Do we need to be preparing for Arctic cruising strategies because of Global Cooling

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by jimbunyard

...
Did you steal and paraphrase your theory from George Carlin? Shame on you, or conversely, hey, good one.

A simple analogy does not need to be plagarised. I thought it up myself.

'm not so sure what you mean by 'excess energy collected'. Maybe Adoxograph can chime in here to help me out, but it seems that reduced hydrocarbon formations you speak of are not excess energy stores, but a (by) product of earth systems reaching near-equilibrium. For example, prior to 2-2.5 billion years ago, atmospheric CO2 level was roughly 30 percent, while atmospheric oxygen was practically non-existent. With the evolution of photosynthesis, CO2 levels very gradually decreased, O2 level increased, first in the sea (resulting in almost all the iron we use today), and then in the atmosphere. The eventual sequestering of almost all the CO2 resulted in (probably several) global ice ages on a scale almost unimaginable , making the tiny (globally speaking) 10,000 year ice ages of the last few million years look like frost on your windshield on a late spring cold snap in comparison. This is a rather important point in the discussion; it is not a coincidence, in my opinion, that the huge, protracted climatic fluctuations of the distant past have become less extreme and protracted, in a loose correlation with the increasing biodiversity of Earth's life. It appears that Lovelock's much-maligned, misunderstood and misappropriated Gaia hypotheses has a bit more than a grain of truth to it...

Another example of binary thinking. Humans must consume no energy otherwise they will consume all of it. I could also mention carbonate rocks, so I will.

As for stored carbon 'creating a very real risk of endangering all life on earth...by locking up carbon ', well... the rocks don't tell that story. There is increasing evidence that CO2 induced warming is at least partly responsible for both the Permian (95 % of sea life, 60% of terrestrial life) and the K-T (dinosaurs and 75% of everything else) mass extinctions. Of course both of those events had diverse implications, the first wiped out most mammal-like reptiles, setting our ancestors back who-knows-how much, the second put the ball back in our court by eliminating the giants....

Alarmist propaganda or wishful thinking. Both the Permian extinction and the Cretaceous extinction have strong evidence to suggest asteroid collisions were the primary cause. There have been a few other mass extinction events during the history of life on Earth, too, and the jury is out on whether these may have been cold or heat related.


Finally, I don't know why you keep trying to say there has been no new technology since 1941/1960 or whatever. In the world of literature, it is said that there are only 7 basic plots. Yet these 7 basic plots have been fleshed out within miliions upon millions of printed (and cinematic) stories and form a cornerstone of what defines human society.

And while I'm at it...

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

Hey, stop picking on my crackpot theories.

But, alas what you say is true. For example, if the entire land area of the USA was covered in solar panels, only about 1/6th of current energy requirements for the country could be met if no other alternative power sources existed. Of course this would tail off dramatically at night and on rainy days.

I do believe the ultimate problem with nuclear power is that there are insufficient uranium fuel reserves to make this form of energy generation plausible for long term use. I could be wrong, but nuclear fuel would run out well before fossil fuel with any widespread nuclear generation take up.

The actual figure to supply all of the USA's energy requirements is around 1% of land area thereabouts, or roughly the size of Georgia. If power were to be globally shared and installed in optimised areas, this area requirement would decrease by up to a half and supply would be continuous, based on current technologies.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Exile

... the lack of awareness or maybe recognition of the dominance and indispensability of fossil fuel energy for the past century or so, the obvious technological problems with alternative sources at this time

they want a medal, do they? What, profit wasn't enough of a reward?

and then of course ...the mindless targeting of fossil fuel cos. for derision, scorn, and now attempted govt. intimidation.

Right. Perhaps we could have a telethon for the poor dears.

At the very least oil cos. could be viewed as 'necessary evils,' but given the indisputable benefits that fossil fuel energy has brought to the world along with the negatives, and given our absolute dependence on these energy sources, I really don't understand why even this attitude persists.

How about because they have been actively thwarting the development of other energy technologies, as well as opposing research into the harms from fossil-fuel use?

If and/or when we transition to alternatives, I wouldn't be surprised if these same cos. -- in the business of supplying energy after all -- are the ones supplying much of that alternative energy.

As you note, most of them are already moving on to repositioning themselves as "energy" companies, with messaging and token investments in alternatives and renewables. They're not dumb.

I still don't know why you think we should be kissing their a$$es.

[jackdale]

Interesting


America is too damn hot: U.S. faces dramatic rise in extreme heat and humidity.



http://flip.it/ten9g

Sent from my SM-G900W8 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Interesting


America is too damn hot: U.S. faces dramatic rise in extreme heat and humidity.



America is too damn hot: U.S. faces dramatic rise in extreme heat and humidity - Salon.com

Sent from my SM-G900W8 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

This line in the text....

Heat is the No.1 weather-related killer

Here's what NOAA has to say about that...


Interesting heat deaths are down, cold deaths are up in long term trends. And the reason more people don't die from winter and the cold is.. the burning of fossils fuels to directly or indirectly generate heat for living spaces.

[fryewe]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Interesting

America is too damn hot: U.S. faces dramatic rise in extreme heat and humidity.

America is too damn hot: U.S. faces dramatic rise in extreme heat and humidity - Salon.com

Seems fine to me for July here in Alabama.

But I see your Salon alarmist article and raise you a Daily Mail photo history of NYC in the first half of the Twentieth Century.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/ar...ditioning.html

Personally, I like the black and white photos of the kids playing in the streets with fire hydrants cooling them better than the somber backlit photo shown by Salon.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

they want a medal, do they? What, profit wasn't enough of a reward?

Their profits are largely dependent on the price of oil which, contrary to the mindless rhetoric, is not driven by the big oil cos. themselves. But when you feel you have command of the rhetoric, who needs reality?

From 2011 when oil prices were high and oil co. earnings were accordingly high:

Forbes Welcome

"Industry profit margins are cyclical too. But on average, between 2006 and 2010, the largest oil companies averaged a profit margin of around 6.5%. This pales in comparison to profit margins in just about every other industry. The pharmaceutical industry, for example, routinely averages a profit margin of about 16%. The soft drink market is even more lucrative.

But there's hope -- the soft drink cos. are now getting vilified too.

Right. Perhaps we could have a telethon for the poor dears.

Perhaps, but only so they could keep up with profit margins from other major industries, as opposed to the govt. who seems to get a healthy share regardless.

"At the gas tank integrated oil companies make about 7 cents per gallon. Meanwhile, the government extracts more than 48 cents, on average, per gallon. That’s right: Uncle Sam takes nearly seven times more out of drivers’ wallets via taxation than “Big Oil.”

I know, I know . . . if only we could levy an additional "carbon tax," the "revenue neutral" one that is.

How about because they have been actively thwarting the development of other energy technologies, as well as opposing research into the harms from fossil-fuel use?

Prove it. Based on the tiny percentage of non-fossil fuel energy consumption shown in the preceding graphs, why would they want to bother? They are not "opposing research into the harms from fossil-fuel use," they are supporting valid scientific research in an area where the status quo sorely needs challenging. Oh, and when you produce some credible factual evidence as opposed to opinion, I think there may be a position for you at the AG's office for the USVI. Maybe you could even work while living a low-carbon lifestyle onboard like Third Day, Stu, Newhaul, and others. Even if it didn't work out, the "messaging" would be well worth it for you I'm sure.

As you note, most of them are already moving on to repositioning themselves as "energy" companies, with messaging and token investments in alternatives and renewables. They're not dumb.

You mean "messaging" and "token investments" in announcing their support for a carbon tax? Yup, thought so.

I still don't know why you think we should be kissing their a$$es.

Some more reality for you (to ignore):

"Compared with a small fraction of oil stocks (about 1.5%) owned by corporate management, the vast majority of such investments are held by average Americans, primarily via retirement accounts. Independent research shows that 14% of industry shares are in IRAs and a full 30% held in mutual funds.

Another 27% of oil stocks are in public pension funds. And in these accounts, oil shares more than pull their weight. While oil stocks made up less than 4% of major pensions in four key states between 2005 and 2008, they accounted for 8.6% of returns.

Different circumstances nowadays obviously but maybe you're starting to get the idea. Or not. So how about this:

"Oil and natural gas companies support more than 9.2 million U.S. jobs and have invested nearly $2 trillion in domestic capital projects over the last decade. Higher earnings mean more cash to plow into new projects and jobs."

So let's see here . . . oil co. revenues support all sorts of govt. services through taxation, countless retirement accounts held by average people, huge numbers of blue collar workers whose retirement security is often derived only from public pensions, large numbers of new, higher paying jobs and opportunities, $2T in capital outlays, and share prices outperforming almost every other sector during the 2007-08 market crash. Oh, and thanks to their new fracking technologies, cleaner air and probably one of the few bright spots in 7-8 years of an otherwise dismal economy.

But I get it, they're motivated by their fiduciary duty to earn profits for their shareholders so therefore they're "bad." Btw, oil cos. are mere corporate legal entities and so don't have an ass to kiss. But should alternative energies start becoming viable and profitable, you may be thanking these "energy" cos. for having the resources and know-how to bring such "clean energy" to us in amounts that may actually make a difference to your beloved Mother Gia. After all, she purportedly just wants less CO2 in the atmosphere and doesn't care who profits.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

This line in the text....



Here's what NOAA has to say about that...


Interesting heat deaths are down, cold deaths are up in long term trends. And the reason more people don't die from winter and the cold is.. the burning of fossils fuels to directly or indirectly generate heat for living spaces.

In other words, humans adapted. Reef -- you have some nerve relying on actual NOAA data. Don't you know you're only supposed to do that when it supports the alarmists??

[Simonsays]

Originally Posted by Exile

In other words, humans adapted. Reef -- you have some nerve relying on actual NOAA data. Don't you know you're only supposed to do that when it supports the alarmists??

i thought the Anti-GW stance was that NOAA was crooked?

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by Exile

In other words, humans adapted. Reef -- you have some nerve relying on actual NOAA data. Don't you know you're only supposed to do that when it supports the alarmists??

What can I say. I know - the data seems very skewed, especially the 30 year cold deaths numbers.

Originally Posted by Simonsays

i thought the Anti-GW stance was that NOAA was crooked?

They appear to be.

This data seems more realistic...

http://fuelpoverty.thehealthwell.inf..._complete=true

Results and Conclusions—During 2006–2010, about 2,000 U.S. residents died each year from weather-related causes of death. About 31% of these deaths were attributed to exposure to excessive natural heat, heat stroke, sun stroke, or all; 63% were attributed to exposure to excessive natural cold, hypothermia or both; and the remaining 6% were *attributed to floods, storms, or lightning. Weather-related death rates varied by age, race and ethnicity, sex, and characteristics of decedent’s county of residence (median income, region, and urbanization level). Adjustment for region and urbanization decreased the risk of heat-related mortality among Hispanic persons and increased the risk of cold-related mortality among non-Hispanic black persons, compared with non-Hispanic white *persons. Adjustment also increased the risk of heat-related mortality and attenuated the risk of cold-related mortality for counties in the lower three income quartiles.

The differentials in weather-related mortality observed among demographic subgroups during 2006–2010 in the United States were consistent with those observed in previous national studies. This Study demonstrated that a better understanding of subpopulations at risk from weather-related mortality can be obtained by considering area-based variables (county median household income, region, and urbanization level) when examining weather-related mortality patterns.

And worldwide...

http://www.usatoday.com/story/weathe...aths/27657269/

The study — published in the British journal*The Lancet*— analyzed data on more than 74 million deaths in 13 countries between 1985 and 2012. Of those, 5.4 million deaths were related to cold, while 311,000 were related to heat.

Sent from my SGP521 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Exile

Forbes Welcome

"Industry profit margins are cyclical too. But on average, between 2006 and 2010, the largest oil companies averaged a profit margin of around 6.5%. This pales in comparison to profit margins in just about every other industry.

no, it doesn't. (And there I was, about to tear up about the sad plight of the poor oil & gas industries -sniff-)

Perhaps, but only so they could keep up with profit margins from other major industries, as opposed to the govt. who seems to get a healthy share regardless.

[beg pardon miss, your slip is showing ]

"At the gas tank integrated oil companies make about 7 cents per gallon. Meanwhile, the government extracts more than 48 cents, on average, per gallon. That’s right: Uncle Sam takes nearly seven times more out of drivers’ wallets via taxation than “Big Oil.”

I know, I know . . . if only we could levy an additional "carbon tax," the "revenue neutral" one that is.

Again, I question those numbers, (here's a breakdown circa 2012), and of course, the breathless "That’s right: Uncle Sam takes nearly seven times more out of drivers’ wallets via taxation" curiously neglects to mention where the gas tax that is actually collected goes to (Hint - how are roads and highways paid for?)

Hey - remember how y'all cautioned us that even though gas is at an all-time low, the imposition of additional taxes would present a hardship to the poor and elderly (who you could actually help in other ways if you wanted to, but anyways...). Well, some states didn't get the memo. Oh, the humanity. Cue the die-off.

Prove it. [cough-Heartland Institute-cough] Based on the tiny percentage of non-fossil fuel energy consumption shown in the preceding graphs, why would they want to bother? They are not "opposing research into the harms from fossil-fuel use," they are supporting valid scientific research in an area where the status quo sorely needs challenging.

Sorry, I keep forgetting - oil co's virtuous, scientific institutions suspect.

Oh, and when you produce some credible factual evidence as opposed to opinion, I think there may be a position for you at the AG's office for the USVI. Maybe you could even work while living a low-carbon lifestyle onboard like Third Day, Stu, Newhaul, and others. Even if it didn't work out, the "messaging" would be well worth it for you I'm sure.

The obligatory Exile dig. Thank you sir, may I have another?

Some more reality for you (to ignore):

"Compared with a small fraction of oil stocks (about 1.5%) owned by corporate management, the vast majority of such investments are held by average Americans, primarily via retirement accounts. Independent research shows that 14% of industry shares are in IRAs and a full 30% held in mutual funds.

Another 27% of oil stocks are in public pension funds. And in these accounts, oil shares more than pull their weight. While oil stocks made up less than 4% of major pensions in four key states between 2005 and 2008, they accounted for 8.6% of returns.

Different circumstances nowadays obviously but maybe you're starting to get the idea. Or not. So how about this:

"Oil and natural gas companies support more than 9.2 million U.S. jobs and have invested nearly $2 trillion in domestic capital projects over the last decade. Higher earnings mean more cash to plow into new projects and jobs."

So let's see here . . . oil co. revenues support all sorts of govt. services through taxation, countless retirement accounts held by average people, huge numbers of blue collar workers whose retirement security is often derived only from public pensions, large numbers of new, higher paying jobs and opportunities, $2T in capital outlays, and share prices outperforming almost every other sector during the 2007-08 market crash. Oh, and thanks to their new fracking technologies, cleaner air and probably one of the few bright spots in 7-8 years of an otherwise dismal economy.

There's that something in my eye again -sniff-
(and, curious how this all counters your low profit comments earlier)

What happened to the free market? creative destruction? adaptation? One would think you're building a case to nationalize the fossil-fuel industries.

If cheap oil is all that's propping up the US economy... you have bigger problems than AGW, for sure. In times of relative wealth, cheap energy, low interest and sputtering economy... like right now... THIS IS THE TIME to get going on much neglected infrastructure projects, stimulation of new industries, and maybe a little cleanup. But anyways...

But I get it, they're motivated by their fiduciary duty to earn profits for their shareholders so therefore they're "bad."

Two things:
- "the market" and "society" (eg a country and its people) are not one and the same, and their interests do not always align. Without being good or bad, what's beneficial for one industry is not necessarily always beneficial for a country.
- bad is as bad does. Misleading your shareholders and the public is ___?

Btw, oil cos. are mere corporate legal entities and so don't have an ass to kiss.

"Citizens United" gave all corporations a mouth, and anything with a mouth also has an ass.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Simonsays

i thought the Anti-GW stance was that NOAA was crooked?

"Crooked" might be a bit strong. Highly politicized is probably closer to reality without the hyperbole. It's probably not even a question of personal corruption, but of the quite normal desire for recognition and career advancement. This usually entails needing to please department heads and others in politically appointed supervisory or managerial positions. It doesn't have to be the case with every administration and is more a matter of degree. But with the highly ideological Obama administration it has been well-documented, with many executive/regulatory agencies affected, incl. the NLRB, IRS, EPA, DOJ, etc. And given the administration and its party's prioritization of CC, it shouldn't be surprising that agencies such as NOAA & NASA have also been forced to succumb. Of course NASA had a big head start being run by James Hansen, one of the biggest ideologues of them all.

Whichever way the political winds shift (and they always do), this sort of corruption of the scientific process is awfully short-sighted and, in the long run, benefits the scientific community least of all.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Exile:
Forbes Welcome

"Industry profit margins are cyclical too. But on average, between 2006 and 2010, the largest oil companies averaged a profit margin of around 6.5%. This pales in comparison to profit margins in just about every other industry.

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

no, it doesn't. (And there I was, about to tear up about the sad plight of the poor oil & gas industries -sniff-)

Your comments might have a bit more credibility if you left your tissue box back at (your parent's) house.

Your link is an interesting snapshot of major business sectors from Jan. 2016, but I'm not sure what you're trying to show. Do we know if the Forbes article was referring to net margins, taking taxes into account, or contemplating the other half-dozen or so other categories in your link that I'm pretty sure you don't understand but will cite to anyway?

OK, let's forget the numbers from Forbes for the time being. They're probably in cahoots with the scary capitalists who run the Daily Caller for cryin' out loud. How about I assert that the fossil fuel industry has enjoyed avg. profit margins, over time, that are in line with other major industries. After all, this is one of the beefs, right? You know, the incessant whining about inequality and all that rational sorta stuff. The reality is that the FF industry is highly cyclical -- boom & bust if you will -- with high capital outlay costs as compared to other industries. So in other words, sacking them with a "windfall profits tax" (like Dems in Congress tried to do in 2011-12 during boom years) makes about as much sense as, yes, holding a telethon on their behalf in difficult years when oil prices are low.

Quote:
Perhaps, but only so they could keep up with profit margins from other major industries, as opposed to the govt. who seems to get a healthy share regardless.

[beg pardon miss, your slip is showing ]

Better my slip than being laid entirely bare!

"At the gas tank integrated oil companies make about 7 cents per gallon. Meanwhile, the government extracts more than 48 cents, on average, per gallon. That’s right: Uncle Sam takes nearly seven times more out of drivers’ wallets via taxation than “Big Oil.”

I know, I know . . . if only we could levy an additional "carbon tax," the "revenue neutral" one that is.

Again, I question those numbers, (here's a breakdown circa 2012),

I'm proud of you for finally questioning some numbers, but I thought you'd do better with this next link since it's a picture graph with bright colors. Oh well. Did you miss the "and" when it published the avg. state (22.68 cents) and federal (18.4 cents) taxes in each gallon of gas? Even an innumerate guy like me can figure (but only w/a calculator) that this equals 41.08 cents/gal. of gas. OK, so Forbes was off by a bit less than 7 cents -- maybe a slight error in averaging -- but by them or the source for your colorful graph?? Or maybe the reference to "Uncle Sam" threw you off? Hey, let's go with the info that makes you feel more comfortable. But where's the industry profit number that Forbes says is 7 cents/gal.? You mean it's combined with "refining costs" to make it come to 12 cents instead of 7?? Imagine that -- conflating "profits" with "costs" by combining the two!

and of course, the breathless "That’s right: Uncle Sam takes nearly seven times more out of drivers’ wallets via taxation" curiously neglects to mention where the gas tax that is actually collected goes to (Hint - how are roads and highways paid for?)

Hint #1: Roads, highways, and bridges are in disrepair. At least that's what the politicians keep telling us.

Hint #2: Do we know if all of these taxes collected at the pump go to a separate fund for roads, highways, or bridges, or merely into the general treasury supposedly "earmarked" for such purpose? Just a thought to ponder -- I actually do not know (you can research a non-biased source for us, I'm sure).


Hey - remember how y'all cautioned us that even though gas is at an all-time low, the imposition of additional taxes would present a hardship to the poor and elderly (who you could actually help in other ways if you wanted to, but anyways...). Well, some states didn't get the memo. Oh, the humanity. Cue the die-off.

Thanks for reminding us that govt. always stands ready to make it more expensive to go visit the relatives on a long holiday weekend. Maybe these hikes will vindicate Forbes' conclusion that we pay 7 times more in taxes than the industry earns in profits on each gal. of gas.

Sorry, I keep forgetting - oil co's virtuous, scientific institutions suspect.

No, oil cos. are corporate entities with the primary purpose of maximizing shareholder profit while complying with laws & regulations. Their "virtue" is irrelevant, but when they legitimately fail to do either of the above through negligence or malfeasance, there are legally sanctioned private and public remedies. Maybe it's just me but I don't find these concepts all that emotional. But when the govt. who purports to represent the people uses their powers for private or personal gain, it's a serious threat to every citizen. Every citizen who's not obsessed with one ideology over another that is . . . .

Quote:
Oh, and when you produce some credible factual evidence as opposed to opinion, I think there may be a position for you at the AG's office for the USVI. Maybe you could even work while living a low-carbon lifestyle onboard like Third Day, Stu, Newhaul, and others. Even if it didn't work out, the "messaging" would be well worth it for you I'm sure.

The obligatory Exile dig. Thank you sir, may I have another?


Only when you post absurdly naive and unsupported comments like this:

"a hardship to the poor and elderly (who you could actually help in other ways if you wanted to, but anyways...)"

You continually reach for that moral high ground by making derogatory assumptions about others but offer nothing in the way of positive suggestions, proposals, or yes, your own example, of how we're supposed to meet your lofty and I'm sure well-earned standards. Try making these comments in front of the mirror prior to posting next time? Don't make me post what I do for a living or you'll have way more than your slip showing.

Quote:
Some more reality for you (to ignore):

"Compared with a small fraction of oil stocks (about 1.5%) owned by corporate management, the vast majority of such investments are held by average Americans, primarily via retirement accounts. Independent research shows that 14% of industry shares are in IRAs and a full 30% held in mutual funds.

Another 27% of oil stocks are in public pension funds. And in these accounts, oil shares more than pull their weight. While oil stocks made up less than 4% of major pensions in four key states between 2005 and 2008, they accounted for 8.6% of returns.

Different circumstances nowadays obviously but maybe you're starting to get the idea. Or not. So how about this:

"Oil and natural gas companies support more than 9.2 million U.S. jobs and have invested nearly $2 trillion in domestic capital projects over the last decade. Higher earnings mean more cash to plow into new projects and jobs."

So let's see here . . . oil co. revenues support all sorts of govt. services through taxation, countless retirement accounts held by average people, huge numbers of blue collar workers whose retirement security is often derived only from public pensions, large numbers of new, higher paying jobs and opportunities, $2T in capital outlays, and share prices outperforming almost every other sector during the 2007-08 market crash. Oh, and thanks to their new fracking technologies, cleaner air and probably one of the few bright spots in 7-8 years of an otherwise dismal economy.

There's that something in my eye again -sniff-
(and, curious how this all counters your low profit comments earlier)

No need to reach for the tissue box again. The oil cos. don't produce all of these benefits because they are morally superior, but as a result of acting in their own (shareholder) interests. And what's even more curious is how you cannot distinguish btwn. profit margins and actual profits. You really should brush up on how capitalism actually works so you can be more effective at opposing it.

What happened to the free market? creative destruction? adaptation? One would think you're building a case to nationalize the fossil-fuel industries.

Plenty of recent examples why nationalization of major industries doesn't work, and it has little to do with mindless ideology. An appropriate amount of govt. regulation is the key, but that's often easier said than done when ideologues are in charge.

If cheap oil is all that's propping up the US economy... you have bigger problems than AGW, for sure. In times of relative wealth, cheap energy, low interest and sputtering economy... like right now... THIS IS THE TIME to get going on much neglected infrastructure projects, stimulation of new industries, and maybe a little cleanup. But anyways...

Agreed. And now you're talking like a pro-growth conservative. But this will never happen until we get a govt. that understands how to give the economy the confidence to make these worthy goals happen.

Quote:
But I get it, they're motivated by their fiduciary duty to earn profits for their shareholders so therefore they're "bad."

Two things:
- "the market" and "society" (eg a country and its people) are not one and the same, and their interests do not always align.

Wrong again. They often are one and the same, with their interests more often than not aligned. And this applies to you too whether you understand it or not. But obviously there are exceptions, and I'm sure you'll educate us with a few.

Without being good or bad, what's beneficial for one industry is not necessarily always beneficial for a country.

That's where an appropriate level of regulation comes in. And what is appropriate should define the contours of the debate, not how people "feel" about it based on irrational and usually misplaced assumptions.

- bad is as bad does. Misleading your shareholders and the public is, if true and if it causes harm, not only __bad__ but actionable.

But if designed to advance political careers, unjustly take money from consumers at the pump, or depreciate private shareholder value, it's a shameful scam along with a violation of free speech.

"Citizens United" gave all corporations a mouth, and anything with a mouth also has an ass.

Citizens United gave people who wish to express their political points of view through an organized legal entity a voice, whether they are asses or not (and they sometimes are). But that, my friend, is the essence of the First Amendment and a free society. Becoming happy and comfortable with it requires tolerance for other points of view and the types of people who expound them, along with some resilience to being easily offended. Silencing what any of us happen to think are disagreeable views is not the answer, and human civilization has many past & present ugly examples you are free to ponder.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Exile

Your link is an interesting snapshot of major business sectors from Jan. 2016, but I'm not sure what you're trying to show. Do we know if the Forbes article was referring to net margins, taking taxes into account, or contemplating the other half-dozen or so other categories in your link that I'm pretty sure you don't understand but will cite to anyway?

OK, let's forget the numbers from Forbes for the time being.... How about I assert that the fossil fuel industry has enjoyed avg. profit margins, over time, that are in line with other major industries.

You linked and quoted the Forbes item; I presume you know their frame of reference. Anyways, your last assertion seems to agree with my point that the quote misrepresents the oil industry's margin relative to other industries. To put it in proper perspective, the Forbes link is a 2011 op-ed from the CEO of the Institute for Energy Research, an organization that "advocates positions on environmental issues including deregulation of utilities, climate change denial, and claims that conventional energy sources are virtually limitless." So, y'know...

Did you miss the "and" when [that graphic on gas price showed] the avg. state (22.68 cents) and federal (18.4 cents) taxes in each gallon of gas? Even an innumerate guy like me can figure (but only w/a calculator) that this equals 41.08 cents/gal. of gas. OK, so Forbes was off by a bit less than 7 cents -- maybe a slight error in averaging -

[7/41 = 17% off. slight?]

- but by them or the source for your colorful graph?? Or maybe the reference to "Uncle Sam" threw you off? Hey, let's go with the info that makes you feel more comfortable. But where's the industry profit number that Forbes says is 7 cents/gal.? You mean it's combined with "refining costs" to make it come to 12 cents instead of 7?? Imagine that -- conflating "profits" with "costs" by combining the two!

It was a biased op-ed with bad numbers. You can stop defending them. Hype is hype, no?

Thanks for reminding us that govt. always stands ready to make it more expensive to go visit the relatives on a long holiday weekend. Maybe these hikes will vindicate Forbes' conclusion IER's outrage-trigger that we pay 7 times more in taxes than the industry earns in profits on each gal. of gas.

It was an empty quote designed to enrage the right; clearly it's worked on you. if you don't know where gas tax goes, or if you can't see that taxing gas is a progressive way for the actual users to fund roads... why cite it?

"a hardship to the poor and elderly (who you could actually help in other ways if you wanted to, but anyways...)"

You continually reach for that moral high ground by making derogatory assumptions about others but offer nothing in the way of positive suggestions, proposals, or yes, your own example, of how we're supposed to meet your lofty and I'm sure well-earned standards.

It was Delfin who first took cowardly refuge behind alleged harm to the poor, and I recall you backing him on that. If I'm mistaken about your position re carbon taxes and the poor... I won't bring it up again.

Agreed. And now you're talking like a pro-growth conservative. But this will never happen until we get a govt. that understands how to give the economy the confidence to make these worthy goals happen.

We're in a period of relative peace, terrorism notwithstanding. Significant deregulation since the 90's. US taxes especially on the top tier, corporate and personal, are at historic lows. Interest rates are shockingly low, labour is cheap (bye, unions), energy is abundant and cheap, trade agreements have struck down duties and barriers... basically just about everything the US pro-business folks and globalists have wanted has come to pass... and the economy sucks. Why?

(One can't promise lower taxes and less government at every election. You have lower taxes and less government... now do something with them. I got this out of a recent article by David Frum, GW Bush's former speechwriter. Can't find the link, sorry)

Enjoying the GOP convention?

[transmitterdan]

Originally Posted by jackdale

We are somewhat in agreement on this.



BTW - natural gas is a fossil fuel.

Why is natural gas a fossil fuel on Earth but not on Titan or Europa or several other solar system bodies?

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by transmitterdan

Why is natural gas a fossil fuel on Earth but not on Titan or Europa or several other solar system bodies?

NASA - Scientists Solve the Mystery of Methane in Titan's Atmosphere