livendive

And car owners should pay the cost of protecting the public from getaway cars, and boat owners should pay the cost of the coast guard's drug interdiction program, and homeowners should pay the cost of cleaning up suburban meth labs. Or, perhaps we could let the law-abiding owners of these different forms of property bear the cost of securing their own possessions, while letting criminals pay for the costs associated with their actions. Blues, Dave I'd be OK with mandatory liability insurance for all gun owners. How would that reduce crimes? Is the theory that law-abiding gun owners would implement greater security measures if doing so got them a discount on their premiums? Blues, Dave "I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew)

I think all school staff should have the option of carrying concealed if they have proper training and a permit. I do not think compelling each school to hire armed guards is a good solution. Our children face enough dangers without being surrounded by armed, window-licking, minimum wage mall cops, and we all know that's what they'd get. Blues, Dave "I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew)

And car owners should pay the cost of protecting the public from getaway cars, and boat owners should pay the cost of the coast guard's drug interdiction program, and homeowners should pay the cost of cleaning up suburban meth labs. Or, perhaps we could let the law-abiding owners of these different forms of property bear the cost of securing their own possessions, while letting criminals pay for the costs associated with their actions. Blues, Dave "I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew)

Wow, there's a name I haven't seen in a lot of years...like 10 or more, on usenet! How ya been Marc? Blues, Dave "I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew)

Maybe Congress should do their jobs instead of grandstanding with last minute, late night "heroic efforts" that they know will force the President to round-trip from HI to DC whenever their temper tantrum subsides, If they'd all found a way to compromise 18 months ago, the so-called "fiscal cliff" never would have been invented. If they'd used it as the intolerable consequence it was intended to be, they'd have been compelled to come up with a workable solution months ago. The truth of the matter is the media loves the drama and the politicians love the media, so this stuff is a win-win for both groups. Fire the lot of them imo, get some people in there who are actually willing to do their jobs. Blues, Dave "I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew)

Do you want to be the one to tell them, "This year, give me that $1.25 worth of turkey back and be thankful for the food we used to give you"? Blues, Dave "I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew)

Energy independence will have NOTHING to do with renewables, and EVERYTHING to do with carbon based energy development on non-federal lands, in spite of BHO policies. That's a fun argument, did you come up with it all by yourself or do you have a reference? Personally, I prefer, you know, numbers. Conservation? And increased renewable energy production leading the way? Pshaw! Your gut feeling is probably well-founded, despite the fact that renewable production gains in the last decade have nearly doubled carbon-based production gains. What do numbers matter anyhow? Blues, Dave Nowhere in my original post, did I mention anything of renewables. The post was pointing out our oil and natural gas production was going to result in energy independence. Not the growth rates of a particular sector. I pointed out that the IEA stated that our oil and gas production will exceed Saudi Arabia. I never stated that we would not benefit from conservation or alternative energies. …You can have your own feelings but you can’t have your own facts. You just got done saying that energy independence would have nothing to do with renewables and everything to do with carbon based increases. Last year, non-carbon energy production in the US exceeded 22% of the total. That's a significantly larger chunk than can be explained by "nothing to do with". Blues, Dave "I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew)

Jesus was a "wussie pantywaist", although I suppose he did eventually "gather in the cave". Blues, Dave "I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew)

I used the word "numbers" not "facts", and the assumptions leading to those projections were provided. Do you have a similar foundation for your projection that renewable energy sources will be meaningless, that all significant gains will be from "carbon based energy development on non-federal lands"? Or was that just a WAG? Between 2001 and 2011, we added 2.1 qBTUs of carbon-based capacity, compared to 1 qBTU of hydroelectric and 6.4 qBTUs of renewable. Forgetting nuclear, and the fact that renewable production increased by a vastly larger percentage, the last 10 years has seen us add 7.4 qBTUs of non-carbon based energy, which is more than three times the additional carbon-based production in the same timeframe. The Department of Energy (whom I suspect know more about this stuff than you or me) project this trend will continue, with most of the additional capacity in the next 20 years coming from renewable sources. If you'd like to counter that argument, I'm asking you to provide something more substantial than "sustainable energy production is a big doody head". Blues, Dave "I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew)

Energy independence will have NOTHING to do with renewables, and EVERYTHING to do with carbon based energy development on non-federal lands, in spite of BHO policies. That's a fun argument, did you come up with it all by yourself or do you have a reference? Personally, I prefer, you know, numbers. Conservation? And increased renewable energy production leading the way? Pshaw! Your gut feeling is probably well-founded, despite the fact that renewable production gains in the last decade have nearly doubled carbon-based production gains. What do numbers matter anyhow? Blues, Dave "I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew)

No and no. But at least there are ignorant politicians trying to insert themselves into the mess. Blues, Dave "I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew)

I'm quite aware of such concepts, and the global nature and future of carbon emissions, and am becoming more familiar with the relevant technologies. My local PUD gets 11% of its power annually from carbon - based sources, and my bills are affordable. You're the one who seems to think technologies should be fully fleshed out before going to market, rather than letting early adopters help fund further development and refinement. Lucky for us, your approach doesn't garner much support, or we would still be in the stone age. Blues, Dave "I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew)

I suspect you wouldn't recognize rails if you tripped over them, or at least wouldn't admit to it. That said, I'll humor you. Can you find one post from me in which I "go off the rails" by promoting economically catastrophic reductions in carbon emissions? Or do you just want to burn every ounce we can get our hands on and insist conservation is the work of Satan? Blues, Dave You go off the rails when you suggest, a carbon tax, solar panels, windmills, electric cars, and the like, will be able to control the climate will somehow mitigate bad weather. I haven't stated to what extent I think mitigation efforts will be effective. Prudence suggests that such measures should be well considered and do more good than harm. You, on the other hand, seem to believe all such measures are harmful with no beneficial effects. Personally, I'm going to stick with logic, and evaluate solutions on their own merits rather than your unsupported protests against anything remotely sustainable. Blues, Dave "I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew)

I suspect you wouldn't recognize rails if you tripped over them, or at least wouldn't admit to it. That said, I'll humor you. Can you find one post from me in which I "go off the rails" by promoting economically catastrophic reductions in carbon emissions? Or do you just want to burn every ounce we can get our hands on and insist conservation is the work of Satan? Blues, Dave "I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew)

A) If you think that's my position, then you clearly haven't been reading it. My concern is adaptation first (the globe is warming for SOME reason, and we should be prepared) followed by reasonable mitigation. B) Your position seems to completely ignore the fact that 10 of the hottest years on record have been in the last 11 years, and that one other year is the only one that matters. "Silly" is the least offensive adjective I can think of for such a viewpoint. Blues, Dave "I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew)

Which is pretty much how GeorgiaDon characterized your position, that "if it has ever, in the history of earth been warmer, than the status quo is fine, and anyone who says otherwise is a brainwashed nutcase." Blues, Dave "I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew)

Speaking of a lack of facts or logic. In the post I was responding to, you were denying that warming is occuring at all. In follow up, you reference a political version of the National Enquirer that relies heavily on the writing of Fred Singer, the guy who also thinks second-hand smoke is perfectly health stuff. But now that I know you read that rag, your vehement opposition to anything remotely sustainable makes more sense. Blues, Dave "I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew)

That's land only, i.e. limited to about 30% of the globe. It's still worth pointing out, but I don't think anyone's talking about "land warming", unless we're moving into a discussion about urban heat islands. August was the first month calculated using the new data set. July used 3.1.0 and includes the paragraph: Blues, Dave "I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew)

Irony score is over 9000! lol Blues, Dave "I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew)

I have no idea. The current tantrum being thrown by Republicans reminds me of a toddler crying after spilling its Spaghetti-O's and I think it should be given about as much consideration. That said, the totality of her resume and skills may or may not support such a challenging role. She's an unknown quantity to me. Blues, Dave "I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew)

Assuming you need to drive somewhere tomorrow, can you tell me every millimeter of rotation you're going to apply to the steering wheel in order to arrive safely at your destination? Don't worry if you can't, I'm content with more general directions like "Take a right on X, a left on Y, go straight for Z miles, and it'll be on your right." Blues, Dave "I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew)

Here's the source the journalists were using, including the quote about 332nd consecutive month. It's dated October 2012. Blues, Dave "I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew)

New, according to the image. Blues, Dave "I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew)

Peace at least had a chance. Now you can't complain when the other guys fight back. Blues, Dave "I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew)

Global vs US. Pretty obvious distinction. Localized weather patterns are not necessarily indicative of larger trends. Blues, Dave "I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew)