🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <13dg5nl1r5hd41e@corp.supernews.com>,
 Jer <gdunn@airmail.ten> wrote:

> Ron Johnson wrote:
> > 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.
> 
> 
> I just don't want you or anyone to completely miss out on knowing 
> something that may be important because some doofus chose a poor image 
> to paste up next to the story - personally, I don't need a visual to 
> know about something.  Sure, I know any one thing can be faked, but I 
> don't think the scientific community is faking this issue.  Do they have 
> an agenda?  You bet.  Do the politicians have an agenda?  You bet.  Does 
> business have an agenda?  Count on it.  Everyone has an agenda, as well 
> they should, especially on this important issue.
> 
> Do I believe humans are contributing to climate change?  Yes, I do.  Do 
> I believe the planet is on the cusp of natural climate change cycle? 
> Yes, I do.  Do I believe the latter is more important than the former? 
> No, I do not.  I know we can't do anything about natural climate change, 
> but we can do something about our contribution to it.  Even if climate 
> change wasn't an issue, is it smart to continue pouring toxins into the 
> same environment that supports our lives?  our future?  Without a 
> healthy environment, we're toast.  Nobody disputes that.  Or at least 
> nobody that cares.
> 
> Humans have been screwing up their environment since the day they 
> started walking upright, including me.  But over the last two decades or 
> so we've somehow managed to learn a lot.  The question now is, what do 
> we do with this new knowledge?  Use it to improve our environment and 
> ourselves, or hide it somewhere and keep doing what we've always done 
> when we don't like it?  One's answer depends on one's agenda.
> 
> Something's gotta change.  We've been on the road of self-denial for a 
> while now, and we're on the road to self-destruction now.  We keep 
> allowing ourselves to get wrapped around an axle about shit that just 
> don't matter long term.  Yup, the U.S. is a large well-funded outfit, 
> but they're not the only outfit that matters.  We need to stop our 
> global thinking about someone else's destruction, and start our global 
> planning to improve everyone's future.  Anything that interferes with 
> that latter premise is our enemy.

You're a century or so behind the times.