Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
HighTraverse
Trad climber
Bay Area
|
|
Prop 23 is a proposition on the California ballot in November that will essentially halt implementation of California Law AB32.
AB32 was passed by Democrats and Republicans and signed by the Governator to limit greenhouse gas emissions in California.
Prop 23 is primarily backed by the CEOs of Valero and Tesoro oil companies. Both based in Texas with operations in California. And a division of Koch Industries (the infamous Kook brothers). Do you think any of them have your best interests in mind?
PG&E is opposed to Prop23. Yet they are one of the companies most affected by AB32
Reagan Secretary of State George Schultz (no flaming Liberal) is opposed to prop23 and supported AB32
The Governator is still strongly supporting AB32 and opposing Prop23.
Thomas Friedman has a good op-ed in the NYTimes today.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/06/opinion/06friedman.html?_r=2&ref=opinion
|
|
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Oct 7, 2010 - 07:16pm PT
|
bookworm, are you talking about this, the summation at the end of the article you posted:
'But no matter how you look at it, the Sun's influence on current climate change is at best a small natural add-on to man-made greenhouse warming.'
'All the evidence is that the vast majority of warming is anthropogenic. It might be that the solar part isn't quite working the way we thought it would, but it is certainly not a seismic rupture of the science.'
PS.
DrDeeg, thank you so much for posting.
|
|
blahblah
Gym climber
Boulder
|
|
you can't seriously put the climate researchers into the same category of avarice as the oil execs, can you?
You certainly cannot.
Oil execs actually do something useful (run companies that provide an indispensable resource for modern society). If they're well compensated, that's because companies' boards of directors, duly elected by the owners of said companies, have judged that they're worth it.
So-called climate "researchers," on the other hand, fleece the public, are accountable to no one, and don't produce anything that anyone actually wants to pay for. They spend a suspicious amount of money on expensive (and polluting) junkets to exotic locations. They're continually caught exaggerating the likely effects of climate change (in a so-far successful effort to steal more money from the public), failing to properly comply with open records laws (so it's harder to catch them in their chicanery), and apparently now are calling for the assassination of their opponents.
Yep, no comparison between those so-called "researchers" and people who actually have real jobs.
|
|
dirtbag
climber
|
|
wow, you are a fuking idiot
Seconded.
|
|
blahblah
Gym climber
Boulder
|
|
If you think Tony Hayward of BP did a bad job, perhaps BP hired a CEO on the cheap and got what they paid for.
Apparently Exxon Mobil's CEO made MUCH more than Hayward did: $21.7M in 2009, which was an off year for him. See http://abcnews.go.com/Business/wireStory?id=10366094
It's a bigger company, sure, but the HUGE difference in pay suggests that BP didn't get the best talent available and perhaps paid the price, if you're right that Tony H did a bad job.
The loss of life of the oil workers is regrettable, but there are costs--economic and human--involved in securing our energy needs. How many coal miners die each year in China?
Anyway, to exploit the deaths of the oil workers to try to make a (silly) argument on this site is really pathetic and shows your true colors. How again does the fact that there are some fatalities associated with generating the incredible amount of oil we need to survive prove anything regarding the relative merits of oil executives (who mastermind the extraction of the oil) compared to "researchers" (who use the fruits of the oil companies to cavort around the glove on taxpayer-funded junkets, and produce nothing of value)?
Another thing that proves what scum many of you are: you are SUPER PISSED that the "damage" caused by the BP spill turned out to be "much ado about nothing."
ADMIT IT: you wanted to see incredible environmental destruction (as so-eagerly predicted by the liberal media) in order to justify more governmental intrusion into private sector enterprise. Shame on you!
|
|
dirtbag
climber
|
|
You're off your rocker.
Go back to the middle ages, bible thumping, and alchemy. It's what your types do best.
|
|
blahblah
Gym climber
Boulder
|
|
Blithering dipsh#t......
You guys are real class acts.
But I wonder who the dipshit is:
I bought BP at 33.77 in early July, it's now at 41.52. If I sold now (which I won't cuz of capital gains tax), that'd be about a (annualized) 100% return.
Not too bad for a dipsh#t, he he he. My insight? All that liberal crap about the damage from oil was BS, causing stock to be dramatically undervalued. (Not sure I'd buy more now though--BP will have to pay a pretty penny when the American trial lawyers get through with them).
|
|
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Oct 8, 2010 - 11:10am PT
|
k-man, you don't think that bookworm actually reads any of that stuff, do you?
I think bookworm read the headline and perhaps the first paragraph or two, and said "Voi La!, more proof that climate change is full of hoowee."
But, had he actually read the article he would have seen the conclusion, which completely tears down the "point" he was trying to make.
It's ironic, with a handle like bookworm you'd think he'd be well-read. Or at least read the articles that he posts up.
And thanks to you too Ed, for bringing level-headed discourse to the discussion.
|
|
blahblah
Gym climber
Boulder
|
|
You live in a fantasy world and are incapable of realizing it
I suppose we all live somewhat in a fantasy world of our own making--I sort of like it that way. But you're the fool if you think you have some special link to "reality" that everyone who disagrees with you lacks.
Your issue that BP stock price may in fact go down is noted--I'll consider placing a stop loss order with my broker to sell if BP drops below a threshold in order to lock in (most of) my gains. I'm planning on getting some sweet climbing gear and a nice trip in July 2011 when I sell (and only pay long-term capital gains tax rate). This trade won't make me rich, I should net about $6k on it at current prices, more if BP goes up, and just a little less if BP goes down once I place my stop loss order.
Ed--I've addressed those points you raise regarding the "researchers" months ago on this thread by citations to reputable publications (The Economist, which noted that errors that come to light are almost always in favor of finding more warming/change rather than less) and in some cases to reports on the Climategate studies that were for the most part biased whitewashes, but which still took the "researchers" to task in some respects. Junkets to Bali etc. are widely reported. I've been to similar junkets (we call them "retreats" or just "conferences" like the researches do) in my line of work, but they're not paid for by taxpayers. If you disagree that these are in fact "junkets," fine, but I'll leave it to the good SuperTopians to decide whether I've committed "slander" for taking the position that they are junkets, or whether you've committed slander against me since in fact I can (and have) substantiate every claim I've made.
Dumbest thing Ed's wrote in a while (at least that I've seen)--his statement that BP has nothing to fear from the US legal system since (I contend) it's done nothing wrong. Ed, you may or may not know much about certain subjects, but I can tell you don't know much about the US legal system, especially as it's practiced in such reputable jurisdictions as Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama (in fact, they are widely known dens of corruption and, even w/o explicit corruption, jurisdictions where the good local citizens (generally impoverished hicks) merrily engage in their own form of wealth redistribution against national and multinational corporations. Believe it was a case from Alabama where the US Supreme Court had to finally step in and put some limits on the amount of punitive damages that can be awarded.
|
|
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Oct 8, 2010 - 11:20am PT
|
blah, oh my. Where to begin...
First, I guess you feel that because you can make a profit on BP that they are somehow "good." Otherwise, why is it relevant?
In terms of taking from the Gov't (tax-paid junkets and so on), how about getting down on oil execs for taking Gov't subsidies? You know who pays for those, don't you? Come on Big Boy, play fair.
|
|
dirtbag
climber
|
|
blah, oh my. Where to begin...
Why bother...he's an idiot.
|
|
philo
Trad climber
Somewhere halfway over the rainbow
|
|
I have heard a similarly stupid argument. A relative, who should know better claimed WalMart was good simply because they were making heaps of cash on their stock investments.
Short sighted greed benefits no one.
|
|
corniss chopper
Mountain climber
san jose, ca
|
|
Dr F - At this point in the climate debate you Warmists are on the losing
side. People aren't falling for the scare tactics any more and are more likely to just laugh at GCC Chicken Littles.
|
|
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Oct 8, 2010 - 01:05pm PT
|
I pity the fools, for they knowith not how foolish they are.
|
|
philo
Trad climber
Somewhere halfway over the rainbow
|
|
For the deniers, just check out the pictures of the remote Karakorum in Alpinist 32. Taken 100 years apart they clearly show the damage we humans are causing.
If one picture is worth a thousand words then this photospread is worth billions of words.
|
|
blahblah
Gym climber
Boulder
|
|
Philo,
The pictures may or may not show some climate change (which you subjectively describe as "damage," but which others may regard as neutral or even an improvement--climbing around on ice is great fun for rich Westerners, but how much fun is it to try to survive in a frozen wasteland?).
The pictures do not "clearly show" the cause of anything.
If the reasoning of the climate "scientists" is as fallacious as yours, no wonder most of the public no longer believes in AGW (or at least believes that its claims are exaggerated).
|
|
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Oct 8, 2010 - 02:03pm PT
|
This is the part that kills me:
I lean toward listening to expert advice on this complicated issue [AGW], especially since most recommended policy endeavors are things we should do anyway, for other reasons (e.g. to attain energy independence, to reduce the influence of foreign petro-oligarchs, and to increase economic efficiency).
The "deniers" argue until blue in the face, saying that those that believe in and promote AGW are just in it to line their pockets. This is said without taking a look at who is currently lining their pockets, and why the ones currently making huge profits are so against changing our overall energy strategies.
|
|
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Oct 8, 2010 - 02:10pm PT
|
... (which you subjectively describe as "damage," but which others may regard as neutral or even an improvement--climbing around on ice is great fun for rich Westerners, but how much fun is it to try to survive in a frozen wasteland?).
CC, [oops, Blah...] you are a fool and a buffoon.
If the reasoning of the climate "scientists" is as fallacious as yours, no wonder most of the public no longer believes in AGW ...
Talk about fallacious reasoning, CC [oops again!] gives us a very good example. Opinion stated as fact is always so amusing to shoot down.
|
|
blahblah
Gym climber
Boulder
|
|
K-Man:
Since you insist on calling me (not CC) a fool and a buffoon, let's probe your own reasoning skills.
Do you agree with Philo that the pictures he refers to "clearly show the damage we humans are causing"?
Yes or no.
(I'll even give you a hint, you don't actually need to see the pictures to answer the question, you just need to have some extremely basic reasoning ability.)
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!