The Housing Bubble

Yeah, “Housing always goes up”. It took until 1946 for house prices to reach the levels they were at in 1929. Another interesting statistic I read somewhere- the real price of a house has gone DOWN 5% since 1900.

I think we should park all the newly-unemployed real estate agents in them.

The low point in the past 7 years for me, happened when our ersatz leader sent his wife to castigate a country (she couldn’t even bring herself to call it by it’s correct name) that had just lost a few hundred thousand people to Mother Nature’s whims…

May she rot in Hell.

Oh my!!! Aren’t you the sympathetic one, not. You miserable swine, even the Demos don’t pick on Laura Bush. May the fleas of a thousand camels infest the crotch of EmperorNorton.

Thanks Emperor, you alone got me out of my timid mode.
May God have mercy on your flea bitten buns.

Welcome to the world of non-disclosure. Too many states work that way now.

I just found out today that the head tax guy in MT changed our non-disclosure rule by changing the administrative rules himself - sales price must be on the realty transfer cert now (subject to exceptions, like when govt is the buyer).

Whee! Now if only we can get the county clerk & recorders to put it all online.

Do you think that sounds impressive?

“look at me, I don’t click on naked lady links”

lol

At least they can claim it detects heat-seeking missiles at the next budget meeting!

Not working out so well in the UK:

http://tinyurl.com/3fj2ds

“Billions of pounds spent on Britain’s 4.2 million closed-circuit television cameras has not had a significant impact on crime, according to the senior police officer piloting a new database.”

“Detective Chief Inspector Mick Neville said it was a “fiasco” that only 3 per cent of street robberies in London were solved using CCTV.”

“Mr Neville, who heads the Visual Images, Identifications and Detections Office (Viido) unit, told the Security Document World Conference that the use of CCTV images as evidence in court has been very poor.”

“Billions of pounds have been spent on kit, but no thought has gone into how the police are going to use the images and how they will be used in court,” he told the conference.

The Blair Hitch, Project

1. Spend billions on cameras.
2. ????????
3. Less crime.

It’s like the South Park underpants gnomes gone CCTV!

I read the most amazing story from the UK. This 70 year old man who lived on a farm in a rural community with no police station shot and wounded some young thugs who broke into his house for the THIRD time. The old man was sentenced to ten years in jail for assault.

Hard to believe, but there are countries more @#$%&* up than the USA.

I believe it was because he wounded one and killed the other - he was on a murder charge and it was reduced to manslaughter.

If the US really got serious about fossil fuel conservation and development of renewable energy, OPEC would be in a world of hurt.

[Sound of alarm clock]R-r-r-ring!

Slim opens eyes and awakens from the dream described above.

You talk as if it’s the year 1800, not 2008.

There’s a lot we can do to get used to the new world order of weather, or not.

If the changes are not man-made, then the time, money and energy should be spent on negating the effects of climate change, not the cause. A clear majority of scientific opinion would be helpful.

I think there is a clear majority. It’s just not 100% (or maybe not even close to 100%). But even though a majority might say one thing, in science that’s no reason to stop talking.

The problem I have is that there seems to be a move to stifle any debate: “Debate is over!” Well, debate and disproving previous maxims is part of science, at least modern science, so I say let’s continue to hear out the minority, even as we take steps to strangle our economies in support of the majority opinion.

We may not be causing climate change, but we’re certainly causing enough environmental damage and depleting resources. Just because we (likely) can’t fix climate change doesn’t mean their aren’t other important environmental issues.

The “32,000 scientists” mentioned above are simply people who say they have degrees in science. Using the word “scientist” is misleading, and implies active researchers knowledgeable about global climate research.

The American Geophysical Union includes active researchers in a broad variety of scientific disciplines. Here is their statement on global climate change:
http://www.agu.org/sci_soc/policy/position/climate_change2008.shtml

Thanks Blano. People seldom realize that Mother Nature is bigger and stronger than even us humans think we are and has operated independently of us.

For those who believe that humans are to blame for global warming, do you have some solid science that actually *proves* humans are the cause? Not a quote from some scientist with an agenda, but real science. I am a scientist and I have not yet seen any - just correlations and suppositions.

Here is an example of what Blano was talking about: CO2 levels were much higher millions of years ago than they are now:

Atmospheric carbon dioxide linked with Mesozoic and early Cenozoic climate change

Yes, this article states that CO2 levels can dictate climate - I am not going to argue with that. I only argue with the idea that man is directly responsible for climate change via CO2 emissions.

However, we are doing far worse things to the environment IMO…

The GW crowd has been predicting steady upward temps all along this decade. At the same time the climatologists responsible for actually predicting long range weather patterns predicted that temps would start declining due to solar activity patterns.

Guess who was right? So now we hear a couple weeks ago that the GW models have been revised to account for whats actually happening, and that they now predict a few years of cooling, but it’s still warming.

This science stuff is pretty easy when you start with your conclusions and work backwards. Hey guys, how about starting with a hypothesis, and accurately tell us what the temps will be. Oh, you can’t, I see. But, the debate is over.

I’m open to being convinced one way or the other BUT one thing is for sure. There are going to be BILLIONS and BILLIONS made trading carbon credits and THAT is a motive for someone to pimp this cause.

Tieing global warming into the topic of housing, you would think that if everyone knew that we were all about to be f****d by global warming, everyone would be migrating toward the coldest climates, and also oceanfront property would be dropping like a rock. Neither is happening, the trends are still well in the opposite direction.

A lot of people mouth the GW platitudes since they’ve been hit over the head with it for so long, and they feel uneasy about their own energy consumption. But nobody actually believes it enough to bet their livelihoods on it, though. Well OK, there are a couple dozen or so that actually are fleeing the coasts for fear of inundation. The rest of us, doesn’t seem like it. That should tell us something.

Amen dani. Even the most conservative scientists freely acknowledge global climate change is a reality. The debate lies in its cause. It’s funny to watch uneducated hacks stumble all over themselves and deny that the climate is shifting in order to support the denial ideology. It’s akin to watching the developmentally disable boarding the shortbus.

We have been in a global warming period since the last ice age when NYC and chicago were under 500 feet of glaciers.

As misguided governments attempt to regulate the unregulateable and tax for the sake of taxing, it will only make matters worse, and the global climate and solar output of the sun will continue to be unaffacted by human activity.

“don’t carry any white clothing unless you never want to see it again.”

Curious: because it’ll get stolen, or soiled so bad??

Just curious - do you know if China or India are doing anything to deal with these problems? Latest pop numbers show China at 1.32 B and India at 1.13 B. Bangladesh adds another 159 M pop to the area and Pakistan 163 M; together adding more than the US pop at 304 M.

Dingy yellow grey…like the ancient lampshades in your chain-smoking great aunt’s living room–only after just one afternoon outside.

Motor scooters have been banned from most of the tourist cities, so your snatchable accessories are safe in that regard. Also they tend to execute people for such activities.

That having been said, if there is any way you can get to the Olympics, go. You’ll be amazed and delighted. And the extensive wilderness areas are jaw-droppingly awesome.

” CO2 levels were much higher millions of years ago than they are now.”

Which means absolutely Z-ROW when the obvious to anyone climatic shift is happening all around us.

Clearly, you miss the point. It means EVERYTHING with respect to the argument that man is causing global warming with CO2 emissions.

In earlier times, Mother Nature raised the atmospheric CO2 levels much higher than we see now. If Mother Nature did that millions of years ago on her own, how can you be so sure that she is not the one responsible now? You can’t.

I, for one, do not want bad science to dictate the inevitable governmental policies which come come forth regarding global warming.

“Did you survey the scientists? Personally?” Did you? And if you did, and it was debunked, would that change your mind? Probably not.

Brian in Norfolk,

The article you linked above has nothing whatsoever to say about whether anthropogenic climate change is occurring now. It makes the same logical error as Fred Thompson’s reasoning that we know global warming can’t be due to human activity because polar icecaps are receding on Mars also.

You claim to be a scientist (though your citation of the above article makes me skeptical). I will assume you are not a climate scientist, or you would have said so. If you are in fact a climate scientist, and offer your credentials, and you have some insight into this particular issue, I will be happy to listen to what you have to say. But if you’re just arguing that I can’t know what climate scientists think because I haven’t spoken with all of them, then I’d simply point to the IPCC’s 2007 report, of which I am sure you’re aware. It is linked below:

http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/wg1-report.html

I freely acknowledge I am not a climate scientist (although, contrary to your ad hominem supposition, I am trained in the physical sciences, engineering and statistics). But I know this much: a majority of several thousand of the world’s researchers in a particular field agreeing that there is greater than 90% probability that x is causing y is just about as close to a slam dunk as you’ll ever see in scientific literature. And your suggestion that so many scientists signed on to this report and its conclusions merely because of political pressure is conspiracy theory at its highest level. If there’s some additional information that I’m missing, then please provide it.

Again, if you have specific knowledge on this topic and have an important criticism to offer of the above report, I’m all ears. Otherwise, I’ll assume that the “large numbers of climate scientists who question the entire premise of global warming” to which you refer are akin to the “large numbers of reputable scientists” who question evolution and support so-called “intelligent design.” If I’m wrong, and I’ve been railroaded by what I’ve read in the press, then provide some support. I’ll be happy to admit it. Really.

I have a hard time taking seriously a self-proclaimed scientist who refers to the actions of “Mother Nature.” Another reason to be skeptical of Brian in Norfolk.

“In earlier times, Mother Nature raised the atmospheric CO2 levels much higher than we see now. If Mother Nature did that millions of years ago on her own, how can you be so sure that she is not the one responsible now? You can’t.”

What a great scientific argument, Brian. You’re some scientist. That’s the same argument that proponents of “Intelligent Design” use with respect to gaps in the fossil record.

I’m going to go out on a limb here: Your alleged training in science is from Liberty University, Jerry Falwell’s school, isn’t it? It’s not too far from where you are.

here is some info fer ya.

http://xtronics.com/reference/globalwarming.htm

“Another reason to be skeptical of Brian in Norfolk.”

Bingo.

Brian in Norfolk also said (regarding scientists who question anthropogenic global warming):

“Unfortunately, they must stay quiet on the subject or they run the very real risk of losing grant money, and in many cases, their jobs.”

Oh really, Brian, how many grants is the Bush administration National Science Foundation withholding from scientists skeptical of global warming? How many NOAA and NASA scientists skeptical of global warming is the Bush administration forcing out? I’m sure they have big targets on their foreheads.

How many tenured university professors at conservative schools in conservative states with corporate-endowed chairs are being silenced because they dare question the data and conclusions regarding global warming? Surely you’re joking, right? I’ll take a stab at the answer: the same number of researchers fired by big tobacco companies for questioning the link between smoking and lung cancer. None. Zero.

Now I know you’re completely full of it.

evildoc,

Yeah, that one’s a real gem too. Another tour de force of scientific rigor. I have excerpted three of my favorite passages from the webpage you linked:

1. “I am told that, ‘… meteorologists I know that are skeptical about global warming are weather forecasters (not researchers) and have little expertise in the science of climate change — their jobs do not require it.’ Well if changing weather isn’t climate change what is it?”

2. “The ’science of climate change’ was quite wrong when they were predicting a ‘new Ice age’. Real science requires something that is beyond the combinations of a bunch of estimates plugged into human choice tainted computer models.”

And here’s my personal favorite:

3. “But do you know what I see in that data? (And I’m really good at looking at statistics) - Not much that is significant — mostly some noise - noise that is much higher than any trend. You could pick selected start and end points to show either cooling or warming. There is obviously no hokey stick. Some indirect temperature trends track with solar output with a fairly good correlation. Will the new solar activity change solar output and cause more warming? What are you willing to bet on it? I wouldn’t, as I am rather certain that we don’t know.”

Tulpenwoerde,

You said: “The article you linked above has nothing whatsoever to say about whether anthropogenic climate change is occurring now.”

I never claimed that it did have anything to do with anthropogenic climate change. Perhaps you should stop patting yourself so hard on the back for your great importance, intelligence & education and understand that my point was that the earth, on its own, millions of years ago, had CO2 levels much higher than we do now. And, because of that, we cannot conclusively say that the present increase in CO2 levels can be attribute to mankind just because there is a correlation. Was the increase due to anthropogenic sources at that time? Hardly.

With your lengthy response, I was hoping that you were going to present some science to convince me that anthropogenic climate change is reality. Instead, you present a government report, which is tainted with the very politics that prevent an honest, open discussion in this area. It is not a conspiracy theory, this is how things really are.

While much of that report is indeed factual and worth reading, there is still no CAUSAL relationship established for human activities and global warming. It remains CORRELATION and CONJECTURE.

Like so many reports purporting anthropogenic climate change, this one focuses mostly on the past 150 years or so and does not honestly examine trends that cover many hundreds, thousands or more years. For example, on p. 462 [chapter 6] there is a chart showing warmer temperatures in northern latitudes twice on the past 12,000 years. How do they [you] know that this is not part of a cycle? There is an awful lot of error in those values presented, though they would not want you to know that, and the time frames involved could support that as a possibility.

So what is your problem with my reference? Are articles from the Nature family not good enough? Do you not like the idea of peer-review from those who might have the nerve to question/criticize your work? Or do you just think that you know better than the authors?

Since His Majesty needs to know, I am not a climate scientist, and I freely state it, but I do have a Ph.D. in chemistry and numerous peer-reviewed publications. Some years ago, I made the point to really get into the science that goes into the humans-cause-global-warming hypothesis so that I could judge for myself the validity of the arguments.

What are your qualifications to be “trained in the physical sciences”?

You said: “But I know this much: a majority of several thousand of the world’s researchers in a particular field agreeing that there is greater than 90% probability that x is causing y is just about as close to a slam dunk as you’ll ever see in scientific literature.”

Once upon a time, scientists all thought that the world was flat. How did that work out? Consensus does NOT equal fact.

Also, opponents of the flat earth premise could be imprisoned or killed for their point of view. Am I a conspiracy theorist for citing history in this instance? Who is to say that politics still do not play a role is what science gets funding and/or published? As one who has been involved in both publication and funding, I know that politics do indeed play a role. How do you know otherwise? Hint: you don’t.

You said: “…are akin to the “large numbers of reputable scientists” who question evolution and support so-called “intelligent design.” ”

If you actually had conversations with those who are involved with science and do science, you would find a surprisingly large number of them who happen to have a view opposite that which is politically expedient - on many subjects.

You said: “I have a hard time taking seriously a self-proclaimed scientist who refers to the actions of “Mother Nature.” ”

Really? Lots of scientists refer to the actions of “Mother Nature”. It is an expression of great respect. The respect that comes from understanding how much about this universe that we do not know. Obviously, you criticize because you are just so much better than the rest of us and know it all.
Right?

Brian,

I’ll take your response point by point:

“I never claimed that it did have anything to do with anthropogenic climate change.”

You most certainly suggested that it did. You referenced the article above to suggest that the fact that CO2 levels were high earlier in the Earth’s history was evidence in favor of a non-anthropogenic explanation for the current period of apparent climate change. You reasoned that because global warming happened naturally before, it might be natural this time also.

“Perhaps you should stop patting yourself so hard on the back for your great importance, intelligence & education and understand that my point was that the earth, on its own, millions of years ago, had CO2 levels much higher than we do now.”

I haven’t patted myself on the back for anything, nor have I made any assertions in that regard. You were the one who claimed to be the scientist. You are also the one who started with the personal attacks, which were certainly unsolicited and undeserved, and you continue with them now.

“And, because of that, we cannot conclusively say that the present increase in CO2 levels can be attribute to mankind just because there is a correlation. Was the increase due to anthropogenic sources at that time? Hardly.” You later state, relatedly, that “…there is still no CAUSAL relationship established for human activities and global warming. It remains CORRELATION and CONJECTURE.”

Your argument appears to be that because no one can prove conclusively, in an a priori sense, that any current climate change is anthropogenic, that therefore the two possibilities (anthropogenic/non-anthrogenic) are equiprobable, and no one can reliably estimate the likelihood that either possibility is true. Not so. There are reliable ways of assessing various contributing factors in order to determine their effect on the system. Through statistical inference and the careful construction of models, one can estimate with high levels of confidence the probability of one explanation or the other being true. I’m not claiming any particular specialty in doing climate modeling, but I presume that the folks who are expert in it know what they’re doing and have thought these issues through.

If your point is that you can’t observe the climate in a controlled experiment, point taken. But that is true of many complex systems, and that fact doesn’t stop science from drawing conclusions about various phenomena.
I mean, you could make exactly the same argument about smoking causing lung cancer. It’s correlation. Do reasonable medical researchers debate about this any more? No. You could say the same thing about eating and obesity. Correlation. Gravity and acceleration? Correlation. Water and plants growing? Correlation. What about your own field, chemistry? Ever see a covalent bond? How do you know what’s really going on down there? My point is, if you have models that can explain the data consistently over time, and also have sufficient predictive power and don’t defy the laws physica and of probability, that is about as good as it gets. It’s all correlation and conjecture on some level, but that doesn’t stop science from reaching conclusions about all sorts of complex phenomena. Proof of causation in the a priori sense is mainly irrelevant.

“With your lengthy response, I was hoping that you were going to present some science to convince me that anthropogenic climate change is reality.”

I was hoping the same of you. Instead, all you do is reference that same single article again which you admit doesn’t support your position. Then you basically say, trust me, I’ve looked into this stuff. Why should I or anyone else trust you, especially against the vast weight of the scientific community?

“Instead, you present a government report, which is tainted with the very politics that prevent an honest, open discussion in this area. It is not a conspiracy theory, this is how things really are.”

Tainted with politics? What is your evidence for this? How do you know? Cite something. This is the IPCC’s description of its own mandate:

“The IPCC was established to provide the decision-makers and others interested in climate change with an objective source of information about climate change. The IPCC does not conduct any research nor does it monitor climate related data or parameters. Its role is to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the latest scientific, technical and socio-economic literature produced worldwide relevant to the understanding of the risk of human-induced climate change, its observed and projected impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation. IPCC reports should be neutral with respect to policy, although they need to deal objectively with policy relevant scientific, technical and socio economic factors. They should be of high scientific and technical standards, and aim to reflect a range of views, expertise and wide geographical coverage.”

It’s an intergovernmental panel of renowned scientists, who have in their mission to be objective. Why shouldn’t we all think you’re the one with the political axe to grind? Give me one good reason not to think so.

That’s all I have time for right now. But I’m happy to respond to the rest when I have time.

I have a few more minutes now, so I’ll make a few more points:

1. Our whole debate started because I made the comment that anthropogenic global warming is not the subject of much serious debate. So why don’t you just name for me three reputable climate scientists who dispute it? That should be easy enough. I have no doubt you can find three. I’ll be happy to go look up their publications. The point I should have made, and perhaps had in mind, was that over the past 10 years or so more and more scientists have reached the same conclusion, to the point where there is little debate on the issue anymore. If you’d like to prove me wrong, start naming names.

2. You are effectively arguing, “you can’t prove me wrong, therefore my point must be equally valid to yours.” No, I can’t conclusively prove that the moon isn’t made of green cheese, but the fact that most of the world’s scientists think it isn’t does tend to sway my opinion. And I don’t criticize those folks for being motivated by political views if they disagree with me. There’s just no acceptable contary evidence. No, I can’t conclusively prove to you that having sex with a virgin cannot cure AIDS (as was fairly recently believed in parts of Africa), but that doesn’t make the belief that it does reasonable. If you have reason to believe that these several thousand scientists are wrong, then let’s hear it. But it hasn’t been in anything you’ve said yet.

3. Regarding your comment, “Like so many reports purporting anthropogenic climate change, this one focuses mostly on the past 150 years or so and does not honestly examine trends that cover many hundreds, thousands or more years. For example, on p. 462 [chapter 6] there is a chart showing warmer temperatures in northern latitudes twice on the past 12,000 years. How do they [you] know that this is not part of a cycle? There is an awful lot of error in those values presented, though they would not want you to know that, and the time frames involved could support that as a possibility.”

OK, this is the first remotely scientifically-related point you’ve made. How do the scientists know it’s not part of a cycle? Well, they certainly could compare a number of environmental variables to see if there are parallels between then and now, and I think it’s likely that this would occur to anyone looking at this data. They could also look at the rates of atmospheric CO2 accumulation and compare with a corresponding increase in temperature. There is data to be gathered from the fossil record, among other places. My point is, any competent scientist likely already took all of this into account. What makes you think the scientists who signed on to the IPCC study didn’t consider all of these obvious factors? As to the point about the error, have you done an analysis, or are you just guessing? More importantly, how does this lead you to the conclusion that this time, the warming is simply natural again?

4. “So what is your problem with my reference? Are articles from the Nature family not good enough?”

I have no problem with the article that you cited. It’s peer reviewed, so fine. But it doesn’t support your argument. It’s irrelevant.

5. “Some years ago, I made the point to really get into the science that goes into the humans-cause-global-warming hypothesis so that I could judge for myself the validity of the arguments.”

OK, well, enlighten us. Share some of the conclusions that you reached, including your reasoning. You haven’t included any of that in what you’ve said.

6. “Once upon a time, scientists all thought that the world was flat.”

Well, I think this is more what used to be called an “old wives’ tale,” and now might more properly called an “urban legend.” In my understanding, it’s quite clear that many of the major earlier civilizations, from the Greeks to the Aztecs to the Egyptians, did not actually think the world was flat. In any event, I know what you’re driving at. But it’s irrelevant. What matters is the evidence and the arguments for what that evidence means. If you’ve got good arguments for why you think that the case for global warming is overstated, let’s hear it. As I said earlier, I’m all ears. I’m willing to admit that several thousand of the world’s top climate scientists could be wrong, if you’ve done the homework. But so far, you haven’t given me any reason to doubt them. That single article you keep referencing is worthless.

7. “If you actually had conversations with those who are involved with science and do science, you would find a surprisingly large number of them who happen to have a view opposite that which is politically expedient - on many subjects.”

This is a canard. I have conversations every day with folks who do hard science for a living. You are working from the assumption that global warming was a political issue before it was good science, and not vice versa. If you believe that this is true, then explain why. As far as I can tell, global warming started out as a fringe theory a few decades ago, but the evidence in its favor has been steadily building over time, and so has the political initiative to do something about it.

I’m happy to continue this discussion off line if you’d like to post an e-mail address. There’s no point in taking up any more space with this.

OK, one more thing, because I want the record to be crystal clear for anyone who happens to go back through this thread.

I accused you several times above of using the same reasoning advanced by proponents of so-called “Intelligent Design” to attack the current global warming consensus.

First, I posted:

“Again, if you have specific knowledge on this topic and have an important criticism to offer of the above report, I’m all ears. Otherwise, I’ll assume that the ‘large numbers of climate scientists who question the entire premise of global warming’ to which you refer are akin to the ‘large numbers of reputable scientists’ who question evolution and support so-called ‘intelligent design.’”

Then, I posted:

“That’s the same argument that proponents of ‘Intelligent Design’ use with respect to gaps in the fossil record. I’m going to go out on a limb here: Your alleged training in science is from Liberty University, Jerry Falwell’s school, isn’t it? It’s not too far from where you are. ”

In response to these posts, you didn’t bristle. You weren’t taken aback. You didn’t contest it. On the contrary, you appear to have embraced the comparison with “Intelligent Design”. You said:

“If you actually had conversations with those who are involved with science and do science, you would find a surprisingly large number of them who happen to have a view opposite that which is politically expedient - on many subjects.”

I think it stands to reason from the above exchange that my conjecture about Liberty University and the Rev. Falwell was not too far off.

You are, in fact, a proponent of “Intelligent Design” and “Creation Science,” aren’t you? Admit it.

I think that will tell the rational, thinking readers of this blog all they need to know about you, Born-Again Brian. Go advance your conservative religious agenda somewhere else, and quit using the name of science to do it. If I’m wrong, then correct me.

Righties uptighty in their no longer whitey tighties. lmao.

“EXETER if you’re out there don’t look”

ROFL!!

clinging to religion

How come nobody whined about Osama Obama’s background cross??

Pssst…. there’s a tsunami behind you. lmao.

And when that happens and the wheels come off the apple cart (literally) we will be in a world of hurt. I read Kunslers book a few years ago and it changed my viewpoint on everything (scared the hell out of me to tell the truth)

I bounce questions off of him all the time via e-mail. He’s a great reality check.

There is a documentary called “End of Suburbia” that features him and others. Pretty good stuff.

I agree with the problems of urban sprawl and the over-reliance on the automobile.

However, around here, companies are moving out to the suburbs. Most of the growth in employment is taking place on the fringes of the cities, not in the centers. So living in the suburbs often provides a shorter comute than living near downtown.

We have no Prop 13 that keeps companies fixed to a certain geographic location. Companies end up moving all the time because a neighboring city/suburb gives them big tax breaks to do so.

(the cities give big tax breaks to companies because cities in Ohio charge an income tax on the workers, so getting workers in your tax district is more important than getting property tax from a company.)

It’s ALWAYS about living close to your job…Ive been doing that since the first had a job away from home. I’ve only had a 30 mile commute twice in my life but then i was right along the major highway/interstate and both jobs had only 3-4 traffic lights from my house to the job so i’ve never had to deal with bumper to bumper traffic.
——————
So living in the suburbs often provides a shorter comute than living near downtown.

I’ve been in the market trying to trade 3 of my 700 energy slaves in for a respective beer, pizza and sex slave. So far, no luck. Damn.

Its not ALWAYS about living close to your job.

You may be forced to work in an area you don’t like, but you shouldn’t have to live there also if you don’t want to! Sorry, I don’t see the moral superiority of those who happen to claim that they always live and work conveniently close because they are better planners than the rest. It’s luck if you can find a job within a few blocks of where you’d want to live. Appreciate, don’t self congratulate.

Aww, don’t do that, wait to it’s $10. 00 a gallon! Americans will be the last to change their habits IRT energy IMHO. Everything else may go, but the car stays.

Not true
In the last two quarters US oil consumption has fallen and I think that trend is accelerating. The airlines are reducing their fleets, trucking companies are limiting the speed of their trucks to 62mph. People are making fewer trips. It would have been nice if the gov had taxed gas to 5 bucks a gallon 10 years ago and given the money back to us with income tax breaks, then we would have designed our infrastructure around expensive energy, and the money would stay in the US. Instead we have designed an inefficient infrastructure and the money is going to our good friends in Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Venezuela. It has always amazed me that Americans and our politicians have been so short sighted.

When I walk the dog I always walk past plenty of houses with big SUVs and pickups in the driveway. Many (if not most) of these people commute 50 miles to jobs in Denver. I t scares me to think about how much they must be spending on gas. 100 miles / 15 mpg * $4 * 20 days = $500+ per month! It occurs to me that if they traded down to near 40 mpg econobox that the gas savings would pay for the car.

Calculating the benefits of switching from a 15 mpg gas hog to a 35 mpg car on a 100mile/day, 260-workday/year roundtrip commute: At $4/gal, the first year’s gas savings would only be $3961. If fuel were $15/gal, the first year’s gas savings would be $14,857, which might be enough to pay for an late model econobox.
If gas were rationed to 10 gal/week, neither solution would allow this fictional driver to get to work.

Carpooling will become chic!

I dunno JWhite, it may happen before that.

In the last couple weeks I’ve toned it down to 65 from 75-80 on the freeways (speed limit is 70 here). At first everybody blew me off the road, but this week I’ve seen a few fellow slower travelers. Yesterday had some guy look like he was drafting behind me.

Last weekend I crossed Ohio diagonally on its interstates while setting my cruise control between 58-60 mph. Over a distance of 200 miles, I did not pass a single moving vehicle. Not one. Only problem was driving straight ahead while being repeatedly shaken from side to side by all the traffic blowing by me. At least, unlike my experiences driving in Michigan, no one gave me the finger. And my gas hog F150 got 20 mpg!

A slower, gentler version of Nascar?

I’m seeing more than a few SUVs with hand-lettered “For Sale” signs. Can’t imagine why…

I have an SUV (Toyota FJ) - and I get 20 mpg on the highway, going 75. On the backroads, I can get 40+ mpg, going 25 mph.

A typical day, I drive around 15 miles or less, all on backroads. I fill my tank every couple of weeks, MOL.

But…if I had to commute in it, it would be for sale. Unless, of course, I had to commute through arroyos, over big rocks, and in sand, which it’s designed for in the first place and which is why I bought it. It makes me shake my head to see these darn things in the city, they have poor rear visibility and are therefore hard to maneuver on a busy freeway. Why anyone would want one there is beyond me…

I’ve been eyeing one of those FJ’s, possibly buying a 2 or 3 year old one later this year…

How do you like it’s off-road capabilities?

It’s truly awesome. I test-drove one when Team Toyota came through Moab testing them (and for PR) before they were released. My first drive in one was on a gnarly 4×4 road. I went places you literally can’t walk up, so steep.

You can take it places you shouldn’t (w/o a wench, anyway).

But the rear visibility is terrible. Not a problem unless you’re in a lot of traffic, then you just use the big mirrors, kind of like driving a pickup. But the interior is indestructable. I’ve evn slept in it, but not recommended, as the back seat deosn’t fold all the way down.

And very well designed. Love it.

BTW, am thinking of selling mine, you interested??

(Just kidding, it will be buried with me, like the Ute chiefs did with their horses - I always thought this was a terrible custom until a Ute explained that when the horse died, they killed the chief.)

Ha, sometimes I draft off of big trucks cruising along at like 60MPH. After cycling all these years, and learning how much you can save in energy while following someone, it’s probably a good 15-20% gain in MPG. I won’t follow normal cars, because I don’t want to make people nervous following close behind or not have the ability to stop in an emergency.

Other energy tidbits learned from riding a bike:
1. Going uphill takes a large amount of energy, and a big factor is the weight of you and your vehicle. Taking extra pounds off you and your car will save you quite a bit… so it’s worth cleaning out unneeded junk. This is a linear rise in energy costs, and light cars would do best if you travel hilly roads a lot.

2. The amount of energy needed to go faster rises at a steep curve due to the squared effect of air friction. So going 75 vs 65 is a much much larger energy cost than 65 to 55. The relative airspeed is important here, so if you’re going into a 10mph headwind then you would want to slow down… unfortunately that’s much harder to feel than when you’re on a bike. Aerodynamic cars, drafting and slower speeds are good for flat land travel. High speed trains would be efficient here too, aerodynamic and long.

3. Fast acceleration is also a huge cost of energy, and it is also exponential rise vs a slower acceleration. Since mass is a component here, a smaller/lighter car also makes sense.

Lost:

I’m 30 miles from a stop light and tend to never look back when i’m driving, so it might be a perfect fit.

So far I haven’t backed into anything. It has a sonar beep when you get near something in reverse. And if you want to pull a camper/trailer, be aware that it has a short wheel base, limiting you, even though you can get a tow package. And I just realized after living here for 8 months that the nearest stoplight it 60 miles away, never even missed the darn things.

But you know, it’s OK to never look back…

and my transmission doesn’t have a reverse, either.

I’ve seen quite a few rental RVs on the road lately. Mid-sized.

We see a lot of mid-size rv rentals here, almost always with a foreigner at the wheel…

except it isn’t a bubble. its the weak dollar plus demand outstripping supply. Boone Pickens said that we are stuck at 85 million, but demand is rising to something like 87 million. Demand destruction in the US is being picked up by China and India. So I wouldn’t short oil.

I don’t believe it. This argument is sounding a lot like the housing demand outstripping supply. Oil and commodities are in a bubble - I hope that many of the same people here who were prescient enough to plan for the housing bubble don’t get duped by this one

There’s an important difference between housing demand and oil demand — world oil production has been flat for a couple of years & shows no sign of increasing significantly despite vastly increased prices. Production of housing fluctuates much more.

Prices need to be sky high for a while before the oil patch boys will start spending their money looking for more. Nobody was doing a whole lot of exploring for oil in the 90’s, because they couldn’t make any money on it.

Greed is a great motivator.

Problem nowadays is the cheap stuff is gone. When all you can do is punch a skinny whole 9000 ft down in the Gulf of Mexico and try and ship the stuff to shore, you need gas to be $4.00 a gallon to make a nickel.

Takes a lot of cojones to make that investment. Especially knowing that if you do, the Saudi’s could just cut their price in half for kicks to watch you squirm.

It’s a scary place to invest in new production right now, which is why I don’t think prices will be coming down anytime soon.

world oil production has been flat for a couple of years

Wrong. The 2007 was an absolute record in oil production, up 2.5%. Getting an advice about oil from Matt Simmons is the same as getting an advice about buying a house from a realtor - both are vested in their side of the tale.

“They” are making more oil. Oil is infinite. I love buying 11 Humvees for peanuts.

Oh, those words are not mine. I forgot. I was only in a dreamstate like the people above who say oil prices rises are all based on speculation, not oil’s scarcity. LOL.

Got PGH? Got gold?

that may be but that other SOB is just unreal.

We can take comfort in the wise words of James Carville . . . “there’s a word for candidates who depend on the young people’s vote - losers.”

“Here’s the truth: the Soviet Union had thousands of nuclear weapons, and Iran doesn’t have a single one. But when the world was on the brink of nuclear holocaust, Kennedy talked to Khrushchev and he got those missiles out of Cuba. Why shouldn’t we have the same courage and the confidence to talk to our enemies? That’s what strong countries do, that’s what strong presidents do, that’s what I’ll do when I’m president of the United States of America.”

Barack Obama

Mr. Carville is correct, but the problems facing the US over the next decade will not be solved (if the problems are to be solved at all) by current Washington incompetents.

As President Nixon was able to open trade with China, Sen Obama may have the ability to open honest trade agreements with the 60% of the world that avoids us.

From Sen. McCain and Clinton, I foresee further infringing of our citizenship and rights as the economy deteriorates. (This may also happen under the guidance of Sen Obama.)

The next president, unfortunately, will have the greatest amount of power ever concentrated in the executive branch. Every Congressperson should be impeached for dereliction of duty.

That is my political rant for the year.

“…Sen Obama may have the ability to open honest trade agreements with the 60% of the world that avoids us.”

Like US Taxpayer funded heroin from Afghanistan?

“The next president, unfortunately, will have the greatest amount of power ever concentrated in the executive branch”

Well, Cheney -Bush got what they asked for 7 years…now they don’t want the next “team” to play by the same rules… er, executive privileges.

“Like US Taxpayer funded heroin from Afghanistan? ”
I’m serious about this: We should find a way to use that opium in a safe and legal manner. That way, we don’t piss the Afgans off by burning the stuff, they aren’t breaking the law, and we don’t have to put up with legions of new addicts spreading aids, HepC, and other diseases.
Roidy

We should legalize it and tax the crap out of it. Then we should let our farmers grow it after purchasing a license. They can sell it through dealers that also pay a license. Then if one of the customers commits a crime we send them to jail. DUI’s should also go to jail. We should slash the budget for drug enforcement and use the money to secure our boarders.

How much money leaves the US to purchase drugs?
How much do we waste enforcing, and prosecuting drug laws?
How much do we waste jailing people?
How much does the illegal drug trade undermine governments around the world, and threaten democracy law and order?

The drug was is a complete waste of time, tax and regulate it, and prosecute anyone who causes problems while they are on it.

“Here’s the truth: the Soviet Union had thousands of nuclear weapons, and Iran doesn’t have a single one. But when the world was on the brink of nuclear holocaust, Kennedy talked to Khrushchev and he got those missiles out of Cuba. Why shouldn’t we have the same courage and the confidence to talk to our enemies? That’s what strong countries do, that’s what strong presidents do, that’s what I’ll do when I’m president of the United States of America.”

Barack Obama

I’m really tired of Obama invoking the Kennedys, MLK, and other ’60s political icons–even to point of grotesquely imitating their speeches–to woo the delusional ’60s leftover crowds, still starry-eyed with hallucinations, and historical revisionisms, of “Camelot.” Kennedy did not “talk” to the Soviets, he threated to blow up their Cuban-based and Cuban-bound missiles, which would have started WWIII, and the Societs finally backed down. Thousands of Americans at that time installed fallout shelters, and millions lived in constant terror of nuclear war. Kennedy was nothing like Obama or any of the touchy-feely hands-around-the-world crowd. He was tough as nails. Obama is phantom, onto which people project their ideals, and as president would not have the power to do ninety percent of the things he promises.

Free college, free healthcare, and free mortagage pay-offs are impossible, and hitting the oil companies up with two hundred billion + in windfall profits taxes which just encourage them to raise gas prices higher, to make up the difference.

This man has accomplished absolutely nothing in the Senate (though he takes credit for bills he signed on to at the last moment, once their passage was assured), and got elected to the Illinois state legislature by having all his rivals knocked off the ballot on technicalities (he’s a lawyer, after all). Yet, millions literally worship him as some kind of messiah. Women fainting at his appearances may be plants, but the effect is the same as if they were real: mass hysteria (the Beatles used the same trick early in their career).

If a person can be judged by the company he keeps, and I think most people can be so judged, then the original “Omen,” which had great music, might be worth hauling out for a review. And I say this as someone with NO religion whatsoever.

But when the world was on the brink of nuclear holocaust, Kennedy talked to Khrushchev and he got those missiles out of Cuba. Obama conveniently ignored the fact that Kennedy himself brought the world to the brink of nuclear holocaust by threatening to stop Soviet shipping into Cuba. That was one way to get Krushchev’s attention. Then Kennedy traded the existence of nuclear missiles in Turkey for those in Cuba.
The current situation is not remotely comparable to that of 1962.

“that may be but that other SOB is just unreal.

We can take comfort in the wise words of James Carville . . . “there’s a word for candidates who depend on the young people’s vote - losers.”

You MUST be joking. We’ve had 20 years of the Bush/Clinton dictatorship and you want another 4-8? Jebus-Crispies. I can’t believe a poster on this board could possibly vote for Bushillary.

The Obama lovers seem to be forgetting that little blockade that Kennedy had going while he was “talking” to the Russians.

You really think Osama Obama would do that?? Surely you jest.

Sounds like things were a bit beyond the blockade stage.

http://www.modbee.com/local/v-print/story/117986.html

…
“Komlenich has another distinction, too. He’s the man who nearly started World War III.

“That would have been me,” said Komlenich, who controlled four nuclear bombs in the belly of a B-52 during one Cold War mission.

As the generation of U.S. World War II veterans dwindles by 1,000 to 1,500 a day, according to various news agencies, there’s been a frantic effort to chronicle the memories of those who served and fought. But then there’s a guy like Komlenich, who spent 30 years in the military — in the war and afterward — and whose career had some equally important moments. None was more important than the day when he was perhaps an hour or so away from obliterating the Kremlin and all that surrounded it.

In October 1962, Komlenich served as a radarman/ bombardier on a B-52 with the Strategic Air Command at Castle Air Force Base in Atwater.

The Pentagon had determined that the Soviet Union had been supplying Cuba with nuclear weapons, which the Soviets denied even as their supply ships were headed to the island nation 90 miles south of Florida.

President Kennedy confronted Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev, and the Cuban missile crisis went from a simmer to a full boil. Kennedy demanded the Soviets turn their ships around before they reached a designated point on the map. If they didn’t, Kennedy promised, the United States would attack the Soviet Union.

The Soviets ultimately caved, calling back their ships. What they probably didn’t know is just how close they came to being attacked, Komlenich said.

“That was something,” he said. “You never hear about this. Few people ever knew about it.”

A day earlier, Komlenich and the rest of the B-52 crew bade goodbye to their families at Castle, their stomachs knotted from knowing their loved ones were at risk, too. Their mission was top secret. Komlenich could only act as if he were going on a normal training exercise, even though he knew that if the United States attacked, the Soviets would retaliate by hitting key military installations such as Castle.

The B-52 flew east overnight, refueling in midair just beyond the Atlantic coast and again over Greenland. The American plane, one of several involved in the mission, carried four Mark-VI nuclear weapons in its bomb bay, Komlenich said.

Their first of four targets would be the Kremlin, and they had reached the prescribed place where, if the Soviet ships didn’t turn back, they would proceed with the bombing run that would trigger nuclear warfare.

Komlenich had studied maps and photos of the Kremlin, and he would have been the one to release the bombs that would have devastated the Soviet government complex and everything else within miles.

It was Oct. 28, 1962. The plane was in the air, waiting for the order to attack.

Suddenly, the mission was aborted.

” … I heard a shout from upstairs that the Soviet leader had ‘blinked first,’ and Russian ships had turned back and we had received the ‘Green Dot’ message and could head for home,” Komlenich wrote in his memoirs.
…

Hoz,

I agree with you about the legislature failing to do their constitutional duties. Every last one of them need to be impeached.

I also wish the voters would wake up and kick every sorry one of them out of office, but then pigs would need to fly or hell to freeze over.

Look at the screechies wheeling out the turrrst hobgoblin.

Too bad it won’t work this time.

Now she’s only in debt $30,997,700.00.

Easy to pay off. Just rent out the Lincoln Bedroom to the Friends of Bill for a few nights, and bye bye debt. It’s the original condo-hotel!

not any more

This took 6 seconds:

http://dallas.craigslist.org/car/688933992.html

Warren Buffett has joined Paul Volcker in endorsing Obama.

Buffett also backed McGovern at one point too.

“Warren Buffett has joined Paul Volcker in endorsing Obama”

26 year old Scotch & “A Fourth Day” :-)…Someone wake me up in the morning so I can help out the “Economy” by taking my son to see “Indiana Jones”

“I would rather be guilty of talking over a person’s head than behind his back.”

Adlai E. Stevenson, Jr.

Where’s IKE when we could use him too?

In fact, I’d prefer the Goldwater or the McGovern solution to what we have now.

But I do have the audacity to hope the maybe, just maybe, Obama may be different than the current crew, because he hasn’t been around long enough to get contaminated.

He’s from the Chicago political machine…..he was contaminated long before he showed up in Washington.

He’s from the Chicago political machine…..he was contaminated long before he showed up in Washington.

No, he’s not, not in the old knock-their-teeth-out Daley School sense of Chicago politics. He’s not part of Machine Politics (capital M, capital P) here.

While I do think there’s some merit in the argument that any politician who’s ascended to a certain level is necessarily “tainted” in some fashion, Obama is considerably less tainted than most US congressmen, and vastly less tainted than the two Very Contaminated People still in the race.

In State Legislature Altercation, Obama ‘Had To Be Physically Restrained.’

Finally, a new and intriguing anecdote from David Mendell’s biography of the Illinois senator, Obama: From Promise To Power, on page 125-126:

Obama, to be sure, had allies in the black caucus, but he had his share of critics as well. His chief antagonists were Rickey Hendon, who represented a district on the city’s West Side, and Donne Trotter, ho would run against Obama for Congress.

Hendon and other African-American lawmakers from the West Side often found themselves at odds with their South Side brethren, but the rift between Hendon and Obama was particularly acute. Hendon and Trotter would “just give Barack hell,” said Senator Kimberly Lightford, an Obama ally in the black caucus. Hendon, nicknamed “Hollywood,” because he once aspired to produce films, was a flamboyant personality in Springfield, known for his smart-aleck humor and occasionally inappropriate public manner. In one legislative session, the two nemses nearly came to physical blows when Obama, apparently inadvertently, voted against a bill that included funding for a project that assisted Hendon’s district.

Years later, details of the incident remain in the eye of the beholder. Obama supporters say that Obama had stepped away from his seat and asked someone else to vote for him, not an uncommon practice considering the thousands of votes each session. His proxy, however, accidentally voted against his wishes. When Obama asked that the record reflect that he voted the wrong way, Hendon publicly accused Obama of duplicity. Hendon has never been shy about holding back his feelings, and he had a special way of penetrating Obama’s usually smooth exterior. Soon, the two men were shouting at each other on the senate floor. They took their disagreement into a nearby room, and a witness said that Obama had to be physically restrained. Neither man cares to discuss the incident today, but Hendon remains unconvinced of Obama’s explanation that his vote was accidental. Individuals close to the situation say Hendon still believes Obama voted against his project to pacify North Side fiscal conservatives who were leery of some West Side projects. For his part, the rarely reticent Hendon won’t discuss the altercation, except to confirm that it occurred. “I have been advised to leave Barack alone and that is what I am going to do,” Hendon said. “I am going to let things stay in the past. It happened. That’s all I can say. It happened.”

The Los Angeles Times talks about Hendon and Obama shouting on the Senate floor in 2002, but no word of any near-physical altercation.

This anecdote raises a few questions.

1. This book came out last year. No one else has thought this was worthy of mentioning or discussion? Lots of people get angry, and even the best of us have our tempers flare every now and then. But is this incident ignored because the image of a furious Obama, having to be physically restrained, so contrasts the nice guy/secular messiah image we’re seeing in the media?

2. Boy, that quote from Hendon sure sounds like clichéd dialogue from a mob witness from a cop movie, huh? Who “advised him to leave Barack alone”?

3. Any Democrat want to raise John McCain’s alleged “temper issues” after this?

Here’s an interesting one about John Q. Maverick.

Five lobbyists have been shown the door of McCain’s Virginia campaign headquarters in the past week, including Tom Loeffler, who is largely credited with keeping the senator’s primary campaign financially afloat long enough to capture the Republican presidential nomination.

“McCain’s self-righteous [expletive] has caught up with him. Now he’s got himself in a jam,” said another Republican lobbyist who asked to remain anonymous because he is a campaign volunteer. “He’s got to change the subject back to economic growth and taxation and the war on terror.”

Hope you sent it to her 2012 campaign since that is what its all about for her. People were shocked, shocked! that appalachia didn’t vote for a black man.

I didn’t buy Geraldine Ferrarro’s argument a few months ago but do now, not to mention my contempt for that other clown grows daily.

People were shocked, shocked! that appalachia didn’t vote for a black man.

Neither did Pennsylvania, whose Democratic senator stumped for BO all over the state…where HRC received the endorsements of Philly’s black mayor and NAACP leader…where the liberal elite of the Philly burbs were supposed to turn out for BO in droves.

From the NYT:
Rather, in private conversations and in interviews, Mrs. Clinton has begun asserting that she believes sexism, rather than racism, has cast a shadow over the primary fight, a point some of her supporters have made for months. Advisers say that continuing her candidacy is partly a means to show her supporters — especially young women — that she is not a quitter and will not be pushed around.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24748508

Who cares about rusty “Old America”, anyway?

I donated $1000 over a few months to Ron Paul’s campaign. I wish I had another $1300 to counteract TxChick’s contribution to Hillarious.

Professor:

Do you really think you could convince Californians to drink potty water?

Urine for quite a shock…

Urquite the punster!

Do you really think you could convince Californians to drink potty water?

People can become pretty desperate when nothing comes out of the tap.

Do you really think you could convince Californians to drink potty water?

that’s what they do in mexico. therefore, the majority of mexifornia’s population will be drinking better than they were in mexico.

I like to gross out Angelinos by telling them that every glass of tap water in London has been through someone else at least 7 times….
Funnily enough, the tap water in London not only tastes better, but has less impurities - due in great part to the fact that its been processed more often.

Surely the time has come to create desalination plants off the coast?
Not yet?
Really?

Dig a big huge canal from the Yukon river through Canada to Southern California. The Yukon River flows from Canada south west through Alaska into the Bering Sea - it cannot be diverted to Los Angeles nor can the Mackenzie River nor can the Great Lakes. When American get thirsty they’ll come north.

I’m sorry California,

We spent all your money building prisons…

At least prisoners dont use much water with a garden or big lawn.

I like their conviction to saving…

Ski resorts never ever fudge snow numbers.

Curiously, despite insignificant rainfall up here last season, the indigenous ground cover, (wild currents, mustards, lupines, sage etc.) is showing extraordinary growth.) Perhaps it knows something we do not?

This year’s rainy season dried out early before an average amount of moisture came down. As a result plants are drying out quickly, and energy that might have gone into additional growth leading up to later blooms is going into flowering now. By June many of these blossoms will be spent and the landscape will look more scorched than usual during the summer.

My understanding is that the snowpack in the Colorado Rockies is just fine.

http://www.usatoday.com/weather/news/2008-02-06-colo-snow_N.htm

From Lake Powell all the way to most of San Diego’s reservoirs, quagga mussels are clogging pipes at 3x the rate they were able to do, in the Great Lakes…

A visual for you:

http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.nysgextension.org/ans/anspages/assets/graphics/zmpipe.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.nysgextension.org/ans/anspages/Zmussels.html&h=300&w=400&sz=152&hl=en&start=15&um=1&tbnid=87GpxKhgzXU-YM:&tbnh=93&tbnw=124&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dquagga%2Bpipe%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26rls%3DGGGL,GGGL:2006-21,GGGL:en%26sa%3DN

We’re all gonna die.

All in due course…

“One doesn’t need much expertise to look up into the Sierra Nevada mountains and see that there is no snow left.”

I have a simple test. I can go up to hospital rock just inside Sequoia NP and check the water level at a nearby diving pool. In the past during abundant snow seasons the pool will be deep, gushing ,overflowing the rocks, and dangerous to wade in. If it is low as it normally is in the fall season then one can safely dive in without fear of getting sucked down the river . May and june are the peak water levels for sierra snow pack river runoffs, and if the water level at H. R. is at fall levels right now, then indeed the snowpack is low.

Aladinsane,
i bet that al trails at the lower 6000 -8000 ele all over Seq park are relatively snow free now. I could now probaby do a late spring season hike from Wolverton up to heather lake (9700 ft ele) without snow skis or snowshoes, just with hiking boots . Too bad those damn gas prices keep me from doing more than one trip into my beloved Sequoia park this year, which may be in june, as the snow level will lower than normal.

These are just guesses. If U could provide info on the snow levels or the feasibility of doing late spring/ early summer hikes in the sierra high county deep into the back county at over 10,000 ft i would appreaciate your imput. I may do an early summer backpack and would like your estimates on how deep snow is at say mineral king at 8000-10000 ft or along the eastern sierra passes or in the great western divide.

There was a decent amount of snow in the Sierra, but a few things happened…

Most of the snow came in one fell swoop, not allowing another storm to cover it up and turn it into slow melting ice, as is usually the case.

And we’ve had the hottest spring in close to 100 years.

If you look @ the CDEC link above, the rate of snowmelt looks like it’s going off a cliff, which signals climate change, as the usual pattern is for a slow gradual melt, usually about done by July.

The water is raging right now, but it’s like a run on a bank, the bank being The 1st National Water Bank of The Sierra Nevada.

You could walk @ around 9,000 to 10,000 feet right now with very little snow. (shaded areas will always have a bit of snow)

Totally cloudy, wet looking, breezy, I suspect any minute we’ll get some rain, but it very often blows on over. Nice and cool, though.

This will prob be a double post…cloudy, breezy, nice and cool…

Thunder and lightning now - first of the year! Wowza - close!!!

That sounds amazing Lost.

How does it smell. Love the sounds and smells of storms passing through. Wish we would get more here where I live.

Pyramid Lake (along I-5 in Gorman and fed by the CA aquifer,) is showing sandbars throughout. Haven’t seen that (in May, yet,) ever. Coupled with gas prices, it looks like a bad year for gasoline-powered water “sporting.” (Blessedly.)

Unless it’s your parent/spouse/child/friend that was one of the million dead.

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MWZjY2YzZWVkMjdkMDEzMGQ0MjJkNTUyN2FkNmMzYTc=

long dcr and uso puts, not playing the futures.

It might be crossing his mind at the moment…

May 21, 2008 2:14 P.M.ET
BULLETIN
FED FORECAST OF INFLATION IN 2008 SOARS
Fed in no hurry to cut again
Federal Reserve minutes indicate a strong fear of inflation and little desire to cut rates in June.

Nobody flies anymore… the planes are too crowded

My bike gets $0/mile (when I ride it, that is). But wait!!! If forgot to figure the caloric costs - for about 10 pounds, it would be free.

My bicycle’s mileage is also free for its first 20 miles. After that I cannot propel it any farther until it rests for a week.

At lunch today I saw a bike couriers ‘whip’ with a sticker on it that said $0.0-9/10

I laughed out loud. It was priceless.

I reminded me that I need to get off my lazy ass and rice my bike more.

I’ve never gotten tired of that show.

True story: My aunt, when she was a young ‘un, had the privilege of meeting Herbert Hoover when he was visiting her neighbor’s house. The neighbor’s dog walked right up to Hoover and lifted his leg on him.

My first post after reading for about 1 1/2 years -

So far a renter I would like to someday get a house because one big dream of mine it to adopt a dog. Been reading this blog for about 1.5 years—

DeepInTheHeartOf, I am really sorry about the loss of your dog. No matter how much time you have with an animal, it is never enough. An animal is going to give you the closest thing you’ll ever have to unconditional love on this earth.

Just this month, within the space of 9 days, I lost 2 adopted animals of the type most people would consider just “pocket pets”, disposed by their former owners when they had no further use for them. Their individual personalities brought such joy. Hard to imagine such little creatures would leave such voids when they left.

serling, I have friends who have pet ferretts. Really cute little rotten things. I raised a baby finch last spring that fell out of a nest and couldn’t be returned. It only took 2 weeks to get it out on its own, but you would’ve thought I’d just turned my own child to the wolves, I felt so bad when we parted ways (the parents were there and took over). I missed that little bugger for months - called him/her Eddie - was so cute, big mouth with feathers. Size doesn’t matter.

Must also be willing to eat raw, unidentifiable meat.

Must also be willing to eat raw, unidentifiable meat.

I have never ate chinese meat before.

$1,900 on the bike but I got it on sale and I am having a bad week if it does not see dirt at least 3 times a week during the non-snow months. Like right now since i have the Flu.

“(Well, and a guy who would spend that much on a bike wouldn’t be all bad, either…)”

Holy cow Lost, make up your mind!!!!

Ok, I’ll take one of each - the bike and the guy. No, wait,,,two bikes, no guy…hmmm…two guys, no bike???

Nah, that won’t work, oh shoots, I think I’ll just get another dog…or, hey, I know - I’ll just mess around with the stock market instead.

And hope you get better, calex, a day w/o a good bike ride or hike is a day just mostly not worth living..

Almost well enough to take a slow ride. I like your accounts of the area because you seem doing what I want to do. Some day…
Whats funny is I also have an FJ.

OK, this could get really weird…do you have 5 dogs?

Hmmm, I seem to be feeling OK, guess I’m not going schizoid yet…maybe.

Beautiful, I bet. Rained for only about 5 minutes here.

LOL

hi cap round>incessantly yapping canine

I hate barking dogs. I have a right to peaceful enjoyment of my home.

I love my cats.

I really, really hate barking dogs.

Yep, almost as delightful as you are. What a pain!!! Get over yourself!

I hate screaming kids. I have a right to peaceful enjoyment of my home.

I love my dogs.

I really, really hate screaming kids.

In 2004 I had my house on the market. Realtor showed up-unannounced– with a family [small kids]. I had two dogs. The Mom says to me,” can you put your dogs in the garage?”; my reply, “no, but feel free to put your kids in there if you’d like.”