Discussion:
Al Gore Blames Over-Population For Global Warming
(too old to reply)
mg
2017-08-10 00:41:33 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
"Al Gore, father of 4, wants to fight global warming with
population control

Rick, June 23, 2011

At a women’s conference in New York City,
environmentalist and former vice president Al Gore suggested
population control as one weapon of choice against global
warming.

“You have to educate girls and empower women, and that’s
the most powerful leveraging factor. And when that happens,
then the population begins to stabilize and societies begin
to make better choices and more balanced choices,” said Al
Gore at the Games for Change Festival in NYC on Monday, June
20.

Better choices, more balanced choices, as long as those
choices line up with Gore’s corrupt world view.

And anyone want to guess what Al Gore is talking about here?
Here, let me help. The subject is population control. The
buzzwords are choice and women’s empowerment. Seems
obvious."

http://wizbangblog.com/2011/06/23/al-gore-father-of-4-wants-to-fight-global-warming-with-population-control/
rumpelstiltskin
2017-08-10 04:05:49 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mg
"Al Gore, father of 4, wants to fight global warming with
population control
Rick, June 23, 2011
At a women’s conference in New York City,
environmentalist and former vice president Al Gore suggested
population control as one weapon of choice against global
warming.
“You have to educate girls and empower women, and that’s
the most powerful leveraging factor. And when that happens,
then the population begins to stabilize and societies begin
to make better choices and more balanced choices,” said Al
Gore at the Games for Change Festival in NYC on Monday, June
20.
Better choices, more balanced choices, as long as those
choices line up with Gore’s corrupt world view.
And anyone want to guess what Al Gore is talking about here?
Here, let me help. The subject is population control. The
buzzwords are choice and women’s empowerment. Seems
obvious."
http://wizbangblog.com/2011/06/23/al-gore-father-of-4-wants-to-fight-global-warming-with-population-control/
I'm not sure about all this "empowerment" rah-rah, but
I completely agree that it will be very hard, perhaps
impossible, to reverse global warming without reducing
the human population. There are other, equally dire,
reasons for reducing the human population, such as the
rapid depletion of natural resources, and the destruction
of the environment for other creatures, which has driven
us well into the sixth "great extinction" in the history of
the Earth. It took millions of years for life on Earth to
recover from each of the first five great extinctions.
d***@agent.com
2017-08-10 17:48:21 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Post by mg
At a women’s conference in New York City,
environmentalist and former vice president Al Gore suggested
population control as one weapon of choice against global
warming. [...]
I'm not sure about all this "empowerment" rah-rah, but
I completely agree that it will be very hard, perhaps
impossible, to reverse global warming without reducing
the human population. There are other, equally dire,
reasons for reducing the human population, such as the
rapid depletion of natural resources, and the destruction
of the environment for other creatures, which has driven
us well into the sixth "great extinction" in the history of
the Earth. It took millions of years for life on Earth to
recover from each of the first five great extinctions.
Stop making flu shots!
mg
2017-08-10 22:21:30 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Post by mg
"Al Gore, father of 4, wants to fight global warming with
population control
Rick, June 23, 2011
At a women’s conference in New York City,
environmentalist and former vice president Al Gore suggested
population control as one weapon of choice against global
warming.
“You have to educate girls and empower women, and that’s
the most powerful leveraging factor. And when that happens,
then the population begins to stabilize and societies begin
to make better choices and more balanced choices,” said Al
Gore at the Games for Change Festival in NYC on Monday, June
20.
Better choices, more balanced choices, as long as those
choices line up with Gore’s corrupt world view.
And anyone want to guess what Al Gore is talking about here?
Here, let me help. The subject is population control. The
buzzwords are choice and women’s empowerment. Seems
obvious."
http://wizbangblog.com/2011/06/23/al-gore-father-of-4-wants-to-fight-global-warming-with-population-control/
I'm not sure about all this "empowerment" rah-rah, but
I completely agree that it will be very hard, perhaps
impossible, to reverse global warming without reducing
the human population. There are other, equally dire,
reasons for reducing the human population, such as the
rapid depletion of natural resources, and the destruction
of the environment for other creatures, which has driven
us well into the sixth "great extinction" in the history of
the Earth. It took millions of years for life on Earth to
recover from each of the first five great extinctions.
That empowerment stuff strikes me as mostly "doublespeak",
or "political speak" nonsense. However, it is true that if
women had affordable birth control available, at least in
third-world countries, they would undoubtedly have less
children.

I think we can probably reduce greenhouse gasses, at least a
little bit, by making things more expensive and by forcing
austerity and life-style changes, but the root cause is too
many people creating greenhouse gasses and the more advanced
a country is, or the wealthier that it is, the more
greenhouse gasses it produces per capita.

China and the U.S. are the worst offenders; China because it
has so many people and the U.S. because we have such a high
rate of emissions per capita.
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/science/each-countrys-share-of-co2.html#.WYza6lGGOUk
El Castor
2017-08-11 20:37:27 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mg
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Post by mg
"Al Gore, father of 4, wants to fight global warming with
population control
Rick, June 23, 2011
At a women’s conference in New York City,
environmentalist and former vice president Al Gore suggested
population control as one weapon of choice against global
warming.
“You have to educate girls and empower women, and that’s
the most powerful leveraging factor. And when that happens,
then the population begins to stabilize and societies begin
to make better choices and more balanced choices,” said Al
Gore at the Games for Change Festival in NYC on Monday, June
20.
Better choices, more balanced choices, as long as those
choices line up with Gore’s corrupt world view.
And anyone want to guess what Al Gore is talking about here?
Here, let me help. The subject is population control. The
buzzwords are choice and women’s empowerment. Seems
obvious."
http://wizbangblog.com/2011/06/23/al-gore-father-of-4-wants-to-fight-global-warming-with-population-control/
I'm not sure about all this "empowerment" rah-rah, but
I completely agree that it will be very hard, perhaps
impossible, to reverse global warming without reducing
the human population. There are other, equally dire,
reasons for reducing the human population, such as the
rapid depletion of natural resources, and the destruction
of the environment for other creatures, which has driven
us well into the sixth "great extinction" in the history of
the Earth. It took millions of years for life on Earth to
recover from each of the first five great extinctions.
That empowerment stuff strikes me as mostly "doublespeak",
or "political speak" nonsense. However, it is true that if
women had affordable birth control available, at least in
third-world countries, they would undoubtedly have less
children.
I think we can probably reduce greenhouse gasses, at least a
little bit, by making things more expensive and by forcing
austerity and life-style changes, but the root cause is too
many people creating greenhouse gasses and the more advanced
a country is, or the wealthier that it is, the more
greenhouse gasses it produces per capita.
China and the U.S. are the worst offenders; China because it
has so many people and the U.S. because we have such a high
rate of emissions per capita.
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/science/each-countrys-share-of-co2.html#.WYza6lGGOUk
Do you drive a hybrid, light your house with LEDs, and have solar
panels on the roof?

And once again, take a look at this web page. Not enough? Actually
pretty remarkable. Please note -- China's fertility rate is well below
replacement.
mg
2017-08-11 22:16:19 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Fri, 11 Aug 2017 13:37:27 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by mg
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Post by mg
"Al Gore, father of 4, wants to fight global warming with
population control
Rick, June 23, 2011
At a women’s conference in New York City,
environmentalist and former vice president Al Gore suggested
population control as one weapon of choice against global
warming.
“You have to educate girls and empower women, and that’s
the most powerful leveraging factor. And when that happens,
then the population begins to stabilize and societies begin
to make better choices and more balanced choices,” said Al
Gore at the Games for Change Festival in NYC on Monday, June
20.
Better choices, more balanced choices, as long as those
choices line up with Gore’s corrupt world view.
And anyone want to guess what Al Gore is talking about here?
Here, let me help. The subject is population control. The
buzzwords are choice and women’s empowerment. Seems
obvious."
http://wizbangblog.com/2011/06/23/al-gore-father-of-4-wants-to-fight-global-warming-with-population-control/
I'm not sure about all this "empowerment" rah-rah, but
I completely agree that it will be very hard, perhaps
impossible, to reverse global warming without reducing
the human population. There are other, equally dire,
reasons for reducing the human population, such as the
rapid depletion of natural resources, and the destruction
of the environment for other creatures, which has driven
us well into the sixth "great extinction" in the history of
the Earth. It took millions of years for life on Earth to
recover from each of the first five great extinctions.
That empowerment stuff strikes me as mostly "doublespeak",
or "political speak" nonsense. However, it is true that if
women had affordable birth control available, at least in
third-world countries, they would undoubtedly have less
children.
I think we can probably reduce greenhouse gasses, at least a
little bit, by making things more expensive and by forcing
austerity and life-style changes, but the root cause is too
many people creating greenhouse gasses and the more advanced
a country is, or the wealthier that it is, the more
greenhouse gasses it produces per capita.
China and the U.S. are the worst offenders; China because it
has so many people and the U.S. because we have such a high
rate of emissions per capita.
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/science/each-countrys-share-of-co2.html#.WYza6lGGOUk
Do you drive a hybrid, light your house with LEDs, and have solar
panels on the roof?
I have a 1995 Toyota Camry that I bought new and it only has
about 65,000 miles on it and it still runs and drives
perfectly. So, it doesn't make any sense for me to buy a new
car, hybrid, or otherwise. I also have a 2000 Chev 4x4
Silverado that runs great. I don't drive very many miles per
year, anymore. I also have a motorhome, btw, that gets about
7 mpg. :-)

The lighting in my house is 95% fluorescent and most of the
fixtures are 4-foot tubes. I might consider switching to
LEDs when the day comes that I have to replace the fixture,
or the ballasts. In doing a quick comparison right now, it
looks like the LED tubes are a lot more expensive and don't
put out as much light.

I don't have a clue on the pluses and minuses of roof solar
panels, but installation would obviously be expensive, and I
would have to remove them and put them on again when I
replaced the asphalt shingles on my roof. At my age,
incidentally, I'm not interested in anything that has a
long-term payback.
Post by El Castor
And once again, take a look at this web page. Not enough? Actually
pretty remarkable. Please note -- China's fertility rate is well below
replacement.
Which web page?

Yes, I know that China's fertility rate is below replacement
level which is a big plus for containing CO2 emissions. The
only reason that I mentioned China was to make the
mathematical point that total CO2 emissions equals the
number of people multiplied by the per capita emissions
rate.
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/science/each-countrys-share-of-co2.html#.WY4pUVGGOUl
El Castor
2017-08-11 23:11:13 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mg
On Fri, 11 Aug 2017 13:37:27 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by mg
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Post by mg
"Al Gore, father of 4, wants to fight global warming with
population control
Rick, June 23, 2011
At a women’s conference in New York City,
environmentalist and former vice president Al Gore suggested
population control as one weapon of choice against global
warming.
“You have to educate girls and empower women, and that’s
the most powerful leveraging factor. And when that happens,
then the population begins to stabilize and societies begin
to make better choices and more balanced choices,” said Al
Gore at the Games for Change Festival in NYC on Monday, June
20.
Better choices, more balanced choices, as long as those
choices line up with Gore’s corrupt world view.
And anyone want to guess what Al Gore is talking about here?
Here, let me help. The subject is population control. The
buzzwords are choice and women’s empowerment. Seems
obvious."
http://wizbangblog.com/2011/06/23/al-gore-father-of-4-wants-to-fight-global-warming-with-population-control/
I'm not sure about all this "empowerment" rah-rah, but
I completely agree that it will be very hard, perhaps
impossible, to reverse global warming without reducing
the human population. There are other, equally dire,
reasons for reducing the human population, such as the
rapid depletion of natural resources, and the destruction
of the environment for other creatures, which has driven
us well into the sixth "great extinction" in the history of
the Earth. It took millions of years for life on Earth to
recover from each of the first five great extinctions.
That empowerment stuff strikes me as mostly "doublespeak",
or "political speak" nonsense. However, it is true that if
women had affordable birth control available, at least in
third-world countries, they would undoubtedly have less
children.
I think we can probably reduce greenhouse gasses, at least a
little bit, by making things more expensive and by forcing
austerity and life-style changes, but the root cause is too
many people creating greenhouse gasses and the more advanced
a country is, or the wealthier that it is, the more
greenhouse gasses it produces per capita.
China and the U.S. are the worst offenders; China because it
has so many people and the U.S. because we have such a high
rate of emissions per capita.
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/science/each-countrys-share-of-co2.html#.WYza6lGGOUk
Do you drive a hybrid, light your house with LEDs, and have solar
panels on the roof?
I have a 1995 Toyota Camry that I bought new and it only has
about 65,000 miles on it and it still runs and drives
perfectly. So, it doesn't make any sense for me to buy a new
car, hybrid, or otherwise. I also have a 2000 Chev 4x4
Silverado that runs great. I don't drive very many miles per
year, anymore. I also have a motorhome, btw, that gets about
7 mpg. :-)
The lighting in my house is 95% fluorescent and most of the
fixtures are 4-foot tubes. I might consider switching to
LEDs when the day comes that I have to replace the fixture,
or the ballasts. In doing a quick comparison right now, it
looks like the LED tubes are a lot more expensive and don't
put out as much light.
I don't have a clue on the pluses and minuses of roof solar
panels, but installation would obviously be expensive, and I
would have to remove them and put them on again when I
replaced the asphalt shingles on my roof. At my age,
incidentally, I'm not interested in anything that has a
long-term payback.
I drive a Prius because I got a $3,500 tax credit for buying it. I
light the house with LEDs because I save enough in a year on the
electric bill to pay for them -- and they last close to forever.
Post by mg
Post by El Castor
And once again, take a look at this web page. Not enough? Actually
pretty remarkable. Please note -- China's fertility rate is well below
replacement.
Which web page?
Oops.
http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.DYN.TFRT.IN
Post by mg
Yes, I know that China's fertility rate is below replacement
level which is a big plus for containing CO2 emissions. The
only reason that I mentioned China was to make the
mathematical point that total CO2 emissions equals the
number of people multiplied by the per capita emissions
rate.
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/science/each-countrys-share-of-co2.html#.WY4pUVGGOUl
The world may or may not be getting warmer, but I am not convinced
that it is entirely, or even largely, due to CO2. I am convinced that
climate research grants go to scientists who can be relied upon to
produce politically correct findings. Out here in California we had 4
or 5 years of drought. The tree ring record shows far longer droughts,
but big surprise, this one was due to Global Warming! Then the drought
ended with torrential rains. Whoa! Also caused by Global Warming! When
scientists approach a problem already knowing what the answer must be,
and it is, it's no surprise, but it does piss me off.
mg
2017-08-12 10:09:26 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Fri, 11 Aug 2017 16:11:13 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by mg
On Fri, 11 Aug 2017 13:37:27 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by mg
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Post by mg
"Al Gore, father of 4, wants to fight global warming with
population control
Rick, June 23, 2011
At a women’s conference in New York City,
environmentalist and former vice president Al Gore suggested
population control as one weapon of choice against global
warming.
“You have to educate girls and empower women, and that’s
the most powerful leveraging factor. And when that happens,
then the population begins to stabilize and societies begin
to make better choices and more balanced choices,” said Al
Gore at the Games for Change Festival in NYC on Monday, June
20.
Better choices, more balanced choices, as long as those
choices line up with Gore’s corrupt world view.
And anyone want to guess what Al Gore is talking about here?
Here, let me help. The subject is population control. The
buzzwords are choice and women’s empowerment. Seems
obvious."
http://wizbangblog.com/2011/06/23/al-gore-father-of-4-wants-to-fight-global-warming-with-population-control/
I'm not sure about all this "empowerment" rah-rah, but
I completely agree that it will be very hard, perhaps
impossible, to reverse global warming without reducing
the human population. There are other, equally dire,
reasons for reducing the human population, such as the
rapid depletion of natural resources, and the destruction
of the environment for other creatures, which has driven
us well into the sixth "great extinction" in the history of
the Earth. It took millions of years for life on Earth to
recover from each of the first five great extinctions.
That empowerment stuff strikes me as mostly "doublespeak",
or "political speak" nonsense. However, it is true that if
women had affordable birth control available, at least in
third-world countries, they would undoubtedly have less
children.
I think we can probably reduce greenhouse gasses, at least a
little bit, by making things more expensive and by forcing
austerity and life-style changes, but the root cause is too
many people creating greenhouse gasses and the more advanced
a country is, or the wealthier that it is, the more
greenhouse gasses it produces per capita.
China and the U.S. are the worst offenders; China because it
has so many people and the U.S. because we have such a high
rate of emissions per capita.
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/science/each-countrys-share-of-co2.html#.WYza6lGGOUk
Do you drive a hybrid, light your house with LEDs, and have solar
panels on the roof?
I have a 1995 Toyota Camry that I bought new and it only has
about 65,000 miles on it and it still runs and drives
perfectly. So, it doesn't make any sense for me to buy a new
car, hybrid, or otherwise. I also have a 2000 Chev 4x4
Silverado that runs great. I don't drive very many miles per
year, anymore. I also have a motorhome, btw, that gets about
7 mpg. :-)
The lighting in my house is 95% fluorescent and most of the
fixtures are 4-foot tubes. I might consider switching to
LEDs when the day comes that I have to replace the fixture,
or the ballasts. In doing a quick comparison right now, it
looks like the LED tubes are a lot more expensive and don't
put out as much light.
I don't have a clue on the pluses and minuses of roof solar
panels, but installation would obviously be expensive, and I
would have to remove them and put them on again when I
replaced the asphalt shingles on my roof. At my age,
incidentally, I'm not interested in anything that has a
long-term payback.
I drive a Prius because I got a $3,500 tax credit for buying it. I
light the house with LEDs because I save enough in a year on the
electric bill to pay for them -- and they last close to forever.
Post by mg
Post by El Castor
And once again, take a look at this web page. Not enough? Actually
pretty remarkable. Please note -- China's fertility rate is well below
replacement.
Which web page?
Oops.
http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.DYN.TFRT.IN
The fact that the fertility rate for the world has made a
dramatic drop is information that's good to know, but it has
limited applicability to the pollution problem (including
GW) and the depletion of natural resources in the U.S.
Post by El Castor
Post by mg
Yes, I know that China's fertility rate is below replacement
level which is a big plus for containing CO2 emissions. The
only reason that I mentioned China was to make the
mathematical point that total CO2 emissions equals the
number of people multiplied by the per capita emissions
rate.
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/science/each-countrys-share-of-co2.html#.WY4pUVGGOUl
The world may or may not be getting warmer, but I am not convinced
that it is entirely, or even largely, due to CO2. I am convinced that
climate research grants go to scientists who can be relied upon to
produce politically correct findings. Out here in California we had 4
or 5 years of drought. The tree ring record shows far longer droughts,
but big surprise, this one was due to Global Warming! Then the drought
ended with torrential rains. Whoa! Also caused by Global Warming! When
scientists approach a problem already knowing what the answer must be,
and it is, it's no surprise, but it does piss me off.
Even if one were to assume that the Climate Change theory is
incorrect, it is still important to understand the issues in
order to understand what is going on politically. For
example, why is corporate America opposing Trump on this
issue and why are they now flip-flopping to the true
believer side of the argument? There has to be a logical
explanation for it. Here are some articles to read:
https://www.vox.com/2017/6/1/15724966/corporate-america-paris-climate-deal
https://www.usnews.com/news/national-news/articles/2017-06-01/businesses-balk-as-trump-pulls-out-of-paris-climate-agreement
http://money.cnn.com/2017/05/29/news/trump-paris-climate-change-business/index.html
http://www.npr.org/2017/03/31/522232639/some-in-corporate-america-push-back-on-trumps-climate-regulations-roll-back

Another question to ask yourself is what happens when you
follow the money and who is going to pay? I think the
question of who is going to pay is pretty obvious based on
Obama's attempt to add a large tax on gasoline:
http://www.politico.com/agenda/story/2016/02/obama-oil-tax-budget-000038
http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/268266-obama-to-push-10-per-barrel-oil-tax-for-green-transportation-plan
http://dailycaller.com/2015/02/02/obama-2016-budget-green-energy/
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/gop-rips-obama-oil/2016/02/04/id/712813/

Still another question to ask is why did Obama push two
contradictory goals; why did he claim that stopping climate
change is critically important for the world while at the
same time encourage and cause mass immigration from
third-world countries which makes the situation worse?
El Castor
2017-08-12 23:02:42 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mg
On Fri, 11 Aug 2017 16:11:13 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by mg
On Fri, 11 Aug 2017 13:37:27 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by mg
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Post by mg
"Al Gore, father of 4, wants to fight global warming with
population control
Rick, June 23, 2011
At a women’s conference in New York City,
environmentalist and former vice president Al Gore suggested
population control as one weapon of choice against global
warming.
“You have to educate girls and empower women, and that’s
the most powerful leveraging factor. And when that happens,
then the population begins to stabilize and societies begin
to make better choices and more balanced choices,” said Al
Gore at the Games for Change Festival in NYC on Monday, June
20.
Better choices, more balanced choices, as long as those
choices line up with Gore’s corrupt world view.
And anyone want to guess what Al Gore is talking about here?
Here, let me help. The subject is population control. The
buzzwords are choice and women’s empowerment. Seems
obvious."
http://wizbangblog.com/2011/06/23/al-gore-father-of-4-wants-to-fight-global-warming-with-population-control/
I'm not sure about all this "empowerment" rah-rah, but
I completely agree that it will be very hard, perhaps
impossible, to reverse global warming without reducing
the human population. There are other, equally dire,
reasons for reducing the human population, such as the
rapid depletion of natural resources, and the destruction
of the environment for other creatures, which has driven
us well into the sixth "great extinction" in the history of
the Earth. It took millions of years for life on Earth to
recover from each of the first five great extinctions.
That empowerment stuff strikes me as mostly "doublespeak",
or "political speak" nonsense. However, it is true that if
women had affordable birth control available, at least in
third-world countries, they would undoubtedly have less
children.
I think we can probably reduce greenhouse gasses, at least a
little bit, by making things more expensive and by forcing
austerity and life-style changes, but the root cause is too
many people creating greenhouse gasses and the more advanced
a country is, or the wealthier that it is, the more
greenhouse gasses it produces per capita.
China and the U.S. are the worst offenders; China because it
has so many people and the U.S. because we have such a high
rate of emissions per capita.
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/science/each-countrys-share-of-co2.html#.WYza6lGGOUk
Do you drive a hybrid, light your house with LEDs, and have solar
panels on the roof?
I have a 1995 Toyota Camry that I bought new and it only has
about 65,000 miles on it and it still runs and drives
perfectly. So, it doesn't make any sense for me to buy a new
car, hybrid, or otherwise. I also have a 2000 Chev 4x4
Silverado that runs great. I don't drive very many miles per
year, anymore. I also have a motorhome, btw, that gets about
7 mpg. :-)
The lighting in my house is 95% fluorescent and most of the
fixtures are 4-foot tubes. I might consider switching to
LEDs when the day comes that I have to replace the fixture,
or the ballasts. In doing a quick comparison right now, it
looks like the LED tubes are a lot more expensive and don't
put out as much light.
I don't have a clue on the pluses and minuses of roof solar
panels, but installation would obviously be expensive, and I
would have to remove them and put them on again when I
replaced the asphalt shingles on my roof. At my age,
incidentally, I'm not interested in anything that has a
long-term payback.
I drive a Prius because I got a $3,500 tax credit for buying it. I
light the house with LEDs because I save enough in a year on the
electric bill to pay for them -- and they last close to forever.
Post by mg
Post by El Castor
And once again, take a look at this web page. Not enough? Actually
pretty remarkable. Please note -- China's fertility rate is well below
replacement.
Which web page?
Oops.
http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.DYN.TFRT.IN
The fact that the fertility rate for the world has made a
dramatic drop is information that's good to know, but it has
limited applicability to the pollution problem (including
GW) and the depletion of natural resources in the U.S.
Sure it does. All we have to do is control immigration, and the
population is headed down, down, down. Want it sooner? Guess you are
going to have to kill millions of people. I doubt that is what you had
in mind. As for "pollution", there is a Hell of a lot less than when I
was a kid -- unless you consider CO2 to be pollution - which it is
not. Plants and trees love CO2 -- helps them grow, and release oxygen.
Depletion of natural resources? If you mean "peak oil", the US is
awash in oil and natural gas -- which is what is putting coal miners
out of business. In a few years fusion will be coming along, and
probably more efficient solar panels. Cars are increasingly becoming
electrified. So, relax and let 1.8 and nature take its course. The
future is going to be one of robots and a smaller, higher quality
genetically engineered population. If Somalia, Syria, and Swaziland
want to come here we should slam the door in their face. If we don't,
we deserve what we get.
Post by mg
Post by El Castor
Post by mg
Yes, I know that China's fertility rate is below replacement
level which is a big plus for containing CO2 emissions. The
only reason that I mentioned China was to make the
mathematical point that total CO2 emissions equals the
number of people multiplied by the per capita emissions
rate.
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/science/each-countrys-share-of-co2.html#.WY4pUVGGOUl
The world may or may not be getting warmer, but I am not convinced
that it is entirely, or even largely, due to CO2. I am convinced that
climate research grants go to scientists who can be relied upon to
produce politically correct findings. Out here in California we had 4
or 5 years of drought. The tree ring record shows far longer droughts,
but big surprise, this one was due to Global Warming! Then the drought
ended with torrential rains. Whoa! Also caused by Global Warming! When
scientists approach a problem already knowing what the answer must be,
and it is, it's no surprise, but it does piss me off.
Even if one were to assume that the Climate Change theory is
incorrect, it is still important to understand the issues in
order to understand what is going on politically. For
example, why is corporate America opposing Trump on this
issue and why are they now flip-flopping to the true
believer side of the argument? There has to be a logical
https://www.vox.com/2017/6/1/15724966/corporate-america-paris-climate-deal
https://www.usnews.com/news/national-news/articles/2017-06-01/businesses-balk-as-trump-pulls-out-of-paris-climate-agreement
http://money.cnn.com/2017/05/29/news/trump-paris-climate-change-business/index.html
http://www.npr.org/2017/03/31/522232639/some-in-corporate-america-push-back-on-trumps-climate-regulations-roll-back
Another question to ask yourself is what happens when you
follow the money and who is going to pay? I think the
question of who is going to pay is pretty obvious based on
http://www.politico.com/agenda/story/2016/02/obama-oil-tax-budget-000038
http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/268266-obama-to-push-10-per-barrel-oil-tax-for-green-transportation-plan
http://dailycaller.com/2015/02/02/obama-2016-budget-green-energy/
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/gop-rips-obama-oil/2016/02/04/id/712813/
Still another question to ask is why did Obama push two
contradictory goals; why did he claim that stopping climate
change is critically important for the world while at the
same time encourage and cause mass immigration from
third-world countries which makes the situation worse?
mg
2017-08-13 05:49:40 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sat, 12 Aug 2017 16:02:42 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by mg
On Fri, 11 Aug 2017 16:11:13 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by mg
On Fri, 11 Aug 2017 13:37:27 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by mg
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Post by mg
"Al Gore, father of 4, wants to fight global warming with
population control
Rick, June 23, 2011
At a women’s conference in New York City,
environmentalist and former vice president Al Gore suggested
population control as one weapon of choice against global
warming.
“You have to educate girls and empower women, and that’s
the most powerful leveraging factor. And when that happens,
then the population begins to stabilize and societies begin
to make better choices and more balanced choices,” said Al
Gore at the Games for Change Festival in NYC on Monday, June
20.
Better choices, more balanced choices, as long as those
choices line up with Gore’s corrupt world view.
And anyone want to guess what Al Gore is talking about here?
Here, let me help. The subject is population control. The
buzzwords are choice and women’s empowerment. Seems
obvious."
http://wizbangblog.com/2011/06/23/al-gore-father-of-4-wants-to-fight-global-warming-with-population-control/
I'm not sure about all this "empowerment" rah-rah, but
I completely agree that it will be very hard, perhaps
impossible, to reverse global warming without reducing
the human population. There are other, equally dire,
reasons for reducing the human population, such as the
rapid depletion of natural resources, and the destruction
of the environment for other creatures, which has driven
us well into the sixth "great extinction" in the history of
the Earth. It took millions of years for life on Earth to
recover from each of the first five great extinctions.
That empowerment stuff strikes me as mostly "doublespeak",
or "political speak" nonsense. However, it is true that if
women had affordable birth control available, at least in
third-world countries, they would undoubtedly have less
children.
I think we can probably reduce greenhouse gasses, at least a
little bit, by making things more expensive and by forcing
austerity and life-style changes, but the root cause is too
many people creating greenhouse gasses and the more advanced
a country is, or the wealthier that it is, the more
greenhouse gasses it produces per capita.
China and the U.S. are the worst offenders; China because it
has so many people and the U.S. because we have such a high
rate of emissions per capita.
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/science/each-countrys-share-of-co2.html#.WYza6lGGOUk
Do you drive a hybrid, light your house with LEDs, and have solar
panels on the roof?
I have a 1995 Toyota Camry that I bought new and it only has
about 65,000 miles on it and it still runs and drives
perfectly. So, it doesn't make any sense for me to buy a new
car, hybrid, or otherwise. I also have a 2000 Chev 4x4
Silverado that runs great. I don't drive very many miles per
year, anymore. I also have a motorhome, btw, that gets about
7 mpg. :-)
The lighting in my house is 95% fluorescent and most of the
fixtures are 4-foot tubes. I might consider switching to
LEDs when the day comes that I have to replace the fixture,
or the ballasts. In doing a quick comparison right now, it
looks like the LED tubes are a lot more expensive and don't
put out as much light.
I don't have a clue on the pluses and minuses of roof solar
panels, but installation would obviously be expensive, and I
would have to remove them and put them on again when I
replaced the asphalt shingles on my roof. At my age,
incidentally, I'm not interested in anything that has a
long-term payback.
I drive a Prius because I got a $3,500 tax credit for buying it. I
light the house with LEDs because I save enough in a year on the
electric bill to pay for them -- and they last close to forever.
Post by mg
Post by El Castor
And once again, take a look at this web page. Not enough? Actually
pretty remarkable. Please note -- China's fertility rate is well below
replacement.
Which web page?
Oops.
http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.DYN.TFRT.IN
The fact that the fertility rate for the world has made a
dramatic drop is information that's good to know, but it has
limited applicability to the pollution problem (including
GW) and the depletion of natural resources in the U.S.
Sure it does. All we have to do is control immigration, and the
population is headed down, down, down.
Yup. I totally agree with that.
Post by El Castor
Want it sooner? Guess you are
going to have to kill millions of people. I doubt that is what you had
in mind. As for "pollution", there is a Hell of a lot less than when I
was a kid -- unless you consider CO2 to be pollution - which it is
not. Plants and trees love CO2 -- helps them grow, and release oxygen.
Depletion of natural resources? If you mean "peak oil", the US is
awash in oil and natural gas -- which is what is putting coal miners
out of business. In a few years fusion will be coming along, and
probably more efficient solar panels. Cars are increasingly becoming
electrified. So, relax and let 1.8 and nature take its course. The
future is going to be one of robots and a smaller, higher quality
genetically engineered population. If Somalia, Syria, and Swaziland
want to come here we should slam the door in their face. If we don't,
we deserve what we get.
Post by mg
Post by El Castor
Post by mg
Yes, I know that China's fertility rate is below replacement
level which is a big plus for containing CO2 emissions. The
only reason that I mentioned China was to make the
mathematical point that total CO2 emissions equals the
number of people multiplied by the per capita emissions
rate.
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/science/each-countrys-share-of-co2.html#.WY4pUVGGOUl
The world may or may not be getting warmer, but I am not convinced
that it is entirely, or even largely, due to CO2. I am convinced that
climate research grants go to scientists who can be relied upon to
produce politically correct findings. Out here in California we had 4
or 5 years of drought. The tree ring record shows far longer droughts,
but big surprise, this one was due to Global Warming! Then the drought
ended with torrential rains. Whoa! Also caused by Global Warming! When
scientists approach a problem already knowing what the answer must be,
and it is, it's no surprise, but it does piss me off.
Even if one were to assume that the Climate Change theory is
incorrect, it is still important to understand the issues in
order to understand what is going on politically. For
example, why is corporate America opposing Trump on this
issue and why are they now flip-flopping to the true
believer side of the argument? There has to be a logical
https://www.vox.com/2017/6/1/15724966/corporate-america-paris-climate-deal
https://www.usnews.com/news/national-news/articles/2017-06-01/businesses-balk-as-trump-pulls-out-of-paris-climate-agreement
http://money.cnn.com/2017/05/29/news/trump-paris-climate-change-business/index.html
http://www.npr.org/2017/03/31/522232639/some-in-corporate-america-push-back-on-trumps-climate-regulations-roll-back
Another question to ask yourself is what happens when you
follow the money and who is going to pay? I think the
question of who is going to pay is pretty obvious based on
http://www.politico.com/agenda/story/2016/02/obama-oil-tax-budget-000038
http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/268266-obama-to-push-10-per-barrel-oil-tax-for-green-transportation-plan
http://dailycaller.com/2015/02/02/obama-2016-budget-green-energy/
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/gop-rips-obama-oil/2016/02/04/id/712813/
Still another question to ask is why did Obama push two
contradictory goals; why did he claim that stopping climate
change is critically important for the world while at the
same time encourage and cause mass immigration from
third-world countries which makes the situation worse?
d***@gmail.com
2017-08-10 23:51:20 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mg
"Al Gore, father of 4, wants to fight global warming with
population control
Rick, June 23, 2011
At a women’s conference in New York City,
environmentalist and former vice president Al Gore suggested
population control as one weapon of choice against global
warming.
“You have to educate girls and empower women, and that’s
the most powerful leveraging factor. And when that happens,
then the population begins to stabilize and societies begin
to make better choices and more balanced choices,” said Al
Gore at the Games for Change Festival in NYC on Monday, June
20.
Better choices, more balanced choices, as long as those
choices line up with Gore’s corrupt world view.
And anyone want to guess what Al Gore is talking about here?
Here, let me help. The subject is population control. The
buzzwords are choice and women’s empowerment. Seems
obvious."
http://wizbangblog.com/2011/06/23/al-gore-father-of-4-wants-to-fight-global-warming-with-population-control/
The city of Manchester, NH is where the Presidential elections begin every four years. The city gets it's drinking water from Lake Massabesic, a natural lake, about four miles from main street.
In 1961-65 my father drove us kids to Lake Massabesic to get water for our tropical fish. The city had soft water then. Tropical fish prefer soft water.
We lived in the woods. Twelve miles out of town we were in the woods -coons, porcupines, deer, an occasional moose or stray sheep, and plenty of ruff grouse drumming on logs with their wings. A rural community.
Now, the lake's water is no longer soft due to "acid rain". Goldfish like hard water. Tropical fish prefer soft water. We had an artesian well -hard water. Soft water doesn't leave a ring in the bathtub. Hard water does.
mg
2017-08-11 00:36:16 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thu, 10 Aug 2017 16:51:20 -0700 (PDT),
Post by d***@gmail.com
Post by mg
"Al Gore, father of 4, wants to fight global warming with
population control
Rick, June 23, 2011
At a women’s conference in New York City,
environmentalist and former vice president Al Gore suggested
population control as one weapon of choice against global
warming.
“You have to educate girls and empower women, and that’s
the most powerful leveraging factor. And when that happens,
then the population begins to stabilize and societies begin
to make better choices and more balanced choices,” said Al
Gore at the Games for Change Festival in NYC on Monday, June
20.
Better choices, more balanced choices, as long as those
choices line up with Gore’s corrupt world view.
And anyone want to guess what Al Gore is talking about here?
Here, let me help. The subject is population control. The
buzzwords are choice and women’s empowerment. Seems
obvious."
http://wizbangblog.com/2011/06/23/al-gore-father-of-4-wants-to-fight-global-warming-with-population-control/
The city of Manchester, NH is where the Presidential elections begin every four years. The city gets it's drinking water from Lake Massabesic, a natural lake, about four miles from main street.
In 1961-65 my father drove us kids to Lake Massabesic to get water for our tropical fish. The city had soft water then. Tropical fish prefer soft water.
We lived in the woods. Twelve miles out of town we were in the woods -coons, porcupines, deer, an occasional moose or stray sheep, and plenty of ruff grouse drumming on logs with their wings. A rural community.
Now, the lake's water is no longer soft due to "acid rain". Goldfish like hard water. Tropical fish prefer soft water. We had an artesian well -hard water. Soft water doesn't leave a ring in the bathtub. Hard water does.
I would guess that most greenhouse gas emissions are caused
by automobiles, and power plants, and meat eating instead of
eating vegetables, etc.

So, if you lived in the woods and rode a horse, and didn't
have utilities hooked to your house, and shot an animal now
and then for food, you wouldn't be producing very much CO2.
rumpelstiltskin
2017-08-11 04:41:41 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mg
On Thu, 10 Aug 2017 16:51:20 -0700 (PDT),
Post by d***@gmail.com
Post by mg
"Al Gore, father of 4, wants to fight global warming with
population control
Rick, June 23, 2011
At a women’s conference in New York City,
environmentalist and former vice president Al Gore suggested
population control as one weapon of choice against global
warming.
“You have to educate girls and empower women, and that’s
the most powerful leveraging factor. And when that happens,
then the population begins to stabilize and societies begin
to make better choices and more balanced choices,” said Al
Gore at the Games for Change Festival in NYC on Monday, June
20.
Better choices, more balanced choices, as long as those
choices line up with Gore’s corrupt world view.
And anyone want to guess what Al Gore is talking about here?
Here, let me help. The subject is population control. The
buzzwords are choice and women’s empowerment. Seems
obvious."
http://wizbangblog.com/2011/06/23/al-gore-father-of-4-wants-to-fight-global-warming-with-population-control/
The city of Manchester, NH is where the Presidential elections begin every four years. The city gets it's drinking water from Lake Massabesic, a natural lake, about four miles from main street.
In 1961-65 my father drove us kids to Lake Massabesic to get water for our tropical fish. The city had soft water then. Tropical fish prefer soft water.
We lived in the woods. Twelve miles out of town we were in the woods -coons, porcupines, deer, an occasional moose or stray sheep, and plenty of ruff grouse drumming on logs with their wings. A rural community.
Now, the lake's water is no longer soft due to "acid rain". Goldfish like hard water. Tropical fish prefer soft water. We had an artesian well -hard water. Soft water doesn't leave a ring in the bathtub. Hard water does.
I would guess that most greenhouse gas emissions are caused
by automobiles, and power plants, and meat eating instead of
eating vegetables, etc.
So, if you lived in the woods and rode a horse, and didn't
have utilities hooked to your house, and shot an animal now
and then for food, you wouldn't be producing very much CO2.
The subway in San Francisco is closed right now and
will be until August 20 as I recall, so that the rails can
be retrofitted, or so I heard, to accommodate the new
subway cars that will be arriving. If true, I don't know
why the above-ground rails that the K,L, and M rails
come overground on the other side of Twin Peaks,
or the J and M rails that come above ground near
Market and Dolores, aren't being retrofitted at the
same time, but as Manuel in "Fawlty Towers" noted,
"I know nothing. I am from Barcelona." I haven't
even seen one yet but I know I'm not going to like
the new subway cars. The seats will just be along
the outer edges facing inward, so the windows will
be unusable for looking out, and people sitting
down will be much in much more immediate
proximity to humanoid carbon emissions from the
standees than before.

Some streetcars are already like that. The city
bought a Toonerville-Trolley-like streetcar that
was being phased out by Milan, and it was a big
hit (with tourists, I expect, because they look so
"charming"). So the city bought lots more of them.
If I'm waiting for a streetcar and I see that one of
those is coming, I almost always wait for the next
streetcar or take the subway, since I don't like
sitting sideways on busses. There's just no
pleasing me, I guess. I don't remember how
long it's been since I rode in one of those quaint
streetcars, but it's probably been at least two
years.
http://tinyurl.com/y6vrvufj

Further down at that URL are some "normal"
streetcars, and further yet down are some
cable cars. The cable cars look a lot like the
"quaint" streetcars but I used to love to ride
those' as long as I could get a place standing
up at the very front, hanging out forward and
sideways into the outside air, which I almost
always could. The cable cars used to be
part of the normal city transit system, but
then the city started treating them separately
and jacking up the price, to $7 now I think.
So in the last 30 years I've only ridden them
on the rare occasions that relatives have
been in town. They're not for San
Franciscans anymore, sorry Tony Bennett.
They're just for tourists now. If they
disappeared, I wouldn't miss them.

If you wait for the streetcars in the long
lines at Powell and Market, you might be
converted to Christianity by some
Christian loonies often equipped with
bullhorns, blasting out their message of
eternal salvation at the poor tourists
who are just trying to have a good time
on vacation.
mg
2017-08-11 07:34:48 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Post by mg
On Thu, 10 Aug 2017 16:51:20 -0700 (PDT),
Post by d***@gmail.com
Post by mg
"Al Gore, father of 4, wants to fight global warming with
population control
Rick, June 23, 2011
At a women’s conference in New York City,
environmentalist and former vice president Al Gore suggested
population control as one weapon of choice against global
warming.
“You have to educate girls and empower women, and that’s
the most powerful leveraging factor. And when that happens,
then the population begins to stabilize and societies begin
to make better choices and more balanced choices,” said Al
Gore at the Games for Change Festival in NYC on Monday, June
20.
Better choices, more balanced choices, as long as those
choices line up with Gore’s corrupt world view.
And anyone want to guess what Al Gore is talking about here?
Here, let me help. The subject is population control. The
buzzwords are choice and women’s empowerment. Seems
obvious."
http://wizbangblog.com/2011/06/23/al-gore-father-of-4-wants-to-fight-global-warming-with-population-control/
The city of Manchester, NH is where the Presidential elections begin every four years. The city gets it's drinking water from Lake Massabesic, a natural lake, about four miles from main street.
In 1961-65 my father drove us kids to Lake Massabesic to get water for our tropical fish. The city had soft water then. Tropical fish prefer soft water.
We lived in the woods. Twelve miles out of town we were in the woods -coons, porcupines, deer, an occasional moose or stray sheep, and plenty of ruff grouse drumming on logs with their wings. A rural community.
Now, the lake's water is no longer soft due to "acid rain". Goldfish like hard water. Tropical fish prefer soft water. We had an artesian well -hard water. Soft water doesn't leave a ring in the bathtub. Hard water does.
I would guess that most greenhouse gas emissions are caused
by automobiles, and power plants, and meat eating instead of
eating vegetables, etc.
So, if you lived in the woods and rode a horse, and didn't
have utilities hooked to your house, and shot an animal now
and then for food, you wouldn't be producing very much CO2.
The subway in San Francisco is closed right now and
will be until August 20 as I recall, so that the rails can
be retrofitted, or so I heard, to accommodate the new
subway cars that will be arriving. If true, I don't know
why the above-ground rails that the K,L, and M rails
come overground on the other side of Twin Peaks,
or the J and M rails that come above ground near
Market and Dolores, aren't being retrofitted at the
same time, but as Manuel in "Fawlty Towers" noted,
"I know nothing. I am from Barcelona." I haven't
even seen one yet but I know I'm not going to like
the new subway cars. The seats will just be along
the outer edges facing inward, so the windows will
be unusable for looking out, and people sitting
down will be much in much more immediate
proximity to humanoid carbon emissions from the
standees than before.
Some streetcars are already like that. The city
bought a Toonerville-Trolley-like streetcar that
was being phased out by Milan, and it was a big
hit (with tourists, I expect, because they look so
"charming"). So the city bought lots more of them.
If I'm waiting for a streetcar and I see that one of
those is coming, I almost always wait for the next
streetcar or take the subway, since I don't like
sitting sideways on busses. There's just no
pleasing me, I guess. I don't remember how
long it's been since I rode in one of those quaint
streetcars, but it's probably been at least two
years.
http://tinyurl.com/y6vrvufj
Further down at that URL are some "normal"
streetcars, and further yet down are some
cable cars. The cable cars look a lot like the
"quaint" streetcars but I used to love to ride
those' as long as I could get a place standing
up at the very front, hanging out forward and
sideways into the outside air, which I almost
always could. The cable cars used to be
part of the normal city transit system, but
then the city started treating them separately
and jacking up the price, to $7 now I think.
So in the last 30 years I've only ridden them
on the rare occasions that relatives have
been in town. They're not for San
Franciscans anymore, sorry Tony Bennett.
They're just for tourists now. If they
disappeared, I wouldn't miss them.
If you wait for the streetcars in the long
lines at Powell and Market, you might be
converted to Christianity by some
Christian loonies often equipped with
bullhorns, blasting out their message of
eternal salvation at the poor tourists
who are just trying to have a good time
on vacation.
I've never liked people and I wouldn't like riding on San
Francisco's streetcars, or New York's subway system. Perhaps
it would have been different if I hadn't have been raised
surrounded by Mormons. Then too, when I was a kid in school,
everybody was "middle class" and lived in their own house,
with a dad that worked at the local steel plant, while mom
and I lived in motels, etc.

I've mentioned the BYU professor that I had in the early 60s
who was fervently anti-overpopulation. He used to ask all
the students to turn off their tape recorders and then he
used to go off on an anti-overpopulation tangent.

He was preaching to the choir as far as I was concerned. He
used to talk about how animals don't do well in a cage, or
in the zoo, and how they need space to live normally, and
how they would develop psychoses when they were crowded
together. Another thing he liked to do is put his face
about six inches from a student's face (on the front row)
and then talk to him that way for awhile. Then, when he got
through, he would ask the student how that made him feel and
if it made him feel uncomfortable.

Another thing he used to talk about was terrorism. He said
that terrorism was a by-product of high population densities
and as I've mentioned before, he predicted the terrorist
attack on New York City about 40 years before it happened,
although he had the details wrong.

One of the text books that the professor used in that class
is still available, incidentally (Amazon, $5.98 used):
https://www.amazon.com/Population-Evolution-Birth-Control-Controversial/dp/0716706709
rumpelstiltskin
2017-08-11 09:02:06 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mg
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Post by mg
On Thu, 10 Aug 2017 16:51:20 -0700 (PDT),
Post by d***@gmail.com
Post by mg
"Al Gore, father of 4, wants to fight global warming with
population control
Rick, June 23, 2011
At a women’s conference in New York City,
environmentalist and former vice president Al Gore suggested
population control as one weapon of choice against global
warming.
“You have to educate girls and empower women, and that’s
the most powerful leveraging factor. And when that happens,
then the population begins to stabilize and societies begin
to make better choices and more balanced choices,” said Al
Gore at the Games for Change Festival in NYC on Monday, June
20.
Better choices, more balanced choices, as long as those
choices line up with Gore’s corrupt world view.
And anyone want to guess what Al Gore is talking about here?
Here, let me help. The subject is population control. The
buzzwords are choice and women’s empowerment. Seems
obvious."
http://wizbangblog.com/2011/06/23/al-gore-father-of-4-wants-to-fight-global-warming-with-population-control/
The city of Manchester, NH is where the Presidential elections begin every four years. The city gets it's drinking water from Lake Massabesic, a natural lake, about four miles from main street.
In 1961-65 my father drove us kids to Lake Massabesic to get water for our tropical fish. The city had soft water then. Tropical fish prefer soft water.
We lived in the woods. Twelve miles out of town we were in the woods -coons, porcupines, deer, an occasional moose or stray sheep, and plenty of ruff grouse drumming on logs with their wings. A rural community.
Now, the lake's water is no longer soft due to "acid rain". Goldfish like hard water. Tropical fish prefer soft water. We had an artesian well -hard water. Soft water doesn't leave a ring in the bathtub. Hard water does.
I would guess that most greenhouse gas emissions are caused
by automobiles, and power plants, and meat eating instead of
eating vegetables, etc.
So, if you lived in the woods and rode a horse, and didn't
have utilities hooked to your house, and shot an animal now
and then for food, you wouldn't be producing very much CO2.
The subway in San Francisco is closed right now and
will be until August 20 as I recall, so that the rails can
be retrofitted, or so I heard, to accommodate the new
subway cars that will be arriving. If true, I don't know
why the above-ground rails that the K,L, and M rails
come overground on the other side of Twin Peaks,
or the J and M rails that come above ground near
Market and Dolores, aren't being retrofitted at the
same time, but as Manuel in "Fawlty Towers" noted,
"I know nothing. I am from Barcelona." I haven't
even seen one yet but I know I'm not going to like
the new subway cars. The seats will just be along
the outer edges facing inward, so the windows will
be unusable for looking out, and people sitting
down will be much in much more immediate
proximity to humanoid carbon emissions from the
standees than before.
Some streetcars are already like that. The city
bought a Toonerville-Trolley-like streetcar that
was being phased out by Milan, and it was a big
hit (with tourists, I expect, because they look so
"charming"). So the city bought lots more of them.
If I'm waiting for a streetcar and I see that one of
those is coming, I almost always wait for the next
streetcar or take the subway, since I don't like
sitting sideways on busses. There's just no
pleasing me, I guess. I don't remember how
long it's been since I rode in one of those quaint
streetcars, but it's probably been at least two
years.
http://tinyurl.com/y6vrvufj
Further down at that URL are some "normal"
streetcars, and further yet down are some
cable cars. The cable cars look a lot like the
"quaint" streetcars but I used to love to ride
those' as long as I could get a place standing
up at the very front, hanging out forward and
sideways into the outside air, which I almost
always could. The cable cars used to be
part of the normal city transit system, but
then the city started treating them separately
and jacking up the price, to $7 now I think.
So in the last 30 years I've only ridden them
on the rare occasions that relatives have
been in town. They're not for San
Franciscans anymore, sorry Tony Bennett.
They're just for tourists now. If they
disappeared, I wouldn't miss them.
If you wait for the streetcars in the long
lines at Powell and Market, you might be
converted to Christianity by some
Christian loonies often equipped with
bullhorns, blasting out their message of
eternal salvation at the poor tourists
who are just trying to have a good time
on vacation.
I've never liked people
We do have a lot in common ...

I like "observing" people though, so I
do like walking around downtown and
riding the busses and subway. I'd like
to do more than just "observe" a very
few of them, but those don't seem to
pay any attention to me even when I
jump up and down yelping or stand on
my head.
Post by mg
and I wouldn't like riding on San
Francisco's streetcars, or New York's subway system. Perhaps
it would have been different if I hadn't have been raised
surrounded by Mormons. Then too, when I was a kid in school,
everybody was "middle class" and lived in their own house,
with a dad that worked at the local steel plant, while mom
and I lived in motels, etc.
I've mentioned the BYU professor that I had in the early 60s
who was fervently anti-overpopulation. He used to ask all
the students to turn off their tape recorders and then he
used to go off on an anti-overpopulation tangent.
He was preaching to the choir as far as I was concerned. He
used to talk about how animals don't do well in a cage, or
in the zoo, and how they need space to live normally, and
how they would develop psychoses when they were crowded
together. Another thing he liked to do is put his face
about six inches from a student's face (on the front row)
and then talk to him that way for awhile. Then, when he got
through, he would ask the student how that made him feel and
if it made him feel uncomfortable.
Another thing he used to talk about was terrorism. He said
that terrorism was a by-product of high population densities
and as I've mentioned before, he predicted the terrorist
attack on New York City about 40 years before it happened,
although he had the details wrong.
One of the text books that the professor used in that class
That all sounds right to me.
Post by mg
https://www.amazon.com/Population-Evolution-Birth-Control-Controversial/dp/0716706709
mg
2017-08-11 19:26:38 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Post by mg
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Post by mg
On Thu, 10 Aug 2017 16:51:20 -0700 (PDT),
Post by d***@gmail.com
Post by mg
"Al Gore, father of 4, wants to fight global warming with
population control
Rick, June 23, 2011
At a women’s conference in New York City,
environmentalist and former vice president Al Gore suggested
population control as one weapon of choice against global
warming.
“You have to educate girls and empower women, and that’s
the most powerful leveraging factor. And when that happens,
then the population begins to stabilize and societies begin
to make better choices and more balanced choices,” said Al
Gore at the Games for Change Festival in NYC on Monday, June
20.
Better choices, more balanced choices, as long as those
choices line up with Gore’s corrupt world view.
And anyone want to guess what Al Gore is talking about here?
Here, let me help. The subject is population control. The
buzzwords are choice and women’s empowerment. Seems
obvious."
http://wizbangblog.com/2011/06/23/al-gore-father-of-4-wants-to-fight-global-warming-with-population-control/
The city of Manchester, NH is where the Presidential elections begin every four years. The city gets it's drinking water from Lake Massabesic, a natural lake, about four miles from main street.
In 1961-65 my father drove us kids to Lake Massabesic to get water for our tropical fish. The city had soft water then. Tropical fish prefer soft water.
We lived in the woods. Twelve miles out of town we were in the woods -coons, porcupines, deer, an occasional moose or stray sheep, and plenty of ruff grouse drumming on logs with their wings. A rural community.
Now, the lake's water is no longer soft due to "acid rain". Goldfish like hard water. Tropical fish prefer soft water. We had an artesian well -hard water. Soft water doesn't leave a ring in the bathtub. Hard water does.
I would guess that most greenhouse gas emissions are caused
by automobiles, and power plants, and meat eating instead of
eating vegetables, etc.
So, if you lived in the woods and rode a horse, and didn't
have utilities hooked to your house, and shot an animal now
and then for food, you wouldn't be producing very much CO2.
The subway in San Francisco is closed right now and
will be until August 20 as I recall, so that the rails can
be retrofitted, or so I heard, to accommodate the new
subway cars that will be arriving. If true, I don't know
why the above-ground rails that the K,L, and M rails
come overground on the other side of Twin Peaks,
or the J and M rails that come above ground near
Market and Dolores, aren't being retrofitted at the
same time, but as Manuel in "Fawlty Towers" noted,
"I know nothing. I am from Barcelona." I haven't
even seen one yet but I know I'm not going to like
the new subway cars. The seats will just be along
the outer edges facing inward, so the windows will
be unusable for looking out, and people sitting
down will be much in much more immediate
proximity to humanoid carbon emissions from the
standees than before.
Some streetcars are already like that. The city
bought a Toonerville-Trolley-like streetcar that
was being phased out by Milan, and it was a big
hit (with tourists, I expect, because they look so
"charming"). So the city bought lots more of them.
If I'm waiting for a streetcar and I see that one of
those is coming, I almost always wait for the next
streetcar or take the subway, since I don't like
sitting sideways on busses. There's just no
pleasing me, I guess. I don't remember how
long it's been since I rode in one of those quaint
streetcars, but it's probably been at least two
years.
http://tinyurl.com/y6vrvufj
Further down at that URL are some "normal"
streetcars, and further yet down are some
cable cars. The cable cars look a lot like the
"quaint" streetcars but I used to love to ride
those' as long as I could get a place standing
up at the very front, hanging out forward and
sideways into the outside air, which I almost
always could. The cable cars used to be
part of the normal city transit system, but
then the city started treating them separately
and jacking up the price, to $7 now I think.
So in the last 30 years I've only ridden them
on the rare occasions that relatives have
been in town. They're not for San
Franciscans anymore, sorry Tony Bennett.
They're just for tourists now. If they
disappeared, I wouldn't miss them.
If you wait for the streetcars in the long
lines at Powell and Market, you might be
converted to Christianity by some
Christian loonies often equipped with
bullhorns, blasting out their message of
eternal salvation at the poor tourists
who are just trying to have a good time
on vacation.
I've never liked people
We do have a lot in common ...
I like "observing" people though, so I
do like walking around downtown and
riding the busses and subway. I'd like
to do more than just "observe" a very
few of them, but those don't seem to
pay any attention to me even when I
jump up and down yelping or stand on
my head.
My dad used to like to watch people. He used to pick me up
once a week and take me someplace. One time he just parked
his car downtown and after a few minutes, I asked him what
we were doing. His response was that sometimes he just liked
to watch people.
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Post by mg
and I wouldn't like riding on San
Francisco's streetcars, or New York's subway system. Perhaps
it would have been different if I hadn't have been raised
surrounded by Mormons. Then too, when I was a kid in school,
everybody was "middle class" and lived in their own house,
with a dad that worked at the local steel plant, while mom
and I lived in motels, etc.
I've mentioned the BYU professor that I had in the early 60s
who was fervently anti-overpopulation. He used to ask all
the students to turn off their tape recorders and then he
used to go off on an anti-overpopulation tangent.
He was preaching to the choir as far as I was concerned. He
used to talk about how animals don't do well in a cage, or
in the zoo, and how they need space to live normally, and
how they would develop psychoses when they were crowded
together. Another thing he liked to do is put his face
about six inches from a student's face (on the front row)
and then talk to him that way for awhile. Then, when he got
through, he would ask the student how that made him feel and
if it made him feel uncomfortable.
Another thing he used to talk about was terrorism. He said
that terrorism was a by-product of high population densities
and as I've mentioned before, he predicted the terrorist
attack on New York City about 40 years before it happened,
although he had the details wrong.
One of the text books that the professor used in that class
That all sounds right to me.
Post by mg
https://www.amazon.com/Population-Evolution-Birth-Control-Controversial/dp/0716706709
rumpelstiltskin
2017-08-12 00:53:38 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
<snip>
Post by mg
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Post by mg
I've never liked people
We do have a lot in common ...
I like "observing" people though, so I
do like walking around downtown and
riding the busses and subway. I'd like
to do more than just "observe" a very
few of them, but those don't seem to
pay any attention to me even when I
jump up and down yelping or stand on
my head.
My dad used to like to watch people. He used to pick me up
once a week and take me someplace. One time he just parked
his car downtown and after a few minutes, I asked him what
we were doing. His response was that sometimes he just liked
to watch people.
I've posted this poem of Emily Dickinson's many times
here, but it's one of my favourites and it's once again
very appropriate to quote it here:


The Show is not the Show
But they that go —
Menagerie to me
My Neighbor be —
Fair Play —
Both went to see —
mg
2017-08-12 16:56:48 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by rumpelstiltskin
<snip>
Post by mg
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Post by mg
I've never liked people
We do have a lot in common ...
I like "observing" people though, so I
do like walking around downtown and
riding the busses and subway. I'd like
to do more than just "observe" a very
few of them, but those don't seem to
pay any attention to me even when I
jump up and down yelping or stand on
my head.
My dad used to like to watch people. He used to pick me up
once a week and take me someplace. One time he just parked
his car downtown and after a few minutes, I asked him what
we were doing. His response was that sometimes he just liked
to watch people.
I've posted this poem of Emily Dickinson's many times
here, but it's one of my favourites and it's once again
The Show is not the Show
But they that go —
Menagerie to me
My Neighbor be —
Fair Play —
Both went to see —
I lost all my signature lines, incidentally, including the
stuff from Emily Dickinson, due to some sort of a Forte
malfunction. I could probably figure out how to get them
back, but I'm too lazy.
Loading...