[Stoner]

Originally Posted by the_new_mod

Jack, let's agree to make our posts a bit more succinct, okay?

I'll start;

I have no clue

How's that for succinct

[katonca]

I can rest easier tonight knowing that "DiCaprio Wants Environmental Answers"

http://www.newsvantage.com/perl/p/we...ews.front_page

[lizard]

Originally Posted by LANMaster

Geez, best cap those volcanoes right away!

Never heard that capping a volcano was possible...How does that work, Lan?

Here's a suggestion...
We all rush out to our nearest neighborhood volcano in our shiney new SUV's(our babies) and stuff 'em in as a sacrifice to God.

[compushlep]

Here's a semi-scary thought for the day ... not sure if anyone is ready for a visual ( esp. the little ones ) ... with the Polar Ice Caps melting at the rate they are, how long do you think it will be before we see Santa in a Speedo? definitely NOT cool

What about the Elves? Nudie gnomes wrapping presents ... sheesh!



On the other hand, Mrs. Claus in a bikini may improve the Northern waterfront view







it's OK ... even though the attached pic is not of the Polar Ice Caps, it is PG-13 (I think)

[LANMaster]

Originally Posted by Stoner

How's that for succinct

[LANMaster]

Originally Posted by lizard

Never heard that capping a volcano was possible...How does that work, Lan?

Here's a suggestion...
We all rush out to our nearest neighborhood volcano in our shiney new SUV's(our babies) and stuff 'em in as a sacrifice to God.

Good one!

[iltos]

Originally Posted by LANMaster

Jack, let's agree to make our posts a bit more succinct, okay?

I'll start;

You're wrong, I'm right.

LOL, LAN

i'm still laughin....must be 'cause it came on the heels of that OTHER post...the one that needs a server all for itself?

and i thought i was wordy.....sheesh

[lizard]

Originally Posted by LANMaster

Good one!

Thanks, but you didn't even read the first line of the article...

Carbon Dioxide Emissions Predicted To Reduce Density Of Earth's Outermost Atmosphere By 2017
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...1211221048.htm

Carbon dioxide emissions from the burning of fossil fuels will produce a 3 percent reduction in the density of Earth's outermost atmosphere by 2017,

[Stoner]

Response to Lan:
Lan posted:

What would you consider significant?

You first, it was used by you initially, I only noted that actions that seem insignificant in real time have a larger effect in regards to geological age.

Read it again. It's called English.
I ask you again, Where's the oil from our occupations in Iraq & Afghanistan?

You read it again. You brought up the issue of suicide and somehow linked it to oil in the mid east...................I have no idea why.

If you claim that we are at war for oil, then why aren't we occupying the land over the majority of the oil?

I'll answer that as a question outside the realm of the topic 'suicide' that you introduced with oil.
IMO, the Bush administration wasn't at war for the possession of the oil fields, more the control of where the oil flowed to. Bush failed miserably and now is faced with the consequences for that failed action.
As far as other countries, why invade if there are already agreements in place for delivery?
Bush and his neocon compatriots merely took advantage of what looked like a very profitable situation. Saddam looked vulnerable, politically, morally and militarily.... and seemed ripe to over throw and install a new government favorable to US business interests.
It was an opportunistic moment that went sour.

But nothing ( as you posted) to do with forcing suicide on the public as a mechanism for reducing global warming

You're pretty good at obfuscating the points that you can't address.
..... as evidenced with your response below

But I posted:

You are confused. You brought the issue of suicide into the debate, not me

And you did, not me. You must be confused.


I posted:

I think I've responded to that often enough. It's only a necessary stop gap solution.

Lan posted:

Stop gap? (alternative fuels) And exqactly what will alternative fuels stop? Global warming?

I apologize for the technical jargan.
'stop gap' refers to a temporary solution to satisfy only a limited problem.
I'll use smaller words in the future
Alt fuels will only be a stop gap ( I'm sorry ) to meet the needs that petroleum has difficulty in providing until a better source of energy comes along.

I ask you again, Where's the oil from our occupations in Iraq & Afghanistan?

Mostly still in the ground in Iraq from the terrorists sabotaging the fields and pipelines.
Afghanistan is not a major producer. We are stuck there because Bush stripped out support to start what became a failed attempt to occupy Iraq. Too bad as the original purpose to catch an enemy was abandoned and that country looks the worse for Bush's greed, also.
I was unaware you had no knowledge of that recent history.
But this has little to do with global warming or the suicide pacts you present as a solution.

Also, why aren't we seeing $.50 cent/gallon oil by now?

I think you are in the wrong forum

My question made perfect sense. You simply have chosen to ignore it, like so many others that don't suit your agenda.

You might note, you are the one pushing for political slanted solutions, not me

I was making a point, rather clearly, that if all humanity were to off themselves this afternoon, that global warming would continue un-slowed, un-abated.

And you would be wrong.

This is supposed to be a thread on the scientific aspects, not the greed of politicians.

I find it interesting that you consider my criticism of Gore a "smear".

Of course it is. And I really don't care if you do. But I notice you seldom address and quote Gore, you attack those that present anything contrary to your political position as if they are supportive of Gore.
When I've 'gone after' Bush in the past, I quoted him for his stance . You do seem to avoid him with the exception of broad generalities. Few specifics.

Makes me wonder just how closely aligned you are with hisa wacked out bullcrap. (Remember, your seemingly constant whine that the water is rising)

Fair.
As I haven't supported his position on global warming, it should be obvious to anyone without an agenda that I don't necessarily support him.
I don't support him, but I did once vote for him as opposed to voting for Bush.
Same with Kerry.
Each case, as bad as they were, the choice was the lesser of 2 evils for me.
You picked the neocon camp.......and look what's happening in the world today.
So intense, most people hate your position, but don't realize the danger in now pulling out of Iraq.
Your neocon position sure took a bad situation and made it worse.

Politics is government.
You're the one calling on the government to step in and spend billions in research for fusion, a method of energy production that is unattainable and shows very little promise at this point.
Government is politics.

Rather undemocratic, don't you think.....*smirk*
That's why more research is necessary. There are no fusion generators today producing much more than a minor positive output. The concept is only in the early stages of development.
I realize the risk seems great to you in a financial sense and the money may seem better spent on invasions, but not attempting this is automatic failure.
BTW, from a post of mine in another thread, the National Geographic did a survey that
showed each year over 200 billion $s was lost to related alcohol abuse and 56,000 people in the US die each year because of the same. Interesting that some people will absorb that loss, and yet not invest less in a better future....amazing, really.

Yes it is. Why did you bring it up? (oil supply winding down / specific date)

While that was not my quote, it is close.
You posted:

More obfuscation, I see.
I guess I have to spell it out for you. Are you Homer Simpson?

Name calling LOL!.....oh my, my sensitivities
No, you brought that up in conversation as if I'd commented in that fashion.
I haven't.
This is what you originally posted:

To assume that all the oil will suddenly dry up on a specific date is ludicris.

I repeat: Yes it is. Why did you bring it up?
Oh, now I see, out of context. Nothing to do with the ongoing discussion.......:

You said, "on that day" as if one day would be when the tap was suddenly dry.

Really? Please provide me with that quote, in context of course.
Here's the paragraph you responded to:
I said:

And as that date approaches, more wars will likely ensue for the control of the global supply lines. Think it's bad now, in 20 years it will be worse.
As far as profit goes, he who controls those dwindling reserves will profit greater than investing in new tech. That's a no brainer.
And as discussed before, there will also be a consideration of whether to eat or fuel a car with those alt fuels. Alt fuel steal from arable land base, the ability to raise food crops.
Sure, you can stop driving and save, but you still have to eat to survive.

Just to help you out, here's what I replied to
your post:

How much petrolium oil does the planet have left?
Some say 10 years, some 50. It stands to reason that as the supply dwindles , the price will naturally increase. (note; naturally, not due to some Chicken Little Liberal's tax increases) As the price goes up, the incentive for alternative fuels will NATURALLY cause investors to place their money where it will make a better profit.

Nope, just another ball of confusion you have there, Lan.
You projected thoughts on the dwindling of oil, I commented to the results.

I brought it up because you completely failed to understand that the supply will diminish gradually, not suddenly.

Ummmmm..........no
I realize what I've posted and I've posted nothing implying the end of oil in the near future.

I posted:

Deep wells bring added production costs that are going to be passed on to the consumer.

Lans response:

Wello, duh, I know that. But it doesn't mean that the supply is gone.

......of course not........Are you actually reading all my posts?

I posted:

Oil appears to exist but will it be economic to extract?

Response:

Very good. Perhaps you're grasping the issue finally.

Always have.
But it appears to be you that ignores the economics of the situation.
Will that oil be economic to extract at any particular time?
Now.....no.
In the future, probably.
But it also goes to the economics of other available sources of energy.
Like fusion. The start up costs of that technology are enormous. But the rewards stand to out weight that initial expense, IMO.
Fusion generation will be necessary at some time in the future as there is, logically, and end to retrievable oil due to both technology and economics.
Guys like you only seem to want to milk the system for all it's worth, not looking to problem solving, rather status quo for directed profits.

As ther price rises, it will become more economically feasable for investors TO LOOK TOWARD MAKING A PROFIT by investing in the research into many alternatives. Not just fuels, but means of propulsion and other technologies that do not use the oil.
When that happens, the demand for oil will drop, and so will the price, until the demand goes back on the increase and investors once again drop the alternatives like a hot potato.

Let me guess, you got this from a dream?

but means of propulsion and other technologies that do not use the oil.

If it's not oil for energy, you're rather limited to alt fuels( which won't be a lasting solution), wind and solar energy( which are also limited in potential) or nuclear solutions.
Fission is a problem because of storage and contamination problems.
Hydrogen is really just a repackaging of energy to a better configuration( it takes an energy source to produce it)

Or, get this.......fusion generators.

It is the economic cycle, AND IT WORKS!

I really don't think you understand it at all.
Too much imagination, not enough reality, IMO.

If the supply is REALLY in jeopardy, as your favorite "scientists" claim, then the price will remain high and the investors will stay linked to the alternative R & D.

Post my quotes that specify what particular 'favorite' scientists have predicted an end of oil.
This is a challenge.
Just more of your wild imagination, Lan.
Investors generally do not have the resources to abandon a profitable venture for grand scale projects that only governments in the past have backed.
If you were an investor, you would realize that.
Money is usually only invested where returns are viewed to be achieved in a short time frame. As I posted examples before, fusion generators are definitely in the category of long term investment and funding.
Currently, the 2 projects are expected to achieve commercialization in 20 to 50 years with the 50 mark being more realistic.
The US had been the leader, actually the only participant, in the early 80's and had achieved a positive output of generation. We could have been 20 years closer to a solution and THE leader, instead of being a follower to the Japanese and French.

This is so dang simple that I should charge you for the lesson.
I take PayPal.

What for, clown school? LOL!

Wait until the price of gas NATURALLY rises to $6.00 a gallon, and you'll see ALL of these alternatives become economically promising.

I suggest you look around.
E85 is already out there and gasahol is a 20 old product in the corn belt.

But all you are discussing now, is essentually supply issues, not global warming.


I posted:

Perhaps you should look at the failings of other large corporations and see how much influence their shareholders had?
Look at Ford.
Look at GM and give Kerkorian a call and ask why he bailed.
Or Chrysler/Mercedes.
If your premise was correct, the oil industry would be funding research into fusion generation, not just the ability to pump E85 like products.

Companies that do not make a profit.

Bingo, Lan got one right LOL!

Naturally, you'll blame the company executives and ignore completely the unions.

But, the topic was investor influence, was it not?
Looks like you're dodging the issue you presented.
Well, yes...you are

If you're building something that the consumer refuses to buy, then you'll have trouble in business. It's really as simple as that. Whether the quality be low, or the price too high because of OVER REGULATED SAFETY COMPONENTS which your competition doesn't have to follow or UNION DOMINATION which causes you to actually layoff more people

So basically, you are retracting the statement that shareholders have ultimate control of a company's future.

Thank you.

I don't charge for these lessons, the humor of your posts is payment enough

Now you're saying that oil procurement is taking away farmlands?

Where did you come up with that silly idea.
The issue is that biomass sources of energy need dirt to grow in. And that takes away from the available land of food production.


I said:

Bad choice, Lan.....to eat well or drive an alt fueled vehicle.

Lan posted:

That isn't what you said. You said that people were having to choose between eating and driving.

Correct, I should have posted eat healthy.
But as the world starves from our pull back from gifting food to impoverished nations, I suspect some in those nations won't even get those options.
Eventually, I suppose even the impoverished in this country could face that choice.
Me, no.........I have the resources to eat what ever I want, when I want and drive what I want.
So, some will be affected, some won't.
Still looks like a bad choice.

You won't, or more likely can't, quantify that promised slowing of the accelleration.

Actually, I've posted a lot of info on just that .
Of course, you would have to have read my past posts...

You use terms like "stop-gap" and, "the water is rising!, the water is rising!"

I see my humor is succeeding LOL!

Yet when I quote your own sources who say the supply of oil is going to dry up anyway

You never quoted any such sources. You imagined it.
BTW, do you really think there is an infinite amount of oil in the ground?

Show me the theory that proves that it can be economically feasable to build a fusion-powered truck to haul groceries,

Why should I? I never proposed one.
I propose fusion generation as a source of electrical energy that can be stored or easily converted to hydrogen in a clean manner for an alternate fuel. A truck in the future could run on hydrogen or batteries without ever consuming a fossil fuel or even fouling the air with cleaner bio fuels.
Please, don't go childish on me.

Just don't throw taxpayer money at a theory that quite plainly will not work.

You'd never make it as a venture capitalist.
All you want is what you see.

The free market will not finance something that doesn't show any real promise.

It also can't finance what it can't front.
When necessity arises and projects overwhelm financial considerations, the government makes the decision to step in and front what's needed.
From nuclear weapons to the first reactors, to landing on the moon.

So you want government to make the leap and waste trillions on something that won't work, yet in almost the same breath, you discount the efforts to build a means to shoot down incoming ICBMs.

Please quit making this up.

I posted:

lan posted:

WW2 had more to do with that. The gubmint was already in the business of nuke research. Bad example.

You just contradicted your whole argument........

Civil infrastructure doesn't count.

LOL!


I posted:

The 'free market' did not go to the moon

Lan responded:

Exciting, but all in all a waste of taxpayer money.

Medical advances have been accredited to knowledge acquired in that effort.
Technology advanced on that effort.
Even a small device on your truck is claimed by the Bosch corporation to have come from that effort, for which all modern cars are dependent on. ......the o2 sensor that is necessary for computerized fuel injection systems to operate.
The list is undoubtedly endless. If you had your way, only candles would be your nite light.

The space race was more a military defense project than an effort to advance humanity.

And that somehow supports your theories?
Looks like you are agreeing with the premise that jobs too large for venture capital need to be done by the government.
And the spin offs from the new technologies are a positive influence.

So is the term, Corporate Socialist. I'm not really sure I understand that term to begin with.

Sorry, I cannot provide an answer.

Basically, the concept that corporations are to be supported by human endeavors.
Politically, socially, economically.......humans exist for the welfare of the corporation. I ask because I see that in most of your posts.


note: many smilies had to be removed from your post LAN, some in mine also.
Recommendation, have TSG allow more in the future................

[Stoner]

Originally Posted by katonca

I can rest easier tonight knowing that "DiCaprio Wants Environmental Answers"

http://www.newsvantage.com/perl/p/we...ews.front_page

He's an actor, not a meteorologist, climatologist or even general scientist.
Why are you referencing him?

[bill.aam]

Originally Posted by Stoner

He's an actor, not a meteorologist, climatologist or even general scientist.
Why are you referencing him?

Same reason some here reference ALGore and his so called "documentary" An Inconvenient Truth..

[Stoner]

Originally Posted by bill.aam

Same reason some here reference ALGore and his so called "documentary" An Inconvenient Truth..

I can see that.
The issue goes to them also, to look at this situation as problem solving.
Identify the situation and and see what can be done, if indeed any thing can be done.

I was in WalMart the other day, in the electronics section. Looking at some wide screen TVs.
Suddenly a movie clip started that was Gore's. I decided not to pay much attention, but I do think I heard him say than global warming was the result of man's activities. Obviously he was pandering to an audience for political recognition, probably in the next Presidential election.
Attitudes like that are irresponsible. He does as much damage to finding solutions.... by misrepresentation as Bush does, IMO.

[LANMaster]

You call that succinct?

[Stoner]

Just getting warmed up ..................


Hey....as first actions by a mod, and you had the same issue as I did, can the number of smilies be increased in Civ Debate

[LANMaster]

Originally Posted by lizard

Thanks, but you didn't even read the first line of the article...

Carbon Dioxide Emissions Predicted To Reduce Density Of Earth's Outermost Atmosphere By 2017
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...1211221048.htm

With 96% of GHG emissions happening naturally, I find it interesting that only the buring of fossil fuels is mentioned as the cause.
Not only in the headline, but I saw nowhere in the story that mentions this often omitted fact of the massive amount of naturally occurring GHG emissions.

(hence the volcano comment)