Well there you go folks. You've all had the piss taken out of you. Now you all know where you stand...

Were you making a pun on this article?

Pee-cycling

Although small-scale urine separation has been practised for centuries (pee has been used in industries ranging from textile dyeing to blacksmithing, for example), it is something of a minority pursuit today. Modern experiments started in Sweden in 1994 ...

Other villages have followed suit and Sweden is now the urine-separation centre of the western world...

Don't forget what Björk said. In Iceland they (still) put dead seal or mouse or whatever they hunt in Iceland, into a pit and then urinate on it to preserve it. It's what Björk said on TV, I heard her. All the family would troop out to the pit instead of the loo when they wanted to do a - no pee.

---

flaming balloons

Ah, you evaded everything...

Well, that was surmised from her opening gambit with:
Climate of Fear
Global-warming alarmists intimidate dissenting scientists into silence.
BY RICHARD LINDZEN
Note that Lindzen has been discredited many times over regarding climate issues. From my reading around, Lindzen's main strategy seems to follow the old quote of: "A fool can ask more questions then a wise man can answer."

Ummmm, you stating that he has been discredited, or quoting those that agree with you, is, again, not an argument.

If you disagree with any of his points, present an argument. Give the reason why you disagree with a point and back it up. Try actually convincing those who disagree with you instead of just saying "things are bad because I said so," or "the U.S. must pay because I said so."

They aren't and it won't, no matter how you wish it were different.

Interspersed with a bit of mud slinging and a lot of FUD. Otherwise, little substance there.

Ironically, one could easily make the case that your posts on this topic (or the smoking in bars topic) are exactly the same FUD, because you haven't made an argument other than, "I said things are bad." For example, instead of presenting reasons why a specific point that Mr. Lindzen is in error, you simply say he has been discredited. Why, because you sez so?

At least it is good idle practice in arguing the case whilst avoiding getting too 'academic'! This thread also now lists a few good links for arguing the case for and against although we really could do with a few more good links for the 'against'.

The links are out there. The point of this discussion, as I see it, is to engage people in the discussion.

For example: You see, lots of people don't agree with you (evidence: the articles and posts in this thread). They don't think Kyoto is effective (evidence: no one met their Kyoto targets). They don't think your solution is cheap (evidence: China, India, and Russia demanded exemptions because they didn't want to pay for it). They don't think it makes sense for the U.S. to take the brunt of the expense for no net gain (evidence: China will out pace U.S. emissions).

Briefly, there is a statement, followed by the evidence that supports the statement. People don't need outside links to follow the logic or the argument. In the case of Mr. Lindzen's article above, if you disagree with his point, present the evidence why. Everyone can understand that, just as they can understand that unsupported statements are just evasive.

As for wasted effort... Nah, this little spat is 'for fun'. It's an interesting eye-opener for two examples of the Amerikan way at least.

More silly rhetoric. One could easily say it's an interesting way to illustrate the irrationality of partisan ideologues from the United Soviet Socialist Kingdom (oops, did I spell that wrong?)

So how do we educate against sentiments such as this example?

You don't, given that the number one profit maker from the sale of gasoline is the government. They make far more per gallon of gasoline than an oil company could ever hope to make. While that is not the same as "highway robbery" he's just using a humorous comparison to illustrate who actually takes the most from you when you buy a gallon of gasoline. Which, of course, punishes those that can afford it the least, the most.

---

Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...

Ah, you evaded everything...

Well, that was surmised from her opening gambit with:
Climate of Fear
Global-warming alarmists intimidate dissenting scientists into silence.
BY RICHARD LINDZEN
Note that Lindzen has been discredited many times over regarding climate issues. From my reading around, Lindzen's main strategy seems to follow the old quote of: "A fool can ask more questions then a wise man can answer."

Ummmm, you stating that he has been discredited, or quoting those that agree with you, is, again, not an argument.

Yawn... Can you not remember even for yourself what you continue to reiterate. You've worn out your old vinyl record playing that piece of FUD.

I'll give you a link, Lindzen:

In a 1995 article in Harper's Magazine, Ross Gelbspan asserted that Lindzen "charges oil and coal interests $2,500 a day for his consulting services; [and] his 1991 trip to testify before a Senate committee was paid for by Western Fuels and a speech he wrote, entitled 'Global Warming: the Origin and Nature of Alleged Scientific Consensus,' was underwritten by OPEC

Note also how in general he only offers comments of "unknowns" and "uncertainties" whilst completely ignoring the hard facts that are very much known.

Now, your turn for a useful contribution/link please? Something more than just glib FUD?

or "the U.S. must pay because I said so."

And there's a big point: You can pay 1% GDP now, or you can pay with death, doom, and destruction, all of which will cost a lot more than just 1% GDP. Oh, and you start paying now. And I don't say so. You and the rest of the USA and the other countries of the world say so. Better agree to something useful, and quick. You've only a few years to get hard results.

[edit] ...but after about 2025 it disappears faster than a snowball in hell. [/edit]

Like you're happy to keep on repeating, we ain't done much good with Kyoto so far... Or have we?...

Futilism isn't an acceptable option either.

[...]
For example: You see, lots of people don't agree with you (evidence: the articles and posts in this thread)...

There's you and there's Hyland. Anyone else?

So how do we educate against sentiments such as this example?

You don't, given that the number one profit maker from the sale of gasoline is the government... Which, of course, punishes those that can afford it the least, the most.

There's a few intransigent assumptions there, which is exactly where the government can steer a better direction. One glib example is that the USA government could treble the tax on gasoline and at the same time you could pay less for doing the same travel by automobile... The reasoning behind why that is not done, in my view, is just sheer blind short-term utter stupidity. So stupid that some of your states have gone to court to reduce the level of stupidity a little.


Now, can you contribute anything other than just overwhelming glib negativity?

Cheers,
Martin

---

See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)

Yawn... Can you not remember even for yourself what you continue to reiterate. You've worn out your old vinyl record playing that piece of FUD.

I'll give you a link, Lindzen:

In a 1995 article in Harper's Magazine, Ross Gelbspan asserted that Lindzen "charges oil and coal interests $2,500 a day for his consulting services; [and] his 1991 trip to testify before a Senate committee was paid for by Western Fuels and a speech he wrote, entitled 'Global Warming: the Origin and Nature of Alleged Scientific Consensus,' was underwritten by OPEC

Note also how in general he only offers comments of "unknowns" and "uncertainties" whilst completely ignoring the hard facts that are very much known.

Now, your turn for a useful contribution/link please? Something more than just glib FUD?

Again, you haven't addressed ANYTHING he wrote in the article. Nothing. It's no real surprise that corporate interests take one side of the debate, while it's no real surprise Greenfarce, DirtFirst!, and Sierra Schlub, et al, take the other side of the debate. That's why we address the arguments they make, and not disregard them out of hand. If you disagree with any of the points Mr. Lindzen makes, address them. Tell us which points you disagree with and present your evidence.

From your same Wikipedia source:

"Richard Siegmund Lindzen (born February 8, 1940) is an atmospheric physicist and a professor of meteorology at MIT renowned for his research in dynamic meteorology - especially atmospheric waves.

"He is a member of the National Academy of Sciences and the Science and Economic Advisory Council of the Annapolis Center for Science-Based Public Policy. He previously held positions at the University of Chicago and Harvard University.

"Lindzen is identified as a contributer to Chapter 4 of the 'IPCC Second Assessment,' 'Climate Change 1995.'

"He has been a strong critic of anthropogenic global warming theories and wrote an op-ed for the Wall Street Journal in April wherein he not only contested media assertions that the Bush administration has been putting pressure on scientists to oppose climate change principles but insisted that exactly the opposite is taking place: 'Scientists who dissent from the alarmism have seen their grant funds disappear, their work derided, and themselves labeled as industry stooges, scientific hacks or worse.'

"In the same piece, Lindzen also wrote: 'In Europe, Henk Tennekes was dismissed as research director of the Royal Dutch Meteorological Society after questioning the scientific underpinnings of global warming. Aksel Winn-Nielsen, former director of the U.N.'s World Meteorological Organization, was tarred by Bert Bolin, first head of the IPCC, as a tool of the coal industry for questioning climate alarmism. Respected Italian professors Alfonso Sutera and Antonio Speranza disappeared from the debate in 1991, apparently losing climate-research funding for raising questions.'"

Here's another good one:

"His position with regard to the IPCC can be summed up with this quotation: 'Picking holes in the IPCC is crucial. The notion that if you’re ignorant of something and somebody comes up with a wrong answer, and you have to accept that because you don’t have another wrong answer to offer is like faith healing, it’s like quackery in medicine – if somebody says you should take jelly beans for cancer and you say that’s stupid, and he says, well can you suggest something else and you say, no, does that mean you have to go with jelly beans?'"

or "the U.S. must pay because I said so."

And there's a big point: You can pay 1% GDP now, or you can pay with death, doom, and destruction, all of which will cost a lot more than just 1% GDP. Oh, and you start paying now. And I don't say so. You and the rest of the USA and the other countries of the world say so. Better agree to something useful, and quick. You've only a few years to get hard results.

What is this, a mantra? Can you even read? Again, as noted previously, just because you say it's cheap, and quote people who agree with you, does not mean that it actually is cheap. Frankly, it's not cheap. Again, if it actually were that cheap, the measures likely would have passed without much debate, or this discussion. Were it as cheap as you say, China, India, and Russia would not have even demanded exemptions, nor threatened to opt out. They know that the actual costs are brutally expensive. That's why they would have killed Kyoto without exemptions. Just because you say 1% doesn't mean it will cost 1%. Furthermore, why would anyone in their right mind pay that 1%, when even if they do, there will be "death, doom, and destruction," as you put it? The ship still goes down. To put it another way, if the ship is still going down, any costs spent are a waste.

You may disagree, but that won't make your case either.

Like you're happy to keep on repeating, we ain't done much good with Kyoto so far... Or have we?...

Futilism isn't an acceptable option either.

Then you had better get going. You had better get those huge corporation to develop an economic solution, because you can bet DirtFirst! can't be bothered.

I don't think it's futile, I think that Kyoto and Son of Kyoto can't save you. Economic solutions can.

There's you and there's Hyland. Anyone else?

Sure. Look around the net. The people that wrote the articles posted, for example, it's everywhere.

There's a few intransigent assumptions there, which is exactly where the government can steer a better direction. One glib example is that the USA government could treble the tax on gasoline and at the same time you could pay less for doing the same travel by automobile... The reasoning behind why that is not done, in my view, is just sheer blind short-term utter stupidity. So stupid that some of your states have gone to court to reduce the level of stupidity a little.

The U.S. gov't won't treble the tax on gasoline anymore than they will pay for your precious solutions--they would be run out of office on a rail. Besides, there's not one elected politician who thinks that's a good idea, why? because once again, that affects those that can afford it the least, the most.

Now, can you contribute anything other than just overwhelming glib negativity?

Sheesh, you continuously fail to make an argument. I am not glib because of "sez you." If you are of the opinion that I am being glib, then choose one of the points I have made, and demonstrate why it is wrong. For example, you could demonstrate that the gov't doesn't make the most profit on a gallon of gas. Just once. At least try. C'mon, make an argument. Anything.

---

Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...

One glib example is that the USA government could treble the tax on gasoline and at the same time you could pay less for doing the same travel by automobile.

OK, let me see if I understand what you are saying here.
I'll use the current lowest price of gas in Albuquerque, NM: $2.099 (@Sam's Club).

New Mexico tax and "loading fee" are $0.19/gal and Federal tax is $0.184, making the total tax load on each gallon of gas $0.374/gal

Now, if the Federal tax on gas is trebled, that would make the total tax load go to $0.742/gal.

The price of gas goes from $2.099/gal to $2.469 (not $2.467, it's always rounded up to the nearest $0.009)

So, just exactly how will you "pay less for doing the same travel by automobile."?

There's you and there's Hyland. Anyone else?

Sure. Look around the net. The people that wrote the articles posted, for example, it's everywhere.

The net!!? Silly me!! I'd been getting all my information from scientific journals!! No wonder I've got it soooo wrong..I should have used the all seeing, all knowing Google..a much worthier source!!! (That was sarcasm in case you missed it)

---

Reality Internet Personality

The net!!? Silly me!! I'd been getting all my information from scientific journals!! No wonder I've got it soooo wrong..I should have used the all seeing, all knowing Google..a much worthier source!!! (That was sarcasm in case you missed it)

You should have used Google Scholar. Or JSTOR. Or any number of other places the post journal articles or their abstracts. Then go to the library.

Not, of course, that it matters. Really all you've posted so far is how you feel the U.S. should bear expensive costs that result in the same outcome those costs were designed to avoid.

In case you missed it, that's stupid. You may need a scientific journal to tell you that, but I doubt that many others do.

---

Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...

One glib example is that the USA government could treble the tax on gasoline and at the same time you could pay less for doing the same travel by automobile.

OK, let me see if I understand what you are saying here.
I'll use the current lowest price of gas in Albuquerque, NM: $2.099 (@Sam's Club).

New Mexico tax and "loading fee" are $0.19/gal and Federal tax is $0.184, making the total tax load on each gallon of gas $0.374/gal

Now, if the Federal tax on gas is trebled, that would make the total tax load go to $0.742/gal.

The price of gas goes from $2.099/gal to $2.469 (not $2.467, it's always rounded up to the nearest $0.009)

So, just exactly how will you "pay less for doing the same travel by automobile."?

I think he may have been referring ( in part ) to Hybrid vehicles that get much better fuel economy. You would pay a bit more for the gas, but get quite a few more miles out of the tankful.

Just a guess on my part.

---

Air Cold, the blade stops;
from silent stone,
Death is preordained

Calm Chaos Forums : Everyone Welcome

300th post ;p

Very good and welcome.

So what are your views on (Human caused) Global Warming?

Cheers,
Martin

Human causes of Global Warming is a group of male Delinquents aged between 16 and 30. lighting farts as party tricks.

Yawn... Can you not remember even for yourself what you continue to reiterate. You've worn out your old vinyl record playing that piece of FUD.

I'll give you a link, Lindzen:

In a 1995 article in Harper's Magazine, Ross Gelbspan asserted that Lindzen "charges oil and coal interests $2,500 a day for his consulting services; [and] his 1991 trip to testify before a Senate committee was paid for by Western Fuels and a speech he wrote, entitled 'Global Warming: the Origin and Nature of Alleged Scientific Consensus,' was underwritten by OPEC

Note also how in general he only offers comments of "unknowns" and "uncertainties" whilst completely ignoring the hard facts that are very much known.

Now, your turn for a useful contribution/link please? Something more than just glib FUD?

Again, you haven't addressed ANYTHING he wrote in the article. Nothing. It's no real surprise that corporate interests take one side of the debate, while it's no real surprise Greenfarce, DirtFirst!, and Sierra Schlub, et al, take the other side of the debate. That's why we address the arguments they make,...

Except that you don't. You offer nothing better than "It can't possibly be so".

Read around a little. Lindzen has been debunked enough times to fill a Bible.

Global Warming is measurably and visibly happening, and far far faster than anything this planet has ever seen since life walked here. Atmospheric CO2 is measurably increasing, and the increase closely follows Human industrialization. CO2 is undisputedly a "greenhouse" gas that traps the sun's heat. Man continues to add a very large CO2 imbalance that is accumulating in the atmosphere. There is almost TOTAL scientific consensus for those facts. There is remarkably clear consensus considering that the nature of science is to actively disagree to then argue out all the failed hypotheses until one remains that survives all the tests.

Note that science is not omnipotent. However, the threatened consequences will not permit us to be 100% certain with hindsight. I'll accept 99% confidence for the sake of buying more time for taking action NOW so as to avoid the worst.


Now what is your obvious and proven alternative hypothesis that shows the rest of World Science is completely wrong?

..."He has been a strong critic of anthropogenic global warming theories ...

"His position with regard to the IPCC can be summed up with this quotation: 'Picking holes in the IPCC is crucial. The notion that if you’re ignorant of something and somebody comes up with a wrong answer, and you have to accept that because you don’t have another wrong answer to offer is like faith healing, it’s like quackery in medicine – if somebody says you should take jelly beans for cancer and you say that’s stupid, and he says, well can you suggest something else and you say, no, does that mean you have to go with jelly beans?'"

Note all the 'negatives' and 'uncertainty' in that quote. Climate Science and faith healing are a world apart and cannot be compared. That's all just plain simple mud slinging for a good FUD attack.

Lindzen does have one minority benefit, that of ensuring careful wording in reports so as to avoid their meaning getting twisted out of context! Otherwise, has he offered any plausible alternatives to his "jelly beans" or anything better than just that of blind fatalism?

or "the U.S. must pay because I said so."

And there's a big point: You can pay 1% GDP now, or you can pay with death, doom, and destruction, all of which will cost a lot more than just 1% GDP. Oh, and you start paying now. And I don't say so. You and the rest of the USA and the other countries of the world say so. Better agree to something useful, and quick. You've only a few years to get hard results.

What is this, a mantra? Can you even read?

Can you read "Diplomacy"?

Sometimes there are some worldwide problems that require worldwide cooperation.

All we see of the USA at the moment is brazen self-centredness, far beyond what anyone else is capable of. Thing is, the USA is soon getting bullied into cleaning up its act on aviation and shipping. Greater pressure yet will continue to be brought to your home. (All part of diplomacy.)

Even more surprising is that some of your own states are going to court to bully the Oil-blinded Bush to get real about the climate and your early and large contribution to the global blame.

How far and how long for the stupidity?...

...To put it another way, if the ship is still going down, any costs spent are a waste.

No. Those costs buy time to continue to get the rest of the leaks fixed.

Especially so when there are no other ships. We only have this one habitable planet.

Is it more a case of your own fatalism or futilism or just simple blind short term destructive greed?

Like you're happy to keep on repeating, we ain't done much good with Kyoto so far... Or have we?...

Futilism isn't an acceptable option either.

Then you had better get going. You had better get those huge corporation to develop an economic solution, because you can bet DirtFirst! can't be bothered.

I don't think it's futile, I think that Kyoto and Son of Kyoto can't save you. Economic solutions can.

Those economic solutions are already being imposed. So far in small measure but the precedent has now been set.

This is where you, and many others, all need to lobby your politicians to speed up the efforts to save our only planet from our CO2 pollution.

There's you and there's Hyland. Anyone else?

Sure. Look around the net. The people that wrote the articles posted, for example, it's everywhere.

On a few trash and junk sites perhaps... The news and scientific journals show a predominance of Global Warming articles as detailed earlier in this thread. In contrast, is there any peer reviewed and respected research that convincingly shows that we can continue to pollute on an industrial scale and have no adverse environmental effect?

The U.S. gov't won't treble the tax on gasoline anymore than they will pay for your precious solutions--they would be run out of office on a rail. Besides, there's not one elected politician who thinks that's a good idea, why? because once again, that affects those that can afford it the least, the most.

Not necessarily so. That is where you lobby your politicians to rein in the corporate "excesses" and save the planet for your retirement and for your children.

What's even better, promoting (or even forcing) better efficiencies will lower costs for all AND save the environment.

Now, can you contribute anything other than just overwhelming glib negativity?

Sheesh, you continuously fail to make an argument.

You can argue the negative side all you want. A fool can easily ask more questions than the wise can answer.

It's up to you to offer a realistic (positive) alternative.

I am not glib because of "sez you."

So far: squirming, "can't be done" and "sez you" is all you've offered.


What of anything of believable substance can you offer?

Or are you simply of the opinion that we are all irrevocably doomed of our own blind greed?


I believe that with enough awareness and enough political push, we can avoid death by CO2 pollution AND gain a better level of living and still include "high tech".

Regards,
Martin

---

See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)

So, just exactly how will you "pay less for doing the same travel by automobile."?

I think he may have been referring ( in part ) to Hybrid vehicles that get much better fuel economy. You would pay a bit more for the gas, but get quite a few more miles out of the tankful.

No need for any fancy transport or any fancy "hybrid" cars.

Existing models in China are TWICE as fuel efficient as their USA counterparts.

European cars are up to FOUR TIMES or more fuel efficient than the USA guzzlers.


Worse still, the USA clocks up the greatest mileages...

It's kinda like you're still in the steam age!

(In other words, the USA can easily and cheaply and quickly reduce one large bubble of CO2 pollution. It would even likely pay back in lower costs!)

Regards,
Martin

---

See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)

So, just exactly how will you "pay less for doing the same travel by automobile."?

I think he may have been referring ( in part ) to Hybrid vehicles that get much better fuel economy. You would pay a bit more for the gas, but get quite a few more miles out of the tankful.

No need for any fancy transport or any fancy "hybrid" cars.

Existing models in China are TWICE as fuel efficient as their USA counterparts.

European cars are up to FOUR TIMES or more fuel efficient than the USA guzzlers.


Worse still, the USA clocks up the greatest mileages...

It's kinda like you're still in the steam age!

(In other words, the USA can easily and cheaply and quickly reduce one large bubble of CO2 pollution. It would even likely pay back in lower costs!)

Regards,
Martin

Are the Chinese and Eurpean automobiles of the same size, weight, carrying capacity as the US automobiles you are comparing them to? I do not believe so. You are also assuming that road conditions, infrastructure, etc. are identical in the US to China and Europe.

As to the US population driving more miles, are you aware of how large the country is? There have been times (years) when I have had to drive 250 miles (402km) per day to get to work and back.

The problem is probably that extremes are increasing but the "average" does not reflect it accordingly - even if I try to be objective the weather right at my doorstep has simply changed in the last 20 years and is full of extremes nowadays. And I am for sure not the only one to notice and no, it's not just caused by the hype about GW. But the real problem is, that we still don't know enough about the system and how easy a vicious circle could evolve. I think it's without doubt that mankind has already a significant effect on the environment. And while you might argue, that because we probably have not yet without doubt proven how much anthropogenic and how much natural effects contribute, we should change nothing, you might also argue that this is a serious issue and we can't afford the risk doing nothing. Because of the threat of vicious circles and our lack of knowledge we don't even know in what danger we are and only a fool would not take the situation serious and discuss until it's too late.

What disturbs me is that I would expect open minded people here which are rather interested in what's really happening instead of dogmatic discussions where both sides just try to defend their positions. I really think the issue is too important, especially if you have children.

Even if the GW is hyped (but people need to be fair and also take into consideration that both sides use that approach to achieve their goals) that does not mean that there is no danger. And even if GW wouldn't be an issue the question is if in the long run alternative energy wouldn't be the better solution anyways.

Don't get me wrong - it's very important to be reasonable and to point out if people get misinformed. But we shouldn't be as naive as for example that guys watching the first nuclear tests pretty close by simple because the dangers weren't known.

Merry XMas,
hm, 2:15 am over here and off to the hospital - seems my GF is just going to give birth to our first child ;)

Merry XMas,
hm, 2:15 am over here and off to the hospital - seems my GF is just going to give birth to our first child ;)

Fantastic! My congratulations and I pray that your child live a life filled with joy.

... Because of the threat of vicious circles and our lack of knowledge we don't even know in what danger we are and only a fool would not take the situation serious and discuss until it's too late.

What disturbs me is that I would expect open minded people here which are rather interested in what's really happening instead of dogmatic discussions where both sides just try to defend their positions. I really think the issue is too important, especially if you have children.

Even if the GW is hyped (but people need to be fair and also take into consideration that both sides use that approach to achieve their goals) that does not mean that there is no danger. And even if GW wouldn't be an issue the question is if in the long run alternative energy wouldn't be the better solution anyways.

Don't get me wrong - it's very important to be reasonable and to point out if people get misinformed. But we shouldn't be as naive as for example that guys watching the first nuclear tests pretty close by simple because the dangers weren't known.

That's one of the best comments in quite a few posts.

Merry XMas,
hm, 2:15 am over here and off to the hospital - seems my GF is just going to give birth to our first child ;)

Merry Christmas and Congratulations. I hope all goes smoothly.

Best wishes for you all,
Martin

---

See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)

[...]
No need for any fancy transport or any fancy "hybrid" cars.

Existing models in China are TWICE as fuel efficient as their USA counterparts.

European cars are up to FOUR TIMES or more fuel efficient than the USA guzzlers.

[...]

Are the Chinese and Eurpean automobiles of the same size, weight, carrying capacity as the US automobiles you are comparing them to? I do not believe so. You are also assuming that road conditions, infrastructure, etc. are identical in the US to China and Europe.

If everyone thinks in terms of "NO CHANGE" from what is expected and what is done now, then we are all doomed just like lemmings being pushed off a cliff (Note 1).

What should be a reasonable expectation is to be able to be conveyed from A to B with whatever comfort and freedom. Do you really need a 10 ton 15 litre engined brick of a truck to do that when 99.99% of the time it is to carry just one person?

Or are you totally overwhelmed by the Marketing driven force that you just Must Have A Status Symbol that is a Gas Guzzler?

[edit] (I have noticed that some Americans take pride in having better vehicles than their homes...) [/edit]

As to the US population driving more miles, are you aware of how large the country is? There have been times (years) when I have had to drive 250 miles (402km) per day to get to work and back.

Ouch! That sounds unhealthy even if just for the sake of lack of sleep!

Yes, I'm very aware of USA travel. I'm also not saying there is a "Simpson's" one-stop no-brainer fix-everything and keep everyone happy Master Plan.

However, there are lots of things that can be done that add up to very little or even zero 'discomfort' that can then save our planet from ourselves. The sooner as many people as possible start, the easier and better it will be for all of us.

Aside: I gave up commuting a long time ago. I now let the electrons do most of the rushing around.

Regards,
Martin


Note 1: Lemmings are NOT known to leap off a cliff in a mad suicidal dash. That was a foisted myth from a Disney children's film for the sake of "artistic licence" and silly dramatics. That one film has misinformed generations of children... Marketing people very effectively play similar tricks...

---

See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)

But the real problem is, that we still don't know enough about the system and how easy a vicious circle could evolve. I think it's without doubt that mankind has already a significant effect on the environment. And while you might argue, that because we probably have not yet without doubt proven how much anthropogenic and how much natural effects contribute, we should change nothing, you might also argue that this is a serious issue and we can't afford the risk doing nothing. Because of the threat of vicious circles and our lack of knowledge we don't even know in what danger we are and only a fool would not take the situation serious and discuss until it's too late.

What does this tell you?

"
Oreskes, 2004
In December 2004, Science published an article by UC San Diego geologist and historian of science Naomi Oreskes that summarized a study of the scientific literature on climate change.[1] The essay concluded that there is a scientific consensus on the reality of anthropogenic climate change. The author analyzed 928 abstracts of papers from refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, listed with the keywords "global climate change". The abstracts were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. 75% of the abstracts were placed in the first three categories, thus either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, thus taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change; none of the abstracts disagreed with the consensus position, which the author found to be "remarkable". It was also pointed out, "authors evaluating impacts, developing methods, or studying paleoclimatic change might believe that current climate change is natural. However, none of these papers argued that point."

"

---

It was 25 years ago that eminent scientist first started to get together to talk about 'climate change'. They were worried about the Maldives disappearing under the sea and all sorts of calamities that never happened. They looked at graphs, at this and that slowly rising whaich were all deemed to hail the end of the world. They did agree on one thing, that it was people causing a lot of the problems, or rather the escalating population rises across the globe. They also noticed the acute problems in Africa and how many of them dissipated way after AIDS struck and dramatically reduced such explosive population rises. It's amazing how nature can take care of problems.

---

flaming balloons

It was 25 years ago that eminent scientist first started to get together to talk about 'climate change'. They were worried about the Maldives disappearing under the sea and all sorts of calamities that never happened. They looked at graphs, at this and that slowly rising whaich were all deemed to hail the end of the world. They did agree on one thing, that it was people causing a lot of the problems, or rather the escalating population rises across the globe. They also noticed the acute problems in Africa and how many of them dissipated way after AIDS struck and dramatically reduced such explosive population rises. It's amazing how nature can take care of problems.

UN Report

http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2005/pop918.doc.htm

Hm, AIDS has a strong influence, but as I get it the most important factor is that the childs/woman ratio has already drastically declined due to improvements of birth control and womans rights/education/life situation.

If you look at the rate glaciers vanish and what's actually happening in the Arctic we should still be very concerned. We still don't really know how the system works so in the worst case those guys are perfecly right - they maybe just miscalculated the rate and what they describe will indeed happen in the next 20-30 years.

So I really really hope that all the ones warning about global warming being just hyped are right. Would be better for us all. The ones who warn about global warming today would not enjoy their "victory" in the future too much since it might be too late for us all.

I just hope that the economical leaders don't play with all our lives by trying to create a scenario where huge subventions will be given to build up huge alternative energy productions or even worse a CO2 extract/bind program. I am not talking about what already happens today, but a scenario where the news will be full of "we are doomed!" and countries will have to sacrifice a good amount of their budget for a fast buildup while prices will raise exorbitantly. It would be very a very lucrative deal - but messing with mother nature isn't too smart an idea.

---

BillHyland & Iggy

Thanks, guys! I am back (happy and exhausted) and everything seems fine except that he seems to have inherited my big nose ;)