j_b

I just love it when laissez faire afficionados attempt to portray corporate welfare as a model of free market economics.

this is what they want us to believe but it is far from decided. Too many of us are against it before it even started.

there is plenty of evidence suggesting this is not the case despite the media regurgitating the party line every day. Did you check out the link above?

it does not sound like many of us do: http://www.cfr.org/publication.php?id=5326

you mean to say that a whooping 18% of the potential vote does not constitute a mandate for cutting trees but it is a blank check for war?

gee, look who is here. I guess you have no major bloodshed to report despite widespread carjacking and home intrusions across the land. And how did you sleep?

I can read perfectly well, I also know how it works.

if the amount of abuse you dish out on this site is any indication, I pity your kids.

what I am personally not clear about is why are you so intent on imposing your vision of what a bbs should be. Do you see anyone denying you the right to ceaselessly trade the same insults and obscenities with the same individuals? Personally it does not interest me to condone verbal abuse but I don't go out my way to try shutting you down. When something does not interest me, I just move on. So what gives?

just make sure everyone at home has a well oiled and loaded gun when you get home tonight. oh! and don't forget to turn on the flood lights and electric fence .... good night!

good post Freeman, thanks.

Being self-reliant is an integral part of my mountaineering philosophy. Why not put a conveyor belt to the top to allow my granny the view from the summit as well? You guys could pay for it, no? I am not against guided climbing, on the contrary, but I think private parties have priority or at least they should not bear equal cost (or is it greater cost?) for access to a public resource.

the public is already paying for rescue that is short of being professional. I don't have a firm position on this but other countries obviously don't deal with this in the same fashion we do.

Freeman: I am not sure your response was addressed to me but I am appreciative of SAR and their work but I am also aware of the limitations of a volunteer organization. Moreover rescues are also not strictly the domain of SAR but also the military "in training". Iain: so since the military and park rangers are involved there is a hidden cost that should be accounted for. Was an analysis of this summer Mt. Hood helo crash ever made public? I don't mean to criticize the poor souls who risked their lives to rescue these folks, but it may point to a serious problem since as we know the rule number #1 of rescue is not to compound the problem (and they were apparently lucky).

the report just does not do a good job of partitioning guided versus private parties over time. We are said guided climbing will increase but will it increase faster than the rest? Without guided parties, climbing would be at ~1980 levels. Guided parties represent 30% of all parties today and the immense majority of it where impact is the greatest. Should we assume that guided climbing could increase unlimitedly and the general climbing public should bear equally the cost of impact without discussion of how much guided services put back into the mountain or whether a cap should be put on it to sustain a public resource? Let's not forget the general public is already paying for the use of public land (the question of whether it's adequate should be addressed to congress).

do we know this for certain. How many SAR outings per season on this side of the mountains? Such personel could also respond to other things than mountain rescue. these people are already here, it just comes with climbing being popular. Just consider the handholding that is expected on Rainier.

Boy, that's going to shut me up. You are such a meany ... Have fun with your friends.

one very long post (~the equivalent of 10 of my average) haha. Live and let live .... my friends like me the way I am. Do you have many friends?

I usually don't comment negatively on anyone's contribution here; however, you'll have to enlighten me on how this diatribe of yours is any more relevant or entertaining than the ones you did not like in the current climate change thread.

stop crying, I am not glued to my machine. I have said it several times before but if you find references in the peer-reviewed litterature refuting that 1) there has been a 30% increase in CO2 since the beginning of the industrial revolution and 2) increased CO2 and other human emitted greenhouse gas concentration is causing accelerated global warming, then we can start having a debate. There are many peer-reviewed journals; I don't have a list so you'll have to be judicious in your choice or peruse said journal for publishing requirements. I have not dodged anything, and your effort so far in providing legitimacy to your point of view (besides writing profusedly) has been a cut and paste job from a conservative think tank website .... so give me break.

Trask, boring you is the least of my concern ... anyway I don't sport the kind of appendages that apparently could keep your interest up more than a few minutes. and Glen: 1) goat has to do the work since he claims there is established science that contradicts the ipcc findings 2) abstracts are not peer-reviewed

I am done with this unless MtnGoat comes up with peer reviewed references that contradicts the IPCC findings in its main conclusions. In the mean time, based on posting history, I am not sure what is your basis for wanting this discussion to stop.

why don't you give us the peer reviewed references?

great, we are glad to know you'd take us to war based on your subjective opinion of what Iraq may do. That comforting for everyone I am sure.

the fact that individuals have perspectives on life that may color their science to some degree is undeniable. But all funded, published science is ultimately reviewed. So no, modern climate science is not biased to suit the purpose of environmentalists. however individuals that are associated with conservative think tanks and the oil industry, have clearly gone beyond what the scientific establishements think to be an objective sciencific point of view. Now if you have peer reviewed papers that put serious doubts on the main conclusion of the IPCC process, let us know. The rest is only politicking and obfuscation.