Me neither. I mean, what were they thinking, making her so freakin' awesome and all. Now, I can't stop thinking about her, and all other female video game protagonists have lost their appeal.
Those damn zerg. *dreamy siiiiiigh*
Don't forget about the rogue chick in Diablo. Something about her voice makes her blow Kerrigan away. There is no way that Kerrigan could ever compete with that voice.
I am aware of peak oil theories, but nowhere have I seen a theory that predicted "that we would be out of oil by now" (your words). Where are these predictions? Simply typing "peak oil" onto Google does not yield any predictions that the oil will be gone by 2008. You are just beating up your own strawman [wikipedia.org]. Where are these predictions?
Predictions of imminent catastrophic depletion are almost as old as the oil industry. An 1855 advertisement for Kierâ(TM)s Rock Oil, a patent medicine whose key ingredient was petroleum bubbling up from salt wells near Pittsburgh, urged customers to buy soon before âoethis wonderful product is depleted from Natureâ(TM)s laboratory.â The ad appeared four years before Pennsylvaniaâ(TM)s first oil well was drilled. In 1919 David White of the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) predicted that world oil production would peak in nine years. And in 1943 the Standard Oil geologist Wallace Pratt calculated that the world would ultimately produce 600 billion barrels of oil. (In fact, more than 1 trillion barrels of oil had been pumped by 2006.)
During the 1970s, the Club of Rome report The Limits to Growth projected that, assuming consumption remained flat, all known oil reserves would be entirely consumed in just 31 years. With exponential growth in consumption, it added, all the known oil reserves would be consumed in 20 years. These dour predictions gained credibility when the Arab oil crisis of 1973 quadrupled prices from $3 to $12 per barrel (from $16 to $48 in 2006 dollars) and when the Iranian oil crisis more than doubled oil prices from $14 per barrel in 1978 to $35 per barrel by 1981 (from $45 to $98 in 2006 dollars).
I found this by typing "Peak Oil" in Google. You do have to go the the second page however as the first two are mostly filled with doomsday scenarios, just like it has always been. I believe that was the point you were trying to refute.
Again, we were not talking about total energy consumption or fossil fuel consumption, your original statement ("US demand has been flat") was in reference to oil, not generic energy. I posted a graph of US oil consumption to refute that statement. Stats showing total energy use do not contradict my assertion that the US petroleum demand has not been flat.
From the first link : US Oil Consumption. 2004 40.294 2005 40.393 2006 39.958
I also understand that we are using less oil this year than last year and last year was less than '06. Although, I can't find a link for that so you'll have to take my word... or not. Not that it would matter as you didn't look at the links I provided the first time.
I am aware of peak oil theories, but nowhere have I seen a theory that predicted "that we would be out of oil by now" (your words). Where are these predictions? Simply typing "peak oil" onto Google does not yield any predictions that the oil will be gone by 2008. You are just beating up your own strawman [wikipedia.org]. Where are these predictions?
OK, how's this quote:
We cannot long continue our present rate of progress. The first check for our growing prosperity, however, must render our population excessive.
Sound familiar. I hear the same argument made every day. This one is different in that it was made about coal, not oil. Oh, and it was made in 1865. Such statements have been made ever since. Take this one for example:
Scientists have criticised a major review of the world's remaining oil reserves, warning that the end of oil is coming sooner than governments and oil companies are prepared to admit.
That was from an article written in 2007. It says the same thing.
Here is someone how agrees with me:
Oil is a nonrenewable resource. Every gallon of petroleum burned today is unavailable for use by future generations. Over the past 150 years, geologists and other scientists often have predicted that our oil reserves would run dry within a few years. When oil prices rise for an extended period, the news media fill with dire warnings that a crisis is upon us. Environmentalists argue that governments must develop new energy technologies that do not rely on fossil fuels. The facts contradict these harbingers of doom.
Of course, I said we'd be out of oil by now. Well, that may have been an exaggeration. We will never run out of oil. Eventually, it will be too expensive to bring out of the ground. So while we will have oil under ground, WE, meaning those with empty gas tanks, will not.
I was speaking of M. King Hubbert. He said US oil production would peak in 1970 and then fall. That was over 38 years ago. We should be out by now. While Hubbert was correct in his claim, his dates and reasoning were way off. It's not because we have run out of oil as he predicted, but because environmentalists have done whatever they can to curtail US energy production (not just oil!).
We need to be working on non-oil based energy solutions right now. We need to be doing them all, and have some diversity in what powers society. Those who think the "unconventional sources" such as tar sands and oil shale are the silver bullet are sadly mistaken.
I agree 100%. However, until those resources are available, I say we should use the resources we currently have. Invest in renewables. Invest in bio fuels. Invest in solar, wind and nuclear. Invest in efficiency. Do ALL of this AND drill for oil so that those of us who are poor can still afford to take our kids to school, ourselves to work and maybe even take that family vacation every couple of years until we have reliable alternative sources of energy.
Flat in comparison to what? Here [indexmundi.com] is a graph of US oil consumption for the last 25 years, sure doesn't look flat to me. It looks like we have increased our consumption nearly every year.
See the graph titled Us Energy Consumption 1949-2003. The graph shows that our consumption is relatively flat from 1973 on, especially when compared to the projections or price of oil.
THIS table shows that our use of fossil fuels has actually decreased from 2004 to 2006.
A report from the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE) shows that U.S. energy consumption (as measured per dollar of economic output) will be slashed by the end of 2008 to half of what it was in 1970 from 18,000 British thermal units (Btus) to about 8,900 Btus.
Moving along...
Also, I've heard many predictions that we would be out of oil by now.
[citation needed]
Google "Peak Oil" for all the citations you need. Compare those stories to THIS one:
I am advised by real experts that BP, BG, BHP and others, are making massive investment decisions in the oil and gas sector of this country that have as much as a 25-year horizon. They are the real experts who put their money where their mouths are, and they know that we will not be running out of gas (or oil) in the near future.
CAMBRIDGE, Mass., November 14, 2006 â" In contrast to a widely discussed theory that world oil production will soon reach a peak and go into sharp decline, a new analysis of the subject by Cambridge Energy Research Associates (CERA) finds that the remaining global oil resource base is actually 3.74 trillion barrels -- three times as large as the 1.2 trillion barrels estimated by the theoryâ(TM)s proponents -- and that the âoepeak oilâ argument is based on faulty analysis which could, if accepted, distort critical policy and investment decisions and cloud the debate over the energy future.
I'm not sure what that rant was supposed to achieve. If you have other data then provide it.
If the only data you have is wrong, it's still wrong.
It really doesn't matter. We have no idea what the climate is going to do. All we know for sure is that the climate will change and we will adapt. I'm tired of hearing that we're doomed if the climate gets warmer and we are doomed if it gets cooler. Well, I guess we are doomed because it is going to do one or the other.
The liberal (not necessarily Dem) stance is more nuanced than the conservative idea of "More demand so just drill for more oil."
That's not true. Conservatives are not at all opposed to the idea of more efficiency and even love the idea of alternative fuels. We have no problems making sure our tires are inflated, driving less or driving more efficient autos. BUT, we want more production as well. Conservatives are used to the idea of guns AND butter, in other words, why can't we do both? As we run out of oil, prices will rise naturally as supplies dwindle. This will make alternatives more attractive and the free market will answer. No government intervention is necessary, except to rescend all those laws that put government in the way! (Bans on drilling off shore, shale, and ANWR)
Liberals recognize that fossil fuels are quickly running out and "drilling for more" won't be possible sometime in the future, and that using the fuel as we have been IS environmentally harmful. Conservatives don't care if we run out later, that will be someone else's problem. When you are about to run out of an important and critical resource about the worst thing you can do is ramp up production and burn through your last remaining drops.
Liberals, on the other hand, want NO increase in production. They have done whatever it takes to limit supply, even though demand continues to rise (US demand has been flat, btw. It's the increased demand for growing economies around the world when not met with an increase in supply that is causing the increase in prices). The answer for liberals is to decrease demand. This is done by increasing price. Increasing price is done by limiting supply... and around we go! Unfortunately, we have no control over demand outside our borders. Liberals are dependent on the idea that some alternative fuel will replace fossil fuels in the far future (30+ years).
Also, I've heard many predictions that we would be out of oil by now. Seems like we just keep finding more. We have discovered enough oil in Oil Shale and Tar Sands in the US to last us for about 100 years while we import nothing! Currently, it's just cheaper to import.
Even if we drilled in ANWR and off the coast we would STILL be importing a vast majority of our oil. My objections to those ideas are not based on environmentalism but simple reason. If we could become energy independent by drilling in ANWR I would be the first to say to hell with the wild life, but there just isn't that much oil there when you compare it to how much we use every day. If anything, doing that would simply delay the inevitable and slow our development and adoption of cleaner, sustainable fuel sources.
So! If we all inflate our tires and drive hybrids, we would still import a vast majority of our oil. Why not do both and be happy with importing LESS of our oil. We could even use the money that is made from selling offshore and ANWR oil to fund alternative research to speed it along. That should provide a solution long before we run out. Unfortunately, since there is a minute chance that it may scare a caribou, the Sierra club is against it.
To borrow a phrase I have grown to hate.... citation needed. Every chart I have ever seen showed ever increasing temps until we all DIE.
Perhaps you should cite your images.
The graphs I've seen generally seem to be full of local maxima and minima. A hot period, followed by a cool period but with the overall trend continuing being upwards (ie each hot/cold cycle is warmer than the previous hot/cold cycle).
The El Nino and La Nina temperature fluctuations seem to be fairly well understood.
Ten years is not that long a time in terms of geographical-scale phenomena. It's pointless to look at the last ten years outside the context of the last 100.
BZZZZZZT! Try again.
Figures on this page were prepared by Dr. Makiko Sato. Please address questions about the figures to Dr. Sato or to Dr. James Hansen.
Don't believe anything with James Hansen's name on it. Let's see what we can find on his Wikipedia page: Hansen was trained in physics and astronomy in the space science program of Dr. James Van Allen at the University of Iowa. (Funny, I don't see Climatology or even Meteorology on there)
Hansen was elected to the National Academy of Sciences in 1996[7] and he received a $250,000 Heinz Environment Award[8] for his research on global warming in 2001. (Heinze, Heinze, Heinze? Where have I heard that name. Oh, yeah, I remember. She was that moonbat freak who was married to that Herman Munster Senator who ran for president this last go-round. She is an extreme liberal, right? So, liberals paid Hansen? Isn't that the same thing as scientists who are paid by big oil companies? Why is Hansen credible, but the guys paid by big oil are not?)
More from his
wiki
page:
Correcting Climate Record Database
In August 2007 statistician Stephen McIntyre noticed that many U.S. temperature records from the Historical Climatology Network (USHCN) displayed a discontinuity around the year 2000....
In a website commentary[33], Hansen indicated that he felt that Fox [News] and the Washington Times, among others, had overreacted to this mistake, stating that they had "gone bananas." Hansen quoted the United States Founding Fathers and a Native American mystic and argued that "The deceit behind the attempts to discredit evidence of climate change reveals matters of importance. This deceit has a clear purpose: to confuse the public about the status of knowledge of global climate change, thus delaying effective action to mitigate climate change", and that "The contrarians will be remembered as court jesters. There is no point to joust with court jesters... The real deal is this: the âroyaltyâ(TM) controlling the court, the ones with the power, the ones with the ability to make a difference, with the ability to change our course, the ones who will live in infamy if we pass the tipping points, are the captains of industry, CEOs in fossil fuel companies such as EXXON/Mobil, automobile manufacturers, utilities, all of the leaders who have placed short-term profit above the fate of the planet and the well-being of our children."
[edit] Statement About Extreme Scenarios
A controversy[citation needed] over his support for "objective" and "realistic" climate scenarios centers on what critics call a justification for "extreme" scenarios in this quote:
"Emphasis on extreme scenarios may have been appropriate at one time, when the public and decision-makers were relatively unaware of the global warming issue, and energy sources such as âoesynfuelsâ, shale oil and tar sands were receiving strong consideration. Now, however, the need is for demonstrably objective climate forcing scenarios consistent with what is realistic under current conditions. Scenarios tha
Oh man, I am going to try and resist checking this thread later on...
Climate change denial has got to be the (second) largest example of cognitive dissonance and self-deception in history. Let's hope reason and logic come back into fashion soon.
Spoken by someone who is using an electrically power machine to post on the Internet. You know, producing electricity releases carbon right? Until you are willing to live in a unabomber style hut, I don't believe you are taking this seriously. Why should I?
And before you tell me you are running you computer using gerbils on a treadmill or something, that electricity could have been used to offset someone else's coal-fired electric computer.
But what will I do with all my "Gore 2012" buttons?
Ha.
Still, remember that the Gore stance is roughly (yeah, it's exaggerated, but roughly) in line with the science.
The global warming platform from the Republican party is to shoot into the air and yell "yeeehaww!" a bunch.
Maybe so, but gas prices aren't $4.00 a gallon because rednecks shot their guns. What you are paying at the pump is the direct result of environmentalist's policies fed by the FUD spread by AlGore.
And before anyone tells me that increased production won't bring down price, please review your Jr High school textbooks where it explains supply and demand and tell me what it says happens when supply is limited.
(BTW, insinuating that Republicans are rednecks is no different than insinuating that Democrats are communist hippies. Since race is not involved, I can't call it racism, but I can certainly call it bigotry.)
I'm not going to argue the differences between the two Bush administrations. The main point I was trying to make is that neither Bush is or was a tyrant. Saying so is an insult to the millions of people world wide who truly live under tyrants.
Sure, if Nvidia tried selling x86 chips in the US or Europe, the company would get its ass sued off. But what about China? What about India? What about the third world? Merely because Intel has a rock solid patent portfolio in the US does not mean diddly squat in Bangladesh.
It still matters in American courts as they are both American companies.
That's what I was wondering. What if nVidia buys VIA? Would they be able to use VIA's license? I remember reading once, many moons ago that part of the licensing agreement prevented it from transferred when and if a company was sold. However, I see no reason why nVidia couldn't just "license" their chip design to VIA.
I believe it's called waterboarding in the Bush administration.
Why does everything have to lead back to the Bush Administration. Is your (and the GP's) hatred for Bush so great that there is no room left for true tyrants?
Bush is deserving of immense hatred. He is a true tyrant in his heart.
Given the topic at hand (China), it shows your ignorance as to what a tyrant truly is.
The fact that in two terms he didn't manage to completely dismantle American democracy speaks more to his general inability, and not to his true nature.
Sounds like you are making shit up as you go along. You have no idea what Bush's true nature is. Only Bush himself knows that. Let me try the argument against you. The fact that you are not raping little boys only shows your impotence, not your true nature. My argument is just as valid as yours.
I have not met GW Bush, but being from Houston, I have been at events that his parents attended. My parents have a friend who is bound to a wheel chair and because of this, she has to get seats that are wheelchair accessible. In some venues, these are great seats. Often, we find ourselves sitting close to George HW Bush. HW, as you remember was also president and people like you made similar attacks against him. What I've seen from George HW and Barbara Bush is that they are kind, caring people. I remember at the Houston Rodeo, every time George got up from his seat, he would place his hand on our friend's shoulder, ask how she was doing or some other gesture showing concern. There were no cameras around or press to report his "kindness". He was not running for office or had any other reason to fake concern. He was genuine. I've known people have met our current president under similar circumstances and they have told me that he acted the same. I've known people who work in a restaurant that Bush has eaten at. Often times, he will sneak off to the kitchen to "shoot-the-breeze" with the guys working back there. Things like this show me that when people bash someone relentlessly, they often don't know WTF they are talking about. I place you in that group.
We complain because we still can. We say "Bush is like them (pointing at other tyrants), but we don't want to have government like them."
Would you be happier if we couldn't complain at all? Perhaps that's on the agenda, coming soon to an American reeducation camp near you. Is that what you want?
The fact that we can still complain proves that you are full of shit. When I see you or anyone else hauled off to "reeducation camps" I'll fight with you. But that's not happening, nor will it. Read the following sentence and repeat it until it as necessary: "THERE ARE NO REEDUCATION CAMPS". Your bringing it up shows me that you need to stop reading InforWars.com and put the bong down. You have left reality.
LOL. Oh you think what he has done for America is so great? In comparison to America's political rapists of the past, him, Dick Cheney, Karl Rove and the Republicans are the biggest corporate sellouts to foreign interests and oil barons that we have seen to date. True. No Hitlers. They just have decided to spy on us, try to get us to turn our neighbors in by started up programs like the soviet police did, listen in on our phone conversation, cease property without reason at airports, bus stations and border crossing and will require you to 'show your papers' on demand or be arrested.
So maybe not HITLER but very Hitler-esque.
OK, so your argument is not Godwin, but very Godwin-esque.
The point here is not to argue for or against the Bush administration. The topic is China cheating in the Olympics and using their "Great FireWall of China" to cover it up.
Attempting to insult the Bush administration shows that some are so blinded by their hatred that they can't see anything at all. They try to justify their hatred by exaggerating policies to the point of outright lies. An example would be your "papers please" argument. Has anyone EVER asked you for your "papers" without just cause? Do you even HAVE any "papers"? If not, then you need to check your integrity. Your hatred has blinded you to the truth.
I believe it's called waterboarding in the Bush administration.
Why does everything have to lead back to the Bush Administration. Is your (and the GP's) hatred for Bush so great that there is no room left for true tyrants?
Fortunately, history is not dependent on your memory. HERE
George H.W. Bush
April 13, 1993: Sixteen men, in the alleged employment of Saddam Hussein's Iraq, smuggled a car bomb into Kuwait with the intent of killing Bush as he spoke at Kuwait University. The plot was foiled when Kuwaiti officials found the bomb and arrested the suspected assassins.[13] Bush had left office in January 1993. On June 26, 1993, the U.S. launched a missile attack targeting Baghdad intelligence headquarters in retaliation for the attempted attack against Bush.[14] The Iraqi Intelligence Service, particularly Directorate 14, was accused of being behind the plot.[15]
Clinton's response was late at night to reduce casualties. All he did was kill some janitorial staff who had nothing to do with the plot.
The response should be at most commensurate with the action. Responding to this kind of "threat" that:
a) wasn't all that plausible to begin with and
b) happened over a decade ago
with an insanely costly, unpopular war that has ruined the US economy and US standing abroad and killed tens of thousands of innocent people might just be a tad on the extreme side, no?
a) Does that matter? 9-11 wasn't very plausible to begin with.
b) Ruined the economy? The economy has grown every single quarter since 2002. Granted, the growth has slowed recently, but it really only looks bad by comparison to the explosive growth we had from 2002-2006. Come to think of it, the economy started slowing right after the Democrats took control of congress. Maybe that's just a coincidence. Extreme? I don't think so. Freedom is not free. How many died in the US Revolutionary War? Was that extreme? How many died defending Europe in WWII? The Germans never attacked us. Was that extreme too?
Whose to say that Obama doesn't want to really raise it more, but thanks to the war that W. started to avenge daddy, simply cannot?
I assume by the "avenge daddy" bit that you were referring to the attempted Iraqi assassination of George HW Bush when he visited Kuwait? Do you think it is OK for a foreign government to assassinate US presidents? Do you think that the US should have no response when something like that happens?
IMHO, it makes no difference who a sitting or former president is related to or what party he belongs to. When a foreign government attempts to assassinate one, they gotta go. It's a shame so many of people are such big pussies that they will let true acts of war slide by.
Slashdot Mirror
Perhaps the fact that the same person voiced both characters?
We have a winner.
I would have also accepted, "The voice-over actress's maiden name is 'Talken'!"
Yeah if I wanted to see this crap, I'd go to Digg.
Or you could just go to idle.... or not. It's your choice. No one is forcing you click on idle. Just stay on the main page and no one gets hurt.
Get rid of idle.
Or.... you could just not click on it.
Me neither. I mean, what were they thinking, making her so freakin' awesome and all. Now, I can't stop thinking about her, and all other female video game protagonists have lost their appeal.
Those damn zerg. *dreamy siiiiiigh*
Don't forget about the rogue chick in Diablo. Something about her voice makes her blow Kerrigan away. There is no way that Kerrigan could ever compete with that voice.
(There's a joke in there somewhere)
Unless you want your kids to see grandpa giving it to grandma over the kitchen sink, I wouldn't recommend it.
I am aware of peak oil theories, but nowhere have I seen a theory that predicted "that we would be out of oil by now" (your words). Where are these predictions? Simply typing "peak oil" onto Google does not yield any predictions that the oil will be gone by 2008. You are just beating up your own strawman [wikipedia.org]. Where are these predictions?
HERE:
Apocalypse Yesterday
Predictions of imminent catastrophic depletion are almost as old as the oil industry. An 1855 advertisement for Kierâ(TM)s Rock Oil, a patent medicine whose key ingredient was petroleum bubbling up from salt wells near Pittsburgh, urged customers to buy soon before âoethis wonderful product is depleted from Natureâ(TM)s laboratory.â The ad appeared four years before Pennsylvaniaâ(TM)s first oil well was drilled. In 1919 David White of the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) predicted that world oil production would peak in nine years. And in 1943 the Standard Oil geologist Wallace Pratt calculated that the world would ultimately produce 600 billion barrels of oil. (In fact, more than 1 trillion barrels of oil had been pumped by 2006.)
During the 1970s, the Club of Rome report The Limits to Growth projected that, assuming consumption remained flat, all known oil reserves would be entirely consumed in just 31 years. With exponential growth in consumption, it added, all the known oil reserves would be consumed in 20 years. These dour predictions gained credibility when the Arab oil crisis of 1973 quadrupled prices from $3 to $12 per barrel (from $16 to $48 in 2006 dollars) and when the Iranian oil crisis more than doubled oil prices from $14 per barrel in 1978 to $35 per barrel by 1981 (from $45 to $98 in 2006 dollars).
I found this by typing "Peak Oil" in Google. You do have to go the the second page however as the first two are mostly filled with doomsday scenarios, just like it has always been. I believe that was the point you were trying to refute.
Again, we were not talking about total energy consumption or fossil fuel consumption, your original statement ("US demand has been flat") was in reference to oil, not generic energy. I posted a graph of US oil consumption to refute that statement. Stats showing total energy use do not contradict my assertion that the US petroleum demand has not been flat.
From the first link :
US Oil Consumption.
2004 40.294
2005 40.393
2006 39.958
I also understand that we are using less oil this year than last year and last year was less than '06. Although, I can't find a link for that so you'll have to take my word... or not. Not that it would matter as you didn't look at the links I provided the first time.
I am aware of peak oil theories, but nowhere have I seen a theory that predicted "that we would be out of oil by now" (your words). Where are these predictions? Simply typing "peak oil" onto Google does not yield any predictions that the oil will be gone by 2008. You are just beating up your own strawman [wikipedia.org]. Where are these predictions?
OK, how's this quote:
We cannot long continue our present rate of progress. The first check for our growing prosperity, however, must render our population excessive.
Sound familiar. I hear the same argument made every day. This one is different in that it was made about coal, not oil. Oh, and it was made in 1865. Such statements have been made ever since. Take this one for example:
Scientists have criticised a major review of the world's remaining oil reserves, warning that the end of oil is coming sooner than governments and oil companies are prepared to admit.
That was from an article written in 2007. It says the same thing.
Here is someone how agrees with me:
Oil is a nonrenewable resource. Every gallon of petroleum burned today is unavailable for use by future generations. Over the past 150 years, geologists and other scientists often have predicted that our oil reserves would run dry within a few years. When oil prices rise for an extended period, the news media fill with dire warnings that a crisis is upon us. Environmentalists argue that governments must develop new energy technologies that do not rely on fossil fuels. The facts contradict these harbingers of doom.
Of course, I said we'd be out of oil by now. Well, that may have been an exaggeration. We will never run out of oil. Eventually, it will be too expensive to bring out of the ground. So while we will have oil under ground, WE, meaning those with empty gas tanks, will not.
I was speaking of M. King Hubbert. He said US oil production would peak in 1970 and then fall. That was over 38 years ago. We should be out by now. While Hubbert was correct in his claim, his dates and reasoning were way off. It's not because we have run out of oil as he predicted, but because environmentalists have done whatever they can to curtail US energy production (not just oil!).
links:
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=47276
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/world-oil-supplies-are-set-to-run-out-faster-than-expected-warn-scientists-453068.html
http://www.ncpa.org/pub/bg/bg159/
We need to be working on non-oil based energy solutions right now. We need to be doing them all, and have some diversity in what powers society. Those who think the "unconventional sources" such as tar sands and oil shale are the silver bullet are sadly mistaken.
I agree 100%. However, until those resources are available, I say we should use the resources we currently have. Invest in renewables. Invest in bio fuels. Invest in solar, wind and nuclear. Invest in efficiency. Do ALL of this AND drill for oil so that those of us who are poor can still afford to take our kids to school, ourselves to work and maybe even take that family vacation every couple of years until we have reliable alternative sources of energy.
Flat in comparison to what? Here [indexmundi.com] is a graph of US oil consumption for the last 25 years, sure doesn't look flat to me. It looks like we have increased our consumption nearly every year.
See the graph titled Us Energy Consumption 1949-2003. The graph shows that our consumption is relatively flat from 1973 on, especially when compared to the projections or price of oil.
THIS table shows that our use of fossil fuels has actually decreased from 2004 to 2006.
And finally, from HERE:
A report from the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE) shows that U.S. energy consumption (as measured per dollar of economic output) will be slashed by the end of 2008 to half of what it was in 1970 from 18,000 British thermal units (Btus) to about 8,900 Btus.
Moving along...
Also, I've heard many predictions that we would be out of oil by now.
[citation needed]
Google "Peak Oil" for all the citations you need.
Compare those stories to THIS one:
I am advised by real experts that BP, BG, BHP and others, are making massive investment decisions in the oil and gas sector of this country that have as much as a 25-year horizon. They are the real experts who put their money where their mouths are, and they know that we will not be running out of gas (or oil) in the near future.
And THIS one:
CAMBRIDGE, Mass., November 14, 2006 â" In contrast to a widely discussed theory that world oil production will soon reach a peak and go into sharp decline, a new analysis of the subject by Cambridge Energy Research Associates (CERA) finds that the remaining global oil resource base is actually 3.74 trillion barrels -- three times as large as the 1.2 trillion barrels estimated by the theoryâ(TM)s proponents -- and that the âoepeak oilâ argument is based on faulty analysis which could, if accepted, distort critical policy and investment decisions and cloud the debate over the energy future.
I'm not sure what that rant was supposed to achieve.
If you have other data then provide it.
If the only data you have is wrong, it's still wrong.
It really doesn't matter. We have no idea what the climate is going to do. All we know for sure is that the climate will change and we will adapt. I'm tired of hearing that we're doomed if the climate gets warmer and we are doomed if it gets cooler. Well, I guess we are doomed because it is going to do one or the other.
The liberal (not necessarily Dem) stance is more nuanced than the conservative idea of "More demand so just drill for more oil."
That's not true. Conservatives are not at all opposed to the idea of more efficiency and even love the idea of alternative fuels. We have no problems making sure our tires are inflated, driving less or driving more efficient autos. BUT, we want more production as well. Conservatives are used to the idea of guns AND butter, in other words, why can't we do both? As we run out of oil, prices will rise naturally as supplies dwindle. This will make alternatives more attractive and the free market will answer. No government intervention is necessary, except to rescend all those laws that put government in the way! (Bans on drilling off shore, shale, and ANWR)
Liberals recognize that fossil fuels are quickly running out and "drilling for more" won't be possible sometime in the future, and that using the fuel as we have been IS environmentally harmful. Conservatives don't care if we run out later, that will be someone else's problem. When you are about to run out of an important and critical resource about the worst thing you can do is ramp up production and burn through your last remaining drops.
Liberals, on the other hand, want NO increase in production. They have done whatever it takes to limit supply, even though demand continues to rise (US demand has been flat, btw. It's the increased demand for growing economies around the world when not met with an increase in supply that is causing the increase in prices). The answer for liberals is to decrease demand. This is done by increasing price. Increasing price is done by limiting supply... and around we go! Unfortunately, we have no control over demand outside our borders. Liberals are dependent on the idea that some alternative fuel will replace fossil fuels in the far future (30+ years).
Also, I've heard many predictions that we would be out of oil by now. Seems like we just keep finding more. We have discovered enough oil in Oil Shale and Tar Sands in the US to last us for about 100 years while we import nothing! Currently, it's just cheaper to import.
Even if we drilled in ANWR and off the coast we would STILL be importing a vast majority of our oil. My objections to those ideas are not based on environmentalism but simple reason. If we could become energy independent by drilling in ANWR I would be the first to say to hell with the wild life, but there just isn't that much oil there when you compare it to how much we use every day. If anything, doing that would simply delay the inevitable and slow our development and adoption of cleaner, sustainable fuel sources.
So! If we all inflate our tires and drive hybrids, we would still import a vast majority of our oil. Why not do both and be happy with importing LESS of our oil. We could even use the money that is made from selling offshore and ANWR oil to fund alternative research to speed it along. That should provide a solution long before we run out. Unfortunately, since there is a minute chance that it may scare a caribou, the Sierra club is against it.
Perhaps you should cite your images.
The graphs I've seen generally seem to be full of local maxima and minima. A hot period, followed by a cool period but with the overall trend continuing being upwards (ie each hot/cold cycle is warmer than the previous hot/cold cycle).
The El Nino and La Nina temperature fluctuations seem to be fairly well understood.
Ten years is not that long a time in terms of geographical-scale phenomena. It's pointless to look at the last ten years outside the context of the last 100.
BZZZZZZT! Try again.
Figures on this page were prepared by Dr. Makiko Sato. Please address questions about the figures to Dr. Sato or to Dr. James Hansen.
Don't believe anything with James Hansen's name on it. Let's see what we can find on his Wikipedia page:
Hansen was trained in physics and astronomy in the space science program of Dr. James Van Allen at the University of Iowa.
(Funny, I don't see Climatology or even Meteorology on there)
Hansen was elected to the National Academy of Sciences in 1996[7] and he received a $250,000 Heinz Environment Award[8] for his research on global warming in 2001.
(Heinze, Heinze, Heinze? Where have I heard that name. Oh, yeah, I remember. She was that moonbat freak who was married to that Herman Munster Senator who ran for president this last go-round. She is an extreme liberal, right? So, liberals paid Hansen? Isn't that the same thing as scientists who are paid by big oil companies? Why is Hansen credible, but the guys paid by big oil are not?)
More from his
wiki
page:
Correcting Climate Record Database
In August 2007 statistician Stephen McIntyre noticed that many U.S. temperature records from the Historical Climatology Network (USHCN) displayed a discontinuity around the year 2000. ...
In a website commentary[33], Hansen indicated that he felt that Fox [News] and the Washington Times, among others, had overreacted to this mistake, stating that they had "gone bananas." Hansen quoted the United States Founding Fathers and a Native American mystic and argued that "The deceit behind the attempts to discredit evidence of climate change reveals matters of importance. This deceit has a clear purpose: to confuse the public about the status of knowledge of global climate change, thus delaying effective action to mitigate climate change", and that "The contrarians will be remembered as court jesters. There is no point to joust with court jesters ... The real deal is this: the âroyaltyâ(TM) controlling the court, the ones with the power, the ones with the ability to make a difference, with the ability to change our course, the ones who will live in infamy if we pass the tipping points, are the captains of industry, CEOs in fossil fuel companies such as EXXON/Mobil, automobile manufacturers, utilities, all of the leaders who have placed short-term profit above the fate of the planet and the well-being of our children."
[edit] Statement About Extreme Scenarios
A controversy[citation needed] over his support for "objective" and "realistic" climate scenarios centers on what critics call a justification for "extreme" scenarios in this quote:
"Emphasis on extreme scenarios may have been appropriate at one time, when the public and decision-makers were relatively unaware of the global warming issue, and energy sources such as âoesynfuelsâ, shale oil and tar sands were receiving strong consideration. Now, however, the need is for demonstrably objective climate forcing scenarios consistent with what is realistic under current conditions. Scenarios tha
Oh man, I am going to try and resist checking this thread later on...
Climate change denial has got to be the (second) largest example of cognitive dissonance and self-deception in history. Let's hope reason and logic come back into fashion soon.
Spoken by someone who is using an electrically power machine to post on the Internet. You know, producing electricity releases carbon right? Until you are willing to live in a unabomber style hut, I don't believe you are taking this seriously. Why should I?
And before you tell me you are running you computer using gerbils on a treadmill or something, that electricity could have been used to offset someone else's coal-fired electric computer.
But what will I do with all my "Gore 2012" buttons?
Ha.
Still, remember that the Gore stance is roughly (yeah, it's exaggerated, but roughly) in line with the science.
The global warming platform from the Republican party is to shoot into the air and yell "yeeehaww!" a bunch.
Maybe so, but gas prices aren't $4.00 a gallon because rednecks shot their guns. What you are paying at the pump is the direct result of environmentalist's policies fed by the FUD spread by AlGore.
And before anyone tells me that increased production won't bring down price, please review your Jr High school textbooks where it explains supply and demand and tell me what it says happens when supply is limited.
(BTW, insinuating that Republicans are rednecks is no different than insinuating that Democrats are communist hippies. Since race is not involved, I can't call it racism, but I can certainly call it bigotry.)
I'm not going to argue the differences between the two Bush administrations. The main point I was trying to make is that neither Bush is or was a tyrant. Saying so is an insult to the millions of people world wide who truly live under tyrants.
Sure, if Nvidia tried selling x86 chips in the US or Europe, the company would get its ass sued off. But what about China? What about India? What about the third world? Merely because Intel has a rock solid patent portfolio in the US does not mean diddly squat in Bangladesh.
It still matters in American courts as they are both American companies.
Does VIA has a license to make x86 processors?
That's what I was wondering. What if nVidia buys VIA? Would they be able to use VIA's license? I remember reading once, many moons ago that part of the licensing agreement prevented it from transferred when and if a company was sold. However, I see no reason why nVidia couldn't just "license" their chip design to VIA.
I believe it's called waterboarding in the Bush administration.
Why does everything have to lead back to the Bush Administration. Is your (and the GP's) hatred for Bush so great that there is no room left for true tyrants?
Bush is deserving of immense hatred. He is a true tyrant in his heart.
Given the topic at hand (China), it shows your ignorance as to what a tyrant truly is.
The fact that in two terms he didn't manage to completely dismantle American democracy speaks more to his general inability, and not to his true nature.
Sounds like you are making shit up as you go along. You have no idea what Bush's true nature is. Only Bush himself knows that. Let me try the argument against you. The fact that you are not raping little boys only shows your impotence, not your true nature. My argument is just as valid as yours.
I have not met GW Bush, but being from Houston, I have been at events that his parents attended. My parents have a friend who is bound to a wheel chair and because of this, she has to get seats that are wheelchair accessible. In some venues, these are great seats. Often, we find ourselves sitting close to George HW Bush. HW, as you remember was also president and people like you made similar attacks against him. What I've seen from George HW and Barbara Bush is that they are kind, caring people. I remember at the Houston Rodeo, every time George got up from his seat, he would place his hand on our friend's shoulder, ask how she was doing or some other gesture showing concern. There were no cameras around or press to report his "kindness". He was not running for office or had any other reason to fake concern. He was genuine. I've known people have met our current president under similar circumstances and they have told me that he acted the same. I've known people who work in a restaurant that Bush has eaten at. Often times, he will sneak off to the kitchen to "shoot-the-breeze" with the guys working back there. Things like this show me that when people bash someone relentlessly, they often don't know WTF they are talking about. I place you in that group.
We complain because we still can. We say "Bush is like them (pointing at other tyrants), but we don't want to have government like them."
Would you be happier if we couldn't complain at all? Perhaps that's on the agenda, coming soon to an American reeducation camp near you. Is that what you want?
The fact that we can still complain proves that you are full of shit. When I see you or anyone else hauled off to "reeducation camps" I'll fight with you. But that's not happening, nor will it. Read the following sentence and repeat it until it as necessary: "THERE ARE NO REEDUCATION CAMPS". Your bringing it up shows me that you need to stop reading InforWars.com and put the bong down. You have left reality.
LOL. Oh you think what he has done for America is so great? In comparison to America's political rapists of the past, him, Dick Cheney, Karl Rove and the Republicans are the biggest corporate sellouts to foreign interests and oil barons that we have seen to date. True. No Hitlers. They just have decided to spy on us, try to get us to turn our neighbors in by started up programs like the soviet police did, listen in on our phone conversation, cease property without reason at airports, bus stations and border crossing and will require you to 'show your papers' on demand or be arrested.
So maybe not HITLER but very Hitler-esque.
OK, so your argument is not Godwin, but very Godwin-esque.
The point here is not to argue for or against the Bush administration. The topic is China cheating in the Olympics and using their "Great FireWall of China" to cover it up.
Attempting to insult the Bush administration shows that some are so blinded by their hatred that they can't see anything at all. They try to justify their hatred by exaggerating policies to the point of outright lies. An example would be your "papers please" argument. Has anyone EVER asked you for your "papers" without just cause? Do you even HAVE any "papers"? If not, then you need to check your integrity. Your hatred has blinded you to the truth.
I believe it's called waterboarding in the Bush administration.
Why does everything have to lead back to the Bush Administration. Is your (and the GP's) hatred for Bush so great that there is no room left for true tyrants?
A) I don't remember that incident at all.
Fortunately, history is not dependent on your memory.
HERE
George H.W. Bush
April 13, 1993: Sixteen men, in the alleged employment of Saddam Hussein's Iraq, smuggled a car bomb into Kuwait with the intent of killing Bush as he spoke at Kuwait University. The plot was foiled when Kuwaiti officials found the bomb and arrested the suspected assassins.[13] Bush had left office in January 1993. On June 26, 1993, the U.S. launched a missile attack targeting Baghdad intelligence headquarters in retaliation for the attempted attack against Bush.[14] The Iraqi Intelligence Service, particularly Directorate 14, was accused of being behind the plot.[15]
Clinton's response was late at night to reduce casualties. All he did was kill some janitorial staff who had nothing to do with the plot.
The response should be at most commensurate with the action. Responding to this kind of "threat" that:
a) wasn't all that plausible to begin with and
b) happened over a decade ago
with an insanely costly, unpopular war that has ruined the US economy and US standing abroad and killed tens of thousands of innocent people might just be a tad on the extreme side, no?
a) Does that matter? 9-11 wasn't very plausible to begin with.
b) Ruined the economy? The economy has grown every single quarter since 2002. Granted, the growth has slowed recently, but it really only looks bad by comparison to the explosive growth we had from 2002-2006. Come to think of it, the economy started slowing right after the Democrats took control of congress. Maybe that's just a coincidence.
Extreme? I don't think so. Freedom is not free. How many died in the US Revolutionary War? Was that extreme? How many died defending Europe in WWII? The Germans never attacked us. Was that extreme too?
So what about the CIA's attempts at assassinating Castro, Ngo Dinh Diem, Rafael Trujillo, et. al.?
Well, if Castro wants to overthrow the Kennedy administration, then I guess he'd be in his right.
Whose to say that Obama doesn't want to really raise it more, but thanks to the war that W. started to avenge daddy, simply cannot?
I assume by the "avenge daddy" bit that you were referring to the attempted Iraqi assassination of George HW Bush when he visited Kuwait? Do you think it is OK for a foreign government to assassinate US presidents? Do you think that the US should have no response when something like that happens?
IMHO, it makes no difference who a sitting or former president is related to or what party he belongs to. When a foreign government attempts to assassinate one, they gotta go. It's a shame so many of people are such big pussies that they will let true acts of war slide by.
I'm voting Libertarian when I can and then voting against the incumbent - regardless of what party he belongs to.
If you vote Libertarian, aren't you already voting against the incumbent?