Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!caip!lll-crg!nike!think!husc6!harvard!panda!genrad!decvax!ittatc!dcdwest!sdcsvax!ncr-sd!ncrcae!ncsu!mcnc!rti-sel!dg_rtp!throopw
From: throopw@dg_rtp.UUCP (Wayne Throop)
Newsgroups: net.politics,net.sci
Subject: Re: Nuclear power: Petr Beckmann
Message-ID: <491@dg_rtp.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 2-Aug-86 13:19:04 EDT
Article-I.D.: dg_rtp.491
Posted: Sat Aug  2 13:19:04 1986
Date-Received: Wed, 6-Aug-86 08:02:56 EDT
References: <460@dg_rtp.UUCP> <538@gargoyle.UUCP> <541@gargoyle.UUCP>
Lines: 43
Xref: watmath net.politics:18020 net.sci:1453

> carnes@gargoyle.UUCP (Richard Carnes)
>> throopw@dg_rtp.UUCP (Wayne Throop)

> Congrats to everyone who wrote to explain Paul Ehrlich's alleged
> "confusion" [...] you have confirmed my
> estimate of the net's level of brilliance.

I assume that this estimate is low.  Nevertheless, you have not shown
that Beckmann was confused, merely that he uses "non-standard"
terminology.

Note further:
>>What is confused about this?  Seems straightforward to me.
>>In fact, it seems likely that the Ehrlichs are confused here.

This is supposed to support the conclusion that I'm "explaining"
Ehrlich's confusion?  I merely asserted that, from the snippet you
posted alone, the Ehrlichs *seem* confused, and Beckmann's statement
*seems* quite straightforward.  Again, merely quoting what Beckmann says
and calling it "confused" without providing the analysis is not very
convincing.  In this case, when you provided the analysis, it turned out
that the "confusion" amounted to using a term involving ZPG where one
involving NRR might be more appropriate.  In fact, you yourself say:

> So it is not clear what "ZPG fertility rate" should mean, if
> anything, although it is clear what Beckmann intends by the phrase.

which is just what I was asserting: Beckmann's intended meaning is
clear, and not confused at all.  In terming it "confused" when the
meaning is clear, the Ehrlichs give the appearance of confusion
themselves.

>   [Beckmann] also says that deforestation in the Third World could play
>   a significant role in reducing the "absorption" of carbon dioxide
>   produced by coal burning ("absorption" into what?), and that "high
>   labor intensity and troublesome handling" will be "far more decisive"
>   in affecting coal use than will be all its environmental problems
>   combined.

OK.  I give up.  Why is *this* one confused?  More BS about nonstandard
terminology, despite the use being quite clear and straightforward?
-- 
Wayne Throop      <the-known-world>!mcnc!rti-sel!dg_rtp!throopw