🚀 go-pugleaf

On Thu, 30 Aug 2007 07:44:33 -0500, Jer <gdunn@airmail.ten> wrote:

>Ron Johnson wrote:
>> On Wed, 29 Aug 2007 23:14:40 -0500, Jer <gdunn@airmail.ten> wrote:
>> 
>>> Read 'em and weep...
>>>
>>> http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/GlobalWarming/Story?id=3536910
>> 
>> Although I believe in  protecting the environment, the first thing I
>> noticed in that story was them miss labeling steam in the picture as
>> smoke.  I darned sure want to get to the bottom of the warming trend
>> and learn whether this is natural temperature cycling or not, but we
>> need to make sure our sources don't have an agenda.
>> 
>> That might as well have been Bush or Bill O'Reilly explaining the
>> picture.
>> 
>> Ron
>
>
>I see your point about the image, and I also point out the image caption 
>indicates this is a cement plant.  Cement plants produce smoke, not 
>steam.  So, if the image is disingenuous, it's not just steam in lieu of 
>smoke, it's not even a cement plant.  This is likely steam from a power 
>plant, which is either nuclear or coal - the latter being a major 
>contributor to CO2 production in China almost surpassing U.S. CO2 
>levels.  China is #2, right behind the U.S. at #1.  China's air also 
>suffers from sulphur dioxide (SO2) due to their reliance of high-sulphur 
>coal, creating enough acid rain to poison three of their seven rivers 
>beyond drinkable levels and preventing foliage growth enough to strip 
>huge expanses of topsoil to erode into those same rivers, and turning 
>hundreds of thousands of farmland acres to dusty deserts.
>
>About the image: This image is a "stock" product that Reuters apparently 
>owns the copyright to.  Other media may also use this image for a 
>variety of reasons, and they'll rent their use of the image from the 
>copyright holder with a one time fee, or a perpetual fee for long term use.
>
>My cite is of an ABC posted article, but you'll notice the article 
>carries a Reuters copyright.  I googled the caption and as typical, this 
>article has been cited by other news agencies, text and image, all with 
>a Reuters copyright symbol.  I don't have the software here to inspect 
>the image for an embedded watermark key, but since all cites I found 
>attribute to Reuters, I'll accept that.  On the planetark.com site, the 
>article attributes photo and story to Stringer Shanghai.  A "stringer" 
>is an independent contributor of material to news agencies (Reuters has 
>been in trouble in that area before), and Shanghai is in China - hence 
>the "Stringer Shanghai" attribute.
>
>Meanwhile, back at the ranch, the use of this image here may well be a 
>poor choice, but the accompanying article isn't about steam - it's about 
>China's environmental pollution and their contribution to a growing 
>global problem, which even the Chinese themselves don't dismiss as a 
>major issue of their own making.  I choose to focus my attention on the 
>article itself, the gist of which is not in dispute.

Well, I wasn't picking on ya, but that darned sure looks like steam.
If it is a nuclear or coal plant, that it really IS steam.

That is not to say that coal plants don't give off some bad things,
sulfur, carbon dioxide, just to name a couple.

Oh well, at least we are talking here again.