MtnGoat

"Was my jab meant as a dismissal? Not entirely, yet I will admit to considerable frustrations with what I see in their/your arguments." Good enough, thanks for clarifying. Even though we disagree, I'm glad we can kick the tires a bit without calling each other names as happens so often. Civil discourse is the most basic element of caring, isn't it? "It's mainly the assumptions about the "evils" of "human nature", and how it's best to accept them and work accordingly. It's a bit cynical, if you ask me." For me, I don't see it as cynical, because it's like gravity, it just is. Admitting gravity is real isn't cynical, for example. Happening to note that humans have not perceptibly altered their personal behavior in terms of day to day wants, needs, treacheries, deceptions, goals, etc in thousands of years *regardless* of wether they hold car keys or the reigns of a horse is merely another such observation to me. Read ancient history and you see the same motivations, good people, bad people, love, lust, altruism, theft, patience, violence, love of children, irrpressible animal rage, non materialism, greed, etc. Thinking *anyone* can reshape human behavior at these elemental levels just seems extremely arrogant to me. No matter what technology, the same forces reassert themselves again and again. Why not take this into account and plan for it, and design systems for how people *are*, that both protect individuals but sponsor cooperative growth? People do *not* need to be forced to cooperate, it's benefits are self evident *when* it's consensual, IMO. Do I not appear to share the same mindset with you, with respect to dealing with other humans on a respectful, equitable level? We share goals, but not tactics is all. I submit the widespread use of coercive power to shape society creates it's own backlash in two ways: 1) as those who lust for power *inevitably* go where it is located, govt, . That's their drug, and we make it stronger every time we remove one more liberty from ourselves. If we decentralize, they cannot get the power because it isn't there to take. 2) and those being coerced, resist in every possible way. When anyone is forced to do something they do not believe in, they do the absolute minimum, and get around it in all possible ways. Why should they not? Who wants to serve what you do not support? Do you? This is the kind of recognition of human nature I was speaking of before. but when you take personal action because you truly believe in something, it propogates through *all* your actions. You don't dodge, you seek. you don't obstruct, you create and seek new ways to help. Changing the paradigm from coercion and punishment, to choice and creation unleashes human talent in incredible ways. "This happen sall the time; it's part of living with other human beings." certainly is. The question is, to what degree? Do you have a vision for where the amount of coercion you are willing to support meets some boundary, or do you support it all until some end goal is met, like "no one is hungry"? "we all do things we don't necessarily agree with, yet we have collectively agreed upon certain rules." We need to define what a collective is, and how a collective justifies coercion, IMO. I see a collective as any body of people, and the sum of personal, *individual* choices as being a collective choice. Your take? "If we find those rules unfair/unjust, we can work to change them." I find many of the rules unjust, not because of the content of the rules, but that their imposition for *any* reason, by *anyone*, is unjust, so we have an elemental difference here. "it sounds as though through your volunteer efforts, you engage in this action quite a bit." I wish I could do more, but I try to walk the talk. How can I be a good example if I don't provide one? ************** "Sexy - Mises (one of Libertarianism 20th century founding fathers and one of Mtgoats fav orgs namesake) and Rand while often thrown into the same camp. They are in fact not the same. In fact Mises is well known for his contemptuous ridculing of her philosophy to her face at a dinner party." that's hilarious! I'll say one thing, libertarian types, being naturally independently minded, can really get into some dust ups! Where can I read more about this? Like anyone else, I'm a synthesist. Mises has some groundbreaking work, and Rand, for all Mises critiques, also provides some eloquent defenses of individual liberty as the only true human right. [ 08-23-2002, 12:15 PM: Message edited by: MtnGoat ]

"We all should be free to do whatever we want." I'm not sure where you're getting that, no libertarian I know thinks folks should be free to commit fraud, steal, or initiate violence. Beyond that, aren't you the best judge of what you value, for you? "Reality isn't quite so simple. There are a lot of things that aren't economic for individuals or companies to do yet they serve everyone's interest." Surely true. Compromises are always necessary when matching theory to the real world. "Also if you do everything you want chances are your going to be fucking with someone elses life". It depends on what the issue is, right? If you are coercing someone else, I've already covered that in the first para. "Mtn Goats posts are way to long. Sure you've got a lot to say, but I for one refuse to read such long posts." that's the beauty of freedom. be nice to have some back and forth, if it's too much trouble and you don't like the style, no biggie!

"Personal freedom has to do more with civil rights than with economic organization, doesn't it?" to butt my lazy ass in here...again.... I don't think this is the case. Economic organization is inseparable from personal liberty because the human mind and human effort is the basic source of capital, regardless of how that capital gets distrubuted after it's creation. It's each persons use of some portion of their limited lifespan to create something or do something, that creates values others will pay for, wether you push a broom, sculpt, or plant ones fat ass on a computer all day long like me. What happens to the results of that labor, the result of that *irretrievable* chunk of your life, when you didn't goof off under a tree with a good book, you weren't sleeping, you were working, is intimately related to the economic system you live under. Since your personal capital, whatever form your output takes, is created by *your* effort, your personal liberty and *right* to control the results of your labor are directly effected by the economic system you labor under. I submit that the *only* system which recognizes actual labor, and actual human rights of self ownership, is the system which recognizes each and every person owns their own person, and their labor, and the rights to it: Capitalism. "Yes, countries that have heavily regulated economies tend to have more curbs on personal freedom, but I don't think these two are necessarily part of the same "bottom line."" When your peaceful transactions are subject to the approval of others who are not involved in your agreements with others, they are curbing your personal freedom by infringing on your right to dispose of your labor and resources as you see fit. I submit economic regulation is *intrinsically* linked to "curbing" each person's birthright, self determination. In many cases there is definitely a need for compromise in this area, such as some environmental concerns. On the whole however, we go far beyond crucial compromises today and into territory neither the state *nor* other individuals have any buisness dictating. This does not apply to transactions involving theft, coercion, or fraud. ***************************8 "Bottom-line" is that YOUR supposed freedoms get trampled; who cares about the "freedoms" of the down-and-out, disabled, unemployed, mentally troubled, discriminated against, etc.." What about them? I support their rights as much as I support *anyone* elses. Their freedom, nor anyone elses, does not include the use of others time, labor, or life without their explicit, uncoerced, personal consent. "These never seem to get too much air-time with the Libertarian trumpet-blowers. It's everyone for themselves! And let the most able survive! Cuz it's about MY freedom, after all!" It *is* everyone for themselves, but this does not mean everyone wishes to ignore others. Do you care about other people just because someone makes you? Of course not, you do it on your own, you are free, yet you care, even though you don't have to! How is this possible if freedom = not caring about other people as you claim? Why do you assume supporting personal freedom means ignoring other people? They are not causally linked. I value liberty *and* cooperation at the same time. I merely reject the idea that most of my social goals are so overidingly important that I'll threaten other people unless they do what I want. I'm no better than they are, I have no right to demand they pay for goals I believe in. "ME ME ME ME ME!" Common enough in folks who figure *their* morality requires others to pay for it. I care about trees, so you'll pay for em, I care about homeless people, so you'll pay for it, I care about discrimination, so I'll support discrimination on someone else. What part of demanding others serve your ends at gunpoint do you find unselfish, exactly? ************************* "I agree that freedom from hunger or poverty are probably the most basic of all personal freedoms," how is demanding labor from others a personal freedom? "and because I am a naive tax and spend liberal I believe that we should as a society provide better support than we do and even worse I think that we should have a single-payer health care system." great. Now how do you justify imposing that vision on people who have other goals for their lives? Are your morals more important than theirs? No one is suggesting you and those who agree with you should not go ahead and support what you wish to support, it's your life, your mind, your body after all. What I want to know is, why is *my* life, mind and body supposed to be subordinated to what *you* wish to support? I have no wish to stand in your way, in fact I wish you well, but when you try to coopt my labor because you think your ends are more important than mine, then we have problems. Can you imagine how much you could get done if everyone who agrees with you worked on those issues without trying to legislate them? How much money would be saved by directing all the money poured into campaigns, into foundations to do what you want, instead? How much time it would save, how much resistance and wasted energy you could save? You could write your own rules for aid carte blanche, since as a private organization you would not need to compromise with those mean capitalists in congress. ALL the energy and time wasted because folks *insist* those who don't agree must play too, is such a waste. Just sidestep the whole deal! You're buying right into conflict, playing the game against people who don't agree, wasting all that energy, because of one common thread in all the social desires, you figure *everyone* must do what you want. Let go of that one idea, value others as *equals*, not tools for an end. How can you care about others so much, and care so little for what they want their lives to mean, just because they don't agree with you? ************** ah, you guys are good for the brain, thanks for the fun so far. [ 08-23-2002, 02:53 PM: Message edited by: MtnGoat ]

"Yeah, our capitalist system works fine, and a lot of people live well." We have the richest poor people in the world, for one thing! "But if you think it's working like it SHOULD, and actually doing the most good that it could, it's time to think again." depends on whose version of should, and good, you're talking about, right? ....I'll bite...It doesn't work like it should, because there is far too much govt control of peaceful individual choices, and it doesn't do the most good, because the highest good isn't coerced action, but liberty. "Why not fix what's wrong with capitalism?" I'm all for that. Remove subsidies from corporations. Teach people to take *personal* action on their beliefs without assuming everyone else is their tool for good.

"straight outta the Ayn Rand-led libertarian think-tank! " odd how people with the similar views on liberty and life in general have similar ideas, eh? I always crack up when people come up with "straight out of" or "party line" comments. Should I turn around and comment on points here from others are "straight out of the Dem party", as if that invalidates them? Of course not! Ideas stand or fall on their *own*, not by who they come from. If we cannot separate peripheral issues from the actual ones of dealing with the meaning, content, and roots of IDEAS, there's no point in discussing things because denying someone elses ideas by stereotype instead of content isn't dialogue, it's just confrontation without a point. Can I tempt you to respond to an idea's content, rather than worrying about peripherals? Why, for example, does any groups or persons views on a social issue, mean everyone else needs to serve that ideal? What irresistable force links caring, with *making* your neighbors care? ************************************* "dude condese what you have to say... 20 words or less, kay?" I try to keep them limited as it is, I'm just not a believer in sound bite answers to complex questions. Even the simplest ideas here often contain so many assumptions, if I don't deal with the assumptions as well as the idea it doesn't come out right. An example is the arbitrary linkage of "humanitarian" ideas with the idea that if you don't make your neighbors work for you, you can't be a humanitarian. But all humanitarianism is at it's basis is a concern for humanitarian issues, not the politics of implementing same. These kinds of tangles allow those with a collectivist bent to coopt issues and ideas, without discussing the hidden assumptions. That "society" only exists when people are forced to live together. That "caring" means voting to make your neighbors do what you want them to do. That *not* having a morality based in God or some other diety, somehow makes it less arbitrary than one that is. There's tons of em.

"The fact that those exact words are not actually contained in the constitution is, not surprisingly, not really relevant to what a 200+ year-old document means today." I agree. The meaning of the document is such that the framework is sufficient to provide order *without* being so specific it instantly goes out of date. " Tonight's events in Portland make that pretty clear..." You're right about that, a bunch of folks have allowed their life experiences and lack of self control to turn them into rioters for peace. ************************* "While Mtn Goat is unmoved by voter apathy, I'm a fan of a vigorous democracy." I don't see what good is served by having one portion of the population aim guns (by proxy) at another portion of the population in order to make them serve the ideals of the former. *************************************8 "True. But that's what it's for. I work to get money so I can tilt the field my direction with better housing, food, medicine, etc." "It seems that is ideal is so cynical and empty of any humanitarian values." I'm not sure why that is. I have the same concerns about others any reasonable person ought to have, IMO, and I use my capital to tilt the playing field towards other folks too. Being a humanitarian indicates humanitarian concerns, as far as I am aware this term does *not* imply using other citizens for what you find important. Being concerned and caring has nothing to do with supporting the use of coercion against other peaceful citizens with their own minds, lives, and values. I've volunteered for groups working with the park service, spent weeks of my own vacation and money carrying out programs they couldn't afford to implement. I donate all the time. *I* take action, voluntarily, and I don't expect supporting what I support, to be binding on other people who may not agree. We are *each* responsible for what we support, and I see trying to bind others to our own personal goals, as elemental disrespect for the rights of others to live their lives serving their own ideals. I do not own my fellow citizens, nor their lives, nor what comes from their time and labor. I do not expect to force them to support what I support. I have never understood why for so many people being a "humanitarian" seems to intrinsically mean making others pay for what I support. "Not only does it negate the above ideal, it replaces it with "the richer you are, the more power ye shall have", which is about what we have right now." I don't believe it does negate the above, because concern is nice, but it's separate from telling other citizens they shall work to support your own personal values, however nice they may be to you. As for power, that's largely because the govt in place now has too much power to start with. Either you hold control over yourself, or someone else does. If individuals retain that control, it doesn't matter how much money someone else has, they can't buy control of that power because it is not available. "Access to government, OUR government, should not be based on the size of ones campaign contribution, and to not codify and legislate against it is a terrible form of cynicism." Examining the underlying roots of human behavior with respect to power, is not cynical IMO. It's a crucial step to creating systems and ideas that are self consistent and have a chance of success because they take human nature into account, not denying it.

Nothing like showing ones commitment to peace, freedom, pacifism, and the value of each person, by rioting and raising hell. How revolutionary. Do you suppose anyone will ever change the paradigm of "revolution" from the Che Guevara, burn the streets mentality? All these supposed pacifists, and citizens of the earth and such, and the support they claim as representing "the people". Who are the people? If so many people believe, and want, all the stuff activists claim they do, and *act* on it,why isn't society different *now*?

"Money tilts the playing field." True. But that's what it's for. I work to get money so I can tilt the field my direction with better housing, food, medicine, etc. "Anyway, we don't live in a meritocracy that rewards intelligence, virtue, and ideals with money, so why should money decide who has influence?" No we don't, but we live in a place where it's as close as it's ever going to get, IMO. But on the whole, with intelligence, virtue, and ideals, combined with actual work and drive, you'll do better than someone who doesn't have these things. All the money in the world can't make people vote for people they don't like, millionaires spending their own money on local races lose all the time. And money can't make people ignore what their representatives vote for while not giving sufficient reasons for doing what they are doing. If they cannot suppport their actions, vote them out. no matter how you try to stamp out "influence", it will *still* be there. By concentrating so much power in one place, you unavoidably attract those who want to use it. The best that can be done is open it up wide so all influence is *visible*. "Campaign donations buy access, pure and simple." Course they do. Candidates are free individuals who can see who they choose. Does anybody think a big donor is going to be ignored? Ever? I don't. Eliminate donations, some other form of bait will be devised, and that powerful person will *still* be there in your reps office. By allowing control of others to be vested in one place, you've created a centralized target for power seekers, and they will never, ever go away. Thousands of years of human history is on display on the net or any library. Read in any time period, in any form of govt, and from the bottom to the top you have influence and access determined by people with money or favors gravitating to the center of power. This situation is inevitable, opening the process up gets it all visible. Outside access does not matter if the candidate is asked to explain why he supports what he supports and made to give answers others can judge. And all contacts and donations are visible. I don't care if the association of satanists, the pigf*ckers of S Jersey, and the Art Bell fan club give money to someone I support too, and I don't care what their reasons are one damned bit, *if* my rep can make cogent arguments I agree with. I am not supporting him based on who he sees or who he talks with, but on their ideas and actions and how the two coincide. "I think the real disease is the two party system that really offers no viable choice, so people just don't care." Why do you assume caring means looking at govt the way you do? As a libertarian, I don't measure caring by how many people turn out to make their fellow citizens do what they want, by law. I measure caring by *individual* activity, where it shows the person *really* cares, personally cares, and sticks their time, money, and effort where there mouth is. I care about a lot of things, but I do not support people who think caring means more laws and more interference with personal choices and freedoms. So I'm often told I don't care because I don't express my caring by attempting to make free individuals serve my ends. I'm not ragging on you, it's just that this assumption that we're not functional because not everyone runs to the polls is one I've always had a beef with. "If we had proportional representation, where the Greens might hold 5% of the seats, the Libertarians with 4%, Socialists with 2%, and the Trad Climbers 1%, you'd have a political map that would grant more influence to a wider range of viewpoints, and lead to more compromise and fluctutating alliances, and we all might find a party that actually represents what we think." What a zoo that would be, I'm glad it's not a reality and never will be. "Mnt Goat, I'm sure Bush and his trade tariffs must chap your Cato-Institute ass," Yes they do. Let the steel industry take it's lumps. The farm subsidies really ticked me off as well. Remove subsidies from rail, oil, airlines, and everything else that gets one. "Isn't everyone here, on every side, tired of making candidate choices based on a lesser of two evils, however you define evil?" This will never change either. "They say being an Atheist means not having the courage of someone else's convictions" Not basing ones morals on a diety doesn't remove those morals from the playground of subjectivity, any christian fundie has just as much proof of the legimacy of their ideas as anyone else. The courage of someone elses convictions can come from any source, not only religion. Thanks for the fun!

interesting points, I'll bite! "In a system where there are no limitations on donations to political candidates/incumbents, it is impossible to tell what is bribery and what isn't." I'd make the case that's true now, and always *will* be true. all campaign "reform" does is allow whoever is currently in power to place whatever barriers they can get away with into the path of those they don't want to have to deal with. Campaign "reform" *injects* politics even more deeply into campaigns. If one wants *less* politickin', how is that acheived by allowing those who *already* admit they cannot be trusted with campaign finances to write the laws? "Just say, oh, hypothetically, that some company called Enron gave millions of dollars to the Bush campaign." That is an interesting hypothetical, given that Enron contributed the largest amount they ever donated, to our old pal Mr Bill.... "Is this bribery, or just the way the system works? Hard to say." Very hard to say, yup. I'd say they are *entirely* justified in supporting someone who favors their views because who in the heck is going to support someone who is working against them? If we cannot trust our people, trusting these same people (who claim they can't be trusted without laws to help them be trustworthy), to figure out ways to make themselves trustworthy, is simply nuts, by first principle IMO. Since politicians must account for their votes to those that elect them, *US*, whatever stances they take will come out in the wash. They cannot vote on things no one knows about, it's all in the congressional record and such. Who donates is irrelevant to the *reasons* they put forth for their votes. Should we not evaluate votes by what is voted on and *it's* specifics? Who cares about the other stuff, the *ideas* contained in a bill are what is important, not who pushes it for what reason. The laws that will be enacted are codified in the bills for all to see, after all. Quid pro quo bribery is already illegal, as it should be. But supporting someone you want to win because you don't want someone else to win, is so close to "paying for influence" in some minds, it's inseparable. If I have a million dollars and I do not want someone to win and I can spare that cash, I'd do it. I cannot buy the votes of the people voting, and I cannot buy that they will not ask the senator or whoever why he took my million dollars. All donations should be public knowledge, by the way. That is the only way an open system can work. Rather than trying to separate the inseparable, (support from influence), only to use those determinations to further apply laws written by those who we already distrust, shows multiple levels of flawed reasoning IMO. Which are based on a distinction so subtle that *anybody* can argue one way or another! IMO This inevitably leads to *more* politicking trying to again codify something as slippery as an eel, and is merely an opportunity for one more layer of contradiction underlaid by still more political deals over who gets nailed for what, by whom, and which party or individual it will help, or hurt. And in each round, someone loses more liberties, piece by piece, as those we don't trust now, gain more say in who can donate and who can't with each "reform". You can see this progression evident in every "reform" bill since they passed the first one a few decades ago. Every successive one maintains it will be the fix, isn't, and then another emerges, rife with *more* restrictions and fine tuning of distinctions that are in the eye of the beholder anyway! Trying to stop campaign contributions from finding their way is like trying to stop drug money, it's elastic and fluid and no matter how hard you try, it will find a way because the *restrictions* on it are elemental in creating the conditions that make it valuable. The smart thing IMO is to rework the system so *everything* is in the open, so you do not work with so many value judgement intangibles, leading to their implementation by a body with an innate, irresolveable conflict of interest. Open it all. Make all donations from any source legal and public. All the griping about special interests is likewise poppycock IMO. We are *all* special interests. When I donate to the Mises institute, the Cato foundation, and the NRA, I expect that money to be combined with other money to gain leverage. Contributions to what we believe in or want, is a good thing, not a bad one. [ 08-22-2002, 05:08 PM: Message edited by: MtnGoat ]

On the thinning, if logging companies working thinning areas were allocated every 4th tree or something as a deal sweetener, that seems reasonable IMO. After all, partial cuts reseed themselves quite well and the loss due to selective cutting to improve the economics of thinning operations is probably far less than the losses of trees in a big fire.

hi mattp, I also agree remaining old growth needs protection, as you rightly point out the percentage left is very low. However on all previously logged areas, IMO it is possible to manage them properly using modern methods without permanent damage to the resource. If a bit of second growth area needs to be off limits, I don't have a big problem with that if we're not talking about a total ban on timber sales. Similarly, if for some reason a case could be made for a small amount of remaining OG to be cut, much as I don't think it's a good idea, it may have merit in special circumstances. What these might be I have no idea at this time. Basically what I'm getting at is that purist, all or nothing positions on logging public lands, logging or not logging OG, etc, tend to be so rigid they ignore the role of making reasonable compromises in good faith for better overall outcomes.

"The point of such restrictions is to keep the Enrons of the world from having a significantly louder voice than everyone else." What keeps the CNN's of the world from having a sigificantly louder voice, if everyone is supposed to be equal? Why do they get to disseminate whatever "news" they wish on candidates without any scrutiny to how "loud" they are? There should be no restrictions on campaign financing whatsoever, save prohibitions against fraud and bribery.

why shouldn't there be logging on public lands? We are the public, we benefit from the wood products at the *same* time those who produce them benefit from selling these products. Every wood product that changes hands *proves* it's value to those who buy it, nobody pays for something they don't feel is worth more than the dollar in their pocket. This does not mean good management should not take place, it does not mean good practices shouldn't be used, I'm merely making the point that there is nothing magical about private vs public trees.

dammit, what am I doing wrong? Could some kind soul frame this one up to load as an image? I know you'll appreciate it!

let's try that again! <img src="http://www.infinitejackass.com/images/chipmunk.jpg">

http://www.infinitejackass.com/images/chipmunk.jpg

Some interesting "landings" and other fun stuff, on the blooper page. The pic sequence of one guy falling *through* his canopy and plummeting down shrouded in it looks pretty nasty..but only a broken arm! http://www.seattleparagliding.com/BlooperPage.htm

For info on paragliding the NW, classes, and gear, try this outfit: http://www.airplay.com They own a training hill outside of Cashmere and frequent various hills on the eastside such as Baldy on the Yak, Saddle Mtn, and of course Chelan butte. If you look on the images page you'll see one of a guy launching off Mt Daniel.

Oh this thread will not die yet, I'm working on some of the claims made in previous posts, just don't have time to get it done quickly... but still... "There is plenty of evidence to suggest that implementing the Kyoto protocols will SAVE money. There are all sort of ways this happens: if you reduce fuel consumption to reduce emissions, you also save the cost of the fuel, and reduce demand, which further reduces the cost (if you are a believer is supply & demand.)" I surely am, but it all begs the question, is the money "saved", more or less than the trillion it costs to "save" this money? Additionally, since even Kyoto supporters admit Kyoto will only *delay* a temperature rise by a few fractions of a degree C for less than a decade, is this really cost effective and the best use of all that money?

I do not need to understand the finer points of any discipline to see where broader questions of method are either not answered, or glossed over. It doesn't matter how much of an expert you are, or how esoteric your field, the rules of the game are the same no matter what and independent of the particulars. If you cannot explain why you have chosen a baseline in a particular time period when the climate continuously varies all the time, it doesn't matter how important you are or how many PhD's you have or how smart your peers are. If you cannot understand the functioning of climate to a point where your models match reality provably, you have no case your models are correct enough to predict a darned thing. If you don't know what you don't know, you cannot tell if your *guesses*, however educated, about C02 sensitivity mean a darned thing, because your models do not meet the ultimate test, something called *REALITY*. Anybody who tells you they understand something but cannot prove it nor predict it is feeding you a line not accepted *anywhere* else in science as proof. It doesn't matter how smart they think they are, or how much more minutae they know about their specialty, they are subject to the same *basic* standards for science anyone else is. And these standards are well understood by plenty of people who may not be experts but can still ask questions about methodology that are entirely valid and indeoendent of specialized knowledge. Now maybe someone telling you they understand something but can't prove or predict it repeatably and provably against the real world appears to be science to you, but it does not meet the tests established for nigh on 400 years now. It does however meet the tests for a previous standard, faith. But we're not talking faith, we're talking measurable, provable, repeatable, verifiable results.

is a bike a street legal vehicle? Do you demand rights on the road? Then you should share in the responsibility for following the rules of the road you demand the use of. If you you do not want follow the rules enforced on everyone else, your bike should be classed as a toy same as a scooter or pogo stick, and kept off the roadways used by people who have road rules enforced on them. As bicycles pay no gas tax and gas taxes build the roads, it may be a good idea to levy a tax on cyclists so they can pay their way for the roads they demand to use. This would provide funding from the user group demanding bike lanes. In addition, since part of the problem of enforcement of traffic laws is identifying cyclists who violate them, upon paying your yearly fee you would be issued a liscense plate suitable for a bike, to be displayed as is normal for road worthy vehicles of all types. This way identification and enforcement would be simplified. When you've got posters glad they can get in other peoples way, and take joy from making someone elses commute a bit harder, it's an idea that makes sense since it includes a mechanism to enforce whatever laws they are breaking.

I don't have much time today for this, but it's been a good thread so far IMO. "not according to the 2001 IPCC report:" I am struck by the technique of refuting my points using the very IPCC stuff I claim is wrong. We already know I (and those I've been reading) don't agree with the IPCC assessments, that's why there is a disagreement in the first place. Bringing out IPCC data, to prove IPCC data, is a bit circular! I'll be back with more data, just don't have time today. And I'll try and dig up data specifically on the points raised by the IPCC stuff.

"Numerical climate models are only tools to assess the sensitivity of climate to various parameters (such as CO2 levels)," I posit that if they cannot model the past, what they are testing is their *model's* sensitivity to CO2, because they have not established their model is correct.

"Burning fosile fuel causes polution in big citys health problems getting a good chunk of energy from outside the US" No doubt, all serious problems. My point would be that while these are problems, yes, you don't need to assume global warming is real to deal with them. I don't buy into the "yeah, but what about the other problems it would solve" method of justification. I'm not saying you do this, only that I've seen this before and don't agree with it. "Don't you think its in our interest in terms of health and national security to get our energy on our own soil." Heck yes.... That's why I said we should drill ANWAR, in a thread about drilling ANWAR! I think we should eliminate subsidies to oil (and all other energy sources hydro, nuclear, wind, solar, etc), let the prices float where they need to go. And tell the Saudis to stuff it, we don't need their oil and will now deal with their other major export, religious murderers, since we are no longer forced to ignore their complicity by our oil use. "Biodiesel is available today," Does it generate more energy than it takes to create it? A crucial point, just wondering if this has been addessed. "and with some government support hydogen could be a practical fuel source in a decade." We'd have to disagree here, I don't favor subsidy. "It wouldn't be the first time government funding speeded up a technology." It also wouldn't be the first time govt funding sped up a losing technology either, which does happen. I don't care what govt thinks is a winner, I care what market forces think is a winner because that's what shows actual efficiency, but only in the absence of subsidies.

"Over that time the mean global temperature has increased by [don't have this figure readily available, IIRC it is more than 1 degree C]. and the Northern Hemisphere growing season is now 9 days longer." The temperature increase is not seen by satellites which measure troposphere (lower air layer) temperatures which have been operational for a while now. Further, this increase measured by ground stations has data problems not usually discussed. Heat island effects of changing local environments may not be adequately controlled for, as is the decreasing number of stations and the way stations are grouped into larger measurement blocks. Basically, from what I have read this is a commonly made claim but has legitimate problems with the claim which are not yet resolved. "Please tell us what part of this increase is non-anthropogenically caused." I don't know, any more than anyone can tell for sure how much is caused by anthro sources, if *any*. We are in an interglacial. The earth has warmed and cooled all by itself for periods both long and short and as recently as the last couple millenia. The earths "natural" temperature is a *changing* one, not a static one. The idea that we have a set perfect temperature at some recent point in the past is as anthro centered as the idea that we are causing warming. Besides, this all kinds of begs the question, good method details you must prove positive statements, not prove them by assuming you are correct and requiring others to prove you are wrong. IE, prove warming by first positing that warming has occurred (which is *not* a given anyway) and asking someone else to prove how much was natural. If that was your intent, anyway. I do not claim to know how much is natural warming, I sure as hell don't understand the finer points of many concerns, but my suspicion personally is that it probably all is natural. is that answer sufficient? *************** "Still, I have to instinctually believe (which, as you know, doesn't mean squat in science) that we're contributing to the problem. I appreciate the intelligent discussion. Dennis" I guess we're at opposite ends on that one, but reasonable people can and do disagree without each assuming the other is an asshole or liar, (you wouldn't know it from much of CC.com!) and I'm glad you and I can share the place where we have honest disagreement without rancor or suspicion. I have no interest in cooking good old mother earth by my actions or anyone elses, but I also have no interest in using the economic output of billions of people's finite lifespans to fix problems that may not exist!