it's not happening, we need another 5-year study

[Dru]

Yeah the "Luit." Whats the Zoo like?

[RobBob]

My point, j_b, is that it appears that perhaps there a number of scientists who are seeking to prove their preconceived theory rather than seeking the truth with an open mind.

[freeclimb9]

Whats the Zoo like?

I drank one night at the Legionare's club, or something like that, in 1988. It was nicknamed The Zoo. Just drunk goverment workers and really drunk Inuit. Two of my climbing partners banged some local 'tang. Pretty funny when one of 'em complained a few days later of burning when he peed. Many of the villages in Nunavut ban liquor which is wise policy. eg. I don't think alcohol has done Davis Inlet any favors. A couple friends lived in Iqaluit for a couple years, and they enjoyed the experience. Course, they're British, so they're used to deprivation.

[mattp]

While you guys are going to argue whether or not scientists agree about global warming (and once again I will say that I believe your assertions that the point is one for open debate are, at best, several months out of date), will any of you naysayers answer my point about how if we clean up our act and are wrong about whether it was necessary we will only have spent lots of money (a renewable resource, for sure) to update our infrastructure? I mean, what do we have to lose by cleaning up our act?

[iain]

mattp I agree with you 100%. It's worth the financial risk if only for the improvements in standards of living. It's like not spending cash on a new carabiner design to do R&D because evidence of failure is inconclusive.

[Greg_W]

I mean, what do we have to lose by cleaning up our act?

 

My problem with this statement is: who's criteria do we follow? Do we follow Al Gore and eliminate the internal combustion engine, force high energy-use industries to change (example: aluminum & steel)? Who decides what is enough? Who tells me what I can and cannot do, buy, use, et cetera?

[sk]

Nothing matt, we don't have anything to loose. And realy I don't think we aught to need a reason to live better. It is just smart.... improvements should continue. We should find better energy sources etc.

 

my bet is that if the poloticians got out of our way, we would.

 

the only thing constant is change

[AlpineK]

Let's see first Mtn Goat said the majority of scientists despute global warming; then he said it doesn't matter what the majority of scientists think. Hmmm I'm not following the logic.

 

For those of you who don't like the science behind global warming let me point out that the earth only has 1 atmosphere. I'm sure life on earth will keep going despite what we do, but maybe we won't be around to see it.

 

Just looking at the air in the Puget Sound basin durring this last dry spell should convince most people that our present system produces a lot of disgusting smog.

 

Also what of our dependence on oil from the Persian Gulf. Our security is affected by people who hate us. Of course we could drill the Arctic and reduce our dependence by2%.

 

There are alternatives out there that won't wreck our economy. One of the largest tree services in Seattle switched to burning 100% biodiesel just yesterday. If I can do it, and if other companies can make changes like that while making a profit then I don't see why we should worry about how reducing CO2 emissions will wreck our economy.

[iain]

muffy we can't proceed with this logical course of action as long as the american guy feels he is judged by the size of his truck, even if he does the I-5 commute, and people are willing to endure 2 hours of gridlock to avoid expending a few calories to get home.

[Greg_W]

Don't remember the numbers, but our dependence on MidEast oil is less than one would think; less than 20%. We are buying more oil from South America and Siberia is a huge untapped resource.

[Greg_W]

So what do you do, Iain? LEGISLATE HUMAN BEHAVIOUR AND THINKING? Give me a break.

[iain]

if Siberia is an untapped resource then we aren't getting much oil from it are we?

[sk]

Have faith Iain, they willl learn..... look how many people just automaticly recycle now

[mattp]

"Do we follow Al Gore and eliminate the internal combustion engine, force high energy-use industries to change (example: aluminum & steel)? Who decides what is enough? Who tells me what I can and cannot do, buy, use, et cetera?"

 

Moving away from complete dependence on internal-combustion engines is clearly a good idea if not for a reduction in greenhouse gasses, for a reduction in smog (the primary source of smog in American cities is undeniably the internal combustion engine and the financial and health costs are both measurable and proven). Also reduced dependence on fossil fuels would give us more foreign policy options, something nobody could really argue against – could they?

 

Doesn't everybody who has even casually commented on the state of our industrial infrastructure agree that high energy-use industries like aluminum and steel are in drastic need up updating in the United States?

 

Who cares who decides what is enough? Shouldn't we start moving in that direction anyway and then we can argue about when to stop trying?

 

The government tells you what you can and cannot do, by, use, et cetera, Greg. That has been a fact since the beginning of civilization. Get over it.

 

[AlpineK]

What would happen to our economy if that 20% wasn't there?

[iain]

So what do you do, Iain? LEGISLATE HUMAN BEHAVIOUR AND THINKING? Give me a break.

Yes greg mind control is the only option. Is it possible for you not to speak in superlatives all the time? You demand to defend your kids with guns yet apparently you don't care about the air they'll be breathing in a decade.

[Jim]

Seems to me, that if you're objective, it's difficult to logically argue the man-made effects of global warming. Actions to cut back will mean change, and a lot of folks are unconfortable with that. There are some big oxen that would be gored with ruducing oil consumption. It's interesting to note that BP (yes the oil guys) instituted, on their own accord, the Kyto Protocols. And guess what? After an initial capital investment they ended up saving 600 million per year in costs. Which will pay for itself in a couple years. Ignorence is short-sighted.

Do what you can. I do - including placing bumper stickers on some of those really shameless monster SUVs that read: "I'm changing the climate - Ask me how. I take great pleasure in seeing these tool by while on my bicycle commute.

[Greg_W]

Who cares who decides what is enough? Shouldn't we start moving in that direction anyway and then we can argue about when to stop trying?

 

Get real, here, Matt. Do you really think that this would happen? You've been around a little longer than I have; how many government programs/agencies do you know that have ramped up and then voluntarily reduced themselves? It does not happen that way.

 

I refuse to "get over" the fact that government has too large of a say in my daily decisions/life. If you get over it, you have given in and accepted their mastery; I will not do that.

[AlpineK]

Fuck Texaco, Fuck Texas, Fuck George Bush

[Dru]

 

 

We are buying more oil from South America

 

Izzat why the US is funding the rioting, violent opposition to democratically elected populist (and Communist) Hugo Chavez in Venezuela?

[mattp]

Get real, Greg. Do you argue there should be no police forces because the cops are always trying to get more cruisers and every day they give out more speeding tickets? Of course not. And, for an example of an agency where law enforcement and environmental regulation have been reduced, look at the EPA under the Bush administration. Yes, government agencies tend to develop a life of their own and there are plenty of turf wars, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't have government agencies. If you want a country where the government doesn't do much, move to Russia.

[Jim]

Oh no Dru, we are the good guys. We don't manipulate other countries policies for the benefit of oil - well except for that Iraq thing, and Chile, and Panama, and Saudia Arabia, and Israel, and...

[iain]

I think there is plenty of evidence that it is impossible for individuals and businesses alike to self-regulate.

[Greg_W]

Iain, I care about the air we breathe, but you cannot change the way people think, or act, by passing laws. We cannot just enact policy with the attitude that "individual freedoms be damned" no matter what the cause. I am all for more fuel-efficient engines, but I still want to be able to buy what I want. When they figure out how to bring down the price of bio-diesel I would buy it (when I buy a diesel truck). Unfortunately for the anti-fossil fuel people, the market still demands the internal combustion engine, large or small. Until these hybrid engines are perfected and made large enough to replace the V-8 engines currently offered in today's light trucks, they will remain small potatoes. It is the job of the automakers to present an attractive product, not the government.

[Jim]

Ah, but there lies the crux. Why would Detroit want to offer a change to the status quo. The SUV craze is making them mucho bucks. That is their one goal - make money. They had to be forced to put in seat belts for crying out loud. Business rarely actc is ways that benefits individuals (safety, clean air, fuel economy). Individuals cannot make a meaniful choice if there are none.