Fuck its silent in here.......

[Doc]

Oddly, I hadn't been to town for might some time. A co-inky-dink, as you townspeople say, that I mosey-ed by this den of iniquities. I thank my lucky stars I spied the posting, as I had been drowning my vile venom with Red Eye and Widow Maker. It was a salve to me that I was able to produce a cattle prod for my favorite dandy. Slaky needs a beatdown every now and a'gin. Post whores are still whores, and they get what they deserve.

Now, kindly explain THI. I been away.

It means he agrees with me that we're glad you're back.

Yes, yes. THI for all.

[CBStew]

Oddly, I hadn't been to town for might some time. A co-inky-dink, as you townspeople say, that I mosey-ed by this den of iniquities. I thank my lucky stars I spied the posting, as I had been drowning my vile venom with Red Eye and Widow Maker. It was a salve to me that I was able to produce a cattle prod for my favorite dandy. Slaky needs a beatdown every now and a'gin. Post whores are still whores, and they get what they deserve.

Now, kindly explain THI. I been away.

It means he agrees with me that we're glad you're back.

Yes, yes. THI for all.

Please cover your mouth when you cough.

[morpheus]

LOL, always great comedy to read the true believers.  You know, you guys are dwindling every day -- plenty of room on the bandwagon now!  Seriously though, how blind are you guys?  Tell me this:  If you would have been at Jonestown, and were say, last in line, and everyone around you was dropping like flies, would you still drink the Kool-Aid?  Something tells me that with this crowd, the answer is yes.

When did MikeC get a new handle?  And what set you off?  Calling your side out for wanting to erase Thomas Jefferson from the history books?

I just went back and read some of Freakmaster's contributions. They're pretty similar to this one.

It did get me to go back and read the Katrina thread from 2005 and that thread is like Desipio in a time machine. Back when KD posted semi-regularly, Paul was involved, Eli was known as TG (which I still don't get unless Eli is short for Teli?) and Oleg was bozos72. The thread is a Desipio historians dream. In other words, Thrill should check it out.

http://www.desipio.com/messageboard/index.php?topic=1732.0

Ahhh, back when 15 pages represented a long-as-fuck thread.  IIRC, that thread was the biggest around at the time.

Also, I may be a couple days late in serving up some PROOF for morpheus from our conversation in the ShoutBox, but this is simply too good to resist.

MikeC is spot-on. 

I stand by my validation of MikeC's statement (not MikeC... besides, this was in fucking 2005, give me a fucking break) and of BC's statement.  MikeC said

Wow got some stupid Bush bashers in this thread. Lets get one thing correct about oil refineries. No new oil refineries have been built in the last 20-30 years due to the environmentalist movement. Everyone wants cheap gas but no one wants to have an oil refinery in their back yard. And now people are shocked that gas is high. I used to live in Arizona and they have been trying to build an oil refinery outside Yuma for the last 10 years and still have not even been able to break ground due to all the legislation and red tape they have to go through. Most companies don't even try because it is an endless line of paper work.

And yet some of you blame Bush for it? Thats fucking stupid.

Oil refineries can be built to process the much cheaper non-sweet crude oil. It takes a few extra steps in the refinement process but barrels of oil are only around $30 dollars, I think. And the market has millions of these barrels of oil with no real home.

In the long run the gas crisis could be a good thing, forcing automakers into alternative fuel vehicles faster. Natural Gas and Hydrogen cars could be seen more in the next 10 years. But I think the wave of the future is Hybrids for now that can get 50 miles a gallon on average and let people keep their hefty SUV's. 

Sounds right to me.  BC said

And, as far as global warming goes, there is scientific evidence that says it is going on, and there is also evidence that says it isn't. I'm not one ready to say that is happening and we need to do 100 things to stop it. Maybe we can do two or three things that we should be doing anyway for general environmental health...

Sounds right to me.

[Chuck to Chuck]

BC said

And, as far as global warming goes, there is scientific evidence that says it is going on, and there is also evidence that says it isn't. I'm not one ready to say that is happening and we need to do 100 things to stop it. Maybe we can do two or three things that we should be doing anyway for general environmental health...

Sounds right to me.

Agreed.  I don't know if global warming is occurring (if at all) due to extra carbon in the air, but wouldn't the conservative position be to do a few things to limit the risk?

And isn't there a national defense angle that less oil usage would be a benefit to us?  Isn't that conservative as well?

[Dr. Nguyen Van Falk]

I don't know if global warming is occurring (if at all) due to extra carbon in the air...

And, since you're not a climate scientist, your personal opinion on the scientific validity of theories of anthropogenic climate change matters even less than your opinions on sports do.

[Doc]

And, since you're not a climate scientist, your personal opinion on the scientific validity of theories of anthropogenic climate change matters even less than your opinions on sports do.

Yeah!

[MAD]

BC said

And, as far as global warming goes, there is scientific evidence that says it is going on, and there is also evidence that says it isn't. I'm not one ready to say that is happening and we need to do 100 things to stop it. Maybe we can do two or three things that we should be doing anyway for general environmental health...

Sounds right to me.

Agreed.  I don't know if global warming is occurring (if at all) due to extra carbon in the air, but wouldn't the conservative position be to do a few things to limit the risk?

And isn't there a national defense angle that less oil usage would be a benefit to us?  Isn't that conservative as well?

I'll agree with THIS. 

[Chuck to Chuck]

I don't know if global warming is occurring (if at all) due to extra carbon in the air...

And, since you're not a climate scientist, your personal opinion on the scientific validity of theories of anthropogenic climate change matters even less than your opinions on sports do.

Can you tell me whose opinions on sports, other than those in ownership of or employed by sports leagues/franchises, DO matter?

[BH]

I don't know if global warming is occurring (if at all) due to extra carbon in the air...

And, since you're not a climate scientist, your personal opinion on the scientific validity of theories of anthropogenic climate change matters even less than your opinions on sports do.

Can you tell me whose opinions on sports, other than those in ownership of or employed by sports leagues/franchises, DO matter?

Thrill's questions on where to watch sports on TV matter.

[morpheus]

BC said

And, as far as global warming goes, there is scientific evidence that says it is going on, and there is also evidence that says it isn't. I'm not one ready to say that is happening and we need to do 100 things to stop it. Maybe we can do two or three things that we should be doing anyway for general environmental health...

Sounds right to me.

Agreed.  I don't know if global warming is occurring (if at all) due to extra carbon in the air, but wouldn't the conservative position be to do a few things to limit the risk?

And isn't there a national defense angle that less oil usage would be a benefit to us?  Isn't that conservative as well?

No.  The conservative thing would be to NOT increase regulation and meddle in private markets on a global scale, enacting a giant wealth transfer from developed to developing economies, crushing global economic output, and lining the pockets of the economic rent-seekers in the middle of this transfer, all in the name of a theory that even its chief proponents in academia admit is not even "settled" yet.

The national defense angle I am a bit more sympathetic to, actually - oil dependence sucks because we are price takers in that regard and can end up paying up for the oil we need to function.  However, the funny thing about oil is that it's a pretty fungible commodity.  Once it gets sold it can be re-sold.  So the idea that a Saudi Arabia or Russia could cut us off doesn't really hold water.

[Chuck to Chuck]

The national defense angle I am a bit more sympathetic to, actually - oil dependence sucks because we are price takers in that regard and can end up paying up for the oil we need to function.  However, the funny thing about oil is that it's a pretty fungible commodity.  Once it gets sold it can be re-sold.  So the idea that a Saudi Arabia or Russia could cut us off doesn't really hold water.

It's not a matter of it being re-sold.  It's a matter that, regardless where you buy it from, the wealth eventually flows to our enemies.  How great would the world be right now if we could tell Saudi Arabia this: "You make nothing but oil and we don't need it anymore.  Our ships, planes, troops and investments are leaving."

[morpheus]

The national defense angle I am a bit more sympathetic to, actually - oil dependence sucks because we are price takers in that regard and can end up paying up for the oil we need to function.  However, the funny thing about oil is that it's a pretty fungible commodity.  Once it gets sold it can be re-sold.  So the idea that a Saudi Arabia or Russia could cut us off doesn't really hold water.

It's not a matter of it being re-sold.  It's a matter that, regardless where you buy it from, the wealth eventually flows to our enemies.  How great would the world be right now if we could tell Saudi Arabia this: "You make nothing but oil and we don't need it anymore.  Our ships, planes, troops and investments are leaving."

That's a fair point, actually... but do you really think that it will happen that way?  All at once?  I'm guessing the transition will be very slow and take many years.  And it does us no good if we cripple our own economy's ability to produce in the process.

[Chuck to Chuck]

The national defense angle I am a bit more sympathetic to, actually - oil dependence sucks because we are price takers in that regard and can end up paying up for the oil we need to function.  However, the funny thing about oil is that it's a pretty fungible commodity.  Once it gets sold it can be re-sold.  So the idea that a Saudi Arabia or Russia could cut us off doesn't really hold water.

It's not a matter of it being re-sold.  It's a matter that, regardless where you buy it from, the wealth eventually flows to our enemies.  How great would the world be right now if we could tell Saudi Arabia this: "You make nothing but oil and we don't need it anymore.  Our ships, planes, troops and investments are leaving."

That's a fair point, actually... but do you really think that it will happen that way?  All at once?  I'm guessing the transition will be very slow and take many years.  And it does us no good if we cripple our own economy's ability to produce in the process.

I'm not saying we should do that.  But the guy who figures out commercially feasible fusion power is going to be as big a hero as Grant or Eisenhower.

[R-V]

enacting a giant wealth transfer from developed to developing economies

In order to be a climate skeptic, you have to believe that thousands of scientists are either wrong, dumb, or lying. Let's assume they're not wrong or dumb. They're working off slightly more sophisticated models than the flat earthers.

Here's what I don't understand. What is their INCENTIVE to lie? Are they all in the pocket of Big ThirdWorld? Aren't most of these scientists from industrialized countries that would get the short end of the stick in the Hypothetical Giant Wealth Transfer? Wouldn't that hurt their ability to get another fatcat research grant so they can buy that four-pocketed labcoat they've been lusting after?

[Quality Start Machine]

The national defense angle I am a bit more sympathetic to, actually - oil dependence sucks because we are price takers in that regard and can end up paying up for the oil we need to function.  However, the funny thing about oil is that it's a pretty fungible commodity.  Once it gets sold it can be re-sold.  So the idea that a Saudi Arabia or Russia could cut us off doesn't really hold water.

It's not a matter of it being re-sold.  It's a matter that, regardless where you buy it from, the wealth eventually flows to our enemies.  How great would the world be right now if we could tell Saudi Arabia this: "You make nothing but oil and we don't need it anymore.  Our ships, planes, troops and investments are leaving."

That's a fair point, actually... but do you really think that it will happen that way?  All at once?  I'm guessing the transition will be very slow and take many years.  And it does us no good if we cripple our own economy's ability to produce in the process.

Not really, every commodity has its day. 150 years ago, you would have been wealthy if you produced whale oil.

Green technology is where the marketplace is heading. Whether you agree with climate change theories or not, there's a shitload of money to be made, and the US should be at the forefront of the technology.