Oil prices are high because it is a commodity. Commodities are one true bastion of supply and demand economics. Oil companies that own oil supplies are of course going to make loads of money when the price of those commodities are high, just a a farmer, mining company or cattle rancher would. Opec controling the means of production throws a little salt in the gears, but overall, oil companies making money from selling the raw product are perfectly entitled. It is what the market says it is and they are a business not a charity.
Now, before my consevative brothers say amen, the value added products, such as gasoline and diesel. This is different. Refinery capacity is not being expanded and there seems to be calusion when the price between competing gas stations is exactly the same. Can you say price fixing? Now I'm not sure if this is going on, I am no expert on the oil distribution business, but if it is, then its illegal and the gov'ment needed to crack down.
Oh and Spike, I wasn't asking which department the accounting department will code the transaction, I mean where is the money coming from. The department of energy does not make money. And where will it go? The government does not have a R&D department. And of course, who gets the benefit of the research. Example, if the University of Lost Overshoe has a eureka moment and developes a clean fuel that emits a lavender fragrance and breaks down in orange juice, who gets to market it?
I guess I'm pessimstic, where an optomist would say, lets decide when that moment comes.
Oh, and BTW getting back to the original post, I always do lots of reading from both sides when this topic comes up. Come to find out, the claims that the ice shelf broke off in antartica due to increased global temps was either fraud or total imcompetence. Google it.
Here's a good read. http://icecap.us/images/uploads/Wilkins_Ice_Shelf_con.pdf
Now before you spend lots of time searching for dirt on the author, examine his arguments and his data. As a matter of fact, lets just assume he's a pedophile living in his mom's basement and go directly to the meat of the paper. It is clear if even a minute amount of his data is true, the publishers of the original story jumped to a politically correct conclusion with absolutely no confirmatory data.
Basically, the shelf was only 3 years old based on satallite photos, none of the surrounding ice shelves were affected, and the nearest temperature station hasn't recorded any temperature rise in many years.
and people still wonder why I'm skeptical. Because if its true, you wouldn't need to lie.
Better drop another note for Greenbean. You still continue to defend Mann's graph dispite its being debunked. Since you know science, here's how you can tell an invalid result. When you compare your data to a know value. Otherwise known as a control. We know Manns graph is wrong because we have climatic events of a known quantity.(midevil warm period and the little ice age for example). If those events are not shown on the graph in the amount we know, then the observations are invalid. You may still be right about AHW. But you do not want to hitch your wagon to this graph, Its fraud, distance yourself like the IPCC did.
Mike
Now, before my consevative brothers say amen, the value added products, such as gasoline and diesel. This is different. Refinery capacity is not being expanded and there seems to be calusion when the price between competing gas stations is exactly the same. Can you say price fixing? Now I'm not sure if this is going on, I am no expert on the oil distribution business, but if it is, then its illegal and the gov'ment needed to crack down.
Oh and Spike, I wasn't asking which department the accounting department will code the transaction, I mean where is the money coming from. The department of energy does not make money. And where will it go? The government does not have a R&D department. And of course, who gets the benefit of the research. Example, if the University of Lost Overshoe has a eureka moment and developes a clean fuel that emits a lavender fragrance and breaks down in orange juice, who gets to market it?
I guess I'm pessimstic, where an optomist would say, lets decide when that moment comes.
Oh, and BTW getting back to the original post, I always do lots of reading from both sides when this topic comes up. Come to find out, the claims that the ice shelf broke off in antartica due to increased global temps was either fraud or total imcompetence. Google it.
Here's a good read. http://icecap.us/images/uploads/Wilkins_Ice_Shelf_con.pdf
Now before you spend lots of time searching for dirt on the author, examine his arguments and his data. As a matter of fact, lets just assume he's a pedophile living in his mom's basement and go directly to the meat of the paper. It is clear if even a minute amount of his data is true, the publishers of the original story jumped to a politically correct conclusion with absolutely no confirmatory data.
Basically, the shelf was only 3 years old based on satallite photos, none of the surrounding ice shelves were affected, and the nearest temperature station hasn't recorded any temperature rise in many years.
and people still wonder why I'm skeptical. Because if its true, you wouldn't need to lie.
Better drop another note for Greenbean. You still continue to defend Mann's graph dispite its being debunked. Since you know science, here's how you can tell an invalid result. When you compare your data to a know value. Otherwise known as a control. We know Manns graph is wrong because we have climatic events of a known quantity.(midevil warm period and the little ice age for example). If those events are not shown on the graph in the amount we know, then the observations are invalid. You may still be right about AHW. But you do not want to hitch your wagon to this graph, Its fraud, distance yourself like the IPCC did.
Mike
