Global Warming...New Report...and it ain't happy news

Cycloptichorn wrote:

As I said earlier, it isn't that I think you're dumb, or that you don't know what you are talking about; it's just that I've been reading and studying PV and Solar issues, as well as having hands-on experience, for a long time. I know that the breakthroughs I linked to today won't lead to amazingly high efficiencies. But sooner or later we will achieve those efficiencies. My entire point was that the DOE money going to studying this is certainly not wasted....

What breakthrough ? You must be kidding right. Concentrating PV use the same cells that are used to power space satellite decades ago. The company which markets it with fresnel lens is the same which supply satellite makers (in space, you don't need the concentrating optics since solar irradiance is much higher). So there is no news, no breakthrough. Your DOE supported project has been known long ago.
If you want breakthrough, don't be gullible and look at thin film PV, with its continuous production method, low cost, high duration, robustness.

0 Replies

The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy: that is the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. - John Kenneth Galbraith

You've accomplished at least some of your philisophical goal, Fox.

No matter how immoral, there's always a silver lining to greed, right? Right.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

miniTAX wrote:

old europe wrote:
Well, I think that capitalism works because people are greedy. It just comes naturally to them. They don't have to try very hard.
It's called redundancy instinct. The best life insurance for cavemen is to amass as much as he can : silex, furs, food, weight, women, children... It's absurd to think this instinct is necessarily bad (ah, our christian culture and its symbolic sins). Government systems which tried forcibly to change it have failed miserably.

Sure. People always want security. Pile it up now, so you have some of it later. Amass the stuff in good times, so there's something left during bad times. Even if it's a completely abstract thing, like paying money to an insurance company. Or lobbying for government health care. It's capitalism at work.

0 Replies

okie wrote:

If you call working to earn your food, shelter, clothing, and comforts, greed, then I would say you are misinformed. If you want to take what somebody else has earned because you are envious, then I would call that greed. If you envy an oil company that has the ambition to actually do something to provide you something, then you are the greedy one. If you want something for nothing, for them to give you what you want for nothing, you are the greedy one.

No, okie, you are mixing things up.

greed Not Equal

envy

I guess you're not Roman Catholic, otherwise you would know....

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy: that is the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. - John Kenneth Galbraith

You've accomplished at least some of your philisophical goal, Fox.

No matter how immoral, there's always a silver lining to greed, right? Right.

Cycloptichorn

Given that you put so much stock in the counsel of one that Milton Friedman considered to be a pure socialist, I'm not surprised that you completely missed the point. But in Galbraith's favor, and he possibly had you in mind maybe, he also sarcastically said once "It is a far, far better thing to have a firm anchor in nonsense than to put out on the troubled seas of thought."

0 Replies

Anything to avoid examination of your inherent greed, Fox, you go right ahead and say. I support your desire to find moral justification in raising the prices on stranded, cold people.

I might say that when faced with a group of starving people, it is moral to raise my rates astronomically on bread, because hey, then each person can afford less and instead of a few people gorging themselves, everyone can have a little, I can have most if not all of their monies, and then eveyrone is morally satisfied with the equation. Right? Right.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

I might say that when faced with a group of starving people, it is moral to raise my rates astronomically on bread, because hey, then each person can afford less and instead of a few people gorging themselves, everyone can have a little, I can have most if not all of their monies, and then eveyrone is morally satisfied with the equation. Right? Right.

Only because you take the production of bread for granted -- a fair assumption in a nightwatchman state, but a much shakier one in a socialist economy. But a thread about global warming probably isn't the right place for me to defend this point.

EDIT: n i g h t w a t c h m a n is the word the A2K censoring software just edited out above. A bug report has been sent to the moderators.

0 Replies

old europe wrote:

okie wrote:
If you call working to earn your food, shelter, clothing, and comforts, greed, then I would say you are misinformed. If you want to take what somebody else has earned because you are envious, then I would call that greed. If you envy an oil company that has the ambition to actually do something to provide you something, then you are the greedy one. If you want something for nothing, for them to give you what you want for nothing, you are the greedy one.

No, okie, you are mixing things up.

greed envy

I guess you're not Roman Catholic, otherwise you would know....

That's very funny, OE.

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy: that is the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. - John Kenneth Galbraith

You've accomplished at least some of your philisophical goal, Fox.

No matter how immoral, there's always a silver lining to greed, right? Right.

Cycloptichorn

Cyclops, I don't think this is the first time you've used the above Galbraith quote, I could be wrong, but I think I've seen you quote it more than once, so you must REALLY like it, which is revealing in and of itself. It is a very shallow statement, cyclops. And of course, is it any coincidence that Galbraith received his training in Berkeley?

There are many things being misunderstood here, including greed, envy, etc., but much of what is being called greed is simply not greed. I would describe greed as an inordinate desire for far more than one needs, especially that which rightfully belongs to someone else. I would emphasize the latter part of the definition, because I believe socialism and communism springs out of greed, which is highly motivated by envy, more than capitalism.

Greed is a human trait, but at least the free market places realistic restrictions on this. And of course our justice system helps prevent outright stealing. That should be obvious without detailed explanation, but to simplify, Cyclops, if a business becomes too greedy and rips you off, you will go to the competitor that does not rip you off. The end result is close to a fair price exchange between people for a product or service, which is not greed, but simply people helping each other out by applying their personal skills and work in avenues that best suit them, at values that the culture values those skills, which of course helps everyone by making society very efficient. Bottom line, greed will always exist, but the free market minimizes it.

This discussion may seem to stray from global warming, but really it is very applicable because the debate has a very large political component, regrettably. People that desire to control others with the use of government love the green movement as I've said before. Government is always viewed as wonderful by the greedy because they can usurp the freedom of people by simply taking what they have and then using it to supposedly help others, always with what somebody else has earned of course, but more importantly help themselves with the power they desire. They are very emotionally attached to the hope that man is destroying the planet, so that they can institute the government control mode over everything and everybody. And of course the accusations of greed toward the free market is also a very prominent component of their politics.

0 Replies

Thomas wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
I might say that when faced with a group of starving people, it is moral to raise my rates astronomically on bread, because hey, then each person can afford less and instead of a few people gorging themselves, everyone can have a little, I can have most if not all of their monies, and then eveyrone is morally satisfied with the equation. Right? Right.

Only because you take the production of bread for granted -- a fair assumption in a **** state, but a much shakier one in a socialist economy. But a thread about global warming probably isn't the right place for me to defend this point.

EDIT: n i g h t w a t c h m a n is the word the A2K censoring software just edited out above. A bug report has been sent to the moderators.

The cost factor does apply however when it comes to oil which has been widely discussed in this thread. Would it not be safe to say that the AGW proponents on this thread consider petroleum to be the worst offender in the global warming 'crisis'? The conclusion from several on that side seems to be that if oil was used much less or not at all, the problem of global warming would be much relieved.

Some Europeans have suggested that the USA is negligent in not taxing gasoline more to reduce the demand for it. But threat to the oil supply also drives up prices and should have the same effect. All the turmoil in the Middle East has certainly raised questions re stability of the oil supply.

The morality of the inn keeper or the baker charging as much as they can get is indeed a subject for another thread as is the morality of the oil companies benefitting from the price of oil that is not set by them but rather by Wall Street and the rest of the global market. But the net effect of high prices is pertinent as described yesterday.

Price will have an effect on demand if it is set high enough. $3/gallon gas was not enough to significantly reduce demand here as it was still proportionately cheaper than it was in the 1950's. $6/gallon gas probably would reduce demand but at what cost to all other products and the quality of life?

So the debate continues with those who are not convinced of the AGW theory being unwilling to jeopardize everything else for what might be a flawed theory, and the pro AGW camp accusing everybody else of unmitigated greed.

0 Replies

Thomas wrote:

EDIT: n i g h t w a t c h m a n is the word the A2K censoring software just edited out above. A bug report has been sent to the moderators.

The moderators told me there's an obscenity lurking between the "nigh" and the "chman". That's funny: I never knew the word `twät' even existed in the English language. How ironic that A2K's electronic night-watchman would teach American obscenities to the community's foreign members!

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

So the debate continues with those who are not convinced of the AGW theory being unwilling to jeopardize everything else for what might be a flawed theory, and the pro AGW camp accusing everybody else of unmitigated greed.

But Nordhaus, who works from the IPCC's global warming scenarios, doesn't jeopardize everything else. He suggests a worldwide hike the gasoline tax that starting 10 cents in 2010 and rising to almost a dollar in 2100. We know a hike like this doesn't jeopardize "everything". Europe has tried the experiment in the 20th century, for reasons other than climate change, and we now do live with a $2/gallon tax. It hasn't prevented us from being a rich country, even if we may not be quite as rich as the US.

0 Replies

Quote:

That should be obvious without detailed explanation, but to simplify, Cyclops, if a business becomes too greedy and rips you off, you will go to the competitor that does not rip you off.

Of course, when the competition all sets roughly the same price (ie, they collude to rip you off), when the industry is heavily subsidized by your government, and when you don't have other transportation options than your car (because you bought a house in the suburbs), you can't just 'go to the competitor.' You are stuck paying... whatever they charge. Until the price goes up to the point where you literally are breaking yourself trying to afford it.

They have bought off the Republican party to the point where the Oil/gas industry not only recieves huge tax breaks, but they don't pay the royalties on their oil and gas leases, either; they get their cronies in Congress to greatly reduce the number of auditors looking for fraud; they bribe (or promise to later on hire) inspectors and those in the regulation industry. None of these are the 'free market' that you have a dream image of in your head.

Of course, this all disproportionally affects the poor and rural members of our society to the greatest extent...

Quote:

Bottom line, greed will always exist, but the free market minimizes it.

No, it emphasizes it. It relies upon greed to keep functioning. It encourages greed. Who are those who are held up to be the highest members of society? The rich. And not just those who have accomplished their dreams, or who have worked hard their whole life. Just those who have a lot of money. That's the definition of success...

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

thomas

I'm glad that's clarified now. I really couldn't figure t'wat end that word might have been caught up in the smut sweeps.

0 Replies

Da
dum

Ching!

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Quote:
That should be obvious without detailed explanation, but to simplify, Cyclops, if a business becomes too greedy and rips you off, you will go to the competitor that does not rip you off.

Of course, when the competition all sets roughly the same price (ie, they collude to rip you off), when the industry is heavily subsidized by your government, and when you don't have other transportation options than your car (because you bought a house in the suburbs), you can't just 'go to the competitor.' You are stuck paying... whatever they charge. Until the price goes up to the point where you literally are breaking yourself trying to afford it.

They have bought off the Republican party to the point where the Oil/gas industry not only recieves huge tax breaks, but they don't pay the royalties on their oil and gas leases, either; they get their cronies in Congress to greatly reduce the number of auditors looking for fraud; they bribe (or promise to later on hire) inspectors and those in the regulation industry. None of these are the 'free market' that you have a dream image of in your head.

Of course, this all disproportionally affects the poor and rural members of our society to the greatest extent...

Quote:
Bottom line, greed will always exist, but the free market minimizes it.

No, it emphasizes it. It relies upon greed to keep functioning. It encourages greed. Who are those who are held up to be the highest members of society? The rich. And not just those who have accomplished their dreams, or who have worked hard their whole life. Just those who have a lot of money. That's the definition of success...

Cycloptichorn

Energy is still cheap, cyclops. If you think a gallon of gasoline is so expensive and overpriced, go drill a well, build a refinery, and transport it to the gas station and sell it for a little over $2.00 per gallon and make your fortune. Since the existing companies are over-pricing the product because of greed, you should be able to sell it cheaper.

Your arguments are so ridiculous, cyclops. If government took over the industry, it would be costing us more than $5.00 per gallon. I would guarantee it.

You are just biased and ignorant, and have a pre-disposed dislike of an industry that is making an honest living. I don't know if you,ve been indoctrinated by someone else or are envious of anyone that makes a buck by doing something progressive? Personally, I admire the oil companies and am very grateful to them for the products they provide for me.

0 Replies

Quote:

Your arguments are so ridiculous, cyclops. If government took over the industry, it would be costing us more than $5.00 per gallon. I would guarantee it.

.

See, here's the thing: you like to commit the logical fallacy called Appealing to Extremes.

I never suggested that the gov't should take over the oil and gas industry. Can you find anywhere that I did? No, you cannot, because I never have done so.

Just because I feel that the industry engages in corrupt and anti-competitive behavior in order to keep prices high on consumers doesn't mean that I'm a complete socialist who wants to see them all out of business. Far from it. It just means that proper attention needs to be paid to keep them from engaging in these sorts of behaviors. This means that we will have to do more work in regulation and in electing officials who aren't bought off by the oil and gas companies.

The solution to a problem isn't to do the exact opposite of what caused the problem in the first place! It is to find a method which works, over the short term and hopefully into the long term. You mischaracterize my arguments by claiming that I wish to do away with the industry; I just don't comletely believe that they make an 'honest living' or that they are doing anyone any 'favors' by running their business.

I don't have a problem with the oil/gas industry, other than the realization that their mission and products are not a long-term solution to our energy needs. That's okay; not everything has to be a long-term solution. But now that our technologies are better than they used to be, it is time to start thinking about dumping these dinosaurs (recycled dinos, really) and focusing the attention of our country on cleaner and more permanent solutions to energy problems, such as solar, wind, and nuclear energy sources.

Problem with that is that the oil/gas industries have wormed their way into our societies to the point where they won't give up without a fight. They will pull every string they can to keep pro-industry politicians in office; donate huge sums of money to argue that they aren't polluting, that they aren't changing the climate through their business models; they will oppose any Middle East policy which makes it more difficult for them to get dirt cheap oil which is stolen from the citizens of the countries it comes from; they will work to make technologies which threaten their energy monopoly illegal, buy up patents and then not produce the technologies, whatever.

These actions are all predictable because there has been evidence time and time again that Corporations act in exactly this fashion when their business model is threatened. The good of society, our country, the environment, or the human race itself always takes a back seat to the continuation of profitability in the Corporate structure. Always. Because, if it doesn't, the investors can easily sue the whole BoDirectors and CEO out of a job; and who wants that?

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Quote:

Your arguments are so ridiculous, cyclops. If government took over the industry, it would be costing us more than $5.00 per gallon. I would guarantee it.
.

See, here's the thing: you like to commit the logical fallacy called Appealing to Extremes.

I never suggested that the gov't should take over the oil and gas industry. Can you find anywhere that I did? No, you cannot, because I never have done so.

.....
Cycloptichorn

Then quit criticizing companies and the free market. Never did I say that corruption does not exist. It always will as long as human beings exist. I am simply pointing out the free market offers the best chance of obtaining a product or service at a fair price. Crooks can end up in jail. We have laws against price fixing, and believe me, the oil industry has been repeatedly investigated concerning price fixing, whatever. In contrast, how many bureaucrats are investigated and thrown in jail for fraud? How many hit pieces are done on government by the main stream media, as compared to companies?

I don't know how to point out all the stupid arguments you make. We do not steal the oil from the Middle East. We are paying dearly for it, in fact far more than it costs them to produce. If anyone is ripping people off, it is the oil cartel, which is blatant price fixing, cyclops. Oil companies do not set the price of oil. It is controlled by world wide supply and demand, the oil cartels, and the traders.

As far as paying royalties, I know plenty of people that have profited nicely, even saved their farms because of royalties paid by oil companies. Thanks to oil companies, many small farmers survived. Your accusations about oil companies being crooked in everything they do is nothing but nonsense. Yes, theres fraud, but no more than in any other industry, and when fraud is found and prosecuted, people go to jail. In contrast, is Terry McAuliffe of Democratic Party chairman fame in jail yet for making about 18 mill on a 100 grand investment because of his buddy and Global Crossing CEO, Gary Winnick? Corruption does not have party boundaries.

I won't even mention all the logical fallacies you use. They are too many.

I suggest we get back to global warming. We already know everybody hates the oil companies because our educational system and the media starts teaching the greed and oil is killing us all garbage to kids as soon as they are born. I am simply trying to provide some common sense for a change, that we should all be loving the oil companies instead, but oh well, back to the global warming will kill us all mantra.

As for me, I am going to drive a car to work tomorrow instead of walking or riding a stinking horse that eats me out of house and home. Plus, horses produce alot of methane, and if everybody had horses, we would also be doomed.

0 Replies

okie wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
Quote:

Your arguments are so ridiculous, cyclops. If government took over the industry, it would be costing us more than $5.00 per gallon. I would guarantee it.
.

See, here's the thing: you like to commit the logical fallacy called Appealing to Extremes.

I never suggested that the gov't should take over the oil and gas industry. Can you find anywhere that I did? No, you cannot, because I never have done so.

.....
Cycloptichorn

Then quit criticizing companies and the free market. Never did I say that corruption does not exist. It always will as long as human beings exist. I am simply pointing out the free market offers the best chance of obtaining a product or service at a fair price. Crooks can end up in jail. We have laws against price fixing, and believe me, the oil industry has been repeatedly investigated concerning price fixing, whatever. In contrast, how many bureaucrats are investigated and thrown in jail for fraud? How many hit pieces are done on government by the main stream media, as compared to companies?

I don't know how to point out all the stupid arguments you make. We do not steal the oil from the Middle East. We are paying dearly for it, in fact far more than it costs them to produce. If anyone is ripping people off, it is the oil cartel, which is blatant price fixing, cyclops. Oil companies do not set the price of oil. It is controlled by world wide supply and demand, the oil cartels, and the traders.

As far as paying royalties, I know plenty of people that have profited nicely, even saved their farms because of royalties paid by oil companies. Thanks to oil companies, many small farmers survived. Your accusations about oil companies being crooked in everything they do is nothing but nonsense. Yes, theres fraud, but no more than in any other industry, and when fraud is found and prosecuted, people go to jail. In contrast, is Terry McAuliffe of Democratic Party chairman fame in jail yet for making about 18 mill on a 100 grand investment because of his buddy and Global Crossing CEO, Gary Winnick? Corruption does not have party boundaries.

I won't even mention all the logical fallacies you use. They are too many.

Mmhmm, 'too many to mention.' It should be a trifling point then for you to point out just one of them.

Two points -

The concept of the 'free market' is perverted when companies, say, such as oil and energy companies, are allowed to twist and pervert the regulatory, pricing, and distribution models without retribution from the gov't. The 'free market' isn't free at all. We've had this discussion before, though, so I won't harp on it too muc.

Second,

Quote:

We do not steal the oil from the Middle East. We are paying dearly for it, in fact far more than it costs them to produce. If anyone is ripping people off, it is the oil cartel, which is blatant price fixing, cyclops.

Of course we do. We buy oil which is stolen from the people who inhabit the countries of the Middle East, who see no return on the sale of their natural resources. We have propped up dictators to sell us this oil at a cheap rate.

Listen, if your car was broken into, and your stereo stolen, and you found out that the guy who bought the stereo knew that it was stolen from your car, wouldn't you be pretty pissed that he was doing it? I think so.

I agree with you that oil cartels and blatant price fixing are another large part of the problem, one that we have little alternative to - unless we start moving away from dependence on oil for our energy needs.

As for lost royalties, see here and many others:

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/headline/nation/4384413.html

There is little doubt that the oil and gas companies are not paying their royalties to the gov't in an accurate fashion; also little doubt that the fact that oversight has been sharply reduced under Bush has something to do with this.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

okie, I agree with most of your position on "free market" economy. As for oil prices, Americans don't know how good we have it. Most people who buy gas in other countries have been paying up to 100 percent and more for theirs ever since I can remember. Even in Israel, they pay over $5.00/gallon (October 2006). I use premium, and I pay about $2.61/gallon. Americans are just spoiled when it comes to gasoline prices; they cry bloody murder when it hits $3/gallon.

0 Replies

Global Warming...New Report...and it ain't happy news

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know