foraker

My reading comprehension is just fine. How's your spelling?

So then it's ok for people who haven't been in the military, who aren't politicians, and who don't have blue collar jobs to comment about military, political, and economic matters right|? Just checking, because you seem to have a problem with educated people who work in offices who don't agree with your world view.

It's so nice to see we've managed to have an intelligent discussion about this without resorting to 'if you aren't walking or riding a horse and living in a yurt then you can't talk about energy policy at all.' why is it we can have ever increasing energy efficiency requirements for appliances and aircraft and such but cars and trucks seem to be immune? follow the money i guess....

What's the Sign of the Otter?

Enormous CO2 emissions

i wonder if they complain about those 'seattle commie pinko fags' and vote republican? ;-)

only if they are watching tv in the middle of I-5...

besides, i'd like to see the answer not be 'well once all the wilderness has gone to hell people will stay at home and the problem will be solved'

Dude, I'm not saying I have the best solution. However, I think there isn't going to be a solution without some pain. That's just my guess. There are a lot of other things that could be done that can have a significant impact, but some pain, I think, is still going to be felt. There are a lot of clever solutions out there if we are willing to break away from the status quo and not just suck at the teat of big oil like it's heroin. I think we can either suffer some smaller economic impacts now, over a longer term, rather than wait for a seriously bad economic impact later when (if) everything goes to hell. Right now, I'd just like to see people get past the "you can't take my precious gas sucking truck away from me so you can just all go to hell" phase and into a region where we are willing to consider alternatives and we don't let people with serious vested monetary/ideological interests simply tell us what to do. i'm actually fairly libertarian in a lot of things but i see a lot of climate change data in my job and well it ain't good.

Well, it's not cheap but science tends to be a pretty small component of everything else compared to the federal budget. Basically, they've had to let a lot of people go and they find it really difficult to get the money for the computational resources that they need. This excludes all of the field work that is necessary for the climate models. I think it's possible to do some serious risk reduction without seriously impacting the economy. People complain about, say, having to have more fuel efficient vehicles but we never used to be driving around such huge gas-sucking SUVs and some of these ridiculous pickups that look like they have jet engine intakes and the economy was percolating along just fine. Having more fuel efficient vehicles would be something we could do that wouldn't really kill the economy and would have a huge and immediate impact on released CO2. Much more so than waiting for hybrids or hoping for some other future solution. Besides, it would also help extend the available oil supply in case we have trouble finding future alternatives. That is, assuming people actually *do* care about future generations and not just what they can cram into their truck today. If that's true...well....then we're truly fucked. ;-)

I'd accept a decent cost-benefit analysis of options based on good science. The only problem is that the science isn't getting funded. My contacts at NCAR are complaining about further budget cuts.....every year since Bush took office. How can you make good decisions if you don't have good science? Easy, just say that's what you want and then just let your friends at Exxon write your energy plans and then say 'well, we're just waiting for some good science'

yes, i'm sure the loss of glacier approaches and ski decents as well as he increase in the amount of bushwacking will be met by huzzahs of joy.

New climate change data

i could be wrong about that i guess......the climbing part anyway.

Does anybody who climbs with Dru ever come back or do they just throw themselves off the cliff or go running into the woods?

actually, i don't listen to NPR either

blah blah blah liberal media blah blah blah Rush says blah blah blah

I am surrounded by cossacks and philistines and snaffle molestors.

When I was at the Sydney opera house a few years back, down in the good seats, there was this well dressed woman there with what I can only assume was her husband. He was wearing a a bright orange track suit. She was clearly not happy. I can only assume his choice of attire was some form of protest rather than a matter of comfort.

it doesn't make me feel any better, just convinces me that the Republicans are as as morally bankrupt as the Democrats are pathetic.

I liked their solution to Medicare. Medicare is a huge money sink simply because of the enormous amounts of organized fraud perpetrated against it. The Medicare office says they simply don't have the means to go after those responsible. So, rather than spend a little more money to beef up fraud investigations and thereby potentially save billions, their solution is to simply cut benefits which is, of course much easier. Of course, the fraud still exists, but aunt Milly won't be getting her meds any time soon.

You people are so funny you can't even think straight. I miss Gotterdamerung. At least when he was ranting, he had something intelligent to say.

Getting benighted near the top of Braille Book in Yos.

becoming solid 5.10 trad and spending a week or two in the Bugaboos.

Unless you get named pope. Or elected president.... Gee, Fairweather.... I'm antagonistic? Pot, kettle, black. And, no, I don't worship Lenin. But then I don't worship Reagan or Bush I or Bush II or Clinton either. I'll leave cults of personality to you.