j_b

respect, such a beautiful image ... I know I feel a lot more respectful while driving my tank.

PP who spent several threads demonizing arabs and under duress may have acknowledged small defects with israeli "democracy". (actually I don't think you acknowledged anything despite mass evidence) and what is my position? I read the NYT every day and I rarely find a progressive slant to their stories, on the contrary, on bottom line issues such as the economy and foreign policy the differences with the rest of the conservative press are minimal especially if one accounts for the entire political spectrum. So to be frank, I don't take your examples too seriously. Anyhow I was not specifically discussing your examples but your unability to present a comprehensive analysis of the NYT or the press in general and yet you still claim the existence of a liberal bias.

I thought this is precisely what I was trying to say, i.e. scientific-peer-reviewed versus popular-non-peer reviewed.

which is exactly what is done in the peer reviewed literature. The IPCC report (which is the most up-to-date, comprehensive document on climate science) is based on peer reviewed publications, not media soundbites. nice try but don't confuse issues next time, i.e. nobody said the final word on climate science was to be found in mass media.

instead of criticizing a university based on your personal outlook, why don't you discuss the paper. It describes methods, give results and presents the analysis; it's all there for your perusal. Then we might be able to have a discussion about its worth but I am confident you'd find it quite impressive.

Precisely. How can you then assert there is a systematic liberal bias in the media when you could not quote a single reliable piece to that effect. you want a comprehensive analysis as to where journalists stand politically? here it goes: Examining the "Liberal Media" Claim Journalists' Views on Politics, Economic Policy and Media Coverage David Croteau Virginia Commonwealth University Department of Sociology and Anthropology © June 1998 Executive Summary The conservative critique of the news media rests on two general propositions: (1) journalists' views are to the left of the public, and (2) journalists frame news content in a way that accentuates these left perspectives. Previous research has revealed persuasive evidence against the latter claim, but the validity of the former claim has often been taken for granted. This research project examined the supposed left orientation of media personnel by surveying Washington-based journalists who cover national politics and/or economic policy at US outlets. The findings include: On select issues from corporate power and trade to Social Security and Medicare to health care and taxes, journalists are actually more conservative than the general public. Journalists are mostly centrist in their political orientation. The minority of journalists who do not identify with the "center" are more likely to identify with the "right" when it comes to economic issues and to identify with the "left" when it comes to social issues. http://www.fair.org/reports/journalist-survey.html case closed!

it is plain ridiculous to accuse organic agriculture of being responsible for the loss of crop land. Why don't you discuss the role of land speculation and suburban development instead?

oil production will peak ~2005 and the current rate of consumption is 4 times the rate of discoveries. This should give you an idea of how rapidly reserves will fall. Oil reserves will last a few decades (~30years). The oil reserves on paper are grossly inflated and are often unavailable with today's technology. There is perhaps a little longer worth of natural gas. We have known this for a while (over 30 years) now but little has been done to develop alternative sources of energy and/or lower consumption to a sustainable level. the Ogallala aquifer is dropping a foot per year. Entire basins of the Midwest will soon have to move on to dry farming which is not profitable in today’s economy. These regions have no agricultural future according to the current economic models. we have used up to 85% of the US topsoil mineral resources over the last century. We have no alternative but keep adding nutrients and fertilizers in ever growing amounts that leach into our water supply. etc ... in the face of dwindling natural resources across the board, no attempt whatsoever to adjust the infinite growth economic model demanding ever higher income per capita, widespread corporate welfare, etc ... it is plain loony to expect the market to automatically start accounting for sustainability. It is even loonier to except us developing technologies that will offset the broad decrease in natural resources when the planet could not support its present (but increasing) population if it attempted to live at the standard of industrialized nations.

so what stopped the expansion of an ozone hole with deadly consequence for life on earth? supply and demand? of course not! it was top-down regulatory measures. go chew on this and please do make sure to write another couple pages of nonsense to ever decrease signal to noise ratio.

so .... do you get paid by the word? how many years of oil reserves are left at our present rate of consumption? How many trees worth cutting are left compared to what was once? How fast are the major aquifers inherited from glacial times being depleted per year? at the present rate of water use how many years are left in, say, the aquifers of the great bread basket of the midwest? I'll wait for your answers showing that none of these issues are critical, but please don't stay up for me.

ouch! 2 flip-flops in a day about basic science, it does hurt. so the difference between surfaces results from radiation?

Are you trying to say that a many-million dollar media campaign is all that is needed to convince the public of the conservatives’ selective way of accounting for cost? Well, in fact all the public has to know is that if we ever get to the point when we are forced to wean ourselves from oil, any tree worth cutting is gone, our aquifers and soils are depleted, etc ...the 'magicians in funny economics' will jump on the bandwagon of the newer technologies they criticize so hard today for being too expensive and will cash in on the new markets as if nothing had happened.

so what kind of abuse would they warrant if they all tore up the backcountry? But I assume you mean going off road for something more useful than burning gas and shredding soils and veg.

bush has absolutely no credibility w.r.t. the environment. You saying otherwise won't change that. Let him first sign kyoto, drop plans to drill for oil wherever he can, reinstate power plants emissions standards, impose reasonable car emissions rules for most vehicles, enforce reasonable grazing/logging rules, etc ... then we can reassess whether or not the few crumbs he is throwing toward a vastly environment-conscious public amount to more than a drop in a big bucket.

I hope we get to see it around here; it sounds like it is fun. by opposition to all the other ads which presumably make well backed up claims and are only about one issue (getting your cash). "So how does the babe improve the performance of my car?"

nothing wrong with that. In the end it's the journey that matters.

good. someone actually had something relevant to contribute on this. I was suspicious myself but did not follow through. if you don't stack the odds of success in your favor, you for sure are in for a lot of "adventure".

actually I did not check on conditions today. Did you forget to take your pills today?

the way you should read my comments is go with the flow of what weather tells you or you'll die (and give yourself a safety margin while you are at it). I never said you should not go out, but there is not much sense in going floundering in wet snow to the base of a climb that is not in conditions while you could go do something else. Note that I have done plenty of useless approaches myself and you have a point that you never quite know until you get there. has anyone told you that your way of communicating with others is a little disfunctional? I did not mean to antagonize you and I remain in awe of your enthusiasm. Reminds me of myself quite a few years ago.

it's the first time I hear anyone counting on windchill factor to bring down temps 10-15deg. in order to do a mixed route (if it's what you are talking about). Sounds pretty scary to me and cutting it pretty close but, true, I am no expert. And I have climbed the snoq. peaks in warm winter weather many times but it was not the N/NE side of chair.

hey, be my guest and continue advocating climbing mixed routes in 45F weather (although it was not this warm when you did chair). You may be able to discuss it in the future. (where's the damn roll eyes icon when you need it?) you're a real peach, aren't you?

no offense intended but 40F for mixed alpine winter climbing?

I suspected you did, yet I took this opportunity to hopefully show that there is little relativity in what peer reviewed means (if anyone besides Goat had any doubts). One can say that some publication has stricter peer review than another, but it not like there is an oil industry favorable peer reviewed litterature versus a global warming advocate peer reviewed litterature in the climate science. There is only peer reviewed litterature versus non-peer reviewed litterature. Answering Goat's innuendo to the effect that acceptable peer review is a function of my stand on global warming would be like saying it is a relative issue.

hey what did I do this time? in the sciences it means having one's work reviewed by peers at large to ensure that it is consistent with the scientific method especially as it relates to the current collective knowledge in the field. All reputable scientific journals have peer review.

I have 2 kids as well (a little older than yours). I think they turned out quite allright, yet I can't say I was successful in choosing the world in which they grew up (living in the city and all).