TimG

The evidence is not the issue - the issue is how much weight do we give to the evidence. If the MWP was warmer than today the evidence suggesting that the current warming is a concern will be given a lot less weight. This, in turn, affects the type of policies that people will accept. That is why the people pushing the IPCC political agenda aggressively defend the hockey stick while claiming it 'does not matter'. If it really did not matter they would not insist on abusing science to defend it.

Not very likely. This particular attack required detailed knowledge of the systems it infected. People with this kind of knowledge would also know how to disable a reactor without triggering a major incident. If we assume that it was state sponsored attempt to disrupt Iran's nuke program then it is unlikely that the sponsors wanted a major incident since the virus was going to be discovered eventually.

But it has huge effect on the policy discussion because large variations in climate in the recent past make the argument that AGW is a threat much less plausible.

The devil is really in the details. For example, science has shows there is zero evidence linking natural events like hurricanes, heat waves or snow storms to climate change yet that does not stop advocates from claiming the link is a fact. In this case, describing that claim as a hoax is the more rational position. If advocates are going to lie about what the science says they have no right to complain when people claim they are perpetrating a hoax. Why do we need to "deal with it" at all? It is not enough to demonstrate that climate change is happening. One most demonstrate that cost of "doing something" is less than the cost of any climate change. Once we get into that debate there are no facts and simply opinions.

Ther trouble with this debate is people who wish to advocate a specific policy choices have hijacked the science and try to claim that the science dictates what policies should be adopted.i.e. even if one accepts the claim that humans are changing the climate it does not automatically follow that policies focused on reducing CO2 emissions are the most effective way to deal with the stated problem. If you would like to have a rational discussion on this topic you must start by acknowledging that the people claiming that AGW is "hoax" and those claiming it is a "fact" are two sides of the same ideological coin and both are abusing science in order to achieve their political aims.

Let's depense with the false rhetoric. This is not about making prosititution legal - it already is. It is about allowing businesses to operate that advertise sex for sale. We restrict businesses all of the time for a variety of reasons. In many times, the justification comes down to a question of social values (i.e. tobacco, guns, private medical services, gambling, et. al.); If you want to argue that the moral views of the majority of people are not sufficient to justify restricting a business operation then you are arguing against the laws that restrict the sale of tobacco, guns and medical services.As for the 'too much regulation' argument - all businesses complain about regulation. The trouble with prostitution is we are talking about an extremely risky activity and that requires some level of regulation. There is also the issue of civil liability. Businesses require insurance to operate. A brothel that did not follow some pretty riguous guidelines would have trouble getting insurance. The fact is a drug addicted streetwalker who can barely function is not going to be able to follow these regulations and can't be helped by legalization. The only women who might be helped are the ones that currently operate via the yellow pages but it is not clear that they need that much help.

I linked to an NYT article on the Dutch experience. Legalization of brothels has not done much to help women at risk. From the NYT article: It appears anonymity is also a big problem for women and their customers. What policy? Accepting money for sex is legal. What you can't do is set up a business that advertises sex for sale. It is really no different from laws that ban tobacco advertising. Should we get rid of those because the black market for tobacco exists? Allowing brothels will not save any money nor will it help the women most at risk. All it will do is cost more money because yet more bureaucrats will have to be employeed regulating and monitoring these places. If you really want to use money as an argument it would be cheaper to keep the status quo.

I agree. But those types of prostitutes are not the ones who are at risk and would not really benefit from legalization of brothels.

I actually see no difference between a high end escort who accepts cash in a hotel room and someone who goes home with a stranger met in a bar (statement is gender neutral). In both cases you have adults making choices that they are entitled to make. But we are not talking about legislating individual choices. We are talking about allowing a business to operate and under what terms. It is not a question of civil liberties unless you want to argue that all government regulation and zoning laws are violations of civil liberties.

You are the one who demanded evidence from me. No comment on the NYT article?

I think the onus is on you to provide evidence that legalization actually works. But here is some data:http://www.nytimes.com/2001/08/12/international/europe/12DUTC.html

You completely missed my point. I think that most women who work in the sex trade would refuse to work under the terms that would be required for any legal business operation because they are desperate for money. This means legalizing brothels would not actually solve the stated problem if the existing taxation laws are enforced. That is why the 'legalize it for humanitarian reasons' argument is not as compelling as you might think.

Question: how many of these working girls would be willing to report their income and collect the HST? I am guessing very few. If we make it legal we have to enforce these laws which would simply drive it underground again. I certainly have no interest in legalizing a business that is allowed to operate 'tax free' for humanitarian reasons.

Not at all. Engine efficiency is as important as energy density and adding ethanol reduces engine efficiency. The my calculations were correct if E15 reduced engine efficiency by 30%

So what? I made post with errors. Caught them myself and removed the post.The fact is the gasoline consumed as a function of percent ethanol does increase as ethanol increase, reaches a peak and falls off. I have seen some calculations that show this can be a net increase in gasoline consumption but it really depends on the car and how well it can handle the blend.

I fixed it before I saw your response. I thought E85 was 15% ethanol but I figured that out when I checked my own figures (so save your rants). I also figured out that the article I linked probably has a typo when it said - 3-4 mpg reduction fro E10. It should have said 3-4% because that is what all of the sources say.Basically - my claim is true for E15-E20 blends. E10 or less is close to break even or a slight benefit. E85 is definite reduction except it cannot be produced in the quantities required so it is an largely academic question.

---

This is nonsense. Adding ethanol REDUCES gas milage and INCREASES the amount of gas sold. This is a well known fact.http://www.ehow.com/facts_5882696_effect-ethanol-gas-mileage.html

In other words, you are arguing that governments are unable to identify strategic objectives and pursue them. They are completely capitive to 'armageddon-of-month' crowd and only care about being seen to 'do something'. Being effective is not something the government can do.This is exactly the reason why governments should not get involved in 'picking winners' through subsides. You are throwing around claims which I do not believe you have any data to support. You simply accept it as 'true' because it has been repeated so many times by political activists interested in promoting their pet causes. And even if it was true at was also obvious at the time that fossil fuels would allow humans to more with less. The trouble with renewables is they require people spend more and get less out of it. That cost will harm the economy. Whatever. I do not accept the argument that military spending, roads or other types of government spending represent a subdidy to oil because these mononies would have been spent anyways. Subsidies are tax benefits, fees or moneys paid to the producers, distributors or consumers. Nothing more.

No it is not. It is government money that forces to come up with an 'AGW spin' in order to get a share of the spending. There are more effective ways to use that R&D money if the government was not so obessed about CO2. You should care because bad policies put in place because of a phoney fear can cause harm long after people realize they have been had.

Why should they? The are for profit corporations and I don't want them to be given special deals by the tax payer any more than I want special deals for windfarm operators. The difference is the tiny subsidies given to oil companies could be taken away and it would not affect their business that much. Take away the subsidies from the wind farm operators and they go out of business. That is why sources like wind and solar are useless today.

I don't disagree with what is written here. What I disagree with are production subsidies for any type of energy. i.e. funding one time costs like R&D is fine because it could lead to break throughs. Subsidizing solar panel installation or feed in tariffs for wind are unacceptable because they do not scale. Which is why an economically sensible approach is required. Forget about CO2. Focus on oil. Build super critical coal plants and nukes. Invest in thorium tech. Make sure we have reliable source of electricity. If costs are to be imposed on utilities they should be upgrading their grid - not on adding useless wind or solar capacity. Hydro and geo-thermal are geographically limited. In places where it is an option it is already used and therefore cannot do anything to reduce our need to fossil fuels. In most places they are not an option.

Not at all. In fact, going back to first principals is the only way to seperate the real economic benefits from the various claims made by rent seekers and carpet baggers.

So what? It succeeded in the end because the free market found ways to make it work. It did not succeed because some government official decided to subsidize it. Technology development is my business. I am sure I know a lot more about this process than you and I understand the technological and economic barriers which make moving away from fossil fuels a virtual impossibility at this time. per kWH subsidies which are tiny compared to what is being demanded for renewables. Environmentalists (the uber luddites) do not count large scale hydro as renewable. I had assumed that you understood that from the context. Since you did not I will restate my question: give me one example of a self contained grid with more than 10% "greenpeace-approved" renewables (wind, solar, tide).

No I am saying that no amount of government subsidy is going to significanly reduce the cost of producing energy with renewables. What we will likely see is a point where the no-subsidy price of renewables is less than the no-subsidy price of fossil fuels but that will also only occur on a schedule dictated by the market - not by governments. There will always been a need for a road system but the shape of the system changes depending on the available technology. The road system is not a subsidy but an adaptation. Well, if you wantto throw in a bunch on unmeasureable intangibles you can justify anything you want and that is what most academics do. In the real world there is only one thing that matters and it is amount of wealth that can be created with an energy source. If you take money in taxes to pay for an economically unviable energy source you reduce economic activity buy more than can possibly be recovered. Everyone benefits from the free market and everyone tries to rig the market to suit their personal interests. No one is innocent on that front. However, that is not an excuse to ignore the basic rules of economics.