You always do this. You make a claim, backed up by absolutely nothing, then put it on everyone else to come up with evidence to the contrary.

So, no, Scubatim, you explain, for once, in detail. You are the one with the far-fetched theories - start supporting them. I want to see some proof of how the United Nations is orchestrating this power grab using bought-and-paid-for scientists to trick the world into believing that global warming exists.

Let me be clear again for you and Dingo. I am not saying there is no global warming. Clearly the earth is warmer to some extent. What I am saying is that the jury is out as to the cause and I do not yet believe that the increase in CO2 caused by man is the primary driver in the warming we have seen.

The 400 Billion has been used as the cost to meet the old Kyoto protocols – it would be higher now. And the KEY point is that after we do that there is NO reduction in CO2 output. All we do is slow it a little which is simply a waste of time if you believe CO2 is the primary driver.


So even if the cost is less than 400 billion why not spend it on other green technologies that will help and also give us a cleaner environment. Certainly other forms of pollution kill far more people than GW ever will even if you believe the worse predictions.




http://motls.blogspot.com/2005/10/kyoto-co...d-benefits.html

Of all the people here demanding references. Go back and open the link I provided in regards to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change . How many times on the front page does it discuss the Kyoto protocol? Also, if you go to http://unfccc.int/meetings/cop_13/items/4049.php, you will find a series of pdfs that you can open to read more about how non elected international organizations will oversee how we will be governed to stop GW. I refuse to put up a link for all 26 of the reports, and I believe most everyone will appreciate that.
Some quotes to take a peek at Bali Action Plan(pdf):

The Bali plan wants to launch an international process in order to reach an outcome decided by people that I wasn't given the opportunity to vote for to represent me.

As to the funding :Fourth review of the financial mechanism(sorry, another pdf for JohnfrmCleveland)

Now where do you suppose this funding they keep talking about is going to come from? Selling carbon credits?

There is a lot more information for you to find how they are not intending to create international laws and international taxes. There are limits to the number of quotations I can post on , so feel free to do you own homework, John.

I'm not sure about all the conspiracy theories... but there are things that the mainstream "global warming" tin-foil heads don't want you to know.

How many people knew that November 2007 was the coldest month since Jan 2000?
http://motls.blogspot.com/2007/12/rss-msu-...dest-month.html

Did you know that we have actually experienced a certain amount of global cooling?
http://motls.blogspot.com/2008/01/2007-war...coldest-in.html

Need other sources?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jh...09/ixworld.html

Basically, much of what I've read states that global warming stopped nearly a decade ago.

Well then, why are people still pushing the agenda? Why is it still a problem?

I suppose because it makes for good press for people like Al Gore, and keeps UN "Tin foil head" scientists in a job.

Don't want to poke holes in your denialist faith system but GW is not a straight line phenomenum. Dips do occur in time and place and 2005 was the hottest year on record. Oh yeah and despite variations in year to year temperature (Apparently even month to month gets you excited), cumulative massive ice melt continues. Temperature is varying from a higher plateau don't you know.

http://www.earth-policy.org/Indicators/Temp/2006.htm



In addition I found this excerpt of some interest.



More spin from the job hungry tin hats right?

The contention you and your conspiracy buddies share that the vast majority of climate and other scientists with an opinion on the matter are only supporting a view that AGW exists because they are paid off is cute and will no doubt be a nice addition to the long list of nutcase conspiracy theories. However you would think one of you might at least come up with one example of some scientist who joined the unemployment lines because he or she objected to the AGW thesis.

Actually, the funding they are talking about is going to come from the trade in carbon credits between the Annex I countries and the lesser developed countries, and the penalties for not reaching their goals. There is, however, no true power to collect on these fees. Countries comply voluntarily.

NONE OF WHAT YOU HAVE REFERENCED BACKS YOUR CLAIMS IN THE LEAST BIT.
Nothing in your references suggests that global warming would somehow increase the power of the UN.
Nothing in your references suggests that scientists are paid by the UN.
Nothing in your references suggests that the UN would gain financially from global warming.
Nothing in your references suggests that any taxes are to be levied.
Nothing in your references suggests that any international laws are to be created.



Do you notice that choice of words? "Invites parties to finance..."? That means, "Please, rich nations, help us get started with a little money, and we will pay you back, if you request, when we are up and running." That doesn't sound like the big, bad power-hungry United Nations that you decried in previous posts. That sounds like the same old toothless UN to me.

Here's the thing about treaties that you obviously do not understand: they are, basically, unenforceable agreements. Who has the power to enforce them? The Kyoto protocol is just an agreement, a collection of nations understandably concerned about the environment, who willingly agreed to reduce emissions and help the less industrialized nations toward that same goal. If a nation decides to back out, there is not much anybody can do about it. link


WTF?????
I guess I agree with you: they are, indeed, not intending to create international laws and international taxes.




Can't have a proper debate on global warming without this dramatic before-and-after picture of Argentina's Upsala Glacier (plus a few other pictures):

If you honestly don't think "fees" is a pretty word for taxes, then you deserve the taxation without representation. If you think penalties are simply ok, then you deserve the UN international control over you without you given the opportunity to help decide who represents you in these laws.

So I went back to that website, and simply clicked on the Kyoto Protocol button and found some interesting information that you should have looked at.

Link
Let's see, "requires" doesn't sound very voluntary to me, how about you? Further more, the last line "Review and enforcement of these commitments are carried out by United Nations-based bodies", pretty much gives power to the UN to enforce these required policies. Pretty much in black and white if you ask me.

Same link:

Hmmm, pay the cost. Doesn't seem much like trading anything but greenbacks to me. Explain to us how "the trade in carbon credits" isn't going to cost us actual money. I am curious about these credits that don't cost us anything.

Now to address your claim that "Here's the thing about treaties that you obviously do not understand: they are, basically, unenforceable agreements". It appears you don't know what you are talking about:
Link
Legally binding. Not very voluntary if you join the treaty. In fact, voluntary is pretty much the exact opposite of legally binding in this context, wouldn't you agree? If they are so unenforceable, why are they legally binding?

Brilliant. Not really.

Frankly, what you're missing is that we could post a never ending "this year was hottest" argument.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...7010901949.html
This link states that 2006 was hottest.

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/t.../2006_warm.html
This one, from Nasa, states that it was only the 5th warmest.

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/scien...rdtemp2005.html
This one states that there is a tie between 1998 and 2005.

Ok- what you haven't discussed is the factual information provided that over the past decade there hasn't been any real change. We can argue semantics all you want, but there is proof that over the past decade, there hasn't been any real change.

The issue that I have with Global Warming JFCleveland, is that it's presented as if it's fact. The problem I really have is that it really is presented as if humans have done it and we know that for sure.

It's a lot like the big bang theory I'd suppose. Sure- the ice caps are melting. We've all seen the CBS Sunday Morning piece on it.

All I'm saying is that remember when we were kids and they said we'd run out of oil? That wasn't true either. We've figured out that we can literally use oil to bathe in for multiple generations and not worry.

I believe Global Warming, while it very well MAY be truly an issue, is propagated as a political piece and has half-way science and kook jobs like Al Gore pushing it.

It says a lot that Al Gore got a Nobel prize for literally being a parrot. It denegrates real science and scientists who don't necessarily want a two-time loser like Gore (or fruits like Michael Moore) pushing their agenda.

Wrong debate topic, John. I don't know anyone that denies that Earth's climate is changing. What is being denied is the role human behavior has played, and what we can actually do about it. I would be interested in seeing the same picture, but from 1828. We can take before and after pictures about anything and create this over dramatized sensation of the world coming to an end, but it still doesn't answer the question that is really in debate here: What has man's role been in changing the climate, and what if anything can be done?" Like I have stated earlier, we are taking information spanning about 100 years and coming to conclusions about a rock that is 4 billion years old with climate changes that take thousands of years to cycle through. It is illogical to me to take two pictures and say "I told you so!" when we don't know what that same area looked like 100 years prior, and another 100 years prior to that and so on. How do you know that the ice wasn't 1000 feet thicker in 1828?

Another question that I have asked before with no response: "How do we know what is 'normal' for Earth?" How do we know that Earth's equilibrium isn't another two degrees warmer? How do we know that Earth's existence is in jeopardy? How do we know that if the Earth warms another degree, that we won't have more unknown advantages? Given the fact that ancient forests have been found under the ice in Greenland, it tells me that our little rock that we inhabit has been this warm before and without man's assistance.

I have a theory as to why the ice is melting faster now than it did 100 years ago-there's less ice! Isn't it a fact that the ice caps assist in keeping the Earth cooler by reflecting some of the sun's energy back into space due to the reflectivity of the ice and snow? Since we have been losing ice continuously since the last little ice age (without the help of human activity), it has probably been speeding up since then, and we are only alarmed now because we have only been paying attention for the last couple of decades. Carbon dioxide has little to nothing to do with it.

As if ghg's are the only influencing factor. There is a lot of coal burning going on that includes along with CO2 a lot of aerosols which have an opposite effect. Volcanoes, solar intensity, lots of things have an effect. It's not simply either-or. But the long term pattern of CO2 rise corresponding with temperature rise is documented. The fact that you demand the effect be instantanteous is simply creating an expectation that is out of sync with the actual reality of how the process works. This graph should help demonstrate how rough but nevertheless accurate the parallel is.

http://www.worldviewofglobalwarming.org/im...O2TempChart.jpg

Hey, that may be right! Who knows? But please don't call it your theory. Some underpaid, underappreciated scientist came up with that after years of study. Just like other underpaid, underappreciated scientists have determined in their studies that CO2 plays a big role. Climatology is nothing more than a dalliance for all of us here on AD, and none of us on our own know doody about the science behind the positions we take on this issue. Our forte is in conspiracy theories (you) and debunking conspiracy theories (me).

...and you still haven't backed up your preposterous claims of post #195. You think you did, but your points miss the mark completely. Nobody is being forced into the Kyoto protocol. There is no international body that has the power to enforce treaties. It is voluntary, and yes, there is real money involved (I said that before), but nations that signed on see the benefit of the pact and choose to go along with it. If you want to call that a power play by the UN, there is nothing I can do to convince you otherwise. But you are wrong.



Well, I was not trying to present it as fact (even though I do believe that global warming exists and that humans have an effect on it). The picture of Upsala Glacier is just an obvious example of a radically retreating glacier - and I don't thing there are any such examples of radically growing glaciers out there to balance out the evidence. I've seen enough evidence to be convinced myself - measuring the rate of retreat of glaciers (not just this one) is the kind of solid, logical and boring evidence that moves me. It may not move you, and that's fine. But it's that kind of non-flashy data that good science is usually built on.

What I don't understand is the fervor with which anti-GWers defend their position. If the doomsayers are correct, then we are in trouble and ought to act. But if man has little or nothing to do with global warming, what's the harm in lowering emissions anyway? Sure, it might cost us a few bucks more, but when you think of it as catastrophe insurance, it doesn't seem like all that much. And as I have mentioned before, anything that lowers our dependence on Middle Eastern oil is a good thing, and would probably pay for itself before too long.

You seem to like to argue for the sake of arguing. Not very conducive to intelligent debate. Sorry if I don't bite.


Ok, so let me educate you on how debates work. I provide a position with references, which I did. You are then supposed to respond with your position which obviously opposes mine with your references. By just making some claim that my points miss the mark isn't considered intelligent debate.


For someone that is so quick to demand references, you sure are slow at providing them.
Survival Guide



And no evidence that the glacier was not retreating prior to the pictures that you provided. Again, your retreating glacier is just another over dramatization of something that doesn't really prove human involvement at all.


One could make the same argument about the invasion of Iraq. If the doomsayers were correct that there were WMDs, then going to war in Iraq would have been a good thing, right? Now look at what we have.

How different is the "fervor with which anti-GWers defend their position" and the fervor with which you defend your position? Are you the only one with some privilege to steadfastly defend your position?

Actually, while some glaciers are sensitive to climate change, not all are. And the position that higher temperatures automatically mean retreating glaciers is simply not the case. Temperature is one factor, but precipitation is another. The situation is not as simple as: it is warmer therefore glaciers are retreating.

Mount Kilimanjaro was the long-time poster child of global warming because its snowy peak was no longer white. However, the science simply does not support that simplistic explanation.
http://www.geo.umass.edu/faculty/bradley/kaser2004.pdf

As far as other glaciers go, again the mass balance of any glacier is not solely dependent on temperatures.
http://www.cicero.uio.no/fulltext/index_e.aspx?id=3561




That's the question, isn't it? You claim (contrary to reality) that the "doomsayer" approach (Kyoto et al) will cost "a few bucks". But the reality is the estimated cost to the US economy is estimated at between $250 and $280 billion per year. DOE estimate Summary graph

There is no fervor, but "I'm from Missouri". If you can't convince me to spend $250 billion a year, I won't do it.

How much would it be worth to you if we could marginalize the Middle East? Imagine if the country had started on the alternative energy path 30 years ago, when Carter tried to get the ball rolling. Even with many years of relatively cheap oil in those years, we would still be better off for it now. But here we are, in 2008, our power plants, furnaces and cars are essentially the same, and some sandy country is still on every front page of every newspaper almost every day. With your reasoning, we will be reading the same headlines in 2038 and beyond.

Sorry, John, but comparing non-proven science (man-made global warming) and a known need (alternative energy) is like comparing apples to oranges. We know that we need to explore alternative fuel sources for more reasons than just the environment, but we don't know if spending billions of dollars every year will stop the planet from doing what it is going to do anyway.

WHO CARES WHAT THE REASON IS?

You agree there is a known need for alternative energy, so why not invest the money and get started? Arguing that you don't want to spend the money because you aren't convinced that global warming will stop - EVEN WHEN YOU ADMIT THAT WE SHOULD DEVELOP ALTERNATIVE ENERGY FOR OTHER REASONS - is just ridiculous.

If we spend money to develop alternative energy to lessen our dependence on Middle Eastern oil, that's good enough to justify the expenditure. If it happens to save the planet, too - just consider that a bonus.

I don't recall ever taking a position against Alternative Energy. I would, in fact, love to "marginalize" the Middle East and never have to worry about what certain members of a certain branch of a certain Religion of Peace are planning to do.

If we change to Alternative Energy it will be for economic reasons, not asthetic ones. The greatness of the United States stems from its wealth. Wealth allows us to be concerned about things that poorer nations cannot afford to consider.

Yes, damage to the environment is largely an unreported, unaccounted for cost of using the energy sources that we use, but the marketplace will decide on how we proceed. We need affordable energy and I have yet to see any proposal for removing us from the need to buy oil. In fact, we have many people who object to the expansion of oil production in our own country. This expansion, I might add, would reduce our dependence on foreign oil.

The argument that AGW skeptics are in the pockets of Big Oil is preposterous. I own no stock in oil companies, nor do I work for them. Big Energy stands in a very good position to provide any new means of energy (for example, hydrogen) so why should they stand in the way of progress?

I assume that the AGW-Big Oil connection came earlier in the thread, because the contention is not mine. And they will have a role to play, no doubt. That being said, I don't trust Big Oil as far as I can throw them, and the more they are left out of any decision-making process, the better that decision will be for everyone.

The move to alternative energy is not an instant fix, of course, so of course it will not include any specific proposal to eliminate our need to buy oil. But it would undoubtedly lower our appetite for it over time. Expanding our oil production in this country, done with some concern for our environment, is a fine idea in the short term, but only in tandem with the development of alternative energy sources that would eventually, hopefully, replace oil altogether. Whenever I see Bush pushing his oil buddies' proposals to expand production in the U.S., it is always presented as the solution, not a stopgap measure. That needs to change.

Also, I don't believe that the market fixes all problems. The market is very good at some things, but placing an accurate value on intangibles and long-term goals is not one of them. So you can wait for the price of oil to choke us before the market acts, or you can interfere with the market and push government investment into not-yet-profitable alternative energy research. Like I said before, if we had started this 30 years ago and stayed with it, I think we would be in much better shape.

Cool your jets, hero! I don't think you yelling is going to solve anything.

I am all about the private sector investing all the money in the world in alternative energy sources. Many private and publicly traded companies are doing just that, and I applaud them for it and support them. What I don't understand is the need to run to any government and have them mandate higher taxes to accomplish the same thing. Proposed legislation to tax the oil industry on so called 'windfall profits' as an example is over-reacting and creating smoke and mirrors. In this example, it is intended to help the poor pay for gas. The article also states that "Money from ending tax breaks would fund research into alternative fuels." All of these taxes only hurt the consumer. Does anyone think that the oil companies are going to just eat those taxes? That is absurd! They are going to pass them down to the consumer, raising fuel prices even more and we are no where closer to finding economically viable alternative fuel sources. I heard in the news that there is a proposal to increase the federal fuel tax per gallon from $.18 to $.40! What is the logic behind that?

Right now, there are seven active bills in Congress regarding global warming. How can anyone construe new legislation not giving the government more power?

If we stop punishing ourselves by creating all of these worthless taxes, and allow consumers to support those businesses that are going to do some good by purchasing from and investing in those businesses, we will be head and shoulders above where all of the Gorelites want us to be, and you won't have the opposition that you get. Forget the UNIPCC, UNFCCC, and all other international governmental bodies. Forget about taxing consumers to death. Let the free market work for itself. Look at Toyota and how big the Camry is due to it's fuel economy and style. This is done without governmental mandates. Look at GE. How many people have those funny looking bulbs that are supposed to save on energy costs? I have them all over my house. As the old bulbs burn out, I replace them with more economical bulbs. I didn't need the government banning the old ones to do it, and as the demand for the new ones grows, the old bulbs will become less and less available, which would have forced consumers to make the change without governmental mandates.

So, if you can do so without yelling at me, please explain why your solution is to have governmental mandates, laws and taxes as opposed to private businesses do what they do best?

I explained that in my last post - the market does not work for everything, and addressing future needs is one of those things. The market does not pay for much basic medical research, for instance. Companies cannot justify investing in research that is far upstream of a payoff, like a drug, so they build off of the basic research that is funded primarily by the NIH and done primarily at universities. Then, pharmaceutical companies (in the case of drugs) just take the research the final mile and put their new product on the market. But they could not do that without that initial (government-funded) research.

The problem is even worse for alternative energy - outside of the government, the oil companies are in the best position to fund research into alternative energy, because it is their area of expertise, and they certainly have the capital to do it. But that work would be somewhat at odds with their big moneymaker, selling oil, so not much gets done there. A world full of windmills and solar panels does not bode well for oil companies. Also, consider that since 9/11, oil companies have been making record profits off of our predicament, but I haven't seen a lot of alternative energy research going on there. Meanwhile, your tax money goes to protect their oil fields all over the world. (In a true free market, shouldn't they pay for their own security?)

So that is why government has to pay for this kind of stuff. The free market does not care about the environment, it does not care to help the poor, it does not care to keep a roof over everyone's head. It does not favor public transportation, the arts, charity, or safety. It only cares about profit, and short-term profit at that.

There is a cost to everything. If you think the oil companies would not pass the costs of research onto the consumer, you are crazy. That's how the pharm companies have been trying to justify pricing their drugs sky high - "research costs money." You mentioned in an earlier post that you didn't like institutions spending your money without giving you input in the form of elected officials? Well, unless you own a huge chunk of their stock, you don't get any say in what kind of research companies do with your gas money. At least with a government program, you have a modicum of representation.

Again, you compare medical research (a known and provable science) vs. the non-proven science of man-made global warming. Apples and oranges.

Now, let's look at the supposed lack of interest in those industries that you say don't do much or have much interest in renewable energy research.

Lot's of information on this link. I couldn't decide which link on this page would be best for your review, so I will just give you a starting point.

Here's a quote:


This site lets you see how this energy company is investing in alternative energy solutions.

Here's a company that has changed the way vehicles are being powered.

The list can go on and on as to how private industry is doing more than you give credit for. I don't think we need more government funded research. We know where to find renewable energy, we need the industry to expand, and taxing consumers is not the way to do it.


If you were to stop reading the talking points of all of the Gorelites out there, you would realize (see links above) that the oil companies and the energy companies are working to be the leaders in renewable energy. Who else has the ability currently to deliver these new sources of energy to consumers? If you don't believe that they are doing anything to capitalize on this industry, you are sadly mistaken. (again, see links above)


I provided resources that counter your blatant, unsupported, irresponsible blanket statement above. Do you mind backing up your claims? I really can't wait until you demand sources again!


I said that I don't like governmental institutions spending my money without representation. If I don't purchase products or services from private companies, they aren't spending my money, now are they? If I do spend money there, I am purchasing something in return, they aren't just taking it from me as a tax. What tangible item do I get from the UN when they take my money in the form of international taxes without representation?

BINGO!

Funny how free market so called anti-government intervention folks perpetually dance away from that point. As Greenspan has indicated it is doubtful we would be in Iraq if it weren't for a commitment to protect our overseas energy sources.

Sorry I missed that point, thanks for reminding me.

I don't think the oil fields belong to any American oil company, but for those that want to make that claim, please educate the rest of us. Another point, we would not have to be securing overseas energy sources if we are allowed to drill our own oil, but the environmentalists won't allow that. So, here we are. We can't get away from foreign oil. We can't drill our own. We don't have alternative energy technology that is affordable for all yet. The environmentalists wonder why we need to protect overseas energy sources.

If the environmental lobby would allow our oil producers to drill the oil that is under our own land, allow more refineries to be built in our country to allow more production to take place, we wouldn't have this dire interest in Middle Eastern and South American oil. But no, we can't drill for our own oil, even though that would all but eliminate our dependence on foreign oil, allowing us to set our own prices, which would make fuel more affordable for us. But instead, we don't want to eliminate the need for foreign oil, do we?

I think now we get something like 60% of our oil from overseas. We don't have enough domestic oil to go independent. Usually when people talk about big ticket energy solutions they talk nuclear power. But that has its own problems, not the least of which is disposal of the wastes.

Dingo, you scooped my by about 10 minutes. Your point is perfectly on target - not that it will do any good.

From expert testimony to the Senate in 2005:

I referenced this specifically for you, scubatim, because nobody else needed to see it. It is common knowledge that the U.S. does not have the oil reserves to satisfy it's own appetite. It is not the environmental lobby holding the U.S. back from being oil-independent.
Also common knowledge is that the U.S. does indeed use the military to secure Iraqi oil fields and otherwise protect America's business interests.
Also common knowledge is that the UN does not levy "international taxes," nor do they have any power to do so.
Also common knowledge is that the Federal Reserve is not unconstitutional, etc., etc.....

The problem with this thread (and others), as I see it, is that you lack the basic foundation of knowledge needed to have a meaningful debate without bogging everyone down by demanding explanations and references on even the most basic premises that everyone should remember from their introductory level college courses, while at the same time making your own wildly incorrect assertions that beg to be addressed and corrected. Predictably, the threads end up going nowhere and getting argumentative over side issues. I'm done with it.

John:

Time for a new expert witness. The top 5 oil importers to the US: Canada, Saudi, Mexico, Venezuela, and Nigeria. Roughly 1/5th of our oil imports come from the Middle East [most from Saudi]. The trend is:

"The new crude sources also has a major impact on global trade patterns; Europe and North America increasingly relied on the North Sea and the Americas while Asian countries increase their dependency on the Gulf's oil."

The other way of putting the matter is that with increased development and production in West Africa and Latin America we have been ever more inclined to buy from those souls than from souls in the Middle East. In 2001, the % of U.S. crude oil imports from the Middle East was 28.56%. In 2006, that % was down to 21.39%. In 2001, OPEC nations provided some 52% of U.S. crude oil imports, with non-OPEC nations providing the other 48%. In 2006, OPEC nations provided 47.4% of crude oil imports while non-OPEC nations provided 52.6% [and remember here that OPEC includes no. 5 on our list, Venezuela]. In 2001 Saudi was our leading importer. In 2006, Canada was our leading importer [and still is].

And, Dingo, you here? If so, for you and for John, well, I don't think that we went to war in Iraq in order to protect roughly 10% of our oil imports [what was otherwise the need, I mean, Saddam was supplying us with all that we desired from him when it comes to oil]. I'd otherwise never cite to Greenspan on foreign policy.

Lastly, John, it isn't about our oil dependence but that of others. Check the numbers re Europe's imported Middle East oil and so too with respect to Asia [to save you some time, Europe imports slightly in excess of 55% of its oil and Japan imports roughly 80% of its oil from the Middle East]. We value the stability of oil and ensure safe transit on the high seas since if we don't then the whole global economic system is much more vulnerable to collapse and when Europe and Asia collapse we will collapse with them. In that precise sense, our energy independence means nothing as we will still have the same interest in stability and safe transit when it comes to oil [lest the whole global economic system collapse]. So try and wean us if you want, but it won't matter unless you can wean some others as well. The way it works is simply that since we bear much of the cost, those we are protecting are all in favor of the petro-dollar. They understand, as do I, that if we lose the interest free loan from the petro-dollar then they will have to pony up some big euros and yen to ensure the stability and safe transit that the petro-dollar now provides. The other lesson to be learned here is that with us being the ones largely providing the stability and the safe transit, we don't have the others fighting each other for purposes of ensuring the stability and safe transit for themselves. Of course, all of this is lost on those who see American oil as some sort of devil with horns and a tail.

We have plenty of untapped oil within our own borders, it's just that we have no way of getting to it because of the environmenal lobby.


Oh, NO! John is calling me out! What ever shall I do? By the way, John, you seem to forget that I am not the only one that opposes you. You seem to like to call me out, and I like that because I seem to find it easy to counter your arguments that don't come with much if any factual sources to back up your blanket statements. So continue to follow my posts as you have in multiple threads to debate me personally. I do enjoy your debates.

First, I don't think what you claim about the UN to be common knowledge is actually common knowledge, and the Federal Reserve has nothing to do with this thread, so do us all a favor, since you seem to have such a vast knowledge base that I don't, provide your sources for your claims. Just claiming that it is common knowledge does not excuse you from providing sources.

Second, you are right about liquid oil deposits. However, you overlook one fact:

pdf link

So, we have this thing that will provide us with 400 years worth of oil, under our own land. Not sure why we are limiting ourselves and not taking advantage of this. Care to explain? Again, we all aren't as knowledgeable as you so you should provide sources for those of us that are not as educated as you seem to be.


Ok, to address this part of your egotistically written post, I will have to say that you aren't as smart and all-knowing as you claim. I have made several points and provided sources backing those points up. You have only sat behind your computer and made broad claims that I am wrong and too dumb to take part in this and other debates. You, sir, are the one that has done nothing but bog the debate down with blanket statements not backed by any sort of source. You, then, become the one that makes "your own wildly incorrect assertions that beg to be addressed and corrected" which I do with sources as my evidence. Of course I am "demanding explanations and references on even the most basic premises that everyone should remember from their introductory level college courses" because nothing that you have claimed falls under that description. You have yet to back up your claims, and have yet to make an intelligent argument. You claim common knowledge information, but that doesn't excuse you from providing sources. This last part of your post simply tells me that you don't have a counter argument, and are trying to make me look like I am dumber than you. Sorry, I am not as dumb as you think, and you, sir, are the one that is not providing a substantive debate.

Kivrot - my expert wasn't wrong, he was referring to the projected future dependence on Middle Eastern oil due to the depletion of our other suppliers' much lower (usable) oil reserves.

While the whole world isn't going to wean itself completely off of oil anytime soon, simply lowering the demand for oil will do it a lot of good. And I would expect Europe and Japan to be ahead of the U.S. when it comes to alternative energy, so I'm not too worried about the rest of the world collapsing around us if we were ever to stop policing the Middle East. We are not the only country capable of supplying security.

Nonsense. Drug companies have teams of scientists and do far more “research” than the NIH into drugs.

“Washington, D.C. (February 12, 2007) — America’s pharmaceutical and biotechnology research companies set a new record for biopharmaceutical research spending last year with an investment of $55.2 billion to develop new medicines and vaccines, according to analyses by PhRMA and Burrill & Company. The amount is $3.4 billion higher than the previous record of $51.8 billion spent by U.S. companies in 2005.”

http://www.phrma.org/news_room/press_relea...illion_in_2006/

This is almost twice the NIH entire 2007 budget.

http://officeofbudget.od.nih.gov/pdf/Press...nfo%20final.pdf


Yes alternative energy infrastructure needs government help. Nuclear as well and the sooner we increase it the sooner the market can do it’s magic.

.

Right. And this is why the government has the job of “regulating” the market. This ino is the governments primary function in the marketplace.



Naturally – ALL costs get passed on in the price of products (any product) by definition.

Overall be aware that since the 70s industry has dramatically cut its use of oil. With little to no help from government.