That's exactly what it boils down to. The problem starts when high prices try to force that change within a few years. Conversely, a reasonable tax policy could have gently pushed for this change over decades without hurting anyone. Now the US are at the mercy of fluctuating oil prices while Europe asks what the big deal is.
You forget one point though: High taxes decouple the consumer price from the market price. In case of extreme spikes government can even temporarily reduce taxes, which has been done. Higher taxes cause the economy to use less which reduces the dependency on oil. Bottom line, Europe is much better prepared for oil price hikes. Actually the oil price spike from Libya, which supplied much oil to Europe, was hardly noticed. Oil prices will continue to rise since production can't keep up with demand, especially opening new wells compared to the decline of existing ones.
And it failed right when we were standing round it in a group so nobody would see it printing the latest user account/password list we had "found." Oops. We ripped the paper out, canceled the print job and got out of there.
I hacked SPICE in FORTRAN and added some Pascal code for macros and realtime graphics display on a Tektronix tube on a VAX circa '82. Good times. Long nights in the CS lab with coffee, cookies and pizza.
Amen. And if I see any annoying ad from anybody about any product, I will remember it and never buy that product again. That applies especially to ads on banners towed by airplanes up and down the beach and other utterly energy wasting and nature despoiling methods of advertising. I used to like Bacardi. Too bad.
Discussing this is about as productive as discussing the facts about the moon landing that didn't happen, that the government sprays people out of jet airplanes, that 9/11 was a government job or that evolution doesn't happen. I used to do that but stopped because it's a waste of time. People like you are either caught in their closed bubble universe or trained shills. Go on realclimate and discuss the science with the experts. Been there done that.
It's not about the income. It's lying about the science that I don't like. Making science up without any data to back it up. If there was any data that contradicts AGW then there would be a serious discussion in scientific circles about it. There is no serious discussion. So that leaves two possibilities: 1. There is no data that contradicts AGW and the whole discussion is political. 2. There is data but all serious scientists are part of a global conspiracy to keep you from driving your SUV, and the fact that AGW denialism is only prevalent in the US (with a little in the UK, Canada and Australia) is purely accidental.
I'm just saying that he's a very successful guy, and those people generally have several sources of income. And regarding data... there is none that contradicts AGW. But keep on with your conspiracy theories. You're in good company. The only hardcore denier I know also believes in chemtrails.
I don't assume they are on the payroll of those companies, there is hard evidence. It's been known than Lindzen was paid by Exxon, and the Hearyland leaks show that they paid him well too. And he's not the only case.
US oil peaked in the early 1970s. North Sea oil peaked in the 90s. World oil production has been peaking since 2005. Saudia Arabia is probably peaking right now. Yes there is/was more than one peak. Go read about Hubbert theory.
My bias is that I understand the science, have been following AGW since the 80s, and watched the denialist movement start when the whole thing turned from a scientific into a political issue that might actually be detrimental to certain industries. There are practically no knowledgeable scientists, i.e. climatologists, who question the overall science of AGW. The few that do are on the payroll of Exxon, the Heartland Institute and the like.
We make systems that have up to 200+TB storage and had to do emergency qualifications of replacement disk drives because the drive vendors told us "sorry, can't deliver." That must be because we have long term purchasing agreements, i.e. prenegotiated prices. I think the bastards rather sold at 3x prices to Newegg & co.
I can't help but wonder if there are hordes of AGW deniers with sockpuppets at the ready. The way anybody criticizing them gets modded down quickly first and then recovers slowly by getting modded back up by reasonable people suggests this.
Slashdot Mirror
That's exactly what it boils down to. The problem starts when high prices try to force that change within a few years.
Conversely, a reasonable tax policy could have gently pushed for this change over decades without hurting anyone. Now the US are at the mercy of fluctuating oil prices while Europe asks what the big deal is.
You forget one point though: High taxes decouple the consumer price from the market price. In case of extreme spikes government can even temporarily reduce taxes, which has been done. Higher taxes cause the economy to use less which reduces the dependency on oil. Bottom line, Europe is much better prepared for oil price hikes. Actually the oil price spike from Libya, which supplied much oil to Europe, was hardly noticed.
Oil prices will continue to rise since production can't keep up with demand, especially opening new wells compared to the decline of existing ones.
And it failed right when we were standing round it in a group so nobody would see it printing the latest user account/password list we had "found." Oops. We ripped the paper out, canceled the print job and got out of there.
I hacked SPICE in FORTRAN and added some Pascal code for macros and realtime graphics display on a Tektronix tube on a VAX circa '82.
Good times. Long nights in the CS lab with coffee, cookies and pizza.
Come on, a voice talking to you over miles! That's clearly geeky, in a late 19th century way.
Being genuinely stupid is clearly something that a part of the electorate can identify with.
Frothing, not foaming.
Remember Santorum frothes.
Amen.
And if I see any annoying ad from anybody about any product, I will remember it and never buy that product again.
That applies especially to ads on banners towed by airplanes up and down the beach and other utterly energy wasting and nature despoiling methods of advertising. I used to like Bacardi. Too bad.
You can double it :)
I'll bet over 50% of programmers run parallel makes.
Discussing this is about as productive as discussing the facts about the moon landing that didn't happen, that the government sprays people out of jet airplanes, that 9/11 was a government job or that evolution doesn't happen.
I used to do that but stopped because it's a waste of time. People like you are either caught in their closed bubble universe or trained shills. Go on realclimate and discuss the science with the experts. Been there done that.
It's not about the income. It's lying about the science that I don't like. Making science up without any data to back it up.
If there was any data that contradicts AGW then there would be a serious discussion in scientific circles about it. There is no serious discussion. So that leaves two possibilities:
1. There is no data that contradicts AGW and the whole discussion is political.
2. There is data but all serious scientists are part of a global conspiracy to keep you from driving your SUV, and the fact that AGW denialism is only prevalent in the US (with a little in the UK, Canada and Australia) is purely accidental.
Your choice. I've made mine.
I'm just saying that he's a very successful guy, and those people generally have several sources of income.
And regarding data... there is none that contradicts AGW.
But keep on with your conspiracy theories. You're in good company. The only hardcore denier I know also believes in chemtrails.
He got a million in prizes alone. Sooner or later he'll get a Nobel. I guess you'll be jealous even then.
Please cite a climate scientist who made millions from promoting global warming.
I don't assume they are on the payroll of those companies, there is hard evidence. It's been known than Lindzen was paid by Exxon, and the Hearyland leaks show that they paid him well too. And he's not the only case.
Dow acquired Union Carbide so they acquired the responsibilities too.
Sue the birds for using copyrighted content all the time.
Damn pirates.
If it is everywhere; wouldn't it be connected to everything?
US oil peaked in the early 1970s. North Sea oil peaked in the 90s. World oil production has been peaking since 2005. Saudia Arabia is probably peaking right now.
Yes there is/was more than one peak. Go read about Hubbert theory.
My bias is that I understand the science, have been following AGW since the 80s, and watched the denialist movement start when the whole thing turned from a scientific into a political issue that might actually be detrimental to certain industries.
There are practically no knowledgeable scientists, i.e. climatologists, who question the overall science of AGW. The few that do are on the payroll of Exxon, the Heartland Institute and the like.
I have seen a pattern.
And the people who don't believe in AGW have no scientific arguments because they don't know the science.
It's a simple tradeoff and people will have to move from the 'burbs back to the centers where the jobs are. Go read some James Kunstler.
We make systems that have up to 200+TB storage and had to do emergency qualifications of replacement disk drives because the drive vendors told us "sorry, can't deliver." That must be because we have long term purchasing agreements, i.e. prenegotiated prices. I think the bastards rather sold at 3x prices to Newegg & co.
I can't help but wonder if there are hordes of AGW deniers with sockpuppets at the ready. The way anybody criticizing them gets modded down quickly first and then recovers slowly by getting modded back up by reasonable people suggests this.