There is only one goddess Gaia and Al Gore is her only prophet...

[--Pete]

Hi,

Yes, there is a plan I would get behind. It would need to be grass roots, and it would need to spread from locality to locality. In order to do so, we'd need to remove the obstruction of the State and Federal government who protect their wealthy friends preventing us from holding those who damage the environment accountable.

That's not a plan, that's a pipe dream.

The bulk of the population through ignorance and apathy have allowed the present situation to occur. You actually expect them to somehow suddenly grow a brain and a conscience and do the right things? Pass that pipe; whatever you're smoking must be good.

--Pete

[kandrathe]

That's not a plan, that's a pipe dream.

The bulk of the population through ignorance and apathy have allowed the present situation to occur. You actually expect them to somehow suddenly grow a brain and a conscience and do the right things? Pass that pipe; whatever you're smoking must be good.

:) I'm not sure staying the course with the current dead wood is going to work either. Perhaps your idea of hastening the crash so we can rebuild is the correct choice, so long as those who are there for the rebuilding are the ones with the brains. We need to get past the daily mantra of “There Ought To Be a Law...” As it stands today, we need to consult with about ten governmental organizations before we can legally install ten feet of bulkhead to keep a shoreline tree from falling in the water. All this crap needs to be dismantled, so government can return to it's proper role, preserving and defending freedom.

Bottom line: We need to go back to the principles that made the USA different than Europe and the rest of the world. That is, a nation devoted to liberty, justice, and freedom for all. George Washington once said, "Government is not reason, it is not eloquence,--it is force! Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearsome master."

[Jester]

George Washington once said, "Government is not reason, it is not eloquence,--it is force! Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearsome master."

Did he really? Do you have a source? I think that one's apocryphal.

It does, however, capture my opinion of your solution: trying to solve this problem without government is somewhat like giving up the technology of fire because it's potentially dangerous. You're taking our most powerful tool out of the toolbox, to the point where I don't think what remains can fix the problem.

-Jester

[ShadowHM]

As it stands today, we need to consult with about ten governmental organizations before we can legally install ten feet of bulkhead to keep a shoreline tree from falling in the water. All this crap needs to be dismantled, so government can return to it's proper role, preserving and defending freedom.

Well, that one hit a nerve, since I happen to have been the neighbour of someone who felt that way about his shoreline. <_<

If you just build a 'bulkhead' then you cause the waves to build and not dissipate. So you erode more somewhere else. THANKS, neighbour!

A lot of 'this crap' exists to protect from the likes of you, apparently. The man had good intentions and not a clue about what he really was doing. And, like you, he was so convinced he was right that no comments/requests/arguments were going to make any difference to his plan. :(

Methinks you chose a poor example to make your point, thus exposing a serious weakness in your argument. Additionally, exaggeration weakens your point, since I happen to know that here there is only one agency to get clearance from to make shoreline alterations. ;)

[Delc]

All this crap needs to be dismantled, so government can return to it's proper role, preserving and defending freedom.

To use your previous example of moose hunting. If we dismantle the regulations, what would stop me from killing every moose I saw? I mean sure, some people would be responsible, and only kill a few. But maybe I have a lot of free time and want to eat nothing but moose meat. It doesn't take too many irresponsible people to offset the responsible ones.

[kandrathe]

To use your previous example of moose hunting. If we dismantle the regulations, what would stop me from killing every moose I saw? I mean sure, some people would be responsible, and only kill a few. But maybe I have a lot of free time and want to eat nothing but moose meat. It doesn't take too many irresponsible people to offset the responsible ones.

No, we don't really want it to crash, but it will. The voters, and corporations mostly, have learned that they can vote themselves your money and borrow trillions with little hope of repayment. At some point (which we are near or just past), the burden becomes unbearable and the system crashes. Then, the government (and the people) would like to protect the moose, but can't afford to pay the DNR officer who would do that job. They would like to catch that criminal, but cannot afford to pay the people needed to do it, and are no longer able to borrow money or tax people.

The US is currently borrowing trillions per year with the tax base (during the last boon time) being about $2.5 trillion. We are now spending that 2.5 trillion, and borrowing another 3 to 6 trillion each year. And, this divergence is getting worse. Add to that the rate at which our Federal Government is printing US Dollars (devaluing) which will express itself as a hidden tax on every dollar saved or in circulation.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/finance...ting-money.html

Right now, I'm riding on this bus in morbid fascination, looking at that cliff we are about to plummet over. Most of the passengers are asleep, some are terrified, and some are laughing hysterically. Meanwhile, the bus driver, drunk on tax money and borrowing, is saying, "Don't worry, we've driven this way dozens of times before." The saddest part is, that when this bus crashes, millions will die. Really.

[kandrathe]

A lot of 'this crap' exists to protect from the likes of you, apparently.

It's not me actually. I'm in favor of engineering decisions being made (or at least reviewed) by actual engineers. Where I live (surrounded by water), these are decisions that come up all the time. It takes years to actually get anything done around here due to all the regulations.

[kandrathe]

It does, however, capture my opinion of your solution: trying to solve this problem without government is somewhat like giving up the technology of fire because it's potentially dangerous. You're taking our most powerful tool out of the toolbox, to the point where I don't think what remains can fix the problem.

Fire, which is currently being wielded by a bunch of pyromaniacs. There currently is no judicious use, and metered control of the size of our government. It is sold as the only solution to all of our problems, and any opposition to government is flagellated with the tired old arguments of either community disunity, ignorance, or corporatist coercion. You and obviously others believe I'm not rational to believe in individual liberty and responsibility, I'm a dreamer, deluded, or high on something.

[--Pete]

Hi,

Perhaps your idea of hastening the crash so we can rebuild is the correct choice, . . .

?????????????

I do think that the crash will probably come soon. I do think that nobody will do enough soon enough to do more than postpone it. In the '70s I expected that the crash would come sometime around the turn of the millennium -- clearly I was off by at least a decade. And I do think that only a crash will drive the kind of changes needed.

All that being said, I am *not* in favor of hastening misfortune. I'd infinitely rather that we avoid it. If, through some political and social miracle we can achieve a better world without the impetus of a disaster, then I would be extremely happy to have been proven wrong.

--Pete

[Jester]

You and obviously others believe I'm not rational to believe in individual liberty and responsibility, I'm a dreamer, deluded, or high on something.

One is not crazy to believe that a hammer will pound nails. One would be crazy to believe that it will power your car, or fly you to the moon. The right tool for the right job.

Believing that individual liberty and responsibility are *good* is not crazy. Believing that they, and they alone, will solve all the problems we face as a species, is.

-Jester

[Jester]

We are now spending that 2.5 trillion, and borrowing another 3 to 6 trillion each year. And, this divergence is getting worse. Add to that the rate at which our Federal Government is printing US Dollars (devaluing) which will express itself as a hidden tax on every dollar saved or in circulation.

The US government is not borrowing 3 *to 6* trillion dollars a year. In this last year, which was *extremely* exceptional, the government borrowed just shy of 3 trillion - an act which has never happened before, and will not happen again in the near future.


Also, your debt is denominated in US dollars. If you're devaluing, you don't "add" that to the debt - you subtract it, because your debt is shrinking in that exact proportion. The effect is the same as if the government was taxing money, and using it to pay down the debt.

-Jester

Afterthought: Millions will die? Now I'm *really* wondering what you're smoking.

[kandrathe]

The US government is not borrowing 3 *to 6* trillion dollars a year. In this last year, which was *extremely* exceptional, the government borrowed just shy of 3 trillion - an act which has never happened before, and will not happen again in the near future.

Your chart is a deception. There is NO way that chart reflects the reality for 2010 and beyond. More people are unemployed than last year, more people are dependent on government than last year, more States budgets are in bigger deficits than last year. And, revenues are still down, the only recovery has been when government has engineered it and then hyped it as in Cash for Clunkers. Hey, the auto companies are showing a profit... The government hand out program ends, and >*poof*< the recovery is over.

Also, your debt is denominated in US dollars. If you're devaluing, you don't "add" that to the debt - you subtract it, because your debt is shrinking in that exact proportion. The effect is the same as if the government was taxing money, and using it to pay down the debt.

The effect is to tick off China, who happens to be holding a bunch of US Dollars that are shrinking in value. Which is why gold is moving past $1200/oz.

Afterthought: Millions will die? Now I'm *really* wondering what you're smoking.

We've been over this before. When the US economy is in trouble, so too will Europe, and the third world will be in crisis, civil wars, and starving.

[Jester]

Your chart is a deception.

It might not turn out to be exactly correct, but it's not a "deception". At worst, it represents a more optimistic view than you have.

There is NO way that chart reflects the reality for 2010 and beyond. More people are unemployed than last year, more people are dependent on government than last year, more States budgets are in bigger deficits than last year. And, revenues are still down, the only recovery has been when government has engineered it and then hyped it as in Cash for Clunkers. Hey, the auto companies are showing a profit... The government hand out program ends, and >*poof*< the recovery is over.

Okay. But in order for the government to *lose* enough revenue to force the government to borrow 3 trillion dollars again next year (let alone SIX trillion, which is just absurd), revenue would have to drop...

... dramatically...

... to zero.

You must really think things are bad. On the plus side, you won't have to pay your taxes next year.

The effect is to tick off China, who happens to be holding a bunch of US Dollars that are shrinking in value. Which is why gold is moving past $1200/oz.

Sure, fine. But this still doesn't change the basic fact: your debts are denominated in a currency that is shrinking in value. When that value shrinks, so does the debt.

We've been over this before. When the US economy is in trouble, so too will Europe, and the third world will be in crisis, civil wars, and starving.

Yes, we have been over this before. Needless to say, then as now, I find your claims unsubstantiated and grossly exaggerated.

-Jester

[Delc]

No, we don't really want it to crash, but it will. The voters, and corporations mostly, have learned that they can vote themselves your money and borrow trillions with little hope of repayment. At some point (which we are near or just past), the burden becomes unbearable and the system crashes. Then, the government (and the people) would like to protect the moose, but can't afford to pay the DNR officer who would do that job. They would like to catch that criminal, but cannot afford to pay the people needed to do it, and are no longer able to borrow money or tax people.

So your solution is to just fire them now and hope people do the right thing?

[kandrathe]

You must really think things are bad. On the plus side, you won't have to pay your taxes next year.

It's a felony to *not* file, and at least make a deal on how and when to pay.

Yes, we have been over this before. Needless to say, then as now, I find your claims unsubstantiated and grossly exaggerated.

Things are bad.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1258392836...=googlenews_wsj

http://www1.voanews.com/english/news/afric...6-70423832.html

http://www.thestar.com/business/article/72...l-food-shortage

Let's do a check up in six months. I'm betting they will be worse than now.

[ShadowHM]

It's not me actually. I'm in favor of engineering decisions being made (or at least reviewed) by actual engineers. Where I live (surrounded by water), these are decisions that come up all the time. It takes years to actually get anything done around here due to all the regulations.

I am not sympathetic. As I noted, the regulations are there for a reason. There are many who can and do act in (sometimes willful) ignorance of the effects their self-serving actions have on others. Heck, sometimes they do so even when they are not ignorant of those effects. Sometimes they deliberately minimize the probability that those effects will take place. Sometimes they flat-out don't give a damn.

Regardless, I would rather wade through a morass of regulations than allow continued free-rein by the 'many'. I am sorry you don't share that feeling.

Additionally, since we are into personal statements: I would rather pay more taxes, regardless of a certain level of expected 'government waste', than continue on our merry way towards the precipice. I am not sanguine at all about the ability of our species to devise a way out of the mess we have created, but I would rather see something tried other than resting my hopes on 'people of goodwill doing the right thing'. Government regulation is a ponderous and heavy-handed way to get things done, but it is a far sight better than letting people continue doing what serves themselves best.

[Jester]

It's a felony to *not* file, and at least make a deal on how and when to pay.

Sure. But if the government earns *zero* revenue next year, then obviously, they didn't get any from you - or from anyone. That's the magnitude of economic collapse that would be necessary to generate a three trillion dollar debt increase - a total wipeout the entire tax base.

Things are bad.

...

Let's do a check up in six months. I'm betting they will be worse than now.

Let's.

Better yet, let's check next year's debt increase. If it's as much as 2 trillion, I'll be surprised, unless they pass another stimulus package. If it's 3 trillion, I'll admit you had a point. If it's SIX trillion, then you should probably look into obtaining some other citizenship.

The hunger problem in the third world is a very serious one - but the causes of that problem are not all related to the current economic crisis, not by a long shot. You have a fair point that the drop in aid will mean more people die of hunger. I think "millions" is highballing it.

-Jester

[kandrathe]

So your solution is to just fire them now and hope people do the right thing?

When you have limited means, you make choices among the priorities you have. If the DNR and moose are an important priority, then we should fund them. But, perhaps something else needs to be cut instead, like bringing the teacher to student ratio down from 20:1 to 14:1. Or, not giving away knee and hip replacements to senior citizens. I think it is too limiting to say we should never run a deficit, but it should be a very short term emergency when we do.

[Ashock]

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/story.h...7233e96&p=1


Here's a nice article from a distinguished MIT professor.

The interesting thing is that it is from 2 years ago and it is spot on, especially in light of the recent developments. In fact, I think he was being diplomatic towards some of his colleagues. Naturally, Professor Lindzen's views have not changed since then.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Relax, the planet is fine
This Earth Day, Professor Richard Lindzen, an atmospheric physicist and the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at MIT, wants you to calm down. The Earth, he says, is in good shape. "Forests are returning in Europe and the United States. Air quality has improved. Water quality has improved. We grow more food on less land. We've done a reasonably good job in much of the world in conquering hunger. And yet we're acting as though: "How can we stand any more of this?" A leading critic on the theory of man-made global warming, Professor Lindzen has developed a reputation as America's anti-doom-andgloom scientist. And he's not, he says, as lonely as you might think.
By National PostApril 21, 2007
This Earth Day, Professor Richard Lindzen, an atmospheric physicist and the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at MIT, wants you to calm down. The Earth, he says, is in good shape. "Forests are returning in Europe and the United States. Air quality has improved. Water quality has improved. We grow more food on less land. We've done a reasonably good job in much of the world in conquering hunger. And yet we're acting as though: "How can we stand any more of this?" A leading critic on the theory of man-made global warming, Professor Lindzen has developed a reputation as America's anti-doom-andgloom scientist. And he's not, he says, as lonely as you might think.

Q You don't dispute that the globe is warming?

A It has never been an issue of whether the Earth is warming -- because it's always warming or cooling. The issue is: What are the magnitudes involved? It's a big difference if it's warming a degree or two or 10, or if it's warming a few tenths of a degree.

Q And it's inconclusive how much it's warming?

A Sure it's inconclusive. It's a very hard thing to analyze because you have to average huge fluctuations over the whole Earth, and 70% of the Earth is oceans where you don't have weather stations. So you get different groups analyzing this. And they're pretty close. One group gets over the last century a warming of about .55 degrees centigrade. Another group says it's .75 degrees.

Q Is there any scenario in which global warming could be beneficial for the planet?

A Of course. Canada looks like it will benefit considerably if it were to happen. And it might very well happen -- but it won't be due to man.

Q You charge that the hysteria that's been created around global warming is an enormous financial scam. It's all about money?

A Well, how shall I put it? It's not all about money, but boy, there's a lot of money floating in it. I mean, emissions trading is going to be a multi-trillion dollar market. Emissions alone would keep small countries in business.

Q Are you suggesting that scientists manipulate their findings to get in on the gravy train?

A You have to differentiate the interests of different groups. In the scientific community, your interest is for your field to be recognized so that it will have priority in government funding.

Q So you are not accusing your scientific colleagues of corruption?

A No, I'm accusing them of behaving the way scientists always behave. In other words, some years ago, when Richard Nixon declared war on cancer, almost all the biological sciences then became cancer research. I mean, I don't call that corruption, I'm saying you orient your research so that it has a better chance to get resources.

Q And i thelps if your findings suggest something catastrophic is about to happen?

A In this case it certainly has helped. First of all, the funding increased so greatly that it exceeded the capacity of the existing field to absorb it. You'll notice that Working Group 2 of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change came up with lots of scary things, but everything was always preceded by could, might, may, all these qualifiers. And the reason it was is those studies start out assuming there's a lot of warming. They assume all the science is in, and then they say, 'Well, how will this impact my field of insect-borne diseases, or agriculture, or health?' So they are almost, by definition, going to generate catastrophic scenarios, but they will never be based on anything other than the hypothesis that this will already happen.

Q I read that you betone of your colleagues that the Earth will actually be colder 20 years from now?

A I haven't bet on it, but I figure the odds are about 50-50.

If you look at the temperature record for the globe over the last six years, it's gone no place. That's usually the way it behaves before it goes down. In fact, I suspect that's why you have this tsunami of exposure the last two years, with Gore's movie and so on. I think that this issue has been around long enough to generate a lot of agendas, and looking at the temperature records there must be a fear that if they don't get the agendas covered now, they may never get them.

Q Did you watch Al Gore ge this Academy Award?

A No! Bad enough I watched his movie.

Q He would appear to have the support of the majority of your scientific colleagues.

A Not really. This is an issue that has hundreds of aspects. The very thought that a large number of scientists all agree on everything is inconceivable. Among my colleagues, I would say, almost no one thinks that Gore's movie is reasonable. But there will be differences. Some believe it is possible that warming could be a serious problem. Others think it's very unlikely. People are all over the place.

Q Some suggest that Roger Revelle, Gore's scientific mentor, would not have agreed with the movie?

A Well, he's dead.

Q Yes. So that makes it harder for him to speak out.

A It's a horrible story. Before he died, Roger Revelle co-authored a popular paper saying, 'We know too little to take any action based on global warming. If we take any action it should be an action that we can justify completely without global warming.' And Gore's staffers tried to have his name posthumously removed from that paper claiming he had been senile. And one of the other authors took it to court and won. It's funny how little coverage that got.

Q How cynical do you think Gore is?

A It's hard for me to tell. I think he's either cynical or crazy. But he has certainly cashed in on something. And 'cash in' is the word. The movie has cleared $50-million. He charges $100,000-$150,000 a lecture. He's co-founder of Global Investment Management, which invests in solar and wind and so on. So he is literally shilling for his own companies. And he's on the on the board of Lehman Brothers who want to be the primary brokerage for emission permits.

Q That sounds more cynical, less crazy.

A I think his aim is not to be president. It's to be a billionaire.

Q What do you find to be the attitude among your MIT undergraduates on global warming?

A I find that they realize they don't know enough to reach judgments. They all realize that Gore's book was a sham. They appreciate that Michael Crichton at least included references.

Q That's encouraging. Because I find the indoctrination at schools to be pretty relentless. On a recent Grade 7 test my daughter was asked something to the effect of, "How are you going to educate your parents about global warming?"

A I know. It's straight out of Hitlerjugend.

Q Having said that, are there any behaviours we should be changing, as a society, in order to protect our planet?

A Yes. We should learn math and physics so we don't get fooled by this idiocy.

NATIONALPOST.COM

For more news and commentary on the environment, visit nationalpost.com/ environment

[Jester]

I'm impressed that Prof. Lindzen managed to Godwin a fawning interview with the National Post.

-Jester