PDA

View Full Version : Special Wedding Bells Edition


Bloggingheads
06-05-2008, 09:43 PM

Wonderment
06-05-2008, 10:07 PM
Muchas felicidades, mazal tov and much happiness to Jim!

piscivorous
06-05-2008, 10:38 PM
31,000 scientists reject 'global warming' agenda . (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/2053842/Scientists-sign-petition-denying-man-made-global-warming.html) I'm quite sure they are not all climate scientists but there should be one or two in the list.

Trevor
06-05-2008, 11:00 PM
We don't want flying cars. They always come with murderous androids.

And, in Blade Runner at least, some serious climate change.

StillmanThomas
06-05-2008, 11:11 PM
Enjoyable as always. Jim is right that astronomers have documented significant warming on both Jupiter and Mars. I'm a complete believer in global warming, but a skeptic that it's anthropogenic. Nevertheless, we need to stop polluting our planet. These huge oil prices are a blessing in disguise.

Congratulations, Jim. Best wishes on your nups.

piscivorous
06-05-2008, 11:19 PM
Given that Senator Obama will be considered the favorite, and the conventional wisdom is that leader should limit the number of debates, I'll believe it when I see it. I do like the idea of limited issue debates. I think with only 1 topic, many of the less committed, would tire of the repetition, unless they were sort of short and sweet , maybe an hour. That would give each 10-15 minutes to make their case and plenty of time for candidate interaction with the moderator there only to manage time not substance.

bjkeefe
06-05-2008, 11:24 PM
... really think about global warming (http://thinkprogress.org/wonkroom/2008/06/05/gop-climate-memo/).

piscivorous
06-05-2008, 11:35 PM
You mean politicians will be politicians and use politics and maneuver to prevent legislation that the believe is wrong! I'm shocked I tell you just shocked.

donroberto
06-05-2008, 11:50 PM
I'm a complete believer in global warming, but a skeptic that it's anthropogenic. Nevertheless, we need to stop polluting our planet.

Google "carbon dioxide + temperature". Do they have to draw you a diagram?

Oh wait. They do, and they have.

bjkeefe
06-05-2008, 11:57 PM
Bokonon:

Jim is right that astronomers have documented significant warming on both Jupiter and Mars.

Any sources more reliable on this than WingNutDaily?

I'm a complete believer in global warming, but a skeptic that it's anthropogenic. Nevertheless, we need to stop polluting our planet. These huge oil prices are a blessing in disguise.

That's helpful -- less worry about the blame, more concern about how to mitigate the problem. Of course, if we don't acknowledge the probability that humans have at least exacerbated the problem, it will be harder to make humans do anything to change their behavior.

High oil prices may help, but I'm worried that one of the first responses will be burning more coal, both here and abroad.

bjkeefe
06-06-2008, 12:00 AM
pisc:

I do like the idea of limited issue debates. I think with only 1 topic, many of the less committed, would tire of the repetition, unless they were sort of short and sweet , maybe an hour.

I agree. But maybe the "1 topic" could be broadened a bit; e.g., instead of Iraq, make the topic "the Middle East." Instead of "terrorism," make the topic "national security." And so on. That might help the casual audience member hang in there.

I do hope for a bunch of substantive debates, too. I think the two are about even matched in this format, and the more we can make it about issues and less about sound bites and gotcha questions, the better off we'll all be.

bjkeefe
06-06-2008, 12:03 AM
We don't want flying cars. They always come with murderous androids.

Not on the Jetsons. The Jetsons showed that the real danger is treadmills.

piscivorous
06-06-2008, 12:34 AM
Anything is better than the current dog and pony show that currently pass for debates but overly broad topics might tend towards the banal with the requisite desire to hit talking points and sound bites instead of eluctation.

Wonderment
06-06-2008, 01:11 AM
The twinky-in-my-arteries defense (http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/11645?in=00:05:10&out=5:33)

"Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction."

Dick Cheney
August 26, 2002

bjkeefe
06-06-2008, 01:13 AM
The twinky-in-my-arteries defense

Very nice.

bjkeefe
06-06-2008, 01:16 AM
Anything is better than the current dog and pony show that currently pass for debates but overly broad topics might tend towards the banal with the requisite desire to hit talking points and sound bites instead of eluctation.

Yes, there is always that worry in modern politics. But the hope might be that if they had to talk for an hour or 90 minutes about just a few topics, they'd run out of sound bites, and actually talk some substance.

As I remember it, the best debate among the Dems was the one (one of the ones?) that they did with NPR -- very limited topic selection, so they had to talk more in depth.

I think it also helped that it was on the radio, so there was less of a showbiz aspect, but I'm pretty sure at least 99% of the population would consider me out to lunch on this one.

StillmanThomas
06-06-2008, 01:56 AM
Do they have to draw you a diagram?

DR: No doubt that greenhouse gases exacerbate the problem. I'm just not sure that they cause it. The polar ice caps on Mars are melting and the atmospheric storms on Jupiter also show signs of increased warming. That's interesting evidence that the heat output of the sun is increasing.

The earth has undergone temperature fluctuations throughout its history, long before human-produced carbon dioxide existed. Human-produced greenhouse gases trap the increased heat and accelerate the problem. That's what's different in this heat cycle.

StillmanThomas
06-06-2008, 02:10 AM
Any sources more reliable on this than WingNutDaily?

BJ:

Here's a link to the London Times from 2007 about melting polar ice caps on Mars: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article1720024.ece

Here's a link to space.com about major climate changes observed in the storms in Jupiter's atmosphere from 2004:
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/jupiter_spots_040421.html

We have a great deal more to learn about the behavior of the sun and its interaction with the planets' atmospheres. Climate scientists' computer models are too primitive to make the kinds of predictions that they're making. IMNSHO.

bjkeefe
06-06-2008, 02:47 AM
Thanks, Bokonon.

The Mars situation is the interesting one, as it pertains to Earth. Jupiter seems less clearly relevant, since it does have the characteristic of generating more heat by itself than it receives from the Sun.

I wonder if it could be the case that relatively small changes in the Sun would have a more pronounced, or faster, effect on Mars, because of its thinner atmosphere.

Busy, busy, busy. (As you have said elsewhere.)

StillmanThomas
06-06-2008, 03:02 AM
Of course, if we don't acknowledge the probability that humans have at least exacerbated the problem, it will be harder to make humans do anything to change their behavior.

BJ:

I think that "human-caused global warming" may be an extremely useful, even necessary, myth. Human beings are terrified of bad things happening to us, but even more terrifying is being out of control, being helpless to affect our situation. The Stockholm Syndrome is related to this fear of loss of control. This is the situation where hostages identify with their captors, similar to battered wife syndrome. The victim blames herself for the bad things she's going through, because it provides the illusion of control. "I made him hit me" is easier to deal with than "I live with a monster, over whom I have no control."

I've long wondered if global warming isn't the convenient lie we tell ourselves to mask our true terror--that the sun is warming, there is absolutely nothing we can do about it, and our planet and we along with it may be doomed.

There was a Twilight Zone episode along these lines when I was a kid. Rod Serling was a great writer! Prescient.

bjkeefe
06-06-2008, 03:38 AM
Bokonon:

I've long wondered if global warming isn't the convenient lie we tell ourselves to mask our true terror--that the sun is warming, there is absolutely nothing we can do about it, and our planet and we along with it may be doomed.

Now that's a new one.

I don't buy it. If you could somehow arrange a conspiracy that involved the IPCC and who knows how many thousands of other researchers to agree that:

1. It's the sun that's warming
2. We didn't have anything to do with it
3. We can't do anything about it
4. We need a cover story to stave off panic

wouldn't it just be easier to say nothing at all? There's an added benefit: we wouldn't have to feel guilty for driving Hummers and leaving lights on -- we could party like it's 1999 forever. (Where here forever means for the next few decades.)

Or does your hyothesis tie in with Pinkerton's crazed notion that the environmentalists would like nothing finer than to wreck the economy?

StillmanThomas
06-06-2008, 03:50 AM
If you could somehow arrange a conspiracy that involved the IPCC and who knows how many thousands of other researchers to agree that....

Brendan:

I'm not talking about a conspiracy. I'm talking about self-delusion, the need to protect ourselves from a terrible knowledge.

As I said, I don't push this theory. I just wonder about it.

bjkeefe
06-06-2008, 04:20 AM
Brendan:

I'm not talking about a conspiracy. I'm talking about self-delusion, the need to protect ourselves from a terrible knowledge.

As I said, I don't push this theory. I just wonder about it.

But if it's self-delusion and not a conspiracy, how do you explain all those climate scientists saying what they're saying? Do you think they're all self-deluding, too?

a Duoist
06-06-2008, 04:39 AM
This election is likely to be the most interesting in years, unless the candidates respond to the demands from media on how they should debate. Single topic debates sounds great. Back and forth from the candidates sounds even better. Non-moderator is best of all. Put the whole thing on C-SPAN or PBS, and let the MSM show their million dollar talking heads trying to be relevant.

As for the testy exchange between our Duo on environmentalism, the science is ecology; environmentalism is simply another secular religion and like all theologies/ideologies, it is grounded in myth. Let's debate the science of ecology, and leave out all of the myth-making of environmentalism.

Best wishes on the wedding.

osmium
06-06-2008, 09:15 AM
DR: No doubt that greenhouse gases exacerbate the problem. I'm just not sure that they cause it.

i believe proof is not always a straightforward concept, so i have some sympathy for the argument that climate change is non-anthropogenic.

however, the idea that the sun went haywire coincidental to massive industrial growth following world war 2--this is the explanatory equivalent of a quintuple bank shot.

(how do you write a word for "100 banks"? centuple bank shot?)

maybe the mars ice caps are melting because the rover uses unleaded. (that's a joke.)

piscivorous
06-06-2008, 09:20 AM
Or perhaps Vaclav Havel has it right and it is about power and control.

osmium
06-06-2008, 09:28 AM
BJ:

Here's a link to the London Times from 2007 about melting polar ice caps on Mars: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article1720024.ece


ok, so here's the mars paper from nature (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v446/n7136/pdf/nature05718.pdf). as far as i can tell, this doesn't have anything to do with the solar system or the sun changing. rather, it concerns dust storms and the light/darkness of the martian surface.

this has an earth parallel with the light/darkness of ice and dirt. in other words, it vaguely relates to the concept that earth will absorb more radiation as polar ice shrinks.

but, the suggestion that this paper has any causal link to other planets in the solar system is lazyass journalism.

StillmanThomas
06-06-2008, 11:32 AM
But if it's self-delusion and not a conspiracy, how do you explain all those climate scientists saying what they're saying? Do you think they're all self-deluding, too?

Brendan:

I'm a great believer in the human capacity for self-delusion, including my own. So, of course, I could be nuts. On the other hand read Thomas Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions to see how scientists routinely ignore data that doesn't fit their theories. Read John Horgan's The End of Science or The Undiscovered Mind for some amazing anecdotes about the arrogance, hubris and just plain looniness of scientists he's interviewed. Humans have egos and ego want to be right, want to be rich and famous, want to be worshipped for their insights, and so on.

There are a fair number of scientists who believe that climate change is non-anthropogenic, and a fair number who think the jury is still out. All scientific "truth" is not revelation; it simply hasn't been falsified yet.

Bobby G
06-06-2008, 11:53 AM
That's the most provocative evidence against anthropogenic global warming I've ever heard. I still believe in it, but I believe in it only because it seems that most climatologists agree that it's happening, and who am I to doubt scientists regarding their area of expertise?

Bobby G
06-06-2008, 11:55 AM
What I want to know is: where are the robot cars?! I want to be able to read in my car and take a nap in it on the way to work, dammit!

osmium
06-06-2008, 12:17 PM
That's the most provocative evidence against anthropogenic global warming I've ever heard. I still believe in it, but I believe in it only because it seems that most climatologists agree that it's happening, and who am I to doubt scientists regarding their area of expertise?

well, the times online link is provocative, but i would say the scientific paper it is reporting on is not provocative.

the writer of the times article has played a game trying to get the reader to draw a link between earth and mars ("This is similar to the warming experienced on Earth over approximately the same period."). even though in the fourth paragraph they state flat out that the paper's thesis is that comparing earth to mars on this would be apples and oranges ("The mechanism at work on Mars appears, however, to be different from that on Earth.").

so, this is actually a theory that mars losing its ice is completely unrelated to earth and whatever our deal is.

however, that's not proof that they aren't related. maybe the sun is actually broken. who knows.

piscivorous
06-06-2008, 12:29 PM
They are a lot closer (http://www.darpa.mil/grandchallenge/) than flying ones.

osmium
06-06-2008, 12:42 PM
That's the most provocative evidence against anthropogenic global warming I've ever heard. I still believe in it, but I believe in it only because it seems that most climatologists agree that it's happening, and who am I to doubt scientists regarding their area of expertise?

if anyone wants to read more about the mars thing, here is an overview of the CO2 ice cap disappearing on mars (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_of_Mars#Evidence_for_recent_climatic_chang e), taken from wikipedia.

if you click through the links, you can find an article about the scientist who's drawn a parallel between the earth and mars climates. he does not appear to be a fringe figure, although his earth/mars climate thing hasn't been published under peer-review. and he's russian. so, we must ask the important question: was he a commie?

anyway.

p.s. my refutation of him would be based on the quintuple bank shot argument i deployed above.

bjkeefe
06-06-2008, 02:16 PM
Brendan:

I'm a great believer in the human capacity for self-delusion, including my own. So, of course, I could be nuts. On the other hand read Thomas Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions to see how scientists routinely ignore data that doesn't fit their theories. Read John Horgan's The End of Science or The Undiscovered Mind for some amazing anecdotes about the arrogance, hubris and just plain looniness of scientists he's interviewed. Humans have egos and ego want to be right, want to be rich and famous, want to be worshipped for their insights, and so on.

Point taken on the universal capacity for self-delusion. On the other hand, I would point out that another one of the big ways scientists feed their egos and advance their careers is to overthrow existing theories. In some cases, this can be hard to do, because the current orthodoxy may hinder funding. But in this case, there is no shortage of money available for those who want to explore the ideas that global warming isn't happening, or isn't anthropogenic, or won't be a problem, or won't be a problem compared to the proposed solutions.

There are a fair number of scientists who believe that climate change is non-anthropogenic, and a fair number who think the jury is still out. All scientific "truth" is not revelation; it simply hasn't been falsified yet.

Unless something has really shifted that I haven't heard about, it is misleading to suggest that there is any kind of parity between those who believe the basic theory is sound and those who remain unconvinced. The numbers, among people who are expert in the field, are overwhelmingly on the side that accepts the basic ideas.

I grant that there is less certainty about the long-range effects, particularly their magnitudes, and there's no doubt that there is not yet any agreed-upon best way to address the problem.

Let's step back a bit and look at this in another way.

Even if you're a skeptic, it seems worthwhile to consider the matrix of possibilities, particularly these two elements:

o If AGW real, and we do nothing, what might be the conseqences?
o If AGW is not real, and we do something, what might be the consequences?

Seems to me that the worst that happens in the latter case is some short-term economic hiccups, at least partially offset by what we'd like in any case; e.g., a cleaner environment, the US being less dependent on foreign oil, and some money having been invested in a range of new technologies.

On the other hand, the worst that happens in the former case could be devastating. We could see, at least, large-scale suffering and prolonged hardship. (I'll leave aside the true worst case -- the "runaway" scenario that turns us into Venus II.)

So, that's where I stand -- I believe the consensus view among those who are best equipped to know is clear and I think it's worth acting as though they're right. I am happy to have honest scientific work continue in an effort to challenge the prevailing view, but meantime, I think we should be taking serious steps that accord with the idea that AGW is a real problem.

osmium
06-06-2008, 02:42 PM
Brendan:

I'm not talking about a conspiracy. I'm talking about self-delusion, the need to protect ourselves from a terrible knowledge.

As I said, I don't push this theory. I just wonder about it.

i can totally see it. and it can go both ways. the "sun is getting hotter" theory has a charming appeal.

i mean, there's a real bone-through-the-nose quality to blaming things on the sun.

it flies in the face of occam's razor to deny anthropogenic climate change. but, rather than believe the rather simple greenhouse gas explanation, we can point to the sun and say it got hotter. maybe it is mad at us.

StillmanThomas
06-06-2008, 02:50 PM
Brendan,

I don't disagree with anything you've said here. I think it's incredibly important for us to start living in harmony with our environment, and to start learning how to work together effectively to improve the planet and our (mis)use of it. I don't own a car; I ride a bike everywhere, even in the Oregon rain, and I generally live as greenly as I can.

All I did was suggest that AGW might be a myth, but even if it is, it's a useful, and perhaps even vital one. I never said we should stick our heads in the sand and act as though it's false. I do not agree with Jim's idea that this is some kind of conspiracy to make us all "live like Hobbits," although I don't object in principal to being three feet tall and having huge feet. ;-)

It's always great fun to "chat" with you BJ. You're a true gentleman and a wonderful conversationalist. You always make me think. Thanks for your insights.

osmium
06-06-2008, 02:51 PM
I'm a great believer in the human capacity for self-delusion, including my own. So, of course, I could be nuts. On the other hand read Thomas Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions to see how scientists routinely ignore data that doesn't fit their theories. Read John Horgan's The End of Science or The Undiscovered Mind for some amazing anecdotes about the arrogance, hubris and just plain looniness of scientists he's interviewed. Humans have egos and ego want to be right, want to be rich and famous, want to be worshipped for their insights, and so on.

i think stephen j. gould's mismeasure of man is the best good, clear illustration of how people can massage data to say what they want it to.

end of science is super cool, but especially after watching science saturday for so long, i think john sort of looks for lunatics.

StillmanThomas
06-06-2008, 02:58 PM
i think stephen j. gould's mismeasure of man is the best good, clear illustration of how people can massage data to say what they want it to.

Os: I haven't read it yet. Thanks for the tip.

end of science is super cool, but especially after watching science saturday for so long, i think john sort of looks for lunatics.

I agree. My point was that, as far as scientists go, he doesn't have to look too hard to find lunatics.

StillmanThomas
06-06-2008, 03:07 PM
it flies in the face of occam's razor to deny anthropogenic climate change. but, rather than believe the rather simple greenhouse gas explanation, we can point to the sun and say it got hotter. maybe it is mad at us.

Oh come on, os. Climate change cycles have been happening on earth for as far back as we can see. The presence of human-produced greenhouse gases make the natural problem of solar warming worse, and perhaps catastrophic, since our atmosphere can't respond to dissipate the heat as easily now. Our lunacy of building and dwelling by the millions in storm surge zones doesn't help things, either.

Loved your "bone-through-the-nose" comment!

Fuquier
06-06-2008, 03:28 PM
But if it's self-delusion and not a conspiracy, how do you explain all those climate scientists saying what they're saying? Do you think they're all self-deluding, too?

I think we all know who is self-deluded here.

Richard from Amherst
06-06-2008, 03:28 PM
Folks in the interest of this discussion getting on some realistic scientific ground:

Having read the literature extensively and having know about the increase in atmospheric temperatures since I took Plant Ecology at UMass Amherst in the 1970's I will tell you that based on the literature trust me global warming is real. There are two types:

1) Anthropogenic (man made) global warming due to CO2 buildup and other climatic factors like deforestation and air pollution of various sources is quite real.

2) Non Anthropogenic (naturally occurring) global warming due to sources like geothermal effects and increased insolation, etc. is also quite real.

A big factor in the anthropogenic global warming is the out of control growth in human population. Pinkertin is right that most governments are not going to be willing or able to do much about this problem and Corn is right that it's a big problem.

I've attached some good articles from science now and science

http://blogs.sciencemag.org/newsblog/2008/06/halting-the-han.html#more

http://blogs.sciencemag.org/newsblog/2008/06/wheres-the-evid.html#more

http://blogs.sciencemag.org/newsblog/2008/05/are-we-doomed.html#more

If you want the latest on the icecaps on mars read this paper from the 30 May 2008 issue of Science.

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/320/5880/1182


Frankly I think we are screwed as a species anyway and since I have no kids and am middle aged I'm sort of resigned to personal extinction anyway.

I have no faith in any of the politicians left, right or middle of the road being able to do anything about it. Scientific research is the only thing that may help us. At least until old Sol goes Nova and vaporizes or burns earth to a cinder (depending on which theory you like). If Homo sapiens aren't out of here by then? Well then we are toast...

Considering that we as a species are still arguing over the correctness of natural selection and evolution and killing each other which version of an non existent god is correct. I'm not real hopeful.

If someone in science works out a way to produce energy that will allow modern society without creating greenhouse gas or some other equally nasty or nastier byproduct and we get the population under control we might have a chance but I not holding my breath.

bjkeefe
06-06-2008, 03:50 PM
Richard:

Frankly I think we are screwed as a species anyway and since I have no kids and am middle aged I'm sort of resigned to personal extinction anyway.

[...]

Considering that we as a species are still arguing over the correctness of natural selection and evolution and killing each other which version of an non existent god is correct. I'm not real hopeful.

If someone in science works out a way to produce energy that will allow modern society without creating greenhouse gas or some other equally nasty or nastier byproduct and we get the population under control we might have a chance but I not holding my breath.

I share your outlook in many parts of my mind. Still, the only thing we can do is to try our best. We should also keep in mind other times humankind has felt trapped with no way out, but managed to come up with a game-changer.

Note that by "we" I mean "some of us." It's wrong to seek unanimity of outlook before we start making serious efforts. As Margaret Mead said (http://www.quoteworld.org/quotes/8891), Never doubt that a small group of committed citizens can change the world -- indeed, it's the only thing that ever has.

I also think this responsibility should not be ducked by those of us without offspring or without many decades of our own life left.

JIM3CH
06-06-2008, 03:51 PM
Best wishes to Jim Pinkerton!

and, yes, he's right in my opinion. Nobody has done more harm to our environment than the so-called environmentalists.

Richard from Amherst
06-06-2008, 04:51 PM
Brendan:

Never doubt that a small group of committed citizens can change the world -- indeed, it's the only thing that ever has.


That is a good quote from a brilliant scientist and she is right.

If the world is lucky enough to have some scientists find a way to manage the energy demand necessary to support advanced civilization we will indeed all have a new lease on life. I'm worried that we will overpopulate the planet and crash the climate system first. Or just run out of energy and back to the middle ages if we are lucky. In my opinion overpopulation and under education are the biggest issues. If world population was much smaller and much better educated we would not be is such bad shape at all.


I also think this responsibility should not be ducked by those of us without offspring or without many decades of our own life left.

That's absolutely true and why I intend not to retire but to keep on working designing and building laboratories and working with scientists to advance their work until they carry me out feet first. Universities are our best hope. It's why I work for a university.

That said I can't help but be pretty pessimistic about the situation we are in.
The laws of thermodynamics are not on our side for a replacement for petroleum. Somebody is going to have to be very clever.

Richard

bjkeefe
06-06-2008, 04:58 PM
Richard:

Nothing much for me to disagree with there. A couple of minor points:

If world population was much smaller and much better educated we would not be is such bad shape at all.

One bright spot here is that these two are connected -- increase education for whatever motivation, and you tend to reduce birthrate as a bonus. So, it becomes a situation where fewer things have to be considered -- we just need to keep hammering on money for education.

That said I can't help but be pretty pessimistic about the situation we are in.

The other stuff that you said, particularly your chosen line of work, leads me to suggest that you change your description of your attitude to realistic. Words matter. ;^)

Richard from Amherst
06-06-2008, 05:39 PM
The presence of human-produced greenhouse gases make the natural problem of solar warming worse, and perhaps catastrophic, since our atmosphere can't respond to dissipate the heat as easily now.

We have too many people burning too much fuel for the atmosphere to be able to absorb without changing. It's not that we understand the system in any comprehensive sense. It's just that we have learned enough to say "oh oh" this might not be good."

Our lunacy of building and dwelling by the millions in storm surge zones doesn't help things, either.

Yes one has to wonder about the sanity of large populations of people living on barrier islands and in sinking river deltas.

What's more the idea of rebuilding the cities there when they get wiped out is even harder to comprehend.

It's not really a big surprise when there is a flood in a city where much of the ground level is 15 feet below sea level and still sinking and located in a hurricane zone.

Nor for that matter is it surprising to have the island move out from beneath a city when its built on a barrier island that migrates dynamically with long shore drift and sea level? Of course the same can be said of earthquake zones, slopes of volcanoes, tornado zones and landslide zones.

We can't avoid all risk but there is some that is just dumb to take. Was anybody really surprised when New Orleans flooded?

deebee
06-07-2008, 09:09 AM
I agree with all of the "better safe than sorry comments" regarding Global Warning. Also enjoy the idea of there being fewer SUV's out there -- they are impossible to see around in parking lots and scary to be around on the road.

bjkeefe
06-07-2008, 09:45 AM
... Also enjoy the idea of there being fewer SUV's out there -- they are impossible to see around in parking lots ...

I have the exact same complaint. It sucks when they're parked on the street, too -- makes it scary to come out of a driveway.