1. He will just continue to steal more land, drive more businesses out of business, and raise more taxes! It is the Democraps answer to everything!

Posted by: GS on March 23, 2006 11:46 PM

2. Heh heh...libs are long on arrogance and short on sense.

I think GS is right...but I'll go further. I think many times environmentalism is being used to monkeywrench society. During the '70s it was global winter, now it's global warming...the constant is that modern technology is evil and we need to return to the mid 1800s.

Posted by: South County on March 24, 2006 05:05 AM

3. The reason that Sims is familiar with drinking toilet water is that gay supporters are familiar with ingesting certain things.

Sims is a true Homocrat.

Posted by: independent voter on March 24, 2006 05:17 AM

4. Water in "pools trapped underground"? I don't think so, unless you're talking about the Luray or Carlsbad Caverns. Most aquifers are water-bearing formations, essentially porous rock and strata where liquid can "hide", and is released under pressure when a pathway exists (like a well) to a lower-pressure zone. People seem to have pictures in their minds of water (and petroleum) existing at depth in free-standing "pools" or flowing like underground rivers. Generally not the case. Ron better take some geology lessons, or get better information from people who know. Watching too many re-runs of Journey To The Center Of The Earth (as entertaining a picture as it is) can lead to some misconceptions.

Posted by: Interested Observer on March 24, 2006 06:20 AM

5. While I generally agree with you, I don't on this one.

The executive order affects only county run operations. I see absolutely nothing wrong with government taking steps to reduce its own polution.

Now the big question is will the county finally dump the gas guzzling SUV's for more fuel effecient cars?

Posted by: BV on March 24, 2006 07:03 AM

6. Sims is just plain ingnorant on so many levels.

My two year old has more sense.

Posted by: JCm on March 24, 2006 07:39 AM

7. Find out who is behind our Politicians

Check their donation list.

http://www.pdc.wa.gov/servlet/ContServlet

Posted by: CnR on March 24, 2006 07:39 AM

8. From an article on the "irreversible" effects of global warming:

"Many experts on climate and the poles, citing evidence from past natural warm periods, agreed with the general notion that a world much warmer than today's, regardless of the cause of warming, will have higher sea levels.

But significant disagreements remain over whether recent changes in sea level and ice conditions cited in the new studies could be attributed to rising concentrations of the greenhouse gases and temperatures linked by most experts to human activities.

Sea levels have been rising for thousands of years as an aftereffect of the warming and polar melting that followed the last ice age, which ended about 10,000 years ago. Discriminating between that residual effect and any new influence from human actions remains impossible for the moment, many experts say."

Where were the cars 1000s of years ago?

Posted by: dan on March 24, 2006 07:58 AM

9. While I had a good laugh reading this post, you are kidding yourself if you think pollution is not contributing to global warming. I don't see anything wrong with Sims working to cut down on a region's pollution.

That's not to say, however, that he's competent.

Posted by: nathantt on March 24, 2006 07:59 AM

10. I believe that little volcano down south is the single largest contributor to greenhouse gases in the region. Does that mean its now "Ron vs the Volcano"?. I am sure he will form a Blue Ribbon task force of his buddies to study the issue at price only a Bureaucrat could love. You can expect a report sometime in '09, after which no action will be taken.

Posted by: smokie on March 24, 2006 08:12 AM

11. You know, reading about Ron's latest idocy brings to mind a story I heard on the radio this morning. Fans want to erect a statue of J.P. Patches - the TV clown that lived in the city dump but they are unsure where the statue should be put up. I suggest Ron Sims' office - what comes out of there is reminiscent of the city dump and it would put both clowns in the same location.

Posted by: Jay on March 24, 2006 08:19 AM

12. Ron's global warming campaign is actually quite smart. While the jury might be out on the causes of global warming, it is difficult to dispute the facts.

By focusing public funding (yes, out taxes) on ways to reduce emissions that may contribute to the problem, he is lining up votes for his and his colleague's next election. You will note that Gregoire is doing the same thing with State tax moneys.

As for reclaimed water. We need this. While we have a lot of rain in the region, it falls in the winter. We water our lawns in the summer, when there is no rain. If the climate is warming and there is less or no snow to slowly melt during the summer, where will we get our water? Not from the ground, because for every road and house we build, we lose groundwater recharge.

Sure we can build new reservoirs or possibly even store water underground to replace the lost recharge from built-up areas, but in which mountain valleys do we build the reservoirs and under whose communities do we risk putting pressurized water?

nathantt is right though, while Ron and Chris may be smart, we still need to ask ouselves whether these two are competent enough to spend our money wisely.

Posted by: deadwood on March 24, 2006 08:25 AM

13. Jeez, even George W. Bush seems to have realized we need to take global warming seriously. Yes, climate changes for many reasons, but man's short-term impact on warming is unprecedented. I thought you were smarter than that, but apparently you'd rather make potty jokes while readers like JCM learn science from 2-year-olds. God help us all.

Posted by: Bruce on March 24, 2006 09:29 AM

14. When Mt. St. Helens is the biggest polluter in the State, just what effect would KC have on global warming?

Assymtotically zero.

Is the global climate warming?

Yes.

However when you look at all the cycles affecting climate, solar cycles, earth orbit cycles, earth climate cycles. The net effect of human cause global warming is at best round off error.

The solar min - max cycles alone have an order of magnitude greater climate effect than the highest estimation for human effect. Add all the cycles together we just don't have the capacity to alter the climate.

Sims is proposing to spend tax money on something which will have no effect. Might as well flush money.

Posted by: JCM on March 24, 2006 09:51 AM

15. A pure white race will solve all of the worlds ills thought Adolf.

Pol Pot thought all the smart folks were his problem to solve.

You Enviros are next....so smart, so suave, so discerning at the solutions look at the insane warping of anything to justify forcing everyone else to do what you Demand we do. In all current platitudes spewed forth from Enviros your heart looks no different than any other tyrant and dictator that used the state to throw their temper tantrums.
You start with a premise that global warming is a threat cause by humans and then warp everything to that pretense justifying the destruction of anything in its path.

Just when it seems Sims could not get any more insane he says we are going to pump crap water into underground pools and You nuts Scream YYYEESSSSSSSSSSSSS!!!! Look at the posts here…global warming is real and these are good ideas but not quite enough.

You have already engaged in terrorist campaigns from coast to coast bombing buildings, burning cars, attacking electrical systems and attacking anyone that is not the right green color for you, made up energy wasting building standards called LEED, recycle glass and cans at a negative energy return, have a completely discredited party member now consulting on building a negative energy gain fuels system, run a bus system that less than 3% of the riders take that consumes 50% of the transportation resources, will not allow the opening up of cheaper natural resources, skew any scientific outcome that does not fit the green model, have driven up to cost of housing by fraudulently limiting the supply of land and building materials, allowed malaria to go unchecked by ending the use of DDT, have cowed the entire populace into a sheeple mentality that an aluminum can and a salmon are worth more than themselves!

Sims has gone stark raving mad in this dangerous game of hate the non-greens!!! When oh when will the criteria for getting a fire fought at your house or getting the electricity turned back on or being allowed more than a head of lettuce to eat or getting to see the doctor be set that you must contribute no net effect to global warming by wearing only hemp clothing and work in the collective fields composting, spreading sewage sludge and eating your farm raised cabbage. Comrade your green rating is too low you must spread more filth before you are allowed to eat. You laugh but a couple of Greens just had an organicasm at that thought.

Here come the Greenshirts here come the Greenshirts

America FINO – Free in Name Only.

Posted by: Col. Hogan on March 24, 2006 10:06 AM

16. 1 I don't know if Ron is Heman in Masters of the Universe w/ Tim Ceis in a sporting role as Skeletor or if Ron is Floyd in King County RFD w/ Dean Logan as Barney Fife
2 King Canute was a man of sense, and he grew tired of hearing such foolish speeches. Ronster believes his own press releases.
3 If Ron was really serious about green house gasses he'd trade in his Lincoln (18 city/25 hwy) in for a Focus

Posted by: Green Lake Mark on March 24, 2006 10:21 AM

17. Maybe Ron Sims can solve the global warming Bush is causing on MARS. Most of the ice has melted at the poles. Our Space craft must be delivering our global warming throughout the Solar System. ITS BUSH's FAULT.
Yes we are having a global warming cycle that will increase because the sun is getting hotter.
Lets get rid of all the cars. Lets use horses to go to work. Just think of the pollution that will cause. Horse Manure will abound. Or maybe Ron has a way to make a horse that does not need grass to eat(Cut down the forests for grazeland) and does not polute.
Lets stop using all the natural gas to heat our homes. Lets cut down all the forests to provide wood to heat our homes.
Lets get rid of the dams providing clean electricity because the fish need the rivers. Solar power will not work because it is very cloudy. and think of the waste due to all that Sulfuric Acid and LEad from all the storage batteries we will need to store power from sunny days to use at night. Nuclear power is non global warming gas source of energy but ROn will never support putting a nuclear power plant in KC. The major source of electricty for France is the use of Nuclear Power but that is never talked about. The Greenies should support this type of energy producer but they talked themselves into ignoring it as a potential source of energy.
Yes Lets go back to the 1880's Then when someone steals your horse you can hang them. Not like today where 17 cars stealing convictions before you have to spend any time in JAIL.
What a picture of life in SEATTLE if they attempt to move to the past.

Posted by: David Anfinrud on March 24, 2006 10:35 AM

18. the notion that human activity is not contributing to material changes in the atmosphere is factually wrong. this idea that the scientific community is debating these effects is also wrong (sort of like scientists are debating evolution and creationism). the reputable scientific community (i.e., not scientists on exxon's payroll) genearlly agree.

china derives a significant portion of its energy needs from burning coal to heat water to drive steam turbines. their energy demands are increasing by 20% each year.

do doubters of man's effect on climate change (via greenhouse gas emmissions) really think that there is an immaterial consequence to spewing out these enormous volumes of CO2? that is just plain bad science.

please consider reading "the weathermakers" by tim flannery.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0871139359/sr=8-1/qid=1143230255/ref=pd_bbs_1/102-1861234-7045743?%5Fencoding=UTF8

the polar ice caps are melting for a reason, and human activity is involved in that reason.

ron sims is incompetent, but this issue is real.

Posted by: dinesh on March 24, 2006 12:04 PM

19. George Bernard Shaw must have had Sims in mind when he said:
"Beware of false knowledge, it is more dangerous than ignorance!"

And here is a tip for you Ronnie from Friedrich Nietzsche, "Better know nothing than half know many things"

Posted by: Mr. Cynical on March 24, 2006 12:14 PM

20. dinesh:

I'm sorry, but the issue is NOT REAL. These same goobers were telling us 30 years ago we were headed for another ice age, and I'm old enough to remember reading the articles with the breathless headlines in Time, Newsweek, etc. Sorry. Not buying it.

Posted by: libertarianobserver on March 24, 2006 12:15 PM

21. Dinesh - How Seattle addresses global climate change won't make one IOTA of difference on a worldwide, national or even a regional scale. The problem is real, but their propaganda is all about feeling good and growing government for their perverted benefit. In reality, the problem goes much deeper and there needs to be a global decrease in greenhouse gas emissions to slow up and decrease the inevitable warming of the planet.

There is alot of resistance on implementing policy changes that cost more money - especially if the effect isn't going to affect anything, as should be the case - common sense. The Federal Government and private industry need to partner in this effort if it is going to happen on a large scale.

Posted by: KS on March 24, 2006 12:28 PM

22. I am hoping that the City of Renton will annex my area soon to get away from the clutches of Tax to the Max Sims and his boneheaded bureaucratic schemes that are self-serving and lame ! I hope that each city outside of Seattle scrutinizes these flatulent executive orders and decides to dismiss them on the grounds of unconstitutionality, just like the CAO is.

Posted by: KS on March 24, 2006 12:46 PM

23. liberatarianobserver: your memory is not a credible source of science. assuming your memory is correct, the fact that science was wrong once doesn't mean they are wrong always. have you heard of copernicus, galileo? it seems that once science believed that planets revolved around earth. then those guys came around and demonstrated that in fact our planets, and others, revolved around the sun. the pope didn't like that approach. galileo was arrested and tried for heresy.

your approach puts you in the equivalent of the pope's camp.

ks: i totally agree and i'm not aware of any meaningful solutions. hybrid cars aren't enough. some problems may not be fixable, but that doesn't mean there isn't a problem.

Posted by: dinesh on March 24, 2006 12:46 PM

24. dinesh:

you make my point for me: the same scientists who were telling us 30 years ago that we were headed for another ice age have now decided that we're actually heading for an inferno now. They were wrong then, and they're wrong now. And I'd rather be in the company of the pope than arrogant elitists who always seem to know what's best for everyone but THEMSELVES.

Posted by: libertarianobserver on March 24, 2006 01:00 PM

25. "they were wrong then, and they're wrong now"

so are you saying that.....planets in our galaxy don't revolve around the sun....?

Posted by: dinesh on March 24, 2006 01:11 PM

26. sorry, correction.

"solar system" instead of galaxy in prior post.

Posted by: dinesh on March 24, 2006 01:12 PM

27. An easy way to tell someone who is ignorant is when they start talking about Global Warming. The Sun delivers far more energy to this planet every few minutes than even the wildest dreams of an energy company executive. It is the Sun that determines what happens with the temperature of the earth. The earth may contribute by releasing a huge amount of volcanic ash into the atmosphere which blocks sunlight, but by comparison, man's contributions to the earth are almost immesaurable. And by any measure, over any period of time, the Sun is really the only factor worth noting because it dwarfs all other energy inputs by many orders of magnitude.

If you don't believe this, here's a simple thought experiment. Take a look at a globe or Google Earth if you don't have a globe handy. You will quickly note that the earth is two thirds covered by water. If you look at the Pacific ocean head-on at its center, you will see that it takes up almost half of the visible earth from that point of view. In other words, you would see almost no land at all if looking at the earth from a point directly above the center of the Pacific. Now look at all of the major land masses, and realize how much of that land lies above or below 50 degrees north and south of the equator. These areas are very cold and very desolate. They do not sustain life well and are almost uninhabited. Now look at the continent of Africa and realize that a substantial portion of it is covered by mostly uninhabited desert. Then, in the lattitudinal band that supports most humans, look at how much of the land in those areas is sparesly populated. For example, it North America, note that most of the humans are confined to dense urban areas that comprise very little of the total land mass. So, it is from these small isolated and almost inconsequential areas of the total surface area of the earth, that humans are generating pollution. But compared to the entire volume of the atmosphere over the entire surface of the earth, these areas are inconsequential. In other words, despite our population fears, whining etc. the vast majority of the earth is entirely empty and devoid of any human activity. Barring relatively large human impacts such as detonating many nuclear bombs at once, there is very little that humans can do to even approach the scale of even the output of one major volcano. And indeed, Mt. St. Helens produces far more "pollution" than any human source in WA. And by orders of magnitude, and it's a relatively quiet volcano. And compared to the thermal energy absorbed even every few minutes by the the Pacific ocean when it faces the Sun, there is no other warming impact that can be measured to any degree at all. All other inputs are negligible. You would be far more likely to hear a pin drop one mile away in a wind storm than for mankind to produce warming of the earth that could even beging to approack the contribution of the sun.

Anyone who tells you that the Earth is warming, or cooling, and that it is caused by man, and that there are imminent consequences, etc. is simply uniformed, lying, politically, economically, or ideaologically motivated, etc. The true scientists and engineers of the world, who do not allow politics to influence their opinions, have stated many times that man made activity is not a factor, and that any warming is caused strictly by the Sun and its cycles. Furthermore, even if the Sun is warming the earth more so than in the very recent past (

Global Warming is simply yet another manufactured crisis to deprive you of more of your tax dollars.

Posted by: Jeff B. on March 24, 2006 01:23 PM

28. We have global climate data for a grand total of 27 years. Since the first satellite capable of temperature measurements was launched. We have localized recorded climate data for no more than 300 years.

Based on 30 years of data we are attempting to claim climate effects on cycles that take decades, centuries, millennia, and even then of millennia to complete.

Anyone who claims to be able to predict climate when we still have no idea of all the cycles involved in driving climate change is a ...

FOOL

Posted by: JCM on March 24, 2006 01:28 PM

29. you guys are wingnuts (i mean that nicely)!

global warming is not the same thing as climate change. if you read anything remotely on the subject you would know that.

jeff b., in all due respect, you have no idea what you are talking about. your reader's digest condensed version of science is letting you down.

do you have any thoughts about quantum theory and the general theory of relativity?

since when did you become such an authority on everything?

Posted by: dinesh on March 24, 2006 01:40 PM

30. "hey bill laborde. it's dinesh. we studied history together at cal.
Posted by dinesh at March 24, 2006 12:48 PM"

So we are being lectured about Global Warming by a couple PINHEADED Berkeley Grads???????????
HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA
HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HAHA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HAHA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HAHA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HAHA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA

dinesh--lighten up. You Berkeley-types tend to be so uptight, a John Deere couldn't pull a pin outta yer a$$! The scarey part is you KLOWNS actually believe all the stuff you spew as facts. Did I see you down by Westlake Mall last Sunday with a long scraggly beard, the stench of cheap wine and no bath for a month and a "The World is coming to an End!!" sign???
I thought that was you!
Any luck panhandling dinesh??

Posted by: Mr. Cynical on March 24, 2006 02:06 PM

31. dinesh:

we might ask you the same thing, regarding your expertise. (and by the way, I'm not usually impressed by alleged "credentials.")

As far as "so are you saying that.....planets in our galaxy don't revolve around the sun....?" is concerned, you missed the point of my comment. The boobs who told us when the automobile was invented that you couldn't drive faster than 60 mph because all the oxygen would be sucked out of your lungs, and that 30 years ago were telling us we're headed for an ice age, etc. WERE WRONG. Forgive my skepticism about their current ranting about so-called "global warming. " I guarantee you within 20 years they'll have manufactured a NEW crisis, which (no doubt) the West will be called upon to foot the bill to fix...

Posted by: libertarianobserver on March 24, 2006 02:17 PM

32. Dinesh, you seem to have all the answers and I don't have the time to research all the scientists for and against global warming, but I do have questions.

10,000 years ago, what caused the ice age to end? What was the total global warming that occurred? How can I reconcile what the scientists say today vs. what happened before man was industrialized?

What was the overall average temperature of the earth when the dinosaurs roamed free? What was the level of greenhouse gasses then compared to now? Why did that change and end up in an ice age? Wasn’t the earth warmer during the dinosaur age? If so, why would it be a cataclysmic disaster to return to those temperatures?

Over the last 300 years, what is the total of greenhouse gasses and particulate matter put into the atmosphere by nature and how does that compare to man’s contribution in the same time period? If it is true that Mt. St. Helens put out more gasses in 1980 than all of mankind has done during the industrial age, then how is it man’s contribution is so significant?

Personally, I am more skeptical of "science" today than I was 20 years ago. I’ve seen way too much science for an ideology (or money) vs. science for the discovery of the truth. Having someone claim that there is consensus amongst scientists doesn’t make me believe it at face value anymore.

Posted by: SouthernRoots on March 24, 2006 02:19 PM

33. dinesh - here's another little story for you.
If you were around in the 70's, oil was created by dinosaurs and it was going to be all used up in x years. The price rose and we found plenty more oil to fuel most of the economies of the world. Then plastics came into widespread use and changed life all over the planet.
What's your solution to this problem? Are you wearing 2 sweaters in your house? Do you walk everywhere you go? Do you ever buy anything that is not packaged? Do you buy food or only eat what you grow? Do you use electricity? Light bulbs cause heat too.
If you're not part of the solution you're part of the problem.

Posted by: dan on March 24, 2006 03:07 PM

34. dan: i agree that the problem is framed in such a way as to make solutions difficult if not impractical or even impossible. that said, however, i don't find much comfort in denying that a problem exists. i find is quite plausible that CO2 emmissions have an effect on the atmosphere (the lowest level of which is closest to the earth). i've read much of tim flannery's new book, "the weathermakers" and find much of it (the science) convincing, although the solutions are not quite so convincing.

we know, for example that the arctic polar ice cap is melting at an alarmingly fast rate.

(tried to insert google images link, but the program won't allow it).

we have some understanding of its consequences (i.e. we understand to some extent the role that ice plays in absorbing certain light spectrums of sunshine and how this relates to CO2 absorption).

now can we "predict" what this will do to weather and when. no, that's unrealistic. but we can predict certain trends.

after i returned from living in china, i recall being frustrated with the recycling movement here, thinking that if the chinese aren't recycling, then as a matter of numbers, it doesn't really matter if i do. i still feel that way to some extent. the developing world will fuel their growth on oil and coal (which is understandable, as it fueled our growth as well), and that's just too bad for all of us in some sense, b/c there will be a price to pay.

Posted by: dinesh on March 24, 2006 04:44 PM

35. http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/newsdesk/archive/releases/1998/23/text/

Admittedly, this is an old article. However, it mentions significant warming on Triton. There are other articles out there that point to warming trends on Jupiter and Pluto as well. Maybe our impact is negligible...

Posted by: Peggy U on March 24, 2006 05:08 PM

36. No Peggy, it is obvious that the combined focus of all those thousands of eyeballs has caused a shift in the climate on these poor afflicted victims of Earth's malicious tampering.

Also, it would be helpful if we could work out a schedule for exhalation (to rid ourselves of the evil CO2). Say people with odd birthdates could exhale on odd days, and so on. Of course that places the folks with even birthdates at a disadvantage, but then, we all must do a little sacrifice for the betterment of all mankind, right?

Posted by: alphabet soup on March 24, 2006 06:19 PM

37. You think we can train Ron to drink out of the bowl at the $600,000 port-a-potties downtown?

I see where Ron is looking for a new college football post-season game to be played in Seattle...it looks like the American Standard Co. will step up as sponcer...THE AMERICAN STANDARD BOWL...kinda' fits Seattle.

Posted by: Pacific Grove Phlash on March 24, 2006 07:06 PM

38. Okay.....

In a personal ambition to slow a non-existent global warming issue...Ron Sims now wants us to drink toilet water?

This man is scaring me!

Posted by: Deborah on March 24, 2006 09:32 PM

39. I'd like to tell ya'll a story.

About 10,000 years ago, just before the end of the last ice age, there was a tribe of cavemen. One day, several members of the tribe were sitting around the fire, drinking a strong beverage made from ground beetles, picking lice from each other's hair, and generally feeling sorry for themselves. Let's call them liberals.

Other members of the tribe were not sitting idly by the fire. They were hunting for food, gathering wood and tending the fire, standing guard, and making tools and warm clothes from animal hides to protect everyone from the bitter cold. Let's call them conservatives.

The liberals were bemoaning the "fact" that fire was contributing to "global warming." Their worry was that the earth would warm, the glaciers would melt and sea level would rise, killing all the animals and destroying the garment making industry. "What would we do without the taxes from the garment makers?" they whined. "We can't live without taxes. Fire is warming the earth and will destroy our way of life. We must ban fire."

One conservative was less pessimistic. There was only one conservative there listening, as the rest were working. "Our fire is too small to melt the huge glacier, and without fire we can't cook our food, cure the hides, and keep our children from freezing to death."

But the liberals persisted. "Look at the ice melting around the fire. Soon the entire glacier will melt and our world will be destroyed. Can't you stupid conservatives see that our fire is having an enormous destructive impact?" The conservatives countered. "There is so much we don't know about the mysteries of Mother Nature. Perhaps other forces are at work."

Soon the rest of the conservatives of tribe returned from the hunt, and the liberals of the tribe demanded their "fair" share of the bounty. The conservatives balked, but everyone agreed to settle the dispute by secret ballot. Every adult, i.e., voting member of the tribe, was given two stones; one red, one blue. In turn they would put one stone - just one - in a woolly-mammoth-skin bag. A red stone meant that the hunters would keep what they caught. A blue stone meant that everyone would share in the bounty out of a nebulous sense of "fairness." The votes were cast.

The vote counters (liberals, since they don't contribute to society) took the bag into the cave to count the stones. The decision, by the smallest of margins (one blue stone) was to share the fruits of the hunt. The conservatives were puzzled. Why were there more stones in the bag than voters? The liberals gave the bag to the conservatives, who found it full of grey stones. Thus was born the term, "holding the bag."

The tribal elders were not interested in the number of stones in the bag. They were busy feasting at the public trough. The elders dismissed all complaints.

Quickly the talked turned to global warming. Passions were inflamed, and the two sides prepared to fight; but there was a problem. The liberals had unilaterally given up their weapons in the name of "Peace," and were no match for the conservatives. The liberals were forced to surrender.

The tribe agreed that they could not live together, that they should part ways and form two tribes. Sure enough, the glaciers did recede. The liberals always blamed the conservatives. The enmity between the two tribes continues to this day.

The conservatives stayed in what is now known as the Scottish Highlands. They continued to use fire, invented soap, developed more tools, feasted on haggis, and steel cut oats, and invented the modern world. To this day they are fierce fighters.

The liberals moved south and settled in what is now known as France. They gave up fire and soap, learned to make cheese, grew grapes, made wine from the grapes, and created a socialist paradise. To this day they surrender.

Posted by: Obi-Wan on March 24, 2006 11:24 PM

40. Dinesh: You commented that you had lived in China.

It's been reported that China's underground coalmine fires consume 120 million tons of coal a year (wasting irreplaceable fossil fuel) and emit approximately the same amount of CO2 as the entire American vehicle fleet. (Not to mention the 1.9 billion tons of coal China digs and burns for power and heat per year.)

Perhaps you could mount an effort to convince/assist the Chinese to get those fires controlled/extinguished. The technology of coalbed fire control is well understood, and would make a far bigger dent in global human CO2 output than the Kyoto Treaty ever hoped to do, and certainly more than lecturing suburbanites about their big nasty SUVs.

Let us know what we can do to assist you in launching this effort.

Posted by: Niccolo on March 25, 2006 02:18 AM

41. Niccolo--
Please don't bring anything resembling "reason and proportionality" into a discussion with dinesh. He is one of those cool in his own alleged mind Berkeley types who deep down understands the LEFTIST PINHEAD power base is 100% dependent upon Fear and the Chicken Little theory.
It was an excellent challenge however.
Something tells me dinesh isn't quite well-connected enough to make much of an impact where the real problem lies.....if that is even the problem.

Posted by: Mr. Cynical on March 25, 2006 07:16 AM

42. JEFF B, Well put. It is kind of like Arizona
in the peak of summer. All we have to do is
have everyone with air conditioning open their
doors and all of a sudden it will be comfortable
outside. Sort of like farting in a windstorm,
nobody noticed. (Except when my brother farts)

Posted by: mark on March 25, 2006 08:11 AM

43. Aside from the issues of cause and effect, my concern is on the "undeveloped" properties owned by people in KC. Sims proclaims that the "undeveloped" property shall remain undeveloped. By what authority does Ron Sims or any other politician have ability to pen such an edict? This is very scary. Is the constitution to be junked for junk science?

Posted by: Snuffy on March 25, 2006 12:53 PM

44. Snuffy, right again! With the SCOTUS Kelo ruling all property owners should be scared. Hopefully another case will end up before the court someday and it will be reversed.

Until then I think some landowner in rural KC should challenge the CAO in court.

Posted by: Obi-Wan on March 25, 2006 04:13 PM

45. Obi-Wan

The french have usually voted conservative over the last sixty years. The president and the legislature are both conservative now. In fact, in the last presidential election in France the leader of the socialist party (and former prime minister) Lionel Jospin finished third in the first round of voting behind both President Chirac and the far right Le Pen. France is certainly different than the US, but a socialist paradise it is not. An indictment of conservative (european conservative, very different from american conservative) public policy perhaps. If you want to make fun of a country for being socialist, pick one that elects socialist governments consistently. France has had a few brief socialist governments in the last 25 years, but almost always votes conservative. It might also help to notice that western europe has three main types of political parties: conservative, liberal, and socialist. American conservatism is more similar to european liberalism than to the other two. The welfare state in europe started under conservative governments (like Bismarck). Welfare state policies are structured differently, and have different results, depending on which kind of political party has been dominant. The welfare state in France was built and maintained by conservative governments.

Posted by: Eric h on March 25, 2006 08:34 PM

46. And who do the Scots usually vote for? Labour.

Posted by: Eric h on March 25, 2006 09:54 PM

47. Eric h, well, I was being a little sarcastic, and perhaps a bit over the top to make a point.

No matter what the name of the party in France, the names have different meanings than we would ascribe to them in our country. What may be conservative in France is not the same as conservative in America.

I don't believe that 5 weeks (or more) of guaranteed vacation, life-time job protection, high taxes, high levels of income re-distribution, etc., would qualify France as having a Libertarian style of government.

Compared to other European countries France may be less of a utopian paradise, but in order to make my point a little exaggeration was needed.

Plus, it's fun and easy to poke fun at France, and does get a laugh, especially with this crowd.

While the Scots may vote Tory, they are fierce fighters, and did invent the modern world. I suggest reading "How the Scots Invented the Modern World," by Arthur Herman. It's a good read and very enlightening. And you don't have to enjoy haggis to enjoy the book :-)

Posted by: Obi-Wan on March 25, 2006 10:52 PM

48. People don't get this... Dogshark doesn't get this...

""Greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere have been naturally rising and falling for billions of years, creating cold and warm periods in the Earth's history.""

That's right... and extinctions have been naturally rising and falling, too...

Message to the christian biblical literalists, the I don't give a damn capitalists, and similar ignoramuses: This isn't about destroying the earth, or causing some irreversable climate changes, or any other over-arching "doomsday" scenario. It's about losing trillions of dollars in valuable real estate - even to the point of rendering some choice areas of the planet practically uninhabitable. It's about gutting the finest farmlands on the planet. It's about destruction of the world's fish runs. It's about mass starvation. It's about new diseases evolving from the upset and finding new methods of transmission as climate patterns alter their former niches.

It's not about the destruction of life. It's about the derailment or even outright destruction of technological man... Life will find a way. Man the arrogant may not.

Which may not be a bad thing after all... So pollute away, techno-pigs... The sooner we're gone the sooner life can try again...

Posted by: Playin' Possum on March 26, 2006 02:22 PM

49. Obi-wan, what a pretty fairy tale... Of course, you have left out the other things the Scotts are famous for, such as their "affection" for domestic animals, especially sheep...

Which, considering Drudge's fascination with Seattle's horse "relations" case last year probably means that conservative tendency continues to this day!

Posted by: Playin' Possum on March 26, 2006 02:51 PM

50. PP, thanks for the comments. Please keep posting, we need to be reminded about the dangers of inbreeding.

Posted by: Obi-Wan on March 26, 2006 05:30 PM

51. BTW, PP, "Scots" is the term for the Scottish people. "Scotts" is a family name, perhaps yours? One may assume that it was a Freudian slip on your part.

Give our sympathies to Mary's Little Lamb next time you're on a date.

Posted by: Obi-Wan on March 26, 2006 06:06 PM

52. obi-wan

"I don't believe that 5 weeks (or more) of guaranteed vacation, life-time job protection, high taxes, high levels of income re-distribution, etc., would qualify France as having a Libertarian style of government."

Point taken, but in your story you referenced not libertarians, but conservatives. Maybe I'm being too picky, but why not. Good story though. I'm (partly) Scottish myself, so I don't mind a story where we're the good guys.

Posted by: eric h on March 27, 2006 03:08 AM

Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:

Remember info?