Gold/Mining/EnergyBig Dog's Boom Boom Room

Previous 10 Next 10 
To: Salt'n'Peppa who wrote (156479)9/5/2011 1:26:20 PM
From: Webster Groves
9 Recommendations   of 198409
OT for Labor Day ....

There is a CO2 monitoring station on the side of Mauna Loa up near the top. It has been there a long time. The reason for the location is that it is more or less out in the middle of the Pacific ocean far away from the majority of the human population. The Kiluea lava flow is to the southeast of Mauna Loa and the prevailing winds from west to east, so there is not a problem here. The Mauna Loa station was established before the latest Kiluea eruption cycle stated in the 1980's.

All this talk of scientists inflaming the population with thoughts of doom is for their own financial benefit is absurd. These guys and gals are paid academic salary rates and have no access to really big bucks regardless of what they do. Also the number of scientists involved in climate studies is (my guess) fewer than the number of software programmers working on cell phone aps. They just don't have a large enough constituency to have the political influence you claim. Political influence requires big bucks and that means corporate sponsors. Doesn't exist in climate studies. As a counter example consider the Homeland Security market. Lots of big bucks here selling fear of the type you mention. Lots of companies in the biz, too.

The big problem for acceptance of climate change seems to be the perceived economic impact of the consequences, and whether mitigation is possible or even desirable. I myself so no harm in a doubling in atmospheric CO2 in the next 10,000 years. The oceans will adjust and the ecology will rebalance. I do see a problem in a doubling of the atmospheric CO2 in the next 100 years, however. Too much too soon. People in coastal areas, especially in the Indian subcontinent will have to move or drown. Where will they go ? Who wants a five hundred million people moving into their space. Lots of political problems here.

To the rescue come the opportunists. They say buy my carbon credits (I print them myself) and the world will be saved. This self-serving garbage passes as creative thought these days. Just the fast buck crowd.

You say you need more data, and at the same time you don't like the data you see. You talk of climate change as a fad, and toss out atmospheric ozone as an example of a previous fad. I'll accept your analogy and point out a simple fact. As a consequence of "the ozone" scare" of the 1980s, governments passed regulations on the use of chlorofluorocarbons in the mid 1980's. The result, measurements by atmospheric scientists (many the same folks you put down here) now show improvement in ozone concentrations in the upper atmosphere. Check out the charts a the bottom of this site:

Science works.


Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)

To: Webster Groves who wrote (156487)9/5/2011 1:35:23 PM
From: Bearcatbob
1 Recommendation   of 198409
Webster, What are your current energy share holdings - what ideas should I consider? More likely a better question is - when if ever - have you last invested in a hydrocarbon producing company?

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)

To: Salt'n'Peppa who wrote (156479)9/5/2011 1:38:40 PM
From: Jacob Snyder
2 Recommendations   of 198409
<True environmentalists seek real-world solutions. They propose a compromise, a way to lessen the human imprint on the Earth, not stamp it out altogether. These are the people I believe in.>

I agree. It is true, many in the environmental movement are True Believers, who oppose any compromise, and advocate plans without any regard to economics. Some are nihilists, who consider Homo Sapiens to be a cancer in Gaia's sacred body. Every movement, of the Right or Left, has people like that. Their extremism can be used to try to discredit the entire movement.

And everyone, you and me included, picks a frame to show the picture we want and expect to see. That's just human.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)

To: Jacob Snyder who wrote (156489)9/5/2011 1:49:47 PM
From: Bearcatbob
3 Recommendations   of 198409
An energy plan with numbers and time lines would go along way towards defining if a proponent of an agenda is a serious person or simply someone seeking a soap box. Numbers and time lines - completely missing in all of our energy discussions.


Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read

To: Asymmetric who wrote (156486)9/5/2011 2:02:37 PM
From: tom pope
   of 198409
Thanks. I guess I should not be surprised the WSJ has an agenda.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read

To: Bearcatbob who wrote (156480)9/5/2011 2:18:07 PM
From: Jacob Snyder
12 Recommendations   of 198409
<how to promote more labor in the US of A>

1. Reforming education, to reward good results (and those results must be objectively measured). This means getting rid of tenure, promotion by seniority, and unions as they exist today. It means providing choice and competition in education.

2. Education should focus on practical, useful knowledge. That means a lot more math and science, and a lot less of everything else.

3. An industrial policy, like Germany and China have. It's not a level playing field, when they promote/protect/subsidize their "strategic industries", and we don't. Alternately, the threat of an American industrial policy, could force China and others to dismantle theirs.

4. If we are going to have environmental regulations, we should tax imports produced where there aren't equal standards. Otherwise, the jobs just go overseas (or across the border to Mexico), while the pollution actually increases. Current policy is a failure, both economically and environmentally.

5. End our overseas wars, cut the military budget in half, and use the money to increase the productivity and competitiveness of American workers: infrastructure, education, health care, etc.

6. Socialized Medicine, like the rest of the civilized world has. We spend 2 or 3 times as much per capita on "health care", compared to other rich nations, and their results are as good or superior to ours. Health care costs put every American industry at a competitive disadvantage.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (2)

To: Jacob Snyder who wrote (156492)9/5/2011 2:24:23 PM
From: Bearcatbob
   of 198409
What if I am willing to buy health care beyond mediocre?

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (2)

To: Jacob Snyder who wrote (156455)9/5/2011 2:42:54 PM
From: Umunhum
7 Recommendations   of 198409
To get a better understanding of the Global Warming Fraud you have to follow the money and study its genesis:

The Global Warming Fraud, like the character Jason in one of the Friday the 13th movies, has received many death blows from reputable scientists but continues to lumber on. I guess enslaving most of the developed world with their ponzi banking system isn't enough for these parasites, they also want to tax us for breathing. Then they intend to take our money and loan it to the developing world to grab up resources and enslave them as well. This is pure evil under the guise of saving the planet from a non-existent problem.

I don't understand how anyone who has the ability to read can read the climategate emails and believe any of this Fraud!

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read

To: Bearcatbob who wrote (156493)9/5/2011 2:45:45 PM
From: KyrosL
7 Recommendations   of 198409
Socialized medicine does not mean no private care. It only means that if you want more than the socialized health plan provides, you pay from your own pocket. There is a thriving private medicine market in socialized medicine countries. And because there is no government involvement in the private medicine sector, costs are much better than the USA. For example, the private medicine market in the UK has many rich non-UK customers from all over the world. Their costs are much lower than the US, and the quality just as good. You don't see many rich foreign patients choosing the US, other than kings, heads of state, and the very rich.

Socialized medicine is rationed, that's why costs are low. For example, generic drugs are strongly preferred with new drugs being approved only when they are obviously much better than existing generics. Elective operations have long wait times, if they are allowed.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read

To: Bearcatbob who wrote (156493)9/5/2011 2:48:44 PM
From: Jacob Snyder
14 Recommendations   of 198409
<What if I am willing to buy health care beyond mediocre?>

There is no need to re-invent the wheel. Just look at how it's been done for many decades, in Germany or New Zealand or 20 other countries.

They all have basic health care, provided free or heavily subsidized, to everyone. Then, if you want more, there is a parallel private unsubsidized system, which will provide anything and everything you can imagine (if you can pay for it). If you want a pill that costs $2 each (when there is a pill for $0.02 that works just as well), it's available, and you can waste your money if you want to.

Also, there is no reason why Socialized Medicine can't be done in a way that includes competition, so you have a choice of doctors, clinics, hospitals, etc.

Also, Socialized medicine is not "mediocre". That is a self-serving myth. Just look at the results between countries. Use any objective measurement you want: infant mortality, life-span, deaths from preventable causes, days lost from work, etc. The U.S. is not #1 in any of those measurements. We aren't even in the top 10. We spend more, far more, than anyone else, but our results are mediocre. The results, in rich nations with socialized medicine, are consistently superior. There is a mountain of hard facts to back up this conclusion.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)
Previous 10 Next 10 

Copyright © 1995-2018 Knight Sac Media. All rights reserved.Stock quotes are delayed at least 15 minutes - See Terms of Use.