The Climate Change Climate Change

[jerryzflies 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

CO2 is not a polutant. It is a politica pawn of those who believe they have people like you out there.

maybe so but CO is,

http://www.epa.gov/iaq/co.html

Maybe you should go back to school!

No, you mean I need to go back to your school.

CO2 is a part of the nature of this planet. Labeling it as a polutant is political

So is arsenic. So is mercury. Your statement, as always, defies all logic.

If you can't fix it with a hammer, the problem's electrical.

[wolfriverjoe 1,340]

Quote

>less friction in a turbine than in a piston so I would put my money on a the otter!

In GA, recip engines are pretty universally more efficient than jet engines. You pay a penalty for giving up the closed-volume expansion engine.

Otters use approx 1 gallon per load per person with a full otter (23/24 people.) Anyone have numbers for a cessna?

8-10 gal with 4 jumpers on board.

"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

[billvon 2,394]

>Single users in SUVs (breaking the law) . . .

At least in CA, that's only around 1.5% of users.

>and Mom's in minivans with a single child in back (who would not be
>driving separately anyway).

While I agree, the purpose of HOV lanes is not to force people to carpool, or to reward certain drivers. It is to increase the capacity of a road (people/hr) as cheaply as possible. Here in California, HOV lanes carry almost twice as many people per hour as the 'regular' (mixed-traffic) lanes during high congestion times.

[TomAiello 25]

Quote

...11 cessna loads would be more efficient than one otter load...

How many people are you putting on a Cessna?

-- Tom Aiello

[email protected]
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Even if said asshole bought the load for his sellfish self the entire day. Would said guys on the ground never return? Of course they would. How many nearby dropzones are there to choose from?

In the bay area, the DZOs are likely to be least friendly to the request on a weekend. Most of them run a single Pac/KA type plane and they keep it running pretty full. If someone wants to fill the plane, sure. But to have a single person jump out...what's the gain? Monterey used to show a clear preference for tandems and that lead a lot of people to go to Hollister instead. From where I live, there are 6 choices in the 90-120 min distance. That's far enough away that I have a real problem with sitting around waiting for slots.

OTOH, weekdays are a very different matter. I'm sure Skydance is thrilled to have Mythbusters coming out roughly annually. The publicity is great, and it's probably a better time for a film crew to come out anyway.

[jerryzflies 0]

Quote

Three reason (IMO)
1) Too many variables to test
2) CO2 is a large part of nature. There are natural reactions to its increase and decrease
3) It is political. Look at rhys posts. The alarmists have uses shows like Captian Planet to put this hogwash in the brains of kids, who grow up.

(rhys, not aimed at you personally. I needed an example only)

I've asked you this before but you have declined to answer:

Humans put approximately 30 Billion tons of CO2 into the atmosphere each year. The measured CO2 content of the atmosphere increases annually by roughly the same amount. Explain your belief that human activity has nothing to do with the increaasing CO2.

If you can't fix it with a hammer, the problem's electrical.

[rushmc 18]

Quote

Quote

What makes the SUV the sole-target of this discussion

Its not, just the post whores keep prooding for a reaction and chose that example to focus on.

I share a car with 4 people, before this car/living in the USA i have not owned a car for for over 3 years, i have lived close enough to walk and i had an electric skateboard for the last year before coming here.

I walk to work and only use the car to drive to the store every 3 days or so.

i refuse plasic bags at the store, much to the amazement of the check out staff, i recycle, i often eat organic food, cage free eggs....

I give a shit about our world, i'm not perfect, but i give a shit.

Well goody for you

What about me? I live twenty miles from the nearest town. Really would not matter what I drive if your agenda raises the fuel tax now does it.

Do you just assume that everyone live where and like you do?

Shit man, you support the selfish position, not me.....

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 18]

Quote

Quote

Did we ever resolve if the Otter or the Cessna is more fuel efficient on a per-jumper basis?

If it took more fuel per jumper to get the Otter to altitude, would you insist on taking the Cessna, even though it's less convenient? Or would your convenience trump your concern for the planet?

i'm not an aircraft engineer or pilot but I do think you would be dreaming if you think 11 cessna loads would be more efficient than one otter load, not only is jet a1 less harmful/refined, turbines use less fuel when compared.

less friction in a turbine than in a piston so I would put my money on a the otter!

Here we jump a Caravan. Aprox 36 gallons of fuel per two loads with a 14 jumper average per load. How do I know? I load and fuel the plane when I am there. We can turn just under 3 loads an hour when we have the staff.

Anybody got the info on an Otter?

(by the way, our Caravan has the 600 horse turbine)

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Furthermore, does overall energy consumption not count for something or is it "You use less than most, but you drive an SUV so..."

And what are the short-term/long-term benefits for the present SUV-owner for switching? For me, when Big Lola dies, I will look for another vehicle. Is it your opinion I should get rid of her now and opt for something different? If so, why?

I think our starting goal is to eliminate silly waste. The SUV craze peaked around 50% of the market. Few of those people have a family of 7, a construction business, or any offroad intention. I wish I knew of an intelligent way to selectively target here.

For most people, the improvement comes at the point they buy a new vehicle. Some keep their car for a decade or longer, others change every 3 years on a lease. I'd imagine the average is somewhere in the 5-7 year range. So I think the key is about availability. I have a '98 Outback that gets 27mpg freeway, probably 24-25 in mixed use. Subaru has a diesel version coming soon, though it will be released in the rest of the world at least a year or two before it comes here. It looks to offer at least a 60% improvement, and in actual use may be close to 80 or 90% better. Odds are it won't come in time (late 2010 or early 2011 at best) for me. This is a supply problem. Because Americans have generally refused to take the better options, the car makers don't bother. Which makes it a self fulfilling prophesy, no? We just the choice of a crappy SmartCar, or a full size vehicle. Nothing in between. The MiniCooper is one of the rare compacts you'd actually want to own. (unfortunately, it's about 2 inches too narrow for my shoulders) Elsewhere in the world, lots of options in between.

But if the Feds mandate higher CAFE levels, then they have incentive to offer us the options that Europeans enjoy.

I think the near term goal (ie, by 2010) is to reduce our gas consumption by at least 1/3rd, if not 50%. This is in the nation's strategic interest. But that won't be accomplished voluntarily by the people. Individually, we're nearly all self centered, letting someone else buy the fugly prius. Nor do I think everyone should be driving one. But there are clear examples of excess - the Escalade, nearly every recent Dodge model, the Land Rover. Two of these are status symbols only, and fairly pathetic ones. The Dodge model targetted our base desires for something that looked tough, at a horrendous cost in efficiency with nothing tangible to show for it. Anyone driving a monster with a cow catcher and not a single scratch on it...those people are killing us - literally and economically.

[rushmc 18]

Quote

Quote

Three reason (IMO)
1) Too many variables to test
2) CO2 is a large part of nature. There are natural reactions to its increase and decrease
3) It is political. Look at rhys posts. The alarmists have uses shows like Captian Planet to put this hogwash in the brains of kids, who grow up.

(rhys, not aimed at you personally. I needed an example only)

I've asked you this before but you have declined to answer:

Humans put approximately 30 Billion tons of CO2 into the atmosphere each year. The measured CO2 content of the atmosphere increases annually by roughly the same amount. Explain your belief that human activity has nothing to do with the increaasing CO2.

Never took that position. The question is, does it affect global temps. The answer? Yet to be determised but I think no. There are records of more CO2 in the atmosphere than where we are today. Years before mans industrial age.
Those same records seem to indicate temps lead CO2 level changes, Not follow.

You next.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[lawrocket 3]

***

Yep. "More important in what context." "More Important" depends on values, doesn't it? "More important" has no universal truth. Objective versus subjective. I think calling people idiots because of subjective preference is arrogant and self-aggrandizing. Note - I put "I think" in that because it is my subjective belief.

Quote

Can you explain how something like that is still up to your interpretation, and therefore subjective? We can be highly objective (explicitly clear/concrete) when discussing such issues.

We cannot be objective when determining which is "important." We can merely have those who agree and disagree. We can get concrete on their numbers and reasons. But there is nothing objective (uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices) about choices or preferences.

Quote

You are not an idiot for your choice unless your choice turns out to express the foolishness that idiocity is characterised by.

Are you are the arbiter of foolishness.

Quote

Alot of people would here would say that the person who drives an SUV for the reasons you mentioned is an idiot because their delusion of safety is false given the other dangers that exist when so many people do drive SUVs.

A lot of people would disagree because you are talking subjectivity.

For underlying facts, data, etc., and bases for my decision the 2003 XC90 had the Roll Stability Control system, an Electronic Stability Control system that no other SUV had at the time. It works to turn oversteer into understeer, thus acting to mitigate a leading cause of rollover.

I got the XC90? (1) It gets comparatively good mileage (I am at a lifetime average of 21.7 mpg - not great but not bad);
(2) It outperforms other SUVs in crash tets. http://www.safercar.gov/portal/site/safercar/menuitem.db847bd57e3dc1f885dfc38c35a67789/?vgnextoid=c95df2905bf54110VgnVCM1000002fd17898RCRD
(3) It had an ESC (the only vehicle out there that had it when I bought);
(4) if it DOES roll, it's got a high-strength roof to keep the compartment intact;
(5) It meets the ULEV II standards (Ultra Low Emissions Vehicle).
http://www.epa.gov/greenvehicles/Index.do
(6) It can carry my family plus luggage;
(7) It has all wheel drive, which enables me to get to and from the mountains in the snow and dirt (yes, I actually use this vehicle in an off-road setting)

No, it is not a Suburban.

Quote

Unless, of course, you accept the premise that SUV's are responsible for as many deaths as smaller cars are on highways. (Who was it here that mentioned this regarding children and rollovers?)

From Road and Track:http://www.roadandtrack.com/article.asp?section_id=3&article_id=397&print_page=y
"Things got a little more interesting in the slalom. It sliced its way through with a very respectable time of 60.5 mph (that's good even for a car), but DSTC cut in on occasion (sensing that the driver was getting very close to the limit), causing us to lose engine power temporarily. We think without it we could have turned in a quicker time, but it also underscored that RSC and DSTC are always right there, to help the driver avoid trouble."

The car will do whatever it can to prevent a roll. The Insurance Insitute for Highway Safety confirms that the ESC I've got actually seems to work, too.

http://www.iihs.org/news/rss/pr112106.html

Quote

SUVs qualify for 2007: SUVs weren't eligible to win in 2006 because the Institute hadn't evaluated the side crashworthiness of many of them. Now more SUVs have been rated, and 2007 winners reflect the safety improvements manufacturers have been making to these vehicles.

"In the past SUVs, especially the smaller ones, weren't good safety choices compared with cars," Lund explains. "Many SUVs didn't earn good ratings in our crash tests, and on the road they were more likely than cars to get in serious single-vehicle crashes, including rollovers, because of their higher centers of gravity. Newer SUVs perform better in crash tests and, when equipped with ESC, are much less likely to roll over. All but one of the seven SUVs that win our 2007 Top Safety Pick have ESC as standard equipment."

Recent Institute research found that ESC reduces the risk of serious crashes involving both SUVs and cars. The largest effect is in single-vehicle crashes, which were reduced 40 percent with the addition of ESC. Fatal single-vehicle crashes went down 56 percent, and fatal rollovers of cars and SUVs were reduced by about 80 percent.

On the list? Volvo XC90.

Hmm. So my risk of a fatal rollover, if I am to understand correctly, is 80% lower because of my deliberate choice to get the only SUV out there with an ESC system. So, while your assertion might have been universally valid 6 or 7 years ago, it appears to have lost traction (no pun intended) in general and specifically with my car.

Quote

In that case, you would have a contradiction.
Of course, you aren't accepting that premise, so there is no contradiction in your own terms. Convenient.

You are right. I don't accept your premise. I would considering accepting that it applied to my car, in the face of evidence to the contrary, to be contrary to objective data. Conveniently, I've shown you data (which did not exist when I bought my car) to show that my judgment was actually pretty solid, in my opinion.

Quote

Isn't that "adding" something?

Yes. I just hate when people say, "You have to..." or "You need to..." Unless it's my boss, um, no I don't "have to" or "need to" do anything I don't want to do. I will add something because I want to. Not "have" to.

Quote

given that we can compare the dangers of driving large SUV's to smaller vehicles, we can uncover which vehicle is more likely to kill its occupants and under which circumstances those deaths would occur.

I concur. I did that assessment. So did the IIHS. I'd suspect that there will be those who will not admit that many SUV's of today are not those of the 1990s. Objective data suggests they are not.

Quote

Those facts, once obtained, would be concrete i.e. objective. How have you said my statements are marked by subjectivity again?
"Desirability" is fairly subjective, but facts aren't.

Statements are marked by subjectivity if feelings or emotions drive the fact. Fact: it was 84 degrees in London, UK today. Opinion: "It was hot in London today." Objective v. Subjective.

Quote

Something is morally wrong, but you keep doing it. That puts a whole new spin on ethics. Maybe they will call the class Ethics: Doing what you think is wrong and making it not matter.

That was a typo. I apologize. I meant to say that an SUV is not morally incorrect. Yes, I DO make mistakes.

Quote

So forming a belief means that you cannot objectively criticize that person's belief. Interesting.

I am not going to tell him he doesn't believe it. I can criticize the underlying assumptions. Just like I am criticizing many of yoru statements as subjective.

Quote

"I believe all chickens are really dinosaurs."

That's objective. It can be disproven. Objectively. A truth the world 'round.

Quote

Evidence (which, of course, says that chickens aren't dinosaurs) allows us to disagree with that persons belief. They can believe all they want, it just turns out that their belief is false. Objectivity is concrete and fact-based.

Yeppers. Now you get what I'm saying..

Quote

We can definitely use that here.

Yes and no. We can put data out there and we can make conclusions based on it. "SUV's are safer now than in the 1990's." That's my opinion. You may disagree. I've got data to show they don't roll over as often if properly equipped. But safety may mean more than that.

Quote

Does that mean we can't objectively criticize someone based on the criterion set forth in the definition of idiocity? Negatron.

We can criticize their understanding of data. We can criticize their sources. But criticism of their preference is different. You have not provided any evidence of the hazards of my vehicle. Not "SUV's" - I mean MY vehicle.

Quote

Well, I suppose you can "prefer" whichever you want.

Exactly. I shall continue to prefer what I prefer.

Quote

we can still match facts with the definition of idiocity.
IF driving an SUV makes you:
1. an utterly foolish or senseless person.
2. Psychology. a person of the lowest order in a former classification of mental retardation, having a mental age of less than three years old and an intelligence quotient under 25.

THEN you are an idiot. Pretty objective, huh?

Actually, no. "Foolish" is not objective. "Senseless" is objective if a person is paralyzed, deaf, blind, lacks olfaction and cannot taste.

And you know it. You begged the question by putting "IF" in CAPS. Yours parallels the anti-abortionists: "A fetus has a right to life. Ergo, abortion is immoral."

You are mixing objective with subjective. "Fact - this person is foolish." Actually, that's an opinion. So, no, your example doesn't work.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

And, as I previously pointed out, the cost of said sustainabilty is NOT included in the price of Lawrocket's gas for his guzzler.

Bullshit. When the oil climbs to $3k per barrel, I suspect that it will be a reflection of the lack of sustainability of the supply. That whole thing about oil being what it's worth.

Hence, oil is half the price it was last year. How about that? It cost too much and people stopped using it. Shit, dawg.

Quote

Hence he is running his SUV subsidized by our children and grandchildren who WILL have to pay the cost of his profligate consumption.

Yes. I am actually setting my kids up to have a mission of cleaning up the planet.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In Reply To
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


What makes the SUV the sole-target of this discussion

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Its not, just the post whores keep prooding for a reaction and chose that example to focus on.

You are the one who focused on it. You are something else!

Quote

i had an electric skateboard for the last year before coming here.

So, useless burning of coal for electricity instead of using your legs? The nerve!

Quote

i refuse plasic bags at the store

Big mistake. Plastic bags use far less energy to produce than paper, and they do not degrade into greenhouse gases like paper and cloth. Show some responsibility.

Quote

i often eat organic food, cage free eggs

Higly energy intensive things. They've gotta burn a lot of fuel just to transport that stuff.

Quote

i'm not perfect

Nobody is.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[makeithappen40 0]

>Are you are the arbiter of foolishness

What?
You do and do not make sense.

>You are right. I don't accept your premise. I would considering accepting that it applied to my car, in the face of evidence to the contrary, to be contrary to objective data. Conveniently, I've shown you data (which did not exist when I bought my car) to show that my judgment was actually pretty solid, in my opinion.

Fantastic. This is relevant information. Are you reading this rhys?

>Yes. I just hate when people say, "You have to..." or "You need to..." Unless it's my boss, um, no I don't "have to" or "need to" do anything I don't want to do. I will add something because I want to. Not "have" to

Ahhh I see now. Did I say anything so commanding? I didnt say you HAD to do anything, as in you were required to do so by my or some other external authority. I said that ethical egoism results in great damage, which is something that society ends up being interested in fixing. This doesn't mean that you have to do it, or that you wouldnt want to fix the ill aspects of self-interest, it just states that those aspects are there-fix them/don't fix them/do whatever.

"I mean, I understand that you endorse the notion that all men be self-determining individualistic agents, but at the same time you have to add further instructions or restrictions to that in order to eliminate the undesirable side effects of such a philosophy."

This statement doesn't imply that anyone is exercising their power over you. It entails that there are ill effects that, given your desire to fix them, would be something you want to fix. (Because self-interested results in many things that are damaging to society or even to your self in the long-run)

> I concur. I did that assessment. So did the IIHS. I'd suspect that there will be those who will not admit that many SUV's of today are not those of the 1990s. Objective data suggests they are not

Well done. Perhaps there will arise another reputable study that will indicate otherwise. Are there other factors involved that make SUV's dangerous that werent tested? We will have to look further.
"But safety may mean more than that."

>You have not provided any evidence of the hazards of my vehicle. Not "SUV's" - I mean MY vehicle.

Well, was that the issue? I thought we were discussing all SUV's as a whole earlier.

>And you know it. You begged the question by putting "IF" in CAPS. Yours parallels the anti-abortionists: "A fetus has a right to life. Ergo, abortion is immoral."

Please explain how my hypothetical statement is circular.

Why A? Because A. <--I don't see this in my statement.

[billvon 2,394]

>There are records of more CO2 in the atmosphere than where we are
>today.

Yep - and temperatures were much, much higher.

I think you might want to choose a different example to "prove" that CO2 doesn't affect our temperatures. I hear claiming to be Mars expert is a good angle.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

>There are records of more CO2 in the atmosphere than where we are
>today.

Yep - and temperatures were much, much higher.

And they STILL were LEADING the CO2 curve, not lagging it.

Quote

I think you might want to choose a different example to "prove" that CO2 doesn't affect our temperatures. I hear claiming to be Mars expert is a good angle.

Probably a better course than blindly believing a theory that can't seem to account for the Medieval Warm Period, or explain how Mar's temperature increase seems to be a very good match for Earth's, both in amplitude and duration.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[billvon 2,394]

>And they STILL were LEADING the CO2 curve, not lagging it.

Yep. Dinosaurs didn't have SUV's, despite what some believe.

>Probably a better course than blindly believing a theory that can't seem
>to account for the Medieval Warm Period, or explain how Mar's
>temperature increase seems to be a very good match for Earth's, both in
>amplitude and duration.

Yep, well, if you ignore the rest of the solar system, that might make sense. However, some of us think there are more than two planets. I know, that's "blindly believing a theory" instead of being open minded enough to admit there might only _be_ two planets, but hey, not all of us are open minded enough to believe everything that the right wing media says.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

>Are you are the arbiter of foolishness

What?
You do and do not make sense.

To suggest that something is foolish would require a person to be the arbiter to make that determination.

Will you be making that determination or will someone else?

[Reply]>You are right. I don't accept your premise. I would considering accepting that it applied to my car, in the face of evidence to the contrary, to be contrary to objective data. Conveniently, I've shown you data (which did not exist when I bought my car) to show that my judgment was actually pretty solid, in my opinion.

Fantastic. This is relevant information. Are you reading this rhys?

[penniless 0]

Quote

Quote

And, as I previously pointed out, the cost of said sustainabilty is NOT included in the price of Lawrocket's gas for his guzzler.

Bullshit. When the oil climbs to $3k per barrel, I suspect that it will be a reflection of the lack of sustainability of the supply. That whole thing about oil being what it's worth.

t.

Attitudes exactly like yours are what resulted in having to set up the Superfund to clean up toxic waste dumps like Love Canal. All the time you pollute without paying the costs, you are passing the real cost on to someone esle.

[lawrocket 3]

Then again, bill, some of us think, "there is conflicting evidence that precludes a conclusion from being reached with certainty."

What is going on with Mars? How similar is it to earth? What are the differences? Are we on our way to being Venus by 2100?

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

>And they STILL were LEADING the CO2 curve, not lagging it.

Yep. Dinosaurs didn't have SUV's, despite what some believe.

Only because there wasn't a prior era of dinos to turn into fossil fuel. So poor T Rex had no gas to run his Jungle. And Fred had to power the car with his own legs.

[shaark 0]

What about "don't shit on your own doorstep?"
Time and again we suffer when we do.

Since the start of the industrial revolution we have become very efficient at producing a whole lot of extremely varied shit. We are not so good at getting rid of this shit, mostly happy if it is out of sight, thus out of mind. Every now and then that bites us in the ass, but hell, we still have a great standard of living.

This CO2 thing, I suppose we were pumping out a lot last century, but the world is so big, we knew it could handle it.

I'm getting a little concerned, though. So many of the poor third world people are not poor anymore. And they have started to consume like us in the West!
Damn ingrates.
Don't they know they are using way to much of our limited oil resources?; and burning a shit lot of coal; and what about all the forests they are cutting down?
That's a lot more CO2.

It's just not right!!!

Next thing they will want to drive SUVs. All 5.5 billion of them.
Aw shucks, we'll be right. What's a few more 100s of ppm of CO2 between friends.
I know that in the past the earth had 1,000ppm, --- 1,500ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere, sometimes even more. Climate was a little different, or was that a lot different? Actually, I think I read that most of the present life on earth is not suited to that environment. No problem, we have a/c..


But how about we use this CO2 scare to our benefit?

The West, and the US especially, has a huge depth of knowledge, education, technology, resources, etc. There would be enormous benefits in being leaders in efficient and clean technology, in all aspects of our society --- industry, agriculture, transport, housing, consumer goods, energy. More jobs, more wealth, cleaner air, land and water, better health, and a better standard of living.

And how about less oil imports, thus less money to a lot of petro-dictators that don't like us?

That bumper sticker that is kind of true now --- "Support al-Queda, drive an SUV"?
I know if we get motivated we can produce SUVs that get 100 mpg!!!

We just need to get motivated.

The CO2 scare, allied with ever increasing oil prices, is maybe just what we need.

__________________________________________
tanstaafl

[rushmc 18]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

CO2 is not a polutant. It is a politica pawn of those who believe they have people like you out there.

maybe so but CO is,

http://www.epa.gov/iaq/co.html

Maybe you should go back to school!

No, you mean I need to go back to your school.

CO2 is a part of the nature of this planet. Labeling it as a polutant is political

So is arsenic. So is mercury. Your statement, as always, defies all logic.

I did not know you breathed out arsenic. got to be very bad breath

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 18]

Quote

>There are records of more CO2 in the atmosphere than where we are
>today.

Yep - and temperatures were much, much higher.

I think you might want to choose a different example to "prove" that CO2 doesn't affect our temperatures. I hear claiming to be Mars expert is a good angle.

Hmm, but the key you leave out in the post is that the temps were ahead of the CO2 concentrations which makes sense. You know, temps affect CO2 levels!!!! But thats ok, I reminded you here

I know all you alarmists dont like this tid bit cause it hurts the core argument......

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 18]

Quote

What about "don't shit on your own doorstep?"
Time and again we suffer when we do.

Since the start of the industrial revolution we have become very efficient at producing a whole lot of extremely varied shit. We are not so good at getting rid of this shit, mostly happy if it is out of sight, thus out of mind. Every now and then that bites us in the ass, but hell, we still have a great standard of living.

This CO2 thing, I suppose we were pumping out a lot last century, but the world is so big, we knew it could handle it.

I'm getting a little concerned, though. So many of the poor third world people are not poor anymore. And they have started to consume like us in the West!
Damn ingrates.
Don't they know they are using way to much of our limited oil resources?; and burning a shit lot of coal; and what about all the forests they are cutting down?
That's a lot more CO2.

It's just not right!!!

Next thing they will want to drive SUVs. All 5.5 billion of them.
Aw shucks, we'll be right. What's a few more 100s of ppm of CO2 between friends.
I know that in the past the earth had 1,000ppm, --- 1,500ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere, sometimes even more. Climate was a little different, or was that a lot different? Actually, I think I read that most of the present life on earth is not suited to that environment. No problem, we have a/c..


But how about we use this CO2 scare to our benefit?

The West, and the US especially, has a huge depth of knowledge, education, technology, resources, etc. There would be enormous benefits in being leaders in efficient and clean technology, in all aspects of our society --- industry, agriculture, transport, housing, consumer goods, energy. More jobs, more wealth, cleaner air, land and water, better health, and a better standard of living.

And how about less oil imports, thus less money to a lot of petro-dictators that don't like us?

That bumper sticker that is kind of true now --- "Support al-Queda, drive an SUV"?
I know if we get motivated we can produce SUVs that get 100 mpg!!!

We just need to get motivated.

The CO2 scare, allied with ever increasing oil prices, is maybe just what we need.

__________________________________________
tanstaafl

Oh you poor confused person. You dont understand, I want all my kids and grandkids to choke on a fully poluted planet

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln