More a question of 'education' and motivation...?

Who knows? People disagree with you, and they always will.

You omit to mention that some will agree, and that some will decide for themselves.

Of course. I didn't need to mention that--it's self-evident. Some will agree, some will disagree, and in the present state of the world, very few (as a percentage of world population) will even be aware of the controversy.

Some unfortunately, will just blindly suck up anything that they are told...

Of course. They are entitled to think for themselves, whether they suck it up from Exxon-Mobil, Shell, Greenfarce, or DirtFirst!

You seem to view the "disagree" group as the predominant. I look more towards the "agree" group.

Between the "disagree" group, and the billions who have no idea, yeah, those two are likely predominant.

The sheep in the middle hopefully can be swayed for the good of all...

Provide them with choices that make the most economic sense in their own self-interest and you don't have to sway them at all. They'll make the right decision because it makes the most sense.

Just telling them they have to buy into your silly ideas because you know better, or because yew gotta save da world, or whatever the reason is hasn't worked at all.

---

Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...

More a question of 'education' and motivation...?

Who knows? People disagree with you, and they always will.

You omit to mention that some will agree, and that some will decide for themselves.

Of course. I didn't need to mention that--it's self-evident. Some will agree, some will disagree, and in the present state of the world, very few (as a percentage of world population) will even be aware of the controversy.

Some unfortunately, will just blindly suck up anything that they are told...

Of course. They are entitled to think for themselves, whether they suck it up from Exxon-Mobil, Shell, Greenfarce, or DirtFirst!

You seem to view the "disagree" group as the predominant. I look more towards the "agree" group.

Between the "disagree" group, and the billions who have no idea, yeah, those two are likely predominant.

The sheep in the middle hopefully can be swayed for the good of all...

Provide them with choices that make the most economic sense in their own self-interest and you don't have to sway them at all. They'll make the right decision because it makes the most sense.

Just telling them they have to buy into your silly ideas because you know better, or because yew gotta save da world, or whatever the reason is hasn't worked at all.

and once again you are wrong, before greenpeace etc, nobody did not even know that there was something wrong in a world, now they at least know, and if some one want to be like you, hey, world does not need humans.

More a question of 'education' and motivation...?

Who knows? People disagree with you, and they always will.

You omit to mention that some will agree, and that some will decide for themselves.

Of course. I didn't need to mention that--it's self-evident. Some will agree, some will disagree, and in the present state of the world, very few (as a percentage of world population) will even be aware of the controversy.

Some unfortunately, will just blindly suck up anything that they are told...

Of course. They are entitled to think for themselves, whether they suck it up from Exxon-Mobil, Shell, Greenfarce, or DirtFirst!

You seem to view the "disagree" group as the predominant. I look more towards the "agree" group.

Between the "disagree" group, and the billions who have no idea, yeah, those two are likely predominant.

The sheep in the middle hopefully can be swayed for the good of all...

Provide them with choices that make the most economic sense in their own self-interest and you don't have to sway them at all. They'll make the right decision because it makes the most sense.

Just telling them they have to buy into your silly ideas because you know better, or because yew gotta save da world, or whatever the reason is hasn't worked at all.

and once again you are wrong, before greenpeace etc, nobody did not even know that there was something wrong in a world, now they at least know, and if some one want to be like you, hey, world does not need humans.

However, until economic Price signals are put into place people will do the wrong thing for the environment - because it is less expensive in the short term.

---

BOINC WIKI

However, until economic Price signals are put into place people will do the wrong thing for the environment - because it is less expensive in the short term.

Exactly. And that's true no matter how many Kyotos fail along the way. That's true no matter how often some of the posters here wring their hands about it.

Which illustrates my prior point: Provide them with choices that make the most economic sense in their own self-interest and you don't have to sway them at all. They'll make the right decision because it makes the most sense.

You don't need endless Kyotos. You don't need endless and failed regulation. You don't need non-market, gov't regulated and controlled, carbon "trading" schemes. You don't need laws, or international agreements, or any of it because people will make the "right" decision because it makes the most sense for them.

---

Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...

However, until economic Price signals are put into place people will do the wrong thing for the environment - because it is less expensive in the short term.

Exactly. And that's true no matter how many Kyotos fail along the way. That's true no matter how often some of the posters here wring their hands about it.

Which illustrates my prior point: Provide them with choices that make the most economic sense in their own self-interest and you don't have to sway them at all. They'll make the right decision because it makes the most sense.

You don't need endless Kyotos. You don't need endless and failed regulation. You don't need non-market, gov't regulated and controlled, carbon "trading" schemes. You don't need laws, or international agreements, or any of it because people will make the "right" decision because it makes the most sense for them.

Right. If you want people to stop useing as much gasoline, add a $2.00/ gallon tax on the stuff. People will quickly stop buying huge vehicles for single person commuting.

Kyoto is a set of promises. It does not say how any country has to implement those promises.

---

BOINC WIKI

The Orbital Carbon Observatory has failed to reach orbit. It is a sad day, since it was designed to pinpoint CO2 emissions from Earth locations. My impression is that the rocket used was not up to NASA's standards and failed to jettison the fairing covering the satellite, so it could not reach orbit and fell into the Antarctic Ocean. Let's hope that NASA has enough spare parts to build a replica (they usually have) and put it aboard a better launcher.
Tullio

---

The Orbital Carbon Observatory has failed to reach orbit. It is a sad day, since it was designed to pinpoint CO2 emissions from Earth locations. My impression is that the rocket used was not up to NASA's standards and failed to jettison the fairing covering the satellite, so it could not reach orbit and fell into the Antarctic Ocean. Let's hope that NASA has enough spare parts to build a replica (they usually have) and put it aboard a better launcher.
Tullio

Crash of NASA satellite impairs climate study

---

me@rescam.org

If we are to effectively combat climate change, we must all do our part!

Hypocrisy at it's best:
"Democratic Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi is the Jennifer Lopez of congressional travel -- fickle, demanding and notoriously insensitive to the time, costs and energy needed to accommodate her endless demands. On Tuesday, the indispensable government watchdog Judicial Watch released a trove of public records through the Freedom of Information Act on Pelosi's travel arrangements with the U.S. military. As speaker of the House, Pelosi is entitled to a reasonable level of military protection and transport. But it's the size of the planes, the frequency of requests and last-minute cancellations, and the political nature of many of her trips that scream out for accountability. And, of course, it's the double-barreled hypocrisy. There's the eco-hypocrisy of the Democratic leader who wags her finger at the rest of us for our too-big carbon footprints, and crusades for massive taxes and regulation to reduce global warming. Then there's the Bay Area hypocrisy of the woman who represents one of the most anti-military areas of the country soaking up military resources to shuttle her (and her many family members) across the country almost every weekend. ... Apparently, those anti-war protesters have no problem with evil military jets currying Pelosi and her massive entourages to the funerals of the late Rep. Stephanie Tubbs Jones and Charlie Norwood; foreign junkets to Rome; and politicized stops to Iowa flood sites to bash the Bush administration." --columnist Michelle Malkin

More movement in the right direction, even if a few years late:

Obama administration breaks with the years of 'climate change denial'

The Obama administration took a bold first step towards limiting the gases that cause global warming today after formally declaring that such emissions are a danger to public health.

... most definitive break to date with eight years of "climate denial" under George Bush.

The EPA said the science about the dangers posed by greenhouse gases was compelling and overwhelming, and that the increase of such gases was the unambiguous result of human emissions.

"This finding confirms that greenhouse gas pollution is a serious problem now and for future generations," the EPA administrator, Lisa Jackson, said in a statement.

[...]

Global warming also posed a national security threat, the EPA said.


Regards,
Martin

( Also posted in Obama - A New Hope? )

---

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

Non global warming article - the author was theorizing about how dinosaurs came to be.

Cretaceous Period - 500% higher CO2, 50% higher Oxygen. Rain forest from pole to pole.

A Lot of Hot Air: How the Dinosaurs Grew So Monstrous-Sarah M. Dechard.

What I got out of her article.

Higher CO2 means plants grow bigger faster.
Bigger faster growing plants produce larger amounts of oxygen.
Responding to more food (bigger larger plants), animals have larger food supply and more oxygen to supply muscles etc, thus more and bigger animals.

More plants, more animals, more area suitable for people.

And global warming would be a bad thing? Seems like a bigger concern would be preventing another Ice Age. Less plants, less animals, less habitable area for people.

---

Man - a creature made at the end of the week's work when God was tired. - Mark Twain

50% more free Oxygen meant those fast growing plants burned readily and quickly

---

In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face.
Diogenes Of Sinope

The "50% more oxygen" and the much denser atmosphere were the biggies that allowed giantism to flourish.

Note that pole-to-pole rainforest is a very different world to the pleasant world we enjoy at the moment...


Aside: In some areas of the world, the proportion of oxygen in the atmosphere is measurably falling.

Regards,
Martin

[edit]

A Lot of Hot Air: How the Dinosaurs Grew So Monstrous

Note that looks at higher CO2 and higher O2 and "rainforest" type conditions. However, that is not the "full story":

High carbon dioxide levels can retard plant growth


All very interesting!

[/edit]

---

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

Fifty cars make out a bus--->CO2 emissions

---

Fifty cars make out a bus--->CO2 emissions

Someone did not do the math quite right. Each car on average holds 1.2 people. 50 people on the bus = 51 2/3 cars,not 50. However, the claim that the bus emits as much CO2 as 4 cars do means that a bus with 5 people on board is breaking even on CO2 emissions.

I want my next car to be a PHEV.

---

BOINC WIKI

Fifty cars make out a bus--->CO2 emissions

Someone did not do the math quite right. Each car on average holds 1.2 people. 50 people on the bus = 51 2/3 cars,not 50. However, the claim that the bus emits as much CO2 as 4 cars do means that a bus with 5 people on board is breaking even on CO2 emissions.

I want my next car to be a PHEV.

The way I understand it is:
50 cars x 1.2 persons /passengers makes 60 passengers per each coach.
And if 4 cars rest at home and their owners/users catch the bus instead, that would be the barrier of CO2 emissions.
The best thing of all, apart of the maths is simple for all of us: we should make an effort and catch more busses. That´s the idea. IMHO

---

Fifty cars make out a bus--->CO2 emissions

Someone did not do the math quite right. Each car on average holds 1.2 people. 50 people on the bus = 51 2/3 cars,not 50. However, the claim that the bus emits as much CO2 as 4 cars do means that a bus with 5 people on board is breaking even on CO2 emissions.

I want my next car to be a PHEV.

The way I understand it is:
50 cars x 1.2 persons /passengers makes 60 passengers per each coach.
And if 4 cars rest at home and their owners/users catch the bus instead, that would be the barrier of CO2 emissions.
The best thing of all, apart of the maths is simple for all of us: we should make an effort and catch more busses. That´s the idea. IMHO

I got the point, and it still makes sense to take the bus when possible (and around here it isn't). But the article talks about 50 passengers per bus, 1.2 passengers per car, and 1 bus taking 50 cars off the road when fully loaded. the math just does not quite add up.

---

BOINC WIKI

Things I don't like about buses: Most of the time they're almost empty, One has to get to the bus stop which might require a drive. Criminals have more opportunity to strike the commuter if he/she is waiting around for the bus, One has to be at the bus stop early, and it usually is out of his way, The bus is awfully damn slow and holds up traffic even if there's no one to pick up or let off, One has to catch a bus that arrives at work, etc, earlier than his car or else be late, the commuter often requires a transfer both ways necessitating another wait. I did take the bus to jury duty 11 years ago but I was right on the line and there was no transfer necessary. Parking near the courts was a disaster; thats why I took the bus starting the second day. I would ride my bike but it's too dangerous and I would get sweaty riding. Also it might rain or be icy on the way. Bikes and their lights often break down and one is more vulnerable to criminals on one. Thank God I don't work anymore. When I did work, it was just a 3/4-mile walk from my house. I sometimes saw Venus and the Moon enroute.

---

Fifty cars make out a bus--->CO2 emissions

Someone did not do the math quite right. Each car on average holds 1.2 people. 50 people on the bus = 51 2/3 cars,not 50. However, the claim that the bus emits as much CO2 as 4 cars do means that a bus with 5 people on board is breaking even on CO2 emissions.

I want my next car to be a PHEV.

The way I understand it is:
50 cars x 1.2 persons /passengers makes 60 passengers per each coach.
And if 4 cars rest at home and their owners/users catch the bus instead, that would be the barrier of CO2 emissions.
The best thing of all, apart of the maths is simple for all of us: we should make an effort and catch more busses. That´s the idea. IMHO

I got the point, and it still makes sense to take the bus when possible (and around here it isn't). But the article talks about 50 passengers per bus, 1.2 passengers per car, and 1 bus taking 50 cars off the road when fully loaded. the math just does not quite add up.

My car isnt a PHEV but rather a PHEW (STINKY STINKEY) - a 78 trick van that is awaiting a towtruck from the local junkyard.
Here in Elgin - except during rush hour you'd be shocked if you saw even 1 person per bus (one of the BIG ones) when it enters or leaves the El-Centro depot.
I often wonder why PACE doesn't use the smaller jobbies during non-rush hour schedules.
Having been stuck behind one of the big jobbies in traffic and almost suffocated from the fumes I have my doubts about their claims to lower emissions.

---

Classic WU= 7,237 Classic Hours= 42,079

An interesting bit of history from before the time of Darwin:

The man who discovered greenhouse gases

Regards,
Martin

---

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

The latest modelling results (as opposed to the ultra-conservative ultra-cautious and many-years-behind-the-times IPCC):

Modellers predict doubly bad global warming


I hope that Obama can turn the American tide despite the very destructive procrastinations of the old Bush...

Regards,
Martin

---

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