More insane crap: "Germany wants the leaders of the G8 along with India, China, Brazil, Mexico and South Africa at their summit from June 6-8 to agree to limit the temperature rise to two degrees this century and to cut emissions by 50 percent from 1990 levels by 2050."

Heh. Again, there were 250 million people in the U.S. in 1990, and there will be nearly 400 million in 2050. So, 150 million MORE people (a 60 percent increase), are somehow going to use 1/2 of what 250 million people did.

Good luck with that, Oxfam. That kind of reasoning is probably why you can't feed the world so well...


Rich must pay bulk of climate change bill: Oxfam
Mon May 28, 2007 8:02PM EDT

By Jeremy Lovell

LONDON (Reuters) - Coping with the ravages of global warming will cost $50 billion a year, and the rich nations who caused most of the pollution must pay most of the bill, aid agency Oxfam said on Tuesday.

The call, barely 10 days before a crucial Group of Eight (G8) summit in Germany which has climate change at its core, is likely to make already tense negotiations even tougher.

The United States, which Oxfam says must foot 44 percent of the annual $50 billion bill, is rejecting attempts by German G8 presidency Germany to set stiff targets and timetables for cutting carbon gas emissions and raising energy efficiency.

"G8 countries face two obligations as they prepare for this year's summit in Germany -- to stop harming by cutting their emissions to keep global warming below two degrees Celsius and to start helping poor countries to cope," said Oxfam researcher Kate Raworth.

"Developing countries cannot and should not be expected to foot the bill for the impact of rich countries' emissions," she said, echoing the position of the developing world.

Scientists say average temperatures will rise by between 1.8 and 4.0 degrees Celsius this century due to carbon emissions from burning fossil fuels for power and transport, causing floods and famine and putting millions of lives at risk.

The United States is the world's biggest producer of carbon emissions -- although experts predict that boom economy China will probably overtake it within a year as it builds a coal-fired power station every four days to feed demand.

GLOBAL WARMING INDEX

Oxfam has created a global warming adaptation financing index based on the responsibility, equity and capability of each nation.

It said after the United States, Japan owed 13 percent of the bill, followed by Germany on seven percent, Britain just over five percent, Italy, France and Canada between four and five percent and Spain, Australia and Korea three percent.

Germany wants the leaders of the G8 along with India, China, Brazil, Mexico and South Africa at their summit from June 6-8 to agree to limit the temperature rise to two degrees this century and to cut emissions by 50 percent from 1990 levels by 2050.

But in a draft of the final communique to be presented to the leaders at the summit, Washington rejected these goals in decidedly undiplomatic terms.

"We have tried to 'tread lightly' but there is only so far we can go given our fundamental opposition to the German position," the United States said in red ink comments at the start of a copy of the draft seen by Reuters on Friday.

"The treatment of climate change runs counter to our overall position and crosses multiple 'red lines' in terms of what we simply cannot agree to."

The blunt language of the rejection sets the scene for a showdown at the summit. A source close to the negotiations described them as "very tense".

---

Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...

More insane crap: "Germany wants the leaders of the G8 along with India, China, Brazil, Mexico and South Africa at their summit from June 6-8 to agree to limit the temperature rise to two degrees this century and to cut emissions by 50 percent from 1990 levels by 2050."

Heh. Again, there were 250 million people in the U.S. in 1990, and there will be nearly 400 million in 2050. So, 150 million MORE people (a 60 percent increase), are somehow going to use 1/2 of what 250 million people did.

Good luck with that, Oxfam. That kind of reasoning is probably why you can't feed the world so well...

Rich must pay bulk of climate change bill: Oxfam
Mon May 28, 2007 8:02PM EDT

By Jeremy Lovell

LONDON (Reuters) - Coping with the ravages of global warming will cost $50 billion a year, and the rich nations who caused most of the pollution must pay most of the bill, aid agency Oxfam said on Tuesday.

The biggest problem I have with the article is that all of the proposed "solutions" presented by the Global Warming religion will cost somewhere in the neighborhood of $100 billion a year. This is aside from the whole thing about the US paying for all of it. And the junk science quoted as fact.

Heh. Again, there were 250 million people in the U.S. in 1990, and there will be nearly 400 million in 2050. So, 150 million MORE people (a 60 percent increase), are somehow going to use 1/2 of what 250 million people did.

You don't seem to have grasped what it's all about. It's no about using less energy. It's about changing to other renewable forms of energy which do not emit huge amounts of CO2. Let me spell it out for you (again probably since I'm sure you've heard it before, but conveniently fail to recognize it to pursue your warped arguments). For example, burn less coal, oil, gas - the things that emit lots of CO2. Instead use wind power, solar panels, etc, the energy givers that do not emit huge amounts of CO2. It will hit your pocket, for sure, it will cost you more for your energy. But that's what you're worried about, isn't it. The money in your pocket rather than facing your obligations in cleaning up the mess that the industrialized west has made in causing Climate Change to rapidly head for the tipping point.

What's the tipping point? Stuff one more pie in your gob and you explode.

---

flaming balloons

For example, burn less coal, oil, gas - the things that emit lots of CO2. Instead use wind power, solar panels, etc, the energy givers that do not emit huge amounts of CO2.

Would "etc" include more dams for hydroelectric and building of more nuclear reactors? Bear in mind your country being an island gives a lot of access to tidal/wave power generation that landlocked areas would not have access to, not to mention the benefit of being at the end of the Gulf Stream for wind generation...

That said, if I had money, I'd want to build a solar powered home... However, I doubt that time will come (that I have that much money) anytime soon (within 20 years)...

Brian

For example, burn less coal, oil, gas - the things that emit lots of CO2. Instead use wind power, solar panels, etc, the energy givers that do not emit huge amounts of CO2.

Would "etc" include more dams for hydroelectric and building of more nuclear reactors? Bear in mind your country being an island gives a lot of access to tidal/wave power generation that landlocked areas would not have access to, not to mention the benefit of being at the end of the Gulf Stream for wind generation...

That said, if I had money, I'd want to build a solar powered home... However, I doubt that time will come (that I have that much money) anytime soon (within 20 years)...

Brian

You got me there Brian. I'm not in favour of nuclear, but the UK government is, and is about to build stacks of nuclear power stations all over. Except for in Scotland maybe, where the new political leader, Alex Salmond, has said no way to nuclear under any circumstances. However, the options to meet the CO2 reductions are varied and some more costly and not to everyone's liking.

However, all the things you mention, including nuclear, are up for discussion. I'm with you and would install a wind generator if money and planning permission would permit. But I'm not sure that I'd feel good about imposing such a 'thing' on the skyline for the neighbours (can you imagine these things sprouting up on every roof top?). It needs a centralized approach, I think, rather than disassociated knee jerk reactions all over the country.

---

flaming balloons

don't

---

Capitalize on this good fortune, one word can bring you round ... changes.

don't

as if I would

---

flaming balloons

You don't seem to have grasped what it's all about. It's no about using less energy. It's about changing to other renewable forms of energy which do not emit huge amounts of CO2.

Maybe. Except that you conveniently omitted (or is that "emitted," heh) China, India, and Russia. It's very simple: THEY USE FORMS OF ENERGY THAT EMIT HUGE AMOUNTS OF CO^2.

Let me spell it out for you (again probably since I'm sure you've heard it before, but conveniently fail to recognize it to pursue your warped arguments).

If they're so "warped," refute them. They aren't warped simply because you sez so. Show us all why they're warped. Give us some reasons. Show us, for example, how 400 million people are going to emit less than 1/2 of what 250 million people did because Algore passes some law.

For example, burn less coal, oil, gas - the things that emit lots of CO2.

Good luck with that. BTW, China is ignoring your pleas to do that.

Instead use wind power, solar panels, etc, the energy givers that do not emit huge amounts of CO2.

Good luck with that as well. Solar panels are expensive and don't cut it. The NIMBY crowd hates wind power plants. Your only hope for the foreseeable future is nuclear power, and LOTS of it. Oh, right, I forgot, you're against that as well. Good plan there. Shows you are committed to the solution.

It will hit your pocket, for sure, it will cost you more for your energy. But that's what you're worried about, isn't it. The money in your pocket rather than facing your obligations in cleaning up the mess that the industrialized west has made in causing Climate Change to rapidly head for the tipping point.

You're kinda like that other guy that posted here for a while: you seem incapable of reading when it doesn't fit what you want to hear.

So I'll say it again: silly little political solutions will not save the planet because those countries that are exempted will quickly dwarf whatever minor cuts you make, i.e., a new coal burning power plant every four days, or 400 million people vs. 250 million people.

What's the tipping point? Stuff one more pie in your gob and you explode.

You should be all over China then. Oh, right, they don't care what you think, either.

---

Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...

You don't seem to have grasped what it's all about. It's no about using less energy. It's about changing to other renewable forms of energy which do not emit huge amounts of CO2.

Maybe. Except that you conveniently omitted (or is that "emitted," heh) China, India, and Russia. It's very simple: THEY USE FORMS OF ENERGY THAT EMIT HUGE AMOUNTS OF CO^2.

Yes, you're right. When I said "It's about changing to other renewable forms of energy which do not emit huge amounts of CO2" I meant China, India, Sierra Leone, and the Northern Territory in Australia and .... every country really.

Let me spell it out for you (again probably since I'm sure you've heard it before, but conveniently fail to recognize it to pursue your warped arguments).

If they're so "warped," refute them. They aren't warped simply because you sez so. Show us all why they're warped. Give us some reasons. Show us, for example, how 400 million people are going to emit less than 1/2 of what 250 million people did because Algore passes some law.

Warped as in twisted. You're logic is saying it can't be done - you have twisted the argument from whether it should or should not be done, to I say it can't be so I'm using warped logic to try to scupper the argument - which is "should we do something or should we not" to which you are warping into "can't be done, so stop even thinking about it" - you "conveniently fail to recognize it" with "it" being what it's all about.

For example, burn less coal, oil, gas - the things that emit lots of CO2.

Good luck with that. BTW, China is ignoring your pleas to do that.

Look Rush, if you decide it is bad to murder people, you don't let people carry on with murder and pass no laws just because they murder in other parts of the world. We have to decide what is right and go with it - influencing others in the world comes next, and should not stop us from doing what is right.

Instead use wind power, solar panels, etc, the energy givers that do not emit huge amounts of CO2.

Good luck with that as well. Solar panels are expensive and don't cut it. The NIMBY crowd hates wind power plants. Your only hope for the foreseeable future is nuclear power, and LOTS of it. Oh, right, I forgot, you're against that as well. Good plan there. Shows you are committed to the solution.

Actually, as it happens, it is not nuclear I have a problem with, it is the horrendous risks, the huge overall costs, and the legacy we are leaving to the world and future generations give Chernobyl and the accidents/terrorist uses that are high probability/risk. It is senseless to to use something that carries risk of unmentionable damage to the the world let alone the country using nuclear. Apart from that I would be quite happy to take advantage of the benefits that nuclear has to offer.

It will hit your pocket, for sure, it will cost you more for your energy. But that's what you're worried about, isn't it. The money in your pocket rather than facing your obligations in cleaning up the mess that the industrialized west has made in causing Climate Change to rapidly head for the tipping point.

You're kinda like that other guy that posted here for a while: you seem incapable of reading when it doesn't fit what you want to hear.

So I'll say it again: silly little political solutions will not save the planet because those countries that are exempted will quickly dwarf whatever minor cuts you make, i.e., a new coal burning power plant every four days, or 400 million people vs. 250 million people.

Well I'll say it; grow up and face you responsibilities and reality. You may be alright Jack in your lifetime or your little spot on this Earth, but someone has to pick up the tab and it really should be the one that scoffed the meals. (You can chip in for the tip as well. ;P )

What's the tipping point? Stuff one more pie in your gob and you explode.

You should be all over China then. Oh, right, they don't care what you think, either.

Hmmmm, always "Don't put me on the spot, look at him over there instead, he's fatter than me". Are you always diverting attention elsewhere rather that addressing the crap on your own doorstep (by which I meal slag from coal mines and other nasty stuff that oozes out of Nuclear Power Plants)?

---

flaming balloons

You're kinda like that other guy that posted here for a while: you seem incapable of reading when it doesn't fit what you want to hear.

Other guy? There seems to be a lot more than just one floating around... ;)

---

It may not be 1984 but George Orwell sure did see the future . . .

Nice one Ice, well done there my man!

Thanks Chris.

---

flaming balloons

Yes, you're right. When I said "It's about changing to other renewable forms of energy which do not emit huge amounts of CO2" I meant China, India, Sierra Leone, and the Northern Territory in Australia and .... every country really.

Except that they aren't doing it. It's just empty rhetoric. China doesn't care what you think. It never has. They rule with an Iron Heel and aren't interested in what the West says. They will feed you political rhetoric to placate.

Warped as in twisted. You're logic is saying it can't be done - you have twisted the argument from whether it should or should not be done, to I say it can't be so I'm using warped logic to try to scupper the argument - which is "should we do something or should we not" to which you are warping into "can't be done, so stop even thinking about it" - you "conveniently fail to recognize it" with "it" being what it's all about.

I haven't said it cannot be done. Ever. I haven't twisted anything, ever. I HAVE said that Kyoto won't save you. I have said that Kyoto was a HUGE waste of time. I have said that piddlin' lil' crap like "laws by Algore," or CFL lightbulbs won't cut it. I have said that orders from the gov't won't save you either--just like Kyoto didn't. I have said that the problem confronting you is nearly insurmountable; that the govt can't save you--just like Kyoto didn't.

Look Rush, if you decide it is bad to murder people, you don't let people carry on with murder and pass no laws just because they murder in other parts of the world. We have to decide what is right and go with it - influencing others in the world comes next, and should not stop us from doing what is right.

Well then, let's use your example: "If you decide it is bad to pollute, you don't let people (China, India, Mexico) carry on with polluting and exempt them from laws because they pollute in other parts of the world."

Concerning your next sentence, many people do not agree with you, and do not believe what you think is right. Just as they didn't for the coming ice age, and the population explosion, and the nuclear holocaust, and everyone starving to death, on and on and on. That you happen to think something is right, does not mean others do.

Actually, as it happens, it is not nuclear I have a problem with, it is the horrendous risks, the huge overall costs, and the legacy we are leaving to the world and future generations give Chernobyl and the accidents/terrorist uses that are high probability/risk. It is senseless to to use something that carries risk of unmentionable damage to the the world let alone the country using nuclear. Apart from that I would be quite happy to take advantage of the benefits that nuclear has to offer.

The risks of nuclear are negligible (compared to what emissions are doing) and have lessened (overall) over time. It's odd that you are concerned with huge overall costs of nuclear energy, yet the costs of Kyoto don't even come into play--even when they dwarf the costs involved with the use of nuclear energy.

Well I'll say it; grow up and face you responsibilities and reality.

I don't accept your version of reality, nor for the reasons I have presented, do I find your solutions viable.

You may be alright Jack in your lifetime or your little spot on this Earth, but someone has to pick up the tab and it really should be the one that scoffed the meals. (You can chip in for the tip as well. ;P )

That may be true. But so far, even if he does, those that are scoffing them now are destroying any tab that might get picked up. What then?

Hmmmm, always "Don't put me on the spot, look at him over there instead, he's fatter than me". Are you always diverting attention elsewhere rather that addressing the crap on your own doorstep (by which I meal slag from coal mines and other nasty stuff that oozes out of Nuclear Power Plants)?

Yeah, duh. Because it doesn't matter what the U.S. or the U.K. cuts (and they won't be able to (250mm vs. 400mm)) because China is picking up all the slack and more. The U.S. could cut 100% and China will STILL quadruple what the U.S. emits.

The point being, you won't convince people that they have to shoulder enormous economic burdens when they can see that it will make no difference whatsoever.

---

Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...

Nice one Ice, well done there my man!

This is funny.

Ice tries to present his opinion, and often presents arguments to support them.

Something you seem incapable of doing.

---

Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...

Yes, you're right. When I said "It's about changing to other renewable forms of energy which do not emit huge amounts of CO2" I meant China, India, Sierra Leone, and the Northern Territory in Australia and .... every country really.

Except that they aren't doing it. It's just empty rhetoric. China doesn't care what you think. It never has. They rule with an Iron Heel and aren't interested in what the West says. They will feed you political rhetoric to placate.

You're warping again Rush. "China won't this, China won't that. Your answer to anything about Global Warming is - China won't this, China won't that." But how about deciding if "you" are going to do anything about Global Warming on a personal level - irrespective of what China is doing?

Warped as in twisted. You're logic is saying it can't be done - you have twisted the argument from whether it should or should not be done, to I say it can't be so I'm using warped logic to try to scupper the argument - which is "should we do something or should we not" to which you are warping into "can't be done, so stop even thinking about it" - you "conveniently fail to recognize it" with "it" being what it's all about.

I haven't said it cannot be done. Ever. I haven't twisted anything, ever. I HAVE said that Kyoto won't save you. I have said that Kyoto was a HUGE waste of time. I have said that piddlin' lil' crap like "laws by Algore," or CFL lightbulbs won't cut it. I have said that orders from the gov't won't save you either--just like Kyoto didn't. I have said that the problem confronting you is nearly insurmountable; that the govt can't save you--just like Kyoto didn't.

Here we go with the warping again. Except instead of China it's Kyoto - same record, different label. Again, how about deciding if "you" are going to do anything about Global Warming on a personal level - irrespective of what Kyoto is doing?

Look Rush, if you decide it is bad to murder people, you don't let people carry on with murder and pass no laws just because they murder in other parts of the world. We have to decide what is right and go with it - influencing others in the world comes next, and should not stop us from doing what is right.

Well then, let's use your example: "If you decide it is bad to pollute, you don't let people (China, India, Mexico) carry on with polluting and exempt them from laws because they pollute in other parts of the world."

This is another warp for sure. ditto ditto - how about deciding if "you" are going to do anything about Global Warming on a personal level - irrespective of what people (China, India, Mexico) are doing?

Concerning your next sentence, many people do not agree with you, and do not believe what you think is right. Just as they didn't for the coming ice age, and the population explosion, and the nuclear holocaust, and everyone starving to death, on and on and on. That you happen to think something is right, does not mean others do.

ditto ditto - how about deciding if "you" are going to do anything about Global Warming on a personal level - irrespective of what happened in the Ice Age?

Actually, as it happens, it is not nuclear I have a problem with, it is the horrendous risks, the huge overall costs, and the legacy we are leaving to the world and future generations give Chernobyl and the accidents/terrorist uses that are high probability/risk. It is senseless to to use something that carries risk of unmentionable damage to the the world let alone the country using nuclear. Apart from that I would be quite happy to take advantage of the benefits that nuclear has to offer.

The risks of nuclear are negligible (compared to what emissions are doing) and have lessened (overall) over time. It's odd that you are concerned with huge overall costs of nuclear energy, yet the costs of Kyoto don't even come into play--even when they dwarf the costs involved with the use of nuclear energy.

Here we go - it's Kyoto again, your stock answer to warp an answer that fails to say whether you recognize that Global warming exists and what you are doing about it. For example, changing to other renewable forms of energy which do not emit huge amounts of CO2.

Well I'll say it; grow up and face you responsibilities and reality.

I don't accept your version of reality, nor for the reasons I have presented, do I find your solutions viable.

You find my solutions viable? Then why all this China/Kyoto defense?

You may be alright Jack in your lifetime or your little spot on this Earth, but someone has to pick up the tab and it really should be the one that scoffed the meals. (You can chip in for the tip as well. ;P )

That may be true. But so far, even if he does, those that are scoffing them now are destroying any tab that might get picked up. What then?

It's called diplomatic influence and education. One time England was trading in slaves. Now they're not. England learned lessons and why shouldn't other countries learn lessons about Global Warming?

Hmmmm, always "Don't put me on the spot, look at him over there instead, he's fatter than me". Are you always diverting attention elsewhere rather that addressing the crap on your own doorstep (by which I meal slag from coal mines and other nasty stuff that oozes out of Nuclear Power Plants)?

Yeah, duh. Because it doesn't matter what the U.S. or the U.K. cuts (and they won't be able to (250mm vs. 400mm)) because China is picking up all the slack and more. The U.S. could cut 100% and China will STILL quadruple what the U.S. emits.

The point being, you won't convince people that they have to shoulder enormous economic burdens when they can see that it will make no difference whatsoever.

Always with the negative warp. Let's look at what we can do and get on with it, let the diplomats do the influencing, and at least make a start rather than negatively doing nothing because China this and Kyoto that.

I used to tear away from traffic lights and use my accelerator harshly. Now I ease back, don't lose any time, usually none, but burn less gas and emit less CO2. And all without worrying about China or Kyoto. Now there's a starter for ten.

---

flaming balloons

You're warping again Rush. "China won't this, China won't that. Your answer to anything about Global Warming is - China won't this, China won't that." But how about deciding if "you" are going to do anything about Global Warming on a personal level - irrespective of what China is doing?

Noooo, I'm not warping, I'm presenting reasons why lil' fixin's are likely futile, as in they are nothing more than symbolism over substance. What emitters do is of EXTREME importance, and let me make this clear: NO MATTER WHAT I DO.

I do "do" something about global warming, for example, every bulb I own is CFL. And I do all of the other little things I can think of. However, I do those things not because they save the planet, I do them because they make economic sense. Keep in mind though, that I keep the computer burning 24/7 for SETI--because I think the emissions are worth the effort.

Here we go with the warping again. Except instead of China it's Kyoto - same record, different label. Again, how about deciding if "you" are going to do anything about Global Warming on a personal level - irrespective of what Kyoto is doing?

Noooo, wrong again. I'm not warping, here I'm presenting reasons why gov't "solutions," e.g., Kyoto, are likely futile, as in they as are nothing more than symbolism over substance. Kyoto was the gov't solution and it utterly failed--which suggests that gov't, like it always does, will fail you.

Since you thought it necessary to repeat yourself, I will as well. I do "do" something about global warming, for example, every bulb I own is CFL. And I do all of the other little things I can think of. However, I do those things not because they save the planet, I do them because they make economic sense. Keep in mind though, that I keep the computer burning 24/7 for SETI--because I think the emissions are worth the effort.

Look Rush, if you decide it is bad to murder people, you don't let people carry on with murder and pass no laws just because they murder in other parts of the world. We have to decide what is right and go with it - influencing others in the world comes next, and should not stop us from doing what is right.

Well then, let's use your example: "If you decide it is bad to pollute, you don't let people (China, India, Mexico) carry on with polluting and exempt them from laws because they pollute in other parts of the world."

This is another warp for sure. ditto ditto - how about deciding if "you" are going to do anything about Global Warming on a personal level - irrespective of what people (China, India, Mexico) are doing?

I left the previous quotes to demonstrate your evasiveness.

How about this, respond to the point made, refute it: "If you decide it is bad to pollute, you don't let people (China, India, Mexico) carry on with polluting and exempt them from laws because they pollute in other parts of the world." You see, that's YOUR example. I used YOUR reasoning for MY point.

Third time: I do "do" something about global warming, for example, every bulb I own is CFL. And I do all of the other little things I can think of. However, I do those things not because they save the planet, I do them because they make economic sense.

ditto ditto - how about deciding if "you" are going to do anything about Global Warming on a personal level - irrespective of what happened in the Ice Age?

Heh heh. Do you honestly believe that this helps your cause, or hurts it?

Fourth time: I do "do" something about global warming, for example, every bulb I own is CFL. And I do all of the other little things I can think of. However, I do those things not because they save the planet, I do them because they make economic sense.

Here we go - it's Kyoto again, your stock answer to warp an answer that fails to say whether you recognize that Global warming exists and what you are doing about it. For example, changing to other renewable forms of energy which do not emit huge amounts of CO2.

Admit it, you've got nothing. Zero. You can't make an argument about this stuff, so you repeat your mantra. I used Kyoto this time to demonstrate one of your glaring inconsistencies, namely that you are concerned about the costs of using nuclear power (really the only economically viable alternative right now) yet you ignore costs that utterly dwarf those involved in nuclear power.

No matter how many times you say "we" (whoever that is) have to use energy generation that does not emit CO2, it's just empty words. Do it. What are you waiting for? Me to buy another CFL bulb?

I don't accept your version of reality, nor for the reasons I have presented, do I find your solutions viable.

You find my solutions viable? Then why all this China/Kyoto defense?

You need to read that sentence again, slowly and carefully.

It's called diplomatic influence and education. One time England was trading in slaves. Now they're not. England learned lessons and why shouldn't other countries learn lessons about Global Warming?

I think that they have long since learned them--that's why they refused to sign until you exempted them. They already know what the "lesson" is, massive and economically crippling regulation.

Always with the negative warp. Let's look at what we can do and get on with it, let the diplomats do the influencing, and at least make a start rather than negatively doing nothing because China this and Kyoto that.

You go ahead and do whatever you wish. Good luck. Have fun. I've never said that you should do nothing; however, I have said that what you propose is likely to be of negligible impact.

Oh, and I DO write letters and make phone calls to politicians. I AM trying to influence them.

I used to tear away from traffic lights and use my accelerator harshly. Now I ease back, don't lose any time, usually none, but burn less gas and emit less CO2. And all without worrying about China or Kyoto. Now there's a starter for ten.

Good for you. I do that too. And I don't worry about China or Kyoto at all. Ever. I do it because it makes economic sense.

---

Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...

I do "do" something about global warming, for example, every bulb I own is CFL. And I do all of the other little things I can think of. However, I do those things not because they save the planet, I do them because they make economic sense. Keep in mind though, that I keep the computer burning 24/7 for SETI--because I think the emissions are worth the effort.

OK, that's good, we agree here.

Heh heh. Do you honestly believe that this helps your cause, or hurts it?

I'm not sure I have, or want a cause out of GW. Just talking, debating ;)

Admit it, you've got nothing. Zero. You can't make an argument about this stuff, so you repeat your mantra. I used Kyoto this time to demonstrate one of your glaring inconsistencies, namely that you are concerned about the costs of using nuclear power (really the only economically viable alternative right now) yet you ignore costs that utterly dwarf those involved in nuclear power.

I'm not an accountant, but I read somewhere that nuclear costs would be higher than alternative renewable energy costs. I have no way of verifying this but concede that decisions are made to go NPP whether I like it or not. I also accept your point that not getting the costs right about GW is a huge concern. Although all issues need to be addressed.

I've never said that you should do nothing; however, I have said that what you propose is likely to be of negligible impact.

There are different levels of 'doing' something. Even if negligible, at least it's 'doing'.

Oh, and I DO write letters and make phone calls to politicians. I AM trying to influence them.

Cool. Good to hear.

I used to tear away from traffic lights and use my accelerator harshly. Now I ease back, don't lose any time, usually none, but burn less gas and emit less CO2. And all without worrying about China or Kyoto. Now there's a starter for ten.

Good for you. I do that too. And I don't worry about China or Kyoto at all. Ever. I do it because it makes economic sense.

Cool again. Yes it makes economic sense. Maybe I should pay more attention to the bigger picture like you ;)

---

flaming balloons

Nice one Ice, well done there my man!

This is funny.

Ice tries to present his opinion, and often presents arguments to support them.

Something you seem incapable of doing.

Exactly.

Which is why I was congratulating him on doing a better job than I did.

I have to say thanks again for the compliment Chris. And to be fair on you it's a difficult subject to express an opinion on since, despite all the research and 'beliefs' amongst climate scientists, there is no hard proof or evidence to say exactly what is going on. I still find it hard to see that scientists are making recommendations that involve billions of dollars to implement, but almost based on 'best guesses'.

---

flaming balloons

Exactly.

Which is why I was congratulating him on doing a better job than I did.

At least he tries.

Was there anything else?

P.S. It's been two days and counting since we've seen "Why, cos you sez so?" Whats the matter, your cut 'n paste not working?

Yes, Jeffrey, my cut and paste is working fine.

Was there anything else?

---

Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...

NASA Chief Questions Urgency of Global Warming

Morning Edition, May 31, 2007 · NASA administrator Michael Griffin defends the space agency's programs, including plans for a permanent moon base and manned missions to Mars. He also says that while NASA studies climate change, the agency has no authorization to "take actions to affect climate change in either one way or another."

The following are excerpts from Griffin's conversation with Steve Inskeep, edited for clarity:

It has been mentioned that NASA is not spending as much money as it could to study climate change — global warming — from space. Are you concerned about global warming?

I'm aware that global warming exists. I understand that the bulk of scientific evidence accumulated supports the claim that we've had about a one degree centigrade rise in temperature over the last century to within an accuracy of 20 percent. I'm also aware of recent findings that appear to have nailed down — pretty well nailed down the conclusion that much of that is manmade. Whether that is a longterm concern or not, I can't say.

Do you have any doubt that this is a problem that mankind has to wrestle with?

I have no doubt that … a trend of global warming exists. I am not sure that it is fair to say that it is a problem we must wrestle with. To assume that it is a problem is to assume that the state of Earth's climate today is the optimal climate, the best climate that we could have or ever have had and that we need to take steps to make sure that it doesn't change. First of all, I don't think it's within the power of human beings to assure that the climate does not change, as millions of years of history have shown. And second of all, I guess I would ask which human beings — where and when — are to be accorded the privilege of deciding that this particular climate that we have right here today, right now is the best climate for all other human beings. I think that's a rather arrogant position for people to take.

Is that thinking that informs you as you put together the budget? That something is happening, that it's worth studying, but you're not sure that you want to be battling it as an army might battle an enemy?

Nowhere in NASA's authorization, which of course governs what we do, is there anything at all telling us that we should take actions to affect climate change in either one way or another. We study global climate change, that is in our authorization, we think we do it rather well. I'm proud of that, but NASA is not an agency chartered to, quote, battle climate change.

---

Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...

Exactly.

Which is why I was congratulating him on doing a better job than I did.

At least he tries.

Was there anything else?

P.S. It's been two days and counting since we've seen "Why, cos you sez so?" Whats the matter, your cut 'n paste not working?

Yes, Jeffrey, my cut and paste is working fine.

Was there anything else?

Freud would be proud of you.

I dont think so.
I read a lot of him when i was young.
Different meanings.
Not easy for non germans.
Hard reading.

---

With each crime and every kindness we birth our future.