Alright, Weaver, but it cuts both ways,...don't be haulin' your pasty-white families out to Disney World, just to burn yourselves to a crispy-fried bright-pink color...then buy up all the giant mouse-ear hats, and call it a winter vacation.

When you're knee-deep in the lake-effect snow, and haven't seen the sun for 6 weeks, don't come down to Florida hoping for a little break. Stay there and keep shovelin' 'til springtime.

You don't want any part of this, anyway,,,since we have so many man-eating-gators. Pile back in that Hybrid-SUV of yours and open up ANWR for oil exploration and keep on burnin' that coal all winter!

I was listening to some talk radio today & I do not know if they were just being blahblahblah or how much of the show was scientific

I really don't know the facts, so my "decision" is incomplete.

BUT ... I was thinking the entire time I was listening .... "Well , humans are not going to go back and live like cave men ... and the emerging economies of India & China are going to consume waaaaaaaay more resources than anyone up to this time ... maybe this is how nature "thins out" population ??????

Pep

Oh ima, you are so going to get it.

Going back and living like cave men is not the alternative to petroleum and coal.

We already have alternatives that could make us safer, healthier, and richer.

Weaver, you can visit my algae farm in the Sonora desert any time.

GC

I remember visiting Hong Kong the first time .... around 1970 ... and some of my airline friends told me that Hong Kong used to be "spotless" ... in previous years, there was no garbage anywhere >because< there was poverty ... and any "junk" thrown away was picked up and either eaten or used by the poor ..... and by the 1970's the economy was so good that there was garbage in the streets !!!!

NOW that was a life lesson I never forgot

<img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" /> Pep

I hear that cities in many developing countries are full of dead trees whose once healthy foliage was covered over and eventually replaced by plastic grocery bags.

GC

Thanks Gray. I know that you suspect that most people's minds are already made up. I think it's worth talking about, though, even if that's your sincere belief.

Here, on a site that has Nothing To Do With Science, I suspect that most of your readers are not informed regarding the bases for the argument either way. I understand your reluctance to delve into them -- and yet it might provide valuable information for folks who rarely have the opportunity to ask a real scientist (yes, every real scientist can snicker at being called 'real' now) about things like this.

You might also, for example, want to explain the basics of how science works. If you're not going to talk about the specifics of this issue, it would still be useful, and probably something that 2Long and JL and Aphelion and the other scientists would be willing to talk about, as well.

where did you hear this???

I think that most people, in the general population don't know what to think or who to trust.

Most people, I think, would give their eye teeth for the truth and would spend their time, money and vote's to do something, however small that they could do.

We just don't know, and wonder why it is always so seemingly brushed off.

At least that is my experience from the very average, very far removed from science... and having any real way to know how to go, people I know.

At any rate, MY mind is not made up...but I did get a very heart felt email to watch the movie Pep has referred to.

Cy ... one of my fav sites to visit is snopes ... especially when I get one of those chain email "warnings" about flashing my headlights when the approaching car has their lights off....

Pep

GC, it's cool that you believe that alternative fuels, (and, I'm guessing conservation) might be the solution to our energy gluttony. Unfortunately, until the price of fuel becomes so painful that we can't fill up that SUV for less than a couple hundred bucks, I don't expect major changes.

Let's ask [censored] Cheney where alternative fuels fit into the big picture. Of course, we CAN'T ask him, since he's classified all of his talks on energy policy.

I speak from experience, as the company I've co-founded (now 10 years old) specializes in working with the government in energy-related projects. In that ten years, I've seen the DOE nearly wiped out on all R&D funding. All of the $$$ are going into fossil fuels. Sure, they pay lip-service to special projects, but all the bucks are going into the Big-Oil projects.

We talk about fuel-cell technology, and hybrid cars, but it's almost the same as solar and wind power in the 70's. We have one of the top fuel cell scientist working with our company, and even he admits that until fossil fuels become excruciatingly painful, no one's going to invest in the technology.

But I admire your enthusiasm. I've just become jaded, just the same way I'm jaded about my M.

YES

exactly

Pep

Snow? I'm betting you won't know what that is in a few years! <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />


Neither. Great Slave Lake!

-ol' 2long

You been dipping into that room temp dark micro brew again 2?

At any rate, I'm so glad I didn't invest in that new snowblower. <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

The Great Slave Lake sounds like something out of you and Kimmy's Sci Fi novels...oh heck, not even going to touch that one.

Ah, but the Lake Effect Snow will actually be higher for a few years, because even with global warming, you'll still get some arctic blasts. Only difference--those blistering summers are gonna heat that water up, causing even more moisture to enter the weather machine in the winter time. I'd get that snowblower, Weaver, just make sure it's solar powered.

The G S L is in northern Canada - like way, way, way, north.

When I lived there it was in the "Northwest territories" but i'm not sure what they call that area now.

Where's Binder when you need him.

BTW, Binder says Hi, and that he'll come back around someday.
Did I already say that before? I promised him I pass it on to you.

2long, is your memory starting to go yet?

SS

SS:

I can't remember!

-ol' 2long

You are soooo cruisin' ima.

I'm so glad Binder said hi SS, as I often wonder how he is, but didn't want to intrude by asking... so thank you for letting us know.

I love snow, I love Canada and I am definitely wintering in the south (on a houseboat, probably in Kentucky on the rivers) when I retire...

But first I am paying you a visit ima, just to say hey!...and see how good your ice tea is. LOL

Ooops, sorry no "a" in definite.

I am sorry, but I haven't yet read beyond the first post. I read this article just yesterday and found it interesting and believable.

"Scientists respond to Gore's warnings of climate catastrophe"

I'm very surprised that in 2006 anyone is questioning the reality of climate change.

In 1995, 200 scientists, including all the world's top climate scientists, wrote an open letter to heads of government to say there was overwhelming evidence of climate change having already occurred, and that something needed to be done and fast. This was unprecedented. Getting 200 free-thinking, ambitious and opinionated scientists to agree is next to impossible.

Since then, the evidence has only become stronger.

Why would every head of government in developed nations with the exception of the US and Aust agree to the Kyoto protocol, despite the fact that it will cost a lot of money, unless there is incontrovertible evidence?

Also, the argument that developing countries not covered by the Kyoto protocol will use much more energy in coming years than developed countries is a furphy. The growth in GDP in developed countries over the last 20 years has far outweighed population growth in developing countries. We are still increasing our energy use.

About solutions? Renewable energy development. Sensible energy pricing stategies to discourage waste. Nuclear power. None of it is beyond any developed country, and none of it requires huge lifestyle changes. Look at Sweden.