What Do We Think About Climate Change

I posted some thoughts that make sense to me and I get a near hysterical beat down response?

I'm done, you win.

The sky is falling and the big bad oil companies are to blame.

kisses
Randy

 

Hysterical ?

hardly

I actually kinda enjoy the exchanges cause it allows for the dissemination of some much needed information

I just made a particularly effective point by point rebuttal, point being that if your going to make public statements you might want to do your research before advancing them to the group specially on such critically important issues

hysterical would imply some form of irrational response and I cant picture the readers considering my detailed posts as anything but rational, sometimes sarcastic sure, but hysterical, hardly.

I suppose the best advice I can give you is that education need not be a painful experience, we are all wrong from time to time. OK some more than others but still we learn by making mistakes and correcting them, correcting them being the key pericope

if you wish to vilify the messenger rather than consider the message then your probably not going to gain much out of any of our forums. I'll grant you any day that my writing style and the impersonal nature of the net kinda combine to create a void were tonal inflection and facial expression would typically convey the mood of the speaker. So while you might think I'm being harsh at times I'm just goofing off and spreading the word. Its not the enemy, its the environment.

its not a mater of winning its a mater of eliciting positive change

cheers and best of luck
B

 

You accuse the gas and oil industry of raking in huge profits? That is why industry exists, to make money.

You then claim that they could make MORE money with bio-diesel?

When was the last time a greedy, for profit, industry chose to NOT make more money?

Either the very successful industry has decided not to make more money or there is something wrong with what you posted.

Electric vehicles are not viable direct replacements for gas and diesel powered vehicles, that is not the gas and oil industry's fault. Yet you imply that the industry somehow killed them?

From the first segment: "As long as they don't need to drive more than 100 miles a day."

I suggested that spending R&D money to develop alternative fuels could work better than a punitive tax and you read into that:

Prices will go up. The tax burden will be paid by the end user. The tax revenue will go into another big industry (government) and only a portion would go to solving the problem or developing alternative energy. If there was a credit, the people with the profit incentive would be looking at ways to grow fuel rather than drill for it.

It really is simple. When something does not seem logical, it probably isn't. If the G&O industry could replace $80-100 barrel oil with $60 barrel bio-fuel they would be all over it like stink on ****. It would be good business.

What possible motive is there to ignore/repress higher profit?

Your post reminds me of the people that claim that their grandfather invented an additive that lets you burn water in your car, but big bad oil killed it. Or the numerous 50-100 MPG fuel systems that were killed by big oil and the car makers. Pure ********.

So yes, Hysterical: uncontrollably emotional, irrational from fear, emotion, or an emotional shock.

 

when the taxes on fuel were lowered the oil companies raised the base price of oil because they figured people would pay the price they were used to

prices are set by how much you are willing to pay and not by taxes

an example

a stadium with 100 seats can be filled at $10 a seat

or 80 seats filled at $15

what will the price of a seat be?

 

glad you stuck around

ok just a few things to consider

that one also deserved a point by point response based on the number of inaccuracies

interesting that you hold so much confidence in the oil and gas industry though

you might want to watch this flick and realize the oil and gas industry has exactly no interest in your well-being

http://vimeo.com/2050214

cheers
B

 

I do not suffer from any delusion that those that seek profit have any interest in my well being.

I do believe that for profit energy and for profit health care are evil. I'm a socialist on those topics. Nationalized energy and health care would be just fine by me.

The fact is that even at 300 miles between charges an electric vehicle cannot compete with a fossil fuel vehicle. If/when the zero emission vehicle can be "refueled" in the same time it takes to fill a fossil fuel tank, then they become direct replacements. AFAIK that technology (if it exists) is not commercially viable. If they addressed the fact that one of the reasons the EV's were leased and not sold is that the true cost of these limited use vehicles was stated they price would have been so high that no one would have bought them I missed that part. They did touch on the debate of true reduction of fossil fuels (as long as electricity is fossil fuel based) the idea of "a longer tailpipe" was a good one. Did they address the cost of replacing/recycling the batteries? I spent years in the auto industry, I have some first hand knowledge of the EV era. The film was slick, but hardly unbiased.

In section 9 of 9 the idea of a plug-in hybrid seems to have some merit. I'll keep an eye on that idea. It could turn out that people find they hardly use any gas 90% of the time but if they have to drive from LA to New York they can (without having to buy a different car). I like this idea.

This does not change the fact that given the system we do have that no one would kill a new profit centre.

To take the stadium analogy a step farther:

Fill the stadium with 100 seats at $10 for $1000
Fill the stadium with 80 seats at $15 for $1200
The stadium costs $800
Find a new stadium for $500

The same process that drives the 80 seat at $15 logic also drives the cheaper stadium logic.

Oil we have to drill for $80-$100
Oil we can grow $60?

And the profiteers are not doing it? Not likely.

They could stop funding politicians that fight wars to save their access to oil (more profit).
They would gain a better public image so save the PR feel good $$$ (more profit)

There is more to this picture than what is painted here.

R

 

again the cost of the players, stadium or beer have little to do with it

it's how many seats they can fill at what price to maximize profits

and you want to pay taxes for a new stadium?

 

there are presently 15 algae based start ups
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sour...0qB6uzQiA&sig2=ha1rHokM9WdgLRvEqziTUw&cad=rja

one I think is Exxon and the rest are fledgling companies

and there is presently technology to "refuel" an electric car almost instantly

its called swapping out the batteries but the reality is that hybrids solved the problem with an on board charger and a purely electric that goes 3~400 miles in can be charged overnight

its really not a problem

cheers
B

oh the longer tail pipe comment was made by the oil and gas schill
its not actually true of course but you must have missed that part

cheers
B

 

You have just made great case for a revolution against the capitalism.

I'll bring the hammer and the nails for the coffin...

: )

 

Interesting. Except for the fact that I have never accused eucaliptus (or plants of any kind) of having any political affiliations. Humans, on the other hand, are guilty. And those ignorant scientists who proposed eucalyptus scheme are humans, and most certainly not from any of the existing socialist countries. People are motivated into action by their environment.

Ergo, I am right.

Another disagreement just for the sake of disagreeing. The part "By the way this species when planted in an alien environment that is abundant with water will take all..." clears any doubt, although I am sure that readers never had one, who is wrong here.

Just to add to that, of more than 2000 different variations of eucalyptus, only a few do not seem to be intense water suckers. But they all are water suckers. The only reason eucalyptus is not declared a weed is the fact that it is industrially useful plant.

The rest of your comments goes in the same tone so I'll spare myself from demonstrating your errors. They are quite obvious even to a superficial reader.

I can only repeat what I have said many a time. Please take note: humans are CONTRIBUTING to the natural cycles of cooling and heating of the earth by producing extra heat outside the natural cycle, or causing the changes in the nature that accelerate the temperature rise faster than they naturally would. Like for example with the ozone layer. But humans are NOT CAUSING it.

And contrary to what denier camp is claiming, out of pure "god is great" ignorance, the global warming is catastrophic for large parts of the nature if the changes are as little as .2 or .3 degrees Celsius.

Coral reefs are the best example of catastrophic changes under such small change. You know that, being Australian. That is well proven fact. The principle applies to everything in the nature because everything is subject to the same laws of the nature.

Deniers do not understand what is being said. Yet, they offer their opinion as if they do. Usually using the same information pro-camp is offering.

Little wonder that the debate turns ugly. Everyone wants to be right as if this is some beauty contest. My mind is more beautiful than yours.

Again, and I fully agree with this basic postulate of the global "warming" theory: humans CONTRIBUTE.

There is a HUGE difference here between this and the imputation by deniers that the claim is that people CAUSE the global warming.

HUGE.

I hope you can see now what, at least I, am saying.

 

I killed the electric car as a nefarious draftsman/shop assistant.

 

By oil companies you mean OPEC.

 

the oil companies here in the good ol usa

 

Why do you hate the USA so much?

 

i said good ol usa, i didn't say good ol oil companies