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

Diest TKO wrote:

I was not the only one who was critical for how poor the phrasing was. It implied something far from the truth. We call that deceptive.

But I'm sure you're also prepared to tell me that we'll find WMDs in Iraq someday.

T
K
O

That's assuming that you and Cyclop aren't the same person which would considerably narrow down your support group of course. Perhaps you could explain how WMDs in Iraq in any way relates to the topic of this thread or perhaps you might agree that such is a huge red herring?

0 Replies

okie wrote:

I would add however that prohibitions have existed much longer than 10 years, but the amount of land that is deemed permanently off limits has grown, through the declaration of wilderness, wildlife refuges, conservation areas, wilderness study areas, national parks and monuments, primitive areas, and so forth. Even lands deemed multiple use become battlegrounds for opposition groups to oppose oil and gas leasing, and are often tied up in courts, studies, local citizens reviews and meetings, the list goes on. Even lands that end up with leases, special requirements are often instituted where drilling is only allowed at certain times or seasons and restrictions on roads are enforced, wherein the cost of drilling and production is multiplied over what would otherwise happen, thus ultimately costing the consumer much more to bring the product to delivery.

I used to work in the business, and I remember some fairly ridiculous things, one I will mention is the BLM argued with a company for months over what color to paint a gas booster station building. Actually it wasn't much of an argument, the BLM could not figure out the color they wanted, and so the company had to wait for a decision to be made, which took forever, ostensibly to blend in with the environment, balanced with the seasons, so that it did not frighten certain kinds of wildlife or something, as I recall. All of this was a holdup of the work that needed to be done, but we all know the federal government makes some monumental decisions as they sit in their cubicles and mull over these things.

I see you declaring annoyance when the government is getting in the way of oil exploration efforts. If you've been in the industry, that's understandable.

However, Cycloptichorn
posted a link to an article earlier that described how the government has declared a 2 year moratorium on new solar power projects.

I haven't seen you or Foxy or ican voice any frustration about that. Are you sure y'all are not possibly biased in favour of the petroleum based industry?

I mean, the most important goal here is energy independence, right?

0 Replies

By the way, take a look at the picture from the article:

It's a solar thermal power plant (also called a Concentrated Solar Power or CSP plant). The parabolic mirrors concentrate the sunlight to heat up a central collector where a synthetic fluid circulates. The fluid can reach temperatures of several hundred °C, generate steam and drive a steam turbine generator.

However, the nifty thing is that the plants can operate 24 hours by storing the heat before converting it to electricity. An advantage over PV plants, where you would have to store the electricity instead.

0 Replies

okie wrote:

ican was perfectly understandable. He claimed there were prohibitions against drilling in U.S., which is true. Everyone should know, simply by seeing drilling rigs in various places, that not all drilling is prohibited, just that prohibitions against drilling in some areas do exist, obviously. In contrast, I couldn't figure out Parados, as he seemed to indicate there were no prohibitions against drilling in the U.S. I didn't even respond to the post, as it seemed incomprehensible that anyone would make that claim. After all, how do you argue with someone that claims the sun does not exist?

I didn't realize the oil companies were exempt from respecting property rights.

Of course they can't drill where they have no property rights to do so. Not having property rights is NOT the same thing as a prohibition on drilling.

Using the logic proposed in the statement by ican, all the following MUST be true but no one would argue that they aren't misleading.

There are prohibitions against drinking alcohol in the US.
There are prohibitions against driving cars in the US
There are prohibitions against sitting on a chair in the US.
There are prohibitions against using the internet in the US.

There is no law prohibiting drilling in the US. There is a law that prohibits leasing mineral rights in Anwar without congressional approval. There is a Executive Order that prohibits leasing mineral rights offshore. While the ultimate result may be Oil companies can't drill it is not a prohibition against drilling.

By the way.. Can ican or okie tell me why the Democrats are at fault for Bush not rescinding the EO that prohibits leasing off shore Federal areas? An EO that was signed by Bush41.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

Diest TKO wrote:
I was not the only one who was critical for how poor the phrasing was. It implied something far from the truth. We call that deceptive.

But I'm sure you're also prepared to tell me that we'll find WMDs in Iraq someday.

T
K
O

That's assuming that you and Cyclop aren't the same person which would considerably narrow down your support group of course. Perhaps you could explain how WMDs in Iraq in any way relates to the topic of this thread or perhaps you might agree that such is a huge red herring?

No more a red herring than attacking my spelling, precious. The point is that modern conservatives are not very honest about admitting when they are wrong. They would rather be stubborn and prideful, that's all.

As for cyclo and I being one and the same, how dare you insult cylco in such a way! His spelling and typing are far superior to mine.

T
K
O

0 Replies

Oh wait, now parados sees it too, am I also parados?

Is TKO legion?

T
K
O

0 Replies

I started it TKO, so you must be me.

I called Bull **** on ican's statement and linked to the American Petroleum Institute where they listed more than 20,000 domestic wells drilled in the first half of 2006.

ican, okie and Fox have claimed I failed to understand ican's statement.

0 Replies

TKO writes

Quote:

As for cyclo and I being one and the same, how dare you insult cylco in such a way! His spelling and typing are far superior to mine.

T
K
O

No offense intended. Just an observation that I do believe you are the first person to cite Cyclops as an authority for anything, and, along with some similarity in style, agreement on issues, and tendency to ad hominem posts, your bad spelling, capitalization, punctuation, etc. seem to come and go these days. But I'll accept that it is all coincidental.

As for Parados getting Ican's intent wrong too, he was what started this whole quite silly exchange to begin with by assigning an intent to Ican's post that Ican quite certainly did not intend.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

TKO writes

Quote:
As for cyclo and I being one and the same, how dare you insult cylco in such a way! His spelling and typing are far superior to mine.

T
K
O

No offense intended. Just an observation that I do believe you are the first person to cite Cyclops as an authority for anything, and, along with some similarity in style and tendency to ad hominem posts, your bad spelling, capitalization, punctuation, etc. seems to come and go these days. But I'll accept that it is all coincidental.

As for Parados getting Ican's intent wrong too, he was what started this whole quite silly exchange to begin with by assigning an intent to Ican's post that Ican quite certainly did not intend.

Attacking my spelling is ad hominem. Attacking someone's content is called debate. Welcome to A2K.

T
K
O

0 Replies

Diest TKO wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
TKO writes

Quote:
As for cyclo and I being one and the same, how dare you insult cylco in such a way! His spelling and typing are far superior to mine.

T
K
O

No offense intended. Just an observation that I do believe you are the first person to cite Cyclops as an authority for anything, and, along with some similarity in style and tendency to ad hominem posts, your bad spelling, capitalization, punctuation, etc. seems to come and go these days. But I'll accept that it is all coincidental.

As for Parados getting Ican's intent wrong too, he was what started this whole quite silly exchange to begin with by assigning an intent to Ican's post that Ican quite certainly did not intend.

Attacking my spelling is ad hominem. Attacking someone's content is called debate. Welcome to A2K.

T
K
O

Here is your post.

Diest TKO wrote:

Ican's poor phrasing is what caused the confusion. It's a deceptive way to phrase things.

T
K
O

http://www.able2know.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=3294560#3294560

And my rebuttal:

Foxfyre wrote:

Diest TKO wrote:
Ican's poor phrasing is what caused the confusion. It's a deceptive way to phrase things.

T
K
O

You, the master of spelling, punctuation, and grammar, criticize Ican for how he phrases things? Surely you jest. Ican is in no way deceptive in how he phrases things but his posts do require reading comprehension and paying attention.

http://www.able2know.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=3294678#3294678

And we could debate endlessly on--which I do not intend to do--whether if you say "your post could only have been written by a stupid person" or "saying it that way is a stupid way of saying it' is not ad hominem, but I can assure you a debate judge would judge it to be ad hominem.

My post also addresses your post. Spelling and syntax, etc., are definitely in a post and commenting on them is 'attacking the post' every bit as much as saying that somebody's post is 'deceptive'. I did not criticize your spelling, et al, however, and subsequently made a point to say that. That debate judge would probably allowing pointing out a clear case of hypocrisy, however, unless you could show that your accusation of 'deception' was supportable. Which it isn't.

And with that, I have become quite bored with this entire exchange and I hope we can move back to the thread topic.

0 Replies

Commenting on Ican's post was on topic. Addressing his content is debate. Calling it deceptive is not an ad hom. Not a member of the National Forensic League are you now, precious?

T
K
O

0 Replies

Quote:

ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/special.requests/cpi/cpiai.txt

U.S. Department Of Labor
Bureau of Labor Statistics
Washington, D.C. 20212

Consumer Price Index

All Urban Consumers - (CPI-U)

U.S. city average

All items

1982-84=100

Year Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May June July Aug. Sep. Oct. Nov. Dec. Avg.

1967 32.9 32.9 33.0 33.1 33.2 33.3 33.4 33.5 33.6 33.7 33.8 33.9 33.4
1968 34.1 34.2 34.3 34.4 34.5 34.7 34.9 35.0 35.1 35.3 35.4 35.5 34.8
1969 35.6 35.8 36.1 36.3 36.4 36.6 36.8 37.0 37.1 37.3 37.5 37.7 36.7
1970 37.8 38.0 38.2 38.5 38.6 38.8 39.0 39.0 39.2 39.4 39.6 39.8 38.8

1971 39.8 39.9 40.0 40.1 40.3 40.6 40.7 40.8 40.8 40.9 40.9 41.1 40.5
1972 41.1 41.3 41.4 41.5 41.6 41.7 41.9 42.0 42.1 42.3 42.4 42.5 41.8
1973 42.6 42.9 43.3 43.6 43.9 44.2 44.3 45.1 45.2 45.6 45.9 46.2 44.4
1974 46.6 47.2 47.8 48.0 48.6 49.0 49.4 50.0 50.6 51.1 51.5 51.9 49.3
1975 52.1 52.5 52.7 52.9 53.2 53.6 54.2 54.3 54.6 54.9 55.3 55.5 53.8

1976 55.6 55.8 55.9 56.1 56.5 56.8 57.1 57.4 57.6 57.9 58.0 58.2 56.9
1977 58.5 59.1 59.5 60.0 60.3 60.7 61.0 61.2 61.4 61.6 61.9 62.1 60.6
1978 62.5 62.9 63.4 63.9 64.5 65.2 65.7 66.0 66.5 67.1 67.4 67.7 65.2
1979 68.3 69.1 69.8 70.6 71.5 72.3 73.1 73.8 74.6 75.2 75.9 76.7 72.6
1980 77.8 78.9 80.1 81.0 81.8 82.7 82.7 83.3 84.0 84.8 85.5 86.3 82.4

1981 87.0 87.9 88.5 89.1 89.8 90.6 91.6 92.3 93.2 93.4 93.7 94.0 90.9
1982 94.3 94.6 94.5 94.9 95.8 97.0 97.5 97.7 97.9 98.2 98.0 97.6 96.5
1983 97.8 97.9 97.9 98.6 99.2 99.5 99.9 100.2 100.7 101.0 101.2 101.3 99.6
1984 101.9 102.4 102.6 103.1 103.4 103.7 104.1 104.5 105.0 105.3 105.3 105.3 103.9
1985 105.5 106.0 106.4 106.9 107.3 107.6 107.8 108.0 108.3 108.7 109.0 109.3 107.6

1986 109.6 109.3 108.8 108.6 108.9 109.5 109.5 109.7 110.2 110.3 110.4 110.5 109.6
1987 111.2 111.6 112.1 112.7 113.1 113.5 113.8 114.4 115.0 115.3 115.4 115.4 113.6
1988 115.7 116.0 116.5 117.1 117.5 118.0 118.5 119.0 119.8 120.2 120.3 120.5 118.3
1989 121.1 121.6 122.3 123.1 123.8 124.1 124.4 124.6 125.0 125.6 125.9 126.1 124.0
1990 127.4 128.0 128.7 128.9 129.2 129.9 130.4 131.6 132.7 133.5 133.8 133.8 130.7

1991 134.6 134.8 135.0 135.2 135.6 136.0 136.2 136.6 137.2 137.4 137.8 137.9 136.2
1992 138.1 138.6 139.3 139.5 139.7 140.2 140.5 140.9 141.3 141.8 142.0 141.9 140.3
1993 142.6 143.1 143.6 144.0 144.2 144.4 144.4 144.8 145.1 145.7 145.8 145.8 144.5
1994 146.2 146.7 147.2 147.4 147.5 148.0 148.4 149.0 149.4 149.5 149.7 149.7 148.2
1995 150.3 150.9 151.4 151.9 152.2 152.5 152.5 152.9 153.2 153.7 153.6 153.5 152.4

1996 154.4 154.9 155.7 156.3 156.6 156.7 157.0 157.3 157.8 158.3 158.6 158.6 156.9
1997 159.1 159.6 160.0 160.2 160.1 160.3 160.5 160.8 161.2 161.6 161.5 161.3 160.5
1998 161.6 161.9 162.2 162.5 162.8 163.0 163.2 163.4 163.6 164.0 164.0 163.9 163.0
1999 164.3 164.5 165.0 166.2 166.2 166.2 166.7 167.1 167.9 168.2 168.3 168.3 166.6
2000 168.8 169.8 171.2 171.3 171.5 172.4 172.8 172.8 173.7 174.0 174.1 174.0 172.2

2001 175.1 175.8 176.2 176.9 177.7 178.0 177.5 177.5 178.3 177.7 177.4 176.7 177.1
2002 177.1 177.8 178.8 179.8 179.8 179.9 180.1 180.7 181.0 181.3 181.3 180.9 179.9
2003 181.7 183.1 184.2 183.8 183.5 183.7 183.9 184.6 185.2 185.0 184.5 184.3 184.0
2004 185.2 186.2 187.4 188.0 189.1 189.7 189.4 189.5 189.9 190.9 191.0 190.3 188.9
2005 190.7 191.8 193.3 194.6 194.4 194.5 195.4 196.4 198.8 199.2 197.6 196.8 195.3

2006 198.3 198.7 199.8 201.5 202.5 202.9 203.5 203.9 202.9 201.8 201.5 201.8 201.6
2007 202.416 203.499 205.352 206.686 207.949 208.352 208.299 207.917 208.490 208.936 210.177 210.036 207.342
2008 211.080 211.693 213.528 214.823 216.632

0 Replies

I remember paying .15c for a pack of cigarettes when I was in the military, and I understand it now costs over $4/pack.

What's your point?

0 Replies

The price of gasoline in the USA has more than doubled from its average price of $1.50 per gallon in January 2002 to $3.08 in January 2008.

Since January 2008 the average price has increased to it's present average price in June 2008 of more than $3.80 per gallon.

The primary causes of the inflated price of oil are:
1. The declining value of the dollar;
2. The rising international demand for oil;
3. The US's [many] ten-year [old or more] federal prohibitions against domestic oil drilling;
4. The US's ten-year failure to develop an adequate substituite for oil.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

I remember paying .15c for a pack of cigarettes when I was in the military, and I understand it now costs over $4/pack.

What's your point?

Much of today's cigarette prices are caused by additional cigarette taxes. I smoked 7 cigarettes in 1943. Since then I have smoked zero cigarettes and zero any other form of tobacco.

But that of course is irrelevant to the present focus of our debate on the cost of petroleum products and their substitutes. The health of the US economy is not anywhere near as dependent on the price of cigarettes as it is on the price of almost all of electricity generating fuel prices, and almost all ground, air, and sea vehicle fuel prices.

By the way, how many years ago were you in the military?

0 Replies

PLEASE NOTE FROM THE CPI DATA AND THE GASOLINE PRICES I PREVIOUSLY QUOTED:

(1) The maximum average CPI in 2002 was 181.3, while the maximum average CPI so far in 2008 is 216.632.

(2) The ratio of the 2008 CPI to the 2002 CPI = 216.632 / 181.3 = 1.195.

(3) The January 2002 average price of gasoline was $1.50, while the average price of gasoline in January 2008 was $3.08.

(4) The ratio of the January 2008 average gasoline price to the January 2002 average gasoline price = $3.08 / $1.50 = 2.053

(5) From January 2002 to January 2008, the price of gasolline in the USA has been increasing 2.053 / 1.195 = 1.718 times faster in than has the CPI.

(6) If the price of gasoline keeps increasing at its 2008 rate, it may almost double its January 2008 price by January 2009--that is, it may almost double in one year.

To curtail that kind of price rise over the next 20 years we must NOW drill for oil in ANWR, and IN anywhere else domestic oil reserves are estimated to be high and the federal government currently prohibits drilling.

That is my point!

0 Replies

If the USA was self sufficient in oil, couldn't it determine it's own domestic price for oil... That would be the logical out come, wouldn't it?

0 Replies

anton bonnier wrote:

If the USA was self sufficient in oil, couldn't it determine it's own domestic price for oil... That would be the logical out come, wouldn't it?

Not at all. Unless the US government wanted to pass restrictions on how that oil could be used, oil companies would be free to ship it overseas thus letting the world market decide the price. That is why the opening of ANWR would only decrease the price of a barrel of oil by $0.75.

0 Replies

On the other hand, the price of a gallon of gasoline is quite modest in most countries who furnish all their own petroleum needs. Certainly their economies are more secure when they do not need to depend on supplies from unstable parts of the world. If this Wikipedia analysis is correct, some prices are as low as 17 cents per gallon: SEE HERE

0 Replies

Diest TKO wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
TKO writes

Quote:
As for cyclo and I being one and the same, how dare you insult cylco in such a way! His spelling and typing are far superior to mine.

T
K
O

No offense intended. Just an observation that I do believe you are the first person to cite Cyclops as an authority for anything, and, along with some similarity in style and tendency to ad hominem posts, your bad spelling, capitalization, punctuation, etc. seems to come and go these days. But I'll accept that it is all coincidental.

As for Parados getting Ican's intent wrong too, he was what started this whole quite silly exchange to begin with by assigning an intent to Ican's post that Ican quite certainly did not intend.

Attacking my spelling is ad hominem. Attacking someone's content is called debate. Welcome to A2K.

T
K
O

Don't be insulted, Diest. If it wasn't for posts attacking her betters, Fox would have to do actual research and critical thought on issues, and well, that would be hard. And we wouldn't want that. A2K is for fun, not for things like accuracy in the words you use, or facts, or logical thinking.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

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

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know