# OT-NT- The Bear Is Safe-- Lucky Us !



## blackburn49 (Jan 2, 2008)

I note two significant developments within the last few days. 

1) The opening of the Alaska National Wildlife Reserve to drilling was once again voted down in the U.S. Senate. ANWR could potentially contain as much recoverable oil as has already been pumped through the Alyeska Pipeline in its 30 years of existence. This decision is not surprising, but it IS disappointing. And, right up there with mandated ethanol as a monumentally stupid decision at a time when oil prices are so high. 

2) The polar bear JUST been declared a threatened species due to the effects of global warming. This decision comes despite strong evidence that there has been no measurable global warming in the last decade. Furthermore, there are now strong indications that we may have entered a period of global warming. This decision is potentially the most damaging of all. The ramifications are far-reaching and will likely include moratoriums on ANY further oil drilling or other development along the Arctic coastline. 

I cannot begin to express how disappointed I am at these two decisions. We cannot conserve ourselves out of this. We already tried that under a previous administration nearly three decades ago. Nor are there any alternative energy sources out there significant enough to save us from these two decisions that are likely to impact us for decades to come. 








The bear is . . . SAFE ! Lucky us. *


_* Polar bear numbers in the arctic have risen significantly over the last three decades--much like the numbers of caribou around Prudhoe Bay. What does that tell you?_ 
 Senate rejects ANWR drilling 
The U.S. Senate rejected a Republican energy plan to open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil exploration and instead voted to temporarily halt deposits in the Strategic Petroleum Reserve to try to lowerprices at the pump. 
 Polar bear listed as threatened species 
Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne announced Wednesday that the agency will list the polar bear as threatened under the Endangered Species Act, a decision that could cast the bears as the enduring symbol of the effects of global warming.


----------



## flatracker (Jan 2, 2008)

Well, that about does it. Our politically correct govt. and environmently enhanced people have finally put animals ahead of the human race. You and I no longer count. I guess Yale, Princton, Berkley, etc. have taught our children well, and now we will reap the benifits of such teachings. LONG LIVE the POLAR BEARS!!!/DesktopModules/NTForums/themes/mls/emoticons/hehe.gif


----------



## DKRickman (Mar 25, 2008)

It seem there will always be people who fail to understand the problems we face as a society, unfortunately. 

We got ourselves into this mess by recklessly wasting the very planet on which we live. The problem is not that we're not allowed to drill for oil in Alaska, or that terrorists control a major portion of the world's oil supply, or any of a number of other politically sensitive topics. There's no magic bio-fuel that will let you keep driving that Lexus SUV 70 miles each way to work and back (alone). There's no conspiracy to force feed us gasoline, or to overcharge us for it. 

The problem is us, people! The solution is simple - change our habits. THERE IS NO OTHER PERMANENT SOLUTION! 

The averave American, and probably most of the western world, lives a wasteful, self centered lifestyle that is devestating our environment and our economy. It's a bitter pill to swallow, but we'll all have to change the way we live, work, and play if we actually want to solve this problem. 

sigh......


----------



## Torby (Jan 2, 2008)

Groan.


----------



## ohioriverrailway (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By DKRickman on 05/14/2008 3:12 PM

The average American, and probably most of the western world, lives a wasteful, self centered lifestyle that is devestating our environment and our economy. It's a bitter pill to swallow, but we'll all have to change the way we live, work, and play if we actually want to solve this problem. 
sigh......




Way too true, and unfortunately, very few of us are willing to believe that. The "Ugly American" has come home to roost.


----------



## Pete Thornton (Jan 2, 2008)

The solution is simple - change our habits. THERE IS NO OTHER PERMANENT SOLUTION! 

Unfortunately, I have to agree with Kenneth. 

The "Ugly American" has come home to roost.

_But I don't agree with Rick! I thought "ugly americans" were the tourists with cameras who refused to learn the local lingo._ 
It's not an american problem - we just got there first. The rest of the world is eagerly buying SUVs and burning coal, just as we do/did!


----------



## terry_n_85318 (Jan 3, 2008)

Is the proposal to go back to the stone age or something similar to the show "Alaska Experiment" (I think that's the title) where the people live off of the land? 

If the ANWR legislation hadn't been vetoed in 1995, we wouldn't be in the position we are in now. 85% of our resources have been put off limits by a small group of people and we are powerless to change that. 

The entire economy is based on oil -- not just for gas, but everything we use in our daily life. I don't see them coming up with a replacement for oil in the near future. 

Terry


----------



## terry_n_85318 (Jan 3, 2008)

One other thought after reading the posts. We do more to clean up the environment than most of the rest of the world. It's the world's problem, not just the USA as some people are implying.... If you're worried about the environment, talk to Russia, China, and India to name a few. 

Terry


----------



## toddalin (Jan 4, 2008)

Posted By flatracker on 05/14/2008 2:20 PM 
Well, that about does it. Our politically correct govt. and environmently enhanced people have finally put animals ahead of the human race. /DesktopModules/NTForums/themes/mls/emoticons/hehe.gif" border=0>" border=0>" border=0> 


What do you mean finally? Obviously you have no idea of how many projects were stopped because of: Keno checker-spot butterflies, Palo Verde blue butterflies, Stephen's kangaroo rat, California gnat catcher, Least Bell's vireo, Least tern, California desert tortoise, three-spined stickle-back fish, Arroyo toad, etc., etc., etc. /DesktopModules/NTForums/themes/mls/emoticons/doze.gif"


----------



## lownote (Jan 3, 2008)

Posted By toddalin on 05/15/2008 10:58 AM
Posted By flatracker on 05/14/2008 2:20 PM 
Well, that about does it. Our politically correct govt. and environmently enhanced people have finally put animals ahead of the human race. /DesktopModules/NTForums/themes/mls/emoticons/hehe.gif" border=0>" border=0>" border=0>" border=0> 


What do you mean finally? Obviously you have no idea of how many projects were stopped because of: Keno checker-spot butterflies, Palo Verde blue butterflies, Stephen's kangaroo rat, California gnat catcher, Least Bell's vireo, Least tern, California desert tortoise, three-spined stickle-back fish, Arroyo toad, etc., etc., etc. /DesktopModules/NTForums/themes/mls/emoticons/doze.gif" border=0>"




Yes, and you wouldn't want the permanent loss of some species of animal to prevent the construction of another linens and things. I mean, I need a couple more George Foreman grills and why should I have to drive five miles to get one? 


Seriously, the amount of oil in the ANWR is highly debated. Those in favor of drilling describe it as Saudi Arabia on ice, those opposed describe it as chump change. As far as I can tell, it will produce at best less than 9% of our daily consumption of oil. See this link, which seems to be trying to be as unbiased as possible: 

http://www.sibelle.info/oped15.htm 


It's not a panacea--it would stave off the inevitable for a while, but it would not chage anything major. My guess is eventually we'll be drilling there, and eventually the polar bears will only be in zoos. In the meantime, not living in Alaska or benefiting from job growth in Alaska, I'd rather see the US develop a comprehensive, well-funded approach to minimizing dependence on oil--a Manhattan project for alternative energy. I'd happily pay more for gas if I ended up with better public transit alternatives or greener, less polluting energy


----------



## terry_n_85318 (Jan 3, 2008)

Lownote, 

It not just gas, it's the entire economy which is oil based. There's no substitute for oil in all of the products we use daily. 

Terry


----------



## blackburn49 (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By DKRickman on 05/14/2008 3:12 PM

It seem there will always be people who fail to understand the problems we face as a society, unfortunately.* We got ourselves into this mess by recklessly wasting the very planet on which we live[/i].* The problem is not that we're not allowed to drill for oil in Alaska, or that terrorists control a major portion of the world's oil supply, or any of a number of other politically sensitive topics. There's no magic bio-fuel that will let you keep driving that Lexus SUV 70 miles each way to work and back (alone). There's no conspiracy to force feed us gasoline, or to overcharge us for it. The problem is us, people! The solution is simple - change our habits. THERE IS NO OTHER PERMANENT SOLUTION! The averave American, and probably most of the western world, lives a wasteful, self centered lifestyle that is devestating our environment and our economy. It's a bitter pill to swallow, but we'll all have to change the way we live, work, and play if we actually want to solve this problem. sigh......


All of this is a value judgment which ignores the strategic implications of not making ANWR or other regions available for drilling. It was not that long ago that Alaska still supplied the US with 16 percent of its oil. At one time it was nearly double that. Access to ANWR _could_ potentially double that once again. Then there are the estimated tens of thousands of jobs that opening up ANWR andupgrading the existing Alyeska pipeline would create. You don't think _that _would have a positive impact on our economy? 


But my point goes well beyond even that. While continuing to develop our own oil reserves is not a permanent solution, I guess I should point out that there is never a permanent solution to anything. At least this buys us time and makes us less dependent on foreign suppliers. 


Then there is the matter of this decision being a political one based on junk science. There is no proof of global warming--only computer models using selected data. To the extent that the climate is changing--something we can count on no matter what we do--there are so many factors involved that for us to attempt to regulate climate change is the height of arrogance and stupidity. I am just disgusted that so many people would buy into this junk science at the expense of the American people. We cannot sacrifice or conserve ourselves out of this dilemma. We can only do the smart things of which a part includes developing what resources we have rather than purchase them at ridiculous prices from our avowed enemies. 


Our "recklessly wasting our planet" is exactly what makes this hobby a possibility. It is what builds economies and brings entire nations out of poverty--which is exactly what is happening largely thanks to our "reckless wasting." Somehow I have a hard time feeling guilty about that. 



If we were to stop being avid consumers (recklessly wasting . . . ) the_ first casualty_ would be _discretionary_ endeavors such as large-scale model railroading.


----------



## terry_n_85318 (Jan 3, 2008)

DKR, 

Who is the "WE" that you speak of? Only the US or the whole world? 

Kind of foolish to say "WE" are wrecking the world -- We have no control over what mother nature does and we will never have control. The planet has been here for a long time before us and it will be here a long time after we are gone. The planet will recover from whatever "WE" do. 

It seems to me that the global warming thing is a big hoax -- The planet has been cooling down for the last eight or nine years. It was a lot warmer in the period of 1000 AD to ~ 1400 AD. The vikings went to "GREENLAND" and lived there. Then it got cold. They crossed the Atlantic when it was warm, they couldn't do it now because it is too cold. 

What should the ambient temperature of the planet be? 

Terry


----------



## lownote (Jan 3, 2008)

I'm certainly aware of the ubiquity of oil. It's in just abut everything we consume, directly or indirectly. But surely the point in th same--a ten percent savings in oil consumption just for heating, electricity and driving would more than make up for not drilling in ANWR. It's hard to imagine a state of zero dependence on oil. But its easy to imagine thorough, habitiul conservation measure, coupled to large scale investment in alternatives, having a huge impact


----------



## lownote (Jan 3, 2008)

Posted By terry_n_85318 on 05/15/2008 2:17 PM 
DKR, 
It seems to me that the global warming thing is a big hoax -- The planet has been cooling down for the last eight or nine years. It was a lot warmer in the period of 1000 AD to ~ 1400 AD. The vikings went to "GREENLAND" and lived there. Then it got cold. They crossed the Atlantic when it was warm, they couldn't do it now because it is too cold. 
What should the ambient temperature of the planet be? 
Terry

Oy Global warming is an established fact. Sure, the planet has heated and cooled in the past. It's heating now, as far as anyone can tell, at a much faster rate than ever before. And is it just a coincidence that it's heating at a faster rate since the industrial revolution. Could be, but virtually all the scientific evidence says global warming is accellerating and that carbon dioxide is a reason. 
But don't believe me--here's president Bush 
Interview with President Bush 
By WHITE HOUSE TRANSCRIPT | 5/13/08 5:17 PM EST 
Text Size: 
Page 3 
Q Mr. President, I wonder if in your eight years in office what the changes have been, in your view, of climate change? 
THE PRESIDENT: I think it's been more clearly defined as a problem. But what hasn't changed is the realistic notion that new technologies are going to be the solution, and the fundamental question is how do you grow the economy at the same time, and at the same time encourage new technologies. And my administration has done more for the new technologies necessary to change our lifestyles without sacrificing wealth than any other administration. 
*Q Mr. President, for the record, is global warming real? 
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, it is real, sure is.* 

here's the link: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0508/10316_Page3.html 

I mean look at it this way. There is a natural tendency for soil to erode. If you strip the vegetation off a hillside, soil will erode faster. So soil erosion is a hoax, because it happens anyway?


----------



## terry_n_85318 (Jan 3, 2008)

Lownote, 

So the cooling over the last decade was imaginary? The sunspot cycle has nothing to with the temperature variation of the planet? Are we responsible for the temperature increase on Mars and Venus also? 

I asked this before -- What should the temperature of earth be? When the dinosaurs were around, it was a real hot house (this was determined by looking at the foilage fossils). Who's to say that it's not supposed to be a hot house? 

Global warming has not been proven. A consensus of scientists means nothing. Where did they get thier data? -- science is black and white with proven facts. What about the half of the scientists that don't agree? If you choose to believe the pap they are saying, you have that right. I don't. 

I am an engineer and I don't see the facts required to say that humans are causing global warming. To think that humans can control the environment is being egotistical. If we were that powerful, we would control the weather, stop hurricanes, stop tornados, etc. How can they predict warming trend when they can't predict the weather more than a day or two in advance? 

Terry


----------



## lownote (Jan 3, 2008)

What cooling? Do you have some evidence of this cooling? The polar ice caps are melting at a faster rate than predicted. Average global temperatures keep going up. There is no "half" of scientists who don't believe in global warming. Where are you pulling this stuff from? 

Here, read this: 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming 

Or don't--it's pretty clear you aren't interested in facts on this 


Look, as I said, the earth has gone through cycles of cooling and warming before. All the evidence suggests that warming is happening faster than ever before, and there is a clear connection between carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and rising temperatures. No one is arguing that everything can be predicted or controled,it's simply an argument that since the industrial revolution, global temperatures have risen faster than ever before. It could be purely a coincidence, or it could be--i dunno, just maybe-that pumping billions of tons of carbon dioxide into the air, at a rate never before seen, has an effect. Or it could be sunspots. Or venusians. Hey, the water's rising--let's do nothing. After all, north america was once covered by anm inland sea, and who's to say how high the water should be?


----------



## terry_n_85318 (Jan 3, 2008)

Lownote, 

It is obvious that both of us believe strongly in our positions. Therefore, we will have to agree to disagree on this subject. 

Have a nice day, 

Terry


----------



## Guest (May 15, 2008)

well, the lines are drawn. 
Here, read this: 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming 
Or don't--it's pretty clear you aren't interested in facts on this 

i don't think, this topic will bring any consensus. 

global warming reminds me a lot of the "sour rain", much feared in europe during the 70ies and 80ies. every politician, every journalist knew then, that "sour" rain was killing all trees. 
laws were made, to clean the factory smokes, the (in)famous Katalisators were put in cars. 
goverment-funded institutes all found "proof" that in the year 2000 most of the european woods would be destroyed by sour rain. 
those few retired or otherwise independent scientists, who pointed out, that rain MUST be sour, and allways has been, because destilated/evaporated water is sour, were simply ignored. 

now the industries went to eastern european countries, the woods in east and west are growing healthy, the used katalisators cause high costs to be broken down... 
but today nobody talks about that. - why not? simply, because they got a new toy. it is called "global warming". 
... and all the goverment-funded scientists all over the world hasten to secure their funds by telling the politicians, what those want to hear. 

nobody thinks twice. nobody notes, that a simple cloud (evaporated water in the air) reflects more rays in a day, than those 3% CO² in the air can in a whole year. nobody wants to aknowledge the sunspot cycle and its influence on temperature. 
and... - ... nobody seems to notice, that a temperature like there was a thousand years ago, with higher CO² concentration would be good, not bad. higher CO² means, that plants can grow faster. (they feed on that stuff) higher temperature means, that more land can be used to produce food. higher temperature means more evaporation - more rains. filling our empty aquifers. 
and we (here i mean humankind) need two things most urgently: more food and more sweetwater. global warming could give us just that. 

i hope, we get global warming. 

korm 
.


----------



## KYYADA (Mar 24, 2008)

Here is some interesting reading which if true offers insight to global warming. 

http://www.world-mysteries.com/sar_1.htm


----------



## Gary Armitstead (Jan 2, 2008)

According to the U.S. National Snow and Ice Center, the Arctic polar cap, in Feb. 1986 had 12.5 million sq. km. of ice. In Feb. 2006, it had decreased to 12.3 million sq. km.. The Antarctic polar ice, in Feb. 1986 had 13.4 million Sq. Km. of ice. That cap, in Feb. 2006, had increased to 14.5 million Sq. km. That is a net INCREASE of 900,000 Sq. km. of ice. One ice cap had decreased in size by 1.6% and the other cap had increased in size by 8.2%. Global warming?/DesktopModules/NTForums/themes/mls/emoticons/unsure.gif


----------



## Pete Thornton (Jan 2, 2008)

there are so many factors involved that for us to attempt to regulate climate change is the height of arrogance 

global warming reminds me a lot of the "sour rain", much feared in europe during the 70ies and 80ies


Sometimes I wonder about you guys...especially suggesting we can't regulate climate. Of course we can - it just takes time and commitment. 

Acid/sour rain was a problem many years ago, especially for forests downwind of the Midwest coal-burning plants. So the goverment(s) mandated 'scrubbers' on the plants, and the acid rain problem is no longer a major problem for New England forests. 

Notice I didn't say it wasn't a problem - just that it isn't a major problem. 

The same thing happened with England's fog, which was a huge problem in the 50s. (You had to be there!) The scientists said it was caused by buring coal in all the houses, so the government mandated smokeless coal (anthracite mostly) and the fogs slowly declined, to the point that there aren't any of the nasty smogs any more, just a few normal foggy days. 

We elect governments to do the collective things that we can't do alone, like form a Navy, or make rules about how we live for the good of us all. There are lots of government rules that we all live by, (like treating your sewage before flushing it into the local stream,) but they weren't always obvious when they were formulated. They usually cost something to implement, like forming a Navy requires taxes to pay for it, and take time, lots of it. 

Science isn't exact. It's an accumulation of evidence, and everyone needs to open their minds a little and look at the evidence. Are the glaciers melting? Is the sea level rising? Would using a little less gas in our cars make a difference? Would drilling in the ANWR wilderness (currently reserved for future generations to enjoy in its wild state,) make any difference in the long term? 

This reminds me of the stupid 'theory of evolution' debate - doesn't everyone know that a scientific theory is only a fact until someone disproves it using other facts? Gravity, thermodynamics, electricity are only theories - it's just that no-one has come up with any facts that contradict them! 
"Global Warming" is the same. Call it Climate Change, call it whatever, but keep an open mind. Just because you don't like or respect the guy who's telling you doesn't mean that he's automatically wrong! Listen, investigate, and be prepared for changes in your lifestyle.


----------



## lownote (Jan 3, 2008)

Very nicely put Pete


----------



## Road Foreman (Jan 2, 2008)

Pete, 

If global warming is taking place, why has the earth temperature remained the same since 2001 to 2007.. They are now claiming that the earth lost all the heat gain of the last century in the winter of 2007/2008, the coldest in a long time.. 

BulletBob


----------



## terry_n_85318 (Jan 3, 2008)

What temperature is the earth supposed to be at? 

How is climate regulated Pete? If it was possible to regulate the climate, why haven't we eliminated the drought we have in the southwest or the tornados in the midwest or the hurricanes along the east coast? 

Terry


----------



## lownote (Jan 3, 2008)

Posted By Road Foreman on 05/16/2008 9:00 AM
Pete, 
If global warming is taking place, why has the earth temperature remained the same since 2001 to 2007.. They are now claiming that the earth lost all the heat gain of the last century in the winter of 2007/2008, the coldest in a long time.. 
BulletBob 




Who is "they" and can you point to some evidence for th things you're claiming?


----------



## Pete Thornton (Jan 2, 2008)

If it was possible to regulate the climate, why haven't we eliminated the drought we have in the southwest or the tornados in the midwest or the hurricanes along the east coast?

Terry, 

As the saying goes: "the difficult we do immediately, the impossible takes a little longer!" Give the human race a few more years to work on that one. [Incidentally, I was in Moscow for their annual celebration a few years ago and it was a clear, sunny day. Because they had sent bombers up the day before to 'seed' the clouds with silver iodide to make the moisture leave. How about that for modifying the weather?] 

I'd suggest that we're not really 'regulating' the climate. We're just doing our best to remove our influences - such as coal burning in the 1950s, or NOx emissions from our cars, or carbon particles from diesel exhaust, or sulphurous emissions from power plants. 

The last article I read had figures for the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, which is believed to have doubled in this century. (Or are we disputing these scientific measurements, too?) Now, many folk think it would be prudent to stop adding to that - just in case it is causing a warming trend.


----------



## East Broad Top (Dec 29, 2007)

What temperature is the earth supposed to be at?

More importantly, where do you stick the thermometer? (And who wants the job?)  

How is climate regulated Pete?

Ask the Chinese. Their government made the claim a few months ago that they will be able to control the weather during the Beijing Olympics so it doesn't rain on the open stadium they built. Evidently, they're using some variation of cloud seeding and some kind of sonic technology that's supposed to vibrate the clouds to dissipate. As a fallback, the entire Hebei province has been given the words to "Rain, Rain Go Away." 

Later, 

K


----------



## Great Western (Jan 2, 2008)

A few observations: 

There was no hard and very cold winter in the UK in 2007/8 that I recall - certainly not in this neck of the woods. 

I have heard mention before that one polar cap is melting whereas the other one is increasing in size. One thing I haven't seen mentioned is that the earth increases and decreases in its polar tilt over a period of time - which may well account for this occurrence. 

This Country was, apparently, overall warmer for a few centuries following the Norman Conquest (1066 and all that) than now but it is a fact that in the 19th. century the River Thames often froze. It hasn't in my lifetime (three score and ten. 

Somehow I don't quite buy "global warning" but if, what is said frequently is fact, then: 

a) it may well be too late to reverse the trend or 

b) getting people to give up road transport and air travel will be nigh on impossible - and don't overlook the fact that other parts of the world have now caught up with the Wests' affluent lifestyle and want to be part of it.


----------



## terry_n_85318 (Jan 3, 2008)

Approximately 75,000 years ago +/- a couple thousand, there was a cataclysmic event where most of the human race (execpt for a couple thousand people) were killed along with a large portion of the animal population. The event was a volcanic eruption on a scale never seen before. It put cubic miles of ash and gas in the atmoshpere causing a drop in the average temperature of the earth of approximately 10 degrees C. The atmoshpere was changed for years afterword. 

It took a while, the the earth recovered from this. To think that humans could do as much "damage" as the that eruption or all of the eruption that have occurred since then is arrogant to say the least. 

Plants use CO2 and convert it to oxygen and food through photosynthesis. We breathe the oxygen to create CO2. If there is more CO2 in the air, the plants will be thriving and producing more oxygen. What is the problem? 

Since nobody knows what the temperature of the earth is supposed to be, how can you say that an increase in temperture is bad? A long time ago it was very warm. 

Terry


----------



## Road Foreman (Jan 2, 2008)

lownote, 

Go here.. 

http://www.dailytech.com:80/Temperature+Monitors+Report+Worldwide+Global+Cooling/article10866.htm 

Here is the first couple paragraphs.. 

Twelve-month long drop in world temperatures wipes out a century of warming 

Over the past year, anecdotal evidence for a cooling planet has exploded. China has its coldest winter in 100 years. Baghdad sees its first snow in all recorded history. North America has the most snowcover in 50 years, with places like Wisconsin the highest since record-keeping began. Record levels of Antarctic sea ice, record cold in Minnesota, Texas, Florida, Mexico, Australia, Iran, Greece, South Africa, Greenland, Argentina, Chile -- the list goes on and on. 

No more than anecdotal evidence, to be sure. But now, that evidence has been supplanted by hard scientific fact. All four major global temperature tracking outlets (Hadley, NASA's GISS, UAH, RSS) have released updated data. All show that over the past year, global temperatures have dropped precipitously. 

BulletBob


----------



## toddalin (Jan 4, 2008)

Posted By terry_n_85318 on 05/16/2008 10:30 AM
Approximately 75,000 years ago +/- a couple thousand, there was a cataclysmic event where most of the human race (execpt for a couple thousand people) were killed along with a large portion of the animal population. The event was a volcanic eruption on a scale never seen before. It put cubic miles of ash and gas in the atmoshpere causing a drop in the average temperature of the earth of approximately 10 degrees C. The atmoshpere was changed for years afterword. 

Terry




How do you know that this wasn't from the massive meteor that landed in the Yucatan penninsula area?


----------



## lownote (Jan 3, 2008)

BulletBob: 

No one ever said that global warming could mean a steady, unvarying, constant increase. If last year was cooler, it doesn't change the overall trend. If the trend continues down, that's a different story. Here's what the author of the DialyTEch Article had to say: 

"UPDATE AND CAVEAT: 
The website DailyTech has an article citing this blog entry as a reference, and their story got picked up by the Drudge report, resulting in a wide distribution. In the DailyTech article there is a paragraph: 
â€œAnthony Watts compiled the results of all the sources. The total amount of cooling ranges from 0.65C up to 0.75C â€" a value large enough to erase nearly all the global warming recorded over the past 100 years. All in one year time. For all sources, itâ€™s the single fastest temperature change ever recorded, either up or down.â€� 
*I wish to state for the record, that this statement is not mine: â€œâ€"a value large enough to erase nearly all the global warming recorded over the past 100 yearsâ€� 
There has been no â€œerasureâ€�. This is an anomaly with a large magnitude, and it coincides with other anecdotal weather evidence. It is curious, it is unusual, it is large, it is unexpected, but it does not â€œeraseâ€� anything. I suggested a correction to DailyTech and they have graciously complied."* See "http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/02/19/january-2008-4-sources-say-globally-cooler-in-the-past-12-months/" 


Similarly, if your local area is cooler, not warmer, it does not negate the possibility of global warming. The effects of an overall increase in global temperature don't necessarily mean everyone's temp. goes up, because climate is a complex thing. England is cooler than Virginia, even though it's much much farther north. Global warming does not necessarily mean temps will go up everywhere. 

Your example is one year of data, and it does not do what you claim it does. It's a very interesting observation, and if it continues, it would be important and would challenge the notion of global warming. But if you look at the chart, you'll see that there have been other drops in temperature in the past, while the overall trend has been up


----------



## lownote (Jan 3, 2008)

Posted By terry_n_85318 on 05/16/2008 10:30 AM
Approximately 75,000 years ago +/- a couple thousand, there was a cataclysmic event where most of the human race (execpt for a couple thousand people) were killed along with a large portion of the animal population. The event was a volcanic eruption on a scale never seen before. It put cubic miles of ash and gas in the atmoshpere causing a drop in the average temperature of the earth of approximately 10 degrees C. The atmoshpere was changed for years afterword. 
It took a while, the the earth recovered from this. To think that humans could do as much "damage" as the that eruption or all of the eruption that have occurred since then is arrogant to say the least. 
Plants use CO2 and convert it to oxygen and food through photosynthesis. We breathe the oxygen to create CO2. If there is more CO2 in the air, the plants will be thriving and producing more oxygen. What is the problem? 
Since nobody knows what the temperature of the earth is supposed to be, how can you say that an increase in temperture is bad? A long time ago it was very warm. 
Terry




Terry I'm not sure why this is relevant. You are setting up a straw man. No has ever denied that the earth's climate has changed in the past--no one. No one is denying it now. Similarly, no one is arguing that there is a proper temperature that the earth always has been and should be now. No one. No one would deny there have been large scale climate altering events in the past. No one--it's a central fact of Geohistory. 

Rather, what's being argued is that human activity since the industrial revolution roughly in the last 100 years--is accelerating the shape and pace of change, and changing the climate in ways that are independent of natural climate cycles. These changes we have caused will have potentially disastrous effects, and we can stop or lessen them if we act. 

The logic of your argument says that even if we knew for a fact that global warming is going to cause a catastrophe that will wipe out all but a few 1000 people, we should do nothing, because there have been catastrophes in the past and who knows how many people are supposed to be on earth? You really don't want to argue that, do you? I mean, your argument is exactly like this: 

A guy starts a wildfire that consumes 30 million acres of western forest. But we can't either put the fire out or take measures to prevent fires, because there hav alway been wildfires, and who's to say what part of the earth is supposed to be burned? 

Do you really want to argue that?


----------



## Road Foreman (Jan 2, 2008)

lownote, 
Do you know what a Stevenson screen is?? If so go look up the guide lines for there placement, then go check on 10 to 20 of them & see how many meet the requirements.. If they do not meet the requirements, how many are by hot items.. Could this be the reason the temperature is going up?? 
BulletBob


----------



## lownote (Jan 3, 2008)

Posted By Road Foreman on 05/16/2008 1:24 PM
lownote, 
Do you know what a Stevenson screen is?? If so go look up the guide lines for there placement, then go check on 10 to 20 of them & see how many meet the requirements.. If they do not meet the requirements, how many are by hot items.. Could this be the reason the temperature is going up?? 
BulletBob




Sure, it could be that it's all due to consistently faulty instruments over a fifty year period. It is indeed possible, however unlikely. Then again, that could be the same explanation for the DROP in temperature that you were talking about earlier, no?


----------



## Guest (May 16, 2008)

lownote, 

if somebody tries to sell me a new idea, i allways ask, who is profiting? 

in case of global warming i see that goverments (most of them near broke) raise new taxes and funds to combat global warming. 
i see, that those scientists, that are backing the goverments in this theme are mostly those, who receive goverment funding, the dependant ones. 
and, not to forget, alternative energy gets more competetive, if CO² emissions will be fined. 

CO² emission is the actual culprit. - do you remember the last culprit? 
a couple of years ago, global warming "was caused" by those gases, we had in the fridges and in the spraycans. 
now we pay more for fridges with alternative gas and we have more expensive, but less effective sprays. 
... and the concentration in the atmosfere of these gases did not get lower. it can't. because every sh** contains them. every dunghill on any farm emits dayly the amount of those gases, 90,000 spraycans would. 
even the topic giving polarbears each dung out the equivalent of more than a spraycan dayly. 

do we really have reasons to believe anything, the politicians tell us? 

korm 
.


----------



## SteveC (Jan 2, 2008)

Korm

Funny that you mention that, because personally it isn't the possibility of global warming that's got me worried. It's the solutions proposed thus far, sort of a case where the disease isn't half as bad as the cure. /DesktopModules/NTForums/themes/mls/emoticons/hehe.gif


----------



## lownote (Jan 3, 2008)

Kormsen, it's not politicians telling us, except for Gore--and I didn't even see the movie, and he was not a politician when he made it, he was an ex-politician. It's scientists. Why would gverments want to push costly conservation measures no one wants? Are you suggesting there's some kind of alternative energy lobby more poweful than, say, oil comapanies and car companies? Or that people ho hate hummers have a hypnotic influence over the rest of us? 

At the time global warming first entered the public discussion, the US was running a very large surplus, under Clinton. Far from being broke, the US was enjoying what used to be called "the peace dividend" combined with the benefits of tech innovation. But even so, it was scientists, not govt. officials, who first broke the idea. If you want to argue they are all dupes of the govt., you need to explian why the government wants to invent global warming, or how it makes money from it. Our president and Vice president, for example, were both in the oil business before they got elected. 

What you are recalling is not global warming, but the ozone layer. The gas in spray cans and refrigerators was a chloroflourocarbn (CFC), most often freon. CFCs were connected to the depletion of a layer of ozone in the atmosphere. The result was not global warming, but an increase in skin cancers--n increase, which a, as far as I know, actually happened. CFCs are not produced by animal droppings or human waste--that's methane. You're confusing methane and freon. Methane IS claimed to contribute to global warming. But methane was never used in spray cans. If it had been, they would have smelled like a fart.


----------



## lownote (Jan 3, 2008)

Posted By SteveC on 05/16/2008 2:14 PM
Korm

Funny that you mention that, because personally it isn't the possibility of global warming that's got me worried. It's the solutions proposed thus far, sort of a case where the disease isn't half as bad as the cure. /DesktopModules/NTForums/themes/mls/emoticons/hehe.gif" border=0>" border=0>




You guys kind of amaze me--CFCs have a demonstrated effect on ozone, and the ozone layer reduces the UV radiation hitting th earth. Which would you rather have, skin cancer, or slightly less effective spray paint? I mean, have you ever taken the skin cancer cure? I'll take the spray paint, thanks


----------



## flatracker (Jan 2, 2008)

I don't know if I'm getting addled in my old age, but I'm beginning to be amused by all this. It's kind of funny when you stop to think about it. 

All here are really interested and conserned about what is happening (so called global warming, high cost of oil, etc.), and we all would like to do something about it on a positive side. But look at us. We each have been swayed by information (input) we have heard, read, seen on TV, personal experience, etc. and tried to form in our mind what is the best way to combat the problems. So we end up expressing what we think is correct (or the closest thing we can come up with) and there you have it! Differences of opinion! I guess none of us have the power to do much about any of it because it is so complex, and the polititions will continue to muddle up what they can. Ha ha 

I think I'll try to conserve what I can, when I can, and find a good book to read. 

Meanwhile, I'll enjoy reading the threads that follow and try to make some sense of it all...but I'm not too encouraged that we will solve anything or change anyone's mind. Maybe that's what seems funny to me!


----------



## toddalin (Jan 4, 2008)

Posted By lownote on 05/16/2008 2:25 PM

But methane was never used in spray cans. If it had been, they would have smelled like a fart. 





Methane may be used as a propellant, and no, it has no smell per se. It's the associated mercaptans that give farts and landfills that distinctive odor. /DesktopModules/NTForums/themes/mls/emoticons/sick.gif


----------



## Pete Thornton (Jan 2, 2008)

I'm not too encouraged that we will solve anything or change anyone's mind


Maybe not, but we're not going to get anywhere without trying! 

I was hoping my examples would point out that we, the people, can make things happen - sometimes it takes a long time to see the results. I was reading in Nat Geog about a scientist who is trying to produce blight-resistant chestnut tree; he hopes that in 100 years there will be plenty of them again where now there are few. Just because we won't see results in our lifetime is no reason not to start. 

getting people to give up road transport and air travel will be nigh on impossible


One sure way to slow it down is to make it economically unatractive. AAA today estimated that this Memorial Day holiday will result in the first decrease in overall mileage travelled for a long time - due to the price of gas. 

What happens if gas prices continue to rise - and I see no reason why they won't? As someone pointed out, a lot of those Chinese and Indians want a swanky SUV like mine. The supply is finite (with or without ANWR) and the demand is increasing, so maybe the price will continue to rise. Europeans cope with gas prices significantly higher than ours and they buy smaller, gas-efficient cars. 

The answer is simple - more Railroads!


----------



## terry_n_85318 (Jan 3, 2008)

My point was the earth recovers on it's own from natural events or man made events. The man made events are nowhere near the magnitude of the major cataclysmic events that occurred in the past. "Global warming" is a percieved man made event. 

If the price of oil goes to high, the whole economy will come to a screeching halt not just the cars. Then what? 

Terry


----------



## Semper Vaporo (Jan 2, 2008)

Like you said... the world will recover.


----------



## Dwight Ennis (Jan 2, 2008)

A few interesting links... 

*Global Warming on Mars (Source: NASA)* 

*Global Warming on Pluto (Source: MIT)* 

*Sunspots 
With his newly invented telescope, Galileo discovered dark sunspots in 1610. After 400 years, they still baffle us. There is a well known 11 year cycle in the number of spots seen on the Sun. Are there longer cycles? In the August 1894 issue of Knowledge, E. Walter Maunder wrote that despite frequent observations by capable observers, very few spots were observed in the late 17th century. For example, the 1671 sunspot was the first in over a decade. 

Carefully examining historic records and indirectly estimating sunspot activity before 1610, John A. Eddy in 1976 confirmed the Maunder minimum from 1645 to 1715, found another minimum from 1460 to 1550, and a prolonged medieval grand maximum from 1100 to 1250, when the Vikings were active on Greenland. During grand maxima the 11 year spot cycle occurs at a level much higher than normal. Eddy also speculated that we might be due for another grand maximum starting in the 22nd century. Bolstering this view, recent maxima are among the most active on record. Does increased sunspot activity help warm Earth's climate? 

Satellite observations of the Sun's luminosity (total energy per second) over recent 11 year solar cycles show that the Sun is about 0.1% more luminous during sunspot maximum than minimum. What about longer cycles? Accurately measuring the Sun's luminosity centuries ago is clearly impossible, but there is indirect evidence. The Maunder minimum was apparently one of the coldest periods on record in Europe. The Viking colony that Flourished in Greenland during the medieval grand maximum was abandoned when the sunspot level decreased and Greenland simultaneously cooled. Studies of other solar types stars show a similar tendency for the luminosity to change with the spot cycle. 

It certainly has not been proven, but there is evidence that the Sun's luminosity varies as part of long term spot activity cycles and that Earth's climate responds with long term climate cycles. If correct, then our current global warming might in small part result from solar induced climate cycles. There may of course be multiple causes, so this hypothesis does not in any way invalidate the greenhouse effect. It does however show that other factors are also at work. The problem is more complex than the average person realizes. 
*


----------



## terry_n_85318 (Jan 3, 2008)

I'm going to do my part to stamp out global warming. I vow to keep my carbon footprint lower than Al Gores at all times.  

Terry


----------



## Semper Vaporo (Jan 2, 2008)

Between this thread and the one I am sorry I started about how to increase prices with less complaints, I think those of you that don't have your head in the sand, have it in some other dark and quite smelly place. 

"WE" are all idiots. No doubt about it!


----------



## Guest (May 16, 2008)

I think those of you that don't have your head in the sand, have it in some other dark and quite smelly place. 

thanks for the information. i tended to believe, that somebody turned off the light. 

lownote, 
Are you suggesting there's some kind of alternative energy lobby more poweful than, say, oil comapanies and car companies? Or that people ho hate hummers have a hypnotic influence over the rest of us?

now you are right on spot! 
you should see, how the greenish NGOs are growing like mushrooms over here. 
with about 75 acres planted, i am the greatest reforester in our zone. 
but the functionaries of the firstworld-funded NGOs never invite me for workshops or conferences, because told them to plant trees, instead of throwing money out of the windows for "inspection" holiday tours. 
did you never hear about the reforestation certificates first world industry buys? 
thats business! 
plant ten acres, sell five times 20 acres to industries in five different countries, then abandon them and send fotos from korm's private reforestation to oversea.... 
then bring in some UNO desk-cowboy, draw him through some nightclubs, show him somebody elses plantation, get your certificate. that's business. 
or take your first world press and TV. don't they earn on global warming? 
or take your average political clown. does he do something about crime? or about desoccupation? no - he rides the new horse, global warming. there he can rant, promise, lie and cheat what he wants. jim, joe and jack can't verify if it's truth or lie. 
global warming is like your railroad-barons in the 1800s - only global.


----------



## tom h (Jan 2, 2008)

I have been reading this with interest, do I believe we should have clean water and air? of course I am a hunter and fisherman, we are usually very conservative with the outdoors, because we want to spend more time out in it. Do I believe MAN can control global warming cooling or whatever you want to call it? No I do not, I think its a big scam, FOLLOW the money. Can we be environmental friendly? Yes, we all can do our part, but I have a hard time believing people who are so arrogant in believing we can control the way this planet either warms or cools. About the scientists, there are a LOT of them that prove or look at the data that refutes this, but do you hear anything about them? Lets try to have common sense about this, something all the politicians lost a long time ago. 

tom h


----------



## SteveC (Jan 2, 2008)

lownote

As far as the depletion in the ozone layer, while the chemical processes for the destruction of ozone and thus an increase in UVB at the Earth's surface has been pretty well documented. There never was any direct observational evidence linking ozone depletion to higher incidence of skin cancer in human beings, not to mention that UVA, which by the way isn't filtered out by ozone, has also been implicated in causing skin cancer (makes it kind of hard to determine which caused what). yet that was one of the big scares that lead to the Montreal Protocol.

In answer to what most likely was meant as a rhetorical question _"I mean, have you ever taken the skin cancer cure?"_, in my case the answer is yes, and luckily in my particular instance it was no big thing.

As for the global warming/climate change, after attempting to get rid of some of the chaff, there still remain a fair number of creditable scientists on both sides of the subject, so as to call into question just exactly what is or isn't happening. Then there have been discrepancies found in the data used and the methodologies used in the computer modeling.

The politicians, ah yes, to me personally they are the most worrisome group, because they have a historically demonstrated track record of way to often taking off on a tangent in their typical over-zealous manner causing more trouble than they're worth. While creating problems that in many cases are worse than the one they're supposedly attempting to cure.


----------



## flatracker (Jan 2, 2008)

This continues to be interesting! Mostly I still chuckle at the number of comments about the different things the "experts" have bought to our attention, because it just depends on who you want to listen to as to your thoughts. 

Let me ask a simple question. What if we were all on the edge of starving, but to solve the problem the politicians could open up more land to grow more food. What would you want them to do? So, why aren't we drilling in ANWAR, the gulf etc., and building more nuke plants? Because the politicians, special interest groups, and environmental groups are keeping it from happening? 

The new "Farm subsidy bill" just passed, has opened up marginal wetlands for growing wheat (read that for fuel)? Wonder where the environmentalists were on that? The bill will cost 290 billion over the next 5 years, and even rewards many for not growing anything, like back when they really needed it. Of course several politicians in several states have a pretty good income from that too. Hmmm Of course it does help many that really need it, but there is so much pork in it it would make you sick to see where a lot of the money is going. 

Still, the REAL problem is the overpopulation of the earth, and NO ONE is going to do anything about that. I won't be here to see it, but it's coming...


----------



## Pete Thornton (Jan 2, 2008)

What if we were all on the edge of starving, but to solve the problem the politicians could open up more land to grow more food

Well, there's the slight problem that there is only a finite amount of land - just like there's only a finite amount of oil. However, when we get to the starving phase 
the REAL problem is the overpopulation 

will get solved fairly radically? 

Before that, I expect we'll elect leaders who open up the land to farming, and the ANWR to drilling. I'm all for preserving pristine wilderness for future generations at the moment, but ask me again when I'm hungry and my neighbors are wandering around with guns trying to steal all my food. 

I have a hard time believing people who are so arrogant in believing we can control the way this planet either warms or cools.

Tom, respectfully, you're missing the point. No-one thinks they can control the planet's warming and cooling, or the weather for that matter. What is being proposed is that we, the occupiers of this lovely planet, stop polluting it with our waste. Stop throwing plastic bottles away that end up floating in the ocean, stop filling landfills with batteries and other toxic material, and stop spewing pollutants into the air. 

Whether the specific pollutants we create with our cars and coal-burning electricity plants, CO2 and NOx, are really causing the planet to warm up is debatable. What is not debatable is that we're doing a lot more of it than we used to, and there are fewer trees to absorb the CO2 (more over-population by-product?) It isn't debatable that the Chesapeake Bay has a huge 'dead zone' in summer due to disolved nitrogen from all the cars around here. 

We all need to reduce our impact on the earth; tread lightly and carry a beagle!


----------



## lownote (Jan 3, 2008)

What Pete said 

I would never argue that scientists are always right, or that paradise can be brought about. I'm a historian for a living--skepticism is the central premise of my professional life. Let's say for the sake of argument that global warming is caused by sunspots. It would still be a good idea to produce less Co2, to throw less plastic away, to burn less coal--it would still be a good idea to tread more lightly. The Chesapeake is in big trouble--it's not fantasy or propaganda, ordinary Eastern Shore watermen are out of work because the oysters are nearly gone and the crabs are diminishing every year. 

It seems to me that global warming is happening, and it see, to me highly highly likely that human activities are part of the reason, maybe the major part. But even if they were not, I'd still be arguing for a more "green" way of living. 

As Pete said, the biggest upside would be...more railroads. In the 40s, the lumberyard was near a rail siding. Today, the Home Depot is in the middle of a huge parking lot and surviving lumberyards are generally near what used to be rail lines. Right near my house is an old rail line that's now a bike path. As you bike along you can see all the businesses that once used rail, almost all closed.


----------



## Steve S. (Jan 2, 2008)

Lets see: there's save the whales, polar bears, monkeys, gorrilas, spotted owl, horned frog, trees, shrubs, rain forests, jungles, mother earth, etc., etc.,...........what about save the humans for a change? Im so sick about hearing how Americans are the blame for the worlds problems I want to /DesktopModules/NTForums/themes/mls/emoticons/sick.gif puke. /DesktopModules/NTForums/themes/mls/emoticons/sick.gif Sadam Insane torched entire oilfields, the Russians have had some of the best keep "secret" nuclear disasters (whole towns lost), no telling what the long term effects are to the whole region, the Chineese could care less about trying to clean up, you can't hardly breath in Mexico city let alone when they burn their fields (on purpose) and enough smoke is caused that it covers parts of Texas,......I could go on and on. Nobody ever talks about these problems. But let any major company in the U.S. spill a pint of oil somewhere and the world stops to point a finger at us and out come our own U.S. enviro' whako's who live here to trash their own country. The real problem is not the U.S.A., but the "rest of the world", and those that live here in the U.S. but for some reason feel guilty to be an American.


----------



## SteveC (Jan 2, 2008)

I think that one of the things that usually derails conversations regarding the subject of 'global warming/climate change.' Is the fact that just because one challenges the theory, doesn't automatically translate into no desire to support being a good steward of where we live. I'm all for doing what can be done for not impacting our planet in a negative manner.

It seems to me that the first thing that goes out the window is 'common sense', the second thing that goes missing, is a rational approach to developing solutions and that doesn't include ones that will negatively disrupt the whole world's economy.

It's been said that there are two modes that sheep can be in "graze & stampede", well I'm not going to let anybody stampede me into climbing on board their bandwagon, unless I've been satisfied that what being said is factual and the chosen course of makes sense to me.


----------



## blackburn49 (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By Steve S. on 05/17/2008 1:27 PM

Lets see: there's save the whales, polar bears, spotted owl, horned frog, trees, shrubs, rain forests, jungles, mother earth, etc., etc.,.........._*.what about save the humans for a change*_? Im so sick about hearing how Americans are the blame for the worlds problems I want to puke. Sadam Insane torched entire oilfields, the Russians have had some of the best keep "secret" nuclear disasters (whole towns lost), no telling what the long term effects are to the whole region, the Chineese could care less about trying to clean up, you can't hardly breath in Mexico city let alone when they burn their fields (on purpose) and enough smoke is caused that it covers parts of Texas,......I could go on and on. But let any major company in the U.S. spill a pint of oil somewhere and the world stops to point a finger at us and out come our own U.S. enviro' whakos to trash the U.S.A. The real problem is the rest of the world and those that live here and for some reason feel guilty to be an American.


Americans seem to have a lot of guilt about their own relative prosperity that manifests itself in rather strange ways. I believe it is safe to say that_ most_ of us truly want a more eco-friendly world. What I see happening though, is some very radical thought is attempting to pull a guilt trip on the rest of us. We (including, I might add, many of us Native-Americans and virtually all of us Alaskan _residents_ because our economy is based on resource extraction) are painted as _not_ sufficiently eco-friendly. The solution proposed is inevitably draconian and always at the expense of Alaska in particular and the rest of the U.S.A. in general. 



What I find is that much more often than not, when a person says they believe in global warming, what they are really saying is t hey believe in human-caused global warming. _We_ ---the western world in particular, but most-especially the United States--are the culprits. And we must absolve ourselves by taking measures so potentially costly that we risk totally destroying our economy over nothing more than unproven theory. And_ it is _unproven theory. I keep hearing about how there is a "scientific consensus" on this matter and that "the debate is over" when it comes to global warming or climate change. But neither statement is true and we are talking about something which is unprovable. 



Even if we had strong reason to believe in AGW--anthropomorphic global warming--of which there is far too much contrary evidence--then there is the question of a) should we even attempt to regulate the climate and b) what is the optimum temperature. No one but industrial-based western man who has been thoroughly doused in Marxism could come up with such incredibly wild notions. Worse, even the AGN proponents now admit that even if we ageed to the most drastic of measures, the results would ultimately be close to neglible. 



In the meantime we will have likely permanently crippled our American economic engine and enabled what I now see as wholesale economic depression in the very near future to destroy millions of American lives. And some of you are willing to take that risk over nothing but theory? 



We all want to see cleaner air and water, more efficient technologies--all the things that make our planet not only more livable but far more enjoyable. In that regard, we have made great strides since the 1960s. I resent the implication that we are poisoning the planet. The trend at least in the western world has been just the opposite. A cleaner world cannot be achieved by taking a Malthusian outlook that we MUST drastically reduce our lifestyle in order to "save" something--anything. We live in a complex highly-technological age and a world economy. Heavy-handed government interference in the economy has never worked. It does not work elsewhere and it won't here. Yet that is what is called for when one begins limiting the economy with wholly unreasonable measures that include blocking access to our own resources. That is just nuts and it defies common sense.



Finally, on the specific topic of ANWR, which is where I began with the thread, I defy any of you who want to wholly preserve this pristine wilderness to go out there and camp in it for two weeks. Fly over it first. It doesn't matter whether it is winter or summer. It is a wasteland in the winter and one enormous mosquito bog in the summertime. It is_ not_ a hiking or camping paradise, believe me. The 1002 region of ANWR--a relatively small segment that should be open for drilling out of a much larger area known as ANWR--can be effectively managed. If you think the caribou up there are in endangered then you don't know caribou. And if you think the polar bears are threatened, you don't know just how adaptable these creatures are. They right there on the very top of the food chain--one of two mammals in the world that_ will_ hunt you down and kill you if given a chance _every_ time.



The only thing really threatened is my own Native people's existence not just in that area but throughout Alaska. The mass migration of Natives out of the villages and into the cities because they can no longer afford the heating oil is speeding up at an alarming rate. And that will spell the end of original Native culture in Alaska. Part of the blame I_ will _place at the feet of the radical environmentalists, who are not our friends. We Native people are the ultimate environmentalists. Will they--the eco-nuts who now seem to control Congress trust us to manage our own lands? You already know the answer to that question.


----------



## terry_n_85318 (Jan 3, 2008)

Balburn49, 

Well said!! I agree with you. 

Terry


----------



## cmjdisanto (Jan 6, 2008)

after reading Ron's prior post anythingI could say, sarchastically or serious, would pale. so I have edited mt replly to reflect this.


----------



## cmjdisanto (Jan 6, 2008)

Ditto!/DesktopModules/NTForums/themes/mls/emoticons/whistling.gif


----------



## flatracker (Jan 2, 2008)

Well said Mr. Ronald Simpson (blackburn49)!!! I agree with you 100% and wish the majority of us felt the same way. I really believe most do, but how do we get the point across to those who seem to have such a loud and controlling voice?


----------



## cmjdisanto (Jan 6, 2008)

Posted By flatracker on 05/18/2008 5:21 AM
Well said Mr. Ronald Simpson (blackburn49)!!!" border=0> I agree with you 100% and wish the majority of us felt the same way. I really believe most do, but how do we get the point across to those who seem to have such a loud and controlling voice? 





Yes!!!!!!! and How???????


----------



## Steve S. (Jan 2, 2008)

but how do we get the point across to those who seem to have such a loud and controlling voice? 


One way would be to stop watching the news on ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, and MSNBC.


----------



## mhutson (Jan 2, 2008)

Very, very well said, Ron. Thank you. 

Cheers, 
Matt Hutson 
Gunnison, CO


----------



## flatracker (Jan 2, 2008)

Ahhh..Steve, I mostly watch FOX and Glen Beck on Headline News, but once in a while the others to stay fair and balanced. 

That's not what I was getting at though. How can we have an effect to get our energy policy back on track? I mean by that, to get busy drilling and build more nuke plants so we will hopefully become self sufficient. I believe it can be done properly without causing more polution, other than some stupid mistakes that are inevitable no matter which way we go. 

I really don't believe it's so hard to realize what needs to be done, and get on with it./DesktopModules/NTForums/themes/mls/emoticons/ermm.gif


----------



## tom h (Jan 2, 2008)

My wife always says I cannot say what I mean all the time, I agree 100% of what Ron said, very well said and thought out, we need MORE of those voices in our government now!! Thanks for the wonderful thoughts from someone who is there and understands what is happening. 

tom h


----------



## Pete Thornton (Jan 2, 2008)

Americans seem to have a lot of guilt about their own relative prosperity that manifests itself in rather strange ways. I believe it is safe to say that most of us truly want a more eco-friendly world. What I see happening though, is some very radical thought is attempting to pull a guilt trip on the rest of us. 


You know, if you stop being so insular and american, and looked at what is happening around the world, you'd find that the rest of the world is already doing a LOT more than we are to 'tread more lightly". I was amused by the bumper-sticker I saw in the UK on my last trip: "Yes, my trip is absolutely necessary!" Europeans are constantly harangued by their governments and green activists to reduce emissions, drive less, take the train, and generally reduce their environmental footprint. 

Im so sick about hearing how Americans are the blame for the worlds problems 


Part of the problem is that you are at the mercy of american TV, which doesn't present a very balanced or global perspective - they just push anything that might annoy you so you'll continue to watch the adverts! Read a foreign newspaper, or watch the BBC news if you want a different perspective. 

The other part is that the guys in power (you-know-who and Cheney,) who were elected by 50% of us guys, have refused to sign on to the global plan to reduce emissions from industry. The rest of the world has a strong suspicion that it is because of the american lobbying system, and that the Pres and Co were elected by big business, especially energy, to maintain the status quo. That hasn't helped the rest of the world to look kindly at us. 

Heavy-handed government interference in the economy has never worked. It does not work elsewhere and it won't here. 


Wrong (sorry!) Go back to the examples I gave. The ONLY thing that can help is heavy-handed government interference. 

Didn't you hear of the Maryland "flush" tax? They added a tax to our water bill to create the pool of funding needed to clean-up all the sewage plants dumping chemicals into the Bay, also owned by the heavy-handed government. 

It takes a heavy-handed government to force unpopular policies on us for our own good. (They sometimes get thrown out of office because it is too unpopular!) 

We all want to see cleaner air and water, more efficient technologies--all the things that make our planet not only more livable


Agreed.


----------



## Steve S. (Jan 2, 2008)

have refused to sign on to the global plan to reduce emissions from industry. 


Yea, and I guess that Russia and China (after signing) will clean up their act. President Bush was smart for not signing on because America would be the only one held accountable to it and held under a microscope. He realized that our hands would be further tied while the rest of the world cheats and gets away with it. Ok, fine, you might be able to find a few industries in Europe that are "Greener" /DesktopModules/NTForums/themes/mls/emoticons/sick.gif then us, but when you take into consideration the vast number of chemical plants here in the U.S., we are still much "Greener" /DesktopModules/NTForums/themes/mls/emoticons/sick.gif (I hate that word) then any other of the super powers. If China and Russia had free press, maybe then all the American inviro wako's would wake up and realize just how "Green" /DesktopModules/NTForums/themes/mls/emoticons/sick.gif we already are. The reason I hate the term "Green" /DesktopModules/NTForums/themes/mls/emoticons/sick.gif when used in the context that we are speaking is because 99% of the time it is followed by how bad America is. Yes, the American college professors (not all, but most) of the 60's have done a fine job of brain washing how horrible America is and now that is what has come home to roost.


----------



## lownote (Jan 3, 2008)

I never understand that argument about blaming America first. I'm an American citizen--accroding to the principles of our constitution, I'm responsible for the United States and its conduct. I was no responsible for Saddam Hussien, or France, or China,or Burma, or any other nation I'm not a citizen of. I am directly responsible for the actions and policies of the US. When I'm critical of US policy in class I often tell my students "I'm not saying the US is the worst in the world on this issue--it might in fact be the best. But here is aninstance where the US did not live up to its stated principles." That's my responsibility as a citizen. 

Heavy handed government never works. Hmm... Let's see--the GI bill radically transformed the nature of the American economy, opening the door to college for millions of people. And this thing were' using "the internets?" Entirely a product of government spending. Hey wait, the mortgage tax dediustion--talk about a heavy handed intrusion into the marketplace! Anyone ant to argue govt. should get out of the business of subsidizing home ownership? Hey, how about the FDIC? When was the last time you saw a run on your local bank, outside of "it's a wonderful life?" 

I could go on. But "everybody knows" because Rush says so, that govt intervention in the economy never works


----------



## JEFF RUNGE (Jan 2, 2008)

Over in Charlotte they built a new light rail line, I think it's called the LYNX. The poeple who opposed it said it was a waste of tax payer money, NO ONE would use it and it would NEVER make a proffit. First off it is part of the infrastructure, and not intended to turn a proffit ! But 6 months in to operation they have been able to RAISE the rates and just today there was a short sound bite on the news.. almost every car on every run is filled past capacity !! they are trying to find money to add more cars and expand the system. There are some local radio and TV big shots that of late do NOT want to talk about it! "Eating Crow " so to speek. I don't know if the line is making a "profit" but the rider ship way past what even the most optimistic supporters had hoped for. It is so successful officials from other citys are visiting Charlotte to see what they have. This is an example of what can be done to help reduce oil consumption, traffic congestion, pollution, even get reduced rates on your auto insurance 
And it can be in a short time frame. 
Trains: there not history, there the future. What is history is a little of our PERSONAL freedom we have/had with out vast network of super highways, now clogged with more cars every day. I think over the next few years our values will begin to change. A smaller house (less expensive to heat and cool) closer (maybe walking distance) to mass transit may gain favor with the average family. Only time will tell.. 
Steve S. Please note I did NOT use the term GREEN in this post /DesktopModules/NTForums/themes/mls/emoticons/whistling.gif


----------



## Steve S. (Jan 2, 2008)

Hey there Mr. Grunge. I knew that you were getting "Greener" when you cleaned your Mikado a year or so ago. /DesktopModules/NTForums/themes/mls/emoticons/hehe.gif


----------



## sheepdog (Jan 2, 2008)

*We Native people are the ultimate environmentalists. Will they--the eco-nuts who now seem to control Congress trust us to manage our own lands? You already know the answer to that question. * 

Very well said. Sad but true.... /DesktopModules/NTForums/themes/mls/emoticons/sad.gif 

Craig


----------



## Ray Dunakin (Jan 6, 2008)

The only real solution is to stop electing left-wing, environmentalist politicians, and to stop swallowing the Chicken Little propaganda they're shoveling.


----------



## sschaer (Jan 2, 2008)

please think about some facts .... 


- internet produces as much air pollution as all airplanes together ! 
- one single google querry eats as much energy as running a light tube for one hour 
- 5% of the worlds population uses 35% of the whole oil production. interestingly these 5% live in the country which boycotts any climate saving worldwide efforts.....


----------



## lownote (Jan 3, 2008)

Posted By Ray Dunakin on 05/18/2008 5:44 PM
The only real solution is to stop electing left-wing, environmentalist politicians, and to stop swallowing the Chicken Little propaganda they're shoveling.




good luck with that. The record of the last 8 years has kind of tarnished conservatism, no? Repubican prez, Republican control of the hosue and senate, most of the judicial appointments--what have we got? Recession, rising prices, mired in a pointless war in Iraq. Or is it all still Clinton's fault?


----------



## blackburn49 (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By lownote on 05/21/2008 5:25 PM

Posted By Ray Dunakin on 05/18/2008 5:44 PM The only real solution is to stop electing left-wing, environmentalist politicians, and to stop swallowing the Chicken Little propaganda they're shoveling.

good luck with that. . .


_Please don't do that!_I have carefully walked a thin line on this thread (which I started) to keep it from becoming partisan. All you will succeed in doing by delving into politics is getting people mad over nothing Then the thread will be locked. This is the _wrong forum_ for politics. I have never started a thread that became locked. Don't want to start now. 


In any case, I don't consider climate-change politics to be partisan. There is plenty of blame to go around on both sides of the aisle for this radical environmental insanity.


----------



## hap (Jan 3, 2008)

OK people I have read all this and now for my opinion. The earth moves around the sun in an eliptical orbit. there is an 11 year cycle of moving closer to and away from the sun which causes warmer and colder weather. Besides this cycle there is also a 100 year cylce of warmer and colder weather. and by the way Wikepedia IS NOT a REAL encyclopedia it is just any bodys opinions. You or I can put anything we want into it! These cycles I have mentioned are Scientific facts. I have a ? for everybody. Do you all know thatplastics are derived from Oil? Also do you ASK for paper bags in grocery stores etc? remember paper comes from wood which is a renewable resouce. There will come a time when OIL and Natural gas will run out so why is the U.S. not building more nuclear,Hydroelectric,wind power generators, geothermal heating,solar electic,etc? my opinion on this is theso called Eniromentalists who also complain about using fossil fuels have BLOCKED these forms of energy by filing lawsuits. I grew up on a farm in mid Michigan. We had a monster of a wood and coal furnance in the basement. In the winter the snow around our house would be black from the smoke. and so would neighbors around us be the same cause we almost all used wood,coal or Fuel oil to heat our homes. No natural gas lines where we were at. I have lived thru years of etreme cold in winter and very hot days in summer. And also warmer winters and cooler summers. These years were due to the Wheather cycle i mentioned before. So as far as global warming it is part of the cycle. Not too many years back scientists said we were intering a NEW ICE Age! So poppycock to Global warming and doing anything about it!


----------



## Guest (May 22, 2008)

So poppycock to Global warming and doing anything about it!


yes. 

All you will succeed in doing by delving into politics is getting people mad over nothing 

really over nothing. telling politicians of different parties apart from each other is far more difficult, than telling all politicians apart from sane and honest people.


----------



## Steve S. (Jan 2, 2008)

good luck with that. The record of the last 8 years has kind of tarnished conservatism, no? Repubican prez, Republican control of the hosue and senate, most of the judicial appointments--what have we got? Recession, rising prices, mired in a pointless war in Iraq. Or is it all still Clinton's fault?


Does not surprise me that a college professor would be the first to attack conservatism. Let's see, the Dems controlled the House and Senate for the 40 years before............hard to turn back wacko policies of 40 years in 8. And rather you like it or not, many are happy with the judge appointments.........remember, it took clinton 3 tries to even get a Surgeon General that was not an embarassment. As far as the war, there are those that do not agree with you on that one too. Do you give your students chances to dissagree or are you like most college professors and just preach your own diatribe??????


----------



## Semper Vaporo (Jan 2, 2008)

I noted many years ago that the local newspaper would print a "wire story" twice a year that began with the words: "Scientists now say...". 

The version printed in the Summer, right after a prolonged Hot spell would continue with the words: "the earth is still leaving the last Ice Age and will continue to have warmer and warmer Summers for another several thousand years before the trend reverses." 

The version printed in the Winter, right after a prolonged Cold spell would continue with the words: "the earth is entering the next Ice Age and will continue to have colder and colder Winters for another several thousand years before the trend reverses." 

I know it went on for several years before I started cutting the articles out and saving them. Unfortunately, that was before the sad family breakup and I have no idea where the 5 articles I saved have gone and I have not subscribed to a newspaper in the 16 years since.


----------



## SteveC (Jan 2, 2008)

Gentlemen

As Ron has reminded us all, the topic and the current comments are heading in the wrong direction, so why don't we all take a deep breath and cool down.


----------



## Guest (May 22, 2008)

the local newspaper would print a "wire story" twice a year that began with the words: "Scientists now say...". 

... and everybody was happy, and the fish did not mind, if it was rolled in the cold or the warm article. 
now we got wikipedia and are all specialists... 

if the rooster on the dunghill calls a lot, 
weather will change - or not.


----------



## silverstatespecialties (Jan 2, 2008)

Valid points on most sides, but I agree most with Ron. The expanse of Alaska is so vast, and technology now so advanced & efficient, that opening up ANWR for drilling would be the best thing for the Reserve, for Alaska, and especially for the rest of the country. 



Remember, change comes at a set pace, NOT overnight. 



I've done a fair bit of research into "global warming" and cannot find any direct link between it and a human cause...the data & methodologies are all flawed, or very narrowly-focused at best. So naturally I am opposed to any type of Kyoto Protocol nonsense, until we can come up with a realistic solution that will actually result in a measurable result...so-called "Carbon Credits" and emmissions fines/taxes are NOT the solution, but merely window dressings (or wallet lining for some politician); especially when the "developing world" is responsible for most of the world's pollution AND they are all but exempt from Kyoto's measures! Sounds like just another UN scheme to extort even more dollars away from hard-working Americans, without producing one measurable result. 



Pete, for the most part I agree/sympathize with you; but only as long as an actual problem exists, that it IS caused by human actions, and that we can find a workable solution. I have yet to see any convincing evidence or any kind of data that suggests humans are responsible for "Global Warming." I favor sensible, workable solutions & regulations, but sadly, these seem to be lacking in our current national government. And I don't mean President Bush nor VP Cheney; I mean all the environmental wackos, hippies, and flower-children who have infiltrated all levels of government and now use the beauracracy against We The People! Presidential decrees & congressional laws aren't hurting us as much as all the beauracratic processes & roadblocks generated by the nut job Civil Servants (and I am one, so I am all too familiar with how this works). These nut jobs are convinced that Free Enterprise & Free Will are the root of all evil and must be eradicated at all cost. 



These nut job Civil Servants accomplish their goals on many levels. First, they place themselves into a position where their decisons have an impact on others, whether it is regulatory in nature or merely paper-pushing: they find obscure ways to deny applicants or simply lose or misplace critical paperwork (these two are the most common in use in Southern Nevada; very effective!). Next, they make their views known to all and cry foul when countered; they use various forms of GUILT to drive their skewed points home. Finally, by extorting us with guilt they either become elected/appointed, or get their candidates elected/appointed in order to carry out their crazy schemes. This enables the wackos to bludgeon the population with the beauracracy. This is the main reason why President Bush has been stymied so many times in his 2 terms to bring about a sensible national energy policy. 



I do my part, for what it's worth. I off-road a lot, but I am a member of TreadLightly! and I also pack out as much trash as I can reasonably collect while camping/exploring/off-roading. I don't blaze new trails when off-roading, and I try to reasonably repair trails when I can to avoid any unnecessary environmental impact. 



I have owned (and prefer) several diesel-powered pickups. My current one is "hot-rodded," that is to say I've installed bigger injectors, a new air intake, new cam, new turbo, various other smaller modifications, and a high-volume FASS fuel pump/filter. We now have emissions inspections annually for diesel pickups, and since these hot-rod modifications, my truck pollutes LESS than it did while stock. It also gets greater fuel economy, and to maximize this, I drive the speed limit or less and ease into the throttle to help maximize every gallon of diesel I use. If my diesel starts to smoke from the exhaust, I know it is time to clean the air filter...smoky diesels are my pet peeve, and are mostly due to lack of regular maintenance by the owner/driver; a properly looked-after diesel engine should NOT emit smoke, which is nothing more than unburned fuel. As an informed & educated diesel owner, I do NOT allow ANY "bio-diesel" to run in my vehicles; bio-fuels are inefficient and worst of all are corrosive and have very little lubricative properties. As my fuel injection pump is lubricated by the diesel fuel itself, I cannot afford to use any type of so-called bio-fuel (and YES, I add lubricants each time I fill up with this ridiculous new "Ultra Low Sulphur" diesel fuel). 



In 10 years I will retire and we will move out of Southern Nevada for the country; we are already saving & preparing for this. We want to have as small of a footprint as possible, and not spend a fortune for utilities to run out to our new home, so we will rely heavily on solar power. BUT, this is not a total panacea, as we will have to have battery packs on hand in conjuction with the solar panels...these batteries have a finite life, and even when recycled present somewhat of an environmental hazard....there just is no such thing as being truly "green" and NOT leaving behind some kind of "footprint". 



My family & I recycle as much as we possibly can. Yet, of all the so-called "greenies" and wanna-be environmentalists we know, we are the only ones who do recycle! NONE of the greenies & enviros we know participate in any recycling programs, since the waste management company that is responsible for the recycling program "PROFITS" from their recycling! IDIOTS! We live in a capitalist economy, and why in the h#ll would anyone conduct business if NOT for generating a profit? Aaaaah, but then again, these are the same nut jobs who believe that capitalism & free will are the roots of all evil...so of course recycling is bad, since it results in profits for some company. How contradictory & ludicrous! If recycling wasn't omehow made profitable, nobody would do it. These same knuckleheads don't even drop their recyclables off for cash, since the time it takes to do so also cuts into their time at Starbucks. 



This illustrates exactly what I am trying to point out about the duplicities and hidden agendas of all the misinformed ostriches (who stick their heads in the sand when presented with danger; they never really deal with the danger, they just pretend it doesn't exist) among us, especially those in all levels of government who invent so-called "crises" and then help the tidal wave of legislation along that in actuality does little to remedy the so-called "problem." 



Another example are the roadless wildernesses that seems to be in vogue among the ostrich greenies; how can the majority of people enjoy them without being able to drive through their vast expanses? And what about the disabled among us? Or the elderly? Roadless wildernesses effectively shut out a significant portion of the population. There are exceptions, such as when a park or monument gets to be so overcrowded that a well-managed public transportation system is the only effective solution (as in Yosemite)...but in many others (especially in the deserts), the roadless wildernesses are simply a means to shutting out the majority of the population from these areas. Well-managed partnerships and sharing plans that allow responsible access to all is the best way to go, and something that I have personally participated in here in the Southwest. 



Knee-jerk and ill-intentioned regulations/policies only hurt us, they don't help us. Instead of fines or so-called "credits" that have little to no positive effect on the American economy, why not institute more encouraging measures, such as tax credits if certain emissions reductions standards are met? Why in the world did Congress repeal the tax credits for purchasers of hybrid cars? WTF, Over? If a financial stimulus or incentive is provided, compliance will be much easier to attain than by regulation & fines. 



And for the record, since it has already been brought up, I am all for the War Against Terror in Iraq & elsewhere. I am a veteran of the first Gulf War (among other events) and currently serve in the front lines keeping my community safe; we are taking on more & more of an anti-terrorism role, and the more we learn about our enemies & their intentions, the more I am in favor of exterminating terrorists on their home ground vs. engaging them on our home soil. Better them than us, I say...I refuse to live as a slave or a coward.


----------



## Steve S. (Jan 2, 2008)

And for the record, since it has already been brought up, I am all for the War Against Terror in Iraq & elsewhere. I am a veteran of the first Gulf War (among other events) and currently serve in the front lines keeping my community safe; we are taking on more & more of an anti-terrorism role, and the more we learn about our enemies & their intentions, the more I am in favor of exterminating terrorists on their home ground vs. engaging them on our home soil. Better them than us, I say...I refuse to live as a slave or a coward. 


Thank you, so well said. The biased media tries to make everyone think that the fight against the coward terroist's is not a just cause. They should show footage daily of the planes flying into the twin towers as a reminder of just how serious this fight for our way of life is. Thank you so much for your service to our country, and yes, it has made a great difference. Sadly, the younger generation only knows about the latest electronic gizmo, not about the wars and veterans of these wars that have kept this country great. And, many teachers and professors that grew up in the sixties (you know, the anti America, live in a dream world type) are now teaching our children.


----------



## lownote (Jan 3, 2008)

Thank you, so well said. The biased media tries to make everyone think that the fight against the coward terroist's is not a just cause. They should show footage daily of the planes flying into the twin towers as a reminder of just how serious this fight for our way of life is. Thank you so much for your service to our country, and yes, it has made a great difference. Sadly, the younger generation only knows about the latest electronic gizmo, not about the wars and veterans of these wars that have kept this country great. And, many teachers and professors that grew up in the sixties (you know, the anti America, live in a dream world type) are now teaching our children. 


I this another dig at me? I ignored the first one. You know nothing of what I do in the class--nothing--but you feel perfectly comfortable stereotyping and generalizing. When was the last time you were in a college classroom? But don't let lack of knowledge stop you from flapping your digital gums. 

And why do you assume that one political position owns patriotism? I've spent my adult life studying my country's history, because I love my country. Many of my students are active duty and retired military, many of my friends, my father in law is a retired 3 star marine general. My wife works actively in the war on terror. You know what? They all have very dfferent opinions about the current Iraq war and about the current administration. Different from you, different from me, diffrent from each other. 


People disagree about how to stop terrorism. It doesn't make them unpatriotic or cowards of defeatists.


----------



## blackburn49 (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By lownote on 05/22/2008 11:17 AM

I this another dig at me? I ignored the first one. You know nothing of what I do in the class--nothing--but you feel perfectly comfortable stereotyping and generalizing. When was the last time you were in a college classroom? But don't let lack of knowledge stop you from flapping your digital gums. And why do you assume that one political position owns patriotism? I've spent my adult life studying my country's history, because I love my country. Many of my students are active duty and retired military, many of my friends, my father in law is a retired 3 star marine general. My wife works actively in the war on terror. You know what? They all have very dfferent opinions about the current Iraq war and about the current administration. Different from you, different from me, diffrent from each other. People disagree about how to stop terrorism. It doesn't make them unpatriotic or cowards of defeatists.


It is legitimate discourse distinguishes our country from most any other in the world. Even in some western democracies true discourse is no longer possible because one cannot insult certain protected groups.  Fortunately, we are not yet one of those kind  of places--yet.  However, this is a large-scale trains forum, not a political one.  For some reason certain people take their politics, much as if it was their religion, very personally.  There is really nothing here worth getting insulted over. Some people just have contrary views.  It is just better to let it go at that.  What we _all_ have in common at MLS is a strong enough attachment large-scale trains, their settings and their prototypes that we can't wait to discuss our special interests right here.


----------



## lownote (Jan 3, 2008)

This is what SteveS posted. It's a direct personal attack. I would not normally take political discussion personally, but this was not political discussion, it was a personal attack. I ignored it, and he made one again. 


Does not surprise me that a college professor would be the first to attack conservatism. Let's see, the Dems controlled the House and Senate for the 40 years before............Do you give your students chances to dissagree or are you like most college professors and just preach your own diatribe??????



I mean, it's totally fine to criticize college professors--why not? There are lots of jerks among college professors. This was directed at me personally. Is that kind of thing within the guidelines for this forum? Is it part of public political debate? I'm happy to have a political discussion. I'm not happy to have ignorant personal attacks.


----------



## blackburn49 (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By lownote on 05/22/2008 12:21 PM

This is what SteveS posted. It's a direct personal attack. I would not normally take political discussion personally, but this was not political discussion, it was a personal attack. I ignored it, and he made one again. 
Does not surprise me that a college professor would be the first to attack conservatism. Let's see, the Dems controlled the House and Senate for the 40 years before............Do you give your students chances to dissagree or are you like most college professors and just preach your own diatribe??????

I mean, it's totally fine to criticize college professors--why not? There are lots of jerks among college professors. This was directed at me personally. Is that kind of thing within the guidelines for this forum? Is it part of public political debate? I'm happy to have a political discussion. I'm not happy to have ignorant personal attacks.


As I read this, it is not a direct personal attack on you. The poster does not know you. He is making certain assumptions that probably are not warranted probably but appear to be based on your previous posts.  Regrettably, with no reflection on you at all, there is more than a grain of truth in the frustration he is expressing that is directed at far-left ideological professors in general. Having been a political science major I know what he means, but I would not be painting all such professors with such a broad brush.  I am just pleased that you are among us to discuss your special  interest in large-scale trains with the rest of us. And I am quite sure that most everyone else on this forum agrees with me on that point.


----------



## Dougald (Jan 2, 2008)

Everyone has strong personal opinions on the state of society in general and politics in particular. There are a great many Americans on this forum and a presidential election is looming. 

The discussion here has been interesting and spirited. It has been mostly civil even if the subject of trains was far from the main thrust. But as alwaysw when politics are discussed, some folks express their opinion (not necessarily fact) and other folks will react in a thin skinned manner (to the opinion not necessarily factual). Everyone needs to step back and cool down a bit ... as we do not wish to lock the subject. 

Specifically, many Americans believe in an environmental approach and wish to see legislation passed and public funds expended ... many other Americans wish for a different public policy course. The Kyoto Accord is a lightning rod in the debate as are rising world oil prices. This international forum is not the place for an American political fist fight - save it for the candidates meeting in the upcoming elections. 

Regards ... Doug


----------



## Steve S. (Jan 2, 2008)

good luck with that. The record of the last 8 years has kind of tarnished conservatism, no? Repubican prez, Republican control of the hosue and senate, most of the judicial appointments--what have we got? Recession, rising prices, mired in a pointless war in Iraq. Or is it all still Clinton's fault?

If you insist on playing tit for tat............this is the response that started the whole thread to get political. I believe it was posted by "Lownote". 
Now, back to anything but polotics please.


----------



## silverstatespecialties (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By lownote on 05/22/2008 11:17 AM

I've spent my adult life studying my country's history, because I love my country. Many of my students are active duty and retired military, many of my friends, my father in law is a retired 3 star Marine general. My wife works actively in the war on terror. You know what? They all have very dfferent opinions about the current Iraq war and about the current administration. Different from you, different from me, diffrent from each other. 
People disagree about how to stop terrorism. It doesn't make them unpatriotic or cowards of defeatists. 





Please thank you father-in-law for me, for his dedication & service! Semper Fi!


----------



## lownote (Jan 3, 2008)

A personal attack is not "politics." You're confused.


----------



## lownote (Jan 3, 2008)

P 
Please thank you father-in-law for me, for his dedication & service! Semper Fi!

Thanked him many times. He has no doubt of the respect and admiration I have for him. He's also a genuine intellectual as well as a warrior


----------



## Dwight Ennis (Jan 2, 2008)

C'mon guys. If you can't keep things impersonal, posts will start disappearing. It's been fine until the last page. As has been stated by others, MLS is not the place for political fighting (there's enough of that everywhere else to go around). Let's keep the interpersonal arguments to email (if they have to happen at all), not in the public forums.


----------



## Steve S. (Jan 2, 2008)

The record of the last 8 years has kind of tarnished conservatism, no? Repubican prez, Republican control of the hosue and senate, most of the judicial appointments--what have we got? Recession, rising prices, mired in a pointless war in Iraq. Or is it all still Clinton's fault?

Personal attack?? I think not. But, when someone on a "train forum" makes comments like the above attacking our President and his parties policies with no regard to the fact that many others reading on that same forum may agree with said policies, I find it rather arrogant and close minded, thats all. 

And finally, can we just agree to disagree and move on.


----------



## flatracker (Jan 2, 2008)

Well, since we are suppose to be talking about trains here, I think I will buy a first class ticket on the Bullfrog Las Vegas Railroad!


----------



## lownote (Jan 3, 2008)

I don't mean this in a confrontational way at all, but have to admit I don't understand at all what you guys mean by "getting political." I dont understand your sense of "politics." This thread started as a criticism of a political decision about ANWR and polar bears. I mean it was in that sense an explicitly political thread--it was a criticism--perfectly reasonable--of a political decisions. There were any number of posts criticizing various politicians--how s tat not "political?" My post that so enraged SteveS, the one daring to criticize our president, came in response to a post where someone insisted--and this is close to a quote- that we "have to stop electing left wing politicians." What I don't understand is why my post was "introducing politics" but the previous post was not? Is it only certain political positions that are allowed? Most of this thread was criticism of "environmentalists" and their positions and the political decisions they encourage. For the life of me, I don't understand why criticism of left wing politicians is not politics, but criticism of right wing politicians is? 

I clearly don't "get" the culture of discussion here, so I'll stay out of this kind of thing in the future.


----------



## Steve S. (Jan 2, 2008)

The difference is that no one had called out a political party by "name" up until your post. There are both liberals and conservatives in both parties, just like there are eviromental extremist's in both parties, animal right's extremist's, etc., in both parties. You took it on yourself to attack the Republicans only.............now can we move on????????? 

On a lighter note, I checked out your website and you have a cool layout. I remember when my Daughters were little.............they liked Thomas too.


----------



## silverstatespecialties (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By flatracker on 05/23/2008 5:21 AM
Well, since we are suppose to be talking about trains here, I think I will buy a first class ticket on the Bullfrog Las Vegas Railroad!  




 Bob, I'd have to say that in this case you'd be entitled to a complimentary Pass on the BFLV!


----------



## silverstatespecialties (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By lownote on 05/23/2008 5:47 AM 
I don't mean this in a confrontational way at all, but have to admit I don't understand at all what you guys mean by "getting political." I dont understand your sense of "politics." This thread started as a criticism of a political decision about ANWR and polar bears. I mean it was in that sense an explicitly political thread--it was a criticism--perfectly reasonable--of a political decisions. There were any number of posts criticizing various politicians--how s tat not "political?" My post that so enraged SteveS, the one daring to criticize our president, came in response to a post where someone insisted--and this is close to a quote- that we "have to stop electing left wing politicians." What I don't understand is why my post was "introducing politics" but the previous post was not? Is it only certain political positions that are allowed? Most of this thread was criticism of "environmentalists" and their positions and the political decisions they encourage. For the life of me, I don't understand why criticism of left wing politicians is not politics, but criticism of right wing politicians is? 
I clearly don't "get" the culture of discussion here, so I'll stay out of this kind of thing in the future. 


No big deal, as long as these discussions stay in this thread/topic...dissenting opinions are always healthy for free societies..


----------



## blackburn49 (Jan 2, 2008)

State will sue over polar bear listing, 

_Alaska Governmor Palin says SPECIES STATUS: Unreliable data, threat to energy development cited.__ 

_

The State of Alaska will sue to challenge the recent listing of polar bears as a threatened species, Gov. Sarah Palin said Wednesday.

She and other Alaska elected officials fear a listing will cripple oil and gas development in prime polar bear habitat off the state's northern and northwestern coasts. 

Palin argued there is not enough evidence to support a listing. Polar bears are well-managed and their population has dramatically increased over 30 years as a result of conservation, she said. 

Climate models that predict continued loss of sea ice, the main habitat of polar bears, during summers are unreliable, Palin said. 

The announcement drew a strong response from the primary author of the listing petition. 

Full story at adn.com


----------



## blackburn49 (Jan 2, 2008)

*

*_ Meanwhile, in a related story:_* 
Feds: Most oil, much of gas under public lands off-limits* 
Debate: Will opening reserves to drilling lower energy prices? 
A new report from the Bush administration says most of the oil and more than 40 percent of the natural gas beneath public lands in the United States are off-limits to drilling. 



Opening those reserves would give energy companies access to an estimated 19 billion barrels of oil and 95 trillion cubic feet of natural gas, administration officials said Wednesday. That would require Congress to roll back environmental safeguards and lift drilling prohibitions on vast areas â€" from Alaska to Florida and across the Rocky Mountain West. 



The report, from the Bureau of Land Management, is likely to add to growing political pressure to curb fuel imports and dampen prices by ramping up domestic energy production. But it comes amid a development backlash in some parts of the country, where drilling rigs are blamed for interrupting wildlife migrations, fouling water supplies and marring natural vistas. 



â€œIf we want to lower the cost of energy, we must be willing to use our own energy resources as part of a balanced and rational energy policy,â€� said assistant secretary of interior C. Stephen Allred. 



The inaccessible reserves outlined in Wednesdayâ€™s report amount to roughly a two-and-a-half-year supply of oil and a four-year supply of natural gas, based on current consumption. 
more


----------



## Mike Reilley (Jan 2, 2008)

There was a time a day or so ago...that I took the time to put my two bits into this discussion. It's a good discussion...and IMHO, GRRers have a broad spectrun of interests...and we tend NOT to be ignorant butt heads, bigotted, or full of hatred...cept I hit the wrong mouse button...and I lost my masterpiece. 

I dont' think it matters whether you're liberal or conservative, Democrat or Republican...we all have our biases. Me, I biased against ANYONE in Congress. They're all crooks IMHO and have created a system that corrupts. That's my opinion...driven in deep by my Congressman, Randy Duke Cunningham...the crook of the decade. 

I really think we must develop and encourage an out of the box solution set...and get our representatives to work together...for OUR GOOD...versus theirs. I ran into the following video today. You'll are recognize who is speaking. TRY...and I mean TRY to just listen to what he's saying...the message...and forget his past. He pretty much says what I'd typed...and lost. 

A grand strategy is needed FAR beyond not drilling in ANWR. We, all nations, need a grand plan...on how to move from today...to tomorrow. 

Scroll down and start the video....


----------



## blackburn49 (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By Mike Reilley on 05/23/2008 11:54 PM

There was a time a day or so ago...that I took the time to put my two bits into this discussion. It's a good discussion...and IMHO, GRRers have a broad spectrun of interests...and we tend NOT to be ignorant butt heads, bigotted, or full of hatred...cept I hit the wrong mouse button...and I lost my masterpiece. _I dont' think it matters whether you're liberal or conservative, Democrat or Republican...we all have our biases._[/b] Me, I biased against ANYONE in Congress. They're all crooks IMHO and have created a system that corrupts. That's my opinion...driven in deep by my Congressman, Randy Duke Cunningham...the crook of the decade.* I really think we must develop and encourage an out of the box solution set...and get our representatives to work together...for OUR GOOD...versus theirs.*[/i] I ran into the following video today. You'll are recognize who is speaking. TRY...and I mean TRY to just listen to what he's saying...the message...and forget his past. He pretty much says what I'd typed...and lost. A grand strategy is needed FAR beyond not drilling in ANWR. We, all nations, need a grand plan...on how to move from today...to tomorrow. Scroll down and start the video.... 


Excellent presentation. Thank you for pointing this one out.


----------



## flatracker (Jan 2, 2008)

Think about this! There are no lines waiting for gas. Remember the time when we were "suppose" to have a shortage, and we had to wait in line? And the price of gas doubled overnight? (I know some of you are too young.) So, if there is no shortage, then where is the "supply and demand" that would keep prices climbing? According to the Saudis, who refused to increase their input when President Bush requested it, there is no shortage. They said they increased their output once and the prices continued to climb. They said it was the "speculators" driving up the price. 

Now I don't believe much of what they say, BUT you have to wonder who is behind all this, when we can get all the gas we want. We just have to be ripped off to get it. I do wish someone could explain to me, how the oil companies and the people who work in the stock market are reaping in BILLIONS, and no one seems to be able to stop the upward climb in price. Some are going to be so filthy rich from all this, it would boggle your mind if you knew how much they end up with. Now, if we could find out who they were, I think we would have a good estimate as to is behind all this. Maybe not, but if you follow the money, you usually find the cause. 

One other little thing that bothers me. If the price of gas goes down (not likely) the increased prices of everything else WILL NOT. This is just what I have learned in my 70+ years. They get too use to having the income.


----------



## JEFF RUNGE (Jan 2, 2008)

Light Sweet Crude Oil is a traded commodity. Investers make tons of money speculating on how much oil moves. THAT is the biggest factor push oil. I say we "freeze" the assets of anyone making a proffit from oil stocks, you know we have to check for "terrorist" connnections" this would include commodities traders. then watch the price of oil free fall back to $75.00 a barrel. Let them speculate on the price of Polar Bear poop. 
just my 2 cents, or is that my $4.00 gallon. 
Jeff


----------



## Mik (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By JEFF RUNGE on 05/24/2008 6:37 AM
I say we "freeze" the assets of anyone making a proffit from oil stocks 
Jeff





Nah, I got a more fun solution. Just require them to take delivery of all "futures" purchased on their date. Just picture a convoy of about 4 big rigs full of crude oil pulling up outside some trader's swanky townhouse, and a big smelly guy in the lead truck swinging down and hollerin', "Hey, buddy! Where ya want it?"  

Bet it would only take a couple times to stop the whole thing /DesktopModules/NTForums/themes/mls/emoticons/whistling.gif


----------



## Pete Thornton (Jan 2, 2008)

. . biased against ANYONE in Congress. They're all crooks 

A grand strategy is needed FAR beyond not drilling in ANWR


Doesn't anyone else see the problem/conflict? 

- On the one hand, there's the widely-held believe that you can't trust politicians. 

- On the other hand, the same folk are happy with a program that promotes local drilling _"with appropriate safeguards to protect the environment"._ 

Mike - just who do you think gets to set up the 'appropriate safeguards' ? The reason some people are unwilling to go along with drilling in sensitive areas is that they KNOW the 'safeguards' will be designed by the energy lobby and Congress!


----------



## Mike Reilley (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By flatracker on 05/24/2008 5:18 AM 
Think about this! There are no lines waiting for gas. Remember the time when we were "suppose" to have a shortage, and we had to wait in line? And the price of gas doubled overnight? (I know some of you are too young.) So, if there is no shortage, then where is the "supply and demand" that would keep prices climbing? According to the Saudis, who refused to increase their input when President Bush requested it, there is no shortage. They said they increased their output once and the prices continued to climb. They said it was the "speculators" driving up the price. 

Now I don't believe much of what they say, BUT you have to wonder who is behind all this, when we can get all the gas we want. We just have to be ripped off to get it. I do wish someone could explain to me, how the oil companies and the people who work in the stock market are reaping in BILLIONS, and no one seems to be able to stop the upward climb in price....

I can explain that...there's a NEW buyer at NYMEX...and they are NOT petrochemical companies...they are hedge fund and retirement fund companies. This is NOT new news...go here and read (and note the date) 

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/07/31/business/main3118700.shtml?source=search_story 

I'm not sure folks really understand how oil is traded. Oil is produced by a petroleum company...who drills wells, pumps out oil, pays the country where it's pumped some taxes and fees...and that oil is sold in a merchantile exchange. The New York Merchantile Exchange is were all oil sold in the US is sold. The other side of the oil company is called a petrochemical company. Petrochemical companies BUY oil at NYMEX and refine it into stuff we use. What confuses people is that big oil companies are both petroleum and petrochemical companies. We need to be precise. (For example, Exxon petroleum division SELLS crude on NYMEX...and their petrochemical division BUYS crude on NYMEX. Crude oil does NOT move within Exxon from the petroleum company to the petrochemical company without going through a sell/buy operation at NYMEX.) 

In the last year, a new BUYER has emerged...the hedge funds and big 401K plans. All crude sales at NYMEX are 90 day futures...so it's not like you have to accept the oil when you buy it...you've got 90 days to sell the oil on another NYMEX market known as the spot market. If oil prices go up in those 90 days...you make money. If oil prices go down in those 90 days, you loose money. It's gambling...and it's big. 

The report I saw this week on CBS national news said that the hedge/401K funds had bought 850M barrels of crude so far this year. It noted that China had bought 905M of oil in the same period...so this NEW buyer is a BIG buyer too...and while he has NO DEMAND like a petrochemical company because he also SUPPLIES on the spot market...this buyer has IMMENSELY increased the price of oil. 

This is way more complicated that the supply and demand issue noted by Bob.


----------



## Mike Reilley (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By Pete Thornton on 05/24/2008 8:43 AM 
. . biased against ANYONE in Congress. They're all crooks 

A grand strategy is needed FAR beyond not drilling in ANWR

Doesn't anyone else see the problem/conflict? 
- On the one hand, there's the widely-held believe that you can't trust politicians. 
- On the other hand, the same folk are happy with a program that promotes local drilling _"with appropriate safeguards to protect the environment"._ 

Mike - just who do you think gets to set up the 'appropriate safeguards' ? The reason some people are unwilling to go along with drilling in sensitive areas is that they KNOW the 'safeguards' will be designed by the energy lobby and Congress! 

Totally concur with what you say...but, you missed the point of the pitch I think. He's saying pump NOW to keep us going WHILE we transition to new power sources. 

I remember in the 1960s when the President called for us to go to the moon...and we did...like 6 years later. I don't know how to do this with today's crooks running government...but I do think we need a national...perhaps internation strategy to transition away from fossil fuel...simple because it's going to run out. 

At $130 a barrel, the economics to make such a shift are here. It's time for a strategy that is supported by the environmental community and the energy research/development community and the energy corporations (note I left the government out) that moves us off crude oil. 

When I grew up in New Jersey, there were thousands of small ponds...on every creek...that generated small amounts of electricity to power small towns and farms. Now...they're on the grid...powered by fossil fuel. There used to be windmills on the farms that pumped water for irrigation and livestock...gone now. Replaced by electric motors powered by electricity from fossil fuel plants. We've torn down a LOT of our power generation capacity in favor of "the grid". Don't you think that IF we could dam small streams all over the place that we could find a technology that produced electricity less expensively? 

There is technology out there that could get us off fossil fuel if we develop such a strategy. We seen wind turbines populate all the passes in California...to generate electricity...cept they "foul the view"...oh well. We seen countless attempts to harness wave energy...which now works well...except it also "fouls the view"...gotcha. We've seen nuclear power technology radically make it more reliable and upgradeable and massively more safe...except "it fouls everything"...hah. We can't get permission to store spent fuel under a mountain...but we CAN store it forever in pools at the plants...talk about a catch 22. (Got lotsa desert...lets put in more "pools" maybe.) We now can PRINT solar cells with printing presses...perhaps the biggest technological breakthru I've seen recently...cept solar power plants shade the desert sand...and some bug gets too cold...sumbitch. 

We HAVE the technology...and now the money (remember the $130 oil) to effect a transition to non-fossil fuel. All we need now is for the folks that have fought each other forever over fossil fuel and energy to stop fighting...and put together a strategy to get us off using fossil fuel. I'd start by NOT re-electing ANYBODY in ANY legislature...cause they're all bought off...crooks. And they legalized their ability to be crooks by making laws that says it's OK for them to "bought off". Just my two bits.


----------



## flatracker (Jan 2, 2008)

OK Mike, I'm trying to learn something. So, for all pratical purpses you're saying the Saudis are correct about speculators, and our big enemys are the hedge/401K? If this works for them, then what stops them from buying a good part of the corn crop, or most of the chickens, etc., and do the same thing with them. I may be dense, and I know it is more complicated than that, but it seems like we could be held up (robbed) with about anything produced, that has to go through the NYMEX. In any event, I'd like to skin the people who are doin this, at everyone elses expense. I do know the far East and the oil cos. are laughing all the way to the bank./DesktopModules/NTForums/themes/mls/emoticons/sad.gif


----------



## blackburn49 (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By Pete Thornton on 05/24/2008 8:43 AM

. . biased against ANYONE in Congress. They're all crooks

A grand strategy is needed FAR beyond not drilling in ANWR

Doesn't anyone else see the problem/conflict? - On the one hand, there's the widely-held believe that you can't trust politicians. - On the other hand, the same folk are happy with a program that promotes local drilling _"with appropriate safeguards to protect the environment"._ Mike - just who do you think gets to set up the 'appropriate safeguards' ? The reason some people are unwilling to go along with drilling in sensitive areas is that they KNOW the *'safeguards' will be designed by the energy lobby and Congress*[/i]! 


Who else is in a position to properly design the appropriate safeguards* if not the oil companies themselves* ?  At the very least, they would be major participants in such an endeavor.  My question is "so what?" *That* is how it works. I are _not_ saying they  the oil companies are going to police themselves. That would not work.  We already know that here in AK. But _they _are the experts--_not_ the bureaucrats, and definitely _not_ Congress. There is no way around it.  The oil companies ARE the experts. Not us. Not our representatives. Not our bureaucracies. And, yes, I am definitely among those who would not entrust government with any more such powers than the absolute minimum with good reason.  We are still learning from our thirty-plus years of experience of dealing with these giant corporations here in Alaska. However, all in all, their record of protecting the environment has been exemplary. We do, however, maintain tight standards on them.


----------



## Mike Reilley (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By flatracker on 05/24/2008 2:53 PM 
OK Mike, I'm trying to learn something. So, for all pratical purpses you're saying the Saudis are correct about speculators, and our big enemys are the hedge/401K? If this works for them, then what stops them from buying a good part of the corn crop, or most of the chickens, etc., and do the same thing with them. I may be dense, and I know it is more complicated than that, but it seems like we could be held up (robbed) with about anything produced, that has to go through the NYMEX. In any event, I'd like to skin the people who are doin this, at everyone elses expense. I do know the far East and the oil cos. are laughing all the way to the bank./DesktopModules/NTForums/themes/mls/emoticons/sad.gif" border=0>" border=0> 


Bob, 

Well...what got me looking into this was initially an interview with the president of NYMEX about two weeks ago on one of the Sunday shows. The interviewer was posing questions to the NYMEX president from the point of view that either the supply of crude had shrunk or that demand for oil products had increased. The NYMEX president said the supply side was "on target" so far this year. When asked what that meant, he said all oil supplying entities...read as the member nations of OPEC, and Russia, and Georgia, etc...we're delivering at their targets. 

When asked what that meant, he said that each nation makes a formal announcement each year regarding the amount of crude they will supply...and what kind of crude it will be...light, heavy, high sulfur, etc. I learned that each oil seller sells his oil Freight on Board (FOB) at a specific oil terminal...because the buyer pays for shipping it. I also learned that all oil supplied from wells in the US is priced FOB a little town in Kansas...because it's all moved by pipeline inside the US. That announcement is equivalent to corporations telling their share holders how much they'll sell each year...and it establishes the expectation floor for that company (country...in this case for the delivery of each crude oil type). 

Then he explained that each of the supplying countries were on schedule...on target...for deliverying that part of the total given the time of the year. There was NO undersupply...or change in supplied crude oil. 

So the interviewer switchd to the demand side...and the NYMEX president said that American refiners were buying the amount of oil they had projected as well...and added that as far as he understood...they were buying all that they could refine at a given time. He said American refineries were at capacity or nearly at capacity. 

So..the questioning went on and I heard for the first time about the hedge fund and retirement fund entree into buying crude oil on the futures market. The interviewer missed that...or ducked...as he didn't follow up on it. 

A week later, on Katy Couric's CBS Evening News...they ran an investigative reporter report regarding what the hedge funds and big teacher retirement funds were doing at NYMEX...and that is what I described before...frankly...speculating on crude oil. 
In an open market society I don't see how this can be stopped easily....it's a connundrum. 


As for chickens and corn...I think (guess??) that the difference is that those supply side industries: 

a. Don't officially publish how many chickens/corn they're gonna produce..ergo, there's no expectation basis 

b. Are NOT running a max rates...or near them. Oil production is NOT easy to up substantially...you gotta drill more wells. Oil refining is capped by the physical plant capacities. It's a lot easier to make more chickens...or plant more corn. 

c. There may be no or not as an attractive spot market in chickens/corn. Without the spot market for the speculators to sell their futures through...they couldn't buy the futures. 

Remember...I said guess. Like you...I been trying to understand what the **** is going on.


----------



## SteveC (Jan 2, 2008)

Hey Mike

What about all the as yet undisclosed money lost in the mortgage sub-prime arena, looking for ways to recoup their losses?


----------



## flatracker (Jan 2, 2008)

Thanks a lot Mike! I really appreciate your information, and the time you took to spell it out. It still sounds like there is NO shortage and it still seems like some group or groups of people have figured out a way to really screw everyone. I really believe we had better get busy drilling where ever we can, until the engineers come up with a reasonable alternative to oil. All our engines for all equipment are not replaceable by any thing else for a good while, after a good alternative is developed, so we are stuck with oil based fuel for the forseeable future. We need to use what we can find until then. Common sense would dictate that. 

It's time all the people in this country get together and make sure we are able to have enough oil and refineries of our own, plus the other types of power we need to sustain ourselves, and have the special interest groups quit preventing whatever is necessary for everyones welfare. Some sacrifices will have to be made by everyone, but for heavens sake, where has common sense gone? 

And I hope those responsible for the present problem choke to death on their greed./DesktopModules/NTForums/themes/mls/emoticons/crazy.gif 

I still don't understand why we can't understand who all is responsible for the continued price increase, when there is no shortage, and why we can't stop it./DesktopModules/NTForums/themes/mls/emoticons/angry.gif


----------



## Dougald (Jan 2, 2008)

The hedge funds who speculate on the price of oil moving up in the 90 day period before delivery do not add to the total demand for oil. They do not want to take delivery and must sell on the spot market before the end of the 90 day period. Prime buyers who feel the price is too high on 90 day futures can of course buy on the spot market ... 

It is true that hedge funds have helped solidify the prices on the NYMEX futures exchange but at the same time, they have helped soften the spot market. 

What was not said is that countries in forecasting their output, several longstanding producers including Russia and Mexico, forecast a decline in output due to ageing oil fields. When that was coupled with continuing strong demand especially from Asian economies (read India and China) the stage was set for a price increase. This then allows speculators like the hedge funds to to profit from the rising price by playing futures. 

No one likes speculators but everyone who buys stocks for the capitol growth is doing exactly the same thing. And to say that the speculators have played a big part in the runup of the price is simply untrue. 

The big winners of course are the oil companies including the nationalized companies in many countries. Companies who own the drilling rights to oil that costs $10 per barrel to produce as in the Middle East or companies who can extract from the Athabascan Tar Sands where it costs $50-60 per barrel still sell at $130 in today's market. That windfall profit is what bugs most people however, it is the reward to a capitol investment that has been successful. 

Just so folks completely understand ... the price of gasoline does not relate very closely to the cost of production. It relates only to the cost of production of the last marginal barrel of oil or the most expensive oil produced. 

Various schemes have been tried to take away the windfall profits of both speculators and companies (these are usually called capitol gains taxes). But in the end, excessive controls simply cause less investment. 

The general financial model is straightforward in much of the world. Oil reserves are owned by the people (government controlled) of the country where the reserves are located. The government sells the rights to drill (and taxes the output as well) at a price that is negotiated with the oil companies. These companies (including some nationalized ones) supply the huge capitol investment, take the risk that the oil can be successfully extracted and wait out the very long timeframe for infrastructure development. So far, the rising tide of oil demand has floated everybodies' investment boat. 

There is no oil shortage to speak of. The market is tight but is well regulated by the price. Demand falls as prices rise ... production can rise a bit in the short run and hugely in the longer term with rising prices. The only solution for a consumer is to use less (or allocate a bigger portion of their budget). 

Alaska (and by extension all Americans) would be well served if more oil could be produced from Alaskan oilfields. In addition, all Americans would benefit from decreased American demand for oil through conservation or energy substition efforts. 

This is also not historically unprecedented as the world went through the same thing with coal. And someday our children will look back on these events in their history books and wonder why we had such a dependency on oil (when nuclear and hydrogen power were available) and why we got our shorts in such a knot over it. 

Regards ... Doug


----------



## flatracker (Jan 2, 2008)

Thanks Doug. All this is making more sense to me, BUT the main problem as I see it, is that it's about the only product that has so much of an impact on just about everything we buy. I'm retired and on a fixed budget, but I can cut down a little on travel, though not much. What hurts is the large increases of so much else, including food that has a product that can also be used in making bio fuel, such as wheat. Bread, and all flour related products have gone up quite a bit, and now they are saying pork and chicken will soon follow, due to the same deal with corn. I sure can't have an impact on those things, unless I stop eating!/DesktopModules/NTForums/themes/mls/emoticons/sad.gif 

I guess I'm just mad that there is no shortage, and a few are getting filthy rich while so many are getting in a real bind. If you live 8 or 10 miles from a store, it can cost $4 just to go shopping.


----------



## blackburn49 (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By flatracker on 05/25/2008 4:48 PM

Thanks Doug. All this is making more sense to me, BUT the main problem as I see it, is that it's about the only product that has so much of an impact on just about everything we buy. I'm retired and on a fixed budget, but I can cut down a little on travel, though not much. What hurts is the large increases of so much else, including food that has a product that can also be used in making bio fuel, such as wheat. Bread, and all flour related products have gone up quite a bit, and now they are saying pork and chicken will soon follow, due to the same deal with corn. I sure can't have an impact on those things, unless I stop eating! I guess I'm just mad that there is no shortage, and a few are getting filthy rich while so many are getting in a real bind. If you live 8 or 10 miles from a store, it can cost $4 just to go shopping.


I get the distinct impression that the American people have not yet acquired the sense of urgency appropriate to this situation, considering what is happening to our energy costs and thus the cost of most everything else, most particularly the essentials. My fear is that the American people, like the politicians they elect, will fail to understand what is really happening here and thus make choices that will ultimately only make matters far worse. At the rate these costs are escalating, by this coming winter things are going to be looking _really _serious. This especially applies to those of you on fixed incomes, but also to many of us who operate small businesses.


----------



## CCSII (Jan 3, 2008)

"A new report from the Bush administration says" 

Sorry, that's where I stopped reading.


----------



## Mike Reilley (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By flatracker on 05/25/2008 4:48 PM
...All this is making more sense to me, BUT the main problem as I see it, is that it's about the only product that has so much of an impact on just about everything we buy. I'm retired and on a fixed budget, ... 



Yep...I'm in the same boat. Combine this energy cost increase...that hits everything we have to buy...with the low interest rates we can make on our retirement savings and we got a recipe for a disaster. And as Ron says...most Americans don't understand or don't care...or choose to let the elected "crooks" fix it. This is gonna be a tough hole to get out of if we don't start trying to get out now.


----------



## blackburn49 (Jan 2, 2008)

(bump) 

(sorry, wrong thread)


----------

