On 9 Mar 2005 09:13:47 -0800, wrote:

Who the heck is REGAN? :-)

pseudonym?
--
John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."

P.Fritz wrote:

Or just maybe he was on the right track

http://www.princeton.edu/pr/pwb/04/1004/3b.shtml
Yes, this study shows that the VOC's are a result of tree farms. Man
has altered the mix of trees in the landscape.


http://www.chennaionline.com/science...ironment24.asp

Again, altering the the mix of trees, harvesting pines and maples, and
letting oaks flourish.

http://www.water.az.gov/NewsArchive/trees031703.htm

This gem deals with only the aspect of trees emitting the gases that
react with tailpipe emissions (smog). If there was no smog, this would
be a moot point. All of the above that you've found, is a fate dealt by
the hand of man, not trees.




Gary

P.Fritz wrote:
"Gary" wrote in message
...

"P.Fritz" wrote in message
...


http://www.princeton.edu/pr/pwb/04/1004/3b.shtml
http://www.chennaionline.com/science...ironment24.asp
http://www.water.az.gov/NewsArchive/trees031703.htm



Interesting links. I quickly browsed all three of these. Tell me if
you
see it differently
but what I get from these is: Some trees do produce pollution but
most
trees also
absorb CO2 and "clean" the air.

I don't consider CO2 a pollutant. Those that do should just off
themselves
and stop polluting the air by exhaling.

Perhaps you should seal yourself in an environment with elevated levels
of CO2, then.

wrote in message
oups.com...
Who the heck is REGAN? :-)



Yes, I mistyped "Reagan". Oppps ;)

Of things that cars and trees emit, is there anything you would consider a
pollutant?


P.Fritz wrote:
Sure, there are all kinds of VOC's produced by cars, trees, plastics,
paints, etc. etc.


Is there any point in discussing the matter?

To the Bush-Cheney cheerleaders (not just the ones on this newsgroup)
*anything* is subject to political interpretation. If President Bush
announces that water runs up hill, why then as far as they're concerned
only a damn terrorist-sympathizing fag-loving liberal traitor would
suggest that it actually runs down hill.

The problem comes when serious decisions about national policy are made
on the basis of this kind of boneheaded attitude... which is why the
country is headed in the direction it is...

DSK

Thanks for giving straight answers
Paul. From the tone of your previous
post I expected less. Glad I was wrong.


In your first post to this thread you wrote, "Or
just maybe he [Reagan] was on the right track."

I'm really curious what you meant by that. Did
you mean that technically in some instances trees
produce more pollution than cars? Or did you mean
that, overall, trees are worse for the environment
than cars?


It still seems to me that, even if technically correct,
Reagan's remark was disingenuous. Would you agree
with me on that, or no?

Paul - it may seem like I'm trying to "trap" you into a corner
or be a pain or something. But I'm really not. I'm honestly trying
to understand where someone that appears to have different
views than I do is coming from.


Regarding Al Go I'll admit that some (many?) knowledgeable, intelligent,
and intellectually honest people think global warming is either non-existent
or often overblown. And I'll admit that approaches that Al Gore would like
to see to this problem might be wrong. But I still believe that Al Gore is
highly-knowledgeable about the issue and applies rational/critical thinking
when evaluating the issue. ~ Sometimes (often) on complex issues where not
all data is known or knowable people that are knowledgable, intelligent, and
intelletually honest can come to differing conclusions.

Gary

On Wed, 09 Mar 2005 14:20:11 -0500, DSK wrote:

Of things that cars and trees emit, is there anything you would consider a
pollutant?


P.Fritz wrote:
Sure, there are all kinds of VOC's produced by cars, trees, plastics,
paints, etc. etc.


Is there any point in discussing the matter?

To the Bush-Cheney cheerleaders (not just the ones on this newsgroup)
*anything* is subject to political interpretation. If President Bush
announces that water runs up hill, why then as far as they're concerned
only a damn terrorist-sympathizing fag-loving liberal traitor would
suggest that it actually runs down hill.

The problem comes when serious decisions about national policy are made
on the basis of this kind of boneheaded attitude... which is why the
country is headed in the direction it is...

DSK

You lost.

Cry a river (which you're doing), build a bridge, and get over it!

Your whining sounds almost as bad as Pelosi's.
--
John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."

"John H" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 09 Mar 2005 14:20:11 -0500, DSK wrote:

Of things that cars and trees emit, is there anything you would consider
a
pollutant?


P.Fritz wrote:
Sure, there are all kinds of VOC's produced by cars, trees, plastics,
paints, etc. etc.


Is there any point in discussing the matter?

To the Bush-Cheney cheerleaders (not just the ones on this newsgroup)
*anything* is subject to political interpretation. If President Bush
announces that water runs up hill, why then as far as they're concerned
only a damn terrorist-sympathizing fag-loving liberal traitor would
suggest that it actually runs down hill.

The problem comes when serious decisions about national policy are made
on the basis of this kind of boneheaded attitude... which is why the
country is headed in the direction it is...

DSK

You lost.

Cry a river (which you're doing), build a bridge, and get over it!

Your whining sounds almost as bad as Pelosi's.

And the fact is that water CAN run uphill under the proper
circumstances........once again the liebral mindset blinds them to the real
world..



--
John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."

"Trees cause more pollution than automobiles do." -- Ronald Reagan, 1981


WaIIy wrote:
Research it, it's true.

Yep, that's why the atmosphere has become increasingly foul as we shut
down somestack industries & grow more trees. Why, 500 years ago, the
human race was almost extinct because they just couldn't breathe!

DSK

"Gary" wrote in message
...
"Jim," wrote:

Not nice to take shots at a dead alzhimers suffering president


I actually meant to send that somewhere else. But since it's here...

He's the one that made the quotes. If he didn't want to be remembered
in this way he shouldn't have made himself a public figure and/or
shouldn't
have said these things. ~ My guess is that he'd be happy to be remembered
this way...he said these things and probably meant most of them.

By the way - I liked Reagan. I didn't / don't agree with some of what he
stood for, but I did agree with some things and, mostly, I did think that
on
the whose he was an honorable man trying to do the right things.

Hard to defend a statment like this though...
"Trees cause more pollution than automobiles do." -- Ronald Reagan, 1981

Maybe it was taken out of context or some such?

Gary

Pine trees outgas more hydrocarbons than cars do although they are simple
chains and don't contain lead, sulfur or mercury. And when they burn
(they are genetically designed to thrive on forest fires (the small normal
ones that nature provides but we have stopped. The buildup of undergrowth
due to our stopping the forest fires has caused conditions that mean much
higher temps and the trees die)) they also put out massive amounts of carbon
dioxide and complex hydrocarbons when they burn.