Scientists say they have proved climate change is real, now mus...

Scientists studying the changing nature of the Earth's climate say they have completed one crucial task - proving beyond a doubt that global warming is real. Full Story

“dening those who deny nature. ”

Since: Jun 07

Norfolk va

#7699 Jan 18, 2013
ChromiuMan wrote:
<quoted text>
For the love of God? For most of man's history, that has meant "kill anything and anyone that is "not like us".
Man's history has involved overcoming hurdles and sometimes the tools used were killing. Yet man's has also created things, buildings, art, machines, and even creatures. Yes, man has killed things not like himself and yet he has also killed those like him. The story of Cain and Able where brother killed brother is also echoed in the American Civil War where brother killed brother.

It can be said that man has responded irrationally in the past and yet with the idea of the climate changing there are those like yourself who have responded irrationally by claiming it should not and man should act to stop it from changing.
PHD

Overton, TX

#7700 Jan 18, 2013
tina anne wrote:
<quoted text>
And the same percentage of your posts. Instead of being concerned about PHD's posts you should work on improving your own first. That way you can serve as an example of how to do it right.
Rub your shoes together and say mother may I. You will receive better results. There not my post I use the same cut and paste method they all do. Hats off to you another good spanking to the walloped.

“See how you are?”

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#7701 Jan 18, 2013
litesong wrote:
<quoted text>
Correction: Should be:
For most of man's history, for any reason: "kill anything and anyone that is "not like us".
The largest democidal genocides on planet Earth were carried out by atheists. The largest democidal genocide- chinese communists(always small letters) murdered, tortured & starved to death, 100 MILLION OF THEIR OWN BROTHERS, SISTERS, CHILDREN, & BABIES.
I get little opposition when I make this statement. chinese communists(always small letters) probably know that the quote of 100 million dead is conservative & could easily be a much higher number. chinese communists( always small letters) don't want any more discussion than there already is about their killings of 100 million people.
Shhhhh....... keep it under your hat. chinese communists did THIER best, by keeping the bodies underneath the ground.
Touchy on that point, are we?
Don't mistake that I accuse Christians alone at denuding forests, eradicating species and waging war. Every religion makes the claim that their actions and misdeeds are sanctioned or even mandated by their deity. It goes along with all that "... let them have DOMINION over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth" thing, doesn't it?
PHD

Overton, TX

#7702 Jan 18, 2013
Would you expect anything different from any pay for profit preacher?

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#7703 Jan 18, 2013
ChromiuMan wrote:
We disagree on your supply and demand economics. Just to briefly touch on a couple points, oil which is produced in the US is sold on the world market. "Drill baby, drill" as a solution to foreign oil consumption is a myth.
If we increase supply by increasing domestic fossil fuel production, prices fall. Looks like we do disagree on the law of supply and demand:

If demand increases and supply remains unchanged, a shortage occurs, leading to a higher equilibrium price.
If demand decreases and supply remains unchanged, a surplus occurs, leading to a lower equilibrium price.
If demand remains unchanged and supply increases, a surplus occurs, leading to a lower equilibrium price.
If demand remains unchanged and supply decreases, a shortage occurs, leading to a higher equilibrium price.
Besanko & Braeutigam (2005) p.33.

.
ChromiuMan wrote:
The increased amounts of imported goods over the last decades have increased our trade deficit and reduced exports have contributed to loss of jobs.
Both the statements above are true; they've also given us more affordable consumer goods and reduced pollution from our factories. On the whole; I support free trade because we are all consumers but not all of us manufacture goods.

.
ChromiuMan wrote:
Blaming the unions and government regulations on the trend of outsourcing and off-shoring is contrary to actual figures.
Show me.

.
ChromiuMan wrote:
Unlike coal, the diamond market is artificially set by the industry.
In every market, price is set by supply and demand. OPEC doesn't set oil price; instead they set production quotas.

.
ChromiuMan wrote:
In any case, you have a weak comparison between a luxury impulse market and a necessity consumable market.
Thank you for admitting fossil fuel is a necessity commodity. The only way to raise prices is to increase demand or reduce supply.

.
ChromiuMan wrote:
I could go on, but this is tangential to the thread topic and resolves little, since I suspect the cornerstone of your stance is more ideological than demonstrable.
OPEC favors climate control regulation because we have no alternatives to oil. They day a heavy transport vehicle, ship or airplane is powered by any fuel other than fossil fuel; that paradigm will change. Until then, anything that helps restrict fossil fuel supply will help OPEC raise prices.
PHD

Overton, TX

#7704 Jan 18, 2013
No that is not why oil prices increas and fall. What planet do you live on?

Since: Mar 09

Wichita, KS

#7705 Jan 18, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>If we increase supply by increasing domestic fossil fuel production, prices fall. Looks like we do disagree on the law of supply and demand:
If demand increases and supply remains unchanged, a shortage occurs, leading to a higher equilibrium price.
If demand decreases and supply remains unchanged, a surplus occurs, leading to a lower equilibrium price.
If demand remains unchanged and supply increases, a surplus occurs, leading to a lower equilibrium price.
If demand remains unchanged and supply decreases, a shortage occurs, leading to a higher equilibrium price.
Besanko & Braeutigam (2005) p.33.
.
<quoted text>Both the statements above are true; they've also given us more affordable consumer goods and reduced pollution from our factories. On the whole; I support free trade because we are all consumers but not all of us manufacture goods.
.
<quoted text>Show me.
.
<quoted text>In every market, price is set by supply and demand. OPEC doesn't set oil price; instead they set production quotas.
.
<quoted text>Thank you for admitting fossil fuel is a necessity commodity. The only way to raise prices is to increase demand or reduce supply.
.
<quoted text>OPEC favors climate control regulation because we have no alternatives to oil. They day a heavy transport vehicle, ship or airplane is powered by any fuel other than fossil fuel; that paradigm will change. Until then, anything that helps restrict fossil fuel supply will help OPEC raise prices.
De Biers holds a monopoly on diamonds. They cannot operate in the US because of antitrust laws. Do market forces operate in this example? DO you believe this is a good thing.
PHD

Overton, TX

#7706 Jan 19, 2013
Useless babble you hold the market on that.

“See how you are?”

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#7707 Jan 19, 2013
tina anne wrote:
<quoted text>
Man's history has involved overcoming hurdles and sometimes the tools used were killing. Yet man's has also created things, buildings, art, machines, and even creatures. Yes, man has killed things not like himself and yet he has also killed those like him. The story of Cain and Able where brother killed brother is also echoed in the American Civil War where brother killed brother.
It can be said that man has responded irrationally in the past and yet with the idea of the climate changing there are those like yourself who have responded irrationally by claiming it should not and man should act to stop it from changing.
"...there are those like yourself who have responded irrationally by claiming it should not and man should act to stop it from changing." What?

Do you think underground nuclear testing might be a good idea in Yellowstone or La Palma?

Man is different than animals in that he has an ability to reason, and that reason makes him able to change his environs to better suit his needs and wants. We build better than other creatures and over the last 150 years we have gotten MUCH MUCH better at it. We exploit resources FAR FAR better than other creatures and there are now 7 billion of us. We still can't stop a volcano, an earthquake or a hurricane and I don't propose that man should stop nature from taking its course. I would propose that man might adopt a strategy of reduction in doing the things that cause nature to change its course.

“See how you are?”

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#7708 Jan 19, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>If we increase supply by increasing domestic fossil fuel production, prices fall. Looks like we do disagree on the law of supply and demand:
If demand increases and supply remains unchanged, a shortage occurs, leading to a higher equilibrium price.
If demand decreases and supply remains unchanged, a surplus occurs, leading to a lower equilibrium price.
If demand remains unchanged and supply increases, a surplus occurs, leading to a lower equilibrium price.
If demand remains unchanged and supply decreases, a shortage occurs, leading to a higher equilibrium price.
Besanko & Braeutigam (2005) p.33.
.
<quoted text>Both the statements above are true; they've also given us more affordable consumer goods and reduced pollution from our factories. On the whole; I support free trade because we are all consumers but not all of us manufacture goods.
.
<quoted text>Show me.
.
<quoted text>In every market, price is set by supply and demand. OPEC doesn't set oil price; instead they set production quotas.
.
<quoted text>Thank you for admitting fossil fuel is a necessity commodity. The only way to raise prices is to increase demand or reduce supply.
.
<quoted text>OPEC favors climate control regulation because we have no alternatives to oil. They day a heavy transport vehicle, ship or airplane is powered by any fuel other than fossil fuel; that paradigm will change. Until then, anything that helps restrict fossil fuel supply will help OPEC raise prices.
You watch FOX News a lot, don't you?

You can throw out half of that common sense model of supply and demand when you consider:
1) supply and distribution is held by a relatively small number of entities.
2) Domestic oil is traded on the world market. Increasing the amount of US oil production merely puts more oil up for sale. It has a minimal impact on the amount of gasoline available at the pump.
3) The world market prices are heavily influenced by speculators and investment factors creating market fluctuations.
4) Domestic resources are being drilled by foreign companies through leases. Comparatively, US leases are more favorable to foreign countries than foreign leases are to American drillers.

We only receive 13%- 23% of our oil from Persian/African wells. By far most of the oil we consume is from the US, S.A. and Canada.

Closing an onshore factory does reduce its pollution. It also creates a demand for cheap products, since job losses decrease the average wage. Naturally, the primary reason for outsourcing is to increase profit margins - and creating new facilities in countries that have few to no minimum wages, environmental controls and labor protection laws should certainly do that, barring gross mismanagement. To infer that government regulations and unions are the cause of making increased profits desirable to executives and shareholders is irrational.
PHD

Overton, TX

#7709 Jan 20, 2013
ChromiuMan wrote:
<quoted text>
You watch FOX News a lot, don't you?
You can throw out half of that common sense model of supply and demand when you consider:
1) supply and distribution is held by a relatively small number of entities.
2) Domestic oil is traded on the world market. Increasing the amount of US oil production merely puts more oil up for sale. It has a minimal impact on the amount of gasoline available at the pump.
3) The world market prices are heavily influenced by speculators and investment factors creating market fluctuations.
4) Domestic resources are being drilled by foreign companies through leases. Comparatively, US leases are more favorable to foreign countries than foreign leases are to American drillers.
We only receive 13%- 23% of our oil from Persian/African wells. By far most of the oil we consume is from the US, S.A. and Canada.
Closing an onshore factory does reduce its pollution. It also creates a demand for cheap products, since job losses decrease the average wage. Naturally, the primary reason for outsourcing is to increase profit margins - and creating new facilities in countries that have few to no minimum wages, environmental controls and labor protection laws should certainly do that, barring gross mismanagement. To infer that government regulations and unions are the cause of making increased profits desirable to executives and shareholders is irrational.
You are 100% correct.

Since: Jan 13

Fairfax, VA

#7710 Jan 20, 2013
PHD wrote:
<quoted text>You are 100% correct.
Wow! I voted you a brilliant bulb. Who would have thunk.

“dening those who deny nature. ”

Since: Jun 07

Norfolk va

#7711 Jan 21, 2013
ChromiuMan wrote:
<quoted text>
"...there are those like yourself who have responded irrationally by claiming it should not and man should act to stop it from changing." What?
Do you think underground nuclear testing might be a good idea in Yellowstone or La Palma?
Man is different than animals in that he has an ability to reason, and that reason makes him able to change his environs to better suit his needs and wants. We build better than other creatures and over the last 150 years we have gotten MUCH MUCH better at it. We exploit resources FAR FAR better than other creatures and there are now 7 billion of us. We still can't stop a volcano, an earthquake or a hurricane and I don't propose that man should stop nature from taking its course. I would propose that man might adopt a strategy of reduction in doing the things that cause nature to change its course.
Just like Mathus promoted the idea that doctors should not cure the sick. While man cannot stop a volcano or hurricane we can channel the effects if we so desire. We can channel the lava away from cities and blunt the effect of a hurricane. Italy has already shown that they can route lava away from cities and towns and Florida seems to have handling hurricanes down to a science.

Would underground testing be a good idea at Yellowstone, no. Then again when they do underground testing they never did it at Yellowstone. It is also humorous that you refer to people responding irrationally to something when people like you are the ones who are the ones responding to climate change irrationally. A rational person would look at all the facts and not just those who support what they want to believe. They would also look for facts that no one was bothering to tell them, examine what history has to say and then respond in a rational rather than an emotional manner.

A rational person would look at the facts and wonder if man really could stop climate change at all. A rational person would consider that the climate has always been in a state of change and wonder what caused it in the past and how big of a role did it play. A rational person would consider all this and more before reaching a conclusion.

The Irrational person would just say change is bad and it must be stopped. That it must be man causing the change even though the climate has always been in a state of change. In other words, how a irrational person would act is how you and many alarmist have acted.

“dening those who deny nature. ”

Since: Jun 07

Norfolk va

#7712 Jan 21, 2013
ChromiuMan wrote:
<quoted text>
You watch FOX News a lot, don't you?
You can throw out half of that common sense model of supply and demand when you consider:
1) supply and distribution is held by a relatively small number of entities.
2) Domestic oil is traded on the world market. Increasing the amount of US oil production merely puts more oil up for sale. It has a minimal impact on the amount of gasoline available at the pump.
3) The world market prices are heavily influenced by speculators and investment factors creating market fluctuations.
4) Domestic resources are being drilled by foreign companies through leases. Comparatively, US leases are more favorable to foreign countries than foreign leases are to American drillers.
We only receive 13%- 23% of our oil from Persian/African wells. By far most of the oil we consume is from the US, S.A. and Canada.
Closing an onshore factory does reduce its pollution. It also creates a demand for cheap products, since job losses decrease the average wage. Naturally, the primary reason for outsourcing is to increase profit margins - and creating new facilities in countries that have few to no minimum wages, environmental controls and labor protection laws should certainly do that, barring gross mismanagement. To infer that government regulations and unions are the cause of making increased profits desirable to executives and shareholders is irrational.
1, Supply, demand, and distribution is by far more than just a few. Consider food which the supply is every farmer, rancher, and fisherman providing the supply and distribution is be ship, rail, and truck which includes all those independant truckers.

2. Not only is US oil traded on the world market. American gasoline is also being sold on the world market in South America. Alaskian oil is sold more in Japan than the US because the distance is shorter and the profit per barrel is higher in Japan than in Washington, or California.

3. While World markets are driven by investors and speculators they are also driven by markets and regulations. After all, why bother to buy low and sell high if the country where you are selling is going to take all that profit.

4. Yes, you are right about other countries drilling into US reserves. Even more so when you are talking about off shore reserves in the Gulf off the coast of Florida. Cuba has Chinese oil companies drilling right up to territorial waters while US companies are barred from doing the same thing. The ironic thing is some of that oil is sold in the US. That we are paying others for our own oil.

As for the last bit. Yes, the reason why they move production to other counties where in according to your own words, that have few to no minimum wages, environmental controls and labor protection laws should certainly do that". Which means lower labor costs than they have with unions, lower costs to comply with regulations. You call that claiming it is the result of government regulations and unions irrational while just a few sentences earlier pointing out that was the rational for them doing just that. Do you know how irrational you sounded when you said that.

Of course the real irony is that the stringent enviromental laws will drive a company to build in a location that has few to any and the end result is the enviroment being harmed even more. That the rising costs of dealing with regulations often results in those workers becoming unemployeed while companies move operations to places with such a low cost of living that people are willing to work dirt cheap.
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#7713 Jan 21, 2013
The BEST study is published finally to conclude that "solar forcing does not appear to contribute to the observed global warming of the past 250 years; the entire change can be modeled by a sum of volcanism and a single anthropogenic [human-made] proxy."

http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2 ...

Remember, deniers, their sponsor was no other than the RW Koch Bros.

“See how you are?”

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#7714 Jan 21, 2013
tina anne wrote:
<quoted text>
Just like Mathus promoted the idea that doctors should not cure the sick. While man cannot stop a volcano or hurricane we can channel the effects if we so desire. We can channel the lava away from cities and blunt the effect of a hurricane. Italy has already shown that they can route lava away from cities and towns and Florida seems to have handling hurricanes down to a science.
Would underground testing be a good idea at Yellowstone, no. Then again when they do underground testing they never did it at Yellowstone. It is also humorous that you refer to people responding irrationally to something when people like you are the ones who are the ones responding to climate change irrationally. A rational person would look at all the facts and not just those who support what they want to believe. They would also look for facts that no one was bothering to tell them, examine what history has to say and then respond in a rational rather than an emotional manner.
A rational person would look at the facts and wonder if man really could stop climate change at all. A rational person would consider that the climate has always been in a state of change and wonder what caused it in the past and how big of a role did it play. A rational person would consider all this and more before reaching a conclusion.
The Irrational person would just say change is bad and it must be stopped. That it must be man causing the change even though the climate has always been in a state of change. In other words, how a irrational person would act is how you and many alarmist have acted.
A rational person would not casually dismiss the 6 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide annually produced though human activities.
It would be too much to hope for you to understand the parallel
between hypothetically causing a disaster such as a volcano or tsunami and actively exacerbating one such as a greenhouse effect. Your inability to apply cause and effect has been superbly illustrated in previous discussions. You might aspire to being "book smart"... one should have goals within their abilities.
Florida has handling hurricanes down to a science? Where were YOU in 2004, lady? I was up to my ears in bottled water, generators and chainsaws. Florida doesn't handle hurricanes, it does the same thing everybody else does - picks up the pieces as best it can.
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#7715 Jan 21, 2013
litesong

Everett, WA

#7716 Jan 21, 2013
ChromiuMan wrote:
..... the 6 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide annually produced though human activities.
About 30 billion tons of CO2 is annually produced, world wide. The U.S. contribution is ~ 6 billion tons.
PHD

Overton, TX

#7717 Jan 21, 2013
pinheadlitesout wrote:
<quoted text>
About 30 billion tons of CO2 is annually produced by ME, world wide. The MY contribution is ~ 6 billion tons from the hot air Useless scientific science fiction.
Did you get that check up from the neck up?
titonton divaunte pants

United States

#7718 Jan 22, 2013
The only rational thing to do is live packed together like sardines because we destroyed the earth. After we kill half the population. In the name of science. Die. All of you.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Baltimore Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 55 min Tony Rome 1,115,621
The 25 Most Dangerous Cities in the U.S. Are Mo... (Nov '10) 3 hr Anita 19,287
Saving your pennies and my vegetarian minestro... 6 hr Susan 1
Who do you support for Governor in Maryland in ... (Oct '10) 8 hr mdactivist 186
Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision (Jan '08) 9 hr STO 305,851
gay in Towson Maryland Tue mdtowson 2
Stop Maryland's season of cruelty: fall bow hun... (Sep '07) Sep 28 IMGKNEE 120,156
Baltimore Dating
Find my Match

Baltimore Jobs

Baltimore People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Baltimore News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Baltimore

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]