rushmc 23 #226 July 1, 2009 Quote>it'll drive fuel prices above $5 a gallon . . . . I'd be all for that. Let the market come up with cheap alternatives. The only incentive that really works here in the US is financial; we won't get off our asses and do something about our oil dependence until it hits our wallets. Wouldn't you prefer to live in a world where we, instead of the Middle East, controlled most of the world's energy technology? I would. The real point here is dont have to but rather, YOU want us too. Forced by your choices you would force on the rest of us. Damn sad ..."America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jerryzflies 0 #227 July 1, 2009 QuoteQuote>it'll drive fuel prices above $5 a gallon . . . . I'd be all for that. Let the market come up with cheap alternatives. The only incentive that really works here in the US is financial; we won't get off our asses and do something about our oil dependence until it hits our wallets. Wouldn't you prefer to live in a world where we, instead of the Middle East, controlled most of the world's energy technology? I would. The real point here is dont have to but rather, YOU want us too. Forced by your choices you would force on the rest of us. Damn sad ... Doing the right thing is often inconvenient in the short term.If you can't fix it with a hammer, the problem's electrical. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #228 July 1, 2009 Quote Quote Quote >it'll drive fuel prices above $5 a gallon . . . . I'd be all for that. Let the market come up with cheap alternatives. The only incentive that really works here in the US is financial; we won't get off our asses and do something about our oil dependence until it hits our wallets. Wouldn't you prefer to live in a world where we, instead of the Middle East, controlled most of the world's energy technology? I would. The real point here is dont have to but rather, YOU want us too. Forced by your choices you would force on the rest of us. Damn sad ... Doing the right thing is often inconvenient in the short term. Oh well here we have it then everybody!!!! jerryzflies is the decider of what is right! Atta boy sir! WAFJ"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,990 #229 July 1, 2009 >The real point here is dont have to but rather, YOU want us too. So I want us to live in a world where we control our energy future, and you want us to live in a world where Venezuela, Saudi Arabia and the Middle East control our energy future. I can live with my future. Can you live with yours? If so, pucker up and get ready to kiss some serious Saudi ass. Practice your groveling so you don't make Chavez mad. On the plus side, you won't have to do anything differently; don't lift a single finger to solve the problem and that will happen without effort. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jerryzflies 0 #230 July 1, 2009 Quote Quote Quote Quote >it'll drive fuel prices above $5 a gallon . . . . I'd be all for that. Let the market come up with cheap alternatives. The only incentive that really works here in the US is financial; we won't get off our asses and do something about our oil dependence until it hits our wallets. Wouldn't you prefer to live in a world where we, instead of the Middle East, controlled most of the world's energy technology? I would. The real point here is dont have to but rather, YOU want us too. Forced by your choices you would force on the rest of us. Damn sad ... Doing the right thing is often inconvenient in the short term. Oh well here we have it then everybody!!!! jerryzflies is the decider of what is right! Atta boy sir! WAFJ I didn't say what the right thing is, but thank you for conceding the point.If you can't fix it with a hammer, the problem's electrical. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #231 July 1, 2009 Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote >it'll drive fuel prices above $5 a gallon . . . . I'd be all for that. Let the market come up with cheap alternatives. The only incentive that really works here in the US is financial; we won't get off our asses and do something about our oil dependence until it hits our wallets. Wouldn't you prefer to live in a world where we, instead of the Middle East, controlled most of the world's energy technology? I would. The real point here is dont have to but rather, YOU want us too. Forced by your choices you would force on the rest of us. Damn sad ... Doing the right thing is often inconvenient in the short term. Oh well here we have it then everybody!!!! jerryzflies is the decider of what is right! Atta boy sir! WAFJ I didn't say what the right thing is, but thank you for conceding the point. You are welcome decider"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skydived19006 4 #232 July 1, 2009 Quote>it'll drive fuel prices above $5 a gallon . . . . I'd be all for that. Let the market come up with cheap alternatives. The only incentive that really works here in the US is financial; we won't get off our asses and do something about our oil dependence until it hits our wallets. Wouldn't you prefer to live in a world where we, instead of the Middle East, controlled most of the world's energy technology? I would. I'd rather let the market decide. The market decided that we should tap our own oil reserves, but the government says "no." The market decided that nuclear is a cheap alternative to fossil fuel, but our government said "no." The market said that coal is in abundance and cheap source to generate electricity. The market said that wind is not economical, the government says otherwise (subsidies). Hell, even hydro is economical, and "green" but the government says no to that too, can't dam the river, it might affect a fish. You want me to pay $5 or $10 a gallon for gas, and you want to double my electric bill, I'd rather not. This legislation is going to fairly well kill domestic production of oil through taxation, and thereby increasing our dependence on foreign oil to 100%. Got'a increase our dependence in order to decrease our dependence. Nice logic. Arguing here is pointless anyway, maybe once Joe Public is hit with all these new taxes, he'll start thinking again while in the ballot box. Nahh, he'll still vote for the best looking beauty contestant, and the one who promises the most to him and will somehow make his life better by punishing those who are "more fortunate" or who "won the lottery of life", regardless of the reality. At least those of us earning less than $250,000 are exempt from all the new taxes. It's not a tax on me, if it's a tax on my energy, regardless if my bottom line is affected a few thousand dollars a year. Skydivers won't even complain when av gas, and jet A doubles, and their jump tickets cost another $10. It's all for our betterment. "Those who know what's best for us must rise and save us from ourselves." Neil Peart MartinExperience is what you get when you thought you were going to get something else. AC DZ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jerryzflies 0 #233 July 1, 2009 Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote >it'll drive fuel prices above $5 a gallon . . . . I'd be all for that. Let the market come up with cheap alternatives. The only incentive that really works here in the US is financial; we won't get off our asses and do something about our oil dependence until it hits our wallets. Wouldn't you prefer to live in a world where we, instead of the Middle East, controlled most of the world's energy technology? I would. The real point here is dont have to but rather, YOU want us too. Forced by your choices you would force on the rest of us. Damn sad ... Doing the right thing is often inconvenient in the short term. Oh well here we have it then everybody!!!! jerryzflies is the decider of what is right! Atta boy sir! WAFJ I didn't say what the right thing is, but thank you for conceding the point. You are welcome decider Why don't you think about what you are responding to BEFORE responding. You might avoid putting your foot in your mouth.If you can't fix it with a hammer, the problem's electrical. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jerryzflies 0 #234 July 1, 2009 QuoteQuote>it'll drive fuel prices above $5 a gallon . . . . I'd be all for that. Let the market come up with cheap alternatives. The only incentive that really works here in the US is financial; we won't get off our asses and do something about our oil dependence until it hits our wallets. Wouldn't you prefer to live in a world where we, instead of the Middle East, controlled most of the world's energy technology? I would. I'd rather let the market decide. Good idea, PROVIDED the market accounts for the cost of replacing a finite supply of oil, and PROVIDED the market accounts for the cost of cleaning up the pollution caused by burning the oil. Otherwise we are just asking our kids and grandkids to pay these costs so we can continue to be wasteful.If you can't fix it with a hammer, the problem's electrical. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skydived19006 4 #235 July 1, 2009 Quote Good idea, PROVIDED the market accounts for the cost of replacing a finite supply of oil, and PROVIDED the market accounts for the cost of cleaning up the pollution caused by burning the oil. Otherwise we are just asking our kids and grandkids to pay these costs so we can continue to be wasteful. We will never run out of oil. As supplies dwindle, the cost of production will increase, and at that point the market will force a move away from oil. I say fuck the grand kids, just like the current administration has with the multi trillion in debt it's saddling them with. They're fucked regardless of whether I drive my car or not. We should consider making learning to speak Chinese mandatory in our government schools! At least all that spending has fixed everything, it was such an emergency to get-er-done that nobody could spend the time to read the damn thing, just like this current piece of shit legislation.Experience is what you get when you thought you were going to get something else. AC DZ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,990 #236 July 1, 2009 >I'd rather let the market decide. If the market decided that the cheapest course of action was to give up our sovereignty to China, would that be OK with you? The market is a great way of apportioning scarce commodities amongst a population. It's a terrible way to plan for the future. >The market decided that we should tap our own oil reserves, but >the government says "no." Actually the oil companies are the ones saying "no": ================ Lack of New Drilling Blamed on Oil Companies Maryland congressman tells CNN off-limits oil areas shouldn't be opened to exploration because other lands where oil can't be recovered 'are sitting idle.' By Jeff Poor Business & Media Institute 6/16/2008 12:54:52 PM With gas prices topping $4 a gallon and the idea of tapping into oil under the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge or the Outer Continental Shelf becoming more popular, liberal members of Congress are changing the basis for their opposition to drilling. . . . “Well, we are drilling. And there is nothing wrong with drilling. We have lots of oil companies in the United States that are drilling,” Rep. Chris Van Hollen, D-Md., said on CNN’s “Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer. “[A]nd in fact there are 60 million acres of federal lands that are currently leased to the oil and gas companies that are sitting idle. They’re not drilling. They like the status quo. They like the way things are going.” ================= But that's a good idea, actually. If we DID drill in a big way - say, banned oil imports and opened every square inch of land to drilling - we'd be out of cheap (i.e pumpable) oil in 2.8 years using P90 (proven) reserve estimates. If we use P50 estimates (i.e. best guess) we'd be out of cheap oil in 7.1 years. >You want me to pay $5 or $10 a gallon for gas, and you want to >double my electric bill, I'd rather not. I'd rather you pay $4.00 for a "tank" of electricity for an electric car, and cut your electric bill in half with a solar power system. Or, if you choose, pay $5 a gallon for gasoline and/or pay more for power. But that's your choice. Make no mistake, gas WILL be $5 a gallon. We are running out of cheap oil and there is no amount of political speechifying that will change that. Fortunately, we have alternatives. > Nahh, he'll still vote for the best looking beauty contestant. He sure as heck didn't last election cycle! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TomAiello 26 #237 July 1, 2009 QuoteThe market is a great way of apportioning scarce commodities amongst a population. It's a terrible way to plan for the future. You often say things like that. Do you have some support for that position? Perhaps start another thread, so we can discuss it?-- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #238 July 1, 2009 Quote>I *WAS* expecting something that would attempt to prove your claim that >CO2 is now LEADING temperature . . . I never claimed that. You and RushMC having a bad day? Really? Was it some OTHER billvon that stated this in post 195? Quote>It is also a FACT that there are studies that conclude that CO2 changes >lags temp changes. Historically correct! Not correct this time around, though. So, you were lying then, or you're lying now - which one is it?Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,026 #239 July 1, 2009 Quote Quote >I *WAS* expecting something that would attempt to prove your claim that >CO2 is now LEADING temperature . . . I never claimed that. You and RushMC having a bad day? Really? Was it some OTHER billvon that stated this in post 195? Quote >It is also a FACT that there are studies that conclude that CO2 changes >lags temp changes. Historically correct! Not correct this time around, though. So, you were lying then, or you're lying now - which one is it? I'll leave it to you to work out the error in your post.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,026 #240 July 1, 2009 Quote Most of excellent post snipped for brevity 2) Negative feedback terms are absorbing a bit more, so the planet is dealing with some of those emissions (and thus we don't see even higher concentrations) Even negative feedback doesn't ensure stability. If there is a phase shift you could get some wild climate fluctuations.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
redlegphi 0 #241 July 1, 2009 Just found this rebuttal of Carlin's paper. Who knew science could be so mean? From RealClimate Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #242 July 1, 2009 Quote Quote Quote >I *WAS* expecting something that would attempt to prove your claim that >CO2 is now LEADING temperature . . . I never claimed that. You and RushMC having a bad day? Really? Was it some OTHER billvon that stated this in post 195? Quote >It is also a FACT that there are studies that conclude that CO2 changes >lags temp changes. Historically correct! Not correct this time around, though. So, you were lying then, or you're lying now - which one is it? I'll leave it to you to work out the error in your post. The one where billvon says that CO2 is now leading temps, or the one where he says he didn't say that? Welcome back, btw.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,990 #243 July 1, 2009 >So, you were lying then, or you're lying now - which one is it? Neither. Think about it a bit; I am sure you will be able to figure it out. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #244 July 1, 2009 Quote>It is also a FACT that there are studies that conclude that CO2 changes lags temp changes. Historically correct! Not correct this time around, though. If there is some OTHER way to interpret your answer than "CO2 isn't lagging temperature anymore", then you need to provide it.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,990 #245 July 1, 2009 >If there is some OTHER way to interpret your answer than "CO2 isn't >lagging temperature anymore", then you need to provide it. I already did; I will repost it below. This time around it's not lagging; it coincides with the increase in average temperature. That's because up until the last century or so, we haven't had coal power plants, SUV's and cement factories. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #246 July 1, 2009 Quote I'd rather let the market decide. The market decided that we should tap our own oil reserves, but the government says "no." The market decided that nuclear is a cheap alternative to fossil fuel, but our government said "no." The market said that coal is in abundance and cheap source to generate electricity. The market said that wind is not economical, the government says otherwise (subsidies). Hell, even hydro is economical, and "green" but the government says no to that too, can't dam the river, it might affect a fish. The market just showed how even and practical it is by exploding the housing market. Let's face it, the market is collectively stupid, and very short term in its thinking. tapping our oil reserves is stupid. Conservation efforts and saving it for later are much better ideas. Waiting until there is no remotely cheap oil is too late to fix the problem, unless you're willing to drop down to a dramatically lower standard of living. It's as brilliant as waiting until you have a heart attack to start eating healthy. The market also voted against nuclear, not just the government. No one wants a plant in their backyard, nor a storage facility for nuclear waste. More generally, no one wants any kinds of power plant in their line of sight, be it nuclear, coal, or even wind mills. Oh, dams do more damage than just to fish populations. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #247 July 1, 2009 Quote>If there is some OTHER way to interpret your answer than "CO2 isn't >lagging temperature anymore", then you need to provide it. I already did; I will repost it below. This time around it's not lagging; it coincides with the increase in average temperature. That's because up until the last century or so, we haven't had coal power plants, SUV's and cement factories. It coincides, now? You may want to take another look at your "proof", unless an increase of CO2 somehow makes temps fall. I must have missed the reports on all those coal power plants, SUVs and cement factories on Mars. Too bad, it might have explained how Mars shows a similar amount and duration of temperature change.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,990 #248 July 1, 2009 >I must have missed the reports on all those coal power plants, SUVs >and cement factories on Mars. Ah, I was hoping you had realized the solar system had more than two planets. I guess you have some more research to do. Let us know what you discover. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #249 July 1, 2009 QuoteQuoteThe market is a great way of apportioning scarce commodities amongst a population. It's a terrible way to plan for the future. You often say things like that. Do you have some support for that position? Perhaps start another thread, so we can discuss it? What he is posting is true, kind of. What he doesnt post is that the land that is available has limited or no oil. A political excuse once again"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #250 July 1, 2009 Quote Quote Quote >I *WAS* expecting something that would attempt to prove your claim that >CO2 is now LEADING temperature . . . I never claimed that. You and RushMC having a bad day? Really? Was it some OTHER billvon that stated this in post 195? Quote >It is also a FACT that there are studies that conclude that CO2 changes >lags temp changes. Historically correct! Not correct this time around, though. So, you were lying then, or you're lying now - which one is it? I'll leave it to you to work out the error in your post. Hi kallend! Back to one of your original ID's I see! Welcome"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
