From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,ec3b1a84cab8fc8a X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2001-09-07 09:07:11 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!newsfeed.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!news-out.visi.com!hermes.visi.com!nntp2.aus1.giganews.com!border1.nntp.aus1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!news-east.rr.com!news-west.rr.com!lsnws01.we.mediaone.net!typhoon.san.rr.com!not-for-mail Message-ID: <3B98F09F.EE2F4B54@san.rr.com> From: Darren New Organization: Boxes! X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.77 [en] (Windows NT 5.0; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Off Topic: NMD/Environment was: (Re: Ada and the NMD) References: <3B970152.4AC6C6E3@PublicPropertySoftware.com> <3B9795E1.54B12E70@worldnet.att.net> <9n882d$rsh$1@nh.pace.co.uk> <3B97C5D4.2AFBAEDF@san.rr.com> <3B97EEC5.B9109D9F@san.rr.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Fri, 07 Sep 2001 16:06:58 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.165.20.126 X-Complaints-To: abuse@rr.com X-Trace: typhoon.san.rr.com 999878818 24.165.20.126 (Fri, 07 Sep 2001 09:06:58 PDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 07 Sep 2001 09:06:58 PDT Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:12902 Date: 2001-09-07T16:06:58+00:00 List-Id: > >Uh, forests? And it turns into wood? Krebs cycle, anyone? Where do you > >think the CO2 in petrochemicals came from in the first place? > > We made that embarassingly silly argument at one of the later Kyoto meetings. Sorry? The embarrassingly silly argument that forests consume CO2 and produce O2? Or the embarrassingly silly argument that petrochemicals came from plants, and animals that ate plants, and animals that ate animals that ate plants? > It turns out that its quite debatable whether this is true or not (later studies > say not). I'd *love* to see a study that says plants don't consume CO2. > Saying that these forests are cleaing up our new CO2, > when they were cleaning up other CO2 sources (that are still around) before we > ever got here is just plain silly. Well, has anyone *measured* it? That's my point. I don't believe folks that stand up and say "It's silly that the world would work this way. We could measure it, but then we'd have actual facts." Folks who keep making these assertions without any evidence is the problem. -- Darren New San Diego, CA, USA (PST). Cryptokeys on demand. Those who work hard with few results always value hard work over getting results.