I'm with you on everything except #8 (it may be a fad among a subset) and #20. Although I think my desire for #16 to be true is clouding my judgment.

Actually, BioD, house size is somewhat cyclical.  The small houses of the early to mid 20th century were neither anomalous nor more normal than today's larger houses.  In the late 19th century, particularly, middle-class houses were upwards of 2000 square feet, just as they are now, although admittedly the number of residents tended to be larger, since to be middle-class in 1880 you had to be able to afford "help", often of the live-in variety.

It also isn't really true that houses used to be built better or worse than they are now.  The houses that are still around from previous periods tend to be better built than the average new house; that's why they're still here.  In fact, a great many houses were and are constructed shoddily to satisfy customers who want more than they can afford, and those houses aren't around for long in any era.  

One thing that's going to limit the longevity of both the McMansions themselves and of the fad making such things desirable will be the technological overconfidence that goes into such a  project.  Rich people, and wannabe-rich people, may not care when they buy a new house what it will look like in 20 years, but they will sure care 20 years later.  Bad designs only continue to be desirable until their obvious and disastrous flaws become apparent and sufficient to overwhelm the perceived advantages, which is why you don't see a lot of bubble skylights anymore.  When the big ugly houses built in the last ten years start to decay, people will look at even well-maintained examples and see decay.  Only when the tackiness of the decay exceeds the status conveyed by the size and the "village" effect of the interminable collections of pointless extra roof pitches will people really want something else.

No.20 is plainly idiotic.

Since the data doesn't support the likelihood of catastrophic global warming the people who are onto this scientific fraud will multiply even as the costly policies that you crowd have foisted upon us are being applied.

Come up with the evidence champ and you won't need to be a smartarse.

I'm waiting for an authentic counter-attack so I can counter-attack back. Only then will you see just how well defended the truth can be.

As for politeness you cqn forget that for starters. Your movement is not merely fraudulent. You actually want to impose costs on the rest of us. And you spend all your time slandering people who disagree.

Don't tell me about polite Gristmill culture siince thats a lie. I've just seen abuse of Inhofe and Bob Carter. Two people smart enough to find you clowns out and brave enough to try and combat your malevolence.

I don't need to cite any sources. Because you guys won't come up with any evidence. And you all know that we are in an ice age.

You guys are just playing silly-buggers.

A careful reading of what you said reveals a sort of rolling thunder of insults.

"All views are welcome, but polite, well articulated and defended ones are especially valued. Tolerance of diverse viewpoints is the strength of this site. Humor, sarcastic and otherwise is icing on the cake."

Here you are really making a lying claim that I'm not explaiining myself clearly. And you are reserving the right for sarcasm to one side only.

Now look you guys are doing the wrong thing and perpetuating a fraud that will be immensely costly. That has already been immensely costly.

So its time you put up a case in open debate and not instead tried to set things up in advance to close it down.

Now have you got some evidence fella?

Have you got some evidence for the likelihood of catastrophic warming? As opposed to catastrophic cooling?

Well lets hear it then?

   Dear BioD,

     GMB is clearly a troll.  One species that is certainly not endangered.  If he wanted to discuss Global Warming or see any of the evidence, Grist has done more to discuss the issue at a very basic elementary level than ANY place I've seen.

     You linked to the series, it continues.  It doesn't take much intelligence to find it if one really wants to.  Anyway, your politeness to trolls is a credit to you. (smile).

     As to the list, I would not bet on either 15 or 16, but they certainly would be high on my wish list.

     Personally, I am lousy at predicting the future, so will leave that to those who are wiser and have better foresight!

patrick

1 Carbon trading will become a buzzword.

2 Alt energy stocks become even hotter.

3 Global warming turns into a major political issue and Al will have to enter the race. maybe as not THE guy but he will throw his ever growing political power to sway the Dem. candidate. They will need Al to win.

4 Green becomes the new black.

froggy

It burns the flesh. And its only pressed upon those heretical non-persons who will not take non-evidence for an answer when talking to alarmists.

Now since I've found you out.....

Have you sir... got any evidence for the likelihood of catastrophic global warming?

NO????

I.... DIDN'T..... THINKSO!!!!

But it just links alarmist-denialists being smug smartasses

No evidence to be found there.

No evidence of anything but cultic behaviour.

Media will notice that do-it-your-selfers have already solved the climate/energy problem with conservation, renewables, and plugin serial hybrid car conversions.  

You tube combined with blogs will provide the initial publicity to make that happen.

Government will ignore it all.  Corporations will put up even bigger mass media smokescreens featuring  "new, safer, waste recycling" nuclear reactors, "clean' coal, fuel farming, and the new, improved hydrogen powered economy!!

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog

Is this the alleged "argument' you meant?

"Since the data doesn't support the likelihood of catastrophic global warming the people who are onto this scientific fraud will multiply even as the costly policies that you crowd have foisted upon us are being applied."

I don't see any argument there at all.  Or evidence.

On the other hand we have a correlation of interaction between GHG levels and temperature going back 100s of thousands of years verified by all the peer reviewed research.

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog

Adm. William Fallon (the point guy on Iran) to replace Gen. John Abizaid as the head of U.S. Central Command is an indication of an attack on Iran and off-shore oil facilities.  So I predict the SOTU from Bush will be about making oil from coal with CO2 sequestration.  As usual, I hope I am wrong.

Here are three predictions about that proposed ecological disaster, the U.S.-Mexico border fence.

Most likely scenario-the fence remains unfunded,  preventing its construction for the present, but keeping it as a potential menace for the future.

Optomistic scenario-environmental groups and activists all over the country awaken to the danger and raise a tremendous outcry. Under pressure from the people, Congress consigns this appalling project to the rubbish bin, and sets to work crafting an immigration policy that might actually do some good   in the world.

Pessemistic scenario-construction on the fence gets underway, effectively damaging or destroying  wilderness areas in the southwest, ending all hope of the return of the jaguar, and doing incalculable harm to the ocelot, the desert bighorn, and the Sonoran pronghorn.  Meanwhile, illegal immigration into the U.S. continues, as desperate people find new ways to enter the country.

It's up to us.  Which is it going to be?

   Dear Storm Dragon,

      Your option number one is interesting, but I suspect that it is unlikely, since Congress may feel a need to throw some red meat (in the form a fence) to the attack dogs of the right.

      I suspect that we will see some sort of so-called "immigration reform" from the current Congress.  It will probably follow the path of a lot of labor contracts, in that it will protect the current immigrants (through some sort of token requirement that they do something before being put on the path of naturalization), while sacrificing future immigrants (by creating and codifying a second class status for them and ensuring that they have no rights while here and are more easily shipped back.

     (This will do nothing about future undocumented workers, who will be left to fend for themselves for least the near term.  Congress will pretend that only people who are already here and those willing to come in semi-servitude actually exist.)

     So, a combination of two and three is most likely (not the good parts).

     Frankly, no one in American (pretty much) cares about the American poor, so it is unreasonable to expect them to care about poor people who can't vote.

     patrick