You’re free. Do whatever you wish. Engineer all the grassroots movements you wish. Hug trees, eat granola, polish your Birkenstocks, teach people to cut emissions, sell zero emissions cars, teach people to install constant flow water heaters, convince Home Depot to feature them prominently in their stores with a easily understandable economic analysis of why they are better. Go nuts. You can do it all with my blessing and it makes sense. If you actually want to cut emissions, I would focus on the Home Depot stuff over the hugging trees stuff, but you are free to choose as you will.

But do not advocate gov’t force against me to pay for your ideas. If your ideas are good, people will line up to use them. If your ideas aren’t good, or they’re expensive, or speculative, those same people will run for the hills and rightfully so. Just like China, India, and Mexico did. They don't want to pay for your ideas either. And since you exempted them, they won't.

All fine and good and good for freedom eh?

Go stick your head in the sand and snort "Liberty" and "Freedom" if you wish.

You obviously can't read, as I said: You seem to be laboring under the false impression that I am against solving the problem, or that I am defeatist about it, or that I care what actions you take to prevent your catastrophes. I’m not.

I'm not "snorting" liberty and freedom, I'm using them as fundamental principles of our world today. If you do not want my ideas forced upon you, then you can understand why I don't want your half-baked ideology forced on me.

Jeffrey, if you disagree with the comments above, why don't you break with tradition and actually present an argument why you disagree--maybe you could demonstrate why I'm wrong about people lining up for ideas or not.

Sorry, but you will not be having a 'choice' sooner than you think... It will cost you far far far more if you do insist on keeping your head buried...

Which is only true if one accepts your worldview. You see in a free society people need not agree with you, no matter how right you think you are. They don't even care what you think.

Take a look through Global Warming videos: What Truth?! and please comment.

I've seen much of that at some time or another. Did you have some specific points you wanted to make?

What's the more expensive or the more impossible?

I have no idea what this means?

Aside: Do you agree with unrestriced/unfettered corporate monopolies?

That is a different discussion entirely. However, if you give me one example of a complete monopoly, one that was not imposed by gov't, we can pursue that if you wish. I think it will just illustrate your ideology of using force against others.

---

Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...

Take a look through Global Warming videos: What Truth?! and please comment.

I've seen much of that at some time or another. Did you have some specific points you wanted to make?

What's the more expensive or the more impossible?

I have no idea what this means?

So you accept all the comments in all of the videos there? Or you have no opinion after all? Can you still argue your position of "uncertainty" and "doubt"?...

The expensive/impossible question is with respect to whether Global Warming will be more expensive or whether taking immediate action to avoid causing Glaobal Warming in the first place will be the more expensive.


As for philosophical abstract ideals of "force" or not, we are all coerced by the environment in which we live. Its more a question of what freedoms can be offered or made use of... So, trying to keep to the real world, your comments are?...

Regards,
Martin

---

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

So you accept all the comments in all of the videos there? Or you have no opinion after all? Can you still argue your position of "uncertainty" and "doubt"?...

Jeffrey, this is getting old. If you have a specific point you'd like to discuss, raise it. I don't need to see your videos (again) to see that a bunch of people agree with you. Duh.

I've raised any number of points here and you refuse to address them. You refuse to refute anything Mr. Lindzen says. You refuse to address what happens when China dwarfs U.S. emissions. You refuse to address why spending what could amount to trillions is a waste if total emissions aren't cut. And on and on.

You've got people here advocating getting the Chinese to keep their computers burning more energy when that country is building coal fired power plants like one a week. That ain't cutting emissions, it's ever more emissions.

So far your position has been, "the gov't will save us." When the evidence in the real world, Kyoto, is that it can't.

The expensive/impossible question is with respect to whether Global Warming will be more expensive or whether taking immediate action to avoid causing Glaobal Warming in the first place will be the more expensive.

Hmmmm, well, China, India, and Mexico seemed to think that the best course of action was to opt out of Kyoto. So did the U.S. That's lots of people that didn't agree with you. You seem O.K. with their opting out... but it seems to really bug you that the U.S. agreed with them and opted out too.

As for philosophical abstract ideals of "force" or not, we are all coerced by the environment in which we live. Its more a question of what freedoms can be offered or made use of... So, trying to keep to the real world, your comments are?...

We are coerced by the environment in which we live because that is the nature of reality. That isn't some abstract, it's reality, in the real world. If we don't eat, we die. If we lie down under a steamroller we get crushed. If we use a chainsaw as a mobile phone, we die.

However, that that does not give you or anyone else the right to initiate force against someone else for your ideas. Any more than they have the right to initiate force against you for their ideas. That is immoral and wrong. In the real world, that means gov't agents with weapons and violence and handcuffs and jail. It means prison and war in Iraq and the CIA and the WHISC. Yay.

---

Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...

If you don't like corn then use cellulose which is basically plant fiber where they get a better return anyway. I mean really harvest the ditches of Iowa. Seriously take a look at how much cellulose is produced in a corn field compared to the volume of corn and then the production value and it becomes evident that you wouldn't have to change or disrupt the production of the corn crop to see a gain in ethanol. Farmers could also harvest cellulose as a secondary cash crop.

As I stated below, the reason that corn will, at least initially, be the major source of ethanol is that the technology is in place and familiar. Companies like Iogen show promise for the high returns you talk about above, but any major investment will still involve risks that need to be justified. As Rush says, it's all about the economics.

One important reason why corn cellulose is not goig to kick off as a big thing in the drier (outside of Iowa and Indiana) high volume corn producton areas is that the plant material remaining after harvest is plowed back into the soil as one of the important strategies that maximize soil water retention.

But that is secondary to main point, which is that there is no monolithic single solution. Any solution will need to be carefully planned to minimize economic disruption and will definitely need to be able to justify the outlay of capitol required for implementation by private enterprise. I do not know how it would work in the United Kingdom, but in the US, any scheme put forward without incentive for private investment will ultimately fail because political climates change over time.

My point is Rush that while economics is a big factor in how the world operates, and I don't contest that. I do believe that people also hide behind it to a great degree.

Maybe, but that’s ambiguous and the other side often hides from economics. For example, the environmentalist wacko crowd has been demanding zero emissions vehicles since the beginning of time. Yet they never quite understood that nothing was stopping them from providing such vehicles. But they didn't. Oops!

Well there is hiding as you claim and "counter productive" as I would call it which is to say that the entities most likely to gain success are those already in the industry that know the most about it like the "car manufacturers" I know this is a hard concept for you from your it's like comparing apples and ummm ear muffs...(political action groups ≠ industry manufacturers). That's just being obtuse.

Up until recently, the economics of building them was prohibitive and so GM, Honda, et cetera didn’t do it. Funnily enough, should Dirt First! actually had tried to produce such cars, the same economic flaws with them would have prevented Dirt First! from doing so as well. Unless, they made a breakthrough. More power to them, but they didn’t even bother to try.

I'm still scratching my head here as to why you think that a political action group would spontaneously start producing vehicles...but oh well your line of thought here hasn't proven to be grounded in logic or reality. Does anyone else get this line of argument?

Surprise, surprise. It seems they really hate big business but are utterly dependent on said businesses to provide the products they need. That’s inconsistent and hypocritical.

I wouldn't go so far as to say that they hate big business but I would say that they take issue with big business which in most cases but not all are mass polluters using vast amounts of natural resources all in the name of corporate greed and profitability. Why do you think this comes as a surprise Rush, they are political activists working to pressure the business that we already have to clean up their acts. Hypocritical...uh..no...there is nothing hypocritical about using political action to advocate change.

Industry also hides behind the status quo as well. Take for instance what KM said above about buying an e85 capable car. Simply put the technology isn't a restrictive factor anymore...I don't speak in terms of instantaneous change as he stated he drives a used car...well that's great and it works for him now (it sure gets better milage then some vehicles out there on the road that are brand new) but when his used car wears out and he is in the market for a new or newer used car it becomes his choice to either spend his money on a car capable of burning e85 or a car which only runs on gasoline. He has to make that choice...again there is no great difference in the price of the vehicle at this point only a difference in the potential impact on the environment. Even you can't argue with that because e85 vehicles are also fully capable of using regular gasoline without ethanol for the time being till e85 becomes less expensive, though that doesn't help the environment immediately. I therefore removed the argument of economics from making this decision and it becomes more of a moral debate.

It may become a moral debate to you, but you would have to present argument why that is true—you have not.

Well you must have missed it as I was referring to the moral issue of buying a car that produces far less pollution when there is no economic reason stopping someone form doing so versus buying a vehicle that stays with the status quo pumping out pollution and continues to contribute to the problem.

But you haven’t removed economics from this decision either, because people make decisions for themselves.

What does that have to do with economics?

Freedom, in this case, means that people are free to buy whatever vehicle they wish, according to whatever values are important to them at the time.

What does this have to do with economics? Unless you are trying to prove the point I made early on that people do not always do what is economically in their best interests and sometimes economics does not even weigh into their decision.

Freedom does not involve what you think they should do being forced upon them.

Go back and read my post I didn't mention anything about force.

I have no problem with anyone putting any vehicle for sale from a zero emissions 7 series to a Unimog. I have no problem with e85 vehicles. I have no problem with people advocating that others buy them.

That's good Rush...good for you.

I do, however, have a problem with using or advocating gov’t force to make others do what they otherwise would not.

Again, I never mentioned advocating government force.

Likewise he stated there aren't a lot of stations selling e85 right now. I can guarantee that if there was enough political pressure and oil companies were to find it in their best interest to develop more ethanol plants…

Ain’t that grand, you want to stick guns in people’s faces to make them do things that you yourself are unwilling to do. Which, of course, actually is a moral dilemma because it involves the initiation of force against others. When is it OK to use force against others to have them do as you wish? And, if you agree that it is OK to do when you agree with it, then you can understand that those others may then use force against you. When they agree with it. What a wonderful way to organize society.

ROTFLMAO...Rush who said anything about force or sticking a gun in someone's face...and if you are going to ask any more rhetorical questions it is best not to try to answer it yourself in the same statement. I feel like I'm dealing with real world issues and trying to discuss them on the front page and Rush is somewhere on the funnies page trying to read the obituaries on the sports page. It just isn't making any sense...anyway you look at it.

…then you would see the industry shift (like KM's company), and quickly; which would cause the gasoline to become more expensive and ethanol to become cheaper. Simple law of supply and demand. Too many people think that to make changes they have to do without. This seems to be your major argument with making change. This is simply not always true...they simply have to make better choices...yes it may cost a bit more to do that at times but not always.

My argument is very simple: you do not have the right to force people to change simply because you think they should. Much like they do not have right to force you to change simply because they think you should. How you define "better" is irrelevant to them, just as how they define “better” is irrelevant to you. More accurately, if you freely choose to provide alternatives that make more economic sense than the decisions people presently make, you’ll get what you want them to do, overwhelmingly, with almost no dissent, and without using force. That is the moral position because no one has to think as you do.

LOL...I thought your argument was "economics"...oh sorry didn't mean to steal your thunder by taking the wind out of your sails. Now I see you're tacking from the economics argument to invented, and very imaginative argument of "force" to which I still am wondering "where did this come from" I didn't mention anything about "force" I was talking economics or can't you hang with your own argument when it's used to highlight the flaws of you own argument. Now I would call your argument Rush...very evasive.

Even when it does cost them more to do, they will usually see a return on their money (see hybrid vehicles which fill up a tank half as much and have a tank two thirds the size of a standard japanese car). Lets use your cost benefit analysis to examine this. A hybrid vehicle costs not much more then your average car and in some cases less. Benefit the driver winds up using much less gas to go the same distance which in this day and age makes a huge difference, there by putting money back into the drivers pocket which in-turn pays for the car very quickly. Likewise the driver then is able to take the money saved and reinvest it or better yet spend it on other things that benefit the environment. Just think, two tanks of gas saved per year per person in the US would be capable of not only saving a lot of pollution into the environment but also would be capable of providing money for the "cure" that we talked about earlier with Misfit's post.

Each individual driver will have to make that decision for themselves. The hybrids today are hauling around huge sets of batteries that are heavy and difficult for the tiny gasoline engine to carry efficiently.

Lets evaluate that statement of heavy...the battery pack on a Prius and yes I did look it up is 53.3 Kg or 117.5 lbs that's less then the weight of a standard transmission in a regular full gasoline vehical which the prius doesn't need or have.

If they aren’t doing nearly 100% city driving, stop and go, all of the time, they do not get the benefit of the regenerative braking, the batteries quickly drain, and the little gasoline engine has to haul those batteries around at highway speeds--which is an inefficient use of energy regardless of the blend of gasoline.

In a traditional hybrid vehical the weight of the vehical is carried by the electric motor not the gasoline motor which only runs at one speed and is connected to an electric generator. The gasoline motor is very small and only has to be 10-20 hp so is very very economical and efficient on gas. See here I have some friends with Hybrid vehicals and have on many occasions both city and highway been a passenger and watched the readout on the dash of how the car performs it's various tasks while in motion. It should be noted that I have never in all the time I have ridden in one of those vehicals seen the battery power drop below 3/4 which by the way in a prius is it's normal position. Speaking of vehical weight it should be noted that a Jetta which is about the size of a Toyota Prius and considered a direct competitor in it's class weighs in at 1490 kg or 3285 lbs while the Toyota Prius weighs just 1310 kg or 2890 lbs.

Not that I care which choice they make, that is up to them. But neither do the savings “pay for the car very quickly,” as most of the mileage claims made by the manufacturers are overstated.

Got it as long as it's their choice and nobody is forcing them...

Keep in mind, not everyone agrees with ethanol. There isn’t as much energy in ethanol as there is in gasoline, and creating significant amounts of energy from food crops depletes the amount of land available for actual food.

Again this is where cellulose comes in, better return and it's not a food crop.

To some, growing corn changing it into a gallon of ethanol requires more energy than is in the gallon of ethanol, which is a net loss. Some others think there’s only a small gain in energy in creating ethanol. Either way, it’s not a panacea.

It also has another benefit of causing the oil industry to take notice because less demand for their product will equal lower prices at the pump. When the oil industry isn't making as much you can rest assured that they will look into making a profit in other ways, and will suddenly find the money to produce new products like e85. So it's not so much that we have to reinvent the wheel but rather we have to reinvent peoples perspectives. Change does not typically happen over night but a grassroots movement of people can have a huge impact. Even one person making a change has an effect when combined with other individuals who also are intent on change. Call it social engineering for global change of the environment. The best part is like I said before...it's already happening...it only needs to happen faster.

Eh, who cares about this stuff? You seem to be laboring under the false impression that I am against solving the problem,

I haven't seen you put forth an alternative solution.

or that I am defeatist about it,

Well that do sum it up...

or that I care what actions you take to prevent your catastrophes. I’m not.

I thought it was "our catastrophe", or are you still having issues making up your mind as to if it is really happening or not?

You’re free. Do whatever you wish. Engineer all the grassroots movements you wish. Hug trees, eat granola, polish your Birkenstocks, teach people to cut emissions, sell zero emissions cars, teach people to install constant flow water heaters, convince Home Depot to feature them prominently in their stores with a easily understandable economic analysis of why they are better. Go nuts. You can do it all with my blessing and it makes sense. If you actually want to cut emissions, I would focus on the Home Depot stuff over the hugging trees stuff, but you are free to choose as you will.

So that's your solution focus on home depot...change by retailer to save the planet.

But do not advocate gov’t force against me to pay for your ideas.

I thought I was free to advocate for change...now I'm not...make up your mind.

If your ideas are good, people will line up to use them. If your ideas aren’t good, or they’re expensive, or speculative, those same people will run for the hills and rightfully so. Just like China, India, and Mexico did. They don't want to pay for your ideas either. And since you exempted them, they won't.

There were an awful lot of references to "you" and "your" however I didn't originate the ideas. Likewise I had nothing to do with exempting China or Mexico so point your finger elsewhere.

---

Take a look through Global Warming videos: What Truth?! and please comment.

I've seen much of that at some time or another. Did you have some specific points you wanted to make?

Clearly you haven't see those videos, otherwise you would be making more of a comment. In case you haven't noticed, the Global Warming "debate" has moved on a long way past any "debate" or whatever other FUD-isms that you may try to assert.

The (short) videos collection there show more than just the now well known points of Global Warming. There is now a much greater emphasis on "what next" and the politics and realities for that.

And yet you are still in denial?

There is one interesting video there that very strongly supports the case that you appear to proffer. How do you think the balance of evidence falls?

So you accept all the comments in all of the videos there? Or you have no opinion after all? Can you still argue your position of "uncertainty" and "doubt"?...

Jeffrey, this is getting old. If you have a specific point you'd like to discuss, raise it. I don't need to see your videos (again) to see that a bunch of people agree with you. Duh.

I've raised any number of points here and you refuse to address them. You refuse to refute anything Mr. Lindzen says. ...

You have posted that old Lindzen article. He has been thoroughly debunked and his comments discredited. So much so, that such as Exxon-Mobil have very publicly announced that they are no longer to sponsor such FUD attempts. Guess they've run their course for delaying and denying the pollution they are causing, and the consequent costs.

In 699 posts, you have offered NOTHING other than various squirmings that its all too expensive and that you don't want to pay and that the USA is being victimised.


The reality is that you have the choice to pay a little now, or you can pay many times more depending on how much longer the CO2 pollution levels are maintained.

Take a look at the videos. The politics for The World is changing. It's more a question of how quickly.

Regards,
Martin

---

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

Unbelievable. Simply unbelievable. This is becoming a complete waste of time with you DA. I've give this one last shot, I'll make it as simple simple simple as I can in hopes that you can grasp it. If not, I'm done with you.

There are concepts here that are simple logical extensions of the points made. If you obviously don't understand something, as below, don't just type some silly response. For example, your errors in the “total tax burden” idea, or, the idea the “you,” and “your,” aren’t generally directed at you personally, but to people who think as you do, or people who take the same position. Take some time. Think about it, or ask. Consider that there might be reasons for what I wrote. Your inane, insipid, and hackneyed comments illustrate unwillingness or inability to grasp the issues involved in such discussions and thus undermines your position: if you can’t grasp this simple stuff, why should anyone believe you can grasp the issues involved with global warming?

My point is Rush that while economics is a big factor in how the world operates, and I don't contest that. I do believe that people also hide behind it to a great degree.

Maybe, but that’s ambiguous and the other side often hides from economics. For example, the environmentalist wacko crowd has been demanding zero emissions vehicles since the beginning of time. Yet they never quite understood that nothing was stopping them from providing such vehicles. But they didn't. Oops!

Well there is hiding as you claim and "counter productive" as I would call it which is to say that the entities most likely to gain success are those already in the industry that know the most about it like the "car manufacturers" I know this is a hard concept for you from your it's like comparing apples and ummm ear muffs...(political action groups ≠ industry manufacturers). That's just being obtuse.

Up until recently, the economics of building them was prohibitive and so GM, Honda, et cetera didn’t do it. Funnily enough, should Dirt First! actually had tried to produce such cars, the same economic flaws with them would have prevented Dirt First! from doing so as well. Unless, they made a breakthrough. More power to them, but they didn’t even bother to try.

I'm still scratching my head here as to why you think that a political action group would spontaneously start producing vehicles...but oh well your line of thought here hasn't proven to be grounded in logic or reality. Does anyone else get this line of argument?

This is very simple DA, and your extraneous comments illustrate what I said above. You have no right to force others to do anything. By extension, you do not have a right to anyone else providing anything for you. In other words, you don’t have a right to GM making cars. You don’t have a right to the dry cleaner on the corner. You don’t have a right to someone selling bicycles. These people do this stuff freely because they choose to. Since you do not have a right to them, every one of them can choose to stop, to continue, to move, to do whatever they want. They do it all the time. The dry cleaner retires and closes his shop. The bike guy can’t make the rent and shuts down. Eagle can’t make a profit and stops making cars.

To your comments above, since the environmentalist wackos demanded zero-emissions vehicles that did not exist, they had two choices: accept that simple economics prevented the existing auto manufacturers from building such cars, or if they believed otherwise, decide to build such cars themselves. The point being here, very simply, that if Dirt First! can understand why they choose not to build zero-emission cars, they can understand why GM never built them either. They both used reasons for themselves. GM didn’t build such things because they economics didn’t work. The wackos didn’t build such things because they didn’t want to. Two entities, freely choosing the same result: not to build such cars.

If Dirt First! honestly felt that GM was wrong, and they honestly wanted to save the planet, and they honestly believed that a zero-emission car would do so, all they needed to do was build the car themselves. Or pay GM to do it. Provide the plans and have the car built and sell it. Certainly, that’s an expensive pain in the ass—starting to manufacture cars isn’t cheap—but that only serves to highlight the reasons GM didn’t start to build them. It ain’t easy, no matter what the Dirt First! thinks. If, as you say above “the entities most likely to gain success are those already in the industry that know the most about it like the ‘car manufacturers,’” then Dirt First! is faced with a dilemma: “Oh wow, GM knows the most about it, maybe those cars aren’t feasible right now.” If they then choose not to endure the expense and hardship of producing such cars, they can then understand why GM did not.

If you’re “still scratching my head here as to why you think that a political action group would spontaneously start producing vehicles,” those are the reasons why. Because that is the only way such vehicles would have been produced. Someone could demand that the local baker make birthday cakes from anchovy paste and garlic, but he’s probably not going to. Their only option is to make and sell that cake themselves.

Surprise, surprise. It seems they really hate big business but are utterly dependent on said businesses to provide the products they need. That’s inconsistent and hypocritical.

I wouldn't go so far as to say that they hate big business but I would say that they take issue with big business which in most cases but not all are mass polluters using vast amounts of natural resources all in the name of corporate greed and profitability. Why do you think this comes as a surprise Rush, they are political activists working to pressure the business that we already have to clean up their acts. Hypocritical...uh..no...there is nothing hypocritical about using political action to advocate change.

While, “mass polluters using vast amounts of natural resources all in the name of corporate greed and profitability,” is one way to put it, it also demonstrates your ideology. You bought and use a computer that was cheap for you, which means you completely and utterly support what they do. And millions of other people agree with you. GM doesn’t care what you think as long as you buy the car. Dell doesn’t care what you think as long as you buy the computer. And you did. And if you did, you can understand why other people did.

I have no problem with activists trying to get GM to change of their own free will. However, I do have a problem with them trying to pass laws to force GM to change, especially if they didn't like other laws being passed. Maybe laws to allow oil drilling in Alaska, laws that sell gov’t land to private individuals, repealing EPA regulations, or changing them. Since the gov’t isn’t run on principle, and it’s just who can force someone else to do what, they should be thrilled that someone lobbies to drill in Alaska, because if that person can’t do that, then Dirt First! couldn’t lobby for whatever law they wanted.

Well you must have missed it as I was referring to the moral issue of buying a car that produces far less pollution when there is no economic reason stopping someone form doing so versus buying a vehicle that stays with the status quo pumping out pollution and continues to contribute to the problem.

People have many many reasons for the cars that they choose beyond MPG or effect on the environment. Price, size, utility, quality, safety, styling, interior room, options, color, ratios of use, et cetera, in addition to impact on the environment. They evaluate those factors according to their personal preferences and choose as they wish, which is exactly what you do. The fact that they choose differently than you would does not mean they are immoral. The only way that one could *maybe* make the argument that someone was being immoral was if they were choosing between two vehicles, identical in every respect, except that one polluted more than the other.

But you haven’t removed economics from this decision either, because people make decisions for themselves.

What does that have to do with economics?

See previous posts.

Freedom, in this case, means that people are free to buy whatever vehicle they wish, according to whatever values are important to them at the time.

What does this have to do with economics? Unless you are trying to prove the point I made early on that people do not always do what is economically in their best interests and sometimes economics does not even weigh into their decision.

Sheesh. Third time: as noted previously, rational people always do what is in their best interests as they see them, and economics is how they make all decisions. They use cost/benefit analysis. Which is economics.

Freedom does not involve what you think they should do being forced upon them.

Go back and read my post I didn't mention anything about force.

That’s all gov’t is. Force. They use force to enFORCE the law. The use the FORCE of law to FORCE people to do as they otherwise would not. Gov’t and force are synonymous. If there were no force involved, few people if any would pay their taxes.

I have no problem with anyone putting any vehicle for sale from a zero emissions 7 series to a Unimog. I have no problem with e85 vehicles. I have no problem with people advocating that others buy them.

That's good Rush...good for you.

Yeah. I rule.

I do, however, have a problem with using or advocating gov’t force to make others do what they otherwise would not.

Again, I never mentioned advocating government force.

Then none of this is an issue. Kyoto is, of course, gov’t force.

Likewise he stated there aren't a lot of stations selling e85 right now. I can guarantee that if there was enough political pressure and oil companies were to find it in their best interest to develop more ethanol plants…

Ain’t that grand, you want to stick guns in people’s faces to make them do things that you yourself are unwilling to do. Which, of course, actually is a moral dilemma because it involves the initiation of force against others. When is it OK to use force against others to have them do as you wish? And, if you agree that it is OK to do when you agree with it, then you can understand that those others may then use force against you. When they agree with it. What a wonderful way to organize society.

ROTFLMAO...Rush who said anything about force or sticking a gun in someone's face...and if you are going to ask any more rhetorical questions it is best not to try to answer it yourself in the same statement. I feel like I'm dealing with real world issues and trying to discuss them on the front page and Rush is somewhere on the funnies page trying to read the obituaries on the sports page. It just isn't making any sense...anyway you look at it.

Your glaring incompetence once again becomes self-evident. At first glance, it didn’t make sense to you, so instead of reasoning it out or asking, you revealed this little parade of ignorance.

If you advocate using gov’t, IT IS FORCE. If people do not obey the law, the gov’t uses force, from forcing you to pay a parking ticket, to ultimately imprisoning someone and ending their life, the gov’t is nothing but force, designed to make people obey. That means sticking guns in people’s faces to make them obey. Stop paying your taxes, or drive everywhere at 95 MPH, if you want a real simple lesson that even you could understand.

…then you would see the industry shift (like KM's company), and quickly; which would cause the gasoline to become more expensive and ethanol to become cheaper. Simple law of supply and demand. Too many people think that to make changes they have to do without. This seems to be your major argument with making change. This is simply not always true...they simply have to make better choices...yes it may cost a bit more to do that at times but not always.

My argument is very simple: you do not have the right to force people to change simply because you think they should. Much like they do not have right to force you to change simply because they think you should. How you define "better" is irrelevant to them, just as how they define “better” is irrelevant to you. More accurately, if you freely choose to provide alternatives that make more economic sense than the decisions people presently make, you’ll get what you want them to do, overwhelmingly, with almost no dissent, and without using force. That is the moral position because no one has to think as you do.

LOL...I thought your argument was "economics"...oh sorry didn't mean to steal your thunder by taking the wind out of your sails. Now I see you're tacking from the economics argument to invented, and very imaginative argument of "force" to which I still am wondering "where did this come from" I didn't mention anything about "force" I was talking economics or can't you hang with your own argument when it's used to highlight the flaws of you own argument. Now I would call your argument Rush...very evasive.

I’m just going to let this fall on its internal failures.

I would suggest some really simple economics courses. Focus on the Austrian or Chicago Schools.

Even when it does cost them more to do, they will usually see a return on their money (see hybrid vehicles which fill up a tank half as much and have a tank two thirds the size of a standard japanese car). Lets use your cost benefit analysis to examine this. A hybrid vehicle costs not much more then your average car and in some cases less. Benefit the driver winds up using much less gas to go the same distance which in this day and age makes a huge difference, there by putting money back into the drivers pocket which in-turn pays for the car very quickly. Likewise the driver then is able to take the money saved and reinvest it or better yet spend it on other things that benefit the environment. Just think, two tanks of gas saved per year per person in the US would be capable of not only saving a lot of pollution into the environment but also would be capable of providing money for the "cure" that we talked about earlier with Misfit's post.

Each individual driver will have to make that decision for themselves. The hybrids today are hauling around huge sets of batteries that are heavy and difficult for the tiny gasoline engine to carry efficiently.

Lets evaluate that statement of heavy...the battery pack on a Prius and yes I did look it up is 53.3 Kg or 117.5 lbs that's less then the weight of a standard transmission in a regular full gasoline vehical which the prius doesn't need or have.

If they aren’t doing nearly 100% city driving, stop and go, all of the time, they do not get the benefit of the regenerative braking, the batteries quickly drain, and the little gasoline engine has to haul those batteries around at highway speeds--which is an inefficient use of energy regardless of the blend of gasoline.

In a traditional hybrid vehical the weight of the vehical is carried by the electric motor not the gasoline motor which only runs at one speed and is connected to an electric generator. The gasoline motor is very small and only has to be 10-20 hp so is very very economical and efficient on gas. See here I have some friends with Hybrid vehicals and have on many occasions both city and highway been a passenger and watched the readout on the dash of how the car performs it's various tasks while in motion. It should be noted that I have never in all the time I have ridden in one of those vehicals seen the battery power drop below 3/4 which by the way in a prius is it's normal position. Speaking of vehical weight it should be noted that a Jetta which is about the size of a Toyota Prius and considered a direct competitor in it's class weighs in at 1490 kg or 3285 lbs while the Toyota Prius weighs just 1310 kg or 2890 lbs.

The point still remains: that tiny gasoline engine is inefficient in hauling around the car if the car does not have the benefit of regenerative braking. In fact, there’s a law suit going on right now, alleging that the manufacturers greatly exaggerated the actual mileage those things get. I don’t know much about the merits, but that wheezy little gasoline motor is too small to operate efficiently without the batteries. That you’ve personally never seen those batteries die isn’t of any real consequence. They do. Especially with highway driving.

Not that I care which choice they make, that is up to them. But neither do the savings “pay for the car very quickly,” as most of the mileage claims made by the manufacturers are overstated.

Got it as long as it's their choice and nobody is forcing them...

Yep.

Keep in mind, not everyone agrees with ethanol. There isn’t as much energy in ethanol as there is in gasoline, and creating significant amounts of energy from food crops depletes the amount of land available for actual food.

Again this is where cellulose comes in, better return and it's not a food crop.

Maybe. Best of luck to you.

Eh, who cares about this stuff? You seem to be laboring under the false impression that I am against solving the problem,

I haven't seen you put forth an alternative solution.

Then you can’t read.

or that I am defeatist about it,

Well that do sum it up...

No. You can’t read.

or that I care what actions you take to prevent your catastrophes. I’m not.

I thought it was "our catastrophe", or are you still having issues making up your mind as to if it is really happening or not?

1000th time: The earth is likely warming. As it always has, regardless of the cause. What happens is what happens.

You’re free. Do whatever you wish. Engineer all the grassroots movements you wish. Hug trees, eat granola, polish your Birkenstocks, teach people to cut emissions, sell zero emissions cars, teach people to install constant flow water heaters, convince Home Depot to feature them prominently in their stores with a easily understandable economic analysis of why they are better. Go nuts. You can do it all with my blessing and it makes sense. If you actually want to cut emissions, I would focus on the Home Depot stuff over the hugging trees stuff, but you are free to choose as you will.

So that's your solution focus on home depot...change by retailer to save the planet.

It’s just an example, but yes. If you got Home Depot (and all the rest of the big home improvement retailers) to decide that selling constant flow water heaters was in their best interests, and got them to demonstrate that the increased costs would quickly be dwarfed by the savings in energy, their customers would buy them. You could save enormous amounts of energy because then you don’t have 100 million homes all keeping 40 or more gallons of water hot 24/7. In my basement, there are two 50 gallon hot water heaters. When one of them fails, they both will be replaced with constant flows, saving me from paying to keep 100 gallons of water hot 24/7.

Most of the energy people use are in heating and cooling their homes. Cut that by 50% - 75% and you’re in with Flynn—without massive and intrusive gov’t regulation.

But do not advocate gov’t force against me to pay for your ideas.

I thought I was free to advocate for change...now I'm not...make up your mind.

You are free to advocate for change. You are free to convince others of your position. You are not free to use force against me. You can convince Home Depot to see your point; you cannot use gov’t force against them.

If your ideas are good, people will line up to use them. If your ideas aren’t good, or they’re expensive, or speculative, those same people will run for the hills and rightfully so. Just like China, India, and Mexico did. They don't want to pay for your ideas either. And since you exempted them, they won't.

There were an awful lot of references to "you" and "your" however I didn't originate the ideas. Likewise I had nothing to do with exempting China or Mexico so point your finger elsewhere.

I’m not always referring to you specifically, don’t take it personally. But the point still stands. If you need total emissions cut, then exempting emitters 2, 3, 4, and 11 is a bad idea.

---

Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...

Clearly you haven't see those videos, otherwise you would be making more of a comment.

Then, as usual, you would be wrong. I’ll say it a third time: if you have something specific you’d like to discuss, mention it.

In case you haven't noticed, the Global Warming "debate" has moved on a long way past any "debate" or whatever other FUD-isms that you may try to assert.

The (short) videos collection there show more than just the now well known points of Global Warming. There is now a much greater emphasis on "what next" and the politics and realities for that.

Which, of course, hasn’t cut emissions one iota. The “debate” is of no significance without cuts in total emissions. Hey, did you notice how they debated the hell out of Kyoto for years and then everyone moved a long way past any “debate” and then everyone signed on and then everyone missed their numbers? Yay them. Have fun with your discussions.

And yet you are still in denial?

I’m not in denial, never have been; you simply cannot read. You must feel better or something, because you repeatedly present straw men that I have never presented. Think that helps your case, or harms it?

There is one interesting video there that very strongly supports the case that you appear to proffer. How do you think the balance of evidence falls?

1000th time: I think the earth is probably warming, regardless of the cause. I don’t think you can stop it without cutting total emissions. In an ever increasingly populous world that is ever striving towards a first world lifestyle, you cannot exempt emitters 2, 3, 4, and 11 (especially since 2 will soon become 1) and still hope to cut total emissions.

So you accept all the comments in all of the videos there? Or you have no opinion after all? Can you still argue your position of "uncertainty" and "doubt"?...

You cannot read. I have not argued any position of uncertainty or doubt.

You have posted that old Lindzen article. He has been thoroughly debunked and his comments discredited.

If so, then you could easily destroy his argument at the beginning of this thread. Yet you consistently refuse to. C’mon. Just try. Anything. Just once, present an argument. It’s really easy, according to you, because he’s already been “debunked.” It goes like this: In the article at the beginning of this thread, Mr. Lindzen said X. This is wrong, because Y.

You’ve said Mr. Lindzen has been debunked, what, four, five, six times now, without actually presenting why. Do you think that helps your position, or hurts it? Do you think it suggests you are well-versed in the challenges facing your position or that you are nothing more than an ideologue?

So much so, that such as Exxon-Mobil have very publicly announced that they are no longer to sponsor such FUD attempts. Guess they've run their course for delaying and denying the pollution they are causing, and the consequent costs.

Maybe. I think they will continue mostly to do exactly as they have done. Pay millions to lobby politicians and support libertarian and pro-freedom groups.

In 699 posts, you have offered NOTHING other than various squirmings that its all too expensive and that you don't want to pay and that the USA is being victimised.

Nope, you can’t read. In a nutshell, AGAIN:

I think the earth is probably warming, regardless of the cause. I don’t think you can stop it without cutting total emissions. In an ever increasingly populous world that is ever striving towards a first world lifestyle, you cannot exempt emitters 2, 3, 4, and 11 (especially since 2 will soon become 1) and still hope to cut total emissions.

I don’t really think the U.S. is being victimized, but I did note that it hasn’t played along with your program and that even if it does, it will be dwarfed by China. Those are simple facts. Call it FUD (heh) all you wish, that doesn’t cut total emissions either.

The reality is that you have the choice to pay a little now, or you can pay many times more depending on how much longer the CO2 pollution levels are maintained.

Heh. Repeating your opinion yet again doesn’t make it any more true. Once again: Did you note how 2, 3, 4, and 11, China, India, Russia, and Mexico DON’T THINK that it’s “a little now.” They found it sooooo expensive that they would have refused to sign on. So you still haven’t made an argument that it’s cheap, you just keep saying that it is.

Take a look at the videos. The politics for The World is changing. It's more a question of how quickly.

Heh heh, you better pray to Jeebus that works, because it hasn’t so far, and if you don’t cut total emissions regardless of who cuts them, you’re doomed. DOOMED, I TELL YOU!!

Folks, lobby your politicians now, to end these mindless ravings. These people can’t make a coherent argument if their lives depended on it. Don’t let them bill you for their silly ideas, the time to act is NOW!

Heh.

---

Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...

I still get emails from Greenpeace, this is part of the latest;

Launch of a comprehensive global energy strategy sets out a blueprint
for tackling climate change

Brussels, 25th January 2007 - Renewable energy, combined with efficiencies from the ‘smart use’ of energy, can deliver half of the world’s energy needs by 2050, according to one of the most comprehensive plans for future sustainable energy provision, launched today.

The report: ‘Energy [R]evolution: A sustainable World Energy Outlook’, produced by the European Renewable Energy Council (EREC) and Greenpeace International, provides a practical blueprint for how to cut global CO2 emissions by almost 50% within the next 43 years, whilst providing a secure and affordable energy supply and, critically, maintaining steady worldwide economic development. Notably, the plan takes into account rapid economic growth areas such as China, India and Africa, and highlights the economic advantages of the energy revolution scenario. It concludes that renewable energies will represent the backbone of the world’s economy – not only in OECD countries, but also in developing countries such as China, India and Brazil. The plan states that renewable energies have the potential to deliver nearly 70% of global electricity supply and 65% of global heat supply by 2050.

Let me know if you want me to post the rest (the above is about a fifth of it).

---

flaming balloons

I still get emails from Greenpeace, this is part of the latest;

The report: ‘Energy [R]evolution: A sustainable World Energy Outlook’, produced by the European Renewable Energy Council (EREC) and Greenpeace International....

Let me know if you want me to post the rest (the above is about a fifth of it).

Feel free.

In the spawned thread:

Fun with Global Warming - Part Deux!

Closed. I would change the title, but it isn't giving me the option.

---

Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...

Closed. I would change the title, but it isn't giving me the option.

I've had this problem. Make another post, then a second one immediately after it. Edit the second and you will find you can change the title.

---

flaming balloons