Jim

Your memory is about as accurate as you faux outrage. The point that was being discussed was the validity of criticism of complex science issues by folks who can find the hole in the ground. If your question is what am I doing to try and make things better, well that's my job, I commute by bike to work, have a gas stingy car, and lobby my government to try and push for energy conservation and investment in new technology instead of drill and fill. So how about you? And it's Italy not Spain.

Without getting drawn down the side comment rathole here's a couple of main points. The folks that dismiss the science probably haven't read it, don't understand how peer review science works, and really don't care. It's like Micael Criton - a novelist - being interviewed as an expert on the news regarding the global warming issue. And that somehow, folks who suffle paper in their cubicle are somehow on parr to critcize authors published in journals or in reports from the National Academy. What a joke. The second is that there is no us - them in this discussion. It's a consideration about future generations and what we leave them. We sit on about 3% of the world's energy resources and consume about 40% of the energy produced in the world. So we're going to become energy independent? It will never happen without a massive change and without any foresight it's unlikely to happen soon. We can do much better than what we're doing now. Have at it. Tell me about your take on the latest climate models. This should be rich.

Excellent! Well-stated! This is the type of simpliton rehtoric that is used to dismiss science, along with the dismissive snide comment. Basically this dismissal can be boiled down to "it was hotter (or colder) in the past so no big deal." If you actually read any of the research, even the National Academy of Sciences panel put together by the Bush Administration, you'll have a fuller grasp of the basics. Lobbing in the yert reference is great too - it infers that the only logical choices are full steam ahead and do nothing or some throwback to the commune era. It's a false analogy and a favorite of the conservative camp. It's as if somehow, through the power of benign neglect, everything will work out just fine. There are choices that can be made now, to both improve our energy situation, reduce our contribution to greenhouse gasses, invest in new technology, and prepare our economy for the next century. The oil crew of Bush and Cheney, however, have only seen the light at the end of their tunnel, and that leads straight into the pockets of the oil and gas industry.

And from Adel al-Jubeir, Advisor to the Saudi Crown Prince CNBC interview with Maria Bartaromo: "We believe the price of oil should be between $22 and $28 per barrel. $25 is a good reasonable price. There is no extra demand accompanying today's very high price for oil. We are seeing no extra customers lined up and there is no shortage of supply. The high prices we are seeing are due to speculation in the oil markets."""

The science on global warming has become unequicoal in the past five years. Cue arm-wavers: "it's all politically bias. We need more evidence" I'm sure of the correct term, but ignorant and naive come to mind in describing the public and their susceptibility to this type of rhetoric, and their general lack of understanding on how science works. The other motivator in the US, of course, is the need to consume. Somehow that bigger truck, the McMansion in the burbs, jet ski, boat, yadda yadda, is a need, not a distracting toy. The utimate need for immediate gratification now manifests itself in our national public policy. Whether the debt, or energy policy, or lack of investment in the country's future, we're going to leave our kids quite a legacy.

I've seen it better at Vesper but I thought it was fun. The gully below the pass is more of a jumble of avalance debris then I have seen at this time of year, with a couple of scraped bare spots. I'm on tele so it's gotta be decent conditions for me to ski that slot, so I passed. The far side SW facing of the pass was post-hole heaven. So booting it would be a pain. I found some way around the avalanche debris so you could ski to about 200 yds from the switchbacks on the way down. Not as good as usual for April.

Agri-business subsidies, sole-source military contracts, guaranteed loans so other countries can buy our weapons, war on drugs? Think these will get a stiff review?

Here's a news flash. Not all on the road are driving with the same capabilities. Even if you are careful you could have an accident. Sorry you got winged, glad you're not worse off.

Oh boy.

Interesting insert into the budget this year: The proposal, spelled out in three short sentences, would give the president the power to appoint an eight-member panel called the "Sunset Commission," which would systematically review federal programs every ten years and decide whether they should be eliminated. Any programs that are not "producing results," in the eyes of the commission, would "automatically terminate unless the Congress took action to continue them." The administration portrays the commission as a well-intentioned effort to make sure that federal agencies are actually doing their job. "We just think it makes sense," says Clay Johnson, deputy director for management at the Office of Management and Budget, which crafted the provision. "The goal isn't to get rid of a program -- it's to make it work better." In practice, however, the commission would enable the Bush administration to achieve what Ronald Reagan only dreamed of: the end of government regulation as we know it. With a simple vote of five commissioners -- many of them likely to be lobbyists and executives from major corporations currently subject to federal oversight -- the president could terminate any program or agency he dislikes. No more Environmental Protection Agency. No more Food and Drug Administration. No more Securities and Exchange Commission. "Ronald Reagan once observed, 'The closest thing to immortality on this earth is a federal government program,' " says Rep. Kevin Brady, a Republican from Texas who has been working for the past nine years to establish a sunset commission. "We need it to clear out the deadwood." Without many of those programs, however, American consumers, workers and investors would be left to the mercy of business. "This is potentially devastating," says Wesley Warren, who served as a senior OMB official in the Clinton administration. "In short order, this could knock out protections that have been built up over a generation." Others note that the provision goes beyond anything attempted by conservatives in the past. "When you look at this," says Marchant Wentworth, a lobbyist for the Union of Concerned Scientists, "it's almost like the Reagan administration was a trial run." http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/sto...ion=6.0.12.1040

Bummer - partners bailed on me the last minute so I chose to ski Vesper Peak solo instead. Well, not exactly solo. I passed two groups of 15(!) from BOALPS and hooked up with a group of 5 hikes and we shared duty kicking steps up to the pass. On the SW side of the pass the snow was soft so the skis were a big advantage. Had the summit to myself for half an hour then skied down, talked to the hikers, and then at the lake chatted with the BOALPs folks setting up camp. No one else on the way out except some mountaineer types practicing some belayed snow climbing on the east side of the lower basin (?).

My standard one says: "I'm Changing the Climate! Ask Me How" Musta tagged about 200 in and around Seattle. Don't know where that guy's website went to - I've only about 30 more left.

Bump for this evening!

A friend suggested this for a ski this weekend. The only time I was up there was in a whiteout so I don't know the terrain. Is it worth an exploratory trip?

Some additional information from Steve: Steve Swenson will be giving a slide show retrospective of 37 years of alpine climbing. Steve will describe early climbs in the Cascades, then Canadian Rockies, Alaska, Karakoram in Pakistan, the second American expedition to climb K2, solo ascent of Everest without supplementary O2, and last years ascent of the unclimbed Mazeno Ridge on Nanga Parbat in Pakistan.

PP- From that last incoherent post I hope you're running out for your doctor's appointment and can ask for a dosage change.

Let me guess... a government job? It's interesting that many of those in the public sector take 6 weeks vacation and work a straight 40 (or less) hour week... all-the-while touting their educational credentials as entitlement and claiming there's no place in their department to save taxpayer dollars. Then, hop aboard a fuel guzzling 747 to climb in Europe whilst they decry those other Americans who drive SUV's and 'live too well'! uking graemlin: How much vacation time do you think those in the private sector average, Jim? You know...those poor saps who pay the taxes that go toward your salary and cushy lifestyle. Do you really believe that your place in this society entitles you to such hypocrisy? How's the size 10 taste? I'm in the private sector.

This year, or every year? And I suppose you're just worried about the rest of your fellow Americans with their 12 days of vacation. How compassionate of you. I assume that includes all the red-staters with their paltry 10 days PTO? Yep - even extends to you. Most folks would like a bit less stress and more time with their family. I cut back to 32 hrs a week when my kid was young, but now that we're have an empty nest I do the 40 hr thing and that comes with a good vacation chunk.

Actually 6 weeks this year. I'll not be thinking about you while climbing in the Dolomites for 4 weeks this summer.

Not me. I like the place but I'm trying to make it better. How about you? Plus I love my job, work outside a lot and travel. Now it's you're turn to chant USA, USA with you baseball cap on backwards.

A few more interesting stats: WORK AND LEISURE TIME Note the position of economic powerhouse Germany in the next two lists. Average paid vacation per year: Finland 35.0 days Germany 30.0 France 25.5 Denmark 25.0 Sweden 25.0 United Kingdom 25.0 Netherlands 24.0 Switzerland 22.0 Norway 21.0 United States 12.0 Average hours spent watching TV per day: Japan 9:12 United States 7:00 Canada 3:24 United Kingdom 3:10 Germany 2:13 Sweden 2:00 Finland 2:00 Denmark 1:54 Netherlands 1:42 Switzerland 1:34

Infant Mortality Rate (per 1,000 live births): United States 10.4 United Kingdom 9.4 Germany 8.5 Denmark 8.1 Canada 7.9 Norway 7.9 Netherlands 7.8 Switzerland 6.8 Finland 5.9 Sweden 5.9 Japan 5.0 Death rate of 1-to-4 year olds (per community of 200,000 per year): United States 101.5 Japan 92.2 Norway 90.2 Denmark 85.1 France 84.9 United Kingdom 82.2 Canada 82.1 Netherlands 80.3 Germany 77.6 Switzerland 72.5 Sweden 64.7 Finland 53.3 Death rate of 15-to-24 year olds (per community of 200,000 per year): United States 203 Switzerland 175 Canada 161 France 156 Finland 154 Norway 128 Germany 122 Denmark 120 United Kingdom 114 Sweden 109 Japan 96 Netherlands 90 Note: the murder rate for the above age group is 48.8 per 200,000. Even subtracting this entirely still puts the U.S. near the top of the list. Premature Death (years of life lost before the age of 64 per 100 people): United States 5.8 years Denmark 4.9 Finland 4.8 Canada 4.5 Germany 4.5 United Kingdom 4.4 Norway 4.3 Switzerland 4.1 Netherlands 4.0 Sweden 3.8 Japan 3.3 Percent of people with normal body mass: Men Women Germany 53% 37 Finland 51 37 United Kingdom 46 38 Canada 52 29 Switzerland 49 30 France 44 30 Denmark 44 25 United States 47 22 Sweden 44 25 Percent of people who believe their health care system needs fundamental change (More): United States 60% Sweden 58 United Kingdom 52 Japan 47 Netherlands 46 France 42 Canada 38

Hmm, what do you know. France does better in child mortality AND life expectancy. We're ranked with that economic powerhouse - Greece. http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0004393.html

Ahh PP no whining now. Your general point, as always, is that we in the US are much better off than our counterparts in the EU, especially stinky-stinky France. From a recent MIT econocics study The first point I make in my paper is that you have to look behind the basic figures, and then you realise that two things have happened. One is that the productivity (i.e. production per hour) in Europe was roughly thirty per cent lower than in the US in 1970. If you look at today's situation, and particularly the EU-15, you can see that the productivity gap has nearly entirely been made up. There are even some EU countries where productivity is higher than in the US, like in France. The catch-up vis-a-vis the US has been tremendous, with a productivity growth nearly double that of the US. Well, for some countries like France, increased leisure time accounts for most of the GDP gap. But in general, there has been a sharp decline in hours worked per full time worker in Europe. These figures predate policy measures such as the introduction of the 35 hour week in France. So, if you want to caricature the situation, you could say that the Europeans have been much more productive than people in the US, but rather than getting the benefits in the form of higher income, they have chosen more free time. Comparisons of average live span and infant mortality rates are meaningless? The WHO doesn't seem to think so and uses these as part of their overall health assessments. And you're cherry picking specific cancer rate averages as a better comparison? Really now. Amd tossing in the abortion rate in Cuba non sequitir was a nice touch. You forgot the Commie thing. Your point seems to be that money and employment rate is the best indicator of social health. My point is there are a number of other factors, particularly when looking at how weatlh is distributed in the US, that provide an indicator of social well being.

Opps - that should be highest infant mortality rate for US, not lowest.