Ecology If you care about our children's future

[strat-0]

I'm not sure where to put this, but this seems as good a place as any. Beginning sometime yesterday, I got this old song in my head and I couldn't get it out. It's an old Three Dog Night song that you oldsters will recognize, and maybe some youngsters that have listened to old stuff. I had not heard the song anywhere lately - I don't know what precipitated its landing in my brain and refusing to go away. I only remembered a few bits and pieces - didn't remember what it was about or anything - just remembered something about "something worth remembering," and that it has a quite beautiful chorus.

So, I finally did a Google search to find out the name and lyrics, etc., and when I did, I came across this post at a message board:

For the past several days I have woken up thinking of a part of a song, and it has "popped" into my head at odd times during the day as well. I had a hard time placing the song at first (I had the lyrics slightly wrong) but finally figured it out this morning -- it's a song by Three Dog Night:


Out In The Country

Whenever I need to leave it all behind
Or feel the need to get away
I find a quiet place, far from the human race
Out in the country

Before the breathin' air is gone
Before the sun is just a bright spot in the nighttime
Out where the rivers like to run
I stand alone and take back somethin' worth rememberin'

Whenever I feel them closing in on me
Or need a bit of room to move
When life becomes too fast, I find relief at last
Out in the country

Before the breathin' air is gone
Before the sun is just a bright spot in the nighttime
Out where the rivers like to run
I stand alone and take back somethin' worth rememberin'

Before the breathin' air is gone
Before the sun is just a bright spot in the nighttime
Out where the rivers like to run
I stand alone and take back somethin' worth rememberin'

Before the breathin' air is gone
Before the sun is just a bright spot in the nighttime
Out where the rivers like to run
I stand alone and take back somethin' worth rememberin'

Before the breathin' air is gone
Before the sun is just a bright spot in the nighttime...

I stand alone...

It's particularly odd because I am not a huge Three Dog Night fan and have not been listening to any of their music -- or heard it anywhere that I remember -- anytime recently.

But this song won't get out of my head!

BTW, I already live out in the country!

Weird, huh? I'm a big fan of Chuck Negron anyway, ever since he and his band were so nice to us when we met them in New Orleans. Yeah, that was a good time...

Take back something worth remembering.

[Thorngrub]

Can someone steer me to the Ecology Board Where We Don't Care About Our Children's Future -?

[phil]

GM will Axe the Hummer H1

General Motors Corp. announced on Friday that the gas-guzzling Hummer H1 truck will no longer be manufactured. The H1 gets about 10 miles per gallon and has been showing poor sales performance. It has been the foundation for GM's Hummer brand.

"We are discounting it because it's a low volume niche vehicle and we will dedicate our resources now to produce smaller-sized and higher-volume vehicles for Hummer," said Dayna Hart, GM spokeswoman. The H1 sold for US$130,000 to US$140,000 each.

AM General LLC manufactures the H1 for GM, and also makes the the military Humvee vehicle on which the truck is based. AM General will concentrate on the military vehicle from now on. No employees are expected to lose their jobs due to the changes.



With stupid ideas like the Hummer, no wonder GM is losing billions of dollars ...
Stupid product for stupid people ... !

[phil]

Now those guys in the "challenged penis size" department
will have to find a new phallic symbol ...

[strat-0]

Closer to 8 mpg.

[Paul]

With stupid ideas like the Hummer, no wonder GM is losing billions of dollars ...
Stupid product for stupid people ... !

Well said.

[luke]

phil said:

Now those guys in the "challenged penis size" department
will have to find a new phallic symbol ...

Don't misunderstand, Phil- I haven't seen that many H1's on the road in years. It's the H2's that people are still buying up like hotcakes (though maybe they're past their peak), and that thing is basically the same size and just as gas guzzling, but with a "more stable" ride. It's made for people who want a big impractical army vehicle, but none of the manliness.

H3's are also blowing up pretty nicely...the new soccer mom-mobile, for sure.

[phil]

Finally Feeling the Heat


By GREGG EASTERBROOK
Published: May 24, 2006
Washington

TODAY "An Inconvenient Truth," Al Gore's movie about the greenhouse effect, opens in New York and California. Many who already believe global warming is a menace will flock to the film; many who scoff at the notion will opt for Tom Cruise or Tom Hanks. But has anything happened in recent years that should cause a reasonable person to switch sides in the global-warming debate?

Yes: the science has changed from ambiguous to near-unanimous. As an environmental commentator, I have a long record of opposing alarmism. But based on the data I'm now switching sides regarding global warming, from skeptic to convert.

Once global-warming science was too uncertain to form the basis of policy decisions — and this was hardly just the contention of oil executives. "There is no evidence yet" of dangerous climate change, a National Academy of Sciences report said in 1991. A 1992 survey of the American Geophysical Union and the American Meteorological Society found that only 17 percent of members believed there was sufficient grounds to declare an artificial greenhouse effect in progress. In 1993 Thomas Karl, director of the National Climatic Data Center, said there existed "a great range of uncertainty" regarding whether the world is warming. Clearly, the question called for more research.

That research is now in, and it shows a strong scientific consensus that an artificially warming world is a real phenomenon posing real danger:

The American Geophysical Union and American Meteorological Society in 2003 both declared that signs of global warming had become compelling.

In 2004 the American Association for the Advancement of Science said that there was no longer any "substantive disagreement in the scientific community" that artificial global warming is happening.

In 2005, the National Academy of Sciences joined the science academies of Britain, China, Germany, Japan and other nations in a joint statement saying, "There is now strong evidence that significant global warming is occurring."

This year Mr. Karl of the climatic data center said research now supports "a substantial human impact on global temperature increases."

And this month the Climate Change Science Program, the Bush administration's coordinating agency for global-warming research, declared it had found "clear evidence of human influences on the climate system."

Case closed. Earth's surface, atmosphere and seas are warming; ocean currents are slowing; ice shelves are melting faster than projected; spring is coming ever sooner; rainfall patterns are changing; North American migratory birds are ranging father north; the ability of the earth to self-regulate to resist warming appears to be waning. While natural variation may play roles in climatic trends, overwhelming evidence points to the accumulation of greenhouse gases, mainly from the burning of fossil fuels, as the key.

Many greenhouse uncertainties remain, including whether rising temperatures would necessarily be bad. A warming world might moderate global energy demand: the rise in temperature so far has mostly expressed itself as milder winters, not hotter summers. Warming might open vast areas of Alaska, Canada and Russia to development. My hometown of Buffalo might become a vacation paradise. (Buffalo lakefront real estate is cheap. Here's a tip: buy some now.)

But it seems likely any global-warming benefits will be offset by unwanted trends. The National Academy of Sciences estimates that in the coming century, sea levels may rise by as much as three feet. Tropical storms may continue to increase in number and fury. Diseases now confined to equatorial regions may spread father north and south.

The greatest worry is that climate change will harm the agricultural system on which civilization is based. Suppose climate change shifted precipitation away from breadbasket regions, sending rain clouds instead to the world's deserts. Over generations, society would adjust — but years of global food shortages might occur during the adjustment, likely causing chaos in poor countries and armies of desperate refugees at the borders of wealthy nations.

Scientific substantiation of a warming world is not necessarily reason for gloom. Greenhouse gases are an air pollution problem, and all air pollution problems of the past have cost significantly less to fix than critics projected, and the solutions have worked faster than expected.

During the 1960's, smog in America was increasing at a worrisome rate; predictions were that smog controls would render cars exorbitantly expensive. Congress imposed smog regulations, and an outpouring of technical advances followed. Smog emissions in the United States have declined by almost half since 1970, and the technology that accomplishes this costs perhaps $100 per car.

Similarly, two decades ago a "new Silent Spring" was said to loom from acid rain. In 1991, Congress created a profit incentive to reduce acid rain: a system of tradable credits that rewards companies that make the fastest reductions. Since 1991 acid rain emissions have declined 36 percent, and the cost has been only 10 percent of what industry originally forecast.

Today no one can make money by reducing greenhouse gases, so emissions rise unchecked. But a system of tradable greenhouse permits, similar to those for acid rain, would create a profit incentive. Engineers and entrepreneurs would turn to the problem. Someone might even invent something cheap that would spread to the poorer countries, preventing reductions here from being swamped elsewhere. Unlikely? Right now reformulated gasoline and the low-cost catalytic converter, invented here to contain smog, are becoming common in developing nations.

President Bush was right to withdraw the United States from the cumbersome Kyoto greenhouse treaty, which even most signatories are ignoring. But Mr. Bush should speak to history by proposing a binding greenhouse-credit trading system within the United States. Waiting for science no longer justifies delay, as results are now in.

Gregg Easterbrook, a fellow at the Brookings Institution, is the author of "The Progress Paradox: How Life Gets Better While People Feel Worse."

[strat-0]

That's a pretty well balanced article, with much veracity. The only thing I'd take exception to is the statement, "Tropical storms may continue to increase in number and fury." This plays into the erroneous assumptions made by some after Katrina, and used by some of the more radical to even blame Katrina on Bush. The well known and accepted fact is that we are in a normal, cyclical increase in tropical storms/hurricanes which is explained by much more mundane and less apocalyptic reasons. New Orleans was long overdue and nothing was done for about 50 years. Now they're all up in arms because hurrican season is about to start again, and people think it's going to get hit by another one right off. This is typical human nature here. It probably won't see another Katrina for another few hundred years, statistically. Although it could happen. We're due for another giant asteroid or comet to wipe out a hemisphere, too. Could happen tomorrow or in a few thousand years. Frankly, I'd be trying to cover the bets on that happening with at least equal urgency.

[phil]

Nobody knows if or when New-Orleans will be hit by another hurricane
but scientists knows that there will be more hurricanes and they will be more severe
because the water temperature is rising and it is a direct factor
in the formation of hurricanes in the oceans ...

[strat-0]

Yes, but this is part of a normal cycle, and not a harbinger of doom.

[Mary]

I'm no scientist but as I understand it, there are good reasons to connect the intensity of hurricanes and tropical storms with global warming - increases in surface ocean temperatures can aggravate the intensity of storms as they travel overseas. And of course, while this isn't precisely the same issue, rising sea levels mean that storm damage from flooding will be greater in coastal areas.

I've seen references to the "cyclical" increase idea elsewhere, too, but I've also seen these references refuted by demonstrating that recent increases in intensity exceed typical cyclical estimates. I don't know... again, not an expert... but at the very least, I certainly wouldn't discount the worrying implications of global warming for storm intensity.

Cheers,
M

[strat-0]

Normal. Bad storms are normal. They really suck, too.

[phil]

Yes, but this is part of a normal cycle, and not a harbinger of doom.

What the scientists are telling us is that this is NOT part of a normal cycle
and Mother Nature doesn't care with doom !

[strat-0]

Phil, you are mixing my arguments. I was talking about the frequency of strong hurricanes, not 'global warming' in general. I quit. You better put your helmets on you and yours, just to be safe. Maintain until further notice...