Oceans Could Absorb Much More CO2

E-Mail This

This page was sent to you by: sgc503@...

SUNDAY MAGAZINE | August 31, 2009
The Moral of the Story: Should Texas Tech Employ Alberto Gonzales?
By Randy Cohen
The decision to hire Alberto Gonzales as a professor at Texas Tech has met with opposition, including charges that he fails to meet the university's standards for faculty.



Copyright 2009 The New York Times Company \| Privacy Policy

Reply | Messages in this Topic (3)

#37902

From: sgc503@...
Date: Tue Sep 1, 2009 11:20 am
Subject: NYTimes.com: Dot Earth: Do We Have to Outgrow Growth?

sgc503@...

E-Mail This

This page was sent to you by: sgc503@...

SCIENCE | August 31, 2009
Dot Earth: Do We Have to Outgrow Growth?
By Andrew C. Revkin
A proponent of steady-state economics says it's time for humanity to grow up by shedding its growth fixation.



Copyright 2009 The New York Times Company \| Privacy Policy

#37903

From: "Jim Bechtel" <jimbechtel2@...>
Date: Tue Sep 1, 2009 12:21 pm
Subject: Re: NYTimes.com: The Moral of the Story: Should Texas Tech Employ Alberto Gonzales?

jimbechtel2@...

Should they employ him --as opposed to a Nuremberg-type trial?

----- Original Message -----

From: sgc503@...

To: Reason-omaha@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Tuesday, September 01, 2009 5:53 AM

Subject: [Reason-Omaha] NYTimes.com: The Moral of the Story: Should Texas Tech Employ Alberto Gonzales?

This page was sent to you by: sgc503@gmail.com

SUNDAY MAGAZINE | August 31, 2009
The Moral of the Story: Should Texas Tech Employ Alberto Gonzales?
By Randy Cohen
The decision to hire Alberto Gonzales as a professor at Texas Tech has met with opposition, including charges that he fails to meet the university's standards for faculty.

Copyright 2009 The New York Times Company | Privacy Policy

Reply | Messages in this Topic (3)

#37904

From: Clay Farris Naff <claynaff@...>
Date: Tue Sep 1, 2009 1:02 pm
Subject: BBC E-mail: Engineering Earth 'is feasible'

claynaff

Clay Farris Naff saw this story on the BBC News website and thought you
should see it.



** Engineering Earth 'is feasible' **
Geo-engineering is technically possible and could help reduce the impact of
climate change, a Royal Society report concludes.
< http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/em/fr/-/2/hi/science/nature/8231387.stm >


** BBC Daily E-mail **
Choose the news and sport headlines you want - when you want them, all
in one daily e-mail
< http://www.bbc.co.uk/email >


** Disclaimer **
The BBC is not responsible for the content of this e-mail, and anything written
in this e-mail does not necessarily reflect the BBC's views or opinions. Please
note that neither the e-mail address nor name of the sender have been verified.

If you do not wish to receive such e-mails in the future or want to know more
about the BBC's Email a Friend service, please read our frequently asked
questions. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/help/4162471.stm

#37905

From: "Jim Bechtel" <jimbechtel2@...>
Date: Tue Sep 1, 2009 1:35 pm
Subject: Re: BBC E-mail: Engineering Earth 'is feasible'

jimbechtel2@...

The last line:

"Geo-engineering and its consequences are the price we may have to pay for failure to act on climate change."

Somehow this strikes me as analogous to:

"Intravenous feeding, IV drips for everyone, is the price we may have to pay for failure to act on widespread famine."

----- Original Message -----

From: Clay Farris Naff

To: reason-omaha@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Tuesday, September 01, 2009 8:02 AM

Subject: [Reason-Omaha] BBC E-mail: Engineering Earth 'is feasible'

Clay Farris Naff saw this story on the BBC News website and thought you
should see it.

** Engineering Earth 'is feasible' **
Geo-engineering is technically possible and could help reduce the impact of climate change, a Royal Society report concludes.
< http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/em/fr/-/2/hi/science/nature/8231387.stm >

** BBC Daily E-mail **
Choose the news and sport headlines you want - when you want them, all
in one daily e-mail
< http://www.bbc.co.uk/email >

** Disclaimer **
The BBC is not responsible for the content of this e-mail, and anything written in this e-mail does not necessarily reflect the BBC's views or opinions. Please note that neither the e-mail address nor name of the sender have been verified.

If you do not wish to receive such e-mails in the future or want to know more about the BBC's Email a Friend service, please read our frequently asked questions. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/help/4162471.stm

#37906

From: "Jim Bechtel" <jimbechtel2@...>
Date: Tue Sep 1, 2009 1:50 pm
Subject: seven deadly environmental sins

jimbechtel2@...

http://www.salon.com/env/feature/2008/11/08/bush_environmental_sins/index.html

Pray Obama can undo the damage.

----- Original Message -----

From: Skryja, David

To: Reason-Omaha@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Saturday, November 08, 2008 6:38 PM

Subject: [Reason-Omaha] Bush's seven deadly environmental sins

Bush's seven deadly environmental sins

How Bush made a mockery of the nation's environmental laws and values -- and what Obama must do to get us back on track.

By Katharine Mieszkowski

Nov. 08, 2008 |

Somewhere up north, a polar bear, on a melting ice floe, is wiping its sweaty brow, thinking, "Fewer than 80 days before these oil freaks are out of office." It hardly bears repeating that George W. Bush's record on the environment makes his own father look like Teddy Roosevelt by comparison. By taking environmental policymaking away from scientists, and turning it over to industry cronies, Bush has made a mockery of the nation's environmental laws and values.

Bush's myriad environmental sins could have him serving penance for years. But we decided to highlight seven of his most deadly. We also invited leading environmentalists to outline Barack Obama's mission for cleaning up the nation's land, water and air.

Bush Sin 1: Blew hot air on global warming
By refusing to agree to mandatory greenhouse gas emission reductions, the Bush administration gave major developing nations, such as China and India, carte blanche to do the same. After all, why should these growing economies do anything about global warming when the one of the world's biggest greenhouse gas polluters and richest nations couldn't be bothered?

"The most shameful thing we've done of all is to walk away from the international debate on climate, which has crippled the debate and caused everyone else in the world to think that we're hypocritical and deluded," says Bill McKibben, author and climate activist. "The Chinese have all the coal they need to destroy the atmosphere by themselves to get rich, and we have no moral objection as to why they shouldn't just go ahead and burn it, because that's precisely what we did."

They don't call it global warming for nothing. The result: eight precious years wasted in the fight against global warming as we watched carbon-dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere shoot up, while scientists' predictions about the speed and severity of global warming became increasingly dire.

Obama mission
Signal that the United States will change its shameful record on global warming -- even before taking office. Attend the international climate talks in Poznan, Poland, this December, and electrify the rest of the world with a promise that the U.S. is serious about reducing greenhouse gases. That could set the stage for the major climate negotiations to come in Copenhagen, Demark, in December 2009, when a climate treaty to succeed Kyoto needs to be hammered out.

Bush Sin 2: Failed to regulate greenhouse gases at home
Bush's vows to veto legislation that would limit greenhouse gases have consistently undermined Congress' feeble attempts to do anything serious about global warming, such as capping emissions.

Bush's Environmental Protection Agency refused to regulate the greenhouse gas CO₂ as a pollutant, even after the Supreme Court ruled that CO₂ is a pollutant and the EPA can regulate it. So while California has passed a law regulating tailpipe emissions of greenhouse gases, the state still needs a waiver under the EPA to put those regulations in place. It hasn't gotten it.

Obama mission
Uphold his campaign promise to reduce U.S. greenhouse gas emissions 80 percent by 2050. How? One key component: a cap-and-trade policy that auctions pollution credits to polluters, with the proceeds going to fund clean-energy programs and habitat protections.

"People are going to try to use the financial situation to argue against these policies," says Chris Mooney, author of the "The Republican War on Science." "I'm really afraid that the financial crisis is going to be used as a club to intimidate people who want to pass a cap-and-trade bill, because they're going to argue that it's going to hurt the economy."

Obama must make clear to Congress that cap and trade is important to him. To underscore his commitment, he should make high-profile scientific appointments to his administration, and unleash the government scientists who have been muzzled under the Bush administration.

Daniel Kammen, professor and director of the Renewable and Appropriate Energy Laboratory at the University of California at Berkeley, asserts that Obama should develop a national task force for the implementation of a cap-and-trade framework. With three regional greenhouse gas markets already emerging -- New England/Atlantic, the Upper Midwest and the West -- the task force could help determine if we need a single national market or the expansion of those three markets.

Obama should order the EPA to issue a waiver to California to allow its regulation of C0₂ at the tailpipe to go into effect. Many other states are then likely to adopt the California regulation.

Bush Sin 3: Failed to develop clean energy sources
Remember when Bush promoted the idea that we'd all be driving around in hydrogen-fuel-cell-powered cars by 2020? Fat chance.

Bush has paid lip service to futuristic fuels like hydrogen and cellulosic ethanol, and to renewable sources of energy like solar, wind and geothermal, but his administration has failed to push those products to market. Meanwhile, he's lent regulatory support to old-school polluting industries, such as coal and oil and gas. With no federal mandate to reduce greenhouse gases, the country has largely been content to burn up the atmosphere with those dirtier, cheaper sources of energy.

Obama mission
Get 1 million plug-in hybrid cars on the road by 2015 and ensure that 25 percent of our energy comes from renewable sources by 2025. Weatherize 1 million low-income homes annually for the next decade. Create 5 million new clean-energy jobs by strategically investing $150 billion over the next five years to catalyze private efforts to build a clean-energy future. Just as he promised during the campaign.

Federal energy-efficiency programs would create green jobs and save American businesses and taxpayers money in the long run. Van Jones, author of "The Green Collar Economy: How One Solution Can Fix Our Two Biggest Problems," says Obama should create a loan fund to help cities and states finance the weatherizing and solarizing of millions of buildings across the country. Customers could pay the money back through the energy they saved on their bills.

Such a program could reduce our greenhouse gas pollution, while putting the country's idle construction workers to work and stimulating the economy. "These aren't Space Age George Jetson jobs. These are hard-hat, lunch pail and work boot jobs," says Jones. It's an immediate green solution for a down economy. "Any green solution that has a tendency to raise prices right now will be very tough politically. You want one that actually lowers prices."

The program could also inspire the public. Offers Joel Makower, executive editor of GreenBiz.com and author of "Strategies for a Green Economy": "There's a desire by Americans to come together for some greater cause that's not simply protecting us from the terrorists, and something that's much more empowering and proactive and exciting."

Bush Sin 4: Abandoned endangered species
Not once during the Bush administration has the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service voluntarily sought to list a species as endangered or threatened, offering it more protections. All the high-profile listings, such as polar bears, have come about after the government has been sued or petitioned by environmental groups and citizens.

"They've destroyed the capacity of government biologists to do their jobs," says Carl Pope, executive director of the Sierra Club. "There has been a huge assault. They've monkeyed with the science, forced many scientists out, starved budgets, prevented research findings from being shared, and prevented scientists from commenting to the media."

The administration also tried to force through regulations that would allow government agencies to build roads or start new mining projects without consulting the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service about whether it would harm endangered species, a process known as "self-consultation."

Obama mission
Recognize that "self-consultation" is a conflict-of-interest oxymoron. And do as U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service biologists say. Currently, the service has 252 species, from the Pacific sheath-tailed bat to the Arizona tree frog, that are candidates for listing as threatened or endangered. "It's not like you have to go in and do a bunch of research. You could come in very quickly on Day One and say: 'We'll make a commitment to list every single one of those species in 24 months," says Kieran Suckling, executive director of the Center for Biological Diversity.

Bush Sin 5: Carved up the American West for oil and gas excavation
It's been "Drill, baby, drill," all right. A whopping 35,000 drilling permits have been issued for onshore federal lands during the past seven years. More than 80 percent of those were for natural gas production.

Since Bush took office, an area slightly larger than the state of Kentucky has been leased for oil and gas drilling on public lands in the United States; almost 27 million acres have been designated to be plundered for their hydrocarbons. Yet many of those acres, and ones still under lease from the Clinton administration, aren't being developed.

"Why are we leasing additional acreage in the West, when there are tens of millions of acres under lease which aren't being developed?" says David Alberswerth, a former Clinton administration official who worked on oil and gas leases for the Department of the Interior, and is now with the Wilderness Society.

Obama mission
Curtail the number of leases sold. Protect wildlife, air and water around existing projects. Restrict drilling on crucial wintering range for elk. Close a bizarre loophole that allows oil companies to be exempt from some clean-water regulations.

Make good on the "use it or lose it" approach to oil and gas leases. Require oil companies to develop the 68 million acres of land -- over 40 million of which are offshore -- that they have already leased and are not drilling on. Don't open up more federal land to drilling when the companies aren't making full use of the lands already available to them.

Bush Sin 6: Not seeing the forest or the trees
The Bush administration never met a tree that wouldn't look better as a 2x4 in Home Depot, or a wilderness area that wouldn't look better with a road running through it. In the name of fire protection, the Bush administration implemented Orwellian "Healthy Forests" policies, dedicated to "thinning," also known as logging, national forests. "That was their effort to blame environmental laws and regulations for the big fires that happened back in the early part of the decade," explains Mike Anderson, senior resource analyst for the Wilderness Society.

One of the administration's first policy actions was to try to rescind the Clinton administration's eleventh-hour "roadless rule," which protects 58.5 million acres, about a third of the national forests. The Bushies have been fighting it ever since, both in the courts, and with their own regulations.

However, the legal and regulatory morass has kept the administration busy, and prevented many acres from being marred with roads or logged. As of January 2008, nationwide, there have been only seven miles of new roads, and about 500 acres of logging, that would violate the roadless rule since January 2001, according to Anderson.

Obama mission
Stand by the Clinton roadless rule and "keep over 58 million acres of national forests pristine," as Obama promised. Drop the opposition in court cases to the rule. While working to ensure protection of those lands permanently, prevent logging in them now by drafting a conservationist policy statement to federal land managers, instructing the Forest Service to not allow logging in, say, the hotly contested Tongass National Forest in Alaska.

Bush Sin 7: Choked our clean-air standards
In the name of industry, the Bush administration has spent the past eight years trying to weaken clean-air standards, including attempting to water down "new source review" regulations on coal-fired power plants. "They've tried to do this in a dozen different ways, and the courts have fought them down, time and time again," says Pope of the Sierra Club.

And they're still at it. Even now, the administration has proposed two rules that would weaken clean-air standards by allowing power plants to increase emissions without adding pollution controls, and by permitting more pollution near national parks, which it's racing to finalize before Jan. 20, 2009.

Obama mission
Uphold the Clean Air Act and reverse the Bush administration's ongoing attempts to chip away at clean-air standards. And regulate carbon dioxide under the Clean Air Act, as the Supreme Court has allowed.

#37907

From: "lclane2" <llane1@...>
Date: Tue Sep 1, 2009 2:14 pm
Subject: Nature

lclane2

http://news.bbc.co.uk/earth/hi/earth_news/newsid_8231000/8231367.stm

Be sure to look at the pictures

#37908

From: Gary Hoffman <glhoffman@...>
Date: Tue Sep 1, 2009 7:26 pm
Subject: Oceans Could Absorb Much More CO2

glhoffman

WATCH VIDEO: Sea vents form unique habitats for strange deep sea creatures.

Oceans Could Absorb Much More CO2

Michael Reilly, Discovery News

Sept. 1, 2009 -- Earth's oceans are vast reservoirs of carbon dioxide (CO2) with the potential to control the pace of global warming.

It all hinges on the fate of marine "snow" -- a constant sprinkle of carbon-rich bits that flutter down from the sea surface to the cold depths below. And according to a new study, the flurries could suck much more of the greenhouse gas out of the atmosphere than previously thought.

Each year, phytoplankton floating in the seas' big blue expanse drink in 10 billion tons of carbon from the air (humans emit about 8 billion tons). Their shells and excretions rain down from the surface, providing a feast for creatures that recycle up to 90 percent of the carbon back into the water as CO2. Only a light dusting lands on the ocean floor.

But small changes in this carbon system have big implications for climate.

Today, most of the recycling happens in the first 210 meters (689 feet) below the ocean surface. According to a new study published in the journal Nature Geoscience, if that depth sank by just 24 meters, it could remove up to 27 parts per million more of CO2 from the atmosphere.

Related Content:

This is because the deeper the snow falls into the ocean without being eaten, the more carbon-rich snow reaches the ocean floor. Once it is eaten, it becomes dissolved CO2, and it's just a matter of a short time (months to years instead of tens of thousands of years for the snow) before it makes its way back into the atmosphere.

"People are going to be scratching their heads and saying, 'Wow, that's really sensitive,'" Ken Buesseler of the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute in Massachusetts, who was not involved in the study said. "That's not very big -- natural variability of that depth is several hundred meters."

By comparison, scientists estimate the ocean helped usher in the most recent ice age tens of thousands of years ago when it drained between 30 and 77 parts per million of CO2 from the air.

That won't happen any time soon. Humans have added well over 100 parts per million of CO2 as well as other greenhouse gases to the atmosphere in the last two centuries, and many scientists predict that ocean warming will raise the depth at which most carbon cycles back into the water. If that happens, the seas will hasten global warming as they spew CO2 back out into the air.

"On the other hand, a decrease in oxygen concentration in the ocean, which might be caused by enhanced stratification of the global ocean, might slowdown bacterial metabolic rates," and increase the amount of snow that reaches the deep ocean, Eun Young Kwon of Princeton University, the study's lead author said.

"The answer is I don't know. This is the major gap to be filled in our research community in the future."

#37909

From: Sam Collins <sgcol50326@...>
Date: Tue Sep 1, 2009 8:47 pm
Subject: Re: BBC E-mail: Engineering Earth 'is feasible'

sgcol50326@...

Excellent analogy, all aside from the gargantuan difference in the cost and feasibility of the two end-game expedients.

Sam

On Sep 1, 2009, at 8:35 AM, Jim Bechtel wrote:

The last line:
"Geo-engineering and its consequences are the price we may have to pay for failure to act on climate change."
Somehow this strikes me as analogous to:
"Intravenous feeding, IV drips for everyone, is the price we may have to pay for failure to act on widespread famine."

----- Original Message -----
From: Clay Farris Naff
To: reason-omaha@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, September 01, 2009 8:02 AM
Subject: [Reason-Omaha] BBC E-mail: Engineering Earth 'is feasible'

Clay Farris Naff saw this story on the BBC News website and thought you
should see it.

** Engineering Earth 'is feasible' **
Geo-engineering is technically possible and could help reduce the impact of climate change, a Royal Society report concludes.
< http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/em/fr/-/2/hi/science/nature/8231387.stm >

** BBC Daily E-mail **
Choose the news and sport headlines you want - when you want them, all
in one daily e-mail
< http://www.bbc.co.uk/email >

** Disclaimer **
The BBC is not responsible for the content of this e-mail, and anything written in this e-mail does not necessarily reflect the BBC's views or opinions. Please note that neither the e-mail address nor name of the sender have been verified.

If you do not wish to receive such e-mails in the future or want to know more about the BBC's Email a Friend service, please read our frequently asked questions. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/help/4162471.stm

#37910

From: "lclane2" <llane1@...>
Date: Tue Sep 1, 2009 8:47 pm
Subject: Re: Oceans Could Absorb Much More CO2

lclane2

The immediate effects of higher CO2 on the ocean are likely in the other direction (feed forward rather than feedback). Ocean acidification decreases CO2 solubility and reduces biological calcification.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_acidification

Sadly first order effects of higher CO2 are generally feed forward rather than feedback.

--- In Reason-Omaha@yahoogroups.com, Gary Hoffman <glhoffman@...> wrote:
>
> Oceans Could Absorb Much More
> CO2<http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2009/09/01/oceans-carbon-absorb.html>
> Michael
> Reilly, Discovery News
>
>
> *Sept. 1, 2009* -- Earth's oceans are vast reservoirs of carbon dioxide
> (CO2) with the potential to control the pace of global warming.
>
> It all hinges on the fate of marine "snow" -- a constant sprinkle of
> carbon-rich bits that flutter down from the sea surface to the cold depths
> below. And according to a new study, the flurries could suck much more of
> the greenhouse gas out of the atmosphere than previously thought.
>
> Each year, phytoplankton floating in the seas' big blue expanse drink in 10
> billion tons of carbon from the air (humans emit about 8 billion
> tons<http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2009/04/29/emissions-cut-warming.html>).
> Their shells and excretions rain down from the surface, providing a feast
> for creatures that recycle up to 90 percent of the carbon back into the
> water <http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2009/04/13/ocean-iron-carbon.html> as
> CO2. Only a light dusting lands on the ocean floor.
>
> But small changes in this carbon system have big implications for climate.
>
> Today, most of the recycling happens in the first 210 meters (689 feet)
> below the ocean surface. According to a new study published in the
> journal *Nature
> Geoscience*, if that depth sank by just 24 meters, it could remove up to 27
> parts per million more of CO2 from the atmosphere.
> [image: meteorology]<http://dsc.discovery.com/videos/planet-earth-deep-ocean-sea-vents.html>
> *WATCH VIDEO: Sea vents form unique habitats for strange deep sea creatures.
> * <http://dsc.discovery.com/videos/planet-earth-deep-ocean-sea-vents.html>
>
> *Related Content:*
> ------------------------------
>
>
> - *Adding Iron to Ocean Won't Stop
> Warming*<http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2009/04/13/ocean-iron-carbon.html>
> - *Ocean Dead Zones Could Approach Mass Extinction
> Levels*<http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2009/01/26/ocean-dead-zones.html>
> - *HowStuffWorks.com: How can adding iron to the oceans slow global
> warming?*<http://science.howstuffworks.com/iron-sulfate-slow-global-warming.htm>
> - *More Discovery News* <http://dsc.discovery.com/news/news.html>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> This is because the deeper the snow falls into the ocean without being
> eaten, the more carbon-rich snow reaches the ocean floor. Once it is eaten,
> it becomes dissolved CO2, and it's just a matter of a short time (months to
> years instead of tens of thousands of years for the snow) before it makes
> its way back into the atmosphere.
>
> "People are going to be scratching their heads and saying, 'Wow, that's
> really sensitive,'" Ken Buesseler of the Woods Hole Oceanographic
> Institute<http://www.whoi.edu/>in Massachusetts, who was not involved
> in the study said. "That's not very
> big -- natural variability of that depth is several hundred meters."
>
> By comparison, scientists estimate the ocean helped usher in the most recent
> ice age tens of thousands of years ago when it drained between 30 and 77
> parts per million of CO2 from the air.
>
> That won't happen any time soon. Humans have added well over 100 parts per
> million of CO2 as well as other greenhouse gases to the atmosphere in the
> last two centuries, and many scientists predict that ocean
> warming<http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2009/01/26/ocean-dead-zones.html>will
> raise the depth at which most carbon cycles back into the water. If
> that happens, the seas will hasten global warming as they spew CO2 back out
> into the air.
>
> "On the other hand, a decrease in oxygen concentration in the ocean, which
> might be caused by enhanced stratification of the global
> ocean<http://science.howstuffworks.com/iron-sulfate-slow-global-warming.htm>,
> might slowdown bacterial metabolic rates," and increase the amount of snow
> that reaches the deep ocean, Eun Young Kwon of Princeton University, the
> study's lead author said.
>
> "The answer is I don't know. This is the major gap to be filled in our
> research community in the future."
>

#37911

From: "rubeckjames" <rubeckjames@...>
Date: Tue Sep 1, 2009 9:18 pm
Subject: Re: BIG news!

rubeckjames

We would be most happy to bring a cake to the "farewell party" on September 5th.
We will also bring plates and forks.

See you Saturday!




--- In Reason-Omaha@yahoogroups.com, "Jim Bechtel" <jimbechtel2@...> wrote:
>
> BAD news first:
> Page one story in this morning's paper (actual headline: "Read it and weep"):
Because of city budget problems the Main branch library downtown where we've
held our meetings for ten years, ever since our very first one, is closing on
Saturdays beginning Sept 6.
>
> Next, the GOOD news: I immediately scrambled to phone the Benson branch before
other groups saw the article in the paper and had the same idea. (Get this: the
staff was unaware of the article & the schedule changes.) Nobody had yet claimed
the Benson meeting room for 1st & 3rd Saturdays from 2 to 4 PM, so it's ours!
Now, I realize I plunged ahead without authorization, but if somebody has a
better idea for a venue, we can always cancel the Benson reservation.
>
> Otherwise, we can have a "farewell party" at the Main branch on Sept 5, and
have our Sept 19 meeting at the Benson branch. Those of us who have been there
before, will recall the new wing with a very nice meeting room, and good parking
on the north side. Also, in place of  food & beer at the Old Chicago in the Old
Market after our meetings, we can now stroll up to the PS Collective for our
repast, in the heart of the newly-gentrified Benson district (which is rapidly
rivaling the Old Market as a "scene").
>
> Map of library:
> http://www.omahapubliclibrary.org/aboutus/locations/bb.html
> PS Collective:
> http://pscollective.com/
>
> Of course we'll have to change the wording on the automated reminder, after
9/5 and before 9/19. And at our first meting in Benson, we need to bring along
our old "contract" from Main to use as a template for filling out the Benson
application.
>

#37912

From: Clayton Naff <claynaff@...>
Date: Wed Sep 2, 2009 12:45 am
Subject: Re: BBC E-mail: Engineering Earth 'is feasible'

claynaff

Gents,

   I surely agree that it would be *nice* if humanity could somehow come to a collective, enforceable agreement to constrain the use of fossil fuels, but as reasonable people we can surely agree that this is highly unlikely. You like analogies? How's this for an analogy? It would be in the interest of all members of the OPEC cartel to constrain their output -- not for any far-sighted philanthropic motive but for mere profit a few months into the future. And yet, they have failed to do so, over and over again. Rather than hold out for a better price tomorrow, they have pumped more volume today. So if OPEC can't do it for greed, what chance is there that all the countries will hold down carbon emissions for the benevolent sake of future generations?

   If we accept this rather than moralize over it, then it behooves us to pursue technical remedies, including alternative fuels that can displace fossil fuels in the marketplace.

Best regards,

Clay

On Tue, Sep 1, 2009 at 3:47 PM, Sam Collins <sgcol50326@...> wrote:

Excellent analogy, all aside from the gargantuan difference in the cost and feasibility of the two end-game expedients.

Sam

On Sep 1, 2009, at 8:35 AM, Jim Bechtel wrote:

The last line:
"Geo-engineering and its consequences are the price we may have to pay for failure to act on climate change."

Somehow this strikes me as analogous to:
"Intravenous feeding, IV drips for everyone, is the price we may have to pay for failure to act on widespread famine."

----- Original Message -----
From: Clay Farris Naff

To: reason-omaha@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, September 01, 2009 8:02 AM

Subject: [Reason-Omaha] BBC E-mail: Engineering Earth 'is feasible'

Clay Farris Naff saw this story on the BBC News website and thought you
should see it.

** Engineering Earth 'is feasible' **
Geo-engineering is technically possible and could help reduce the impact of climate change, a Royal Society report concludes.
< http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/em/fr/-/2/hi/science/nature/8231387.stm >

** BBC Daily E-mail **
Choose the news and sport headlines you want - when you want them, all
in one daily e-mail
< http://www.bbc.co.uk/email >

** Disclaimer **
The BBC is not responsible for the content of this e-mail, and anything written in this e-mail does not necessarily reflect the BBC's views or opinions. Please note that neither the e-mail address nor name of the sender have been verified.

If you do not wish to receive such e-mails in the future or want to know more about the BBC's Email a Friend service, please read our frequently asked questions. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/help/4162471.stm

=

--
Clay Farris Naff
Executive Director, Lincoln Literacy Council
Member, National Association of Science Writers
Vice President, Nebraska Citizens for Science
(402) 310-0572
Lincoln, NE
USA

#37913

From: jopollack@...
Date: Wed Sep 2, 2009 1:32 am
Subject: Re: Re: Oceans Could Absorb Much More CO2

jopollack@...

I skimmed the original article in Nature Geoscience. It's too technical for me to understand it easily, as I'm not a biogeochemist. I can see that the authors ran a fairly elaborate CO2 and nutrient cycling model that I'm not equipped to evaluate. It seems that their main concern was explaining how additional CO2 could have been sequestered in the deep oceans during glacial periods, when the atmospheric CO2 levels were a lot lower than pre-industrial interglacial. However, at the end of the article, they state:
"How remineralization depth will respond to future climate change is uncertain at present, but

our work suggests that the impact on the global carbon cycle could be substantial."

That's essentially what the latter parts of the Discovery News article suggested.

John P.

-----Original Message-----
From: lclane2 <llane1@...>
To: Reason-Omaha@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tue, Sep 1, 2009 3:47 pm
Subject: [Reason-Omaha] Re: Oceans Could Absorb Much More CO2

The immediate effects of higher CO2 on the ocean are likely in the other direction (feed forward rather than feedback). Ocean acidification decreases CO2 solubility and reduces biological calcification.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_acidification

Sadly first order effects of higher CO2 are generally feed forward rather than feedback.

--- In Reason-Omaha@yahoogroups.com, Gary Hoffman <glhoffman@...> wrote:
>
> Oceans Could Absorb Much More
> CO2<http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2009/09/01/oceans-carbon-absorb.html>;
> Michael
> Reilly, Discovery News
>
>
> *Sept. 1, 2009* -- Earth's oceans are vast reservoirs of carbon dioxide
> (CO2) with the potential to control the pace of global warming.
>
> It all hinges on the fate of marine "snow" -- a constant sprinkle of
> carbon-rich bits that flutter down from the sea surface to the cold depths
> below. And according to a new study, the flurries could suck much more of
> the greenhouse gas out of the atmosphere than previously thought.
>
> Each year, phytoplankton floating in the seas' big blue expanse drink in 10
> billion tons of carbon from the air (humans emit about 8 billion
> tons<http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2009/04/29/emissions-cut-warming.html>;).
> Their shells and excretions rain down from the surface, providing a feast
> for creatures that recycle up to 90 percent of the carbon back into the
> water <http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2009/04/13/ocean-iron-carbon.html>; as
> CO2. Only a light dusting lands on the ocean floor.
>
> But small changes in this carbon system have big implications for climate.
>
> Today, most of the recycling happens in the first 210 meters (689 feet)
> below the ocean surface. According to a new study published in the
> journal *Nature
> Geoscience*, if t hat depth sank by just 24 meters, it could remove up to 27
> parts per million more of CO2 from the atmosphere.
> [image: meteorology]<http://dsc.discovery.com/videos/planet-earth-deep-ocean-sea-vents.html>;
> *WATCH VIDEO: Sea vents form unique habitats for strange deep sea creatures.
> * <http://dsc.discovery.com/videos/planet-earth-deep-ocean-sea-vents.html>;
>
> *Related Content:*
> ------------------------------
>
>
> - *Adding Iron to Ocean Won't Stop
> Warming*<http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2009/04/13/ocean-iron-carbon.html>;
> - *Ocean Dead Zones Could Approach Mass Extinction
> Levels*<http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2009/01/26/ocean-dead-zones.html>;
> - *HowStuffWorks.com: How can adding iron to the oceans slow global
> warming?*<http://science.howstuffworks.com/iron-sulfate-slow-global-warming.htm>;
> - *More Discovery News* <http://dsc.discovery.com/news/news.html>;
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> This is because the deeper the snow falls into the ocean without being
> eaten, the more carbon-rich snow reaches the ocean floor. Once it is eaten,
> it becomes dissolved CO2, and it's just a matter of a short time (months to
> years instead of tens of thousands of years for the snow) before it makes
> its way back into the atmosphere.
>
> "People are going to be scratching their heads and saying, 'Wow, that's
> really sensitive,'" Ken Buesseler of the Woods Hole Oceanographic
> Institute<http://www.whoi.edu/>in Massachusetts, who was not involved
> in the study said. "That's not very
> big -- natural variability of that depth is several hundred meters."
>
> By comparison, scientists estimate the ocean helped usher in the most recent
> ice age tens of thousands of years ago when it drained between 30 and 77
> parts per million of CO2 from the air.
>
> That won't happen any time soon. Humans have added well over 100 parts per
> million of CO2 as well as other greenhouse gases to the atmosphere in the
> last two centuries, and many scientists predict that ocean
> warming<http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2009/01/26/ocean-dead-zones.html>will
> raise the depth at which most carbon cycles back into the water. If
> that happens, the seas will hasten global warming as they spew CO2 back out
> into the air.
>
> "On the other hand, a decrease in oxygen concentration in the ocean, which
> might be caused by enhanced stratification of the global
> ocean<http://science.howstuffworks.com/iron-sulfate-slow-global-warming.htm>;,
> might slowdown bacterial metabolic rates," and increase the amount of snow
> that reaches the deep ocean, Eun Young Kwon of Princeton University, the
> study's lead author said.
>
> "The answer is I don't know. This is the major gap to be filled in our
> research community in the future."
>

#37914

From: "lclane2" <llane1@...>
Date: Wed Sep 2, 2009 2:41 am
Subject: On the Spanish Civil War

lclane2

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20090831/kaufman/single

#37915

From: Sam Collins <sgcol50326@...>
Date: Wed Sep 2, 2009 2:53 am
Subject: Re: BBC E-mail: Engineering Earth 'is feasible'

sgcol50326@...

"it behooves us to pursue technical remedies"

Keeping in mind that the basic problem we face is population demand exceeding resources, "technical remedies" has an ominous ring. Resources are limited, population increase is not. So: are technical remedies to work some unknown magic to produce unlimited resources? Or might technical remedies be applied at some desperate future date to reduce the demanding population?

I suggest that, in the long run, the latter strategy may offer more promise than the former. We may possibly be able to overcome the current universal revulsion at the idea of population control. We have a better chance of controlling our own behavior than of overriding a natural system with four billion years of success managing the life forms it supports.

Sam

On Sep 1, 2009, at 7:45 PM, Clayton Naff wrote:

Gents,

   I surely agree that it would be *nice* if humanity could somehow come to a collective, enforceable agreement to constrain the use of fossil fuels, but as reasonable people we can surely agree that this is highly unlikely. You like analogies? How's this for an analogy? It would be in the interest of all members of the OPEC cartel to constrain their output -- not for any far-sighted philanthropic motive but for mere profit a few months into the future. And yet, they have failed to do so, over and over again. Rather than hold out for a better price tomorrow, they have pumped more volume today. So if OPEC can't do it for greed, what chance is there that all the countries will hold down carbon emissions for the benevolent sake of future generations?

   If we accept this rather than moralize over it, then it behooves us to pursue technical remedies, including alternative fuels that can displace fossil fuels in the marketplace.

Best regards,

Clay



On Tue, Sep 1, 2009 at 3:47 PM, Sam Collins <sgcol50326@...> wrote:

Excellent analogy, all aside from the gargantuan difference in the cost and feasibility of the two end-game expedients.

Sam

On Sep 1, 2009, at 8:35 AM, Jim Bechtel wrote:

The last line:
"Geo-engineering and its consequences are the price we may have to pay for failure to act on climate change."
Somehow this strikes me as analogous to:
"Intravenous feeding, IV drips for everyone, is the price we may have to pay for failure to act on widespread famine."

----- Original Message -----
From: Clay Farris Naff
To: reason-omaha@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, September 01, 2009 8:02 AM
Subject: [Reason-Omaha] BBC E-mail: Engineering Earth 'is feasible'

Clay Farris Naff saw this story on the BBC News website and thought you
should see it.

** Engineering Earth 'is feasible' **
Geo-engineering is technically possible and could help reduce the impact of climate change, a Royal Society report concludes.
< http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/em/fr/-/2/hi/science/nature/8231387.stm >

** BBC Daily E-mail **
Choose the news and sport headlines you want - when you want them, all
in one daily e-mail
< http://www.bbc.co.uk/email >

** Disclaimer **
The BBC is not responsible for the content of this e-mail, and anything written in this e-mail does not necessarily reflect the BBC's views or opinions. Please note that neither the e-mail address nor name of the sender have been verified.

If you do not wish to receive such e-mails in the future or want to know more about the BBC's Email a Friend service, please read our frequently asked questions. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/help/4162471.stm

=

--
Clay Farris Naff
Executive Director, Lincoln Literacy Council
Member, National Association of Science Writers
Vice President, Nebraska Citizens for Science
(402) 310-0572
Lincoln, NE
USA

#37916

From: "Harvey Madison" <hmadison99@...>
Date: Wed Sep 2, 2009 3:57 am
Subject: Re: NYTimes.com: The Moral of the Story: Should Texas Tech Employ Alberto Gonzales?

h.madison

Thanks for posting that, Sam. I'll make sure our local paper sees it.

Harv

Reply | Messages in this Topic (3)

#37917

From: "Skryja, David" <david.skryja@...>
Date: Wed Sep 2, 2009 4:12 am
Subject: Serial polyandry among the Pimbwe people of Tanzania

dskryja

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/01/science/01angi.html?_r=1&ref=science

September 1, 2009

Skipping Spouse to Spouse Isn’t Just a Man’s Game

By NATALIE ANGIER

In the United States and much of the Western world, when a couple divorces, the average income of the woman and her dependent children often plunges by 20 percent or more, while that of her now unfettered ex, who had been the family’s primary breadwinner but who rarely ends up paying in child support what he had contributed to the household till, climbs accordingly. The born-again bachelor is therefore perfectly positioned to attract a new, younger wife and begin building another family.

Small wonder that many Darwinian-minded observers of human mating customs have long contended that serial monogamy is really just a socially sanctioned version of harem-building. By this conventional evolutionary psychology script, the man who skips from one nubile spouse to another over time is, like the sultan who hoards the local maidenry in a single convenient location, simply seeking to “maximize his reproductive fitness,” to sire as many children as possible with as many wives as possible. It is the preferred male strategy, especially for powerful men, right? Sequentially or synchronously, he-men consort polygynously.

Women, by contrast, are not thought to be natural serializers. Sure, a gal might date around when young, but once she starts a family, she is assumed to crave stability. After all, she can bear only so many children in her lifetime, and divorce raises her risk of poverty. Unless forced to because some bounder has abandoned her, why would any sane woman choose another trot down the aisle — for another Rachael Ray spatula set? Spare me extra candlesticks, I’m a one-trick monogamist.

Yet in a report published in the summer issue of the journal Human Nature, Monique Borgerhoff Mulder of the University of California, Davis, presents compelling evidence that at least in some non-Western cultures where conditions are harsh and mothers must fight to keep their children alive, serial monogamy is by no means a man’s game, finessed by him and foisted on her. To the contrary, Dr. Borgerhoff Mulder said, among the Pimbwe people of Tanzania, whose lives and loves she has been following for about 15 years, serial monogamy looks less like polygyny than like a strategic beast that some evolutionary psychologists dismiss as quasi-fantastical: polyandry, one woman making the most of multiple mates.

In her analysis, Dr. Borgerhoff Mulder found that although Pimbwe men were somewhat more likely than their female counterparts to marry multiple times, women held their own and even outshone men in the upper Zsa Zsa Gabor end of the scale, of five consecutive spouses and counting. And when Dr. Borgerhoff Mulder looked at who extracted the greatest reproductive payoff from serial monogamy, as measured by who had the most children survive past the first five hazardous years of life, she found a small but significant advantage female. Women who worked their way through more than two husbands had, on average, higher reproductive success, a greater number of surviving children, than either the more sedately mating women, or than men regardless of wifetime total.

Provocatively, the character sketches of the male versus female serialists proved to be inversely related. Among the women, those with the greatest number of spouses were themselves considered high-quality mates, the hardest working, the most reliable, with scant taste for the strong maize beer the Pimbwe famously brew. Among the men, by contrast, the higher the nuptial count, the lower the customer ranking, and the likelier the men were to be layabout drunks.

“We’re so wedded to the model that men will benefit from multiple marriages and women won’t, that women are victims of the game,” Dr. Borgerhoff Mulder said. “But what my data suggest is that Pimbwe women are strategically choosing men, abandoning men and remarrying men as their economic situation goes up and down.”

The new analysis, though preliminary, is derived from one of the more comprehensive and painstaking data sets yet gathered of marriage and reproduction patterns in a non-Western culture. The results underscore the importance of avoiding the breezy generalities of what might be called Evolution Lite, an enterprise too often devoted to proclaiming universal truths about deep human nature based on how college students respond to their professors’ questionnaires. Throughout history and cross-culturally, Dr. Borgerhoff Mulder said, “there has been fantastic variability in women’s reproductive strategies.”

Geoffrey F. Miller, an evolutionary psychologist at the University of New Mexico, agreed. “Evolutionary psychology and anthropology really need to take women’s perspective seriously in all its dimensions,” Dr. Miller said. “You can construe sequential relationships as being driven by male choice, in which case you’d call it polygyny, or by female choice, in which case you’d call it polyandry, but the capacity of women across cultures to dissolve relationships that aren’t working has been much underestimated.”

Pimbwe culture has been too disrupted over the years by colonialism and government interference to serve as a quaint museum piece of how our ancestors lived, but the challenges the people face are more survival-based than how to get your child into an elite preschool program. The Pimbwe live in small villages, have few possessions and eke out a subsistence living farming, fishing, hunting and gathering. Virtually all Pimbwe get married at least once, Dr. Borgerhoff Mulder said, and they do it without the blessing of judge, priest or Las Vegas. “Marriage is not formalized with any specific set of rituals,” she said, “and marriages break up by one or another partner leaving.”

Nor is there much formal sexual division of labor. “In terms of farming, men and women do pretty much the same tasks,” Dr. Borgerhoff Mulder said. “The men will cook, do a lot with the kids.”

Unlike in the West, where men control a far greater share of resources than women do, or in traditional pastoral societies like those found in the Middle East and Africa, where a woman is entirely dependent on the wealth of her husband and in divorce is not entitled to so much as a gimpy goat, Pimbwe women are independent operators and resourceful co-equals with men.

This does not mean that mothers can go it alone, however. Again in contrast to the contemporary West, childhood mortality remains a serious threat, and it takes the efforts of more than one adult to keep a baby alive. A good, hardworking husband can be a great asset — and so, too, may his relations. The evolutionary theorist Sarah Blaffer Hrdy proposes that one reason the offspring of much-marrying Pimbwe women do comparatively well is that the children end up with a widened circle of caretakers. “The women are lining up more protection, more investment, more social relationships for their children to exploit,” she said. “A lot of what some people would call promiscuous I would call being assiduously maternal.”

The goose, like the gander, may find it tempting to wander if it means that her goslings will fly.

#37918

From: Sam Collins <sgc503@...>
Date: Wed Sep 2, 2009 11:54 am
Subject: Re comments on obsession with economic growth:

sgc503@...

The following is an excerpt from the Dot Earth blog posted earlier:

From: sgc503@...

Subject: [Reason-Omaha] NYTimes.com: Dot Earth: Do We Have to Outgrow Growth?

Date: September 1, 2009 6:20:57 AM CDT

I'm reposting it for it's impressive foresight and current, continuing relevance. We discuss today in superficial, ineffectual, naive arguments on our list, the same problem facing our species that Mill addressed with astonishing insight and cogency one hundred and sixty one years ago. I have not seen a more concise exposition. Perhaps a time will come when his vision spreads widely enough for implementation. I wish I could live so long.

Sam

The following lengthy quote, cited in Cohen (1995, 397-8), is from John Stuart Mill's Principles of Political Economy (1848), written at a time when the population of the world had just topped its first billion and there were about 23 million people living in the United States (for perspective, the world now has 6.8 billion and the U.S. over 307 million):

"There is room in the world, no doubt, and even in old countries, for a great increase of population, supposing the arts of life to go on improving, and capital to increase. But even if innocuous, I confess I see very little reason for desiring it. The density of population necessary to enable mankind to obtain, in the greatest degree, all the advantages both of cooperation and of social intercourse, has, in all the most populous countries, been attained. A population may be too crowded, though all be amply supplied with food and raiment. It is not good for man to be kept perforce at all times in the presence of his species. A world from which solitude is extirpated, is a very poor ideal. Solitude, in the sense of being often alone, is essential to any depth of meditation or of character; and solitude in the presence of natural beauty and grandeur, is the cradle of thoughts and aspirations which are not only good for the individual, but which society could ill do without. Nor is there much satisfaction in contemplating the world with nothing left to the spontaneous activity of nature; with every rood of land brought into cultivation, which is capable of growing food for human beings; every flowery waste or natural pasture ploughed up, all quadrupeds or birds which are not domesticated for man's use exterminated as his rivals for food, every hedgerow or superfluous tree rooted out, and scarcely a place left where a wild shrub or flower could grow without being eradicated as a weed in the name of improved agriculture. If the earth must lose that great portion of its pleasantness which it owes to things that the unlimited increase of wealth and population would extirpate from it, for the mere purpose of enabling it to support a larger but not a better or a happier population, I sincerely hope, for the sake of posterity, that they will be content to be stationary, long before necessity compels them to it.

It is scarcely necessary to remark that a stationary condition of capital and population implies no stationary state of human improvement. There would be as much scope as ever for all kinds of mental culture, and moral and social progress; as much room for improving the Art of Living, and much more likelihood of its being improved, when minds ceased to be engrossed by the art of getting on. Even the industrial arts might be as earnestly and as successfully cultivated, with this sole difference, that instead of serving no purpose but the increase of wealth, industrial improvements would produce their legitimate effect, that of abridging labour. . . . Only when, in addition to just institutions, the increase of mankind shall be under the deliberate guidance of judicious foresight, can the conquests made from the powers of nature by the intellect and energy of scientific discoverers, become the common property of the species, and the means of improving and elevating the universal lot."

#37919

From: Clayton Naff <claynaff@...>
Date: Wed Sep 2, 2009 12:05 pm
Subject: Re: BBC E-mail: Engineering Earth 'is feasible'

claynaff

Nothing ominous about contraception -- unless you're the Pope. Contraception must rank among the greatest technical achievements of the 20th century. There have been improvements in it since. Now, if only we could get past our ancient "be fruitful and multiply" memes, the world population would stand a decent chance of stabilizing.

Cheers,

Clay

On Tue, Sep 1, 2009 at 9:53 PM, Sam Collins <sgcol50326@...> wrote:

"it behooves us to pursue technical remedies"

Keeping in mind that the basic problem we face is population demand exceeding resources, "technical remedies" has an ominous ring. Resources are limited, population increase is not. So: are technical remedies to work some unknown magic to produce unlimited resources? Or might technical remedies be applied at some desperate future date to reduce the demanding population?

I suggest that, in the long run, the latter strategy may offer more promise than the former. We may possibly be able to overcome the current universal revulsion at the idea of population control. We have a better chance of controlling our own behavior than of overriding a natural system with four billion years of success managing the life forms it supports.

Sam

On Sep 1, 2009, at 7:45 PM, Clayton Naff wrote:

Gents,

   I surely agree that it would be *nice* if humanity could somehow come to a collective, enforceable agreement to constrain the use of fossil fuels, but as reasonable people we can surely agree that this is highly unlikely. You like analogies? How's this for an analogy? It would be in the interest of all members of the OPEC cartel to constrain their output -- not for any far-sighted philanthropic motive but for mere profit a few months into the future. And yet, they have failed to do so, over and over again. Rather than hold out for a better price tomorrow, they have pumped more volume today. So if OPEC can't do it for greed, what chance is there that all the countries will hold down carbon emissions for the benevolent sake of future generations?

   If we accept this rather than moralize over it, then it behooves us to pursue technical remedies, including alternative fuels that can displace fossil fuels in the marketplace.

Best regards,

Clay



On Tue, Sep 1, 2009 at 3:47 PM, Sam Collins <sgcol50326@...> wrote:

Excellent analogy, all aside from the gargantuan difference in the cost and feasibility of the two end-game expedients.

Sam

On Sep 1, 2009, at 8:35 AM, Jim Bechtel wrote:

The last line:
"Geo-engineering and its consequences are the price we may have to pay for failure to act on climate change."

Somehow this strikes me as analogous to:
"Intravenous feeding, IV drips for everyone, is the price we may have to pay for failure to act on widespread famine."

----- Original Message -----
From: Clay Farris Naff

To: reason-omaha@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, September 01, 2009 8:02 AM

Subject: [Reason-Omaha] BBC E-mail: Engineering Earth 'is feasible'

Clay Farris Naff saw this story on the BBC News website and thought you
should see it.

** Engineering Earth 'is feasible' **
Geo-engineering is technically possible and could help reduce the impact of climate change, a Royal Society report concludes.
< http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/em/fr/-/2/hi/science/nature/8231387.stm >

** BBC Daily E-mail **
Choose the news and sport headlines you want - when you want them, all
in one daily e-mail
< http://www.bbc.co.uk/email >

** Disclaimer **
The BBC is not responsible for the content of this e-mail, and anything written in this e-mail does not necessarily reflect the BBC's views or opinions. Please note that neither the e-mail address nor name of the sender have been verified.

If you do not wish to receive such e-mails in the future or want to know more about the BBC's Email a Friend service, please read our frequently asked questions. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/help/4162471.stm

=

--

Clay Farris Naff
Executive Director, Lincoln Literacy Council
Member, National Association of Science Writers
Vice President, Nebraska Citizens for Science
(402) 310-0572
Lincoln, NE
USA

=

--
Clay Farris Naff
Executive Director, Lincoln Literacy Council
Member, National Association of Science Writers
Vice President, Nebraska Citizens for Science
(402) 310-0572
Lincoln, NE
USA

#37920

From: Sam Collins <sgcol50326@...>
Date: Wed Sep 2, 2009 12:34 pm
Subject: Re: BBC E-mail: Engineering Earth 'is feasible'

sgcol50326@...

So what are the technical remedies to assemble in persuading the Pope and his followers to make use of the technical remedies available?

My point here is that the problem can't be fixed with better technical remedies. Only the general will to use what we already have differently can help. Had that general will existed a century ago (or several), there would be no uncontrolled population expansion now. Two-thousand year old dogmas don't cut it, but they persist and predominate. Where is the technological remedy for that? I doubt nuking the Vatican would accomplish much, aside from greatly intensifying resistance to technological remedies.

Sam

On Sep 2, 2009, at 7:05 AM, Clayton Naff wrote:

Nothing ominous about contraception -- unless you're the Pope. Contraception must rank among the greatest technical achievements of the 20th century. There have been improvements in it since. Now, if only we could get past our ancient "be fruitful and multiply" memes, the world population would stand a decent chance of stabilizing.

Cheers,

Clay

On Tue, Sep 1, 2009 at 9:53 PM, Sam Collins <sgcol50326@...> wrote:

"it behooves us to pursue technical remedies"

Keeping in mind that the basic problem we face is population demand exceeding resources, "technical remedies" has an ominous ring. Resources are limited, population increase is not. So: are technical remedies to work some unknown magic to produce unlimited resources? Or might technical remedies be applied at some desperate future date to reduce the demanding population?

I suggest that, in the long run, the latter strategy may offer more promise than the former. We may possibly be able to overcome the current universal revulsion at the idea of population control. We have a better chance of controlling our own behavior than of overriding a natural system with four billion years of success managing the life forms it supports.

Sam

On Sep 1, 2009, at 7:45 PM, Clayton Naff wrote:

Gents,

   I surely agree that it would be *nice* if humanity could somehow come to a collective, enforceable agreement to constrain the use of fossil fuels, but as reasonable people we can surely agree that this is highly unlikely. You like analogies? How's this for an analogy? It would be in the interest of all members of the OPEC cartel to constrain their output -- not for any far-sighted philanthropic motive but for mere profit a few months into the future. And yet, they have failed to do so, over and over again. Rather than hold out for a better price tomorrow, they have pumped more volume today. So if OPEC can't do it for greed, what chance is there that all the countries will hold down carbon emissions for the benevolent sake of future generations?

   If we accept this rather than moralize over it, then it behooves us to pursue technical remedies, including alternative fuels that can displace fossil fuels in the marketplace.

Best regards,

Clay



On Tue, Sep 1, 2009 at 3:47 PM, Sam Collins <sgcol50326@...> wrote:

Excellent analogy, all aside from the gargantuan difference in the cost and feasibility of the two end-game expedients.

Sam

On Sep 1, 2009, at 8:35 AM, Jim Bechtel wrote:

The last line:
"Geo-engineering and its consequences are the price we may have to pay for failure to act on climate change."
Somehow this strikes me as analogous to:
"Intravenous feeding, IV drips for everyone, is the price we may have to pay for failure to act on widespread famine."

----- Original Message -----
From: Clay Farris Naff
To: reason-omaha@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, September 01, 2009 8:02 AM
Subject: [Reason-Omaha] BBC E-mail: Engineering Earth 'is feasible'

Clay Farris Naff saw this story on the BBC News website and thought you
should see it.

** Engineering Earth 'is feasible' **
Geo-engineering is technically possible and could help reduce the impact of climate change, a Royal Society report concludes.
< http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/em/fr/-/2/hi/science/nature/8231387.stm >

** BBC Daily E-mail **
Choose the news and sport headlines you want - when you want them, all
in one daily e-mail
< http://www.bbc.co.uk/email >

** Disclaimer **
The BBC is not responsible for the content of this e-mail, and anything written in this e-mail does not necessarily reflect the BBC's views or opinions. Please note that neither the e-mail address nor name of the sender have been verified.

If you do not wish to receive such e-mails in the future or want to know more about the BBC's Email a Friend service, please read our frequently asked questions. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/help/4162471.stm

=

--

Clay Farris Naff
Executive Director, Lincoln Literacy Council
Member, National Association of Science Writers
Vice President, Nebraska Citizens for Science
(402) 310-0572
Lincoln, NE
USA

=

--
Clay Farris Naff
Executive Director, Lincoln Literacy Council
Member, National Association of Science Writers
Vice President, Nebraska Citizens for Science
(402) 310-0572
Lincoln, NE
USA

#37921

From: Sam Collins <sgc503@...>
Date: Wed Sep 2, 2009 4:30 pm
Subject: Re: Re: Oceans Could Absorb Much More CO2

sgc503@...

I had a fascinating and very informative course in marine geochemistry once, but it was too long ago for me to recall many useful details. One I do remember is that the solubility of CaCO3, the "snow" of microorganism tests (shells), increases with pressure, so that at bathyl depths (most of the ocean) the CO2 comes out of the solid phase chemical combination with Calcium and returns to water solution in its ionized form, increasing acidity. The abundant rain of foramenifera tests from productive surface waters generally do not accumulate in deep ocean bottom sediments. Not necessarily a good thing. Or bad, just the real way things work. The process has nothing to do with the "snow" being eaten.

Another thing I learned is that the interrelationship of chemical reactions in the marine environment is quite complex and poorly understood. Knowledge of the sea has expandeded greatly since I was in grad school, but I remain skeptical of predictive models based on current understanding. I mean VERY skeptical.

Sam

On Sep 1, 2009, at 3:47 PM, lclane2 wrote:

The immediate effects of higher CO2 on the ocean are likely in the other direction (feed forward rather than feedback). Ocean acidification decreases CO2 solubility and reduces biological calcification.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_acidification

Sadly first order effects of higher CO2 are generally feed forward rather than feedback.

--- In Reason-Omaha@yahoogroups.com, Gary Hoffman <glhoffman@...> wrote:
>
> Oceans Could Absorb Much More
> CO2<http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2009/09/01/oceans-carbon-absorb.html>
> Michael
> Reilly, Discovery News
>
>
> *Sept. 1, 2009* -- Earth's oceans are vast reservoirs of carbon dioxide
> (CO2) with the potential to control the pace of global warming.
>
> It all hinges on the fate of marine "snow" -- a constant sprinkle of
> carbon-rich bits that flutter down from the sea surface to the cold depths
> below. And according to a new study, the flurries could suck much more of
> the greenhouse gas out of the atmosphere than previously thought.
>
> Each year, phytoplankton floating in the seas' big blue expanse drink in 10
> billion tons of carbon from the air (humans emit about 8 billion
> tons<http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2009/04/29/emissions-cut-warming.html>).
> Their shells and excretions rain down from the surface, providing a feast
> for creatures that recycle up to 90 percent of the carbon back into the
> water <http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2009/04/13/ocean-iron-carbon.html> as
> CO2. Only a light dusting lands on the ocean floor.
>
> But small changes in this carbon system have big implications for climate.
>
> Today, most of the recycling happens in the first 210 meters (689 feet)
> below the ocean surface. According to a new study published in the
> journal *Nature
> Geoscience*, if that depth sank by just 24 meters, it could remove up to 27
> parts per million more of CO2 from the atmosphere.
> [image: meteorology]<http://dsc.discovery.com/videos/planet-earth-deep-ocean-sea-vents.html>
> *WATCH VIDEO: Sea vents form unique habitats for strange deep sea creatures.
> * <http://dsc.discovery.com/videos/planet-earth-deep-ocean-sea-vents.html>
>
> *Related Content:*
> ------------------------------
>
>
> - *Adding Iron to Ocean Won't Stop
> Warming*<http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2009/04/13/ocean-iron-carbon.html>
> - *Ocean Dead Zones Could Approach Mass Extinction
> Levels*<http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2009/01/26/ocean-dead-zones.html>
> - *HowStuffWorks.com: How can adding iron to the oceans slow global
> warming?*<http://science.howstuffworks.com/iron-sulfate-slow-global-warming.htm>
> - *More Discovery News* <http://dsc.discovery.com/news/news.html>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> This is because the deeper the snow falls into the ocean without being
> eaten, the more carbon-rich snow reaches the ocean floor. Once it is eaten,
> it becomes dissolved CO2, and it's just a matter of a short time (months to
> years instead of tens of thousands of years for the snow) before it makes
> its way back into the atmosphere.
>
> "People are going to be scratching their heads and saying, 'Wow, that's
> really sensitive,'" Ken Buesseler of the Woods Hole Oceanographic
> Institute<http://www.whoi.edu/>in Massachusetts, who was not involved
> in the study said. "That's not very
> big -- natural variability of that depth is several hundred meters."
>
> By comparison, scientists estimate the ocean helped usher in the most recent
> ice age tens of thousands of years ago when it drained between 30 and 77
> parts per million of CO2 from the air.
>
> That won't happen any time soon. Humans have added well over 100 parts per
> million of CO2 as well as other greenhouse gases to the atmosphere in the
> last two centuries, and many scientists predict that ocean
> warming<http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2009/01/26/ocean-dead-zones.html>will
> raise the depth at which most carbon cycles back into the water. If
> that happens, the seas will hasten global warming as they spew CO2 back out
> into the air.
>
> "On the other hand, a decrease in oxygen concentration in the ocean, which
> might be caused by enhanced stratification of the global
> ocean<http://science.howstuffworks.com/iron-sulfate-slow-global-warming.htm>,
> might slowdown bacterial metabolic rates," and increase the amount of snow
> that reaches the deep ocean, Eun Young Kwon of Princeton University, the
> study's lead author said.
>
> "The answer is I don't know. This is the major gap to be filled in our
> research community in the future."
>

#37922

From: sgc503@...
Date: Wed Sep 2, 2009 4:42 pm
Subject: NYTimes.com: Pfizer Pays $2.3 Billion to Settle Marketing Case

sgc503@...

E-Mail This

This page was sent to you by: sgc503@...

BUSINESS | September 03, 2009
Pfizer Pays $2.3 Billion to Settle Marketing Case
By GARDINER HARRIS
The settlement is the largest fine ever levied for fraud in the Medicare and Medicaid programs.

Whip It The directorial debut of Drew Barrymore, starring Ellen Page (Juno) as Bliss, a rebellious Texas teen who discovers the rowdy world of roller derby.
Click here to view trailer



Copyright 2009 The New York Times Company \| Privacy Policy

#37923

From: "zac01w" <zac01w@...>
Date: Wed Sep 2, 2009 5:24 pm
Subject: Most Mutations are Not Harmful

zac01w

We are all mutants and almost all our mutations are neither beneficial nor harmful.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8227442.stm

We are all mutants say scientists

By Sudeep Chand
Science Reporter, BBC News

Each of us has between 100 and 200 new genetic mutations

Each of us has at least 100 new mutations in our DNA, according to research published in the journal Current Biology.

Scientists have been trying to get an accurate estimate of the mutation rate for over 70 years.

However, only now has it been possible to get a reliable estimate, thanks to "next generation" technology for genetic sequencing.

The findings may lead to new treatments and insights into our evolution.

In 1935, one of the founders of modern genetics, JBS Haldane, studied a group of men with the blood disease haemophilia. He speculated that there would be about 150 new mutations in each of us.

Others have since looked at DNA in chimpanzees to try to produce general estimates for humans.

However, next generation sequencing technology has enabled the scientists to produce a far more direct and reliable estimate.

They looked at thousands of genes in the Y chromosomes of two Chinese men. They knew the men were distantly related, having shared a common ancestor who was born in 1805.

By looking at the number of differences between the two men, and the size of the human genome, they were able to come up with an estimate of between 100 and 200 new mutations per person.

Impressively, it seems that Haldane was right all along.

Unimaginable

One of the scientists, Dr Yali Xue from the Wellcome Trust Sanger Institute in Cambridgeshire, said: "The amount of data we generated would have been unimaginable just a few years ago.

"And finding this tiny number of mutations was more difficult than finding an ant's egg in an emperor's rice store."

New mutations can occasionally lead to severe diseases like cancer. It is hoped that the findings may lead to new ways to reduce mutations and provide insights into human evolution.

Joseph Nadeau, from the Case Western Reserve University in the US, who was not involved in this study said: "New mutations are the source of inherited variation, some of which can lead to disease and dysfunction, and some of which determine the nature and pace of evolutionary change.

"These are exciting times," he added.

"We are finally obtaining good reliable estimates of genetic features that are urgently needed to understand who we are genetically."

#37924

From: Gary Hoffman <glhoffman@...>
Date: Wed Sep 2, 2009 8:02 pm
Subject: SEC Never Did ‘Competent’ Madoff Probe, Report Finds

glhoffman

When a governmental agency commits errors and omissions of this order of magnitude, it should be dissolved. So-called overhauls are hardly reassuring. Indeed, incidents such as this call into question whether any agency is competent to serve the purposes for which it was organized. when it really counts.

SEC Never Did ‘Competent’ Madoff Probe, Report Finds (Update1)

By David Scheer

Sept. 2 (Bloomberg) -- The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission never undertook a “thorough and competent” probe of Bernard Madoff amid at least six complaints that he was running a Ponzi scheme, the agency’s internal watchdog said.

“The SEC received more than ample information in the form of detailed and substantive complaints over the years to warrant a thorough and comprehensive examination” of Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC, Inspector General H. David Kotz wrote in a summary of a report released today. Tips from a money manager, a “respected hedge-fund manager,” a firm that studied Madoff’s business and two anonymous informants failed to spur a complete probe, Kotz wrote.

The inspector general’s investigation didn’t find that senior SEC officials tried to improperly influence or interfere with inquiries.

The report is the most exhaustive look yet into the SEC’s failure to detect the world’s biggest Ponzi scheme, a $65 billion fraud that spanned decades and burned thousands of investors, including universities, charities and affluent clients. Lawmakers crafting a regulatory overhaul have awaited Kotz’s findings since agency officials rebuffed questions at hearings in January and February, citing the continuing Madoff inquiry.

‘Lessons Learned’

“It is a failure that we continue to regret, and one that has led us to reform in many ways how we regulate markets and protect investors,” SEC Chairman Mary Schapiro said in a statement, adding that the agency is overhauling its enforcement and inspection units and reforming how it handles tips. “We have been reviewing our practices and procedures, addressing shortcomings, and implementing the lessons learned.”

Madoff, 71, is serving a 150-year prison sentence after pleading guilty to a fraud that federal investigators said dated to at least the 1980s. The scam funneled funds from new clients to pay returns that were purportedly generated by a stock and options trading strategy known as a split-strike conversion. SEC investigators have said Madoff used a variety of ruses, such as creating sham trading records, to avoid detection.

At a congressional hearing in February, former money manager Harry Markopolos said he tried for years to warn the regulator that Madoff’s returns were impossible. He accused the SEC of “investigative ineptitude and financial illiteracy” for failing to spot Madoff’s fraud or follow up on his tips.

‘Inexperienced Staff’

In that case, Kotz wrote, “the relatively inexperienced enforcement staff failed to appreciate the significance of the analysis in the complaint, and almost immediately expressed skepticism and disbelief.” Though investigators soon caught Madoff in lies, they failed to look into inconsistencies and accepted his explanations at face value. They also rebuffed Markopolos’s offer to provide more evidence, and remained “confused about certain critical and fundamental aspects of Madoff’s operations.”

U.S. Representative Paul Kanjorski, a Pennsylvania Democrat and head of the House Financial Services capital markets subcommittee, said the report will guide efforts to reform financial regulation.

The case “highlights the need to adopt new securities laws to reward internal and external whistleblowers,” Kanjorski said, adding that reforms should be made to increase the money recovered by defrauded investors.

Kotz’s report “reminds us how essential it is that we improve both financial regulation and the competence of the regulator,” said U.S. Senator Christopher Dodd, a Connecticut Democrat who heads the Senate Banking Committee. Dodd’s panel will hold a hearing on Sept. 10 about ways to “modernize financial regulations,” he said.

Scheme Unraveled

Madoff’s scheme unraveled in December as he struggled to meet mounting investor withdrawals. Days after the Madoff’s arrest, SEC chairman Christopher Cox faulted agency staff for failing to act on “credible and specific allegations” about the operation for at least a decade.

Kotz told Congress he will issue recommendations this month for improving the SEC’s oversight and inquiries. The review was requested by Cox before he stepped down as chairman in January.

Schapiro, who took the SEC’s helm seven weeks after Madoff’s arrest, has focused on overhauling the agency. She repealed policies blamed for slowing investigations, hired an outside firm to create a system for screening tips about misconduct and appointed Robert Khuzami, a former federal prosecutor to oversee enforcement.

Khuzami last month announced the unit’s biggest reorganization in at least three decades, aimed at speeding investigations and honing expertise. The overhaul will leave fewer management layers, more front-line investigators, and at least five specialist teams focused on emerging and complex areas of the market. The SEC is also taking steps to make it easier for investigators to issue subpoenas and reward people for aiding probes.

The criminal case against Madoff is U.S. v. Madoff, 09-cr- 213, U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York (Manhattan).

To contact the reporter on this story: David Scheer in New York at dscheer@....

Last Updated: September 2, 2009 15:01 EDT

Reply | Messages in this Topic (12)

#37925

From: "Jim Bechtel" <jimbechtel2@...>
Date: Wed Sep 2, 2009 9:45 pm
Subject: Re: SEC Never Did ‘Competent’ Madoff Probe, Report Finds

jimbechtel2@...

Some knowledge of history can provide some reasonable perspective.

In the 1880's, at the height of unregulated laissez-faire capitalism, tens of thousands of railroad workers were killed or maimed every year since there were no safety standards and no legal liability, leading to strikes, bloody confrontations, and near-revolution (St Louis 1877; the militia joined the strikers). Lines that monopolized routes had farmers over a barrel and it could cost them more to ship their crop 100 miles on such a line than to ship 1000 miles elsewhere

Corrupt practices prevailed. I have some old souvenirs of those days, "passes" allowing my great-grandfather (a Union Pacific agent) to ride for free on various railroad and streetcar lines (providing he gave out free passes as well). More serious, Rockefeller told the railroads that if they wanted to make him happy (their biggest customer, Standard Oil) they'd pay HIM for each barrel of their competitors products they shipped, an extortion scheme worthy of Tony Soprano. Long story short: "The Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) was a regulatory body in the United States created by the Interstate Commerce Act of 1887, which was signed into law by President Grover Cleveland. This was the first independent agency (or so-called Fourth Branch). The ICC's original purpose was to regulate railroads (and later trucking) to ensure fair rates, to eliminate rate discrimination, and to regulate other aspects of common carriers."

Even the railroads supported the creation of the ICC:

a) The chaos was inefficient (see Robert Wiebe, The Search for Order), and

b) they quickly figured out they could stack the Commission with their own people, and see to it that the rails were regulated for their own benefit.

Now, when the SEC in the modern era was staffed with Busheviks who sneered at the idea of the public interest or the common good, certainly they failed to fulfill their responsibilities. The cure is not to go back to the chaos of the unregulated dog-eat-dog world, but to "reform" the SEC (actually, just staff it with better people). We have just survived (barely) eight years of stunning incompetence, when it was difficult to get the public's attention for important matters (climate change, for example). Unreasoning anti-government hysteria may be emotionally satisfying, but it is a fatal mistake in a world as complex as this. The way out is the way forward, not the way backward.

----- Original Message -----

From: Gary Hoffman

To: Reason-Omaha@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Wednesday, September 02, 2009 3:02 PM

Subject: [Reason-Omaha] SEC Never Did ‘Competent’ Madoff Probe, Report Finds

When a governmental agency commits errors and omissions of this order of magnitude, it should be dissolved. So-called overhauls are hardly reassuring. Indeed, incidents such as this call into question whether any agency is competent to serve the purposes for which it was organized. when it really counts.

SEC Never Did ‘Competent’ Madoff Probe, Report Finds (Update1)

By David Scheer

Sept. 2 (Bloomberg) -- The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission never undertook a “thorough and competent” probe of Bernard Madoff amid at least six complaints that he was running a Ponzi scheme, the agency’s internal watchdog said.

“The SEC received more than ample information in the form of detailed and substantive complaints over the years to warrant a thorough and comprehensive examination” of Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC, Inspector General H. David Kotz wrote in a summary of a report released today. Tips from a money manager, a “respected hedge-fund manager,” a firm that studied Madoff’s business and two anonymous informants failed to spur a complete probe, Kotz wrote.

The inspector general’s investigation didn’t find that senior SEC officials tried to improperly influence or interfere with inquiries.

The report is the most exhaustive look yet into the SEC’s failure to detect the world’s biggest Ponzi scheme, a $65 billion fraud that spanned decades and burned thousands of investors, including universities, charities and affluent clients. Lawmakers crafting a regulatory overhaul have awaited Kotz’s findings since agency officials rebuffed questions at hearings in January and February, citing the continuing Madoff inquiry.

‘Lessons Learned’

“It is a failure that we continue to regret, and one that has led us to reform in many ways how we regulate markets and protect investors,” SEC Chairman Mary Schapiro said in a statement, adding that the agency is overhauling its enforcement and inspection units and reforming how it handles tips. “We have been reviewing our practices and procedures, addressing shortcomings, and implementing the lessons learned.”

Madoff, 71, is serving a 150-year prison sentence after pleading guilty to a fraud that federal investigators said dated to at least the 1980s. The scam funneled funds from new clients to pay returns that were purportedly generated by a stock and options trading strategy known as a split-strike conversion. SEC investigators have said Madoff used a variety of ruses, such as creating sham trading records, to avoid detection.

At a congressional hearing in February, former money manager Harry Markopolos said he tried for years to warn the regulator that Madoff’s returns were impossible. He accused the SEC of “investigative ineptitude and financial illiteracy” for failing to spot Madoff’s fraud or follow up on his tips.

‘Inexperienced Staff’

In that case, Kotz wrote, “the relatively inexperienced enforcement staff failed to appreciate the significance of the analysis in the complaint, and almost immediately expressed skepticism and disbelief.” Though investigators soon caught Madoff in lies, they failed to look into inconsistencies and accepted his explanations at face value. They also rebuffed Markopolos’s offer to provide more evidence, and remained “confused about certain critical and fundamental aspects of Madoff’s operations.”

U.S. Representative Paul Kanjorski, a Pennsylvania Democrat and head of the House Financial Services capital markets subcommittee, said the report will guide efforts to reform financial regulation.

The case “highlights the need to adopt new securities laws to reward internal and external whistleblowers,” Kanjorski said, adding that reforms should be made to increase the money recovered by defrauded investors.

Kotz’s report “reminds us how essential it is that we improve both financial regulation and the competence of the regulator,” said U.S. Senator Christopher Dodd, a Connecticut Democrat who heads the Senate Banking Committee. Dodd’s panel will hold a hearing on Sept. 10 about ways to “modernize financial regulations,” he said.

Scheme Unraveled

Madoff’s scheme unraveled in December as he struggled to meet mounting investor withdrawals. Days after the Madoff’s arrest, SEC chairman Christopher Cox faulted agency staff for failing to act on “credible and specific allegations” about the operation for at least a decade.

Kotz told Congress he will issue recommendations this month for improving the SEC’s oversight and inquiries. The review was requested by Cox before he stepped down as chairman in January.

Schapiro, who took the SEC’s helm seven weeks after Madoff’s arrest, has focused on overhauling the agency. She repealed policies blamed for slowing investigations, hired an outside firm to create a system for screening tips about misconduct and appointed Robert Khuzami, a former federal prosecutor to oversee enforcement.

Khuzami last month announced the unit’s biggest reorganization in at least three decades, aimed at speeding investigations and honing expertise. The overhaul will leave fewer management layers, more front-line investigators, and at least five specialist teams focused on emerging and complex areas of the market. The SEC is also taking steps to make it easier for investigators to issue subpoenas and reward people for aiding probes.

The criminal case against Madoff is U.S. v. Madoff, 09-cr- 213, U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York (Manhattan).

To contact the reporter on this story: David Scheer in New York at dscheer@bloomberg.net.
Last Updated: September 2, 2009 15:01 EDT

Reply | Messages in this Topic (12)

#37926

From: "Skryja, David" <david.skryja@...>
Date: Wed Sep 2, 2009 10:29 pm
Subject: RE: Re comments on obsession with economic growth:

dskryja

Excellent quote. A man way ahead of his time. Thanks for passing it on, Sam.

Ds.

From: Reason-Omaha@yahoogroups.com [mailto:Reason-Omaha@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Sam Collins
Sent: Wednesday, September 02, 2009 6:55 AM
To: reason-Omaha@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Reason-Omaha] Re comments on obsession with economic growth:

The following is an excerpt from the Dot Earth blog posted earlier:

From: sgc503@...

Subject: [Reason-Omaha] NYTimes.com: Dot Earth: Do We Have to Outgrow Growth?

Date: September 1, 2009 6:20:57 AM CDT

Sam

#37927

From: sgc503@...
Date: Thu Sep 3, 2009 11:29 am
Subject: NYTimes.com: Skipping Spouse to Spouse Isn't Just a Man's Game

sgc503@...

E-Mail This

This page was sent to you by: sgc503@...

SCIENCE | September 01, 2009
Basics: Skipping Spouse to Spouse Isn't Just a Man's Game
By NATALIE ANGIER
For women, too, it can pay to be the remarrying kind.

Whip It The directorial debut of Drew Barrymore, starring Ellen Page (Juno) as Bliss, a rebellious Texas teen who discovers the rowdy world of roller derby.
Click here to view trailer



Copyright 2009 The New York Times Company \| Privacy Policy

#37928

From: "Jim Bechtel" <jimbechtel2@...>
Date: Thu Sep 3, 2009 12:08 pm
Subject: Re: NYTimes.com: Skipping Spouse to Spouse Isn't Just a Man's Game

jimbechtel2@...

First off, you can't go wrong paying attention to good ol' Geoffrey Miller! Everybody should read The Mating Mind.

Secondly, patriarchy was pretty universal until recently:

"Unlike in the West, where men control a far greater share of resources than women do, or in traditional pastoral societies like those found in the Middle East and Africa, where a woman is entirely dependent on the wealth of her husband and in divorce is not entitled to so much as a gimpy goat, Pimbwe women are independent operators and resourceful co-equals with men. This does not mean that mothers can go it alone, however. Again in contrast to the contemporary West, childhood mortality remains a serious threat, and it takes the efforts of more than one adult to keep a baby alive." So the Pimbwe are the rare exception.

WW2 put women in the work force, and once they had economic independence and could support themselves, divorce rates rose.

----- Original Message -----

From: sgc503@...

To: reason-omaha@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Thursday, September 03, 2009 6:29 AM

Subject: [Reason-Omaha] NYTimes.com: Skipping Spouse to Spouse Isn't Just a Man's Game

This page was sent to you by: sgc503@gmail.com

SCIENCE | September 01, 2009
Basics: Skipping Spouse to Spouse Isn't Just a Man's Game
By NATALIE ANGIER
For women, too, it can pay to be the remarrying kind.

Advertisement

Whip It The directorial debut of Drew Barrymore, starring Ellen Page (Juno) as Bliss, a rebellious Texas teen who discovers the rowdy world of roller derby.
Click here to view trailer

Copyright 2009 The New York Times Company | Privacy Policy

#37929

From: Terence Kelley <terence.kelley10@...>
Date: Thu Sep 3, 2009 1:20 pm
Subject: The angry Richard Dawkins

terence.kell...

What makes Dicky so angry?

From Publishers Weekly
SignatureReviewed by Jonah LehrerRichard Dawkins begins The Greatest Show on Earth with a short history of his writing career. He explains that all of his previous books have naïvely assumed the fact of evolution, which meant that he never got around to laying out the evidence that it [evolution] is true. This shouldn't be too surprising: science is an edifice of tested assumptions, and just as physicists must assume the truth of gravity before moving on to quantum mechanics, so do biologists depend on the reality of evolution. It's the theory that makes every other theory possible.Yet Dawkins also came to realize that a disturbingly large percentage of the American and British public didn't share his enthusiasm for evolution. In fact, they actively abhorred the idea, since it seemed to contradict the Bible and diminish the role of God. So Dawkins decided to write a book for these history-deniers, in which he would dispassionately demonstrate the truth of evolution beyond sane, informed, intelligent doubt.After only a few pages of The Greatest Show on Earth, however, it becomes clear that Dawkins doesn't do dispassionate, and that he's not particularly interested in convincing believers to believe in evolution. He repeatedly compares creationists and Holocaust deniers, which is a peculiar way of reaching out to the other side. Elsewhere, Dawkins calls those who don't subscribe to evolution ignorant, fatuously ignorant and ridiculous. All of which raises the point: who, exactly, is supposed to read this book? Is Dawkins preaching to the choir or trying to convert the uninformed? While The Greatest Show on Earth might fail as a work of persuasive rhetoric—Dawkins is too angry and acerbic to convince his opponents—it succeeds as an encyclopedic summary of evolutionary biology. If Charles Darwin walked into a 21st-century bookstore and wanted to know how his theory had fared, this is the book he should pick up.Dawkins remains a superb translator of complex scientific concepts. It doesn't matter if he's spinning metaphors for the fossil record (like a spy camera in a murder trial) or deftly explaining the method by which scientists measure the genetic difference between distinct species: he has a way of making the drollest details feel like a revelation. Even if one already believes in the survival of the fittest, there is something thrilling about learning that the hoof of a horse is homologous to the fingernail of the human middle finger, or that some dinosaurs had a second brain of ganglion cells in their pelvis, which helped compensate for the tiny brain in their head. As Darwin famously noted, There is grandeur in this view of life. What Dawkins demonstrates is that this view of life isn't just grand: it's also undeniably true. Color illus. (Sept. 29)Jonah Lehrer is the author of How We Decide and Proust Was a Neuroscientist.

Reply | Messages in this Topic (8)

#37930

From: Ken Munzesheimer <munzesheimer@...>
Date: Thu Sep 3, 2009 2:18 pm
Subject: 9-19-09 Request

munzesheimer

I am currently planning to be the facilitator for the 9-19-09 meeting at the
Benson library. I was originally planning to have a speaker who is knowledgable
about the Iran election crisis come and talk to us. However, the speaker called
me last Saturday and bowed out due to reasons that some of you already know
about and I will explain on 9-19-09. I also learned that Les, who has a
projector, will not be here on that date.

I am thinking of revising the Iran topic to talk about how rationalist and
skeptics� should verify information coming out of Iran(and other countries)in
order to form opinions. The barriers to objectivity etc on the above that might
be more fitting for this group than the original topic. Some resarch is
promising but I need the following:

� � � � � 1. A projector and laptop to enhance my presentation with
� � � � � ���someone willing to operate it since I am technically
� � � � � ���challenged.

� � � ���2. Any information including websites, blogs, periodicals, and books on
the above revised topic. I have only two weeks to prepare and any input from
others would shorten my search time.

Thanks for any input on the above.