KaskadskyjKozak

who says I am not playing Devil's advocate to make a point? or simply be provocative.

It's all in the spirit of spray, no?

I'll be sure to be defer all questions to you of what it's like to be a bitch.

the irony is overwhelming. the left just loves to posture as "worldly", relishing in the disdain of Europeans for our policies, our lifestyle, and silly opinions. Seems a taste of your own medicine is unpalatable.

move to N. Korea for a few years. then come back and we'll talk.

that was for the edification of glassgowkiss. just as you have no clue about living under communism, you would have no clue as to the meaning of what I wrote. chuyesh dzvin ta ne znayesh de j vin

Ot i zaryta sobaka...

have you tried upgrading since then?

Interesting. Then why is it that all we hear about are the evils of "big oil"? What about beating up "big coal" for a while?? That's why you guys on the left care so much (look at the blue-red map - blue-staters congregate around ports and ocean fronts). I'm for higher CAFE standards as long as they are reasonable and fair. Nuclear waste scares the s**t out of me though.

Since I have used Firefox, I have never had a problem with Spyware/Adware. IE sucks ass.

The two recessions in the 70's were linked to rising oil prices under OPEC. What you allude to is a very plausible possibility, only in this case the word is "depression" - a severe recession.

The hike up the Muir Snow Field is analogous to hoofing it up an intermediate ski run. It is wide, and there is nowhere that you'll look down and freak out. The weather is the big thing. Just go when the forecast is good. I was on the other side of Rainier yesterday. It was mostly sunny, and we watched for any coming rain showers (as forecast). We had no problems, and it was probably a great day to have been to Muir as well.

How much snow was up on granite mountain? Where did you stop? Granite Mountain has a notorious avalanche chute that you want to avoid under certain conditions, so that may have been a wise move on your part. There is an alternate route that people taken in the winter.

Has anyone been up on the Emmons recently? The White River road opened yesterday, and I hiked up to Ruth Mountain. Didn't see any climbers going up or down, just some skiiers. There was pretty decent snow coverage in Glacier Basin and on the Inter-glacier, and the route up the corridor looked good - from what you can see at a distance. The NPS web-site was updated 4/26 - it doesn't say anything about the Emmons route - just mentions the Paradise routes that are preferred now.

microwave popcorn smell is bad, but microwaved fish leftovers is much worse.

Nope. Do the math - that one trip will pollute the atmosphere and use resources at the rate of about 6 months of day-to-day living for the average American.

Destroy the Bourgeois Capitalist Pigs! Workers of the World Unite!

1L per 19km works out to a little over 45 miles per US gallon for a vehicle that travels at hundreds of miles per hour. That's a Hell of a lot less "excessive" than your average SUV at 55 mph. The distance from Seattle to Rome is 5674 miles, or 11348 miles round-trip. The average American drives around 12000 miles a year, so in one single trip, you are consuming the same amount of gasoline as one person does between roughly 4 and 12 months (depending on your car's mileage).

True. Back in the 80's I recall estimates that we had enough oil reserves in the world for about 100 years. I don't recall what rate of growth that assumed for usage, and don't know how much difference today's estimates are from then. But the reserves are finite. As reserves are consumed, and oil becomes more scarce, it will become more and more expensive, and there will be pressure to find cheaper fuel sources. This pressure will drive technology, and we will find a solution. If that solution results in lower CO2 emissions, then the whole problem will sort itself out. I recall that the estimates for temperature change in the original posting were something like "1 degree in 100 years" at current levels and "as much as 10 degrees in 100 years" at unchecked levels. Who is to say we will have enough accessible reserves to burn fossil fuels for 100 years?

Nice obfuscation and intentional dismissal of JayB's point. I see a lot of non-sequitors by pseudo-scientists who connect scientific data with prescriptive public policy decisions and hysterical doomsday posturing. The data that supports global warming says nothing about the actual effect of raising cafe standards by x MPG, for example. Pot. Kettle. Black. It points out the hypocrisy of eco-nuts who pay lip service to "thinking globally, acting locally", but in actuality live lifestyles that consume just as much of the earth's resources as those whom they denigrate. It's always easier to point the finger at others, and mandate that *they* make costly, drastic lifestyle changes.

I heard it/read it in mainstream media - all before talk radio was even popular. the hand-wringing about the "imminent ice-age" in the 70's is very similar to hand-wringing by NON SCIENTISTS today - most notably the enviro-nuts. Most of what we hear about global warming - the dire predictions and feel-good-meaningless-gesture solutions come from NON SCIENTISTS based on FEELING (a liberal fall-back) not data. And I duly note your silence on the "over-population hysteria".

In the 70's all we heard about was the doom-and-gloom scenarios of the oncoming, inevitable ice-age and the overpopulation crisis that would destroy the earth. It seems there's never a shortage of doomsday prophets wringing their hands about our ultimate demise.

Excellent! Well-stated!

keep at it - it gets easier.

lots of people... it's so popular, the gays want to get in on the action...