Only one way to stop global warming!

Not sure we can change global warming and I do not buy into the politics that blame us for it.

Err, if you don't buy into the "politics" then how about looking at the science instead? I think you'll find that's a much better idea in general. Also if you don't think we caused it then getting everyone to walk won't help with the title of this thread.

Also, do I have to walk my wife to hospital when she's in labor? Just wondering...

But I grant you that you did manage to provoke a response with your posting.

I just plan on more nudity.

Hey, walking is good for you; improve health, lose weight, fight depression. What's to not like about it. Oh yeah, it's easier to hop in the car.

My take on the environment is that since their are 6 billion plus of us, each of us should try to use less. Walking, biking, electric biking are all much better than taking a two ton car to the grocery to get a loaf of bread. Insulation in the attic, weatherstripping, caulking, CFL lights, turn off electrics when not in use, take a cold shower now and then, closing blinds on a hot day, opening them up on cold ones to let in the sun and a bunch of other little things can go a long way when added together.

We've only got one earth. We should do what we can to make it liveable for out children and grandchildren.

rad

yup, doing all that stuff. Only take a truck when I need to transport stuff over 50 pounds, usually it's something 1000 pounds. Most of the nudity is inside the house, in the summer.

well, not sure if there is still way to stop it because climate itself is unchangeable. Climate change is an effect of global warming and the neverending pollution brought about by many forces.. Maybe lesser cars running on fuels would be a way.. or alternative sources of energy which does not involve coal.. crude oil an such.

There's just a tiny downside to all these noble sentiments. Our economy! While the highly developed and relatively underpopulated West is able to switch to a high tech, low energy, renewable type industrial base due to 200 years of cheap high grade fossil energy, without affecting consumption. Such a change would not be feasible and require a unacceptable sacrifice from underdeveloped nations, whose educational, political economic infrastructure simply couldn't adapt.

Unfortunately, we can't all just join hands and sing Kumbya, our modern economies and political democracies are the creation of a consumption driven economy which is able to create such massive surpluses that in turn creates massive product diversity is the essential ingredient in creating competition and innovation.

Just because a lot of people agree with the most popular explanation for climate change, doesn't make it correct, just popular! History is littered with popular belief's adamantly accepted by one generation, only to be debunked by the next, and derided gleefully by the third.

Every generation produces individuals who motivations range from ethical conviction to sanctimonious self-righteous,neo-puritans, with the desire to create a smaller world, with less people and a simpler life style.

I always have a deep distrust of such motives! Idealistic enthusiasm has a nasty habit of turning into fanatical repression.

Just a thought...

Why is it when visiting a topless optional beach, those without tops are the sort who really shouldn't go topless, and all those with tops, are the opposite? or is it just me? hmmmm...

It seems that the BEST solution to the worlds problems is completely overlooked! STOP having so many babies! If the population of the densely populated areas on our planet were allowed to drop by 50% to 75% in the next 100 years,(instead of multiplying) many problems would be resolved! Fewer people=less demand for resources, less stress, less pollution! I think the world could do very well with 1955 population levels! --NO, I have NOT had any kids, so I am not guilty of adding to the current population.-Bob

It seems that the BEST solution to the worlds problems is completely overlooked! STOP having so many babies! If the population of the densely populated areas on our planet were allowed to drop by 50% to 75% in the next 100 years,(instead of multiplying) many problems would be resolved! Fewer people=less demand for resources, less stress, less pollution! I think the world could do very well with 1955 population levels! --NO, I have NOT had any kids, so I am not guilty of adding to the current population.-Bob

So, lets see, you want fewer people, right? You have no children, so are not guilty, Right? let's see you live where? Oh yes, in a very wealthy, western nation, right? Am I right in assuming you are a late baby boomer or later generation, right? less stress, less pollution,less demand for resources, but plenty for you,in your life time, right?

When it comes right down to it, your brand of seemingly, high minded, nihilism, is always peddled by those too selfish to actually make the daunting commitment to sacrifice the luxury of freedom, and accept responsibility for raising the next generation of our species, so they may participate in the wondrous challenge mankind's incredible journey of offers. It is not a noble virtue to refrain from parenthood, (it just takes a lack of courage, masquerading as noble intent) nor are all those parents guilty of anything except producing the next generation able to provide a cohesive society able to support your ungrateful old age.

The problems and challenges of the future generations, will be resolved by creative intelligence, increased technology and the adventurous spirit of our species, not by angst ridden restrictions.

Ok, setting aside the moral argument, your proposition also fails on economic grounds. We live in consumption driven societies. The cry, humans are destroying the planet! Is incredibly boastful, all the 'pollution' created by man, pales into insignificance when compared against the natural disasters in the planets history. With or without sentient beings, (including humans), the planet will continue! The planet doesn't care, in what condition, after all, one day it will plunge into the sun. The future of our species, and the quality of our all our children's lives, are mankind's proper concern. Mankind's future will only be enhanced by relentless exploration of science and the universe! In simplistic terms, making the cake bigger, not smaller! (and an end of tedious bickering on how to cut up a decreasing cake!)

No, I am NOT a "Late baby boomer", but yes, I do live in a large, consumption-driven, tecnologically advanced, western nation.(USA) And I am concerned not for myself, but the younger generations,(such as perhaps yourself, and my nieces and nephews) as continueing to operate in "Consumption-Driven" mode seems inefficient and bad for long-term survival! Personally, I am making use of Wind and solar energy for electricity, and frequently travel via motorcycle or scooter, reserving my Ford Van for heavy hauling of very poor weather. Personally, I find that the practice of buying something, having it fail, throwing it away, then buying another, seems wasteful. Things should be built to last, be upgradeable, and economical to service and repair.(Many products built in earlier years, such as before 1975, were made with service and durability as much stronger factors.)The USA has evolved into a "Throw it away, and get a new one" society, consuming goods and materials at an alarming rate! As a child in the 1950's, I recall that many items thrown away today were repaired or cleaned and re-used. Many items are not designed and built to enable economical service and repair, encouraging the users to throw them away if failure occurs. Our landfills are growing, with increasing amounts of refined metals, chemicals, rare elements, and other items discarded by our society. Experiments with animals have shown that unchecked population explosion, in a limited space, results in disaster, even when food and water are plentiful. We should NOT ignore unchecked population growth, here or anywhere else that is heavily populated! I may not have too many years left, regardless of WHAT is or is not done, as I am approaching 63 years old, So think of yourselves, your children, and perhaps, your parents. More people=more food + living quarters needed,= more building supplies, more farming, more resources used, less space and resources(oil, gas, water, land,clean air, etc) available.--Bob

No, I am NOT a "Late baby boomer",

Sorry, early baby boomer! In fact Woodstock generation!

but yes, I do live in a large, consumption-driven, technologically advanced, western nation.(USA) And I am concerned not for myself, but the younger generations,(such as perhaps yourself, and my nieces and nephews) as continuing to operate in "Consumption-Driven" mode seems inefficient and bad for long-term survival! Personally, I am making use of Wind and solar energy for electricity, and frequently travel via motorcycle or scooter, reserving my Ford Van for heavy hauling of very poor weather. Personally, I find that the practise of buying something, having it fail, throwing it away, then buying another, seems wasteful. Things should be built to last, be upgradeable, and economical to service and repair.(Many products built in earlier years, such as before 1975, were made with service and durability as much stronger factors.)The USA has evolved into a "Throw it away, and get a new one" society, consuming goods and materials at an alarming rate! As a child in the 1950's, I recall that many items thrown away today were repaired or cleaned and re-used. Many items are not designed and built to enable economical service and repair, encouraging the users to throw them away if failure occurs. Our landfills are growing, with increasing amounts of refined metals, chemicals, rare elements, and other items discarded by our society. Experiments with animals have shown that unchecked population explosion, in a limited space, results in disaster, even when food and water are plentiful. We should NOT ignore unchecked population growth,here or anywhere else that is heavily populated! I may not have too many years left, regardless of WHAT is or is not done, as I am approaching 63 years old, So think of yourselves, your children, and perhaps, your parents. More people=more food + living quarters needed,= more building supplies, more farming, more resources used, less space and resources(oil, gas, water, land,clean air, etc) available.--Bob

Doom, despair, your analogy is absurd, we are not animals! The same rules do not apply to our species. We do not live in harmony with our environment! We never have, and nor should we! The defining moment in the history of our species was when we learnt to manage fire. From that moment on, we were in charge of our environment! No doubt there was some wiseacre sanctimoniously pointing out to the first fire users, that things were better (more moral) in the "good old days"!

Of course you could fix things in the 1950's, because there was a damn sight less to fix! The rate of human progress since the '50's has been astonishing. (I would hate to visit a 1950's dentist.)

But let's look at the some of the romantic fallacies of your argument. Just take clean air? well now you would argue that the advent of the automobile has detracted from human health? Wrong, in 1901 the annual child fatalities from horse encephalitis in London UK, was 31,000. Today this scourge has disappeared, thanks to the advent of the motorcar. Of course the idea of a competitive society, allowing 150 auto brands and styles catering to individual tastes and needs seems inefficient. But remember, the world tried the efficient one model fits all policy, and we got the TRABANT!

Yes we search for rare earths and minerals, but so what? where is the benefit in leaving them in the ground? Throw it away and get new one? You bet! The horrible misery of the sodden handkerchief, replaced by the hygienic tissue!

If landfills are growing, well now there's a resource for a whole new industry. This applies to every form of pollution, create a profit and a new industry will spring up to rectify!

Consumption=Employment!

Now, I am sure that you don't mean it badly, and possess the best of intentions, but I find your insistence on unchecked (sic) "We should NOT ignore unchecked population growth" really sinister. What exactly do you propose to do about population growth? Ideas like these always start out cloaked in high minded idealism, and finish with unfathomable cruelty.

Hello, Marco!-I do not know the BEST way to control population growth, but some consideration might be given to rewarding those that have small numbers(2 or less) of offspring. At present, here in the USA, families get an increasing tax deduction for each child, and perhaps this could be changed, so that if there were over 2 children, NO deduction would be available, with an exception for unforeseen events, such as the unforseen/unplanned birth of multiple babies at one time.(twins, triplets, etc) "Rewarding" people for contributing to population increase should cease, as there are those in this country that have children mainly to qualify for tax reduction and government benefits! Some of these people have the children, with no desire or means to properly care for the children, nor do they make much attempt to give the children the love and guidance that they need and deserve. Often, these "children of opportunity" are left to fend for their own subsistance, while their parent(s) spend the government checks on drugs and material goods, instead of caring for and training the children, who sometimes develop criminal ways, as a result of no parental supervision. Having offspring just to get a "government handout", or because you practice unprotected sex, without concern for pregnancy, is not good, or in the best interests of society. Having and caring for offspring, in a loving and supportive family setting is to be commended, and is desired. It is also apparent, that in many cases, an entire family suffers due to poor family planning. Better education of future parents, as to responsibilities, duties and expenses of parenthood, perhaps in middle school and high school, may improve this situation. As far as my reference to ANIMALS, according to biology and science we ARE, in fact, ANIMALS! (Human animals)------------Bob
PS:Do problems like these exist in your country? Unwanted/unsupervised/forgotten children are becoming a great problem in many US areas!

Doom, despair, your analogy is absurd, we are not animals! The same rules do not apply to our species. We do not live in harmony with our environment! We never have, and nor should we! The defining moment in the history of our species was when we learnt to manage fire. From that moment on, we were in charge of our environment! No doubt there was some wiseacre sanctimoniously pointing out to the first fire users, that things were better (more moral) in the "good old days"!

Actually.. we are animals. Animals who have developed some ability to think and act differently than other animals, but still animals;.

Of course you could fix things in the 1950's, because there was a damn sight less to fix! The rate of human progress since the '50's has been astonishing. (I would hate to visit a 1950's dentist.)

The flip side of that so-called progress is the folly of just throwing things away.

The trash that accumulates because people are accustomed to just throwing stuff away is totally and completely absurd. And the cost to the planet, the side effects in environmental poisons etc, is also absurd.

Consumption=Employment!

As you say consumption=employment because on one end is someone buying a widget and at the other end is people employed in manufacturing and distributing widgets. But is that a good thing?

Overconsumption of widgets is a big problem. To ensure widgets are overconsumed the corporations make things that break rather than things which are sturdy and reliable and repairable. This causes more widgets to be made than are truly necessary for life. Each widget that's made causes consumption of resources, causes environmental problem, causes destruction of another part of the planet, etc.

The U.S. is infamous for having one of the highest ratios of resource consumption per capita. The resource consumption hasn't made us any happier. It causes a bigger ratio of environmental harm per person than other countries. And it isn't necessary. There are plenty of countries (most of Europe for example) with lower rates of resource consumption per person, and having just as good a lifestyle.

Yes we search for rare earths and minerals, but so what? where is the benefit in leaving them in the ground?

You're clearly looking at this as a business guy. From a business position an unused resource is money wasted, or something like that. The benefit to leaving resources untapped in the ground is that it avoids the environmental harm which comes from mining the resources, making the resources into widgets, distributing them, etc.

What exactly do you propose to do about population growth? Ideas like these always start out cloaked in high minded idealism, and finish with unfathomable cruelty.

Yes I agree 100% with you on this. The quest for smaller population can be achieved in many ways.

About 'unchecked population growth' ... there's a pattern I understand population biologists observe over and over. It's that an animal population will expand at the highest rate possible given the food supply in an area. As a former wine maker I saw this in operation. It doesn't matter how much or little yeast you put into the wort, the yeast multiplies until it runs out of sugar to eat & ferment into alcohol. About 1 day into the fermentation the CO2 coming out is violent enough it looks like it's boiling. But eventually the sugar supply runs low (and the alcohol content goes high) and the yeast population dies off.

What generally causes biological populations to not explode are predators that eat enough of the other animals and plants to keep population growth in check. However the human animal doesn't have significant predators any longer, we learned how to kill them all, plus the human animal has learned how to harness fossil fuels and other things to be tremendously more powerful than any other animal species has been.

Maybe you'll repeat your absurd claim that we are not animals. I really don't understand that.

There are competing economic philosophies in this argument. I don't remember the names of the philosophers in question but ... one economic philosophy holds there is no limits to economic growth, that economic growth can expand and expand and expand and it doesn't matter. The other holds the obvious truth that there are limits to growth just as there are limits in the growth of other biological populations.

Two guesses which camp I fall in.. ;-)

Hello, Marco!-I do not know the BEST way to control population growth, but some consideration might be given to rewarding those that have small numbers(2 or less) of offspring. At present, here in the USA, families get an increasing tax deduction for each child, and perhaps this could be changed, so that if there were over 2 children, NO deduction would be available, with an exception for unforeseen events, such as the unforseen/unplanned birth of multiple babies at one time.(twins, triplets, etc) "Rewarding" people for contributing to population increase should cease, as there are those in this country that have children mainly to qualify for tax reduction and government benefits! Some of these people have the children, with no desire or means to properly care for the children, nor do they make much attempt to give the children the love and guidance that they need and deserve. Often, these "children of opportunity" are left to fend for their own subsistance, while their parent(s) spend the government checks on drugs and material goods, instead of caring for and training the children, who sometimes develop criminal ways, as a result of no parental supervision. Having offspring just to get a "government handout", or because you practice unprotected sex, without concern for pregnancy, is not good, or in the best interests of society. Having and caring for offspring, in a loving and supportive family setting is to be commended, and is desired. It is also apparent, that in many cases, an entire family suffers due to poor family planning. Better education of future parents, as to responsibilities, duties and expenses of parenthood, perhaps in middle school and high school, may improve this situation. As far as my reference to ANIMALS, according to biology and science we ARE, in fact, ANIMALS! (Human animals)------------Bob
PS:Do problems like these exist in your country? Unwanted/unsupervised/forgotten children are becoming a great problem in many US areas!

__________________

Robert M. Curry

Actually.. we are animals. Animals who have developed some ability to think and act differently than other animals, but still animals;.

Amazing! I felt it was obvious that I was refuting a behavioural analogy, not biological? In that context we are not animals, such test comparisons fail on so many levels, not the least because humans design them!

The flip side of that so-called progress is the folly of just throwing things away.
The trash that accumulates because people are accustomed to just throwing stuff away is totally and completely absurd. And the cost to the planet, the side effects in environmental poisons etc, is also absurd.

Not at all, in fact it creates a whole new industry! Recycling, trash disposal etc... Actually the problem of trash disposal is political and economic, not technical and could be(and eventually will be) easily resolved.

Consumption=Employment!

As you say consumption=employment because on one end is someone buying a widget and at the other end is people employed in manufacturing and distributing widgets. But is that a good thing?

Yes, indeed! If you are employed in the widget industry!

Overconsumption of widgets is a big problem. To ensure widgets are over-consumed the corporations make things that break rather than things which are sturdy and reliable and repairable. This causes more widgets to be made than are truly necessary for life. Each widget that's made causes consumption of resources, causes environmental problem, causes destruction of another part of the planet, etc.

Why do these propositions always start with a fallacy? (sic) "Overconsumption of widgets is a big problem" What do you mean by overconsumption? do you mean only some people should be allowed to consume? Or do you mean oversupply? In that case the market will rapidly become saturated and disappear. Let's see, what is the next proposition, oh yeah," This causes more widgets to be made than are truly necessary for life. Each widget that's made causes consumption of resources, causes environmental problem, causes destruction of another part of the planet, etc' Again, who's life? Most widgets are actually improvements on their predecessors,and therefore reduce waste! A great example is that we are conducting this debate, without paper! If mankind adopted your proposal, no widgets would be made at all! This would terminate industrial society. Not something that anyone but a self-deluded Utopian would assert is beneficial.

The U.S. is infamous for having one of the highest ratios of resource consumption per capita. The resource consumption hasn't made us any happier. It causes a bigger ratio of environmental harm per person than other countries. And it isn't necessary. There are plenty of countries (most of Europe for example) with lower rates of resource consumption per person, and having just as good a lifestyle.

Poor old USA, beaten up even by it's own! Well, yes, I suppose you can find some, not all, European societies that don't have all the problems encountered by the USA, just enjoy the benefits! These societies benefit from a world created by US innovation and industry, protected for many years by US lives and supported for long periods by US generosity. (I am not a US citizen and would be the first to observe US mistakes and faults, but honesty demands tribute where due).

the ground You're clearly looking at this as a business guy. From a business position an unused resource is money wasted, or something like that. The benefit to leaving resources untapped in the ground is that it avoids the environmental harm which comes from mining the resources, making the resources into widgets, distributing them, etc.

This is always assuming that the widget does not benefit mankind. A pristine environment is of little value without humans to enjoy it! Our duty is to benefit our species first! This concept is not selfish, but practical! Unless we are capable of providing for our needs, we can not be in a position to assist aesthetic ideals for the environment, and other species. We are not the only causes of pollution, nor extinctions, but we are the only species that cares about them!

We are not yeast! my claim that we are not animals, is not absurd. I, repeat; With the discovery of fire management, we undertook a major behavioural mutation. Animals adapt, or evolve to the changes in the environment. Humans change the environment to our own needs! It is this power that separates humans from our biological cousins behaviourally.

As to philosophical camps, well yes, it is obvious that you have chosen an idealistic and praiseworthy concept, which reflects well upon you as a moral person. But, it's a very personal view, and couldn't be practically realised by governments, without the risk of massive human misery.

Robert
What can I say, watch out! you are in danger of becoming a character from one of the R.Crumb or R C Cobb cartoons, so beloved of the hippy generation. Y'know the old grampus condemning everything in the modern world and wishing old Herbert Hoover would put things right! First thing, stop all those young folk having triplets, (betcha them kids are all illegal migrants) just come hear to have ten kids and grab a (meagre) govt handout from honest taxpayers.! I see it all on Oprah or Jerry Springer, them kids just spent it on DRUGS and Loud Trashy music, my goodness yes, put 'em all in the Army, that'll larn 'em! You don't need all those gadgets and things they got nowadays do ya? My goodness when I finish getting my haircut, I'll just get my good old Edsel serviced, then I'll...

All those young kids, they should stop being.... well (sigh) so damn young!

Why I say be careful, is those who wish to restrict the spirit of mankind, always wrap it in sanctimonious concern for the unfortunate. Lord Macaulay was correct when in an observation on the hypocrisy of his times remarked, "The Puritan hates the cruel sport of bear-baiting, not because of the pain caused to the unfortunate bear, but because it might give pleasure to the spectators!"

Well, I have given my opinion and ideas concerning the situation. I do not claim to "know it all" or be expert on everything. I hope I am around in about 20 years to learn what Marcos' opinion will be then, after he has more life experience! When I was younger, I too had to learn some things "the hard way"--it is a part of growing up, I suppose. Enjoy life while you can, hope for the best, and good luck!--Bob

Well, I have given my opinion and ideas concerning the situation. I do not claim to "know it all" or be expert on everything. I hope I am around in about 20 years to learn what Marcos' opinion will be then, after he has more life experience! When I was younger, I too had to learn some things "the hard way"--it is a part of growing up, I suppose. Enjoy life while you can, hope for the best, and good luck!--Bob

Actually, Bob it may surprise you to learn that I was also born in 1946! It's just that I still think I am young! (although I realise this is an illusion shared only by me and blind people). Of course you are entitled to your opinion, and it is good that you express it! My remarks are not meant to be taken to personally, well not unkindly anyway! It is just that when you express opinions with out any workable solutions, opinions sound a lot like.. well, complaining, and a nostalgic hankering for a world that never was reality.

I have two fairly young children, so I have a vested interest in ensuring that their world has at least as much opportunity, if not more, than existed when I was their age. The most precious gift of any society to its citizens is the freedom of equal opportunity.

Strange how after a year, these threads sometimes re-appear.

Adding to the general weirdness is Pinjar's observation that we are all taken in by President Bush's lies. Where has he been living in the last year? (New Guy! Different lies!)

Equally interesting is Dauntless's thesis. Much of it, although not terribly relevant, was certainly interestingly entertaining.

Just two points, 1) There were a few more factors that contributed to the great depression. Like criminalising the 7 biggest industry in the US! The UK staying on the Gold Standard far two long, and,this is the biggy, the idiotic Versailles Treaty that crippled the world 3rd biggest economy.

2) While the US contribution to WW2 was enormous, and the Mustang a fine aircraft( certainly decisive) the German Air-force was defeated by the British RAF and the Empire, (y'know Canada, Australia, NZ, etc..)early in the war, (prior to US entry) by the famous Spitfire and the more primitive but very tough Hurricane.

It could just be that he posted his response way back when and it just finally went up. Like he had a slow connection or something. And I'm sure, somewhere out there, even as we speak, the lies that George W. Bush told are still lies. And some people really are still believing them.

And the Hurricane shot down more planes than any other on either side, after getting quite a head start as the prevalent British fighter early on. But the RAF ultimately flew a lot of Mustangs too, and shot down many of the enemy long after the P51 had been developed to the point it outstripped the Hurricane and other planes as the greatest fighter of its time, not that this was the subject.

Just a quick redirect here back to the subject of the impact on the American economy before the war of so many countries buying planes and supplies here, getting people working again and bringing American industrial strength close to actual readiness just in time. (As in we can't use green tech until we regain the ability to build it, etc.*) It has been projected that without the crowding out of American industry by the runaway spending intended to "Help" in the 1930's, the economy likely would have regrown to the point where there would have been no shortages, no ration cards, no serious deprivation in the States, as all production would have been working nominally. The artificial rubber that became a key to replacing the Asian rubber tree materials were on the table before the war, there was just no money to bring it to market even with the demonstrations that it was actually better and cheaper. Thus another example of the sheer terribleness of the revelance. A ground level concept of social work and the human services is that all problems are interrelated. You must deal with the contributiong problems to find the solution to the one problem.

It's funny how whenever someone doesn't want to deal with the truth, they start trying to question the relevance of it. That we should be manufacturing green: to agree with you that it's not relevant that we're losing the ability to manufacture AT ALL isn't relevant to the inability to manufacture green is, well. . . .

And of course there were all so many ebb and flow details to the great depression, just as how the British economy could be better off today if the Government just hadn't sold off so much of their gold just as the recent rise in the price began, but the core issues are always the most important, especially when they involve the foolish manipulation by people pretending they know what they're doing. So the UK could have had millions at a time more in the last few years, it's not the real issue that dogs them.

It just gets so frustrating that people work harder at pretending they can't see the real issue than they would have to if they just DEALT with the issue. Of course the basic message of George W. Bush, as his father before him, is that you CAN just ignore it. And oh, do the ignorant love to hear that.

Reminds me of the post WWII short story 'The Birds.' (Far different than the movie based on it.) A healthy and sealthy rich man of lsisure mocks the concerns of our hero the handicapped war veteran on aid; does not their mere status prove who is likely right? (You probably don't need any spoilers to figure out what came of THAT.) And then after his days of panic our hero faces the nights calmly, as those who preached complacency were forced to face the terror. And amidst the hysteria of the others during the most savage attack of all, as only his last layer of defense seems to stand between them and the horrors, he stands at the quivering door and lights up a cigarette that's left over from the scoffer, who won't be needing it anymore. I only read this because my friend, at the time another budding writer, was impressed with the paralells to the bombing, and with the war over the role being taken up by such an innocuous creature. . . .

The very basis of Chaos Theory, defined as the affect of random data, is the fact that you might not realize or admit the impact of other factors, but they are there, and they are real, and they won't go away on their own. The relevance is visible no matter how metaphorical, if only you care to see. The cliche that you can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink applies, and the water is still there. If I lead you on a metaphorical journey intended to get you to draw the conclusion instead of trying to force it on you, MAYBE you'll decide to drink. Maybe. (Return to asterisk.*) Of course, the fighting works SO WELL as an excuse why we can't REALLY expect to make progress. . . .

The RAF might not have sought out an UNPREPARED plane like the Mustang from a potentially unreliable source if only they had been able to build more Spitfires on their own. Alas, with the fall of France and the bombers heading across the channel, there were barely more than half the interceptor squadrons of the fast and manuverable but short range and otherwise nonfrontline Spitfire. But as they saw the progress of its' American paralell, another plane also based more on racing technology than the prewar theories for air combat, they realized they didn't have to come up with a replacement for the Hurricane, they'd just develop what they had. And did well enough that someone with a bias for the country that produced it might mistake ir for being as good as the Mustang.

Because he hides his head in the sand,
the ostrich cannot understand
that everywhere there is a need
for those who care, for those who lead.
-Class slogan from my 4th grade

It could just be that he posted his response way back when and it just finally went up. Like he had a slow connection or something. And I'm sure, somewhere out there, even as we speak, the lies that George W. Bush told are still lies. And some people really are still believing them.

Odd, because Pinjer's details show he only joined 2 days ago. This is his sole contribution to date. In view of the vitriolic nature of his post, I wondered whether he could be another non-de-plume for the RMC Tree-house Club!

But as they saw the progress of its' American parallel, another plane also based more on racing technology than the prewar theories for air combat, they realised they didn't have to come up with a replacement for the Hurricane, they'd just develop what they had. And did well enough that someone with a bias for the country that produced it might mistake ir for being as good as the Mustang.

Debates about which was best, Spitfire v Mustang, are pretty pointless since the planes were built essentially for different purposes. The older and more humble Hurricane had many advantages in production for a nation suffering aircraft-carrier shortages, and aerial destruction of manufacturing facilities. The Spitfire contributed many components to the success of the Mustang, and both added their contribution to different phases of the war. It could also be said that without the incompetence and political interference the Germans may have developed a just powered strategic air force, rather than the a basically army support air wing.

Thus long happy evenings can be spent discussing such topics of no ancient lore in the mess, fuelled on tax free alcohol!

On a more relevant subject, I absolutely agree that we should be advancing the manufacture of green technology, if as Boris Johnson says, for no other reason that it's new, exciting and imaginative!!

GW, Mother nature, greenie, whatever, who cares!

The joy of new cleaner, more efficient, more profitable, more exciting technology, should be incentive enough!

Good idea walking.

Here are a few other suggestions to help the atmosphere:

http://www.evsroll.com/Ways_to_prevent_air_pollution.html

EVsRock!