Gas/Oil
- Thread starter Killer Joe
- Start date
D
DarthFerret
Guest
Here is a set of data I found today compiled by the Univesity of Alabama. All I have is the graphs and do not have any of the details on how they got the data, or where they got it from (location or source), but I would same it is probably safe to assume that since it came from and education institution there is some inherent believibility.
http://download.premiereradio.net/guest/rushlimb/pdf/RoySpencerGraph2.pdf
The next one has cited the information gathered as coming from the NOAA and NASA satellites.
http://download.premiereradio.net/guest/rushlimb/pdf/RoySpencerGraph1.pdf
Spidey, not sure if any politician can claim winning an election on any one thing. However if you do combine a number of "fear" tactics, I am sure you will find a few culprits.
http://download.premiereradio.net/guest/rushlimb/pdf/RoySpencerGraph2.pdf
The next one has cited the information gathered as coming from the NOAA and NASA satellites.
http://download.premiereradio.net/guest/rushlimb/pdf/RoySpencerGraph1.pdf
Spidey, not sure if any politician can claim winning an election on any one thing. However if you do combine a number of "fear" tactics, I am sure you will find a few culprits.
E
EricBess
Guest
I don't think any election is won by a single "card". It takes a full hand and I think that most politicians will try to get as many "cards" as they can.
Mooseman
Isengar Tussle
Interesting that this came from Rush's site, while NASA's own site seems to say the exact opposite.... I wonder who has an agenda here?DarthFerret said:
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/topstory/2004/0315skintemp.html
This one from NOAA's own site seems to totally contridict the second Roy Spencer graph....... Roy Spencer seems to have some connections to big oil companies..... not sure if it's true, but his views and NASA/NOAA seem to be widely different.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/research/2007/ann/global-jan-dec-error-bar-pg.gif
Here is some background info on climate and weather from NASA.....
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/noaa-n/climate/climate_weather.html
BTW - This was one search on google and these were the top two hits...... hmmm........
D
DarthFerret
Guest
Not trying to sound too conspiritist here, but who owns google again...hmmm...
Oversoul
The Tentacled One
I'm not aware of any cases in which it was a "global warming card" specifically that played a big role in getting someone elected, but exploiting fear has certainly been a very popular tactic in elections.Spiderman said:
Yeah, other than in extreme circumstances, it seems that there are a lot of factors.EricBess said:
Roy Spencer's claim is that other climatologists have been doing it wrong somehow and so their measurements are faulty. I don't know much about the specifics because this was pretty recent and I haven't been keeping up with this stuff as well as I should.Mooseman said:
Personally, I don't really care what his rationale is. This has nothing to do with global warming, but Roy Spencer is a self-admitted cdesign proponentsist. If he told me the sky was blue, I'd take a look outside just to make sure.
DF: Who *does* own Google? I thought it was a couple tech-type dudes. Are you saying they programmed their religious views into their search engine?
Agree about the fear, but we're specifically talking about global warming here and its supposed "power" it gives to government officials (which somehow got turned to elections). The assertion was that waving global warming around gave officials power and I was curious as to exactly what power it gave them. Haven't got a solid answer yet...Oversoul said:
Mooseman
Isengar Tussle
Google founders are Larry Page and Sergey Brin, it is a public company.....DarthFerret said:
So you are saying that somehow the search algorithms are politically motivated? If I input global temperatures, I'll get NASA and NOAA is some nefarious scheme to delude the public with false data?
I always thought the Google search algorithm was based on many times people click on the website and links to the website. So if it's near the top, a lot of people are clicking on it or to it, at least more than the ones below it.
Why people are doing so is up to the imagination...
Why people are doing so is up to the imagination...
E
EricBess
Guest
If you buy into the propoganda, then no one is going to have an argument that you will consider rational, so I think we're going to have to agree to disagree on this one.Spiderman said:
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that there isn't evidence of global warming, but I remember a time not that long ago when politicians were spouting that we need to take action to avoid a second ice age. The earth is a fairly complex organism and it's a bit arrogant to assume that we have that much control over what happens. I'm all for conservation and perserving our environment, but when it comes to the level of fear that it the talks of global warming have, then it seems to me that 90% of it is just a bunch of political hoopla designed to make more rational political opponents look like they don't care (and are therefore unfit to be elected). If you don't see or won't awknowledge my point, then personally, I would say that you have helped prove it.
I don't expect you to change your opinion, but claiming that there hasn't been an acceptable counterargument is a bit bias.
I'm not saying they hasn't been an acceptable counterargument. What I'm saying is that I think what you and DF so far have said is conjecture and perception about the supposed impact of power that politicians get when they make global warming claims.
The original assertion was (paraphrase) "global warming claims gives politicians power". All I asked was for a specific example(s) of what kind of "power". Do they dictate scientist's experiments? Do they influence the budget so that more money is dedicated to science and studies? Stuff like that.
At the point of elections, simply throwing around claims of "global warming" isn't an example of power to me. Unless someone can explain it better.
The original assertion was (paraphrase) "global warming claims gives politicians power". All I asked was for a specific example(s) of what kind of "power". Do they dictate scientist's experiments? Do they influence the budget so that more money is dedicated to science and studies? Stuff like that.
At the point of elections, simply throwing around claims of "global warming" isn't an example of power to me. Unless someone can explain it better.
E
EricBess
Guest
Perhaps "power" wasn't the correct word. My point is that Global Warming is a "hot topic" right now and any candidate who doesn't "properly address" what they are planning on doing about it is going to suffer in public opinion.
There are plenty of more important issues out there, so any statement of "here's how I plan to address global warming, what are you going to do?" seems designed to cast doubt on an opponent rather than to build confidence in that person.
If you are looking for a specific example, take ethanol. Someone is making a ton of money at the expense of taxpayers. California recently had a ballot measure for a huge amount of money for taxpayers to research "alternate fuel sources", stating that "someone needs to do it, why shouldn't we start it?" Clinton (Bill) and Gore were all over the TV sets saying what wonderful people we Californians would be to do this. But who benefits? The claims are "we all benefit by a better environment", but the truth is that someone stands to make a lot of money.
Less than a month after that measure failed, there was talk of another measure that would require a certain percentage of ethanol in all gas in the state. If they can't make us pay for their research, perhaps they can force us to use their product? The research I've seen suggest that it causes more pollution to create the ethanol than it prevents. And rising prices of milk, eggs, and corn (not to mention fuel) seem to be a decent indication that it is not in my best interest financially.
I don't necessarily think it is the presidential candidates who are instigating it, but I do think that there are people within the political parties that are pulling some of the strings behind it.
There are plenty of more important issues out there, so any statement of "here's how I plan to address global warming, what are you going to do?" seems designed to cast doubt on an opponent rather than to build confidence in that person.
If you are looking for a specific example, take ethanol. Someone is making a ton of money at the expense of taxpayers. California recently had a ballot measure for a huge amount of money for taxpayers to research "alternate fuel sources", stating that "someone needs to do it, why shouldn't we start it?" Clinton (Bill) and Gore were all over the TV sets saying what wonderful people we Californians would be to do this. But who benefits? The claims are "we all benefit by a better environment", but the truth is that someone stands to make a lot of money.
Less than a month after that measure failed, there was talk of another measure that would require a certain percentage of ethanol in all gas in the state. If they can't make us pay for their research, perhaps they can force us to use their product? The research I've seen suggest that it causes more pollution to create the ethanol than it prevents. And rising prices of milk, eggs, and corn (not to mention fuel) seem to be a decent indication that it is not in my best interest financially.
I don't necessarily think it is the presidential candidates who are instigating it, but I do think that there are people within the political parties that are pulling some of the strings behind it.
Hmm. Well, any voter interested in global warming will likely want to know what each candidate will do or how they will vote and any voter NOT interested won't care. So while it may not help to have an "attack" position like the way you worded it, it seems a "smart" politician will address the issue anyway to get those interested voters.
As for ethanol, I don't think it's people within the political party that have the agenda but rather the special interest groups (farmers, ethanol equipment makers, etc) that have the most to gain. And knowing those kinds of groups, they're probably contributing to both parties anyway (more to those currently in power, but when it comes to election year, they'll see whose likely to win and back them). They don't care who's in power as long as they can get laws passed to benefit them.
As for ethanol, I don't think it's people within the political party that have the agenda but rather the special interest groups (farmers, ethanol equipment makers, etc) that have the most to gain. And knowing those kinds of groups, they're probably contributing to both parties anyway (more to those currently in power, but when it comes to election year, they'll see whose likely to win and back them). They don't care who's in power as long as they can get laws passed to benefit them.
D
DarthFerret
Guest
Addressing the google statement that I made, I was mostly being funny. However, in an underlying tone, I personally consider google a bit more left than right. That has to do with the fact that I lump them into the Mainstream Media group. Maybe that was too big of a jump to make. I guess on a message board it is very difficult to tell sarcasm and attempts to lighten things up while still staying close to the topic.
Let me try and put it this way. Anything that I may type that appears to be off the wall and kinda wierd, is usually an attempt at humor. I know that I have a wierd sense of humor, and a lot of people don't "get" me, but heh, as long as I think it is funny, then at least I can enjoy the benefit of it being there.
That being said, I guess, Back to the Show (Picture of Kermit the Frog in my head).
Let me try and put it this way. Anything that I may type that appears to be off the wall and kinda wierd, is usually an attempt at humor. I know that I have a wierd sense of humor, and a lot of people don't "get" me, but heh, as long as I think it is funny, then at least I can enjoy the benefit of it being there.
That being said, I guess, Back to the Show (Picture of Kermit the Frog in my head).
Mooseman
Isengar Tussle
Muppets rule!!!!!!
BTW - DF: when you're so far right that the only other direction is left, then google is a leftist regime..... as is the CATO institute and the GOP....
(see that, an indication of humor, or a bad joke or an attempt at sarcasm)
Did I miss something, but did the two of you (DF and EB) actually try to pin the rise in food and fuel prices to the use of ethanol? Really, crude oil prices are tied directly to ethanol prices? Milk and eggs too?
Wow, I can't wait for the logic on this one..... Please make sure it isn't one google away from being doubted..... (see sarcasm alert.... )
Sorry for the tone..... I am having that kind of week.....
BTW - DF: when you're so far right that the only other direction is left, then google is a leftist regime..... as is the CATO institute and the GOP....
(see that, an indication of humor, or a bad joke or an attempt at sarcasm)
Did I miss something, but did the two of you (DF and EB) actually try to pin the rise in food and fuel prices to the use of ethanol? Really, crude oil prices are tied directly to ethanol prices? Milk and eggs too?
Wow, I can't wait for the logic on this one..... Please make sure it isn't one google away from being doubted.....
(see sarcasm alert.... )Sorry for the tone..... I am having that kind of week.....
DF: That's what smilies/emoticons are for
Mooseman: Actually, I also said a while back that rising food prices are tied to *the growing of corn" for ethanol use, not the use of ethanol directly. Why? Because it's become very profitable to raise and sell corn, farmers are planting it more and more and using their fields less for other crops like soybeans, wheat, rice, etc., which lowers their supply. In addition, corn going to ethanol use takes away from the supply of feed for livestock, which in turn raises the price.
However, I don't think crude oil prices are *directly* tied to ethanol prices.
Mooseman: Actually, I also said a while back that rising food prices are tied to *the growing of corn" for ethanol use, not the use of ethanol directly. Why? Because it's become very profitable to raise and sell corn, farmers are planting it more and more and using their fields less for other crops like soybeans, wheat, rice, etc., which lowers their supply. In addition, corn going to ethanol use takes away from the supply of feed for livestock, which in turn raises the price.
However, I don't think crude oil prices are *directly* tied to ethanol prices.
D
DarthFerret
Guest
Ok, here is my clairification (although spidey kinda touched on it himself). When they (whoever it really was) decided to use corn for the ethanol to use as a fuel additive, then the demand for corn went up. The demand went up, the price goes up, and then accordingly, farmers see the profitability of grown more corn and less other products, and the supply goes up. The price of corn stabalizes and all is good there. However, with the rise in the price of corn and the supply of other food-stuffs going down, the price of food in general goes up.
It is actually a lot of supply-demand economics, even though I am sure there are other contirbuting factors as well (not to mention the higher cost of transportation which hits most food stuffs multiple times, from the tractor fuel..to the final transport of finished goods).
I also, do not believe that the crude oil prices are directly tied to ethanol prices. There may be a small correlation with the speculators that since ethanol would make the crude oil stretch farther (I assume anyway) that the demand would drop. But logic would deduce the price going down in that case. I guess it just shows that logic has little to do with it.
I do lean to the right, that is true. Although there are issues that I will be a bit more moderate on. We just have not discussed any of them yet. One such might be abortion (I would surprise you slightly there).
And yes I got some info from Rush's website. It was the first time I had ever been there. I find Rush to be more of an entertainer and less of a political advisor/advocate. I think it is good to keep a sense of humor about politics in general, which is why I can handle listening to (and sometimes enjoying) Bill Mahr. On the other hand, Chris Matthews disgusts me, but so does Hannity. One of the best talk show hosts I have ever heard, is not broadcast down here (I just assume he still is on the air in some places). That is Mike Reagan. Yes, Ronald Reagan's son. I used to listen to him nightly (had a night job, kept a radio on my forklift...). My favorite radio entertainer was Art Bell. He has retired and George Norry has taken over, and the show is not that good anymore. Plus, for some reason, our talk radio channel must turn down the wattage at night or something, because his show is always fuzzy.
The reason I am so anti Obama, is that he scares me. I have not found much of anything he says or stands for (what little there is) to be humorous, or of any value to our country. I think we will be in a bit of trouble if he gets elected. McCain is not an ideal choice either, however, until they announce the independent candidate, he is the only opposition we have to Obama. Therefore he has my support.
Oil = Black Gold = Texas Tea.
EDIT: And yes, the muppets do rule!
It is actually a lot of supply-demand economics, even though I am sure there are other contirbuting factors as well (not to mention the higher cost of transportation which hits most food stuffs multiple times, from the tractor fuel..to the final transport of finished goods).
I also, do not believe that the crude oil prices are directly tied to ethanol prices. There may be a small correlation with the speculators that since ethanol would make the crude oil stretch farther (I assume anyway) that the demand would drop. But logic would deduce the price going down in that case. I guess it just shows that logic has little to do with it.
I do lean to the right, that is true. Although there are issues that I will be a bit more moderate on. We just have not discussed any of them yet. One such might be abortion (I would surprise you slightly there).
And yes I got some info from Rush's website. It was the first time I had ever been there. I find Rush to be more of an entertainer and less of a political advisor/advocate. I think it is good to keep a sense of humor about politics in general, which is why I can handle listening to (and sometimes enjoying) Bill Mahr. On the other hand, Chris Matthews disgusts me, but so does Hannity. One of the best talk show hosts I have ever heard, is not broadcast down here (I just assume he still is on the air in some places). That is Mike Reagan. Yes, Ronald Reagan's son. I used to listen to him nightly (had a night job, kept a radio on my forklift...). My favorite radio entertainer was Art Bell. He has retired and George Norry has taken over, and the show is not that good anymore. Plus, for some reason, our talk radio channel must turn down the wattage at night or something, because his show is always fuzzy.
The reason I am so anti Obama, is that he scares me. I have not found much of anything he says or stands for (what little there is) to be humorous, or of any value to our country. I think we will be in a bit of trouble if he gets elected. McCain is not an ideal choice either, however, until they announce the independent candidate, he is the only opposition we have to Obama. Therefore he has my support.
Oil = Black Gold = Texas Tea.
EDIT: And yes, the muppets do rule!
E
EricBess
Guest
I agree on the muppets.
I also know that in the space of a couple of months, the price of eggs tripled. Looking into why, we discovered that it was directly tied to the higher price of corn used for chicken feed, and the corn prices were higher because ethanol manufacturers were buying up the supply.
I don't have anything tying the rising milk prices directly to ethanol, but the timing was about the same and it stands to reason.
Incidently, I recently read that when the ethanol manufacturers started buying up the corn, the farmers were making good money, but the rising cost of fuel (in part because of ethanol) has effectively made it a wash due to the costs of driving tractors around.
I also know that in the space of a couple of months, the price of eggs tripled. Looking into why, we discovered that it was directly tied to the higher price of corn used for chicken feed, and the corn prices were higher because ethanol manufacturers were buying up the supply.
I don't have anything tying the rising milk prices directly to ethanol, but the timing was about the same and it stands to reason.
Incidently, I recently read that when the ethanol manufacturers started buying up the corn, the farmers were making good money, but the rising cost of fuel (in part because of ethanol) has effectively made it a wash due to the costs of driving tractors around.