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

[AlpineK]

Come on Mtn Goat. Spending money is good for the economy. Even when we were forced to in WW2 the economy took off.

 

What about car makers whining for years about how the government was going to fuck them and make them install air bags. Well air bags are in everything today and Detroit is doing fine.

 

The real deal! Hey Ian

Edited December 17, 2002 by AlpineK

[iain]

[MtnGoat]

"It is clear automakers don't give a rat's ass about fuel efficiency and smog reduction unless they are prodded with laws."

 

Hardly. What's clear is those who *claim* consumers want better mileage, is not jiving with what they choose to buy. There are plenty of small cars on the market, plenty of high mileage vehicles, etc.

 

Blaming anyone but the people who swear the earth is the most important thing to them until they are at the dealership signing the papers on a truck while the commuter car sits on the same lot is a dog that won't hunt.

 

Besides, what someone "needs" is up to them, not you. If their "need" occurs once a year (or never) is their right to decide.

[iain]

[MtnGoat]

"Come on Mtn Goat. Spending money is good for the economy. Even when we were forced to in WW2 the economy took off."

 

Then why didn't it work for the soviets (who directed *all* spending and all production) or the Germans, who spend lots and lots and are having severe problems?

 

This is all besides the point really, because the people who should have a say in what money is spent where, are the people who *earn* it and own it, not third parties however caring they may feel they are.

 

[j_b]

The second is a view of a "majority" view vs what actually happens in nature, to point out reality is not bound to a show of hands, from *either* proponents or skeptics.

 

No matter what any "majority" believes about natural processes they happen as they happen, period. That a majority believes warming is occurring, or another that it is not, doesn't make a darned bit of difference.

 

What's happening is happening and what relates to that is actual, physical, concrete *proof*, not a show of hands,

 

so how can you pretend to be knowledgeable enough on this topic to declare that the climate science community is wrong? or for Bush to ignore the conclusions of this country's academy of science?

[iain]

Are you insane? Any continuation of this discussion now that the goat has arrived is the equivalent of taking a paddleboat tour to Charybdis.

[fleblebleb]

There is a 4-year study that got kicked off in March that some of you might like. It's a joint project of the University of Iceland, Reykjavík Public Transport, Shell Iceland (in Iceland) and Daimler-Chrysler, Shell Hydrogen and Norsk Hydro (internationally), and a few other companies and research institutions in Scandinavia. The objective is to gradually replace Reykjavík's busses with hydro-powered ones. The first two years will be focussed on infrastructure (refueling station etc) and then they'll start by replacing three busses.

 

Here's a short article from the BBC. One of the incentives for the study is mentioned in the article - the greenhouse gas emissions per capita in Iceland is greater than anywhere else in the industrialized world. Another incentive is that (just like in the rest of Europe) gasoline is four times as expensive as it is in the US.

 

To find out more try googling for hydrogen and Reykjavik.

[AlpineK]

Mtn Goat, are you denying the economy took off in the 40's when the US started spending money on fighting WW2?

 

J B. Mtn Goat is the smartest (read arrogant) person ever. Remember how he was going to give definative proof that would debunk global warming back a few months ago. I don't remember him doing that.

[Greg_W]

j_b,

 

You are scary. So, in your plan, "society" is going to decide what vehicle I need? How will "society" do that? Set up a board of auditors that I will have to go before to prove my need? Who will appoint these people? Who will pay them? Is there an appeal process? This sounds very ominous and scary - very communistic, no thank you.

 

I was quoting your statement on the fuel-efficiency levels that manufacturers adopted. If theirs were higher than the government, what does that tell you? CO2 levels have nothing to do with the automakers' level of self-regulation, they are just an indicator of consumer use.

 

Explain to me how profiling limits your freedom please. Profiling is simply an investigative technique used to narrow the field of suspects. There may be side-affects of profiling that inhibit personal freedoms and I oppose those.

 

As far as this whole dictionary thing, drop it. You are using this as a attempt to make me look, or feel, stupid and it won't work. You somehow (because of your beliefs, I am sure) think you are superior to me. Whatever.

[Greg_W]

Mtn Goat, are you denying the economy took off in the 40's when the US started spending money on fighting WW2?

 

AlpineK - I made this same assertion to my financial planner last week and was corrected. He informed me that the economy really didn't start taking off until the 50's. The 40's weren't an incredibly boon economically. It was news to me, but thought you might like to know; whatever it's worth.

[AlpineK]

Hmmm. Well at least the economy was better than the 30's

[Greg_W]

True, I think a lot of jobs were created but didn't necessarily put a lot of cash out on the streets.

[fleblebleb]

in your plan, "society" is going to decide what vehicle I need? How will "society" do that? Set up a board of auditors that I will have to go before to prove my need? Who will appoint these people? Who will pay them? Is there an appeal process? This sounds very ominous and scary - very communistic, no thank you.

 

Duh. Society has already decided that you can't buy a car that doesn't meet emission standards, that you have to have your car tested for emissions every other year, that you can't drive faster than an arbitrary speed limit, etc etc blah blah blah. Pretty much everything in your daily life is regulated.

[freeclimb9]

 

My problem with this statement "what do we have to lose by cleaning up our act?". 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?

Let market forces decide. A recent article in Wired opened up a whole new paradigm for my thinking of what the future may hold. Imagine plugging your fuel-cell powered car into your house when you get home. No more grid. Anywhere. Developement of infrastructure in third-world countries takes a wild swerve towards roads, clean water, universities and hospitals. Brave new world. I hope GM pulls it off.

 

McCarthy was a 5.4 trad climber with striped tube socks and homemade tube chocks. Total gaper ...

DFA, there's more than one McCarthy in the clan.

[MtnGoat]

"so how can you pretend to be knowledgeable enough on this topic to declare that the climate science community is wrong?"

 

I can't. I can claim however, others are just as knowledgeable as proponents, and are skeptical, and for my money their arguments made to laymen like me are better than those of the proponents in my estimation. I don't claim to be an astrophysicist, and yet still listen to various interpretations of cosmology while not claiming the expertise to prove one true or another false.

 

When these people are trying to make a case for the power to spend lots and lots of *other* people's hard earned money, as well as enforcing widespread, drastic changes in how we live our everyday lives, they've earned the scrutiny I subject them to.

 

Especially when even the most ardent supporters of Kyoto downplay the actual effectiveness of their *own* projections after the huge costs have been incurred over decades... a fraction of a degree change less warming, which delays the original rise by 7 or so years, after a century.

[j_b]

You are scary

 

look who is talking ...

 

So, in your plan, "society" is going to decide what vehicle I need? How will "society" do that? Set up a board of auditors that I will have to go before to prove my need? Who will appoint these people? Who will pay them? Is there an appeal process? This sounds very ominous and scary - very communistic, no thank you

 

that's ok GW, you can let it go. The cold-war is long gone and you should to come up with new skeletons to rattle if you want to be effective. This said, I would only provide environmental education to the public and adequate guidelines to manufacturers. It should be enough.

 

I was quoting your statement on the fuel-efficiency levels that manufacturers adopted. If theirs were higher than the government, what does that tell you?

 

that Bush is in their pocket? (at least figuratively speaking)

 

Explain to me how profiling limits your freedom please. Profiling is simply an investigative technique used to narrow the field of suspects.

 

and how would you feel having an investigator going to see your boss to assess what is exactly your role in designing those rockets? (let's say his concern is what you say in this forum). If you can't see how this would be damaging to your future in said company I don't know what to tell you. And similar examples abound.

 

As far as this whole dictionary thing, drop it

 

so perhaps in the future you should avoid redefining words to fit your purpose.

 

 

[MtnGoat]

"Mtn Goat, are you denying the economy took off in the 40's when the US started spending money on fighting WW2?"

 

Yes, I will. The economy did not exist in that state long enough for any of the very real problems with huge taxation and directed spending to actually show up. Add in that the economy really only accelerated after the war, that there is more to any economy than the just the state spending money (as the Soviets and numerous socialist states amply show) and this argument gets pretty messy.

 

"J B. Mtn Goat is the smartest (read arrogant) person ever."

 

I read more arrogance into the stances of folks sure how *other* people should be forced to pay for what they value and forced to live their lives in accordance with the social goals of the viewer. I've never ever claimed to be smarter than anyone else, with one exception, I know what I think, what I value, and what I want to do with my life better than you do!

 

"Remember how he was going to give definative proof that would debunk global warming back a few months ago. I don't remember him doing that."

 

I never said I would give proof, I said I'd read up on it, which I am currently in the process of, this is not a simple issue.

 

 

[Greg_W]

and how would you feel having an investigator going to see your boss to assess what is exactly your role in designing those rockets? (let's say his concern is what you say in this forum).

This is not profiling. Stop re-defining the term.

 

Communism isn't just about the Cold War, j_b; it's an ideology that has no regard for individuality or personal freedom. Therefore, I oppose it or any of its trappings.

 

Greg W

 

P.S. I can't wait to meet you.

[AlpineK]

Well Mtn Goat your in a smaller and smaller group. Even General Motors in some recent news reports has admitted they believe car's are contributing to a rise in the earths temps.

[MtnGoat]

"This said, I would only provide environmental education to the public and adequate guidelines to manufacturers. It should be enough."

 

So how do you know "education" will result in the choices you approve of? Isn't it possible you can educate people and they still will not make choices you like?

 

Or is the "education" not evaluated by teaching them what you want, but by wether or not they make conclusions and take actions you've already decided you want?

 

 

[Greg_W]

fc9 - Read part of the article and printed it out. Sounds cool if they can make it viable and market-friendly (as in, affordable). With fewer parts the unions will fight this tooth and nail. You are talking about putting union labor out of work, or displacing them, and they won't like that. Will it power my Silverado?

Edited December 18, 2002 by Greg_W

[AlpineK]

Mtn Goat, Society already tells you what you can do and what you can buy.

[MtnGoat]

"Well Mtn Goat your in a smaller and smaller group. Even General Motors in some recent news reports has admitted they believe car's are contributing to a rise in the earths temps."

 

This is exactly why I made the point about majorities having no lock on the reality of what happens in the physicial world. Wether or not a majority believes something is not proof they are correct, it depends on the verifiablity of their proof, not the number of hands in the air.

 

Otherwise, the continents would not be drifting and the earth would now be flat.

 

Wether or not GM has been taken in by this hokum doesn't mean anything. If they believe it, fine, they are free to redesign their vehicles with this in mind and make a case to their intended customers. I'd never presume to stand in the way of their right to believe what they wish and sell what they want to willing customers.

 

 

[j_b]

I can claim however, others are just as knowledgeable as proponents

 

but when one makes a claim of this magnitude, it is usually supported by references if not original work. So .... why don't you give us at least, say, 20 examples of climate scientists who don't believe that climate warming is accelerated by human greenhouse gas emisssions.