Rush,

Quite an ever twisting thread!


To try and summarise what I believe your position is now:

1: Global Warming / Climate Change is happening, and very quickly;

2: Human activity (industry, farming and changing land use) is producing greenhouse gasses causing very rapid Global Warming;

3: Weather patterns will get more extreme and disruptive;

4: The USA is the World's largest single contributor. The Rest of the World expects the USA alone to pay for everything in whatever way;

5: The Kyoto agreement has utterly failed;

6: Humans are too greedy and self-centred to cooperate to save the World;

7: Self-annihilation is inevitable due to ever greater population increase;

8: China and India will destroy the World even if the USA didn't destroy us all first;

9: We are all doomed;

10: The politicians, the oil lobby, corporate greed, and capitalism will all make sure that we are still all doomed;

10b: And it's already too late and too expensive to do anything about Global Warming and it would be in all futility in any case. You've written to your political representative saying so.


Yes?

Regards,
Martin

---

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

Rush,

Quite an ever twisting thread!

Hee hee!

To try and summarise what I believe your position is now:

1: Global Warming / Climate Change is happening, and very quickly;

Probably.

2: Human activity (industry, farming and changing land use) is producing greenhouse gasses causing very rapid Global Warming;

Maybe. Less likely than 1.

3: Weather patterns will get more extreme and disruptive;

If 1 and 2, then 3. Though 1 does happen without 2.

4: The USA is the World's largest single contributor. The Rest of the World expects the USA alone to pay for everything in whatever way;

That seems to be the gist: Kyoto failed and it’s the U.S.’ fault.

5: The Kyoto agreement has utterly failed;

Self-evident.

6: Humans are too greedy and self-centred to cooperate to save the World;

Nope.

7: Self-annihilation is inevitable due to ever greater population increase;

Nope. Just that emissions will increase as more populations become first worldish. For example, in 1990, the U.S. had about 250 million people, now it has about 301 million people, a nearly 20 percent increase. As each passing year goes by an ever greater population will incur ever greater emissions, further diminishing the likelihood that cuts would ever be made. Without economically effective solutions, this will not change.

8: China and India will destroy the World even if the USA didn't destroy us all first;

Nope. If total net emissions now are too high and total net emissions continue to rise, total net emissions will “destroy the world,” regardless of who emits them.

9: We are all doomed;

If the only solution is “Beg the gov’t to save us,” you are all doomed.

10: The politicians, the oil lobby, corporate greed, and capitalism will all make sure that we are still all doomed;

Nope. Capitalism is the only thing that will provide zero-emissions cars, or nuclear power, or windmills, or wave motion generators. Greenfarce, Dirt First!, and Sierra Schlub will certainly never provide them. Neither will Draconian legislation.

10b: And it's already too late and too expensive to do anything about Global Warming and it would be in all futility in any case. You've written to your political representative saying so.

Nope. I’ve said that spending billions or trillions for no reduction in total emissions is a complete waste of time and resources. I have written to a number of politicians with that view.

---

Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...

Hey!
All this cr*p about "Global Warming" is just that ... CR*P!!!
I just spent 2 weeks in Santa Ynez where night temperatures were at or about -20º F.
So I suggest all you greenies take you Global Warming selves to the other corner of the World ... and well away from me ...

Rush,

Quite an ever twisting thread!


To try and summarise what I believe your position is now:

1: Global Warming / Climate Change is happening, and very quickly;

2: Human activity (industry, farming and changing land use) is producing greenhouse gasses causing very rapid Global Warming;

3: Weather patterns will get more extreme and disruptive;

[...]

I think you've probably summed it up about right.

Isn't it very sad though that someone who apparently cares so much for our environment, spends his time posting here which probably covers 0.00001 of the worlds population.

Likely less than that even.

I'd be more impressed if he spent his time lobbying the worlds press, politicians or governments.

In progress. Hence why I'm checking out the arguments here.

Or does he just like a good whinge and a wind up.

Rush and BODLEY might, however they do have a point of view that others likely share. Good practice to see how the arguments do stack up.

Also, this thread is a very good reminder of how short signed, blinkered, or just sheer blindly stubborn or simplistically blinded by whatever preconceptions some people can be.

Also, the media is more powerful for "mis-education" than is widely recognised. The advertisments say so, so it must be 'right'! "As seen on TV"!!!...

EDIT remove politicians from above

They have their uses!

Are you talking to your political representative?


Considering the stereotypical view of 'The-Man-In-The-Pub" (or bar, or whatever) whom cannot see further than the next beer/larger, I believe that our best way out is a joint effort by politicians and "Captains of Industry" and by the various "Greens" groups.

What says you?


Regards,
Martin

---

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

Isn't it very sad though that someone who apparently cares so much for our environment, spends his time posting here which probably covers 0.00001 of the worlds population.

I'd be more impressed if he spent his time lobbying the worlds press, politicians or governments. Or does he just like a good whinge and a wind up.

EDIT remove politicians from above

I don't think it is sad at at all. It's not about how many people hear this debate; some don't want to know or cannot understand it - it is about those that listen, take an interest, and then talk to others. The stone thrown in a pond and the ripples going ever outwards - that sort of thing. The sort of people who are prepared to crunch for science are those that can formulate and take the arguments away. If nobody agues nothing gets done. And we might get done by Climate Change before we know it.

---

flaming balloons

Rush and BODLEY might, however they do have a point of view that others likely share. Good practice to see how the arguments do stack up.

It would be good practice if the arguments were ever actually responded to.

Also, this thread is a very good reminder of how short signed, blinkered, or just sheer blindly stubborn or simplistically blinded by whatever preconceptions some people can be.

Ah, delicious irony of that statement.

---

Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...

I don't think it is sad at at all. It's not about how many people hear this debate; some don't want to know or cannot understand it - it is about those that listen, take an interest, and then talk to others. The stone thrown in a pond and the ripples going ever outwards - that sort of thing. The sort of people who are prepared to crunch for science are those that can formulate and take the arguments away. If nobody agues nothing gets done. And we might get done by Climate Change before we know it.

Exactly. On both sides of the debate.

You might find people taking my side more and more. You know, as the ripples go ever outward. Especially given much of the ideology presented here as a substitute for argument.

---

Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...

That’s a semantic distinction. Freedom is the right to yourself. The right to your labor, the right to think as you wish. Which also includes that no one else has to think as you do, regardless of your opinion about it, and that you don't have to think like everyone else.

How very Marxist of you.

It's not marxist at all if it applies to everyone from tank wipe to CEO.
If I have a right to my labor, you do not have the right to take it from me. Which you continually advocate, i.e. heath care and education.

So build your own roads and water treatment plant and don't forget the sewage plant, all on your own property and don't leave it!
And NEVER call when the idiot decides to break into your home, no Police for you, you don't want to pay for those kinds of things! And Fire Department, better get a bigger garden hose and start digging a really, really big swimming pool! You will need a good sized pump to feed those hoses too, so don't forget that. And Electricity, make your own, just make enough to run the pump! Our TAXES pay for sooo many things, not just things you and I do not personally use!
You say you should not have to pay for the School down the road? Okay fork over your FULL share of the road tax then! You only pay a small amount because I pay my share too. I only drive on the roads part-time, so I am paying less from now on, you will have to pick up the slack! And the Police, I have NEVER called them, you will have to pick that up too.Taxes are a necessary evil that we all must pay for us to be able to live like we do, where we do.

---

So build your own roads and water treatment plant and don't forget the sewage plant, all on your own property and don't leave it!
And NEVER call when the idiot decides to break into your home, no Police for you, you don't want to pay for those kinds of things! And Fire Department, better get a bigger garden hose and start digging a really, really big swimming pool! You will need a good sized pump to feed those hoses too, so don't forget that. And Electricity, make your own, just make enough to run the pump! Our TAXES pay for sooo many things, not just things you and I do not personally use!
You say you should not have to pay for the School down the road? Okay fork over your FULL share of the road tax then! You only pay a small amount because I pay my share too. I only drive on the roads part-time, so I am paying less from now on, you will have to pick up the slack! And the Police, I have NEVER called them, you will have to pick that up too.Taxes are a necessary evil that we all must pay for us to be able to live like we do, where we do.

Wow. You really have no idea what you are talking about do you?

This is not the proper thread, but did it ever cross your mind that there are proper roles for principled government? That there are principles that form governments that do not initiate force? Ones that libertarians and anarchists understand and for the most part, agree on?

---

Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...

The stone thrown in a pond and the ripples going ever outwards - that sort of thing. The sort of people who are prepared to crunch for science are those that can formulate and take the arguments away. If nobody agues nothing gets done. And we might get done by Climate Change before we know it.

SETI is such a very small pond as to be insignificant.

If people have this fire in their belly to educate the masses about these things, then for gods sake, get off your backsides and do something USEFUL about it.

Start up a website, distribute leaflets, I dont know. Why all this emotional angst which will achieve squiddly dat?

It's got you talking about Climate Change.

---

flaming balloons

It's got you talking about Climate Change.

Only because Rush makes me cross.

I've always been aware of the problem. His attitiude does nothing to help.

I'm cross that we haven't started a fight over nuclear power plants yet.

Let's all get cross and shake it all down baby!

---

flaming balloons

It's got you talking about Climate Change.

Only because Rush makes me cross.

Yes, he does seem to be rather religious about his interpretations... Not sure he'd use the crucifix as his guiding symbol. A burning oil well, or a petrochemical plant gas flare instead perhaps?

I've always been aware of the problem. His attitiude does nothing to help.

Good practice against the likes of Lindzen. However, there is likely no cure for those determined to sit it out on the tracks to test, just for sure, whether the emergency brakes can stop the freight train to halt just in front of them. A little like good ole King Canute...

I'm cross that we haven't started a fight over nuclear power plants yet.

There's been a few glimmers of a glow. I'm certainly hopeful for ITER, but we need an awful lot more a long time before that will be ready. A new generation of nuclear power stations are needed that have decommissioning designed in and costed from the outset. And they are needed quickly.

Meanwhile, an awful lot can be done quickly and cheaply to make more efficient use of the fossil fuels that we already use, if only to buy time to do something better. We will likely save money from being more efficient!

Those spreading ripples of information about the reality of Global Warming need to be larger and spread further...

Regards,
Martin

---

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

Carbon limits must harness market forces

Union Tribune Editorial

January 22, 2007

America has reached a turning point in its debate about the threat posed by global warming. Congress suddenly is on the move.

Democrats are flooding the Capitol with legislation that would order industries to sharply reduce emissions of carbon dioxide and other gases thought to accelerate climate change. Industry executives have quietly accepted federal intervention as inevitable; now their lobbyists jockey for position and try to predict costs.

The critical question of cost is paramount as Congress holds hearings on the various bills. A relatively modest proposal by Sen. Jeff Bingaman, D-New Mexico, would slice $232 billion from the nation's economic output by 2030, according to an Energy Department estimate.

But, like other studies of cost, the Energy Department's estimate assumes that a fleet of new nuclear plants and other emission-reducing technologies will emerge. Environmental groups and their Democratic servants in Congress hate nukes; the nation may unwisely cede its technological leadership. Advances in other energy alternatives have disappointed investors for decades.

So reducing U.S. carbon emissions will be tougher politically and dramatically more expensive than it looks. And worldwide output won't fall at all unless India and China join the club.

Meanwhile, prominent climatologists question whether even big cuts in carbon output can slow climate change. If we're not careful, politicians could wreck the economy for absolutely nothing.

Clearly, some deft policy-making is in order. Weaning the world's economy from cheap fossil fuels is a big job – much too big for Washington bureaucrats.

Market forces are equal to the task. Moderates must block any bill, however minor, that uses top-down regulation instead of markets. Economists say revenue-neutral taxes on carbon are the way to go, but that's political dynamite.

Next best are “cap and trade” systems. They let companies pay for investments in extra emission cuts by selling credits to others, sparking a race to cut further.

Last week Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-California, proposed just such a system. Surrounded by utility executives, she touted a bill to cut power-sector emissions 25 percent by 2020. Electricity production accounts for nearly a third of the nation's carbon dioxide emissions, so utility customers would pay dearly for any overall reductions.

Like California's statewide goal, Feinstein's bill may prove too aggressive and too expensive. Yet she would create a national market for emissions credits. This federalized approach would rescue California from its misguided decision last year to go it alone.

But Feinstein must get past Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., who runs a key committee and has sided with environmental groups hostile to market-based regulation.

Global warming could be among the least of our problems.

---

me@rescam.org

I have been watching this thread for quite a while now, and have finally decided ( for better or worse ) to actually post something.

I see Rush on one side of things, and I see a whole lot of people on the other side.

Well, here's how I see it.

There are a whole lot of people attempting to make demands on what kind of car ( zero emissions ) we should drive, what we have to do to stop Global Warming ( IF it could be stopped ) and on and on and on.

Ya know what? I do what I can afford to do. I can't afford to go and buy a hybrid car, so I drive one that gets 30MPG. I use LED light bulbs in my living room and bedroom, and a flourescent in my kitchen.

Yes, I still use my computer, obviously. Maybe that negates the other things that I do, but I figure " no gain " is better than " net gain " any day.

This argument seems to boil down to economics. The companies can't make a zero emissions car that someone like me can afford to buy, so I can't buy any of the ones that are available.

It's pretty simple. If people can't afford to do it, then they aren't going to. It doesn't make any difference whatsoever how " informed " or " ignorant " they are, if they simply are not economically able to buy the things that are going to be such a big help.

Nuclear power is a good idea, except for the NIMBY ( Not In My Back Yard ) Syndrome. Lots of people think nuclear power is a great idea, they just don't want the plants anywhere near where they live.

The way I see it, there are a whole lot of people in the world trying to make others feel bad for not doing things in a way they simply can't afford to do.

Go tell the guy in Burmina Faso ( ? ) that he can't buy his first car unless it's a zero emissions or a hybrid. He's likely to tell you to get lost ( remaining kid friendly of course ) just like I would. I am going to buy whatever I can afford that is reliable and will get me where I need to go.

I work at a sugar processing plant. We have put millions of dollars ( that they company really didn't have ) into a new scrubber system for our smokestack. We use coal to fire our boilers, which are essential to our operation. Are you now going to tell our comapny that we not only have to spend the millions on the scrubber, but now we have to spend millions MORE on a system that will keep our plant running without burning coal?? I hate to tell you, but that would put us out of business in a big hurry. How economically sound is that particular idea? Especially when you consider the fact that our plant is one of only TWO places in our town that employs a significant number of people. The nearest area that employs the number of people that the two places in our town does is almost 40 miles away. How is closing OUR plant because of economically unreasonable demands to " clean up the environment " going to help reduce emissions, when all of those people that work where I do will have to DRIVE longer distances to get to work? More driving means more gas usage means more emissions from those big polluting vehicles. Oh yeah, and don't forget, the people who now have to drive so much further to get to their place of employment are now going to be FAR less likely to be able to afford a brand new zero emissions or hybrid car.

It's all economics. Those of you who can afford to buy a hybrid, be my guest. Those of you who don't mind being a little cold in the winter, go ahead and keep your thermostat low and grab a couple of blankets.

Me, I'm going to do what I can afford to do. Nothing more, nothing less. If it means that I drive a Saturn that uses more gas than a hybrid, or pollutes more than a zero emissions vehicle, so be it. You all are just going to have to get over it. Unless, of course, you have a few thousand dollars to spare for me so I can get all the things that you like to tell me that I need.

---

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

Calm Chaos Forums : Everyone Welcome

I have been watching this thread for quite a while now, and have finally decided ( for better or worse ) to actually post something.

I see Rush on one side of things, and I see a whole lot of people on the other side.

Well, here's how I see it.

There are a whole lot of people attempting to make demands on what kind of car ( zero emissions ) we should drive, what we have to do to stop Global Warming ( IF it could be stopped ) and on and on and on.

Ya know what? I do what I can afford to do. I can't afford to go and buy a hybrid car, so I drive one that gets 30MPG. I use LED light bulbs in my living room and bedroom, and a flourescent in my kitchen.

Yes, I still use my computer, obviously. Maybe that negates the other things that I do, but I figure " no gain " is better than " net gain " any day.

This argument seems to boil down to economics. The companies can't make a zero emissions car that someone like me can afford to buy, so I can't buy any of the ones that are available.

It's pretty simple. If people can't afford to do it, then they aren't going to. It doesn't make any difference whatsoever how " informed " or " ignorant " they are, if they simply are not economically able to buy the things that are going to be such a big help.

Nuclear power is a good idea, except for the NIMBY ( Not In My Back Yard ) Syndrome. Lots of people think nuclear power is a great idea, they just don't want the plants anywhere near where they live.

The way I see it, there are a whole lot of people in the world trying to make others feel bad for not doing things in a way they simply can't afford to do.

Go tell the guy in Burmina Faso ( ? ) that he can't buy his first car unless it's a zero emissions or a hybrid. He's likely to tell you to get lost ( remaining kid friendly of course ) just like I would. I am going to buy whatever I can afford that is reliable and will get me where I need to go.

I work at a sugar processing plant. We have put millions of dollars ( that they company really didn't have ) into a new scrubber system for our smokestack. We use coal to fire our boilers, which are essential to our operation. Are you now going to tell our comapny that we not only have to spend the millions on the scrubber, but now we have to spend millions MORE on a system that will keep our plant running without burning coal?? I hate to tell you, but that would put us out of business in a big hurry. How economically sound is that particular idea? Especially when you consider the fact that our plant is one of only TWO places in our town that employs a significant number of people. The nearest area that employs the number of people that the two places in our town does is almost 40 miles away. How is closing OUR plant because of economically unreasonable demands to " clean up the environment " going to help reduce emissions, when all of those people that work where I do will have to DRIVE longer distances to get to work? More driving means more gas usage means more emissions from those big polluting vehicles. Oh yeah, and don't forget, the people who now have to drive so much further to get to their place of employment are now going to be FAR less likely to be able to afford a brand new zero emissions or hybrid car.

It's all economics. Those of you who can afford to buy a hybrid, be my guest. Those of you who don't mind being a little cold in the winter, go ahead and keep your thermostat low and grab a couple of blankets.

Me, I'm going to do what I can afford to do. Nothing more, nothing less. If it means that I drive a Saturn that uses more gas than a hybrid, or pollutes more than a zero emissions vehicle, so be it. You all are just going to have to get over it. Unless, of course, you have a few thousand dollars to spare for me so I can get all the things that you like to tell me that I need.

So, it's a good thing that I have an electric radio in my 10 cylinder Dodge ? I'm doing a good thing ?

---

Ah...but to throw your earlier assumption back at you for the purpose of argument and amusement alone...tell me you didn't consider too, while you were doing your part, the fact that those bulbs last longer, and since they use less power. it has a positive impact on your wallet. Come on now, be honest. Were you solely driven by your want to do your part or was there an economic drive there as well?

Ummmm, can you even read? Has the whole purpose of this discussion utterly and completely and totally eluded you?

I mean, duh. I wasn’t motivated whatsoever, let me repeat that, I wasn’t motivated WHAT. SO. EVER. by a want to “do [my] part.” Not one iota. The sole reason was economic. I did it because “it has a positive impact on [my] wallet.” I did it, without gov’t force, because it made good economic sense.

Saving the planet is just gravy.

Yes, I can read just fine...I get it, you just don't care...well why not just say so in the first place. It's ok though while you bow down to worship your coveted dollar and define your existence on economic philosophy alone, those of us who do care will just have to pick up your slack by taking personal action. It's sad to see someone just resign themselves to doing nothing and then attempt to marginalize the efforts of people who are actually taking action starting with themselves. Action which may or may not be in their favor economically is to everyones benefit in making the world a better place. I am curious as to what it would take to get you to examine your choices with economics aside?

I truly pity what appears to be your lack of social compassion voiced in your continued posts.

While I may not have all the answers and I may not know all the options, I do know that doing something is better then doing nothing in the case of global warming. As I once said to another person with a similar take on it...apathy kills.

-DA-

Real courage is found, not in the willingness to risk death, but in the willingness to stand, alone if necessary, against the ignorant and disapproving herd. — Jon Roland, 1976

---

Isn't it very sad though that someone who apparently cares so much for our environment, spends his time posting here which probably covers 0.00001 of the worlds population.

I'd be more impressed if he spent his time lobbying the worlds press, politicians or governments. Or does he just like a good whinge and a wind up.

EDIT remove politicians from above

I don't think it is sad at at all. It's not about how many people hear this debate; some don't want to know or cannot understand it - it is about those that listen, take an interest, and then talk to others. The stone thrown in a pond and the ripples going ever outwards - that sort of thing. The sort of people who are prepared to crunch for science are those that can formulate and take the arguments away. If nobody agues nothing gets done. And we might get done by Climate Change before we know it.

Ice I'm pleasently supprised to see the seeming reversal of your prior stance. I do think that engaging others in constructive forward thinking discussions for change is what will ultimatly turn the worlds course.

---

In a weak attempt to put some some humor into this thread:

Once I saw a bumper sticker that read: "Save The Planet, Kill Yourself". I said to myself, "Hmmm, I wonder which meaning the person who put that on is trying to convey?"

I don't know works either way, though it's a bit rhetorical..

---

Only because Rush makes me cross.

That's silly.

I've always been aware of the problem. His attitiude does nothing to help.

My attitude? What, because I'm not all joy and peace and light about failures such as Kyoto? Because I realize that wasting hundreds of billions of dollars is nothing more than a waste? Because signing a piece of paper is utterly worthless when no emissions are cut, regardless of what people feel about it?

---

Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...