 |
|
| Hobby Forum Index » Martial Arts » Everyone should read, especially Obamanauts... |
|
Page 3 of 3 Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3 |
|
| Author |
Message |
| Rabid Weasel Lawson... |
 Posted: Wed Oct 28, 2009 9:40 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Thu, 29 Oct 2009 03:31:50 +0000, hal wrote:
Quote: of course I know that.
Which is why you blathered, "Do you know how many people in the
world do not have access to clean water?" to try to explain your "Peak
Water" claim? Riiiiiight...
Nice try, but you've been caught in (yet another) B.S. attempt.
Game, set, match. Poser.
(IH) |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Greendistantstar... |
| Posted: Wed Oct 28, 2009 10:04 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
hal wrote:
Quote: On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 22:40:08 -0500, Rabid Weasel Lawson
lawson at (no spam) NO21931SPAM+dayton.net> wrote:
On Thu, 29 Oct 2009 03:31:50 +0000, hal wrote:
of course I know that.
Which is why you blathered, "Do you know how many people in the
world do not have access to clean water?" to try to explain your "Peak
Water" claim? Riiiiiight...
What the fuck are you babbling about? Do you really not get it? Do
you not understand we have passed CC on all environmental factors,
including water?
Nice try, but you've been caught in (yet another) B.S. attempt.
Game, set, match. Poser.
GD, are you really so dense that you still do not understand what is
meant by "peak water"? We've passed sustainability, moron. It's not
that hard to figure out.
Well I dunno. There's essentially the same amount of water on the earth today as there was
1 million years ago. It shifts around from sky to land, in oceans, in ice and in people, it gets
recirculated. Oil and most other stuff that will 'peak' doesn't have this unique characteristic and
the bell-shaped curve doesn't apply to water in the same way.
That humans continue to fuck up and poison these water supplies to their and the rest of nature's
detriment is appalling and undeniable, but 'Peak' water?
Convince me otherwise.
GDS
"Let's roll!" |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| ... |
| Posted: Wed Oct 28, 2009 10:38 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 22:40:08 -0500, Rabid Weasel Lawson
<lawson at (no spam) NO21931SPAM+dayton.net> wrote:
Quote: On Thu, 29 Oct 2009 03:31:50 +0000, hal wrote:
of course I know that.
Which is why you blathered, "Do you know how many people in the
world do not have access to clean water?" to try to explain your "Peak
Water" claim? Riiiiiight...
What the fuck are you babbling about? Do you really not get it? Do
you not understand we have passed CC on all environmental factors,
including water?
Quote:
Nice try, but you've been caught in (yet another) B.S. attempt.
Game, set, match. Poser.
GD, are you really so dense that you still do not understand what is
meant by "peak water"? We've passed sustainability, moron. It's not
that hard to figure out.
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Herbert Cannon... |
| Posted: Thu Oct 29, 2009 6:03 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Shuurai" <shuurai11 at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote in message
news:6707fd9b-6292-406e-ae6a-584e2238ff41 at (no spam) v25g2000yqk.googlegroups.com...
Quote: do you know what clean water is? Do you know how many people in the
world do not have access to clean water? Do you know how much
diseased is caused by polluted water?
So, a lot of folks don't have clean water - a
completely new phenomenon in world history
(the rich stole it all) - that's peak water?
Hal has seen Trav and others use the term "peak oil" many times, and
so he's trying to use the same term in an effort to appear like he
actually knows something about the subject.
That would be novel. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Rabid Weasel Lawson... |
| Posted: Thu Oct 29, 2009 8:30 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Thu, 29 Oct 2009 04:38:22 +0000, hal wrote:
Quote: On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 22:40:08 -0500, Rabid Weasel Lawson
lawson at (no spam) NO21931SPAM+dayton.net> wrote:
On Thu, 29 Oct 2009 03:31:50 +0000, hal wrote:
of course I know that.
Which is why you blathered, "Do you know how many people in the
world do not have access to clean water?" to try to explain your "Peak
Water" claim? Riiiiiight...
What the fuck are you babbling about?
You've been caught trying to BS your way throught yet another subject and
blustering about won't change the fact.
Quote: Do you really not get it? Do
you not understand we have passed CC on all environmental factors,
including water?
Nice try, but you've been caught in (yet another) B.S. attempt.
Game, set, match. Poser.
GD, are you really so dense that you still do not understand what is
meant by "peak water"? We've passed sustainability, moron. It's not
that hard to figure out.
Certainly not in the way that you intend it. The U.S., for instance is no
where near "peak water" (as you mean it). The midwest aquifers are being
diminished producing grain that we are EXPORTING to countries not growing
their own. The U.S. is more than capable of "sustainability" for our own
uses. And it'd be even better if midwest farmers started irrigating
differently.
In short, your claims about "peak water" are *NOT* what you think they
are. If you're concerned about diminishing aquifers then the *BEST* fix
for that is to grow fewer midwest crops and STOP exporting them; feed
ourselves not people living in deserts or not drilling their own water
wells half way across the globe. Of course that means they starve. But
you seem to be OK with that as long as you get to piss and moan about
"peak water" and other pet social causes that you barely, if at all,
understand.
Why don't you tell me how the majority of U.S. agriculture is "massive
corporate farming" again. :P
(KH) |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Rabid Weasel Lawson... |
| Posted: Thu Oct 29, 2009 8:34 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Thu, 29 Oct 2009 15:32:11 +0000, jimp wrote:
Quote: In sci.physics hal wrote:
On Thu, 29 Oct 2009 13:04:30 +0900, Greendistantstar
Greendistantstar at (no spam) iinet.net.au> wrote:
hal wrote:
On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 22:40:08 -0500, Rabid Weasel Lawson
lawson at (no spam) NO21931SPAM+dayton.net> wrote:
On Thu, 29 Oct 2009 03:31:50 +0000, hal wrote:
of course I know that.
Which is why you blathered, "Do you know how many people in the
world do not have access to clean water?" to try to explain your "Peak
Water" claim? Riiiiiight...
What the fuck are you babbling about? Do you really not get it? Do
you not understand we have passed CC on all environmental factors,
including water?
Nice try, but you've been caught in (yet another) B.S. attempt.
Game, set, match. Poser.
GD, are you really so dense that you still do not understand what is
meant by "peak water"? We've passed sustainability, moron. It's not
that hard to figure out.
Well I dunno. There's essentially the same amount of water on the earth today as there was
1 million years ago. It shifts around from sky to land, in oceans, in ice and in people, it gets
recirculated. Oil and most other stuff that will 'peak' doesn't have this unique characteristic and
the bell-shaped curve doesn't apply to water in the same way.
That humans continue to fuck up and poison these water supplies to their and the rest of nature's
detriment is appalling and undeniable, but 'Peak' water?
Convince me otherwise.
Aquifers are running dry faster than they are being recharged due to
overuse. Same thing with most of the world's largest freshwater
rivers. Pollution of existing clean water supplies is increasing
faster than nature can recover. In other words, we are rapidly
running out of CLEAN water (consumable by humans). There's the same
amount of water on the planet. Clearly that does not change, but
something like 98% of it is unusable by humans. So, at present use
levels (which are increasing exponentially) our fresh water supply is
not sustainable, just like oil, therefore, peak water.
You've never heard of a water purification plant, have you?
The problem is that he doesn't realy understand why the aquifers are being
diminished. He'll run off to wikipedia now and try to get a general idea
but he'll only half understand what he cuts-n-pastes.
Same as usual.
And, no, purification plants are not the answer. They can't keep up with
agricultural demands under the current system. What we need is either
something like a swamp (natural purifier system) or a way to use less
water in agriculture. Irrigating midwest crops takes MASSIVE amounts of
water under the current system used.
Peace favor your sword (IH),
Kirk |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| ... |
| Posted: Thu Oct 29, 2009 9:11 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Thu, 29 Oct 2009 21:34:24 -0500, Rabid Weasel Lawson
<lawson at (no spam) NO21931SPAM+dayton.net> wrote:
Quote: Aquifers are running dry faster than they are being recharged due to
overuse. Same thing with most of the world's largest freshwater
rivers. Pollution of existing clean water supplies is increasing
faster than nature can recover. In other words, we are rapidly
running out of CLEAN water (consumable by humans). There's the same
amount of water on the planet. Clearly that does not change, but
something like 98% of it is unusable by humans. So, at present use
levels (which are increasing exponentially) our fresh water supply is
not sustainable, just like oil, therefore, peak water.
You've never heard of a water purification plant, have you?
The problem is that he doesn't realy understand why the aquifers are being
diminished. He'll run off to wikipedia now and try to get a general idea
but he'll only half understand what he cuts-n-pastes.
The aquifers are being drawn down because they are being pumped for
irrigation and muniple water supplies faster than they are being
recharged. Moron.
Quote:
Same as usual.
And, no, purification plants are not the answer. They can't keep up with
agricultural demands under the current system. What we need is either
something like a swamp (natural purifier system) or a way to use less
water in agriculture.
hydroponics. Already being done.
Quote: Irrigating midwest crops takes MASSIVE amounts of
water under the current system used.
Peace favor your sword (IH),
Kirk
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| ... |
| Posted: Thu Oct 29, 2009 9:48 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
In sci.physics Rabid Weasel Lawson <lawson at (no spam) no21931spam+dayton.net> wrote:
Quote: On Thu, 29 Oct 2009 15:32:11 +0000, jimp wrote:
In sci.physics hal wrote:
On Thu, 29 Oct 2009 13:04:30 +0900, Greendistantstar
Greendistantstar at (no spam) iinet.net.au> wrote:
hal wrote:
On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 22:40:08 -0500, Rabid Weasel Lawson
lawson at (no spam) NO21931SPAM+dayton.net> wrote:
On Thu, 29 Oct 2009 03:31:50 +0000, hal wrote:
of course I know that.
Which is why you blathered, "Do you know how many people in the
world do not have access to clean water?" to try to explain your "Peak
Water" claim? Riiiiiight...
What the fuck are you babbling about? Do you really not get it? Do
you not understand we have passed CC on all environmental factors,
including water?
Nice try, but you've been caught in (yet another) B.S. attempt.
Game, set, match. Poser.
GD, are you really so dense that you still do not understand what is
meant by "peak water"? We've passed sustainability, moron. It's not
that hard to figure out.
Well I dunno. There's essentially the same amount of water on the earth today as there was
1 million years ago. It shifts around from sky to land, in oceans, in ice and in people, it gets
recirculated. Oil and most other stuff that will 'peak' doesn't have this unique characteristic and
the bell-shaped curve doesn't apply to water in the same way.
That humans continue to fuck up and poison these water supplies to their and the rest of nature's
detriment is appalling and undeniable, but 'Peak' water?
Convince me otherwise.
Aquifers are running dry faster than they are being recharged due to
overuse. Same thing with most of the world's largest freshwater
rivers. Pollution of existing clean water supplies is increasing
faster than nature can recover. In other words, we are rapidly
running out of CLEAN water (consumable by humans). There's the same
amount of water on the planet. Clearly that does not change, but
something like 98% of it is unusable by humans. So, at present use
levels (which are increasing exponentially) our fresh water supply is
not sustainable, just like oil, therefore, peak water.
You've never heard of a water purification plant, have you?
The problem is that he doesn't realy understand why the aquifers are being
diminished. He'll run off to wikipedia now and try to get a general idea
but he'll only half understand what he cuts-n-pastes.
Same as usual.
And, no, purification plants are not the answer. They can't keep up with
agricultural demands under the current system. What we need is either
something like a swamp (natural purifier system) or a way to use less
water in agriculture. Irrigating midwest crops takes MASSIVE amounts of
water under the current system used.
Peace favor your sword (IH),
Kirk
Agricultural water doesn't go through purification plants; only potable
water does or needs to.
A swamp is the antithesis of a purification plant.
Most of the US east of the Rockies depends on rain for crops.
Other than that, you mostly got it right.
--
Jim Pennino
Remove .spam.sux to reply. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Wed Dec 09, 2009 9:54 pm
|
|