 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Driving, Maintenance, Tuning / Driving / January 2007Experts Say El Nino + Global Warming = TORRID 2007
What can we do? At the very least we need to ban the production of any non -commercial vehicle that weighs over 3000 pounds. Most SUVs weigh 5000+. http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/article2116873.ece World faces hottest year ever, as El Niño combines with global warming By Cahal Milmo Published: 01 January 2007 A combination of global warming and the El Niño weather system is set to make 2007 the warmest year on record with far-reaching consequences for the planet, one of Britain's leading climate experts has warned. As the new year was ushered in with stormy conditions across the UK, the forecast for the next 12 months is of extreme global weather patterns which could bring drought to Indonesia and leave California under a deluge. The warning, from Professor Phil Jones, director of the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, was one of four sobering predictions from senior scientists and forecasters that 2007 will be a crucial year for determining the response to global warming and its effect on humanity. Professor Jones said the long-term trend of global warming - already blamed for bringing drought to the Horn of Africa and melting the Arctic ice shelf - is set to be exacerbated by the arrival of El Niño, the phenomenon caused by above-average sea temperatures in the Pacific. Combined, they are set to bring extreme conditions across the globe and make 2007 warmer than 1998, the hottest year on record. It is likely temperatures will also exceed 2006, which was declared in December the hottest in Britain since 1659 and the sixth warmest in global records. Professor Jones said: "El Niño makes the world warmer and we already have a warming trend that is increasing global temperatures by one to two tenths of a degrees celsius per decade. Together, they should make 2007 warmer than last year and it may even make the next 12 months the warmest year on record." The warning of the escalating impact of global warming was echoed by Jim Hansen, the American scientist who, in 1988, was one of the first to warn of climate change. In an interview with The Independent, Dr Hansen predicted that global warming would run out of control and change the planet for ever unless rapid action is taken to reverse the rise in carbon emissions. Dr Hansen said: "We just cannot burn all the fossil fuels in the ground. If we do, we will end up with a different planet. (snip) >What can we do? At the very least we need to ban the production of any >non -commercial vehicle that weighs over 3000 pounds. Most SUVs weigh >5000+. Except for those owned by the rich of course. Nobody complains about the rich and their 600 horsepower cars. Have you seen the full burned by the millions of big boats and private yachts? That idiot from Microsoft burns a million gallons of fuel in his yachts every year and he doesn't even travel on them. He flies to meet them in Alaska or the south pacific just to throw parties. Then sends them somewhere else. I am a Republican who believes in man influenced global warming... but I would rather civilization die off then too have some knee jerk reaction to socialist rule. So if you want to fix the problem then start yourself by living by example and teaching others how to do so. If there is a GOD then he will bless your works. If not then better to die off anyway. What can we do? At the very least we need to ban the production of any non -commercial vehicle that weighs over 3000 pounds. Most SUVs weigh 5000+. http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/article2116873.ece World faces hottest year ever, as El Niño combines with global warming By Cahal Milmo Published: 01 January 2007 A combination of global warming and the El Niño weather system is set to make 2007 the warmest year on record with far-reaching consequences for the planet, one of Britain's leading climate experts has warned. As the new year was ushered in with stormy conditions across the UK, the forecast for the next 12 months is of extreme global weather patterns which could bring drought to Indonesia and leave California under a deluge. The warning, from Professor Phil Jones, director of the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, was one of four sobering predictions from senior scientists and forecasters that 2007 will be a crucial year for determining the response to global warming and its effect on humanity. Professor Jones said the long-term trend of global warming - already blamed for bringing drought to the Horn of Africa and melting the Arctic ice shelf - is set to be exacerbated by the arrival of El Niño, the phenomenon caused by above-average sea temperatures in the Pacific. Combined, they are set to bring extreme conditions across the globe and make 2007 warmer than 1998, the hottest year on record. It is likely temperatures will also exceed 2006, which was declared in December the hottest in Britain since 1659 and the sixth warmest in global records. Professor Jones said: "El Niño makes the world warmer and we already have a warming trend that is increasing global temperatures by one to two tenths of a degrees celsius per decade. Together, they should make 2007 warmer than last year and it may even make the next 12 months the warmest year on record." The warning of the escalating impact of global warming was echoed by Jim Hansen, the American scientist who, in 1988, was one of the first to warn of climate change. In an interview with The Independent, Dr Hansen predicted that global warming would run out of control and change the planet for ever unless rapid action is taken to reverse the rise in carbon emissions. Dr Hansen said: "We just cannot burn all the fossil fuels in the ground. If we do, we will end up with a different planet. (snip) > I would rather civilization die off then too have some knee jerk reaction to > socialist rule. MORON >> I would rather civilization die off then too have some knee jerk reaction >> to >> socialist rule. > > MORON That just proves your main intention. This is why so many conservatives back away from the issue or deny it. Because the main goal of many liberal believers is to convert the world to socialist ideals. > "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in message > > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > away from the issue or deny it. Because the main goal of many liberal > believers is to convert the world to socialist ideals. LOONY >> "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in message >> > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > LOONY When you grow the balls to talk like a man or woman (depending on which you are) then do so. > "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in message > >> "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in message [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > When you grow the balls to talk like a man or woman (depending on which you > are) then do so. PEABRAIN >>> I would rather civilization die off then too have some knee jerk reaction >>> to [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >away from the issue or deny it. Because the main goal of many liberal >believers is to convert the world to socialist ideals. The answer to global warming is in the abolition of private property and production for human need. A socialist world would place an enormous priority an alternative energy sources. This is what ecologically-minded socialists have been exploring for quite some time now." -- Louis Proyect, Columbia University  SignatureWherever I go it will be well with me, for it was well with me here, not on account of the place, but of my judgments which I shall carry away with me, for no one can deprive me of these; on the contrary, they alone are my property, and cannot be taken away, and to possess them suffices me wherever I am or whatever I do. -- EPICTETUS "There are no absolute certainties in this universe. A man must try to whip order into a yelping pack of probabilities, and uniform success is impossible." -- Jack Vance "Civilization is the interval between Ice Ages." -- Will Durant. "Progress is the increasing control of the environment by life. --Will Durant Joseph R. Darancette daranc@NOSPAMverizon.net > The answer to global warming is in the abolition of private property > and production for human need. A socialist world would place an > enormous priority an alternative energy sources. This is what > ecologically-minded socialists have been exploring for quite some time > now." -- Louis Proyect, Columbia University Exactly, but dont tell eeyore that this is the way many on the left think. >> The answer to global warming is in the abolition of private property >> and production for human need. A socialist world would place an [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Exactly, but dont tell eeyore that this is the way many on the left > think. When the day comes and you and your family (or your descendents) have to band together with other members of your community in a cooperative effort just to stay alive another day, you'll understand what real "socialism" means. > When the day comes and you and your family (or your descendents) have to > band together with other members of your community in a cooperative effort > just to stay alive another day, you'll understand what real "socialism" > means. That's not socialism. That's consecration. Where by the will of the people (without government) help each other. But keep on pushing global warming as the reason for socialism. >> When the day comes and you and your family (or your descendents) have to >> band together with other members of your community in a cooperative [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > (without government) help each other. But keep on pushing global warming > as the reason for socialism. I would really help if you learned english. Try a local library. I've never, ever heard of consecration as a political term. Making stuff up may work in repug circles but most people find that stupid. >>> your family (or your descendents) have to band together with other >>> members of your community in a cooperative effort [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > I've never, ever heard of consecration as a political term. Making > stuff up may work in repug circles but most people find that stupid. Yeah, I had no idea what he was talking about. Needs more than the library, though. Maybe a good college education. > Making stuff up may work in repug circles but most people find that stupid. Bright ppl just find repugs stupid on first principles. Graham > >> When the day comes and you and your family (or your descendents) have to > >> band together with other members of your community in a cooperative [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > never, ever heard of consecration as a political term. Making stuff up may > work in repug circles but most people find that stupid. <rolleyes> It's an English term, though. So we can't use English to describe politics? WTF?! >> The answer to global warming is in the abolition of private property >> and production for human need. A socialist world would place an [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Exactly, but dont tell eeyore that this is the way many on the left think. Anyone have the over/under on how many one-word inane insult posts Eeyore can make before he has to either repeat himself or switch to a foreign language? Ken >> The answer to global warming is in the abolition of private property >> and production for human need. A socialist world would place an [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Exactly, but dont tell eeyore that this is the way many on the left think. A typical right wing ploy. You don't know what socialism is (except its bad) and you don't know who supports it. Heres the point, modern liberals are not socialists. Got that? Modern socialists agree with me. > "GoMavsGo" <mavs@mavs.net> wrote in message > > "Captain Compassion" <daranc@NOSPAMverizon.net> wrote in message [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > bad) and you don't know who supports it. Heres the point, modern liberals > are not socialists. Got that? Modern socialists agree with me. Socialism and liberalism are indeed quite different things. Modern or otherwise. Graham > > The answer to global warming is in the abolition of private property > > and production for human need. A socialist world would place an [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Exactly, but dont tell eeyore that this is the way many on the left think. Woo! I guess I'm not as left wing as some people like to think since I do not believe in getting rid of private property! >> > The answer to global warming is in the abolition of private property >> > and production for human need. A socialist world would place an [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >do >not believe in getting rid of private property! There is NO private property except for the rich. The government can take it away from you at any time. Or just tax it away from you. taylor_jack sez: "There is NO private property except for the rich. The government can take it away from you at any time. Or just tax it away from you..." __________________________________ Soo what else is new? > > The answer to global warming is in the abolition of private property > > and production for human need. A socialist world would place an [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Exactly, but dont tell eeyore that this is the way many on the left think. Then to heck with left-right black-white extreme-view monochrome politics that doesn't solve jack. > >>> I would rather civilization die off then too have some knee jerk reaction > >>> to [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > ecologically-minded socialists have been exploring for quite some time > now." -- Louis Proyect, Columbia University That's it, I've had enough of these extreme positions. We do not need to get rid of private property to use renewable energy. I believe humans have a right to private property, and I do not see the need for stripping them of this. --- Begin Big Fat Discourse On Extremes --- Truth is not in extremes -- the NEW structure of civilization that must be implemented to solve all sorts of world problems, the NEW civilization that must come soon (within the century) will not look like any extreme position, rather it must be built off of a combination of the best things of each form of society, economy, and government -- the best things that democracy, capitalism, socialism, anarchy (yes anarchy), theocracy (yes even theocracy), authoritarianism, and every other -ocracy and -ism and whatever else have and more. We have to break free from our dogmas and open our minds. If we can do that, and I believe strongly it is possible, then we can build the future civilization. A world of labels and things being forced into a handful of sides is NOT going to solve the problem. The amount of possible ways to do things is not like a few discrete lumps, rather it is a smooth continuum. Limiting ourselves to a few options is not a good way to do stuff. Stop thinking black and white and start thinking color, people! For example, my viewpoint on two issues: death penalty & abortion. I support the first, yet oppose the latter. This may seem like a weird position to take, as you'd think if I support the death penalty I have no problem with death and would not mind abortion, or that if I oppose abortion I respect life so much that I should not allow any death. However, this is limited. I believe abortion is wrong since it terminates a human life unjustly simply for an irresponsible sex act. Even then I am not extreme in this position; for example in the case of a rape, abortion could be an option since the sex act leading to pregnancy was not intentional. It would be at the discretion of the woman and perhaps her relatives, including any parents if they are alive, and their moral sense. Medical emergencies are another exception. But abortions due to "pleasure sex" outside marriage pregnancies are wrong, and I think this view would make people more responsible with their sexuality. Human life is more valuable than stupid pleasure sex. Unfettered sex already has a lot of negative consequences anyway. The death penalty, for only a couple of crimes, namely murder, and the rape of a child, I believe, is acceptable. One might ask how, if I respect human life as seen above. Well, OK. I have a right to live, so do you. But this right is not inalienable. It can be relinquished. If one commits a murder, one is denying the victim their right to live, shouldst not they forfeit theirs as well? Justice would suggest so. For the rape of a child, well, a child is very, very delicate, especially a baby. If you look at a child, look into their eyes, you see a beautiful, and totally innocent little human being. To damage them in such a way as with rape is to devastate them and make them suffer miserably for their entire life, maybe even wishing they were not alive, perhaps even driving them to suicide. However, I do not believe the death penalty may apply to all cases. Murder may still be punishable by life imprisonment, as could child-rape. I'm not sure of the specifics of either, but I know that if a parent rapes their child at a young age, I believe death penalties for the father would be more just, since parents are supposed to care for their children -- look at how a child runs to his/her mommy or daddy for comfort, support, food, etc. not to devastate them in this way. Imagine a child begging for food then suddenly the dad pounces and rapes. That is atrocious. I would say he deserves a death sentence for that. This is the advantage of thinking in color and not in black and white. --- End Big Fat Discourse On Extremes --- > -- > Wherever I go it will be well with me, for it was well with me here, not [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > Joseph R. Darancette > daranc@NOSPAMverizon.net >>> I would rather civilization die off then too have some knee jerk >>> reaction to [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > goal of many liberal believers is to convert the world to socialist > ideals. Knee jerk conservative bullshit. Not an ounce of thought behind it. > >> I would rather civilization die off then too have some knee jerk reaction > >> to [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > away from the issue or deny it. Because the main goal of many liberal > believers is to convert the world to socialist ideals. And the fact is, global warming IS happening, and it IS related to manmade pollution. What Do You Do? >> >> I would rather civilization die off then too have some knee jerk reaction >> >> to [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > >And the fact is, global warming IS happening, Yep. >and it IS related >to manmade pollution. Some of it. >What Do You Do? Launch a technological approach to the problem that is sure to work. Right now, the _only_ thing that would be sure to work would be a space-based solar shield that keeps some of the sunlight that would otherwise strike the planet's surface from doing so. There is no valid argument possible that such a thing would not work. It absoultely would. What it wouldn't do is allow the left to instutute world-wide socialism, so they don't want to hear it. Dave Head >>> >> I would rather civilization die off then too have some knee jerk >>> >> reaction to [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > > Dave Head Where in the hell do you guys come up with the "worldwide socialism" crap. You need to stop listening to that fat moron Rush and do a little research and study on your own. The dittoheads keep hearing the same bullshit day after day and think that repition equals truth. Get a life. >>>> >> I would rather civilization die off then too have some knee jerk >>>> >> reaction to [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] >Where in the hell do you guys come up with the "worldwide socialism" >crap. You need to stop listening to that fat moron Rush It was Steve Forbes, among others, that said it. >and do a little >research and study on your own. What do I need to do to know that the GW greenies want: Wind power Solar power No nuclear power No pollution No drilling Renewable energy Small cars No SUVs and hugely intrusive government controls to make it happen. That's all leftist pap. No further study required. Dave Head >What do I need to do to know that the GW greenies want: > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >and hugely intrusive government controls to make it happen. That's all leftist >pap. No further study required. Whose gonna pay for the space shield Dave. Steve Forbes. <bfg> >>What do I need to do to know that the GW greenies want: >> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >Whose gonna pay for the space shield Dave. >Steve Forbes. <bfg> Who's going to pay for all the leftist crap above? DPH >>>What do I need to do to know that the GW greenies want: >>> [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > >Who's going to pay for all the leftist crap above? Exactly. Buy one of these shirts and put the rest of your money into gold Dave. http://www.roadkilltshirts.com/images/products/ALL-FUCKED-SMALL_1.jpg And if you're the compassionate type conservative get a vasectomy. At least then you won't have grand kids who hate your guts..<g> >>>>What do I need to do to know that the GW greenies want: >>>> [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] >And if you're the compassionate type conservative get a vasectomy. >At least then you won't have grand kids who hate your guts..<g> Why? A space shield would work. All the leftist crap above wouldn't make much of a dent. YOU buy the shirt. DPH >>Exactly. >>Buy one of these shirts and put the rest of your money into gold Dave. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >Why? A space shield would work. Who's paying Dave???? ANSWER the question. > >>What do I need to do to know that the GW greenies want: > >> [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > Who's going to pay for all the leftist crap above? What's wrong with wind and solar power, renewable energy and small cars. You want to ban them ? You left out energy efficiency btw. Is that bad too ? Graham >> >>What do I need to do to know that the GW greenies want: >> >> [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] >What's wrong with wind and solar power, renewable energy and small cars. You want to >ban them ? 1) We believe in a free market, and that means the people's right to choose to drive an SUV if they want to. 2) Wind, solar, renewable energy sources are _not_ enough to power our economy. 3) Small cars correlate to increased traffic deaths. No thanks. People should be free to take that risk or avoid it. >You left out energy efficiency btw. Is that bad too ? Naw, it is just not enough to counter GW... probably... nobody really knows. But a space-based solar shield _would_ do so, with certainty. Certainty is the reason that such a system should be the 1st choice. Dave Head >Graham >>> >Whose gonna pay for the space shield Dave. >>> >Steve Forbes. <bfg> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >1) We believe in a free market, Who will own the space shield Dave? <bfg> > >> >>What do I need to do to know that the GW greenies want: > >> >> [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > 1) We believe in a free market, So do I. > and that means the people's right to choose to > drive an SUV if they want to. That's not what I asked though. > 2) Wind, solar, renewable energy sources are _not_ enough to power our economy. Where did I say that they were on their own ? > 3) Small cars correlate to increased traffic deaths. No thanks. People should > be free to take that risk or avoid it. I disagree with your underlying assumption. Is the answer to road deaths to buy ever and ever larger vehicles ? > >You left out energy efficiency btw. Is that bad too ? > > Naw, it is just not enough to counter GW... probably... nobody really knows. You mean *YOU* don't know ! > But a space-based solar shield _would_ do so, with certainty. Certainty is the > reason that such a system should be the 1st choice. If you could only get one there ! How about answering my questions now and not trying to read some curious manifesto into them ? Here they are again.... What's wrong with wind and solar power, renewable energy, small cars and energy efficiency ? Graham >> >> >>What do I need to do to know that the GW greenies want: >> >> >> [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > >So do I. Doesn't sound like it. >> and that means the people's right to choose to >> drive an SUV if they want to. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >Where did I say that they were on their own ? Implied, since it is necessary that they carry 100% of the load in order to combat global warming, and as such will _still_ be inadequate to the task of stopping the temp from going up. >> 3) Small cars correlate to increased traffic deaths. No thanks. People should >> be free to take that risk or avoid it. > >I disagree with your underlying assumption. Is the answer to road deaths to buy ever and >ever larger vehicles ? Naw, a Ford Explorer is quite large enough. >> >You left out energy efficiency btw. Is that bad too ? >> Naw, it is just not enough to counter GW... probably... nobody really knows. >You mean *YOU* don't know ! Nobody knows, although there's some that will try to convince you that they know. I mean nobody knows whether the global warming is 10% natural and 90% manmade, or 90% natural and 10% manmade, or whatever percentage in between. If its 90% natural, then humanity could completely disappear, and the temperature would still keep going up. IOW, the earth would eventually fry, with melted ice caps, lost coastline, etc. >> But a space-based solar shield _would_ do so, with certainty. Certainty is the >> reason that such a system should be the 1st choice. > >If you could only get one there ! Its a simple matter of rocketry. And money. If we can't afford it, then the planet will fry, as the other proposed cures are, as admitted even by their proponents, inadequate to the job. >How about answering my questions now and not trying to read some curious manifesto into >them ? [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >What's wrong with wind and solar power, renewable energy, small cars and energy >efficiency ? The main thing wrong with the energy production methods above is that they are not enough to replace the current methods of producing energy to allow for the current methods to be shut down, although the GW proponents claim that's what needs to be done. BTW, why didn't you mention the pollution-free nuclear power? Your left-wing, enviro-weenie colors are showing for failing to mention nuclear. The thing that is wrong with small cars is that it implies mandating them somehow, because the American people are _not_ going to choose them. They don't want them, for many reasons ranging from a lack of utility for their purpose to the safety problems of small cars when they run into larger cars and trucks. Hell, I took one of those lifestyle internet surveys that supposedly measure how long you'll live, and they told me I should buy a bigger car than I drive because mine is associated with a higher death rate... Energy efficiency is fine as long as it doesn't interfere with what people want. If you can make 'em want it, fine. If you legislate it, that's not fine. My next house is going to be superinsulated because I _want_ that as a cost saving measure. This one is not, and won't be, because I neither want to hire a contractor to do it or to spend time up in the attic myself. I've got 5 more years here, and it just ain't worth it. Dave Head >Graham > >> >> >>What do I need to do to know that the GW greenies want: > >> >> >> [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > > Doesn't sound like it. You're wrong then ! I've been self-employed for most of my working life man ! > >> and that means the people's right to choose to > >> drive an SUV if they want to. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > combat global warming, and as such will _still_ be inadequate to the task of > stopping the temp from going up. It's not implied. They are simply *other* sources of energy ! Our energy needs are already met from a diverse range of sources. What's wrong with increasing the number and diversity of sources ? > >> 3) Small cars correlate to increased traffic deaths. No thanks. People should > >> be free to take that risk or avoid it. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Naw, a Ford Explorer is quite large enough. What happens when 2 Ford Explorers crash ? Compared to say, 2 Saabs like mine ? > >> >You left out energy efficiency btw. Is that bad too ? > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Nobody knows, although there's some that will try to convince you that they > know. Are you saying energy efficiency is a bad idea ? > I mean nobody knows whether the global warming is 10% natural and 90% manmade, > or 90% natural and 10% manmade, or whatever percentage in between. If its 90% > natural, then humanity could completely disappear, and the temperature would > still keep going up. IOW, the earth would eventually fry, with melted ice > caps, lost coastline, etc. I totally agree actually. In the meantime however it's wise to avoid being complacent, no ? As in 'just in case' maybe ? > >> But a space-based solar shield _would_ do so, with certainty. Certainty is the > >> reason that such a system should be the 1st choice. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > planet will fry, as the other proposed cures are, as admitted even by their > proponents, inadequate to the job. There's nothing simple about it Dave ! > >How about answering my questions now and not trying to read some curious >manifesto into > them ? [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > current methods to be shut down, although the GW proponents claim that's what > needs to be done. I'd avoid paying too much attention those proponents you have in mind then. Using windpower for electricity generation in particular is already reasonably cost-competitive in the UK. There are some interesting wave power developments too. > BTW, why didn't you mention the pollution-free nuclear power? Your left-wing, > enviro-weenie colors are showing for failing to mention nuclear. I didn't mention it because I'm not especially anti it. It's yet another source of energy. Heck, the French generate 80-85% of their electricity that way. > The thing that is wrong with small cars is that it implies mandating them > somehow, because the American people are _not_ going to choose them. They > don't want them, for many reasons ranging from a lack of utility for their > purpose to the safety problems of small cars when they run into larger cars and > trucks. Mandate ? Ppl here buy them as much as anything because they're relatively inexpensive to own and run. > Hell, I took one of those lifestyle internet surveys that supposedly measure > how long you'll live, and they told me I should buy a bigger car than I drive > because mine is associated with a higher death rate... What do you drive now ? > Energy efficiency is fine as long as it doesn't interfere with what people > want. If you can make 'em want it, fine. If you legislate it, that's not > fine. My next house is going to be superinsulated because I _want_ that as a > cost saving measure. This one is not, and won't be, because I neither want to > hire a contractor to do it or to spend time up in the attic myself. I've got 5 > more years here, and it just ain't worth it. That's a simple cost-benefit analysis and you've dome your sums with that in mind. I see you're sensible enough to see the value of it when you move though. If governmemnts are going to throw money away in stupid pork-barrel ideas like hydrogen why not instead subsidise insulation instead so *everyone* can afford it without worrying about the payback period and reduce their energy usage now ? Graham >> >> >> >>What do I need to do to know that the GW greenies want: >> >> >> >> [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > >You're wrong then ! I've been self-employed for most of my working life man ! Good for you. >> >> and that means the people's right to choose to >> >> drive an SUV if they want to. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >met from a diverse range of sources. What's wrong with increasing the number and diversity of >sources ? Well, its expensive and... we're trying to solve the GW problem, supposedly. If it doesn't do that, then its money that is being taken away from another strategy that actually _would_ work. >> >> 3) Small cars correlate to increased traffic deaths. No thanks. People should >> >> be free to take that risk or avoid it. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >What happens when 2 Ford Explorers crash ? Compared to say, 2 Saabs like mine ? Same thing. But a Ford Explorer has a MUCH higher chance of NOT colliding with anything larger than it is, while you're Saab has a MUCH higher chance of colliding with something larger than it is, at least on American roads. >> >> >You left out energy efficiency btw. Is that bad too ? >> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > >Are you saying energy efficiency is a bad idea ? Its fine as long as it wins in the marketplace without being mandated. >> I mean nobody knows whether the global warming is 10% natural and 90% manmade, >> or 90% natural and 10% manmade, or whatever percentage in between. If its 90% [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >I totally agree actually. In the meantime however it's wise to avoid being complacent, no ? >As in 'just in case' maybe ? Right. I believe toward that end that scientists and governments should search for something that will positively work. The space based solar shield is the only thing that has been thought of so far that would positively work. The viability of _everything_ else that has been considered so far is unknown. >> >> But a space-based solar shield _would_ do so, with certainty. Certainty is the >> >> reason that such a system should be the 1st choice. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > >There's nothing simple about it Dave ! True - rocketry is complex. But is a known doable. >> >How about answering my questions now and not trying to read some curious >manifesto into >> them ? [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >Using windpower for electricity generation in particular is already reasonably >cost-competitive in the UK. There are some interesting wave power developments too. Yep. Hey, I'm all for it, even if Ted Kennedy moves to get the wind generators that were going to be erected near HIS place quashed. >> BTW, why didn't you mention the pollution-free nuclear power? Your left-wing, >> enviro-weenie colors are showing for failing to mention nuclear. > >I didn't mention it because I'm not especially anti it. It's yet another source of energy. >Heck, the French generate 80-85% of their electricity that way. Yes, the world should follow their example. >> The thing that is wrong with small cars is that it implies mandating them >> somehow, because the American people are _not_ going to choose them. They [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >Mandate ? Ppl here buy them as much as anything because they're relatively inexpensive to own >and run. They buy them there because of your world-famous tax on gasoline that has the price at... what is it now? $6 a gallon? >> Hell, I took one of those lifestyle internet surveys that supposedly measure >> how long you'll live, and they told me I should buy a bigger car than I drive >> because mine is associated with a higher death rate... > >What do you drive now ? Subaru WRX. >> Energy efficiency is fine as long as it doesn't interfere with what people >> want. If you can make 'em want it, fine. If you legislate it, that's not [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >That's a simple cost-benefit analysis and you've dome your sums with that in mind. I see >you're sensible enough to see the value of it when you move though. Yep. I have this thing about retiring, and staying that way, and not having to go back to work because the price of electricity quadrupled since I retired 3 years ago... The house will be all electric, 'cuz I think gas and oil will have an even greater chance of quadrupling, and I can get by with having a house that can be heated with a candle and cooled with an ice cube placed on the table. >If governmemnts are going to throw money away in stupid pork-barrel ideas like hydrogen why >not instead subsidise insulation instead so *everyone* can afford it without worrying about >the payback period and reduce their energy usage now ? Local governments are especially into energy subsidies. Not sure about federal. Dave Head >Graham >>What happens when 2 Ford Explorers crash ? Compared to say, 2 Saabs like mine ? > >Same thing. But a Ford Explorer Ford and GM won't be making cars much longer. In case you haven't heard they are close to bankruptcy, just like the country. > >>What happens when 2 Ford Explorers crash ? Compared to say, 2 Saabs like mine >> > ? [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Ford and GM won't be making cars much longer. In case you haven't heard they are > close to bankruptcy, just like the country. Can we have Saab Automobil back then please ? He's wrong anyway. When 2 SUVs crash the carnage is far worse than with vehicles that are made with safety in mind. GM's sealed their fate by taking the stupid 'hydrogen economy' path btw. Why it is that US auto makers can't get anything right is quite perplexing. Graham > >> >> >>What do I need to do to know that the GW greenies want: > >> >> >> [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > combat global warming, and as such will _still_ be inadequate to the task of > stopping the temp from going up. So we have less load. Simple, no? > >> 3) Small cars correlate to increased traffic deaths. No thanks. People should > >> be free to take that risk or avoid it. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Naw, a Ford Explorer is quite large enough. Could smaller cars be made safer? If they can, then your whole argument collapses. > >> >You left out energy efficiency btw. Is that bad too ? > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > still keep going up. IOW, the earth would eventually fry, with melted ice > caps, lost coastline, etc. Scientific consensus is that natural mechanisms, although they do exist, are woefully inadequate to account for the observed warming trends, and that the additional warming is human- caused (anthropogenic). > >> But a space-based solar shield _would_ do so, with certainty. Certainty is the > >> reason that such a system should be the 1st choice. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > planet will fry, as the other proposed cures are, as admitted even by their > proponents, inadequate to the job. No they are not. Rather they require more work and more changes than it seems that you would like to have. > >How about answering my questions now and not trying to read some curious manifesto into > >them ? [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > current methods to be shut down, although the GW proponents claim that's what > needs to be done. So why can't we reduce our energy use?! That is the big question. > BTW, why didn't you mention the pollution-free nuclear power? Your left-wing, > enviro-weenie colors are showing for failing to mention nuclear. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > how long you'll live, and they told me I should buy a bigger car than I drive > because mine is associated with a higher death rate... Maybe you should not believe _everything_ one reads on the net. > Energy efficiency is fine as long as it doesn't interfere with what people > want. If you can make 'em want it, fine. If you legislate it, that's not > fine. My next house is going to be superinsulated because I _want_ that as a > cost saving measure. This one is not, and won't be, because I neither want to > hire a contractor to do it or to spend time up in the attic myself. I've got 5 > more years here, and it just ain't worth it. Maybe them what people want needs to be tempered with what is best. What people want is not necessarily what is best. For example a bank robber wants to rob banks, must we cater to that? Must we take down our bank security systems so he may come in and rob? > Dave Head > > >Graham >> >> 2) Wind, solar, renewable energy sources are _not_ enough to power our economy. >> > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >So we have less load. Simple, no? Sure, if you want to wreck the economy that is currently responsible for 30% of the word's GDP, and reduce it to 3rd world status. >> >> 3) Small cars correlate to increased traffic deaths. No thanks. People should >> >> be free to take that risk or avoid it. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >Could smaller cars be made safer? Nope. Its a matter of physics. A big car and a small car colliding means that the big car decelerates more slowly and the little car decelerates more rapidly. This more rapid deceleration is what kills the occupants. The less rapid deceleration for the bigger car saves its occupants. Its a matter of physics. >If they can, then your >whole argument collapses. Not happenin. >> >> >You left out energy efficiency btw. Is that bad too ? >> [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] >warming trends, and that the additional warming is human- >caused (anthropogenic). BS. The ice caps of Mars have been observed to have shrunk, and Jupiter now has 2 permanent hurricane-like storms instead of the 1 great red spot. IOW, the sun has increased its output. The _only_ way to deal with that sort of increase is to put up a big umbrella. >> >> But a space-based solar shield _would_ do so, with certainty. Certainty is the >> >> reason that such a system should be the 1st choice. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > >No they are not. You don't know that. Nobody knows that. Scientists have a bunch of computer models that disagree with each other, and none can tell with certainty just what the heck is gonna happen. They don't know whether the warming will be 10% man-made and 90% natural, or the other way around. The temp has been going up since the end of the last ice age. >Rather they require more work and more changes >than it seems that you would like to have. It is likely to require more changes than we can perform. >> >How about answering my questions now and not trying to read some curious manifesto into >> >them ? [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >So why can't we reduce our energy use?! That >is the big question. Sure we can, if we want to end up living in adobe houses in the desert southwest, not drive cars / trucks any more, and live off the land. Oh, wait - modern farming is _necessary_ to a population this size, so we'd probably see the starvation of 90% of the population. And... even that might not be enough - nobody can predict how bad its going to get, because nobody knows how much warming is man-made and how much is natural. >> BTW, why didn't you mention the pollution-free nuclear power? Your left-wing, >> enviro-weenie colors are showing for failing to mention nuclear. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > >Maybe you should not believe _everything_ one reads on the net. Flippant quip - its been known ever since cars were invented that a small one is more dangerous to its occupants than a big one when colliding with another vehicle. >> Energy efficiency is fine as long as it doesn't interfere with what people >> want. If you can make 'em want it, fine. If you legislate it, that's not [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >that? Must we take down our bank security systems so he may >come in and rob? That is a ridiculous comparison. This whole thing is a political movement. The "scientists" don't agree to nearly the extent that the left-leaning mainstream media make them out to. As Steve Forbes said a couple weeks ago, "Global warming is just socialism done green instead of red." That about sums it up, and your statements above pretty much confirms it - you want to restrict the economy for "the common good" when it is well know how inept governments have been at doing such things. It'd simply wreck the economy and we'd all be less well off than the inhabitants of half the African nations. DPH >> Dave Head >> >> >Graham > >> >> 2) Wind, solar, renewable energy sources are _not_ enough to power our economy. > >> > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Sure, if you want to wreck the economy that is currently responsible for 30% of > the word's GDP, and reduce it to 3rd world status. So we have a whole different economic system -- overhaul the entire thing and get rid of consumerism. You think that CONSUMERISM is the ONLY way to have a good economy. Maybe we should start thinking outside the box and look for something nobody has ever thought of before. Maybe that's where the answer is. You have too narrow a world view. > >> >> 3) Small cars correlate to increased traffic deaths. No thanks. People should > >> >> be free to take that risk or avoid it. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > rapid deceleration for the bigger car saves its occupants. Its a matter of > physics. How MUCH safer, though? PS. The collision will be more energetic at a given velocity for a higher mass. Simple physics. > >If they can, then your > >whole argument collapses. [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > the sun has increased its output. The _only_ way to deal with that sort of > increase is to put up a big umbrella. So _some_ of the thrends are natural, not _all_. But the VAST majority of scientists agree that the planet Earth is warming MUCH faster than simple natural causes would suggest and there is objective evidence to back this up. Did you even READ what I said?! I said that they agree natural mechanisms DO exist, so that explains the Mars and Jupiter warmings, but for Earth the warming is much faster and most of that extra warming is ANTHROPOGENIC, ie. people-caused. Don't you think something would happen if you started dumping millions of years of accumulated carbon back into the atmosphere? Hmm? HMM? You do not understand that just because one exists that does not mean the other does not. Both exist -- natural and anthropogenic and the cause of Earth's warming is considered highly (although not totally) anthropogenic in the scientific community's consensus. > >> >> But a space-based solar shield _would_ do so, with certainty. Certainty is the > >> >> reason that such a system should be the 1st choice. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > man-made and 90% natural, or the other way around. The temp has been going up > since the end of the last ice age. WHAT?! The debate is OVER. The vast scientific consensus is that Global Warming is mostly caused by anthropogenic GHG emissions. Confess it. Why can't you imagine that? Oh, that's right, you cherish that Subaru so much and couldn't sit with the idea that you might have to give it up. > >Rather they require more work and more changes > >than it seems that you would like to have. > > It is likely to require more changes than we can perform. So you rather say "oh we CANNOT do it" and then just go on, business-as-usual... If we take that attitude we'll never try and see how it goes. That is what leads to remaining idle and never solving anything. Laziness. If we keep saying "we can't do it" then we won't do it! > >> >How about answering my questions now and not trying to read some curious manifesto into > >> >them ? [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > - nobody can predict how bad its going to get, because nobody knows how much > warming is man-made and how much is natural. Not drive cars at all? We don't need to not drive them AT ALL to reduce our energy consumption. Even if we drove only half as much as we do now we would make a good impact. Even more if we all switched over to the most fuel-efficient ones money can buy. PS. Oil is running out, so we'll be forced to change ANYWAY to renewable energy and sustainable ways of doing things. If that means 90% will starve then that's guaranteed 100% to happen, unless we do something. Why can't we stop our excessive popoluation growth as well? http://www.peakoil.com ^^^^ Oil will be gone someday. > >> BTW, why didn't you mention the pollution-free nuclear power? Your left-wing, > >> enviro-weenie colors are showing for failing to mention nuclear. [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > is more dangerous to its occupants than a big one when colliding with another > vehicle. How much more? And why not have a smaller engine, or one that could adjust it's horsepower depending on how much is needed? > >> Energy efficiency is fine as long as it doesn't interfere with what people > >> want. If you can make 'em want it, fine. If you legislate it, that's not [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > simply wreck the economy and we'd all be less well off than the inhabitants of > half the African nations. Oh, and I don't think socialism/communism is the way to go either as it friggs up basic human rights such as being able to own things. We need something OUTSIDE THE BOX, FOLKS. I never advocated it as a solution. I advocate something that is way out of the box. If capitalism doesn't work, and communism doesn't work, We Need Something Else. To deny that anything else could possibly exist is blatant black-and-white thinking. Black-and-white thinking is probably one of the reasons why many solutions to world problems have not been found. Also your space shield won't work either, I shows it would cost far too much to do it and especially within a reasonable time frame (20 years). This is my LAST POST to you. If you do not want to be convinced, as you so obviously do not, then I CANNOT convince you. I can only hope you will see the light someday. I also hope that someone out there will see the logic of my case and even if that is not you, they will do something with it. > DPH > > >> Dave Head > >> > >> >Graham > Here they are again.... > > What's wrong with wind and solar power, They're currently too expensive, and the people that tout them don't even want them miles from their own property (see Nantucket Wind Farm). Not all areas have enough wind and/or sun to be cost effective. Natural resources are still used to build these devices. Wind mills don't grow on trees. Eventually they break and wear out, and will need to be disposed of. You need open areas for wind mills to be effective. I don't see New York City being on Turbine power any time soon. The Nantucket Wind Farm consists of 130 wind mills and will supply the island with 75% of it's electricy. The population of Nantucket is only 10,000. So it takes 1 wind mill for approx every 57 people. That's, what, about 14 homes (4 people/home). Hell, that's only 5 million wind mills to power the country!!! Now, I'mnot opposed to wind power. The Nantucket Wind Farm is a private enterprise, not 1 cent of tax payer money goes into it. The environment for the wind farm is good up there, with open ocean to put the wind mills, lots of wind, etc. But it's a drop in the bucket, and time will tell if it's really cost effective (cost of fixing something under the ocean is expensive). > renewable energy, Such as? > small cars People don't want them, as evidenced by the number of large vehicles on the road today. So unless you plan on passing laws to force a social change, the current market is for larger vehicles. > and energy efficiency ? Depends on your means to try to achieve the goal. I say try, because as we know, the CAFE standards have failed. > >> >>What do I need to do to know that the GW greenies want: > >> >> [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > 2) Wind, solar, renewable energy sources are _not_ enough to power our economy. Then maybe our ways are too wasteful? Ever consider that? Hmm? HMM? Maybe we should have an economy that doesn't need as many resources? Remember we also have resource depletion to take issue with and no space projects will stop that. Gee, that sounds like it might work, actually. An economy and way of life that isn't as wasteful. What a novel idea :) > 3) Small cars correlate to increased traffic deaths. No thanks. People should > be free to take that risk or avoid it. Big cars can become topheavy and roll over. > >You left out energy efficiency btw. Is that bad too ? > > Naw, it is just not enough to counter GW... probably... nobody really knows. There is no single magic bullet, obviously. Efficiency and conservation are not the whole story, but they are part of it. > But a space-based solar shield _would_ do so, with certainty. Certainty is the > reason that such a system should be the 1st choice. > > Dave Head > > >Graham >> >> >>What do I need to do to know that the GW greenies want: >> >> >> [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > >Then maybe our ways are too wasteful? Ever consider that? I consider that the only way to cure it would be to take the economy that is responsible for 30% of the world's GDP and wreck it. You don't do what our economy does without using energy. >Hmm? HMM? Maybe we should have an economy that doesn't >need as many resources? Remember we also have resource [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >Gee, that sounds like it might work, actually. An economy and >way of life that isn't as wasteful. What a novel idea :) Yet nobody knows whether, if humans ceased to exist completely on this planet, the global temperature would not continue rising to the point that the pole ice melts anyway. Nobod knows. DPH >> 3) Small cars correlate to increased traffic deaths. No thanks. People should >> be free to take that risk or avoid it. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >There is no single magic bullet, obviously. Efficiency and >conservation are not the whole story, but they are part of it. >> But a space-based solar shield _would_ do so, with certainty. Certainty is the >> reason that such a system should be the 1st choice. >> >> Dave Head >> >> >Graham > >Then maybe our ways are too wasteful? Ever consider that? > > I consider that the only way to cure it would be to take the economy that is > responsible for 30% of the world's GDP and wreck it. You don't do what our > economy does without using energy. Are you arguing against energy efficiency here ? Graham p.s. do you use any CFL lighting ? >> >Then maybe our ways are too wasteful? Ever consider that? >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >Are you arguing against energy efficiency here ? I'm arguing against mandating it to the point that it negatively affects the economy. If it can be done without having wall street in free fall and having people lose their jobs in a free-fall manner, then fine, we can do it. Start madating expensive stuff that takes a person's disposable income away from buying the stuff he would have bought, to something designed to fight global warming, and those industries depending on this consumer purchasing the product that he would otherwise have purchased will be hurt. That includes the US auto industry which is extremely competitive in large cars being wrecked by forcing people to buy small or "energy efficient" cars where foreign competition has the advantage. We could lose our auto industry that way, and that's a whale of a lot of jobs. The approach _should_ be to make the big car get better gas mileage _without_ making it either super-expensive or so poor in performance that people will keep their old one because it is better for them. For instance, Ford should get the hydraulic hybrid to work - if implemented, it could be getting a Ford big SUV to deliver 33 mph around town on a diesel system that has as much performance as V8's do now, with a price differential of about $600. That would be a _good_ thing that people would want to buy. They'd flock to it, if Ford could just get it to work sometime soon. I understand that noisy hydraulic pumps are a problem. Not sure what the other problems are. Dave Head >Graham > >p.s. do you use any CFL lighting ? > >> >> >>What do I need to do to know that the GW greenies want: > >> >> >> [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > responsible for 30% of the world's GDP and wreck it. You don't do what our > economy does without using energy. That's right. Consumerism requires ever-plentiful ever-cheap sources of energy. Thus we need a different system of economy. > >Hmm? HMM? Maybe we should have an economy that doesn't > >need as many resources? Remember we also have resource [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > the global temperature would not continue rising to the point that the pole ice > melts anyway. Nobod knows. With our burning of fuels we might do way more to the planet than just that. Who knows, it is possible that the Permian extinction was caused by great deals of greenhouse gases, albeit from a mega- volcano instead of human capitalism, but hey! We are adding MILLIONS and MILLIONS of years of stored CO2 back into the atmosphere. You sure that ain't going to do something? And where'd you think all the carbon from the Perm.-Triass. super extinction went, anyway? Fossil fuels, anyone? Hmm... hmm... hmmmmmm... Just a thought, I don't know if it's right, but the scientific CONSENSUS is that we are really hurting ourselves doing what we are doing... > DPH > > >> 3) Small cars correlate to increased traffic deaths. No thanks. People should > >> be free to take that risk or avoid it. > > > >Big cars can become topheavy and roll over. No response? > >> >You left out energy efficiency btw. Is that bad too ? > >> > >> Naw, it is just not enough to counter GW... probably... nobody really knows. > > > >There is no single magic bullet, obviously. Efficiency and > >conservation are not the whole story, but they are part of it. Again, no response? > >> But a space-based solar shield _would_ do so, with certainty. Certainty is the > >> reason that such a system should be the 1st choice. > >> > >> Dave Head > >> > >> >Graham >> >> >> >>What do I need to do to know that the GW greenies want: >> >> >> >> [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] >That's right. Consumerism requires ever-plentiful ever-cheap sources >of energy. Thus we need a different system of economy. No, we instead need to get on with the task of providing the plentiful and cheap sources of energy. Drill every damn square inch of land or seabed where we know that there's a drop of oil. Build nuclear power. Research and build better and more numerous wind, solar, nuclear, geothermal, and tidal sources of power. Cultivate biomass fuels. Just get on with it. >> >Hmm? HMM? Maybe we should have an economy that doesn't >> >need as many resources? Remember we also have resource [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] >scientific CONSENSUS is that we are really hurting ourselves >doing what we are doing... Just keep the energy coming. Shift toward non-CO2 production AS THE TECHNOLOGY PERMITS, but keep the energy available. Those that are overly-concerned should get the hell busy and INVENT SOMETHING that we can use, instead of trying to stop the only things we have to use, which are the fossil fuels, for the most part. >> DPH >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >No response? No, because it's silly. You just have to know how to drive 'em. And big _cars_ don't become top heavy, big SUVs become top heavy. >> >> >You left out energy efficiency btw. Is that bad too ? >> >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >Again, no response? Hell, I just got the message for the 1st time about 5 minutes ago... Agree that efficiency and conservation are important, but disagree that they should be mandated. They should be incentivized only. Dave Head >> >> But a space-based solar shield _would_ do so, with certainty. Certainty is the >> >> reason that such a system should be the 1st choice. >> >> >> >> Dave Head >> >> >> >> >Graham >That's right. Consumerism requires ever-plentiful ever-cheap sources >of energy. Thus we need a different system of economy. I know. Let's move to a system where top men in government decide exactly what sort and quantity of energy each person needs, and when and how they will obtain and use it. SignatureThere's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can result in a fully-depreciated one. >> >What's wrong with wind and solar power, renewable energy and small cars. You want to >> >ban them ? [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >Then maybe our ways are too wasteful? Ever consider that? Directly goes against 1) above. >Hmm? HMM? Maybe we should have an economy that doesn't >need as many resources? OK, who are you going to kill off? >Remember we also have resource >depletion to take issue with and no space projects will stop >that. Asteroid mining would, though you're going to need a LOT of energy to do it. But if you have the energy, you likely don't really need the asteroid mining. >Gee, that sounds like it might work, actually. An economy and >way of life that isn't as wasteful. What a novel idea :) You can't even define "wasteful" in any widely accepted manner. To define "wasteful" you first have to decide on a goal. A simple example: If the goal is merely to go from point A to point B, a jet is "wasteful" of many resources. But if it's to get there within 8 hours and the points are thousands of miles apart, a jet is not "wasteful". >> 3) Small cars correlate to increased traffic deaths. No thanks. People should >> be free to take that risk or avoid it. > >Big cars can become topheavy and roll over. No, big SUVs are top-heavy. Many other big cars (killed in the US by CAFE) were not. SignatureThere's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can result in a fully-depreciated one. > >> >What's wrong with wind and solar power, renewable energy and small cars. You >> >> > >want to ban them ? [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Directly goes against 1) above. In what way ? > >Hmm? HMM? Maybe we should have an economy that doesn't > >need as many resources? > > OK, who are you going to kill off? That's a remarkably stupid comment. > >Remember we also have resource > >depletion to take issue with and no space projects will stop [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > do it. But if you have the energy, you likely don't really need the asteroid > mining. Asteroid mining would be energy negative i.e. make a loss. Don't be stupid. There's no way to get any quantity sizeable of material back to earth anyway. > >Gee, that sounds like it might work, actually. An economy and > >way of life that isn't as wasteful. What a novel idea :) > > You can't even define "wasteful" in any widely accepted manner. Yes you can. It's using more than is necessary. It's the exact opposite of efficient. > To > define "wasteful" you first have to decide on a goal. A simple > example: If the goal is merely to go from point A to point B, a jet is > "wasteful" of many resources. But if it's to get there within 8 hours > and the points are thousands of miles apart, a jet is not "wasteful". Jet aircraft aren't actually all that wasteful anyway. If you had to drive there in a car on your own it would use about as much fuel per person AIUI. Here is an example of what I think is wasteful. Using incandescent lighting. It's nothing more or less than throwing money and energy away. > >> 3) Small cars correlate to increased traffic deaths. No thanks. People should > >> be free to take that risk or avoid it. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > No, big SUVs are top-heavy. Many other big cars (killed in the US by > CAFE) were not. SUVs handle like pigs. They roll over way more easily than a typical sedan type car. Nor are they especially safe since they don't have to meet the same standards of crash-worthiness as cars do ( because they're still officially classified as trucks ). Graham >> >> 1) We believe in a free market, and that means the people's right to choose to >> >> drive an SUV if they want to. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >In what way ? The obvious one -- that the same authority who determines that our ways are "too wasteful" will require us to change those ways. >> >Hmm? HMM? Maybe we should have an economy that doesn't >> >need as many resources? >> >> OK, who are you going to kill off? > >That's a remarkably stupid comment. If you want the economy to need fewer resources, you can either require people to use less (see #1 above), or reduce the number of people. >> >Remember we also have resource >> >depletion to take issue with and no space projects will stop [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >Asteroid mining would be energy negative i.e. make a loss. Don't be stupid. Energy isn't the only resource. >There's no way to get any quantity sizeable of material back to earth anyway. Now that's stupid. It's infeasible, but far from impossible. >> >Gee, that sounds like it might work, actually. An economy and >> >way of life that isn't as wasteful. What a novel idea :) [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >Yes you can. It's using more than is necessary. It's the exact >opposite of efficient. Then you have to define "necessary". >> To >> define "wasteful" you first have to decide on a goal. A simple [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >Jet aircraft aren't actually all that wasteful anyway. If you had to drive there in a car on >your own it would use about as much fuel per person AIUI. >Here is an example of what I think is wasteful. Using incandescent lighting. It's nothing >more or less than throwing money and energy away. Look up "color rendering index". SignatureThere's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can result in a fully-depreciated one. > >> >> 1) We believe in a free market, and that means the people's right to choose to > >> >> drive an SUV if they want to. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > The obvious one -- that the same authority who determines that our > ways are "too wasteful" will require us to change those ways. What's wrong with that ? Do you take Pride in being wasteful ? Graham >> >> >> 1) We believe in a free market, and that means the people's right to choose to >> >> >> drive an SUV if they want to. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > >What's wrong with that ? Directly goes against 1) above. SignatureThere's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can result in a fully-depreciated one. > >> >> >> 1) We believe in a free market, and that means the people's right to >> >> >> > choose to drive an SUV if they want to. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Directly goes against 1) above. That's no answer. You're saying the being wasteful is good 'if you want to' be wasteful ? Graham >> >> >> >> 1) We believe in a free market, and that means the people's right to >> >> >> >> choose to drive an SUV if they want to. [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > >You're saying the being wasteful is good 'if you want to' be wasteful ? I'm saying that allowing some authority to decide what is "wasteful", what is "not wasteful" and requring people to do only that which is "not wasteful" is throwing away the free market. SignatureThere's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can result in a fully-depreciated one. > >> >> >> >> 1) We believe in a free market, and that means the people's right to > >> >> >> >> choose to drive an SUV if they want to. [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > what is "not wasteful" and requring people to do only that which is > "not wasteful" is throwing away the free market. So you are saying that waste is good as long as it's in the name of the free market. Graham >> >> >> >> >> 1) We believe in a free market, and that means the people's right to >> >> >> >> >> choose to drive an SUV if they want to. [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > >So you are saying that waste is good as long as it's in the name of the free market. Nice strawman. I'm saying that eliminating the free market in the name of eliminating waste is bad. SignatureThere's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can result in a fully-depreciated one. > >Here is an example of what I think is wasteful. Using incandescent lighting. It's nothing > >more or less than throwing money and energy away. > > Look up "color rendering index". I suggest you buy a modern CFL from a well recognised manufacturer. I suggest Philips actually. They are the best IMHO. Don't forget you can also get different colour temperatures. Since when |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message