No I am not certain about climate change. Kinda like I don't know what the fuck is on the other side of my neighbor's fence. We can sit around and conjecture all day, but climate has a lot of variables and happens over a long period of time. I just think our scientists are a bit cocky and quite premature in their predictions. They also have a propensity to give the media disaster scenarios while people tend to ignore the possible benefits.
If climate change is stopped, billions of people will die... I don't deny the risk of global warming, I'm just failing to see the catastrophe. As someone who lives in temperate climate, most people here prefer the warmer side of things, and hate the colder side. Also, there is more land area of the earth near the poles than the equator. Seems like we might be better off warm.
So do you disagree that great CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere will:
Increase plant growth? Reduce water consumption? Increase crop production? Create more robust habitats? Decrease human deaths due to exposure (yes, heat kills less people every year than cold)?
The question is, who has the burden of proof? Why does the denying side have to disprove the theory? I would say if the AGW supporters have such definitive evidence, then why are there any deniers at all? Why shouldn't they have to prove their position before forcing us all to cut carbon emissions and change our lifestyles?
You ask questions about evidence, but we have NO EVIDENCE. We have computer model generated data. If you want evidence, start waiting because we won't find out the results of our pumping CO2 into the atmosphere experiment for a few thousand more years.
You have a flawed idea of how they pay for gas. They aren't raising the price of gas to cover the truck that filled their existing supply. They are trying to get enough money from the sale of their gas to buy the next truck. Hence they have to hedge how much gas will cost when they need to get another truck. That's why sometimes large truck stops have lower prices because they don't have to forecast as far because they get such high turnover. It's easier to guess what the price of wholesale gas will be tomorrow vs predicting it next week.
Obviously YOU are the one who has no understanding of economics.
If by "tens of billions of dollars of corporate welfare" you mean tax credits and deductions that every other company gets then yes. I assure you that oil companies pay the government billions upon billions of dollars. There are only dollars flowing one way. Now do I agree that oil companies lobby as hard as they can to reduce their tax burden? Yes, but so does every other industry. If you want to look at companies that pay little to no taxes and still reap in profits... Allow me to introduce GE, alternative energy companies, and "american" car manufacturers.
Also, if the oil industry is so good at manipulating the government, why hasn't the Keystone XL pipeline been approved? Oh right, because the government uses oil companies as pawns in their PR games. Everyone loves to hate oil companies when the price of gas is high. Have you tried refining crude oil recently? How much does it cost you?
I agree, Mass Effect 1 was actually decently hard sci-fi. And then it went flacid with the sequels. They figured stuff didn't need any explanation, and you know this RPG stuff is for pansies. Let's just shoot ALIENS!!!
As for your arable land excuse, the vast majority of land on earth today is too cold to grow crops. A very small percentage is too hot. Most of Alaska is wetlands, imagine how good those soils would be for farming if it were warmer. I suspect most of Canada, Greenland, and Russia are similar.
And finally, how long will it take us to adapt? How many major cities were in the US 100 years ago? 200 years ago? Is AGW really happening THAT fast?
Which would work great if people bought single items. You start putting together a few random items together in a single transaction and it would be exceedingly difficult to screw your customer out of 2 cents. Hardly seems worth it.
I agree that pumped hydro is by far the cheapest energy storage. However, there are only limited areas where this is useful. You also lose a lot of energy due to evaporation. Believe me, if it were possible I would power the world with hydro energy. Sadly, we consume far too much energy for that to work. And if we can't get fusion figured out and all the idiots that hate fission prevent new plants from being built we'll have to rely on other generation methods that are not controllable.
On transmission I agree with you, there are minimal losses moving electrical energy. However, storing energy is a whole different issue. Storing electricity as a liquid fuel is a very attractive possibility.
I do know something about the planet that most people in these discussions tend to ignore. The earth has been warmer and colder in the past. It will be warmer and colder again in the future. If we are influencing it, which way do we want it to go? We can't keep it the same forever... I'd rather it be on the warmer side myself.
So what your suggesting is that we take away the natural process of nature removing the organisms that are unable to migrate or adapt to their environment?
If the doctor says you have a good chance of getting a heart attack in the next year, but you are likely to die in the next 5 years anyway, would you make your life miserable to try to avoid the heart attack, or enjoy the last few years of your life?
The war in Iraq? We are staying in Afghanistan too long... We're talking about getting involved with Syria and Iran now. If it isn't Christian Fundamentalists influencing American politics then why aren't we going after North Korea?
It's how they operate. I don't know if AGW is happening or not. I think it's very likely that we influence our environment. What gets my panties in a bunch is that the AGW crowd ONLY states the negatives. As if there could be no possible benefit from a warmer planet. Living in the midwest, I've rather enjoyed the 70+ degree weather in March. Yes, yes, that's weather. But I'd rather the trend go warmer than colder. Give me the negatives, but give me the positives too so society can weigh them against each other to determine if we might be better off with global warming.
How exactly is that a strong argument for socialized medicine? How about instead decouple healthcare from employment and allow people to buy health insurance as an individual and then they can take the healthcare they want from employer to employer. Now people don't feel like they need to stay in their current jobs for the great healthcare benefits. Then the healthcare companies would have US as their customer and not our employer. Services would improve. And then you'd be able to shop around for healthcare and costs would drop.
Somalia is not a free market. Free markets (and capitalism for that matter) are not lawless societies. If nothing is stopping you from stealing, then you have anarchy, not capitalism. Free markets operate on three principles: Personal liberty, property rights, and sound money. So that means you can trade with whomever you want, you can't steal, and the medium of exchange should not be subject to abrupt changes in value (which allows for saving and investing). Does Somalia have all of those things?
Socialism on the other hand sacrifices some of these for collective use. And trying to combine socialism and capitalism usually results in favors. Where there is a partially free market where the government gives favors to certain industries who are "acting in the public good". And since there is still some free market in there, politicians are free to be bought where they can steal money from some and transfer it to others. Sound like a better system?
I will give you that a blog post isn't the most credible source. However, I'd rarely trust the NYT either. My point is that even they admit that the tax rate may be lower than other industries, but the government does not SUBSIDIZE oil companies. They just take less than they otherwise would. Plus all of these points are ignoring the taxes on the downstream end of the business as well as the lease payments for drilling on federal and state lands. There is a reason oil rich areas of the nation are in a much better financial state than the rest of the nation and that is because oil production is very lucrative for the government.
I will admit oil companies do get many tax breaks, but any company would be stupid to not minimize their tax expenditures (GE anyone?). The majority of tax breaks for oil companies come from selling government mandated ethanol, building solar and wind projects that don't have any return on investment without government tax incentives, and general construction industry breaks.
And for the record, I DO work for an oil company, and we have an entire wing of the building dedicated to trying to keep the government from taxing the crap out of us. The tax situation makes my job a living hell because trying to minimize tax expenditures by doing certain projects ensures we don't do the most valuable or environmentally friendly projects, but rather the projects that might reduce tax liability (like doing expense projects instead of capital improvements).
I am all for removing government tax breaks, but remove EVERYONE's tax breaks, not just the industry that you hate because you don't understand gasoline prices and profit vs taxes.
Slashdot Mirror
No I am not certain about climate change. Kinda like I don't know what the fuck is on the other side of my neighbor's fence. We can sit around and conjecture all day, but climate has a lot of variables and happens over a long period of time. I just think our scientists are a bit cocky and quite premature in their predictions. They also have a propensity to give the media disaster scenarios while people tend to ignore the possible benefits.
No, I'm arguing that Solyndra made a pittance of energy while Exxon Mobil made enough gas to get 1/4 of the country to work every day.
If climate change is stopped, billions of people will die... I don't deny the risk of global warming, I'm just failing to see the catastrophe. As someone who lives in temperate climate, most people here prefer the warmer side of things, and hate the colder side. Also, there is more land area of the earth near the poles than the equator. Seems like we might be better off warm.
And what do you know, in 1817 they had a summer again! Amazing how fragile that climate is that nature returns to equilibrium isn't it?
So do you disagree that great CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere will:
Increase plant growth?
Reduce water consumption?
Increase crop production?
Create more robust habitats?
Decrease human deaths due to exposure (yes, heat kills less people every year than cold)?
The question is, who has the burden of proof? Why does the denying side have to disprove the theory? I would say if the AGW supporters have such definitive evidence, then why are there any deniers at all? Why shouldn't they have to prove their position before forcing us all to cut carbon emissions and change our lifestyles?
You ask questions about evidence, but we have NO EVIDENCE. We have computer model generated data. If you want evidence, start waiting because we won't find out the results of our pumping CO2 into the atmosphere experiment for a few thousand more years.
Free money from the government? *cough*Solyndra*cough*
Yes that "Nitrogen Enriched" fuel works much better with the nitrogen enriched atmosphere.
You have a flawed idea of how they pay for gas. They aren't raising the price of gas to cover the truck that filled their existing supply. They are trying to get enough money from the sale of their gas to buy the next truck. Hence they have to hedge how much gas will cost when they need to get another truck. That's why sometimes large truck stops have lower prices because they don't have to forecast as far because they get such high turnover. It's easier to guess what the price of wholesale gas will be tomorrow vs predicting it next week.
Obviously YOU are the one who has no understanding of economics.
If by "tens of billions of dollars of corporate welfare" you mean tax credits and deductions that every other company gets then yes. I assure you that oil companies pay the government billions upon billions of dollars. There are only dollars flowing one way. Now do I agree that oil companies lobby as hard as they can to reduce their tax burden? Yes, but so does every other industry. If you want to look at companies that pay little to no taxes and still reap in profits... Allow me to introduce GE, alternative energy companies, and "american" car manufacturers.
Also, if the oil industry is so good at manipulating the government, why hasn't the Keystone XL pipeline been approved? Oh right, because the government uses oil companies as pawns in their PR games. Everyone loves to hate oil companies when the price of gas is high. Have you tried refining crude oil recently? How much does it cost you?
I agree, Mass Effect 1 was actually decently hard sci-fi. And then it went flacid with the sequels. They figured stuff didn't need any explanation, and you know this RPG stuff is for pansies. Let's just shoot ALIENS!!!
For your deaths facts: http://www.thenewamerican.com/tech-mainmenu-30/environment/621
As for your arable land excuse, the vast majority of land on earth today is too cold to grow crops. A very small percentage is too hot. Most of Alaska is wetlands, imagine how good those soils would be for farming if it were warmer. I suspect most of Canada, Greenland, and Russia are similar.
And finally, how long will it take us to adapt? How many major cities were in the US 100 years ago? 200 years ago? Is AGW really happening THAT fast?
Which would work great if people bought single items. You start putting together a few random items together in a single transaction and it would be exceedingly difficult to screw your customer out of 2 cents. Hardly seems worth it.
I agree that pumped hydro is by far the cheapest energy storage. However, there are only limited areas where this is useful. You also lose a lot of energy due to evaporation. Believe me, if it were possible I would power the world with hydro energy. Sadly, we consume far too much energy for that to work. And if we can't get fusion figured out and all the idiots that hate fission prevent new plants from being built we'll have to rely on other generation methods that are not controllable.
On transmission I agree with you, there are minimal losses moving electrical energy. However, storing energy is a whole different issue. Storing electricity as a liquid fuel is a very attractive possibility.
I do know something about the planet that most people in these discussions tend to ignore. The earth has been warmer and colder in the past. It will be warmer and colder again in the future. If we are influencing it, which way do we want it to go? We can't keep it the same forever... I'd rather it be on the warmer side myself.
So what your suggesting is that we take away the natural process of nature removing the organisms that are unable to migrate or adapt to their environment?
If the doctor says you have a good chance of getting a heart attack in the next year, but you are likely to die in the next 5 years anyway, would you make your life miserable to try to avoid the heart attack, or enjoy the last few years of your life?
The war in Iraq? We are staying in Afghanistan too long... We're talking about getting involved with Syria and Iran now. If it isn't Christian Fundamentalists influencing American politics then why aren't we going after North Korea?
It's how they operate. I don't know if AGW is happening or not. I think it's very likely that we influence our environment. What gets my panties in a bunch is that the AGW crowd ONLY states the negatives. As if there could be no possible benefit from a warmer planet. Living in the midwest, I've rather enjoyed the 70+ degree weather in March. Yes, yes, that's weather. But I'd rather the trend go warmer than colder. Give me the negatives, but give me the positives too so society can weigh them against each other to determine if we might be better off with global warming.
Or bat guano!
CAN YOU FEEL IT CAPTAIN COMPOST????
For the filter... Yes it's yelling. It's a movie quote about Jim Carrey yelling.
How exactly is that a strong argument for socialized medicine? How about instead decouple healthcare from employment and allow people to buy health insurance as an individual and then they can take the healthcare they want from employer to employer. Now people don't feel like they need to stay in their current jobs for the great healthcare benefits. Then the healthcare companies would have US as their customer and not our employer. Services would improve. And then you'd be able to shop around for healthcare and costs would drop.
Somalia is not a free market. Free markets (and capitalism for that matter) are not lawless societies. If nothing is stopping you from stealing, then you have anarchy, not capitalism. Free markets operate on three principles: Personal liberty, property rights, and sound money. So that means you can trade with whomever you want, you can't steal, and the medium of exchange should not be subject to abrupt changes in value (which allows for saving and investing). Does Somalia have all of those things?
Socialism on the other hand sacrifices some of these for collective use. And trying to combine socialism and capitalism usually results in favors. Where there is a partially free market where the government gives favors to certain industries who are "acting in the public good". And since there is still some free market in there, politicians are free to be bought where they can steal money from some and transfer it to others. Sound like a better system?
I will give you that a blog post isn't the most credible source. However, I'd rarely trust the NYT either. My point is that even they admit that the tax rate may be lower than other industries, but the government does not SUBSIDIZE oil companies. They just take less than they otherwise would. Plus all of these points are ignoring the taxes on the downstream end of the business as well as the lease payments for drilling on federal and state lands. There is a reason oil rich areas of the nation are in a much better financial state than the rest of the nation and that is because oil production is very lucrative for the government.
I will admit oil companies do get many tax breaks, but any company would be stupid to not minimize their tax expenditures (GE anyone?). The majority of tax breaks for oil companies come from selling government mandated ethanol, building solar and wind projects that don't have any return on investment without government tax incentives, and general construction industry breaks.
And for the record, I DO work for an oil company, and we have an entire wing of the building dedicated to trying to keep the government from taxing the crap out of us. The tax situation makes my job a living hell because trying to minimize tax expenditures by doing certain projects ensures we don't do the most valuable or environmentally friendly projects, but rather the projects that might reduce tax liability (like doing expense projects instead of capital improvements).
I am all for removing government tax breaks, but remove EVERYONE's tax breaks, not just the industry that you hate because you don't understand gasoline prices and profit vs taxes.
DON'T HAVE TO PAY ANY TAXES?!?!?!?!?!? What planet are you from, and what genetically modified weed are you smoking?
http://blog.american.com/2011/05/now-that-it%E2%80%99s-open-season-on-big-oil-here-are-some-facts/
Please let me know if you really believe that oil companies don't pay any taxes, because that is the most absurd thing I have ever heard.