"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?

Or just maybe he was on the right track

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



Gary

On Wed, 09 Mar 2005 09:36:47 -0500, P.Fritz wrote:

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?

Or just maybe he was on the right track

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

LOL, perhaps you can show us a study where trees are responsible for
carbon monoxide, benzene, formaldehyde, etc. etc.

"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. Some of it depends on what you consider
"pollution" and what you consider "cleaning". Overall the statement that
"Trees
cause more pollution than automobiles do." is probably incorrect at worst
and
misleading at best.

Still, it just goes to show that there are almost never simple answers. It
takes research
and critical thought to properly asses most issues. It is my belief that
there are plenty
or people on all "sides" that should research and think a lot more before
speaking or
else just shut up.

Thanks for the links.

Gary

"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.


Some of it depends on what you consider
"pollution" and what you consider "cleaning". Overall the statement that
"Trees
cause more pollution than automobiles do." is probably incorrect at worst
and
misleading at best.

In certain cases, for certain substances, trees probably do produce more.


Still, it just goes to show that there are almost never simple answers. It
takes research
and critical thought to properly asses most issues. It is my belief that
there are plenty
or people on all "sides" that should research and think a lot more before
speaking or
else just shut up.

You mean like algore? (as in the shutting up part)


Thanks for the links.

Gary

"P.Fritz" wrote:

I don't consider CO2 a pollutant.

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


Those that do [consider CO2 a pollutant] should just off themselves and
stop polluting the air by exhaling.


Yea, that's a little bit witty.

I hope you're not using wit to avoid having to think critically about this
issue.


In certain cases, for certain substances, trees probably do produce more
[pollution].


OK. But do you belive that trees are, overall, worse polluters than cars?
If not, isn't Reagan's statement disingenuous?


Gary Wrote:
It is my belief that there are plenty of people on all "sides" that
should research and think a lot more before speaking or else just shut
up.

Paul Wrote:

You mean like algore? (as in the shutting up part)


"algore" huh? Seems like you might be a Ditto Head.

Well, it's easy to be disrespectful of people. And sometimes it's funny.
It's also easy to be partisan and only see those on the "other" side that
are wrong.

So I ask you, are there any prominent Republicans that you
can point to (with or without the disrespect) that you think should "shut
up"
until they learn to research and think critically?

As for Al Go I think the man has some limitations and faults (as most
men do) and some of those might have made him a bad president. But
one fault I think he *doesn't* have is speaking before researching and
thinking critically.

"Gary" wrote in message
...

"P.Fritz" wrote:

I don't consider CO2 a pollutant.

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

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



Those that do [consider CO2 a pollutant] should just off themselves and
stop polluting the air by exhaling.


Yea, that's a little bit witty.

I hope you're not using wit to avoid having to think critically about this
issue.

Simply that CO2 is not a pollutant.



In certain cases, for certain substances, trees probably do produce more
[pollution].


OK. But do you belive that trees are, overall, worse polluters than cars?
If not, isn't Reagan's statement disingenuous?

I think for certain compounds, trees may produce more than cars, for other,
cars more than trees....it also depends on local conditions.



Gary Wrote:
It is my belief that there are plenty of people on all "sides" that
should research and think a lot more before speaking or else just shut
up.

Paul Wrote:

You mean like algore? (as in the shutting up part)


"algore" huh? Seems like you might be a Ditto Head.

Nope.


Well, it's easy to be disrespectful of people. And sometimes it's funny.
It's also easy to be partisan and only see those on the "other" side that
are wrong.




So I ask you, are there any prominent Republicans that you
can point to (with or without the disrespect) that you think should "shut
up"
until they learn to research and think critically?

Pat Buchanon for one,


As for Al Go I think the man has some limitations and faults (as most
men do) and some of those might have made him a bad president. But
one fault I think he *doesn't* have is speaking before researching and
thinking critically.

Maybe you should 'rethink' His hard core belief in global warming and
desires to remidey it at the expense of the US is not a sign of critical
thinking

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

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."

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

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.