Comments on: $4 Gas? What Next? $8 Bread?

By: $4 Gas? What’s Next? $20 Steaks : keystrokes.net

$4 Gas? What’s Next? $20 Steaks : keystrokes.net — Wed, 25 Jun 2008 11:43:40 +0000

[...] Last week’s post on this subject raised some responders’ temperatures and stimulated a spirited discussion, so let’s throw some more fuel on the smoldering coals of soaring food prices and see where it takes us. First, the dire future for meat eaters. [...]

By: Dave

Dave — Mon, 16 Jun 2008 18:23:10 +0000

I’m still waiting for the big ice age all them smart people were warning us dumb people about back in 70’s

By: Leisure Time Search » Blog Archive » $4 Gas? What Next? $20 Steaks

Leisure Time Search » Blog Archive » $4 Gas? What Next? $20 Steaks — Mon, 19 May 2008 22:45:21 +0000

By: Bob Difley

Bob Difley — Sun, 18 May 2008 21:00:42 +0000

Thanks, Sterling. Fortunately, the RV industry is not reflected by one author’s viewpoint. In my Green RVer column in Western RV News & Recreation (www.westernrvnews.com) for June I report on what selected RV manufacturers are doing to respond to the threats of climate change, sustainability, and energy usage. However, what will generate the most change will be what we RVers ask for–and buy–from these manufacturers, so ultimately, it is up to us to foster change. It doesn’t sound like RV INDUSTRY NEWS will be in the forefront of this change. Bob

By: Sterling

Sterling — Sun, 18 May 2008 01:02:23 +0000

So much for having a reasonable discussion about the future of the world food situation this forum. I guess any discussion that doesn’t fit into the far right worldview of Bill O’Reilly and Sean Hannity much obviously be liberal. Heaven forbid that moderates and liberals might actually like to buy RV’s and enjoy the RV lifestyle. For someone who represents the RV industry to have such narrow minded views is sad. I guess I’ll have to remove my Obama 08 bumper sticker from my RV, or I’ll get in trouble with RV INDUSTRY NEWS. We have some serious problems to face in our country and in the world, and we need to realize that doing things the way we’ve always done them is not going to help us to solve these problems. Also what kind of world do we want to leave to the next generation? If we don’t modify our lifestyles now, future generations will suffer even more then we can imagine. Bob, I’ve got your back, keep up the good work.

By: $4 Gas? What Next? $20 Steaks

$4 Gas? What Next? $20 Steaks — Sat, 17 May 2008 12:22:35 +0000

[...] to activate your subscription. Thanks for visiting and enjoy all the information! RV.Net Blog AdminLast week’s post on this subject raised some responders’ temperatures and stimulated a spirited discussion, so [...]

By: Bob Difley

Bob Difley — Tue, 13 May 2008 16:52:09 +0000

Yes, Ron, “the earth has had many, many periods of warming and cooling, not caused or influenced by man,” a fact that nobody denies. However, the bulk of the evidence collected by scientists and computer models suggests that the current warming trend is being influenced by the highest amount of CO2 in the atmosphere in 650,000 years. The evidence, again, points to the fact that much of that CO2 is caused by man. Can it be proven with hard facts? Probably not. Just as you and I have no proof the moon exists–we didn’t walk on it. But at some point, we non-scientists have to have some confidence that the majority of scientists, climate studies, computer models, and other peer-reviewed evidence currently being collected is from truth-seeking, sincere, credible, rational, knowledgeable, informed, scientists. When we stop trusting the veracity and credibility of everyone that has a different opinion than we do, we cancel out the open-mindedness that allows new ideas and creative thinking to develop into hard evidence.

By: Ron

Ron — Mon, 12 May 2008 21:12:19 +0000

Bob, if we look at the geoligical history of the earth from a perspective beyond our own lifetime, we would see that the earth has had many, many periods of warming and cooling, not caused or influenced by man. The prime motivator of these changes is (drum roll, please)……….the SUN.

By: Bob Difley

Bob Difley — Mon, 12 May 2008 20:37:17 +0000

Ron – I don’t want to look out on windmills either. In that we agree. But those windmills are usually where there is a possibility of strong winds, and probably not a place I would want to camp in the first place. But if it were up to me, I would just as soon not look out on freeways, cities, landfills, powerlines, and anything else but pure mother nature. But then life–just as campgrounds–is not, unfortunately, perfect.

By: Bob Difley

Bob Difley — Mon, 12 May 2008 20:26:04 +0000

Dennis – It’s hard to separate political from scientific in regards to many solutions to problems. Let’s look at nuclear waste storage–it is not disposal because it doesn’t go away. Scientifically, a strong case can be made for the safety of the storage facility, it’s protection from terrorists, earthquakes, etc. The difference lies in where you live. I don’t care how sincere and logical the storage site operators may be, there is always room for human mistake, errors in data collecting, and outright skewing of facts to get a problem over and done. But I don’t want to live next door to the storage facility. A typical case of Not In My Backyard. The point is, there seem to be less dangerous ways to produce energy other than the innate dangers of nuclear. So let’s explore them while continuing to study and evolve the nuclear issue for when/if we really need it in the future.
And as for Dr. Reid Bryson (whose credentials are unarguable), he’s a skeptic, not of just global warming, but of any popular scientific notion, as he and all of us should be. We should all be skeptics and continue to develop data and build as much evidence as possible with peer review, etc. Note this recent quote:
“We can say that the Earth has most probably warmed in the past century. We cannot say what part of that warming was due to mankind’s addition of “greenhouse gases” until we consider the other possible factors, such as aerosols. The aerosol content of the atmosphere was measured during the past century, but to my knowledge this data was never used.
We can say that the question of anthropogenic modification of the climate is an important question — too important to ignore. However, it has now become a media free-for-all and a political issue more than a scientific problem. What a change from 1968 when I gave a paper at a national scientific meeting and was laughed at for suggesting that people could possibly change the climate!”
Note that he is not arguing whether CO2 is affecting climate change, just how much, and warning of the “jumping on the bandwagon” effect of global warming cachet. I couldn’t agree more. However, I repeat, the evidence is that CO2 is definitely affecting a climate change is very strong, and not something we should ignore until “proof” down to the last arguing point. Then, it may be too late to take necessary steps to reverse the man-made warming.