KaskadskyjKozak

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...

Read and learn guys. Buy your fiancee a cheap ring. It will go over real well, I'm sure, and you will risk little if you f**k up.

You guys crack me up.

Feel the same way if it is a family heirloom (your dead mother's/grandmother's wedding ring)?

Exactly.

I agree with that. But I'd adjust a lot about the budget if I could wave a magic wand. We didn't? What about the gas guzzlers of the 70's? What about RVs? Ban them too? What about people who drive thousands of miles every year to climb friggin' glaciers and rock crags? "Was this trip really necessary?" Maybe we should just ration gas, give everyone an allowance and a national card. Ordnung muB sein. Arbeit macht Frei. and the rest of the world will just happily join us - even if it means limiting their economic growth and prosperity? Or perhaps we'll just give them some nice opportunities upon which to capitalize.

not. irrespective of what went bad, the ring goes back to the guy. why? it was a gift. further she's not the one who blew it. if she was the one who had posted the add and he wanted to break it off then she should give it back but he's the one who effed up. I'm assuming it cost $$$ (as in the 2-month salary rule). The "gift" is a symbol for the committment to marry. Marriage off - gift null and void.

not. irrespective of what went bad, the ring goes back to the guy.

I find it hard to below that the science is not getting funded, nor that it is that expensive to do. Software projections based on different rates of CO2 concentrations would be one component, as would cost projections on their economic impact. This could be compared with the cost (economic, quality of life) of building more efficient cars, rationing gasoline, or whatever else is proposed.

"perhaps", "might" blah blah. "feel-good" gestures don't cut it. You have to do a full cost-benefit analysis with an honest report of the choices.

"Hansen's team, reporting Thursday in the journal Science, said they also determined that global temperatures will rise 1 degree Fahrenheit this century even if greenhouse gases are capped tomorrow." Mostly due to the fact we've already pumped a lot of greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere already. Perhaps we should think about not making a bad situation worse. Emissions will increase - I have never seen a plausible plan for even capping them. Capping them will still increase the temps by 1F. Instead of spouting mantras and feel-good slogans, coupled with useless token gestures and forcing people to make drastics lifestyle changes, we should do some serious number crunching to see what can be effective, its cost, and realistic outcomes.

"Hansen's team, reporting Thursday in the journal Science, said they also determined that global temperatures will rise 1 degree Fahrenheit this century even if greenhouse gases are capped tomorrow."

A look up the snowfield from the side. Taken on a bluebird day in July of last year. Large photo is here . You can make out a faint boot path.

They did. They covered just as much of the scandals for as possible to maximizie profits/viewership, while casting the accusers for each scandal is as negative a light as possible, questioning motives, expenditures, and legitimacy of the issues as much as possible. A win-win for the media.

People place wands to mark their ascent. But I wouldn't advise following them blindly - you can't be sure they were going to Muir. I'm not sure if the NPS Rangers wand the path (or how these wands would be differentiatable from wands placed by private parties).

The first time I tried to go to Camp Muir, I went with my overweight brother. He scoffed at the route description and "get your bearings" page I printed from the web site. He did fine until Pebble Creek (7200 feet), and then his jaw dropped: "I didn't expect it to be like THIS" To make a long story short, he quit at 8500 feet, I went up to 9200 or so, and hit my turn around time. I would advise you to set a turn around time before you even get to Paradise. Personally it takes me about 4 hours to get up to Muir. Some people here can do it much faster. I'd say you might consider 6 or 7 hours a maximum if you leave early.

a lot... and not just "old" people, but obese Americans, who would be better served getting off their asses and walking.

Maybe you could impress us some more with your knowledge of gobots and transformers. Talk about opportunity cost...

Speak in hex, dammit! 6B69 7320 6C79 2061 7373