For anybody who's squeamish about attributing stronger hurricanes to climate change because the science isn't settled, one thing which is guaranteed is that rising sea levels will render storm surges larger and more devastating, whether the hurricane itself was climate-change enhanced or not.

So that climate change effect, at least, is incontrovertible, and should be attributed.

6 feet by 2100?  Plus no stoppage of the Gulf Stream.

This will take the urgency out of GHG elimination.

Unless increased storm and drought is a severe enough effect, we are not going to get much poltical will behind climate cure.  

Humans will simply say to hell with ecosystems.  And go on as usual with coal power.

Are you absolutely sure this is not an underestimation designed to cultivate credibility?

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin

Let's see, well, Hansen knows he'll be dead by 2100 so there's no point in calling his bluff (goes same for rest of IPCC).

BTW, since Greenland is shrinking faster than you expected (doesn't that invalidate your model?) shouldn't the oceans be rising faster than you thought...but right now...I mean, 2008.

Yes, but they're not.

And they won't.

They'll sink.

They'll sink.

What will sink?

The oceans?  

The iceflows?

That's not even possible, ya realize?  Ice floats on water...'specially salt water.

Sea levels are going to rise, the planets temp is going to rise, the antarctic is going to be summer ice free in 20 years......... and nothing anyone does is going to change that. So, we have to learn to live with it. My advice: Don't invest in coastal property.

Victory in Pattani

A tremendous amount of investing has already been done close to sea level by powerful corporations.    

Were the only possible victims the powerless farmers of Bangladesh then rising seas there lot less attention paid to the looming problem.

Remember that insurance companies were among the very first companies to recognize climate change.  They looked forward, as they are wont to do, and saw a possible world of hurt to their bottom line.

Will corporate self-interest be enough to force a fix?  Possibly not.  But it will certainly help.  

Corporations tend to hold great sway with US politicians, especially the Republicans.  

Corporations with business interests at risk of flooding can help counteract fossil fuel interests.

...but now you're a CAT2?!

Yet another "hurricane" fizzles on landfall...IKE

Even if there were zero man made emissions of anything starting today - which is, of course, impossible, the climate wouldn't make any sort of real adjustment for decades. This isn't like a sports car, it doesn't turn on a dime. So the Greenland ice sheet is going to take a beating, seas levels are going to rise.......... and nothing can change that. So learn to live with it.

Victory in Pattani

No, perhaps not a fix, per se.

But an avoidance of the worst case scenario wouldn't be a bad idea, IMHO.

We seem to have a choice of continuing as we've been doing and making the Earth a very inhospitable place to live or changing our stupid ways and hanging on to some reasonable amounts of the globe to inhabit.

Right now the barrier to change in the US seems to come from fossil fuel interests and some very strange individuals who seem to be more interested in supporting the party line than to looking at the data.

Slowly we're watching many corporations begin to realize that fighting change is not in their financial interests.

As for the FUDers, I suppose they're also the same people who continue to smoke and not wear seat belts.  If we're lucky they'll "Darwin" out.

Bob:
"We seem to have a choice of continuing as we've been doing and making the Earth a very inhospitable place to live"

I find it a very hospitable place to live.  It seems that others do as well, since they seem to live longer and longer.

"Right now the barrier to change in the US seems to come from fossil fuel interests "

That would be me.  I'm very interested in having fossil fuels for my SUV, heating my house, flying on business and vacation, etc..  I certainly hope that those wonderful fossil fuel companies keep on providing us with it.

You cherish the unborn.

But feel the born are on their own.

You hate the earth, and love burning up the bioshpere.  In fact you derive actual pleasure from it.  

Anything you want to add?  

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin

"Ask those adults in Haiti who are standing on roofs starving and dying of thirst."

A weather event, not a climate event.  They have always happend and they always will.  Fortunately we now have more wealth and technology to help us minimize the impact of weather events thanks to fossil fuels.

"Abrupt climate change does have a large number of appearances in geological records."

Yes, especially a climate event as small as .8C of temperature rise in 150 years.

"Complacency is not a good long-term survival strategy."

Driving people crazy with low probability disaster scenarios is not a good living strategy.  Living within a couple hundred miles of the Yellowstone supervolcano I feel that I have more reason to worry about it killing me that AGW.  But I'm not going to loose any sleep over either.

amazingdrx:
"You cherish the unborn.
But feel the born are on their own."

If by "on their own" you mean that they are not the property of the government, then yes.  Remember, the government has no ability to do something for you without taking something from you.  And the more that you want them to do for you the less freedom and resources you will have to do for yourself.  Of course I realize that people like you think in terms of having the government take from someone else and give it to you.  And there are certainly politicians like Obama that want to feed you that delusion.  But that is not how it works.

"You hate the earth, and love burning up the bioshpere."

No, I love the earth and I love feeding the biosphere, which is exactly what CO2 does.  Try to figure out why greenhouses operate with an internal CO2 level of between 600 and 1000 ppm.  And try to figure out why the biomass of the earth is actually increasing.

"In fact you derive actual pleasure from it."

Nah, sex, good books, good music, hiking, skiing, sight seeing, entertaining my daughter, do it for me.  I'm also a big bike racing fan.  I'll be glued to an internet video of stage 8 of the Vuelta tomorrow morning. Let me guess, allowing yourself to have a pompus, superior, sanctimoneous attitude does it for you.

That Saluki thing identifies itself as:

<<
Living within a couple hundred miles of the Yellowstone supervolcano
>>

Idaho, Wyoming and Utah are solidly Red states; we may bank on their voting for McCain/Palin in November.

Montana is a fascinating state, in flakey flux.  They elected a good Democratic Senator in 2006; and Obama has visited some of the Indian reservations.  It will probably go Red once again in November, but by a very slender margin.

Sarah Palin is of course a notorious wildlife-hater, so we should not be surprised if certain verbose trollish types should support her.  Also, Idaho and Wyoming are probably the most wildlife-hating states in the Lower 48.

No coincidence, methinks, that Sarah Palin was born in Idaho, wolf-hatred-central, and went to college there.

Stranger, however, is the recently appearing item, that she was baptized as an infant as a Roman Catholic ... Gewalt!, as we say in Schul; who knew?!  For all those hepped-up evangelical types, that sure is a tough bit of Schnitzel to schwallow.

Chickens deserve our true friendship! So do fish! So do other sentient beings! Let us learn to be kind.

"..allowing yourself to have a pompus, superior, sanctimoneous attitude does it for you."

Hehehey.

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin

Saluki:

Could you please explain why you believe it is fine to use and exhaust a non-renewable, finite resource like oil? What gives you (or anyone) the right to make this resource unavailable to future generations when there are alternatives that would preserve or at least conserve it? Do you believe depleting a finite resource is indicative of an advanced, intelligent civilization, or is it your position that we can do whatever we want with the Earth's resources... future generations will just have to deal with it?

Remember... I'm not stating my position here... just asking for clarification on yours. What I've read from your posts leads me to believe you don't care about resource depletion. I want to make sure I understand your position.

Richard

Saluki:

I suspect you don't really believe this statement of yours... you just said it without thinking about the truth of it:

"Remember, the government has no ability to do something for you without taking something from you.  And the more that you want them to do for you the less freedom and resources you will have to do for yourself."

Are you not content to give the government money to build the roads and bridges you use, deliver your mail, establish communications and energy infrastructure, protect your food from poisons, and (last but not least) protect your family from hostile forces?

True, there are certainly instances in which the government takes resources from me to do things I might not agree with, but there are likely far more instances in which I willingly give the government a portion of my resources to provide basic necessities for my life. Is that not true for you as well?

From what you said (and again, I'm just replaying your words here), you would prefer to keep your money so that you had the freedom to do these things for yourself. Could you please explain how you would go about this?

Richard

Usually not a good idea to feed trolls.

Then slay them?  I'm just saying Bob.  This one seems like a fun person, ready and willing for sacrifice.

It's like an earth worshipping heathen ceremony this way, almost the fall equinox after all.

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin

I find it a very hospitable place to live.  It seems that others do as well, since they seem to live longer and longer.

Actually, the vast majority of the planet's population lives in poverty.

Not only that, but compared to what the world was before the industrial revolution, a larger number of people actually die of hunger, despite the advent of industrial agriculture.

Not to mention the estimated 5 million plus people who died last year alone from pollution-related causes.

I'm guessin' that you've never actually been to a third-world country, correct?

For that thing that identifies itself as caniscandida:
"Idaho, Wyoming and Utah are solidly Red states"

No need to play guessing games. I'm in Colorado.

"Sarah Palin is of course a notorious wildlife-hater"

Got any evidence for that?

"Also, Idaho and Wyoming are probably the most wildlife-hating states in the Lower 48."

Yeah, that's probably why they decided to reintroduce the wolf into their states.

Richard:
"Remember, the government has no ability to do something for you without taking something from you.  And the more that you want them to do for you the less freedom and resources you will have to do for yourself."

Yes, I said that and I mean that.  However, I didn't say that I proposed doing none of it.  The point is that it's very easy to get to where what the government takes far outweighs what it provides.

When you look at a forum like this you quickly discover that the inmates believe that any social or personal problem that anyone has is the responsibility of the goverment.  And if it's not solved by the government, then the government is at fault, even if the problem was caused by the bad judgement of the individual.  These people seem to want to be eternal children, with no responsibility for themselves.  When things get to that level, the only way that the government can have enough resources and control to solve those kinds of problems is to take most of your freedom and most of your money.  That, of course, is why it is impossible for a communist government to ever be anything other than a tyranny and a police state.  Of course there are always unsavory politicians that not only are willing to make such a deal, but they encourage it.  They want the power and the money and so they will make the deal and provide you with the security and services that you are asking for, or even the security and services that they told you you must have in order to have "social justice".  Social justice is, of course, the new catch phrase for socialism.  And socialism is always fascist.  It can't help but be.  This is why I despise leftists.  They are not only selling their own freedom, but mine as well.  For me freedom is a higher value than security or the so called "social justice".

Gotta get some sleep now.  I'll get to the rest tomorrow.

Sanity.  You see, the EIA (presided over by your favorite president's administration) and virtually every authority on oil reserves, claim all the "drill, drill, drill, baby, drilling" that anyone cares to do here in the US might take 3 cents per gallon off the price of gas, maybe 10 years from now.

Frankly it sounds fairly loony to suggest that we have all the oil we need right here, without any imports.  

Maybe you have been dwelling on that supervolcanoe explosion about to melt the concrete in your underground "bush bunker" (fall out sheler updated for the ever increasingly dangerous world that the shaved chimp hath wrought) to the exclusion of these sorts of widely, sanely agreed upon facts?

Perhaps there's a gas leak in the reinforced concrete?  That could explain your oracle-like judgemental powers regarding life and death, from the pre-natal to the scale of the global climate and ecosystem.

("pompus, superior, and sanctimoneous" enough for you?)

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin

.... language. You have a sort of assimilationist attitude (like most members of Grist to varying degrees) vis-a-vis man's relationship with nature. But there is another viewpoint equally dominant in America (and most other parts of the world) in which man sees himself as controlling nature, and in which man sees his role as a question of dominion. Man has "dominion" over the earth and it's inhabitants.

The legitimacy of each viewpoint is subjective, so it is not very constructive to label in negative terms those who see the world fundamentally differently. You are not going to move their opinions, they are not going to change yours, so wherever possible, you just have to look for common ground and seek harmony.

Victory in Pattani

OK, Mad Mac, I know what you are saying, and I do not expect to be able to convince Sarah Palin, or her way-silly Republican cheering throng, or the idiotic selfish idiot jerks who fly to Alaska and want to do trophy-hunting.

And I know very well that the use of that horribly mysterious word "dominion" in the creation account in Genesis Chapter One has wrought a great deal of conflict amongst interpreters.

Nevertheless, I am NOT a moral relativist.

I.e., difficult situations in life allow of different reactions and different interpretations, often depending on the respective cultural background of the respective moral agent.  But that does not mean that any possible reaction, or any possible interpretation, is as valid as any other.  What it DOES mean is that time, a lot of time, and a lot of patience, and a lot of work, and a lot of tolerance, are all necessary, meanwhile, until we figure out what is what.

E.g.: Consider what was done regularly and religiously in Mesoamerica, most recently in Tenochtitlan, capital of the Aztec Empire/tribute system.  Lots of cute guys were rounded up from opposing armies; they were treated nicely for a bit; then they were dragged to the top of a pyramid, and horribly disfigured priests would ram an obsidian knife into their chests, and pull out their hearts, and kick the still beautiful, still twitching bodies down the steps of the pyramid.

And later that same day, those fine limbs would be on the menus of the finest restaurants in (the future) Mexico City.

(I do not know if they sexually stimulated their naked victims, strapped belly up on the altar, until they reached the moment of orgasm, and only then, as the victims started to ejaculate, brought down the obsidian knife.  But that would not strike me as unexpected.  Plus, it would have really turned on their too-long-sexless Spanish captives.  Plus, it would have been something which the historian-friars would not have wanted to describe in detail.  What were their guardian angels thinking, as they looked on?  What was Saint Joseph thinking, patron of a happy death?)

So there you are: Just because some people think it is OK, even people from a great and ancient culture, numbering many hundreds of thousands if not millions, does that mean it is REALLY OK?

There is no such thing as moral relativism.

And, so far as caribou-slaughter goes: Well, when the Gwich'in hunters do it, that is unfortunate, but it is a hugely important part of their cultural tradition, and their real way of sustaining themselves.

When Euro-Americans kill a caribou for food, e.g. as Rick Bass did (or tried to do) when he visited the Gwich'in, that is also unfortunate, but deserving praise for being a better (relatively less cruel) way to bring in a meat supply than by relying on the commercial meat industry, which is unspeakably cruel to captive animals.

When Euro-Americans (or anybody else for that matter) kill a caribou, or any other animal, for a trophy, that is not just unfortunate, but positively despicable.

Chickens deserve our true friendship! So do fish! So do other sentient beings! Let us learn to be kind.

The legitimacy of each viewpoint is subjective, so it is not very constructive to label in negative terms those who see the world fundamentally differently. You are not going to move their opinions, they are not going to change yours, so wherever possible, you just have to look for common ground and seek harmony.

Energy and environmental positions where it comes to Peak Oil, climate change, habitat destruction, species extermination, the poisoning of the air, water, and soil, are not "opinions" and they're not "subjective". They involve acknowledgement of facts, or the refusal to acknowledge facts, either out of stupidity or willful depravity. Either way, the former position is legitimate, the latter has no legitimacy at all.

"Constructive" or not, I cannot and will not fail to hate greed and aggressive stupidity, those who have destroyed or seek to destroy everything I value, who want to destroy the earth and humanity and want to drag me and my fellow human beings down with them, just so they can make a few wretched bucks. Swine.

There is no "common ground", and there can be no "harmony". What could possibly be the common ground? By "common ground", all the rapers and their apologists mean is, stop resisting, lay back and enjoy it.

As for "dominion over the earth", it's true that this out-of-control drunk-driver rogue species has so far been able to overcome nature's attempts to impose a correction.

But as I said elsewhere, for every action there's an equal and opposite reaction. So far man has held off the reaction, while the sum of his action becomes ever more monumental.

The potential energy being stored up is astronomical. It can't, and it won't, be long, before that energy is rendered kinetic.

Ha!  Poor critters ...

Skunks most certainly believe in the existence of cars.  They just have no traditional wisdom regarding cars.  And they have no prayers which are effective in defending them against cars.

Do skunks have guardian angels?  Yes.

Do those guardian angels do the skunks much good?  Well, often enough, but not always.

If we run over a skunk on the road, will we meet it again in Heaven when we die?  Yes, absolutely, and you will become inseparable pals.  And the stink will become positively celestial, even divine.

Chickens deserve our true friendship! So do fish! So do other sentient beings! Let us learn to be kind.

Saluki,

Once again, I'm not debating you on a given issue. I've not shared my views with you. I'm simply trying to understand your viewpoint and pointing out to you how you continually use your mindset and personal agenda to misstate facts and make statements about others that are simply untrue. This last post of yours demonstrates this repeatedly.

You never answered my statements about the things government does for you that you probably want government to continue doing. You simply bypassed the matter. This indicates you have a hard time admitting to your misstatements, even when presented with clear evidence.

You then go on to say that your real point is that it is possible to take more from the government than what you get back. Saluki... no one here disagrees with this statement. It's certainly not an intelligent point to make.

Next, you refer to me as an "inmate" and then state that I believe all social and personal problems are the responsibility of the government. Can you please point out to me where I said anything even remotely close to this, or is this just one more example of how you judge other people before you've even heard their opinions? You've done this numerous times with me. This is always indicative of a person with a fixed, rigid mindset. Remember Saluki... I'm simply playing back your own words. I'm not making anything up here. These are your statements... not mine.

You then continue with a long rant about what I and others here believe, which is in fact just your fantasies and judgments about who I am... none of it, of course, being evenly closely reflective of my beliefs. Some of what you say may reflect some of the opinions of some people here, but so what?

The point is, Saluki, you can't lump everyone with a different view than yours into a box. It's more complex than this. It's quite possible some of my views reflect thoughts you've never even considered... unless you believe that your thoughts are already as evolved as they'll ever get. Tell me... is that statement correct? Are you certain your views right now reflect your highest potential as a human being?

I can tell you this for certain. Based on all the misstatements, judgments and lies you've made about me in our brief correspondence, you have a great deal of personal growth ahead of you. While this is taking place, you might want to consider asking people what they believe before you pass judgment on them. But then again, it's probably far more comfortable for you to continue living within your illusions and stories about "the rest of us."

Richard

You took an extreme example. An act that is indefensible in the modern context. Let's take two very good current examples:

a. Polygamy. In the Islamic tradition, it's morally correct. In our current Christian tradition, it's morally incorrect. Is there only one correct answer here? And who's answer is it?

b. Homosexuality. In the Islamic tradition a major taboo.In modern western civilization now largely (though certainly not completely) accepted. So who's interpretation is correct?

It's totally arbitrary which way you go on questions like this unless you apply an over-arching principle, which you have to accept others will not apply.

As for how this applies to political life in the US, you can howl about those things which you consider abhorrent (hunting wolves from aircraft is not for trophies - it's to keep the population in check since they are predators and eat things we don't want them eating) but in a pluralistic democracy you have to accept the outcome of the majority. If you attack the majority vociferously, you will be ignored.

Victory in Pattani

"Either way, the former position is legitimate, the latter has no legitimacy at all."

If the latter has the support among a majority of the population, it is dejure legitimate.

'"Constructive" or not, I cannot and will not fail to hate greed and aggressive stupidity, those who have destroyed or seek to destroy everything I value, who want to destroy the earth and humanity and want to drag me and my fellow human beings down with them, just so they can make a few wretched bucks. Swine."

For every action there is a reaction. When you hate them, they hate you right back. And they stop listening to you. If you want to influence them, the language of hate will do it, but not to the outcome you desire.

"There is no "common ground", and there can be no "harmony". What could possibly be the common ground? By "common ground", all the rapers and their apologists mean is, stop resisting, lay back and enjoy it."

You highlight the facts, persuasion based on same. But first you have to acknowledge that YOUR viewpoints on how to deal with the facts might be wrong. In fact, Russ, yours ARE wrong. It's not even debatable. You and Wolverine hold opinions absolutely in the tiniest of minority on the planet. They are not legitimate. Of course you can't find common ground, but you are a deconstructionist. Nobody is going to pay any attention to radical viewpoints such as yours.

"The potential energy being stored up is astronomical. It can't, and it won't, be long, before that energy is rendered kinetic."

It won't happen in your lifetime. But what I find humorous is that you want it to happen - but decry those who are pursing policies that might lead to that end. Hasn't the inconsistency ever occurred to you. You should be working for Exxon - Mobil to help hasten the outcome you desire.

Victory in Pattani

If the latter has the support among a majority of the population, it is dejure legitimate.

You and Wolverine hold opinions absolutely in the tiniest of minority on the planet.

This kind of flat-earth, quantity-over-quality bean-counting is beneath contempt.
Throughout history the majority has almost always been wrong about every real issue.
It's the creative and intellectual elite who have always borne the torch of insight and vision, with the hominid masses lagging hundreds, often thousands of years behind.

BTW, I think you meant "de facto". "De jure" means formal, official.

When you hate them, they hate you right back.

Believe me, I was the victim of their hate for many long hard years before I started hating them back. But now I'm counterattacking.

But what I find humorous is that you want it to happen - but decry those who are pursing policies that might lead to that end. Hasn't the inconsistency ever occurred to you. You should be working for Exxon - Mobil to help hasten the outcome you desire.

This is the last time I'm going to say this to you, since obviously you don't pay attention.

"Wanting" it to happen or not is irrelevant - it is going to happen regardless.

So there are two choices - orderly retreat or absolute rout.

Exxon's way is the dead-ender, scorched earth way of the bunker - business as usual until complete collapse.

This is not what I "want".

What I want is an organized transformation and simplification while there's still time (if there is still time).

Of course the greed fundamentalists "won't listen to me" as you say. It has nothing to do with my hating them, and everything to do with the fact that my way, they wouldn't be able to plunder the earth and society any longer.

Consume our way out of this energy crisis Russ.  

70% believed there were WMDs in Iraq and mushroom clouds were looming, and Saddam was behind 9/11.

"Drill, drill, drill, baby, drill", that slogan will clear everything up.  They believe it and may even vote based on that.

It's all relative say the realists.  Facts, morality, reality itself.  If your neighbors believe it, it must be right and true?

As the neocons told Woodward, "We make history".  

But isn't this in fact the worst kind of big lie?  The tactic of mass delusion that got us into this current mess we are in.

Palin is a human bumpersticker.  You can't interview a bumpersticker or question a slogan.  Another fine mess they are getting us into.

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin

"This kind of flat-earth, quantity-over-quality bean-counting is beneath contempt."

So you are right, everyone else is wrong, other opinions don't matter. Got it.

"Throughout history the majority has almost always been wrong about every real issue."

Like you are on this one?

"It's the creative and intellectual elite who have always borne the torch of insight and vision, with the hominid masses lagging hundreds, often thousands of years behind."

Don't flatter yourself. Those same "elites" have also been responsible for all kinds of heinous B.S.

"BTW, I think you meant "de facto". "De jure" means formal, official."

No, I meant de jure - in accordance with law. That's the result of this funky things called elections. You're not smarter than me, so don't try and get pedantic and make yourself look that way.

"Believe me, I was the victim of their hate for many long hard years before I started hating them back. But now I'm counterattacking."

And like Don Quixote, you are losing.

"So there are two choices - orderly retreat or absolute rout."

Orderly retreat is not an option. A simpleton can figure that out. There is no orderly way, short of bringing Reinhard Heydrich and Adolf Eichman out of the grave and putting them to work on the problem, to cut the planets population by two thirds. Furthermore, the kind of centralized power that would have to be given to a world governing body would definitely be abused by those who controlled it. What the purpose, that would not be the ends result.

Of course, you are wrong, the collapse is not going to happen. There will be pain and reduction, but not collapse. The industrial era is not going to go backwards, but rather evolve. 500 years from now, people will not be riding horseback.

Victory in Pattani

If we run over a skunk on the road, will we meet it again in Heaven when we die?  Yes, absolutely, and you will become inseparable pals.  And the stink will become positively celestial, even divine.

That was...PURE GENIUS!!

If ya don't mind, I think I might use that as a sig. ;)

Either unlimited, unregulated, monopoly multinational corporate "capitalism" as usual...

Or...  North Korea.

I think maybe we could strike a happy medium, where real competitive free market capitalism exists alongside reasonable regulation and a social safety net.

Obama is the candidate for that plan.

Palin/McCain is the ticket for unregulated, unlimited corporatism.  Destroy Bristol Bay with toxic mine tailings?  The source of one third of our seafood?  Palin's recent pet project.

Or allow safe environmentally friendly mining, and fishing to coexist?  

That's the choice.  Put all those small family fishing businesses, which Palin at one time depended on for her family's living, right out of business.  So a huge mining corporation can save 5% on costs by dumping toxic tailings into the bay, instead of safely returning them to where they came from.

Palin is the perfect example of people who vote agaionst their own interests.  A party that tramples others down so the few can love in excess.

Obama and Biden worked their way up, not selling out, not to a life of excess.  But to a life of service.  "Service"..the signs waved at the GOP convention said it.  

Vote for the happy medium, good old fashioned Teddy Roosevelt style capitalism.  Reasonable regulation to maintain free markets and a fair chance for small businesses and large..who play fairly, do what is right, and act responsibly..

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin

amazingdrx:
"You see, the EIA (presided over by your favorite president's administration) and virtually every authority on oil reserves, claim all the "drill, drill, drill, baby, drilling" that anyone cares to do here in the US might take 3 cents per gallon off the price of gas, maybe 10 years from now."

That's positively the most idiotic thing that I have ever heard.  First of all, Bush didn't go through and fire people from previous administrations in most of the government departments.  Most of these people are lifelong government employees. They were probably there long before Bush was elected.  They do what they want with no regard for the president.  So your first point is crap.

Now, the idea that the EIA has a clue about what oil prices will be in the future and how added supply will effect oil prices is also crap.  If you think that the EIA has any credibility in that area, then show me a report of theirs from 10 years ago that shows us reaching $140 per barrel in 2008.  I doubt that they would even have been in the ball park.  But you are ignorant enough to think that they can do estimates to 3 cents.

Any economist will tell you that prices are effected by both supply and demand and by expectations of future supply and demand.  If you produce slightly more than what is consumed, it has an amplified negative effect on prices.  If you produce slightly less that what is consumed the competition to get what is needed goes up greatly driving prices up greatly.  In the market, the expectation of what that balance will be in the future also drives prices.  Now you don't have to be very bright to see that China is growing at a rate that will cause them to increase their oil demands in huge increments, and that India will not be far behind them.  The current middle east oil fields simply cannot keep up.  Some of the biggest fields in Saudi Arabia are having water pumped into them in order to get the oil out.  There is another issue, by the way.  The Saudis are very secretive about their reserves and their production.  So how does the EIA deal with that missing data?  Canadian sand oil is helping the situation, but it's not enough.  The EIA also bases it's estimates on current technology which is never realistic.

And of course you and the EIA are completely overlooking the 1.5 trillion barrels of shale oil that we have in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming.  More oil than they have in all of the middle east and enough oil to power the US for the next 200 years.  That blatant oversight is a good indication that the EIA has it's own share of eco cultists.

amazingdrx:
"Maybe you have been dwelling on that supervolcanoe explosion about to melt the concrete in your underground "bush bunker""

Maybe you need a course in reading comprehension.  As I said before your comment, I never loose a minute of sleep over it.

...was jumping off a bridge, I wouldn't follow them. But evidently you would.

No, I meant de jure - in accordance with law. That's the result of this funky things called elections.

So you're a slave to "law" and "elections". Like the two which gave us George Bush, at least one of which was definitely stolen, the theft legitimized by the Supreme court in direct defiance of the law. Got it.

I, of course, am talking about what's morally right, and what's intellectually right, neither of which necessarily have anything to do with the "law", and which hardly ever have anything to do with elections.
That the likes of Bush could get enough votes to be close enough to steal an election right there refutes any idiot notion that "elections" as practiced in America have any validity.

I certainly don't recognize Bush supporters as fellow citizens. They're not part of my America.

And like Don Quixote, you are losing.

The dwindling amount of oil in the ground and the ever-thinner balloon of your exponential debt bubble are contradicting you.

As for Don Quixote, thank you for the compliment, though I'm partial to Hamlet myself.

I'd rather "lose" like one of those attempters, which means winning the greater victory, than "win" like the sort of bloodsucker you must idolize - Gordon Gekko or Mr. Potter or some such.

Orderly retreat is not an option. A simpleton can figure that out. There is no orderly way, short of bringing Reinhard Heydrich and Adolf Eichman out of the grave and putting them to work on the problem, to cut the planets population by two thirds. Furthermore, the kind of centralized power that would have to be given to a world governing body would definitely be abused by those who controlled it. What the purpose, that would not be the ends result.

Wow - so you think rout is the only possible outcome. You're more pessimistic than I.

"Centralized power"? Um, you're the one who's always raving about how things are just going to get bigger and more concentrated and more centralized. You're the size-worshipper.
I've made it clear I believe the contrary, that only decentralization and simplification can bring civilization through the fire in one (smaller and distributed) piece.

And since you brought up nazis, I don't think we'll need Heydrich as long as the Republicans are around. Just look at those drooling, blood-lusting thugs chanting "Burn baby burn" in St. Paul.

You're not smarter than me, so don't try and get pedantic and make yourself look that way.

If presenting evidence for my views and prognosis is "pedantic", so be it. I know you don't like evidence, since it's always against you. Otherwise for once you might give some of your own, regarding how exponential growth in energy, money, debt, production, and population is going to continue.

Since you claim you're as smart as I, you must be aware that once this growth stops, or even slows down, the whole thing comes crashing down.

I'll put it in military terms for you - once that fighter jet slows down, its engine is going to stall out, and down it goes.

So how do you think this ever-increasing speed is going to be maintained? EVIDENCE.

Richard:
"You then continue with a long rant about what I and others here believe, which is in fact just your fantasies and judgments about who I am... none of it, of course, being evenly closely reflective of my beliefs."

Here is a news flash for you Richard. It's not about you.  You are not the center of the world.  You are not what I am trying to understand.  My references are directed at the left wing mentality in general.  There is a common thread in that mentality.  While there may be some variations at the fringes, the core is fairly identifiable.  For example, you can bet money that every eco freak is going to bash the conservative candidate, regardless of who they are, and they are going to do it with brain dead, out of context assertions like "Palin is an animal hater".  They are going to swallow the AGW hoax hook line and sinker and they are going to use the authority argument (all scientists agree) to support their position without ever trying to take a skeptical look at the evidence.  And of course many of them will claim that any disagreement is some kind of conspiracy by the oil companies to spread doubt.  They are going to look for excuses not to drill because they want to force the country to their solution, regadless of how impractical their solution might be and regardless of how it damages the wealth of the nation and the lifestyle that it's citizens want lead.  I could go on and on about the areas of commonality.  Now you may think that those points are baseless, but I see all of them made again and again in different threads all over this site.

If you think that you don't fall into those categories and that you are being treated unfairly, then fine, tell me what you do believe.  I'm listening.

anarchy and tyranny.

"So you're a slave to "law" and "elections". Like the two which gave us George Bush, at least one of which was definitely stolen, the theft legitimized by the Supreme court in direct defiance of the law. Got it."

You have to take the good with the bad. If you know of a perfect system, please, I'm all ears.

"I, of course, am talking about what's morally right, and what's intellectually right, neither of which necessarily have anything to do with the "law", and which hardly ever have anything to do with elections.
That the likes of Bush could get enough votes to be close enough to steal an election right there refutes any idiot notion that "elections" as practiced in America have any validity."

Of course they are valid. The problem is you are contemptuous of the average person. Another Heydrich in the making.

"I certainly don't recognize Bush supporters as fellow citizens. They're not part of my America."

You don't get to pick and choose who is and is not a citizen of "your America". What you do exhibit is an incredibly obtuse arrogance. But there isn't an ounce of common sense in any of this crap.

"I've made it clear I believe the contrary, that only decentralization and simplification can bring civilization through the fire in one (smaller and distributed) piece."

And how would you get there from here??? Do you know ANYTHING about international politics and how nation states behave? Any state trying to "get smaller" would be consumed, if not militarily then by political and economic dominance. How could the US deconstruct? It is not in the realm of the possible.

"And since you brought up nazis, I don't think we'll need Heydrich as long as the Republicans are around. Just look at those drooling, blood-lusting thugs chanting "Burn baby burn" in St. Paul."

It's a ridiculous statement. The Republican party does not have a corner on warfare - never did.

"If presenting evidence for my views and prognosis is "pedantic", so be it."

No, trying to correct my use of de jure vice de facto was you knucklehead.

"So how do you think this ever-increasing speed is going to be maintained? EVIDENCE."

I don't need to provide you with evidence. There's plenty of that right here on Grist, which you enjoy disregarding because you WANT the fighter to go down. There are plenty of other sources of power, and technology continues to advance at a very rapid pace. In my view there is no question that the number of people on the planet is straining it's capacity to support them. Mass hunger is going to reduce that to some degree. Unfortunately unavoidable. But it's not going to come completely apart, and in some places life will be better than ever. Some states will thrive in the coming millenium.

"Since you claim you're as smart as I, you must be aware that once this growth stops, or even slows down, the whole thing comes crashing down."

Nope. Even during the Great Depression the whole thing didn't come apart. It does put great strains on socio-economic systems. But all did not fall apart. Even in North Korea, which is a total basket case, the whole thing hasn't come apart.

Again, it is not possible to de-consruct. The ONLY solution to our current problems are to transition to other energy sources. There is no other answer. The idea that globally there will suddenly be a mass transition to small government, that birth control will reduce the population by more than half, and that nation states will somehow be vastly reduced and stop behaving as nation states is absurd.

Victory in Pattani

Let us add up the informal fallacies you claim to abhor, but use just the same.  Hehey.

The big lie technique uses lots of little lies as a back drop.

Scientific concensus does not constitute an appeal to authority.  It is based on testable theory and data.  Unless you are a climate or energy expert your counter-arguments too depend on this same source.

Or they ought to.  In this case they appear to be an appeal to unknown, unamed authority.  As usual, mysterious authority figues, too numerous to mention who all agree GHG climate change is a hoax and that there is no shortage of oil to power the US economy right here at home.

We are feeding you the facts and you are fattening up your trollish position with every talking point we have faced down time and time again here over the last few years.

Let the voters decide.  Talking point, sloganeering, bumpersticker anti-reasoning leadership, or leadership based on facts.  We have seen how big lie sloganeering has worked these last 8 years.

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin

amazingdrx:
"Scientific concensus does not constitute an appeal to authority."

Of course it does.  You are appealing to the authority of those scientists who you claim form a consesus.

"It is based on testable theory and data."

No, it's based upon theory that has never been tested in a real world atmosphere and on models that have never been validated.  In fact, at this point in time most of the GCMs are falsified.

"Unless you are a climate or energy expert your counter-arguments too depend on this same source."

My counter arguments depend on the raw results for what we know - not the modeled results for what we will have in the future.

"In this case they appear to be an appeal to unknown, unamed authority."

Nope, no unknown or unnamed authorities involved.  Only basic measurement data available to anyone.

"and that there is no shortage of oil to power the US economy right here at home."

Are you saying that the assertion that we have 1.5 trillion barrels of shale oil is from a mysterious authority figure.  Will you get your head out of you know where and start talking honestly for one second.  Talk about denying the data!

I am feeding you the facts and you are fattening up your trollish position with every talking point I have faced down time and time again over the last few years.

Even while you are awake, you are asleep.  Dreaming of a corporate paradise where every citizen is a faithfilled worker and every board room mate a paragon of virtue.

That paradise does not exist.  Only oversight and regulation can check greed and market manipulation.  You seem to be far too idealistic about absolute power when it comes to corporations, but see only absolute corruption in elected government.  

A self fullfilling prophecy as we see with the Bush administration, McCain Keating 5 scandal, and the Palin administration in Alaska.  

She kept that money alloted for the "bridge to nowhere" after all, first being in favor of the bridge, than opposing it.  She flip flops just like McCain.

Environmentalists in Alaska tend to disagree with your analysis of the mining operation.  Mining company propaganda isn't reliable evidence of anything.

The fact is that Palin sold out the very same small business family fishing interests that her family once relied on.  She has risen to the top of the GOP pile and cares nothing about those who still live and work where she and her family started out.

That's "service" I guess, servicing the highest corporate "contributors", "free" market governance in action.

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin

"Now, if even right now, when America is still relatively rich, and was so full of sympathy for the city's post-Katrina plight, it still can't be bothered to fix the problem, really spending just pennies,"

What rubish you eco cultists talk.  On the one hand you claim that it is impossible to get new oil on line in ten years, on the other you claim that we should be able to complete a huge levee system for New Orleans overnight.  Much work has already been done on the levee's, and the completion date is 2011.  Pretty reasonable for a project that size.

By the way, why didn't Bill Clinton fix the NO levees in his 8 years?

Of course all of this ignores the stupidity of building a city below sea level to start with.

Anyone who denies that Palin is a wildlife-hater, and then tries to convince us of anything else, is grossly offensive, and is basically a major waste of our time.

Chickens deserve our true friendship! So do fish! So do other sentient beings! Let us learn to be kind.

Saluki,

It's definitely not about me... I've made that clear several times.

What you've done in your last post, for at least the sixth time, is avoided answering my direct and fair questions. There's a pattern here. Every time you are asked a challenging question based on your own statements, you simply divert from answering, and instead, twist the discussion to turn it on me or imply I have a position that I've actually never stated. When you do this, you lose all credibility.

Sure, you can keep arguing with more fringe elements here and, given your often extreme positions on the right, make it sound like you're in the center and Grist folks are all "loony, eco-freaks", but this fantasy won't move your cause forward. Why? Because it's not so much your positions themselves that are often out-dated and rigid (though many are), but rather the fact that the way you debate lacks integrity. It is this deep pattern within you which no longer serves you or others. With each passing day, increasingly more people "smell" this about you and quickly know you can't be trusted.

Fact is, I don't disagree with every position you maintain. Some of your positions are factually accurate; some are reasonable; and many others are simply bizarre and out-dated. That's not the problem. The problem is your inability to admit when you're wrong or when you simply don't know what the best answer or solution might be.

If you wish to continue this discussion, I suggest you start by answering the half dozen or so questions I've asked you in previous posts.

Richard

Richard:
"What you've done in your last post, for at least the sixth time, is avoided answering my direct and fair questions."

Good grief Richard, are you going to rant on about that indefinitely.  Go back and look at this subject when I addressed it the first time.  In regards to government services I said:

"However, I didn't say that I proposed doing none of it."

I'm not going to draw up a list for you because there are thousands of government services and if I support only two thirds of them it's still a long list.  Frankly, Richard, I don't know what your point is, if you have one.

And after complaining that I don't understand your position I gave you a chance to express it and you still haven't done it.  So if you don't want me to try to read your mind, then speak your mind, otherwise you will probably be misinterpreted.

Now, you talk about my integrity, but how can one have a conversation with integrity when you are talking to people who express absurd views like this:

"You hate the earth, and love burning up the bioshpere.  In fact you derive actual pleasure from it."

And this:

"Anyone who denies that Palin is a wildlife-hater, and then tries to convince us of anything else, is grossly offensive, and is basically a major waste of our time."

And this:

"True energy independence would mean no oil used for anything but chemical feedstocks, train fuel and bunker fuel for shipping and perhaps a bit for the military.
Since nobody is proposing that it's fair to assume that they're lying. It's also pretty fair to assume that their supporters are lying also."

Saluki,

My goodness, you really don't listen well at all. How can I be clearer with you? I have no interest in discussing my positions with you. You've shown no flexibility or openness, so why would I waste my time with such an exercise?

I agree that all the statements you referred to (in your last post) that others made are really out of line and over the top. I don't see much value in those statements. But how do you twist that around to reflect positively on you? Come on, Saluki... you've got to take this up a notch.

As far as my unanswered questions go, you've partially answered one of them. But there are at least five others that remain unanswered. Let's start with two of them. I'll present them here as I did before:

Could you please explain why you believe it is fine to use and exhaust a non-renewable, finite resource like oil? What gives you (or anyone) the right to make this resource unavailable to future generations when there are alternatives that would preserve or at least conserve it? Do you believe depleting a finite resource is indicative of an advanced, intelligent civilization, or is it your position that we can do whatever we want with the Earth's resources... future generations will just have to deal with it?

Did you vote for Bush the last two times around, and if so, given his terrible track record and utter failures almost across the board, why should I place any value in your ability to choose the next president?

Please Saluki... respond to this post only with answers to these two questions.

Richard

Saluki,

I thought I would spend a few minutes to investigate the integrity of the statements you made about oil shale.

You do realize that Wiki posts are often unreliable, at best... often serving simply to promote the position of a person or business. So I thought I would check the latest news reports about oil shale. To that end, I read four separate news accounts, all posted within the past week.

Turns out, even Shell Oil is quite uncertain if their technology will work. They don't know what the actual production cost will be, nor how much water will ultimately be required or where that will come from. Most importantly, their own spokesperson said "it will be at least until the middle of the next decade before they decide if the process is commercially viable."

So it seems your statements about the viability of oil shale are greatly inflated, unless you have some specific evidence to prove otherwise. If you do, I'd like to review it. Otherwise, I think you need to accept that this may never be a solution and, at best, is at least 7-10 years away with uncertain costs and environmental impacts. If it turns out to be viable and achievable without obvious and serious environmental impacts, we should all consider it at that time, but that time is still years away. Given this, it would seem prudent to move ahead as quickly as possible with known, renewable alternatives that are cost effective. Do you not agree with this?

Thanks.
Richard

MY statement should not be described thus, surely, RDMiller.

Being truly frightened that Sarah Palin will be elected VP, and soon may find herself President, I would be very happy to learn that somewhere in that Barracuda-babe heart of hers (NOT my epithet, you will note), such as it is, there may reside some little bit of a kind thought for animals or the conservation of wildlife.

Regarding animals and wildlife, all I have heard about this person is:

she boasts of hunting, killing, and butchering caribou and moose;

she strongly approves of drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge -- bad news for caribou, other wildlife, and the local Alaskan Native Peoples;

she has consistently supported the aerial hunting of wolves and grizzly bears;

she has been conscientiously involved in the protest against the Environmental Protection Agency for listing the polar bear as an endangered species.

Moreover, it is in part precisely because of such attitudes and positions that the Barracuda-babe cheerleaders are so fired up in support of her; they would love her less, if she seemed the least bit kinder or gentler.

So by all means tell me, RDMiller, if you know of any teensy biographical item about Sarah Palin which might suggest she feels the least bit of kindness toward animals, of any kind.  I for one would be very happy to learn of it.

But beware: The GOP base might not be so happy.

Chickens deserve our true friendship! So do fish! So do other sentient beings! Let us learn to be kind.

"Could you please explain why you believe it is fine to use and exhaust a non-renewable, finite resource like oil?"

Our future generations, like my daughter, are essentially receiving a trade off.  They get a highly advanced,  highly scientific, very wealthy world with a huge infastructure already built for them.  If you look at what we had 50 years ago and what we have now, the advancements are obvious.  Now if someone wants to live in a cave and contemplate their naval, they may not believe this. Anyone wishing to do this, by the way, has my blessings.  I may even join them one day.

In any case, all of the previous generations that have come before have contributed to what is left to the next generation.  That there will not be any oil 100 years from now should be no problem.  If we go back 100 years most people were traveling by horseback.  To think that we will need the same kind of cars 100 years from now as we need today is just not a realistic expectation.  Whether it's electric or fuel cell or something else, the things that we are doing today with fossil fuel they will be able to do with some other source of energy.  And the technology and infastructure that we are building today will set the stage for the next level of advancement that will make fossil fuel a horse and buggy type answer.  In short, I have no guilt about consuming the fossil fuel.  But then I'm not the guilt carrying kind.

"Did you vote for Bush the last two times around, and if so, given his terrible track record and utter failures almost across the board, why should I place any value in your ability to choose the next president?"

No, I didn't vote for Bush or anyone else in the last two elections.  But if I had voted I would have voted for him.  Given the dismal alternatives presented by the left, I would take the same position again.

 We had about 6 years of growth under Bush, which is a pretty good percentage of the total.  The economic slowdown that we are currently experiencing is happening under a Democrat Congress.  One that has basically accomplished nothing and one that has a lower popularity rating than even Bush.  Obama and Biden are a part of that group.

 After 9/11, which was planned and set up under Clinton, we had no further major terrorist attacks in the US.

 My theory is that the war against the Islamists had to happen.  They were flush with success after Afghanistan and Chechnya, and they thought that they were going to take over the world.  I used to read the Chechen Islamists web sites when they were still doing well there, and the bragging by their primary commanders about how they would soon meet each other in Moscow gave a pretty clear idea of their objective.  Al Quida had expansionist ambitions of the same kind.  They still regard Spain as belonging to them, for example.  While a war in Iraq was problematic in a hundred ways, it was also an ideal war in many ways.  Any war on the Arabian Penninsula had special meaning for Islamists.  The prophet Mohammed said this about the Arabian Penninsula:

"Sahih Muslim
Book 019, Number 4366:
It has been narrated by 'Umar b. al-Khattib that he heard the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) say: I will expel the Jews and Christians from the Arabian Peninsula and will not leave any but Muslim."

and

"Sahih Bukhari
Volume 4, Book 53, Number 392:
Narrated Abu Huraira:
While we were in the Mosque, the Prophet came out and said, "Let us go to the Jews" We went out till we reached Bait-ul-Midras. He said to them, "If you embrace Islam, you will be safe. You should know that the earth belongs to Allah and His Apostle, and I want to expel you from this land. So, if anyone amongst you owns some property, he is permitted to sell it, otherwise you should know that the Earth belongs to Allah and His Apostle.""

By the way, I read the Quran, many of the Hadith, and I studied the history of Islam.  So I knew that having an American army on the Arabian Penninsula was going to bring out every Islamic extremist from every Islamic nation to fight them.  I knew that it wasn't going to be over after Sadam was defeated.  Unfortunately, we couldn't simply go out to the middle of the Gobe dessert and invite the Islamists to fight us there.  It was going to have to be somewhere they valued.  A win in Iraq would have three advantages.  First, it would cut all of the momentum that Al Quida was gathering.  Their feeling of invincibility and their thoughts of taking the world would be severly undermined.  Second, the planting of a democracy on the Arabian Penninsula would be great for two reasons.  First it would give the people of Iraq a choice in their government, and second, it would undermine the Islamic extremists that believe that there can be no democracy because mankind is not free to choose how to live because Allah has already told him how to live.  And then Iraq would provide us with a killing ground for Islamic extremists that we could not get in any other way because the majority of them operated in sovereign nations where we could not go.  And lastly, I knew from the Chechnya experience that when Islamist were actually in charge of anyplace that they were barbaric in the treatment of their own people and that even people who idealized Islam would soon learn and be sick of the extremists.  This was an advantage and a lesson for Muslims that we could never get by fighting Muslims in other places.  Anbar is a perfect example.  At certain periods the Islamists held certain parts of Anbar and the people were behind them.  After some time of experiencing the extremists, the people were anxious to be rid of them.  But they wouldn't have had the ability to rid themselves without our help.

Bottom line is that I liked most of Bush's choices even though he may not have known what he was doing when he made them.

Regarding the absence of nukes in Iraq, there I was wrong.  I thought that they were there.  I think that Bush also thought that they were there, and the pre war speeches that we have from the Democrats indicates that most of them thought that they were there.  Some of them gave that indication even before Bush came to power.  And of course Sadam admitted that he tried to create the illusion that he had them.

Wars aren't cheap, and our country has certainly paid a high price for this one.  But I don't think that most people have any notion of what was coming had the Islamists not been handed a severe and embarrasing defeat at some point.  I think I do understand it.

Now, considering the very high economic cost of the war, I believe that our nation has done fairly well when you consider the economic disadvantage such a war put us under.

I would very much have liked to have a president that was capable of communication, but all in all, I think he did fairly well under the circumstances.  Oh, and let's not forget that much of the image that he now carries is due to almost 8 years of effort on the part of the media to demonize him and to destroy his reputation.

"You mean like what we have right now. The anarchy and tyranny of Hobbesian plunder capitalism, and the creeping tyranny of technology, governments, and corporations."

No, I mean like Somalia has right now. Try going there sometimes and you can see the difference.

"I have, not "chosen", but recognized. Sure it doesn't mean anything now. All I can do is express what's in my mind's eye. What the truth is."

And the truth is that everyone who is a US citizen has just as many rights as Russ does.

"As for international politics, you again seem incapable of understanding very simple ideas. America is of course not going to enter energy descent and the collapse of the international monetary system and globalization alone. What do you think "international" and "global" mean???? It means everything is interlinked, everything is currently patched and twined and propped up together, and it means everything simplifies together."

a. That would not mean a controlled decent and some would descend (and therefore be victimized) faster than others.

b. It assumes a total collapse of the system, which is probably a false assumption.

c. If it does happen, it will truly devastate the environment and probably result in a nuclear holocaust.

"So America will hardly be in peril of being "dominated". As dilapidated as its infrastructure is, America still has more to work with than most places. And if the transformation is undertaken in an organized, systematic manner, its position will be even better."

How many times do I have to say, such a transformation is NOT POSSIBLE? What part of "not possible" are you not comprehending?

"Today the level of debt is astronomical, absolutely irremediable. The country is bankrupt; the infrastructure is falling apart. Residences, business, food delivery, and government are all laid out in such a way as to be absolutely dependent, as dependent as a newborn infant, upon the car and cheap gasoline."

This is, of course, completely wrong. They are dependent on cheap energy, so as long as cheap energy can be found, the problem is solved. And low and behold, it's already been found....... solar, wind, nuclear, coal........ all will do just fine.

"Most of all, we're running up against the Malthusian limits of fossil fuels, the foundation upon which this civilization is built. Without ever-increasing oil supplies, things fall apart."

No, they don't fall apart, they morph. And that's what's happening right now.

At any rate, if you are right (and I am sure you are wrong) it doesn't matter. You can not de-construct the system. Period. Not possible. Not even worth discussing.

"I hope so. I hope to have a role in it. But it won't be "thriving" according to your blinkered notion."

You won't have a role in it, you'll be long dead. And unless you have an extensive role in the controlled application of violence, if things do come apart, your chances or survival would be small anyway. Only the predators will survive - others will be dead or enslaved. The natural order of things.

"According to this story in today's NYTimes, all these years since Katrina and they still haven't fixed the levees. The stupid place is certainly going to get clobbered again, and again and again."

The Federal Government is actually fixing the levees - but New Orleans was built where it should not have been. So yes, it's going to get clobbered, along with every other area built around the gulf. Always did get clobbered, but now more and more people are living there, and they shouldn't. Learn the hard way.

"Now, if even right now, when America is still relatively rich, and was so full of sympathy for the city's post-Katrina plight, it still can't be bothered to fix the problem, really spending just pennies,  then how on earth do you expect it to undertake an energy revolution, something vastly more expensive and cumbersome, during energy descent and economic meltdown, when all that paper wealth has evaporated?"

It's happening right now. Private industry is working this problem hard precisely because there is money to be made in it - a lot of money.

You, sir, are a nut.

Victory in Pattani

"My theory is that the war against the Islamists had to happen."

You just can't make stuff like this up.  

"Islamists"?  So it really is a replay of the crusades then?  Is the second coming set to happen too?  Oh great oracle, huff some gas from your cracked bunker wall and tell us.  Please?

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin

Don't scare her away, she's an endangered natural amateur troll.  Must be one of the best examples of her rare species.

I say we try to keep her coming around with extra attention and feeding.  Richard and MAC are doing well.

A tag and release maybe the best course now.  In case she bolts.  I want to hear more about the coming crusade and armageddon that VP Palin will usher in.

God evidently wants her to teach these "islamists" a lesson?  Maybe "He" will tell Sarah where to drill for really big oil reserves?  God made the oil you know, for "His" people.  

I wonder when "He" will take Mccain to his reward with a heart attack or stroke, after the inauguration of course?

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin

And how, Amazing.  Why doesn't the Department of Homeland Security get Seluki to make a madrasa-tour of the tribal areas of Pakistan?!

Notate bene, my friends (to borrow a slightly over-used McCainism, but much more sincerely intended than was ever by him), that Seluki, whatever he/she/it/all-of-the-above is (Cylon impostor is my guess), has not come up with one simple answer to my simple request (which was actually put to RDMiller, Seluki having proven itself long ago beneath contempt), to tell us about some small instance of kindness that Sarah Palin feels toward animals, of any kind.

Seluki gives us misleading stuff such as this:

<<
Simply untrue.  There is no evidence that drilling ANWR will have any adverse effects on the wildlife population.
>>

Of course there is no "evidence" yet, silly!, because the drilling has not yet taken place.

The oil industry's videos showing solitary caribou in the vicinity of pipelines are misleading.  Caribou have herding instincts which drilling operations do not favor, even if some individuals may be able to cope.

Also, it is ill-educated to write about "wildlife population" in the singular.  Biodiversity-environmentalists are concerned about many species, especially mammals and birds, as well as many plants, in a number of different ecosystems.

Just like a friend of money-hungry Cheney-ally Palin to over-simplify!

<<
  This is a scare tactic akin to what was used to oppose the Alaska pipeline, and it also turend out to be 100% untrue.  You may picture the native peoples as happily living in igloos, but the truth is that they will be happy to have the good paying jobs that drilling in ANWR will provide for them.
>>

The Gwich'in spokeswoman and activist, Sarah James (an infinitely better pick for VP, IMHO, than her namesake), of Arctic Village, AK, on the southern border of ANWR, has not very long ago already told Grist, and Grist readers, that drilling in ANWR will be disastrous for her people.

See also Peter Mathiessen's essay in Subhankar Banerjee's excellent book of photos of ANWR, and essays about it, "Arctic National Wildlife Refuge: Seasons of Life and Land."  We must never forget that GOP leaders suppressed the show of Banerjee's photographs in the Smithsonian, in early 2003, while discussion of drilling in ANWR was taking place on the Senate floor (well, the show went on, but the captions were gutted, and the space was moved to a little-visited downstairs corridor).

<<
Also, the footprint of the drilling area is about 2000 acres in an area of several million acres.  To keep that footprint small Palin has insured that the oil companies will use horizontal drilling tequniques to cover more area than their above ground access.
>>

You know, I hope this is true, seeing that we defenders are probably going to lose.

Still, consider the Exxon/Valdez, and remember that anything that can go wrong, will go wrong; and when it does, lots and lots of vulnerable creatures suffer and die, and there is nothing to be done about it.

And anyway, there is nothing "patriotic" or "America-loving" about Alaskan oil.  It goes to
East Asia, where the market is.  And all the bully-bully-ness of John Mccain and Sarah Palin cannot change that, unless they want to morph into Joseph Stalin and Leonid[itska] Brezhnev[ska] -- not a good move for members of the GOP.

<<
Her support of hunting wolves from airplanes is not a support for a hunting technique, but rather a support for a predator control technique.  The wolves have simply become too numerous and too efficient in certain areas for caribou herds to survive.  Palin has supported a program that existed before she was governor to control only certain wolf populations in certain specific areas that serve as birthing grounds for the caribou.  In one case a population of 10,000 caribou was reduced to 600 by wolf predation.  The wildlife service found that the available food and the pregnancy rate among the female caribou was high.  But they also found that 99% of the newborn caribou did not make it through their first two weeks due to wolf predation.  Palin's program was designed to remove about 600 wolves out of an Alaskan population of about 11,000, and only to allow the caribou to recover.  Killing wolves is not that easy, and doing it from helicopters and airplanes was the only way to make the objective possible.  Even with that program they didn't reach their target numbers.
>>

As Amazing said: "You just can't make stuff like this up."

This description of a predator/prey relationship is totally unbelievable.  It is unworkable.  It does not happen.  If prey species and predator species exist in the same ecosystem, the predation rate can simply not be as high as is here claimed.  The ecosystem would have collapsed long ago.

And so, the description is plainly a fiction.

Please tell me, somebody, that at some point in her life, Sarah Palin took in an orphaned caribou lamb, and nursed it with a baby bottle.  I would really love to hear such a story.

But by the same token, I dread to hear that later, once the young caribou was fattened up, SP released it in her mastiff pit, as a kind of entertainment-plus-dinner for her carnivorous carcharodontic allies.

<<
"she has been conscientiously involved in the protest against the Environmental Protection Agency for listing the polar bear as an endangered species."

Which is exactly the right thing to do since polar bears are not endangered and Alaskan land usage can be severly limited by that kind of law, even though the land usage has no effect on the polar bear population.  A better approach is to limit the number of polar bear hunting liscenses to a sustainable number, or to even reduce them to zero if necessary.
>>

But, but, but, polar bears ARE endangered; and "Alaskan land usage" should of course be limited, for the sake of human beings and of wildlife (not just the bears) alike.

However, OK, I think we can all agree that discouraging trophy-hunting is a great and good thing, although it does not seem to be a high priority in Alaska state governance.

Chickens deserve our true friendship! So do fish! So do other sentient beings! Let us learn to be kind.

Robert Piller wrote: "I read a report that scientists estimate that within 20 years, the Arctic Ocean will be ice-free during the summer. As the ice melts, sea levels will rise, so, in essence, we will turn land masses into islands in the summer."

Here's an experiment. Take a glass of water and add some ice cubes. Put a mark on the glass at the level of the water. Now wait for the ice to melt and look at the water level. If it has moved, you have just proved Archimedes wrong.

You see, as the ice melts it becomes slightly denser. So it occupies a smaller volume. In fact, the volume of ice melt matches exactly the volume of ice that lay beneath the surface. So there is no net change in the volume of water in the glass. Fortunately for us!

However, the ice melt from glaciers and ice sheets on land (as well as thermal expansion of the oceans) will raise sea level many meters (see article above). And the loss of summer Arctic ice will destroy long-established ecosystems and accelerate global warming by decreasing the albedo effect.

drx - Now we see the real agenda for this yahoo - it's the end times, the Rapture, Jesus is coming.
That's why they're so fired up about getting one of their own god-spewing redneck brethren on the ticket.
(That's why it's ok to rape the earth. Though they never do explain, if the Second Coming is imminent, why are corporate profits still important?)

pangolin -
Alaska caribou can't survive the wolves without human assistance. How the caribou survived the 40,000 years with unchecked wolf predation and first peoples hunting is a mystery.

Didn't you hear? The earth has only existed 5000 years. You're just a pagan liar with your devil science and nefarious "reason".

canis - Arguing with troll-appeasers like RDMiller is just as fruitless as arguing with trolls. They're really the same thing.

mac -
"Today the level of debt is astronomical, absolutely irremediable. The country is bankrupt; the infrastructure is falling apart. Residences, business, food delivery, and government are all laid out in such a way as to be absolutely dependent, as dependent as a newborn infant, upon the car and cheap gasoline."

This is, of course, completely wrong. They are dependent on cheap energy, so as long as cheap energy can be found, the problem is solved. And low and behold, it's already been found....... solar, wind, nuclear, coal........ all will do just fine.

Now you can't even tell the difference between an energy crisis and a liquid fuel crisis, which is about as elementary as a concept gets.
Only a lunatic thinks we're going to have untold billions of plug-ins or electric cars.

I'm no longer going to argue with your willful ignorance and utter inability to do anything but spout dogma.

You did say ONE thing which is right on - New Orleans is existentially unsustainable, and should never have existed as a large civilian city in the first place.

"Now you can't even tell the difference between an energy crisis and a liquid fuel crisis, which is about as elementary as a concept gets.
Only a lunatic thinks we're going to have untold billions of plug-ins or electric cars."

I see, so now it's a "liquid fuel crisis". It doesn't matter what powers the transportation needs, as long as they are powered. You are rationalizing - because you want to. Again, you want civilization to crumble. You have this fantastically naive idea that it's going to turn into something romantic. But it won't. If it comes apart it will be like a bad MAD MAX film.

Victory in Pattani

Our reverend on this topic enlightened us within his opening lines:-

Two major new studies, in Nature and Science, sharply increase the projected sea-level rise (SLR) by 2100. This post discusses the Science study (. req'd), "Kinematic Constraints on Glacier Contributions to 21st-Century Sea-Level Rise," which concludes:
On the basis of calculations presented here, we suggest that an improved estimate of the range of SLR to 2100 including increased ice dynamics lies between 0.8 and 2.0 m.

Laudations Jo' for this wonderful "good news", it is certainly a huge improvement over recent reports that sea level rise (SLR) has been flat to negative in the last few years!  (and rather slight before that.... The ACTUAL DATA I mean).

However, we all know that actual data is not necessarily a true indication of the properly modelled events, either past or future.  For instance, just as Armageddon did not happen in the year 2000, as wrongly predicted by many rapturous Christians, this does not mean that it will not happen!  I reckon 2100 has a good feel to it; like a mystic eventuality!  In numerology, it should be noted that 21 is a magic multiple of 7 x 3, and making that product centennial is particularly powerful.  Is everyone happy going with 2100?
If only I and Hansen et al, could be here to say:  "told you so!"

Listen to good news

Man ate from the tree of knowledge and was punished. The knowledge that crops could be grown in a dry climate with the use of irrigation ruined the soils of the ancient middle east as salts rose to the surface and poisoned the land. That change to the environment had consequences/punishment for the ancient people who wrote about it.
We are now engaged in a set of actions that has consequences of worldwide proportions. Our knowledge is more extensive, and aided by computers, we can see the health of the whole world at once. The plants and animals of the Earth have the quality of rebirth. Surely mankind is meant to take care that the cycles of life are sustained.
We have the examples of previous civilizations which burned and salted and killed their supporting ecosystems. Now we are looking at a threat to the preservation of not just one valley, but our worldwide civilization.  
There will be some people too terrified to do anything but wail. Eventually they will take heart and realize that mankind is but one creature among many, and that our survival is inextricably linked to the health of all other life on Earth.
Our purpose here is to use the knowledge which we have and cannot deny to act so as to preserve all species that live on Earth.
We know that burning fossil fuels increases the world's temperature and causes catastrophes like dying coral, burning forests, and collapsing levees which are getting worse and worse.
We could decide,today, that every new energy installation, every new building and over a couple years most existing building and parking lots and telephone pole and freeway fences and other places will have solar panels.
An investment in that technology that would give us, in just a few years, a replacement for the coal fired and natural gas fired electric plants and oil burning vehicles. Instead of continuing to give 100 times as much government support to the oil industry as we do to the alternate energy, we could make the decision that we will not allow global warming to steal our children's future.
We cannot convince everybody, but we can help enough policy makers understand the science so that our country does the right thing.
Union of Concerned Scientists, National Resource Defense Council have good information.
Thanks for listening

"Laudations Jo' for this wonderful "good news", it is certainly a huge improvement over recent reports that sea level rise (SLR) has been flat to negative in the last few years!  (and rather slight before that.... The ACTUAL DATA I mean)."

Is this good news because it's less than you expected, or good news because you want sea levels to rise?

Victory in Pattani

Russ wrote in part:

You did say ONE thing which is right on - New Orleans is existentially unsustainable, and should never have existed as a large civilian city in the first place.

Sorry Russ, that great city just happens to be there.
Now go away and read-up how the Dutch have reclaimed so much land from the sea.
Try key-words: Holland or Netherlands, where the Dutch people live.  Maybe low-countries?
Another Key word: Dyke.

Listen to good news

You two seem to have gotten the impression that I, in some way, either endorse anything in particular about Ms. Palin and/or seek to appease Saluki. Nothing could be further from the truth.

You both must be so stuck in your own rigid mindsets (just like Saluki, but to the other side) that you can't even recognize a respectful dialogue that includes listening to the other side. I can listen to Saluki to better understand her without agreeing with anything she says. Or, I can agree with SOME of the things she says when she is either factually accurate (as she has been some of the time) or has a balanced perspective on a particular item, while still strongly disagreeing with her opinions on many critical issues.

I think this problem with the way you two think (remember... I'm only stating this because of your OWN statements) is what drives folks like Saluki to brand all of us as "left-wing loony eco-freaks". You're not serving anyone with your rigidity and your unwillingness to agree with an "opposing" party when they state something that is actually correct.

Loosen up, please. And pay better attention to my words.

Richard

Saluki,

Thank you for your reply. It helps me to better understand your perspective.

It would be pointless to debate your arguments one by one. As I said in my first post to you, from where you are coming from, there's no chance you can shift your thinking in any meaningful way simply from a discussion alone. (I hope others take note of this. It's really useless to debate item for item with Saluki.)

It's my opinion that your belief system is what led us to war in Iraq and has directly resulted in the deaths and maiming of hundreds of thousands of humans, unnecessarily. I think a different belief system would not have had this effect.

It's my opinion that actions emanating from belief systems like your own is resulting in a far less healthy and biodiverse ecosystem, and potentially one that will have catastrophic consequences. I think a different believe system could avoid and reverse this, and create a much higher quality of life for humans and all other creatures on this planet.

It's my opinion that actions resulting from your belief system cause excessive inequality in the distribution of fundamental life-sustaining resources, creating intolerable levels of misery and pain for billions of people every day. A different belief system could change this circumstance immediately.

And it is my opinion that the limitations of your belief system greatly restrain opportunities to create and sustain a world powered by inexpensive, renewable, clean, efficient and largely decentralized energy.

For all of these reasons (and many more), I have a very different belief system. As yours becomes more and more painful to bear (and it will, because you have a heart and a soul which seek evolution and harmony), that (and only that) will lead you to adopt new ways of seeing the world. Until then, I will do my best to respect you, while working my hardest to create a better world and reverse (or at least confine) the almost unimaginable damage I believe is occurring from the actions of millions who carry beliefs like yours. Fortunately, the days when your belief system ruled the world are numbered and waning quickly. Enjoy it while you can.

Richard

P.S. I note you didn't answer my post about oil shale, in which I challenged statements you put forth with direct evidence to the contrary.

I think this problem with the way you two think (remember... I'm only stating this because of your OWN statements) is what drives folks like Saluki to brand all of us as "left-wing loony eco-freaks". You're not serving anyone with your rigidity and your unwillingness to agree with an "opposing" party when they state something that is actually correct.

Why would you care that a flat-earth thug and incorrigible liar calls you names? Boy, if I had such a thin skin about name-calling I would've had to put my head in the oven a long time ago.

I admit I can't be bothered to read everything this person wrote, but judging by what I did read, here and in her nutjob ravings about abortion on another thread, I think it's safe to assume if she ever does get anything right it's by accident.
So again, why would you care?

3."You're not serving anyone with your rigidity and your unwillingness to agree with an "opposing" party when they state something that is actually correct"?
You're not serving anyone when you argue with a brick wall. And you're certainly not serving anyone when you seem to side with aggressive stupidity vs. what you called, if I recall correctly, the "fringe elements here".
That is what you called us, right? And it certainly seemed you did it by way of showing solidarity with the troll. If I'm incorrect about that, ok, but that's how it read to me.

Russ,

It's interesting that you completely misinterpreted my use of the phrase "fringe elements here" to think that it applied to the Grist crowd in general. What I was saying is that there is "a" fringe element here at Grist. In other words, some smaller percentage of folks here are at the extreme left... NOT the bulk of the Grist crowd.

I think if you had been paying attention to my posts over time you'd realize I have far more opinions in sync with the "middle of the pack" Grist mentality than not.

Saying Saluki is a "brick wall" and a person of "aggressive stupidity" doesn't reflect well on your tolerance or compassion. Relax. There are many (though a minority these days) who still think like Saluki. Let's hear them out and debate with facts, creativity and wisdom.

How much better can I listen?  How much better can anyone listen?  Have we not heard enough from the likes of Saluki?

Anyway, my job is not to form a consensus and lead.  Perhaps that is the job of David Roberts.  My job is to speak up for the vulnerable, suffering creatures who have no voice.

Remember this, regarding that stalwart conservative hero Barry Goldwater (from the Wikipedia article on him):

<<
Goldwater boldly (and famously) declared in his acceptance speech at the 1964 Republican Convention: "Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue." This paraphrase of Cicero ...
>>

Marcus Tullius Cicero was out of the loop, once the fighting got rough between Marcus Antonius (Cleopatra's serious boyfriend) and Gaius Julius Caesar Octavianus (the future first emperor, aka Augustus).  As punishment, his head and hands were displayed on the Rostra, in the Roman Forum.  Still, he had his moments of glory.  He kept philosophy alive in Western Europe; and he founded Western liberal-arts education.

As for Barry Goldwater: I have no complaint that somebody from the good German-Jewish family called Goldwasser should have changed his name to suit anglophone tastes; but settling in Arizona is WAY problematic.

Chickens deserve our true friendship! So do fish! So do other sentient beings! Let us learn to be kind.

"Our side" ought to be above these tactics.  But we are all too human.

I think of Saluki's brand of anti-environmentalism as a great opportunity to convince swing voters to come down on the side of reasonable regulation and government action to avert climate and economic disaster.

Hopefully the strident opposition won't discourage more conservative purveyors of softball talking point arguments we can hit out of the blog every time they are pitched.

Good to see you here Saluki, keep up the good work!

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin

amazingdrx:
""My theory is that the war against the Islamists had to happen."
You just can't make stuff like this up."

Yeah, I realized when I wrote that line that it would be like Pavlov ringing his bell and that you would come running with drool dripping off your chin.  Of course the statement is no different that a statement like "The war against Hitler had to happen".  Not for the purpose of supporting any ideaology or religion, but simply because the expansionist ambitions of the islamic fundamentalists were not going to stop without it.

"Is the second coming set to happen too?  Oh great oracle, huff some gas from your cracked bunker wall and tell us.  Please?"

I guess I overestimated your intelligence amazingdrx.  I would have thought that you would come up with something better than the worn out bag of tricks that has been the attack arsenal for the intolerant and bigoted left for decades now.  I already made clear that I have no religion whatsoever.  But you are so limited and narrow minded in your thinking that you cannot escape the stereotyped thinking that you do every day.  So even though I have no religion, you are so stupid that the only thing that you can think of is to attack with the same old anti Christian tools that you've been using most of your life, regardless of how inappropriate they are.

Agnostic eyyh saluki, well that's very different then, nevermind.  Sorry for any personal attacks, on my part or others.  

Your input here is valued.  

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin

More emotional terms to avoid since they do not contribute positively to a rational debate: stupid, anti-Christian, over-estimate your intelligence, narrow minded, the intolerant and bigoted left,...

Come on! Help us become smarter not angrier!

Karsten

....doesn't reflect well on your tolerance or compassion.

Richard - I am indeed intolerant of those who have rendered themselves literally intolerable, through their aggressive anti-intellectualism and their vicious intolerance of anything which doesn't turn a maximum profit, or which doesn't feed their religious hatred.
On the other hand I'm happy to leave in peace those who are willing to live in peace.

I similarly have no compassion for those who are aggressively uncompassionate themselves.
This is because I have endless compassion for humanity and the earth, both of which have for so long been under such ruthless assault by these criminals.

I also find the all-too-common blaming the victim to be despicable. Not only bullies, but many bystanders, get mortally affronted when a victim of persecution DARES to fight back. I guess it upsets the order of things or something, when say an atheist, whose brethren have been persecuted and tortured and murdered for thousands of years in the name of so-called christianity, in the name of hate and mental darkness and hypocrisy and everything else endemic to that religion, dares to protest vs. the continuing oppression, which is unbelievable and intolerable in this day and age.

As for the cowardly notion we hear all too often from "moderates" nowadays, that we should tiptoe around scared of our own shadows and play by all the rules that only our side is supposed to recognize, and get ourselves dressed up in our sunday best in the desperate hope to impress some ignorant and mentally deficient "swing voter" - that's not only spriritually repugnant, it's also doomed to fail.

Do you really think anyone with any rational capacity doesn't already know the basic facts about how the Republicans are destroying this country? That their economic, energy, environmental, foreign, and social policies have all been disasters, and portend further catastrophe? That however little confidence you might have in the Democrats to turn things around, it's still a no-brainer that to give them a chance is the only possible way to mitigate the damage?

Anyone to whom all this is not clear is beyond the reach of facts, science, reason, or morality. So if you want to reach them, there's no other option, but to take the fight to the enemy, using the enemy's own weapons against them.
(Not that I think that's what's going on here on this blog. I may be wrong, but I imagine most people who come here already believe in ecological values and don't need to be convinced as far as for whom to vote.)

How do you think the modern (last 30 years or so) incarnation of the Rep party has not only survived but thrived? On paper they shouldn't have a chance. They represent nothing at the core but nihilism - just hate, fear, and greed. All their "ideas" are just fig-leaves for these.
Who is their proper constituency? The rich, religious wackos, and gutter thugs. None of these is a large group. So how do they get so many non-rich and non-fanatical people to vote for them against their own interests? They do it by lying, scapegoating, and mustering fear.

We certainly do not need to lie or scapegoat, since we're on the right side of ideas and issues, and facts, science, and reason are with us. As for fear, there was a post and comment thread on that just a week or so ago, so I won't revisit it here.

But that's no reason to tie our hands tactically. Because we have integrity is no reason to fetishize tactical scruple to the point of cravenness.
Gore and Kerry insisted on "taking the high road" while they were being kneecapped and kicked in the balls, and look at where it got them.

You don't bring a wrestling rulebook to a midnight alley knife fight. But usually that's all the Reps' opponents are able to do, and it's this unilateral disarmament which gives them strength.

How else can you explain these polls even being close?

I'll tell you one thing - it's not because of nasty, disreputable radicals like me.      

Russ,

Obviously, you are angry about what's going on. There's plenty to be angry about. I've not experienced that that path works for me, though.

While I share many of your hopes and dreams for a better world (as best I can tell from what you've written), I have doubts anger, labeling, fighting and the "eye for an eye" approach will get us there any quicker. No, I'm not suggesting being timid, cautious or even withholding one's feelings, but there are other paths to change.

You do it your way, I'll do it mine. Heck... two different approaches to a similar goal... sounds like we're covering the bases.

Richard

I am all for strong responses to strong attacks. If taking the high road means IGNORING the attacks when they are delivered personally, I am not in favor of this approach. If insults are thrown they need to be rebutted. At a forum like this though they can easily be ignored though. Especially since not ignoring them results in more insults. It is different in a political debate by people who have to uphold a perception of strength.

This has nothing to do with accepting lies or twisted logic. Bullshit needs to be labeled bullshit.

Karsten

caniscandida:
"Of course there is no "evidence" yet, silly!, because the drilling has not yet taken place."

So what, exactly, do you expect to happen?  Do you think that the drillers are going to tie the polar bear down and run drill bits through them?  Do you think that the trucks are going to ruin the fine pasture land up there that the Polar Bear graze on?  Do you think that they are going to be scared out of their wits by having a few humans around?

You do remember that polar bears roam around downtown Churchill Manitoba without a care about the presence of human beings.  In fact it is the humans who get the hell out of the way when they show up.

Maybe you could be more specific about the nature of this disaster that you see happening if we drill ANWR.

"The oil industry's videos showing solitary caribou in the vicinity of pipelines are misleading.  Caribou have herding instincts which drilling operations do not favor, even if some individuals may be able to cope."

I guess more than a few individuals are able to cope.  The Central Arctic herd who's calving grounds overlap with the oil fields of the north slope have increased their population from 5,000 before the pipeline activities to around 30,000 today.  The largest herd that regularly crosses the pipeline, the Porcupine herd, has trippled in population.

"The Gwich'in spokeswoman and activist, Sarah James (an infinitely better pick for VP, IMHO, than her namesake), of Arctic Village, AK, on the southern border of ANWR, has not very long ago already told Grist, and Grist readers, that drilling in ANWR will be disastrous for her people."

So you are saying that employment would be disasterous for the Inuit.  How, exactly, would employment be disasterous for the Inuit?

"You know, I hope this is true, seeing that we defenders are probably going to lose."

It's 2,000 acres out of a total of 19.5 million acres.

"Still, consider the Exxon/Valdez, and remember that anything that can go wrong, will go wrong; and when it does, lots and lots of vulnerable creatures suffer and die, and there is nothing to be done about it."

Yeap, the occassional oil spill will happen.  But we are getting better and better at cleaning them up and returning the wildlife to the area.  And we are getting better and better at insuring that fewer and fewer of them happen.  Look, every time you get in your car you risk your life.  Many people are killed in car accidents.  But sometimes we decide that the rewards are bigger than the risks.  The rewards of drilling are much larger than the risks of spills.  

"And anyway, there is nothing "patriotic" or "America-loving" about Alaskan oil.  It goes to East Asia, where the market is."

Another delusion that you eco cultists live under. All Alaskan oil goes to West Coast refineries and is consumed in the US.

"And all the bully-bully-ness of John Mccain and Sarah Palin cannot change that, unless they want to morph into Joseph Stalin and Leonid[itska] Brezhnev[ska]"

No, it's Obama and Biden that are the budding communists, not McCain and Palin.

"This description of a predator/prey relationship is totally unbelievable.  It is unworkable.  It does not happen.  If prey species and predator species exist in the same ecosystem, the predation rate can simply not be as high as is here claimed.  The ecosystem would have collapsed long ago.
And so, the description is plainly a fiction."

I can't completely disagree with you on this.  The 99% number sounds exceptionally high.  But I doubt that they made up the count of the caribou herd going from 10,000 to 600.

Now, I don't doubt that caribou and wolves will balance in the long run.  But population crashes of both wolves and caribou are common.  As long as wolves are able to catch enough game, including Caribou, their populations will increase.  As their numbers increase the predation on the Caribou herds increases beyond the abilities of the herds to maintain their populations.  The herd populations crash, and eventually the wolf populations crash when there is little game for them to hunt.  After the wolf populations crash the Caribou herds rebuild and the cycle begins all over.  Many years ago I read a doctoral dissertation about jack rabbit populations in New Mexico.  They had a similar relationship with the coyotes and those jackrabbit populations varied by a factor of 10 to 1.  Now Palin could have decided to simply let those crash and recover cycles go uninterrupted, but the state decided that they didn't want to do this even before she became governor.

"Please tell me, somebody, that at some point in her life, Sarah Palin took in an orphaned caribou lamb, and nursed it with a baby bottle.  I would really love to hear such a story."

How about a compassion story about Obama.  Obama has a half brother, George Hussein Onayango Obama, who lives in a shanty town outside of Niarobi Kenya.  He lives on about one dollar a month.  Obama has visited his half brother, knows where he is and how he lives, but he has never sent him a single buck to help him.  Obama could have made a huge difference to his half brother on what would have amounted to pocket change for him - and yet he did nothing.  I expect that when Obama is able to send his brother other peoples tax money rather than his own, his compassion will greatly increase.

"But, but, but, polar bears ARE endangered; "

No, they are not.  Their population is healthy and robust.  Their being placed on the endangered list is a speculative placement about the expected results of AGW, not a placement that has anything to do with their actual numbers.  In any case, their population has nothing to do with drilling, and I see no reason why drilling would diminish their numbers.

"However, OK, I think we can all agree that discouraging trophy-hunting is a great and good thing, although it does not seem to be a high priority in Alaska state governance."

Like I said before, I don't hunt.  But I have no issues with an agency controlled hunting program that protects wildlife populations from overhunting.  And if populations get too small, I have no problem with cutting the hunting to zero.

In her church on stage, while the preacher said Alaska is a haven after the rapture or armageddon or whatever these wackos believe in.

You want her press on nailed finger on the nuke-you-ler button?  Unbelievable.  This country is really turning into an asylum, run by the inmates.

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin

God will provide.  She was asking the congregation to pray for her natural gas pipeline deal, this was last June.  The preacher prayed for her to become governor, she was prattling on about it.

So "Drill, drill, drill" is actually a prayer?  Amen...and amen.  God will make more oil, like Jesus made wine.

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin