Discussion:
Soylent Green is Canadians!
(too old to reply)
Jerry Kraus
2008-08-07 14:27:20 UTC
Permalink
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soylent_Green

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080806/ap_on_re_ca/canada_bus_beheading

It's Candians!

Soylent Green is Canadians!

The really fascinating thing here is that the wikipedia article says
that Soylent Green is about the Greenhouse Effect, even though in
1973, when it was made, no one had conceived of the Greenhouse
Effect! Soylent Green is about overpopulation. Period.

Almost as bizarre as a bunch of Canadians sitting around a watching
while a Cannibal feasts on one of their fellow passengers in a bus,
and asks them to join him!

Soylent Green is Canadians!
Kingo Gondo
2008-08-07 14:34:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jerry Kraus
even though in
1973, when it was made, no one had conceived of the Greenhouse
Effect!
You're an idiot.
Kingo Gondo
2008-08-07 14:36:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kingo Gondo
Post by Jerry Kraus
even though in
1973, when it was made, no one had conceived of the Greenhouse
Effect!
You're an idiot.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Fourier#Discovery_of_greenhouse_effect
Jerry Kraus
2008-08-07 14:42:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kingo Gondo
Post by Jerry Kraus
even though in
1973, when it was made, no one had conceived of the Greenhouse
Effect!
You're an idiot.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Fourier#Discovery_of_greenhouse_e...
It's fascinating to read how the history of science is systematically
rewritten in order to conform to current political trends. Do provide
a single reference in the film "soylent green" to the "greenhouse
effect".

Do provide any references prior to 1980 indicating scientists feared
catastrophic warming of the planet earth due to the greenhouse effect.

Science and politics have become inextricably entwined.
Kingo Gondo
2008-08-07 14:48:23 UTC
Permalink
You are also bad at covering up your idiocy.
Kingo Gondo
2008-08-07 14:52:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kingo Gondo
You are also bad at covering up your idiocy.
"Swedish chemist Svante August Arrhenius, best known for his Nobel
Prize-winning work in electrochemistry, also advanced understanding of the
greenhouse effect. In 1896 he calculated that doubling the natural
concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere would increase global
temperatures by 4° to 6°C (7° to 11°F), a calculation that is not too far
from today's estimates using more sophisticated methods. Arrhenius correctly
predicted that when Earth's temperature warms, water vapor evaporation from
the oceans increases. The higher concentration of water vapor in the
atmosphere would then contribute to the greenhouse effect and global
warming."

http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761578504_3/Greenhouse_Effect.html
Jerry Kraus
2008-08-07 14:56:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kingo Gondo
Post by Kingo Gondo
You are also bad at covering up your idiocy.
"Swedish chemist Svante August Arrhenius, best known for his Nobel
Prize-winning work in electrochemistry, also advanced understanding of the
greenhouse effect. In 1896 he calculated that doubling the natural
concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere would increase global
temperatures by 4° to 6°C (7° to 11°F), a calculation that is not too far
from today's estimates using more sophisticated methods. Arrhenius correctly
predicted that when Earth's temperature warms, water vapor evaporation from
the oceans increases. The higher concentration of water vapor in the
atmosphere would then contribute to the greenhouse effect and global
warming."
http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761578504_3/Greenhouse_Effect.html
And did he say that this was currently happening, and that the planet
was currently catastrophically warming, you idiot?

And was this the general view of the scientific community in 1973, you
dork?
Kingo Gondo
2008-08-07 15:16:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kingo Gondo
Post by Kingo Gondo
You are also bad at covering up your idiocy.
"Swedish chemist Svante August Arrhenius, best known for his Nobel
Prize-winning work in electrochemistry, also advanced understanding of the
greenhouse effect. In 1896 he calculated that doubling the natural
concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere would increase global
temperatures by 4° to 6°C (7° to 11°F), a calculation that is not too far
from today's estimates using more sophisticated methods. Arrhenius correctly
predicted that when Earth's temperature warms, water vapor evaporation from
the oceans increases. The higher concentration of water vapor in the
atmosphere would then contribute to the greenhouse effect and global
warming."
http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761578504_3/Greenhouse_Effect.html
And did he say that this was currently happening, and that the planet
was currently catastrophically warming, you idiot?

And was this the general view of the scientific community in 1973, you
dork?

Reply:


http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Soylent_Green :

"You know, when I was a kid, food was food! Until our scientists polluted
the soil... decimated plant and animal life. Why, you could buy meat
anywhere. Eggs, they had. Real butter. Fresh lettuce in the stores! How can
anything survive in a climate like this? A heat wave all year long! The
greenhouse effect! Everything is burning up!"

The entire scriopt is here:

http://www.script-o-rama.com/movie_scripts/s/soylent-green-script-transcript-heston.html

Do a find for the word "greenhouse".

You fucking dope, how does it feel to be completely outed as polemical fool?

Time for a nym change I bet.

Ass.
Jerry Kraus
2008-08-07 15:36:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jerry Kraus
Post by Kingo Gondo
Post by Kingo Gondo
You are also bad at covering up your idiocy.
"Swedish chemist Svante August Arrhenius, best known for his Nobel
Prize-winning work in electrochemistry, also advanced understanding of the
greenhouse effect. In 1896 he calculated that doubling the natural
concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere would increase global
temperatures by 4° to 6°C (7° to 11°F), a calculation that is not too far
from today's estimates using more sophisticated methods. Arrhenius correctly
predicted that when Earth's temperature warms, water vapor evaporation from
the oceans increases. The higher concentration of water vapor in the
atmosphere would then contribute to the greenhouse effect and global
warming."
http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761578504_3/Greenhouse_Effect.html
And did he say that this was currently happening, and that the planet
was currently catastrophically warming, you idiot?
And was this the general view of the scientific community in 1973, you
dork?
"You know, when I was a kid, food was food! Until our scientists polluted
the soil... decimated plant and animal life. Why, you could buy meat
anywhere. Eggs, they had. Real butter. Fresh lettuce in the stores! How can
anything survive in a climate like this? A heat wave all year long! The
greenhouse effect! Everything is burning up!"
http://www.script-o-rama.com/movie_scripts/s/soylent-green-script-tra...
Do a find for the word "greenhouse".
You fucking dope, how does it feel to be completely outed as polemical fool?
Time for a nym change I bet.
Ass.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Yes, I see the word "greenhouse" once, loon, in the entire script.
Nothing whatsoever about carbon dioxide, however. Just pollution, and
stupid scientists poisoning things. Doesn't seem to have much if
anything to do with Carbon warming. Carbon isn't poison, loon. And
forty million people in New York City who can't be fed.

I'm not the one with the political agenda here, loon. That should be
obvious.
Kingo Gondo
2008-08-07 15:39:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jerry Kraus
Post by Kingo Gondo
Post by Kingo Gondo
You are also bad at covering up your idiocy.
"Swedish chemist Svante August Arrhenius, best known for his Nobel
Prize-winning work in electrochemistry, also advanced understanding of the
greenhouse effect. In 1896 he calculated that doubling the natural
concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere would increase global
temperatures by 4° to 6°C (7° to 11°F), a calculation that is not too far
from today's estimates using more sophisticated methods. Arrhenius correctly
predicted that when Earth's temperature warms, water vapor evaporation from
the oceans increases. The higher concentration of water vapor in the
atmosphere would then contribute to the greenhouse effect and global
warming."
http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761578504_3/Greenhouse_Effect.html
And did he say that this was currently happening, and that the planet
was currently catastrophically warming, you idiot?
And was this the general view of the scientific community in 1973, you
dork?
"You know, when I was a kid, food was food! Until our scientists polluted
the soil... decimated plant and animal life. Why, you could buy meat
anywhere. Eggs, they had. Real butter. Fresh lettuce in the stores! How can
anything survive in a climate like this? A heat wave all year long! The
greenhouse effect! Everything is burning up!"
http://www.script-o-rama.com/movie_scripts/s/soylent-green-script-tra...
Do a find for the word "greenhouse".
You fucking dope, how does it feel to be completely outed as polemical fool?
Time for a nym change I bet.
Ass.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Yes, I see the word "greenhouse" once, loon, in the entire script.
Nothing whatsoever about carbon dioxide, however. Just pollution, and
stupid scientists poisoning things. Doesn't seem to have much if
anything to do with Carbon warming. Carbon isn't poison, loon. And
forty million people in New York City who can't be fed.

I'm not the one with the political agenda here, loon. That should be
obvious.

Reply:

I guess the phrase "greehouse effect" just passed over your head.

I'm done with you, loser--you can't be humiliated any more than you have
been (which isn't as much as you deserve).
Jerry Kraus
2008-08-07 16:15:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jerry Kraus
Post by Jerry Kraus
Post by Kingo Gondo
Post by Kingo Gondo
You are also bad at covering up your idiocy.
"Swedish chemist Svante August Arrhenius, best known for his Nobel
Prize-winning work in electrochemistry, also advanced understanding of the
greenhouse effect. In 1896 he calculated that doubling the natural
concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere would increase global
temperatures by 4° to 6°C (7° to 11°F), a calculation that is not too far
from today's estimates using more sophisticated methods. Arrhenius correctly
predicted that when Earth's temperature warms, water vapor evaporation from
the oceans increases. The higher concentration of water vapor in the
atmosphere would then contribute to the greenhouse effect and global
warming."
http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761578504_3/Greenhouse_Effect.html
And did he say that this was currently happening, and that the planet
was currently catastrophically warming, you idiot?
And was this the general view of the scientific community in 1973, you
dork?
"You know, when I was a kid, food was food! Until our scientists polluted
the soil... decimated plant and animal life. Why, you could buy meat
anywhere. Eggs, they had. Real butter. Fresh lettuce in the stores! How can
anything survive in a climate like this? A heat wave all year long! The
greenhouse effect! Everything is burning up!"
http://www.script-o-rama.com/movie_scripts/s/soylent-green-script-tra...
Do a find for the word "greenhouse".
You fucking dope, how does it feel to be completely outed as polemical fool?
Time for a nym change I bet.
Ass.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Yes, I see the word "greenhouse" once, loon, in the entire script.
Nothing whatsoever about carbon dioxide, however.  Just pollution, and
stupid scientists poisoning things.  Doesn't seem to have much if
anything to do with Carbon warming.  Carbon isn't poison, loon.  And
forty million people in New York City who can't be fed.
I'm not the one with the political agenda here, loon.  That should be
obvious.
I guess the phrase "greehouse effect" just passed over your head.
I'm done with you, loser--you can't be humiliated any more than you have
been (which isn't as much as you deserve).- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
If you read the script, loon, your own script it states:

"You know. When I was a kid...
...food was food.
Before our scientific magicians poisoned the water...
...polluted the soil. Decimated plant and animal life.
Why. In my day. You could buy meat anywhere.
Eggs. They had. Real butter. Fresh lettuce in the stores.
I know. Sol. You told me before."

This has nothing to do with what scientists mean by the "Greenhouse
Effect". There is nothing about Carbon warming in the film, or the
script.

The problems in Soylent Green are

1. 40 million people in New York City: Overpopulation
2. Toxic pollution. NOT Carbon based warming.

I can see why you'd be finished with me. You're the one who's been
humiliated, you utter cretin.
W***@Ireland.com
2008-08-07 16:59:40 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 7 Aug 2008 09:15:03 -0700 (PDT), Jerry Kraus
Post by Jerry Kraus
Post by Kingo Gondo
"You know, when I was a kid, food was food! Until our scientists polluted
the soil... decimated plant and animal life. Why, you could buy meat
anywhere. Eggs, they had. Real butter. Fresh lettuce in the stores! How
can anything survive in a climate like this? A heat wave all year long! The
greenhouse effect! Everything is burning up!"
Yes, I see the word "greenhouse" once, loon, in the entire script.
Nothing whatsoever about carbon dioxide, however.  Just pollution, and
stupid scientists poisoning things.  Doesn't seem to have much if
anything to do with Carbon warming.  Carbon isn't poison, loon.  And
forty million people in New York City who can't be fed.
Hmmmmmm..... Mr. Kraus. You challenged the poster on the greenhouse
effect and lost. So now you change the rules. Shades of the neocons
who continuously change the goal posts when faced with something that
negates their original premise. How pathetic. Soylent Green was about
environmental catastrophy. This includes overpopulation, climate
change, poisoning of the environment, and the greenhouse effect. They
are all connected and the problem is not one cause - it's the many
causes that lead to the destruction of the environment. Sort of like
deja vu all over again as the problem is all of the above - not just
climate change. It's all connected and those who seek to seperate the
causes are only engaging in mental masturbation.

WB Yeats
timeOday
2008-08-07 19:51:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jerry Kraus
Post by Jerry Kraus
Post by Kingo Gondo
Post by Kingo Gondo
You are also bad at covering up your idiocy.
"Swedish chemist Svante August Arrhenius, best known for his Nobel
Prize-winning work in electrochemistry, also advanced understanding of the
greenhouse effect. In 1896 he calculated that doubling the natural
concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere would increase global
temperatures by 4° to 6°C (7° to 11°F), a calculation that is not too far
from today's estimates using more sophisticated methods. Arrhenius correctly
predicted that when Earth's temperature warms, water vapor evaporation from
the oceans increases. The higher concentration of water vapor in the
atmosphere would then contribute to the greenhouse effect and global
warming."
http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761578504_3/Greenhouse_Effect.html
And did he say that this was currently happening, and that the planet
was currently catastrophically warming, you idiot?
And was this the general view of the scientific community in 1973, you
dork?
"You know, when I was a kid, food was food! Until our scientists polluted
the soil... decimated plant and animal life. Why, you could buy meat
anywhere. Eggs, they had. Real butter. Fresh lettuce in the stores! How can
anything survive in a climate like this? A heat wave all year long! The
greenhouse effect! Everything is burning up!"
http://www.script-o-rama.com/movie_scripts/s/soylent-green-script-tra...
Do a find for the word "greenhouse".
You fucking dope, how does it feel to be completely outed as polemical fool?
Time for a nym change I bet.
Ass.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Yes, I see the word "greenhouse" once, loon, in the entire script.
Nothing whatsoever about carbon dioxide, however. Just pollution, and
stupid scientists poisoning things. Doesn't seem to have much if
anything to do with Carbon warming. Carbon isn't poison, loon. And
forty million people in New York City who can't be fed.
I'm not the one with the political agenda here, loon. That should be
obvious.
Dude, I think it's time to throw in the towel on this one.
Next time do your homework first.
Jerry Kraus
2008-08-07 21:00:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jerry Kraus
- Show quoted text -
Dude, I think it's time to throw in the towel on this one.
Next time do your homework first.
Loon, have you considered getting a brain? The world would appear so
much clearer to you.
Jerry Kraus
2008-08-07 14:52:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kingo Gondo
You are also bad at covering up your idiocy.
Answer the questions, moron. I saw Soylent Green when it came out,
moron. It has nothing to do with Global Warming, the concept is not
mentioned in the film. People were afraid of a new Ice Age in 1973,
not global warming, you utter idiot. The film is about
overpopulation, that's all. The premise is that the population of the
planet is 24 billion people in 2022, you loser. Wikipedia is simply
following political trends.
Kingo Gondo
2008-08-07 15:11:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kingo Gondo
You are also bad at covering up your idiocy.
Answer the questions, moron. I saw Soylent Green when it came out,
moron. It has nothing to do with Global Warming, the concept is not
mentioned in the film. People were afraid of a new Ice Age in 1973,
not global warming, you utter idiot. The film is about
overpopulation, that's all. The premise is that the population of the
planet is 24 billion people in 2022, you loser. Wikipedia is simply
following political trends.

Reply:

You remain an enormous idiot.

I did not criticize you for your statements about SG (more on that below). I
pointed out your obvious idiocy for not knwoing that the greenhouse effect,
as a planet warming phenomena, was known many decades before SG was made.

Now, as to SG, yes, clearly, overpopulation is a major element of the film.
But, apparently unknown to only you, environmental degredation, including
obvious planet warming (everybody is always sweating), was a major factor.
For example, there is this quuote over at IMDb:

Det. Thorn: Turn the air conditioning way up!
Shirl: Way up! We'll make it as cold as winter used to be!

As I said, you are an enormous idiot, a fucking clown with a politcal agenda
no less obvious than the one you purport to criticize.
Kingo Gondo
2008-08-07 15:15:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jerry Kraus
Post by Kingo Gondo
You are also bad at covering up your idiocy.
Answer the questions, moron. I saw Soylent Green when it came out,
moron. It has nothing to do with Global Warming, the concept is not
mentioned in the film. People were afraid of a new Ice Age in 1973,
not global warming, you utter idiot. The film is about
overpopulation, that's all. The premise is that the population of the
planet is 24 billion people in 2022, you loser. Wikipedia is simply
following political trends.
You remain an enormous idiot.
I did not criticize you for your statements about SG (more on that below).
I pointed out your obvious idiocy for not knwoing that the greenhouse
effect, as a planet warming phenomena, was known many decades before SG
was made.
Now, as to SG, yes, clearly, overpopulation is a major element of the
film. But, apparently unknown to only you, environmental degredation,
including obvious planet warming (everybody is always sweating), was a
Det. Thorn: Turn the air conditioning way up!
Shirl: Way up! We'll make it as cold as winter used to be!
As I said, you are an enormous idiot, a fucking clown with a politcal
agenda no less obvious than the one you purport to criticize.
Oh, wait a minute--you are even a bigger fucking dunce than I supposed. I
took a look beyond IMDb for quotes:

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Soylent_Green :

"You know, when I was a kid, food was food! Until our scientists polluted
the soil... decimated plant and animal life. Why, you could buy meat
anywhere. Eggs, they had. Real butter. Fresh lettuce in the stores! How can
anything survive in a climate like this? A heat wave all year long! The
greenhouse effect! Everything is burning up!"

The entire scriopt is here:

http://www.script-o-rama.com/movie_scripts/s/soylent-green-script-transcript-heston.html

Do a find for the word "greenhouse".

You fucking dope, how does it feel to be completely outed as polemical fool?

Time for a nym change I bet.
Jerry Kraus
2008-08-07 15:22:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kingo Gondo
You are also bad at covering up your idiocy.
Answer the questions, moron.  I saw Soylent Green when it came out,
moron.  It has nothing to do with Global Warming, the concept is not
mentioned in the film.  People were afraid of a new Ice Age in 1973,
not global warming,  you utter idiot. The film is about
overpopulation, that's all.  The premise is that the population of the
planet is 24 billion people in 2022, you loser.   Wikipedia is simply
following political trends.
You remain an enormous idiot.
I did not criticize you for your statements about SG (more on that below). I
pointed out your obvious idiocy for not knwoing that the greenhouse effect,
as a planet warming phenomena, was known many decades before SG was made.
Now, as to SG, yes, clearly, overpopulation is a major element of the film.
But, apparently unknown to only you, environmental degredation, including
obvious planet warming (everybody is always sweating), was a major factor.
Det. Thorn: Turn the air conditioning way up!
Shirl: Way up! We'll make it as cold as winter used to be!
As I said, you are an enormous idiot, a fucking clown with a politcal agenda
no less obvious than the one you purport to criticize.
Global Warming, circa 1973, was a concept generally applied to the
planet Venus, and to the early history of the earth, when there was
far more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere than there is now. It was
NOT applied to the current situation on earth, and there was no sense
in which current technology was considered to lead to a near-term
danger of comparable effects, as scientists are threatening now, on a
regular basis. There was a general fear of "pollution", that's about
it.

It is perfectly obvious in Soylent Green that the fear is that the
population in 2022 will be eight times what it is in 1972. There is
no indication that agriculture has suffered. Only that there are too
many people to feed.

You are a nasty little idiot reduced to taking statements out of
context in a futile effort to ridicule them. Because you, yourself
have nothing whatsoever of any interest to say. My sympathies, you
utter moron.
Kingo Gondo
2008-08-07 15:24:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kingo Gondo
You are also bad at covering up your idiocy.
Answer the questions, moron. I saw Soylent Green when it came out,
moron. It has nothing to do with Global Warming, the concept is not
mentioned in the film. People were afraid of a new Ice Age in 1973,
not global warming, you utter idiot. The film is about
overpopulation, that's all. The premise is that the population of the
planet is 24 billion people in 2022, you loser. Wikipedia is simply
following political trends.
You remain an enormous idiot.
I did not criticize you for your statements about SG (more on that below). I
pointed out your obvious idiocy for not knwoing that the greenhouse effect,
as a planet warming phenomena, was known many decades before SG was made.
Now, as to SG, yes, clearly, overpopulation is a major element of the film.
But, apparently unknown to only you, environmental degredation, including
obvious planet warming (everybody is always sweating), was a major factor.
Det. Thorn: Turn the air conditioning way up!
Shirl: Way up! We'll make it as cold as winter used to be!
As I said, you are an enormous idiot, a fucking clown with a politcal agenda
no less obvious than the one you purport to criticize.
Global Warming, circa 1973, was a concept generally applied to the
planet Venus, and to the early history of the earth, when there was
far more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere than there is now. It was
NOT applied to the current situation on earth, and there was no sense
in which current technology was considered to lead to a near-term
danger of comparable effects, as scientists are threatening now, on a
regular basis. There was a general fear of "pollution", that's about
it.

It is perfectly obvious in Soylent Green that the fear is that the
population in 2022 will be eight times what it is in 1972. There is
no indication that agriculture has suffered. Only that there are too
many people to feed.

You are a nasty little idiot reduced to taking statements out of
context in a futile effort to ridicule them. Because you, yourself
have nothing whatsoever of any interest to say. My sympathies, you
utter moron.

Reply:


Read on, McDuff.

Jesus, how embarrassing for you. If you weren't such a fucking ignorant
prick I might feel some pity for you--but instead you can roast in Usenet
hell.
FACE
2008-08-08 00:49:32 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 7 Aug 2008 11:24:18 -0400 in uk.politics.misc, "Kingo Gondo"
Post by Kingo Gondo
Read on, McDuff.
Now there's a phrase not often heard on usenet In fact, this is the first
time i have seen it occur in this group...........

FACE
Siobhan Medeiros
2008-08-08 17:41:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kingo Gondo
Post by Jerry Kraus
even though in
1973, when it was made, no one had conceived of the Greenhouse
Effect!
You're an idiot.
That's why they thumped his ass out of university, and Jerry has had
it in for the scientific community and Canadians ever since.
Frank R.A.J. Maloney
2008-08-07 16:44:57 UTC
Permalink
Jerry Kraus wrote:

*PLONK*
--
Frank in Seattle
____

Frank Richard Aloysius Jude Maloney
"Millennium hand and shrimp."
Anim8rFSK
2008-08-08 16:08:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Frank R.A.J. Maloney
*PLONK*
"It's not even a real snack food anyway!"
--
Multiple root canals; hopped up on multiple pain drugs.

It's an explanation, not an excuse!
f. barnes
2008-08-07 16:50:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jerry Kraus
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soylent_Green
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080806/ap_on_re_ca/canada_bus_beheading
It's Candians!
Soylent Green is Canadians!
The really fascinating thing here is that the wikipedia article says
that Soylent Green is about the Greenhouse Effect, even though in
1973, when it was made, no one had conceived of the Greenhouse
Effect!   Soylent Green is about overpopulation.  Period.
Have you seen the movie? There was no snow; the whole world was
warm. They may not have mentioned a green house effect brought on by
the destruction of the forests, etc, caused by overpopulation, but it
was implied.

The strange thing is that when that movie was made everybody believed
that this planet, and the United States, was overpopulated, but now,
after populations have nearly doubled, few seem to believe in even the
concept of overpopulation, period.

Clearly, there has been some major brainwashing going on by those who
profit from growing populations.
Post by Jerry Kraus
Almost as bizarre as a bunch of Canadians sitting around a watching
while a Cannibal feasts on one of their fellow passengers in a bus,
and asks them to join him!
Soylent Green is Canadians!
lorad
2008-08-07 17:11:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jerry Kraus
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soylent_Green
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080806/ap_on_re_ca/canada_bus_beheading
It's Candians!
Soylent Green is Canadians!
The really fascinating thing here is that the wikipedia article says
that Soylent Green is about the Greenhouse Effect, even though in
1973, when it was made, no one had conceived of the Greenhouse
Effect!   Soylent Green is about overpopulation.  Period.
Have you seen the movie?  There was no snow; the whole world was
warm.  They may not have mentioned a green house effect brought on by
the destruction of the forests, etc, caused by overpopulation, but it
was implied.
The strange thing is that when that movie was made everybody believed
that this planet, and the United States, was overpopulated, but now,
after populations have nearly doubled, few seem to believe in even the
concept of overpopulation, period.
Clearly, there has been some major brainwashing going on by those who
profit from growing populations.
Soylent Green has *nothing* to do with the (real) concept of global
warming.
Kraus was right.

And you are right about overpopulation being a major source of all of
our problems.

It's like..
Neocon: 'You are ill, take two pills..'
Victim: 'Oh those pills made me more sick'
Neocon: 'Ok, I have just the solution... take four pills'.
Post by Jerry Kraus
Almost as bizarre as a bunch of Canadians sitting around a watching
while a Cannibal feasts on one of their fellow passengers in a bus,
and asks them to join him!
This is simply unnacceptable.. Canada imports muderous cannibal
maoists.. and leaves them to provide for themselves. Oh the
inhumanity!
K***@Undu.com
2008-08-07 21:44:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by lorad
Post by Jerry Kraus
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soylent_Green
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080806/ap_on_re_ca/canada_bus_beheading
It's Candians!
Soylent Green is Canadians!
The really fascinating thing here is that the wikipedia article says
that Soylent Green is about the Greenhouse Effect, even though in
1973, when it was made, no one had conceived of the Greenhouse
Effect!   Soylent Green is about overpopulation.  Period.
Have you seen the movie?  There was no snow; the whole world was
warm.  They may not have mentioned a green house effect brought on by
the destruction of the forests, etc, caused by overpopulation, but it
was implied.
The strange thing is that when that movie was made everybody believed
that this planet, and the United States, was overpopulated, but now,
after populations have nearly doubled, few seem to believe in even the
concept of overpopulation, period.
Clearly, there has been some major brainwashing going on by those who
profit from growing populations.
Soylent Green has *nothing* to do with the (real) concept of global
warming.
Kraus was right.
From Kraus' original post;

"The really fascinating thing here is that the wikipedia article says
that Soylent Green is about the Greenhouse Effect, even though in
1973, when it was made, no one had conceived of the Greenhouse
Effect! Soylent Green is about overpopulation. Period."

Notice, "no one had conceived of the Greenhouse
Effect! "

Kingo's right, Kraus' wrong.
Post by lorad
And you are right about overpopulation being a major source of all of
our problems.
It's like..
Neocon: 'You are ill, take two pills..'
Victim: 'Oh those pills made me more sick'
Neocon: 'Ok, I have just the solution... take four pills'.
Post by Jerry Kraus
Almost as bizarre as a bunch of Canadians sitting around a watching
while a Cannibal feasts on one of their fellow passengers in a bus,
and asks them to join him!
This is simply unnacceptable.. Canada imports muderous cannibal
maoists.. and leaves them to provide for themselves. Oh the
inhumanity!
Jerry Kraus
2008-08-07 21:49:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by K***@Undu.com
Post by lorad
Post by Jerry Kraus
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soylent_Green
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080806/ap_on_re_ca/canada_bus_beheading
It's Candians!
Soylent Green is Canadians!
The really fascinating thing here is that the wikipedia article says
that Soylent Green is about the Greenhouse Effect, even though in
1973, when it was made, no one had conceived of the Greenhouse
Effect!   Soylent Green is about overpopulation.  Period.
Have you seen the movie?  There was no snow; the whole world was
warm.  They may not have mentioned a green house effect brought on by
the destruction of the forests, etc, caused by overpopulation, but it
was implied.
The strange thing is that when that movie was made everybody believed
that this planet, and the United States, was overpopulated, but now,
after populations have nearly doubled, few seem to believe in even the
concept of overpopulation, period.
Clearly, there has been some major brainwashing going on by those who
profit from growing populations.
Soylent Green has *nothing* to do with the (real) concept of global
warming.
Kraus was right.
From Kraus' original post;
"The really fascinating thing here is that the wikipedia article says
that Soylent Green is about the Greenhouse Effect, even though in
1973, when it was made, no one had conceived of the Greenhouse
Effect!   Soylent Green is about overpopulation.  Period."
Notice, "no one had conceived of the Greenhouse
Effect! "
Kingo's right, Kraus' wrong.
Post by lorad
And you are right about overpopulation being a major source of all of
our problems.
It's like..
Neocon: 'You are ill, take two pills..'
Victim: 'Oh those pills made me more sick'
Neocon: 'Ok, I have just the solution... take four pills'.
Post by Jerry Kraus
Almost as bizarre as a bunch of Canadians sitting around a watching
while a Cannibal feasts on one of their fellow passengers in a bus,
and asks them to join him!
This is simply unnacceptable.. Canada imports muderous cannibal
maoists.. and leaves them to provide for themselves. Oh the
inhumanity!- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
No one had conceived of the Greenhouse Effect as being a current
phenomenon on our planet of significance, in the sense in which it is
currently being used -- Carbon Dioxide being a danger to the planet --
in 1973. They had greenhouses back then, though. And they knew
there was a runaway Greenhouse Effect on Venus. One of the
characteristics of utter morons like yourself is that you have
insufficient comprehension to see the forest for the trees.
K***@Undu.com
2008-08-07 23:04:06 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 7 Aug 2008 14:49:08 -0700 (PDT), Jerry Kraus
Post by Jerry Kraus
Post by K***@Undu.com
Post by lorad
Post by Jerry Kraus
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soylent_Green
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080806/ap_on_re_ca/canada_bus_beheading
It's Candians!
Soylent Green is Canadians!
The really fascinating thing here is that the wikipedia article says
that Soylent Green is about the Greenhouse Effect, even though in
1973, when it was made, no one had conceived of the Greenhouse
Effect!   Soylent Green is about overpopulation.  Period.
Have you seen the movie?  There was no snow; the whole world was
warm.  They may not have mentioned a green house effect brought on by
the destruction of the forests, etc, caused by overpopulation, but it
was implied.
The strange thing is that when that movie was made everybody believed
that this planet, and the United States, was overpopulated, but now,
after populations have nearly doubled, few seem to believe in even the
concept of overpopulation, period.
Clearly, there has been some major brainwashing going on by those who
profit from growing populations.
Soylent Green has *nothing* to do with the (real) concept of global
warming.
Kraus was right.
From Kraus' original post;
"The really fascinating thing here is that the wikipedia article says
that Soylent Green is about the Greenhouse Effect, even though in
1973, when it was made, no one had conceived of the Greenhouse
Effect!   Soylent Green is about overpopulation.  Period."
Notice, "no one had conceived of the Greenhouse
Effect! "
Kingo's right, Kraus' wrong.
Post by lorad
And you are right about overpopulation being a major source of all of
our problems.
It's like..
Neocon: 'You are ill, take two pills..'
Victim: 'Oh those pills made me more sick'
Neocon: 'Ok, I have just the solution... take four pills'.
Post by Jerry Kraus
Almost as bizarre as a bunch of Canadians sitting around a watching
while a Cannibal feasts on one of their fellow passengers in a bus,
and asks them to join him!
This is simply unnacceptable.. Canada imports muderous cannibal
maoists.. and leaves them to provide for themselves. Oh the
inhumanity!- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
No one had conceived of the Greenhouse Effect as being a current
phenomenon on our planet of significance, in the sense in which it is
currently being used -- Carbon Dioxide being a danger to the planet --
in 1973. They had greenhouses back then, though. And they knew
there was a runaway Greenhouse Effect on Venus. One of the
characteristics of utter morons like yourself is that you have
insufficient comprehension to see the forest for the trees.
Blabbing-on doesn't alter your original statement which was simply
wrong.

Your words;
" the Greenhouse Effect, even though in
1973, when it was made, no one had conceived of the Greenhouse
Effect!"

Chill dude! If it's any consolation, IMHO, you're only half as crazy
and not nearly as plain stupid as some of the posters on this group.

Perfection is the last thing in the world anyone would ever have
expected from you. Suck it up and move on.
Jerry Kraus
2008-08-07 23:28:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by K***@Undu.com
On Thu, 7 Aug 2008 14:49:08 -0700 (PDT), Jerry Kraus
Post by Jerry Kraus
Post by K***@Undu.com
Post by lorad
Post by Jerry Kraus
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soylent_Green
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080806/ap_on_re_ca/canada_bus_beheading
It's Candians!
Soylent Green is Canadians!
The really fascinating thing here is that the wikipedia article says
that Soylent Green is about the Greenhouse Effect, even though in
1973, when it was made, no one had conceived of the Greenhouse
Effect!   Soylent Green is about overpopulation.  Period.
Have you seen the movie?  There was no snow; the whole world was
warm.  They may not have mentioned a green house effect brought on by
the destruction of the forests, etc, caused by overpopulation, but it
was implied.
The strange thing is that when that movie was made everybody believed
that this planet, and the United States, was overpopulated, but now,
after populations have nearly doubled, few seem to believe in even the
concept of overpopulation, period.
Clearly, there has been some major brainwashing going on by those who
profit from growing populations.
Soylent Green has *nothing* to do with the (real) concept of global
warming.
Kraus was right.
From Kraus' original post;
"The really fascinating thing here is that the wikipedia article says
that Soylent Green is about the Greenhouse Effect, even though in
1973, when it was made, no one had conceived of the Greenhouse
Effect!   Soylent Green is about overpopulation.  Period."
Notice, "no one had conceived of the Greenhouse
Effect! "
Kingo's right, Kraus' wrong.
Post by lorad
And you are right about overpopulation being a major source of all of
our problems.
It's like..
Neocon: 'You are ill, take two pills..'
Victim: 'Oh those pills made me more sick'
Neocon: 'Ok, I have just the solution... take four pills'.
Post by Jerry Kraus
Almost as bizarre as a bunch of Canadians sitting around a watching
while a Cannibal feasts on one of their fellow passengers in a bus,
and asks them to join him!
This is simply unnacceptable.. Canada imports muderous cannibal
maoists.. and leaves them to provide for themselves. Oh the
inhumanity!- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
No one had conceived of the Greenhouse Effect as being a current
phenomenon on our planet of significance, in the sense in which it is
currently being used -- Carbon Dioxide being a danger to the planet --
in 1973.   They had greenhouses back then, though.  And they knew
there was a runaway Greenhouse Effect on Venus.  One of the
characteristics of utter morons like yourself is that you have
insufficient comprehension to see the forest for the trees.
Blabbing-on doesn't alter your original statement which was simply
wrong.
Your words;
" the Greenhouse Effect, even though in
 1973, when it was made, no one had conceived of the Greenhouse
 Effect!"
Chill dude! If it's any consolation, IMHO, you're only half as crazy
and not nearly as plain stupid as some of the posters on this group.
Perfection is the last thing in the world anyone would ever have
expected from you. Suck it up and move on.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Look moron. I realize the idea that anyone might be capable of
thinking beyond your semantic quibbles is disturbing to you, but, I'm
afraid some of us can. Live with it.

The point's simple. The Greenhouse Effect -- as the term is currently
employed, referring to Carbon Dioxide based warming of dangerous
proportions -- did not exist as a twentieth century Earth phenomenon
acknowledged by scientists at the time Soylent Green was made. My
point is dead on. The fact that you are too stupid and arrogant to
admit it is your problem, not mine. The Wikipedia Article says
Soylent Green is about the Greenhouse Effect, as it is currently
understood. It isn't. I am right, you are wrong.
K***@Undu.com
2008-08-08 01:22:17 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 7 Aug 2008 16:28:31 -0700 (PDT), Jerry Kraus
Post by Jerry Kraus
Post by K***@Undu.com
On Thu, 7 Aug 2008 14:49:08 -0700 (PDT), Jerry Kraus
Post by Jerry Kraus
Post by K***@Undu.com
Post by lorad
Post by Jerry Kraus
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soylent_Green
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080806/ap_on_re_ca/canada_bus_beheading
It's Candians!
Soylent Green is Canadians!
The really fascinating thing here is that the wikipedia article says
that Soylent Green is about the Greenhouse Effect, even though in
1973, when it was made, no one had conceived of the Greenhouse
Effect!   Soylent Green is about overpopulation.  Period.
Have you seen the movie?  There was no snow; the whole world was
warm.  They may not have mentioned a green house effect brought on by
the destruction of the forests, etc, caused by overpopulation, but it
was implied.
The strange thing is that when that movie was made everybody believed
that this planet, and the United States, was overpopulated, but now,
after populations have nearly doubled, few seem to believe in even the
concept of overpopulation, period.
Clearly, there has been some major brainwashing going on by those who
profit from growing populations.
Soylent Green has *nothing* to do with the (real) concept of global
warming.
Kraus was right.
From Kraus' original post;
"The really fascinating thing here is that the wikipedia article says
that Soylent Green is about the Greenhouse Effect, even though in
1973, when it was made, no one had conceived of the Greenhouse
Effect!   Soylent Green is about overpopulation.  Period."
Notice, "no one had conceived of the Greenhouse
Effect! "
Kingo's right, Kraus' wrong.
Post by lorad
And you are right about overpopulation being a major source of all of
our problems.
It's like..
Neocon: 'You are ill, take two pills..'
Victim: 'Oh those pills made me more sick'
Neocon: 'Ok, I have just the solution... take four pills'.
Post by Jerry Kraus
Almost as bizarre as a bunch of Canadians sitting around a watching
while a Cannibal feasts on one of their fellow passengers in a bus,
and asks them to join him!
This is simply unnacceptable.. Canada imports muderous cannibal
maoists.. and leaves them to provide for themselves. Oh the
inhumanity!- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
No one had conceived of the Greenhouse Effect as being a current
phenomenon on our planet of significance, in the sense in which it is
currently being used -- Carbon Dioxide being a danger to the planet --
in 1973.   They had greenhouses back then, though.  And they knew
there was a runaway Greenhouse Effect on Venus.  One of the
characteristics of utter morons like yourself is that you have
insufficient comprehension to see the forest for the trees.
Blabbing-on doesn't alter your original statement which was simply
wrong.
Your words;
" the Greenhouse Effect, even though in
 1973, when it was made, no one had conceived of the Greenhouse
 Effect!"
Chill dude! If it's any consolation, IMHO, you're only half as crazy
and not nearly as plain stupid as some of the posters on this group.
Perfection is the last thing in the world anyone would ever have
expected from you. Suck it up and move on.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Look moron. I realize the idea that anyone might be capable of
thinking beyond your semantic quibbles is disturbing to you, but, I'm
afraid some of us can. Live with it.
The point's simple. The Greenhouse Effect -- as the term is currently
employed, referring to Carbon Dioxide based warming of dangerous
proportions -- did not exist as a twentieth century Earth phenomenon
acknowledged by scientists at the time Soylent Green was made. My
point is dead on. The fact that you are too stupid and arrogant to
admit it is your problem, not mine. The Wikipedia Article says
Soylent Green is about the Greenhouse Effect, as it is currently
understood. It isn't. I am right, you are wrong.
You didn't say in your original post that you'd be explaining, with a
novella of excuses, what you actually meant when you said, "the
Greenhouse Effect, even though in 1973, when it was made, no one had
conceived of the Greenhouse Effect!"

All we can do is point out your mistakes. Learn from them or don't, as
you insist. "There are none so blind as those that WILL NOT see."
Unless, of course, your intellectually challenged in which case I'd
owe you an apology. Are you challenged Jerry?
Undecided
2008-08-09 17:20:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by f. barnes
Post by Jerry Kraus
The really fascinating thing here is that the wikipedia article says
that Soylent Green is about the Greenhouse Effect, even though in
1973, when it was made, no one had conceived of the Greenhouse
Effect!   Soylent Green is about overpopulation.  Period.
It's common I think to recast old stories in modern dress. Think of
doing Romeo and Juliet as New Yawk gang warfare.

Besides, everybody thought Farenheit 451 was about Big Brother and
censorship before Bradbury in latter days informed us it was all about
how TV warps your mental acuity so that you're nothing but a slug
receptor.

He didn't explain how in that case the authorities needed to enforce
bookburning. You don't need to do that. Nobody reads anymore.
Illiteracy is easier. It's the default.
Post by f. barnes
The strange thing is that when that movie was made everybody believed
that this planet, and the United States, was overpopulated, but now,
after populations have nearly doubled, few seem to believe in even the
concept of overpopulation, period.
Ahem. I think it's observed that the vast ticking of evermore humans
onto the planet is a feature that is relatively curbed, and in its
place we have the hog going through the Anaconda, the big bubble of
oldsters kept artificially alive which means France needs ever more
Muslims to work for all those retired French. And it's the same all
over the world. Actual numbers will subside in this century, but the
worker to retired ratio won't.

Some troubles ebb, others surge, that's the story.

You know, I heard, I can't remember where, that Soylent Green was an
amazing prediction of the failure of Waterworld.

Me, I'm

-Undecided
Kel Varnsen
2008-08-07 17:09:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jerry Kraus
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soylent_Green
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080806/ap_on_re_ca/canada_bus_beheading
It's Candians!
Soylent Green is Canadians!
The really fascinating thing here is that the wikipedia article says
that Soylent Green is about the Greenhouse Effect, even though in
1973, when it was made, no one had conceived of the Greenhouse
Effect!   Soylent Green is about overpopulation.  Period.
Almost as bizarre as a bunch of Canadians sitting around a watching
while a Cannibal feasts on one of their fellow passengers in a bus,
and asks them to join him!
Soylent Green is Canadians!
Canadians just have frozen minds, that's it. They're not soylent
green.
Richard Schultz
2008-08-07 17:32:40 UTC
Permalink
In rec.arts.movies.past-films Jerry Kraus <***@yahoo.com> wrote:

: The really fascinating thing here is that the wikipedia article says
: that Soylent Green is about the Greenhouse Effect, even though in
: 1973, when it was made, no one had conceived of the Greenhouse Effect!

Huh? Svante Arrhenius conceived of the Greenhouse Effect in the 19th century,
and Ursula Le Guin refers to it by name in her 1971 novel _The Lathe of
Heaven_. Please crawl back under whichever rock you came out from under of.

-----
Richard Schultz ***@mail.biu.ac.il
Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel
Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University
-----
"Now go away, or I shall taunt you a second time." -- The French Knight
Jerry Kraus
2008-08-07 20:59:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Richard Schultz
: The really fascinating thing here is that the wikipedia article says
: that Soylent Green is about the Greenhouse Effect, even though in
: 1973, when it was made, no one had conceived of the Greenhouse Effect!  
Huh?  Svante Arrhenius conceived of the Greenhouse Effect in the 19th century,
and Ursula Le Guin refers to it by name in her 1971 novel _The Lathe of
Heaven_.  Please crawl back under whichever rock you came out from under of.
-----
Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel
Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University
-----
"Now go away, or I shall taunt you a second time." -- The French Knight
The "Greenhouse Effect" as described by modern scientists is a very
specific phenomenon: catastrophic, systematic warming of our planet
due to the release of "Greenhouse gases" -- mostly water vapor and
carbon dioxide. There is no evidence whatsoever for this now, on our
planet. The film Soylent Green refers to "poisoning of the
water...polluted the soil...". Nothing about Global Warming from
Greenhouse Gases. The fact that the wikipedia article so casually and
confidently describes the film as being about the "Greenhouse effect"
just shows how desperate the Global Warming loons are to find evidence
supporting their claims!

No important scientific groups described the Greenhouse effect -- as
currently described -- as having major, undesirable effects on the
planet before 1980. It was used to describe the early life of our
planet, hundreds of millions of years ago, and to describe the effects
on Venus. Period.
Richard Schultz
2008-08-08 07:44:11 UTC
Permalink
In rec.arts.movies.past-films Jerry Kraus <***@yahoo.com> wrote:

:> Huh? Svante Arrhenius conceived of the Greenhouse Effect in the 19th century,
:> and Ursula Le Guin refers to it by name in her 1971 novel _The Lathe of
:> Heaven_. Please crawl back under whichever rock you came out from under of.

: The "Greenhouse Effect" as described by modern scientists is a very
: specific phenomenon: catastrophic, systematic warming of our planet
: due to the release of "Greenhouse gases" -- mostly water vapor and
: carbon dioxide. There is no evidence whatsoever for this now, on our planet.
Do the following calculation: what would the temperature of the earth be if
there were no CO2, H2O and CH4 in the atmosphere? Then compare your result
with the actual observed temperature of the earth. Or, alternatively, you
could crawl back under whichever rock you came out from under of.

: The fact that the wikipedia article so casually and
: confidently describes the film as being about the "Greenhouse effect"
: just shows how desperate the Global Warming loons are to find evidence
: supporting their claims!

Why don't you just edit the Wikipedia article to remove the offensive
sentence?

: No important scientific groups described the Greenhouse effect -- as
: currently described -- as having major, undesirable effects on the
: planet before 1980.

This is called "moving the goalposts." You stated that no one had ever
heard of it; now you state that no *important scientific groups* described it
as having major, undesirable effects. Tell me -- from where do you think
Ursula Le Guin got the notion that the Greenhouse Effect (her term) would
have the major, undesirable environmental effects that she described in
detail in a novel written in 1971?

-----
Richard Schultz ***@mail.biu.ac.il
Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel
Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University
-----
"You don't even have a clue about which clue you're missing."
Baldin Lee Pramer
2008-08-08 16:23:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jerry Kraus
Post by Richard Schultz
: The really fascinating thing here is that the wikipedia article says
: that Soylent Green is about the Greenhouse Effect, even though in
: 1973, when it was made, no one had conceived of the Greenhouse Effect!  
Huh?  Svante Arrhenius conceived of the Greenhouse Effect in the 19th century,
and Ursula Le Guin refers to it by name in her 1971 novel _The Lathe of
Heaven_.  Please crawl back under whichever rock you came out from under of.
-----
Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel
Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University
-----
"Now go away, or I shall taunt you a second time." -- The French Knight
The "Greenhouse Effect" as described by modern scientists is a very
specific phenomenon:  catastrophic, systematic warming of our planet
due to the release of "Greenhouse gases" -- mostly water vapor and
carbon dioxide.  
No, it is not. When scientists refer to the greenhouse effect, they
are talking about the general phenomenon. When they speak of the
concept you have in mind, they refer to it in a different way,
something along the lines of "planetary warming due to the greenhouse
effect".

It is time to give up. Everyone here arguing with you can see what you
are doing -- trying to save face by insisting that you did not say
what you said. Now, you may be partially vindicated by your ignorance
about what the phrase means, and that's fine, but please don't pretend
that your definition is the one used by scientists. Your abysmal
ignorance of science and what scientists do and say is well
documented.

BLP
Jerry Kraus
2008-08-07 21:07:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Richard Schultz
: The really fascinating thing here is that the wikipedia article says
: that Soylent Green is about the Greenhouse Effect, even though in
: 1973, when it was made, no one had conceived of the Greenhouse Effect!  
Huh?  Svante Arrhenius conceived of the Greenhouse Effect in the 19th century,
and Ursula Le Guin refers to it by name in her 1971 novel _The Lathe of
Heaven_.  Please crawl back under whichever rock you came out from under of.
-----
Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel
Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University
-----
"Now go away, or I shall taunt you a second time." -- The French Knight
My friend, if you really are a Chemistry Professor, your department
should certainly fire you. My point is quite straightforward. There
is no evidence for a dangerous Greenhouse Effect on our planet at this
time, no broad claims were made that there was one prior to 1980, and
the film Soylent Green is most certainly NOT about the modern concept
of the "Greenhouse Effect", despite the confident claims made in the
Wikipedia Article cited. Just propaganda and disinformation, pure and
simple. Is that what you specialize in , my friend?
Kingo Gondo
2008-08-07 21:23:43 UTC
Permalink
LOL!

When you go to the zoo, do you stick your arm in the lion's cage?

What NG are you coming from anyway? Obviously not ramp-f, or you'd know
better.

What a character....
Derek Janssen
2008-08-07 21:35:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kingo Gondo
LOL!
When you go to the zoo, do you stick your arm in the lion's cage?
What NG are you coming from anyway? Obviously not ramp-f, or you'd know
better.
Uh..."can.politics"? 9_9

Oh, come now, you MUST be used to attention-struck political-group
nuisances crossposting their vanity self-marketing threads to innocent,
symbolic, generically-headered dopey-literal-interpretation groups like
rec.books and rec.tv that they've never read or posted on in their
lives--tied in to some paper-thin "topic" connection ("They should make
a *movie* about this headline! :-P "), just to build maximum
Cross-Nuisance value to annoy their home group...

Derek Janssen (I mean, you don't think Gaza even READS alt.music.dylan
or soc.culture.jewish, do you??)
***@verizon.net
Kingo Gondo
2008-08-07 21:42:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Derek Janssen
Post by Kingo Gondo
LOL!
When you go to the zoo, do you stick your arm in the lion's cage?
What NG are you coming from anyway? Obviously not ramp-f, or you'd know
better.
Uh..."can.politics"? 9_9
Oh, come now, you MUST be used to attention-struck political-group
nuisances crossposting their vanity self-marketing threads to innocent,
symbolic, generically-headered dopey-literal-interpretation groups like
rec.books and rec.tv that they've never read or posted on in their
lives--tied in to some paper-thin "topic" connection ("They should make a
*movie* about this headline! :-P "), just to build maximum Cross-Nuisance
value to annoy their home group...
Derek Janssen (I mean, you don't think Gaza even READS alt.music.dylan or
soc.culture.jewish, do you??)
His best hope is that Dr. Schultz considers him an inconsequential bug not
worth squashing (which seems true enough now), otherwise--talk about going
from the frying pan into the fire!

This could be fun. I mean, I rarely truly LOL (which is why I don't use that
abbreviation much), but his second "retort" to RS was an exception.
Jim Beaver
2008-08-08 00:55:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Richard Schultz
: The really fascinating thing here is that the wikipedia article says
: that Soylent Green is about the Greenhouse Effect, even though in
: 1973, when it was made, no one had conceived of the Greenhouse Effect!
Huh? Svante Arrhenius conceived of the Greenhouse Effect in the 19th
century,
and Ursula Le Guin refers to it by name in her 1971 novel _The Lathe of
Heaven_. Please crawl back under whichever rock you came out from under
of.
-----
Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel
Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University
-----
"Now go away, or I shall taunt you a second time." -- The French Knight
My friend, if you really are a Chemistry Professor, your department
should certainly fire you. My point is quite straightforward. There
is no evidence for a dangerous Greenhouse Effect on our planet at this
time, no broad claims were made that there was one prior to 1980, and
the film Soylent Green is most certainly NOT about the modern concept
of the "Greenhouse Effect", despite the confident claims made in the
Wikipedia Article cited. Just propaganda and disinformation, pure and
simple. Is that what you specialize in , my friend?

-------------
RESPONSE:
Even if you're right about no one claiming or believing that the Greenhouse
Effect was an extant and currently dangerous phenomenon at the time the film
was MADE, it's clear that the screenwriter(s) theorized that it might well
be an extant and currently dangerous phenomenon at the time the film TOOK
PLACE. Whether they arrived at that theory by research, guesswork, or just
plain imagination is beside the point. It IS the phenomenon mentioned in
the script. Are you arguing that when the Greenhouse Effect is (plainly and
specifically) mentioned in the script, that the writers were referring to
something else than what we currently mean by the term? That they had no
intention of suggesting (along with all the other speculative warnings about
future circumstances) that the Greenhouse Effect might indeed come to be a
factor in the turmoil the script predicts for earth? If that is your
argument, can you suggest why they would use the term in the script, if the
meaning of the term is not what they meant? Are you willing to consider the
miniscule possibility that some minor element of what I've posited here
might conceivably in some unlikely fashion have a grain of potential truth?
Or is this just "I said it and it's true and anyone who disagrees is a
loon/moron/idiot, etc.?"

Jim Beaver
K***@Undu.com
2008-08-08 01:48:47 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 7 Aug 2008 17:55:53 -0700, "Jim Beaver"
Post by Jerry Kraus
Post by Richard Schultz
: The really fascinating thing here is that the wikipedia article says
: that Soylent Green is about the Greenhouse Effect, even though in
: 1973, when it was made, no one had conceived of the Greenhouse Effect!
Huh? Svante Arrhenius conceived of the Greenhouse Effect in the 19th
century,
and Ursula Le Guin refers to it by name in her 1971 novel _The Lathe of
Heaven_. Please crawl back under whichever rock you came out from under
of.
-----
Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel
Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University
-----
"Now go away, or I shall taunt you a second time." -- The French Knight
My friend, if you really are a Chemistry Professor, your department
should certainly fire you. My point is quite straightforward. There
is no evidence for a dangerous Greenhouse Effect on our planet at this
time, no broad claims were made that there was one prior to 1980, and
the film Soylent Green is most certainly NOT about the modern concept
of the "Greenhouse Effect", despite the confident claims made in the
Wikipedia Article cited. Just propaganda and disinformation, pure and
simple. Is that what you specialize in , my friend?
-------------
Even if you're right about no one claiming or believing that the Greenhouse
Effect was an extant and currently dangerous phenomenon at the time the film
was MADE, it's clear that the screenwriter(s) theorized that it might well
be an extant and currently dangerous phenomenon at the time the film TOOK
PLACE. Whether they arrived at that theory by research, guesswork, or just
plain imagination is beside the point. It IS the phenomenon mentioned in
the script. Are you arguing that when the Greenhouse Effect is (plainly and
specifically) mentioned in the script, that the writers were referring to
something else than what we currently mean by the term? That they had no
intention of suggesting (along with all the other speculative warnings about
future circumstances) that the Greenhouse Effect might indeed come to be a
factor in the turmoil the script predicts for earth? If that is your
argument, can you suggest why they would use the term in the script, if the
meaning of the term is not what they meant? Are you willing to consider the
miniscule possibility that some minor element of what I've posited here
might conceivably in some unlikely fashion have a grain of potential truth?
Or is this just "I said it and it's true and anyone who disagrees is a
loon/moron/idiot, etc.?"
Jim Beaver
This is just "I said it and it's true and anyone who disagrees is a
loon/moron/idiot, etc.?"

It's funny watching him squirm, isn't it? :) He dances just like a
politician under the same circumstances. Hardly anything original
though.
Jerry Kraus
2008-08-08 14:32:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by K***@Undu.com
On Thu, 7 Aug 2008 17:55:53 -0700, "Jim Beaver"
Post by Jerry Kraus
Post by Richard Schultz
: The really fascinating thing here is that the wikipedia article says
: that Soylent Green is about the Greenhouse Effect, even though in
: 1973, when it was made, no one had conceived of the Greenhouse Effect!
Huh? Svante Arrhenius conceived of the Greenhouse Effect in the 19th
century,
and Ursula Le Guin refers to it by name in her 1971 novel _The Lathe of
Heaven_. Please crawl back under whichever rock you came out from under
of.
-----
Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel
Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University
-----
"Now go away, or I shall taunt you a second time." -- The French Knight
My friend, if you really are a Chemistry Professor, your department
should certainly fire you.  My point is quite straightforward.  There
is no evidence for a dangerous Greenhouse Effect on our planet at this
time, no broad claims were made that there was one prior to 1980, and
the film Soylent Green is most certainly NOT about the modern concept
of the "Greenhouse Effect", despite the confident claims made in the
Wikipedia Article cited.  Just propaganda and disinformation, pure and
simple.  Is that what you specialize in , my friend?
-------------
Even if you're right about no one claiming or believing that the Greenhouse
Effect was an extant and currently dangerous phenomenon at the time the film
was MADE, it's clear that the screenwriter(s) theorized that it might well
be an extant and currently dangerous phenomenon at the time the film TOOK
PLACE.  Whether they arrived at that theory by research, guesswork, or just
plain imagination is beside the point.  It IS the phenomenon mentioned in
the script.  Are you arguing that when the Greenhouse Effect is (plainly and
specifically) mentioned in the script, that the writers were referring to
something else than what we currently mean by the term?  That they had no
intention of suggesting (along with all the other speculative warnings about
future circumstances) that the Greenhouse Effect might indeed come to be a
factor in the turmoil the script predicts for earth?  If that is your
argument, can you suggest why they would use the term in the script, if the
meaning of the term is not what they meant?  Are you willing to consider the
miniscule possibility that some minor element of what I've posited here
might conceivably in some unlikely fashion have a grain of potential truth?
Or is this just "I said it and it's true and anyone who disagrees is a
loon/moron/idiot, etc.?"
Jim Beaver
Hide quoted text -
Post by K***@Undu.com
- Show quoted text -
This is just "I said it and it's true and anyone who disagrees is a
loon/moron/idiot, etc.?"
It's funny watching him squirm, isn't it? :) He dances just like a
politician under the same circumstances. Hardly anything original
though.-
Pot/Kettle...
steve
2008-08-08 14:48:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by K***@Undu.com
It's funny watching him squirm, isn't it? :) He dances just like a
politician under the same circumstances. Hardly anything original
though.
Typical usenet discussion. Kraus has a point, that the WIki article
emphasizes the greenhouse effect when that's clearly little more than sci-fi
backdrop in the film and was not a part of public consciousness at the time.
But he overstates the point and then digs his heels in when his error is
revealed. KG loves an opportunity for a smackdown, so he fails to
acknowledge the value in what Kraus has to say and attempts to humiliate him
over his error. More sad than it is funny, IMO.

steve
--
"History is a lie agreed upon." --Napoleon
Jerry Kraus
2008-08-08 14:57:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by K***@Undu.com
It's funny watching him squirm, isn't it? :) He dances just like a
politician under the same circumstances. Hardly anything original
though.
Typical usenet discussion.  Kraus has a point, that the WIki article
emphasizes the greenhouse effect when that's clearly little more than sci-fi
backdrop in the film and was not a part of public consciousness at the time.
 But he overstates the point and then digs his heels in when his error is
revealed.  KG loves an opportunity for a smackdown, so he fails to
acknowledge the value in what Kraus has to say and attempts to humiliate him
over his error.  More sad than it is funny, IMO.
steve
--
"History is a lie agreed upon." --Napoleon
Up to a point, not a bad analysis, Steve. But, it's really not the
same Greenhouse Effect. I made no error. Their Greenhouse Effect is
not based on excess Carbon Dioxide being released by transportation
and industry into the atmosphere, which is what scientists are whining
about so much these days because they have no other way of attracting
research money to their laboratories. Exactly what it is, is rather
unclear. Perhaps they're thinking that pollution might have killed
all the algae in the sea, so there would have been no Carbon Dioxide
consumption by algae, leading the an excess of Carbon Dioxide in the
atmosophere, by that route. The problem with this is, we would have
no Oxygen to breathe, since algae produce the vast majority of Oxygen
in the atmosphere! Still, it's consistent with Soylent Green
supposedly being produced with Algae, whereas in fact, "Soylent Green
is People!". If all the algae are dead, some other food source would
have to be found.
Baldin Lee Pramer
2008-08-08 16:26:09 UTC
Permalink
 I made no error.
You constantly are in error. You claim controlled fusion is not a
current reality because of an international conspiracy of scientists.

BLP
Kingo Gondo
2008-08-08 15:55:17 UTC
Permalink
Dude, I know the enemy of your enemy is supposed to your friend, etc., but
you are stooping pretty low this time with this retard--it's sort of like
FDR snuggling up to Stalin. This is even past you and Georgie The Christer
sucking each other off.
K***@Undu.com
2008-08-11 18:22:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by steve
Post by K***@Undu.com
It's funny watching him squirm, isn't it? :) He dances just like a
politician under the same circumstances. Hardly anything original
though.
Typical usenet discussion. Kraus has a point, that the WIki article
emphasizes the greenhouse effect when that's clearly little more than sci-fi
backdrop in the film and was not a part of public consciousness at the time.
But he overstates the point and then digs his heels in when his error is
revealed. KG loves an opportunity for a smackdown, so he fails to
acknowledge the value in what Kraus has to say and attempts to humiliate him
over his error. More sad than it is funny, IMO.
steve
As you stated, "Typical usenet discussion."

I don't think the banter about his mistake has gone unheeded at all.
In his defence he's broadened the knowledge and the history of the
science for many who've been following this thread. Nothing goes to
waste for an intelligent mind. It could be that his defence taught him
something as well.

Like the subject this group is supposed to be about one must have a
thick skin to endure. :) Especially if one is going to introduce an
off-topic discussion.

For us who come here to take part in the discussion of Canadian
politics, such a plethora of off-topic threads constitute a slow day
and attacking the mistakes of such a poster is better than doing
nothing.

I'm sure Mr Kraus harbours no hard feelings towards his attackers and
realizes that when he stops responding to our chants and ridicule,
otherwise known as trolling, it'll all go away. And the next time he
wants to post an off-topic subject he'll analyse what he's going to
say before he posts it to make sure he's covered every possible angle
of attack of his idea. Including his spelling. :)

He and yourself should consider this thread an exercise in
intellectual agility and/or, at least, a lesson in human
communication.

It's all in good fun so don't go away mad if you don't like it. Just
go away. :)
Jerry Kraus
2008-08-11 18:53:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by K***@Undu.com
Post by K***@Undu.com
It's funny watching him squirm, isn't it? :) He dances just like a
politician under the same circumstances. Hardly anything original
though.
Typical usenet discussion.  Kraus has a point, that the WIki article
emphasizes the greenhouse effect when that's clearly little more than sci-fi
backdrop in the film and was not a part of public consciousness at the time.
But he overstates the point and then digs his heels in when his error is
revealed.  KG loves an opportunity for a smackdown, so he fails to
acknowledge the value in what Kraus has to say and attempts to humiliate him
over his error.  More sad than it is funny, IMO.
steve
As you stated, "Typical usenet discussion."
I don't think the banter about his mistake has gone unheeded at all.
In his defence he's broadened the knowledge and the history of the
science for many who've been following this thread. Nothing goes to
waste for an intelligent mind. It could be that his defence taught him
something as well.
Like the subject this group is supposed to be about one must have a
thick skin to endure. :)  Especially if one is going to introduce an
off-topic discussion.
For us who come here to take part in the discussion of Canadian
politics, such a plethora of off-topic threads constitute a slow day
and attacking the mistakes of such a poster is better than doing
nothing.
I'm sure Mr Kraus harbours no hard feelings towards his attackers and
realizes that when he stops responding to our chants and ridicule,
otherwise known as trolling, it'll all go away. And the next time he
wants to post an off-topic subject he'll analyse what he's going to
say before he posts it to make sure he's covered every possible angle
of attack of his idea. Including his spelling. :)
He and yourself should consider this thread an exercise in
intellectual agility and/or, at least, a lesson in human
communication.
 It's all in good fun so don't go away mad if you don't like it. Just
go away. :)- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
I still have no idea what you mean by "my error". What error?
Soylent Green is not about the Greenhouse Effect, it is about
overpopulation, as I stated. Watch the film. Crowds everywhere,
overcrowding everywhere. Whatever mechanism for the climate problems
mentioned in the film, it is not the one described by modern
scientists. Usenet loons are, of course, much keener on trying to
ridicule valid points than acknowledge them.

The Greenhouse effect as currently understood -- carbon emissions from
industry raising the earth's temperature to dangerous levels -- was
unknown as a concept in 1973. It is not present in Soylent Green.
steve
2008-08-11 19:17:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jerry Kraus
I still have no idea what you mean by "my error". What error?
Soylent Green is not about the Greenhouse Effect, it is about
overpopulation, as I stated.
Dude, get a clue. Yes, the GE is of no particular significance in the film
and it may not be (I suppose, strictly speaking, though we dont have much to
go on..and I dont actually even care) the same phenomenon often discussed
these days. But it is specifically mentioned in the film as one of the
environmental problems, and that clearly contradicts your original
statement. You can continue to quibble about the film makers intentions,
the (bogus) science, the difference between GE as it was understood in the
70s vs. today etc., but your original statement will still be incorrect on
it's face. If you simply admit that much, you can (or could have...maybe
now it's just too late) then clarify your meaning with some credibility.
It's clear to me (and probably everyone else) that your central point, i.e.
that the Wiki article is bullshit because of it's undue emphasis on GE, is
reasonable. But since you couldnt admit your simple mistake (and it was a
mistake) the larger point is lost.

steve
--
"History is a lie agreed upon." --Napoleon
Jerry Kraus
2008-08-11 19:37:26 UTC
Permalink
I still have no idea what you mean by "my error".  What error?
Soylent Green is not about the Greenhouse Effect, it is about
overpopulation, as I stated.
Dude, get a clue.  Yes, the GE is of no particular significance in the film
and it may not be (I suppose, strictly speaking, though we dont have much to
go on..and I dont actually even care) the same phenomenon often discussed
these days.  But it is specifically mentioned in the film as one of the
environmental problems, and that clearly contradicts your original
statement.  You can continue to quibble about the film makers intentions,
the (bogus) science, the difference between GE as it was understood in the
70s vs. today etc., but your original statement will still be incorrect on
it's face.  If you simply admit that much, you can (or could have...maybe
now it's just too late) then clarify your meaning with some credibility.
It's clear to me (and probably everyone else) that your central point, i.e.
that the Wiki article is bullshit because of it's undue emphasis on GE, is
reasonable.  But since you couldnt admit your simple mistake (and it was a
mistake) the larger point is lost.
steve
--
"History is a lie agreed upon." --Napoleon
Oh, I didn't remember the phrase "a greenhouse effect" from the film.
I only saw it once, when it first came out. But, I knew that our
current concept of a greenhouse effect from industrial carbon dioxide
emissions causing catastrophic environmental damage didn't exist in
1973.
Jerry Kraus
2008-08-11 19:44:52 UTC
Permalink
I still have no idea what you mean by "my error".  What error?
Soylent Green is not about the Greenhouse Effect, it is about
overpopulation, as I stated.
Dude, get a clue.  Yes, the GE is of no particular significance in the film
and it may not be (I suppose, strictly speaking, though we dont have much to
go on..and I dont actually even care) the same phenomenon often discussed
these days.  But it is specifically mentioned in the film as one of the
environmental problems, and that clearly contradicts your original
statement.  You can continue to quibble about the film makers intentions,
the (bogus) science, the difference between GE as it was understood in the
70s vs. today etc., but your original statement will still be incorrect on
it's face.  If you simply admit that much, you can (or could have...maybe
now it's just too late) then clarify your meaning with some credibility.
It's clear to me (and probably everyone else) that your central point, i.e.
that the Wiki article is bullshit because of it's undue emphasis on GE, is
reasonable.  But since you couldnt admit your simple mistake (and it was a
mistake) the larger point is lost.
steve
--
"History is a lie agreed upon." --Napoleon
OK. Let me be as clear as possible:

1. The phrase "a greenhouse effect" is, apparently used in Soylent
Green. I didn't remember this.
2. No one believed in 1973 that we were producing dangerous levels of
carbon dioxide emissions. Pollution in those days meant "toxic
pollution", not naturally occurring and essential gases like carbon
dioxide. It is rather unclear what the scriptwriters thought was
causing the Soylent Green greenhouse effect. Possibly the destruction
of the algae in the oceans, who consume massive amounts of carbon
dioxide.
Jerry Kraus
2008-08-11 19:00:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by K***@Undu.com
Post by K***@Undu.com
It's funny watching him squirm, isn't it? :) He dances just like a
politician under the same circumstances. Hardly anything original
though.
Typical usenet discussion.  Kraus has a point, that the WIki article
emphasizes the greenhouse effect when that's clearly little more than sci-fi
backdrop in the film and was not a part of public consciousness at the time.
But he overstates the point and then digs his heels in when his error is
revealed.  KG loves an opportunity for a smackdown, so he fails to
acknowledge the value in what Kraus has to say and attempts to humiliate him
over his error.  More sad than it is funny, IMO.
steve
As you stated, "Typical usenet discussion."
I don't think the banter about his mistake has gone unheeded at all.
In his defence he's broadened the knowledge and the history of the
science for many who've been following this thread. Nothing goes to
waste for an intelligent mind. It could be that his defence taught him
something as well.
Like the subject this group is supposed to be about one must have a
thick skin to endure. :)  Especially if one is going to introduce an
off-topic discussion.
For us who come here to take part in the discussion of Canadian
politics, such a plethora of off-topic threads constitute a slow day
and attacking the mistakes of such a poster is better than doing
nothing.
I'm sure Mr Kraus harbours no hard feelings towards his attackers and
realizes that when he stops responding to our chants and ridicule,
otherwise known as trolling, it'll all go away. And the next time he
wants to post an off-topic subject he'll analyse what he's going to
say before he posts it to make sure he's covered every possible angle
of attack of his idea. Including his spelling. :)
He and yourself should consider this thread an exercise in
intellectual agility and/or, at least, a lesson in human
communication.
 It's all in good fun so don't go away mad if you don't like it. Just
go away. :)- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Please, do clarify. Are you stating that the basis for the film
"Soylent Green" is carbon dioxide emissions from industry increasing
the earth's temperature? If so, why? Nothing in the film suggests
this.
K***@Undu.com
2008-08-11 20:27:10 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 11 Aug 2008 12:00:04 -0700 (PDT), Jerry Kraus
Post by Jerry Kraus
Post by K***@Undu.com
Post by K***@Undu.com
It's funny watching him squirm, isn't it? :) He dances just like a
politician under the same circumstances. Hardly anything original
though.
Typical usenet discussion.  Kraus has a point, that the WIki article
emphasizes the greenhouse effect when that's clearly little more than sci-fi
backdrop in the film and was not a part of public consciousness at the time.
But he overstates the point and then digs his heels in when his error is
revealed.  KG loves an opportunity for a smackdown, so he fails to
acknowledge the value in what Kraus has to say and attempts to humiliate him
over his error.  More sad than it is funny, IMO.
steve
As you stated, "Typical usenet discussion."
I don't think the banter about his mistake has gone unheeded at all.
In his defence he's broadened the knowledge and the history of the
science for many who've been following this thread. Nothing goes to
waste for an intelligent mind. It could be that his defence taught him
something as well.
Like the subject this group is supposed to be about one must have a
thick skin to endure. :)  Especially if one is going to introduce an
off-topic discussion.
For us who come here to take part in the discussion of Canadian
politics, such a plethora of off-topic threads constitute a slow day
and attacking the mistakes of such a poster is better than doing
nothing.
I'm sure Mr Kraus harbours no hard feelings towards his attackers and
realizes that when he stops responding to our chants and ridicule,
otherwise known as trolling, it'll all go away. And the next time he
wants to post an off-topic subject he'll analyse what he's going to
say before he posts it to make sure he's covered every possible angle
of attack of his idea. Including his spelling. :)
He and yourself should consider this thread an exercise in
intellectual agility and/or, at least, a lesson in human
communication.
 It's all in good fun so don't go away mad if you don't like it. Just
go away. :)- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Please, do clarify. Are you stating that the basis for the film
"Soylent Green" is carbon dioxide emissions from industry increasing
the earth's temperature? If so, why? Nothing in the film suggests
this.
You said,
Post by Jerry Kraus
"Soylent Green is Canadians!
The really fascinating thing here is that the wikipedia article says
that Soylent Green is about the Greenhouse Effect, even though in
1973, when it was made, no one had conceived of the Greenhouse
Effect! Soylent Green is about overpopulation. Period."
Notice, if you will, the, "even though in 1973, when it was made, NO
ONE HAD CONCEIVED OF THE GREENHOUSE EFFECT!"

That's wrong. It had been conceived of long before then as was pointed
out by other posters.

Perhaps it would have been more succinct/precise if you had added, "as
we perceive it today." But you didn't.

A simple, "oops!" would probably have been sufficient to avoid this
entire thread about your mistake.

It's been years since I've seen it and what I remember is that it was
more a mystery about 'what soylent green was' rather than the
greenhouse effect or even over-population. The discovery being that
humanity was eating its' processed dead. Unwittingly of course. :)

Given what we now know about processed food, it does seem a silly
idea. :)
Jerry Kraus
2008-08-11 20:37:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by K***@Undu.com
On Mon, 11 Aug 2008 12:00:04 -0700 (PDT), Jerry Kraus
Notice, if you will, the, "even though in 1973, when it was made, NO
ONE HAD CONCEIVED OF THE GREENHOUSE EFFECT!"
That's wrong. It had been conceived of long before then as was pointed
out by other posters.
Perhaps it would have been more succinct/precise if you had added, "as
we perceive it today." But you didn't.
- Show quoted text -
It would also have attracted much less attention. There's a method in
my madness.
steve
2008-08-11 20:52:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jerry Kraus
There's a method in
my madness.
That's half right.
--
"History is a lie agreed upon." --Napoleon
K***@Undu.com
2008-08-11 23:01:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by steve
Post by Jerry Kraus
There's a method in
my madness.
That's half right.
Let's see now. His statement has six words. Three words are right.

Got it! "There's my madness." Even though "there's" a contraction it
still only counts as one word. :)

Richard Schultz
2008-08-08 07:59:41 UTC
Permalink
In rec.arts.movies.past-films Jim Beaver <***@prodigy.spam> wrote:

: Even if you're right about no one claiming or believing that the Greenhouse
: Effect was an extant and currently dangerous phenomenon at the time the film
: was MADE, it's clear that the screenwriter(s) theorized that it might well
: be an extant and currently dangerous phenomenon at the time the film TOOK
: PLACE. Whether they arrived at that theory by research, guesswork, or just
: plain imagination is beside the point.

Keep in mind that we're talking about science fiction, and that science
fiction writers are frequently (not as frequently as they like to imagine,
but frequently enough for it not to be a statistical fluke) ahead of the
curve on such predictions -- H.G. Wells was already predicting atom bombs
in 1902 (and SF writers were writing about them all through the Second World
War); Rockets to the moon were a staple of SF two generations before a
rocket actually got there, and so on.

-----
Richard Schultz ***@mail.biu.ac.il
Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel
Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University
-----
"an optimist is a guy/ that has never had/ much experience"
Jerry Kraus
2008-08-08 14:28:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jerry Kraus
Post by Richard Schultz
: The really fascinating thing here is that the wikipedia article says
: that Soylent Green is about the Greenhouse Effect, even though in
: 1973, when it was made, no one had conceived of the Greenhouse Effect!
Huh? Svante Arrhenius conceived of the Greenhouse Effect in the 19th
century,
and Ursula Le Guin refers to it by name in her 1971 novel _The Lathe of
Heaven_. Please crawl back under whichever rock you came out from under
of.
-----
Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel
Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University
-----
"Now go away, or I shall taunt you a second time." -- The French Knight
My friend, if you really are a Chemistry Professor, your department
should certainly fire you.  My point is quite straightforward.  There
is no evidence for a dangerous Greenhouse Effect on our planet at this
time, no broad claims were made that there was one prior to 1980, and
the film Soylent Green is most certainly NOT about the modern concept
of the "Greenhouse Effect", despite the confident claims made in the
Wikipedia Article cited.  Just propaganda and disinformation, pure and
simple.  Is that what you specialize in , my friend?
-------------
Even if you're right about no one claiming or believing that the Greenhouse
Effect was an extant and currently dangerous phenomenon at the time the film
was MADE, it's clear that the screenwriter(s) theorized that it might well
be an extant and currently dangerous phenomenon at the time the film TOOK
PLACE.  Whether they arrived at that theory by research, guesswork, or just
plain imagination is beside the point.  It IS the phenomenon mentioned in
the script.  Are you arguing that when the Greenhouse Effect is (plainly and
specifically) mentioned in the script, that the writers were referring to
something else than what we currently mean by the term?  That they had no
intention of suggesting (along with all the other speculative warnings about
future circumstances) that the Greenhouse Effect might indeed come to be a
factor in the turmoil the script predicts for earth?  If that is your
argument, can you suggest why they would use the term in the script, if the
meaning of the term is not what they meant?  Are you willing to consider the
miniscule possibility that some minor element of what I've posited here
might conceivably in some unlikely fashion have a grain of potential truth?
Or is this just "I said it and it's true and anyone who disagrees is a
loon/moron/idiot, etc.?"
Jim Beaver- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
It's quite clear that when the script says "a greenhouse effect", they
do not mean one caused by human beings producing an excess of carbon
dioxide -- the process involved in "The Greenhouse Effect", as
described by contemporary scientists. Here's the script:


"You know. When I was a kid...
...food was food.
Before our scientific magicians poisoned the water...
...polluted the soil. Decimated plant and animal life.
Why. In my day. You could buy meat anywhere.
Eggs. They had. Real butter. Fresh lettuce in the stores.
I know. Sol. You told me before.
How can anything survive in a climate like this?
A heat wave all year long.
A greenhouse effect. Everything is burning up."

The explanation is quite clear. " Scientific magicians poisoned the
water...polluted the soil. Decimated plant and animal life. "
Whether it really makes sense is very much open to question. But, an
excess of Carbon emissions, it ain't. That, is very clear. It has
nothing to do with THE Greenhouse Effect that scientists are currently
talking about. And it is extremely dishonest for wikipedia to say
that they are the same thing! Propaganda for Global Warming, neither
more nor less than that. In any case, the main issue in Soylent Green
seems largely to be overpopulation, pure and simple.
Jim Beaver
2008-08-08 22:21:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jerry Kraus
Post by Richard Schultz
: The really fascinating thing here is that the wikipedia article says
: that Soylent Green is about the Greenhouse Effect, even though in
: 1973, when it was made, no one had conceived of the Greenhouse Effect!
Huh? Svante Arrhenius conceived of the Greenhouse Effect in the 19th
century,
and Ursula Le Guin refers to it by name in her 1971 novel _The Lathe of
Heaven_. Please crawl back under whichever rock you came out from under
of.
-----
Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel
Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University
-----
"Now go away, or I shall taunt you a second time." -- The French Knight
My friend, if you really are a Chemistry Professor, your department
should certainly fire you. My point is quite straightforward. There
is no evidence for a dangerous Greenhouse Effect on our planet at this
time, no broad claims were made that there was one prior to 1980, and
the film Soylent Green is most certainly NOT about the modern concept
of the "Greenhouse Effect", despite the confident claims made in the
Wikipedia Article cited. Just propaganda and disinformation, pure and
simple. Is that what you specialize in , my friend?
-------------
Even if you're right about no one claiming or believing that the Greenhouse
Effect was an extant and currently dangerous phenomenon at the time the film
was MADE, it's clear that the screenwriter(s) theorized that it might well
be an extant and currently dangerous phenomenon at the time the film TOOK
PLACE. Whether they arrived at that theory by research, guesswork, or just
plain imagination is beside the point. It IS the phenomenon mentioned in
the script. Are you arguing that when the Greenhouse Effect is (plainly
and
specifically) mentioned in the script, that the writers were referring to
something else than what we currently mean by the term? That they had no
intention of suggesting (along with all the other speculative warnings about
future circumstances) that the Greenhouse Effect might indeed come to be a
factor in the turmoil the script predicts for earth? If that is your
argument, can you suggest why they would use the term in the script, if the
meaning of the term is not what they meant? Are you willing to consider
the
miniscule possibility that some minor element of what I've posited here
might conceivably in some unlikely fashion have a grain of potential truth?
Or is this just "I said it and it's true and anyone who disagrees is a
loon/moron/idiot, etc.?"
Jim Beaver- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
It's quite clear that when the script says "a greenhouse effect", they
do not mean one caused by human beings producing an excess of carbon
dioxide -- the process involved in "The Greenhouse Effect", as
described by contemporary scientists. Here's the script:


"You know. When I was a kid...
...food was food.
Before our scientific magicians poisoned the water...
...polluted the soil. Decimated plant and animal life.
Why. In my day. You could buy meat anywhere.
Eggs. They had. Real butter. Fresh lettuce in the stores.
I know. Sol. You told me before.
How can anything survive in a climate like this?
A heat wave all year long.
A greenhouse effect. Everything is burning up."

The explanation is quite clear. " Scientific magicians poisoned the
water...polluted the soil. Decimated plant and animal life. "
Whether it really makes sense is very much open to question. But, an
excess of Carbon emissions, it ain't. That, is very clear. It has
nothing to do with THE Greenhouse Effect that scientists are currently
talking about. And it is extremely dishonest for wikipedia to say
that they are the same thing! Propaganda for Global Warming, neither
more nor less than that. In any case, the main issue in Soylent Green
seems largely to be overpopulation, pure and simple.

------------------
So the script's references to "greenhouse effect" have nothing to do with
The Greenhouse Effect. Maybe the writers meant something else besides what
we mean by "pollution," "heat wave," and "climate," too.

The novel on which the film is based, by the way, does discuss air
pollutants vis-a-vis the neverending heatwave. It doesn't use the term
greenhouse, though.

Jim Beaver
Jerry Kraus
2008-08-09 18:14:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jerry Kraus
Post by Jerry Kraus
Post by Richard Schultz
: The really fascinating thing here is that the wikipedia article says
: that Soylent Green is about the Greenhouse Effect, even though in
: 1973, when it was made, no one had conceived of the Greenhouse Effect!
Huh? Svante Arrhenius conceived of the Greenhouse Effect in the 19th
century,
and Ursula Le Guin refers to it by name in her 1971 novel _The Lathe of
Heaven_. Please crawl back under whichever rock you came out from under
of.
-----
Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel
Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University
-----
"Now go away, or I shall taunt you a second time." -- The French Knight
My friend, if you really are a Chemistry Professor, your department
should certainly fire you. My point is quite straightforward. There
is no evidence for a dangerous Greenhouse Effect on our planet at this
time, no broad claims were made that there was one prior to 1980, and
the film Soylent Green is most certainly NOT about the modern concept
of the "Greenhouse Effect", despite the confident claims made in the
Wikipedia Article cited. Just propaganda and disinformation, pure and
simple. Is that what you specialize in , my friend?
-------------
Even if you're right about no one claiming or believing that the Greenhouse
Effect was an extant and currently dangerous phenomenon at the time the film
was MADE, it's clear that the screenwriter(s) theorized that it might well
be an extant and currently dangerous phenomenon at the time the film TOOK
PLACE. Whether they arrived at that theory by research, guesswork, or just
plain imagination is beside the point. It IS the phenomenon mentioned in
the script. Are you arguing that when the Greenhouse Effect is (plainly
and
specifically) mentioned in the script, that the writers were referring to
something else than what we currently mean by the term? That they had no
intention of suggesting (along with all the other speculative warnings about
future circumstances) that the Greenhouse Effect might indeed come to be a
factor in the turmoil the script predicts for earth? If that is your
argument, can you suggest why they would use the term in the script, if the
meaning of the term is not what they meant? Are you willing to consider
the
miniscule possibility that some minor element of what I've posited here
might conceivably in some unlikely fashion have a grain of potential truth?
Or is this just "I said it and it's true and anyone who disagrees is a
loon/moron/idiot, etc.?"
Jim Beaver- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
It's quite clear that when the script says "a greenhouse effect", they
do not mean one caused by human beings producing an excess of carbon
dioxide -- the process involved in "The Greenhouse Effect", as
"You know. When I was a kid...
            ...food was food.
            Before our scientific magicians poisoned the water...
            ...polluted the soil. Decimated plant and animal life.
            Why. In my day. You could buy meat anywhere.
            Eggs. They had. Real butter. Fresh lettuce in the stores.
            I know. Sol. You told me before.
            How can anything survive in a climate like this?
            A heat wave all year long.
            A greenhouse effect. Everything is burning up."
The explanation is quite clear. " Scientific magicians poisoned the
water...polluted the soil.  Decimated plant and animal life. "
Whether it really makes sense is very much open to question.  But, an
excess of Carbon emissions, it ain't.  That, is very clear.  It has
nothing to do with THE Greenhouse Effect that scientists are currently
talking about.  And it is extremely dishonest for wikipedia to say
that they are the same thing!  Propaganda for Global Warming, neither
more nor less than that.  In any case, the main issue in Soylent Green
seems largely to be overpopulation, pure and simple.
------------------
Jim Beaver- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
So the script's references to "greenhouse effect" have nothing to do with
The Greenhouse Effect. Maybe the writers meant something else besides what
we mean by "pollution," "heat wave," and "climate," too.
The novel on which the film is based, by the way, does discuss air
pollutants vis-a-vis the neverending heatwave. It doesn't use the term
greenhouse, though.
Thus, my point. The wikipedia article says the entire film is about
the Greenhouse Effect. It appears to have nothing to do with our
concept of a Greenhouse Effect. By the way, carbon dioxide is NOT an
air pollutant. All plant life is TOTALLY dependant on carbon dioxide
to survive.
Richard Schultz
2008-08-08 07:56:31 UTC
Permalink
In rec.arts.movies.past-films Jerry Kraus <***@yahoo.com> wrote:

: There is no evidence for a dangerous Greenhouse Effect on our planet at this
: time, no broad claims were made that there was one prior to 1980,

Here is a quote from _Atmospheric Chemistry and Global Change_ ed. by
Guy P. Brasseur, John J. Orlano, and Geoffrey S. Tyndall (p. 516):

In 1896 the Swedish scientist Svante Arrhenius. . .theorized
that a doubling in the natural concentration of carbon
dioxide in the air would increase the Earth's global mean
temperature by 5-6 degrees Celsius. He pointed out that
such a change was likely due to the rapid expansion of
industry, and because, as he stated, "we are evaporating
our coal mines into the air." In 1938 Guy Stewart Callendar,
an engineer working for British Electrical Industries, noted
that the level of CO2 had increased by some 10 percent
since the 1890s and that it could explain some of the rise
in temperature recorded over the same period of time.
It was not, however, until the early 1960s that the potential
importance of global warming was recognized after the
American geochemist Charles D. Keeling reported a continuous
increase in the abundance of CO2 observed in a region as
remote as the Mauna Lea Observatory in Hawaii.

I believe that this pretty much refutes your claim.

-----
Richard Schultz ***@mail.biu.ac.il
Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel
Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University
-----
"You don't even have a clue about which clue you're missing."
Jerry Kraus
2008-08-08 14:36:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Richard Schultz
: There is no evidence for a dangerous Greenhouse Effect on our planet at this
: time, no broad claims were made that there was one prior to 1980,
Here is a quote from _Atmospheric Chemistry and Global Change_ ed. by
        In 1896 the Swedish scientist Svante Arrhenius. . .theorized
        that a doubling in the natural concentration of carbon
        dioxide in the air would increase the Earth's global mean
        temperature by 5-6 degrees Celsius.  He pointed out that
        such a change was likely due to the rapid expansion of
        industry, and because, as he stated, "we are evaporating
        our coal mines into the air."  In 1938 Guy Stewart Callendar,
        an engineer working for British Electrical Industries, noted
        that the level of CO2 had increased by some 10 percent
        since the 1890s and that it could explain some of the rise
        in temperature recorded over the same period of time.
        It was not, however, until the early 1960s that the potential
        importance of global warming was recognized after the
        American geochemist Charles D. Keeling reported a continuous
        increase in the abundance of CO2 observed in a region as
        remote as the Mauna Lea Observatory in Hawaii.
I believe that this pretty much refutes your claim.
-----
Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel
Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University
-----
"You don't even have a clue about which clue you're missing."
Nope. None of the above indicate a current danger even remotely
approaching the claims of current theorists. Because, the above were
making reasonable claims, while current theorists are spouting
nonsense. The concept that Global Warming from Carbon Emissions posed
an immediate danger to our planet did not exist in 1973. Quite
reasonably. It doesn't.
Siobhan Medeiros
2008-08-08 21:07:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jerry Kraus
Post by Richard Schultz
: The really fascinating thing here is that the wikipedia article says
: that Soylent Green is about the Greenhouse Effect, even though in
: 1973, when it was made, no one had conceived of the Greenhouse Effect!
Huh? Svante Arrhenius conceived of the Greenhouse Effect in the 19th century,
and Ursula Le Guin refers to it by name in her 1971 novel _The Lathe of
Heaven_. Please crawl back under whichever rock you came out from under of.
-----
Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel
Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University
-----
"Now go away, or I shall taunt you a second time." -- The French Knight
My friend, if you really are a Chemistry Professor, your department
should certainly fire you.
On the other hand, if he was a Physics Professor, he's probably fire
you. Oh that's right - one did.
God versus a can of tuna
2008-08-08 06:02:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jerry Kraus
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soylent_Green
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080806/ap_on_re_ca/canada_bus_beheading
It's Candians!
Soylent Green is Canadians!
The really fascinating thing here is that the wikipedia article says
that Soylent Green is about the Greenhouse Effect, even though in
1973, when it was made, no one had conceived of the Greenhouse
Effect! Soylent Green is about overpopulation. Period.
Almost as bizarre as a bunch of Canadians sitting around a watching
while a Cannibal feasts on one of their fellow passengers in a bus,
and asks them to join him!
Soylent Green is Canadians!
I'm sorry, but why is this important?
Kingo Gondo
2008-08-08 14:38:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jerry Kraus
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soylent_Green
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080806/ap_on_re_ca/canada_bus_beheading
It's Candians!
Soylent Green is Canadians!
The really fascinating thing here is that the wikipedia article says
that Soylent Green is about the Greenhouse Effect, even though in
1973, when it was made, no one had conceived of the Greenhouse
Effect! Soylent Green is about overpopulation. Period.


I made it just for you--enjoy, putz!
Jerry Kraus
2008-08-08 14:46:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kingo Gondo
Post by Jerry Kraus
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soylent_Green
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080806/ap_on_re_ca/canada_bus_beheading
It's Candians!
Soylent Green is Canadians!
The really fascinating thing here is that the wikipedia article says
that Soylent Green is about the Greenhouse Effect, even though in
1973, when it was made, no one had conceived of the Greenhouse
Effect!   Soylent Green is about overpopulation.  Period.
http://youtu.be/1kmMZglz4SI
I made it just for you--enjoy, putz!
Sorry, I don't download images produced by psychotics. I might be
violating federal law.
Baldin Lee Pramer
2008-08-08 16:10:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jerry Kraus
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soylent_Green
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080806/ap_on_re_ca/canada_bus_beheading
It's Candians!
Soylent Green is Canadians!
The really fascinating thing here is that the wikipedia article says
that Soylent Green is about the Greenhouse Effect, even though in
1973, when it was made, no one had conceived of the Greenhouse
Effect!  
You are so ignorant scientifically that I am astounded. Of course the
greenhouse effect was known long before that, and with the same name.

BLP
Jerry Kraus
2008-08-08 17:20:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Baldin Lee Pramer
Post by Jerry Kraus
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soylent_Green
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080806/ap_on_re_ca/canada_bus_beheading
It's Candians!
Soylent Green is Canadians!
The really fascinating thing here is that the wikipedia article says
that Soylent Green is about the Greenhouse Effect, even though in
1973, when it was made, no one had conceived of the Greenhouse
Effect!  
You are so ignorant scientifically that I am astounded. Of course the
greenhouse effect was known long before that, and with the same name.
BLP
Mr. Pramer, I grew up watching planetarium shows describing the
"runaway greenhouse effect" on Venus. I am well aware that that
concept existed. But that concept is not the same as the concept that
the greenhouse effect is currently destroying the planet earth do to
excessive carbon dioxide emissions by industry. Your arrogance,
stupidity and complacency do not astound me. I expect them from
professional scientists, who are not holistic thinkers, which is why
they are so utterly incompetent. Concepts are specific to time, place
and application. But, I wouldn't expect a fool like yourself to be
capable of grasping that. Much more fun to try to score points on the
basis of sematic quibbles. Have fun.
As to whether there's a conspiracy suppressing progress in nuclear
fusion, or it's simply a matter of incompetence and risk aversion,
well that's a difficult question to answer. Possibly all three.
Kingo Gondo
2008-08-08 17:39:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Baldin Lee Pramer
Post by Jerry Kraus
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soylent_Green
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080806/ap_on_re_ca/canada_bus_beheading
It's Candians!
Soylent Green is Canadians!
The really fascinating thing here is that the wikipedia article says
that Soylent Green is about the Greenhouse Effect, even though in
1973, when it was made, no one had conceived of the Greenhouse
Effect!
You are so ignorant scientifically that I am astounded. Of course the
greenhouse effect was known long before that, and with the same name.
BLP
Mr. Pramer, I grew up watching planetarium shows describing the
"runaway greenhouse effect" on Venus. I am well aware that that
concept existed. But that concept is not the same as the concept that
the greenhouse effect is currently destroying the planet earth do to
excessive carbon dioxide emissions by industry. Your arrogance,
stupidity and complacency do not astound me. I expect them from
professional scientists, who are not holistic thinkers, which is why
they are so utterly incompetent. Concepts are specific to time, place
and application. But, I wouldn't expect a fool like yourself to be
capable of grasping that. Much more fun to try to score points on the
basis of sematic quibbles. Have fun.
As to whether there's a conspiracy suppressing progress in nuclear
fusion, or it's simply a matter of incompetence and risk aversion,
well that's a difficult question to answer. Possibly all three.

Reply:

Oh, I see--we are true k00kland with this guy.

Yep, steve, another buddy for you!
Baldin Lee Pramer
2008-08-09 18:40:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jerry Kraus
Mr. Pramer, I grew up watching planetarium shows describing the
"runaway greenhouse effect" on Venus.  I am well aware that that
concept existed.  But that concept is not the same as the concept that
the greenhouse effect is currently destroying the planet earth do to
excessive carbon dioxide emissions by industry.
You should learn to use language more precisely. That said, I can see
that we may be arguing over unstated definitions. As I said, though,
scientists do not use "the greenhouse effect" to mean what you stated
they mean.
Post by Jerry Kraus
 Your arrogance,
stupidity and complacency do not astound me.  I expect them from
professional scientists, who are not holistic thinkers, which is why
they are so utterly incompetent.  
In what way are they utterly incompetent? A sweeping generalization
like that demands a little amplification.

BLP
Jerry Kraus
2008-08-09 18:52:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Baldin Lee Pramer
Post by Jerry Kraus
Mr. Pramer, I grew up watching planetarium shows describing the
"runaway greenhouse effect" on Venus.  I am well aware that that
concept existed.  But that concept is not the same as the concept that
the greenhouse effect is currently destroying the planet earth do to
excessive carbon dioxide emissions by industry.
You should learn to use language more precisely. That said, I can see
that we may be arguing over unstated definitions. As I said, though,
scientists do not use "the greenhouse effect" to mean what you stated
they mean.
Post by Jerry Kraus
 Your arrogance,
stupidity and complacency do not astound me.  I expect them from
professional scientists, who are not holistic thinkers, which is why
they are so utterly incompetent.  
In what way are they utterly incompetent? A sweeping generalization
like that demands a little amplification.
BLP
Here's an interaction on that point from another thread I'm currently
pursuing. It may interest you.
Post by Baldin Lee Pramer
Post by Jerry Kraus
Not all institutions recognize some fields listed above as social
sciences or as being only social scientific. Some disciplines have
for example some subfields of anthropology, such as biological
anthropology, are closely related to the natural sciences whereas
archaeology and linguistics are social sciences, while cultural
anthropology is very much linked with the humanities. Note that social
science methodologies are being incorporated into so-called hard
science fields like medicine, where a three-legged stool to the
understanding of physical well-being is now emphasized in the medical
curriculum: biological, socio-psychological, and environmental.
Nice point, Immortalist. Certainly, the field of medicine is one of
the "stars" of science lately, in terms of real progress in areas like
life expectancy, cancer treatment etc. Much better than physics, I
would say. Perhaps it is this willingness to incorporate a more
flexible, philosophical and self-correcting research approach that
accounts for this. I don't think that medical researchers are, in
general, nearly as rigid and arrogant as researchers in physics are.
Perhaps this is something that could be worked on, a bit.
Baldin Lee Pramer
2008-08-09 22:59:10 UTC
Permalink
 I don't think that medical researchers are, in
general, nearly as rigid and arrogant as researchers in physics are.
Perhaps this is something that could be worked on, a bit.
The medical researchers I have run into have been *far* more arrogant
as a group than have physicists. Recently I heard a biomedical
researcher interviewed, and he was lamenting the lack of new young
ideas in his area.

BLP
Jerry Kraus
2008-08-11 15:23:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Baldin Lee Pramer
 I don't think that medical researchers are, in
general, nearly as rigid and arrogant as researchers in physics are.
Perhaps this is something that could be worked on, a bit.
The medical researchers I have run into have been *far* more arrogant
as a group than have physicists. Recently I heard a biomedical
researcher interviewed, and he was lamenting the lack of new young
ideas in his area.
BLP
Well, there's arrogant in personality versus arrogant in attitude to
research. That is, thinking you know everything, or everything you
need to know about research. "Lamenting the lack of new young ideas
in his area" doesn't sound arrogant at all. It sounds very open, and
flexible. How many physicists do this? Most think they personally
can model the entire universe better than anyone else.
Siobhan Medeiros
2008-08-08 17:40:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jerry Kraus
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soylent_Green
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080806/ap_on_re_ca/canada_bus_beheading
It's Candians!
Soylent Green is Canadians!
The really fascinating thing here is that the wikipedia article says
that Soylent Green is about the Greenhouse Effect, even though in
1973, when it was made, no one had conceived of the Greenhouse
Effect! Soylent Green is about overpopulation. Period.
If you'd actually seen the movie, idiot, you'd have seen that the
"Greenhouse Effect" figures prominently in it.

Also, scientists have known of the "greenhouse effect" ever since the
Ventura probes.
Post by Jerry Kraus
Almost as bizarre as a bunch of Canadians sitting around a watching
while a Cannibal feasts on one of their fellow passengers in a bus,
and asks them to join him!
And nothing like that ever happened in the US, no sirrreeee...

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,320545,00.html
Post by Jerry Kraus
Soylent Green is Canadians!
Jerry Kraus
2008-08-08 17:44:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Siobhan Medeiros
Post by Jerry Kraus
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soylent_Green
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080806/ap_on_re_ca/canada_bus_beheading
It's Candians!
Soylent Green is Canadians!
The really fascinating thing here is that the wikipedia article says
that Soylent Green is about the Greenhouse Effect, even though in
1973, when it was made, no one had conceived of the Greenhouse
Effect!   Soylent Green is about overpopulation.  Period.
If you'd actually seen the movie, idiot, you'd have seen that the
"Greenhouse Effect" figures prominently in it.
Also, scientists have known of the "greenhouse effect" ever since the
Ventura probes.
Post by Jerry Kraus
Almost as bizarre as a bunch of Canadians sitting around a watching
while a Cannibal feasts on one of their fellow passengers in a bus,
and asks them to join him!
And nothing like that ever happened in the US, no sirrreeee...
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,320545,00.html
Post by Jerry Kraus
Soylent Green is Canadians!- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Not in a public place, Slob. With large numbers of observers joining
in. Canadians are special!
Siobhan Medeiros
2008-08-08 23:57:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jerry Kraus
Post by Siobhan Medeiros
Post by Jerry Kraus
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soylent_Green
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080806/ap_on_re_ca/canada_bus_beheading
It's Candians!
Soylent Green is Canadians!
The really fascinating thing here is that the wikipedia article says
that Soylent Green is about the Greenhouse Effect, even though in
1973, when it was made, no one had conceived of the Greenhouse
Effect! Soylent Green is about overpopulation. Period.
If you'd actually seen the movie, idiot, you'd have seen that the
"Greenhouse Effect" figures prominently in it.
Also, scientists have known of the "greenhouse effect" ever since the
Ventura probes.
Post by Jerry Kraus
Almost as bizarre as a bunch of Canadians sitting around a watching
while a Cannibal feasts on one of their fellow passengers in a bus,
and asks them to join him!
And nothing like that ever happened in the US, no sirrreeee...
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,320545,00.html
Post by Jerry Kraus
Soylent Green is Canadians!- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Not in a public place, Slob. With large numbers of observers joining
in. Canadians are special!
Fucking liar. Show me where they "joined in".
Jerry Kraus
2008-08-09 18:15:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Siobhan Medeiros
Post by Jerry Kraus
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soylent_Green
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080806/ap_on_re_ca/canada_bus_beheading
It's Candians!
Soylent Green is Canadians!
The really fascinating thing here is that the wikipedia article says
that Soylent Green is about the Greenhouse Effect, even though in
1973, when it was made, no one had conceived of the Greenhouse
Effect!   Soylent Green is about overpopulation.  Period.
If you'd actually seen the movie, idiot, you'd have seen that the
"Greenhouse Effect" figures prominently in it.
Also, scientists have known of the "greenhouse effect" ever since the
Ventura probes.
Post by Jerry Kraus
Almost as bizarre as a bunch of Canadians sitting around a watching
while a Cannibal feasts on one of their fellow passengers in a bus,
and asks them to join him!
And nothing like that ever happened in the US, no sirrreeee...
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,320545,00.html
Post by Jerry Kraus
Soylent Green is Canadians!- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Not in a public place, Slob.  With large numbers of  observers joining
in.  Canadians are special!
Fucking liar.  Show me where they "joined in".- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
You're not hungry, are you Slob? Please, tell us all you're not
hungry. It's important.
Kingo Gondo
2008-08-08 18:07:07 UTC
Permalink
So this imbicile Jerry is a Yank cranking a Canadian NG?

Shit, that is even worse. I am glad I buried his sorry ass.

Personally, I loved those parts of Canada I've been to--Ontario (Toronto and
environs) and BC. One of my best friends went fishing in Nova Scotia,
Labrador (and maybe P.E.I.?)--he loved it, too.

That reminds me--I'll be watching HNIC again in only two more months!
Jerry Kraus
2008-08-08 18:23:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kingo Gondo
So this imbicile Jerry is a Yank cranking a Canadian NG?
Shit, that is even worse. I am glad I buried his sorry ass.
Personally, I loved those parts of Canada I've been to--Ontario (Toronto and
environs) and BC. One of my best friends went fishing in Nova Scotia,
Labrador (and maybe P.E.I.?)--he loved it, too.
That reminds me--I'll be watching HNIC again in only two more months!
You're not a cannibal too, are you Kingo? That could explain your
difficulty in understanding "Soylent Green". You think it has a happy
ending. So does Slob, obviously. So do most Canadians.
Alric Knebel
2008-08-10 00:24:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jerry Kraus
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soylent_Green
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080806/ap_on_re_ca/canada_bus_beheading
It's Candians!
Soylent Green is Canadians!
The really fascinating thing here is that the wikipedia article says
that Soylent Green is about the Greenhouse Effect, even though in
1973, when it was made, no one had conceived of the Greenhouse
Effect! Soylent Green is about overpopulation. Period.
Almost as bizarre as a bunch of Canadians sitting around a watching
while a Cannibal feasts on one of their fellow passengers in a bus,
and asks them to join him!
Soylent Green is Canadians!
I haven't read the rest of this thread, but in case no one else has
corrected you, the "greenhouse effect" was mentioned in the film itself. I
know, because I just watched the DVD last week.
--
______________________________________________
Alric Knebel
http://www.ironeyefortress.com/C-SPAN_loon.html
http://www.ironeyefortress.com
Jim Beaver
2008-08-10 01:24:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alric Knebel
Post by Jerry Kraus
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soylent_Green
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080806/ap_on_re_ca/canada_bus_beheading
It's Candians!
Soylent Green is Canadians!
The really fascinating thing here is that the wikipedia article says
that Soylent Green is about the Greenhouse Effect, even though in
1973, when it was made, no one had conceived of the Greenhouse
Effect! Soylent Green is about overpopulation. Period.
Almost as bizarre as a bunch of Canadians sitting around a watching
while a Cannibal feasts on one of their fellow passengers in a bus,
and asks them to join him!
Soylent Green is Canadians!
I haven't read the rest of this thread, but in case no one else has
corrected you, the "greenhouse effect" was mentioned in the film itself.
I know, because I just watched the DVD last week.
This fellow's arguing that the greenhouse effect mentioned by the people in
the film is different from the greenhouse effect everyone in real life
means. Or something.

Jim Beaver
Jerry Kraus
2008-08-11 15:32:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jim Beaver
Post by Alric Knebel
Post by Jerry Kraus
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soylent_Green
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080806/ap_on_re_ca/canada_bus_beheading
It's Candians!
Soylent Green is Canadians!
The really fascinating thing here is that the wikipedia article says
that Soylent Green is about the Greenhouse Effect, even though in
1973, when it was made, no one had conceived of the Greenhouse
Effect!   Soylent Green is about overpopulation.  Period.
Almost as bizarre as a bunch of Canadians sitting around a watching
while a Cannibal feasts on one of their fellow passengers in a bus,
and asks them to join him!
Soylent Green is Canadians!
I haven't read the rest of this thread, but in case no one else has
corrected you, the "greenhouse effect" was mentioned in the film itself.
I know, because I just watched the DVD last week.
This fellow's arguing that the greenhouse effect mentioned by the people in
the film is different from the greenhouse effect everyone in real life
means.  Or something.
Jim Beaver- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
It's really not that complicated, Jim. The Greenhouse effect in
Soylent Green is somehow caused by pollution of the soil and the
water, destroying plant and animal life. Possibly, all the algae in
the water have been killed.

The Greenhouse effect scientists are currently obsessed with is
supposedly caused by excessive carbon dioxide emissions by
transportation and industry, which is certainly not consistent with
the script of Soylent Green. There's a simple reason for this. In
1973, no one had conceived of the possibility that, at the time,
excess carbon dioxide emissions on earth were a serious danger.
Check it out. Thus my point. The Greenhouse Effect as currently
understood, in terms of its effects on our planet, had not been
conceived of in 1973. So, it is extremely dishonest to say the film
is about the "Greenhouse Effect", in the current sense of the term.
Actually, it's mainly about overpopulation.
S D
2008-08-10 01:32:56 UTC
Permalink
Solyent Green is made of old vhs tapes and dvds
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...