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

Home Depot sells them in 4 packs for $7.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

It's a bit extreme to go to Germany to shop for light bulbs though.

That would be extreme, yup.

parados wrote:

Home Depot sells them in 4 packs for $7.

I'm fairly sure we went to a Home Depot, too. They all just seem to have the spirally ones.

0 Replies

Home depot sells the spirals 4 for $7.

The enclosed ones like you pictured OE are available in the US. Sylvania used to make one. The spirals are the cheap ones found everywhere.

0 Replies

parados wrote:

Sylvania used to make one.

Oh, cool! That makes sense - Osram makes the enclosed ones over here, too!

Thanks for the info!

0 Replies

Quote from Dr. James Hansen, director of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York:
"In my opinion, these CEOs should be tried for high crimes against humanity and nature."

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,370521,00.html

Isn't somebody going to fire this nutcase, Hansen. He has totally lost his marbles, and is not only crazy, but is becoming dangerous. Is there any doubt that leftists are not only wrong, but dangerous, and should never gain political power in this country, or lots of innocent people are going to suffer. What does he have in mind, throwing them in prison or could it be executions at some point?

Could more Hitlers be on the horizon? Such mindsets have different scapegoats, but they always have a scapegoat for some perceived problem, so they can take their hatreds out on somebody, to cleanse the world and accomplish some mission they have grand images of in their twisted minds. Is there any doubt that environmentalism is now a religion, and a very dangerous one at that? Some of us have been sounding the warning that this kind of thing was just over the horizon, and here it is, sooner than I even expected. Will it be condemned for what it is, or will people overlook it as if it amounts to nothing?

0 Replies

It's interesting to see you all worked up about it, okie. Yes. Hansen is another Hitler.

0 Replies

old europe wrote:

It's interesting to see you all worked up about it, okie. Yes. Hansen is another Hitler.

McCain is just holding the cardboard. The agitprop who wrote it is Hansen & co :wink:

0 Replies

old europe wrote:

It's interesting to see you all worked up about it, okie. Yes. Hansen is another Hitler.

I don't think its that far fetched for a man that wants to prosecute somebody for "high crimes against humanity and nature" for simply disagreeing with him on a political issue and for apparently producing gasoline that he burns in his car. I assume he drives a car?

Again, the man is totally a nutcase, and I think he sounds dangerous. If I disagree with him, as the oil companies may do, I guess he would like to try me for "high crimes" as well? I don't take kindly to it, old europe. What are we supposed to do, say, "yeah yeah, this guy is right on, lets go get em, lets make an example of the oil execs"? Then what, throw them in prison, or execute them, and what for? Apparently for daring to disagree with Sir Highness, Dr. Hansen?

0 Replies

Steven Cobert wrote:

Nation, I don't know if you've heard this, but gas is getting kind of pricey. It's getting to the point where I can't burn anyone in effigy anymore.

Things are so bad, people have been driven to the point of madness, believing that they are the President and can pass laws abolishing gas taxes.

And consumers, folks, are so angry at the gas companies that, for weeks now, the People of America's Oil and Natural Gas Industry have been forced to run full page ads in newspapers all over the country.

Here's one I saw today in today's The USA Today. It asks, ''Where does your gasoline dollar go?'' I actually thought that was a trick question because you cannot actually buy gas for a dollar.

That is right nation. Oil is a zero profit business! I mean, they must have had a bake sale to pay for this ad. Yet, somehow, in 2007, Exxon Mobil made $1,300 a second. Thirteen hundred - yes, that's a lot of money, but it is an unlucky number of hundreds.

That means that, even though 100% of the gasoline prices are canceled out by costs, these companies are somehow able to wring mind bending revenue out of the their not-for-profit venture. I think that's pretty impressive. So, the next time you get a request from the Red Cross or The Humane Society, you send them 1 dollar. It is up to them to get 40.6 Billion out of it.

VIDEO

Crimes against humanity? Get in line. I'd like to roll them over for fraud. Fraud is still illegal right?

T
K
O

0 Replies

Diest, taxes far exceed any profit margins at the pump. According to the following site, Distribution Costs, Marketing Costs and Profits are $0.13, vs taxes totaling $0.65 (for California).

http://www.energy.ca.gov/gasoline/margins/index.html

It appears to me the primary profits are in producing the crude, wherein the price is determined by the world market, whatever the customers around the world are able or willing to pay in order to procure sufficient supply. Now we are competing against rapid growth and demand from many places around the world, such as the rapidly growing demand of China and India. Throw in the cartel which influences price. Also, futures traders are basically having to bet on future price and demand, which may drive up the price, but serves to moderate even more drastic swings than we currently see.

Actually, I think the profit margins in retailing gasoline are so small that I heard one major oil company is going to divest itself of that portion of its business, and concentrate on crude oil production and perhaps refining, I forgot which one.

Diest, unless you are in favor of using violent force to procure the supply of energy that we need, then given the current policy of not drilling many areas domestically, the only choice we have is to pay market price. I am of course in favor of more drilling and development here, and have been calling for this for a long long time, as long as it has been an issue.

And to put the energy industry into context in terms of profits, the following shows that pharmaceuticals, banks, financial services, telecom, software, food and beverage all make higher profit margins. Of course some oil companies are some of the largest companies in the world in terms of sheer size, principally because of the monstrous job that they do while exploring, transporting, refining, etc. their product. It is no small job when drill ships, refineries, and all kinds of high tech things are done, all of which require highly paid, highly educated, and large workforces to accomplish. I think they do a fantastic job of delivering a product as cheaply as they do, as regularly as they do, and as efficiently as they do. Instead of penalizing them, we should simply buy their stocks and be happy they are operating here.

http://everydayecon.wordpress.com/2006/04/26/oil-profit-margins-vs-other-industries/

0 Replies

Okie - You may not like it, but the demand has to be curved. We can't afford to be gluttons with our crude. I'm sorry that the solution does not align neatly with many of our lifestyles, but it's true.

We don't need foreign violence that only serves to destabilize already volitile regions, we need domestic restraint.

Even if the primary profit is in producing the rude it seems obvious to most observers that this is where the robbery is taking place.

T
K
O

0 Replies

Diest, if you believe in the free market, perhaps you do or you don't - I am not sure, but if you do, rising prices are necessary to curb demand and to grow competitive technologies into larger market share. We can also use tax policies or incentives to either curb consumption or grow competing technologies, however we must be careful of unintended consequences anytime you meddle with the free market, witness the ethanol situation.

If you don't believe in the free market, then I don't know how to debate you except to tell you that path has proven to be disastrous in terms of results. There are always people around that will believe they can do it differently to correct the mistakes made before. All I can do is suggest you read Thomas Sowell's book, Basic Economics, and I think you will see the myriad of reasons why demand from the bottom up via the consumer always is more efficient than supply through the top down via central planning.

0 Replies

Republicans don't believe in free market, they believe in victory and profit.

Don't defend oil companies, they have bought out patents on technolgies which could have improved MPG perfomance on cars or helped provide alternative means.

You're just hiding behind the notion or a "Free Market." The nature of competition is not the driving factor as it should be. Just admit it, we're being hustled by the people who control the supply. There is no balance between customer and supplier anymore.

He with the gold makes the rules, but it should be the government not the bussiness that makes the rules. If you want to ride this sinking ship to the bottom of the ocean by defending some antiquated notion of laissez fair you are a fool. More than a fool if you think that a government cannot act in the interest of it's people when a group or organization threatens it be it economically or other. You may be content to stand by your ideals but it doesn't give them practical value.

Bottom line: Crude oil is used to produce non-reuaseable products which hurt both the economy and the enviroment. It is in the interest of any government to protect both it's economy and it's enviroment. It is also in the intrest of the citizens that these are both addressed. No free market should superceed the interests of the people or the government, certainly not the authority of the government at that. We cannot pretend that the oil industry is using the only bussiness model that will yield a profit.

T
K
O

0 Replies

So, demand for crude oil has spiked to the point where it's gotten real expensive.

Republican plan: drill more!

So, when the demand rises to fill up the new level of drilling, what will the plan be?

DRILL MORE!!!!!

That's the eternal Republican plan. It makes zero sense to be investing in more infrastructure for oil drilling and refining if they are planning on a point in which other technologies will take over happening any time soon; it really is a formula to keep us addicted to oil, no matter where it comes from, for the known future.

To hell with that!

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

The year 2030

People: What now?
Republicans: uh.... Drill.... uh...! DRILL DEEPER!

T
K
O

0 Replies

Diest TKO wrote:

Okie - You may not like it, but the demand has to be curved. We can't afford to be gluttons with our crude. I'm sorry that the solution does not align neatly with many of our lifestyles, but it's true.

The demand has been curved ! Get minimally informed before making grand scheme TKO !
source : http://www.dot.gov/affairs/fhwa1108.htm

http://bp1.blogger.com/_fl4GqRfOC9Q/SFy41QRy7RI/AAAAAAAAAMo/pGCLyDiV-84/s1600/VMT.jpg

0 Replies

Diest TKO wrote:

Don't defend oil companies, they have bought out patents on technolgies which could have improved MPG perfomance on cars or helped provide alternative means.

Those big -oils, what a scandal!

P.S. Which one patent ? Name ONE, please. Shocked

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

So, when the demand rises to fill up the new level of drilling, what will the plan be?

DRILL MORE!!!!!

Maybe plans to drill more are proposed because great "alternatives" like biofuels, endorsed by greenies and democrats, have PROVED to be a fiasco ?

0 Replies

miniTAX wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

So, when the demand rises to fill up the new level of drilling, what will the plan be?

DRILL MORE!!!!!
Maybe plans to drill more are proposed because great "alternatives" like biofuels, endorsed by greenies and democrats, have PROVED to be a fiasco ?

Your definition of the word 'proved' is a little off, yeah.

At one point Oil was 'proven' to be next to useless... the byproducts were 'proven' to be waste...

We'll see how long your 'proof' holds up Laughing

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

miniTAX wrote:

Name ONE, please.

Watch the movie "Who killed the electric car?" In the film they outline how the range of the electric car was limited by not using batteries which were superior. Guess who would not let those batteries be used and thus increase the range of the vehicle?

T
K
O

0 Replies

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

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know