I know this is piling on, but

[j2k4]

http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/03/30/nasa-data-worse-than-climategate-data/

No response needed, although all of you anti-Foxnews people won't be able to resist, I'm sure.

This story probably won't appear elsewhere, 'cuz it doesn't square with global-warming fans.

Tell you what:

5 cyber-bucks to anyone who finds non-Foxnews linkage...

[clocker]

"Global warming fans" implies that belief is a matter of choice instead of science/fact.
Given that Fox News only recently came around to the idea of a round earth, their skepticism does not surprise me.

The story may not appear anywhere else because it is meaningless to anyone with a normal head/rectum arrangement.

[devilsadvocate]

it is meaningless to anyone with a normal head/rectum arrangement.

In years to come that will be placed alongside great quotes from Gandhi, Churchill or Confucius

[j2k4]

"Global warming fans" implies that belief is a matter of choice instead of science/fact.
Given that Fox News only recently came around to the idea of a round earth, their skepticism does not surprise me.

The story may not appear anywhere else because it is meaningless to anyone with a normal head/rectum arrangement.

The "science/fact" you refer to is the precise body of quasi-evidence whence comes the entire "conclusion" of man-made global-warming.

It has taken a fatal beating recently, and this latest is just a capper.



it is meaningless to anyone with a normal head/rectum arrangement.

In years to come that will be placed alongside great quotes from Gandhi, Churchill or Confucius

That is, beyond a shadow of doubt, the greatest feat of overt ass-kissing in the entire history of this board.

Well done.

[clocker]

The "science/fact" you refer to is the precise body of quasi-evidence whence comes the entire "conclusion" of man-made global-warming.

It has taken a fatal beating recently, and this latest is just a capper.


How is it that a man from the eighteenth century manages to post on the internet?

[j2k4]

The "science/fact" you refer to is the precise body of quasi-evidence whence comes the entire "conclusion" of man-made global-warming.

It has taken a fatal beating recently, and this latest is just a capper.


How is it that a man from the eighteenth century manages to post on the internet?

Don't know; ask that guy kneeling behind you.

Here's a question:

How did you become so irretrievably enamored of the idea of Global Warming and, in turn, the idea that Man's purported role in it out-weighs that of Mother Nature?

[bigboab]

How is it that a man from the eighteenth century manages to post on the internet?


Forward thinking.

[clocker]

How did you become so irretrievably enamored of the idea of Global Warming
Pretty much the same way I became "enamored" with the concept that 2 + 2 = 4...scientific evidence.

and, in turn, the idea that Man's purported role in it out-weighs that of Mother Nature?
Because the body of scientific evidence overwhelmingly supports it.

Seems to me the nub of the question comes down to "What if I'm wrong?".
If I'm wrong, we end up with a cleaner environment, widespread use of sustainable alternative energy and continuation of life more-or-less as we know it.

If you're wrong, we're fucked.
Jesus had better ride in on his T-rex and rapture our asses outta here...which seems to be your plan for the future, a plan that neatly relieves you of any responsibility to act.

You are apparently comfortable taking a "let's wait and see" posture, I am not.

[j2k4]

You are entirely wrong as to my stance on the matter.

I believe we should use our resources wisely and, um, conservatively.

Waste no, want not, to the nth degree.

I do not believe we should be silly about it unto bankrupting ourselves and ruining our economy.

It's just that simple; I don't buy the guilt trip that is designed entirely for the purpose of prying open our wallets, while ignoring the excesses of India and China.

[clocker]

We are already bankrupt and our economy is crap...rebuilding on a more sustainable platform would not be so terribly disruptive.

You say "guilt trip", I say "responsible foresight".
Why is our national behavior to be dictated by that of India or China?
Have they become the ideal to which we aspire?

If China and India jumped off a cliff, would you follow suit?

[j2k4]

We are already bankrupt and our economy is crap...rebuilding on a more sustainable platform would not be so terribly disruptive.

You say "guilt trip", I say "responsible foresight".
Why is our national behavior to be dictated by that of India or China?
Have they become the ideal to which we aspire?

If China and India jumped off a cliff, would you follow suit?

So then-

We are so fucked, why not make it immeasurably worse, and no fair leaving that trail of bread-crumbs, AND-

While India and China get well stomping the ever-loving fuck out of us economically, we shackle them to the nearest solid object so that we may jump off the cliff all by ourselves?

No, thanks.

[clocker]

Jesus, how narrow minded can you be?

You think we're capable of competing with China and India?
Where does the vast workforce come from?
Should we repeal 50 years of environmental stewardship and turn our country into a cesspool so we can go head to head with the Chinese making useless electronic trinkets?

What a bright and alluring future you envision.

"Daddy, when I grow up I want to be a Chinese factory worker...just like you."

[devilsadvocate]

Where is the proof, theories don't count, that implementing clean changes will bankrupt us? It's just the natural cycle of progress.

The invention of the tractor put a lot of farmhands out of work (not to mention horses). One form of employment fell off and another started up.

As dirty jobs fall, clean ones will replace them.

Again I'm amazed at your old style labor union anti change stance.

[j2k4]

Jesus, how narrow minded can you be?

You think we're capable of competing with China and India?
Where does the vast workforce come from?
Should we repeal 50 years of environmental stewardship and turn our country into a cesspool so we can go head to head with the Chinese making useless electronic trinkets?

What a bright and alluring future you envision.

"Daddy, when I grow up I want to be a Chinese factory worker...just like you."


Where is the proof, theories don't count, that implementing clean changes will bankrupt us? It's just the natural cycle of progress.

The invention of the tractor put a lot of farmhands out of work (not to mention horses). One form of employment fell off and another started up.

As dirty jobs fall, clean ones will replace them.

Again I'm amazed at your old style labor union style anti change stance.

Oh, for fuck's sake - you two are thick as a whale omelet.

I'm going to bed.

[clocker]

Being egregiously wrong makes Kev tired apparently.

Get some rest so you can arise tomorrow and again deny global warming, Obama's birthplace and the benefits of health care.

It's a tough job and must really tucker you out.

[devilsadvocate]

Rumor has it the "assumptions" fox made in the article aren't exactly accurate. Not just on the supposed "quote" admission about data from the NASA guy but also on the "climategate" story.

[j2k4]

Rumor has it the "assumptions" fox made in the article aren't exactly accurate. Not just on the supposed "quote" admission about data from the NASA guy but also on the "climategate" story.

No wonder you're so continually off-track...everything you believe is fueled by "rumor".

[clocker]

Unlike Fox, which is fueled by fantasy.

[999969999]

The question that keeps going through my mind about man-made global warming is this...

We know there were ice ages in the past, before humans ever even built a factory. What made the ice melt away back then? How do we know for certain that whatever made the ice melt away back then is not responsible for global warming today?

[j2k4]

The question that keeps going through my mind about man-made global warming is this...

We know there were ice ages in the past, before humans ever even built a factory. What made the ice melt away back then? How do we know for certain that whatever made the ice melt away back then is not responsible for global warming today?

You raise an excellent point, and that's not fair.

In any case, whatever the answer to that question may be, it is under the proprietary control of the global-warming gang.

To request such relevant information is to risk ridicule, and (soon, potentially) legal censure.

[clocker]

The question that keeps going through my mind about man-made global warming is this...

We know there were ice ages in the past, before humans ever even built a factory. What made the ice melt away back then? How do we know for certain that whatever made the ice melt away back then is not responsible for global warming today?


You raise an excellent point, and that's not fair.


You only think it's an excellent point because you treasure your ignorance and prejudices over even a basic understanding of the problem.

Like many on the right, an issue must be reduced to the level of a third grader for you to grapple with it and by doing so, the nuances which might provide your answers are distilled away.

If ignorance is bliss, you two must be perpetually ecstatic.

[j2k4]

Well, answer the man's question, then, you AlGore sycophant.

Do it with science; enlighten us...relieve us of our ignorance...show us the light...

[clocker]

Oh, like I didn't see that coming.

What I find most ironic about the right wing's denial of global warming is that it's predicated on the fact that the overwhelming bulk of evidence is wrong/unconvincing.
The scientists behind it have an agenda or are simply stupid.

Now for the irony...
When scientists say that we can safely/productively drill for oil in say, the Alaskan Wildlife Preserve, or nuclear power is safe/economical...why, that's just great, "Look, science supports my position!".

In other words, you cherry pick the situation where science is beneficial to your preconceptions and dismiss it when it's not.

There's no point in offering any data to support global warming because your objections are all based on economic considerations, the science is just an inconvenient (see what I did there?) obstacle, easily overcome by demonizing the "elite" who produce the data.

[999969999]

You didn't even try to answer my question.

[clocker]

You didn't even try to answer my question.
OK, here's the kindergarten explanation (it's assumed that anyone beyond that level would have used Google to find the info).

No one denies that there has been a naturally occurring cycle of warming/freezing.
Well, no one besides evangelicals who believe the earth is only six thousand years old.
The difference now is that our impact has increased the severity of the cycle, potentially beyond the ability of nature to maintain balance.

Now, let's make it even simpler.
Divorce our irrefutable impact on the environment from long term climate change considerations altogether.

Even if our current course doesn't kill us, is it still acceptable to pump millions of tons of crap into the atmosphere?
Is it OK to use the oceans as a dumping ground and continue degrading the ozone layer to the point that you need SPF 50 just to get the morning newspaper?

Is it logical to rely on an energy source- oil- that is as imminently finite, requires such a convoluted supply chain (with all the national security implications attached) and inherently inefficient?

Wonder about that.

[999969999]

You didn't even try to answer my question.
OK, here's the kindergarten explanation (it's assumed that anyone beyond that level would have used Google to find the info).

No one denies that there has been a naturally occurring cycle of warming/freezing.
Well, no one besides evangelicals who believe the earth is only six thousand years old.
The difference now is that our impact has increased the severity of the cycle, potentially beyond the ability of nature to maintain balance.

Now, let's make it even simpler.
Divorce our irrefutable impact on the environment from long term climate change considerations altogether.

Even if our current course doesn't kill us, is it still acceptable to pump millions of tons of crap into the atmosphere?
Is it OK to use the oceans as a dumping ground and continue degrading the ozone layer to the point that you need SPF 50 just to get the morning newspaper?

Is it logical to rely on an energy source- oil- that is as imminently finite, requires such a convoluted supply chain (with all the national security implications attached) and inherently inefficient?

Wonder about that.


Global warming has become like a religion for a large number of people and when anyone tries to question their beliefs in any way they feel threatened and react much like a religious person by lashing out angrily and trying to demonize and humiliate anyone who would dare question their faith.


You jumped to the conclusion that I am an evangelical. I'm not even religious. I don't believe there is a God, and I don't believe in any afterlife.



What I do believe is that humans are an insignificant speck on a huge planet that is dwarfed by the size of our sun. Have you ever seen a model of our solar system, and how small the earth is in comparison to the sun? Well, I think that if you looking for what is warming up the earth, you might want to look at the sun. It's what controls how hot and how cool the earth will get. It goes through cycles of its own and we have no control over it.


By your own admission, there are natural cycles that cause warming and freezing of the earth. I would love to see the experiments and the scientific method being used to exclude these variables.


All the global warming enthusiasts seem to think that if we all lower our standard of living back to the 1800s, we might be able to somehow change the climate. No thanks. I'd rather take my chances with the possibility of global warming-- which may not be as disasterous as you predict-- than lower my standard of living back to that of my ancestors. Hell, the weather forecasters can't predict weather a couple of weeks out accurately, and yet you believe that we can predict the weather 50 or more years into the future. It takes a lot of faith to believe in the religion of Global Warming. I don't have that faith.

If you want to voluntarily lower your standard of living in the superstitious hope that you can change this huge planet, then go ahead and knock yourself out, but don't expect me to follow your religion.

[jibblet]

For an interesting example of how strongly we influence the environment, do a google search for "global dimming bbc" and read the articles on the BBC website.

Basically, after Sept 9/11 all flights were cancelled in the US, and this had a dramatic effect on our climate. Easy to read and simple proof.

@999969999 - What made you suddenly start talking about lowering our standards of living to combat climate change? As far as I am aware, our standards of living can only improve...

[clocker]

You jumped to the conclusion that I am an evangelical. I'm not even religious. I don't believe there is a God, and I don't believe in any afterlife.
No, I did not.




What I do believe is that humans are an insignificant speck on a huge planet that is dwarfed by the size of our sun. Have you ever seen a model of our solar system, and how small the earth is in comparison to the sun? Well, I think that if you looking for what is warming up the earth, you might want to look at the sun. It's what controls how hot and how cool the earth will get. It goes through cycles of its own and we have no control over it.
I'm sure you think you're making a telling point here.
You are not.



By your own admission, there are natural cycles that cause warming and freezing of the earth. I would love to see the experiments and the scientific method being used to exclude these variables.
If you'd "love to see" how the scientists arrived at their conclusions, quit dicking around here and start googling.
It ain't terribly difficult to find this info.



All the global warming enthusiasts seem to think that if we all lower our standard of living back to the 1800s, we might be able to somehow change the climate. No thanks. I'd rather take my chances with the possibility of global warming-- which may not be as disasterous as you predict-- than lower my standard of living back to that of my ancestors. Hell, the weather forecasters can't predict weather a couple of weeks out accurately, and yet you believe that we can predict the weather 50 or more years into the future. It takes a lot of faith to believe in the religion of Global Warming. I don't have that faith.

If you want to voluntarily lower your standard of living in the superstitious hope that you can change this huge planet, then go ahead and knock yourself out, but don't expect me to follow your religion.
You are resolutely determined to not only wallow in ignorance but to reinforce it with spurious assumptions.
Sure you aren't an evangelical?

[j2k4]

You are resolutely determined to not only wallow in ignorance but to reinforce it with spurious assumptions.

So what you are saying is you believe the issue has been irrevocably decided, and there is no room for countervailing opinion.

Google me some boiler-plate for that supposition.

Surely you have something better than ridicule to support it?

See, Saul's little book-o-tactics doesn't work so well on the interweb...

[999969999]

For an interesting example of how strongly we influence the environment, do a google search for "global dimming bbc" and read the articles on the BBC website.

Basically, after Sept 9/11 all flights were cancelled in the US, and this had a dramatic effect on our climate. Easy to read and simple proof.

@999969999 - What made you suddenly start talking about lowering our standards of living to combat climate change? As far as I am aware, our standards of living can only improve...

If the green movement prevails, gasoline and other reliable sources of energy will increase in price, in an effort to get us to use less of the supposedly planet killing substance. If I have to spend more on energy, then there will be less money left over to spend on everything else. Thus, my standard of living will fall.

Like I said, I am more than willing to take my chances with global warming. I think there is a very good chance it won't be a big deal at all.

I'm for freedom of choice. If someone wants to be green and deprive themselves, I say that's fine with me. But don't try to take away my freedoms. Don't try to make me swallow the global warming dogma and lower my standard of living for some pie in the sky idealism.

As for Clocker... you love to get all angry and hurl insults at me, because you believe in the global warming religion and its dogma and you can't stand the fact that I'm not a believer. It's not good enough for you to just lower your own standard of living, you want to bring everyone else's standard of living down with you. You figure if you have to suffer, then so should everyone else.

Science should always be open to debate. Otherwise it is no better than religous superstition.

Here are a few books that I found interesting...

Cool it: the skeptical environmentalist's guide to global warming By Bjørn Lomborg.

The Deniers: The World Renowned Scientists Who Stood Up Against Global Warming Hysteria, Political Persecution, and Fraud**And those who are too fearful to do so. By Lawrence Solomon.

[j2k4]

I prefer the book discussed here:


Warming: An Unstoppable 1,500-Year Cycle

New Book Debunks Greenhouse Fears and Points to Natural 1,500-Year Warming Cycles

NEW YORK, Nov. 9 /PRNewswire/ -- A new book that is bound to be
controversial in public policy and environmental circles says that the
Earth has a moderate, natural warming roughly every 1,500 years caused by a
solar- linked cycle. The current Modern Warming may be mostly due to that
natural cycle and not human activity, say the book's authors, well-known
climate physicist Fred Singer and Hudson Institute economist Dennis Avery.
"Unstoppable Global Warming-Every 1500 Years" (Rowman & Littlefield,
276 pages, $24.95) assembles physical and historical evidence of the
natural climate cycle that ranges from ancient records in Rome, Egypt, and
China; to 12,000 antique paintings in museums; to Vikings' tooth enamel in
Greenland cemeteries; and to high-tech analyses of ice cores, seabed
sediments, tree rings, fossil pollen and cave stalagmites.
"The Romans wrote about growing wine grapes in Britain in the first
century," says Avery, "and then it got too cold during the Dark Ages.
Ancient tax records show the Britons grew their own wine grapes in the 11th
century, during the Medieval Warming, and then it got too cold during the
Little Ice Age. It isn't yet warm enough for wine grapes in today's
Britain. Wine grapes are among the most accurate and sensitive indicators
of temperature and they are telling us about a cycle. They also indicate
that today's warming is not unprecedented."
"We have lots of physical evidence for the 1,500-year cycle," says
Singer. "Yet we don't have physical evidence that human-emitted CO2 is
adding significantly to the natural cycle. The current warming started in
1850, too early to be blamed on industries and autos."
Singer notes that humanity learned of the 1,500-year cycle only
recently, from the first Greenland ice cores brought up in 1983. The cycle
was too long and moderate to be observed by earlier peoples without
thermometers and written records. The Greenland ice cores showed the
1,500-year cycle going back 250,000 years. It raises temperatures at the
latitude of New York and Paris by 1-2 degrees C for centuries at a time,
more at the North and South Poles, with a global average of 0.5 degrees C.
In 1987, the first Antarctic ice core showed the cycle extending back
through the last 400,000 years and four Ice Ages-and demonstrated the cycle
was indeed global.
There is also evidence of the 1,500-year cycle in seabed sediments from
six oceans, in ancient tree rings from around the Northern Hemisphere, in
glacier advances and retreats from Greenland to New Zealand, and in cave
stalagmites from every continent including South Africa. The North American
Pollen Database shows nine complete reorganizations of the continent's
trees and plants in the past 14,000 years, or one every 1,650 years.
"The deepest seabed sediment cores show the cycle has been going on for
at least a million years," says Avery.
Sunspot observations over the past 400 years, along with modern
analysis of carbon and beryllium isotopes, link the 1,500-year cycle to
variations recently detected by satellites in the sun's irradiance.
Antarctic ice studies show global temperatures tracking closely with
atmospheric CO2 levels over the past 400,000 years. However, Singer and
Avery note the studies also show that temperature changes preceded the CO2
changes by about 800 years. Thus, more warming has produced more
atmospheric CO2, rather than more CO2 producing global warming. This makes
sense, say the authors, because the oceans hold vastly more CO2 than the
air, and warming forces water to release some its gases.
Singer and Avery say that the science of the natural cycle runs counter
to what many believe and fear will happen as a result of man-made global
warming:
* Wild species won't become extinct in our warming because they've been
through at least 600 previous warmings, including the Holocene Warming
just 5,000 years ago that was much warmer than today.

* The seas won't rise to drown New York before the next cooling, because
90 percent of the world's remaining ice is in the melt-resistant
Antarctic. Even a 5 degree C warming would decrease its ice mass by only
1.5 percent, over centuries.

* Warming won't bring famine, because it brings what crops like -- longer
growing seasons, more sunlight, and few untimely frosts. More CO2 also
stimulates plants' growth, and enhances their water use efficiency.

"We hope our book will help calm the rampant hysteria about global
warming and the flawed Greenhouse models," emphasizes Avery. "We should be
using our resources and technology to find the best ways to adapt to the
inevitable but moderate warming to come, not to study one climate model
after another, scare people to death, and pass crippling 'environmental'
legislation that would deny the world the economic growth it needs to
overcome poverty, the greatest problem of all."

Dennis Avery
http://profnet.prnewswire.com/Subscriber/ExpertProfile.aspx?ei=52881
Dr. S. Fred Singer
http://profnet.prnewswire.com/Subscriber/ExpertProfile.aspx?ei=52883


The coolest thing about the book is that it is filled with SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE, the kind that utterly refutes Man's culpability in whatever warming trend may actually exist.

[clocker]

If the green movement prevails, gasoline and other reliable sources of energy will increase in price, in an effort to get us to use less of the supposedly planet killing substance. If I have to spend more on energy, then there will be less money left over to spend on everything else. Thus, my standard of living will fall.
What planet have you been living on.
Gas prices have been rising for decades, "green movement" or no.
Oil is hardly a "reliable" source of energy- especially for the US- because we must import the bulk of what we consume and are now competing with India and China for the dwindling supplies that remain.

You will be spending more on energy whether you like it or not.


Like I said, I am more than willing to take my chances with global warming. I think there is a very good chance it won't be a big deal at all.

I'm for freedom of choice. If someone wants to be green and deprive themselves, I say that's fine with me. But don't try to take away my freedoms. Don't try to make me swallow the global warming dogma and lower my standard of living for some pie in the sky idealism.
I'd like to see where you are guaranteed the "freedom" of cheap gas and unfettered consumption.
Every day, these "freedoms" you're so fond of are routinely abridged by overarching societal concerns.
Your "freedom" to rape/murder is (presumably) subsumed by others right to live.
Your "freedom" to jaywalk is constrained so traffic may flow freely.

I think it's just grand that you're willing to take your chances with global warming.
What a brave person you must be.


As for Clocker... you love to get all angry and hurl insults at me, because you believe in the global warming religion and its dogma and you can't stand the fact that I'm not a believer. It's not good enough for you to just lower your own standard of living, you want to bring everyone else's standard of living down with you. You figure if you have to suffer, then so should everyone else.
Not angry...contemptuous.
You are a lazy thinker who has decided that "personal freedom" is a valid lens through which to view a scientific question.




Science should always be open to debate. Otherwise it is no better than religous superstition.
Science is not debatable.
Interpretation of data- yes, science itself, no.
There is an important nuance there that you fail to grasp.

Would you care to debate the validity of "2 + 2= 4"?
That's a scientific assertion, you can go ahead and debate the "False" side.


Here are a few books that I found interesting...

Cool it: the skeptical environmentalist's guide to global warming By Bjørn Lomborg.

The Deniers: The World Renowned Scientists Who Stood Up Against Global Warming Hysteria, Political Persecution, and Fraud**And those who are too fearful to do so. By Lawrence Solomon.
I'm sure you did.

What is it you found so interesting?
Lomborg for instance, doesn't deny global warming- or mankind's effect on same- at all.
He argues against the proposed "fixes", which is fair enough...but you can't work on a problem if like you, you deny the problem even exists.

Solomon admits that the majority of scientists disagree with him but dismisses them as mediocre and scared of repercussions (repercussions from whom is never revealed), so he wants to concentrate only on eminent personages, "eminent" in this case equals "agrees with me".

He could use the exact same format to proclaim the earth is flat...all he needs is one person- albeit one fearless person unafraid of bucking "the conspiracy"- and voila! his point is "proved".
If you want to "take your chances on global warming" based on shoddy and manipulative journalism, feel free.

[999969999]

I wouldn't expect you to support freedom. You're like a modern day Communist. You think governments should be making the decision about whether or not we should use more expensive and less reliable green energy sources, instead of letting the free market decide it.

That is the most unscientific thing in the world to say-- "Science is not debatable."

[999969999]

I prefer the book discussed here:


Warming: An Unstoppable 1,500-Year Cycle

New Book Debunks Greenhouse Fears and Points to Natural 1,500-Year Warming Cycles

NEW YORK, Nov. 9 /PRNewswire/ -- A new book that is bound to be
controversial in public policy and environmental circles says that the
Earth has a moderate, natural warming roughly every 1,500 years caused by a
solar- linked cycle. The current Modern Warming may be mostly due to that
natural cycle and not human activity, say the book's authors, well-known
climate physicist Fred Singer and Hudson Institute economist Dennis Avery.
"Unstoppable Global Warming-Every 1500 Years" (Rowman & Littlefield,
276 pages, $24.95) assembles physical and historical evidence of the
natural climate cycle that ranges from ancient records in Rome, Egypt, and
China; to 12,000 antique paintings in museums; to Vikings' tooth enamel in
Greenland cemeteries; and to high-tech analyses of ice cores, seabed
sediments, tree rings, fossil pollen and cave stalagmites.
"The Romans wrote about growing wine grapes in Britain in the first
century," says Avery, "and then it got too cold during the Dark Ages.
Ancient tax records show the Britons grew their own wine grapes in the 11th
century, during the Medieval Warming, and then it got too cold during the
Little Ice Age. It isn't yet warm enough for wine grapes in today's
Britain. Wine grapes are among the most accurate and sensitive indicators
of temperature and they are telling us about a cycle. They also indicate
that today's warming is not unprecedented."
"We have lots of physical evidence for the 1,500-year cycle," says
Singer. "Yet we don't have physical evidence that human-emitted CO2 is
adding significantly to the natural cycle. The current warming started in
1850, too early to be blamed on industries and autos."
Singer notes that humanity learned of the 1,500-year cycle only
recently, from the first Greenland ice cores brought up in 1983. The cycle
was too long and moderate to be observed by earlier peoples without
thermometers and written records. The Greenland ice cores showed the
1,500-year cycle going back 250,000 years. It raises temperatures at the
latitude of New York and Paris by 1-2 degrees C for centuries at a time,
more at the North and South Poles, with a global average of 0.5 degrees C.
In 1987, the first Antarctic ice core showed the cycle extending back
through the last 400,000 years and four Ice Ages-and demonstrated the cycle
was indeed global.
There is also evidence of the 1,500-year cycle in seabed sediments from
six oceans, in ancient tree rings from around the Northern Hemisphere, in
glacier advances and retreats from Greenland to New Zealand, and in cave
stalagmites from every continent including South Africa. The North American
Pollen Database shows nine complete reorganizations of the continent's
trees and plants in the past 14,000 years, or one every 1,650 years.
"The deepest seabed sediment cores show the cycle has been going on for
at least a million years," says Avery.
Sunspot observations over the past 400 years, along with modern
analysis of carbon and beryllium isotopes, link the 1,500-year cycle to
variations recently detected by satellites in the sun's irradiance.
Antarctic ice studies show global temperatures tracking closely with
atmospheric CO2 levels over the past 400,000 years. However, Singer and
Avery note the studies also show that temperature changes preceded the CO2
changes by about 800 years. Thus, more warming has produced more
atmospheric CO2, rather than more CO2 producing global warming. This makes
sense, say the authors, because the oceans hold vastly more CO2 than the
air, and warming forces water to release some its gases.
Singer and Avery say that the science of the natural cycle runs counter
to what many believe and fear will happen as a result of man-made global
warming:
* Wild species won't become extinct in our warming because they've been
through at least 600 previous warmings, including the Holocene Warming
just 5,000 years ago that was much warmer than today.

* The seas won't rise to drown New York before the next cooling, because
90 percent of the world's remaining ice is in the melt-resistant
Antarctic. Even a 5 degree C warming would decrease its ice mass by only
1.5 percent, over centuries.

* Warming won't bring famine, because it brings what crops like -- longer
growing seasons, more sunlight, and few untimely frosts. More CO2 also
stimulates plants' growth, and enhances their water use efficiency.

"We hope our book will help calm the rampant hysteria about global
warming and the flawed Greenhouse models," emphasizes Avery. "We should be
using our resources and technology to find the best ways to adapt to the
inevitable but moderate warming to come, not to study one climate model
after another, scare people to death, and pass crippling 'environmental'
legislation that would deny the world the economic growth it needs to
overcome poverty, the greatest problem of all."

Dennis Avery
http://profnet.prnewswire.com/Subscriber/ExpertProfile.aspx?ei=52881
Dr. S. Fred Singer
http://profnet.prnewswire.com/Subscriber/ExpertProfile.aspx?ei=52883


The coolest thing about the book is that it is filled with SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE, the kind that utterly refutes Man's culpability in whatever warming trend may actually exist.

Very interesting. Thanks for the info.

[clocker]

I wouldn't expect you to support freedom. You're like a modern day Communist. You think governments should be making the decision about whether or not we should use more expensive and less reliable green energy sources, instead of letting the free market decide it.

That is the most unscientific thing in the world to say-- "Science is not debatable."
You clearly have a very feeble and tenuous grasp of energy policy.
"More expensive and less reliable" sources of green energy?
More expensive than what...oil?

Wake up pal, the only reason that oil is inexpensive is because we not only massively subsidize oil companies (how did the "free market" feel about the oil cartels posting record profits as price at the pump soared the past few years?) but we also protect and extend their interests with our military.
If the "free market" had anything to do with oil prices, we'd be paying costs like Europeans do...way higher than the US.

Furthermore, can you explain how it is that at a time when there is a worldwide glut of oil supplies and consumption has dropped, the barrel price has risen?
Wouldn't a real free market economy produce exactly the opposite result?

[999969999]

I wouldn't expect you to support freedom. You're like a modern day Communist. You think governments should be making the decision about whether or not we should use more expensive and less reliable green energy sources, instead of letting the free market decide it.

That is the most unscientific thing in the world to say-- "Science is not debatable."
You clearly have a very feeble and tenuous grasp of energy policy.
"More expensive and less reliable" sources of green energy?
More expensive than what...oil?

Wake up pal, the only reason that oil is inexpensive is because we not only massively subsidize oil companies (how did the "free market" feel about the oil cartels posting record profits as price at the pump soared the past few years?) but we also protect and extend their interests with our military.
If the "free market" had anything to do with oil prices, we'd be paying costs like Europeans do...way higher than the US.

Furthermore, can you explain how it is that at a time when there is a worldwide glut of oil supplies and consumption has dropped, the barrel price has risen?
Wouldn't a real free market economy produce exactly the opposite result?



If the damned government would get out of the way, and allow us to drill for oil everywhere in the United States, we could supply our own oil and gas at a much lower price. And if the government would allow us to build a lot more nuclear power plants all over the U.S. we could stop wasting oil on power generation, and use it on our cars instead.

I don't know about you, but I love to drive my new car that my parents bought me for my 16th birtday. It's fun, and I don't want gas to get so expensive that I can't afford to drive it anymore.

Around where I live, there are huge gaps in between towns, and hardly any cops around, and so can I take my 2009 Ford Mustang out on the highway and crank it up to 95 mph quite easily. Right now at $3 a gallon, it's no big deal. But if gas gets up to $8 a gallon like some people are predicting with cap and trade nonsense, then it's going to cut into my savings account a bit too much.

[clocker]

So, even with a giant oil slick threatening the Louisiana coast you think we should just allow unfettered drilling "everywhere in the United States", eh?
What if that means a pumping platform in your backyard?

Both rhetorical questions, BTW.

We could pump every known oil deposit in the continental US and it wouldn't make a dent in our consumption of imported oil...we use way more than we have (or have access to).

I don't know about you, but I love to drive my new car that my parents bought me for my 16th birtday. It's fun, and I don't want gas to get so expensive that I can't afford to drive it anymore.
Clearly, you don't know me at all. (http://filesharingtalk.com/vb3/f-hardware-24/t-sprockets-competition-346181)
I sympathize, I really do.
When I was a kid I remember "gas wars"...gas stations used to compete on price (bet you've never seen that)...and I recall prices of 17¢/gallon.
And, they'd wash your windshield and check your air while filling up.

Boy, the "free market" approach has really worked out well there, hasn't it?
(This question is NOT rhetorical).

Ignore the "cap and trade" nonsense (who are "some people", by the way?) for a moment and ponder this...
What if the government "got out of the way" of Big Oil and revoked the tax subsidies they currently get and we withdrew all our military support currently safeguarding their overseas operations...prices would drop?
By your logic, the answer would have to be yes.

Big fan of nuclear power, are we?
What's your plan for the spent fuel rods?

Sheesh, I'll bet you even believe in "clean coal".

[devilsadvocate]

If the damned government would get out of the way, and allow us to drill for oil everywhere in the United States, we could supply our own oil and gas at a much lower price.

For someone that appears to be so cynical you show a lot of youthful naivety.

Do you really think it's in the oil companies interests to lower the price? Even if we were able to be self sufficient in oil do you really think we would get it cheaper than the world price without government interference?

I bought my first vehicle myself, my father offered to buy one for me, but I wanted to make my own way in the world

[j2k4]

So, even with a giant oil slick threatening the Louisiana coast you think we should just allow unfettered drilling "everywhere in the United States", eh?
What if that means a pumping platform in your backyard?

Both rhetorical questions, BTW.

We could pump every known oil deposit in the continental US and it wouldn't make a dent in our consumption of imported oil...we use way more than we have (or have access to).

I don't know about you, but I love to drive my new car that my parents bought me for my 16th birtday. It's fun, and I don't want gas to get so expensive that I can't afford to drive it anymore.
Clearly, you don't know me at all. (http://filesharingtalk.com/vb3/f-hardware-24/t-sprockets-competition-346181)
I sympathize, I really do.
When I was a kid I remember "gas wars"...gas stations used to compete on price (bet you've never seen that)...and I recall prices of 17¢/gallon.
And, they'd wash your windshield and check your air while filling up.

Boy, the "free market" approach has really worked out well there, hasn't it?
(This question is NOT rhetorical).

Ignore the "cap and trade" nonsense (who are "some people", by the way?) for a moment and ponder this...
What if the government "got out of the way" of Big Oil and revoked the tax subsidies they currently get and we withdrew all our military support currently safeguarding their overseas operations...prices would drop?
By your logic, the answer would have to be yes.

Big fan of nuclear power, are we?
What's your plan for the spent fuel rods?

Sheesh, I'll bet you even believe in "clean coal".

Lots of problems, here.

I'd say we pursue an actual free market (haven't had one in, like, forever) and do the nukes, etc., too.

Yes indeed.

We can put the spent fuel rods up Hugo Chavez's ass.

We won't solve any problems with cap-and-trade...it's the theoretical equivalent of corn/ethanol, and look how well that worked.

All dumb-ass ideas that won't ever be undone.

[clocker]

Lots of problems, here.
Like what?


I'd say we pursue an actual free market (haven't had one in, like, forever) and do the nukes, etc., too.

Yes indeed.
What exactly is "an actual free market"?


We can put the spent fuel rods up Hugo Chavez's ass.
We already have thousands of tons of spent nuclear material sitting around in barrels and holding tanks...wonder why no one has thought of your "anal insertion" storage plan before?

Under your "real" free market- presumably blissfully free of government intervention- do the utility companies get to decide safety regs and waste disposal strategies?

How does the real free market deal with an event like the Gulf coast oil spill?
Or Somali pirates?


We won't solve any problems with cap-and-trade...it's the theoretical equivalent of corn/ethanol, and look how well that worked.

All dumb-ass ideas that won't ever be undone.
Once again you object to solutions while seeming to accept the reality of man-made global warming.
So, which is it?

[999969999]

So, even with a giant oil slick threatening the Louisiana coast you think we should just allow unfettered drilling "everywhere in the United States", eh?
What if that means a pumping platform in your backyard?

Both rhetorical questions, BTW.

We could pump every known oil deposit in the continental US and it wouldn't make a dent in our consumption of imported oil...we use way more than we have (or have access to).

I don't know about you, but I love to drive my new car that my parents bought me for my 16th birtday. It's fun, and I don't want gas to get so expensive that I can't afford to drive it anymore.
Clearly, you don't know me at all. (http://filesharingtalk.com/vb3/f-hardware-24/t-sprockets-competition-346181)
I sympathize, I really do.
When I was a kid I remember "gas wars"...gas stations used to compete on price (bet you've never seen that)...and I recall prices of 17¢/gallon.
And, they'd wash your windshield and check your air while filling up.

Boy, the "free market" approach has really worked out well there, hasn't it?
(This question is NOT rhetorical).

Ignore the "cap and trade" nonsense (who are "some people", by the way?) for a moment and ponder this...
What if the government "got out of the way" of Big Oil and revoked the tax subsidies they currently get and we withdrew all our military support currently safeguarding their overseas operations...prices would drop?
By your logic, the answer would have to be yes.

Big fan of nuclear power, are we?
What's your plan for the spent fuel rods?

Sheesh, I'll bet you even believe in "clean coal".

What a surprise! You're against clean coal, too!

http://www.srpnet.com/about/stations/springerville.aspx

A large part of the Eagar www.eagar.com (and Springerville) economy is based upon the nearby coal fired generation plant which has a huge domestic supply of coal nearby as well.

With a combination of nuclear and coal plants, America could supply its own electricity needs without have to touch its oil supply.

Think about how silly it is to just leave all that coal sitting there on the Navajo reservation when we could be converting it into electricity.

I'll write more later, but I've got to go do some stuff.

[clocker]

There is no such thing as "clean" coal, fool.
From destructive mining methods to super-polluting power stations, the entire industry is an ecological disaster.
Pretty much a textbook example of what happens when government "gets out of the way" of big industry...the industry realizes that no one will hold them accountable and simply ignores safety and pollution concerns.

Much simpler and cheaper to mount an ad campaign and relabel themselves as "clean"- despite having fought every effort to actually make them so- and see how many suckers will buy into it.
Congratulations, you have.

[999969999]

" Springerville supplies power to Tucson Electric Power (TEP), Tri-State Generation & Transmission, and the Salt River Project (SRP). Air emission controls on Unit 4 will meet EPA's Best Available Control Technology (BACT) requirements. Furthermore, emission controls on Units 1 and 2 were upgraded as part of the plant expansion. As a result, emissions from all four units will be less than the original two units"

[clocker]

Is there a point in there?
"Emissions from all four units will be less than the original two units" is a completely meaningless statement until it details what the pollution levels were before and what they are now.

Furthermore, the coal power industry response to EPA mandated stack scrubber technology has been to install the scrubbers- which do clean airborne emissions- but to dump the waste from the scrubbing process into the water table.
So, you no longer breathe the pollution...you get to drink it.

Much better, right?

[999969999]

If the damned government would get out of the way, and allow us to drill for oil everywhere in the United States, we could supply our own oil and gas at a much lower price.

For someone that appears to be so cynical you show a lot of youthful naivety.

Do you really think it's in the oil companies interests to lower the price? Even if we were able to be self sufficient in oil do you really think we would get it cheaper than the world price without government interference?

I bought my first vehicle myself, my father offered to buy one for me, but I wanted to make my own way in the world

So, let me see if I've got this straight, someone offered to give you a new car, and you turned him down?

I'm the naive one?

I think it stands to reason that the less government intrusion, and the more competition there is, the lower the price of oil will be.

[999969999]

"Clearly, you don't know me at all.
I sympathize, I really do.
When I was a kid I remember "gas wars"...gas stations used to compete on price (bet you've never seen that)...and I recall prices of 17¢/gallon.
And, they'd wash your windshield and check your air while filling up.Boy, the "free market" approach has really worked out well there, hasn't it?
(This question is NOT rhetorical)."

Dude, 17 cents a gallon? When was that? The 1950s? I would expect everything to have been cheaper then.



"Ignore the "cap and trade" nonsense"

So, you agree its nonsense?


"(who are "some people", by the way?)"

Some guy on talk radio that my dad listens to.

"for a moment and ponder this...
What if the government "got out of the way" of Big Oil and revoked the tax subsidies they currently get and we withdrew all our military support currently safeguarding their overseas operations...prices would drop? By your logic, the answer would have to be yes. "

Yes, because we would be pumping oil out of American soil instead of Saudi Arabia. We wouldn't need to transport it all the way over here.

I think we should bring the military home and put them on the border to keep Mexico from invading us.



"Big fan of nuclear power, are we?
What's your plan for the spent fuel rods?"

Have you ever driven from Las Vegas to Reno, Nevada? Once you get past Tonopah, there are lots of areas that would make a great place to dump spent fuel rods, because almost no one lives there. We might as well use it for something like that.

[999969999]

Is there a point in there?
"Emissions from all four units will be less than the original two units" is a completely meaningless statement until it details what the pollution levels were before and what they are now.

Furthermore, the coal power industry response to EPA mandated stack scrubber technology has been to install the scrubbers- which do clean airborne emissions- but to dump the waste from the scrubbing process into the water table.
So, you no longer breathe the pollution...you get to drink it.

Much better, right?

It's like you didn't even read what it said.

I won't be drinking it. The water flows north, away from Eagar.

[clocker]

Dude, 17 cents a gallon? When was that? The 1950s?
Yes.






"(who are "some people", by the way?)"

Some guy on talk radio that my dad listens to.
Oh, him.




Yes, because we would be pumping oil out of American soil instead of Saudi Arabia. We wouldn't need to transport it all the way over here.
Seen the news lately?


I think we should bring the military home and put them on the border to keep Mexico from invading us.
OK, now you're just making shit up.




"Big fan of nuclear power, are we?
What's your plan for the spent fuel rods?"

Have you ever driven from Las Vegas to Reno, Nevada? Once you get past Tonopah, there are lots of areas that would make a great place to dump spent fuel rods, because almost no one lives there. We might as well use it for something like that.
So, the world is your toilet, eh?
"Gee, I don't see many people and it's no good for skateboarding...let's make it a toxic waste dump for the next 100,000 years!"



Is there a point in there?
"Emissions from all four units will be less than the original two units" is a completely meaningless statement until it details what the pollution levels were before and what they are now.

Furthermore, the coal power industry response to EPA mandated stack scrubber technology has been to install the scrubbers- which do clean airborne emissions- but to dump the waste from the scrubbing process into the water table.
So, you no longer breathe the pollution...you get to drink it.

Much better, right?

It's like you didn't even read what it said.

I won't be drinking it. The water flows north, away from Eagar.
What about your northern neighbors...oh, that's right...fuck them.

[999969999]

See?

http://www.infowars.com/arizona-governor-calls-for-more-troops-on-the-border/

[clocker]

No.

Let's try an easier method.
Legalize the drugs that the cartels exist on.
Institute a sane and logical immigration policy.
Let Arizona secede from the union and fend for themselves.

There, problem solved.

[devilsadvocate]

So, let me see if I've got this straight, someone offered to give you a new car, and you turned him down?

I'm the naive one?

I think it stands to reason that the less government intrusion, and the more competition there is, the lower the price of oil will be.

Yes I did turn it down, you see part of being a grown up is cutting that umbilical cord.
The American ideal is work hard for what you have, not sponge off mommy and daddy.

Do you think we have enough local oil to be self sufficient and if so do you think the oil companies will sell it below the world market price? It stands to reason that without regulation oil companies are going to keep supplies low enough to keep demand and price high.

[clocker]

It stands to reason that without regulation oil companies are going to keep supplies low enough to keep demand and price high.
Demand is not an issue with oil companies anymore.
India and, to a much greater degree, China, can suck up every drop that can be produced.

Don't confuse- or commingle- OPEC with Big Oil...they are separate and distinct.

OPEC does find it useful to regulate output but their position has become much more precarious in the last decade.
OPEC's entire strategy has been based on leveraging the West- we being the largest consumers by far- but now that China has so drastically expanded their demand and actively courted Chavez in South America, OPEC is threatened with irrelevancy.

The oil companies on the other hand, owe allegiance to no one save the shareholders and will sell as much of anybody's oil to anyone who can pay (which increasingly, will not be America).

What young Mr. 9 fails to realize is the consequences of his logic.
Unfettered by government regulation and only bound to j2's mythical "real" free market, the oil pumped from the Gulf coast, the Alaskan Wildlife Reserve or the Colorado oil shale fields will go directly on a boat and end up in a gas tank in Beijing.
Because they have the money.
And money is the be-all-end-all of corporate life/free markets.

[devilsadvocate]

Clocker.

While what you write is true I am dealing with the "drill our own oil so we don't have to get it from others" theory.

[clocker]

I do not believe we should be silly about it unto bankrupting ourselves and ruining our economy.

We are already bankrupt with a ruined economy.


Clocker.

While what you write is true I am dealing with the "drill our own oil so we don't have to get it from others" theory.
I understand, but who is going to do the drilling/refining/transporting...the government?

It's only "our oil" till it breaks ground, after that it's just "product", a commodity sold to the highest bidder. Corporations have no patriotism or sense of fair play...concepts inimical to the overarching need for profit.

And don't for a second think that transport costs mean that it's better to sell "locally" rather than internationally.
Look at the American steel industry- you'll have to look hard, since it doesn't exist anymore- for a graphic example of this in action.

We used to have the dominant position in steel production till the Japanese came into the picture.
Somehow, they made it possible to ship American iron ore all the way to Japan, refine/process it and ship the finished product all the way back and still undercut the price of locally produced steel.

These days, iron ore mined in Pennsylvania is more likely to end up in a girder in Dubai than one in Denver.
All sorts of major infrastructure projects are on hold or delayed- and certainly forced above budget- because they can't get the material to proceed (this is even more true of concrete lately) or they can get the material but prices have risen beyond estimates.

Oil is no different.

[devilsadvocate]

We are already bankrupt with a ruined economy.


Clocker.

While what you write is true I am dealing with the "drill our own oil so we don't have to get it from others" theory.
I understand, but who is going to do the drilling/refining/transporting...the government?

It's only "our oil" till it breaks ground, after that it's just "product", a commodity sold to the highest bidder. Corporations have no patriotism or sense of fair play...concepts inimical to the overarching need for profit.

And don't for a second think that transport costs mean that it's better to sell "locally" rather than internationally.
Look at the American steel industry- you'll have to look hard, since it doesn't exist anymore- for a graphic example of this in action.

We used to have the dominant position in steel production till the Japanese came into the picture.
Somehow, they made it possible to ship American iron ore all the way to Japan, refine/process it and ship the finished product all the way back and still undercut the price of locally produced steel.

These days, iron ore mined in Pennsylvania is more likely to end up in a girder in Dubai than one in Denver.
All sorts of major infrastructure projects are on hold or delayed- and certainly forced above budget- because they can't get the material to proceed (this is even more true of concrete lately) or they can get the material but prices have risen beyond estimates.

Oil is no different.

Who are you arguing with? I'm well aware of the reality of trade. I'm simply trying to find out if number actually has a plan, good or bad, behind his theory or if he is just another catchphrase repeater.

[clocker]

Who are you arguing with? I'm well aware of the reality of trade. I'm simply trying to find out if number actually has a plan, good or bad, behind his theory or if he is just another catchphrase repeater.
I suppose that was primarily directed at Mr. 9 but I'm not sure why I bothered.
He is clearly too young and too misinformed to have any rational input on this question.

[999969999]

Dudes, I'm busy with some stuff, but when I get more time I will respond to you, in the meantime, this is what Ron Paul had to say about Global Warming...

“Global Warming”, which is now frequently called “Climate Change” to account for the recent decline in global temperatures, has come to be a hotly contested issue. Are there valid concerns that we should consider, or is “Global Warming” just the latest manufactured crisis to cash in on the public’s fears and generate new support for global governance, global carbon taxes and other oppressive policies?

Just like many of his supporters, Ron Paul took a long, hard look at the issue, and after careful consideration, and even before the release of the Climategate emails in late 2009, he identified the artificial panic around “Global Warming” as an elaborate hoax:

“The greatest hoax I think that has been around for many, many years if not hundreds of years has been this hoax on [...] global warming.” – Ron Paul on Fox Business, Nov. 4, 2009

“[The Copenhagen treaty on climate change] can’t help the economy. It has to hurt the economy and it can’t possibly help the environment because they’re totally off track on that. It might turn out to be one of the biggest hoaxes of all history, this whole global warming terrorism that they’ve been using, but we’ll have to just wait and see, but it cannot be helpful. It’s going to hurt everybody.” – Ron Paul on the Alex Jones Show, Nov. 5, 2009

On November 20, 2008 Ron Paul said in a New York Times / Freakonomics interview:

“I try to look at global warming the same way I look at all other serious issues: as objectively and open-minded as possible. There is clear evidence that the temperatures in some parts of the globe are rising, but temperatures are cooling in other parts. The average surface temperature had risen for several decades, but it fell back substantially in the past few years.

Clearly there is something afoot. The question is: Is the upward fluctuation in temperature man-made or part of a natural phenomenon. Geological records indicate that in the 12th century, Earth experienced a warming period during which Greenland was literally green and served as rich farmland for Nordic peoples. There was then a mini ice age, the polar ice caps grew, and the once-thriving population of Greenland was virtually wiped out.

It is clear that the earth experiences natural cycles in temperature. However, science shows that human activity probably does play a role in stimulating the current fluctuations.

The question is: how much? Rather than taking a “sky is falling” approach, I think there are common-sense steps we can take to cut emissions and preserve our environment. I am, after all, a conservative and seek to conserve not just American traditions and our Constitution, but our natural resources as well.

We should start by ending subsidies for oil companies. And we should never, ever go to war to protect our perceived oil interests. If oil were allowed to rise to its natural price, there would be tremendous market incentives to find alternate sources of energy. At the same time, I can’t support government “investment” in alternative sources either, for this is not investment at all.

Government cannot invest, it can only redistribute resources. Just look at the mess government created with ethanol. Congress decided that we needed more biofuels, and the best choice was ethanol from corn. So we subsidized corn farmers at the expense of others, and investment in other types of renewables was crowded out.

Now it turns out that corn ethanol is inefficient, and it actually takes more energy to produce the fuel than you get when you burn it. The most efficient ethanol may come from hemp, but hemp production is illegal and there has been little progress on hemp ethanol. And on top of that, corn is now going into our gas tanks instead of onto our tables or feeding our livestock or dairy cows; so food prices have been driven up. This is what happens when we allow government to make choices instead of the market; I hope we avoid those mistakes moving forward.”

[clocker]

Why are you posting Ron Paul's opinion...did he become a climatologist while I wasn't looking?

[999969999]

So, let me see if I've got this straight, someone offered to give you a new car, and you turned him down?

I'm the naive one?

I think it stands to reason that the less government intrusion, and the more competition there is, the lower the price of oil will be.

Yes I did turn it down, you see part of being a grown up is cutting that umbilical cord.
The American ideal is work hard for what you have, not sponge off mommy and daddy.

Do you think we have enough local oil to be self sufficient and if so do you think the oil companies will sell it below the world market price? It stands to reason that without regulation oil companies are going to keep supplies low enough to keep demand and price high.

So if you saw a $20 bill on the sidewalk, you wouldn't stop to pick it up and put it in your pocket? If someone offers to give me something, I'm going to take it, and not think twice about it.

Yes, I have heard that we actually do have enough domestic oil supplies-- if all of them were drilled and pumped-- to supply our domestic oil needs for 120 years.

It is the regulations that make everything more expensive. Without them, there would eventually be enough competition to bring down the prices. If they didn't have to ship the oil in all the way from the Saudis, I'm convinced that it could be done for a much lower cost, and that savings would eventually be passed on the consumer.

[999969999]

No.

Let's try an easier method.
Legalize the drugs that the cartels exist on.
Institute a sane and logical immigration policy.
Let Arizona secede from the union and fend for themselves.

There, problem solved.

I have no problem with legalizing drugs. The war on drugs is another unwinnable war that should be abondoned, and that alone would save a huge amount of money and free up a lot of police to focus on actual crimes.

I think we have enough humans in this country. We really don't need to keep increasing our population. Anyone is free to leave the country whenever they felt like it, but no new people should be allowed to come here for at least 50 years, so we would have enough time to assimilate the huge flood of immigrants who are already here.

Secede? Only if we could get New Mexico and Texas to go with us. We would need an ocean port, and there are too many commies in California. I'd rather have Texas, than California.

[999969999]

Why are you posting Ron Paul's opinion...did he become a climatologist while I wasn't looking?

What do you think of Ron Paul?

He might be the next president.

I think he could carry the red states, and that would be enough to win the election. Just like what happened with W.

[j2k4]

Institute a sane and logical immigration policy.

There, problem solved.

Oh, please elaborate.

I agree, wholeheartedly, but specifically, what?

[clocker]

Why are you posting Ron Paul's opinion...did he become a climatologist while I wasn't looking?

What do you think of Ron Paul?

He might be the next president.

I think he could carry the red states, and that would be enough to win the election. Just like what happened with W.
Apparently, we do not share the same definition of "think".

[Tv Controls you]

A faux news article....

I should visit this section more often.


Global warming critics call this a crucial blow to advocates' arguments
that minor flaws in the "Climate-gate" data are unimportant,
since all the major data sets arrive at the same conclusion -- that the Earth is getting warmer.
But there's a good reason for that, the skeptics say: They all use the same data.

Their conservative stances on some topics seem to still blow my mind.
It a shame some idiots rely on faux for their information as it is so opinionated by the time they convey it to you, that you have no room to think for yourself.