Re: McCarthy

[Guest guest]

If McCarthy is biomed friendly, and she claims she wants to

raise awareness about autism, then she needs to put something about

DAN! treatments on her website. I could not find it, if it's there.

Same goes for Autism Speaks. Some of their people are using DAN!

doctors, why are this information missing from the AS websites and

promotions? What the hell good are they to anyone if they go out of

their way to bury vaccine and mercury research where ever they go?

High profile people, organizations who claim to speak for or represent

the autism community are not above criticism.

Lenny

> >

> > I noticed on the Thoughtful House website that she played on a

> > celebrity charity softball team to raise funds for Thoughtful House.

> > There are even some photos of her there.

> >

> > FWIW

> > Lea

> >

>

[Guest guest]

Wow, maybe everyone should stop judging her so harshly. She has been smart enough to write two very funny, best sellers about pregnancy and babies. She has been smart enough to keep herself relevant even as she ages (something not everyone in Hollywood can do- think Britney). Coming out about her son's autism is a big deal. Just because her philosophy might be different, doesn't mean that she doesn't have the same fears, concerns, and daily stresses will all have raising our autistic children (she may have more help than most of us though). Let's be a supportive community. Just as we want the mainstream medical community to support us, we should support . We are a community. We should be able to lean on each other instead of bash each other (something I have seen too much of in the short time I've been on this board).

Ahhh...imagining that irresistible "new car" smell? Check out

new cars at Autos.

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 9/18/2007 3:15:27 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, mnmimi@... writes:

WikipediaThe Crystal Children began to appear on the planet from about 2000, although some date them slightly earlier. These are extremely powerful children, whose main purpose is to take us to the next level in our evolution, and reveal to us our inner power and divinity. They function as a group consciousness rather than as individuals, and they live by the" Law of One" or Unity Consciousness. They are a powerful force for love and peace on the planet…...The terms "Indigo" and "Crystal" were given to these two generations because they most accurately describe their aura colours and energy patterns. Indigo children have a lot of indigo blue in their auras. This is the colour of the "third eye chakra", which is the energy center inside the head located between the two eyebrows. This chakra regulates clairvoyance, or the ability to see energy, visions, and spirits. Many of the Indigo children are clairvoyant

Sounds like someone was playing too much Shadowrun and has their timeline a bit early. The Awakening isn't until 2012 and Goblinization doesn't start for another decade or two. Sure, some things happen early, like strange, new animals and the like, but nothing involving humanity yet.

See what's new at AOL.com and Make AOL Your Homepage.

[Guest guest]

From WIKI I am a bit sick now. It seems clear that she will hawk

anything for fame. Being a guest on Stern!!??!! I am sorry

if this makes anyone sick, If it makes anyone feel better I am

actually neausous

Personal life

In 1993, McCarthy underwent breast augmentation to enhance her look

as a model for Playboy. McCarthy had the implants removed in 1998.

McCarthy dated her manager Ray Manzella for a short time in 1998.

After breaking up with Manzella, McCarthy began dating actor/director

Asher. The couple became engaged in January 1999, and married

that year on September 11. They have a son, Evan ph, born on May

18, 2002. In August 2005, McCarthy and Asher filed for divorce.

In a February 2006 interview with Stern, adult actress Jenna

on said she had two sexual encounters with McCarthy.[5] When

McCarthy visited Stern's show in April 2006, she denied having sex

with on, but said she " made out " with her during the two

encounters. McCarthy also took a lie detector test and passed the

questions regarding on. During the appearance, McCarthy also

admitted to having performed oral sex on women and that she cheated

on her ex-husband with both men and women.[6] However, in a later

appearance on Jimmy Kimmel Live, she claimed they didn't cheat on

each other because it was agreed upon.

In December 2005 McCarthy began dating actor Jim Carrey. They did not

make their relationship public until June 2006.

In May 2007 McCarthy announced that her son was diagnosed with autism

and that she would be coming out with a book on the subject shortly.

Louder Than Words: A Mother's Journey in Healing Autism is due out in

September of 2007.

She lives in Sherman Oaks, California, next to heiress Margo .

[citation needed] Her cousin is McCarthy of Gilmore Girls

fame.

She has a brown belt in Tae Kwon Do.[citation needed]

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 9/18/2007 9:03:03 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, ravenmagic2003@... writes:

Maybe you are an Indigo Child. I'll bet you could see the Carroll and Tober rip-off coming a mile away. <wink>Raven

I'm not sure what the Carroll and Tober thing is that you mention. Of course, if you tell me, I'll probably recognize it then.

I've made off hand references to the Awakening before on here, particularly to posts about supposedly strange, new animals or plants. Still, it is interesting the groups like the Maya, Chinese I Ching, and others all point to something happening in 2012. It will be interesting to see if anything really does happen.

See what's new at AOL.com and Make AOL Your Homepage.

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 9/18/2007 9:03:03 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, ravenmagic2003@... writes:

Maybe you are an Indigo Child. I'll bet you could see the Carroll and Tober rip-off coming a mile away. <wink>Raven

I'm not sure what the Carroll and Tober thing is that you mention. Of course, if you tell me, I'll probably recognize it then.

I've made off hand references to the Awakening before on here, particularly to posts about supposedly strange, new animals or plants. Still, it is interesting the groups like the Maya, Chinese I Ching, and others all point to something happening in 2012. It will be interesting to see if anything really does happen.

See what's new at AOL.com and Make AOL Your Homepage.

[Guest guest]

wrote: " Sounds like someone was playing too much Shadowrun and

has their timeline a bit early. The Awakening isn't until 2012 and

Goblinization doesn't start for another decade or two. Sure, some

things happen early, like strange, new animals and the like, but

nothing involving humanity yet. "

Maybe you are an Indigo Child. I'll bet you could see the Carroll and

Tober rip-off coming a mile away. <wink>

Raven

[Guest guest]

wrote: " Sounds like someone was playing too much Shadowrun and

has their timeline a bit early. The Awakening isn't until 2012 and

Goblinization doesn't start for another decade or two. Sure, some

things happen early, like strange, new animals and the like, but

nothing involving humanity yet. "

Maybe you are an Indigo Child. I'll bet you could see the Carroll and

Tober rip-off coming a mile away. <wink>

Raven

[Guest guest]

Carroll and Tober are the husband and wife team who wrote the initial

book on Indigo Children back in 1999, claiming that they got their info

from an alien named Kyron. It's just a bunch of mumbo jumbo New Age

spiritualism gone wrong, .

Raven

[Guest guest]

Carroll and Tober are the husband and wife team who wrote the initial

book on Indigo Children back in 1999, claiming that they got their info

from an alien named Kyron. It's just a bunch of mumbo jumbo New Age

spiritualism gone wrong, .

Raven

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 9/19/2007 7:19:47 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, mnmimi@... writes:

That time frame corresponds to when we will start to see significant climatic changes that could change the habitability of this planet. according to the scientific community, and the chief presidental science advisor. so maybe the Maya knew we liked to emit greenhouse gasses in the future.

I've heard about that, but I'm not so sure. The evidence is pointing more toward us being in the flux stage of a long term temperature cycle. The earth is still coming out of the Little Ice and we are very likely headed into a new Warm Period. Greenhouse gasses might be having some effect, but they are minimal compared to solar output, where even a few tenths of a percentage point change can cause temperature shifts of several degrees on earth. This has happened before and isn't going to stop just because we are here now.

The Medieval Warm period was actually very good for humanity. It was a time of good harvests, human expansion, the Renaissance in Europe and flourishing cultures around the world. It was the Little Ice Age that brought famines, disease, plagues, etc. So will increased temperatures be that bad? I don't know, but almost certainly not as bad as the dire predictions that are out there.

The Maya had their own environmental problems. It is believed that they damaged their local environment to the extent that when a dry period, meaning a period of extended drought which is common in the region, occurred, the land could not sustain the population and they collapsed.

I think that is what we should be more worried about. We should be learning to protect farmland and land quality. That is something that we can affect far more readily than global temperatures. We are never going to get Russia, India or China to rein in emissions, particularly if the European signatories of the Kyoto Protocol couldn't do it. We certainly can't change the output of the sun, nor can we prevent a major volcanic eruption which could happen at any time and would greatly change the climate.

We should also be looking at water conservation. There are places that use huge amounts, like Las Vegas, for no practical purpose and they are draining underground aquifers which will take centuries to refill. It is not known how slightly higher temperatures will affect rainfall patterns, so we should learn to conserve just in case it isn't favorable to us.

But in the main, all the global warming hysteria is counter productive. Yes, there are going to be climate changes. All you have to do is to look at the geologic history and you can see that there have been great swings of temperature long before humans were around. There is no reason to think that those natural cycles are going to change simply because we are here now. Humanity has actually been pretty lucky in that for the last several thousand years temperatures have been comparatively stable, there haven't been really dramatic eruptions nor have we been hit by big asteroids. Those times could be changing and there isn't much that we can do about it but learn to adapt.

See what's new at AOL.com and Make AOL Your Homepage.

[Guest guest]

>

> I'm not sure what the Carroll and Tober thing is that you mention.

Of

> course, if you tell me, I'll probably recognize it then.

>

> I've made off hand references to the Awakening before on here,

particularly

> to posts about supposedly strange, new animals or plants. Still, it

is

> interesting the groups like the Maya, Chinese I Ching, and others

all point to

> something happening in 2012. It will be interesting to see if

anything really

> does happen.

>

>

>

>

That time frame corresponds to when we will start to see significant

climatic changes that could change the habitability of this planet.

according to the scientific community, and the chief presidental

science advisor. so maybe the Maya knew we liked to emit greenhouse

gasses in the future.

> ************************************** See what's new at

http://www.aol.com

>

[Guest guest]

>

>

look from everything you have said, it can be inferred that we should

conserve water and protect farmland and soil quality.

We should limit excessive waste of resources and " slow the burn " on

over using, resources. So since we know or fellow human we are

screwed. I think environmentalists, limiting carbon foot print and the

like are calls to lifestyle changes. Until people can concieve of

curbing their desire based lifestyle over a need based one we are

headed for the " fan " of history. As in when the ---- hits the

[Guest guest]

> >

> >

> look from everything you have said, it can be inferred that we should

> conserve water and protect farmland and soil quality.

> We should limit excessive waste of resources and " slow the burn " on

> over using, resources. So since we know or fellow human we are

> screwed. I think environmentalists, limiting carbon foot print and the

> like are calls to lifestyle changes. Until people can concieve of

> curbing their desire based lifestyle over a need based one we are

> headed for the " fan " of history. As in when the ---- hits the

>

The biggest problem I have with the Gore style Global Warming scare

tactic is that it is so far-fetched and ridiculous that it is

counter-productive and actually makes people stop listening to

anything slightly environmentalist leaning.

I get so frustrated with the way new houses pop up all over the place,

not taking advantage of energy saving, environmentally friendly

technology that is very available.

The tankless waterheater is just one example of a way we can conserve

resources, save money and save space. They already use them in Europe,

but the U.S. is so slow to move. There are many other efficient and

inexpensive methods of recycling and I saw a special on TV. where a

dairy farm was completely energy self-sustaining on it's own waste

products. They paid a lot up front to install it, but they are saving

money now, and polluting much less. Why can't more businesses do this??

There are also technologies out there for automobiles that don't use

gas- my favorite is the air powered car - works on compressed air and

you can either fill up at an air pump, or you can have a tank of gas

that would compress the air in the car as you are driving - you could

drive from California to NY on one tank of gas. But the trouble is,

nobody stands to make a lot of money off of this - and it would hurt

big industries, so it doesn't get noticed.

People would buy these things if they were available! I would much

rather move into a house that was friendly to the environment... and

eventually if we can afford it we might have one built. But I don't

know why the housing industry doesn't take advantage of this aside

from the fact that they are lazy, bought off by the contracts they

have, or they just don't think it's important.

[Guest guest]

> >

> >

> look from everything you have said, it can be inferred that we should

> conserve water and protect farmland and soil quality.

> We should limit excessive waste of resources and " slow the burn " on

> over using, resources. So since we know or fellow human we are

> screwed. I think environmentalists, limiting carbon foot print and the

> like are calls to lifestyle changes. Until people can concieve of

> curbing their desire based lifestyle over a need based one we are

> headed for the " fan " of history. As in when the ---- hits the

>

The biggest problem I have with the Gore style Global Warming scare

tactic is that it is so far-fetched and ridiculous that it is

counter-productive and actually makes people stop listening to

anything slightly environmentalist leaning.

I get so frustrated with the way new houses pop up all over the place,

not taking advantage of energy saving, environmentally friendly

technology that is very available.

The tankless waterheater is just one example of a way we can conserve

resources, save money and save space. They already use them in Europe,

but the U.S. is so slow to move. There are many other efficient and

inexpensive methods of recycling and I saw a special on TV. where a

dairy farm was completely energy self-sustaining on it's own waste

products. They paid a lot up front to install it, but they are saving

money now, and polluting much less. Why can't more businesses do this??

There are also technologies out there for automobiles that don't use

gas- my favorite is the air powered car - works on compressed air and

you can either fill up at an air pump, or you can have a tank of gas

that would compress the air in the car as you are driving - you could

drive from California to NY on one tank of gas. But the trouble is,

nobody stands to make a lot of money off of this - and it would hurt

big industries, so it doesn't get noticed.

People would buy these things if they were available! I would much

rather move into a house that was friendly to the environment... and

eventually if we can afford it we might have one built. But I don't

know why the housing industry doesn't take advantage of this aside

from the fact that they are lazy, bought off by the contracts they

have, or they just don't think it's important.

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 9/21/2007 9:29:30 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, epitome_hawke@... writes:

look from everything you have said, it can be inferred that we should > conserve water and protect farmland and soil quality.> We should limit excessive waste of resources and "slow the burn" on > over using, resources. So since we know or fellow human we are > screwed. I think environmentalists, limiting carbon foot print and the > like are calls to lifestyle changes. Until people can concieve of > curbing their desire based lifestyle over a need based one we are > headed for the "fan" of history. As in when the ---- hits the>

We are headed for the fan, but it will be economics rather than environmental concerns that cause it. Right now, the dollar is shaky based on a combination of massive debt and international displeasure over the war in Iraq. Those two factors, combined with some others, are making the global economy unstable. It won't be long before something gives. Unfortunately, I don't see any of the world leaders or those in the upcoming crop of politicians in the US as capable of being able to weather this event readily. It is going to be a rough road.

I do agree that resource use should be more regulated in some cases. In most cases, the market can regulate use through price and does so very well. However, in the case of an aquifer that might take centuries or more to refill, if a place drains the aquifer before price can kick in, the damage will be very long lasting and could change the local environment for a long time.

The biggest problem I have with the Gore style Global Warming scaretactic is that it is so far-fetched and ridiculous that it iscounter-productive and actually makes people stop listening toanything slightly environmentalist leaning.

You are right. It also really doesn't help when these leading environmentalists have 10,000 square foot houses, several other big houses besides, own mines, jet set around the world, and basically do everything they tell us not to. Sure they make a token effort, with carbon credits (which are a sham, and many of the companies offering them have been nothing but scams) and fluorescent lights, but that doesn't change the fact that they burn enough power for 20 regular houses. People see this stuff and the hypocrisy naturally makes one wonder just how serious they are, or are they just riding this issue for fame and fortune. After all, Gore did just give a $25,000 per seat show in Australia.

It is nothing unusual in human history though. The elites consider themselves above whatever they impose on the masses. One of the English ministers has suggested putting the people back to roughly medieval peasant status (limiting them to locally grown foods, gas rationing, less cars and energy use) but you can bet that the elites will be excused from all of those restrictions.

I get so frustrated with the way new houses pop up all over the place,not taking advantage of energy saving, environmentally friendlytechnology that is very available.

That happens a lot around here. For me though it is more the loss of green space or active farms that bothers me. There will come a time when we need that space for farming and it will be very hard to tear down those subdivisions to get it back. Also, the spreading out does cost resources in terms of transportation and services that have to be extended to reach them.

The tankless waterheater is just one example of a way we can conserveresources, save money and save space. They already use them in Europe,but the U.S. is so slow to move. There are many other efficient andinexpensive methods of recycling and I saw a special on TV. where adairy farm was completely energy self-sustaining on it's own wasteproducts. They paid a lot up front to install it, but they are savingmoney now, and polluting much less. Why can't more businesses do this??

There is a processes that can turn carbon based waste, from food waste, sewage to glass and even some toxic waste, into petroleum. If the US were to adopt that, from our farm waste alone we could be self-sufficient in terms of oil. We also would not have to build any new infrastructure as we would with hydrogen or even with ethanol. It would also allow us to get rid of trash without building more landfills. In addition, we would be recycling carbon already in the system rather than pulling it up from underground and adding it to the air. So, if CO2 really is that big of a problem, much of the problem would be solved. This would also negate the inefficiencies of recycling things like paper and plastic. Much simpler to turn it into oil which could be used for so many other things.

More businesses don't do it because it is an expense, often a considerable one. If there were real tax incentives for it, then more would do it. Another matter is that some of these technologies, like solar power, are on the verge of major upswings in efficiency. That is causing other businesses to wait and see. I mean, why plunk down a lot of money only to have a newer, much more efficient system come along a year or two later?

There are also technologies out there for automobiles that don't usegas- my favorite is the air powered car - works on compressed air andyou can either fill up at an air pump, or you can have a tank of gasthat would compress the air in the car as you are driving - you coulddrive from California to NY on one tank of gas. But the trouble is,nobody stands to make a lot of money off of this - and it would hurtbig industries, so it doesn't get noticed.

I'm not sure that is really the case. Companies will do what the market demands. Right now, fuel efficiency and hybrids are on the rise. If the politicians leave the market alone and let price drive the market like it should, the higher fuel prices go, the more pressure there will be for more efficient vehicles and fuel alternatives. The worst thing that they could do is to impose price controls as that would gut the market and cause even greater shortages. These "windfall profit taxes" also sent the wrong message. Instead of that money going to develop new fuel sources, it went to the government for it to waste.

What the government should be doing is encouraging the industry to develop that garbage to oil technology. The problem there is that the environmental and "Not In My BackYard" crowd would be fighting to stop it, even though it would be very beneficial. It could and should be done though, and should have been done by now. The government should also be taking the lead in real research into how to adapt to climate changes that are beyond our control. They may be, but I haven't heard much about it.

People would buy these things if they were available! I would muchrather move into a house that was friendly to the environment... andeventually if we can afford it we might have one built. But I don'tknow why the housing industry doesn't take advantage of this asidefrom the fact that they are lazy, bought off by the contracts theyhave, or they just don't think it's important.

A lot of that varies with the part of the country and income levels. Environmentally friendly houses tend to cost more, which is a deterrent factor. Upper middle and higher class people can afford that premium, but many others can't. It would be pointless to build a super eco-friendly housing tract if no one wants to buy them.

The other matter is simply cost. Most developers are looking to make a fast buck. They shoehorn in all the cookies cutter houses on a tract that they can. Even then, the frequently cut corners, use bad subcontractors and shoddy materials. Some even build on pieces of land that they were specifically told not to build on. There is a lot of that going on around here now because of the expected population increase due to the expansion of the local military base.

But mostly the market is the solution. If prices were allowed to go as they naturally would, then scarcity would drive up the price and people would adjust. When gas prices rise again, if the politicians would just leave matters alone or at most offer a tax credit for business use and help for diesel fuel (the nation's transportation network runs on diesel so price there affects everything), then higher gas prices would cause greater demand for more efficient cars.

The same would be true of electricity. If prices rise, then people will curtail their use of power and switch to more efficient sources. This is where California got into trouble a few year ago and really still is. It regulated the price, which was a very politically popular move. However, the price controls lead to a stagnation in the amount of power available. The result was that demand continued to increase while supply did not keep up. Therefore, there were blackouts, even planned blackouts. If the people had had to bear the price for their consumption, then they would have scaled back. If they didn't, they would pay in terms of a higher utility bill. The higher prices would naturally attract business in terms of more power facilities as well as alternatives like solar power for homes and more efficient appliances. The net result of that would be an increase in supply.

But politicians always like to meddle and cause more trouble than they solve.

See what's new at AOL.com and Make AOL Your Homepage.

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 9/21/2007 2:47:31 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, epitome_hawke@... writes:

Yet another one of your posts I thoroughly enjoyed. I have no doubt that you're right about the economy -because I don't understand it as well, it's not something I feel I can talk about intelligently, but when friends such as yourself do explain bits to me, what I do manage to understand makes me want to run and hide under my bed. :*O

Thank you.

There is a lot of hyperbole with the environmental issues and it serves no purpose, other than to attract attention to the speaker and raise money. The one I love the most was a few months ago when a bunch of them came out and said it was already too late to do anything about the coming change. Talk about shooting themselves in the foot. If it is too late already, then why bother with all the restrictions and such?

My point has always been that it would be good to clean up, and we have been for the last 100 years or so. However, economics must still be considered. Right now, the pollution controls for factories and power plants are as good as they can get, economically speaking. It is possible to push the controls and scrubbers higher, but that increase would come at a cost. That is to say, if the next 2% improvement increased cost by 5%, but the next 2% over that increased costs by 20%, we are in the realm of sharply diminishing returns. It will be better to wait another 5 or 10 years and then offer incentives, or have the government pay, for more upgrades, if they are even necessary.

By necessary I mean that newer plants could be more cost effectively built to the new standards and built to be upgradable than older plants could be upgraded. The older plants could be left at a certain point while the newer ones are made cleaner. When the old ones go offline, and they will eventually, they can be replaced by cleaner versions. I also mean that if other countries, particularly China and India won't control their pollution, it makes no sense for us to destroy our economies when those countries will more than make up the savings we bring to our own systems.

We can clean up, but it has to be kept economical.

But, I think most of the climate change in terms of temperature is driven by the sun and other factors beyond our ability to control. Major swings and periods of instability have happened in the past and there is no reason to think that that will change just because we are here. The sun and earth don't care what is essentially a two-dimensional smear of biological goo on the surface of the planet. The earth and sun are going to do what they are going to do regardless of how it affects us.

On the other hand, if we drain aquifers, destroy the rain forests and other forested areas, if we over farm and make land barren, that's another matter. The earth isn't going to care, but our actions will make life harder for us. Temperatures a few degrees higher won't be fatal: it has been much hotter than that and life did quite well, like the dinosaurs did until the asteroid got them. It would mean higher cooling bills in the summer and potentially more violent weather, but if we manage the land better and prepare, it won't be much of a problem.

Some parts of humanity will be hit harder than others, of course. There are places where the local environments are already shaky, partly due to human activity and partly due to long term climate trends, some having been noticed as far back as Roman times. It won't be all clear sailing for the developed societies either, but we have the resources to prepare and survive, if we put our minds to it.

What concerns me though is that no matter what happens, there will be increased calls for political interference. Here is a link to an article that spells out what I mean very well.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/article/20070919/COMMENTARY/109190031/1012/commentary

See what's new at AOL.com and Make AOL Your Homepage.

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 9/21/2007 2:47:31 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, epitome_hawke@... writes:

Yet another one of your posts I thoroughly enjoyed. I have no doubt that you're right about the economy -because I don't understand it as well, it's not something I feel I can talk about intelligently, but when friends such as yourself do explain bits to me, what I do manage to understand makes me want to run and hide under my bed. :*O

Thank you.

There is a lot of hyperbole with the environmental issues and it serves no purpose, other than to attract attention to the speaker and raise money. The one I love the most was a few months ago when a bunch of them came out and said it was already too late to do anything about the coming change. Talk about shooting themselves in the foot. If it is too late already, then why bother with all the restrictions and such?

My point has always been that it would be good to clean up, and we have been for the last 100 years or so. However, economics must still be considered. Right now, the pollution controls for factories and power plants are as good as they can get, economically speaking. It is possible to push the controls and scrubbers higher, but that increase would come at a cost. That is to say, if the next 2% improvement increased cost by 5%, but the next 2% over that increased costs by 20%, we are in the realm of sharply diminishing returns. It will be better to wait another 5 or 10 years and then offer incentives, or have the government pay, for more upgrades, if they are even necessary.

By necessary I mean that newer plants could be more cost effectively built to the new standards and built to be upgradable than older plants could be upgraded. The older plants could be left at a certain point while the newer ones are made cleaner. When the old ones go offline, and they will eventually, they can be replaced by cleaner versions. I also mean that if other countries, particularly China and India won't control their pollution, it makes no sense for us to destroy our economies when those countries will more than make up the savings we bring to our own systems.

We can clean up, but it has to be kept economical.

But, I think most of the climate change in terms of temperature is driven by the sun and other factors beyond our ability to control. Major swings and periods of instability have happened in the past and there is no reason to think that that will change just because we are here. The sun and earth don't care what is essentially a two-dimensional smear of biological goo on the surface of the planet. The earth and sun are going to do what they are going to do regardless of how it affects us.

On the other hand, if we drain aquifers, destroy the rain forests and other forested areas, if we over farm and make land barren, that's another matter. The earth isn't going to care, but our actions will make life harder for us. Temperatures a few degrees higher won't be fatal: it has been much hotter than that and life did quite well, like the dinosaurs did until the asteroid got them. It would mean higher cooling bills in the summer and potentially more violent weather, but if we manage the land better and prepare, it won't be much of a problem.

Some parts of humanity will be hit harder than others, of course. There are places where the local environments are already shaky, partly due to human activity and partly due to long term climate trends, some having been noticed as far back as Roman times. It won't be all clear sailing for the developed societies either, but we have the resources to prepare and survive, if we put our minds to it.

What concerns me though is that no matter what happens, there will be increased calls for political interference. Here is a link to an article that spells out what I mean very well.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/article/20070919/COMMENTARY/109190031/1012/commentary

See what's new at AOL.com and Make AOL Your Homepage.

[Guest guest]

*snip*Yet another one of your posts I thoroughly enjoyed. I have no doubt that you're right about the economy -because I don't understand it as well, it's not something I feel I can talk about intelligently, but when friends such as yourself do explain bits to me, what I do manage to understand makes me want to run and hide under my bed. :*OBack to the environment :> But politicians always like to meddle and cause more trouble than they > solve. I think you will find this interesting/disturbing.Dirty Secret: Green Cars Automakers Won't Sell you Lawrence Ulrich New MSN Autos columnist Lawrence Ulrich explains how, in terms of hybrid vehicles, it's not justice for all.by Lawrence UlrichBuying these environmentally friendly cars often depends on where you live.Honda AccordThe 2008 Honda Accord is an all-new redesign of the familiar favorite, but for most consumers the ultra-green version is not available for purchase.Nissan Altima HybridIn September 2002 Nissan and Toyota signed a basic agreement in which Toyota will supply Nissan with hybrid system components.advertisementFord Focus PZEVPZEVs such as this Ford Focus are so clean that hydrocarbon emissions from grilling a single burger are equivalent to a three-hour drive in this car.On a recent run from Boston to Cape Cod, I test drove the 2008 Honda Accord, the latest version of this family favorite. The new Accord boasts an environmental first: a six-cylinder gasoline engine that's cleaner than many hybrid systems.There's only one catch: You can't actually buy this ultra-green Accord, or the four-cylinder version that also produces near-zero pollution. That is, unless you live in California, New York or six other northeast states that follow California's tougher pollution rules. Only there can you buy this Accord, or the roughly two dozen other models that meet so-called Partial Zero Emissions Vehicle standards, PZEV for short.Not only can't you buy one, but the government says it's currently illegal for automakers to sell these green cars outside of the special states. Under terms of the Clean Air Act—in the kind of delicious irony only our government can pull off—anyone (dealer, consumer, automaker) involved in an out-of-bounds PZEV sale could be subject to civil fines of up to $27,500. Volvo sent its dealers a memo alerting them to this fact, noting that its greenest S40 and V50 models were only for the special states.So, just how green is a PZEV machine? Well, if you just cut your lawn with a gas mower, congratulations, you just put out more pollution in one hour than these cars do in 2,000 miles of driving. Grill a single juicy burger, and you've cooked up the same hydrocarbon emissions as a three-hour drive in a Ford Focus PZEV. As the California Air Resources Board has noted, the tailpipe emissions of these cars can be cleaner than the outside air in smoggy cities.That's amazing stuff. But what's more amazing is how few people have a clue that the gas-powered, internal combustion engine could ever be this clean.Naturally, no company wants to bring too much attention to a car that most people can't buy, unless it's Ferrari. And there's the catch. PZEV models are already available from Toyota, Ford, Honda, GM, Subaru, Volvo and VW. They're scrubbed-up versions of familiar models, from the VW Jetta to the Subaru Outback. But chances are, you've never heard of them.These cars aren't the only green leaf that's being dangled over our heads. The sweet-looking, sporty-handling Nissan Altima Hybrid borrows its hybrid system from the Toyota Camry, and sipped fuel at 32 mpg during my week-long test drive here in New York. But once again, if you'd love to buy the Nissan and burn less fuel, you're out of luck—unless you live in California or the Northeast.It's not all the fault of the car companies. The crazy quilt of environmental regulations is forcing carmakers to design and build two versions of the same cars. And it costs real money to make a car this green. So in states where there are no regulations to force their hand,automakers don't want to have to boost their prices for the green versions—or to simply eat the extra cost and make less profit.Honda appears to be doing just that. It currently charges Californians and other green-staters about $150 extra for these solid-citizen models. But experts suggest that it costs carmakers closer to $400 a pop to install the gear.Another issue: The PZEV cars don't get any better mileage than conventional versions. Would most self-interested Americans even pay a lousy 100 bucks for cleaner air that doesn't put fuel savings back in their pocket? "With hybrids, the selling point is fuel economy, so there's a dollar amount on that," said Walton, Honda's product planning chief for U.S. cars. "We want to give people the cleanest vehicles we can produce, but how much are people willing to pay for clean air?"Then again, so what if Honda or others lose a few million at first? Toyota clearly went into the red on every Prius it sold in the early years, but shrewdly viewed that cash as an investment to create buzz and build a loyal following. Today, Toyota dealers can barely keep the Prius in stock—and the company has surrounded itself with a green halo that's priceless.As often as automakers express envy and resentment over Toyota's image, you might think Honda would be filming TV ads, erecting billboards, shouting from rooftops that the Accord is the world's cleanest six-cylinder car. In the green game that Toyota has played like a chess master, it seems like this is a lost opportunity for Honda, Nissan and the rest to siphon off some of Toyota's goodwill.So give Honda's talented engineers credit for this clean-burning Accord. But give its marketing department a big, smoggy raspberry for keeping it a virtual secret—and keeping it off-limits to buyers in 42 states.

[Guest guest]

*snip*Yet another one of your posts I thoroughly enjoyed. I have no doubt that you're right about the economy -because I don't understand it as well, it's not something I feel I can talk about intelligently, but when friends such as yourself do explain bits to me, what I do manage to understand makes me want to run and hide under my bed. :*OBack to the environment :> But politicians always like to meddle and cause more trouble than they > solve. I think you will find this interesting/disturbing.Dirty Secret: Green Cars Automakers Won't Sell you Lawrence Ulrich New MSN Autos columnist Lawrence Ulrich explains how, in terms of hybrid vehicles, it's not justice for all.by Lawrence UlrichBuying these environmentally friendly cars often depends on where you live.Honda AccordThe 2008 Honda Accord is an all-new redesign of the familiar favorite, but for most consumers the ultra-green version is not available for purchase.Nissan Altima HybridIn September 2002 Nissan and Toyota signed a basic agreement in which Toyota will supply Nissan with hybrid system components.advertisementFord Focus PZEVPZEVs such as this Ford Focus are so clean that hydrocarbon emissions from grilling a single burger are equivalent to a three-hour drive in this car.On a recent run from Boston to Cape Cod, I test drove the 2008 Honda Accord, the latest version of this family favorite. The new Accord boasts an environmental first: a six-cylinder gasoline engine that's cleaner than many hybrid systems.There's only one catch: You can't actually buy this ultra-green Accord, or the four-cylinder version that also produces near-zero pollution. That is, unless you live in California, New York or six other northeast states that follow California's tougher pollution rules. Only there can you buy this Accord, or the roughly two dozen other models that meet so-called Partial Zero Emissions Vehicle standards, PZEV for short.Not only can't you buy one, but the government says it's currently illegal for automakers to sell these green cars outside of the special states. Under terms of the Clean Air Act—in the kind of delicious irony only our government can pull off—anyone (dealer, consumer, automaker) involved in an out-of-bounds PZEV sale could be subject to civil fines of up to $27,500. Volvo sent its dealers a memo alerting them to this fact, noting that its greenest S40 and V50 models were only for the special states.So, just how green is a PZEV machine? Well, if you just cut your lawn with a gas mower, congratulations, you just put out more pollution in one hour than these cars do in 2,000 miles of driving. Grill a single juicy burger, and you've cooked up the same hydrocarbon emissions as a three-hour drive in a Ford Focus PZEV. As the California Air Resources Board has noted, the tailpipe emissions of these cars can be cleaner than the outside air in smoggy cities.That's amazing stuff. But what's more amazing is how few people have a clue that the gas-powered, internal combustion engine could ever be this clean.Naturally, no company wants to bring too much attention to a car that most people can't buy, unless it's Ferrari. And there's the catch. PZEV models are already available from Toyota, Ford, Honda, GM, Subaru, Volvo and VW. They're scrubbed-up versions of familiar models, from the VW Jetta to the Subaru Outback. But chances are, you've never heard of them.These cars aren't the only green leaf that's being dangled over our heads. The sweet-looking, sporty-handling Nissan Altima Hybrid borrows its hybrid system from the Toyota Camry, and sipped fuel at 32 mpg during my week-long test drive here in New York. But once again, if you'd love to buy the Nissan and burn less fuel, you're out of luck—unless you live in California or the Northeast.It's not all the fault of the car companies. The crazy quilt of environmental regulations is forcing carmakers to design and build two versions of the same cars. And it costs real money to make a car this green. So in states where there are no regulations to force their hand,automakers don't want to have to boost their prices for the green versions—or to simply eat the extra cost and make less profit.Honda appears to be doing just that. It currently charges Californians and other green-staters about $150 extra for these solid-citizen models. But experts suggest that it costs carmakers closer to $400 a pop to install the gear.Another issue: The PZEV cars don't get any better mileage than conventional versions. Would most self-interested Americans even pay a lousy 100 bucks for cleaner air that doesn't put fuel savings back in their pocket? "With hybrids, the selling point is fuel economy, so there's a dollar amount on that," said Walton, Honda's product planning chief for U.S. cars. "We want to give people the cleanest vehicles we can produce, but how much are people willing to pay for clean air?"Then again, so what if Honda or others lose a few million at first? Toyota clearly went into the red on every Prius it sold in the early years, but shrewdly viewed that cash as an investment to create buzz and build a loyal following. Today, Toyota dealers can barely keep the Prius in stock—and the company has surrounded itself with a green halo that's priceless.As often as automakers express envy and resentment over Toyota's image, you might think Honda would be filming TV ads, erecting billboards, shouting from rooftops that the Accord is the world's cleanest six-cylinder car. In the green game that Toyota has played like a chess master, it seems like this is a lost opportunity for Honda, Nissan and the rest to siphon off some of Toyota's goodwill.So give Honda's talented engineers credit for this clean-burning Accord. But give its marketing department a big, smoggy raspberry for keeping it a virtual secret—and keeping it off-limits to buyers in 42 states.

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 9/21/2007 4:48:17 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, epitome_hawke@... writes:

Great article... thanks for the post too.

Thanks again.

The article spells it out well, though you have to get to the last couple of paragraphs to really see it. Global Warming is the perfect vehicle for authoritarian politicians. It is something they can scare people about, they can demand all the changes and restrictions they want. If the conditions change, they can take credit. If they don't, then more regulation is needed.

Like I've said: my opinion is that we can clean up our act and make changes when economic to do so, but also prepare in case there is indeed nothing that we can do about it. The main exception there would be the garbage to oil program and that near zero emission technology looks good too. Pushing those through would be good in the long run: energy independence, garbage removal and very low emissions. If we were converting garbage to oil and had a surplus, then efficiency wouldn't be such a big deal, though improvements could still be made and encouraged. The cost of that emission control technology would probably be less than the cost of airbags, so adding that as a requirement to all news cars and voluntary retrofits shouldn't be a big deal cost wise.

See what's new at AOL.com and Make AOL Your Homepage.

[Guest guest]

>(http://www.washingtontimes.com/article/20070919/COMMENTARY/109190031/1012/comm\

entary)

Great article... thanks for the post too.

[Guest guest]

thanks for sharing that. I just spent the last hour posting.!! :-)

Arianna Mojica

" All rights not demanded are presumed waived. ~ Thurston "

I share our Founders' belief that in a free society each citizen must have the

right to keep and bear arms. Ron

When we give government the power to make medical decisions for us, we, in

essence, accept that the state owns our bodies ~U.S. Representative Ron ,

MD. "

McCarthy

I regularly log on to perezhilton. com (call it a guilty pleasure) and was

surprised to find he posted a video of McCarthy. This site has six

million views everyday. Good job !

http://perezhilton. com/2008- 04-03-jenny- mccarthy- is-fucking- amazing

--

www.next9.org

[Guest guest]

yeah it's amazing how many people are leaving comments, it's really

wonderful that such an issue is now getting much needed attention. this is

how change starts, let's rock the boat! :-)

On 4/4/08, Arianna Mojica <ariannalaw68@...> wrote:

>

> thanks for sharing that. I just spent the last hour posting.!! :-)

>

> Arianna Mojica

>

> " All rights not demanded are presumed waived. ~ Thurston "

>

> I share our Founders' belief that in a free society each citizen must have

> the right to keep and bear arms. Ron

>

> When we give government the power to make medical decisions for us, we, in

> essence, accept that the state owns our bodies ~U.S. Representative Ron

> , MD. "

>

> McCarthy

>

> I regularly log on to perezhilton. com (call it a guilty pleasure) and was

> surprised to find he posted a video of McCarthy. This site has six

> million views everyday. Good job !

>

> http://perezhilton. com/2008- 04-03-jenny- mccarthy- is-fucking- amazing

>

> --

> www.next9.org

>

>

[Guest guest]

I was frustrated to read that along with having McCarthy on the

show own Wednesday they are also doing a segment on childbirth

complications... FEAR MONGERING??? After showing the potential harm a

doctor can cause by convincing to use vaccinate, we need to show what

saints they are in saving our children from childbirth

complications....grrrrr A perfect set up for the homebirth horror

stories show Dr. Phil is trying to get done.

Marci

>

> McCarthy has a new book out titled " Mother Warriors " . It is a

> collection of stories from Moms who healed their Autistic children.

>

> She and Jim Carrey will also be on Oprah Winfrey this Wednesday, Sept

> 24th. If you go to Oprah Winfrey's website, you have a chance to

talk

> McCarthy live and ask any questions.

>