Do we need a $135 Million Dollar Fighter?

Who are we going to fight that is so menacing that we need such an expensive fighter? Russia, China, India, Bangladesh? Would China lend us a Trillion dollars a year if they wanted to defeat us? All they have to do is stop lending us money and we are done. Russia, India and others have no means to take over our nation and the funds to even try it. So, why do we need a vertical take off, short range ground attack fighter? Who are we going to attack? Mexico, Canada, Cuba, Trinidad, again? What drives us to such crazy things yet, a growing number of Americans say they do not believe Global Warming is real! The obvious is too painful to admit. MikeSar

New Realities. Las Vegas had 128 deg Fahrenheit in July 2007 and, if the jet stream pattern continues to move to the East, Chicago and New York will learn the new meaning for a "Heat Wave". After that, everyone will believe in Global Warming, even if the Heat Wave is unrelated to Global Warming. However, there is another possibility, the Presidential Primary of February 5th, 2008, will include California and the candidates are already promoting the "most aggressive" stand on Global Warming. For example, some propose a 50% Carbon reduction by 2050 and others demand an 80% Carbon reduction. None of them specify what will replace the energy source and what will that do to the economy. At this time, it is posturing but by 2011, the issue will be when will sales of gasoline end and what fuel will take its place. Some are already arguing for use of Nuclear Power to produce Hydrogen and support this as being the "cheapest" provided, note, provided "you exclude the construction costs", a typical "political bookeeping ploy" that candidates must find useful since, they seem to think, most voters either don't read, don't care or what?

Now, for the consequences!

The first thing to note is that the poor will suffer the effects of GW first. Wealthy nations will have all the water they want while 1.5 Billion in Central Asia, Bangladesh in particular will be hit on one side by an early rush of water in the spring and declining amounts each year. The early snowmelts will increase storm damage on the shore and bring draughts later in the inland towns. The polar bears that survive will be taken to a zoo, unless food it taken to them. Northern California will get both: On the one hand the Bay Area Water level is expected to go up by about a meter while the early snowmelt will decrease the river flow in the summer by about 20 percent -by 2020. We need to start building dams real soon. Highway congestion, incredibly, has been going down since 2003 and will continue to go down due to the high price of gasoline, which will continue to go up. In earlyApril, the annoucement was made that, for the first time, gasoline consumption for a year, went down in 2006. But, the biggest boost towards a solution is that the California Primary will be in February, 2008, this guarantees that the "green" voice of California, with the largest number of electors, will dominate the political debate. All the non-believers of GW will disappear and we will, finally, stop hearing their mantra: "It is CYCLICAL" or "It has happened before" as if that explained, or solved, anything. And, after their noise dies we will begin a discussion to the next step: Stop, like in Totally Stop, the Emission of Carbon Dioxide. This time, probably end plans to remove carbon from coal, burnt coal, that is. Even Nuclear powerplants, windmills and solar power cells show a greater promise for the future. India and China are already planning to build many Nuclear Powerplants with Russian and American technology. If it is good and safe enough to sell, it should be safe enough to use.

Global Warming is HERE! ALREADY HERE!

While wondering what will be the first sign of Global Warming that would be indisputable, I happen to watch ABC NEWS and they had a segment by Palley on Global Warming, you can see it in ABCNEWS.COM. There is nothing like picture and words from an expert. Here is my humble and humbling effort to repeat what I understood of what they said: The O'Higgins Glacier in Chile is rapidly melting. No news there, we all know that there will be no glaciers in Glacier Park. But, the added dimension is that there are towns that depend on the water from the glacier to survive. Are there other cities and towns in the same predicament? Which is the worst and earliest? With the help of Google (type: Glacier Melting Fast), it didn't take long to find the earliest and worst impending disaster: The Himalayas Glaciers are melting! But, we know nobody lives way up there! Yes, but a great many live at lower altitudes and also depend on the yearly melting waters. From Tshkent to the Indian Ocean Hundreds of Millions of people will be running out of fresh water, in a few years. Will they survive even one summer without water? I have seen no dams there, anywhere. Inconvenient Questions 1. When will they cry out for help. 2. When will we hear they cries. 3. What will be our excuse for doing nothing, until it is too late. I propose we all sign up for the excuse No. 1 : "I did not know!" What do you think? Do you think it will "sell"?