[871] in peace2
Artic Refuge Response
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Jan Outcalt)
Wed Jul 11 10:44:58 2001
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="============_-1217259682==_ma============"
Message-Id: <v04020a02b772135f963d@[18.54.0.161]>
Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2001 10:46:53 -0400
To: mitoc@mit.edu, peace-list@mit.edu, greens-announce@mit.edu
From: Jan Outcalt <jano@MIT.EDU>
Cc: "Andrew A. Martin" <amartin@draper.com>, Paul Herz <prh@mit.edu>
--============_-1217259682==_ma============
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Please subscribe me to the "conservation@mit.edu" list, where I will post
messages such as this in the future.
RE: THE MESSAGES BELOW (RESPONSE TO ARCTIC PROTECTION REQUEST)
I take issue with Andy"s "it would be appreciated by all". I am on this
list, and I appreciate emails of this type. I find it very strange and
unfortunate that a member of the MITOC list, which is composed of outdoor
types (hikers, climbers, canoers, etc) would not realize that his
"playground" is in grave danger. But then maybe he does not care whether
his grandchildren or grandnieces and nephews have access to beautiful
natural areas (not to mention clean water, soil and air) or whether they
roast in the hell that will ensue if global warming continues unabated.
If you think this is "rhetoric" or a "doomsday prophecy", you might try
speaking with some of the environmental scientists right here at MIT. Or
how about the National Research Council? These are the more conservative
scientists, many of whom initially did not believe global warming and
environmental protection were legitimate concerns.
http://www4.nationalacademies.org/onpi/webextra.nsf/web/climate?OpenDocument
I would also appreciate less vitriol. The initial arctic posting was a
simple request for concern for our environment. The responses by these two
people were way out of line.
Jan
RESPONSES TO ARCTIC PROTECTION REQUEST:
Thanks for your insight into the enviornment and saving the Artic.
Unfortunatley one of my personal goals in life is not to save the artic;
rather I strive to get my name removed from mass e-mail lists. So I ask you
to please remove me from this list and stop sending me information regarding
your personal crusades to save the planet.
Have a nice day!
If we could keep the political rhetoric down on this list, it would be
appreciated by all. If I want to hear rabid doom-and-gloom prophesies, I
will get on a Greenpeace email service. Drilling in ANWR will affect an
area the size of Newark airport within the 'vast expanses of untouched
wilderness'. Caribou herds have increased in size since the Alaskan
Pipeline was built, not been decimated. Much, much more than 6 months of
oil exists up there. Oil is the lifeblood of this nation, and unless you
enjoy being a pawn to OPEC, the US must become more self-sufficient. It is
just that simple.
Now we can argue over this topic with our dueling sets of 'facts' and
reports and charts and surveys, which is fine with me. But let that
discussion happen off-line and on our own time.
Not on this list.
thanks
Andy
--============_-1217259682==_ma============
Content-Type: text/enriched; charset="us-ascii"
Please subscribe me to the "conservation@mit.edu" list, where I will
post messages such as this in the future.
RE: THE MESSAGES BELOW (RESPONSE TO ARCTIC PROTECTION REQUEST)
I take issue with Andy"s "it would be appreciated by all". I am on
this list, and I appreciate emails of this type. I find it very
strange and unfortunate that a member of the MITOC list, which is
composed of outdoor types (hikers, climbers, canoers, etc) would not
realize that his "playground" is in grave danger. But then maybe he
does not care whether his grandchildren or grandnieces and nephews have
access to beautiful natural areas (not to mention clean water, soil and
air) or whether they roast in the hell that will ensue if global
warming continues unabated.
If you think this is "rhetoric" or a "doomsday prophecy", you might try
speaking with some of the environmental scientists right here at MIT.
Or how about the National Research Council? These are the more
conservative scientists, many of whom initially did not believe global
warming and environmental protection were legitimate concerns.
http://www4.nationalacademies.org/onpi/webextra.nsf/web/climate?OpenDocument
I would also appreciate less vitriol. The initial arctic posting was a
simple request for concern for our environment. The responses by these
two people were way out of line.
Jan
RESPONSES TO ARCTIC PROTECTION REQUEST:
<fontfamily><param>Arial</param>Thanks for your insight into the
enviornment and saving the Artic.
Unfortunatley one of my personal goals in life is not to save the
artic;
rather I strive to get my name removed from mass e-mail lists. So I
ask you
to please remove me from this list and stop sending me information
regarding
your personal crusades to save the planet.
Have a nice day!
</fontfamily>If we could keep the political rhetoric down on this list,
it would be appreciated by all. If I want to hear rabid doom-and-gloom
prophesies, I will get on a Greenpeace email service. Drilling in ANWR
will affect an area the size of Newark airport within the 'vast
expanses of untouched wilderness'. Caribou herds have increased in size
since the Alaskan Pipeline was built, not been decimated. Much, much
more than 6 months of oil exists up there. Oil is the lifeblood of this
nation, and unless you enjoy being a pawn to OPEC, the US must become
more self-sufficient. It is just that simple.
Now we can argue over this topic with our dueling sets of 'facts' and
reports and charts and surveys, which is fine with me. But let that
discussion happen off-line and on our own time.
Not on this list.
thanks
Andy
--============_-1217259682==_ma============--
