>
> Plenty of species have been migrating north. Here in Chicago
> metro it is clear that humans are among those species because
> I can now see advertising in Spanish.

You are comparing the pressures of capitalism to ecological
balance, which is like saying that telephone poles don't have
armpits.

Humans live everywhere on the planet and most can choose where to
live (in physical terms, not necessarily economic terms) but most
animals live within a circumscribed area called a niche where
their needs are met. They do not move out of the niche unless
forced to migrate. When animals migrate, that means the niche
has been disturbed (suffering from positive feedback) and they
must look elsewhere for similar or at the very least adequate
resources. If it is local, their region might allow them to find
another similar area within the same zone, but if the change is
broader, they have to go beyond their territory and find sources
in places where they have no guarantee. This may result in
changes, most dramatically in size, as food supplies may be
considerably fewer. It's called adaptation which if applied with
sufficient force may result in evolution.

Take the capybara and the guinea pig. Essentially the same
animal, but because one group lives in mountains, it is small and
can be held in your hands, whereas the other group, with ample
food supply, is MUCH larger. If the capybara's source of food in
the Amazon basin dries out because of rising salt water into the
feeding areas, then in time, they may revert back to the size of
their cousins in the Andes.

Your example is therefore faulty.

--

If this is going to be a Christian nation that doesn’t
help the poor, either we’ve got to pretend that Jesus
was just as selfish as we are, or we’ve got to acknowledge
that He commanded us to love the poor and serve the needy
without condition, and then admit that we just don’t
want to do it.

Stephen Colbert (via videcormeum)

Doug Freyburger > wrote in
:

> Still not explaining why a net move of arable land north with
> very little net change in the amount of arable land is
> automatically bad.

I think it's been said by others, there is NO arable land in the
north, and by north, I mean north of the plains (boreal forest and
beyond). It's called barrenlands because, surprise, you are unable
to grow food there. Most of it is moss on rock. In order to
terraform the North, you would have to invest more money than
exists on the entire planet.

A few areas in river deltas such as the Mackenzie (and there are
only a few) have alluvial accretions that provide fertile soil, but
hardly enough to feed the population that is there (given that the
growing season is only three months).

So I suggest you rethink your ganga-inspired "it's all good, mon"
scenario in light of ACTUAL FACTS.

--

If this is going to be a Christian nation that doesn’t
help the poor, either we’ve got to pretend that Jesus
was just as selfish as we are, or we’ve got to acknowledge
that He commanded us to love the poor and serve the needy
without condition, and then admit that we just don’t
want to do it.

Stephen Colbert (via videcormeum)

Michel Boucher wrote:
> Doug Freyburger > wrote:
>
>>> Every systemic change is like a revolution. It may not be
>>> bad in the moral sense, but it doubleplus ungood in the
>>> survival sense for many if not all species, including
>>> mankind.
>>
>> Plenty of species have been migrating north. Here in Chicago
>> metro it is clear that humans are among those species because
>> I can now see advertising in Spanish.
>
> You are comparing the pressures of capitalism to ecological
> balance, which is like saying that telephone poles don't have
> armpits.

It remains an accurate observation - Humans are among the species
migrating north. Other migrations have happened during climate change
across history. Sucks to be in the path of a mass migration unless you
figure out how to deal the hand that's dealt to you.

> Humans live everywhere on the planet and most can choose where to
> live (in physical terms, not necessarily economic terms) but most
> animals live within a circumscribed area called a niche where
> their needs are met. They do not move out of the niche unless
> forced to migrate. When animals migrate, that means the niche
> has been disturbed (suffering from positive feedback) and they
> must look elsewhere for similar or at the very least adequate
> resources. If it is local, their region might allow them to find
> another similar area within the same zone, but if the change is
> broader, they have to go beyond their territory and find sources
> in places where they have no guarantee. This may result in
> changes, most dramatically in size, as food supplies may be
> considerably fewer. It's called adaptation which if applied with
> sufficient force may result in evolution.

So? Animal migrations have happened a lot in the past. This time
humans have consumed the places they migrate to. That is causing and
will cause more extinctions among species not human. Humans have had an
adverse impact on the planet with respect to migrations, polution and so
on. So what species is blocking the migration of humans?

> I think it's been said by others, there is NO arable land in the
> north, and by north, I mean north of the plains (boreal forest and
> beyond). It's called barrenlands because, surprise, you are unable
> to grow food there. Most of it is moss on rock. In order to
> terraform the North, you would have to invest more money than
> exists on the entire planet.

And the land is not changing as the climate warms? Uh huh. Lots of
roads will need to be built, just like when civilization arrived farther
south. Lots of swamp will need to be drained, just like when
civilization arrived farther south. All that work will be very good for
those locals who take advantage of the migrating humans.

Doug Freyburger > wrote in
:

>> You are comparing the pressures of capitalism to ecological
>> balance, which is like saying that telephone poles don't have
>> armpits.
>
> It remains an accurate observation

No it doesn't.

> Humans are among the species migrating north.

Sorry. Humans are NOT migrating north and leaving behind their
damaged ecosystems. Humans no longer have anything to do with
mass migrations such as the ones characterized by the Tumulus,
Urnfield and Halstatt cultures. We gave that up a long time ago.
In fact, what passes for migrations may be nothing more than
people getting out of the way of advancing armies. Hardly the
point you are desperately trying to make unless of course you are
clueless.

> Other migrations have happened
> during climate change across history. Sucks to be in the path
> of a mass migration unless you figure out how to deal the hand
> that's dealt to you.

I'm thinking you really have no idea what is going on.

--

If this is going to be a Christian nation that doesn’t
help the poor, either we’ve got to pretend that Jesus
was just as selfish as we are, or we’ve got to acknowledge
that He commanded us to love the poor and serve the needy
without condition, and then admit that we just don’t
want to do it.

Stephen Colbert (via videcormeum)

Doug Freyburger > wrote in news:jhei95$u2q$1
@dont-email.me:

> In order to
>> terraform the North, you would have to invest more money than
>> exists on the entire planet.
>
> And the land is not changing as the climate warms? Uh huh.

No, not within thousands of years. Extermination will have caused
incalculable losses if not the end of all life on the planet before
the first bit of useable soil will be created out of decay.

--

If this is going to be a Christian nation that doesn’t
help the poor, either we’ve got to pretend that Jesus
was just as selfish as we are, or we’ve got to acknowledge
that He commanded us to love the poor and serve the needy
without condition, and then admit that we just don’t
want to do it.

Stephen Colbert (via videcormeum)

Dave Smith > wrote in news:6EE_q.8982
:

>> The Inuit. Left the elderly to freeze on ice floes (well, not
>> anymore...soon NO ice floes).
>
> Actually, the story goes that the old wandered off on their own.

Strictly speaking yes, but they only did it because resources were
sparse and society expected them to do it. Had they refused they
would have been pushed out.

--

If this is going to be a Christian nation that doesn’t
help the poor, either we’ve got to pretend that Jesus
was just as selfish as we are, or we’ve got to acknowledge
that He commanded us to love the poor and serve the needy
without condition, and then admit that we just don’t
want to do it.

Stephen Colbert (via videcormeum)