Democrasy DOES not work, but it just so happens that its the easiest to keep from corrupting into an evil facism. So far the US has done a pretty good job at keeping it going (I wouldnt call them #1, but then again you can point out a million different problems with every government). Yes, it could be better (especially right now ), but in time it will all get better. As the pendulum swings...
the people who are crying "Liberal media bias" are ALWAYS DOING SO THROUGH THE MEDIA!!!!!!
My god, that is a good way to put it.
Because it IS a THEORY
Well quite frankly everything is a theory. Proven science is just a theory that it most likely right (ya, if you want to argue this go make another thread, I love playing skeptic). In this case global warming is a widley evidenced, and completley sound "theory" which is only disputed by oil companies and other people with intrests in beleiving otherwize.
Anyone who even SUGGESTS that Global Warming MAY not be as big a problem as some say is flamed to death and called an idiot
In this case, I think that runnign with the "global warming doesnt exist" line equates idiocy. Similarly he who claims that the earth is flat would be called an idiot (oh, they do exist, and have some damn fine arguments).
Who do you want? Gore?
Well... actually...
Man, I must admit that I see why so much of america feels disenfranchised, Dubya and Gore running head to head makes for some pretty depressing options.
"You can have the model T in any color you want, as long as that color is black" -Ford
Wow, was there any real point to this post? I guess not, but then again, theres little point to any of the arguments in AO.
Anyone who even SUGGESTS that Global Warming MAY not be as big a problem as some say is flamed to death and called an idiot
In this case, I think that runnign with the "global warming doesnt exist" line equates idiocy. Similarly he who claims that the earth is flat would be called an idiot (oh, they do exist, and have some damn fine arguments).</strong><hr></blockquote>
Interesting how you reworded SDW2001?s statement. He didn?t say global warming doesn?t exist. If you are so confident about your argument, why do this? There is evidence for global warming. Problem is, it started (early in the 19th century) long before greenhouse gases began to be created on a large scale. Moreover, there are disputes about the rate of warming that is occurring, the datasets used and the reliability of computer models that project future warming trends. And why is it that people who are allegedly so informed on this issue almost always fail to mention other greenhouse gases besides CO2?
The 19th century... if you willcare to remember was the Industrial Revolution, wherein humans tended to tend their industry using the very polluting fuel of Coal, with very little concern for efficient filters .. . .
but anyway . . .
The worst part of that article (above)was that it describes the formation of a group of politicians and corporate lobbyists...( now what was the name of that group? oh yeah "non-profit Competitive Enterprise Institute,") and the Bush administration (not a group of scientists mind you) getting together and giving the previose administration's funded Scientific research a negative mark, and then, the article says, that this shows that the whole idea of Global Warming is unfounded . .
nevermind that the group in question has NO authority except for its heavy funding, political bias and a catchy name.
anyway, the fact that this article is passing this garbage off as somehow scientific, and the fact that it is being taken up by the very susceptible of mind and the ideaologically predisposed and regurgitated as science makes me very 'unhappy'!!!!!! (is that better than anger spaceman?) and you should be able to see through it.
i sometimes wonder about this... when you have such blatantly cynical preverication with such committees, and their usually missleading names that sound like "the institute for the conservation of Nature" or something like that, but are in actuality heavily funded corporate "think tanks" and groups who's whole purpose is to deregulate... (like the 19th century) . . don't you feel that its just CYNICAL as all hell!?!?
( side note: sometimes I feel that there are people that just actually hate anyone who shows any concern for the environment whithin which we llive... after all, some, I know, feel that to care about the world is not christian...James Watt for example)
<strong>The 19th century... if you willcare to remember was the Industrial Revolution, wherein humans tended to tend their industry using the very polluting fuel of Coal, with very little concern for efficient filters...</strong><hr></blockquote>
Please. Do you seriously believe that the use of coal is what got the global warming ball rolling? I said early 19th century. The transition to coal-fired steam power wasn't even complete. Water power was still widely in use. Moreover industrial revolution or no, transportation still largely relied on horses. Horses were even used to pull barges along canals. Railroads were in their infancy. Trans-Atlantic crossings were powered by the wind. Consumerism and the mass manufacture required to sustian a consumer driven economy simply didn't exist. Try again.
Coal ( which it's use goes back a lot longer than you think ) was the main source of power at the time. Even before that there was increased wood burning ( there were a lot more people in the world ).
Yes, it's pretty well recognized that it doesn't take as much as one would think to start the process. That's why people have a problem with backyard burning and everything else they used to do without thinking about it. They tend to think of it in terms of " well my little fire couldn't hurt anything ". The problem is that there are a lot of people and everyones doing it.
When you talk about the early 19th century there was also something else changing at the same time. The start of a large explosion in human population. I find that more than coincidence.
And yes SDW2001 was infering that global warming doesn't exist and that's enough.
Coal ( which it's use goes back a lot longer than you think ) was the main source of power at the time. Even before that there was increased wood burning...</strong><hr></blockquote>
Using coal and using coal on a scale sufficient to effect climate change are two different things. Pfflam wasn't just talking about just using coal. He talked about it's use in the industrial revolution.
[quote]<strong> Yes, it's pretty well recognized that it doesn't take as much as one would think to start the process....</strong><hr></blockquote>
Pretty well recognized? Do you have a link?
[quote]<strong>When you talk about the early 19th century there was also something else changing at the same time. The start of a large explosion in human population. I find that more than coincidence.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Estimates of the world's population in 1800 range from 800 million to 1.1 billion people. By 1850 estimates have it as anywhere between 1.1 and 1.4 billion people. (Today there are over 6 billion people on the planet.) In the early 19th century very little of the world was industrialized. The industrial revolution had only just begun to spread beyond England. So we are talking about only a tiny fraction of the world's population, really. And you guys are suggesting that it was that fraction that started global warming? Are you sure you want to stick with that?
[quote]<strong>And yes SDW2001 was infering that global warming doesn't exist and that's enough.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Do you have a link to info about how much coal burning it takes to start the process?
Do you have a link to how many pollutants were being belched out in the early 19th century?
A quote from SWD2001:
" But one must at least ackoweldge the possibility that the changes seen over the past 50 years are insignificant and/or not caused by our emissions. "
Do you have a link to show us something to support your idea that we couldn't have been the cause in the 19th century?
When you were giving estimates on population in the 19th century you made a big jump from 1850 to 2002 making it sound like we went from 1.4 billion to 6 over night. When I was a child there were only 5 billion. And once again how many does it take. You yourself have been going along with the line that we don't fully understand the process.
How much of a temp rise was there in the early 19th century?
[quote]And yes SDW2001 was infering that global warming doesn't exist and that's enough. <hr></blockquote>
No, I said I was open to the possibility that it doesn't exist. I am not convinced. My further point by posting that link is that there is some debate over its existence and/or causes. And I also know the power of the environmental lobby and those who support it. I'm certainly not "against the environment", but anyone that makes suggestions that don't go along with the environmentalists' agenda is called anti-environment or worse. To call me stupid or an idiot for my refusal to be snowed by the likes of people that DRIVE GASOLINE-POWERED CARS to PRO-ENVIRONMENT rallies is absurd.
Oh, and all you "my god, sdw your so dumb because everyone knows it exists" people-----POST YOUR EVIDENCE. Let the games begin.
When you were giving estimates on population in the 19th century you made a big jump from 1850 to 2002 making it sound like we went from 1.4 billion to 6 over night. </strong><hr></blockquote>
I wasn't making it sound like anything. You were able to understand the time frame in question. I wrote about the population estimates for the years 1800-1850 and added parenthetically today's population for a point of reference.
[quote]<strong>You yourself have been going along with the line that we don't fully understand the process. </strong><hr></blockquote>
Right. Which is why I'm so skeptical of those who confidently assert that global warming is a consequence of human activity. A close look at the data doesn't make that case.
[quote]<strong>How much of a temp rise was there in the early 19th century?</strong><hr></blockquote>
I did some research on this a year or so ago. This is from memory. I admit it?s a bit sketchy but accurate:
In the early 19th century crop failures occurred in places like Estonia and Iceland. 1815 saw the eruption of an Indonesian volcano, I don?t remember the name (not Krakatoa - that happened in the 1880?s). 1816 is the coldest year on record according to several European and North American sources. The following years saw glacial advances in the Alpines. (Glacial activity doesn?t mirror climate change because of a time lag.) From 1830-1840 there was some glacial retreat in Europe. By the 1840?s potatoes were introduced into Estonia and crop yields began to recover. By 1855 the Chamonix glaciers began to retreat.
I don?t have any data for how much temperatures increased during the 19th century. I?m sure the data is available somewhere but I don?t know how disputed it is. There is a 1997 Washington Post article about the ?Little Ice Age? that you can probably find for free if you did a Google search. The ?Little Ice Age? followed what is called the ?Medieval Warming Period? that ended perhaps as early as 1200 or as late as 1450. The documentation for the ?Little Ice Age? is very good, in part due to Galileo?s invention of the thermometer in the late 16th century. Most estimates have it that the "Little Ice Age" was over by about 1850.
This global warming debate is so much like the evolution debates that crop up every so often here. There is a scientific consensus, but people with a pre-existing agenda can find things to quibble.
I think Bush's approach is more honest than some of the people here. He admits to the science, but still doesn't want to do anything about it.
That's better than not wanting to do anything about it, and consequently denying the data.
[quote]There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities. Human activities have altered the chemical composition of the atmosphere through the buildup of greenhouse gases ? primarily carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide.<hr></blockquote>
[quote]Global mean surface temperatures have increased 0.5-1.0°F since the late 19th century. The 20th century's 10 warmest years all occurred in the last 15 years of the century. Of these, 1998 was the warmest year on record. The snow cover in the Northern Hemisphere and floating ice in the Arctic Ocean have decreased. Globally, sea level has risen 4-8 inches over the past century. Worldwide precipitation over land has increased by about one percent. The frequency of extreme rainfall events has increased throughout much of the United States.<hr></blockquote>
[quote]Increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases are likely to accelerate the rate of climate change. Scientists expect that the average global surface temperature could rise 1-4.5°F (0.6-2.5°C) in the next fifty years, and 2.2-10°F (1.4-5.8°C) in the next century, with significant regional variation. Evaporation will increase as the climate warms, which will increase average global precipitation. Soil moisture is likely to decline in many regions, and intense rainstorms are likely to become more frequent. Sea level is likely to rise two feet along most of the U.S. coast.<hr></blockquote>
This extract below is from a book by Lynn Osburn "Energy Farming in America". It has been extimated that industrial hemp, if the (asinine) prohibition laws were abolished to allow for its large scale farming, could provide the fuel to run all the USA's motor vehicles, thereby vastly reducing (or eliminating) our massive and increasing demand for (dwindling) foreign oil. Not only would this provide a huge boost for agriculture in the USA and greatly reduce pollution, but it would help national security by stemming the huge flow of US taxpayer funds towards the chief funders of international terrorism, namely the oil industry
BIOMASS CONVERSION to fuel has proven economically feasible, first in laboratory tests and by continuous operation of pilot plants in field tests since 1973. When the energy crop is growing it takes in C02 from the air, so when it is burned the C02 is released, creating a balanced system.
Biomass is the term used to describe all biologically produced matter. World production of biomass is estimated at 146 billion metric tons a year, mostly wild plant growth. Some farm crops and trees can produce up to 20 metric tons per acre of biomass a year.
Types of algae and grasses may produce 50 metric tons per year. This biomass has a heating value of 5000-8000 BTU/lb, with virtually no ash or sulfur produced during combustion. About 6% of contiguous United States land area put into cultivation for biomass could supply all current demands for oil and gas.
The foundation upon which this will be achieved is the emerging concept of "energy farming," wherein farmers grow and harvest crops for biomass conversion to fuels.
PYROLYSIS IS THE TECHNIQUE of applying high heat to organic matter (ligno-cellulosic materials) in the absence of air or in reduced air. The process can produce charcoal, condensable organic liquids (pyrolytic fuel oil), non-condensable gasses, acetic acid, acetone, and methanol. The process can be adjusted to favor charcoal, pyrolytic oil, gas, or methanol production with a 95.5% fuel-to-feed
efficiency.
Pyrolysis has been used since the dawn of civilization. Ancient Egyptians practiced wood distillation by collecting the tars and pyroligneous acid for use in their embalming industry.
Methanol-powered automobiles and reduced emissions from coal-fired power plants can be accomplished by biomass conversion to fuel utilizing pyrolysis technology, and at the same time save the
American family farm while turning the American heartland into a prosperous source of clean energy production.
Pyrolysis has the advantage of using the same technology now used to process crude fossil fuel oil and coal. Coal and oil conversion is more efficient in terms of fuel-to-feed ratio, but biomass conversion by pyrolysis has many environmental and economic advantages over coal and oil.
Pyrolysis facilities will run three shifts a day. Some 68% of the energy of the raw biomass will be contained in the charcoal and fuel oils made at the facility. This charcoal has nearly the same heating value in BTU as coal, with virtually no sulfur.
Pyrolytic fuel oil has similar properties to no. 2 and no. 6 fuel oil. The charcoal can be transported economically by rail to all urban area power plants generating electricity. The fuel oil can be transported economically by trucking creating more jobs for Americans. When these plants use charcoal instead of coal, the problems of acid rain will begin to disappear.
When this energy system is on line producing a steady supply of fuel for electrical power plants, it will be more feasible to build the complex gasifying systems to produce methanol from the cubed biomass, or make synthetic gasoline from the methanol by the addition of the Mobil Co. process equipment to the gasifier.
FARMERS MUST BE ALLOWED TO GROW an energy crop capable of producing 10 tons per acre in 90-120 days. This crop must be woody in nature and high in lignocellulose. It must be able to grow in all climactic zones in America.
And it should not compete with food crops for the most productive land, but be grown in rotation with food crops or on marginal land where food crop production isn't profitable.
When farmers can make a profit growing energy, it will not take long to get 6% of continental American land mass into cultivation of biomass fuel--enough to replace our economy's dependence on fossil fuels. We will no longer be increasing the C02 burden in the atmosphere. The threat of global greenhouse warming and adverse climactic change will diminish. To keep costs down, pyrolysis reactors need to be located within a 50 mile radius of the energy farms. This necessity will bring life back to our small towns by providing jobs locally.
HEMP IS THE NUMBER ONE biomass producer on planet earth: 10 tons per acre in approximately four months. It is a woody plant containing 77% cellulose. Wood produces 60% cellulose. This energy
crop can be harvested with equipment readily available. It can be "cubed" by modifying hay cubing equipment. This method condenses the bulk, reducing trucking costs from the field to the pyrolysis reactor. And the biomass cubes are ready for conversion with no further treatment.
Hemp is drought resistant, making it an ideal crop in the dry western regions of the country. Hemp is the only biomass resource capable of making America energy independent. And our government outlawed it in 1938.
Remember, in 10 years, by the year 2000, America will have exhausted 80% of her petroleum reserves. Will we then go to war with the Arabs for the privilege of driving our cars; will we stripmine our land for coal, and poison our air so we can drive our autos an extra 100 years; will we raze our forests for our energy needs?
During World War II, our supply of hemp was cut off by the Japanese. The federal government responded to the emergency by suspending marijuana prohibition. Patriotic American farmers were
encouraged to apply for a license to cultivate hemp and responded enthusiastically. Hundreds of thousands of acres of hemp were grown.
The argument against hemp production does not hold up to scrutiny: hemp grown for biomass makes very poor grade marijuana. The 20 to 40 million Americans who smoke marijuana would loath to smoke hemp grown for biomass, so a farmer's hemp biomass crop is worthless as marijuana.
It is time the government once again respond to our economic emergency as they did in WWII to permit our farmers to grow American hemp so this mighty nation can once again become energy independent and smog free.
For more information on the many uses of hemp, contact BACH, the Business Alliance for Commerce in Hemp, Box 71093, LA, CA 90071-0093, 213/288-4152.
--excerpt from Herer, "Emperor Wears No Clothes," 1991 edition, p. 136
For an updated version of "Energy Farming In America," "Books In Print" lists "Ecohemp: Economy and Ecolgy with Hemp," Access Unlimited, Frazier Park, CA, 805/632-2644.
[3] The device invented was named the decorticator and in the mid 1930s it was poised to do for hemp what the cotton gin had done for cotton: create a fast and economically feasible way of "removing the
fiber- bearing cortex from the rest of the stalk, making hemp fiber available for use without a prohibitive amount of human labor." ("Popular Mechanics," February, 1938)
<strong>This global warming debate is so much like the evolution debates that crop up every so often here. There is a scientific consensus, but people with a pre-existing agenda can find things to quibble.</strong><hr></blockquote>
It's a quibble that climate change has occurred in the past that simply can't be attributed to a build up of greenhouse gases? And isn't it possible that those on the other side of the debate have a pre-existing agenda too?
<strong>It's a quibble that climate change has occurred in the past that simply can't be attributed to a build up of greenhouse gases? </strong><hr></blockquote>Yes, it is a quibble, in that there is a scientific consensus, even presented on Bush's EPA website, that human activity has caused global warming.There is a bigger picture of knowledge, just like evolution, but people can find smaller battles to fight in order to distort the well-accepted bigger picture. [quote]And isn't it possible that those on the other side of the debate have a pre-existing agenda too?<hr></blockquote>Look at the incentives.
Anti-environmentalists: Trillions of dollars of big business, all intertwined at the highest levels of international trade and foreign policy, from Enron to Bush to Cheney to Saudi Arabia, etc.
Look at the graph again. Why the declines? Why not a steady increase? Look at around 1998 and see what happens.....
In addition, what if it is discovered that no meaningful pattern can be determined unless we look at, say, 1000 years or more of weather (which we don't have records for)? The earth is, I believe, a BILLION years old (correct me if I'm wrong....but if I am I think it is older than that). A BILLION!!!!!!
You mean to tell me that you are convinced by the last 100 years? That's like looking at AAPL stock between 3:00 and 3:15pm, seeing that it went up $2.00 a share, and speculating that its price has increased 10% over the last ten years. Give me a break.
AGAIN, I think we very well MAY be affecting the climate. But it is FAR from proven. The climate changes COULD be natural. Or, there might not even be any meaninful change. We just don't know. We can, however, SPECULATE that our emissions are increasing the global temperature. It is certainly possible. My attitude is more in line with yours than you think. I believe we ought to start practicing a "better safe than sorry" approach ASAP......because we know one thing: It can't HELP the environment to be spewing gases into the atmosphere. But, we also can't destroy the world economy either.
Whatever, everything we do contributes to the eventual heat-death of the universe anyway. Screw it. [/joking]
Oh, and whomever made the comment about people contributing to global warming by burning leaves and trash (or something like that)..............BWWWHAHAHAHAAHHA.
SDW... I think this last post reveals your ignorance of what is considered scientific data. One of the most telling and reliable forms of data which measures CO2 over millenia is the reading of ice cores . . . this is generaly accepted as one of the means . . . .there are others as well.
[quote] Look at the graph again. Why the declines? Why not a steady increase? Look at around 1998 and see what happens.....<hr></blockquote>is that your version of hard science 'lookat that graph again'
and [quote] But, we also can't destroy the world economy either.<hr></blockquote>why are you so sertain about this. . . . is it because you overlook the rolling mountains of Pensylvania and you think that they are so big and pristine that we couldn't possible effect these and by inference not the human economy?!?!?
By the way backyard burning sometimes involves more than just " burning leaves " That's the real reason it's been banned.
It takes a perticular type of emission to effect the ozone layer but, to affect climatic change through global warming just takes a concentration of particles per square inch in the atmosphere. Any kind ( yes there are the geenhouse gasses that do it more efficiently ). As long as they block sunlight and tend to hold in heat. These kinds of changes are why nuclear winter is so scary. That's the other end of the spectrum. A concentration of particles so high that all sunlight is blocked and you get an even quicker end to life here on the earth. Instead of warm it gets very cold. Plants and animals die and so do we.
The DEQ is concerned about emissions from all kinds of burning nowadays ( and yes, this involves more issues than just global warming ).
From your graph it looks like there wasn't much change before 1920 when it started a sharp rise. As for it not being a steady constant rise, this is a real planet not laboratory conditions. There's bound to be variations.
It's true our weather records don't go back very far but, that's no reason to assume this means nothing or to ignore this. Even if we are only helping it along it's reason enough to be concerned. It's that " it couldn't be us just burning leaves " attitude that's part of the problem.
Yes, it is a quibble, in that there is a scientific consensus, even presented on Bush's EPA website, that human activity has caused global warming.There is a bigger picture of knowledge, just like evolution, but people can find smaller battles to fight in order to distort the well-accepted bigger picture. </strong><hr></blockquote>
This is the consensus. (1) Global temperature is about 0.5 degrees Celsius warmer than it was a century ago. (2) Atmospheric levels of CO2 have risen over the past two centuries. (3) CO2 is a greenhouse gas.
(My source for this is an MIT professor of meteorology, Richard Lindzen. He was also one of the 11 authors of the report on climate change put out last year by the National Academy of Sciences.)
This is what we do not know. We can't say that past climate change is attributable to CO2. And we can't confidently forecast what climate change will be in the future. This is because the climate is always changing. As Mr. Lindzen says, "Change is the norm."
If you don't truly look at the real big picture - past climate change as well as the present - you will be unable to understand what part nature plays in the equation and what part is man's responsibility.
Anti-environmentalists: Trillions of dollars of big business, all intertwined at the highest levels of international trade and foreign policy, from Enron to Bush to Cheney to Saudi Arabia, etc.
Really, who has more to lose from change?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Enron was lobbying on behalf of Kyoto. You obviously don't understand the incentives. Natural gas companies, like Enron, stand to benefit from a shift away from fuels like coal. They are seen as part of a greener energy supply. And as far as Kyoto is concerned, so is nuclear.
<strong>SDW... I think this last post reveals your ignorance of what is considered scientific data. One of the most telling and reliable forms of data which measures CO2 over millenia is the reading of ice cores . . . this is generaly accepted as one of the means . . . .there are others as well.
why are you so sertain about this. . . . is it because you overlook the rolling mountains of Pensylvania and you think that they are so big and pristine that we couldn't possible effect these and by inference not the human economy?!?!?</strong><hr></blockquote>
1. That isn't my chart. I was attemtping to debunk it.
2. Nice job COMPLETELY misinterpreting my statement on the economy. What I am saying is that our efforts to protect the environment SHOULD NOT destroy the word's economy at the same time. I think it is QUITE possible that could happen.
<strong>This is what we do not know. We can't say that past climate change is attributable to CO2. And we can't confidently forecast what climate change will be in the future. This is because the climate is always changing. As Mr. Lindzen says, "Change is the norm."</strong><hr></blockquote>From what I've read, I agree with the part about not being able to accurately predict future climate change, but I disagree that we can't say past change is attributable to human activity.
Yes, these things are too complex to predict with precision. But we may never be able to predict something as complex as this with precision. And in the meantime, the best estimates we do have are that the earth could warm 10 degrees in the next century. We're talking about the very real possibility of extremely serious worldwide consequences. Should we really take those preventable risks just because the predictions are not 100% certain? What level of certainty would you require, given the consequences of doing nothing?
And really, what sacrifices would people have to make? Buying somewhat more fuel-efficient cars? Given the likely consequences of continued global warming, it hardly seems such a sacrifice.
And like your Enron example shows, change won't necessarily be bad for the economy as a whole - there would be some winners and some losers. [quote]Enron was lobbying on behalf of Kyoto. You obviously don't understand the incentives. Natural gas companies, like Enron, stand to benefit from a shift away from fuels like coal.<hr></blockquote>I didn't know they stood to profit more from natural gas. But I did know that as an energy trading company they stood to gain from the "trade-a-CO2" provision of Kyoto, which the US wanted but was rejected, IIRC. Let me ask you a question: Do you think the vested interests in reducing global warming are as powerful as the interests who want to ignore it?
<strong>Look at the graph again. Why the declines? Why not a steady increase? Look at around 1998 and see what happens.....</strong><hr></blockquote>It looks to me like there is about a .5 degree see-saw every couple of years. But there is clearly an upward trend over that time, particularly in the last couple of decades, that is much stronger than those yearly variations.
I'm not knowledgeable enough on this stuff to know how to analyze these data myself. And unless you are, you have to sift through the information and the sources and look at people's agendas and make a judgment. That graph and those statements I quoted are from the Bush administration, which said that "most of the warming over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities."
It's almost impossible as a non-scientist to figure these things out. But it just seems to me that you can get a feel for what's non-biased and what's advocacy here. And it seems clear to me that the non-biased sources show a consensus that global warming is occuring to a dangerous degree and could be prevented.
[oops, almost at 1000 posts. better stop for a while.]
Comments
because your halfway democracy does NOT work.
Democrasy DOES not work, but it just so happens that its the easiest to keep from corrupting into an evil facism. So far the US has done a pretty good job at keeping it going (I wouldnt call them #1, but then again you can point out a million different problems with every government). Yes, it could be better (especially right now
the people who are crying "Liberal media bias" are ALWAYS DOING SO THROUGH THE MEDIA!!!!!!
My god, that is a good way to put it.
Because it IS a THEORY
Well quite frankly everything is a theory. Proven science is just a theory that it most likely right (ya, if you want to argue this go make another thread, I love playing skeptic). In this case global warming is a widley evidenced, and completley sound "theory" which is only disputed by oil companies and other people with intrests in beleiving otherwize.
Anyone who even SUGGESTS that Global Warming MAY not be as big a problem as some say is flamed to death and called an idiot
In this case, I think that runnign with the "global warming doesnt exist" line equates idiocy. Similarly he who claims that the earth is flat would be called an idiot (oh, they do exist, and have some damn fine arguments).
Who do you want? Gore?
Well... actually...
Man, I must admit that I see why so much of america feels disenfranchised, Dubya and Gore running head to head makes for some pretty depressing options.
"You can have the model T in any color you want, as long as that color is black" -Ford
Wow, was there any real point to this post? I guess not, but then again, theres little point to any of the arguments in AO.
<strong>
Anyone who even SUGGESTS that Global Warming MAY not be as big a problem as some say is flamed to death and called an idiot
In this case, I think that runnign with the "global warming doesnt exist" line equates idiocy. Similarly he who claims that the earth is flat would be called an idiot (oh, they do exist, and have some damn fine arguments).</strong><hr></blockquote>
Interesting how you reworded SDW2001?s statement. He didn?t say global warming doesn?t exist. If you are so confident about your argument, why do this? There is evidence for global warming. Problem is, it started (early in the 19th century) long before greenhouse gases began to be created on a large scale. Moreover, there are disputes about the rate of warming that is occurring, the datasets used and the reliability of computer models that project future warming trends. And why is it that people who are allegedly so informed on this issue almost always fail to mention other greenhouse gases besides CO2?
[ 06-08-2002: Message edited by: spaceman_spiff ]</p>
but anyway . . .
The worst part of that article (above)was that it describes the formation of a group of politicians and corporate lobbyists...( now what was the name of that group? oh yeah "non-profit Competitive Enterprise Institute,") and the Bush administration (not a group of scientists mind you) getting together and giving the previose administration's funded Scientific research a negative mark, and then, the article says, that this shows that the whole idea of Global Warming is unfounded . .
nevermind that the group in question has NO authority except for its heavy funding, political bias and a catchy name.
anyway, the fact that this article is passing this garbage off as somehow scientific, and the fact that it is being taken up by the very susceptible of mind and the ideaologically predisposed and regurgitated as science makes me very 'unhappy'!!!!!! (is that better than anger spaceman?) and you should be able to see through it.
i sometimes wonder about this... when you have such blatantly cynical preverication with such committees, and their usually missleading names that sound like "the institute for the conservation of Nature" or something like that, but are in actuality heavily funded corporate "think tanks" and groups who's whole purpose is to deregulate... (like the 19th century) . . don't you feel that its just CYNICAL as all hell!?!?
( side note: sometimes I feel that there are people that just actually hate anyone who shows any concern for the environment whithin which we llive... after all, some, I know, feel that to care about the world is not christian...James Watt for example)
<strong>The 19th century... if you willcare to remember was the Industrial Revolution, wherein humans tended to tend their industry using the very polluting fuel of Coal, with very little concern for efficient filters...</strong><hr></blockquote>
Please. Do you seriously believe that the use of coal is what got the global warming ball rolling? I said early 19th century. The transition to coal-fired steam power wasn't even complete. Water power was still widely in use. Moreover industrial revolution or no, transportation still largely relied on horses. Horses were even used to pull barges along canals. Railroads were in their infancy. Trans-Atlantic crossings were powered by the wind. Consumerism and the mass manufacture required to sustian a consumer driven economy simply didn't exist. Try again.
[ 06-08-2002: Message edited by: spaceman_spiff ]</p>
Coal ( which it's use goes back a lot longer than you think ) was the main source of power at the time. Even before that there was increased wood burning ( there were a lot more people in the world ).
Yes, it's pretty well recognized that it doesn't take as much as one would think to start the process. That's why people have a problem with backyard burning and everything else they used to do without thinking about it. They tend to think of it in terms of " well my little fire couldn't hurt anything ". The problem is that there are a lot of people and everyones doing it.
When you talk about the early 19th century there was also something else changing at the same time. The start of a large explosion in human population. I find that more than coincidence.
And yes SDW2001 was infering that global warming doesn't exist and that's enough.
[ 06-08-2002: Message edited by: jimmac ]</p>
<strong>Yes it was the gasses from coal burning.
Coal ( which it's use goes back a lot longer than you think ) was the main source of power at the time. Even before that there was increased wood burning...</strong><hr></blockquote>
Using coal and using coal on a scale sufficient to effect climate change are two different things. Pfflam wasn't just talking about just using coal. He talked about it's use in the industrial revolution.
[quote]<strong> Yes, it's pretty well recognized that it doesn't take as much as one would think to start the process....</strong><hr></blockquote>
Pretty well recognized? Do you have a link?
[quote]<strong>When you talk about the early 19th century there was also something else changing at the same time. The start of a large explosion in human population. I find that more than coincidence.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Estimates of the world's population in 1800 range from 800 million to 1.1 billion people. By 1850 estimates have it as anywhere between 1.1 and 1.4 billion people. (Today there are over 6 billion people on the planet.) In the early 19th century very little of the world was industrialized. The industrial revolution had only just begun to spread beyond England. So we are talking about only a tiny fraction of the world's population, really. And you guys are suggesting that it was that fraction that started global warming? Are you sure you want to stick with that?
[quote]<strong>And yes SDW2001 was infering that global warming doesn't exist and that's enough.</strong><hr></blockquote>
No he didn't. Read what he wrote again.
Do you have a link to info about how much coal burning it takes to start the process?
Do you have a link to how many pollutants were being belched out in the early 19th century?
A quote from SWD2001:
" But one must at least ackoweldge the possibility that the changes seen over the past 50 years are insignificant and/or not caused by our emissions. "
Do you have a link to show us something to support your idea that we couldn't have been the cause in the 19th century?
When you were giving estimates on population in the 19th century you made a big jump from 1850 to 2002 making it sound like we went from 1.4 billion to 6 over night. When I was a child there were only 5 billion. And once again how many does it take. You yourself have been going along with the line that we don't fully understand the process.
How much of a temp rise was there in the early 19th century?
[ 06-08-2002: Message edited by: jimmac ]</p>
No, I said I was open to the possibility that it doesn't exist. I am not convinced. My further point by posting that link is that there is some debate over its existence and/or causes. And I also know the power of the environmental lobby and those who support it. I'm certainly not "against the environment", but anyone that makes suggestions that don't go along with the environmentalists' agenda is called anti-environment or worse. To call me stupid or an idiot for my refusal to be snowed by the likes of people that DRIVE GASOLINE-POWERED CARS to PRO-ENVIRONMENT rallies is absurd.
Oh, and all you "my god, sdw your so dumb because everyone knows it exists" people-----POST YOUR EVIDENCE. Let the games begin.
[ 06-08-2002: Message edited by: SDW2001 ]
[ 06-08-2002: Message edited by: SDW2001 ]</p>
<strong>
When you were giving estimates on population in the 19th century you made a big jump from 1850 to 2002 making it sound like we went from 1.4 billion to 6 over night. </strong><hr></blockquote>
I wasn't making it sound like anything. You were able to understand the time frame in question. I wrote about the population estimates for the years 1800-1850 and added parenthetically today's population for a point of reference.
[quote]<strong>You yourself have been going along with the line that we don't fully understand the process. </strong><hr></blockquote>
Right. Which is why I'm so skeptical of those who confidently assert that global warming is a consequence of human activity. A close look at the data doesn't make that case.
[quote]<strong>How much of a temp rise was there in the early 19th century?</strong><hr></blockquote>
I did some research on this a year or so ago. This is from memory. I admit it?s a bit sketchy but accurate:
In the early 19th century crop failures occurred in places like Estonia and Iceland. 1815 saw the eruption of an Indonesian volcano, I don?t remember the name (not Krakatoa - that happened in the 1880?s). 1816 is the coldest year on record according to several European and North American sources. The following years saw glacial advances in the Alpines. (Glacial activity doesn?t mirror climate change because of a time lag.) From 1830-1840 there was some glacial retreat in Europe. By the 1840?s potatoes were introduced into Estonia and crop yields began to recover. By 1855 the Chamonix glaciers began to retreat.
I don?t have any data for how much temperatures increased during the 19th century. I?m sure the data is available somewhere but I don?t know how disputed it is. There is a 1997 Washington Post article about the ?Little Ice Age? that you can probably find for free if you did a Google search. The ?Little Ice Age? followed what is called the ?Medieval Warming Period? that ended perhaps as early as 1200 or as late as 1450. The documentation for the ?Little Ice Age? is very good, in part due to Galileo?s invention of the thermometer in the late 16th century. Most estimates have it that the "Little Ice Age" was over by about 1850.
I think Bush's approach is more honest than some of the people here. He admits to the science, but still doesn't want to do anything about it.
That's better than not wanting to do anything about it, and consequently denying the data.
Some quotes from <a href="http://www.epa.gov/globalwarming/"; target="_blank">Bush's EPA website on global warming</a>.
[quote]There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities. Human activities have altered the chemical composition of the atmosphere through the buildup of greenhouse gases ? primarily carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide.<hr></blockquote>
[quote]Global mean surface temperatures have increased 0.5-1.0°F since the late 19th century. The 20th century's 10 warmest years all occurred in the last 15 years of the century. Of these, 1998 was the warmest year on record. The snow cover in the Northern Hemisphere and floating ice in the Arctic Ocean have decreased. Globally, sea level has risen 4-8 inches over the past century. Worldwide precipitation over land has increased by about one percent. The frequency of extreme rainfall events has increased throughout much of the United States.<hr></blockquote>
[quote]Increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases are likely to accelerate the rate of climate change. Scientists expect that the average global surface temperature could rise 1-4.5°F (0.6-2.5°C) in the next fifty years, and 2.2-10°F (1.4-5.8°C) in the next century, with significant regional variation. Evaporation will increase as the climate warms, which will increase average global precipitation. Soil moisture is likely to decline in many regions, and intense rainstorms are likely to become more frequent. Sea level is likely to rise two feet along most of the U.S. coast.<hr></blockquote>
And a picture:
BIOMASS CONVERSION to fuel has proven economically feasible, first in laboratory tests and by continuous operation of pilot plants in field tests since 1973. When the energy crop is growing it takes in C02 from the air, so when it is burned the C02 is released, creating a balanced system.
Biomass is the term used to describe all biologically produced matter. World production of biomass is estimated at 146 billion metric tons a year, mostly wild plant growth. Some farm crops and trees can produce up to 20 metric tons per acre of biomass a year.
Types of algae and grasses may produce 50 metric tons per year. This biomass has a heating value of 5000-8000 BTU/lb, with virtually no ash or sulfur produced during combustion. About 6% of contiguous United States land area put into cultivation for biomass could supply all current demands for oil and gas.
The foundation upon which this will be achieved is the emerging concept of "energy farming," wherein farmers grow and harvest crops for biomass conversion to fuels.
PYROLYSIS IS THE TECHNIQUE of applying high heat to organic matter (ligno-cellulosic materials) in the absence of air or in reduced air. The process can produce charcoal, condensable organic liquids (pyrolytic fuel oil), non-condensable gasses, acetic acid, acetone, and methanol. The process can be adjusted to favor charcoal, pyrolytic oil, gas, or methanol production with a 95.5% fuel-to-feed
efficiency.
Pyrolysis has been used since the dawn of civilization. Ancient Egyptians practiced wood distillation by collecting the tars and pyroligneous acid for use in their embalming industry.
Methanol-powered automobiles and reduced emissions from coal-fired power plants can be accomplished by biomass conversion to fuel utilizing pyrolysis technology, and at the same time save the
American family farm while turning the American heartland into a prosperous source of clean energy production.
Pyrolysis has the advantage of using the same technology now used to process crude fossil fuel oil and coal. Coal and oil conversion is more efficient in terms of fuel-to-feed ratio, but biomass conversion by pyrolysis has many environmental and economic advantages over coal and oil.
Pyrolysis facilities will run three shifts a day. Some 68% of the energy of the raw biomass will be contained in the charcoal and fuel oils made at the facility. This charcoal has nearly the same heating value in BTU as coal, with virtually no sulfur.
Pyrolytic fuel oil has similar properties to no. 2 and no. 6 fuel oil. The charcoal can be transported economically by rail to all urban area power plants generating electricity. The fuel oil can be transported economically by trucking creating more jobs for Americans. When these plants use charcoal instead of coal, the problems of acid rain will begin to disappear.
When this energy system is on line producing a steady supply of fuel for electrical power plants, it will be more feasible to build the complex gasifying systems to produce methanol from the cubed biomass, or make synthetic gasoline from the methanol by the addition of the Mobil Co. process equipment to the gasifier.
FARMERS MUST BE ALLOWED TO GROW an energy crop capable of producing 10 tons per acre in 90-120 days. This crop must be woody in nature and high in lignocellulose. It must be able to grow in all climactic zones in America.
And it should not compete with food crops for the most productive land, but be grown in rotation with food crops or on marginal land where food crop production isn't profitable.
When farmers can make a profit growing energy, it will not take long to get 6% of continental American land mass into cultivation of biomass fuel--enough to replace our economy's dependence on fossil fuels. We will no longer be increasing the C02 burden in the atmosphere. The threat of global greenhouse warming and adverse climactic change will diminish. To keep costs down, pyrolysis reactors need to be located within a 50 mile radius of the energy farms. This necessity will bring life back to our small towns by providing jobs locally.
HEMP IS THE NUMBER ONE biomass producer on planet earth: 10 tons per acre in approximately four months. It is a woody plant containing 77% cellulose. Wood produces 60% cellulose. This energy
crop can be harvested with equipment readily available. It can be "cubed" by modifying hay cubing equipment. This method condenses the bulk, reducing trucking costs from the field to the pyrolysis reactor. And the biomass cubes are ready for conversion with no further treatment.
Hemp is drought resistant, making it an ideal crop in the dry western regions of the country. Hemp is the only biomass resource capable of making America energy independent. And our government outlawed it in 1938.
Remember, in 10 years, by the year 2000, America will have exhausted 80% of her petroleum reserves. Will we then go to war with the Arabs for the privilege of driving our cars; will we stripmine our land for coal, and poison our air so we can drive our autos an extra 100 years; will we raze our forests for our energy needs?
During World War II, our supply of hemp was cut off by the Japanese. The federal government responded to the emergency by suspending marijuana prohibition. Patriotic American farmers were
encouraged to apply for a license to cultivate hemp and responded enthusiastically. Hundreds of thousands of acres of hemp were grown.
The argument against hemp production does not hold up to scrutiny: hemp grown for biomass makes very poor grade marijuana. The 20 to 40 million Americans who smoke marijuana would loath to smoke hemp grown for biomass, so a farmer's hemp biomass crop is worthless as marijuana.
It is time the government once again respond to our economic emergency as they did in WWII to permit our farmers to grow American hemp so this mighty nation can once again become energy independent and smog free.
For more information on the many uses of hemp, contact BACH, the Business Alliance for Commerce in Hemp, Box 71093, LA, CA 90071-0093, 213/288-4152.
--excerpt from Herer, "Emperor Wears No Clothes," 1991 edition, p. 136
For an updated version of "Energy Farming In America," "Books In Print" lists "Ecohemp: Economy and Ecolgy with Hemp," Access Unlimited, Frazier Park, CA, 805/632-2644.
[3] The device invented was named the decorticator and in the mid 1930s it was poised to do for hemp what the cotton gin had done for cotton: create a fast and economically feasible way of "removing the
fiber- bearing cortex from the rest of the stalk, making hemp fiber available for use without a prohibitive amount of human labor." ("Popular Mechanics," February, 1938)
[ 06-09-2002: Message edited by: Samantha Joanne Ollendale ]</p>
<strong>This global warming debate is so much like the evolution debates that crop up every so often here. There is a scientific consensus, but people with a pre-existing agenda can find things to quibble.</strong><hr></blockquote>
It's a quibble that climate change has occurred in the past that simply can't be attributed to a build up of greenhouse gases? And isn't it possible that those on the other side of the debate have a pre-existing agenda too?
[ 06-08-2002: Message edited by: spaceman_spiff ]</p>
<strong>It's a quibble that climate change has occurred in the past that simply can't be attributed to a build up of greenhouse gases? </strong><hr></blockquote>Yes, it is a quibble, in that there is a scientific consensus, even presented on Bush's EPA website, that human activity has caused global warming.There is a bigger picture of knowledge, just like evolution, but people can find smaller battles to fight in order to distort the well-accepted bigger picture. [quote]And isn't it possible that those on the other side of the debate have a pre-existing agenda too?<hr></blockquote>Look at the incentives.
Environmentalists: $20,000-a-year non-profit jobs.
Anti-environmentalists: Trillions of dollars of big business, all intertwined at the highest levels of international trade and foreign policy, from Enron to Bush to Cheney to Saudi Arabia, etc.
Really, who has more to lose from change?
Look at the graph again. Why the declines? Why not a steady increase? Look at around 1998 and see what happens.....
In addition, what if it is discovered that no meaningful pattern can be determined unless we look at, say, 1000 years or more of weather (which we don't have records for)? The earth is, I believe, a BILLION years old (correct me if I'm wrong....but if I am I think it is older than that). A BILLION!!!!!!
You mean to tell me that you are convinced by the last 100 years? That's like looking at AAPL stock between 3:00 and 3:15pm, seeing that it went up $2.00 a share, and speculating that its price has increased 10% over the last ten years. Give me a break.
AGAIN, I think we very well MAY be affecting the climate. But it is FAR from proven. The climate changes COULD be natural. Or, there might not even be any meaninful change. We just don't know. We can, however, SPECULATE that our emissions are increasing the global temperature. It is certainly possible. My attitude is more in line with yours than you think. I believe we ought to start practicing a "better safe than sorry" approach ASAP......because we know one thing: It can't HELP the environment to be spewing gases into the atmosphere. But, we also can't destroy the world economy either.
Whatever, everything we do contributes to the eventual heat-death of the universe anyway. Screw it. [/joking]
Oh, and whomever made the comment about people contributing to global warming by burning leaves and trash (or something like that)..............BWWWHAHAHAHAAHHA.
[ 06-09-2002: Message edited by: SDW2001 ]
[ 06-09-2002: Message edited by: SDW2001 ]</p>
[quote] Look at the graph again. Why the declines? Why not a steady increase? Look at around 1998 and see what happens.....<hr></blockquote>is that your version of hard science 'lookat that graph again'
and [quote] But, we also can't destroy the world economy either.<hr></blockquote>why are you so sertain about this. . . . is it because you overlook the rolling mountains of Pensylvania and you think that they are so big and pristine that we couldn't possible effect these and by inference not the human economy?!?!?
It takes a perticular type of emission to effect the ozone layer but, to affect climatic change through global warming just takes a concentration of particles per square inch in the atmosphere. Any kind ( yes there are the geenhouse gasses that do it more efficiently ). As long as they block sunlight and tend to hold in heat. These kinds of changes are why nuclear winter is so scary. That's the other end of the spectrum. A concentration of particles so high that all sunlight is blocked and you get an even quicker end to life here on the earth. Instead of warm it gets very cold. Plants and animals die and so do we.
The DEQ is concerned about emissions from all kinds of burning nowadays ( and yes, this involves more issues than just global warming ).
From your graph it looks like there wasn't much change before 1920 when it started a sharp rise. As for it not being a steady constant rise, this is a real planet not laboratory conditions. There's bound to be variations.
It's true our weather records don't go back very far but, that's no reason to assume this means nothing or to ignore this. Even if we are only helping it along it's reason enough to be concerned. It's that " it couldn't be us just burning leaves " attitude that's part of the problem.
[ 06-09-2002: Message edited by: jimmac ]</p>
<strong>
Yes, it is a quibble, in that there is a scientific consensus, even presented on Bush's EPA website, that human activity has caused global warming.There is a bigger picture of knowledge, just like evolution, but people can find smaller battles to fight in order to distort the well-accepted bigger picture. </strong><hr></blockquote>
This is the consensus. (1) Global temperature is about 0.5 degrees Celsius warmer than it was a century ago. (2) Atmospheric levels of CO2 have risen over the past two centuries. (3) CO2 is a greenhouse gas.
(My source for this is an MIT professor of meteorology, Richard Lindzen. He was also one of the 11 authors of the report on climate change put out last year by the National Academy of Sciences.)
This is what we do not know. We can't say that past climate change is attributable to CO2. And we can't confidently forecast what climate change will be in the future. This is because the climate is always changing. As Mr. Lindzen says, "Change is the norm."
If you don't truly look at the real big picture - past climate change as well as the present - you will be unable to understand what part nature plays in the equation and what part is man's responsibility.
[quote]<strong>Look at the incentives.
Environmentalists: $20,000-a-year non-profit jobs.
Anti-environmentalists: Trillions of dollars of big business, all intertwined at the highest levels of international trade and foreign policy, from Enron to Bush to Cheney to Saudi Arabia, etc.
Really, who has more to lose from change?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Enron was lobbying on behalf of Kyoto. You obviously don't understand the incentives. Natural gas companies, like Enron, stand to benefit from a shift away from fuels like coal. They are seen as part of a greener energy supply. And as far as Kyoto is concerned, so is nuclear.
[ 06-10-2002: Message edited by: spaceman_spiff ]</p>
<strong>SDW... I think this last post reveals your ignorance of what is considered scientific data. One of the most telling and reliable forms of data which measures CO2 over millenia is the reading of ice cores . . . this is generaly accepted as one of the means . . . .there are others as well.
why are you so sertain about this. . . . is it because you overlook the rolling mountains of Pensylvania and you think that they are so big and pristine that we couldn't possible effect these and by inference not the human economy?!?!?</strong><hr></blockquote>
1. That isn't my chart. I was attemtping to debunk it.
2. Nice job COMPLETELY misinterpreting my statement on the economy. What I am saying is that our efforts to protect the environment SHOULD NOT destroy the word's economy at the same time. I think it is QUITE possible that could happen.
<strong>This is what we do not know. We can't say that past climate change is attributable to CO2. And we can't confidently forecast what climate change will be in the future. This is because the climate is always changing. As Mr. Lindzen says, "Change is the norm."</strong><hr></blockquote>From what I've read, I agree with the part about not being able to accurately predict future climate change, but I disagree that we can't say past change is attributable to human activity.
Yes, these things are too complex to predict with precision. But we may never be able to predict something as complex as this with precision. And in the meantime, the best estimates we do have are that the earth could warm 10 degrees in the next century. We're talking about the very real possibility of extremely serious worldwide consequences. Should we really take those preventable risks just because the predictions are not 100% certain? What level of certainty would you require, given the consequences of doing nothing?
And really, what sacrifices would people have to make? Buying somewhat more fuel-efficient cars? Given the likely consequences of continued global warming, it hardly seems such a sacrifice.
And like your Enron example shows, change won't necessarily be bad for the economy as a whole - there would be some winners and some losers. [quote]Enron was lobbying on behalf of Kyoto. You obviously don't understand the incentives. Natural gas companies, like Enron, stand to benefit from a shift away from fuels like coal.<hr></blockquote>I didn't know they stood to profit more from natural gas. But I did know that as an energy trading company they stood to gain from the "trade-a-CO2" provision of Kyoto, which the US wanted but was rejected, IIRC. Let me ask you a question: Do you think the vested interests in reducing global warming are as powerful as the interests who want to ignore it?
<strong>Look at the graph again. Why the declines? Why not a steady increase? Look at around 1998 and see what happens.....</strong><hr></blockquote>It looks to me like there is about a .5 degree see-saw every couple of years. But there is clearly an upward trend over that time, particularly in the last couple of decades, that is much stronger than those yearly variations.
I'm not knowledgeable enough on this stuff to know how to analyze these data myself. And unless you are, you have to sift through the information and the sources and look at people's agendas and make a judgment. That graph and those statements I quoted are from the Bush administration, which said that "most of the warming over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities."
It's almost impossible as a non-scientist to figure these things out. But it just seems to me that you can get a feel for what's non-biased and what's advocacy here. And it seems clear to me that the non-biased sources show a consensus that global warming is occuring to a dangerous degree and could be prevented.
[oops, almost at 1000 posts. better stop for a while.]