Amoxicillin not pink….

Again, you demand that it remain unchanged (sorry, "natural"), while saying that you don't expect things not to change.

You'll apparently continue this deception indefinitely.

Again, you demand that it remain unchanged (sorry, "natural"), while saying that you don't expect things not to change.

Quote from Martin Brock: "Fine. I'll just take a dump on your front porch whenever I feel like it, and you can avoid any interference with my liberty by your subjective value judgments."

The subjective judgment of the value of my property is my own. If you choose to violate my property, then I will pursue remedies as I decide.

You apparently want some arbitrary "court" to decide the value of property that isn't owned by anybody, and continue to demand remain "natural".

My subjective value judgment would be to put a bullet in your ass.

So which is it? Do you want ANWAR returned to its "pristine natural state" (whatever that means), or are we silly and naive to expect things to remain unchanged?

Particular changes wrought by men drilling oil are not equivalent to all changes of any kind for all time. We're silly and naive to confuse the two.

I'm not sure how I'm the one expecting things to remain the same. That was my point, that they don't. You're the one that seems to want that, and even demad that it be returned to its "natural" state if for some reason it does change.

Simple nonsense. I nowhere ever suggest that anything remain the same. Again (and again), "natural" does not mean "unchanged". It means "unaffected by man". I expect the drillers reasonably to ameliorate their effects on the refuge, to clean up after themselves. You're the only one leaping to absurd conclusions about what this means.

Is the pristine state what exists today, sometime in the past, or sometime in the future?

In the natural state that the drillers find before drilling, i.e. without the drilling equipment, without any spilled oil, without the paved roads, with felled trees replanted and so on.

You say the "courts" get to decide costs. That's just another person arbitrarily deciding a subjective value based on their own bias.

Fine. I'll just take a dump on your front porch whenever I feel like it, and you can avoid any interference with my liberty by your subjective value judgments.

And;

"Since you're the only one expecting rivers to remain the same, you're the only one proposing the silly, naive idea. "Natural" doesn't mean "not changing". It means "not artificial"."

So which is it? Do you want ANWAR returned to its "pristine natural state" (whatever that means), or are we silly and naive to expect things to remain unchanged? Is the pristine state what exists today, sometime in the past, or sometime in the future?

I'm not sure how I'm the one expecting things to remain the same. That was my point, that they don't. You're the one that seems to want that, and even demad that it be returned to its "natural" state if for some reason it does change.

You say the "courts" get to decide costs. That's just another person arbitrarily deciding a subjective value based on their own bias.

How much success has Mr Lovelock had convincing the Sierra Club and other so-called "reasonable" environmental groups that nuclear power should be considered a viable option?

You can name environmental groups opposing nuclear power. This fact was never controversial.

The Union of Concerned Scientists, Natural Resources Defense Council, Environmental Defense and the Pew Center on Global Climate Change have all recently expressed interest in nuclear power. Are these groups not part of the Gorestapo?

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-03-22-nuclear-power_N.htm

And Gore himself doesn't oppose nuclear power either. Who does belong to the Gorestapo anyway?

Who gets to decide what a "realistic assessment of the cost" is? Costs (values) and assessments of them are subjective.

If I dig up your property, who decides what compensation I owe you? Me? Courts make these decisions every day. If no one has authority to assess these costs, the whole idea of "property" is meaningless.

I love this strange idea that for some reason humans should go around the planet as if we don't exist, and we expect at the same time that the planet not change.

You love your own incredible nonsense. Humanity dominates the planet. We're discussing a tiny portion of the planet left in a more natural state.

Expecting rivers in Iowa (or ANWAR) to somehow remain the same and unchanged forever is just silly and naive.

Since you're the only one expecting rivers to remain the same, you're the only one proposing the silly, naive idea. "Natural" doesn't mean "not changing". It means "not artificial".

Who gets to decide what a "realistic assessment of the cost" is? Costs (values) and assessments of them are subjective.

I love this strange idea that for some reason humans should go around the planet as if we don't exist, and we expect at the same time that the planet not change.

I think the present floods in Iowa are illustrative. We hear that it's a 100 year flood or a 500 year flood, but the rivers today are not the rivers of 100 or 500 or even 5 years ago.

Rivers are not the copper plumbing in your house. They're part of a giant system of erosion that is slowly wearing away the continent. The process doesn't stop because you build a city around it. Expecting rivers in Iowa (or ANWAR) to somehow remain the same and unchanged forever is just silly and naive. It wouldn't happen without any humans, why should we expect it with humans.

Come on, Martin! When Vidyohs invents a person or group, you're more than willing to tell him how said person or group should behave, even though he never invites you to play! Now, I invite you into my game and you don't wanna play. You hurt my feewings!

Oil (eeeeevil and opposed because it's carbon-based).

Boring …

Right now the only energy development I know of that is on the Gorestapo's approved list is solar, and I still maintain that the day it becomes viable it will join the others on the enviro-nazi hit list.

The Gorestapo is something you've invented, so of course, it's list contains precisely what you say it contains. Meanwhile, James Lovelock leads environmentalists pushing renewed interest in nuclear power.

There is dissension about whether hydrocarbons are organic or not. Dr Thomas Gold was one leading dissenter of the Hubbert Peak. So, no it's not a matter of fact.

Even if petroleum is abiogenic, the peak in continental U.S. production is no longer theoretical. It's an observation, so I doubt that Thomas Gold disputes it. Some theory of abiogenic hydrocarbons may predict that once dry wells could produce again, but few geologists believe it, and this theory is far more speculative than extrapolations of the Hubbert peak in the continental U.S. to global production.

LMAO!

Did I say Gore, or Gorestapo? Maybe I'm missing one, and if I am, I'm sure you'll point it out, but these are the energy sources that I can think of that are currently capable of supplying more than a tiny fraction of US consumption:
1. Oil (eeeeevil and opposed because it's carbon-based).
2. Coal (ditto, and add that it's even more eeevil because we have plenty of it).
3. Gas (see 'coal').
4. Hydro (eeevil because it fills in pristine canyons and makes it harder for fish to migrate upstream).
5. Nuclear (China syndrome).

Right now the only energy development I know of that is on the Gorestapo's approved list is solar, and I still maintain that the day it becomes viable it will join the others on the enviro-nazi hit list.

"I certainly don't want anymore subsidies in this direction."

I don't want any subsidies in any direction. If shale is viable it will be exploited. If ethanol is viable it will be distilled. If solar is viable it will be exploited.

"The Hubbert peak is also not a matter of fact … Yes, it is. Precisely where the peak lies is debatable, but the existence of a peak is practically tautological…"

There is dissension about whether hydrocarbons are organic or not. Dr Thomas Gold was one leading dissenter of the Hubbert Peak. So, no it's not a matter of fact.

"…finding the acres covering it is costly…" is the only thing in your post that isn't debatable.

… geographical dispersemnt of housing and workplaces enables shorter commutes.

Not in my case. I don't expect One Big Solution to $4/gal gasoline in the U.S. I expect 300 million solutions. The only Big Solutions I expect to be very effective are the unilateral withdrawals of Big Government from its countless impediments to the 300 million solutions, particularly its endless warmaking in the world's most oil-rich regions and the incredible tax/inflation burdens financing it. The factors involved would be more useful to U.S. energy security running on treadmills to generate electricity.

Government could also allow some drilling for oil on nature preserves and offshore, but domestically produced oil will never fuel all or even most of U.S. consumption, because we passed our Hubbert peak decades ago and have been increasing our consumption ever since. That's not a forecast of doom and gloom. It's just a fact. No serious geologist anywhere disputes it. If the rest of the world even approaches U.S. per capita consumption, we'll pass a global peak in my lifetime, probably in the next couple of decades. We'll find substitutes, but that's beside the point.

I'm not your zealot or anyone elses, but I do support nature preserves. No sound law of economics or principle of libertarian justice says that humanity must modernize every square inch of the Earth. Forcibly keeping you off of Nature's little remaining real estate is no more tyrannical than keeping you off of mine. We don't need every last drop of oil we can possibly pump out of the ground anywhere. I have no fundamental problem with drilling in ANWAR, but I want a realistic assessment of the cost of restoring the park to a pristine natural state free of resulting scars and pollutants, and I want every dime of this cost coming from the oil revenue, not a dime from taxpayers. If no private interest considers that a paying proposition, then the production is unwarranted.

And he made a few enemies by writing so favorably and voluminously about the hated enemy of the Left, Winston Churchill.

That probably explains the shallow and baseless reviews that attempted to pan his work.

I am no carbon footprint fanatic, but there is no price I'm unwilling to pay to avoid a Kevin Costner movie!

It's not just oil, and it's not just ANWAR. It's the entire agenda of the Gorestapo to oppose EVERY economically viable energy source from being implemented. We might not be able to fully supply current US consumption with domestic oil supplies, but we can get a lot closer than the Gorestapo want us to get.

Gore has no authority over anything, and the assertion that he opposes EVERY economically viable energy source is a nonsensical straw man that he'll certainly deny. Energy independence isn't an important priority for me, but if we want greater energy independence, expanded exploitation of our most difficult to extract domestic oil reserves won't get it for us. I certainly don't want anymore subsidies in this direction.

The Hubbert peak is also not a matter of fact …

Yes, it is. Precisely where the peak lies is debatable, but the existence of a peak is practically tautological, and peaks have already been observed in countless territories including the continental U.S. Oil is not renewable, and it doesn't exist under every acre, and finding the acres covering it is costly. These facts imply a peak.

Not sure if you are an environmental zealot, but many environmentalists believe that sprawl is the enemy. But the truth is that geographical dispersemnt of housing and workplaces enables shorter commutes. The concentration of workplaces – whether in central business districts or in edge cities – makes it impossible for most workers to live close to workplaces in the type housing they prefer.

An example illustrates this very well. When Dr. Pepper's dallas headquarters was located adjacent expensive University City, only a few workers could afford to live nearby, and most were forced to commute 30 to 50 minutes. When Dr. Pepper moved to the far north suburbs near Frisco in the 80's, workers could enjoy 5 and 10 minute commutes from very affordable, but new neighborhoods.

Unfortunately, commercial developers have continued relocating office buildings to the Frisco-North Plano area, and a concentrated edge city has emerged around what was originally only only J.C. Penney, Dr. Pepper, and Frito-Lay. New urbanists are applauding the development of dense housing devlopments in that vicinity. However, the increased density has once again resulted in long, slow commutes for most workers.

Had the new far North Dallas corporations sprawled even further, rather than concentrating in a small area, commute times would have remained short. Urban planners, and new urbanist zealots, never seem to get it. Sprawl reduces commute times, motor vehicle pollution, and energy consumption.

However, reading the criticisms just made me laugh. The above, for instance, description of housing was clearly a written description of a particular place or area and could not be considered as a blanket description for all of Europe during the dark ages. Does that make it an improbable or impossible description of a particular place or area? Of course not.

Then the criticism that Manchester didn't mention, or ignored, the brilliant works of, Augustine, Abelard, Acquinas, and Chaucer, in his description of the dark ages. But, if Manchester's effort was to talk about the life of the common man then those works of brilliance were irrelevant because the common man would never of heard of them. Pre-printing press, just how many of the common people across Europe would have had access to the works of those authors even in anecdotal fashion? One could even make the claim that those brilliant men were virtually unknown to the general public until well into the 17th century or maybe even the 19th century.

Oh well, my moeny is on the above description of medevial life as being accurate for the time and place being descibed, and no place I would like to live.